# Bf-109F-4 and a bleak time for RAF



## Chingachgook (Nov 27, 2006)

X


----------



## Sarge714 (Dec 1, 2006)

Looks like the big advantage of the Fw190 over the Bf109 is a lighter stick force giving it the ability to pull more g's at high speed. The Fw190 actually has a turn advantage over most fighters above the high 200's mph. 

A big question is did the German pilots have some type of g-suit to help take advantage of the ability to pull higher g's?

Don't know of any sims yet to correctly model things correctly. Fingers crossed JSBSim someday becomes the defacto standard FM used by all mfg's so we can correctly model the aircraft and see what really they were like to fly air combat in.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 1, 2006)

Sarge714 said:


> A big question is did the German pilots have some type of g-suit to help take advantage of the ability to pull higher g's?


No...


----------



## bomber (Dec 1, 2006)

Check this data out....

It might make it clearer

W.W.II Fighter Performance Chart

regards

Simon


----------



## Chingachgook (Dec 1, 2006)

X


----------



## delcyros (Dec 1, 2006)

I must admit that the sources from
Beim-Zeugmeister: Seite 12 - Firmendaten Messerschmitt, Teil 3

show original documents which proove the given 670 Km/h WEP figure ("Start- und Notleistung") as beeing practically experienced ("erflogen"). The note that it was done at exactly 6300m points that this was the utmost top speed. This powersetting cannot be used for more than 2-3 minutes. It serves well for rapid climbs, however. Keep also an eyeon the avaiability of the WEP setting. The author confirms that the use of WEP on the DB 601E was forbidden early but later allowed. He was not able to nattow the important timeframe down as docs are missing.
635 Km/h is the usual and sustainable 100% powersetting ("Steig- und Kampfleistung") rating at 6000m (at 6300m we should expect a slightly faster figure, around 640 Km/h).
Pay attention to the time to altitude figures (at 100%):
0 to 3000m (9930 ft.): 156 sec. (2.6 min)
0 to 6000m (19860 ft.): 366 sec. (6.1 min)
0 to 10000m (33100 ft.): 822 sec. (13.2 min)


----------



## Chingachgook (Dec 2, 2006)

X


----------



## Hop (Dec 2, 2006)

Whether the speeds could be reliably attained in combat depends on a couple of things about the quoted 416 mph figure.

First, is it corrected for compressibility and atmospheric conditions?

Secondly, what condition was the aircraft in? Polishing alone could increase speed by a fairly large amount, filling in gaps and changing external features could make a very large difference.

As an example, take the Spitfire V.

First production standard aircraft tested was W3134.

It had a maximum speed of 371 mph at 20,100ft without a snowguard, and 364.5 with a snowguard. 

The Royal Aircraft Establishment later tested a Spitfire V to see what effect minor alterations would have on speed. They found:

Changing from fishtail to ejector exhaust stubbs increased speed by 7 mph (W3134 probably had fishtail exhausts)

Removing the carb ice guard raised speed by 8 mph.

Fitting a fairing to the rear view mirror increased speed by 3 mph

Cutting the ejection chutes flush with the wing increased speed by 1 mph

Sealing cracks, rubbing down and polishing the leading edge increased speed by 6 mph

Waxing the rest of the plane increased speed by 3 mph.

I don't know the surface quality of W3134, so it's not safe to apply the last 2 mods to it, but just changing the exhaust stubbs, fairing the mirror and cutting the ejector chutes down would increased W3134s speed to 382 mph. The RAE test, which started out with a Spitfire V in 1943 doing 357 mph, ended up with it doing 385.5 mph.

So, 371 mph probably represents a typical squadron service Spitfire Vb. 385 mph represents one with a little cleaning up.


----------



## Chingachgook (Dec 2, 2006)

X


----------



## pbfoot (Dec 3, 2006)

i mentioned this in another post but the single greatest factor in increasing speed aside from waxing is the simple removing the dirt and dust from inside the aircraft


----------



## Sarge714 (Dec 3, 2006)

Chingachgook said:


> Sarge714, what is JSB Sim?



JSBSim: Open Source Flight Dynamics Model in C++

It's at least an order of magnitude above any of the current retail FM's. It's structured right and flexable/adaptable. Necessary items for WW2 flight modeling.


----------



## delcyros (Dec 3, 2006)

The Bf-109F model already is the aerodynamically cleanest variant of the 109 family. The testmodel was factory new but nothing special on it other than that the engine performed the power it was designed for (unlike the DB 601 of the british test 109F2). I conclude that the 416 mph may be achieved in combat in case it was allowed to use this powersetting ("Start- und Notleistung") in combat. Top speed was flown on a measured mile with Askania Theodolits and recalculated for atmosspheric circumstances as it was typical by that time.


----------



## bomber (Dec 4, 2006)

Sarge714 said:


> Don't know of any sims yet to correctly model things correctly. Fingers crossed JSBSim someday becomes the defacto standard FM used by all mfg's so we can correctly model the aircraft and see what really they were like to fly air combat in.



Try Targetware and see what you think... ?


----------



## Twitch (Dec 4, 2006)

As Hop points out there are many factors to consider in fiddling with top speed of various aricraft. A 2-3 minute WEP use is dubious at best to categorically state that 416 MPH was a true usable velocity to quote as an everyday speed to expect.

Certainly no manuscript attributes more than 390 as a top end for the F-4 even Heinz Nowarra in Germany who had all the records of Messerschmitt to draw upon in his 1964 book The Messerschmitt 109. 


Rechlin performance evaluations for other aircraft state some higher than standard top speeds observed also. The Do 335 is another that flew better at Rechlin than it was observed to do in final form for Luftwaffe service.

A speed advantage is not an end-all decides-all factor in combat either. Every time a faster plane manuevered it bled speed away so that in an engagement with contemporaries the F-4 would have had no stand-out advantage. It climb is initally 4,350 FPM but that's not consistant through all altitudes either. 

Contemporary Spits had equal armor and far greater firepower unless we look at the F-4/R-1 with "gondola" guns which degraded both speed an maneuverability performance through additional weight and drag.

Part of the flaw of performance comparisons is that rarely are two opponents at the optimum altitude in near identically performing crates anyway. Where a low altitude can give one ship an advantage it is lost at a higher level. More rare still is the scenario where a plane, with even a 50MPH speed advantage, could pull away from a trailing opponent and not expect to be shot all to hell. Nothing in WW 2 could outrun cannon and machine gun rounds! Unless the lead plane had a very large advantage of distance he would not be able to flat outrun his pursuer. The trailing plane certainly would be able to set up a gun solution for a kill as the faster lead plane poured on the coal.

Speed by itself is not a decisive factor unless we compare jet with piston of 150-200MPH advantage.

The tuning of engines is not a static thing. If we look at the Tempests on Diver duty intercepting V-1s we see that these planes were retuned from factory specs to bring the power band in a low altitudes. A chat with a crew chief from any service will confirm the fact that the engines could be hopped up or detuned as needed for short power bursts or longevity. 

I can flatly state that at no time was Johnnie Johnson, Peter Brothers, Bob Tuck or any RAF ace I've talked to ever "outrun" by 109s or 190s of any model. P-51s didn't run away from 109s or 190s either even with a top speed advantage. Speed held no decisive advantage in head on firing passes either.

Aircraft on all sides had varying performance within the same squadron due to many factors noticable by pilots finding it hard to keep up with their mates even in cruise formation. Every engine and plane had use to assorted degree rendering some of them less than factory fresh in the performance area at given times.

Top speed is a characterizarion of two dimensional performance in a 3 dimensional world of combat. When an opponenent encountered an enemy with good horizontal performance he took the fight vertical to his plane's advantage. Even diving away with the use of a speed advantage is does nothing to defeat and destroy an enemy.

I guess the real question is do you want to run away or fight?


----------



## Smokey (Dec 4, 2006)

Twitch said:


> Speed by itself is not a decisive factor unless we compare jet with piston of 150-200MPH advantage.



But there were some examples of outdated piston engine fighters, weren't there? Like the I 16 versus the Bf109F and G and the Zero against the Corsair, P 38, Mustang and late Spitfires?


----------



## Chingachgook (Dec 5, 2006)

X


----------



## delcyros (Dec 5, 2006)

Hi Twitch, I always use to enjoi our disussions!



Twitch said:


> A 2-3 minute WEP use is dubious at best to categorically state that 416 MPH was a true usable velocity to quote as an everyday speed to expect.




Probably. As pointed out above, speed depends on more issues. Individual state of airframe and engine beeing the most important. German planes always suffered from a briefer allowed use of WEP than -let´s say- US planes.
2-3 min. are very worthy for rapid climbs and stand up acceleration. That´s what opens the distance in run and that what´s closes the distance in a chase, both very credible advantages for the F4.
However, note that the WEP was forbidden to use by special maintenance orders for a certain timeframe (reasons for this are unknown). 



Twitch said:


> Certainly no manuscript attributes more than 390 as a top end for the F-4 even Heinz Nowarra in Germany who had all the records of Messerschmitt to draw upon in his 1964 book The Messerschmitt 109.



That´s wrong. The documents given in the source are primary sources, Nowarra had secondary docs on hand and never dealt with the sources itself. And as the author points out, german primary sources do consistently show a 670 Km/h max. WEP /6700m speed figure for 1942-43. He knows more than just a few.
Even if You decide to neglect the WEP, the max. speed (30+ minutes sustainable, unlike those of the Spits!) at "Steig- und Kampfleistung"- powersetting for 6000m is consitently 635 Km/h (394 mp/h) at 6000m and more like ~400 mp/h at 6700m respectively. That is still superior and unlike other planes with boost fairly sustainable.



Twitch said:


> Rechlin performance evaluations for other aircraft state some higher than standard top speeds observed also.


In comparison to what? Rechlin -except from Karlshagen maybe- had the most decent speed measuring devices avaiable. Perhaps other measurements were less sensitive? The example with the Do-335 is misleading as You are comparing two unidividual planes. The Do-335 AV-prototypes at Rechlin were flown without guns and ammo unlike those to be used by Luftwaffe Ekdo. This has been noted on the -335 testcharts. None such notes occur in case of the 109F4 tests (similar testresults are also reported from Augsburg with a 665 Km/h max. speed using WEP at 6800m).


Twitch said:


> A speed advantage is not an end-all decides-all factor in combat either. It climb is initally 4,350 FPM but that's not consistant through all altitudes either.


Initial climb is given for "Steig- und Kampfleistungs"-powersetting. At WEP its more like 4500-4650 fpm, gradually reducing with altitude.


Twitch said:


> Speed by itself is not a decisive factor unless we compare jet with piston of 150-200MPH advantage.


Tell that the red republicans at Spain! Or the french in 1940. Or the japanese in 1944. A speed advantage of at least 20, better 40 mp/h is comfortable for ww2 fighters. And it´s getting more important once pilots adopt for the energy thinking.


----------



## Chingachgook (Dec 5, 2006)

X


----------



## Glider (Dec 5, 2006)

I have read this thread with nterest but at the end of the day I have never read or heard about any Allied Pilot in a MkV who felt that he was at a disadvantage against a 109F. I am not saying that the Spit had clear superiority, but that they were an even match with victory down to the best led units and or tactical position.

I do not believe that 416 was achieved in regular combat in a 109F. If it had the SpitV would have suffered the sort of casualties that the did against the FW190, which was truly capable of 410 in normal combat conditions. 

I do agree that if a plane had a speed advantage of 20 to 30MPH over an enemy aircraft then that had a considerable advantage which would have been noticed by the opponent. As mentioned above, the RAF to the best of my knowledge didn't consider the SpitV to be outclassed by the 109F so any additional performance of the 109F must have been limited.

An obervation about the filters fitted to the Spit in the desert, which certainly had an impact on the performance. The RAF didn't fit them for the fun of it and I was wondering what the Germans did to deal with the problem of the sand. If anyone can help with this it would be appreciated as its something that has always interested me.


----------



## Hop (Dec 6, 2006)

> Top speed was flown on a measured mile with Askania Theodolits and recalculated for atmosspheric circumstances as it was typical by that time.



Do you have a source for that? There was an extensive discussion on another board, with the author of the site that published the documents on the F4 test, and nobody was able to offer proof either way about whether the figures were adjusted for compressibility.



> And as the author points out, german primary sources do consistently show a 670 Km/h max. WEP /6700m speed figure for 1942-43. He knows more than just a few.



From what I remember of the discussion, there were no other tests giving similar figures.


----------



## Hop (Dec 6, 2006)

> I have read this thread with nterest but at the end of the day I have never read or heard about any Allied Pilot in a MkV who felt that he was at a disadvantage against a 109F.



That's a good point. The RAF were certainly concerned by the Fw 190, but the 109 just didn't cause the same fear. And the Luftwaffe switched over to the 190 on the Channel front as quickly as they could, which again seems strange if the 109 had a 40 mph speed advantage over the Spitfire.


----------



## twoeagles (Dec 6, 2006)

Every Spitfire pilot was at a disadvantage against the 109 he didn't see in time...


----------



## Chingachgook (Dec 6, 2006)

X


----------



## Glider (Dec 6, 2006)

twoeagles said:


> Every Spitfire pilot was at a disadvantage against the 109 he didn't see in time...



Any pilot is at a disadvantage against any plane that they didn't see in time. 

For example, I think the first RAF plane to shoot down a German aircraft in WW2 was a Lysander. The Wirraway that shot down a Zero, Arado 196 floatplanes had a number of kills and there are loads of other examples from all sides which people could mention.


----------



## Udet (Dec 6, 2006)

Lord Glider, good to see you are still alive and healthy out there.

While i believe when you say you have not yet heard of any Brit pilot who flew the Spitfire Mk. V affirming he felt he was at disadvantage when confronting the 109 F, you might as well consider the following significant issues:

How would you explain the losses of RAF fighter squadrons during 1941 in western europe?

Let´s see, by 1941 the alleged plans for invading England had been cancelled (the so called Seelowe thing), the bulk of the _jagdgeschwadern_ was sent east in preparation for the unleashing of Barbarossa. 

Two _geschwadern_ remained in the west to guard against the "winner" of the Battle of Britain: Richtofen and Schlageter.

Yup, 1941 was not a year of intense aerial action in the west, as it became a secondary theather of operations; however the 109s kept a very comfortable upper hand when confronting the Sptifire Mk Vs during such period of time.

It is noteworthy to mention that during 1941 the stab, I, II and III/JG 2 and stab., I, II and III/JG 26 had precisely the improved 109 F-1, F-2, and later that year the F-4 as the main toys to fight the RAF´s Mk Vb and Vc, not forgetting a number of the late Es remained in service for some time.
The Fw 190 was not the mainstay of JG 2 and JG 26 throughout 1941.

Acknowledged is the fact the introduction of the Fw 190 A in full the following year (1942) implied a black period in the history of the RAF but the 109 Fs -and their pilots- proved superior to the British airmen flying the Mk Vs.

I can agree the technical charts and specification sheets might indicate the 109 Fs and the Mk V were pretty well matched, but when we step out of the classroom to see what battle records indicate, the 109 F proved superior to the Mk Vs.

What do you think Glider?

Cheers


----------



## Chingachgook (Dec 6, 2006)

X


----------



## delcyros (Dec 6, 2006)

The single most decisive factor in aerial dogfight is pilot skill.
The Fw190 may make a good pilot out of a mediocre one due to
heavy firepower, ruggedness and maneuverability over a wider 
range of speed.
However, most LW aces stayed to their Bf109´s once they
exploitet it´s merits.


----------



## delcyros (Dec 6, 2006)

Hop said:


> From what I remember of the discussion, there were no other tests giving similar figures.



The author gives more tha one:
The Leistungsdatenvergleich Fw-190A and Bf-109F/G of dez. (?) 1941:
Beim-Zeugmeister: Seite 2 - Erste Tests
The JG-26 comparison between Fw-190A and Bf109F4 ( it states that the F4 is 10-20 Km/h faster than the Fw190A at altitude while both are equal at medium altitude with a slight advantage for the Fw190A at low alts
Beim-Zeugmeister: Seite 6 - Vergleich BF 109 F-4 und FW 190 A-2, Teil 2
The OKL Typenblatt doc from june 1942, again stating 670 Km/h top speed for the Bf-109F4:
Beim-Zeugmeister: Seite 9 - Übersicht OKL
The Messerschmidt Typenblatt showing a figure of 660 Km/h in 6200m:
Beim-Zeugmeister: Seite 10 - Firmendaten Messerschmitt, Teil 1
Finally the Messerschmidt company intern performance charts for the Bf109F4, dating 1943:
Beim-Zeugmeister: Seite 12 - Firmendaten Messerschmitt, Teil 3

So confirmation comes from three sources via various docs: Rechlin test flights, Company documents and comparison charts from military units (JG26).



