# Bf109G-6 Question!



## gomwolf (Oct 13, 2013)

First of all, My english is not good. plz understand this.


Most of documents and flight sim game discribe Bf109G-6 had bad maneuvering. but I cannot understand. 

Bf109G-6's gross weight is only 3350kg. It has no GM-1 Booster, Pressuerized cabin. Everything changed from Bf109G-2 is FuG16 radio set and MG131 Maschinengewehr. 
The bulge reduced speed of G-6, but it didn't couse of bad maneuvering. 

What factor makes Bf109G-6's bad maneuvering? I cannot find about this.


----------



## Greyman (Oct 13, 2013)

'Bad Maneuvering' compared to which aircraft?

And what specific maneuvre are we comparing. Rarely is one fighter better than another in every single aspect of maneuverability.


----------



## GrauGeist (Oct 13, 2013)

I beleive they're referring to the difference in handling the design change created between the G-2 and the G-6 model


----------



## gomwolf (Oct 13, 2013)

Greyman// Bad maneuvering compare with Bf109G-2, Bf109G-4, Bf109G-10. and any maneuvering use elevator. Especially, Turning performance. 

Graugeist// but Bf109G-6 nothing chaged in aerodynamics. More stickforce? I don't know about that. But G-6 is Low speed maneuvering was bad too.


----------



## Denniss (Oct 13, 2013)

3350kg = G-6 with underwing MG 151/20 gondolas. Expect 100kg placed under each wing to have effect on handling.
There was no real handling difference between the G-6 and G-2, just a (little?) weight increase.


----------



## drgondog (Oct 13, 2013)

The Bf 109G-6 had excellent maneuverability and was competitive against any Allied fighter in the hands of a good pilot who played to its strengths against different aircraft.

That being said the MG151/20 reduced speed and roll from clean G-6'


----------



## stona (Oct 13, 2013)

gomwolf said:


> Most of documents and flight sim game discribe Bf109G-6 had bad maneuvering. but I cannot understand.



The Bf 109 G-6 should not be described as having bad manoeuvrability. Compared with other WW2 fighters it had relative strengths and weaknesses but the Bf 109 series was one of the best, most successful and most developed fighters of the entire war.

I think the comment probably comes from one of the Bf 109s relative weaknesses. It had a high wing loading and this impacted some of its aerobatic capabilities compared with some other fighters. It usually enjoyed some advantages in other areas of performance. 
Fighting to his aircraft's strengths is something any well trained pilot should do.

Cheers

Steve


----------



## Gixxerman (Oct 13, 2013)

I'm certainly no expert but most of what I've read says the G6 had issues when equipped with the cannon gondolas or the 21cm rockets.
I'm sure they did no favours to other aircraft so kitted out either, but then the need was pressing what else could they do?
They really needed bomber killers so took what steps they could, I guess, even at the expense of the planes use as a pure fighter v fighter machine.


----------



## Denniss (Oct 13, 2013)

The rockets and launch tubes slowed them down far more than the gondola cannon (weight + air resistance), both affected maneuverability due to weight placed under the wings.


----------



## GregP (Oct 13, 2013)

I have heard and seen many German pilots say that with the G-series, the Bf 109 was well past its prime. While it COULD be maneuverable at 180 to 280 mph with the slats out, if you stayed fast it wasn't all that maneuverable with the slats retracted and was reported to be downright vicious in the landing configuration. Can't say myself, but I've heard both high praise and some rather harsh criticism of the 109 from the guys who flew it.

That being said, the guys above who said to fight with your aircraft's strengths are correct. Correctly flown, the Bf 109G-series were dangerous opponents right through the end of the war, even if not quite a match for the late model Spitfires, Tempests, and P-51's being flown in large numbers relative to the Bf 109 flyable population. I'd say nobody took a Bf 109 for granted unless they had 100+ friends in the immediate vicinity and the Huns were a flight of 4 trying to stop the bomber stream. That happened and the Germans attacked the bombers with bravery if also with some futility.

One on one the Bf 109 had its strengths and weaknesses, just as did all other planes. The 109 had possibly more weaknesses than most, but its strong points were good ones. It was always a strong climber, was maneuverable at relatively low speeds, and the cannon could do some real damage with one hit. It was simple to maintain and tolerated harsh conditions quite well. On the minus side the range was terrible, the landing gear was flawed for the entire series, the canopy was the worst on any fighter of WWII, it had no rudder trim and the stick was very difficult to move when anywhere above 330 mph or so. At 400+ mph the stick was almost set in stone.

So, although the Bf 109K series could hit 450+ mph in level flight, they weren't fighting when they did so. They were running to or from a fight. The G-series was muich the same as regards the stiffening up of the controls at speed, and that is possibly the source of the comments you were reading. While true, there were ways to fight the plane around these weaknesses except for the range and abysmal canopy. The G-series had all the weaknesses of the K's and not quite the same speed, at least in level flight. 

But they were also quite successful in shooting down Allied aircraft, so the balance sheet must have been better than even in retrospect. You cannot call the Bf 109 series of aircraft other than successful in their designed tasks. They shot down more enemy aircraft than any other fighter in history, so at least SOMETHING was pretty darned good about it.

Taken as a whiole, I'd say the Bf 109 is one of the immortals and deserves a place near the top of the heap, if only to reflect its combat record. Some in here are not fond of the combat record as a measure and that is fine. What other measure should be used to determine the best combat fighter? Certainly operational losses are one measure of reliability or lack thereof. There are others and they all have a place in peacetime..

To me, combat record is the ONLY measure that counts when talking about combat aircraft. It is, after all, the evidence of performance in the cricible of combat. The Bf 109 was one of the best of all times at that task.


----------



## DonL (Oct 13, 2013)

drgondog said:


> The Bf 109G-6 had excellent maneuverability and was competitive against any Allied fighter in the hands of a good pilot who played to its strengths against different aircraft.
> 
> That being said the MG151/20 reduced speed and roll from clean G-6'



I heavily disagree, no Bf 109 G6 equiped with the extra two MG151/20 gondulas was at any time competitive against any Allied fighter (P47, P 38 and P 51).
From many flight reports of allied pilots mostly P47 pilots, which I read, she was referred to as easy or best served meat!
Only the clean variant was competitive all other claims are myths.


----------



## Denniss (Oct 14, 2013)

I have some doubts with the P-38 claim but should be true for the other two. But remember, in 44 the cannon boats were usually flown by noobs while the more experienced pilots were in clean 109 to fly top cover.


----------



## stona (Oct 14, 2013)

Denniss said:


> in 44 the cannon boats were usually flown by noobs while the more experienced pilots were in clean 109 to fly top cover.



What's the evidence for that?
A very few senior pilots managed to avoid flying gondola equipped aircraft or had the gondolas removed. Most did not, no matter how much they disliked them. A man like Bartels (Heinrich) would be an example. I've never seen anything to support the sort of discrimination you are supposing but am open to persuasion.
Cheers
Steve


----------



## drgondog (Oct 15, 2013)

I tend to agree with Stona. The mission for the LuftMitte/LuftFlotte Reich and LF 3 in last half of 1943 through 1944 was to destroy bombers. Many flight leaders used them until it became obvious that the Mustang was superior when the U4 had to fight them.

The 109G-6/U4 declined in numbers once the Mustang was introduced until ~ September 1944 when most or all were withdrawn from service. The key factor was loss of airspeed, not so much maneuverability. The 109G-6 was already at a severe disadvantage relative to speed above 15000 feet and the U4 reduced it even more by 10mph.


----------



## Denniss (Oct 15, 2013)

Why should the G-6/U4 be slower than the standard G-6 ?!?


----------



## Milosh (Oct 15, 2013)

Early drop tank mounts for the P-51 dropped top speed by 12mph, iirc.


----------



## Shortround6 (Oct 15, 2013)

The loss in rate of climb was probably more important than the loss in speed. The loss of rate of climb being an indicator of other things, like the ability to sustain speed or altitude even in a "gentile" turn like 1.5-2 "G"s.


----------



## drgondog (Oct 15, 2013)

Actually 10 mph according to flight test speed runs, less at lower speeds


----------



## Denniss (Oct 15, 2013)

You had been talking about speed loss in the /U4, not from drop tanks.


----------



## Kingscoy (Oct 15, 2013)

From what I have learned/ heard from a veteran Me 109G-14(who flew also the G-6) pilot is that when a MK 108 engine canon was installed the centre of gravity shifted which made it more difficult to fly...more so for novice pilots. Don't know if this could also mean speed loss, however the MK 108 canon and ammo should make it somewhat heavier.


----------



## stona (Oct 15, 2013)

I remember a report on the effects of the gondolas on top speed and it was surprisingly small. Unfortunately I can't find the reference to give a figure.
Pilots thought that they adversely affected handling and they were also known to break loose under extreme manoeuvring.
Cheers
Steve


----------



## DonL (Oct 15, 2013)

KurfÃ¼rst - Flugleistungen Me 109G - Baureihen

The G6 with two gondulas had 620 km/h max speed, which is a significant loss to clean variant.


----------



## drgondog (Oct 15, 2013)

Denniss said:


> You had been talking about speed loss in the /U4, not from drop tanks.



My reply was to Milosh regarding Mustang bomb/fuel rack drag.


As to G-6/U4, IIRC, the drag loss was 10-12 Km/hr.


