# Bf-109 vs Spitfire vs Fw-190 vs P-51



## Soren (May 26, 2008)

*First a little about turn performance, explained by Gene (Crumpp):*
Board Message

*And the methods for calculating drag lift:*

Lift (L) = Cl * A * .5 * r * V^2 

Coefficient of lift (Cl) = Established in windtunnel tests 

Drag (D) = Cd * A * .5 * r * V^2 

Drag Coefficient (Cd) = Cd0 + Cdi 

Induced drag coefficient (Cdi) = (Cl^2) / (pi * AR * e) 

Coefficient of drag at zero lift (Cd0) = Established in windtunnel tests

*Note:* End results are in Newtons (N), so you'll have to convert into Kilogram force (Kgf).


Then lets compare the specs of each a/c:


*[1]*Bf-109 K-4

Weight: 3,364 kg 
Wing area: 16.15 m^2
Wing span: 9.92 m
Wing AR: 6.09
Wing Clmax: 1.70 
Cd0: ~0.021 ? (Cleaner than F, G)

Engine power: 1,975 HP
_____________________
Lift loading = 122.5 kg/m^2
Span loading = 339 kg/m
Power loading = 1.7 kg/HP


*[2]*Bf-109 G-10

Weight: 3,200 kg
Wing area: 16.15 m^2
Wing span: 9.92 m
Wing AR: 6.09
Wing Clmax: 1.70
Cd0: 0.023

Engine power: 1,830 HP
_____________________
Lift loading = 116.5 kg/m^2
Span loading = 322.5 kg/m
Power loading = 1.74 kg/HP


*[3]*Spitfire Mk.XIV

Weight: 3,850 kg
Wing area: 22.48 m^2
Wing span: 11.23 m
Wing AR: 5.61
Wing Clmax: 1.36
Cd0: 0.0229

Engine power: 2,235 HP
_____________________
Lift loading = 125.9 kg/m^2
Span loading = 342.8 kg/m
Power loading = 1.72 kg/HP


*[4]*Fw-190 Dora-9

Weight: 4,270 kg
Wing area: 18.3 m^2
Wing span: 10.51 m
Wing AR: 6.03
Wing Clmax: 1.58
Cd0: No data so far, any is welcome

Engine power: 2,075 HP
_____________________
Lift loading = 147.6 kg/m^2
Span loading = 406.2 kg/m
Power loading = 2.05 kg/HP


*[5]*P-51D Mustang

Weight: 4,400 kg (Empty fuselage tank)
Wing area: 21,64 m^2
Wing span: 11.21 m
Wing AR: 5.8
Wing Clmax: 1.35
Cd0: No data so far, any is welcome

Engine power: 1,830 HP
_____________________
Lift loading = 150.6 kg/m^2
Span loading = 392.5 kg/m
Power loading = 2.40 kg/HP


----------



## Kruska (May 26, 2008)

Hello Soren,

Turn performance: I am not a pilot myself but I had the chance several times, - almost puking myself half dead – and **** scared - to sit next to my uncle (IMO a very, very experienced flyer and former ww2 Luftwaffe pilot) mistreating his Cessna 172 or Beechcraft Baron like it was a Ju87 or F-104 diving into and around the Bavarian Alps. Jesus he would tilt and circle his a/c at 90 degrees angle for 6-7 360 degree turns which made me feel like half an hour and expecting the a/c just to drop down like a stone. 

The guy was a lunatic. No joke, many active G-91/F-104 pilots really refused to fly with him.

He was using everything that could move in/on this a/c, pedals, steering, manually pumping the throttle, wind drafts and I think even his and my body weight.

What I mean to say is, that if 2 extreme professional pilots run into each other, the turn performance on their a/c’s is actually “manipulated” or caused by entering into their preferable angles/degrees of flight maneuvers taking into account the “air feeling” around them that has more influence on turn performance then all this technical mathematical lift/drag/climax formula. 

Which normal pilots probably couldn’t even make use off, because they wouldn’t be lunatic enough – like my uncle – to get themselves into/above the limits of an aircraft.

As I said I am not a pilot, but this is the way I felt it. 

Regards
Kruska

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## starling (May 26, 2008)

yes,well the 109 crashes a lot on take off and landing,the less said about 190 the better,the p 51 was an aircraft made to british specs,so the spit wins again. .lee.

Reactions: Dislike Dislike:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 26, 2008)

starling said:


> yes,well the 109 crashes a lot on take off and landing,the less said about 190 the better,the p 51 was an aircraft made to british specs,so the spit wins again. .lee.



 

Here we go again...

Please post proof that the 109 crashes a lot on take off and landing.

I want to see:

1. Number of 109s (all models) that crashed on take off.
2. Number of 109s (all models) that crashed on landing.
3. Percentage of 109s (all models) that crashed on take off and landing.

If you are going to make innacurate posts, then please back them up.

Now having gotten past that part also please explain:

1. What is so bad about the Fw 190?
2. How is the Spit better than the P-51D? Sure the Spit is more maneuverable, but what good does that do if the Spit can not get to the battle because it does not have the range of the P-51D?

If you post facts to back up your posts that is fine, but you are rather biased in your opinions and post nothing to back it up.

And Soren, your link above does not work for some reason.


----------



## parsifal (May 26, 2008)

Ho hun has a thread devoted to this particular subject. He has shown that the 109 suffered very little additional attrition in either landing or take off accidents, as compared to the 190.

What I dont know is the attrition rate of both the german fighters compared with those of other nations. I would suspect, that as the pilot training standards dropped towards the end of the war, then the accident rate for all LW a/c would have risen 

I do know also that fighters used for Night Fighter operations suffered a high rate of attrition in landing accidents, for obvious reasons.

None of this has anything to do with the narrow track landing gear, and none of it points to the 109 being an especially dangerous a/c to fly. its a complete furphy


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 26, 2008)

Agreed parsifal...

I am just getting tired of this guy posting the same thing: _"yes,well the 109 crashes a lot on take off and landing"_ in every thread that has to do with the 109.


----------



## Soren (May 26, 2008)

You're right Adler, I forgot you have to be a member to see what is written on the forum. Anyway here it is:


_Turn performance can be derived from the following relationship:_









_However as the USN Manual notes, this relationship is not corrected for thrust. Hence whenever angle of bank is changed, speed must increase and turns are limited by the same load factor. Radius will increase speed along with the rate of turn.

An increase in thrust not only represents an increase in the aircrafts ability to overcome total drag:_











_It represents an increase in lift:_




_So while an increase in thrust directly effects the thrust limit of the EM diagram:_



_
It also influences the lift limit of the EM diagram. 

This mitigates or eliminates the radius increase that occurs when the effects of thrust are not considered in our first formulation. This would be limited by the airfoils CLmax that of course no fighter I am aware of in WWII could achieve in sustained maneuvering anyway.

As Perkins and Hage states, turning ability stems from the fundamental relationship of Power Available to Power Required.

This is why the P47's sustained maneuvering ability increased when it was fitted with the high activity propeller or the Spitfire Mk XIV was able to match the Spitfire Mk IX in sustained turn performance in spite of a 5 lbs wingloading increase.

All the best,

Crumpp_


----------



## parsifal (May 26, 2008)

Even though the statistics show no appreciable difference in the incidence of landing accidents overall, I confess I have read accounts to say that it was tricky to land because of the narrow track landing gear. Perhaps it may be true that for an inexperienced pilot there was a higher risk of landing accident??? Ho Hun did not show this. I strongly doubt that it is the case, but I guess it is worth at least looking into. I hate asking the question when little twirps like that are around, because they will pick up the comment, and use it for any purpose


----------



## Soren (May 26, 2008)

The 109 was tricky to land, but not because its landing gear was narrow, but because of the slight toe out of the wheels. Here's a little quote from Dave Southwood (Modern 109 pilot):

_The '109 floats like a Spitfire and controls are effective up to touchdown. After touchdown, directional control is by using differential braking. The three point attitude is easy to judge, and although it bucks around on rough grass it does not bounce significantly on touchdown. however, the landing is not easy. From approaching the threshold up to touchdown the forward view is very poor, and it is difficult to assess drift. if the aircraft is drifting at touchdown, the toe-in on the wheel towards which it is drifting causes a marked swing, and you are working very hard to keep straight and avoid a ground loop. Each landing is a challenge, and just a bit unpredictable. Hard runways have higher friction than grass surfaces, and so the wheels dig in even more if drifting on touchdown, making ground-loops more likely on runways than on grass. The possibility of drifting on touchdown increases with a crosswind, and so for these two reasons, we are only flying the Gustav off grass and with a 10kt crosswind limit. I have flown the Buchon off the runway, and landed with a 10kt crosswind on concrete, but it is something that I would never do out of choice!_


----------



## Waynos (May 26, 2008)

I believe the problem (such as it was) did not only relate to the narrowness of the track (a 'fault' shared with the Spitfire) but also due to the legs being splayed outwards in an attempt to increase track. This meant that if the aircraft swung a little on touchdown or made an approach that was not quite level there was a danger of one leg 'digging in' and resulting in the plane coming to grief. 

I think their is a danger of overstating this though because the Spits u/c could also catch out the unwary pilot but little is made of this.

Ah, I see Soren pointed this out just before me


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 26, 2008)

Soren said:


> The 109 was tricky to land, but not because its landing gear was narrow, but because of the slight toe out of the wheels. Here's a little quote from Dave Southwood (Modern 109 pilot):
> 
> _The '109 floats like a Spitfire and controls are effective up to touchdown. After touchdown, directional control is by using differential braking. The three point attitude is easy to judge, and although it bucks around on rough grass it does not bounce significantly on touchdown. however, the landing is not easy. From approaching the threshold up to touchdown the forward view is very poor, and it is difficult to assess drift. if the aircraft is drifting at touchdown, the toe-in on the wheel towards which it is drifting causes a marked swing, and you are working very hard to keep straight and avoid a ground loop. Each landing is a challenge, and just a bit unpredictable. Hard runways have higher friction than grass surfaces, and so the wheels dig in even more if drifting on touchdown, making ground-loops more likely on runways than on grass. The possibility of drifting on touchdown increases with a crosswind, and so for these two reasons, we are only flying the Gustav off grass and with a 10kt crosswind limit. I have flown the Buchon off the runway, and landed with a 10kt crosswind on concrete, but it is something that I would never do out of choice!_



Agreed, but to say the Bf 109 crashes alot on take off and landing is wrong...


----------



## Soren (May 26, 2008)

Exactly Waynos.


----------



## Soren (May 26, 2008)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Agreed, but to say the Bf 109 crashes alot on take off and landing is wrong...



Absolutely.


----------



## drgondog (May 26, 2008)

Couple of suggestions as we dive into this discussion

1. Get accurate Total Parasite/Wetted area drag numbers.

For the 51, RAE wind tunnel results for full scale 51B was reported at .0047
The NACA wind tunnel tests at Langley yielded .0055
The tests performed by North American on the propellerless dive tests at .75 Mach (to see how real conditions matched with Wind Tunnel) yielded .0053

Lednicer also used this number - would suggest .0053

2. The referenced Cdwet for the Spit IX is .0065

3. The referenced Cdwet for the Fw 190A-8 was .0071 and the D-9 was .0063

Second. What are the thrust parameters you intend to use? Hp is vague and each propeller is designed for specific target performance.. so how are you going to 'model' the differences in Thrust efficiency?

Third. from an analytical standpoint each hp/thrust value is a 'saw tooth' that varies with altitude. I assume you will wish to be rigorous with respect to matching altitudes for the comparisons and matching low speed turning conditions as well as high speed?

Fourth. The 51 has some 'quirky' 'power on' longitudinal stability issues at very high CL range close to CL max. We have beat to death the problemd encountered by Fw 190 wing in high G turns. Where do you want to bake that into your proposed calculations?

Last. Pick a base weight, use a typical ammo load and use the same fuel load for each airplane. For the 51B as an example, the ammo/gun weight will about 190 pounds less than D, and the airframe empty will be 7,010 for the B/C and 7,635 pounds for the 51D. Aileron control stick forces are very high for the 109 at high speed, this is always interesting when making high G/High speed turn calculations... as it translates to the strength of the pilot - but not a factor on the other ships.

I've just started re-thinking this after my last series of questions to Gene some months ago - which we haven't gotten around to finishing.


----------



## davparlr (May 26, 2008)

Soren said:


> *[5]*P-51D Mustang
> 
> Weight: 4,400 kg (Empty fuselage tank)
> Wing area: 21,64 m^2
> ...



All the data I have shows the P-51D power as being 1600 HP at SL and a max of about 1700 at 10k.


----------



## Soren (May 26, 2008)

Ofcourse HP means nothing without knowing prop efficiency, but the speeds of the a/c compared to the overall drag give a very good idea of this.

As for weights, well it has already been chosen = Full weight for all a/c except the -51 which is left with empty fuselage tank. The reason for this is I understand that P-51 pilots on escort missions would rely on fuel from the fuselage tanks first to empty it, and then swith over to the external tanks until they had to be dropped. This way the CG stayed within the right range.


----------



## Soren (May 26, 2008)

davparlr said:


> All the data I have shows the P-51D power as being 1600 HP at SL and a max of about 1700 at 10k.



Not at 70" MAP


----------



## Soren (May 26, 2008)

Btw, about the P-51's Clmax figure, this is lower according to NACA which lists it as 1.35. 

I admit 1.47 is my own estimate..


----------



## ponsford (May 26, 2008)

davparlr: 1830 BHP is obtained at 4000' in level flight using 75" MAP. I found that info at this source:
P 51B Performance Test


----------



## ponsford (May 26, 2008)

I did some more looking around and found that by using +25 lbs boost - about 80" MAP, max power for a P-51 with -7 engine is 1940 BHP at S.L.


----------



## Soren (May 26, 2008)

None of those saw service though..


----------



## bada (May 26, 2008)

soren, i got the drag table for the 190A-8(posted somewhere else by crump if my memory is good), if needed, pm me, can't put it here, photobucket will resize it and it won't be redable anymore.


----------



## drgondog (May 26, 2008)

Soren said:


> Btw, about the P-51's Clmax figure, this is lower according to NACA which lists it as 1.35.
> 
> I admit 1.47 is my own estimate..



I would use the lower wind tunnel results from Ames which I believe is as you just noted - at approximately 15 degrees angle of attack... same for both birds. I would also use posted wind tunnel results for all of the aircraft..

On the weight disucussion, particularly with respect to fuel, frequently Mustangs based on the Continent (such as 352nd FG) during the time the 109K was in service didn't need external tanks unless and until they were tasked to go deep... so fights around Bremen and Hamburg and Hannover/Misburg would reduce the fuel considerably at take off, many medium range missions were done without external fuel.... and 40% of the internal 192 gallons might be burned away by the time that point was reached.

For the same fight from UK over the same region basically all the wing fuel of 192 gallons would be in the airplane.. so why not run 'fighting conditions for all of them?


----------



## Soren (May 26, 2008)

Bada,

Thanks but I already have it.

Bill,

We can also do it with full fuselage tank but that would be abit unfair I think seeing that the pilots were adviced to empty this first so as to correct the CG. We can also simulate the 40% reduction of fuel load at the time period you mention.

By comparison it wasn't uncommon for German fighters to take off with half fuel tanks, fuel being in desperate demand.


----------



## drgondog (May 26, 2008)

Soren said:


> Ofcourse HP means nothing without knowing prop efficiency, but the speeds of the a/c compared to the overall drag give a very good idea of this.
> 
> As for weights, well it has already been chosen = Full weight for all a/c except the -51 which is left with empty fuselage tank. The reason for this is I understand that P-51 pilots on escort missions would rely on fuel from the fuselage tanks first to empty it, and then swith over to the external tanks until they had to be dropped. This way the CG stayed within the right range.



Actually, until you reduce the Free Body diagram of the turning ship in terms of Thrust, Weight, Lift (to precisely offset Weight) and Drag to get the angles you can't apply the resultant lift loads required to exactly offset the vertical weight at assumed CLmax - so Hp by and itself while an indicator, still isn't thrust.


----------



## Soren (May 26, 2008)

I have thrust figures for all of the Fw-190 Ta-152 series (They are on the drag table Bada talked about), so we could start with these.


----------



## ponsford (May 26, 2008)

Soren said:


> None of those saw service though..



I'm sorry but your information is incorrect:

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mustang/combat-reports/129-davis-23march45.jpg

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mustang/mustang-pilotsnotes.jpg

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mustang/mustang3-clearance-25lbs.jpg

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/150grade/316sqdn-orb.jpg


----------



## Soren (May 26, 2008)

Those are no P-51D's ponsford, those are Mustang Mk.III's.


----------



## mad_max (May 26, 2008)

The USAF used 72" of map in their Ponies. It didn't matter if it was a 1650-3 or 1650-7. You do have to remember that the FTH for 72" will be lower than the FTH for 67" or 61" of course. Also those 2 engines have different power curves and different FTH's, plus as engines were changed out you never knew which engine it was replaced with.

The few of P-51 pilots I've spoken to said they'd run the fuse. tank till 25 gallons or so was left; then run off the wing tanks changing tanks every 15/20 min. It made flying alot easier on them.

My suggestion is that if it can be done is to compare the aircraft at different alts., say at 25-27k (the bombers alt), at maybe 20k and then 10k and 5k. There will be different alts. that each airframe will be at it's best. More power/less power/thrust, more air resistance/less air resistance, better/worse control at high alts.

Then also you have to consider the speeds. Probably a good major fights were at high speed (250-400 mph), but yes you could figure out just low speed handling, but the whole picture wouldn't be shown. Also most know that turn fights always ended up going lower...nose down to keep speed up.

FWIW


----------



## Waynos (May 26, 2008)

It would be a mistake to think 'Mustang III' equates to P-51D just because D is the third letter of the alphabet.

The RAF was the first operator of the Mustang and the Mustang I was never ordered by the USA. The P-51A was the Mustang II and so the P-51D was called the Mustang IV in the UK.


----------



## claidemore (May 26, 2008)

Mustang IVs were cleared for 25 lb boost, 1940 HP, as were the Mustang IIIs, they both used the same 1650-7 engine. 



> On 18 September 1944 ADGB noted, that with respect to the Mustang III/Packard Merlin 1650-7, "A total of over 7,000 hours have been flown at a maximum boost pressure of + 25 lbs./sq. in.". 25 The RAF's Mustang Pilot's Notes gives the Combat Engine Limitation as "81 ins. boost for 5 minutes when using 150 grade fuel". 26 Combat Reports show +25 lbs was used operationally over the continent by UK based Mustangs of ADBG



Also, 65 Squadron combat report with Mustang IV using 70 inches. 
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mustang/combat-reports/65-pearson-5april45.jpg


----------



## Soren (May 26, 2008)

The Mustang III's boosted that much were used for V1 hunting IIRC and did not encounter any enemy fighters. And as for P-51D's, well AFAIK only one was tested running at +25 lbs/sq.in. boost, and with a RR engine.


----------



## ponsford (May 26, 2008)

Soren said:


> Those are no P-51D's ponsford, those are Mustang Mk.III's.



Nope, not all of them are for Mustang III. That Pilots Notes scan/copy/photo is shown as from Air 10/2873 of the National Archives which a quick search shows it to be is listed as follows: "Pilot's Notes for Mustang IV Packard Merlin 1650-7 Engine". Anyway, the thread is titled "Bf-109 vs Spitfire vs Fw-190 vs P-51". I didn't see any qualifier excluding the Mustang III. But so what if they were all Mustang III (they weren’t and the RAF did operate Mustang IV’s)? That doesn’t change the fact that the RAF had operational Mustangs employing +25 lbs boost with BHP of 1940 BHP.


----------



## ponsford (May 26, 2008)

Soren said:


> The Mustang III's boosted that much were used for V1 hunting IIRC and did not encounter any enemy fighters. And as for P-51D's, well AFAIK only one was tested running at +25 lbs/sq.in. boost, and with a RR engine.



Nope, wrong again. You must not have read those previous links. Read this one again:

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mustang/combat-reports/129-davis-23march45.jpg

F/Lt. G.M. Davis of 129 Squadron flying a Mustang III S.W. of Bremen "opened up to +25 lbs. of boost 3,000 revs and dived down to engage" ... an Me 262.


----------



## Soren (May 26, 2008)

Again, a Mustang III not a P-51D.

The P-51D is the version listed and thus the one we will be comparing first.

But we know that the P-51D ran at 75" MAP, which gave around 1,830 HP.


----------



## bada (May 26, 2008)

can check in the polish book "skies in fire" from bogdan arct, a polish pilot that flew in the 145/PFT and was squadron leader of the 316 in the mustang3 period.
His poney3 (a replacement airframe, hated by all the pilots  )had a gizmo and his engine stopped above germany ...he talks about the poney3, he liked it very much because of it's great performance and explain some things about it (a bit like clostermann).So, the admission pressure should be cited.(the 316 beeing a "normal" squadron, the poneys3 should be "standard" with max performance allowable for fighter sweeps above ennemy teritory. )


----------



## Kurfürst (May 26, 2008)

ponsford said:


> That doesn’t change the fact that the RAF had operational Mustangs employing +25 lbs boost with BHP of 1940 BHP.



Question is, how many of them? I understand two RAF Mustang III Squadrons used 150 grade fuel in conjunction with +25 lbs boost in the anti-diver campaign.

And though Mike tries to push their operations in the summer of 1944 as if V-1 hunting was something of a passtime when they had nothing better to do, a little research reveals that something like 95% of their sorties in the summer were anti-diver operations (I have the exact number of sorties somewhere), while Mike has been quoting those _two_ missions which belong to that 5%.. again its the sort of typical manipulation Mike has a reputation for.  

I am rather sceptical about that +25 lbs saw any sort of meaningful scale outside the anti-diver campaign. That _a dozen or two_ planes were specially boosted for a special task hardly justifies a comparison of them against _widely used standard types_.

OTOH, there`s no doubt the USAAF had used widely in the 8th FC the moderate 72" boost pressure with 150 grade, although spark plug fouling caused considerable trouble as I understand.


----------



## ponsford (May 26, 2008)

I don’t know which is more peculiar, that rant or the numbers machinations/games employed to dismiss/deflect/obfuscate the performance comparisons of operational aircraft. It isn’t even a requirement that they be operational as far as I'm concerned, it’s all interesting. V-1’s or some grudge is all quite irrelevant to the linked report showing +25 lbs employed by Mustangs over Germany. Again for those without some odd agenda and with an interest in learning check: http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mustang/combat-reports/129-davis-23march45.jpg Case closed as far as I’m concerned.


----------



## Soren (May 26, 2008)

The only one who seems to have an agenda is you Ponsford, you undoubtedly come from some gaming forum with that attitude of yours.


----------



## drgondog (May 26, 2008)

Soren said:


> Bada,
> 
> Thanks but I already have it.
> 
> ...



You might have misunderstood my point - it was almost unheard of for German Gighters to engage either B's or D's before they crossed the Channel as they were flying toward R/V for target Escort.. all or most of the fuse tank would be burned first, then external, then internal in that order. In that circumstance (for example Munich, they woul have burned fuse, external and be into internal fuel. Just TO, forming up, climbing to altitude and getting to the coast would take most of the fuselage tank - which did have the 85 gallon capacity but SOP for Europe was fill only 65 .. at 25 Gal the cg was back in acceptable limits

Worst case for either the B or D would be empty fuse tank, full external and full internal wing tanks (184 gallons) - punch external immediately - that could be for example crossing the Dutch or Danish Coast.

Average for the battles in eastern Germany would be using internal fuel near Central Germany


----------



## drgondog (May 26, 2008)

Soren said:


> Ofcourse HP means nothing without knowing prop efficiency, but the speeds of the a/c compared to the overall drag give a very good idea of this.
> 
> .



The problem with having a very good idea about Thrust is that just to obtain the value you have to back it out by matching the level flight max speed at specific altitudes Hp, blower settings then calculate the Drag by adding the Cdwet to Induced drag using the equations - thereby creating a load balance.

Ok - that is good for one altitude, level flight, one RPM, One Boost and trimmed for level flight.. 

For high angle of attack situations, propellers lose a certain percentage of efficiency.. Turns would be an example of that. It would be different for different a/c and honestly I don't know the difference between the typical three paddle blade common for the 109 and 190 and the 11' four blade Hamilton Standard.

For every altitude and power setting you can solve for thrust, but you have to solve for it. I'm researching my textbooks to see if I can find enough about propeller theory to shed light on efficencies as a function of AoA from the Thrust Line, and whether or not it corresponds to AoA of the wing-body in a linear way.

So, an accurate baseline CDwet for each aircraft has to be established. Lednicer's Report has the figures for 190A-8 and 190d-9 and Spit IX and 51B and D - are those the ones we will use?

Second, which set of Speed versus altitude, Per Hp/Boost condition charts are going to be the common view? 

I would propose to use one rpm and boost for all the altitudes to simplify the math and comparisons? and assume that the propeller efficiencies as a funtion of AoA be ignored.

But we need to decide the altitudes to drive the Thrust calculations results, need to have the set of Hp to altitude charts to agree that comparisons in the 'saw tooth context' and note the gross weight of the a/c in the tests above the empty weight..

I am ok to use the USAAF flight test results on both the P-51B and P-51D instead of Manufacturer but if the results, for example, used for German a/c by manufacturer are not aligned with LW Test results we will have a question as to accuracy..


----------



## drgondog (May 26, 2008)

Soren said:


> Again, a Mustang III not a P-51D.
> 
> The P-51D is the version listed and thus the one we will be comparing first.
> 
> But we know that the P-51D ran at 75" MAP, which gave around 1,830 HP.



Remembering the P-51D was inferior in performance to the B/C because of the extra weight and that B/C's still comprised 25+% of the P-51 inventory in January, 1945..

And that the Hp is for one altitude only.

And we must calculate individual thrust for all the a/c in this comparison at the specific altitudes we agree to look at?


----------



## Kurfürst (May 27, 2008)

ponsford said:


> I don’t know which is more peculiar, that rant or the numbers machinations/games employed to dismiss/deflect/obfuscate the performance comparisons of operational aircraft. It isn’t even a requirement that they be operational as far as I'm concerned, it’s all interesting.



I am not sure I am getting it all right - we are comparing operational aircraft, _but for some aircraft, unlike the others,_ it isn`t a requiirement that they would be operational in any meaningful numbers...

Anyway, I have a simply questions, since this is all interesting as well: How many Mustang Squadrons in the RAF, and how many operating at +25 lbs...?

Funny, but I am asking this question for years, and while appearantly there is a lot of info emerging about boosted P-38s, P-47s, P-51s in the USAAF, there is absolutely nothing emerging about the wide scale use of 150 grade in the RAF, which Mike and Neil is claimig for years. Odd isn`t it, they dig the British National Archieves for years, and can`t seem to find anything on it... well perhaps they are looking for something that doesn`t exist but in their wishful thinking.  



> V-1’s or some grudge is all quite irrelevant to the linked report showing +25 lbs employed by Mustangs over Germany.



.. and similiarly, a single or two boosted Mustang Squadrons doing occasional missions over Germany and otherwise stationed in Britain for anti-diver duties is all quite irrevelant to the big picture, and typical engagements.


----------



## mad_max (May 27, 2008)

Use the USAF Merlin at 72 damn inches then. Sheeze cut the BS about what Mike and Neal say. I'm so tired of all the bad mouthing a few folks do about others when I see each has their own agendas.

We still don't have any numbers of the "supposed" usage of 1.98 ata 109K. Can't be more than a couple Brit squads flying at 25 inches you say. So using that train of thought then we can't use that version of the 109 then either.

So use 72" with the Merlin and the 605 with 1.80 ata. See that was easy yes?


----------



## Kurfürst (May 27, 2008)

mad_max said:


> We still don't have any numbers of the "supposed" usage of 1.98 ata 109K.



_Supposed...?_ 

I believe we have seen the transcript of the order that clears 1,98ata for_ four_ Luftwaffe fighter _wings_ in March 1945, for what... 3+ years..?

*OKL, Lw.-Führüngstab, Nr. 937/45 gKdos.(op) 20.03.45*

No. Unit Present type Convert to Notes
1. III./ JG 1 Bf 109 G-10 He 162 (April/May) -
2. II. / JG Bf 109 G-10 K-4 when deliveries permit -
3. III. / JG 3 Bf 109 K-4 no change -
4. III. / JG 4 Bf 109 K-4 no change -
5. IV. / JG 4 Bf 109 K-4 K-4 -
6. III. / JG 5 Bf 109 G-14 K-4 when deliveries permit -
7. IV. / JG 5 Bf 109 G-14 K-4 when deliveries permit -
8. III. / JG 6 Bf 109 G-14/AS K-4 when deliveries permit -
9. II. / JG 11 Bf 109 G-10 K-4 when deliveries permit -
*10. I. / JG 27 Bf 109 K-4 no change boost increase to 1.98 ata*
11. II. / JG 27 Bf 109 G-10 K-4 when deliveries permit -
*12. III. / JG 27 Bf 109 G-10 no change boost increase to 1.98 ata*
13. I. / JG 51 Bf 109 G-14 K-4 when deliveries permit -
14. III. / JG 51 Bf 109 G-14 K-4 when deliveries permit -
15. IV. / JG 51 Bf 109 G-14 K-4 when deliveries permit -
16. II. / JG 52 Bf 109 G-14/U4 K-4 when deliveries permit -
17. III. / JG 52 Bf 109 G-14 K-4 when deliveries permit -
18. II. / JG 53 Bf 109 K-4 no change -
*19. III. / JG 53 Bf 109 K-4 no change boost increase to 1.98 ata
20. IV. / JG 53 Bf 109 K-4 no change boost increase to 1.98 ata*
21. I. / JG 77 Bf 109 G-14/U4 K-4 when deliveries permit -
22. II. / JG 77 Bf 109 G-10 K-4 when deliveries permit -
23. III. / JG 77 Bf 109 G-10 K-4 when deliveries permit -
24. III. / JG 300 Bf 109 G-10/R6 via K-4 to Me 262 planned, deadline
25. IV. / JG 300 Bf 109 G-10/R6 via K-4 to Me 262 -
26. I. / KG(J) 6 Bf 109 G-10/R6 K-4/R6 when deliveries permit -
27. II. / KG(J) 6 Bf 109 K-4 K-4/R6 when deliveries permit -
30. I. / KG(J) 27 Bf 109 G-10/R6 K-4/R6 when deliveries permit -
31. I. / KG(J) 55 Bf 109 G-10/R6 - -
32. II. / KG(J) 55 Bf 109 K-4 - to industrial defense
33. Ist Italian FG Bf 109 G-10 K-4 when deliveries permit -
34. IInd Italian FG Bf 109 G-10 K-4 when deliveries permit -
35. IIIrd Italian FG Bf 109 G-10 K-4 when deliveries permit -

That some like to pretend the order does not exist is not my problem..

As I have said I hava absolutely no doubt the 72" boost was used on a wide scale in the USAAF for Mustang (8th AAF Mustang Groups, I believe 15th AAF was 67", as it received 100 octane only).


----------



## starling (May 27, 2008)

so which one has the best climb performance.lee.


----------



## davparlr (May 27, 2008)

Soren said:


> Not at 70" MAP



Thanks, found my error.


----------



## mad_max (May 27, 2008)

Do we really need to hear this again for the upteen time? Where's the on strenght numbers? All that is is an order. All we have is the other experts saying could, maybe, you can figure by April 45, 1.98 was used. Nothing else but this order that is held in such regards.

We have the order for Merlin's cleared for 25" and the Griffin for 21", but you don't want to hear that. I don't either but I also don't want to hear about 1.98 ata just because of an order.  

All I see is an agenda from anyone that proposes the usage of something just because the order is there.

The truth hurts don't it?


----------



## drgondog (May 27, 2008)

Soren - I suggest 25,000 20,000 15,000 and 5,000 as the altitudes. That gives you the simple task of procuring the top speed versus boosted Hp published for the aircraft in question. Set those as the discussion boundary conditions.

From the top speed we will balance Cdwet (published) for the a/c in question plus Induced Drag for that a/c at that speed and altitude - and that total will be the Thrust for that a/c at that altitude for the purposes of turn G calcs.

Weight will be empty weight plus mission load (a varaible when you want to play with a 51 light and a 109 light vs a 109 and 51 with full fuel loads.

But ya gotta have the published data for those conditions to develop the Thrust and remove Hp/prop efficiency out of the calcs..


----------



## drgondog (May 27, 2008)

mad_max said:


> Do we really need to hear this again for the upteen time? Where's the on strenght numbers? All that is is an order. All we have is the other experts saying could, maybe, you can figure by April 45, 1.98 was used. Nothing else but this order that is held in such regards.
> 
> We have the order for Merlin's cleared for 25" and the Griffin for 21", but you don't want to hear that. I don't either but I also don't want to hear about 1.98 ata just because of an order.
> 
> ...



Not to mention that production P-51H's were being delivered to operational squadrons in late Feb 1945... capable of 90" for the 1650-9 and the same weight as the 51B with more firepower and cleaner (slightly) airframe, but that isn't in the equation.


----------



## Vincenzo (May 27, 2008)

drgondog said:


> Not to mention that production P-51H's were being delivered to operational squadrons in late Feb 1945... capable of 90" for the 1650-9 and the same weight as the 51B with more firepower and cleaner (slightly) airframe, but that isn't in the equation.



delivered on late february 1945 to perational squadron, what's the source?
afaik delivery to operational squadron in summer 1945 and no H see a fight


----------



## drgondog (May 27, 2008)

Vincenzo said:


> delivered on late february 1945 to perational squadron, what's the source?
> afaik delivery to operational squadron in summer 1945 and no H see a fight



Gruenhagen's "Mustang -Story of the P-51 Fighter" and Wagner's "Mustang Designer".

The last of 555 was delivered in November, 1945. The order for 1000 was cut at V Day and approximately 75 were delivered between Sept and November as the line wound down

The first was delivered in February, 1945 and the first to the RAF for evaluation was delivered IIRC on 2 March, 1945.

No, it didn't see combat because it wasn't needed. All went to operational Combat units stationed in US as Interceptor units and served in that capacity through 1951, along with many rotating to Air National Guard Units


----------



## Kurfürst (May 27, 2008)

mad_max said:


> Do we really need to hear this again for the upteen time?



Because you shared us your doubts about 1.98ata for the upteenth time, mate..



mad_max said:


> Where's the on strenght numbers?



Well, they are readily available for three years, now, too. But let`s recap.

As per 9th April 1945.

I./JG 27 29
III./JG 27 19
III./JG 53 40
IV./JG 53 54
*Total 142.*

As per on the nightfall of 14th April 1945 (ie. after daily engagements, before repairs were done in the evening).

I./JG 27 25
III./JG 27 19
III./JG 53 22
IV./JG 53 51
*Total 117.*

As you can see, the numbers varied even within a few days time.


Now, can we see strenght reports for RAF Merlin Mustang and Spitfire XIV Squadrons? No...? Mike still hasn`t provided them, eh? You start to wonder, why...



mad_max said:


> All that is is an order. All we have is the other experts saying could, maybe, you can figure by April 45, 1.98 was used. Nothing else but this order that is held in such regards.



Keep weaving your story, the same way you have been weaving it for 3 years... but a blind man`s story has poorly made fabric. 8) 



mad_max said:


> We have the order for Merlin's cleared for 25" and the Griffin for 21", but you don't want to hear that.



May I ask you to keep presenting your own twisted version only, and refrain from twisting mine opionon. Are you capable of that? Oh thank you.

As for the Spit IX`s +25 lbs order, we know it was ordered, and we also know from pilot memoirs who were there that after a series of fatal incididents after its introduction (February 1945) to the 2nd TAF, it was recalled very soon after, and to say the pilots wished the whole 150 grade business to hell is an otherstatements.

BTW I produced these memoirs I have mentioned above to Neil Stirling and Mike Williams... in case if they don`t know of these as they do.. 
Do you have any idea why they don`t bother to tell that part of the story in their little 150 grade article...?  




mad_max said:


> I don't either but I also don't want to hear about 1.98 ata just because of an order.



Yes, yes I have read that part somewhere.. oh it was you a few lines above. I wonder why do you need to repeat yourself, but here`s the deal: we have a lot more than an order. We have the 605DB/DC manual which clears 1.98ata in December 1944. We have the DB Niederschrift that tells it was cleared and issued to the troops by DB. From the same doc we know of the problems occuring, and that II/JG 11 was selected for operational trials. We know that in March 1945 the LW issued an order for four fighter Wings to use the increased 1.98ata boost pressure - quite clearly it was cleared in the meantime again. We have fuel store status for Luftwaffenkommando West that shows C-3 was available to them in sufficient scale and there was no shortage of it compared to B-4, as Neil liked to claim. We have photographic evidence of JG 27 and JG 53 109Ks (and a lot of G-10s from other units BTW) marked for C-3 fuel use in March-April, something they only needed if their engines were configured to DC settings with 1.98ata.


It has been proven far beyond the scope Mike or Neil was able to support their agenda. They can`t show unit strenghts, they don`t have any photograhpic evidence, they try to select between the information as shown above, and as much as they dig the archieves and dug up dozens of Mk XIV combat reports from 1945, they can`t find a single one that says +21 lbs was in use, even less the +25 lbs rating for the Griffon Mike is dreaming about.  

Even then, I`d say the use of +21 lbs is _probable_ for the Griffon in 1945. But we still don`t know any details about it, how many units used it, and to what extent - I`d like to remind you that we have already confirmed that +25 lbs was used for the Merlin 66, _AND it proved to be a disaster and was soon recalled_. I wonder if the story is the same in the case of the Griffon, which had even harder time to cope with even +21. I wonder if Mike and Neil is not aware of that for fact already..  



> All I see is an agenda from anyone that proposes the usage of something just because the order is there.
> 
> The truth hurts don't it?



Well one can see that from how often you repeat your line about 'its only an order.. it doesn`t matter... it doesn`t matter!'..


----------



## Vincenzo (May 27, 2008)

if this is abstract from source that not tell delivered at operational units, tell first delivery at february 1945, delivery is from factory to usaaf.
If i've understood wrong what squadron is the first with P51H?


----------



## Kurfürst (May 27, 2008)

drgondog said:


> Not to mention that production P-51H's were being delivered to operational squadrons in late Feb 1945...





drgondog said:


> The first was delivered in February, 1945 and the first to the RAF for evaluation was delivered IIRC on 2 March, 1945.



In other words... it wasn`t operational in February 1945, nor in March when it was still being evaluated and nearing operational service. Not that a few months would count much, had the war continued, but still.. lets have the facts straight.


----------



## drgondog (May 27, 2008)

Kurfürst said:


> In other words... it wasn`t operational in February 1945, nor in March when it was still being evaluated and nearing operational service. Not that a few months would count much, had the war continued, but still.. lets have the facts straight.



No - it was 'operational' in late february in context of first P-51H leaving production lines and accepted by USAAF in late Feb. It was operational in squadron strength in March - but I am still tracking details on first squadron to receive it.

The evaluation references was for RAF only, and only one was ever sent to RAE.

I am still trying to validate the source but I believe there were Two Operational P-51H groups at the end of April, 1945. Operational in that two groups had received the aircraft, pilot familiarization completed, groups ready to be deployed overseas and awaiting assignment, but operational as air defense wings at that time.

I don't know how that contrasts with say the Ta 152H-1 but suspect favorably. I don't want to cause a departure from the Thread so we can deal with this question later?


----------



## Kurfürst (May 27, 2008)

Fine with me. Perhaps a very-late/almost made it war über-fighter thread is a better place for it... La-7, Yak-3U, Bf 109K, Ta 152H, Spit 21, Tempest II... dunno for the IJA... Ki 84?


----------



## drgondog (May 27, 2008)

Kurfürst said:


> Fine with me. Perhaps a very-late/almost made it war über-fighter thread is a better place for it... La-7, Yak-3U, Bf 109K, Ta 152H, Spit 21, Tempest II... dunno for the IJA... Ki 84?



That would be interesting.. and include 51H, F8F and F7F - anything that was in production and delivering to units before V-J Day. Keeping it conventional probably makes more sense as P-80 vs Me 262 vs Meteor have been thrashed pretty well.


----------



## Kurfürst (May 27, 2008)

Definietely, I wanted to include these one as well, but slipped me mind in the end..


----------



## Waynos (May 27, 2008)

Don't forget to include the Spiteful as this was in production but never delivered due to the wars end.


----------



## Soren (May 27, 2008)

Bill,

Your alt conditions are fine, although I think we should add SL performance as-well.

As for the P-51H, well this one didn't see service in WW2 and therefore isn't part of the comparison. Also the P-51H is more in the league of the Ta-152H-1, which was the best piston engined fighter to be developed during the war.

But perhaps we should like Kurfurst proposed make a thread with all the late war Über fighters can be compared, such as the Ta-152, Me-262, He-162, P-51H, Meteor, Spitfire 21 etc etc..


----------



## drgondog (May 27, 2008)

Soren said:


> Bill,
> 
> Your alt conditions are fine, although I think we should add SL performance as-well.
> 
> ...



I'm fine with that and SL as well.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 27, 2008)

starling said:


> so which one has the best climb performance.lee.



Still waiting for your response to the following:

Please post proof that the 109 crashes a lot on take off and landing.

I want to see:

1. Number of 109s (all models) that crashed on take off.
2. Number of 109s (all models) that crashed on landing.
3. Percentage of 109s (all models) that crashed on take off and landing.

If you are going to make innacurate posts, then please back them up.

Now having gotten past that part also please explain:

1. What is so bad about the Fw 190?
2. How is the Spit better than the P-51D? Sure the Spit is more maneuverable, but what good does that do if the Spit can not get to the battle because it does not have the range of the P-51D?

If you post facts to back up your posts that is fine, but you are rather biased in your opinions and post nothing to back it up.

*Please dont keep us waiting!*


----------



## Hunter368 (May 27, 2008)

Chris is busting the chops of a newbie. Funny


----------



## davparlr (May 27, 2008)

Soren said:


> *[1]*Bf-109 K-4
> 
> 
> *[2]*Bf-109 G-10
> ...



It should be noted in this comparison that the above three German aircraft did not become available until Fall, 1944, a full year after the P-51B appeared in Europe. The nemeses that they were designed and built to neutralize, the B-17, the B-24, and their superb long range escort, the P-51B/D, had already been ravaging the German homeland and occupied regions. They were destroying fuel supplies, manufacturing facilities, and transportation systems a full year before these planes could provide help. By that time, it was too late. They had too little fuel, too few experienced pilots, and too poor support to make an impact. They had already been defeated by the time they first got their gear in the well. No advantage of airspeed, rate of climb, or turn rate could overcome this destruction. When the Germans desperately needed them, they were not there. These great aircraft were regulated to a footnote of history as “could have been” by an even greater aircraft, one that will always be featured historically in a different tense, as “was”, the P-51. The P-51 “was” an airplane with the performance needed at the time needed.

I think this kind of comparison, while may be interesting technically, adds nothing to the understanding of the aviation forces that shaped the outcome of WWII. Two of these participated in the maelstrom over Europe that was 1944 (I’m not sure how much of a role the Spitfire XIV played during this time but it was available). The other three played little to nothing to the outcome of the war, providing mostly a rearguard holding type of action.

I think the comparison of the last generation propeller fighters (in my opinion, post late ’44) would be interesting and more apropos than this comparison.


----------



## davparlr (May 27, 2008)

As for comparison purposes, I believe there are two valid configurations.

1) All aircraft configured with fuel, ammo, etc., that they would most likely be loaded in a typical combat situation, e.g., a P-51 would have to carry fuel to manuever and fuel to return home.
2) Mano a mano. Each aircraft is configured starting with empty weight, appropiate fluids and eqivalent crew weight are added, fuel for a fixed amount of combat time (e.g., obviously a P-38 would require more fuel) such as 30 minutes of prescribed Mil and Max power usage, and ammunition for a fixed amount of time (P-47, with its eight guns, would require more ammo than a P-51), or with an equivalent amount of ammo to reflect firepower (a two second burst of P-47 firepower is more devastating than a two second burst of a P-51 so the P-51 would have to fire longer).

Method 1) would more accurately reflect the air warfare affect on WWII. Method 2) would be more appropiate to compare the aircrafts basic performance. This would also be more appropiate in comparing aerodynamic capabilities of various aircraft.


----------



## kool kitty89 (May 27, 2008)

Those are excellent point, and ones I've been meaning to point out on these comparisons, but that is a very comprehensive discription of it.
More eliquent and precise than when I tried to do it a while back. (I think it just got further off topic)


But to do selection 2) we need a lot on the (often variable) armaments carried and then fuel consumption levels in comparable combat conditions. (similar engine operation levels, ie max cont, Mil, or WEP, etc)

ANd on a similer note, on the 2) condition, it would also be more fair to use the lower fual capacity for the longer range a/c, so use P-51B/C w/out any fuse tank, P-38J w/out LE wing tanks, pre -25 P-47 with earlier 305 gal. capacity. (and these still had longer range than most contemproaries) And probably more fair to be w/out wing racks as well.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 28, 2008)

Hunter368 said:


> Chris is busting the chops of a newbie. Funny



I am not busting anybody's chops. If you are going to come in and make the same false statements in every thread that pertains to the subject, then you better back yourself up!


----------



## KrazyKraut (May 28, 2008)

True that davparlr, let's make a thread comparing P-51 B/D and P-47 (C?/D?) against Me-109 G-6/G-14 (no /AS) and Fw-190 A-6/A-8... would be more representative.


----------



## ponsford (May 28, 2008)

Placing things in perspective and context goes a long way towards increasing understanding, nicely stated davparlr.


----------



## Hunter368 (May 28, 2008)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> I am not busting anybody's chops. If you are going to come in and make the same false statements in every thread that pertains to the subject, then you better back yourself up!



No problem Chris, I was just kidding around. I agree with your statements about the Bf-109 100%. 

I just found it funny that you were repeated asked him to "back up his statements". Meaning you were not letting him go or off the hook by making false claims without proof. I just found it funny is all.


----------



## renrich (May 28, 2008)

The assertion that the TA152H was the best fighter developed in WW2 once again strikes me as comical. This vaunted AC keeps jumping up in this forum as the "best" without much evidence except paper numbers which may or may not reflect it's true operational capabilities. Let us examine that assertion. My source ,"The Great Book of WW2 Aircraft," has a whole section on the various FW fighters and it states that only a several TA152Hs reached combat units. It was essentially a prototype aircraft purpose built to intercept high flying bombers. It's performance figures showed very high speeds(similar to the P47N) at very high altitudes where little ACM took place. It's low altitude performance was substantially worse(not as good as P51D.) It's armament was obviously fitted for bomber shootdowns(3 cannon) although pilot visibility would probably limit it's ability to use full deflection shots so it would have to, of necessity, stick with headon or rear quarter attacks with the attendent danger of defensive gunfire. It's initial rate of climb, 3345 fpm with boost was good but not exceptional. The 3 cannon armament would not necessarily stand it in good stead in ACM against allied fighters and it of course labored with the handicap of the vulnerable cooling system of the liquid cooled engine. As with most European fighters it was range challenged with a max range clean of 755 miles and 1250 miles with a drop tank. These are yardstick ranges which would probably translate to combat radiuses of perhaps 275 to 400 miles. These were good for an interceptor but not competitive with P51D, P47N, P38L or F4U4. Now let us get away from paper numbers and talk about combat experience. How many kills did the TA152 have? Not many! How many AC did it destroy strafing? Probably none. How many tons of bombs and rockets did it belabor the enemy with? Probably none. How many bombers did it succesfully escort to their targets and back? Probably none. How reliable was it and how many were operational for a certain mission of the AC available? We don't know. What would have been the mission of the TA152 in the Pacific with tropical temperatures, coral landing strips and long distances? Probably very mission limited. How well could the TA152 have executed carrier landings and takeoffs? It could not have done any! The TA152 was essentially an experimental fighter, an elegant looking airplane with seductive performance figures on paper in certain flight regimes. "Best" fighter design in WW2. Not in my book!


----------



## davparlr (May 28, 2008)

kool kitty89 said:


> ANd on a similer note, on the 2) condition, it would also be more fair to use the lower fual capacity for the longer range a/c, so use P-51B/C w/out any fuse tank, P-38J w/out LE wing tanks, pre -25 P-47 with earlier 305 gal. capacity. (and these still had longer range than most contemproaries) And probably more fair to be w/out wing racks as well.



The point is to equate the amount of load each comparison aircraft is carrying. Say, for instance, 150 gallons of gas was allocated to each aircraft for comparison purpose. This number would be adjusted for fuel consumption for a given amount of specified combat power usage. Without this adjustment, it would not be fair to compare a P-38, which would use more fuel to perform the given profile, with the Bf-109, which is more efficient. Supposing it would take the P-38 130 gallons to perform the profile and the Bf-109 100 gallons, then the test weigh of the P-38 would include 180 gallons of fuel as compared to the 150 gallons for the Bf-109.

Another way of stating this would be to calculate the fuel used by each aircraft to perform the mission profile and add a fixed amount, say 50 gallons. This would be the base comparison fuel weight for each associated aircraft.


----------



## davparlr (May 28, 2008)

renrich said:


> Not in my book!



Come on renrich, just because the p-51H and F4U-4 had significant performance advantage over the Ta-152H-1 below 25k ft and the P-47M had eqivalent performance doesn't mean that the Ta-152H-1 wasn't the best piston powered fighter the world ever had. After all it had those magical wings whose wonderful technology must have been lost since no later fighter adopted them. And don't forget, it was German.

Oh, by the way, my data shows the Ta-152H-1 having an internal fuel capacity of 263 gallons, more than the F4U-4.


----------



## drgondog (May 28, 2008)

I agreed Dave's point earlier, but at a minimum the 51B needs to be in the mix.

The P-51D was perhaps a better overall weapon system with more firepower and ammo, built in safety mods for the gear door uplock, beefed up tail vertical spar, bubble canopy, 1000 pound external rack capabilitiy - but at the cost of 10 percent weight increase over the P-51B and same Hp (engine)in summer 1944.. 

The 51B/C upgraded engines and stayed with the P-51D's 1650-7 and 150 octane fuel to simplify logistics... but that complicates this model slightly as the USAAF did not perform flight tests to get dash speed comparisons with the lighter airframe of the B. The 51B/C also fought against all the 109s and 190s that fought against the D's. To be anal - one could solve for Thrust of P-51D at it's rated top speed Hp and altitude and Plug it into P-51B Thrust.

I do agree the boundary condition of equal ammo/fuel load for One set, and T.O. Combat Load without internal fuselage tank fuel and without drop tanks as the other extreme.

Back to the model. I was waiting for an explanation regarding 'how' this exercise was going to proceed but offer the following - and hope that Marcel stays awake

The reason we have to get Hp converted to Thrust, and assume Thrust for that Hp/Altitude/Boost is constant, is that the freebody force diagram in the horizontal axis has Thrust opposite Drag (Induced and Parasite(everything other than wing)). The Parasite Drag Coefficient (Cdwet) is given for multiple sources in Lednicer's oft quoted reports, as well as Fw 190D-9 and A-8 and Spit IX.

To Continue:

When velocity is changed, the Total Drag is changed, but the Thrust remains the same at peak Hp/Boost and RPM. At max speed - no acceleration, below that you can accelerate from a lower boost/rpm back to max thrust and accelerate until the increase in velcity increase drag to equally balance the Thrust. Every engine and propeller and gearing set up converts Hp to thrust slightly differently and every propeller is a compromise design - so there really should not be an assumption that Hp is analogous to Thrust for any of these a/c COMPARISONS

At THAT maximum Thrust (we haven't solved for it yet) for That altitude and density, the Velocity is found from the Flight Test Speed at That Altitude. For that altitude and standard temp/pressure, or whatever you want to use for temp and pressure, you now have density. As noted below you need to normalize TAS to surface tem/pressure conditions at that test location

You look up the aspect ratio's, the tip chord ratio's, the Cdwet for Parasite drag at zero lift (say Cdwet) for each of the a/c.

That enables us now to plug velocity, density, and airfoil efficiency factors of Aspect Ratio and Tip/Chrord ratio to get the Induced Drag Coefficient. We have the Parasite Drag - now we can solve the equation for maximum Thrust.

T=Drag induced + Drag parasite .....at Maximum Velocity

At that altitude, that hp, that rpm/boost, for level flight at maximum speed in a flight test. Normalize each of the flight test densities for the altitude by the surface temperature and pressure of the tests to normalize True Airspeed for each of the recorded flight tests conducted in different locatopns (i.e Augsburg, GY versus Palmdale, CA).

As Soren said once, this isn't rocket science, and it doesn't need to be as long as we realize this is a perfromance 'speculation' based on rigid wing, airfoil, no consideration for factoring pitching and rolling loads on the airframe, etc. We are not factoring in the induced drag for Rudder or Elevator trim

Now, on to turn/G load/Velocity plots

As the bank of the turn increases from zero/level flight, the Load factor increases with Cosine of the Angle of Bank.. The turn requires increasing the angle of attack and rudder deflection to carve the turn horizontally. The actual lift and drag vectors change with angle of attack of the free stream velocity similar to an initial climb but we won't 'do that' - as we begin to complicate the model by incorporating real life effects and start to factor in elevator and rudder loads and pitching/yawing moments which must be accounted for when solving for the Free Body Force Diagram for Manuevering Flight

As the angle of attack increases, the Thrust remains constant from our solution above, but the velocity will move to a lower value based on the angle of bank (but not linear with the change in bank). The relative angle of attack from free stream angle of the wing/body system increases as the stick is pulled back in the turn. The Lift Coefficient increases as the Angle of Attack increases to sustain the vertical Lift vector required to balance the Weight to keep same altitude in the new increased bank angle. 

At each altitude and constant thrust, there is one maximum bank angle and velocity which will still sustain a component of Vertical Lift (equal and opposite to the Weight vector - which is greater than the Lift Vector in level flight) while still holding altitude constant... This Vertical Lift Vector is Different from the Normal Lift Vctor to the Wing 

As the angle of attack increases from the local angle of attack and CL setting for maximum speed - the drag increases beyond Thrust and the a/c slows down, as the bank increases, the local angle of attack increases to sustain a higher CL to maintain altitude and the resultant Drag again is higher than the available Thrust and it slows down more. 

Going at a steeper bank angle from this point while maintaining constant altitude continuously causes the local Angle of Attack to increase - taking it to, and then past, CLmax for the wing - and into a stall.

The net - is that no aircraft can sustain a bank angle at its rated top speed and still maintain it's altitude. If it enters a turn at less than max power and speed, throttles up and increases the bank, there will be a speed lower than its max level speed at which it can sustain THAT bank angle and load factor.

Solving for the above will get us to a point where we can talk. I am a little busy at the moment... but I can check the math.


----------



## renrich (May 28, 2008)

My book shows internal fuel of 364 imperial gallons(1618 ltrs) and ability to have one 66.2 imp gallon drop tank. Could that be a misprint? The range clean is 755 miles at 376 mph at 32810 feet. F4U4 could carry a total of 534 gallons. Obviously Vmax, service ceiling, max fuel carried and max range don't all happen in the same airplane at the same time which to me is part of the problem with the performance numbers which float about. Also I suspect that some numbers might be either bogus or honest mistakes. That is the reason I go with AC that have a lengthy operational history. The Mustang fought in two major wars and some minor wars, the Corsair likewise. The Corsair was in production longer than any piston engined fighter, I believe, and was a tried and true design.


----------



## claidemore (May 28, 2008)

In defense of the Ta152 weapons, the two MG151/20s would be very effective against fighters, similar to the two cannons on a Spitfire, or La5/7. The 30mm cannon would also be effective in any sort of surprise attack, (which the majority of kills were). 

OTOH, the famous 'shootdown' of a Tempest V by Willy Reschke appears not to be a shootdown at all, though definately a victory for the Reschke and the Ta152. 

Three Ta152s jumped two Tempests that were strafing trains. One Tempest managed to shoot down one of the Ta152s and escape. The other one, flown by Mitchell, was caught by Reschke as he climbed up after completing his strafing run. They both went into a left hand turn with Reschke firing his two 20mmms (he calls them machine guns). Mitchells plane exhibited some erratic movements when Reschke fired (according to Reschkes account). Question is, was this because he was hit, or was he jinking to avoid being hit? I suspect he was not hit, as Resche does not mention seeing any strikes, pieces flying off etc, he just mentions the erratic movement and leaves interpretation to the reader.  In any case, the Ta152 20mms jammed, Mitchell tightened his turn, his plane stalled, spun in, and Mitchell was killed in the crash. _(As we can see, the Ta152 was able to pull lead for a deflection shot, though it's arguable whether or not it got any hits)_

Score in this combat, 1 TA152 lost, 1 Tempest Mk V lost.


----------



## Soren (May 28, 2008)

Wrong Claidemore, no Ta-152 was ever shot down. One crashed for unknown reasons long before the fight during the patrol of the day where Reschke shot down the Tempest, that's it. And Reschke notes that the Ta-152 wasn't even close to reaching its limits, while the Tempest obviously was riding right on the stall. Conclusion is that the Ta-152H clearly turns A LOT better than the Tempest, and the specs of the a/c support this fact.

Infact the Ta-152H turns as-well as the Spitfire Mk.XIV, and retains speed in turns better.


----------



## Soren (May 28, 2008)

renrich said:


> The assertion that the TA152H was the best fighter developed in WW2 once again strikes me as comical. This vaunted AC keeps jumping up in this forum as the "best" without much evidence except paper numbers which may or may not reflect it's true operational capabilities. Let us examine that assertion. My source ,"The Great Book of WW2 Aircraft," has a whole section on the various FW fighters and it states that only a several TA152Hs reached combat units. It was essentially a prototype aircraft purpose built to intercept high flying bombers. It's performance figures showed very high speeds(similar to the P47N) at very high altitudes where little ACM took place. It's low altitude performance was substantially worse(not as good as P51D.) It's armament was obviously fitted for bomber shootdowns(3 cannon) although pilot visibility would probably limit it's ability to use full deflection shots so it would have to, of necessity, stick with headon or rear quarter attacks with the attendent danger of defensive gunfire. It's initial rate of climb, 3345 fpm with boost was good but not exceptional. The 3 cannon armament would not necessarily stand it in good stead in ACM against allied fighters and it of course labored with the handicap of the vulnerable cooling system of the liquid cooled engine. As with most European fighters it was range challenged with a max range clean of 755 miles and 1250 miles with a drop tank. These are yardstick ranges which would probably translate to combat radiuses of perhaps 275 to 400 miles. These were good for an interceptor but not competitive with P51D, P47N, P38L or F4U4. Now let us get away from paper numbers and talk about combat experience. How many kills did the TA152 have? Not many! How many AC did it destroy strafing? Probably none. How many tons of bombs and rockets did it belabor the enemy with? Probably none. How many bombers did it succesfully escort to their targets and back? Probably none. How reliable was it and how many were operational for a certain mission of the AC available? We don't know. What would have been the mission of the TA152 in the Pacific with tropical temperatures, coral landing strips and long distances? Probably very mission limited. How well could the TA152 have executed carrier landings and takeoffs? It could not have done any! The TA152 was essentially an experimental fighter, an elegant looking airplane with seductive performance figures on paper in certain flight regimes. "Best" fighter design in WW2. Not in my book!




Well Renrich despite getting all the performance figures wrong you need to consider the following; In the very limited time the Ta-152H saw service it established itself a 11 to 0 kill ratio in the air, and its pilots all note that it was completely the superior a/c in all of these engagements.


As for performance figures, find me a single Allied a/c that could match the below which is the actual performance of the a/c at full boost:

Top speed: 760 km/h (472 mph) at alt, 597 km/h (371 mph) at SL
Climb rate: 5,100 + ft/min (With MW50)
Time to climb 10km (32,808 ft): 10 min 06 sec.
Service ceiling: 15.1 km (49,540 ft)

The climb rate figure you presented (3,444 ft/min) was achieved at Steig u. Kampfleistung (1,590 PS), while 19.2 m/s (3,779 ft/min) was achieved at Start u. Notleistung (1,750 PS).


----------



## Soren (May 28, 2008)

davparlr said:


> Come on renrich, just because the p-51H and F4U-4 had significant performance advantage over the Ta-152H-1 below 25k ft and the P-47M had eqivalent performance



Get your facts straight, that's all there is to say to that.


----------



## bada (May 28, 2008)

renrich said:


> The assertion that the TA152H was the best fighter developed in WW2 once again strikes me as comical.



Not if you read about his abilities, from a english pilot that bring the plane to england



renrich said:


> This vaunted AC keeps jumping up in this forum as the "best" without much evidence except paper numbers which may or may not reflect it's true operational capabilities. Let us examine that assertion. My source ,"The Great Book of WW2 Aircraft," has a whole section on the various FW fighters and it states that only a several TA152Hs reached combat units. It was essentially a prototype aircraft purpose built to intercept high flying bombers.



Your book is so wrong my dear.
the prototypes are coded V-Series in the LW. 
the 152H-0 was the pre-series airplane used for test flights(debugging) and school.
the 152H-1 was the first official production serie. 

So, this productionserie is called "a protoype"???? man, it has to be really a good book 

It's purpose was the aerial supremacy and not a destroyer like you seem to argue.

The performance of thise plane were simply "higher and faster", the goal for this plane was the bomber's escort! 




renrich said:


> It's performance figures showed very high speeds(similar to the P47N) at very high altitudes where little ACM took place. It's low altitude performance was substantially worse(not as good as P51D.)"



It's peformances were ,like i've wrote above: higher and faster. No WWII plane could achieve the same specs at high alt as the ta152,none!

And about the comment on the low alt performance, i'd like to rember you the fact that those planes could out-maneuvre the tempest at the deck, ask the guys from the 486sq if you want.
and what is the p51 donwlow performance? how do you think it was flying the p51 i a domain that it wasn't build for?



renrich said:


> It's armament was obviously fitted for bomber shootdowns(3 cannon) although pilot visibility would probably limit it's ability to use full deflection shots so it would have to, of necessity, stick with headon or rear quarter attacks with the attendent danger of defensive gunfire.



that's a guess, right???? OR maybe you don't know that all the LW fighters were equipped with Canons????
that was their primary weapon. So, there were 2 mg151/20E and one 30mm mk108 high velocity canon, 
you know, one bullet, one kill?!
Also, you don't seem to know the subject very well, the visibilty and especially deflection,in any 190 (yes, the ta152 is a 190 and their cockpit is the same), was better than in any spitfire.
About your last phrase in this quote : see above: NOT a bomber killer!



renrich said:


> It's initial rate of climb, 3345 fpm with boost was good but not exceptional.



it was good; but what is the RoC of a fully loaded p47N or p51D again????



renrich said:


> The 3 cannon armament would not necessarily stand it in good stead in ACM against allied fighters and it of course labored with the handicap of the vulnerable cooling system of the liquid cooled engine.



do you know the results af a 30mm shell in a spit-wing??? search on youtube, you'll see what happens to a wing that is not under stress, 
and then simply imagine what it would be if the plane was bancked or loaded!

And what was is wrong with the water-cooling system? did the p-51 have a new magical undestructible plasma not leaking cooling system? 




renrich said:


> As with most European fighters it was range challenged with a max range clean of 755 miles and 1250 miles with a drop tank. These are yardstick ranges which would probably translate to combat radiuses of perhaps 275 to 400 miles.



Again, a guess??? or did you calculated the engine fuel consumption? can help you with that if you want, got the 152 manual.




renrich said:


> These were good for an interceptor but not competitive with P51D, P47N, P38L or F4U4.



Not competitive with what? range only? Germans hadn't the need to fly far away, they were resticted to their territory!



renrich said:


> Now let us get away from paper numbers and talk about combat experience. How many kills did the TA152 have? Not many!.



12 official kills, losses to ennemy or ground-fire: none
Not bad for a plane the flew only in by the ennemy overpopulated sky.



renrich said:


> How many AC did it destroy strafing? Probably none.!



you're absolutly right, and how many kills or straffings kills or even bombs did the p51H have?

oups, none, because it even didn't flew operationnaly in the WWII! and then in corea, was too slow as fighter and too fragile as ground pounder!



renrich said:


> How many tons of bombs and rockets did it belabor the enemy with? Probably none.



not build as straffer or even bomber



renrich said:


> How many bombers did it succesfully escort to their targets and back? Probably none.



a lot actually, most of the jg301 missions were to escort 190d-9 harrassing mostly soviet troops.



renrich said:


> How reliable was it and how many were operational for a certain mission of the AC available? We don't know..



yes, we know, the story of each airframe can be found in GOOD-books about the ta152, not in a simplified 100 pages encyclopedy



renrich said:


> What would have been the mission of the TA152 in the Pacific with tropical temperatures, coral landing strips and long distances? Probably very mission limited.



What will the 152 do there??? What would your car do if put on the antarctic continent? or the moon?




renrich said:


> How well could the TA152 have executed carrier landings and takeoffs? It could not have done any!



Very well actually, the stall speed was 130km/h...or did you forget what those big,large wings do on airplanes?



renrich said:


> The TA152 was essentially an experimental fighter, an elegant looking airplane with seductive performance figures on paper in certain flight regimes. "Best" fighter design in WW2. Not in my book!



Yes, i admit, it was a kind of experimantal plane, but much less than the p80 for example  

No, just jocking, see the first answer: they were chain-produced!  

About you book: i would close it, never open it again and go on the web and search for real books (yes those are mostly exepensives) in any online book shop you can find, and if those books are written by polish, or french guys, buy them immediately cause at least, those books are'nt biased! 

and about the reschke story:







Sorry Soren for the OT


----------



## marshall (May 28, 2008)

Soren said:


> Wrong Claidemore, no Ta-152 was ever shot down.




Reschke:

"We reached the position at an altitude of 200 metres, just at the moment when both Tempests after diving started climbing again. Just as the dogfight was developing Sepp Stattler, on our side, was hit and his plane fell like a stone out of the sky [...] The Tempest which I attacked quickly reached the same height as me and was [at] approximately 10 o'clock before me. The dogfight began between 50 and 100 metres above ground level and very often the wing tips passed close over the treetops.[...] The whole fight was executed in a left-hand turn, the low altitude of which would not allow for any mistakes. Ever so gradually I gained metre by metre on the Tempest and after a few circles I had reached the most favourable shooting position. [...] I pressed my machine-gun buttons for the first time [...] I could see the Tempest for a short moment in straight ahead flight displaying slightly erratic flying behaviour. But immediately she went straight back into the left turn. [...] I sighted the Tempest very favourably in my cross-hairs and could not have missed but my machine-guns experienced feeding problems. I therefore tried to shoot it down with my cannon and forced her into a tight left-hand turn from where she tipped out over her right wing and crashed into a forest."


According to Reschke it was shot down.


----------



## Soren (May 28, 2008)

Nope, it wasn't hit by any a/c. And read above, Sattler's aircraft fell to the ground long before the dogfight ever started, and I quote "For no apparent reason!".

Also please don't leave out that Reschke mentions in his own book that while the Tempest was riding on its very edge of performance, being very close to the stall, the Ta-152H was never even close to its limits. It's in the book, Wilde Sau..


----------



## bada (May 28, 2008)

Zobacz co jest nagorze 

English: please, look above.


----------



## Soren (May 28, 2008)

To demonstrate just how effective those high AR wings were note that the Ta-152H needs a runway of just 295m, that's a shorter take off run than ANY Spitfire, 109, F4U 190 model, and only a fraction of the distance the P-51, P-47 Tempest needed!

This was just one of the Ta-152H very positive points, it needed a much shorter runway than any other fighter in service, allowing it to take off land on much smaller airstrips.

It's no wonder that the pilots who transitioned to the Ta-152H were absolutely baffled by the extreme acceleration the airplane displayed, Reschke noting that it was like being strapped to a rocket, the head being thrown back into the head rest.


----------



## marshall (May 28, 2008)

bada said:


> Zobacz co jest nagorze
> 
> English: please, look above.



We were posting at the same time, I haven't seen your post when I wrote mine. 

But why Reschke says that "Just as the dogfight was developing Sepp Stattler, on our side, *was hit* and his plane fell like a stone out of the sky"?


----------



## Glider (May 28, 2008)

Soren said:


> Nope, it wasn't hit by any a/c. And read above, Sattler's aircraft fell to the ground long before the dogfight ever started, and I quote "For no apparent reason!".
> 
> Also please don't leave out that Reschke mentions in his own book that while the Tempest was riding on its very edge of performance, being very close to the stall, the Ta-152H was never even close to its limits. It's in the book, Wilde Sau..



Personally I would be a little worried about planes that explode for no apparant reason. In a combat zone that normally means someone hit it, but no one saw what. Very common in air combat.


----------



## Soren (May 28, 2008)

The effects of AR on the L/D ratio of a wing:

*AR of 4*




*AR of 9*





And why is the L/D ratio then important ?? Because it dictates the energy (Speed) retention in turns, i.e. everything else being equal the a/c with the highest L/D ratio can turn tighter for longer without losing speed.

And to demonstrate it mathematically:

L/D ratio = Lift / Drag

And so the L/D ratio is = Cl / Cd

And here to demonstrate the difference between a wing with an AR of 6 with one of 8 (We'll leave out Cd0 as it's irrelevant and wont affect the outcome):

Wing with an AR of 6: 
(1.3^2) / (pi*6*.80) = 0.112071606

1.3 / 0.112071606 
___________
L/D ratio = *11.59*

Wing with an AR of 8:
(1.3^2)/(pi*8*.80) = 0.0840537043

1.3 / 0.0840537043
___________
L/D ratio = *15.46*

That's a difference of 33.3% in favour of the wing with the AR of 8, which means the higher AR wing features 33.3% more lift for every amount of drag produced. (Or 33.3% less drag for every amount of lift if you will)


----------



## Soren (May 28, 2008)

> But why Reschke says that "Just as the dogfight was developing Sepp Stattler, on our side, was hit and his plane fell like a stone out of the sky"?



Where does he say that Marshall ??

What Reschke says is that upon approaching the opponents Sattler's a/c fell to the ground for no apparent reason. A mechanical malfunction, something medical with Sattler etc etc one of these could be the culbrit.


----------



## ponsford (May 28, 2008)

W/O W. J. Shaw of 486 Squadron shot down the TA 152 of Ofw Sepp Sattler from Stab/JG 301.

Shaw’s report: 
"I was flying Pink 2 whilst diving to attack Met on a road about 10 miles east of Ludwigslust I saw a single Fw.190 flying east at deck level. I reported this to Pink 1 who ordered me to follow him in to attack. The 190 broke when we were out of range as I could see that my No.1 would be unable to attack I dropped my tanks climbed for height. As the E/A straightened out east I dived on it – passing my No. 1. This time the 190 broke rather later again to port I was able to pull my bead through until he disappeared beneath my nose. It was a full deflection shot I opened fire when I judged I had 2 radii deflection on him. I fired a long burst then broke upwards to observe results. As the 190 came in sight again I saw the flash of a strike just forward of the cockpit. An instant later, flames appeared from the port side , enveloped in flames, the 190 went down in a gradual straight dive to the deck. I saw it crash in a field explode. 
Cine camera used 
I claim 1 Fw.190 destroyed."

It's possible that it was a couple of 109’s that shot Mitchell down and not Reschke. 

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/tempest/486-shaw-14april45.jpg


----------



## Soren (May 28, 2008)

Wrong ponsford. No Ta-152 was ever shot down, and that shootdown has nothing to do with Sattler's crash, completly unrelated. Note he claims 1 *FW190* destroyed, and mentioned nothing peculiar about the a/c. And there's no mistaking a Ta-152 for a Fw-190, thats for sure!

And Reschke DID shoot down Mitchell, he was trailing him after having fired at him when he saw him crash for crying out loud!


----------



## drgondog (May 28, 2008)

The factory flight test for the P-51H without wing racks was 487mph at 8500 pounds Take Off weight at 25,000 feet and the top ceiling was never tested due to lack of pressurization. The latter is only important in the context of performance at say 38,000 feet would still show the H to have decent climb performance but still below the Ta 152H.

The performance with same boost - 80" at 8500# Gross Take Off, no stores, was 463mph at 15,000 feet.. so speed was pretty close. Rate of Climb for that condition is a report I haven't seen. Having said that, it was better than the 51B and probably around 4,500 fpm intial climb

The MORE capable XP-51G climbed to 20,000 feet in 3.4 minutes, max speed 495Mph at 25,000 feet and ceiling trial stopped at 46,000 feet (for same reason - pilot restriction for zero pressurization). The only significant difference of note was that a.) it was lighter(no guns/ammo in test) and b.) it used a new R.M 14 S.M. version of the Merlin Mark 100 with a five blade prop - and it had about 2000 Hp at 20,000 feet to the P-51H Merlin 1650-9 with 1900 at Max Hp, with the standard four blade prop. The Mk 100 was in short supply and designing for the Griffon, while at test installation stage, was cancelled.

A P-51B (MkIII) was fitted with same Mk 100 and attained climb rates to achieve 30,000 feet at 9 minutes and 2,100 fpm residual climb at 30,000 feet, top speed of 453mph at 25,000 feet, and ROC of 4160fpm at 14,000 feet. It used 3 and four bladed props with no discernable differences.

The 51G was built in parallel with the H and first flew in August 1944. The first H's were delayed from December Production release to incorporate changes back to the 1650-9 engine, include water injection and a Simmonds Boost controlm unit. The P-51H was first ordered for a quantity of 2500 in April, 1944.

The airframe of the P-51H was the same as the G, weighed 600 pounds more with Gund and ammo and both were 13 inches longer than the B/C/D.

To say the Ta 152H was 'far' superior is stretching the envelope and still begs the question - how far advanced from the August 1944 XP-51G, had the G/H been deemed 'necessary'?? and how much of a production gestation did Ta 152 have? IIRC it also flew the first time in Aug 1944?

Also of note. an 11-1 (or whatever) ratio, air to air, (and grand total) is for the last two months of the war is equivalent to the P-51 air to air ratio which includes about 100+ Me 262s.  I won't debate Award to Claim but suspect that USAAF more rigorous, records wise, than Luftwaffe in last 8 months of the war. What I would agree is that the scores of the Ta 152 pilots was over higher average skill pilots than the overall Mustang opponents.

Without looking at the aero characteristics side by side I would speculate climb and speed were the same (Ta 152H and P-51H) , and guess that turn may have been slighly better than the H - with dive being more or less equal.

I have not seen the empty weights or gross weights in any consistency to even get that resolved. 

Great airplane but not a quantum leap... not any more than say, a P-51B was to a 190A-8 at 24,000 feet.


----------



## drgondog (May 28, 2008)

Soren said:


> Wrong ponsford. No Ta-152 was ever shot down, and that shootdown has nothing to do with Sattler's crash, completly unrelated. Note he claims 1 *FW190* destroyed, and mentioned nothing peculiar about the a/c. And there's no mistaking a Ta-152 for a Fw-190, thats for sure!
> 
> And Reschke DID shoot down Mitchell, he saw him crash for crying out loud!



Soren, Curiously - how do you Know this? Completeness of German records, interviews with every German pilot that flew one, Inventory counts of a/c delivered, a/c captured? And you know the precise cause of Sattler's crash? and how do you know this?

and No mistaking 'it with an Fw 190D-9 in a high speed 90 degree deflection shot whre you can't see a wing - or even 6 O'clock where you might be a little busy trying to notice the wing span difference??


----------



## Soren (May 28, 2008)

Again the Ta-152H actually saw service in WW2 Bill, the P-51H didn't. Furthermore the Ta-152H was designed developed earlier as-well.

So to say the Ta-152H far superior to any Allied fighter in service is definitely not stretching it.

Now if you want to include the P-51H then keep in mind that the Germans actually already had an a/c in service which was faster, the Fw-190 Dora-13 with a top speed of 777 + km/h at alt and a higher ceiling.


----------



## Soren (May 28, 2008)

drgondog said:


> Soren, Curiously - how do you Know this? Completeness of German records, interviews with every German pilot that flew one, Inventory counts of a/c delivered, a/c captured? And you know the precise cause of Sattler's crash? and how do you know this?



If in doubt ask Erich, cause he isn't. And it has already been confirmed various times before.

Or are you trying to say that Reschke is a liar Bill ??? 



> and No mistaking 'it with an Fw 190D-9 in a high speed 90 degree deflection shot whre you can't see a wing - or even 6 O'clock where you might be a little busy trying to notice the wing span difference??



The Ta-152 is longer much wider than the Dora-9, they don't look alike. And he wasn't pulling deflection from the very beginning, he already had a good look at the a/c before that.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 28, 2008)

I can see someone mistaking a Fw 190D for a Ta 152H.

Not saying this is the case, but they are very similiar looking aircraft.


----------



## drgondog (May 28, 2008)

Soren said:


> Nope, it wasn't hit by any a/c. And read above, Sattler's aircraft fell to the ground long before the dogfight ever started, and I quote "For no apparent reason!".
> 
> Also please don't leave out that Reschke mentions in his own book that while the Tempest was riding on its very edge of performance, being very close to the stall, the Ta-152H was never even close to its limits. It's in the book, Wilde Sau..



Soren, if he was gaining "meter by meter" in the turn, one of three things is clear (we can rule out that Reschke was goofing off and smoking a cig).

1.) he was a better pilot flying an equivalent a/c in that manuever, or
2.) he was flying against a good pilot, with a slightly better better a/c than the Tempest
3.) he was a better pilot, flying an equivalent machine and able to gain a slight edge in the Ta 152.

Which is it?

Prove it?

Back to your 'tutorial' on manuever Performance?


----------



## Soren (May 28, 2008)

Not by a long shot. The much longer wings of the Ta-152 makes it a completely different in a pilot's eyes. Note that even the Dora was mistaken as a another type a/c than the Fw190 when first seen by Allied pilots.


----------



## Kruska (May 28, 2008)

renrich said:


> The assertion that the TA152H was the best fighter developed in WW2 once again strikes me as comical..........



I would tend to agree on that

Regards
Kruska


----------



## drgondog (May 28, 2008)

Bada - I have searched for a 'definitive' document regarding the Ta 152H-1 or -2. You mentioned having the manual?

If so can you tell me
a. The Gross Weight Empty.
b. The Gross Weight Full ammo and internal fuel/oil and pilot
c. Limit Load and the weight for Limit Load
d. Top Speed as function of Gross take off weight, maximum boost and altitude.
e. Airfoil 
f. Drag Coefficient for wetted area (all Paratsite Drag).

These data have been subject of Extensive debate and questioning.

Thank you.


----------



## marshall (May 28, 2008)

Soren said:


> Where does he say that Marshall ??




In his description of the combat. You can find the quote here:
Focke-Wulf Ta 152 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Soren (May 28, 2008)

drgondog said:


> Soren, if he was gaining "meter by meter" in the turn,



Where did he say meter by meter ??? That's something Marshall claimed he said, but he didn't, you have it in black and white Bill.

What he said was: _ "I was continually closing on the Tempest"_




> one of three things is clear (we can rule out that Reschke was goofing off and smoking a cig).



If you twist what he said then yes, problem is you're making it up from then on.



> 1.) he was a better pilot flying an equivalent a/c in that manuever, or
> 2.) he was flying against a good pilot, with a slightly better better a/c than the Tempest
> 3.) he was a better pilot, flying an equivalent machine and able to gain a slight edge in the Ta 152.
> 
> ...



Well let us see Bill, did you forget this part: _"I was continually closing on the Tempest, but for not one second did I feel that my aircraft was reaching its performance limit"_

Or later this: 
_"Throughout the entire combat, the Ta 152 did not reach the peak of its performance even once, responding to every move of the control stick, even just above the ground"_

Also do I need to remind yo that the Ta-152H turned allot better than the Fw-190 A-8 in all tests (Read Wilde Sau Dietmar Hermanns book on the Ta152), and that a heavy Jabo turned just as well as the Tempest in British trials ???


----------



## drgondog (May 28, 2008)

Soren said:


> Not by a long shot. The much longer wings of the Ta-152 makes it a completely different in a pilot's eyes. Note that even the Dora was mistaken as a another type a/c than the Fw190 when first seen by Allied pilots.



A. I defy you to explain why a Ta 152 is immediately discernable from a 190D in a side elevation 90 degree deflection shot at the profile plus or minus 30 degrees? You would not see a 'distinction in wing span' at 100 to 200 yards. NFW

B. I would draw to your attention pilots mistaking Me 110's from 210's and 210's from 410's from Ju 88's, and 190D's from 109s, as well as 51Bs from 109s and P-47s from 190s'. It happened all the time. So many pilot's had 'eyes' that weren't as discerning as you believe?


----------



## Soren (May 28, 2008)

marshall said:


> In his description of the combat. You can find the quote here:
> Focke-Wulf Ta 152 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



You mean in Wikipedia's discription! Exactly why you should take what you read on there with a grain of salt.

You've got what he really said from his own book.


----------



## drgondog (May 28, 2008)

Soren said:


> If in doubt ask Erich, cause he isn't. And it has already been confirmed various times before.
> 
> *I have HUGE respect for Erich's research. But ask Erich if he IS sure based on german records?*
> 
> ...


----------



## Soren (May 28, 2008)

drgondog said:


> A. I defy you to explain why a Ta 152 is immediately discernable from a 190D in a side elevation 90 degree deflection shot at the profile plus or minus 30 degrees? You would not see a 'distinction in wing span' at 100 to 200 yards. NFW



Easy. The Ta-152 is longer, both the front and rear fuselage is longer. The tail fin is a different design and larger. Wings are MUCH longer. Sorry but there's no way you'd see this and call it a FW-190:









> B. I would draw to your attention pilots mistaking Me 110's from 210's and 210's from 410's from Ju 88's, and 190D's from 109s, as well as 51Bs from 109s and P-47s from 190s'. It happened all the time. So many pilot's had 'eyes' that weren't as discerning as you believe?



LoL and ofcourse all of these fighter looked relatively alike from afar, with similar AR wings. Now of you could find examples of someone mistaking a Spitfire with a P-51 or something like that then we could talk.


----------



## marshall (May 28, 2008)

Soren said:


> You mean in Wikipedia's discription! Exactly why you should take what you read on there with a grain of salt.
> 
> You've got what he really said from his own book.



I do but I was wondering why there are two different versions of Reschke's description of the combat?


----------



## Soren (May 28, 2008)

Anyhow it's ridiculous to keep arguing about it as Sattler wasn't shot down as Reschke explains. And if it was a mechanical malfunction which caused him to crash then it wouldn't be the first as a number of other Ta-152 crashed because of this.


----------



## Soren (May 28, 2008)

marshall said:


> I do but I was wondering why there are two different versions of Reschke's description of the combat?



Ever heard of the feather which became 10 Chickens ? 

From mouth to mouth stories tend to change


----------



## claidemore (May 28, 2008)

Wrong Soren. (I just had to say that since it's been said to me after nearly every post I've made on this or similar subjects!) 

It's completely easy to mistake a Ta152 for a FW190D, particularly if you have never seen a Ta152, which probably no allied pilots ever had, not sure if the allies even knew they existed! Newbs looking at photographs can't tell any of the 190s apart, let alone a guy in a fighter doing 350mph spotting a plane on the deck below him. 

One account has Reshke stating that Sattler was hit, one account says he crashed for no apparent reason. (the two downed planes were 500m apart btw) One account says he saw strikes, one account does not. The fact that he makes particular mention in the one account that they could see shell holes in the downed aircraft is of interest. (kinda reminds me of the Red Baron shootdown) The conflicting stories definately bring into question the reliability of the account. In a court of law, a lawyer would have a field day with it. 

Believe which ever one you want, but since we do know that a Tempest from the same squadron, in the same area, at the exact same time, shot down a plane that he says was an FW190, it ain't hard to figure out what really happened. It's not like there were droves of FWs flying all over the place. 442 Squadron RCAF for example flew ops for the entire month of April and saw enemy fighters exactly one time. 

AFAIC, score one Tempest for Reshke, one Ta152 for Shaw.


----------



## Soren (May 28, 2008)

> Nah, But as Erich and I BOTH noted about Willi's claims of Mustangs destroyed on the Nov 26, 1944 mission discussions on JG301's Black Day around Misburg, he (Willi) greatly overstated the Mustang losses.. so, why do we know for sure that he was 'dead on here?



Errr, and exactly what does that have to do with the a/c he HIMSELF shot down ?? 

It's no wonder if he possibly got the number of Mustang losses wrong sa he looked through his squadrons claims. But that's entirely different from fabricating stuff Bill, which you seem to think he does, which is bloody disrespectful IMO! Why the heck would he lie ???!


----------



## KrazyKraut (May 28, 2008)

RAF pilots thought Fw-190s were actually captured Hawks on first encounters, so I can definetly see them mistaking a Ta-152 for a Dora. I'm pretty sure Allied pilots were largely unaware of the 152.

Not like this one kill / not kill really matters though


----------



## Soren (May 28, 2008)

claidemore said:


> Wrong Soren. (I just had to say that since it's been said to me after nearly every post I've made on this or similar subjects!)
> 
> It's completely easy to mistake a Ta152 for a FW190D, particularly if you have never seen a Ta152, which probably no allied pilots ever had, not sure if the allies even knew they existed! Newbs looking at photographs can't tell any of the 190s apart, let alone a guy in a fighter doing 350mph spotting a plane on the deck below him.
> 
> ...



Sorry but again you're completely wrong. As Reschke explained Sattler crashed before the dogfight, and for no apparent reason.

Or are you trying to suggest that Reschke somehow managed to miss his wingman being chased by Tempest, shot at, doing aerobatics, and then finally crash ?? Come on Claidemore, get real!

Shaw shot down an ordinary Fw-190, not a Ta-152, and certainly not Sattler who crashed while Reschke was watching. IIRC Reschke even radioed him at the beginning of his dive, but got no response.


----------



## drgondog (May 28, 2008)

Soren said:


> Where did he say meter by meter ??? That's something Marshall claimed he said, but he didn't, you have it in black and white Bill.
> 
> What he said was: _ "I was continually closing on the Tempest"_
> 
> ...



Didn't forget any of it Soren. I am reminded of some of Willi's past indiscretions with some facts or observations. Don't know if anecdotal results of a 'lot better in tests' means anything. We both know the 190D and A had a bit of a problem with the High G turn and don't know much about similar challenges with the Ta 152 wing.

I would expect THAT wing to be a better manuever wing than the 190A and D because it had better W/L but I don't know about any possible elastic deformation issues with the long slender wing. You don't either.

You are supposed to be lecturing with great authority on aerodynamic proof points of manuever calculations - but I noticed a considerable body of 'silence' on the theory since I challenged you on the subject. You were also supposed to make great contributions to help me with my limited understanding of aeroelasticity but you vanished from that post also.

This post was supposed to be about analytical aero approach to turn manuever characteristics of the Spit, the 190, the Mustang and the Fw 190 - and it is getting sidetracked even by you.

I also noticed a great deal of silence on your part when I gently reminded you to use Thrust - not Hp. 

Today, I decided to help nudge you along and show you how to get there.

I am waiting to see where you go with 'proof points'.

BTW - I am agnostic on the proof results as you work through the 'physics' but I want to stay on your assumptions.


----------



## Soren (May 28, 2008)

> We both know the 190D and A had a bit of a problem with the High G turn



What problems Bill ? Enlighten me!

Fw-190 vets certainly describe no problems in high G turns, noting that the a/c "kurved" (turned) very well. And the 190 also gave plenty of warning of the stall if the ailerons were properly adjusted, which a number of captured examples weren't. Difference is the Germans knew how to properly adjust them, the Allies didn't. 

Warning of an approaching stall in the 190 was characterized as slight buffeting and notching of the stick, which most pilots easily noticed. 

So I trust the Rechlin trials which were conducted with highly experienced test pilots.



> I would expect THAT wing to be a better manuever wing than the 190A and D because it had better W/L but I don't know about any possible elastic deformation issues with the long slender wing.



No issues according to anyone who flew it.



> I also noticed a great deal of silence on your part when I gently reminded you to use Thrust - not Hp



Why do you find it necessary to lie Bill ?? 

I addressed that issue, even offering the thrust figures for the entire Fw-190 Ta-152 family.


----------



## drgondog (May 28, 2008)

Soren said:


> Errr, and exactly what does that have to do with the a/c he HIMSELF shot down ??
> 
> It's no wonder if he possibly got the number of Mustang losses wrong sa he looked through his squadrons claims. But that's entirely different from fabricating stuff Bill, which you seem to think he does, which is bloody disrespectful IMO! Why the heck would he lie ???!



Ah Soren, I did not say Willi lied. I said his power of recollection of either facts, or direct observations varied with actual results.

As to the claim, who was the witness? if no witness, I'm still prepared to accept his observation of the fight and the result. Clear?

Last, the observation of steadily gaining and never feeling like he was on the 'edge' would to me say that a.) he was flying the turn well, b.) that he was not approaching stall to point of losing control (by virtue of responding to stick movements).

It says nothing to his opponents skills, or the combined skill and capability of the pilot Tempest combination - other than Willi out turned him. Other fact substantiated data that I missed in his quoted recount of the fight?

Is this the type of evidence that constitutes Proof for you? Might you see this as a challenge when people ask you for third party facts?


----------



## claidemore (May 28, 2008)

Sorry Soren, but it is you who is completely wrong. (hey I could get used to saying that! )

Shaw bounced Sattler (#3 in the flight) while Reschke was concentrating on Mitchell. #3 guys is always a sitting duck, as you well know. Reschke never even mentions his other wingman, (#2). 

Can you show us a German loss report for the area and time that shows any other plane lost? Use a little Sherlock Holmes logic here, eleminate the improbable and impossible and what remains is the truth. 

So what if it changes the perfect Ta152 record from 11-0, to 11-1, big deal. Still an outstanding fighter.


----------



## Soren (May 28, 2008)

> Sorry Soren, but it is you who is completely wrong. (hey I could get used to saying that! )



Nope, you're the one who is wrong, and horrorfyingly so.

And before making claims as to what happened why don't you actualy read Reschke's book ???

If you do you'll realize that Sattler was NOT shot down, he just suddenly started diving and crashed for unknown reasons. Reschke saw it, so obviously he wasn't concentrating on any bogey. Remember Sattler crashed BEFORE the flight even spotted any enemies!! That's the prime clue which yo continue to miss.


----------



## drgondog (May 28, 2008)

Soren said:


> What problems Bill ? Enlighten me!
> 
> Fw-190 vets certainly describe no problems in high G turns, noting that the a/c "kurved" (turned) very well. And the 190 also gave plenty of warning of the stall if the ailerons were properly adjusted, which a number of captured examples weren't. Difference is the Germans knew how to properly adjust them, the Allies didn't.
> 
> ...



Soren - have you dismissed from your mind the issues discussed and documented about 190 issue with losing tip control due to elastic deformations in High G turns?

Are you saying that I lie about that, or Gene lies about that or Lednicer lied about that?

As to 'thrust' documentation? This may be interesting.

Are you referring to Horsepower and Horsepower to weight ratios as 'Thrust'??

Is that what you are saying?


----------



## drgondog (May 28, 2008)

Soren said:


> Easy. The Ta-152 is longer, both the front and rear fuselage is longer. The tail fin is a different design and larger. Wings are MUCH longer. Sorry but there's no way you'd see this and call it a FW-190:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



If you say so Soren, it must be so... and if one can NOT see a difference in Aspect Ratio because the Ta 152 is seen only from the side or relatively small angle, then it is clear that because the AR is different between the 190D and Ta 152 it should be discernable at that angle - the one in which you can't see the wing?

Right?


----------



## Soren (May 28, 2008)

double post


----------



## Soren (May 28, 2008)

Bill it's impossible to change your mind anyway nomatter the amount of fact one brings to the table, so why don't we just agree to disagree on the subject. Encounter reports provide a horrible method for measuring comparing a/c anyhow.

If we want ot compare the a/c accurately we will use the specs avaialble to us.

I can tell you the following though Bill, at the same power rating it took the Fw-190 A-8 430 m to clear the runway, compared to the 295m for the Ta-152H. That's a pretty clear indication of the difference in maneuvering performance between the two a/c. 

Take off distances time is often a good indicator of sustained maneuvering performance.


Now keep in mind that a heavy Fw-190 Jabo (Not even a fighter like the A-8) turns just as well as the Tempest.

There should be no doubt in anyones mind after that..


----------



## drgondog (May 28, 2008)

Soren said:


> Ever heard of the feather which became 10 Chickens ?
> 
> From mouth to mouth stories tend to change



Just out of curiosity since I haven't read his book, did he write it in 1945 when the memories could be expected to be very fresh, or 40 years later or 50 years afterwards.

If you've ever been in an auto accident, say 40 years ago - can you remember what happened just before and just after?

Just Curious.


----------



## Soren (May 28, 2008)

drgondog said:


> Soren - have you dismissed from your mind the issues discussed and documented about 190 issue with losing tip control due to elastic deformations in High G turns?



Dismissed ?? Bill the the 190 didnr't loose tip control as such, a larger part of the wing just stalled. But regardless plenty of warning prior to this happening was always given. Now if you ignored the stall warning (Slight buffeting and notching of stick) then the a/c would stall and rather violently so since the lift distribution was fully elliptical in turns by virture of aerelasticity and the NACA 23000 itself already was known for its nasty stalling characteristics. (And this is directly from Gene!)



> Are you saying that I lie about that, or Gene lies about that or Lednicer lied about that?



Nope, you just haven't understood it apparently (Or you forgot ??), but Gene does.



> As to 'thrust' documentation? This may be interesting.
> 
> Are you referring to Horsepower and Horsepower to weight ratios as 'Thrust'??
> 
> Is that what you are saying?



I am talking about actual thrust developed in KG!

Its on the Fw-190 Ta-152 drag table I already have posted on this forum before...



Finally Bill, before we get into anymore of this pissing match crap, I've already acknowledged that you're not clueless, but you admitted yourself that some things needed freshing up, which I understand. Also note that when I said you were clueless you had prior to that called me a bonehead, now what would you expect anyone to respond after that ??

Respect Bill, respect is the key.


----------



## drgondog (May 28, 2008)

Soren said:


> Bill it's impossible to change your mind anyway nomatter the amount of fact one brings to the table, so why don't we just agree to disagree on the subject. Encounter reports provide a horrible method for measuring comparing a/c anyhow.
> 
> *I have to agree- kinda said that all along as you trot out irrefutable personal anecdotes and i trot out the opposite perspectives from similar sources.*
> 
> ...



Soren, there is much doubt about claims not based on material fact. I am real sure you don't know much about aero but I do believe you are intelligent.

I have given you the approach to balance Forces, all the factors you need to get the correct forces, the assumptions you have to be careful of, to be able to actually do the types of charts Gene did for you. Further, if you use what I showed you today you can navigate through the math and get 'reasonable approximations.

You know what you will find? - based on aero and math - not your view of the world - is that all of these a/c are pretty close in most manuevers, that because of the nature of reciprocating engines, the approximations of 'near compressibility effects' to props, airframe elasticity, drag rise, etc that you will have a reasonable 'rule of thumb' for the difeerences in 'saw tooth' altitude performance -

and that NONE of these a/c is 'superior' in every way.

But when you get into debates with other guys on this forum - why don't you stick to facts and the math behind the facts for your statements, and when you aren't sure of a Performance claim - simply say "i'm not sure - but I'll try to figure it out and get back with you". Gene can explain VERY well what you need to know to be consistent and reasonable with respect to assumptions

What I asked you to do above in getting to Thrust, Bank Angle and Velocity at That Bank angle - is a late second year homework problem in undergrad Aero...and in the third year you will go from Subsonic to transonic/supersonic complications dealing with swept wing, asymmetrical load effects, compressibility, aerodynamic moment effects to manuevering, etc. - then on to stability and control, aeroelasticity and other specialized studies.

You will learn about stuff you have been using to browbeat others on the forum in your first semester. Having said that, you know more than most on the forum because they may not be interested in really understanding aero.

In other words, it IS complicated.


----------



## drgondog (May 28, 2008)

Soren said:


> Dismissed ?? Bill the the 190 didnr't loose tip control as such, a larger part of the wing just stalled. But regardless plenty of warning prior to this happening was always given. Now if you ignored the stall warning (Slight buffeting and notching of stick) then the a/c would stall and rather violently so since the lift distribution was fully elliptical in turns by virture of aerelasticity and the NACA 23000 itself already was known for its nasty stalling characteristics. (And this is directly from Gene!)
> 
> *Check with Gene again - you did miss it-again. The outboard section stalled too fast because the tip region deformed under load and reached CLmax at same time inbord region was stalling with higher relative AoA. If the twist of the 190 wing had not stopped at 81.5% of span - and contiued to twist it probably would not have stalled like that.. in other words under those circumstyances, the buffeting and aileron loss occurred at about the same time in High G, but NOT during low G level flight as in landing*
> 
> ...



Soren, you called me, and a multitude of others 'clueless long before I called you a bonehead. That reaction on my part should have been kept under restraint but this was about the time you told me I was 'clearly clueless' regarding interpreting the lednicer Report regarding Suction (versus Drag)

As to respect - if one were to search this forum for the amount of derogatory phrases you have used to others who disagree with you - in contrast to my own indiscretions - I suspect the ratio will be FAR higher than the alleged Ta 152H air to air ratio - but that is speculation not a fact.

I tend to the ironic and occsaionally sarcastic - which I still have to guard against.

Back to the Thread - Post your Thrust values and tell us wher you got them from.


----------



## renrich (May 28, 2008)

Firstly Bada, I don't know what you mean by addressing me as "my dear," but if you are a woman, please continue but if you are a man, please refrain from that as where I come from, that would be an insult. Secondly, I probably know as much about LW fighter armament as you. I know that many were armed with cannon and many also were armed with 30 cal mgs as well. I also know that the later war LW fighters carried heavier and heavier armament in order to shootdown big bombers which could take a lot of damage. The cannon would probably be at a disadvantage against a fighter with 6-50 cals because of a slower rate of fire, less range and a worse trajectory plus a smaller ammo load(less rounds) No question that a hit by 30 mm cannon would handle another fighter much of the time. But the hit probability from 6 or 8- 50s would be much greater and a few 50 cal rounds can do a lot of damage. Obviously, you also don't know what I am talking about when I mention deflection shooting. It has little to do with all around visibility but rather visibility directly over the nose. A US Navy test of the FW190 states that deflection shooting by that AC would be difficult because of poor visibility straight ahead. The TA would even be worse. The book I am quoting from has the FW section and BF section contributed by a Robert Grinsell and he gives eleven references for the FW section, all but one is German. In the whole book with 12 sections about WW2 AC, I have found the performance figures to jibe nicely with other sources. Who is to say that your's or Soren's sources are more accurate? That is the reason that I have to temper my opinions with operational results rather than go only with numbers from goodness only knows where. Soren, let me see now. You state that the TA could takeoff in 295 meters. I believe that would be about 900 feet. There is no US Navy fighter in WW2 that can't better that. The F4U4 could do it in 630 feet. That is with full internal fuel, full ammo, hard surface, zero wind, sea level and take off power. I believe your exact statement is "that is shorter than ANY Spitfire, 109, F4U or 190 model." Is all your data as accurate as that? Once again, may I ask how many air to air kills the TA had, how many ground strafing kills it had, how many tons of bombs and rockets it dispensed, how many successful bomber missions it escorted, what was it's availablity per centage for a mission, what was it's kill record against P51, P47, P38 or F4U, how many sorties did TAs fly, how many TAs actually were operational, how many successful carrier landings and takeoffs did it execute.


----------



## Hunter368 (May 28, 2008)

drgondog said:


> As to respect - if one were to search this forum for the amount of derogatory phrases you have used to others who disagree with you - in contrast to my own indiscretions - I suspect the ratio will be FAR higher than the alleged Ta 152H air to air ratio - but that is speculation not a fact.
> 
> I tend to the ironic and occsaionally sarcastic - which I still have to guard against.


----------



## Soren (May 28, 2008)

> Ah, yes. Specs, performance charts and calculations from fact based data in tests.




Which is exactly what we're doing.