Hop said:


> There was an extensive discussion on another board, with the author of the site that published the documents on the F4 test, and nobody was able to offer proof either way about whether the figures were adjusted for compressibility.



They should be adjusted for atmosspheric circumstances according to Zdiv(Ainring) 23/1938. Not following these guidelines for measurements would exclude the use of attained datas for entry into OKL Typenblatt.




True is that none of the british test revealed the correct datas as Britain did not possessed a single DB 601E nor a Bf-109F4 for test purposes. All datas have been extrapolated from Bf-109F2 with DB601N. The author of the british tests concluded that their figures should not be taken as the max. ones but AS THE MINIMUM ONES because the engines used were faulty, did not developed the design hp and required repeated maintenance, which in turn affected the performance and the assumption of speed for the extrapolated F4. 




Glider said:


> I do not believe that 416 was achieved in regular combat in a 109F. If it had the SpitV would have suffered the sort of casualties that the did against the FW190, which was truly capable of 410 in normal combat conditions.



I too, at least for the timeframe up to late 1941. The use of WEP is reported to be allowed in early 1942 latest for combat according to a doc. The altitude at which this speed could have been achieved is rather not common for 1941/42 over France or in the med, at least for dogfights. But as the JG26 comparison flyouts showed, the F4 was not slower than the A4, at least in all but low level altitudes.


----------



## Soren (Dec 6, 2006)

Hop,

You might as-well cut it, cause the speeds attained by the Bf-109F-4 are real - unlike so many Spitfire figures out there.


----------



## lesofprimus (Dec 6, 2006)

> The single most decisive factor in aerial dogfight is pilot skill.


delc, most decisive is the element of surprise, with pilot skill second....


----------



## Chingachgook (Dec 6, 2006)

X


----------



## pbfoot (Dec 6, 2006)

lesofprimus said:


> delc, most decisive is the element of surprise, with pilot skill second....


 hence that old saying "beware of the Hun in the sun"


----------



## lesofprimus (Dec 6, 2006)

Pretty funny there ching...


----------



## Glider (Dec 7, 2006)

Udet said:


> Lord Glider, good to see you are still alive and healthy out there.
> 
> While i believe when you say you have not yet heard of any Brit pilot who flew the Spitfire Mk. V affirming he felt he was at disadvantage when confronting the 109 F, you might as well consider the following significant issues:
> 
> ...



Udet
Only just alive, I have been in hospital after being diagnosed with cancer which was picked up 6-8 weeks late, hence the absence. Wasn't a well boy when I went in, but am responding well to treatment, although the hair has gone.

To business.
The tactical losses the RAF sufferred in 1941 I put down to the same tactical disadvantages that the Germans suffered in the BOB. The RAF in short range aircraft were operating on the 'wrong side of the English Channel. The Germans had good radar, could see them coming and were able to get into position to intercept.
A lot of damaged planes were not going to make it home and pilot who bailed out was lost, whereas German planes could evade and make emergency landings. I wonder how many Germans were saved by the superiour dive of the 109?
Re tactics our tactics for escorting were based on close escort (at least in the earlier stages) a tactic that was fatally flawed. The RAF had the additional disadvantage in that a majority of the RAF squadrons were still flying Vic formations which was a lesson still to be learnt. Finally the larger raids were escorting bombers often Blenhiems or Sterlings neither of which was fast making the raids easy to intercept. 
I have little doubt that had the Germans been flying Spits and the RAF 109F's the RAF would still have suffered these losses. As we all agree it was the 190 in 1942 that brought on the Black Period for the RAF in the West

In the desert the 109F was giving the Allied Huricanes and P40's a very hard time of it and it wasn't until the Spit MkV was deployed did things even up. 

Personally I have always wondered why the RAF spent so much effort attacking France in 1941 which was never going to achieve anything strategically and yet refused to use those Spit V's to equip squadrons overseas that were fighting using obsolete Hurricanes. There is no reason why the Middle East squardons couldn't have been equipped with Spit V's long before they received them. Let alone the Far East. Spits may not have stopped Japan but they would have stood a much better chance.


----------



## Udet (Dec 7, 2006)

Hello Glider:

Sorry to know of the health problems you are enduring; you have my most sincere and heartfelt wishes: don´t give up and have a prompt recovery!

I do not have time to comment more on the airplanes, but i will be back later or another day.

Cheers Glider!


----------



## delcyros (Dec 7, 2006)

Yes, Glider, I second your thoughts. But prior to this, take care of Your health, Glider, my very best whishes to You.



> In the desert the 109F was giving the Allied Huricanes and P40's a very hard time of it and it wasn't until the Spit MkV was deployed did things even up.



In Africa, the Bf-109F also had trop filters, which should lead to a significant reduction in performance. I would still put my favour on the F4 against the Spit V, altough as far as I see, most Bf109 of the JG 27 were Bf109F2 and E7 until mid 1942, when they only briefly received F4 until they got the more versatile G2 later in 42.


----------



## delcyros (Dec 7, 2006)

*Further thoughts*

What if the BF 109F4 actually achieved 670 Km/h? Shouldn´t the G2 be faster due to a more powerful engine?

Perhaps. Compare:
Kurfürst - Mtt. AG. Datenblatt, Me 109 G - 1. Ausführung

The test results show a max. speed of 632-664 Km/h (depending on individual aircraft) with:
radiator flaps 120mm open, while the usual opening was 40mm at "Schnellflugstellung"
but more seriously:
The DB 605 wasn´t cleared for WEP, so this speed also only is for "Kampf- und Steigleistung" -powersetting

This is beeing confirmed in the latter part, where the G1 achieved 660 Km/h at 7000m altitude. But here again the engine wasn´t cleared for WEP, and thus those climb- and speed figures are attained on normal, 30min. sustainable 100% powersetting.

Factoring this into comparison, the G1 and G2 indeed were faster than the F4 at the same 100% powersetting (G2: 660 Km/h; F4: 635 Km/h).
But how fast could they go with WEP? 

The difference is striking for the DB 605:
at 100%: 1310 hp @ 0ft.
with WEP: 1450 hp @ 0 ft.

Since the airframe is the same and all other factors beeing equal, the 10.687% power increase should lead to a 2.67% speed increase (You need four times the power to double the speed under lab condition), or in other words, the same G1 testplane should be able to go 678 Km/h (421 mp/h) at 7000m altitude for brief times using WEP (Bf 109G1).

Now back to our Bf109 F4 with DB 601E and 635 Km/h at 100% and 6400m / (640 Km/h at 6700m) altitude*):
at 100%: 1200 hp @ 0ft.
at WEP: 1350 hp @ 0ft.

The 12.5% increase in power should translate into a 3.125% increase in speed at our reference altitudes for WEP, ergo the same Bf109F4 testplane should be able to go 655 Km/h at 6400m or 660 Km/h (410 mp/h) at 6700m using WEP powersetting (Start- und Notleistung).
I conclude that the 670 Km/h figure is off by 1.5% from the expected one.
Perhaps an individual plane in excellent state may go that fast but it cannot be expected that all production models achieve this speed under the given circumstances. My thought.


Since the BAL limits for production models were 3% (+-), this is in within acceptable tolerances.

*) Kurfürst - Mtt. AG. Datenblatt, Me 109 G - 1. Ausführung
the dataset shows 660 Km/h @ 6200m altitudes for 100% (Kampf- und Steigleistung) powersetting for the BF 109F4 (not G1 as the link name imply)which does not agree to the 635 Km/h attained by other tests. The explenation may be that this specific test -unlike others- wasn´t recalculated for compressibility effects, as the author suggest (check notes). Confirmation comes from OKL Typenblätter, as this dataset was not used furtherly for entry into Typenblatt.


----------



## Glider (Dec 7, 2006)

Udet and Delcyros appreciate your thoughts. Delc, the last posting does raise some interesting questions about the relationship between the F4 and the G2. Wish I knew the awnsers


----------



## Sgt. Pappy (Dec 8, 2006)

*Salute* Glider, God speed with your health exams... Here's hoping you get better not soon... but NOW.


The Spitfire V may have been inferior to the 'Freidrich' (109F) but first you have to include things like speed/energy retention, stall speed (and essentially wing loading), roll rate at all speeds, etc. It's not just accel. and speed, and climb rate that wins the battle, though those are very useful assets for a fighter. 

Considering the pilots are equal, and are both very good, the SpitV may be quite untouchable and even a danger. We have 4 main tactics - BnZ (Boom and Zoom in which the pilot dives to gain speed, attacks and zoom climbs w/ that speed until out of range), which was the 109's main tactic, theres the TnB (turn and burn which is simply turn fighting), the RnD (Rope and Dope, which utilizes the zoom climb to hang pitiful, slower enemies trying to follow up), and we have maneuver fighting.. i.e. scissors, rolling scissors, splitS etc. 

The spitV's better roll at lower speeds and better turning allow it to split S or maneuver away from the 109. A scissors would maul the 109 as well. Both planes generally have the same aerodynamics when fully 'cleaned up', but the Spitfire's ability to outturn the 109 eventually will end up in a non-sustained turn fight .. the 109 attempting to find a long range deflection shot as the spit turns to evade. If the 109 resumes attempts at the BnZ, the spit pilot will continue to outmaneuver the Freidrich. The best SpitV pilots could dodge the BnZ with no or little loss of altitude and speed. The clipped wing V's also were very useful as they rolled similarly to the Butcher Bird, which had worse turning than the 109 at lower speeds. If the 109 even tries an RnD, a good spit pilot will level out to gain speed while the 109 loses it all. Many-a-time has the good Spitfire pilot shot down the 190 during 1941 and beyond. Don Gentile is one of them, who, on his first sortie in the SpitV shot down 2 x 190's.

(BTW, if anyone knows of any Spitfire V cutaways, please fill me in!)


----------



## delcyros (Dec 8, 2006)

> The Spitfire V may have been inferior to the 'Freidrich' (109F) but first you have to include things like speed/energy retention, stall speed (and essentially wing loading), roll rate at all speeds, etc. It's not just accel. and speed, and climb rate that wins the battle, though those are very useful assets for a fighter.



That is all very true. 
My question is how would You measure energy retention? This is a general question as it don´t belong to Spit and -109 exclusively. To answer this might help to judge other planes as well. 
The 109F2 and SpitV were perfectly equal.
The F4 -for me- seems to be the peak in development of the 109. The G2 even tops the acceleration, climb and top speed but for significant tradeoffs in low speed handling (heavier airframe). The G4 barely matches the F4 in performance and is inferior in terms of handling but it is more versatile, has a heavier punch and a more rugged undercarriege (which always was a weakness for 109 - just another strange similarity to the spit).


----------



## Smokey (Dec 8, 2006)

What about the K4?


----------



## loomaluftwaffe (Dec 8, 2006)

what about it?


----------



## Smokey (Dec 9, 2006)

Given its performance, isn't the K4 a contender for the ultimate Bf109 development?


----------



## Sgt. Pappy (Dec 10, 2006)

The Bf109K-4 was a very high-end of the 109 performance envelope. It's agility was equalt, if not, slightly better than that of the G's, since, essentially, the G's were F's with tonnes of extra armament and weight. I would personally choose the K-4 because of its insane speed and nice climb rate, not to mention its accuracy.

Delcyros, it is quite difficult to measure energy retention, but one has to be creative. You can measure it like this: grab some speed in a dive, level out when you hit a certain speed and record the speed to which your a/c drops after 30 seconds, then a minute, then 90 seconds.


----------



## delcyros (Dec 10, 2006)

That makes sense. But we cannot use it other than via autopsy of the flight performance of warbirds, requiring expensive tests.

I can hardly say something to the K4 as I don´t yet read details to this plane other than general information. It seems to be quite heavy and limited in handling. 

It probably also is underrated in IL-2 as I never could turn with a Pe-2 in a 109K. But if this is true, it´s bad.


----------



## lesofprimus (Dec 10, 2006)

The Kurfurst did not have the agility portion of the performance review.... Speed yes, climbing yes, but it handled like a fat dog when compared to its contemporary enemies, the maneuverable Yak-3's/La-5 and 7s, and of course the Spits and Stangs...


----------



## Twitch (Dec 10, 2006)

As usual the clinical aspect of performance data has people clinging to the incorrect theory that this is what produces kills. Speed disparity, unless very great, is of little consequence in most situations of combat. Speed= energy must be kept to hold any advantage at all. Once a crate begins maneuvering velocity is scrubbed off sometinmes rather quickly depending on the plane. 

A P-51 diving on a 262 can carry enough inertia to make a firing pass and hold that momentum for a given time. But once it is gone the jet will walk away. That said taking prop-driven opponents in a melee will not produce these dramatic results. A high speed diving firing pass and a zoom climb is not equivilent. Manuevering aircraft will be relatively matched even when one has a 30 MPH top speed level flight advantage.

It there any pilot account touting how he simply outsped his Spitfire opponent and dominated the fight becuase he had a few minutes of WEP? Much faster, later Spits had an advantage over 109Gs yet in most circumstances there are no RAF accounts of run away speed disparities in a a fight. 

A plane able to climb steeply can't have lead drawn onto it if its pursuer can't climb as steeply even if it has a higher rate of climb at a given altitude. It might need a shallower angle of attack to produce rapid climb performance. If it is unable to point it nose higher for a prolonged period the opponent with better vertical performance can't be shot even if its FPM is less than the pursuer. To imagine two planes at the same angle of attack in a climb and the trailing plane closing the gap is unrealistic. No one simply pulled up and expected to climb away faster than ordance can travel.

The outcome of combats are usually due to tactical advantages. A section bouncing some unwary group below or a victim doing a split S and evading the fight are examples. 

Someone mentioned the new program in the History Channel Dogfights on this sight. I've talked to some of these same men and their watermark combats are illustrated in this show very well. Pure level speed or the ability to simply climb alone are never decisive factors. The expertise to use your plane's strengths and exploit the enemy's is. This means a combination of performance and maneuvering skill, situational awareness with tactical advantages at hand. 

No one performance factor alone was responsible for the outcomes of these combats. It came down to the human element and how they assessed the combat situation. People can tout speed alone as some mythical power but the reality of all the pilot combat dialogues proves otherwise.


----------



## delcyros (Dec 10, 2006)

I can fully agree with what You posted, Twitch.

8)


----------



## Kurfürst (Dec 11, 2006)

Chingachgook said:


> This might belong on 109 thread, but I'm a noob and can plead ignorant.
> 
> After looking at old posts and finding Beim-Zeugmeister: Page 1 - Introduction I must ask some questions…
> 
> ...




Agreed - the situation is even more bleek considering the mainstay was the badly outclassed Mk V until the end of 1943! MkIXs came into service very slowly, in mid-1943 there were still just 10 Sqns of them in Britain, compared to about 3 times as many MkV Squadrons.

While the 109F-2's superiority in speed was no small compared to the MkV when introduced, at least at low altitudes in 1941, the F-4s introduction in effect meant the RAF Spits were behind by a generation. In 1942 the F4s were cleared for full power, and as the Rechlin figures show, at altitude there was little contest and high speeds allowed the 109F to dictate the engagements. Then came the 109G, sometimes fitted with GM-1 to add to the insult, and it still faced the MkV.

A sidenote on 109-190 thing on the Western front, if anyone looks at the RAF's losses in 1941 (109F-era) and 1942 (190A-era), there's not much of a difference, if anything 1941 was worser for the RAF. The 190 fear factor was due to it's 'unknown' status, and the new tactics that came with it, after all the RAF's pilots had plenty of time to get used to the 109 and it's unfair, 'cowardly' diving attacks - using the strenghts of the plane. 

As for the 190 go, the German opinion was rather different than the 'mythic adversary' British opinion. German documents from 1941-42 clearly show the 190 was certainly not seen as superior to the 109F performance wise, and it's engine had serious reliabilty problems for a while. The very reason the FW 190 largely replaced the 109 in France (in 1942, in 1943 the 109s numbers were greatly increased in France again) was that it was relatively peaceful front, where defensive flights were flown against skirmishing RAF planes thus a good place to try out a new aircraft with which there was little tactical experience, and flying over enemy territory was risky because of early engine problems.


