# The Pilot Factor



## stona (Feb 6, 2015)

Time and time again we see this most important single factor in the performance of any aircraft ignored in discussions.

Everyone knows that a Spitfire I can out turn a Bf 109 E and that the Messerschmitt pilot would be ill advised to fight in the horizontal, right?

Well, for the two aircraft flown at their limits by experienced pilots this is probably true, but most aircraft were not flown in combat at these limits, nor were they flown by pilots who could do this. 

Erwin Leykauf would beg to differ. On the Bf 109 vs Spitfire duel of 1940 he wrote:

_"Indeed many fresh young [Luftwaffe] pilots thought they were pulling very tight turns even when the slots [slats] were still closed against the wing. For us, the more experienced pilots, manoeuvring only started when the slots were out. For this reason it is possible to find pilots from that period (1940) who will tell you that the Spitfire turned better than the Bf 109. That is not true. I myself had many dogfights with Spitfires and I could always out turn them." _

Leykauf may well have been turning with Spitfire pilots who were not pushing their aircraft to the limit. He had developed a sophisticated technique to turn his Bf 109 inside a Spitfire.

_"One had to enter the turn correctly, then open up the engine. It was a matter of feel. When one noticed the speed becoming critical-the aircraft vibrated-one had to ease up a bit, then pull back again, so that in plan the best turn would have looked like an egg or a horizontal ellipse rather than a circle. In this way one could out turn the Spitfire and I shot down six of them doing it." _

Just saying 

Cheers

Steve

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Feb 6, 2015)

Very good (and I agree: overlooked) point!


----------



## GregP (Feb 6, 2015)

I think most books that say the Spitfire could out-turn the Bf 109 were written by people looking at flight reports of Allied pilots who flew the Bf 109 a few times and made the report. There is a BIG difference between a pilot flying a combat plane for the first few times and one who had flown it enough to be familiar with the aircraft.

I have also seen reports of German pilots who said they could turn with a Spitrfire easily.

Likely the real story is as above. That is, the ability to turn tightly was probably tied to pilot experience rather than initial impressions of a test pilot flying a plane for the first few times.

You posted a pretty good thing to think about there, Steve.


----------



## parsifal (Feb 6, 2015)

Pilots make the difference. I think that is best shown on the eastern front. By 1944, it is very arguable that the performance of the Soviet aircraft outshone their luftwaffe opponents. im not talking the handful of uber a/c that were deployed....its the mainstream aircraft. An La-9 or a Yak-3 should have been able to defeat most of the garden variety LW fighters, but they still had trouble, even in 1944. The difference in my opinion was the quality of the aircrew. Most Soviet pilots were never better than fair to middling.

For the BoB, I still think that given two pilots of equal experience, the Spit can out turn the 109 in the horizontal. they often didnt however, because of the lack of experience for many RAF pilots.

Ive seen it stated that most pilots are simply padding and cannon fodder. Most of the lethal work is done by perhaps 20% of the pilots. the padding is there to protect these vital assets but they generally dont shoot many enemy down.


----------



## pbehn (Feb 6, 2015)

stona said:


> Time and time again we see this most important single factor in the performance of any aircraft ignored in discussions.
> 
> Everyone knows that a Spitfire I can out turn a Bf 109 E and that the Messerschmitt pilot would be ill advised to fight in the horizontal, right?
> 
> ...




I am not a pilot but shooting down a plane in a tight turn is done by the pilot, for one plane to out turn the other one of them would stall out wouldn't they? From what I have read here the ability of a plane to sustain a high G turn depends on the power available as much as the aerodynamics. If that is the case it depends completely on which spitfire and which Bf109. German BoB pilots were always shot down by spitfires (so the legend goes) and so they presumably always shot them down too?

I saw one veteran Typhoon pilot on TV recounting a chase of a Fw190 at sea level. The Fw190 went into a power on stall and hit the sea, that I would say is out turning.
If someone is getting a lead on you and you cant turn harder surely you must try something else?


----------



## stona (Feb 6, 2015)

parsifal said:


> Most of the lethal work is done by perhaps 20% of the pilots.



It's worse than that! In the BoB 221 of the Luftwaffe aircraft shot down in aerial combat were credited to just 17 pilots.

Cheers

Steve


----------



## stona (Feb 6, 2015)

pbehn said:


> I am not a pilot but shooting down a plane in a tight turn is done by the pilot, for one plane to out turn the other one of them would stall out wouldn't they?



Aerodynamically the Spitfire I should be able to turn tighter than a Bf 109 E at similar altitudes and speeds. My point is that this was not always the case and that is down to the man at the controls.

For a pursuing pilot to make a deflection shot on a turning target he has to pull his nose inside the other aircraft's turn.

Cheers

Steve


----------



## pbehn (Feb 6, 2015)

stona said:


> Aerodynamically the Spitfire I should be able to turn tighter than a Bf 109 E at similar altitudes and speeds. My point is that this was not always the case and that is down to the man at the controls.
> 
> For a pursuing pilot to make a deflection shot on a turning target he has to pull his nose inside the other aircraft's turn.
> 
> ...


That is for an instantaneous turn, for a sustained turn in the horizontal plane power is required or speed bleeds off, turning rate is similar to climb rate in this situation, the higher powered AC will maintain the turn longer. This isnt what I "know" it is what I read here posted by a pilot (GregP I think)


----------



## stona (Feb 6, 2015)

pbehn said:


> for a sustained turn in the horizontal plane power is required or speed bleeds off, turning rate is similar to climb rate in this situation, the higher powered AC will maintain the turn longer.



It depends on many factors apart from power.

Cheers

Steve


----------



## eagledad (Feb 6, 2015)

Agreed that pilots make the difference, in fact many times the decisive factor in my opinion. The following is from a test by the British between a Spitfire I, Hurricane I and a captured Bf-109E:

“When the BF-109 was following the Hurricane or Spitfire, it was found that the British aircraft turned inside the Bf-109 without difficulty when flown by determined pilots who were not afraid to pull their aircraft round hard in a tight turn. In a surprisingly large number of cases, however, the Bf-109 succeeded in keeping on the tail of the Spitfire or Hurricane during these turning tests, _merely because pilots would not tighten up the turn sufficiently from fear of stalling and spinning_.“ – Augsburg Eagle, William Green page 48.

So though a Hurricane I or Spitfire I can turn inside a Bf-109E without difficulty, it took a determined or well trained pilot to accomplish it, assuming that the Bf-109E was flown by a pilot of similar skills.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Feb 6, 2015)

When an experienced pilot knows the nuances of his aircraft, pushing it to the limits and pulling every last bit of performance out of it becomes second nature.

You take that experience and pit it against an adversary who does not know his own machine well enough (even if it's a superior aircraft), and experience will dominate the encounter.


----------



## Shortround6 (Feb 6, 2015)

The Spitfire could out turn the 109. The question is could the pilots.

the 109 had the 'advantage' of the pilots legs sticking out in front instead of the more normal seated in a chair posture of the British pilots.

If you are flying even _near_ the limit you are pulling 4-6 "G"s and graying out or suffering vision problems. The German seating position delayed things a bit.
Early Spitfires had overly sensitive elevators ( too powerful) and if you are fighting a 4+ G turn modulating the elevator input (stick pull back) might be a bit hard for a novice pilot. If you over do it you black out and the plane stalls while banked at over 70 degrees (perhaps over 80) with a inverted spin being a possible result, how soon does the pilot "wake up"? The Spitfire did have a gentle stall and gave warning when near the stall but a pilot had to have the experience at flying near the limit to figure it out. Being shot at the first time you are pulling 4-6Gs and flying near the stall is not good. 
These planes did NOT have G meters so it was experience that told the pilots when they were near the limits. 

Good pilot in either plane can out turn a novice in either plane. 
Many novice pilots would not fly either plane to it's limits.


----------



## pbehn (Feb 6, 2015)

MAny statistics seem to contradict, there are statistics for AC that didn't see who shot them down and statistics for "out turning". If you are a pilot do you know or care if the plane in your sight has seen you. It seems to me tat the statistics for planes downed that didn't see their opponent don't tie in with those for turning battles. Just my opinion.


----------



## GregP (Feb 6, 2015)

When you see gun camera film, the way you know the victim didn't see you is when it appears undamaged before the first hits ... but takes no evasive action until well after the first burst of fire hits. All it means is the pilot was flying along and didn't do anything until he either died or felt the first hits on his plane and had a bit of time to react.

If the enemy is turning hard in the first gun camera shots, then he saw you before combat was joined. Another factor is that a plane that gets ambushed is usually NOT at combat speed, not knowing the combat is imminent. It usually takes awhile to go from ecconomy cruise to combat speed, and the pilot might or might not HAVE awhile before fatal damage is done to him.


----------



## pbehn (Feb 6, 2015)

Thanks GregP, most combats from the BoB didnt have cameras only pilots accounts. The overwhelming impression I have is that most kills on both sides (fighter on fighter) were made by flights being bounced but there are then many stories of turning battles, all pilots seem to be convinced that their mount was the master Hurricane Spitfire or Bf109 they all had the best plane, Nothing against the veterans but I think they started with an advantage.


----------



## GregP (Feb 6, 2015)

I've said this in here before, but we have former WWII pilots make presentations every month on the first Saturday at the planes of Fame. Almost all of them are convinced that their particular mount was the best fighter evcer built. Only once have I asked one of them how many ohter fighters he flew, and the answer was none, he only flew the P-51 in combat.

So ... his P-51 actually WAS the best figher he had ever flown in combat since it was the ONLY one. I'd bet a good chunk of all former combat pilots are in that group ... that is, they only flew what they flew, and it was the best. There are probably only a very few who have experience in combat in multiple platforms.

I could be mistaken here, but I don't think so.


----------



## pbehn (Feb 6, 2015)

GregP said:


> I've said this in here before, but we have former WWII pilots make presentations every month on the first Saturday at the planes of Fame. Almost all of them are convinced that their particular mount was the best fighter evcer built. Only once have I asked one of them how many ohter fighters he flew, and the answer was none, he only flew the P-51 in combat.
> 
> So ... his P-51 actually WAS the best figher he had ever flown in combat since it was the ONLY one. I'd bet a good chunk of all former combat pilots are in that group ... that is, they only flew what they flew, and it was the best. There are probably only a very few who have experience in combat in multiple platforms.
> 
> I could be mistaken here, but I don't think so.



From my limited knowledge there were a surprisingly high number of Polish/Czech pilots who prefered the Hurricane to the Spitfire purely because all the guns were together if they got in close it was game over. So long as their mount was in the game they were confident of getting a shot in they just wanted enough fire power to make the kill. In the UK many pilots swapped between Hurricane Spitfire and then on to P40s Typhoons Tempest Mustang. As you say if they ended up with the last model Spitfire or Tempest..that was the best plane.


----------



## GregP (Feb 6, 2015)

Mostly I was talking about US pilots since that's what we MOSTLY see in Southern California. We HAVE had presentations from British, German,and Jamanese pilots, and the subject never quite came up as the talk was about what it was like being on the side that lost the war and what condition were like in the beginning, in the middle, and as the end closed in. 

The British guys spoke of their experiences, but did not volunteer whether or not any particular aircraft was the best. One of them flew in the BOB and said the the best pilot in the world would get shot down if he flew against very large number of guys who were experienced, but not as good as he was. The problem is that if there is enough opposition that was decent, then they could get above, below, and right at your altitude and more or less overwhelm you with numbers when there is nowhere to run.

It's not so bad when you are matched, say, 8 to 8 ... but 4 on 20 will mean the 4 are going to have a bad time, usually.

The only reason which mount was "the best" canme up in some sessions is because the guys were asked taht question specifically.


----------



## stona (Feb 7, 2015)

I once read an account of an exercise, carried out in 1940, in which six Hurricanes, posing as bombers, would attack an airfield patrolled by Spitfires. It all went wrong when the 'bombers' on seeing the Spitfires approach from their rear turned into the attack in a most un-bomberlike fashion. For the next several minutes the two squadrons chased each other over the English countryside for miles. Eventually they'd all had enough and landed.
The exercise was deemed a failure as nothing was learnt about breaking up bomber formations or airfield defence. It did give the two sets of pilots something to argue about, just as we do today.

Cheers

Steve


----------



## GregP (Feb 7, 2015)

Good story, Steve.

One of our volunteers is a former Dutch Air Force pilot. He flew MEteors, Hunters, F-86Ks, and the F-104. He said that while he was flying Hunters there were some RAF EE Lightbings around and they used to dogfight every chance they got. He said it was great fun for a few minutes and then the Lightnings would break off and glide down to a dead stick landing ... completely out of fuel! He says the Lightning was a very GOOD dogfighter ... but quickly was out of the fight due to fuel.

I once asked a former Lightning pilot who came therough the museum if the Lightning was really a Mach 2.5 fighter.

He scratched his beard for a bit and said, "Toward the fuel you could get to Mach 2.5 if you tried. If youe ever got going Mach 2.5 pointed away from the fuel, you'd never make it back to the fuel!"

Sounds like a fun airplane that was a PHD study in fuel management ...


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 7, 2015)

Great thread guys!

I think many times when we discuss aircraft performance on this site we do miss the "Pilot Factor." We'll split hairs about speed, climb performance and wing loading but many times neglect the fact that some pilots either have or lack the skills or knowledge to fully exploit the performance of their aircraft. Many years ago I was quite fortunate to be introduced to some aerobatic training and applying some of those lessons to basic aerial combat tactics and not only were my skills improved as a civilian pilot, but it was an eye opener to what we are fed about aerial combat by either the media or by authors/ researchers who never even flown an aircraft.


----------



## stona (Feb 7, 2015)

The difference in performance between types, even on the same side could matter. 'Dizzy' Allen, who wrote a very idiosyncratic and opinionated memoir of his time flying Hurricanes in the BoB recalled an effort to assemble a larger formation of squadrons comprising both Spitfires and Hurricanes. Allen's Hurricane squadron took off and climbed with a squadron of Spitfires only to be left, in his words

_ "in a haze of 100 octane petrol fumes, and we were on our own, which is how we preferred it."_

However, once combat was started the opinion of 'Laddie' Lucas may be more pertinent, though he missed the BoB.

_"Subject to height, which was critical, there was not a lot to choose between the Hurricane I, the Spitfire I and the Messerschmitt 109 E *in actual combat*." _

Lucas was a pilot who would have wrung the best out of whatever he was flying. The important point is that the performance differences between the aircraft (marginal in the Spitfire/Bf109) are less important than the relative abilities of the pilots flying them...the pilot factor.


Cheers

Steve


----------



## GregP (Feb 7, 2015)

Interesting thought and one that Ihave shared for a LONG time myself.

And, FlyboyJ, it has LONG frustrated me that the best works in aviation are written by non-pilots. Their lack if knowledge on it becomes obvious as you read the books and see nothing of how the plane flies, and I'm glad someone else beside me is noticing that. I'm SURE we aren't alone here ... inn having noticed that fact.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Feb 7, 2015)

Geoffrey Wellum in a TV interview said he would have preferred a 109 in the BoB. he said the 109 could always dive away and had a slightly higher top speed, it was therefore the 109 pilots choice to fight or not + the 109 had cannon. On the same programme a German ace said he would prefer the Spitfire as it could turn and climb slightly better and so it was easier to stay in the fight escorting the bombers.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## stona (Feb 7, 2015)

pbehn said:


> Geoffrey Wellum in a TV interview said he would have preferred a 109 in the BoB. he said the 109 could always dive away and had a slightly higher top speed, it was therefore the 109 pilots choice to fight or not + the 109 had cannon. On the same programme a German ace said he would prefer the Spitfire as it could turn and climb slightly better and so it was easier to stay in the fight escorting the bombers.



Which illustrates the point nicely 

I've sat in both a Spitfire and a Bf 109 and I think I'd prefer the Spitfire simply on the grounds that whilst the Spitfire was cramped the 109 was ridiculously tight. I'm of average height and I suppose fairly heavily built (front three in Rugby Union, many years ago) and I couldn't put my shoulders square in the 109.
This is an entirely spurious reason to pick any aeroplane, neither was exactly comfortable!

Cheers

Steve


----------



## fastmongrel (Feb 7, 2015)

stona said:


> Which illustrates the point nicely
> 
> I've sat in both a Spitfire and a Bf 109 and I think I'd prefer the Spitfire simply on the grounds that whilst the Spitfire was cramped the 109 was ridiculously tight. I'm of average height and I suppose fairly heavily built (front three in Rugby Union, many years ago) and I couldn't put my shoulders square in the 109.
> This is an entirely spurious reason to pick any aeroplane, neither was exactly comfortable!
> ...



Ex Rugby forward as well though back row usually No6. I have sat in a Hurricane cockpit which fitted me fine, I reckon with a bit of a wriggle I could get in a Spitfire cockpit but would need to have a 109 rivetted up around me. How anyone over about 5'6" flew a 109 is beyond me.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## stona (Feb 7, 2015)

I suppose the serious point in the tight fit of the 109 cockpit was that it made it virtually impossible to look behind, or as much behind as the limited view allowed. 

In the 109 I was seated on a cushion rather than a parachute, but the closed canopy touched the top of my head and it didn't take much for my nose to touch the sides when I turned my head. Unbelievably claustrophobic and something probably not appreciated by allied pilots, particularly of the roomier US types, or modern pilots.

