# improving the 109??



## bobbysocks (Jun 6, 2016)

I ran across an article that reposted a blurb from Leonard "Kit" Carson's 1976 interview or story in Airpower magazine. in it he proposes several mods to the 109 to "clean up the airframe" and get more performance out of the plane. How practical or realistic were these proposals? Carson worked for the aerospace industry but at what capacity I do not know.. here's what he says:

"Messerschmitt practically ignored the subject of low drag aerodynamics and one can tell that by an inspection of the 109E or G. The fact is evident even in close-up photographs. It was aerodynamically the most inefficient fighter of its time. That's a puzzling thing when one realizes that much of the original work on high speed drag and turbulent surface friction was done in Germany in the 20s and 30s. Messerschmitt was surrounded by it. Further, the work in England and the U.S. in this field was in the open literature, at least until 1938.

I also suspect, again from the record of history, that Willy Messerschmitt was too busy becoming a Direktor of Messerschmitt A.G. to concentrate on improving his status as an ingenieur.

Having gone this far, let me carry this affront to Messerschmitt's engineering reputation one step further.

An airplane factory can get things done awfully fast, in any country and in any language, once the engineers and sheet metal benders understand what is wanted. Every factory has a "development shop" or its equivalent, which is a full scale model or prototype shop with 100 or 200 old pros in every skill. Having that many coffee drinkers, pipe smokers and "yarn spinners" around on the payroll, let's clobber 'em with a bundle of shop drawings on a clean up of the Me-109. Object: to make it a 400 mph plus airplane. Time...30 days. The information and techniques required are currently available as of 1940. It's all written up in unclassified reports.

(1) Cancel the camouflage paint and go to smooth bare metal. Besides the weight, about 50 pounds, the grain size is too large when it dries and it causes turbulent friction over the entire airplane surface. That may take a phone call to the brass. They're emotional about paint jobs. "Image," you know.

(2) Modify the cockpit canopy. Remove the inverted bathtub that's on there now and modify as necessary to fit the Me-209-VI canopy. That's the airplane that set the world speed record in 1939.

(3) Get rid of the wing slats. Lock them closed and hand fit a strip, upper and lower surface, that will close the sheet metal gaps between the slat and wing structure. That gap causes the outboard 15 feet of each wing to be totally turbulent.

(4) As aerodynamic compensation for locking the slats, setup jigs and fixtures on the assembly line to put in 2 degrees of geometric twist from the root to tip, known as "washout."

(5) Modify coolant scoop inlet fairings. The square corners that are there now induce an unnecessary amount of drag. Also lower the inlet 1 to 2 inches below wing surface to get it out of the turbulence of the wing surface.

(6) Install complete wheel well fairings that cover the openings after the gear is retracted.

(7) Retract tail wheel. (*Tom's Note:* This was actually done on some models of the 109.)

All of the above could have been done in 30 days but it wasn't. I don't know why. Someone would have to ask Willy...it's for him to say."


----------



## Hickam Field (Jun 6, 2016)

Good topic,
I've heard some of those before and some of those improvements were placed into application at one point or another. Just not in effective time or quantity. One of the previous threads from many moons ago (think it was Erich) mentioned sanding down and wax coating operational G-14s or -10s enabling them a better chance of catching Mosquitoes. K-4s had a retractable tail wheel.... 
From what I've read about Messerschmitt, the 109 was personally a past success for him from 1942 onwards. By that point, it sounds like he was creatively on to more ambitious projects like the Me-262, "Amerika Bomber," and several others. 
I agree entirely. The 109 could've been improved further with some simple adjustments like the ones you listed above.


----------



## Capt. Vick (Jun 6, 2016)

Drawing on my dusty memories from college aerodynamics, the turbulence that you state as being on the outboard 15 ft (?) of the main wing may have (depending on its severity) actually made the ailerons more effective.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 7, 2016)

Some of the suggestions are good, some not so good.

Doing away with camouflage paint works real good when you dominate your enemy to the point where he seldom flies over your airfields. Getting blown up on the ground means it doesn't matter how fast you go in the air. It is not about image, it is about getting strafed while on the ground. 

Not sure on the Me 209 canopy.





Some better but hardly a real game changer.

Doing away with slats and substituting washout may be almost an even trade in regards to drag. Reducing overall lift of the wing may _not_ be the best idea for late model 109s. 

Quite a few of the 109Fs and Gs already used a retracting tail wheel or at least semi-retracting. 








Tail wheel retracted into the notch above/behind. Later 109s fitted larger wheels and/or longer struts and lost the retract. They also gained lumps and bumps over the large cowl machine guns and over the wheel wells on the wings to fit larger tires. The *F*s were probably the most aerodynamic.


----------



## GrauGeist (Jun 7, 2016)

bobbysocks said:


> I ran across an article that reposted a blurb from Leonard "Kit" Carson's 1976 interview or story in Airpower magazine. in it he proposes several mods to the 109 to "clean up the airframe" and get more performance out of the plane. How practical or realistic were these proposals? Carson worked for the aerospace industry but at what capacity I do not know.. here's what he says:
> 
> "Messerschmitt practically ignored the subject of low drag aerodynamics and one can tell that by an inspection of the 109E or G. The fact is evident even in close-up photographs. It was aerodynamically the most inefficient fighter of its time. That's a puzzling thing when one realizes that much of the original work on high speed drag and turbulent surface friction was done in Germany in the 20s and 30s. Messerschmitt was surrounded by it. Further, the work in England and the U.S. in this field was in the open literature, at least until 1938.
> 
> I also suspect, again from the record of history, that Willy Messerschmitt was too busy becoming a Direktor of Messerschmitt A.G. to concentrate on improving his status as an ingenieur.


Not so...when the Bf109 was first introduced in the 1930's, it was one of the fastest warplanes on earth.

It was also designed around 1930's technology. What we know now is lightyears beyond what they knew at the time. As it happens, as time progressed, the Bf109's airframe had to adapt to the rapidly changing environment and it managed to keep pace with the best that the Allies had to throw against it right to the end of the war - on an airframe design that was over a decade old.



bobbysocks said:


> Having gone this far, let me carry this affront to Messerschmitt's engineering reputation one step further.
> 
> An airplane factory can get things done awfully fast, in any country and in any language, once the engineers and sheet metal benders understand what is wanted. Every factory has a "development shop" or its equivalent, which is a full scale model or prototype shop with 100 or 200 old pros in every skill. Having that many coffee drinkers, pipe smokers and "yarn spinners" around on the payroll, let's clobber 'em with a bundle of shop drawings on a clean up of the Me-109. Object: to make it a 400 mph plus airplane. Time...30 days. The information and techniques required are currently available as of 1940. It's all written up in unclassified reports.


As soon as they said "30 days", I lost interest. In a wargame simulation or a fantasy book series, this is doable, but in real life, it takes months if not years to redesign, test, retool and start production.



bobbysocks said:


> (1) Cancel the camouflage paint and go to smooth bare metal. Besides the weight, about 50 pounds, the grain size is too large when it dries and it causes turbulent friction over the entire airplane surface. That may take a phone call to the brass. They're emotional about paint jobs. "Image," you know.


Not image - survival
The Germans were masters of camouflage and if they had bright, shiny aircraft, then all the easier for them to be hunted down and killed. Only in an Air-Superiority environment, do you have the luxury of shiny things.



bobbysocks said:


> (2) Modify the cockpit canopy. Remove the inverted bathtub that's on there now and modify as necessary to fit the Me-209-VI canopy. That's the airplane that set the world speed record in 1939.


Later Bf109 variants had an improved canopy, but to put a Me209/Me309/Me262 style canopy on the Bf109 would have meant considerable change to the fuselage.



bobbysocks said:


> (3) Get rid of the wing slats. Lock them closed and hand fit a strip, upper and lower surface, that will close the sheet metal gaps between the slat and wing structure. That gap causes the outboard 15 feet of each wing to be totally turbulent.


The slats were there for a reason and they made the Bf109 extremely deadly in a turning fight. Eliminating the slats defeats one of the main performance features of the Bf109.

If they took the time to learn and understand how slats work, they would know that the slats, fully retracted, are not "totally turbulant", Dude. Like, Way.



bobbysocks said:


> (4) As aerodynamic compensation for locking the slats, setup jigs and fixtures on the assembly line to put in 2 degrees of geometric twist from the root to tip, known as "washout."


I would LOVE to see the look on an Aeronautical Engineer's face when they read this part...



bobbysocks said:


> (5) Modify coolant scoop inlet fairings. The square corners that are there now induce an unnecessary amount of drag. Also lower the inlet 1 to 2 inches below wing surface to get it out of the turbulence of the wing surface.


There may have been some features that induced penalties on the Bf109, but the cooling surface area on the Bf109 was critical. It was introduced to the airflow with a specific formula. There's a great many photos of the Bf109 in a wind tunnel to show how Willy dealt with these issues.



bobbysocks said:


> (6) Install complete wheel well fairings that cover the openings after the gear is retracted.


Additional weight and mechanisms - would the penalty be worth the gain?



bobbysocks said:


> (7) Retract tail wheel. (*Tom's Note:* This was actually done on some models of the 109.)


Yes, it was done on some models...



bobbysocks said:


> All of the above could have been done in 30 days but it wasn't. I don't know why. Someone would have to ask Willy...it's for him to say."


Again, this comment of theirs is deep in the fantasy realm

Want to see what a Bf109 looks like after it has had all the aerodynamic issues addressed?

Reactions: Like Like:
5 | Like List reactions


----------



## stona (Jun 7, 2016)

Eliminating the slats may or may not improve combat performance, only the most experienced pilots push an aircraft close to its limits at which point they might make a difference, but it will certainly kill a lot more inexperienced pilots by increasing the aircraft's accident rate. Poorer performance near the ground and higher landing speeds tend to do that.
They were an aerodynamic design feature of the aircraft, they were deleted from the Me 210 as a matter of expedience and this definitely contributed to the problems with that aircraft. Unsurprisingly, they were restored on the Me 410.
Cheers
Steve

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Jun 7, 2016)

stona said:


> Eliminating the slats may or may not improve combat performance, only the most experienced pilots push an aircraft close to its limits at which point they might make a difference, but it will certainly kill a lot more inexperienced pilots by increasing the aircraft's accident rate. Poorer performance near the ground and higher landing speeds tend to do that.
> They were an aerodynamic design feature of the aircraft, they were deleted from the Me 210 as a matter of expedience and this definitely contributed to the problems with that aircraft. Unsurprisingly, they were restored on the Me 410.
> Cheers
> Steve


Unfortunately, I was having a great deal of trouble with the message area last night, so I seem to have lost a portion of my comments regarding the slats and their value for low-speed performance.

(After several tries and a great deal of expletives, I was able to even get that photo attached!)


----------



## tomo pauk (Jun 7, 2016)

The 'to-do list' tries to achieve what was achieved historically with Bf 109F-4, but it does not cover the things 109 really lacked - rate of roll, long range (in Japanese or American terms), a seamless itroduction of heavier firepower, tricky undercarriage geometry.
Trashing the 109E as an non-aerodynamic aircraft neglest the fact that was a simple solution to installation of much bigger, heavier and more powerful engine on an existing small and light fighter - ie. it was not ideal, but it worked. 109F was a general clean up. 

I'd be also intererested in Leonard "Kit" Carson's view on how the US fighter aircraft could've been improved within 30 days, with name calling when that was not achieved.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## drgondog (Jun 7, 2016)

QUOTE="bobbysocks, post: 1269171, member: 33899"

(1) Cancel the camouflage paint and go to smooth bare metal. Besides the weight, about 50 pounds, the grain size is too large when it dries and it causes turbulent friction over the entire airplane surface. That may take a phone call to the brass. They're emotional about paint jobs. "Image," you know.

*Provide a much finer grain paint finish - eliminating camo not an option for LW*

(2) Modify the cockpit canopy. Remove the inverted bathtub that's on there now and modify as necessary to fit the Me-209-VI canopy. That's the airplane that set the world speed record in 1939.

*First, investigate the slope of the windscreen in a wind tunnel to see if a stagnation point at the base exists - if so, try greater angle similar to P-51D/FW 190 - and replace with blown canopy similar to FW 190D.*

(3) Get rid of the wing slats. Lock them closed and hand fit a strip, upper and lower surface, that will close the sheet metal gaps between the slat and wing structure. That gap causes the outboard 15 feet of each wing to be totally turbulent.

*No. The wing slats a.) provided tip/roll authority by energizing the low speed airflow with the 'flow through' effect, b.) increased the CLmax at low speed for both turn and landing, c.) by thesis (according to Willi) decreased the wing form drag in comparison to wing twist.*

(4) As aerodynamic compensation for locking the slats, setup jigs and fixtures on the assembly line to put in 2 degrees of geometric twist from the root to tip, known as "washout."

*No. The introduction of wing twist automatically introduces a complex design and test process to evaluate a.) The Twist, the design origin and extension of the Twist location, c.) evaluating alternative aileron designs for authority and effectiveness sans slats - particularly at extremes of low speed and high speed, d.) if aileron design changes, then what other effects are introduced - such as flutter, torsion, control reversal, stick forces, etc. *

(5) Modify coolant scoop inlet fairings. The square corners that are there now induce an unnecessary amount of drag. Also lower the inlet 1 to 2 inches below wing surface to get it out of the turbulence of the wing surface.

*Maybe - but need metrics regarding 'unnecessary amount' of existing design compared to the alternative. The Germans were damned good engineers. Carson thinking about the P-51A to P-51B changes for lower cowl to reduce drag and maybe thinking 'one size fits all'. Lowering the inlet by definition increases the 'normal surface' of the entire inlet which could increase the flat plate drag of the component if bypass for the boundary layer is not provided. *

(6) Install complete wheel well fairings that cover the openings after the gear is retracted.

*Yes - but at what cost to complexity of the wheel well and wing attach design? Weight is a consideration, mfg cost is a consideration.*

(7) Retract tail wheel. (*Tom's Note:* This was actually done on some models of the 109.)

*Sure - but add system complexity and weight. Remember P-51H tail wheels were fixed in many cases without appreciable performance hit while increasing maintainability.*

All of the above could have been done in 30 days but it wasn't. I don't know why. Someone would have to ask Willy...it's for him to say..

*A wind tunnel mock up yes - for comparison purposes, but 'adding wing twist', the right wing twist, the testing of the different twists, the increase in landing speed due to reduction of low speed CLmax as well as testing in air to air maneuvering. Then based on final decision create the necessary wing jigs for multiple plants, introduce the fabrication and assembly processes and slip the new model into production.. did I mention 'and do not disrupt existing production'?? 

IMO, the 109 design team took the most practical approach, namely increase HP. It worked for P-51B over P-51A as well.*

Reactions: Like Like:
4 | Like List reactions


----------



## stona (Jun 7, 2016)

The retractable/semi retractable tail wheels fitted to various Bf 109s all proved tricky and unreliable. You will see more of the type, from F to K, where applicable, with the wheel fixed down. I've even seen pictures of some Ks with plating riveted around the deployed wheel to blank off (at least partially) the tail wheel recess. The minimal speed penalty was obviously deemed more acceptable than the risk of a tail wheel failure and subsequent damage.

A more relevant comparison would be with the Bf 109s contemporaries, designed in the early to mid 1930s. Very little was done substantially to improve the overall aerodynamics of the Spitfire either. At least the Bf 109 had puttied joins in the fuselage (the lines so beloved of modellers who like to segment their Bf 109s like a wasp, where the intermediate plates link those with the preformed 'frames' in their edges) and was flush riveted throughout, something that can't be said about any war time mark of Spitfire. The Spitfire featured some of which skins were still overlapped! The double row of rivets along the join at the leading edge of the Spitfire wing didn't get filled and sanded, along with the rest of the wing as far back as 20% of the chord, until 1942!

Cheers

Steve


----------



## GrauGeist (Jun 7, 2016)

tomo pauk said:


> ...tricky undercarriage geometry...


The main gear's design was also one that simplified production, offered ease of transport and provided a large advantage to maintenance. Not much could be done to change that without extensive frame redesign.

Also, by virtue of it's design (extending outward from the aiframe's centerline), wheel coverlets for the main gear when retracted would require an extensive mechanism that would not only add additional weight, but compete for space in the Bf109's small wing.

In regards to testing, Willy certainly made extensive use of his wind tunnel...


----------



## pbehn (Jun 7, 2016)

What a team of experts can do in a specialist shop bears no relation to what can be done in mass production with newly trained workers. An F1 team has about 200 people about 50 of whom constantly build and modify 2 cars whose performance increases throughout the year. Just dont ask them to do it with 2,000 or 200 or even 20. Similarly a hand built Messerschmidt special would be flown by top pilot who wouldnt be fazed by landing without slats, the production Me109 had to be a plane that could be flown and landed by a novice on his first flight

A plane may go faster with a polished metal finish, it may be safer on the ground and low level with camo paint but the LW chose to paint the 109 with bright yellow noses because telling friend from foe trumps other considerations.


----------



## stona (Jun 7, 2016)

That's the Luftfahrtforschungsanstalt Hermann Goering near Braunschweig. That is obviously a Bf 109, but Messerschmitt more commonly used the facilities of the Deutsche Versuchsanstalt für Luftfahrt (DVL) for obtaining test data
Cheers
Steve


----------



## GrauGeist (Jun 7, 2016)

stona said:


> That's the Luftfahrtforschungsanstalt Hermann Goering near Braunschweig. That is obviously a Bf 109, but Messerschmitt more commonly used the facilities of the Deutsche Versuchsanstalt für Luftfahrt (DVL) for obtaining test data
> Cheers
> Steve


Yes indeed, but it's the only image I had on hand for the moment!


----------



## stona (Jun 7, 2016)

pbehn said:


> A plane may go faster with a polished metal finish, it may be safer on the ground and low level with camo paint but the LW chose to paint the 109 with bright yellow noses because telling friend from foe trumps other considerations.



Yellow noses were applied at a time when the Luftwaffe was fairly safe on its Continental bases, later it was only the lower surface of the nose that received such a distinctive and camouflage compromising marking.
Later, as the allies became more dominant over Europe even the white of the national markings was reduced, deleted or sometimes greyed out. I've seen early/mid war pictures of aircraft at dispersal with the national markings covered with covers or foliage. There are late war images showing aircraft literally 'hiding in the woods'.

The Luftwaffe's theatre markings became more subtle when air superiority was contested and later IFF markings, like spinner spirals or 'Reich Defence Bands' are more comparable with the RAF's Sky fuselage bands or yellow leading edges.

Luftwaffe fighter camouflage went from an early green/olive brown combination, designed for camouflage on the ground, to various greys designed for camouflage at altitude, and finally back to green/olive/brown as the allies gained air superiority and hiding on the ground was once more the priority.

It was that Allies, notably the Americans, who felt that they could dispense with camouflage altogether late in the war, but by then they enjoyed total air superiority over their UK bases. They were unlikely to be attacked, on their bases, in daylight.

Cheers

Steve


----------



## stona (Jun 7, 2016)

It's a great image of a 109 in a wind tunnel! From memory the DVL tunnels and the other ones whose name slips my mind at the moment couldn't test a full size aircraft.
Cheers
Steve


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 7, 2016)

I would note that getting a smooth finish on a bare metal airplane may not be anywhere as easy as it seems, due to seams 
Paint/putty helping to fill gaps and mismatches in panels which can be a large source of drag. 

AS far as the slats vs washout thing goes, Drgondog or some of our other engineers may correct me but my understanding is that the slats are activated (by airflow over the area) just before stall, or in other words at an angle of attack just below that at which the airfoil stalls. The slats keep the airflow going over the wing and the higher angle of attack generates more lift in the area of the wing affected and the airflow is effective over the ailerons helping keep control of the aircraft, a double benefit. 
Washout means the outer wing is operating at a lower angle of attack than the inner wing, the inner wing stalls before the outer wing and so the airflow over the ailerons is still effective (unless the stall gets really bad) _however _at any point in time the outer wing area/s will be generating less left due to the shallower angle of attack compared to the inner wing area/s or a similar wing with no washout. 
Total lift from a wing is a complex issue with things like aspect ratio coming into play. It is not quite so simple as picking airfoil XXXX and using YYY sq ft and any wing using both those numbers will generate the same lift at the same speed regardless of shape/planform or washout. 
During the design process the designers can "tweak" the wing (change shape and size) to get the desired lift at the drag that is acceptable to them and taking into account other considerations, like landing and taking off. Trying to "re-tweak" an existing wing is a lot harder. Do you make the wing larger (extend the wing tips) as you introduce the washout to maintain the same amount of lift at the same speed for landing? What does the larger wing do to drag at high speed? 

Tail wheels are another example of one size does NOT fit all. Some planes show a significant improvement with a retracting tail wheel and some do not. I suspect (but could be wrong) that it has to do with how smooth the airflow is when it reaches the tail wheel. A flat bottomed airplane with a tail wheel sticking down may show a significant improvement. Some planes with a large curve in the bottom of the fuselage or with other bits and pieces hanging down (belly turrets, H2S radar domes or even P-51 radiator scoops) may have a much more disturbed/turbulent air flow in the tail-wheel area to begin with sticking a tail wheel into it doesn't change things much. 

Something of the sort _may _affect using small doors to cover the parts of the Wheel wells the main doors do not. Not all planes used the same shape bottom to the wing (although differences were slight) and not all planes had the wheel wells a the same point in the cord not to mention that not all planes used the same size wheels (even fighters) so saying that fighter A picked up 6mph using the small wheel well doors doesn't mean that that fighter B will pick up the same 6mph increase at the the same speed/altitude.


----------



## davebender (Jun 7, 2016)

Erich Hartmann scored 352 kills between 5 November 1942 and 8 May 1945. 

Hartmann wasn't the only Me-109 pilot to rack up dozens (indeed hundreds) of kills right up to end of the war.

Seems to me Me-109G needed no improvement over what it got historically.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Jun 7, 2016)

stona said:


> Yellow noses were applied at a time when the Luftwaffe was fairly safe on its Continental bases, later it was only the lower surface of the nose that received such a distinctive and camouflage compromising marking.
> Later, as the allies became more dominant over Europe even the white of the national markings was reduced, deleted or sometimes greyed out. I've seen early/mid war pictures of aircraft at dispersal with the national markings covered with covers or foliage. There are late war images showing aircraft literally 'hiding in the woods'.


Steve, I agree,
I was just pointing out that there was more to the surface finish than top speed. In the limit both the LW with yellow noses and Allies with black white stripes first on the Typhoon and then with D Day stripes threw out top speed and even ground camoflage in favour of recognition.


----------



## gumbyk (Jun 7, 2016)

bobbysocks said:


> (6) Install complete wheel well fairings that cover the openings after the gear is retracted.



Considering that the wheel well fairings were commonly removed in service on FW-190's due to mud getting trapped in them - why put them on in the first place?


----------



## GrauGeist (Jun 7, 2016)

gumbyk said:


> Considering that the wheel well fairings were commonly removed in service on FW-190's due to mud getting trapped in them - why put them on in the first place?


They are referring to covering the exposed portion of the maingear tire/wheel when it's retracted into the wing.

The Spitfire, Hurricane, Fw190, KI-43, P-40 and other aircraft that had their roots in the 30's, had a portion (or all) of the maingear wheel/tire exposed when retracted.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 7, 2016)

In some cases things actually went backwards a bit.











AS with many things serviceability and real world performance (take-off and landing on crappy airstrips) often trumped the last 1-2% of performance.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Jun 7, 2016)

Don't forget the F4U, F6F, Ju88, He219 and Me210!


----------



## CharlesBronson (Jun 7, 2016)

It must be remembered that the 109 had the best aerodinamics *available in pre-war Germany inside some limited parameters of weight, size and price*, the airframe is quite simple compared with a Spitfire, p-39 or P-51, big accent was put by Messerschmitt on *easy of manufacturing*, that was a big advantage of the 109 above the elliptical wing He-112.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## gumbyk (Jun 8, 2016)

GrauGeist said:


> They are referring to covering the exposed portion of the maingear tire/wheel when it's retracted into the wing.
> 
> The Spitfire, Hurricane, Fw190, KI-43, P-40 and other aircraft that had their roots in the 30's, had a portion (or all) of the maingear wheel/tire exposed when retracted.



That's a huge amount of re-engineering required to put that system in - sequencing valves and all that - certainly more than 30 days work.
The easiest way would be to extend the existing fairing to cover most of the wheel.

Either way - the amount of maintenance required is excessive.


----------



## Milosh (Jun 8, 2016)

Just need a bar that is attached to the cover.


----------



## drgondog (Jun 8, 2016)

Shortround6 said:


> I
> 
> .



AS far as the slats vs washout thing goes, Drgondog or some of our other engineers may correct me but my understanding is that the slats are activated (by airflow over the area) just before stall, or in other words at an angle of attack just below that at which the airfoil stalls. The slats keep the airflow going over the wing and the higher angle of attack generates more lift in the area of the wing affected and the airflow is effective over the ailerons helping keep control of the aircraft, a double benefit.

*Close enough. At very high AoA the adverse pressure gradient causes the boundary layer of the wing aft of the slats to begin separation - destroying lift - while the flow (and lift) remains on the slats - which activates the slats. When the slats deploy they also permit the high energy free stream flow underneath the slats to move across the wing aft of the slat and the higher energy flow temporarily re-engages the boundary layer. "Snatching occurs when the high wing at greater effective AoA activates before the down wing reaches the same relative AoA. The aileron deflections (up and down) change the local chord of the airfoil slightly up and slightly down to the free stream velocity. *

Washout means the outer wing is operating at a lower angle of attack than the inner wing, the inner wing stalls before the outer wing and so the airflow over the ailerons is still effective (unless the stall gets really bad) _however _at any point in time the outer wing area/s will be generating less left due to the shallower angle of attack compared to the inner wing area/s or a similar wing with no washout.

*The washout also causes an incremental profile drag component, hence Willy analyzing the balance and choosing slats along with zero twist to the wing. *

Total lift from a wing is a complex issue with things like aspect ratio coming into play. It is not quite so simple as picking airfoil XXXX and using YYY sq ft and any wing using both those numbers will generate the same lift at the same speed regardless of shape/planform or washout.
During the design process the designers can "tweak" the wing (change shape and size) to get the desired lift at the drag that is acceptable to them and taking into account other considerations, like landing and taking off. Trying to "re-tweak" an existing wing is a lot harder. Do you make the wing larger (extend the wing tips) as you introduce the washout to maintain the same amount of lift at the same speed for landing? What does the larger wing do to drag at high speed?

*As an illustration of 'complexity, consider that the P-38, FW 190, F6F, F8F and F4U all had the NACA 23xxx airfoil with only 1% T/C difference between them - some round tips, some 'square', all trapezoidal plan forms (to minimize departure from optimal Oswald efficiency) - all having aspect ratios less than 6 except P-38 with 8+. All have essentially the same CDo for each wing. The differences were due to 'gaps' (wheelwell, flap, aileron, wing fold joints), guns, surface finish. All 50% greater than P-51 low drag wing with laminar flow airfoil shape, prepared wing surface, including puttying, sanding and painting. The NACA 23015.5 was the alternative to the NACA.NAA 45-100 wing had it 'failed' wind tunnel tests. It was a good airfoil with nice L/D, Max CL.

The P-38 with an Aspect ration >8 had the lowest Relative Induced drag - but still high because it was so damned heavy. This is important when designing to optimize maximum cruise range at middle range speeds where the CDo and CDi 'cross' (i.e. equal to each other) on the drag polar.*

*Then the hard work of designing for weight considerations (i.e taper from root to tip and the underlying beam structure to support aero loads spanwise), house fuel/weapons, landing gear, etc). The first choice for structural consideration is to place the main spar near the center of pressure at maximum load condition - usually a high AoA dive pullout at Limit G Load.*

*Back to the 109 - the placement of the gear, desire to easily remove wings for transport/repair dictated a 40% rather than 25% location for the spar - which necessitated a greater than normal secondary bending resistant spar design, including spar caps (thick skin).

"IMPROVING/Changing" the wing was a tantamount to starting from scratch.

*


----------



## GrauGeist (Jun 8, 2016)

Milosh said:


> Just need a bar that is attached to the cover.


What would you attach the "bar" to?

The tire is literally resting against the upper wing surface...


----------



## tomo pauk (Jun 8, 2016)

Removal of wing wheel covers on the Fw 190 occured once the belly rack was installed, not beacause it was a troublesome thing to install & operate. Let's recall that Soviets, renown for their adherence to KISS principle, were installing fully retractable & covered undercarriages.
Both Spitfire and Bf 109 (new models, but still) received whell well covers from winter of 1944/45 on; the fully retractable and covered U/C was one of main things that made Spitfire III faster by 15+ mph than Spitfire V.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 8, 2016)

And in the case of later 109s the upper wing surface got bulges to house the larger tires needed due to increasing weights. This happened twice, very late 109s have some rather large bulges.






Obvious model






poor photo

Granted some sort of linkage might have been arranged to go around the wheel rather than over it but we are back to cost and maintenance vs performance. 

given enough wind tunnel time perhaps a small spoiler/fairing could have been devised to "bounce" the airflow over the exposed part of the wheel ( a bit like airflow defectors in front of bombbays ?) but that might only work at certain speeds and cause more drag at other speeds.


----------



## gumbyk (Jun 8, 2016)

See how that linkage is bent? It will cause one of two things to happen. Either the door won't close fully, or it will close before the gear is fully up, depending in how much it is bent and the geometry, and potentially prevent the gear coming down again.


----------



## pbehn (Jun 8, 2016)

The Me109 was a very small aircraft which ended up with an engine of over 2000BHP output. It takes a lot of uncovered wheel wells dodgy air inlets and crude joints before it becomes notably disadvantaged when you compare to the size and weight of planes like the P47 and Typhoon.


----------



## GrauGeist (Jun 8, 2016)

pbehn said:


> The Me109 was a very small aircraft which ended up with an engine of over 2000BHP output. It takes a lot of uncovered wheel wells dodgy air inlets and crude joints before it becomes notably disadvantaged when you compare to the size and weight of planes like the P47 and Typhoon.


Don't forget the "totally turbulent" Slats, too!


----------



## pbehn (Jun 8, 2016)

GrauGeist said:


> Don't forget the "totally turbulent" Slats, too!


I havnt, as I understand it the 2% washout of the Spitfire guarantees turbulence and drag, ailerons and elevators also cause drag when used. I am not an expert but from what I have read everything in WW2(even present day) aviation was a compromise. The Me109 was a fabulous design which was at the front in combat from the star to the finish of WW2. I have no doubt it could have been improved and if it was then it would have been produced in much bigger numbers than it was and would have achieved a much higher number of kills than it did. 34,000 produced is really pathetic for what was a promising design.


----------



## gumbyk (Jun 8, 2016)

Shortround6 said:


> given enough wind tunnel time perhaps a small spoiler/fairing could have been devised to "bounce" the airflow over the exposed part of the wheel ( a bit like airflow defectors in front of bombbays ?) but that might only work at certain speeds and cause more drag at other speeds.








Like this?
LoPresti make one for Pipers - it gives 4 knots.


----------



## GregP (Jun 8, 2016)

Gumbyk,

That linkage isn't bent at all. It is articulated, with a joint near the top right of your red circle. It is intended to be that way.

The stop nut allows adjustment of the door travel to ensure proper closing.

Don't think there was room above the main wheel in the Bf 109 for the linkage since the wheel is right against the upper skin. However they COULD have made a mechanical stop that rested against the bottom of the wheel when retracted, and it would have been "out of the way" with respect to the upper skin. I'm thinking the complexity wasn't worth the potential gain. There are several airloners noted for their efficiency that have exposed tires.

Here's a Boeing 737:






The exposed wheels don't keep it from cruising over 500 mph. The drag is what is important, not whether it is exposed or covered flush.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## ww2restorer (Jun 8, 2016)

Very correct Greg P, the linkage is bent that angle by Herr Tank so the linkage will clear the bottom radius of the tire when the wheel is retracted.


----------



## wuzak (Jun 8, 2016)

tomo pauk said:


> Both Spitfire and Bf 109 (new models, but still) received whell well covers from winter of 1944/45 on; the fully retractable and covered U/C was one of main things that made Spitfire III faster by 15+ mph than Spitfire V.



The Spitfire III had several changes which add up to the 15mph increase over the V, including clipped wings and a new radiator design.

The Prototype Spitfire, K5054, originally had flaps to cover the wheels completely when retracted. 






These proved to be a problem, so they were removed and were found to have little effect on speed.

The Hurricane prototype also had these covers which disappeared on production machines

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## gumbyk (Jun 8, 2016)

GregP said:


> Gumbyk,
> 
> That linkage isn't bent at all. It is articulated, with a joint near the top right of your red circle. It is intended to be that way.
> 
> The stop nut allows adjustment of the door travel to ensure proper closing.


Greg,
I was referring to the bend at the top of the "U" part of the fitting, where the threaded portion is (The centre of the circle) not the two articulated joints.



[/QUOTE]


----------



## stona (Jun 9, 2016)

The boundary layer over almost the entire Bf 109 airframe was turbulent for a variety of reasons,same for most WW2 aircraft.

One aerodynamic analysis I read suggested that a cleaned up Bf 109 G-6 would have been capable, theoretically, of 800kph.
It would not be practical to mass produce such an aircraft under wartime conditions.

Cheers


Steve


----------



## Milosh (Jun 9, 2016)

Bf109 had a bar attached to the outer door.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 9, 2016)

Simple, wheel/tire pushes door shut. Gear drops and gravity lowers door. 
Now what happens as the airflow changes over the door may be subject to question. Door flutters a bit? 

And maybe the late 109 needed all the help it could get on the bottom of the wing to counter that wacking big bulge on the top of the wing.


----------



## stona (Jun 9, 2016)

Shortround6 said:


> And maybe the late 109 needed all the help it could get on the bottom of the wing



It needed all the help it could get with the wing overall, and the rest of the aircraft! Gear doors are just one of many elements when we consider all the other factors contributing to the drag/surface friction of the wing.











Cheers

Steve

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## stona (Jun 9, 2016)

stona said:


> One aerodynamic analysis I read suggested that a cleaned up Bf 109 G-6 would have been capable, theoretically, of 800kph.



And here is the argument for such a fantastic speed on such a theoretical aircraft. No such aircraft could be, or ever has been built 






Cheers

Steve


----------



## tomo pauk (Jun 9, 2016)

Hoerner's analysis shows too low speed with engine (obviously not DB 601A but 605A) making 1200 HP - even the cluttered G5 and G6 with gun bulges and gondola cannons were good for 620 km/h. The gondolas cost almost 20 km/h, so a 'clean' G5 and G6 will do 640 km/h, not 610. 
Uncovered whell wells cost another 11-14 km/h. Going from half- to fully retracted tailwheel earns 3-4 km/h. link

Hoerner's analysis:


----------



## drgondog (Jun 10, 2016)

A couple of comments about the Horner analysis.
First - the RN is for 380mph at 22,000 feet. 1.1x10^^7 is not "Max RN", but the RN at that velocity for that chord at 380 mph at 22,000 feet .
For example for 340mph, SL, Chord = 5 the RN = 1.5x10^^7

Second - I don't have HP at 22,000 FTH for Db601 but suspect it is close to 1100-1200 Hp - which is fine for the aero analysis. Nowarra gives DB 605 A at 1475HP @ 22,000 feet for 391mph at 3200kg/7056 pounds for the 109G

Using that profile and same 14% Exhaust Thrust ratio

T=.85(1475) (550)/(391*1.467) = 1202; Include Exhaust Gas T---> 1.14*1202= 1370 pounds Total Thrust
*his original value = 1140 pounds*

Dynamic Pressure q is 1/2 Rho V^^2 at 22,000 feet ----> .5(.00237)(.498)(391x1.467)^^2 = 194 psf
*his original value = 184 psf for the lower top speed (380mph) at 1200 HP*

D/q = CdS --------> 1370/194= Cd(172) ---> 7.06 sq ft flat plate Drag and Cd = .041
*his original value = 6.2 psf and CD=.036

For an explanation for increase of Total Drag consider that 380mph at 22000 = 380/701 = .54M
At 391 the M= 391/701 = .56M and that the compressibility drag rise for parasite drag is exponentially increasing. It takes 23% more HP to generate 20% more Thrust to take the 109G up 391/380 = 2.8% in airspeed for the 109G for the example given.

Net of the discussion re: Horner's analysis. 1.) it is a good illustration of basic performance analysis approach which serves to give a student an understanding regarding how Thrust and Drag are derived given a set of specifications and physical flight attributes. 2.) the reverse process of component drag build up is a better approach for understanding how it is done in preliminary design as there is Zero flight data, only projections based on matching Thrust HP to Drag Total (estimates) to plot Horsepower Required vs Horsepower Available from SL through Ceiling.

What is shocking is that a Mustang at combat weight, with the same HP as the much lighter 109G, is 12% faster - illustrating a.) the starting low drag of the Mustang, and b.) less compressibility increase to basic parasite drag as both a/c move past .5M.

At low to medium speeds the lower W/L of the 109 gives it a relative advantage at same Hp for the Climb performance. At high speeds the advantage disappears because the 109 is approaching Zero Power Available 'delta' versus Power Required for level flight while the 51 has excess Power available.*

Reactions: Like Like:
4 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GregP (Jun 11, 2016)

Is it bent or was it made that way?

I ask only because I have seen some doors and other items that had non-90° drills and taps in them. They LOOK funny but were original. We have a Bell YP-59A Airacomet being restored to flight status, and our was the 7th YP-59A (tail number 777). As a "test mule" it had a LOT of "custom" modifications. When we looked at the canopy frame, there was a bottom plate that had been modified maybe 10 times and had some 8 holes in it that had all been patched with "nickel-dime patches." We just made a new plate with no holes in it. Looks new now.

No agenda here, just asking. Also not lecturing, just wondered because I simply misunderstood your statement.

Cheers.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pinehilljoe (Jun 11, 2016)

An old issue of Wings/Airpower had an article on what it would take to make the 109 a 400mph class plane, The author listed simple changes that could have been cut into production. Smooth out line, retract the rear gear, full wheel covers, eliminate balance horns.


----------



## gomwolf (Jun 11, 2016)

Bf109 is almost reached at it's limitation at 1944. Actually, Galland want to more Me262 than any other prop aircrafts at that time and that is proper way to luftwaffe I think. 

If luftwaffe want better prop aircraft with liquid cool Dimler-Benz engine, they have to produce G.55 when they discussed it. Milch had interest that aircraft(because G.55 can use DB603 without major design change and actually they made G.55 with DB603. It's name is G.56 and it was quite good fighter aircraft.) but they giving it up because there productivity will be fall for a time, if they produce it.


----------



## tomo pauk (Jun 11, 2016)

pinehilljoe said:


> An old issue of Wings/Airpower had an article on what it would take to make the 109 a 400mph class plane, The author listed simple changes that could have been cut into production. Smooth out line, retract the rear gear, full wheel covers, eliminate balance horns.



I'm not sure that improving an already 400 mph plane (= Bf 109F-4 from Dec 1941; Bf 109G from mid 1942) to become a 400 mph plane is worth the trouble 
Bf 109F-4 was already making 390 mph from mid 1941 on.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 11, 2016)

"Listed Placard"" range?????

Where in the cockpit was this "Placard" located????

Or was it next to the fuel filler????


----------



## GrauGeist (Jun 11, 2016)

Shooter8 said:


> I love that picture and plane but it was never built because it was not that much of an improvement to be interrupting the production of the worlds best fighter plane at the time. ( I am sure this last will stir up some vehement argument, but the only real point is that the Me-109 shot down more planes than the next three types combined. Any argument that ignores this simple fact is wrong!)
> As a silly aside, which Allied aircraft type downed/destroyed the most Axis planes?


I'm assuming that you meant "not put into production", because they built 4 of them.

The point being, is that it's design attempted to use aerodynamic lessens learned during the interim between the introduction of the Bf109 and the Me309's concept.

If you look closely, you will also see that the Me262 had some influence in it's design.


----------



## Thos9 (Jun 11, 2016)

Here's the 109V21 with a hi-vis cockpit cover (and a radial engine).


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 11, 2016)

Shooter8 said:


> It was not usually located on the plane at all. It was printed in the sales brochure, or in the pilot's manual and is the number that we all see listed in all the books, etc.



From Merriam-Webster;
*Full Definition of placard*

1: a notice posted in a public place : poster


2: a small card or metal plaque

Some airplanes did have placards in the cockpit giving speed restrictions, like never exceed speed in a dive and/or not to exceed speed in rough or turbulent air. 
Other restrictions may have been listed or had their own placards (like loading restrictions?).

There is no such thing as "Placard Range". 

Flight manuals will usually give fuel consumption per hour in various conditions (speed/attitude and throttle settings) like this "Flight Operation instruction Chart"
http://zenoswarbirdvideos.com/Images/P-40/P-40FOIC.pdf

Please note that the P-40 could do about 309mph at 15,000ft using max continuous power which may be the same as METO (Maximium Except for Take-Off.) ?

Please note that according to the Flight Operation instruction Chart range can vary from 325 miles to 700 miles depending on speed and altitude with 3 intermediate ranges given. 

A separate Chart would have been listed for the plane while carrying an under fuselage store (bomb/drop tank) to take into account drag. 

I would also note that the according to at least one test on the P-40D it could do at 15,175ft 354mph using 3000rpm/full throttle, 335mph using 2600rpm/FT, 307.5mph using 2280rpm/FT and 290mph using 2200rpm/part throttle.

SInce the engine was allowed to run at 3000rpm and 44in boost for 5 minutes I rather doubt it took over five minutes to accelerate from around 300mph to 354mph. In other words from a high speed cruise (thirsty as it was) to full level speed. 
It _might_ have take 5 minutes to accelerate from 150mph to 354mph, or not. I don't know.


----------



## GregP (Jun 11, 2016)

Is that you, Neoconshooter?

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## CharlesBronson (Jun 11, 2016)

Shooter8 said:


> Do not include the P-51 in the list of hard to make planes of WW-II! It was the single easiest plane to manufacture in the war! Huge effort was made to make production of the plane fast and easy. But do add the Zero and P-38 to the list of expensive to make planes!



Certainly the P-51A and B could be considered easy to manufacture.... compared with a spitfire or P-38 but still itwas more complicated than a Me-109F4 or G2, the Mustang also was a 1 ton heavier more so it consume more raw materials. Some people wont agree with me but except the sophisticated V12 engine the me-109 was budget plane, the best "bang" for your reichsmark.


----------



## GrauGeist (Jun 11, 2016)

The P-51 was "easy" to manufacture because the U.S. tapped into it's mass-manufacturing experience.

The Germans never caught onto this and thus the much needed fighters trickled off the assembly line in comparison


----------



## CharlesBronson (Jun 11, 2016)

Well, with 33,000 airframes (and most likely 30,500 aircraft actually delivered) you cannot charge the Me-109 of not being mass produced. Actually I think it was *the only weapon system of the III reich* (along with MG42) *designed from the onset* to be manufactured at large scale. Germany had bigger problems in other industrial areas like tanks, railways, ships, etc.


----------



## GrauGeist (Jun 12, 2016)

The problem with Germany, is they never took the mass-production model seriously.

And it wasn't until their situation was dire, that they actually started producing large quantities of aircraft (although the quality was lacking). Had they took this attitude in 1939 - 1940, then they may have been able to ward off combat attrition, although the lack of pilots and fuel in the latter half of the war would still need to be addressed.


----------



## wuzak (Jun 12, 2016)

GregP said:


> Is that you, Neoconshooter?



I believe that to be the case.


----------



## wuzak (Jun 12, 2016)

CharlesBronson said:


> Certainly the P-51A and B could be considered easy to manufacture.... compared with a spitfire or P-38 but still itwas more complicated than a Me-109F4 or G2, the Mustang also was a 1 ton heavier more so it consume more raw materials. Some people wont agree with me but except the sophisticated V12 engine the me-109 was budget plane, the best "bang" for your reichsmark.



They did build 20,000+ Spitfires and Seafires.


----------



## Graeme (Jun 12, 2016)

GrauGeist said:


> The problem with Germany, is they never took the mass-production model seriously.



Dave, I thought Hitler was a big fan of Mr Ford and his production techniques?

*"Hitler said he regarded Ford as his "inspiration," explaining his reason for keeping Ford's life-size portrait next to his desk.[63] Steven Watts wrote that Hitler "revered" Ford, proclaiming that "I shall do my best to put his theories into practice in Germany," and modeling the Volkswagen, the people's car, on the Model T.**[64]*"


----------



## Graeme (Jun 12, 2016)

From Antony Beevor...


----------



## GrauGeist (Jun 12, 2016)

Graeme said:


> Dave, I thought Hitler was a big fan of Mr Ford and his production techniques?
> 
> *"Hitler said he regarded Ford as his "inspiration," explaining his reason for keeping Ford's life-size portrait next to his desk.[63] Steven Watts wrote that Hitler "revered" Ford, proclaiming that "I shall do my best to put his theories into practice in Germany," and modeling the Volkswagen, the people's car, on the Model T.**[64]*"


Hitler may have admired Henry for his policies and sentiments, but he hardly followed Henry's production line techniques or advice.

If you look at the production output of the Bf109, you'll see it was almost a cottage industry adventure until 1944, which was far to late to be of any consequence to the war effort. The overall production totals for all types was ridiculous and could barely keep pace with either Britain or the Soviet Union. The U.S. on the otherhand, was out producing nearly everyone else combined.

Top put it into perspective, here's some wartime totals by year:
Germany:
1939 - 8,295
1940 - 10,826
1941 - 12,401
1942 - 15,409
1943 - 24,807
1944 - 40,593 
1945 - 7,540

Soviet Union:
1939 - 10,382
1940 - 10,565
1941 - 15,735
1942 - 25,436
1943 - 34,900
1944 - 40,300
1945 - 20,900

United States:
1939 - 2,141
1940 - 6,086
1941 - 19,433
1942 - 47,836
1943 - 85,898
1944 - 96,318
1945 - 46,001

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Gixxerman (Jun 12, 2016)

Interesting discussion, the 109V21 is an interesting bird too.
I have a question, well 4 actually.

The 109 is reputed to be increasingly difficult to fly approaching 400mph, surely this would need to be addressed too and was it seriously attempted with the later G/K models?

Also earlier were mentioned fabric-covered ailerons, is this true? If so did the 109 go through the Spitfire experience of improving with metal ailerons (& did Luftwaffe Squadron personnel go round nicking them from production facilities as their Spitfire contemporaries are known to have done)?


----------



## CharlesBronson (Jun 12, 2016)

Gixxerman said:


> Interesting discussion, the 109V21 is an interesting bird too.
> I have a question, well 4 actually.
> 
> The 109 is reputed to be increasingly difficult to fly approaching 400mph, surely this would need to be addressed too and was it seriously attempted with the later G/K models?
> ...



A) The Me-109 was not difficult to fly at 400mph (642 mph) , the stick became stiff,but that was the same in many others, the Me-109F4 to G12 could safely dive up to 750 kph. The Me-109 was not very good at sharp turns because his relatively small wing, but is that is other topic.

B) The production models from "E" series had metal covered ailerons.


----------



## CharlesBronson (Jun 12, 2016)

wuzak said:


> They did build 20,000+ Spitfires and Seafires.



Yes they did, if Germany had choose the he-112 instead the Me-109 the figures would be much lower than 20,000


----------



## GrauGeist (Jun 12, 2016)

Gixxerman said:


> Interesting discussion, the 109V21 is an interesting bird too.


There were two of them, actually.

Bf109V21 (WkNmr 1770) was fitted with a P&W Twin Wasp and tested 1938/1939





Bf109X (WkNmr 5608) was fitted with a BMW 801 and tested 1940/1942





On occasion, you will see photos of Bf109V21 referred to as the Bf109X, but you can tell the difference immediately, because the Bf109X used the cowling from an Fw190.


----------



## CharlesBronson (Jun 12, 2016)

The "X" 109 strongly resembles the japanese Ki-44 Tojo. A nice "what if" fighter, probably very fast, not so good in altitude and definitively not a serius dogfighter.


----------



## Milosh (Jun 12, 2016)

> the Me-109F4 to G12 could safely dive up to 750 kph



Only at lower altitudes and was IAS.


----------



## CharlesBronson (Jun 12, 2016)

Milosh said:


> Only at lower altitudes and was IAS.



In a dive, no variant of the Me-109 could reach 750 kph in horizontal flight, at any altitude. 750 max speed is the figure indicated in the pilots handbook, but several accounts of ww2 pilots claim that they dive up to 900 kph to scape after being "bounced" from behind, But I coudnlt tell if the airframe of the Me-109 really could withstand 800 or 900 kph stress.


----------



## Graeme (Jun 12, 2016)

GrauGeist said:


> Top put it into perspective, here's some wartime totals by year:



But would those low totals for Germany be a direct result of the intensive allied bombing? The larger figure for 44' I assume is because Speer took production underground - and with worker absenteeism at 25%. So taking the bomber offensive out of the equation - would there have been a portrait of Ford in every factory with massive production?


----------



## gumbyk (Jun 12, 2016)

GregP said:


> Is it bent or was it made that way?
> 
> I ask only because I have seen some doors and other items that had non-90° drills and taps in them. They LOOK funny but were original. We have a Bell YP-59A Airacomet being restored to flight status, and our was the 7th YP-59A (tail number 777). As a "test mule" it had a LOT of "custom" modifications. When we looked at the canopy frame, there was a bottom plate that had been modified maybe 10 times and had some 8 holes in it that had all been patched with "nickel-dime patches." We just made a new plate with no holes in it. Looks new now.
> 
> ...



I haven't seen that sort of fitting with a bend in it. That's just my experience, and I have none with the 109, but it did stand out to me. Maybe that is the way that they were manufactured. In my experience, that is how that sort of fitting starts to fail.

For what its worth, I came across this photo of a FW-190 with the main gear door removed (not the inner doors which cover very little):

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Jun 12, 2016)

Graeme said:


> But would those low totals for Germany be a direct result of the intensive allied bombing? The larger figure for 44' I assume is because Speer took production underground - and with worker absenteeism at 25%. So taking the bomber offensive out of the equation - would there have been a portrait of Ford in every factory with massive production?


If we look back at the Allied bombing offensive, it didn't really gain momentum until 1943. 

So interestingly enough, as the bombing increased, so did the German's production. Of course, the figure for 1945 reflects both the collapse of Germany and the war ending by May. It might also be worth looking into how many types were being manufactured in 1940 compared to 1944, too.

Had Germany put a high priority on production in 1938/1939 as they did in 1944, it may have painted a slightly different picture in the airwar.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## stona (Jun 13, 2016)

I think it is important to remember that starting with the ABC Plan of 1930 which was developed into a much larger plan in 1932, the Germans created an aircraft industry almost from scratch.
In January 1933 just 3,988 people were employed in the aircraft and aero engine industry in Germany. This figure was already 53,865 by January 1935. Floor space in m2 for the industry increased from just 30,000 to over 200,000 in the same period.
There was always incredibly inept and confused planning which resulted in a huge gap between what the RLM planned and what actually got built. People often refer to the unrealistic late war production plans, but those of the mid thirties were just as unattainable.
For example in December 1933 Milch ordered 1,000 Do 11 and Do 13 bombers . Milch's 1934-35 budget ran to over 1,000,000,000 RM! The Rhineland programme of July 1934 called for 4,000 aircraft to be produced by October 1934.
In 1934 the German aircraft industry produced 1,968 aircraft, nowhere near the programmed number but still 5.35 times more than in 1933.