----------



## Sgt. Pappy (Dec 14, 2006)

Now we wonder... How does the Spitfire Mk.IX's (1942 version, Merlin 61, lacking rear-fuel tank) turning compare to the Spitfire Mk.V's (1941 version, Merlin 45, lacking rear fuel tank) turning? Similar, hundreds of feet apart? I often get confused since, in Aces High II, the Spitfire 9 turns quite worse than the Spit 8 according to tests, while, according to real-RAF tests, they turn the same. 

I just can't seem to find info on the question. Remember, every upgrade takes away an old advantage...


----------



## Soren (Dec 15, 2006)

lesofprimus said:


> The Kurfurst did not have the agility portion of the performance review.... Speed yes, climbing yes, but it handled like a fat dog when compared to its contemporary enemies, the maneuverable Yak-3's/La-5 and 7s, and of course the Spits and Stangs...



Well in a game perhaps but not in reality. The 109 K-4 would certainly be able to match the above in maneuverability at slow to medium speeds, even out-turning the Spitfire Mk.XIV. At slow to medium speeds the Bf-109 is a very agile little fighter.

The Mustang hasn't got a chance unless the speed and altitude stays high, it was a turkey compared to the Spit, 109, Yak La in terms of dogfighting.


----------



## Chingachgook (Dec 15, 2006)

X


----------



## Soren (Dec 15, 2006)

Ok Chingachgook, I'll explain to you how things really are.

The Spitfire has a wing-loading advantage, sure, however its got a disadvantage in power-loading, drag and size - plus, as you mentioned, the 109 has slats which is a rather big advantage in a turn.

The slats increases the lift by 25% in the covered areas, and the critical AoA of the entire wing is increased as-well, allowing for a much tighter turn. 

The Bf-109 has 48% of its wings covered by the slats, which means roughly a 12.5% increase in lift and still a 25% increase in available AoA. 

Next comes drag, and this is where the Spitfire really looses out, as since the 109 is MUCH smaller than the Spitfire, its also much less draggy - having a very small flat plate area by comparison. (Ever wondered why the Bf-109 always is much faster than the Spitfire at the same power ??) But thats not all, cause besides its much smaller size, the 109 also features a higher Aspect Ratio wing, which means more lift and less drag pr. wing area. And the 109's Span-loading is lower as-well, which is important when considering induced drag in turns. 

Then there's power, well the 109 has an advantage here as-well, having a lower power-loading - which is important to be able to sustain your turn.


Now if you don't believe any of the above then you can read about all of it in books or on certified websites about aerodynamics. And if you want to we can go on to discuss the aerodynamics of each airplane ??

As to pilot accounts:

*Walter Wolfrum, German fighter ace. 137 victories.*
_"Unexperienced pilots hesitated to turn tight, bacause the plane shook violently when the slats deployed. I realised, though, that because of the slats the plane's stalling characteristics were much better than in comparable Allied planes that I got to fly. Even though you may doubt it, I knew the Bf109 could manouver better in turnfight than LaGG, Yak or even Spitfire."_

*Herbert Kaiser, German fighter ace. 68 victories. * 
_"Personally, I met RAF over Dunkirk. During this battle not a single Spitfire or Hurricane turned tighter than my plane. I found that the Bf 109 E was faster, possessed a higher rate of climb, but was somewhat less manouverable than the RAF fighters. Nevertheless, during the campaign, no Spitfire or Hurricane ever turned inside my plane, and after the war the RAF admitted the loss of 450 Hurricanes and Spitfires during the Battle of France." In the desert there were only a few Spitfires, and we were afraid of those because of their reputation from the Battle of Britain. But after we shot a couple of them down, our confusion was gone."_

*Erwin Leykauf, German fighter pilot, 33 victories.*
_"During what was later called the 'Battle of Britain', we flew the Messerschmitt Bf109E. The essential difference from the Spitfire Mark I flown at that time by the RAF was that the Spitfire was less manoeuvrable in the rolling plane. With its shorter wings (2 metres less wingspan) and its square-tipped wings, the Bf 109 was more manoeuvrable and slightly faster. (It is of interest that the English later on clipped the wings of the Spitfire.)
For us, the more experienced pilots, real manoeuvring only started when the slats 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. This is how I shot down six of them." _

*Pierre Clostermann, Spitfire pilot.*
_"I tried to fire on a '109' that I spotted in the chaos. Not possible, I couldn't get the correct angle. My plane juddered on the edge of a stall. It was comforting that the Spitfire turned better than the '109'! Certainly at high speed - but not at low speed."_


And there's plenty more where that came from, so can we quit the continues postings of pilot accounts now ??

Oh and before you go on to posting any Allied after action reports, just know there are equally many, if not more, of the same in German.


----------



## Chingachgook (Dec 15, 2006)

X


----------



## Soren (Dec 15, 2006)

Chingachgook said:


> Uh that posting was from German TESTS not pilot account, and there are plenty of examples of 109s stalling out in turn fights.
> Clostermann... well... he's French  - do your really want to see the RAF accounts saying they out turned 109s to the point of stall?
> You say that even the German test is wrong (against a pre-BofB spit1a with only 2 speed prop and no 12lbs boost - it still had "significantly smaller turning circles and turning times." ???
> 
> ...





The test/pilot account with the 109E is the one which is NOT VALID. First of all its an Emil, which is known to have issues with its slats (Hence why Günther Rall didn't like turning the 109), secondly (as already explained by Leykauf and Wolfrum), by 1940 many pilots never pushed beyond the deployment of the slats, hence the result of that test - And exactly the same applies to all British tests with the 109, as the British test pilots were convinced the airplane was about to stall as soon as the slats popped out, aborting the maneuver emmidiately.

But hey whats the use, you believe your game more than reality anyways...


----------



## Chingachgook (Dec 15, 2006)

X


----------



## Hop (Dec 15, 2006)

The Russians tested turn times for aircraft. Their figures, all at 1,000m altitude:

109F4 - 19.6 - 20.5 secs (at 2900 kg)

109G2 - 22.6 (at 3235kg) 20 - 21.5 secs (at 3023kg)

109G4 - 21 secs (at 3027kg)

Spitfire Vb - 18.8 secs (at 2920kg)

Spitfire LF IX - 18.5 (at 3351kg)



> The slats increases the lift by 25% in the covered areas, and the critical AoA of the entire wing is increased as-well, allowing for a much tighter turn.



Slats have almost no effect on lift, their only real function is to increase critical aoa. They allow the 109 to pull higher coefficients of lift, but do not increase lift at a given cl.

The problem with that is induced drag is proportional to the square of the CL, so whilst the 109 can pull higher cl, it does so at the expense of far more drag than the Spitfire.

Quite simply, larger wings generate less induced drag.



> The Bf-109 has 48% of its wings covered by the slats, which means roughly a 12.5% increase in lift and still a 25% increase in available AoA.



No, it translates to an increase in critical AOA, nothing more. At a given AoA, slats do not increase lift.

The 109 can pull to higher AoA, possibly even generate enough lift to counteract the Spitfire's huge wing loading advantage, but it does so at the expense of enormous amounts of drag, which is why it can't turn as well as the Spitfire.



> Now if you don't believe any of the above then you can read about all of it in books or on certified websites about aerodynamics. And if you want to we can go on to discuss the aerodynamics of each airplane ??



Indeed, please do. I'd _love_ to see the serious source on aerodynamics that says slats substantially increase lift at a given AoA. The claim was 25%, wasn't it?


----------



## Soren (Dec 15, 2006)

Hop,

Stop trying to put words into my mouth, I never claimed the slats increase lift at any given AoA, however as the critical AoA is reached (Which it is emmidiately in a tight turn) they deploy, increasing the critical AoA and thereby lift. Now sure when the Bf-109 turns at its tightest, tighter than the Spitfire, its going to create more drag, thats logical - The tighter the turn, the more the drag. Drag is a biproduct of lift.

And as to your claim that the slats don't increase lift, well thats total bullsh*t Hop. The slats delay the onset of stall by increasing the critical AoA, and the higher the AoA the higher the lift - and thats very simple aerodynamics btw Hop.

And as to the increase in drag, well fortunately the 109 is very small and has a very low power-loading, so although the 109 suffers from more drag pr. area in a tight turn, tighter than the Spitfire, it makes up for that in power and small size.

Also your "big wing" theory is so very flawed. A big wing does not simply create less induced drag than a smaller one.


----------



## Udet (Dec 15, 2006)

Soren, great technical information, as usual from your part.


----------



## Soren (Dec 15, 2006)

Oh and about the Russian tests Hop, you forgot to mention that the 109G-2 was equipped with gun-pods.


----------



## Hop (Dec 15, 2006)

> Hop,
> 
> Stop trying to put words into my mouth, I never claimed the slats increase lift at any given AoA, however as the critical AoA is reached (Which it is emmidiately in a tight turn) they deploy, increasing the critical AoA and thereby lift.



No, you claimed they increased lift AND Aoa:



> The slats increases the lift by 25% in the covered areas, and the critical AoA of the entire wing is increased as-well, allowing for a much tighter turn.





> The Bf-109 has 48% of its wings covered by the slats, which means roughly a 12.5% increase in lift and still a 25% increase in available AoA.



You can say "slats increase lift", which is correct although greatly simplified. You can say "increased AoA increases lift" which is more accurate. But when you say "slats increase lift and AoA" you are wrong, because the slats increase critical AoA, and the AoA increases lift.



> Now sure when the Bf-109 turns at its tightest, tighter than the Spitfire, its going to create more drag, thats logical - The tighter the turn, the more the drag. Drag is a biproduct of lift.



Again, no. The 109 has to pull a higher CL to equal the Spitfire's turn, because it has a much higher wing loading. That means at the same turn as the Spitfire, the 109 is generating more induced drag.



> And as to your claim that the slats don't increase lift, well thats total bullsh*t Hop. The slats delay the onset of stall by increasing the critical AoA, and the higher the AoA the higher the lift



Which is exactly what I said. The slats do not increase lift at a given AoA (unless that AoA is at the limit of critical AoA)



> And as to the increase in drag, well fortunately the 109 is very small and has a very low power-loading, so although the 109 suffers from more drag pr. area in a tight turn, tighter than the Spitfire, it makes up for that in power and small size.



Which doesn't seem to be supported by _any_ tests I have seen. 



> Also your "big wing" theory is so very flawed. A big wing does not simply create less induced drag than a smaller one.



Yes, it does. The bigger the wing (at a given weight, ie the lower the wingloading) the lower the induced drag, because induced drag is proportional to the square of CL. Basically, a smaller wing has to pull a higher AoA to generate the same lift as a larger one, which means higher induced drag.



> Oh and about the Russian tests Hop, you forgot to mention that the 109G-2 was equipped with gun-pods.



I think that the first weight is with gunpods, the second without. That should be fairly obvious from the two quoted weights.


----------



## Glider (Dec 15, 2006)

There is obviously a debate going on here and I would ask two questions.

1 I always understood that the key problem with the 109's slats wasn't if they worked or not but the way they deployed. When entering a tight turn one wing is going faster than the other with the result that the slats could deploy unevenly. This inevitably caused the plane to lose for a precious moment its smoothness, causing an alarming shudder or vibration, giving the opposing plane a momentary advantage.

2 If the secret to turning inside a Spitfire was as simple as continuing the turn once the flaps were deployed, why didn't the Germans teach their pilots to do this?
Presumably they didn't or the spits would have been shot out of the sky by 109s that now turn faster, go faster, dive faster and accelerate faster piloted by pilots who knew how to beat the Spit in a turn, which was until now its main advantage 

A personal view is that the planes were well matched. An experienced 109 pilot would have an advantage over an inexperienced Spit pilot. In the same was an experienced Spit pilot would have an advantage over an inexperienced 109 pilot. 
The experienced pilot of either aircraft will always get that extra out of the plane they are flying. That I suggest is why Aces could get their 109 to do things (in this case turn) better than an inexperienced Spit pilot, or indeed an inexperienced 109 pilot.

I can only repeat what I said earlier. I never heard or read about any RAF pilot who felt at a disadvantage against a 109F when flying a Spitfire V. Against the 190 the RAF knew who was the hunted, but not when against the 109F. 
At the end of the day it was the experience of the average pilot when in the air that is the deciding factor. If your average Pilot in your normal plane is better than the other side then you will dominate the air (hint at the 190). If they are well matched then no one will dominate (hint at the 109F).


----------



## Soren (Dec 15, 2006)

Hop,

If they weren't there there'd be no increase in AoA or lift - its that simple.

Ofcourse you can run circles around that it isn't the slats themselves which create lift all day if you want, but thats of no concern to me.

And about the tests you've seen, well what other tests besides the British ones have you seen exactly ?? 

And about the Russian 109G-2, well IIRC the gun-pods were never removed. And the Friedrich they tested had no covers for the main gear, creating alot of interference drag. 



> Yes, it does. The bigger the wing (at a given weight, ie the lower the wingloading) the lower the induced drag, because induced drag is proportional to the square of CL. Basically, a smaller wing has to pull a higher AoA to generate the same lift as a larger one, which means higher induced drag.



Nope your "big wing" theory is still wrong. A bigger wing does not have less induced drag than a smaller one.

Also here's how you figure out Cdi (Induced drag);
(Cl^2) / (pi * AR * e) 

As you can see 'e' (Oswald efficiency factor) and AR (Aspect Ratio) are two very important factors you just missed - its not just the square of CL as you claim.

And as to induced drag in turns, take a look at the span-loadings.


----------



## Jabberwocky (Dec 15, 2006)

109F4 pilots shot down over all Malta said essentially the same thing in their debfiefs (to paraphrase):

"The Messerchmitt is faster, while the Spitfire is more manouverable"

Note that manouverability is not just turn radius, but other factors like rate of roll, initial turn, pull outs (elevator authority) ect.

This seems to be the rule of thumb for the Mk V vs the 109F. Spitfire is slower but better at manouvering.


----------



## Glider (Dec 15, 2006)

Jabberwocky said:


> 109F4 pilots shot down over all Malta said essentially the same thing in their debfiefs (to paraphrase):
> 
> "The Messerchmitt is faster, while the Spitfire is more manouverable"
> 
> ...



That I agree with.


----------



## Soren (Dec 15, 2006)

Be careful with pilot accounts, Spitfire pilots shot down or having experienced dire situations said similar things I'm sure - like Pierre Closterman.

At high speeds the Spitfire, by virtue of its better elevator authority, was easier and less tiring to control in a turn. Roll rate was the same or slightly better for the 109.


----------



## Chingachgook (Dec 15, 2006)

X


----------



## Soren (Dec 16, 2006)

The single German test you mean. And go ahead and believe it blindly if you like, still doesn't change reality though.


----------



## mad_max (Dec 17, 2006)

chingachgoo,

As you see the biased ones posting on boards are perfectly fine with accepting
1 German test, data sheet. Etc. to prove how exceptional the German tools of war
were.  

But anything having to do with Allied tools of war they need atleast 3 sources from
3 different departments of the war departments.


----------



## Soren (Dec 17, 2006)




----------



## Udet (Dec 18, 2006)

I am proceeding to quote this piece of jewelry:

"As you see the biased ones posting on boards are perfectly fine with accepting
1 German test, data sheet. Etc. to prove how exceptional the German tools of war
were. 

But anything having to do with Allied tools of war they need atleast 3 sources from 3 different departments of the war departments".

Nice try Mister, but refrain from twisting the issue. Since the very end of the war it has been allied testings that have become "the truth". Forgers of "the truth" include "serious researchers" such as the individual known as "Kit" Carson, or Mike Williams...and not just that, even guys who have not researched at all but enjoy unleashing the tongue -Chuck Yeager- have made a substantial contribution to forge the truth. 

On the other hand, anything that might suggest German hardware surpassed allied toys should be subjected to "closer scrutiny", if not discarded off-hand.

So..."biased ones" huh? Very, very funny.


