# Best fighter in Eastern Front, 1943.



## Tante Ju (Jun 26, 2011)

The question - best fighter in Eastern Front, 1943. Kursk battle timeframe. There is lot of discussion on western front. Really eastern front was more important in 1943 until year end, even in air.

I believe best fighter was La 5FN. It is very fast, more manouverable, great climb. Speed - greater than Luftwaffe fighters where fighting occured. 
Aircraft had two excellent 20 mm Shwak cannon. Also, good visibility - advanced solution, fighter had clear rear armor of armor glass.

Rate of roll was very good. Probably as good as Fw 190A. Reason - La 5 ailerons greater in relative area of wing than any other. Negative was greater working load of pilot - most system manual.


----------



## Juha (Jun 27, 2011)

Hello Tante Ju
I cannot choose between La-5FN and Bf 109G, but definitely one of those two. La-5FN was the most dangerous opponent to the FAF 109Gs even if FAF pilots talk more on Yak-9 because of its agility, Yak was called “Wooden Spitfire” by some FAF pilots. When one reads the combat reports it seemed that the pilots gave most positive discriptions on Yak-9s but when one looks on victory and loss tables in Keskinen's and Stenman's LeR 3 and compares those claims/losses were the Finnish researchers think that they have found match from Soviet combat reports one got the impression that in reality La-5FN was the most dangerous opponent and against Yak-9 FAF Bf 109Gs achieved more or less same victory vs loss ratio as against P-39N and Q during the big combats of summer 44. Partly that may have been because usually Yaks and P-39s acted as close escorts and La-5FNs as high cover when VVS fighters were employed as escorts. But even against La-5s the FAF 109Gs achieved clearly positive exchange rate even if the max manifold pressure allowed to FAF 109Gs was 1.3ata. 

I would not choose Fw-190A because Soviet fighter pilots usually thought that 109 was a more dangerous opponent to them than 190.

So I'd not vote, because I think that it was more or less tie between 109G and La-5FN.

Juha


----------



## stona (Jun 27, 2011)

Tante Ju said:


> Also, good visibility - advanced solution, fighter had clear rear armor of armor glass.



Like the clear triangles of armoured glass in the armour of the pressurised Bf109G-1 or the armoured glass panel of the so called Galland Panzer which was fitted ,initially on the G-6, from the summer of 1943 (from memory) 

Sorry I can't vote in your poll,I know nothing about the Soviet aircraft 

Cheers
Steve


----------



## Lighthunmust (Jun 27, 2011)

Tante Ju and Juha I impulsively voted for the Fw190 yesterday but on further reflection and pulling out a couple of my books I agree with you. I think the thing that had me impulsively voting for the Fw190 was thinking of multi-mission capabilities, lower pilot work load and better pilot comfort for increased situational awareness. As a pure fighter flying short duration missions at eastern front altitudes you guys are probably right about the La-5FN.


----------



## Lighthunmust (Jun 27, 2011)

stona said:


> Sorry I can't vote in your poll,I know nothing about the Soviet aircraft
> 
> Cheers
> Steve



I also was once almost completely ignorant of how well many of the Russian aircraft performed. I still only have a superficial amount of knowledge of them. One obstacle I had to overcome is western design philosophy bias. That bias was almost certainly a relic of my Cold War childhood. My awareness now of Russian aircraft qualities is part of the the reason for my Signature comments containing the sentence "Genius knows no geographical boundaries".

Steve


----------



## michaelmaltby (Jun 27, 2011)

I am going to open the doors of knowledgeable protestation  by expressing my vote and confidence in the Bell P-39. Yes it had faults - but a skilled Soviet pilot, operating in the vertical and horizontal planes - could score both Fw-190 and Me-109 kills. Despite being a touch 'flukey' [electrics instead of hydraulics] and refined, Soviet pilots felt confident in this machine. It didn't fall apart under fire, and it crash-landed real smooth. Short range didn't matter cause it was flying 25 miles behind the front - with ground radar support and great radios . Bell and the US supported the Soviet install base of P-39's - lots of replacement Allisons (life span less than 40 hours combat power) - ethyl lead additives for the AvGas. The P-39 package the Soviets got from Larry Bell and the US Gov't was totally class act No. 1 (IMHO).

But the French boys who volunteered and flew in the Neumann-Normandie Escadrille liked their Yak's. And did well in them. What does that say 

I maintain that the Soviets liked the P-39 because it reminded them of fierce hummingbirds - on the steppes 

MM


----------



## Lighthunmust (Jun 27, 2011)

michaelmaltby said:


> I maintain that the Soviets liked the P-39 because it reminded them of fierce hummingbirds - on the steppes
> 
> MM



That's hilarious! 

Now I can't get that visualization out of my head.


----------



## michaelmaltby (Jun 27, 2011)

Not just the shape, Light, the tactics. Suicidally close for the kill. For years I've enjoyed the Rubythoats just above my head at the cabin - second story deck. They play chicken with each other - hilarious to watch. The Bells were there to protect the Sturmoviks from 'Messers' and 'Faulkers' plus follow-through bust up over the German rear if ammunition held out. Very solid - beautiful plane - but designed for the close kill.

MM


----------



## tomo pauk (Jun 27, 2011)

Many great machines there; toss up between Messer Cobra for me.
Michael covered P-39 rather good; 109 was considered by Soviets as a dangerous opponent. Croatian pilots flying 109s were confident in the their mounts, too.


----------



## parsifal (Jun 27, 2011)

when did the Yak-3 become operational? I think design work began in 1942, but squadron delivery was July 1944. If it was on the list, I think it would have to be considered a serious contender, but perhaps its just outside the survey period


----------



## DonL (Jun 27, 2011)

I go with the FW 190A.

The air war in the east was a low to mid altitude war the whole war till end.
And at this altitude the FW 190A could play all her best parts because it was optimized for low and mid altitudes.

Beside this, it was the best gun platform and the four cannons were disastrous.


----------



## davebender (Jun 27, 2011)

More kills then any other fighter aircraft in history.
Dirt cheap to produce.
Relatively fuel efficient. This makes for easier logisitics.
Easy to fly.
Supercharger coupling provides a smooth power curve at most altitudes.
Reliable.
Easy to operate from grass / dirt runways common in Russia.
Plenty of firepower and it's all mounted on the centerline for superior accuracy.
Cockpit and fuel tank reasonably well protected for such a light aircraft.
A bunch of field kits available. This makes for a more versatile aircraft.

The Fw-190 carried about 50% more internal fuel, which would be nice. But you can only fit so much in the small and inexpensive Me-109 airframe.


----------



## DonL (Jun 27, 2011)

> Easy to fly.



This is a myth!
From all research I have done on german WWII piston aircrafts, the Me 109G was a real bitch to fly because of the very high control pressures! Only the experts could manage to handle it's performance to a 100% level. The FW 190A was much easier to handle for newcomers because of the lower or very low control pressures and it was much easier to fly this bird to the 100% limit!



> Easy to operate from grass / dirt runways common in Russia.



Next myth!
The FW 190 was much much easier to handle from grass/dirt runways because the FW 190A undercarriage was much stronger then the undercarriage of the Bf 109G.



> Plenty of firepower and it's all mounted on the centerline for superior accuracy.



2 MG's and 1 cannon against 4 cannons? What will you name the firepower of 4 cannons?


----------



## Lighthunmust (Jun 27, 2011)

"More kills then any other fighter aircraft in history."

Due in large part to 30,000+ being made, far fewer stable mates in comparison to Allies stables, and duration of use, so of course it had more kills.

"Dirt cheap to produce."

Due in some part in that like VW Bugs not many changes over the years and after the first 10,000 or so you would think they figured out how to do it on the cheap. Yes I know it used fewer resources and less man hours than comparable American fighters.

"Easy to fly."

As compared to what? Certainly not compared to a Spitfire. 

"Easy to operate from grass / dirt runways common in Russia."

Let's not even talk about the landing and take-off accident controversy surrounding Willy's "creative" landing gear design. In comparison to Russian fighters I doubt it was a good.

"Plenty of firepower and it's all mounted on the centerline for superior accuracy."

Which makes me wonder why Erich Hartmann thought it so necessary to get so close to the enemy as to stick the nose into the enemy's cockpit.

I will agree that Bf109 aka ME109 was a great fighter and a threat to anything in the air, but I think it somewhat overrated just like the Spitfire and Mustang. I also think Russian fighters are underrated by most people.


----------



## davebender (Jun 28, 2011)

> why Erich Hartmann thought it so necessary to get so close to the enemy


For the same reason every expert fighter pilot from every nation opted to shoot from close range. Until gyrostabilized gunsites were introduced you could not reliably hit a 300+ mph fighter aircraft from a distance greater then 200 meters.


----------



## parsifal (Jun 28, 2011)

I thought had a reputation of having exceptional long range firing skill. Then again, he probably had exceptional everything when it to piloting


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 28, 2011)

Nobody really "liked" a single 20mm and a pair of 7.62-8mm mgs. But if that is what you had, that is what you fought with. While thousands of Russian planes carried the same basic armament, they were never happy with it and tried a number of times to change but being stuck with the VK-105 engine, increasing the weight of the armament often imposed either performance penalties or CG issues that were considered worse than the light armament. Many Russian aircraft swapped two 7.62 mgs for a single 12.7 MG. At times they did accept the performance "hit". 


Another reason for sticking the nose in opponents cockpit was low muzzle velocities and different times of flight for the different caliber guns. Once the range starts to get into the 300yd and beyond area, different caliber guns need different leads or aiming points for defection shooting. Different rounds also bled speed at different rates so even a similar MV doesn't mean a similar flight time or trajectory.


----------



## Lighthunmust (Jun 28, 2011)

davebender said:


> For the same reason every expert fighter pilot from every nation opted to shoot from close range. Until gyrostabilized gunsites were introduced you could not reliably hit a 300+ mph fighter aircraft from a distance greater then 200 meters.


 


Shortround6 said:


> Nobody really "liked" a single 20mm and a pair of 7.62-8mm mgs. But if that is what you had, that is what you fought with. While thousands of Russian planes carried the same basic armament, they were never happy with it and tried a number of times to change but being stuck with the VK-105 engine, increasing the weight of the armament often imposed either performance penalties or CG issues that were considered worse than the light armament. Many Russian aircraft swapped two 7.62 mgs for a single 12.7 MG. At times they did accept the performance "hit".
> 
> 
> Another reason for sticking the nose in opponents cockpit was low muzzle velocities and different times of flight for the different caliber guns. Once the range starts to get into the 300yd and beyond area, different caliber guns need different leads or aiming points for defection shooting. Different rounds also bled speed at different rates so even a similar MV doesn't mean a similar flight time or trajectory.




Both of your posts further support the argument that center line armament in WW2 fighters really didn't provide an advantage. Even at very close range, well before the average 200 yard convergence of wing guns, some of the innate dispersion of 4-8 guns aids in making some hits on an opponent rapidly moving in several directions simultaneously. With centerline armament you either make a devastating hit or miss, considering the crude fire control systems at the time, wing armament seems the way to go for average marksmen.


----------



## Lighthunmust (Jun 28, 2011)

parsifal said:


> I thought had a reputation of having exceptional long range firing skill. Then again, he probably had exceptional everything when it to piloting


 
No doubt he was exceptional. I will pull out his book today and check my memories. What I think I will find is his admission that most of his success was from guile and close proximity, and not long range marksmanship. I think it will indicate He understood the limited number of projectiles and their power from any burst, his limited ammunition supply, and difficulty of hitting even an unaware moving target from a moving aircraft at long range. Many of his kills will be the just like many of the kills of other fighter pilots, made at close range on targets that realized too late he was attacking or from recognize the color of their eyes range.

From a exterior ballistics point of view anyone with experience shooting rifles at ranges beyond 200 yards realizes that the ability to understand the environmental factors of light and wind are what separate winners and losers. It is hard enough to make very accurate hits on the ground at stationary targets from hundreds of yards, imagine how hard it must be to do this from a moving aircraft at another moving aircraft in combat. Even with MG and Auto-cannon there were many more misses than hits. From personal experience I can tell you shooting at walking man targets at 300 yards with an rifle is the beginning range for being challenging.


----------



## michaelmaltby (Jun 28, 2011)

".... Until gyrostabilized gunsites were introduced you could not reliably hit a 300+ mph fighter aircraft from a distance greater then 200 meters. "

"Close" also overcomes issues of different weapon trajectories ... 37 mm + 50 cals in P-39, for example.

MM


----------



## Lighthunmust (Jun 28, 2011)

michaelmaltby said:


> ".... Until gyrostabilized gunsites were introduced you could not reliably hit a 300+ mph fighter aircraft from a distance greater then 200 meters. "
> 
> "Close" also overcomes issues of different weapon trajectories ... 37 mm + 50 cals in P-39, for example.
> 
> MM



Yep, angry hummingbirds zooming in to stick their oversized beaks in and then zooming out.


----------



## davebender (Jun 28, 2011)

I agree. 

However if typical combat ranges were greater then 200 meters I think most fighter aircraft designers would opt for a different weapons mix. For instance the very powerful but short range 3cm Mk108 cannon would not be installed on German fighter aircraft.


----------



## michaelmaltby (Jun 28, 2011)

From Wikepedia:

Soviet pilot Nikolai G. Golodnikov, in an interview with Andrei Sukhrukov, recalled:

"I liked the Cobra, especially the Q-5 version. It was the lightest version of all Cobras and was the best fighter I ever flew. The cockpit was very comfortable, and visibility was outstanding. The instrument panel was very ergonomic, with the entire complement of instruments right up to an artificial horizon and radio compass. It even had a relief tube in the shape of a funnel. The armored glass was very strong, extremely thick. The armor on the back was also thick. The oxygen equipment was reliable, although the mask was quite small, only covering the nose and mouth. We wore that mask only at high altitude. The HF radio set was powerful, reliable and clear." 
[41]

The first Soviet Cobras had a 20 mm Hispano-Suiza cannon and two heavy Browning machine guns, synchronized and mounted in the nose. Later, Cobras arrived with the M-4 37 mm cannon and four machine guns, two synchronized and two wing-mounted. "We immediately removed the wing machine guns, leaving one cannon and two machine guns," Golodnikov recalled later.[41] That modification improved roll rate by reducing rotational inertia. Soviet airmen appreciated the M-4 cannon with its powerful rounds and the reliable action but complained about the low rate of fire (three rounds per second) and inadequate ammunition storage (only 30 rounds).[41] The Soviets used the Airacobra primarily for air-to-air combat[42] against a variety of German aircraft, including Messerschmitt Bf 109s, 
Focke-Wulf Fw 190s, Junkers Ju 87s, and Ju 88s.

During the battle of Kuban River, the Soviet air force relied on P-39s much more than Spitfires and P-40s. Aleksandr Pokryshkin, from 16.Gv.IAP, claimed 20 air victories in that campaign.[43] Pokryshkin, the third-highest scoring Allied ace (with a score of 53 air victories plus six shared)[44] flew the P-39 from late 1942 until the end of the war..."

Pokryshkin's auto-biography is an interesting read. He tells the story of a Fw-190 pilot who panicked and started circling the steeple of a Russian orthodox church in the Kuban region - kept circling until he crashed.

MM


----------



## tomo pauk (Jun 28, 2011)

Lighthunmust said:


> Both of your posts further support the argument that center line armament in WW2 fighters really didn't provide an advantage. Even at very close range, well before the average 200 yard convergence of wing guns, some of the innate dispersion of 4-8 guns aids in making some hits on an opponent rapidly moving in several directions simultaneously. With centerline armament you either make a devastating hit or miss, considering the crude fire control systems at the time, wing armament seems the way to go for average marksmen.