Cheers

Steve


----------



## fastmongrel (Feb 7, 2015)

How did the 109 pilots manage to turn there heads whilst wearing an oxygen mask. I know the LW mask was a smaller profile than the RAF types but still it must have been awkward I wonder why a Spitfire type canopy wasnt tried.


----------



## pbehn (Feb 7, 2015)

fastmongrel said:


> How did the 109 pilots manage to turn there heads whilst wearing an oxygen mask. I know the LW mask was a smaller profile than the RAF types but still it must have been awkward I wonder why a Spitfire type canopy wasnt tried.



I think as a population we are generally taller and more heavily built, todays average German probably wouldnt fit in a 109 at all.. Winkle Brown was small and he thought this was an advantage, some planes went into violent oscillations and its the only reason he could figure how he survived while other pilots didnt. Some have theorised that Baders lack of lower limbs was an advantage when pulling high "G"s. Both could be sound theories or complete BS.


----------



## stona (Feb 7, 2015)

Germans in the late 19th and early 20th centuries were generally about 1cm shorter than their British counterparts. The data for the German birth cohorts between 1900 and 1925 is not available. 

In the1891-95 cohorts the heights for Germans and British were 168.48 and 169.37. The next available comparison is 1926-30 and 172.99 (German) and 173.60 (British). The average height for Britons and Germans in the immediate post WW1 birth cohorts who would have been in their early twenties in 1939/45 must have been around 171/2 cms.

In 1980 the average heights were 180.17 (German) and 176.83 (British) so we have got taller. I'm 173 cms tall, so comparable with a WW2 average pilot.

Cheers

Steve


----------



## pbehn (Feb 7, 2015)

stona said:


> Germans in the late 19th and early 20th centuries were generally about 1cm shorter than their British counterparts. The data for the German birth cohorts between 1900 and 1925 is not available.
> 
> In the1891-95 cohorts the heights for Germans and British were 168.48 and 169.37. The next available comparison is 1926-30 and 172.99 (German) and 173.60 (British). The average height for Britons and Germans in the immediate post WW1 birth cohorts who would have been in their early twenties in 1939/45 must have been around 171/2 cms.
> 
> ...



Having lived in Germany for years I would say on average they are taller than Brits now but teenagers in UK and Germany in general are taller. The Dutch used to be one of the smallest nationalities in Europe now they are on average the biggest in the world. Steve, I was thinking about European teenagers and early twenties, I think WW2 AC designers would be eliminating maybe 30% of their populations with their designs.


----------



## pbehn (Feb 7, 2015)

Question to pilots!
Much is made in Formula 1 about the difficulty of controlling a car when subjected to side ways "G" forces of 4 or 5. If you are in a plane and subjected to +6 or -3 G then is it possible to look behind or scan the sky. In short is it possible to have any idea where your adversary is when making such maneuvers. I have frequently read of pilots "greying out" in such a case do you know where everything is or just estimate?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 7, 2015)

pbehn said:


> Question to pilots!
> Much is made in Formula 1 about the difficulty of controlling a car when subjected to side ways "G" forces of 4 or 5. If you are in a plane and subjected to +6 or -3 G then is it possible to look behind or scan the sky. In short is it possible to have any idea where your adversary is when making such maneuvers. I have frequently read of pilots "greying out" in such a case do you know where everything is or just estimate?


If you're committed in a high G maneuver, you're either attacking or evading. Speaking in terms of just "aviating" your eyes better be front center. I don't see it practical (or possible) to be swinging your head around during sustained high maneuvers.

Biff - you out there?


----------



## pbehn (Feb 7, 2015)

FLYBOYJ said:


> If you're committed in a high G maneuver, you're either attacking or evading. Speaking in terms of just "aviating" your eyes better be front center. I don't see it practical (or possible) to be swinging your head around during sustained high maneuvers.
> 
> Biff - you out there?



Flyboy that is my thought too. If you are focussed on an opponent in front even greying out you have your eyes in front, while under attack I do not believe it possible to keep your eyes on an opponent behind while subjected to such G forces. I have never flown a plane but I did race motorcycles, ignoring slipstream being behind gives an automatic advantage, just break later and power on sooner and you catch the guy in front. Biff? heylllp?


----------



## GregP (Feb 7, 2015)

It was not possible for me when I was pulling 5+ gs while flying aerobatics. I cleared the airspace and then checked the immediate area before pulling. It is VERY possible to look for traffic at ... say ... 3 - 3.5 gs, but not really practial at 5+ g's ... at least for me it wasn't.

I am not a racer, but I'd be very surprised if they can look around a 5+ g's and even MORE suprised if the GET to 5+ g's. When I see a cockpit g-meter around the course at Unlimited Gold Final speeeds (like Stevo Hinton Jr. in Voodoo). I don't SEE 5+ gs. I see low gs to maybe 3.5 ... with VERY intermitten forays above 4 g's. Even I can look around a bit at that g-level.


----------



## pbehn (Feb 7, 2015)

GregP said:


> It was not possible for me when I was pulling 5+ gs while flying aerobatics. I cleared the airspace and then checked the immediate area before pulling. It is VERY possible to look for traffic at ... say ... 3 - 3.5 gs, but not really practial at 5+ g's ... at least for me it wasn't.
> 
> I am not a racer, but I'd be very surprised if they can look around a 5+ g's and even MORE suprised if the GET to 5+ g's. When I see a cockpit g-meter around the course at Unlimited Gold Final speeeds (like Stevo Hinton Jr. in Voodoo). I don't SEE 5+ gs. I see low gs to maybe 3.5 ... with VERY intermitten forays above 4 g's. Even I can look around a bit at that g-level.


Thanks GregP. What I mean as a question is, if you are maneuvering at the level that causes grey out is it possible to look over your shoulder scan the sky or keep your eyes on an opponent. From my experience with zero G if an opponent passed me on my left he assumed I was always on his right, I used to switch immediately, if the next curve was left, then stay there unless I had done that before and then sometimes I would hang out on the right (outside) just to keep the guy guessing and nervous.


----------



## BiffF15 (Feb 7, 2015)

Gents,
I will jump in tomorrow (am on iPad)! Bottom line you are good looking over the shoulder up to about 6 or 7 for the average guy. The key when defensive is to NEVER LOSE SIGHT. Lose sight lose the fight.
Cheers,
Biff

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## GregP (Feb 7, 2015)

Well that's from a fighter pilot and I have to say he knows what he's saying. Perhaps it IS possible, but when I was flying there was nobody in formation with me trying to pass, and it is likely I wasn't looking around at 5+ g's because I didn't HAVE to. In a race, I suppose it is a requirment, not a luxury.

Still, when I look at cockpit g-meter in an Unlimited Gold race, I don't SEE 5+gs.

Here is an in-cockpit video: The g-meter is bpttom left:

[video]http://www.dashware.net/videos/p-51-cockpit-forward-view-2013-reno-air-races/[/video]

Sure, he hits some g-peaks, but when he needs to look around, he has less than 3.5 g's MOST of the time.

Of course, at Reno, the guy passing MUST pass to the outside or be disqualified ... and if he TRIES to pass to the inside, everyone as advised on common frequency.


----------



## Greyman (Feb 8, 2015)

I forget the basic details - but an Eagle pilot once told me that he could essentially look around at very high 'G' (I think he had said over +9) by leaning forward slightly and kind of pivoting his torso on his hips to look rearwards - as opposed to what we normally do in a car/computer chair and rotate everything; the neck, shoulder blades, back, etc.

I'm butchering the explanation to his technique but that was the basic idea.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## stona (Feb 8, 2015)

pbehn said:


> Having lived in Germany for years I would say on average they are taller than Brits now but teenagers in UK and Germany in general are taller. The Dutch used to be one of the smallest nationalities in Europe now they are on average the biggest in the world. Steve, I was thinking about European teenagers and early twenties, I think WW2 AC designers would be eliminating maybe 30% of their populations with their designs.



The average German today is over 3cms taller than the average Briton today. During WW2 the average heights were more similar, about 172-3 cms, the British being slightly taller.

Of course not all men are average and some very tall men did manage to fly the Bf 109.

Cheers

Steve


----------



## Lefa (Feb 8, 2015)

Finland's tallest pilot 195 cm.

Finnish biplane fighter aces - Ilmari Joensuu


----------



## bobbysocks (Feb 8, 2015)

the other thing you have to consider is pilot fatigue and recovery. pulling violent high G maneuvers one after the other for several minutes on end takes a lot out of the pilot. the first time you do a curl with weights you are a lot faster and crisper than after the 12+ rep. yes, adrenaline is pumping but pilots still wore down. so if the pilot gets done with one dogfight ( win or evade ) and gets right into another he may be at a big disadantage trying to pull the yoke as hard and fast as needed. the second pilot he encounters may find it easier out turn him whereas the first one didnt.

stona i read that comment about the inexperienced LW pilots not pulling as tight of turns as they could have before and believe it is probably true. but then again the same could have probably been said about the raf too. no one wants to be the plane that stalls out and loses control in a dogfight. they are often the ones who end up dead.


----------



## nuuumannn (Feb 8, 2015)

Yep, that's right, Boobysocks. I read an account recently, while research the Bf 109 about the very same thing. Although the Spitfire could out turn the Messerschmitt in trials, the experienced German pilots were getting the better of the lesser experienced British pilots flying the Spitfire for that reason. Mind you, the same can be said for lesser experienced Bf 109 pilots. Experience teaches valuable lessons that can't be learned any other way.

The Bf 109 had idiosyncrasies that the British test pilots discovered during trials that didn't seem to hinder their German counterparts. Stick movement in the Bf 109 was restricted due to the narrow cockpit and the pilot's knees. The controls froze at high speeds, making it almost uncontrollable over around 380 mph in a dive. Also, its lack of a rudder trim made pilots tired flying lengthy flights, having to put in opposite rudder constantly when performing climbs and dives, or any manoeuvre with a high power setting. Another issue that caused consternation among even the Luftwaffe's pilots was at high angles of bank, when attempting to steep turn, the slats would snatch outwards, often asymmetrically, which would then cause the ailerons to jar or snap in movement, which had a tendency to throw off a pilot's aim if attempting to gain a bead, or prevent him from completing a tight turn. Thankfully though, the stall characteristics of the Bf 109 were benign in almost all configurations. 

Early Emils had the variable pitch lever in the centre of the instrument panel, which caused pilots to do a hand dance around the cockpit at busy times; this was changed after complaints. Another oddity was that the undercarriage lever could easily be knocked in flight, which led to the lowering of the undercarriage at inopportune moments. A clever system was the location of the tailplane variable incidence wheel was next to the flap wheel - the flaps lowered by turning a wheel rather than moving a lever, which meant the incidence could be adjusted simultaneously as the flaps came down. Still a great choice of weapon to go to war in in 1939, 1940 and 1941.


----------



## bobbysocks (Feb 8, 2015)

all so true. i have read many p51 encounter reports where the pilot ( experienced ) stated he riding right on the edge of a stall. once they knew the characteristics of the plane and were confident of it...it made a difference.

also "out turning" depended on whether it was a turn to the left or a turn to the right. one was with the torque of the engine and was was fighting it. i know mustang pilots who told me ...they were told, " if jumped by a 109 break hard to the left ( could be right i dont remember ) as that was counter to the torgue of the 109.


----------



## Shortround6 (Feb 8, 2015)

Modern pilots have G suits and the F-16 in particular uses a reclined seating position to help lessen the effect's of G. 

Story/legend has it that when Mustang pilots got the first G suits they sometimes landed with popped wing rivets and several degrees more dihedral on the wings than they took off with. 

You can _tell_ somebody about flying on the edge but that is not the same as actually doing it. 

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spit109turn.gif

For the Spitfire you can do a 6 G turn at about 250mph at 12,000ft with a radius of just under 700ft but you have to to have the nose pointed down at over 25 degrees to maintain speed. Speed drops below 250mph and the plane stalls or the G load goes down (or a bit of both). a 6 G 350mph turn has a radius of 1400ft, again you need to be in an almost 20 degree dive to maintain the speed. A 5 G turn could give a radius of 800ft at about 240mph while at the _same_ speed a 900 radius turn was about 4 1/2 Gs. There were no G meters or instruments to tell the pilot how hard/tight he was turning. At 12,000ft trying to reference the ground was pretty much useless even if you could see it. Only experience could help the pilot and most green pilots had very little experience in High G maneuvers. 

Also please note that the Spitfire banked at 70.6 degrees for 3 Gs, 75 degrees for 4 Gs, 78.6 (?) for 5 Gs degrees and 80.5 degrees for 6 Gs. Can you read a turn and bank indicator anywhere near that close?


----------



## BiffF15 (Feb 8, 2015)

Gents,

Here is my two cents (bits) on what you can or can't do under G. First, Greyman you are pretty close on Eagle G technique. The way we are taught is to do something called an L-1. Basically BEFORE you get to heavy G, you tense your thighs, squeeze your abdominal muscles and force blood up to your noggin. It feels very similar to trying to take a growler when constipated. Guys who are tremendously fit from cardio (runners) have a more difficult time than weight lifters (veins are all large and soft). Taller is tougher than shorter due to the distance from the heart to the head being greater. Shorter is better (finally found truth to that statement). The goal being to keep the blood from pooling in your extremities. The G suit gives your abs something to push against, however if it (the top of the G suit)goes to high it squeezes the bottom of your lungs and can make it difficult to breath. I would turn down the top of mine (I'm 69" or 5 foot 9 inches tall). 

Second, modern fighters (F-15, 16, 22, Typhoon, Flanker, Fulcrum) can all sustain heavy G. The Typhoon and F-22 can do it higher (big motors and smart wings). However, for the rest once below about 15-20K you have to be careful, with anything under 10k being an altitude where you can really hurt yourself with sustained G. And I'm talking 7+. I think my record was 7 for over 45 seconds. 

When under heavy G in the jet (F-15) I would vary how I looked around. Once tapped (bounced) or the Basic Fighter Maneuver (BFM) engagement starts I would do a break turn (max performance pull to A/C or my limits whichever came first) and that was initially done looking forward, with my spine and neck straight up. Once the G went below about 7 I would lean forward a little bit (keeping my spine and neck straight), and rotate my head so as not to put any lateral stress on my neck (this type of turn is used to locate my adversary or bandit). Once I had him visual again, I would very my looking over the should tech depending on how far forward he was (deep six o'clock would be the lean forward, out to 7-9 o'clock I would just lean my head against the seat (if under heavy G)and just look up over my shoulder (which is the same as looking back). 

The break turn was done to defeat any initial shots, the follow on maneuvers are done to deny him shots, force an overshoot to reversal (I get behind him) or to a separation (I leave). The goal is to survive, neutralize, go offensive or leave in that order.

Once established defensive in a fight you keep eyes on, with momentary looks into the cockpit to check airspeed and altitude. Now guys have helmet mounted devices and all that stuff is displayed to them at all times if they desire.

In WW2 dogfight timeframe I would be surprised if guys would get completely exhausted physically from G alone. The night before drinking, the poor heat, being dehydrated (this is huge even today) would be significant contributors in my book. I understand the lack of combat training, the adrenaline surge that comes on like a Tsunami when your life is on the line, and the subsequent drain upon survival. But, the planes didn't pull that many G's for greater than a few seconds, and you can hold your breath for those and be fine. Those guys were young, (20-30) and should have not had too much difficulty with them.

On the differences between pilots it's the same as between athletes. Some guys are just better than others. However, in a US fighter squadron the dudes who are good are under pressure to get everyone better, as the unit is only as strong as the weakest guy / gal. As far as planes go, some are easier to fly than others. The F-16 is fly by wire (FBW) and it takes max performing the airplane and makes it a simple event. In the Eagle it literally takes years to get good at it. FBW is the way to go. Some airplanes provide more feedback than others, and the Eagle was particularly good at giving it. You could tell your speed by how noisy it was / is, or by how much buffet you feel. Unlike a WW2 fighter, you could pull to your hearts content (once below your corner speed) and not worry about breaking anything or going out of control (with a few minor exceptions). Your second or third ride in the plane you used to go do tail slides. My IP told me to see how far I could slide backwards. The planes now are VERY forgiving.

The reason I bring that up is the P-51, Me-109, Spit references about turn performance. If one plane is easier to max perform than the others, even though it might not be the best performing (by a small margin), it would be odds on the favored in a fight. It sounds like the 109, even though it had snatching slats, was very forgiving and communicative. The longer and more defined the stall warning (point at which you stop turning and start falling) the better. A slight buffet followed by a stall / spin would not be good. Once the Brits figured out the Spit turned better, AND noticed the statistics from dogfights, (and got rid of the damn Vic formation) it would have been a good idea to concentrate training on A/C feel in the max performance turn arena. It's also very easy to look back at these events and make comments! 

One thing I haven't heard much of is what type of training did the German and Brits do before getting turned loose in combat. I've heard a bit about "Clobber College" for the US guys, but not much from the rest.

Cheers,
Biff

Reactions: Like Like:
5 | Like List reactions


----------



## BiffF15 (Feb 9, 2015)

The Pilot Factor:

After re-reading a few of the posts I thought I would add a few more comments to the discussion.

Pilots: You are only as good as your training and your natural ability. Training in basic stuff and advanced all add up. For US guys flying from the UK into Europe, they had to be instrument qualified, proficient in long range navigation for a large chunk of a continent, and able to operate the systems so as not to run out of gas or otherwise cause an early landing. The natural ability is what a person can mentally and physically do. Some guys had tremendous vision (ability to spot the other guy first), some were great shots, and some were always trying to get a little bit better each flight. 