Whilst it is true that the German government did not plan for a long war, Nazi ideology almost precluded that, it did intend to build many more aircraft than it actually did, and it certainly planned for mass production. The development of the Regensburg plant would be a good example of this.

At the outbreak of the war the Luftwaffe was formidable in size compared to its potential European adversaries. It lacked sustainability, reserves of aircraft were inadequate and the aircraft industries capacity was only, roughly, a quarter of what it would later become in Milch's direction. The Reich also had no significant stockpiles of the raw materials required to sustain the industry. When in October 1940 new plans were developed they were hampered by a lack of raw materials.

All of this is not so much evidence of a lack of the desire to mass produce aircraft as it is of the often overlooked fact that the war came at least two years too early for Nazi Germany.

Cheers

Steve

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## stona (Jun 13, 2016)

Graeme said:


> But would those low totals for Germany be a direct result of the intensive allied bombing? The larger figure for 44' I assume is because Speer took production underground



Numbers of aircraft produced are not the best measure. Airframe weight and aero engine numbers are better. In 1944-45 the Germans almost stopped producing anything but single engine fighters and to a lesser extent twin engine fighters. The industry was dispersed but this must have slowed down the rate of production. Aircraft coming of the production lines at Regensburg for example would be more efficiently built than those in the dispersed industry, however well it was managed (and it was very well managed). Those production lines utilised all the best practices of mass production and used methods that would be recognised in any car plant today.
The 8th AF estimated that it had significantly impeded aircraft production with its campaign. Throughout 1944 it reckoned that only between 60% and 70% of planned production was realised. A report on the effects of the bombing ststes:

_"The rise in aircraft production since March 1944, in spite of a large increase in weight of Allied bombing attacks, reflects a successful reorganisation of the German aircraft industry. When attacks were initiated in 1943 , the German aircraft industry was organised into a relatively few highly integrated complexes and component plants using mass production methods. The 1943 precision attacks, involving a total of only 2,420 tons, resulted in very considerable damage and large production losses. These attacks proved the vulnerability of the existing industrial plan and compelled a wholesale reorganisation of the German aircraft industry."_

Some of this may be a little over optimistic, but the salient points remain.

Cheers

Steve

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## drgondog (Jun 13, 2016)

CharlesBronson said:


> In a dive, no variant of the Me-109 could reach 750 kph in horizontal flight, at any altitude. 750 max speed is the figure indicated in the pilots handbook, but several accounts of ww2 pilots claim that they dive up to 900 kph to scape after being "bounced" from behind, But I coudnlt tell if the airframe of the Me-109 really could withstand 800 or 900 kph stress.



No possibility of diving more than ~500mph TAS. 800/900 kph reading is result of faulty pitot tube readings in .6-65M compressibility range


----------



## Peter Gunn (Jun 13, 2016)

Just an observation but neither the Bf109V21 or the Bf109X are what you'd call good looking. Especially the V21, wow, talk about turning a silk purse into a sows ear...


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 13, 2016)

Many airspeed indicators became wildly inaccurate at speeds above their normal range (normal dive speed range) and reports of extreme speeds touched on in combat situations should be looked at in that light. Pilot is not _lying,_ he is relating what the airspeed indicator read. But the airspeed indicator could be off by tens of mph/kph if not a hundred in some cases.


----------



## tomo pauk (Jun 13, 2016)

gumbyk said:


> ...
> For what its worth, I came across this photo of a FW-190 with the main gear door removed (not the inner doors which cover very little):
> View attachment 346112



Interestingly enough, the caption refers the external ram air intakes, with filters, as the 'oil cooler intakes'.


----------



## CharlesBronson (Jun 13, 2016)

drgondog said:


> No possibility of diving more than ~500mph TAS. 800/900 kph reading is result of faulty pitot tube readings in .6-65M compressibility range





Shortround6 said:


> Many airspeed indicators became wildly inaccurate at speeds above their normal range (normal dive speed range) and reports of extreme speeds touched on in combat situations should be looked at in that light. Pilot is not _lying,_ he is relating what the airspeed indicator read. But the airspeed indicator could be off by tens of mph/kph if not a hundred in some cases.



Yeap. thats why i am not assuring that the me-109 could reach that figure without falling apart, there were 2 or 3 stories of diving at extreme velocity that I could remeber,oner was a finnsh ace to scape of a very agressive la-5 ,other a couple of german pilots.
I think Clostermann also had a recolection of diving at more of 800 kph with his Tempest, probably more plausible that flying a me-109 at that speed.


----------



## GrauGeist (Jun 13, 2016)

Shooter8 said:


> You are right, but I do not like the word "Production" for 4 hand built prototypes.
> Only those planes built in Jigs and production tooling are Production aircraft.
> I do note that they have addressed the most important changes to limit losses, which have absolutely nothing to do with aerodynamic performance! They went to heavier and thus performance reducing tricycle landing gear! IIRC, having read someplace that more -109s were lost to landing and take off accidents than to enemy action! I would like more specific data, if anyone here knows more about this factoid/rumor?


However, you originally said:


Shooter8 said:


> "I love that picture and plane but it was never built because it was not that much of an improvement..."


which is quite misleading. Saying "never built" leads one to assume that the Me309 was one of many Luftwaffe "paper projects", which is not the case. If one was built, it was "built". If four were built, it was "built".

The Me309 was a huge step forward and could have been a capable aircraft if it wasn't underpowered. In relative terms, the Me309 was roughly 200 pounds heavier empty than the P-51 but it's engine rated 200hp less than the P-51.

Regarding the myth about the Bf109's landing gear, there were many other factors that contributed to operational losses than the landing gear. It was the inexperienced pilots who had difficulties with it. As the war progressed, the new pilot's traiing quality declined 

The F4U Corsair proved to be very deadly to inexperienced pilots, too.


----------



## tomo pauk (Jun 13, 2016)

GrauGeist said:


> ...
> The Me309 was a huge step forward and could have been a capable aircraft if it wasn't underpowered. In relative terms, the Me309 was roughly 200 pounds heavier empty than the P-51 but it's engine rated 200hp less than the P-51.
> ...



Just trying to adress this tidbit, Dave. The Me 309 have had enough of engine power. What it did not not have was the favorable wing loading - the wing of 179 sq ft was too small for 7 (seven) guns and the big & heavy V-12 the DB 603, plus how much of the fuel? For comparison, Spitfire was with wing of 242 sq ft, and P-51 was at 235; the Bf 109 was with 173 sq fz, with far lighter powerpant anf armament suite than 309. Fw 190 - early prototypes were at 160 sq ft, it quickly grew to 197 sq ft, and Fw 190 was still regarded as having high wing loading.


----------



## CharlesBronson (Jun 13, 2016)

Shooter8 said:


> Actually, the Me-109 was a very maneuverable plane because of it's "Leading Edge Slats" that gave the smaller wing, much more lift than much larger wings. While it was more difficult to fly at those higher AoA, it could, when flown by so called "Experten", easily out turn the Spitfire at any given speed.



Excuse me but the slats had nothing to do with maneovrability, they were a device to extend flying envelope before entering in stall and to reduce the landing and take off speed. The Merlin variants of the Spitfire could turn inside me-109s of any variant without much effort, you can read that in any war test report, both allied and german.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## tomo pauk (Jun 13, 2016)

Shooter8 said:


> <snip>



Sorry, I was talking to Dave.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 13, 2016)

Shooter8 said:


> This is much more difficult that most of us think. You *can't just open the throttle WO also advancing the spark* and enriching the mixture and probably the prop pitch as well. During WW-II, except for the Fw-190, no plane had an integrated engine management control and all of these things were done manually. There were specific tasks which had to be done in a specific order, or the engine might blow up before the plane gained one MPH.



Hoo-boy, the usual rash of mis-information from the "infamous Neoconshooter." See bolded part.

The vast majority of WW II aircraft engines used _fixed _ignition timing. It was adjusted on the ground by the mechanics and there it stayed. A few engines had a retarder mechanism for starting. Once the engine started it reverted back to the fixed timing. 
For example the Allison engines (at least the early ones) were set for the exhaust side spark plugs to fire at 34/35 degrees BTC. The intake side plugs fired at 28/29 degrees BTC and the 6 degree difference was fixed by the design of the Magneto. There is no adjustment in flight. The Allison did get a retarder mechanism in some later models, however the mechanism was arranged so that full advance was reached at 1400rpm and above. 

If the engine is already set to "Auto-rich" (and it should have been in combat areas, auto rich being the position of choice down to 27in MAP and 2100-2280rpm) then no further fiddling with the mixture control is needed unless the plane has a full rich position and that was often reserved for special conditions, like engine running rough after a long gliding approach to a landing, not full speed. 

Some US planes got integrated manifold pressure (throttle) and propeller speed controls., Increasing the throttle (manifold pressure) automatically increased the RPM setting on the prop. This was fitted to at least late model P-40s (N-20 and N-25s) if not other aircraft. Perhaps some P-47s got something similar? Not the full control some of the German planes had but a useful simplification of controls. 
The FW 190 _may _have been the first (BF 109?) but was not the ONLY aircraft with single stick control. Not sure what what late war British aircraft may or may not have had.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## GregP (Jun 14, 2016)

The word "placard" is not used by most people to mean where the data came from.

Placards in aircraft are warnings, numbers, and classifications to remember. There is no placard with the maximum speed on it. The maximum speed is denoted by a red line on the airspeed indicator, sometimes on the PFD/MFD these days. The aircraft data plate usually states the manufacturer, type, serial number, and sometimes but not always the date.

I have seen placards for maximum crew eight, the classification of the aircraft (particularly experimental), weight allowed in baggage areas, and the like, but have never seen one for maximum speed or range. Those numbers come from the pilot's operating handbook that, for military planes, also usually has range and mission-planning tables.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 14, 2016)

Set of Placards for a P-51 Mustang as sold by Pioneer Aero Service.

Airspeed indicator for Cessna 150 with color coding. 





Modern P-51 airspeed indicator. Original ASI dials didn't have knots. 





under Limited Type Certificate LTC-11-5 P-51s are required to have an airspeed indicator marked in MPH so as to correspond with cockpit placards, flight manuals and technical data as issued by North American Aviation and the USAF. 

Over the 100 plus years that people have been flying planes with instruments (and actual cockpit walls) how information has been displayed to the pilot or what information has been required has changed. 

A 30-100+ page manual is NOT a placard. And strangely, many aircraft flight manuals/handbooks do not list max level speeds or climb rates. _Or not so strange_, they are not not needed for the *safe* operation of the aircraft. Safe speeds for lowering flaps or landing gear are, stall speeds are, never exceed dive speeds are and so on.


----------



## wuzak (Jun 14, 2016)

Shooter8 said:


> I am also a big fan of the P-40! In actual combat, it was a very much better plane than most of it's contemporaries because of it's combat persistence. The ability to trade cruise speed for range meant that it could fly at higher speed longer. In a particular scenario such as the BoB, the extra range at combat speed would have allowed the >50% of interceptions that could not find their targets to attempt two or more additional interceptions. If half of those "extra" interceptions resulted actual contact with the enemy and shoot downs at the same ratio as historical numbers, then the Germans would have lost many more planes than they did in real life.



Except that if teh British relied on the P-40 for the BoB they would have lost - they wouldn't have got them in time.

Plus the P-40 only had two 0.50" mgs, which may have meant they would have potentially missed more often.

Also, range was increased by reducing cruise speed, not increasing it.

And, if I'm not mistaken, the limiting factor for interceptions was ammunition, not fuel.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 14, 2016)

Timing was bad as the first Tomahawks (ex-French)are built in June of 1940 but a Tomahawk in Buffalo NY isn't much good. First ones are unloaded in England in Sept 1940. 
The P-40s carried more ammo per gun than the two British planes and the ones the British got had two guns in each wing in addition to the fuselage guns. It also _could _carry more fuel. 
_HOWEVER, _it couldn't climb very well. Performance numbers at P-40 Performance Tests

Look good but they are at 6835 lbs and that is just too light for a P-40 in real combat kit. Even with rudimentary self sealing tanks and armor a P-40B went 5990lbs empty equipped (guns and radio fitted) and could go 7350lbs with only about 19 US gallons of fuel in the fuselage tank (or about 100 IMP gallons total). Something has to give to get the plane down to the 6800lbs. Guns, ammo fuel?

A P-40B with full internal fuel could weigh over 7600lbs.


----------



## stona (Jun 14, 2016)

The idea that extra endurance might enable an aircraft like the P-40 to "attempt two or more additional interceptions" is nonsense and demonstrates an ignorance of how the air defence system developed by the British in the 1930s operated and an ignorance of the speeds, times and distances involved.
The British didn't just happen upon fighters with the endurance of the Spitfire or Hurricane, they were requirements issued for the aircraft to be the sharp end of an integrated air defence system. These were air defence fighters, the 'problem' of endurance only arose when it was attempted to use them in roles for which they were not designed.
Cheers
Steve.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 14, 2016)

Extra endurance could have been quite useful, Extra endurance being another 20-30 minutes over England, not hundreds of miles over France and low countries.
However that _extra endurance_ could only be _bought_ at the cost of speed or climb or turning circle or field performance or..... _OR _a combination of these factors.
For instance a P-40E at 7500lbs needs 1850ft (617yds) to clear a clear a 50ft obstacle on take-off from a sod runway. Or 37 more yds than a Hurricane with a two blade fixed pitch prop. The P-40 figure is also for 0 degrees. Add about 10% for ever 10 degrees C or 20 degrees F.
P-40E had 1150hp for take-off, not the 1040hp of earlier P-40s and certainly not the 880hp of a Hurricane I or Spitfire I and that is when they had variable pitch props. Using fixed pitch props called for lower engine rpm (power) for take-off. 

Having an extra 50% endurance and an extra 20-50% ammo load doesn't do a lot of good if you can't get the plane to take off from existing airfeilds.
And you still had to put up with the 38lb tire pressure rule. Add a few hundred pounds of fuel and ammo and you needed bigger wheels/tires which needed bigger wheel wells which needed...........

*IF *the British could have magically gotten fighters that had 50% more endurance _using existing engines, propellers and airfeilds _I am sure they would have used or bought them.


----------



## stona (Jun 14, 2016)

Extra endurance is always useful, but it would not have increased interception rates in the BoB. The idea that by somehow flying around for an extra 20-30 minutes a fighter might have achieved more interceptions or been re-directed to make them, simply doesn't fit the facts of the Battle.
The Luftwaffe typically flew from bases roughly 50-80 miles away from the 11 Group airfields it was attacking, less attacking Channel shipping, slightly further to London. If the initial interception was missed there was rarely time to make another before the attackers were gone. Chasing after a formation, particularly one 'diving for France', given the relative difference in speeds was a fruitless task, ditto for flying standing patrols in the hope of finding the enemy. Patrol lines were flown, but by aircraft positioned on the known and plotted track of the incoming enemy formations. They were positioned in what was considered the best place to make an interception, they still failed to do so on many occasions.
The radar only looked out to sea, not inland. Once the enemy formations had crossed the coast they were plotted by the (Royal) Observer Corps. To ensure interception the intercepting fighters had to be positioned a lot closer to the enemy than most appreciate, certainly less than five miles, in most conditions around three miles from their target. This was a difficult thing to do and having an extra 20-30 minutes of fuel would not make it any easier. Most likely the interceptor would still be flying around looking for the enemy whilst he was landing back at his bases in France!

I have also seen it proposed that increased endurance would have allowed RAF fighters to pursue retreating Luftwaffe aircraft across the Channel. Some did in fact do this despite being expressly forbidden from doing so. Individual aircraft doing so were vulnerable to counter attack by the Germans who, not being stupid, on occasion positioned units to do precisely that. Covering a withdrawal is pretty standard military practice 

Cheers

Steve


----------



## pbehn (Jun 14, 2016)

The missions flown by the RAF in the BoB changed day to day, sometimes squadrons could be scrambled and placed to intercept an incoming raid with height and sun advantage in others they were actually taking off through falling bombs. In most accounts I have read my memory is of the pilots struggle to get height, I doubt any pilot would want the extra weight of fuel and ammunition just to have a longer mission, it increased your chances of being bounced which was how most losses on both sides occurred.


----------



## wuzak (Jun 14, 2016)

The other consideration is the critical altitude of the engines. The P-40's was ~5,000ft lower than a Spitfires, which may have been vital in the BoB with the altitudes the LW flew.


----------



## GregP (Jun 14, 2016)

That's very interesting, Shortround. We have three P-51s and only one of them is Limited. That would be Steve Hinton's P-51D "Wee Willy." I've never been in it's cockpit. The other two P-51s are Experimental Exhibition. None of the birds I have worked on have speed placards that I noticed, but we also have many of the placards partially removed and stored for replacement when restoration has been completed. That includes a B-17G (the instrument panel is not complete yet), a Bell YP-59A, a North American O-47, a Grumman OV-1 Mohawk, and the Hispano Ha.1112 Buchon. I did not see a speed placard in the Ha.1112 and I helped with the cockpit. Right now the entire cockpit in the YP-59A is apart and out of the airframe for final painting and reassembly. Perhaps a speed placard will magically appear later, I don't know and won't predict.

The speed placard in the Limited category bird is not on the instrument panel, but is located on the left side of the cockpit just above the armrest. It is way to the left below.






Perhaps that is why I never noticed it when in the other P-51s. Don't know if it is required in the Experiment Exhibition birds or not. The speed placard is quite interesting to me since the 505 mph IAS is only accurate at 5,000 feet. AT 10,000 feet it is 480 mph and it decreases down to 260 mph at 40,000 feet. If you forget that and push over from 40,000 feet and try to get to 505 mph IAS, you will get a nasty surprise, possibly fatal, so it doesn't really make sense to have it there, at least to me.






The above (from the P-51D POH) would make a LOT more sense, but also takes up a lot of real estate, so it might not be practical ... no place to put it.

Few operate a P-51 in the IFR flight levels these days, so maybe it isn't really important after all. Who wants to waste P-51 time flying straight and level? Nobody I know, at least on local flights. Fighters weren't made for straight and level. Most of the ones I see flying every weekend are frolicking between sea level and 15,000 feet or so on local flights. If you have to go cross country in a P-51, perhaps it still makes sense to get high. I'll ask. We fly many fighters between California and points north and east. We even occasionally send warbirds to the east coast for an airshow.

I asked once about the F-86F we have and was told they were cruising at around 17,000 feet or so going to Tucson for the Heritage Flight annual meeting / training.

Cheers.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 14, 2016)

It was a system and a system has to take into account the capabilities of it's parts. Longer endurance interceptors could have been useful, but not critical. 
It also takes months sometimes to adopt and implement new equipment into a system. Patrol areas or distances for a particular squadron to make an interception were made taking into account the endurance of the existing aircraft. Patrol areas or having controllers vector in squadrons from a few miles further away could have been changed had higher endurance aircraft been available. 
Some of the was done by "feel". Controllers knowing from experience what to expect from the squadrons. Like if they had already been in the air for 3/4 hour then they didn't have much fuel to chase anything. Keeping the pilots and planes safe to handle a later attack took priority over getting a few kills on retreating formations. 
Endurance also translates into more combat persistence. Like one minute at combat power being worth 2-4 minutes of "cruise" so a plane with more fuel may be able to get in a few more firing passes, ammo supply permitting even if time in the air was only 10 minutes longer than a standard "British fighter". 

The system was designed/evolved the way it did due to the capabilities of the sensors (radar and ground observers) the control set up(plotting boards and radios) ad the aircraft. It worked. improving one aspect may well have given better results but that only changes the score, not the outcome. And improved aircraft would have taken a number of weeks for the controllers to handle effectively. A learning curve if you will, to see what they could do with the improved capability. AND what they couldn't do. 

The system was being designed and implemented while the fighters were still being fitted with fixed pitch props. Doesn't mean that they should have stayed with fixed pitch props. But it does mean that you can't wave a magic wand and claim that fighter XXX would have been so much better the British pair if other aspects of fighter XXX performance meant it couldn't meet other British requirements.

Hurricane and Spitfire might well have been designed differently if the British had used constant speed props in 1936 and had 700yd concrete runways. They didn't and the capabilities of the aircraft have to be looked at in the light. What kind of speed and climb (and carrying the heaviest armament of the time) could they get out of the engine/s and props of the time and still use the existing airfields? 
Not what engines and fuels showed up 4-5 years after the prototypes first flew.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 14, 2016)

wuzak said:


> The other consideration is the critical altitude of the engines. The P-40's was ~5,000ft lower than a Spitfires, which may have been vital in the BoB with the altitudes the LW flew.



It was critical. Combined with the weight of the P-40s it meant that the P-40s had no business trying to fly combat mission at high altitudes ( high being some where around 20,000ft and up)


----------



## stona (Jun 14, 2016)

pbehn said:


> The missions flown by the RAF in the BoB changed day to day, sometimes squadrons could be scrambled and placed to intercept an incoming raid with height and sun advantage in others they were actually taking off through falling bombs. In most accounts I have read my memory is of the pilots struggle to get height, I doubt any pilot would want the extra weight of fuel and ammunition just to have a longer mission, it increased your chances of being bounced which was how most losses on both sides occurred.



Yes, and the RAF's interceptors were a compromise between all the various factors required, principally performance, armament and endurance.
Cheers
Steve


----------



## pbehn (Jun 14, 2016)

Shooter8 said:


> Part two; Because British testers were not familiar and experienced with LE Slats they did not duplicate the true performance of the plane and because of the sudden lurch as the slats deployed, they were afraid, or reluctant to enter that part of the envelope.



I read somewhere on here that the top aces had the same opinion with other German pilots, some got "windy" (to use an RAF phrase) when the slats deployed but for the top guys that just marked the start of the real flying.


----------



## GregP (Jun 14, 2016)

Slats do not allow the Bf 109 to turn tighter at any given speed. They do not deploy until the leading edge airflow has separation and pulls the slats out. The slats only increase the CL of the section they cover, and that would be the ailerons, mostly. For the slats to come into play, you need to be near stall or at least into pre-stall buffet or the local airflow keeps the slats stowed. It works the same on the F-86.

I certainly agree the slats help maneuverability and, especially, controlability when deployed, but they have almost no effect when not deployed, which is most of the time. I don't think there was enough elevator control authority to stall a Bf 109 above 300+ mph, but you could certainly pull hard enough to get there from 180 - 250 mph or so, maybe a bit faster. There was much less pitch control and very little roll control above 400 mph, from pilot reports.

The Bf 109 was a very good airplane in its design combat speed range, though. It cruised right in the middle of the sweet spot of its combat envelope, so jumping a cruising Bf 109 was not exactly a foregone conclusion. If it survived the first pass, it was capable of getting into the fight quickly and had a very steep climb attitude at a lower airspeed than the Spitfires did.

I would think you'd want to stay away from slat range most of the time and use the slat range when required to break away from an attack or to quickly get on a someone's tail and then get back into the slat-retracted range. If you stayed in the slat range, then everyone else is faster while you are either slow (relatively) or slowing down. Out of airspeed, altitude,and ideas is not a good place to be in combat.

WWII fighters were formidable, but didn't generally have enough excess power to stay flying near stall and then attack anything much while there. Getting slow has never been a good aerial attack plan.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## stona (Jun 14, 2016)

Shooter8 said:


> Covering a withdraw as you state was very rarely done! As it both reduced the sure protection over the fiercely defended target and was very wasteful of resources. Read Len Deighton's book "Battle of Briton"!



But it was done.
Read the writings of Park and Dowding or one of the better biographies of either. Also several accounts given by men from both sides who were there.
The British operated NO organised air sea rescue service in 1940. One of the advantages the RAF enjoyed was that its pilots, if they landed on or parachuted to home soil, could return quickly to the fray. If they went down in the Channel they were almost certain to be lost. Those picked up by friendly ships were few and far between.
The Germans did operate an air sea rescue service, but such was the fear of dying a lingering death from hypothermia and exposure that several aircrew whose bodies washed ashore were found to have shot themselves. This resulted in a ban on the carrying of sidearms whilst flying operations across the Channel. 
The RAF wanted to avoid exposing its pilots to this risk.
Cheers
Steve


----------



## stona (Jun 14, 2016)

Shooter8 said:


> All things aside, the P-40, if it had replaced 1/3 each of Spits and hurries would have made a huge difference in the final outcome of the BoB.



What? Like we might have lost it?

I am struggling to take seriously someone who can write that rate of climb is not really relevant in an interceptor in a scenario like the BoB where every foot of altitude and every second saved by early warning and squadron scrambles was vital. You are either being provocative or really have no idea what was going on in our skies in 1940.

Fighter Command was not trying to shoot down Bf 109s, it was trying to shoot down or disrupt the formations of Luftwaffe bombers, preferably before they bombed their targets. It was absolutely essential that they reached the altitudes at which the bombers attacked in the limited time available. It was the whole point of the air defence system developed by the British in the 1930s. The Spitfire and Hurricane are just one, highly visible, facet of that system. 

What possible difference could the P-40 make? It was inferior in almost every respect to the Spitfire as an interceptor, you can argue the toss with the Hurricane, but I know which I'd take.

That'll be me out of here now, there's only so much nonsense one man can tolerate.

Cheers

Steve

.

Reactions: Like Like:
6 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Jun 14, 2016)

Shooter8 said:


> It was made that way by bending the shank, ( short of the threads, IIRC.) in a jig after heating it with an oxy torch.
> It was made like that for clearance of the tire when retracted.
> I am amaized because of so may comments about such a *trivial item*!


If someone sees something that may look wrong, then why not speak up about it?
The "pickle fork" may look odd to some people who may not be used to seeing the sub-doors on the Fw190, because it was not a common feature. Add to that, the unusual angle on the shank, and it would appear to be damaged.

The fact is, it did have a slightly bent angle to provide better leverage when the tire contacted the assembly when retracting. 

And it was not placed "_in a jig after heating it with an oxy torch_", it was manufactured that way. Heating it with "_an oxy torch_" would alter it's temper unless it was properly annealed after being heated "_with an oxy torch_" to maintain it's temper.

As been mentioned before, the sub-doors were not all that common on an Fw190, but can be seen on occasion with the earlier models. A good example would be the Fw190A-5 purchased by the Japanese. Another would be the Fw190a-6/R6 in South Africa's military museum. And there's many good photos of the sub-door's retracting mechanism, especially showing the pickle fork.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 14, 2016)

Shooter8 said:


> Wrong on all counts! The early, BoB Spit, Hurry and P-40 all had single stage engines and very similar altitude performance curves. If we consider that the Hurricane was heavier, lower performance than the P-40 in every way, why did they shoot down more enemy planes than Spitfires? This sort of shoot holes in your argument, does it not? Because of Strategic Considerations, the RAF Command tasked the Spits with dealing with the escorts and the Hurricanes with the Bombers. If the P-40 had been bought instead of some of the RAF's other fighters and available during the BoB and tasked with downing bombers, it would have been very much more effective than the Hurricane. German Armor that was impervious to .303 was just so much extra weight to the .50 Caliber M-2. Instead of taking on average three passes to down a bomber with eight .303s, one would have been enough and it would have been outside of return defensive range and thus fewer P-40s would have been lost.



Oh Boy, more mis-information
The Hurricane was NOT heavier than a P-40. MK I Hurricane went just under 6800lbs fully loaded. (and that is with a constant speed prop) A P-40B with the rear fuselage tank about 1/3 full and full ammo went about 7350lbs. 
The engine in the P-40 was good for 1040hp at 14,300ft no including RAM and the engine in the Hurricane and Spitfire was good for 1030hp at 16,250ft not including ram. Hurricane had a lower wing loading. 

P-40s at this time had two .50 cal guns and the .50 did not take to synchronizing very well. rate of fire might be around 500rpm per gun if you were lucky. the four .30s (or .303s) in the wings comprise a fair amount of the fire power. 
The effective range of the .50 is not that much greater than the smaller bullets and especially if you are attacking a bomber. Pulling away before you are in effective range of the defensive guns means you are firing from way too far away.

Reactions: Like Like:
5 | Like List reactions


----------



## drgondog (Jun 14, 2016)

SR, Greg and Stona beat me to the reply..that said the first Tomahawk IA (P-40A-H8A-1) for Army Co-Op reached Britain late September, 1940. The first one rolled off the line 0n September 18, immediately prepared and shipped from Port of New Jersey on the 20th.

Basic weight was 5625 pounds, combat loaded was 6807 pounds (normal) with 300 rounds of 50 caliber and 325 rounds of 30 caliber, no armor and unprotected fuel. As SR pointed out the ROF of the synch'd 50's was not impressive.

The Brit Browning 30 cal had a far greater rate of fire than US version, but not until a little later in the war. Brit 50 caliber ammo was less potent than US M2 Ball but that was ll that was available to the I and IB. The Hurricane was, in contrast, more heavily armed in bomber attack role - until the US made 50 cal ammo is available and the guns moved outboard.

The roll rate of the P-40 was outstanding but the altitude performance was not equivalent to the early Merlins and all P-40s suffered in both ROC and high(er) altitude performance, particularly versus the 109E.

The primary point to be made is that not a single P-40A is available to the RAF until after BoB is pretty much sewed up in favor of RAF during the critical July-Mid September battles.

So why are we arguing this?

Reactions: Like Like:
5 | Like List reactions


----------



## Glider (Jun 14, 2016)

Shooter8 said:


> All things aside, the P-40, if it had replaced 1/3 each of Spits and hurries would have made a huge difference in the final outcome of the BoB.


The P40 at the time of the BOB was far from being considered battleworthy. It lacked everything, firepower, performance, agility, sealing fuel tanks, armour. It could dive and roll and that's it, but if you cannot climb then you don't have far to dive.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Jun 14, 2016)

Shooter8 said:


> All good "What if" arguments, but, except the thing about climbing, not really relevant. Getting bounced, while it is mostly fatal, is not the end of the battle. The P-40 was a larger and very much stronger and thus harder to shoot down plane. It had heavier, much more effective and very much longer ranged weapons than the BoB Spit and Hurry! Between the longer ranged and faster cruising attributes of the early P-40, it was much more effective than the Spit in defensive combat.


It is easy to forget when someones English is excellent that it isnt a posters mother tongue "while it is mostly fatal, is not the end of the battle" is a contradiction in logic, fatal means it kills and being killed is the end of the battle. Rate of climb was everything in the BoB to the RAF, the differences between the Hurricane Spitfire and 109 were not great enough to overrule the simple fact that the squadron who had hight and were up sun. Mass engagements between the two sides who had seen each other and were at the same height were usually inconclusive. Losses were inflicted by those with height on their side and that means RoC is paramount.

If the RAF had P40s cruising around at 15,000ft looking for targets they would be soon bounced by 109s.

The use of Spitfires to engage fighters while Hurricanes took on bombers is a myth late on in the battle some squadrons were paired but it was hardly a success, the Spitfire and Hurricane had different rates of climb and angles of climb and so keeping them together or forming up wasted time.

Hurricanes appear at the top of most stats in the BoB simply because there were more of them they had more kills and losses, statistically the hurricane killed more RAF pilots as it was lower in performance and caught fire more easily.

The LW did protect returning aircraft over the channel and on the big London raids there were specific withdrawal escorts as the escorts outwards could take them to London but not back.

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Jun 14, 2016)

The problem is, that the Democratic built P-40, flown by Monarchy pilots, would have had trouble intercepting the Nazi bombers, since it was at altitudes where the Democratic fighters did not perform well.

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Jun 14, 2016)

Faster at what altitudes?
I see the repetetive Wiki cut and paste, but do you actually understand what your posting?

The P-40 was fast and manouverable at certain altitudes. So was the Spitfire, so was the Hurricane, so was the Fw190, so was the Bf109 and on and on and on.

BUT, it had limitations, and this was that the P-40 was a stronger performer at lower altitudes. The Fw190 was an extremely fast and powerful aircraft - at lower altitudes.

Just because the P-40 could climb (eventually) to 29,000 feet, does not mean that it had any speed or performance at those heights. It simply means that's as high as it could go before it eventually stalled.

The Fw190 could climb to about 37,000 feet, but could it do 400+ miles an hour up there? Absolutely not.

Before you start insisting that the P-40 was a world beater at Mount Everest altitudes, you better get your facts in order.

Reactions: Winner Winner:
4 | Like List reactions


----------



## Greyman (Jun 14, 2016)

Shooter8 said:


> True, but statistic show that more bombers were shot down by Hurricanes than Spits! Buy a huge margin! Why was that? Partially because the Hurry was the better gun platform and in spite of the same number and caliber of guns, the Hurries guns were in two neat batteries while the Spits were strung out along the wing which was not strong enough to stop them from spattering dispersion and dilution of their firepower. Did you know that the typical dispersion of the Spit's guns was 1.1 Meters at 100 yards? That means that each gun was spreading it's bullets over a circle 44" across! Because the Hurries guns were mounted in a single strong battery, their dispersion was less than 1/5 the area. The eight gun Spitfire was a terrible, maybe the worst gun platform of the war!
> 
> All true, but it was not nearly as lopsided as you infer. The Hurry was much better at shooting down anything in front of it's guns and the P-40 would have been very much harder to shoot down than the hurricane because it was faster and it's guns were several times more effective at much longer ranges. How does a single 7.92 MM RCMG fair Vs 4X.50s at 1,000 yards range? The luck hit puts the P-40's engine out, in the next 5-25 minutes, but the withering return fire from the rest of the pass destroys the bomber.



Typical dispersion of a .303 Browning was similar in either a Hurricane or Spitfire wing. A 100% group from a weapon in either aircraft would roughly give the figure you gave. The main reason the Hurricane is lauded as being a better gun platform is due to the aircraft itself being steadier - particularly in pitch.

The longer range advantage of the Browning .50 wouldn't be much of a factor as both .50 and .303 relied on the same Mk.II Gunsight. Performance vs. aircraft armour is also often greatly overstated (by armaments of all types) because it is seldom taken into account how easy it is for rounds to be deflected, fragmented and/or tumbled by aircraft skin/structure before reaching the plate. The lack of a good .50 incendiary round would also be an issue.

In terms of durability versus Luftwaffe armaments - I don't think 109 pilots were ever particularly vexed by the P-40's toughness.

Pieced together a quick graph on climb rates based on A&AEE test data. I understand the Bf 109E was very similar to the Spitfire I.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## stona (Jun 14, 2016)

Shooter8 said:


> Also, the cowl mounted .50s had an effective range of 1,800 Meters compared to 250 Meters of the various .303 armed RAF Fighters,



More nonsense. The effective range of the weapons was not determined by ballistics but by the sighting system used.

This might make for some educational reading.






RAF fighters had their guns synchronised at 250 yards, the maximum range at which the average pilot stood any chance of hitting anything. In fact almost all Luftwaffe aircraft downed during the BoB and examined by the various ORS showed strikes from rounds fired from a deflection of less than 15 degrees, which goes to show that virtually no pilots could hit anything at any range from any significant angle off. In reality most pilots couldn't hit anything...period.The idea that they could hit anything out at over 1,000m is just laughable.

Cheers

Steve

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GregP (Jun 14, 2016)

The .303 surely is accurate beyond 250 meters.


----------



## pbehn (Jun 14, 2016)

Shooter8 said:


> This last is also true as far as it goes. But what about the bombers when they are still over England? What happens when the 50% of interceptors that failed to make the connection, get a second and third try at the pinata? If half of the misses convert at a 50% rate, then an extra 37.5% of German Bombers get a chance to live or die!
> No mater how you slice it some fraction of extra targets shot down changes the force ratio and the stronger, easier to service and more battle resistant P-40 make what is Strategically a huge difference.


Most raids were escorted to and from the target, it was the raids over London that were problematic for the LW and these had a withdrawal escort. 

You have a strange perception of air warfare which doesnt match my understanding. One phenomenon that many pilots reported was that they would attack a formation of german aircraft and then within a matter of minutes intense combat would find themselves apparently alone, That was the point the pilot would return home to re arm and re fuel, cruising about alone looking for a target is a fools errand, you have only two eyes and are probably next on the lunch menu.


----------



## stona (Jun 14, 2016)

GregP said:


> The .303 surely is accurate beyond 250 meters.


Certainly, but not when mounted in the wing of a fighter using the sights fitted in 1940.
Cheers
Stevel


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 14, 2016)

In reference to the climb chart in the above post I would note that service ceiling is more useless for figuring out combat capabilities than top speed. Service ceiling being the altitude at which the plane could still climb 100fpm while flying straight and level. Please note that slowing down at that altitude by 10-20mph means either descending or stalling.
Operational height was the altitude at which the plane could still climb at 500fpm as it was figured that was performance margin needed for a group of aircraft to maintain formation. 
Actual effective combat height was figured as the altitude a fighter still had 1000fpm climb capability. The Hurricane had over 2000ft advantage over the P-40 and the Spitfire almost a 4000 ft advantage. 
This by way, was one of the main reasons for the Hurricane II getting the Merlin XX engine. An attempt to raise the combat ceiling of the Hurricane to equal the Spitfire and 109. If the Hurricane II was thought need the Merlin XX in the fall of 1940 in order to stay in the fight then the P-40 was a lost cause.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Jun 14, 2016)

GregP said:


> The .303 surely is accurate beyond 250 meters.


The synchronisation of the guns is its concentration of fire, the effective range is the ballistics of the gun/round. Discussion of what a single round can do at 1800metres is ridiculous, the top snipers in the military would be and are heros making a kill with a dedicated sniper rifle in still conditions at that range. Spotting an aircraft in a clear sky at that range is a challenge, looking at an open sky your eyes focus about 20ft in front of your face and so aircraft can be invisible even in clear sight, hitting an aircraft at1800m is fantasy.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Jun 14, 2016)

Shortround6 said:


> In reference to the climb chart in the above post I would note that service ceiling is more useless for figuring out combat capabilities than top speed. Service ceiling being the altitude at which the plane could still climb 100fpm while flying straight and level. Please note that slowing down at that altitude by 10-20mph means either descending or stalling.
> Operational height was the altitude at which the plane could still climb at 500fpm as it was figured that was performance margin needed for a group of aircraft to maintain formation.
> Actual effective combat height was figured as the altitude a fighter still had 1000fpm climb capability. The Hurricane had over 2000ft advantage over the P-40 and the Spitfire almost a 4000 ft advantage.
> This by way, was one of the main reasons for the Hurricane II getting the Merlin XX engine. An attempt to raise the combat ceiling of the Hurricane to equal the Spitfire and 109. If the Hurricane II was thought need the Merlin XX in the fall of 1940 in order to stay in the fight then the P-40 was a lost cause.


I think the chart should read feet per minute (or other) not feet per second but regardless it shows a massive difference, the P40 just wouldnt make it to the fight at 20,000ft any time that would be useful

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Greyman (Jun 14, 2016)

pbehn said:


> I think the chart should read feet per minute (or other) not feet per second ...



Whoops, too right. I'll edit.


----------



## pbehn (Jun 14, 2016)

Greyman said:


> Whoops, too right. I'll edit.


Thanks, when you look at it and think about it the P40 was about 800 ft/minute behind, I will produce a chart showing cigars smoked and tea drunk by Spitfire and Hurricane pilots prior to taking off to join their P40 mounted comrades.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 14, 2016)

GregP said:


> The .303 surely is accurate beyond 250 meters.


The cartridge sure is. The guns may very well be. The problems are the mountings, the gun sights, and figuring out where the target is going to be when the bullets get there. A 300mph airplane is covering about 440 feet per second. If the bullet takes 0.3 seconds to reach the target the plane will have moved 132 feet or about 4 to 4 1/2 plane lengths for a fighter. Adjust target speed, bullet flight time and target size as you see fit.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 14, 2016)

Shooter8 said:


> In my own experience, the early mark of Spit (V? I can not remember which I rented and flew way back then.) had three lever control of the power plant! See;
> spitfire cockpit - Google Search
> Failure to do things in the right order could kill, or stall the engine, burn a hole in a piston, the rings, or any of a dozen other maladies that could loose the fight, or just plane kill you outright.



Quite true, if you do things in the wrong order you can screw things up big time. However how hard do you have to work at screwing things up big time? 
I can find no mention of a ignition timing control on an early Spitfire. I haven't looked at later ones.
On the MK II Spitfire the mixture control and throttle were interlinked to prevent the the engine from being run on an unsuitable mixture. 
On Late model MK V Spitfires there is NO mixture control and the early ones had the same set up as the MK II, interlocked mixture and throttle. 
So basically the Spitfire pilot had to worry about two controls. Throttle and Pitch. _UNLESS _he deliberately tried to force the controls into potions they were not supposed to go in (break the interlock).

The Pilots Manuals/notes are in the technical section of this website.


----------



## wuzak (Jun 14, 2016)

Shooter8 said:


> So if the BoB Hurry was adequate, the Much faster and more powerfully armed P-40 should be much better.



Except that the P-40 would have been no good for the BoB since none would have got to a squadron in time.

And the P-40 lacked self sealing fuel tanks, armour and its armament wasn't all that great in the BoB period.

I think that by the time the P-40 was turning up in numbers in the UK the RAF were trying to move to 20mm cannon for the Spitfire and Hurricane.

By the time Kittyhawk Is had been delivered to the UK the RAF were largely equipped with the Spitfire V. And the Spitfire IX was only 6 or so months away from entering service.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 14, 2016)

Shooter8 said:


> Only a small number of *P-40D* or *Kittyhawk Mk I*s were made, less than 50. With a new, more powerful Allison engine, slightly narrower fuselage, redesigned canopy, and improved cockpit, the P-40D *eliminated the nose-mounted .50 in (12.7 mm) guns* and instead had a pair of .50 in (12.7 mm) guns in each wing. The distinctive chin airscoop grew larger so they could adequately cool the large Allison engine.



OH boy again:
The information about the XP-40 is irrelevant to the discussion. The ONLY differences between a P-40D and a P-40E was that the E had 3 guns in each wing and deleted the provision for slinging a 20mm gun _under _the wing. However with the D rolling out the door on July 1941 it is about 10-11 months late for the BoB. 
BTW the Chin airscoop grew "larger" because the engine used in the P-40D/E used a different reduction gear (spur instead of epicycle) which raised the propshaft 6 inches. The radiators/ oil cooler and bottom of the cowl stayed pretty much in the same place. Not sure how the Allison got larger? the Engine used in the D/E used just about the same supercharger as the older engine and the same gear ratio. It was allowed to use higher boost which raised the power to 1150hp at 11,700ft but until WEP ratings came into effect (in 1942) the "official" power really wasn't much different than the earlier engine. going higher than 11,700 ft caused to the power to drop to about the same level as the older engine. 



Shooter8 said:


> , the cowl mounted .50s had an effective range of 1,800 Meters compared to 250 Meters of the various .303 armed RAF Fighters, at which range the bullets would not perforate the pilot's seat back armor! At 1800M, a single hit in would destroy any LC fighter or bomber engine. It either lets the oil out in 15-20 minutes, or coolant out and 5 minutes later the engine quits! Those two, plus two .5" guns in the wings negated the advantage of armor plate in German AC. Later planes had up to six .50s zeroed at 400 yards and effective at 500.
> All in all, the P-40 would have made a very useful and important addition to the RAF!



Chances of hitting at 1800 meters is about the same as wining the Powerball lottery. NO P-40 had two .50 guns in the cowl and any .50 cal in the wings so you are talking about a non-existent aircraft.


----------



## GrauGeist (Jun 14, 2016)

Shortround6 said:


> NO P-40 had two .50 guns in the cowl and any .50 cal in the wings so you are talking about a non-existent aircraft.


Actually, the early P-40 types did have nose mounted .50s


----------



## GregP (Jun 14, 2016)

Hi Neo,

The Merlin and Allison were both fixed-timing engines ... most of the time.

How about a Merlin II for an “Early Merlin?”

Normally the Merlin II had two engine controls for the pilot; the throttle and mixture. Under exceptional conditions, a third control that cut out the boost regulator could be used and, when so-equipped, there was a fourth control for prop pitch when there was a variable-pitch prop installed. There were service requirements daily, after 10, 20, 40, and 120 hours.


The magneto timing was variable, but not directly by the pilot. It had an attached linkage that moved with the throttle. When in takeoff position, the timing was 45° BTDC for the exhaust plug and 38° for the intake plug. At idle it was less, but not by too much. The travel was linear and not “adjustable” other than by the throttle setting.


In the Allison, Shortround was right, 34° for exhaust and 28° for intake plugs. It was fixed for most of the Allison production run, but some could be retarded for starting. Once you know how to start one, it isn’t necessary and neither are backfire screens when you know how to run one. In training, I’m sure backfire screens might have been useful to prevent engine damage by raw trainees who hadn’t started an Allison at least a few times correctly. Once you learn it, the procedure is simple.

As for the .303, the round is accurate to much longer than 250 meters and the mounts are just fine. The real culprit was the crew chief. Many crew chiefs set the guns to have a sort of spray pattern at synchronous range, so the pilot would get at least SOME hits. The really good shooters stayed with the aircraft when the guns were zeroed, and insisted they be set to hit a single small spot at the synchronous range.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 14, 2016)

Shooter8 said:


> But in the hands of a typical "Average" pilot, the Spitfire was much easier to fly and much more forgiving in the transition to the stall. This gave the very effective illusion of superior performance. The Spit was easy for the average pilot to get the most out of the plane, but in the hands of an expert, the Me-109 was a vastly superior weapon. Prima Faci argument; The top British ace scored 38 kills, or less than 11% of the top German Ace. IIRC, The top 100 German Me-109 Aces shot down more Enemy AC than the entire RAF combined!



The Prima Facie argument trips over it's own feet and does a full face plant when you actually look at the specifics. The Top scoring British ace only flew about 700 missions compared to Hartmans slightly over 1400 missions. More importantly Hartman was involved in about 825 engagements to get his 352 victories for a "success ratio" of 42.6%. Johnson was only engaged in combat just 57 times. You can't shoot down planes that aren't there. Johnson's victories (as listed by Wiki so....) Johnson was credited with 34 individual victories over enemy aircraft, as well as seven shared victories, three shared probable, 10 damaged, three shared damaged and one destroyed on the ground. They include 14 Bf 109s and 20 Fw 190s. Even at 34 victories Johnson had a "success ratio" of 59.6% flying Spitfires. 

No disrespect to Hartman He was an exceptional pilot and an Honorable man from all accounts, being prouder of his not loosing wing men and squadron mates than his score. 

Simple comparisons of scores to prove points without taking into account differences in theaters or fronts or time period in the war actually don't prove anything.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 14, 2016)

GrauGeist said:


> Actually, the early P-40 types did have nose mounted .50s


Yes they did but they didn't have .50s in the wings (even single guns) despite having .30 cal guns there and the planes that had .50s in the wings didn't have any guns in the cowl.


----------



## GregP (Jun 15, 2016)

There are a couple of things to remember about the German victory totals. They may have been covered. If so, nothing intended or implied, just making the points.

1. Allied pilots rotated in and out. German pilots flew until the war was over or they died or were injured to badly to fly.

2. There were Allied targets all over the sky. The UK was bombing Germany and / or German targets almost from the end of the phony war onward. By late 19442 there were comparatively few German targets for the many Allied fighters to find. By mid-1944, there were almost no German fighters for the average Allied fighter pilot to shoot at. The few concentrated on the bombers and flew hit and run tactics. It didn't work. But the average German fighter pilot had NO TROUBLE getting into combat while the average Allied fighter pilot had a lot of trouble finding a German adversary on most mission.

Last, on the subject of the P-40, the later P-40s didn't get a bigger radiator to cool the big engine. It was the exact same displacement as the earlier P-40s were, 1710 cubic inches (5.5-inch bore and 6-inch stroke), It got the deeper chin because Allison went from the C-engines to the F-engines in the P-40, and it didn't have the long, skinny nosecase of the C-series. It had a shorter, deeper nose and was MUCH stronger and more reliable than the comparatively weaker C-series propeller gears were.

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Jun 15, 2016)

Shortround6 said:


> Yes they did but they didn't have .50s in the wings (even single guns) despite having .30 cal guns there and the planes that had .50s in the wings didn't have any guns in the cowl.


Ahh...gotcha, I must have misunderstood and yes, they finally got their act together after the "C" model.


----------



## stona (Jun 15, 2016)

pbehn said:


> The synchronisation of the guns is its concentration of fire, .



Gun harmonisation diagram for the Spitfire V. Another document unearthed and freely given for the benefit of us all by the late Edgar Brooks.







Cheers

Steve

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Jun 15, 2016)

stona said:


> Gun harmonisation diagram for the Spitfire V. Another document unearthed and freely given for the benefit of us all by the late Edgar Brooks.
> 
> 
> Cheers
> ...


Thanks.
There was (is) another series of diagrams showing different ways to harmonise guns, from memory the FAA and RAF had different ideas the FAA having more of a spread


----------



## pbehn (Jun 15, 2016)

It may seem complicated to us to have ignition advance retard and fuel lean/enrichment but it was part of 1930s motoring even on motorcycles, the early TT racers used to start off with a tool kit and spare parts. It is convenient to have a control that does everything automatically but that doesnt mean doing it manually was an impossible or even difficult task, WW1 pilots had changing magazines and unjamming guns as part of their normal tasks.


----------



## Greyman (Jun 15, 2016)

Shooter8 said:


> The Spit was easy for the average pilot to get the most out of the plane ...


This brings up another knock on the P-40, unfortunately. In those desperate months in 1940, pilot training in the RAF wasn't exactly extensive. The fact that the Hurricane and Spitfire were, in the words of Molders himself, "very simple to fly compared to our aircraft, and childishly easy to take-off and land" was a definite asset.

After testing the Hurricane and Spitfire, the United States Army Air Corps concluded that both types _"are easier for inexperienced pilots to fly than the American pursuit planes. The automatic boost control is a big help in that respect."_

One of the top P-40 pilots of the entire war, James Francis "Stocky" Edwards, had this to say (about the Kittyhawk, granted, but I think everything would apply to the Tomahawk as well):

_"In my estimation, the Kittyhawk Mk.I was not an easy aircraft to fly properly and, as a result, we lost a good number of pilots while training. Some Hurricane pilots flatly refused to fly it, preferring to go back to Hurricane squadrons. In the first few months after conversion to Kittyhawks, all the squadrons lost heavily to the 109s. It didn't seem to matter whether they were sprogs, sergeant pilots, or Battle of Britain veterans. The 109s still hacked them down.

Our pilots seemed to be at a great disadvantage trying to learn how to fly the aircraft while carrying out operational sorties. I'm certain this is why many of our experienced pilots were shot down. This was coupled with the rapid turnover of COs and Flight Commanders.

I found that one had to have a very strong right arm to control the Kittyhawk I during most manoeuvres ... in dive bombing, the aircraft would pick up speed very quickly in a dive, but it had a great tendency to roll to the right. One could trim this out reasonably well with the left hand, but even then, when one pulled up, it wanted to roll to the left quite violently. So I learned to trim out about half-way in a dive and hold the control stick central by bracing my arm against my leg and the cockpit wall. I found I had more control this way and didn't have to take off so much trim when pulling out and the speed was reduced. It was also distracting to have one's left hand on the trim all the time, when it should be on the throttle.

... in a dog-fight with violent changes in speed, it was all one could do to fly the aircraft. Since the Kittyhawk would fish-tail and skid violently if not flown smoothly, there was little chance of hitting anything, so I had the mercury ball portion of a needle and bank instrument placed right below my gunsight. That way I could see it all the time without staring at it - it took all the guesswork out of flying smoothly. In every aircraft I flew on operations to the end of the war, I had my groundcrew install this instrument below the gunsight.