I'd disagree with your conclusion.
Planes in question here (109, Yaks) either did not have the engine power, or available place, to mount 4-8 guns their ammo (okay, 4 HMGs might be possible); under-wing gondolas added drag, weight and hampered roll rate for 109, for example. The P-39 have had it's wing LMGs removed pronto in VVS service - showing that those were more liability than asset.
The inability of V-1710 to have the _motorkannone_ installed forced P-40 to carry a hefty load of guns ammo - perhaps too much for 1100-1300 HP . It also forced Bell to perform 'acrobatics' in order to mount a cannon into single-engined fighter. Both US birds would've been better served with only 20mm + 2xHMGs in hull, substantially reducing the weight penalty of bulit-in armament ammo.
The ability of Merlin to carry a cannon wouldve enabled Spitfire to carry 3 cannons 'stead of 2 + LMGs, while the 3-cannon Hurricane would've had reduced weight penalty vs. 4-cannon bird (with still more than enough punch).


----------



## tomo pauk (Jun 28, 2011)

Lighthunmust said:


> Both of your posts further support the argument that center line armament in WW2 fighters really didn't provide an advantage. Even at very close range, well before the average 200 yard convergence of wing guns, some of the innate dispersion of 4-8 guns aids in making some hits on an opponent rapidly moving in several directions simultaneously. With centerline armament you either make a devastating hit or miss, considering the crude fire control systems at the time, wing armament seems the way to go for average marksmen.


 


Lighthunmust said:


> Both of your posts further support the argument that center line armament in WW2 fighters really didn't provide an advantage. Even at very close range, well before the average 200 yard convergence of wing guns, some of the innate dispersion of 4-8 guns aids in making some hits on an opponent rapidly moving in several directions simultaneously. With centerline armament you either make a devastating hit or miss, considering the crude fire control systems at the time, wing armament seems the way to go for average marksmen.



I'd disagree with your conclusion.
Planes in question here (109, Yaks) either did not have the engine power, or available place, to mount 4-8 guns their ammo (okay, 4 HMGs might be possible); under-wing gondolas added drag, weight and hampered roll rate for 109, for example. The P-39 have had it's wing LMGs removed pronto in VVS service - showing that those were more liability than asset.
The inability of V-1710 to have the _motorkannone_ installed forced P-40 to carry a hefty load of guns ammo - perhaps too much for 1100-1300 HP . It also forced Bell to perform 'acrobatics' in order to mount a cannon into single-engined fighter. Both US birds would've been better served with only 20mm + 2xHMGs in hull, substantially reducing the weight penalty of bulit-in armament ammo.
The ability of Merlin to carry a cannon wouldve enabled Spitfire to carry 3 cannons 'stead of 2 + LMGs, while the 3-cannon Hurricane would've had reduced weight penalty vs. 4-cannon bird (with still more than enough punch).


----------



## P-40K-5 (Jun 28, 2011)

Erich Hartmann said on more then one occasion, that he wasn't a great shot. He also said on more
then one occasion that he filled the enemy a/c in his windscreen so that there will be no chance of
missing. target rich enviroment as He said only meant that there was more planes trying to kill Him
too.

anyways, when all was said and done. the Bf109 was King of the Eastern Front in 1943.


----------



## stona (Jun 28, 2011)

Lighthunmust said:


> I also was once almost completely ignorant of how well many of the Russian aircraft performed. I still only have a superficial amount of knowledge of them. One obstacle I had to overcome is western design philosophy bias. That bias was almost certainly a relic of my Cold War childhood. My awareness now of Russian aircraft qualities is part of the the reason for my Signature comments containing the sentence "Genius knows no geographical boundaries".
> 
> Steve



I'd agree with that. Our biased preconceptions here in the West have led to us having one or two nasty surprises. Believe me,if I had time I would love to become more familiar with Russian aircraft,and Japanese for that matter.
Cheers
Steve


----------



## Lighthunmust (Jun 28, 2011)

tomo pauk said:


> I'd disagree with your conclusion.
> Planes in question here (109, Yaks) either did not have the engine power, or available place, to mount 4-8 guns their ammo (okay, 4 HMGs might be possible); under-wing gondolas added drag, weight and hampered roll rate for 109, for example. The P-39 have had it's wing LMGs removed pronto in VVS service - showing that those were more liability than asset.
> The inability of V-1710 to have the _motorkannone_ installed forced P-40 to carry a hefty load of guns ammo - perhaps too much for 1100-1300 HP . It also forced Bell to perform 'acrobatics' in order to mount a cannon into single-engined fighter. Both US birds would've been better served with only 20mm + 2xHMGs in hull, substantially reducing the weight penalty of bulit-in armament ammo.
> The ability of Merlin to carry a cannon wouldve enabled Spitfire to carry 3 cannons 'stead of 2 + LMGs, while the 3-cannon Hurricane would've had reduced weight penalty vs. 4-cannon bird (with still more than enough punch).



The Fw190 had centerline and wing armament. Making hits with a Fw190 was certainly easier than with a ME-109. I just pulled off the shelf Shackcklady's "Butcher Bird" to see if what he has to say about the topic. If I recall correctly the Fw190 was "in its element" flying on the Eastern Front. At Eastern Front altitudes much of the flight performance advantage of the ME-109 disappeared and the armament was not superior to what the Russians were flying. I really think it is a close call between the Fw190 and La-5FN. Sure many of the top jagflieger flew the Messerschmitt, but I think some of that is due to more experience with it and the reluctance of anyone facing combat to stop using a weapon that works for them to gamble on one that may work better. No doubt the ME-109 was a threat to any aircraft in the air, but not an overwhelming threat to the best aircraft of the Russians.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 28, 2011)

tomo pauk said:


> The ability of Merlin to carry a cannon wouldve enabled Spitfire to carry 3 cannons 'stead of 2 + LMGs, while the 3-cannon Hurricane would've had reduced weight penalty vs. 4-cannon bird (with still more than enough punch).



I would note that the Spitfire carried as much armament in ONE wing as many 109s or Russian aircraft did in the entire airplane. 

Hurricane was probably handicapped more by it's thick wing than by the weight of one extra Hispano gun. You could stick a Griffon in a Hurricane and it wasn't going to be a 400mph fighter. There are performance figures available for Hurricane MK IIs with 8 MGs, 12 Mgs and 4 cannon. the speed difference between a MK IIA and IIC was 6mph. The bigger hit was climb and ceiling, Initial cimb rate was reduced by 400fpm and time to 20,000ft increased by 0.6 minutes. Ceiling dropped from 41,000ft to 36,000ft but nobody was going to fight a Hurricane at anywhere near that height anyway. 
Split the difference in performance between the IIA and IIB and you almost at the point of the difference between two different production airplanes of the same type.


----------



## P-40K-5 (Jun 28, 2011)

well for *1943*, I would hazzard to say that the Bf109 was an overwhelming threat to anything
in the air on the Eastern Front.


----------



## Tante Ju (Jun 28, 2011)

Shortround6 said:


> I would note that the Spitfire carried as much armament in ONE wing as many 109s or Russian aircraft did in the entire airplane.



I do not think Spitfire carried _four_ cannons in each wing... i.e. many Russian aircraft and 109 carried three cannon which had fire frequence 125% compared to French Hispano-Suiza cannon... we discuss this. More does not mean more in every condition. Satan lives in details. 

Just look at below graph. Spitfire V carries 2 cannon, with 120 shell total for fire, fires 20 shell a second. Bf 109G carries 3 cannon, with 470 shell total, fires 37 shell a second. What happens to "Big Wing" theory, one big plane can carry, small plane can't? Also small plane - 80 km/h faster..  This is what Jakovlev and Messerschmitt follow - clean, small plane for fighter. Botk fanatical about weight. I see their wisdom.


This shows 5-gun Me 109G2, Fw 190A4, Spitfire VB, P-39, La 5F (not FN - FN is better engine version)







This shows 3-gun Me 109G2, P-47D-10, true La 5FN 






Choice seems simple - over 5000m, Bf 109G. Under 5000m - La 5FN. But Eastern Front combat dictated by Shturmowik flights - they flew at height of trees, where La 5FN is better.


----------



## Juha (Jun 28, 2011)

I’d say that Bf 109G was rather easy but physically demanding to fly. The heaviness of elevators meant that it was almost impossible to achieve high speed stall in 109G. The stall itself was benign and if pilot didn’t take fright of the opening of the slats 109 could be safely flown to its limits. If one run problems with 109G it was usually during takeoff and during landing. On the other hand take off and landing were easier in 190A, but its high speed stall was very harsh and especially at low level inhibit many pilots to fly it to the limit.
Of course in 190A pilot had better view, especially to rear and clearly more powerful armament than in basic 109G.

Juha

PS P-40K-5, try to find specs for La-5FN, especially speed and climb graphs, you might get a surprise when you compared those to the 109G-2 graphs. And both the Soviet tests and FAF experience showed that La-5F/FN was a bit better turner than 109G at low level where most of aircombats happened in the Eastern Front


----------



## Juha (Jun 28, 2011)

Hello Tante Ju
Many Soviet fighters with 3 cannon? I can recall only a few 3 cannon La-7s that just made it to the front before VE date. Almost all WWII era La-7s had only 2 cannon.

Juha


----------



## Tante Ju (Jun 28, 2011)

More than 3 is many  But you are right. Many carry three or even four cannons, even small I-16 carried four.. but this small series or doubler. I meant to say - technically possible to mount these cannons. All in fuselage.


----------



## michaelmaltby (Jun 28, 2011)

".... The P-39 have had it's wing LMGs removed pronto in VVS service - showing that those were more liability than asset."

When they pulled up a Soviet P-39 out of the muskeg of North Eastern Russia a year or two ago the LMG cavities were packed with rations ....good made in USA-type rations ...you know ... cans of lard. 

The more I read about the Soviet Air Force in WW2 the more I appreciate it ..... they and the USSR were real winners in WW2. Reverse Marshall Plan to USSR. 

Still - I get the feeling that flying the Me-109 was like putting on a "glove". Stressful yet satisfying and functional. But it was _old_ by 1941 and in conditions Russia-style, winter-style, I'd rather fly a FW-190. A great balance of punch, power and strength - like the proved-out Typhoon. The FW-190 is a 'Mit' not a 'Glove' and a _mitt _is what I'd want to fly in Russia . 

@p-40: " The Me-109 was king in 1942 ...." [or words to that effect]. I agree but I think it would be more truthful to say ".. in 1942 over the skies of Russia a German pilot (or Hungarian, Romanian or Italian *pilot* in a *Me-109* was the king ...." If you agree ... observe how it speaks to the building of the Soviet Air Force. When you read the stories these old Soviet pilots tell about wartime - and American equipment - it's both positive and candid (Communists are_ taught _to be candid, I'm told )

The real question on this thread isn't just the machines .... but the state of the opposing Air Forces in 1942. By December, 1942 - at Stalingrad - the Soviet AF achieved air supremacy.



MM


----------



## Juha (Jun 28, 2011)

Hello Tante JU
yes, it was only the problems with B-20 production which forced to use the same armament in early La-7s than was used in La-5FN.

On Spitfire armament; VC could carry 4 20mm Hispano IIs, and at first many carried that armament, but it was decided that it was too heavy for Mk V Spit, so armament was changed to lighter. But FAF also removed the 20mm gun gondolas from 109G-6/R6s we received from Germany because it was thought that performance penalty was too much for La-5FN, Yak-9 and Airacobra infested skies over Karelian Isthmus in Summer 44.

PS IIRC I-16s carried, Typ 5 2x7,62mm mgs, Typ 10 and several other Typs 4x7,62mm mgs, Typ 17 and a couple other Typs 2x7,62mm + 2x20mm cannon and one of the very late Typ 2x7,62mm + 1x12,7mm.

Juha


----------



## P-40K-5 (Jun 28, 2011)

Juha said:


> I’
> PS P-40K-5, try to find specs for La-5FN, especially speed and climb graphs, you might get a surprise when you compared those to the 109G-2 graphs. And both the Soviet tests and FAF experience showed that La-5F/FN was a bit better turner than 109G at low level where most of aircombats happened in the Eastern Front


 
I did and have. the La-5FN is an impressive aircraft. but to the Germans shooting down the La-5, it was like picking grapes,
if you get my meaning  ' the laquer coffin '


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 28, 2011)

Tante Ju said:


> I do not think Spitfire carried _four_ cannons in each wing... i.e. many Russian aircraft and 109 carried three cannon which had fire frequence 125% compared to French Hispano-Suiza cannon... we discuss this. More does not mean more in every condition. Satan lives in details.



Yes, Satan does live in the details.

I said "I would note that the Spitfire carried as much armament in ONE wing as *many* 109s or Russian aircraft did in the entire airplane."

I did not say all, or most or even a majority. details? 

How many 109Fs and Gs were were built with a single cannon and two 7.9mm MGs? 

Hispano fires a heavier shell at a higher velocity than the MG 151, granted it has less explosive but depending on projectile and year it can penetrate a fair amount of armor and THEN explode behind it. details 

Yes ir fires a bit slower but the higher velocity and shorter time of flight make defection shooting just a bit easier. details 




Tante Ju said:


> Just look at below graph. Spitfire V carries 2 cannon, with 120 shell total for fire, fires 20 shell a second. Bf 109G carries 3 cannon, with 470 shell total, fires 37 shell a second. What happens to "Big Wing" theory, one big plane can carry, small plane can't? Also small plane - 80 km/h faster..  This is what Jakovlev and Messerschmitt follow - clean, small plane for fighter. Botk fanatical about weight. I see their wisdom.



Hmmm, Spitfire 2560 grams per second (not counting the four .303s) 109 fires 3404 grams per second (not counting two synchronized 7.9). Not quite the 37 to 20 ratio in fire power you imply. a 32% increase instead of 85%, not counting machineguns. details. 

Guns installed in wing are inaccurate but guns installed in pods under wing are???

While the fighters listed are 1942-43 fighters the Spitfire Vb is a 1941 era plane, about 1 year behind the G-2. What boost are the figures for the Vb using and is the 109G-2 using GM-1?.

I can see Jakovlev's wisdom. He only had about 1260hp to work with at best and then at lower altitudes than many western engines.


----------



## Lighthunmust (Jun 29, 2011)

Speaking of details; I believe the phrase is actually "The Devil is in the details"..


----------



## Juha (Jun 29, 2011)

P-40K-5 said:


> I did and have. the La-5FN is an impressive aircraft. but to the Germans shooting down the La-5, it was like picking grapes,
> if you get my meaning  ' the laquer coffin '



Hello P-40K-5
now "the quaranteed laquer coffin" was the nickname to the early LaGG-3s, even late LaGG-3s, especially Series 66 planes were better being lighter with more powerful M-105PF engine, slats and some aerodynamic improvements, La-5 had still clearly more power with M-82 and -5F (M-82F) and -5FN (Ash-82FN) were still better.

Juha


----------



## parsifal (Jun 29, 2011)

This is a difficult issue for me. My gut tells me that either of the german types, individually is going to outclass the Russian aircraft. Russian aircraft were generally not armoured, they carried limited armament (a 20mm Russian cannon has far less firepower than a german 20mm gun, if you look at the ballistic properties of the russian gun). Soviet flying aids were extremely sparse, build quality was mixed, engine power restricted. Yet, whilst i cannot prove it, i am willing to bet the Soviet aircraft were cheap, and this allowed them to churn them out in vast quantities. Russian aircraft were rugged, reliable, and resistant to weather. Not because of the aircraft, but because of the ruthlessness of the regime, Soviet pilots would fly in weather that grounded the LW. This was borne out in spades in the winter over Stalingrad. In the subfreezing temps of the Russian steppes, they relied on the simplicity and ruggedness of their designs to keep on flying, whilst the far more technically superior LW tended to remain unserviceable and on the ground. I have a book at home that looks at the winter serviceability rates of each side in some detail.