----------



## Brain32 (Dec 18, 2006)

Hop provided good turn time numbers for the G2, I have these numbers also:
109F4: 19,6 - 20,5
109G2(normal): 20 - 21,5
109G2(normal Finnish test): 22(360kmh, 3G, 70deg bank angle)
109G2(gunpods): 22,6-22,8(pretty neat isn't it )

SpitfireMkVb: 18,8sec
SpitfireMkIX: 18,5sec
Now about turnfight of theese planes, what most people really completely fail to realize is the fact(ask a real pilot) that making a sustained turn in ANY plane(let alone in a high powered warbird in a combat conditions when people want to re-decorate your cockpit interiour with pieces of your brain) is very hard thing to do. What we have in numbers above and if we take the difficulty of the task into account, the performance difference leaves this to pilot skill only. 
Forget about simulations we are talking RL here, and if you think fighting German planes in Allied planes was a walk in the park, you are not only delusional but you are also insulting your veterans


----------



## Soren (Dec 18, 2006)

The Finnish test shows that 3G could be sustained for as long as their was fuel without loosing height at 360 km/h. The Russian F-4 was running at Steig u. Kampfleistung IIRC, and had previously damaged the wing quite severely having to undergo a rebuild.


----------



## twoeagles (Dec 18, 2006)

Here's a chart from one of my old books from Navy flight school. It's valid
for ANY aircraft given that the altitude is being held constant and it is in a
coordinated turn. You can use it to back out some parameters of a turn,
plenty of which are in this thread.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 18, 2006)

mad_max said:


> chingachgoo,
> 
> As you see the biased ones posting on boards are perfectly fine with accepting
> 1 German test, data sheet. Etc. to prove how exceptional the German tools of war
> ...



I am staying out of this arguement because I personally think that it is foolish to argue over these 2 aircraft. They were well matched, each had its own advantages over the other and also had disadvantages over the other. 

Having said that, they were both great aircraft.

Having said that, The guys who are biased toward the allied aircraft, do the same as you say about the guys biased to the German aircraft.


----------



## Glider (Dec 18, 2006)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> I am staying out of this arguement because I personally think that it is foolish to argue over these 2 aircraft. They were well matched, each had its own advantages over the other and also had disadvantages over the other.
> 
> Having said that, they were both great aircraft.
> 
> Having said that, The guys who are biased toward the allied aircraft, do the same as you say about the guys biased to the German aircraft.



Seconded


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 18, 2006)

Sorry Glider I had to edit the smiley in my post as well as the smiley in your quote of mine.


----------



## Chingachgook (Dec 18, 2006)

X


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Dec 18, 2006)

the -109 series and spits were in constant competition during the war, no aircraft had an advantage for more than a couple of months before some new mark or varient changed the balance so it's not until later in the war you can make general comments like that, by which point the spit is generally considdered the better combat aircraft..........


----------



## Soren (Dec 18, 2006)

Chingachgook said:


> Because the evidence shows that the Spit turned tighter does not change my belief.



It shows your narrowmindness, cause there's no such evidence.


----------



## Chingachgook (Dec 18, 2006)

X


----------



## Kurfürst (Dec 18, 2006)

> Slats have almost no effect on lift, their only real function is to increase critical aoa. They allow the 109 to pull higher coefficients of lift, but do not increase lift at a given cl.



Which is why the effect of slats are not shown in the Russian tests. The tested turns are all sustained turns, ie. mild, 2-2.5 G turns at best. Without the slats opening, the 109 is just a fairly high wingloading aircraft with corresponding turn performance. The slats won't deploy in these mild turns, they don't make their effect felt; they deploy in the high-G, hard turns. That's why the 109 is generally described to 'shine' in hard, high-G turns.



> The problem with that is induced drag is proportional to the square of the CL, so whilst the 109 can pull higher cl, it does so at the expense of far more drag than the Spitfire.
> 
> Quite simply, larger wings generate less induced drag.



Problem is, your little model misses a *slight* factor, that is that it's the wing that creates both drag and lift. An bigger wing also develops proportinally higher drag, it's not that it's just develops more lift without any extra drag.

To put it simply, the 109 has far less drag than the Spitfire. Yes, to obtain the same lift it needs higher AoA used, which increases drag greatly. But wheter the 109 has more drag at high AoA or it has still less drag when it has the same lift as the Spitfire, is something that needs to be worked out by calculation.

You've already posted the information _I posted a while ago_ but you did it selectively:



Hop said:


> The Russians tested turn times for aircraft. Their figures, all at 1,000m altitude:
> 
> 109F4 - 19.6 - 20.5 secs (at 2900 kg)
> 
> ...



Let's see (added wingloading):

Bf 109G-2 : 20 secs* at 3023kg), using 1300 HP (187 kg/m2)
Spitfire LF IX - 18.5 at 3351kg, using 1690 HP (149 kg/m2)

Let's add Soviet fighters and see if your theory that wingloading is so important makes any sense...

Yak-3 - 17 seconds (2697 kg, 182 kg/m2) - 1290 HP
Yak-9 - 17 seconds (2870 kg, 167 kg/m2) - 
Lagg3 - 18 seconds (2990 kg, 170 kg/m2)
La5FN - 19 secons (3290 kg, 188 kg/m2) - 1850 HP
La-7 - 18 secons (3315 kg, 189 kg/m2) - 1850 HP

* The Russians gave both left/right handed turns for the 109, turning to one side generally means better turn turn time because of torque. Wheter it's left or right depends on propeller rotation direction) It makes sense to use the optimal turn direction, as this was the case of the Spitfire as well.

Uh-oh. Something ain't right with your model.The Spitfire's big wings supposed to give 'much less drag', but then why do I see that with so much more power, the Spitifire actual turn times are not better and generally worser than the Soviet turn times.

Especially look at the Yak-3. This plane should be an awful turner, at least in Hop's world. It has a shitty engine with 400 HP less than the Merlin. It has the smallest wing area of the entire bunch and fairly high wingloading.

Ie.


Yak-3 - 17 seconds at 2697 kg, 182 kg/m2 - 1290 HP
Spitfire LF IX - 18.5 seconds at 3351kg, using 1690 HP (149 kg/m2)
Yet it convi

The Spitfire has 22.5 m2 wing area, the Yak much less 14.8 m2 wing area.

Explain please, how can it be that the Spitfire...

- with so much power : 1690 vs 1290
- with so much bigger wings : 22.5 m2 vs 14.8 m2
- with so much better wingloading : 149 kg/m2 vs. 189

...gets OUTTURNED by the Yak-3.

If we go by your model of how things work, the Spitfire should quite simply outturn the Yak-3, because it has much better wingloading, and if it has better wingloading, it is supposed to have less drag in turns, at least according to you. But it doesn't seem to work that way in real life...

What the Yak-3 DOES have however, is :

- extremely low drag
- extremely postive power-to-weight, power-to-drag ratio.





> The 109 can pull to higher AoA, possibly even generate enough lift to counteract the Spitfire's huge wing loading advantage, but it does so at the expense of enormous amounts of drag, which is why it can't turn as well as the Spitfire.



As noted, the Spitfire's huge wing loading advantage already means that it has far more drag to start with. The Spitfire's 'huge wing loading advantage' also comes with huge drag because those huge wings create huge amounts of drag as well. 

Especially considering that the Spitfire's big wings are not very good at creating lift/area... the Spit wing has washout on a large area, which effectively means that much of the wing is developing less AoA and lift than the rest. The Spit's wing is also of the thinnest profile of all WW2 fighters which means it actually develops the least lift per wing area. It's not an efficient lift-creating device. It was built for speed as a matter of fact. 1930s designers were fixated on the fast monoplane fighter. The Brits were no exception.

The huge wing was never meant for turns by it's designers, the only reason for it was that they needed to fulfill the RAF's requirement of houseing 8 machineguns in the wings, and they needed space (depth) for it.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 18, 2006)

Allright guys. A good debate is cool and all and everyone loves them and great information comes out of them, but lets not start insulting each other. There are better ways to get your point across.


----------



## Soren (Dec 18, 2006)

Chingachgook said:


> Hehe. You are something.
> 
> 3 different tests from 3 different countries. One of which just happend to be *THE COUNTRY THAT BUILT THE PLANE!* You are beyond reason perhaps? Tell me again how the German test pilots did not know how to fly their own planes...
> 
> ...



Keep running circles Chinny.

The test you so love to refer to is as explained not valid as it involves the 109E which is known to have issues with its slats, plus most pilots at that point didn't dare push past the deployment of the slats. The exact same goes for the British tests, where the British test-pilots aborted any maneuver as soon as the slats deployed. 

As to the Russian tests, well what Kurfürst said.

Now perhaps you'd be so kind as to back up your claim in aerodynamic terms ??


----------



## davparlr (Dec 18, 2006)

I don't know a lot about these two aircraft, but I suspect if these two planes were swapped and the Germans flew the spitfire and the British flew the Bf-109, there would have been no discernable difference in the war, or loss rate, or anything. That's how close I think they are technically. As DerAlder said, both were great aircraft. They were flown by brave and capable men, each motivated by a desire of protecting their homeland.


----------



## Chingachgook (Dec 18, 2006)

X


----------



## mkloby (Dec 18, 2006)

Chingachgook said:


> Soren, your aerodynamic terms somehow do not pan out in any real tests done by anyone or in the combat reports (109s falling out of the sky trying to stay in turns with Spits etc - as reported by German pilots). You have to make an excuse for all of the facts. When you resort to conjecture and equivocation there is simply nothing left to say.



Just today I was reading a report by a 47 pilot Hubert Zemke (also flew 38s and 51s) regarding the 109's sharply degraded performance at altitude - pilot said inexperienced 109 pilots would at times inadvertently get themselves into a spin, while other pilots would split-S and dive for denser air. 47s would pounce down upon them acheiving strong advantage w/ their excellent diving performance.


----------



## Kurfürst (Dec 19, 2006)

mkloby said:


> Just today I was reading a report by a 47 pilot Hubert Zemke (also flew 38s and 51s) regarding the 109's sharply degraded performance at altitude - pilot said inexperienced 109 pilots would at times inadvertently get themselves into a spin, while other pilots would split-S and dive for denser air. 47s would pounce down upon them acheiving strong advantage w/ their excellent diving performance.



I was reading some Pilot encounter reports from P-47 FGs from late 1943. They reported the same, the P-47 would outdive, outturn and outclimb the Me 109 at those high altitudes.

The _Me 209s_ (an later version of the Me 109 I presume 8) ) they encountered however, did outdive, outturn and outclimb their P-47s with ease.


----------



## Kurfürst (Dec 19, 2006)

Chingachgook said:


> Soren, your aerodynamic terms somehow do not pan out in any real tests done by anyone or in the combat reports (109s falling out of the sky trying to stay in turns with Spits etc - as reported by German pilots). You have to make an excuse for all of the facts. When you resort to conjecture and equivocation there is simply nothing left to say.



Unfortunately my perception is that you are describing your own attitude here. You make vogue references to 'real tests' and '109s falling out of the sky reported by German pilots'. That's all fine but there are plenty of such accounts available from both sides, they prove little apart from that the opposing pilot's experience and the initial tactical and energy situation were major factors in manouvering fights.

A while you claim Soren is 'making an excuse' to your voguely references and massively generalized 'facts', you on the other hand simply close your eyes and ignore the accounts Soren has posted. Ie.


*Walter Wolfrum, German fighter ace. 137 victories.*
_"Unexperienced pilots hesitated to turn tight, bacause the plane shook violently when the slats deployed. I realised, though, that because of the slats the plane's stalling characteristics were much better than in comparable Allied planes that I got to fly. Even though you may doubt it, I knew the Bf109 could manouver better in turnfight than LaGG, Yak or even Spitfire."_

*Herbert Kaiser, German fighter ace. 68 victories. * 
_"Personally, I met RAF over Dunkirk. During this battle not a single Spitfire or Hurricane turned tighter than my plane. I found that the Bf 109 E was faster, possessed a higher rate of climb, but was somewhat less manouverable than the RAF fighters. Nevertheless, during the campaign, no Spitfire or Hurricane ever turned inside my plane, and after the war the RAF admitted the loss of 450 Hurricanes and Spitfires during the Battle of France." In the desert there were only a few Spitfires, and we were afraid of those because of their reputation from the Battle of Britain. But after we shot a couple of them down, our confusion was gone."_

*Erwin Leykauf, German fighter pilot, 33 victories.*
_"During what was later called the 'Battle of Britain', we flew the Messerschmitt Bf109E. The essential difference from the Spitfire Mark I flown at that time by the RAF was that the Spitfire was less manoeuvrable in the rolling plane. With its shorter wings (2 metres less wingspan) and its square-tipped wings, the Bf 109 was more manoeuvrable and slightly faster. (It is of interest that the English later on clipped the wings of the Spitfire.)
For us, the more experienced pilots, real manoeuvring only started when the slats 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. This is how I shot down six of them." _

*Pierre Clostermann, Spitfire pilot.*
_"I tried to fire on a '109' that I spotted in the chaos. Not possible, I couldn't get the correct angle. My plane juddered on the edge of a stall. It was comforting that the Spitfire turned better than the '109'! Certainly at high speed - but not at low speed."_


Judging from pilot accounts, the 109 would always outturn a Spitfire and emerge as a victor, and the Spitfire would always outturn a 109 and emerge as a victor.

Oddly enough, there are few accounts from pilots describing how they were outturned and shot down from either side. I presume that has to do something with the conseqences. Dead pilots are horrible story-tellers.


----------



## Glider (Dec 19, 2006)

Adolf Galland in a conversation with Goring in August 1940 was able to turn tighter than the 109

Heinz Knoke wrote of the Spitfires 'The bastards can make such infernally tight turns there seems to be no way of nailing them'.

The War Diary of I/JG 3 for August 31st 1940 states that the Spitfires turn very well at higher altitudes and tighter than the 109.

Gunther Rall wrote that the Spitfire had great lift and was very manoeverable and he couldn't catch them in a climb. In contrast he wrote that he didn't like the slats on the 109 and found the cockpit narrow compared to the Spitfire.

In short gentlemen for every quote you can find praising one aircraft, you will find another praising the other.

IE THEY WERE A FAIR MATCH


----------



## Glider (Dec 19, 2006)

APOLOGIES SHOULD HAVE READ
Adolf Galland in a conversation with Goring in August 1940 the Spitfire was able to turn tighter than the 109


----------



## twoeagles (Dec 19, 2006)

There is a pretty decent book titled Spitfire V in Action by Caygill
which paints a balanced picture of combat over Northern France before,
during, and after the Fw190 came on the scene. And indeed what you find
(and this book draws from RAF and Luftwaffe accounts) is that there was
a large variability in performance, with pilots on both sides liking and
disliking their aircraft for various reasons. Overall, though, it appears
that the Mk V Spit could hold it's own in the horizontal plane, but would
be foolish to try and outrun the 109F in a dive. And in the end, the RAF
losses during the period examined were about twice the Luftwaffe's, which
is telling (of course, fighting over France already put the Spit pilot at a
disadvantage in terms of fuel management).

So all these arguments are probably academic and useful for making accurate
simulations, and very interesting in their own right. It is difficult to pry the
human element out of the data, too. I can speak from first hand experience
flying for an aggressor squadron training the fleet that something as simple
as a pilot not having breakfast before flying can make a difference in his
fighting and his judgement. If he had a bad day, was it the fault of the 
aircraft? And having been involved professionally in flight test for the 
last 30 years, I can speak for the wide variability in data collection.

In the end, unless you guys have access to real birds, you just have to pick
what lights your fire and accept that there are going to be, 60 years after
the fact, rebuttals for every argument you might surface.

This thread is a very good ride, however!


----------



## davparlr (Dec 19, 2006)

twoeagles said:


> So all these arguments are probably academic and useful for making accurate
> simulations, and very interesting in their own right. It is difficult to pry the
> human element out of the data, too. I can speak from first hand experience
> flying for an aggressor squadron training the fleet that something as simple
> ...



Interesting comment. You never think of combat fighting in terms like this. It is common to have a bad day at tennis, golf, and the office, but having a bad day in combat is another thing. In football, intangibles like momentum is definately a factor. I suspect this is the same in combat. Soldiers and airman who think they can win have an advantage over those who doubt.


----------



## Chingachgook (Dec 19, 2006)

X


----------



## Soren (Dec 19, 2006)

Glider said:


> Adolf Galland in a conversation with Goring in August 1940 was able to turn tighter than the 109
> 
> Heinz Knoke wrote of the Spitfires 'The bastards can make such infernally tight turns there seems to be no way of nailing them'.
> 
> ...