The Kittyhawk Mk.II (F series) with the Packard-Merlin engine was a definite improvement in lateral stability over the Kitty I."_

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## stona (Jun 15, 2016)

There were different opinions about how the guns should be harmonised and at what range. Following trials at Shoeburyness in the early '30s, before an eight gun fighter had been built, there was a large body of opinion in favour of harmonising all the guns at one point and specific range.

In August 1931 air firing trials, carried out at Dowding's behest, had shown that:

_"The multi gun type of fixed gun single seat fighter is more likely than the two gun single seat fighter, to produce the density of fire necessary to ensure a hit on a vital part of a target aircraft, in a time which approaches the actual average time during which aerial targets present themselves in air fighting."_

In September 1933 another reason for increased fire power was advanced by Ludlow-Hewitt in a letter to the Chief of the Air Staff.

_"The number of single seat fighters which can attack a large bombing formation simultaneously would probably not exceed one third of the number of bombers, hence the need for the single seat fighter to develop at least four times the fire power of one bomber from the rear gun."_

By 1934 everyone had settled on eight guns. At a meeting of the Operational Requirements Committee in August 1934, to discuss the 'Fury' replacement, the minutes note:

_"It was agreed that eight guns should be aimed at on grounds of shorter time to obtain the required density of hits and the improvement in range which was obtainable with more guns."_

It has been argued that the eight rifle calibre machine gun armament of British fighters in 1940 was ineffective, but the thousands of Luftwaffe aircrew shot down would certainly beg to differ. The armament did become less effective with the ever increasing armouring of the target aircraft, the move to a mixed armament including cannons was inevitable.
It is often argued that the Bf 109 E armament was better, and the 20mm cannon was certainly more destructive, however, it was only destructive if hits could be scored and with only two mounted and given its low (relatively) rate of fire and ballistic properties, and the limited time in which targets presented themselves, scoring those hits far from certain.

Cheers

Steve

Reactions: Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 15, 2016)

I would add several things to the above. 
One is that the armament of eight .303 guns and ammo was one of the heaviest (weight of installation wise) of the time 1938-mid 1940 for service aircraft. This shows that the British were very interested in firepower and as Stona has shown the planning/interest went back years.
Unfortunately for the British they had too many strange ideas floating around which confused things and apparently the earlier method of testing things seems to have fallen behind a bit. Gunnery training seems to have been a bit neglected and _some _of the aiming patterns/harmonization schemes were designed to make up for poor marksmanship at the cost of concentrated fire. A little too much emphases on quantity instead of quality even in prewar years. Or some belief in the idea that pilots could not cope with 300-500mph closing speeds? 
The effectiveness of the .303 battery could also have been much improved by the use of different ammo. Again a production problem and a consequence of the change to protected aircraft. In 1940 there was a shortage of .303 AP ammo so only one gun (or sometimes two) out of eight had the AP ammo. British .303 AP ammo proof test was 70% of the bullets had to penetrate a 10mm plate at 100yds range. Obviously proper .303 ammo could do more than poke holes in sheet aluminum. 
Likewise there was a shortage of incendiary ammunition, and no, tracer does does not make a good incendiary round. 

I would note that it gets frustrating arguing with some 109 fans because the 109 keeps changing to suit the argument.
The 109 in the BoB used wing 20mm cannon, There were NO engine mounted cannon so the 109 had pretty much the same convergence problem (or not, convergence is a much overblown factor) as the allied aircraft. Something the German fans like to mention as little as possible is the different flight times of the German guns and ammunition making concentrated fire at distance, especially in deflection shooting difficult.
I have mentioned this a number of times before but figuring out the convergence thing is simple geometry. If you have guns 12ft apart and a 300yd cross then the bullets are 8 ft apart at 100 yds. 4 feet apart at 200 yds. crossing at 300yd, back to 4 feet apart at 400yds and 8ft apart at 500yds and back to 12 ft at 600yds. If the intended target is a He 111 just how far apart do the bullets have to be in order to have most of them miss? or even a Do 17? 
Getting the aiming mark of the gun sight on target and figuring out the necessary lead (speed and course of target) and distance are much greater factors than wing or fuselage guns.


----------



## stona (Jun 15, 2016)

The effectiveness of the .303 battery could also have been much improved by the use of different ammo. Again a production problem and a consequence of the change to protected aircraft. In 1940 there was a shortage of .303 AP ammo so only one gun (or sometimes two) out of eight had the AP ammo.
.[/QUOTE]

Sources differ, but either three or four of the eight guns were loaded with ball ammunition during the BoB period. One wonders why any were loaded with this , given the results of the British' own experiments up at Orfordness! I can only assume, as above, that there was a shortage of the Mk IV and Mk VI incendiary rounds as well as the AP rounds and a couple of pounds per second (from four guns) of ball ammunition might cause some damage.
Incidentally the Mk IV incendiary also served as a tracer round, but was only 50% as effective as the Mk VI at igniting target fuel cells in tests.

The ammunition capacity of the British aircraft is often criticised. The Spitfire had enough for 16 seconds of continuous fire. Not much? Hold your breath and count 16 seconds.

The two factors that outweighed all others in British thinking as they developed fighters through the 1930s were speed and fire power, other considerations, including range/endurance were secondary. It's why they ended up with the Spitfire, Hurricane, Defiant (and Whirlwind).

Cheers

Steve

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 15, 2016)

Hosing an area sky hoping to hit an enemy aircraft is hardly effective use of ammo. 16-17 seconds of fire is is enough for 5 or so bursts of about 3 seconds each which was about all most pilots could hold an enemy aircraft in the _gun-sight_ for (not somewhere in the gun camera frame) . Now how long in minutes does it take for an average pilot to get into firing position 4-6 times? 
The Spitfire and Hurricane may have been a bit short on firing time but nothing like the 20mm guns using 60 round drums (around 8 seconds firing time) on the 109, the Zero, the French fighters of 1940 and yes, the early Spitfires with cannon and the Whirlwind. On some of these planes the 60 rounds lasted only 6-7 seconds. 
Eight .303s were firing 145-160 rounds per second. Get them pointed into an area even 6 ft across and get that impact area onto an aircraft and there will be a lot of damage. 
If you have pilots that are not well trained/practiced and open fire 2-3 times further away than they should then you need a lot more ammo. 
.303 ammo weighed about 6.6lbs per hundred for belted ammo. going to 500rpg from 300rpg would have added about 107lbs to the gross weight. SO it depends on how much of hit you want to take to performance (climb) or what else you can take out. 
I would note that the MK II Spitfire had gained about 350lbs in weight over an early MK I with wooden prop. The MK _may_ have had an extra 50 rounds per gun.


----------



## Peter Gunn (Jun 15, 2016)

Shooter8 said:


> *SNIP*
> 
> Also, the cowl mounted .50s had an effective range of 1,800 Meters compared to 250 Meters of the various .303 armed RAF Fighters, at which range the bullets would not perforate the pilot's seat back armor! At 1800M, a single hit in would destroy any LC fighter or bomber engine. It either lets the oil out in 15-20 minutes, or coolant out and 5 minutes later the engine quits! Those two, plus two .5" guns in the wings negated the advantage of armor plate in German AC. Later planes had up to six .50s zeroed at 400 yards and effective at 500.
> All in all, the P-40 would have made a very useful and important addition to the RAF!



OK, not to "cherry pick" (but apparently I will) I'm not buying the .50 cal as accurate at 1,800 meters using the technology that a 1940 fighter plane would sport. Maybe 10+ years after the BoB in the skies over Korea. I've talked with Sabre pilots that used the radar ranging gun sight on the F-86 to get strikes from 1,200 to 1,800 _yards _but unless your name was Foster or McConnell or Jabara etc. they were strikes, not kills. Using what was available in 1940 (not _the_ 1940's) was only going to allow nothing but a lucky hit at 1,968 yards. (1,800 meters)

Also, the P-40 as an RAF interceptor? Uh, last I checked, for 1940 BoB you had to be able to climb like a bat outta hell for any kind of success, not that I was there but from what I gather that's not the P-40's strongest selling point.

Pete


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 15, 2016)

You would be correct in your assessment.
I have some ballistics tables for old .50 cal ammo (and there is a difference between M1 ball and M2 ball) and time of flight for 2000yds given a 2700fps muzzle velocity is 3.72 seconds. time of flight to 1900yds is 3.44 seconds and time of flight to 1800 yds is 3.17 seconds. Granted this is at sea level and at altitude the times would be shorter due to less air resistance but it gives a good idea of the problem. a 10% change in range means a 17% change in time of flight. And how far can even a 150mph (220fps) bomber fly in just 3 seconds? 660 feet?
And of course our eagle eyed pilot was able to figure out the _exact speed and course_ of the target 
being off by 1 degree means even the slow bomber is around 15-16 ft to the side of where eagle eye thinks it will be. Can you tell if you are exactly at the targets 180 degree position at 1800-2000yds or if you are at it's 179 degree or 181 degree positions? 
Angle of decent at 2000yds is 53.9 mils or just over 3 degrees so the bullet is dropping about 15 ft in 100yds. Is the plane at 1950yds or at 2050yds when the bullet arrives?

M2 ball and M2 AP was slightly higher in MV (but used a slightly lighter bullet) and the less dense air will slow the bullet less.
AS another bit of ballistic trivia the M1 Ball/AP with a bit lower MV (24-2500fps) rose to a point 72.5 feet above the line of sight on it's way to to 2000yds.

edit. Ballistic data from the book "Ammunition" by Melvin M. Johnson and Charles T. Haven copyright 1943 pages 213 and 295.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Jun 15, 2016)

Additionally SR, 99% of pilots seeing a distant aircraft at the same altitude think it is at least 1000ft lower, and post pilots were hopeless at estimating range frequently opening up at half a mile thinking they were close.


----------



## stona (Jun 15, 2016)

pbehn said:


> pilots were hopeless at estimating range frequently opening up at half a mile thinking they were close.



When the RAF introduced gun cameras the analysts were appalled to discover that pilots were often opening fire at 1500 yards or more (they might as well have opened the cockpit and thrown rocks) and consistently under estimated angle off by at least 50%. Basically they couldn't shoot.

It is no accident that the few who could actually shoot scored heavily. Between 10th July and 15th September 1940 just 17 pilots accounted for 221 Luftwaffe aircraft shot down! If we ignore the halves (whereby more than two pilots could engage an aircraft shot down and be credited with a half) only 15% of pilots who flew in the battle were credited with a 'whole' aircraft. 

Cheers

Steve

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 15, 2016)

Now imagine the effect of training program that improves things by 50%, 22.5% of pilots who flew are credited 1 or more aircraft?
Might change the perception of how useful the 8 gun armament was


----------



## Peter Gunn (Jun 15, 2016)

SR6,

Good stuff in your post #168, I don't think many people appreciate how hard it really was to actually hit something when you're flying around. I haven't flown since the early 1980's but I know one thing, while I probably could *fly* fighter planes of the 1940's, I doubt very much if I could *fight* with a fighter plane. Perhaps with proper training I could at least not look like a total nimrod, but I was told at an early age, there's flying fighters and then there's fighting fighters.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## stona (Jun 15, 2016)

Shortround6 said:


> Now imagine the effect of training program that improves things by 50%, 22.5% of pilots who flew are credited 1 or more aircraft?
> Might change the perception of how useful the 8 gun armament was



Training did improve, but it took a surprisingly long time. In late 1941 Sholto-Douglas was facing almost exactly the same problems that Dowding had faced eighteen months earlier.
The quantum leap in accuracy didn't come until near the end of the war with the introduction of gyro gun sights, which essentially did the calculations for the pilots and took out the guess work....errr...I mean estimations.
Cheers
Steve

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Jun 15, 2016)

Shortround6 said:


> Now imagine the effect of training program that improves things by 50%, 22.5% of pilots who flew are credited 1 or more aircraft?
> Might change the perception of how useful the 8 gun armament was


I agree, but as Stona commented the solution lay in better equipment and better training, during the BoB they hardly had time to learn to fly let alone fight and shoot. However to me the game changed with the fall of France, the RAF had no trouble inflicting crippling losses on raids across the North Sea. 8 x .303 MGs were quite capable of making sure no one was able to fly or defend the aircraft even if it didnt immediately go down. Most figures for the BoB quote planes shot down, there were also large numbers of German A/C that returned to base and never flew again. The RAF were fully aware of the problem and did start installing cannon in Spitfires during the BoB (June according to wiki).

The kill rates for the RAF would have been much improved if Dowding could get Leigh Mallory/Bader to stop performing air displays with 50 experienced pilots in tight formation and actually go straight at the enemy to shoot them down, that however is another topic.


----------



## bobbysocks (Jun 15, 2016)

how did the P40 fare against the 109 in north Africa? from what I remember it didn't clean the skies of LW planes....it was a stop gap ac that was used until something better could replace it. then it took on a different role...not so much and interceptor but CAS and bombing.


----------



## Ascent (Jun 16, 2016)

And yet again you totally missed all the arguments. 

The round could be effective at 1200 yds but that is totally irrelevant because the weapon system as a whole I.e the aircraft and gun combination, was incapable of hitting the target. The only way you would hit by having the target dead in the cross hairs is either being right on top of it or being dead astern at the same heading and altitude, slightly off and you have to start calculating lead which is beyond just about everyone in those conditions. And good luck getting dead astern straight and level while there are fighters about and with a manoeuvring target.

And I personally can't recall any complaints about lack of range on any British fighters during the battle of Britain, others will probably have read more widely on this so they may know better.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Jun 16, 2016)

Shooter8 said:


> The effective range, against 9 mm armor steel, of the .50 AP shot was1200 yards. At that range the trajectory was so flat that height of the bomber fuselage covered it completely! Hold on the middle of the target and blase away! The 40" of dispersion of the engine mounted guns means that 100% of the well aimed bullets will perforate the target fuselage. The .303 with 175 grain bullet requires 16" of rise at 100 yards to make hits at 500! At a thousand, the low velocity and worse BC mean that you can shoot over a house at 600 yards before the bullets will hit a seven foot tall He-111 fuselage! With a properly zeroed .50 cal, I only need one and a half lines in the inside part of the cross hairs over the target to ensure that ALL the bullets hit the bomber. That is 1/16" of the center cross over the target on the standard American gun sight. And you think the .50 does not shoot much farther than the .303? RIGHT!


Where are you getting all your information from, CFS3 or IL-2: Sturmovik?

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Jun 16, 2016)

You simply don't get it...

And I will put words where they are the most appropriate.

The P-40 was not a climber, it was a diver. The Japanese pilots even remarked at it's ability to dive away to safety when things were too hot.

During the BoB time period, it was not better armed than the Hurricane, it was not a high-altitude interceptor. It's strengths were at lower altitudes.

This has nothing to do with the Spitfire, or the Hurricane or anything of the sort. In 1940, it simply was not a high altitude fighter, it was not a fast climber, it was not a gunslinger.

Period.


----------



## GrauGeist (Jun 16, 2016)

And I'd like to point out that several pages have been wasted arguing this bullsh!t when the thread is about the Bf109...not the P-40.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Jun 16, 2016)

Shooter8 said:


> ...tracer bullets make finding lead on a maneuvering target very possible, if not easy.


Tracers also had a much different trajectory than the ball round...

And once again, *STOP HIJACKING THIS Bf109 THREAD*

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## wuzak (Jun 16, 2016)

We will try again....

The Spitfire I was tested before the war at over 360mph.

With the bullet proof windscreen, etc, added, it came back to around 350mph.

The P-40 was faster at lower altitudes but slower at higher altitudes. It was to do with how the engines were set up, and teh Merlin was set up for a higher critical altitude.

The first deliveries of the P-40 to the USAAF was in June 1940. The French had _ordered_ the P-40 in May 1940, but none had been delivered before France fell. USAAC deliveries were deferred in September 1940 in order that the French order could be expidited to teh British.

So, at the height of the Battle of Britain - August-September 1940 - there were precisely ZERO P-40s available to the RAF. Not a whole lot more were in US service.

The P-40 had no or very little armour, no self sealing tanks, two 0.50" hmgs firing through the propeller arc and two 0.30" mgs in the wings. The USAAC didn't consider them fit for combat, let alone the RAF at war.

Not sure that two 0.50" hmgs and two 0.30" mgs counts as a "superior weapon installation" over 8 x 0.303" mgs.

The P-40B replaced the P-40. It had an additional two 0.30" mgs in the wings. It lost performance because it weighed more, presumably because it carried some armour.

The P-40B first flew in March 1941. So not very helpful for the Battle of Britain.

By that time RAF squadrons were starting to re-equip with Spitfire Vs (or many had already done so), which had heavier armament than the P-40B (2 x 20mm + 4 x 0.303"), was faster and climbed better.

Saying that the P-40 would have been a better plane for the Battle of Britain is a stretch based on performance and combat suitability, let alone timing. 

Claiming the later, better performing P-40s, such as the P-40E, as better than BoB Spitfires and Hurricanes is like saying that the RAF would have been better equipping with Spitfire XIIs or XIVs instead of Is and IIs.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## wuzak (Jun 16, 2016)

Shooter8 said:


> It was not until the two stage Merlin was installed in the Mk-V Spit that the Spit was close, but no winner in the race with the -190 and did not win until the Mk-IX Spit was available. But the Fw-190D soon put the Mk-IX Spit in it's proper 2nd place and it took the RAF more than a year to work the bugs out of the Spit-XIV after the first flight until it was combat ready and made it's first kill. .



You do realise that the Spitfire IX _was_ the Spitfire V with 2 stage engine?

That the definitive version of the 2 stage Merlin engine Spitfire was the VIII. And that the VIII wasn't used in the ETO.

The Fw 190D-9 became operational in late 1944. The first Fw 190D flew in 1942. Not sure how the D-1 and D-2, the initial production variants fared, as I can't find any info on the web. 

That would be about 2 years from prototype to operational service (for the D-9), twice as long as the Spitfire XIV according to you.

The P-51B prototype flew in November 1942, combat introduction was in late 1943.

So the time between the XIV's first flight and operational introduction was not unusual. The fact that it took longer to claim its first kill was also not unusual since it was a defensive fighter and when it started operations the Luftwaffe was largely occupied on the Eastern Front or defending their homeland.


----------



## stona (Jun 16, 2016)

Shooter8 said:


> Neat, but how does it change the basic premise that any of them had little to no trouble reaching the bombers, if they made the intercept at all? What that chart does not show is that the -40 climbed at a slower speed and steeper angle. That meant that the range to intercept was more likely to be good, instead of gone when the bombers got there. If the Speed is higher, the plane will travel farther while climbing to altitude. That means that the bombers, which are all ready at altitude will more than likely be behind them when they reach the intercept altitude. draw the charts you're self to see what I mean.



I will make one more final effort to educate your total lack of understanding of how an air defense system like that of the British in 1940 worked.
Let's go back to the 'zone' and 'interceptor' fighters of ADGB and see what characteristics for climb were required.
An 'interceptor' fighter needed optimising to maximise the important attributes for this role, namely speed and distance covered in a pursuit climb. The objective was to attain the quickest interception of an enemy at a given height and speed. Unfortunately exercises in 1931 showed that the interceptor fighter concept was unworkable, principally due to the increasing speed and altitude of the attacking bombers, and the interceptor fighters were withdrawn from their advance bases back to the Aircraft Fighting Zone to operate as 'zone' fighters.
'Zone' fighters needed different climbing qualities. For them the speed at which they climbed was less relevant, they required a high rate of climb to reach their patrol altitudes as quickly as possible.
The later fighters were technically neither of these types but an amalgamation of the two, nonetheless, the way the system worked meant that it was the climbing attributes of the earlier zone fighter that were required. The most important climbing attribute was simply rate of climb, the fighters had to attain the height of the incoming raids as quickly as possible. Given that even the Spitfires failed to do so on many occasions I doubt that your imaginary P-40 would ever have done it. Their pilots could have looked up to see the Luftwaffe formations passing overhead on the way back to France!

I don't blame you for being confused. When requirements for a new day fighter were proposed in 1933 "rate of climb" was in fact the first priority for the new aircraft, but it was also specified that this be based on the same principles as the Fury, an interceptor fighter.
This contradiction was noticed by the Director of Technical Development (Cave) who sought clarification, asking if the climb required was to be at best climbing speed and not, as with the Fury, that to give the quickest interception of an enemy at a certain height and speed.
He was told that the climb was to be "the best to 20,000 feet". This apparently innocent technical question and its reply actually signaled a significant change in policy and later led directly to the very high (for the time) rate of climb of the Spitfire. It was an absolutely vital attribute for the fighters in Dowding's system, and the P-40 didn't have it.

Cheers

Steve


----------



## wuzak (Jun 16, 2016)

There was an earlier thread about improving the Bf 109.

Messerschmitt 109 Improvements

A large part of that discussion is about the merits of an improved canopy/cut down fuselage and whether it was practical to put such a change into production.


----------



## stona (Jun 16, 2016)

stona said:


> It is no accident that the few who could actually shoot scored heavily. Between 10th July and 15th September 1940 just 17 pilots accounted for 221 Luftwaffe aircraft shot down! If we ignore the halves (whereby more than two pilots could engage an aircraft shot down and be credited with a half) only 15% of pilots who flew in the battle were credited with a 'whole' aircraft.
> 
> Cheers
> 
> Steve



I should have qualified this by noting that some of these high scorers could not estimate angle off any better than the average pilot. What they could do was fly well enough to manoeuvre their aircraft into a position behind the target at which the angle off was zero or close to it. In this way they negated the need for any deflection and minimised the guess work. They also flew smoothly and in a controlled manner, without for example skidding all over the sky, enabling them to hit the target once in position.
I have mentioned elsewhere that the majority of downed Luftwaffe aircraft examined were struck by bullets fired from a very low angle off.
These pilots were few and the ones who could actually master the art of deflection shooting even fewer.
Cheers
Steve


----------



## Milosh (Jun 16, 2016)

What Lala land is neocon from?

"The P-40 was a larger and heavier plane,"

P-40E

*Length:* 31.67 ft (9.66 m)
*Wingspan:* 37.33 ft (11.38 m)
*Height:* 12.33 ft (3.76 m)
*Wing area:* 235.94 ft² (21.92 m²)
*Airfoil:* NACA2215 / NACA2209
*Empty weight:* 6,070 lb (2,753 kg)
*Loaded weight:* 8,280 lb (3,760 kg)
*Max. takeoff weight:* 8,810 lb (4,000 kg)
Hurricane IIc

*Length:* 32 ft 3 in (9.84 m)
*Wingspan:* 40 ft 0 in (12.19 m)
*Height:* 13 ft 1½ in (4.0 m)
*Wing area:* 257.5 ft² (23.92 m²)
*Empty weight:* 5,745 lb (2,605 kg)
*Loaded weight:* 7,670 lb (3,480 kg)
*Max. takeoff weight:* 8,710 lb (3,950 kg)
P-40 is heavier but not larger.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 16, 2016)

Sorry guys, I can't seem to get t new thread to start on a hypothetical use of the P-40.

I can enter a title but then get an error message.


----------



## Peter Gunn (Jun 16, 2016)

Shortround6 said:


> Sorry guys, I can't seem to get t new thread to start on a hypothetical use of the P-40.
> 
> I can enter a title but then get an error message.



Maybe that's a sign...


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 16, 2016)

Maybe 

I get all sorts of questions about starting a poll but no space to insert any text to go with the title?


----------



## Peter Gunn (Jun 16, 2016)

Yeah, wish I could help, had all sorts of trouble starting threads but always got frustrated. Last one I tried was for Steve Pisanos' passing but couldn't get the software to cooperate.


----------



## wuzak (Jun 16, 2016)

Shortround6 said:


> Maybe
> 
> I get all sorts of questions about starting a poll but no space to insert any text to go with the title?



Started a thread for you.

Don't know if my OP was what you had in mind.


----------



## GrauGeist (Jun 16, 2016)

I've had trouble recently starting new threads also, I found that refreshing the page a few times eventually gets the text area to show up.

I know it's a pain in the rear-end having to re-enter the thread's title...but eventually it works.


----------



## stona (Jun 16, 2016)

Actually, initially, British eight gun fighters, both of them, employed the so called 'Dowding spread' in which the guns were harmonised to cover a larger area at 250 yards (still 250 yards though), the maximum convergence was at much longer range, up to 400 yards. This system was pandering to the majority of pilots who were poor shots.
By mid 1940, in time for the BoB, Fighter Command had adopted point harmonisation at 750 feet/250 yards as standard. I don't know where you found your figure but it is incorrect.

I posted the gun harmonisation chart for the Spitfire V at 250 yards, which was still the standard later in the war.

There is some evidence that certain pilots had theirs adjusted to a closer range. It is not clear how they managed this as it was done in a butt using the equipment shown in the chart I posted. It was not a straight forward process and involved several men, considerable skill and some time to achieve. Bader for one claimed that he had his guns harmonised at a closer range, but then he is not always reliable in his recollections. I think this is a misunderstanding and probably reflects an earlier stage when certain pilots and squadrons adopted the 250 yard point harmonisation before it became official policy.

If you want to resort to the semantics of synchronisation versus harmonisation as a basis for your rebuttal I would suggest you are running out of genuine arguments. I know the term was officially harmonisation, I'm the one who posted the original chart!

Cheers

Steve


----------



## stona (Jun 16, 2016)

Shooter8 said:


> Hurricane wing shot into less than 9" at 100 yards, plus the guns were grouped into a single battery where the bullet streams of all four guns were parallel to one another and thus much more effective at much longer ranges, typically Zeroed at 250 Yards rather than the Spit's 200.



Repeating a falsehood doesn't make it so. Here's how Hugh Dowding, the C-in-C of Fighter Command explained gun harmonisation.

_"A great deal of discussion took place before and in the early stages of the war as to the best method of harmonisation of the guns of an 8-gun fighter: that is to say the direction, in relation to the longitudinal axis of the aircraft, in which each gun should be pointed in order to get the best results.

There were three schools of thought. One maintained that the lines of fire should be dispersed so that the largest possible “beaten zone” might be formed and one gun (but not more than one) would always be on the target. The second held that the guns should be left parallel and so would always cover an elongated zone corresponding with the vulnerable parts of a bomber (engines, tanks and fuselage). The third demanded concentration of the fire of all guns at a point.

Arguments were produced in favour of all three methods of harmonisation, but in practice it was found that concentration of fire gave the best results. Guns were harmonised so that their lines of fire converged on a point 250 yards distant: fire was therefore effective up to about 500 yards, where the lines of fire had opened out again to their original intervals after crossing at the point of concentration."_

Of course you can ignore him too 

Cheers

Steve


----------



## GrauGeist (Jun 16, 2016)

Shooter8 said:


> Neither! My gun club has a 500 M / 600 Yard Range which I use regularly. ( Almost every week!) I used to be a Sniper for the ASA-SOD and I practiced at long range every week that I was not on a mission. I qualified with the M-2 and M-82, and fired thousands of rounds out of them over a 20 year period. Did you know that the standard soft lead cored 710 grain .50 Cal bullet will perforate a rigidly mounted 3/8" AR500 armor steel plate at 600 yards? I have done it more than a few times. Heck, my .300 RUM with a 180 grain Ballistic Tip will do it at 500! Either steel cored AP round from the M-2 will perforate steel armor plates the thickness of which you would not believe at ranges you will swear it could not be done. ( Like 3/4" AR 500 at 300 Meters!)
> The "Average Gunnery Combat Range" in WW-I was 250'! In WW-II it was 250 yards. In Korea it was 750 yards! That means that half of all Mig kills were made at more than 750 yards! The Transonic Mig was a very much tougher bird than any fighter plane from WW-II, yet we shot down ~800 of them?
> Why on earth would you think that a gun powerful enough to do that at such long range would not tear a WW-II plane to shreds?
> 
> This is all true, but not relevant. The original premise, not stated by me, was that the P-40 would have made a better option for the RAF, if they had been bought before the BoB. All I did was agree with and defend that point of view!


All that you just posted is irrelevant.

I want you to strap yourself to the roof of a 2013 Chevy Tahoe PPV, and have it chase another PPV Tahoe that has a target attached to the roof. Space it out to 100 yards and both reach 140 miles and hour and hold that speed as you try and "snipe" at your target.

Tell us how well you did. Until then, stop with this nonsense...

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## drgondog (Jun 16, 2016)

To Repeat - ZERO P-40's were available for the period defined as the "BoB" - at least in the critical phase when the LW nearly prevailed over the RAF via sheer weight of numbers. Those P-40s (TomahawkI and IB) did not have self sealing tanks. Would have been worse than a Zero in maneuver fight because it was less maneuverable...

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Jun 16, 2016)

There is a new thread created to discuss the P40 in the BoB.

I think the 109 could be improved with a better canopy giving better visibility.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## stona (Jun 16, 2016)

NO. Standard is precisely that. 
This is the Royal Air Force in wartime. Anyone who knows how any Service operates in peace time, never mind wartime, will understand that Individual pilots could not decide what they wanted. It is possible that some senior figures did harmonise their guns differently, but I haven't seen any convincing evidence for this. Some, along with their units, certainly adopted point harmonisation before it became the official standard, but they must have had some authority to do so. I haven't seen that authority, it hasn't been published to my knowledge and is probably languishing, misfiled in TNA. They couldn't have done it without such authority.

Any pilot claiming his Spitfire guns were harmonised at 200 yards is mistaken. The figure as evidenced by Dowding and the contemporary chart I posted was 250 yards. I have more evidence from Air Ministry and Fighter Command sources (including comments from Park) which I can't be arsed to dig out to further a pointless argument against your "direct interviews with RAF pilots" in unspecified sources.

Cheers

Steve


----------



## GrauGeist (Jun 16, 2016)

Shooter8 said:


> *But compared to all the rest of the planes in this discussion, it was the only gunfighter!*


Negative.
the Battle of Britain was 10 July 1940 through 31 October 1940.
The primary fighter aircraft available at the time:
Hawker Hurricane Mk.I and Mk.IIA
Spitfire Mk.I and Mk.II
Bf109E (E-1, E-3, E-4, E-7)
There was no Fw190 at this time.

Now, the ONLY P-40 that existed at this point in time, was the first production type, also known as the Tomahawk I.
It had NO self-sealing tanks, NO bulletproof windscreen and NO pilot armor.
It was armed only with (2) .50 cowl MGs and (2) .303 MGs - one in each wing.

It had a max. speed of 357 mph @ 15,000 feet, cruising speed of 272 mph and rate of climb to 15,000 feet in 5.2 minutes. Max. range was 950 miles (approx.) @ cruising speed of 250 mph.

This was not your illustrious world-beater.It would take more development to bring the P-40 up to a competitive fighting platform. But only long after the BoB was decided.


----------



## Peter Gunn (Jun 16, 2016)

I apologize for a bit of info I got wrong, it's been bugging me so I went back and consulted so oooold notes I had and realized I was wrong here:

"I've talked with Sabre pilots that used the radar ranging gun sight on the F-86 to get strikes from 1,200 to 1,800 _yards _but unless your name was Foster or McConnell or Jabara etc. they were strikes, not kills."

I thought that was off base and it was, that should read 1,200 to 1,800 _FEET_, not yards. Man that's what I get for trying to use my memory. So expecting a 1940 weapons system to hit at 1,800 meters is a bit of a stretch.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Jun 16, 2016)

The Mustang with an allison engine was superior in all respects to the P40 and in service performed well in armed recon, the first thing the Brtish said on flying it was it would be great with a Merlin engine. No Allison engined plane would make a difference in the BoB certainly not the P40 which was not even available. Now about the Me109 canopy. Was it a problem for LW pilots?


----------



## stona (Jun 16, 2016)

Regarding the effective range of .50 calibre machine guns in fighters. I'm sure it was on this forum that I posted a quick analysis of the ranges at which P-47 and P-51 pilots claimed to have engaged targets later in the war. I can't find it now, but I remember the range at which the engagement commenced was, on average, just over 300 yards. They sometimes finished at virtually point blank range, 50 yards.
Nobody was opening fire effectively at some of the extreme ranges being claimed for the weapon.
Cheers
Steve


----------



## GrauGeist (Jun 16, 2016)

pbehn said:


> There is a new thread created to discuss the P40 in the BoB.


Agreed!



pbehn said:


> I think the 109 could be improved with a better canopy giving better visibility.


They tried to address the canopy issues with the "Erla Haube", starting with the G-10.

I believe (going by memory here) they were working on an improvement to the Erla design, mocked up on a K model by the time the war ended. This *may* have been the design that Avia used on their models.


----------



## GrauGeist (Jun 16, 2016)

Shooter8 said:


> Once again, if the Brits had had the foresight to order the P-40 because of the lack of fire power in eight gunned .303 RCMGs, then they would have been available in time for the battle of Britain. America was one of the first to realize that RCMGs would not cut it in the next war. *We put .50s on mass produced planes starting in the 1920s.* When did the RAF see the need for bigger guns? Long after the Germans had installed crappy 20s. I just bought a book about Russian aircraft and do not know the history of their weapons development, so any info will be greatly appreciated! Sincerely. But as far as I know, the RAF were the last force on the planet to get larger guns?



First of all - the first production P-40 manufactured was delivered to the USAAC in March of 1940. The first British ordered P-40 was delivered in August 1941.

Regarding your allegation of .50 cal. equipped U.S. warplanes in the 1920's? Pure bullsh!t.
Starting with the 1920's and going through the 1930's:
Curtiss A-3 - .30 cal.
Curtiss A-8 - .30 cal.
Curtiss A-12 - .30 cal.
Curtiss A-18 - .30 cal.
Vultee A-19 - .30 cal.
Curtiss SBC - .30 cal.
Vought SBU - .30 cal.

So tell me, where are the .50 cal. equipped aircraft again?

And again - this has nothing to do with the Bf109 discussion.


----------



## stona (Jun 16, 2016)

The RAF had a fighter armed with four 20mm cannon in 1940. It was just considered inferior to the two front line fighters. Altitude performance was again,as it would have been for a P 40, the issue.


----------



## stona (Jun 16, 2016)

Evidence not hearsay.I can back up my claim with data from dozens of Encounter Reports.
You are making unsupported assertions. How can you estimate range from a gun camera film? Are you a photoanalyst or have you read that pilot's report? If so you can quote it here.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 16, 2016)

Shooter8 said:


> Yes, I agree! But once again, I did not start the P-40 argument, but certainly did contribute to it. So did others. I have a valid point to make about how to improve the Me-109.These changes would have made the Me-109 into a revolutionary combat plane, far and away better than anything that actually flew in WW-II



Except with all those changes it would no longer be a Bf 109. You changes also include a fantasy engine and a fantasy gun, both of which often took longer to develop than new airframes. 

I would also note that your proposed cannon is not just a slight stretch. 





you are going from the round on the right to something on lines of the 4 center cartridges. Longer bolt and bolt travel reduce rates of fire unless you can get the bolt speed very high. Heavy/fat rounds need considerable power to feed the belt at high speeds to achieve a high rate of fire. Using power from the gun slows the rate of fire, using electric servo motors in the feed system can help but requires weight and complexity. 
Last thing the Germans needed in 1943 and on was a super technical maintenance hog.


----------



## GrauGeist (Jun 16, 2016)

Shooter8 said:


> Curtis P-30, Boeing P-26? There are others with up to 37 MM Autocannons and at a time when no other Air Force that I know of has installed anything bigger than a RCMGs in a large series of planes! ( Again, I am not that familiar with Russian planes.)


P-26 - 1 .30 & 1 .50 (introduced 1933)
Consolodated P-30/PB2 - .30 cal. (introduced 1934)

I am assuming you meant the P-36, which was first introduced in 1938, originally armed with one .30 cal and one .50 cal., both mounted in the cowl. It wasn't until the P-36A version, that wing armament was fitted - being (2) .30 cal. per wing.

None of that's relevant because no U.S. warplane, "mass produced" or otherwise, in the 1920's, was armed with a .50 caliber weapon. It was not until the early/mid-1930's that a .50 caliber weapon was considered for use in Attack/Pursuit aircraft. Even then, the Browning 1919 .30 was the armament of choice.

I think I'm done with this thread until it gets back on track...


----------



## tyrodtom (Jun 16, 2016)

There is no Curtiss P-30, there is a Consolidated P-30, it's armed with .30 cal. There's a Curtiss XP-31, armed with .30 cal. There's a Boeing P-29, armed with .30 cal.

The P-26 was armed with 2x.30 cal. also


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 16, 2016)

Cannon or Machine Gun? – The Second World War Aircraft Gun Controversy — Variants & Technology | history | Reference

Besides the P-38 and P-39, the only cannon armed US fighter (or it pretended to be) designed in the 1930 AFAIK was the YFM-1 Airacuda


----------



## gumbyk (Jun 16, 2016)

Shooter8 said:


> Yes, I agree! But once again, I did not start the P-40 argument, but certainly did contribute to it. So did others. I have a valid point to make about how to improve the Me-109. See;
> Me-109 images - Google Search
> 
> 
> ...


Where does this nose-wheel go? There's no room for it in the cowl, and it would have to extend in length from thefront of the cowl back to the firewall. Not to mention the additional weight associated with it. You'd need to move the wing further aft to maintain CG (which doesn't appear to have been donewith this hypothetical a/c)
Not sure if you're saying to install cowl mounted guns, but I can't see where you'd install one.

P.S. you might want to check the copyright notice on the website you plucked that image from:


> Reproductions, sale, or disclosure of the contents in any form and in any media (especially in electronic and printed) are prohibited.


----------



## ww2restorer (Jun 16, 2016)

Willy Messerschmitt must be turning in his grave. "Where does the nose wheel go?", it goes where Willy designed it to go, under the centre section. As for all the other suggested modifications of the BF109, Willy called it the Me 309, been there done that.
It doesn't matter how many pages of argument or discussion people dream up, the aircraft is what it was and will never be changed. That goes for all the aircraft of WW2. Remember it was time of war, a time of massive transition from rag wing to metal, from 100hp to 2000hp motors, machine guns to cannons. As for production, the US will always have the largest production figures (except for the IL2 production), but it must be remembered that their factories were not being bombed regularly, didn't have forced labour or unskilled labour. The US also converted their auto production facilities for aircraft production. Doesn't matter which way you cut it, its comparing apples to oranges and you can never get a sensible conclusion. Finally, the aircraft were designed by slide rule and hand drawings, all time consuming, not computer generated as today, turn your minds back 80 years.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Jun 16, 2016)

That blue contraption is a tail dragger.

Only the Me309 (and proposed Bf109TL & Me509) had nose gear.


----------



## pbehn (Jun 16, 2016)

ww2restorer said:


> Willy Messerschmitt must be turning in his grave. "Where does the nose wheel go?", it goes where Willy designed it to go, under the centre section. As for all the other suggested modifications of the BF109, Willy called it the Me 309, been there done that.
> It doesn't matter how many pages of argument or discussion people dream up, the aircraft is what it was and will never be changed. That goes for all the aircraft of WW2. Remember it was time of war, a time of massive transition from rag wing to metal, from 100hp to 2000hp motors, machine guns to cannons. As for production, the US will always have the largest production figures (except for the IL2 production), but it must be remembered that their factories were not being bombed regularly, didn't have forced labour or unskilled labour. The US also converted their auto production facilities for aircraft production. Doesn't matter which way you cut it, its comparing apples to oranges and you can never get a sensible conclusion. Finally, the aircraft were designed by slide rule and hand drawings, all time consuming, not computer generated as today, turn your minds back 80 years.



I agee, in the BoB the British still had the Gloster Gladiator as a front line fighter, there were special geographical reasons but that was the case. Four years later they had two 2000BHP+ prop fighters and one jet in service with others in development. The same level of development in Germany and the USA, I am sometimes staggered that posts here allege complete incompetence and disinterest, on all sides things could have been done better but also on all sides the development was staggering. I am 56 as a child I read "Airfix magazine" which had a scratch built model of the still secret Tornado MRCA, the plane is still i service and I am looking forward to retirement.


----------



## pbehn (Jun 16, 2016)

GrauGeist said:


> That blue contraption is a tail dragger.
> 
> Only the Me309 (and proposed Bf109TL & Me509) had nose gear.


I am working on the graphic of the "top secret" spitfire powered by 2 Rolls Royce Spey jet engines which would have changed the war if not for political in fighting in the MoD.


----------



## GrauGeist (Jun 16, 2016)

The Bf109TL was actually quite an interesting concept amd would have certainly proved to be interesting had it reached any form of production. The only shortcoming I could see, was it's use of the Me309's tricycle gear, which had proved to be problematic. Of course, it was to have included the Jumo004 and the problems that came with it.

On the otherhand, the Me509 was a reaching concept and I seriously doubt they could have ever worked the bugs out of it.


----------



## GrauGeist (Jun 16, 2016)

Shooter8 said:


> How about if I fly along on a helicopter at 5000' and hose sharks basking in the Gulf of Tonkin with an M-60?


How about if you stay on topic?

Reactions: Like Like:
5 | Like List reactions


----------



## GregP (Jun 16, 2016)

Same Shooter.


----------



## pbehn (Jun 16, 2016)

Shooter8 said:


> How about if I fly along on a helicopter at 5000' and hose sharks basking in the Gulf of Tonkin with an M-60?


A LW aircraft attacking a US bomber formation faced 1000 x 0.5 cal MGs and they suffered about 10% losses when no escorts were present.


----------



## pbehn (Jun 16, 2016)

Shooter8 said:


> But none of this is relevant to the Me-109 which was demonstrably the most effective fighter plane of the war.


The rest of your post wasn't even relevant to the Spitfire which was a match for the 109 throughout the war. In the key battles where the Spitfire and 109 were adversaries the BoB and Malta the RAF prevailed. 

Get back on topic this line of posting is boring, about the 109 canopy?


----------



## wuzak (Jun 16, 2016)

Shooter8 said:


> I think that was because the RAF had a total failure of the thought processes when it came to fighter attributes. They hated the Full spec American version of the P-38 because it was to slow in the roll. But never mind that the Spit was slower than snails compared to the Nazi planes. The Spit was a modern incantation of the very best WW-I plane they could make. It turned WO burning a lot of energy, but was not very fast for the power and had a relatively low SEP and the single worst gun platform in the entire war. But the plane they had with four 20s was also a turd designed, IIRC for very high altitude?
> But none of this is relevant to the Me-109 which was demonstrably the most effective fighter plane of the war.



The Spit was just as fast as the P-38 when it turned up in Europe. And plenty fast enough to deal with the Nazi planes.

The plane they had with 4 x 20mm cannon was not a high altitude aircraft - one of its drawbacks was lack of altitude performance.

The Spitfire wasn't as fast as the P-51 on the same power, but that's the advantage of 5-6 years of aircraft design evolution. 

As a gun platform I am not sure. I don't think it was particularly worse than the P-51.

And, I'd have to check with Dean's _America's Hundred Thousand_, the P-40 wasn't that great either, particularly in the early versions.


----------



## ww2restorer (Jun 16, 2016)

The RAF refused their initial order for the P38 because the US wouldn't allow the aircraft to be exported with their secret 'turbocharger'. The aircraft were useless at altitude and relegated to training in the US as P322. When the P38 did arrive in the theatre with turbocharger, they were not that much better. Again comparing apples to oranges and facts of no relevance.


----------



## GrauGeist (Jun 16, 2016)

I'm just curious...were the Nazi planes given priority over non-party member planes?

Or were non-member planes relegated fo the eastern front while members planes given cushy assignments?

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## gumbyk (Jun 16, 2016)

Shooter8 said:


> The Spit was a modern incantation of the very best WW-I plane they could make.



Huh? Care to provide some reference for this?


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 16, 2016)

ww2restorer said:


> The RAF refused their initial order for the P38 because the US wouldn't allow the aircraft to be exported with their secret 'turbocharger'. The aircraft were useless at altitude and relegated to training in the US as P322. When the P38 did arrive in the theatre with turbocharger, they were not that much better. Again comparing apples to oranges and facts of no relevance.


 Another great myth. The British (and French) ordered (or explored) P-38 variants not only without turbochargers but with the same long nose engines used in the early P-40s instead of the Spur gear engines used in the the early P-38s. They did this in the interest of simplifying the spare engine/spare parts situation. Allison Factory was over 3000 miles away. it also meant the engines both rotated the same direction. 
Simple deleting the turbos would have left the counter rotating engines and offered an extra 100hp for take-off at the cost of really poor high altitude performance. (early P-38s used 6.44 supercharger gears).
I would also note that the British got approval to order the "secret" turbocharges by June 5th of 1940 and ordered 524 MK II Lightings with turbos on that date.


----------



## wuzak (Jun 16, 2016)

Shooter8 said:


> It is an allegory based on the planes attributes being biased just like a WW-I plane! Turn performance before speed. The ability of RCMGs to kill the unarmored pilot. Flimsy construction to save weight over strength of the air frame. Narrow track landing gear to save weight at a horrendous accident rate that supposedly destroyed more planes than the enemy? Single Spar wing to save weight which let the wing twist on application of Aileron. Short range over Combat Persistence, etc...
> How many things do I have to list?
> Then Compare it to the Me-109 and all the attributes the RAF likes are absent from the -109, but the 109 was unquestionably the most efficient killing machine of the war! The second and third closest place killers were different models of the Me-109 and fourth was not even a fighter plane at all, but the B-17!!! ( The B-24 was fifth!)
> You have to go a long way down the list to find the Spitfire and it was the second, or very close third in numbers produced! More or less tied with the Fw-190 at about 20,000 made...
> ...



You're talking out of your arse again.


The Spitfire was not flimsy
The Spitfire did not have a horrific landing accident rate - it was, in fact, considered easy to land. A quote to that effect by a German pilot (Molders?) was reproduced earlier in this thread.
The Bf109 also had a narrow track undercarriage but was more difficult to land. It's the aircraft which supposedly killed more of its pilots than the enemy did (not sure if that was true, would have to check in the myths thread).
It depends on how you define spar as to whether the Spitfire has one or two spars.
The Spitfire was designed as a defensive fighter, so that climb rate was prioritised over "combat persistance". No point for a defensive fighter to stay longer in the air if they failed to engage the enemy.
The number of kills a type got were largely to do with the opportunity. Luftwaffe pilots racked up large numbers on teh Eastern Front, often killing obsolete types.
The idea that the B-17 and B-24 killed more enemy aircraft than the Spitfire is ludicrous. Surely that is based on the claims by aerial gunners, which were at least one order of magnitude more fantastical than the claims of fighter pilots.
When the USAAC/F were transitioning to the 0.50" HMG the RAF was transitioning to the 20mm cannon. Give that the 20mm Hispano was thought to be as much as 3 times as effective as the 0.50" Browning, I fail to see the evidence where the US was moving towards heavier armament.
You didn't mention it here, but did so earlier. The M4 37mm autocannon was a terrible aerial gun, with low rate of fire, poor muzzle velocity and poor ballistics. 

Back to the spar issue, here is a quote from our late friend Edgar Brooks:



Edgar Brooks said:


> Gentlemen, it might well be that, in aeronautical engineering terms, the Spitfire wing was referred to as a "single-spar design," but, in purely physical terms, it also contained two spars. The mainspar attached to frame 5, with 7 bolts, while the rear spar used a single bolt; however, before somebody says that it did nothing, at the end of the war, Park, in the Far East, was told not to use certain Mk.VIII XIVs, because their rear spar attachment points were faulty, and the wings could fail during heavy manoeuvring.
> Drawings 30008 sheets 2509, 2425, 2427, 2428 show the construction, and assembly of the component parts of the "rear spar," which was attached to the wingribs, wingtip, and fuselage frame 10. These drawings, and their annotations, must have come from Shenstone and Mitchell.
> There are general assembly drawings, which refer to a rear spar, and drawing 30027 sheet 12, for frame 10, also shows "rear spar attachment points," so all this argument would seem rather pointless.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 16, 2016)

Shooter8 said:


> It is an allegory based on the planes attributes being biased just like a WW-I plane! Turn performance before speed. The ability of RCMGs to kill the unarmored pilot. Flimsy construction to save weight over strength of the air frame. Narrow track landing gear to save weight at a horrendous accident rate that supposedly destroyed more planes than the enemy? Single Spar wing to save weight which let the wing twist on application of Aileron. Short range over Combat Persistence_,_ etc...
> How many things do I have to list?



Gee, sounds a lot like the 109?

_Turn performance before speed_. Well speed was listed first but speed _requested_ was 400kph at 6000 meters. or just about identical to what the Gladiator with a fixed pitch 3 blade metal aircrews could do.

_The ability of RCMGs to kill the unarmored pilot_. Request/requirement was for 2 7.9mm machine guns with 1000 rounds total (*WOW, what and advance over WW I fighters*) _or _1 fixed machine cannon ( 20mm, 100 rounds) not both cannon and MG at the same time.

_Flimsy construction to save weight over strength of the air frame. _Strength requirement not given but 109V1 weighed 1404 kg empty equipped and a whopping 1800kg fully loaded (no guns/ammo) or about 75% of what the Spitfire Prototype weighed.

_Narrow track landing gear to save weight at a horrendous accident rate that supposedly destroyed more planes than the enemy? _Boy does that sound familiar_. 

Single Spar wing to save weight which let the wing twist on application of Aileron. _Ok you got us that one, but just how fast did the Spitfire have to be going *before* this problem manifested itself? Hint, it didn't happen in level flight even on later Spitfires.

_Short range over Combat Persistence_, Yep, 1 1/2 hours at at full throttle at 6000 meters was the requirement, of course that was with either a Jumo 210 engine or BMW 116 engine. What they wound up with was a whopping *235 liters* of fuel (or 52 imp gallons) feeding the Jumo 210D engine which made 365hp at 6000 meters max continuous. So yes you could get about two hours at max continuous (but not full throttle) at 6000 meters on internal fuel assuming you could tow the 109 to 6000 meters and then start the engine. 

How many things do I have to list??????


----------



## wuzak (Jun 16, 2016)

Shooter8 said:


> Yes, I agree! But once again, I did not start the P-40 argument, but certainly did contribute to it. So did others. I have a valid point to make about how to improve the Me-109. See;
> Me-109 images - Google Search
> 
> 
> ...



When, exactly, is that thing going to fly?

The first issue is the contra-prop. Were there ever any, even experimental, contra-props on DB601 or DB605 engines?

When were the turbo versions of the DB 601/5 tested, flown?

With a standard DB601/5 the compressor intake is at the side, so that's where the intake needs to be.

As said by another poster, what you describe is a completely new aircraft.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 16, 2016)

Gentlemen. Examples of the oh so forward thinking of the Germans in 1934-35 in fighter design.



















Yep, I can just see how deluded those poor fools in England were thinking they had a modern fighter.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Jun 17, 2016)

Shooter8 said:


> What was the Me-509? Can you please post a link to more info? Sincerely.


Alot of information was lost during the course of the war, Henkel and the He100's details are a prime example. So too, were the design elements of the Me509 proposal.
One good resource is here: Messerschmitt Me 509 Luft '46 entry

Incidently, the Japanese made an aircraft that was remarkably similar to the Me509, the Yokosuka R2Y "Keiun". It incorporated a great many of the details specified for Messerschmitt's design.
More info on the R2Y here: Yokosuka R2Y - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## BiffF15 (Jun 17, 2016)

This thread is teetering on the edge of insanity. 

I would like to commend you gents on your restraint and patience.