----------



## stona (Oct 15, 2013)

DonL said:


> KurfÃ¼rst - Flugleistungen Me 109G - Baureihen
> 
> The G6 with two gondulas had 620 km/h max speed, which is a significant loss to clean variant.



Have I misread the report? I understand a loss of 8kph at sea level which is not much and is something like I remember.
Steve


----------



## gomwolf (Oct 15, 2013)

I just watch this thread after write. Lots of different opinions that I already known...
First, some answers I can. 

Denniss// 3350kg is without gondola. In kurfurst's document(KurfÃ¼rst - Flugleistungen Me 109G - Baureihen) This weigh for only gun and fuel.
GregP// Bf109's stick force is not bad as widely known. I saw some interviews about Bf109's stickforce with finnish aces. I think bf109's stick force was average.(virtualpilots.fi: 109myths) and... This question is not for stick force in high speed. 


hmmm... My english skill make me sad. Explanation is hard to me. plz understand this stupid sentences.
First time i got this question, I played flight simulation game IL-2 1946. Bf109G-2 had good maneuverity, G-10 is good too. but Bf109G-6 is too heavy! I think Il-2 is well historically invetigated game. If they make this, it have some reason. So, I try to find that 'reason' but I cannot find anything. Some people told "Bf109G series were made to intercept bomber. So they got good climb rate but bad maneuverity." but there is no reliable source.

In kurfurst homepage, I can find lots of documents but there was no documents about Bf109G-6's maneuvering. Anyone who had reliable source plz help me.


----------



## GrauGeist (Oct 15, 2013)

gomwolf said:


> hmmm... My english skill make me sad. Explanation is hard to me. plz understand this stupid sentences.


Not to worry, you're doing well with your English 

As far as the differences in the G series, there had been some comments in interviews with Luftwaffe pilots in the differences in handling between the G-2 and later sub-types. However, I was told by a Luftwaffe pilot personally that anything past the G-2 was a disappointment to him and that he was very fond of his Emil (E) and Fritz* (F) machines that he flew earlier in the war.

As far as the combat sim IL-2 Sturmovik goes, there's been alot of discussion about the Luftwaffe characteristics and we even have a complete forum just for IL-2, you can find it here:
IL-2 Sturmovik Pilot's Lounge

* just for the record, the "F" was technically called the "Friedrich" but the former Luftwaffe pilot I'm referring to called the "F" a "Fritz"...not sure if it was a personal thing or a joke, but this was his thing and I wasn't going to argue with him...


----------



## Denniss (Oct 15, 2013)

gomwolf said:


> Denniss// 3350kg is without gondola. In kurfurst's document(KurfÃ¼rst - Flugleistungen Me 109G - Baureihen) This weigh for only gun and fuel.


Please read the table again, it's with gondolas. A "-" would indicate no gondolas.




DonL said:


> The G6 with two gondulas had 620 km/h max speed, which is a significant loss to clean variant.


Clean G-6 was ~630 km/h at climb&combat power and ~645 at max power




Kingscoy said:


> From what I have learned/ heard from a veteran Me 109G-14(who flew also the G-6) pilot is that when a MK 108 engine canon was installed the centre of gravity shifted which made it more difficult to fly...more so for novice pilots. Don't know if this could also mean speed loss, however the MK 108 canon and ammo should make it somewhat heavier.


MK 108 is ~18 kg heavier and ~70cm shorter, 60 rounds of 3cm ammo have more or less the same weight of 200 rounds of 2cm ammo. No idea why there should be a noticable CoG shift (or did WNF forgot to counterbalance it?). Anyway the G-10/14 had the additional tank in the rear and this should be sufficient for counterbalancing a MK 108 installaion.


----------



## bobbysocks (Oct 15, 2013)

gomwolf said:


> hmmm... My english skill make me sad........., I played flight simulation game IL-2 1946. Bf109G-2 had good maneuverity, G-10 is good too. but Bf109G-6 is too heavy! I think Il-2 is well historically invetigated game. If they make this, it have some reason. So, I try to find that 'reason' but I cannot find anything. Some people told "Bf109G series were made to intercept bomber. So they got good climb rate but bad maneuverity." but there is no reliable source.



your english is fine...no need to apologize. just be very careful comparing air combat sims like IL-2 or any other to real life. although i like a good ww2 air combat sim, the flight characteristics can be quite different...and in some cases are dramatically incorrect for some of the planes. likewise, i would not base too much belief on what the players of those games say about WW2 aircraft and tactics. I have directed many of those kinds of players i know to this forum. here you will find different opinions and points of view...and have a way better chance of finding a correct answer than on those forums or in conversations during the game. here you will often be given sources and references you can study yourself to make an educated conclusion.


----------



## douvie (Oct 17, 2013)

Another aspect in maneuverability is the shape of the wings (main wings and tail wings).

Also the bf/me109 cockpits were very crampt as compared to the Spitfire and the Mustang P51-D. Well the spits cockpit was considered quite "huggy" compared to Mustang's which was very luxurious (space wise). This of course counterbalanced centre of gravity issues and improved the bf/me performance. 

douvie.


----------



## stona (Oct 17, 2013)

douvie said:


> Also the bf/me109 cockpits were very crampt as compared to the Spitfire and the Mustang P51-D. Well the spits cockpit was considered quite "huggy" compared to Mustang's which was very luxurious (space wise). This of course counterbalanced centre of gravity issues and improved the bf/me performance.
> douvie.



The major advantage of a more roomy cockpit as far as manoeuvrability is concerned is that it allows the pilot to apply a greater force to the stick or yoke. The forces required to deflect the ailerons similar amounts in contemporary Bf 109s and Spitfires at high speeds were very similar. The design of the Spitfire cockpit and seating position of the pilot made it easier for the Spitfire pilot to apply larger forces to the control yoke.
This might make the aircraft _seem_ more manoeuvrable.
I know I am not the only one here who has sat in a Bf 109. It is actually quite difficult to make large port/starboard deflections of the stick, even sat on the ground, without interference with your own legs!
This kind of thing would be impossible to build into a simulation I would imagine, though I'm not a player.
Cheers
Steve


----------



## GrauGeist (Oct 17, 2013)

I've been in the cockpit of a Bf109E and it's similiar to being in the driver's seat of a Formula 1 racecar. While it wasn't uncomfortable overall, I didn't like the fact that my head was nearly touching the top of the canopy (I'm 6 foot 1 inch tall) with the seat cusion's dimensions being close to that of a parachute.


----------



## Juha (Oct 17, 2013)

gomwolf said:


> ...
> GregP// Bf109's stick force is not bad as widely known. I saw some interviews about Bf109's stickforce with finnish aces. I think bf109's stick force was average.(virtualpilots.fi: 109myths) and... This question is not for stick force in high speed...



In fact the stick forces were high, 8-9kp per G in Bf 109G-2, when in MS 406, Brewster B-239 and Curtiss H-75A they were 2-3kp per G. That according to the war-time FiAF/VL flight tests reports


----------



## stona (Oct 17, 2013)

Juha said:


> In fact the stick forces were high, 8-9kp per G in Bf 109G-2, when in MS 406, Brewster B-239 and Curtiss H-75A they were 2-3kp per G. That according to the war-time FiAF/VL flight tests reports



I am talking about stick forces required to deflect the ailerons at high speed. I remember a British comparison between a Bf 109 E and Spitfire I which established at high speeds these were quite similar in the two aircraft. The Spitfire pilot was more easily able to apply the large forces needed to the yoke of his control common due to his seating position, particularly having more shoulder room.
The cannon breach in later versions of the 109 made the problem worse for some ergonomic reason that I don't remember

GrauGeist I'm 5'9" and my head was close to the canopy, also with a seat cushion of parachute type dimensions. When the hood was closed it felt like a helmet. I couldn't believe how close it was to the sides of my head as well as the top! I wouldn't want to squeeze in at over 6'. There was a height limits for astronauts in the NASA space programme because of the limited space in the Mercury and Gemini capsules. Maybe the Luftwaffe should have adopted something similar 

Cheers

Steve


----------



## GrauGeist (Oct 17, 2013)

stona said:


> GrauGeist I'm 5'9" and my head was close to the canopy, also with a seat cushion of parachute type dimensions. When the hood was closed it felt like a helmet. I couldn't believe how close it was to the sides of my head as well as the top! I wouldn't want to squeeze in at over 6'. There was a height limits for astronauts in the NASA space programme because of the limited space in the Mercury and Gemini capsules. Maybe the Luftwaffe should have adopted something similar
> 
> Cheers
> 
> Steve


I agree!
I looked back on that in later years and wondered how many pilots banged thier head against it during a fight. When I was in there, I slid my hand over my head and touched the canopy at the same time so for a claustrophic person, the Bf109 is not recommended! Perhaps the "Erlahaub" was an answer to more headroom! 

I recall reading various Luftwaffe pilots' impression of the P-47's cockpit...most were in disbelief as to how much room was there, several simply did not like the void at all and said that since they were used to smaller areas, would have trouble with so much room!


----------



## Juha (Oct 17, 2013)

stona said:


> I am talking about stick forces required to deflect the ailerons at high speed. I remember a British comparison between a Bf 109 E and Spitfire I which established at high speeds these were quite similar in the two aircraft. The Spitfire pilot was more easily able to apply the large forces needed to the yoke of his control common due to his seating position, particularly having more shoulder room...