There is much controversy about loss rates. I have seen wildly differing claims from either side. I am unconvinced by the more outlandish claims from either camp, the question is, did the luftwaffe, with all the investment that it made to achieve qualitative advantage, get value from that investment. Was ther more bang for the buck from the qualitative model compare to the quantitative model. I tend to think not. The VVS never had, as its primary objective, the destruction of the Luftwaffe. it was always geared to army co-operation.....supporting the ground advance over destroying the enemy af. I think that the YYS was successful in its mission, wheras the LW was not. Was this solely because of resources, or was the Russian equipment and training model the superior one. did they achieve their numerical superiority just by chance, or was it a product of their planning. I think the latter.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 29, 2011)

parsifal said:


> Was this solely because of resources, or was the Russian equipment and training model the superior one. did they achieve their numerical superiority just by chance, or was it a product of their planning. I think the latter.



The Russians strove for both. They tried very very hard for a qualitative advantage. Where they continually fell short was in the ability to mass produce such quality. Considering the vast numbers they did turn out this seems a strange statement but it seems to be true. Russian designers and engineers were very good on theory, calculations and experiments but Russian industry was very backwards and underdeveloped in many ways. This meant that industry could not provide the materials or equipment the designers wanted in the quantities needed. 
This lead to numbers of short cuts and large numbers of ill equipped planes (and tanks) being made, many times with the hope that in another few months or a year or ???? industry would be able to supply the equipment needed to make the plane (or tank) perform as the designer intended.
As an example both the VK-106 and VK-107 were intended to replace the VK-105 engine. work on the VK-106 started in 1938 and the VK-107 in 1940. Small batches of both engines were built during the war numbering in the hundreds with service introduction planned several times but neither engine achieved a good enough reliability to be installed in service aircraft during the war. A Late model Yak with a 1500-1600hp engine would have been a formidable machine indeed but they were forced to continue with the lower powered VK-105. 
Many soviet pilots flew with canopies open reducing the performance of their aircraft. In part because of tradition, supposedly, how many 1942 soviet pilots had actually been flying in 1938-39? and in part because soviet canopies were not as clear as western canopies and the soviet pilots sacrificed speed for vision. Due to poor quality construction some soviet canopies also jammed and were difficult to open in emergencies. 

Some soviet factories also had some rather sever problems with quality control. In some cases average production machines were 20-30kph slower than prototypes or initial production test machines. In spite of being built by the thousands true interchangeability of parts was not achieved in many cases leading to lots of extra work at the squadron/regimental level when trying to repair damaged aircraft. These were not part of any Soviet "plan" for high production quantity over quality and large efforts were made to correct these production problems.


----------



## parsifal (Jun 29, 2011)

It would be horrible to have a sticky canopy....no escape from a burning or crashing aircraft......we will never no the erquipment failure rates, though I agree Soviet QA was pretty poor


----------



## Juha (Jun 29, 2011)

Hello
Soviet fighter pilots had armour protection, in fact Soviet fighters were amongst the first to get back armour to the pilot, they also had self-sealing fuel tanks. IIRC armoured windscreen was less common than in western fighters.
One area, in which German fighters had advantage was the automation, German pilots could better concentrate flying and fighting, Soviet pilots had higher workload and they had to divide more attention to for ex engine controls and engine temperature.

Juha


----------



## Tante Ju (Jun 29, 2011)

Shortround6 said:


> As an example both the VK-106 and VK-107 were intended to replace the VK-105 engine. work on the VK-106 started in 1938 and the VK-107 in 1940. Small batches of both engines were built during the war numbering in the hundreds with service introduction planned several times but neither engine achieved a good enough reliability to be installed in service aircraft during the war. A Late model Yak with a 1500-1600hp engine would have been a formidable machine indeed but they were forced to continue with the lower powered VK-105.



VK 107 was no small series. But agree, problematic engine. 

Jak 9U - ca. 1600 HP VK-107. Speed - ca 670-700 km/h. Entered service 1944. 3900 built, most in war. Replaced by same Jak 9P post war - same but all metal.

Otherwise very good points! One - sticking canopies. British Spitfire Hurricane had crowbar in cocpit. Standard equipment. Know why? 

Juha,

You are right. I-16 was I think that first fighter serial with armor, and also cannons.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 29, 2011)

A lot of VK-107s were built post war. Production continued until 1948 or so. Numbers made during the war maybe a small fraction of the total of 7900 or so. Plans to produce batches of up to 2000 were made but tests engines failed on the bench and production was put off a number of times. Production was halted twice post war because of problems. 
The 1941-42 version was supposed to be good for 1300/1400hp and 686 built but what were they installed in? and what was the service life?


----------



## P-40K-5 (Jun 29, 2011)

Juha said:


> Hello P-40K-5
> now "the quaranteed laquer coffin" was the nickname to the early LaGG-3s, even late LaGG-3s, especially Series 66 planes were better being lighter with more powerful M-105PF engine, slats and some aerodynamic improvements, La-5 had still clearly more power with M-82 and -5F (M-82F) and -5FN (Ash-82FN) were still better.
> 
> Juha


 
Nevertheless La-5 losses were high, the highest of all fighters in service in Russia. which negates its performance, no?


----------



## Lighthunmust (Jun 29, 2011)

Bf109 losses were high for Germany, the highest number of fighters lost, which negates its performance, no?

No with regard to La-5 and no with regard to Bf109.


----------



## P-40K-5 (Jun 29, 2011)

we're talking 1943 Eastern Front the ratio was more in favor of the Germans (9000kills vs 800 losses).. 
what the heck are YOU talking about? overall? jeez.

now as per your usuall response to me, don't blame the messenger. blame Claes Sundin Christer Bergstrom who wrote a few
excellent books and where the above quote came from. the majority (50%+) of kills were with the Bf109.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 29, 2011)

The only way loss statistics many any sense at all is if they are losses per so many sorties flown. 

LA-5 was the second most produced soviet fighter and so, if losses were even, it would have the second highest number of losses in combat. For the period we are talking about if may have been THE most produced soviet fighter and so had the highest losses. 

Just like with the 109 being the most produced German fighter in flew more missions, shouldered more of the fight and so suffered higher losses in any particular time period than any other German fighter. Does this mean the 109 was bad?

No, it means the methodology of the statistic is bad.


----------



## Tante Ju (Jun 29, 2011)

Shortround6 said:


> A lot of VK-107s were built post war. Production continued until 1948 or so. Numbers made during the war maybe a small fraction of the total of 7900 or so. Plans to produce batches of up to 2000 were made but tests engines failed on the bench and production was put off a number of times. Production was halted twice post war because of problems.
> The 1941-42 version was supposed to be good for 1300/1400hp and 686 built but what were they installed in? and what was the service life?



_"Powered by a 1500 h.p. VK-107A engine, the Yak-9U featured a new OP-554 water cooler, OP-555 oil cooler and VISh-107LO propeller. New engine cooling and exhaust systems were introduced. The wings were moved forward by 100mm and elevator area was decreased to 1.13m2. Armament incorporated 20mm ShVAK cannon and two 12.7mm UBS machine guns with 170 shells per barrel. The fighter was fitted with GS-15-500 general. Maximum takeoff weight was 3150 kg. This experimental fighter was built in December 1943 and the type had been tested by 28 December, 1943. Official State evaluation had been successfully completed by 20 April 1944 by test pilot A. Proshakov. *A total of 3921 Yak-9U(VK-107) was delivered from April 1944 to August 1945.* However the aircraft was quite temperamental in the context of engine temperature. From December 1944 728 and 726 type coolers were introduced. Oil and water cooler intakes sectionals were increased too. Thus the aircraft had met requirements and it could reach a speed of 575 km/h at sea level and 672 km/h at 5000 m."_

Yak-9U

Sorry you are mistake in thinking VK 107 was main post war. Many produced during war - equivalent number of Type 9 Spitfire... many also produced after war (Jak 9P), also, but VK 107 was not insignificant during GPW. At least 4000 not insignificant.


----------



## tomo pauk (Jun 29, 2011)

Lighthunmust said:


> The Fw190 had centerline and wing armament. Making hits with a Fw190 was certainly easier than with a ME-109.



The wing root armament could play the role of a centerline armament IMO; having 6 guns blazing (4 being in centerline) is offers better chance to hit something than having 3, or 3+2 anyway.



> I just pulled off the shelf Shackcklady's "Butcher Bird" to see if what he has to say about the topic. If I recall correctly the Fw190 was "in its element" flying on the Eastern Front. At Eastern Front altitudes much of the flight performance advantage of the ME-109 disappeared and the armament was not superior to what the Russians were flying. I really think it is a close call between the Fw190 and La-5FN.



Both 190 La-5 were fine machines - but I'd stick to the 109 P-39. 
Please note that La-5s featured centerline armament 



> Sure many of the top jagflieger flew the Messerschmitt, but I think some of that is due to more experience with it and the reluctance of anyone facing combat to stop using a weapon that works for them to gamble on one that may work better. No doubt the ME-109 was a threat to any aircraft in the air, but not an overwhelming threat to the best aircraft of the Russians.



Well put 



Shortround6 said:


> I would note that the Spitfire carried as much armament in ONE wing as many 109s or Russian aircraft did in the entire airplane.



Indeed - IIRC German pilots (Galland amongst them) didn't liked the fact that firepower advantage left their camp with advent of Spit V Bf-109F. 
A 3rd cannon seems to me as even better choice than historic 4 LMGs. 



> Hurricane was probably handicapped more by it's thick wing than by the weight of one extra Hispano gun. You could stick a Griffon in a Hurricane and it wasn't going to be a 400mph fighter. There are performance figures available for Hurricane MK IIs with 8 MGs, 12 Mgs and 4 cannon. the speed difference between a MK IIA and IIC was 6mph. The bigger hit was climb and ceiling, Initial cimb rate was reduced by 400fpm and time to 20,000ft increased by 0.6 minutes. Ceiling dropped from 41,000ft to 36,000ft but nobody was going to fight a Hurricane at anywhere near that height anyway.
> 
> Split the difference in performance between the IIA and IIB and you almost at the point of the difference between two different production airplanes of the same type.



Any help the Hurri can get, even if it's a couple of hundred of fpm 
Another option is to increase ammo count per gun (from cca 90 rds to 120). We still benefit from having one cannon less, weight-wise, perhaps increasing the roll rate too.


----------



## Lighthunmust (Jun 29, 2011)

The statement "Bf109 losses were high for Germany, the highest number of fighters lost, which negates its performance, no?" illustrates that equating high losses with flight performance is a non sequitur. High performance aircraft can have high losses for many reasons other than inferior flight performance. My point is that in my opinion and I assume the opinion of some of the other posters, from a flight performance standpoint the La-5FN was perhaps first among equals in this threads designated arena at the designated time. It is also my opinion that overall quality of Luftwaffe pilots was much higher then VVS pilots in the designated arena and time. That surely was a factor in high La-5FN losses.

In regard to the oft made comment about a target rich environment meaning "more people are shooting at you" consider this. Groups of Hyenas kill Lions when they can. However when an adult male lion is amongst Hyenas, the Hyenas frequently attempt to escape the fight because several hyenas will be killed. Try to think of the Luftwaffe pilots (not planes) as adult Lions and the Russian pilots (not planes) as Hyenas. It an accurate analogy of the target rich environment on the Eastern Front.


----------



## P-40K-5 (Jun 29, 2011)

Shortround6 said:


> The only way loss statistics many any sense at all is if they are losses per so many sorties flown.
> 
> LA-5 was the second most produced soviet fighter and so, if losses were even, it would have the second highest number of losses in combat. For the period we are talking about if may have been THE most produced soviet fighter and so had the highest losses.
> 
> ...


 
for sure. so lets say in 1943 each loss a/c flew 200 sorties suffered 400 losses(109's) x 200 sorties = 80,000 sorties.
80,000(sorties) / 400(losses) = 1 in 200 flights were lost. not bad, not bad at all. tis is just averaging. some flew more
then 200 sorties others flew less.

but yeah I get your point. thanks.


----------



## Lighthunmust (Jun 29, 2011)

"The wing root armament could play the role of a centerline armament IMO; having 6 guns blazing (4 being in centerline) is offers better chance to hit something than having 3, or 3+2 anyway."


Yes but even the dispersion due to the few extra few inches of separation between the wing root cannon and fuselage armament contributed to hit probability.


"I just pulled off the shelf Shackcklady's "Butcher Bird" to see if what he has to say about the topic."


He actually has very little to say, it is far from a definitive work. Does anyone know of a definitive work a could purchase?


"Please note that La-5s featured centerline armament"


Yes unfortunately it suffered that handicap.

He is a gist of some quotes from Oberleutnant Oskar Romm (92 kills) who piloted the Fw 190A from its introduction on the Eastern Front in late 1942 through his final assignment as Gruppen kommanduer of IV Gruppe/JG 3 in February, 1945, where he flew the Fw 190D-9 -

My training as a fighter pilot was completed on a BF109 and progressed to completion without any problems. I became the master of this aircraft in every flying position and could hit gunnery targets with precise accuracy. When I completed my training in the summer of 1942 I had two big surprises: I was posted to JG51 on the Russian Front and I would fly the Fw 190. After completing training on the Fw190 *"I became convinced that I could fly the Fw 190 as an armament platform with greater assurance and reliability under any and all conditions than I could the Bf 109"*.

"We encountered a formation of six Il-2s ....I saw a fighter ... It was a La-5 with a completely red cowl .... from the Stalin Squadron". "The Russian had me at a speed disadvantage and with this edge he went into a series of sweeping, climbing curves to get above me."


----------



## davebender (Jun 29, 2011)

Soviet military equipment had quality control problems during 1941 and the problems got much worse when industry had to relocate to make shift factories during 1942. German and Japanese military equipment produced during 1945 also had serious quality problems due to industrial relocation. The only Soviet solution is to use Lend-Lease equipment. 

German and Japanese pilots flying aircraft built during 1945 don't have a Lend-Lease equipment option. So please insure your will and life insurance policy are up to date before taking off.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 29, 2011)

Tante Ju said:


> _"Powered by a 1500 h.p. VK-107A engine, the Yak-9U featured a new OP-554 water cooler, OP-555 oil cooler and VISh-107LO propeller. New engine cooling and exhaust systems were introduced. The wings were moved forward by 100mm and elevator area was decreased to 1.13m2. Armament incorporated 20mm ShVAK cannon and two 12.7mm UBS machine guns with 170 shells per barrel. The fighter was fitted with GS-15-500 general. Maximum takeoff weight was 3150 kg. This experimental fighter was built in December 1943 and the type had been tested by 28 December, 1943. Official State evaluation had been successfully completed by 20 April 1944 by test pilot A. Proshakov. *A total of 3921 Yak-9U(VK-107) was delivered from April 1944 to August 1945.* ."_
> 
> Sorry you are mistake in thinking VK 107 was main post war. Many produced during war - equivalent number of Type 9 Spitfire... many also produced after war (Jak 9P), also, but VK 107 was not insignificant during GPW. At least 4000 not insignificant.



You are right, I did mistake the importance of the VK-107 but numbers are not quite so great as you claim. One book claims that while 3921 Yak-9Us were built, only 2500 of them were before the end of the war (although this could be April 1945). I am not sure why you are comparing the number of VK-107 engines produced to the number of MK IX Spitfire aircraft though. 
I still don't know what those 686 VK-107 engines were used in. The Yak-9U used the VK-107A engine. A small batch of Yak-3s (48?) used the VK-107A but most of the rest went back to the VK-105 series engines because of the unsatisfactory nature of the VK-107 series. 
In any case by 1944 even 1500-1600hp was too little to late and while offering the designers some scope it still meant that they really needed to watch the weight of their fighters compared to the more powerful western fighters


----------



## Juha (Jun 29, 2011)

P-40K-5 said:


> we're talking 1943 Eastern Front the ratio was more in favor of the Germans (9000kills vs 800 losses)..
> what the heck are YOU talking about? overall? jeez.
> 
> now as per your usuall response to me, don't blame the messenger. blame Claes Sundin Christer Bergstrom who wrote a few
> excellent books and where the above quote came from. the majority (50%+) of kills were with the Bf109.