And funny enough all those comments are from 1940, at which point most pilots didn't like pushing the envelope in the 109. Günther Rall for one nearly died as one of the slats on his Emil failed to open, and this scared him enough to never attempt such rough maneuvers again - hence why he didn't like the slats. 

Erwin Leykauf and Walter Wolfrum both explain this as-well.


----------



## Chingachgook (Dec 19, 2006)

X


----------



## Chingachgook (Dec 19, 2006)

X


----------



## Chingachgook (Dec 19, 2006)

X


----------



## Chingachgook (Dec 19, 2006)

X


----------



## Udet (Dec 19, 2006)

And i will continue sticking with combat records: the Spitfire was not going anywhere against the Luftwaffe. The model had its 15 minutes of fame during the famous BoB, and there were no sufficient merits even by then.

I do not care if against the Fw 190 or the Bf 109...i would like to see the bottom of the channel with a neat finery of Spitfire carcasses here and there. For every German fighter lying on the botton how many Spitfires you think you would find?

Two highly published battles of 1942, one of them fought mainly over the water of the channel -Unternehmen Cerberus- and the other one, the Dieppe "Raid" -nice choice of words to conceal an attempt to establish a beachhead that ended in a massacre..."_oh well, it was only a minor rehearsal"_-, showed the wonderfully acrobatic Spitfires were uncapable against the Luftwaffe.

I digress: the fierce aerial battle during the channel dash was fought over the water of the channel, thus shattering the forseeable argument of the "tactical disadvantage" in having to fight "over enemy territory"...so, over the bloody sea the Luftwaffe emerged overwhelmingly victorious over the hyper manouverable Spitfires.

So, 1941, 1942 and the first half of 1943, before the full assembly of the 8th AF the Spitfires achieved exactly what....? See the list of Luftwaffe claims for the second of half of 1943 and throughout the entire 1944 and one can only wonder if those guys were actually flying, as the bulk of the Luftwaffe´s claims are P-51s, P-47s and the B-17s and B-24s.

For every Spitfire claimed by German pilots during such periods there are at least 5 U.S. fighters destroyed in combat...oh yes, there we have "Market Garden", when the RAF did send the Spitfires in numbers, and during the days of the failed operation the Spitfires again were sent down to the ground in juicy numbers.

Now it´s time to get a sip from my milkshake.

Cheers.


----------



## Chingachgook (Dec 19, 2006)

X


----------



## Kurfürst (Dec 19, 2006)

Chingachgook said:


> Kurfurst,
> 
> I am grateful for the work you have done by getting so much info together on the 109. Your website is a great resource.



Thank you for the compliments.  




> The German pilots you quote I put down to bravado and I think they lack validity as I said before because there is no way of knowing if the Spits were pushed to the limit.



Hmmm... and how do you know in accounts from Spitfire pilots that the 109s they flew against were pushed to the limit, how do you know the pilot in it was not a greenhorn eager for some victories...? 

Would not it be reasonable to think that the ones who came down and turnfighted in 109s instead of using the proven - and quite simply, much superior in WW2 terms - tactics (use high speed instead of turning to prevent being targeted, and strike down the slow onesof staying out of slow turnfights) were the rookie pilots? That pilots who dived down on an unsuspecting Spitfire_, but missed_, and were foolish enough to give up their good position and started to turnfight were in fact, eager greenhorn pilots with little experience ?

Problem is, in an actual dogfight, things are practically NEVER equal. One side has the advantage, and if it can keep exploiting it, it wins.

Now for the quote, it describes a combat between 8 Bf 109s and '40+' Hurricanes and P-40s, and '20+' Spitfires. _60 planes vs. 8_, even though we can be sure Stahschmidt like other pilots overestimated enemy numbers, we find that only one Spitfire pilot managed to stay behind him, all the rest were shaken off. I dunno, if this counts bad.. 8) 


Now as for Mike Williams, I have seen and known the site for a long time. Simply to put, it's extremely saddening that the only drive behind gathering so many primary sources is to then quote them selectively and manipulate the evidence to push a quite obvious agenda further. 

The trick is simple, quotes from are quoted en masse and selectively, we never see a single qoute from 109 pilots outturning Spits, though we know it happened, such quotes exist and you can bet the Mike Williams is aware of that. That alone makes me ignore anything that is written on those articles, almost every line is being manipulated. One example, the Bf 109V15a trial's speed graphs are quoted - you can read the full report on my site. Even though the report makes clear that the aircraft's engine was running below it's normal power by almost 50 HP, and the report presents a curve extrapolated from the actual tested figures for a normally running engine, Williams goes as far as trying to dismiss the results by claiming that the 'aircraft was running above it's officially allowed powers' (in fact it ran at 50 HP less), and _then shows the lower performance graph which was achieved with less than nominal power by 50HP, and conviniently forgots to show about the other curve for full power._. Selective qouting, that is. The same goes around in the Bf 109G 'comparison', simply the worst performing planes are being picked and showed.

Sorry but using Mike Williams and his spitdweeb site is a very very unconvincing. It's just utterly biased, manipulated crap, to put it simply.

Now, let's forget about Williams and his well developed reputation as a cheater for a second, and let's concentrate on the bare facts. We have about a dozen quotes from Spitfire pilots who claim they outturned Bf 109s in combat and shot them down. Big deal, of course it happened, on both sides. Some 900 to 1000 Hurricanes and Spitfires were shot down in combat, you might imagine that quite a few of those were shot down in turning fight. If anyone would bother, he could flood this place with hundreds combat reports from victorious Bf 109 pilot, all reports would tell the same, the enemy was bested in every possible wayand was shot down. That's the very nature of the _victors_ combat reports, and the dead tell no tales I am afraid.

Let's assume that just 10% of those 1000 lost RAF fighters were shot down in combat, that's 100 planes, and a 100 accounts. More actually, since pilots tended to overclaim by a factor of 2-3. So we would list here some 250 quotes, all telling a 109E pilot outturning and shooting down a Spitfire or Hurricane. The thread would be flooded... It would be terribly convincing about that all that happened in BoB was 109Es outturning RAF fighters, and btw the most common type of air combat was still a classic WW1 turnfight...? False, and quite obviously so, isn't it? Still, some sites still use such tricks as noted above.  


It proves nothing, such combat reports are naturally slanted because it's always the victors version, and the victor become the victor because he had displayed some sort of superiority in the fight. 

Besides it's very interesting to put Clostermann's and Knoke's (who was flying one of his first combat sorties BTW) accounts next to each other :

Knoke : "The bastards can make such infernally tight turns; there seems to be no way of nailing them. "

Clostermann : ""I tried to fire on a '109' that I spotted in the chaos. Not possible, I couldn't get the correct angle. '

Aren't they saying the same? Isn't it the same impression?

Maybe it's just simply a fact that pilots on both sides outturned opponents and shaked down pursuers with turns...? Hitting and outmanouvering the oppoent was a damn hard thing in those planes, most combats resulted in the sky being shot to pieces and running out of ammo. The pilots who scored, the pilots who successfully evaded were the experienced/gifted/lucky ones. Their opponents, VICTIMS were, most of the time, the unexperienced, unlucky or lame pilots. 

It has nothing to do with the plane. If you want to find out the technical limits of the plane, read the technical reports and forget the pilot accounts.


----------



## twoeagles (Dec 19, 2006)

Ching, I think you hit Udet's pickle switch.


----------



## Soren (Dec 19, 2006)

Still desperately holding on to pilot-accounts are we Chinny ??

Funny enough all these are from 1940 as-well. 

So my question is: How many times do you have to read what Leykauf and Wolfrum said before you undertsand it ??



> The slats would not deploy together because of the design. One wing is going slower than the other in a turn... Hence one slat would open sooner. That was an issue on ALL 109s not just E.



It is very apparent you know nothing about aerodynamics. Ever wondered why one slat deploys abit sooner ? They're supposed to do this you know.

I'll let Mark Hanna put into perspective for you;

*Mark Hanna, modern day 109 pilot:*
_"As the stall is reached, the leading-edge slats deploy-together, if the ball is in the middle; slightly asymmetrically, if you have any slip on."_

And btw the slat design changed with the Friedrich, eliminating the frequent jamming of one slat suffered by the Emil, causing it to flick over or spin. The Emil's slats had to be kept almost clinically clean for them to function properly, something which just wasn't possible in the field - this problem was solved by the new design introduced with the Friedrich.


Keep digging Chinny...


----------



## Soren (Dec 19, 2006)

Chingachgook said:


> lol Udet, tell us how you really feel.



Is it too hard to respond to Udet's post Chinny ? Finding it troublesome to come up with a good argument are we ??


----------



## Chingachgook (Dec 19, 2006)

X


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 19, 2006)

Very entertaining folks. Just adding something. These are fighter command admitted losses throughout the war. It was taken from "Janes 1946." This also includes aircraft that returned to base but were scrapped due to battle damage.

1939 3	

1940 1186

1941 651 

1942 688

1943 569

1944 397

1945 64

-----------------

Total 3558	

Here's a site that has Luftwaffe losses broken down, it is inconclusive but detailed. It does provide some interesting interesting information in showing how badly Fighter Command did against the Luftwaffe after the Battle of Britain.

Luftwaffe Research Online

draw your conclusions but I think pilot skill had a lot to do with these encounters despite the performance of these aircraft.


----------



## Soren (Dec 19, 2006)

The test is also a "Pilot account" Chinny, a pilot was doing the testing, when are you going to get this ?? Its no'more worth than the British tests with the machine, both pilots nearly pissed their pants as soon as the slats came out.

And I don't care even if your whole family is made up of aerodynamicists, cause YOU obviously have no clue what you're talking about - Your last comments about the operation of the slats demonstrates this very clearly.

There's a reason the slats were put on the 109, a fighter, and virtaully all fighters after WWII you know - They greatly improve turn performance. 

Now please share with us what your so knowledgable friend says about the slats - this should be interesting.


----------



## twoeagles (Dec 19, 2006)

"


> draw your conclusions but I think pilot skill had a lot to do with these encounters despite the performance of these aircraft


."

Bingo, Joe. Put Barkhorn or Graf or Wolfrum or Galland into a Spitfire and they
will shoot down a mess of 109's. Put Malan, Johnson, Unwin, etc into
109's and they will flame a lot of Spitfires. The hand on the stick was
more important than the plusses and minuses of relative performance.


----------



## Soren (Dec 19, 2006)

Oh and while we're on the subject of tests:

The Russian tests suggest that the La-5FN and La-7 both turn either slightly worse or better than the Spitfire IX: 

Spitfire LF IX - 18.5 seconds (3351kg, 149 kg/m2) - 1690 HP 
La5FN - 19 seconds (3290 kg, 188 kg/m2) - 1850 HP
La-7 - 18 secods (3315 kg, 189 kg/m2) - 1850 HP

And guess what ! According to extensive German testing of the La-5FN, carried out by Hans Werner Lerche in Sept. 1944, it was found that the La-5FN couldn't turn as well as a cleanly loaded Bf-109G. (German 109 pilots attest to this fact as-well):






*Hans Werner Lerche*





*The La-5FN in question*





The summary of this report (marked 'SECRET') was sent to Messerschmitt, Dornier, Heinkel and Junkers, as well as the RLM. 

And incase you don't read German, here's a translation of the final conclusion for you:

*Tactical conclusions and advice offered to German fighter pilots: *

"_The La 5FN is best suited to low altitude combat by virtue of its engine performance. Its top speed at ground level is slightly below that of the 190 and 109 (using MW 50). The 109 with MW 50 is superior over the whole height band in top speed and climb rate. Acceleration is comparable. Aileron effectiveness is better than the 109. Turning times at ground level are better than the 190 and worse than the 109.
In rate of climb the 190 is poorer until 3000m. Because of its greater weight the 190 accelerates less well than the La5FN, but by the same token is superior in the dive. It is basically right to dive away like an American Thunderbolt when flying a 190, thereafter to pull away in a high speed shallow climb to reach a new attacking position, not to let the speed drop and to avoid prolonged turning dogfights._ "

Funny isn't it ??


----------



## mkloby (Dec 19, 2006)

I'm quite enjoying this! These engineer gurus! I don't trust engineers and their charts...


----------



## davparlr (Dec 19, 2006)

mkloby said:


> I'm quite enjoying this! These engineer gurus! I don't trust engineers and their charts...



I bet you do every time you rotate your aircraft to take off or trust the instruments to get you through an overcast (or at least will soon). And certainly will when you climb into a V-22 for take off! And if you think all situations are tested, you are in for a surprise.

However, as an aviation engineer for 29 years, albeit mostly avionic crew station design, I know that charts and test can be manipulated to reflect personal desires, somewhat like political polls. Opinions of test results and performance results are often at odds, even with the most knowledgeable of engineers. Personal attacks on this subject is not really warranted. I suspect all are right in their specific operational envelope.


----------



## Soren (Dec 19, 2006)

Did you get the Performance docs I sent you btw Davparlr ?


----------



## mkloby (Dec 19, 2006)

davparlr said:


> I bet you do every time you rotate your aircraft to take off or trust the instruments to get you through an overcast (or at least will soon). And certainly will when you climb into a V-22 for take off! And if you think all situations are tested, you are in for a surprise.
> 
> However, as an aviation engineer for 29 years, albeit mostly avionic crew station design, I know that charts and test can be manipulated to reflect personal desires, somewhat like political polls. Opinions of test results and performance results are often at odds, even with the most knowledgeable of engineers. Personal attacks on this subject is not really warranted. I suspect all are right in their specific operational envelope.



I don't rotate, I will my A/C off the deck  Instruments are one thing - charts are another! I'm wary and when doing planning I take performance charts w/ a grain of salt. We've all seen numbers on charts regarding performance that just don't jive w/ reality.


----------



## Chingachgook (Dec 19, 2006)

X


----------



## mad_max (Dec 20, 2006)

Kurfurst posted:



> Sorry but using Mike Williams and his spitdweeb site is a very very unconvincing. It's just utterly biased, manipulated crap, to put it simply.
> 
> Now, let's forget about Williams and his well developed reputation as a cheater for a second, and let's concentrate on the bare facts.



The above has gotten you kicked off a boeard or two hasn't it Kurfurst. You seem to constantly
post this stuff wherever you show up. I think you should look in the mirror when you say
such things.

Lots of new information in Mike William's site and Kurfust's site. Both need a pat on the back,
BUT both are definitely done by individuals that have a biased outlook/interpretation
of the documents and data they've found.

Best to just peruse their document finding skills and make your own decisions with what
is original source from test flights. Calculated figures mean nothing.

Myself I'll wait for Olivier's book on the 109 series thank you very much.

Regards,


----------



## Jabberwocky (Dec 20, 2006)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Very entertaining folks. Just adding something. These are fighter command admitted losses throughout the war. It was taken from "Janes 1946." This also includes aircraft that returned to base but were scrapped due to battle damage.
> 
> 1939 3
> 
> ...



Those RAF Fighter Command figures are certainly too low. Foreman's Fighter Command War Diaries places the figure at around 7,500 for just ETO operations, not including the Pacific, CBI or MTO.


----------



## Jabberwocky (Dec 20, 2006)

Soren said:


> Oh and while we're on the subject of tests:
> 
> The Russian tests suggest that the La-5FN and La-7 both turn either slightly worse or better than the Spitfire IX:
> 
> ...



Really funny.

Especially when the test says in the first paragraph of pg 4: "performance at this altitude at about 28 to 30 s for the stationary full circle without altitude change. This is equivalent to a shortest time for a full circle at emergency power and 1000 m of about 25 s."

A 25 second turn at 1000m would put the tested aircraft some 6 seconds, or 31.5%, behind the Russian tests for 19 sec for the same type of aircraft. 

The report also mentions the "the aforementioned [troublesome] turning characteristics of the La 5", which you can draw what you will from.

According to Soviet tests the FW-190A8 could do a 360 degree turn in 21-22 seconds. So this leaves me wondering how accurate this assesment of the La-5FN really is, when the report also states that "The times for a full circle are better than those of the Fw-190A8 at ground level and worse than those of the Bf-109"


Inconsistencies stacked up on inconsistencies. It all depends on how you want to interpret the data...


----------



## Chingachgook (Dec 20, 2006)

X


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 20, 2006)

Jabberwocky said:


> Those RAF Fighter Command figures are certainly too low. Foreman's Fighter Command War Diaries places the figure at around 7,500 for just ETO operations, not including the Pacific, CBI or MTO.