Hello Steve
Iknew, I answered to gomwolf. On high speed behavior, I wonder if you refer the early tests between Mk I vs 109E. The fabric covered ailerons of early Spits became very heavy at high speeds because of balloning, the effect was seen also in Spit Mk I and hurri Mk I vs Hawk 75A-1 and Gloster F5/34 tests but the metal covered ailerons greatly improved Spits rate of roll at higher speeds.


----------



## GregP (Oct 18, 2013)

The Bf 109 stickj forces at speed ARE high. We have pilots who will testify to that and they fly multiple WWII types.

The Bf 109 was NOT dogfighting at anythinbg higher than 310 - 340 mph. After that speed, it was escaping or moving into position to attack and would slow down to actually fight unless the target was unaware of the impending attack. It was very GOOD at ambush, but that is a testament to pilot training, not aircraft handling.


----------



## GrauGeist (Oct 18, 2013)

GregP said:


> After that speed, it was escaping or moving into position to attack and *would slow down to actually fight* unless the target was unaware of the impending attack. It was very GOOD at ambush, but that is a testament to pilot training, not aircraft handling.


What??

To "slow down" in a fight is to commit suicide...

The Bf109 was a fluid fighter, good at all attack formulas. 

Sometimes the stuff you come up with leaves me a little baffled, Greg...seriously.


----------



## Aozora (Oct 18, 2013)

stona said:


> I am talking about stick forces required to deflect the ailerons at high speed. I remember a British comparison between a Bf 109 E and Spitfire I which established at high speeds these were quite similar in the two aircraft. The Spitfire pilot was more easily able to apply the large forces needed to the yoke of his control common due to his seating position, particularly having more shoulder room.
> The cannon breach in later versions of the 109 made the problem worse for some ergonomic reason that I don't remember
> 
> GrauGeist I'm 5'9" and my head was close to the canopy, also with a seat cushion of parachute type dimensions. When the hood was closed it felt like a helmet. I couldn't believe how close it was to the sides of my head as well as the top! I wouldn't want to squeeze in at over 6'. There was a height limits for astronauts in the NASA space programme because of the limited space in the Mercury and Gemini capsules. Maybe the Luftwaffe should have adopted something similar
> ...


 
Is it in "The First and the Last" where Galland recounted how the groundcrew added head armour to the plate on his F's canopy (I think it was the curved piece above the back plate); when Galland closed the canopy he received a nasty whack on the top of his head and took off cursing his groundcrew. About half an hour later he was thanking them because that added armour stopped a bullet going through the back of his head..

I have also read that the seats in the F, G K series couldn't be adjusted by the pilot; instead the seat's position was fixed by the ground crew.


----------



## Juha (Oct 18, 2013)

GregP said:


> The Bf 109 stickj forces at speed ARE high. We have pilots who will testify to that and they fly multiple WWII types.
> 
> The Bf 109 was NOT dogfighting at anythinbg higher than 310 - 340 mph. After that speed, it was escaping or moving into position to attack and would slow down to actually fight unless the target was unaware of the impending attack. It was very GOOD at ambush, but that is a testament to pilot training, not aircraft handling.



Because we are talking on IAS speeds, I suppose, that was not so bad after all at higher altitudes, at lower level it was a restriction but 109 wasn't the only plane that suffered from heavy controls at higher speeds and even if the heaviness of controls was an hinderance at lower levels it didn't prevent at least several aces to use dogfight tactics successfully, some of them were muscular types, some simply used flaps and trims. 

Juha


----------



## douvie (Oct 18, 2013)

yeah, you are correct but a slimmer cockpit would effectively cut down wind resistance and improve the forward motion performance - which in turn would kill maneuverability. 

But one major difference in the mechanics of both the spit and the bf/me was that the Messerschmitt was more "electrically" controlled whereas the spits relied on hydraulic control or pneumatic control. This would add weight to spits.


----------



## stona (Oct 18, 2013)

douvie said:


> yeah, you are correct but a slimmer cockpit would effectively cut down wind resistance and improve the forward motion performance - which in turn would kill maneuverability.
> 
> But one major difference in the mechanics of both the spit and the bf/me was that the Messerschmitt was more "electrically" controlled whereas the spits relied on hydraulic control or pneumatic control. This would add weight to spits.



The Bf 109 was one of the least slippery of all WW2 fighters.

The Bf 109 also had a hydraulic system for the undercarriage. Weren't the guns cocked pneumatically? I'd have to check but I'm pretty sure the MG 17 needed a pneumatic system.. I'm not sure there is any weight saving here anyway. 
It was the Fw 190 that had an electric U/C retraction system and the reason that Tank himself gave for this was that it was more damage resistant, not that it was lighter.

Cheers

Steve


----------



## drgondog (Oct 18, 2013)

GregP said:


> The Bf 109 stickj forces at speed ARE high. We have pilots who will testify to that and they fly multiple WWII types.
> 
> The Bf 109 was NOT dogfighting at anythinbg higher than 310 - 340 mph. After that speed, it was escaping or moving into position to attack and would slow down to actually fight unless the target was unaware of the impending attack. It was very GOOD at ambush, but that is a testament to pilot training, not aircraft handling.



NOBODY wanted to Dogfight! Superior Speed was invaluable to attack or retreat - and when you didn't have an advantage in speed you wanted to capitalize on your advantages. A 109 one on one with a 51 was better in turn and climb in the 250-300 mph range... and very good at Ambush with excellent speed and superior zoom to most adversaries. A P51 was very GOOD at ambush, Ditto FW 190 ditto Spitfire, Ditto P-47, ditto F6F, etc, etc 

The pilot that slowed down to attack was the next victim of the adversary he didn't see. You should have been schooled in that fundamental aspect of air combat from all the discussions you have had at POF.


----------



## GrauGeist (Oct 18, 2013)

I might add an observation here, regarding the pilots of the Bf109...they weren't in the best of physical condition. If you'll look at their photos, these guys weren't body-builders.

They flew several missions a day, lived under stress for years and many had been wounded. In some cases several times. Look at Marseilles, he spent most of his evening hours drinking and womanizing then spent his day in the cockpit. Hartmann wasn't a giant of a man either, he earned his nickname "Bubi" because he looked like a teenager.

These are just a few of many examples.


----------



## stona (Oct 18, 2013)

drgondog said:


> NOBODY wanted to Dogfight!



Not all fighters were "energy fighters". If you were flying a "turn fighter" like the Zero or even Spitfire you would be happy to dogfight rather than "boom and zoom". The trick was getting your opponent to play to your strengths. An experienced pilot might not but experienced pilots were not plentiful in some air forces, particularly late in the war.
Cheers
Steve


----------



## drgondog (Oct 18, 2013)

stona said:


> Not all fighters were "energy fighters". If you were flying a "turn fighter" like the Zero or even Spitfire you would be happy to dogfight rather than "boom and zoom". The trick was getting your opponent to play to your strengths. An experienced pilot might not but experienced pilots were not plentiful in some air forces, particularly late in the war.
> Cheers
> Steve



Steve - don't you think the ability to out roll, out turn and out climb all of its adversaries in 1942, especially a P-40, P-39, Buffalo or F4F or Spit - all of which had a little level speed and much faster dive speed - was a significant advantage? From my perspective 'energy maneuverability' has dimensions of speed, acceleration, climb and dive... and not from level flight the Zero ranked very well with its adversaries 1941-1943... against All of the contemporary fighters of all nations - it just could dive with our clunkers in 1940-1943 but could convert superior climb to potential energy or attain favorable position in turn or roll to limit the options of its pursuer.

The US, in first line fighters had big engines good to great top speed and each had high wing loadings largely because of the gross weight of aluminum required to house large amounts of fuel and large engines to go fast enough to overcome drag. Boom and zoom became a watchword for "I want to survive", and better capitalize on the few advantages we Have". 

Don Blakeslee's comment about the P-47C was classic when someone told him how fast a Jug could dive "Hell, I hope so because it sure can't climb." But even this example refers only to the top speed, dive speed part of energy maneuverability and the dive/zoom part was only useful if you could attack - or see an enemy fighter far enough behind you to escape - not fight.

I know you know this - I wasn't trying to lecture, just understand how you put energy maneuverability in context?


----------



## Juha (Oct 18, 2013)

GrauGeist said:


> I might add an observation here, regarding the pilots of the Bf109...they weren't in the best of physical condition. If you'll look at their photos, these guys weren't body-builders.
> 
> They flew several missions a day, lived under stress for years and many had been wounded. In some cases several times. Look at Marseilles, he spent most of his evening hours drinking and womanizing then spent his day in the cockpit. Hartmann wasn't a giant of a man either, he earned his nickname "Bubi" because he looked like a teenager.
> 
> These are just a few of many examples.



Hello GrauGeist
there were slim and muscular 109 pilots. Bubi adopted the tactics used by Rossmann, who because his earlier shoulder wound used boom and zoom tactics. Of dogfighters, IMHO two of the most famous were Bär and Grislawski.

Juha


----------



## drgondog (Oct 18, 2013)

Dave - I would also add that many were athletes and gymnasts pre-pilot school and many had pride in staying reasonably fit. The primary vices were smoking and drinking - but when they were 'fooling around' with wenches, it was all good. 

In Russia and North Africa there were fewer wenches to keep them fit.. ditto RAF and US pilots but London was "OK".

I am kidding. I know my father and Billy Hovde enrolled in Art School at Cambridge.. never saw dad even doodle on a napkin so somewhat suspicious of his academic zeal. No other fighter pilots seemed to have broken the Art School scam.