Hello P-40K-5
now comparing most of one side’s fighter losses in air combat to most of other side’s combat mission losses produced biased info. What I mean is that also Finns, Romanians, Hungarians and Italians shot down Soviet planes during 43 and also suffered losses, I’m not sure whether Slovak and Croatian claims and losses were included or not in LW figures. Bigger problem is that we haven’t any way to get reliable Soviet air combat losses. I don’t have reliable loss Soviet figures for 1943 but figures for 44 show the problem. I’ll give only the figures for fighters of new types
Did not return from sortie 2556
Shot down in air combat 479
Shot down by AAA 345
Damaged on a/fs 52
Accidents 1979
Weared 2619
Total 8030

Now how one gauge reliable number of air-to-air losses when most of combat operation losses are under MIA column? One can make guesses, better or worse but they are still only guesses.

Juha


----------



## Juha (Jun 29, 2011)

Tante Ju said:


> Juha,
> 
> You are right. I-16 was I think that first fighter serial with armor, and also cannons.


 
Hello Tante Ju
already I-15bis had back armour to the pilot and self-sealing fuel tanks.

Juha


----------



## P-40K-5 (Jun 29, 2011)

Juha said:


> Hello P-40K-5
> now comparing most of one side’s fighter losses in air combat to most of other side’s combat mission losses produced biased info. What I mean is that also Finns, Romanians, Hungarians and Italians shot down Soviet planes during 43 and also suffered losses, I’m not sure whether Slovak and Croatian claims and losses were included or not in LW figures. Bigger problem is that we haven’t any way to get reliable Soviet air combat losses. I don’t have reliable loss Soviet figures for 1943 but figures for 44 show the problem. I’ll give only the figures for fighters of new types
> Did not return from sortie 2556
> Shot down in air combat 479
> ...


 
Hello Juha,
you are right. there is no way to get reliable records from the russians, even in 1943! 
LW claims did not include claims from other axis countries. my figures for 1944 show
the Germans shot down 7000 e/a. 1030 less then what you posted. confusing indeed!


----------



## Juha (Jun 29, 2011)

P-40K-5 said:


> Hello Juha,
> you are right. there is no way to get reliable records from the russians, even in 1943!
> LW claims did not include claims from other axis countries. my figures for 1944 show
> the Germans shot down 7000 e/a. 1030 less then what you posted. confusing indeed!



Hello P-40
IMHO we don’t know how many Soviet planes Jagdfliegern shot down, we only know how many they claimed
My figures incl.only the more modern fighter types, of which a/c of Axis powers shot down say 2100-2300, AAA shot down probably 800-1000, some were lost in accidents, because of technical problems, pilot errors etc during combats ops etc. In known accidents 1979 new type fighters were lost and 2619 were stuck of charge because of weariness after long service. Of older type fighters some 125 LaGG-3s, Hurricanes and I-153s were lost in combat ops as were some 730 bombers and some 3700 Il-2s. All these in 1944.

Juha


----------



## parsifal (Jun 29, 2011)

All I would say with regard to loss claims is that for the eastern front it is very difficult to pin down accurate numbers. Russian sources are politically doctored, and LW claims are also notoriously innaccurate, because they are based on estimated losses. Claimed losses have been shown to be out by a factor of 6 or 8 to 1 on occasion...in the muggy weather conditions of the Russian winter, spring and autumn, this may well be made even worse.... 

I can produce creditable sources that claim German losses equalled or even exceeded Soviet losses in some of the major campaigns. I can produce other source material, just as creditable that goes the other way. Each person interested in this subject will have to settle on figurs they think are the most accurate or plausible for them. 

Having spent some time myself thinking about this issue, I concluded that it is most likley that the loss ratio favours the germans, but not by 80:1. Perhaps 3:1 or so, though this is just a figure, an estimate. But then, after some further thought, and further reading, I realized that the primary mission of the VVS was not the destruction of the enemy air force. They never set out to achieve air supriority by shooting down the LW. Their primary mission was always battlefield support....the mission of their fighters was firstly; to provide enough protection to their Sturmoviks to get the job done....if the Sturmovik survived long enough to do that, the russians were happy. In the second instance, the Russians aimed to flood the airspace over the battle with so many fighters as to make German counterstrikes a nearly impossible task. A stuka pilot might be in an eminently survivable machine, but if he is being monstered by 6 or 8 fighters, dodging 20mm cannon fire and generally under intense harrassment the whole mission, he is not going to deliver effective countermeasure to the ground offensive. 

If you look at the Soviet Air force in the terms that it was designed and used for, it was an eminently successful weapon. It is harder to be that dogmatic about the Germans. In the end they lost, but was this just because they were outnumbered, or was their doctrine somewhat flawed. German strategy in the defensive stage of the war was to inflict crippling losses on the Russians....the germans placed greater emphasis on counterair operations....shooting down Russian aircraft.....but was this a mistake? In chalking up these big aircraft tallies, did the germans not miss the point as to why they were there. They were meant to be part of a machine, part of an integrated defence plan. I cannot help thinking that the LW was more interested in the tally sheets, than stopping the offensive, if so, the impressive scores came at a disastrous price.


----------



## Lighthunmust (Jun 29, 2011)

It is not just western design bias that must be overcome, western strategy and tactical bias must also be overcome. One thing to always keep in mind when thinking about Russian strategy and tactics is that Russia was under the Mongol yoke for a long time. The Mongol military mindset is still a strong influence. Showers of projectiles from fast pursuit vehicles (fighter aircraft or horses) to harass and infuriate the enemy into ineffectiveness or misstep until your heavy ground seizing weapons (armored lancers or T-34s) seize the battlefield is something the Russians have long known to be effective.


----------



## P-40K-5 (Jun 29, 2011)

I think the fighter aspect of the Luftwaffe was following the FAT MAN's ever so clear orders.
" shoot down everything, and fly till you die " in reality the pilots later in the war started to
govern themslves. BUT defending Germany was always the #1 priority, to the death.

numbers are what they are.. just numbers. WWII spawned some of the bravest/dedicated
pilots in history..... on both sides.


----------



## michaelmaltby (Jun 30, 2011)

".... numbers are what they are.. just numbers. WWII spawned some of the bravest/dedicated
pilots in history..... on both sides."

Absolutely true. Thanks. 

MM


----------



## Tante Ju (Jul 3, 2011)

Shortround6 said:


> Yes, Satan does live in the details.
> 
> I said "I would note that the Spitfire carried as much armament in ONE wing as *many* 109s or Russian aircraft did in the entire airplane."
> 
> ...



Many. But point is, they could mount three cannon. Anytime. Its question of need. Wing cannon - 15 minutes to mount by weapons mechanic. About.



> Hispano fires a heavier shell at a higher velocity than the MG 151, granted it has less explosive but depending on projectile and year it can penetrate a fair amount of armor and THEN explode behind it. details



Explosive shell do not penetrate armor.. not much. 2-4mm at best, the shell is too weak. Pilot armor is generally more, so it is not practical question IMHO, most plane is unarmored, and where armor - ineffective, both. Mine shell of course explodes on target armor plate surface, but will penetrate structure. That is point of mine shell, gases do damage in structure.

And where it explodes - question of fuse really, like artilerria shell. Short fuse - fragment, long fuse - destruction shell, very short fuse - shrapnel. It can be selected for target.



> Yes ir fires a bit slower but the higher velocity and shorter time of flight make defection shooting just a bit easier. details



There is no doubts. 



Shortround6 said:


> Hmmm, Spitfire 2560 grams per second (not counting the four .303s) 109 fires 3404 grams per second (not counting two synchronized 7.9). Not quite the 37 to 20 ratio in fire power you imply. a 32% increase instead of 85%, not counting machineguns. details.
> 
> Guns installed in wing are inaccurate but guns installed in pods under wing are???



Yes, weight of fire is one measure to count firepower. But planes do not crash because they got too heavy from bullets they are hit with. For example, 37 20mm rounds of Mauser carry 666 gram (definiete proof of Satan and details!  ) explosive, 20 Hispano rounds - 50 gram explosives, plus 50 gram fire starting material.

Reality of course different because belt arrangements different - Hispano 50% HEI, Mauser 60% HE-MG. But simplify example - it will do.



Shortround6 said:


> While the fighters listed are 1942-43 fighters the Spitfire Vb is a 1941 era plane, about 1 year behind the G-2. What boost are the figures for the Vb using and is the 109G-2 using GM-1?.



Figures are for service rating of G-2 in 1942 most of 1943. There is no GM-1. GM-1 can be recognize by saw characteristics of line, above nominal altitude, always. Performance GM-1 - higher at altitude. With his G-1/R2, pilot R. Klein achieved 660 km/h (420 mph) at 12,000 m (39,370 ft), and a ceiling of 13,800 m (45,275 ft). Wiki source.

I do not know Spitfire rating - they look at +9 boost.

You are right about unfair - Spitfire was 1941, 109G 1942. But, this subject is on realities - Eastern front had these planes in 1943, unfair or not. Mark V was LL suuply 1943.. Pilots flew this planes, and this is subject of thread. War is not about fair. 



> I can see Jakovlev's wisdom. He only had about 1260hp to work with at best and then at lower altitudes than many western engines.


 
If you read Jakovlev book - he was by start against using bigger engines. Probably also of neccessity, but this was his idea from early designs, too. He strong criticized even fascist designs like Bf or Fw, describing - more powerful, heavier engines, plane heavier, so descrease in manouver, so neeed for even bigger engine. One can think that Jakovlev was even more extreme in weight saving than Messerschmitt - and he was already very extreme.

I understand you point about however of larger airframe - more adaptability, more room etc. However I think Jakovlev and Messerschmitt designs also show that this is not only route, and small very high effiency airframe can do the same. As big airframe is not only ability to carry more engine, more fuel, but also neccessity for same performance. I think extreme opposites of side shown on Soviet graph I post - 109 and 47 - and their performance are great examples. Really you have similiar performance on these, range, speed at altitude, while 109 more manouverable, best climber - 47 has some other advantages, but weights 2x.


----------



## Juha (Jul 3, 2011)

Hello Tante Ju
one might argue that Spit LF V was not a bad choice for eastern front, like later Yaks optimised to low level, in fact faster than 109G-1 with Kampf and Steig power up to 8000ft and probably climbed better at low level but definitely run out of steam over 3000m. In fact LF Vs didn't do so badly when introduced to combat over Southern part of the Eastern Front but didn't suit well to rough front airfields, needed rare 100oct fuel to be combatable and were shot at by both sides, so Soviets decided to allocate 100oct fuel to Airacobra units and gave Spits to PVO which at least operated from permanent airbases even if LF V was not optimal for rear area interceptions.

If we compare P-47D-10 and 109G-1 using US and German respectively tests, P-47D-10 was faster at all altitudes than G-1 at 1.3 ata (Kampf and Steig) but with 1.42 ata (Start und Not) practically equally fast up to 9000ft /3000m after that D-10 was slightly faster up to 21000ft/6700m after which the advantage of D-10 progressively increased. G-1 climbed better at least before “paddle propeller" for D, turned better but at least at high speed D-10 rolled better and had better initial acceleration in dive.

Juha


----------



## Tante Ju (Jul 3, 2011)

Hi Juha!

I believe normal Mark V was supplied to Eastern Front. Certain it was tested by VVS (see chart I post). Main concern as you say - not suited for front airfields. Yakovlevs were preferred - wide track gear. Also Yakovlev 9 is very similiar to Spitfire V in performance. P-47D-10 and 109G-2 - my chart shows equal performance, actually "Gustav" a bit better up to 8000 meters. At very near ground, P-47 is little faster, but. You are right about roll. Soviet understanding was consider P-47 like light bomber charachteristic - certainly as heavy as Soviet light bomber, and not very manouverable! Turn - 27-28 seconds. Compare Javovlev or Spitfire - 16-18 seconds, 109F/G, 20 seconds..


----------



## Juha (Jul 3, 2011)

Tante Ju said:


> Hi Juha!
> 
> I believe normal Mark V was supplied to Eastern Front. Certain it was tested by VVS (see chart I post). Main concern as you say - not suited for front airfields. Yakovlevs were preferred - wide track gear. Also Yakovlev 9 is very similiar to Spitfire V in performance...



Hello 
You are right I mixed up with Mk IXs, vast majority of those tranferred to VVS were LF IXs but Mk Vs were Vbs, so Vb had almost same speed than G-1 at 1.3ata from 4000ft to 12500ft but was slower lower down and progressively more and more slower higher up, very clery so from 17000ft up, especially those with Merlin 45 engine, 46 was better at higher altitudes.



Tante Ju said:


> P-47D-10 and 109G-2 - my chart shows equal performance, actually "Gustav" a bit better up to 8000 meters. At very near ground, P-47 is little faster, but. You are right about roll. Soviet understanding was consider P-47 like light bomber charachteristic - certainly as heavy as Soviet light bomber, and not very manouverable! Turn - 27-28 seconds. Compare Javovlev or Spitfire - 16-18 seconds, 109F/G, 20 seconds..



As I wrote I used USAAF test info for D-10, maybe soviets didn't use water injection or for some other reason their figures were slightly lower than those of USAAF's Material Command.

Juha


----------



## Lighthunmust (Jul 3, 2011)

Juha said:


> at high speed D-10 rolled better and had better initial acceleration in dive.
> 
> Juha


 


Tante Ju said:


> and not very manouverable! Turn - 27-28 seconds. Compare Javovlev or Spitfire - 16-18 seconds, 109F/G, 20 seconds..


 


Juha said:


> Hello
> maybe soviets didn't use water injection or for some other reason their figures were slightly lower than those of USAAF's Material Command.
> 
> Juha



Considering the numerous accounts of pilots using the roll and dive characteristics of the "not very manouvrable" P-47 to evade and attack small, light, fast climbing, fast diving, fast flying, maneuverable, fighters of the type the Bf109, super Yaks, and ultra Lavochkins were; it is amazing they were so successful using those terribly heavy for power, low powered compared to German and Russian super cannon, .50 caliber M2s. Successful as in a bunch of rookies going up against the best of the Luftwaffe over western europe in 1943 and kicking ass and taking names to form a line for an ass kicking. Not successful as in a bunch of very superiorly trained and experienced jadgfliegers going up against poorly trained, inconsistently equipped, and too short lived to gain experience Russian rookies in 1941-42.

Some how I don't think anyone in Russia or Germany for that matter ever understood how to fly a P-47, which says a lot about their lack of knowledge as fighter pilots. Being shot down by a P-47 lead sled must have been a shocking and confusing experience for jagdfliegers.

You ME-109 guys are almost as bad as he P-51 guys.


----------



## CORSNING (Jul 4, 2011)

Hi Guys, Niece thread,

I voted for the P-39. According to Nikolay Golodnikov, the VVS pilots respected the Fw-190 but not as much as the Bf.109. They considered the 190's weakest point to be its acceleration. They considered the 190 to be most dangerous from the frontal attack where its heavy armament was involved. The 109 was respected more overall because of its ability to fight well in the vertical plane as well as the horizontal. The P-39N/Q models were better performers in both planes compared to the Fw-190A. The VVS pilots considered their Yak-19s, La-5FN, La-7 and P-39N/Qs more dynamic in their performance than the Fw-190. 
The P-39N capabilities according to USAAF tests and Ray Wagner were: Engine: V-1710-85/1,420hp. Speed: 338mph/S.L. 399mph/9,700ft. Climb: 4,175fpm/S.L. 4,425fpm/8,000ft. 15,000ft/3.8min. (3947fpm avg.). at a weight of 7,396 lbs. These figures are for a USAAF equipped aircraft. VVS pilots often removed all the wing guns and various other equipment that thay deemed superfluous for their needs. This lightened the VVS P-39 about 500 lbs. This coupled with the fact that they quite often overboosted the V-1710-85 to over 57". The lightened Airacobra was faster, more maneuverable and quicker climbing than the standard US model. I haven't seen any exact VVS figures for the P-39N but I read somewhere that they were getting over 382mph out of their P-39Ds.