Everyone one of you have been in traffic and see people do stupid stuff. They might have driven several hundred thousand miles, but it's like they have only done the first 100 miles over an over again. Some people try to keep getting better, others think they are good enough, and some I'm convinced don't give a s--t. Pilots are just like that.

Aircraft:

Bf-109. First (or one of the first) really modern fighters. Simple construction, simple cockpit layout. Pros: Very forgiving in flight, pretty much on par performance wise, weapons depending on the version. Cons: Short legged, cramped cockpit, hard to check six due to banging your noggin into things, no heat, and that damn take off and landing thing... Also has a very cool sinister look about it, more so than any other in my book.

Spit. Simple construction, straight forward cockpit. Pros: Able to check six, on par or above performance wise (depending on the variant / timeframe), easy to operate, weapons depending on the version. Cons: Short legged.

P-51. Simple construction, roomy well laid out cockpit. Pros: Visibility (D), range, weapons, performance on par, quantity found over Europe on any given day. Cons: Range means less performance

The fights: 

I think on any given day in a pure one on one, any of these aircraft are a good fight for each other. Earlier in the war the Germans had the advantage of experience (tactics), and a good airplane. The Brits and the US, in that order played a big game of catch up and it cost them dearly. Later, as attrition became a factor against Germany, it worked for the Allies. As the Germans lost their experienced guys, the Allies gained theirs, and that transition period was in my opine when the Merlin powered Mustang showed up. Right tool, right location, and history favored it with timing to create legend status.

Food for thought:

The 109 created a LOT of very high scoring aces (ALL of the top scorers). And this is not a slam against the plane at all, but what else did they really have to fly? Guys got good in it because desire for longevity (living) and lack of a rotation force (the situation) forced them to. Yes, there were Fw-190's, but the Luftwaffe kept buying (or building) 109's en masse and sending them to the boys on the front. Every few months, here is a new 109 with a bigger (more powerful motor), different guns, and a few more bumps on it. I think it's easier to keep making something you know how, rather than learn / re-tool to make something new. 

What is in my opine a shame is that it didn't get easier to take off land, or check six out of. It's like Willie didn't give a crap, or the Luftwaffe didn't force him to fix those things (how did they not know). At least Tank was working on the visibility issue.

Okay gents it's late and I'm probably rambling. I'm sure guys will chime in a tell me the error of my ways!

Cheers,
Biff

Reactions: Like Like:
7 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Feb 9, 2015)

Really good info there, Biff...allows for some good insight 

As far as the Luftwaffe pilot training, it was pretty rigorous leading up to, and during the first years of, the war. As the war wore on, Luftwaffe resource and material shortages compromised the program to the point where, in the final stages of the war, training was nearly non-existant.

Prior to 1941, the Luftwaffe training program started with 6 months at the Recruit Training Depot (Fliegerersatzabteilung), which was comparable to boot camp. Here the prospective pilot focused on physical training, endless drills and was introduced to basic flight principles like map reading, two-way radio and lectures. Once he's completed this, he moved on to an Air Traning Company (Fluganwarterkompanie) for two months, studying general aeronautical subjects.

Once this portion had been completed, he moved on to Elementary Flying School (A/B Schule) where he recieved hands-on training in such aircraft as the Bücker Bü131 and Focke-Wulf Fw44.

The next step is the A2 license portion of his training. This is a little more involved and includes courses in Navigation, Meteorology, Aeronautical Engineering, Aerodynamics and Flying Procedures. For the B2 portion, the student flew more advanced aircraft, like the Arado Ar66 and Ar76, Gotha Go145 along with retired combat types like the Heinkel He51 and the Henschel Hs123 (before it was recalled and put back into service). During this portion of his school, he'll have logged between 100 and 150 hours of flight time. Once his B2 portion was successfully completed, he received his Pilot's License (Luftwaffenflugzeugfuehrerschein) and his Pilot's Wings (Flugzeugfuehrerabzeichen).

At this point, the pilot will go on to specialist school depending on whether he's going into single-engined fighter or single-engined dive bomber service.

If the pilot is going to be assigned multi-engined duties (twin-engined fighter, bomber, recon), then he'll continue to a C portion of school, where he'll receive an additional 50 to 60 hours flying time over the course of 6 months. Also, the pilot will have advanced ground training in a variety of subjects, and fly early type multi-engined aircraft as the Dornier Do17, Heinkel He111 and the Junkers Ju86.

Once the C portion is completed, the pilot receives his advanced pilot's license and will continue on to their respective specialty training. IF the pilot is to be assigned bomber or reconnaissance duty, they will receive an additional 50 to 60 hours of blind flying training, the twin-engine fighter pilot bypassed this requirement.

From here, there was additional time in the various specialty schools, where they were assigned to their groups, operated advanced trainer aircraft and learned the various procedures unique to their assignments. Then on to Operational Training Units (Ergaenzungseinheiten) where they were introduced to their front line aircraft and received "hands-on" experience.

So basically, from the time a pilot candidate stepped foot in boot camp, to the time they arrived at their Operational Training Unit, a Luftwaffe pilot with a single-engine rating has had 13 months of training with about 150 to 200 hours logged. For the multi-engine rated pilots, they've had 20 months of training and 220 to 270 hours logged.

As I mentioned before, this was the procedure until things started falling apart around 1941.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GregP (Feb 9, 2015)

Pretty damned good summation there, Biff.

When I look at the victory claims for the Luftwaffe, I see the bulk of the claims came between 1942 and mid-1944, and tapered off to almost nothing after that, reletively speaking. I think a LOT of it was attrition as Biff says. Also, when the Germans had about the same number of airplanes in the air as the Allies ... it was a toss-up. When the Allies were throwing 200 planes a day at Germany who had lost most of the really good pilots, then it was a case of "if you show youeself ... you're probably going to die ..."

I believe the Bf 109 had wonderful manners around the stall and was a formidable combat aircraft right to the end. But ... I'm not so sure the dogfights were really allowed to GET to the stall point when they were way up high. 

I don't think ANYBODY was pulling more than around 3 g's at 25,000+ feet in a WWII fighter ... the capability just wasn't there. So, if you are limited to low g maneuvers, then the winner will probably be the pilot who plans the best attack for low-g maneuvers. That's a skill that was very necessary in the ETO at bomber stream altitude.


----------



## stona (Feb 9, 2015)

Two good posts re-training and flying the aircraft above.

I would say that efforts were made to improve rearward visibility in the Bf 109, though they were less than astoundingly successful. Initially the 'Galland Panzer' was introduced in the head armour behind the pilot, this being a clear view panel of armoured glass. Having seen WW2 era German armoured glass close up I use the term 'clear view' loosely. Later the 'Erla Haube' which dispensed with much of the heavy cockpit framing was introduced.
What was never attempted was to fit something like the Malcolm hood fitted by the British to the Spitfire (also found its way on to some Mustangs), neither was their any attempt at a low back Bf 109 as there was with the Spitfire. This was actually not a simple thing to achieve on the Spitfire and may well have been impossible for the smaller Bf 109.

Cheers

Steve


----------



## GregP (Feb 9, 2015)

There actually WAS an attempt at a low-back Bf 109. Here is a pic:







They fitted a captured AMerican radial (I think an 1820) and also did the semi-bubble canopy. It never made it into production ... but it DID exist and COULD have made it into service.

Bad Willy, bad boy ... shoulda' done it to the production birds.


----------



## BiffF15 (Feb 9, 2015)

Grau,

Thanks for the info! USAF pilot training produces a pilot (with wings) in about 12 months, then on to a top off school for fighter guys called IFF, or Introduction to Fighter Fundamentals. Here they learn basic set ups, more advanced formation, and fundamentals of Basic Fighter Maneuvers (BFM). This course is designed to be a low cost way to get the basics down prior to showing up to a fighter (more expensive to fly).

To be more specific I am curious as to what prep fighter guys got beyond the basic check out in type. Did the Luftwaffe have a "Clobber College" spin up, done at either the Training Unit or the Operational Unit? Today, kids get everything at the school house, then a buffet refresher when they get to their unit (along with some specialization depending on units unique capabilities). The Luftwaffe seems to have missed a great opportunity to turn the knowledge the experienced guys had into a skill set the new guys could use to survive or thrive.

Cheers,
Biff


----------



## BiffF15 (Feb 9, 2015)

GregP said:


> There actually WAS an attempt at a low-back Bf 109. Here is a pic:
> 
> View attachment 284440
> 
> ...




Why would he use a captured motor? I would think if one was serious about making this change, you would use a engine type in production (by your nation). It was a green house versus a bubble, but still better than what the regular 109 flew with. Pretty incredible they could make jet engines and not bubble canopies!

Cheers,
Biff


----------



## stona (Feb 9, 2015)

I think that's V21. It's not low backed, it's high fronted if you know what I mean 

It's a completely new fuselage, widened from frame 7 (roughly second frame in front of horizontal stabiliser). The cockpit was redesigned because of the big lump bolted on the front. There was also extensive redesign of the engine mounts (obviously) and the wing-fuselage join and fillet. It's not really much of a Bf 109 at all, apart from the wings.

It was built 1938-9, the engine was not captured, and was flying at Augsburg in mid/late 1939. It eventually went to the DVL (Braunschweig) where it was still flying in September 1940. It was probably superseded by the BMW 801 powered Bf 109 X which first flew on 2nd September 1940.

It was an experimental aircraft to compare inline and radial installations in single seat fighters. It was never intended as a production version, though the view must have been much better than the standard Bf 109.

Cheers

Steve


----------



## nuuumannn (Feb 9, 2015)

> What is in my opine a shame is that it didn't get easier to take off land, or check six out of. It's like Willie didn't give a crap, or the Luftwaffe didn't force him to fix those things (how did they not know).



There was plenty of room for improvement in terms of ergonomics regarding the Bf 109. One thing was its puny rudder and lack of rudder trim, which I mentioned earlier. The canopy could have been improved also. Pilots were advised not to open the hood with the engine running as the hinges would wear and it'd fall off! This meant during taxying, the sliding panels in the hood were opened for better visibility. Eric Brown claimed these were 'primitive'. The problem was that it opened to the right. When John Allison had his prang in Black 6 in the late 1990s, he was stuck in the upturned airframe for nearly an hour hanging from his shoulder straps (I can't remember how long exactly) before a crane could be able to lift the aircraft so the hood could be opened. A sliding hood wouldn't have gone amiss.

Another problem on the ground was that it was tail heavy, so any increase in power would cause the tail to swing, or 'lead', which resulted in ground loops, so stabbing on the brakes during taxying, which was the only way to turn the aircraft as that microscopic rudder was totally ineffectual until the tail had been raised in the take-off run, was done quite severely. Although I've posted this picture in another thread just recently, it illustrates a few of the issues pilots had with the '109 on the ground. Closed hood with sliding panels, fish tailing along as all tail draggers did, poor visibility in almost all directions, those awkwardly splayed out wheels...






I read an article by one of Black 6's regular airshow pilots and he did enjoy flying it compared to the Spit, but did say it was more demanding in the air. He said - and this was common among period aircraft, so I believe - that Black 6 had to be taxied out almost immediately after start up as it would overheat quite quickly otherwise.

Pilots did like flying the Bf 109, although British test pilots were more critical (as they almost always were), complaining that control harmony was extremely poor, having a light rudder and heavy elevator - this is in the Gustav. Its handling was quite different compared to its predecessors owing to extra weight and excrescences without any increase in lift. Pilots missed the sweet handling of the _Emil_ and _Friedrich _and its widely recognised that the _Friedrich_ was the zenith of the type's development as a pure fighter. Although as I mentioned in another thread, the debate about whether its armament of two MGs and a single cannon in the nose was sufficient is well known and opinions varied. The _Gustav_ was the most versatile of the breed, but it was overtaken in performance by newer Allied types, even the _Friedrichs_ had better performance than some _Gustav_ variants. I did read one German pilot's account about having flown the Spitfire, he believed the Bf 109 had better all round visibility owing to the location of the Spitfire's cockpit in relation to its wing. Horses for courses and I guess it does depend on what you're used to.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## BiffF15 (Feb 9, 2015)

stona said:


> I think that's V21. It's not low backed, it's high fronted if you know what I mean
> 
> It's a completely new fuselage, widened from frame 7 (roughly second frame in front of horizontal stabiliser). The cockpit was redesigned because of the big lump bolted on the front. There was also extensive redesign of the engine mounts (obviously) and the wing-fuselage join and fillet. It's not really much of a Bf 109 at all, apart from the wings.
> 
> ...



Steve,

This sort of reminds me of the P-40Q. Curtiss attempted to remain relevant with the addition of more power, aero improvements, and the "blown" canopy. It makes me wonder if the P-40/Allison had as much money and effort thrown at it as the Bf-109 did what would have been the outcome.

In the case of the radial powered 109 someone had to realize the green house / bubblish canopy was better or they would have left it a "razorback" I would think. I would also think with it's more rounded fuselage there was a bit more room inside.

If 109 pilots were told to taxi with the canopy closed and try to stick a small portion of their cranium out to see, why in the hell didn't they make better hinges for it (of just make it a bubble)? It will probably never be known but it almost seems like Willie and Goering had a relationship that worked well for Willie and not so much for the other fighter manufacturers, or guys who flew them.

Cheers,
Biff


----------



## nuuumannn (Feb 9, 2015)

Wiili was quite the force of nature, so I believe. He liked to get his way and often manipulated situations to achieve that, often at the expense of personal relationships. He was quite uncompromising with his designs adhering to the philosophy of performance at all costs, which goes some way of explaining the odd ball nature of the Bf 109 and the fact that so little of it changed over the nearly 10 years it was in production. He fell out with many of his own staff and other designers over specific design issues, such as Alexander Lippisch over the Me 163 being tailless, until he got his way. Like all brilliant men, I guess, a little bit egocentric.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 9, 2015)

BiffF15 said:


> Gents,
> 
> Here is my two cents (bits) on what you can or can't do under G. First, Greyman you are pretty close on Eagle G technique. The way we are taught is to do something called an L-1. Basically BEFORE you get to heavy G, you tense your thighs, squeeze your abdominal muscles and force blood up to your noggin. It feels very similar to trying to take a growler when constipated. Guys who are tremendously fit from cardio (runners) have a more difficult time than weight lifters (veins are all large and soft). Taller is tougher than shorter due to the distance from the heart to the head being greater. Shorter is better (finally found truth to that statement). The goal being to keep the blood from pooling in your extremities. The G suit gives your abs something to push against, however if it (the top of the G suit)goes to high it squeezes the bottom of your lungs and can make it difficult to breath. I would turn down the top of mine (I'm 69" or 5 foot 9 inches tall).
> 
> ...



Great info Biff! I once read that during the Israeli/ Arab wars pilots flying MiG-21 sometimes succumbed to fatigue during dogfights just by swinging the back and forth at high Gs. I also believe that the MiG-15 was made with a sick "extension" so pilots had some leverage when going into "yanking and banking" maneuvers.


----------



## stona (Feb 9, 2015)

BiffF15 said:


> In the case of the radial powered 109 someone had to realize the green house / bubblish canopy was better or they would have left it a "razorback" I would think. I would also think with it's more rounded fuselage there was a bit more room inside.
> 
> Cheers,
> Biff



It had more to do with the redesign and raising of the cockpit in order to see over the nose at all. One of the trumpeted reasons for an inverted engine in the inline version was forward visibility. Though the high angle the aircraft sat at on its undercarriage made forward vision very limited on the ground, it was not bad in WW2 terms once airborne.

The Pratt and Whitney engine fitted was already in Germany, probably as part of some exchange or licensing deal I can't remember. This was 1938/9, more than three years before the US entered the war.

Cheers

Steve


----------



## GrauGeist (Feb 9, 2015)

In the 1930's, BMW had a license to build the Pratt Whitney Hornet (became the BMW 132) and this engine was used in several pre-war aircraft, like Junkers (including the Ju52/3m) and the first Fw200.


----------



## gjs238 (Feb 9, 2015)

parsifal said:


> Ive seen it stated that most pilots are simply padding and cannon fodder. Most of the lethal work is done by perhaps 20% of the pilots. the padding is there to protect these vital assets but they generally dont shoot many enemy down.



I can apply this analogy to my workplace (and all previous workplaces) and even volunteer organizations I'm involved with.
A handful of passionate skilled folks pull the weight and the rest are along for the ride.
Sister Leo always asked us, "Are you a leaner or a pole?"


----------



## gjs238 (Feb 9, 2015)

pbehn said:


> I am not a pilot but shooting down a plane in a tight turn is done by the pilot, for one plane to out turn the other one of them would stall out wouldn't they? From what I have read here the ability of a plane to sustain a high G turn depends on the power available as much as the aerodynamics. If that is the case it depends completely on which spitfire and which Bf109. German BoB pilots were always shot down by spitfires (so the legend goes) and so they presumably always shot them down too?
> 
> I saw one veteran Typhoon pilot on TV recounting a chase of a Fw190 at sea level. The Fw190 went into a power on stall and hit the sea, that I would say is out turning.
> If someone is getting a lead on you and you cant turn harder surely you must try something else?



I suspect many a pilot were not comfortable operating near stall and tried their best to avoid it, while other "experts" developed an intimacy with their aircraft and could feel or sense the stall and how far they could push it (even embrace it) and used that to their advantage.