W for example have to have the Cd0 Cl figures from real tests, all of which we have for most of the a/c (We lack the Fw190 P-51's Cd0 figure)

Beyond that we need thrust figures, and to be dead on precise the 'e' figures, but the 'e' figures undoubtedly differ no more than .05 between all these a/c (109, spitfire, 152, 190, -51)



> Nah, not really. Look at the the J3 Cub and compare the power rating required to take off in a 35 knot wind against say a P-51 or the Ta 152. I might be able to take off with the engine idling



All figures are at std. zero wind conditions Bill, and the Ta-152H takes off at 295m while the Fw-190 A-8 takes off at 430m. Again like I said, a pretty clear indication of the difference in maneuvering performance.


----------



## Soren (May 28, 2008)

Renrich,

The performance data I presented on the Ta-152 is more accurate for the reason that it is based on actual original documents and is from a book specifically about this a/c and written by an expert on the subject, Dietmar Hermann. 

Now as to the F4U-4's take off distance, where the heck did you get 630 ft from ?? The best I could find was 790 ft off the deck of a carrier in "calm" weather.

PS: At Take off Power the F4U-4 even has 2,100 BHP available.


----------



## drgondog (May 28, 2008)

Soren said:


> Which is exactly what we're doing.
> 
> W for example have to have the Cd0 Cl figures from real tests, all of which we have for most of the a/c (We lack the Fw190 P-51's Cd0 figure)
> 
> ...




Yes - you need the Thrust figures and now you know how to calculate them from the Speed versus Hp by Altitude Test Charts - as I described above.

And dead on 'precise' for e is not a huge factor between the 190D and 51 but the tip to chord ration might hurt the Ta 152 slightly - maybe all of 1-2 percent. The Spit should be the best based on planform, but because of the greater AR of the Ta 152 it probably is better - I haven't done the math but guess the Ta 152 probably the best and 51B the worst on 'e', and by far the best on Cdwet.

Remember Cdo is frequently referred to as the zero lift Drag Coefficient for that specific airfoil section and Cdwet is the calculated zero Lift Cd for the Wing, plus the wing body and includes nascent drag (like a 109 wheel well), friction, profile drag (flat plate), etc)- 

in other words Cd wet in Lednicer is all Parasite Drag - zero lift - and separate from Induced Drag.

I have seen references, which I believe are used incorrectly, using Cdo as the entire Parasite Drag (everything but the Induced drag)


----------



## drgondog (May 28, 2008)

Soren said:


> Renrich,
> 
> The performance data I presented on the Ta-152 is more accurate for the reason that it is based on actual original documents and is from a book specifically about this a/c and written by an expert on the subject, Dietmar Hermann.



Mike Williams references Hermann also... could there be something on the Williams site that is fair and balanced?


----------



## Soren (May 28, 2008)

I believe the Oswald Efficiency factor for the different wings to be the following:

Spitfire: .85
Bf-109F,G K: .82
Fw-190: .84
Ta-152H: .83 
P-51: .83

What do you think about that Bill ??

And we have the Clmax figures already:

Bf-109F,G K: 1.70
Ta-152H: 1.62 
Fw-190: 1.58
Spitfire: 1.36
P-51: 1.35

Now as for Cd0, well we have Spitfire 109's which is:

Bf-109K: ~0.021
Spitfire: 0.0229
Bf-109G: 0.023

Now the P-51 Fw-190 undoubtedly have lower Cd0 figures. Now tell me if you think I'm terribly off Bill but would I be wrong in your mind to presume that the P-51 has a Cd0 of 0.0168 and the Fw190 one of 0.0185 ??


----------



## Soren (May 28, 2008)

drgondog said:


> Mike Williams references Hermann also... could there be something on the Williams site that is fair and balanced?



The problem with Mike Williams is that he is extremely selective about what he puts out on his website and he generally completely disregards the higher performance charts out there. Another problem is that Williams doesn't have a lot of knowledge on German a/c. He just recently acquired himself a performance chart for the Fw-190 A-8 - I have them all, and have so for a loooong time..

Anyway lets not argue over this, lets stick to the topic.


----------



## Soren (May 28, 2008)

Bill I didn't start calling you names, that was you, plz go back and read the thread. 

Now you can't blame me for getting abit thrown off by you calling me a bonehead, now can you ? Honestly it was that very comment which pissed my off beyond what I have ever been on this forum. In short I despise namecalling



> Ah, from the master, a little pat on the head. thank you so much Soren for intimating that I am not clueless. You understanding that I needed to brush up helps me get through my humiliation - at least a little bit.



Bill let me put it like this then: You know more within aerodynamics than I, you've recieved an education within its various fields, and so while I have only covered some of them you have covered most of them - which is plenty more than me. 

However even the best of us forget things as time passes by, and you needed something freshened up, no big deal I experience the same, you showed that in the suction debate where I confused things.

Now what do you say, shall we get on with the topic ?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 28, 2008)

Soren said:


> Bill I didn't start calling you names, that was you, plz go back and read the thread.



Soren he is talking about the way you talk to anyone who disagrees with you...


----------



## Soren (May 28, 2008)

Oh god let's not get into that again... talk about a dead horse..


----------



## renrich (May 28, 2008)

Soren, data on takeoff distance is from Dean, "America's Hundred Thousand, " and he states the table is from USAAF and US Navy wartime references. I won't copy entire list but these are examples: The F4U4 was at 12281 pounds, F4U1D-12289 pounds-840 feet, F6F5-12483 pounds-780 feet, P47D25-14411 [pounds-2540 feet, P51D-10176 pounds-1185 feet. Dean states that by VJ day 370 P51H models had been produced. I don't know if any saw combat. I don't believe that takeoff distance is a good measure of maneuverability. For instance the F4F3A at 7320 pounds could get off in 650 feet. The F4U4 beat it at 630 feet but no one could claim the F4U could outmaneuver a F4F3A.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 28, 2008)

Soren said:


> Oh god let's not get into that again... talk about a dead horse..



I am not starting anything. I was only explaining what needed to be explained...8)


----------



## Soren (May 28, 2008)

Renrich the figures aren't right though, I have the original POH for all a/c in question. And the P-51D needed 1,400 ft atleast. 

The Fw-190A-8 P-51D are about the same in terms of take off distance, while the Dora's is shorter. The Spitfire 109 are also comparable, the 109's being slightly shorter. But the Ta-152H beats them all. 

Now as for the F4U-4 possibly having a shorter take off run with full flaps (It had some bloody large flaps!) I wouldn't be surprise if it needed slightly less room to take off.

However the point is that the Ta-152H was perfectly carrier capable, and more so than the 109 Spitfire and much more so than the Fw-190, P-51 P-47.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 28, 2008)

Soren said:


> However the point is that the Ta-152H was perfectly carrier capable



How so? Is this an assumption?

I dont ever recall hearing of any tests done that would prove it was carrier capable? It might very well have been so, but without proper proof it is nothing more than an assumption.


----------



## drgondog (May 28, 2008)

Soren said:


> Bill let me put it like this then: You know more within aerodynamics than I, you've recieved an education within its various fields, and so while I have only covered some of them you have covered most of them - which is plenty more than me.
> 
> However even the best of us forget things as time passes by, and you needed something freshened up, no big deal I experience the same, you showed that in the suction debate where I confused things.
> 
> Now what do you say, shall we get on with the topic ?



Yes I do. I appreciate where we are right now.

And let me amplify that my work experience focused on the practical, hand crank, traditional methods dating back to WWII, before I moved into finite element computational methods for both aerdynamics and structures.


----------



## drgondog (May 28, 2008)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> How so? Is this an assumption?
> 
> I dont ever recall hearing of any tests done that would prove it was carrier capable? It might very well have been so, but without proper proof it is nothing more than an assumption.



I can only imagine the performance results if the F4U and the F8F had started out as land based ships from a preliminary design POV. No arresting gear carry through structure, no folding wings.. maybe 600-1000 pounds of unnecessary weight.

Conversely add that to the P-51, the Me 109 and the Ta 152/Fw 190 series.


----------



## renrich (May 28, 2008)

Soren, you are a smart guy and I respect your intellect. Please don't ruin my opinion of you by tellin me the TA could be a carrier fighter without serious modification that would substantially degrade that marvelous performance you are so proud of. Even then, there is no guarantee it could have the slow speed handling characteristics needed for carrier landings. I stick by Dean's numbers. You should try to get a copy. You would enjoy it and it is quite technical.


----------



## Soren (May 28, 2008)

Renrich,

Please look no further than the Spitfire, it was easily modified and with no weight increase really. And like we both know the 190's Ta-152's airframe was sturdier than the Spitfire's. 

An arresting hook would obviously be needed, which would require alterations. Furthermore the wing would need to be foldable, again nothing major as demonstrated with the Spitfire (Seafire). Now that having been said if the Ta-152 had come that far it would be featuring the Jumo 213 EB engine, which was a good deal better than the Jumo 213E F, further shortning take off distances.

All in all, from a design standpoint the Ta-152H is no doubt the most carrier capable out of all the land based fighters mentioned here. (All demand alterations to become carrier capable)


----------



## Glider (May 28, 2008)

You may want to check your facts about no real increase in weight, it was a lot more than you think. Compare the empty weight of the Seafire and the Spit V.

The rest of the posting is a mass of assumptions, just the view on the approach would have been very difficult, probably almost impossible.


----------



## drgondog (May 28, 2008)

Soren said:


> I believe the Oswald Efficiency factor for the different wings to be the following:
> 
> Spitfire: .85
> Bf-109F,G K: .82
> ...



Lednicer says his Cdwet is from thoroughly researched sources for the Fw 190A-8, Fw 190D-9, P51B and D (same) and Spit IX. They are all obtained for Reynolds numbers in 16million range at ~ .5 Mach and all referenced to total wetted area of the respective airframes- not the wing.

You have referenced them in the past. Because Lednicer is referencing the entire wetted area of the aircraft rather than just the wing, his 'flat' plate drag figures for the tables seem correct.

The 'Theory' for Profile Drag Coefficient = Sum(Ki*Cfi*Sweti/Sref) for i to l number of major components like horizontal stabilizer(i), vertical stabilizer(j), wing(k) and fuselage(l)..plus CDcontrol gap + CDnacelles +CDmisc(wheel well, scoop, carp intakes, etc)

where Ki is constant for the "i" component, Cfi is coefficient of friction for the 'i" component, and Sweti is the Area of the "i" component, and Sref is the Reference Area like the total wetted surface of the aircraft. You sum up the first series and add to each of the other CD's.

That is the combined Parasite/Flat Plate drag Coefficient taking into all effects OTHER than Induced Drag. Rather than try to screw with the 'formula' I think Lednicer's values make sense.

Therefore use Spit = .0065, Mustang = .0053, Fw 190A-8 = .0071 , Fw 190D = .0063. I don't know what the 109 Flat plate/Parasite Drag Coefficient is, but suspect as high or higher than Spit IX..but do NOT know this. You'll have to find the equivalent..

If you can find a Flate Plate reference and know the surface area of the 109 just divide the two values.

This is just another one of those compromises that make these calculations a 'guesstimate'

From the tables, Rho (density) ratios for a Standard ICAO day is non linear but by inspection 

Ratio = 1.0 for SL, about .825 at 5000, .675 at 10000, .525 at 15000, .430 at 20000 and .35 at 25000.


----------



## drgondog (May 28, 2008)

Soren said:


> Renrich the figures aren't right though, I have the original POH for all a/c in question. And the P-51D needed 1,400 ft atleast.
> 
> *I think Rich's figures for the 51 at that weight is 1185 for std day with 20% flaps at Military HP and 3000 rpm*
> 
> ...



I suspect 600-1000 pounds extra in wing fold and tail beef up structure - which would also fool around with CG figures by putting the extra weight 'way back' and even the wing structure you can presume is 75% behind the cg of the airplane. That would have a dramatic effect on any fuel aft of Cg.

Then reflect on the difference in performance between the P51B on one side, the P-51H on the other side of the 51D which was 700-900 pound heaviier than both?


----------



## drgondog (May 28, 2008)

I just gooled the Ta 152H vs P-51H thread. I would have had some fun in that one - Dave - you had a lot of good points as you did Soren but it never is a clear cut decision between the two aircraft as the pilot skill and the fuel loading and the altitude of engagement will always be a factor etween these two very fine aircraft.

This is one example in which i wish a flight simulator couuld be built to explore the 35,000 to SL combat performance of both ships. And BTW put the in the Griffon as the first step in countering the Ta 152H-2. The XP51G was mocked up for that enfine in summer of 1944 - same airframe as P-51H.

We do need to do a Spit 21 vs Ta 152 H and P-51H in fighter -fighter simulation


----------



## kool kitty89 (May 28, 2008)

On the recognition issue, I agree that at (or near) a profile view iw would be very difficult to discern a 190D, from a Ta-152 H in combat.

When even partial plan view is seen the difference is obvious.

However I also think mistaking a Thunderbolt for a 190A is a pretty big one, comparable to the mistaking a Spitfire for a P-51 comparison soren mentioned. They are torally different in wing and fusalage shape (and size), and the only significant similarity would be the radial engine. (but even then the 190 has the huge spinner as an obvious difference)
IMO it would be easier to mistake a P-51 for a 190A. (in plan or profile the Corsar would be pretty similer to the 190 too)


And what about the Ta 152 C?


----------



## claidemore (May 28, 2008)

F/O Short, Mitchells wingman in the combat vs the Ta152s on April 14/45 misidentified the Ta152s as 109s. He saw them diving from 2000 ft, engaged one in a climbing turn battle, got a few rounds into it then disengaged when he saw other planes behind him which he again 'identified' as 109s, they were probably the other flight of Tempests. He said his last view of Mitchell was from 6000 ft and that Mitchell was on the deck in a turning fight with '109s'.


----------



## parsifal (May 28, 2008)

The most famous misidentification I can think of is Saburo Sakai who mistook a flight of TBFs for Wildcats. He attacked the "F4Fs" from the most favourable position, below and from behind, only to be confronted with the combined weight of 8 x 50 cals in the ball turrets of these aircraft, which hitherto he had not see.

It would not be hard to mistake the identity of a Ta 152 for any German aircraft, since it was not an outline that anyone would be familiar with


----------



## kool kitty89 (May 28, 2008)

Weren't those SBD's? That was at Guadalcanal, after the encounter with James "Pug" southerland. The gunner hit Sakai in the forhead, the .30 went straight through his skull and out the back of his head, and he managed to still ge home and land. (after contemplating a suiside attack, also the bullet probably would have killed him if it hadn't meen slowed by the windscreen)

Saburo Sakai - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

the PBS show on it SECRETS OF THE DEAD . Dogfight Over Guadalcanal | PBS

(with animation very similer to Dogfights, and one of the historians from Dogfights was on it too)


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 29, 2008)

drgondog said:


> I can only imagine the performance results if the F4U and the F8F had started out as land based ships from a preliminary design POV. No arresting gear carry through structure, no folding wings.. maybe 600-1000 pounds of unnecessary weight.
> 
> Conversely add that to the P-51, the Me 109 and the Ta 152/Fw 190 series.



I agree. You just dont add arresting gear and call an aircraft carrier capable. It requires strengthening of the structure, extra equipment, etc. We had this discussion with syscom one time.



Soren said:


> All in all, from a design standpoint the *Ta-152H is no doubt the most carrier capable out of all the land based fighters mentioned here.* (All demand alterations to become carrier capable)



Again this is based off of fact, or is it just your assumption. Do you see what I am getting at?

Come on now?


----------



## parsifal (May 29, 2008)

KK ive read accounts hat say either. i must admit that until i came onto this forum i believed his mistake was that he assumed them to be SBDs as well


----------



## kool kitty89 (May 29, 2008)

He met the gunner that hit him after the war.


----------



## parsifal (May 29, 2008)

Yes, I have a lot of respect for Sakai. From all that I read of him, he seems a real warrior, but not someone who has lost his sense of humanity either


----------



## Soren (May 29, 2008)

Bill,

The Bf-109's Clmax figure is for the entire wing, the slats being responsible for about a 12.5% increase in Clmax, the original Clmax without the slats being around 1.51 - 1.55. This is taking into account that V24, a Bf-109F with no slats and a shortened wing span and lower wing area, was proven to have a Clmax of 1.48 in windtunnel tests at Charlais Meudon.

As for drag, all we have on the Bf-109 Spitfire from acual tests are the Cd0 figures:

Bf-109F G: 0.023
Spitfire: 0.0229
Bf-109K: ~0.021

Now knowing this perhaps you could establish what the CDwet would be for the 109 compared to the figures Lednicer has gathered ? It's no doubt lower than the Spitfire for the Bf-109K, while similar for the G series. 

Anyway I did the calculations on L/D ratio for you (Added the Ta-152H for comparison): 

Ta-152 H-1:

(1.62^2) / (pi * 8.94 * .83)

1.62 / 0.112580856
_______________
L/D ratio = *14.38*


P-51D Mustang:

(1.35^2) / (pi * 5.8 * .83)

1.35 / 0.120506807
_______________
L/D ratio = *11.2*


Spitfire Mk. II, V, IX XIV:

(1.36^2) / (pi * 5.61 * .85)

1.36 / 0.123465653
_______________
L/D ratio = *11.0*


Fw-190 A D:

(1.58^2) / (pi * 6.03 * .84)

1.58 / 0.156880044
_______________
L/D ratio = *10.1*


Bf-109F, G K:

(1.70^2) / (pi * 6.09 * .82)

1.70 / 0.184211537 
_______________
L/D ratio = *9.22*


----------



## bada (May 29, 2008)

drgondog said:


> Bada - I have searched for a 'definitive' document regarding the Ta 152H-1 or -2. You mentioned having the manual?
> 
> If so can you tell me
> a. The Gross Weight Empty.
> ...



For your a+b questions: see that FW document:







C: don't know if that even existed. I read somewhere,( but have to find it again, i think it was in the book: Kurt Tank airplane manufacturer and testpilot) that the 190A was build to be able to sustain a max continuous load of 14G on the wings and something like20 G on the fuselage, so far above any pilot physical capbility. It seems a little bit extreme to me , anyway, let say is true, the 152 should ahave some similarities with this numbers, even if the continuous load would be slightly lower. So i'll tend to say that there was no max load. But maybe you wanted to say the load, as weight of the airplane, in this case, i would say that the H-1 was very close to it's maximal load in a take-off configuration.

d:











fuel consumption:






Note: in this speedchart, you'll see a take off weigt of 4750 kg for the h-1, this weight is much lower than it should be, but there is a comment on this but i don't understand what it says,so if a german forum member could translate this. 

e: actually, never asked myself that question, so can't answer immediately, but i think soren already done that 

fM

i hope i could help.


----------



## Soren (May 29, 2008)

Ta-152H-1 weights:
Fighter configuration: 4,760 kg (560 Liters of fuel)
Long range escort or recon configuration: 5,220 kg (1,094 Liters of fuel)

Another speed chart:


----------



## drgondog (May 29, 2008)

kool kitty89 said:


> On the recognition issue, I agree that at (or near) a profile view iw would be very difficult to discern a 190D, from a Ta-152 H in combat.
> 
> When even partial plan view is seen the difference is obvious.
> 
> ...



One wonders but I guess you have to be there. An awful lot of friencly fire incidents of 47s bouncing 51's and B-17 gunners shooting at both. A good friend of mine shot down what was probably a 190D, but he thought it was a 109 because it was 'an inline engine'. I think I figured it out based on his descreiption of head on pass with wing root guns firing and six o'clock view 'based' on clear 'bubble like' canopy coming away.

He (Bill Lyons) even described the scene of the head on pass on the Battleground series, Mustang.. there were quite a few 355th pilots on that one including Fortier, Lyons, Miller and Garlich.

The latter could have been an erla hood, but no 109 past the E had wing root guns.


----------



## Soren (May 29, 2008)

People get back on topic please.


----------



## renrich (May 29, 2008)

Soren, the Spitfire, Seafire was never robust enough to be a satisfactory carrier fight. Don't just assume the TA had a strong enough landing gear to withstand carrier landings. Perhaps you might consider sticking to landplanes and the ETO.


----------



## drgondog (May 29, 2008)

Soren said:


> Bill,
> 
> The Bf-109's Clmax figure is for the entire wing, the slats being responsible for about a 12.5% increase in Clmax, the original Clmax without the slats being around 1.51 - 1.55. This is taking into account that V24, a Bf-109F with no slats and a shortened wing span and lower wing area, was proven to have a Clmax of 1.48 in windtunnel tests at Charlais Meudon.
> 
> ...



Nice work on the L/D but we don't need them to get to Thrust, or to look at equilibrium velocity and bank angle for 'theoretical' stall point.


----------



## Soren (May 29, 2008)

Renrich,

If the Spitfire could be converted so could the Ta-152, and better so than any of the other landbased fighters mentioned here, which is my point.

The F4U was designed as carrier based fighter, it was designed keeping in mind that the rear fuselage had to endure high stresses on landing. On top of that being a carrier fight it had to have a short take off landing roll, and so it was designed with massive flaps. 

Now that having been said, I will say what I've said many times by now: The F4U is undoubtedly among the top 5 fighter a/c of WW2 IMO. It was an excellent design considered what it had to accomplish and the performance it achieved on top of that. The only fighter a/c to actually top it in any significant way during WW2 was the Ta-152H, Me-262, He-162 Fw-190 D-13.

Anyway enough of this, lets get back on topic please.


----------



## drgondog (May 29, 2008)

bada said:


> For your a+b questions: see that FW document:
> 
> *Bada - thanks for the charts and references *
> 
> ...



You did - I think Soren and maybe Erich have also posted these but I couldn't find them.

Thank you.


----------



## Soren (May 29, 2008)

> If the wind tunnel tests show 1.7 CLmax for the pre-stall, slats deployed, wing for full scale model - then they would be the ones to use...



Roger, it was established on an actual a/c (109G) without prop, with flaps gear up ofcourse. 



drgondog said:


> Nice work on the L/D but we don't need them to get to Thrust, or to look at equilibrium velocity and bank angle for 'theoretical' stall point.



Rgr, just wanted to illustrate the difference in L/D ratio between the a/c as it is important in sustained maneuvering and to the gliding performance of the a/c.

As to thrust, well here is the thrust figures for the Fw-190 A-9, D-9 D-12 at full boost in Kilograms (Added the Ta-152H as-well):

A-8: 1,836 kg
D-9: 2,227 kg
D-12: 2,273 kg
Ta152: 2,273 kg


----------



## KrazyKraut (May 29, 2008)

bada said:


> Note: in this speedchart, you'll see a take off weigt of 4750 kg for the h-1, this weight is much lower than it should be, but there is a comment on this but i don't understand what it says,so if a german forum member could translate this.



It says:

"Gewicht mit halber Kraftstoffmenge!"

--> "Weight with half fuel"

And this refers to both Ta-152s in the test.


----------



## Soren (May 29, 2008)

drgondog said:


> You did - I think Soren and maybe Erich have also posted these but I couldn't find them.
> 
> Thank you.



Bill,

Out of memory I think the load limit for the Ta-152H was 8.5 G at 4,750 kg and 7.7 G at 5,220 kg.


----------



## drgondog (May 29, 2008)

Soren said:


> Bill,
> 
> Out of memory I think the load limit for the Ta-152H was 8.5 G at 4,750 kg and 7.7 G at 5,220 kg.



Those figures would make sense to me as Limit Loads posted for pilots at those weights. The 51 was 8 at 8,000 pounds and I believe the load case for that was 8G dive pullout - symmetrical..

The above thrust loads are interesting but, for whatever case you want to look at, they will have to be compared against the altitude, weight and speed to attempt the manuever calculation Thrust profiles... I would speculate that they might be for sea level and were done on an engine test stand. If so, then at same RPM, prop, boost, etc the figures should vary with density.

On the CDwet from Lednicer, they are at .5 Mach as I recall.. and unfortunately are not linear with either speed or altitude.. so when the various altitudes are compared, there is this wild card to consider..I need to scratch my head and ponder whether they would be linear with respect to RN..

And as far as lednicer's sources, I don't know what the context is - relative to Reynolds Number Equivalency. I also suspect - but don't know - that these are wind tunnel tests results at or around SL

Do you recall me making a comment some time ago that these Manuever calcs are "complicated" - just for one a/c?


----------



## Soren (May 29, 2008)

Good luck with it Bill !


----------



## Soren (May 29, 2008)

No seriously, let me know if you need any documents, I'm stacked.


----------



## drgondog (May 29, 2008)

Soren said:


> No seriously, let me know if you need any documents, I'm stacked.



I actually need to ponder where we are 'relatively' speaking. I do not have the time or the energy to screw around trying to develop Parasite Drag for these ships. 

We don't need any Parasite(Wetted, whatever) Drag test data or 'spot' data from sources such as Lednicer's Tables - 

because if we have a reliable thrust figure for each of those engines at each altitude we care about - along with the velocities from the Test Report at those Hp/boost settings - at each altitude, we have all we need to calculate Induced Drag and solve for Parasite drag..

Remember that in the case of a 51B against say, a 190A-8, entering a turning fight at 25,000 feet the 51B isn't quite all out (re Thrust) entering the turn when we match these two - and ditto when a P-51D enters a turn with a Ta 152H-2, the Ta 152 will have a little thrust available as they enter at the 51D's max speed at that altitude... so the free body diagram for the Ta 152 in the latter example doesn't include the fact that the Ta 152 still has a slight acceleration capability while the 51D is all out in these equations. 

In a fight this would be very important, but for purposes of the turn calcs, increasing the bank angle is more important.


----------



## kool kitty89 (May 29, 2008)

What speeds are you talking about for the thrust values?


----------



## drgondog (May 29, 2008)

kool kitty89 said:


> What speeds are you talking about for the thrust values?



KK -The max speeds from different flight tests at the altitudes we want to look at,, say offhand "442 mph at 25,000 feet" for whatever loading condition that particular P-51B was cited for in a specific documented test. However, we want to get thrust at altitudes in which speeds are not contained in the Report tables 

As you have noted while we are scratching our heads, each of the USAAF Mustang tests conducted by the Army during WWII contained on Mike William's site have the T.O. Weight, the altitudes cites for Max Speed at peak High and Low Blower, those specific altitude 'points', the Hp based on Mfr Performance Chart, the Boost and RPM as noted by pilots for the flight profile flown.

The charts are much better for us than summary tables because they plot the continuous values as a function of altitude from SL to usually around 30,000+ feet... but Hp is not thrust, it's power. 

And that power has to be translated to force to enable the free body diagram equations to be solved. A bench test value for the BMW801 and Jumo 213 that Soren just showed (at least I suspect it is a mfr 'bench test') presumably has the right, prop, peak rpm - and probably at SL... theoretically that same setting should vary by altitude with the non-linear change in density.. but I just don't recall - we didn't do much 'prop' and all my early industry stuff was with jet engines, later stuff was rotor systems and that is another world.


----------



## kool kitty89 (May 29, 2008)

Thrust derived from a propeller (with engine power independant of speed) has an inverse relationship with speed, correct.

(prop efficiency aside) idealy speaking:

power(kW)= thrust(kN) x velocity(m/s) 

thrust(kN)= power(kW)/velocity(m/s)


And that works for many circumstances (given the prop efficiency), but the most obvious problem would be that static thrust would mean deviding by zero.


From a NASA jet a/c history page:


> To give meaning to the different operating characteristics of the two types of engines, a simple example is offered as follows: A 10 000 pound propeller-driven fighter is powered by a 1600-horsepower engine and is capable of a maximum speed at sea level of 410 miles per hour. Near the beginning of the takeoff roll, the thrust at 25 miles per hour is estimated to be about 7500 pounds. Since the power is constant and proportional to the thrust times the velocity, the thrust at 410 miles per hour is about 1168 pounds. (Propeller efficiencies of 30 and 80 percent were assumed for the low-speed and high-speed conditions, respectively.) Accordingly, the thrust-to-weight ratio for the two conditions varies from 0.75 at 25 miles per hour to 0.12 at high speed. A jet fighter with the same 10000-pound gross weight and having an engine of 2500-pounds thrust has a takeoff thrust-to-weight ratio of 0.25 - and at 410 miles per hour still retains this thrust-to-weight ratio because of the nearly constant thrust characteristic of the engine. The power usefully employed in propelling the jet aircraft varies from 167 to 2740 horsepower as the speed increases from 25 to 410 miles per hour. These results are summarized in the following tabulation:
> 
> *See link for data table*
> 
> ...



This ignores the problems with the zero value in static conditions.


----------



## Soren (May 29, 2008)

Bill,

The thrust figures were established from bench tests conducted at SL, very correct.

KK,

You probably know the below but I'll explain it so everyone on the forum has a chance to understand. 

A propeller works by accelerating air backwards faster than freestream, creating thrust. However as speed increases the efficiency of the propeller decreases, the air around the a/c (freestream) gradually catching up with the speed of the air being pushed backwards by the prop = no more thrust. Now sometime before this the prop won't be able to produce thrust enough overcome the increased drag of the a/c associated with any increase in speed = the a/c stops accelerating. So although that at the a/c's top speed the prop is still generating actual thrust, it isn't enough to offset the drag being generated. 

Now for jets only the latter counts as jet engines don't loose thrust with increases in speed, and thus top speed is higher. However just like a piston engined a/c a jet a/c generates drag whilst moving through the air, and more the faster it goes, and at some point this drag overcomes the amount of thrust generated by the engines = the a/c stops accelerating. But because the jet engine doesn't loose efficiency (thrust) with increases in speed, jet a/c can go faster before drag overcomes thrust, while this happens allot more rapidly with a prop driven a/c as thrust decreases at the same time as speed and therefore drag increases.

Hope this helped some understand


----------



## drgondog (May 29, 2008)

Actually KK for the problem we are working on we don't assume any propeller efficiency or deal with equations that require precise propeller efficiencies to convert Hp and velocity to Thrust.

At top speed the airplane is in equilibrium to the forces acting on it. It ain't accelerating and it's not decelerating, the engine is operating at top power, the prop is operating at whatever efficeincy its operating at - and I don't care because I need forces - not power for my equations.

Thrust = Combined Drag of Induced Drag and Parasite Drag 
Push = Pull 


Push is Thrust - thehorizontal Force acting on the body to put it, and keep it, in motion
Pull (Drag) is a function of ALL of the various horizontal forces on the body being 'pulled' (or pushed) through the medium (in this case - air)

Drag = Induced Drag and Parasite Drag - forces in opposite direction to Thrust

Induced Drag is a function of Aspect Ratio, the 'efficiency' of the wing plan form design, the Lift Coefficient of the wing at a specific angle of attack, the density of the air, and the Velocity (Kts).

Parasite Drag is everything else trying to hold back the airframe and keep it from accelerating. It is the drag of individual sub components like the tail, engine nacelles, interference between wing and fuselage, friction on the surfaces (depending on roughness and the velocity and whether it is in turbulent or laminar flow), gaps in control surfaces, etc, etc.

This is the dreaded 'Parasite or Wetted Drag that we have been debating of late - but I don't have the data to calculate this beast, so this is the one I want to solve for - at each altitude and equilibrium point that Soren and I have been kicking around. 

So, long way around. 

I can alsolutely calculate Induced Drag with small error because Soren has (correctly) retrieved the respective Aspect Ratios and the "e" for each wing, and rho (density) is obtainable right from the charts or I could calculate given STP at Sea Level for every altitude value we want to compare.

I feel we can get to precise Thrust at each altitude if we have SL bench Test data for top power with the correct prop - at every altitude we want to compare and we don't have to futz around guessing about prop or gearing efficiencies.

We can get nowhere NEAR the Parasite Drag by taking each airframe and digging around the old musty design files that may or may not exist that have All the Parasite drag data for That airplane at THose Speeds at That Altitude.

So, 

Thrust

You have any data to contribute?

So, at top speed at a specified altitude I know the Knots, I know the density of air at that point and I can calculate the Induced Drag. I have two forces that I DON'T know yet, but I only need the simpler to get what I can solve for.


----------



## drgondog (May 29, 2008)

Soren said:


> Bill,
> 
> The thrust figures were established from bench tests conducted at SL, very correct.
> 
> ...



Great summary - propeller and rotor/recip engine design is another 'arcane' (did not say witchcraft-lol) field of aero engineering especially when they were actually trying to get close to 550TAS with prop/aircraft systems


----------



## buzzard (May 29, 2008)

Soren, drgondog, and kk89,

This is all very informative and interesting. Great stuff from all of you 

Thanks,

JL


----------



## davparlr (May 29, 2008)

Soren said:


> As for performance figures, find me a single Allied a/c that could match the below which is the actual performance of the a/c at full boost:
> 
> Top speed: 760 km/h (472 mph) at alt, 597 km/h (371 mph) at SL
> Climb rate: 5,100 + ft/min (With MW50)
> ...



The 5100 ft/min number seems highly suspect. As you stated, at 1590 PS, the Ta climbs at 3444 ft/min, at 1750 PS, a power increase of 10%, the rate of climb is 3779 ft/min, a rate of climb increase of 10%. You quote 5100 ft/min climb at SL (I think) using MW50. The most power I have found for the Jumo 213E (Jumo 213E1) engine is 2050 PS. That means, when compared with the Start u. Notlesistung performance, that with only a 17% increase in power (300 PS), the Ta -152H improved its climb rate by 35% (1321 ft/min). This does not correspond to the increase previously shown (i.e. a 17% increase in power should result in a 17% increase in climb). Neither does this correspond with other aircraft performance by a wide margin The P-51B, generating 1500 HP has a climb rate of 3500 ft/min (similar to the Ta-152 at Start u. Notleistung), however, at 1860 HP,a 24% increase in power, climb rate was 4380 ft/min, a 25% increase. The F4U-4 shows an increase of 24% power provides a 28% increase in climb. The 5100 ft/min R/C seems incredulous. Using the above numbers, I would calculate the climb rate of the Ta-152H-1 at SL at 2050 PS as being 4421 ft/sec. To reach 5100 ft/sec, power would have to be 2362 PS, all assuming impacts are linear. Can you provide the engineering analysis results or flight test data that support your stated value?


----------



## davparlr (May 30, 2008)

Soren said:


> Wrong Claidemore, no Ta-152 was ever shot down. One crashed for unknown reasons long before the fight during the patrol of the day where Reschke shot down the Tempest, that's it. And Reschke notes that the Ta-152 wasn't even close to reaching its limits, while the Tempest obviously was riding right on the stall. Conclusion is that the Ta-152H clearly turns A LOT better than the Tempest, and the specs of the a/c support this fact.



This was obviously not a Tempest II. Had it been one, Reschke would have seen puffs of smoke from the exhaust and using a much better power to weight ratio, it would have quickly pulled away from the Ta-152, and with a SL top speed of *FORTY-SIX *mph faster, would have either easily escaped the much slower Ta, or manuevered to counter attack. Remember, the F6F was only 44 mph faster than the much more maneuverable Zero and easily handle it. And the Tempest II probably had a faster climb rate, if my calculations are correct for the Ta.


----------



## kool kitty89 (May 30, 2008)

Who said anything about the Tempest II? 

It never saw combat in WWII... It would have been a Tempest V.


The F6F v. Zero comment is far oversimplified. For a start the dive acceleration and max dive speed of the Zero was way lower (than the F4F's too) and above 250 mph maneuvering was difficult due to the almost frozen ailerons. Plus the Hellcat could take a hit form a Zero, the Zero could not usually do the same for the Hellcat. Plus the top speed for the Hellcat was reached ~20,000 ft, opposed to 12-15,000 ft for the Zero. (with an A6M-5, the top level speed up to 15,000 ft would be fairly close)
Not to mention the quality of late war IJN pilots and the numerical and tactical superiorety the US often had by this time in such engagements.

That comparison just doesn't make sense for this context, the circumstances were completele different.



And on the power output, the emergency power for the Jumo 213A was 2,200 hp iirc, I believe the 213E of the 152 was a bit higher.


----------



## Soren (May 30, 2008)

*KK,*
The max permitted output of the Jumo 213A engines in service was 2,100 PS @ 3,250 rpm, while the Jumoe 213E was limited to 2,050 PS @ 3,250 rpm. However the Dore-12, -13 Ta-152 featured a new and larger prop creating more thrust despite the lower horse power available.

Thrust in Kilograms
D-9 (2,100 PS) : 2,227 kg
D-12 13 (2,050 PS): 2,273 kg
Ta-152H (2,050 PS): 2,273 kg

*Davparlr,*

Where did you get the Tempest II from ?? Where was it ever mentioned ??

As for climb rate, 5,100 + ft/min is my estimation of performance in fighter configuration = 4,760 kg. The official 17.5 m/s at Steig u. kampfleisting (1,590 PS) was achieved at a weight of 5,220 kg, as was the 19.2 m/s figure at Start u. Notleistung (1,750 PS). 

Hope that rids you of your confusion.


----------



## davparlr (May 30, 2008)

kool kitty89 said:


> Who said anything about the Tempest II?
> 
> It never saw combat in WWII... It would have been a Tempest V.



True, but the point was that one of the claims that the Ta-152 was the greatest prop fighter was that it had an undefeated in battle when in reality, I would suspect all of it conquest were against earlier generation aircraft such as the P-51D, P-47D, and Tempest V (which was specifically pointed out as why it was so great). Its allied contemporaries were never rushed into combat because they were not needed. Had the Ta-152 been a real threat, it would have seen the Tempest II, P-51H (the XP-51F first flew in Feb., 1943) , P-47M, and possibly the F4U-4. I doubt that the undefeated title would have lasted very long.





> And on the power output, the emergency power for the Jumo 213A was 2,200 hp iirc, I believe the 213E of the 152 was a bit higher.



Not according to the power charts provided by Soren. Even at that PS, climb rate would reasonalbly be 4750 ft/min, not 5100+ ft/min.


----------



## Soren (May 30, 2008)

For climb rate read my last post Davparlr,

The Ta-152H wasn't rushed into service Davparlr, if anything it was halted by Hitler for some time. Furthermore when the Tempest II P-51H would've arrived the Ta-152H would've been equipped with the far superior Jumo 213 EB engine, so the difference would've been the same. Also the Me-262 would've been equipped with the Jumo 004D C engines, giving a great increase in power for no increase in weight.

Now if you want ot go even further the P.1101 was already in the prototype stage by wars end, and the Ta-183's design and workplan was ready as-well.


----------



## Vincenzo (May 30, 2008)

drgondog said:


> Gruenhagen's "Mustang -Story of the P-51 Fighter" and Wagner's "Mustang Designer".
> 
> The last of 555 was delivered in November, 1945. The order for 1000 was cut at V Day and approximately 75 were delivered between Sept and November as the line wound down
> 
> ...



sorry now i'm sure that wagner never talking of p-51h delivered at squadrons, it's ok the production started in february 1945 (first flew february 3rd) but delivery at air force is not a delivery at a squadron, the factory don't delivery to squadrons (o maybe can happened in crisis period like for germans in 45 but surely not for us in 45)


----------



## davparlr (May 30, 2008)

Soren said:


> As for climb rate, 5,100 + ft/min is my estimation of performance in fighter configuration = 4,760 kg. The official 17.5 m/s at Steig u. kampfleisting (1,590 PS) was achieved at a weight of 5,220 kg, as was the 19.2 m/s figure at Start u. Notleistung (1,750 PS).
> 
> Hope that rids you of your confusion.



It will if you provide me with the itemized weight reductions from the tested aircraft.


----------



## davparlr (May 30, 2008)

Soren said:


> The Ta-152H wasn't rushed into service Davparlr, if anything it was halted by Hitler for some time.


I never said it was. However, apparently it did experience understandable reliability problems until the end of the war.



> Furthermore when the Tempest II P-51H would've arrived the Ta-152H would've been equipped with the far superior Jumo 213 EB engine, so the difference would've been the same.


If German aircraft had been considered a threat at the end of '44, the skies would have been filled with these planes by April, 45.

As for as advanced engines, the Germans had no engines equivalent to the R-2800-57 (2800hp at 33k), R-4360 (3450 hp), or Centaurus (2650 hp).



> Also the Me-262 would've been equipped with the Jumo 004D C engines, giving a great increase in power for no increase in weight.


I'm not sure what this has to do with the price of tea in China, but the Me-262 was formidable as it was.



> Now if you want ot go even further the P.1101 was already in the prototype stage by wars end, and the Ta-183's design and workplan was ready as-well.



Prototypes, paper airplanes, sigh. An amazing number fail. And if they hadn't, they would have, historically, been answered very quickly.


----------



## drgondog (May 30, 2008)

Soren - not sure how you did your climb calculations but there are similarities between a climb calculation and what we will do with turning performance in this way.

The vertical velocity vector from the horizontal vector varies with climb angle and thrust and all the other Drag stuff we fool with. The New Resultant Velocity vector for that new AoA will be less than the Horizontal (initial) Velocity vector - magnitude and direction. 

The initial high velocity climb is a big change in momentum from level to some angle that gives that airplane its best short term climb rate.. 

On the other hand the best climb angle and velocity to get to 30,000 feet in shortest time is almost certain to be a shallower angle than the Max initial climb rate which will 'zoom' much faster and stall out if maintained.

The rate of change of that velocity vector is what supplies the 'delta G' to overcome Weight. Simply this is the rate of change of the Momentum from MVinitial to d/Dt(MVi) = Mxa

The climb angle at one point, combines with the new relative AoA, the CL at that new AoA, the local Velocity vector relative to that new AoA (Different and less that the level flight Velocity and AoA from which it started the climb), and the Thrust and the Drag. As long as the 'new' Force vectors remain in balance the aircraft will continue the climb at that velocity (forward and vertical) until something changes in the equation. 

The difference between the very fast 'zoom climb' from level flight versus steady climb at different angles and speed as density changes for best time to altitude are different paths (as you know). The first one is integrated to solve for initial climb angle and greatest rate of change in initial vertical velocity

The second one is a vector integrated over time to solve for a different climb angle and speed to achieve minimum time to altitude.

In a similar way, (back to turn) for a racing Mustang turning around a pylon, we are looking at the rate of change in the velocity Vector as it makes its high G turn around the pylon. 

That Max G turn which still enables the a/c to maintain altitude while rolling and staying at that bank angle is where we are headed for the turn calc.

When we get our thrust and start this 'foolishness' we will screw around a litlle, iteratively, to find the Force Balance and Bank angle and assume we get to it 'instantly'. Once we get there we can calculate the radius and Velocity around the circle without having to integrate from level flight to fully banked level flight in a circle with respect to time and the change in velocity over that time.

I think I am right about this but I am still 'pondering'

Is that what you did for the Ta 152 calcs?


----------



## KrazyKraut (May 30, 2008)

davparlr said:


> If German aircraft had been considered a threat at the end of '44, the skies would have been filled with these planes by April, 45.


The reason the Mk.II never entered service in time were numerous production delays in part due to the manufaturer switching several times, not because there was no need to do so. I also don't see the how the Mk.II is vastly superior, both have their strengths elsewhere but none clearly outclasses the other.


> As for as advanced engines, the Germans had no engines equivalent to the R-2800-57 (2800hp at 33k), R-4360 (3450 hp), or Centaurus (2650 hp).


DB 603N - 2750 hp at 11km

The Luftwaffe was clearly aiming towards jet fighters anyways, so any long term speculations about what piston fighters would have fought against eachother in late 1945 seems kind of useless.


----------



## davparlr (May 30, 2008)

KrazyKraut said:


> I also don't see the how the Mk.II is vastly superior, both have their strengths elsewhere but none clearly outclasses the other.


Yep.



> DB 603N - 2750 hp at 11km



Like many German dreams, a prototype. At least the engines I mentioned were in flying aircraft, although the 4360 was more immature.



> The Luftwaffe was clearly aiming towards jet fighters anyways, so any long term speculations about what piston fighters would have fought against eachother in late 1945 seems kind of useless.



The allies were clearly aiming towards ending the war and the weapons they had were more than sufficient.


----------



## KrazyKraut (May 30, 2008)

The DB 603 N a dream, yeah sure. Just as much as it is a dream that any fighter aircraft powered by either the Wasp Superior or the Centaurus would ever participate in the war. And the only aircraft that actually was fitted with the Centaurus, while certainly a good aircraft, wasn't superior to other contemporary designs despite the advantage in horsepower.


> The allies were clearly aiming towards ending the war and the weapons they had were more than sufficient.


Your point? We were discussing technological designs and their potential improvements here not which nation won the war. You keep saying the reason behind the Mk.II not entering service was the fact that there was no need. That is not the case, orders for the Mk.II were placed as early as 1942, the prototype flew in 1943. Like mentioned above numerous problems delayed production and thus the plane came to late. It wasn't put on hold because the war was almost won.


----------



## Kurfürst (May 30, 2008)

davparlr said:


> If German aircraft had been considered a threat at the end of '44, the skies would have been filled with these planes by April, 45.



I guess then German aircraft weren`t considered a threat in 1940, when obsolate Hurricanes formed the mainstay, they weren`t considered a threat in 1943, when obsolate Spitfire Mk Vs formed the mainstay.



davparlr said:


> As for as advanced engines, the Germans had no engines equivalent to the R-2800-57 (2800hp at 33k), R-4360 (3450 hp), or Centaurus (2650 hp).



So what is so 'advanced' about these engines? They are all very large powerplants, requiring a very large airframe, consuming the gains in power output.

Take the R-2800 for example - an engine weighting a ton plus a turbocharger adding another half a ton, plus twice the amount of fuel that is needed for one hour endurance at similiar cruise as a plane with half the horsepower, half the size and weight. Where`s the net gain...? Its just a typical example of 'monster truck' building attitude..

The Germans were certainly capable of building similiar monstrosities - DB 610 boo-hoo, 3100 HP in 1942 too bad its twice the size and bulk of a DB 605, well its actually two coupled DB 605s, but who cares when we can wave around 'advanced' figures - but usually opted for high effiency engines.

Its the net gain in power what matters, after all.


----------



## Marcel (May 30, 2008)

Kurfürst said:


> I guess then German aircraft weren`t considered a threat in 1940, when obsolate Hurricanes formed the mainstay, they weren`t considered a threat in 1943, when obsolate Spitfire Mk Vs formed the mainstay.


Both times, the allies came up with an a/c better or at least equal to the german ones, so your point?



Kurfürst said:


> So what is so 'advanced' about these engines? They are all very large powerplants, requiring a very large airframe, consuming the gains in power output.
> 
> Take the R-2800 for example - an engine weighting a ton plus a turbocharger adding another half a ton, plus twice the amount of fuel that is needed for one hour endurance at similiar cruise as a plane with half the horsepower, half the size and weight. Where`s the net gain...? Its just a typical example of 'monster truck' building attitude..
> 
> ...


Hmmm, the centaurus proved to be an efficient a/c engine after the war, so what did the DB610 do?


----------



## Soren (May 30, 2008)

Davparlr said:


> If German aircraft had been considered a threat at the end of '44, the skies would have been filled with these planes by April, 45.



That's one of the most ridiculous thinks I ever heard! 

Davparlr had the Allies been able to field the P-51H, Tempest II or YP-80 any earlier they would've done so, nothing was holding them back. And it certainly wasn't because German a/c weren't considered any threat that these new design weren't fielded earlier, no fact is they simply weren't ready for service because of design quirks which still needed be addressed.


----------



## Soren (May 30, 2008)

Kurfürst said:


> So what is so 'advanced' about these engines? They are all very large powerplants, requiring a very large airframe, consuming the gains in power output.
> 
> Take the R-2800 for example - an engine weighting a ton plus a turbocharger adding another half a ton, plus twice the amount of fuel that is needed for one hour endurance at similiar cruise as a plane with half the horsepower, half the size and weight. Where`s the net gain...? Its just a typical example of 'monster truck' building attitude..
> 
> ...



Exactly Kurfürst.


----------



## pbfoot (May 30, 2008)

Soren said:


> That's one of the most ridiculous thinks I ever heard!
> 
> Davparlr had the Allies been able to field the P-51H, Tempest II or YP-80 any earlier they would've done so, nothing was holding them back. And it certainly wasn't because German a/c weren't considered any threat that these new design weren't fielded earlier, no fact is they simply weren't ready for service because of design quirks which still needed be addressed.


the allies had time to fix the quirks I really don't think the LW had that much time. Probably every one with a T square and french curve where drawing up fantasy weapons


----------



## drgondog (May 30, 2008)

Soren said:


> That's one of the most ridiculous thinks I ever heard!
> 
> Davparlr had the Allies been able to field the P-51H, Tempest II or YP-80 any earlier they would've done so, nothing was holding them back. And it certainly wasn't because German a/c weren't considered any threat that these new design weren't fielded earlier, no fact is they simply weren't ready for service because of design quirks which still needed be addressed.



Soren, the H was deployed to the 343rd and the 53rd FG in Shemeya, Alaska starting in March 1945. Even given the deployment cycle of the P-51D which started rolling off production lines in march, 1944 for deliveries to Italy and ETO in mid may 1944, the same deplyment to the PTO could have been late April to early May, 1945. 

The P-80 and P-51H were the top fighters in the USAAF and the Air Force KNEW budgets would be hammered. Why throw any of the best into combat when second best was doing fine as the war wound down? Germany had no such view.

- earlier possibly if to operational groups with a sense of urgency. Whether it could have engaged with Ta 152s or D-9s is pure speculation but it easily could have seen escort duties in the last four months of PTO. Ditto the F7F and it did serve with USMC in the last couple of months.


----------



## kool kitty89 (May 30, 2008)

Don't forget the XP-47J, more practical and available earlier than the XP-72, and seeing the other issues with the P-47M's operation, if put in place of it the P-47J would have probably been operational around the same time. And the lower drag and weight reduced fuel consumption and increased range substancially, in addition to the much better performance and increased maneuverability. Though armament was decreased to 6x .50's, capacity was still 425 rpg.


And it may have actually suffered fewer problems than the P-47M, due to the fan cooling and depending on maintenence conditions similer to the P-47N's better reliability. (possibly due to operating in the pacific though, similar to the P-38's improvements in maintenence and reliability differences there compared to the ETO)

And I say the P-47J rather than jets, because the jets lacked the range for escort or pennetration missions, and it still had performance to give it some ability to take on the jets. (and had advantages of other prop fighter over jets of low speed acceleration and sustained turning ability) Even the P-80, the longest ranged of the allied jets, would have been pushing it, particularly as only the 165 gal tip tanks would have been available at that time. (inless it was modified to carry the larger 300 US gal Lockheed tanks, which may have required strengthening the wings as the largest tanks fitted in combat were 260 US gal)


----------



## KrazyKraut (May 30, 2008)

I guess there's a reason the XP-47J was downright cancelled, though.


----------



## kool kitty89 (May 30, 2008)

Soren said:


> For climb rate read my last post Davparlr,
> 
> The Ta-152H wasn't rushed into service Davparlr, if anything it was halted by Hitler for some time. Furthermore when the Tempest II P-51H would've arrived the Ta-152H would've been equipped with the far superior Jumo 213 EB engine, so the difference would've been the same. Also the Me-262 would've been equipped with the Jumo 004D C engines, giving a great increase in power for no increase in weight.
> 
> Now if you want ot go even further the P.1101 was already in the prototype stage by wars end, and the Ta-183's design and workplan was ready as-well.



I agree on the delayed development of the 152. 

But on the jets, the 004C was a paper design only iirc (afterburining 004B), it was the 004E which was in final testing stages and nearing production, while the 004D-4 was already in production just prior to VE day. (according to Delcyros ratings for the production engines were 930 kp for the 004D, 1,000 kp for the 004E 1,200 kp w/AB, though the 004D was tested to 1,050 kp at 10,000 rpm, I don't know if the production engines were rated for overrev like the 003E had been)

And of the ongoing prototype developments I think the P.1101 was the more practical and would probably was a lot closer to production than the Ta 183. 
Particularly as some time would be saved in tooling as it used the Me 262's wings. (section outboard of nacelles)


----------



## marshall (May 30, 2008)

KrazyKraut said:


> I guess there's a reason the XP-47J was downright cancelled, though.




IIRC it was decided that it's better to make a bit less complicated versions like M or N.


----------



## kool kitty89 (May 30, 2008)

The XP-47J program was dropped in favor of the XP-72 program which took a bit longer, and used the still maturing Wasp Major engine.

Subsequently the XP-72 was cancelled due to emphesis being toward escort fighters (being filled well enough by the P-51), and the even greater performance possibilities of jets.


----------



## pbfoot (May 30, 2008)

marshall said:


> IIRC it was decided that it's better to make a bit less complicated versions like M or N.


I think the J was an interceptor and from late 43 on there wasn't much to intercept as the USAAF was going to where the targets were rather then waiting for the targets


----------



## kool kitty89 (May 30, 2008)

It had adequate range to make a good escort fighter though, as did the XP-72 (though I still don't favor that one due to a resulting later production and introduction), and could economically cruise at higher speeds, similar to the P-51, due to the reduced drag.

Republic XP-47J Thunderbolt



> At one time, it was proposed that the J model would be introduced onto the production line, but the advent of the even more advanced XP-72 resulted in plans for the production of the P-47J being abandoned before any more could be completed.



Republic XP-72


----------



## marshall (May 30, 2008)

Seversky Aircraft and Republic Aviation

"Despite this incredible performance, the XP-47J was really nothing more than a technology demonstrator. Meanwhile, the R-2800 C series was installed in another, more ordinary Thunderbolt P-47C. *The purpose was to trade a little performance for simplicity of manufacture.* The idea being that a minimum of changes were required to the current aircraft for the C series engine.

The aircraft that resulted was designated the XP-47M. Not "officially sanctioned", the XP-47M was an "in-house" development program."


But no matter why it wasn't produced, it's a shame, it would have been a great fighter.


----------



## davparlr (May 30, 2008)

KrazyKraut said:


> The DB 603 N a dream, yeah sure. Just as much as it is a dream that any fighter aircraft powered by either the Wasp Superior or the Centaurus would ever participate in the war.
> 
> 
> > I didn't say a dream. It was a prototype and I am not sure it ever flew in a plane. The other engines at least were flying.
> ...


----------



## kool kitty89 (May 30, 2008)

Another thing to think about is that by this time the US was also puting a lot of focus on the PTO and the planned invasion of Japan. Which the P-51H, F8F, and P-80A were all ready to participate in when the war ended.


----------



## Soren (May 30, 2008)

drgondog said:


> Soren, the H was deployed to the 343rd and the 53rd FG in Shemeya, Alaska starting in March 1945. Even given the deployment cycle of the P-51D which started rolling off production lines in march, 1944 for deliveries to Italy and ETO in mid may 1944, the same deplyment to the PTO could have been late April to early May, 1945.



Roger that Bill, and thus it realistically couldn't have made it to the ETO before wars end. 



> The P-80 and P-51H were the top fighters in the USAAF and the Air Force KNEW budgets would be hammered. Why throw any of the best into combat when second best was doing fine as the war wound down? Germany had no such view.



Agreed, but the LW wasn't throwing unfinished designs into service as Darvparlr suggests either. The production of most of Germany's late service a/c had already been slowed down by Hitler, esp. the Me-262 which could've gone into service already in 43. And had Hitler not forced Kurt Tank to periodically shelf his Ta-152 development process, the Ta-152H could've easily been ready for service in early 44.



> - earlier possibly if to operational groups with a sense of urgency. Whether it could have engaged with Ta 152s or D-9s is pure speculation but it easily could have seen escort duties in the last four months of PTO. Ditto the F7F and it did serve with USMC in the last couple of months.



Fully agreed Bill.


----------



## davparlr (May 30, 2008)

Kurfürst said:


> I guess then German aircraft weren`t considered a threat in 1940, when obsolate Hurricanes formed the mainstay, they weren`t considered a threat in 1943, when obsolate Spitfire Mk Vs formed the mainstay.



Huh? I am not sure of your point, but I suspect that allied effort to field advanced capable aircraft at this stage had maximum development effort, unlike Fall, 1944.



> So what is so 'advanced' about these engines? They are all very large powerplants, requiring a very large airframe, consuming the gains in power output.
> 
> Take the R-2800 for example - an engine weighting a ton plus a turbocharger adding another half a ton, plus twice the amount of fuel that is needed for one hour endurance at similiar cruise as a plane with half the horsepower, half the size and weight. Where`s the net gain...? Its just a typical example of 'monster truck' building attitude..



So I take it you think the Do-335 was a failure. And I guess jet aircraft were a deadend street because of their fuel consumption.



> The Germans were certainly capable of building similiar monstrosities - DB 610 boo-hoo, 3100 HP in 1942 too bad its twice the size and bulk of a DB 605, well its actually two coupled DB 605s, but who cares when we can wave around 'advanced' figures - but usually opted for high effiency engines.
> 
> Its the net gain in power what matters, after all.



That's a great testimony of German engineering all by itself.


----------



## Soren (May 30, 2008)

Drgondog said:


> Is that what you did for the Ta 152 calcs?



No, that was but a quick educated guess based on climb rate achieved at Steig u. Kampflesitung Start u. Notlesitung (1,590 PS 1,750 PS) at 5,220 kg, and then the time to climb to 10km at Sonder Notleistung (2,050 PS) at 4,760 kg, which was 10.1 min. I'm pretty sure you'll arrive at a similar figure 


*Kurfürst,*

Could you possibly help us out with the power vs altitude of the DB-605 DC, AB etc etc ?


----------



## KrazyKraut (May 30, 2008)

> I didn't say a dream. It was a prototype and I am not sure it ever flew in a plane. The other engines at least were flying.


Not in any WW2 fighter aircraft.


> At 416 mph, I think the Tempest II was the fastest piston power aircraft at SL, 44 mph faster than the vaunted Ta-152, and with a similar climb.


So? At higher altitudes the Ta-152 was 50 km/h faster.


> By fall of 1944, it was apparent that Germany was not going to be able to prevent complete collapse. I am sure the pressure on the Hawker engineers working on the Tempest II was much less than that of the Focke-Wulf's engineers working on the Ta-152.


Moot point, as by that time the Ta-152 was already entering service. You can try to dodge it as much as you want: The Mk.II was ordered in '42, made it's maiden flight with the centaurus in '43 but didn't enter service until mid '45 because it simply wasn't ready any earlier. It was even planned to be used against the already beaten Japanese airforce, at a time where Mk.Vs would have easily sufficed.


----------



## Soren (May 30, 2008)

Darvparlr said:


> but I suspect that allied effort to field advanced capable aircraft at this stage had maximum development effort, unlike Fall, 1944.



They had maximum development effort throughout the war Darvparlr, even more so infact, just take a look at the multitude of a/c to arrive in 44. 

Fact is Darvparlr, every nation was putting new a/c on scene as quickly as they could, only a few exceptions such as the Me-262 Ta-152 being delayed for preference reasons of the high command (Hitler).


----------



## Soren (May 30, 2008)

> So? At higher altitudes the Ta-152 was 50 km/h faster.



And with the jumo 213 EB engine the SL speed wouldn't have been so different, and the climb rate of the Ta-152H would've been much better than the already very high performance in this area. But most importantly the Ta-152H was much faster at altitude, and its service ceiling was much higher.


----------



## kool kitty89 (May 30, 2008)

Was the top speed at altitude for the Ta 152-H with GM-1?



One thing on the 11 kills and 0 shot down though, while an impressive acheivement, particularly given the circumstances, it also is really too small a figure to give conclusions on how sucessful it would really have been had it seen more extensive service and development.


And the DB 603, and Jumo 213 weighed pretty close to a ton, and the BMW 801 weighed nearly the same as contemprary R-2800s. (of the P-47C and D, the 2,800 hp -57 engine weighed slightly more iirc, also note that the -63/59 engine of the P-47D was capable of 2,600 hp at 70" Hg with 100/150 octane, and 2,535 hp at 65" Hg at 2,800 rpm with 100/130 octane with water injection)


----------



## davparlr (May 30, 2008)

KrazyKraut said:


> Not in any WW2 fighter aircraft.
> So? At higher altitudes the Ta-152 was 50 km/h faster.



Yes, but it was clearly superior at SL and most likely up to 20k, certainly in speed and probably equal in climb. So they were designed for different regions



> Moot point, as by that time the Ta-152 was already entering service. You can try to dodge it as much as you want: The Mk.II was ordered in '42, made it's maiden flight with the centaurus in '43 but didn't enter service until mid '45 because it simply wasn't ready any earlier. It was even planned to be used against the already beaten Japanese airforce, at a time where Mk.Vs would have easily sufficed.



Come on, this is common sense. The Germans were being overwhelmed and were desperate to field super weapons. Just look at the weapons being pushed. Why they were pushing six jet developments and at least two rocket developments alone. The Allies were not desparate for any weapon system. They had what they needed.


----------



## claidemore (May 30, 2008)

From our beloved Wiki: 



> By fall 1944 the war was going badly for Germany and the RLM pushed Focke-Wulf to quickly get the Ta 152 into production. As a result, several Ta 152 prototypes crashed early into the test program. It was found that critical systems were lacking sufficient quality control. Issues arose with superchargers, pressurized cockpits leaked, the engine cooling system was unreliable at best due in part to unreliable oil temperature monitoring and in several instances the landing gear failed to properly retract. A total of 20 pre-production Ta 152 H-0s were delivered in October and November 1944 to Erprobungskommando Ta 152 to service test the airplane. It was reported that test pilots were able to conduct a mere 31 hours of flight tests before full production started. By the end of January 1945 only 50 hours or so had been completed. The Ta 152 was not afforded the time to work out all the little quirks and errors plaguing all new designs. These problems proved impossible to rectify given the situation in Germany towards the end of the war, and only two Ta 152 C remained operational when Germany surrendered.



That looks like 'rushed 'to me, don't know how anybody could interpret it differently.


----------



## Vincenzo (May 30, 2008)

drgondog said:


> Soren, the H was deployed to the 343rd and the 53rd FG in Shemeya, Alaska starting in March 1945. Even given the deployment cycle of the P-51D which started rolling off production lines in march, 1944 for deliveries to Italy and ETO in mid may 1944, the same deplyment to the PTO could have been late April to early May, 1945. .



the 53rd Fighter group was disbanded on 1 May 1944 and wasn't in alaska so can't deployed in march 1945 p-51h in alaska
the 343rd FG was in alaska unlucky not a Shemaya in march '45 but at Alexai Point, in Shemaya only from october '45, and its squadrons were on P-38 and P-40


----------



## Soren (May 30, 2008)

For the full story on the Ta-152 one should read _Focke Wulf Ta 152: High altitude fighter_ by Dietmarr Hermann, and NOT Wikipedia.


----------



## davparlr (May 30, 2008)

Soren said:


> They had maximum development effort throughout the war Darvparlr, even more so infact, just take a look at the multitude of a/c to arrive in 44.



I think most of the significant aircraft arrivals came prior to D-Day. After that development slowed down and the Allied effectively were happy to finish the job with what they had. I think there was natural desire to get these planes into action just to see how they would perform against the enemy, like the P-80, but I don't think there was a general effort to accelerate these planes to front line duty but I think there was in Germany. It only makes sense. 



> Fact is Darvparlr, every nation was putting new a/c on scene as quickly as they could, only a few exceptions such as the Me-262 Ta-152 being delayed for preference reasons of the high command (Hitler).



I do not believe this is a fact from mid '44 on.


----------



## Soren (May 30, 2008)

> I think most of the significant aircraft arrivals came prior to D-Day. After that development slowed down and the Allied effectively were happy to finish the job with what they had. I think there was natural desire to get these planes into action just to see how they would perform against the enemy, like the P-80, but I don't think there was a general effort to accelerate these planes to front line duty but I think there was in Germany. It only makes sense.



No Davparlr, it doesn't make any sense at all.

Just compare the number of new a/c to see service with the Allies Axis and you'll see your theory just doesn't hold water.


----------



## kool kitty89 (May 30, 2008)

The only real difference between the P-47M and the P-47J is that the J had a slightly lighter structure and had the tight cowling and cooling fan. (similar to that used with the BMW 801)

The M was expected to be available sooner (due to the need for retooling foor the J model) but seeing the delays and problems in operational service of the M model due mainlt to mechenical problems with the engine (something that didn't seem to be nearly as prevelant on the P-47N in the PTO for whatever reason) it may have been just as well to continue with the P-47J program.

It would also have been interesting if that cowling had been used on the P-47N, performance should have increased significantly and with the rduced drag (and fuel consumption) further extended the already long range of the N model.


----------



## kool kitty89 (May 30, 2008)

Soren, is thais a more accurate overview: the RLM kind of ignored the Ta 152 early on so it langushed, and later (too late as was with a lot of the advanced projects started earlier on; or focus on the wrong projects particularly Hitler's wasteful offensive vengence weapons) they pushed for the project, and rushed it and the problems were due to both.

Had there been interest earlier on and development gone at a fast, but not rushed pace (like many of the contemporary allied projects) it should have been available much earlier.


One other thing though, on the Tempest II, it wasn't that it wasn't ready 'till '45, but more of problems with starting production. The production decision shifted several times through different manufactures and delayed it a good deal. It should have been in service not too long after the Tempest V.

Just for a quick overview, from Wikipedia:


> The Centaurus was generally regarded as superior to the Sabre, particularly in terms of reliability, and the engine and Tempest airframe proved an excellent match. The combination looked so promising that a contract for 500 of the type was placed as far back as September 1942, but Gloster was overloaded with production of the Typhoon and development of the Gloster Meteor, and there was no way the company could handle the additional load.
> 
> Tempest Mark II production was allocated to Bristol, and the switch delayed production even more. The first Tempest II was rolled off the line on 4 October 1944. With the end of the Second World War in sight, orders for the Tempest II were trimmed or cancelled; after 50 Tempest IIs had been built at Bristol's Banwell facility, production was stopped and shifted back to Hawker.
> 
> A total of 452 Tempest IIs were built, including 136 basic Mark IIs and 316 "Fighter Bomber Mark IIs" (FB II). They were built mostly by Hawker and generally with Centaurus V engines, and of that number 300 were completed after the war. The Tempest II, despite its slightly improved performance and better reliability, never saw combat. Tempest IIs produced during the war were intended for combat against the Japanese, and would have formed part of "Tiger Force" but the Pacific War ended before they could be deployed. The RAF passed 89 Tempest FB IIs to the Indian Air Force in 1947, while another 24 were passed on to the Pakistani Air Force.


----------



## kool kitty89 (May 30, 2008)

KrazyKraut said:


> > I didn't say a dream. It was a prototype and I am not sure it ever flew in a plane. The other engines at least were flying.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Having delays due to switching manufactures multiple times hardly equates to _"simply wasn't ready any earlier."_

And, while there was a performance increase in the Mk. II, a major advantage was the engine's much better reliability compared to the Sabre. (and the greater ability to withstand battle damage)


----------



## davparlr (May 30, 2008)

Soren said:


> No, that was but a quick educated guess based on climb rate achieved at Steig u. Kampflesitung Start u. Notlesitung (1,590 PS 1,750 PS) at 5,220 kg, and then the time to climb to 10km at Sonder Notleistung (2,050 PS) at 4,760 kg, which was 10.1 min. I'm pretty sure you'll arrive at a similar figure



Please provide what was left off the Ta for test. I thought it was primarily an interceptor so I am not sure what could be removed except maybe GM-1 fluid.


----------



## kool kitty89 (May 31, 2008)

I beleive it was designed as a high altitude miltirole fighter. As soren mentioned before there is interceptor configuration, and long range/escort configuration. (with full internal fuel, and possibly drop tank(s))

The Ta 152 had a fairly large internal fuel capacity compared to the Fw 190 iirc.


----------



## KrazyKraut (May 31, 2008)

> The 2,800 hp R-2800-57 was included in that list, and that most certainly did see service on fighter aircraft during the war.


I already dropped that one and was only referring to the more uber Wasp Superior and the Centaurus. The -57 and the Centaurus V have a very high power output, but they are rather heavy and bulky. The resulting fighters' performance was not on a higher level than what contemporary German or other Allied fighters with less impressive hp were capable of (as was indicated). But Kurfürst already mentioned that.



kool kitty89 said:


> Having delays due to switching manufactures multiple times hardly equates to _"simply wasn't ready any earlier."_
> 
> And, while there was a performance increase in the Mk. II, a major advantage was the engine's much better reliability compared to the Sabre. (and the greater ability to withstand battle damage)


Yes, which was more the reason to get it into service. "Ready any earlier" means "not combat ready", production started in late '44 but went slowly, so yeah, it wasn't ready for squadron service before the war ended. Or are we going to argue about semantics now 



Soren said:


> Just compare the number of new a/c to see service with the Allies Axis and you'll see your theory just doesn't hold water.


Exactly, numerous new aircraft were sent to the theatres just months before the war ended, even though the Allies were already winning. F8F, P-47N, P-51H, the latter two particularly designed to be the major fighters for the invasion of Japan... at a time where ordinary P-51Ds and P-47Ds would have easily sufficed since the Japanese airforces were already beaten. The Mk.II was basically complete by late '43 , its engine was seen as more reliable and it was potentially less vulnerable to AAA (which was probably the bigger concern from late '44 on)... so there was all the reason to get it to the troops. That it didn't (for the 3rd time now) was a result of faulty planning.


----------



## kool kitty89 (May 31, 2008)

Actually the P-47N's range was a pretty big advantage in the Pacific, even in this stage of the war.


Agree on the Tempest II.


----------



## Soren (May 31, 2008)

davparlr said:


> Please provide what was left off the Ta for test. I thought it was primarily an interceptor so I am not sure what could be removed except maybe GM-1 fluid.




Davparlr, with full internal fuel (1,094 Liters) the weight of the Ta-152H is 5,220 kg, with half fuel (560 Liters) in fighter interceptor configuration weight is 4,760 kg.


----------



## davparlr (May 31, 2008)

Comparison of P-51H performance to Ta-152H-1. SL - 10 km.

Comparison point: Fighter configuration, fuel 148 gal (560 L)

Comparison Weight:
P-51H 8808 lbs (3995 kg)
Ta-152H-1 10494 lbs (4760 kg)

Primary data source:

P-51H - Corrected North American performance data validated with flight test dated 11-1-45 (probably equivalent to Focke-Wulf Ta-152H performance data). Note: Top speed is noted as 471 mph at 9450 lbs., which is what I had previously calculated for clean configuration, vs. original est. of 487 mph.

Ta-152H - Focke-Wulf performance data and Soren

All data is based upon Comparison Weight noted. Where referenced data weight is different, data is estimated at Comparison Weight 

HP=PS for this comparison

SL
A/S: (mph)
P-51 *413* 
Ta-152 *371* 

Climb (ft/min)
P-51 *5600* *
Ta-152 *5100+* 

Power-hp/PS
P-51 *2220* 
Ta-152 *2050*

Power Loading (lb/hp)
P-51 *3.4*
Ta-152 *5.1*

*10k*

A/S
P-51 *450*
Ta-152 *416*

Climb
P-51 *4800 *
Ta-152 N/A

Power
P-51 *2200*
Ta-152 *1900*

Power Loading
P-51 *4.0*
Ta-152 *5.5*

*20k*
A/S
P-51 *451*
Ta-152 *436*

Climb
P-51 *4200*
Ta-152 NA

Power
P-51 *1820*
Ta-152 *1880*

Power Loading
P-51 *4.8*
Ta-152 *5.6*

*30k*

A/S
P-51 *453*
Ta-152 *463*

Climb
P-51 *2100*
Ta-152 *2854* at 29k (unknown power setting)

Power
P-51 *1400*
Ta-152 *1340*

Power Loading
P-51 *6.3*
Ta-152 *7.8*

*33k*

A/S
P-51 *449*
Ta-152 *458*

Climb
P-51 *1300*
Ta-152 NA

Power
P-51 *1240*
Ta-152 *1300*

Power Loading
P-51 * 7.1*
Ta-152 *8.1*

Time to Climb
P-51 *9.8 min. (+ .2)**
Ta-152 *10.1 min.*


*Cross checked against P-51B performance at 9680 lbs, and 75” Hg, corrected for weight and power, and data appears reasonable.

Below about 25k ft, the P-51H has a significant advantage in airspeed and power loading, probably equal to or better climb performance, and probably better dive performance. The Ta-152 has better maneuvering capability. If the P-51 pilot keeps his speed up and doesn’t get into turning fight with the Ta-152, he should have no problem maintaining energy superiority, have more options for attack, and control of engagement and egress from combat. Above 25k ft., the Ta-152 quickly starts to gain all of the advantages and will control the “high ground”.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 31, 2008)

davparlr said:


> Below about 25k ft, the P-51H has a significant advantage in airspeed and power loading, probably equal to or better climb performance, and probably better dive performance. The Ta-152 has better maneuvering capability. If the P-51 pilot keeps his speed up and doesn’t get into turning fight with the Ta-152, he should have no problem maintaining energy superiority, have more options for attack, and control of engagement and egress from combat. Above 25k ft., the Ta-152 quickly starts to gain all of the advantages and will control the “high ground”.



I happen to prefer the Ta 152H but I think your post pretty must shows that the two aircraft were very equal aircraft. One having the advantage at low alltitude and the other at high altitude.

Overall though very equal aircraft.

I think some people fail to realize that pretty much all the "top" aircraft at any given time during WW2 were very equal aircraft. Each having advantages and disadvantages.


----------



## Vincenzo (Jun 1, 2008)

davparlr said:


> Comparison of P-51H performance to Ta-152H-1. SL - 10 km.
> 
> Comparison point: Fighter configuration, fuel 148 gal (560 L)



strange comparison, afaik the comparison came on 
1) at actually configuaration of fight (not applicable here, maybe a what if configuration in fall 45 with p-51h escorting bomber on germany and ta 152 intercepting)
2) at fuel need for same range (this is i think the best for a true comparison not related with a actually use)
3) at full fuel or a proportional (like half fuel) each


----------



## davparlr (Jun 1, 2008)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> I happen to prefer the Ta 152H but I think your post pretty must shows that the two aircraft were very equal aircraft. One having the advantage at low alltitude and the other at high altitude.
> 
> Overall though very equal aircraft.
> 
> I think some people fail to realize that pretty much all the "top" aircraft at any given time during WW2 were very equal aircraft. Each having advantages and disadvantages.



A reasonable assessment in my opinion.


----------



## davparlr (Jun 1, 2008)

Vincenzo said:


> strange comparison, afaik the comparison came on
> 1) at actually configuaration of fight (not applicable here, maybe a what if configuration in fall 45 with p-51h escorting bomber on germany and ta 152 intercepting)
> 2) at fuel need for same range (this is i think the best for a true comparison not related with a actually use)
> 3) at full fuel or a proportional (like half fuel) each



The appropiate configuration of opposing aircraft is always a issue.

1) This is probably not an unlikely configuration if the P-51H is flying out of France, as it could in 45.

2) These two aircraft have similar aerodynamics and engines and, in this case, range performance could be similar although the Ta-152 is a bit heavier.

3) I don't know what the total internal fuel of the P-51H, but if it is the same as the P-51D, there would not be a significant change to the fuel load.


----------



## Vincenzo (Jun 1, 2008)

for 3 afaik p-51h have 255 US gallons North American P-51H Mustang


----------



## drgondog (Jun 1, 2008)

Vincenzo said:


> for 3 afaik p-51h have 255 US gallons North American P-51H Mustang



That is correct for a maximum internal fuel load for maximum range..

the 51H had an unusual internal fuel configuration with one wing tank at 105 gallon, the other at 100 and the fuselage tank at 60. It was 13" longer and did not have the aft cg problem of the B and D with full fuselage tank.

It also had a slightly different airfoil from the B/C/D.

I also agree with Chris that All the aircraft in this discussion had performance envelopes that were superior to another in some comparison, with the Ta 152H and P-51H having more advantages than disadvantages over the others (IMO)

Of all the ones under the discussions only the Mustangs were more likely to have nearly a full load (i.e full wing tanks, empty fuselage tank) of fuel at the point of engagement as its role was Long Range Fighter - so that is realistic.

Having said that, I agree with Dave that for a discussion like this you would set up two different comparison profiles - one at a likely take off condition and cruise to point of fight... (say 30% (??) consumed for all) and one with full combat load guns and ammo and pilot but no fuel - which would be best possible comparison between each.

The point that I would make is that if we can normalize Max Hp to Thrust, we get the free body force equations at all altitudes that we have recorded maximum speeds, and we can vary the weights to make those comparisons

The Mustangs would be the ones handicapped the most because it's 70% remaining is all wing fuel of 184 gallons after the fuse tank burned off, and working with wing tanks all the way to say, Berlin. That is probably double or triple the weights of fuel of its adversaries


----------



## Soren (Jun 1, 2008)

Davparlr,

Your comparison is good but remember you're comparing the Ta-152H with the Jumo 213E engine. At the time the P-51H would've arrived the Ta-152H would've been equipped with the superior Jumo 213EB engine which featured much better high alt performance. 

On top of that the Jumo 213J was in development and would've followed shortly. This engine had four valves pr. cylinder, making it the most advanced and efficient piston engine out there.


----------



## Soren (Jun 1, 2008)

Also keep in mind that the Germans had by late 44 available the FW-190 Dora-12 -13, both of which boasted a 780 km/h (487.5 mph) top speed and 13.4 km (44 kft) service ceiling. 

Now lets get back on topic, we can make a thread for comparing the Über fighters later.


----------



## pbfoot (Jun 1, 2008)

Soren said:


> Davparlr,
> 
> 
> 
> On top of that the Jumo 213J was in development and would've followed shortly. This engine had four valves pr. cylinder, making it the most advanced and efficient piston engine out there.


the merlin also had 4 valves a cylnder


----------



## renrich (Jun 1, 2008)

Chris hits the nail on the head with his last statement. To me, still, in order to be judged as a significant AC in a war, an airplane needs to be put into production, with bugs ironed out and have a significant combat record. Either that or be a revolutionary design like the ME262. I have asked this question several times and no answer so this time I am asking Soren, the big kahuna on the wunderflieger, TA152, how many TAs were ever operational and how many kills did it have and if possible, against what AC. As far as a "big" radial engine is concerned like the R2800, well, you take that engine, stick it in as small an airframe as possible and you have an airplane like a Corsair, that can carry a lot of fuel, get off the ground fast, is very survivable, can carry a big ordnance load and has a lot of stretch in the design. Or you take the same engine and stick it into an even smaller airframe and have a shorter ranged fighter with a smaller ordnance load but up to about 20000 feet can outperform any piston engined fighter ever built, the F8F.


----------



## Glider (Jun 1, 2008)

KrazyKraut said:


> The -57 and the Centaurus V have a very high power output, but they are rather heavy and bulky. .



Re the ref to being Bulky. The attached photo shows a Hercules engine and a Centuraus. There isn't a lot in it.


----------



## Glider (Jun 1, 2008)

Sorry everyone I don't know what happened as I did resize the photo.


----------



## Soren (Jun 1, 2008)

pbfoot said:


> the merlin also had 4 valves a cylnder



Yes and so did the DB-605, but the Jumo 213J is a 35 Liter engine and is lighter at 700 kg dry weight, and take off power was 2,000 PS.


----------



## Soren (Jun 1, 2008)

Renrich,

The Ta-152H is credited with 12 kills for no losses, all kills were enemy fighters.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 1, 2008)

renrich said:


> I have asked this question several times and no answer so this time I am asking Soren, the big kahuna on the wunderflieger, TA152, how many TAs were ever operational and how many kills did it have and if possible, .



I do not have hard fact numbers but I believe that there were between 65 and 72 production aircraft that were delivered to the front line units out of aprox 150 that were built.

That fact though is, the Ta 152 was in production.

My understanding however though is that the aircraft did have some bugs, these bugs certainly would have been worked out with a bit more time. 

If I am correct JG 301 never had more than 15 to 20 operational at any given time.

This information is taken from a hodgepodge of sources though and I can not verify its reliability.


----------



## Soren (Jun 1, 2008)

How long are we with the comparison so far Bill ? Any last things we need ?


----------



## davparlr (Jun 1, 2008)

Soren said:


> Davparlr,
> 
> Your comparison is good but remember you're comparing the Ta-152H with the Jumo 213E engine. At the time the P-51H would've arrived the Ta-152H would've been equipped with the superior Jumo 213EB engine which featured much better high alt performance.
> 
> On top of that the Jumo 213J was in development and would've followed shortly. This engine had four valves pr. cylinder, making it the most advanced and efficient piston engine out there.



Punch and counterpunch. The story of WWII technical development. In production, P-72, airspeed at 3200 ft., 480 mph. Killed by lack of need and advent of jets.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Jun 1, 2008)

The XP-72, first prototype with 4-blade paddle prop, managed 490 mph at
25,000 ft, I haven't seen figures for higher altitudes, but this may be the crit 
altitude for the a/c. (could have changed with a larger turbocharger)

The XP-47J's fastes speed was 507 mph at 32,000 ft.

The XP-47J was the first piston engined aircraft to exceed 500 mph. (iirc the
record held for piston/prop aircraft, until the Bearcat's record breaking flight
in the 80's)


----------



## Soren (Jun 1, 2008)

The XP-72 was a prototype a/c Davparlr, only two were ever built. 

Furthermore it would've never entered mass production even with interest as the jet engine had by that time already established its superiority, one of the reasons behind some the Ta-152's development delays. By mid 44 the Germans were after-all pushing 900 km/h with service jet a/c, and over 1,000 km/h with finished prototypes.


----------



## pbfoot (Jun 1, 2008)

Soren said:


> Yes and so did the DB-605, but the Jumo 213J is a 35 Liter engine and is lighter at 700 kg dry weight, and take off power was 2,000 PS.


ok then why mention the 4 valves when in fact the merlin is an earlier engine


----------



## Soren (Jun 1, 2008)

pbfoot said:


> ok then why mention the 4 valves when in fact the merlin is an earlier engine



Because the extra valve pr. cylinder increased take off power to 2,000 PS vs the earlier 1,750 PS for no weight increase, giving an unpresidented power to weight ratio of 2.82 hp/kg.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Jun 1, 2008)

Soren, don't forget though when comparing dry weights (and subsequent p/w 
ratios), that can show discrepancies in comparisons, particularly in this case
where a radial engine would lose out by dry weight, but win (or be very
close) in operational configuration. (the liquid cooled engines requiring added
weight for coolant, and in particular the external cooling system and radiator)


In operational circumstances, I think the R-2800-57 would be prety close to
equal to the Jumo in terms of power/weight.


----------



## claidemore (Jun 2, 2008)

Yesterday the score was 11-0 for the Ta152, today it's 12-0? 
In any case, the Stabstaffel/JG301 pilots were all hand picked aces, many of whom had earned the Knights Cross, and I would give much of the credit for that success to the men themselves. This was really a dream team as far as fighter units go. 

On the topic of mis-identifying the Ta152, 109s from JG310 itself attacked the first operational sortie of Ta152s. Nobody knew what they were. 

As for valves, both the Sabre and Centaurus were sleeve valve engines. I believe the Sabre is the only WWII aircraft engine that delivered greater than 1 horsepower per cubic inch of displacement. (one test R2800 matched it's displacement with 2800hp) Saber V engines with 2238 cu in displacement gave 2400 hp (2.2hp/kg in a production engine which actually saw considerable service and which could be boosted to 3000 hp in emergencies) Saber VII gave 3500 hp (3.2 hp/kg). Later test engines ( production Saber engines used in tests) were run up to 4000hp. (5500 according to some sources). 

The Centaurus engine gave 2000 hp right from the start, eventually achieving 3200 hp (2.6hp/kg). 

Also, I believe the Jumo 211 weighed 720 kg, but the 213 weighed 920-940 kg. That makes it 2.1 hp/kg.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Jun 2, 2008)

The R-2800-57C had a WEP of 2,800 hp at 2,800 rpm. (in operational conditions)

However, in testing: P-47M


> During durability testing of the C series R-2800 by Republic, it was
> decided to find out at what manifold pressure and carburetor temperature
> detonation could be induced. They ran the engine at extreme boost
> pressures that produced 3,600 hp! But wait, it gets even more amazing. They
> ...




And don't forget about the Merlin, it exceeded 1hp/in^2 by a good margin on production versions. (over 1.25 on production models) 
(the V-1710 did as well, with 2,300 hp on -non-turbo-compound- production models by the end of the war,
but the only such to see service was on the P-63C, 1,800 hp with water injection.
and on the P-38L's engine made almost this much with 1,725 hp at 64" Hg, albeit with turbocharging.
Some racing versions of the V-1710 were tuned as high as 4,000 hp)

And long before that ther was overboostng of the P-40D/E/K's engines: http://www.raafwarbirds.org.au/targetvraaf/p40_archive/pdfs/Allison 1710-39 abuse.pdf


----------



## Kurfürst (Jun 2, 2008)

kool kitty89 said:


> Soren, don't forget though when comparing dry weights (and subsequent p/w
> ratios), that can show discrepancies in comparisons, particularly in this case
> where a radial engine would lose out by dry weight, but win (or be very
> close) in operational configuration. (the liquid cooled engines requiring added
> weight for coolant, and in particular the external cooling system and radiator)



Very much true. However radials usually also have a much larger frontal area, thats where inlines takes advantage.



kool kitty89 said:


> In operational circumstances, I think the R-2800-57 would be prety close to
> equal to the Jumo in terms of power/weight.



Hmm, how about that turbocharger system weighting what, half a ton..? Its also part of the whole powerplant package.

IMHO powerplants need to be compared as a whole package. Engine weight, dimensions, oil/coolant cooling and intercooling losses (raditor drag and weight), liquids weight, boosting systems, aux. equipment, fuel needed for given_ excess thrust _ for given period etc.

HP/displacement is the most irrevelant value of all. Take the Sabre for example - it weights a ton and its frontal area is greater than that of a radial engine`s...! Technically its brillant, for practical applications, its just overcomplicated and impractical.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Jun 2, 2008)

You're right on the turbocharger, but I was talking about the engine its self (though the P-47M/N were the only production applications iirc). And the engine may have been capable of sufficient boost w/out the turbocharger (integral neutral blower) to acheive that power, albeit at very low altitude. (and I don't know if a 2-stage, or other variable speed, mechanically driven supercharger was fitted to this specific engine model, and if it had some of the power would get drawn off at higher altitudes)

Also the 720 kg figure isn't right for the Jumo 213. (that's the weight of the later 211's iirc) The 213E should weigh around 940 kg, similar to the DB 603.



And on the sabre, while it was pretty wide, at 40" it's still much narrower than comparable radials. (the only military radial of the period smaller would be the tiny Gnome-Rhone 14M, though the Bristol Taurus was almost that narrow)


And also liquid cooled engines tended to be more fuel efficient than the radials.




Yes the powe/displacement argument is a bit odd. (I'm not sure why it started here) And technically speaking you can get a higher power/displacement ratio on any of these engines by increasing RPM and boost (given high enough octane and/or water injection) to the point of the engine's structural limitations. (which are often subsequently increased in development)


However, as I believe Soren mentioned on another thread recently, the increase in RPM and (particularly, except for turbocharged engines) in boost increases specific fuel consumption. And if you can get a large displacement engine of similar power, dementions, and weight as a smaller displacement one the larger displacement engine will generally be more advantageous. (and the German engines had the direct fuel injection as well)
I believe Soren made a comparison between the German and French (and Russian; copies from French, or developments of German engines) higher displacement engines vs the contemporary US/UK engines.


----------



## davparlr (Jun 2, 2008)

Soren said:


> Davparlr,
> 
> Your comparison is good but remember you're comparing the Ta-152H with the Jumo 213E engine. At the time the P-51H would've arrived the Ta-152H would've been equipped with the superior Jumo 213EB engine which featured much better high alt performance.





> The XP-72 was a prototype a/c Davparlr, only two were ever built.
> 
> Furthermore it would've never entered mass production even with interest as the jet




Several sources indicate that 100 P-72s were ordered into production only to be cancelled because of changing priorities and the advent of the jet which would have been a wise move for Germany if only they could protect their airspace.
You tend to represent could-have-been German aircraft as viable arguments but dismiss allied could-have-been aircraft.


The fact of the matter is that, if there were no jets and the war continued, none of the advanced German prop planes would have flown very long without significant challenge, just like it had always been.


----------



## davparlr (Jun 2, 2008)

Kurfürst said:


> Very much true. However radials usually also have a much larger frontal area, thats where inlines takes advantage.




That didn't seem to be a problem with the FW-190, P-47, F4U, or Rare Bear, the worlds fasted propeller driven aircraft.


----------



## KrazyKraut (Jun 2, 2008)

> The fact of the matter is that, *if there were no jets* and the war continued, none of the advanced German prop planes would have flown very long without significant challenge, just like it had always been.


The fact of the matter is there were jets. By the time the XP-72 flew for the first time, even USAAF jet programs had completed their first flights, which I guess contributed to the decision not to pursue the project. Jets were simply the better solution to the problem.


> That didn't seem to be a problem with the FW-190, P-47, F4U, or Rare Bear, the worlds fasted propeller driven aircraft.


The point was: Simply quoting displacement / hp doesn't tell you everything about the respective aircraft performance nor does it translate into technical superiority.


----------



## Soren (Jun 2, 2008)

> Yesterday the score was 11-0 for the Ta152, today it's 12-0?



12 to 0 is counting a previously unconfirmed P-51 Mustang shot down, I just forgot about it, Erich has the details.

As for the Ta-152 flown by aces, could you list them please claidemore, I'm really interested to see wether all were aces and had recieved the knights cross... But by the same token German fighter pilots were by 44 mostly rookies with little flying time.

And as for engine weights, relying on Wiki again are we Claidemore ??


----------



## Soren (Jun 2, 2008)

davparlr said:


> Several sources indicate that 100 P-72s were ordered into production only to be cancelled because of changing priorities and the advent of the jet which would have been a wise move for Germany if only they could protect their airspace.



1.) Two were built, both were prototypes. 
2.) It wasn't ready.
3.) By the time it would've been ready it would've already been outperformed by German a/c.

1944 was the beginning of the jet age, and the Germans were the leaders in this field.



> You tend to represent could-have-been German aircraft as viable arguments but dismiss allied could-have-been aircraft.



Nope, not at all. The Me-262, He-162, Ta-152 Fw190 D-12 13 were NOT could-have-been a/c. 

But if you want to discuss prototypes could-have-been's I told you that the Germans were ready to put the Jumo 004E Jumo 213EB into production, and these were NO prototypes, these were finished designs. Furthermore the Go229 production design was finished and the a/c was ready to enter production, two production examples were already 90% complete. Also the first P.1101 prototype was 90% complete, and the Ta-183's design production plans were finished. 




> The fact of the matter is that, if there were no jets and the war continued, none of the advanced German prop planes would have flown very long without significant challenge, just like it had always been.



Depends how you define significant challenge. Fact of the matter is that with the Jumo 213EB there was no Allied prop job in development which could match the Ta-152's performance, and with the Jumo 213J it was far superior in every parameter of performance from SL and up.

BUT, like it had always been, these new German a/c would be out-numbered the day they took to the sky, and seeing that both fuel experienced pilots was in very short to no supply there really was no a/c which could save the Germans from the inevitable defeat.


----------



## claidemore (Jun 2, 2008)

Soren said:


> 12 to 0 is counting a previously unconfirmed P-51 Mustang shot down, I just forgot about it, Erich has the details.
> 
> As for the Ta-152 flown by aces, could you list them please claidemore, I'm really interested to see wether all were aces and had recieved the knights cross... But by the same token German fighter pilots were by 44 mostly rookies with little flying time.
> 
> And as for engine weights, relying on Wiki again are we Claidemore ??



Soren: Actually I checked several different sites about the engine weights, including Wiki. I didn't find any sites as complete as some dedicated to the Saber or Centaurus, but there is info out there. 



> Oberstleutnant Fritz Aufhammer was the official Kommodore but was mainly an administrator. From III Gruppe came Willi Reschke, Herman Stahl, Josef Keil, Sepp Sattle, Christoph Blum and Heinz Gossow and from JG 300 came Walter Loos.





> III Gruppe pilots of note who transferred to the Stab JG 301 were Fw. Willi Reschke, Uffz. Christoph Blum, RitterkreuztrÃ¤ger Ofw. Heinz Gossow and StaffelkapitÃ¤n Oblt. Hermann Stahl all of 9. Staffel, along with Sepp Sattler and Josef Keil of 10. Staffel. Keil was to achieve â€˜acedomâ€™ on the type. Former SturmjÃ¤ger Walter Loos, who had previously flown alongside Walther Dahl in the Stab JG 300 during the summer of 1944 and had achieved some thirty victories also transferred in. In the last weeks of the war both he and Reschke were awarded the Ritterkreuz. Given the number of Knights Cross holders flying Ta 152s at the end of the war some writers have considered the Geschwaderstab of JG 301 to be something of a crack unit..



Aufhammer, the CO, had 5 kills, so definately not in the same league as the others. I guess thats why Sattler was leading the flight when Reschke got his Tempest on April 14/45. Also sheds some light on how Short was able to get the best of Aufhammer in that same fight. 

Josef Keil, 16, 
Herman Stahl, 7, Knights Cross, 
Heinz Gossow, 13, 
Walter Loos, 38, Ritterkreuz
Willi Reschke 27, Ritterkreuz
Christoph Blum, 6.

Can't find any stats on Sepp Sattler.

Krazy Kraut: a postive hp/displacement ratio might not indicate total technical superiority, but it is a factor, and does show a significant technical achievement. I think it's worth mentioning.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Jun 3, 2008)

There used to be an excellent site on Junkers engines, unfortunately it seems to have died recently... 

The Hugo Junkers Homepage

http://www.geocities.com/hjunkers/ju_jumo210_a1.htm


----------



## kool kitty89 (Jun 3, 2008)

KrazyKraut said:


> The fact of the matter is there were jets. By the time the XP-72 flew for the first time, even USAAF jet programs had completed their first flights, which I guess contributed to the decision not to pursue the project. Jets were simply the better solution to the problem.
> The point was: Simply quoting displacement / hp doesn't tell you everything about the respective aircraft performance nor does it translate into technical superiority.




Actually, by the time the first XP-72 flew (early February 1944), the XP-80 had already flown about a month earlier. 

The first flight of the Bell XP-59A Airacomet was in October of 1942.



And Soren I agree on the P-72's viability, it just would have come too late. 

The P-47J on the other hand would probably have been available around the same time as the P-47M and N. (first flew in late 1943)


----------



## Soren (Jun 3, 2008)

Claidemore no Ta-152H was shot down in combat, when will you ever get that ? Stop relying on Wiki for your information. I have Reschke's book and Reschke never said what is written on Wiki, the guy who wrote the story on Wiki completely distorted what was said in the book. But I shouldn't have to tell you this as Bada already provided a scan of the section where Reschke describes the incident.

Sattler crashed for unknown reasons, Reschke seeing him just dive and crash, and this was long before the flight even came close to area where the dogfight would take place.


----------



## Soren (Jun 3, 2008)

Anyway we really need to get back on topic here...

So far we have the authentic Clmax figures for all a/c, which means we also have the Cdi. We also have the Cd0 figure for the Spitfire 109, but we still need the Fw-190 P-51's.

But we do also have performance figures to look at and help us judge the approx. drag of the a/c.


----------



## drgondog (Jun 3, 2008)

Soren said:


> Anyway we really need to get back on topic here...
> 
> So far we have the authentic Clmax figures for all a/c, which means we also have the Cdi. We also have the Cd0 figure for the Spitfire 109, but we still need the Fw-190 P-51's.
> 
> But we do also have performance figures to look at and help us judge the approx. drag of the a/c.



Cdo won't get us there Soren. That factor is for zero lift for one condition, and for either the airfoil or the wing, it isn't for total wetted drag of the airplanes in the force balance at all velocities and altitudes.. even the factors for the P-51 (CDwet =0055) is for high speed cruise IIRC at one speed and altitude and there is no direct reference for the flight conditions for the other three fighters' Cdwet.

If we can get reliable thrust conditions and data for each of the engines - or reliable prop efficiencies for each engine/prop syatem we can convert rated Hp as a function of altitude to calculate Thrust


----------



## drgondog (Jun 3, 2008)

Soren said:


> Claidemore no Ta-152H was shot down in combat, when will you ever get that ? Stop relying on Wiki for your information. I have Reschke's book and Reschke never said what is written on Wiki, the guy who wrote the story on Wiki completely distorted what was said in the book. But I shouldn't have to tell you this as Bada already provided a scan of the section where Reschke describes the incident.
> 
> Sattler crashed for unknown reasons, Reschke seeing him just dive and crash, and this was long before the flight even came close to area where the dogfight would take place.



With due respect for Satter, I know that for my own calculations of 8th AF FC air to air losses, my totals include shot down, mid air collision in presence of enemy air, crashed into ground attempting to manuever with an enemy aircraft, crashing into a 'victim', unknown causes but in presence of enemy air. That raised the air to air estimates about 13% (higher) losses as shown in my 8th AF Ops tables than suggested in Missing Aircrew Reports.

Why shouldn't Satter be in the same category above?


----------



## Soren (Jun 3, 2008)

Because Reschke saw him dive out of formation crash in the trees below, and for no apparent reason. Therefore it could be either a mechanical malfunction, not uncommon as a number of Ta-152 had crashed because of this before, or it could be something to do with Sattler. For all we know he could've had a heart attack..

One thing is for certain though, Sattler was not shot down.


----------



## drgondog (Jun 3, 2008)

Soren said:


> Because Reschke saw him dive out of formation crash in the trees below, and for no apparent reason. Therefore it could be either a mechanical malfunction, not uncommon as a number of Ta-152 had crashed because of this before, or it could be something to do with Sattler. For all we know he could've had a heart attack..
> 
> One thing is for certain though, Sattler was not shot down.



I'll give an example of confusion that can occur. On November 13, 1943 Lt Col Hubbard, Gp Exec of the 355th was leading the 355th - essing over the top of B-17s coming off the target on the way home over Zwolle when, in the middle of his turn - he experienced very heavy vibration and the engine tore out of his mounts.

He bailed out and evaded. His wingman was 100 yards away saw Hubbard's ship in distress and watched him bail out.

The official cause was structural failure and that is what he reported when hr returned after D-Day.

What he didn't know is that FW Wiegand from JG26 shot down a B-17 and in a climbing pass shot down a P-47 over Zwolle then dove away - where Hubbard went down. Wiegand's claim matches up with Hubbard's loss but we will both agree it is not a certain match

I simply would question dismissing a shoot down - but not really interested enough in arguing about it.

I'm not interested one way or the other in the Ta 152 win loss record, but wonder about completeness of unit records in April and early May 1945 to be able to say with certainty that none were lost.


----------



## Soren (Jun 3, 2008)

The unit's records are quite complete AFAIK, and Reschke would ofcourse have known if anyone in his small unit got shot down, fact is though that none were.

Anyhow Sattler was for sure not shot down, his plane just suddenly started to dive and then crashed in the woods below, Reschke saw it all happen with no response from Sattler. So it was either a mechanical malfunction or something to do with Sattler himself. IMO the most probable of the two, based on Reschke's description of the event, is that Sattler suffered something health related, be it a stroke etc etc one can only speculate.


----------



## claidemore (Jun 3, 2008)

A stroke or heart attack? That is highly improbable, this was a young fighter pilot. Mechanical malfunction OTOH is entirely possible, even probable. Of course his health problem could have been due to ingestion of 20mm Hispano shells. lol

But here is a combat report from that day in that place, that agrees pretty much with how Sattler went in. BTW, Sattler and Mitchells planes were less than 1 km apart, (as stated in that posted clip ?) so he did not go down a long time before the dogfight. 



> F/Lt. Sheddan of 486 Squadron recorded in his Combat Report for 14 April 1945:
> 
> I was flying pink 1 on a weather recce of the Perleberg – Ludwigslust area, when just west of Ludwigslust, whilst pulling-up after attacking a train I saw a silver colored a/c at deck level flying due north.
> My own height was 2000 ft and I dived down behind it and gave chase followed by the other 3 a/c of my section. When about 700 yards from it I recognized it was an F.W. 190. The 190 did not take any evasive action and I closed to a 100 yards and opened fire with one second burst in dead line astern.
> ...



We have two claims for "190s" in the area, and Shaws claim is at exactly the same time, the time of Sheddans claim is unknown. What I like about the Shedden shootdown, is the location, the height, the fact that it was a quick 1 second burst "bounce" situation with the Tempest climbing away and having to look down to see the FW go into the ground. 