----------



## michaelmaltby (Jul 4, 2011)

"... This coupled with the fact that they quite often overboosted the V-1710-85 to over 57""

..... and a steady supply of Allisons thanks to the US .... 40 hours max per engine ... I don't know whether thats good or bad for AC engines ...but I'm guessing the Soviets used 'boost' as if it was over-drive . 

MM


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 4, 2011)

40 hours is absolutely terrible for a Western aircraft engine. In the CBI theater in 1944 they were getting up to 300hrs on Allisons in P-38s.

Short life can be caused by sand or dirt ingestion. Low quality oil and/or gas. While over-boosting can lead to a number of different failures the more important ones to the pilot are the ones that lead to detonation which can lead to things like rods through the side of the block. not good even if you are within gliding distance of your airfield 

The Soviets sometimes had different ideas on what was squadron maintenance and what was higher echelon maintenance. Things that might be repaired at the squadron or group level in US or British service without an overhaul might be handled by an engine swap and a rebuild at a central facility in Russian service. This was true with jets, I don't know if it was true during WW II. 
While not every American was a born mechanic (just like not every American in a born shooter) the Americans had a much larger percentage of their troops at least familiar with motor vehicles and engines than any other army.


----------



## parsifal (Jul 4, 2011)

The Soviets certainly did well with the P-39, and the later P-63. It first rose to prominence over the Kuban, an all air camapign just after Stalingrad. It was the first time really that the VVS claims to have been able to conduct operations more opr less on an equal footing with the LW. It was a camapign where the whos who of Soviet Aces first began to shine. And they nearly all flew the P-39 as their first mount.

Ive never particularly liked the P-39....much prefer the P-40, but credit needs to be acknowledged for the Soviet use of this fighter. I think they managed to get the very best out of it, and generally liked it a lot.


----------



## michaelmaltby (Jul 4, 2011)

".... I think they managed to get the very best out of it, and generally liked it a lot."

Everybody: Canadians, Brits, Russians, Americans (obviously ) were/are impressed at how well-built American aircraft were [B-25's, Bostons, P-47's, 50's and 47's, Canso's, Lib's etc.).

The P-39 with the Bell support system (USAAF Lend Lease, etc. ) behind the effort was better than Hawker, Curtis or Supermarine could imagine, and forget Yak, Lag and Mig . Roll 'em out. Quota-style. . We'll change em when we decide to change 'em. 

I agree, Parsifal .

MM


----------



## michaelmaltby (Jul 4, 2011)

"... 40 hours is absolutely terrible for a Western aircraft engine. " The Soviets claimed that they were promised 50 hours, . Let's face it, you're based 25 miles from the front. vectored by USA-supplied field radar and good old USA radios. The action is under 11,000 feet. You don't 'cruise' into the fight. You scream in and tangle close. The Soviets would go into boost - and stay there. 40 hours - 50 hours ...? What were _Merlins_ giving in the BoB September, 1940 ...?  

MM


----------



## parsifal (Jul 4, 2011)

For those who voted the split is close....for German types 8 votes, for Soviet/LL 8 votes


----------



## Lighthunmust (Jul 5, 2011)

parsifal said:


> For those who voted the split is close....for German types 8 votes, for Soviet/LL 8 votes


 
The poll graph is not an accurate reflection of opinion. In post #4 I admitted to impulsively voting the day before for the Fw190 and with further thought and research agreed the La-5FN was the superior pure fighter. That puts the Soviet types ahead in the actual opinions provided.


----------



## CORSNING (Jul 5, 2011)

Nikolay Golodnikov readily admits that they overboosted their P-39s. He said it was standard procedure to replace the early Allisons every 50 hrs. He continued by adding that the later Allisons would last 100 hrs.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 5, 2011)

Lighthunmust said:


> The poll graph is not an accurate reflection of opinion. In post #4 I admitted to impulsively voting the day before for the Fw190 and with further thought and research agreed the La-5FN was the superior pure fighter. That puts the Soviet types ahead in the actual opinions provided.



Naw I just voted for the 190 to even it up...


----------



## Lighthunmust (Jul 5, 2011)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Naw I just voted for the 190 to even it up...


 
Tomorrow you may change your mind. It is a very close competition in the poll and in the reality of the airspace in which they fought. The more I consider it, I can't fault anyone for choosing the 190, 109 or 39. But I am sticking with the La5FN. I think the Russians more than anyone understood what they needed to win their type of air war.

Adler, can you change the poll to reflect my true opinion? After all we are not voting in a political election so the fate of the Republic is not at stake.


----------



## bada (Jul 6, 2011)

-40min flight time on cruise settings
-Boost unavailable above 2000m
-unpratical flight commands (throttles)
-poor Build quality incomodating the pilot.

.....

so, i'll go for an A5 anytime, triple flight time, "intelligent" flight commands, more versatile (multi role), heavier armement, and especially so much better looking


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 6, 2011)

Lighthunmust said:


> Tomorrow you may change your mind. It is a very close competition in the poll and in the reality of the airspace in which they fought. The more I consider it, I can't fault anyone for choosing the 190, 109 or 39. But I am sticking with the La5FN. I think the Russians more than anyone understood what they needed to win their type of air war.
> 
> Adler, can you change the poll to reflect my true opinion? After all we are not voting in a political election so the fate of the Republic is not at stake.



I only voted for the 190 because of your post. 

Yes I can change your as well.


----------



## Altea (Jul 8, 2011)

Hello


> bada said:
> 
> 
> > -40min flight time on cruise settings
> ...


----------



## DonL (Jul 9, 2011)

> -unpratical flight commands (throttles)
> -poor Build quality incomodating the pilot.
> "Na, und?" What's the problem?.



Hell yes, throttles are very unimportant for a fighter and it is total unimportant too, how a fighter reacts to the controls in high speed maneuvers. Thank you very much for the enlightenment.

An advice from me, the FW190A was one of the fighter in WWII, that was to control very very easy at high speed maneuvers. One of the easiest

F4U-1D, F6F-3, and FW190-A5 Comparison Report
Established from the USAF Navy.



> No doubt that the soviet plane could outclimb, outurn (+LE slats), and outfight the FW-190 with ease.



And I have absolutely no doubt that a FW 190A could outroll and outdive a La-5FN in every situation and by the way you don't need a good turning fighter to win a fight, rollrate, climbrate and diving are equal important for fighters in WWII.
And I have no doubt too, that a FW 190A was much easier to fly and handle at high speed maneuvers.



> Now being the much better dogfighter



Do you have facts or is this your personal claim?



> Paradoxaly it (the FW-190) could be a great weapon, without being a great plane (performance/ manoeuvrability compromise). A little like the Il-2 in it's kind.



Oh I understand!
One question, which other fighter of WWII was also comparable the whole war to any other fighter in it's development? FW 190A, FW 190D-9, Tank 152H1.
And which fighter was likewise multirole capable accept the F4U-4?

To say the FW 190 wasn't a great plane is very funny, but it isn't based on facts!



> God,how much fuel is it carrying?



525 Liters.


----------



## parsifal (Jul 9, 2011)

well, for what its worth, I thjink both aircraft, the FW190 and the La5n were among the best of WWII. The room should be big enough for both to be lauded without thje need to denigrate the other


----------



## Altea (Jul 9, 2011)

DonL said:


> Hell yes, throttles are very unimportant for a fighter and it is total unimportant too, how a fighter reacts to the controls in high speed maneuvers.


Again. So if they are such important, *what is* the problem with La-5 FN throttle?
Thank you very much for the enlightenment, as you said.



> An advice from me, the FW190A was one of the fighter in WWII, that was to control very very easy at high speed maneuvers. One of the easiest


Considering the general level of your post, *stop *from now *and immedialtly* to give any advice to others on that forum.



> F4U-1D, F6F-3, and FW190-A5 Comparison Report
> Established from the USAF Navy.


And so what?





> And I have absolutely no doubt that a FW 190A could outroll and outdive a La-5FN in every situation


Ah yes? Have you got the La-5FN rollrate, and BTW the La-5 FN acceleration?




> and by the way you don't need a good turning fighter to win a fight, rollrate, climbrate and diving are equal important for fighters in WWII.


So give me the values for the both planes.




> And I have no doubt too, that a FW 190A was much easier to fly and handle at high speed maneuvers.


Your doubts, feelings, prejudices are your personnal problems. Give datas. What are the efforts on commands vs speed on both planes, times of reaction, etc?



_Do you have facts or is this your personal claim?_ As you said.
Stop taking others for idiots. Supposingly i don't have.
1) It's very undifficult to find turn rates and climb rates
2) What are the main parameters that previous values _turn rates and climb rates depends_ on? Make your own estimation based on physics.






> Oh I understand!


No.Really? It's a miracle!



> One question, which other fighter of WWII was also comparable the whole war to any other fighter in it's development? FW 190A, FW 190D-9, Tank 152H1.


It's flood ot what? We're speaking about *eastern front* in *1943.*
All fighters families evolved, Supermarine, Hawker, Messerschmitt, Lavochkin, Grumman...



> And which fighter was likewise multirole capable accept the F4U-4?


Accept what? Why F4U-4? If you, or someone else understand what do you mean, i don't!



> To say the FW 190 wasn't a great plane is very funny, but it isn't based on facts!


I didn't said that.
I just said it was not as fast as La-5FN and far not as nimble at low alts. This is fully unsurprising for everyone that understdands the required minimum in mecanics of flight. Where is the scoop? Where is the fun?





> 525 Liters.


 522 from my docs. It's from 468 to 539 liters depending on La-5 version.
So explain me now, why should the FW-190 have* triple time *flight time?:!!!


----------



## parsifal (Jul 9, 2011)

come on guys, we are alll adults here.....dont let a good discussion fall to pieces because of a difference of opinion.....


----------



## CORSNING (Jul 10, 2011)

parsifal is right. The 109, 190, 5FN and 39 were all competative in 1943. From their it just becomes a personal preference. Its like choosing the best escort fighter in 1944 Europe. Do you pick the Jug for its enormous power, tremendous firepower and ability to absorb amazing damage to its engine/airframe? Or, do you decide to go with the P-38L with its hydraulic flaps that allow you to outmaneuver your adversary. This coupled with its excellent acceleration, climb and concentrated firepower? Or, do you pick the Mustang that was easier for you to fly to its limits while saving on cost of fuel and aircraft?
I read an article years ago that was an interview with Erich Hartman. Because he elected to fly the Bf.109 instead of the Fw-190 he was asked if he thought the Messerschmidt was a better fighter. Erich answered,"No, I wouldn't say that. I could fly it better."


----------



## Tante Ju (Jul 10, 2011)

CORSNING said:


> I read an article years ago that was an interview with Erich Hartman. Because he elected to fly the Bf.109 instead of the Fw-190 he was asked if he thought the Messerschmidt was a better fighter. Erich answered,"No, I wouldn't say that. I could fly it better."


 
Both good complement between each other, suitable better difference of roles. Some overlap.. but picking I think always is like picking between these - which is better? Truth, same breed of family, you can see, but breed for slightly different purpose and mind..


----------



## CORSNING (Jul 10, 2011)

WWII Aircraft Performance
Mike Williams has compiled an awsome sight filled with military documents. Kurfurst has an equally awsome sight on the Me-109. 
I have studied Mikes sight and my files and come up with the following performance figures for the Fw-190A-5 and P-39N speeds and climb rates:

ALTITUDE Fw-190A-5 P-39N
Sea Level 353mph/3,840fpm 338mph/4,135-50fpm
1,000km 370mph/3,970fpm 360mph/4,290fpm
2,000km 372mph/3,520fpm 382mph/4,400fpm
3,000km 369mph/3,000fpm 397mph/4,110fpm
4,000km 383mph/2,850fpm 393mph/3,650fpm
5,000km 388mph/2,900fpm 388mph/3,150fpm
6,000km 412mph/3,450fpm 382mph/2,650fpm
7,000km 410mph/3,400fpm 374mph/2,325fpm

Performance figures for the Fw come from german documented graphs. Figures for the 39 come from a USAAF graph comparing other fighters. Keep in mind that the P-39 figures are for a USAAF equipped aircraft and not the stripped down highly boosted Airacobra that the VVS flew.


----------



## renrich (Jul 10, 2011)

DonL, that is an interesting link you posted for the comparison of the FW and the Navy fighters. I see part of it seems the same as the Williams site but some from somewhere else. If those numbers on the Corsair are accurate, some F4U4s were really hot.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 10, 2011)

Could you please be a bit more specific about the source of the P-39 information. Some of it looks doubtful even using boosted (WEP) power. Like going from 1200hp (50in MAP take-off) to 57in map and 1420 hp is going to increase the rate of climb by over 1000ft per minute? The speeds at 4000meters and up look a little suspect also even using WEP power.


----------



## CORSNING (Jul 10, 2011)

Shortround6,
The figures are from a graph on www.wwiiaircraftperformance. Go to P-38 performance and to the bottom of the page. It lists something like COMPARITIVE PERFORMANCE OF FIGHTERS. It compares several different aircrafts speed and climb on two separate graphs. Some of the planes are P-51F, P-38H, P-63, P-39N, Spifire IX and a few others. It appears to be a USAAF document...?


----------



## CORSNING (Jul 10, 2011)

Just for a little backup on the performance figures Ray Wagner's books list the P-39N V-1710-85/1,420hp. Top speed of 399mph/9,700ft. Climb to 15,000ft in 3.8 minutes (3,947fpm. average). This is at 7,400 lbs. VVS Airacobras weighed closer to 6,900 lbs. or less. Weight of the four .30 calibers was about 300 lbs. The removed all US issued equipment that they deemed superfluous.


----------



## CORSNING (Jul 10, 2011)

Sorry Shortround, its listed as Fighter Comparison Chart.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 10, 2011)

Found it. While that site does have a lot of good info this chart isn't that good. It looks like a Bell salesman's chart 

The Performance figures for the P-63 seem to line up with the manufactures figures for a P-63 using water injection (1800hp at sea level) and are way out of wack for even WEP dry. USAAF figures for the P-63 speed using water injection are 30-40 mph less than the manufacturer's data. 

It makes the P-39 data rather suspect without a second source. 

see http://www.zenoswarbirdvideos.com/Images/P-39/P39TOCLC.pdf

For climb using military power.


----------



## CORSNING (Jul 10, 2011)

Shortround, look at my post at 3:15 today. When reading military material after 1943 about the Bell aircraft you have to keep in mind some things. They chose the P-40 over the P-39 because of range. By the time the P-63 was available they had the P-38, 47 and 51. They were no longer that interested in the Bell aircraft as much. The chart you posted is of a P-39Q-1. Pretty much an N with a lot more government issue junk adding weight. The Russians made quick work of all that stuff too.
I always thought it suspect that the published figures for maximum speeds of the P-63A and P-63C with water injection were both 410mph...? That's got to be a military power not WEP issue.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 10, 2011)

I saw your post, I looked at the chart. It has speeds and climb for both the P-39 and P-63 that don't seem to show up anyplace else, at least not without some red flags. Bell seemed to have a real history of over estimating performance. 