----------



## gjs238 (Feb 9, 2015)

eagledad said:


> Agreed that pilots make the difference, in fact many times the decisive factor in my opinion. The following is from a test by the British between a Spitfire I, Hurricane I and a captured Bf-109E:
> 
> “When the BF-109 was following the Hurricane or Spitfire, it was found that the British aircraft turned inside the Bf-109 without difficulty when flown by determined pilots who were not afraid to pull their aircraft round hard in a tight turn. In a surprisingly large number of cases, however, the Bf-109 succeeded in keeping on the tail of the Spitfire or Hurricane during these turning tests, _merely because pilots would not tighten up the turn sufficiently from fear of stalling and spinning_.“ – Augsburg Eagle, William Green page 48.
> 
> So though a Hurricane I or Spitfire I can turn inside a Bf-109E without difficulty, it took a determined or well trained pilot to accomplish it, assuming that the Bf-109E was flown by a pilot of similar skills.



With the three aircraft mentioned, is it possible that one telegraphs the approach of stall better than the others?
That might allow a skilled pilot to operate at the edge of stall much easier than a plane that stalls more abruptly.


----------



## gjs238 (Feb 9, 2015)

pbehn said:


> <SNIP> all pilots seem to be convinced that their mount was the master Hurricane Spitfire or Bf109 they all had the best plane, Nothing against the veterans but I think they started with an advantage.



P-39, P-40 and F4F pilots too?


----------



## Balljoint (Feb 9, 2015)

This contemporary if displaced comment describes a lesson often relearned; 

http:


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 9, 2015)

gjs238 said:


> *I suspect many a pilot were not comfortable operating near stall and tried their best to avoid it*, while other "experts" developed an intimacy with their aircraft and could feel or sense the stall and how far they could push it (even embrace it) and used that to their advantage.



Performing a stall is a basic flight maneuver. As you check out in different aircraft one of the first things you learn is how to do is stalls and how the aircraft will react. No pilot, especially a combat pilot should ever be uncomfortable during a stall, intensional or not - if they are they better reconsider their career path.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## BiffF15 (Feb 9, 2015)

pbehn said:


> I am not a pilot but shooting down a plane in a tight turn is done by the pilot, for one plane to out turn the other one of them would stall out wouldn't they?
> 
> *To win a dogfight you don't have to be the best turning airplane, you only have to be in plane, in lead, and in range with the trigger on. An example would be two aircraft, 500' apart, with the trailing aircraft pointing at the lead aircraft. The trail A/C is heading North (360) and the lead aircraft is heading 320 (40 degrees of heading crossing angle between the two). If you then laid a circular template over each aircraft, the size of their respective turn radii (radius's?), with the edge of the circle on the aircraft, then drew it what would you have. Answer: Two misaligned circles, or in fighter speak misaligned turn circles. This is what you want as the offender as it allows you bring your nose to bear and employment of weapons. If the two aircraft kept going around those two circles you would see the offender fly outside the defenders turn circle (going into lag), and the offender appear to be getting away (momentarily). However, keep them going around the circles and you have the offenders nose come back inside the defenders circle and the ability to get into a firing solution should arrived at or could be arrived at with a little bit of maneuvering. You are doing one of two things, trying to stay behind a guy, or trying to shoot him. You don't do both simultaneously.
> *
> ...



Cheers,
Biff

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## gjs238 (Feb 9, 2015)

stona said:


> Which illustrates the point nicely
> 
> I've sat in both a Spitfire and a Bf 109 and I think I'd prefer the Spitfire simply on the grounds that whilst the Spitfire was cramped the 109 was ridiculously tight. I'm of average height and I suppose fairly heavily built (front three in Rugby Union, many years ago) and I couldn't put my shoulders square in the 109.
> This is an entirely spurious reason to pick any aeroplane, neither was exactly comfortable!
> ...



You would love the P-47.


----------



## stona (Feb 9, 2015)

gjs238 said:


> With the three aircraft mentioned, is it possible that one telegraphs the approach of stall better than the others?
> That might allow a skilled pilot to operate at the edge of stall much easier than a plane that stalls more abruptly.



All aircraft (or their wings) have different stall characteristics. The Spitfire was particularly benign due to the complicated shape of the wing. This resulted in pre-stall buffeting occurring next to the cockpit at the wing root and inner wing section. The outer wing continued to fly and this allowed aileron control to be maintained in what might be described as a partial stall. Another factor in the retention of aileron effectiveness was the design of the ailerons themselves.

The Bf 109 also had fairly benign stall characteristics, partly due to the slats which are an aerodynamic expedient that the Spitfire wing didn't need.

Then there is the question of wing loading and its effect on turn radius. I'm not an aerodynamicist, but luckily one of the world's great aerodynamicists and designers has written an explanation for us:

_"To produce a lot of g forces one does not need a fast machine. Tight turns on a slow (but strong) type gives one as many gs as one may wish...A very definite limitation is given by the effective stalling speed of an aeroplane in a turn. One cannot, no matter what g one dares to use, make as tight a turn on a highly loaded type. In fact for every wing loading there is a minimum radius of turn that can be flown."_

Beverly Shenstone.

Cheers

Steve


----------



## pbehn (Feb 9, 2015)

gjs238 said:


> P-39, P-40 and F4F pilots too?



I think most pilots are like that P 40 and F4F pilots seemed to like their mount until completely outclassed or given another mount. I have heard spitfire pilots say it improved throughout the war but that the MkI was the nicest to fly. Some Polish pilots preferred the Hurricane to the Spit in the BoB purely for its armament, they were seasoned experts who could get in close no matter what they flew, they certainly wouldnt prefer a Hurricane to a Mk XIV though.


----------



## pbehn (Feb 9, 2015)

BiffF15 said:


> Cheers,
> Biff



Thanks Biff, I suspect most pilots referring to turning fights omit a lot of banking climbing rolling and other maneuvers ending with dodging around churches bridges and power lines. The Typhoon pilot said (as you say) the Fw was pulling a hard turn about 20ft above the sea, suddenly a wing dipped and it cartwheeled into the sea.


----------



## stona (Feb 9, 2015)

pbehn said:


> the Fw was pulling a hard turn about 20ft above the sea, suddenly a wing dipped and it cartwheeled into the sea.



The Fw 190 was an aircraft with a malicious and sudden stall.

Cheers

Steve


----------



## gjs238 (Feb 9, 2015)

GregP said:


> Well that's from a fighter pilot and I have to say he knows what he's saying. Perhaps it IS possible, but when I was flying there was nobody in formation with me trying to pass, and it is likely I wasn't looking around at 5+ g's because I didn't HAVE to. In a race, I suppose it is a requirment, not a luxury.
> 
> Still, when I look at cockpit g-meter in an Unlimited Gold race, I don't SEE 5+gs.
> 
> ...



Cool video, but that's not a dogfight.


----------



## stona (Feb 9, 2015)

gjs238 said:


> Cool video, but that's not a dogfight.



There's some Fw 190 gun camera footage somewhere (I can't find it) in which the Focke-Wulf, trying to get a lead on, from memory, a P-51 suddenly stalls, and enters an inverted spin which must have been fun!

That was a dogfight!

Cheers

Steve

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## bobbysocks (Feb 9, 2015)

the long hours flown were enough to cause fatigue. i happened across a couple comments by Mark Stepelton of the 357th talking about D Day ops. us fighters ran several sorties a day and those took a toll. 

_"Finally, as my fuel became dangerously low, I returned to our base at Leiston, England. I had logged the longest combat flying time of our pilots on the first mission and could barely climb out of my cockpit." _


_"After several hours of patrolling at low altitudes, we returned to our base at Leiston, England. I was totally exhausted as my Crew Chief helped me climb out of my cockpit..... I had logged this combat mission at 5:25 hours,"_

and this was with just patrol duty...with some straffing of trains and trucks...no dogfights. the LW pilots usually flew several sorties a day. these planes werent FBW and took effort to control at high air speed.


----------



## GregP (Feb 9, 2015)

Hi Biff,

Not sure why Messerschmitt used acaptured radial, but I could guess that German radials were needed for the Fw 190. The Germans used a LOT of captured things. When they built a forward swept wing aircraft, they used nose wheels from shot down B-24's, of all thing, and were masters at reusing hardware.

My guess is that it was a "feasibility study," a war was on, and non-strategic resources were allotted.


----------



## GrauGeist (Feb 9, 2015)

Greg, it wasn't a captured engine type...



GregP said:


> Hi Biff,
> 
> Not sure why Messerschmitt used acaptured radial, but I could guess that German radials were needed for the Fw 190. The Germans used a LOT of captured things. When they built a forward swept wing aircraft, they used nose wheels from shot down B-24's, of all thing, and were masters at reusing hardware.
> 
> My guess is that it was a "feasibility study," a war was on, and non-strategic resources were allotted.



Information regarding the Pratt Whitney Hornet I posted earlier in this thread:


GrauGeist said:


> In the 1930's, BMW had a license to build the Pratt Whitney Hornet (became the BMW 132) and this engine was used in several pre-war aircraft, like Junkers (including the Ju52/3m) and the first Fw200.


----------



## GregP (Feb 9, 2015)

Thanks Graugeist. One of the sources I have says the radial powered Bf 109 varint used a captured US engine, but others say it was a BMW 139 (P&W Twin Wasp copy).

I'd rather believe they used a German engine, but using a serviceable caputred engine woudl save time and effort ... perhaps ... and IF correct.

I rather believe the impetus behind it was either to produce a viable alternative aircraft should DB engine deliveries be terminated due to damage, etc. OR to produce an export version that didn't take the important and strategic DB 600-series engines. Either way, they DID have an alternative canopy and elected not to pursue that in production of the domestic Bf 19 for some reason.

Likewise, they DID have a version with inward-retracting gear (to test the Mf 309 gear) and again elected not to go that way for the domestic version ... for some reason.

So "fixes" were produced experimentally, but never incorporated into production. And that makes me think about German attrition versus new-aircraft production. They were falling behind, and mybe a production interruption was unacceptable to the RLM since production wasn't keeping up to start with. Logically, the production interruption excuse would be a very good fit if it weren't for the myriad experimental versions of almost all the planes that WERE produced.

With that in mind, I still wonder why the Bf 109's major faults were not addressed IN production rather than only in experimental one-offs.


----------



## GrauGeist (Feb 9, 2015)

The BMW801 powered version (Bf109X) would have taken up much needed 801 engines destined for the Fw190, so I can't see the RLM letting Willy get very far with that.


----------



## GregP (Feb 9, 2015)

Me neither.


----------



## gjs238 (Feb 9, 2015)

GrauGeist said:


> The BMW801 powered version (Bf109X) would have taken up much needed 801 engines destined for the Fw190, so I can't see the RLM letting Willy get very far with that.



Some irony there - I understood that the successful adoption of the Fw190 was due in part to not using DB 601 and DB 605 engines, coveted by the Bf109.


----------



## nuuumannn (Feb 9, 2015)

> With the three aircraft mentioned, is it possible that one telegraphs the approach of stall better than the others?



Yep, as Steve mentioned, the Bf 109 had benign stall characteristics, interesting considering its wing loading; that was the benefit of the slats. Wing loading is arframe loaded weight divided by wing area and for the Bf 109 it was a higher figure for a relatively small airframe. This did have a tendency to scare inexperienced pilots, particularly on take-off; the '109 had a comparatively high take-off and landing speed to what the pilots in the late 30s were used to in the Luftwaffe, basically Fw 56s and He 51s, but the slats helped with flying handling at steep angles of bank. The high speeds on the ground was considered a disadvantage when the Bf 109 was being pitted against the He 112 during evaluation.

This is Eric Brown's account of stalling a Gustav;

"The stall with the aircraft clean, with half fuel load and the engine throttled right back occurred at 105 mph (168 km/h). This was preceded by elevator buffet and opening of the slats about 20 mph (30 km/h) above the stall, these being accompanied by the unpleasant aileron snatching as the slats opened unevenly. The stall itself was failry gentle with the nose dropping about 10 degrees. In the landing configuration the stall occurred at 99 mph (160 km/h) with identical symptoms apart from heavier elevator buffetting."

This an account by Dave Southwood a regular display pilot of Black 6 when it was flying;

"The idle stall characteristics are very benign and are affected little by undercarriage and flap position. Stall warning, which occurs at about 6 mph (10 km/h) above the stall, is given by a slight wing rock and the stick floatingright by about 2 inches (5 cm). The stall is characterised by a left wing dropb through about 15 degrees, accompanied by a light buffet. All controls are effective up to the stall and recovery is instant on moving the stick forward. 

Stall speeds are 96 mph (155 km/h) clean and 87 mph (140 km/h) with undercarriage and flap down. In a turn with 2,300 rpm/1.15 ata [atmospheres] set, stall warning is given by a light buffet at around 3g and the stall occurs at about 3.5g with the inside wing dropping. Again, recovery is instataneous on reducing the pull force on the stick."


----------



## nuuumannn (Feb 9, 2015)

> Likewise, they DID have a version with inward-retracting gear (to test the Mf 309 gear) and again elected not to go that way for the domestic version ... for some reason.
> 
> So "fixes" were produced experimentally, but never incorporated into production. And that makes me think about German attrition versus new-aircraft production. They were falling behind, and mybe a production interruption was unacceptable to the RLM since production wasn't keeping up to start with. Logically, the production interruption excuse would be a very good fit if it weren't for the myriad experimental versions of almost all the planes that WERE produced.
> 
> With that in mind, I still wonder why the Bf 109's major faults were not addressed IN production rather than only in experimental one-offs.



That sounds about right. One of the secrets to the Bf 109's longevity was that its basic structure changed very little throughout its ten year production, even in Spain and Czech. The Buchon was a Bf 109G-2 aft of the firewall. The Bf 109 was optimised for rapid mass production and ease of maintenance, which is what Willi had in mind. The fuselage for example would have required redesign and rebuilding of the jigs to produce a low backed version, whereas with the Spitfire the low back came at little change and could be done on the production line. 

Structurally the Spit changed little after the Mk.V. Aft of the firewall, in almost every variant the centre fuse was the same from Frame 5, the firewall to Frame 19, the sloped bulkhead to which the tail attached. The Spit of course copuld receive new wings, new engines, new tailplane (and local strengthening for the necessities of naval use). The Bf 109 couldn't because of the design. The trapezoidal firewall supported the engine mounts, which were strengthened to take more powerful and heavier DB engines, but the engines themselves changed little in physical size, the DB 605 being the same dimensions as the DB 601. The undercarriage also was attached at the lower corners of the firewall, the wing spars bolted onto a frame aft of the firewall. Whilst this made the entire structure quite strong, it meant that there was little room for flexibility in terms of making changes to its basic design. 

The undercarriage could be strengthened by making fatter legs, but because they retracted the way they did, it required redesigning the firewall, the epicentre of the Bf 109's structural strength in order to fit wings where the undercarriage folded inwards. All of this represents major changes on the production line. Another interesting point is that although in the Gustav weight creep was a serious issue and power out put was managed a bit to compensate i.e. GM 1, bigger supercharger and MW 50, the Gustav's wing area did not change at all compared to the Friedrich, which was much lighter.


----------



## stona (Feb 10, 2015)

GregP said:


> Thanks Graugeist. One of the sources I have says the radial powered Bf 109 varint used a captured US engine,



Since the aeroplane in question was built in 1938 the engine cannot have been 'captured' in any normal sense of the word.

Cheers

Steve


----------



## pbehn (Feb 10, 2015)

stona said:


> Since the aeroplane in question was built in 1938 the engine cannot have been 'captured' in any normal sense of the word.



Apart from the "on film" sense


----------



## Shortround6 (Feb 10, 2015)

I believe there were two different radial engined 109 airframes. The First used a P &W Twin Wasp (R-1830) and the 2nd used the BMW 801. 

DC-3s with Twin Wasp engines were first _certified_ in Nov 1936 and while the first ones went to US airlines there were plenty that went overseas before the start of WW II. The single speed, single stage R-1830 was hardly on a "secrets list".


----------



## stona (Feb 10, 2015)

Shortround6 said:


> I believe there were two different radial engined 109 airframes. The First used a P &W Twin Wasp (R-1830) and the 2nd used the BMW 801.



There were. The second BMW powered version first flew in September 1940. Unfortunately I'm not at home for a while so I can't give you the details of either the airframe or the engine, both of which I surely have 

Cheers

Steve


----------



## GrauGeist (Feb 10, 2015)

Yes, the Bf109 V21 (E series airframe) had the P&W and was tested in August 1939. The second, Bf109X (F series airframe) had the BMW801 and was tested in late '41.


----------



## pbehn (Feb 10, 2015)

stona said:


> There's some Fw 190 gun camera footage somewhere (I can't find it) in which the Focke-Wulf, trying to get a lead on, from memory, a P-51 suddenly stalls, and enters an inverted spin which must have been fun!
> 
> Steve



Posted on here some time ago about a German ace, he had many evasion gambits but the last most desperate he had to use a couple of times was to wait until the last possible second before he was shot at and then stall/change direction so he disappeared under his opponents nose out of sight and away. That must take real skill, cool and balls.


----------



## pbehn (Feb 10, 2015)

gjs238 said:


> I suspect many a pilot were not comfortable operating near stall and tried their best to avoid it, while other "experts" developed an intimacy with their aircraft and could feel or sense the stall and how far they could push it (even embrace it) and used that to their advantage.