I believe Foreman's figures includes all causes - the figures I posted were due to direct air-to-air combat. Combine those numbers with all causes and they may add up to the figures posted by Foreman.


----------



## Twitch (Dec 20, 2006)

Christ, 1st it was top speed as some magic factor in aerial victories now it's back to the the same old turning crap for the millionth time! When are you folks going to realize that kills are not made by one segment of performance of one particluar aircraft over another? Since Erich and I have been fortunate to seek out aces and discuss aerial combat with them I realize all of you can't but jeez at least read some pilot written bios and you'll realize it is 90% pilots skill and aggressiveness that runs up the score not because your plane can out turn or out speed an opponent.

Comparing aircraft statistics has absolutely nothing to do with aerial victories. Hartmann almost never did anything else but bounce mofos from behind and above in classic energy fighter style. He wasn't consumed with out turning enemies or out running them. If that was good enough for 352 kills maybe this fixation on pure performance factors alone is a bankrupt philosophy.

Tactical advantage, surprise, numerical superiority, aggressiveness, physical conditioning, gunnery skills and pure guts wins fights. Its simply utter horsecrap to cling to the warped belief that one or another performance factor is the magical formula to attain kills.


----------



## Hunter368 (Dec 20, 2006)

Thank you Twitch, all this number crunching gets old fast. Number crunching and having the absolutly best plane in the world did not mean anything with out having a great pilot. Pilot's skill was the biggest determining factor in who won a air combat.

End all this number crunching. What are you really go to prove? Spits shot down 109's, 109's shot down Spits. Has there ever been two closely matched planes that fought more often then the 109 and Spit?

Both were great planes with little to divide them.....just leave it at that.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 20, 2006)

Gotta agree with Twitch on this one.


----------



## Kurfürst (Dec 20, 2006)

Chingachgook said:


> Just a few observations.
> 1.Not sure why you felt it important to include the La7 - was much lighter than La5... No German La7 test?



Actually, the La-7 is marginally heavier, but at the same time, it's massively cleaner than the La-5FN (compare speeds, it's same engine. BiG WOW! for Soviet airframe designers!!!)




> 3. Spit was not at 25lbs boost - at 1690hp it would be 16 or 18lbs), but I am not sure how much that would effect the test (alt dependant). More power would help turn rate.



Hmmm. The 25 Lbs boost Spit IX is really an 1945 thing. As for boost, let's keep in mind that the Russians tested the G-2 at 1.3ata, and 1310 PS, a boost rating that was valid between May 1942 - October 1943. It's contemporary during 1942 was the Spit IXF with the Merlin 61 at +15 lbs boost, and about 1390 HP at SL. The Spitfire the Soviety tested was a later, IXLF low altitude variant with merlin 66, +18 lbs ratings and 1690 HP at SL, that appeared in early 1943, but did not become really widespread until late 1943 or more so 1944. As a matter of fact, until late 1943, Mark Vs were predominant over MkIXs in the RAF. One could say, 1942 and 1943 was 'bleak time' for the RAF, at least for Spitfire Squadrons, going up in a MkV vs. a 109F is bad enough, going up in MkV vs. a Bf 109G is pure horror, especially at altitude.

Obviously, the earlier +15 Spit IXF with the less (by as much as 300 HP less) power would obviously turn worser than the later +18 Spit IXLF, and the G-2 would turn better with it's full 1.42ata boost (1475 PS at SL), cleared in October 1943, than w. the early 1942 boost of 1.3ata.

In fact, I am quite convinced that a fair, early +15/1.3ata, and later +18/1.42ata boost comparisons would show rather similiar turn times than directly comparing a late IXLF with an early G-2.

More power definietely helps turn rate though not at all speeds. At very low speeds, turn time is limited by stall speed, however the best turn time is alway developed at higher speed region than this. Faster planes outturn slower planes near the latters max speed and obviously, beyond.






> IMHO, Yak3 @ 17sec might have been large radius and fast turn rate, this might explain why it did well even with higher wingloading (did anyone mention taper angle of wing plan shape?). R value would have been nice to know but russkies left this out. Did Yak3 have as small an R value as XI? We just don't know...



Actually the Yak3 had a large radius of turn, ca 290m (identical to the G-2 in Soviet tests, ie. 285 meters, presumably clean version as they don't say for certain), the Spit IXLF is given at 235 meters. 

The whole Yak3 was added on my part to demonstrate how wrong is tunneled vision approach that wingloading is the sole determining factor, the last word on turn rate. Of course he does that because the sole good factor about the Spit is low wingloading, and Hop is a die-hard Spitfire fan who'd argue anything in favour of his beloved plane (I can tell, I know him for what, 5-6 years...? Seen it all already.  )

It isn't, wingloading determines turn radius, and helps a bit turn time, but turn time is far more power and drag sensitive, as the Yak-3s case clearly demonstrates. OTOH, turn time is far more important than radius, as turn time will determine who will get a lead shot on the other first.




> btw, slats do deploy one before another on 109 and that unequal deployment WAS disconserting to pilots (and still was pressent on Buchon ie G2 wing).



Appearantly not. I guess it was eliminated either by the wing redesign of the 109F (amongst others, it now used Frise ailerons) or the fact that the 109late-F/G/K used roller bearings instead of roller arms for deploying the slats.

Here's Dave Soutwood on flying 'Black Six' (Bf 109G-2/trop) 

The 109 Lair- The Online Source for Messerschmitt 109 information

_"One interesting feature is the leading edge slats. When these deploy at low speeds or in a turn, a 'clunk' can be heard and felt, *but there is no disturbance to the aircraft about any axis. * I understand that the Bf109E rolled violently as the slats deployed, and I am curious to know the difference to the Gustav that caused this."_

PS : I very much agree with Twitch about the "usefullness" of turns in combat tactics, still, for me it's somehow still interesting to learn how these factors work and what different designs resulted.. It's also about a bit of myth-debunking. 8)


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 20, 2006)

Twitch said:


> Tactical advantage, surprise, numerical superiority, aggressiveness, physical conditioning, gunnery skills and pure guts wins fights. Its simply utter horsecrap to cling to the warped belief that one or another performance factor is the magical formula to attain kills.



Bravo!

Boys and girls here's the phrase for the day - 

*T H R E E - D I M E N S I O N A L​*​


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Dec 20, 2006)

you don't believe in Einstein's thories as to the 4th dimension then?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 20, 2006)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> you don't believe in Einstein's thories as to the 4th dimension then?



Not when it comes to aerial combat...


----------



## Kurfürst (Dec 20, 2006)

mad_max said:


> Kurfurst posted:
> The above has gotten you kicked off a boeard or two hasn't it Kurfurst.



I can't recall being kicked of from any board for criticizing the presentations of Mike Williams... You on the other hand, we both know who we are. You run a couple of nicks on several boards, usually Morai Milo, and I won't bother to list the dozen other you parallely use. And unfortunately it is you who has been banned 3 times from two different boards for attacking my person.

Just to get things straight. You have 11 post nick, and half of your post are about attacking my person. That should be proof enough for any reasonable guy about your identity and agenda. I will waste no more characters on that.




> Lots of new information in Mike William's site and Kurfust's site. Both need a pat on the back, BUT both are definitely done by individuals that have a biased outlook/interpretation of the documents and data they've found.



Well you've been offered in the past to detail what sort of biased outlook/interpretation you have found at my site - which is strange since my site doesn't have any articles on it just the original flight tests and papers... hmm. My objective with the site is to provide and objective, unbiased and above all, unmanipulated data to give the reader a good overview on Bf 109 performance, as opposed to some negative, agenda driven examples seen lately. As such all valid crititque is welcome, and if founded, it has a good chance that changes will be made on the site.

You however in the past as in the present remained at vogue accusations of bias, and every time you were asked to detailed your concerns in an email or other form either refused or that was the end of it.

Again, all this just gives the impression of a poor_excuse_ for flaming and personal attacks, with which your working can be described on any board you visit.



> Best to just peruse their document finding skills and make your own decisions with what is original source from test flights.



Good approach, I agree.



> Calculated figures mean nothing.



Hmm, decisionmakers in WW2 considered those reliable enough to decide on which aircraft are to put into production and which are not. I guess if it was good enough for them, it's good enough for me. Besides, generally there's excellent agreement between calculated figures, which are anyway semi-based on data from previous flight tests, and performance trials.




> Myself I'll wait for Olivier's book on the 109 series thank you very much.



That would be a wise choice, as Olivier Lefebrve obviously possess far more material and knowladge on the subject than I can ever hope for. The half of the satisfaction with my site is the large amount of positive feedback I get from aviation fans wishing to learn more and finding my site useful in that, and the other half is from the fact that a noted expert like Olivier considered my site worthy enough both in it's goal and it's accuracy to make an offer to host it under his own site.


----------



## Hunter368 (Dec 20, 2006)

People People stop already.


----------



## mkloby (Dec 20, 2006)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Not when it comes to aerial combat...



What about air assault 

Does anybody know if there's a museum in the US that has a 109F?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 20, 2006)

Kurfürst said:


> Olivier Lefebrve obviously possess far more material and knowladge on the subject than I can ever hope for.


Has he ever flown a high performance aircraft?


----------



## mkloby (Dec 20, 2006)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Has he ever flown a high performance aircraft?



Dude he flew one on MS Flight Sim.  
I have no idea who he is and I'm just kidding.


----------



## pbfoot (Dec 20, 2006)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Bravo!
> 
> Boys and girls here's the phrase for the day -
> 
> *T H R E E - D I M E N S I O N A L​*​


How is this for a tweak on 3 dimensional Spatial Orientation


----------



## Kurfürst (Dec 20, 2006)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Has he ever flown a high performance aircraft?



I don't know, maybe you should ask him at allaboutwarfare.com ! What I know however, that he measures the documents he collected on aviation and in particular the 109 in _tons_, rather than pages. No kidding.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 20, 2006)

pbfoot said:


> How is this for a tweak on 3 dimensional Spatial Orientation


Thanks!


Kurfürst said:


> I don't know, maybe you should ask him at allaboutwarfare.com ! What I know however, that he measures the documents he collected on aviation and in particular the 109 in _tons_, rather than pages. No kidding.


I've gone on the site - he does have a lot of knowledge and documents. Again, it's comical to see hairs split with regards to this subject matter when many so called experts have never flown a real aircraft, let alone a high performance aircraft.


----------



## mad_max (Dec 20, 2006)

Flyboy,

Olivier's book will totally be one you will want. He's straightened out quite a few folks
posting some wrong thoughts about the 109. He is the most unbiased person I've seen
posting on boards. Want to learn some good tidbits, then visit the boards he posts on
and search for his posts. They all got different tidbits in them. I could put a nice little
paperback together just from his postings.

Kurfurst,

You accuse alot of folks of being someone they aren't. I'd suggest taking a big breath
and let it out slowly. I'm giving you a job well done on your website, but I don't agree
with some of the deductions that you come up with. I do no different to Mike Williams and
his website.

BTW I have never been kicked off one board yet and don't plan to. Please you've done
good, but you need to calm down and not be so bitter in life. It's nice to see you've eliminated
the webpage where you trash on Mike. A good start..now just let it go and be happy.

Regards,


----------



## Soren (Dec 20, 2006)

Jabberwocky said:


> Really funny.
> 
> Especially when the test says in the first paragraph of pg 4: "performance at this altitude at about 28 to 30 s for the stationary full circle without altitude change. This is equivalent to a shortest time for a full circle at emergency power and 1000 m of about 25 s."
> 
> ...



Jabberwocky,

If you haven't noticed it yet, all German turn-times are higher than Soviet ones for the same aircraft, the reason being that the clock was started earlier by the Germans than by the Russians - Compare the Russian Fw-190 A-8 turn time with the German for the same a/c for example.

There's no way this can be interpreted incorrectly.

But as always, the end result of a test is never better than the pilot carrying out that test - The one that dares to push it right to the limit is the one who will bring home the best results. That is why test results are no better than pilot-accounts.

And about the troublesome turning characteristics, well, you're going to have to point out to me where that is written cause I sure can't find any such comments.

Btw, the La-5FN in question was in excellent condition.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 20, 2006)

mad_max said:


> Flyboy,
> 
> Olivier's book will totally be one you will want. He's straightened out quite a few folks
> posting some wrong thoughts about the 109. He is the most unbiased person I've seen
> ...


Max, you're probably very correct and his book sounds worth-wild - my point is I have seen dozens and dozens of folks attempting to argue aircraft performance based on performance charts, sometimes not fully understanding what they are talking (but acting like and "expert") about because they have never used those charts in conjunction with operating a real aircraft. I have flown jets (L-29s and L-39s to name a few) and there are at least a half dozen performance charts within their flight manual. For the most part you only need to extrapolate a small segment of that information to safely operate the aircraft - the same holds true for WW2 aircraft.




mad_max said:


> Kurfurst,
> 
> You accuse alot of folks of being someone they aren't. I'd suggest taking a big breath
> and let it out slowly. I'm giving you a job well done on your website, but I don't agree
> ...



Gentlemen, despite my prejudices as mentioned with regards these types of discussions, be rest assured when it gets out of hands the Mods will quickly act upon "the situation" and take quick and decisive action to those we feel are a disruption to this forum. Heated debut within reason is always welcomed...


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 20, 2006)

Soren said:


> the La-5FN in question was in excellent condition.




Good point Soren - one has to consider the condition of the aircraft, fuel, pilot ability, weather conditions, and even maintenance, further clouding the issue...


----------



## Soren (Dec 20, 2006)

Chingachgook said:


> Soren,
> 
> Well, lets see what you have found...
> 
> ...



The Greman test was obviously about turn rate, as the one which turned 360 degree's the fastest is the better turn fighter.



> IMHO, Yak3 @ 17sec might have been large radius and fast turn rate, this might explain why it did well even with higher wingloading (did anyone mention taper angle of wing plan shape?). R value would have been nice to know but russkies left this out. Did Yak3 have as small an R value as XI? We just don't know...



Chinny, the higher the taper ratio the more troublesome your aircraft will be to turn as it will suffer from tip stall - Hence why the La-5/7 has slats, cause without them it would have some nasty and unpredictable stall tendencies, like those suffered by the Yak. 

The 'e' factor AKA Oswald efficiency factor represents the planform efficiency of the wing, and it is incoperated in the Cdi calculation I presented earlier.

So don't worry, nothing has been left out. 



> btw, slats do deploy one before another on 109 and that unequal deployment WAS disconserting to pilots (and still was pressent on Buchon ie G2 wing). I did say it was designed that way did I not? Yes I understand why the slats deploy one before the other - ment to delay (or tame) the stall, keep outboard of wing flying... My father (tech sgt) did mantainance on F-86 in USAF which had slats, and did big wing retrofits during Korea (first to get rid of slats then I think they fitted them again on bigger wing).



The unequal deployment of the slats is not at all what the inexperienced pilots were concerned about - it was the loud bang and slight notch it gave when the slats deployed that scared them, aborting the maneuver emmidiately afraid the a/c was about to stall - what experienced pilot knew was that all you had to do at this point was keep pulling cause the a/c wasn't even close to stalling.


----------



## Chingachgook (Dec 20, 2006)

X


----------



## Soren (Dec 20, 2006)

I'd hate to rain on your parade Chinny but you freaked out already in the first thread you ever participated in on this forum, seemingly because someone didn't like the Spit as much as you.

Ofcourse its always easy to rid yourself of all accusation by claiming you love the a/c you actually hate and vice versa - only problem is I had you figured out from the beginning.


----------



## Chingachgook (Dec 20, 2006)

X


----------



## Soren (Dec 20, 2006)

Chingachgook said:


> One of my aerodynamic engineer buddys says that taper angle does help in a big way for turn rate but I do not remember why - E retention? (he is out for Xmas now). Yes I do believe he said that it causes tip stall (or was it root stall?) Never heard anything about Yak3 having bad stall issues (?).



It causes tip stall Chinny, not root stall. 

And about the Yak, well what have you heard about it ?


----------



## Chingachgook (Dec 20, 2006)

X


----------



## Hunter368 (Dec 20, 2006)

Soren he is trying to hold out a olive branch......take it and end this.


----------



## Soren (Dec 20, 2006)

Hunter,

If that was a try at holding out a olive branch then it was a very poor one I must say. Even when trying to make peace he can't refrain from making insults and completely unfounded claims.

Hinton doesn't fly the 109 as much as Chinny assumes, and he certainly doesn't throw it around either.