The Chart is for A "Q", No question. But it uses the same engine as the 'N" and there is a row for a weight of 7200lbs. There is either not much "government issue junk adding weight" or not much ammo and fuel. The Q weighed 5684lbs empty, that is with no guns, no gun sight, no armor or bullet proof glass. 7200lbs gives you 1616lb to play with. 7200lbs should be about right for a "Q" with 87 gal of fuel and NO wing guns, or wing guns and a lot less fuel or 87 gals of fuel wing guns and no government issue "junk" The the climb figures in the chart are around 1000fpm higher than the "Q" figures at 7200lbs in places. At 15,000ft they are showing an additional 600fpm of climb, or about three times the difference the manual shows by lighting the plane by 400lbs (from 7600lbs to 7200lbs). The interesting thing here is that at 15,000ft in a climb there is no WEP power. The supercharger maxes out at 15,500ft, with the engine giving 1150hp with ram effect from forward high speed flight. Slowing down to climbing speed looses the most of the ram effect. 
With the throttle wide open at 9000ft the supercharger will provide 57in of MAP and 1420hp. as the plane climbs to 15,000ft the superchargers ability to supply pressure drops as does the HP until at 15,500 the manifold pressure and the power out put are down to the military power level. 

P-63s had a similar issue. Lots of power low down with water injection but it goes away by the time the plane gets to 23,000-25,000ft.


----------



## michaelmaltby (Jul 10, 2011)

Chuck Yeager - who qualified on P-39's but never 'fought' in them believed that in a P-39 he could 'take' anything ...  ... at 200 feet.

IT'S THAT KIND OF BIRD. 

MM


----------



## CORSNING (Jul 11, 2011)

Shortround6,
A lot of what you have said in your last two post is true. Most manufacturers overestimate their product. They build a prototype that reaches the goals set. Then the military (any country) steps in and begins to add equipment they deem necessary for their needs. You made a comment in post 97 stating the USAAF figures for the P-63 speed using W.I. are 30-40 mph less than the manufacturer's data. Can you supply both documents you are referring to? 
I have checked several sights and reference books on the performance of the P-63. I have an extremely hard time believing what they have published: P-63A - 1,500hp. Max speed: 410mph. Climb: 25,000ft/7.3min. Normal Gross Weight: 8,800 lbs.
P-63C - 1,800hp.W.I. Max speed: 410mph. 25,000ft/8.6min. Normal Gross Weight: 8,800 lbs. Odd, isn't it. So the speed on what appears to be a military graph do not surprise me at all. You mentioned in post 99 that the figures on the graph don't show up anyplace else. Yea, you're right. Now the real question is, WHY NOT? The graph performance actually seems the most realistic compared to any published figures I've seen yet.


----------



## CORSNING (Jul 11, 2011)

Bell sales man? Well if it is he made some pretty stupid mistakes posting the P-38H: 436mph and 4,700fpm. I mean why is he posting a plane of superior performance if he is trying to sell his product? WOW and adding the XP-51F has got to be a blunder in getting a raise. And why is it stamp CONFIDENTIAL FOUR TIMES? He doesn't want his wife to find out if he does get a raise?


----------



## Juha (Jul 11, 2011)

I in the end voted for 109G, I still cannot choose between La-5FN and Bf 109G, but La-5FN had got enough votes, so I decided to vote for 109G in order to redress the balance and why 109 and not 190A? Because of Soviet fighter pilots usually thought that 109 was a more dangerous opponent to them than 190. Against Il-2 190A was better because of its heavier armament, even if 109G-?/R6 almost redress the balance, and because of its radial engine.

Juha


----------



## Juha (Jul 11, 2011)

Shortround6 said:


> ....It makes the P-39 data rather suspect without a second source.
> 
> see http://www.zenoswarbirdvideos.com/Images/P-39/P39TOCLC.pdf
> 
> For climb using military power.



Hello Shortround
you have already given a second source, Ray Wagner's American Combat Planes, which gives P-39N top speed 399mph at 9700ft, climb 15,000ft/3.8min and for P-39Q, no info on block number but the accompanied photo shows under wing .5 mgs, 385mph at 11,000ft and climb 15,000'/4.5min.

Juha


----------



## CORSNING (Jul 11, 2011)

Juha,
You are absolutely right about the Il-2 crew fearing the 190's firepower. No one can second guess you for picking the 109. It was a very respected aircraft by the VVS.


----------



## CORSNING (Jul 11, 2011)

I've moved to a different room in the house, so my files are a little....no they are a total mess. It is hard for me to find what I'm looking for right now. I hope to rectify that this weekend so that I can put together a side by side comparison between the La-5FN and the BF.109. I have plenty of info on the 109 but it would help if someone could tell me which model (G-1, G-2, G-6) I should be searching for......any ideas guys.


----------



## CORSNING (Jul 11, 2011)

I forgot to redress the better performance at higher altitudes of the P-39N over its predecessors. A new supercharger gear. I'm taking a SWAG here because I can't find the file...yet, but it stepped up from 8.8 to 9.6 (boy that's a real guess) allowing it to retain its performance at higher altitudes.


----------



## Juha (Jul 11, 2011)

CORSNING said:


> I've moved to a different room in the house, so my files are a little....no they are a total mess. It is hard for me to find what I'm looking for right now. I hope to rectify that this weekend so that I can put together a side by side comparison between the La-5FN and the BF.109. I have plenty of info on the 109 but it would help if someone could tell me which model (G-1, G-2, G-6) I should be searching for......any ideas guys.


 
Hello Corsning
G-4 and G-6 were the main sub-types in 43. Because the main difference between G-2 and G-4 was the better radio in G-4, G-2 performance was the same as that of G-4. before Oct 43 max allowed boost pressure was 1.3ata but on July 43, when 1.42ata T/O and emergency rating was briefly allowed

Juha


----------



## CORSNING (Jul 11, 2011)

Thank you Juha,
I'll probably use the G-2 or G-6 performance because I'm not sure I have anything on the G-4.....I might but no promise.
I apologize ahead of time guys because all this computer stuff an using this sight are new to me. The best I can do is decipher graphs and and post results at this time.


----------



## DonL (Jul 11, 2011)

I also see the Bf 109 G6 as the preferd model. But please a G6 in fighter configuration without external weapons, like the 2 151/20 Gondeln. At the eastfront the Bf 109 G6 was much more flown as pure fighter instead against heavy bombers.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 11, 2011)

Juha said:


> Hello Shortround
> you have already given a second source, Ray Wagner's American Combat Planes, which gives P-39N top speed 399mph at 9700ft, climb 15,000ft/3.8min and for P-39Q, no info on block number but the accompanied photo shows under wing .5 mgs, 385mph at 11,000ft and climb 15,000'/4.5min.
> 
> Juha



Thank you but something still isn't right. Many other sources give 376mph at 15,000ft for N and 357mph at 10,000ft using military power. Granted the WEP is 1420hp instead of 1125hp but according to the cube law you need 1564hp to hit 399mph at 10,000ft if I did the math right. 1420hp should get you to 385mph. This is assuming the drag coefficient stays constant.

The Climb graph in "America's Hundred Thousand" shows a climb rate of about 3300fpm using "combat power" (1420hp) up to a bit over 10,000ft at which point it falls off to about 2500fpm at 15000ft. Time to 15,000ft is about 5 minutes. This is for a weight of 7,570lbs. Now maybe this is a bit low but 3.8minutes to 15,000ft is nipping at the heels of a MK IX Spitfire with a Merlin 66 using 18lbs of boost. The planes are within a few hundred pounds of each other but the Merlin is making 1710-1750hp at low altitude, it falls a bit but after shifting to high gear it is good for 1580-1625hp at 12,500ft. At that altitude the Allison should be good for about 1275hp. While the Spitfire does have more drag than a P-39, the Spitfire is going to have to have an awful lot of drag to cancel out it's power advantage in climb. 

The Figures for the "Q" don't sound too bad but since the N and the Q used the same engine for all practical purposes and since the Q basically swapped 4 internal .30cal guns for two podded .50 cal guns that performance drop for the Q doesn't sound quite right. It isn't until the -20 block that the Q really starts to out on any weight compared to an N and that is compensated by the fact that form the _20 on the wing .50s are not installed.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 12, 2011)

CORSNING said:


> I have checked several sights and reference books on the performance of the P-63. I have an extremely hard time believing what they have published: P-63A - 1,500hp. Max speed: 410mph. Climb: 25,000ft/7.3min. Normal Gross Weight: 8,800 lbs.
> P-63C - 1,800hp.W.I. Max speed: 410mph. 25,000ft/8.6min. Normal Gross Weight: 8,800 lbs. Odd, isn't it. So the speed on what appears to be a military graph do not surprise me at all. You mentioned in post 99 that the figures on the graph don't show up anyplace else. Yea, you're right. Now the real question is, WHY NOT? The graph performance actually seems the most realistic compared to any published figures I've seen yet.



Part of the problem with the P-63 is that it used two engines that would up being almost identical in power output. The -93 engine in the "A" was not initially cleared for use with water injection but was at a later date. The -117 engine in the "C" was always cleared for water injection. Both engines were rated at 54in MAP for military power 91325hp, both were rated at 60in dry (1500hp)and both were rated at 75in wet (1820hp). That is were the extra 320hp for the -117 comes from. Once the -93 was cleared for water injection it was good for 1820hp. 
The next problem is that these are sea level ratings. power started to drop as altitude was gained. by the time a P-65 got to 15,000ft it had about 1500hp wet, about 1325hp dry and and about 1250-1275 Military. By the time you get to 25,000 ft there is little or no difference between military power and anything else. the supercharger cannot supply any more pressure than the military rating. Use of water injection can boost power a little due to the cooler intake air being a bit denser but the manifold pressure is nearly the same. 
Performance data for the "A" and "C" can vary due to when it was taken and under what conditions. Once the "A"s are cleared to use water injection there won't be much difference in performance. 
The US also changed climb performance measurement. Many planes were rated using take-off/military power for 5 minutes with power dropped back to max continuous for the remainder of the climb. 
Some planes were rated using take-off/military power for the entire climb and others were rated using combat power (WEP).
Unless the chart or author specifies what power was used things can get very confusing.


----------



## parsifal (Jul 12, 2011)

great info on the p-39 guys.......I am awed and amazed


----------



## Juha (Jul 12, 2011)

Hello Shortround
I know that even Pilot’s Flight Operating Instructions for Army Model P-39Q-1 Airplane gives 385mph for P-39Q and 379mph for -39N, which is odd because systems and weight graphs/tables in the booklet incl the underwing mg pods for the Q, the main difference between the subtypes at that stage and IMHO the 4 integral wing .300 mgs were less draggy than 2 underwing .5 mg pods and the engine was the same.

I know the graph in Dean’s book, but even if I valued my copy of the book very much the same Graph 21 gives a time of climb graph for P-39N and Q at 7570lb at combat OR military power, which is odd.

On the other hand a Soviet speed graph gives P-39Q-15 with 100oct fuel max speed of appr. 601km/h (373.5mph) at appr. 5000m but the same graph gives max speed for Spit LF IX (Merlin 66) as 642km/h (399mph) at appr 6285m.

Juha


----------



## CORSNING (Jul 15, 2011)

Sorry it took me so long to get back. Finding performance figures at 1,000m intervals that are realistic for the La-5FN wasn't easy. There is plenty on the Bf.109 so it was hard to figure out which were used on the eastern front in 1943 but I think I've come pretty close. I chose the Bf.109G-2 because its performance in 1943 from info I have was slightly better than the G-6. But you have to keep in mind it was using 7.9mm machine guns instead of the G-6's 13mm (at least at that time and place).
Information on the Bf.109G-2 comes from the following sources:
1. Warplanes of the Third Reich.
2. Finnish Air Force performance trials (MT-215.?).
3. What appears to be VVS performance comparison graphs.
Information on the La-5FN comes from the following sources:
1. Soviet Air Force Fighter Colours 1941-1945 by Erik Pilawskii.
2. What appears to be VVS performance comparison graphs.
Performance speed/climb:

Altitude Bf.109G-2 La-5FN
S.L 326mph/4,590fpm 366mph/3,985fpm
1,000m 348mph/4,192fpm 375mph/4,330fpm
2,000m 364mph/4,861fpm 385mph/3,857fpm
3,000m 374mph/3,660fpm 384mph/3,325fpm
4,000m 380mph/3,385fpm 382mph/2,853fpm
5,000m 382mph/3,385fpm 380mph/2,750fpm
6,000m 396mph/2,972fpm 392mph/2,253fpm
7,000m 413mph/2,696fpm 381mph/1,805fpm

The only big problem I had was both their climb rates at 1,000m. I believe the Bf.109G-2 is underestimated and the La-5FN is overestimated at that altitude. But I chose not to deviate from the documents on the 109 and not to deviate from the graph on the 5FN.
The 109 is using a maximum boost of 1.42ata and the 5FN is using its 10 minute boost.


----------



## CORSNING (Jul 15, 2011)

There is a few things to add about the La-5FN in September 1943. It began to be produced with all the refinements built in and not just piece work on the assembly line as it was in May 1943. Its aileron response now exceeded the Yak-9, control harmony was excellent and stick forces were light and effective right through the flight envelope. I'm not going to elaborate on the Bf.109G-2 because I've read too many posts on this sight that tell me there are other people WAY better qualified than I on that subject.


----------



## claidemore (Jul 15, 2011)

Whoa there bubalooie! 
Bf109G2 climb rates are nowhere near 4000 ft/min, definately not over that number. 109K4 with 1.98 ata could do that, but a G2 or G4 is going to be about 3600 ft/min @ low alt, based on G1 stats from this page Kurfürst - Mtt. AG. Datenblatt, Me 109 G - 1. Ausführung 
A 109G6 could reach 20000ft in a little over 6.5 minutes, or an average of 3027 ft/min climb rate. A 109G2 would be about 3400 ft/min average climb rate to 20000 feet.
Check this page: Kurfürst - Flugleistungen Me 109G - Baureihen
The speeds you have listed for the 109 look about right, but maybe there was a calculation in the climb rates going from metric?
I don't believe 1.42 ata was released until September of 43 (I think October is a generally agreed on time) as well.

For the La5FN it should be [email protected] level, and 5.2 minutes to 5000 meters, which equates to 3153 ft/min averate to 16000 ft. 
for quick reference these links: Lavochkin La-5FN Russian Aviation Museum

Basically a G2 would have an advantage and a G6 would be at a disadvantage in climb rate vs an La5FN until late 1943.


----------



## CORSNING (Jul 16, 2011)

claidemore,
I am no where near an authority on on the Bf.109. Kurfurst is without a doubt THE authority on that subject. I knew I was going to be stepping into IT BIG TIME. BUT Kurfurst is where a lot of the info came from. (Sorry for not asking first Kurfurst). OK, lets start with the 109. William Green in Warplanes of the Third Reich lists the Bf.109G-2's initial climb rate at 4,590fpm. Climb to 2,000m/1.5min.(4,373fpm.avg.).
13,120ft/3.2min.(4,100fpm.avg). Finnish Air Force performance trials MT-215 give the G-2 a climb to 1,000m of .8min.(4,100fpm.avg.). And just for icing on the cake Rechlin E'stelle Test Nr. 1586 lists the climb rate of the Bf.109G-1 at: 4,113fpm/S.L. 4,113fpm/1,000m. 4,113fpm/2,000m. Like I said, I am no authority on the Bf.109. That is why I did some heavy research.
Now as for the La-5FN, I saw the graph floating around this sight: 4,337fpm/S.L and 4,330fpm/1,000m. However, I decided to go with the author of Soviet Air Force Fighter Colours 1941-1945, Erik Pilawskii. He is a scholar of Russian aircraft of WW2 and has spent many years in Russia researching. He began his studies there in 1987 and was granted access to previously inaccessible key Soviet archival collections. He published the figure 3,985fpm as the initial climb rate and I have no intention of second guessing him. Lets say the La-5FN performance was as flexible as VVS earlier aircraft and deviated as much as 5%. That would open the door for an initial climb rate of as much as 4185fpm. Sorry but 4,300fpm was La-7 territory.