Cheers,
Biff

Reactions: Like Like:
4 | Like List reactions


----------



## gumbyk (Jun 17, 2016)

Shooter8 said:


> It is an allegory based on the planes attributes being biased just like a WW-I plane! Turn performance before speed. The ability of RCMGs to kill the unarmored pilot. Flimsy construction to save weight over strength of the air frame. Narrow track landing gear to save weight at a horrendous accident rate that supposedly destroyed more planes than the enemy? Single Spar wing to save weight which let the wing twist on application of Aileron. Short range over Combat Persistence, etc...
> How many things do I have to list?


Which British WW1 type was deliberately given these attributes?
By the end of WW1 the limiting factor in strength was the fabric on the wings coming off, not structural strength, many pilot biographies have stories of aircraft with the fabric shedding after high-speed dives.
Narrow-track landing gear is, I believe, what you would call a 'straw-man argument'
What WW1 types had a single-spar wing (excepting, of course very early ones that utilised wing-warping)
WW1 aircraft range/endurance was limited by the load of fuel, which was in turn a function of the power and speed of the aircraft - not structural strength.


----------



## stona (Jun 17, 2016)

Shooter8 said:


> It is up on You-Tube, but the very best one is the old Spitfire Pilot from Malta, also on You Tube. But if it is books you like, read all of the best three books on the oral history of the P-38 and it's pilots!



That's not an answer. I asked for evidence, the one thing you have provided remarkably little of in any respect. In fact I haven't seen an archive reference or even name or book title in any of your posts. You can't expect me to take seriously an argument you propose when you give me no means of checking the validity of the sources on which you base it.

Hearsay and recollection is very unreliable. For example, more than 100 people gave evidence to say they were attacked by US fighters following the bombing of Dresden, but we can prove that this was not so.

Cheers

Steve


----------



## Elmas (Jun 17, 2016)

As very often happens in some hypotetical designs, the C.o.G. position is taken rather "lightly".


----------



## stona (Jun 17, 2016)

Shooter8 said:


> It is an allegory based on the planes attributes being biased just like a WW-I plane! Turn performance before speed.



Absolute nonsense. Speed and firepower were the two primary quests for British aircraft designers to meet the operational requirements issued in the 1930s.
Rather than the vague references to certain books and Youtube I will give you a reference which you should read if you want to really have any understanding of this. It is not an exciting read, it is a technical reference book, but you might manage it.

"The Royal Air Force and Aircraft Design 1923-1939 - Air Staff Operational Requirements" by Colin Sinnott. ISBN 978-0-415-76130-7

In the words of Sebastien Cox (you look him up) this book "provides a most invaluable insight into the interface between industrial design and military requirement".

Relevant in a slightly different way might be,

"Industry and Air Power - The Expansion of British Aircraft Production, 1935-1941" by Sebastian Ritchie. ISBN 0-7146-4343-2

Do some reading and then maybe come back with some sensible, less juvenile and better researched opinions and arguments.

Cheers

Steve


----------



## Ascent (Jun 17, 2016)

Shooter8 said:


> It is an allegory based on the planes attributes being biased just like a WW-I plane! Turn performance before speed. The ability of RCMGs to kill the unarmored pilot. Flimsy construction to save weight over strength of the air frame. Narrow track landing gear to save weight at a horrendous accident rate that supposedly destroyed more planes than the enemy? Single Spar wing to save weight which let the wing twist on application of Aileron. Short range over Combat Persistence, etc...
> How many things do I have to list?
> Then Compare it to the Me-109 and all the attributes the RAF likes are absent from the -109, but the 109 was unquestionably the most efficient killing machine of the war! The second and third closest place killers were different models of the Me-109 and fourth was not even a fighter plane at all, but the B-17!!! ( The B-24 was fifth!)
> You have to go a long way down the list to find the Spitfire and it was the second, or very close third in numbers produced! More or less tied with the Fw-190 at about 20,000 made...
> ...


 
I'm sorry but any credibility your points may have had has now disappeared in my eyes with such a load of obvious bunkum. There is no point arguing with someone with a prevailing bias who will not listen to reasoned arguments that prove them wrong. When someone is repeatedly telling me things I know, not believe, are wrong and refuses to countenance they may be in error then their argument loses all weight with me.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## rednev (Jun 17, 2016)

[QUOTE="gumbyk, post: What WW1 types had a single-spar wing (excepting, of course very early ones that utilised wing-warping)
WW1 aircraft range/endurance was limited by the load of fuel, which was in turn a function of the power and speed of the aircraft - not structural strength.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE="Ascent, post: several ww1 aircraft had a single spar lower wing albatross dv dva (d5 d5a) being just one example and yes it caused problems


----------



## Peter Gunn (Jun 17, 2016)

stona said:


> That's not an answer. I asked for evidence, the one thing you have provided remarkably little of in any respect. In fact I haven't seen an archive reference or even name or book title in any of your posts. You can't expect me to take seriously an argument you propose when you give me no means of checking the validity of the sources on which you base it.
> 
> Hearsay and recollection is very unreliable. For example, more than 100 people gave evidence to say they were attacked by US fighters following the bombing of Dresden, but we can prove that this was not so.
> 
> ...




Totally Agree, hell, I got feet and yards mixed up in my post yesterday and I should know better.


----------



## Ascent (Jun 17, 2016)

rednev said:


> [QUOTE="gumbyk, post: What WW1 types had a single-spar wing (excepting, of course very early ones that utilised wing-warping)
> WW1 aircraft range/endurance was limited by the load of fuel, which was in turn a function of the power and speed of the aircraft - not structural strength.


[QUOTE="Ascent, post: several ww1 aircraft had a single spar lower wing albatross dv dva (d5 d5a) being just one example and yes it caused problems[/QUOTE]

This is kind of my point. I'm quite willing to believe that a single spar in the Spitfire may have caused issues with twisting of the wing although it's not something i'd heard before but in the very same paragraph he talks about issues with landing accidents in an aircraft considered easy to land. And this in a thread about the 109 which actually had an issue with the geometry of the landing gear causing problems.

How can I believe the wing twisting when I know the rest is nonsense?


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 17, 2016)

I believe there was a potential problem with wing twisting although the speed at which it was calculated to happen was 525mph if memory serves. Now the calculation could be off and they had problems at lower speeds but hardly at normal level speeds, especially for the majority of the early Spitfires. At any rate I think some of the later ones got the wing beefed up a bit. The MK. 21 and later may have had an aileron reversal speed of over 800 mph (calculated of course).
Perhaps one of our Spitfire experts could correct me.


----------



## ww2restorer (Jun 17, 2016)

Shortround6 said:


> Another great myth. The British (and French) ordered (or explored) P-38 variants not only without turbochargers but with the same long nose engines used in the early P-40s instead of the Spur gear engines used in the the early P-38s. They did this in the interest of simplifying the spare engine/spare parts situation. Allison Factory was over 3000 miles away. it also meant the engines both rotated the same direction.
> Simple deleting the turbos would have left the counter rotating engines and offered an extra 100hp for take-off at the cost of really poor high altitude performance. (early P-38s used 6.44 supercharger gears).
> I would also note that the British got approval to order the "secret" turbocharges by June 5th of 1940 and ordered 524 MK II Lightings with turbos on that date.



Interesting, not what is written in many records of the p38, even my late friend Robin Olds writes in his book about the P322 that were rejected p38 from the UK, also points out they did not have counter rotating props. The US also in the earlier period of the war did not want the turbo charger variant flying over Europe, they thought they were the only people with turbocharged or supercharged engines, guess they never knew much about the spitfire, hurricane, bf109 etc. etc.


----------



## stona (Jun 17, 2016)

The Spitfire wing did have two spars, despite the fact that Mitchell himself described it as a 'single spar' design. The rear spar is usually described as a secondary or auxiliary spar. The strength of the Spitfire wing comes from the forward main spar and the 'D' box attached to the front of it. Much of the credit for this structure, and its position so far forward in the wing should go to Faddy, Smith ("a very good structures man"), Fenner, Clifton and Fear who were rather left to get on with it by Shenstone!
There were some issues with the Spitfire wing twisting at high speed when ailerons were used, much is made of this and even an aileron reversal issue, most of which is exaggeration, to be polite.

It seems odd with the benefit of hindsight, that in the letter written by Mitchell to Shenstone on 10th June 1931, in which he offered the man who would go on to be the Spitfire's chief aerodynamicist two months temporary employment at £45 per month, this very issue was mentioned.

_"We were hoping that you would have had rather more experience on the constructional side of monoplane wings, and would be able to supply us with information regarding the necessary degree of stiffness to avoid wing flutter and reversal of aileron control; also the stresses to be developed in corrugated coverings. However we are of the opinion that your aeronautical knowledge may be of assistance to us."_

Mitchell must have known that Shenstone had been working for Junkers and certainly did have information regarding 'corrugated coverings'. He seems to be a little disingenuous on this point 

This also shows that years before the Spitfire was designed and built the men at Supernmarine were well aware of this potential problem in high speed monoplanes.

Cheers

Steve

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 17, 2016)

Shooter8 said:


> Yes, I agree! But once again, I did not start the P-40 argument, but certainly did contribute to it. So did others. I have a valid point to make about how to improve the Me-109. See;
> Me-109 images - Google Search



*I believe that one of our members created some of those drawings as a fantasy page. Sir, you are one of the most delusional people to come on this forum in a very long time. Please start posting some DOCUMENTED FACTS in lieu of some opinionated fantasy bullshit. It's quite apparent you're wearing thin on many of the members here.*

Reactions: Like Like:
4 | Like List reactions


----------



## Glider (Jun 17, 2016)

Shooter8 said:


> This is all true, but not relevant. The original premise, not stated by me, was that the P-40 would have made a better option for the RAF, if they had been bought before the BoB. All I did was agree with and defend that point of view!


A combat ready P40 didn't exist at the BOB so you can buy what you like, but all it would be is a very expensive flaming coffin for the pilots that flew it.
The Hurricane for all its faults were more agile, climbed better, had armour, self sealing fuel tanks and more firepower than the first P40's. As an aside they also had better radios and sights. I can guarantee that the pilots would consider these advantages relevant, you can consider these irrelevant, but they wouldn't.


----------



## Glider (Jun 17, 2016)

Shooter8 said:


> It depends entirely on the weapon launching it! because the mounts in the Spit's wings were so flimsy, the dispersion out of the gun, which would normally shoot less than 4 MOA, was 1.1 Meters, or 44 inches at 100 yards!
> The exact same gun mounted more ridgedly in the Hurricane wing shot into less than 9" at 100 yards, plus the guns were grouped into a single battery where the bullet streams of all four guns were parallel to one another and thus much more effective at much longer ranges, typically Zeroed at 250 Yards rather than the Spit's 200.
> The guns in the P-40 were typically Zeroed at 400 yards, but the CL mounted .50s were effective at twice that range.
> PS, I have a friend at the Club who has a Lee Enfield Sniper rifle in .303 that shoots crap ammo into less than 1.5" at 100 yards! His own, hand loaded match ammo goes into less than 3/4"! So it all depends on the platform.


Do you have any supporting information for these claims?


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 17, 2016)

Since ALL major aircraft engines, at least those making over 750hp and many under that had a supercharger of some sort. 
Unfortunately for some historians the terms _supercharger_ and_ turbosupercharger _ were sometimes used interchangeably. Perhaps it was implied/understood that the reader/listener understood that they were referring to a two stage system?


----------



## GrauGeist (Jun 17, 2016)

Shooter8 said:


> In fact, no European plane actually entered Service with a *Turbocharger* during WW-II!


Do diesels count? (Jumo207)


----------



## wuzak (Jun 17, 2016)

Shooter8 said:


> While much is made of the "Aileron Reversal" problem, very few people understand that it is not something that suddenly happens, but gradually intrudes into the performance as the speed increases. So while the Spit is very easy to fly at 100-165 MPH, by the time you get to 200 the twisting wing starts to reduce the rate of roll enough that it starts to become a problem. By 250 MPH it has reduced the rate of roll enough to make high speed dog fights very dangerous with the Me-109, IF the Messer's pilot knew his business. And that was a very big IF in the prior sentence. Even after all of the various "Strengthening" projects, it took an entirely new wing WO the fancy elliptical planform to make the Spit competitive with 4-5 year old planes! One of the "Critical" design objectives stated in the contract was to to make the Spit's rate of roll a world beater, instead of last place!



I've not seen anything that suggests that the Bf 109 was a good roller.

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/naca868-rollchart.jpg

The Spitfire's rate of roll could be improved simply by cliping he wing. By doing so, the rate of roll was improved by a large amount. And that didn't require strengthening of the wing. The wing clipping was achieved by unbolting the standard wing tips and bolting on a new set.

The downside was that the rate of climb, turn rate and altitude performance were worse. So it was a trade off.

The Spitfire III prototype in 1940 was to have the clipped wings.

The VII, VIII, XIV and XVIII had a new wing which was identical in shape, but strengthened with alterations to the internal structure and thicker skins.

The 20-series Spitfires had a new wing, but the plan form was largely the same - only the tips and ailerons were substantially different.

The big advantage the Bf 109 had during the BoB was the fuel injection. To dive all the pilot had to do was push the nose over. The Spitfire pilot had to roll 180° and then dive if he was to avoid, potentially, starving the carburetor from the negative G force.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 17, 2016)

I would also note that roll response was improved even on the early versions (MK I-V?) by fitting metal covered ailerons instead of fabric covered. Hardly what one would expect if the wing itself was flopping around.


----------



## GrauGeist (Jun 17, 2016)

Shooter8 said:


> The -109 was famous for it's lack of in-flight adjustable trim tabs that most of it's competitors had before 1940, or 1941.


Wrong.
If you take the time to look at a Bf109 cockpit, you'll see the trim wheel on the lower left of the cockpit, next to the flap adjustment.

The Elevator was trimmable, not the ailerons.



Shooter8 said:


> The next largest source of dead pilots and wrecked planes is tail dragger landing gear! We knew that here and Specified Tricycle gear on many new prototypes before and during the early part of the war before the bean counters made them change for reasons of "Economy"!!! ( P38-39-77, just to name a few.) The Germans knew it too. They spec'd tricycle gear for the Me-309 and wide track gear for both versions of the Me-209 because they knew the original set up was a turd on a platter!


That is a myth. Inexperience is the biggest killer of pilots, not conventional versus tricycle gear.

You know how many U.S. fighters had tricycle gear? 2 

That's two out of the eight types that the U.S. forces used during the war.

The Spitfire's maingear was as narrow as the Bf109, just set at a different camber. The Bf109's gear simplified production and contributed to a reduction in weight. It also allowed the Bf109 additional options for transport and it allowed extensive servicing without additional maintenance equipment.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## ww2restorer (Jun 17, 2016)

Shooter8 said:


> None of those European planes ever had Turbo-Superchargers! In fact, no European plane actually entered Service with a Turbocharger during WW-II! Turbochargers were incredibly hard to make well enough to last more than a few minutes at take off power! We were right to worry about the secrecy of the technology. The Germans and Japanese both tried to build them and took more than a year, or two to get to the point where they had prototypes that might be able to fly under TC Power by the time the War ended!



Being an Aeronautical engineer, I am very aware of the difference between the turbocharger and supercharger. FYI all aircraft of the time whether they had a turbocharger or supercharger had a short limit on the hours in service. This is where the term 'Written off' comes from. Nowhere in my post did I state turbo-supercharger, I stated turbocharger *OR* supercharger! If no European aircraft did not have superchargers, then come to my hangar my friend and you can take them out of our spitfires', also the BF109 had a supercharger, if you are familiar with the motor it is bolted on the left hand side. If my memory doesn't fail me the only ww2 motor that had a turbo-supercharger was a turbo compound radial, late in the conflict. I enjoy your fantasy post of continued rubbish.


----------



## gjs238 (Jun 17, 2016)

ww2restorer said:


> Being an Aeronautical engineer, I am very aware of the difference between the turbocharger and supercharger. FYI all aircraft of the time whether they had a turbocharger or supercharger had a short limit on the hours in service. This is where the term 'Written off' comes from. Nowhere in my post did I state turbo-supercharger, I stated turbocharger *OR* supercharger! If no European aircraft did not have superchargers, then come to my hangar my friend and you can take them out of our spitfires', also the BF109 had a supercharger, if you are familiar with the motor it is bolted on the left hand side. If my memory doesn't fail me the only ww2 motor that had a turbo-supercharger was a turbo compound radial, late in the conflict. I enjoy your fantasy post of continued rubbish.



The P-38, P-43 and P-47 had turbo-superchargers.
Plus the B-17, B-24, B-29 and B-32.


----------



## ww2restorer (Jun 17, 2016)

you are correct gjs238, however not all p38s had turbochargers, they were called the p322, had no TCs and both motors turned in the same direction.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 17, 2016)

ww2restorer said:


> you are correct gjs238, however not all p38s had turbochargers, they were called the p322, had no TCs and both motors turned in the same direction.



And they made up a very minor percentage of the P-38s built. Like 143 out of over 10,000. Around 120 of the 322 were refitted with counter rotating engines when used as trainers by the US.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 17, 2016)

The books are by "Anthony G. Williams and Emmanuel Gustin". 

The book on WW II does show a dispersion pattern for the Spitifire but makes NO claims as to _why _the the guns showed that dispersion. Strangely enough (or not) ALL the guns show the same dispersion (group size) at the same distance which is hardly what one would expect from a "floppy" wing. Perhaps the British _intended _the mounts to be loose, I don't know. 
There is also *zero *reference to Hurricane in regards to numbers or patterns of dispersion or group sizes in the book. 
If I am wrong please give page numbers.


----------



## Airframes (Jun 18, 2016)

Yes, a .50 cal will certainly do a lot more damage than a dozen .303 rounds - but the aircraft armed with those weapons has to get into position to lay those rounds on target, which I doubt a P-40, any P-40, could have done, successively, and successfully, in the skies over the Channel or the UK, in the summer of 1940.


----------



## Glider (Jun 18, 2016)

Shooter8 said:


> Just one point out of many, but the P-40 had two .50 calibers HMGs mounted over the engine and so had roughly twice the raw fire power of the eight .303s in the Hurry. Not in numbers of bullets, or even weight of fire, but in effective fire power based on the chance that any single bullet will damage some vital system, or perforate the Armor and kill the pilot. Because at 200 yards, no .303, even one of the rare AP types can perforate the 9 MM thick AR 600 steel plate behind his back, so NONE of the .303s count and all of the .50s do.


As ever you are incorrect. The two 0.50 guns in the nose had their rate of fire reduced to approx. 50% of normal by the synco gear which knocks a large hole in the firepower case for the P40. Also as others have stated tests of the 50 cal in 1940 *could not penetrate the pilots seat of the Me109 from the rear* which knocks an even bigger hole in your case. Its worth remembering that your 1940 P40 had no armour so all the LMG's could easily hit the P40 pilot.
Add the fact the P40 lacked the performance to climb and get in a firing position in the first place and would burn like a torch without the self sealing fuel tanks when hit and you have a death trap.

PS In this post you claim that two 0.5 are equal to approx. sixteen .303. I would like to see some supporting evidence to support that claim. I have seen the USN tests which showed the difference was closer to 4 to 1 when discussing if the rear guns should be either a single 0.5 or twin 0.30 in naval divebombers.


----------



## rochie (Jun 18, 2016)

Really keep this going, funniest thread on this forum for a long time !

Feel all nostalgic, almost as if Soren and Kafurst are here with us again....

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Winner Winner:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## stona (Jun 18, 2016)

Shooter8 said:


> While much is made of the "Aileron Reversal" problem, very few people understand that it is not something that suddenly happens, but gradually intrudes into the performance as the speed increases. So while the Spit is very easy to fly at 100-165 MPH, by the time you get to 200 the twisting wing starts to reduce the rate of roll enough that it starts to become a problem. By 250 MPH it has reduced the rate of roll enough to make high speed dog fights very dangerous with the Me-109, IF the Messer's pilot knew his business. And that was a very big IF in the prior sentence. Even after all of the various "Strengthening" projects, it took an entirely new wing WO the fancy elliptical planform to make the Spit competitive with 4-5 year old planes! One of the "Critical" design objectives stated in the contract was to to make the Spit's rate of roll a world beater, instead of last place!



I'm not even going to grace that bull shit with a reply, except to say that the Spitfire wing is not an elliptical planform. 

Lance Cole can explain better than me.

_"The Spitfire's wing is, in fact, composed of two differing elliptical sections of equal span, with different root chords, that have been woven together in a unique manner. It is a deliberately distorted, pulled or swept forward ellipse.This was the first use of such a deliberately distorted ellipse, one very different from earlier elliptical wings circa 1925-1933. The forward sweep took the shape near to a part crescent shape; adding an effective forward sweep enhanced the ideal elliptic flow patterns and span loadings. This added quality also meant that when the wing was twisted_ [he's talking about 'washout here] _the adverse effect upon the low induced drag qualities of the basic ellipse, which wing twist would normally impose, were lessened. Outside the wing centre line, the two ellipsoidal elements are asymmetrical, they do not match in the manner of a normal elliptical wing (they are not a mirror image). The Spitfire's almost ellipse is a parabolic geometric sculpture that is hand crafted, actually invented in terms of both its shape and also its varying aerofoils.
This is the *essential* difference between the Spitfire's ellipse and any other ellipse of the time and specifically that of the He 70. The two are *not* generally similar in planform - as Shenstone himself pointed out."
_
Emphasis (my bold) in original.

A little more aerodynamic analysis rather than internet based opinion based on hot air.

_"Getting the main spar forwards, towards the leading edge and making it unswept against its fuselage pick up points, imparted great strength against failure or twisting under high dynamic loads. Working in conjunction with the aerodynamics meant that the upward bending of the wing's centre of lift was also optimised inboard, for structural needs to reduce bending loads....
Modifying the basic ellipse created a wing with the best aerodynamics of all worlds, across a far wider set of speed and incidence values than even the normal ellipse could deliver. Shenstone tuned the mean aerodynamic centre from the outcome of joining two different elliptical sections together, balancing lift with the needs of strength. He refined the aerodynamic lift within a wing of multiple curves and two different aerofoils, and made sure that the purer, more effective elliptical lift retained its efficiency despite the addition of a touch of wing twist, 'washout'. Every aspect, from downwash to wing to fuselage interaction was calculated, plotted, sculpted and tuned to the highest degree of efficiency possible. Shenstone created a high speed wing that also worked at very low speed for take off and landing, without any need for leading edge lift improvement devices. This was a remarkable achievement."
_
Sadly, I doubt you are taking any of this onboard, so much easier to stick with uneducated opinion and prejudice. You will notice that whilst I might be pointing out your errors and the real properties of the Spitfire and its wing, at no time have I denigrated the Bf 109, another very good aircraft of the period. People often make rather futile comparisons between, say, the Spitfire I and Bf 109 E. There was little to choose between the two, but that answer doesn't pander to the prejudices and ill informed opinion of the uneducated....shame really.

Cheers

Steve

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
3 | Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## rochie (Jun 18, 2016)

stona said:


> I'm not even going to grace that bull shit with a reply, except to say that the Spitfire wing is not an elliptical planform.
> 
> Lance Cole can explain better than me.
> 
> ...


Thank you Steve, you said all i wanted to but with much more knowlage and insight than i have.


----------



## stona (Jun 18, 2016)

Whilst we are on the subject of structural strength I though it might be interesting to see a Luftwaffe pilot's the opinion of the Bf 109 F expressed in the report of his post capture interrogation. The pilot is not named, but if you have access to the report, the list of questions to be asked, and Bader's request to fly the captured aircraft, then you don't have to be Sherlock Holmes to work out that he is Rolf Pingel, fresh from helpfully delivering his virtually intact Bf 109 F to the British.







Bader for one was aware that there was a perceived problem of potential structural failure among Luftwaffe pilots and described his adversaries as being a bit "porky" on the stick when pulling out of a dive going very fast. It was a weakness he felt a well flown Spitfire could exploit. This is the point really, both aircraft had relative strengths and weaknesses, maximising your strengths and exploiting your enemy's weaknesses was the way to prevail in aerial combat. Very few pilots on any side were capable of doing this.

Other pilots had been killed when they tore the entire empennage of the Bf 109 F. This was cured initially by external strengthening, later by an internal fix.

Cheers

Steve


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 18, 2016)

Airframes said:


> Yes, a .50 cal will certainly do a lot more damage than a dozen .303 rounds - but the aircraft armed with those weapons has to get into position to lay those rounds on target, which I doubt a P-40, any P-40, could have done, successively, and successfully, in the skies over the Channel or the UK, in the summer of 1940.



No it won't. It has the _potential _of doing about 4-5 times the damage given the right placement. However a dozen.303 rounds have the _potential of _hitting a lot more things_. _Radio/s, oxygen tanks, control runs, radiators, etc. including structural parts. And yes, .a 303 bullet can penetrate/perforate some structural parts like fuselage frames. Please note in the drawing below that the pilots back (but not head and neck) are also protected by the fuel tank meaning the super .50 doesn't really get a clear shot at the back armor. ANY projectile coming from a narrow arc from the rear has to negotiate a path through the aircraft skin, perhaps other obstacles, two side of the fuel tank (probably empty in the pilots back area) before reaching the armor. .303 rounds were quite capable of making holes or at least large cracks in cast aluminium (or elektron alloy) engine parts, they didn't need to hit _just _radators or coolant lines to make coolant leaks.


----------



## Airframes (Jun 18, 2016)

I agree - my statement was a very 'open' comparison against the .50 cal round.
Note that, on the Bf109E, at least, the back armour was aft of the tank, in line with the frame, and was in two halves, split vertically.
BTW, the .303 round was indeed capable of doing a_ lot _of damage - I've put one (standard, jacketed ball round) through a car engine block at a range of 150 meters.


----------



## Graeme (Jun 18, 2016)

Airframes said:


> I've put one (standard, jacketed ball round) through a car engine block at a range of 150 meters.



And I'm sure that engine block deserved it Terry! 
Never good to be on the receiving end of Rule 303...


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 18, 2016)

Shooter8 said:


> Do you think that raising the cockpit to yield at least 7 Degrees of view down over the nose would not cure one of the planes most glaring weaknesses?



Yep, raising the cockpit would help the view, which is sort of an admission that the view was none to good for deflection shooting to begin with. You earlier claimed an angle of attack of well over 14 degrees for the 109 when defection shooting. If the angle of view was under 7 degrees that means that any such shooting was done "blind". Hitting what you can't see with a gun is called (technical term here) SHI* LUCK. Raised canopy means more drag. 



Shooter8 said:


> In addition it would have given the plane between 8-15% more thrust for a >7% increase in speed! 393 to 421, or 452 in the K to 485 MPH, isn't that a useful increase in performance?



Oh boy, back to the technical BS. In the real world increases in speed for aircraft were subject to the cube rule, at least for speeds lower than than the approach to compressability. Disregarding this drag rise near compressability an increase of 7% in speed needs about 22% increase in power or thrust, everything else being equal. 
Expecting an increase in thrust of between 8-15% at the time of WW II from a contra-rotating propeller is like believing in the tooth fairy.
For instance, an F4U-4 experimental installation replaced the normal 667 lb 4-blade, 13 foot diameter Hamilton Standard Hydromatic prop with a 864lb 6 blade 12'7" Aeroproducts contra rotating prop. The plane was 6mph slower at 26,000ft and lost 600fpm in climb. 
There were two P-72s using the P-4360 engine, one with a 4 blade prop and one with a 13'7" contra-rotating prop. Both exhibited similar speed (about 490mph at 25,000ft ?) but the plane with Contra-prop crashed early in the test program (in flight fire, nothing to do with the prop).

SOurce: http://www.enginehistory.org/Convention/2009/Presentations/AP_Piston.pdf

Contra-rotating props were used to convert large amounts of power to thrust when conventional propellers could not do the job, ie they would be too large or tip speeds would be excessive. They are heavy, and expensive. 
A 109 doesn't really need more weight on the nose and froma production stand point every contra prop is worth at least two normal propellers. 

I have a couple of really great ideas for improving the 109, _MY_ version would run on _dilithium crystals_ solving the the german fuel problem and use a photon torpedo firing through the propeller hub instead of a conventional cannon thereby insuring the destruction of any target aircraft with a single hit!!!!!

Stands about as much chance of being built in 1944 as shooters proposal.

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## stona (Jun 18, 2016)

Shooting down the Bf 109 E or Ju 87 or even the Bf 110 doesn't seem to have been a problem for the .303 armed eight gun fighters of the RAF. 
Inflicting sufficient damage to bring down the ever more heavily armoured bombers, which were after all the primary target, in the limited firing time available, did present a problem. Even damage which might ultimately have brought an aircraft down was often insufficient to prevent it reaching the other side of the Channel, only 20-30 miles away.
I have seen it written that many Luftwaffe aircraft were written off after landing back on the continent, if not at their bases, but can't find a figure to confirm this.
Cheers
Steve

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 18, 2016)

Shooter8 said:


> So, instead of calling names, why don't we discuss the merits of each of those ideas about how to improve the M-109?
> .


 The name calling is due to your unsubstantiated BS - you could fantasize all day but when I see other members getting pissed off it becomes my concern. You've been warned once, there won't be a second.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## drgondog (Jun 18, 2016)

I do believe Greg nailed it - Neocon or his other brother has returned to grace this forum with a wagonload of bovine fecal matter.

Letting him stir you up is a sad thing.

Reactions: Like Like:
4 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Jun 18, 2016)

drgondog said:


> I do believe Greg nailed it - Neocon or his other brother has returned to grace this forum with a wagonload of bovine fecal matter.
> 
> Letting him stir you up is a sad thing.


I wouldn't say he's stirring anyone up, but look at the mountain of good (and factual) information he's being buried with!

Makes for an informative read for those who are looking for information and it also provides a laugh when you read "shooter's" fantasy posts.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## stona (Jun 18, 2016)

I think this may have been covered in this forum before, but since I can't find my posts I will reiterate here.
Fitting a larger tail, making minor alterations to the wing, changing engines and associated systems, altering the canopy design/framing were things that were done to the Bf 109 relatively easily and with no major impediment to production. It was poor management that led to the large variety of sub types being built at the various plants and another failure of management that this was never really fixed. Being bombed into next week probably didn't help 
Changing the fuselage structure, as in for example manufacturing a 'low back' version would be something quite different. The structure of the Bf 109 fuselage comprised sections with formed edges, effectively inbuilt frames, and then other sections which fitted between them. This gives the segmented structure sometimes erroneously emphasised by modellers (the joins were filled with what the Vultee engineers, examining a Bf 110, unhelpfully describe as a material 'like glazers putty'). To create a 'low back' Spitfire required altering two fuselage frames and a handful of skins. To create a 'low back' Bf 109 would involve completely redesigning a large section of the fuselage and retooling to press and roll the elements concerned.
Another point to consider, given the small fuselage of the Bf 109, is where various important and bulky items would go. Most obviously difficult to move would be the MW 50 tank behind the pilot, but there are many others.
This is a bugbear of mine, people proposing alterations willy-nilly with no appreciation of just how difficult they would be to realise, how long they would require to be tested and proven, and the effect on series production.
For example when the British first tested the jettisoning of a 'clear view' hood on a low back Spitfire they discovered all sorts of unforeseen problems, not least the hood tearing the fuselage skin and then striking the fin! 
Cheers
Steve

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Jun 18, 2016)

From Bungays "The most dangerous enemy" discussing losses before 12 August 1940. 

"But the aircraft most vulnerable of all to British fighters was the Bf109.RAF pilots managed to get a bead on 70 of them and of those they destroyed 54, some 77% a markedly higher destruction ratio than the 63% the BF109's achieved in return. This may be because damaged machines had further to fly to make it home and force landed in England or ditched and so were lost. But it also looks as if Spitfires and Hurricanes were even more deadly than the Bf109 itself, and that in fighter combat their eight brownings were at least as destructive as the two cannon and two machine guns of the the Bf109E."

Spitfires and Hurricanes removed the Stuka from the BoB due to prohibitive losses, they stopped raids from Norway by Bf110 escorted bombers due to prohibitive losses. Towards the end of the battle raids on London had bomber to escort ratios of 1:4 to prevent heavier bomber losses. Call the BoB a victory or a draw as you like the fact is that Spitfire and Hurricanes with 8 RCMGs were able to down bombers, dive bombers and fighters throughout the conflict, that is why the LW had to eventually give up.

Rubbishing the Spitfire and Hurricane does nothing to enhance the reputation of the Bf 109, for my tuppence they were the two greats of the conflict, they both stayed at the front line of service between the bi plane and jet ages. Between the two the latest model may have given an advantage but throughout the war they remained a dangerous adversary to one another, situation and pilot skill was usually the deciding factor when they met.

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## GregP (Jun 18, 2016)

I like that Bill ... "bovine fecal matter." A politically correct phrase, if ever there was one. At this point his analysis of the Spitfire looks to be "up the unsanitary tributary without proper means of propulsion," or up shit creek without a paddle in English rather than political language.

Sorry, couldn't resist being slightly politically correct back. Too much fun ...

I'm sure both British and German pilots of the time would be both surprised and amazed at the same time to learn the Spitfire was useless at 250 mph due to aileron reversal! I know I am amazed since they roll quite nicely at that speed and higher in our airshow every year. I bet several former Luftwaffe pilots are wondering how it is they got shot sown by such a useless aircraft. Naturally they all thought the Mk XIV was a dog! A Rottweiler, to be sure, but that IS a dog.

I need a pint to think about this new information. I was under the impression is was quite superlative, aside from the tendency to nose over after every flight. But that first flight was a humdinger, just before the inevitable prop strike. That's why they went to 5 blades, so some would survive undamaged, to be used again in new props.

This reminds me of the fun we had when a new poster complained about the Gremans (instead of the Germans), and we made up complete Greman war history, with much fervor and tales of stupidity that nobody could disprove with any facts.

Hey Steve, are you sure they couldn't just use a saw for the low back 109? I thought it'd be easy. Well, today we DID spend 4+ hours just getting 6 rivets into VERY inaccessable areas of an old North American O-47, but the 109 was easy, right?

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 18, 2016)

Shooter8 said:


> Neither! My gun club has a 500 M / 600 Yard Range which I use regularly. ( Almost every week!) I used to be a Sniper for the ASA-SOD and I practiced at long range every week that I was not on a mission. I qualified with the M-2 and M-82, and fired thousands of rounds out of them over a 20 year period. Did you know that the standard soft lead cored 710 grain .50 Cal bullet will perforate a rigidly mounted 3/8" AR500 armor steel plate at 600 yards? I have done it more than a few times. Heck, my .300 RUM with a 180 grain Ballistic Tip will do it at 500! Either steel cored AP round from the M-2 will perforate steel armor plates the thickness of which you would not believe at ranges you will swear it could not be done. ( Like 3/4" AR 500 at 300 Meters!)



And all of that irrelevent unless you were doing it at 20,000 ft, 250 kts and yanking and banking.

Comparing shooting stationary targetsat a range to shooting at a flying aircraft hell bent on getting away from you...


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 18, 2016)

Shooter8 said:


> While much is made of the "Aileron Reversal" problem, very few people understand that it is not something that suddenly happens, but gradually intrudes into the performance as the speed increases. So while the Spit is very easy to fly at 100-165 MPH, by the time you get to 200 the twisting wing starts to reduce the rate of roll enough that it starts to become a problem. By 250 MPH it has reduced the rate of roll enough to make high speed dog fights very dangerous with the Me-109, IF the Messer's pilot knew his business. And that was a very big IF in the prior sentence. Even after all of the various "Strengthening" projects, it took an entirely new wing WO the fancy elliptical planform to make the Spit competitive with 4-5 year old planes! One of the "Critical" design objectives stated in the contract was to to make the Spit's rate of roll a world beater, instead of last place!


Provide your reference for this (holding nose from stench of bovine fecal matter)

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Milosh (Jun 18, 2016)

Considering your quote by Shooter, err NeoCon, Adler and the 'stories' he has told already, I would say that is also a 'story'.


----------



## pbehn (Jun 18, 2016)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> And all of that irrelevent unless you were doing it at 20,000 ft, 250 kts and yanking and banking.
> 
> Comparing shooting stationary targets at a range to shooting at a flying aircraft hell bent on getting away from you...




Actually they can do, I was reading about the longest ever sniper kill. A stationary sniper shooting at a stationary target needed "about nine" shots to establish the range in perfect calm conditions, I doubt if he would have taken on the shot if they had be so much as walking.


In November 2009, Harrison consecutively struck two Talibanmachine gunners south of Musa Qala in Helmand Provincein Afghanistan at a range of 2,474 m (2,706 yd) using a L115A3 Long Range Rifle.[4][5][6][7][8] In a BBC interview, Harrison reported it took about nine shots for him and his spotter to range the target. Then, he reported, his first shot "on target" was a killing shot followed consecutively by a kill shot on a second machine gunner. 
Craig Harrison (sniper) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 18, 2016)

Shooter8 said:


> How about if I fly along in a helicopter at 5000' and hose sharks basking in the Gulf of Tonkin with an M-60?



I call BS!

The effective range of the M-60 is 1200 yards. 5000ft is 1600 + yards. Then you have to take into account the effect of the rotorwash and the wind caused by the moving aircraft. All of this with a suppression weapon.

Before you go any further, I was a US Army helo Crew Chief/Door Gunner and used the M-60.

Take your _"No shit there I was..."_ story somewhere else.

Now get on topic. This thread is about the Bf 109. Got it?

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## wuzak (Jun 18, 2016)

Wasn't the Me 209 an attempt to improve the Bf 109?

It had the basic fuselage of the 109 to which it added longer span wings with inward retracting wide track landing gear, an improved canopy, more power, with a DB 603 or Jumo 213, an annular radiator n place of the underwing radiators and a larger tail.

Its performance was disappointing compared to the similarly powered Fw 190D, but certainly some of these features could have been adopted for the Bf 109 (the Erla canopy being one that had already been adopted?).

Some more info about canopy improvements
Strange Experimental Erla Haube-canopy on a Bf 109 (K?)


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 18, 2016)

For such an expert on the .50 cal gun he seems to be unaware that the only difference between AP ammo and "ball" ammo was that the steel core in the ball ammo was plain steel and not hardened while the core in the AP ammo was heat treated (hardened). Both steel cores weighed 402 grains in most batches (subject to production tolerance) there was a lead "filler" in the tip of BOTH projectiles that weighed 56.5 grains. There was no lead core military ammo even at the end of WW I. 
I think somebody ripped him off on the "3/8" AR500 armor steel plate" he shot at 600yds. US government penetration table for the older M1 BALL lists penetration of armor plate at 600yds as 0.2in in 1/4 in plate and a whopping 0.02 in 3/8in armor plate (type not specified). Granted it was lower velocity than M2 Ball but it had the steel core 

Penetrations are averages. Penetration in solid Oak (not planks) averaged 24.3in at 600yds with one maxing out at 33.8in.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 18, 2016)

wuzak said:


> Wasn't the Me 209 an attempt to improve the Bf 109?
> 
> It had the basic fuselage of the 109 to which it added longer span wings with inward retracting wide track landing gear, an improved canopy, more power, with a DB 603 or Jumo 213, an annular radiator n place of the underwing radiators and a larger tail.
> 
> ...



The 209 was an attempted improvement. The goal had been to use something like 60-65% of the structure of the 109 to keep the cost of transitioning hi and speed the conversion of the production lines. As performance fell the number of common parts also fell to around 40% at which point they decided it wasn't worth it.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 18, 2016)

Getting back to the original post and this Passage " Messerschmitt practically ignored the subject of low drag aerodynamics and one can tell that by an inspection of the 109E or G. The fact is evident even in close-up photographs. It was aerodynamically the most inefficient fighter of its time."

We have something of a disconnect in the 109 History. The F model being a very good clean up of the basic design with a major increase in speed and maneuverability using engines of the same power as late model 109Es. For late 1940 and early 1941 the F was one of the more efficient fighters of the time. Unfortunately this was "purchased" in part, by the use of rather light armament for the time. 
With the variety of different G models it gets a little harder to pin down when things start to go pear shaped and aerodynamic cleanliness started going back down hill. The change to the 13mm cowl guns certainly didn't help and the increased weight that required larger tires (and wing bulges) didn't help either. I have no idea if the requirement for a pressure cabin on some of the early "G"s was made easier to meet by the use of the existing side hinge canopy. 
Operational requirements (real life  dictated some of the loss in aerodynamic efficiency so one may have to be careful in what "improvements" are suggested.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 18, 2016)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> I call BS!
> 
> The effective range of the M-60 is 1200 yards. 5000ft is 1600 + yards. Then you have to take into account the effect of the rotorwash and the wind caused by the moving aircraft. All of this with a suppression weapon.
> 
> ...

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## wuzak (Jun 18, 2016)

Could something like the Avia S199's canopy have been a useful improvement for the 109?






http://www.airwar.ru/image/idop/fww2/s199/s199-3.jpg


----------



## GrauGeist (Jun 18, 2016)

wuzak said:


> Could something like the Avia S199's canopy have been a useful improvement for the 109?


How much drag will it produce?

It seems to me, if they retained the Erla Haub and then placed window panels behind the seat armor (like the P-36, P-40, P-47 or P-51A), this may have helped a great deal.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 18, 2016)

Possible, better vision for sure. Plenty of Avia 199 aircraft seem to have had the Galland hood. But then the Avia was pretty much a collection of found parts.

I have no idea if the airflow would have improved or been worse.

http://









head armor was fixed to canopy making opening it a bit of a workout.
Not sure how sliding Malcolm hood canopy deals with head armor.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## BiffF15 (Jun 18, 2016)

Grau,
As narrow as that fuselage was, with armor to look around, it might not have helped to add clear panels.
Cheers,
Biff


----------



## GrauGeist (Jun 18, 2016)

True Biff, but as cramped as the cockpit was, it wouldn't have taken much to add a degree of improved vision.

The Erla Haub was a tremendous help, I can't really think that there would be more that could be done without reworking the fuselage.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Greyman (Jun 18, 2016)

Ernst Udet's opinion - via postwar Wily Messerschmitt interview:

_I recall a story about the famous General Udet, with whom I was on very good terms. When we did the 109, he was the chief of fighter squadrons. One time he came to me and said, "well, I heard about your development of a new fighter airplane, how about letting me see it". That was in 1935, a few days before the first flight of the airplane. So I took Udet into my shop, and he looked at the airplane, shaking his head, and climbed into the cockpit, which was open. He climbed in, and I must say he was one of the most famous World War One pilots, flying biplanes and these open planes. So he climbed into the cockpit and the mechanic closed the canopy and he didn't look enthusiastic at all and we were quite down-hearted. So when he got out, he patted me on the back and said, "Messerschmitt, this will never be a fighting airplane. The pilot needs an open cockpit. He has to feel the air to know the speed of the airplane. And then you'd better put another wing on top, and put a few wires and braces on, and then you'll have a real fighting airplane."_


----------



## tyrodtom (Jun 18, 2016)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> I call BS!
> 
> The effective range of the M-60 is 1200 yards. 5000ft is 1600 + yards. Then you have to take into account the effect of the rotorwash and the wind caused by the moving aircraft. All of this with a suppression weapon.
> 
> ...



I thought what a prime target such helicopter would be for a NVAF Mig.

The Gulf of Tonkin is the body of water off the North Vietnam coast, it doesn't extend down to northern South Vietnam.

I was also a Crew Chief/ doorgunner in Vietnam.

Reactions: Like Like:
4 | Like List reactions


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 19, 2016)

tyrodtom said:


> I thought what a prime target such helicopter would be for a NVAF Mig.
> 
> The Gulf of Tonkin is the body of water off the North Vietnam coast, it doesn't extend down to northern South Vietnam.
> 
> I was also a Crew Chief/ doorgunner in Vietnam.



Very true. I have a good 650+ hours of combat time, and almost all of it was spent 25 to 100 ft over the ground.

Being up at 5000 ft. would just make you a juicy target.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## wuzak (Jun 19, 2016)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Very true. I have a good 650+ hours of combat time, and almost all of it was spent 25 to 100 ft over the ground.
> 
> Being up at 5000 ft. would just make you a juicy target.



Did you ever have so much trouble with sharks that you would use them as target practice?

Or were sharks the last thing you worried about when going to or from a combat zone?

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Airframes (Jun 19, 2016)

At an altitude of 5,000 feet, almost a mile, it would be just about ****ing impossible to see a target worth shooting at with a M60 or any other GMPG, even if the bl**dy thing could reach that far, and get the rounds in the same bl**dy County !!!!
Or was that a M60 _tank_ ??!!!

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Jun 19, 2016)

Would you guys believe that there is a gaming mouse out there, with a model number M60?

It's designed for First Person Shooter (FPS) games and guess what?

It has a dedicated "Sniper" button...

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Funny Funny:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 19, 2016)

Well, that explains a few things.........


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 19, 2016)

Shooter8 said:


> That is why the chart posted later shows the fall off in Rate of Roll at 220 MPH in the standard Spit?



Because you're exceeding Va?!?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 19, 2016)

Shooter8 said:


> And more Spits crashed and burned on take off and landing than were destroyed by enemy action! So what does that say about it's landing gear?


As did just about any tail dragger fighter during WW2, especially during training.


----------



## pbehn (Jun 19, 2016)

Shooter8 said:


> And more Spits crashed and burned on take off and landing than were destroyed by enemy action! So what does that say about it's landing gear?


Rubbish, and I have just re read Bungays "The most dangerous enemy" during the height of the Battle of Britain the accident loss rate of RAF single seat fighters was approximately 20% of all losses, this was high because the RAF were starting night time sorties.


----------



## pbehn (Jun 19, 2016)

Shooter8 said:


> Part 2. Not all planes had short life expectancies when supercharged by any means. By that I mean both blown conventionally and turbo'd.
> .


All combat aeroplanes had a short life expectancy. Tthe RAF rarely had any more than 1000 Spitfires in service. In service spifires with more than 250 hrs were in need of overhaul.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 19, 2016)

Shooter8 said:


> I do not know. I thought we had a better handle on conversion than that here? We alone used two stage training, did we not? First the Bipe, then the mono-wing, then possibly a much faster trainer before finally converting to the actual fighter plane?


It's quite evident you're not a pilot and know little about flight training during WW2 aside what you're reading in books. Tail draggers will ALWAYS have a higher accident rate when operated in a combined fleet. I know of many pilots with thousands of hours of tail dragger time and they have had at least one ground loop. Please understand that some of the members here are actively engaged in aviation, flying or maintaining warbirds.


----------



## pbehn (Jun 19, 2016)

The Spitfire 22/24 is shown here its wing is nothing like a Mustangs, neither was the Spitefuls although it looked more like it.

Supermarine Spitfire (Griffon-powered variants) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

*As soon as they do that, why all the "beautiful" handling the Spit was famous for goes away and it was a trade off and they chose to limit manufacture of Spit's with clipped wings to those intended to chase buzz bombs.*
Here is a pic of a Spitfire tipping a V1, the V1 was famous for its very low roll rate and the spit has its wing tip on.
http://www.vcepinc.org/RareWWIIphotos.htm


----------



## pbehn (Jun 19, 2016)

Shooter8 said:


> And you do not think that was much higher than the enemy's kills?
> Could you, for the record, please post a list of Spit losses from all sources for all here to see? Preferably broken down by periods?


No, why should I. Your claim is ridiculous, as with all your claims. You conclusively prove that the Luftwaffe won the Bttle of Britain with all your posts, the fact is they didnt. In peacetime almost al losses are to accidents, when in combat during the BoB the losses to accidents of all types was 20% and as I said that is all accidents not just take off and landing when night time activites were starting.


----------



## pbehn (Jun 19, 2016)

Shooter8 said:


> Almost all true. Not all combat planes had such short life expectancies! That most combat planes failed to last that long is very true! But their life "Expectancies" in some cases were very much higher! While most R-R built Merlins had a "Life Expectancy" of 150 hours, most lasted much less than half that, at least early in the war, while the early Allison had a LE of 1,000 hours and might last 300, or more. All of this depending on how they were used. Full throttle could shorten any engines life to minutes, not hours and this was/is a fact of life. But actual life and expected life were two very different things for the most part and should not be confused.


Yes combat planes that werent in combat lasted longer than those that didnt you have hopped from the 109 to the P40 to the Spitfire and now were are into Allison powered planes.


----------



## GrauGeist (Jun 19, 2016)

Reading is fundamental...

GrauGeist said: ↑
Wrong.
If you take the time to look at a Bf109 cockpit, you'll see the trim wheel on the lower left of the cockpit, next to the flap adjustment.

The Elevator was trimmable, not the ailerons. Or the Rudder! Which was a much larger problem. As the thrust, and thus speed changes the amount of Rudder off set must change. In the 109 this is done buy the Pilot stomping his foot on the rudder pedal and holding it there with as much as 150 pounds of force depending on how fast he was going in the dive! At "normal" cruising speeds it was little more than half that much force, but still a pain in the rear.
*150 pounds of force? Really?*

That is a myth. Inexperience is the biggest killer of pilots, not conventional versus tricycle gear. This is simple not true at all! Look up a comprehensive list of German Ace Pilots and their causes of death. Mike Spik wrote one of the best and it's only a buck or so on Amazon! ( Plus $3.99 S&H!)
*Do you know what an Ensign killer is? No, of course you don't...silly me for asking.*

You know how many U.S. fighters had tricycle gear? 2 Almost RIGHT, it was actually over 20,000, but much more importantly, how many foreign planes in full service before 1945 had it? ZERO! Do not bring up the Me-262 as it hardly reached full service even by wars end.
*Let's see:
P-38
P-39 (excluding the tail-dragger prototype made for the USN)
That's two.
And yes, we CAN use the Me262, as it was a mass-manufactured heavy fighter that saw significant action during the latter half of the war. Then there was the He162, He219 and Ta154...all used in a fighter/night fighter capacity. Some saw more action than others, but all were built, used and in the process of being mass manufactured by war's end. *


That's two out of the eight types that the U.S. forces used during the war. But it was 20,000 and we made over 100,000 total! Except for the Germans, no other country made 30,000 fighters and we made more planes with Tricycle gear than the RAF made Spitfires during the war. Also many of our late war planes were tail draggers because of government forced economics, not choices.
*As I said, eight TYPES, not production units. If you want to engage in a discussion, learn before you speak.
Let me help you grasp the meaning of types:
F4F Wildcat
F6F Hellcat
F4U Corsair
P-38 Lightning
P-39 Airacobra
P-40 Tomahawk/Kittyhawk/Warhawk
P-47 Thunderbolt
P-51 Mustang
Here's your eight primary TYPES used by U.S. forces during the course of the war. Note that TWO of the TYPES listed had tricycle gear, six out of the eight TYPES did not.*

*Not really that difficult to understand for most people...*

The Spitfire's maingear was as narrow as the Bf109, just set at a different camber. The Bf109's gear simplified production and contributed to a reduction in weight. It also allowed the Bf109 additional options for transport and it allowed extensive servicing without additional maintenance equipment.
And more Spits crashed and burned on take off and landing than were destroyed by enemy action! So what does that say about it's landing gear?
*It says the same thing as does any other TYPE in the hands of inexperience: ground errors.

Now provide some factual references to the amount of Spitfires involved in landing/takeoff incidents versus enemy action...I'll be looking forward to your sources.*

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 19, 2016)

Shooter8 said:


> *I was actively engaged in flying, maintaining and building from scratch many aircraft*. I was an EAA Menber, I flew at every Base that had a Flying Club and often rented interesting planes on the open market after leaving the Service and becoming an "Independent Contractor and Civilian Consultant to the DoD, State Department and Various foreign governments" when I had such "Disposable income" that I could afford it.
> As to your post, I would not think that different Squadrons with different types of planes would constitute a "Combined fleet", but that is just my opinion?