I think it is just as likely that Sheddan shot Sattler down, as a mechanical malfunction. Short mentions seeing another flight of 4 planes during the dogfight, given his poor aircraft identification skills (documented), it's entirely possible it was Sheddans flight. 

Also, Aufhammers plane was shot up by Short, did he RTB or have to bail out at some point? If he did rtb, was the plane a write off? 

We have at 3 possible scenarios where a Tempest pilot could have shot down a Ta152 on that date. We might not be able to prove it conclusively, but in stating the kill/loss ratio of the Ta152, an objective person should be mentioning that it is at least a possibility.


----------



## Soren (Jun 3, 2008)

I know men in their 20 30's who have died of strokes Claidemore (one while out jogging) and it's the most probable considering what happened.

All three were flying in formation when Reschke saw Sattler's plane start to dive, and with no response from Sattler at all, until it crashed into the woods below. There were no enemy a/c present or Reschke and his wingman would've seen them, and Sattlers a/c was not damaged either, it just suddenly nose dived. 

As for Aufhammer being hit, where the heck did you get that from ?? Both flew back in formation and Reschke mentions nothing of his wingman's a/c being hit or damaged at all.


----------



## slaterat (Jun 3, 2008)

You cannot conclusively state that Shedden did not shoot Sattler down. Just because his wingmen didn't see it doesn't mean it didn't happen. If you've read anything about WW II air combat you would know that this senario is entirely plausable and indeed likely.

Slaterat


----------



## claidemore (Jun 3, 2008)

Soren: I got that from Mitchells wingmans combat report. Mitchell and Reschke were going round and round on the deck, but Short took Aufhammer into a climbing turn. Short outturned Aufhammer in the climbing turn (3 turns), while Mitchell got outturned by Reschke in the level turn fight (though it took a bit longer). 

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/tempest/486-shaw-14april45.jpg

Note the time in the report, and that Short misidentifies the Ta152s as 109s. Note also that Short did not see Sattlers plane, but did see a flight of four planes above, which if my theory is correct, would be Sheddans flight. The pieces fit pretty good. 

I see no mention in the quote from "Wilde Sau" about Aufhammer and Reschke returning in formation (in Badas post). If Reschke mentions this in another book, the fact that he doesn't mention any battle damage to Aufhammers plane could be contributed to memory after such a long time. Particularly since the damage didn't happen to his own plane, but to someone elses. 
It's quite obvious from Reschkes account, that it was written a long time after the war, he says "Today I can't remember the sequence of most ugly curses that I used then."

All the accounts, Shaws, Reschkes and Shedden say the plane in question dove to the ground and exploded. Mitchells Tempest however somehow managed to land in the forest more or less intact. 

Two clips from Badas post:


----------



## claidemore (Jun 4, 2008)

Furthermore, after doing a bit more research (more to be done), Reshke claims that Herman Stahl and his Ta152 were lost in a combat with Yak 9s on April 24/45. But other documents say that Stahl was killed in combat on April 11 while flying wingman with Josef Keil. 
Reschke says both he and Walter Loos got two Yak 9s on april 24, but Loos says he never got any victories with the Ta 152. Seems like a lot of confusion there. 


BTW, Neustadt-Glewe, the airfield the Ta152s took off from on April 14, was only 5 miles from Ludwigslust. Thats about 1 minute flying time in a Ta152, it was just before sunset 19.30 hrs, sunset at 20:15. Short and Mitchell were north of Ludwigslust, so Reschkes flight was headed due west, looking directly into the setting sun. 

On the 16th of April, Shaw and Sheddan shared a kill on a "190" which had just taken off from Neustadt. Two other 486 pilots, Schrader and Reid, each bagged a "long nosed" 190 over Neustadt on that day. Since there were both Doras and Ta152s flying from that airfield, any of those 3 planes could have been a Ta152.
April 24th, 130 Sq Spit XIVs shot down 3 +1 damaged (nosed over while landing) right at Neustadt.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 4, 2008)

I have to agree with the others here. Just because no one saw him get shot down, does not mean he was not shot down. Soren, in the heat of combat you dont allways see everything.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Jun 4, 2008)

If it was it would seem that it was a pilot kill, as there was no smoke/trailig fluids/ debris seen by the other 152 pilots, and of course, no bail out.


----------



## drgondog (Jun 4, 2008)

kool kitty89 said:


> If it was it would seem that it was a pilot kill, as there was no smoke/trailig fluids/ debris seen by the other 152 pilots, and of course, no bail out.



For that type 'unexplained' loss of control there are usually three root causes - natural and very sudden death (unlikely but possible), stray rifle bullet or projectile killing the pilot instantly, or a mechanical failure like oxygen causing unconsciousness (no radio warning of trouble) - also unlikely particularly at low altitude.

Any other explanations?


----------



## davparlr (Jun 4, 2008)

Soren said:


> 1.) Two were built, both were prototypes.
> 2.) It wasn't ready.


It is interesting that you consider the Ta-152 as being ready when it first began combat operations only months after the first flight of the prototype in August of ‘44, which crashed along with other prototypes (of course this is what you consider a non-rushed development cycle) while you make an unsupported comment that the P-72, whose prototype was flown in Feb. ’44 and in production, would not have been ready if needed. Oh, I forgot, it is not German.
Considering the fact that the P-72 was basically a re-engined P-47 and the Ta-152 had a highly modified fuselage, new wing, and a new engine, I suspect the P-72 prototypes were more ready than the Ta-152 was when it first entered combat.



> 3.) By the time it would've been ready it would've already been outperformed by German a/c.



Not by any propeller driven aircraft. To beat that 480 mph airspeed at SL, any prop plane you named would have had to have one heck of a new engine, sporting probably a 50% increase in power.
Of course, all these planes were obsolete by this time.



> 1944 was the beginning of the jet age, and the Germans were the leaders in this field.


Undeniable. However, the allies were catching up fast. The Germans would have leaped ahead with the use of swept wings, but the allies would have caught up in a year.


> Nope, not at all. The Me-262, He-162, Ta-152 Fw190 D-12 13 were NOT could-have-been a/c.


Me-262-outstanding aircraft and would have been competitive for several years.
He-162-marginal performance for a jet. Not much advantage except for producibility. Not much faster than the Meteor, P-80 being much superior. It probably would have killed more inexperienced German pilots than allied pilots. Single engine reliability of early German engines had to be a nightmare.
Ta-152, Fw-190D-12 13. These are not super performers above latest allied aircraft (P-51H, P-47M/N, F4U-4, British?). I would bet even with a new engine (I have no performance figures on those engines). The allies, except for the Navy, had moved on to jets (generating loss of interest in the P-72, XP-56, and others).



> But if you want to discuss prototypes could-have-been's I told you that the Germans were ready to put the Jumo 004E Jumo 213EB into production, and these were NO prototypes, these were finished designs.


I don’t anything about jet engine development, but I think others have argued this with you.


> Furthermore the Go229 production design was finished and the a/c was ready to enter production, two production examples were already 90% complete.


It amazes me how you assume that all German engineering is perfect and all proposed aircraft behave as planned and all development proceeds flawlessly. The Go229 was probably five to seven years away from combat capability or cancellation. Zero lateral stability was an obvious problem, requiring constant pilot attention to prevent the aircraft from becoming a Frisbee. Close coupled pitch stability also would have to be investigated thoroughly. Stall characteristics – unknown. On and on. Going into production with only one unsuccessful flight was massively risky. I suspect the Go229 would not have been a successful fighter without modern computerized flight controls.
Having said that, it was an amazingly advanced design, just too far ahead of technology.


> Also the first P.1101 prototype was 90% complete,


This aircraft had potential to be the first swept wing aircraft the allies would have faced, and could have been quite successful in the fixed wing sweep mode. With in-flight variable wing sweep, however, success was several years off.



> and the Ta-183's design production plans were finished.


Again, from plans to combat is often a rocky road. Based on Tank effort in Argentina, this design was several years away from combat capability. In fact it seems that the Mikoyan design team was more capable of solving the problems of this design than was the Tank team.


> Depends how you define significant challenge. Fact of the matter is that with the Jumo 213EB there was no Allied prop job in development which could match the Ta-152's performance, and with the Jumo 213J it was far superior in every parameter of performance from SL and up



All, hypothetical. I know nothing about these engines, but unless they generated 2300 hp or greater would it approach the P-51H at low altitude, although, depending on the power profile, could lower the altitude where is was superior. And, unless it generated 3000 hp would it approach the P-72. And, how much Q loading would those long wings withstand, also, their drag performance is not the best for high Q flight. 

.



> BUT, like it had always been, these new German a/c would be out-numbered the day they took to the sky, and seeing that both fuel experienced pilots was in very short to no supply there really was no a/c which could save the Germans from the inevitable defeat.


True. At this time, the allies could have had only P-40s and Spitfire Vs swarming like bees around a hive over the Luftwaffe home bases and the outcome would have been the same.


----------



## KrazyKraut (Jun 4, 2008)

davparlr said:


> It is interesting that you consider the Ta-152 as being ready when it first began combat operations only months after the first flight of the prototype in August of ‘44, which crashed along with other prototypes (of course this is what you consider a non-rushed development cycle) while you make an unsupported comment that the P-72, whose prototype was flown in Feb. ’44 and in production, would not have been ready if needed. Oh, I forgot, it is not German.
> Considering the fact that the P-72 was basically a re-engined P-47 and the Ta-152 had a highly modified fuselage, new wing, and a new engine, I suspect the P-72 prototypes were more ready than the Ta-152 was when it first entered combat.


Please, YP-80 prototypes crashed too killing at least two test pilots as did the XP-72 prototype when the Jernstadt blew the supercharger (to be fair it crash _landed_). Prototypes crash, rushed development or not. And the airframe of the -72 was also significantly redesigned. Btw, your evaluation that the XP-72 was more combat ready than the Ta is based on what exactly? That it's American? 
Fact is it never entered production, other contemporary US design evolutions did. There simply was no more use for a piston interceptor. Even if the war had continued into 1946 for whatever reason, the next US interceptor would've been the P-80 and not the XP-72.



> Me-262-outstanding aircraft and would have been competitive for several years.
> He-162-marginal performance for a jet. Not much advantage except for producibility.Not much faster than the Meteor, P-80 being much superior. It probably would have killed more inexperienced German pilots than allied pilots.


He-162 had in many ways superior performance to the Me-262 so how exactly was its performance marginal? Its only problem was a rather limited range, which was a design choice because it was of little concern at that time. Structural integrity problems had already been largely solved apart from a still too fragile rudder, but yes it was more of a plane for experienced pilots. But then it most likely was the cheapest of all the 1st generation jets. And where exactly was the P-80 so "much superior"? Speed? Climb? Maneuverability? Critical Mach? Accident rate? Costs?



> Again, from plans to combat is often a rocky road. Based on Tank effort in Argentina, this design was several years away from combat capability. In fact it seems that the Mikoyan design team was more capable of solving the problems of this design than was the Tank team.


They also had a shitload more budget behind them. The MiG-15 is also not more of a copy of the Ta-183 than the Bearcat is of the Fw-190: They copy design principles but the actual outcome is very different. The Pulqui IIs development was troubled, no doubt, but I love how you immediatly imply this to be due to a lack of capability on the German designer's part.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Jun 4, 2008)

The He 162's range was nearly as good as the Me 262's at just over 600 mi (~970 km) cruising at altitude. The disadvantages with the 162 were some structural problems with the oversensitive rudder assembly, which wouldn't have been difficult to fix, and not a problem if the Pilot knows to be careful about it. And the other being lack of rear visibility due to the engine, and smaller armament. (it wouldn't have been best as a bomber killer)


The P.1101 was the closest next gen a/c to becomeing a reality. In flight variable sweep was never to be part of the design, and the adjustable sweep of the prototype was for testing purposes only. 


I agree that the Ta 183 wouldn't have been ready in a practical time period, the P.1101 was the way to go. (possibly swept wing varients of the Me 262 and He 162 as well)



The coment on the Ho 229 is flat wrong. Flying wings can be designed to be stable without modern fly by wire systems, Bill has discussed this before. (I believe it was in the last few pages of the "What plane (any side) would you develop further" thread) How do you think the N1M, N9M, or all the other Horten brothers' flying wing projects worked?

According to tests flights of the Ho IX (both the Glider and Powered prototypes) showed good handeling characteristics with only a slight lateral instability.

However the lateral controls (rudder input provided by airbrakes near the wing tips) would have resulted in slow yaw control. (making aiming somewhat difficult) Increasing the size of the airbrake-"rudders" would have helped though.


----------



## bada (Jun 4, 2008)

OOh an, after so much pages, i hoped to see some aerodynamical sudies, with nice graphs and all that kind of stuff, but instead i see only a pissing contest of who made the best piston operationnal airplane, and in this case, the best operationnal, serial build still is the ta 152   
and don't come with some x-planes.... otherwise there are some V-planes also than kicked the behinds! 


davparlr
Considering the fact that the P-72 was basically a re-engined P-47 and the Ta-152 had a highly modified fuselage, new wing, and a new engine,

aah? highly modified fuselage??? where??? can you tell me?

the fuselage is a standard Anton fuselage (as are all the 190!) lenghtened as the d9 with simply a bigger tail to compensate the higher torque of the jumo, just like on the A9 version with the 801TS version...
There is nothing highly modified here, Tank took the same recepy as he did for the D9 but readapted the tail for the torque.

New wing? yes! very clean wing 

New engine? nope, already in use on the ju88 high alt version.

Now: about the Ta183:

dont compare this plane to the pulqui, those planes have nothing to do with eachother!

The Ta 183 was desingned and windtunnel tested by Mutlhropp and the pulqui was a tank's shot to rebuild the Multhropp desing and to try to make it lighter, that's why the pulqui is a high wing and the ta183 an median wing plane. Muthropp designed a whole centrale structure able to sustain the forces in flight on the wings, tank tried to eliminate this feature caus in his eyes, it was too heavy, so the only solution was to adopt low wing or high wing config. he took the second option and we all know what the results were 

KoolKitty:For the flying wing: i will ask you a question: 
by what means do you think the BV141 was able to fly??? it's fully asymetric! 
it's aerodynamicaly incorrect! but it flew and it flew very well (from accounts). The solution is simple:
they used an automatic aileron, rudder and flaps stabilisator! this very small mecanisme could have been installed on the Ho229, but the horten brothers weren't aware of that system, because they were ....will not say that here, much too vulgair.
This mecanisme was build by Patin but don't remember right now the number of that stuff, have to do some search.
This patin stuff compensated constantly all the slip and roll than could occur on the bv141, the pilot didn't even noticed it when it was working.

Now: i hope to see some nice charts here soon!


----------



## kool kitty89 (Jun 4, 2008)

He meant it was a new engine for the Fw 190 airframe. (though the 190D had already been using the Jumo 213)


Also I was wrong about the N1M, it had some stability problems. (as did the Ho I)


And while the Patin stabilization system certainly would have helped, the Horten brothers had already found a sucessful aproach for stability.

Bell-shaped lift distribution!



I agree that this thread is getting way off topic, I'd like to see it get back on too.


Soren can you post some of those Fw 190/Ta 152 data tables? (the ones with the A-8, A-9, D-9, D-13, 152 H, etc)



And Bill do you remember which thread we had that discussion on the stability of flying wings recently. (it wasn't the further development one...)


----------



## kool kitty89 (Jun 4, 2008)

Ok, it wasn't Bill, and it wasn't about the Ho 229 either. It was about the viability of large flying wings on the "players in a prolonged war" thread.



davparlr said:


> The YB-49 could not make the trip one way with weapons. It had a ferry range of 3575 miles.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Soren (Jun 4, 2008)

Claidemore,

No Ta-152 was shot down, and Aufhammer's a/c wasn't hit either, you just presume it was based on some after action report mentioning 109's. 

Fact is that Sattler crashed without any enemy action, and later on after the dogfight Reschke Aufhammer both went back in formation, and neither Aufhammer or Reschke mention anything about his a/c being shot down.



> Reshke claims that Herman Stahl and his Ta152 were lost in a combat with Yak 9s on April 24/45.



And where the heck did you get that from ??


----------



## Soren (Jun 4, 2008)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> I have to agree with the others here. Just because no one saw him get shot down, does not mean he was not shot down. Soren, in the heat of combat you dont allways see everything.



In the heat of combat ?? Adler Sattler dived crashed whilst all three were flying in formation toward the target area, there was no combat of any sort, which is the point I've been trying to stress for some time now. 

However Claidemore seems to believe that Reschke and his wingman, despite seeing Sattler start to dive out of formation and then crash without responding, somehow missed Sattler's a/c being shot at and hit. My question to this is how the heck do you your first wingman miss seeing your second wingman getting shot down whilst flying in formation with you when you both noticed him from the moment he started to dive and then crash ????


----------



## Soren (Jun 4, 2008)

KK Bada, good posts both of you.

I'll address them later today or tommorrow.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Jun 4, 2008)

Soren, Bill's post made some good points on what could have happened:


drgondog said:


> For that type 'unexplained' loss of control there are usually three root causes - natural and very sudden death (unlikely but possible), stray rifle bullet or projectile killing the pilot instantly, or a mechanical failure like oxygen causing unconsciousness (no radio warning of trouble) - also unlikely particularly at low altitude.
> 
> Any other explanations?







And not to draw the side arguments out any further, but I think the biggest limiting factor of the P-72 would have been the engine, inless P&W realy put pressure on getting it into production fast, I dont think too many would have been available. (certainly not in the numbers the R-2800 was being turned out in)

And there were also maintenence difficulties with that engine throught its service life. (not so much reliability, or even the oil leaks -common to all very large radials- but some odd characteristics with operation)

As said before, I think the P-47J was the better choice. (range was already good enough for escort duties- even with the 305 US gal of the early P-47's and fuel efficiency was better than other P-47's-, but encorporating the P-47N's wing -or adding the P-47J's nose to the P-47J- would have been even better, and with improved maneuverability, speed would drop but probably still nealy 490 mph at 32,000 ft) Also note that at 2,100 hp military power the XP-47J managed 470 mph.


----------



## Soren (Jun 4, 2008)

Didn't see Bill's post, but yes all are possible under certain circumstances, and personally I believe the first one based on Reschke's description of what happened.


----------



## Kurfürst (Jun 5, 2008)

davparlr said:


> Not by any propeller driven aircraft. To beat that 480 mph airspeed at SL, any prop plane you named would have had to have one heck of a new engine, sporting probably a 50% increase in power.



480 mph *at SL* with a 3000 HP engine in a 6+ ton aircraft?  

Wikipedia nonsense. The purpose-built, tiny Heinkel and Messerschmitt racers did something like 465 mph near SL with a 2900 HP engine...

Much more realistic specs are for the XP-47 were 490 mph at 25,000 feet, with a 3450 HP engine. Its good, but aint that hot allowing for production tolerances, operational equipment, and it certainly would take some time to clear 3450 HP for _operational_ use for the R 2800. 

Republic XP-72

Probably similiar as the P-51H case, the intial company calculations were rather impressive, the actual performance of the aircraft with operational equipment, from flight tests was rather closer to the P-51D than the projected specs.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Jun 5, 2008)

Kfurst the XP-72 used the massive 28 cylinder, 4 row, 71.49L "corn cob" R-4360 "Wasp Major" radial engine of 3450 hp. Late models produced 4,300 hp.
It weighed a good 1500 lbs heavier than the R-2800. (although less than 3 in larger in diameter)

It was basicly a further development of the XP-47J concept, up-engined and strengthened airframe.

The XP-47J itsself used the same 2,800 hp R-2800-57C engine as the P-47M/N, and actually acheived 507 mph in testing at 32,000 ft. With 470 mph at 2,100 hp millitary power, and 435 mph at 1,700 hp max continuous.



I agree that the 480 mph SL figure seems wrong.


----------



## KrazyKraut (Jun 5, 2008)

kool kitty89 said:


> The He 162's range was nearly as good as the Me 262's at just over 600 mi (~970 km) cruising at altitude. The disadvantages with the 162 were some structural problems with the oversensitive rudder assembly, which wouldn't have been difficult to fix, and not a problem if the Pilot knows to be careful about it. And the other being lack of rear visibility due to the engine, and smaller armament. (it wouldn't have been best as a bomber killer)


I have seen figures ranging from ~600 km to 970 km plus one source indicating flight endurance was only around 30 minutes (probably the last one simply quoted the Volksjaeger requirements though). Is there a good book about the Sparrow?


----------



## davparlr (Jun 5, 2008)

KrazyKraut said:


> Please, YP-80 prototypes crashed too killing at least two test pilots as did the XP-72 prototype when the Jernstadt blew the supercharger (to be fair it crash landed). This has nothing to do with rushed development. And the airframe of the -72 was also significantly redesigned. And your evaluation that the XP-72 was more combat ready than the Ta is based on what exactly? That it's American?


Many prototype aircraft crashed including the P-38, and I don’t think that is significant, however, if you look at the Ta-152 development, we see the first prototype, Fw-190V-33/U1 flew on July 12, ’44, crashed July 13, ’44. The second prototype, Fw-190V-30/U1 flew August 9, ’44, crashed August 13, ’44 (13 seems to be a bad number). A third prototype, V-18/U2, crashed October 8, ’44. Two prototypes made it through. Now remember the XP-72 flew February 2, ’44. I would bet that the XP-72 had more flying hours than all of the prototype Ta-152s when preproduction started on the Ta-152, and possibly before the Ta-152 went operational (wikipedia (??) states only 50 flying hours were complete by end of January, ’45). If this is true, then it is not unreasonable to assume that the P-72 had more bugs worked out of it than the Ta-152H-1, and was therefore more “ready”. Now, all of this info was taken from a couple of sources and may be in error. If so, I'm sure it will be pointed out.



> Fact is it never entered production, other contemporary US design evolutions did.


The P-72 was primarily designed as a interceptor. It was determined that the Allies did not need an interceptor and it already had an advanced escort, if necessary, (P-51H) in development, and the development funds were moving towards jets. Cancellation of the P-72, *after production start*, was not due to performance (it was excellent) but rather lack of a mission. One source said that the P-72 program was cancelled around VE day. So I guess both the Ta-152 and the P-72 were both cancelled at the same time. Soren said “there was no Allied prop job in development which could match the Ta-152's performance, and with the Jumo 213J it was far superior in every parameter of performance from SL and up”, which I think is probably wrong (I don’t know, maybe that 213J engine could produce 3000 hp).


> There simply was no more use for a piston interceptor. Even if the war had continued into 1946 for whatever reason, the next US interceptor would've been the P-80 and not the XP-72.


That’s also true with the Ta-152H.
[


> He-162 had in many ways superior performance to the Me-262 so how exactly was its performance marginal? Its only problem was short range, which was a design choice because it was of little concern at that time. Structural integrity problems had already been largely solved apart from a still too fragile rudder, but yes it was more of a plane for experienced pilots.


I will have to defer to your statement about performance, however, my opinion that the aircraft was seriously flawed for its initial design goal, e.g. that poorly trained pilots could fly it, has not changed. In addition, I would not be surprised if it did indeed kill more Germans than enemy. The limited endurance was a game loser for early German jets. The most dangerous time for a German jet was taking off and landing. If the He-163 had a 30 minute endurance, that means it would be exposed to the most dangerous part of the mission twice as long as an aircraft with an hour endurance, i.e. for every hour mission time the He-163 would have to be exposed to take/off landing four times, whereas an aircraft with one hour endurance would be exposed twice. Adding the additional fuel to increase endurance of this thrust limited aircraft would have significantly affected aircraft performance.


> They also had a shitload more budget behind them. The MiG-15 is also not more of a copy of the Ta-183 than the Bearcat is of the Fw-190: They copy design principles but the actual outcome is very different. The Pulqui IIs development was troubled, no doubt, but I love how you immediatly imply this to be due to a lack of capability on the German designer's part.



I threw that comment because I knew it stir up comment. Tank was an outstanding aircraft designer/engineer and I am sure he had less monetary support than Mikoyan, but he and his design team did have far more experience and understanding of that particular design which should have mitigated this disadvantage. Mikoyan, no second rate design/engineer himself, was able to build an aircraft very similar to Tank’s and to get in operational in a very short time, an impressive feat. Tank and his team struggled with his design getting it ready for operations.


> They copy design principles but the actual outcome is very different.


You are right. One of them became one of the worlds great aircraft, the other struggled to work.
The point of it all was that Soren implied that this aircraft was combat ready once a production aircraft was delivered. It wasn’t. It was most like two to three years off


----------



## renrich (Jun 5, 2008)

Kurfurst, I agree. I believe 470 or 80 at SL,TAS with a P72 or whatever is highly speculative. What is the record for a prop plane? I believe it is held by Rare Bear and it is around 470 mph and ,maybe not at SL. Perhaps at 5000 or so feet.


----------



## davparlr (Jun 5, 2008)

kool kitty89 said:


> The coment on the Ho 229 is flat wrong. Flying wings can be designed to be stable without modern fly by wire systems, Bill has discussed this before. (I believe it was in the last few pages of the "What plane (any side) would you develop further" thread) How do you think the N1M, N9M, or all the other Horten brothers' flying wing projects worked?



All of Northrop's, who had much more experience in flying wing aircraft than the Horton's, had vertical stabilizers.



> According to tests flights of the Ho IX (both the Glider and Powered prototypes) showed good handeling characteristics with only a slight lateral instability.
> 
> However the lateral controls (rudder input provided by airbrakes near the wing tips) would have resulted in slow yaw control. (making aiming somewhat difficult) Increasing the size of the airbrake-"rudders" would have helped though.



Actually, I am not sure this is correct. A small amount of drag on a wing tip should input a good amout of yaw rather quickly.

A pure flying wing aircraft can be built with some stability (except in the lateral axis without veritcal stabilizers). Roll stability is normal, however pitch stability is very low and yaw stability goes from okay to close to zero depending on the size of a vertical stabilizer.

None of the aircraft you mentioned went through the intensive flight test required of a fighter. Normal stalls, high g stalls, cross controlling, high roll rates, abrupt pitch inputs, high angle of attack flight, high speed dive recovery, negative g operation, weapons operation, more.

I believe these test would have revealled certain characteristics of a flying wing that would require extensive patchwork redesign, for certain a vertical stabilizer on the the Ho 229. Making a flying wing into a fighter is a whole different problem than making one for a bomber or glider for for just flying around in lazy circles.


----------



## davparlr (Jun 5, 2008)

bada said:


> OOh an, after so much pages, i hoped to see some aerodynamical sudies, with nice graphs and all that kind of stuff, but instead i see only a pissing contest of who made the best piston operationnal airplane, and in this case, the best operationnal, serial build still is the ta 152


*I have shown data, post 231*, that shows the P-51H clearly superior to Ta-152H below 25,000 ft. It was said that if the P-72 did come it would outclassed by an upgraded Ta-152. So, if you want me to present data on the P-72, provide the data for the upgraded Ta-152 and the other "V" planes. 




> davparlr
> Considering the fact that the P-72 was basically a re-engined P-47 and the Ta-152 had a highly modified fuselage, new wing, and a new engine,
> 
> aah? highly modified fuselage??? where??? can you tell me?
> ...


Okay, I will say that the Ta-152 fuselage was not modified much more than the P-72. It was longer than the D-9 and considerably heavier.



> New wing? yes! very clean wing



Even a “clean” new wing is significant.



> New engine? nope, already in use on the ju88 high alt version.
> 
> Now: about the Ta183:



Not the 213E with GM50 and nitro.



> dont compare this plane to the pulqui, those planes have nothing to do with eachother!
> 
> The Ta 183 was desingned and windtunnel tested by Mutlhropp and the pulqui was a tank's shot to rebuild the Multhropp desing and to try to make it lighter, that's why the pulqui is a high wing and the ta183 an median wing plane. Muthropp designed a whole centrale structure able to sustain the forces in flight on the wings, tank tried to eliminate this feature caus in his eyes, it was too heavy, so the only solution was to adopt low wing or high wing config. he took the second option and we all know what the results were


So, your saying that Tank wasn’t that good, huh. Didn’t the Ta-183 have a Ta in the front and not Mu?



> Now: i hope to see some nice charts here soon!



Actually, I think it is your turn, provide me with the charts on the Ta-152H with the 213J engine.


----------



## davparlr (Jun 5, 2008)

Kurfürst said:


> 480 mph *at SL* with a 3000 HP engine in a 6+ ton aircraft?
> 
> Wikipedia nonsense. The purpose-built, tiny Heinkel and Messerschmitt racers did something like 465 mph near SL with a 2900 HP engine...
> 
> ...





kool kitty89 said:


> I agree that the 480 mph SL figure seems wrong.





renrich said:


> Kurfurst, I agree. I believe 470 or 80 at SL,TAS with a P72 or whatever is highly speculative. What is the record for a prop plane? I believe it is held by Rare Bear and it is around 470 mph and ,maybe not at SL. Perhaps at 5000 or so feet.



I only found one reference, non-wikipedia, to the XP-72 actually being timed at 3200 ft at 480 mph. I didn’t really think too much about it. On review, we can apply some thumbnail aerodynamics to see if this is reasonable. We have data that shows the Tempest II, a similar radial engined aircraft weighing 8,917 lbs empty, with 2520 hp, as capable of doing 416 mph at SL and 425 mph at 5000 ft, which is about 420 mph at 3200 ft. Now, knowing that drag is the square of the speed, we can calculate the hp required for the Tempest II to obtain 480 mph at this altitude. The increase of speed from 420 to 480, (480/420) is 1.14. Squaring this we get 1.3. Multiplying this by 2520 hp, we get 3291 hp. The P-72, weighing 11,470 empty, has 3,450 hp. So adding in the extra weight, the 480 mph at 3200 ft is aerodynamically reasonable from a thumbnail look. 


Renrich, Rare Bear, weighing 8500 lbs, set a worlds speed record of 528.3 mph with 4000+ hp. For the Tempest to achieve this speed using the above calculations, is 3983 hp, so calculations also appear reasonable.

So, I think we have no reason to believe the speed of 480 mph for the XP-72 at 3200 ft is outlandish.


----------



## thrawn (Jun 5, 2008)

davparlr,

i find it highly doubtful, that the xp72 can manage 480mph at SL too.
I also think it is questionable that the Tempest II runs 416mph at SL. May I ask where you get this from?

In comparison, the Fw190A-9, a smaller and lighter fighter than the Tempest II, is capable of ca. 370 mph with 2250 hp at SL (if my memory is right), so i dont think that the Tempest with 300 hp more can go so fast, especially if you consider that the jump from 2000 hp to 2250 hp results in an speed increase of only 15 mph at the A9.

I think your calc is maybe wrong. Drag is square of speed and so is the required *Thrust*. Power is Thrust*speed, so Power must increase cubic with speed.

greetings 

thrawn


----------



## renrich (Jun 5, 2008)

Dav, I don't believe that RB was at sea level though. I don't believe the Tempest could manage 416 mph at SL. My book shows the fastest US WW2 fighter at SL was the F4U4 at 380 mph. I know there are numbers floating about which show various other AC as faster than that but I don't believe those numbers are accurate or they are not for standard production airplanes. Same book shows P47M at about 370 mph at SL.


----------



## Glider (Jun 5, 2008)

Tempest V's were measured at around 393 at Sea Level if thats any help.


----------



## KrazyKraut (Jun 5, 2008)

davparlr said:


> *Many prototype aircraft crashed including the P-38, and I don’t think that is significant*, however, if you look at the Ta-152 development, we see the first prototype, Fw-190V-33/U1 flew on July 12, ’44, crashed July 13, ’44. The second prototype, Fw-190V-30/U1 flew August 9, ’44, crashed August 13, ’44 (13 seems to be a bad number). A third prototype, V-18/U2, crashed October 8, ’44. Two prototypes made it through.


... yet you keep mentioning crashes like it matters  


> Now remember the XP-72 flew February 2, ’44. I would bet that the XP-72 had more flying hours than all of the prototype Ta-152s when preproduction started on the Ta-152, and possibly before the Ta-152 went operational (wikipedia (??) states only 50 flying hours were complete by end of January, ’45). If this is true, then it is not unreasonable to assume that the P-72 had more bugs worked out of it than the Ta-152H-1, and was therefore more “ready”. Now, all of this info was taken from a couple of sources and may be in error. If so, I'm sure it will be pointed out.


It is pretty unreasonable considering a) the XP-72 had just received a completely new propeller and b) the 2nd prototype crashed pretty early in the test program without any further prototypes buil. So I don't see evidence that would indicate the XP-72 had more bugs worked out, not to even mention that it had the potential to have much more bugs to begin with considering it had a new and very extreme engine that will put any fighter airframe to its limits.



> I will have to defer to your statement about performance, however, my opinion that the aircraft was seriously flawed for its initial design goal, e.g. that poorly trained pilots could fly it, has not changed.


No no, what you said was "the P-80 being much superior" and now you fail to back that up with facts.


> The limited endurance was a game loser for early German jets. The most dangerous time for a German jet was taking off and landing.


Uh yeah let's overdramatize that. Much more reasonable to build an interceptor with 2000 miles range I guess, so when in doubt it can circle over airfields for hours to wait for that window for safe landing. 



> If the He-163 had a 30 minute endurance, that means it would be exposed to the most dangerous part of the mission twice as long as an aircraft with an hour endurance, i.e. for every hour mission time the He-163 would have to be exposed to take/off landing four times, whereas an aircraft with one hour endurance would be exposed twice. Adding the additional fuel to increase endurance of this thrust limited aircraft would have significantly affected aircraft performance.


Like said before, several sources state different ranges. In any case you're not going to drop "another lack of performance"-bomb again are you?




> I threw that comment because I knew it stir up comment. Tank was an outstanding aircraft designer/engineer and I am sure he had less monetary support than Mikoyan, but he and his design team did have far more experience and understanding of that particular design which should have mitigated this disadvantage. Mikoyan, no second rate design/engineer himself, was able to build an aircraft very similar to Tank’s and to get in operational in a very short time, an impressive feat. Tank and his team struggled with his design getting it ready for operations.


Tank didn't design the Ta-183 though and his involvement in the project and the knowledge he may or may not have gained are subject to pure speculation. The Pulqui II at least differed substantially from the Ta-183. No less so than the Mig-15. Any assumption how long it would've taken to get the plane operational based on post war design copies are thus pretty useless. 



> You are right. One of them became one of the worlds great aircraft, the other struggled to work.


... and both were based on the ingenious design of a German. Even if you don't like it.


----------



## davparlr (Jun 5, 2008)

thrawn said:


> davparlr,
> 
> i find it highly doubtful, that the xp72 can manage 480mph at SL too.
> I also think it is questionable that the Tempest II runs 416mph at SL. May I ask where you get this from?
> ...



My sources say that the Fw-190A-9 was never built. Anyway, my source for the Tempest II is this

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/tempest/tempestii-cfe-appd.jpg

It may be of interest that the P-51H with 2200 hp was capable of over 410 mph at SL



> I think your calc is maybe wrong. Drag is square of speed and so is the required *Thrust*. Power is Thrust*speed, so Power must increase cubic with speed.
> 
> greetings
> 
> thrawn



Ouch! I think you are right. Thanks. Flight test data I compared supported your statement. Recalculating the P-72 performance using the cube would show a speed at 3200 ft as about 450-460 mph. Still quite impressive.


----------



## drgondog (Jun 5, 2008)

davparlr said:


> All of Northrop's, who had much more experience in flying wing aircraft than the Horton's, had vertical stabilizers.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



One of the huge problems with most flying wing design is that the elevators and airerons (elevons) are the same control surface. 

The introduction of winglets, slightly aft (mean aerodynamic chord of winglet, further aft than main m.a.c.) is showing promising results for yaw stability - as least static stability.

In a bank, the high wing with the most lift has the most drag - by definition "dragging' the high a little and casues a yaw to the high wing. In it's own way every a/c has this issue even something like a 109 with slats.. the upwing slat would typically deploy before the down wing and 'grab' the wing a tad...


----------



## Soren (Jun 5, 2008)

The Fw-190 A-9 was certainly built, and several were delivered to operational squadrons. Erich again probably has all the details.


----------



## Soren (Jun 5, 2008)

KrazyKraut said:


> ... and both were based on the ingenious design of a German. Even if you don't like it.



Trust me, he doesn't!


----------



## Soren (Jun 5, 2008)

Kurfürst said:


> 480 mph *at SL* with a 3000 HP engine in a 6+ ton aircraft?
> 
> Wikipedia nonsense. The purpose-built, tiny Heinkel and Messerschmitt racers did something like 465 mph near SL with a 2900 HP engine...
> 
> ...



Fully agreed Kurfürst.


----------



## davparlr (Jun 5, 2008)

KrazyKraut said:


> ... yet you keep mentioning crashes like it matters


It does when 3 out of the 5 prototypes crash. When this happens, programs are typically cancelled.



> It is pretty unreasonable considering a) the XP-72 had just received a completely new propeller and b) the 2nd prototype crashed pretty early in the test program without any further prototypes buil.


I understand it was a turbocharger explosion on take off. Certainly not enough to prevent contract go ahead.


> So I don't see evidence that would indicate the XP-72 had more bugs worked out, not to even mention that it had the potential to have much more bugs to begin with considering it had a new and very extreme engine that will put any fighter airframe to its limits.


So, you think that an aircraft that has been flying for almost a year cannot have provided the identification of bugs and test solutions? This is not reasonable. In addition, I understand that the flight test program was quite trouble free.



> no no, what you said was "the P-80 being much superior" and now you fail to back that up with facts.



? I said that I would defer to data on performance.



> Uh yeah let's overdramatize that. Much more reasonable to build an interceptor with 2000 miles range I guess, so when in doubt it can circle over airfields for hours to wait for that window for safe landing.


Over dramatize? You’re kidding, right? The sky was full of P-51s, P-47s, Spitfires, and Tempests, just waiting for a jet to slow down. I am sure every German jet pilot wished he didn’t have to land and take off so often. It was a killer. 



> Like said before, several sources state different ranges. In any case you're not going to drop "another lack of performance"-bomb again are you?



See above.




> Any assumption how long it would've taken to get the plane operational based on post war design copies are thus pretty useless.



I don’t think so. 

Okay, how about this. It took Focke-Wulf two and a half years to take the Fw-190, a conventional aircraft with a conventional engine, from first flight to first combat. To assume that they could take the Ta-183, a non-conventional aircraft with a non-conventional engine from a paper design to combat in less time, with bombs falling all around them, is just not being realistic. 



> ... and both were based on the ingenious design of a German. Even if you don't like it.



I have no problem recognizing and appreciating German ingenuity. The Me-262, Ta-152H, Ta-183, Ho 229 and many other designs were amazing. However, applying super human engineering to German technology is ludicrous. The Allies always maintained technological equivalence for six years, where necessary, sometime exceeding the Germans. It is unreasonable to think this would have changed in ’45, ’46, etc. 

I do not think the sun rises and sets in Allied technology. I have no problem saying that the Ta-152H was unmatched above 25k feet, or saying that had the Me-262 been used as an interceptor earlier, the war would have been extended, or that I was wrong on the He-162 performance.

I do think that there are some people who feel that the sun rises and sets in German technology and I enjoy challenging.


----------



## bada (Jun 5, 2008)

davparlr said:


> *I have shown data, post 231*, that shows the P-51H clearly superior to Ta-152H below 25,000 ft. It was said that if the P-72 did come it would outclassed by an upgraded Ta-152. So, if you want me to present data on the P-72, provide the data for the upgraded Ta-152 and the other "V" planes.
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, I will say that the Ta-152 fuselage was not modified much more than the P-72. It was longer than the D-9 and considerably heavier..



The tail was wooden build the part beeing added to the D9 (the same as the TA152) was something like 20kg, the only part beeing add than added some weight was the pressurized cockpit.

and we don't care of the p72 or the p51H, it doesn't flew operationnaly(p72), it wasn't build (p72)and it never saw combat(both of them), and about the other V-planes, you can easily check the he 280(from 1942!) or the "kangoroo" version of the 190 if you want. It won't change the fact, nothing could beat the ta 152 at high alt (above 8000m till 13500m ) or maybe if you want to talk about prototypes, we can start about the Do-335, that needed to shut down an engine to be able to sustain the cruise speed of the p51d whan it was brought back to england 
funny for a 10tons plane to have the same cruise speed on one engine as the half weight mono-engine fighter, don't you think? 




davparlr said:


> Even a “clean” new wing is significant.



don't get it 




davparlr said:


> Not the 213E with GM50 and nitro..



aah, you're absolutly right, it wasn't on the ju88, it was on the ju-188!

the 213E-0 was used on this plane!



davparlr said:


> So, your saying that Tank wasn’t that good, huh. Didn’t the Ta-183 have a Ta in the front and not Mu?..



at the end of 44 Tank wasn't a desinger anymore, it was the General director of the Fw company!
he wasn't envolved in the engeenering of the new edged projects. and the Ta prefix was simply given by the RLM as gift to Tank for it's work for the LW. Nothing else, multhropp was a young engineer, with modern ideas.(he worked for the us after the war )
If you invent something for the company you're working for, will the final product or the prototype of this product have your name or the name of your company?




davparlr said:


> Actually, I think it is your turn, provide me with the charts on the Ta-152H with the 213J engine.



the ta 152 never has this engine , so where could i find those charts?
Just like the p72 never flew operationnaly and was never tested as it, so why bother?

I'm sure Soren and dragndog will do a nice chart with the extrapolation of the possible engines for the 152...

i hope so! it seems that they know what they are talking about!

Please, stop the pissing contest and let's focus on the 3 planes we can obtain real data for: p51D22/25,109G/K and the 190 (any version) and let's forget about the small series or the x-planes.ok?

and about the A9: 
check this:

The Focke-Wulf 190 A-9 Listing

your sources are SOOOOOOOOOOOOOO wrong! 

Mine are:
Production:
serial

202360-202450 +/-90 from 9/44-9/44
205001-205100 +/100 from 9/44-9/44
205180-205300 +/120 from 9/44-10/44
205901-205999 +/-100 from 10/44-11/44
206031-206200 +/-170 from 11/44-12/44
207160-207240 +/-80 from 12/44-01/45
490020-490050 +/-30 from 12/44-01/45
750070-750160 +/-90 from 8/44-9/44
980150-980230 +/-50 from 12/44-01/45
980360-980380 +/-20 from 01/45-01/45
980540-980590 +/-50 from 01/45-02/45
490020-490050 +/-30 from 12/44-01/45

exact data can't be obtained, beeing destroyed due of the advance of the red army. The biggest FW fatories were on the east, the biggest one beeing in MALBORK-(actual)poland.

Edit: by the way, forget about the ww2.biasedaircraftperformancespitfire uberalles.com site, for a site that argue to be so detailled, and where the RAF official repport on the trials of the 190A3 vs 5 other allied planes is missing...it's simply a pure joke, taking the worst of the german and the best of the RAF, like the test of the the spits with lightenned airframes or engine working on unusual admission pressions with prototypes proppellers...a big joke, nothing else.
If you refear to this site, then you should ask yourself the question why supermarine build the Mk9 and other versions of the spit, cause if you look at those charts the spit5b could achieve higher performance than any other german plane, exept the 262...biased? noooooooot at all....


----------



## pbfoot (Jun 5, 2008)

bada said:


> or maybe if you want to talk about prototypes, we can start about the Do-335, that needed to shut down an engine to be able to sustain the cruise speed of the p51d whan it was brought back to england
> funny for a 10tons plane to have the same cruise speed on one engine as the half weight mono-engine fighter, don't you think?
> 
> 
> ...


What I think is that is crap..... prove it


----------



## davparlr (Jun 5, 2008)

Soren said:


> Trust me, he doesn't!



Soren, this is disingenuous. We have had many discussions. You’ve corrected me on info and I have gladly accepted it and accepted your expertise on German aircraft. All of my arguments with you were based on the best data I could find and if it was suspect I always pointed that out. If at times my conclusions are incorrect, I gladly correct them, as I have done in this thread. At times I have defended German aircraft performance against Allied aircraft performance because the data is the data. So, obviously, contrary to my previous opinion, you cannot be “trusted”.


----------



## davparlr (Jun 5, 2008)

Soren said:


> The Fw-190 A-9 was certainly built, and several were delivered to operational squadrons. Erich again probably has all the details.



My reference was incorrect.


----------



## davparlr (Jun 5, 2008)

Soren said:


> Fully agreed Kurfürst.



Thrawn in post 300 pointed out my calculation error in a very civilized manor. It was refreshing.


----------



## Soren (Jun 5, 2008)

davparlr said:


> I have no problem recognizing and appreciating German ingenuity. The Me-262, Ta-152H, Ta-183, Ho 229 and many other designs were amazing. However, applying super human engineering to German technology is ludicrous. The Allies always maintained technological equivalence for six years, where necessary, sometime exceeding the Germans. It is unreasonable to think this would have changed in ’45, ’46, etc.
> 
> I do not think the sun rises and sets in Allied technology. I have no problem saying that the Ta-152H was unmatched above 25k feet, or saying that had the Me-262 been used as an interceptor earlier, the war would have been extended, or that I was wrong on the He-162 performance.
> 
> I do think that there are some people who feel that the sun rises and sets in German technology and I enjoy challenging.



Davparlr,

Throughout WW2 the Germans were ahead in every field within aerodynamics fluiddynamics, and in some of them considerably so. They were also ahead in metallurgy, chemistry physics. Why ? Well in part because of the huge German government spending on science since the beginning of the 19th century and then ofcourse the all to well known extreme thuroughness perfectionism of the German people.

But this isn't a new thing, the Germans have always been known as extreme perfectionists obsessed with quality precision, and they are to a hurtfull degree as illustrated in WW2 and right up till today, always choosing quality over quantity - far from always a smart thing in war. They used machined brass safety pins in their land mines during WW2 instead of cheap cotter pins for christ sake!

Now that being said I admire the Germans for their prowess within high quality precision engineering craftsmanship, but I also know that this has nothing to do with them being super human in any way, it is simply a cultural thing, and the Swiss Austrians share it. 

In short we are all humans and we all share the same abilities nomatter what country we were born, lived or live in and nomatter our skin color. It is culture upbringing which makes us different in some ways.


----------



## Soren (Jun 5, 2008)

davparlr said:


> Soren, this is disingenuous. We have had many discussions. You’ve corrected me on info and I have gladly accepted it and accepted your expertise on German aircraft. All of my arguments with you were based on the best data I could find and if it was suspect I always pointed that out. If at times my conclusions are incorrect, I gladly correct them, as I have done in this thread. At times I have defended German aircraft performance against Allied aircraft performance because the data is the data. So, obviously, contrary to my previous opinion, you cannot be “trusted”.



Relax davparlr, it was a joke, I know you pretty well from all our debates and I know you are not a liar or a truly biased person, and I have defended you before on this. I respect you man! 

However your posts in this thread seem very biased towards the Allies, something which surprised me abit since I really don't see you as a biased individual.


----------



## Kurfürst (Jun 6, 2008)

kool kitty89 said:


> Kfurst the XP-72 used the massive 28 cylinder, 4 row, 71.49L "corn cob" R-4360 "Wasp Major" radial engine of 3450 hp. Late models produced 4,300 hp.
> It weighed a good 1500 lbs heavier than the R-2800. (although less than 3 in larger in diameter)
> 
> It was basicly a further development of the XP-47J concept, up-engined and strengthened airframe.
> ...



Yup, thanks, I had got mixed up those two.


----------



## KrazyKraut (Jun 6, 2008)

davparlr said:


> It does when 3 out of the 5 prototypes crash. When this happens, programs are typically cancelled.


What, now we're making stuff up, too? 
Programs are cancelled when unsolvable problems are found, not when a predefined number of crashes occur. But hey, you know that, you just try to make the Ta-152 look bad to push your agenda. Fact is a lot of the features that seperate the Ta-152 from the Dora 9 were already tested in late Fw-190 Ds: Wing tanks, engine cannon, enlarged tail and last but not least the Jumo 213E. That some prototypes crashed was unfortunate but since there was nothing indicating a inherent design failure there was no problem ordering the type into production. The 2nd XP-72 also crashed and was still ordered, eventhough the only prototype left was very different from the final design. And eventhough the hours completed on the type that was actually meant to be produced, was very limited. But hey, let's wriggle around that again shall we?

And afterall: 3 out of 5 is SO much worse than 1 out of 2, right? That's a whole 17%.


> I understand it was a turbocharger explosion on take off. Certainly not enough to prevent contract go ahead.


Funny you think that, because the supercharger failure was the main problem on the Ta-152 protoype, which according to you should've been cancelled 



> So, you think that an aircraft that has been flying for almost a year cannot have provided the identification of bugs and test solutions? This is not reasonable. In addition, I understand that the flight test program was quite trouble free.


Read above, the second prototype wasn't flying for very long before it crashed.


> Over dramatize? You’re kidding, right? The sky was full of P-51s, P-47s, Spitfires, and Tempests, just waiting for a jet to slow down. I am sure every German jet pilot wished he didn’t have to land and take off so often. It was a killer.


A range of 600 to 970 km (depending on the source) was easily sufficient for the time being. That the tactical situation was all against Germany is well known, but not the aircrafts fault and nothing the designers could've influenced. But you just keep bringing this up since it's the one (albeit unconfirmed) shortcoming you could quickly find about the He-162 and your first wild guess about inferior performance didn't quite cut it.


> Okay, how about this. It took Focke-Wulf two and a half years to take the Fw-190, a conventional aircraft with a conventional engine, from first flight to first combat. To assume that they could take the Ta-183, a non-conventional aircraft with a non-conventional engine from a paper design to combat in less time, with bombs falling all around them, is just not being realistic.


The Fw-190 was developed with low pressure, with limited RLM support and not in "total war" times. It was even against a direct Goering order to stop any new developments that would not be finished within 1 year after the war had begun. So considering that, I'm pretty confident a Ta-183 prototype could've made a maiden flight sometime in mid to late 1945. The He-162 made it from design to maiden flight in 90 days. The XP-80's initial progress was equally fast. The Ta-183 as well as the new Messerschmitt were obviously not close to seeing frontline service, but they would've ensured a considerably lead in jet aircraft design was maintained by Germany in case large of a scale introduction of P-80 or Meteor.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Jun 6, 2008)

davparlr, here's the "superior" statement on the P-80 that was being contended:


davparlr said:


> Me-262-outstanding aircraft and would have been competitive for several years.
> He-162-marginal performance for a jet. Not much advantage except for producibility. Not much faster than the Meteor, P-80 being much superior. It probably would have killed more inexperienced German pilots than allied pilots.



However it seems you were going by the original competition specs or (466 mph iirc), and you may have corrected yourself. (those statements would have been true of the Blohm Voss submission though, which was ironically deemed "the best" of the competition)


KrazyKraut,

What gave you the idea that the secon prototype of the XP-72 was the template for the production version?
Anyway the only difference was the 6 blade contra-rotating prop, and this had proven troublesome in several prototype designs anyway. (and would problably have lead to maintenence problems as well) That part at least probably needed some more maturing time.

But afik the extensively tested first prototype was to be the production standard.


----------



## KrazyKraut (Jun 6, 2008)

Because wherever the XP-72 is discussed, it is said that the Aeroproducts propeller was the intended one since torque was too extreme with the standard 4-blade. Since the crash did not seem directly related to the propeller (rather the pilot being seemingly a bit over ambitious) I see no reason not to order the safer design into production, since as mentioned that was the major (only?) difference.

For a kind of similar case the YP-80A was called into production before the respective prototype even flew.


----------



## davparlr (Jun 6, 2008)

renrich said:


> Dav, I don't believe that RB was at sea level though. I don't believe the Tempest could manage 416 mph at SL. My book shows the fastest US WW2 fighter at SL was the F4U4 at 380 mph. I know there are numbers floating about which show various other AC as faster than that but I don't believe those numbers are accurate or they are not for standard production airplanes. Same book shows P47M at about 370 mph at SL.



After some research, all I could find was that Las Vegas was selected because of its high altitude. So, I suspect that the record was made at low altitude (otherwise it would matter what the base altitude was). Since Vegas is about 2200 ft pressure altitude, the record was probably run below 5000 ft. (3000 may be reasonable).

I am a big fan of the book you recommended, America's Hundred Thousand, but, although good (I have used it quite a bit), I do not think it is the best reference for perfomance. Performance by model is limited (by necessity) and descriminate between fuel (P-51B performance is significantly improved with high octane gas) is non existant. My favorite source is fligh test data, which spitfireperfomance has a great library, or manufactures data (estimating error has to be considered here). Now, I wil tell you that data on the F4U-4 drives me crazy. I have looked at your book, flight test data, and Navy data, and it all looks like they are testing different aircraft! For instance, rate of climb at SL goes from 3600 ft/min from your book to 4800 ft/min from the Navy document. All at combat power!

480 mph at SL for the XP-72 is high. My calculations were wrong. It is more like 450-460 mph. as an estimate.


----------



## davparlr (Jun 6, 2008)

bada said:


> maybe if you want to talk about prototypes, we can start about the Do-335,


I am not sure you would really want to do this with the P-72, since it is about 5000 lbs heavier and only 150 hp more. Ceiling P-72-42,000, Do-37,400, range P-72-1200 miles, Do-870 miles.



> that needed to shut down an engine to be able to sustain the cruise speed of the p51d whan it was brought back to england



I doubt very seriously that the Do-335 could maintain alitude at idle on both engines much less maintain 325 mph true.




> funny for a 10tons plane to have the same cruise speed on one engine as the half weight mono-engine fighter, don't you think?



Yes, I had a big laugh.






> don't get it



A wing change has a significant impact on an aircraft. There are changes in stall behavior, roll rate, climb rate and angle, airflow across the aircraft, stability, airspeed under various load factors and aoa, trim response, etc. All of these have to be evaluated and documented in flight test.






> at the end of 44 Tank wasn't a desinger anymore, it was the General director of the Fw company!
> he wasn't envolved in the engeenering of the new edged projects. and the Ta prefix was simply given by the RLM as gift to Tank for it's work for the LW. Nothing else, multhropp was a young engineer, with modern ideas.(he worked for the us after the war )
> If you invent something for the company you're working for, will the final product or the prototype of this product have your name or the name of your company?



Interesting information.



> the ta 152 never has this engine , so where could i find those charts?
> Just like the p72 never flew operationnaly and was never tested as it, so why bother?



Good. I don't have to find the charts for the P-72, if they exist.



> Please, stop the pissing contest and let's focus on the 3 planes we can obtain real data for: p51D22/25,109G/K and the 190 (any version) and let's forget about the small series or the x-planes.ok?



It's okay with me, but keep the comparisons to actual aircraft, not with possible changes.

Also, as I state before, this whole site is biased in that it compares aircraft that had no significance in the war. In reality, the critical battles of the war included the P-51B/D, Bf-109 G, and Fw-190A-6.



> and about the A9:


I was just making comment, not arguing anything, I could care less. You could have just said my source was wrong.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Jun 6, 2008)

davparlr, I think Bada was just saying the new wing was clean as a positive comment, not claiming that a new clean wing wouldn't change the a/c. (also note that it had boosted ailerons to improve roll)



And on the 3-blade prop, it seems I was wrong about it being standard (I hadn't read the P-72 article in a while) and also wrong about the problems of that particular prop. This propeller didn't seem to suffer from any significant problems except it seems it was not very available at the time. (not in production yet?) The only other prototype to use it iirc was the YP-60, and that had its own isues.


----------



## renrich (Jun 6, 2008)

Dav, I know what you mean about some performance data driving you crazy on F4U4. I even see some inconsistencies in the evaluations of the fighters in the joint fighter conference in 1944. I do believe that Dean's book is fairly conservative but probably reflects the performance of the standard production airplane in the field. The other book I use, "The Great Book of WW2 Airplanes" agrees almost exactly with Dean on US fighters and the performance figures. Soren, regarding your statement about the Germans being ahead in all the technical fields, they were indeed very advanced in many areas but let us not forget that the British muddled about and were ahead in radar and stayed ahead, also asdic or sonar was good for them. As far as piston engined fighters, the British fighters were overall the equal of the Germans and their bombers as well as the American's were much superior. Remember that the US had to design aircraft for a different mission than Germany and Britain. Neither Germany or Britain had competent shipboard aircraft. The US and Japan excelled at that. There are many other examples in that area. I would not say they were ahead in math or physics as the atomic bomb came to life in the US.


----------



## davparlr (Jun 6, 2008)

KrazyKraut said:


> And afterall: 3 out of 5 is SO much worse than 1 out of 2, right? That's a whole 17%.



Actually, statistically, 3 out of 5 is much more significant that one out of two. Check it out in a good statistics book.


----------



## pbfoot (Jun 6, 2008)

KrazyKraut said:


> Because wherever the XP-72 is discussed, it is said that the Aeroproducts propeller was the intended one since torque was too extreme with the standard 4-blade. Since the crash did not seem directly related to the propeller (rather the pilot being seemingly a bit over ambitious) I see no reason not to order the safer design into production, since as mentioned that was the major (only?) difference.
> 
> For a kind of similar case the YP-80A was called into production before the respective prototype even flew.


davparir has actual experiance with aircraft I'm kinda curious about your background as to be so sure about your statements


----------



## kool kitty89 (Jun 6, 2008)

He wasn't arguing with Dav there, that was pertaining to my statement, which I admitted was wrong.

THe 4-blade prop was only used on the 1st prototype as an intrim measure as the 6-blade contra-rotating prop wasn't available. (I don't know why it wasn't later refitted with a new prop though, only the 2nd one got it)

I was going off memory, and needed to re-read the article.


----------



## KrazyKraut (Jun 7, 2008)

double post; see below


----------



## KrazyKraut (Jun 7, 2008)

davparlr said:


> Actually, statistically, 3 out of 5 is much more significant that one out of two. Check it out in a good statistics book.


So, which statistical test would you suggest to prove your hypothesis? My first guess is any statistical test will fail because the sample sizes are much too small (2 and 5). Feel free to correct me, it's been a while since I've done this:

*Tests for group difference:*
Approximative two group Gauss-test: Not applicable since sample sizes are smaller than 30 (5 and 2 respectively).

Two group t-test: Only applicable if sample size or variances are equal in both distributions. Since we already know that sample sizes aren't we will check for equal variances with an F-Test.

Two group F-Test:

1=crash 0=no crash

XP-72:
sample mean mu(xp)=0.5
sample standard deviation s'(XP)=0.71

Ta-152 H:
sample mean mu(ta)=0.67
sample standard deviation s'(ta)=0.55

Nullhypothesis: s(xp)=s(ta)

F-Test statistic: v = s'(xp)^2 / s'(ta)^2

v=0.5/0.3=*1.67*

critical values for F-distribution F(1;4)=*7.71*

v<Fcrit, we cannot reject the Nullhypothesis of variances being equal;



Now the two group t-test:
Nullhypothesis: mu(xp)>or=mu(ta);

H1: mu(xp)<mu(ta) i.e. mean crash rate of XP-72 s is smaller than that of Ta-152 H at significance level alpha=0.05

and now it's getting ugly

t= [mu(xp)-mu(ta)] / sqrt{[(2-1)*0.71^2+(5-1)*0.55^2]/(2+5-2)] * [(2+5)/2*5]}

t=-0.71
tcrit(5;0.96) (left-tail) = -2.015

t>tcrit

H0 cannot be rejected; mean crash rate of XP-72 is not significantly smaller than that of Ta-152 H

Feel free to correct me on any mistakes.


----------



## davparlr (Jun 8, 2008)

KrazyKraut said:


> . Feel free to correct me, it's been a while since I've done this:



There is no way I will correct you as it has probably been a longer while since I have done this.

Actually, I was addressing the confidence level of the two tests. I believe that if five aircraft are tested and compared to two, the confidence of the first test being more accurate than the second is significant. Say another Ta-152 is tested and flies well. Now, six Ta-152s were tested and three failed. Two P-72s were tested and one failed. Now the failure rate of both aircraft is the same, 50%. However, the confidence that the failure rate of the Ta-152 is 50% is much higher than the confidence of the failure rate of the P-71 being 50%. So, when I said that 3 out of 5, is more significant than 1 out of 2, it is probably like plus or minus 30% for the Ta-152 to plus or minus 55% for the P-72, depending on the confidence level. This is intuitive in that a sample of 100 for 100 aircraft would yield 100% accuracy. The sample size is very small.

In reality, this is oversimplifying everything. We have no reasons for loss of the Ta-152s, it could be everything from massive structural failure to a “stroke”. Sampling is not random, etc, etc. There is no doubt that, with three failed prototypes, and 50 hours of flying time (if this is true), the Ta pre-production program, and maybe production program (at least to enter combat) was a high risk program (such as was the P-80). I think that high risk programs were standard operation procedures for WWII. It is obvious the Germans evaluated and weighed the risk as acceptable.


----------



## Blue Yonder (Jun 8, 2008)

I believe the P-51D Mustang would be the best bet.
The 109 had few crashes on landings and takeoffs, landings more often then takeoffs, due to the landing gear being small and narrow. But the 109 was similar to the Spit in this aspect. I have spoken with several pilots on this topic (the alleged landing and takeoff crashes statistics) that flew during the war along with sifting through several archives and was unsuccessful in locating any statistics verifying this.


----------



## Soren (Jun 8, 2008)

Davparlr,

The Ta-152 wasn't in any way a high risk program, the development had been underway for some time and the a/c had been thuroughly tested as well. Furthermore the problem plagueing Ta-152 was never structural but always related to the engine and its supercharger gears. The structural design was perfect and very rugged, and like all who flew the bird mention it was a dream to fly, absolutely fantastic. 


Read "Focke Wulf Ta 152 High Altitude Fighter" by Dietmar Hermann.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Jun 9, 2008)

We've been through the take-off/landing issues with the 109 before. It was a nuisance, but not a serious problem. (and very few a/c were actually lost -damaged to unreparable extent- due to such accedents)


----------



## Kurfürst (Jun 9, 2008)

Soren said:


> The Ta-152 wasn't in any way a high risk program, the development had been underway for some time and the a/c had been thuroughly tested as well. Furthermore the problem plagueing Ta-152 was never structural but always related to the engine and its supercharger gears. The structural design was perfect and very rugged, and like all who flew the bird mention it was a dream to fly, absolutely fantastic.



... and, in any case, there was the Bf 109K-14 programme as backup for a very high altitude bomber interceptor, _should it have been really needed_.

But, they were the cure for a disease never materialized (über-high flying über-fast B29s - as told by Japanese pilot rumors) it turned out.


----------



## Soren (Jun 9, 2008)

The Ta-152 wasn't designed to counter the B-29, it was designed purely as an airsuperiority fighter. Nothing was known of the B-29 when the Ta-152 was designed.


----------



## Kurfürst (Jun 9, 2008)

... then why the extreme high altitude engine, the extreme wingspan..? GM-1..?

If you read RLM discussions, from mid-1943 onwards, there is profound interest in extreme high altitude engines and interceptors... DB 628 for example (a two-stage, four-speed DB 605A basically).


----------



## Soren (Jun 9, 2008)

Because the LW wished an a/c with complete aerial superiority at all altitudes over any Allied fighter, and a high ceiling is a crucial factor to achieving this. Furthermore the B-29 wouldn't be flying any higher than the German fighters already in service by mid 44 were capable of, and therefore designing a new a/c specifically to counter the B-29 was pointless since the a/c in service already were more than capable of dealing with the B-29 if it ever came.

However the P-47 P-51 both featured better high alt performance than most German fighters in mid 1944, which was a problem. German fighters were usually superior to Allied fighters from SL and up to 25,000 ft, but the bombers usually flew above that altitude. The Ta-152H would eliminate this problem and would enable pilots to stay WAY above any Allied escorts and attack the bomber streams at will, the Ta-152H having a 2.5 to 3 km higher service ceiling than any Allied fighter in service. And with its far superior maneuverability, speed climb rate nothing could match the Ta-152H in a dogfight.

You should read Dietmarr's book, it's worth every penny and filled with original documents. It also explains the often reoccuring urban myth of the Ta-152 being designed to counter the B-29.. it wasn't, it was designed purely as an airsuperiority fighter capable of taking on any Allied fighter and always win.


----------



## Soren (Jun 9, 2008)

Also the Jumo 213E wasn't really an extreme high altitude engine, but the GM-1 system made it a great performer at high altitudes. However the high service ceiling of the Ta-152H can be attributed more to its wing, which is mostly what allowed it to go that high (15.1 km).


----------



## Kruska (Jun 9, 2008)

Hello Soren,

I don’t know Soren. By the time the USAAF would have send the B-29’s to Germany (Thank God it never happened) it would have maybe been around August/September 45. Let’s forget the A-Bomb – even though it was designed/meant for Hitler Germany – these Ta-152 which would not have been around in any significant numbers before September 45 would have had to face F-80’s and British Vampires as B-29 escort planes rather than just US props. 

Regards
Kruska


----------



## kool kitty89 (Jun 9, 2008)

F-80's couldn't make the range to pennetrate deep into germany and still have enoughfuel to fight for any meaninful amount of time before turning back. (that's if they had the larger 230 US gal tip-tanks, with 165 gal, much less, with the 265 gal tanks also later used on the F-80 it might have made it. If it could have been modified to carry the 300 gal P-38 tanks it should have had the pennetration range -however, it would have required strengthening the wing, as the 265 gal tanks were already threatening to overstress the tips-)

That's if operating from England. From mainland Europe it's another story.


And the P-80 is the only allied jet with near the range required for escort.

Vampire Mk.I and (particularly) the Meteor are out.


----------



## Udet (Jun 9, 2008)

Kruska said:


> Hello Soren,
> 
> I don’t know Soren. By the time the USAAF would have send the B-29’s to Germany (Thank God it never happened) it would have maybe been around August/September 45. Let’s forget the A-Bomb – even though it was designed/meant for Hitler Germany – these Ta-152 which would not have been around in any significant numbers before September 45 would have had to face F-80’s and British Vampires as B-29 escort planes rather than just US props.
> 
> ...



And why is it that you only see the uberAllies deploying their most advanced designs in combat? Any further protraction of the war would have had the Germans deploying a bigger number of improved jets to form welcome committees to slam the USAAF.

Now, did you say Vampire there? Is it a joke? Referring to the _"second"_ jet plane _"commissioned"_ by the RAF _"during world war two"_


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 9, 2008)

Udet said:


> And why is it that you only see the uberAllies deploying their most advanced designs in combat? Any further protraction of the war would have had the Germans deploying a bigger number of improved jets to form welcome committees to slam the USAAF.




Then how come the uberGermans did not slam the USAAF to begin with?

Come on Udet...


----------



## kool kitty89 (Jun 9, 2008)

The Meteor would have been much further in development, much sooner if it hadn't been for the Rover mess. (delayed Whittle jet development by ~2 years)


The Vampire (and Goblin) was originaly a private venture, and had expiremental status with the air ministry and the entire project ran at relatively low priorety (compared to the meteor). Had it had more intrest(and DH not bogged down with other developemt and production, ie Mossie, and Hornet), it should have been operational by about the same time as the Meteor III was in reality.

But we've discussed this elsewhere http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/aviation/mistakes-aviation-12424.html and this is getting progressively off topic.


----------



## drgondog (Jun 9, 2008)

kool kitty89 said:


> F-80's couldn't make the range to pennetrate deep into germany and still have enoughfuel to fight for any meaninful amount of time before turning back. (that's if they had the larger 230 US gal tip-tanks, with 165 gal, much less, with the 265 gal tanks also later used on the F-80 it might have made it. If it could have been modified to carry the 300 gal P-38 tanks it should have had the pennetration range -however, it would have required strengthening the wing, as the 265 gal tanks were already threatening to overstress the tips-)
> 
> That's if operating from England. From mainland Europe it's another story.
> 
> ...



The only rational discussion about extending the war would have been for Germany to hold at the Rhine and hold off the Soviets - not likely but conceivavble for another couple of months.

P-80 in full service from bases in Belgium and northern Italy, B-29s not a factor unless decision to drop the Bomb on Berlin - P-51H still a decent player against 190D and even the Ta 152.. but I would have hard time thinking the LW would not put all their eggs in one basket with so few natural resources left - and basically settle on 262 for everything. So the basic players in fighter/fighter at high altitude are the Meteor/Vampire/P-80 - and the 51Hs and P-47M/N's are lurking over every 'deep' airfield 12x7 every day...and Yak 3, Laag 7, Spits, Jugs and 38s everywhere else that would be my thinking.

There are only so many ways to get POL to/from remaining refineries, only so many places to stay hidden for only a short time before interdiction in an area the size of maybe colorado and surrounded on all sides and a/c at all altitudes. Look at just April with respect to just the number destroyed on the Ground..


----------



## Soren (Jun 9, 2008)

> Hello Soren,
> 
> I don’t know Soren. By the time the USAAF would have send the B-29’s to Germany (Thank God it never happened) it would have maybe been around August/September 45. Let’s forget the A-Bomb – even though it was designed/meant for Hitler Germany – these Ta-152 which would not have been around in any significant numbers before September 45 would have had to face F-80’s and British Vampires as B-29 escort planes rather than just US props.
> 
> ...



Hardly Kruska. Had the war lasted that long the Ta-152H would've been in numerous supply, but more importantly so would the improved Me-262's equipped with Jumo 004E engines which easily outperformed any Allied jet in every aspect of flight.

Also the He-162 would've had its bugs worked out. The He-162A-2 was already a good airframe, but the pilots needed more training regarding its yaw characteristics.

Also the by Sept 45 the Vampire would've not been ready to escort any bombers, and the range was lacking as-well. Same goes for the P-80 which still had some serious issues which needed ironed out. And then ofcourse there's the low high alt performance of the P-80 (780 - 790 km/h), something which would've proven a real problem if it was to escort the B-29 when the Germans were fielding the Jumo 004E equipped Me-262's racing along at 930 km/h.

Still that having been said, the Germans would still be hugely outnumbered and without fuel and trained pilots, and so the outcome would be the same. (I think Bill pointed this out as-well)



DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Then how come the uberGermans did not slam the USAAF to begin with?



They did, but they were outnumbered, without fuel trained pilots. With that in mind what would you expect ?


----------



## kool kitty89 (Jun 9, 2008)

Yep, not until the Vampire F.3. (and still not as long as the P-80)

And not in all performance characteristics soren. Even by calculated data.
(assuming you're talking 004D/E)

Roll rate of the 262 was worse than the Vampire or P-80. (but better than the Meteor III) And it (probably -based on lift loading and thrust/weight- in similar configuration) would have out-turned the P-80A, but not the Vampire I or Meteor III.

Speed would probably be better than all, (probably ~570 mph) though the P-80A would be the closest. Climb probably better as well. (not sure about a 2,450 lbf Derwent IV powered Meteor III)


Dives would continue to be a problem for the German jets untill better speed regulation with airbrakes. (which the Ho 229 had)


----------



## kool kitty89 (Jun 9, 2008)

But we have threads for these discussions: http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/aviation/players-prolonged-war-12415.html

http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/aviation/mistakes-aviation-12424.html



So let's get back on topic.

Soren could you post the Fw-190/Ta-152 specification and performance tables I asked about earlier?


----------



## claidemore (Jun 9, 2008)

Soren said:


> Hardly Kruska. Had the war lasted that long the Ta-152H would've been in numerous supply,
> 
> *Good grief Soren, production of the Ta152 couldn't even keep up with the needs of one Stab in JG301! *



Your statement that German fighters were usually superior to allied fighters up to 25000 ft is a pretty big stretch amigo.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Jun 9, 2008)

Up to 20,000 ft in a dogfight, aganst US escort fighters (not including the P-38J) that statement is fairly plausible.

The Fw 190 (up to A-8/9/D-9) being best at or below ~20,000 ft. And the lower alt versions of the 109 likewise. The high alt 109's (with high alt supercharger ie D-10/K-4) are another story.


"better" or "best" are really too subjective and general discriptions to really mean much in this sence though.


And of course, escort fighters were usually not at there best possible performance as they had to carry the extra fuel to get there, fight, and get back.


----------



## parsifal (Jun 9, 2008)

The only way for germany to gain the time needed to bring her advanced designs into the serius league was to somehow break the grand alliance ranged against her.

This could have been achieved in a number of ways, but as the war progressed germany's options became ever more restricted.

As i see it, until Kursk, the Germans had the option of a separate peace with russia. The Russians would never have held this peace for more than a year, and the cost in territory would have been very high (basically back to the 1940 borders. The nett benefit to the Germans may have been six months compared to history.

The next bet would be a 1941-2 enhanced U-Boat camapign. With two or three times the number of boats, Britain was in deep trouble, but the Quid pro Quo is a ramped up US production earlier, ramped up CW production and no Russian invasion. Difficult to gauge the effects of this stategy. Some argue outright Axis victory, but my opinion is probably not. Perhaps the war would extend another year or two, at best, with British position compromised in the post war world.

Third and final major deviation from history is somehow defeating the western ground armies In italy and/or Normandy. The one area that the US was vulnerable was trained manpower for its army. If the US was forced back into the sea at Normandy the Germans might have gained a breather for a year or so.

So given those broad parameters, we might see the war extend for another year, to the middle of 1946, or at the outside to the middle of 1947. What technological wizz bangery could the Germans come up in that time to stem the Allied and Soviet attacks???? Would it be enough to achieve a separate permanent peace for germany, given the near insane attitude of its leadership


----------



## kool kitty89 (Jun 9, 2008)

That's why I think it's more interesting to look at "what ifs" from the early war period. (either technological, political, strategic, or, usually, a combination of them)


----------



## Kruska (Jun 10, 2008)

parsifal said:


> The only way for germany to gain the time needed to bring her advanced designs into the serius league was to somehow break the grand alliance ranged against her.
> 
> This could have been achieved in a number of ways, but as the war progressed germany's options became ever more restricted.....



The only way for Germany to win, would have been the annihilation of the BEF and the French remainders at Dunkirk. I hope my “British Friends” are not getting this wrong. Straight pursue to England, if successful okay wunderbar –if not well North Africa and therefore the Middle-East and Suez would have been in German hands and would have turned any British opposition into a hopeless undertaking.

Britain was the key, but lunatic Adolf had this “Germanic” thing in him. Anything else, be it Stalingrad or Kursk would have prolonged the war but Germany would still have lost in the end.

Regards
Kruska


----------



## parsifal (Jun 10, 2008)

Britains pivotal role in the war was not so much the material contribution that she made, great though this was. More than anything it was her refusal to surrender, and then her tireless efforts to forge a new alliance to defeat the enemy that shines as her major contribution. 

Even with the British isles under axis control, which is something I hotly dispute as being even remotely possible, the British planned to carry on the fight from Canada and the dominions. Sure this is reducing the British contribution significantly, but the USA is going to ramp up her wartime footing much more quickly under this scenario, and the Soviet thret remain unresolved. Germany in my view is still facing a strategic blind alley, unless she can force two out of the three BIG THREE out of the war. One is just not enough (well, assuming that the SU is not forced permanently out of the war)


----------



## kool kitty89 (Jun 10, 2008)

Again there are other topic for this and it's been discussed before. (includeing in the thread I linked to)

Included in the other discussion were alternatives for keeping the US out of the war (or very confused about the position) by Germany severing ties with Japan after Pearl Harbor (or even declairing war) with 2 other alternatives as well: either try to stay out of a war with Britain and go in full force to Russia (more likely to keep the US out as well) or a more organized and purposeful cordinated attack on Britain, with fully ramped-up military production and coordination of army, navy, and airforce for the invasion, also a more coordinated attack on the radar, or fly in below radar. (they'd have to hit hard and fast to knock out enough of the RAF -11 and 12 group- and keep the Royal Navy and FAA held off in coordination with the invasion, and it would be a very costly battle, but thinks would have to have been done different from Dunkirk onward as well)

If a continued Battle with Britain was to occur, the Russian invasion would have to be put on hold almost indefinitly as well.


With either of these they'd have to develop the advanced projects as well at fairly quick pace with strong interest from the government. These (possibly including Nuclear weapons) could have lead to a similar, but notably different (in terma of major players) cold war type stalemate.


----------



## parsifal (Jun 10, 2008)

so try and put this back on thread, would you agree that it is plausible to give Germany say and additional 12 months if she had played things differently. all i am trying to do here is come up with some plausible testimeny so that the guys arguing about the advantages (or otherwise) of german aerospace technology could be explored within some meaningful framework


----------



## kool kitty89 (Jun 10, 2008)

I'm still waiting for soren's data tables...


But I don't think any of these a/c (in the original discussion) are "better" overall, as all have certain advantages and different optimal uses.

The Spifire and 109 being the best "dogfighters" specifically, but the others have their own advantages. Though at high speed (and using energy tactics) the P-51 is better. (generally more maneuverable at high speed -above ~350 mph- and retains speed and accelerates better compareatively than the others in this speed regime, and has a high crusing speed -giving initial speed advantage-)

The Fw 190 (up to D-9) is more maneuverable at most speeds than the Mustang up to medium altitudes. And very high roll rate. (significantly higher than others, at least up to medium speeds)

The 190A's alsa have a rugged radial engine.

Both the P-51D and Fw 190 have excellent all-around views due to the bubble-type canopies. (although view over the nose of the 190 is restricted)


----------



## parsifal (Jun 10, 2008)

To the un-initiated, a very reasonable general sumary of the aircraft capabilities. Keep in mind, however that in 1944, under the historical scenario, the German losses of fighters to allied fighters were far heavier. This suggests that at the end of the day there were forces at work other than the equipment that were dictating the outcomes.

I for one reject the notion, incidentally that the LW was shot out of the sky because of numbers. It was a factor, but not THE factor


----------



## claidemore (Jun 10, 2008)

The problem with 'what if' scenarios is that it is not a one sided coin, for every different action there is going to be a different reaction. 

If Germany had done, "*this*", then the Allies would have countered with "*This*". 

End result would be basically the same, given the available manpower, material and prime motivation of the two sides. Germany was not going to win that war no matter what it did. 

________________________________________________________

As for German fighters reigning supreme below 25k, don't forget we have other main fighters beside the P51 and P38. We also have the P47, Typhoon, Tempest and Spitfire, not to mention the P39, Yak 1/7/9/3 and La5/7. All of those nine types had certain advantages over the 109 or 190, with the end result that the Allied fighters were 'usually superior' to the German fighters, not the other way around. The only real fighter advantage Germany had was the Me262 (speed) which was operating in an environment where it was outnumbered 50-1 so was doomed from the outset. 

And I totally agree with Pasifal, if numerical advantage was the only factor, Germany would not have shot down 2000 Russian planes in a few days in 1941.


----------



## drgondog (Jun 10, 2008)

Soren - although we have hashed this before, what are your definitions of 'outnumbered' and without fuel and trained pilots.. Chris asked the right question about the 'beginning.

I have a tendency to look at the air war as evolutionary regarding tactics and assets.

The Luftwaffe controlled the air over the occupied countries in Europe until the Mustangs took it away. Even when the air battles of February through June took out many experienced pilots and a/c in the west, the LW continued to rotate Ost front pilots and leaders (i.e like Rall) to try and stem the tide.

True, the LW could not match the skills of a 200-300 hour USAAF or Commonwealth pilot who graduated from flight school with student pilots with the same experience entering combat for first time after the oil campaign was being felt in mid 1944.

LuftFlotte Reich was not outnumbered over Germany by Allied fighters over Germany until fall of 1944 when all the Jugs and Spits and Typhoons that had moved to France and Belgium were available for tactical sorties over Germany to compliment the Strategic escorts with the bombers. Prior to that period, only the 8th AF P-38s and 51s were available deep into Germany where the LuftFlotte Reich could choose where they wanted to fight.

So, back to the question - how do you define outnumbered? Wheels on the ground in England or props over the ground over Germany?

Last - Around the Channel the Luftwaffe was Seriously outnumbered by 8th and 9th AF Fighters plur RAF and only really had two JG26 and JG2 to pick and choose where they wanted to engage.. but that isn't where the Luftwaffe was broken, nor were they ever in a position of controlling the air over France, Holland and Belgium after summer of 1943 - as their tactics of challenging the 8th AF changed to attacking after escort fighters reached max range and had to turn back - usually far western Germany.


----------



## drgondog (Jun 10, 2008)

kool kitty89 said:


> I'm still waiting for soren's data tables...
> 
> 
> But I don't think any of these a/c (in the original discussion) are "better" overall, as all have certain advantages and different optimal uses.
> ...



KK - for it is worth I agree the premise that all these ac aer superb and each has advantages in performance - what Soren and I are trying to get to publically is to set the boundary conditions, agree them, (including calculation rules) and see what falls out.

It's not all on Soren. I haven't been able to find bench thrust tables for all the engines we need to compare. I dread the time I see spending doing propeller and HP combination calculations and candidly I don't trust the output.

Soren, I'm going to look at Gene's spreadsheets and ponder his assumptions, particularly with respect to speed versus hp as a function of altitude even if we do decide to do the THP conversions.

I recommend that we deal only with performance data published in Paul's recently created Technical - Performance section. So, if anyone has data they want to use it has to be from Mfr or LW/RAE/USAAF test results and has to either have a link or be published here.


----------



## KrazyKraut (Jun 10, 2008)

claidemore said:


> As for German fighters reigning supreme below 25k, don't forget we have other main fighters beside the P51 and P38. We also have the P47, Typhoon, Tempest and Spitfire, not to mention the P39, Yak 1/7/9/3 and La5/7. All of those nine types had certain advantages over the 109 or 190, with the end result that the Allied fighters were 'usually superior' to the German fighters, not the other way around. The only real fighter advantage Germany had was the Me262 (speed) which was operating in an environment where it was outnumbered 50-1 so was doomed from the outset.
> 
> And I totally agree with Pasifal, if numerical advantage was the only factor, Germany would not have shot down 2000 Russian planes in a few days in 1941.


2000 largely outdated bi-planes and early Polikarpovs. Not to mention Germany did indeed often have more planes in the air in those days and a large proportion of those Russian aircraft was destroyed on the ground.

And the Allied fighters were not "usually superior", German fighters were "usually superior" on the western front until around summer 1943 and considerably longer on the eastern front. As for altitude, wasn't the P-51 was actually better at low-to-medium altitude than the P-47?


----------



## ponsford (Jun 10, 2008)

> Originally Posted by Soren
> However the P-47 P-51 both featured better high alt performance than most German fighters in mid 1944, which was a problem. German fighters were usually superior to Allied fighters from SL and up to 25,000 ft, but the bombers usually flew above that altitude.





> Originally Posted by claidemore
> Your statement that German fighters were usually superior to allied fighters up to 25000 ft is a pretty big stretch amigo.



That caught my eye too claidemore, but I just laughed. Where’s your sense of humour? 

Taking off from davparlr’s thread of early 1944 performance ( http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/aviation/battle-over-germany-january-1944-a-13336.html ), this is what I found available for 1944 level speed performance of propeller aircraft in the European theater.

P-51 D with racks
67” Hg MAP: 375 mph at Sea Level, 442 mph at 26,000 ft.
72” Hg MAP: ~384 mph at Sea Level, 447 at Critical alt. ~22-23,000 ft.

P 51B Performance Test
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mustang/p-51b-engdiv-na-flighttestdata.jpg
P 51D Performance Test
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mustang/supplymemo-11july44.pdf

P-47 D with racks
65”: 340 mph at Sea Level, 439 mph at 25,200 ft.
70”: 346 mph at Sea Level, 444 mph at 23,200 ft.

P 47D Performance Test
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/p-47/24june44-progress-report.pdf

P-38 J
60” Hg. 345 mph at Sea Level, 421 mph at 25,800 ft.
P-38J Performance Test

Fw 190 A-8 with rack
1.58/1.65 ata 345 mph at Sea Level, 396 mph at 18,045 ft.
(without rack 352 mph at Sea Level, 405 mph at 18,045 ft.)

FW 190 A-8 Performance

BF 109 G-14 ASM (presumably without rack, knock a couple of mph off with rack)
348 mph at Sea Level, 423 mph at 24, 606 ft.

BF 109 K-4 (presumably without rack, knock a couple of mph off with rack)
1944, 1.75 ata: 360 mph at Sea Level, 441 mph at 24,606 ft.

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/okl-181044-pg5.jpg

Fw 190 D-9 (1944)
1900 PS 353 mph at Sea Level with rack

These last two German aircraft weren’t even operational in “mid 1944”. There is apparently plenty of data around these days to choose from but I haven’t seen much that shows “German fighters were usually superior to Allied fighters from SL and up to 25,000 ft”; at least in 1944. I don’t believe things changed drastically in 1945.


----------



## Soren (Jun 10, 2008)

claidemore said:


> As for German fighters reigning supreme below 25k, don't forget we have other main fighters beside the P51 and P38. We also have the P47, Typhoon, Tempest and Spitfire, not to mention the P39, Yak 1/7/9/3 and La5/7. All of those nine types had certain advantages over the 109 or 190, with the end result that the Allied fighters were 'usually superior' to the German fighters, not the other way around.



You're completely wrong Claidemore. The Fw-190 Bf-109 pretty much ruled supreme at low to medium altitude.

Fact is that the Bf-109 Fw-190 were mauling the Spitfire over the channel, and making a massacre out of the Soviet fighters in the east right up till the end of the war. The late Bf-109 Fw-190's were considered far superior to any VVS fighter.

As for Ponsford, well he's so biased he can't see straight as he got all the performance figures wrong.


The performance of the German a/c were as follows:

Fw-190 A-8: 578 km/h (361.5 mph) at SL, and 653 km/h (408 mph) at alt 
Fw-190 A-9: 590 km/h (369 mph) at SL, and 670 km/h (419 mph) at alt
Fw-190 D-9: 615 km/h (384.5 mph) at SL, and 704 km/h (440 mph) at alt
Bf-109 G-10: 585 km/h (366 mph) at SL, and 685 km/h (428 mph) at alt
Bf-109 K-4: 609 km/h (380.5 mph) at SL, and 719 km/h (449.5 mph) at alt


----------



## Soren (Jun 10, 2008)

drgondog said:


> Soren - although we have hashed this before, what are your definitions of 'outnumbered' and without fuel and trained pilots.. Chris asked the right question about the 'beginning.
> 
> I have a tendency to look at the air war as evolutionary regarding tactics and assets.
> 
> ...



No disagreement there Bill, we agree that it wasn't until mid 44 that the LW was outnumbered over own ground. Howver fuel and trained pilots was in low supply throughout 44, and that no doubt is one of the prime reasons behind high losses endured. As we both know the pilot means nearly everything, and by 44 onwards the USAAF RAF pilots were on average better trained.

The lack of fuel also often meant that the LW fighters had to abort a fight in fear of not making it home, and this undoubtedly also cost a lot a lives. 

And I also agree that it was the P-51 that robbed the LW of airsuperiority in 44, and mostly because of its speed. The P-51 could from its introduction and through most of 44 catch up with nearly any LW fighter in terms of speed, and high alt performance was better than the std. 109 G-6 190 Anton. Esp. at the altitude of the bomber streams (~30,000 ft) did the P-51 have an advantage in climb rate speed over the G-6 Anton. 

The P-51 was what was needed, and no other Allied fighter (Except he F4U) then developed could've done the job as well. The P-51 gave the LW the bloody nose the Allies had been wanting to give it since the beginning of the war.


----------



## drgondog (Jun 10, 2008)

Soren said:


> No disagreement there Bill, we agree that it wasn't until mid 44 that the LW was outnumbered over own ground. Howver fuel and trained pilots was in low supply throughout 44, and that no doubt is one of the prime reasons behind high losses endured. As we both know the pilot means nearly everything, and by 44 onwards the USAAF RAF pilots were on average better trained.
> 
> *I agree - particularly as the aircraft were fairly well matched. I still think the LW made serious mistakes by avoiding the 8th AF fighters early and allowing new guys a lot of ops to get experience and build confidence... very similar to LW training through 1943 when the could pick and choose when to fight and ease their wingmen in slowly.
> 
> ...


----------



## kool kitty89 (Jun 10, 2008)

That comment Claidmore made about low alt performance was a bit odd on the P-47 though.


claidemore said:


> As for German fighters reigning supreme below 25k, don't forget we have other main fighters beside the P51 and P38. We also have the P47, Typhoon, Tempest and Spitfire, not to mention the P39, Yak 1/7/9/3 and La5/7.



Including the P-47 is a bit odd, it's performance down low was decent, but not advantageous over contemporaries, and the Mustang usually did perform better than the P-47 down low. (In particular the Allison engined P-51A could out perform the contemporary P-47D up to 15,000 ft)

The P-47 was used as a low level fighter-bomber was due to its durability (resistance to ground fire in particular), not to good low altitude performance.


----------



## Soren (Jun 10, 2008)

Many LW fighters were shot down while in the landing pattern or emmidiately after having aborted a fight to try and reach home before running out of fuel.

The lack of fuel often meant LW fighters had to do with half full fuel tanks, and even less as the war went on, leaving more and more pilots to abort a fight at very dangerous moments. 

And that along with the shortage of trained pilots and overwhelming numerical disadvantage in the air from mid 44 onwards meant that nomatter how excellent superior the German fighters were at that point, the LW just couldn't hope to turn the tide.

The only way the LW could've turned the tide was if Hitler hadn't delayed the Me-262's entering the service in late 43 to early 44. Had the Me-262 entered service at that point the P-51 wouldn't have had the speed advantage which made it so successful. The Me-262's could intercept and strike the bombers and then choose wether they wanted to fight the escorts or head for home depending on the fuel state, with both choices giving the Germans by far the best odds. The Me-262 enjoyed such a large advantage in climb rate, speed high speed maneuverability that it could with relative immunity combat any Allied fighter in service.


----------



## Soren (Jun 10, 2008)

kool kitty89 said:


> That comment Claidmore made about low alt performance was a bit odd on the P-47 though.



Not as odd as his claim that Allied fighter were usually superior, cause that's just flat wrong.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Jun 10, 2008)

Yes, but the P-47 issue was easier to argue. 
(the other comment will probaly just lead to another long off-topic argument  )


I found the charts/tables I was talning about:
http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/polls/favorite-fighter-interceptor-2164-11.html


----------



## ponsford (Jun 10, 2008)

> Originally Posted by Soren
> The performance of the German a/c were as follows:
> 
> Fw-190 A-8: 578 km/h (361.5 mph) at SL, and 653 km/h (408 mph) at alt
> ...



Because you say so?  See, now that’s funny. We were responding to claims of “German fighters in mid 1944 […] were usually superior to Allied fighters from SL and up to 25,000 ft. Can you provide documentation supporting those claims of German a/c performance? For 1944? This document has figures sort of close for the 190 A-8 and D-9. http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/fw190/leistungsdaten-1-10-44.jpg Be sure to check the note at the bottom: Geschwindigkeiten ohne Berücksichtigung des Widerstandsanstieges aus Kompressibilität, ohne ETC unter dem Rumpf, mit bewegl. Fahrwerks-Klappen, Oberfläche gespachtelt u. Glattanstrich. (Speeds without consideration of the drag rise from compressibility, without rack under the fuselage...) What kind of funky conversion factor is being used to convert km/h to mph? Your figures are inaccurate. See Hermann for 190 D-9 performance.


----------



## Soren (Jun 10, 2008)

Nope Ponsford, you're the one who is using inaccurate figures, I'm using the figures from the original docs, many of them being in Dietmar Hermann's book. And no my conversions are not inaccurate, 1 mph is 1.6 km/h

I'll give you a little taste:

Fw-190 A-5 performance:





So that's 580 km/h at SL and 680 km/h at altitude. Now exactly what Allied fighter except the P-51 could match that ? None. The Fw-190 A-5 also boasted a higher climb rate than any Allied fighter at the time at 21 m/s. Against the P-51 the Fw-190A-5's strengths were its superior turn rate, roll rate climb rate at low to medium alts, while the P-51 was faster and featured better high alt performance.

And the Bf-109G6/AS was faster at SL and up to 25,000 ft than the Spitfire, P-47 P-38. Or do you have a document claiming any of these could reach 585 km/h at SL ?


----------



## Vincenzo (Jun 10, 2008)

the conversion factor used is 1.6 km and this is wrong, for performance data are possible

the conversion factor is 1.609


----------



## kool kitty89 (Jun 10, 2008)

I.6 is close, but will admitedly have a small but significant error. (~0.6%, so converting kph to mph will result in speeds ~.6% higher than actual)

I use .621 mph/kph (rounded from ~.62137)


----------



## Soren (Jun 10, 2008)

Exactly 1.609 yes, but there's no difference really.

Fw-190 A-5 A-7: 580 km/h (360.5 mph) at SL and 680 km/h (422.6 mph) at alt
Fw-190 A-6: 579 km/h (359.8 mph) at SL, and 677 km/h (420.8 mph) at alt
Fw-190 A-8: 578 km/h (359.2 mph) at SL, and 653 km/h (406 mph) at alt 
Fw-190 A-9: 590 km/h (366.7 mph) at SL, and 670 km/h (416.4 mph) at alt
Fw-190 D-9: 615 km/h (384.5 mph) at SL, and 704 km/h (437.5 mph) at alt
Bf-109 G-2: 534 km/h (331.8 mph) at SL, 660 km/h (410.2 mph) at alt
Bf-109 G-6: 526 km/h (328.8 mph) at SL, 656 km/h (407.7 mph) at alt
Bf-109 G-6/AS: 585 km/h (363.6 mph) at SL, and 685 km/h (427.5 mph) at alt
Bf-109 G-10: 589 km/h (366 mph) at SL, and 688 km/h (427.5 mph) at alt
Bf-109 G-14: 585 km/h (363.6 mph) at SL, and 685 km/h (425.7 mph) at alt
Bf-109 K-4: 609 km/h (378.5 mph) at SL, and 719 km/h (446.9 mph) at alt


----------



## kool kitty89 (Jun 10, 2008)

Why are there speed figures for the A-8 in parenthacies () but not for the A-9?
(I assume the figures in () are for boosted emergency power, MW-50, Erhöhte Notleistung, C3-Einspritzung etc)


----------



## Soren (Jun 10, 2008)

Because the A-9 hadn't been cleared for full boost by that time.

The speeds in paranthesis are at full boost with MW-50 (if present).


----------



## kool kitty89 (Jun 10, 2008)

So how fast did the A-9 eventually end up with full boost?


----------



## Soren (Jun 10, 2008)

With the TS or F engine ??


----------



## Soren (Jun 10, 2008)

With the TS engine:

590 km/h at SL, and 670 km/h at altitude (5.4km).


----------



## pbfoot (Jun 10, 2008)

Every time you guys spout numbers about max speed I rarely ever see the speeds they operated at most mentioned. eg *hi speed cruise *in the Spit IX was 280


----------



## Soren (Jun 10, 2008)

Good point.

The Bf-109 K-4 for one had a normal cruising speed of 645 km/h (401 mph) at 8.4km.


----------



## pbfoot (Jun 10, 2008)

Soren said:


> Good point.
> 
> The Bf-109 K-4 for one had a normal cruising speed of 645 km/h (401 mph) at 8.4km.


   you do know what cruise is don't you . It has nothing to do with top speed


----------



## drgondog (Jun 10, 2008)

pbfoot said:


> you do know what cruise is don't you . It has nothing to do with top speed



Optimal Cruise is basically about miles per gallon in the landlubbers voculary.. not many mpg at 401mph the last time I checked...

For a Mustang it was a totally different speed going from reaching cruise altitude to R/V point, than from using minimum fuel as they were 'essing over the bombers'.. Ferry cruise was best range setting - max miles per gallon at best altitude, rpm and boost


----------



## kool kitty89 (Jun 11, 2008)

and Maximum cruise setting is running at the max power setting for lean mixture.

Though the Mustang actually had pretty decent range at max continuous power as well. 

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mustang/p-51-tactical-chart.jpg


----------



## Soren (Jun 11, 2008)

pbfoot said:


> you do know what cruise is don't you . It has nothing to do with top speed



Yes I do, and you can roll your eyes all you want cause that IS the K-4's cruise speed. Unless 'V Reise flug' doesn't translate into cruising speed ofcourse 

At Steig u. Kampfleistung top speed is 670 km/h at 9 km, and at Daurleistung (Cruise setting) speed is 645 km/h at 8.4 km.


----------



## drgondog (Jun 11, 2008)

Soren said:


> Yes I do, and you can roll your eyes all you want cause that IS the K-4's cruise speed. Unless 'V Reise flug' doesn't translate into cruising speed ofcourse
> 
> At Steig u. Kampfleistung top speed is 670 km/h at 9 km, and at Daurleistung (Cruise setting) speed is 645 km/h at 8.4 km.



That is unusual - usually optimal cruise speed is in the middle somewhere rather than way out at the top end where parasite drag is maxing out..


----------



## Soren (Jun 11, 2008)

Here's the chart:

_Cruising speeds: 645 km/h at 8.4 km and 477 km/h at SL._


----------



## kool kitty89 (Jun 11, 2008)

What kind of range did it have at that setting? (at altitude)


----------



## Kurfürst (Jun 11, 2008)

kool kitty89 said:


> What kind of range did it have at that setting? (at altitude)



The above datasheet gives it as 585 km at 8.4 km with this 645 km/h max. cont. cruise setting (see Errech. Flugstrecke 585 - 8.4).This is to be understood on internal fuel (400 l) without an external droptank (300 l); also the 109K`s 115 liter MW-50 tank could be alternatively used as an aux. fuel tank.

_Basically that is similiar the 109E`s economic range_ on internal, but achieved at nearly hundred kph faster speed than the 109E would be capable at _full throttle_ at that altitude..

I don`t have range datasheets figures for the 109K, but I do have for the 109F and G; the economic range should be around 1600 - 2000 km with a droptank, and 1900 - 2300 km if the rear tank is used for fuel as well, at ca. 450 to 500 km/h. (109F-4 was credited with 1600 km with droptank at 410 km/h)

See: Kurfrst - Bf 109G/trop Middle East trials: Dimesnions, Weights and Performance
http://kurfurst.allaboutwarfare.com/Tactical_trials/109G2_britg2trop/MET_109G_rangetable.jpg


----------



## kool kitty89 (Jun 11, 2008)

Just to be clear, is this at max continuous power, or max lean mixture power. (max cruise power)


----------



## renrich (Jun 11, 2008)

The US bombers flew the missions above 25000 feet? Hmmmm, I believe very few missions by B17s or B24s were above 25000 feet! Hmmmm, the TA152 was designed to be superior to all fighters from ground level to well above 30000 feet? Did the the germans have the moxie to repeal all the laws of physics and aerodynamics?


----------



## Kurfürst (Jun 12, 2008)

kool kitty89 said:


> Just to be clear, is this at max continuous power, or max lean mixture power. (max cruise power)



Höchstzulässige Dauerleistung = 'Maximum allowable continious power' - so its max continous.

Max lean mixture power (~high speed eco cruise, but not max eco) would be Dauersparleistung with a bit misleading name ('continous economic power')

So its max cruise speed range - though the conditions are not precisly specificed (allowances, tolernace. In other more detailed range tables they included climb and descent, warmup etc; plus 15% tolerance. Hence why range figures may vary somewhat).


----------



## drgondog (Jun 12, 2008)

Kurfurst - any documentation on any of the 109s regarding optimal cruise settings (rpm, boost, mixture) and altitude. Optimal = greatest range


----------



## renrich (Jun 12, 2008)

The armament of TA152 seems more consistent with that of a bomber interceptor than an air superiority fighter also.


----------



## drgondog (Jun 12, 2008)

renrich said:


> The US bombers flew the missions above 25000 feet? Hmmmm, I believe very few missions by B17s or B24s were above 25000 feet! Hmmmm, the TA152 was designed to be superior to all fighters from ground level to well above 30000 feet? Did the the germans have the moxie to repeal all the laws of physics and aerodynamics?