----------



## CORSNING (Jul 16, 2011)

Tid bits: The "standard" La-5FN of late 1943 could reach 5,000m/4.6min. (3,565fpm.avg.). Since early spring of 1942 the Bf.109G-1 and on had provisions for GM-1 boost. The Bf.109G-2 at 6,834 lbs. could reach 19,685ft/5.1min.(3,860fpm.avg). In 1943 the 109 on the eastern front was the Climbing King. Challenged only by the P-39N at some lower altitudes. Most of the fighting was at these lower altitudes and that is what made the Airacobra so valuable to the VVS. The 39 could hold its own in the vertical plane and had an edge in the horizontal. Two points of 1943: 1. The 109 was ruler of the sky over 6,000m. but that is not were the vast majority of action was on the eastern front. 2. At low and medium altitudes the 39N was in its glory and could hold its own (or better) to anything it met in 1943. Of course this all changed later in 1944, but we are talking about 1943. The Russians were flying to win so they did "push" their Allison motors. So keep in mind, any published figures you see for the P-39N/Q are not quite up to the figures that VVS pilots were squeezing out of their Airacobras.


----------



## CORSNING (Jul 16, 2011)

I've been thinking. Yea, it hurts when I do that. I looked at the pole results so far, and it just isn't right. The 109, 190, 5FN and the Yak-9 were all excellent fighters in 1943. They all did there job. But the p-39N was as rugged and resilient as the 190 even though it was a liquid cooled engine. I've already stated its superiority in performance. The 109 had its advantages, but the N had the ability at lower altitudes to neutralize them and gain control. I need to study the La-5 (7,323 lbs) more before I even make a SWAG. But, the Airacobra (6,900-7,000 lbs) could outclimb it, at least dive with it and had a 37mm punch. I need to do more reading before I can say it was as maneuverable. But the US P-39N minus about the 500 lbs that the Russians ditched was a very maneuverable aircraft. It was no longer the overweight, underpowered Airacobra of 1941-42. Just ask the F-4U pilot that flew in trials against one.


----------



## CORSNING (Jul 16, 2011)

A lot of people aren't aware of the fact that a P-39 had the same sustained turn rate of a P-40........TRUE STORY.


----------



## starling (Jul 17, 2011)

Yak9 for me.built in huge numbers:from 42 onwards,good armament,cheers.


----------



## parsifal (Jul 17, 2011)

good to see ya starling. Havent seen you for a while now.....


----------



## CORSNING (Jul 17, 2011)

Hi starling. The Yak-9 was the most overall maneuverable aircraft on the pole in the horizontal plane. Its roll rate was close enough to Fw-190 to allow its it to use its superior turn and vertical abilities to full effect. 1,260hp in a 6,320 lbs. aircraft. 323mph/S.L. 372mph/13,760ft. 5,000m/5.1min. It had the performance needed at low/medium levels. In 1943 it was dynamic (quick acceleration/deceleration).


----------



## P-40K-5 (Jul 18, 2011)

parsifal said:


> great info on the p-39 guys.......I am awed and amazed


 
Chuck Yeager said @ 100ft, nothing could touch the P-39!


----------



## Altea (Jul 19, 2011)

parsifal said:


> come on guys, we are alll adults here.....dont let a good discussion fall to pieces because of a difference of opinion.....



No it wont' happen
A *difference of opinions * should always be an *enrichment*, not an *annoyance*, but olny with people that have something to say.


That excludes DonL -Bada: it would be difficult to them to demonstrate to an educated engeneer how a plane of 4070 (4270)/ 18.3 = 222 kg/m² WL and 4070/1700 2.39 kg/hp Power Loading could deal (on a dogfight) with another of 3290/17.6 = 187 kg/m² WL and only 3290/1850 = 1.78 kg/hp PL!!!
Just to say it's a *huge *difference, in the world of aeronautics.

About diving: at least at first moments the La-5 FN should be better due to the higher acceleration (because of the old well known Newton law F = m "gamma", cf P.L.), then FW and *only after*, taking the advantage because of the bigger weight and (mightbe) sturdier stucture.

About roll, the La-5 had big ailerons (1.32 or... 1.62 m² depending on sources) proportionaly to it's wing aera, and shorter wingspan (9.8 vs 10.5). So good roll rate.
Better than FW-190's? I can't be sure, but surely better radial acceleration and command respunse due to lower inertia moments on it's tapered wing (all loads being concentrated on the wing root). This couldn' be said to a FW-190 carriying weapons on a lot of plane's parts (wing size) far away (all is relative...) from it's GC.
Anyway compare 747's roll rate and Pitt's or CAP -232 one's.

I'm not pro- or anti- someting or something esle, j'm just saying that comparing planes it's not a matter of taste (i like lemon, not choklate), but physics...

Regards


----------



## CORSNING (Jul 19, 2011)

Hi Altea,
At least half of the info I have posted about VVS aircraft is from Erik Pilawskii'S book mentioned in post 105. The La-5 and Yak-9


----------



## CORSNING (Jul 19, 2011)

Woops!, slight of hand. Sorry guys.

Hi Altea,
I'll pick up where I stumbled from. The La-5FN and Yak-9 were very close in roll rates. Neither was quite up the Fw-190 standards under 325mph. Both of their successors were though, La-7 and Yak-3. I am not sure how close the P-39N came to the -5FN or -9. Removing the wing guns of the 39 did increase its roll rate but I have not found a graph yet that says how much.


----------



## claidemore (Jul 19, 2011)

Yup, totally agree Altea. Of course as soon as you post some numbers to prove the physics, the "_plane of their choice_"-ophile will challenge it and ask for sources, discredit the source (usually with a claim of bias or propaganda basis), provide another source, prove you're wrong with an anecdote, or just flat out tell you that you are wrong!  
Not always the most educational discussions, but certainly entertaining!


----------



## Altea (Jul 19, 2011)

Hello?



> CORSNING said:
> 
> 
> > Woops!, slight of hand. Sorry guys.
> ...


----------



## Altea (Jul 19, 2011)

claidemore said:


> Yup, totally agree Altea. Of course as soon as you post some numbers to prove the physics, the "_plane of their choice_"-ophile will challenge it and ask for sources, *discredit the source* (usually with a claim of bias or propaganda basis), provide another source, prove you're wrong with an anecdote, or just flat out tell you that you are wrong!
> Not always the most educational discussions, but certainly entertaining!



Discredit my source? Maybe soviet communist propaganda inflated La5-FN power, reduced real size and weight? 
Unfortunately to them there are some Shvetsov M-82 flying till now, and La-7, Yak-3 etc. in museums.

And what about Marcel Albert, the american capitalistic buisinessmen, opinion about Yak-1/3/9 vs FW-190A (and tests, he flew both of them as the 109 afterwar). And so for the royalist (even anti-republican) nobleman _Marquis_ de la Poype.

Biaised by soviet propaganda too, as Tchekh La-5FN pilots, that hate soviet system?

Anyway; let's see


----------



## parsifal (Jul 19, 2011)

Theres nothing wrong with cross examination of the evidence, its just when its so one eyed, and takes the form of personal attack that I object


----------



## Altea (Jul 20, 2011)

CORSNING said:


> A lot of people aren't aware of the fact that a P-39 had the same sustained turn rate of a P-40........TRUE STORY.



From soviet tests, sure. The D-2 tested in april 1942 performed the full serial sustainted turn in only 17.7 - 18,7 secunds at 1 km height. An astonishing result!
Unfortunatly we're lacking some more precision about test conditions, weight and power used...

The P-40C turned in 18s in october 41, the P-40E in 19.2s in july 42.

Both were hugely beatten the soviet FW-190A-5 that performed it in full 22-23s.

Regards

It_ seems _anyway that due to a lower WL, the P-40 made turns in shorter radius and... of course at lower speed.

Regards


----------



## CORSNING (Jul 20, 2011)

Altea,
I have degenerative arthritis in the spine of my neck. That coupled with gout causes my hands to lock up when I'm typing sometimes. When I hit the wrong letter key, I can correct it. When I hit the wrong Enter key....well, you get my post #127. Sorry.
La-5 and Yak-9 close in roll to Fw-190? I have no exact graph (wish I did), but the graph at wwiiaircraftperformance.org show that the 190 begins to be eclipsed by other aircraft starting around 325mph. Close is in my post #124. No graph, just from what I have read in Erik's book and Conversation with N. Glodnikov.
I consider these two to be "valuable data". I would agree with anyone that having an actual military graph or document is a more accuate measure.
I truly love seeing accurate documents, even when they prove my opinion is wrong. That's just the way to learn when your not an earonautical engineer.


----------



## CORSNING (Jul 20, 2011)

I have read a few places that wing guns and other equipment was removed from the P-39. One of the benifits listed is a better roll rate...??? As I said, I am not an aeronautical engineer. Sooooo, is this correct or not? I'm asking because I don't know personally.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 20, 2011)

I am not an aeronautical engineer either but I think we may be getting confused between roll rate and roll acceleration. Roll rate being the maximum number of degrees per second that the plane would roll at a given speed and roll acceleration being how fast it reaches that roll rate. And perhaps how fast it can stop rolling? Most planes in combat are not going to perform consecutive barrel rolls but how fast they can go from level flight to a 60 degree or better bank to do a hard turn is important. Or go from a steep left bank to a steep right bank. A plane with quick roll acceleration (response) but a slightly lower peak roll rate may have an advantage over a plane with a higher roll rate that takes a bit longer to reach it's peak roll rate. Pulling guns and weight from the wings should reduce the inertia and increase the roll acceleration even of it does not change the ultimate roll rate.


----------



## CORSNING (Jul 20, 2011)

Thank you Shortround6. That all makes sense to me.
Altea,
As I said, the roll acceleration (thanks again Shortround) in the -5FN and Yak-9 was close enough to allow them to use their other maneuvers to full advantage against the Fw-190.


----------



## Altea (Jul 21, 2011)

Hello,



CORSNING said:


> Altea,
> I have degenerative arthritis in the spine of my neck. That coupled with gout causes my hands to lock up when I'm typing sometimes. When I hit the wrong letter key, I can correct it. When I hit the wrong Enter key....well, you get my post #127. Sorry.


I feel sorry for you...




> La-5 and Yak-9 close in roll to Fw-190? I have no exact graph (wish I did), but the graph at wwiiaircraftperformance.org show that the 190 begins to be eclipsed by other aircraft starting around 325mph. Close is in my post #124. No graph, just from what I have read in Erik's book and Conversation with N. Glodnikov.


Golodnikov's OK!
I didn't knew that Pilawky pretends himself as an expert in mechanics of flight

Yak-9 and La-5 are not exactly the same plane, aileron's size is bigger proportionaly to the wing size on the La-5. It's wing span is smaller.

http://mig3.sovietwarplanes.com/lagg3/structure/structure.htm

About the roll acceleration i have little doubts that La-5 was better due to momentum effects. The CG of its wing located closer to the root, and a lot of aileron aera on the wing tips. So the La-5's wing with *no doubt* is opposing lower resistance to aileron's work for roll start, or roll stop.

About the peak roll, there should be a discussion.
1) the FW had bigger ailerons to wing size ratio.
2) In the La-5 they were larger to wing chord, and better located. 

3) La-5 wings were shorter: 9,79 to 10.51 m.
Reducing Yak-55 wing span from 9 to 8.1m (-10%), increases the roll rate from 240°/s to 360°/s (+ 50%)! This seems to be a major factor.


Regards

PS, thanks to shortround


----------



## CORSNING (Jul 21, 2011)

Altea, don't you or anyone else ever feel sorry for me.. I met a woman twelve years ago that put more into my life than 95% of the people who ever lived will ever have. I have a very simple thing. She had it too but hers was operable mine wasn't. As long as I have her and great teachers on this sight, I'm good to go.:8)


----------



## CORSNING (Jul 21, 2011)

I almost forgot. Shortround has given me some static, but it was well deserved. You both seem like some pretty cool dudes with some real knowledge to share. I'm going to enjoy reading both your posts in the future. Thanks to both you guys.


----------



## CORSNING (Jul 21, 2011)

OK then, back on track. I read the whole thing but I'm sticking with the P-39. Top of the rugged scale with 1,500 lbs. of Allison rear armor protection for the pilot. Overall speed that when VVS push more than hung in there. Overall maneuverability on vertical/horizontal plane that gave it options and a 37mm blast at short range unequaled. At least at the altitudes involved.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 22, 2011)

Corsning, please use the *Edit* function from now on. It prevents you from having 3 to 5 posts right after one another. If you realize you forgot something, just hit the edit button and add it in.


----------



## CORSNING (Jul 22, 2011)

Sorry Adler, I'll give it a try. I'm not the most computer literate.


----------



## Altea (Jul 23, 2011)

Hello CORSNING, you're welcome




> CORSNING
> OK then, back on track. I read the whole thing but I'm sticking with the P-39. Top of the rugged scale with 1,500 lbs. of Allison rear armor protection for the pilot. Overall speed that when VVS push more than hung in there. Overall maneuverability on vertical/horizontal plane that gave it options and a 37mm blast at short range unequaled. At least at the altitudes involved.



The engine weight close to plane's CG also improves manoeuvrability, reducing inertia moments as time of respunse on commands.

Once this said, P-39 D was a very good plane for 1942 for the eastern front, but in 1943 it was overpassed by other soviet fighters at low alts.

La-5 reached 562 km/h at SL in may 1942 (530-550 for serial planes). Yak-9 T (T for tyajeli -heavy canon) 533 km/h at SL at nominal (max continious). Not a single P-39 made better than 500 km at SL even at CP 5 min rews, because it had no low alt blower as soviet planes, only one row, one speed blower for 4000m alt.
La-5/5F/5FN had two speed blowers, one optimised for 1650 m on first stage, ~ 5500 for the secund, the Klimov 105PF at 800m, the 105 PF-2 at 0300 m on first stage!

So they were real *low-alt fighters*, P-39 only a *mid alt *one.

The Yak-9T had a more powerfull 37mm, with high initial speed that could be used against armor. That was not the P-39's canon case.
Once amnution fired, the P-39 was dangerous to stall with vicious spin, cause aft CG to mean chord.

A good plane, underquated in west, but still _not the panacea_ !

Regards


----------



## CORSNING (Jul 23, 2011)

Altea,
In 1943 the VVS began using the P-39N. Much improved over the D model and very much comparable to any other aircraft listed on this thread....at least up to around 6,500ms. You are absolutely right in saying others performed much better higher up. But on the subject of the Yak-9T: Performance was down from the standard -9 because of weight of the cannon.


----------



## CORSNING (Jul 23, 2011)

Altea,
As I stated earlier and posted the USAAF figures, the P-39N with USAAF equipment had a sea level speed of 544km/hr. VVS pilots pulled wing guns and equipment to improve roll, maneuverability and SPEED. I do not have any proof (at this time) as too how far they improved speed. So in my imaginary world I am SWAGing that number at sea level may have been 555-565km/hr. But just an FYI: I have seen the elevation of Moscow listed from 530ft. to 810ft. So once again I'm guessing that not much fighting went on at sea level. Ground level yes.


----------



## DonL (Jul 23, 2011)

> A difference of opinions should always be an enrichment, not an annoyance, but olny with people that have something to say.
> 
> 
> That excludes DonL -Bada:



I don't think that you can estimate what I have to say and my knowledge about aviation in WWII!



> it would be difficult to them to demonstrate to an educated engeneer how a plane of 4070 (4270)/ 18.3 = 222 kg/m² WL and 4070/1700 2.39 kg/hp Power Loading could deal (on a dogfight) with another of 3290/17.6 = 187 kg/m² WL and only 3290/1850 = 1.78 kg/hp PL!!!
> Just to say it's a huge difference, in the world of aeronautics.