----------



## SHOOTER (Oct 21, 2013)

stona said:


> What's the evidence for that?
> A very few senior pilots managed to avoid flying gondola equipped aircraft or had the gondolas removed. Most did not, no matter how much they disliked them. A man like Bartels (Heinrich) would be an example. I've never seen anything to support the sort of discrimination you are supposing but am open to persuasion.
> Cheers
> Steve



Having an "in" with that circle of Pilots during my two tours in Germany, I have to say that ALL of the people I talked to thought that the Me-109 was a great weapon in the hands of a good Pilot. To a man, all four of the men I talked to regularly preferred the single 20 MM gun through the prop hub for most if not all work. It had a better Rate of Fire, Higher MV and Massed less than the Mk-108 which was useless as far as they were all concerned. They did not even like it for shooting at four engine bombers because the trajectory was so curved, 41 M at 1000, that it was almost impossible to hit anything with it! Even as big as a B-24. They all claimed that 2-3 hits with the 20 MM was all that was required to down a four engine bomber, provided they were in the cockpit. One of the best points of the Me-109 was it's "point-ability" due to quick controls and highest angle of attack which allowed shooting from a larger angle off.


----------



## Jabberwocky (Oct 22, 2013)

SHOOTER said:


> Having an "in" with that circle of Pilots during my two tours in Germany, I have to say that ALL of the people I talked to thought that the Me-109 was a great weapon in the hands of a good Pilot. To a man, all four of the men I talked to regularly preferred the single 20 MM gun through the prop hub for most if not all work. It had a better Rate of Fire, Higher MV and Massed less than the Mk-108 which was useless as far as they were all concerned. They did not even like it for shooting at four engine bombers because the trajectory was so curved, 41 M at 1000, that it was almost impossible to hit anything with it! Even as big as a B-24. They all claimed that 2-3 hits with the 20 MM was all that was required to down a four engine bomber, provided they were in the cockpit. One of the best points of the Me-109 was it's "point-ability" due to quick controls and highest angle of attack which allowed shooting from a larger angle off.



Is this mythical, fictional circle of pilots like your "former landlord who flew a Me-109K with a 30 MM Mk-103 shooting through the prop hub and two Mg-151/15s under the cowling!" ?

Modify the B-17 into night bomber/low altatude streak bomber?


----------



## GregP (Oct 22, 2013)

Is that you Neoconshooter? Two tours in Germany?

And Bill, I KNOW nobody wanted to dogfight, but sometimes they had to do it, die, or run away. When they did, the Bf 109 was MUCH better in the 250 - 330 mph range than anything much faster. At 400 mph the controls were quite heavy, not the best place to be in a fight unless you are pointed away from the fight. 

If I were trying to escape in a Bf 109, I'd go as fast as possible. If I were attempting an ambush, I'd also stay fast. If I had to dogfight, I'd want to be at 300 - 340 mph. You might want to do it differently, and that's fine unless you were my wingman. No real argument, is there?


----------



## GrauGeist (Oct 22, 2013)

An old friend of the family (who's long since passed) was a Luftwaffe pilot from 1939 until 1945, flying the Bf109 primarily.

He prefered not to use the nose cannon because in his own words "would shake your fillings loose" and would skew the aim if fired in rapid succession.

He was not physically the largest person you've ever met and was a chain-smoker even into his later years. I do recall occasional conversations among the guys where he mentioned that they (the pilots and ground crews) were run "ragged" because of the multiple sorties they ran per day where our guys (Allied) typically ran one per day.

I sure wish I had the presence of mind to get as many stories from these guys when I was a kid, but I thought they would always be around.


----------



## GregP (Oct 23, 2013)

Hi Neo,

Exactly what has angle of attack to do with angle off?

The turn rate is the main factor.


----------



## futuredogfight (May 20, 2014)

I have read a story of a Finnish 109G-6 out climb-turning an LA 5. Also Finnish ace Kyosti Karhila flew a 109 with the under wing cannons and he stated that instead of speeding up to get into a turn fight, he would actually slow down. Sources:WW II ACE STORIES WW II ACE STORIES


----------



## Garyt (May 20, 2014)

> Some in here are not fond of the combat record as a measure and that is fine. What other measure should be used to determine the best combat fighter? Certainly operational losses are one measure of reliability or lack thereof. There are others and they all have a place in peacetime..



LOL, GregP. Personally, I don't think it is a method of determining whether a lane was "great" because of it. And with with the Hellcat, it was used against the late war Japanese airforce, where the opponents of the Hellcat were at a airplane qualitative disadvantage, a huge disparity in pilot training, the Japanese were outnumbered, and other issues as well. The Hellcat was certainly an effective claim - but it's incredibly stellar kill ratio would be like a high schooler beating up 5th graders and saying he had a great "kill ratio".

Personally, I look at the ME109's combat record to be a more realistic record of the planes capabilities. It had the early war period against the russians where the germans had a big advantage, but it was also in the BoB, more of an equal footing setting. And it was around through the end of WW2, where it was at a disadvantage both in plane and pilots to the allies. SO overall, it's a pretty good representation, maybe a bit tougher on the Me109 as early war was mixed but late war the scales were tripped against it.

But it SHOULD have shot more planes down than any other aircraft - it was the most produced fighter of WW2 I think, and it was there from start to finish.

Though to me, that is part of it's legacy. It was a very effective plane early war - and even by late war it was still competetive. That's a difficult thing for any aircraft to say other than the Spit, but the end of the war Me109 was still very similar to the late war Me109 - the Spit was less similar to it's early war version than the Me109.

But I'm still not going to use it's kill numbers and say it was far better than other WW2 designs

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Ivan1GFP (May 21, 2014)

This is going to contradict what was stated here last year, but I didn't see the discussion at the time:

The Me 109G-6 with underwing 20 mm cannon was easily more maneuverable than the P-51 Mustang!
This is from a fairly famous British test which unfortunately doesn't state which model of P-51 was tested against the captured Messerschmitt. The general performance of the captured Messerschmitt stood up quite well with the exception of maximum level speed which was the 386 mph often seen in books.

When discussing the Me 109G-6, you are really discussing a lot of different fighters. The earliest had much less engine power (I believe with a DB 605A) than late aircraft. The last of this series was pretty much the same as the G-14 and G-10 series for equipment though the cowling may have a different shape. They also had larger wooden or metal fin and rudder and possibly the Erla haube.

386 mph is pretty poor, but 425 mph isn't too bad for the late aircraft. It is strange that the G-6 designation didn't change even though the aircraft did.

- Ivan.


----------



## Garyt (May 21, 2014)

> This is going to contradict what was stated here last year, but I didn't see the discussion at the time:
> 
> The Me 109G-6 with underwing 20 mm cannon was easily more maneuverable than the P-51 Mustang!



If you mean turn radius, you are probably right. The mustang was certainly not the quickest turner. Would not surprise me either if the Me climbed better, all the Me109's seemd to be great climbers, the P-51 was not the best at climbing.

Not sure how it would effect roll rates though.


----------



## Juha (May 21, 2014)

During the long production run of 109G-6, all with DB 605A engines but the 1.42ata boost was at last allowed, for very short period (1 or 3 mins), in late 1943, was that in Oct. Before that the max allowed boost was 1.3ata but short periods when 1.42ata was at first allowed then again barred due to engine failures. Then there were subtypes like G-6/U3 with DB 605AM engine. 109G-14 was in practice G-6 with MW50 system installed ie like G-6/U3. G-6/AS (DB 605AS engine) had the max speed of 410mph, IMHO it was the most dangerous G-6 for the Mustang


----------



## Denniss (May 22, 2014)

/U3 were recons, some may have had the 605AM


----------



## BiffF15 (May 22, 2014)

GrauGeist said:


> What??
> 
> To "slow down" in a fight is to commit suicide...
> 
> ...



GrauGeist,

Actually Greg isn't off at all. Prior to executing a gun only attack you make one of two decisions: hit and run or turn and anchor. 

If you choose the hit and run you keep your speed up to get you outside his gun (weapons) range ASAP regardless of what he does. You can always shift from hit and run to turn and anchor, however it's not without peirl. The danger lies in carrying too much energy (airspeed) into the fight and not killing him prior to overshooting (failing to control your closure). 

If you choose the turn and anchor then you want more speed than he does, but not so much that you give yourself too much of a closure problem. Speed is life, but it's also a larger turn circle. Aircraft turn circles depend on their speed. The more the speed the bigger the circle, the less the smaller the circle (until you get so slow that the circle will actually get bigger again as you approach the limits of slow flight).

When dogfighting (Basic Fighter Maneuvers / BFM) you are flying your aircraft in relation to his, to a place that will allow employment of a weapon. When employing a weapon you are no longer flying BFM. BFM will get you to a weapons solution, but a weapons solution will end up giving you a BFM problem. You do one or the other, but not both at the same time. Or, you maneuver (BFM) to near his six and start shooting. When shooting your nose is in lead, and you are closing on him due to angles (and probably airspeed). If you miss, or don't kill him, once you stop shooting you have to maneuver again to be able to employ (get back to a range that allows you to shoot and hopefully deal with any moves he attempts). In most WW2 gun footage you will notice guys overshooting quite a bit (some with very close passes). If they missed they could get their a** handed to them when overshooting closely.