With that said, I'm amazed by your response, it seems you know little about flying a tail dragger


----------



## stona (Jun 19, 2016)

Re: Clipped wing Spitfires. Why don't we use a few established facts (from Boscombe Down) rather than rather vague suppositions .
This had absolutely nothing to do with chasing V-1s.
First tests, with a Spitfire V, were conducted in November 1942, long before any V-1s had been launched.
The effect on performance was established by comparative trials and is not as significant as has been suggested above.
Time to 10,000ft increased from 3.7 minutes to 3.9 minutes. Time to 20,000ft increased from 7.4 to 7.9 minutes.
The aircraft were intended for operation at lower altitudes and the service ceiling fell to 36,200ft from 38,000ft.
Maximum speed was measured at several altitudes from 17,000ft to 26,000ft and barely changed.
It was a simple matter to change the wingtip on any war time Mark of Spitfire. It was common practice to remove them and put them in the cockpit for transport!
Cheers
Steve


----------



## pbehn (Jun 19, 2016)

Shooter8 said:


> You are right and I was wrong! This is the new wing I refer to;
> http://www.aviastar.org/pictures/england/supermarine_spiteful.gif
> I was confused by the existence of so many Mk-#s that I just blew it completely!
> I am sorry and you are right.


You are still wrong, the Spiteful wing did not copy the Mustang. There were so many marques of the Spitfire because it had to fight a war from 1939 to 1945 against opponents like the Me109 and Fw190 in addition to taking down bombers.

from wiki

By 1942, Supermarine designers had realised that the characteristics of the Spitfire's wing at high Mach numbersmight become a limiting factor in increasing the aircraft's high-speed performance. The main problem was theaeroelasticity of the Spitfire's wing; at high speeds the relatively light structure behind the strong leading edge torsion box would flex, changing the airflow and limiting the maximum safe diving speed to 480 mph (772 km/h)IAS.[nb 1] If the Spitfire were to be able to fly higher and faster, a radically new wing would be needed.[1]

Joseph Smith and the design team were aware of a paper on compressibility, published by A D Young of theR.A.E, in which he described a new type of wing section; the maximum thickness and camber would be much nearer to the mid-chord than conventional airfoils and the nose section of this airfoil would be close to an ellipse.[nb 2] In November 1942, Supermarine issued Specification No 470 which (in part) stated:

A new wing has been designed for the Spitfire with the following objects: 1) To raise as much as possible the critical speed at which drag increases, due to compressibility, become serious. 2) To obtain a rate of roll faster than any existing fighter. 3) To reduce wing profile drag and thereby improve performance.

The wing area has been reduced from 242 sq ft (22.5 m2) to 210 sq ft (20 m2) and a thickness chord ratio of 13% has been used over the inner wing where the equipment is stored. Outboard the wing tapers to 8% thickness/chord at the tip.[1]


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 19, 2016)

Shooter8 said:


> I flew at every Base that had a Flying Club



I'm assuming military flying clubs. Let's see - Point Mugu? China Lake? EDW? Vandenberg? What years?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 19, 2016)

wuzak said:


> Did you ever have so much trouble with sharks that you would use them as target practice?
> 
> Or were sharks the last thing you worried about when going to or from a combat zone?



We did get bored some times, but...

_"No shit! There I was..."_

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## stona (Jun 19, 2016)

"Fine! How many Spits were lost just to take off and landing during the BoB and how many to actual combat?
I'll bet you $1,000.00 against $100.00 that, either this claim, "more losses to accidents than to combat" is either true given the most thorough modern research,..."

Pick any day between Wednesday 10th July and Thursday October 31st 1940 and I can give you Fighter Command operational squadron losses and damages for that day. I absolutely guarantee that those to enemy action exceed those due to all other causes by a large margin.
I will gladly take your bet, because I have the data in front of me 
Cheers
Steve

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like Like:
5 | Like List reactions


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 19, 2016)

Shooter8 said:


> I was actively engaged in flying, maintaining and building from scratch many aircraft. I was an EAA Menber, I flew at every Base that had a Flying Club and often rented interesting planes on the open market after leaving the Service and becoming an "Independent Contractor and Civilian Consultant to the DoD, State Department and Various foreign governments" when I had such "Disposable income" that I could afford it.
> As to your post, I would not think that different Squadrons with different types of planes would constitute a "Combined fleet", but that is just my opinion?



Where you shooting sharks with an M60 while well beyond it's effective range while "flying" these aircraft?


----------



## pbehn (Jun 19, 2016)

Shooter8 said:


> Fine! How many Spits were lost just to take off and landing during the BoB and how many to actual combat?
> I'll bet you $1,000.00 against $100.00 that, either this claim, "more losses to accidents than to combat" is either true given the most thorough modern research, or is stated as fact in more books published at the time, than is disputed at the time!
> Willing to put your money where your mouth is?


From Bungays "The most dangerous enemy"

Fighter command losses 10 July to 11 August P195

Total losses 162 combat 115 Accident 47
Total damaged 174 combat 106 accident 68

However these are all accidents including taxiing low level aerobatics wheels up landings etc not just take off and landing 28 losses including 6 fatalities occurred at night.. 

Please arrange payment of $1000 to the RAF benevolent fund, thanks.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 19, 2016)

Bumping this...



Shooter8 said:


> How about if I fly along in a helicopter at 5000' and hose sharks basking in the Gulf of Tonkin with an M-60?



I call BS!

The effective range of the M-60 is 1200 yards. 5000ft is 1600 + yards. Then you have to take into account the effect of the rotorwash and the wind caused by the moving aircraft. All of this with a suppression weapon.

Before you go any further, I was a US Army helo Crew Chief/Door Gunner and used the M-60.

Take your _"No shit there I was..."_ story somewhere else.


----------



## pbehn (Jun 19, 2016)

stona said:


> "Fine! How many Spits were lost just to take off and landing during the BoB and how many to actual combat?
> I'll bet you $1,000.00 against $100.00 that, either this claim, "more losses to accidents than to combat" is either true given the most thorough modern research,..."
> 
> Pick any day between Wednesday 10th July and Thursday October 31st 1940 and I can give you Fighter Command operational squadron losses and damages for that day. I absolutely guarantee that those to enemy action exceed those due to all other causes by a large margin.
> ...


Oi, you, Its my $1000


----------



## GrauGeist (Jun 19, 2016)

FLYBOYJ said:


> I'm assuming military flying clubs. Let's see - Point Mugu? China Lake? EDW? Vandenberg? What years?


don't forget Los Alamitos, El Toro, March, Long Beach, San Diego and I think 29 Palms?

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 19, 2016)

Shooter, I hope you answer some of these queries soon as I am arranging a place in cyberspace for you.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Jun 19, 2016)

pbehn said:


> Oi, you, Its my $1000


hey hey, I get some of that!


----------



## pbehn (Jun 19, 2016)

Shooter8 said:


> I have answered every one. See the colored replies above. Your problem is that you came in late and have confused things I wrote with things other people said I wrote???


When do I see the receipt for $1000 paid to the RAF benevolent fund?


----------



## stona (Jun 19, 2016)

To be entirely accurate the tailplane incidence could be altered by the trim wheel of a Bf 109 
The ailerons and rudder were not trimable from the cockpit. They had fixed tabs that could be adjusted on the ground. 

At least the Spitfire had a trimable rudder, the ailerons were also ground adjusted, by hammering the trailing edge!

Cheers

Steve

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 19, 2016)

Shooter8 said:


> I have answered every one. See the colored replies above. Your problem is that you came in late and have confused things I wrote with things other people said I wrote???



I am still waiting for your response to my post about your Shark sniping with an M60 story...


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 19, 2016)

Shooter8 said:


> I have answered every one. See the colored replies above. Your problem is that you came in late and have confused things I wrote with things other people said I wrote???


No - I have read everything you posted and for the most part I think you're a full of shit poser. If you flew at EVERY aero club, tell me the arrival and departure procedures out of EDW - they've been about the same for as long as the aero club has been there.


----------



## GrauGeist (Jun 19, 2016)

Shooter8 said:


> My Google foo is weak, so I'll leave that up to you.


Your argument is weak...don't rely on Google as a source nor excuse.

The F4U was the ensign killer

The Me262 had a frightening kill-to-loss ratio and was in more numbers than several other TYPES employed during the war. So your assumption isn't holding up.

Still waiting to see factual numbers on Spitfire & Bf109 pilot ground losses.


----------



## stona (Jun 19, 2016)

pbehn said:


> When do I see the receipt for $1000 paid to the RAF benevolent fund?



You didn't choose a day or days or a squadron or squadrons so that I can actually give you their losses and damage 
I guess you'll have to take my word for it!

Cheers

Steve


----------



## pbehn (Jun 19, 2016)

stona said:


> You didn't choose a day or days or a squadron or squadrons so that I can actually give you their losses and damage
> I guess you'll have to take my word for it!
> 
> Cheers
> ...


Funny old world, I had just read that chapter this afternoon while the tennis was on, I did quote a time period and losses damged for the RAF.


----------



## pbehn (Jun 19, 2016)

Shooter8 said:


> Please feel free to partake! It is an open challenge.
> I feel bad when people either misquote me, or twist what I say to something that is not related to the argument at hand. And I fall back on the time honored tactic of all nerds throughout time, make the challenge a wager!
> This all started because I posted a picture and a list of things that could be done to make the 109 a better plane. Very few have actually addressed any of the other ideas, and many have used part of what I said to change the topic, like the Spitfire hade the same narrowly spaced landing gear and that somehow made it OK on the 109? Then some guy states that the accident rate was 20% and that it was because of "Night Opps" as if that makes it all right? Then I get blamed for the 20% statement. Right!
> I would have thought that 10% would have been horrendous and enough to cause great worry?


No, you said the more spitfires were lost to take off and landing accidents than to enemy action, if that were true the BoB would have been lost. It may well be true of the seafire, that is a completely different plane and theatre.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Elmas (Jun 19, 2016)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Very true. I have a good 650+ hours of combat time, and almost all of it was spent 25 to 100 ft over the ground.
> 
> Being up at 5000 ft. would just make you a juicy target.



and never fly across a rice field, so I was told....


----------



## stona (Jun 19, 2016)

Shooter8 said:


> Why, I have not seen the reply that proves the point was wrong?



Pbehn's post #351 for a start.


----------



## pbehn (Jun 19, 2016)

Shooter8 said:


> Why, I have not seen the reply that proves the point was wrong?


again


From Bungays "The most dangerous enemy"

Fighter command losses 10 July to 11 August P195

Total losses 162 combat 115 Accident 47
Total damaged 174 combat 106 accident 68

However these are all accidents including taxiing low level aerobatics wheels up landings etc not just take off and landing 28 losses including 6 fatalities occurred at night.. 

Please arrange payment of $1000 to the RAF benevolent fund, thanks.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Jun 19, 2016)

Shooter8 said:


> I feel bad when people either misquote me, or twist what I say to something that is not related to the argument at hand. And I fall back on the time honored tactic of all nerds throughout time, make the challenge a wager!


Not a single person has taken a word you've said and "twisted" it or taken it out of context.
You're being directly challenged for the nonsense your slobbering.
If you can't handle it, back out, but don't start crying along those lines.
Stand up or shut up.


Shooter8 said:


> This all started because I posted a picture and a list of things that could be done to make the 109 a better plane. Very few have actually addressed any of the other ideas, and many have used part of what I said to change the topic, like the Spitfire hade the same narrowly spaced landing gear and that somehow made it OK on the 109? Then some guy states that the accident rate was 20% and that it was because of "Night Opps" as if that makes it all right? Then I get blamed for the 20% statement. Right!
> I would have thought that 10% would have been horrendous and enough to cause great worry?


No, it all started because you're posting bullsh!t and backing up your claims with nothing.
The F4F Wildcat had a narrow track maingear too...I suppose NOW you'll apply that same claim of high pilot attrition because of that, too?

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## stona (Jun 19, 2016)

Here's a typical day, selected at random....you can believe me or not, I don't care.

Wednesday August 21st, 1940

56 Squadron, North Weald:
Hurricane P3153, shot down by return fire from Do 17.

152 Squadron, Warmwell:
Spitfire ? slightly damaged by return fire from Do 17. Repairable.

236 Squadron St Eval
Blenheim R2776, parked aircraft destroyed by bombing.

238 Squadron, Middle Wallop
Hurricane? damaged in combat with Ju 88s. Repairable.

302 Squadron, Leconfield
Hurricane P3934, force landed close to base following combat with Ju 88s. Repairable.

604 Squadron, Middle Wallop
Blenheim ? Damaged in bombing. Repairable.

611 Squadron Digby
Spitfire II P7290 damaged by return fire from Do 17. Repairable.
Spitfire II P7304 DITTO
Spitfire II P7301 nosed over on landing, probably due to burst tyre following combat. Repairable.
Spitfire II P7292 damaged by return fire from Do 17. Repairable.
Spitfire II P7305 Hit a chock left on runway and nosed over. Repairable.

On this day only 1 (possibly 2) of the 11 aircraft damaged was due to an accident. All the others were combat related.

Cheers

Steve

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Jun 19, 2016)

stona said:


> ue to burst tyre following combat. Repairable.
> Spitfire II P7292 damaged by return fire from Do 17. Repairable.
> Spitfire II P7305 Hit a chock left on runway and nosed over. Repairable.


Great post and bears out the results of the enquiry into accidents, some were due to war time operations stretching personnel so that chocks and things were left about while others like a flat tyre could easily be the result of enemy action while still being classed as an accident.


----------



## GrauGeist (Jun 19, 2016)

Dang those pesky wheel-chocks!


----------



## bobbysocks (Jun 19, 2016)

250-300 hour life span for aircraft had nothing to do with the engine. they could and did do engine changes regularly. the 250-300 was the number they came up with in regards to the air frame. due to the stress of G forces inflicted in course of battle they felt it was compromised at approximately that juncture. it was not fit for combat. many were used as trainers...WW bombers were painted up in outlandish colors and used as "form up" aircraft.
as for tail draggers....as has been sited previously german pilots remarked how childishly easy the spitfire was to land. I have never read a brit or us pilot say the same thing about the 109...if you have please print it.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 19, 2016)

Shooter8 said:


> But it was 20,000 and we made over 100,000 total! Except for the Germans, no other country made 30,000 fighters and we made more planes with Tricycle gear than the RAF made Spitfires during the war. Also many of our late war planes were tail draggers because of government forced economics, not choices.


Minor correction. The British, the Russians and the Japanese made over 20,000 fighters each. Well over 20,000 each. 
AS for the last sentence, what trike fighters were available for production (ready to go. prototypes built and tested?) in 1943-44-45 that the US could have built instead of tail draggers?


----------



## Airframes (Jun 19, 2016)

Damn ! I've run out of popcorn !

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
2 | Like Like:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 19, 2016)

Shooter8 said:


> Almost all true. Not all combat planes had such short life expectancies! That most combat planes failed to last that long is very true! But their life "Expectancies" in some cases were very much higher! While most R-R built Merlins had a "Life Expectancy" of 150 hours, most lasted much less than half that, at least early in the war, while the early Allison had a LE of 1,000 hours and might last 300, or more. All of this depending on how they were used. Full throttle could shorten any engines life to minutes, not hours and this was/is a fact of life. But actual life and expected life were two very different things for the most part and should not be confused.



Last sentence is quite true, many people confuse expected life or overhaul life (# of hours an engine _could _run before being pulled for overhaul as a precaution). with _average _life which was the average life of engines passing through the repair/overhaul facility. 

Having said that your numbers for the Merlin are total hogwash as is your numbers for the Allison.

RR was claiming 240 hours for a fighter engine in 1939 and 300 hours for a bomber engine.
in 1944 they were claiming 300 hours for a fighter engine, 360 hours for a bomber engine and 480 hours for a transport engine. 
In 1945 the hours went up again. 

Those are expected life or hours before overhaul. 
From 1942 on 35% of the engines passing though the repair organizations had reached their expected life. 
From 1942 on of all the engines passing through the average hours were approximately 60% of expected life. 

Engines arrived at repair organizations for three reasons. Normal overhaul or repair if engine had mechanical difficulties before reaching expected life, Repair of crash damage, Many if not most engines involved in a nose over or prop strike were pulled and sent to a repair organization for instance. There was a special repair for cracked gear cases involving welding and a reinforcing strut/brace from the top of the gear case to the crankcase. Third reason was the repair of battle damage, like bullet holes. Depending on location they could be "patched" or damaged component replaced (change one cylinder bank vs entire engine?) 
If one engine comes through the door with 300 hours on the clock for overhaul and the next comes through the door with 2 hours on clock after novice pilot does a nose stand and wrecks the prop. Yep you have about a 150 hour _average life _but it gives a rather distorted picture of the durability or reliability.


----------



## GrauGeist (Jun 19, 2016)

Shortround6 said:


> AS for the last sentence, what trike fighters were available for production (ready to go. prototypes built and tested?) in 1943-44-45 that the US could have built instead of tail draggers?


I'm going to guess we'll see such types as the XP-50, XP-54, XP-55, XP-56, XP-67, XP-77...

In otherwords, anything with tricycle gear just to say "see?", regardless of the fact they weren't viable options.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 19, 2016)

Just so we are all on the same page with the Spitfire wing:










Wing on the Spitfire 21, 22, 24 and up





May be it's me but I am having a hell of time trying to get my straight edge to line up with either the trailing edge or leading edge of the last wing.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 19, 2016)

Shooter8 said:


> Not really. The Ju-86, IIRC, with the Jumo-207 Turbo was only ever tested a prototype and not a production plane.



Actually they built and used about 40 of the Ju86P model.




Which gave fits to the British over England and the Mid east and also operated over Russia. 
The later Ju-86R model was built only as prototypes and the number of Blohm and Voss 6 engine BV 222 flying boats that used the Jumo 207 may be in dispute. They were used in service. 
The Jumo 207 powered more planes by a factor of at least 8 than the Jumo 222 ever did.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 19, 2016)

Ok everyone. I think it is quite clear we can not expect much from "shark*shooter8*fromaheloat5000ft", so lets get this back on topic.

Except you shooter, I am still waiting for your response.


----------



## gumbyk (Jun 19, 2016)

Shooter8 said:


> I do not know. I thought we had a better handle on conversion than that here? We alone used two stage training, did we not? First the Bipe, then the mono-wing, then possibly a much faster trainer before finally converting to the actual fighter plane?


NZ Training was DH-82, AT-6, P-40, F4U. So 'Your' training was not unusual. We still had pilots rolling the Corsair on take-off. Brian Cox tells of watching a Corsair torque-roll on take-off while he was lined up waiting for his first flight.



FLYBOYJ said:


> It's quite evident you're not a pilot and know little about flight training during WW2 aside what you're reading in books. Tail draggers will ALWAYS have a higher accident rate when operated in a combined fleet. I know of many pilots with thousands of hours of tail dragger time and they have had at least one ground loop. Please understand that some of the members here are actively engaged in aviation, flying or maintaining warbirds.


I was always told with tail-draggers and ground-loops that you either have had one, will have one, or are just about to have one.
As for me, while I don't have 'many thousands of hours', the pilot who was flying the aircraft had 20k+ when we ground-looped.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Jun 19, 2016)

Tricycle landing gear is much better as far as I know but requires a level concrete runway.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 19, 2016)

pbehn said:


> Tricycle landing gear is much better as far as I know but requires a level concrete runway.



You can land and take off on a soft field. It is actually required to learn how in order to get your private license.

For takeoff you set flaps, and hold the yoke back all the way to prevent the nose from settling into the ground. Basically you sort of pop a wheelie down the ground strip.The acft will actually lift off too early (and it needs too) because of the combination of flaps and having the yoke pulled back. Because of the low airspeed you have to relieve pressure on the yoke, lowering the nose slightly and remain in ground effect until airspeed is built up. Then climb out.

With landing, you add a lil power and try and keep the wheels from touching down until the aircraft just settles in softly and does not sink into the soft grass field. Then you hold the yoke back and use aerodynamic breaking to slow down so you don't sink in.


----------



## BiffF15 (Jun 19, 2016)

Shooter8 said:


> This is true and also the most important attribute, but a lesser known and more important tactic was to initiate a "Horizontal Rolling Scissors" fight, IF you were home over your own territory and had the fuel to fight it out instead of running all the time so you could make it back across the channel.
> When you have the fuel, the HRS maneuver turns a defensive fight into an offensive fight where the better rolling and faster plane has a huge advantage and if he is any type of Marksman, a kill!



Shooter8,

If you are fighting over your home you have some advantages as well as disadvantages. 

Adv's: You can fight until you run out of gas, get shot down, or crash and the odds of getting back into the fight are higher than your enemy. 
You can build lighter higher performing aircraft because there time aloft will be short (they don't have far to travel to get to the fight).

Con's: When fighting over your own country the bombs are falling on your base, field, and home. You are defensive and on the receiving / losing end of the fight.

While the 109 was designed as an offensive fighter time and technology shifted it to a point defense fighter. It was a good fighter made en masse. While it did have more kills than any other fighter I think whether that classifies it as the best ever, in my opinion, can be easily argued. The 109 did not have far to travel to get to the fight, could fight until low on gas, then do an almost idle descent to landing. It's opponents flew from England, in aircraft that were heavier (due to structure to make a long legged fighter, and fuel) which gives the 109 a distinct advantage. That is why it had a performance advantage over the Allied fighters, as well as the other German prop fighters. They were designed for different tasks.

The horizontal rolling scissors fight rewards the most maneuverable fighter, not the fastest. If two planes are equal that fight would most likely be won by the better "stick". I have been in that type of fight with F-16s, F-15s, F-14s, Mig-29s and F-18s. Each brings a different twist and pilot to the fight. All things being equal the pilot who makes the smallest or least amount of mistakes is usually the winner.

This forum has many individuals in here who are extremely knowledgeable. I entered here thinking I would contribute more than I would learn. How mistaken I was. Your time here might be more enjoyable if you approached this as a learning event or exchange of information rather than as the instructor.

Cheers,
Biff

Reactions: Like Like:
7 | Like List reactions


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 19, 2016)

BiffF15 said:


> Shooter8,
> 
> If you are fighting over your home you have some advantages as well as disadvantages.
> 
> ...



You bring a lot to the table my friend. Hell I think you are our resident fighter pilot. I listen when you speak...

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 19, 2016)

BiffF15 said:


> *Your time here might be more enjoyable if you approached this as a learning event or exchange of information rather than as the instructor.*



The quote of the day!!!!

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## gjs238 (Jun 19, 2016)

Shortround6 said:


> Just so we are all on the same page with the Spitfire wing:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Can anyone explain the fabric patches over the gun openings in the wings?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 19, 2016)

gjs238 said:


> Can anyone explain the fabric patches over the gun openings in the wings?



to prevent dirt, grime, bugs, etc from getting into the guns, and to prevent them from icing up. 

Basically to protect it until they were was needed.


----------



## gumbyk (Jun 19, 2016)

gjs238 said:


> Can anyone explain the fabric patches over the gun openings in the wings?


To prevent dirt/moisture getting in there and freezing at altitude.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 19, 2016)

gumbyk said:


> To prevent dirt/moisture getting in there and freezing at altitude.



Yeap


----------



## pbehn (Jun 19, 2016)

all that............. and to tell the ground crews that guns had been fired when an aircraft was landing, well that wasnt the plan but an aircraft that had fired its guns had a tell tale whistling from the open ports.....It was a moral booster for the ground crews in the early days.


----------



## gumbyk (Jun 19, 2016)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Yeap



Must have been typing at the same time...


----------



## pbehn (Jun 19, 2016)

BiffF15 said:


> While the 109 was designed as an offensive fighter time and technology shifted it to a point defense fighter. It was a good fighter made en masse.


Not to disagree with anything in your post but the Me109 was designed around a circa 1000BHP engine as was the spitfire, many of the later issues they had reflect this.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 19, 2016)

pbehn said:


> Not to disagree with anything in your post but the Me109 was designed around a circa 1000BHP engine as was the spitfire, many of the later issues they had reflect this.



Actually the 109 was designed around a 600-700hp engine. The "1000 hp" engine was not fitted until about 2 years after the prototype first flew and over 3 years since design work started. And that was in two 'racing' planes.
Over 1000 production 109s were built with Jumo 210 engines, either DB was _ vveeeerrrry _late or the 109 was NOT designed around a 1000hp engine. Production 109s with '1000' hp engines don't show up until 1938.
The 110 was about 1 year later in timing and while a number of them had Jumo engines it at this point Db was promising a 900-1000hp engine (and not delivering in numbers even in 1937).
in 1933/34 when work started on the 109 the potential engines were the Jumo 210 and the BMW 116, both about 20 liter engines. 

DB had _started work _on what would become the DB600/601 in 1930 but didn't get a development contract for six engines until 1933. Up until then it was a company funded project. almost 2300 DB600s with carbs were built before production switched to the DB601. 

From wiki: The first DB 601A-1 prototype, designated as F4E, was test run in 1935, and an order for 150 engines was placed in February 1937.[2] Serial production began in November 1937. 

This designing around a 20 liter 600-700hp engine is what caused a number of the later problems of trying to stuff a quart into a pint pot.


----------



## GrauGeist (Jun 19, 2016)

The irony is, that the first Bf109 was initailly powered by a Kestral!

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## The Kohler (Jun 19, 2016)

@all,

Generally speaking very interesting thread. Some discussion points are ridiculous, but the information given to counter these topics were very helpful. I did learn quite a lot. Thanks for that.


S
 Shooter8
, although, I cannot judge you on your experience as pilot due to the fact that I don't have the required qualification, I'm able to provide you with my feedback as shooter; you might have shot a number of weapons in a Xbox environment but certainly not real ones.

Coming back to the original topic. I would suggest that Germany should improved the DB605 lifespan. In 1944, the Swiss Air Force was able to buy 12 Bf-109 G-6. The power-plants of these fighters needed serious overhauls within +/- 20 hours. 

Cheers

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## gumbyk (Jun 19, 2016)

The Kohler said:


> @all,
> 
> Coming back to the original topic. I would suggest that Germany should improved the DB605 lifespan. In 1944, the Swiss Air Force was able to buy 12 Bf-109 G-6. The power-plants of these fighters needed serious overhauls within +/- 20 hours.
> 
> Cheers



If all 12 needed overhaul in that sort of timeframe, I'd be looking at how the engines were operated. Either that or Germany sold them lemons...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 19, 2016)

I'd like to see a link for the 20 hours. The TBO for a 605 was more like 250 hours I believe.

Edit: Now I remember. And yes the 12 delivered 109's did suffer from defects.

1. Poor manufacturing because of bombings, and forced labor.

2. The delivered aircraft where purposly not well built. They wear delivered to Swiss because of the deal made for a Bf 110.


----------



## wuzak (Jun 20, 2016)

AFAIK, "mil-spec" refers to items procured for the US military, items such as nuts, bolts, bearings, etc.

So mil-spec would not refer to a German aircraft engine built in WW2.


----------



## gumbyk (Jun 20, 2016)

wuzak said:


> AFAIK, "mil-spec" refers to items procured for the US military, items such as nuts, bolts, bearings, etc.
> 
> So mil-spec would not refer to a German aircraft engine built in WW2.


Correct - mil-spec is a US military standard, so wouldn't even have applied to British aircraft.


----------



## GrauGeist (Jun 20, 2016)

James W. said:


> It would still be built to a military specification,
> & likely named as such - with some long compound German technical descriptor.
> 
> For sure, if it was not fit for purpose/merchantable quality,
> likely some Nazi would be screaming 'Sabotage!" , & demanding heads roll..


That "some Nazi" was usually a trained civilian performing QC...


----------



## gumbyk (Jun 20, 2016)

James W. said:


> It would still be built to a military specification,
> & likely named as such - with some long compound German technical descriptor.
> 
> For sure, if it was not fit for purpose/merchantable quality,
> likely some Nazi would be screaming 'Sabotage!" , & demanding heads roll..



Yes, they wold have been built to _a_ standard, but not _that_ standard.


----------



## gumbyk (Jun 20, 2016)

James W. said:


> The British Air-Min would likely have their own broad arrow HM Gov't stamp to apply,
> but I think even the most pedantic 'mil-spec' enthusiast in the C21,
> - understands that the term is basically generic - by now..


I've never heard it used generically. In this, you lead the way...


----------



## Greyman (Jun 20, 2016)

bobbysocks said:


> ... as has been sited previously german pilots remarked how childishly easy the spitfire was to land.



A more in-depth bit from the RAE's testing of the 109E that was captured in France.

_Landing_
_
This is definitely more difficult than on the Hurricane or Spitfire, mainly owing to the high ground attitude of the aeroplane. The aeroplane must be rotated through a large angle before touch down, and this requires a fair amount of skill on the part of the pilot, and tempts him to do a wheel landing. If a wheel landing is done there is a strong tendency for the left wing to drop just before touch down, and when the ailerons are used quickly to bring the wing up they snatch a little, causing the pilot to over-correct.

By holding off a little high the aeroplane can be made to sink slowly to the ground on all three wheels, and there is then no tendency for a wing to drop. A pilot quickly becomes accustomed to the landing technique required on this aeroplane, and should have no difficulty after a few practice landings.

The centre of gravity is unusually far behind the main wheels, and the brakes can be applied fully immediately after touch-down without fear of lifting the tail. The ground run is very short, and there is no tendency to swing or bucket. Owing to the large ground attitude, and the consequent high position of the nose, the view ahead during hold-off and ground run is extremely bad. Landing at night would probably be difficult._


----------



## stona (Jun 20, 2016)

It is also worth mentioning that the seemingly appalling accident rates suffered by ALL air forces in WW2 are not purely a function of the aircraft being flown. They are also a function of the training regimes and procedures taught and practiced at all stages of a flight. The Americans seem to have been most aware of this and attempted to reduce accident rates with everything from advisory pamphlets to written check lists (unlike the mnemonics so favoured by the British). The Germans seem to have been either the least worried or least pro-active in this field. I know nothing about Japanese or Russian practices.
When you took thousands of very young men, most of whom could not drive a car, and started to train them under wartime expediencies to fly the highest performing aircraft that their nations could provide a very high accident rate was inevitable. It was the steps taken to mitigate this which were probably more significant to the differences between the various air forces than the types flown.

There is also the contribution of youth. One of the losses I noticed for the RAF yesterday was a Spitfire which crashed, killing its pilot who was involved in "an unauthorised dogfight" with one of his colleagues. You can make all the rules you like, but young men will not always follow them!

Pbehn posted some figures for Fighter Command losses in the period July/August 1940. The 115 combat and 47 accident losses tally very well with my figures, as do the 106 combat to 68 accident damaged. I almost always make mistakes tallying figures over several source pages anyway . I reckon that almost 30 of those accidents occurred during night flying training. That's about a quarter of the total lost and damaged due to accidents in this period (about 115/120). It's an important point. Fighter Command was desperate to develop a night fighting capability at this time and flying at night given the aircraft and technologies of the day was a dangerous enterprise, even for experienced pilots.

Cheers

Steve

Found Bungay's book, knew I had it somewhere, and he attributes 28 accidents to night flying practice, I won't argue with that

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Gixxerman (Jun 20, 2016)

The Kohler said:


> I would suggest that Germany should improved the DB605 lifespan. In 1944, the Swiss Air Force was able to buy 12 Bf-109 G-6. The power-plants of these fighters needed serious overhauls within +/- 20 hours.
> 
> Cheers



I can't give a reference but I am certain I remember reading about this, the comment was that the Swiss were more than a tad pee'd off that they had been supplied with obviously & very 'tired' practically worn-out ex-Luftwaffe and not brand new machines.
I doubt this reflected the usual wear-rate/overhaul hours for either the DB605 or any of the rest of a 109G.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 20, 2016)

Just for curiosity it would be interesting to see what kind of life the Swedes got out of their DB 605 engines. 
The engines were built in Sweden and powered 171 twin engine SAAB 18s and 298 single engine SAAB 21s.
The last of the single engine planes were phased out in 1954 and the last of twins phased out in 1959.

Such information should settle any arguments about the _design _of the DB605 as it was built in a country not at war and with a reputation of building quality equipment. 

I would note that Swedes seemed to keep to the "normal" ratings for the 605 even in post war (1948) literature. 1475hp take-off at 2800rpm/6.3lbs boost. 1575hp at 7000ft (boost unknown) Normal (max con) 1250 at 19,000ft 2600rpm. this was done on 91/98 fuel. 
What may have been done in experiments or in service at squadron level I have no idea. Getting higher rated fuel in 1948 or after shoul d not have been a problem but perhaps the Swedes were looking more at jet engines at the time.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 20, 2016)

James W. said:


> The Swedes also received DB 605's for their own SAAB's - these were up to mil-spec standards though?
> 
> The DB 605 did suffer some in the economy measures used in mass-producing them such as deleting
> the original DB 601's rolling element bearing crankshaft in favour of a plain bearing/high pressure oiling set up..



Somebody once said you use ball and roller bearings when you don't trust your own plain bearings. There is certainly an element of truth to that as in many cases ball and roller bearings were replaced by plain bearings in a number of aircraft engines and car engines, and not because of cost. 
Plain bearings are almost an art unto themselves and require (for use in high performance engines) certain alloys to be deposited on the bearing shell (backing plate,usually steel) in certain exact thicknesses. They also require compatible oil at high pressure and in large volumes.Ball and roller bearings use low pressure oil and at much lower volumes. 
P & W developed a plain bearing using a silver alloy and licensed it to other manufactures for either a nominal fee or no fee during the war. This alloy is not used today because the additives in modern oil attack the silver and cause corrosion the bearing. 
Bearing type and size and type/quality of oil are inter-related.


----------



## The Kohler (Jun 20, 2016)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> I'd like to see a link for the 20 hours. The TBO for a 605 was more like 250 hours I believe.
> 
> Edit: Now I remember. And yes the 12 delivered 109's did suffer from defects.
> 
> ...



Hi Adler,

Yes to poor manufacturing, but no to your statement re purposely not well built. The air-frames as well as the engines came from multiple production lots. Need to dig in my books and translate the necessary facts later today.

Cheers,


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 20, 2016)

The Kohler said:


> Hi Adler,
> 
> Yes to poor manufacturing, but no to your statement re purposely not well built. The air-frames as well as the engines came from multiple production lots. Need to dig in my books and translate the necessary facts later today.
> 
> Cheers,



My understanding is that the Germans gave them old and well used 109's. That is what I should have said.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 20, 2016)

Shooter8 said:


> How about if I fly along in a helicopter at 5000' and hose sharks basking in the Gulf of Tonkin with an M-60?



I call BS!

The effective range of the M-60 is 1200 yards. 5000ft is 1600 + yards. Then you have to take into account the effect of the rotorwash and the wind caused by the moving aircraft. All of this with a suppression weapon.

Before you go any further, I was a US Army helo Crew Chief/Door Gunner and used the M-60.

Take your _"No shit there I was..."_ story somewhere else.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Peter Gunn (Jun 20, 2016)

Shooter8 said:


> Read up more. One of his comrades did just that, pot three Taliban walking, but at a slightly less phenomenal range.
> Part of the original reply was about yanking and banking. Since many video games divorce the image on screen from reality, many people get the idea that the results of said Yank and bank happen instantly and that it makes a difference to how hard it is to shoot down a maneuvering plane. The plane's transient response is measured in degrees per second per second and I have never seen a chart of any WW-II plane that shows the number of degrees any stick movement would have in the first second, which is typically about 1/4 to 1/5 of the rate seen in all the charts I have ever seen.
> But the most interesting part is that after the plane changes Attitude, it takes a further substantial fraction of a second for the plane to actually move in the new direction. So, a yank and bank might change the attitude of the target a grand total of 30 Degrees of pitch and roll combined, but the plane's inertia would limit the actual translation in space to about 5-7 degrees, or 20-25 meters displacement from the original trajectory and a distance from the shooter's line of sight two to three hundred yards back of less than 2 degrees.
> So the shooter has to pull two or three degrees to cause his bullet stream to point at the new location of the target. Since the shooter's reaction time is much less than the inertia time of any plane of WW-II vintage, this is relatively easy to do. Once the shooter is within gun range and in the saddle as they say, there is little to nothing the greatest pilot on earth can do to avoid being shot down by any ace.




I have been following this thread with great interest and have learned a lot, especially about the P-40, you guys are awesome. Also the entertainment value has been quite high.

However, a few observations:

1. WTH does a sniper and how far he can pop someone, lying prone, on solid ground at close to or totally stationary target have to do with a 1940 vintage fighter plane moving at over 300 MPH have to do with anything? I'm no expert but last I checked, sniper <> fighter pilot.

2. WTH are you even saying anymore? I had four uncles that flew ops in the 8th, two were fighter pilots, I really wish they were still with us so I could ask them exactly how much BS your trying to shove into this blivet. I've been in aviation, although no where near as deep as many on this board that have already called you out, but because of a son that wants to fly, am getting re acquainted with the subject, and for the life of me, I can't see how you've ever flown anything outside an XBOX or PS4.

You seem like an intelligent fellow, and as such, you can learn a lot here, I have just by reading this thread. Also, the mods have been veeeery lenient with you, take their advice and you can have a lot of interesting and fun conversations here. Don't and well...

Also, I'm not angry or upset, just mystified about cluelessness. Is that a word?

Pete.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Jun 20, 2016)

Shooter8 said:


> Once the shooter is within gun range and in the saddle as they say, there is little to nothing the greatest pilot on earth can do to avoid being shot down by any ace.


This (and the rest of your post) is complete fantasy and rubbish.

Here is a video of a P51 firing guns on the ground showing the effects of recoil on the plane and its wing plus the spread of bullets now consider what that spread would be like at 1200m from an aircraft not sat on its wheels.. 

_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=niJ82YCiuYU_


Two top aces in combat with each other with latest machinery rarely got a shot off at one another 80% of pilots shot down in the BoB did not see the person that shot them which is why all allied fighters were eventually fitted with tear drop canopies where possible..

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## tyrodtom (Jun 20, 2016)

Shooter8, what do you consider to be the Gulf of Tonkin ?


----------



## GrauGeist (Jun 20, 2016)

Shooter8 said:


> The Drag is not important when compared to the increase in vision it gave. Ask any fighter pilot, or look at all post war Friendly planes.


Drag is VERY important.

If you already have an airframe that has several performance penalties to start with, adding more is not a good idea.


----------



## stona (Jun 20, 2016)

Shooter8 said:


> If you sit in a 109, you can easily see most of what's behind you, either through the bullet proof glass that has replaced the steel in most late model planes like the one above, or around the steel in early planes..



Since I have been lucky enough to sit in a Bf 109 I now know for sure that you haven't.

The view to the rear is terrible and made worse by the narrowness of the cockpit at shoulder level making it difficult to turn at all. It is much worse than the view from a Spitfire in which I have also sat, and it is not great from a Spitfire either.

I am of average height and fairly heavy build, the Spitfire was cramped, the Bf 109 unbelievably tight. I found it hard to imagine sitting for any length of time in that space.

I was obviously on the ground, so I cannot comment on the view forward when in a flying attitude. Some German pilots have remarked that the view forwards and downwards was better on the Bf 109 than on the Spitfire and given the relative positions of cockpit and wings on the two aircraft this seems reasonable.

Cheers

Steve


----------



## tyrodtom (Jun 20, 2016)

Shooter8, you apparently take "artistic license" with a lot of what you post.
I was a crewchief/doorgunner of a OH-6 70-71, we called them a Loach, and it was just me and the pilot.

Though some units did have pilot, with a observer in the left front seat, and a gunner in the rear.
And our safety strap, "monkey strap" was a lot more elaborate than just a cargo strap under the armpits.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 20, 2016)

Shooter8 said:


> Great post, but wrong! The M-60's "Range" was 1,200 Meters, or 1312 yards over flat ground. This is the range at which dispersion of the shot cone is such that a standing target is no longer guaranteed a hit with a 10 shot burst. Shooting at a nearly vertical angle, it's effective range is about 1250 Meters, both due to the lack of drop and the acceleration of gravity which helps the bullet not loose so much velocity. But the bullet is stable at 3,600 Meters and on a downward trajectory like that will have little trouble peppering a sun bathing shark from only 5000 feet. The shark always dashes from the strike and may, or may not be hit because of said pattern dispersion, but the reaction is always the same, hit or not. There is no way to tell. But if the burst of splashes surrounds the shark, it's a hit. It gets very much harder at 9000 feet altitude because the largest single difficulty in shooting sharks from a moving platform is the forward velocity of the shooter and the fact that he, or she has to aim behind the target's poss to get hits and the higher you go, the harder that is. But since helos typically cruise at speeds well under 170 MPH, it's not that hard.



Lots to respond to. I will do so after work...lol

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Jun 20, 2016)

Well, here we go again:
"Shooter"...Thrustmaster has been on the market for quite some time and is still made currently in various forms - your reply means nothing, however, your fantasy comments gives a strong indication that you have learned a great deal from either FPS or Flight Sims...none of which apply to this discussion. So "nice try".

Regarding drag, yes, every bit of drag applied to an airframe contributes to the sum of the whole. If it was just that easy to slap a bubble canopy on top of an airframe, I am willing to bet that highly educated engineers would have done so long before your "expert" opinion suggested they do so. If you were actually familiar with aircraft, you would know that drag is the killer of performance - every last bit of parasitic drag needs to be addressed.

As it happens, I have sat in the cockpit of a Bf109E and since stand at 6'1", I was hard pressed to see behind me as the top of my head nearly touched the canopy and my shoulders were close to touching either side of the cockpit. Just turning my head back to look at either elevator required a bit of effort. I imagine with the seat adjusted forward some, it may help a little, but not by much. 

With the Erla Haub, this increased the pilot's rear vision to either side by a degree, but not as good as a canopy such as the one on the Me262 (or Me309) would have offered. HOWEVER, to install such a canopy on the Bf109 would have required modifying the Bf109's airframe and thus slowed production of the aircraft at a time when they were in great demand.
So in short, it simply wasn't going to happen.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## rochie (Jun 20, 2016)

Shooter8 said:


> Only the Me-109 was the best fighter plane of WW-II and then by such a huge margin that second and third places went to different models of that plane before a single other plane shows up on the list!


Please tell by what parameters was Bf 109 the best fighter plane of WWII ?


----------



## drgondog (Jun 20, 2016)

It Is A Waste Of Time Debating This Knucklehead..

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
2 | Like Like:
3 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Jun 20, 2016)

Shooter8 said:


> This is a great post and reinforces most of what I said before. The wing area was reduced, closer to the Me-109 in both size and design philosophy! More wing area means more drag and a lower speed. This was compensated by much more power.


You seem to think every designer was secretly trying to produce a Bf109 in disguise, wing AREA is one of the measures you can make, there are many others, how many of the Metrics quoted are anything like that of a 109?Surely Supermarine should have insisted on RR inverting the Griffon to have the exhausts in the perfect place (where they are on a 109).


----------



## pbehn (Jun 20, 2016)

rochie said:


> Please tell by what parameters was Bf 109 the best fighter plane of WWII ?


The same parameters that say the Spitfire couldnt shoot anything down, couldnt roll at 250mph+ and killed more of its pilots than the enemy did.


----------



## GrauGeist (Jun 20, 2016)

rochie said:


> Please tell by what parameters was Bf 109 the best fighter plane of WWII ?


It had black crosses on the wing, Karl...

This gave the aircraft an instant increase in performance, just as the RAF roundels imposed a decrease in performance on any aircraft they were applied to

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Peter Gunn (Jun 20, 2016)

Shooter8 said:


> The Drag is not important when compared to the increase in vision it gave. Ask any fighter pilot, or look at all post war Friendly planes.




Seriously?


----------



## The Kohler (Jun 20, 2016)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> My understanding is that the Germans gave them old and well used 109's. That is what I should have said.



Hi Adler,

the 12 G-6 with Swiss serial numbers J-701 till J-712 were new aircrafts, J-713 (G-6) and J-714 (G-14) were used ones. Let me go over my literature and I will be able to provide more information.

thanks and greetings from Texas

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## rochie (Jun 20, 2016)

GrauGeist said:


> It had black crosses on the wing, Karl...
> 
> This gave the aircraft an instant increase in performance, just as the RAF roundels imposed a decrease in performance on any aircraft they were applied to


Ah yes i forgot, the 20% increase in speed, manouverability, range, climb etc that black crosses give aircraft yet the reverse happens when you paint a roundel on them !
Though to be fair there are those that believe the exact opposite, but i dont seeas many of those !


----------



## pbehn (Jun 20, 2016)

rochie said:


> Ah yes i forgot, the 20% increase in speed, manouverability, range, climb etc that black crosses give aircraft yet the reverse happens when you paint a roundel on them !
> Though to be fair there are those that believe the exact opposite, but i dont seeas many of those !


Rolls Royce engines were highly magnetic and so easy to hit, German pilots achieved most kills by flying over Calais and shooting in the general direction of Canterbury

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Jun 20, 2016)

rochie said:


> Ah yes i forgot, the 20% increase in speed, manouverability, range, climb etc that black crosses give aircraft yet the reverse happens when you paint a roundel on them !
> Though to be fair there are those that believe the exact opposite, but i dont seeas many of those !


Quite right and if they wanted the British aircraft to be world-beaters, they should have stuck a big white star on the side...this would have shown a marked increase in performance!!

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Jun 20, 2016)

Peter Gunn said:


> Seriously?


This thread swings wildly between extremely informative and complete nonsense.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Jun 20, 2016)

GrauGeist said:


> Quite right and if they wanted the British aircraft to be world-beaters, they should have stuck a big white star on the side...this would have shown a marked increase in performance!!


Do you have any sources for that? All the literature I have read says that white stars increase range but no other aspects of performance.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
2 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 20, 2016)

Shooter8 said:


> Vision is so much more important than miniscule increases in drag. Furthermore, the 109 was already one of the fastest "practical" speed planes in service. Remember that the top speed is almost totally irrelevant! Most planes can not get to it on engine power alone as the maximum power is limited to 5 minutes or less. It often takes that long, or more to go from "Max Continuous" to top speed and so the plane was dived to gain speed and then leveled out for the measurement.
> In combat, Max Power was mostly used to maintain a greatly reduced from top speed, speed during maneuvers. Start at 320 MPH, see a target, or attacker and open the throttle, with all that it pertains, and yank the stick. Such violent maneuvers used up speed at a prodigious rate and the only way to maintain speed even at full throttle was to trade altitude for speed. All dog fights descended to Ground Level and CFIT was a very real worry. A WW-II Fighter plane's top speed while pulling four G was about, or less than 300 MPH. At 6 Gs, it was about 245 MPH! So what happened to all that wonderful 450 MPH of top speed? It was eaten up by induced drag. Planes like the later Spitfire Mk-IX and P-47 with their elliptical wings and big engine power, the Mustang with it's superior aerodynamics and the twin engined P-38 were SLIGHTLY better, but not much!
> That is why top aces did not "Dog Fight" at all! They saw a target, attacked it and left to fight again another day. All other strategies were less effective in the long run and should be avoided at all cost. Thus ALL planes built to maneuver were on the wrong side of the equation and planes built for speed were on the right side of the problem. Back then it was absolutely impossible to have your cake and eat it too. The ONLY plane of the time that was even half way successful at trying to bridge that gap was the P-51, but it was, in the last word, a failure. It's K/L Ratio was not much better than most of the rest of the planes of WW-II! Only the Me-109 was the best fighter plane of WW-II and then by such a huge margin that second and third places went to different models of that plane before a single other plane shows up on the list!

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Jun 20, 2016)

pbehn said:


> Do you have any sources for that? All the literature I have read says that white stars increase range but no other aspects of performance.


Well, I thought that was common knowledge...plus the fact that metric hardware caused much more drag than standard hardware - which is probably the reason for the difference in range

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Ascent (Jun 20, 2016)

Unfortunately what we are seeing here is a prime example of the "Agenda". 

With the"Agenda" the conclusion is reached before the discussion begins and any facts that fail to support that conclusion should be ignored or rubbished and any facts that support it emphasised. 

Should the facts not fully support your conclusion then creative interpretation is encouraged and misdirection through the use of irrelevant but important sounding data.

Reactions: Like Like:
5 | Like List reactions


----------



## Milosh (Jun 20, 2016)

drgondog said:


> It Is A Waste Of Time Debating This Knucklehead..



Shooter/NeoCon is a troll and he is catching a lot of suckers.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## stona (Jun 20, 2016)

Shooter8 said:


> More wing area means more drag and a lower speed. This was compensated by much more power.


Far too simplistic. I touched on this in earlier posts.
I will give a rather simple reply. The 'small wing is best' theory doesn't work in all scenarios. We should consider the small, square tapered wing of the Bf 109 and the double ellipse wing of the Spitfire in terms of lift quality and lift induced drag. The Bf 109 wing does have less size and therefore less cross sectional drag area, but it does not have the more efficient, lower induced drag and longer lifting properties of the Spitfire wing. The Bf 109 wing has to resort to leading edge slats to remain in the air under certain conditions and has higher induced drag, higher wing loading and a more turbulent boundary layer. The area to lift efficiency ratio (on which I think your argument is based, though you might not know it) is not THE defining factor.
Small wing theorists would have to explain why the Spitfire I was 26 Km/h faster than the Bf 109 E at 20,000ft. It's because the Spitfire had less drag of all types, induced and parasitic or profile related.
Cheers
Steve

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## stona (Jun 20, 2016)

Milosh said:


> Shooter/NeoCon is a troll and he is catching a lot of suckers.



Maybe, but he is making some of us, me included, post some genuine information which others may find useful, interesting or helpful 
I actually don't mind!
Cheers
Steve

Reactions: Like Like:
5 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Jun 20, 2016)

stona said:


> Far too simplistic. I touched on this in earlier posts.
> I will give a rather simple reply. The 'small wing is best' theory doesn't work in all scenarios. We should consider the small, square tapered wing of the Bf 109 and the double ellipse wing of the Spitfire in terms of lift quality and lift induced drag. The Bf 109 wing does have less size and therefore less cross sectional drag area, but it does not have the more efficient, lower induced drag and longer lifting properties of the Spitfire wing. The Bf 109 wing has to resort to leading edge slats to remain in the air under certain conditions and has higher induced drag, higher wing loading and a more turbulent boundary layer. The area to lift efficiency ratio (on which I think your argument is based, though you might not know it) is not THE defining factor.
> Small wing theorists would have to explain why the Spitfire I was 26 Km/h faster than the Bf 109 E at 20,000ft. It's because the Spitfire had less drag of all types, induced and parasitic or profile related.
> Cheers
> Steve


Good post but you ignore the effect of black crosses.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## The Kohler (Jun 20, 2016)

GrauGeist said:


> It had black crosses on the wing, Karl...
> 
> This gave the aircraft an instant increase in performance, just as the RAF roundels imposed a decrease in performance on any aircraft they were applied to



too funny! 

Actually to make a real world beater out of a German or French airplane, you have to paint a white cross on it. And red/white stripes will beat anything.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Peter Gunn (Jun 20, 2016)

stona said:


> Maybe, but he is making some of us, me included, post some genuine information which others may find useful, interesting or helpful
> I actually don't mind!
> Cheers
> Steve



Agreed! My understanding of FC in the BoB was laughable at best, I've learned much from this thread, both about the BoB and the P-40. Thanks guys.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Peter Gunn (Jun 20, 2016)

pbehn said:


> This thread swings wildly between extremely informative and complete nonsense.