Rich - quite a few B-17 missions were flown in the 24-27000 ft altitudes. Later in the war more were flown in the 22-24,000 foot range with high squadrons still at 25. Balancing flak with best cruise settings was the primary mission determinat

The Libs just didn't fly much above 22,000.. The 24 was a pig at 24,000 with a full load and formation flying was simply 'hard to stay tight' above 22,000


----------



## claidemore (Jun 12, 2008)

Economy cruise settings are missing on that chart, note the lack of figures for Sparflug (economy cruise). The other numbers are for combat or max continuous. 
Babelfish translation of the 645kmh stat is "tearing jerk flight into high ones" lol


----------



## parsifal (Jun 12, 2008)

*Rich - quite a few B-17 missions were flown in the 24-27000 ft altitudes. Later in the war more were flown in the 22-24,000 foot range with high squadrons still at 25. Balancing flak with best cruise settings was the primary mission determinat

The Libs just didn't fly much above 22,000.. The 24 was a pig at 24,000 with a full load and formation flying was simply 'hard to stay tight' above 22,000*
Theoretical effective ceiling for the 88, which accounted for over 90% of the LW heavy flak over germanay was 26000 ft. However, as 1944 wore on the the barrel wear on the guns was so bad that more and more of the guns were sufferring very serious degradation in performance. This affected both accuracy and effective ceiling. Additionally many of the crews in 1944 were not of the same standard as those that had manned the defences in 1942-3 (these having often been drafted into the frontline army units. The crews were now, for the most part LDVs (part timers), and unable to to solve the firing solution to anywhere near the standard or speed that the full time reg units could. Often the dfending flak was reduced to firing blindly in barrage to just try and keep the bombers at height, and therefore less accurate.

The LW was expending more than 16000 shells (of heavy flak ammo) for each bomber brought down in 1944, whereas in 1942 it hd only taken a little over 4000 (from memory), small wonder then that the bombers could lower their altitudes as 1944 wore on.


----------



## Soren (Jun 12, 2008)

renrich said:


> The US bombers flew the missions above 25000 feet? Hmmmm, I believe very few missions by B17s or B24s were above 25000 feet! Hmmmm, the TA152 was designed to be superior to all fighters from ground level to well above 30000 feet? Did the the germans have the moxie to repeal all the laws of physics and aerodynamics?



Go read a book Renrich.


----------



## Soren (Jun 12, 2008)

renrich said:


> The armament of TA152 seems more consistent with that of a bomber interceptor than an air superiority fighter also.



Not at all, had it been designed as such it would've been armed purely with the Mk108. It was fitted with 2x MG151/20's and 1x Mk108 to be most effective against fighters, the 20's being for long range shooting and the 30mm for close range.

But again instead of spewing out all kinds of assumptions why don't you just read Hermann's book about the Ta152 ??? Then you'll see it was designed as an airsuperiority fighter from the very outset.


----------



## renrich (Jun 12, 2008)

Soren, I have read a number of books, believe it or not and actually own a whole library of them. The references I have don't agree with your performance figures on the TA. I try not to spew assumptions.


----------



## Soren (Jun 12, 2008)

Ofcourse they don't, cause the authors of those books know jack sh*t about the a/c. If you want to know the real story about the Ta152 you should read Dietmar Hermann's book which is specifically about the Ta152 and holds many original documents. Previous authors had no access to these documents and thus had to guess their way around this a/c. And if you don't believe me then just go ask Erich, who btw has information that suggests that the Ta-152 reached 500 mph in level flight at high alt.

But since you're so confident in your own books Renrich, let me ask which of your books mention the Ta-152H, who are the authors, what year is the book from, what figures and information do they present, and crucially do they provide any references, such as orig. documents, infact do they provide any at all ??? My guess is they don't.

Dietmar's book not only provides lots of references but it provides most of them in scans of the original documents!


----------



## Soren (Jun 12, 2008)

Also Renrich, seeing you have read a good number of books on the subject then how come you find it laughable that mostly the Allied bombers were flying at above 25,000 ft ????


----------



## davparlr (Jun 12, 2008)

kool kitty89 said:


> I.6 is close, but will admitedly have a small but significant error. (~0.6%, so converting kph to mph will result in speeds ~.6% higher than actual)
> 
> I use .621 mph/kph (rounded from ~.62137)



I can pretty well assure you that this is insignificant in regards to all the other errors associated with measuring the airspeed of an aircraft; indicator error, clock error, temperature error, pressure error, etc.

I have a conversion program that provides conversion of a lot of different values if anyone would like to have it. I might be able to paste it on this site if it possible and allowed.


----------



## Juha (Jun 12, 2008)

Hello
one real transit flight of 109G-2s can be find here Me-109s to Finland
distances You must check from a map but flight times can be found from the map of the article, t=h ie hour.

109G-6s, usually flown with droptank, used c. 1220l fuel and 30-36kg oil during transit from Germany to Helsinki.

According to combat reports, FAF 109G combat missions usually were 45-50min in duration, flown without droptanks.

Juha


----------



## davparlr (Jun 12, 2008)

Soren said:


> The only way the LW could've turned the tide was if Hitler hadn't delayed the Me-262's entering the service in late 43 to early 44. Had the Me-262 entered service at that point the P-51 wouldn't have had the speed advantage which made it so successful. The Me-262's could intercept and strike the bombers and then choose wether they wanted to fight the escorts or head for home depending on the fuel state, with both choices giving the Germans by far the best odds. The Me-262 enjoyed such a large advantage in climb rate, speed high speed maneuverability that it could with relative immunity combat any Allied fighter in service.



I agree with this except that I am not sure the tide would have completely turned, Germany was already reeling in the East. If the Me-262 had been available in early '44, and their airfield could be protected, the dynamics of the war would certainly have changed. Daylight bombing could have been terminated ala B-29 raids in Korea. This would certainly have impacted productivity and supply for Germany and could easily have threaten D Day. However, there would have been some negative reactions. The Americans would have to switch to night bombing with it inherent inaccuracies, which would have caused even more civilian casualties. 

With the Me-262 realized as a real threat to victory, American aviation would have shifted gears to accerlerate jet development and production. Lockheed might have shut down or significantly reduce P-38 production in order to support production for P-80s. Other manufacturers would find their jet efforts put on the highest priority. All of these however would not be available until probably fall of '44. The Allies would also have to rethink D Day, possibly emphasizing the Italian campaign. The level of support for Russia may also have accelerated.

So, had the Me-262 came as early as it could in the interceptor role, the nature of the war would have changed and undoubtably would have been extended as a minimum.


----------



## Kurfürst (Jun 12, 2008)

drgondog said:


> Kurfurst - any documentation on any of the 109s regarding optimal cruise settings (rpm, boost, mixture) and altitude. Optimal = greatest range



Yes, here is for example Bf 109F-4. Unfortunately, I do not have more detailed original German range tables for the later variants.

As usual, the engine settings are usually very simply due to the automated auto controls (supercharger, mixture is automatically controlled, RPM and Boost is governed by the same throttle lever). One can see the the propellor pitch position settings, expressed in hours and minutes (ie. 12' 40''). This is interesting for economic flight as the CSP automatics could be diseangaged and propellor pitch angle could be directly set with the thumb switch on the throttle lever.

Its also interesting to compare the overall range given (400 liter coloumn), which is a complex range figure including glide and descent etc; whereas the 250, 150, 50 liter figures give you EXACTLY the amount of range in level flight only (from these three coloumns, the 'pure' milage can be worked out).

Finally, the 3rd page will give you the conditions, reserves and allowanced the range table is valid for. Unfortunately, the range figures with droptank (+300 l) are not given in this table, but another datasheet gives it as appx. 1600 km at max eco, ie. 410 kmh TAS.


----------



## Juha (Jun 12, 2008)

According to Finns the problem with cruising at speeds of 450km/h or slower was fouling of the plugs and carbon monoxcide sweepage into the cockpit. Or strict translation "flooding of carbon monoxcide into the cockpit."

Juha


----------



## renrich (Jun 12, 2008)

Soren, I will be glad to furnish you the information about the books I have on the subject of the TA152. In fact I already have furnished the name of the author and the references of the section in the "Great Book of WW2 Airplanes" on the FW190. There is quite a bit of that section devoted to the TA152 and I furnished you that info in another thread. I also have a book by Kenneth Munson entitled "Aircraft of WW2" which barely mentions the TA stating that it had a service ceiling of over 40000 feet and could make 463 mph at 34000 feet. This book was published in 1968. Interestingly those figures agree almost exactly with the much more complete numbers of "The Great Book" which was published in 1984. I never said that I owned a lot of books about either the TA or altitudes of bombing missions in the ETO. I remember mostly reading "On a Wing and a Prayer", written by a navigator. He was in the "Bloody 100th" and flew his missions relatively early and talked often of the difficulty they had when they tried to get high because of turbocharger problems, frostbite, ineffective electric suits, fuel considerations and oxygen problems. It is my recollection that many missions were flown at around 20000 feet and seldom exceeded 24000 feet. HOWEVER, before any more remarks by me, I want to say that I am from Texas and if one speaks in an uncivil manner to another, one runs the risk of making an enemy with possible attendent difficulties. I have tried to address you in a civil manner and believe that I have maintained a civil manner. I never said that I found it laughable that most missions were flown above 25000 feet(I don't believe that MOST missions were flown above 25000 feet, especially by B24s). You don't need to say that the authors I have read don't know JS about the TA. Don't disparage my books or my library. I don't disparage yours. You don't know anything about either my books or how many I have read. I am a great deal older than you. I was alive during and have memories of WW2. I had six uncles who served. I have been reading and studying about warfare most of my life and that is 73 years. I also served in the US Military. Get a civil tongue in your head and we can continue to have a dialogue. Otherwise, forget it. A piece of advice, if you ever visit Texas, lose your "attitude" or don't go. You might not enjoy it.


----------



## Soren (Jun 12, 2008)

Just as I thought your books contain no references. Which is no surprise cause even books specifically about Kurt Tank the Fw-190 contained very limited information on the Ta-152 back then. I have a lot of those books myself Renrich, so it has nothing to do with disparaging your library.

Furthermore I have been civil throughout Renrich, I haven't called you names, been rude towards you or anything. You started the uncomfortable tone with this: 


> Hmmmm, the TA152 was designed to be superior to all fighters from ground level to well above 30000 feet? Did the the germans have the moxie to repeal all the laws of physics and aerodynamics?



Now what does that imply to you Renrich ?? Why resort to ridicule ?

Where exactly is it you believe the laws of physics were thrown out the window ??


----------



## kool kitty89 (Jun 12, 2008)

Juha said:


> Hello
> one real transit flight of 109G-2s can be find here Me-109s to Finland
> distances You must check from a map but flight times can be found from the map of the article, t=h ie hour.
> 
> ...



How could they use 1,220L of fuel? They carried 400L internal (515 with rear tank) and 300L in drop tank. The max possible is 815L.

See Kurfurst's figures:


Kurfürst said:


> The above datasheet gives it as 585 km at 8.4 km with this 645 km/h max. cont. cruise setting (see Errech. Flugstrecke 585 - 8.4).This is to be understood on internal fuel (400 l) without an external droptank (300 l); also the 109K`s 115 liter MW-50 tank could be alternatively used as an aux. fuel tank.
> 
> _Basically that is similiar the 109E`s economic range_ on internal, but achieved at nearly hundred kph faster speed than the 109E would be capable at _full throttle_ at that altitude..
> 
> ...


----------



## renrich (Jun 12, 2008)

Soren, I gave the references from the "Great Book" once before but will do it once more although laborious since I am a hunt and peck typist. If you are not familiar with the book, it is 12 books that were written from 1980 through 1983 all combined into one huge volume. The book on the FW was written by Robert Grinsell and he acknowledges the following sources: Herbert Kaiser, Oskar Romm, Guenther Schack, Werner Schroer, Dipl. Ing. Kurt Tank, Gerhard Thyben, Bundesarchiv, West Germany, Fokker G.m.b.H, Gemeinschaft der Jagdflieger, Messerschmitt-Boelkow-Blohm. U S Air Force. The reason I said that the laws of physics must have been repealed, etc. is that all AC designs are compromises. I have never heard of a design that combined superior performance at all flight levels, superior maneuverability at all flight levels, superior or more than adequate range, superior load carrying, superior armament all combined with reliablity from an operational point of view. Aircraft are usually optimised for performance in certain flight regimes. The P47 was a spendid performer at altitudes well above 25000 feet. Because of drag and weight it wasn't too good at lower altitudes where the air was thick and it's range was not great until late models.. The P51 was optimised for performance at low to medium altitudes and for long range but perhaps lost a little in maneuverability. The US Navy fighters were optimised for low level performance and ruggedness for carrier landings. They gave up high altitude performance and some range and maneuverability. How can an AC with a wing which gives it control and lift at very high altitudes not give up some roll rate and drag at lower altitudes. To improve roll rate and maneuverability some AC had clipped wings. The performance figures on the TA152H-1 in my reference indicate that the AC gave up low altitude performance in favor of outstanding high level performnace and so so range. It was not a dog at sea level but not up to P51B or D or F4U4 and it did not have the range of either AC. As far as maneuverability is concerned, I am sure it was superior to either US plane mentioned at very high altitudes but probably not at levels below 25000 feet. As mentioned once before, no FW had sufficient visibility over the nose for full deflection shooting. I just don't believe that there is any free lunch in AC design.


----------



## Soren (Jun 12, 2008)

Renrich,

The Ta-152H is faster than the F4U-4 at SL and all the way up, and it's more maneuverable than both the F4U-4 P-51 at all altitudes, esp. in terms of turn performance where the Ta-152H is far superior. And the roll rate of the Ta-152H was good, as noted by the pilots who flew the bird.

The Ta-152H's top speed at SL was 597 km/h (371 mph), and top speed at alt was 760 km/h (472 mph). Climb rate at SL was 5,100+ ft/min. 

And btw, the Ta-152H achieved its 11 to 0 kill/loss ratio exclusively in low altitude engagements. 

As for the P-51 being optimized for low alt performance, that again isn't true Renrich, the P-51 was optimized to have good performance at esp. medium to high alts, and featured better high alt performance than most other fighters. It was the P-51's good high alt performance which in great part made it so successful.


----------



## Juha (Jun 13, 2008)

Hello kool Kitty
Simply by stopping for refuel!! And there was no rear tank in FAF 109Gs only rthe normal 400l fuselage tank. 
Longest stretch in the flight in the article (109G-2s without drop tank) was 1h 20min.

Juha


----------



## renrich (Jun 13, 2008)

Not in my book! Eleven or twelve kills (?) don't any more prove superiority of the TA than the F9F's record of 5-1 prove that it was superior to the Mig15 in ACM. Mustang TC and Vmax was very good at SL all the way to 25000 feet where it began to drop off, just as I said.


----------



## davparlr (Jun 13, 2008)

Soren said:


> So that's 580 km/h at SL and 680 km/h at altitude. Now exactly what Allied fighter except the P-51 could match that ? None.


Correct


> The Fw-190 A-5 also boasted a higher climb rate than any Allied fighter at the time at 21 m/s.


True for January through April, ’44. In May, when 44-1 fuel became available, this climb is exceeded by both the P-51B with a SL climb of 22 m/s, the P-51D with a SL climb of 21.9 m/s.


> Against the P-51 the Fw-190A-5's strengths were its superior turn rate, roll rate climb rate at low to medium alts, while the P-51 was faster and featured better high alt performance.


Again, before May, ’44. Also, the P-51 had a better dive rate (which may not be an advantage at SL ). They were both pretty close in performance with both having a slight advantage in certain areas.

In May, the P-51 picked up a significant airspeed advantage and a slight climb advantage, so I would say the Mustang pilot had some more tools to work with.




> The Ta-152H is faster than the F4U-4 at SL and all the way up, and it's more maneuverable than both the F4U-4 P-51 at all altitudes



My data shows that the F4U-4 is faster than the Ta-152H-1 up to 25k. This is with the E engine in the Ta. With the EB engine, your statement is probably correct, but I am unsure that the EB actually flew in the Ta.



> The Ta-152H's top speed at SL was 597 km/h (371 mph), and top speed at alt was 760 km/h (472 mph).



Again, this is with the EB engine, right?



> Climb rate at SL was 5,100+ ft/min.



I would suspect that if you put the same fuel load on the F4U-4 as was on the Ta-152 for that rate, the rate of climb for the F4U-4 would be quite impressive.



> And btw, the Ta-152H achieved its 11 to 0 kill/loss ratio exclusively in low altitude engagements.



How many were bounces, which puts the attacker at an immediate advantage? I also wonder what the kill ratio of the P-47N and F4U-4 were.



> As for the P-51 being optimized for low alt performance, that again isn't true Renrich, the P-51 was optimized to have good performance at esp. medium to high alts, and featured better high alt performance than most other fighters. It was the P-51's good high alt performance which in great part made it so successful.



Correct, also range.


----------



## Soren (Jun 13, 2008)

*Davparlr,*

The 5,100 ft/min climb rate, 597 km/h speed at SL and 760 km/h at alt was achieved with the E engine, not the EB engine. With the EB engine performance would've been much greater.

So the Ta-152H is faster than the F4U-4 from SL and up, plus the Ta-152H-1 climbs turns much better at all alts. 

*Renrich,*

Like I've said many times by now, your books are wrong on this subject. I've got the original performance documents, and I've posted them here before. Also I told ou if you don't believe me just go ask Erich.


----------



## Soren (Jun 13, 2008)

> True for January through April, ’44. In May, when 44-1 fuel became available, this climb is exceeded by both the P-51B with a SL climb of 22 m/s, the P-51D with a SL climb of 21.9 m/s.



The P-51D never climbed that fast Davparlr. The lighter P-51B achieved 4,380 ft/min with 104/150 octane fuel at 75" HG.


----------



## Juha (Jun 14, 2008)

Drgondog
Finnish oppinion was for Bf 109 G-2 and G-6.
Typical cruising flight at 2500m at 0.9-1.0 ata, 420-440km/h IAS, 470-490 km/h TAS, consumption 250l/h, max flight time c. 1½h. Max distance c. 750km without any reserves.

Juha


----------



## davparlr (Jun 14, 2008)

Soren said:


> *Davparlr,*
> 
> The 5,100 ft/min climb rate, 597 km/h speed at SL and 760 km/h at alt was achieved with the E engine, not the EB engine. With the EB engine performance would've been much greater.



No problem with this, except the 760 km/h at alt. It appears that this is with the EB engine. The speed with the E engine is 747 km/h. I don't think I am reading the chart wrong.



> So the Ta-152H is faster than the F4U-4 from SL and up



This appears to be true only with the projected unflown EB engine and not with the installed E engine. 

SL
Ta-152H-1 (E) *371* mph (597 km/h)
Ta-152 (EB) *374* mph (602 km/h)
F4U-4 *374* mph (602 km/h)
P-51H *413* mph (665 km/h)

10k
Ta-152H-1 (E) *398 mph *(641 km/h)
Ta-152 (EB) *412 mph *(663 km/h)
F4U-4 *417 mph *(671 km/h) see note
P-51H *439 mph *(707 km/h)

20k
Ta-152H-1 (E) *436 mph *(702 km/h)
Ta-152 (EB) *441 mph *(710 km/h)
F4U-4 *451 mph *(726 km/h) see note
P-51H *463 mph *(745 km/h)

note: There is some discreptancy between sources for F4U-4 data. However, this data is reasonably compatable with F4U-1 performace. The speed at 20k may be lower by some six mph.

I don't doubt that the EB engine is a low risk installation and a reasonable assumption, but many aircraft never obtained projected performance. I would draw the line on comparisons of projected data of projected upgrades. This would raise an whole new discussions which would not lead to any understanding, only confusion.



> plus the Ta-152H-1 climbs turns much better at all alts.



No Problem here



renrich said:


> Soren, I gave the references from the "Great Book" once before but will do it once more although laborious since I am a hunt and peck typist.



I tend to accept Soren and others on their knowledge of German aircraft and they usually have good supporting documentation. Of course, I like to verify when I can. He has always been willing to provide support data when requested.


----------



## Soren (Jun 14, 2008)

Davparlr,

You're not reading the chart correctly. The Ta-152H-1 reaches 760 km/h at 12.5 km with the E engine (Note GM-1 kicks in at 11.5 km). However this is at Steig u. Kampfleistung, explaining why some Ta-152 pilots reached 500 mph in the a/c at Start u. Notleistung or Sonder Notleistung as Erich has noted before.

Here's the chart enlarged in the area of importance:






As for the F4U-4's top SL speed, it is 368 mph (320 knots [592 km/h]) which is slower than the Ta-152H-1 with the E engine (597 km/h). However at 20kft the F4U-4 is slightly faster, and soon peaks out just above 20kft at 729 km/h. After that the Ta-152H-1 quickly catches up and takes over at 22.9kft where both are at ~725 km/h

As for speeds with the EB engine, 770 km/h was the minimum expected top speed WITHOUT GM-1, with GM-1 speeds well above 800 km/h were expected.


----------



## drgondog (Jun 14, 2008)

Juha said:


> Drgondog
> Finnish oppinion was for Bf 109 G-2 and G-6.
> Typical cruising flight at 2500m at 0.9-1.0 ata, 420-440km/h IAS, 470-490 km/h TAS, consumption 250l/h, max flight time c. 1½h. Max distance c. 750km without any reserves.
> 
> Juha



Thx Juha - it reinforces how amazing the 51/Merlin combination was, in comparison to the 109 which isn't bad at all... but best cruise for ferry purposes was around 16K feet at 2000 rpm and 27" hg ------> 45-50gph (175-190 l/h) depending on weight, but at that setting it was slower than 440km/hr - so there is a trade off in comparing the two cruising speed for max range - if I understood your figures correctly.

Based on the above info, matching the 109G approximate max flight time to maximum distance suggests the happy combination of highest cruise speed to maximum distance - which is unusual.

In most airframes the longest flight times are at a lower speed and fuel consumtion, while the greater distance is achieved with higer speeds but lower maximum endurance times


----------



## Kurfürst (Jun 14, 2008)

This one gives a pretty good comparison of range and endurance under comparable conditions - though keep in mind, the actual cruising speeds may differ:


----------



## Juha (Jun 14, 2008)

Drgondog
also with 109 the longest flight times are at a lower speed and fuel consumtion but You may not have noticed my earlier message:
"According to Finns the problem with cruising at speeds of 450km/h or slower was fouling of the plugs and carbon monoxcide sweepage into the cockpit. Or strict translation "flooding of carbon monoxcide into the cockpit.""

So Finns tended to think that cruising at most econ speeds wasn't worth of the problems which arose with those lower speeds. There should has been a device for plugs cleaning, but that was disabled at least in late FAF G-2s (from at least MT-237 onwards, the MT-237 was the earliest FAF's 109 whose papers I have gone through) and was missing from G-6s, or was missing at least from those FAF's G-6s whose papers I have studied.

Anyway DB 605A had a good fuel efficency.

Juha


----------



## Kurfürst (Jun 14, 2008)

Messerschmitt Bf 109G handbook has specific instructions how to avoid plug fouling at low cruise speeds... Finns should have read the handbook first. 

Looking at it again, the English translation of the Finn manual is from March 1943; in April 1943 there is a German manual of the same kind instructing to open up the throttle from time to time to 1800 - 2000 rpm, while pulling the spark plug burning off hande(?) for 5 seconds :


----------



## Juha (Jun 14, 2008)

Kurfûrst
as I wrote at least from MT-237 onwards there was no more the switch and in G-6s didn't even had the device, and that was the situation when the Finns got the planes, so the modification was made by the Germans. So reading the manual didn't help anything. 

Juha


----------



## Juha (Jun 14, 2008)

Item 116 sparking plug cleaner switch isn't installed


----------



## Kurfürst (Jun 14, 2008)

That is odd - I wonder why the Finnish export aircraft didnt have this.. any idea?

BTW, since it looks like something from a finnish archieve, do you happen to have the mt 215 trials perhaps? Ie. performance/tactical report.


----------



## drgondog (Jun 14, 2008)

Kurfürst said:


> This one gives a pretty good comparison of range and endurance under comparable conditions - though keep in mind, the actual cruising speeds may differ:



I agree, and thanks again. Loads and altitudes big difference maker

The 51B/D could both stay up longer with the 108gal tanks.. from my father's logbook he had 7:55 for the Frantic VII - he was first up and last down and still had an estimated 30-40 gallons left in the wings. That was fast cruise from Steeple Morden over Baltic to R/V at 14000 feet (below optimal cruise height) at Stettin, slow cruise to Warsaw, short fight over Warsaw, then slow cruise to Piryatin, then divert to Poltava before landing, to meet with Bomber CO to plan next day mission..

This was the longest single mission he flew during WWII.. there are a fair amount in the 6-6:30 hr range for Posnan, Munich, Brux


----------



## Juha (Jun 14, 2008)

Kurfürst
why the cleaning system was disconnected/not installed. I have no idea. But anyway that had made in Germany. Have You any positive proof that very late LW G-2s or later Gs had the system installed? It clearly had been installed in early G-2s or at least it is mentioned in the G-2 parts and items list because the page in my photo is part of a list of exceptions in MT-401 from the G-2 parts and items list.

Possible reasons why delete the system:
It didn't worked as hoped
it had some unwanted side effects
Germans thought that the mere opening the throttle time to time was after all enought.

On MT-215, I have only seen the same info that You have already on your site. But Kokko flew test also with a couple other MTs. I can dig out the MT numbers and of course the WNrs of the other G-2s used in the tests and the timeframe when Kokko flew the tests but that is all.

Juha


----------



## davparlr (Jun 14, 2008)

Soren said:


> Davparlr,
> 
> You're not reading the chart correctly. The Ta-152H-1 reaches 760 km/h at 12.5 km with the E engine (Note GM-1 kicks in at 11.5 km).



Thanks for pointing this out. The chart is a bit faded but I should have caught that just by cross referencing my other references. I could have spotted that the max speed of the Ta-152 was at 12.5 km. Quite a bit difference from the altitude I quoted the airspeed from. This would have thrown a red flag.



> However this is at Steig u. Kampfleistung, explaining why some Ta-152 pilots reached 500 mph in the a/c at Start u. Notleistung or Sonder Notleistung as Erich has noted before.



Please explain these German terms in English (alas, I am one of those language challenged Americans-I can speak Southern, though) and how they relate to allied expressions. Translating helps not at all. I know that normal power is max continuous, military power is typically 30 minute operation and max (combat, WEP (normally associated with water injection)) is 5-10 minutes. 



> As for the F4U-4's top SL speed, it is 368 mph (320 knots [592 km/h]) which is slower than the Ta-152H-1 with the E engine (597 km/h).


The reference books I have agree that the top speed of the F4U-4 at SL is between 374 mph and 381 mph. Also, several flight test reports on the F4U-1 show SL airspeed of 365 mph and one, with a special finish, did 376 mph. Also, the SL speed of the F4U-5 is 403 mph. I think your number is at the bottom end of the F4U-4 SL airspeed variation.



> As for speeds with the EB engine, 770 km/h was the minimum expected top speed WITHOUT GM-1, with GM-1 speeds well above 800 km/h were expected.



As was the P-72 projections.


----------



## parsifal (Jun 15, 2008)

Juha

I recall (very vaguely) that the Finns took over the Me 109Gs very rapidly, because of either the high need for a high performance fighter in Finland, or because the finns were afraid that the germans were going to commandeer their order. Could this perhaps explain the incompleteness of the copies received? Maybe earlier deliveries of 109s were not so incomplete?


----------



## kool kitty89 (Jun 15, 2008)

> As was the P-72 projections.



Not to get into tht again, but the XP-47J exceeded 800km/h in testing, at 507 mph at 32,000 ft, and was relatively close to being ready for production (similar to the P-47M/N tumeline) so I don't know why you keep going back to the P-72 which was less practical in an immediate time span, and showed superior performance in testing. (with 4-bladed prop) IMO continued work on the P-47J would have been much more useful than concentrating on the P-72, as happened in reality.


----------



## Juha (Jun 15, 2008)

Hello Parsifal
MT-237-248 were replacement a/c delivered to the FAF by the LW MU at Pori in Finland, it mainly served LW in Lapland (Northernmost part of Finland) and these a/c also had rather many exceptions. And they also did not have the plug cleaning system switch. IMHO it was deleted from all 109s at least from late 1943 onwards, maybe to simplify the production

MT-401, the first G-6 of the FAF, was delivered in spring 44, there was no special urgency at that time. IIRC what was new with the G-6s was that there were part of high pressure oil system flexible piping and hydraulic piping were not according to specs and Finns had to first replace them with pipes which match the specs before delivering the MTs to the sqn. At least that was in case of most G-6s which I had studied. But again IMHO this was because of urgent need to maximize fighter production in Germany. During summer 44 Finns got most of their 109Gs and then the situation was urgent but the last MT whose papers I have gone through is MT-421, which was delivered at the end of April 44 and the crisis began on June 10 44. 

Juha


----------



## davparlr (Jun 15, 2008)

kool kitty89 said:


> Not to get into tht again, but the XP-47J exceeded 800km/h in testing, at 507 mph at 32,000 ft, and was relatively close to being ready for production (similar to the P-47M/N tumeline) so I don't know why you keep going back to the P-72 which was less practical in an immediate time span, and showed superior performance in testing. (with 4-bladed prop) IMO continued work on the P-47J would have been much more useful than concentrating on the P-72, as happened in reality.



I think it is interesting that they cancelled the P-47J in favor of the P-72. It seems the lowest risk approach. Incredible engine, 2800 hp at 32,500 ft.


----------



## drgondog (Jun 15, 2008)

davparlr said:


> I think it is interesting that they cancelled the P-47J in favor of the P-72. It seems the lowest risk approach. Incredible engine, 2800 hp at 32,500 ft.



Makes you wonder about unit costs and how it compared against the 51H which was a new airframe as far as tooling goes?


----------



## pbfoot (Jun 15, 2008)

. I had the chance to talk to a guy( 1 hour drive him and me he was doing the talking ) who is a check pilot in *real life warbirds *and he said the original WW2 notes are crap they would not even be considered as a tool in the real world today as they don't even indicate such things as humidity.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Jun 16, 2008)

Are you talking about the range figures?

Or a broader statement about the performance charts and data we've been using?

Or am I misunderstandibg your statement?


----------



## pbfoot (Jun 16, 2008)

I'm talking about all the charts from that era , I wasn't aware how much humidity affected things . I was aware of how humidity affected flight itself but the light never came on in my mind on how it affected engine performance. If its humid the the engine performance degrades the reason being is the amount of moisture in the air affects the fuel air mixture . Water doesn't burn.
Max all up weight as reccomended by the book was almost always exceeded . One example given to me was the B25 which was supposed to have a max weight of roughly 27000lbs but was operated steadily at 32000lbs plus . The nose gear was only rated for 29000 lbs


----------



## davparlr (Jun 16, 2008)

Soren said:


> The P-51D never climbed that fast Davparlr. The lighter P-51B achieved 4,380 ft/min with 104/150 octane fuel at 75" HG.



The P-51B was only 300 lbs lighter than the D. At 67”, the P-51B had a climb rate of 3750 ft/min. The P-51D climb rate at 67”, was 3600 ft/min. This info is from flight test data. It is not unreasonable to believe that since the P-51B could climb at 4380 ft/min 75”, the P-51D could climb at about 4200 ft/min at 75”. I know that the -7 engine was cleared for 75” and that some P-51D pilot reports show it was used in combat.

Also, a check with a chart showing climb rate change with weight for the P-51D at SL shows about 200 ft/min rate change for 400 lbs weight change, which confirms the 4200 ft/min number.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 16, 2008)

pbfoot said:


> I'm talking about all the charts from that era , I wasn't aware how much humidity affected things . I was aware of how humidity affected flight itself but the light never came on in my mind on how it affected engine performance. If its humid the the engine performance degrades the reason being is the amount of moisture in the air affects the fuel air mixture . Water doesn't burn.



I think you're only getting half the story.

You are correct about humidity and how it affects fuel burn, but that's why you have mixture controls to continually lean the engine for compensation of humidity (and temperature and altitude). If leaned correctly you'll get the same performance at 10% relative humidity as you would at 98%. What humidity (and) heat really affects is aircraft (aerodynamic) performance. This is computed in "Density Altitude" performance and those charts are usually included in the pilot's POH.


----------



## drgondog (Jun 16, 2008)

davparlr said:


> The P-51B was only 300 lbs lighter than the D. At 67”, the P-51B had a climb rate of 3750 ft/min. The P-51D climb rate at 67”, was 3600 ft/min. This info is from flight test data. It is not unreasonable to believe that since the P-51B could climb at 4380 ft/min 75”, the P-51D could climb at about 4200 ft/min at 75”. I know that the -7 engine was cleared for 75” and that some P-51D pilot reports show it was used in combat.
> 
> Also, a check with a chart showing climb rate change with weight for the P-51D at SL shows about 200 ft/min rate change for 400 lbs weight change, which confirms the 4200 ft/min number.



Dave - dealing with 51B vs D/K is tricky for two reasons - the 51B-5 and -7 for example had the 1650-3 and the -10/-15 had the 1650-7 (same as all D/'s) a more powerful engine but slightly less Hp at 25,00 feet... but the 1650-7 had more Hp in all comparable boost/fuel conditions than the -3 at SL and 5,000 feet.

The P-51B-10 and -15 was the best climb and turn production Mustang until the H came along.

The basic weight of the 51B was 7,010 pounds and the 51D/K was 7,635 and the H was 7,148 with a more powerful engine than the others.

The primary weight (basic weight) difference in the B/C from D was two extra 50's plus 600 extra rounds of 50 cal plus some extra beef in wheel uplocks, vertical stab structure.

You are absolutely correct in only 300 pounds difference in max gross takeoff weight..between D and B, but interestingly enough the max gross weight of the 51H was nearly 250 less than B and 550 less than D - but the H also had 14 gallons less fuel than both B and D and much better CG margins. 

My data is from Gruenhagen and NAA TO No. 01-60J-13 corrected to Dec 1944.

Climb and acceleration, all other things equal, is all about weight which is why the B/H could climb so much better than a D.

The problem for all of us is which weight to pick to compare performance - and one of the reasons I believe, as you do, that we pick empty weight then load comparable fuel along with standard pilot, oil, and standard gun/ammo loads.

This is the reason that the USAAF test results were lower than NAA factory tests for the P-51H. NAA did their speed run at 8500 Gross TO pounds with no external stores - vs USAAF TO weight of 9500 pounds - Huge difference!!


----------



## davparlr (Jun 16, 2008)

drgondog said:


> Dave - dealing with 51B vs D/K is tricky for two reasons - the 51B-5 and -7 for example had the 1650-3 and the -10/-15 had the 1650-7 (same as all D/'s) a more powerful engine but slightly less Hp at 25,00 feet... but the 1650-7 had more Hp in all comparable boost/fuel conditions than the -3 at SL and 5,000 feet.
> 
> The P-51B-10 and -15 was the best climb and turn production Mustang until the H came along.
> 
> ...



Weight does seem to be difficult. The test weight of the P-51B referenced was 9680 lbs and the P-51D was 9760. But with those values, climb rates identified are reasonable. In America's Hundred Thousand, fighter weight (non max fuel, 180 gal) of the P-51D is identified as 9611 lbs.


----------



## drgondog (Jun 16, 2008)

davparlr said:


> Weight does seem to be difficult. The test weight of the P-51B referenced was 9680 lbs and the P-51D was 9760. But with those values, climb rates identified are reasonable. In America's Hundred Thousand, fighter weight (non max fuel, 180 gal) of the P-51D is identified as 9611 lbs.



I would believe that figure right for a B with Fuse fuel and a D without fuse fuel.

184 gallons for wing, 85 for fuse plus two 108's plus 500 extra rounds and two extra 50's plus 200pounds for pilot and oil would be about Max Gross T.O. for P-51D/K.. or P-51B but the difference between the two is 4x.50 plus 1300 rounds versus vs 1800+ and six 50's versus four plus different empty weight. The sole difference between the two is that the 51D was ~600 pounds heavier at 'Basic' then add two 50s and 500 rounds of ammo

So the 51B at 7010 'basic' plus six 50's at 70 pounds each (420) plus a pilot and oil and chute and dingy pack at 180+ plus 1300 rounds of 50 cal (350#??) plus 180x6.5#/gal = 1170 pounds = ~ 9120 plus 85 gallon fuse (85x 6.5= 550) ~ 9670# for full TO *w/o external tanks*.. (I could easily be wrong on 1300 rounds of .50 cal weighing 350).

But there is a much bigger difference between P-51D and B for same fuel/max armament - than 100 pounds. They both had exactly the same fuel capacity.


----------



## davparlr (Jun 16, 2008)

drgondog said:


> I would believe that figure right for a B with Fuse fuel and a D without fuse fuel.
> 
> 184 gallons for wing, 85 for fuse plus two 108's plus 500 extra rounds and two extra 50's plus 200pounds for pilot and oil would be about Max Gross T.O. for P-51D/K.. or P-51B but the difference between the two is 4x.50 plus 1300 rounds versus vs 1800+ and six 50's versus four plus different empty weight. The sole difference between the two is that the 51D was ~600 pounds heavier at 'Basic' then add two 50s and 500 rounds of ammo
> 
> ...



The point I was trying to make was that the P-51D at fighter weight (9611 lbs) could reasonably make 4200 ft/min., not to compare the weight of the P-51B to the P-51D. I have no problem with what you have said. I don't think it affects my initial conclusion.


----------



## drgondog (Jun 17, 2008)

davparlr said:


> The point I was trying to make was that the P-51D at fighter weight (9611 lbs) could reasonably make 4200 ft/min., not to compare the weight of the P-51B to the P-51D. I have no problem with what you have said. I don't think it affects my initial conclusion.



Color me dense - I agree


----------



## davparlr (Jun 17, 2008)

drgondog said:


> Color me dense - I agree



No problem. It is certainly a challenge to balance all these aircraft when we only have bits of performance for some.


----------



## pbfoot (Jun 17, 2008)

FLYBOYJ said:


> I think you're only getting half the story.
> 
> You are correct about humidity and how it affects fuel burn, but that's why you have mixture controls to continually lean the engine for compensation of humidity (and temperature and altitude). If leaned correctly you'll get the same performance at 10% relative humidity as you would at 98%. What humidity (and) heat really affects is aircraft (aerodynamic) performance. This is computed in "Density Altitude" performance and those charts are usually included in the pilot's POH.


I sorta disagree the only way to decrease the amount of moisture in the air is as it cools with the speeding up the air entering the carburation system .hence carb heat. If the same applies to fuel injection I'm not sure.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 17, 2008)

pbfoot said:


> I sorta disagree the only way to decrease the amount of moisture in the air is as it cools with the speeding up the air entering the carburation system .hence carb heat. If the same applies to fuel injection I'm not sure.



Sorry pal -engine management 101. It's not about moisture, its amount the volume of air and the amount of fuel that will be atomized to produce a "Stoichiometric" mixture.  If there is moisture in the air, the water molecules are making the air less dense and therefore less atomized fuel is needed for the proper air to fuel ratio., that's why we lean, and there is actual technique to do this.

Stoichiometric Combustion

Carb heat is needed because the atomization of the air within the venturi is happening at a temperature where based on humidity can cause the moisture within the volume of air to freeze, usuallly adhereing to the cool metal throat of the carb. - this could occur as high as 70F. Fuel injection is unaffected by this.


----------



## pbfoot (Jun 17, 2008)

Ok I'm aware of fuel air mixture and venturi and carburation and even the Bernelli effect and how ones aim is to get the best bang for your buck in combustion. I may be a little thick here but but how can the moisture in the air be negated by leaning water does not burn or are my lights on but no one is home


----------



## kool kitty89 (Jun 17, 2008)

Nitrogen doesn't burn either, and it makes up ~78% of air. And humidity is water vapor, so it is already a gas, and thus will not have the cooling effect of liquid water (water has both a fairly high heat capacity, and absorbs a large amount of energy becoming a gas) the heat capacity of steam/water vapor on the other hand is very low. And even at 98% humidity there isn't that much water vapor in the air. (4% of air is on the high end)
For all practical purposes water vapor (like nitrogen) can be considdered an inert gas in this case (though small portions do react) and just act as more gas to be expanded by the heat of combustion.


----------



## parsifal (Jun 17, 2008)

Can someone give a quick explanation how the water methanol thingy works. And why is it so destructive to the engine? Remember, guys, apply the KISS principle here (Keep It Simple Stupid)


----------



## mad_max (Jun 17, 2008)

Well i can't figure out how to keep the format this is in, so here's what I get for the PonyD with no internal and full wing tanks. 9,800 lbs.

Specs P-51 B/C P-51D/K

Basic Weight 7010 lbs 7635 lbs.
Wing Tanks 184 G - 1104 lbs 184 G - 1104 lbs.
Fuselage Tank 85 G - 510 lbs 85G - 510 lbs
Fuse Tank Wt.

Guns  4 - .50 --- 276 lbs 6 - .50 --- 414 lbs
Ammo 1260 rnds - 420 lbs 1880 rnds - 627 lbs

Wing Racks 2- 20 lbs 2 - 20 lbs.

Drop Tanks installed and fueled
2 - 75 G - 1040 lbs. 2 - 75 G - 1040 lbs.
2 - 150 gal 2060 lbs. 2 - 165 G - 2240 lbs

Wt. Wing Tank Fuel 8830 lbs. 9800 lbs.
Wt. All Int. Fuel 9320 lbs. 10290 lbs.
Wt. 75 gal drop 10380 lbs. 10976 lbs.
Wt. 150 gal drop 12370 lbs.
Wt. 165 gal drop 12550 lbs


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 17, 2008)

pbfoot said:


> Ok I'm aware of fuel air mixture and venturi and carburation and even the Bernelli effect and how ones aim is to get the best bang for your buck in combustion. I may be a little thick here but but how can the moisture in the air be negated by leaning water does not burn or are my lights on but no one is home


The kid said it well.....



kool kitty89 said:


> Nitrogen doesn't burn either, and it makes up ~78% of air. And humidity is water vapor, so it is already a gas, and thus will not have the cooling effect of liquid water (water has both a fairly high heat capacity, and absorbs a large amount of energy becoming a gas) the heat capacity of steam/water vapor on the other hand is very low. And even at 98% humidity there isn't that much water vapor in the air. (4% of air is on the high end)
> For all practical purposes water vapor (like nitrogen) can be considdered an inert gas in this case (though small portions do react) and just act as more gas to be expanded by the heat of combustion.


Very good Kitty - if you're ever in Colorado you got a flight lesson!


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 17, 2008)

parsifal said:


> Can someone give a quick explanation how the water methanol thingy works. And why is it so destructive to the engine? Remember, guys, apply the KISS principle here (Keep It Simple Stupid)


KISS - water will cool the cylinder while allowing the methanol to have a more intense burn with the normal fuel - too long of this and the cylinder/ piston could warp or burn (basic terms)


----------



## kool kitty89 (Jun 18, 2008)

parsifal, also see: Water injection (engines) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And: MW 50 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Kurfürst (Jun 18, 2008)

FLYBOYJ said:


> KISS - water will cool the cylinder while allowing the methanol to have a more intense burn with the normal fuel - too long of this and the cylinder/ piston could warp or burn (basic terms)



It also acts as a kind of an intercooler, cooling down the charge while it is being injected to the supercharger.

Some modern jets also use water injection. There`s something about it on the molecular level, fuel particles are sticking to the water particle, with the water in the centre of this sphere, allowing for better burn effiency.

But basically it cools the charge allowing for higher manifold pressure, and also the engine internally, as far as I understand.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Jun 18, 2008)

And the intercooler like effect is still useful above the critical altitude. (though not as significant a boost as when acting to allow increased boost at lower altitude)

And wikipedia gives a fairly good overview on the topic.


----------



## parsifal (Jun 18, 2008)

Ok

I have read the articles, which were very useful. Now i am going to make a complete dope of myself (I just know it), but what the heck. 

From the article, it appears that the fuel mixture can be leaned up when using MW additive. Is this because the oxygen in the cylinder is burning the alcohol instead of the fuel (which raises the supplementary question, does Methanol have greater energy per lb than the fuel component), and if so, is this similar to this high humidity issue that FB and PB was talking about. Does that mean that in conditions of high humidity, and MW use, the fuel mixture has to be leaned up even more??


----------



## davparlr (Jun 18, 2008)

parsifal said:


> Ok
> 
> does Methanol have greater energy per lb than the fuel component)



Alcohol has 9000 BTU/lb compared to 18000 BTU/lb for gasoline. It has 80,000 BTUs per gallon compared to gasoline which has 120,000 BTUs per gallon. This is something to always keep in mind when comparing fuels for cars.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Jun 18, 2008)

The methanol does have a high octane number though (octane is not related to energy content) which increases the anti-detonant properties of the system. (though the main reason for it is an antifreeze for the water) The leaning of the mixture would be for burning the methanol in place of some of the gasoline.

Of course the use of water injection in turbine engines is a bit different (detonation no being the issue), in that case it's basicly just for cooling purposes. (allowing the engine to be run at higher power settings without melting/warping the turbine(s) or combustion chamber(s). (and unlike afterburning there is basicly no change in specific fuel consumption, though there will be some incomplete combustion, leaving black smoke trails)


----------



## davparlr (Jun 18, 2008)

Apparently, water injection also improves mass flow by cooling the air, which, by itself, improves thrust.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Jun 18, 2008)

Yes, the "intercooler" effect, mentioned above, in post 456 and 457. (an effect still useful at higher altitudes, where increased boost isn't obtainable)


----------



## drgondog (Jun 18, 2008)

mad_max said:


> Well i can't figure out how to keep the format this is in, so here's what I get for the PonyD with no internal and full wing tanks. 9,800 lbs.
> 
> Specs P-51 B/C P-51D/K
> 
> ...



Those numbers look good to me, Max - now stick 60 quarts of oil and ?? of coolant (CRS), plus 170 pounds of pilot and equipment (Chute/dingy pac/heavy boots, huge watch and fighter pilot ego) into the ship


----------



## mad_max (Jun 19, 2008)

drgondog,

You bring up some good points. The source I used states basic weight. Basic weight usually consists of all oils, coolant and anything else which is not consumed or disposed of during flight.

Add in the guns, ammo, wing racks and fuel and you get what I posted. Your right I need to add the weight for the pilot and his garb. This usually is taken as 200 lbs., so we're up to 10,000 lbs. Normal take off weight is usually given at 10,100 lbs. So this is in the ballpark. I was just trying to show the weights for different amounts of guns, ammo and fuel.

If you want to add the other items, which I'm postive are already included in the above figure: 

There is 21.2 gal. of oil which aircraft oils now a days is 7.5 lb/gal. = 161.25 lbs., coolant for the engine is 16.7 gal at 8 lb/gal. = 139.4, for the after cooler 4.8 gal at 8 lb/gal. = 40.1. Total would be 340.75 pounds.


----------



## drgondog (Jun 19, 2008)

mad_max said:


> drgondog,
> 
> You bring up some good points. The source I used states basic weight. Basic weight usually consists of all oils, coolant and anything else which is not consumed or disposed of during flight.
> 
> ...



Looks like we still have to nail difference between empty and basic for the build up... but should have similar facts for all the other birds as well. 300-400 pounds 'extra' can be huge at the edge of a stall.


----------



## Juha (Jun 19, 2008)

Hello
the difference between empty and basic was for 51 B/C
Trapped fuel and oil 61 lb
cal 50 gun installation (4) 270
Pyrotechnics 6

Total difference was 337 lb.

Juha


----------



## drgondog (Jun 19, 2008)

Juha said:


> Hello
> the difference between empty and basic was for 51 B/C
> Trapped fuel and oil 61 lb
> cal 50 gun installation (4) 270
> ...



Thanks Juha - what was your source for the detail 'delta'between the two states? And I would assume trapped hydraulic fuids and coolant also fit in the basic profile?


----------



## Juha (Jun 19, 2008)

Dean's America's Hundred-Thousand p.328. It seems that coolant and hydraulic fluid is incl. into empty weight.

Juha


----------



## Soren (Jun 19, 2008)

Davparlr,

I don't believe the P-51D could do 4,200 ft/min for the simple reason that the P-51B managed 4,380 ft/min at 9,350 lbs. The P-51D weighes roughly 400 to 500 pounds more, which will atleast rob away 400 ft/min or more. The climb rate of the P-51D at 75" Hg is ~4,000 ft/min. 

Note that because only of the extra drag caused by the ETC-504 rack the Fw-190 Dora-9 lost 1.5 m/s in climb rate, climbing at 22.5 m/s without the ETC rack and 21 m/s with it.


----------



## davparlr (Jun 21, 2008)

Soren said:


> Davparlr,
> 
> I don't believe the P-51D could do 4,200 ft/min for the simple reason that the P-51B managed 4,380 ft/min at 9,350 lbs. The P-51D weighes roughly 400 to 500 pounds more, which will atleast rob away 400 ft/min or more. The climb rate of the P-51D at 75" Hg is ~4,000 ft/min.





The basic weight of the P-51B is 7325 lb. and the basic weight of the P-51D is 7673 lbs or a difference of 348 lbs. However, on closer examination of the calculated charts showing difference of performance with weight, 4000 ft/min would be a valid estimate. 



> Note that because only of the extra drag caused by the ETC-504 rack the Fw-190 Dora-9 lost 1.5 m/s in climb rate, climbing at 22.5 m/s without the ETC rack and 21 m/s with it.



All the performance data used for the P-51B and P-51D is with wing racks also.

All in all, I think we are carving a tooth pick with an axe. I am sure all variances are within overall calculations, system performance, and test errors. Both planes could climb very well. I think the P-51D and the Fw-190A-5 were pretty well evenly matched from SL up to 25k ft., with the Fw-190 having a better roll rate and a slight edge in climb, while the P-51D was slightly faster and could dive faster. The P-51B had a better performance edge.


----------



## Soren (Jun 21, 2008)

The Fw-190 A-5 turns better as-well, esp. at low altitude, which is a nice edge to have in combat. 

As for diving ability, well the Fw-190 A-5 had an initial dive faster than that of the P-47D, so I'm pretty sure it was a nice match for the P-51 in a dive.


----------



## drgondog (Jun 21, 2008)

Soren said:


> The Fw-190 A-5 turns better as-well, esp. at low altitude, which is a nice edge to have in combat.
> 
> As for diving ability, well the Fw-190 A-5 had an initial dive faster than that of the P-47D, so I'm pretty sure it was a nice match for the P-51 in a dive.



Soren - the first P-51B-1 was tested against the P-47D-10 (and P-38J-5, P-29N-0 and P-40N) at Eglin, using 61" @ 3000rpm in September, 1943...

The report states that 

"The diving charcteristics of the P-51B are far superior to those of any other fighter type airplane..it is exceptionally easy to handle and requires very little trimming. The P-51B dives away from all other fighters except the P-47D, against [which] the P51B jumps several hundred feet ahead in the initial pushover and then holds that position,neither gaining nor losing distance"

source - ARMY AIR FORCES BOARD PROJECT NO. (M-1) 50
TITLE: TACTICAL EMPLOYMENT TRIALS ON NORTH AMERICAN P-51B-1 AIRPLANE

What is the source you are using that a 190A-5 had an initial dive faster than the P-47(D-10 and above) or any version of the 51?


----------



## Soren (Jun 21, 2008)

The US Navy tests, where the Fw-190A initially accelerated away from the P-47D in the dive just like the P-51B. So I'm quite sure the 190 -51 were pretty equal in a dive.


----------



## drgondog (Jun 21, 2008)

Soren said:


> The US Navy tests, where the Fw-190A initially accelerated away from the P-47D in the dive just like the P-51B. So I'm quite sure the 190 -51 were pretty equal in a dive.



It would be fair to say the initial acceleration in the dive was pretty equal.. but one of the reasons the 47 didn't out dive the 51 is simply the 51 was a cleaner airframe (than both the 190 and the 47). I would imagine the 190D and 51 were closer than the 190A and 51 - all the way from push over.

The RAE tests also had the 51B out diving everything in that test - Allied and LW -


----------



## Soren (Jun 21, 2008)

I think that sums it up pretty well Bill.


----------



## Strawn (Jun 22, 2008)

Gentlemen, I am new to the 'aeronautics field' and was examining this 'thread' as a mechanism to understand some of the basics, mainly to establish a more simplistic model for the comparison of aircraft in this time period. The following is an anomaly that perhaps you help clarify for my understanding.

1) In post #158, 
"Anyway I did the calculations on L/D ratio for you (Added the Ta-152H for comparison): 

Ta-152 H-1:

(1.62^2) / (pi * 8.94 * .83)

1.62 / 0.112580856
_______________
L/D ratio = 14.38"

the L/D ratio appears to be only the ratio of the coefficient of Lift vs the coefficient of Drag for induced drag only (evaluating the mathematics as presented). I had expected the L/D ratio to include parasitic drag so as to present a more complete representation of the performance of the wing.

Your assistance in helping me with my confusion on this item would be greatly appreciated.


----------



## drgondog (Jun 23, 2008)

Strawn said:


> Gentlemen, I am new to the 'aeronautics field' and was examining this 'thread' as a mechanism to understand some of the basics, mainly to establish a more simplistic model for the comparison of aircraft in this time period. The following is an anomaly that perhaps you help clarify for my understanding.
> 
> 1) In post #158,
> "Anyway I did the calculations on L/D ratio for you (Added the Ta-152H for comparison):
> ...



L/D ratio's are typically discussions about wings

When you move into a force diagram to discuss the aircraft as a whole, you need to describe all the forces acting on the airframe.

So, the Horizontal Forces look like Thrust = Induced Drag + Parasite Drag for an airframe in static balance horizontally. Thrust> Induced+Parasite Drag for an a/c with excess power for the starting velocity and is in acceleration

Induced Drag is highest at low speeds (in comparison with Parasite Drag), and Parasite Drag is highest at high velocities. The huge component of 'Parasite' drag at high speeds is the Propeller, but at top speed the Cd0 which is the zero lift drag of the airfoil, plus other effects like wake drag in compressibility regimes also become major contributions.

Another factor with using the CD values from the tables is that the CD is a nice stable constant value until some, as low as .5 Mach, start to approach compressibility effects of air. The MCrD is the value at which the Cd increases by .002 over the steady Cd

The Vertical Forces are Weight and Lift of the total Wing/Body combination.
For WWII fighters the Wing Lift is by far the dominant value in the Vertical Free Body diagram.

If we ever get around to agreeing how we get accurate Thrust vales for the Hp/Prop values for each aircarft - at different altitudes.. we are then positioned to calculate both rate of turn when entering into a horizontal (no altitude loss) turn at max speeds, but for the case of one a/c which has a higher speed capability, demonstrate the energy availablity remaining when the slower a/c has maxed it's turn and bank angle for level flight.

We can actually do a decent job at sea level for all of these ships but it gets complicated as you start to look at the Hp curves for each ship as a function of altitude and design boost/blower stages. 

Another member (Crumpp) put together a series of profiles much earlier which does a really nice job for one set of Hp values, then converting them to Thrust before proceeding on to the bank angle and G force calcs before the a/c begins to stall and lose horizontal flight.

The problem with all of these ships in turns of 'ease of calc' Is that while Most Propeller designs were pretty efficient and comparable to each other the values of .80-.85, while reasonable for efficiencies in these calculations -they ALL degrades with Mach > .5 - and all of theses fighters were capable of those velocities at max Hp.


----------



## Strawn (Jun 25, 2008)

Thanks for your quick response and the outline of the 'project' goals. After 'chasing the math' a little longer, and reading more on the subject, I was able isolate the problem. For what it is worth, I'll share my 'insight'.
L/Dmax, being defined as when Drag is at its minimum, I plotted the graph with the assumptions that L=W. At this point apparently, the 'curves' for Induced drag and Parasitic Drag 'cross'. This leaves Di = Do (I 'cheated' a bit here, in that I am using the publish Cd0 of 0.0163, assuming all other factors are small enough to be insignificant at the '4 significant decimal' level). The results are as follows:
Given W=9200, Cd0=0.0163, b=37, S=235, L/Dmax=14.6, rho=0.002378 (i.e. @SL)
Using:
L/D=.5*Sqrt(pi*A*e/Do) to calculate e as 0.7455
Di=2L^2/(pi*rho*e*b^2v^2)
Do=.5*rho*S*Cd0*v^2
At the intersection of the graphs, Do=Di=316.64 at a velocity of 262.4 ft/sec (178.9 mph)
Using:
CL=W/(.5*rho*S*v^2)
At the same intersection, CL=0.4783.

I don't see a value of CL=1.35 on the graph until v gets much closer to stall (approx 100mph). So, I am assuming the values posted, that were part of my confusion, are CLmax.

On the subject of turning rate, if I understand you to say you were planning to calculate that for no altitude loss at maximum speed, would that not simply be a function of maximum speed at maximum G load. At maximum speed would not your power already be maxed out so that it would have to be a steady state turn?


----------



## drgondog (Jun 25, 2008)

Strawn said:


> Thanks for your quick response and the outline of the 'project' goals. After 'chasing the math' a little longer, and reading more on the subject, I was able isolate the problem. For what it is worth, I'll share my 'insight'.
> L/Dmax, being defined as when Drag is at its minimum, I plotted the graph with the assumptions that L=W. At this point apparently, the 'curves' for Induced drag and Parasitic Drag 'cross'. This leaves Di = Do (I 'cheated' a bit here, in that I am using the publish Cd0 of 0.0163, assuming all other factors are small enough to be insignificant at the '4 significant decimal' level). The results are as follows:
> 
> *This would be cheating.. and we aren't interested in the crossover point. That only represents the Lowest Drag point in the flight profile. We are actually more interested where Max Thrust = Max Drag and the airplane is at Max speed for the specific conditions (Hpmax @ altitude)*
> ...



The comparisons, to be rational, need to be done at different altitudes - say SL, 10K, 20K and 30K. Each of the a/c mentioned have different top speeds at different altitudes. Some are superior in speeds at all altitudes - say a P-51B-15 versus a Me 109G-6 or and Fw190A-5.

So to further complicate the comparisons I would think that once you have the Thrust for a P-51B-15 with a 1650-7 Merlin at 75" boost at 22,500ft we are running at ~ 442mph.. but a 190A-5 at that same altitude does perhaps 410mph.. so to compare the two the first set of comparisons have both ships entering at 410 which gives the 51B-15 excess Thrust available when the turn starts.. (it doesn't need to run at full boost to keep up) and consquently more potential energy as the Horizontal turn starts.

So you start the engagement at a Given Velocity and Given Altiude and a Given HP/Boost condition from Flight Test, then an empirical calculated Thrust based on Mfr Spec and an assumed Efficiency - and you solve for Parasite Drag (= Thrust - Induced Drag) in level flight. That presumably will be the maximum Parasite Drag attainable in level flight because the airplane can go no faster in level flight.

Between that specific Level Flight/Zero Bank Force Diagram and the final set of conditions (Each airplane has reached a speed and maximum bank angle in which the Lift Vector exactly matches the Weight vector.. you have a specific solution... but because the relative angle of attack, the CL and the velocity have all changed to that equilibrium point both the Induced Drag and Parasite Drag WILL have changed while Thrust theoretically remained 'constant' (we know it changes from relative angle of attack also - but this is too complicated to go there)

So, at the end of the day - if you really want to yank some hair remember that a Prop is a mass flow device designed to maximize the difference in Pressure behind the fan interface, from the Free stream Pressure in front of the fan interface, and it depends on the Rho at that altitude. The actual Force equation is (F=.5 x Rho x Aprop (V>>2-V0>>2) where V=velocity of accelerated flow aft of Prop and V0 = Velocity of Free Steam in front of Prop... This is the True Thrust but we can't easily get to V0.


----------



## Strawn (Jun 25, 2008)

Got it. I can see the difficulty with the need to map over the entire velocity/altitude scale. Am I correct in assuming that boost figures are only necessary when the HP required includes it (i.e., to simplify absurdly, you don't push the RED GO FAST button at 50% throttle)?


----------



## drgondog (Jun 25, 2008)

Strawn said:


> Got it. I can see the difficulty with the need to map over the entire velocity/altitude scale. Am I correct in assuming that boost figures are only necessary when the HP required includes it (i.e., to simplify absurdly, you don't push the RED GO FAST button at 50% throttle)?



Yes - there is a big difference between a 1650-7 at 75" and a 1650-3 at 61" in Bhp. and the 7 was geared differently to achieve max performance at lower altitudes.


----------



## Strawn (Jun 25, 2008)

Okaaaaay. Almost sounds like an impossible task, considering the need for HP performance graphs not withstanding the propellor efficiency or 'power-transmission efficiency' (i.e., eta) issues. (As you can see, I am new enough to this field that I have to create phrases to describe some of the concepts, in contrast to using the appropriate terms.)

Which parameters are you 'accepting' estimates for in this modelling?


----------



## drgondog (Jun 26, 2008)

Strawn said:


> Okaaaaay. Almost sounds like an impossible task, considering the need for HP performance graphs not withstanding the propellor efficiency or 'power-transmission efficiency' (i.e., eta) issues. (As you can see, I am new enough to this field that I have to create phrases to describe some of the concepts, in contrast to using the appropriate terms.)
> 
> Which parameters are you 'accepting' estimates for in this modelling?



Soren outlined most of the documented parameters (i.e Aspect Ratio, wing/tip efficiency, Wing Area, CLmax, etc) for each of the ships he wants to compare.

The weights, engine boost, actual manufacturer Hp as function of altitude and Flight test speeds for these parameters are next step.

We can probably agree to ignore compressibility effects on Propeller/engine system at speeds >.5 M and just pick a value - say ".82". 

From my own perspective I'm ambivalent about normalized KTAS and density variances as we are theoretically going to pick values from Flight Tests - most of which make corrections for standard Temp and Pressure - as those factors go away once we agree on common altitudes from Flight Test plots.

I am hung up in this 'theoretical' exercise simply because a,) Propeller efficiencies are an arcane analysis, and b.) the math behind turn performance is in fact integral calculus.. it is modelling the rate of change over time for the Free Body Force diagram as the fighter changes relative angle of attack to increase the lift to compensate for the bank angle Lift vector required to offset weight (for level flight assumption) -until it can't fly level anymore.

In reality the a/c slows down in the process, so the entire Induced Drag, Parasite Drag calculations, in real world, are also an integration process, because velocity also changes with time...

A friend has developed a nice model that enables plug ins for one weight, AR, Hp and max V for that HP to get the Velocity to G plot of interest but it is good only for that Hp/Vel state and as such is not comparable across all altitudes/Hp/Velocity states. He assumes a THP/SHP ratio of .8 (IIRC)

All of these ships had different strike zones for best performance..

I did this as an exercise in school once, but it was a jet engine and simpler to do. 

Candidly I have better things to do than set up a sophisticated model and am toying with Crumpp's spreadsheet to see what I have to do - assuming we get all the plots we need for Hp/Boost/Speed/Altitude relationships - to then plug in altitude related variables..


----------



## Soren (Jun 26, 2008)

Bill,

No'one is setting a deadline here, so don't stress over it. Now I might be wrong but I assume you will start your vacation soon, so perhaps then you could look more into this. That is my plan, as soon as I get my 2½ weeks of vacation I will go more into details about this subject.


----------



## drgondog (Jun 26, 2008)

Soren said:


> Bill,
> 
> No'one is setting a deadline here, so don't stress over it. Now I might be wrong but I assume you will start your vacation soon, so perhaps then you could look more into this. That is my plan, as soon as I get my 2½ weeks of vacation I will go more into details about this subject.



Soren - there is no stress. 

I am actually going to dig into a footlocker I haven't touched in 35 years that may have my MS Thesis and some of the analytics dealing with this discussion. I had about three pages of equations and assumptions when I was doing my Preliminary Design paper on the jet fighter - which I used to program (in Fortran II) on a IBM 1620. 

(I doubt anyone on this board remembers programming on 80 column punch cards)

In the final approach I (you/both) could modify Gene's spreadsheet to accomodate the variable list above - it would always serve well as good 'guestimate'.

The bigger issue is gathering the Flight Test/Powerplant data and putting it all in the Tech section that Paul put together - so that we have a common library and source.


----------



## JugBR (Jun 27, 2008)

i want to talk about the Bf 109. i have watched that show "dogfights"(here in BR is called "combates aéreos") from history channel. there was that episode about the legend of an airbase in belgium i gess so, there was a scene of a bf 109 being pursued by mustangs and the german guy making the most extreme maneuvers to escape. 

of course later he was shot down. history channel wouldnt show a battle when germans wins, its always about the american victories. but considering this, i believe we should figure how manoeuvrable was the Bf 109 and how skilled was the germans.


----------



## Soren (Jun 27, 2008)

The Bf-109 turns and climbs a lot better than the P-51 Mustang in reality, however the Mustang rolls faster, esp. at high speed. The Mustang is also generally faster at all alts (Except against the late war 109's which either matched or superceded it in speed at low to medium alt), but esp. at high alt where only the K-4 could fly faster, and this is where the bombers were. The P-51 enjoyed a very nice performance advantage at 25+kft over most 109's.

In short the P-51 was almost ideal for the escort role because of its performance at bomber height.


----------



## Njaco (Dec 10, 2008)

Found an interesting site that goes into the topic here before it collects dust.

Spitfire Mk I versus Me 109 E


----------



## Glider (Dec 10, 2008)

I'm heading for the bunker


----------



## Njaco (Dec 10, 2008)




----------



## Kurfürst (Dec 11, 2008)

MWBS - LOL!


----------



## Glider (Dec 11, 2008)

Almost afraid to ask this but just to show how dumb I am, can I ask what 'MWBS' is?


----------



## fly boy (Dec 11, 2008)

ummm i don't know but if I find it I will post it


----------



## Soundbreaker Welch? (Dec 11, 2008)

Didn't the FW 190 have a stronger frame to withstand hits than the Bf 109's had? The Bf 109 didn't have as much armour. 

I would think it would take more ammo to down a FW 190 than a Bf 109, unless you hit it in the right place.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 11, 2008)

Glider said:


> Almost afraid to ask this but just to show how dumb I am, can I ask what 'MWBS' is?



I believe he means "Mike Williams Bull ****".

Now having said that. I am tired of the bashing other people that have no way to defend themselves. I have said this before. If this thread turns into a Mike Williams bashing thread again, the instigator will go on a vacation.


----------



## Kurfürst (Dec 11, 2008)

Aircraft of World War II - Warbird Forums - View Profile: Mike Williams

I think there is a difference between _unable_, and _unwilling_.

But you are right, discussing those 109-bashing articles has been done to death.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 11, 2008)

Do not start in this thread. Two of our other members have found out what happens if you can not act like an adult.


----------



## Glider (Dec 11, 2008)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> I believe he means "Mike Williams Bull ****".
> 
> Now having said that. I am tired of the bashing other people that have no way to defend themselves. I have said this before. If this thread turns into a Mike Williams bashing thread again, the instigator will go on a vacation.



If I can stick my head out of the bunker I admit that I read the article and it struck me as a well documented and researched piece. All the details seem to be supported by references which is nice to see. 

I now retreat back to the bunker and await my fate.


----------



## Kurfürst (Dec 11, 2008)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Do not start in this thread. Two of our other members have found out what happens if you can not act like an adult.



Well I merely noted that Mike Williams is a member of this discussion board, and is certainly capable of defending his views which have been challenged so many times by so many, and with a good reason.

I don't quite see what is your problem with that. Perhaps the matter should be discussed in a thread of its own, and I wonder which part of this discussion board would be a proper place for that. General discussion of WW2 or...?
What do you think?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 11, 2008)

Kurfürst said:


> Well I merely noted that Mike Williams is a member of this discussion board, and is certainly capable of defending his views which have been challenged so many times by so many, and with a good reason.
> 
> I don't quite see what is your problem with that. Perhaps the matter should be discussed in a thread of its own, and I wonder which part of this discussion board would be a proper place for that. General discussion of WW2 or...?
> What do you think?



The problem is that there is a difference between discussing and bashing as well as acting like a child! If anyone has a difference on something, it can be discussed in an adult like manner. When one person bashes another member of the forum, the other member bashes back and it hijacks and destroys threads. Do you like it when your threads become hijacked?

1. Do you understand the difference? 

2. There will be no thread opened for the purpose of calling out Mike Williams, just as there will be no purpose to call you or anyone else out. That is a childish and ignorant thing to do.

I am serious, the kind of childish behavior that has been going around is getting really tiresome. It is very disruptive to the board and members of the board are tired of it. It will end now!


----------



## Njaco (Dec 11, 2008)

Sorry, like Glider said, I thought it was a fair peice and wanted to share. Not sure who Mr. Williams is but if this leads to any bashing, I apologize. Not my intent. Thought it was interesting.


----------



## syscom3 (Dec 11, 2008)

One thing I will give the P51 an edge in over the other three is a robust wide stance landing gear.

That probably saved more than a few airframes from being wrecked on landing or takeoff.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Dec 11, 2008)

Wouldn't the Fw 190's be similar?


----------



## syscom3 (Dec 11, 2008)

I think the P51 had a wider stance.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Dec 11, 2008)

I think they're pretty similar. The gear legs seem to be mounted on the wing somewhat farther apart on the 190, but they are canted inward (the opposite of the 109). The P-51's main gear do seem to be a bit shorter though.


----------



## john brewer (Aug 3, 2010)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> I can see someone mistaking a Fw 190D for a Ta 152H.
> 
> Not saying this is the case, but they are very similiar looking aircraft.



well adolf galand mistook a flight of hurricanes for me 109s and one mustang pilot claimed an Me109 when he had bounced an Me262 according to his gun cam. A pilot writes his report in the cool of an office trying to make sense of the madness of battle. During the battle of Britain even tractors were shot up by allied aircraft as "targets"


----------



## john brewer (Aug 3, 2010)

Soren said:


> Easy. The Ta-152 is longer, both the front and rear fuselage is longer. The tail fin is a different design and larger. Wings are MUCH longer. Sorry but there's no way you'd see this and call it a FW-190:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



This is strange for people who are supposed to be informed. The mustang was so regularly mistaken for a Me 109 that it was given highly colourful designs.

quote
The Battle of Barking Creek
No. 74 Squadron saw its first action only 15 hours after war was declared, sent to intercept a bomber raid that turned out to be returning RAF planes. On 6 September 1939, "A" Flight was scrambled to intercept a suspected enemy radar track and ran into the Hurricanes of No. 56 Squadron RAF. Believing 56 to be the enemy, Malan ordered an attack. Paddy Byrne and John Freeborn downed two RAF aircraft, killing one officer, Montague Hulton-Harrop, in this friendly fire incident, which became known as the Battle of Barking Creek. At the subsequent courts martial, the court accepted that the entire incident was an unfortunate error.
unquote

Adolf "sailor" Malan went on to be one of the top RAF aces, in a war situation anything can be mistaken for anything (pretty much) in the Battle of Britain pilots blasted away at anything that moved mainly out of fear and adrenaline 10% of kills were estimated to be friendly fire.


----------



## Glider (Aug 7, 2010)

john brewer said:


> Adolf "sailor" Malan went on to be one of the top RAF aces, in a war situation anything can be mistaken for anything (pretty much) in the Battle of Britain pilots blasted away at anything that moved mainly out of fear and adrenaline 10% of kills were estimated to be friendly fire.



Have you anything to support that 10% staement. I certainly agree that 'friendly fire' incidents happen but 10%?


----------



## drgondog (Aug 7, 2010)

I would challenge the 10% figure also, in fact I would like to see any hard data on the subject as most of the combat was in daylight..


----------



## john brewer (Aug 21, 2010)

Glider said:


> Have you anything to support that 10% staement. I certainly agree that 'friendly fire' incidents happen but 10%?



I remember reading it years ago with reference to the battle of britain, read pilots accounts, there were bullets and planes all over the place, pilots were exhausted and scared. To protect a fellow pilot under attack from the rear frequently involved firing in the enemys (and therefore your friends) direction. Not only did pilots shoot each other down they also collided with depressing regularity.

While I have found much of the discussion here interesting most seem to ignore the simple truths of the reality.

The P51 was an escort fighter without peer in WW2 because it was specifically designed to be one. An escort fighter protects a fleet of bombers at approx 25000ft, climbing isnt at all important. The fighters of the Luftwaffe had to attack the bombers which required heavy armour and armament. An FW 190 attacking a fleet of bombers wasnt the same animal as was seen in France. Some people here speak of the P51 as if it could fight all over the channel across belgium and hollan and then on to berlin. A Mustang with its full load of fuel and external tanks was only just airworthy small changes to the throttle at low altitude after take off could result in a crash.

For my tuppence worth on the P51/ spitfire/ bf109/fw190 debate. The p51 was very late in the game it was very slippery in aerodynamics but heavy (the original mustang was rushed into service). There was little use for the mustang until the USAAF got hammered on unescorted raids. The spitfire was the better air superiority fighter and gradually got the better of the 109 variants wheras the fw190 was a fantasic plane which was pretty much neck and neck with the spitfire untill the end of hostilities. In fact all these planes were at the peak of their development and jets were already being introduced...........just remember most pilots didnt see the plane that shot them down in WW2. Additionally the spitfire was never designed for absolute top speed its wings had a washout of (from memory) 1 1/2 degrees which induces drag but increases control at the limits of stall, a mustang with straight lamilar flow wings stalls with little warning. The Me 109 had automatic leading edge slats to improve turning performance but towards the end of the war many pilots didnt know how they worked and so didnt make full use of the plane thinking it was at the limit when the slats had only started to work (they made the 'plane vibrate)


As far as the P51 is concerned it was its mass deployment with huge formations of bombers that was the reason for its success. I read one account of 44 Me262 being sent to intercept 1200 heavy bombers escorted by 600 P51s. Germany in 1944/45 was fighting on at least 4 fronts and running out of pilots fuel and equipment. Regardless of the Me262 being vastly superior they had no chance. How many Sopwith camels could a eurofighter cope with before being overwhelmed?


----------



## john brewer (Aug 21, 2010)

drgondog said:


> I would challenge the 10% figure also, in fact I would like to see any hard data on the subject as most of the combat was in daylight..



for me a hawker typhoon looks nothing like a FW 190 however during the war there were so many instances of friendly fire that Typhoons were painted with black and white stripes which later were known as "D Day stripes" There were so mant instances of friendly fire that shortly after D Day only P38 lightings operated around the fleet, being twin engined twin boom fighters they were completely different from the single engined fighters. My uncle (from RAF royal obsever corps) was at D Day on an American liberty gun ship (armed with multi anti aircraft guns) he had been invalided out of bomber command with pneumonia. His job was to identify aircraft as friend or foe and direct the american guns. The americans had in many cases come straight from the USA and having no experience in combat blasted away at anything just in case. During three long weeks being on watch 12 hrs per day he was called into action once, for which he received a glowing commendation from the ships captain, who was eternally gratefull that someone knew who was a friend and who was an enemy, until he died recently that document was the thing of which he was most proud.

As for things being in daylight I have just read about a pilot being shot down in the battle of britain, despite being english and wearing RAF uniform he was attacked by a farmer with a hay rake who thought the invasion had started. Too many posters here think the protagonists in a war are involved in an intellectual debate. they are tired scared full of adrenaline and fighting for their lives


----------



## steve51 (Aug 21, 2010)

In the book "Bader's Last Flight", Andy Saunders presents compelling arguments that 3 Spitfires , including Baders', were shot down by friendly fire on Circus 68. I suspect that friendly fire incidents were more common then is generally recognized.


----------



## claidemore (Aug 21, 2010)

Hi John,



john brewer said:


> I remember reading it years ago with reference to the battle of britain, read pilots accounts, there were bullets and planes all over the place, pilots were exhausted and scared. To protect a fellow pilot under attack from the rear frequently involved firing in the enemys (and therefore your friends) direction. Not only did pilots shoot each other down they also collided with depressing regularity.
> *How often is depressing regularity? The sky is a big place, so bullets and planes all over the place doesn't mean it was a demolition derby. You paint a picture of exhausted frightened out of their wits nimrods blazing away at anything that moves, which IMO is insulting to the men who fought there. *
> 
> While I have found much of the discussion here interesting most seem to ignore the simple truths of the reality.
> ...



I'm sure drgondog will have some comments about 600 escort P51s. Thats more his area than mine.


----------



## Milosh (Aug 21, 2010)

john brewer said:


> for me a hawker typhoon looks nothing like a FW 190 however during the war there were so many instances of friendly fire that Typhoons were painted with black and white stripes which later were known as "D Day stripes"



The ID stripes and the D-Day stripes were different. The D-Day stripes were of equal width (iirc correctly 18" wide), 3 white and 2 black, while the ID stripes had 4 black stripes, 1/2 width of the 3 white stripes.


----------



## john brewer (Aug 22, 2010)

Milosh said:


> The ID stripes and the D-Day stripes were different. The D-Day stripes were of equal width (iirc correctly 18" wide), 3 white and 2 black, while the ID stripes had 4 black stripes, 1/2 width of the 3 white stripes.



Are we splitting hairs or splitting stripes, the fact is they were black and white stripes to tell friend from foe! I presume the D Day stripes were seen as an improvement although I couldnt honestly be bothered to look it up.


----------



## john brewer (Aug 22, 2010)

claidemore said:


> Hi John,
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sure drgondog will have some comments about 600 escort P51s. Thats more his area than mine.



quote
By the end of February 1945 JG 7 had claimed around 45 four-engine bombers and 15 fighters, but at this stage of war this success rate had no affect whatsoever on the Allied air offensive. During March JG 7 finally began to deliver larger scale attacks against the heavy bomber streams. 3 March saw 29 sorties for 8 kills claimed (one jet was lost). On 18 March III./JG 7 finally managed their biggest attack numerically thus far, some 37 Me 262s engaging a force of 1,200 American bombers and 600 fighters. This action also marked the first use of the new R4M rockets. 12 bombers and 1 fighter were claimed for the loss of 3 Me 262s.

The total numbers of aircraft shot down by JG 7 is difficult to quantify due to the loss of Luftwaffe records, but at least 136 aircraft were claimed, and research indicates as many as 420 Allied aircraft may have been claimed shot down
unquote

I welcome drgondogs comments!!!!!!!!.


----------



## john brewer (Aug 22, 2010)

The sky is a big place, so bullets and planes all over the place doesn't mean it was a demolition derby. You paint a picture of exhausted frightened out of their wits nimrods blazing away at anything that moves, which IMO is insulting to the men who fought there. 

No one could have greater respect or admiration than me, the fact is during the BoB and the attacks on Germany both sides were near their limits. Pilots would fall asleep in the cockpit on landing even land in the wrong country. No rational pilot would mistake cornwall for france but many germans did in the heat and confusion of battle they were disorientated. Most pilots accounts I have read attest to the confusion disorientation and fatigue on both sides, this in no way undermines their courage and skill.

The P51 was an escort fighter without peer in WW2 because it was specifically designed to be one.
The P51 was designed specifically to be a better plane than the P40, and the RAF at that time was not looking for escort fighters. If anything the P51 was designed to be an interceptor and it's initial use was as an intruder. 
Sorry I should have said the P51D the mustang was an unremarkable aircraft until escorting bombers in daylight was required 


In a fighter, climb ability is one of the most important performance attributes, second only to speed, which I'm sure we would both agree the P51 had in abundance. In any case, what happens if the attacking fighters are 5000 feet higher than the escorts? 

As I undertand it the escorts were on various levels some above and some ahead and around the formation. The escorts just have to break up the initial attack it is almost impossible to attack a bomberwith fighters closing you down.


----------



## john brewer (Aug 22, 2010)

steve51 said:


> In the book "Bader's Last Flight", Andy Saunders presents compelling arguments that 3 Spitfires , including Baders', were shot down by friendly fire on Circus 68. I suspect that friendly fire incidents were more common then is generally recognized.



In the first real use of the big wing two of Baders flight were so focussed on shooting down the same plane they hit each other. if you read the role call of deaths during the battle of britain there are a large number of pilots killed in training and other accidents and hit from ground fire. It was a big problem for british twin engined bombers returning from france....they looked like luftwaffe bombers especially the hampden and Do17


----------



## Colin1 (Aug 22, 2010)

john brewer said:


> for me a Hawker Typhoon looks nothing like a Fw190...





john brewer said:


> ...in a war situation anything can be mistaken for anything...


Yeah?


----------



## john brewer (Aug 22, 2010)

Colin1 said:


> Yeah?



well a typhoon is bigger with a huge chin radiator and a different canopy and wing shape.....apart from that they are identical.

when a bomber can claim to have sunk a japanese cruiser when in fact they missed an american submarine which dived....anything can be mistaken for anything especially when aircraft are approaching at combined speeds of 700mph+


----------



## Colin1 (Aug 22, 2010)

john brewer said:


> While I have found much of the discussion here interesting most seem to ignore the simple truths of the reality.
> 
> The P-51 was an escort fighter without peer in WW2 because it was specifically designed to be one.
> *The P-51 was specifically designed to address the British Purchasing Commission's desire to buy new aircraft, NAA threw their hat into the ring and claimed they could build the BPC a better aircraft than the P-40. The RAF realised that range was an issue with their existing stock but no-one envisioned escorting heavy bombers all the way to Berlin, least of all the USAAF who at that stage were not even interested in the P-51.*
> ...


*Is the answer 'all of them'? 
It was a poor analogy, the P-51 was arguably WWII's high point in piston-engine fighter design and it had trouble containing a jet-engined threat in its infancy but these were two combatants contemporaneous of one another and there was at least a ballpark combat margin in which the two fighters could engage one another.*


----------



## john brewer (Aug 22, 2010)

4 fronts

the eastern front
the western front
the southern front bombers from north africa attacking roumanian refineries for example
the home front ie over Berlin, or maybe you dont consider 1200 bombers with escorts attacking your capital city as any sort of threat.....rolls eyes and leaves the forum


----------



## Milosh (Aug 22, 2010)

john brewer said:


> Are we splitting hairs or splitting stripes, the fact is they were black and white stripes to tell friend from foe! I presume the D Day stripes were seen as an improvement although I couldnt honestly be bothered to look it up.



Just pointing out the differences. Besides what already mentioned, the D-Day stripes also wrapped around to cover the upper wing and full wrapped stripes were added to the rear fuselage. The ID stripes were only on the lower wing.

On the 600 escorts, not all would be with the bombers at one given point in time. The 600 would be the number of escorts assigned to escort the bombers. The escorts flew in relays which would relieve those already escorting.

You forgot a Front john brewer, the Northern Front.

Colin,

MustangIA/P-51 > MGW 9000lb
Mustang IV/P-51D/K > MGW 11,600lb

Fw190A-8/R2 > 9822lb


----------



## Colin1 (Aug 22, 2010)

john brewer said:


> for me a Hawker Typhoon looks nothing like a Fw190...





john brewer said:


> ...a Typhoon is bigger with a huge chin radiator and a different canopy and wing shape.....apart from that they are identical...


I'm confused and frightened...


----------



## Colin1 (Aug 22, 2010)

Milosh said:


> Colin,
> 
> MustangIA/P-51 > MGW 9000lb
> Mustang IV/P-51D/K > MGW 11,600lb
> ...


True enough Milosh
but I was trying to nail down one period of the P-51's history; at the time of its introduction, it was comparable with the contemporaneous model of the Fw190


----------



## Colin1 (Aug 22, 2010)

john brewer said:


> Too many posters here think the protagonists in a war are involved in an intellectual debate...


You're definitely not here to make friends are you?
As sweeping generalisations go, that's possibly one of the most uninformed. Mildly offensive, in an amusing way.


----------



## Milosh (Aug 22, 2010)

Colin1 said:


> True enough Milosh
> but I was trying to nail down one period of the P-51's history; at the time of its introduction, it was comparable with the contemporaneous model of the Fw190



Then you should not be using the A-8 as an example then. Iirc, the correct model should be the A-5.


----------



## drgondog (Aug 22, 2010)

john brewer said:


> quote
> By the end of February 1945 JG 7 had claimed around 45 four-engine bombers and 15 fighters, but at this stage of war this success rate had no affect whatsoever on the Allied air offensive. During March JG 7 finally began to deliver larger scale attacks against the heavy bomber streams. 3 March saw 29 sorties for 8 kills claimed (one jet was lost). On 18 March III./JG 7 finally managed their biggest attack numerically thus far, some 37 Me 262s engaging a force of 1,200 American bombers and 600 fighters. This action also marked the first use of the new R4M rockets. 12 bombers and 1 fighter were claimed for the loss of 3 Me 262s.
> 
> The total numbers of aircraft shot down by JG 7 is difficult to quantify due to the loss of Luftwaffe records, but at least 136 aircraft were claimed, and research indicates as many as 420 Allied aircraft may have been claimed shot down
> ...



Claidmore and Colin have pretty well summed up the debate points.. 

John you seem to launch into a lot of diverse subjects and time frames without pausing to put each of your comments into context.

Lets take the one above. First of all, with respect to JG7 in March 1945. 

In the last several months of the war the LW was in fact severly outnumbered by the 8th AF alone. Having said that the sky is a very large place and the various bomb divisions were tasked to bomb targets all over eastern and southern Germany. Until the point at which the Bomb divisions (1st, 2nd and 3rd) diverged, the bomber stream was 60 to 100 miles long. At this time in the war the 8th FC would typically send one Fighter Group to sweep out in front of one of the Divisions, sometimes two while keeping two to three Fighter Groups in escort.

Broken down, there are now several concentrated formations of fighters arrayed in a proximity to the Bomb Division.

Two 50+ numbers of Mustangs sweeping 20-50 miles out in front perhaps 20-40 miles from each other, and three more Formations of 50+ covering a 20-30 mile bomber stream of one bomb division.

So a battle formation of JG7 Me 262s would seek unescorted boxes in that 20-30 mile length and attack. The bombers would call for help and 8th AF (or 15th AF) or whatever, would converge.

The Me 262 at altitude would always be in a tactical position to then continue to press the attack or speed away to fight another day.

Summary - no Luftwaffe formation attacking a bomb wing (within the Division bomber stream) ever had to engage more than one to possibly two 8th AF fighter groups - unless they stayed to fight to the finish - which they never did, trying to conserve their strength. 

In other words, JG7 was likely attacking one Wing of two bomber groups - perhaps 54 B-17s or B-24s - escorted or not by one Fighter Group of 30 to 60 Mustangs (or P-47s in the case of the 56th FG in March 1945). The rest of the 8th AF combat units were way out in front or behind the action.

That is why the claims that 'we were attacking a force of 1200 bombers and 600 fighters' is analogous to saying the attack on the Battle of the Bulge was taking on the entire Allied command... a little 'overstated'.

I'll get back to you on some of your other comments.


----------



## drgondog (Aug 22, 2010)

Friendly fire WWII - Luftwaffe and Allied Air Forces Discussion Forum

This is an excellent, and fact driven, discussion on Friendly Fire.


----------



## drgondog (Aug 22, 2010)

john brewer said:


> I remember reading it years ago with reference to the battle of britain, read pilots accounts, there were bullets and planes all over the place, pilots were exhausted and scared. To protect a fellow pilot under attack from the rear frequently involved firing in the enemys (and therefore your friends) direction. Not only did pilots shoot each other down they also collided with depressing regularity.
> 
> While I have found much of the discussion here interesting most seem to ignore the simple truths of the reality.
> 
> ...



As to Mustangs stalling w/o warning? not so - you can feel it in the stick and control surfaces. What does happen in a turning stall is that the bottom will drop out and generally pull you into a spin - you don't want this on the deck or any turning fight with an adversary but you are aware that you are at the limit.


----------



## parsifal (Aug 22, 2010)

john brewer said:


> Regardless of the Me262 being vastly superior they had no chance. How many Sopwith camels could a eurofighter cope with before being overwhelmed?





The Russians in the last year of the war were quite successful at shooting down Luftwaffe aircraft. And I would hardly call YAK-3s, LA-9s and LA-11s Sopwith Camels.

Im not denying that the Luftwaffe shot down a lot of VVS aircraft, or even that the Lufwaffe shot down more VVS aircraft after 1942 than they lost themselves. The exchange rate was always in the Germans favour. But there are a number of statements that can be made in response to that: the losses were tolerable to the VVS, the losses and engaging the luftwaffe in air combat were secondary to supporting the ground assault. Soviet fighters were there simply to assist the sturmoviks to get in, and as a bonus, get out.

Even though engaging the luftwaffe was by 1943 a secondary role, at least to the VVS, they still managed to achieve quite decent exchange rates. I suggest you do some reading. Even though you express an aversion to intellectual analysis, this is far better than simply falling back onto emotive arguments, based on .....what????? An excellent general reference is "Stopped At Stalingrad" by Hayworth. You might also have a look at "Red Phoenix", and look at the fighting over the Kuban, to see just how much grief the VVS was giving the LW by that time. The losses over Kursk are often contested, but generally range from a VVS exchange rate of 1:1 through to about 4:1 in the LW favour. My own research suggests an exchange rate of about 2:1 in favour of the LW....which is only fractionally worse than the RAF exchange rates over France in 1941.

In the last year of the war, the Luftewaffe was largely grounded, not outnumbered. due to a lack of fuel. This lack of fuel also meant that the majority of pilots were just targets, for any of the allied flyers....Russian or Allied, because as fillers they had not received anything like proper training. As an expedient, after the fuel crisis hit in mid 1944, the Germnans, simply put only the most experienced pilots that they could. Until then, whilst the Luftwaffe was trying to maintain control over Germany (Jan-April 1944) its losses were about 6-8 times worse in fighter losses than their allied counterparts. Once they abandoned their primary mission, things did improve, but by then they were irrelevant to the outcome of the battle


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 22, 2010)

john brewer said:


> rolls eyes and leaves the forum



Why because they countered you effectively?


----------



## john brewer (Aug 22, 2010)

errrrrrr......who mentioned the russians? I didnt 
Who compared any soviet aircraft with a sopwith camel?
what was that about intellectual argument
since the luftwaffe had no fuel how come the mustang gets the credit.


----------



## john brewer (Aug 22, 2010)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Why because they countered you effectively?



no because they replied with nonesense I would have thought it was obvious that the luftwaffe was fighting on at least 4 fronts but some smart ass expert only knows of two


----------



## john brewer (Aug 22, 2010)

drgondog said:


> As to Mustangs stalling w/o warning? not so - you can feel it in the stick and control surfaces. What does happen in a turning stall is that the bottom will drop out and generally pull you into a spin - you don't want this on the deck or any turning fight with an adversary but you are aware that you are at the limit.



terribly sorry old chap I was only quoting german pilots who said the mustang would suddenly drop an wing and stallout into a spin during a turning fight....naturally they would bow to your eminence in all things


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 22, 2010)

john brewer said:


> no because they replied with nonesense I would have thought it was obvious that the luftwaffe was fighting on at least 4 fronts but some smart ass expert only knows of two



Hey you need to chill out. There is only one smart ass here at the moment...



john brewer said:


> terribly sorry old chap I was only quoting german pilots who said the mustang would suddenly drop an wing and stallout into a spin during a turning fight....naturally they would bow to your eminence in all things



If you can't debate in an adult like manner without being a smart ass or insulting, then don't debate at all. Pretty simple if you ask me.


----------



## drgondog (Aug 22, 2010)

john brewer said:


> terribly sorry old chap I was only quoting german pilots who said the mustang would suddenly drop an wing and stallout into a spin during a turning fight....naturally they would bow to your eminence in all things



John - I have 56 hours of solo and a lot of back seat/dual control time in the 51D. 

I learned to fly from an ace pilot who had, at the time he was teaching me, approximately 6,000 hours of single engine time. He was widely regarded as a superb pilot by his peers.

I use this only to acquaint you with the difference between 'reading about a thing' to 'experiencing the thing in real life'.

To the LW fighter pilots that caused a Mustang to spin out, I can perhaps find five Mustang pilots that caused a 109 or 190 to spin out in a turning fight - or simply yank too hard on the stick and depart the performance envelope. Control on the ragged edge takes a lot of skill and a delicate balance between the brute force caused by adrenaline and the sensitivity required to exercise complete control.

Imagine having to hold a stick as if it was a bird in your hand rather than a rope which you are climbing.

There is a very fine line between maintaining altitude and airspeed in a constant turning fight - and losing it. Skill is more of a factor than the airframe.

You dabble in aero when you clearly know nothing of the science, you dabble in history when you lack facts and context, you dabble in performance characteristics without either the knowledge or communications skills to put whatever 'snippets' of facts you may possess in context. You have made more than a couple of simple factual errors in more than a couple of bold statements.

It is difficult to place you - are you young, lacking in the lacking in the broad knowledge to debate the persons you are arguing with - or older and more assertive based on some sense of (misplaced) intellectual superiority??


----------



## john brewer (Aug 22, 2010)

Colin the mustang couldnt match most fighters in combat but it didnt have to it was stopping other fighters attack bombers as soon as the luftwaffe try to shoot a bomber they make themselves a sitting duck for the escort. the escort therefore restricts the luftwaffe to high speed straffing which is not very effective.
Originally Posted by john brewer 
While I have found much of the discussion here interesting most seem to ignore the simple truths of the reality.


An escort fighter protects a fleet of bombers at approx 25000ft, climbing isnt at all important. 
Really? Would you care to elaborate on that? The simple truth of the reality seems to have escaped me.
They have plenty of time to climb to altitude once at altitude they have the energy, once they have engaged the attacking fighters in any way they have done their job


Some people here speak of the P-51 as if it could fight all over the channel, across Belgium and Holland and then on to Berlin. 
Weasel statement. Please indicate, anywhere in the forum, where anyone ACTUALLY said that.
Statements such as " the mustang can just wait for the others to run out of fuel" as if it was possible to stooge around with drop tanks and rear tank full of fuel.

A Mustang with its full load of fuel and external tanks was only just airworthy small changes to the throttle at low altitude after take off could result in a crash.
Take-off is a particularly vulnerable time for an aircraft, esp if combat-loaded. Mustangs certainly were lost during take-off, but do you have any statistical data to support a notion that its 'only just airworthiness' made it more of a liability than any other type, on either side, during the war? 
It was loaded to the point that the Cof G was dangerously rearward. Later they were loaded with the auxilliary tank only part full to assist handing along with changes to the rudder.


" I don't recall the Mustang being 'rushed into service' , the Brits got roughly half of their original order as a result of Pearl Harbour and the USAAF only really started to warm to it in 1942."
Silly old me I seem to remember it was designed and flown in 100 days or similar....Obviously they were taking it easy


I don't know where to begin with this. I think you'll find there was plenty of use for the Mustang,
Like what? it was ordered as an interceptor fighter and ended as an army support/recon plane. The RAF ordered mustangs with cannon for ground attack



As regards the Spitfire vs Bf109 debate, I don't think there was a period during the war when the Spitfire was decisively better than the German fighter. Late-war tribulations for German manufacture made it difficult but the Bf109K was a clear example that the Bf109 wasn't finished by any means.
When precisely are you referring to when you say that all of these planes were at the peak of their development, because at the time of the P-51's introduction, they most certainly weren't and jets were nowhere near introduction.
The pointblank offensive resumed in early 1944 with daylight escorted raids. The Me262 appeared in April 1944 and the meteor in the July and the DH Vampire had already flown although it didnt see active service.

By 1944 the performance of all the front line single seaters was basically on a par because they were at the limit of a propellor driven fighter. The bearcat corsair tempest/sea fury and later model FW and Me109 were basically on a par with each other...most looked the same as one another.


.......just remember most pilots didnt see the plane that shot them down in WW2. Additionally the Spitfire was never designed for absolute top speed its wings had a washout of (from mebrate)
That's pretty much a string of incoherent thoughts strung together into a paragraph but I'm interested to know why you think German pilots had forgotten how their wing slats worked. 
errrr they didnt they died the ones who replaced them had little training and didnt know how to get the best out of them.


As far as the P-51 is concerned it was its mass deployment with huge formations of bombers that was the reason for its success.
No it wasn't. There were several reasons, technical and tactical, the most fundamental being its range capability - the ability to put it over targets deep into Germany in the first place. Secondly, once there, it had the fighting qualities that enabled it to meet the best of the Luftwaffe on comparable terms. There was the quality of training of USAAF pilots and the soundness of tactics used to cancel any advantages held by the Luftwaffe. The .50cal allowed the P-51 to hit German fighters with a warhead big enough to cause critical damage, yet small enough to be carried in sufficient amounts to see out the mission. The P-51 generally held the initiative, it was on the side that was doing all the choosing of targets and usually met the defensive fighters at the P-51's best altitude.
A fighter attacking a bomber group was faced with 200 machine guns plus the escort....given that the escort outnumbers the attackers the initiative is with the attacking planes as in the BofB. However if the germans had sufficient planes fuel and pilots the results would have been much different. If 37 Me262s bring down 9 bombers and 1 fighter for the loss of 3 then what would happent if 200 or 300 262s were available? The fact is they wernt because by 1944 germany was already beaten and everyone except the high command knew it.


----------



## Glider (Aug 22, 2010)

Personally I am waiting to hear how you came to the figure of 10% of all loses were blue on blue. The examples given are a fraction of the percentage of aircraft lost in combat.

I have the history of the 2nd TActical Airforce and a number of such incidents are mentioned, more than I expected but nothing like 10%. The nearest that I can come up with is the Luftwaffe sinking two of their own destroyers at the start of the war. As they only had about 22 destroyers at the time, its the best I can find but not I suspect, what you mean.

As for the assertion that some (unnamed and unquoted) german pilots saw some (again number unknown) P51's stall during a turing combat it is only expected. Pilots of all nations fighting for their lives are flying on the edge and some inevitably despite the warnings are going to overcook it and stall. If I look into it I am willing to bet that I would find examples from all nations where this happened. 
I have read about an international Glider pilot in a European competition stalling when thermalling and spinning down a stack, scattering gliders in all directions as they got out of the way.


----------



## john brewer (Aug 22, 2010)

drgondog said:


> John - I have 56 hours of solo and a lot of back seat/dual control time in the 51D.
> 
> I learned to fly from an ace pilot who had, at the time he was teaching me, approximately 6,000 hours of single engine time. He was widely regarded as a superb pilot by his peers.
> 
> ...



since my first post i have been accused of insulting the pilots involved lack of knowledge etc etc etc.....read your own post and you will see that you have shown the P51 was not superior to either a 109 or a 190. Oh and BY the way Mr expert aerodynamacist what is the washout on a mustang a 109 a hurricane or a P 38?

You are patronising in the extreme, you shift the context, demanding inane stats to prove what you already know. For example all later single seaters with approx 2000BHP were difficult on take off and landing, the mustang with full fuel was dangerously overloaded even compared to contemporaries yet I am required to provide stats.
Every account I have read of the conflicts in europe has referred to friendly fire incedents. There were literally thousands of bullets flying all over, they would drop like rain. Of the many accounts I have read there are many pilots who simply say "I was hit" with no idea of who or what hit them yet I must provide stats

The facts and the reality is that by the time the Mustang P51D was introduced Germany was already beaten it wouldnt matter how good or bad it was so long as it had the range. Similarly the tempest was superior to the luftwaffe planes it was up against but there were hardly any by late 1944/45 and few pilots who knew how to fly.


----------



## parsifal (Aug 22, 2010)

With regard to "intellectual exercise" I was referring to this statement...._Too many posters here think the protagonists in a war are involved in an intellectual debate.._.

With regard to my respose to your "how many sopwityh camels can a eurofighter shoot down"......I drew the conclusion, perhaps incorrectly that by referring to the "eurfighter - an aircraft conceived to shoot down soviet aircraft primarily, you were drawing a parrallel for the Germans versus the Soviets.


If you are not referring to the Soviets with your "sopwith camel" argument, then who do you thinik are flying the equivalent of sopwith camels

Finally, I dont have any flying experience, but I do have nearly six years experience in tactical warfare operations, backed up by some time in the field. My knowledge is book knowledge, but since the war that is mostly how strategy and tactics are worked out. Most modern COs hate officers who try to "fly" by the seat of their pants. They want well thought out solutions, and that generally means looking at the theory in a lot of detail


----------



## john brewer (Aug 22, 2010)

drgondog said:


> Claidmore and Colin have pretty well summed up the debate points..
> 
> John you seem to launch into a lot of diverse subjects and time frames without pausing to put each of your comments into context.
> 
> ...



someone questioned whether 600 escorts were ever sent so I showed some evidence.....Now by answering a query as to my knowledge I am launching into diverse subjects. 37 jets against 1200 bombers with 600 escorts have no chance....even if they took ot 10 USAAF planes for 3 losses they made no impact. I didnt say they were attacking 1200 bombers with 600 fighters the luftwaffe did....sadly they didnt have you to correct them in their errors. You can talk about boxes and bomber streams until you go blue in the face 37 against 600 escorts leaves the luftwaffe no chance at all. And if you want to talk about "facts" dont use terms like perhaps and likely....it was reported as 1200 with 600 escorts and thats what it is it is a FACT. You dont like such facts because you want to believe it was a close fight


----------



## john brewer (Aug 22, 2010)

parsifal said:


> With regard to "intellectual exercise" I was referring to this statement...._Too many posters here think the protagonists in a war are involved in an intellectual debate.._.
> 
> With regard to my respose to your "how many sopwityh camels can a eurofighter shoot down"......I drew the conclusion, perhaps incorrectly that by referring to the "eurfighter - an aircraft conceived to shoot down soviet aircraft primarily, you were drawing a parrallel for the Germans versus the Soviets.
> 
> ...