______________

But ok Chinny, no hard feelings from my part. Now lest debate the matter at hand shall we ?


----------



## mad_max (Dec 21, 2006)

Don't know how many have watched this, but this video is awesome. Just listen to
that DB singing! Music I tell ya music.  



_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RR-CjNWvMlE_


_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rDImSVoiJJY_

Imagine taking your own 109 up the first time, then getting the rush
of this landing. Once would be enough for me.

Enjoy.


----------



## mkloby (Dec 21, 2006)

Even though a tapered, or elliptical wing causes tip stall - that doesn't mean that there aren't measures you can take to produce more gentle stalling characteristics - take stall strips for example.


----------



## davparlr (Dec 21, 2006)

Soren said:


> Did you get the Performance docs I sent you btw Davparlr ?



Yes I did. I haven't had time to digest it yet but a quick scan shows impressive performance. Thanks alot!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 21, 2006)

mkloby said:


> What about air assault
> 
> Does anybody know if there's a museum in the US that has a 109F?



There are several Bf-109F's that are in the United States, however none are on display at museums.

Bf-109F-4 Wr 8461 
Bf-109F-4 Wr 10144
Bf-109F-4 Wr 10212
Bf-109F-4 Wr 10256
Bf-109F-4 Wr 10276

8461, 10144, and 10256 are being restored to flying condition.


These countries as well also have 109F.

Canada - 1 Bf-109F-1
1 Bf-109F-4/Z on display at the Canadian National Air Museum

France - 1 Bf-109F-1 being restored to flying condition

Finnland - 2 Bf-109F-4's both at the Finnish Airforce Museum

Belgium - 1 Bf-109F-4 being restored to be placed on display at a Museum.

England - 2 Bf-109F-4

Russia - 1 Bf-109F-4/Z being restored to flying condition

Germany - 1 Bf-109F-4 being restored to flying condition.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 21, 2006)

Kurfürst said:


> I can't recall being kicked of from any board for criticizing the presentations of Mike Williams... You on the other hand, we both know who we are. You run a couple of nicks on several boards, usually Morai Milo, and I won't bother to list the dozen other you parallely use. And unfortunately it is you who has been banned 3 times from two different boards for attacking my person.
> 
> Just to get things straight. You have 11 post nick, and half of your post are about attacking my person. That should be proof enough for any reasonable guy about your identity and agenda. I will waste no more characters on that.



Allright I really dont give a damn how much you guys dont like each other. Keep your fucking personal problems out of my forum. That goes for all of you. Kurfurst, Mad Max, Williams and Soren. Keep it out of this forum. 

I fucking mean it. I am tired of this childish "My daddy could beat your daddy up ****!" All of you need to grow up!

A good debate is one thing, but you guys act like a bunch of children!


----------



## davparlr (Dec 21, 2006)

mkloby said:


> I don't rotate, I will my A/C off the deck  Instruments are one thing - charts are another! I'm wary and when doing planning I take performance charts w/ a grain of salt. We've all seen numbers on charts regarding performance that just don't jive w/ reality.



A wise pilot trust nothing and no one. Always assume everybody is out to kill you, or, at the least, don't know what they are doing.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 21, 2006)

FLYBOYJ said:


> I've gone on the site - he does have a lot of knowledge and documents. Again, it's comical to see hairs split with regards to this subject matter when many so called experts have never flown a real aircraft, let alone a high performance aircraft.



I will share that laugh with you.

I could not agree more. I really think that is funny that so called "experts" have either never flown a plane (any kind for all I care) or stepped foot on a battle field whether it be in the air or on the ground.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 21, 2006)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> I will share that laugh with you.
> 
> I could not agree more. I really think that is funny that so called "experts" have either never flown a plane (any kind for all I care) or stepped foot on a battle field whether it be in the air or on the ground.


Amen brother, amen!


----------



## mad_max (Dec 21, 2006)

flyboy,

Exactly. Heck I fly a cessna...big deal...150 hp vs 1300+. No way can I make
a comparison. Heck my father said the difference between the SNJ (450 HP) advanced trainer
and the Hellcat (2000hp +) was scary as heck.

I've always said the aircraft of similar time frames in WWII were pretty much on equal
footing. Most times the attackee never saw the attacker until to late. Very little had to
do with my aircraft goes 20 km/h faster than yours, my aircraft rolled better, and on and on.

Energy state and alt.(same as energy state) were much more important than any other
performance figure you can come up with. Second in line would be speed and that's only useful
to be able to disengage.

DerAdlerIstGelandet,

Sorry to have posted that stuff above. I just want folks to realize both those sites are great
for original documents, but to make your own conclusions. Again I appologize to both
named above and you.

Regards,


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 21, 2006)

No sweat Max, carry on....


----------



## Soren (Dec 21, 2006)

Adler's right, we have been behaving abit like children lately - I apologize for my pissed off attitude.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 21, 2006)

Guys it is all good, lets just keep it as a good debate. Everyone can get there points across and act like adults.


----------



## Chingachgook (Dec 21, 2006)

X


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 21, 2006)

-BIG HUG-


----------



## Soren (Dec 21, 2006)

I bare some of the blame as-well Chinny, my frequent "Straight to the point" statements are sometimes pretty much encouraging a heated argument, and funny enough I know this, its just a bad habbit of mine.

So lets bury the hatchet and continue this debate in a proper and respectful manner.


----------



## Jank (Dec 21, 2006)

Translation:

Let's pull our willies out of each other's backsides.


----------



## Kurfürst (Dec 21, 2006)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> A good debate is one thing, but you guys act like a bunch of children!



You are right, I think we're all sorry, me included.. I seem to mistook him for another person who makes fun about attacking me, 'cos I had no idea where this 'banned from boards' thing came from. Obviously I am mistaken.  

In any case, the offer is still open, if he or anybody else finds traces of inaccuracies or bias on my site, just please point it out and discuss it, if it's a fair critique it's just good as it helps me to imporve my site for reliable information. So that we can all learn. That's the idea, isn't it?  
 
I just don't like to be accused without base, that's all. No bad blood on my part! 8)


----------



## mkloby (Dec 21, 2006)

We can all hold hands and sing kumbaya now


----------



## mkloby (Dec 21, 2006)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> There are several Bf-109F's that are in the United States, however none are on display at museums.
> 
> Bf-109F-4 Wr 8461
> Bf-109F-4 Wr 10144
> ...



Very nice - I have always wanted to drool over one up close. I shall wait...


----------



## Chingachgook (Dec 21, 2006)

X


----------



## Chingachgook (Dec 21, 2006)

X


----------



## Soren (Dec 21, 2006)

GROUP HUG !!!

Ha ! You wish !


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 22, 2006)

Chingachgook said:


> DerAdler,
> 
> I had no idea that there were that many F's being restored to flyable.
> 
> ...



I need to find the website in my favorites that has all the info on German aircraft being restored.


----------



## Chingachgook (Dec 22, 2006)

X


----------



## Udet (Dec 22, 2006)

Chinchanchook:

All rigtht, you did type this:

"I was NOT saying one plane was better than the other - Udet and others have been so defensive about this - crap".

Well, i would not say i was being defensive about any sort of crap here...rather, i simply stepped in and threw in some comments to affirm battle records of 1941, 1942 and first half of 1943 make a clear indication the Spitfires where going nowhere against German fighters.

From the second half of 1943 to the very end of the war the performance of the Spitfires is as noticeable as head lice taking a sunbath on the back of a tick in your garden (as you might watch them from the roof of your home).

Sorry if you were the one saying the F´s kept the upper hand but i simply failed to read that particular part of your comments.

What i clearly detected was your attitude of objecting most of Soren´s comments regarding the technical scope of the issue (which plane turned better), i thought it was convenient to say what i did. Simple. 

I will not take that active part in techincal debating as it is not my specialty, but on the other hand, if battle records is the topic i will be glad to be part of the discussion. 

Cheers!


----------



## Kurfürst (Dec 23, 2006)

Well, imho if we search for the reason why the RAF had such a poor record against those mere 2-3 Jagdgeschwaders in France, imho we shouldn't look for that reason in the turn department. That was pretty close in any case and the individual's pilot's skill to push his aircraft to the limit was more important than the aircraft's limits themselves.

The reason is quite simple : availability. The RAF was stuck with the Spitfire MkV in 1941, 1942 and 1943, and aircraft that could do somewhere between 580 and 600 km/h according to the tests.

As opposed, the Luftwaffe in France was much better equipped with modern stuff.

In 1941 they had 109F-2 and F-4 with 615 - 635 km/h top speed. 
In 1942 they had the 109F-4 uprated for 670 km/h, introduced the Bf 109G with similiar speed, and for high altitudes GM-1 that boosted the speed to around 700 km/h there. For 1942 the mainstay was the FW 190 with around 650-660 kph max speed. In 1943 the 109G become more used in the West to boost high altitude capabilities against the USAAF.

During all that time the RAF had still to do with the MkV, which was simply hopelessly slow to fight German fighters. The MkIX could have been an equalizer, had it been available in more than just pennypocket numbers. It's quite telling that even as late as June 1943, by which time the only 109Fs you'd find in 2nd line OTUs, with the 109G having replaced them on the frontline by the end of 1942, the RAF Fighter Command in Britiain had still around 30 Squadrons of frontline MkVs but just 10 Squadrons of MkIXs.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 23, 2006)

Udet said:


> From the second half of 1943 to the very end of the war the performance of the Spitfires is as noticeable as head lice taking a sunbath on the back of a tick in your garden (as you might watch them from the roof of your home).



Now, now Udet, a little exaggeration there - while I agree the 109F was clearly superior to the Spit V and during this period (1942-43) the Luftwaffe was slowing mauling fighter command, the later Spits from the Spitfire XIVe to the 22/ 24 were performance monsters all with top speeds well over 440 mph. Once again, range was the issue still with these aircraft but never the less their performance was definitely on par with at least later Bf 109s. 

BTW, I know one flew to 50,000 feet several years after the war.


----------



## Kurfürst (Dec 23, 2006)

I'd say the problem was that while Spitfire development certainly went head-to-head with 109 development, the Spit _deployment_ was always one phase behind 109 deployment.

So, that while the Emil and MkI, Gustav and MkIX, Kurfürst and MkXIV were certainly contemporaries, the actual planes facing each other in the everyday air battles were more likely a Hurricane vs. an Emil, a Gustav vs. a MkV, and late Gustav/Kurfürst vs. a Mk IX because of the slowish production rate of the new Spitfire models.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 23, 2006)

Kurfürst said:


> I'd say the problem was that while Spitfire development certainly went head-to-head with 109 development, the Spit _deployment_ was always one phase behind 109 deployment.
> 
> So, that while the Emil and MkI, Gustav and MkIX, Kurfürst and MkXIV were certainly contemporaries, the actual planes facing each other in the everyday air battles were more likely a Hurricane vs. an Emil, a Gustav vs. a MkV, and late Gustav/Kurfürst vs. a Mk IX because of the slowish production rate of the new Spitfire models.


Agree!


----------



## Glider (Dec 23, 2006)

Kurfürst said:


> I'd say the problem was that while Spitfire development certainly went head-to-head with 109 development, the Spit _deployment_ was always one phase behind 109 deployment.
> 
> So, that while the Emil and MkI, Gustav and MkIX, Kurfürst and MkXIV were certainly contemporaries, the actual planes facing each other in the everyday air battles were more likely a Hurricane vs. an Emil, a Gustav vs. a MkV, and late Gustav/Kurfürst vs. a Mk IX because of the slowish production rate of the new Spitfire models.



Can I modify this to a degree and bring in other factors which would show why the replacement of earlier versions of Spitfires by newer models was slower compared to the German Airforce.

Emil would face Hurricanes and Spit I/II in roughly equal numbers.
F would face Spit V
Early G would normally face Spit V
Later G would face Spit IX 

Re the reasons for the RAF suffering large losses with the V against the F, I posted what I saw the reasons for this earler in the thread and no one seemed to disagree with them. Comments always welcome.

Does anyone seriously think that the F would score 1 to 1, let alone 2 to 1 if they were attacking the UK, escorting slow bombers, using outdated tactics?

Reasons for the slower replacement of older versions of Spitfires compared to 109's.
The German Airforce sufferred massive losses in fighters, in fact the entire German airforce only grew by around 15% at the end of the war compared to the beginning of the war. In other words the massive production effort was mainly taken up with replacing losses. If your current fighters are being effectively wiped out, then the new ones will replace them rapidly in the existing squadrons.
The RAF was growing with many more squadrons in existance. As a lower proportion of Spitfires were being destroyed, this enabling new squadrons to be formed. The newer versions i.e. Mk IX would take longer to replace the Mk V because there were so many more planes to replace.

It should be noted that the number of Spitfire Squadons in Europe more than doubled between Jan 41 and May 43. In addition the 1940 Hurricane squadrons were normally transferred overseas or were re-equiped with Typhoons, plus of course Spitfire V started to be sent overseas in decent numbers. Hurricanes didn't normally get replaced with Spitfires, it happened of course, but not normally. 

Some figures to support this
Jan to Jun 1941 Germany Air Force lost 40% of its authorised strength
Jul to Dec 1941 lost 60%
Jan to Jun 1942 lost 55%
Jul to Dec 1942 lost 70%

In respect of fighters
Jan to Jun 1941 50%
Jul to Dec 1941 60%
Jan to Jun 1942 55%
Jul to Dec 1942 100%

In other words, in the second half of 1942, German Production had to replace the entire complement of German fighters. No wonder new versions were implemented, the older versions were basically being destroyed.

In terms of pilot losses in 1941 JG26 lost 64 pilots killed and in 1942 69 killed. I don't know how many were wounded but these are not light casualties, neither do I know how many pilots a unit should have in this period. If anyone can help, I would appreciate it. 

Figures from The Luftwaffe 1933-1945 Strategy for Defeat. I know some of you have this book and will be able to check the figures mentioned.


----------



## Jabberwocky (Dec 23, 2006)

Despite the mauling the Mk Vs recieved over Europe, the tropicalised versions over Malta had a superior kill-loss ratio over the 109F4s and 109G-2s (trops or not, I don't know) they faced in 1942, all while operating significantly outnumbered.

So, it appears that SITUATION is at least as important as airframe performance in determining how well/poorly a fighter performed.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 23, 2006)

Jabberwocky said:


> Despite the mauling the Mk Vs recieved over Europe, the tropicalised versions over Malta had a superior kill-loss ratio over the 109F4s and 109G-2s (trops or not, I don't know) they faced in 1942, all while operating significantly outnumbered.
> 
> So, it appears that SITUATION is at least as important as airframe performance in determining how well/poorly a fighter performed.



Very true - Pilot Training, tactics? Perhaps knowing that you're fighting with your back against the wall...


----------



## Udet (Dec 23, 2006)

Superflyboyj, hello!

Please note i am not objecting any of the technical specifications of the Spitfires; what i am simply stating is what the outcome of the aerial battles in the west indicate.

Four versions were the workhorse of the Spitfire fighter plane during the war; production numbers are as follows:

~1,600 Mk. I 
~1,000 Mk. II
~6,600 Mk. V (a,b,c)
~5,700 Mk. IX (HF,F, LF)
_____________

~14,900 fighters.

In all ~22,500 Spitfires of all versions were produced (not forgetting a good number of planes were produced after the end of the war). So, about *66% of all Spitfires produced* -including those produced after the war, planes that are of no value whatsoever in this discussion- were from those main 4 versions.

Now, *none of those versions* could claim to surpass any of the contemporary German opponents. Quite the contrary, the most produced version of the Spitfire, the Mk. V, proved critically inferior the 109 and the 190 A in the west.

I believe technical charts and data sheets might indicate a close match, but, again, battle records show the Germans were better pilots.

As for the rest of Spitfire versions it was a mess and chaos of experiments, sub-experiments  , types, sub-types and versions that in some cases saw little combat action if any. The overhyped Mk. XIV was not a very common plane.

That is why i affirm what i do flyboyj: no 8th USAAF assembling in force by the end of 1943 (and later 15th AF) and the Spitfires would still be trying to figure out the situation in western europe against any version of the 109s or 190s-

Now it is time to listen to some music.

Cheers!


----------



## Soren (Dec 23, 2006)

I agree with Udet, but although overall the Spitfire didn't do well against the 109 and 190, I'd still like to point out that the Spit XIV was certainly on par with the later 109's and 190's performance wise.