Amen.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 20, 2016)

Shooter8 said:


> Never claimed to be an EXPERT! I just repeated things I saw on the internet, or much more importantly did myself. Some of the confusion comes from the use of WW-II ammo, specifically the M-8, IIRC, which is better than the ammo listed in most books, or from Wiki below;



I don't need a wiki quote on the history of the .50 cal. You had stated an armor penetration you had achieved using a "ball" lead cored bullet.
There were NO lead cored "Ball" military bullets, at least until recently when they may _possibly _be adapting commercial bullets for military use for sniper rounds. 

But since you like wiki lets see what it has to say about the M-60. 
" However, to achieve the maximum effective range, it is recommended that a bipod-steadied position or a tripod-mounted position be used and fired in bursts of 3–5 rounds."
"The M60 is often used with its own integrated bipod or with the M122 tripod. The M60 is considered effective up to 1,100 meters when firing at an area target and mounted on a tripod; up to 800 meters when firing at an area target using the integral bipod; up to 600 meters when firing at a point target; and up to 200 meters when firing at a moving point target. United States Marine Corpsdoctrine holds that the M60 and other weapons in its class are capable of suppressive fire on area targets out to 1,500 meters if the gunner is sufficiently skilled."

And just so we are perfectly clear here is photo of an M60 on a tripod. 




Gun is supported at two points and the rear support can be locked in place for elevation and traverse. Effective range from a pintle mount is going to be much less.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## tomo pauk (Jun 20, 2016)

stona said:


> ...
> Small wing theorists would have to explain why the Spitfire I was 26 Km/h faster than the Bf 109 E at 20,000ft. It's because the Spitfire had less drag of all types, induced and parasitic or profile related.
> Cheers
> Steve



Wing is a very important variable, but not the only one. Wing of the Spitfire was with smaller thickess-to-chord ratio, that means a lot for reducing the wing-related drag. The Merlin III gave more power above 15000 ft than DB 601A, when both engines were operating on 87 oct fuel. Bf 109E was a quick & dirty installation of the DB 601A on the airframe previously powered by a smaller & less powerful engine, the nose ending up angular & draggy because of that, and two underslung radiators didn't helped with streamlining. Struts supporting the empenage also don't help, nor did the ram air intake now sticking out to the side.

Germans were very much aware of the shortcomings, hence the major clean-up with 109F series - streamlined nose, shallower radiators, no struts, retractable tailwheel. One cannon less also helped with streamlining. Coupled with better engines it allowed either same speed as the Spit V despite the power deficit, or more speed with same power.

We can also note that Re.2005 and G.55 were not as fast as MC.205, on same engine power, the MC.205 sporting far smaller wing.


----------



## The Kohler (Jun 20, 2016)

Okay, here are the facts about the Swiss Gustafs. As you might know the Swiss Air Force purchased 10 Bf-109 D1 and some 90 Bf-109 E3a in 1939 and early 1940.



In April 1944 a Bf-110 G-4, C9+EN, was forced to land at the Duebendorf airdrome. This Bf-110 was equipped with a SN-2 Lichtestein radar and the Germans feared that this equipment will fall into the hands of UK/USA. Germany demanded that Switzerland shall destroy this plane which was done in May 1944. During this affair, Switzerland was given the right to buy 12 Bf-109 G-6 for a price of CHF 500,000 per piece. They were delivered by late May 1944. Unlike the D-1 and E-3a types, the G-6 weren’t customized. These planes came straight from the assembly lines in Regensburg.



The Swiss Air Force rated the Gustav as a very superior airplane compared to the Emils and the D-3801. However, they had a lot of troubles with the DB605 engines. Most of these issues can be explained by very poor assembly quality and some acts of sabotage during the production run. A lot of the German industry was using slave labors either from the KZs or through forced labor from occupied countries. This type of worker force doesn’t deliver the highest quality standard. Hence, one can assume the engine quality was more or less what the German Luftwaffe got in 1944. These 12 DB605 were produced by three different companies and weren’t specially marked for Switzerland, therefore I would suggest to exclude the idea that Germany sabotaged these engines. See also attached excel sheet for detailed information. All Swiss Messerschmitts were replaced by P-51D and retired in 1947 till 1949.



My source on Swiss Messerschmitts comes from Georg Hoch’s book “Messerschmitt Me 109 in Swiss Air Force Service”.



Please let me know if you have any questions or remarks. Thanks and greetings from Texas!

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## Ascent (Jun 20, 2016)

I must admit this thread has been very informative. Some stuff I knew, some stuff I was vaguely aware of and a lot of stuff I'm learning. 

Certainly didn't realise that the 109 had such a cramped cockpit. Knew visibility wasn't great but not to what extent.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GregP (Jun 20, 2016)

Most of us seem to realize the Bf 019 could have been improved somewhat from the standpoint of pilot visibility and some extra performance and/or safety enhancements. I'm pretty sure that if we applied this to any British, American, or Soviet planes designed in the mid 1930's, we could do the same. 

To pick two, the Bf 109K was a far cry from the early Bf 109E, much as a Spitfire XIV or 21 was from a Spitfire I. I'm a bit amazed that both German and British designers came up with similar-performance airframes at nearly the same time using different engine / prop combinations. For most the service life of both the Spitfire and the Bf 109, they were fairly close to one another on overall performance and frequently swapped position on the performance scale. That says a lot for the real-world choices that were made and the ability of both to be improved.

Technically, at the end of the war, a late model Bf 109 or Spitfire was a still one of the more dangerous enemies you could run across if it was competently flown.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrapeJam (Jun 20, 2016)

Every suggestion so far seem to be all about improving performance without touching the 109's biggest weakness in the late war period where high speed combat was the normal : extremely heavy stick force at high speed, the 109 wasn't lacking in performance compared to it's opponents, what it lacked was (practical) maneuverability. It was the primary reason why the 190 was preferred over the 109, the 190 was more maneuverable that the 109 at combat speed.


----------



## GregP (Jun 20, 2016)

That could have been addressed as well. The fact that it wasn't has always baffled me, along with lack of at least rudder trim.

It certainly wasn't beyond the Germans. It's just that either Willy Mersserschmitt didn't address it or was not allowed to address it, one or the other, and I'n not too sure which was the case. In the case of the U.S.A., the Hellcat had a slow rate of roll that could easily have been addressed, but Grumman was not allowed to make any change that would impact the production levels. It could be that Germany was working under much greater pressure due to bombing and needed every fighter they could get, so it just wasn't allowed. It could also be that Willy felt the 109 was a completed project and didn't bother with improving it ... I don't know which.


----------



## wuzak (Jun 20, 2016)

Shooter8 said:


> Then you must know that shooting at a steep down angle increases range tremendously! Also, artistic license about the "Gulf of Tonkin" is not be a problem for me. I do not know where exactly it stops and do not care. I flew weekly missions from Phu Bai to Danang, 3+ miles out to sea, and was allowed to shoot up the ammo for the trip down on the way back. That way I got to have fun and the other gunner could practice. It was a LOCH, or Md-500? in civilian terms? Light Observation Combat Helicopter, and we sat on the floor with out feet on the rail and a cargo strap under our arm pits. I have pictures if I can find them out of the thousands I took during my 13 years of active duty.



Having given some place names I had to check since I have no clue of the geography of the Vietnam war..

Phu Bai is north of De Nang. Is that right - US bases north of enemy strong holds?

Phu Bai is also South of teh Gulf of Tonkin. By some way.

And why would you have to fly over water at all on that journey?

And why the f... were you shooting at sharks? Weer you scared they were going to jump right out of the water and eat you?

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Jun 20, 2016)

GrapeJam said:


> Every suggestion so far seem to be all about improving performance without touching the 109's biggest weakness in the late war period where high speed combat was the normal : extremely heavy stick force at high speed, the 109 wasn't lacking in performance compared to it's opponents, what it lacked was (practical) maneuverability. It was the primary reason why the 190 was preferred over the 109, the 190 was more maneuverable that the 109 at combat speed.


Look at the Bf109's original design, then look at the Spitfire's original design...and the Fw190 and the P-39 and all other warplanes that had their designs rooted in the late 1930's.

They were designed with elements of the world's fastest aircraft of the day:

Hughes H-1 - 1935
Messerschmitt Bf109 - 1935
Supermarine Spitfire - 1936
de Havilland T.K.4 - 1937
Folkerts SK-3 - -1937
Bell P-39 - 1938
Crosby CR4 - 1938
Messerschmitt Me209 - 1938
Bugatti Model 100 - 1939
Heinkel He100 - 1939


----------



## Milosh (Jun 20, 2016)

Because Wuzak it makes for a good faerie tale. It is a distance of ~40mi with Hue ~10 mi further.


----------



## GregP (Jun 20, 2016)

Phu Bai (or Camp Hotchmuth) was south of Hue. It was in use from 1962 until overrun in 1975. It is now in use as Phu Bai International Airport. Going between them would be along water most of the way. If you went down there, I doubt you'd be allowed to join the Gulf of Tonkin Yacht Club since you'd be in the South China Sea or perhaps, technically in the East Vietnam Sea, depending on how you look at it. Either way, the choppers mostly stayed out to sea because it was more unlikely you'd get shot at a couple of miles out to sea as opposed to over the coast.

Everyone who shoots knows to shoot high or low if the angle down or up is very steep, but that's if you are standing still. If you are in a cruising LOACH, you'd have to shoot behind the target with a shoulder-fired rifle if it is within effective range to compensate for the forward velocity. At least it works that way shooting from a Huey at 100 mph and 500 feet high. Same in a Piper Cub at the same speed with a rifle. Not too much I'll grant, but the down angle only makes you shoot high if you are stationary or traveling very slowly. All it takes is maybe 4 - 5 shots to figure that out. After that, you'll at least be close on the first shot. I'm sure the guys in WWII / Korea L-4s and L-19s in Vietnam figured it out.

What service and outfit were you with in what timeframe?


----------



## tyrodtom (Jun 20, 2016)

GregP said:


> Phu Bai (or Camp Hotchmuth) was south of Hue. It was in use from 1962 until overrun in 1975. It is now in use as Phu Bai International Airport. Going between them would be along water most of the way. If you went down there, I doubt you'd be allowed to join the Gulf of Tonkin Yacht Club since you'd be in the South China Sea or perhaps, technically in the East Vietnam Sea, depending on how you look at it. Either way, the choppers mostly stayed out to sea because it was more unlikely you'd get shot at a couple of miles out to sea as opposed to over the coast.
> 
> Everyone who shoots knows to shoot high or low if the angle down or up is very steep, but that's if you are standing still. If you are in a cruising LOACH, you'd have to shoot behind the target with a shoulder-fired rifle if it is within effective range to compensate for the forward velocity. At least it works that way shooting from a Huey at 100 mph and 500 feet high. Same in a Piper Cub at the same speed with a rifle. Not too much I'll grant, but the down angle only makes you shoot high if you are stationary or traveling very slowly. All it takes is maybe 4 - 5 shots to figure that out. After that, you'll at least be close on the first shot. I'm sure the guys in WWII / Korea L-4s and L-19s in Vietnam figured it out.
> 
> What service and outfit were you with in what timeframe?



Shooter8 claims " artistic license " on the location of that episode.
I think most of us are concluding that pretty much describes everything he posts.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Graeme (Jun 20, 2016)

Should have had someone with an M-60 on Condor Airlines...


----------



## Milosh (Jun 20, 2016)

Only a few late war 109s got aileron Flettner tabs. It was not a standard fitment.


----------



## BiffF15 (Jun 20, 2016)

pbehn said:


> Not to disagree with anything in your post but the Me109 was designed around a circa 1000BHP engine as was the spitfire, many of the later issues they had reflect this.



Pbehn,
You are correct on the HP changes during its lifespan. However I was talking about it's designed for mission. Air supiority, but not far from the flag pole. In 1935 it was vastly superior, while in 1945 not so much. Yes it more than doubled its HP so did its enemies. And those enemies made sure generally after a rather long commute.
Cheers, 
Biff

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## wuzak (Jun 21, 2016)

James W. said:


> Indeed, the XP-47K got a Typhoon bubble canopy transplant, & the razorbacks were history, (why did the P-38 miss out though?).



I suspect that the size and shape of the P-38's crew nacelle precluded the sliding bubble canopy. And/or the framework around the canopy formed part of the structure.

But mostly, probably, because the view from the P-38 was deemed sufficient and the change in the production line would cause too much delay.


----------



## GrauGeist (Jun 21, 2016)

James W. said:


> Indeed, the XP-47K got a Typhoon bubble canopy transplant, & the razorbacks were history, (why did the P-38 miss out though?).


The P-38 didn't need a "bubble" canopy.



James W. said:


> & oddly the radial engined Bf 109 prototype also got a similar canopy, as did the late FW 190s adopting the blown/bulged type..


If you look at the Bf109V21 and the Bf109X, you'll notice extensive fuselage modifications to accommodate the radial engines. At this point, they could afford to introduce cockpit and canopy alterations.
However, the Erla canopy on the production airframes was a vast improvement and as has been stated earlier, a reworking of the Bf109's fuselage to accommodate a "bubble" canopy would have slowed production at a time that the Bf109 was desperately needed.

Also, note that the canopies on the Bf109V21 and Bf109X were not true "bubble" canopies, either:
Bf109V21






Bf109X





In regards to the Fw190 canopy, it offered a great degree of visibility over the Bf109 and some Allied fighters, but the side "bulges" introduced to the F series was to improve the forward view, since the Fw190F was designed for ground attack. Some of the A series, as well as some G series were fitted with this type as well, but it was not adopted as a full production feature except for the F-9. Even the Fw190D had the A-8 style canopy instead of the "bulged" canopy.


----------



## GregP (Jun 21, 2016)

I know about the flettner tabs on the Hellcat, but the real fix was to eliminate dihedral entirely. They were not allowed to as it would have interrupted production. You COULD introduce minor changes, but anything that stopped the flow of aircraft was disallowed by the War Production Board. The thought was the planes were "good enough."

I was speculating the Germans may have been under similar pressures. Perhaps not. But, if not, then why weren't improvements made? Surely they were desired by the Luftwaffe pilots who KNEW their legs were tired on the rudder and stick forces were high. I can't believe Messerschmitt never heard of it.


----------



## GrauGeist (Jun 21, 2016)

James W. said:


> Pretty sure contributor Biff, who got used to a proper blown bubble, sat in a P-38 & thought WTF?
> About the intrusive eye level lateral framing.. I've sat in Mosquito & wondered the same..
> 
> The Typhoon wasn't a radial, but they made its blown bubble fit the P-47.. so why not the Bf 109?
> ...


You have to consider the amount of effort to modify an airframe for such a modification.
The P-47, for example, had it's fuselage modified to accept the Bubble canopy. The P-51 transitioned from the Malcom Hood to the Bubble canopy, at which point it's fuselage was modified to accept that change as well.

Herein lies the problem: The U.S. could afford to change it's production midstream, the Germans could not.

The Me262 had it's canopy designed from the start, but it wasn't in production until the war was well under way.

The Bf109 was desperately needed from 1941 onward and any halt in production was a setback to front line operations - in short, they were between a rock and a hard place.

Minor alterations, such as the Erla canopy was not a major problem, as the airframes were able to roll off the assembly line without delay.

If you look at the P-47 or P-51, you will see that the "razorback" instance on the frame has been altered, allowing for the bubble canopy to be utilized. Now this would apply to the Bf109 as well, requiring a change in the airframe's design which in turn would require testing and reassigning such things as the rear fuel tank, radio equipment, CoG issues and such. Germany simply could not afford such a delay in production for that to happen.


----------



## GregP (Jun 21, 2016)

The fuel tank does not even get close to the turtledeck. It sits below the pilot seat. The change would have been easy.

We're only volunteers and we could do it.


----------



## stona (Jun 21, 2016)

James W. said:


> So, why do you think it took so long for even the 'Erla' canopy for the 109 to show up?


The initial 'fix' was the armoured glass in the head armour. Having sat in a 109 (with no head armour fitted) I can't imagine how a pilot could turn enough to actually see through this. I don't believe that the Erla hood improved the view to the rear significantly, there is just too much stuff in the way. The 'Erla haube' certainly improved the more general view by removing a lot of metalwork, but compared to a genuine clear view canopy (as we Brits called them) it comes a distant second.
From the E to the G the view from the Bf 109 got progressively worse, not better! Ever heavier framing was the principle culprit. 'Galland panzer' and the 'Erla haube' were quick and easy improvements, requiring little or no alteration to the air frame, even if the improvement was not huge.
Cheers
Steve


----------



## Ascent (Jun 21, 2016)

James W. said:


> The spring-tabs were a major improvement on the F6F, & metal ailerons replacing the fabric covered jobs had been on the Spitfire,
> I wouldn't have thought it would be a major production to do them for the Hellcat too.
> 
> But then the USN strangely, didn't put a bubble canopy on the F6F ( & less than a doz, on the Corsair) waiting for the F8F,
> ...


 
James, that is my thinking on the 109 improvements, just enough to keep it viable but there's no point taking too much effort as it's going to be replaced by the next generation of aircraft.

Except it never was.


----------



## GregP (Jun 21, 2016)

Many thousands of victories say otherwise with regards to the 50-cal. I've seen literally hundreds of victories on film where the fire was very quick after 50-cal hits. So although it COULD be that it wasn't universal, it was quite lethal in a LOT of cases.

I have shot a 105 mm recoiless rifle with a 50-cal spotting gun on several occasions. When the 50 hit a 55-gallon drum, it literally flew 20 feet or more, end over end. They were tracers, but the impact would not have been affected much as the drums were empty and had no gas fumes in them as evidenced by no explosions or flames.

When the 105 hit, they blew apart or vaporized, but we DID set the ground behind us on fire many times. It was a reminder to watch your backblast carefully. Pay attention to where the crew are standing ...

The entire 105 (105 & .50) pivots with the knobs and you pull one of the knobs to shoot the 50 and push to shoot the 105. It's easy to aim and hits where the .50 tracer hit.


----------



## stona (Jun 21, 2016)

The Galland panzer was supposed to allow better rear vision. I may have been a bit hard on the Erla hood. In conjunction with the Galland panzer it probably did allow a better rear view because there would be less metalwork in the way. I still rate it as a marginal improvement compared to a well designed clear view hood.
Cheers
Steve


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 21, 2016)

The .50 cal round used in the spotting gun was a bit different than the normal .50




Since the idea, as Greg said, was to use the spotter round to show where the big shell was going to hit, it made since to use a round that matched the ballistics/trajectory of the big round.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 21, 2016)

I wonder if the Germans resisted adding trimmers to the plane for two reasons.
1. being production. While changing the production line equipment/fixtures has been mentioned several times even after you design and build the tooling you still have to spend a number of man-hours building the parts and more importantly fitting and adjusting them. Don't you need some sort of cables/rods going to each trimmer from the cockpit? 
2. is ease of flying. Without trimmers flying the plane is physically difficult, but mentally simple. With fewer things to adjust (little wheels/levers) there was less for the pilot to remember while flying. _Perhaps_ a benefit to low time pilots? Just a thought (and the Arado Ar 96 does seem to have tabs on all control surfaces although I have no idea if they are ground adjusted or adjustable in flight.)


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 21, 2016)

Ok, Gentlemen, I just found out why they didn't use a cut down fuselage and bubble top.





You couldn't fit the workers inside anymore

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## stona (Jun 21, 2016)

From the Vultee report on the fuselage of Bf 110, which used the same construction technique as the Bf 109.

_"the fuselage structural design involves bands of aluminium alloy sheet about 19 inches wide _[Bf 110]_ with the edges of each alternate band rolled over into a Z-section to form integral bulkhead rings. Bands adjacent to the formed sheets are simply flat sheets sprung into place, with the whole joined by flush riveting and joggled joints to form a structure free of internal bracing members.... 
These sections form half the fuselage and splice at top and bottom. The joggles are long enough to allow ample shop tolerances, and the space between skin and joggle ends is filled with a substance similar to glaziers putty."_

It was a very clever construction technique, well adapted to mass production, admired by both British and American engineers who examined it (though the British raised questions about the overall strength of the structure and suggested means for strengthening it). Altering it in any significant way was not such a straightforward undertaking.

Cheers

Steve

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## wuzak (Jun 21, 2016)

James W. said:


> "Altering" what Steve?
> The construction technique surely need not be altered, only the shape of the fuselage upper surface, aft of the canopy.
> & since the Me 110 utilized a proud-standing canopy, featuring a rear-gunners post, it evidently wasn't an issue..



Altering the production line.

Easy enough to change the design for a one-off.


----------



## stona (Jun 21, 2016)

James W. said:


> "Altering" what Steve?
> The construction technique surely need not be altered, only the shape of the fuselage upper surface, aft of the canopy.
> & since the Me 110 utilized a proud-standing canopy, featuring a rear-gunners post, it evidently wasn't an issue..



Altering the shape of the fuselage. I posted earlier that to create a low back Spitfire the structure of the fuselage hardly changed. The top of two frames and a few skins were altered. To change the Messerschmitt fuselage will require changing several of the sections which are rolled and pressed with the integral formers. The intermediate sections are simpler, more like typical skins.
It could have been done, at least for some test aircraft, the inevitable problems of lateral stability which seem to have arisen with just about every type altered for a cut down fuselage would have needed addressing. It was already marginal on the Bf 109. The British encountered other problems with the low back Spitfires (I mentioned the issues with hood jettison) and at least on the Mark XIV not all the deleterious effects on stability were completely solved, just brought within acceptable limits.
My personal feeling is that the solution was considered more serious than the problem. The Bf 109 had been flying since the mid 1930s and fighting successfully since the late 1930s. Maybe a case of if it ain't broke don't fix it? German research and development was far more focused on a replacement for the Bf 109 rather than further development, certainly not a major redesign of the fuselage. No major design work was done on the Bf 109 after the F series, sure, engines, radiators, undercarriage (wheels, tail wheel struts and some minor alterations to the geometry), the empennage (at least fin and rudder) and a plethora of bumps and bulges and access panels changed, but not the essential structure of the aircraft. A Bf 109 F and a Bf 109 K fuselage exhibit hardly any structural differences. Off the top of my head there may have been some gusseting to add strength to the K and someone would have to check the gauge of the different sections to see if any were heavier, I don't think they were but....
It is no accident that the Erla haube was an independent development from the drawing office of one of the Bf 109 producing plants.
Cheers
Steve


----------



## stona (Jun 21, 2016)

James W. said:


> But why would it be any more difficult for a 109, than doing it for 'razorbacks' such as P-40/P-47/P-51/Spitfire, & etc?..



Because of the very different construction. All the others were skins applied to frames as opposed to an integral structure.
Easy to hand build some aircraft for testing, a major step to make such a major alteration in the middle of series production at a time when all the emphasis was on producing single seat fighters in the largest quantity possible.

A report on the British aircraft industry cited the frequent modifications to existing designs in production as the primary reason that deliveries fell short of targets. It is easy to forget the effect even minor modifications could have on production. The Germans may well have decided that substantial alteration of the Bf 109 risked equally substantial loss in production, a risk they could not afford to take.

Incidentally the British solution was to make a limited sacrifice of quality to quantity at mass production plants like Castle Bromwich or Ford's Manchester plant, whilst accepting the disruption to production schedules caused by the continuous qualitative refinement at design factories such as Rolls Royce and Supermarine. Despite the best efforts of management nobody ever did work out a method of anticipating or even calculating this loss of production. The German aircraft industry never seems to have arrived at this compromise. 

Cheers

Steve


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 21, 2016)

Ok, after the joke photo here are couple that show what Stona is talking about. 





and more clearly 




and 




Factory shot





A lot more photos at : 
_View: https://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/13937421069/in/photostream/_

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 21, 2016)

For comparison here is a Spitfire.





While more than a couple of frames would have to be changed for a bubble top the skins wouldn't need a lot of rework, at least not new forming dies for each skin piece.
Another consideration is that the fuselage depth is part of the strength resisting the bending moment of the tail surfaces. Think horizontal Stab and elevators pushing down on the rear of the fuselage to pullout of a dive or in a tight turn.
You can make the fuselage skinnier top to bottom but you better beef up something to take the load.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## stona (Jun 21, 2016)

Yes, there is a reason that the fuselage extending to the empennage was often referred to as the fuselage boom.

The loss of area was, I think, what led to lateral instability. The Americans ameliorated this on both the P-47 and P-51 with a fillet running to the fin.
In some Marks of Spitfire the low back versions could not use the rear fuselage fuel tanks* under any circumstances *as a result of the same issue.
I mention these issues because once again people are suggesting seemingly simple things to improve an aircraft without considering the problems that this might cause in other areas.
Cheers
Steve


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 21, 2016)

Looking at the Spitfire there are 4 longerons which could be (and were) beefed up to handle heavier loads without changing frames,stringers or skin. Not to say that some later Spitfires didn't beef up one or more of those components, I don't know. 
On the 109 you have the skin and "frames" made of essentially the same thickness material. There are NO Longerons. There are stringers. 
Not saying it couldn't be done, just a lot more difficult.


----------



## stona (Jun 21, 2016)

I agree.

Cheers

Steve


----------



## tomo pauk (Jun 21, 2016)

Many thanks for the contributors here.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GregP (Jun 21, 2016)

Interestingly, this very discussion is why we can't fly our restored Yokosuka D4Y3 Judy. The longerons were corroded away and the cost for new ones was prohibitive. So ... a couple of us volunteers (Bob Velker and me) made up longerons consisting of 3 pieces of Aluminum riveted together forming a "Y" channel. It is strong enough to hold the weight of the plane and might survive flight, but we didn't do a thorough strength analysis because it was going to be a static restoration you can start and taxi, not a flyable unit. So, we can't say for sure if it would be strong enough. Ergo, we will not fly it in the condition it is in, but it looks pretty good.

If someone shows up with a big bucket of money and wanted it to fly, we could make that happen at the cost of replacing all the longerons. Actually, the pros at Fighter Rebuilders would do that, probably not us volunteers.

They are just finishing a beautiful Canadair Sabre Mk VI that has been converted to slats with the long wing. Every Sabre should be so beautiful! And should have the avionics this one has including Garmin GTN 750 / 650 units where the old radar used to be. Talk about a Cadillac, this is it.

Want a great restoration? Talk with Steve Hinton at Fighter Rebuilders! They can get it done.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## CharlesBronson (Jun 22, 2016)

Very good photos of the making of Me-109, it shows how simple was the alluminium skin interlocks.


----------



## wuzak (Jun 22, 2016)

Shooter8 said:


> If the Mods are mad at me, how do I find that out?



I'm sure if they are mad at you, you will know!

And could you stop placing your replies inside quotes. It's hard to read and follow, and sometimes, at least on my pc, the quote window does not expand.


----------



## wuzak (Jun 22, 2016)

Shooter8 said:


> Not at all. It was as much as a game between us as it was real practice shooting from a moving vehicle to a stationary target.



To me it sounds like cruelty to animals, and so I shall report you to the ASPCA.


----------



## GregP (Jun 22, 2016)

Shooter,

I posted this before but maybe you missed it. The slats do NOT give the Bf 109 the ability to maneuver as if it had a larger wing at any given speed. Wrong.

The slats only cover roughly the ailerons and really aren't all that big, and they only become effective when the aircraft approaches a stall. The leading edge airflow must depart before it pulls the slats out. Now we all know you can stall at most speeds in light and aerobatic planes but, in the case of the Bf 109, that simply isn't true. The elevators got pretty heavy after about 300 mph and the pilot could NOT pull hard enough to stall it if he was going much faster than that. Also, the only time any fighter pilot wanted to be anywhere NEAR a stall was as a last-ditch attempt if everything else failed. Otherwise, the pilots might pull hard enough at low-to-medium speeds to regain strong aileron control if they needed to for aiming, but it was never a good place to be, tactically or aerodynamically, in combat. Being out of airspeed is bad if your opponent has it.

Being very fast at max continuous power means very little if that makes the Bf 109 going faster than 320 mph because the ailerons were like being set in stone and the pitch was very difficult at higher speeds. If a Bf 109 was going fast, he was getting to a fight (positioning) or running from one, but he wasn't attacking anything much other than a bomber because almost everything else in the air could do it better than he could going fast. The much-vaunted Bf 109K-4 that could hit 450 mph was a straight-line aircraft at that speed, but still had good fighting capability at 180 - 300 mph, like all Bf 109s did.

None of the above is a knock on the Bf 109. It was and has been a great fighter aircraft of the time, and has a very strong case for being near the top of the heap. But let's not credit it with attributes it didn't have. To make it clearer, there were NO piston fighters that were maneuverable at 450 mph relative to their abilities at lower speeds. The Me 262 and Meteor might have been pretty good at 450 mph, but the rest were dealing with slow roll, slow pitch, and complaining engines when going that fast, so the Bf 109 wasn't alone in that weakness. But most of the others were better at it going 450 mph than the Bf 109 was ever going to be without major redesign.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Disagree Disagree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GregP (Jun 22, 2016)

No it can't unless it deploys the slats. Why not actually READ the reply before inserting foot?

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrapeJam (Jun 22, 2016)

Shooter8 said:


> I would dispute the idea that the 190 was preferred over the 109. Most of Germany's top aces flew the 109 and had a very marked preference for the type.



If you're only looking at the top 3 it's because they were all JG52 members, and the sole reason was because JG52 was equipped with exclusively BF109s simply for the fact that there weren't enough 190s on the eastern front, even the premier 190 fighter group on the eastern front , JG54 was forced to convert back to the 109 for sometimes.

If you look at the Western front, the vast majority of the top German aces flew the 190.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Jun 22, 2016)

Shooter8 said:


> Try to keep it all together?
> 1. Yak and Migs used lower aspect ratio wings and that made them somewhat easier to see than the 109, but much harder to see than the P-51 which was better than the Spit, which beat the -47 which was vastly better than the -38?


The frontal profile of most of those aircraft were the same from another pilot's perspective.

Case in point, Royal Bulgarian pilots over Sofia thought that inbound P-51Bs were additional Bulgarian Bf109s coming to their aid during a bomber intercept, Stoyan Stoyanov survived that mistake, but it shows that even veteran pilots were hard-pressed to distinguish who was who during battle.



Shooter8 said:


> 2. Ruski planes were equipped with really bad 20s, but great .50s. The 109 had probably the best all around 20 on the planet at the time. No matter how weak you think the 109's firepower was, it shot down more planes than the next three allied types combined.


The "Rusky" planes and their poor armament did a fairly decent job on the Luftwaffe, didn't it?



Shooter8 said:


> 3. Turning circle has many connotations and definitions depending on what you are talking about. In this case it refers to the ability of a slatted plane to either pull more G at any given speed, or it's ability to shoot farther across the circle than any other plane in the war?


Slats don't have any bearing on "shooting farther across a circle". The muzzle's direction dictates where the bullet travels.
If you can get into a tight turn and guess where your opponent might be (because they are blocked by your engine cowling) and get hits by extreme deflection shooting, then you're doing something right.



Shooter8 said:


> 4. Wing mounts did not work fine, or it would have been more effective! The 109 only had one 20 mm gun, but it was vastly more effective than the tempest's four. As an example; Head on pass, open fire at 700 meters. The Tempi starts taking hits at once, if the aim is true. The Tempi can not get hits if the pilot aimed true until the wing guns range is about 300-350 Meters at best, or 50-100 meters after the Messer has broken off the attack to avoid a head on collision! get the idea?


The Bf109 had a wide array of armament. Some models had a 20mm "motorkanone", some had the 20mm gunpods in a rustsatzs...some didn't have any 20mm at all.
As far as your head-on pass combat sim anaolgy goes, try reading some of the Allied or Luftwaffe pilot's comments regarding that.

So, in a nutshell, do you know what *STFU* means? If not, google it and get the hint.

You are not only sadly misinformed and way off base, but you have proven me wrong in that my former mother-in-law was the most annoying creature on the planet.

I was wrong...you are.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrapeJam (Jun 22, 2016)

Heh, if he's an actual competent sim flyer he'd know that in aerial combat, using proper tactics, high speed fighters with good high speed maneuverability like the 190, Mustang kick the crap out of the 109.


----------



## GrauGeist (Jun 22, 2016)

GrapeJam said:


> Heh, if he's an actual competent sim flyer he'd know that in aerial combat, using proper tactics, high speed fighters with good high speed maneuverability like the 190, Mustang kick the crap out of the 109.


Not if he has Full Switch realism turned off...along with stalls, blackout/redout, realistic landings and such.

And he's probably selected unlimited ammo


----------



## Elmas (Jun 22, 2016)

Tomo pauk wrote:
We can also note that Re.2005 and G.55 were not as fast as MC.205, on same engine power, the MC.205 sporting far smaller wing.

And for this very reason MC 205, that was a better armed, more powerful and heavier MC 202, was outclassed by both G55 and Re 2005 above 6.000 m and his handling was by far more delicate at all heights. Regia Aeronautica refused at first MC 205 but was compelled to admit the plane for industrial ( the production lines were those of the MC 202, practically, and it was the only modern fighter of the Serie 5 that was possible to produce in any numbers, here and now ) and political reasons (Macchi firm was very influential).
The design of not only a fighter, but of every aeroplane is always the result of a compromise.
Or, better, of many compromises, I dare to say.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Jun 22, 2016)

Shooter8 said:


> No, what I was trying to communicate is that the -109 had all the best traits, at least as history has taught us and any plane that traded speed for maneuverability like the Mustang and Spitfire got a less powerful weapon.


As has been pointed out the Spitfire was faster than the 109 at certain altitudes. The 109 had thin wings and a small structure which was very fast that small structure and thin wings had no room for larger weapons or even thicker tyres. All designers trade speed for maneuverability, if you dont you end up with a plane that needs perfect conditions to land, lands and takes off at high speed and kills a lot of its own pilots, if an aeroplane cannot maneuver how does it get in a position to shoot?

History tells me that the Spitfire was a match for the 109 throughout the war especially the BoB and Malta while the P51 swept it from the skies over Germany in 1943/44


----------



## GregP (Jun 22, 2016)

Hi James,

Thank you for proving my post. Appreciate it.

109 was very good, but not really the best at much except results, not that it helped the outcome. Great pilots and good armament make a difference, don't they?


----------



## stona (Jun 22, 2016)

Shooter8 said:


> No, what I was trying to communicate is that the -109 had all the best traits, at least as history has taught us and any plane that traded speed for maneuverability like the Mustang and Spitfire got a less powerful weapon.



It's high wing loading was certainly not a 'best trait', nor was its undercarriage geometry,nor were some of its other rather crude aerodynamic fixes. For example, the wing-fuselage fillet is a horrible compromise. Compromise is the word here, all aircraft make them, and all designers make some good ones and some not so good ones. The Bf 109 is no different to any other aircraft in this respect.

The two allied aircraft you mention consistently top the list of 'best US fighter' and 'most feared opponent' in the recollections of the men who actually had to fight them (or avoid them when possible in the case of the late Mark Spitfires).
No Spitfire XIV pilot would have any undue trepidation taking on any German fighter, the testimonies to the aircraft's performance and their confidence in it stand out in their combat reports.

You can see some here:

Spitfire Mk XIV versus Me 109 G/K

Excellent site, you might bookmark it.

Cheers

Steve


----------



## GregP (Jun 22, 2016)

Hi James,

You first link proves nothing. The URl starts with "temp" so I assume it is a Tempest, but don't know for sure which Tempest it might be. No annotation at all ... it's out in the ether.

Your second link shows the Bf 109 to be the slowest-rolling piston plane out there at middle speeds and the Bf 109 doesn't even show up on the higher speed right side.

So what is your point? Specifically?


----------



## GregP (Jun 22, 2016)

You have 66 posts and I have 5,700+ with warbird time. Don't be an idiot and I won't take you for one, OK? Let's get non-insultive here going forward, please.

There is no reason to try to disprove everything that is being posted. When I was unemployed and seriously depressed, I went there (ask anyone in here, including moderators) and it sucks in the end. Well, I thought so, anyway.

Rolling well at 450 mph is relative. 90° per second seems good until you find an enemy that can do it at 400° per second. The Bf 109 was the champion slow roller speed of the major piston fighters of WWII at high speeds as it wasn't designed for that part of the envelope and didn't do well there.

The P-51s I have flown in rolled OK at 235 knots (under the speed limit below 10,000 feet) , but were less willing at 400 knots after a dive. All WWII warbirds do do it.

The Bf 109 had other strengths in abundance and they have been well covered.


----------



## GregP (Jun 22, 2016)

James, is your name Shooter8 / Neoconshooter? Just asking because your post it seems very familiar. Good luck in here.

Leave me alone and I'll do the same. Promise.

For all three of your handles.


----------



## pbehn (Jun 22, 2016)

James W. said:


> Greg If you "READ" the post, where I quoted your claim the "NO piston" fighter could roll effectively at 450 mph..
> The Tempest evidently could, & so could the Sea Fury, since it used the Tempest wing profile/planform/flying surfaces.
> 
> Or are you trying on a 'Shooter' role, & just playing dunb here..


no need


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 22, 2016)

Shooter8 said:


> 2. Ruski planes were equipped with really bad 20s, but great .50s. The 109 had probably the best all around 20 on the planet at the time. No matter how weak you think the 109's firepower was, it shot down more planes than the next three allied types combined.



How about comparing the guns using facts and figures, not opinion.
The MG 151 was good but hardly a "WONDER" weapon.

Gun....................weight....................rate of fire............MV in M/S.........Shell weight

MG 151/20..........42kg.........................700rpm...............800/710.............92/117grams
ShVak..................42kg.........................800rpm..................860....................97 grams
Hispano MK II......50kg.........................600rpm..................880...................128-130 grams.

Russian gun used a light conventional shell with lousy down range ballistics but since most combat was done at short ranges (under 400 meters) that hardly matters. High velocity at the shorter ranges means less lead is needed in deflection shooting. Weight of Hispano is low because the belt feeding mechanism doesn't seem to be included. Now if you want to discuss this further their are other threads but please use *facts.*

"Box score" results are hardly accurate because they don't account for such variables as target availability. You can't shoot down what isn't there no matter how wonderful the gun/airplane is.



Shooter8 said:


> 3. Turning circle has many connotations and definitions depending on what you are talking about. In this case it refers to the ability of a slatted plane to either pull more G at any given speed, or it's ability to shoot farther across the circle than any other plane in the war?



It is statements like this that make people doubt if you have ever flown a real plane.
A slated plane can only pull more "G"s _after _the slats have deployed and since they deploy just above stall (and yes I know that stall varies a great deal depending on bank and "G"s being pulled) that means the slats only "help" a very small percentage of the time.
See. http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spit109turn.gif 

Slats are ONLY going to work near the stall boundary. Also note that neither plane can sustain an over 3 "G" turn without loosing altitude. In fact the 109E can't sustain a 2.5 "G" turn. Granted the "F"s and Early "G"s were better.
The ability to shoot across the circle is *pure hokum*. The slat are roughly 1/3 of the span and the airflow only stays stable (non-stalled) over the area of wing behind the slats. Since the wing behind the slats is of narrower cord than the more inboard areas the slats are affecting about 1/4 of the wing area. You really think you have time to shoot (you sure aren't aiming) with about 1/4 of the wing holding the plane "up"? Up being relative in a steep bank.
And then we have the _aiming_ problem. Doesn't really matter if you can pull even 14 degree angle of attack if you can't even see past 7 degrees (and the 109 was less) below the nose. You are hosing an area of sky _hoping _your enemy flies into the shells.




Shooter8 said:


> 4. Wing mounts did not work fine, or it would have been more effective! The 109 only had one 20 mm gun, but it was vastly more effective than the tempest's four. As an example; Head on pass, open fire at 700 meters. The Tempi starts taking hits at once, if the aim is true. The Tempi can not get hits if the pilot aimed true until the wing guns range is about 300-350 Meters at best, or 50-100 meters after the Messer has broken off the attack to avoid a head on collision! get the idea?



Oh Boy. I thought I was kidding about Photon torpedoes. Apparently somebody perfected phaser beam guns in WW II.

Yes you did say "if the aim is true" but that followed "Head on pass, open fire at 700 meters. The Tempi starts taking hits at once..."
Lets think about that. Even at each plane doing 300mph the closure rate is 880fps or 267meters per second. Of course the time of flight for the projectiles is about 1 second or worse to 700 meters so the "Tempi" won't start taking hits "at once". It may start taking hits at around 560meters due to the rate of closure. Of course the German 20mm shells have longer time of flight than the Hispano shells, like
20mm HET 117g...........0.477...........1.101 (from a MG 151) times are in seconds to 300 and 600 meters. The mine shell was worse at long distance even though it started out faster.
So the "Tempi" may not take any hits until even closer. Then we get into the "_if the aim was true" _bit If both planes are doing 300mph and the super duper German pilot breaks at just 350 meters he will have had time to fire 15 rounds of 20mm ammo. Lets hope he had his 20mm loaded with all one kind of ammo and not a mixed belt as the different 20mm ammo had different times of flight and different trajectories at these longer ranges (over 400 meter) as did the cowl guns of whatever caliber.
The "Tempi" will have fired about 60 rounds of 20mm ammo in the same period of time at the 109i. 109 is gambling that the Tempest pilot doesn't wobble or snake while firing.

BTW here is a list of German guns and times of flight to 300 and 600 meters at sea level. Higher altitudes are less.

7.92mm AP 10 g............0.453..........1.159
13mm HEI 34 g.............0.49............1.22
15mm HEI 57.5g...........0.357...........0.816
20mm HEI 92g..............0.551..........1.428 (from a MG/FFM)
20mm HET 117g...........0.477...........1.101 (from a MG 151)
30mm HEI 330g............0.696...........1.66 (MK 108 )
edit. Chart is copied from "Flying guns of WW II" By Williams and Gustin

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Milosh (Jun 22, 2016)

The Tempest starts taking hits at once.


----------



## stona (Jun 22, 2016)

One final aerodynamic comment about the Bf 109, its wing, slats and all.
A Bf 109, however expertly flown, slats deployed, in a slower speed, combat turn, will stall before a Spitfire, irrespective of the difference in the radii of their turns. You simply can't out smart the laws of physics 
There are of course cases of Bf 109s out turning Spitfires, but this is due to arguably the single most important factor in combat performance, the ability and experience of the pilots.
Cheers
Steve

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## drgondog (Jun 22, 2016)

Greg - it would be very interesting to gather the load info for the Judy - sufficient to analyze individual stresses.

That said - the most probable 'failure mode' in the original design should be the symmetrical, high G, angle of attack loads in a dive pullout which you could ignore. The Longerons, I would think, would need to be analyzed for taking out the bending loads due to the empennage, They would alternatively be in tension and compression.

That would also lead to looking at the shear transfer for the panels attached to the longerons, including a.) buckling, b.) rivet type and spacing, c.)shear stress on the rivets, d. shear stress on the panels due to rivets


----------



## drgondog (Jun 22, 2016)

Hmm, I wonder if closing speed was the most important factor (over maneuverability) when "83-90 died with less than 30% deflection"?

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 22, 2016)

Milosh said:


> The Tempest starts taking hits at once.


I have no idea why they show they show the Visierlinie ( line of sight) on a slant. But it does show the Germans had trouble getting all the ammunition for various guns to land in the same space let alone at the same time. Now just for Shi*s and giggles move the line for the MG 151/20 up from the underwing gondola position to the center line gun position used by the MK 108 gun at 300 meters it might only be 40-50 cm higher than the MG 131 trajectory but it will be over 1.5 meters higher at 500 meters. Of course you could adjust the 20mm gun to be closer at mid-range (300 meters) but that means the gun hits lower compared to the line of sight at 500 meters and beyond. 
Long range shooting from airplanes was pretty much luck. A really good shot might be luckier than a poor shot because he was at least getting his rounds in the same area of the sky


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 22, 2016)

Just did some rough math on the Tempest and scale distances from drawing. Assuming the outer guns at 5.5 meters apart (scaling from drawing, subject to correction) and a 300 yd cross (270 meters) the shells will be 3.63 meters apart at 90 meters and at 450 meters. they will be 1.8 meters apart at at 180 meters and 360 meters. Granted a "109ee" fuselage isn't very wide but the wings and prop, while not easy targets are well within the impact area at under 400 meters (wing even further.) This depends on perfect aim from the Tempest pilot and zero dispersion from the guns/ammunition. 

I don't know about others but I don't tell the dealer in blackjack to "hit me" when I am already holding 20 in my hand hoping to get an ace


----------



## wuzak (Jun 22, 2016)

Shortround6 said:


> A slated plane can only pull more "G"s _after _the slats have deployed and since they deploy just above stall (and yes I know that stall varies a great deal depending on bank and "G"s being pulled) that means the slats only "help" a very small percentage of the time.
> See. http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spit109turn.gif
> 
> Slats are ONLY going to work near the stall boundary. Also note that neither plane can sustain an over 3 "G" turn without loosing altitude. In fact the 109E can't sustain a 2.5 "G" turn. Granted the "F"s and Early "G"s were better.
> ...



So, if I am reading this chart correctly, at 250mph TAS and 12,000ft altitude the Bf 109E would do a 360° turn in approximately 35-38s, on a radius of 2,000ft, pulling 2.25G without losing altitude.

The Spitfire, on the other hand, would have a turn radius of roughly 1,500ft, take around 28s and pull around 2.8-2.9G.

And if the Spitfire was in front when he initiated the turn, he would be on the Bf 109's tail inside of 2 turns?


----------



## BiffF15 (Jun 22, 2016)

This thread reminds me of the quote, "What happens when you wrestle with a pig? You both get dirty and the pig is happy!"

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
2 | Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Peter Gunn (Jun 22, 2016)

GregP said:


> *SNIP*
> 
> They are just finishing a beautiful Canadair Sabre Mk VI that has been converted to slats with the long wing. Every Sabre should be so beautiful! And should have the avionics this one has including Garmin GTN 750 / 650 units where the old radar used to be. Talk about a Cadillac, this is it.
> 
> *SNIP*



Greg,

Will you be able to post a few pictures of her? Dyed in the wool Sabre fan that I am, I'd love to see this one.

Pete


----------



## rochie (Jun 22, 2016)

wuzak said:


> So, if I am reading this chart correctly, at 250mph TAS and 12,000ft altitude the Bf 109E would do a 360° turn in approximately 35-38s, on a radius of 2,000ft, pulling 2.25G without losing altitude.
> 
> The Spitfire, on the other hand, would have a turn radius of roughly 1,500ft, take around 28s and pull around 2.8-2.9G.
> 
> And if the Spitfire was in front when he initiated the turn, he would be on the Bf 109's tail inside of 2 turns?


that cannot be correct, all versions of 109's could out turn all versions of spitfires at any speed and altitude because the had slats !
the pilot would flick a switch, the slats would make his wing bigger, he would then be able to pull much tighter and cut across the spitfires turning circle.

i dont know why they put guns on Bf 109's the should've just saved the weight, avoided the RAF with their superior speed, climb, height and maneuverability and waited for the Spitfire pilots to kill themselves on landing as it was such a danger to do

also i now know CL guns have a longer range than wing guns and are more effective at said longer range .....

never in the field of the internet has so mush bull been spread by so few to so many !

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Funny Funny:
4 | Like List reactions


----------



## stona (Jun 22, 2016)

wuzak said:


> So, if I am reading this chart correctly, at 250mph TAS and 12,000ft altitude the Bf 109E would do a 360° turn in approximately 35-38s, on a radius of 2,000ft, pulling 2.25G without losing altitude.
> 
> The Spitfire, on the other hand, would have a turn radius of roughly 1,500ft, take around 28s and pull around 2.8-2.9G.
> 
> And if the Spitfire was in front when he initiated the turn, he would be on the Bf 109's tail inside of 2 turns?



There are all sorts of different parameters. The British were interested in the tightest possible turn.

RAE report BA1640 has a captured Bf 109 E at a non specified speed in bank angle, for no loss of height, at 12,000ft with a turn radius of 885ft. It took 25 seconds to complete 360 degrees and it could achieve this at a maximum of 129 mph.

The Spitfire I in the same test had a turn radius of 696ft. It took 19 seconds to complete 360 degrees and it could achieve this at a maximum speed of 133 mph.

Shenstone did some calculations in 1941 to estimate the turning performance of the two types at 275 mph. He imposed a rather high 6g limit in his equations.
The Bf 109 could make a 360 degree turn in 12 seconds on a radius of 720 ft.
The Spitfire I could make a 360 degree turn in 8 seconds on a radius of 580ft.

Now, tests on captured aircraft and the calculations of the world's best aerodynamicists don't necessarily reflect combat realities, but in just about every test and theoretical calculation it is clear that the lower wing loading of the Spitfire (and other aerodynamic factors) meant it could easily out turn its adversary in the hands of a competent pilot. 

The only source that has them close, and in certain circumstances the Bf 109 turning better, is Len Deighton's 'Fighter' and he bases his assumptions on Mason's calculations, made with demonstrably erroneous data (see Ackroyd, Lamont et alter as well as the various coefficients of lift established by the Americans in 1942, significantly higher than those used by Mason).

I think that experienced Luftwaffe pilots knew that to get into a turning fight with a Spitfire was a very bad idea indeed. The Bf 109 had other areas of performance where, for most of the war, it was superior. This was what an experienced pilot would use, and that's why he had lived long enough to gain that experience.

Cheers

Steve

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Peter Gunn (Jun 22, 2016)

I tried to read through the post where Shooter responded to me but really, it started to become headache inducing. The only part I got to was talking about not dogfighting, apparently only WWII German pilots did the boom and zoom approach. I believe Oswald Boelcke <sp?> was the first one to actually codify that, although I could be wrong. I'm also pretty sure the aforementioned P-40, (which it seems if those silly Brits would have seen how awesome it was, would have ignored the time space continuum to get them into the BoB to save the day) used those tactics viz a viz any Japanese fighter.

I also didn't realize that the 109 and 190 shot down hordes more Mustangs and Thunderbolts than vice versa. As I said previously, this thread has been quite informative.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## drgondog (Jun 22, 2016)

A couple of points - with the decision going to Greg.

1.) The LE Slats deploy when the adverse pressure gradient tickles the stall aft of the slats. At this AoA the inboard wing is already in Stall or impending stall condition

2.) A high AoA is required to initiate the slats but in a turn the wings are in asymmetric loading with the high wing leading the action (aileron down, effective chord to V freestream at greater effective angle of AoA). This is THE source for all 'Snatching" comments, particularly from Rall, leading to temporary yaw if not controlled.

3.) The 109 W/L was inferior to the Spit and superior to the Mustang and FW 190 and Tempest - but less than a couple of percent. Wing Loading and level flight CL are the major considerations in comparisons - but the level flight C/L is NEVER attained in a turn. In the example of a 109 with Slats deployed, it has already reached local stall inboard and the CL for the airframe is neither predictable nor easily reproduced - hence "It ain't part of the Flight Test Plan"

4.) The level flight drag of the 109G was 10% higher than a Spit and nearly 65% greater than the Mustang.

5.) The drag due to AoA was also far higher that either the Mustang or the Spit, and the Spit was the best of the three.

6.) any comparison discussions have to be considered in the context of altitude, boost conditions framing the Thrust parameters, airspeed, Power Available vs Power Required (which has rapidly diminishing 'Delta' in any turn - but worse for the 109 that the other two). Major complications in performance model arise when developing and factoring the Form Drag due to AoA (large), the Powerplant/prop efficiency in the full range of speeds encountered in curved/circular flight path, the stall characteristics in asymmetric flight, the trim drag of the rudder deflections and aileron deflections. These are entirely left out of the discussion in Aero courses due to a.) lack of data, and b.) non-linear nature of each factor.