I was referring to an advanced modern jet against a WW1 fighter, of course a eurofighter is superior but up against 200 of them what would it do alone......similarly the Me262 was a huge leap but was so outnumbered it needed escorts itself to take off and land


----------



## parsifal (Aug 22, 2010)

well in the sense that the Me262 was a quantum leap in airborne technology I would agree, but as a war winning piece of equipment it just never quite got to demonstrate its prowess. Some of the arguments are true that you present, but there were also technological "kinks" in the design and manufacture processes that were never ironed out during the life of the aircraft. The 262 was pbably the best part of a year away from making any reall contribution to the German war effort, and it came at a voracious cost in the German R&D effort. So, it probably represented great potential and no real effect, with being outnumbered being just one of those reasons for defeat


----------



## Colin1 (Aug 22, 2010)

john brewer said:


> errrrrrr......who mentioned the Russians? I didnt
> *Think you did: recall if you will FOUR fronts...*
> 
> Who compared any Soviet aircraft with a Sopwith Camel?
> ...


*We've seen you before. Different name, different country, different person but always the same MO; you dance from pillar to post firing off half-truths and glib 'facts' and then move the argument on before anyone can pin you down on your errors.*

You need to do some research.


----------



## Colin1 (Aug 22, 2010)

john brewer said:


> ...of course a Eurofighter is superior but up against 200 of them what would it do alone...


What every in-theatre commander can only dream of; get the mission aircraft in, do the mission and then get out completely unopposed. Strike platforms don't tangle with interceptors for kicks, they'd really rather not see them at all. 

For fun, you could fly over the top of them on full burner and watch them disintegrate in your wash through the rear-view. It was a poor analogy.


----------



## john brewer (Aug 22, 2010)

Colin1 said:


> *We've seen you before. Different name, different country, different person but always the same MO; you dance from pillar to post firing off half-truths and glib 'facts' and then move the argument on before anyone can pin you down on your errors.*
> 
> You need to do some research.



you cannot assert that mentioning four fronts is mentioning the russians without some risk of terminological inexactitude

when I show my errors are not errors I am accused of changing the subject, when my research shows what I said is correct I am confronted with a load of "probablys and likelys" and a completely hypothetical scenario by the resident expert which proves him right (cos he says so)


----------



## john brewer (Aug 22, 2010)

Colin1 said:


> What every in-theatre commander can only dream of; get the mission aircraft in, do the mission and then get out completely unopposed. Strike platforms don't tangle with interceptors for kicks, they'd really rather not see them at all.
> 
> For fun, you could fly over the top of them on full burner and watch them disintegrate in your wash through the rear-view. It was a poor analogy.



the analogy is the eurofighter must stop the camels not the other way round (eurofighter is an interceptor and strike aircraft.....you are just being objuse....the mustang escorts used to "mob" me 262s


----------



## parsifal (Aug 22, 2010)

which four fronts are you referring to if you are not referring to the eastern front. By the end of 1944, I can think of the following....the western front, which by that time had merged with the reich defenses, the Italian front, which by 1945 had few or no Germaan aircraft, and certainly no 262s, the yugoslavian front, which by then was basically a subsidiary of the eastern front, and the norwegian front, which again had no aircraft. 

So, without getting so upset about it, which fronts are you referring to in late '44 when you refer to the four fronts, excluding the eastern front?


----------



## Colin1 (Aug 22, 2010)

john brewer said:


> You are patronising in the extreme, you shift the context, demanding inane stats to prove what you already know. For example all later single seaters with approx 2000hp were difficult on take off and landing, the Mustang with full fuel was dangerously overloaded even compared to contemporaries yet I am required to provide stats.
> *Nobody is patronising you and certainly nobody is shifting the context, you're the one holding the reins here, we merely await your next statement and respond accordingly*
> 
> Every account I have read of the conflicts in Europe...
> ...


*If you've consistently remonstrated that the Me262 was so much more advanced than the P-51, why would life be any different for a Tempest pilot?*


----------



## Colin1 (Aug 22, 2010)

john brewer said:


> terminological inexactitude


Is he allowed to say that?


----------



## parsifal (Aug 22, 2010)

JB

Ease up and chill out my friend. You are being castigated because of your lack of respect for people known to have demonstrated flying expertise. These guys are treated with repect around here, as you will, if you just ease off a little.


Treat people as you want to be treated yourself and things will get easier


----------



## drgondog (Aug 22, 2010)

john brewer said:


> since my first post i have been accused of insulting the pilots involved lack of knowledge etc etc etc.....read your own post and you will see that you have shown the P51 was not superior to either a 109 or a 190. Oh and BY the way Mr expert aerodynamacist what is the washout on a mustang a 109 a hurricane or a P 38?
> 
> *I would have to look each a/c up but all are close to 1 1/2 degrees. If you read all of my posts you will note that in my opinion what made the Mustang superior to them is that it could, when opportunity arose compete with each quite well in THEIR airspace.*
> 
> ...



By the time the Mustang started ops in ETO, the LW was taking tolls of 10-25% of the 8th AF attacking bomber force over Germany and neither the Spit, nor the P-47 could do one thing to stop them. The P-38 was a.) too few in number, and b.) not ready, reliability wise, to go deep into Germany and provide effective escort. Simply, even Me 110s and Me 210s were effective by simply biding their time until the P-47s turned back at the Frankfurt line.

The LW was forced to draw down approximately 30 Staffels of Me 109s and Fw 190s from the South and the East Fronts to attempt to stem the tide of the losses of pilots due to the Mustangs effectiveness in the first four months of 1944 - and greatly outnumbered the Mustang groups at the point of attack during that period.

Your statement that Germany was already 'beaten' could be said to exist in mid 1942 when Stalingrad, North Africa, the Battle of the Atlantic failures were testimonials.. but Germany was not beaten in the air over Germany until the Mustangs cut their hearts out over their own cities while the RAF and the rest of the USAAF sat on the borders - only able to wish they had the range.


----------



## john brewer (Aug 22, 2010)

parsifal said:


> which four fronts are you referring to if you are not referring to the eastern front. By the end of 1944, I can think of the following....the western front, which by that time had merged with the reich defenses, the Italian front, which by 1945 had few or no Germaan aircraft, and certainly no 262s, the yugoslavian front, which by then was basically a subsidiary of the eastern front, and the norwegian front, which again had no aircraft.
> 
> So, without getting so upset about it, which fronts are you referring to in late '44 when you refer to the four fronts, excluding the eastern front?



Is this a joke....are you saying that there was no eastern front in late 44? that is a wonderful way to win an argument......just choose what you want to ignore


the air war was a front consuming huge amounts of equipment and man hours and was of primary importance 
the air war
the western front
the eastern front (you mayt ignore it I cant imagine many would though, maybe they dont have your thirst for "facts")
the southern front
the northern front 

in fact germany was completely surrounded and had lost control of the air all over europe. While few planes flew in italy all operations consume fuel which is what brought the whole thing to a halt


----------



## drgondog (Aug 22, 2010)

john brewer said:


> someone questioned whether 600 escorts were ever sent so I showed some evidence.....Now by answering a query as to my knowledge I am launching into diverse subjects. 37 jets against 1200 bombers with 600 escorts have no chance....even if they took ot 10 USAAF planes for 3 losses they made no impact. I didnt say they were attacking 1200 bombers with 600 fighters the luftwaffe did....sadly they didnt have you to correct them in their errors. You can talk about boxes and bomber streams until you go blue in the face 37 against 600 escorts leaves the luftwaffe no chance at all. And if you want to talk about "facts" dont use terms like perhaps and likely....it was reported as 1200 with 600 escorts and thats what it is it is a FACT. You dont like such facts because you want to believe it was a close fight



John - you didn't understand what was stated. 

Nobody questioned that '600' escorts (or 750 more likely) to escort 1200 (or 1500 or 2000) bombers - and if you want some rational fact base go pick out the day in which the JG7 narrative describes and look up in 8th War Diary by Freeman. He will tell you how many 8th AF task forces were up, how many fighters by types, were escorting the task forces comprised of Bomb Divisions and approximately 35 heavy Bomb Groups and 15 Fighter Groups.

What was stated and carefully explained is the '37 Me 262s' did not attack 1800 airplanes in a small volume of space over Germany. Didn't happen, impossible to make happen. The 8th AF didn't/couldn't assemble and fly 1800 ships in one extremely small airspace - even if they wanted the JG7 narrative 'true'.

What was carefully explained, but clear that the attempt failed, is how the 8th AF planned and executed a mission so that great numbers could be put up in a controlled fashion.

Further explanation - it took 60-90 MILES to assmble and fly 36 Bomb Groups to as many as 10 targets on the same mission, and how the escorts would be organized to fly Penetration until they had to turn back, how the Target escort flew to the point where the Penetration escort turned back, and then how the withdrawal escorting forces picked up where the target escorts left the bombers.

Envision that same scenario executed with 5 eacxh fighter groups comprising three Fighter Wings (each tasked to support one Bomb Division). If you do the math for a three divivion, three Task Force effort, there were approximately 5 Fighter Groups to protect 10 Bomber Divisions. The Fighters had to conserve fuel for deep penetrations so at least one of the five guarding to 400+ bombers only escorted from the coast to say, Nordhausen to provide penetration support to Leipzig, then two Mustang groups which did not have to ESS over the inbound bombers picked up the Task Force at Nordhausen and yest another Mustang Group would range all the way past Leipzig to perhaps Dresden to sweep the area for German fighters assembling. At this time the Withdrawal support group (the last of the 5 available for escort duties) was in the air and heading for the R/V point west of Mulhausen.


Do the math. If JG7 attacked any of the 400 1st BD) bombers escorted by the 65th Wing ( 4, 56, 355, 361 and 479FG) they could expect to run into ONE fighter group inbound to Nordhause, TWO fighter groups between Nordhausen/target and Mulhausen, ONE fighter Group east of Leipzig if they got caught in the sweep, and ONE Fighter group between Mulhausen and the Coast.

Simple - the 37 Me 262's may trip 50 to 100 fighters worst case, and zero if they find an unescorted box of 54 bombers in the 400+ bomber stream of 20-30 miles in length.

In other words ask yourself some simple questions like 'how credible is the claim of fighting 600 fighters and 1200 bombers?"

If a wermacht soldier stated "in our fight against the Allies at Arnhem during the Operation Market Garden, we had to defeat the Allied Airborne forces (including the 82nd and 101st further south)" - would you believe it? Similar analogy..

So, carefully


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 22, 2010)

This thread is being watched. There is a lot of good information going around, but the debate looks like it is going to go in the wrong direction. Debate like adults everyone...


----------



## parsifal (Aug 22, 2010)

Im not saying there was no eastern front. Quite the reverse. This whole sub argument arose because of your "sopwith camel" argument. Most of us took that to mean you were referring to the Soviets mostly, which you then denied. See your Post 533, wherein you say:

_errrrrrr......who mentioned the russians? I didnt 
Who compared any soviet aircraft with a sopwith camel?_

You also referred to at least four fronts in another post, and then finally above identify the four fronts, for which we were looking for an answer.

Now, I can only repeat that by late 44-45 which is the correct time frame for the 262, there were only two real fronts for the germans (see post 549). These were the eastern front, against the Russians, and the Western front/reich defences, against the western allies. There was no souther front or northern front at that time because the Germans had withdrawn nearly all aircraft from those sectors (ther were about 50 aircraft in Norway, but all were grounded, for lack of fuel) .

So, I can only repeat the question....were you, or were you not referring to the Russians with your "sopwith camel" analogy, and if not, who were you referring to? As a supplementary question, what is the actual time frame for this comment, given that you are referrring to the Me 262 it has been assumed that you are discussing operations within the depoyment times of that type, but if not you had better clarfy when, as well as the previously requested who and what


----------



## john brewer (Aug 22, 2010)

Colin1 said:


> *If you've consistently remonstrated that the Me262 was so much more advanced than the P-51, why would life be any different for a Tempest pilot?*



Nobody is patronising you and certainly nobody is shifting the context, you're the one holding the reins here, we merely await your next statement and respond accordingly
You're a poet, lad......Since you love stats calculate for example a big wing in the battle of britain 50 hurricanes with 8 brownings engaging a similar number of me 109 s with 2 guns and 1 cannoin and defensive fire from 30 bombers. Farmers put covers on their tractors as the bullets and casings still stung ...it was litterally like rain...and you are patronising ...bonny lard


Every account I have read of the conflicts in Europe... 
Can I ask how many is that?

I am 50 yrs old ....my elder brother used to buy loads of books and "air pictorial magazines" when i was young which I later read....I cannot recall how many but it is a lot.....recently (friday) the churchill speech about the "few" was comemmorated the internet is full of articles and biographies of both fighter and bomber pilots.

There were literally thousands of bullets flying all over, they would drop like rain
You're a poet, lad

Of the many accounts I have read... 
Can I ask again?

there are many pilots who simply say "I was hit" with no idea of who or what hit them yet I must provide stats
It seems there is nothing you won't hide behind. 
who is hiding? If the pilot doesnt know who hit him how does anyone else. Douglas bader said he was shot down by a german it was almost certainly another spitfire......he peeled off a flight of me109s and was shot...the other spitfire pilot seeing a flight of 109s took out the last one assuming it was also a 109 ......the pilot claimed a 109 cept the luftwaffe didnt lose one in that are that day

The facts and the reality is that by the time the Mustang was introduced Germany was already beaten it wouldn't matter how good or bad it was so long as it had the range.
Probably. You may however be omitting the symbolic importance of putting a top of the line fighter over the German capital, or the time you would be buying the jet programs with fighters more easily knocked down than the P-51 or fighters that simply didn't have the range. 
I think the first top line fighter over Berlin was the mosquito

Similarly the Tempest was superior to the Luftwaffe planes it was up against but there were hardly any by late 1944/45 and few pilots who knew how to fly

The tempest was a reasonable match for the me262 but only at low altitude, as far a straight fight 1 on 1 the advantage is always with the jet


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 22, 2010)

Please quote your posts. It really is hard to follow.


----------



## Colin1 (Aug 22, 2010)

john brewer said:


> Is this a joke..
> *If I were you, I wouldn't ask that question*
> 
> ..are you saying that there was no eastern front in late 44? that is a wonderful way to win an argument......just choose what you want to ignore
> ...


*I don't know what point you're making here*


----------



## Colin1 (Aug 22, 2010)

john brewer said:


> who is hiding? If the pilot doesn't know who hit him how does anyone else. Douglas Bader said he was shot down by a german it was almost certainly another Spitfire......he peeled off a flight of Bf109s and was shot...the other Spitfire pilot seeing a flight of 109s took out the last one assuming it was also a 109 ......the pilot claimed a 109 except the Luftwaffe didn't lose one in that area that day
> *I suspect you have missed my point. In any other context, you would be correct but air combat history was not written off the backs of pilots who stated simply "I got hit - sorry, never saw the guy". It is the intelligence gleaned from surviving pilots combat reports that forms history and alot of it is statistical; you would find it most useful in corroborating statements and even in tempering some of the statements you make.*
> 
> I think the first top line fighter over Berlin was the Mosquito


*You inadvertently expose your lack of nous once more, for anyone else on this forum, I could have (and did) omit 'single-engined, single-seat...' If that hasn't deterred you, provide us with a detailed expose on how you think the Mosquito would have fared in the daylight bomber escort role against an as-yet undented Luftwaffe.*


----------



## Colin1 (Aug 22, 2010)

john brewer said:


> Since you love stats calculate for example a big wing in the Battle of Britain 50 Hurricanes with 8 brownings engaging a similar number of Bf109s with 2 guns and 1 cannon and defensive fire from 30 bombers.
> *Calculate what? *
> 
> Farmers put covers on their tractors as the bullets and casings still stung ...it was literally like rain..


*and this was where? directly underneath the combat? Or all over SE England? Was there a probability density function of falling spent cases peaking over the capital or can we assume uniform distribution over, say, Kent? This stuff is straight out of a boys-own comic, you would NOT want to get hit on the head by a falling spent case from a cannon but you'd probably have more chance of being killed and eaten by a lion in Piccadilly Circus*


----------



## drgondog (Aug 22, 2010)

Or finding a circus in Picadilly Circus..


----------



## Colin1 (Aug 22, 2010)

drgondog said:


> Or finding a circus in Picadilly Circus..


that as well


----------



## john brewer (Aug 22, 2010)

Colin1 said:


> *I don't know what point you're making here*



please do some research.. the men equipment and munitions required to provide air defence for the ruhrgebeit berlin munich and all other centres was equivalent to another front, it would be in interesting question as to who used most explosives the allies dropping them or the germans firing them in the air. A large part of gun manufacture was used to defend the homeland rather than fighting on east or west.

This discussion is dissapearing up its own behind.....I must admit I dont see any connection between a sopwith camel and the russians....I do see a connection between and advanced jet ( eurofighter) and a ww1 plane (camel) similarly the me262 was advanced for its day but against huge numbers of mustangs (at high altitude) and tempests thunderbolts etc etc at low altitude it had no chance. as can be seen today in afghanistan technology can only go so far even a JSF can be taken out by a guy with a kalashnikov


----------



## john brewer (Aug 22, 2010)

Colin1 said:


> *and this was where? directly underneath the combat? Or all over SE England? Was there a probability density function of falling spent cases peaking over the capital or can we assume uniform distribution over, say, Kent? This stuff is straight out of a boys-own comic, you would NOT want to get hit on the head by a falling spent case from a cannon but you'd probably have more chance of being killed and eaten by a lion in Piccadilly Circus*



you are becoming tiresome. The luftwaffe when raiding london used the same route day after day, the RAF took a similar time to scramble and so interceptions occurred in roughly the same place. No one was killed or even hurt but people who got caught underneath it it was a painful if not wierd experience, they would clatter down roof tiles and ping off the pavement. The point I was making was there were literally 10s of thousands of bullets being discharged.....The idea that all the bullets fired by the RAF only hit germans and vice versa is simply laughable. If you are shooting at full deflection and a plane travelling in the opposite direction to your target crosses your arc of fire you hit it before you can stop firing (do the math target at 400yards target and friend crossing at relative speed of 700mph)


----------



## drgondog (Aug 22, 2010)

john brewer said:


> please do some research.. the men equipment and munitions required to provide air defence for the ruhrgebeit berlin munich and all other centres was equivalent to another front, it would be in interesting question as to who used most explosives the allies dropping them or the germans firing them in the air. A large part of gun manufacture was used to defend the homeland rather than fighting on east or west.
> 
> This discussion is dissapearing up its own behind.....I must admit I dont see any connection between a sopwith camel and the russians....I do see a connection between and advanced jet ( eurofighter) and a ww1 plane (camel) similarly the me262 was advanced for its day but against huge numbers of mustangs (at high altitude) and tempests thunderbolts etc etc at low altitude it had no chance. as can be seen today in afghanistan technology can only go so far even a JSF can be taken out by a guy with a kalashnikov



Front's have a Main Line of Resistance. Flak artillary, German U-Boats, Luftwaffe Jagd Gerschwader constitutes forces deplyed - not a 'front'.

in context of high explosive (or equivalent) being equivalent to another 'Front', how would place into context the Enola Gay on August 6, 1945??

If an Me 262 flew in a straight line at 26,000 feet, heading due north at 1200 hours from Munich - how many Mustangs would it encounter? It Depends? 

Yes. It depends on how many Mustangs will intersect his vector - in how many cubic miles of empty airspace - in visual range. Increase the density and place the Me 262 with a minimum 100kt/hr speed advantage onto a populated bomber stream. Will it encounter Mustangs? It 'Depends'? Many 8th AF fighter pilots failed to encounter 262's or even see them.


----------



## john brewer (Aug 22, 2010)

Colin1 said:


> *and this was where? directly underneath the combat? Or all over SE England? Was there a probability density function of falling spent cases peaking over the capital or can we assume uniform distribution over, say, Kent? This stuff is straight out of a boys-own comic, you would NOT want to get hit on the head by a falling spent case from a cannon but you'd probably have more chance of being killed and eaten by a lion in Piccadilly Circus*



lol @ probability density function...FYI 50 hurricanes carried 133200 bullets that is 266200 bullets and cases
300 aircraft would drop 1,500,000 bullets and cases down below in 14 seconds of firing

at the height of the battle pilots were flying 6-8 sorties per day so if you say 300 planes defending the south of england kent sussex area doing 6 sorties a day that is circa 10 million per day....and you dont believe anyone got hit on the head...now you do the math for the luftwaffe you chump


----------



## steve51 (Aug 22, 2010)

drgondog,

Thank you for that link in your post #529. It is an excellent discussion of friendly fire incidents.


----------



## john brewer (Aug 22, 2010)

drgondog said:


> Front's have a Main Line of Resistance. Flak artillary, German U-Boats, Luftwaffe Jagd Gerschwader constitutes forces deplyed - not a 'front'.
> 
> in context of high explosive (or equivalent) being equivalent to another 'Front', how would place into context the Enola Gay on August 6, 1945??
> 
> ...



you are describing a front in the first world war not the second. The Atlantic war was a front which we had to control but a submarine could sink a ship anywhere from Liverpool to the USA coast, similarly German airspace was a front if the germans didnt control it their industry was crippled and cities destroyed.


The quote I made about 37 me 262 attacking an american formation clearly states that 37 was the largest group they had assembled so far....hardly surprising then that many escorts didnt see one ....eh bonny lard? Dunno what the stuff about enola gay or vectors is about...have you been drinking?


----------



## Colin1 (Aug 22, 2010)

john brewer said:


> lol @ probability density function...
> *You have a weird sense of humour*
> 
> FYI 50 hurricanes carried 133200 bullets that is 266200 bullets and cases
> ...


*Abuse, the last bastion of the defeated. The maths is so much more fun when you do it*


----------



## Colin1 (Aug 22, 2010)

john brewer said:


> ...eh bonny lard? Dunno what the stuff about Enola Gay or vectors is about...have you been drinking?



I want a pet john brewer
I'll buy him a cage, some bedding and an exercise wheel
He'll have his own box of straw to hibernate in and an unlimited supply of peanuts to store in his cheeks
I'll put him on the coffee table when I've got friends round and when they ask "What is it?" I can say "It's a john brewer"


----------



## Milosh (Aug 22, 2010)

john brewer said:


> lol @ probability density function...FYI 50 hurricanes carried 133200 bullets that is 266200 bullets and cases 300 aircraft would drop 1,500,000 bullets and cases down below in 14 seconds of firing
> 
> at the height of the battle pilots were flying 6-8 sorties per day so if you say 300 planes defending the south of england kent sussex area doing 6 sorties a day that is circa 10 million per day....and you dont believe anyone got hit on the head...now you do the math for the luftwaffe you chump



6-8 sorties per day???

Got proof!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 22, 2010)

This is the final warning to all parties involved. Do not let this debate get out of hand!


----------



## john brewer (Aug 22, 2010)

Colin1 said:


> *You inadvertently expose your lack of nous once more, for anyone else on this forum, I could have (and did) omit 'single-engined, single-seat...' If that hasn't deterred you, provide us with a detailed expose on how you think the Mosquito would have fared in the daylight bomber escort role against an as-yet undented Luftwaffe.*


Firstly I was being entirely tongue in cheek when mentioning the mosquito...they were bombers not the fighter variant but they did get under Goerings skin 

OK here goes
All major protagonists in WW2 were barking up completely the wrong tree. 

The conventional wisdom is that populations could easily be bombed into submission with the exception of Japan this has never been any where near being proved Neither Britain Germany Japan Italy in WW2 or the vietnamese koreans after...it was a theory that simply didnt work.

Similarly the idea that precision daylight bombing could surgically remove important industries no heavy bomber managed the precision required in a combat situation. smart bombs can do it today but it still doesnt win the war

The heavy bombers used by the allies could not defend themselves during the day or hit anything but a city at night. The theory that heavily armed bombers could defend themselves and make it to the target cost thousands of lives and merely meant that for example a B17 on a long mission carried so much fuel and armament that its bomb load was little more than a mosquito and they crawled to the target.

I read in one article on the Mosquito that after the Mosquito went into service the RAF never placed one more defensive gun on any aircraft, like a turreted fighter (BP Defiant) it was a theory that didnt work.

All examination of bombs dropped against bombs on target shows the Mosquito knocked all others into a cocked hat on any basis you care to measure (cost losses accuracy). If the philosophy had been different and a mosquito or similar with griffon engines using speed not guns as a defence things may have been different. Mosquitos (bomber variant) were much easier to escort because they were so much faster although mosquitos were able to drop bombs in daylight without escort with the luftwaffe at full strength using sppeed and surprise.



there how was that?


BTW Japan did surrender but that required 2 nuclear bombs....having been to the peace park at Hiroshima its a bad way to win a conflict


----------



## john brewer (Aug 22, 2010)

Milosh said:


> 6-8 sorties per day???
> 
> Got proof!



Milosh you obviously havnt read much so instead of so instead of posting "got proof" go read a book....june july in UK has daylight hours of 4AM to 9.30PM and BTW many german fighters were doing the same


----------



## pbfoot (Aug 22, 2010)

john brewer said:


> Milosh you obviously havnt read much so instead of so instead of posting "got proof" go read a book....june july in UK has daylight hours of 4AM to 9.30PM and BTW many german fighters were doing the same


that means the aircraft is airborne for 8 hrs a day now if you add turn arounds of 15 - 20 minutes that means 11-12 hours , thats not even including snags


----------



## john brewer (Aug 22, 2010)

Colin1 said:


> *Abuse, the last bastion of the defeated. The maths is so much more fun when you do it*



sorry for rounding the numbers and not subtracting 
1 bullets which hit german fighters
2 bullets which hit friendly fighters
3 bullets not fired because the guns jammed


truth is you and others thought it was silly for people to be scared irritated or annoyed about bullets and casings...when you do the numbers the number of bullets falling in a comparatively small area is staggering


----------



## john brewer (Aug 22, 2010)

pbfoot said:


> that means the aircraft is airborne for 8 hrs a day now if you add turn arounds of 15 - 20 minutes that means 11-12 hours , thats not even including snags



1 , why do you think the pilots were falling asleep as soon as they touched down? and someone here accused me of disrespecting the pilots 

2 some sorties lasted minutes....squadrons were scrambled just so they wernt bombed on the ground as soon as ammunition was exhausted (14 seconds firing) that was sortie over


----------



## john brewer (Aug 22, 2010)

Colin1 said:


> I want a pet john brewer
> I'll buy him a cage, some bedding and an exercise wheel
> He'll have his own box of straw to hibernate in and an unlimited supply of peanuts to store in his cheeks
> I'll put him on the coffee table when I've got friends round and when they ask "What is it?" I can say "It's a john brewer"




colin .........as with many forums this one has its "regs" who are invariably a pain in the ass...you are conspicuously a pain in the ass........what is this apart from juvenile abuse 
I want a pet john brewer
I'll buy him a cage, some bedding and an exercise wheel
He'll have his own box of straw to hibernate in and an unlimited supply of peanuts to store in his cheeks
I'll put him on the coffee table when I've got friends round and when they ask "What is it?" I can say "It's a john brewer"[/QUOTE]

bonny lard


----------



## pbfoot (Aug 22, 2010)

john brewer said:


> 1 , why do you think the pilots were falling asleep as soon as they touched down? and someone here accused me of disrespecting the pilots
> 
> 2 some sorties lasted minutes....squadrons were scrambled just so they wernt bombed on the ground as soon as ammunition was exhausted (14 seconds firing) that was sortie over


that is why I rounded it off to a low number like an hour when they were capable of 1.3 to 1.15 hours , sometimes a little knowledge is a dangerous thing


----------



## john brewer (Aug 22, 2010)

pbfoot said:


> that is why I rounded it off to a low number like an hour when they were capable of 1.3 to 1.15 hours , sometimes a little knowledge is a dangerous thing




colin 4.30 AM to 9.30PM is 17 hours that is 2-3 hrs to each sortie ...........when it comes to little knowledge you hold all the cards ....Einstein 

you dont seem to know how many hours there are in a day


to assist you 3hrs x6 sorties is 18hrs
2hrs x8 sorties is 16 hrs


----------



## Glider (Aug 22, 2010)

john brewer said:


> colin .........as with many forums this one has its "regs" who are invariably a pain in the ass...you are conspicuously a pain in the ass........what is this apart from juvenile abuse
> I want a pet john brewer
> I'll buy him a cage, some bedding and an exercise wheel
> He'll have his own box of straw to hibernate in and an unlimited supply of peanuts to store in his cheeks
> I'll put him on the coffee table when I've got friends round and when they ask "What is it?" I can say "It's a john brewer"



bonny lard[/QUOTE]

The problem I am afraid is that if you act like an ass you will be treated as an ass.

The only thing anyone has initially asked for is something that supports your sometimes unexpected comments. I know that I have asked you 
a) Twice how you arrived at the 10% figure for blue on blue losses.
b) How you arrived at the comment about the P51 was more at risk than others for stalling in a turing combat 
c) Others have asked how you arrived or have examples of RAF pilots flew up to 8 missions a day.

On a) and b) you have just ignored the question and on c) the comments made indicate to me that you are guessing at potential reasons why it might happen, not an example of when it did happen.

I invite you to prove me and others wrong and support these statements with evidence or examples.


----------



## drgondog (Aug 22, 2010)

john brewer said:


> you are describing a front in the first world war not the second. The Atlantic war was a front which we had to control but a submarine could sink a ship anywhere from Liverpool to the USA coast, similarly German airspace was a front if the germans didnt control it their industry was crippled and cities destroyed.
> 
> *In the context of MLR? the term has vaidity today for any set piece engagement.
> 
> ...



As much as I can when I get into a what seems to be a dialogue with ?? How do you define yourself?

As to Enola Gay you zipped off into a tangent describing German flak defense

You said - *'please do some research.. the men equipment and munitions required to provide air defence for the ruhrgebeit berlin munich and all other centres was equivalent to another front, it would be in interesting question as to who used most explosives the allies dropping them or the germans firing them in the air. A large part of gun manufacture was used to defend the homeland rather than fighting on east or west.'*

I took that to infer that you thought volume of fire or munitions is equivalent to another 'front'. I merely asked you that if an equivalence of firepower pointed to a front, then where does the Enola Gay work into your 'front' definition?

John - you have been an amusement but methinks the effort to stay with your ramblings is more than the value of poking fun at your curious notion of 'reality'.. have a good day!


----------



## parsifal (Aug 22, 2010)

Before this thread gets shut down....and thats a certainty now, BECAUSE PEOPLE ARE SIMPLY NOT ACTING LIKE ADULTS I thought I would try and summarise the issues that have domninated this thread for the last 100 or so posts. 

It seems that the first point of contention was this claim that 10% of losses were due to friendly fire incidents. My opinion is that no doubt there were FF losses, but nowhere near that proportion. I have detailed daily loss sheets for every engagement from February through to July 1941, and having now looked at thoses losses, including loses at night, the losses due to FF incidents was about 2% of the total losses. Maybe there were other trends in other theartes, but apart from vagyue gneralities, we have not seen any hard information to back that claim up. 

The second point of contention seems to be that the allies,, whether they be western or Soviet, won simply by overwhelming the defences with numbers. We have had this discussion so many times before its almost laughable, facts are that numbers did play a part, but only a part. The case in point in this particular argument revolves around the 262.....if only a moderately larger proportion of the force structure was Me 262s, then the losses for the allies would have been prohibitively heavy....well all I can say is maybe, but there is nothing in the statistics to support that. Me 262 formations were not greatly more successful than conventional types in shooting down enemey (allied) bombers. They were good at surviving, but this was more than offset by the non-combat related attrition that the type suffered due to its teething issues. Therer were good reasons why despite producing more than 1300 of the type, the Germans could only ever field about 100 at any given time. Given time, it might have made a difference, but in the context of late 1944, not a chance

The third point is the relative effectiveness of bombing, whether that be by four engined heavy bombers, or more tactical types. I happen to believe that a greater role by the Mosquito types of this world may have helped, but then to turn around and say that the entire strategic bombing campaigns by all nations was a waste of time, is highly debateable. There are numerous analyses to refute that position. The USSBS estimates that the bomber offensive against Germany accounted for 40% of her productive potential. It killed approximately 1million people, diverted 80% of artilleryto home defence Flak, accounted for 56% of total Reich defence exenditure into Reich defences (aircraft production, civil defence etc) absorbed 1.5 million men that could be otherwise employed at the front, and forced the withdrawal of the LW from the tactical fronts to the defence of the Reich itself. The LW tore its heart out trying to defend Germany from the effects of this so-called inneffective campaign. Speer thought that any more raids like Hamburg (July 1943) would have forced Germany to the peace table. 

Bombing was only unsuccessful if measured against the unrealistic claims made before the war. It was a highly important instrument leading to the defeat of Germany. 

Its a pity this discussion will not see another 24 hours. We could have expanded all our knowledge if people had acted a little more a maturely.


----------



## john brewer (Aug 22, 2010)

drgondog said:


> As much as I can when I get into a what seems to be a dialogue with ?? How do you define yourself?
> 
> As to Enola Gay you zipped off into a tangent describing German flak defense
> 
> ...



The Atlantic front is between UK and North America when you control it you can transport goods across it when you dont you cant.....The question was who lost most the germans attacking it or the Allies defending it and who could afford the losses. Similarly North Africa and Italy were fronts which had no real significance apart from costing both sides men and munitions. The germans expended huge resources protecting their airspace with ground fire radar and aircraft. Since all fronts are to wear down the opposition the air over germany was a front to them just as the battle of britain and protection of our airspace was a front to us.

The bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was not the most deadly attack on Japan, firebombing tokyop killed more, the nuclear bombing served only to persuade the Japanese military and emperor that they had no chance ....dunno whether that qualifies as a front or not....its sad though


I dont know whether you could describe one airplane as a front....The nuclear attacks on Japan certainly changed warfare


----------



## john brewer (Aug 22, 2010)

parsifal said:


> Before this thread gets shut down....and thats a certainty now, BECAUSE PEOPLE ARE SIMPLY NOT ACTING LIKE ADULTS I thought I would try and summarise the issues that have domninated this thread for the last 100 or so posts.
> 
> It seems that the first point of contention was this claim that 10% of losses were due to friendly fire incidents. My opinion is that no doubt there were FF losses, but nowhere near that proportion. I have detailed daily loss sheets for every engagement from February through to July 1941, and having now looked at thoses losses, including loses at night, the losses due to FF incidents was about 2% of the total losses. Maybe there were other trends in other theartes, but apart from vagyue gneralities, we have not seen any hard information to back that claim up.
> 
> ...




Parsifal thankyou. 

whereas we may disagree (although no need for us to) about percentages I did read that as an estimate. Friendly fire in war is a bit taboo even now. Basically if you open fire you must be firing on the enemy, if you dont then you must have identified a friend. When Sailor malan shot down those hurricanes he didnt report shooting down hurricanes but Me109s. Its like the spitfire snobbery of the luftwaffe they all seemed to be shot down by spitfires even though hurricanes made approx 75% of kills. If I was a gunner in a B17 I doubt whether I could tell a 109 from a mustang approaching at 400MPH and if one was chasing the other I could easily fire at one and hit the other.

I am not constructing a scenario where germany could have won. In my opinion so long as Germany didnt succesfully invade the UK then the USSR would eventually have beaten Germany. People refer to the bombing campaign as ineffective only in its bombing accuracy....the real reason was to wear germany down and occupy it defending itself and not fighting in the east west or anywhere else which is why I refereed to it as a front. The stats you quote for men and materials show that defending german airspace cost more than trying to defend Normandy and france.


Britain USA and Germany all believed in strategic bombing but had only theories as to how to get it done. none of the bombers did what they were supposed to do bomb unaided in daylight and bombing a city didnt achieve what everyone predicted. I have read Speers comments before but he was wrong. even flattening berlin and dresden in what became completely unoposed raids didnt bring about surrender. 

Thje mosquito was basically laughed at when first seen it didnt fit into what a bomber should be....it turned out to be the best all round bomber in the RAF


----------



## Milosh (Aug 22, 2010)

john brewer said:


> Milosh you obviously havnt read much so instead of so instead of posting "got proof" go read a book....june july in UK has daylight hours of 4AM to 9.30PM and BTW many german fighters were doing the same



Actually I have read much on the BoB which is why I asked for proof. Must not be the same books you have read. Since you are being evasive and back up your statement, I take it you can't answer. 

Sept 15 1940

During the day of 15th September - 115 patrols involving 705 sorties by 47.5 squadrons.

First Major Attack

At 1100 hours enemy aircraft began to mass in the Calais/Boulogne area and at 1130 hours the leading wave of about 100 aircraft crossed the coast between Dover and Dungeness, followed by a second wave of 150 aircraft. Objectives appeared to be in the London district.

No 11 Group sent up 16 Squadrons to meet the attack, and No 12 Group provided 5 Squadrons to patrol Debden and Hornchurch.

Approximately 100 enemy aircraft succeeded in reaching Central London.

Second Major Attack

At 1400 hours a wave of approximately 150 enemy aircraft crossed the coast near Dover, followed by a second wave of 100 aircraft. These formations spread over South-east and South-west Kent and the Maidstone area, and about 70 penetrated Central London.

No 11 Group sent up 16 Squadrons and No 12 Group 4 Squadrons. Targets in South London and railways in London and Kent appeared to be the chief objectives.

Attack on Portland

At 1530 hours a formation of 25 enemy aircraft attacked Portland. It was engaged and successfully driven off by our fighters.

Attack on Southampton

At 1725 hours about 50 enemy aircraft flew over the Isle of Wight and attacked objectives in the Southampton district. This formation was intercepted and driven off by 6½ Squadrons. 

from The Battle of Britain - Home Page

*Hardly the 6-8 sorties per day you stated.*

Btw,11 Group consisted of 28 squadrons and 12 Group consisted of 15 squadrons.


----------



## john brewer (Aug 22, 2010)

Glider said:


> bonny lard



The problem I am afraid is that if you act like an ass you will be treated as an ass.

The only thing anyone has initially asked for is something that supports your sometimes unexpected comments. I know that I have asked you 
a) Twice how you arrived at the 10% figure for blue on blue losses.
b) How you arrived at the comment about the P51 was more at risk than others for stalling in a turing combat 
c) Others have asked how you arrived or have examples of RAF pilots flew up to 8 missions a day.

On a) and b) you have just ignored the question and on c) the comments made indicate to me that you are guessing at potential reasons why it might happen, not an example of when it did happen.

I invite you to prove me and others wrong and support these statements with evidence or examples.[/QUOTE]

a I didnt arrive at it I read it it seems reasonable to me in a conflict like the BoB if it doesnt to you well then we will just disagree.....people dont brag about friendly fire
b didnt say it was more at risk did I again I read it and also heard it on an interview discussing the relative merits of fighters
c again I read it


I am still waiting for the washout of the mustang thunderbolt hurricane and Me109...I am reliably informed they all had washout but ive only read about it on a spitfire...it made the wings hard and expensive to make


----------



## drgondog (Aug 22, 2010)

> I am still waiting for the washout of the mustang thunderbolt hurricane and Me109...I am reliably informed they all had washout but ive only read about it on a spitfire...it made the wings hard and expensive to make



The SPECIFIC washout for the P-51A-K was 1 degree, for the P-51H it was one degree 18 minutes....the washout for the Fw 190 was 1 1/2 degrees for ~ the external 25% span, while the Mustang was continuous. I would have to take the time to look up the P-47 and the Me 109 specifics - but, candidly I don't care.

With well designed tooling it is no harder to make than for a wing with no washout...

On the other hand a wing with no washout is less stable in roll at low speeds and/or high angles of attack because the wingtip region tends to stall out at the same time as the inboard wing..

You don't listen John, nor do you absorb what you have already been told on this forum. I mentioned yesterday that all of them were in the 1 1/2 degree 'range'... and that ALL had washout as a design feature. Therfore I am wondering what you are waiting for. Look it up!

Washout tends to improve the spanwise lift distribution of a non-elliptical wing to more closely approximate the elliptical distribution found for elliptical planform wings as well as improve aileron control at the low speed of the airplane's performance threshold. 

The eliptical wing represents the lowest possible induced drag plan form, but a well designed trapezoidal wing with a good tip/chord ratio and wing twist with approximately 1-1 1/2 degrees of twist will close the gap significantly.

Edit - having said this there is a slight increase in inviscid drag due to wing twist.


----------



## john brewer (Aug 22, 2010)

Colin1 said:


> *and this was where? directly underneath the combat? Or all over SE England? Was there a probability density function of falling spent cases peaking over the capital or can we assume uniform distribution over, say, Kent? This stuff is straight out of a boys-own comic, you would NOT want to get hit on the head by a falling spent case from a cannon but you'd probably have more chance of being killed and eaten by a lion in Piccadilly Circus*



read this

As they returned to Biggin Hill, children watched in breathless excitement. One elderly man, in those days a small boy, says wryly, 'I was aeroplane-mad anyway'.
Like all his generation, he thrilled to the sight of Hurricanes roaring overhead, the clatter of battle debris falling from the sky onto roads and into fields. 'Shrapnel filled the air like rain - hot rain.' 

not boys own...what happened .......i have read many such statements


----------



## Njaco (Aug 22, 2010)

wow, my eyes and brain hurt.

JB, you've got some misinformation about the BoB -


_" 6 to 8 sorties a day"_
Squadron log of RAF No. 74 squadron (Manston and Hornchurch: Spitfire I and II) commanded by South Africa's "Sailor" Malan - read:- "take off at 0749 hrs., second patrol: take off 0950, third patrol: take off 1145, fourth patrol: take off 1356." Thats for 11 August 1940, hardly the 6 to 8. This was the more common amount although on a few, very few days it might reach 6 sorties.

"_The Luftwaffe used the same routes all the time"_
Hardly. Tactics and routes and equipment used changed on a weekly basis. Why would Fighter Command need radar if the Luftwaffe came over the same way all the time?

_"the clatter of battle debris falling from the sky onto roads and into fields. 'Shrapnel filled the air like rain - hot rain._' "
Shrapnel is not the same as bullets although it may include them. You have to sit back and look at this whole scenario. There may have been 200 planes vs 200 planes but they were not occupying the exact same square mile of sky. They were spread out with individual combats taking place over a wide range. And the figures you gave several posts ago didn't take into account that at least 25% to 50% of the action would take place over water. Yes, debris and bullets did fall but I doubt you could walk from Portsmouth to Glasgow without touching a blade of grass for the amount of junk falling from the sky.




> .......i have read many such statements


How about some sources?


----------



## parsifal (Aug 23, 2010)

John 

so, are you saying that losses to FF were about 10% or were they less as is shown by the actual squadron daily loss sheets?:

Are you saying strat bombing as a campaign was sucessful or unsuccessful. I hear you when you say it did not turn out as had been envisaged in the pre-war planning, but that was not the position you adopted in your earlier post. Did it have an appreciable effect on the outcome of the war. Was it worthwhile, or was it a waste of time, in your opinion?

I acknowledge that you dont accept the opinions of the Reich armaments minister, and to a degree you may be right, however, I also think his assessments were at least partially plausible. At the time the Hamburg raids were the most devastating in history....50000 dead, with over 250000 homeless. The city did not return to any meaningful level of production for 4 months, and never returned to pre-raid levels of production ever. If only that could have been repeated in the vital Ruhr district, things may have been different. Instead, Harris committed the strategic blunder of pressing onto Berlin, a hard target if ever there was one. All this raises a question.....if you dont believe Speer, the USSBS(which reaches similar conclusions) and other sources, who then are you relying on. I would like to examine the evidence....


----------



## Colin1 (Aug 23, 2010)

john brewer said:


> The bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was not the most deadly attack on Japan, fire-bombing Tokyo killed more
> *and in the 65 years since both events, how many has the fire-bombing continued to kill?*
> 
> the nuclear bombing served only to persuade the Japanese military and emperor that they had no chance
> ...


*The answer, John, is you couldn't, it demonstrates clearly why your notion of a front breaks down under scrutiny*


----------



## Colin1 (Aug 23, 2010)

Parsifal
I regard you as one of the read-up, well-informed members of the forum and I don't want to get into the wrong sort of argument with you for any reason, but:



parsifal said:


> Its a pity this discussion will not see another 24 hours


Why?



parsifal said:


> We could have expanded all our knowledge if people had acted a little more a maturely


How?

This individual walked a ragged line of rapid-fire glib statements and unsubstantiated half-truths, his response to questions on those submissions was to fire off another, unrelated volley. He still hasn't substantiated the statement he made about 10% of BoB kills going to friendly fire. What were we going to learn from him?

Several posters, most eminently more qualified than I tried to correct or substantiate on his behalf some of the mostly incoherent babble that he was coming out with, he either ignored it or failed to understand it. What was he going to learn from us?

The last straw was aiming defamatory remarks at said eminently qualified posters. At what point did you think dialog with JB was salvageable?

I wouldn't condone my own behaviour for a second but I'm finding it difficult to come up with an apology, he behaved like an ass.


----------



## Kurfürst (Aug 23, 2010)

drgondog said:


> The SPECIFIC washout for the P-51A-K was 1 degree, for the P-51H it was one degree 18 minutes....the washout for the Fw 190 was 1 1/2 degrees for ~ the external 25% span, while the Mustang was continuous. I would have to take the time to look up the P-47 and the Me 109 specifics - but, candidly I don't care.



Just as a matter of interest AFAIK - and I could be well wrong in this! - the 109 didn't have washout at all, as it had leading edge slats to perform the same function instead.


----------



## parsifal (Aug 23, 2010)

Hi colin

I hope that my prediction was wrong, but my reasons for saying what I did relates to the fact that people were continuing to hurl abuse at each other despite repeated warnings from Adler. We will have to wait and see his reaction to what has transpired. Hopefully he will relent by seeing that things have calmed down a little and let the thread continue. But we more mature and senior memebers have to live by the standards of this place, and set the example, even if the newer young turks decide they are not going to behave properly.

I understand the frustrations with this guy, he doesnt answer the questions put to him and tends to shift about in his position from post to post. That still doesnt mean we can drop our standards....if anything we have to exercise even more self restraint than when we are dealing with more familiar members.

I understand the frustration, I really do. Lord knows I have lost patience with people on a number of occasions. Still doesnt make it right. People are entitled to take whatever position they like. People are free in this place to express whatever opinions they like, but we are not allowed to deride each other.

When I see this sort of thing happening, I try and remember that convincing the poster I am responding to is not necessarily the main game. Ther are a lot of onlookers to this forum....this particular thread has had just under 600 posts, but over 30000 hits. The silent onlookers are looking at us all the time. They are the important ones to convince.

Hope that explains why I said what I did


----------



## john brewer (Aug 23, 2010)

parsifal said:


> John
> 
> so, are you saying that losses to FF were about 10% or were they less as is shown by the actual squadron daily loss sheets?:
> 
> ...



Parsifal

what I am saying is that for (for example) both sides claimed approximately 2 times the kills they actually made so they wernt sure of what they hit or missed. In the case of hitting a target the pilot automatically claims a kill even though it was FF (this happened with Sailor Malan) Sim ilarly all evidence now points to Bader being shot down by a spitfire, the spitfire claimed a 109 and Bader himself said he was shot down by a German. Similarly two planes attacking a bomber and colliding would be claimed as two kills by the bomber

quote
Recent research indicates that Bader was shot down – but by a Spitfire. By 1941, the shape of the Me 109 had changed to resemble the more curved shape of the Spitfire. It is possible that Bader, in the chaos of battle, joined a flight of Me 109’s (mistaking them for Spitfires) before pulling away from them once he realised his mistake. Another Spitfire pilot, Buck Casson, saw the ‘lone’ Me 109 and attacked it to such an extent that the tail of the Spitfire with the DB recognition was shot off. In his post-flight report, Casson clearly stated that he saw a lone Me 109 peeling away from others. He attacked it and shot it down. Yet the sole Luftwaffe plane shot down that day has been accounted for. Given the speed both planes flew at and the merest of seconds any fighter pilot had to make a decision, it would appear that Bader was shot down by another Spitfire.

unquote
In the above Bader miss identified the Me 109s and Casson missidentified baders spitfire

At the time of the battle people were only interested in kills and losses friendly fire wasnt much talked about unless it was chronic like ack ack batteries shooting at everything. In the melee of a battle pilots crossed others paths and got hit missidentified friend and foe it was chaos. Malan was cleared at the court martial, he probably wouldnt have been cleared if he reported that he shot down a hurricane, no one would ever admit to a friendly fire kill even iff they knew they had done it.

The figure of 10% is a ball park, no one knows for sure or will ever know, it has more to do with the psychology of pilots under battle conditions. The main factor in identification seems to have been not what a plane looks like but where it is coming from or going too. A twin engined plane heading from france was seen as enemy when it could be RAF, a single seat fighter climbing towards a bomber formation was seen as a friend when it could be a 109. It was only at very close quarters that actual visual recognition played a part.


----------



## john brewer (Aug 23, 2010)

Colin1 said:


> *The answer, John, is you couldn't, it demonstrates clearly why your notion of a front breaks down under scrutiny*


If you consider the airspace over Japan as a front then Japan lost it a long time before the enola gay dropped the bomb. However for the Japanese many prefered suicide to surrender and for the Americans and Allies to invade Japan would have cost millions of lives on both sides. Losing control of the front in the air lead to Japans surrender but that doesnt make the enola gay a front as it didnt win control, it was able to drop the bomb unhindered because of the fact though.

and in the 65 years since both events, how many has the fire-bombing continued to kill?
*The people who died after the surrender did not have any effect on the decision to surrender]


the Japanese military weren't persuaded, they were to the right of hard-line and were more than ready to fight to the last, it was the Emperor alone who was persuaded

I said the military and the emperor didnt I? I wasnt there when the military discussed the situation with Hirohito, the Japanese are different to others, the military had to fight on, it was what honour demanded in their code. Whether they believed they had any chance or even wanted to was immaterial, the Emperor was a God on earth*


----------



## Glider (Aug 23, 2010)

john brewer said:


> Parsifal
> 
> The figure of 10% is a ball park, no one knows for sure or will ever know, it has more to do with the psychology of pilots under battle conditions. The main factor in identification seems to have been not what a plane looks like but where it is coming from or going too. A twin engined plane heading from france was seen as enemy when it could be RAF, a single seat fighter climbing towards a bomber formation was seen as a friend when it could be a 109. It was only at very close quarters that actual visual recognition played a part.



The 10% figure isn't a ball park figure, its a guess, a wild guess, a wild guess based on nothing, if fact its a wild guress based on absolutely nothing. A ball park figure is an estimate based on some research or information.
The implication seems to be that because Bader was shot down by a Spitfire 10% of all losses of all airforces were Blue on Blue. A pretty amazing leap of logic that left me way behind. 

Suggest you pick a unit, track its losses and than come up with a figure.


----------



## john brewer (Aug 23, 2010)

Are you saying strat bombing as a campaign was sucessful or unsuccessful. I hear you when you say it did not turn out as had been envisaged in the pre-war planning, but that was not the position you adopted in your earlier post. Did it have an appreciable effect on the outcome of the war. Was it worthwhile, or was it a waste of time, in your opinion?

The strategic bombing campaign had a major effect on the war in my opinion but not quite in the way the planners imagined. It was possible to flatten major cities without the enemy being demoralised, it wasnt possible to easily hit idustrial targets by day or night, massive bomb loads were required and industries managed to re locate hide and re start production. The surprise to me is that anyone was surprised at Germany they were only doing what the British did.....we spread aircraft production evacuated cities etc. 
Churchill and the government were anxious that bombing may wreck moral and the will to fight it had the opposite effect in Britain so i will never understand why they thought it would work on Germany, bombing at night time especially was so innacurate that the raids on berlin frequently moved rubble from on place to another. 


I acknowledge that you dont accept the opinions of the Reich armaments minister, and to a degree you may be right, however, I also think his assessments were at least partially plausible. At the time the Hamburg raids were the most devastating in history....50000 dead, with over 250000 homeless. The city did not return to any meaningful level of production for 4 months, and never returned to pre-raid levels of production ever. If only that could have been repeated in the vital Ruhr district, things may have been different. Instead, Harris committed the strategic blunder of pressing onto Berlin, a hard target if ever there was one. All this raises a question.....if you dont believe Speer, the USSBS(which reaches similar conclusions) and other sources, who then are you relying on. I would like to examine the evidence....[/QUOTE]

Hamburg was a special case for bombing...being a coastal target it was easily identified by radar from the coast outline and was easily approached over the sea so ground defence wasnt possible. I have worked in the Ruhr area (Dusseldorf/ Mulheim/Essen) they were flattened during the war but night time bombing only was capable of hitting a city Germany still managed to produce steel tanks and planes until very late in the war.
I agree that harris made a blunder in going for berlin, it was inexplicable to me because he was repeating
hitler/the luftwaffes blunder with london. maybe he thought more bombers with bigger payloads would achieve the desired effect of a surrender through strategic bombing. History showed it wasnt achieved.
I dont know what "evidence" you require Speer was wrong because the allies went on to kill many more in berlin dresden and many other cities without any of these raids bringing about a surrender......they did have a major impact though. speer didnt know that the terrain radar used on Hamburg didnt work nearly so well inland.


----------



## drgondog (Aug 23, 2010)

Kurfürst said:


> Just as a matter of interest AFAIK - and I could be well wrong in this! - the 109 didn't have washout at all, as it had leading edge slats to perform the same function instead.



Kurfurst - I would respect your opinion re: Me 109 above all. 

Having said that it is possible that the 109 did not have any twist but improbable that the leading edge slats alone would provide adequate compensation for some washout benefits for the ailerons.

I need to think about the 'how'. 

What the slats did superbly is provide low speed boundary layer control over the wing aft of the slatted region at high angles of attack.. but offhand I am at a loss regarding whether the region outboard of the slats would stall later than the slatted area.

Theoretically the slats delay stall at increasing AoA but the leading edge outboard of the slats should experience the same AoA as an un-slatted wing.

When you have a chance see if you can verify zero twist?


----------



## john brewer (Aug 23, 2010)

drgondog said:


> The SPECIFIC washout for the P-51A-K was 1 degree, for the P-51H it was one degree 18 minutes....the washout for the Fw 190 was 1 1/2 degrees for ~ the external 25% span, while the Mustang was continuous. I would have to take the time to look up the P-47 and the Me 109 specifics - but, candidly I don't care.
> 
> With well designed tooling it is no harder to make than for a wing with no washout...
> 
> ...



From what I read the eliptical wing has the lowest drag but will stall without warning therefore the wing was designed with washout so the inner wing stalls before the outer wing giving the pilot some feel or control. The washout on the mustang was to reduce drag (as you say) I dont know how the same twist on one wing increases drag (eliptical) and on another reduces it but thats what the article Ive just read says without describing any difference in the washout they had the same design feature for different reasons.

All planes will stall eventually I just read and heard that a mustang gave little or no warning......i will try to find the articles


----------



## Colin1 (Aug 23, 2010)

john brewer said:


> However for the Japanese many preferred suicide to surrender
> *How many? Do we have a percentage? A ratio of soldiers vs civilians? How many wanted to, how many felt they ought to and how many were too terrified of the military to say otherwise? Or is this another ballpark statement?*
> 
> and for the Americans and Allies to invade Japan would have cost millions of lives on both sides.
> ...


*You didn't have to be there, first-hand experience is not a premise for comprehension of events. The military were split, some WANTED to fight on. Hirohito had to intervene by casting his own vote (that's right, it came down to a show of hands) to sway the decision in favour of surrender.*


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 23, 2010)

Colin1 said:


> Parsifal
> I regard you as one of the read-up, well-informed members of the forum and I don't want to get into the wrong sort of argument with you for any reason, but:
> 
> 
> ...



The thread will not be closed, but if people can not debate in a mature manner, they will take a vacation to the beach. That goes for everyone involved. Especially if I am ignored one more time when I tell people to quit with the BS.


----------



## john brewer (Aug 23, 2010)

Glider said:


> The 10% figure isn't a ball park figure, its a guess, a wild guess, a wild guess based on nothing, if fact its a wild guress based on absolutely nothing. A ball park figure is an estimate based on some research or information.
> The implication seems to be that because Bader was shot down by a Spitfire 10% of all losses of all airforces were Blue on Blue. A pretty amazing leap of logic that left me way behind.
> 
> Suggest you pick a unit, track its losses and than come up with a figure.



I used Bader as an example, in one action he misidentified some 109s and joined them he them got shot down and misidentified the spitfire as german (despite being in a spitfire himself) while the spitfire pilot shot down another spitfire (the same as he was flying) thinking it was a german. That is three cases in one action by very experienced pilots which until recently was claimed as 1 lost me 109 and 1 lost spitfire it was only because only one other me 109 was lost that day and accounted for that this was found out. Since the above records involving britains most celebrated fighter pilot were completely wrong which records do you want me to research then? and what would be the point such investigations only lead to pilots like Casson being deducted 1 kill and told they shot down a comrade when he was doing his best but made a mistake.

Show me a squadron record that has any mention of friendly fire that is a pilot saying" I shot down one of our own" by your own standards you must be able to find 2% (good luck on that one) and then look at the claims which on both sides overestimated by at least 100%, it is that discrepancy that provides the logic for 10% that is 10% of enemy claimed shot down and wernt were actually FF.

In another case a pilot claimed a 109 but his gun cam showed it was a 262....that is he hadnt a clue what he hit just that he hit something if it was a mustang he would have hit that too.

Almost all german pilots claimed to be shot down by spitfires which means they probably didnt see the plane at all (Bader probably didnt) if they didnt know what it was but said it was a spitfire it could just as easily been a 109

The typhoon was mistakenly involved in FF so often they painted stripes on the wings, during D Day all planes had D Day stripes due to experience in other theatres like Dieppe and Anzio you say 2% I say I read 10% and believe it.....lets leave it at that


----------



## drgondog (Aug 23, 2010)

john brewer said:


> From what I read the eliptical wing has the lowest drag but will stall without warning therefore the wing was designed with washout so the inner wing stalls before the outer wing giving the pilot some feel or control. The washout on the mustang was to reduce drag (as you say) I dont know how the same twist on one wing increases drag (eliptical) and on another reduces it but thats what the article Ive just read says without describing any difference in the washout they had the same design feature for different reasons.
> 
> All planes will stall eventually I just read and heard that a mustang gave little or no warning......i will try to find the articles



The elliptical planform has the lowest induced drag of any wing planform - all other factors being equal. Consequently when you introduce twist to the wing with the least induced drag profile possible (Elliptical planform), you will ADD a component of inviscid drag above the optimal.

When you add twist to other wing plan form shapes (eg Trapezoidal) it 'shoves' the lift distribution 'profile' closer toward the optimum 'elliptical' Lift Distribution - There is a threshold of twist which represents the minimum Cd for that planform. For the Mustang that might be (I haven't seen the data) 1/2 degree to achieve the lowest possible drag for that wing. However, for handling purposes more twist is often added to improve handling characteristics, such as delayed stall over ailerons as the inboard wing lift distribution stalls out at high Angles of attack.

This 'extra' twist is accounted for in Cd of lift dependent drag components. There is a Planform component as well as zero lift drag due to the twist.

I am not totally interested in articles which describe "stall with little or no warning" unless an explanation is present to define the phrase. My own experience (and others with far more time than my own) is as I described it.. you get classic control buffeting input to the stick along with vibration noise - and if you pull a little harder the bottom drops out. A Mustang may take more altitude to recover than some other ships but virtually all high performance, medium to high wing loading, high torque fighters are nasty suprises when they depart.

In my personal experience the stall characteristics of a Mustang that stalls at the peak of a steep climb is nastier than the 'reefer stall'. You reach a point at the stall when the flow past the rudder and ailerons 'goes' and you get a huge torque roll that you can no longer control with rudder or ailerons - then it is 'katy bar the door'.

I have never flown any of the other warbirds other than AT-6 but I imagine that the 109 and 190 had similar nasty characteristics... I have heard from several pilots that have flown the 190 (including my father) that the 190 was another bird that had viscious stall characteristics when it departed.




"Stall without warning" is an elusive phrase.


----------



## john brewer (Aug 23, 2010)

Colin1 said:


> *You didn't have to be there, first-hand experience is not a premise for comprehension of events. The military were split, some WANTED to fight on. Hirohito had to intervene by casting his own vote (that's right, it came down to a show of hands) to sway the decision in favour of surrender.*



Didnt I say the military and the emperor?...........you say there was a show of hands but that I was wrong to say the military and the emperor if only the emperor wanted to stop he would have lost his show of hands but previously you said I was wrong.

Some in the military were unconcerned about losses (death was honourable) and they thought by causing massive losses to the allies they could get a contitional (honourable) halt to fighting as opposed to an unconditional ( dishonourable) surrender.


----------



## parsifal (Aug 23, 2010)

_what I am saying is that for (for example) both sides claimed approximately 2 times the kills they actually made so they wernt sure of what they hit or missed. In the case of hitting a target the pilot automatically claims a kill even though it was FF (this happened with Sailor Malan) Sim ilarly all evidence now points to Bader being shot down by a spitfire, the spitfire claimed a 109 and Bader himself said he was shot down by a German. Similarly two planes attacking a bomber and colliding would be claimed as two kills by the bomber_

There is no consistency in the extent of overclaiming, it varied wildly. There is a thread I have been involved with, concerning the Zero versus the Spitfire in the pacific. In that thread we discussed the heavy Spitfire losses over Darwin. The Allied claims for Zeroes shot down over a three month period was something like 28.....they actuallly shot down four. Conversely, the british victory claims over France in 1941 were only about 60% over actual losses. And many of those battles were fought at night, or over enemy territory. There just isnt any trend in the way that losses are exaggerated. 

With regard to FF, I can see what you are saying, but this is a long way fom proving the point. As I said, I have the details of every action stretching from February to July 1941 looking at the returns for each unit involved, drawn up by the daily loss sheets from both sides. This has to be THE way to check for loss by cause. As Glider says, you would need to look at the loss records for a unit to find a pattern of error in the contemporary records. It would be, in my opinion, impossible to prove that losses to FF incidents are five times those that are actually recorded. I cannot claim that FF incidents across the board are a uniform 2%, but then you cannot claim it was 10%, or even near it, based on the research you have done. You have taken a couple of isolated incidents, (which are recorded incidentally), and then extrapolated that by some obscure means to arrive at a figure you consider to be reasonable. No-one else, here, or anywhere, shares that view of reasonableness. You either must abandon the claim, put up with these endless demolitions of the position, or undertake more research.

_At the time of the battle people were only interested in kills and losses friendly fire wasnt much talked about unless it was chronic like ack ack batteries shooting at everything. In the melee of a battle pilots crossed others paths and got hit missidentified friend and foe it was chaos. Malan was cleared at the court martial, he probably wouldnt have been cleared if he reported that he shot down a hurricane, no one would ever admit to a friendly fire kill even iff they knew they had done it._

What are your sources for claiming it was not much talked about,, in the squadron loss sheets, at least for the allies, where an FF was known to occur, it was recorded, and investigated. Hiding an FF incident was an offense punishable by courts martial, admitting it would only get a pilot into trouble if he was found to have done it deliberately, and that happens almost never. In the absence of any well documented figures, I cannot see how this figure of 10% can be maintained, when what records we do have show a far lower figure.

My experience is post war, but all the pilots I have ever worked with were always very concerned about IFF, whether such identification was by electronic means or by simply eyeballing the target. Shooting down a colleague is not something any pilot wants to do, and the psychological imperative to establish whether the target is a friendly or not was always very strong ihn my experience. Cowboy style attacks were certainly not tolerated in my experience, and I am willing to bet they werent tolerated under wartime conditions either. I am sure FF happened, but not nearly as often as you think they do. 

_The figure of 10% is a ball park, no one knows for sure or will ever know, it has more to do with the psychology of pilots under battle conditions. The main factor in identification seems to have been not what a plane looks like but where it is coming from or going too. A twin engined plane heading from france was seen as enemy when it could be RAF, a single seat fighter climbing towards a bomber formation was seen as a friend when it could be a 109. It was only at very close quarters that actual visual recognition played a part._

See my comments above. I have some actual experience with witnessing pilot psychology, although not wartime , and I think your theorisations are incorrect. I think most pilots, other than sheer rookies, are very careful to minimise the risks of FF. Not all interceptions , especially those at night during the war were visual, the latter part of the war, aircraft caried IFF devices, and the whole concept of the "bomber stream" was implemented to avoid FF incidents at night


----------



## john brewer (Aug 23, 2010)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> The thread will not be closed, but if people can not debate in a mature manner, they will take a vacation to the beach. That goes for everyone involved. Especially if I am ignored one more time when I tell people to quit with the BS.




Appologies Adler

I got extremely angry at some posts such as these which accused me of insulting the men in the battle of britain and other theatres i considered it extremely cheap and underhand especially as I had two uncles in bomber command in 1940.


You paint a picture of exhausted frightened out of their wits nimrods blazing away at anything that moves, which IMO is insulting to the men who fought there.


----------



## Milosh (Aug 23, 2010)

john brewer said:


> I used Bader as an example, in one action he misidentified some 109s and joined them he them got shot down and misidentified the spitfire as german (despite being in a spitfire himself) while the spitfire pilot shot down another spitfire (the same as he was flying) thinking it was a german. That is three cases in one action by very experienced pilots which until recently was claimed as 1 lost me 109 and 1 lost spitfire it was only because only one other me 109 was lost that day and accounted for that this was found out. Since the above records involving britains most celebrated fighter pilot were completely wrong which records do you want me to research then? and what would be the point such investigations only lead to pilots like Casson being deducted 1 kill and told they shot down a comrade when he was doing his best but made a mistake.



Just after Bader's section of four aircraft crossed the coast, 12 Bf 109s were spotted flying in formation approximately 2–3,000 feet below them travelling in the same direction. Bader dived on them too fast and too steeply to be able to aim and fire his guns, and barely avoided colliding with one of them while continuing his dive. He levelled out at 24,000 ft, pulled himself together, and on taking a look around discovered he was now alone in the sky. Separated from his section, he was considering whether to return home when he noticed three pairs of Bf 109s a couple of miles in front of him. Bader dropped down below them and closed up before dispatching one of them with a short burst of fire from close range. He was just opening fire on a second Bf 109 when he noticed the two on his left turning towards him. At this point he decided it would be better to return home and made the fatal mistake of banking away from them, and towards the two on his right that were continuing straight ahead. In the following moments Bader lost the tail of his Spitfire, and was forced to bail out over Le Touquet in German-occupied France where he was taken prisoner.

*Bader had no trouble IDing the 109s.*


----------



## john brewer (Aug 23, 2010)

parsifal said:


> _what I am saying is that for (for example) both sides claimed approximately 2 times the kills they actually made so they wernt sure of what they hit or missed. In the case of hitting a target the pilot automatically claims a kill even though it was FF (this happened with Sailor Malan) Sim ilarly all evidence now points to Bader being shot down by a spitfire, the spitfire claimed a 109 and Bader himself said he was shot down by a German. Similarly two planes attacking a bomber and colliding would be claimed as two kills by the bomber_
> 
> There is no consistency in the extent of overclaiming, it varied wildly. There is a thread I have been involved with, concerning the Zero versus the Spitfire in the pacific. In that thread we discussed the heavy Spitfire losses over Darwin. The Allied claims for Zeroes shot down over a three month period was something like 28.....they actuallly shot down four. Conversely, the british victory claims over France in 1941 were only about 60% over actual losses. And many of those battles were fought at night, or over enemy territory. There just isnt any trend in the way that losses are exaggerated.
> 
> ...



we can agree to disagree without need for "demolition of positions" even with todays technology we still have FF in the air and on the ground.


----------



## john brewer (Aug 23, 2010)

Milosh said:


> Just after Bader's section of four aircraft crossed the coast, 12 Bf 109s were spotted flying in formation approximately 2–3,000 feet below them travelling in the same direction. Bader dived on them too fast and too steeply to be able to aim and fire his guns, and barely avoided colliding with one of them while continuing his dive. He levelled out at 24,000 ft, pulled himself together, and on taking a look around discovered he was now alone in the sky. Separated from his section, he was considering whether to return home when he noticed three pairs of Bf 109s a couple of miles in front of him. Bader dropped down below them and closed up before dispatching one of them with a short burst of fire from close range. He was just opening fire on a second Bf 109 when he noticed the two on his left turning towards him. At this point he decided it would be better to return home and made the fatal mistake of banking away from them, and towards the two on his right that were continuing straight ahead. In the following moments Bader lost the tail of his Spitfire, and was forced to bail out over Le Touquet in German-occupied France where he was taken prisoner.
> 
> *Bader had no trouble IDing the 109s.*



I was quoting from 
Douglas Bader
opens a whole new can of worms


----------



## Colin1 (Aug 23, 2010)

john brewer said:


> The Typhoon was mistakenly involved in FF so often they painted stripes on the wings, during D Day all planes had D Day stripes due to experience in other theatres like Dieppe and Anzio you say 2% I say I read 10% and believe it.....lets leave it at that


First fronts and now theatres
So Dieppe was in a different theatre to the D Day landings?

You can leave it where you like but I doubt you'll get any concensus on the 10% figure just because you read it somewhere and believe it. We'd like to see a conscientious attempt to validate your figures with a breakdown of unit losses.


----------



## john brewer (Aug 23, 2010)

Colin1 said:


> *You didn't have to be there, first-hand experience is not a premise for comprehension of events. The military were split, some WANTED to fight on. Hirohito had to intervene by casting his own vote (that's right, it came down to a show of hands) to sway the decision in favour of surrender.*



"How many? Do we have a percentage? A ratio of soldiers vs civilians? How many wanted to, how many felt they ought to and how many were too terrified of the military to say otherwise? Or is this another ballpark statement?"

From the attack on Iwo Jima of the 22,785 Japanese soldiers entrenched on the island, 21,570 died either from fighting or by ritual suicide. Only 216 were captured during the battle. The Allies suffered 6,821 deaths out of 26,038 total casualties. The number of American casualties was greater than the total Allied casualties on D-Day (estimated at 10,000, with 125,847 American casualties during the entire Operation Overlord). Perhaps you would like to calculate the percentage and extrapolate for an invasion of Japan?
The reasons why they fought to the death or committed suicide is immaterial the fact is they did. iff 22000 japanes can kill 6800 and injure 26000 then an invasion of Japan on the same terms would run to millions.

"and for the Americans and Allies to invade Japan would have cost millions of lives on both sides. 
interesting and true but lacks coherence/relevance with the rest of your argument"

Of course losing a few million is irrelevant and incoherant.......are you kidding me?


"we were arguing the point over the relative long-term lethality of conventional vs nuclear"

No Colin you were arguing for the sake of it, The nuclear bomb didnt bring about surrender because of the number of people killed more died in Tokyo no one knew what the long term effects would be even on the bomb project itself. The nuclear bombs brought about surrender because it was a new type of weapon which Japan couldnt defend even the emperor wasnt safe from and showed America didnt need to invade.


----------



## parsifal (Aug 23, 2010)

_The strategic bombing campaign had a major effect on the war in my opinion but not quite in the way the planners imagined. It was possible to flatten major cities without the enemy being demoralised, it wasnt possible to easily hit idustrial targets by day or night, massive bomb loads were required and industries managed to re locate hide and re start production. The surprise to me is that anyone was surprised at Germany they were only doing what the British did.....we spread aircraft production evacuated cities etc. 
Churchill and the government were anxious that bombing may wreck moral and the will to fight it had the opposite effect in Britain so i will never understand why they thought it would work on Germany, bombing at night time especially was so innacurate that the raids on berlin frequently moved rubble from on place to another_. 

It was unlikley that flattening a city would cause a collapse in morale on a nationwide scale, but it could seriously affect morale at alocalised level, and in fact there are a number of occasions, both allied and axis where this can be amply demonstrated. I can think of occasions where it actually worked.... Rotterdam and warsaw are two examples. The French concerns about German retaliation if the Britsh used French bases to bomb the Ruhr are another. The bombing of the Italian controlled Island of Pantelleria, and at Amba Alagi, to name the more well known. The US Heavy bomber attacks at St Lo and the tactical strikes at Falaise esstially shattered the defenders, and very often caused the individual surrender of the german defenders (a tactical strike admittedly in this case) On several occasion in the BoB the british populationshowed signs of cracking under pressure, though this is not apparent in the post war accounts. And as far as i am aware, BC never said that they could achieve the surrender of germany by bombing alone, or that their would be a national level of morale collapse. they simply thought they could achieve a collapse in marale....I think they were referring to local morale, and not national morale

But even in the context of what bombing really can do, this discussion about how the British were concerned about only breaking enemy morale is taken do out of context. Read Harris' actual reports to the government, and a different picture of what actually was being said emerges. BC was not saying we will break morale. It was more the case they were saying"we will bomb them until either their morale cracks, or we level each and every city in Germany". They essentially made good on the threat. The Germans did not crack, so BC levelled over a hundred major cities and towns in occupied europe. The actual impacts of setting fire to cities over HE on industrial targets has never been fully analysed, except by the USSBS, which as I said estimates the effect on production outputs as 40%. Thats consistent with what the germans thought they could produce, and what they actually produced. Then ther are all those other effects that I spoke of previously 


_Hamburg was a special case for bombing...being a coastal target it was easily identified by radar from the coast outline and was easily approached over the sea so ground defence wasnt possible. I have worked in the Ruhr area (Dusseldorf/ Mulheim/Essen) they were flattened during the war but night time bombing only was capable of hitting a city Germany still managed to produce steel tanks and planes until very late in the war._

When you are referring to Hamburg being easily identified by radar, thats true, but radar, in the form of H2S was only one navigation aid, and in fact the least accurate of the electronic means, of finding a target at night. Far more accurate, more accurate than the US visual bombsights was the GCI based "OBOE" systems and their derivatives. The problem with OBOE, until mid 1944, was its range, and therein lies Harris' mistake. By targetting Berlin, he was not only attacking into the teeth of the toughest defences in Germany, he was also operating beyond the range of OBOE, and thereby significantly decreasing the accuracy of the bombers.

Hamburg was a special case because it was the most effective raid, and also because the Reich defences werere defeated by the use of window for the first time. However, it was emulated across western germany and europe in many cities. To try and argue that city after city was not levelled as a result of BC bombing is simply untrue. Cologne for example after being attacked in 1942 was essentially out of action as a production centre for three months after the first 1000 bomber raid. Its true that Night bombing was only capable of hitting the city, but the british got around that by setting fire to the city, and using massive concentrations of bombers to overpower the defences. The British became extremely adept at mixing their bombloads....a mix of delayed action fuses, incendiary cookies, very heavy HE bombs, and antipersonnel bombs. By far the greates majority of the 1 million civilian casualties suffered by Germany in my opinion were at the hands of this instrument. It would often take days or weeks to render the rubble safe, and get the terrified populace out of their bomb shelters, and then weeks or months to get the city back on its feet again. Whilst production might get under way again, bombing did have an effect on output rates. Just how much, I cannot say, but I am willing to stake my reputation that it was a significant impact 

_I agree that harris made a blunder in going for berlin, it was inexplicable to me because he was repeating
hitler/the luftwaffes blunder with london. maybe he thought more bombers with bigger payloads would achieve the desired effect of a surrender through strategic bombing. History showed it wasnt achieved.
I dont know what "evidence" you require Speer was wrong because the allies went on to kill many more in berlin dresden and many other cities without any of these raids bringing about a surrender......they did have a major impact though. speer didnt know that the terrain radar used on Hamburg didnt work nearly so well inland._

See my comments above, but agin whilst surrender was the ultimate prize, it was not the only prize, or indeed the realistic objective of that campaign. Berlin was targetted for a number of reasons, including the unhinging of the Nazi seat of government and to force the attrition of Nazi Night fighters (Nazi losses were grossly over-estimated) . My view is that it was a mistake, because it was an attack into the teeth of the toughest opposition in Germany at the time, with a multiplying effect that each bomber committed was achieving proportionately less than if the focal point had remained around the rhine


----------



## john brewer (Aug 23, 2010)

Colin1 said:


> First fronts and now theatres
> So Dieppe was in a different theatre to the D Day landings?
> 
> You can leave it where you like but I doubt you'll get any concensus on the 10% figure just because you read it somewhere and believe it. We'd like to see a conscientious attempt to validate your figures with a breakdown of unit losses.



Colin 

Dieppe is not in Normandy in geography or time (referring to the Dieppe raid) call it a front a theatre a battle a landing a conflict a skirmish a debacle ar whatever you like it was a learning experience one of which was friendly fire. Dieppe may be close to Normandy but it is a port...the dieppe raid showed that capturing a port which was desirable involved so much fighting that the port was no longer any use at all. That was a major factor in Normandy being chosen so I wouldnt say Normandy and Dieppe were the same theatre at all ....just close on a map

....I didnt realise I was running for election and had to get any concensus at all. Who is the royal "we" you refer to. you are patronising and facetious and quite clearly playing to a crowd as adler said please stop it I have tried to.


----------



## Colin1 (Aug 23, 2010)

john brewer said:


> Of course losing a few million is irrelevant and incoherant.......are you kidding me?
> *You have consistently demonstrated that you are not clever enough to be this slippery, we were not debating the imminent invasion of the Japanese mainland by US ground forces*
> 
> The nuclear bomb didnt bring about surrender because of the number of people killed
> ...


*Novelty had nothing to do with it, the impact of a deployed nuclear weapon had everything to do with it*


----------



## Colin1 (Aug 23, 2010)

john brewer said:


> Dieppe may be close to Normandy but it is...
> *...in the same theatre of operations*
> 
> I wouldn't say Normandy and Dieppe were the same theatre at all ....just close on a map
> ...


*Once again read the thread and make a mental note of all the incredulous posts regarding most of your claims, that's the 'we' I'm referring to. This 'crowd' you allude to, who do you think they're here to see - me or you?*


----------



## john brewer (Aug 23, 2010)

parsifal said:


> _The strategic bombing campaign had a major effect on the war in my opinion but not quite in the way the planners imagined. It was possible to flatten major cities without the enemy being demoralised, it wasnt possible to easily hit idustrial targets by day or night, massive bomb loads were required and industries managed to re locate hide and re start production. The surprise to me is that anyone was surprised at Germany they were only doing what the British did.....we spread aircraft production evacuated cities etc.
> Churchill and the government were anxious that bombing may wreck moral and the will to fight it had the opposite effect in Britain so i will never understand why they thought it would work on Germany, bombing at night time especially was so innacurate that the raids on berlin frequently moved rubble from on place to another_.
> 
> It was unlikley that flattening a city would cause a collapse inmorale, though there are a number of occasions, both allied and axis where it came close to achieving just that. I can think of occasions where it actually worked.... Rotterdam and warsaw are two examples. The French concerns about German retaliation if the Britsh used French bases to bomb the Ruhr are another. The bombing of the Italian controlled Island of Pantelleria, and at Amba Alagi, to name the more well known. The US Heavy bomber attacks at St Lo and the tactical strikes at Falaise esstially shattered the defenders, and very often caused the individual surrender of the german defenders (a tactical strike admittedly in this case) On several occasion in the BoB the british populationshowed signs of cracking under pressure, though this is not apparent in the post war accounts.
> ...



I dont disagree with one word of what you have posted. I was stating the difference between the theory and planning and the results. I suppose morale and resistance depends on hope rotterdam and warsaw had no hope and so capitualted, the Germans were knocking on the door with overwhelming strength anyway. I have visited Cologne and after the bombing only the Cathedral was standing ( you can still buy post cards of the aftermath). I was making the point that it took many more bombs and bombers and involved many more casualties than anyone dreamed and didnt achieve what was thought possible surrender through bombing alone. The impact was huge and draining not only in losses but also in defending against it.

PS please dont mention falaise as we may get onto friendly fire again


----------



## parsifal (Aug 23, 2010)

For those who are interested this is the actual wording from the memorandum issued by the Joint Chiefs that authorised the bombing campaign (for both the US and CW forces committed to that task). You can find it in Memorandum C.C.S. 166/1/D by the Combined Chiefs of Staff, dated 21 January 1943:

_Directive to the appropriate British and U.S. Air Force Commanders to govern the operation of the British and U.S. Bomber Commands in the United Kingdom (Approved by the Combined Chiefs of Staff at their 65th meeting on January 21, 1943) 
1. Your Primary object will be the progressive destruction and dislocation of the German military, industrial, and economic system, and the undermining of the morale of the German people to a point where their capacity for armed resistance is fatally weakened.
2. Within that General concept, your primary objectives, subject to the exigencies of weather and tactical feasibility, will for the present be in the following order of priority:
(a) German submarine construction yards.
(b) The German aircraft industry.
(c) Transportation.
(d) Oil plants.
(e) Other targets in enemy war industry.
The above order of priority may be varied from time to time according to developments in the strategical situation. Moreover, other objectives of great importance either from the political or military point of view must be attacked. Examples of these are:

(1) Submarine operating bases on the Biscay coast. If these can be put out of action, a great step forward will have been taken in the U-boat war which the C.C.S have agreed to be a first charge on our resources. Day and night attacks on these bases have been inaugurated and should be continued so that an assessment of their effects can be made as soon as possible. If it is found that successful results can be achieved, these attacks should continue whenever conditions are favorable for as long and as often as is necessary. These objectives have not been included in the order of priority, which coves the long term operations, particularly as the bases are not situated in Germany.
(2) Berlin, which should be attacked when the conditions are suitable for the attainment of the specially valuable results unfavorable to the moral of the enemy or favorable to that of the Russians.
3. You may also be required, at the appropriate time, to attack objectives in Northern Italy on connection with amphibious operations in the Mediterranean theater.
4. There may be certain other objectives of great but fleeting importance for the attack of which all necessary planes and preparations should be made. Of these, an example would be the important units of the German Fleet in harbor or at sea.
5. You should take every opportunity to attack Germany by day, to destroy objectives that are unsuitable for night attack, to sustain continuous pressure on German morale, to impose heavy losses on the German day fighter force, and to contain German fighter strength away from the Russian and Mediterranean theaters of war.
6. When the Allied armies reeneter the Continent, you will afford them all possible support in the manner most effective.
7. In attacking objectives in occupied territories, you will conform to such instructions as may be issued from time to time for political reasons by His Majesty's Government through the British Chiefs of Staff._


This directive known as the Casablanca directive or POINTBLANK, replaced the general directive No. 5 above, S46368 D.C.A.S, 14th February 1942 and was issued to the appropriate British and United States Air Force Commanders to govern the operations of British and U.S. Bomber Commands in the United Kingdom. 

In his post war book Bomber offensive Harris mentions the Casablanca directive at the start of chapter seven "The offensive underway". In it he emphasises the "Object" paragraph of the directive issued to the RAF and mentions the "Primary" paragraph in passing. He explains that the subject of morale had been dropped (it had been emphasised in the previous general directive No. 5 (the Area Bombing Directive)) and that he was to proceed with the "general 'disorganisation' of German industry" but that some parts of that industry, such as U-Boat building, had a higher priority than others, from which he drew the conclusion that it "allowed [him] to attack any German industrial city of 100,000 inhabitants and above" and that the Ruhr remained the principal target for the RAF.]

However it is clear that even the so-called "area bombing" directive was never intended to try and achieve a total national collapse of morale. It was intended to achieve dislocation of production on a city by city basis, with the emphasis on lost morale, but failing that, by the sheer destruction of the cities themselves, and to maximise civilian casualties.


----------



## john brewer (Aug 23, 2010)

Colin1 said:


> *Once again read the thread and make a mental note of all the incredulous posts regarding most of your claims, that's the 'we' I'm referring to. This 'crowd' you allude to, who do you think they're here to see - me or you?*


 
Dieppe may be close to Normandy but it is...
...in the same theatre of operations

How silly of me and how remiss of the allies they should have trotted along from Normandy to relieve Dieppe since they were the same theatre of operations.


----------



## john brewer (Aug 23, 2010)

Colin1 said:


> *Novelty had nothing to do with it, the impact of a deployed nuclear weapon had everything to do with it*



You have consistently demonstrated that you are not clever enough to be this slippery, we were not debating the imminent invasion of the Japanese mainland by US ground forces

Colin that is exactly what were were debating if the Japanese didnt surrender that was the alternative

The nuclear bomb didnt bring about surrender because of the number of people killed 
Oh, I think you'll find that played a BIG part in it
Why? more died with conventional raids with no surrender

I said ....The nuclear bombs brought about surrender because it was a new type of weapon
Colin said..... Novelty had nothing to do with it, the impact of a deployed nuclear weapon had everything to do with it

But colin edited my comments to suit his own ends I also said which they could not defend even the emperor wasnt safe and it proved America didnt need to invade.
Colin you are playing games with semantics and editing.......find someone else to show off to you friends with


----------



## Colin1 (Aug 23, 2010)

john brewer said:


> How silly of me and how remiss of the allies they should have trotted along from Normandy to relieve Dieppe since they were the same theatre of operations.


Your complete lack of grasp of historical fact is now matched by your complete disregard for the sacrifice of thousands of Commonwealth troops. Who the hell do you think you are that you could make so cavalier a remark wrt the lives lost at Dieppe?

This thread just 'went hot' and I'm standing off until that particular remark is dealt with

You are a buffoon, my error has been to dignify your pathetic circus with responses


----------



## Milosh (Aug 23, 2010)

john brewer said:


> I was quoting from
> Douglas Bader
> opens a whole new can of worms



" _*It is possible* that Bader, in the chaos of battle, joined a flight of Me 109’s (mistaking them for Spitfires) before pulling away from them once he realised his mistake._"

When does *possible* become an *absolute*? In fact, he attacked the a/c you so absolutely claim he thought were Spitfires. 

"_Bader dropped down below them and closed up before dispatching one of them with a short burst of fire from close range. He was just opening fire on a second Bf 109 when he noticed the two on his left turning towards him._"


----------



## claidemore (Aug 23, 2010)

I ain't no math wizard but.....there's 27,878,400 sq feet in a square mile, and approx 25,000 square miles in southern England, for a bit under 700 billion square feet. 300 Hurricanes (if they all fired all their ammo, which they didn't) would produce 792,000 bullets and the same amount of cases. Say 1.5 million objects falling from the sky. (if some of those 792,000 bullets happened to get imbedded in a german aircraft we might get one big object falling from the sky, but that would complicate my calculations)
If they could manage to expend all that ammo over a single square mile, there would be one piece of debris for every 18 square feet. That's a light rain, but with a good crew of workers with rakes and shovels you could clean it up if the grass wasn't too tall. 
Since the fighting was spread all over southern England, you end up with one piece of debris every 466 billion square feet.
That's a really light rain.

please read my signature quote.


----------



## john brewer (Aug 23, 2010)

Colin1 said:


> Your complete lack of grasp of historical fact is now matched by your complete disregard for the sacrifice of thousands of Commonwealth troops. Who the hell do you think you are that you could make so cavalier a remark wrt the lives lost at Dieppe?
> 
> This thread just 'went hot' and I'm standing off until that particular remark is dealt with
> 
> You are a buffoon, my error has been to dignify your pathetic circus with responses



You said Dieppe was in the same theatre of operations not me...now explain why no one went from Normandy to Dieppe.........You are the buffoon who is now demanding your mates get involved over your perceived disrespect


----------



## john brewer (Aug 23, 2010)

claidemore said:


> I ain't no math wizard but.....there's 27,878,400 sq feet in a square mile, and approx 25,000 square miles in southern England, for a bit under 700 billion square feet. 300 Hurricanes (if they all fired all their ammo, which they didn't) would produce 792,000 bullets and the same amount of cases. Say 1.5 million objects falling from the sky. (if some of those 792,000 bullets happened to get imbedded in a german aircraft we might get one big object falling from the sky, but that would complicate my calculations)
> If they could manage to expend all that ammo over a single square mile, there would be one piece of debris for every 18 square feet. That's a light rain, but with a good crew of workers with rakes and shovels you could clean it up if the grass wasn't too tall.
> Since the fighting was spread all over southern England, you end up with one piece of debris every 466 billion square feet.
> That's a really light rain.
> ...



you say south england is 700 billion square feet then say 1 piece of debris every 466 billion square feet 
that is 2 pieces on the whole of south england (presumably the balance of the 1.5 million are embeded in the bomber you mentioned) oh and I did read your signature quote.

The fact is people were hit by falling rounds and casings and when they were it wasnt a round falling on its own.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 23, 2010)

john brewer said:


> You said Dieppe was in the same theatre of operations not me...now explain why no one went from Normandy to Dieppe.........You are the buffoon who is now demanding your mates get involved over your perceived disrespect



John, one warning - tone it down or I start banning people and close this thread.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 23, 2010)

Enough!!!!

I am tired of being ignored! I have told both sides to stand down and discuss this topic like adults! You all choose to ignore me! I am putting and to this. If you have already received a warning you will receive a nice week on the beach so that you may mature enough. Others will now receive their official warning. 

Next time the stay on the beach will be much longer. Maybe you will realize I am not kidding around.

I am not an *******, but we want maturity and order here. If you can't do that, go to the Playmobil forums. 

PlaymoFriends - Index 

I am sure the maturity level is more for your liking.



FLYBOYJ said:


> John, one warning - tone it down or I start banning people and close this thread.



No more warnings. I am tired of being ignored...


----------



## Glider (Aug 23, 2010)

john brewer said:


> Show me a squadron record that has any mention of friendly fire that is a pilot saying" I shot down one of our own" by your own standards you must be able to find 2% (good luck on that one)


As mentioned in an earlier posting the book that gives me the most information on this is the 2nd Tactical Airforce series which gives a day by day account of the 2TAF from begining to end and investigates all losses cross checking where possible from both German and Allied sources.

To repeat myself the number of blue on blue attacks were more than I expected and I should add it covers those that did not result in any losses. However the number of losses were nothing like 10% This is the basis for me challanging your presumption of 10%

FYI The nearest that I can find to this date in 1944 was on the 26th August when Sgt Menzies of 602 squadron in a Spit IX was attacked by a P47. The RAF were under orders not to defend themselves in these situations but to evade. The P47 was persistant and in the end the Spit ran out of fuel resulting in a crash landing. I went back to the beginning of August but was unable to find another case.

In the book Heaven Next Stop a German pilot shot down one of his own unit and the book decribes his anguish when he went to the senior officer to admit to what had happened.

So in brief, yes examples do exist and if you do some research instead of jumping to conclusions, you can find what you want.


----------



## john brewer (Aug 23, 2010)

FLYBOYJ said:


> John, one warning - tone it down or I start banning people and close this thread.




sorry i seem to have made the cardinal error of reffering to Dieppe and Normandy as different theatres which upset colin no end...he has been on my case all day...even chopping quotes of phrases not sentences to make a point now he is squealing disrespect to the fallen which is underhand in the extreme.

I have had perfectly civilised posts with others today much of some of which was informative but maybe its best I bow out now........it isnt my whole life after all


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 23, 2010)

Should not have ignored my earlier warnings. Now you can sit on the beach for a week until you learn to act like an adult.

This goes to all members:

*If you have a problem with someone, bring it to the attention of the forum staff. We will take care of it. This back and forth BS is not good for this forum and it will not be tolerated!*


----------



## Colin1 (Aug 23, 2010)

john brewer said:


> ...now explain why no one went from Normandy to Dieppe...


...because they'd have been almost two years too late

A potted history lesson for you:

The Dieppe Landings August 1942
The Normandy Landings June 1944


----------



## parsifal (Aug 23, 2010)

Hopefully we can move on now. I did my best with that guy, but it was hard to get him to listen


----------



## parsifal (Aug 23, 2010)

Glider said:


> As mentioned in an earlier posting the book that gives me the most information on this is the 2nd Tactical Airforce series which gives a day by day account of the 2TAF from begining to end and investigates all losses cross checking where possible from both German and Allied sources.
> 
> To repeat myself the number of blue on blue attacks were more than I expected and I should add it covers those that did not result in any losses. However the number of losses were nothing like 10% This is the basis for me challanging your presumption of 10%
> 
> ...



Hi Glider

This sbook about the 2 TAF sounds like an excellent reference, can you post the bibliographic details....I would like to track down a copy.


----------



## john overlord (Aug 23, 2010)

I'm too stupid to know better


----------



## drgondog (Aug 23, 2010)

john overlord said:


> I'm too stupid to know better



It appears John finally delivered concrete and irrefutable facts..I find myself in violent agreement with him (and his new ID) for the first time..


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 23, 2010)

drgondog said:


> It appears John finally delivered concrete and irrefutable facts..I find myself in violent agreement with him (and his new ID) for the first time..


----------



## drgondog (Aug 23, 2010)

FLYBOYJ said:


>



Joe - thanks for putting him out of his misery..it was merciful and quick.


----------



## Milosh (Aug 23, 2010)

parsifal said:


> Hi Glider
> 
> This sbook about the 2 TAF sounds like an excellent reference, can you post the bibliographic details....I would like to track down a copy.



parsifal, if these aren't the books Glider was referring to, I highly recommend.

- 2nd Tactical Air Force: v.1: Spartan to Normandy June 1943 to June 1944: Vol 1 by Christopher Shores
- 2nd Tactical Air Force: Breakout to Bodenplatte v. 2 by Christopher Shores
- 2nd Tactical Air Force: Volume 4: Squadrons, Camouflage Markings, Weapons and Tactics 1943-45 by Christopher Shores
- 2nd Tactical Air Force: Volume 4: Squadrons, Camouflage Markings, Weapons and Tactics 1943-45 by Christopher

Amazon has them starting around $40.


----------



## parsifal (Aug 23, 2010)

thanks, I will see if I can get copies here in Australia


----------



## claidemore (Aug 23, 2010)

john brewer said:


> you say south england is 700 billion square feet then say 1 piece of debris every 466 billion square feet
> that is 2 pieces on the whole of south england (presumably the balance of the 1.5 million are embeded in the bomber you mentioned) oh and I did read your signature quote.
> 
> The fact is people were hit by falling rounds and casings and when they were it wasnt a round falling on its own.



 I did say I wasn't a math wizard! I believe the number should be one piece of debris for every 466 "thousand" sq feet. Musta forgot to drop a half dozen zeros. (no pun about hypothtical Zeros during BoB intended!)

Really the most pertinent part of my post was the bit about the shovels and rakes, which tools are useful for shovelling various substances. 

All kidding aside, you look at the return fire from bombers, 109 fighters, Hurricanes, Spitfires, it adds up to quite bit of metal falling down, though of course it is spread out over the several weeks of the battle.


----------



## drgondog (Aug 23, 2010)

If John comes back under a different nom d'plume here are some data of twist.

First the Spit:
2 degrees positive for ~ .2 Span, then start constant degreesm(negative) to the tip for approx zero incidence at the tip. The Spit had a near elliptical planform wing and this twist had the effect of significantly increasing the induced drag due to the twist effect

Fw 190
2 degrees positive at root, then 2 degree (negative) from root to .85 span, then zero for remainining .15 span to approx zero incidence at the tip.

P-51B ~ 0 at root increasing along strake 1 degree (positive) to about .18 span, then start constant 1 degree (negative) washout to tip resulting in zero degree washout at tip.

P-51D ~.2 degrees at root increasing to 1 degree (positive) at strake/wing intersection at ~ . 2 span, then 1 degree negative until zero incidence at the tip

Both the 51 and the 190 improved their lift distribution profiles to approximate (but not equal the Spit) lift distribution - but the 51 Twist was more of a straight line, whereas both the Fw190 and Spit twist was not constant...

The Fw 190 had probably the most violent departure at stall in a turning manuever, reversing to the oppsite wing. 
I don't have the 109 data - hopefully Kurfurst or VG33 have the information - but I doubt that that 109 had no washout..


----------



## drgondog (Aug 23, 2010)

Claidemore - where did you find this quote?

"The trouble with most people isn't what they don't know....it's what they do know that simply isn't so"


----------



## parsifal (Aug 23, 2010)

drgondog said:


> If John comes back under a different nom d'plume here are some data of twist.
> 
> First the Spit:
> 2 degrees positive for ~ .2 Span, then start constant degreesm(negative) to the tip for approx zero incidence at the tip. The Spit had a near elliptical planform wing and this twist had the effect of significantly increasing the induced drag due to the twist effect
> ...



can you explain what this means...eg, the FW190 with its 2 degrees. What angle is that, and what does it do in laymans terms to the flying/aerobatic qualities of the aircraft?


----------



## banned man (Aug 23, 2010)

I just never learn.


----------



## Njaco (Aug 23, 2010)

Just for sh!ts and giggles....



> Show me a squadron record that has any mention of friendly fire that is a pilot saying" I shot down one of our own" by your own standards you must be able to find 2% (good luck on that one) and then look at the claims which on both sides overestimated by at least 100%, it is that discrepancy that provides the logic for 10% that is 10% of enemy claimed shot down and wernt were actually FF.



24 August 1940
RAF No. 235 Sqdrn log: P/O D.N.Woodger of No 235 Squadron and his gunner D.L.Wright were shot down and killed in error by a Hurricane of RCAF No 1 Squadron at 16:45hrs. Their Blenheim IV (T1804) crashed at Bracklesham Bay.

"The most poignant incidents involved Allied aircraft shooting down other Allied aircraft. A well-known case was on Aug. 24, 1940. No. 1 (Canadian) Sqdn., flying Hawker Hurricanes, newly declared operational, was about to enter the Battle of Britain. Only the commanding officer, Squadron Leader Ernest A. “Ernie” McNab, had seen combat a few days before, attached to a British unit.

The squadron scrambled 12 fighters, led by McNab, to patrol at 10,000 feet. Having observed one combat in progress, they spotted three twin-engined aircraft approaching below. McNab started to attack, then recognized the machines as Blenheims–a British type. He and his section broke away, but two following sections, each of three Hurricanes, pressed on, shooting down one Blenheim in flames and heavily damaging a second. Returning to base, the Canadians claimed to have destroyed one Junkers 88 and “probably destroyed” a second.

The Blenheims had taken off from Thorney Island to avoid being bombed by an approaching German raid. Surviving crewmen stated they had fired recognition signals; the Canadians apparently confused these with return fire. Yellow Section (Flt. Lt. Gordon R. McGregor, FO Jean-Paul Desloges, FO Arthur D. Nesbitt) carried out the most telling attack; only inexperience and bad shooting by other pilots prevented greater losses. Fighter Command investigated the incident but did not pull No. 1 (Canadian) Sqdn. from the line."


----------



## B-17engineer (Aug 23, 2010)

With a username like that I wouldn't of guessed who he was! Good catch. 

As for the Blenheims, how were the signals fired?


----------



## claidemore (Aug 23, 2010)

drgondog said:


> Claidemore - where did you find this quote?
> 
> "The trouble with most people isn't what they don't know....it's what they do know that simply isn't so"



Paul Harvey


----------



## Njaco (Aug 23, 2010)

....and thats the rest of the story!


----------



## parsifal (Aug 24, 2010)

Nj you sh*tstirrer


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 24, 2010)

Do they really think we are that stupid and can't tell when someone opens another account?


----------



## Glider (Aug 24, 2010)

Milosh said:


> parsifal, if these aren't the books Glider was referring to, I highly recommend.
> 
> - 2nd Tactical Air Force: v.1: Spartan to Normandy June 1943 to June 1944: Vol 1 by Christopher Shores
> - 2nd Tactical Air Force: Breakout to Bodenplatte v. 2 by Christopher Shores
> ...