Cheers,
Biff


----------



## Koopernic (May 22, 2014)

As a child I was brought up on the myth that the Me 109 was not maneuverable and had bad handling. In reality while the Me 109 had trouble coping with the Spitfire in turning circle it compares rather well against other type. It gave plenty of pre stall buffet warning, had possibly the best spin stall behavior of any aircraft (including the Spitfire)

If a formidable fighter such as a P-51B or P-47D was involved with a Me 109 a lower altitudes (say below 15000ft) and at lower speeds (say below 300 mph) the 109 would seem to be able to outmaneuver it.

Also late models of the Me 109 such as the Me 109G10, Me 109G14AS and Me 109K4 with their larger high altitude superchargers could maneuver with equality with a P-51 at medium altitudes say 25000ft, perhaps better. We have plenty of encounter reports of Me 109 out diving and out turning allied aircraft, including outdiving the P-51D, even throughout 1944.

I'm not trying to gloss over its deficiencies, the Luftwaffe was well aware of these, and it was regarded as a disaster that the Luftwaffe needed to still depend on this aircraft mainly because of the high levels of training required in the Me 109 in regards to landing and tactics (the poor rearward vision meant Me 109 were ordered to always fly in pairs)

In general we need to look at what is "maneuverability". I could be all of the following;
1 Turning Radious
2 Turning Time, it is possible for an aircraft to have a small full power turning radious but still be out turned in turning time.
3 Roll Rate, the Fw 190 was a breakthrough in this area, effectively out turning its opponents due to being in the bank much quicker. Roll rate varies with speed, with latter aircraft having airfoils and technologies designed to reduce aileron loads: for instance friese ailerons on the Fw 190, Internal Pressure balancing of the P-51, hydralic boost on the P-38J. Some Me 109G produced by WNF and possibly Me 109K4 received spring tab ailerons to reduce aileron loads (both Me 262 and Ar 234 had these)
4 Instantaneous turn rate versus sustained turn rate without loosing height (energy)
5 climb rate, A higher climb rate means an aircraft can both escape and position itself for attack (the focus of Bearcat development)

It should also be considered that all of the above are dependent upon engine power which varies with altitude and the engine development cycle at various times. The Me 109F series was quite plausibly superior even to the Spitfire V in turning circle as a result of excellent aerodynamics and equality in engine power before a cycle of weight gain and inferior engine performance growth swung the pendulum in the favor of the spitfire.

Consider that during the Battle of Britain that Me 109E3/E4 with 1050 to 1100 hp engines were up against Spitfires with 1310hp engines due to the use of 100 octane fuel.
The widescale introduction of C3 fuel in the DB601N engine would have closed the gap: (there were two different DB601N one with 1170hp and the other with 1260hp) and this might have changed the outcome of many engagments: what appears as superior maneuverability is often more SEP specific excess power.

Consider also that The Me 109G1/G2 came into service slightly before the Spitfire IX and that this variant managed 404mph, weight growth slowed this down to 387mph for the Me 109G6 at 1.3 ata before the boost pressure was raised to 1.42 raised speed again to 397mph. 

Latter MW50 injection and sometimes C3 fuel (96/125) raised boost pressure from 1.42 to 1.7, 1.75, 1.8 and 1.98 ata and power to 2000ps.

From about April 1944 Me 109 in service split into two streams:
Me 109G6AM which had a MW50 injection system and much higher low altitude speed. This was standardized as the Me 109G14A from June 1944
Me 109G6ASM which had both an enlarged supercharger and MW50 and thus both superior speed at both low and high altitude this was standardized as the Me 109G14AS from June.
We then have the following
October 1944 Me 109K4, capable of 444mph and 454mph with a narrow blade propeller and potentially 460mph with a more advanced propeller.
November 1944 Me 109G10 (essentially an Me 109K4 but without retractable tail yoke.)

Note also other minor improvements:
ERLA hood, which was a single piece canopy that offered more vision.
Galland hood, which was bullet proof glass behind the pilots seat replacing the steel plate.
Extended Tail Yoke which greatly reduced the so called landing swing that produced ground looping accidents
Tall tail with the rudder balance horn replaced by flettner "servo" tabs to reduced rudder force. The rudder horn had caused a shock wave that had limited diving mach speed.

Final version was likely to have been the Me 109K14 which had the DB605L engine and a 4 blade prop, it had a two stage supercharger and a fantastic service ceiling.

It should be considered that with the political demise of Erhard Milch, Willy Messerschmitt and to an extent even Goering himself new leaders in aviation production such as Fritz Saukel took over and these men were "production heads" who would rather produce inferior products than compromise production levels to obtain a superior product.

Consider the failure to streamline the Me 109G6 gun blisters, the failure to get the retractable tail wheel in place cost together about 10 mph at military power, certainly much more at WEP.

The problem with this 'production approach' was that more Me 109 were being produced than mature pilots to fly them. Vast numbers of Me 109 were lost during delivery, with their delivery pilots who were incapable of air combat maneuvering. There is an argument that quality should have been emphasized before quantity.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Koopernic (May 22, 2014)

Garyt said:


> If you mean turn radius, you are probably right. The mustang was certainly not the quickest turner. Would not surprise me either if the Me climbed better, all the Me109's seemd to be great climbers, the P-51 was not the best at climbing.
> 
> Not sure how it would effect roll rates though.



It all depends on speed and altitude of the engagement and which engine the Me 109 had. At speed the Mustang was clearly superior. Roll rate of the Mustang was unbeatable by any aircraft except for the P-63 King-cobra. This is because the NAA/NACA laminar flow wings were resistant to compressibility/mach effects, because they were thick enough to contain the internal pressure balancing mechanisms for the ailerons which reduced pilot force required to deflect the ailerons. Also the NAA/NACA profile was so thick it made the wing stiff, aeroelasticity meant that thin wings twisted opposite to the wing thereby even rolling the aircraft in the opposite direction, well known limitation of spitfires untill a new wing came in from the F.22 onwards. The P-51 had about the same maneuverability in terms of turning circle as the Tempest V, the Tempest was faster at low altitude but the tempest had absolutely no warning of an oncoming stall.


----------



## Milosh (May 22, 2014)

I think someone has forgotten about the Fw190.


----------



## Garyt (May 22, 2014)

> It all depends on speed and altitude of the engagement and which engine the Me 109 had. At speed the Mustang was clearly superior. Roll rate of the Mustang was unbeatable by any aircraft except for the P-63 King-cobra



THe mustang rolled well indeed, but it's turn radius was not good. Combination of roll and turn radius puts it at best average IMO for the ability to turn.

Unless of course it's at low speeds, then it's just pretty bad at turning overall.


----------



## Juha (May 23, 2014)

Koopernic said:


> It all depends on speed and altitude of the engagement and which engine the Me 109 had. At speed the Mustang was clearly superior. Roll rate of the Mustang was unbeatable by any aircraft except for the P-63 King-cobra. This is because the NAA/NACA laminar flow wings were resistant to compressibility/mach effects, because they were thick enough to contain the internal pressure balancing mechanisms for the ailerons which reduced pilot force required to deflect the ailerons. Also the NAA/NACA profile was so thick it made the wing stiff, aeroelasticity meant that thin wings twisted opposite to the wing thereby even rolling the aircraft in the opposite direction, well known limitation of spitfires untill a new wing came in from the F.22 onwards. The P-51 had about the same maneuverability in terms of turning circle as the Tempest V, the Tempest was faster at low altitude but the tempest had absolutely no warning of an oncoming stall.



I wonder from where you got the claim "thin wings twisted opposite to the wing thereby even rolling the aircraft in the opposite direction, well known limitation of spitfires untill a new wing came in from the F.22 onwards."? Spit suffered from wing twisting in high speed rolls and that reduced its rate of roll at high speeds but it didn't suffere aileron reverse.

Spit aileron reverse speed according to April 1941 test report was 477mph IAS that means 477mph TAS at SL, 555mph at 10000ft TAS and 654mph TAS at 20000ft. That was calculated from test data, earlier based on conventional theory was appr. 550mph IAS

The RAE 1231 (DSIR 23/12865) gives reversal speed 580 mph EAS for the Spitfire V with standard wings and that value is calculated from flight test results.

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## Juha (May 23, 2014)

Koopernic said:


> ...The problem with this 'production approach' was that more Me 109 were being produced than mature pilots to fly them. Vast numbers of Me 109 were lost during delivery, with their delivery pilots who were incapable of air combat maneuvering. There is an argument that quality should have been emphasized before quantity.



Very good message K
I would only add that the urgent need of max. production affected also others, e.g. most Spitfires produced were so called "interim types", V, IX and XIV because of that. E.g. there were many more IXs than VIIIs, which was the designed unpressured Merlin 60 series type with stronger airframe and retractable tailwheel and extra range.


----------



## Koopernic (May 23, 2014)

Juha, seems to me however that the German compromises actually effected performance in terms of speed at a time Pilots with 1300hp Me 109G6 were up against Spitfires with 1700hp, an almost unbelievable difference in power. The compromises the Spitfire IX made over the Spitfire VIII were
the IX lacked internal fuel in the wings
the IX lacked a retractable tail
the IX lacked the enlarged tail

nevertheless the repeated wing standardization cycles of the Spitfire wing must have been very expensive. And of course the P-51, Fw 190 and P-47 all had fully retractable tails.

for the Me 109G6
The G6 lacked the retractable tail of the Me 109F and Me 109G1/G2 (speed penalty at sea level was 12kmh or 7mph)
The G6 due to the gun bulges lost 9kmh(5.6mph) in speed of which 6kmh could be regained by streamlining these so that the loss was only 3km/2mph)
The failure to streamline the gun bulges seems unbelievable given this was non structural metal.