James W. One of the quotes (in the LW interrogation section-1945 "Spitfire vs 109" link) from one of the Interrogations focused on the general high performance of the Mustang vs the 109, in which the interviewee stated that only the best and most experienced pilots should engage in turn combat with the Mustang - and never with the Spitfire.

7.) all the VVS data often quoted in these discussions are below 2K meters and Most if not all the ones I have seen presented in this forum are pre 1943, with some lapping into early 1944.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Winner Winner:
2 | Informative Informative:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Jun 22, 2016)

rochie said:


> i dont know why they put guns on Bf 109's the should've just saved the weight, avoided the RAF with their superior speed, climb, height and maneuverability and waited for the Spitfire pilots to kill themselves on landing as it was such a danger to do


Dowding was ahead of the game, all spitfires were grounded as a last desperate measure while the pilots farted in the direction of Calais.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Jun 22, 2016)

An observation that I'd like to make:
The majority of aircraft tested weren't just pulled off the front lines nor were they being tested under combat conditions where they may have already burned off a certain aount of fuel or had just been in a scrap a few minutes before, sporting holes from a close call with an adversary - all of which would effect performance.

Were the pilots in the test tired from already flying a sortie earlier that morning? Did they have partial ammunition loadouts? Were the engines already halfway through their maintenance schedule? Was the much-needed plane cobbled together from other airframes to keep it in the fight? Was there mud amd dirt on the plane's surfaces and perhaps crap stuffed into the wheel-well, keeping one of the maingear from retracting 100%

In otherwords, the majority of these tests were under controlled circumstances with fresh or prime examples of the type.

However, real-world performance was a crap-shoot with a great deal of random input on the aircraft's performance, including the condition of the pilot, who may have already flown one or two missions that morning, may have been kept awake all night by harassment bombers and such. (In the PTO, many of the pilots were suffering from tropical diseases, too)


----------



## pbehn (Jun 22, 2016)

GrauGeist said:


> However, real-world performance was a crap-shoot with a great deal of random input on the aircraft's performance, including the condition of the pilot, who may have already flown one or two missions that morning, may have been kept awake all night by harassment bombers and such. (In the PTO, many of the pilots were suffering from tropical diseases, too)


And by the same measure captured aircraft under test were not serviced and prepared by qualified crew until the end of the war.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Jun 22, 2016)

pbehn said:


> And by the same measure captured aircraft under test were not serviced and prepared by qualified crew until the end of the war.


Yes indeed.

So even under the best controlled circumstances, where one type may have an edge over another type, real-world circumstances may dictate an opposite result.


----------



## rochie (Jun 22, 2016)

GrauGeist said:


> Yes indeed.
> 
> So even under the best controlled circumstances, where one type may have an edge over another type, real-world circumstances may dictate an opposite result.


I agree Dave.

But there is no point in telling your pilots
"look chaps weve tested the enemy aircraft and if one gets behind you do a max sustainable turn as he cant turn inside you and it'll give a few seconds to think" 
if its not true and the first time one of your guys is in trouble he does as you say and is shot down because the enemy can turn tighter !


----------



## stona (Jun 22, 2016)

Technicians from all countries were perfectly capable of 'servicing' foreign aircraft, at least to the point of restoring them to flight or keeping them flying until some vital and unavailable part was required. A German looking at a Spitfire, or a Briton looking at a Bf 109, were not going to see anything they didn't understand.
I said that such tests are not definitive because there are many variables, not least a test pilot who would be relatively unfamiliar with the enemy machine. Nonetheless the data obtained is valid and it was used to develop fighting tactics for use against the various enemy types.
Douglas Bader was a man like Marmite, you love him or hate him, but for all his qualities and failings he was smart enough that the first thing he wanted to do, when he became aware that the RAE had acquired a Bf 109 F was to fly it and establish its qualities for himself.







He makes the point that 100s of hours of data collection are not needed, just the assessment of a few experienced pilots. They didn't need to establish the exact radius of turn of the aircraft at all sorts of altitudes and speeds, just whether they could turn inside it!
His suggestion that Wing Commanders, Flying be given first go was surely influenced by his position as precisely that 

Cheers

Steve

Reactions: Like Like:
4 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Jun 22, 2016)

It's certainly is a tremendous help to know the enemy's strengths and weaknesses and testing captured aircraft provide a wealth of information that can be better used to get the upper-hand on an adversary. If that data saves one pilot's life, then it was a success.

But the discussion on aircraft values often comes down to the "this type had a .001% advantage over that type because test results proved etc. etc. etc."

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## stona (Jun 22, 2016)

Margins between some types were small, but testing and examination of enemy aircraft helped to develop tactics that would exploit the relative weaknesses of an enemy type whilst exploiting your strengths.
Cheers
Steve


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 22, 2016)

I don't too excited about differences until they get into high single digits, like over 5% and even then take them with a grain of salt. 
I believe, but could be wrong, that many contracts had an allowable margin or performance, for some reason 3% springs to mind for the US contracts. Some contracts spelled out penalties, like XX dollars for every MPH _under _the allowable tolerance a plane tested in acceptance testing. There was a limit though, too slow and the plane was rejected and had to be reworked to bring it up to standard. 
Some memoirs say how the pilot in question flew a number of different replacement aircraft and picked ONE to be his normal aircraft Usually already an ace or squadron commander RHIP  
Good crew chiefs were also prized more than a faithful wife. 
I would hazard a guess that national test facilities also had experienced mechanics/fitters and NOT the ones that graduated last week in the bottom 1/2 of their class. 
The most common part to cause problems in testing were probably spark plugs (open to correction) but then they _might _be the most common spare part available to the country doing the testing. The English might be able to scrounge spark plugs from a number of wrecks. Spare props being much harder to come by.


----------



## GrauGeist (Jun 22, 2016)

A good example of resurrecting a wrecked enemy plane and getting it airworthy for testing, would be the Alaskan Zero.

I'm sure that the English countryside provided a wealth of spare parts for testing various Bf109s, Bf110s and the like...but the effort they went to in rebuilding that Zero was impressive.


----------



## pbehn (Jun 22, 2016)

GrauGeist said:


> A good example of resurrecting a wrecked enemy plane and getting it airworthy for testing, would be the Alaskan Zero.
> 
> I'm sure that the English countryside provided a wealth of spare parts for testing various Bf109s, Bf110s and the like...but the effort they went to in rebuilding that Zero was impressive.


The Fw 190 was a problem but happily someone mistook the UK for France and landed one in perfect condition.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 22, 2016)

stona said:


> I said that such tests are not definitive because there are many variables, not least a test pilot who would be relatively unfamiliar with the enemy machine. Nonetheless the data obtained is valid and it was used to develop fighting tactics for use against the various enemy types.
> 
> Cheers
> 
> Steve



Aw, I did like shooter's contention that the pilots at Farnborough didn't push the 109 in turns because they were unfamiliar with slats and afraid of them. Handley Page was the co-holder of the patent and stuck them on practically everything the company made, including the first 50 Halifax's. Even Swordfish had slats on the upper wing (in front of the ailerons, lower wing didn't have ailerons). Test pilots at Farnborough were hardly strangers to slats either in theory or practice. 
Breaking the only flying example of the 109 in England may have introduced a bit of caution in general.


----------



## stona (Jun 22, 2016)

The trials of Armin Faber's Fw 190 gave the British much needed insight into what they already knew to be a formidable fighter.

Eric Brown:

“The AFDU trials confirmed what the RAF already knew - that the Fw 190 was a truly outstanding combat aircraft. They also produced vitally important information which went some way towards restoring the situation in so far as the RAF was concerned and in eradicating something of the awe in which the Focke-Wulf had come to be held by Allied pilots. It was concluded that the Fw 190 pilot trying to “mix it” with a Spitfire in the classic fashion of steep turning was doomed, for at any speed -even below the German fighter's stalling speed- it would be out-turned by its British opponent . Of course the Luftwaffe was aware of this fact and a somewhat odd style of dogfighting evolved in which the Fw 190 pilots endeavoured to keep on the vertical plane by zooms and dives, while their Spitfire-mounted antagonists tried everything in the book to draw them on to the horizontal. If the German pilot lost his head and failed to resist the temptation to try a horizontal pursuit curve on a Spitfire, as likely as not, before he could recover the speed lost in a steep turn he would find another Spitfire turning inside him! On the other hand, the German pilot who kept zooming up and down was usually the recipient of only difficult deflection shots of more than 30 deg. The Fw 190 had tremendous initial acceleration in a dive but it was extremely vulnerable during a pull-out, recovery having to be quite progressive with care not to kill the speed by 'sinking' ”

And:

"The AFDU comparisons between the Focke-Wulf and the Spitfire Mk IX - with the former's BMW 801 at 2,700 rpm and 20.8 lb (1.42 atas) boost and the latter's Merlin 61 at 3000 rpm and 15lb (1.00 ata)- has revealed that the German fighter was 7-8mph (11-13km/h) faster than its British counterpart at 2,000 ft (610 m) but that the speeds of the two fighters were virtually the same at 5,000 ft (1525 m). Above this altitude, the Spitfire began to display a marginal superiority, being about 8mph (13km/h) faster at 8,000 ft (2440 m) and 5 mph (8km/h) faster at 15,000 ft (4570 m). The pendulum then swung once more in favour of the Focke-Wulf which proved itself some 3 mph (5km/h) faster at 18,000 ft (5485m), the two fighters level pegging once more at 21,000 ft (6400 m) and the Spitfire then taking the lead until at 25,000 ft (7620 m) it showed a 5-7 mph (8-11 km/h) superiority.
In climbing little difference was found between the Fw 190 and the Spitfire MkIX up to 23,000 ft (7010 m), above which altitude the German fighter began to fall off and the difference between the two aircraft widened rapidly. From high-speed cruise, a pull-up into a climb gave the Fw190 an initial advantage owing to its superior acceleration and the superiority of the German fighter was even more noticeable when both aircraft were pulled up into a zoom climb from a dive. In the dive the Fw190 could leave the Spitfire Mk IX without difficulty and there was no gainsaying that in so far as manoeuvrablity was concerned, the German fighter was markedly superior in all save the tight turn – the Spitfire could not follow in aileron turns and reversals at high speed and the worst height for its pilots to engage the Fw 190 in combat were between 18,000 and 22,000 ft (5485 and 6705m), and at altitudes below 3,000 ft (915m).
The stalling speed of the Fw 190A-4 in clean configuration was 127 mph (204 km/h) and the stall came suddenly and virtually without warning, the port wing dropping so violently that the aircraft almost inverted itself. In fact, if the German fighter was pulled into a g stall in a right turn, it would flick out into the opposite bank and an incipient spin was the inevitable outcome if the pilot did not have its wits about him.
The stall in landing was quite different, there being intense pre-stall buffeting before the starboard wing dropped comparatively gently at 102 mph (164 km/h)"

Cheers

Steve

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Jun 22, 2016)

Shortround6 said:


> Aw, I did like shooter's contention that the pilots at Farnborough didn't push the 109 in turns because they were unfamiliar with slats and afraid of them.


That made me smile too, all the test pilots reports I have read discuss the stall characteristics and how easily the plane recovers. Test pilots spent a large part of their time stalling aircraft the idea that a test pilot would be scared of an aircraft is a bit strange unless of course the plane just wouldnt recover.


----------



## stona (Jun 22, 2016)

pbehn said:


> the idea that a test pilot would be scared of an aircraft is a bit strange unless of course the plane just wouldnt recover.



There would only be one way to find out.....that's what parachutes are for 

Cheers

Steve

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Jun 22, 2016)

Shortround6 said:


> Aw, I did like shooter's contention that the pilots at Farnborough didn't push the 109 in turns because they were unfamiliar with slats and afraid of them. Handley Page was the co-holder of the patent and stuck them on practically everything the company made, including the first 50 Halifax's. Even Swordfish had slats on the upper wing (in front of the ailerons, lower wing didn't have ailerons). Test pilots at Farnborough were hardly strangers to slats either in theory or practice.
> Breaking the only flying example of the 109 in England may have introduced a bit of caution in general.


I agree..that did bring a smile to my face as well!

Perhaps that's why the F-86 was having so much difficulty with those pesky MiGs in Korea early on...but once the F-86 pilots got over their fear of slats, the MiGs were in trouble!!

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## rochie (Jun 22, 2016)

And maybe thats why the Spitfire was re hashed WWI technology as it didnt have slats ?


----------



## GrauGeist (Jun 22, 2016)

rochie said:


> And maybe thats why the Spitfire was re hashed WWI technology as it didnt have slats ?


In all fairness, perhaps he mistook the Hurricane slip-wing for the Spitfire...it sort of looks WWI-ish...

From a distance...

After several beers...

It's an honest mistake, really!

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 22, 2016)

Yep, the British should have persevered with this design instead.




At least it had slats. 
Or for a bomber prototype 




Or fit heavy nose guns to this as a bomber destroyer. Just think of the angle of attack this could pull

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Jun 22, 2016)

There are many posters here better read and more experienced than me but the idea that a test pilot was scared of slats opening is ridiculous. Many WW2 aircraft types have a note in their development about a test pilot being killed in is development. I believe the mosquito killed 2 or3 test pilots pulling out of dives before the reason was found (something to do with the undercarriage or its doors dropping under high G loads) To me, if I was a test pilot, the thing that would make my rear twitch would be pulling out of a dive, what if it doesnt and cant? As Rochie said if it stalls and doesnt recover jump out.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 22, 2016)

The British had used quite a number of aircraft with slats by 1939, Granted a lot of them used some pretty crude slat arrangements compared to the 109 (external tracks/hinges) and not only had they built a lot of designs with slats some of those designs had been built by the hundreds. Like the majority of Hawker Hart Family. Again they were only fitted on the upper wing in front of the ailerons. This was to maintain aileron effectiveness just before or during a stall to prevent spinning.
The idea that test pilots at Farnborough were not familiar with slats is ludicrous. Westland Lysander had full span Slats and first flew in 1936.


----------



## gumbyk (Jun 22, 2016)

Not to mention that the first aircraft the most British pilots flew (Dh-82) would have had slats fitted. I doubt that the British test pilots would have had any fear of them... Not that they do much for the Tiger Moth

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 22, 2016)

Thank you.


----------



## pbehn (Jun 22, 2016)

Shortround6 said:


> Thank you.


You should not be complimented on posting pictures of those ugly muthas, did the Brits ever put a slat on a pretty aircraft, what is that bomber? I think it would give the 109 a run for its money. The conversation /statement was not so much about per se but about their sudden deployment. I have read that some aces said inexperienced pilots felt that newly qualified pilots did not push the 109 to the limits and combat frequently involved the slats opening, that is not the same as a test pilot. Those guys were used to flying planes which had never been flown before and in the case of captured equipment had very little information.


----------



## gumbyk (Jun 22, 2016)

pbehn said:


> I have read that some aces said inexperienced pilots felt that newly qualified pilots did not push the 109 to the limits and combat frequently involved the slats opening, that is not the same as a test pilot.


No newly qualified pilot would have been pushing his aircraft to the limits - that is what comes with experience - knowing exactly how far you can push the aircraft.


----------



## Greyman (Jun 22, 2016)

Slats on British aircraft, eh? I knew it was only a matter of time before I could swing another thread to the Westland Whirlwind ...

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Jun 22, 2016)

The Mosquito prototype had leading edge slats as did the Whirlwind.

Been ages since I've read up on the Mossie, so I don't recall why they weren't retained for production.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 22, 2016)

pbehn said:


> You should not be complimented on posting pictures of those ugly muthas, did the Brits ever put a slat on a pretty aircraft, what is that bomber? I think it would give the 109 a run for its money. The conversation /statement was not so much about per se but about their sudden deployment. I have read that some aces said inexperienced pilots felt that newly qualified pilots did not push the 109 to the limits and combat frequently involved the slats opening, that is not the same as a test pilot. Those guys were used to flying planes which had never been flown before and in the case of captured equipment had very little information.


Westland Whirlwind for pretty aircraft?





Slats didn't work well and were fastened shut. 
The middle picture was an airliner and the bottom picture a combination bomber/transport. 
While captured aircraft were often treated gently (can't send it back to factory to get repaired) while feeling out the quirks the statement was made that British pilots were unfamiliar with slats and didn't push the aircraft to it's limits because of that and so under estimated the real turning ability of the 109. As shown the British pilots as a whole had a fair amount of experience with slats, some of the old biplanes actually had some pretty vicious stall characteristics and the slats were beneficial in reducing the accident rate. 
Some British companies used them quite a bit, others didn't use them at all (didn't want to pay royalties to Handley Page?) 
The person doing that post is confusing the effect of full span slats with the effect of partial span slats.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 22, 2016)

GrauGeist said:


> The Mosquito prototype had leading edge slats as did the Whirlwind.
> 
> Been ages since I've read up on the Mossie, so I don't recall why they weren't retained for production.


 

It may be because the wing section had a decent stall anyway? Even Handley Page stopped putting slats on the Halifax after the first 50. 4 engine bombers shouldn't be operating at angles of attack over 12-14 degrees. under that and the slats don't deploy.


----------



## wuzak (Jun 22, 2016)

GrauGeist said:


> The Mosquito prototype had leading edge slats as did the Whirlwind.
> 
> Been ages since I've read up on the Mossie, so I don't recall why they weren't retained for production.



It was found they were not needed.


----------



## Milosh (Jun 22, 2016)

The slats can been seen on W4050, 





_View: https://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/22722970433_
[/img]

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Jun 23, 2016)

The Bf109 was limited as to what could be placed in the wing, because the wing remarkably thin.

Earlier in this thread, I posted photos of the Bf109's wing, showing the wing's upper skin surface from inside the wheel-well, including the bulge to add clearance for the tire.


----------



## GregP (Jun 23, 2016)

In the end, I think the Fw 190 series was better below 20 - 22,000 feet and the late Bf 109s were better above that height. I could be wrong here, but the combat reports I have read don't support it if so.

Up above 25,000 feet, nobody in a WWII fighter was doing 90° banks or they fell out of the sky and exited the scene in a spin or dive. They flew around in shallow banks and tried to get an advantage. That's for horizontal fights. In a WWII fighter, vertical fights from high altitude meant descent, not a climbing fight. All climbs at that altitude were gradual except zooms from sufficient speed. If you are within several thousand feet of the service ceiling, you can't loop even if the want to; there is insufficient speed / lift available. It's like trying to climb out of a canyon at just above stall ... NOT a good place to be.

I can easily believe the slats on the Bf 109 were quite effective at high altitude and low IAS. But the vertical ability up there just wasn't present in large quantities for anyone.

Our Hispano Ha.1112 doesn't have any wing fences.


----------



## stona (Jun 23, 2016)

GregP said:


> Our Hispano Ha.1112 doesn't have any wing fences.



They were fitted to some versions. Spanwise flow is always likely to be a problem on a short, straight wing and by reducing this the 'fences' improved the wing lift patterns across the wing.

Whether Shooter8 likes it or not the wing of the Bf 109 is a far more conservative and less sophisticated design, including more compromises, than that of the Spitfire.

The debate over the relative merits of elliptical type wings and square tapered wings raged in the mid 1930s, and developed into heated argument following the 1936 publication by Lachmann (he of slats fame) of an article entitled "The Stalling of Tapered Wings". Both have advantages and disadvantages, which is why in the ensuing debate one famous name confounded another before being himself confounded and so on.
Both types featured on great aircraft, think P-51, Bf 109, Fw 190 for straight, Spitfire, P-47, Tempest for ellipsoidal.

Cheers

Steve


----------



## pbehn (Jun 23, 2016)

stona said:


> Both types featured on great aircraft, think P-51, Bf 109, Fw 190 for straight, Spitfire, P-47, Tempest for ellipsoidal.
> 
> Cheers
> 
> Steve


Didnt the Tempest designer say that it had to look like a Spitfire or no one would buy it?


----------



## GregP (Jun 23, 2016)

I'm about to go on a trip this Saturday, but will get pics when I come back. I should be back there on Saturday, 9 Jul 2016. The airframe is basically a stock Bf 109 G-2 with a Merlin on the front. Then only really noticeably difference is that ours has fitted covers where the cannons came out, and there is a hole in the wing spar where the cannons used to go through, trimmed in Aluminum edging.

Ours had also been modified at some point for racing and had an ADI tank in the starboard outer wing that caused a piece of main spar far outboard to be removed as well as a "Y" connection in the fuel line going to the supercharger impeller for the ADI when the solenoid was actuated. When we removed the ADI tank, we (Fighter Rebuilders) patched the spar, so it is pretty much back to stock in that department. No more ADI injection. Pretty much a stock Merlin 224 with a neat new carbon fiber carburetor airscoop fabricated by Steven Hinton Jr. The lower cowling will be made MUCH more Bf 109-like since we (Fighter Rebuilders, not volunteers) relocated the oil cooler and worked specifically toward that goal.

It is about 98% ready to fly again. Hopefully sometime soon.

Interestingly, the slats are somewhat unusual in that they are basically wood with Aluminum skin. Is super glue an "approved adhesive?" I hadn't expected wood. The radiator scoop structures on the lower wing are also of wood, with metal doors at the back. Basically the flap trailing edge spreads apart for airflow exit control on both sides and the lower wooden lip of the scoop is controllable for intake size (the leading edge moves up and down). So, airflow control is mostly composed of wood parts.

I would not have known much of any of that had I not seen it and worked on it a bit. Altogether an interesting aircraft, but somewhat of a problem due to the difficulties in finding metric aircraft hardware locally. So, ours is a mixed bag of metric and SAE. Nothing wrong with metric hardware at all. We all have metric tools and are comfortable with metric anything, but finding some specific fasteners for the Bf 109 is basically NOT an exercise in sourcing standard metric parts. Many are tapered and are simply not available from standard sources. So you do the best you can and proceed. Try finding metric pushrod ends for the rudder cables that fit the Ha.1112! They are rounded with definite flats areas on them and are NOT easy to find. About all that is left is the lower cowling airscoop and a starter than developed a leak. We removed the starter last weekend and the airscoop needs a few days attention from Stevo Hinton when he isn't running hot laps around Reno.

Perhaps soon. Perhaps not. Depends on the level of interest by the museum. At least we know it runs.



That was before paint. I'll get shots in a couple of weeks.

Slats had been around for long time before the Bf 109 had them ... since 1918. Not sure the F-86 owes anything to the Bf 109. Perhaps a bit to the Me 262, but mostly in the area of wing sweep. The sweep is what made the Sabre a great fighter ... well, that and the all-flying tail, which was head and shoulders better than the stab and elevator of the F-86A.

You can see slats on the Bell L-39.






That's a funny-looking plane, huh?

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Useful Useful:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## wuzak (Jun 23, 2016)

James W. said:


> When Hispano grafted in an R-R Merlin, its 109 got wing fences & what not, but was still a real handful,
> - whereas the Mustang X when similarly re-engined, presented as fairly unfazed, by comparison.



I believe the Merlin rotated the other way to the DB. It also sported a bigger prop and the thrust line was higher.

I think, but am not certain, that the Bf 109 had the fin angled to help compensate for torque reaction.

Does anybody know if the Spitfire/DB 605 had any stability issues when tested by the Germans?

I can't recall if the Merlin and V-1710 rotate the same way, but in any case the Mustang X suffered with stability issues caused by the extra power and a bigger prop. Rolls-Royce ended up adding quite a bit of fin/rudder area to it.

Even the P-51B and -D had some stability issues, not completely solved until the larger fin/rudder was introduced with the -H.

Given the endorsement earlier in this thread that contra-props aided stability it is interesting to note that, according to Buttler, _British Experimental Combat Aircraft of World War II,_ when Tornado prototype R7936 was fitted with de Havilland 6 bladed contra-props "Hawker's wartime notes state that the contra-prop was found to have a marked destabilising effect on the aircraft".


----------



## stona (Jun 23, 2016)

Once again just adding a larger fin can be fraught with problems. A larger fin doesn't just create more drag, it can create a problem of aerodynamic side loading as the designers of the P-51 discovered. These forces are complicated and stem from the design of the rest of the aircraft and the airflow off the wing and fuselage.
When late Mark Spitfires got a significantly larger fin wasn't the fuselage boom also lengthened, reducing drag? I can't find a reference for this and memory is not always reliable 
Cheers
Steve


----------



## wuzak (Jun 23, 2016)

stona said:


> When late Mark Spitfires got a significantly larger fin wasn't the fuselage boom also lengthened, reducing drag? I can't find a reference for this and memory is not always reliable



I suppose the fuselage was lengthened ahead of the firewall with the Griffon engines. I'm not sure that they were behind the firewall.

Not sure about whether the Spiteful type tail also involved an extension to the rear fuselage.


----------



## Airframes (Jun 23, 2016)

Just a quick note regarding the 'Buchon'.
The majority of HA1112 'Buchons' surviving today, were visually modified for the BoB movie in 1968. Some 30 - 32 airframes were leased and / or bought from the Spanish Air Force (thereby saving them from the scrap man), and modified to more resemble the Bf109E as far as possible. This number included static airframes for 'set dressing', and a few for 'taxiing only' scenes.
The 'mods' included the removal of wing fences and under-wing rocket pylons, clipping the wings, and adding tail struts, as well as dummy wing guns, the latter deliberately over-sized, to emphasise their presence, and help to additionally identify the aircraft for the movie audience.
The original shipment of Bf109Gs to Spain, was in CKD kit form, followed by plans and licence for Hispano to build them, originally with DB engines. However, with the end of the war, and a lack of DB engines, Spain had to turn to Rolls Royce in order to power their 'home grown' versions, hence the deep chin giving it the nickname of 'Buchon' (a bird from the pigeon family).
As the design for the Buchon started as a '109G, built under licence, there was no provision for such 'mods' as taller tail and rudder.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 23, 2016)

James W. said:


> Yeah ol' Sid Camm & his sardonic humour, he did like a bit of a dig at the "Spitfire Mafia"..


Well, after the dog's breakfast he made of the Typhoon wing with it's straight taper he had do everything he could make people think it was different. 
Granted the actual differences had darn little to do with planform.
And Camm (and his designers) had been lead down the garden path by the British research Establishment/s of the day on the Typhoon wing. As had quite a number of other British airplane makers.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## stona (Jun 23, 2016)

Shortround6 said:


> And Camm (and his designers) had been lead down the garden path by the British research Establishment/s of the day on the Typhoon wing. As had quite a number of other British airplane makers.



And yet Mitchell and Shenstone had stuck with a thin wing in the face of objections from illustrious bodies like the RAE. They went with the NACA 2220 series aerofoils (2209 and 2213) and varied the thickness to chord ratios, but in his diaries Shenstone wrote that he would have gone thinner still! 
What Mitchell and Supermarine had that others didn't, was experience and data from the Schneider Trophy racers and if there is one important influence the Schneider Trophy aircraft really had on the Spitfire, as opposed to that spuriously assigned to them, it is that thin wing.
Crucially, by the time Hawker's later designs were being developed, the benefits of a thinner wing were proven. It makes it harder to understand why Hawker persisted with their thick wings.
Cheers
Steve


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 23, 2016)

Trade-offs, thicker wings were lighter for the same area wing?
I am not sure when the thick wing was actually disproven. Granted the Spitfire was much faster than the Hurricane but with different radiators, skinnier fuselage, all metal vs fabric covering and so on did they really know how much drag each difference was really worth?
I would note that work on the Typhoon started over a year before the Hurricane even got a all metal wing. Perhaps they were stuck with it?

I also have no idea if the field requirements had been waived or not. Westlands were fighting for exemptions for things like tire pressure after work started on the Typhoon. 
There may have been a minimum take-off and landing distance that required a higher lift section than the thin wing (without increasing wing area) and you had to hide the landing gear/wheel in the wing, hopefully without bulges. On the Fury the wings were shortened a bit and the wheel wells were moved into the bottom of the fuselage. On the Typhoon and Tempest they were in the wing. Tempest (and later Typhoons) were allowed to use higher pressure tires. 
I don't know, just throwing out possibilities.


----------



## stona (Jun 23, 2016)

The Hurricane wing was longer than the Spitfires and, I think, had a larger area. I'm sure the lightweight construction contributed to the Hurricane's low wing loading, but surely it was understood that a long, thick wing would have higher induced drag. At least it rolled and turned well, as long as it wasn't going too fast!

I'm aware of the British obsession with thick wings, but I've never seen the arguments to support it. I'd be interested if anyone has them.

Cheers

Steve


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 23, 2016)

I think the arguments are mostly inferred, which means they could be 100% wrong. 
Things like landing field length. High lift without using high lift devices? 
Requirement for catapult launched heavy bombers due to small fields? 
Blenheim was _supposed _to land at 50mph (weight not given...Light weight?) using split flaps only. 
Some more things like that.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Jun 23, 2016)

Re: Typhoon wing

Meanwhile, on December 30, 1939, the first Napier Sabre engine had been delivered to Hawker Aircraft and the first prototype Typhoon (P5212) emerged from the experimental shop to fly on February 24, 1940. It too became the subject of a quantity production order which it was planned, should become the responsibility of Gloster Aircraft, whose assembly lines were emptying of *Gladiator *biplanes and whose design office was already immersed in the development of the *Gloster Meteor*, the first British turbojet-driven aircraft. Although, like those of the Tornado, the first flights of the Typhoon prototype indicated a promising fighter. The machine proving relatively easy to fly at high speeds, although its low speed qualities left much to be desired, and it had a marked tendency to swing to starboard during take-off. The "X" form of the Tornado's Vulture engine had not permitted installation above the front spar as was the Typhoon's Sabre. In consequence, the overall length of the former was 32 ft. 6 in. as compared with the 31 ft. 10 in. of the latter. Owing to the size and weight of the Sabre and the need to preserve c.g. balance, the Typhoon's engine was fitted so close to the leading edge of the wing that severe vibration was experienced as the slipstream buffeted the thick wing roots. On an early test flight the stressed-skin covering began to tear away from its rivets and the Typhoon's pilot, Philip G. Lucas, only just succeeded in bringing the prototype in to a landing.

Development on the Typhoon included the design of a modified wing containing twoHispano 20 mm cannons in place of the six 0.303-in. Brownings, the construction of an experimental set of wings containing a total of six cannon, and the initiation of a design study of a Typhoon variant with thinner wings of reduced area and lower profile drag. This latter study was later to arouse interest at the Air Ministry and eventually resulted in the Tempest. However by October 1940, enthusiasm had been revived and production of the Tornado and Typhoon reinstated production deliveries of both being scheduled for the following year.


----------



## stona (Jun 23, 2016)

Certainly the size of airfields was a factor for fighters as for bombers, but both the Spitfire and Hurricane were supposed to operate from 600 yard airfields.
When the Operational Requirements Committee discussed their replacement (F.18/37) in November 1937, Liptrot wanted a landing distance greater than 600 yards, but Dowding objected, pointing out that 600 yards was the maximum available at some aerodromes.
The problem is that the thin wing Spitfire was just as capable as the thick wing Hurricane at operating from these fields. particularly once they got their variable pitch propellers.

I will fly off on a bit of a tangent here because the same meeting gives some insight into the much criticised range and endurance of Fighter Command's primary interceptors in 1940. The Operational Requirements branch requested 30% more fuel than the current requirement (met by the Spitfire and Hurricane).* Dowding explained that it was not needed for home defence*, though it was retained for possible overseas needs.
The Air Staff policy on the endurance of home defence fighters was re-emphasised in 1938 when Saundby explained.

_"We have kept down the tactical range of our fighters to the minimum required for home defence in order to obtain maximum performance and firepower." _

Many, including one recent poster have completely failed to grasp the intentional limitation of range/endurance as a compromise for other qualities considered more important in a home defence fighter.

Cheers

Steve

Reactions: Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 23, 2016)

stona said:


> Certainly the size of airfields was a factor for fighters as for bombers, but both the Spitfire and Hurricane were supposed to operate from 600 yard airfields.
> When the Operational Requirements Committee discussed their replacement (F.18/37) in November 1937, Liptrot wanted a landing distance greater than 600 yards, but Dowding objected, pointing out that 600 yards was the maximum available at some aerodromes.
> The problem is that the thin wing Spitfire was just as capable as the thick wing Hurricane at operating from these fields. particularly once they got their variable pitch propellers................................
> 
> ...



This certainly true enough. However in these planning stages things were not quite so clear cut. A Hurricane MK I with 2 pitch prop weighed 6363lbs in Jan 1939 (no self seal-tanks or armor?) for it's 258 sq. ft wing. A Spitfire MK I with 2 pitch prop weighed 5925lbs in July of 1939 (no protection either) for it's 242 sq ft wing. The Typhoon had 279 sq ft and the Tornado had 283 sq ft and both were going well over 10,000lbs in prototype form. A 50% increase in guns and ammo (even if kept to under 350rpg) and fuel capacity of 140 IMP gallons (a bit more than 40% over the Hurricane ) and those huge engines all pushed the weight up and the increase in wing area was nowhere near the increase in weight. Typhoon kept the simple split flap. 
Even in early stages of construction (before Prototype even flew) the Typhoon/Tornado was going to have a wing loading around 60% higher than a MK I Spitfire or Hurricane. 
Wing loading was not linear in increasing take-off/landing distance but the Typhoon/Tornado was going to need help from somewhere.
And indeed the MK I Typhoon needed 740 yds to clear 50ft at a weight of 11,400lbs and 870yds to land from 50ft at 9800lbs (light weight with next to no fuel left)..


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 23, 2016)

Shooter8 said:


> I know what it means to be annoyed. But think of it this way, if we both annoy each other, can that be a common starting point for a civil discussion?
> When two people hold such different beliefs, it is certain to raise one's ire. But if we could formalize this discussion to a format where one and only one statement of a single idea could be the topic of argument at a time, I think we might be able to reach some sort of accommodation?


Shooter - the problem is that many of your posted statements are flat out bullshit - you've been called out by several members including myself and you have conveniently avoided answering them. Our patience is wearing thin. The only thing you have done is bring out some great FACT FILLED discussion buy some of our members who are a wealth of knowledge and BACK UP WHAT THEY SAY! 

So I'll ask you again, what's the arrival/ departure procedure for flying in and out of EDW?!?!?


----------



## pbehn (Jun 23, 2016)

Where is my $1000?

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 23, 2016)

Shooter:
"This is where you are dead wrong! The planes instantainious vector is a tangent to the turning circle. The planes maximum *A*ngle *o*f *A*ttack determines where the guns are pointed. The larger the AoA, the farther the guns can shoot across the cord of the circle to down an enemy plane!
Because the target is ahead of you on the circle, it is well above the cowl and easily in your LoS! ( Line of Sight!)"

Still doesn't address two problems does it?
You pull this _maximium angle of attack _and 3/4 of your wing area is stalled, you won't hold it for more than fraction of a second even if you do reach it. 
ANd once your reach this _maximium angle of attack _the target plane has disappeared below your nose. A plane doing 250mph is covering just under 150 ft in 4/10s of second. the time of flight for most German projectiles was over .45 seconds to 300 meters. shooting *AT *the plane is a guaranteed miss. You need to lead it unless you are using laser beams. If the enemy plane is going faster you need to lead it more. 
If you can see looking down the side of cowl you are way out of iine for the guns to hit.


----------



## Elmas (Jun 23, 2016)

stona said:


> The Hurricane wing was longer than the Spitfires and, I think, had a larger area. I'm sure the lightweight construction contributed to the Hurricane's low wing loading, but surely it was understood that a long, thick wing would have higher induced drag. At least it rolled and turned well, as long as it wasn't going too fast!
> 
> I'm aware of the British obsession with thick wings, but I've never seen the arguments to support it. I'd be interested if anyone has them.
> 
> ...


_

“The use and ongoing development of the research into the torsion of thin-wall sections carried out during the 1920’s and 1930’s was only of benefit to aircraft construction – part of Hitler’s rearmament programme. The benefits of lightweight construction went into military aircraft and could not exploited by structural steelwork; up until 1945, lightweight construction was a secret science essentially reserved for the military”._
Karl-Eugen Kurrer - The history of the Theory of structures – From arch analysis to computational mechanics , W. Ernst & Sohn, Pag. 459.

No doubt that, being theories of structural thin walled sections at the very beginning, and not very well known, not all aeronautical designers were prone to employ them, and they did prefere to employ good old methods. But good old methods did necessitate of rather “tall” sections to resist and so thick profiles had to be adopted.


----------



## stona (Jun 23, 2016)

Yes, but the aerodromes were increased in size. Fighter Command's were supposed to extend to a minimum 1,000 yards, I think by 1940, it was being discussed in 1937, but that may have changed given Hitler's antics on mainland Europe.
Even so you make a valid point. Aircraft got bigger and heavier and airfield size seems to have been a set of moving goal posts 
I have seen one 1937 suggestion that if 'aerodromes' were increased in size to give 1,000 yards for take off and landing, then the top speed of fighters should increase to 415 mph, which seems optimistic for the time!
There was also a slight obsession with night flying capabilities which entailed low landing speeds, probably where that proposal for the Blenheim came from.
Cheers
Steve


----------



## GrauGeist (Jun 23, 2016)

Shooter8 said:


> I know what it means to be annoyed. But think of it this way, if we both annoy each other, can that be a common starting point for a civil discussion?
> When two people hold such different beliefs, it is certain to raise one's ire. But if we could formalize this discussion to a format where one and only one statement of a single idea could be the topic of argument at a time, I think we might be able to reach some sort of accommodation?


I don't mind an exchange of information and fact. But when the discussion falls into the realm of fantasy, it no longer has a place in this thread.

The majority of the crap you've "shared" doesn't even belong in a "what-if" thread. It just pure bullsh!t.

And that is what's annoying.

If you wish to "accomodate" others, bring facts to the table.

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like Like:
1 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GregP (Jun 23, 2016)

I have often seen it stated that maybe the Merlin rotated opposite to the DB 601 / 603 / 605 in the Bf 109. Here is a DB-powered BF 109.







Note that from the point of view of the pilot, the prop rotates clockwise. Here is a Merlin-powered Spitfire.






Note that from the point of view of the pilot, the prop rotates clockwise, the same as the DB 605.

In fact, the Griffon reversed the rotation and went the other way. Here is proof of that. Here is a Griffon-powered Spitfire. Note that from the point of view of the pilot it rotates counterclockwise.






The Bf 109 does have an airfoiled vertical tail, but the main source of confusion seems to be the Hispano Buchon. The Buchon was initially developed as the Ha.1109 Tripala and was adapted for the Hispano-Suiza engine that turns opposite from the Merlin and the DB. So the Hispano Bucho has a fin airfoil that expected prop rotation opposite from the Merlin, but that is not the case with real German Bf 109s.

The Buchon was developed from the Ha.1109 Tripala. Here is the nose of an Ha.1109 with the nose of the Ha.1112 visible behind it.






Note the engine in the Ha.1109 turns the same direction as the Griffon, opposite from the DB and Merlin, and accounts for the fin airfoil on the Ha.1112 being in the wrong direction since it was assumed they would use the Hispano-Suiza engine, but actually switched to the Merlin after the Ha.1112 airframe was built.

Note the Avia S-199 with the Jumo 211 engine turned the same direction as the DB engines did. Here is a pic of one so you can see.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 23, 2016)

Shooter8 said:


> High wing loading translates directly into higher speed!



*Wing loading* is the loaded weight of the aircraft divided by the area of the *wing*. The faster an aircraft flies, the more lift is produced by each unit of *wing* area, so a smaller *wing* can carry the same weight in level flight, operating at a higher *wing loading*.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 23, 2016)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Shooter - the problem is that many of your posted statements are flat out bullshit - you've been called out by several members including myself and you have conveniently avoided answering them. Our patience is wearing thin. The only thing you have done is bring out some great FACT FILLED discussion buy some of our members who are a wealth of knowledge and BACK UP WHAT THEY SAY!
> 
> So I'll ask you again, what's the arrival/ departure procedure for flying in and out of EDW?!?!?



I'm bumping this post.


----------



## Milosh (Jun 23, 2016)

FLYBOYJ said:


> I'm bumping this post.



Do you really think you will get a reply?

I would like to know what 'sims' Shooter played and the nick/handle he went by playing those 'sims'.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 23, 2016)

Milosh said:


> Do you really think you will get a reply?



Giving him the benefit of the doubt...


----------



## ww2restorer (Jun 23, 2016)

Quote Flyboy ''So I'll ask you again, what's the arrival/ departure procedure for flying in and out of EDW?!?!?''
Be fair, give the lad a chance. If we include Rogers lake bed, he only has 24 runways to choose from.


----------



## pbehn (Jun 23, 2016)

Shooter8 said:


> See the replies in red above.


Where is my $1000$


----------



## pbehn (Jun 23, 2016)

Shooter8 said:


> I do bring facts to the table but you don't even dispute them! Such as your argument about the Head on Pass Scenario above.


The preferred method in head on attack against bombers was to fly inverted which shows how little aiming actually counted


----------



## pbehn (Jun 23, 2016)

Shooter8 said:


> The major stumbling block in your argument, which you have done very well mind you, is that the Tempies gun should be Zeroed at 250 yards, or 230 meters! Then recalculate and allow for the trajectory rise from the gun's position 4-5' below the line of sight through the Reticle so two drawings, one for top view and one from the side will knock your socks off! While dispersion from the guns will spread the bullets around some, it is doubtful that there would be any significant chance to get even one hit from the Tempies guns while the German pilot could expect ALL of his shells to hit!



All very interesting but what about my$1000 there are about 50 spits still flying,it is a matter of life and death.


----------



## pbehn (Jun 23, 2016)

Shooter8 said:


> All true! But not really relevant! Re calculate for the Spit at 250 as above, but the 109 is going 300 MPH and is only 300 meters behind and has just opened fire. Then take into account the early Spits horrendous rate of roll AND the displacement of the centers of the two plane's circles due to the initial range. Then tell me the finished range, angle off and number of seconds the 109 has continuously tracked the target? This was, with one minor variation, a real live problem given to real live AF Pilots at the Colorado Springs Academy!


There were no spits they all crashed on take off you said,where is my $1000?

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Jun 23, 2016)

Shooter8 said:


> All true! But how it works is that the plane with the higher loading is, all other things being equal, going to have the smaller wing, with both less frontal area and less surface area and thus, less drag because of it! That means for any given power the plane with the smallest wing goes the fastest. But the corollary is the plane with the smaller wing will take much longer to take off and land. That requires either high lift devices to compensate, or a much larger air field. Take your pick.


Frontal area is wing span x thickness have you seen the difference in wing thickness between a typhoon and tempest ? 250 mm at wing root


----------



## pbehn (Jun 23, 2016)

Shooter8 said:


> Why do I owe you $1000.00?


You challenged me on spit losses in fact you said more spits crashed than were shot down, I claim my $1000 or call you a B S merchant


----------



## pbehn (Jun 23, 2016)

Shooter8 said:


> Great, but we are not comping Typhoons and Tempies. We are comping a Tempy with the standard wing and a similar in all respects Tempy, except wing planform/area!


The. Typhoons an tempest had similar wing loading but different frontal area the mustang wing was thicker than the spit but much less drag. Where is my $1000?


----------



## pbehn (Jun 23, 2016)

Shooter8 said:


> Read the exact post! I stated that more Spits, (and Messers by the way) crashed on take off, or landing than were destroyed in combat! There was one other proviso in that you had to provide the proof in current publications, or post war research based on the now current best knowledge in the public domain.
> You have not proved me wrong, so I do not owe you the money!


Yes I did you are full of B S


----------



## Milosh (Jun 23, 2016)

Shooter8 said:


> Read the exact post! I stated that more Spits, (and Messers by the way) crashed on take off, or landing than were destroyed in combat! There was one other proviso in that you had to provide the proof in current publications, or post war research based on the now current best knowledge in the public domain.
> You have not proved me wrong, so I do not owe you the money!



You have not proved anything either. 

What are the numbers?


----------



## gumbyk (Jun 23, 2016)

Shooter8 said:


> All true! But not really relevant! Re calculate for the Spit at 250 as above, but the 109 is going 300 MPH and is only 300 meters behind and has just opened fire. Then take into account the early Spits horrendous rate of roll AND the displacement of the centers of the two plane's circles due to the initial range. Then tell me the finished range, angle off and number of seconds the 109 has continuously tracked the target? This was, with one minor variation, a real live problem given to real live AF Pilots at the Colorado Springs Academy!


So how come Britain won the BoB, if they had such inferior aircraft (mostly they weren't even using Spitfires, but Hurricanes)?

P.S. simply pulling 13-14º AoA to get on target isn't going to give you a very stable platform to shoot from.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GregP (Jun 23, 2016)

Shooter

Regarding post #633:

The MG 151 / 20 cartridge was the 20 x 82 mm. There were 7 varieties of cartridge: HEI-T, incendiary, HE, AP-T, APHE, and two different API cartridges. They ranged from 95 to 117 grams per projectile. If we look at the HEI-T and HE cartridges, the HE was 95 grams projectile weight with 18.6 grams of HE (PETN). The Soviet “quality factor” or Q for this weapon is derived from the kinetic energy multiplied by the rate of fire divided by the gun weight. For the MG 151 / 20, Q = 8.2.


The HEI-T cartridge came in at 113 grams with 2.3 grams of HE (PETN) and 2.1 grams of incendiary (Elektron). In total the HE in any of the seven MG 151 / 20 cartridges ranged from 2.3 grams to 18.6 grams. Muzzle velocity is unknown for a couple of the cartridges, but ranges from 705 to 805 m/s for the other 5 cartridges. Average muzzle velocity was 725 m/s.


The Hispano MK II fired a 20 x 110 mm cartridge at between 840 and 880 m/s. There were nine different cartridges: HE, HEI-T, HE-T, TP-T, TP, API-T, AP-T, API, and blank. HE = high explosive; -T means tracer, AP = armor piercing, I = incendiary. Muzzle energy = 43.5 kJ. HE and HEI rounds had 6 to 11 grams of HE. HE was 130 grams and HEI was 168 grams. For the Hispano MK II, Q = 8.5 – 10.0 depending on 130 or 168 gram projectile.


The ShVAK 20 mm cannon was almost identical to the 12.7 mm machine gun except for bore. It was a converted Berezin12.7 mm MG. It was available in synchronized and unsynchronized units. It used the 20 x 99 mm cartridge. Muzzle velocity was 750 – 770 m/s. It had 2.8 grams of HE and 3.3 grams of incendiary in it. There were ten different cartridges with 4 kinds of HEI and 4 kinds of API and 2 kinds of TP. HE weight ranged from 0.8 grams to 6.7 grams of HE, but the Soviet HE was of an unspecified type and the 6.7 grams unit was an HEI-fragmentation round. Projectile weights ranged from 91 to 96.5 grams. For the ShVAK 20, Q = 8.7.


Most of the people involved in the “great fighter gun debate” center on the Q of the weapon as a great indicator of it’s effectivity. So for these three cannons, we have: 1) the MG 151 / 20 with Q = 8.2; the Hispano MK II with Q = 8.5 – 10.0; and 3) ShVAK with Q = 8.7.


Looks like about a wash to me and to most of the gun community in general. Since you claim to be a "shooter," I'm curious why you don't seem to know this since most gun people these days look hard at the Q as an indicator of how hard a gun projectile hits the target.


There is another measure called “M,” which is the mass output per second divided by the gun weight. Think of M as the indicator of weight of fire delivered per the weight of the gun. A higher M throws out more weight per second. For these 3 guns: 1) MG 151 / 20 M = 31.36; Hispano MK II M = 22.1 – 28.5 depending on the 130 g or 168 g projectile; and 3) ShVAK 20 M = 30.2.


Google “the great fighter gun debate” if you want more information.


We all know US planes were a bit heavier built than most others, but having a range of M from 22 – 31 means little to the designer if he gets a good Q from the shells he fires.


Again, to me these three weapons seem pretty evenly matched with the MG 151 / 20 having the slowest muzzle velocity of the three, but if it hit, it caused some decent damage if the HE exploded. It might not if it went through fabric. Of course, the same could be said for the other two cartridges as well. The Hispano caused slightly less damage per shell, but it wasn’t a significant difference as evidenced by the Q rating. The ShVAK, especially if they used the frag cartridge, could damage a lot more volume, but with smaller chunks of shrapnel. It tended to be effective when hits were achieved.


----------



## pbehn (Jun 23, 2016)

Milosh said:


> You have not proved anything either.
> 
> What are the numbers?


I have posted them you look them up,you made the bet you fool now pay. UP


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 23, 2016)

ww2restorer said:


> Quote Flyboy ''So I'll ask you again, what's the arrival/ departure procedure for flying in and out of EDW?!?!?''
> Be fair, give the lad a chance. If we include Rogers lake bed, he only has 24 runways to choose from.


He claimed he's flown at every aero club, if anyone has every done it, they'll remember it.

Shooter, 2 Mods have asked for a reply, if you want to participate here you'll answer.


----------



## GrauGeist (Jun 23, 2016)

Shooter8 said:


> Read the exact post! I stated that more Spits, (and Messers by the way) crashed on take off, or landing than were destroyed in combat! There was one other proviso in that you had to provide the proof in current publications, or post war research based on the now current best knowledge in the public domain.
> You have not proved me wrong, so I do not owe you the money!


You were proved wrong in countless replies, especially in this regard.
Allied and RLM operational loss fugures have been posted in reply, YET you keep ignoring the hard numbers and ramble on.

These figures are also available in abundance throughout this forum, including a well researched database.



Shooter8 said:


> I do bring facts to the table but you don't even dispute them! Such as your argument about the Head on Pass Scenario above.


Again, you bring bullsh!t and repeatedly get corrected by facts - facts that have been well researched and documented.

Either you are so entrenched in your world that you refuse to accept fact or you have a serious reading comprehension problem.

Reactions: Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Milosh (Jun 23, 2016)

pbehn said:


> I have posted them you look them up,you made the bet you fool now pay. UP



Agh? I was asking Shooter for his numbers to back up his statement.


----------



## ww2restorer (Jun 23, 2016)

FLYBOYJ said:


> He claimed he's flown at every aero club, if anyone has every done it, they'll remember it.
> 
> Shooter, 2 Mods have asked for a reply, if you want to participate here you'll answer.



Oh yes, I have been sitting back watching with interest. I still have my copy of the AFBI 13-100 somewhere. I don't know where he is getting his info from, but wasn't anything I was taught when at MIT, DoD and EDW.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Jun 23, 2016)

FLYBOYJ said:


> He claimed he's flown at every aero club, if anyone has every done it, they'll remember it.
> 
> Shooter, 2 Mods have asked for a reply, if you want to participate here you'll answer.


Better still, Joe...how about him telling us what's unique about approach/departure at a certain Island in the southland.

The Shack there has a great grill with an interesting name, too.

I don't want to give away too much because of "post-google-authority".

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Jun 23, 2016)

Milosh said:


> Agh? I was asking Shooter for his numbers to back up his statement.


Sorry


----------



## GregP (Jun 23, 2016)

C'mon Shooter. I looked it up only out of curiosity. You don't really expect me to go look it up again for you, do you? I'd say Google "20 x 82 mm cartridge" and go for it. It isn't hard to find, and no insult is intended in the slightest. It's just that I already spent spent enough time on it and my interest level ins't all that high.