Those are the ones.


----------



## The Basket (Aug 24, 2010)

Washout means that the wing doesn't stall altogether.

The wing tips stall before the wing roots.

Giving a stall warning and allowing the pilot control even when the wing is starting to stall. Greater resistant to spinning or departing controlled flight.

I would be surprised if the 109 had no washout.

That's my understanding anyway.


----------



## drgondog (Aug 24, 2010)

parsifal said:


> can you explain what this means...eg, the FW190 with its 2 degrees. What angle is that, and what does it do in laymans terms to the flying/aerobatic qualities of the aircraft?



There are several things to consider on a wing. First the angle of incidenceof the airfoil relative to the zero lift angle where it joins the fuselage. In the case of the Fw190 and Spit, both started with a 'positive' 2 degree angle. In the case of the 51B and D the angle of incidence was near zero at the root, but INCREASED to 1 degree "positive' at the point where the relative strakes intersected the rest of the straight line leading edge,

Second - the twist. Twist is the amount of change of angle of incidence of the airfoil, varying spanwise along the leading edge. Both the Spit and Fw 190 have interesting concepts. They both start with a positive 2 Degrees but the Spit has no twist for about 20% of the span, then it deceases non-linearly until it reaches zero incidence at the tip. The Fw190 starts negative twist from 2 degrees immediatley but also varies non linearly until it reaches .85 span where it has reduced to zero degree incidence also - then has no twist for the remaining .15 span.

The Mustang INCREASES angle of incidence from the root to about .18 span where it reached the one degree positive angle of incidence, then decreases angle of incidence linearly until it reaches minus 1 degree at the tip.

Third - the aeordynamic effects of twist. First - Twist along the leading edge, varying the angle of incidence from free stream velocity vector for a given flight condition has the effect of changing the lift distribution of the wing spanwise (moving the center of lift inboard)- and up to a point, usually around 1 degree, improves (reduces) induced drag due to the spanwise vortices created by the lifting line. (.i.e. Lift). Essentially it has the effect of approximating an elliptical lift distribution, and moves the lift distribution - from an untwisted wing of same properties - inbourd.

The second effect of twist, when increasing twist more than optimal, is to provide less angle of attack to the freestream out near the wing tip, thereby reducing the stall poiint when the inboard angle of attack (incidence) to the freestream has exceeded maximum lift.

Simply, inboard wing is stalling faster then the tip and at the ragged edge of stall there is some remaining laminar flow around the ailerons to provide some roll stability.

Visually, take a plastic ruler, hold one end (wing/fuselage) fixed apply torque to the other end (tip). 

The relative angle change along the ruler edge from one end to the other is 'twist' in the context of what we have been talking about.

I hope that was clear - and not too verbose.











then both decreased linearly to zero angle of incidence at the tip.


----------



## Timppa (Aug 24, 2010)

Kurfürst said:


> Just as a matter of interest AFAIK - and I could be well wrong in this! - the 109 didn't have washout at all, as it had leading edge slats to perform the same function instead.



Hoerner agrees:
"There is no twist built into the wing of the Me-109"


----------



## parsifal (Aug 24, 2010)

Thanks guys (I think)

I will go and try and learn a bit more I guess, but for now, if I can indulge your patience. Your saying that wings have an angle (of incidence?) that can vary along the wing edge, and this angle has an effect on the stall characteristics of the aircraft. Correct (or partially correct)????

Is this also related to the inherent flex that most wing designs have....you know, when you look out the window of a 747 you see the wing is not straight....it tends to curve upward at the edges. I always thought that sort of thing added strength to the wing, and also tended to improve stability, as air under the wing was allowed to escape more smoothly....or is that completely bollocks? I also have read somewhere that the 109 had a much more rigid, unflexing wing, but I didnt know if that was a good thing or a bad thing compared to the "flexing" wing concept.


Our recently departed friend also spokje about how prohibitively expensive the rounded wings of the Spit were to construct. I knew that they were expensive, but ridiculously so??? does not seem plausible...


And how does wing flex, stall characteristics, wing angle have anything to do with FF?????


----------



## drgondog (Aug 24, 2010)

parsifal said:


> Thanks guys (I think)
> 
> I will go and try and learn a bit more I guess, but for now, if I can indulge your patience. Your saying that wings have an angle (of incidence?) that can vary along the wing edge, and this angle has an effect on the stall characteristics of the aircraft. Correct (or partially correct)????
> 
> ...



doesn't. he was rambling about Spit wings, twist, etc in one of his intellectual 'walk abouts' and I decided to look it up..

The stall characteristics were a natural follow on to 'why have twist' and wing incidence to clarify a basis to discuss what twist 'is'

And finally, apparently Timppa and Kurfurst are correct that the 109 has no twist. In chapter 14-4 Hoerner states that the 109 has no twist in the wing. I find it surprising but accept that Hoerner has knowledge on this subject.

When I finally looked at a planview of the 109G and spotted the location of the slats I understand why the twist was not necessary for aileron control as the slats cover the leading edge on the outboard half of the wing.

Having noted this, I wonder if Willy tested wing twist as a mechanism to improve lift distribution and found no benefits


----------



## davparlr (Aug 24, 2010)

Timppa said:


> Hoerner agrees:
> "There is no twist built into the wing of the Me-109"



Which means the entire wing would stall at he same time. That could be sporting, slats or no slats. However, the slats extending would certainly give warning to the nearness to stall, however, after slat extension, aircraft could uncontrollably depart at any time.


----------



## davparlr (Aug 24, 2010)

drgondog said:


> A stffer wing will flex less but also have a higher natural frequency - the latter, when approximating the frequency of say a prop/engine combination or turbine blade rpms, could cause resonance, fatigue - and ultimately structural failure - (i.e. Comet)



Small point of clarification. While the Comet did have a problem with fatigue, it was not the wing flex. The issue was with the pressurization and depressurization cycling of the fuselage, a relatively new design feature after WWII. This pressure cycling caused fatigue failure around the rectangular windows among other places.

Fighter aircraft, with their rather short, strong wings probably have an insignificant flex.

Interesting note. The B-2 bomber, even with much fuel in the wings has almost no wing flex. The wing is 100% composite and composite material does not like to move in that direction. The composite wings are extremely strong.


----------



## drgondog (Aug 24, 2010)

davparlr said:


> Small point of clarification. While the Comet did have a problem with fatigue, it was not the wing flex. The issue was with the pressurization and depressurization cycling of the fuselage, a relatively new design feature after WWII. This pressure cycling caused fatigue failure around the rectangular windows among other places.
> 
> Fighter aircraft, with their rather short, strong wings probably have an insignificant flex.
> 
> Interesting note. The B-2 bomber, even with much fuel in the wings has almost no wing flex. The wing is 100% composite and composite material does not like to move in that direction. The composite wings are extremely strong.



Agreed - I wasn't clear with the 'connector' between Comet and fatigue failure versus Comet and wing flex versus Comet and resonance. I should have been more explicit - or referred to other ships that had accelerated fatigue (in wing root/spar regions) due to stiff wings - like the F-4.

Strictly speaking the pressure/depressure cycle is another chapter in aeroelasticity although it has nothing to do with wing flex. 

Composites do not behave like aluminum in context of properties of materials. I have been away from composite design for a long time but when I was in the biz, composite structures properly bonded/treated were far stronger (and brittle) than aluminum or steel in weight comparison

OTOH repairing battle damage on the composite tailbooms of Hueys were extremely difficult. IIRC composites have elasticity in strict context - but there is no 'yield point leading to elastic deformation - it simply fails.

In high frequency, reversible load design analysis (Helicopter a good example) the limit load stress was designed at 25kpsi for 2024 - far below the elastic yield point - simply because of the fatigue factor.


----------



## VG-33 (Aug 25, 2010)

> davparlr said:
> 
> 
> > Which means the entire wing would stall at he same time.
> ...


----------



## claidemore (Aug 25, 2010)

Isn't the lift created on the top surface of the wing? If so, would that be the reason the radiators are on the undersurface, not the top? Of course a wing mounted radiator creates other problems, but how much effect (detrimental) would it actually have on lift? The changes on the Spitfire radiators from Mk V to Mk IX didn't seem to have much detrimental effect, at least none that I've heard of. 

On another note, if adding twist causes one part of the wing to stall first, (allowing to pilot to feel an impending stall and either correct or hold the plane at that point without stalling), would it be accurate to say that adding the twist would have a net effect of the wing stalling *sooner *than it would have otherwise? If so, might that be the reason W. Messerschmitt didn't have any twist in his wing? Wingloading was high already, why 'hasten' the stall? Particularly when you have LE slats.


----------



## parsifal (Aug 25, 2010)

fantastic stuff guys, though I struggle to comprehend even the basics of the discussion. Without trying to re-ignite the controversy, I have to pose the question, of the four types we are looking at, which one had the best or most advanced wing form.

I suspect the answer will be along the lines of "it depends on the mission profile" In anticipationof that, I guess I have to ask a series of more complicated questions.

Of the four types which was the better at 

i) High altitude (above 20K)
ii) Medium Altitude (10-19.9K)
iii)Low Altitude (below 10K)

assuming two scenarios for each of those altitude ranges firstly a turning knife fight, at say average speeds of 250 knots, and combat mainly in the horizontal. Alternatively, which is the better wing form in a high speed fight, say above 300 knots, in which the emphasis is on straight line speeds and the combat is mostly in the vertical.


Maybe this original question...which type is the better depends heavily on the combat situation under which the hypothetical combat is being fought...

I believe, though I know there are many w2ho will disagree that as a geneneralization, the spit, with its elliptical wing was better in the horizontal at lower speeds, than the Me109 under those same conditions. Conversely, the 109 was better at higher speeds, with its thinner smaller wing, and was better in the vertical plane, though i have read it had some problems in a dive (I dont think those problems relate to the wing however).

Would be interested to read your opinions....


----------



## VG-33 (Aug 25, 2010)

claidemore said:


> Isn't the lift created on the top surface of the wing?


Not only, but it's about for 80% of it. My "*on*" was in general sense of language, it also meant "under"
The lift is created not by itself, but because of a particular circulation *relationship* between superior and inferior flow. If you perturbate it, you reduce the total output. Look at thin curvated and plate profile wing tunnel result. Not terrific, isn't it? Your top surface is not working as an hoover...




> If so, would that be the reason the radiators are on the undersurface, not the top? Of course a wing mounted radiator creates other problems, but how much effect (detrimental) would it actually have on lift?


Just imagine your Me-109 with underwings radiators running from the Karman to tips. How good would it fly, in your opinion?



> The changes on the Spitfire radiators from Mk V to Mk IX didn't seem to have much detrimental effect, at least none that I've heard of.


Compare the Spit (22.48 m²) and Me-109 (16,05) wing aera to radiators one. How much dtrimental, difficult to say...But much higher than probably prof Willy end sir Reginald had ever imaginated. The same as for Ju-52 corrugated skin. It's easy to criticize owerdays. But for 1933, did anywone ever saw published studies on that time, about the question? Back to radiators: obviously they were not aware from tests leaded in TsAGI wind tunnel with SB-2 radiators (at the end of the 30ies), that finally went inside the wing thikness of the SB new-look, called Ar-2. This solution being at far, the best.



> On another note, if adding twist causes one part of the wing to stall first, (allowing to pilot to feel an impending stall and either correct or hold the plane at that point without stalling), would it be accurate to say that adding the twist would have a net effect of the wing stalling *sooner *than it would have otherwise?


Yes and no. It depends of the twist value first. But you can sometimes win by increasing oswald number in twisted wings, that you loose by partly decresing your critical AoA on some wing section, before the others, as you have previously suggested.




> If so, might that be the reason W. Messerschmitt didn't have any twist in his wing? Wingloading was high already, why 'hasten' the stall? Particularly when you have LE slats.


You also have a little drag gain on small AoA for fast speeds and dives, if you don't use twist. 

Regards


----------



## Milosh (Aug 25, 2010)

> Back to radiators: obviously they were not aware from tests leaded in TsAGI wind tunnel with SB-2 radiators (at the end of the 30ies), that finally went inside the wing thikness of the SB new-look, called Ar-2. This solution being at far, the best.



deHavilland put the radiators in the wing of the Mosquito and I doubt they were aware of the TsAGI tests.


----------



## tail end charlie (Aug 25, 2010)

Milosh said:


> deHavilland put the radiators in the wing of the Mosquito and I doubt they were aware of the TsAGI tests.




The spitfire was originally designed to have evaporative cooling in the leading edge of the wings. The radiators were put on when the evaporative system didnt work. Supermarine used the wings and floats as radiators on their race planes.


from 
wikipedia
Ahead of the spar, the thick-skinned leading edge of the wing formed a strong and rigid D-shaped box, which took most of the wing loads. At the time the wing was designed, this D-shaped leading edge was intended to house steam condensers for the evaporative cooling system intended for the PV-XII. Constant problems with the evaporative system in the Goshawk led to the adoption of a cooling system which used 100% glycol.


----------



## Colin1 (Aug 25, 2010)

tail end charlie said:


> The spitfire was originally designed to have evaporative cooling in the leading edge of the wings. The radiators were put on when the evaporative system didnt work. Supermarine used the wings and floats as radiators on their race planes


Well, sort of
the Type 224 was a different beast to F37/34 and evaporative cooling, though they _possibly_ didn't know it, was on the cusp of obsolescence. The Type 224 gave 'a good performance, attained by the inclusion of leading edge evaporative cooling and a Rolls-Royce Kestrel S engine in a clean monoplane design'.

The evaporative cooling system worked by means of a steam separator mounted directly behind the engine outlets and the steam is led from there to the leading edge of the wing. The steam chamber is formed by the spar and metal covered leading edge. The condensate drains to a hotwell at the lowest part of the wing and is returned to the header tank by two turbine-driven pumps, the turbines being driven by the steam supply from the engine. Alternatively, the engine hotwell pump can be used. If preferred a normal type of honeycomb condenser can be fitted under the fuselage, the increase in weight of the aircraft being approximately 200lbs. Wind tunnel tests show that the increased weight and resistance results in a sacrifice of 12mph top speed and 300ft/min climb.

Unfortunately for evaporative cooling and fortunately for the Spitfire, the invention of glycol and its higher boiling point than water meant that powerplants no longer needed cumbersome, unwieldy evaporative systems, they could now be cooled with a fraction of the coolant volume and more efficiently; radiators weren't 'put on when the evaporative system didn't work' (it did work), it's just that the radiators were part of a different and more effective method of cooling.


----------



## tail end charlie (Aug 25, 2010)

Colin1 said:


> Well, sort of
> Unfortunately for evaporative cooling and fortunately for the Spitfire, the invention of glycol and its higher boiling point than water meant that powerplants no longer needed cumbersome, unwieldy evaporative systems, they could now be cooled with a fraction of the coolant volume and more efficiently; radiators weren't 'put on when the evaporative system didn't work' (it did work), it's just that the radiators were part of a different and more effective method of cooling.




I suppose at the time supermarine, from their racing experience preferred not to have radiators but then with the meredith effect radiators producing some thrust to compensate for the radiators drag it made it a no brainer. Since the guns fired in the wings I dont know how the evaporative system would have worked anyway.


----------



## Colin1 (Aug 25, 2010)

The USAAC had been using glycol for about 10 years prior to Supermarine's travails with a product called Prestone but it was applied 'neat' and like all neat glycol, it pretty much ate the gaskets; the Americans did suffer many leakage problems with their powerplants.

It wasn't until just prior to the outbreak of war that someone came up with the idea of a mix ratio of 70:30 water to glycol mix, this was applied to the Merlin and proved superior to the neat glycol application at atmospheric pressure whilst considerably reducing the seepage through the gaskets.

The system was introduced to all Merlins after the II and X.


----------



## drgondog (Aug 25, 2010)

parsifal said:


> fantastic stuff guys, though I struggle to comprehend even the basics of the discussion. Without trying to re-ignite the controversy, I have to pose the question, of the four types we are looking at, which one had the best or most advanced wing form.
> 
> *Form or airfoil or combined features of an integrated wing? The 51 seems to have the wing with th eleast drag while retaining desirable flight and handling characteristic. The Spit wing started out as the planform with the least induced drag until all the necessary real life additions were made. The 109 wing offered a very innovative and useful feature in the slats. Can't think of any unique novelties on the Fw 190 wing save the zero twist on the outboard section. All performed very well in air to air combat.
> 
> ...



It depends on the mission - as far as selecting the wing. As far as which was 'better' at different altitudes and which version (i.e Fw 190A-8 or Fw 190D-9). If you select speed and roughly comparable climb and turn, the Mustang was pretty much slightly superior to the Fw 190 although the 190 rolled faster. The 51 would outdive all except the comparable version Spit with the thinner wing (t/c) at transonic speeds.

If you select climb and turn, the Spit (IMO) pretty much triumphs all else being equal at all altitudes in general (two speed/two stage characteristics permitting some performance gaps - depending)

The 109 wing design with slats gave it excellent manueverabilty at high AoA from low speed to high G manuevers but as VG pointed out the wing/airframe design demanded radiator position in a placement sure to increase drag and reduce lift over the inboard wing section.. Ditto Spit.

Another way to look at it. The 51 was the heaviest (by significant percent) but it was faster and flew farther because the heavier airframe also carried a lot more fuel and was signigicantly less 'draggy' then the other three. A factor that should be discussion, having not much to do with wing planform is the design of the control surfaces. The 51 was perhaps the most responsive at high speed.

Of the 4 (109, Spit, Fw 190 and P-51) the 51 was the cleanest and the 109 was the draggiest. The 190D supassed the Spit and was closer to same drag as Mustang B/D. Arguement rage regarding the Meridith Effect as thr primary reason for the difference in performance but the fuselage/wing combination was nevertheless lower in drag than the other three.

The Spit, Mustang and 109 all had about the same ceiling with the Spit and 109 having better Lift Loading than the Mustang - pointing back to the reduced drag of the Mustang giving it compensation for its higher lift loading - and the Meridith Effect may have contributed another significant thrust component at high altitude..

So, could the 109 have benefitted with an under fuselage radiator design and laminar flow wing (while retaining) the slats? Probably in speed and range, but slower in climb due to extra weight.. Ditto for Spit vs Mustang.


----------



## Milosh (Aug 25, 2010)

The 109A>E would be draggy but why would the 109G>K, excluding the 109s with bulges, be draggy?


----------



## drgondog (Aug 25, 2010)

claidemore said:


> Isn't the lift created on the top surface of the wing? If so, would that be the reason the radiators are on the undersurface, not the top? Of course a wing mounted radiator creates other problems, but how much effect (detrimental) would it actually have on lift? The changes on the Spitfire radiators from Mk V to Mk IX didn't seem to have much detrimental effect, at least none that I've heard of.
> 
> On another note, if adding twist causes one part of the wing to stall first, (allowing to pilot to feel an impending stall and either correct or hold the plane at that point without stalling), would it be accurate to say that adding the twist would have a net effect of the wing stalling *sooner *than it would have otherwise? If so, might that be the reason W. Messerschmitt didn't have any twist in his wing? Wingloading was high already, why 'hasten' the stall? Particularly when you have LE slats.



VG answered the questions but I though I would make one addition. First - wing twist doesn't cause the inboard part of the wing first, it enables the more twisted section to remain at a slightly lower AoA than the inboard wing. In effect when the inboard section relative AoA reaches stall, the outboard section still has an AoA below the stall value. Altough I didn't know that the 109 wing had no twist until yesterday, it is easy to assume that as the entire wing approached AoA for CLmax (stall), the slats have already deployed due to the stagnation pressure buildup of the impending stall and immediately provides additional CL for that portion of the wing. Happily (and by design) the ailerons were behind the slats and remained effective as the bottom was dropping out on the inboard sections.

Brief background re: Twist and airfoil/wing properties - The wing of constant section/infinite span has no induced drag and the entire wing (theoretically since infinite span is impossible) would altogether stall at the same AoA.

Airlow around a lifting surface requires that a streamtube 'particle' separated by the leading edge must re-join that particle at the trailing edge. When the 'particle' on one surface must travel faster (i.e on the upper surface of an airfoil with the most curve) then Bernoulli's Principal kicks in - faster velocity and lowest pressure on that curved surface than it's 'slower cousin' below. Airplanes fly and curveballs curve based on these principles

Your airfoils in such publications as Abbott and Dunhoff (sp?) which publish airfoil sections have the twio dimensional values of the perfect constant section infinite wing CL, CD and Cm for each airfoil. They must be corrected for such factors as AR and Tip Geometry

Airflow in a three dimensional wing will have a spanwise component of velocity which results in the flow at the wing tip to move from the lower surface to rejoin it's 'cousins' traveling on the upper surface. We now have a vortex, which causes inviscid drag, which we call INduced Drag

Make a wing finite and the lift distribution varies based on the planform. An elliptical planform (induced drag exists but it is lowest possible value -compared to a different wing planform with same AR, Oswald efficiency constant) starts with the 'best' Lift Distribution and the 'Lowest' induced drag. Add twist to the perfect wing and you increase drag (slightly). The inviscid drag due to twist is calculable and it is additional to the inviscid induced drag of the untwisted wing.

Twist can only degrade an Elliptical Wing's Lift Distribution spanwise, and increase induced drag as a result. The rectangular wing plan form with a well designed tip and a modest degree of twist will tend to shift the Lift Distribution inboard to make it more closely approach the elliptical. 


Everything VG stated is dead on..


----------



## drgondog (Aug 25, 2010)

Milosh said:


> The 109A>E would be draggy but why would the 109G>K, excluding the 109s with bulges, be draggy?



Because the wing in all variants was draggy, the paint was draggy, the exhaust stacks were draggy, the slats and sheet metal gaps behind the slats were draggy, the radiators were draggy, the tailwheel was draggy. The open wheel wells were draggy

The nose/oil cooler of the 109F/G/K was less draggy than the E, the lack of tail struts were less than the 109E.
The bulges of the G was draggier than the E.The K was the cleanest and it was still draggy in comparison to the Mustang and fw 190/190D.

The basic airframe of the 109 was a 1935 design with many operational changes but kept the wing and same general lines/control surfaces, etc.


----------



## tail end charlie (Aug 25, 2010)

drgondog said:


> It depends on the mission - as far as selecting the wing. As far as which was 'better' at different altitudes and which version (i.e Fw 190A-8 or Fw 190D-9). If you select speed and roughly comparable climb and turn, the Mustang was pretty much slightly superior to the Fw 190 although the 190 rolled faster. The 51 would outdive all except the comparable version Spit with the thinner wing (t/c) at transonic speeds.
> 
> If you select climb and turn, the Spit (IMO) pretty much triumphs all else being equal at all altitudes in general (two speed/two stage characteristics permitting some performance gaps - depending)



It is clear the mustang was cleaner in aerodynamics than the spitfire but I'm sure read somewhere that the spitfire had a higher limiting mach number, are the two not related or was I reading bollocks.

Some spitfires had wings clipped did that make them more like a trapezoidal wing as regards drag or is it more complicated than that (I think I already know the answer)


----------



## parsifal (Aug 25, 2010)

If Soren were here now........


----------



## Milosh (Aug 25, 2010)

drgondog said:


> Because the wing in all variants was draggy, the paint was draggy, the exhaust stacks were draggy, the slats and sheet metal gaps behind the slats were draggy, the radiators were draggy, the tailwheel was draggy. The open wheel wells were draggy
> 
> The nose/oil cooler of the 109F/G/K was less draggy than the E, the lack of tail struts were less than the 109E.
> The bulges of the G was draggier than the E.The K was the cleanest and it was still draggy in comparison to the Mustang and fw 190/190D.
> ...



How can the paint be draggy when it was a finer grain than American paint? That means it not as orange peely as American paint.

How can the radiators be draggy when they had a boundary layer separator?

Why would the exhaust stakes be draggy?

Only the G-6 and G-14 had noticeable bulges.


----------



## Njaco (Aug 25, 2010)

tail end charlie said:


> ......
> Some spitfires had wings clipped did that make them more like a trapezoidal wing as regards drag or is it more complicated than that (I think I already know the answer)



I'm no expert but I believe that was for carrier Spitfires (Seafires) - space concerns.


----------



## parsifal (Aug 25, 2010)

Ive read that clipped wing versions wer built for better low altitude performance. I guess with the denser air at lower altitudes, less wing was needed to get the necessary lift, and with less wing comes less surface area, and hence less drag

The equation becomes intersting in the midwar period. Putting aside the more exotic subtypes for both the 109 and the Spit, I would say that for most of the war the Spit and the 109 were more or less equal adversaries. Perhaps the lowest point in comparability occurred in early 1941, with the large scale introduction of the Me109f subtype. In the battles over Francein early to mid 1941, the fighter sweeps by FC were mainly against Me 109e types. Fighter Commands SpitII, Vs and Hurricane IIs were hard pressed by the4 Me 109es, achieving exchange rates somehat worse than 2 for1. Against the Me 109f, the exchange rates were even worse, perhaps as high as 3:1 against the RAF. SpitV versus Me 109F were a bit better, due mostly to the firepower advantage I think held by the later cannon armed subtypes of the Mark V. 

What i find intriguing however, is that the general consensus held by many is that the 109 was superior to its stablemate the 190. Yet while it is arguable that the Spit V could at least hold its own against the Me 109f, it is generally acknowledged that aginst the FW 190, the Spit V was badly outclassed. The conventional histories then say that it was not until the ontroduction of the Spit IX in the latter part of 1942 that this qualitativfe imbalance was addressed. In combat against the Spit V at least, the FW 190 appears to be superior. Perhaps it has something to do with the altitudes (most of the combats over France and southern England were at low level) or the low firepower of the f subtype, or paerhaps we are looking at yet another urban myth. 

I dont have figures for the FW190, introduced in the fall of 1941, but I have read that it outclassed s, rtThe FW


----------



## Colin1 (Aug 26, 2010)

Njaco said:


> I'm no expert but I believe that was for carrier Spitfires (Seafires) - space concerns.


Chris
clipped wings were configured for low-altitude performance, there would be an increase in roll rate at the expense of lift. These would typically be annotated as low-altitude birds eg LF Mk Vb, LF Mk IXe.

Lift is what you need when you're carrier-borne so there was no question of clipping the wings, the earliest sea-going Spitfires (not Seafires) had their wing tips removed and stowed in the cockpit, the only example I can think of right now being the Eagle and Wasp carriers ferrying Spitfires to within flying-in range of Malta. The Seafire eventually had folding wings to deal with the space issue.

*Below:* Sitting on _Wasp's _flight deck immediately after being hoisted on board, this Spitfire V still has the sling in position on the forward fuselage and its wing tips in the cockpit. _USN_

*Bottom:* A Seafire III showing the method of wing folding introduced with this version. _Price_


----------



## The Basket (Aug 26, 2010)

The roll rate of the clipped Spits were faster.

Made it more matched against Fw 190.

The Fredrich was certainly good against the Mk V.

Why the RAF went crazy over the 190 when the Fred was also better....dunno.

Maybe it was a novelty thing.

Naval Seafires were poor naval aircraft....totally illsuited to carrier operation.


----------



## tail end charlie (Aug 26, 2010)

Colin1 said:


> Chris
> 
> *Bottom:* A Seafire III showing the method of wing folding introduced with this version. _Price_



I am amazed with all the thought that went in to the aerodynamics how un aerodynamic the rear view mirror looks


----------



## Kurfürst (Aug 26, 2010)

drgondog said:


> Of the 4 (109, Spit, Fw 190 and P-51) the 51 was the cleanest and the 109 was the draggiest.



This latter statement based on what..? Compare top speed with the power required... The IX, AS/D versions of the 109 and the P-51 had approx. the same amount of horsepower. The Mustang was generally the fastest on the same power (except 109K, which was actually a tiny bit faster), about 10-20 km/h faster than the 109s.. the Spit IX was about 60 km/h slower than the Mustang, with the same powerplant..

So I wonder, if your thesis is correct, how come the supposedly draggiest airframe with the same amount of power be also one of the fastest ones..?


----------



## tail end charlie (Aug 26, 2010)

parsifal said:


> The equation becomes intersting in the midwar period. Putting aside the more exotic subtypes for both the 109 and the Spit, I would say that for most of the war the Spit and the 109 were more or less equal adversaries. Perhaps the lowest point in comparability occurred in early 1941, with the large scale introduction of the Me109f subtype. In the battles over Francein early to mid 1941, the fighter sweeps by FC were mainly against Me 109e types. Fighter Commands SpitII, Vs and Hurricane IIs were hard pressed by the4 Me 109es, achieving exchange rates somehat worse than 2 for1. Against the Me 109f, the exchange rates were even worse, perhaps as high as 3:1 against the RAF. SpitV versus Me 109F were a bit better, due mostly to the firepower advantage I think held by the later cannon armed subtypes of the Mark V.
> 
> I dont have figures for the FW190, introduced in the fall of 1941, but I have read that it outclassed s, rtThe FW



With regard to the loss rates the RAF were in the reverse situation to the Battle of Britain. Flying over the channel put the spitfire at a disadvantage, any hit to the fuel or cooling meant probably the aircraft was lost. Additionally both sides knew the game they were playing, the RAF were trying to cause losses to the LW strength, the LW therefore , when they had the choice only engaged when they were in a position of advantage., like height or numbers. For the RAF giving chase to LW planes could mean being led into a trap or running out of gas.


----------



## VG-33 (Aug 26, 2010)

Milosh said:


> How can the paint be draggy when it was a finer grain than American paint? That means it not as orange peely as American paint.


Of course, different paints had different grain sizes. Nothing surprising. Moreover Mustang wing was covered with different slices of paint, even hiding rivets heads and sheet junctions. Then highly polished ans shined. This is the *normal *laminanarity condition; you can loose it for every mosquito's sh*t on your surfaces.



> How can the radiators be draggy when they had a boundary layer separator?


_Na und?_ And what your separator does, to reduce drag?



> Why would the exhaust stakes be draggy?


Maybe more optimised? Better diffusor angle for the stream? Anyway it's far from being the sole reason for the Mustang to have the lowest Cd from all WW2 fighters. There might by an *extended* amount of *negligeable* details in itself, that taken together could make the difference. 
For instance the 109's external carburettor air intake was twice as draggy as early LaGG-3/Yak-1 wing one and full 3-4 times with later improved LE lips/ ducts ones.




> Only the G-6 and G-14 had noticeable bulges.



From TsAGI studies, the squared 109 bulge could have been easily improved, as other details. Anyway we still talk about it:

http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/aviation/yak-1-7-9-vs-bf109g2-24856-3.html#post674614

Regards


----------



## Shortround6 (Aug 26, 2010)

I think that somethings may be being confused here.

OVERALL drag between a Mustang and a 109 may very well be similar. 
We would have to compare specific models at the same altitude and know the power output for both engines at that specific altitude. 

However, even if the 109 is equal or even slightly faster than the Mustang using the same power it is still a "dragger" airframe because it is a smaller airframe. The Mustang with it's bigger wing and larger fuselage is more streamlined for its size. THe larger size allows it to carry the extra fuel and heavier weight of armament. I don't want this to veer off into tangent but I think we can all agree that that the Mustangs .50 cal MGs and ammo weighed more than the 109 normal internal armament. 
So you have a small but higher drag airframe (the 109) vs a larger but lower drag airframe (Mustang) giving the same TOTAL drag. 

As an example the Lockheed Orion transport has a drag coefficient similar to a P-47 even though it is a 6 passenger airliner. 
Drag coefficient measure how streamline a plane is for it's size. the coefficient has to multiplied by the planes size (usually wing area) to get profile drag. this doesn't include induced drag. At least I don't think it does but those with aeronautics degrees ( or more knowledge) are free to correct me.
Looking at the F2A-3 it has a lower total drag (profile) than an F4F-3 not because it is more streamlined but because it used a much smaller wing. At 6.27 sq ft of 'flat plate area" for the Buffalo compared to 6.58 sq ft for the Wildcat the difference isn't great but at 209 sq ft of wing to 260 sq ft of wing the Buffalo has a hard time claiming it is a lower drag airframe.


----------



## drgondog (Aug 26, 2010)

Kurfürst said:


> This latter statement based on what..? Compare top speed with the power required... The IX, AS/D versions of the 109 and the P-51 had approx. the same amount of horsepower. The Mustang was generally the fastest on the same power (except 109K, which was actually a tiny bit faster), about 10-20 km/h faster than the 109s.. the Spit IX was about 60 km/h slower than the Mustang, with the same powerplant..
> 
> So I wonder, if your thesis is correct, how come the supposedly draggiest airframe with the same amount of power be also one of the fastest ones..?



Shortrounds basic answer is correct. The Mustang wetted area is about 50% greater than the 109 and 6% greater than the Spit and 16%greater than the Fw 190D-9.

From Hoerner: At 380mph, 22,000 feet at 6700 pounds gross weight, 1200 Hp:

Building up all the drag factors, applying Thrust calculated with 140 pounds of exhaust thrust at 380mph and propeller efficiency of .85 and getting total drag yielded:

The Drag Area of the 109G is approximately 6.2 sq ft with Cd of .036 at that speed and altitude.

The total wetted area of the 109G, according to Hoerner, is 590 square feet. Also according to the example calculations using the 109G Hoerner's calculated CDwet = .0105. (Divide Drag Area by Wetted Area). Compare against the following values derived from Flight and Wind Tunnel tests:

The tables in Lednicer's WWII Fighter Aerodynamics present the following at ~360kts, 15,000 feet.
1. Spit IX Drag Area = 5.4 sq Ft, Wetted Area = 831.2 sq ft, CDwet = .0065
2. P-51B Drag Area = 4.61 sq ft Wetted Area = 874..0 sq ft, CDwet = .0053
3. P-51D Drag Area = 4.65 sq ft Wetted Area = 882.2 sq ft, CDwet = .0053
4. Fw 190A-8 Drag Area=5.22 sq ft, Wetted Area = 735.0 sq ft, CDwet = .0071
4. Fw 190D-9 Drag Area=4.71 sq ft, Wetted Area = 761.6 sq ft, CDwet = .0063

The data Lednicer presented include (but not limited to) the following
Spitfire - "the Development of the Spifire and Seafire". Journal of the Royal Aeronautical Society, Vol 51, April 1947.. plus various flight tests including "Measurements of the flying Qualities of a Supermarine Spitfire VA Airplane, NACA WR L-334, September 1942.

Mustang = "High Speed Wind Tunnel Tests of Models of four single engine fighters (Spifire, Spiteful, Attacker and Mustang" Staff of RAE High Speed Wind Tunnel Tests - Parts 1-5 Aeronautical Research Council R&M No 2535, 1951

Mustang - Correlation of the Drag Characteristics of a Typical Pursuit Airplane Obtained from High Speed Wind Tunnel and Flight Tests" NACA Report 916, 1948

Lednicer's VSAERO model very closely approximated the values derived from full scale wind tunnel tests. These values are derived at 360kts, for Reynolds number at 15,000 ft.


----------



## drgondog (Aug 26, 2010)

Shortround6 said:


> I think that somethings may be being confused here.
> 
> OVERALL drag between a Mustang and a 109 may very well be similar.
> We would have to compare specific models at the same altitude and know the power output for both engines at that specific altitude.
> ...



All good stuff with one (long) comment. 
The Total Drag = Parasite Drag + Vortex Drag + Lift Dependent Drag + Compressibility Drag

Parasite Drag has components of surface imperfections (paint friction/gaps, etc) and is applied to the wetted area. Parasite drag has components of 'bumps', antenna, open whell wells, turrets, etc and are calculated independently, summarized and applied against wetted area to derive CDp. 

Vortex Drag - contains viscous components including increases in skin friction and pressure drag associated with increasing changes to angles of attack. These occur because the increased velocities on the upper surface of the wing lead to higher shear stresses and adverse pressure gradients - with corresponding increases to pressure drag. This is where early analysis gets hairy because it also includes such effects as nacelle/pylon interference, changes in trim drag due to angle of attack, change in drag due to engine power effects (either inlet or exhaust), wing leading edge geometry, camber, thickness ratio, etc)... these factors are applied as function of wing area to derive CDv.


Lift-Induced Drag - contains the inviscid components associated with lift and include the commonly phrased 'Induced Drag" with well known components of CL/AR/e plus twist factors of drag at zero lift. It is further modified by a factor for added lift dependent drag caused by modification of spanwise lift distribution caused by the wing/fuselage combination. This is applied to area of wing also to derive CDi.


----------



## drgondog (Aug 26, 2010)

tail end charlie said:


> It is clear the mustang was cleaner in aerodynamics than the spitfire but I'm sure read somewhere that the spitfire had a higher limiting mach number, are the two not related or was I reading bollocks.
> 
> Some spitfires had wings clipped did that make them more like a trapezoidal wing as regards drag or is it more complicated than that (I think I already know the answer)



The clipped wing was more to achieve a faster roll rate - and yes became more like a trapezoidal wing planform. However the trailing edge was still 'elliptical in nature. It is an interesting question in that what does 'more like Trapezoidal or more less elliptical' mean?

The Spit achieved a higher Mach number in a dive due to the thinner wing.


----------



## Shortround6 (Aug 26, 2010)

drgondog said:


> All good stuff with one (long) comment.
> The Total Drag = Parasite Drag + Vortex Drag + Lift Dependent Drag + Compressibility Drag
> 
> Parasite Drag....... .. a factor for added lift dependent drag caused by modification of spanwise lift distribution caused by the wing/fuselage combination. This is applied to area of wing also to derive CDi.



Thank you. Many books only mention one or two of the components and not all.
While I may not be able to do the math I would at least like to understand some of the factors that go into it.

It may not be easy to get a small plane to go fast with a certain amount of power, it is even harder to get a plane carrying a much larger payload to go as fast on the same power.


----------



## RCAFson (Aug 26, 2010)

Kurfürst said:


> T .. the Spit IX was about 60 km/h slower than the Mustang, with the same powerplant..



The Mustang was definitely faster than a Spitfire, but even though they both used the Merlin engine there were differences in propeller gearing, boost levels and supercharger critical altitudes, that make direct comparisons tricky.


----------



## drgondog (Aug 26, 2010)

RCAFson said:


> The Mustang was definitely faster than a Spitfire, but even though they both used the Merlin engine there were differences in propeller gearing, boost levels and supercharger critical altitudes, that make direct comparisons tricky.



True if you wish to state that the Mustang was "xx mph" faster than the Spitfire at "yy,000 feet".

Not as tricky when the flight test data reports max speed for the same boost/rpm as that configuration and flight envelope is optimized for both ships to set an upper limit for a specific combat version/model number


----------



## drgondog (Aug 26, 2010)

Shortround6 said:


> Thank you. Many books only mention one or two of the components and not all.
> While I may not be able to do the math I would at least like to understand some of the factors that go into it.
> 
> It may not be easy to get a small plane to go fast with a certain amount of power, it is even harder to get a plane carrying a much larger payload to go as fast on the same power.



Shortround - Preliminary Design is the world of a.) applicable theory and b.) go look up the fudge factors - 

Math works well and consistently in the world where the theory behind the model is linear and applicable. The Fudge factors are empirical design parameters (like wing/fuselage interference drag for a specific span to fuselage diameter and aspect ratio, or drag due to aileron gaps or blisters or ?? ) where you literally go to your own set of bibles/wind tunnel data in the aero biz and scan the charts...


----------



## tail end charlie (Aug 26, 2010)

drgondog said:


> The clipped wing was more to achieve a faster roll rate - and yes became more like a trapezoidal wing planform. However the trailing edge was still 'elliptical in nature. It is an interesting question in that what does 'more like Trapezoidal or more less elliptical' mean?
> 
> The Spit achieved a higher Mach number in a dive due to the thinner wing.





Is there a limit for a propeller driven aircraft obviously they cant go supersonic, but for example Napier claimed that they had produced 5,500 hp (4.100 kW) at 45 lb/sq in boost in a test, would a Tempest or Sea Fury or any monoplane for that matter be substantially faster and controllable with that sort of power or do they reach a limit of physics like steam engines.


----------



## davparlr (Aug 26, 2010)

tail end charlie said:


> Is there a limit for a propeller driven aircraft obviously they cant go supersonic, but for example Napier claimed that they had produced 5,500 hp (4.100 kW) at 45 lb/sq in boost in a test, would a Tempest or Sea Fury or any monoplane for that matter be substantially faster and controllable with that sort of power or do they reach a limit of physics like steam engines.



I think prop planes are starting to run into a barrier around 500 mph. Rare Bear, the fastest prop race modified plane, a F8F, did 528 mph with a 4000+ hp (probably close to 5000hp) engine. This is only about 40 mph faster than the fastest WWII prop jobs, the P-51H, Ta-152H, P-47M, et. al., with much less power. The P-47M, the most powerful WWII single engine aircraft, had 2800 hp at 33k ft.


----------



## parsifal (Aug 26, 2010)

I think it also relevant to note that the Spit IX, when introduced in June '42 hada top speed at 20K of around 405 MPH. The G-2, with a slightly less powerful engine, but introduced at around the same time, had a top speed at that altitude of around 385 MPH. In 1943, the Spit IX was progressively introduced to the uprated versions of the Merlin, giving it a top speed of around 414 MPH for some of its subtypes. The G subtypes eventually gave way to the Me 109K, introduced in September 1944, by which time the Spit IXs were completely superseded. The Me109K had a top speed of around 427 MPH at that 20K standard, but are we making a fair comparison here....the K was more than two years younger than the spit subtype we are comparing it to, and I believe3 had ceased production by that time.


----------



## tail end charlie (Aug 26, 2010)

davparlr said:


> I think prop planes are starting to run into a barrier around 500 mph. Rare Bear, the fastest prop race modified plane, a F8F, did 528 mph with a 4000+ hp (probably close to 5000hp) engine. This is only about 40 mph faster than the fastest WWII prop jobs, the P-51H, Ta-152H, P-47M, et. al., with much less power. The P-47M, the most powerful WWII single engine aircraft, had 2800 hp at 33k ft.



Well the tupolev bear did 545 to 575mph (depending where you read) but had around 60,000SHP it seem to me as if an operational single seat single engined plane has a limit of about 500mph as you say. Considering rare bear had a bigger engine no armament and was specially prepared for racing it was not substantially quicker than the original bearcat


----------



## tail end charlie (Aug 26, 2010)

parsifal said:


> I think it also relevant to note that the Spit IX, when introduced in June '42 hada top speed at 20K of around 405 MPH. The G-2, with a slightly less powerful engine, but introduced at around the same time, had a top speed at that altitude of around 385 MPH. In 1943, the Spit IX was progressively introduced to the uprated versions of the Merlin, giving it a top speed of around 414 MPH for some of its subtypes. The G subtypes eventually gave way to the Me 109K, introduced in September 1944, by which time the Spit IXs were completely superseded. The Me109K had a top speed of around 427 MPH at that 20K standard, but are we making a fair comparison here....the K was more than two years younger than the spit subtype we are comparing it to, and I believe3 had ceased production by that time.



The merlin had a swept volume of 27 Litres while the Me 109 had a swept volume of 34 to 36 litres It wasnt until the 37 litre griffon variants came in to sevice that the engines of both were of approximately the same size.


----------



## Shortround6 (Aug 26, 2010)

tail end charlie said:


> Well the tupolev bear did 545 to 575mph (depending where you read) but had around 60,000SHP it seem to me as if an operational single seat single engined plane has a limit of about 500mph as you say. Considering rare bear had a bigger engine no armament and was specially prepared for racing it was not substantially quicker than the original bearcat



Please keep in mind the altitudes the speeds were achieved at. Reno is about 4400ft above sea level plus what ever hight the planes are above ground level. 
The top speed of the WW II and after service Bearcats was achieved at around 20,000ft or higher. Much thinner air means much less drag. 
Sea level speed for a Bearcat was around 382-387mph depending on model. Put that together with a Military rating about 400hp lower at 20,000ft than at sea level and I think we can see were the extra HP of the Rare Bear is going or why it is needed at around 5000ft.


----------



## Shortround6 (Aug 26, 2010)

tail end charlie said:


> The merlin had a swept volume of 27 Litres while the Me 109 had a swept volume of 34 to 36 litres It wasnt until the 37 litre griffon variants came in to sevice that the engines of both were of approximately the same size.



The swept volume of the engine, while interesting to the engine designer, is of no value to the airframe designer.
The airframe designer is much more interested in power per unit of weight of the engine and in the physical size of the power plant. 
The DB engines were designed to run at lower rpm than the Merlin and actually weighed about the same (not including superchargers) as the engine blocks, crankcase could be made lighter. Height and width of the Merlin and the DB engines were very close also, much closer than the difference in swept volume might lead one to believe.


----------



## tail end charlie (Aug 27, 2010)

Shortround6 said:


> The swept volume of the engine, while interesting to the engine designer, is of no value to the airframe designer.
> The airframe designer is much more interested in power per unit of weight of the engine and in the physical size of the power plant.
> The DB engines were designed to run at lower rpm than the Merlin and actually weighed about the same (not including superchargers) as the engine blocks, crankcase could be made lighter. Height and width of the Merlin and the DB engines were very close also, much closer than the difference in swept volume might lead one to believe.



I was just mentioning it as the swept volume is an important factor in the power output of an engine and the power output is an important factor in the speed of an airplane. There are many other things of course.


----------



## Kurfürst (Aug 27, 2010)

Hi Bill and Shortround,





Shortround6 said:


> I think that somethings may be being confused here.
> 
> OVERALL drag between a Mustang and a 109 may very well be similar.
> We would have to compare specific models at the same altitude and know the power output for both engines at that specific altitude.
> ...



I understand the difference between absolute drag values (ie. equivalent flat plate area) and relative drag (usually expressed as a coefficient related to some other area value, ie. total surface area or more often, related to wing area only). My problems with the statement are really the following:

Generally I don't believe expressing aerodynamic 'cleaness' with a wing area related coefficient gives you realistic comparison values, since in this case we are comparing the total drag of the aircraft (fuselage, radiators, antenna etc) to a single element of the drag, that is responsible only for the fraction of the total drag, ie. Hoerner assumes that the 109 wing assembly was responsible for 37.5% of the total drag. Such comparison, by its nature always gives better coefficients for aircraft with larger wing areas. 

For a simplified example, lets assume that the total drag of the 109 is 100, and its wing has an area of 16. The wing thus is responsible for 37 units of drag (see above); the coefficient would be 100 drag / 13 wing area, ie. a drag coefficient of 6.25.
Now, double the wing area of the 109, to 32 units, and leave everything else alone. The wing's drag component is now 74 (ie. 2x37), the remainder is still the same as with the original wing, 63 (ie. 100-37), a total of 137 units of total drag, _but the coefficient now is 4.28, almost 50% 'better' than the original 109... even though there were absolutely no improvements_ to skin friction, the fuselage or anything else... its exactly the same aircraft, just with oversized wings. I understand that it may be somewhat more complicated in practice, but you get the point I guess: It would be nonsense to state that the same 109 with bigger wings is cleaner than a 109 with smaller wings, and its only seems so because our basis of relation (wing area) takes account only 1/3 of the total picture.

Wing area related coefficients of drag are NOT a measure of quality of aerodynamic cleaness (I believe stated many times by NACA papers as well), but just that, a mere coefficient for engineers. I believe from factor is probably better expressed in front area related form factor coefficients, not to mention, given an aircrafts multitude of flying conditions (near stall, fast flight, climb, landing, flaps/slats deployed etc.) there's a myriad of drag coefficients for each condition..



drgondog said:


> From Hoerner: At 380mph, 22,000 feet at 6700 pounds gross weight, 1200 Hp:
> 
> Building up all the drag factors, applying Thrust calculated with 140 pounds of exhaust thrust at 380mph and propeller efficiency of .85 and getting total drag yielded:
> 
> ...



I believe Hoerner's study was discussed a number of times. I don't believe for a minute that Hoerner's method would be unprofessional in many details, in fact I am pretty sure his study is as perfect as it can be. However I believe its purpose is misunderstood - its certainly not a serious study specifically on the 109s aerodynamics, rather than a generic example provided how to calculate such things, and what factors are present in drag, and how it can be improved. Also, the following has to be taken into account:

Any calculation is just as good as the basic numbers it uses. Hoerner's study however uses ad hoc number s for its calculation, the - rather optimisitic imho - 85% propeller efficency is an assumption, with no actual data on the actual VDM propellers effiency curves - and we know too well that some of these were optimised for climb speeds, some for high speed, high altitude flight (this is obvious looking at climb curves for normal altitude G-14 and high altitude G-14/AS with equivalent power levels, but different props). 
Exhaust thrust is yet another assumption with a some 20% margin of error in what actual thrust is available for the aircraft, and this foundamentally effects the accuracy of the calculations. In both propeller and exhaust thrust, I believe Hoerner's guess are a bit on the optimistic side with regards of the actual thrust available.

Secondly, he assumes a top speed of 380 mph (612 km/h) for his '109G', which is waaay lower than what was actually measured on the 109G at these power levels (1200 HP at altitude relates to 1.3ata Kampfleistung, ie. 30 min ratings). The actual measured/nominal speeds were, at this rating, atltidue:

G-1 through G-4: 660 km/h / 410 mph
G-5/G-6 : 630 km/h / 391 mph

Needless to say, underestimating top speed by as much 50 km/h or 30 mph (!!!), or 10% will yield drastically worser drag values, since power requirements increase on the cube for higher top speed. Ie. Hoerner's fantasy like 109G does 380 mph at 1200 HP; the real one did 410 mph on the same 1200 HP; the get Hoerner's 109G from 380 mph to 410 mph, ie. the speed actually achieved by the real one, it would take an 1500 HP output engine at that altitude, ie. in practice, the most powerful engine in the 109K.

So I believe Hoerner's study, while theoretically perfect, in practice are flawed by his wrong base data (the weight figures BTW are also curious, 6700 lbs would be a correct weight for an early 109G-2, but the G-6 was some 200 lbs heavier, yet still faster than Hoerner's example, unless it had gunpods... which would add another 500 lbs.... so, what is this Franken109 of Hoerner's really is?)

They are also at odds with the drag coefficients and polars stated by the wartime Messerschmitt AG papers, which all state a drag coefficient of 0.023 for the Bf 109F/early G, which I posted on this board quite a few times btw..




drgondog said:


> The Drag Area of the 109G is approximately 6.2 sq ft with Cd of .036 at that speed and altitude.



Moreover if we take Hoerner's calculated drag area for the '109' seriously, its also at odds with common sense and reasoning: simply an aircraft with higher drag and lower power output can't be as fast or faster as another, ie.




drgondog said:


> Compare against the following values derived from Flight and Wind Tunnel tests:
> 
> The tables in Lednicer's WWII Fighter Aerodynamics present the following at ~360kts, 15,000 feet.
> 1. Spit IX *Drag Area = 5.4 sq Ft*, Wetted Area = 831.2 sq ft, CDwet = .0065



OK, so we have Spit IX with drag Area = 5.4 sq Ft, 1595 HP at critical altitude, doing 404 mph at critical altitude (21 k feet). 

Please explain, how its possible, that a 109G, which _according to Hoerner_, has a drag area 6.2 sq ft (but 4 sq. ft according to Messerschmitt AG...), manage to do about 405 mph at 21 feet, with an 1200 HP powerplant... while being draggier, and having about 2-300 HP less. I would say its either a miracle, or Hoerners drag coeff is flat out wrong, as is the base date he used.

Same comparison BTW at Sea levels, ie. compare Spit IX F/LF speeds to 109G-2/G-6 speeds and the corresponding powers.. the 109G was considerably faster (by ca 30 km/h if we look at nominal specs, ie. ) near the ground than the Merlin 61 powered Marks, despit having slightly less power available. And it was about as fast as the Mark IX LF, which had considerably more (by some 300 HP!) available...


----------



## Kurfürst (Aug 27, 2010)

continued...



drgondog said:


> 4. Fw 190A-8 Drag Area=5.22 sq ft, Wetted Area = 735.0 sq ft, CDwet = .0071
> 4. Fw 190D-9 Drag Area=4.71 sq ft, Wetted Area = 761.6 sq ft, CDwet = .0063



Here's another great opportunity to make a comparison, because the FW 190A-8 and the G-14 (which was aerodynamically identical to G-6, and considerably worse than the F-x/G-2) had exactly the same engine output at SL: 1800 PS. 

Corresponding speed specifications were:

A-8, at 1.42ata/1800 PS, without ETC 501 rack (otherwise standard fitting I believe, -12 km/h at SL): 545 km/h
G-14, at 1.7ata/1800 PS, clean: 568 km/h.

Again explain how it is possible... supposedly larger drag, equal power, yet faster.. with Hoerner's 6.2 sq ft with Cd of .036 for the 109, it is impossible when the Fw 190A-8 has a calculated drag Area=5.22 sq ft. However if we take the actual Messerschmitt drag figures in account (ie. coeff of 0.023 = 4.002 sq. ft. for F-4/G-2, and taking into account that the G-6/G-14 is quite a bit worser, since the thing was some 20-30 km/h slower due to negative aerodynamic changes.. so lets assume say 4.5 sq. ft.), it begins to make sense.

Fine discussion BTW!


----------



## drgondog (Aug 27, 2010)

Kurfürst said:


> continued...
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Kurfurst - the questions you posed have too much to respond to in a single pass.

First three comments.

Lednicer's values are all from flight tests and full scale wind tunnel tests. Lednicer in turn performed a VSAERO analysis with sophisticated routines to model pressure gradient build ups and associated form drag due to boundary layer separation - which in turn combined to yield values very close to the wind tunnel data. I will see if Paul placed the Lednicer Fighter Comparison on his Performance thread and upload it if not.

Second, If you have the Hoerner analysis, look to the discussion of Aerodynamic Efficiency at the end of Chapter XIV. It is an excellent breakdown of the various components of drag on the Me 109G. The key subtitles include Wing , Fuselage, Radiator, Tail and Induced. For each of these he breaks out the total drag as a function of Smooth Skin Friction, Forced Turbulence, Surface Imperfections and "Additional Parts (of drag components)". For the latter (Additional parts) the Radiator is signigicant - nealy 40% of the total wing drag.

He went further to delineate the main components into types of drag in aggragate - namely Skin Friction Drag (33%), surface roughness (15%), exposed parts, especially of the engine (33%), interference drag (6%), influence of compressibility (at M=.55 ---> 6%), INDUCED DRAG (7%).

Third - you are absolutely correct that Hoerner's analysis is not the last workd on Me 109 aerodynamics - but it is an excellent tutorial regarding the effects of various forces applied to an airframe which are loosely sorted into those due to lift and those due to interference/turbulence and those due to 'form'. As I stated before Hoerner's Fluiud Dynamic Drag was one of my texts in undergraduate school and was my primary source in different airframe design courses later.

The very last paragraph on efficiency summarizes the findings and states that more than half of the drag could be reduced based on much better manufacturing techniques (skin gaps, rivet heads, surface imperfections) and ruthless clean aerodynamic design (i.e Implied much better design of radiator, landing gear doors, etc) that the efficiency woul be raised from 40% to a much higher value - and corresponding speed for the same engine.

Maybe take this offline??

Regards,

Bill


----------



## Timppa (Aug 27, 2010)

One interesting tidbit:

When a captured Spitfire VB (EN830 of 131 Squadron) was fitted with DB605A, it achieved 300mph (483km/h) at sea level, compared to 316mph (509 km/h) for the Bf109G.

One may argue that the front fuselage contour is not the same, but I believe that the difference was negligible.


----------



## drgondog (Aug 27, 2010)

Timppa said:


> One interesting tidbit:
> 
> When a captured Spitfire VB (EN830 of 131 Squadron) was fitted with DB605A, it achieved 300mph (483km/h) at sea level, compared to 316mph (509 km/h) for the Bf109G.
> 
> One may argue that the front fuselage contour is not the same, but I believe that the difference was negligible.



Timppa - that is interesting. Any more details like 'did they measure performance of the Spit VB with the Merlin prior to the installation for the DB605A?, etc, etc to provide more insight to comparisons?


----------



## RCAFson (Aug 27, 2010)

drgondog said:


> Timppa - that is interesting. Any more details like 'did they measure performance of the Spit VB with the Merlin prior to the installation for the DB605A?, etc, etc to provide more insight to comparisons?




By definition a Spitfire VB is a very early production aircraft (probably 1941) with a low performance, by later standards, engine while a 109G can refer to aircraft built up to late 1944. Using 18lb boost and a Merlin50. the VB could do 325mph at 0ft:
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/w3228speed.gif

while a standard VB with 9lb boost could do 280mph, so with 12lb-16lb or boost we would expect the VB to achieve 300-320 mph:
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spitfire-V-raechart.jpg
and in the above example it achieved 302 and 317mph at 12 and 16lb boost.

The 109 was refitted with the Merlin and built under license with that engine in Spain:
Hispano Aviación HA-1112 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Timppa (Aug 28, 2010)

drgondog said:


> Any more details like 'did they measure performance of the Spit VB with the Merlin prior to the installation for the DB605A?, etc, etc to provide more insight to comparisons?



The plane crash-landed in France during a fighter sweep on November 18, 1943. It may have flown before it was handed over to Daimler-Benz AG. The object of the engine modification was to test the cooling system of the Mk V and so the original radiators under the wing were retained, although all the armament were removed. It was flown against the 109G to produce comparison of performance at different heights.

(Source: FlyPast -Magazine)


----------



## Shortround6 (Aug 28, 2010)

I would note that the difference between the re-engined Spit and the 109 seems to be about 5%.
Granted there is no armament drag on the Spit but given it's larger wing and and wetted surface the results are not too surprising. 
Given that the Spit had more room/volume inside the airframe for armament and fuel it doesn't seem that the 109 airframe is any more sophisticated than the Spitfire, just smaller. 

I will grant that the Spitfire did not often use it's extra volume for fuel but the potential was there as shown by the leading edge tanks on the MK VIIIs and photo recon planes as well as the aft fuselage tanks. We can argue about the effectiveness of center line guns vs wing mounted guns but with many Spitfires carrying 2 20mm guns a 4 RCMGs vs the one 20mm and 2 RCMGs of many 109s the Spit had to big enough to carry twice the armament internally, or on the original models to carry eight guns instead of two. 

I would note that an old book on basic aircraft design (very basic) gives a rule of thumb that a 25% reduction in wing area is good for a 3% increase in speed. Given the slightly more than 25% reduction in area from the Spitfires wing to the 109s wing that would seem to cover over half the difference assuming that everything else was the same on the two planes. 
By the way, it also gives a rule of thumb that a 25% reduction in wing area (everything else staying the same, which it never does) will increase the minimum speed (stalling speed) by 15%. I am assuming that this is for the plain wing with no flaps or slats deployed.


----------



## Kurfürst (Aug 29, 2010)

The "Messerspitt" speed curves, but I have no time for many comment as I head out for a big AS event (350+ participants 8). A few: engine cowliong was from Bf 110, take note that the take off weight of Spit V is rather light (removed armament iirc). The drag of the wing armament on Spit was considerable, around 8 mph. For comparison purposes (I dont think direct comparison was made) speed of "series production 109G" is shown. Given the date of paper (May 1944) and weight of 109G, its probably an earlier G-6 test, tad bit slower than nominal values (630kph), but is impossible to identify which 109G test flight/aircrafts' data was used. The original M45 powered Spit V speed however seem to match up with nominal speed values for the +9 lbs Spit.

Of interest is the decreasing advantage of 109G over altitude, but this may be also due to lower weight of the DB-Spit (less AoA required, dominant induced drag reduced at altitudes).. its odd that this doesn't show on the M45 powered Spit's curve.


----------



## NZTyphoon (Aug 29, 2010)

An interesting test on a Spitfire V was run at Farnborough in 1943: (Spitfire Story Alfred Price)
A standard Mk VB was tested and developed a maximum speed of 357 mph (height, engine type not given)
Multi stack exhausts fitted = gain of 7 mph
Removal of carburettor intake ice-guard = gain of 8 mph
Fitting of faired rear view mirror = gain of 3 mph
Whip aerial in place of mast = gain of .5 mph
Cutting cartridge case and link ejector chutes level with wing = gain of 1 mph
Sealing, rubbing down painting and polishing wing leading edge = gain of 6 mph
Polishing remainder of airframe = gain of 3 mph

Top speed now = 385.5 mph

The greatest single increase - 8 mph - was made by removing the ice-guard to the carburettor air intake thus increasing the speed and mass of air entering the carby. Replacing the fish-tail exhausts with similar stacks to the Mk IX added 7 mph = a 15mph gain.

Filling and polishing the leading edge of the wing added 6 mph, and polishing the rest of the airframe 3 mph = 9 mph gain.

The cumulative effects of changes to the engine's ability to breath - ie: increased air pressure and mass-flow in, plus less backpressure on exhaust gases, was more important than induced drag (even on the critical wing leading edges) to the performance of the Spitfire V used in these tests.

According to Price a Spitfire VB W3228 with a Merlin 50M with a cropped supercharger and standard wings was tested with a top speed of 333.5 mph (537 Km/h) at 2,000 feet (609.6 m) , rate of climb 4,720 ft/min, engine generating 1,585 hp at +18 lbs. : loaded weight = 6,450 lbs (2,925 kg) cf DB601 Spitfire V 502 Km/h (312 mph) at same altitude. The Spitfire V fitted with a DB 605 weighed 2,730 Kg = 6,018 lbs.


----------



## The Basket (Aug 29, 2010)

Has there been a study on the range of bhp of the same model of engine and the differences between a good one and a bad one....I can imagine in the primitive days of 1940s...scope for a engine to be slightly not up to spec.

Example is a motorcycle magazine saying they have tested Honda Fireblade engines and the highest difference was 9 bhp between standard engines.

This is with the latest production technology and it is Honda....

So I'm always wary when graphs are brought out.


----------



## Njaco (Aug 29, 2010)

Price also gave comparison details in his book "Fw 190 At War" with tests between the Fw, Spit and I believe P-51. Too wordy but 'll try to scan the page for reading.


----------



## Milosh (Aug 29, 2010)

NZTyphoon said:


> An interesting test on a Spitfire V was run at Farnborough in 1943: (Spitfire Story Alfred Price)
> The Spitfire V fitted with a DB 605 weighed 2,730 Kg = 6,018 lbs.



NZTyphoon, the graph says _mit_ (with) DB605A, G=2930kg and _mit_ (with) Merlin45, G=3030kg.

Something is amiss.


----------



## drgondog (Aug 29, 2010)

Milosh said:


> NZTyphoon, the graph says _mit_ (with) DB605A, G=2930kg and _mit_ (with) Merlin45, G=3030kg.
> 
> Something is amiss.



Milosh - was the armament of the Spit removed?


----------



## Shortround6 (Aug 29, 2010)

The Basket said:


> Has there been a study on the range of bhp of the same model of engine and the differences between a good one and a bad one....I can imagine in the primitive days of 1940s...scope for a engine to be slightly not up to spec.
> 
> Example is a motorcycle magazine saying they have tested Honda Fireblade engines and the highest difference was 9 bhp between standard engines.
> 
> ...



There is always some variation but each engine (at least in the west) was placed on a test stand and run for several hours before shipment from the factory. During this time the engine was connected to a load and power measurements were taken. Any engine not meeting specifications (plus or minus so many percent or a minimum HP ) would be rejected for refitting/repair. 
That being said there were variations in service. Rings and valves could wear, linkage adjustments could move a bit, Condition of sparkplugs, etc. 
Some times an engine that seemed to work fine at sea level was well down on power at altitude. Air is an insulator and in the thinner air at high altitudes some magnetos and wiring harnesses shorted out or cross fired.


----------



## NZTyphoon (Aug 29, 2010)

Milosh said:


> NZTyphoon, the graph says _mit_ (with) DB605A, G=2930kg and _mit_ (with) Merlin45, G=3030kg.
> 
> Something is amiss.



No, read the chart _carefully_ it says *Spitfire V mit DB605 A (G=2,730kg) * ie 2[European 7 with a bar] 30 kg ) = 6,018 lbs.

BTW the* Me109 Serie* weighed 3100 kg = 6,834 lbs

Price went on to observe that relatively small deteriorations in the airframe could reduce the performance of a Spitfire in the same way that the RAE experiment increased its performance: "oil leaked onto the outside of the airframe which then picked up dust or sand; dents or scratches on the aircraft (particularly to the leading edge of the wing); repaired battle damage etc..."

Taking a look at this 222 Sqn Spitfire VB I can see an airframe that has seen better days; paint chipping off the leading edge of the wing, a raised, square patch on the wing, mismatched paint, oil streaking on the wingroot..

Looking at the captured Spitfire VB with DB605 - I wonder how well the airframe was looked after at Rechlin?


----------



## Milosh (Aug 29, 2010)

NZTyphoon said:


> No, read the chart _carefully_ it says *Spitfire V mit DB605 A (G=2,730kg) * ie 2[European 7 with a bar] 30 kg ) = 6,018 lbs.
> 
> BTW the* Me109 Serie* weighed 3100 kg = 6,834 lbs



That darn bar.


----------



## Kurfürst (Aug 30, 2010)

The Basket said:


> Has there been a study on the range of bhp of the same model of engine and the differences between a good one and a bad one....I can imagine in the primitive days of 1940s...scope for a engine to be slightly not up to spec.



Good point! There were certainly a lot of variance with engines as well, although its rarely covered in tests, the used engines were seldom bench tested. One example that gives you some idea, where bench testing was done is found below - in this case the DB 601 used in the Emil prototype was 45 horsepower down in power, corresponding (postive) corrections were made for the flight measured performance in the report.

Kurfrst - Meprotokoll vom 26.4.38, Geschwindigkeit Bf 109 V15a



> This is with the latest production technology and it is Honda....



Perhaps even a better point - Honda rules for reliability. Get one and you never want to change for another brand. 8)


----------



## Kurfürst (Aug 30, 2010)

NZTyphoon said:


> Price went on to observe that relatively small deteriorations in the airframe could reduce the performance of a Spitfire in the same way that the RAE experiment increased its performance...



Actually the RAE report you are referring to investigates the drop in performance of Mark Vs due to poor production quality; the RAE report investigates how much of this was attritubable to a, Poor production/finish quality b,Due to introduction of new (and draggy) new equipment to the basic design. In other words it more appropriate to speak of restoring the performance.



> Looking at the captured Spitfire VB with DB605 - I wonder how well the airframe was looked after at Rechlin?



If the curves for the Merlin 45 Spitfire are coming from Rechlin's trials with the captured Spitfire V (which are pretty much in line with the nominal British specification for the type), I'd say they did quite well, or at least got themselves a better than average Mark V, as the RAE report you refer to above notes:


----------



## NZTyphoon (Aug 30, 2010)

Shortround6 said:


> There is always some variation but each engine (at least in the west) was placed on a test stand and run for several hours before shipment from the factory. During this time the engine was connected to a load and power measurements were taken. Any engine not meeting specifications (plus or minus so many percent or a minimum HP ) would be rejected for refitting/repair.
> That being said there were variations in service. Rings and valves could wear, linkage adjustments could move a bit, Condition of sparkplugs, etc.
> Some times an engine that seemed to work fine at sea level was well down on power at altitude. Air is an insulator and in the thinner air at high altitudes some magnetos and wiring harnesses shorted out or cross fired.



From memory the USAAF had a deal of trouble with the magnetoes of its P-47s at altitude over Europe until pressurised units were introduced.

Waaay O.T but it is interesting to note that Nissan builds each engine, gearbox and differential of each GT-R as a unit in a special dust-free environment; because the engine, gearbox and differential are matched as a unit any variations from specs are extremely small.


----------



## NZTyphoon (Aug 30, 2010)

Kurfürst said:


> Actually the RAE report you are referring to investigates the drop in performance of Mark Vs due to poor production quality; the RAE report investigates how much of this was attritubable to a, Poor production/finish quality b,Due to introduction of new (and draggy) new equipment to the basic design. In other words it more appropriate to speak of restoring the performance.



Interesting to note that this was recognised and 1) New satin-finish paints were introduced and 2) flush riveting throughout. 3) Production standards were improved. According to Shacklady and Morgan the first two refinements were introduced in late 1942-early 1943, before the Farnborough tests, which helped confirm what was already known.


----------



## Kurfürst (Aug 30, 2010)

NZTyphoon said:


> Interesting to note tah this was recognised



Yes. Two years after the problem existed - I do have to wonder what supernatural powers of perception were required to note that Jerry piston engined fighters_ were something like 100 kph faster at altitude than the Mark V_ suffering from poor production quality, but it kinda explains the deep curiousity of Air Intelligence reports about puffs of smoke emerging from German fighter exhausts in combat - maybe some secret Nazi black magic involving some exotic chemical addition..  or simply, as was the case, caused by the other guy giving full throttle..!  ) 



NZTyphoon said:


> 1) New satin-finish paints were introduced and
> 2) flush riveting throughout.



Oh, flush riveting, glad the guys at Supermarine caught up by the 1943 with the newest fashion. 
How much was this an 'improvement' for the Spitfire's finish is strongly questionable though. The use of mixed riveting (flush riveting everywhere except for the fuselage) was decided early in the development in Spitfire after empirical tests (I think split peas were used on a scale model to measure the difference).

It was found that using convential dome rivets everywhere would cost 22 mph on the prototype compared to flush rivets; so flush rivets were used everywhere except for the fuselage, which was measured to only decrease speed _by 1 (one) mph_. It was so insifignicant that using domed rivets on the fuselage was accepted as a (fairly good) compromise.

On the Mark VII/VIII and related airframes the rivets on the fuselage were replaced by flush rivets as well, increasing the top speed by a mighty 1 mph. Grand improvement, indeed. 

Do you have information about how much these new paints were supposed to improve finish and performance..?



> 3) Production standards were improved. According to Shacklady and Morgan the first two refinements were introduced in late 1942-early 1943, before the Farnborough tests, which helped confirm what was already known.



Indeed and that's what the report says, that the new porduction Mark IXs from the summer 1943 (the report and preceeding reports are dated between June 1943 and September 1943) had 'some' improvement in equipment and build quality. Which is grand, expect for the fact that the most commonplace Spitfire for two years actually had the performance below that of the Spitfire I and Bf 109E of 1940, and the Mark Nines were still around in penny pocket numbers...


----------



## Glider (Aug 30, 2010)

Does anyone know the file number for this report on the performance difficulties of the Spitfire due to poor finish? It looks like an interesting file to look up in full.


----------



## RCAFson (Aug 30, 2010)

Glider said:


> Does anyone know the file number for this report on the performance difficulties of the Spitfire due to poor finish? It looks like an interesting file to look up in full.



The Spit V trop certainly took a hit in performance, and I wonder if this was part of the report?


----------



## renrich (Aug 30, 2010)

NZT, I believe you are correct about the P47 and the magneto wiring problems and the Corsair had the same problems in the PTO early on. The P47 also had landing gear problems when first deployed, if memory serves.


----------



## NZTyphoon (Aug 30, 2010)

Glider said:


> Does anyone know the file number for this report on the performance difficulties of the Spitfire due to poor finish? It looks like an interesting file to look up in full.



I'm not sure but I have seen the _full _report somewhere; it is mentioned in Morgan and Shacklady. Possibly Mike Williams will know.


----------



## Kurfürst (Aug 30, 2010)

Well you can ask _nicely_ for the report instead spouting the conspiracy nonsense...


----------



## Glider (Aug 30, 2010)

Kurfurst, If you have the full report I would appreciate a copy, or if its easier the full name of the file as held presumably in the National Archives.


----------



## The Basket (Aug 31, 2010)

I would also like to read the report.

Each Spitfire V would have been test flighted and any weakness flagged up.

Just can't see how a bad machine would have been accepted into service.

The shadow factory at Castle Bromwich was a nightmare in the early days and I can imagine poorly finished machines going out the door.


----------



## parsifal (Aug 31, 2010)

I am at a loss as to where this debate is headed. I think it is fairly well known that the Spitfire V was somewhat outclassed by its axis contemporaries, but despite this, the exhange rates over england and france throughout 1941 steadily improved, and were only slightly worse than 1:1 towards the end of the year, according to Foreman. It appears the SpitV struggled more aginst the FW 190 than the Me 109f. So if the SpitV was so bad, but still managed a half decent exchange rate, then what was wrong with the axis aircraft types. 

Facts are that there was little difference in the qualitative edge by either side at the time of the initial deployment of the Spit V. Later, as the qualitative scales tipped in favour of the allies, the exchange rates began to tip in favour of the allies, but this came much later and in different machines.


----------



## NZTyphoon (Aug 31, 2010)

parsifal said:


> I am at a loss as to where this debate is headed. I think it is fairly well known that the Spitfire V was somewhat outclassed by its axis contemporaries, but despite this, the exhange rates over england and france throughout 1941 steadily improved, and were only slightly worse than 1:1 towards the end of the year, according to Foreman. It appears the SpitV struggled more aginst the FW 190 than the Me 109f. So if the SpitV was so bad, but still managed a half decent exchange rate, then what was wrong with the axis aircraft types.
> 
> Facts are that there was little difference in the qualitative edge by either side at the time of the initial deployment of the Spit V. Later, as the qualitative scales tipped in favour of the allies, the exchange rates began to tip in favour of the allies, but this came much later and in different machines.



Not forgetting that Spitfire Vs, mostly Tropical with Vokes filters, tipped the balance over Malta against Bf 109Fs and Macchi 202s, amongst other types of fighter, partly because of superior tactics introduced by Park. The horrible old barge could still put up a good fight, in spite of what some people here seem to think. 8)


----------



## Kurfürst (Aug 31, 2010)

parsifal said:


> I am at a loss as to where this debate is headed. I think it is fairly well known that the Spitfire V was somewhat outclassed by its axis contemporaries, but despite this, the exhange rates over england and france throughout 1941 steadily improved, and were only slightly worse than 1:1 towards the end of the year, according to Foreman.



... and all it took was to send the_ entire_ Fighter Command to France where there were but two Jagdgeschwadern. 8) Though I am not aware how Foreman calculates the exchange rates - fighters vs fighter losses only, or BC's losses are included as well..?



> It appears the SpitV struggled more aginst the FW 190 than the Me 109f.



IIRC there was a very enlightening discussion on this at TOCH, and the conclusion was that despite all the post-war literature lamenting on the Fw 190 scourge, the situation in 1941 and 1942 was just as bad if not worse than after the Fw 190 appeared. The Fw 190 certainly brought a shock to FC, but it very much appears it was more of a psychological one, rather than physical: while the 109 was fairly similiar to the Spitfire in its qualities, the 190 was an entirely different, and completely alien beast. So I wonder, how did you manage to arrive at your different conclusion?



> So if the SpitV was so bad, but still managed a half decent exchange rate, then what was wrong with the axis aircraft types.



That's a big IF - when and where on Earth did the Mark V manage even half a decent exchange rate? Of course it cannot be blamed on the aircraft alone - after the losses over France and Britain in 1940, FC was short on experienced pilots, the tactics were still in infancy, and these alone were probably more decisive than some extent technical inferiority.



> Facts are that there was little difference in the qualitative edge by either side at the time of the initial deployment of the Spit V.



If these are the 'facts', then why the horrible exchange rates, why the severe losses, despite massively outnumbering the fighter defences in France, why the Mark IX, and why RAF reports of the time keep stating that they can't keep up with the opposition, especially at altitude...?


----------



## Kurfürst (Aug 31, 2010)

NZTyphoon said:


> I'm not sure but I have seen the _full _report somewhere; it is mentioned in Morgan and Shacklady. Possibly Mike Williams will know.



Oh, good ole' Mikey has the report, but understandably its not something he wants to advertise too much on Spitfire performance history. Well of course that, the roll rate report on the Spitfires, fully rated Bf 109s in his comparison articles and so on. 

Anyway here it is... you see, all you have to do is ask_ nicely_. 8)


----------



## Juha (Aug 31, 2010)

Hello Kurfürst
a more realistic view on Malta, old message but it seems to be necessary to repeat it:


- Aviation (Aviation - Aircraft of World War II - Warbird Forums) 
- - Bf-109F-4 and a bleak time for RAF (http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/aviation/bf-109f-4-bleak-time-raf-5979.html) 

"Juha	01-08-2007 10:44 PM
On Malta losses

Hello Kurfürst!
Some facts on the last LW effort to neutralize Malta.

If we compared the failed LW and RA bombing campaign against Malta during the first part of Oct. 42 and the Tunisia campaign, it seems to me that the Axis problem was the weak defensive power of their bombers which their fighter pilots could not effectively compensate if they operated against well integrated fighter defence. I don't have time to read the Shores' et al Malta the Spitfire Year (1991) but have to rely on Playfair's et al The Mediterranean and Middle East IV (1966) but Shores' article The Long Struggle for Malta in his Duel for the Sky (1985) is in agreement with the first book. Axis flew 2400 sorties against Malta in 9 days and the defending fighters flew 1115 sorties.Playfair p. 195 "...At first Axis used formations as big as 80 Ju 88s escorted by nearly double that number of fighters, but by 15th Oct. as few as 14 bombers were being escorted by nearly 100 fighters. By 18th Oct, after heavy losses in bombers, the enemy had given up using his Ju 88s altogether in favour of Me 109 fighter bombers...The British lost 30 Spitfires in the air ... and only 2 a/c - one Beaufighter and one Spitfire - on the ground. German records disclose the loss of 9 fighters and 35 bombers, some of which fell to the guns" and Italian losses were unknown. Later in same page"...so effective were the air defences of Malta that strikes against Axis shipping were carried out every night exept one, on which no enemy ship came within range of the island."

Shores, on the article p. 92 "...Again and again the formations of Ju 88s, protected by swarms of Messerschmitts and Macchis, attempted to fight their way through to their targets. And again and again they were thwarted."

On losses, on same page "...at least 30 Ju 88s were lost and 13 more damaged seriously, some of them to written-off levels...at least a dozen Bf 109s and MC 202s being shot down and another 10 or so badly damaged...27 Spitfires being shot down during seven days and more than 20 more crash-landing or suffering heavy damage..." "


----------



## NZTyphoon (Aug 31, 2010)

Kurfürst said:


> Oh, good ole' Mikey has the report, but understandably its not something he wants to advertise too much on Spitfire performance history. Well of course that, the roll rate report on the Spitfires, fully rated Bf 109s in his comparison articles and so on.
> 
> Anyway here it is... you see, all you have to do is ask_ nicely_. 8)



How about dropping the attitude and snide remarks about people and just concentrate on some useful discussion?


----------



## Kurfürst (Aug 31, 2010)

NZTyphoon said:


> How about dropping the attitude and snide remarks about people and just concentrate on some useful discussion?



How about taking your own advice..?


----------



## Juha (Aug 31, 2010)

Hello Kurfürst
thanks for sharing the doc. It seems interesting.

Juha


----------



## Kurfürst (Aug 31, 2010)

U R welcome Juha.


----------



## Glider (Aug 31, 2010)

Kurfurst
Thanks for the paper. You can see how the PR Spits with their extra attention to finish and lack of guns would be hard to catch.

The majority of the loss of performance was down to changes in equipment something that I understood would apply to all aircraft as the war progressed and requirements altered. Germany and the Me109 must had had similar issues, do you know of any similar tests undertaken on the 109 and 190?


----------



## Glider (Aug 31, 2010)

This may be of interest

Re the losses over Malta. In Malta the Spitfire Year pages 645 and 646, it gives the following summary.

For the Period 19th December 1941 to 7 November 1942 according to Luftwaffe records 249 aircraft were lost to fighters and AA fire.

For the period 1st January to 7th November 45 Hurricanes and 148 Spitfires were lost in the air.

It should be remembered that some of the RAF losses were caused by the Italian air force and AA fire and on the other side of the equation, a good number of Italian aircraft were lost in combat with the RAF. Unfortunately the book doesn't give a summary of those losses.

Luftwaffe fighter claims were 415

In 1942 until 7th November 1942, on average approx 46 tons of bombs fell on Malta every day, a very high proportion of which were aimed at the airfields


----------



## RCAFson (Aug 31, 2010)

Glider said:


> This may be of interest
> 
> Re the losses over Malta. In Malta the Spitfire Year pages 645 and 646, it gives the following summary.
> 
> ...



The other factor is that the Bombers which were the primary targets of the the Commonwealth fighters. were also shooting back, and some fighter losses were inevitable from that cause alone.


----------



## Kurfürst (Aug 31, 2010)

... and then were RAF fighter destroyed on the ground, RAF bombers destroyed in the air, Fleet Arm fighters destroyed over the sea and a zillion other types besides Spits and Hurris...


----------



## Glider (Aug 31, 2010)

Kurfürst said:


> ... and then were RAF fighter destroyed on the ground, RAF bombers destroyed in the air, Fleet Arm fighters destroyed over the sea and a zillion other types besides Spits and Hurris...



True of course, but if you are looking at the air fighting and how well the RAF fighters did then this is a fair observation. It is also true to say that Luftwaffe aircraft were destroyed on the ground which is why the quote relates to Luftwaffe losses in the air. With the intense aerial bombardment you will not be suprised to know that the RAF had more losses on the ground.

I have not missed or cherry picked any specific data from the book. There is a breakdown of German losses by type which I have not entered but will do when I get some time later tonight if that would be of interest.


----------



## Juha (Aug 31, 2010)

Hello Glider
Quote:” The majority of the loss of performance was down to changes in equipment something that I understood would apply to all aircraft as the war progressed and requirements altered. Germany and the Me109 must had had similar issues.”

Yes, if one looks on Fw 190A, after A-3 there were no speed gain, in fact A-6 – A-8 were slightly slower than A-3, they had better armament and protection etc but because of they had only slightly more powerful engine, speed and climb rate suffered because of increased weight-

On Bf 109, there were no clear speed increase over F-4 before G-6AS, G-10 and K-4. If we look the standard fighters, G-2 had stiffer wings than F-4, more flexibility and higher FTH, G-4 introduced better radio, in G-6 the rc cowling mgs were replaced by hmgs but speed dropped by some 20km/h. But 109 with its ingenious variable speed hydraulically coupled supercharger had always respectable high altitude performance, Spit Mk V was on the other hand in essence low and medium altitude fighter. Of course Mk V was a good turner which was an asset in defensive fight against German fighters and with metal ailerons it seemed to have rolled better than Bf 109. even if between 270 and 350mph IAS difference wasn’t big.

There were also some complains on the quality of the surface finish of very late 109s.

Juha


----------



## Shortround6 (Aug 31, 2010)

Juha said:


> But 109 with its ingenious variable speed hydraulically coupled supercharger had always respectable high altitude performance, Spit Mk V was on the other hand in essence low and medium altitude fighter.
> 
> Juha



The 109 variable speed hydraulic drive supercharger was not responsible for the 109s high altitude performance. The fact that the DB engine required a rather lower level/amount of boost in order to make it's rated power meant that it needed a somewhat less sophisticated supercharger compressor to get that boost. 
It did mean that the 109 didn't have to sacrifice low altitude performance to get the high altitude performance like the single speed Spitfires did. The Merlin 46 offered better performance at altitude than the Merlin 45 but it gave up over 100 hp at sea level for that high altitude performance. With over 3000 merlin 46's made they weren't that rare and had the same performance as the Merlin 47 used in the Spitfire MK VI with pressure cabin. They just didn't have the cabin blower. How much a low or medium altitude fighter the MK V was depended on which engine it was fitted with.


----------



## parsifal (Aug 31, 2010)

_]... and all it took was to send the entire Fighter Command to France where there were but two Jagdgeschwadern. 8) Though I am not aware how Foreman calculates the exchange rates - fighters vs fighter losses only, or BC's losses are included as well..?_
Not correct. The biggest sweeps over France seldom involved more than 5 squadrons, and most frequently never more than 2. And from the accounts I have read, it was usually the same squadrons going into battle time and again. 

On those occasions that the LW went on the offensive, they were not taking on the whole of fighter command, just one of the groups under FC command. 

There was a fundamental difference in the battle the germans could wage and the battle the British had to fight. Whereas the airspace over South east England was home territory for the British, and therefore they had to fight, no matter what the odds, in the case of the German defences over Northern France, because it was not vital home territory, the Germans could, and did, refuse combat, unless the battle was on their terms. This forced the RAF to present their fighter sweeps in numbers and at altitudes generally favourable to the Germans, whereas, the Germans could attack at strength and at altitudes most favourable to them, knowing that the RAF had to respond, regardless of the tactical situation. 

And just to clarify a little further, until the latter part of May 1941, it was not just two JGs facing the RAF, it was more or less 2 LFs, with the strengths of attacks still heavily in favour of the LW. They were sending bombers over England by the hundred whilst the RAF was replying with raids measured in the tens. Same deal with fighter combats……LW fighter intercepts invariably outnumbered the attacking RAF fighters, often by as much as 2:1. 

Foreman says that he calculates the daily loss records on the basis of the official loss records of either side. There are occasional discrepancies here, and some omissions, but it is generally acknowledged as the best daily record sheet easily available. The losses include Whereas the germans invariab

_IIRC there was a very enlightening discussion on this at TOCH, and the conclusion was that despite all the post-war literature lamenting on the Fw 190 scourge, the situation in 1941 and 1942 was just as bad if not worse than after the Fw 190 appeared. The Fw 190 certainly brought a shock to FC, but it very much appears it was more of a psychological one, rather than physical: while the 109 was fairly similiar to the Spitfire in its qualities, the 190 was an entirely different, and completely alien beast. So I wonder, how did you manage to arrive at your different conclusion?_

I tend to agree with your summation, however, I still think the FW was a superb aircraft, and outclassed the Spit V at low level. . 

_That's a big IF - when and where on Earth did the Mark V manage even half a decent exchange rate? Of course it cannot be blamed on the aircraft alone - after the losses over France and Britain in 1940, FC was short on experienced pilots, the tactics were still in infancy, and these alone were probably more decisive than some extent technical inferiority_.

Suggest you read Foreman and you will find the exchange rates started rather poorly (but then these losses were not flying Spit Vs), and then gradually improved throughout 1941. Foremans accounts stops in August 1941, but by then the LW was struggling to achieve loss rates better than 1:1. Of course the problem for the RAF was that a big percentage of shoot downs were also registering as lost pilots. 

_If these are the 'facts', then why the horrible exchange rates, why the severe losses, despite massively outnumbering the fighter defences in France, why the Mark IX, and why RAF reports of the time keep stating that they can't keep up with the opposition, especially at altitude...?_


I think you are misunderstanding, or not acknowledging the facts. The period that I am referring to the LW was not outnumbered, it was in fact the other way around. Moreover, the exchange rates are not that bad. In the operations over france it started at about 2:1 against the RAF over france, but by the end of the period, when the LW was admittedly outnumbered in the west in a strategic sense (but for reasons outlined above, not in a tactical sense), the exchange rate was down to nearly par. Admittedly this involves all types, but given the SpitV was the best equipment available to the RAF at that time, it seems reasonable to assume a similar loss rate for the SpitV.


----------



## steve51 (Aug 31, 2010)

Parsifal,

I have some numbers that seem to contradict the kill ratios that you have presented. In 'Fighter Command vol 3', on page 85, Foreman states that the loss ratio was 4 to 1 in the Germans favor prior to the Spit 9. The 'Biggin Hill Wing' by Caygill states that from the beginning of June to the end of September 1941 saw Fighter Command lose 572 single engined fighters while the Luftwaffe loses were 128 .


----------



## Juha (Sep 1, 2010)

Hello Shortround
OK, I reprase. 109 with DB605A with its ingenious variable speed hydraulically coupled supercharger had always respectable high altitude performance without significant power loss due to needs of its supercharger at lower levels.

Hello Parsifal
I also recall that FC was roughly handled by Jagdwaffe in 41-42 and FC Spits got upper hand only during the 2nd half of 43. RAF pilots had by then learned from past errors, they got Spitfire IX with Merlin 63s and 66s which were better than those with Merlin 61s and more and more reliable Typhoons for lower altitude combats. Also during early part of 43 RAF got new, longer range radars for fighter control over France which meant better situation awareness to RAF formation leaders over France.

Juha


----------



## VG-33 (Sep 1, 2010)

Hello Juha



Juha said:


> Hello Shortround
> OK, I reprase. 109 with DB605A with its ingenious variable speed hydraulically coupled supercharger had always respectable high altitude performance without significant power loss due to needs of its supercharger at lower levels.
> 
> Juha



Not as simple. There always more power losses due to an hydraulic clutch from a rigid one. Your ingenious supercharger makes the engine loosing more power at rated altitudes (to viscosity...) and less between them. A more smoothed speed curve if you want. If some ingenious should be, i would rather quote the Polikovsky variable pitch blades supercharger or Schidlowski-Plagnol variable flow one. In both cases the compression power losses are lower than in a classical Merlin or DB supercharger, where produced boost in excess is just evacuated by security valves or lost in inlet inclosure gaps.

Regards


----------



## Kurfürst (Sep 1, 2010)

VG-33 said:


> Your ingenious supercharger makes the engine loosing more power at rated altitudes (to viscosity...) and less between them.



_Hundreds_ of horsepower gained between the low/high rated altitudes, and _about 10_ horsepower lost at and above the rated altitude to quantify it a bit.


----------



## NZTyphoon (Sep 1, 2010)

Glider said:


> True of course, but if you are looking at the air fighting and how well the RAF fighters did then this is a fair observation. It is also true to say that Luftwaffe aircraft were destroyed on the ground which is why the quote relates to Luftwaffe losses in the air. With the intense aerial bombardment you will not be suprised to know that the RAF had more losses on the ground.
> 
> I have not missed or cherry picked any specific data from the book. There is a breakdown of German losses by type which I have not entered but will do when I get some time later tonight if that would be of interest.



Luftwaffe losses by type 19 December 1941 - 7 November 1942: fighters and AA

Ju 88=161 lost, 21 Damaged 30=60%, 18 Damaged 5=30%

Ju 87= 17 , 2 , 1

He 111 = 3 , 0, 0

Do 17 = 1, 0, 0

Do 24 = 0, 0, 1

Bf 109= 64 , 3, 4

Bf 110 = 3, 0, 0
*
Total=249 , 26, 17*

Shores et al also make the point that the percentage of "aircraft admitted damaged to those reported lost appear to be grossly out of proportion."


----------



## Glider (Sep 1, 2010)

NZ
Thanks for typing it up for me.


----------



## Kurfürst (Sep 1, 2010)

So it was 45 Hurricanes and 148 Spitfires lost in the air against 64 Bf 109s lost (and three 110) as per the earlier post.

I am not sure how this equates to the Mark Vs tipping the balance over Malta against Bf 109F - its more like turning a one sided mass execution into a simple bloodbath, as far as fighters go. I wish there would be a breakdown with the losses attributed to Flak, fighters and bombing, but I guess with the exception of the last category, it was not even clear back then...


----------



## NZTyphoon (Sep 1, 2010)

Kurfürst said:


> So it was 45 Hurricanes and 148 Spitfires lost in the air against 64 Bf 109s lost (and three 110) as per the earlier post.
> 
> I am not sure how this equates to the Mark Vs tipping the balance over Malta against Bf 109F - its more like turning a one sided mass execution into a simple bloodbath, as far as fighters go. I wish there would be a breakdown with the losses attributed to Flak, fighters and bombing, but I guess with the exception of the last category, it was not even clear back then...



It doesn't give a breakdown as to how many Spitfires were lost to the 109 s. clearly the fighters went after the bombers (161 Ju 88s) and there were losses to German bombers, Italian fighters, operations over Sicily etc, not to mention the Spitfires lost on the ground to bombs and strafing.


----------



## Juha (Sep 1, 2010)

Hello VG-33
Yes, I am aware that that there was some power losses because of viscosity but I still see them as very reasonable trade-offs when we look what was gained at lower levels.

Hello Kurfürst
you forget completely the Italians, who played substantial part on Malta Campaigns and also suffered substantial losses and also achieved kills against Malta fighters.

Also I’m sure that when you evaluate the effectiveness of the fighter defence of the Reich you do not compare only Allied escort fighter losses vs. LW fighter losses but also take the Allied bomber losses into consideration, so why not do the same in case of Malta. After all the main target of an interceptor was the bomber. Malta Spitfires in Oct 42 succeeded to stop the German bombing offensive by extracting higher price from LW bomber force than LW was ready to pay. And those Mk Vs were equipped with Vokes filters, which produced rather high performance loss, and had to fought against Bf 109G-2s and Macchi 202s. Even if I’m not a great fan of Spit Mk V, it seems that when operated right way, it wasn’t so bad as an interceptor in Med.

Juha


----------



## parsifal (Sep 1, 2010)

steve51 said:


> Parsifal,
> 
> I have some numbers that seem to contradict the kill ratios that you have presented. In 'Fighter Command vol 3', on page 85, Foreman states that the loss ratio was 4 to 1 in the Germans favor prior to the Spit 9. The 'Biggin Hill Wing' by Caygill states that from the beginning of June to the end of September 1941 saw Fighter Command lose 572 single engined fighters while the Luftwaffe loses were 128 .



We are looking at different publications. My reference is "1941- Part 2 - The Blitz To The Non-Stop Offensive - The Turning Point" John Foreman Air Research Publications 1994. It concentr4ates on the fighting between early April, through to the end of June. Losses are broken down by type, and the circumstances.

Foreman lists casualties by individual type. I looked at two periods, the losses in April and the losses in June. The losses are aircraft lost, and aircraft damaged, from all causes, with less than half the casulaties shown being aircraft actually lost, for both sides. They are those aircraft deployed in England, France, Germany, the low countries and Norway:

1) April 7-30, 1941 

RAF: 207 Fighters, 273 Other 
LW: 113 Fighters, 221 Other

Ratio of RAF losses to LW losses
Fighters 1.83:1
Others 1.23:1
Overall 1.44:1


2) June 1941

RAF: 169 Fighters, 225 Other 
LW: 119 Fighters, 134 Other

Ratio of RAF losses to LW losses
Fighters 1.42:1
Others 1.68:1
Overall 1.55:1


Whilst there was an overall increase in favour of the LW between April and June, this was solely because BC losses had begun to rise. LW losses in fighters had risen sharply, moreover these losses were principally during day actions whilst attempting to curtail the circus operations by the RAF. How much of the increased loss rate for the LW JGs was due to improved RAF equipment, rising experience, or just sheer weight of numbers, is a bit difficult to say. But I think the general trend is clear......the qualitative gap between the RAF and the LW was narrowing, and fast


----------



## steve51 (Sep 1, 2010)

Parsifal,

You're quite right. We are looking at different publications and time frames. It would seem that the British were holding their own until summer 41, but from then on, the exchange ratio began to favor the Germans. That's not completely surprising with the Germans being on the defensive and choosing when and where to engage. Looking at German claims, it seems that they usually ignored the small number of bombers and concentrated on ambushing the British fighters. Late 41 and all of 42 were a hard time for Fihgter Command, with the performance difference between the fighters being only one of several factors.


----------



## steve51 (Sep 1, 2010)

During the Malta 42 fighting, the Italians lost at least 97 aircraft, some 60 of which were MC202 and RE2001. The Italian fighter pilots claimed around 150 Spits; a very substantial over claim, but obviously, some Spits were lost to the Italians.


----------



## VG-33 (Sep 1, 2010)

Kurfürst said:


> _Hundreds_ of horsepower gained between the low/high rated altitudes, and _about 10_ horsepower lost at and above the rated altitude to quantify it a bit.



10 hp coast for an 1200 hp engine ! It's an output of 99,2% (or 0.8% loss if you want)! Isn't it too much for a kind of "viscodrive" tinkered with, mid 30ies?
Is it from your own (optimistic...) supposals or have you got test bend results from an independent laboratory?
*This apart*, i agree with the idea of a global advance of that supercharging system over a classical two speeds one...

Regards


----------



## Kurfürst (Sep 1, 2010)

Hi VG 33,

This is for DB 605L, the one with the most powerful supercharger mounted. If I read it correctly the power loss at 3,5% slip is 17 PS. I would assume the other DB engines with much more simple superchargers would loose less.


----------



## Kurfürst (Sep 1, 2010)

Juha said:


> Hello Kurfürst
> you forget completely the Italians, who played substantial part on Malta Campaigns and also suffered substantial losses and also achieved kills against Malta fighters.



Yes unfortunately our analysis seems incomplete, as nobody until steve51 could come up with Italian losses.



> Also I’m sure that when you evaluate the effectiveness of the fighter defence of the Reich you do not compare only Allied escort fighter losses vs. LW fighter losses but also take the Allied bomber losses into consideration, so why not do the same in case of Malta.



Indeed. We still miss British bomber losses, after all the Germans were not going after Malta, because it was there, they did it because it was a base of operations for British bombers and naval craft that harassed Axis convoys carrying supplies to the German forces in Africa.

Do you perhaps have information British bomber losses or those of the Fleet Air Arm? The LW shot down these in numbers too, and mostly likely suffered losses to these aircraft too, not just Hurris and Spits, so I am puzzled why you only concentrate on portion of the British losses, while presenting LW losses at full. 

It certainly not a solid way to present a realistic picture about the relative combat performance over Malta.



> After all the main target of an interceptor was the bomber. Malta Spitfires in Oct 42 succeeded to stop the German bombing offensive by extracting higher price from LW bomber force than LW was ready to pay.



Can you support this statement with something? The Germans "stopped" their air offensives many times. They stopped bombing Britain in May 1941 when they regrouped their bombers to the East. They stopped bombing Malta in 1941 when they felt they neutralized it and forces were needed elsewhere (primary on the Eastern front).

Frankly, one German bomber lost every two or three days in 1942 hardly seems to me as some kind of a crippling loss rate.



> And those Mk Vs were equipped with Vokes filters, which produced rather high performance loss, and had to fought against Bf 109G-2s and Macchi 202s. Even if I’m not a great fan of Spit Mk V, it seems that when operated right way, it wasn’t so bad as an interceptor in Med.
> Juha



Typically 109s and Macchis did carry a tropical filter (of Italian design) in the Med, too. and of course the Mk V did OK against bombers, it was still a good faster than bombers and was well armed. We are discussing however how it performed against fighters, and the data supplied so far seems to indicates that it did very poorly.


----------



## Milosh (Sep 1, 2010)

dp


----------



## Milosh (Sep 1, 2010)

Kurfürst said:


> Can you support this statement with something? The Germans "stopped" their air offensives many times. They stopped bombing Britain in May 1941 when they regrouped their bombers to the East. They stopped bombing Malta in 1941 when they felt they neutralized it and forces were needed elsewhere (primary on the Eastern front).



Luftwaffe records indicate that between 20 March and 28 April 19*42*, Malta was subjected to 11,819 sorties and 6,557 tonnes of bombs.

A renewed wave of attacks on 11 October 19*42*. However, this time the defenders were mass equipped with Spitfire Mk VB/Cs. Over 17 days, the Luftwaffe suffered 34 Ju 88s and 12 Bf 109s destroyed and 18 damaged. RAF losses amounted to 23 Spitfires shot down and 20 crash landed. 12 RAF pilots were killed.


----------



## RCAFson (Sep 1, 2010)

Milosh said:


> Luftwaffe records indicate that between 20 March and 28 April 19*42*, Malta was subjected to 11,819 sorties and 6,557 tonnes of bombs.
> 
> A renewed wave of attacks on 11 October 19*43*. However, this time the defenders were mass equipped with Spitfire Mk VB/Cs. Over 17 days, the Luftwaffe suffered 34 Ju 88s and 12 Bf 109s destroyed and 18 damaged. RAF losses amounted to 23 Spitfires shot down and 20 crash landed. 12 RAF pilots were killed.



I think that should read Oct 11 1942, as by Oct 1943 the Luftwaffe was far out of Bf109 range against Malta.


----------



## Shortround6 (Sep 1, 2010)

Kurfürst said:


> Hi VG 33,
> 
> This is for DB 605L, the one with the most powerful supercharger mounted. If I read it correctly the power loss at 3,5% slip is 17 PS. I would assume the other DB engines with much more simple superchargers would loose less.



I don't read German but does that say the supercharger took 475 PS to drive?

In any case the loss to the hydraulic drive was trivial. Gear drives are also going to have a slight loss. A more important consideration was the heating (or foaming?) of the oil, especially under max slip (low altitude) conditions although I understand that later engines didn't suffer as much as earlier engines did from this. 