----------



## Sgt. Pappy (Dec 23, 2006)

All while still arriving just in time during 1944 8) Most people make fun of my SpitXIV saying, 'o yea? it's got all that? how bout range? can't get there, can't fight.' I just say, it's a defense plane.. it waits for the stupid to come to it, and in 1945, Spit 14's got 75 Imp. gal. rear tanks (only 36 in the bubble canopy ones) but that gave it a better range.. at least 1000 miles.


----------



## Glider (Dec 23, 2006)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Very true - Pilot Training, tactics? Perhaps knowing that you're fighting with your back against the wall...



Or maybe that the Spit V was a match for the F4 in a situation where the Germans had the advantage of numbers and the Spit V was defending. Sounds similar to the European scenario where the RAF had the advantage of numbers and the 109's were defending.

It should be pointed out that the Air Commanders at Malta complained that the squadrons sent to Malta, were often stripped of their best pilots. Which rules out the advantage of Pilot Training.


----------



## Chingachgook (Dec 24, 2006)

X


----------



## Chingachgook (Dec 24, 2006)

X


----------



## Soren (Dec 24, 2006)

Well the Spit XIV actually wasn't that common, not many entered combat over mainland Europe.


----------



## Chingachgook (Dec 24, 2006)

X


----------



## Chingachgook (Dec 24, 2006)

X


----------



## Soren (Dec 24, 2006)

The LF IX was a great climber, however it was way too slow - approx 40 km/h behind the later 109's at sea level, and more at alt.


----------



## Glider (Dec 24, 2006)

Chingachgook said:


> I have done a lot of reading on the Malta Squadrons.
> The pilots may have been cast-offs, but they got better tactics down real quick.
> Much of USAF tactics were written by an American pilot who flew Mk V for RAF in Malta.
> IMHO the technical staff in Aboukir N. Africa was superior to those in England.



Thats good information for which I thank you. 

I am waiting for someone to explain why the Germans did so badly against Malta as most people on the thread seem to believe that the 109F was so much better than the Spit V. According to them they should have been shot down in droves.

My view is that they were a good match


----------



## Soren (Dec 24, 2006)

The 109F was superior, but not vastly so.


----------



## lesofprimus (Dec 24, 2006)

Agreed...


----------



## Kurfürst (Dec 24, 2006)

Glider said:


> I am waiting for someone to explain why the Germans did so badly against Malta



.. they did? Can you share the details?

Happy Christmas to all !


----------



## Glider (Dec 24, 2006)

Quick History Lesson, Germans have free reign over Malta against minimal defence, first wave Spit V flown in, most destroyed on ground in hours, second wave Spit V's flown in, tide turns.
End of History Lesson

The way some of the people on the thread would have it, it should have gone like this.

Germans have free reign over Malta against minimal defence, first wave Spit V flown in, most destroyed on ground in hours, second wave Spit V's flown in, Germans go Goody Goody and shoot down all the Spit V's, Malta falls.
History didn't follow this pattern. 

Simple question I am asking, is why didn't the Germans shoot down all the Spit V's if they had all the advantages

Not to much to ask is it?


----------



## Sgt. Pappy (Dec 24, 2006)

There may have been an obstacle affecting the ranges at which the a/c flew that somehow was in favor of the Spitfire. I.e. The BoB favored the Spitty b/c they only had to use fuel for warmup, take-off, climb, combat and (usually) landing, while the Germans had to use lots of fuel for cruise to the enemy in addition to all the others. 

Another factor may be that the fact the 109F's were built to the extent of just over 2,200 planes, while the Mk.V's were built to over 6,000 planes. By Malta, I'm assuming there were little over 1,000 Freds and about 3,000 - 3,500 Spit V's. The whole 'gang bang' thing may have come into play.


----------



## Chingachgook (Dec 24, 2006)

X


----------



## Kurfürst (Dec 24, 2006)

Does anyone know of the actual losses (ie. not claims from the other side) of both sides during the Malta operation?


----------



## Gnomey (Dec 24, 2006)

http://www.lesbutler.ip3.co.uk/tony/tonywood.htm

The "Mediterian and Southern Front 1941-42" document might help for the Luftwaffe, as for the RAF, I haven't got anything.


----------



## Glider (Dec 24, 2006)

Excellent information thanks again


----------



## Sgt. Pappy (Dec 25, 2006)

From such information, I'd say that the German pilots were individually better but not trying their absolute hardest, while the RAF boys were really giving it everything they had - tactics especially.


----------



## mkloby (Dec 27, 2006)

Sgt. Pappy said:


> From such information, I'd say that the German pilots were individually better but not trying their absolute hardest, while the RAF boys were really giving it everything they had - tactics especially.



I really don't think anyone is qualified to make a comment like that.


----------



## davparlr (Dec 27, 2006)

Sgt. Pappy said:


> From such information, I'd say that the German pilots were individually better but not trying their absolute hardest, while the RAF boys were really giving it everything they had - tactics especially.



WHAT???


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 27, 2006)

I really dont think you can say that any one country had the best pilots. Each and every country that was fighting in the war had excellent pilots, good pilots, average pilots, below average pilots and just plaine shitty pilots. It all came down to experience and if you lived long eneogh to gain that experience.


----------



## Sgt. Pappy (Jan 1, 2007)

Ah yes. Anyway, Davparlr, I meant to say that the Lufwaffe boys were the most experienced overall, and often believed that their superior flying ability would make them win.

The RAF pilots were the underdogs and were not as confident or as experienced and so, pulled out all the stops (i.e. tactics) to shoot dwn the LW planes.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 1, 2007)

surely then that makes them the better pilots? remember the RAF pilots were defending the Empire, that's effectively home soil in the mindset of the British, Jerry was fighting for what would appear to them to be an island, hundreds of miles from their home land, NEVER underestimate the will of anyone defending their homeland.........


----------



## plan_D (Jan 1, 2007)

Who's got the accoustic?


----------



## Glider (Jan 1, 2007)

The idea of anyone going into combat, from any nation, in any arm, land sea or air, isn't trying their best I find unbelievable. Theres no second place in combat, you live or die.

The political leaders may not support you or give you the best/sufficient equipment and you may not have been given the right training, but the people on the ground will always do their damndest.


----------



## mad_max (Jan 1, 2007)

It really didn't matter a whole lot who had the best pilots. All the "quote" best pilots
say the same. Atleast in WWII.

Know your aircrafts strengths and fight the enemy's aircraft weakness. Attack with
surprise and/or when it's best for you. Always check your 6 at all costs. Are some tactics, but the
most important ones.

Just like any other "sport" the more practice/experience you have..the more your likely
to do the right things by instinct instead of thinking what your doing.

What was the biggest saying in the 8th AF... live 5 sorties and your on your way to living
through the war. Well until they started to straf airfields.


----------



## Juha (Jan 8, 2007)

Hello Kurfürst!
Some facts on the last LW effort to neutralize Malta.

If we compared the failed LW and RA bombing campaign against Malta during the first part of Oct. 42 and the Tunisia campaign, it seems to me that the Axis problem was the weak defensive power of their bombers which their fighter pilots could not effectively compensate if they operated against well integrated fighter defence. I don't have time to read the Shores' et al Malta the Spitfire Year (1991) but have to rely on Playfair's et al The Mediterranean and Middle East IV (1966) but Shores' article The Long Struggle for Malta in his Duel for the Sky (1985) is in agreement with the first book. Axis flew 2400 sorties against Malta in 9 days and the defending fighters flew 1115 sorties.Playfair p. 195 "...At first Axis used formations as big as 80 Ju 88s escorted by nearly double that number of fighters, but by 15th Oct. as few as 14 bombers were being escorted by nearly 100 fighters. By 18th Oct, after heavy losses in bombers, the enemy had given up using his Ju 88s altogether in favour of Me 109 fighter bombers...The British lost 30 Spitfires in the air ... and only 2 a/c - one Beaufighter and one Spitfire - on the ground. German records disclose the loss of 9 fighters and 35 bombers, some of which fell to the guns" and Italian losses were unknown. Later in same page"...so effective were the air defences of Malta that strikes against Axis shipping were carried out every night exept one, on which no enemy ship came within range of the island."

Shores, on the article p. 92 "...Again and again the formations of Ju 88s, protected by swarms of Messerschmitts and Macchis, attempted to fight their way through to their targets. And again and again they were thwarted."

On losses, on same page "...at least 30 Ju 88s were lost and 13 more damaged seriously, some of them to written-off levels...at least a dozen Bf 109s and MC 202s being shot down and another 10 or so badly damaged...27 Spitfires being shot down during seven days and more than 20 more crash-landing or suffering heavy damage..."

IMHO Bf 109F-4 was the best air-superiority fighter when it came to service, but it suffered a lack of fire power as an interceptor, Spit V had appr. a twice the firepower than Bf 109F-4 and the fact that Spit's firepower wasn't so concentrated didn't matter much in attacks against bombers. Bf 109F-4 was maybe too optimized for fighter vs fighter combat and that made the stopping of Allied bombers (excluding Bisleys) difficult. On the other hand Spit Vs had enough firepower to hurt the German bombers if they got to firing position and if the British had a good fighter control system as on Malta they usually got there even if the German and Italian fighters could make them pay a price but British fighter pilots based on Malta had the guts to force their way to bombers in the extent that the were able to force the bombers away from their targets.

Juha


----------



## davparlr (Jan 8, 2007)

Glider said:


> The idea of anyone going into combat, from any nation, in any arm, land sea or air, isn't trying their best I find unbelievable. Theres no second place in combat, you live or die.




This is why I said "WHAT??".


----------



## Glider (Jan 8, 2007)

I was commenting on an earlier post from Sgt Pappy who implied the Germans were not trying their hardest. I assume you agree with my statement.


----------



## Juha (Jan 9, 2007)

I must say I disagree. There are some studies, even if there is disagreement on their validity, which imply that in average in a rifle squad 1-2 men do most of the fighting, majority do their duty but not much above that and 1-2 men concentrate to survive. Also the fact that in military statutes there are hard sanctions to those who disregard their duties during war implies that it isn’t unknown phenomenon. IMHO one of main purposes of military discipline is to try to suppress man’s natural instinct to try to survive.

Juha


----------



## Glider (Jan 9, 2007)

Juha said:


> I must say I disagree. There are some studies, even if there is disagreement on their validity, which imply that in average in a rifle squad 1-2 men do most of the fighting, majority do their duty but not much above that and 1-2 men concentrate to survive. Also the fact that in military statutes there are hard sanctions to those who disregard their duties during war implies that it isn’t unknown phenomenon. IMHO one of main purposes of military discipline is to try to suppress man’s natural instinct to try to survive.
> 
> Juha



I see where you are coming from and wouldn't disagree with the statement iro land battles. However, we are talking about pilots and unless you run, there is no place to hide.


----------



## Juha (Jan 9, 2007)

Hello Glider
I agree that You are partly right, airmen were selected group but even RAF had their LMF cases. Now I think that many of LMF cases had done their outmost but the circumstances were just too much for them. But I would be surprised if among the LMF cases there were no one who had simply decided that dam the disgrace I’d opt out and survive. And not all pilots press on regardless. But I who had only served in a peacetime conscript army would not judge them. To almost everyone there are limits of psychological endurance and those varied between individuals. 

Even in air one can turn away a little earlier or fly a little bit higher and so on.

This has been a bit off topic but we might come back to topic by thinking why LW failed to neutralize Malta in early Oct. 42. The reason wasn’t technical, Bf 109G-2/-4 and F-4 were better than Spit VC in fighter vs fighter combat and Macchi 202 wasn’t a bad fighter either. That should have compensated the weak defensive firepower of Ju 88A. I doubt that it was tactical because LW’s fighter tactics were usually very good. Park was excellent defensive fighter commander but still I think that an important factor in this failure was that the Germans didn’t know what will happen a month later ie they didn’t know that that was their last chance to neutralize Malta and that a month latter it would be strategically even more important base for Allied anti-shipping and recon planes and that their brothers-in-arms in Tunis would have to pay such a price for their failure. Of course they probably would not have imagined that their Führer would try to keep Tunis much too long and turn a defeat to a catastrophe. To British the situation was clear, the usual situation of underdog.


----------



## Glider (Jan 9, 2007)

When your fighting in the air the pilots are fighting for the here and now, to sum up one quote they wanted to do their job and get back in one piece. Doing their job involved fighting the Spits defending Malta and destroying them. The quicker they could do it the quicker the Battle for Malta would be over and the safer they would be.
It doesn't make any sense to me to pace myself and go for a battle in the longer period. In almost any kind of battle, one important factor is to overwhelm the enemy and destroy them. This is particually important in a situation like Malta where you have the British on the defensive, spare parts are hard if not impossible to come by, workshops have been destroyed, there are no refueling facilities and it takes a fair amount of time to turn a plane around. Plus of course there are no reserves, everything that can fly must fight. 
Germany had all these advantages, the reserves, spare parts, workshops, numbers, bombers, initiative, secure bases (occaisional raids but nothing like those endured on Malta) and still failed to destroy the Maltese defences. The question is why?
As fara as I can see Malta only had two adantages. Park who was probably the best defensive fighter commander of the war, and a surplus of pilots. As a result off the aircraft losses on the ground as well as in the air the pilots may have been fresher, despite the poor food and heavy bombing.

You will have twigged by now that I don't believe the Spit V to be any worse than the F4, not any better but a fair match. The Macchi 202 performance wise, didn't have to apologise to either of the other planes (why didn't they give it 2 x 20) it wwas just underarmed
My argument is that if the 109 was better than the Spit V then with all the other disadvantages then Malta would have fallen, it didn't fall and the spit couldn't have been any worse than the 109..

The only reason that I can see why the Germans failed is due to poor planning and poor tactics. Ju88's can fly across the whole island in minutes there was no reason for the German bombers to suffer the losses they did unless the planning and tactics employed were innadaquate.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 9, 2007)

Juha said:


> IMHO one of main purposes of military discipline is to try to suppress man’s natural instinct to try to survive.
> 
> Juha



No military discipline is in place so that a soldier remains professional and does his duty and follows orders. It is not there to suppress his natural instinct to survive. AS a matter of fact, soldiers are tought and trained to do everything they can to survive. 

I know I was a soldier until just recently...


----------



## Chingachgook (Jan 9, 2007)

X


----------



## Chingachgook (Jan 9, 2007)

X


----------



## Juha (Jan 10, 2007)

Hello Adler
I still disagree, IMHO dicipline is there for forcing those who are not too enthusiastic to obey orders even if they are dangerous for individual's survival and training is there to make soldiers able to do their duties and to increase their chances to survive when doing the job. IMHO soldiers do risky things for many reasons, out of patriotism, out of sense of duty, out of group solidarity, out of showing their mates that they can do it etc but dicipline is there in case if some of soldiers in certain circumstances in certain time begin to feel that enough is enough.


----------



## Glider (Jan 10, 2007)

Chingachgook said:


> Glider, Parks was not at Malta until October (maybe September). He came after the Spits got the upper hand. Parks had not embraced good flight level tactics yet (if my poor memory serves - it rarely does). I think he was still stuck on vic formations over the channel before he went to Malta.
> One good thing about Parks going to Malta is that he went on the offensive - sending raids to hit LW and Italians on Sicily.



I have to admit that you are correct about the timin of Parks arrival, my error. That reduced the davantages to the British to only one, the questionable one about having fresher pilots.


----------



## Juha (Jan 10, 2007)

Glider
there isn't much disagreement between us on this. Even if IMHO 109F-4 and G were better than Spit VC in fighter vs fighter combat, IMHO the difference wasn't great and so the pilot skills, tactical situation and tactics used were more important factors to outcome than the differences between the types. 

Juha


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 10, 2007)

Juha said:


> Hello Adler
> I still disagree, IMHO dicipline is there for forcing those who are not too enthusiastic to obey orders even if they are dangerous for individual's survival and training is there to make soldiers able to do their duties and to increase their chances to survive when doing the job. IMHO soldiers do risky things for many reasons, out of patriotism, out of sense of duty, out of group solidarity, out of showing their mates that they can do it etc but dicipline is there in case if some of soldiers in certain circumstances in certain time begin to feel that enough is enough.



I disagree with you because our army is an all volunteer army. You do your duty because you want to.


----------



## Chingachgook (Jan 10, 2007)

X


----------