In other words a total of 18kmh was lost, 11mph. We had a situation of 408mph Spitfire Mk IX's flying against 386mph Me 109 (latter 397mph when boost was raised to 1.42 ata). The corresponding speeds would have been 398mph and 408mph, which is far less difficult.

The 11mph gain would drive the Me 109G6AM and Me 109G14A to 363mph at sea level which is only 3mph short of a Tempest V running 100/130 fuel.

This 'cleaned up' version, known as the Me 109K1 was ready in late 1943.


----------



## Juha (May 23, 2014)

Hello K
remember that cannon armed Spits also had gun bulges, not in fuselage but on their wings. After all Spit and 109 had much in common, they were in essence short range interceptors with very good rocs


----------



## stona (May 23, 2014)

Juha said:


> I wonder from where you got the claim "thin wings twisted opposite to the wing thereby even rolling the aircraft in the opposite direction, well known limitation of spitfires untill a new wing came in from the F.22 onwards."



It's an internet 'factoid' which grows more insidious by repetition. Like deep rooted weeds, you can cut the tops off but the damned things keep coming back. 

Cheers

Steve

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Aozora (May 23, 2014)

Juha said:


> During the long production run of 109G-6, all with DB 605A engines but the 1.42ata boost was at last allowed, for very short period (1 or 3 mins), in late 1943, was that in Oct. Before that the max allowed boost was 1.3ata but short periods when 1.42ata was at first allowed then again barred due to engine failures. Then there were subtypes like G-6/U3 with DB 605AM engine. 109G-14 was in practice G-6 with MW50 system installed ie like G-6/U3. G-6/AS (DB 605AS engine) had the max speed of 410mph, IMHO it was the most dangerous G-6 for the Mustang



The 109G suffered from performance limitations because of the DB 605A's problems from about June 1942 to early 1944 - roughly 19-20 months (eg; from February 1944 109G-6/R3 handbook - 1.42 ata was blocked, again http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/me109/Bf109_G4-R3_G6-R3_Bedienungsvorshrift-Fl_Feb_1944.jpg ). It must have been frustrating for ground crews and pilots alike to have to cope with the continual chopping and changing of the boost limits while Daimler-Benz tried to sort the problems out.


----------



## Denniss (May 23, 2014)

There was not 1.42 ata ban on the 605A in 1944 unless it was an old aircraft with non-modified engine. The recons were probably not high on the list. 
Is this really a 2/44 manual or just released in 2/44 with data updates from later 43?


----------



## DonL (May 23, 2014)

This is why I'm skeptical to Tony Williams and wwii aircraftperformance.
Also to my knowledge the clearence for 1.42 ata was late autumn 1943

Reactions: Dislike Dislike:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Aozora (May 23, 2014)

Denniss said:


> There was not 1.42 ata ban on the 605A in 1944 unless it was an old aircraft with non-modified engine. The recons were probably not high on the list.




Mike is a member of this forum so you can ask him directly. Do you have any documents confirming that this page might be exceptional?



DonL said:


> This is why I'm skeptical to Tony Williams and wwii aircraftperformance.
> Also to my knowledge the clearence for 1.42 ata was late autumn 1943



At least Mike is generous enough to buy and compile the information and put it up on an expensive to run website: if you have problems with the information on his site send a personal message to Mike instead of trying to denigrate the guy.


----------



## DonL (May 23, 2014)

Kurfurst - Your resource on Messerschmitt Bf 109 performance

KurfÃ¼rst - Transcript of Generalluftzeugmeister meeting on 7th September, 1943.
http://kurfurst.org/Engine/Boostclearances/DB605A_clearance_Aug-Oct43_G2FzgHB-T0-Full.JPG
http://kurfurst.org/Engine/Boostclearances/DB605A_clearance_Aug-29sept43_G3FzgHB-T0_full.jpg
http://kurfurst.org/Engine/Boostclearances/DB605A_clearance_Aug-29sept43_G4FzgHB-T0-Full.jpg

Edit:

instead of:

http://kurfurst.org/Engine/Boostclearances/DB605A_ban_Jun-10Nov42_G2FzgHB-T6-Full.JPG


----------



## DonL (May 23, 2014)

@ Aozora,

if you write me a PM, but block any answer, it is impossible to arguement or answer!


----------



## Milosh (May 23, 2014)

There was a period around the time of the Battle of Stalingrad when the max boost was returned to 1.30ata. Don't know if this was also on the other Fronts.

Kurfurst is not known for being honest and truthful.


----------



## DonL (May 23, 2014)

> Kurfurst is not known for being honest and truthful.



Where he has ever posted a wrong source on his webpage of the Bf 109?
Tell me one source and this are all german primary sources and germans built the Bf 109!

I have every book from Dietmar Hermann and to my knowledge he is the only Author in the whole world, who has direct access to the FW archive. His sources and performance charts of the different FW 190 a/c's are quiet different, then the sources and charts of wwii aircraftperformance.
Also the US test of the FW 190 A5 compare to the F6F-3 and the F4U-1D, where the Fw 190 A5 reached the same performance as shown from german primary sources, contradict to performance charts of wwii aircraft performance.

From here comes my skeptic!


----------



## nuuumannn (May 23, 2014)

Oh Lordy. DonL's back from exile and he's brought Kurfurst with him. There goes the neighborhood...


----------



## DonL (May 23, 2014)

Do you have any argumentation or sources instead of insults? Show me proves and we can discuss!
Also I was only one week away, what a large timeline!

If you mean for a week vacation, you could offend or intimidate me, you're wound wrong


----------



## kettbo (May 24, 2014)

c'mon guys, let's talk planes and not people.
Post up facts, some sources, discuss, and learn


----------



## nuuumannn (May 24, 2014)

> If you mean for a week vacation, you could offend or intimidate me, you're wound wrong



Easy Tiger; no offence or intimidation implied or necessary, just a joke. Stop and smile every once and awhile, Don; you come across very confrontational is all I mean.


----------



## DonL (May 24, 2014)

Because I defend the webpage of Kurfürst?
What has he done wrong on his webpage, or what is wrong with his sources?
Are his sources wrong? Is there any evidence?
I don't refer to his behavior at different forums!

I have sometimes my problems with the performance charts of wwii aircraft performance.

You can also judge me, because to me, the best guitarist is Slash, the hottest chick is Fergie and the hottest model was Stephanie Seymour.


----------



## Milosh (May 24, 2014)

There is nothing wrong except it is always the best he puts on his site. It is what he doesn't put on his site > nothing negative.

Are you saying that Mike forged the documents?


----------



## GrauGeist (May 24, 2014)

Look, if you guys have problems with the authenticity of aircraft data on either sites, take it up with the owners of those sites and keep it out of the threads...all it does is start arguments and ruins a good discussion.

Seriously


----------



## DonL (May 24, 2014)

And what is with the difference between the clearence of the 1,42 ata boost?

One website claimed Feburary 1944 and the other page give primary sources about September/October 1943. 
That's a major difference!
So only why the primary sources comes from Kurfürst, they are wrong and we must believe in an anglo website?


----------



## Aozora (May 24, 2014)

Just got this info on Erla's Heiterblick plant that built 32% of all Bf 109s (note, content is Anglo):

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Aozora (May 24, 2014)

Production flow charts:
Before dispersal:






After dispersal:







USSBS Report via  MilSpecManuals

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## stona (May 24, 2014)

Deleted


----------



## stona (May 24, 2014)

DonL said:


> we must believe in an anglo website?



Dear oh dear!

Why don't you investigate the 'anglo (US)' origins and influence on both Focke-Wulf and Lorenz. Here's a few clues. Sosthenes Behn. International Telephone and Telegraph Corporation. US Patent Office. Ludwig Roselius. HAG Group.

Business is business 

Have fun!

Cheers

Steve


----------



## Glider (May 24, 2014)

Re clearance of 1.42 boost. I don't know the exact detail and am not pretending too but there is one aspect which might be taken into consideration. When we are talking about mid late 1944 on the German problems had more to do with fuel and training for pilots not extra aircraft which were being churned out by the factories.
If I was in charge of a unit and the paper pushers gave me an order restricting the boost that should be used, I would be sorely tempted to 'forget' the instruction and carry on, after all spares don't seem to have been the problem. I may well reduce the time between checks to reduce the risk and make everyone aware, but if it gave my pilots who were under all sorts of disadvantages a better chance I would be tempted.

There are all sorts of examples of units in the field making unauthorised modifications and I don't see why this would be any different.

DONL I don't know if you are aware but your set up isn't receiving any PM's you might want to check it out.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 24, 2014)

DonL said:


> we must believe in an anglo website?



You're a friggin idiot, I'm sick of your bantering and moronic comments. I gave you plenty of chances but you continue to be flat out STUPID. Enjoy cyberspace!!!