End of the war Allisons and some post war R-2800s used hydraulic drives to either the 1st stage of a two stage system or to the only compressor of a single stage system.
The Allison numbers track pretty well with the DB numbers. The -143 Allison needed 472hp to drive the supercharger at critical altitude with the hydraulic coupling needing 4% or just under 20hp. Engine was rated at 2250hp in this condition. However while the engine oil cooler was dissipate 187 hp worth of heat at full throttle the aux supercharger (1st stage) drive oil cooler could need to dissipate up to 118 hp worth of heat at a condition of 50% slip. What the airframe designer gained in power output a some altitudes had to paid for with either a separate oil cooler and ducting or a larger oil cooler for the main engine depending the engine design. On the whole the hydraulic coupling was a more elegant design, offering more flexibility but it did have a few down sides which held up it's more widespread use.


----------



## Milosh (Sep 1, 2010)

RCAFson said:


> I think that should read Oct 11 1942, as by Oct 1943 the Luftwaffe was far out of Bf109 range against Malta.



Err, fat fingers.

but: The last air raid over Malta occurred on 20 July 1943. It was the 3,340th alert since 11 June 1940.


----------



## NZTyphoon (Sep 1, 2010)

Kurfürst said:


> Typically 109s and Macchis did carry a tropical filter (of Italian design) in the Med, too



In North Africa, yes: however photos of Sicilian based 109 F-4s (JG 53 and other units) shows that the majority of them did not use tropical filters (Prien and Rodeike Bf 109 F, G, K series pages 30-33, 39, 52).


----------



## NZTyphoon (Sep 2, 2010)

Kurfürst said:


> Indeed. We still miss British bomber losses, after all the Germans were not going after Malta, because it was there, they did it because it was a base of operations for British bombers and naval craft that harassed Axis convoys carrying supplies to the German forces in Africa.



Yet in the end the loss of supplies to to the Afrika Korps was one important reason why the Germans were driven out of North Africa. Bottom line was both the Luftwaffe and Regia Aeronautica failed to subdue Malta enough to stop the attacks, except for some brief periods when the RAF was in trouble. 



Kurfürst said:


> We are discussing however how it performed against fighters, and the data supplied so far seems to indicates that it did very poorly.






Milosh said:


> A renewed wave of attacks on 11 October 1942. However, this time the defenders were mass equipped with Spitfire Mk VB/Cs. Over 17 days, the Luftwaffe suffered 34 Ju 88s and 12 Bf 109s destroyed and 18 damaged. RAF losses amounted to 23 Spitfires shot down and 20 crash landed. 12 RAF pilots were killed.



Considering the Spifire Vs were charged with attacking the bombers first and were fighting against the Italian fighters as well (the figures do not include Italian fighters shot down), and not all Spitfires fell to Bf 109s, it didn't do as poorly as is implied.


----------



## Glider (Sep 2, 2010)

Re the RAF bombers. We don't have the numbers but the vast majority of these sorties were on shipping strikes which is a risky business and a majority of the losses seem to have been to AA fire. Shipping strikes were almost never escorted by Spitfires or Hurricanes, in the early months of 1942 Blenhiem fighters were used as escort and latterly Beaufighters. Also convoys were rarely if ever escorted by 109's normally the Italian airforce and/or Ju88c or Me110. So as a guide to how well the fighters did against each other it wouldn't add much to the debate.

Side notes,
1) the Blenhiem fighters were equipped with a 20mm in the nose as well as the 4 x lmg
2) as well as the 109F4 in the last quarter of 1942 the 109G2 came into use by the Luftwaffe over Malta. These had a significant advantage over the Spit V. 
3) The leader of the Malta Torpedo strike units was grounded after taking part in 18 torpedo attacks, an RAF record and probably one of the highest total of such strikes by one pilot, anywhere.


----------



## Kurfürst (Sep 2, 2010)

Glider said:


> Re the RAF bombers. We don't have the numbers but the vast majority of these sorties were on shipping strikes which is a risky business and a majority of the losses seem to have been to AA fire.



Do we know how many German/Italian bombers and fighters were lost to naval and ground AAA?


----------



## Juha (Sep 2, 2010)

Hello Steve
thanks a lot for the Italian info. 

Hello Kurfürst
Quote:” Yes unfortunately our analysis seems incomplete, as nobody until steve51 could come up with Italian losses.”

Yes but it would not have been difficult to gauge that because Italians played substantial part on Malta Campaigns they also suffered substantial losses and also achieved kills against Malta fighters.

Quote:” Can you support this statement with something?”

I also gave two sources, one of them official history, but if you have problem with British sources, look on Prien’s JG 53 history, Vol 2 (5.42-1.44), English edition, p. 491. In fact the Oct 42 bomber offensive only lasted from 11. Oct to 18th or 19th Oct, losses already given. On 19th only one bomber attack at dusk, but almost all of 40 Ju 88s dumped their bombs into sea when 3 Spits and 2 Beaufighters attacked, only 3 crossed the coastline and bombed Luga and Hal Far without effect. Loss rate of 3 bombers and 1 badly damaged per day wasn’t so high but meant that during that 9 day period c. 20% of attacking bombers were lost and further 6% badly dam and Germans knew that bombing results were very disappointing.

Quote:” Do you perhaps have information British bomber losses or those of the Fleet Air Arm? The LW shot down these in numbers too, and mostly likely suffered losses to these aircraft too, not just Hurris and Spits, so I am puzzled why you only concentrate on portion of the British losses, while presenting LW losses at full. 

It certainly not a solid way to present a realistic picture about the relative combat performance over Malta.”


During Oct 42 offensive there was no bomber losses and FAA losses, if any, should have been minimal. So I gave more or less all the British losses during the Oct 42 offensive but two Beaufighter shot down by Italian naval AA during a shipping strike on 14th Oct and that info was lacking from my original message only because I didn’t know that info before I just read the relevant pages from Shores’ Malta: The Spitfire Year 1942.

Quote:” Typically 109s and Macchis did carry a tropical filter (of Italian design) in the Med, too. and of course the Mk V did OK against bombers, it was still a good faster than bombers and was well armed. We are discussing however how it performed against fighters, and the data supplied so far seems to indicates that it did very poorly.”

That Italian filter didn’t produce any big performance losses, Vokes was clearly worse in that respect, later also the British developed much less draggy filters for their fighters. 

And 5 Spitfire V sqns did force Axis to stop offensive of 6 Ju 88 Gruppen and 3 Z.1007bis Gruppi plus 1 Gruppe and 1 Gruppo of Ju 87s protected by 4 Bf 109 G Gruppen and 4 Italian fighter Gruppi. I would say that Spits did fairly well and Axis escorts failed to give adequate protection to bombers. And in the end the results was not a temporary set-back for Axis but a strategic failure from which Axis paid a high price in coming months.

Juha


----------



## Glider (Sep 2, 2010)

Kurfürst said:


> Do we know how many German/Italian bombers and fighters were lost to naval and ground AAA?



I am afraid not.


----------



## NZTyphoon (Sep 2, 2010)

Juha said:


> I also gave two sources, one of them official history, but if you have problem with British sources, look on Prien’s JG 53 history, Vol 2 (5.42-1.44), English edition, p. 491. In fact the Oct 42 bomber offensive only lasted from 11. Oct to 18th or 19th Oct, losses already given. On 19th only one bomber attack at dusk, but almost all of 40 Ju 88s dumped their bombs into sea when 3 Spits and 2 Beaufighters attacked, only 3 crossed the coastline and bombed Luga and Hal Far without effect. Loss rate of 3 bombers and 1 badly damaged per day wasn’t so high but meant that during that 9 day period c. 20% of attacking bombers were lost and further 6% badly dam and Germans knew that bombing results were very disappointing.
> 
> I would say that Spits did fairly well and Axis escorts failed to give adequate protection to bombers. And in the end the results was not a temporary set-back for Axis but a strategic failure from which Axis paid a high price in coming months.
> 
> Juha


In fact the 'October Offensive' consisted of small formations of JU 88s (7-8 usually) or fighter-bombers escorted by large numbers of Luftwaffe and Regia Aeronautica fighters - almost exactly the same as the RAF "Circus" ops over France in 1941, with similar results.

German bombers were forced to dump their bombs before reaching Malta more than once: eg: October !2 Midday raid; 8 Ju 88s covered by 10 Mc 202s and 20 Bf 109s. Attacked head-on by 229 249 Sqns. Four Ju 88s shot down for no losses. 

October 14, afternoon raid; 8 Ju 88s escorted by 31 Mc 202s and 44 Bf 109s. Three Ju 88s shot down for no losses. (Albeit Spitfires claimed 7, possibly 8 Ju 88s).

October 15, late morning; 8 Ju 88s and 8 109 Jabos escorted by 25 Mc 202s forced to turn back; Spitfires bounced by another formation of 109s 3 109s lost to 2 Spitfires lost, 1 damaged.

After 18 October the Luftwaffe and Regia Aeronautica reverted to high-altitude fighter-bomber operations which were mostly ineffectual.


----------



## Juha (Sep 2, 2010)

Hello NZ
IIRC on the first day (11th Oct) one raid consisted c. 15 Ju 88s and the last c. 30, the first raids were with 6-8 Ju 88s with heavy fighter escort and later LW returned to the small scale bomber formations with heavy fighter escorts. But as I wrote they had gathered a powwrful bomber force of c. 150 Ju 88s on Sicily for attacks on Malta. Realistically the Ju 87s were not used daytime, they were to be used in daytimeonly after British fighter defence was crushed.

Juha


----------



## Glider (Sep 2, 2010)

*11th October*
The first raid on the 11th consisted of seven KG54 JU88 escorted by 25 Machi 202 and 4 x 109. 19 x Spit V intercepted and it looks as if 1 x Ju88 and 1 x Machi 202 was shot down, no loss to Spitfires
Second Raid - 6 x Ju88 escorted by 65 fighters, 20 Spitfires intercepted, A number of aircraft on both sides were claimed but it doesn't look as if any were lost but the bombing did negligable damage. The fighters did keep the Spitfires off the bombers.
Third raid - Similar to the second, again with a number of aircraft claimed and damaged but none lost in combat but a couple on both sides crash landed.
Fourth raid - 16 x Ju88, 17 x Bomb carrying Re 2001 escorted by 25 x Mc202 at the same time a large number of German fighters on a sweep were engaged and the aircraft seem to become mixed up as the 25 Spits V that were scrambled engaged both German and Italin aircraft. Losses were 2 x 109 (Lt Schumacher and Uffz Timmermann killed) 1 x Re2001 (Mar Pesavento killed), 1 x Spit V ( Sgt MacLean killed) others on both sides made it back to base badly damaged.
Fifth Raid - 30 x Ju88 with No Escort intercepted by 9 x Spit V. 3 x Ju88 lost, others and a Spit crash landed. 

What I find interesting is the Italian contribution in the action. There is a quote in the book from one German bomber pilot who said that some (not all) of the bomber crews preferred Italians as the close escort as a 109 in a difficult position often dived away which left the bombers open to attack. The Italian fighters couldn't dive well so tended to stay in the fight diverting the RAF away from the bombers. Generally the above tended to follow that pattern.

Note in the above I ignored claims.


----------



## Nikademus (Sep 2, 2010)

Kurfürst said:


> Do we know how many German/Italian bombers and fighters were lost to naval and ground AAA?



For what period/area? (Malta+naval?)


----------



## Nikademus (Sep 2, 2010)

NZTyphoon said:


> It doesn't give a breakdown as to how many Spitfires were lost to the 109 s. clearly the fighters went after the bombers (161 Ju 88s) and there were losses to German bombers, Italian fighters, operations over Sicily etc, not to mention the Spitfires lost on the ground to bombs and strafing.



My estimate suggests 144 Spitfires in trade for 82 Bf-109's for air to air based on a study of Shores's Malta book. Spitfires did tip the balance, remaining competitive against the maurauding Axis fighters while shooting down scores of bombers. (97 x Ju-88 alone)


----------



## parsifal (Sep 3, 2010)

Nikademus said:


> My estimate suggests 144 Spitfires in trade for 82 Bf-109's for air to air based on a study of Shores's Malta book. Spitfires did tip the balance, remaining competitive against the maurauding Axis fighters while shooting down scores of bombers. (97 x Ju-88 alone)



I think it would be more accurate to say 144 spitfires in exchange for everything else they (the spits) shot down), which is likley to include included 82 Me109s and 97 Ju88s. They must also be assumed to have shot down a large proportion of the 97 Italian fighters, and an unknown number of Italian bombers.

I will post the detaiols of the Spits delivered to the islkand later tonite, beginning in March 1942. Any axis losses suffered prior to April 1942 were due to hurricanes, since the first deliveries of Spits to the island in March were decimated by well timed Axis ground strikes. It was effectively May before Spits were in action effectively.

To be fair, until well into 1942, many of the german fighhters in the theatre were still the Me 109Es. It was really only after the introduction of the SpitVs that the germans found it necessary to feed in Me109Fs to the battle. I dont think (but am not sure) that there were any 109Gs in the med before the end of the year. 

By October there would only be a fraction of the total fighters based on Malta as Hurricanes, given that no HGurricanes had been delivered to the island after March 1942

I am not sure that Malta can be seen as any sort of fair comparison. Malta was an island under siege, with the local forces heavily outnumbered most of the time, and easily the most bombed location on earth up to that time. The RAF was forced to operate under the most challenging conditions, but still returned a very creditable repply to the Axis attacks


----------



## Kurfürst (Sep 3, 2010)

parsifal said:


> To be fair, until well into 1942, many of the german fighhters in the theatre were still the Me 109Es. It was really only after the introduction of the SpitVs that the germans found it necessary to feed in Me109Fs to the battle. I dont think (but am not sure) that there were any 109Gs in the med before the end of the year.



Nope, wrong on all three accounts. You hardly find Emils with first line units by 1942, iirc some were used far up the North in remote places like Norway, most simply found their place to German OTUs. The 109Gs did make their appearance in the Med in short notice after their introduction in June, by the summer 1942. Black Six was captured in the late automn in Africa, for example.



> I am not sure that Malta can be seen as any sort of fair comparison. Malta was an island under siege, with the local forces heavily outnumbered most of the time, and easily the most bombed location on earth up to that time. The RAF was forced to operate under the most challenging conditions, but still returned a very creditable repply to the Axis attacks.



When on Earth were they "heavily outnumbered" - the same silly story as Fighter Command being "outnumbered" in 1940? They did poorly, but thats all, its far more correct to say they were outnumbered at times, however, most of the time there was a single 109 Gruppe or so in Sicily, which kept shooting down RAF fighters and bombers, practically without losses in the beginning. They were outmatched, technically and tactically, but not outnumbered.

Besides I sense a that bit of contradiction between the select pieces of successfull intercepts, and the fact that Malta was indeed probably the most heavily bombed place on Earth. Why is that in all the examples presented, probing raids of Ju 88s are "forced" to turn back, and drop their bombs into the sea, yet at the same, somehow, it is unfair to make a comparison because the LW bombed the airfields and docs so heavily..


----------



## Kurfürst (Sep 3, 2010)

Nikademus said:


> For what period/area? (Malta+naval?)



Yes, Malta and the naval operation around it. 

Considerable naval operations (Operation Harpoon, Vigorous, Pedestal etc.) were in the area, which came under heavy LW/RA attacks, and AAA and Fleet Air Arm shot down a number of Axis aircraft in the process. 

British naval AAA and Fleet Air Arm fighters alone in Harpoon in June 1942 claimed 29 axis aircraft shot down - losses which are happily attributed here to Spitfires of course, while the losses of the Fleet Air Arm and conviniently forgotten about, as are British bombers shot down by 109s and Macchis..


----------



## Glider (Sep 3, 2010)

Kurfürst said:


> When on Earth were they "heavily outnumbered" - the same silly story as Fighter Command being "outnumbered" in 1940? They did poorly, but thats all, its far more correct to say they were outnumbered at times, however, most of the time there was a single 109 Gruppe or so in Sicily, which kept shooting down RAF fighters and bombers, practically without losses in the beginning. They were outmatched, technically and tactically, but not outnumbered.



Did you read my earlier posting?

11th October
_The first raid on the 11th consisted of seven KG54 JU88 escorted by 25 Machi 202 and 4 x 109. 19 x Spit V intercepted and it looks as if 1 x Ju88 and 1 x Machi 202 was shot down, no loss to Spitfires_
19 Spits against 29 fighters and 7 bombers

_Second Raid - 6 x Ju88 escorted by 65 fighters, 20 Spitfires intercepted, A number of aircraft on both sides were claimed but it doesn't look as if any were lost but the bombing did negligable damage. The fighters did keep the Spitfires off the bombers_.
20 Spits against 65 fighters

_Third raid - Similar to the second, again with a number of aircraft claimed and damaged but none lost in combat but a couple on both sides crash landed._
Unkown for sure but were certainly outnumbered.

_Fourth raid - 16 x Ju88, 17 x Bomb carrying Re 2001 escorted by 25 x Mc202 at the same time a large number of German fighters on a sweep were engaged and the aircraft seem to become mixed up as the 25 Spits V that were scrambled engaged both German and Italin aircraft. Losses were 2 x 109 (Lt Schumacher and Uffz Timmermann killed) 1 x Re2001 (Mar Pesavento killed), 1 x Spit V ( Sgt MacLean killed) others on both sides made it back to base badly damaged_.
25 Spits against 42 fighters and fighter bombers *plus*, a large german fighter sweep

You also have to ask yourself why if the Spitfires were ineffective against the Me109, did 7 bombers need an escort of 65 fighters?

If you think that I cherry picked this day it was picked as the result of an earlier posting. If you wish pick any other day and I will do a similar breakdown.


----------



## Kurfürst (Sep 3, 2010)

Glider said:


> You also have to ask yourself why if the Spitfires were ineffective against the Me109, did 7 bombers need an escort of 65 fighters?



Did it ever occured to you that the 7 bombers were just a bait to get Spitfires up, and then shoot them down with an overwhelming escort...? Obviously _bombing_ wasn't a goal here - not with 7-8 bombers when they could have deployed far more at that time to bomb _effectively_- it was the get RAF fighters in the air.


----------



## Glider (Sep 3, 2010)

Kurfürst said:


> Did it ever occured to you that the 7 bombers were just a bait to get Spitfires up, and then shoot them down with an overwhelming escort...? Obviously _bombing_ wasn't a goal here - not with 7-8 bombers when they could have deployed far more at that time to bomb _effectively_- it was the get RAF fighters in the air.



As a plan it clearly failed and the overwhelming escort wasn't overwhelming enough as they lost more than the defending forces. Not a great advert for :-

a) The superior performance of the 109F
b) How well the Axis forces did against the (by your standards) poor performing RAF

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Juha (Sep 3, 2010)

Hello Kurfürst
How many Spits you think 5 full strenght RAF fighter sqns had, vs c. 125 Bf 109s of 4 Gruppen plus 4 Italian fighter Gruppi (nominally 27 fighters per Gruppo). And why you think LW concentrated c. 150 Ju 88s to Sicily plus Ju 87s and the Italian bombers. That the power relation of Oct 42 campaign but the small Beaufighter night fighter component ( a det from 89 Sqn) and the small Malta Strike force. If you have problems with our info and/or British sources please feel free to consult Prien's JG 53 history Vol 2 p. 485 on the background of and LW preparations for the offensive.


----------



## bada (Sep 3, 2010)

Juha, 
i've done till now the stats for the first 900 spit5b, still 2700 to go.

But all i can say, that it's not really glorious for ths spit5 till now.

The exact numbers Squadron assigned(with squad n°), maintenance unit, SOC(reasons) are at work and i'm on holidays right now. but from memory, i can say, that on the channel, there is a big amount of SOC-109 what means destroyed in aircombat by 109 and even a bigger number of "SOC-Unknown" what means the plane and it's pilot disappeared on the mission and nobody knows why,how and what was the cause.
those stats will take at least 3 months to finish (doing this at work )but when it's done, will post them here.


----------



## Juha (Sep 3, 2010)

Hello Bada
As I have wrote earlier I'm not a big fan of Mk V, in fact I think that it was the low point of Spitfire story as IMHO G-6 was in 109 story if we forgot those very early F-1s with tail problem. Ironically both Mk V and G-6 were the most produced versions of their types.

All I want to say is that even Vokes Spit Vs could do rather well when rightly employed by a good team. Park was excellent fighter commander and the pilots and fighter controllers on Malta seemed to have been a top class team in Oct 42.

Juha


----------



## bada (Sep 3, 2010)

juha,
just cherry picking here, but the most produced spit was the M9LF with M66. 3981Units (but not all of them delivered in the WWII! )


----------



## NZTyphoon (Sep 3, 2010)

parsifal said:


> I will post the detaiols of the Spits delivered to the islkand later tonite, beginning in March 1942. Any axis losses suffered prior to April 1942 were due to hurricanes, since the first deliveries of Spits to the island in March were decimated by well timed Axis ground strikes. It was effectively May before Spits were in action effectively.





Kurfürst said:


> So it was 45 Hurricanes and 148 Spitfires lost in the air against 64 Bf 109s lost (and three 110) as per the earlier post.



KF's reasoning that all Spitfires were destroyed in the air is completely erroneous: poor organisation on the ground for the first delivery of 47 Spitfires off USS Wasp ("Operation Calender" 20 April) led to most of them being stranded on the airfields while the Luftwaffe was left free to bomb and ground strafe. Result was by 22 April _9 had been destroyed on the ground with 26 badly damaged by bomb splinters_. This was rectified by the time the next delivery of 64 Spitfires from the Wasp and Eagle (Operation Bowery 8 May) and the Spitfires were able to meet the Luftwaffe and Regia Aeronautica raids in far larger numbers. 




Kurfürst said:


> Did it ever occured to you that the 7 bombers were just a bait to get Spitfires up, and then shoot them down with an overwhelming escort...? Obviously _bombing_ wasn't a goal here - not with 7-8 bombers when they could have deployed far more at that time to bomb _effectively_- it was the get RAF fighters in the air.



In other words things changed between May and October, coincidental with Spitfires being delivered in quantity and the RAF fighters adopting more effective tactics. Fact is that the mighty Luftwaffe, like the RAF over France in 1941, was reduced to using its Ju 88s in penny packets protected by large numbers of fighters. Result was Ju 88s were losing 50% of their strength on some days - meaning the escorts had failed to protect the bombers - while the 109s were not shooting down huge numbers of Spitfire Vs.


----------



## Glider (Sep 3, 2010)

NZTyphoon said:


> KF's reasoning that all Spitfires were destroyed in the air is completely erroneous: poor organisation on the ground for the first delivery of 47 Spitfires off USS Wasp ("Operation Calender" 20 April) led to most of them being stranded on the airfields while the Luftwaffe was left free to bomb and ground strafe. Result was by 22 April _9 had been destroyed on the ground with 26 badly damaged by bomb splinters_. This was rectified by the time the next delivery of 64 Spitfires from the Wasp and Eagle (Operation Bowery 8 May) and the Spitfires were able to meet the Luftwaffe and Regia Aeronautica raids in far larger numbers. .



To be fair to Kurfurst, the figures of 148 Spits and 45 Hurricanes are the ones lost in the air and exclude those destroyed on the ground.


----------



## Juha (Sep 3, 2010)

Hello Bada
I'm thinking the subtypes as a blocks, IIRC c. 6500 Mk Vs vs c. 5600 Mk IXs. Too difficult to remember all those subversion other than IIRC only 94 Mk Vas but all those HFs, Fs and LFs and Vbs/VBs and VCs etc too much to old man's memory.

Juha


----------



## NZTyphoon (Sep 3, 2010)

Glider said:


> To be fair to Kurfurst, the figures of 148 Spits and 45 Hurricanes are the ones lost in the air and exclude those destroyed on the ground.



Lemme see... (picks up Shores, Cull and Malizia p. 646)...gottit...Ah well, don't mind admitting when I'm wrong. 8)


----------



## Nikademus (Sep 3, 2010)

parsifal said:


> I think it would be more accurate to say 144 spitfires in exchange for everything else they (the spits) shot down), which is likley to include included 82 Me109s and 97 Ju88s. They must also be assumed to have shot down a large proportion of the 97 Italian fighters, and an unknown number of Italian bombers.



The score for the Spit in 42 from my study:

Luftwaffe:

82 x Bf-109
11 x Ju-87
97 x Ju-88
1 x He-111
3 x Do-24

R.Aero.

26 x MC-202
25 x Re-2001
1 x S-82
2 x S-79
3 x S-84
2 x Z-506B
8 x Z-1007bis
4 x Ju-87(Ita)
1 x BR-20M
1 x RS-14


----------



## Nikademus (Sep 3, 2010)

Kurfürst said:


> Yes, Malta and the naval operation around it.
> 
> Considerable naval operations (Operation Harpoon, Vigorous, Pedestal etc.) were in the area, which came under heavy LW/RA attacks, and AAA and Fleet Air Arm shot down a number of Axis aircraft in the process.
> 
> British naval AAA and Fleet Air Arm fighters alone in Harpoon in June 1942 claimed 29 axis aircraft shot down - losses which are happily attributed here to Spitfires of course, while the losses of the Fleet Air Arm and conviniently forgotten about, as are British bombers shot down by 109s and Macchis..



AA estimates for 1942 Malta (including the related naval/convoy battles)

Luftwaffe: 72

17 x Bf-109
1 x Bf-110
9 x Ju-87
45 x Ju-88

R. Aero: 24

2 x MC-202
12 x S-79
4 x S-84
2 x Z-1007bis
3 x Ju-87(Ita)
1 x BR-20M


----------



## Juha (Sep 3, 2010)

Hello Nikademus
thanks a lot for sharing that very interesting info!
So Spit Vs shot down 133 fighters + 134 bombers etc while losing 148 (-those shot down by AA over Sicily) Spit Mk Vs, or were those 148 Spits lost in air combat only. Or do you mean that 144 Spits were lost while they shot down 82 109s and extra xx Spits were lost while they shot down the rest of their victims?

Juha


----------



## Nikademus (Sep 3, 2010)

Juha said:


> Hello Nikademus
> thanks a lot for sharing that very interesting info!
> So Spit Vs shot down 133 fighters + 134 bombers etc while losing 148 (-those shot down by AA over Sicily) Spit Mk Vs, or were those 148 Spits lost in air combat only.
> 
> Juha



Approximately. . My study suggests 204 Spitfires lost to air action vs. Shores' 214 (the page 646 summary states that the author suggests the summary result was 148 + 66 force landed/crash landed due to combat damage) I was happy that my tick tack page by page came within 10 planes of his summary. The difference is most likely explained by different interpretations on a "combat loss" vs. op loss etc. One of the lost Spits came at the hands of another Spit!

Additionally, at least 33 Spits were destroyed on the ground, 2 to AA, 59 to operational causes, and 6 to Friendly AA. (not so friendly!)

Non-109 air losses included:

28 to MC-202
6 to Re-2001
15 to Ju-88
1 to Z-1007bis
1 to S-84

It should be noted that there is a big controversey documented in the book in several places whereby German "records" are hotly disputed by RAF veterans. In more than one big battle the Germans claimed they either lost no or very few planes while the RAF insisted that they got more than the Germans would admit. The page 646 summary showed the Jagdwaffe "admitting" to only 55 losses over Malta from combat. There were a high # of instances of alleged "engine failure" on return trips by 109s. Its possible that more than one of these mechanical failures was due to combat damage.


----------



## Nikademus (Sep 3, 2010)

Kurfürst said:


> Did it ever occured to you that the 7 bombers were just a bait to get Spitfires up, and then shoot them down with an overwhelming escort...? Obviously _bombing_ wasn't a goal here - not with 7-8 bombers when they could have deployed far more at that time to bomb _effectively_- it was the get RAF fighters in the air.



When the fighters escorted, the goal was to get maximum results on the ground and protect the bombers. For pure fighter killing, the most successful tactic employed was the Rotte sized free hunt, particularily if they could arrange it during the end of a Spit reinforcement ferry run. They scored heavily in one such interception.

When the #'s were tallied up, the Axis destroyed and damaged a huge swath of planes on the ground making a substantial contribution to the attrition level on the island. (204 destroyed in 1942 alone + many damaged)


----------



## Juha (Sep 3, 2010)

Hello Nikademus
Thanks a lot for clarifications.

Juha


----------



## parsifal (Sep 3, 2010)

Kurfürst said:


> Nope, wrong on all three accounts. You hardly find Emils with first line units by 1942, iirc some were used far up the North in remote places like Norway, most simply found their place to German OTUs. The 109Gs did make their appearance in the Med in short notice after their introduction in June, by the summer 1942. Black Six was captured in the late automn in Africa, for example.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Main source for me at this point is "The Campaign For North AfricaRichard Berg Albert Nofi and James Dunnigan, Simulations Publication 1979. I believe it remains the standard text at both Sandhurst and Duntroon, for Trainee Officers in their Military History units. I also used Aircraft Carriers In WWII Norman Polmar, with assistance by Minoru Genda, Eric Brown and Professor Robert Langdon.McDonald Co, 1969. This 741 page book remains the best single volume work on carrier operations during the war ion my opinion

Now firstly to your opinion that Mer 109Es were not present during the battle. The folowing are the German aircraft receipts for the Med TO from January through to December 1942. CNA gives the arrivals on a weekly basis, but I have simplified this by simply reporting their arrivals per month:

1/42: 12 x Me 109E, 48ME 109F, 15 x ME 110, 15 Ju88C, 6 HE 111, 12 Ju 52, 15 Ju87D, 6 Ju88
2/42: 36 ME109E, 12 ME 109F, 15Me110, 18JU88C, 18He111, 30Ju87, 12Ju88
3/42: 9 Me109E, 45ME109F, 15Me110, 12Ju52, 15Ju87, 12 Ju88D
4/42: 36Me109E, 40Me109F, 12ME110, 18Ju88C, 6AR196, 6Ju87
5/42: 30Me109E, 36Me109F, 12FW200, 12He111, 18Ju52, 24Ju87, 30 Ju88
6/42: 15Me109F, 48Me109G, 30Ju88D, 12He111, 15 Ju52, 10Ju87 
7/42: 20Me109F, 18Me109G, 12 Ju88C, 12 Ju52, 12Ju87
8/42: 36 Me109G, 15 Ju88C, 12 Ju52, 12 Ju87 
9/42: 45 Me109G, 18 Ju52, 12 Ju88, 12 He111, 12 Ju87, 
10/42: 12 Me 109G, 12He111, 12 Ju87D, 6 Ju88, 
11/42: Nil


I concede that I was wrong with regards to the arrival of the the Me 109G, I also concede that the the Me 109F had been arriving from the middle of 1941. It had started arriving from July 1941. However, the dominant type for the LW in the Med remained the ME 109E throughout 1941. It outnumbered the F subtype in terms of arrivals by about 2:1 until December 1941, and even continued to arrive in dribs and drabs during the first quarter of 1942.

There are one or two corrections in the above list compared to that given in CNA. CNA says that the ME109G arrived in quatity from April, I believe they are in error here. I have listed the 109Fs as 109Es, and the 109Gs as 109Fs. I may be wrong for those months therefore, though other reference material that I do have suggests otherwise

You will notice also that Ju88 bombers were not received in great numbers. The majority of Ju88s were in fact of the fighter subtypes. However the Luftwaffe had received significant numbers of Ju88 bombers prior to 1942.

Now, so far as the arrivals of spits and Hurricanes to Malta were concerned, Polmar provides the following list for 1942

Mar 07 1942 (Operation "Spotter"), 15 Spits
Mar 21 1942 (Operation "Picket I") 9 Spits
Mar 29 1942 (Operation "Picket II) 7 Spits
SUBTOTAL (March) 31 Spits, 0 Hurris

Apr 20 1942 (Operation "Calendar") 46 Spits
SUBTOTAL (April) 46 Spits, 0 Hurris

May 09 1942 (Operation "Bowery") 60 Spits
May 19 1942 (Operation "L.B") 17 Spits
SUBTOTAL (May) 77 Spits, 0 Hurris

June03 1942 (Operation "Style) 27 Spits
June 09 1942 (Operation "Salient") 32 Spits
SUBTOTAL (June) 59 Spits, 0 Hurris

July15 1942 (Operation "Pinpoint") 31 Spits
July 21 1942 (Operation "Insect") 28 Spits
SUBTOTAL (July) : 59 Spits

Aug 11 1942 (Operation "Bellows" part of "Pedestal") 37 Spits
Aug 17 1942 (Operation "Buritone") 29 Spits
SUBTOTAL (August) 66 Spits, 0 Hurris
SUBTOTAL (September) 0 Spits, 0 Hurris

Oct 29 1942 (Operation "Train") 29 Spits 
SUBTOTAL (October) 29 Spits

There were no convoys for November or December, but after the victory at Alamein there may have been air tranfers from the Desert Air Force. However, assuming the main operational type for Malta remained the Spit, transfers to Malta in November and December could not have exceeded 30 aircraft, since this was the maximum number arriving in the ME during that period

FAA arrivals at Malta were extremely limited, and are likley not to have exceeded more than 12 Fulmars for the whole of 1942.

I dont have accurate figures for Beafighter arrivals specifically to malta, however for the wehole of the ME command, during 1942, ther were 309 Beafighter arrivals for the whole of the theatre. As I said, I dont know how many of these were transferred to Malta.

However, adding up the fighter numbers that could potentially be available over Malta during 1942, we arrive at the following

German 633 F
Brits 367 Spits 

plus something less than 367 Beafighters, and perhaps a dozen or so Fulmars. Then we have to factor in the Italians, which are not an insubstantial force. 

It is simply untrue to argue that the RAF over maltas enjoyed superiority of numbers. In the entire theatre, yes, thats correct, but the majority of aircraft in Egypt and Gibraltar had no impact on the battle over malta. The Germans could, and did, redeply their forces enmasse, because they were operating from interior lines 

As for FC being outnumbered being a "silly story", I suggest you go and read some of the posts made in rlation to your claim on that. Numerous people have pointed out the flaw in your logic on this, something you refuse to accept, just as you refuse to accept that the LW lost the battle....simply achieved all their aims, got tired of the battle packed up and went home as I recall


----------



## Juha (Sep 3, 2010)

Hello Nikademus
so Spits vs Bf 109s 144 vs 82 lost
Spits vs. C 202s 28 vs 26
Spits vs Re 2001 6 vs 25 lost.

But Spit figures incl. those force and crash-landed of which some were probable repaired and some were written offs. Did I get it right?

So 202s did as I would have excepted, 1:1 was my expectation. And Re 2001 did somewhat worse than my expectation (1:2) but they flew also fighter-bomber missions IIRC.

Juha


----------



## Juha (Sep 3, 2010)

Hello 
if we quess that c. ½ of those force- and crash-landed Spits were repaired and c. ½ were written-off and the ratio between lost and force- and crash-landed Spits constant we got:
Spits vs Bf 109s 123 vs 82 lost, c. 1,5:1
Spits vs. C 202s 24 vs 26 lost, c. 1:1
Spits vs Re 2001 5 vs 25 lost, c. 1:5

Juha


----------



## Nikademus (Sep 3, 2010)

Juha said:


> Hello Nikademus
> so Spits vs Bf 109s 144 vs 82 lost
> Spits vs. C 202s 28 vs 26
> Spits vs Re 2001 6 vs 25 lost.
> ...



Yes. It would probably be more accurate to label these as "victories" vs. kills as some that made it back to friendly territory were later repaired.


----------



## Nikademus (Sep 3, 2010)

Probably worth adding to further support the necessity and impact of the Spits is that the last Hurricane combats continued to go heavily in favor of the 109 drivers though overall the Hurr's continued to add valuable bomber #'s to the RAF tally.

44 shot down in return for 16 109's in 42. But Hurricanes also nabbed

4 x 110
5 x Ju-87
27 x Ju-88

Sea Hurricanes added:

2 x Ju-87 and 9 x Ju-88's + a 110.

vs. the R.A. add one Z-506B while Sea Hurricanes bagged:

3 x Cr-42
1 x MC-200
5 x S-79
3 x S-84
2 x Z-1007bis
1 x Ju-87(Ita)

Sea Hurricanes lost in air:

1 to 110
1 to MC-200
3 to Re-2001
2 to Ju-88
1 to He-111
1 to "Friendly" AA


----------



## Juha (Sep 3, 2010)

Hello Nikademus
thanks again for the very intresting extra info!
Small samples, but just what I expected
Sea Hurricane vs CR-42 0:3 lost, even if CR-42 was excellent bi-plane and Hurricane IMHO only mediocrity monoplane.
Sea Hurricane vs MC-200 1:1 lost
Sea Hurricane vs Re-2001 3:0 lost, even if Re did badly against Spit Mk V but against Malta it was often used as fighter bomber. It was not that bad fighter.
Hurricane vs Bf 109 44:16 lost, so almost 3:1 so almost twice as bad as the Spit V.
Sea Hurricane vs Bf 110 1:1, also in early NA campaign IIRC Vokes Mk Is vs 110C/Ds more or less 1:1, usually who saw the other first won.

Juha


----------



## steve51 (Sep 3, 2010)

Nikademus,

Thank you for those very informative posts.


----------



## Milosh (Sep 3, 2010)

Great stuff Nikademus. 

I don't understand why some get so caught up on fighter vs fighter stats when fighters are only a part of the total air battle. (One sees this in BoB discussions as well.)


----------



## Juha (Sep 3, 2010)

Heh
it was nice to notice that by chance the very small sample gave exactly same results that what is my opinion on relative merits of some fighters.

On the larger samples, results show that Spit V was clearly more effective than Hurri, also had better exchange rate than SeaHurri against Ju 88 as can be expected from a plane which had clearer speed advantage over target plane and so more interception tactics open to its pilot.

Juha


----------



## NZTyphoon (Sep 3, 2010)

Milosh said:


> Great stuff Nikademus.
> 
> I don't understand why some get so caught up on fighter vs fighter stats when fighters are only a part of the total air battle. (One sees this in BoB discussions as well.)



Yep, excellent work Nikademus. Some points worth mentioning are:

1)The pilots sent to Malta with the Spitfires were all too often inexperienced: AVM Lloyd complained about this saying Malta was "no place for beginners."

2) No radar had been installed on Malta until early 1942 and, as McKinstry points out "many of the staff in central operations had no proper grasp of how its information should be used. What was happening was that the Spitfires and remaining Hurricanes were being scrambled in small numbers only when the enemy formations were well on their way to Malta. This meant that time and again the RAF fighters were being bounced by large formations of German or Italian fighters while still climbing. Result was that in the first two weeks of July alone 36 Spitfires were destroyed or badly damaged + 3 written off in accidents.

3) In July
a: Keith Park took over from AVM Lloyd
b: Fighter Command began to send more experienced Spitfire pilots, starting with Operation Pinpoint.
c: Once Park settled in he changed tactics, sending squadrons of Spitfires up as soon as Radar spotted incoming raids forming up over Sicily - the same tactics Park used during the Battle of Britain. Worked both times.

4) The primary task of the Spitfires was to attack the bombers which were doing most of the damage . The fighters were not the prime objective. 112 Luftwaffe bombers were shot down along with 82 Bf 109s, 26 Mc 202s and 21 Re 2001s and 22 Italian bombers = 263 v 214

5) By October the Luftwaffe could only send over small numbers of Ju 88s escorted by large numbers of fighters. Some raids were turned back and the Ju 88s suffered from high casualty rates meaning that the Jagdwaffe had failed to protect the bombers, nor were they shooting down a high ratio of RAF fighters. After October 18 these raids stopped and were substituted by ineffectual high-altitude Jabo raids. Like the RAF over France and the low countries in 1941, the Axis forces were operating for the sake of operating, with no clear goal in mind.


----------



## Glider (Sep 3, 2010)

Nikademus
Excellent work. I admit that I thought about doing what you did but chickened out, so top marks to you, shame to me and many thanks.

Next Question, Where did Kurfurst go?

PS I meant to add that I hadn't realised that the Huricanes did so well. They were both seriously outclassed and outnumbered so to achieve approx a 1 to 1 ratio is a very good achievement.


----------



## Juha (Sep 3, 2010)

Hello NZ
one correction, Malta got its first radar already in March 1939 and the second in June 1940
one clarification, the Oct 42 offensive had a clear aim, to end the use of Malta as a strike base by bombing.

Juha


----------



## Nikademus (Sep 3, 2010)

Glider said:


> Nikademus
> Excellent work. I admit that I thought about doing what you did but chickened out, so top marks to you, shame to me and many thanks.
> 
> Next Question, Where did Kurfurst go?
> ...



Glad to help. It gets easier after the fourth book or so. 

Hurricanes worst year was 41, primarily at the hands of 7/JG-26 and their amazing 5 month reign of terror.


----------



## RCAFson (Sep 4, 2010)

Nikademus said:


> Probably worth adding to further support the necessity and impact of the Spits is that the last Hurricane combats continued to go heavily in favor of the 109 drivers though overall the Hurr's continued to add valuable bomber #'s to the RAF tally.
> 
> 44 shot down in return for 16 109's in 42. But Hurricanes also nabbed
> 
> ...




I make that 28 Sea Hurricane kills for 8 Sea Hurricane losses. Do you know offhand, how well the Fulmar and Martlet did on the same operations?


----------



## Nikademus (Sep 4, 2010)

Fulmar (1942) Malta related operations:

2 x S-79
2 x S-84
5 x Z-1007bis

losses:

1 to CR-42
1 to Re-2001
1 to S-79
1 to Z-1007bis
1 to D-520
9 operational losses
1 to 'Friendly' AA


Martlet (1942) Malta related operations

2 x S-84
1 x Re-2001
1 x Ju-88

losses:

1 to Ju-88
6 operational losses


----------



## RCAFson (Sep 4, 2010)

Nikademus said:


> Fulmar (1942) Malta related operations:
> 
> 1 to D-520



Thanks.

A D520 loss enroute to Malta?


----------



## Nikademus (Sep 4, 2010)

May 18th, 1942. D-520 of Vichy French unit GC III/6 downed a Fulmar piloted by Lt. P.R. Hall and A/G Nuttall during Operation 'LB' flying in 17 Spitfires to Malta. A Catalina was also downed by a D-520 from GC II/3 same day.


----------



## Juha (Sep 4, 2010)

Hello Nikademus
Again, thanks a lot!
Fulmar seems to have worked as planned, it could handle Italian snoopers and bombers and probably also load carrying He 111s, if these would have been around, had long loiter time and large ammo capacity but was too slow for Ju 88s. And fighters, not simply planned to handle them.

Juha


----------



## NZTyphoon (Sep 4, 2010)

Juha said:


> Hello NZ
> one correction, Malta got its first radar already in March 1939 and the second in June 1940
> 
> 
> Juha



Aw...shucks! Corrected twice in a row   It's been ages since I've read Shores et al through, otherwise I would have picked up on McKinstry's mistake (_see_ it worn't me of'cer). Yes the RDF units were 241 AMES (Air Ministry Experimental Station) cliffs of Dingli 1939 (high flying aircraft). By 1941: 242 AMES Ghar Lapsi, 501 AMES Tas-Sile, 502 AMES Madliena and 504 AMES Dingli, each capable of plotting medium-low flyers. There was also a GCI near Salina Bay. (page 24) McKinstry must have been referring to two more RDF stations under construction and operational in February 1942.


----------



## fastmongrel (Sep 4, 2010)

Juha said:


> Hello Nikademus
> Again, thanks a lot!
> Fulmar seems to have worked as planned, it could handle Italian snoopers and bombers and probably also load carrying He 111s, if these would have been around, had long loiter time and large ammo capacity but was too slow for Ju 88s. And fighters, not simply planned to handle them.
> 
> Juha



The more I read about the Fulmar the better it seems to have been. Definitely one of those aircraft where the performance figures dont tell the real story. Obviously the FAA pilots would have liked a higher performing aircraft but what they did with what they had available is remarkable in my opinion.


----------



## Nikademus (Sep 5, 2010)

The Fulmar was a useful plane, but tends to get berated because it was obviously no match for a 1st class modern fighter such as a Bf-109 or an A6M2. At the time though, many felt that it wasn't possible to create a carrier based fighter that was equal to a land based one. The A6M2 shattered that view more than any other plane while the Wildcat also proved capable. As a component within the framework of RN air defense doctrine however, the plane had some positive attributes....it had twice the ammo capacity vs. the Hurricane which i recall Shores pointing out in his 1st Malta volume as being very useful for a service that constituted many green pilots. The 2nd crewman made overwater navigating much easier and helped with Fighter Direction and also made them useful as guide planes for the Malta reinforcement flights. The fuel reserves also allowed long patrol times which was extremely useful within RN defense doctrine which was quite advanced for the time.....Flights of two being airborne at various sectors whereby they could be vectored onto snoopers and incoming raids. In this capacity as the below will show, the Fulmar did excellent and valuable work.

One negative in addition to the Fulmar's disadvantage vs. an agile modern 1E fighter is that it also presented a big target to enemy bomber/patrol defensive fire. Fulmars did well onboard carriers but a brief stint at Malta quickly showed their disadvantages vs. 109's and they were quickly withdrawn from daytime CAP duty.


1940 Fulmar kills (Malta related Med ops)

8 x S-79
1 x S-81
6 x Z-506B
7 x Z-501

losses 

1 to Cr-42
1 to Z-501

1941 Fulmar kills (Malta related Med ops)

6 x S-79
3 x S-84
7 x Z-506B
1 x Z-1007bis
2 x Z-501
4 x BR-20M
1 x Bf-110
5 x Ju-87
8 x Ju-88
1 x Ju-52

losses

1 to Cr-42
1 to Mc-200
1 to Mc-202
1 to Ju-88
3 to Ju-87
1 to Z-506B
5 to S-79
1 to AA
2 to "Friendly" AA
5 on Ground
3 Operational


----------



## vikingBerserker (Sep 5, 2010)

That's really great info and perfect timing. I never really read about the Fulmar until studying which aircraft to build for the BoB GB. I was pretty impressed with this fairly unknown fighter. Thanks again for the info!


----------



## Nikademus (Sep 5, 2010)

More on Fulmar from other areas (source: Shores)

North Africa (same period Med as Malta books)

Kills:

1 x Z-1007bis

Losses

1 to Bf-109
1 to Ju-88



Greece (1941)

Kills:

1 x S-81
3 x S-79
1 x Z-1007bis
4 x Ju-88
1 x He-111
2 x Ju-52
1 x Do-24

losses

2 to S-79
1 to Ju-88
1 to Ju-52
5 operational


Indian Ocean 1942

Kills:

4 x D3A

losses

4 to A6M2
2 to Hurricane (friendly fire)
1 operational loss


----------



## Kurfürst (Sep 5, 2010)

Glider said:


> Next Question, Where did Kurfurst go?



Gone drinking, meeting a beautiful blonde, generally enjoying weekend like normal people do. How was yours? 8)


----------



## parsifal (Sep 5, 2010)

I think he was referring to an observed tendency for you to head for the nearest exit when a discussion is not perhaps going as you had intended. 

People who do that, or act with excessive agression or are simply rude, usually have self esteem issues.


----------



## Glider (Sep 5, 2010)

Kurfürst said:


> Gone drinking, meeting a beautiful blonde, generally enjoying weekend like normal people do. How was yours? 8)



Good reply, I asked for that


----------



## Kurfürst (Sep 5, 2010)

parsifal said:


> I think he was referring to an observed tendency for you to head for the nearest exit when a discussion is not perhaps going as you had intended.
> 
> People who do that, or act with excessive agression or are simply rude, usually have self esteem issues.



Maybe. Or maybe they have a life to live. And oh the discussion is going very much the way I intend it. Intelligent, informative, and except for your latest post, heading towards a rational and civilized discussion.

I did not have the time to express my compliments to Nikodemus who had the lion's share in that wit his excellent research. Thanks Nik, I'll reply when time permits!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 5, 2010)

Kurfürst said:


> And oh the discussion is going very much the way I intend it. Intelligent, informative, and except for your latest post, heading towards a rational and civilized discussion.



+1

Gotta agree here...



parsifal said:


> I think he was referring to an observed tendency for you to head for the nearest exit when a discussion is not perhaps going as you had intended.
> 
> People who do that, or act with excessive agression or are simply rude, usually have self esteem issues.



Kurfurst was correct above. This discussion has been informative and up to that comment conducted in an adult manner (Unless I missed something before, I don't think I have...). Ever since Soren was removed, so was the problem for the most part. 

Therefore it is not necessary to make such comments in this discussion, unless such things are happening in the discussion. People who typically do that (when not warranted that is), are only trying to pick a fight because they have nothing better to say.


----------



## RCAFson (Sep 5, 2010)

Nikademus said:


> Fulmar (1942) Malta related operations:
> 
> 2 x S-79
> 2 x S-84
> ...



On the face of it, the Fulmar appears to have a kill rate very close to the Martlet, but a higher loss rate.


----------



## parsifal (Sep 5, 2010)

It depends on the numbers of each type as to how effective they were. Also the primary mission of a naval fighter is not to shoot down anything. thats just a bonus really. Its primary mission, in the context of the MTO, is to protect ships from the attentions of enemy strike aircraft. 

British carriers, as a general rule (there were some exceptions, tended to never enter areas within range of axis SE fighters. This gradually changed as airfields on Sardinia were gradually developed and used by the axis


----------



## RCAFson (Sep 5, 2010)

parsifal said:


> It depends on the numbers of each type as to how effective they were. A



AFAIK, on the 1942 Malta operations, there was 4 Fulmars available during Harpoon and 16 during Pedestal, versus 10 Martlets during Pedestal.


----------



## RCAFson (Sep 6, 2010)

Nikademus said:


> May 18th, 1942. D-520 of Vichy French unit GC III/6 downed a Fulmar piloted by Lt. P.R. Hall and A/G Nuttall during Operation 'LB' flying in 17 Spitfires to Malta. A Catalina was also downed by a D-520 from GC II/3 same day.



According to a snippet from google books,Carrier Operations in World War II: The Royal Navy the Fulmars also shot down a D520 during that operation.


----------



## Glider (Sep 6, 2010)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> +1
> 
> Gotta agree here...
> 
> ...



I was fair to Kurfurst before and its only right that I be fair to Parsifal here. Kurfurst does have a track record of making statments, often inflamitory ones and then dissapearing when the going gets tough. Recent examples are :-

a) Pilots Hours
His statment about the RAF sending pilots into battle had not had time to master the Tiger Moth. When challanged to support it he tried to imply that he had said something else.
Quote_ Alll RAF fighter pilots arriving with a mere 6 weeks of training (instead of the orginal, iirc 3 months..), very little flight experience with either general flying or on their operational type to their operational units. How can you fly the Spitfire if you haven't even mastered the Tiger Moth yet..?_

b) Bomber Command Losses
One report said that Bomber Command had lost approx 8,500 planes and Kurfurst said that these were based on incorrect radio reports for the British public and the real losses were 10,000. When asked to support this he made a bland statement that it was well known and documented in a number of publications and official reports. When asked which he just went quiet and dissapeared.
See posting 40 http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/aviation/westland-whirlwind-vs-fw-187-vs-p-38-a-26065-3.html

c) This thread
The evidence was going against him, the first class Nickadeamus filled a lot of gaps and again he went quiet. Until he responded to the flipant line that I posted but as I said it was a good riposte I will give him that.

I should emphasise that this is a pattern and these are just the recent threads.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 6, 2010)

Glider said:


> I was fair to Kurfurst before and its only right that I be fair to Parsifal here. Kurfurst does have a track record of making statments, often inflamitory ones and then dissapearing when the going gets tough. Recent examples are :-
> 
> a) Pilots Hours
> His statment about the RAF sending pilots into battle had not had time to master the Tiger Moth. When challanged to support it he tried to imply that he had said something else.
> ...



I understand that, but it had not happened in this thread yet. Therefore there is no reason for comments to be made that will derail a thread. If Kurfurst has made such a comment, everyone would have blown up, because no one else can do wrong...

If a comment is not warranted at the time, why make childish comments????? Why derail a thread that is going smoothly at the moment?????

Also those examples you have given, have nothing to do with this thread, so why bring them up in this thread. 

*To be fair to myself, I think you will notice that I am impartial and call anyone out when it is needed. I do not take sides as much as possible. I am not taking sides here, I am just saying what is needed to be said at this particular time.*

*Now may I do my job as a forum moderator and try and keep things under control before they get out of hand? That includes keeping off the wall comments from derailing threads. If that is okay with you?*


----------



## Glider (Sep 6, 2010)

Of course


----------



## Juha (Sep 6, 2010)

Hello fastmongrel
For some reason Fulmar has not generated much sympathy in me, even if I have soft spots on many very British weapon systems, which were not so outstanding: Valentine tank, Archer SP AT gun, Blackburn Skua, Fairey Swordfish and Westland Whirlwind. 

Fulmar did what it was planned to do and had its good points originating from Admiralty’s specs but when compared to its contemporaries of the two other big naval powers, Wildcat and Zero, it really was a 2nd rate plane. FAA pilots achieved much but IMHO that was what soldiers had to do during the war, trying to do their best with the equipment given to them.

IMHO Fulmar’s problems stemmed from backwardness of Admiralty, IMHO there were no outstanding British carrier plane between Flycatcher/Nimrod period and Seafury/Seahawk period, and WWII happened to be fought during that dry period. Swordfish sqns did well and it suited well to MACs but IMHO its successes depended more on men who flew it than on the plane itself.

To me the most interesting thing on Fulmar was that the CVE HMS Campania used in combat operations a det of 3 NF Fulmars still in early 45. I have no info what they achieved and their use originated from the failure of Firefly NF II but still interesting to note that and I wonder if they had the 4 .5 armament for which at least late Fulmar Mk IIs were prepared for but not necessary equipped with.

Juha


----------



## fastmongrel (Sep 6, 2010)

Juha your right it wasnt a great plane. I think it could be considered to be the aircraft equivalent of an old joke. What do you get if a committee designs a horse...... A Camel


----------



## parsifal (Sep 6, 2010)

we've done the fulmar vs Wildcat versus the zero argument before. No doubt in my mind the Fulmar was the least capable of the three types. however, it was at least available whilst the other two were still essentially prototypes. Putting the zero aside for the moment. The Martlet was not operational with the RN until December, and not really used to any great extent until the following April . By that time the RN had fought many battles and would have lost its war if it had been forced to await for the full scale adoption of the type


----------



## Juha (Sep 6, 2010)

Hello Parsifal
Yes, I know but IIRC both Fulmar and Zero got their first kills in Sept 40, so they were contemporaries. But the main question is why RN went to big 2-seater when IJN and USN chose smaller single seater. We know the answer, so no need to discuss it here. And as I wrote, soldiers had to do their best with the equipment given to them. Even use shot-guns and logs of wood as A/T weapons if there was nothing better around. Fulmar was much better fighter than those ad hoc means were AT weapons but it is self-clear that one use what one get but one can still wonder why this solution and not something else that might be more effective to given job.

Juha


----------



## NZTyphoon (Sep 6, 2010)

Juha said:


> Hello Parsifal
> Yes, I know but IIRC both Fulmar and Zero got their first kills in Sept 40, so they were contemporaries. But the main question is why RN went to big 2-seater when IJN and USN chose smaller single seater. We know the answer, so no need to discuss it here. And as I wrote, soldiers had to do their best with the equipment given to them. Even use shot-guns and logs of wood as A/T weapons if there was nothing better around. Fulmar was much better fighter than those ad hoc means were AT weapons but it is self-clear that one use what one get but one can still wonder why this solution and not something else that might be more effective to given job.
> 
> Juha


Part of the problem with FAA requirements was that the Royal Navy and the RAF were at cross purposes when it came to deciding what was needed: when the RAF were in charge of the FAA there were short-range single seat fighters designed and used (eg: Fairey Flycatcher, Hawker Nimrod [which was not a development of the Fury Biplane as myth would have it - it was a parallel development of the Fury formula] etc) on carriers) When the Royal Navy took over operating carriers and framing requirements for the FAA many of those who framed the requirements were unsure of exactly what the role of fleet carriers should be. Unlike many in the US Navy, who envisaged carriers to be the strategic weapons systems of the future, the RN still considered battleships to be the main weapon, with carriers in support. Nor did the RN envisage that their fleet would be faced with concentrated air raids from land based or carrier based aircraft.
So, when it came to framing requirements for fighters the RN decided that to save time, money and deck-space it would be good to have aircraft which combined roles; hence we had the Blackburn Skua, which was supposed to be a fighter  as well as a dive bomber ( it could be argued the JNAF used the D3A 'Val' as a fighter on ocassion, but that was up to the aircrews involved - the Skua was supposed to attack enemy bombers and reconnaissance aircraftbut, as it turned out the Skua was usually to slow to catch anything but seaplanes). The Fulmar was supposed to be used as a long range reconniassance aircraft as well as a fighter. Result was mediocre designs which were never entirely adequate for any of the roles they were designed to fulfill. 

When the penny finally dropped and the RN realised they needed proper single-seat fighters their only options were to go to America for the F4F and scream at the Air Ministry for some British designs.

It should be noted here that Supermarine did have drawing board designs for two-seat FAA fighters based on their experience with the Spitfire, although the elliptical wing was dropped for a tapered design, and there was an early design for a single-seat fighter based on the Spitfire which was dropped in favour of the Fulmar.


----------



## tail end charlie (Sep 6, 2010)

NZTyphoon said:


> It should be noted here that Supermarine did have drawing board designs for two-seat FAA fighters based on their experience with the Spitfire, although the elliptical wing was dropped for a tapered design, and there was an early design for a single-seat fighter based on the Spitfire which was dropped in favour of the Fulmar.



I dont know the details of lend lease but it is known that at the end of the war FAA Corsairs were pushed into the sea so they didnt have to be paid for, I would imagine that was a major part of British thinking, design build and fly a plane you pay for yourself or borrow one that if its "lost" you dont pay for.


----------



## Glider (Sep 6, 2010)

tail end charlie said:


> I dont know the details of lend lease but it is known that at the end of the war FAA Corsairs were pushed into the sea so they didnt have to be paid for, I would imagine that was a major part of British thinking, design build and fly a plane you pay for yourself or borrow one that if its "lost" you dont pay for.



I suspect that ypu have the wrong end of the stick re lend lease. Everything was paid for in the form of cheap loans payable over decades.


----------



## tail end charlie (Sep 6, 2010)

Glider said:


> I suspect that ypu have the wrong end of the stick re lend lease. Everything was paid for in the form of cheap loans payable over decades.



Glider, I know that the debt for lend lease was actually only finished off fairly recently, but I also know Corsairs were pushed into the sea at the end of the Pacific war so they didnt need to be paid for.

from wiki
Large quantities of goods were in Britain or in transit when the United States terminated Lend-Lease when the war ended on 2 September 1945. Britain wished to retain some of this equipment in the immediate post war period. In 1946, the post-war Anglo-American loan further indebted Britain to the U.S. Lend-lease items retained were sold to Britain at 10% of nominal value, giving an initial loan value of £1.075 billion for the Lend Lease portion of the post-war loans. Payment was to be stretched out over 50 annual payments, starting in 1951 and with five years of deferred payments, at 2% interest.[8] The final payment of $83.3 million (£42.5 million), due on 31 December 2006 (repayment having been deferred in the allowed five years), was made on 29 December 2006 (the last working day of the year). After this final payment Britain's Economic Secretary, Ed Balls, formally thanked the U.S. for its wartime support.


----------



## Juha (Sep 7, 2010)

Hello TEC
I think that US Gov didn’t want those Corsairs back, USN surely would not like to have at least those Brewster built F3A-1s (Corsair IIIs) with RN mods to be stored somewhere in USA for its possible later use. All remembered the problems with surplus military equipments after WWI, USN didn’t want huge storage of used non-standard planes, its wanted new a/c even if only in moderate quantities. For to keep itself at the leading edge of new technologies and also to keep its suppliers in business.

Look what happened 9th AF B-26 Marauders, they were not flown back to USA but were broken up in Europe.


----------



## Juha (Sep 7, 2010)

Hello NZ
yes I know and I'm sure Parsifal also knows. As recon plane RN didn't have other good options, slow draggy bi-planes were not so good as recon planes, so as a recon/scout plane Fulmar was OK, USN used SBD Dauntless and IJN floatplanes and B5N2 Kates as their recon/scout planes. Fulmar had shorter range than those others but so had RN strike planes.

Juha


----------



## fastmongrel (Sep 7, 2010)

My father was in the RAF at the end of the war and he was in a party that had to get rid of crated Packard Merlin engines because of the lend lease terms. The engines were dumped in there crates into the Great Bitter Lake on the Suez Canal. The crates as well as an engine contained a complete set of tools which were highly prized by the RAF fitters because they were such high quality. My father and his freinds carefully opened some of the crates without breaking the seals and removed the tool kits. When they were posted back to Britain they sold most of them to local egyptian mechanics. I wonder if some back street Cairo Mechanic is still using 65 year old american tools. I still have a lend lease Crescent wrench and a set of AF taps and dies that my father passed onto me I wonder if the US government still wants the money for them.


----------



## RCAFson (Sep 7, 2010)

> Nikademus said:
> 
> 
> > May 18th, 1942. D-520 of Vichy French unit GC III/6 downed a Fulmar piloted by Lt. P.R. Hall and A/G Nuttall during Operation 'LB' flying in 17 Spitfires to Malta. A Catalina was also downed by a D-520 from GC II/3 same day.
> ...



And this webpage records a French fighter pilot killed on that date:

18/05/1942 S/Lt SALAUN, Jean 1 GCIII/6

Notable French pilots killed in WW2


----------



## spicmart (Oct 24, 2013)

The Fw 190D is described as equal to the Spitfire XIV which has distinct advantages in climb (5000+ fpm?). So it has the initiative. Shouldn't that alone make it the superior plane?
Both types are classified as interceptors.


----------



## tomo pauk (Oct 24, 2013)

By whom it was described as equal, and at what kind of altitudes? Is that D-9, or later, rare models?


----------



## spicmart (Oct 24, 2013)

tomo pauk said:


> By whom it was described as equal, and at what kind of altitudes? Is that D-9, or later, rare models?



By Eric Brown for example, Chuck Yeager who described it as the best piston engined fighter, It is noted in "First in Combat with Dora-9" among others.
Afaik the later Doras were not better climbers than the D-9 in the low and mid alt realm.


----------



## drgondog (Oct 25, 2013)

Spicmart - Where did Yeager describe the 190D as the "best piston engine fighter"? He never flew it in Europe. His last mission was January 14, 1945 and he and Bud Anderson rotated back to US shortly thereafter... to my knowledge he never encountered one in combat so that leaves the possibility of Wright Pat. No mention in his autobiography, so..?


----------



## tomo pauk (Oct 25, 2013)

spicmart said:


> By Eric Brown for example, Chuck Yeager who described it as the best piston engined fighter, It is noted in "First in Combat with Dora-9" among others.
> Afaik the later Doras were not better climbers than the D-9 in the low and mid alt realm.



It is rather questionable whether Yaeger ever flew Tempest and/or Spit XIV or any US fighter with C series R-2800 on board (F4U-4, P-47M/N). Every such a fighter should eat the D-9 for breakfast, provided both pilots are aware of each other and play to their plane's strengths.
Opinions of Eric Brown are his opinions only, as arrogant as it sounds. He has a certain way to rank aircraft, the way that is not very much connected with factual data. 

The rare Doras outfitted with two stage Jumo 213s were something else, however.


----------



## DonL (Oct 25, 2013)

I agree tomo,

but I have my doubts that a Spit IX would eat a fully equipped D-9 to breakfast.


----------



## tomo pauk (Oct 25, 2013)

Doh - not Spit IX, but Spit XIV. I'll edit the previous post.


----------



## spicmart (Oct 25, 2013)

As for Yeager I just read it a couple of times on the net, I know it's not the most reliable of sources. Don't know too much about his vita.

And as for the D-9 could be being eaten as breakfast, this is the first time that I hear that. All other sources that I know of so far state that it was at least the equal
to any late war allied fighter in service, mainly at low and mid alt.
Actually it and the Tempest were considered to be the premier low alt fighters in the west.
The later Doras (D-12) of course were competitive at all heights, but according to an original document that listed the various versions' performance data these later Doras performed
no better than the D-9 down low. 
So is it new to consider the D-9 inferior to those allied fighters mentioned?


----------



## BiffF15 (Oct 26, 2013)

Hello Folks! I'm a bit of a lurker here but thought I would chime in with a little different view / my personal observations. First, my background is as a professional pilot with almost 2700 hours in the F-15A-D. Second, the amount of technical knowledge displayed discussed here is impressive! Charts, power, speeds, variants, etc., all thoroughly "battled" and vetted. 

To start I would like to speak to charts from a pilots perspective. As both a student in fighter training and later as a operational pilot in a fighter unit a pilot studies the charts of his plane as well as that of his expected adversaries. As it evolved in my case I ended up more memorizing not what another jets numbers were as much as what the differences were between the "other" jet as compared to mine (a fighter pilots aircraft baseline becames part of his / her DNA) . We studied rate radius diagrams, turn performance at a given altitude, fuel burns, etc of our aircraft as well as adversary equipment. 

Also realize that charts are a snapshot in time. If the chart shows that an aircraft (at 5k, 75% fuel load, X weapons, Y motor) has an instantanious turn rate of Z, then understand that is a max performance turn and aircraft can not sustain that. Also of note is that a pilot will pass through / over a lot of charts in one fight as they (fights) are usually very dynamic and cover a large speed range.

To note as well is that the charts are usually based on a new plane, with new engines, flown by a test pilot in controlled conditions (not in the middle of a fight). Guys fighting with planes change tactics just like MMA fighters with the end goal being to "win" the engagment.

Now for some axioms of fighter flying:

Speed is life. Fights always go down hill. Lose sight, lose the fight. A kill is a kill.

1. Speed is life: Not in all situations but more often than not having more than your opponet is better than having less. Examples: When two aircraft merge 180 out (head on pass) and commence to fighting the aircraft with more speed has more options, and over time if the fight evolves into what was called a rate fight, the higher energy fighter is favored. In a fight where a bandit shows up at your 6 (at co-speed), and you commence defensive manuervering your aircraft will slow down first, allowing the offender (even if he perfectly mirrors your moves) to gain on you for the simple reason he slowed down later than you and therefor closed or decreased the distance between.

2. The fight always goes down hill: You would think with the power of modern day fighters that this wouldn't be the case (majority of the time) however it's true. Gravity and altitude can be your friend and help you maximize your performance. Fights don't level out until the floor is reached.

3. Lose sight, lose the fight: You can't manuever against or kill what you can't see. If you haven't sat in a WW2 fighter you should, their outward visibility varied greatly (P-38 for instance had two huge motors, two booms, and a large wing to look around along with all the metal "girders" in the canopy itself). The non-bubble canopy fighters were at a definite disadvantage in visually sanitizing the space around their aircraft.

4. A kill is a kill: Whether you bounce (tap is the current terminology) a guy and he ejects, crashes, whatever without you firing a shot it still counts. He was fighting you and his plane crashed, credit is yours. I think a B-25 pilot got credit for a Zero kill when the pilot flew through the "splash" of his bomb that missed the runway and landed in the water.

It is my opinion that an experienced pilot in a lesser performing plane will have better success than a lesser experienced pilot in a better performing plane. When two pilots of equal experience fight (and for the this discussion fights will mean dog fighting or as it's now called BFM - Basic Fighter Manuevers with the gun as the only weapon) the one who makes the least amount or severe mistakes will usually win.

When in any fight, whether fighting for your life when getting mugged, or in air to air combat, methodology is to bring your strengths to bear while exploiting his weakness. You are short, strong and know how to wrestle, he is tall and lanky (has reach on you), then get inside to negate his punches, and get him on the ground so you can get him into a submission hold. You turn and accelerate better, he can fly higher and faster, get him into a slow speed turning fight and stay away from him when it's otherwise.

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## BiffF15 (Oct 26, 2013)

With the above in mind here is my short synopsis on the core of the thread. 

During the war there was a slow but constant improvement in the performance of fighters. Sometimes it resulted in a leap frog event, other times it didn't. Also realize that early war fighters were more point defense fighters (short ranged, very manuervable), and evolved into longer ranged, faster aircraft that in some instances didn't turn as well (that trend has continued almost to this day). The early Spits and 109's as compared to B-D Mustangs and late model 190's and it's variants (smaller lighter gave way to bigger heavier). 

Also the ground rules at the start of this discussion might have alleviated some of the "groveling at the floor" that occured. And example might have been to compare the four types during different time frames, or at one certain time (which aircraft do you THINK was best and why). Or it could have been "which one would you have wanted to fly and why". 

Using the comparing the types at a certain time mentality, I will nail it down to the last six months of WW2 and only the four types mentioned. I will also take the Hubble Telescope, turn it to face earth and WW2, zoom into these four aircraft types, and then zoom further in to 1 versus 1 (1 v 1) combat. If time allows I will back that out a little bit but will include my qualifiers.

1 v 1 only: Ta-152H (Remember I'm removing all other qualifiers and am assuming that it's me and him only, and that I'm a mercenary or have no allegiance to the combatants). 

Pro's: Faster, higher ceiling, good armament (though not optimum for fighter on fighter), better or equal turn performance to Mustang (bit of an assumption here do to lack of actual combat reports and I didn't examine in detail all of Soren's charts), motor management much easier than contemporaries (less distraction to the pilot), flying over safe territory so jumping out left little fear of capture AND I could run myself low on gas and could land anywhere there was room.

Con's: Quality control (some were put together by slaves who had no problem sabatoging equipment), not completely tested or vetted, degraded maintenance (closing days of the war), limited fuel and of lower octane, pilots had less training and lower total time, not trained well for combat

If I were to zoom out one with the telescope and stipulate what would I have wanted to be flying in the last 6 months of the war, and it's not a pristine fight (not a pure 1 v 1) I would change to the P-51D.

Pro's: Better pilot training and in theater indoctrination, more experience before entering combat, better trained pilots, better quality control with equipment (aircraft in particular), armament (would take more "smaller" rounds over less "larger" rounds - this is a discussion all unto itself), better gun sight, tremendous visability and last but not least, way MORE of us than there are of them (when two almost equally talented / equipped groups fight, would definately want to be in the one with a serious numerical advanted)

Con's: Small speed disadvantage (as compared to the Ta-152 / Fw-190D), fighting over someone elses country, longer more tiring sorties (more opportunity to become complacent and therefor killed)

Okay, let the darts be thrown!

Biff

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## silence (Oct 26, 2013)

BiffF15 said:


> Hello Folks! I'm a bit of a lurker here but thought I would chime in with a little different view / my personal observations. First, my background is as a professional pilot with almost 2700 hours in the F-15A-D. Second, the amount of technical knowledge displayed discussed here is impressive! Charts, power, speeds, variants, etc., all thoroughly "battled" and vetted.
> 
> To start I would like to speak to charts from a pilots perspective. As both a student in fighter training and later as a operational pilot in a fighter unit a pilot studies the charts of his plane as well as that of his expected adversaries. As it evolved in my case I ended up more memorizing not what another jets numbers were as much as what the differences were between the "other" jet as compared to mine (a fighter pilots aircraft baseline becames part of his / her DNA) . We studied rate radius diagrams, turn performance at a given altitude, fuel burns, etc of our aircraft as well as adversary equipment.
> 
> ...



Hey! No fair injecting reality into our (often biased) discussions!!!

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## silence (Oct 26, 2013)

BiffF15 said:


> With the above in mind here is my short synopsis on the core of the thread.
> 
> During the war there was a slow but constant improvement in the performance of fighters. Sometimes it resulted in a leap frog event, other times it didn't. Also realize that early war fighters were more point defense fighters (short ranged, very manuervable), and evolved into longer ranged, faster aircraft that in some instances didn't turn as well (that trend has continued almost to this day). The early Spits and 109's as compared to B-D Mustangs and late model 190's and it's variants (smaller lighter gave way to bigger heavier).
> 
> ...



Well, from what I have available to me I believe that the Ta-152 also had a noticeable climb rate advantage. 

The H-1 had wing tanks that could hold up to another 454L vs. the 595L that the fuselage of both held. I think this is comparable to the Mustang on internal fuel. However, the 152 could only carry one drop tank. (I can't imagine flying to Berlin, dogfighting, then going on sweeps on the return flight: I need a break after diving for just a couple hours!)

The H-1 could also use GM-1 injection in addition to MW/50.

I like the three cannon armament as well: I like the idea of having a powerful punch if you can only get off a snapshot burst. (But for FvF would prefer 3x20mm) But this is just preference.

I can see the glare off an unpainted P-51 causing problems to a LW pilot, kinda like an oncoming car at night with its brights on (just a thought).

Any idea about an acceleration comparison? The 152 has more raw power, but the P-51 has that incredible snake skin. 

In a furball, the 152s can use their climb rate and ceiling advantage to get the hell out! Or at least try to.

The most important consideration, though, is who has the better beer back at base? (If upon return all I can get my hands on is Coors, I might want to get shot down!)


----------



## BiffF15 (Oct 26, 2013)

Silence, 

All good points! I think the Germans were stepping up their game with the late model Fw / Ta aircraft. I also liked the fact that Kurt Tank flew what he designed. He and Leroy Grumman both did that, and I think it gave them a bit of an edge in designing aircraft that were "pilot friendly".

On the weapons caliber discussion here is the way I look at it. It's basically comes down to accuracy, or, how good of a shot one is. I couldn't fathom how many gun shots I took in the Eagle, however I do know it takes a bit of time until one gets good at gun shots without a radar lock (no lock shots) and or what we call snap shots (fleeting shots). Then once the light comes on, or the picture has been seen enough, an individuals accuracy goes way up. It also helps to learn from guys who are very good at both shooting and instructing. With the 6 x .50 cals of the Mustang a guy has many more trigger pulls and a higher rate of fire. 

Here is another thing to think about. Of all the gun footage from WW2 I have seen the offender / shooter has his guns on for what I consider a long time (as compared to trigger pulls now) both in turning fights as well as against non-manuevering targets. It seems quite a few of those guys started shooting then "flew" the tracers onto the target. Takes a lot of ammo to do it that way. However, I will say that my assumption is it will be a turning fight, when once again thinking of the gun footage I've seen it's my recollection that most of those kills were against a non-turning adversary (lends credence for cannon over caliber).

Also to consider is tactics. If you think about the success enjoyed by the AVG in early model P-40's against Zero's (which outclassed them), it's about bringing your strengths to bear against your adversary without letting him do it to you. Hartmann didn't like turning fights, and only engaged if he had the advantage (that is an excellent mentality to give one the best odds to survive). He also did well when he encountered Mustangs all the while flying the Me-109.

The one thing I can't speak to is how "successful" guys were at "leaving" a fight. A successful separation is defined as one in which after accomplishing your departing maneuver you are outside the maximum range of your adversaries weapons and will stay that way (have enough of an advantage in speed and or fuel).

Cheers,

Biff


----------



## silence (Oct 27, 2013)

One think that might be considered, too, is cockpit size. German fighters weren't know for their roominess, while US fighters were. The only personal experience I've had like that is with cars. Most of mine have been economy, though I drive a Taurus now, which is quite comfortable and roomy. But, I used to have a 280Z (which I still miss) and that was a small car you almost strap on with your legs way out in front. I liked that feeling: I felt like I was part of the car and could just feel if something was off. With the Taurus, I don't get that feeling. Maybe its a kind of zen thing, but that feeling of being one with a car allowed me to try and do things with it I never would have in my other cars. I had less comfort but more confidence, if that makes sense.

Only been up in a small plane once, so I don't have a reference for flying, sadly. I don't count flight sims, and haven't really gotten into one since I had a 486 PC!

Best wishes.


----------



## CORSNING (Oct 27, 2013)

WOW! BiffF15 and silence. You guys are really making the rest of us think hard. Excellent posts, both of you. I guess I have nothing to add to the angles you are coming from. Thank you both for that kind of insight. Silence, I owned a 1983 280 ZX "cop come get me red" so I can relate to that exact point you were making. I own a Del Sol now. It actually turns slightly tighter, BUT it doesn't give you that fealing of confidence in handling that the 280 did. So the 280 could be driven right up to its limits with ease. In the 3 dimentional sky that would be a great advantage.


I would like to clarify the dry numbers of the potential of the fighters being compared. All the information I have on these come from the Kurfurst and wwiiaircraftperformance.org sights. Except the Fw190/Ta 152 info came from the graphs in Dietmar's "Longnose" and "Ta 152".

The numbers are altitude in meters, speed in mph and climb in fpm.



Meters..Bf.109K-4---Spitfire 14---Fw190D-9----P-51B-15----Tempest V--Ta152
S.L.......378/4830----370/5080----380/4428----388/4330----404/4380----372
.1,000..397/4840----386/5035----392/4388----404/4220----417/3860----384
.2,000..411/4645----401/4985----404/4124----418/3870----411/3340----396
.3,000..420/4440----417/4485----409/4103----420/3840----411/3000----397
.4,000..428/4235----416/4095----419/3985----420/3770----410/2603----410
.5,000..437/4035----418/4070----429/3493----430/3590----426/2151----422
.6,000..446/3445----432/4025----429/2991----441/3100----436/1705----436
.7,000..442/2950----445/3510----422/2499----442/2620----431/1242----448
.8,000..438/2450----447/2960----416/1987----436/2125----428/.-806----451
.9,000..432/1940----444/2400----406/1485----430/1675----N.G./N.G.----464
10,000.422/1435----437/1875----394/.-984----421/1200----N.G./N.G.----458
11,000.409/.-945----427/1350----NG./-482----411/.-715----N.G./N.G.----448
12,000.390/.-440----414/.-825----NG./NG.-----393/.-245----N.G./N.G.----434

Wt.-----7,497 lbs.----7,923 lbs.---9,591.75 lbs.--9,680 lbs.(9,335 lbs.speed trials)-11,490 lbs. Weight at take-off.

W.L.:-----43.25--------32.73--------48.67---------40.06--------38.04+Wing Loading at take-off ( lbs./sq.ft.).

P.L.:------4.052+------3.569--------4.631+-------4.885---------5.223-Power loading at take-off weight and max. power output
(lbs./hp.)

Power:-1,850hp./1.8ata-2,220hp./+21 psi.-2,071hp./1.8ata-1,910hp./75"Hg.-2,200hp./+11 psi.

Engines: DB 605D---Griffon 65-----Jumo 213A----V-1650-7---Sabre IIA

For more Ta 152 information see POST #864.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## tomo pauk (Oct 27, 2013)

Many thanks for the effort, Jeff


----------



## BiffF15 (Oct 27, 2013)

Silence,

There is a saying amoungst fighter pilots, and it goes, "there are those that strap in, and those that strap on". The more time a pilot gets in an aircraft the more second nature it becomes. With a fighter you are constantly max performing it, and you become VERY aware of what your plane is doing from the way the controls feel, the rumbles, sounds, thumps, etc.

Cockpit size can be a deceiving thing. F-16's have a small cockpit for a fighter (the A-4 has a TINY cockpit), and the Eagle has a large cockpit. I have 8 or 9 back seat rides in the F-16 and the cockpit has no canopy bow to block vision, feels great, the seat is reclined, the side stick controller is ergonomically outstanding, however the canopy is very close to your cranium. I actucally banged off of it once during a sortie. The Eagle has a relatively large cockpit, however I have bruised elbows from turning quickly, and it has a canopy bow to look around. In my opinion size is not as important has usability. You will quickly get to a point where you feel like you are wearing the airplane and "thinking" it to do things vice sitting in and flying it.

We had a 70 240z as a kid, loved that thing (white with wine red interior)!

Cheers,
Biff


----------



## CORSNING (Oct 27, 2013)

F-15, F-16, A-4 and even a 240Z (back when they were very light). Wow Biff, you get all the sweet rides.


tomo,
You are quite welcome sir. I will add the Tempest Mk.V to my post #861 soon. 

I will add the speed of the Ta 152H to #861 also. The following information comes from Dietmar Harmann's Ta 152.

The fastest climb rate mentioned in the book is 20 m./sec. (3,936 fpm.)

"It is not known whether the Ta 152 with MW-50 or GM-1 power boosting were flown in action."

"Not a single Ta 152 was lost in all the airfield defense missions (Me 262).

"In an ensuing dogfight with Yak-9s the Stabsschwarm lost Hptm. Herman Stahl and his Ta 152. The Ta 152s had shot down at least 10 enemy fighters for the loss of just 2 of there number."

"Stab JG 11 at Neustadt Glewe: Durring its last transfer to Leck the unit was engaged by Spitfires, resulting in the immediate loss of 2 Ta 152H. A 3rd made a belly landing at Leck."

Engine: Jumo 213E: 1,900ps (1,875 hp.) 2.03ata.boost.

Combat Weight: 10,473.75 lbs.

Armament: 1 x 30mm/2 x 20mm 

Wing Area: 252.96 sq.ft.

Wing Loading: 41.40+lbs./sq.ft.

Power Loading: 5.586 lbs./hp.


----------



## davparlr (Oct 27, 2013)

BiffF15 said:


> Silence,
> 
> With a fighter you are constantly max performing it, and you become VERY aware of what your plane is doing from the way the controls feel, the rumbles, sounds, thumps, etc.


A reality that most gamers have no concept of. This is true no matter what aircraft you fly, it talks to you in many ways.


----------



## BiffF15 (Oct 27, 2013)

CORSNING,

I'm an Eagle guy, but have back seat rides in F-16B/D's, CF-18B, and the 240Z (I was 6 when we got it, family of 4 so you can guess where my usual seat was...). 

As for dissimilar training (fighting), I've fought (BFM / Dogfighting) with F-16(A-D), F-15(A-E), F-14(A, A+ B), F-4G, F-18(A-F) Mig-29(A/B). The majority of my dissimilar BFM was with F-16's, followed by F-18 then Mig-29 (this is biased by which type of aircraft was nearest your base or on Temp Duty with you). The Migs were Luftwaffe drivers with one US exchange pilot. Fought them at Laage AB in Germany and at NAS Key West. Those last two places were EPIC for flying and nightlife. The Germans are a world class act!

For the BVR (Beyond Visual Range) fights I've trained against all the above plus Tornado GR-1 F-3, German F-4F (with F-18 radar), AV-8, EA-6, EF-111, F-5, AT-38, Mirage 2000 (non-export varient), various heavies (C-130, B-52, B-1), helo's (to include the Mi-24 Hind) and probably more that I've forgotten.

On topic however is how the book data fits into the way a guy uses his aircraft. The charts, books, tab data, are all how the plane performs during a snapshot of time. I used this to compare to my fighter to know where his strengths / weaknesses were compared to mine. An example of how to look at it is: P-51 rate of climb and top speed compared to the Ta-152. The Ta-152 had an advantage but how could he use it. For instance say it's 300 fpm climb and 30kts of speed difference. In a fight when could the Ta-152 leave with immunity: 90 degrees and 2000' distance apart and co speed? If they passed 180 out and even had a 50 kt difference, the Ta-152, I'm guessing could. However in the previous example even though he has a performance advantage was it enough to prevent lead poisioning the silk landing? 

I'm just trying to bridge distance between the numbers (books, tabs, numbers) and what that really amounted to in a fight.

Cheers,

Biff

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## BiffF15 (Oct 27, 2013)

Davparlr,

That is true! I have IL-2 for my PS3 and like the game alot, however I play it with the regular game control and not a stick throttle attachment.

Something you also become just as aware of is what you opponet is doing with his aircraft and analyizing what he is doing or CAN do with it. You forcast his options and make your plans or moves based on that. I called it accounting. I could reasonable guess what his speed was at a given point in the beginning of the fight, then watching his manuevers guess how much energy (speed) he was using to accomplish it, and knowing that would layout my gameplan to counter and overcome him. It doesn't always work but you get really good at it. 

Prior to the police having radar guns they would train at guessing what the speed of a vehicle was, and could get pretty close. Same with flying fighters, and if you were training against a similar plane you would get to watch his tapes (see his speeds, G load, etc.). I would say guessing an opponets speed within 20-50 knots consistantly would not be a problem.

Cheers,

Biff


----------



## davparlr (Oct 27, 2013)

CORSNING said:


> I would like to clarify the dry numbers of the potential of the fighters being compared. All the information I have on these come from the Kurfurst and wwiiaircraftperformance.org sights. Except the Fw190/Ta 152 info came from the graphs in Dietmar's "Longnose" and "Ta 152".
> 
> 
> 
> Meters..Bf.109K-4---Spitfire 14---Fw190D-9----P-51B-15----Tempest V--Ta152



It must be noted that the P-51B was introduced in late 1943 whereas the K-4 and D-9 were introduced in the fall of '44, well after the Luftwaffe bloodbath of early '44, and when they were really needed. The Tempest V was introduced in Jan. '44, and while prevented from the battle over Germany by limited range, was a great help post D-day. The Ta-152, coming out in '45 was never a factor and really should be compared to aircraft like the P-51H, P-47M/N, and F4U-4. Also missing is the powerful Spitfire XIV and Tempest II (which seem to be problematic).


----------



## Glider (Oct 27, 2013)

davparlr said:


> It must be noted that the P-51B was introduced in late 1943 whereas the K-4 and D-9 were introduced in the fall of '44, well after the Luftwaffe bloodbath of early '44, and when they were really needed. The Tempest V was introduced in Jan. '44, and while prevented from the battle over Germany by limited range, was a great help post D-day. The Ta-152, coming out in '45 was never a factor and really should be compared to aircraft like the P-51H, P-47M/N, and F4U-4. Also missing is the powerful Spitfire XIV and Tempest II (which seem to be problematic).



Small comment re the Tempest and its range. In early 1944 it did escort at least one daylight raid to the Ruhr so while it wasn't to be compared to the P51, it did have the range to take a useful part in the daylight campaign. What probably hindered it was the need for its low level speed against the V1 in the defense of the UK, plus of course the reluctance of Harris to do daylight raids


----------



## CORSNING (Oct 27, 2013)

BiffF15,

I see exactly what you are doing with the bridging and all. You are doing an excellent job of showing us that the quality of pilot is more important than the plane itself in a 1vs1 dogfight. I am hanging on every word. Carry on son, Jeff.


davparir,

I agree with your post 868 100%. I just displayed the topic vehicles along with the most recently mentioned. The reason I posted the P-51B and not the P-51D is because of the lower weight of the former. The other A/C mentioned are interceptors. Apples to oranges sort of thing. Actually it would be more apples to apples if I were to post the Mk.III using the Merlin 66 or 100 at +25psi.(80.8"Hg) boost and 8,460 to 8,800 lbs. Then you would see a 1,940 hp. vehicle more in interceptor mode and climbing in the 4,500-4,900 fpm. capable of 393 at sea level and 455 mph at 17,800 ft.

One very big advantage the Mustang had over the others: It could play longer in the bullpen and still get home while the others were getting thirsty. (RANGE!)

I forgot to confirm that the Spitfire 14 (Mk.XIV) is charted with the others. Tempest II problematic???


----------



## drgondog (Oct 27, 2013)

BiffF15 said:


> Cockpit size can be a deceiving thing. F-16's have a small cockpit for a fighter (the A-4 has a TINY cockpit), and the Eagle has a large cockpit. I have 8 or 9 back seat rides in the F-16 and the cockpit has no canopy bow to block vision, feels great, the seat is reclined, the side stick controller is ergonomically outstanding, however the canopy is very close to your cranium. I actucally banged off of it once during a sortie.
> 
> Cheers,
> Biff



The F-16 canopy had to be re-designed following slow motion camera sequence showing large deflections when undergoing 'Mil Spec Chicken' test - during which the 5 pound chicken was shot at the canopy to simulate goose or duck impact. It deflected enough to impact dummy's head/helmet.

I did a structural analysis using finite element model (STARDYNE and NASTRAN) to solve for desired cross section to sufficiently minimize the traveling wave amplitude.


----------



## tomo pauk (Oct 27, 2013)

Hi, Jeff,


CORSNING said:


> ...
> "It is not known whether the Ta 152 with MW-50 or GM-1 power boosting were flown in action."



If I'm not badly mistaking it, the MW-50 device was not fitted on the Ta-152s powered by the Jumo 213E. It was used to boost the Jumo 213F, the variant lacking an intercooler; the Ta-152s with Jumo 213F being even more rare than ones with 213E. Thanks for other excerpts 



> Engine: Jumo 213E: 1,900ps (1,875 hp.) 2.03ata.boost.



Maybe a chart would shed some light at powers developed by late war German engines? I've found the blackish chart at Kurfurt's, made a negative out of that and colored the lines, for easier reading. One can see how the two-stage engines out-power the single stagers above 7.5 km (~24200 ft).

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## CORSNING (Oct 27, 2013)

drgondog said:


> The F-16 canopy had to be re-designed following slow motion camera sequence showing large deflections when undergoing 'Mil Spec Chicken' test - during which the 5 pound chicken was shot at the canopy to simulate goose or duck impact. It deflected enough to impact dummy's head/helmet.
> 
> I would just like to let everyone know that no animals were hurt while filming this topic. The 5 pound chicken was wearing a suite of armor loaned to us by Stan Lee. The chicken was not harmed in any way.


----------



## silence (Oct 27, 2013)

Christ, Biff, what amazing flying experiences! Can I have your life - just for a little bit??


----------



## silence (Oct 27, 2013)

CORSNING said:


> WOW! BiffF15 and silence. You guys are really making the rest of us think hard. Excellent posts, both of you. I guess I have nothing to add to the angles you are coming from. Thank you both for that kind of insight. Silence, I owned a 1983 280 ZX "cop come get me red" so I can relate to that exact point you were making. I own a Del Sol now. It actually turns slightly tighter, BUT it doesn't give you that fealing of confidence in handling that the 280 did. So the 280 could be driven right up to its limits with ease. In the 3 dimentional sky that would be a great advantage.
> 
> 
> I would like to clarify the dry numbers of the potential of the fighters being compared. All the information I have on these come from the Kurfurst and wwiiaircraftperformance.org sights. Except the Fw190/Ta 152 info came from the graphs in Dietmar's "Longnose" and "Ta 152".
> ...



Thanks for the kind words. 

I have Harmann's books, too, but I'm too lazy to reference them that late at night, so I rely on my frat party-damaged memory - which is probably a bad idea.

My 280Z was a bright yellow black interior '77 2-seater. Some previous owner had installed racing slats on it, or so I was told. I could drive Hwy 17 between San Jose and Santa Cruz at 70mph with one finger on the wheel and used to take 20mph corners at 45 without the tires even chirping. The car barely even leaned in a tight turn. Man, now I'm getting nostalgic...


----------



## silence (Oct 27, 2013)

drgondog said:


> The F-16 canopy had to be re-designed following slow motion camera sequence showing large deflections when undergoing 'Mil Spec Chicken' test - during which the 5 pound chicken was shot at the canopy to simulate goose or duck impact. It deflected enough to impact dummy's head/helmet.
> 
> I did a structural analysis using finite element model (STARDYNE and NASTRAN) to solve for desired cross section to sufficiently minimize the traveling wave amplitude.



Oh, God that brings back nightmares of just studying engineering, not even applying it. I shoulda done then what I'm doing now: studying history, where the only math you need is basic arithmetic.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pinsog (Oct 27, 2013)

BiffF15 said:


> With the above in mind here is my short synopsis on the core of the thread.
> 
> During the war there was a slow but constant improvement in the performance of fighters. Sometimes it resulted in a leap frog event, other times it didn't. Also realize that early war fighters were more point defense fighters (short ranged, very manuervable), and evolved into longer ranged, faster aircraft that in some instances didn't turn as well (that trend has continued almost to this day). The early Spits and 109's as compared to B-D Mustangs and late model 190's and it's variants (smaller lighter gave way to bigger heavier).
> 
> ...



What about the P47N? I know it was only used in the Pacific, but since we are dreaming anyway. It was FAST, REALLY FAST, climbed well, TOUGH, good FvsF armament, dived like a rock, had that ultra reliable R2800, and was PROVEN IN COMBAT(unlike the TA152 which we know little about). At 30,000 feet if you keep your speed up, your going to be hard to touch. 

What are your thoughts?


----------



## silence (Oct 27, 2013)

CORSNING said:


> drgondog said:
> 
> 
> > The F-16 canopy had to be re-designed following slow motion camera sequence showing large deflections when undergoing 'Mil Spec Chicken' test - during which the 5 pound chicken was shot at the canopy to simulate goose or duck impact. It deflected enough to impact dummy's head/helmet.
> ...


----------



## drgondog (Oct 27, 2013)

You load a five pound chicken (Headless) into a special air cannon which has adjustable pressure. IIRC it had a limit of about 220Kts MV - to simulate an aircraft in the Pattern where Most of the big bird strikes occur.


----------



## CORSNING (Oct 27, 2013)

San Jose? Santa Cruz? F-15s, F-16s and Mig 29s? I have got to be in the wrong place. I'm stuck here in Clyde, Ohio heading for the Twilight Zone and you all are playing in Wonderland....Sombody get me the Hell out of here!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## CORSNING (Oct 27, 2013)

drgondog said:


> You load a five pound chicken (Headless) into a special air cannon which has adjustable pressure. IIRC it had a limit of about 220Kts MV - to simulate an aircraft in the Pattern where Most of the big bird strikes occur.




HEADLESS??????????????? [email protected]!t Bill, now what are we going to tell the Humane Society freaks????


----------



## silence (Oct 27, 2013)

drgondog said:


> You load a five pound chicken (Headless) into a special air cannon which has adjustable pressure. IIRC it had a limit of about 220Kts MV - to simulate an aircraft in the Pattern where Most of the big bird strikes occur.



Yes, but how does one GET that job? What are the requirements? I have extensive use of a three-man slingshot, so could that help my application????????


----------



## CORSNING (Oct 27, 2013)

pinsog said:


> What about the P47N? I know it was only used in the Pacific, but since we are dreaming anyway. It was FAST, REALLY FAST, climbed well, TOUGH, good FvsF armament, dived like a rock, had that ultra reliable R2800, and was PROVEN IN COMBAT(unlike the TA152 which we know little about). At 30,000 feet if you keep your speed up, your going to be hard to touch.
> 
> What are your thoughts?



The P-47M/N, F4U-4, Tempest II were not the topic or I would gladly have expanded on their performance.

Jeff


----------



## BiffF15 (Oct 27, 2013)

Silence,

It's yours! Only downside is the desk I'm currently flying doesn't have much performance...

Trust me, most fighter guys get the same cross section or breadth. I flew the Eagle for 17 years. Lots of improvements over that time, and more sense I stopped.

Cheers,

Biff


----------



## tomo pauk (Oct 27, 2013)

tomo pauk said:


> ...
> If I'm not badly mistaking it, the MW-50 device was not fitted on the Ta-152s powered by the Jumo 213E. It was used to boost the Jumo 213F, the variant lacking an intercooler; the Ta-152s with Jumo 213F being even more rare than ones with 213E. Thanks for other excerpts



Reading a bit about the Ta-152, it was to be equipped with MW-50 device for the Jumo 213E, but, as Jeff stated, seem like it never took flight (literally). The MW-50 tank was to be installed to the H-1 subvariant, H-0 was without it.


----------



## BiffF15 (Oct 27, 2013)

pinsog said:


> What about the P47N? I know it was only used in the Pacific, but since we are dreaming anyway. It was FAST, REALLY FAST, climbed well, TOUGH, good FvsF armament, dived like a rock, had that ultra reliable R2800, and was PROVEN IN COMBAT(unlike the TA152 which we know little about). At 30,000 feet if you keep your speed up, your going to be hard to touch.
> 
> What are your thoughts?



Pinsog,

That is my favorite version of the Thunderbolt! Bubble canopy, bare metal, and the squared wing tips! I have read Bob Johnson's book on flying the Thunderbolt in ETO and he obviously spoke very high of it! It is my opinion it was an outstanding fighter and would have done well in Europe had it had the chance. Also it was an incremental improvement over the earlier models with excellent increases in both speed and range. I also remember reading it had better roll rate than the earlier models due to the squared wing tips.

Pro's: High top speed, excellent climb rate, excellent visibility, extraordinary firepower (8 of them), high dive speed, good or better maneuverability, air cooled engine (better combat survivability than liquid cooled), K-14 gun sight, seriously long ranged

Con's: size (bigger is not better in this regard), (flying missions from some small island to Japan and back - too much time over water in a single engined plane with low odds of being picked up by SAR in the event you needed them)

The above assessment is done without any fresh reading on the type so if I missed something obvious I apologize in advance. If I remember from Bob Johnson's book he also said you could tell Thunderbolt pilots by the size of the right arm and right leg (from wrestling that beast around)! 

One thing to think about is employing the gun with these aircraft in a turning fight. The nose was in the way in almost ALL of them (my perspective), with the Fw-190D / Ta-152, P-47, P-51 being a little worse than some of the others. Look at a picture of an F-15, it's nose gets in the way too (the gun is about 6' off centerline {right wing root area} so MacAir canted the gun up 2.5 degrees {don't have to pull as much lead} and pointed it in just a little so the rounds cross aircraft centerline about 2000' out). It helps, but in high deflection shots I would just roll out some so I could see him better.

The P-51, P-47, F6F all had guns in the wings that had a point of convergence (rounds from each wing crossed each other). This caused a small dispersal of rounds where as the P-38, and some of the German aircraft had guns in the nose which allowed a better concentration of rounds on target. That's the theory anyway, however enough guys made Ace in other than P-38's so it must not have been that big of an impact.

Also in a previous post there was some discussion regarding cannon vice .50 cal. If I remember correctly the muzzle velocity of canon was much slower, which in turn means you have to lead your target even further. When fighting an aware bandit (in a dogfight or BFM) you are doing two things: maneuvering in relation to him and trying to shoot him down (gun in this example). You are doing only one of those at a time. You are either trying to stay behind him, or screwing that up by trying to gun him. Or, in other words, gunning someone ruins your BFM so if you miss you may cause a role reversal (worst case), be neutralized (everyone looking out the side windows at each other and no one dying), or extend your engagement (leaves the door open longer so someone else - your adversaries buddy) could come in a whack you. There is nothing like being in a big furball and getting something served up to you on a platter (someone else has made the bandit predictable but can't kill him) or circling said furball like a shark and killing spitters as they try to escape (Hartmann's tactics still stand the test of time).

Cheers,

Biff


----------



## pinsog (Oct 27, 2013)

BiffF15 said:


> Pinsog,
> 
> That is my favorite version of the Thunderbolt! Bubble canopy, bare metal, and the squared wing tips! I have read Bob Johnson's book on flying the Thunderbolt in ETO and he obviously spoke very high of it! It is my opinion it was an outstanding fighter and would have done well in Europe had it had the chance. Also it was an incremental improvement over the earlier models with excellent increases in both speed and range. I also remember reading it had better roll rate than the earlier models due to the squared wing tips.
> 
> ...



P47N Great visibility. You hit on that, being a real fighter pilot, I forgot about it just being an armchair pilot. Great having a REAL fighter pilot chime in. We all talk about speed, climb, turn, etc. but if you can't see them you can't kill them and you can't evade them either.

There is an ex F15 pilot that I go to church with, I doubt you would know him I know it is a big world out there. Dennis Cherry is his name. I don't know how long he has been retired or where he was stationed. Best guess is he is around 60 years old.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## wuzak (Oct 27, 2013)

A couple of posts suggest that the P-47N has a good rate of climb.

I can't find any data to support that. Anybody got some numbers?


----------



## BiffF15 (Oct 27, 2013)

drgondog said:


> The F-16 canopy had to be re-designed following slow motion camera sequence showing large deflections when undergoing 'Mil Spec Chicken' test - during which the 5 pound chicken was shot at the canopy to simulate goose or duck impact. It deflected enough to impact dummy's head/helmet.
> 
> I did a structural analysis using finite element model (STARDYNE and NASTRAN) to solve for desired cross section to sufficiently minimize the traveling wave amplitude.



Drgondog,

I had heard of that test from some of my Viper buds. That canopy is awesome, turning it around "backwards" so the bow was in the back was pure genius. When learning BFM the canopy bow on an Eagle is great (helps you see the picture or understand when the ques are) but gets in the way eventually. I read John Boyd's book and how instrumental he was at influencing fighter design in the late 60's / early 70's, particularly with regard to the F-16.