Even if all the planes are the same there are always some people better than others and can get that little bit more. Watch any F1 or Moto GP race and you can see it, even when the guys have identical machines there is almost invariably one faster than the other. You can watch those guys, study, train and practice as much as you like but you cant beat them, they just have something extra. I see top pilots in the same way.


----------



## buffnut453 (Feb 10, 2015)

The other factor that Biff alluded to that should be considered here are the relative tactics used. This thread has largely focused on 1-v-1 combat in which pilot ability clearly plays a significant role. However, tactics when considering many-v-many combat also should be considered. For example, the RAF's early war tight vic formations meant that 2 pairs of eyes were focused on the their leader and not scanning the sky for the enemy...not a good thing in a combat environment. 

After the merge (in modern parlance), a many-v-many fight would rapidly dissolve into what each pilot would see as a 1-v-many scenario where he felt like the only friendly surrounded by adversaries. In this scenario, personal ability had a lot to do with whether that individual's aircraft was shot down or returned safely home but I wonder whether it significantly impacted the number of enemy shot down? BoB accounts are rife with comments along the lines of "suddenly there was an enemy in front of me so I took a quick squirt but then had to turn away because another enemy was on my tail". Perhaps the few who were getting all the kills were doing that much better but in a confused furball of 20+ fighters, and only the MkI eyeball as a sensor, I do wonder whether they were that much more situationally aware...or were they just luckier?


----------



## pbehn (Feb 10, 2015)

buffnut453 said:


> I do wonder whether they were that much more situationally aware...or were they just luckier?



I think they started off above average and lucky then improved with time. In "The most dangerous enemy" Bungay described Bob Doe going from novice to ace, much of which he taught himself. It is one thing to say keep a lookout, he resolved to methodically and continuously scan all quadrants after being bounced but getting away with it. 
The top guys at any activity always have more time and more awareness, with the German aces the simple fact that so many survived shows they have something special, same for the American aces prior to them going down low to straffe. However even in ground straffing there were techniques and gambits that could minimise losses, these were also made up by aces because of all their talents the most important is the will to live IMO.


----------



## Edgar Brooks (Feb 10, 2015)

The biggest problem for the Air Ministry/RAF in WWII was that the average pilot could not cope with deflection shooting; the likes of Tuck and Johnson, who were invited on grouse shooting parties, were used to the idea of leading their targets, and transferred that skill, naturally, to air fighting.
This was the reason for the refusal to introduce the .5" Browning, since it was little better than the .303" at penetrating German armour, and it was felt that four of the (faster-firing) latter had a better chance of hitting the pilot and disabling him than two of the other, slower-firing, type. When the gyro gunsight arrived in 1944, and gave the pilot a better-than-even chance of hitting what he aimed at, so the armament was changed.
It also pays to remember that pilots had no way of combatting G forces (one Norwegian pilot talks of reefing his Spitfire into a turn, and being able to see nothing except the cockpit floor; add in unheated and unpressurised cockpits, with the cold only being staved off by thick clothing and (maybe, if they worked) heated gloves, and it's little surprise that they were quickly worn out, and it was up to the CO to see the signs, and pull them off for a rest.
Pilots also didn't have the fitness regimes that they have today (the same Norwegian said how he was looked at as if he was barmy, when he and a friend would run round the camp every day.) PT was for the "other ranks," not officers, whose most strenuous exercise might be a game of cricket.


----------



## pbehn (Feb 10, 2015)

Edgar Brooks said:


> The biggest problem for the Air Ministry/RAF in WWII was that the average pilot could not cope with deflection shooting; the likes of Tuck and Johnson, who were invited on grouse shooting parties, were used to the idea of leading their targets, and transferred that skill, naturally, to air fighting.
> This was the reason for the refusal to introduce the .5" Browning, since it was little better than the .303" at penetrating German armour, and it was felt that four of the (faster-firing) latter had a better chance of hitting the pilot and disabling him than two of the other, slower-firing, type. When the gyro gunsight arrived in 1944, and gave the pilot a better-than-even chance of hitting what he aimed at, so the armament was changed.
> It also pays to remember that pilots had no way of combatting G forces (one Norwegian pilot talks of reefing his Spitfire into a turn, and being able to see nothing except the cockpit floor; add in unheated and unpressurised cockpits, with the cold only being staved off by thick clothing and (maybe, if they worked) heated gloves, and it's little surprise that they were quickly worn out, and it was up to the CO to see the signs, and pull them off for a rest.
> Pilots also didn't have the fitness regimes that they have today (the same Norwegian said how he was looked at as if he was barmy, when he and a friend would run round the camp every day.) PT was for the "other ranks," not officers, whose most strenuous exercise might be a game of cricket.



That is how it is always reported, I think it is strange snobbery. You do not have to shoot grouse to understand deflection shooting. Playing football you pass to where the player will be not where he is! Pilots should have been issued with shotguns and clay pigeons if that was the case. From what I have read the gunnery training in the RAF was poor and so it was mainly those who learned to shoot before joining that grasped what was required. You could also say that it was people who enjoyed killing animals for sport became good fighter pilots. I honestly believe this is revisionist, the RAF training was poor, so there was a post war consensus that only "grouse shooters" could become pilot aces.


As an counter argument to Tuck and Stanford I offer Adolph Malan certainly not an aristocrat no record of shooting grouse though I believe as a south african he shot a few animals. All I have read about him is that he hated the enemy and wanted to kill them, post war I believe he left the RAF in 1946 never flew again and went into politics.


----------



## bobbysocks (Feb 10, 2015)

actually pbehn they did have shotguns and clay pigeons...on us bases at least. my father told me for recreation they would sign one out and shoot skeet on and then...when they werent drinking in the officers club.


----------



## pbehn (Feb 10, 2015)

bobbysocks said:


> actually pbehn they did have shotguns and clay pigeons...on us bases at least. my father told me for recreation they would sign one out and shoot skeet on and then...when they werent drinking in the officers club.



I have read that too about other pilots, as I said it could equally well be a liking of shooting to kill ....but that isnt so gentlemanly. Given a good gunsight and training, most allied pilots picked up deflection shooting. As I said I think it is a bit of revisionism instead of admitting training was rubbish it is much easier to say that only shooting grouse gives a pilot the skills required (dontcha know old chap and all that, what ho)


----------



## bobbysocks (Feb 10, 2015)

could be...there were some "city boys" who became aces...or at least shot EAs down.


----------



## pbehn (Feb 10, 2015)

bobbysocks said:


> could be...there were some "city boys" who became aces...or at least shot EAs down.



I know, I imagine that most of the pilots in the volunteer squadrons shot grouse but few became aces. I have no idea how many VVS pilots shot grouse or even saw one. There is no doubt that pilot aces all had attributes in common, balance coordination great eyesight spatial awareness ...etc etc etc being able to shoot a bird maybe a demonstration of these attributes, being able to shoot a grouse was not the most important qualification on a prospective pilots CV. I believe Bob Doe shot rabbits (I must read the book again) but shooting rabbits doesnt fit with the "noble aristocrat" image. As I said it may well have been the ability to pull the trigger and kill that was most important. 

PS I have killed 3 grouse, 4 pheasant 1 blackbird and a sparrow just driving my car so I would have been a shoe in as an ace. No credits here for pheasant they are the most suicidal of all living things, its amazing that people pay to shoot them.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## gjs238 (Feb 10, 2015)

pbehn said:


> Even if all the planes are the same there are always some people better than others and can get that little bit more. Watch any F1 or Moto GP race and you can see it, even when the guys have identical machines there is almost invariably one faster than the other. You can watch those guys, study, train and practice as much as you like but you cant beat them, they just have something extra. I see top pilots in the same way.



They have *The Right Stuff*

Sorry, couldn't resist


----------



## pbehn (Feb 10, 2015)

gjs238 said:


> They have *The Right Stuff*
> 
> Sorry, couldn't resist



Its a fact, I shared a race track (briefly) with Barry Sheene, Damon Hill Alan Carter and a few other UK motorcycle racing aces, the top boys in UK racing, the top guys really have something special I imagine the top pilot aces are (were) the same. There is always a limit, when you go at 99% they can go at 99.5% and they will keep that up until you go at 100.5% (crash or run wide) looking back it was great fun and a pleasure to see close up.


----------



## BiffF15 (Feb 10, 2015)

pbehn said:


> PS I have killed 3 grouse, 4 pheasant 1 blackbird and a sparrow just driving my car so I would have been a shoe in as an ace. No credits here for pheasant they are the most suicidal of all living things, its amazing that people pay to shoot them.



Or as a Kamikazi...


----------



## pbehn (Feb 10, 2015)

BiffF15 said:


> Or as a Kamikazi...



Honestly Biff there is a road here (between Helmsley and Stokesley) that always has at least 4 pheasants squashed on the road, you will always have 2 or 3 flying out at you it is as if they dont want to live. Pheasants I believe came from China maybe they just want to move onto the next life quickly. If I join a shooting party with a big picture of an Audi front grill I am sure I could become a shooting "ace"


----------



## BiffF15 (Feb 10, 2015)

Pbehn,

I lived in Oklahoma for a year (USAF Pilot Training). The road kill standard there was a skunk. I called them Oklahoma Road Warriors, since they seemed to die en masse. You would get really good at rolling up windows and turning on the recirculation in your car in a feeble attempt to keep out the stink! I drove an RX-7 then and was afraid if I hit one it would get stuck in the grill...

Cheers,
Biff


----------



## BiffF15 (Feb 10, 2015)

nuuumannn said:


> Yep, as Steve mentioned, the Bf 109 had benign stall characteristics, interesting considering its wing loading; that was the benefit of the slats. Wing loading is arframe loaded weight divided by wing area and for the Bf 109 it was a higher figure for a relatively small airframe. This did have a tendency to scare inexperienced pilots, particularly on take-off; the '109 had a comparatively high take-off and landing speed to what the pilots in the late 30s were used to in the Luftwaffe, basically Fw 56s and He 51s, but the slats helped with flying handling at steep angles of bank. The high speeds on the ground was considered a disadvantage when the Bf 109 was being pitted against the He 112 during evaluation.
> 
> This is Eric Brown's account of stalling a Gustav;
> 
> ...



Nuuuman,

Do you have any data about accelerated stalls, or stalls under G and full or high power settings? I don't know that power off landing type stalls are the same as those found under high power and hard pulls on the stick.

Cheers,
Biff


----------



## BiffF15 (Feb 10, 2015)

pbehn said:


> Thanks Biff, I suspect most pilots referring to turning fights omit a lot of banking climbing rolling and other maneuvers ending with dodging around churches bridges and power lines. The Typhoon pilot said (as you say) the Fw was pulling a hard turn about 20ft above the sea, suddenly a wing dipped and it cartwheeled into the sea.



Pbehn,

If you were to be in a nearby plane watching a dogfight (BFM in todays parlance) you would think it was fairly benign. If you were in the aircraft it would be anything but. I took up a 1 star (Brig Gen with a T38, U2, SR71, KC135 background) and did short range defensive set up's with an F-16. When we were on the RTB he told me he had no idea it was so violent. I thought of it as normal due to acclimatization. He also asked why I put my hand up against the canopy, to which I replied to hold myself in the seat (the jet would get to zero or slight negative G during some maneuvers). It's hard to maneuver the plane when you are hanging in the straps.

Not only do you rough house the plane, but the throttles as well. As a defender you try to give the offender problems he can't solve by maneuver closure, which means both the stick and throttle/s are getting moved. What I don't know is how much throttle manipulation they did in pistons (Greg P?). I don't know if those engines could take slamming the throttle from stop to stop without something getting hurt.

Cheers,
Biff

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Garyt (Feb 10, 2015)

> It's not so bad when you are matched, say, 8 to 8 ... but 4 on 20 will mean the 4 are going to have a bad time, usually.



Unless you are Saburo Sakai 

Imagine what he would have done with 2 eyes working ....... I think he was flying a KI-84 in June 44 when he met the 15 Hellcats?

To show the importance of pilots, I'd take Sakai in a Zero over a competent pilot in a Hellcat.


----------



## Greyman (Feb 11, 2015)

On the topic of fatigue in a fight, I think all of the reasons mentioned are contributors, but the single biggest reason has to be the fact that the pilot had to muscle these aircraft around.

You can read about the stick forces of some of these aircraft - even at lower force levels a man can only last so long. 

A couple of good anecdotes here from Wing Commander Hugh Godefroy DSO, DFC and Bar, Croix de Guerre with Gold Star (Fr) -- (though he was a Pilot Officer in the first quote and Flight Lieutenant in the second).



> _*November 8, 1941*
> When I levelled out, I found myself directly over Le Torquet, and a little ship outside the harbour was throwing up a furious barrage of flak at me.
> 
> While I was in the process of turning and twisting, dodging the flak, I was 'bounced' by two 109s. They were a well-disciplined pair, so stationed that one could take over the attack where the other left off. Soon they were joined by two more. Turning and twisting I took short blind bursts at anything that went in front. It seemed like no time before I heard the hiss. I was out of ammunition. I was still over the ship which was relentlessly tracing my course through the sky with its flak. The 109s pressed home their attack with persistent vigour, one coming within fifty yards, firing all the way. Watching his tracer, I found myself trying to climb up on the dashboard. With one shuddering turn after another I was bathed in sweat. I had to keep my head spinning from one side to the other so that I could watch two at a time.
> ...





> _*March 13, 1942*
> Inside the coast, a Focke-Wulf 190, its yellow nose glistening in the sun, went by on my side. In level flight at high speed the 190 flew with nose down. The prop appeared to be barely turning, as through the pilot had throttled back to wait. It seemed as if he was looking at me with a hooked nose and a malevolent sneer. I couldn't stand it, I had to get it over with.
> 
> Banging the throttle through the gate, I peeled out of the formation and went after him. He was the sucker bait, and, as if he was thumbing his nose, he rolled gracefully over and streaked for the ground. I was where they wanted me, a – l – o – n – e.
> ...

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Edgar Brooks (Feb 11, 2015)

pbehn said:


> You could also say that it was people who enjoyed killing animals for sport became good fighter pilots. I honestly believe this is revisionist, the RAF training was poor, so there was a post war consensus that only "grouse shooters" could become pilot aces.


Mid-1942 is a little early to be "revisionist," and that's when Leigh-Mallory started his campaign for the .5" and was told he couldn't have it for the reason stated. If you read paragraph II of this paper, it'll give some (early) confirmation of Air Ministry thinking.








> As an counter argument to Tuck and Stanford I offer Adolph Malan certainly not an aristocrat no record of shooting grouse though I believe as a south african he shot a few animals. All I have read about him is that he hated the enemy and wanted to kill them, post war I believe he left the RAF in 1946 never flew again and went into politics.


If you actually bother to read what I said, I wrote "average pilot," and how many of those never scored a single victory?
With regard to the football-passing analogy, have you seen how many passes don't reach their intended recipient? 
Also, I don't think there are many footballers who propel a ball at 1000 feet per second, to a colleague travelling at 250/350 mph.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GregP (Feb 11, 2015)

I met Saburo Sakai at a Doug Champlin get-togeter in the early 1980's. He said he was flying a Zero and the Hellcats were following procedure to the letter. He waited for them, to get into firing position and snap-rolled to the left every time just as they shot (he saw the guns fire) ... and nobody ever led him correctly ... they followed training. He escaped and had tremendous respect since if he had not applied airshow aerobatics, he would have been dead.

HIS words, not mine.

All in all a pretty good guy who was very nice to meet. He took a ride in Bill Hane's P-51 after the talk and loved it.

It's in one his books.


----------



## pbehn (Feb 11, 2015)

BiffF15 said:


> Pbehn,
> 
> If you were to be in a nearby plane watching a dogfight (BFM in todays parlance) you would think it was fairly benign. If you were in the aircraft it would be anything but. I took up a 1 star (Brig Gen with a T38, U2, SR71, KC135 background) and did short range defensive set up's with an F-16. When we were on the RTB he told me he had no idea it was so violent. I thought of it as normal due to acclimatization. He also asked why I put my hand up against the canopy, to which I replied to hold myself in the seat (the jet would get to zero or slight negative G during some maneuvers). It's hard to maneuver the plane when you are hanging in the straps.



I dont doubt that at all, I sometimes go to a Kart track, every one who goes for the first time is completely underwhelmed when they see people going around, it looks like pensioners out for a sunday drive. Then they try it themselves and after 10 minutes they are completely knackered, this in a 4bhp kart with a max of about 30mph, the corners are very tight though.
The thing is there are no real straights so unless you learn to relax your hands left and right you get cramp from lack of blood flow.


----------



## pbehn (Feb 11, 2015)

Edgar Brooks said:


> Mid-1942 is a little early to be "revisionist," and that's when Leigh-Mallory started his campaign for the .5" and was told he couldn't have it for the reason stated. If you read paragraph II of this paper, it'll give some (early) confirmation of Air Ministry thinking.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Leigh Mallory doesnt mention shooting grouse, which was the point of my post. 
"You could also say that it was people who enjoyed killing animals for sport became good fighter pilots. I honestly believe this is revisionist, the RAF training was poor, so there was a post war consensus that only "grouse shooters" could become pilot aces."


With regard to the football analogy have you seen footballers (soccer) or a quarterback (US Football) warming up or training, they hardly ever miss. During the game there is opposition to tackle intercept or block, apart from in football the player wants to receive and in air combat the target doesnt want to be hit the analogy works perfectly. Some people work better under pressure than others.