----------



## Glider (May 24, 2014)

Looks like his sign on has a bigger problem than I thought

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 24, 2014)

Now I hope this thread continues with no further issues


----------



## dedalos (May 24, 2014)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Now I hope this thread continues with no further issues



By saying "further issues" you mean any opinions in support of german aircrafts?
Now with the elimination of Don L you have banned almost every single LW friend .
Flyboy J . The American expression of freedom of speech

Reactions: Dislike Dislike:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## kettbo (May 24, 2014)

gomwolf said:


> First of all, My english is not good. plz understand this.
> 
> 
> Most of documents and flight sim game discribe Bf109G-6 had bad maneuvering. but I cannot understand.
> ...



for some reason, a few of the games are designed with the Bf109G-6 as _only _built with the underwing gun pods or use the data for a plane with cannon pods, then some of the games use the older performance figures. seems to be my recollection


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 24, 2014)

dedalos said:


> By saying "further issues" you mean any opinions in support of german aircrafts?
> Now with the elimination of Don L you have banned almost every single LW friend .
> Flyboy J . The American expression of freedom of speech



I have no dog in this fight and this is a *private forum*. Act like an idiot and you're gone. BTW I am a great LW fan, so what's your point?

You dont like this forum, leave, that simple!

This has nothing to do about "The American expression of freedom of speech." It has everything to do with "The stupidity and ignorance of the internet." You're a prime example.

BTW-"aircraft" in the plural still "aircraft."

Now go slam your head against a big rock until you bleed profusely!!!


----------



## Koopernic (May 25, 2014)

stona said:


> It's an internet 'factoid' which grows more insidious by repetition. Like deep rooted weeds, you can cut the tops off but the damned things keep coming back.
> 
> Cheers
> 
> Steve




Hi Juha and stona,

I would regard a 'factoid' as a piece of correct information that nevertheless is taken or presented out of context, I'm sure I didn't do that. I intended to and believe I presented the information in context. 

The aileron reversal speed of the Spitfire was calculated at 540-580mph, at speeds above that point the aircraft could roll in the opposite direction. Did that actually happen in a real dive? It has on some aircraft as I found out in researching this issue. If a pilot did apply that level of deflection on the Spitifre its possible the pilot did not survive that incident, the concern by the engineers for his safety was so high test pilot Jeffery Quill was told not to test this limitation. This is an engineering calculation, a figure of merit confirmed by real world measurements but a very real and practical one. In practice its effect was to undermine the Spitfires Roll rate at high speed rather than cause an actual reversal. There were clearly many effects undermining aircraft roll rate; one is the aileron reversal speed, another is stick forces. In the case of the Spitfire I would argue the low stick forces it was noted for due to its thin wing being less susceptible to shock wave formation was undermined by the wing twist stemming from wings aero-elastic properties. The wing despite being strong twisted in the opposite direction to the aileron. Note also we have two spitfire aileron sizes, the smaller ones on the Mk VIII that were better at high speed and the larger ones on the Mk IX better at lower speeds.


Flying to the Limit: Testing WW II Single-engined Fighters
By Peter Caygill










It was enough of an concern for the aileron reversal speed to be carefully improved such in the F.21 Spitfire it was improved by 47% to 840mph (presumably without compressibility effects.). The Mk XVIII Spitfire had a strengthenedthe old wing design achieved by using a single piece tapering main spar rather than a telescoping spars and stainless steal stringers, so it wasn't merely extra strength to cope with weight growth that was required, that had already been achieved.

540mph and 840mph are very specific facts. Aileron reversal problems continued to plague even modern swept wing aircraft. It does seem that the aeroelastic properties of Spitfires was somewhat lower than its key contempories. Hence if say the Lockheed hydraulic assisted boost used on the P-38J was fitted to the Spitfire prior to the Mk.21 there would be little point. 


The end result is that the Me 109 and Spitfire had about the same roll rate at *higher speeds*. *Neither aircraft was good at speed, both were modest compared to their contemporaries. * 

Me 109 and Spitfire pilots do not complain or boast about being out rolled by each other but Spitfire pilots did complain about that happening when they encountered the Fw 190. I note that the Me 109 had an excellent roll rate at low to medium speed. Aspects of the Spitfires roll rate were initially inferior and were improved when it had its fabric covered ailerons replaced with aluminum sheet and also latter friese ailerons added to reduce loads but this did not address the aileron reversal speed associated with the aeroelastic properties of the wing.
What I do regard as a factoid is the aileron deflection versus stick force measurements for the Me 109 being quoted as proving the Me 109 was ummanouverable. This is because measurement that is part of a larger set of data that helps us understand roll rate limitation on the 109. 

The proper way would have been to plot aileron deflection, stick force, roll acceleration and roll rate on a tachograph plot in an appropriately instrumented Me 109 and Spitifre and to compare the two to see why both were different but performed similarly in the roll plane. We don't have such a nice clear report from the various aircraft.

The primary structure of the Spitfire was a main spar at about the quarter chord (25%) point with a D section leading edge sheet forming a rigid member. The 25% is where the lift and forces are concentrated. There was a second, smaller spar of course at the rear that added strenght as well. To me it looks like the aileron had a large leverage around that. The Me 109 had a main spar at about the 50% point with 2 smaller spars to either side, the main spar went through considerable detours to clear the wheel well retraction points. The Fw 190 had two main spars with thick sheet metal between them, likewise the P-51.

I should point out that by placing the main structural element about the quarter chord point the Spitfire had excellent stall properties, Fw 190 wing twist could lead to a sudden wing tip stall as a Focke-Wulf report into the Fw 190A6 notes, though I note I am reading a report by an American Navy Pilots praising the well enunciated stall of the Fw 190D9 under maneuver suggesting that the issue may have been addressed in the A8/A9/D9.

I should point out that the use or planned use of servo tabs on the Messerschmitt 109 was clearly designed to address the stick force issue. It was common among latter German aircraft and a highly refined version known as the geared spring servo tab was developed by the US NACA and fitted to late war fighters such as the corsair and hellcat. They can be difficult from the point of view of flutter and reducing 'feel' too much such that the airframe could be overstressed.


----------



## stona (May 25, 2014)

Aileron reversal and reduced effectiveness (due to the high input forces required or aeroelastic properties of the wing) are obviously not the same thing. Quill diving the prototype at more than 450 mph did not encounter aileron reversal. The calculated figures were posted above. These are outside the operational limitations of the type. Pushed beyond it's limits there were many other problems for the Spitfire, just as there would be for any other type so abused.
Nobody is disputing the aeroelastic properties of the various versions of the Spitfire wing. The problem is that this has been extrapolated in internet world into a problem of aileron reversal under normal operating conditions.
It is worth remembering that the Spitfire wing (like the Bf 109s) was designed in the mid 1930s for a 350 mph fighter in something like the 1,000 hp range. The fact that both wings eventually coped with parametres well above this speaks volumes for their designs.

Are you sure that the Mk XVIII had the new spar rather than the seven (IIRC) part version. There was strengthening of the wing to cope with the increase in weight but otherwise it was similar to the Mk XIV. The decision to ask Messrs Booth to experiment with the production of a 'single extruded taper tube' as the main component of the main spar was taken in relation to the Mk 21 as far as I can tell. A similar two part version was also mooted for the Seafire, but was never produced except experimentally.

Cheers

Steve


----------



## Juha (May 25, 2014)

Hello Koopernic
As Stona wrote aileron reversal and reduced effectiveness due to the high input forces required or aeroelastic properties of the wing are not the same thing. And in spite of the wing aeroelastic problems British significantly improved Spit's ror by introducing metal covered ailerons in 1941. OK according to my understanding 109F also rolled better than 109E.

And
_"The end result is that the Me 109 and Spitfire had about the same roll rate at higher speeds. Neither aircraft was good at speed, both were modest compared to their contemporaries. "_

Even if Spit and 109 had much common in fact according to DVL wing twist test on Bf 109F-2, which also gave roll rate for the plane, 109F-2 rolled worse than the standard wing Spitfire V shown in the figure 47 in NACA 868 report at all speeds, paramets used: around 3km height and with 50lb stick force. The difference was marked (over 10deg/sec) at IAS speeds under 260mph, small (under 5deg/sec) from 275 to 300 mph IAS. It maxed at Spit’s max roll rate speed 200mph IAS, being 33deg/sec., and was smallest at 109’s max roll rate speed 280mph IAS being 3deg/sec. At 390mph IAS normal wing Spit rolled 14deg/sec faster than the F-2 used by DVL. And according to the NACA report clipped wing Spit greatly outrolled the 109F-2 through the whole speed range.

One must remember that 109G had a bit stiffer wing than 109F, its wing skin at roots was a bit thicker.


----------



## Koopernic (May 25, 2014)

Juha said:


> Hello Koopernic
> As Stona wrote aileron reversal and reduced effectiveness due to the high input forces required or aeroelastic properties of the wing are not the same thing. And in spite of the wing aeroelastic problems British significantly improved Spit's ror by introducing metal covered ailerons in 1941. OK according to my understanding 109F also rolled better than 109E.
> 
> And
> ...



The NACA 868 report gives *no information* on Me 109 roll rate at all. There is no comparison. It is, thanks to Cranfield University, mirrored here:
http://naca.central.cranfield.ac.uk/reports/1947/naca-report-868.pdf See page 166 figure 47.


For the German DVL report we have:

200 kph = 45 deg/sec (0.8rad)
300 kph = 68 deg/sec (1.2rad)
400 kph = 83 deg/sec (1.45rad)
480 kph = 20kg/44lbs limit
500 kph = 88 deg/sec (1.55rad)
600 kph = 91 deg/sec (1.6rad) - peak value
700 kph = 56 deg/sec (0.98rad)
800 kph = 23 deg/sec (0.4rad)


Te stories about the roll rate of the aircraft being set in cement somewhat hyperbolic. The above data is in TAS and as the document show the tests are made in H=3km (H = Höhe = altitude) about 10000ft.