Cheers,
Biff


----------



## BiffF15 (Oct 27, 2013)

Pinsog,
Sent you a PM.
Biff


----------



## Shortround6 (Oct 27, 2013)

wuzak said:


> A couple of posts suggest that the P-47N has a good rate of climb.
> 
> I can't find any data to support that. Anybody got some numbers?



http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/p-47/p47m-n-climb.jpg

A lot depends on the load being carried ( or how full the tanks are) and if WEP (2800hp) is used.


----------



## Aozora (Oct 27, 2013)

Waaaaaay O.T...but kind of in keeping with our new member: 

from Page 4











US Navy F-16s photos | F-16.net F-16.net - The ultimate F-16, F-22, F-35 reference


















From Photos: McDonnell Douglas F-4F Phantom II Aircraft Pictures | Airliners.net

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## wuzak (Oct 27, 2013)

Still doesn't look all that fantastic to me.


----------



## drgondog (Oct 27, 2013)

BiffF15 said:


> Drgondog,
> 
> I had heard of that test from some of my Viper buds. That canopy is awesome, turning it around "backwards" so the bow was in the back was pure genius. When learning BFM the canopy bow on an Eagle is great (helps you see the picture or understand when the ques are) but gets in the way eventually. I read John Boyd's book and how instrumental he was at influencing fighter design in the late 60's / early 70's, particularly with regard to the F-16.
> 
> ...



I loved Boyd's Book also but the top fighter jocks that went through Nellis and Luke were 'less kind' regarding Boyd's flying skills - and yielded uncompromising YGTBSM to his claims. Billy Sparks, Al Logan and Boots Blesse apparently had their way with him at both Nellis and Luke in the 50's.

Sparky was particularly insightful regarding the flaws in Boyd's flat plate maneuver in to F-100 to cause an eager guy on his six to blow past him - citing a yo-yo in the vertical and come back when Boyd had lost a couple of 100 Kts and mushing all over the place. He concede rookies that did not have their fecal matter in a tidy bag could get sucked in but felt that Boyd was a 'legend in his own mind'.


----------



## BiffF15 (Oct 27, 2013)

Wuzak,
I agree. However, the N weighted in at 16.3k and the M at 13.3k. Both were heavy. The comparisons would be best served if the fuel loads and drag indexes (how much stuff is hanging on the outside) could in some way be standardized.
Cheers,
Biff


----------



## Aozora (Oct 27, 2013)

wuzak said:


> A couple of posts suggest that the P-47N has a good rate of climb.
> 
> I can't find any data to support that. Anybody got some numbers?





BiffF15 said:


> Wuzak,
> I agree. However, the N weighted in at 16.3k and the M at 13.3k. Both were heavy. The comparisons would be best served if the fuel loads and drag indexes (how much stuff is hanging on the outside) could in some way be standardized.
> Cheers,
> Biff



Two sets of charts comparing P-47 M N at about 13,300 and 16300 lbs: unfortunately they don't tell us whether the M was fitted with wing pylons
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/p-47/p47m-n-climb.jpg

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/p-47/p47m-n-speed.jpg

P-47M at design useful load = 205 gal fuel
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/p-47/p-47m-republic-wepchart.jpg

P-47N-5-RE at 13,962 lbs

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/p-47/p-47n-republic-wep.jpg

Differences between D, M N
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/p-47/p-47-differences.jpg


----------



## BiffF15 (Oct 27, 2013)

drgondog said:


> I loved Boyd's Book also but the top fighter jocks that went through Nellis and Luke were 'less kind' regarding Boyd's flying skills - and yielded uncompromising YGTBSM to his claims. Billy Sparks, Al Logan and Boots Blesse apparently had their way with him at both Nellis and Luke in the 50's.
> 
> Sparky was particularly insightful regarding the flaws in Boyd's flat plate maneuver in to F-100 to cause an eager guy on his six to blow past him - citing a yo-yo in the vertical and come back when Boyd had lost a couple of 100 Kts and mushing all over the place. He concede rookies that did not have their fecal matter in a tidy bag could get sucked in but felt that Boyd was a 'legend in his own mind'.



The legend in his own mind is true of many people, but sometimes more highly visible in fighter pilots!

Q: How do you know you have a fighter pilot at your party?

A: He will tell you...

Pilots, and in particularly fighter pilots, can sometimes paint a more rosy picture than reality. Our friends, wives, and kids are there to keep us in check.

In earlier posts there was some quoting of a Ta-152 pilot regarding kill claims, Ta-152 kill claims, and losses in combat. I take ALOT of what I read with a grain of salt, and usually like to have more than one source in collaboration prior to calling it a fact. 

Also from earlier posts there was some question as to what a pilot could see or know in combat. In particular there was comments about the crash of a Ta-152 which was seen by his flight lead, in conjunction with reported kills by an Allied pilot in the same area of a different type. Unobserved kills are exactly that. Look at gun footage on Youtube and you will notice A LOT of guys getting shot down who aren't jinking (guns defending). They are either in an established turn or wings level. Both are what should be considered unobserved because if a guy saw you shooting at him he would try to get the heck out of the way. 

Having Situational Awareness (SA) is knowing what's going on with you and what is around you in space. It's not perfect (people aren't perfect) and it breathes in and out usually in proportion to a guys task loading. I could easily believe that the wingman was shot down unobserved, and mis-identified by the offender, without the flight lead having SA on it. I've seen it too many times in training.

Modern fighters have RWR (radar warning receivers) which alert you that someone has "locked" you up with their radar. When tapping an un-aware bandit or bandits, I would intentionally not lock them and shoot heat seeking missiles at them (and to be particularly wolfish I would shoot the guy on the far side of the formation from me so when I called a kill the "live" guys would look towards the "dead" guy and away from me buying a few seconds and hopefully another kill). We treated it like a game, but to quote the Spartans, "War is work". It is in your best interest to be good at it.

Biff


----------



## pinsog (Oct 27, 2013)

BiffF15 said:


> The legend in his own mind is true of many people, but sometimes more highly visible in fighter pilots!
> 
> Q: How do you know you have a fighter pilot at your party?
> 
> ...



I know its off topic, but did you fight an F22 or an F35 before you stopped flying?


----------



## Aozora (Oct 27, 2013)

BiffF15 said:


> Also from earlier posts there was some question as to what a pilot could see or know in combat. In particular there was comments about the crash of a Ta-152 which was seen by his flight lead, in conjunction with reported kills by an Allied pilot in the same area of a different type. Unobserved kills are exactly that. Look at gun footage on Youtube and you will notice A LOT of guys getting shot down who aren't jinking (guns defending). They are either in an established turn or wings level. Both are what should be considered unobserved because if a guy saw you shooting at him he would try to get the heck out of the way.
> 
> Having Situational Awareness (SA) is knowing what's going on with you and what is around you in space. It's not perfect (people aren't perfect) and it breathes in and out usually in proportion to a guys task loading. I could easily believe that the wingman was shot down unobserved, and mis-identified by the offender, without the flight lead having SA on it. I've seen it too many times in training.
> 
> ...



Some P-51D/Ks were fitted with AN/APS-13 rear warning radar:











Any ideas as to how useful this was?


----------



## BiffF15 (Oct 27, 2013)

Aozora said:


> Some P-51D/Ks were fitted with AN/APS-13 rear warning radar:
> 
> Any ideas as to how useful this was?



Aozora,

I read about that, and think it was prefaced with, "every man a flight lead"! I'm pretty sure it was not used after only a short time due to how many false warnings were received.

A great idea on paper that I don't think worked out.

Cheers,
Biff


----------



## BiffF15 (Oct 27, 2013)

pinsog said:


> I know its off topic, but did you fight an F22 or an F35 before you stopped flying?



Pinsog,

No I didn't. It wouldn't be fun to get shot and kill removed by a guy you can't find. Sort of like swimming in waters infested with Great Whites and KNOWING they are there. Knowing still wouldn't change the outcome...

Biff


----------



## pinsog (Oct 27, 2013)

BiffF15 said:


> Pinsog,
> 
> No I didn't. It wouldn't be fun to get shot and kill removed by a guy you can't find. Sort of like swimming in waters infested with Great Whites and KNOWING they are there. Knowing still wouldn't change the outcome...
> 
> Biff



I get the feeling the F22 lives up to the hype, am I correct? 

It seems from all the press that the F35 might be junk. Do you have an opinion on the F35?


----------



## BiffF15 (Oct 27, 2013)

The F22 is a game changer. It's not perfect, but it's effective. I work with several Raptor guys, and the discussions aren't bad. F-35 is too soon to tell. Lots of new technology that has to have the bugs worked out. This is all my opine of course!


----------



## Juha (Oct 27, 2013)

CORSNING said:


> ...I would like to clarify the dry numbers of the potential of the fighters being compared. All the information I have on these come from the Kurfurst and wwiiaircraftperformance.org sights. Except the Fw190/Ta 152 info came from the graphs in Dietmar's "Longnose" and "Ta 152".
> 
> The numbers are altitude in meters, speed in mph and climb in fpm.
> 
> ...



Thanks a lot, Jeff!
Very interesting. The newest versions of the older ladies, 109 and Spit, were still very competive. Spitfire XIV was rather slow near SL but very fast high up and its roc was excellent. 109K also an excellent climber and very fast up to 10km.

Juha


----------



## wuzak (Oct 27, 2013)

Juha said:


> Thanks a lot, Jeff!
> Very interesting. The newest versions of the older ladies, 109 and Spit, were still very competive. Spitfire XIV was rather slow near SL but very fast high up and its roc was excellent. 109K also an excellent climber and very fast up to 10km.
> 
> Juha



Could have been interesting had they got the 3 speed supercharger for teh Griffon earlier.

The 100 Series Griffons added a LS to the normal MS and FS gears (with some other minor changes). Having the LS gear would have improved low altitude power and thus climb and speed.


----------



## OldSkeptic (Oct 27, 2013)

Don't forget the version of the Griffon the XIV used was the high altitude gearing one (comparable to the HF Merlin 70). They could have done a 'Merlin 66' LF version with lower ratio supercharger gears. They didn't have to, since they had the Tempest for that. The Spit XII showed that you could make a fast low altitude Spit if required.


----------



## CORSNING (Oct 28, 2013)

wuzak said:


> A couple of posts suggest that the P-47N has a good rate of climb.
> 
> I can't find any data to support that. Anybody got some numbers?




Taking the information off the graphs and putting it onto a chart looks like this.

Altitude.Speed/Climb
Meters..P-47M------P-47N
S.L......367/3960---364/3700
.1,000..378/3930---376/3640
.2,000..388/3835---386/3570
.3,000..400/3715---398/3480
.4,000..411/3630---410/3345
.5,000..423/3495---421/3180
.6,000..434/3335---432/2975
.7,000..446/3135---444/2730
.8,000..457/2875---456/2430
.9,000..468/N.G.----463/N.G.
10,000.~473/N.G.-~467/N.G.

Jeff


----------



## bobbysocks (Oct 28, 2013)

BiffF15 said:


> Silence,
> 
> 
> Here is another thing to think about. Of all the gun footage from WW2 I have seen the offender / shooter has his guns on for what I consider a long time (as compared to trigger pulls now) both in turning fights as well as against non-manuevering targets. It seems quite a few of those guys started shooting then "flew" the tracers onto the target. Takes a lot of ammo to do it that way.
> ...



i havent read the rest of the thread so if this has been addressed..sorry. it may seem that in the gun camera footage the firing duration is rather long... but the way it was set up was that the camera rolled film for several seconds after the trigger was released. that way the end result ( kill/damage confirmation ) could be determined. also, and i have posed this question to the guys who used to process those films back in the day...i believe ( but have absolutely no proof ) that the gun cameras ran at a faster frame rate to capture more detail for intel purposes....but that would give you a longer playback as well. The pilots also could turn on the just camera only and shoot...as many did to record their victories. while i dont doubt a lot of guys chewed up ammo in the heat of the moment...the camera would still be running a good 5 or so seconds after that. but some good comments in your posts.....


with the rear warning radar......from the guys i have talked to... you couldnt use it while flying in formation...basically on your way to the target. probably the only person who it would have worked for was tail end charlie. then when you got into a fight you were pre-occupied with the guy in your sites or getting the hell out of someone else's crosshairs. my dad's thoughts were by the time the bell went off you were pretty much a goner by then and like biff said...more problem than it was worth. 

aozora, do you have the hard copy ( original pic ) of aint misbehavin or did you get that off of the net?


----------



## bobbysocks (Oct 28, 2013)

double post..please delete


----------



## Aozora (Oct 28, 2013)

CORSNING said:


> WOW! BiffF15 and silence. You guys are really making the rest of us think hard. Excellent posts, both of you. I guess I have nothing to add to the angles you are coming from. Thank you both for that kind of insight. Silence, I owned a 1983 280 ZX "cop come get me red" so I can relate to that exact point you were making. I own a Del Sol now. It actually turns slightly tighter, BUT it doesn't give you that fealing of confidence in handling that the 280 did. So the 280 could be driven right up to its limits with ease. In the 3 dimentional sky that would be a great advantage.
> 
> 
> I would like to clarify the dry numbers of the potential of the fighters being compared. All the information I have on these come from the Kurfurst and wwiiaircraftperformance.org sights. Except the Fw190/Ta 152 info came from the graphs in Dietmar's "Longnose" and "Ta 152".
> ...


In new tabulated, easy to digest form:


----------



## BiffF15 (Oct 29, 2013)

Aozora,

Thanks for putting that in Tab Data format! I'm home this weekend so just picked up my copy of Dietmar's book on the Ta-152 so will give it some time.

Bobbysocks,

I don't remember if someone told me or I read it somewhere, but thought that the "tail warning radar" was basically a radar altimeter type of device pointed aft vice down. Any knowledge of that?

All,

My SA on the Spit MkXlV is a little lacking but will read up on it. From what I've seen so far it was a hotrod (love the Griffon engine bulges and the 5 bladed prop).

Cheers,

Biff


----------



## bobbysocks (Oct 29, 2013)

this is all i got basically..

Tail Warning Radar AN/APS-13

Radio Set AN/APS-13 is a lightweight radar set which gives an airplane pilot, or any other aircrew member who can see or hear it, a visible and audible warning that a hostile airplane is behind or approaching from the rear.

The usable range of this set is from 200 to 800 yards, and within an area extending up to 30° on both sides of the airplane and from 45° above it to 45° below it. The set doesn’t work above 50,000 feet or below 3100 feet. Ground reflections determine the lower limit.


----------



## Aozora (Oct 29, 2013)

bobbysocks said:


> with the rear warning radar......from the guys i have talked to... you couldnt use it while flying in formation...basically on your way to the target. probably the only person who it would have worked for was tail end charlie. then when you got into a fight you were pre-occupied with the guy in your sites or getting the hell out of someone else's crosshairs. my dad's thoughts were by the time the bell went off you were pretty much a goner by then and like biff said...more problem than it was worth.
> 
> aozora, do you have the hard copy ( original pic ) of aint misbehavin or did you get that off of the net?



The image of "Ain't Misbehavin" came from Littlefriends.co.uk; 357th FG, 362nd FS - Lt Frey "Aint Misbehavin"

Slightly O.T. An additional problem with AN/APS-13 was that it was apparently used in British night bombers as the RAF's "Monica" RWR - it gave off yet another set of transmissions which German nightfighters could track from miles, away using purpose-built FuG 227 "Flensburg": according to this The Hawker Tempest Page a variation of Monica was tested in Hawker Tempests of the F.I.U.


----------



## tomo pauk (Oct 30, 2013)

Hi,
Monica was not a RWR - radar warning receiver. It was a fully-fledged radar, and RWRs (like the 'Flensburg' in the ww2) are used to detect radars.


----------



## bobbysocks (Oct 30, 2013)

ok...thanks


----------



## BiffF15 (Nov 2, 2013)

FYI this post will be a continuation of my earlier post regarding how a pilot interprets and uses the performance charts found in the back of the Flight Manual. I'm trying to write this in a format such that it's understandable to all regardless of their background. There is some humor buried in here, however no malice or ill intent is intended.

Prior to stumbling onto this web site I considered myself fairly knowledgable of things WW2 fighter related. However I now realize I but scratched the surface and will lean on those of you who have that knowledge to supply either as a fill in to some shortfall I have or in whole as has been done previously with charted data.

I will start with terminology, and from there move onto different types of fights. This is all off the top of my pumpkin with no notes or outline, so feel free to ask questions or add corrections.

Dogfighting - Aerial battle between two or more fighter type aircraft. Now called Basic Fighter Manueuvers (BFM).
Corner Velocity - AKA corner or conering speed. Full and abrupt deflection of the flight controls will generate maxium lift without exceeding aircraft limits. 
Egg - Describes what max performing an aircraft looks like from the airshow point of view (more on this later).
Grand Stand View - Airshow view, or as if you are sitting in a theater watching.
Gods Eye View - View the MAN has, or what things look like from above.
Turn Rate - how many degrees per second an aircraft turns (at maximum power)
Turn Radius - how large (or small) an aircrafts turn circle is for a given airspeed and G loading (at maxium power)
G force - AKA "G's", or unit if measure equaling one gravity.
Hard turn - usually done at tactical speeds without burning too much energy (speed)
Break turn - maxium performance turn. May be done in both the offensive and defensive environment
Gun - The manly weapon. In most instances used to show mastery over your target. Short ranged weapon, can be of varied caliber, fun, loud smelly when fired.
SA - Situational Awareness, knowledge of what is going around you in a 3D.
Lead pursuit - having the nose of your aircraft pointed in front the other aircraft
Lag pursuit - having your nose pointed behind the other aircraft
Pure pursuit - having your nose pointed at the other aircraft
Turn circle - the flight path of an airplane in a turn (as seen from above)


----------



## BiffF15 (Nov 2, 2013)

Types of fights: Not all inclusive, but more indicitive of what a WW2 aircraft / weapons would drive.

Egg fight - imagine you are standing on the ground and watching a fighter do a max performance loop. It will not be semetrical (perfect circle) due to gravity and the aircrafts airspeed. The "loop" will look like an egg, with the pointy end pointing up. From the pilots perspective (wings level, level flight) he applies maximum power and a max performance pull. On his side he has energy, against him he has gravity (he is trying to go up so he has to overcome it), resulting in the bottom portion of the loop being larger thant he top portion. As his nose passes the vertical (straight up) gravity starts to help but he is lower on airspeed (energy) than when he began. He will accelerate some down the backside of the loop and the bottom will once again get bigger as airspeed increases.

Vertical fight - Two types, up and down. The former, also known as a "tree" (what dogs do to their prey) usually occurs when a fairly neutral situation develops and one aircraft is trying to out fly the other in a climb. The goal being to fly steeper / slower than ones opponet causing him to fall off / give up altitude. The altitude he gives up or you gain via better performance will hopefully allow you to have turning room to bring your guns to bear.

The "down" vertical fight sees the defender using the altitude below him to keep airspeed on his aircraft while maneuvering hard (giving problems to his adversary or the offender). Goal here is to stay alive, get away, or overshoot him and role reverse. This type of fight can go on until the ground gets in the way, then will transition to a more level fight.

A fighter pilot has many tools with which to use, the most important being the gelatinious gray matter between his ears, but beyond that he has the stick (to lead, lag or pure pursuit if offensive, or generate closure or angles if he is defensive). He has a throttle, to gain energy / speed to help arrive in gun range, or gain on his enemy, or to help generate problems should he find himself defensive. He has a gun, which to use you must be, "in plane, in range, and in lead". He also has altitude which may be traded for airspeed at times, or to keep speed on the aircraft in a fight going down hill. Most fights do not go up hill for long, as the defender (guy in front) usually runs out of airspeed, becomes less maneuverable prior to the offender with the end result being gun employment by the offender. We are taught, "go up blow up".

Let me backtrack for a moment and explain what in plane means. If the defender is in a turn, and the offender wants to employ the gun, he must be in plane. He can be established in plane, or there fleetingly (the former preferred as it allows for longer gun employment time and better odds of actually hitting him). Imagine looking down from above and seeing the defender in a left turn, and you can "see" the circle he is making in the sky. Say he is Westbound at the 12 o'clock position and is being chased by another aircraft on the exact same circle as him but at the 3 o'clock position (heading north). The offender is 90's in lag, but in plane. To shoot, he has to get his nose in front of the defender and therefor get "inside" his turn. If the offender puts his nose in lead, his circle will seperate from the defender and the circles will be offset. The end result is the offender will point his nose in front of the defender on his circle (in lead and in plane), and once in range will pull the trigger / employ the gun.

From the offenders position this is where the enemy aircraft will start or actually go below the nose. From the defenders position he will see the offenders nose go from pointing behind him, to at him, to in front of him (and can now see the offenders belly).


----------



## BiffF15 (Nov 2, 2013)

The defenders goals are to survive, get away, or reverse / cause a role swap. The offenders goals are to employ (shoot the gun in this discussion), maintain the offensive, or leave before becoming defensive.

When guys are fighting they are using rate (how fast they are turning - can be both instantanious or sustained), radius, usually smaller being better than larger. If a fighter is above corner and he does a max performance turn his circle will start large, and become smaller as his speed depletes (passing through both best rate and corner) and continue shrinking until at some point it starts to open up again as he becomes really slow. 

From personal experiance I know these speeds for the aircraft I flew (and they varied on fuel load weapons load) as well as those of my adversaries. They are ingrained, or part of my DNA. No speed is off limits in a fight (unless going there will get you killed) however one usually stays above the bottom speed, and below the maximum speed. These are valuable numbers to know is my point.

From the pilots perspective he is flying along and gets bounced / tapped. He is fast (well above corner) and starts a full power (not always optimum but used in this example as a reference point only) max performance turn depleting energy as he goes. We will also say he is at the floor (can't descend). He will pull max G allowed, then as he slows to corner he can continue pulling to the seat pan (full aft) then as his energy continues to deplete he will need to move the stick forward (lessening his pull) some and roll out a bit as well (he can't stay in a steep banked turn forever while depleting energy). If his airspeed continues to decay he will eventually have to roll out to wings level (slow flight) to avoid ground contact (should he hit the ground / crash it would be a kill and the offender would get the credit since he "caused" the guy to pack it in - a kill is a kill). He wants to avoid slow flight if possible as he is very predictable (no ability to pass problems along to the offender).

Okay, that's enough for now. I will let you guys digest this, ask questions, etc., and will continue on again shortly by going through a fight or two in detail, starting with less maneuvering then moving onto more.

Cheers, 
Biff


----------



## drgondog (Nov 3, 2013)

"Corner Velocity - AKA corner or conering speed. Full and abrupt deflection of the flight controls will generate maxium lift without exceeding aircraft limits. "

Slight point of clarification..

The Corner Velocity has a very specific defined 'point' at which the G load is at max(maximum stated limit load factor) and the CL is at max. This Velocity is the Maneuver Point on a V-n diagram, for which corresponds to the largest possible turn rate (in radians) and the smallest possible turn radius.

The MP is interesting because its not possible to damage the bird due to generation of too much lift (you are at CLmax and you will stall) but any velocity greater at max CL Corner speed will generate too much lift and 'bendeth your means of support".. 

Vcorner= Sqrt [(2*Gmax*W)/(rho*CLmax*S)]

rho = density, S=wing area, Gmax=limit load permissible, W=Gross weight


----------



## BiffF15 (Nov 3, 2013)

Drgondog,

Excellent clarification! However CV is not the smallest possible turn radius for all aircraft. I'm not sure if that is due to design, or if it's how the military teaches or charts aircraft performance.

Cheers,
Biff


----------



## drgondog (Nov 3, 2013)

BiffF15 said:


> Drgondog,
> 
> Excellent clarification! However CV is not the smallest possible turn radius for all aircraft. I'm not sure if that is due to design, or if it's how the military teaches or charts aircraft performance.
> 
> ...



Biff - CV at the Manuever Point is the optimum velocity for both radians/sec and smallest turn radius R for that aircraft.

Both Rmin and Omegamax when both CL and N (max permissible G) are simultaneously maximum


In a level turn, if you are not at CLmax and at G Max you are not optimizing the turn for either rate or radius.

Rmin = [2/(*W)/(rho*32.2*CLmax*S)]

As CL approaches maximum, Radius approaches minimum.

Omega min = 32.2*SQRT [(rho*CLmax*N)/(2*(W/S))]

As CL reaches maximum and Permissible Design load N reaches maximum (at Maneuver Point CV) you can see that for a specific a/c with same W/L and altitude and max CL the turn Radius (Omega) will be minimum for that airplane..

Ergo CV at the Maneuver Point for an F-16 is the same as any other exactly loaded and configured F-16 at the same altitude.. same for 109 vs 109 but 109 CV and Rmin and Omega min are not the same as the F-16.

In the 109 vs F-16 the huge differentiator for the 109 smaller radius is the 2:1 Wing Loading factor plus the difference in CLmax to be offset somewhat by the F-16 superior N.


----------



## BiffF15 (Nov 3, 2013)

Drgondog,

I will only speak for the Eagle. I have briefed that diagram to many Weapons School Graduates via my Flight Lead Up Grade (FLUG) thru Instructor Pilot Upgrade (IPUG). I can not speak to why that chart is done in that manner, only that it is (I don't have your AERO background or knowledge). I also don't know if it's due to the Eagle's wing twist. Common sense tells me that what you are speaking sounds right, however memory from that chart and times I have reguritated it tells me something different. 

I asked another Eagle guy tonight to validate my memory. I asked him in such a manner that I didn't give the answer I wanted to hear, yet he spouted the numbers (that DNA shiza again).

Cheers,
Biff

PS Don't know if you have access to those charts where you work, but if you do it might "speak" to both our points of view.


----------



## drgondog (Nov 4, 2013)

Biff - since I don't have the chart you reference in front of me, the key question is "Are you referring to a V-n" chart published for F-15 by MacDac? If so, all look the same and all are calculated the same. There are a variety on this site of Pilot handbooks with V-n diagrams to acquaint the fighter jock the difference between 'awesome dude" and 'awsh%t bonehead" - the latter is either "you just departed" or "you broke your bird".

Wing twist and camber are all about generating the compromised section airfoil characteristics leading to desired lift and drag (as you know). The emerging CL/CD characteristics of the wing, along with Aspect ratio - fix Induced Drag and Max CL.

In the discussions leading to V-n the Max CL has nothing to do with stall during level flight, everything to do with bank angle and the maximum lift at extremely high bank angle to enable curved flight at a certain velocity and constant altitude... the carved turn.

Once there, the airframe structures guys design the internals of the wing, to match the bending load due to the Pressure (normal and stress) distribution. That arcane art leads (conservatively) to a Limit Load factor (right up to bend but short of) and a Ultimate Load factor (usually around 1.5 limit load with steel and aluminum - but I don't know about newer composites) - the point where the bird has been irreparably bending and now breaks.

The V-n diagrams show the curves for plotted N (G) right up to Limit as a function of V (both positive and negative G). At the right hand limit of V-n is the dreaded Q Limit Load shutting the door on continued existence on the Plane of existence in That airplane. On the right hand side of the plot where Velocity-N is plotted, is serenity and contentment with your state of existence because you ain't 'pushing the envelope' because you didn't reach the maneuver point of Corner Velocity at Max Limit G in a turn. 

On the left hand side however, you yanked too much elevator and either flat plated your bird or departed in an embarrassing way.. and if some gomer with evil intent was following you, then you are toast.

Summary - it is counter intuitive that Corner Speed combines max G turn with minimum turn radius and maximum turn rate over say floating at much less speed and G but its all about pushing the bank angle to the aerodynamic and structural limits


----------



## drgondog (Nov 4, 2013)

PS Biff - I work at 'Retired', well off enough to raise Wolfhounds but not enough to continue flying..

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## BiffF15 (Nov 6, 2013)

Drgondog,

Congrats on retiring, it sounds like it's "good" work!

As for the charts, I'm referring to what we called the "rate radius" diagram. In it the min radius occured below corner. The only thing I can think of is that it's a sustained chart, or in other words it depicts the smallest circle one can sustain versus circle size from the corner chart (intantaneous). 

There is an Eagle Weapons School Graduate here and I will try to track him down tomorrow.

Cheers,

PS I've been reading the Dietmar book on the Ta-152H. Pretty cool plane, however they (the Luftwaffe) didn't have enough fo them to scratch the paint on the assets lining up against them.
Biff


----------



## BiffF15 (Nov 6, 2013)

Okay Gents, here is my rough opinion on the four aircraft comparison (Spit, Me-109, P-51 Fw-190 + variants). I will say the time frame is the last 6 months of the war. 

From my perspective aircraft can be sliced and diced in several different methods in the BFM / dogfighting arena, which is not definitive nor all inclusive (this is called leaving myself an out). 

The different methods involve: 

1. speed (entire envelope from slow flight, thru acceleration, to top speed both at low and high altitudes) and this is directly related to power output at a given altitude
2. turn (max g load, turn circle size both at low and higher altitudes, and energy sustainability or bleed rate)
3. weapons and the ability to employ them (mostly via gun sights or TLAR in WW2) 
4. flying qualities 

On the speed part of the equation some airplanes are fast up high, others are fast down low, and few dominate at all altitudes and it depends on how the motor was optimised. 

As for turn, the same rules apply, and as it's been previously stated and reiterated here, planes are compromises. Some turn better higher up, some down low, and at that time of the war I don't think one dominated all others to such a degree to make a difference.

My favorite weapon of them all, the gun, was in WW2 a very good weapon limited by gun sights or skill. There have been many comments by aces about letting the enemy fill your windscreen before you shoot (E. Hartmann) which takes gun sights and TLAR our of the equation. Also it means more rounds on target with a shorter trigger pull.

Lastly flying qualities. I say this with a grain of salt. Of the four aircraft in this comparison (I'm sure there will be spears on this), from what I have read by guys who are flying them today, the Me-109 was the most difficult of them all to fly. Cramped cockpit with so so visibility, slats that didn't employ together, poor flight control harmonization and that narrow gear for take offs and, after a taxing sortie, for landings. Having said that I also know that the top two scoring aces of all time got their kills in the 109 (and they had the lead by a huge margin). More on this later. The Spit (MkXIV) is the plane I've read the least about but shows tremendous promise due to it's engine and the airframe mod's built around that. From what I've read it was an easy plane to fly, outstanding rate of climb, and with the "blown" canopy outstanding visibility. The Mustang has had so much written about it (to the victor go the spoils and the writting of history...). I have an Eagle bud who is flying one now, and he has said that it flies great but an accelerated stall can be very tricky. Blown canopy means great vis, well harmonized flight controls means it's easy to fly, great gun sight and weapons, not the best on top speed but close, not the best on turning but close, not the best but good at everything. Lastly the Fw-190 / Ta-152H. I will use the H as my point of view. Optimised for high altitude means it will suffer at lower altitudes, well harmonized flight controls (from what I've read) meaning easy to fly, and a single lever for throttle prop and mixture means the pilot doesn't have to use brain cells to run the motor, just push it forward to go faster, pull it back to go slower. Good to excellent weapons and good visibility (not quite on par with the blown canopies, but way better than the Me-109).

The Spit and 109 are what today could be called point defense fighters. They have big motors, small airframes, and small fuel tanks. Race cars, meant to perform well but not go far from home. The Mustang and the Ta-152 were both designed around longer flights and higher altitudes (edge here goes to the Ta-152). So if you have to go deep, the latter two are better rides, if you are staying close to the airpatch, the first two are very good choices.

Now to the point. We have seen that guys could rack up huge kill scores in planes that had what I would call bigger drawbacks, however they flew the plane in combat for years. YEARS. This means the pilot was able to overcome the deficienies in his aircraft through skill and tactics. We have also seen guys do terrible in planes (using German gun footage of guys getting hammered in Mustangs, Lightings, Spits, and Jugs) which means to me that a great handling plane can be shot down as well. I will boil my two cents down to this. The guy who was best at using his airplane in the environment it was in (high or low, fast or slow) is the winner. The planes all are fairly close, but still think it comes down to who could use it the best. If you put four very new fighter pilots in these four aircraft, it would be a roll of the dice on any given day who would win. No one plane is so outstanding performance wise that it would make for a consistent winner with young guys. If you put four very experienced fighter pilots in them, one would eventually win more than the others and it would be due to him using his tool/ weapon/plane better than the other guys.

If I had to pick one, I would probably go with the Ta-152 as my first choice in a pure 1 v 1 scenario. If it was many versus many, would take either the Mustang or the Spit 14 in that order, and if I had to go deep, then the Mustang alone (long legs, lots of friends / other Mustangs). 

Remember, this is my OPINION only.

Let the spear chucking begin!

Cheers, 
Biff

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like Like:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## drgondog (Nov 6, 2013)

BiffF15 said:


> Okay Gents, here is my rough opinion on the four aircraft comparison (Spit, Me-109, P-51 Fw-190 + variants). I will say the time frame is the last 6 months of the war.
> 
> From my perspective aircraft can be sliced and diced in several different methods in the BFM / dogfighting arena, which is not definitive nor all inclusive (this is called leaving myself an out).
> 
> ...



No chucking from me. 

I would pick the AAF pilot in the ETO or USN fleet pilot in 1945 over any cross section of pilot skill in the world in 1945. The combination of national resources, great training weather, great experience rotating from Combat to Training Command was unprecedented in WWII.

You put 20,000 of these in 1944 (and Nobody else could) in the air with any of the airplanes you mention - and they win.


When the a/c are close the stick and the training win out.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## wuzak (Nov 6, 2013)

drgondog said:


> No chucking from me.
> 
> I would pick the AAF pilot in the ETO or USN fleet pilot in 1945 over any cross section of pilot skill in the world in 1945. The combination of national resources, great training weather, great experience rotating from Combat to Training Command was unprecedented in WWII.



Not to mention being able to be trained outside a war zone.

Same could be said, to a lesser extent, of Commonwealth pilots. But not of Luftwaffe pilots.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Aozora (Nov 6, 2013)

For interest, because slightly OT, but relevant. On 7 March a highly experienced New Zealander, Sqn Ldr Evan Mackie (O/C 80 Squadron, flying Hawker Tempest Vs), with about 17 victories credited at the time, engaged an Fw 190D-9 of III./JG 26 in a turning dogfight which lasted about ten minutes, and ranged between s/l 3,000 ft: every time Mackie got a bead on the 190 it evaded him and came very close to shooting Mackie down in return. Finally, the 190 pilot, more than likely a Uffz. Otto Salewski of 10./JG 26, was momentarily distracted when he noticed some aircraft in the vicinity, and Mackie shot him down. Mackie said it was the toughest fight he'd ever gotten into and felt he was lucky to survive. 

What's interesting is that Salewski joined JG 26 direct from training in November 1943 and, 16 months later, Mackie was almost his first kill. 



BiffF15 said:


> ...The guy who was best at using his airplane in the environment it was in (high or low, fast or slow) is the winner. The planes all are fairly close, but still think it comes down to who could use it the best. If you put four very new fighter pilots in these four aircraft, it would be a roll of the dice on any given day who would win. No one plane is so outstanding performance wise that it would make for a consistent winner with young guys. If you put four very experienced fighter pilots in them, one would eventually win more than the others and it would be due to him using his tool/ weapon/plane better than the other guys.
> 
> Cheers,
> Biff



+1 Luck - that intangible element - can also come into it for experienced pilots: in this instance the pilots, the aircraft and the tactics were well matched with Mackie (probably) being more confident because he had shot down other aircraft - yet he nearly lost. I think what told in the end was that Mackie remained focused on the combat in hand, whereas Salewski was distracted for just a couple of seconds.


----------



## silence (Nov 7, 2013)

Couple note:

Being close in means that your rounds are also going to hit with more KE. That can't hurt (well, depending on your point of view)!!

If it counts, I'd probably go for a Dora-13 over a 152H - especially if the Dora has the 213EB engine. IIRC, all it really gives up to the 152 is max altitude while gaining some speed and some climb (I think - brain is tired).
They could (but not sure if they did) have 4 bag tanks in the wings for extra internal fuel and/or MW50 tankage.
I also really like the synchronized 3x20mm MG 151 arrangement for fighter vs. fighter and the boosted ailerons. 
I would like to see it have the two-piece landing gear doors like the 152 and P-51; those landing gear holes with the gear up just bug me. Same with not having fully retractable tail wheels with doors.

AOZORA: that is a helluva story! Is the full text available online somewhere? It reminds me of Hawker and Richthofen.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## BiffF15 (Nov 7, 2013)

Aozora said:


> On 7 March a highly experienced New Zealander, Sqn Ldr Evan Mackie (O/C 80 Squadron, flying Hawker Tempest Vs), with about 17 victories credited at the time, engaged an Fw 190D-9 of III./JG 26 in a turning dogfight which lasted about ten minutes, and ranged between s/l 3,000 ft: every time Mackie got a bead on the 190 it evaded him and came very close to shooting Mackie down in return. Finally, the 190 pilot, more than likely a Uffz. Otto Salewski of 10./JG 26, was momentarily distracted when he noticed some aircraft in the vicinity, and Mackie shot him down. Mackie said it was the toughest fight he'd ever gotten into and felt he was lucky to survive.
> 
> What's interesting is that Salewski joined JG 26 direct from training in November 1943 and, 16 months later, Mackie was almost his first kill.
> 
> ...



Aozora,

Excellent story and excellent points. There are also a couple of layers to this as well. To begin with, there is what is considered a newbie holding off the old hand. Even though he had no kills, he did have 16 months in a serious combat zone. What I can't answer is how the Germans conducted "training", and who did it. 

On the other side of that coin you have a triple ace who almost "buys" it at the hands of a much less experienced pilot. It could be he due to aircraft (not sure how the Tempest V stacked up against the 190D), it could be due to over confidence, and it could also be to what I will call rock paper scissors. The latter is where pilot A can beat pilot B (paper takes rock), B takes C (rock takes scissors), and C can take A (scissors takes paper). I have seen this all too many times in a squadron. It boils down to the techniques and tactics that work so well for one pilot can be foiled by someone of "lessor" skill consistently. At first blush this might not make sense, but time and again it occurs.

The last is the "distraction" point. It's tough to tell as no flight data recorder (FDR) exists to tell us what was going on in his cockpit, but distraction is the bane of flying. Having flown many BFM / dogfighting sorties, and talked at length with my fellow drivers, it is a group opinion that he who makes the least or smallest amount of errors usually wins.

Cheers,
Biff

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## BiffF15 (Nov 7, 2013)

silence said:


> Couple note:
> 
> Being close in means that your rounds are also going to hit with more KE. That can't hurt (well, depending on your point of view)!!
> 
> ...



Silence,

Great point on the KE / rounds on target! I think a classic example of this was Hans-Joachim Marseille who had a reputation for getting in close and using very little ammo.

I also agree with you on the gear doors, however the 737 is a modern example of it (areo hubcaps vice gear doors)

Cheers,
Biff


----------



## CORSNING (Nov 7, 2013)

The fastest climb rate mentioned in the book is 20 m./sec. (3,936 fpm.)

"It is not known whether the Ta 152 with MW-50 or GM-1 power boosting were flown in action."

Engine: Jumo 213E: 1,900ps (1,875 hp.) 2.03ata.boost.

Combat Weight: 10,473.75 lbs.

Armament: 1 x 30mm/2 x 20mm 

Wing Area: 252.96 sq.ft.

Wing Loading: 41.40+lbs./sq.ft.

Power Loading: 5.586 lbs./hp.[/QUOTE]



1 on 1? I believe I will go with the the Spitfire Mk.XIV...unless I had to fly 300 mls or more from home base (P-51). I believe the Ta was probably slightly easier to fly (automation). I believe the Ta's high altitude (25,000 ft.+) abilities were unequaled by the other contenders. From what I have read here and elsewhere, I believe it could probably turn the tightest/fastest (once into the turn).


With all that being said, there is still the weight vs. thing; 7,923 vs. 10,473 lbs. I believe at most altitudes the Spitfire could out climb and out accelerate the others in this group. I also believe it could probably out roll the Ta-152 (not sure). 

Good night guys, Jeff


----------



## wuzak (Nov 7, 2013)

CORSNING said:


> The fastest climb rate mentioned in the book is 20 m./sec. (3,936 fpm.)
> 
> "It is not known whether the Ta 152 with MW-50 or GM-1 power boosting were flown in action."
> 
> ...



I think the Spitfire will out-turn the Ta 152, but the Ta 152 will out-roll the Spitfire.


----------



## awack34 (Nov 8, 2013)

Going from whats written and actual testing, the TA 152 h seems to be a generation ahead of the Spitfire XIV, the TA seems to have 34 mph speed advantage at their best height, the 18 boost XIV has about 580 or 700 fpm advantage in climb rate if we use the 3936 fpm climb for the TA posted above, side by side testing was done with late war spitfires after the war, the TA could turn with and out turn the spitfire at medium and high altitudes, this was with out any boost for the TA, operational ceiling for the Spitfire is around 43.500ft and for the TA, its around 48.500ft, as far as range is concerned, the Spitfire had different load outs, please some one correct me if im wrong, the typical XIV had a rang of around 400 miles, the TA had a range of 755 miles, I have no idea who had the better roll rate, I would assume that the TA could out dive the XIV, in most combat situations, even though the spitfire cannons had a higher velocity, I definitely have to give edge to the TA in fire power with its 2X 20mm and 1 30mm cannons with its mine shells, the fire power had to have been devastating.....cockpit layout and view would go to the TA, I have not found any evidence that the tear drop canopied XIV ever saw combat in Europe they came just a little too late, I also don't know if the TA got the ez42 gun sight, if not, the Spit would have a nice Advantage in shooting.


----------



## tomo pauk (Nov 8, 2013)

<grabs popcorn>.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## wuzak (Nov 8, 2013)

Eric Brown:



> The take-off of the Ta 152H-1 was shorter than that of teh Spitfire XIX [I assume it is supposed to be XIV] and the climb was steeper albeit somewhat slower than that of the British fighter. But once the 9,145m (30,000ft) mark had slipped past on the altimeter, the Tank fighter gave the impression of holding its rate of climb better than its British counterpart. In so far as manoeuvrability was concerned, the Spitfire was certainly the better of the two below 9,145m (30,000ft), there being little to chose between that altitude and 10,670m (35,000ft), but above the latter altitude the Ta 152H-1 enjoyed a decided edge. I gave the German fighter its head on teh way to Brize Norton and did a full throttle run at 10,670m (35,000ft), which, by my rough reckoning, worked out at around 684km/h (425mph), or about 56km/h (35mph) less than the Spitfire XIX was capable of. But, of course, the availability of GM1 boost would have more than redressed the balance and the Ta 152H-1 was certainly the superior aeroplane on the score of range. In essence, however, these two potential opponents were remarkably close from many aspects, illustrating how closely parallel Britain and Germany were running in piston-engined fighter technology.



From _Wings of the Luftwaffe_.

It isn't surprising that the Ta 152H held the advantage at high altitudes - it was designed for that role specifically, and had a long span high aspect ratio wing for the task. The wingspan was 3.2m (10ft 6in) greater than that of the Spitfire's.

Brown also mentions that the Ta 152H had much less roll performance than the Fw 190 - whose wingspan was less than the Spitfire's.

Certainly the Spitfire's performance could have been improved with the intsallation of the 100-series Griffons, which used a 3 speed supercharger drive in place of the 2 speed drive and had a full throttle altitude (without ram) 2000ft above the Griffon 65. That could help with the high altitude performance of the XIV, but probably not help with the manoeuvrability above 35,000ft.

Let's not forget that the XIV was an interim/stop-gap version of the Spitfire. The definitive Griffon version was the 21, which would probably have taken over if the war lasted another year. The 21 gave slight improvements in level speeds (5-6mph), had similar climbing characteristics and, I presume, turn radius, but was much superior in roll rate and firepower (4 x Hispano Mk V). That would also have gained some benefit form the 100 series Griffons.


----------



## wuzak (Nov 8, 2013)

> I gave the German fighter its head on teh way to Brize Norton and did a full throttle run at 10,670m (35,000ft), which, by my rough reckoning, worked out at around 684km/h (425mph), or about 56km/h (35mph) less than the Spitfire XIX was capable of.



The XIV's top speed is generally acceptad as ~448mph, which gives a 23mph advantage over the Ta 152H according to Brown's numbers. However, that speed is achieved at a lower altitude than the full throttle test. At 35,000ft the XIV still would appear to have the advantage, by about 15mph (~440mph @ 35,000ft).


----------



## Milosh (Nov 8, 2013)

> Brown also mentions that the Ta 152H had much less roll performance than the Fw 190 - whose wingspan was less than the Spitfire's.



And nothing came close the Fw190s roll rate. So the question is, how much did the long wing decrease the roll rate?


----------



## BiffF15 (Nov 8, 2013)

wuzak said:


> The XIV's top speed is generally acceptad as ~448mph, which gives a 23mph advantage over the Ta 152H according to Brown's numbers. However, that speed is achieved at a lower altitude than the full throttle test. At 35,000ft the XIV still would appear to have the advantage, by about 15mph (~440mph @ 35,000ft).



Wuzak,

I've been trying to think through how much of a speed advantage would be usable or noticable. In a scenario where you are doing a hit and run, having the advantage of dive speed combined with a higher top speed, you can hit and leave with almost immunity. In a turning fight that starts co-speed, the "higher top speed" will rarely come into play (only scenario I can imagine is where the higher top speed aircraft wants to leave, and is at or beyond the weapons range of "other" aircraft when he makes his out move). This latter event can be difficult as you are going "ass to the fight" and banking on your eyeball range finder being accurate. If you are able to go tail to the fight and see him shooting at you, the decision can be made then to either keep going (I think he is shooting beyond his max range), or turn back and defend (I didn't judge it right the first time so have to turn back and defend). 

I flew F-15's in turning engagements against a variety of A/C, almost all of which were faster (top speed) down low than me, and slower up high. It was almost a moot point in reality. However the ability to accelerate or climb better was a much more useful asset. Often fights would end up in "trees" (high low stack where the high guy wants to keep climbing to get enough turning room to dive down and employ on the low guy, and where the low guy wants to fly slowly enough that the high guy gets out in "front" allowing him to then accel and zoom up to employ) or in a rolling scissors (two aircraft continiously turning towards each other, which can have offensive / defensive role swaps occuring, where each aircraft is manuevering to bring it's nose to bear / employ). Either one of those fights in a WW2 fighter the advantage would go to the aircraft which could climb better and at a slower airspeed (all other factors being equal).

It is my opinion that a higher top speed was not as important as climb capability (higher rate slower speed) in turning fights. 

In retrospect, the number one ace of aces preferred the hit and run tactic which is part of the reason he both had the highest score AND lived to the end of the war. Turning fights are more fun than hit and run, however they have a much greater risk of failure (too many variables can come into play whcih could turn the outcome against you even in a better performing aircraft).

All food for thought.

Cheers,
Biff


----------



## wuzak (Nov 8, 2013)

BiffF15 said:


> Wuzak,
> 
> I've been trying to think through how much of a speed advantage would be usable or noticable. In a scenario where you are doing a hit and run, having the advantage of dive speed combined with a higher top speed, you can hit and leave with almost immunity. In a turning fight that starts co-speed, the "higher top speed" will rarely come into play (only scenario I can imagine is where the higher top speed aircraft wants to leave, and is at or beyond the weapons range of "other" aircraft when he makes his out move). This latter event can be difficult as you are going "ass to the fight" and banking on your eyeball range finder being accurate. If you are able to go tail to the fight and see him shooting at you, the decision can be made then to either keep going (I think he is shooting beyond his max range), or turn back and defend (I didn't judge it right the first time so have to turn back and defend).
> 
> ...




Biff, I wasn't saying that top speed was important. Just pointing out that the difference wasn't as great as Brown suggested.

As to the other facets:
Spitfire is lighter and more powerful (at least below 30,000ft). Thus it should accelerate better than the Ta 152.
Spitfire is known to have a significant advantage in climb - at least until 30,000ft.
Spitfire has a 25% lower wing loading than the Ta 152 - it should handily out-turn the Ta 152 (as it did all other Fw 190 derivatives).
The one main advantage the Fw 190 series had over the Spitfire XIV was the roll rate. But that advantage was less in the Ta 152 - how much is open to speculation.


----------



## BiffF15 (Nov 8, 2013)

Wuzak,

No problem! I was just using your speed points to open the conversation regarding "uses" of a higher top speed. I've been reading this morning on the Griffon powered Spit's and it is more of a "hotrod" than I previously thought (however to me the Griffon powered bubble canopied versions are the best looking). 

What I don't know is where the majority of engagements occured altitude wise. I would think they occured below 20k, and regardless of the alitude they started at, all would work down (still true to this day). 

Cheers,
Biff


----------



## Kryten (Nov 8, 2013)

wuzak said:


> Biff, I wasn't saying that top speed was important. Just pointing out that the difference wasn't as great as Brown suggested.
> 
> As to the other facets:
> Spitfire is lighter and more powerful (at least below 30,000ft). Thus it should accelerate better than the Ta 152.
> ...



I'm dubious the H model could outroll the Spit with such a long wingspan, bear in mind the Doras had a reduced roll rate compared to the Antons, so it stands to reason an even longer span will limit roll even more?


----------



## Kryten (Nov 8, 2013)

BiffF15 said:


> Wuzak,
> 
> No problem! I was just using your speed points to open the conversation regarding "uses" of a higher top speed. I've been reading this morning on the Griffon powered Spit's and it is more of a "hotrod" than I previously thought (however to me the Griffon powered bubble canopied versions are the best looking).
> 
> ...



That depended on the timescale, mid war altitude performance was everything but by wars end the RAF spent most of their time at low alt strafing ground targets, the Tempest being an example of an aircraft optimised below 25k ft


----------



## CORSNING (Nov 8, 2013)

Milosh said:


> And nothing came close the Fw190s roll rate. So the question is, how much did the long wing decrease the roll rate?



This is the question that needs answering. I have read on this forum that the wing on the Ta-152 had a design that allowed it to turn very tightly even at higher speeds.

From Dietmar's "Ta 152". "Compared to the Fw 190A-8, the Ta 152 H-0 is capable of tighter turns with less tendency to fall off into a spin, and this only happens at lower airspeeds (approximately 250 kph). Spin can easily be recovered after about 500-600 meters by pushing the nose down. " "Naturally the larger wing has reduced maneuverability somewhat, but this is in no way seen as a disadvantage."

I would have to do some researching to find out for sure, but I would put the Ta 152 more in the aera of the Spitfire 21.

I agree with awack34's statement that the Ta 152H is in the next generation of fighters compared to the Spit 14. BUT, performance wise only "IF" it is equiped with MW-50 and GM-1 boosting.

Jeff

<grabbing some popcorn and sitting down to watch with tomo>


----------



## drgondog (Nov 8, 2013)

The relative ability to turn is inversely proportional to both CLmax and Wing loading (W/S). look at the Ta-152 and Spit wings relative to max CL as well as the gross weights for each you want to compare them with..

Another factor you want to consider is the thrust/drag ratio at the altitudes of interest as that relates to the ability to sustain the turn rate.


----------



## drgondog (Nov 8, 2013)

The Ta 152 at operational load out was 10,470 pounds, wing area =253 sq ft, 2050Hp with MW50/GM1 boost

The Spit XIV at operational load out was 7,923 pounds, wing area =242 sq ft, 2050Hp at 18" boost

Spit wing loading was 20% Lower so it should have a.) turned much better, b.) climbed better 

Don't have the drag numbers or the CLmax to see if the Ta 152 had a higher CLmax to offset the Wing Loading (but doubt it), nor do I have the Drag data to figure out Thrust/Drag ratio for relative accelerations.

But will dig a little

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## drgondog (Nov 8, 2013)

Overview

The Clmax of the 2213 is about 1.6, the CLmax of the 23016 is about 1.7 so the Ta 152 claws back 6% of the 20% advantage to Spitfire W/L - but still way below the Spit until the Spit starts losing Hp faster than Ta 152 at the Griffon critical altitude.

The Ta 152 IIRC has about the same parasite drag coefficient as the 190D, both of which are higher than Mustang but lower than the Spitfire. Having said that the wetted drag area of the Ta 152 is more than the Spit so at top speeds it may be a toss up as the induced drag advantage of the Ta 152 high aspect ratio wing doesn't matter at top speed. Additional consideration - the wing area of the Ta 152 is greater (11 sq ft - 252 to 243) and the drag coefficient of the 23015 is slightly higher than the 2213 of the Spit.

Thumbnail summary
So, I speculate that below the critical altitude of the Griffon, the Thrust to Drag ratio will favor the Spit which means that it will accelerate slightly faster and maintain energy in an energy bleeding turn slower than the Ta 152. The wild card for both comparisons in a turn is that when it gets close, the relative prop efficiencies at high RPM/low speed and the contribution of High AoA form drag to the total drag of each system could alter the balance. 

Net the Spit should always out turn and out climb the Ta 152 up to the critical altitude of the Griffon.. because the wing loading is far lower while the Thrust from both engines is very close

BTW the high aspect ratio of the Ta 152 certainly improves Oswald efficiency and reduces Induced Drag - but that isn't what separates the Ta 152 from the Spit - it is the relative Hp balance between the Ta 152 and the Spit above the Griffon's critical altitude. Both have same max rated HP but the Ta 152 engine is performing better (IIRC) at 35-45000 feet than the Spit so that it is faster, generates more lift and has a higher Thrust to Drag than the Spit at high altitudes.

BTW - I don't KNOW what the critical altitude of the Ta 152 with MW-50/GM-1 boost IS.

Take what you want and leave the rest..

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## tomo pauk (Nov 8, 2013)

The MW-50 seem to be allowed for use only for 1st two supercharger gears, not for third. 1320-1340 PS at 9600 m was available at full throttle height for 3rd gear. Fuel used seem to be always B4 (corrections are welcomed).


----------



## Aozora (Nov 8, 2013)

AFAIK the Spitfire XIV and Ta 152H never met in combat but, for a certainty the Tempest V and Ta 152 had at least one encounter: 14 April 1945 Tempest Vs of 486(NZ) Sqn were out on an armed recce mission...


















Score = 1 - 1 with the Ta 152 apparently out-turning the Tempest V at low altitude HOWEVER Mitchell's inexperience in combat may well have been an important factor.

From: 1998 pages 245-248







<looks for popcorn only to find Tomo and CORSNING have scoffed the lot, the p***s...>

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## wuzak (Nov 8, 2013)

Considering that the Ta 152 took "several turns" to get on the Tempest's tail, I would doubt that it could compete in a turning battle with a Spitfire XIV.

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/wade-turning.jpg

Interestingly the Spitfire 21 is not rated as having as tight a turning circle as the Spitfire XIV - or the Mustang - but still ahead of the Tempest.

Roll rate

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/wade-roll.jpg

Climb and speed

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/wade-comp-perf-chart1.jpg

Comparitive Performance of Fighter Aircraft


----------



## Milosh (Nov 8, 2013)

drgondog said:


> The Ta 152 at operational load out was 10,470 pounds, wing area =253 sq ft, 2050Hp with MW50/GM1 boost
> 
> The Spit XIV at operational load out was 7,923 pounds, wing area =242 sq ft, 2050Hp at 18" boost



Ta152H-1
Loaded weight: 4,625 kg (10,470 lb)

Spitfire F XIVe
take-off weight: 8475lb (Spitfire: The History)

Shouldn't like with like be used for comparison?


----------



## wuzak (Nov 8, 2013)

Milosh said:


> Ta152H-1
> Loaded weight: 4,625 kg (10,470 lb)
> 
> Spitfire F XIVe
> ...




That weight for the Spitfire is Maximum Take-off Weight. The equivalent weight for the Ta 152 is ~11,500lb (5217kg).

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## parsifal (Nov 9, 2013)

you guys...you are alover this stuff like white icing on a wedding cake....

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## CORSNING (Nov 9, 2013)

Hey guys, I got to thinking (never a good thing), what if the heading had been titled "Bf-109 vs Spitfire vs Fw-190 vs P-51 in late January 1944"? 

<running out the front door heading for town to buy more popcorn in case Aozora shows up again>


----------



## BiffF15 (Nov 11, 2013)

wuzak said:


> Considering that the Ta 152 took "several turns" to get on the Tempest's tail, I would doubt that it could compete in a turning battle with a Spitfire XIV.



Wuzak,

Take that information about taking "several turns" to get on the tail of the Tempest with a grain of salt. What it doesn't say is what the relative postions were of the aircraft at the start of the engagement. Did they start the engagement nose to nose, or did the Ta-152 have the positional advantage, and if so by how much. Had they started positionally equal, nose to nose, the Tempest was doing strafe and most likely would not have been at optimum fighter on fighter airspeed (equal postion, airspeed detriment). There are lots of variables to this event that aren't covered.

cheers,

Biff

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Juha (Nov 11, 2013)

From here Ludwigslust aerial combat

one can find one interpretation of the Ta-152H vs tempest fight


----------



## Aozora (Nov 11, 2013)

Juha said:


> From here Ludwigslust aerial combat
> 
> one can find one interpretation of the Ta-152H vs tempest fight



Thanks for that; I'd forgotten about that article. The account I posted from 'The Wild Winds' also quoted Reschke's account where he stated that he couldn't fire because of faulty weapons. Unfortunately, in this and many such combat actions, the victim doesn't have a voice.

<attempts to buy world stocks of popcorn but discovers $2.50 isn't enough: buys bacon strips for consolation>


----------



## BiffF15 (Nov 11, 2013)

Juha,

Would you copy and paste that article please, unable to open it on my end.

Cheers,
Biff


----------



## BiffF15 (Nov 12, 2013)

Juha,

Disregard my previous request. I just finished reading that article and will reply later this afternoon!
cheers,

Biff


----------



## BiffF15 (Nov 12, 2013)

Juha said:


> From here Ludwigslust aerial combat
> 
> one can find one interpretation of the Ta-152H vs tempest fight



Juha,

A long but interesting read. The guy did his homework, complete with maps and plausible explanations. I've been through enough "fights" and done without the help of our tapes, ACMI or GCI to re-create what happened for the debrief. I totally understand the frustration of trying to recreate things, but then add spotty records, egos, legend, on top of decades of elasped time and it's a hell of a spaghetti mess. I think he did some real detective work along with sound reasoning. 

I've seen four guys in a "wall" of fighters, all with in visual range, and all come back with a "variant" of what happened. It's then up to the flight lead to pen it up, and figure out what really happened. Tapes with both audio and video help, but sometimes they don't work, or are washed out by the sun at some critical point. Doing the sleuth work so long after must have been seriously tedious (and fun if you got to speak with the actual players).

The particular discussion about Sattler's late take off, and Tempest pilot reporting a lone fighter doing turns then breaking back in, seem to be in my opinon, a single guy looking for his flight and doing 180's trying to get visual. Remember what the eye see's best is movement, and depending on the time of day, he would probably adjust his altitude to enhance his chances of getting visual. In my timeframe it would be larger aircraft turning, flares, and in low light conditions afterburner (all like blood in the water to attract the sharks). It would seem that he was shot down regardless of what the several different versions of the story were as told by Rieche (attributable to allied records from that day and via Rieche - he was at the crash site of the Fw / Ta-152). 

Also of note amoung the stories, guns worked for one burst, one plus some burst, or no bursts, with him pointing out he saw impact marks on the downed plane. It's as if he had something to prove when he had witnesses with him (really wouldn't need to point that out). What he doesn't say is there were no shot marks on Sattlers plane (again, if he said it was shot down earlier, and it actually was, no one would say boo as it was corraberated via his story). However his not pointing it out seems to me to be noteworthy / admission it was shot down (he didn't defend the reputation of the Ta-152 because he couldn't).

Do I know if he was fabricating his story, or it was mis-quoted or mis-printed? Nope. Do I know that time distorts memories. Yep. What I do know from having delt with folks who tend to exagerate, is that they have a hard time remembering their stories (they remember what happened but not how they portrayed it), and therefor have inconsistencies in later regurgitations. 

Food for thought only.

Cheers,
Biff

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Aozora (Nov 14, 2013)

I should have known that a copy of the 486(NZ) Sqn combat report is available online http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/tempest/486-shaw-14april45.jpg 

W/O Shaw's report is the one that indicates that he shot down Sattler.


----------



## Kryten (Nov 15, 2013)

Reading through that report, as ever the only conclusion you can draw is the tactical situation trumps the relevance of the airframe every time, switch the planes to Bf109 and Spit and the results the same!

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## renegate326 (Nov 16, 2013)

starling said:


> yes,well the 109 crashes a lot on take off and landing,the less said about 190 the better,the p 51 was an aircraft made to british specs,so the spit wins again. .lee.



The Brit didn't design the Mustang. North American designed and built the plane in US with the Packard Build in US Merlin. Still trying to claim the Mustang as a "British" plane. If Britain was so good why were they buying US planes/Engines? .P51 beats Spitfire hands down LOL


----------



## Wurger (Nov 16, 2013)

renegate326 said:


> The Brit didn't design the Mustang. North American designed and built the plane in US with the Packard Build in US Merlin. Still trying to claim the Mustang as a "British" plane. If Britain was so good why were they buying US planes/Engines? .P51 beats Spitfire hands down LOL



Sticking to the facts.. P-51 was an alternative for NAA co. Inglewood factory. Either a new design made in 120 days or manufacturing Curtiss P-40D for the RAF with a licence. The new plane was going to be powered by the Allison V1710 engine. And it was.... but replacing of the Allison engine with the Rolls-Royce one was the English idea suggested by Ronald Harker , a Rolls-Royce test pilot in April 1942.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## vinnye (Nov 16, 2013)

As has been stated many times before the P51 was a very good airframe, and the merlin was a very good engine. The joining of the two gave the Allies the very long range escort fighter it needed to go deep into German airspace and compete with the LW.
It is my opinion that the P51 was the choice for this role, but if you wanted an interceptor then the Spitfire would be my choice. Different aircraft for different jobs.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## drgondog (Nov 16, 2013)

renegate326 said:


> The Brit didn't design the Mustang. North American designed and built the plane in US with the Packard Build in US Merlin. Still trying to claim the Mustang as a "British" plane. If Britain was so good why were they buying US planes/Engines? .P51 beats Spitfire hands down LOL
> 
> *Be careful where you put your hands.. The P-51B roughly fit between the Spit IX and Spit IV - both of which were more maneuverable than the B, except for high speed roll. Remember the Spit had a bigger wing, and lower weight - with the same engine until the Griffon in the XIV. You could say the Mustang was a better fighter for several reasons but all related to extraordinary range due to low drag - and higher speeds when comparing engine to engine. Simply the Mustang was a superb long range air superiority fighter, a good fighter bomber and a great all around dogfighter at all altitudes... but 'beat a Spit Hands Down"?
> 
> Nope.*



Strictly speaking NAA developed a Preliminary design with high overview Specs in March 1940 and presented to Brits in April, 1940 - which was accepted. The design, the wing, the layout was the brainchild of the boast by NAA that "we can build a better airplane than the P-40". The British 'specs' were intentionally vague and loosely translated as 'build me a better fighter than the P-40C"

The first Merlin wasn't installed until the Brits completed the Mustang X - a modified Mark I - and flew it with Merlin in October 1942. NAA flew the XP-51B in November with a Packard merlin 1650-3.

Everything Wurger said was true


----------



## Wurger (Nov 16, 2013)

THX guys. and just a note... the P-51 was the British order. And if you order something and then you pay for it , you become an owner. As memo serves...


----------



## silence (Nov 16, 2013)

I'd say the Luftwaffe paid for it.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Wurger (Nov 16, 2013)




----------



## wuzak (Nov 16, 2013)

renegate326 said:


> If Britain was so good why were they buying US planes/Engines? .P51 beats Spitfire hands down LOL



They needed al the aircraft they could lay their hands on. 

Not to say that all the American aircraft they bought was up to the task or to a standard the RAF would consider combat ready.


----------



## Aozora (Nov 16, 2013)

Wurger said:


> Sticking to the facts.. P-51 was an alternative for NAA co. Inglewood factory. Either a new design made in 120 days or manufacturing Curtiss P-40D for the RAF with a licence. The new plane was going to be powered by the Allison V1710 engine. And it was.... but replacing of the Allison engine with the Rolls-Royce one was the English idea suggested by Ronald Harker , a Rolls-Royce test pilot in April 1942.



Except that the 120 days was always a myth, never stipulated in the contract:
















From:  Mustang: A Documentary History pages 14-16.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## parsifal (Nov 17, 2013)

> P51 beats Spitfire hands down LOL



You think!!!. The Spitfire was flying and operational at a time when the Mustang was somebody's wet dream. And, it was good enough to be given the laurels of defeating the LW, along with that other poor design, the hurricane. 

I would suggest you are allowing your anti british biases affect your judgement in this.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## silence (Nov 17, 2013)

Be nice, Parsifal. Think of this comment as the opportunity to help improve someone's education.


----------



## parsifal (Nov 17, 2013)

Im an ex soldier. my idea of educating someone does not involve the word nice

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## nuuumannn (Nov 17, 2013)

> along with that other poor design, the Hurricane.



I'll just correct that for you Parsifal; "along with that other well designed fighter, the Hurricane."

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## silence (Nov 17, 2013)

parsifal said:


> Im an ex soldier. my idea of educating someone does not involve the word nice



well, one outta two ain't bad....


----------



## bobbysocks (Nov 19, 2013)

renegate326 said:


> The Brit didn't design the Mustang. North American designed and built the plane in US with the Packard Build in US Merlin. Still trying to claim the Mustang as a "British" plane. If Britain was so good why were they buying US planes/Engines? .P51 beats Spitfire hands down LOL



my dad was coming home from a mission and met a spitfire on patrol along the southern coast of england. he was feeling his oats that day and thought after having racked up a couple hundred hours in a mustang that he was going to show this spit pilot a thing or two. he was the one taken to school that day. only time someone was able to on his tail that also could not shake. he had a lot more respect for the plane and the raf pilots after that.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## davparlr (Nov 20, 2013)

bobbysocks said:


> my dad was coming home from a mission and met a spitfire on patrol along the southern coast of england. he was feeling his oats that day and thought after having racked up a couple hundred hours in a mustang that he was going to show this spit pilot a thing or two. he was the one taken to school that day. only time someone was able to on his tail that also could not shake. he had a lot more respect for the plane and the raf pilots after that.



If the Spitfire was a Mark IX, the Mustang should have reasonably easily disengaged by diving away, it is quite a bit faster. If it was a Mark XIV, that would have been problematic.


----------



## Glider (Nov 20, 2013)

Also he might see it as running away, in real combat no problem, in 'play' the Spit pilot would no doubt enjoy it.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## davparlr (Nov 20, 2013)

Glider said:


> Also he might see it as running away, in real combat no problem, in 'play' the Spit pilot would no doubt enjoy it.



I agree. The only advantage the Mustang has is speed and it must be used to keep energy up if he has any hope. A Mustang should never yank and bank dogfight a Spitfire, its a losing deal.


----------



## BiffF15 (Nov 20, 2013)

Glider said:


> Also he might see it as running away, in real combat no problem, in 'play' the Spit pilot would no doubt enjoy it.



Train like you fight, fight like you train. 

It is fun though to do something in training that you wouldn't do tactically just to see if you can get away with, or learn from it.


----------



## buffnut453 (Nov 20, 2013)

parsifal said:


> Im an ex soldier. my idea of educating someone does not involve the word nice



So fluffy or cuddly aren't in the lexicon either (I'm guessing here!)?

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Greyman (Nov 20, 2013)

BiffF15 said:


> It is fun though to do something in training that you wouldn't do tactically just to see if you can get away with, or learn from it.



For sure. What training manuals say and what situations a real enemy forces on you are two different things.

"Everyone has a plan until they get punched in the face." - Mike Tyson


----------



## BiffF15 (Nov 22, 2013)

Maybe a better way of explaining not following "norms" was experimentation. Tactics manuals are often re-written or updated and often it's due to introducing something new, or tweaking something old.

BTW I found this on the old http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/aviation/www...

Platinum Fighter Sales - Warbird and Classic Aircraft Sales

If only I had mo money...

Cheers,
Biff

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## silence (Nov 22, 2013)

Oh...
My...
God...

Why the HELL COULDN'T I HAVE BEEN A TRUST FUND BABY???

WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## Glider (Nov 23, 2013)

I think you would need two trust funds, one to buy it and another to make it airworthy. Plus maybe a third to learn how to fly it, insure it and run it


----------



## Aozora (Nov 23, 2013)

BiffF15 said:


> Maybe a better way of explaining not following "norms" was experimentation. Tactics manuals are often re-written or updated and often it's due to introducing some new, or tweaking something old.
> 
> BTW I found this on the old www...
> 
> ...



Ahh, loose change...I just happened to find $650,000 down the back of my sofa...(_cue insane laughter_   ) *SIGH*


----------



## wuzak (Nov 23, 2013)

Aozora said:


> Ahh, loose change...I just happened to find $650,000 down the back of my sofa...(_cue insane laughter_   ) *SIGH*



Didn't think _Monopoly_ came with that amount of money!


----------



## silence (Nov 24, 2013)

Glider said:


> I think you would need two trust funds, one to buy it and another to make it airworthy. Plus maybe a third to learn how to fly it, insure it and run it



That works. If you're gonna dream, dream big, eh?


----------



## silence (Nov 24, 2013)

Aozora said:


> Ahh, loose change...I just happened to find $650,000 down the back of my sofa...(_cue insane laughter_   ) *SIGH*



My brother's checking his couch now since I asked for it for Christmas. Cross your fingers for me!!


----------



## bobbysocks (Nov 24, 2013)

you could always phone a psychic and get the winning lottery numbers for tomorrow.....

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## parsifal (Nov 24, 2013)

Knowing my luck it would Bolivian dollars or something


----------



## silence (Nov 25, 2013)

I'd get sand dollars...


----------



## BiffF15 (Dec 2, 2013)

Gents,

I've recently finished two books (one today) that might be of interest. The first is called, "The Men Who Killed The Luftwaffe", by Lt Col (Ret'd) Jay Stout, and "My Logbook", by Gunther Rall. 

The first is an excellent book on the big picture of who, what, when, and how the air war (particularly over Europe) was planned and executed. Well written! The second I just finished today and it's also an excellent book. His recall / diary of information is excellent, to include names, types, models, etc. He does get to fly all the leading Allied fighters (P-38, Spit, P-47 P-51 alongside a Fw-190D) prior to the end of the war. He was impressed with cockpit size, heat, quality of the Allied A/C as well as the performance of the longnosed Fw. It starts slow, but is a very good story.

Cheers,
Biff


----------



## bobbysocks (Dec 3, 2013)

holy crap...how much did you spend on "my logbook"?? i was looking on amazon and its starts at $425.00!!! USED. think i will wait for the "E" edition...lol


----------



## Procrastintor (Dec 3, 2013)

$425 for a used book? Anyone want to just type it here? XD (I was kidding, but if you did I'd read it. Just saying)


----------



## BiffF15 (Dec 3, 2013)

bobbysocks said:


> holy crap...how much did you spend on "my logbook"?? i was looking on amazon and its starts at $425.00!!! USED. think i will wait for the "E" edition...lol



I bought probably 8 or so years ago and paid less than a hundred for it and it's signed by the man himself. 

Cheers,
Biff

PS. Good to see something I bought as gained some value!


----------



## bobbysocks (Dec 4, 2013)

anything i found that is signed is $600 and upwards. a really nice keep sake. might help put one of your kids through college someday...or be a treasure you pass down to one of them.


----------



## awack34 (Dec 9, 2013)

I haven't read all of the post since my last post, but other than the Ta 152H, (which I feel is the superior fighter but what, it only shot down at most 11 aircraft while the spitfire XIV shot down 190 AC)) was there a production piston engine fighter that saw combat that was as good or even superior to the Spit XIV, im curious, because I cant think of any, of course it is my second favorite fighter of the war behind the Me 262.


----------



## BiffF15 (Dec 9, 2013)

Awack34,
If you puruse the previous postings there has been some excellent debate done that might answer your questions!
Cheers,
Biff


----------



## spicmart (May 13, 2014)

Some time ago Tomo stated that the Spitfire XIV and Tempest etc. would eat the Fw 190D-9 "for breakfast" whereas almost every source that I read so far (many on this forum) mentioned 
at least parity of the latter compared to the formers. 

Also in polls here on the board the Dora got very high points, often higher than some of its allied contemporaries. I don't know if these can be seen as exemplary.

So why such contradictory statements? 

I asked this before but the responses were not very clear.

Maybe some of you can enlighten now.


----------



## pbehn (May 13, 2014)

spitfire pulls the tottie, end of story


----------



## spicmart (May 13, 2014)

great answer


----------



## drgondog (May 13, 2014)

bobbysocks said:


> holy crap...how much did you spend on "my logbook"?? i was looking on amazon and its starts at $425.00!!! USED. think i will wait for the "E" edition...lol



I have autographed copies of both "Logbook" and "Gunther Rall" - wonder what They are worth?


----------



## bobbysocks (May 13, 2014)

drgondog said:


> I have autographed copies of both "Logbook" and "Gunther Rall" - wonder what They are worth?



i would not even venture a guess but what ever they are worth now...will only appreciate. i would make sure they are kept safe and preserved.


----------



## airminded88 (May 13, 2014)

Bought and read 'The men who killed the LW' a couple of years ago, very informative and well written book... Then, the former girlfriend borrowed it because she wanted to 'take a look at it', I broke up with her, moved away overnight and took the book with her and never even got past the first chapter... so yeah, think twice before lending your books to people that don't realize the valuable items they have in their hands.

I specially appreciated the fact that the author links all AAF campaigns simultaneously, from the early fighting in North Africa all the way through the final battles over central Germany engaging jet fighters.
First hand accounts are gripping.


----------



## nuuumannn (May 14, 2014)

I have an autographed copy of Spitfire; a test pilot's story by Jeffrey Quill - worth quite a bit, I'd imagine.


----------



## Koopernic (May 14, 2014)

spicmart said:


> Some time ago Tomo stated that the Spitfire XIV and Tempest etc. would eat the Fw 190D-9 "for breakfast" whereas almost every source that I read so far (many on this forum) mentioned
> at least parity of the latter compared to the formers.
> 
> Also in polls here on the board the Dora got very high points, often higher than some of its allied contemporaries. I don't know if these can be seen as exemplary.
> ...



The Fw 190D9 was a Fw 190A9 with the BMW801TS radial engine replaced by the Jumo 213A inverted V12. A small plug was inserted near the empenage to lengthen the tail moment arm so as to compensate for the longer nose and the C of G and pressure chances it caused. It was a simple 20cm extension.

The basic Jumo 213A only had 1750hp, actually less than the BMW801TS. However it did have a small inter-cooler which helped achieve slightly better high altitude performance. It also went through three field upgrades of emergency 'boost' 

Upgrade 1: rich mixture injection of 87 octane fuel into the eye of the supercharger to precool the mixture. This took the engine to 1900hp.
Upgrade 2: MW50 injection, the "Oldenburg" system in which Methanol-Water MW50 was blown into the supercharger compressor by pressurizing the MW50 tank using air from the supercharger. 
This system was fitted by Luftwaffe service crew, the "blackbirds". Mostly fitted out by December 1944.
Upgrade 3: MW50 high flow injection using a pump driven system, this system was fitted in the field by Junkers personnel around Jan 45.

Hence Fw 190D9 performance trial range in speed from 398mph to 437mph at full throttle height.

In addition there were also allowable boost to 2 or more ata increases from other improvements and improvements to the engine seal gap.

Remember when comparing speeds of aircraft that some aircraft, those with two speed instead of single speed superchargers and those with two stage superchargers only have a superior speed at high altitude.
One must consider altitude when comparing 'which is better' scenarios.

In the case of the Fw 190D9, it was powered by the Jumo 213A a single stage two speed supercharger engine that gave it an advantage over the tempest at medium altitude. The Jumo 213A however was a bomber engine being recycled from Ju 188 production.

The definitive D series was really the Fw 190D-13 which had the Jumo 213F engine. The "F" had a better propeller, it had mountings for a propeller hub 20mm gun (which allowed the draggy synchronized cowling guns to be deleted) more importantly it had a two stage three speed supercharger and all of the boost systems preinstalled. A few did get delivered and flown. The D12 merely used a 30mm prop hub gun.

This version was good for 452 mph.

The Jumo 213F had been created from the Jumo 213E (used on the Ta 152) by deleting the large inter-cooler and using higher octane C3 fuel. The Jumo 213A had an intercooler but the one on the Jumo 213F was either too small or absent. An engine called the Jumo 213EB added an small intercooler and some minor mods to the valve size. This powerful engine was to be added to the Fw 190D13/*R25* and was expected to achieve 478mph at critical altitude and 393mph at sea level. It was slated for delivery in April. The "*R25*" term indicates this is a field *R*etrofit. I.E. it could be fitted to existing Fw 190D13 by Luftwaffe field technicians. This speed is the same as a P-51H.

Fw 190D9 did achieve over 387mph at sea level simply using 2.0 ata boost but don't know if this was used in service. The Jumo 213 with two stage x 3 speed supercharger did improve high altitude capability.

The Fock-Wulf 190D9 with the single stage supercharger, in typical squadron condition in December 1944 with MW50 could do 370mph. It would have been slightly faster than most P-47D/M/N at sea level. It was however slower than the Tempest V and P-51 when those aircraft were using 100/150 though it was faster at altitude than the Tempest V though slower than the P-47 and P-51 with 100/150. It was slightly faster, 10mph, than the Spitfire XIV at 18psig at low altitude though would have been slower if the Spitfire XIV was using 25psig (which it couldn't have been till March 1945 I believe)

The Focke-Wulf 190, like the P-47, didn't have laminar flow wings, so it was at a disadvantage in thick air where drag was paramount. However getting over 400mph at sea level seems quite difficult even for the laminar flow wings of the P-51 and Tempest and the speed gap was small.

The EB engine would likely have made it to the Ta 152, which being heavier and bigger lost about 10mph at low altitude. However the big, efficient high aspect ratio wings had 3 degrees of washout and it's said the aircraft was controllable in the stall due to this and had a very good turning circle.

The Fw 190D9 was flown by US pilots who reported it had a gentle controllable stall with plenty of warning with power on though regarded as lacking in turning circle. Probably wing loading was too high. There was an enlarged wing planed for the Fw 190A series with the Fw 190A-10 and it could have been fitted to the D series but it just makes more sense to go with the Ta 152 series which has already increased wing size.

Beyond the Jumo 213EB there was the Jumo 213J which was benching over 2600hp, I believe it was taken to Rolls-Royce and exceeded the Griffon in RPM and power.

It seems the Germans fell behind in engine performance from mid 1942 when the Merlin 61 came in. They started closing the gap from early 1944 when the Db605ASM engine came in as well as boosted versions of the BMW801 and probably closed the gap by early 1945 maybe even beating allied engine makers in some ways though they seldom deployed in numbers.

In May 1942 the Me 309 was flown with a Laminar flow wing. It did achieve a spectacular speed of 462mph though its maneuverability was said to be disappointing compared to the Me 109. This I assume was either an power to weight ratio issue or caused by too small a wing.

A redesign probably would have fixed any issues and allowed deployment two years latter, same time as the Tempest V but but by this time Milch was betting on the jet engine. He is on record as saying that Germany would loose the war if Me 262 did not enter service in 1943.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## tomo pauk (May 14, 2014)

Koopernic said:


> The Fw 190D9 was a Fw 190A9 with the BMW801TS radial engine replaced by the Jumo 213A inverted V12. A small plug was inserted near the empenage to lengthen the tail moment arm so as to compensate for the longer nose and the C of G and pressure chances it caused. It was a simple 20cm extension.



The extension was 50 cm long, per Rodeike's book, pg. 378.



> The basic Jumo 213A only had 1750hp, actually less than the BMW801TS. However it did have a small inter-cooler which helped achieve slightly better high altitude performance.



There was no intercooler in the Jumo 213A installation. The better high altitude performance, D-9 vs A-8/A-9 was due to several reasons: less engine/cooling drag, better use of ram through external intake, availability of greater ammount of exhaust thrust. Having two cannons less compensated for increased drag of the external intake.



> It also went through three field upgrades of emergency 'boost'
> Upgrade 1: rich mixture injection of 87 octane fuel into the eye of the supercharger to precool the mixture. This took the engine to 1900hp.



Naming those upgrades as 'filed upgrades' is a bit misleading. Rodeike states that those upgrades were undertaken by the TAM (Techinsche Aussendiens/Motorenbau) 'organzation'. The chages were noted as 'Rustsatze', and indeed many of the changes were undertaken in the field, ie. in the air bases.
Same source (pg. 379) states that 1900 PS was achieved though simple overboosting, not the fuel injection in the supercharger('1900 PS durch die *Ladedruckerhoheung* festgelegt').
Hopefully someone might shed some light to what the TAM really was, and how it functioned?



> In addition there were also allowable boost to 2 or more ata increases from other improvements and improvements to the engine seal gap.



Agreed. 2.02 ata was achieved through use of MW-50.



> Remember when comparing speeds of aircraft that some aircraft, those with two speed instead of single speed superchargers and those with two stage superchargers only have a superior speed at high altitude.
> One must consider altitude when comparing 'which is better' scenarios.
> 
> In the case of the Fw 190D9, it was powered by the Jumo 213A a single stage two speed supercharger engine that gave it an advantage over the tempest at medium altitude. The Jumo 213A however was a bomber engine being recycled from Ju 188 production.



The Sabre in Typhoon/Tempest was outfitted with single stage, two speed supercharger. At 12-17000 ft, the D-9 was a bit faster, under and above that altitude belt the Tempest was faster.



> The Jumo 213F had been created from the Jumo 213E (used on the Ta 152) by deleting the large inter-cooler and using higher octane C3 fuel. The Jumo 213A had an intercooler but the one on the Jumo 213F was either too small or absent. An engine called the Jumo 213EB added an small intercooler and some minor mods to the valve size. This powerful engine was to be added to the Fw 190D13/*R25* and was expected to achieve 478mph at critical altitude and 393mph at sea level. It was slated for delivery in April. The "*R25*" term indicates this is a field *R*etrofit. I.E. it could be fitted to existing Fw 190D13 by Luftwaffe field technicians. This speed is the same as a P-51H.



Again, the Jumo 213A did not have an intercooler, and it was also not used on the 213F. 
Even the best prop-driven aircraft were 'hitting the wall' above 470-480 mph.



> The Focke-Wulf 190, like the P-47, didn't have laminar flow wings, so it was at a disadvantage in thick air where drag was paramount. However getting over 400mph at sea level seems quite difficult even for the laminar flow wings of the P-51 and Tempest and the speed gap was small.



Benefit of the Fw was that it was, compared with those allied fighters, quite a small aircraft. It would be fast even on moderate engine power, let alone once 2000 PS+ was available.



> It seems the Germans fell behind in engine performance from mid 1942 when the Merlin 61 came in. They started closing the gap from early 1944 when the Db605ASM engine came in as well as boosted versions of the BMW801 and probably closed the gap by early 1945 maybe even beating allied engine makers in some ways though they seldom deployed in numbers.



German engines were in disadvantage above 20000 ft (even with their big displacement, high compression ratio engines, that were turning decent RPM) once Allies started introducing 2-stage engines. No matter how much the BMW-801 was boosted, it won't help it above 20000 ft. The DB-605AS with a big supercharger was a step forward, even if it was too late, the ASM still a bit later in service. The 605L (with two stage S/C) was still managing some 300 PS more at 10 km vs. the 605D, but the 605L was a really late comer.
Sticking great loads of armament and armor to the Fw-190 will certainly not make it a performer, either. 



> A redesign probably would have fixed any issues and allowed deployment two years latter, same time as the Tempest V but but by this time Milch was betting on the jet engine. He is on record as saying that Germany would loose the war if Me 262 did not enter service in 1943.



Germany lost the war once they declared war on the US, while being in the same time in war with UK and USSR.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## spicmart (May 14, 2014)

Thanks for clarification.


----------



## Bad-Karma (Jan 15, 2015)

Hate to bump such an old thread but I was curious if anybody continued trying to do the actual calculations Drgondog and Soren were working on. I know Soren is now banned an Drgondog wasn't really interested in the time it would take but curious if anything changed in the few years this thread has been running haha.


----------



## drgondog (Jan 17, 2015)

I actually piddled in establishing a spreadsheet but the lack of source documents (in my hands) to get the following was unsuccessful. I felt like I needed, by airframe
1.) Form drag data based on AoA to see what was happening as aircraft entered a sustained turn at speeds higher than they could achieve for max turn rate for zero loss in altitude.
2.) Propeller Efficiencies (actual calcs that would be more suitable than 'assume .85') as well as different engine thrust expectations as a function of boost and HP for the respective fighters and models.
3.) Some insight to the actual contributions of LE slats on the Bf 109 in a high G bank. Whatever it is, it certainly is not the high CLmax Soren was touting, nor can one extrapolate CLmax calculated for level flight/clean stall conditions.

These factors, IMO, are necessary - at least to evaluate order of magnitude influence - to derive

A. Thrust of the engine at speeds well below Vmax - in ranges not optimized for the Propeller.
For the Exhaust contribution to THAT 'thrust system' at HPmax, Horner, for example uses .11 to .13 of Propeller Thrust as a 'place to start'. That difference between 11 and 13% is actually a lot of thrust to offset drag in the low end ranges of speed.

B. Contribution of Form Drag and Trim Drag to Zero Lift Parasite Drag (CDo in our discussions) and Induced Drag. The first two components of Drag may be as significant as CDo in the 200mph range.

The Drag side of the equation is crucial for setting the Free Body Equations properly to solve for Thrust = Drag along the velocity profile of entering a turn, pulling G's with ailerons, rudder and elevator forces until achieving equilibrium of highest G load, fastest turn rate and stable altitude.

My issues with Soren is that he appeared to be 'playing' with the V-n equations at the Manuever Point of Max V at Max G at Max CL. This is NOT a sustainable velocity or Lift Coefficient for a reciprocal engine powered aircraft at the ragged edge of stall and structural failure while sustaining enough energy to maintain altitude. 

F-16 yes; Bf 109 (or Spit or P-51) NO. So the challenge is that once reliable data is in hand, the solution is iterative as the velocity profile slices through 'excess energy state' to 'equilibrium state' to enable final turn velocity and turn rate and bank angle.


----------



## spicmart (Jan 17, 2015)

tomo pauk said:


> The extension was 50 cm long, per Rodeike's book, pg. 378.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Tomo, so why you said that those allied fighters could eat a D-9 for breakfast?


----------



## GregP (Jan 18, 2015)

Het Bill,

Your post 1013 is pretty darned well said.

I tried to come up with some performance estimates myself and ran smack dab into a general lack of data, too. Almost all of the data I have on WWII planes is not of the technical variety, and the technical data I have are very incomplete.

I've seen the estimated CL of the slatted portion of the Bf 109 wing in the past, but have yet to see any data on the much larger non-slatted portions at the same AOA and general data points. So there ARE data, but most are very incomplete and are not at the same points.

I came to the conclusion that unless you could collect the aerodynamic data for all the major WWII participant aircraft, any analysis would be so incomplete as to be a waste of time since all you can do is make calculations about small parts of a plane in very specific conditions that do not match one another.

Frustrating, to say the least.

Even here in the U.S.A., not all the manufacturers specified the data at the same points or same power and rpm conditions. That usually makes comparions a bit of of an "I say / you say" thing taht has no real answer. I have great data, such as the standard wing area, power, weight, etc., but without CL / CD / CDO and many other data points estimation is fraught with assumptions. 

Wish we could find all that stuff! If we DO, I volunteer to help catalogue it and help with the analysis.


----------



## tomo pauk (Jan 18, 2015)

spicmart said:


> Some time ago Tomo stated that the Spitfire XIV and Tempest etc. would eat the Fw 190D-9 "for breakfast" whereas almost every source that I read so far (many on this forum) mentioned
> at least parity of the latter compared to the formers.
> 
> Also in polls here on the board the Dora got very high points, often higher than some of its allied contemporaries. I don't know if these can be seen as exemplary.
> ...



Sorry for not replying to your question earlier.
Part of the reason I've made such statement was to stir the pot, since I didn't agreed that D-9 was a proper answer to the Merlin Mustang and P-47 from the same era, as it was often suggested by the proponents of the D-9. So maybe I've gone a bit overboard with 'eating for breakfast', but at least Spitfire XIV should have no problems with Fw-190D-9.


----------



## cimmex (Jan 18, 2015)

tomo pauk said:


> , but at least Spitfire XIV should have no problems with Fw-190D-9.


Well, that differs to Clostermann’s statements in his books. I’m aware that there is a lot of phantasy in his books but he knows Tempest and Spitfires and fought against D-9s and he rated the D-9 higher than any allied aircraft except the Tempest.


----------



## Milosh (Jan 18, 2015)

25lb boost Griffons were not cleared for this boost till after the war. 21lb boost was cleared for use during the war.

Beamont says that 415 mph IAS was achieved in mid 1944 at 500' in the Tempest V.


----------



## dedalos (Jan 18, 2015)

spicmart said:


> Tomo, so why you said that those allied fighters could eat a D-9 for breakfast?



The Fw 190 with in Line V12s, had the potentional to be more than equal for the allied fighters. However because of the war conditions several compromises were made that crippled the final result that went in production, as D-9. The compromises were

1) request to use B4 fuel, i remind that the Fw190A used C3 for almost all its career
2) quality of Construction (due to lack of skilled technicians, lack of Materials eg rubber to seal the engine gap, demand for gast production)
3) demand for very,very easy production. This resulted in design choises that added weight. eg the demand to deliver the engine as a complete power egg added weight, which in turned requested the extention of the rear fuselage which again increased weight
4)use of engines initially intended for bombers. Thus instead of a Motor cannon had druggy nose mgs with their heavy synchronization gear
5) lack of 2 stage superchargers, delayed beyond any hope again for production purposes
6)in order not to disturb production the same wing was retained. So the result was very High wing loading . By the time they decided that enough was enough and introduced new wings for the 190 family was far too late. For the same reson other improvements were not made eg fully retractable tail Wheel, lighter 20 mm guns etc
7) request for heavy armor and sophisticated radio equipment. Things nice to have but in combination with the weak engine the performance suffered

Because of the above reasons , i would agree with Tomo Pauk ,that the average D9 was generaly inferior to the 1945 anglosaxon fighters.
However when a D13 flew against a tempest post war proved decently competitive

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## drgondog (Jan 18, 2015)

GregP said:


> Het Bill,
> 
> Your post 1013 is pretty darned well said.
> 
> ...



Basis CDo and CL for a postulated bank angle and Velocity are pretty straight forward but Thrust which is absolutely required to be accurate for modeling is suspect for the reasons I posted earlier. Ditto Drag when the airframe is at high AoA and Form Drag due to lift for the wing/body system becomes important - IMO even moreso than Trim Drag of the empennage.


----------



## Juha (Jan 18, 2015)

I'd say that Spit Mk XIV was clearly superior over 190D-9 above 6000m but lower down they were more equally matched, there D-9 tended to be slightly faster but XIV climbed better. And D-9 rolled better, which was more important than that XIV turned better. I'm not sure how familiar Closterman was to XIV and anyway D-9 looked clearly better in his books than in his war-time combat reports and sqn ORBs.

Juha


----------



## tomo pauk (Jan 18, 2015)

dedalos said:


> The Fw 190 with in Line V12s, had the potentional to be more than equal for the allied fighters. However because of the war conditions several compromises were made that crippled the final result that went in production, as D-9. The compromises were
> 
> 1) request to use B4 fuel, i remind that the Fw190A used C3 for almost all its career
> 2) quality of Construction (due to lack of skilled technicians, lack of Materials eg rubber to seal the engine gap, demand for gast production)
> ...



All good points. The timely introduction of 2-stage superchargers was maybe the greatest thing LW fighters lacked in 1944 (apart from plenty fuel and trained pilots).
Non-introduction of the DB 603A in the Fw-190 airframe might also be counted as a major mistake. A decent force of, we can call them 'Fw-190C's, was well within scope of the German war industry for the late 1943 (when the DB 603A is more or less debugged). The DB 603 (vs. the 'stock' BMW 801D) was offering less drag, greater power exhaust thrust at high altitudes, decreased consumption, better intake scoop (= better power at hi-alt), but I'm sure people know that already. Fuel was B4, another plus. Can use MW 50 system.
It also allowed for motor-cannon, so one can have a very useful bomber destroyer with MK 108 installed. The MK 108 as motor-cannon was indeed less draggy affair than twin MG 131s under cowling, when comparing drag data for the D-9 vs. D-12 or Ta-152H. 

With that said, a major shortcoming of the D-9 was timing. Too late to matter, even jets were earlier in the combat.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jan 18, 2015)

The two stage superchargers are not magic. You need either good fuel, good inter-coolers or _LOTS_ of MW50/water injection (or 2 out of 3) to get them to work. 
P-38s were limited in power in the 20,000ft range even with 100/130 fuel due to poor intercoolers until the J model. Even the D and E were having problems trying to make 1150hp. The Turbo would deliver the pressure but the intake temperature was too high after the small inter-cooler. At 25,000ft you have to compress the air about 2.7 times just to reach sea level pressure. This raises the temperature of the intake air by hundreds of degrees. 

Now you have to balance that against what the Germans _wanted_ which was to get _away_ from having to use C3 fuel. Initial planning being 1 to 2 years away from start of combat. A new refining process might have given them much more C3 fuel or some other factor might have changed things but it was NOT the smart way to bet.


----------



## dedalos (Jan 18, 2015)

t


tomo pauk said:


> All good points. The timely introduction of 2-stage superchargers was maybe the greatest thing LW fighters lacked in 1944 (apart from plenty fuel and trained pilots).
> Non-introduction of the DB 603A in the Fw-190 airframe might also be counted as a major mistake. A decent force of, we can call them 'Fw-190C's, was well within scope of the German war industry for the late 1943 (when the DB 603A is more or less debugged). The DB 603 (vs. the 'stock' BMW 801D) was offering less drag, greater power exhaust thrust at high altitudes, decreased consumption, better intake scoop (= better power at hi-alt), but I'm sure people know that already. Fuel was B4, another plus. Can use MW 50 system.
> It also allowed for motor-cannon, so one can have a very useful bomber destroyer with MK 108 installed. The MK 108 as motor-cannon was indeed less draggy affair than twin MG 131s under cowling, when comparing drag data for the D-9 vs. D-12 or Ta-152H.
> 
> With that said, a major shortcoming of the D-9 was timing. Too late to matter, even jets were earlier in the combat.


I fully agree with this post.






This aircraft should be the next step after the A series. The Fw190c . A DB 603 engine installed to the standart 190 airframe. No extentions, nothing. With 3 20 mm guns could have a normal take off weight of 4000kgr or even less. Prototypes V13 and V15 flew very well in this configuration. And could be in service by late 1943
It s beyond Logic that RLM rejected this proposal, and used the limited DB 603 numbers for the ... Me 410!


----------



## Denniss (Jan 18, 2015)

A Fw 190C without pressurized cockpit and turbocharger may have worked but it had one problem - the DB 603. Even by 1943 it had reliability problems and production was by far too low for a high volume production aircraft.


----------



## tomo pauk (Jan 18, 2015)

Indeed, the reliability problems surfaced during 1943; mostly, if not all cured by later that year? 
The Me 410 production used ~2400 engines (plus spares), that would be much more than whole V-12 powered Fw-190 derivatives used up.



Shortround6 said:


> The two stage superchargers are not magic. You need either good fuel, good inter-coolers or _LOTS_ of MW50/water injection (or 2 out of 3) to get them to work.
> P-38s were limited in power in the 20,000ft range even with 100/130 fuel due to poor intercoolers until the J model. Even the D and E were having problems trying to make 1150hp. The Turbo would deliver the pressure but the intake temperature was too high after the small inter-cooler. At 25,000ft you have to compress the air about 2.7 times just to reach sea level pressure. This raises the temperature of the intake air by hundreds of degrees.
> 
> Now you have to balance that against what the Germans _wanted_ which was to get _away_ from having to use C3 fuel. Initial planning being 1 to 2 years away from start of combat. A new refining process might have given them much more C3 fuel or some other factor might have changed things but it was NOT the smart way to bet.



All good points.
We can recall that DB 628, one of 1st DB 2-stage engines, used intercooler (air-to-air), that was located under engine, being fed with compressed air from engine-stage compressor. Between 1st stage and engine-stage there was no intercooler.
The DB 605L was using C3 fuel, the MW 50 was used both for Notleistung (2800 rpm, 1.75 ata = 1350 PS at 9.6 km) and Kampfleistung (2600 rpm, 1.43 ata = 1150 PS at 9.6 km); consumption 150 L/h and 75 L/H of MW 50 mixture respectively.


----------



## spicmart (Jan 18, 2015)

Why would a power egg weigh more?
What would approximately be the weight of such a synchronization gear?
The high wing loading seemed common with german aircraft the whole war through if one sees the wing dimensions compared to their allied counterparts being smaller while having comparable weight. This includes new/drawing board designs. If the wing loading would have been such a problem then the much heavier Ta 152C should have gotten a much larger wing than it actually got. Its wing area was just 1,2 square meters larger than the D-9's while almost being a ton heavier.
The D-13 did not have much more performance than the D-9 at low/medium altitudes iirc. I have some charts where one can see it but most the books are stored elsewhere as I just moved.
Some sources say that it trounced the Tempest in that mock combat though. 
There were 1945 Doras that had enough power. Maybe those were the exception.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## spicmart (Jan 20, 2015)

With a power egg an annular/drum radiator is attached in front of an engine. According to a british test this kind of installation has less drag than other types, including leading edge radiators. Only the Mustangs cooling system is more effective in terms of thrust/drag.
Albeit the german ones had hinged gills and not sliding gills with the former getting a drag increase as the gills open.
The "Junkers radiator nose" should reduce this when replacing the normal radiator of the Doras that were not sufficient.

C&P:

davebender: Also makes the aircraft more damage resistant. Engine block protects radiator from rear shots and coolant lines are very short. Hits in wing or fuselage (except engine compartment) will not cause a coolant leak. 

razor1uk: Also with the annular rad' cooled power egg, less coolant pipework and hence coolant; lowering the 'wet' installed 'ready to use' weight further than those installations that didn't have nose mounted cooling.


----------



## wuzak (Jan 21, 2015)

spicmart said:


> With a power egg an annular/drum radiator is attached in front of an engine. According to a british test this kind of installation has less drag than other types, including leading edge radiators. Only the Mustangs cooling system is more effective in terms of thrust/drag.
> Albeit the german ones had hinged gills and not sliding gills with the former getting a drag increase as the gills open.
> The "Junkers radiator nose" should reduce this when replacing the normal radiator of the Doras that were not sufficient.



The British tests you speak of may be the ones carroed out by Napiers. Their annular radiator was quite different to the ones used by the Germans.

The German ones basically had the radiator wrapped around the prop shaft, but otherwise in the same orientation to the direction of flight of most radiators. Air flow was controlled by cowl flaps, like in radials.

The Napier system was different.






It also used a cowl ring to control air flow, similar to what the BMW 801 had in some versions.


----------



## wuzak (Jan 21, 2015)

Having said that, the Tempest I with the leading edge radiators was as fast as the Tempest VI fitted with the annular radiator, despit being several years earlier and probably having less power.


----------



## tomo pauk (Jan 21, 2015)

The power egg, as the DB 603 was in offering, was probably the best way for the Fw-190 to 'go inline'. As spicmart noted, the weight of coolant system and it's vulnerability are cut to the smallest amount.


----------



## spicmart (Jan 21, 2015)

wuzak said:


> The British tests you speak of may be the ones carroed out by Napiers. Their annular radiator was quite different to the ones used by the Germans.
> 
> The German ones basically had the radiator wrapped around the prop shaft, but otherwise in the same orientation to the direction of flight of most radiators. Air flow was controlled by cowl flaps, like in radials.
> 
> ...




The normal/early radiator were annular. The later ones were of drum shape. Apparently those were more effective (more cooling area?). It also had less drag. The Napier's looks like a drum type. I guess the cowl ring is the sliding gills?


----------