----------



## buffnut453 (Feb 11, 2015)

I think the standard of air-to-air gunnery training in the RAF was poor. The key question is why? Area Fighting Tactics didn't help, with the carefully choreographed, and entirely impractical, manoeuvres by large formations of fighters, with the leader teeing up the squadron and everyone else just following along. It must also be considered that Fighter Command was established to defend the British Isles from bomber attack. The concept of enemy fighters operating in British airspace was discounted until France's surrender made it an operational and tactical reality. It was within this context that the Air Ministry pushed as many pilots through training to grow the front-line strength of Fighter Command, and decisions were made to cut corners in line with the prevailing thought about the nature of the threat and the proposed tactics. If you're not expecting to face fighters, why waste time training on air combat manoeuvring and deflection shooting? Was it right? Clearly not but, equally, in what was perceived as a life-and-death struggle against Nazi Germany, preceded by a race against time to increase Britain's military capabilities, I think it would be harsh to judge the decisions too critically. Decisions are always easy to make in hindsight.


----------



## bobbysocks (Feb 11, 2015)

@ nuuumannn if the 109s stall characteristics are like that...it stalls more gently than on old cessna 150 ( no capped wing tips )...those will scare the hell the first time as they dip violently to the side ( port iirc ) and want to spin.

@ Biff no armadillo road kills? where i was in oklahoma i rarely saw a skunk kill....more 'dillos and turtles ( believe it or not ).

@ pbehn i wish the LW and VVS records were as plentyful and avaialble as raf and usaaf. in those the degree of defelection commonly mentioned. i will venture to say...but have absolutley no way to prove...the LW was in the same boat as us and raf. some of its pilots did well with delfection shooting and some didnt. i cant remember hartmann ever saying he did...he choose to climb up his enemy's butt before firing. from all i have read about the vvs and their training ( lack thereof or poor ) they were behind the 8 ball with this. probably fewer of their pilots did it well. what they lacked in precision they made up for satuarting the sky with planes and lead. that is entirely my opinion.

@ greyman you just found two sterling examples of what i was saying about fatigue. had either of those pilots got into a fight with a rested or fresh enemy pilot they may not have been able to muster the strength needed to evade and escape. i have read too many accounts where the pilot noted about his prey .." they made no evasive maneuvers" ( to which i attibute fatigue or being wounded )


----------



## GrauGeist (Feb 11, 2015)

bobbysocks said:


> @ Biff no armadillo road kills? where i was in oklahoma i rarely saw a skunk kill....more 'dillos and turtles ( believe it or not ).


An Armadillo can tear up the front end of a car (steering linkage, oil pan, etc.) where a Skunk will just leave a stench for a while.

Of course, both of those options have to be far better than hitting a moose...


----------



## bobbysocks (Feb 11, 2015)

or bear...tho moose is worse. had decent size black bear run in front of me once. missed it but ruined a good pair of pants.


----------



## rochie (Feb 11, 2015)

happened to me last night.

travelling home in thick fog, when suddenly the car infront swerves to the left and in front of me i had an Ambulance on the travelling on the wrong side of a duel carridgeway, i missed a head on by inches !

it looked like he turned right out of a junction but instead of crossing the first two east bound lanes and turn onto the west bound lane he just turned into us, we all swerved and he just carried on travelling in the wrong side of the road !

was still shaking at home 20 minutes later !


----------



## Airframes (Feb 11, 2015)

Remind me not to travel by Ambulance !
And as for hitting things on the road - in my town, do _*not*_ hit a Hippocroccofrog ! Hitting one causes a Range Rover to end up looking like a Smart car !


----------



## pbehn (Feb 11, 2015)

Rule of the road in Germany, if you hit a wild boar NEVER get out to see how it is, if it isnt dead you very soon may be.


----------



## GrauGeist (Feb 11, 2015)

rochie said:


> happened to me last night.
> 
> travelling home in thick fog, when suddenly the car infront swerves to the left and in front of me i had an Ambulance on the travelling on the wrong side of a duel carridgeway, i missed a head on by inches !
> 
> ...


Holy crap, Karl!!

That was certainly a close one!

I can also say, from experience, that head-on collisions suck.

And they're hard on the paint job.


----------



## Edgar Brooks (Feb 11, 2015)

pbehn said:


> With regard to the football analogy have you seen footballers (soccer) or a quarterback (US Football) warming up or training, they hardly ever miss.


When the aircraft and targets were standing still, the pilots didn't miss the butts, either.


> During the game there is opposition to tackle intercept or block, apart from in football the player wants to receive and in air combat the target doesnt want to be hit the analogy works perfectly.


Except for the speeds involved, of course.


----------



## stona (Feb 11, 2015)

RAF gunnery was poor and it was a complaint of Dowding and later Leigh - Mallory. Little had changed in the eighteen months between the two complaints. Most RAF fighter pilots, most fighter pilots, couldn't hit the metaphorical cow's arse with a banjo. This is actually not at all surprising given the very difficult calculations, actually estimations or best guesses, that were required for good deflection shooting. Many, though by no means all, of the top scorers in the first half of the war simply negated the need for this by engaging from close to a six o'clock position with no or very slight angle off.

As alluded to in the document posted by Edgar later gun sights, particularly the very late war gyro sights, took a lot of the guess work (for want of a better phrase) out of the equation by compensating for the angle off and rate of turn of the attacking aircraft in the gun sight. Subsequently the accuracy of air to air gunnery improved dramatically.

The limiting range of many air to air weapons had nothing to do with the performance of the weapon and its projectiles and everything to do with the sighting system. The late war gyro gun sights were far removed from the early 'ring and bead' sights.

Cheers

Steve


----------



## bobbysocks (Feb 11, 2015)

the gyro site also trained pilots ( some of them ) to some degree. i have read acouple accounts where the gunsite bulb burned out and the pilot didnt have time to change it before getting into a fight. by their words they aimed using a best guess remembering how the site set up the solution from previous battles and scored hits.


----------



## pbehn (Feb 11, 2015)

Edgar Brooks said:


> When the aircraft and targets were standing still, the pilots didn't miss the butts, either.
> 
> Except for the speeds involved, of course.



I cannot fathom what your point is at all. When aircraft and targets are standing still is a complete nonsense, aircraft apart from helicopters cannot "stand still". The speeds involved between football and combat aircraft are relative, speed and perception of speed is relative. To illustrate this travel down a motorway at 100mph when everyone else is doing 100 mph in effect you are all parked, if someone travels the wrong way at 100 mph then you have a difference of 200mph and it is scary and dangerous. More likely everyone is doing 70-80 mph and suddenly something drops off a truck or an animal runs across, suddenly you go from zero differential to your true speed.

The speeds involved in combat versus football are higher but so are the distances, the time of flight of a football in whatever sport is greater in most cases than an ACs bullets as is the relative movement. One aircraft travelling at mach 2 being followed directly behind by another aircraft at mach 2 has no speed relative to its pursuer, only to the ground. Watch any combat gun cam your only perception of speed comes from your own knowledge and outside markers like the ground or clouds.


----------



## Garyt (Feb 11, 2015)

> I met Saburo Sakai at a Doug Champlin get-togeter in the early 1980's. He said he was flying a Zero and the Hellcats were following procedure to the letter.



Must have been quite an experience!

I read something about him flying a KI-84 later in the war and he loved it as a combat airplane.

Maybe I mixed these two instances together in my mind


----------



## stona (Feb 11, 2015)

pbehn said:


> One aircraft travelling at mach 2 being followed directly behind by another aircraft at mach 2 has no speed relative to its pursuer, only to the ground. Watch any combat gun cam your only perception of speed comes from your own knowledge and outside markers like the ground or clouds.




If you imagine shooting at the car in front of you in the same lane on a motorway, both travelling at a similar speed (though you might be closing) that is a zero deflection shot. It is the easiest shot to make assuming you can manoeuvre yourself into a position to make it. The only calculation/estimation required of the attacker is the range. Many WW2 era pilots couldn't do this either.

For a deflection shot, that is typically when both aircraft are turning and moving relative to one another the crucial estimation is the 'angle off' of the target from the attacker. Few pilots got this right. Analysis of RAF gun camera footage in (IIRC) 1942 showed that the average pilot underestimated angle off by at least 50% and therefore had NO CHANCE of hitting such a target.
In your driving analogy it would be like trying to hit another car crossing a motorway bridge at ninety miles an hour!

The later gyro gun sights effectively did the sums for the pilot and input this into the sight. I explained it in another thread somewhere, essentially gyroscopes measured the rate of turn and tilted a mirror, moving the sighting graticule to give the correct deflection. With these sights, assuming a few criteria like the wingspan of the target/range had been correctly entered, simply placing the target in the 'cross hairs' would ensure hits. 
In this way the 'pilot factor' at least in aiming was removed from the equation. Of course the aircraft still had to be flown into a position from which a firing solution could be established.

Cheers

Steve


----------



## pbehn (Feb 11, 2015)

I said
One aircraft travelling at mach 2 being followed directly behind by another aircraft at mach 2 has no speed relative to its pursuer, only to the ground. Watch any combat gun cam your only perception of speed comes from your own knowledge and outside markers like the ground or clouds.

you said
If you imagine shooting at the car in front of you in the same lane on a motorway, both travelling at a similar speed (though you might be closing) that is a zero deflection shot. 



Essentially the same statement, once again a series of contradictions entering a circular spiral. This all started with me not accepting "verbatim" that to be an ace you had to shoot a bloody grouse in the pre war years. I know about Gyro gun sights, thanks, they helped most pilots to do what some could always do.

Speed is a linear quantity, the discussion would run better by using velocity which is a vector quantity, relative vectors can be resolved to make sense of the situation.


----------



## GregP (Feb 11, 2015)

Mr. Sakai was there for a meeting of the American Fighter Aces Association, and was a guest as well as a guest speaker. He gave a nice talk and was delighted to be able to sit in some the aircraft he has formerly fought, and loved the ride with Bill Hane in his P-51 Ho-Hun. He didn't say anything that surprised me except that most of the Japanese pilots didn't "hate" the Americans, it was a war and they had to fight. They were proud to fight for the Emperor, but that didn't make war any better a proposition. All it really meant was the same as it did for us ... hardship and sacrifice. Like he said, war wasn't either declared or halted by people in his position ... he was just along for the ride and did his duty. He was glad when it was over, but was rather sad to have to stop flying as he rather enjoyed it.

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## BiffF15 (Feb 11, 2015)

Garyt said:


> Maybe I mixed these two instances together in my mind



That seems to be an affliction shared by some in the news reporting business these days!


----------



## tyrodtom (Feb 11, 2015)

Garyt said:


> Must have been quite an experience!
> 
> I read something about him flying a KI-84 later in the war and he loved it as a combat airplane.
> 
> Maybe I mixed these two instances together in my mind



The KI-84 was a JAAF aircraft, Sakai was Navy. He might have flew it at some point, but almost certainly never in combat.


----------



## stona (Feb 12, 2015)

pbehn said:


> I said
> One aircraft travelling at mach 2 being followed directly behind by another aircraft at mach 2 has no speed relative to its pursuer, only to the ground. Watch any combat gun cam your only perception of speed comes from your own knowledge and outside markers like the ground or clouds.
> 
> you said
> ...



Show me a gun camera footage, even of a zero deflection shot, when their is no _speed_ difference between the two aircraft. The attacker is usually closing on the target. This causes errors even when the angle off/deflection do not have to be estimated. The closing speed means that an attacking pilot knows he will have only limited time to make the shot which adds stress to an already stressful situation. All the Air Ministry's calculations, those resulting in the eight gun fighter, were based on a _maximum_ firing time of two seconds. This causes the error in estimating range. Many RAF pilots in the earliest gun camera footage recorded by the service were opening fire at 1500 yards or more with .303 machine guns, which is just one way of wasting ammunition.

I'm sure many of us can sit down and work out arithmetically the solution for the deflection needed to resolve a particular firing situation. I could do the same to enable me to catch a thrown ball or throw a ball of paper into a waste bin. Both are impossible to do in the time available and the human brain uses different methods to resolve the problem. _We can train ourselves to do these things better _and this is the crucial point. A cricketer catches a ball on the boundary not by doing the immensely complicated arithmetic in his head but by practice. Good deflection shooters did the same. Unfortunately most WW2 pilots did not get sufficient training or practice and were therefore not very good at it. Humans are not all the same (thank God) and some may have had a natural aptitude for this sort of shooting, or grasped the principles quicker.

I don't know whether having experience of game shooting helped or not. One thing is certain though, that someone who was used to shooting at targets moving relative to himself at least had an understanding of the principles involved and might well be able to apply this to an aerial situation. The application of an already understood principle to a similar situation is something the human brain is very good at.
It is often forgotten that many WW2 era pilots had never fired a gun on the ground or anywhere else before the war. Many had never even driven a car.

Cheers

Steve


----------



## Edgar Brooks (Feb 12, 2015)

pbehn said:


> I cannot fathom what your point is at all. .


It isn't my point, it's what the authorities, 75 years ago, said, so if you have a beef, take it up with them, though a medium might be needed. If you can't see any difference between men running at a maximum of 20mph, and aircraft jinking and turning at around 300, there really is no point in me trying to explain their view (I repeat, their view, not mine.)


> Essentially the same statement, once again a series of contradictions entering a circular spiral. This all started with me not accepting "verbatim" that to be an ace you had to shoot a bloody grouse in the pre war years.


Which is not what I said, and you know it (language, tut, tut.) To repeat (yet again) it was felt that, due to their time on the shooting field, the likes of Tuck and Johnson had a better grasp of the niceties of deflection shooting than ordinary pilots, who might only get a chance to fire at a towed target. Bob Doe said that his only training consisted of firing a burst into the North Sea; "Difficult to miss the North Sea," he said.


----------



## GrauGeist (Feb 12, 2015)

Garyt said:


> Must have been quite an experience!
> 
> I read something about him flying a KI-84 later in the war and he loved it as a combat airplane.
> 
> Maybe I mixed these two instances together in my mind


I haven't seen anything about Saburo Sakai flying a KI-84, although it's possible.

Are you perhaps mixing the KI-84 with the A7M that he flew and had nothing but praise for?


----------



## GregP (Feb 12, 2015)

One of the things Mr. Sakai DID mention in his talk was that being a pilot with only one eye would have been impossible if he had not already been an experienced combat pilot to start with. Since he was wounded and lost an eye in battle, they wanted to ground him and he asked to be allowed to go for a flight around the pattern to see if he could still fly and fight. He was allowed and he took off in a Zero, did a roll and a loop on climbout, and landed perfectly from a sideslip.

He was reassigned to flying immediately.

His emphasis was that the correct sight picture was firmly entrenched in his mind for takeoff, landing, and combat / aerobatics. Had it not been so, it would have been very hard to learn without considerable danger to both him and the plane ... and the landing strip. His only real difficulty was watching ALL of the sky with only one eye ... which is why he had a wingman. So ... his wingman watched his blind side and Mr. Sakai watched the other side and together they did well.


----------



## buffnut453 (Feb 12, 2015)

Edgar Brooks said:


> Bob Doe said that his only training consisted of firing a burst into the North Sea; "Difficult to miss the North Sea," he said.



So-called "splash firing" was a common training approach for RAF fighter squadrons even late into 1941. While it did accustom the pilot to the effects of gun firing (noise, vibration, aircraft deceleration etc), and might (if targeted on a fluorescent target marker) help with ground strafing gunnery, it did nothing to improve deflection shooting or firing during air combat manoeuvres.


----------



## Bad-Karma (Feb 12, 2015)

stona said:


> If you imagine shooting at the car in front of you in the same lane on a motorway, both travelling at a similar speed (though you might be closing) that is a zero deflection shot. It is the easiest shot to make assuming you can manoeuvre yourself into a position to make it. The only calculation/estimation required of the attacker is the range. Many WW2 era pilots couldn't do this either.
> 
> For a deflection shot, that is typically when both aircraft are turning and moving relative to one another the crucial estimation is the 'angle off' of the target from the attacker. Few pilots got this right. Analysis of RAF gun camera footage in (IIRC) 1942 showed that the average pilot underestimated angle off by at least 50% and therefore had NO CHANCE of hitting such a target.
> In your driving analogy it would be like trying to hit another car crossing a motorway bridge at ninety miles an hour!
> ...



Hi Steve, 

Do you happen to know if the pilot inputted wing span and range on the fly or would they typically have it set for what they expected to go up against like a 109 or 190?

EDIT: nevermind I found another thread on here explaining its operation. Very interesting thank you!


----------



## stona (Feb 12, 2015)

First the target type was entered into the system. I suppose this might have been done in advance but I think more likely once the intended target had been identified. Subsequently the pilot used a control fixed to throttle lever to match the diameter of the sighting graticule to the wingspan of the target aircraft. Since the target aircraft had previously been input and its wingspan was a known quantity, this effectively allowed the sight to calculate the range.

Gyro gun sights on Spitfires increased the percentage of aircraft destroyed significantly. A 1944 study of two squadrons using the older fixed graticule sight and the newer gyro sight showed kill percentages of 36% and 50% respectively. The gyro sight was probably even better than that, being new the squadrons fitted with it were still learning to use it.