First of all, history had proved, that the FW 190A-5 in 1943 was more then an equal match for the La-5FN, or do you have primary sources, which indcate massive losses of the FW 190A-5 in 1943 to the La-5FN. No german Jagdgeschwader had documented that, other then the Jagdgeschwader of Defending of the Reich compare to the Bf 109G with P47, P38 and P51B!

Now to the technology aspekt. If your stated suggestion was right how on earth could a P38 and P47 match with a Bf 109G?
The BF 109G had the much better WL and kg/hp then the two other birds but wasn't automaticly the winner if anything the contrary.
Your statement is wrong!
A dogfight in WWII isn't automatically a turnfight! And acceleration is important but many other things too!
You can't negate this to WL and hp/kg! That are indicators, but nothing more.
Engine altitude performance, dive, controls of a fighter at high speed maneuvers and controls of the engine are other very important indicators!

As the primary sources from Hans-Werner Lerche stated, the La-5FN had problems with high speed maneuvers, cause the forces on control surfaces became excessive. The controls of the engines at different flight attitude were very difficult to handle and the La-5FN had clear disadvantages in dives and at altitudes above 4000m compare to the FW 190A-5!



> I'm not pro- or anti- someting or something esle, j'm just saying that comparing planes it's not a matter of taste (i like lemon, not choklate), but physics...



I realy doubt that, I think you have a clear agenda!


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 24, 2011)

CORSNING said:


> Altea,
> As I stated earlier and posted the USAAF figures, the P-39N with USAAF equipment had a sea level speed of 544km/hr. VVS pilots pulled wing guns and equipment to improve roll, maneuverability and SPEED. I do not have any proof (at this time) as too how far they improved speed. So in my imaginary world I am SWAGing that number at sea level may have been 555-565km/hr. But just an FYI: I have seen the elevation of Moscow listed from 530ft. to 810ft. So once again I'm guessing that not much fighting went on at sea level. Ground level yes.



Difference in air density is about 2% per 1000ft. difference between sea level and 700ft is the difference between a low pressure day and a high pressure day. Most performance trials were corrected to a "standard" condition. That is a difference between air pressure on a given day (or altitude of site) or temperature should have been figured into the test results. See some of the take-off and climb charts at World War II Pilot Training Videos Playing Live For Free Over the Internet

for the differences even 20 degrees can make. 

There is something strange going on with pulling weight to make a plane go faster. Many sources/stories say increase weight caused many planes to slow down (sometimes a lot) But "America's Hundred Thousand " says that increasing the weight of a P-51 by 1000lb would only slow it down by 3mph. That is with no change in external drag except the increased angle of attack needed for the extra lift. Ditching external gun pods probably does more for drag reduction than just the weight difference. Ditching the internal .30s does get rid of protruding barrels. Holes in leading edge of wing and perhaps the case and link chutes and holes in the bottom of the wing? 

It may get to the same point in the end but I think a proper idea of what was actually going on allows for a better analysis.
Lower drag=more speed.
Lower weight= better climb. 
There is a bit of cross over of course


----------



## michaelmaltby (Jul 24, 2011)

When the Soviets first started pulling guns from the Cobra - they were pulling internally mounted 30's. The mix of three types of gun: 37, 50's (all in the nose) with the wing-mounted 30's can't have been the best for a close-in firing solution, IMHO . 

Weight-loss aside - the P-39 with _just_ nose armement was best-suited to the Soviet fighterpilots' style.

MM


----------



## CORSNING (Jul 24, 2011)

A good plane, underquated in west, but still not the panacea !-Altea


Underquated? Not wanted because of low ceiling and short(er) range. This did not apply in Russia front.
Panacea? Of course not, no plane is. BUT the F4U-4 and P-38L came close.
I have just been saying that in Russia in 1943, the P-39N was dependable and had excellent performance. Its the closes thing to the Panacea at that time and place. It was there in spades when it was needed most.


----------



## Altea (Jul 25, 2011)

Shortround6 said:


> The only way loss statistics
> 
> 
> > many any sense
> ...



1) What makes sense it's *to have* statistics first, that's not obviously P-40K-'s case...
2) From my numbers*, one La-5, F, FN, lost every 194 combat missions
For Yaks it was 1:168 at the same period.
On other hand, accident rate was heavier on the La-5's family. 

Good post of yours

* A i V magazine from automn 43, to late spring 44, something like that

Regards


----------



## Altea (Jul 25, 2011)

Shortround6 said:


> Thank you but something still isn't right. Many other sources give 376mph at 15,000ft for N and 357mph at 10,000ft using military power. Granted the WEP is 1420hp instead of 1125hp but according to the cube law you need 1564hp to hit 399mph at 10,000ft if I did the math right. 1420hp should get you to 385mph. This is assuming the drag coefficient stays constant.
> 
> etc...
> .



Hello, 

In the absolute you're right... for a train!
The cube law is applied on a plane both for the drag, and lift! 
In order to not climb, once pushed to 1420 hp, you will have to reduce the AoA, improving Cd due to induced drag reduction.
I can't say more for the P-39 N without speed polars. 
But imagine a current 10 to 1 glide ratio. 90% of the power increase would be converted to lift, 10% to drag!

Anyway, that smelt a manufacturer advertising, as for the 631 km/h instead of 573/578 promissed for british Cobra's ...before the RAE/AFDU tests!

Well, Bell company is far for being the exception in that case!

Regards

PS Elsewere, i trust you in saying that power increase does much for improving turn or climb rate (it's the same thing: a turn is a climb at high-g factor (apparent weight)), few for the speed.


----------



## Altea (Jul 25, 2011)

CORSNING said:


> Altea,
> As I stated earlier and posted the USAAF figures, the P-39N with USAAF equipment h*ad a sea level speed of 544km/hr.* VVS pilots pulled wing guns and equipment to improve roll, maneuverability and SPEED. I do not have any proof (at this time) as too how far they improved speed. So in my imaginary world I am SWAGing that number at sea level may have been 555-565km/hr. But just an FYI: I have seen the elevation of Moscow listed from 530ft. to 810ft. So once again I'm guessing that not much fighting went on at sea level. Ground level yes.



Hello

Unfortunatly, no such speeds were revealed nor by soviet LII neither NII tests. Even in manufacturer chart, giving something as 531 at S.L. annd 601 at heignt. 
The P-39Q-15 tested in june of 1944 gave this data above.

482 km/h at SL with american or soviet (B-95M ...) 100 oct fuel, at C.P.
468 with soviet 94-95 (B-78 M 3 or 4) fuel mark*.
The rate of turn decreased and it took full 20-21s to complete a sustainted 360° turn

*4Б-78 и 1Б-95 in russian

Higher regimes seemed to not be used, due to some reliability (MTTF, MTBR...) problems.







Regards

PostScriptum: the SL speed is just the prolongation of the curve.
I have made some tests on hanglider polars, some many years ago, never obtained a curve, just clauds of points, i had to smooth by statsistical methods to obtain a curve!
And this with *calibrated* Ball, Windmaster instruments that WWII pilots even could dream about such a precision/quality.

So all testsof that period (some with political, economical pressure and a lot of arrengements between friends...) may need a cautious approach.


----------



## CORSNING (Jul 25, 2011)

Altea,
I've seen this graph and several others with the same IDs at the bottom. I even took some (not all) performance figures for the La-5FN from them. BUT, although the Russian government wanted all the P-39 they could get, they frowned on the fact that some of their best aces chose to stay with the P-39 instead of switching to a domestic aircraft. I will look up some examples if I have to. 
I chose not to take all the figures for the -5FN climb because these charts had its initial climb listed at 4,337fpm (just a tad bit overrated). Like I said earlier, that is La-7 territory. I'm not saying the Russian
government didn't post the truth. I just don't think they posted all of it.
Now for a few statements by Nikolay Gerasimovitch Golodnikov (Conversations with N. Golodnikov):
You have to keep in mind that these are opinions of Major-General (Ret.) Golodnikov and not highly contained comparison trial.:
"The Cobra, especially the Q-5, took second place to no one, and even surpassed all the German fighters.
The Cobra was not inferior in speed, in acceleration, nor in vertical or horizontal maneuverability. It was a very balanced fighter.
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 (109) and Fokkers (190), or you flew it in a way that guaranteed 120 hrs. of engine life.
The Messer engine had a supercharger. It had exceptional acceleration, if the pilot " firewalled" it. But I couldn't describe its speed as outstanding. It was fast, but our aircraft had just as much speed.
The strong points of the Fw-190: 1. Powerful and high-altitude capable engine. 2. Powerful cannon armament. 3. Good dive characteristics. 4. Light on the controls. 5. Good visibility from the cockpit. 
The weak points: Average acceleration. The acceleration dynamic of the fokker was perhaps its weakest characteristic.
The Fokker also was not equal to the Airacobra in the vertical, although they initally attempted to fight with us in the vertical plane. We also quickly broke them of this havit. I still don't understand why they decided that the Fokker could outperform the Airacobra in the vertical."


----------



## Altea (Aug 2, 2011)

> DonL said:
> 
> 
> > I don't think that you can estimate what I have to say and my knowledge about aviation in WWII!
> ...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 2, 2011)

And it was only a matter of time...

We never can have a thread that stays peaceful.


----------



## bada (Aug 2, 2011)

Altea said:


> I never wrote about your knowledge about aviation history, only the low general (technical scientific) level of your posts.
> 
> 
> > Hey altea!
> ...


----------



## parsifal (Aug 2, 2011)

Oh Dear.........


----------



## Altea (Aug 3, 2011)

> Hey altea!
> 
> Sorry man, not eveyone can have such a marvelous infinimous aerodynamics internet knowledge as you do


Thank you, this is too much, at least for _internet_.





> for two reasons:
> 1°: you took the wrong engine output for the la5FN, as it has 1230kw and only available under 2000m


I took the 1943 ASh 82 FN, used since march in Lavotchkin fighters.

1850 hp (PS in fact) at 2400 rpm at 1180 mmHg at SL for TO or 10min _forsage_
1630 at 2400 rpm at 1000 mmHg at 1650m nominal = max continuous.

It takes more than internet wikipedia knowledge sometimes you see to have the right numbers. 
1673 hp are mentionned nowhere in soviet charts. 1700 hp (PS) it's for the 1941-1942 M-82/82 F engines at SL at 2500 rpm and 1140 mmHg.



> 2° check the 190 factory documents about the take off distance and time. You'll see that tha big fat 190 with it's 4000kg took off in the tame time and the same dstance as the spitfire9....what plane has the better acceleration? Not bad for a 1338kw engine


1338 kw with 990 mmHp boost? I doubt so
Soviet trials on benchtest gave 1600 PS at 2700 rpm at 990mmHg fot TO. But it was for a 1942's engine. 
Maybe more in 1943: 1700 PS i guess, like it was written on engine plates, no more...
At least 1700 are *also* from derman docs, no?



> NOTE the power units used here (kw), as the PS and the HP are not the same units....


I now but 1 to 0.986 does not makes a huge difference





> Not for a german combat pilot, it seems.


For a russian, french or tchecoslovakian it seems stangely to be ok.
They were probably not handling the same Lavochkin plane...



> Several seconds needed when pushing several levers for a full acceleration makes the plane accelerate slower than the one where you only have to push one and where all the settings are directly interpreted by a "mechanical computer". See the NACA test on the kommandogerrät about the reaction times of the mechanism.


Explain again, what *several *levers for the La-5?



> same wooden krap.


As the DH Mosquito?




> If you really want to show your aero knowledge, please go here and simply show your math in the 190 section. Reactions will be fast


And they will explain me how a 522l FW 190 has three times range of 539l La-5?



> *DonL*, so, i'll go for an A5 anytime, triple flight time, "intelligent" flight commands,


BTW,why they do not come *here* to show their brilliant knowledge?


----------



## Tante Ju (Aug 4, 2011)

German BMW 801D-2 engine had output of 1800 HP (continental horse power - PS) after 1,42 ata clearance. This is for ground level output, static output.. 1730 etc PS listed - dynamic output. So BMW was very powerful engine in 1943. Expert says this clearing occured late 1942. Probably more in 1944 - 2000-2100 PS with injection.

Also to consider - response of engine to throttle. Direct injection engine had good throttle response, so power available quicker. Its only real power that accelerates. Take off on other hand is not very good measure of accelerate - it is effected, but, there is also other factor. Like flap etc.


----------



## parsifal (Aug 4, 2011)

Guys

where is all this aggro coming from. Different opinions are fine. We are just discussing the strengths and weakness of various aircraft, not refighting the eastern fropt allover again.


Mods are watching. I can tell you if this sort of abusive posting continues the likley outcome is 

1) the thread will be closed

2) one or more people will get banned

3) People reading these acidic posts are going to think we are all idiots


Just some friendly advice for everyone

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 4, 2011)

Listen to him...


----------



## Altea (Aug 4, 2011)

> Tante Ju said:
> 
> 
> > German BMW 801D-2 engine had output of 1800 HP (continental horse power - PS) after 1,42 ata clearance. This is for ground level output, static output.. 1730 etc PS listed - dynamic output. So BMW was very powerful engine in 1943. Expert says this clearing occured late 1942. Probably more in 1944 - 2000-2100 PS with injection.
> ...


----------



## claidemore (Aug 11, 2011)

Takeoff time or length of runway needed are not good measures of acceleration at all. 
Most single engined high performance planes and many twins will swerve due to torque if the throttle is firewalled, a gradual increase in speed with varying degrees of rudder correction are needed before going to full throttle or the plane ends up in the rough.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Altea (Aug 13, 2011)

Tante Ju said:


> Also to consider - response of engine to throttle. Direct injection engine had good throttle response, so power available quicker. Its only real power that accelerates. Take off on other hand is not very good measure of accelerate - it is effected, but, there is also other factor. Like flap etc.



Nothing new?

Well from soviet tests*:

Time to reach *0.95Vmax* from *0.7Vmax* at 1000 m height horizontal , in *minutes*.

1)Yak-9 with M-105PF-2: *0.88*
2)Yak-9 with M-107A: *0.45*
3)Me-109 G-2: *0.7*
4)FW-190 *1.12*

Speed increase from 0.7Vmax for 1 minute after putting on full gaz manifold, in *Km/h*

1) 144
2) 175
3) 150
4) 128

Time to decrease speed from 0.9Vmax to 07Vmax, in minutes

1) 0.35
2) 0.37
3) 0.48
4) 0.52

So?

- It's unsurprising that the FW-190 has the bigger inertia due to it's weight, and the poorest acceleration due to low power to weight ratio (hp/kg).

-Between all reasons that can lead to delay in acceleration the response to throttle exists, but at the last places by order of importance. 
The poorest engine respunse belongs to the klimov 107 A but it plays at 2-3 secund difference. 
The *main factor* is the power to weight ratio. I have already furnished the acceleration F=m "gamma" formula. So "gamma" is high when* F* (thrust (~ power) is high, and *m* low. 

I swear that the best Fiat Panda with a 45 hp FIRE (Fully Integrated Robotized Engine) even controlled with a Cray-One computer 1000 cc will *never *reach a 300 hp Ferrari acceleration, even with a single (big) carburettor taken from mower.

Unfortunately i don't have the *mesured *La-5 FN acceleration.

But we can make rough estimation; suppose both FW and La-5 are cruising on 300 km/h. Now they see each other, in order to fight they need to reach 600 km/h. 
To simplify they have the same Cd. 
You need to increase power by 2^3 and thrust by2²! 
It will make you the classical differential equation formula: 1 -exp (t) etc...So the La-5 will be 1.23 faster in speed acceleration and make more than some about minute difference, even if pilot is loosing some secunds more to adjust pressure, throttle and gaz...




* Yak fighters 
Stepanets
1992


----------



## CORSNING (Aug 13, 2011)

Nice Altea. It looks right to me.


----------