In in 3km alt :

600km/h TAS = around 510km/h IAS = 91°
700km/h TAS = around 595km/h IAS = 56°
800km/h TAS = around 680km/h IAS = 23°


Me 109F2 at 595kmh (370mph) IAS, 3000m (10000ft) the Me 109F2 is rolling at 56 degrees sec (30kg or 66lbs stick force)
Sptifire V at 595kmh (370mph) IAS, 3000m (10000ft) the Spitifre V is rolling at 56 degrees sec (50lbs stick force)

There really is no significant difference. 

For comparison the P-51B and Fw 190A are both rolling at 95 degree/sec at 50lbs according to US tests (which have to be taken with a little suspicion as they are from captured aircraft that may have been out of condition given reports or aileron flutter).

I suppose we could scale up the Spitfire roll rate 32% to 73 degrees sec but I strongly suspect that due to elasticity the actual roll rate would not scale up proportionately.

If we compare at 600kmh/312mph the Me 109 actually rolls faster 91 degrees/sec as opposed to 70 degrees/sec for Spitfire (Albeit 66lbs stick force) whereas the Fw 190 is managing 125 degrees/sec which clearly is significant. (remember this is roll rate not acceleration into the roll ie bank rate, which is another factor). The slower you go the better the Me 109 becomes compared to the Spitfire.

The overly maligned P-40 is also considerably out rolling the Spitfire.

I would argue that applying more stick force might make the Spitfire's relative performance even worse because of the aeroelastic issue.


It's clear to me that Supermarine Engineers and Test pilots understood the issue as did the RAF but were reluctant to disrupt production.

Subjectively we can say that the Spitfire suffered from both high aileron stick forces and a relatively low control reversal parameter, the high stick forces were reduced by adding in metal covered friese ailerons (friese were also on the Fw 190 and Me 109F/G/K though fabric) but the elasticity remained and was not attended to in the manufacturing program till the Mk.21 which saw service in the final months of the war. The Spitfire's actual aileron forces were actually probably not that high, perhaps less than most for the same degree of deflection, but given the thin wing but the aircraft never took advantage of that. 

For the Me 109 we can say much the same, it possibly had more stick force but the same or slightly better control reversal.

Such things can come out of simple things as aileron size, bigger ailerons are better at low speed but a disadvantage at high speed. I note that the Mk VIII had smaller ailerons and so it would give a different roll characteristic and I believe that wing was used on the Mk XIV.


----------



## Juha (May 25, 2014)

Hello Koopernic
but the 600km/h 91deg/sec was calculated, in fact the pilot couldn't use more than 20kp force to the stick because of the narrowness of the 109 cockpit. The best ror was achieved at 500km/h when the full 360deg roll took 4.5sec. At 600km/h the full 360deg roll took 7 sec.


Spit maxed at 200mph IAS 105deg/sec (normal wing) and 150deg/sec (clipped wing) at 10.000ft according to NACA so to me your claim " The slower you go the better the Me 109 becomes compared to the Spitfire." doesn't hold water.

And P-40, especially the Tomahawks with lighter wing armament were famous for their high max ror, especially at medium speeds.


----------



## Aozora (May 25, 2014)

Koopernic said:


> The NACA 868 report gives *no information* on Me 109 roll rate at all. There is no comparison. It is, thanks to Cranfield University, mirrored here:
> http://naca.central.cranfield.ac.uk/reports/1947/naca-report-868.pdf See page 166 figure 47.
> 
> 
> ...



Note that the NACA 868 does not specify whether the Spitfire (unspecified mark) had metal or fabric covered ailerons; it could also be noted that the roll rates of the clipped wing Spitfire were considerably higher than that of the 109: 81º/sec @ 370 mph (50 lbs stick force), such that at higher speeds the Spitfire achieves near parity with the Fw 190. Thus a relatively simple modification increased the efficiency of the Spitfire's ailerons, while presumably reducing the wing's aeroelasticity. 

While the NACA extract on the Morris/Morgan report is often quoted by those who like to claim that the Spitfire suffered from a poor wing design. However, it is only a second hand extract from a complete report which, AFAIK has not yet been available on the internet - it would be interesting to know what the full report says about the Spitfire's wing.


----------



## Koopernic (May 26, 2014)

Aozora said:


> Note that the NACA 868 does not specify whether the Spitfire (unspecified mark) had metal or fabric covered ailerons; it could also be noted that the roll rates of the clipped wing Spitfire were considerably higher than that of the 109: 81º/sec @ 370 mph (50 lbs stick force), such that at higher speeds the Spitfire achieves near parity with the Fw 190. Thus a relatively simple modification increased the efficiency of the Spitfire's ailerons, while presumably reducing the wing's aeroelasticity.
> 
> While the NACA extract on the Morris/Morgan report is often quoted by those who like to claim that the Spitfire suffered from a poor wing design. However, it is only a second hand extract from a complete report which, AFAIK has not yet been available on the internet - it would be interesting to know what the full report says about the Spitfire's wing.




All of the aircraft in the NACA report are types that were in service in 1943, at earliest 1ate 1942. The clipped wing spitfire was based on the Spitfire V which already had metal ailerons. Douglass Bader was one of the first to use metal ailerons and he was shot down and captured in 1941.
I suppose it's possible that the NACA made one exception and chose to display the roll rate of an out of date Sptifire variant but I doubt it. The NACA lateral stabillity report was not about making American, German or British aircraft look good or bad via application of selective bias. It was about engineers getting to the bottom of performance and handling differences to give the men a better machine to survive and fight in. I would expect that objectivity precedes national pride in that area.


We have other Spitifre roll rate reports, an RAE report with a metal aileron Sptifire VA at 30lbs stick force (60 degrees/ minute thus consistant with the 50lbs 90+ degree NACA report) and another of the Spitifre XII Griffon with and without clipped wings. They are consistent with this being a metal aileron spitfire. Certainly clipping the wings eliminated the tips which presumably were twisting in the wrong direction and undermining roll rate but also cost climb rate and maneuverability (slightly). The losses seem to have been unacceptable except in the case of the Spitfire XIV Griffon which had plenty of climb from its engine anyway and which mostly operated with clipped wings. Either way the Fw 190 rolls at least twice as fast as a full wing spitfire at any speed and about 33%-25% faster than the clipped wing version with the gap getting smaller at high speed. Having said that, the Clipped wing Spitifre is a fast rolling aircraft but even it as the Fw 190 was out-shadowed by the P-51 with its superior wing structure and its NACA internal aileron balancing technology. Furthermore shortly after this report the American Navy fighters, the Hellcat and Corsair received geared spring tabs that more than doubled their high speed roll rate


We also have the the books, notes, speeches and articles of people such as Jeffery Quill, the test pilot and Joseph Brown, the engineer responsible for the Spitfire after Mitchell retirement due to cancer. He took the Spitfire from the Mk I to the Mk 24 and all note the aeroelastic issue that impose a limmitation.

Supermarine/Vickers tried several improvements:
1 metal ailerons
2 friese ailerons
3 smaller ailerons (better at high speed) eg Mk VIII
4 clipped wings (MK V, XII and XIV)
5 strengthened standard wing Mk XVIII
6 completely new wing on the Mk 21 onwards

I should note that lengtening the nost of an aircraft seems to adversly effect its roll due to inertial coupling.

With all of these modifications, especially the use of clipped wings they were probably more successful than Messerschmitt improvements on the older Me 109 design.

Unfortunately we know little factual about the use of spring tabs on the Me 109 to improve roll rate. We also know that Messerchmitt developed the Me 209-II which was 63% common with the Me 109 (it had a new wing, new engine/nose and modified tail which eventually made it into Me 109K production). 

The point is everyone was addressing the roll rate issue, Focke-Wulf apparently with hydraulics as per the P-38J. The various aircraft had their own unique problems.

_I'd like to add, to anyone reading this post, that I am not one to say the Spitfire wing was inferior or the Me 109 was better, to be honest I think the Spitfire was better. I think the Me 109 should have been rotated out of production by 1943 and if not more radically modified. However I also think the 109 was somewhat over maligned and I tend to defend it from that point of view. The speed range the Spitifre needed to have a good roll rate it certainly had an adequate one.

Reginald Mitchell had a 'saying' which has helped me in my engineering career. He said "one should use advanced technology to *simplify* things", that has certainly helped to keep things in perspective for me._


----------



## Juha (May 27, 2014)

Hello Koopernic
IMHO most of us here know that 109 was a better plane than the popular image of it. It was a top class fighter most of the war, unfortunately to the Germans it was somewhat let down by the DB 605A with its problems for a very critical timeframe from autumn 42 to the autumn 43. IMHO 109E was the best fighter around from the beginning of the war to the summer 40 when the Spit with CSU and 100oct fuel became appr. equal. Again 109F was IMHO the best short-range fighter around albeit somewhat lightly armed when fighting against heavy bombers or Il-2s. IMHO the low-point of 109 was 109G-6 with its necessary modifications which made its more effective armed and stiffer but also heavier without compensating extra power when at the same time Spit IX and P-47 got better and more powerful powerplants (the former Merlin 63/66 and the latter water injection and broader airscrew blades). Only the appearence of 109 G-6A/S and 109 G-10 gave substantial improvement at high level and 109 G-14 at low and medium altitudes. 

And one must remember that Soviet fighter pilots generally thought that the "Messer" was more dangerous enemy than the "Fokker". I don't know but I suppose that for the Il-2 crews it was other way around.


----------