Cheers

Steve


----------



## BiffF15 (Feb 12, 2015)

Greyman said:


> On the topic of fatigue in a fight, I think all of the reasons mentioned are contributors, but the single biggest reason has to be the fact that the pilot had to muscle these aircraft around.
> 
> You can read about the stick forces of some of these aircraft - even at lower force levels a man can only last so long.
> 
> A couple of good anecdotes here from Wing Commander Hugh Godefroy DSO, DFC and Bar, Croix de Guerre with Gold Star (Fr) -- (though he was a Pilot Officer in the first quote and Flight Lieutenant in the second).



Greyman,

It sounds like he had a serious workout! I've done surges on active duty where you fly three times and never get out of the plane or completely shut down (we would "hot pit" refuel with one engine running). These were tiresome and required us to bring lunch. I've "heard" guys would power nap while refueling and the pit boss would bang on the nose of the A/C to wake them up. 

The most I've done is about 13-15 BFM (dogfights) set ups in one sortie (this involved going to the tanker at least three times). The sortie length would have been about 1.5-1.7 hours and was an extremely fatiguing. Max stick force on an Eagle is about 45 lbs, which is probably lower than what WW2 fighters had. We also had the luxury of air conditioning and pressurization, however due to the speeds the G load could be sustained much, much longer. A modern fighter at low altitude can be at corner speed (speed needed to attain max g load), at max G, and accelerate. You learn power modulation, and use AOA to control your speed. Or you push the fight into the slow speed regime (much lower G's).

Cheers,
Biff

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Feb 12, 2015)

Edgar Brooks said:


> It isn't my point, it's what the authorities, 75 years ago, said, so if you have a beef, take it up with them, though a medium might be needed. If you can't see any difference between men running at a maximum of 20mph, and aircraft jinking and turning at around 300, there really is no point in me trying to explain their view (I repeat, their view, not mine.)
> 
> Which is not what I said, and you know it (language, tut, tut.) To repeat (yet again) it was felt that, due to their time on the shooting field, the likes of Tuck and Johnson had a better grasp of the niceties of deflection shooting than ordinary pilots, who might only get a chance to fire at a towed target. Bob Doe said that his only training consisted of firing a burst into the North Sea; "Difficult to miss the North Sea," he said.



I have no problem with what the authorities said 75 years ago. Gunnery training was poor, and deflection shooting is difficult. My only point was that the shooting of grouse improving marksmanship is revisionist. I went on an open day which included shooting both shotguns and small bore rifle. It is the easiest thing to teach picking the lead on a clay pigeon, you trace the line of flight and as you overtake it you pull the trigger. You stand still and when you pull the trigger you crate a hail of shot that at 20 yards is about 3 feet across to hit a target about 6 inches long, where is the connection to aiming guns on a plane at another plane. There were many aces who liked to shoot game and were good, there were many pilots who liked to shoot who never made a kill in a plane and a huge number of aces who I doubt know what a grouse is.

To turn the discussion in a different direction, Jackie Stewart was Britain's most successful F1 racer, he was also international class with a shotgun At the age of 13 he had won a clay pigeon shooting competition and then went on to become a prize-winning member of the Scottish shooting team, competing in the United Kingdom and abroad. He won the British, Welsh and Scottish skeet shooting championships and the "Coupe des Nations" European championship. Does that mean shooting helps you drive a car fast? I would say no. But to reach the top in these sports you need great reflexes balance awareness hand eye coordination concentration and determination to get it right. 

From what I have read the biggest problem with deflection shooting is that the greater the deflection then the greater is the importance of the distance, if the range is off then the lead angle is off. Humans live on land not in the sky and are not naturally good at estimating large distances. I have read several times that pilots seeing another plane in the distance at the same height will perceive it to be lower and the further away it is the lower it seems. As stona posted on another post viewing gun cameras showed that pilots were way off, you must presume the pilot was actually aiming at the target (he knows he has a camera on the gun) from what I read it was the hopelessly inaccurate estimate of range, some were firing at 1000 yards.


----------



## Greyman (Feb 12, 2015)

On the subject of "_It's the pilot not the plane_" I've got another anecdote from Mr. (then Flight Lieutenant) Hugh Godefroy.

Now, people who recall some of my posts in the past might roll their eyes at seeing this yet again - but it really is one of my all-time favourite anecdotes when it comes to discussions on
i) single anecdotes (small sample sizes) or anecdotes in general
ii) turn performance, 'manoeuvrability' in general
iii) importance of the pilot in comparing aircraft​


_At Duxford one day a US Army Captain arrived unexpectedly with a P-38. Like the other Air Corps pilots, he had no battle experience and asked if he could get somebody to dogfight with him in a Spitfire IXb. Flight Lieutenant Clive, implying that he was in charge, said he would be glad to cooperate. He would fly the Spitfire himself. We were all a witness to the P-38 outmanoeuvre Clive, even turning inside him. When they landed, Clive came into Dispersal sweating profusely and stated the P-38 could outmanoeuvre the IXb. The Captain asked if he could have that in writing to show his Commanding Officer.

'Certainly,' said Clive, 'I'll have it ready for you by lunchtime.'_

Now, imagine if the story ended here, as it easily could have. Think of how us internet nerds would pour over this controlled, seemingly decisive 'combat'. How those that have some strange, personal investment in the performance of seventy-year old aircraft would either swoon or gnash their teeth at the outcome of this impromptu contest. It would have been 'ammunition' on forums and bulletin boards for decades.

However, it doesn't end there. Godefroy continues ...

_I was convinced this was wrong, and pleaded with Campbell-Orr to let me fly against him before issuing any report. The Captain supported me in my request, and off we went. I was able to show that there was no way he could come anywhere near me in the Spitfire. To demonstrate the turning ability, I let him get on my tail. In two complete circles from this position, I was able to get in firing position behind him. The Captain was not a bit upset, he had come to learn the truth. I told him I thought a good pilot in a 109F would give him a lot of trouble._

Now here we have two mock combats with everything remaining constant except for the pilot of one of the aircraft - and we get _*completely opposite*_ results. 

Something to keep in mind.

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## nuuumannn (Feb 12, 2015)

> Now here we have two mock combats with everything remaining constant except for the pilot of one of the aircraft - and we get completely opposite results.



Yep, I was thinking the exact same thing whilst reading the first part - great anecdote indeed Greyman. _That'_s pilot factor.

One example that springs to mind is when the RN went to war with Sea Harriers against the Argentine Mirages, before the war, few thought the Sea Harrier could do the job, but in the right hands with the right training and tactics, it could. Although the Sea Harrier was a terrific mount and ideal for what the Brits needed, I'm also certain that had the British had Mirages and the Argies had Sea Harriers, the result would have been the same.


----------



## pbehn (Feb 12, 2015)

nuuumannn said:


> Yep, I was thinking the exact same thing whilst reading the first part - great anecdote indeed Greyman. _That'_s pilot factor.
> 
> One example that springs to mind is when the RN went to war with Sea Harriers against the Argentine Mirages, before the war, few thought the Sea Harrier could do the job, but in the right hands with the right training and tactics, it could. Although the Sea Harrier was a terrific mount and ideal for what the Brits needed, I'm also certain that had the British had Mirages and the Argies had Sea Harriers, the result would have been the same.


Wasnt the latest version of the sidewinder decisive in the Falklands?


----------



## nuuumannn (Feb 12, 2015)

It was. The Mirage had better altitude performance and all-out speed, but the British pilots worked the Argentine pilots to the Sea Harrier's area of expertise, medium to low altitude slow manoeuvring, so tactics played a big part in their advantage. Argentine situational awareness was not as attentive as the British pilots, it appears - although no disrespect to them; they fought the good fight. Trials conducted after the Falklands War revealed that there was little that could out manoeuvre a Sea Harrier. Sharkey Ward recounts stories of getting into dogfights with USAF F-15 pilots based at Lakenheath and coming out on top every time in the Sea Harrier.


----------



## GregP (Feb 12, 2015)

I REALLY don't think the situation would have been the same had the aircraft been reversed at all. The Sea Harrier could not GET from Argentina to the Falklands and back, and the Mirages could not have operated from the ships the Sea Harroers operated from.

Had the two countires swapped equipment, personnel and geographic locations, then the results might have been the same. I KNOW what you meant but, technically speaking, neither side could have engaged in combat at all had they just swapped aircraft.


----------



## pbehn (Feb 12, 2015)

GregP said:


> I REALLY don't think the situation would have been the same had the aircraft been reversed at all. The Sea Harrier could not GET from Argentina to the Falklands and back, and the Mirages could not have operated from the ships the Sea Harroers operated from.
> 
> Had the two countires swapped equipment, personnel and geographic locations, then the results might have been the same. I KNOW what you meant but, technically speaking, neither side could have engaged in combat at all had they just swapped aircraft.


Swap aircraft but not ships or soldiers....game over


----------



## nuuumannn (Feb 12, 2015)

> I REALLY don't think the situation would have been the same had the aircraft been reversed at all.



I think you might be missing the point, Greg.


----------



## GregP (Feb 13, 2015)

YOU are missing the point.

You could have swapped *aviators* and the results might have flopped ... but not aircraft. The British could not have launched Mirages and the Argentinians could NOT have attack the Falklands with Sea Harriers from Argentina.

If you disagree, tell me how these things could have been accomplished. The islands are at the extreme edge of possible Sea Harrier range ... if they get to cruise at best speed and altitude with external tanks and no weapons other than a gun. The Mirages could not have been launched from any British ship that participated, not could they have landed.

Duhhhh ...

Still, I understand what was said and basically agree ... just not with the statement as said.

Picky, picky ... I know ...


----------



## nuuumannn (Feb 13, 2015)

> YOU are missing the point.



Easy Greg. I can't be, I made the point to begin with.


----------



## GregP (Feb 13, 2015)

Not starting an argument, just saying they could have swapped pilots and had the results change ... perhaps ... but not planes. Not sure the results would have changed either, given the range constraints.

The Argentinians are pretty good ... or they would not have scored what they did score.

The conflict was NOT a given, and wasn't lost by all that much. A couple more successful Exocets and the tide might have swung the other way ... even WITH the aircraft involved, including A-4's.

I think Argentina did WELL ... but didn't win the day in the end. Might have, though. Probably depended on losses. The threshold wasn't reached whereby withdrawl was the order to fight another day.


----------



## nuuumannn (Feb 13, 2015)

> The conflict was NOT a given, and wasn't lost by all that much.



No one's saying it was. In fact the Brits went in with much more trepidation than many actually are aware. But organisation, tactics, training and equipment conspired against the Argentine forces. A difference in point is the overall use of helicopters in the conflict. Britain used them as often and in as many roles as possible, including combat; British helicopters managed to sink a submarine and a patrol boat, as well as air strikes against dug in positions, aside from the usual spotting, recon, supply loading etc, whereas the Argentine forces did not use their helicopters for much more than as mules.

General Menendez, the Argentine commander on the islands relied heavily on the concept of the strong hold at Stanley as his means of defence, thinking that where ever the British landed they'd have such a heck of a time getting through the defences at Stanley that an attack would end in Argentine victory, but he didn't count on the British walking across the islands, since many of their helos were sunk on the Atlantic Conveyor. He also miscalculated where the British landed, but did nothing about it. Menendez paid no attention to British movements; there was little reconnaissance or even any real effort to hinder the landings at San Carlos apart from the sorties by the Argentine Navy pilots. The Argentine Army put up little resistance at all, excpt for a few attacks by MB 339s, Beech Mentors and Pucaras, which were repelled and halted once 2 Para captured the airfield at Goose Green and Stanely came under attack by Harriers. It's also worth remembering that Argentine troops out numbered British troops on the island by a wide margin.

Also, regarding the Argentine navy pilots, they received orders to attack warships, so they did and many were damaged and some sunk, but by and large, supply ships and troop carriers were ignored. The ocean liner Canberra was the largest that was involved in the British assault, but it was not attacked directly. Had it been so, it would have been a sitting duck and the results would have been disastrous for the British. As it was, the attack against the assault ship Sir Galahad caused many deaths among the Welsh Guards, but it was the exception, rather than the rule. Although the Atlantic Conveyor was sunk, demonstrating that had they concentrated on this type of vessel, the results would have been very bad for the British, the Argentine pilot was aiming for the aircraft carriers and for some time afterwards, they claimed the Invincible as sunk. One of the aircraft on display at the air museum outside Buenos Aires has kill markings for the Invincible on it.

The British also had their weaknesses, by far the worst was its early warning at fleet level. The lack of any means ships were used as radar pickets, which their vulnerability was demonstrated once the Sheffield was attacked - it's worth noting that the Argentine Navy only had 5 air launched Exocet rounds. The Glamorgan was hit in the hangar by a mounting removed from one of the Argentine Type 42 destroyers and mounted on a truck, very resourceful. This lack of early warning also meant that Sea Harriers were flying standing patrols, which was wasteful fuel wise. Close in defence of its warships was singled as a big weakness also and it led to CIWS being subsequently fitted to British warships. The AEW variant of the Westland Sea King was developed as a result of the lessons learned from the Falklands. It was certainly not one sided, but it could have been far more bloody and longer than it was. That it wasn't, we have to be thankful.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 14, 2015)

Play nice guys. It's been real good around here of late, don't ruin it.


----------



## fastmongrel (Feb 14, 2015)

Luckily for Britain the Argentinian officer class were with exceptions exceedingly poor at there job. When most of your experience and training has been concentrated on torturing students to death and throwing Nuns out of Helicopters over the Rio Plata and you come up against a well trained proffesional military then its no surprise you dont do very well. 

Some of the equipment the British had was apalling like the Rapier SAM. Anyone who had any practical knowledge of the system knew it was frighteningly delicate just towing it down a bumpy track could put it out of action for hours, so putting it on a ship sailing 10,000miles then transferring it to a landing barge then dragging it up a hill wasnt going to go well.

It should have been a lot closer run thing but the men were as always the main thing not the tactics or weapons.


----------



## nuuumannn (Feb 14, 2015)

> It should have been a lot closer run thing but the men were as always the main thing not the tactics or weapons.



Yep, and the men determine the tactics and how effectively the weapons are used. Better technology does play a role, however. The Rapier did manage to shoot down aircraft during the Falklands and despite its serviceability problems actually proved effective. British Aerospace were surprised to find that it was able to track targets whilst looking down into the bay from high positions during the San Carlos landings once a bridgehead had been established.


----------



## gjs238 (Feb 16, 2015)

Greyman said:


> Now here we have two mock combats with everything remaining constant except for the pilot of one of the aircraft - and we get _*completely opposite*_ results.
> 
> Something to keep in mind.



The P-38 pilot had to fly two mock combats.
Did the 1st combat warm him up or leave him lacking for the 2nd?


----------



## gjs238 (Feb 16, 2015)

GregP said:


> The Argentinians are pretty good ... or they would not have scored what they did score.
> The conflict was NOT a given, and wasn't lost by all that much. A couple more successful Exocets and the tide might have swung the other way ... .



Or connected a few more iron bombs with their A4's.


----------



## yulzari (Feb 17, 2015)

Perhaps we are drifting away from the thread but, just to mention, the 1982 war was going to be a certain UK victory even if the task force was initially repelled with losses. With a 6 month lead it would have returned with 5 carriers, at least 2 more helicopter carriers, properly converted container ships, more and improved air defence and warning, heavier guns and a whole host of lesson learned from AEW to waterproof boots. Fortunately it was kept to a restricted palette (not restricted if you were a poor cold b*gger there of course) and losses were far less than they might have been on both sides. But all losses are sad ones.

Argentinean pilots had few opportunities to use their skills. Operating at the limits of range, especially when approaching the task force itself so they could ill afford any maneuver that could waste fuel. I did note (IIRC) that RAF/RAAF crews sent to attack the Japanese task force approaching Malaya were told to ignore the naval vessels and go for the troopships. A more professional choice than the willy waving of sinking naval vessels. A parade of Japanese naval vessels cruising along the eastern coast of Malaya would have been a painful nuisance but battalions of Japanese soldiers landed there was the real threat. The sinking of the Atlantic Conveyor was more of a hindrance to the assault to retake the islands than the loss of the destroyers. However, as much time has passed since 1982 as had passed previously since WW2 so one hopes that we have all moved on.


----------



## Garyt (Feb 17, 2015)

> I haven't seen anything about Saburo Sakai flying a KI-84, although it's possible.
> 
> Are you perhaps mixing the KI-84 with the A7M that he flew and had nothing but praise for?



I think you are correct, Graugreist. He had a lot of superlatives for the plane, and the one that I thought that could meet these superlatives was the KI-84.

Good for us and bad for the Japanese that their army and navy operated as two separate forces and did not co-operate. A KI-84 made carrier able (if possible) would have made for some formidable opponents by late 43 or 44. By this time though it may have been too late anyway, as the pilot calibre had deteriorated substantially by this point.


----------



## GrauGeist (Feb 17, 2015)

there were actually several very formidable aircraft the Japanese had by the later stages of the war that would have meant serious trouble for the Allies if:
They had resources for mass production
They had capable support (i.e.: fuel, oil, spare parts, etc.)
They had a suitable pilot base - not only experienced pilots, but enough pilots to replace losses and slow the attrition rate.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## The Basket (Feb 17, 2015)

I saw programme about a MD-11 crash. Is the MD-11 safe?
Dunno. Since I will never fly one I will only be able to read the usual guff on the web.
I remember reading a pilots opinion about the MiG-23. As long as you fly the aircraft safely its a safe aircraft.
Pilot skill is important because in a 2 second do or die moment, only the pilots training experience will save them as they will have no time to think. Poor training and no experience will lead to disaster.


----------



## Garyt (Feb 17, 2015)

> They had capable support (i.e.: fuel, oil, spare parts, etc.)



Other than the pilot issue, this seems to be as big of a problem as anything for the late war Japanese. I've heard of planes almost falling apart due to either faulty manufacture, poorly made parts or lack of parts.

Poor fuel quality too, what there was of it. My cough syrup may has been as good of fuel as some late war Japanese fuels 

Funny when you read about the performance of say the KI-84 as tested vs the performance the Japanese got out of it. IIRC, about an extra 40-50 mph on american fuel.

The A7M could have been formidable as well. The land based interceptor prototypes had 6 x 30mm cannon, could have caused some havoc with the B-29 raids.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 17, 2015)

Garyt said:


> I've heard of planes almost falling apart due to either faulty manufacture, poorly made parts or lack of parts.


I'd like to know the specific source for that!

Japanese manufacturing had many poor traits, interchangeability was one of them, but just like any other combatant, new aircraft were test flown after production to identify and correct any defects. It takes a lot for an aircraft to "fall apart."


----------



## GregP (Feb 18, 2015)

Ditto from here. AIrcraft are incredubly strong, especially the military variety. They aren't shabbily built.

The Planes of Fame flies the only remaining authentic Mistubishi A6M-5 Model 52 Zero ... actually the only Zero of any sort flying on the original Japanese engine (and prop). It is NOT built badly at all. In fact, the quality is very good. Until it receives battle damage, it is as strong or stronger than US aircraft.

But since the metal is much thinner, it takes fewer hits to cause critical damage. That is a consequence of choosing a low-horsepower engine to power it, not a consequence of poor build quality.


----------



## GrauGeist (Feb 18, 2015)

I think the point Garyt is making, is that towards the end of the war, the quality control was not the same as it was in the early years.

This has been seen in German aircraft as well, and due to similar circumstances. While the aircraft weren't "falling apart" after they were coming off the assembly line, the finish quality was not as as high as it could have been (or had been in earlier years), due to the rush.

Also, once in the field, they didn't have the luxury of a secure rear area to R&R the machines as was needed, but patched them up and sent them back out as best as they could. And unlike Europe, certain areas of South Pacific operations were extremely harsh on the aircraft due to the coral dust and humidity.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 18, 2015)

GrauGeist said:


> I think the point Garyt is making, is that towards the end of the war, the quality control was not the same as it was in the early years.
> 
> This has been seen in German aircraft as well, and due to similar circumstances. While the aircraft weren't "falling apart" after they were coming off the assembly line, the finish quality was not as as high as it could have been (or had been in earlier years), due to the rush.
> 
> Also, once in the field, they didn't have the luxury of a secure rear area to R&R the machines as was needed, but patched them up and sent them back out as best as they could. And unlike Europe, certain areas of South Pacific operations were extremely harsh on the aircraft due to the coral dust and humidity.



Agree 100%, but his words were "falling apart." If one is going to make a claim like that outside of obvious semantics, be ready to back it up.

It's like me saying, "all Japanese aircraft were junk." I think we all know different!!!


----------



## Garyt (Feb 18, 2015)

> I think the point Garyt is making, is that towards the end of the war, the quality control was not the same as it was in the early years.
> 
> This has been seen in German aircraft as well, and due to similar circumstances. While the aircraft weren't "falling apart" after they were coming off the assembly line, the finish quality was not as as high as it could have been (or had been in earlier years), due to the rush.



Yes indeed Graugreist, that is what I meant.

I was speaking metaphorically, as I also do not believe my cough syrup could indeed has served as aviation fuel for the Japanese.

I do recall reading somewhere, though I am not sure of the source, of landing gear failing upon the landing of a few late war Japanese planes, and this being blamed on the more quality and metallurgy of the late war Japanese aircraft industry.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 18, 2015)

Garyt said:


> I do recall reading somewhere, though I am not sure of the source, of landing gear failing upon the landing of a few late war Japanese planes, and this being blamed on the more quality and metallurgy of the late war Japanese aircraft industry.



I think you'll find that all combatants through out the war had, at one time or another, issues with heat treatment during production. Unless specifics are identified, this is a broad brush statement.


----------



## Garyt (Feb 18, 2015)

I'm not sure of the original source for this, but this has also been reposted from the original source to this forum:



> Hayate1 codenamed 'Frank' by the Allies is generally regarded as the best Japanese fighter of the World War II period. Though Hayate was primarily used as a fighter it served in bomber capacity as well. Due to it's advanced direct-injection engine Hayate was able to outmaneuver and outclimb it's American counterparts, the P-47N Thunderbolt and the P-51H Mustang.
> 
> Ki-84 was not without problems. Due to the war time shortages and increasingly poorer quality control meant that Japanese pilots never knew how their plane was going to behave. For instance poor treatment of the high-strength steel meant that the landing gear could simply snap upon landing.
> 
> ...



Seems the sub "embargo" also caused problems with finished quality.


----------



## pbehn (Feb 18, 2015)

What difference does a G suit make? Does it make for example a sustained 7 G possible where it isnt without one.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 18, 2015)

Again, a broad brush possibly based on isolated incidents with no further specifics. From Wiki..

_"Compounding reliability problems were the Allied submarine blockade which prevented delivery of crucial components, such as the landing gear. Many further landing gear units were compromised by the poor-quality heat treatment of late-war Japanese steel. Many Hayates consequently suffered strut collapses on landing. Further damage was caused by inadequately trained late war pilots."_

"poor-quality heat treatment of late-war Japanese steel"

Again, without specifics, this is just speculation. I've been involved with metal heat treatment and for the most part it's pretty cut and dry if your ovens are working properly and follow quench times. If the alloying material has issues to start with then no matter how well you control the heat treat process, you'll have problems, and again all combatants had their share of issues with this.


----------



## BiffF15 (Feb 18, 2015)

pbehn said:


> What difference does a G suit make? Does it make for example a sustained 7 G possible where it isnt without one.



Pbehn,

The G suit I flew with gave a guy about two G's more and in my opinion helped with sustained G's as well. The Blue Angels fly without G suits and the Hornet has a normal G limit of 7.3 (IIRC).

Cheers,
Biff

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Garyt (Feb 18, 2015)

> If the *alloying material has issues to start with* then no matter how well you control the heat treat process, you'll have problems, and again all combatants had their share of issues with this.



I would think that the Japanese would have had problems with the alloying materials due to shortages caused by the strangulation of the Japanese economy by sub warfare. And I think they would have problems above and beyond any other major nations of WW2, the only ones in a remotely similar situation would be late war Germany (though not an island nation, so not the same), or Britain at the pinnacle of success of the U-Boat campaign, though Britain was not both strangled from sea at the same time it's production facilities were being intensely bombed. Or so at least I have read in different sources, broad-brush as they may be.

I think finding any true specifics on this though will be virtually impossible, at best a needle in the haystack type chase.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 18, 2015)

Garyt said:


> *I would think that the Japanese would have had problems with the alloying materials due to shortages caused by the strangulation of the Japanese economy by sub warfare.* And I think they would have problems above and beyond any other major nations of WW2, the only ones in a remotely similar situation would be late war Germany (though not an island nation, so not the same), or Britain at the pinnacle of success of the U-Boat campaign, though Britain was not both strangled from sea at the same time it's production facilities were being intensely bombed. Or so at least I have read in different sources, broad-brush as they may be.
> 
> I think finding any true specifics on this though will be virtually impossible, at best a needle in the haystack type chase.



Then that would have effected all steel production, not just one design.

Here's a link about the Frank and some comments made about it's quality.

_"The performance and reliability of production Hayates was seldom as good as that of the service test machines. As the quality of the workmanship steadily deteriorated, the performance of the Hayate steadily declined as production progressed, with later machines having successively poor and poorer performance and mechanical reliability. The hydraulic and fuel pressure systems were both poorly designed and were subject to frequent failures. The wheel brakes were notoriously unreliable, and the metal of the landing gear struts was often inadequately hardened during manufacture, which made them likely to snap at any time. This caused *many* Hayates to be written off in landing accidents, without ever having been damaged in combat."_

Nakajima Ki 84 Frank

The text shows no references...

I liken this to stories we hear about the Fw 200 and how it was prone to failures of it's fuselage during landing. The German themselves confirmed this issue with the aircraft but you know how many were actually lost due to the fuselage failing? About 8.

I think we could go around on this and show just about any mass produced WW2 aircraft with manufacturing issues, the point here is despite the diminishing quality of Japanese aircraft at the end of the war, they were certainly not falling out of the sky (I do recognize the semantics). Although not to the standards of US Aircraft with regards to production quality, aircraft like the Ki 84 were still dangerous if flown by the right individual.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Feb 18, 2015)

Heat treatment depends on chemical analysis and chemical analysis depends on some rare and difficult to obtain elements and quality control. Steelmaking has changed vastly in the postwar years. I doubt seriously that the japanese couldnt perform the heat treatment required, more likely they couldnt source rare alloying elements or due to shortage of fuels were obliged to accept "heats" that should have been rejected. A similar problem to the Me262 turbine blades, their failure could be blamed on incorrect heat treatment if you like, the real problem was Germany couldnt get the metals they wanted.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 18, 2015)

pbehn said:


> Heat treatment depends on chemical analysis and chemical analysis depends on some rare and difficult to obtain elements and quality control. Steelmaking has changed vastly in the postwar years. I doubt seriously that the japanese couldnt perform the heat treatment required, more likely they couldnt source rare alloying elements or due to shortage of fuels were obliged to accept "heats" that should have been rejected. A similar problem to the Me262 turbine blades, their failure could be blamed on incorrect heat treatment if you like, the real problem was Germany couldnt get the metals they wanted.



The landing gear was more likely mild steel, 4130 or 4140. Not to difficult to heat treat


----------



## Garyt (Feb 18, 2015)

> aircraft like the Ki 84 were still dangerous if flown by the right individual.



That I do not doubt one little bit. Finding the "right" individual at late stages of the war though became progressively tougher.


----------



## pbehn (Feb 18, 2015)

FLYBOYJ said:


> The landing gear was more likely mild steel, 4130 or 4140. Not to difficult to heat treat



Mild steel is very easy to heat treat, like I said if the Japanese were struggling for fuels and minerals the basic metal may well have been substandard, de slagging and refining of iron to steel can be termed "heat treatment". Even today companies in financial trouble have ended up on the rocks by cutting corners, "heat treatment" can become a cover all for general sub standard manufacture. Also in this era heat treatment was an extremely skilled job requiring years of training, temperatures were estimated by eyesight and there was no UT, RT and little DP and MP testing. I know nothing about this particular AC, just saying, on the other side many in the west had the opinion that Japanese couldnt make anything of quality so any failure would be blamed on that rather than just a hard landing.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Feb 18, 2015)

And this brings us back to the pilot factor...

If the aircraft had marginal material quality but a good, experienced pilot, it may have held up well enough. However, you have an influx of inexperienced pilots being rushed through training and sent to the front and now that same aircraft will fail under the inexperience (hard landings, ground loops, improper proceedures, etc.).

So now the numbers of "failures" start climbing on the books and the fault may not lay entirely on the aircraft.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## bobbysocks (Feb 18, 2015)

new and inexperienced pilots are hard on landing gear ... even ones in perfectly good working order.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 18, 2015)

pbehn said:


> Mild steel is very easy to heat treat, like I said if the Japanese were struggling for fuels and minerals the basic metal may well have been substandard, de slagging and refining of iron to steel can be termed "heat treatment". Even today companies in financial trouble have ended up on the rocks by cutting corners, "heat treatment" can become a cover all for general sub standard manufacture. Also in this era heat treatment was an extremely skilled job requiring years of training, temperatures were estimated by eyesight and there was no UT, RT and little DP and MP testing. I know nothing about this particular AC, just saying, on the other side many in the west had the opinion that Japanese couldnt make anything of quality so any failure would be blamed on that rather than just a hard landing.



Agree - the Japanese more than had enough skill and technology to heat treat mild steel which was used extensively in aircraft construction, not only in all metal aircraft but in fabric aircraft as well. 4130 steel tube was the basic frame work of most if not all fabric aircraft of the period. There's no exotic alloys in 4130 carbon steel - Carbon, Chromium, Manganese and Molybdenum if I remember correctly


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 18, 2015)

GrauGeist said:


> And this brings us back to the pilot factor...
> 
> If the aircraft had marginal material quality but a good, experienced pilot, it may have held up well enough. However, you have an influx of inexperienced pilots being rushed through training and sent to the front and now that same aircraft will fail under the inexperience (hard landings, ground loops, improper proceedures, etc.).
> 
> So now the numbers of "failures" start climbing on the books and the fault may not lay entirely on the aircraft.






bobbysocks said:


> new and inexperienced pilots are hard on landing gear ... even ones in perfectly good working order.



Agree all the way around


----------



## pbehn (Feb 19, 2015)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Agree - the Japanese more than had enough skill and technology to heat treat mild steel which was used extensively in aircraft construction, not only in all metal aircraft but in fabric aircraft as well. 4130 steel tube was the basic frame work of most if not all fabric aircraft of the period. There's no exotic alloys in 4130 carbon steel - Carbon, Chromium, Manganese and Molybdenum if I remember correctly



Chromium Manganese and Molybdenum are not exotic but I think may be hard to source in Japan. I think the discussion is a bit off target, I have seen 4 warbirds undercarriage fail, all because they didnt lock out. I cannot imagine a landing hard enough to bend or snap the steel in a leg without the whole of the rest A/C being a write off, like the passenger plane that landed really hard and punched the undercart struts straight through the wing.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 19, 2015)

pbehn said:


> Chromium Manganese and Molybdenum are not exotic but I think may be hard to source in Japan. I think the discussion is a bit off target, I have seen 4 warbirds undercarriage fail, all because they didnt lock out. I cannot imagine a landing hard enough to bend or snap the steel in a leg without the whole of the rest A/C being a write off, like the passenger plane that landed really hard and punched the undercart struts straight through the wing.



Even if not done "100% correct" a landing gear leg made from steel would be pretty hard to "snap".


----------



## pbehn (Feb 19, 2015)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Even if not done "100% correct" a landing gear leg made from steel would be pretty hard to "snap".



That is the implication of incorrect heat treatment, too hard and it snaps, too soft and it bends. I dont see it happening either. I have seen massive steel structures fail, but dont see how it could be a factor here/


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 19, 2015)

pbehn said:


> That is the implication of incorrect heat treatment, too hard and it snaps, too soft and it bends. I dont see it happening either. I have seen massive steel structures fail, but dont see how it could be a factor here/



Additionally you're looking at other portions of the gear that have additional hardened surfaces, the piston/ cylinder of an oleo strut has a layer of chome plating thus compounding the strength of the landing gear leg. Where I have seen failures is at the axle and many times cracks are detectable before total failure occurs.


----------



## grampi (Feb 19, 2015)

Considering the wing area of the Spit compared to that of the 109, it's amazing the 109 could even come close to turning as tight...I know there are other factors involved, but it seems to me this one factor would give the spit a huge advantage in turning radius...


----------



## BiffF15 (Feb 19, 2015)

Gents,
I have seen a gear snap on a F-15D used by the school house. It's the only one I've heard of and it happened at KJAX during a student sortie. The Eagle has no max landing weight either so it was especially surprising.
Shiza happens.
Cheers,
Biff

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 19, 2015)

BiffF15 said:


> Gents,
> I have seen a gear snap on a F-15D used by the school house. It's the only one I've heard of and it happened at KJAX during a student sortie. The Eagle has no max landing weight either so it was especially surprising.
> Shiza happens.
> Cheers,
> Biff



Ouch! What part of the gear snapped?


----------



## BiffF15 (Feb 19, 2015)

Flyboy,
I'm pretty sure it was the strut itself. I was surprised it broke where it did and IIRC it drug the centerline bag on the runway. I seem to remember it didn't drag a wingtip either.
Cheers,
Biff

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 19, 2015)

Wow! The only fighter landing gear I've ever seen built was for the F-117A. That thing was pretty beefy and I would think the F-15 would have a much more robust leg. That student must have really planted that bird!!!


----------



## pbehn (Feb 19, 2015)

Landing and AC on a carrier is a very special situation. Sailing into the wind on a smooth sea with a headwind and an experienced pilot is a great situation. On a pitching sea with little wind and a novice pilot it is quite different situation. Drop a plane on a deck at high speed and the structure will fail, make repeated hard landings and eventually something will fail, make repeated normal landings and then parts will start to wear out or have to be replaced. The front suspension on a motorcycle will eventually have to be replaced through wear and tear, a normal crash may mean re rolling of the tubes but a head on crash will snap the forks, snapping the forks is not a sign of incorrect heat treatment or any other fault, the wheels fame and usually the engine are smashed in the same event, I see it as the same in a hard landing which look sometimes are nothing more than crashes.


----------



## GrauGeist (Feb 19, 2015)

Every carrier landing is a controlled crash!


----------



## BiffF15 (Feb 19, 2015)

Flyboy,

IIRC the F-117 used the gear from an Eagle, the flight controls from the Viper and some other off the shelf (OTS) equipment to keep the costs down. The F-15A-D has pretty strong gear, but that plane in particular was from the school house (lots of "abrupt" landings no doubt). The F15E has even stronger gear, brakes and wheels (it's quite a bit heavier) due to its carrying of heavy ordinance.

Cheers,
Biff

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------