The only relevant numbers are the Q and M for the gun. Perhaps weight of fire per second would be nice, too. The Q's show the Mg 151 / 20 to be a decent gun, but hardly a standout above the other two, and we left out most of the other WWII fighter guns. I show 17 rifle-caliber MGs (7.62 - 7.92 mm), 10 heavy MGs (12.7 - 15.0 mm), twenty-two 20 mm cannons, and 24 heavy cannons (30 - 75 mm). So the discussion above leaves out most of the guns actually used. I have the numbers (the important numbers, not the HE and incendiary content) for all the rifle and heavy caliber machine guns, 20 mm cannons, and heavy cannons (> 20 mm) in a single spreadsheet and I calculated the "Q" and "M" to be sure the guys on the great fighter gun debate got it right. Mostly, they were ... I think I recall one error, and it was a decimal point. The M numbers come out in fractions, so I left the M as grams per second divided by kg because most people can compare 20 to 30 easier than .02 to .03.

The data came from the "great fighter gun debate," and I'm fairly sure it is still out there in cyberspace somewhere.

Somewhere in a spreadsheet I also have the same data for most of the battleship guns compiled with the various ship classes to get a weight of fire per broadside for the battlewagons, but that isn't really relevant in a WWII aviation forum ... unless you happen to be flying at the wrong altitude between two fighting groups of battleships.

As yet, I haven't compiled the guns in between 75 mm about 10-inch. Maybe when I retire and have nothing else better to do.


Hey James,

Nice table there. I've put it into Excel, but need to go see where they got the "Damage" number because I have mostly been using the Soviet "Q" and "M" numbers. Good find!

Update: Now that I see how he calculates it, I have erased the data, He decided to make up his own figure or merit that nobody else I have ever seen uses. I'll stick with the Soviet quality and mass figures.


----------



## GregP (Jun 23, 2016)

OK, here's a link to the great fighter gun debate:

The WWII Fighter Gun Debate: Introduction

Scroll down to the bottom and click on "Gun Tables." This has been bouncing around the internet for more than 25 years. I'll stick with Q and M myself and, if anyone wants to be taken seriously in the long-ongoing debate, I'd suggest they not come up with "new" measures of effectiveness. It was tried once and the poor guy was run off the site!

But hey, maybe all the data gives someone a new place to start the debate all over again. I was into it for about 10 years when I was doing some shooting with a friend who collected and sold automatic weapons and cannons in Arizona, but I sort of lost interest when he passed away in the mid 1990's. We had some fun shooting his weapons and a few cannons. 

The biggest we shot on a regular basis was a 37 mm Hotchkiss cannon mounted on a 2-wheel truck with a trailer hitch connection, but we did shoot a 75 once on a private ranch. He was a licensed dealer of automatic weapons, so it was legal for him to possess the shells. We got stopped by the police pulling the cannon out there and it took some 3 - 4 hours before they let us go, so we didn't haul that one out much after that. He was screaming at them for an hour because they wanted to see a permit for the cannon. I thought we were going to jail, but it turns out he was right, you don't need a license for a single shot gun! But you DID need a license for explosive ammunition. Interestingly, they were less concerned about the cannon shells than the machine guns in his Chevy Carryall! I kept my mouth shut and asked a few cops if they wanted a drink of water from the ice chest.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## wuzak (Jun 23, 2016)

James W. said:


> About the thick-winged Typhoon, Hawker schemed a turbocharged variant,
> (the detail drawings are in the British Kew archives) the turbo was a GE unit, that was to fit in that thick wing root).
> 
> This Typhoon was to be licence built by Bell, with the Napier Sabre like-wise US-made by Chrysler.
> ...



You wouldn't happen to have this document?

I would be interested in seeing it if you have.


----------



## wuzak (Jun 23, 2016)

GregP said:


> I have often seen it stated that maybe the Merlin rotated opposite to the DB 601 / 603 / 605 in the Bf 109. Here is a DB-powered BF 109.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Thanks Greg, that explains it.


----------



## wuzak (Jun 23, 2016)

James W. said:


> The Tempest was an early adopter of the HUD,
> having its gunsight graticule directly reflected onto its optical quality armour-glass windscreen.



Wasn't that common for all British fighters of the era?

Gyro gunsight - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

See the Mk II
http://www.historicflyingclothing.c...lector-gun-sight-mark-ii_13888_main_size3.jpg


----------



## wuzak (Jun 23, 2016)

Shooter8 said:


> WRONG! The 109 pilot is praying that the Tempy pilot's aim is true! Because if it is, his wing guns would be zeroed at 250 yards, or ~230 meters and at 400, the bullet streams would be ~4-5 meters from his fuselage!



That is an assumption. The Tempest may have its guns "zeroed" at 250m, or having experienced this fanciful head on attack before, he would have re-zeroed his guns at a longer range.




Shooter8 said:


> If you doubt this draw a diagram and see for your self!



You're the one espousing this hypothesis. Why don't you do this drawing and upload it here. This forum generously allows pictures to be uploaded and attached to posts.




Shooter8 said:


> See the replies in red above.



I wish you would stop doing that. It;s hard to read and follow.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## wuzak (Jun 23, 2016)

Shooter8 said:


> http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spit109turn.gif
> 
> 
> 
> That chart was made, IIRC, by the RAF testing a downed 109? They used much lighter stick forces than the Germans and thus generated much lower rates of turn. Secondly, the German "Experten" as they were called routeenly claimed you were not maneuvering until the slats deployed.



Because the RAF was in the habit of testing enemy aircraft below their physical limits and thus give their own pilots incorrect information on how to combat them.

As the chart does not mention methodology, how do you know that they did not get the slats to deploy or what stick forces they used?


----------



## GregP (Jun 23, 2016)

Hey Wayne,

I was a bit mixed up about the fin airfoil myself, and there's a good thread about it over on WIX. I KNOW our Hispano He.1112 fin is airfoiled the wrong way for the Merlin, but wasn't really aware that the Ha.1109 Tripala had that airfoil introduced to help with the Hispano-Suiza engine torque until I chanced across it in WIX. After that, you can seem to find just enough to piece the story together.

So I suppose the real "fix" would be to remove the fin and make a new one with the reverse airfoil ... maybe just flip the ribs over and make new skins ... maybe! Anyway, I'm not going to look for excuses to do more work on the Hispano! It's painted now and VERY close to being flyable. In fact, you probably COULD fly it without the lower cowl, but it has enough of a reputation when going off pavement without trying to fly one in an unairworthy condition! Not to mention being unwise and probably illegal. So, ours will have a much more Bf 109-like lower cowl and also has Aluminum wheels that we made when we broke a magnesium wheel. That was my fault.


----------



## gumbyk (Jun 23, 2016)

GregP said:


> Aluminum wheels that we made when we broke a magnesium wheel. That was my fault.



There was obviously a flaw in it that you uncovered

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GregP (Jun 23, 2016)

Actually, I just hit it too hard with a deadblow hammer trying to get an F-86 tire on it! I was VERY angry with myself, but we had a local school with a new 3D-measuring device volunteer to do a pair of Aluminum wheels from the surviving unit on a CNC lathe as a project! One of the guys (George Orff) on the team was already talking with them about it because the magnesium was showing signs of wear that were a bit too deep for our liking anyway. We still have the old good wheel as a spare and the cracked one as an example to new volunteers of what NOT to do.

So ,,, the Ha.1112 currently has F-86 tires on it.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## wuzak (Jun 23, 2016)

Shooter8 said:


> All true! But not really relevant! Re calculate for the Spit at 250 as above, but the 109 is going 300 MPH and is only 300 meters behind and has just opened fire. Then take into account the early Spits horrendous rate of roll AND the displacement of the centers of the two plane's circles due to the initial range. Then tell me the finished range, angle off and number of seconds the 109 has continuously tracked the target? This was, with one minor variation, a real live problem given to real live AF Pilots at the Colorado Springs Academy!



At 250mph TAS (~200mph IAS @ 12,000ft) the Spitfire's rate of roll was 105°/s. What was the rate of roll of the Bf 109?

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/naca868-rollchart.jpg

If the Bf 109 has closed to 300m to fire without the Spitfire manoeuvring it is safe to Assume the Spitfire pilot has been unaware of the attacking Bf 109 until that point. Which means that the Bf 109 has an immense advantage.

If the Bf 109's initial burst misses, the Spitfire will have rolled into his bank and started to turn.

So, at 12,000ft and 250mph TAS the Spitfire will do a turn of ~1,800ft at ~3G without losing altitude.

The Bf 109 at 300mph TAS can only pull ~1.8G in a turn whilst maintaining altitude, at a radius of ~3,200-3,500ft.

From the turn chart it appears that the bank angle for the Spitfire is ~70°. So it would take ~0.7s for the Spitfire to achieve the bank angle after it is initiated. As or RAF pilot is a bit asleep, assume that he takes 1s to react. So 1.7s for the plane to get to full bank angle.

Not being a pilot myself, I can only assume that the Spitfire won't fly straight and level while banking before he starts turning. Which means it won't be 1.7s before the Spitfire moves off the Bf 109's gun trajectories. 

Once the Bf 109 pilot enters his turn his bullets will miss, as he cannot pull a lead while maintaining altitude. So he has to turn tighter. He can turn at the same radius as the Spitfire, pulling ~3.5g . But the problem he has now is that he is losing altitude while the Spitfire is not. And he his angle of descent is ~10°.

If he continues to try to turn with the Spitfire he is toast.

The Bf 109 in the scenario has all the advantage - he is flying faster, and the Spitfire clearly hasn't a clue he is there. He should win the battle, before the Spitfire pilot has a chance to react probably. 

It is like even you have said before, most downed pilots never even saw their adversary
.

As has been mentioned earlier in the thread, the reason why Bf 109 pilots could often turn with Spitfires in the BoB was experience. Many of the Luftwaffe pilots had combat experience in Spain, Poland and France. Many of the Spitfire pilots had very little experience flying, let alone in combat. 

Thus the Luftwaffe pilots could often fly their aircraft closer to the envelope than the RAF pilots. But if teh RAF pilot is equally as experienced with his plane, the Bf 109 would not prevail in a turning fight.


----------



## wuzak (Jun 23, 2016)

Shooter8 said:


> Great post! I bow in aw to your Google-Foo skills! Where did you find all of this data? Also, I was under the impression the Fw-190 was 30-40 MPH faster than the Spit-V below 20K'? I ask this because was not the Spit-V the direct competitor to the Fw-190 and the Spit-IX the belated answer?
> PS, I just got a Pop-Up while typing this, but it closed before I could read it. How do I find it now?



Clue - he didn't google it.


----------



## GrauGeist (Jun 23, 2016)

Shooter8 said:


> My statement was true. Mono-plane Fighters in mass production, say over 1000 built, did not have LE slats except for the 109! While Handley Page put slats on lots of slow stuff, I do not remember a single fighter plane accepted into service from them during the war and certainly nothing with LE Slats. But, before you all start listing this that and the other thing, remember the part above about at least 1000 made.


Me262 - 1,430
And if you're so damned smart, you'd know this already

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## wuzak (Jun 23, 2016)

Shooter8 said:


> It was re-hashed WW-I technology because it was designed as a Dog Fighter with high rate of turn, instead of as a "more pure" weapon like the 109 that was designed to kill WO risking the dangers of dog fighting. It was the idea, not the implementation of the design. It had beautiful Elliptical planform wings and tail surfaces. Those gave it a truly great rate of turn and great range at it's intended economy cruise speed. But they also made it very expensive to manufacture, fragile, and slower than it could have been with a much smaller Trapezoidal wing like the 109.



The Spitfire didn't have "great range at it's intended economy cruise speed" and was never intended to.

I believe that the wing planform was to accommodate the gun installation. Not for beauty and not for the turn rate.

The role of teh Spitfire was to climb quickly to altitude to intercept bombers.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## tyrodtom (Jun 23, 2016)

Every fighter Messerschmitt produced in any quantity has slats, BF 109, Bf110, Me 262, and Me410.
Even the Me163 had slots, though I don't think 1000 were produced.

The Lavochkin La5 and 7 had slats also, and meet your threshold of 1000 produced.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrapeJam (Jun 23, 2016)

You know, I'd really like the 109 if it didn't have the highest amount of idiotic fanboys.

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## GregP (Jun 24, 2016)

That ain't Willy's fault, but understand your statement ...


----------



## GrauGeist (Jun 24, 2016)

And as surprising as it may seem, the IJN had leading edge slats on their Nakajima C6N recon aircraft, though not a fighter and only 660 aircraft built...they were there.

So did the Italian's SM.70 (1,250) and while we're at it, I suppose we should include the Fi156 (2,900+) and there's more, like Blohm & Voss' Ha140 and so on...


----------



## GrauGeist (Jun 24, 2016)

James W. said:


> Its funny, I dont 'believe' in having 'favourite' machines as such ( & some people even give their bikes & cars pet names!),
> but for me, there has always been something attractively 'bad boy' about the 109, even if it usually got a beat down from
> the contemporary Spitfire, Mustang or Tempest.
> 
> ...


Make no mistake about it, even by April 1945, any Allied aircraft was in trouble if they encountered a skilled Luftwaffe pilot in a Bf109.
Even in the last hours of Germany's fight, Aces like Gerd Thyben shot down Allied aircraft as they were attempting to escape to an area where they could surrender - of course, Gerd did this with his Fw190 and while carrying his crew chief stowed in the luggage compartment...

As far as favorites go, the Bf109 is not one of my favorite aircraft of WWII, however, I put credit where credit is due.


----------



## Milosh (Jun 24, 2016)

tyrodtom said:


> Every fighter Messerschmitt produced in any quantity has slats, BF 109, Bf110, Me 262, and Me410.
> Even the Me163 had slots, though I don't think 1000 were produced.
> 
> The Lavochkin La5 and 7 had slats also, and meet your threshold of 1000 produced.



LaGG-3, La-5 and La-7 production was *22,201*.


----------



## stona (Jun 24, 2016)

GrauGeist said:


> Make no mistake about it, even by April 1945, any Allied aircraft was in trouble if they encountered a skilled Luftwaffe pilot in a Bf109.



Absolutely, the Bf 109 in all its forms was one of a handful of truly great aircraft of WWII.

Cheers

Steev


----------



## stona (Jun 24, 2016)

wuzak said:


> I believe that the wing planform was to accommodate the gun installation. Not for beauty and not for the turn rate.



Right on the other two but not this. The wing was designed without compromise to achieve the best balance between speed and manoeuverability. The latter property reversed the trend for outright speed, sacrificing manoeuverability, which had developed with monoplane fighters.
Beverly Shenstone himself explained that the wing planform was at an advance design stage before the eight gun requirement was introduced.

_"Specification F.37/34 had called for a four gun fighter, like its predecessor. But when work was well advanced the RAF changed its mind and asked if we could fit eight guns. After a bit of a struggle we managed to squeeze all eight into our thin wing, with just a hint of a bulge over the two outer weapons. The rather uneven spacing of the guns was because the Spitfire was originally designed for only four guns and only when it was in an advanced stage were eight guns decided upon. Had it not been for this, the installation would have been neater."_

Shenstone's recollections are supported by other evidence. On April 26th 1935 Sorley went to Supermarine's Woolston factory to see the nearly completed mock up of what would become the Spitfire. Mitchell had received the Air Staff's requirements for a day/night fighter to Specification F.10/35 the previous day and discussed the requirements with Sorley, particularly the armament which was,

_"not less than six guns,but eight guns are desirable. These to be located outside the airscrew disc. Reloading in the air is not required."_

Mitchell assured Sorley that the extra armament could be accomodated, but that the bomb load would have to be deleted and fuel capacity reduced to save weight.Sorley was delighted and the Spitfire got eight guns.

Cheers

Steve


----------



## wuzak (Jun 24, 2016)

stona said:


> The wing was designed without compromise to achieve the best _balance_ between speed and manoeuverability. The latter property reversed the trend for outright speed, sacrificing manoeuverability, which had developed with monoplane fighters.



The balance between the speed and manoeuvrability, not optimised for the latter as suggested by A.N. Other earlier and to which I was responding.

The could have made the Spitfire even more manoeuvrable, but at the coots of speed. So they weren't truly following WWI fighter traits/goals.


----------



## stona (Jun 24, 2016)

wuzak said:


> The balance between the speed and manoeuvrability, not optimised for the latter as suggested by A.N. Other earlier and to which I was responding.
> 
> The could have made the Spitfire even more manoeuvrable, but at the coots of speed. So they weren't truly following WWI fighter traits/goals.



Yes!
Both were important attributes in a fighter, again contradicting AN Other  They still are.

Take a look at the performance aspects of the Bf 109 F that Bader was interested in knowing. I posted his letter earlier in the thread. I would respectfully suggest that Bader was much better qualified than AN Other to know which ones were important.

Cheers

Steve


----------



## pbehn (Jun 24, 2016)

stona said:


> _"not less than six guns,but eight guns are desirable. These to be located outside the airscrew disc. Reloading in the air is not required."_


A wise decision, I think reloading six guns in the air would have caused problems for less experienced pilots.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## stona (Jun 24, 2016)

pbehn said:


> A wise decision, I think reloading six guns in the air would have caused problems for less experienced pilots.



Yes indeed, or any pilot! The guns being outside the airscrew disc, on a monoplane fighter, means that the guns are out in the wings 

Cheers

Steve


----------



## stona (Jun 24, 2016)

James W. said:


> & technically, is a hub cannon not 'outside' the prop-disc?



I don't think in any definition the centre of a disc is considered outside it. It was certainly not what the Operational Requirements Committee would consider outside the propeller disc. It certainly thought in terms of the traditional British fuselage mounted weapons.
I can't think of any British WW2 design with a weapon firing through the spinner...though someone will probably come up with some obscure prototype to prove me wrong 
Cheers
Steve


----------



## stona (Jun 24, 2016)

James W. said:


> But "inside" the prop-disc surely implies the needful provision of interrupter gear.
> 
> Steve, do you know why the Mustang Mk III was deemed to be 'lightly armed' by the RAF,
> but not retro-fitted with the standard H-S 20mm cannon fit, that earlier Brit Mustangs had?



I think that the position 'outside the airscrew disc' was stipulated to avoid the need for interrupter gear, so you make a valid point, but I don't think that a weapon firing through the spinner would have been considered as there was no precedent for it. The Germans had trouble getting it to work.

I didn't know that the RAF deemed the Mustang III lightly armed, though four .50 calibre machine guns certainly isn't heavy armament, so I can't answer that question.

Cheers

Steve


----------



## Peter Gunn (Jun 24, 2016)

James W. said:


> *SNIP*
> 
> ( & some people even give their bikes & cars pet names!),
> 
> *SNIP*



I used to call my '65 G.T.O. a "Goat" does that count? Well, myself and the rest of the automotive world anyway.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Jun 24, 2016)

James W. said:


> Hispano via French/Russians got a moteur-cannon working before the Germans, Steve?
> 
> Part 23 of the Mustang III tactical trials described the 4 X 0.5" armament as:
> 
> ...


Some mustang mk Is were fitted with 4 cannon

The Mustang I carried a mixed armament of eight machine guns. Two .50 inch machine guns were mounted under the engine cowling, firing through the propellers. Each wing contained two .30 inch machine guns and one .50 inch machine gun, arranged with the bigger gun between and below the two .30s. Ninety three USAAF P-51 Mustangs were given to the RAF. These carried four 20mm cannon and were designated as Mustang IAs.


----------



## Peter Gunn (Jun 24, 2016)

*Grabbed this from the P-40 BoB thread:*

"There is a remarkably restrained letter from the officer commanding No. 19 Squadron, Squadron Leader R Pinkham, following his squadron's unsuccessful attempt to employ two 20mm cannons in their Spitfires. On 16th August the cannon had functioned properly on just one of the seven Spitfires engaged, on the 19th it was none out of three, on the 24th two out of eight and on the 31st just three out of six.

Pinkham wrote:

_"In all the engagements so far occurring it is considered that had the unit been equipped with eight gun fighters it would have inflicted far more severe losses on the enemy... It is most strongly urged that until the stoppages at present experienced have been eliminated this Squadron should be re-equipped with Browning gun Spitfires. It is suggested that a way of doing this would be to allot the current cannon armed Spitfires to an Operational Training Unit, and withdraw Browning gun Spitfires from there for use in this Squadron."_

On 4th September the exchange was made. The aircraft received from the OTU (Haywarden) were not exactly pristine. The 19 Squadron diary noted:
_
" First day with the eight gun machines, and what wrecks. At least the guns will fire."_

Armament that doesn't work is, quite literally, worse than useless.

Cheers

Steve"

Steve, et al.,
Any data on how the Mustang Mk Ia cannons worked? Better, worse or was the issue the Spits in the letter were having fixed by the time the Mustangs arrived? I always thought personally the Mustang should have kept the 4x20mm armament but am interested to see data to back that opinion up.

Thanks.
Pete


----------



## pbehn (Jun 24, 2016)

Peter Gunn said:


> *Grabbed this from the P-40 BoB thread:*
> 
> 
> Steve, et al.,
> ...


The quote was from the Battle of Britain, the cannons were fitted in a hurry and suffered because of it, the problems were eventually solved.

The response was to fit the Spitfire with the 20mm Hispano cannon. This poses a variety of problems, not least of which was the size of the cannon. The only way to fit it in the Spitfire wing was to mount it on its side. A second problem was that the early cannons were prone to jam under the pressure of combat. If one cannon jammed, the recoil from the other one was enough to push the Spitfire off course.



The “b” wing entered service during 1940. No.19 Squadron used it during the battle of Britain, but the cannons were still causing problems. Finally in November 1940 No.92 Squadron was given Spitfires equipped with two 20mm cannon and four 0.303in machine guns. This proved to be a much more effective combination of weapons, and became the standard for the “b” wing.

“c” wing


Spitfire F.Mk IX with "c" wing
The “c” wing appeared in October 1941. It was a “universal” wing that could take eight .303in machine guns, four 20mm cannon or two 20mm cannon and four machine guns. Each cannon now had 120 rounds, compared to the 60 of the “b” wing. This wing was used on the majority of Mk V Spitfires, normally with the combined cannon and machine guns configuration. The “c” wing also had the capability to carry two 250lb bombs under the wings, or one 500lb bomb under the fuselage. If machine guns were used, they were used in the outboard position. The “a” and “b” wings were not used after the Spitfire V.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## wuzak (Jun 24, 2016)

Peter Gunn said:


> Any data on how the Mustang Mk Ia cannons worked? Better, worse or was the issue the Spits in the letter were having fixed by the time the Mustangs arrived? I always thought personally the Mustang should have kept the 4x20mm armament but am interested to see data to back that opinion up.



I suspect that the Hispanos had been worked out by then. The Mustang Ia came along almost 2 years after the Spitfires that had the issues Pinkham described.


----------



## pbehn (Jun 24, 2016)

wuzak said:


> I suspect that the Hispanos had been worked out by then. The Mustang Ia came along almost 2 years after the Spitfires that had the issues Pinkham described.


It was solved fairly quickly, one of the "heat of battle" events which resulted in a squadron of fighters being sent out with practically no guns that worked, I read elsewhere that the cannons needed to be warmed by hot air ducts which was hard to arrange for the out board cannon so the compromise of 1 cannon and 2 MGs became the standard.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Airframes (Jun 24, 2016)

The problems with the cannons on the 19 Sqn Spitfires in 1940 were due to mainly three areas.
As has been mentioned, in order to fit into the wing, the weapons had to be mounted on their side. These earlier weapons were drum fed, from a 60 round drum magazine, which fed in from the side of the receiver, hence the 'blister' on the top surface of the wing, covering the drum magazine, and the magazine and feed were the primary cause of problems, due mainly to the side mounting arrangement.
Apart from problems with freezing, which caused stoppages, or more correctly, prevented the weapon(s) from firing at all, the main problem was stoppages, after one or two rounds had been fired, _when the aircraft was under 'g' loading._
Although the weapons could, and would fire when the aircraft was level and stable, when manouvering, the 'g' loads caused an imbalance in the feed, where the nose of the round struck the edge of the breech face. As the bolt continued forward, with the nose of the round jammed hard against the breech rim, the cartridge case/round then bent, totally jamming the breech and bolt, and thereby preventing any further use of the weapon until it had been stripped on the ground.
This was eventually partly cured by modifying the feed system and drum spring, but wasn't fully overcome until the introduction of the MkII Hispano with belt feed via a BFM (Belt Feed Mechanism), which resembled the drum magazine in shape, although smaller, and with the ammunition belts stored in 'box' magazines in the wing, outboard of the gun.

As has been mentioned, by the time the Mustang Mk1a entered service, the Spitfire MkIX was already in service, with belt-fed cannon and mg armament. Note also that the Mustang Mk1a was allocated to tactical recce squadrons, as well as Army cooperation squadrons, whose operational environment was somewhat different to that of the true fighter squadrons, with most sorties being at medium to low level, where the majority of engagements were against ground targets - a rather more 'stable' situation for the operation of the cannons, compared to aerial engagements.

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Peter Gunn (Jun 24, 2016)

Many thanks gentlemen.


----------



## wuzak (Jun 24, 2016)

Did the Mustang Ia have American built Hispanos, which had their own set of issues, or British built Hispanos?


----------



## GregP (Jun 24, 2016)

Ours used SAE cartridges and the British used Whitworth cartridges!


----------



## GrauGeist (Jun 24, 2016)

wuzak said:


> Did the Mustang Ia have American built Hispanos, which had their own set of issues, or British built Hispanos?


The ones in British service were the Hispano Mk.II


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 24, 2016)

GregP said:


> Ours used SAE cartridges and the British used Whitworth cartridges!



Yep, and getting American guns to fire British shells was real Bitc*!!!!

Reactions: Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 24, 2016)

More seriously, I have read that the British _never _used an American made Hispano in an aircraft, some may have been used as AA guns. Source could be wrong.


----------



## wuzak (Jun 24, 2016)

Shortround6 said:


> More seriously, I have read that the British _never _used an American made Hispano in an aircraft, some may have been used as AA guns. Source could be wrong.



Even American supplied aircraft?


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 25, 2016)

Well, they only equipped one squadron with P-39s before they shipped the rest off to the Russians. They took 3 of the Lockheed 322s. and no regular P-38s. Only few dozen of the 20mm armed Mustangs before the Americans took the rest of that batch. 
What else did they get with 20mm guns? It wouldn't have been that hard to swap out the guns for British ones.


----------



## stona (Jun 25, 2016)

Were they delivered with armament fitted? I would have expected that to have been fitted by the British along with radios and all the other British equipment (even the seat harness!)
Cheers
Steve


----------



## stona (Jun 25, 2016)

James W. said:


> So - is there any reason known why one pair of the Mustang III's 0.5" was not substituted with 20mm to match the Spitfire?
> Or all 4, to comply with - regular RAF standard - fighter fit-out?



It might not have been as easy as some are suggesting. Fitting a larger weapon with different mounts and ammunition feeds in the 'Mustang's' wing structure might have been a difficult task. When the British fitted a .50 calibre machine gun next to the cannon in the Spitfire wing they encountered some unexpected problems!







Cheers

Steve

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## wuzak (Jun 25, 2016)

stona said:


> It might not have been as easy as some are suggesting. Fitting a larger weapon with different mounts and ammunition feeds in the 'Mustang's' wing structure might have been a difficult task. When the British fitted a .50 calibre machine gun next to the cannon in the Spitfire wing they encountered some unexpected problems!
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I take it that the damage was only to the cover, not to the barrel itself?


----------



## Ascent (Jun 25, 2016)

This may seem like a strange question but how accurate do you want the weapon to be? I'm just thinking about automatic weapons in use by ground troops.

The Bren gun was reportedly too accurate for a support weapon and needed the user to move it around to create a spread of fire whereas the MG34/42 produced a cone of fire.

Do you want each individual weapon to put the bullet through the same hole or do you want them spread about a bit?


----------



## stona (Jun 25, 2016)

wuzak said:


> I take it that the damage was only to the cover, not to the barrel itself?



Yes. I'm not sure what happens to the action of the cannon when the recoil spring gets blocked like that (you can see the fairing has been forced over it by the blast from the .50 calibre).
Cheers
Steve


----------



## stona (Jun 25, 2016)

Ascent said:


> Do you want each individual weapon to put the bullet through the same hole or do you want them spread about a bit?



I've never seen an analysis of this. In my opinion (that's all it is) given the other factors that reduce the accuracy of aircraft and particularly wing mounted armament, the most accurate weapon possible would be the best.
I can't think of an argument for anything else, maybe someone else can?
Cheers
Steve


----------



## drgondog (Jun 25, 2016)

Ascent said:


> This may seem like a strange question but how accurate do you want the weapon to be? I'm just thinking about automatic weapons in use by ground troops.
> 
> The Bren gun was reportedly too accurate for a support weapon and needed the user to move it around to create a spread of fire whereas the MG34/42 produced a cone of fire.
> 
> Do you want each individual weapon to put the bullet through the same hole or do you want them spread about a bit?



Speaking for myself, and vocalizing opinions of many fighter pilots - I want the guns to shoot the target aimingpoint where they are adjusted following bore sighted via the gun sight. Although a few US pilots instructed their Armorers to adjust individual guns to different points of impact, believing such practice to yield better results while strafing - most did not.


----------



## BiffF15 (Jun 25, 2016)

GrapeJam said:


> You know, I'd really like the 109 if it didn't have the highest amount of idiotic fanboys.




GrapeJam,

I'm in awe of your humor. It flies with the accuracy of a well aimed sniper round, and rings loudly upon impact!

Cheers,
Biff

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Jun 25, 2016)

FLYBOYJ said:


> He claimed he's flown at every aero club, if anyone has every done it, they'll remember it.
> 
> Shooter, 2 Mods have asked for a reply, if you want to participate here you'll answer.





GrauGeist said:


> Better still, Joe...how about him telling us what's unique about approach/departure at a certain Island in the southland.
> 
> The Shack there has a great grill with an interesting name, too.
> 
> I don't want to give away too much because of "post-google-authority".



Well dang, it looks like we won't get to see Poop-Shooter try and guess the location I was referring to 

Most folks who are in areoclubs in the southland would know about Catalina (AVX)

And the Grill's name is the DC-3

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## gjs238 (Jun 25, 2016)

GrauGeist said:


> Well dang, it looks like we won't get to see Poop-Shooter try and guess the location I was referring to
> 
> Most folks who are in areoclubs in the southland would know about Catalina (AVX)
> 
> And the Grill's name is the DC-3


What happened?


----------



## GrapeJam (Jun 25, 2016)

BiffF15 said:


> GrapeJam,
> 
> I'm in awe of your humor. It flies with the accuracy of a well aimed sniper round, and rings loudly upon impact!
> 
> ...



Thank you, If only my shooting in flight sims can be called "well aimed"

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## gomwolf (Jun 25, 2016)

pbehn said:


> From Bungays "The most dangerous enemy" discussing losses before 12 August 1940.
> 
> "But the aircraft most vulnerable of all to British fighters was the Bf109.RAF pilots managed to get a bead on 70 of them and of those they destroyed 54, some 77% a markedly higher destruction ratio than the 63% the BF109's achieved in return. This may be because damaged machines had further to fly to make it home and force landed in England or ditched and so were lost. But it also looks as if Spitfires and Hurricanes were even more deadly than the Bf109 itself, and that in fighter combat their eight brownings were at least as destructive as the two cannon and two machine guns of the the Bf109E."
> 
> ...



Yep I agree that. Actually, Bf109 is my second favorite aircraft. If you see my youtube channel(if you have interest, search 'redbeowolf' on youtube.), you can find more than hundred of Bf109 flight sim play logs in there. But what I wanted to say is Bf109 is BEAUTIFUL and remarkable aircraft but its line of limitation was clear. DB605D was best engine it could mount and Bf109K-4 was truely BEAUTIFUL and it have great performance but it wasn't enough. Milch wanted Bf109 with DB603 but it was impossible. That is why Milch got interest about G.55 on the conference in 1942. And that is why I told about G.55.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 28, 2016)

James W. said:


> So - is there any reason known why one pair of the Mustang III's 0.5" was not substituted with 20mm to match the Spitfire?
> Or all 4, to comply with - regular RAF standard - fighter fit-out?



Several reasons that are guesses. 
What the factory can do to accommodate different guns is different that what field units or even regional repair units can do.
I have no knowledge of the heating requirements of the two guns. The Mustang III used electric heaters on each gun. The Spitfire and Typhoon used heat (hot air) ducted from the engine or radiators. I don't know if the electric heating unit from a .50 cal would keep the the 20mm gun warm enough. 
The ammunition bays would have to be rebuilt. 

A lot of this stuff is do-able on a small scale basis. The British got 308 Mustang IIIs. Too many to futz with on a one by one basis and perhaps too few to set up a real production line conversion, ie stamping dies to form the ammunition boxes/bays and gun mounts ? 

Throw in the extra drag and extra weight and performance takes a hit.


----------



## Peter Gunn (Jun 28, 2016)

stona said:


> Yes. I'm not sure what happens to the action of the cannon when the recoil spring gets blocked like that (you can see the fairing has been forced over it by the blast from the .50 calibre).
> Cheers
> Steve



Just so I have it straight, the .50 is on the right but why does it look like it's twice the diameter of the 20mm or is that just the fairing over it?

Thanks.


----------



## stona (Jun 28, 2016)

Yes, and it's the short blast tube that makes the .50 calibre seem bigger. The barrel of the machine gun is not visible in the picture.
Cheers
Steve


----------



## Peter Gunn (Jun 28, 2016)

I thought as much, thanks Steve for clearing that up.


----------



## drgondog (Jun 28, 2016)

The switch back from 20mm to 50 cal to 20mm/50 cal for the P-51-1/IA to P-51B would not be difficult. The wing was stressed for 2x20mm in each wing, the wing was also modified at different times for 2x30 cal/1 50 cal (Mustang I), 2x20mm (51-1/Mustang IA, 2x50 cal for A-36/P-51A/P-51B and 3x50 cal for P-51D - only the spent case chutes, gun/ammo bays and drive motors and heaters changed.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## stona (Jun 28, 2016)

The 20mm version didn't enter production did it?
It might have been possible to produce a cannon armed version, though I wonder why it changed to the 4 x .50 calibre. It would be quite another issue for the British to change the armament and its associated equipment once the aircraft arrived in the UK.
Cheers
Steve


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 28, 2016)

I have never heard of a plane being converted from one armament configuration to another _once in the field/service squadron. _
I am not going to say it didn't happen or it couldn't be done (with a suitable supply of parts) except for the F6F. 
I suppose I should mention the substitution of Browning .303 s for some .50 cal guns in some early US Aircraft used by the British. either to lighten planes or get around local ammo shortages. 
Point is it was far from common and it is a lot easier to go smaller than go bigger. Local shops being much more able to build spacers/fillers than new "structure". Structure meaning ammo boxes/chutes rather than spars or ribs. 

Not sure anybody converted an early P-51 wing or A-36 wing to a six .50 cal wing in the field. Might be a lot easier to convert the Mustang IA wing to four .50s than convert the P-51B wing to four 20mm guns though.





You not only need to re-arrange the gun and ammo bays but need to come up with the gun fairings/leading edge pieces. 
Certainly not impossible but perhaps more effort than they thought it was worth?


----------



## stona (Jun 28, 2016)

It would definitely have been beyond the squadron service infrastructure. I was suggesting it would have been difficult even at the Maintenance Units, where all these aircraft would have gone to have their British equipment fitted _before_ being delivered to their units.
Cheers
Steve


----------



## GrauGeist (Jun 28, 2016)

Shortround6 said:


> ...You not only need to re-arrange the gun and ammo bays but need to come up with the gun fairings/leading edge pieces...


The Cannon armed Hurricane and the Typhoon had substantial cannon fairings...probably wouldn't be too difficult to adapt those to a retro-fit in the need came up.

Those guys were pretty sharp at field-mods.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 28, 2016)

Again it is one thing to do a few planes (or even a dozen) but when you are dealing with a few hundred you may want standardized parts coming from a central supply.


----------



## GrauGeist (Jun 28, 2016)

Shortround6 said:


> Again it is one thing to do a few planes (or even a dozen) but when you are dealing with a few hundred you may want standardized parts coming from a central supply.


Of course.

I imagine that if it was decided to make that change, the same vendor(s) that was making the cannon fairings for the Hawkers, would be able to produce what was needed on fairly short notice, since they already had the experience.


----------



## stona (Jun 28, 2016)

We are well into the reals of conjecture, but if the change was to be made retrospectively wouldn't it have made more sense to acquire the kits from the US manufacturer? I have no idea, it just seems like a sensible option as the Americans had already produced some cannon equipped aircraft and must have had the relevant plans/designs to hand. Why go through the entire design process again?
Cheers
Steve


----------



## drgondog (Jun 28, 2016)

T


Shortround6 said:


> I have never heard of a plane being converted from one armament configuration to another _once in the field/service squadron. _
> I am not going to say it didn't happen or it couldn't be done (with a suitable supply of parts) except for the F6F.
> I suppose I should mention the substitution of Browning .303 s for some .50 cal guns in some early US Aircraft used by the British. either to lighten planes or get around local ammo shortages.
> Point is it was far from common and it is a lot easier to go smaller than go bigger. Local shops being much more able to build spacers/fillers than new "structure". Structure meaning ammo boxes/chutes rather than spars or ribs.
> ...



The P-51-1-NA (shown) was NA 91. It was a production version which followed NA-73, NA 83.. This series of 150 aircraft followed the earlier runs of a total 620 Mustang I's for RAF.

NA 91 also pulled two Mustangs for NA 101 - which became the XP-51B (XP-78) Merlin Protoypes and one of them had the 4 gun 20mm P-51-1-A configuration. 93 NA 101 went to RAF as Mustang IA, 55 went as P-51-1-NA, then -2-NA as F6 recon versions.

Simply - kit to convert P-51B to 4x 50 cal or 4x20mm would have been about as much trouble as the DFF kits.

Reactions: Winner Winner:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## wuzak (Jun 28, 2016)

DFF? Dorsal Fin Fillet?


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 29, 2016)

Thank you for the correction. Mistake was that 308 Mustang IIIs were P-51Bs and the rest were P-51C from the Dallas factory. 

Now the question on the short barreled Hispanos is when they showed up and how many. 

To show the pace of development and the time lag involved in getting US aircraft into combat. 
First flight by XP-51D was Nov 17th 1943
The first fighter sweep using P-51s over NW Europe was Dec 1st 1943. No drop tanks in use.
First combat mission with drop tanks was Dec 13. 1943
The British start operations with Mustang IIIs in Feb 1944.
March of 1944 sees P-51Ds enter production at the Englewood plant. 
June of 1944 sees P-51Ds start to show up in quantity in England. 
June 30th sees contract for 1000 P-51Hs placed. 

Series II Tempests with the short barreled cannon start showing up in June of 1944.
It might have been a fantastic combination but there seems to have been a shortage of guns (at least in mid to late 1944) and Mustang development was moving along. 
Please note that there was often a 2-4 month delay in getting US aircraft from the factory door to getting them into combat.


----------



## stona (Jun 29, 2016)

James W. said:


> However, for pure flying, I preferred the Messerschmitt, despite all of
> its problems during take off, & landing."



You will find pilots loyal to Messerschmitt or Focke-Wulf in almost equal numbers in personal recollections. It's just individuals expressing a personal preference, these are invariably coloured by all sorts of individual experiences and are pretty meaningless in any comparison of the various types.
Cheers
Steve


----------



## drgondog (Jun 29, 2016)

The delay in getting Mustangs to ETO combat units of ~13-16 weeks was when the P-51B 85 gallon tank installations were starting up at Depots in Niagara and Buffalo about the last week October/November 1943. The learning curve was pretty steep by the time the last of the P-51B-5-NA series rolled out in November/December. When the last of the P-51C-1 and some C-5 and B-5 left the line, the 85 gallon tanks were installed in production and the cycle to get from Inglewood/Dallas reduced considerably with about equal time from factory to Port for pre-ship prep, the voyage to Liverpool and subsequent ground transport to BAD2 Warton, then ETO Mods at BAD2 and transport to Operational units.

The delivery times reduced to approximately 10 weeks from factory to combat unit when the 85 gallon fuse tanks install time at depots were removed.

The drag of the 20mm guns were considerable. I have to dig but IIRC, depending on altitude, they could be as much as 20-25+ mph speed loss.(P-51-1 and Mustang IA)

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 29, 2016)

You will find US pilots that initially hated trading their Spitfires for P-47s. And Pilots that hated trading their P-47s for P-51s. 
I am sure there are plenty of other stories of pilots not wanting to trade what they were used to (and trusted) for the unknown.
Of course some aircraft were so bad (or out classed) that most any new aircraft was viewed with hope.


----------



## KiwiBiggles (Jun 29, 2016)

drgondog said:


> The drag of the 20mm guns were considerable. I have to dig but IIRC, depending on altitude, they could be as much as 20-25+ mph speed loss.


That would be for the Hispano Mk II. The Hispano V was shorter and fit entirely within the Tempest wing, so caused no additional drag.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 29, 2016)

Drgondog was referring to the Allison powered Mustangs with 20mm cannon. 

There was no such difference in the Tempest




Tempest was big enough that even the long barreled Hispano guns fit mostly in the wing. look at port wing. The short barreled guns tidied things up a bit on the Series II aircraft but the Mustangs had more barrel sticking out than Spitfires.


----------



## stona (Jun 29, 2016)

James W. said:


> Little guys such as 'Winkle' Brown reported feeling the big ol' Tempest to be a fair handful,
> yet others, such as All Black built top RNZAF ace Evan Mackie "even after 800+ hours on the various Spitfire marks" preferred
> the "much more warlike" Tempest,



You've just illustrated my point perfectly 
Cheers
Steve


----------



## stona (Jun 29, 2016)

James W. said:


> I note that the 'Tactical Trials' report reckoned that Typhoon units should transition to Tempests, & not Spitfire outfits,
> but of course, in the 2nd TAF, post invasion, Typhoons were of much more value than Spits, so Spits were replaced by Tempests.



But a surprising number of squadrons transitioned from Typhoons to Spitfires.
Nos. 1, 4, 164, 183, 186 and 485 (RNZAF) all went this way.

As for transitioning from Typhoons to Tempests
Nos. 3, 56, 174, 247 and 486 (RNZAF) went this way.

It seems that the Spitfire might not have been so much less valuable than the Tempest after all. In fact more Typhoon squadrons converted to Spitfires than to Tempests, whatever the recommendation may have been. Not all the Tempest squadrons above were operational during the war

The 11 squadrons above are part of the 30 squadrons that operated the Typhoon. 14 were disbanded, never replacing the Typhoon, No.137 became No.174 but kept its Typhoons, 2 converted to the Meteor (Nos.245 and 263). No. 438 (RCAF) went from Typhoons to Mustangs.

There were only ever 9 squadrons of Tempests declared operational before the end of the war, 3 converted from Typhoons the other 6 from Spitfires.
Overall 6 squadrons went from Spitfire to Tempest, whilst 6 also went from Typhoon to Spitfire!

Cheers

Steve


----------



## stona (Jun 30, 2016)

James W. said:


> Steve, 485 (NZ) Sqd was a Spitfire squadron from start to finish, it was intended to transition them to Tempests,
> but that was in 1945, & with the hard use in the 2nd TAF, there were simply insufficient available.



Your information is incorrect. No. 485 received Tempest Vs in February 1945 at Predannack in Cornwall. It began training under Sqn Ldr K. J. McDonald DFC, but this was soon abandoned and it 'disposed' (as the RAF likes to say) of the Tempests in March. It then started conversion to the Typhoon but 'disposed' of these about a month later and reverted to Spitfires.
It certainly did not remain a Spitfire squadron throughout, going from Spitfires to Tempests (never operational) to Typhoons (never operational) before reverting to Spitfires in April, just before the end of the war in Europe. It is true that it only had operational status when Spitfire equipped.
You will notice that it started to convert to Tempests before it started to convert to Typhoons, some sources have assumed that the Typhoons came first, as a step towards conversion to the Tempest, but this is not so.


Look at the various types operated by numbers of squadrons in 2nd TAF.
This is from the order of battle as of June '44

Spitfire, 46 squadrons
Typhoon, 18 squadrons
Mosquito, 14 squadrons
Mustang , 11 squadrons

There were then a few other types, Mitchell 2 squadrons, Tempest 2 squadrons, Boston 2 squadrons, Wellington 1 squadron, Beaufighter 1 squadron.

These are numbers of squadrons, the strength of these would vary, particularly in the reserve Groups.

Spitfires made up roughly half the squadrons in the 2nd TAF. I'm sure those running the show would be surprised to find that they were 'obsolescent and all".
There were only 8 squadrons of Spitfire Vs in total and all formed part of 83 Reserve Group, itself attached to ADGB and not expected to operate on the Continent. The other 38 Spitfire squadrons were equipped with Marks that could not be described as obsolescent in mid/late 1944.

Cheers

Steve


----------



## stona (Jun 30, 2016)

James W. said:


> Actually Steve, your information is incorrect.
> 485 (NZ) 'trained' on a few Typhoons, (as Tempest analogs) & series 1 Tempests, ( which were not used on the continent for ops)
> & because no 2nd TAF suitable Tempests were available, & never became so in wartime, they stayed with Spits, Mk XVIs.
> Edit: Addit.



What's your source? Mine is primarily Mason from the squadron ORB. They did finally become operational again as a Spitfire unit, with that I agree, just in time for the end of the war in Europe.

I included the two Tempest squadrons of 150 Wing which comprised, No.56 Squadron Spitfire IX, No.3 Squadron Tempest V and No.486 (RNZAF) Squadron Tempest V . They are included with the other types (the Mitchells, Bostons etc) operated by two or less squadrons.

Clostermann tells some good stories, but history it most definitely is NOT !

Cheers

Steve


----------



## Milosh (Jun 30, 2016)

Actually it was 349 Sqd that trained on the Mk 5 but went to Spitfire XVIs when was training suspended,

485 Sqd converted to Typhoons when training was suspended.

Both units flew Spitfire IXs before the Tempest training.


----------



## stona (Jun 30, 2016)

You are going by memoirs, always fallible, and Mason is going by the ORBs. I know which I'll take, and whilst anything is possible, Mason doesn't make many mistakes.

No.349 was at the same airfield as No.485 in February 1945, so when it too reports the arrival of Tempest Vs that month, they are undoubtedly the same batch of aircraft reported by the Kiwis of No.485 Squadron. They were at the same time and place.

The Belgians (349) did not then go on to Typhoons but kept their Tempests until 19th April before 'disposing' of them in favour of Spitfires.

The Kiwis (485) disposed of their Tempests in March 1945 in favour of Typhoons which they kept for barely a month before disposing of them and reverting to Spitfires.

There would have been some crossover of types, there were certainly Tempests and Typhoons on the airfield at Predannack together for at least one month, and later there may have been all three types as both squadrons reverted to Spitfires.

Neither squadron was operational on anything but the Spitfire.

Wartime Tempest production:
The first production batch of 100 aircraft did come slowly, an average of only 4 aircraft per week were produced and delivered between 12/43 and 5/44.

The second batch of 300 aircraft went rather better, averaging 18 aircraft per week, delivered between 5/44 and 9/44.

The third batch of 199 aircraft came off the line at a rate of 12 aircraft per week, delivered between 9/44 and 2/45.
This is the last batch relevant to the war, production was slowing as the end of the war loomed. There was one more wartime batch.

The fourth production batch of 201 aircraft was produced at about 9 aircraft per week, delivered between 1/45 and 6/45. The last of this batch, serials SN368-SN416, were cancelled.

I'm not sure where the shortages stem from. It seems that in the closing stages of the European war there were several hundred Tempest Vs available, yet they were present in few operational squadrons.

Cheers

Steve

Edit: I've dug out Shores and Thomas 2nd TAF series and volume four covers the various squadrons.
Here are the pertinent bits.

No.349.
_"In February 1945 it was posted to Predannack to convert to Tempest Vs, but in the evnt not enough of these were forthcoming to allow the unit to equip with them and consequently in April it returned to 135 Wing, now based on German soil, and resumed flying Spitfire IXBs. At the end of April the squadron was transferred to 131 (Polish) Wing where it received Spitfire VVIEs during the following month, too late for use prior to the German surrender."_

No. 485.
_"135 Wing was to be converted to Tempests at this time. Two of the squadrons departing for this purpose. Accompanied by 349 Squadron, 485 followed suit at the end of February 1945, moving to Predannack in Cornwall for this purpose. Due to shortages of Tempests, however, the conversion was cancelled. Finally the two squadrons returned to 135 Wing in April, then moving to_ when_ join 132 Wing at B.106_ [this must refer to 485 as 349 went to 131 Wing]......_Transfer to 145 Wing at B.105 followed at the end of the month and here the unit remained until 26th August 1945, it was disbanded."
_
None of this conflicts with Mason. The intention was to transfer to Tempests and both squadrons were presumably using the same few reported in February. Shores and Thomas don't mention 485's use of Typhoons before returning to Europe with Spitfires, but their focus is on operations on the Continent.

They do confirm a shortage of Tempests in early 1945, though I don't know why that should have been the case.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## drgondog (Jul 1, 2016)

With a combination of living with fighter pilot, hanging out with fighter pilots, diving deeply into historical research, having an MS in Aero, design experience, having ability to parse and understance the tech documents and assumptions regarding performance, etc

I can, and will say that by and large 'vet's recollections' - particularly after age of 40- are over rated.

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## stona (Jul 1, 2016)

Understandably some will embellish events, altering time lines etc to suit the story. Clostermann certainly does this. Other may have an axe to grind, 'Dizzy' Allen certainly did, even in his 'Battle for Britain'. Many are propaganda, certainly something like David Crook's 'Spitfire Pilot' and most others published during the war. Some might have their own reasons for recounting a sanitised version of history, think of Galland and several other Luftwaffe personnel.
I have read these and many more, they are not bad books, only some are dishonest, but they must be taken in context and understood for what they are. They are rarely reliable tellers of history.
Cheers
Steve


----------



## pbehn (Jul 1, 2016)

Pilots recollections were not even accurate, at the time frequently aircraft were mis identified, some like the hapless Fw190 pilot did not even know the country they were landing in.


----------



## GrauGeist (Jul 1, 2016)

pbehn said:


> Pilots recollections were not even accurate, at the time frequently aircraft were mis identified, some like the hapless Fw190 pilot did not even know the country they were landing in.


Look at all the He113s that were encountered!

Reactions: Useful Useful:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## stona (Jul 1, 2016)

Check the claims for He 113s during the BoB! The British pilots buying into German propaganda.

Mis-identification was common and sometimes surprising. I was recently reading reports in which bombing aircraft were identified as Ju 87s. They were in fact either Bf 110s, twins and an unlikely mistake, or the Jabo Bf 109s of Erprobungsgruppe 210.
Most likely the 'Ju 87s' were in fact Bf 109s.

Bf 110s and Do 17s were often confused in British combat reports too.

Cheers

Steve

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 1, 2016)

Look at Bob Johnson's scoreboard and some of the aircraft claimed. I see a few ME 209s there!

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Jul 1, 2016)

The Typhoon was so frequently confused with the Fw109 that stripes were painted on them.


----------



## nuuumannn (Jul 1, 2016)

stona said:


> The Kiwis (485) disposed of their Tempests in March 1945 in favour of Typhoons which they kept for barely a month before disposing of them and reverting to Spitfires.



That being said, the Typhoons were with 485 for famil training only before the unit was to convert to Tempests as James stated earlier. This from Thomas and Shores The Typhoon and Tempest Story;

P.137: "It may be recalled that when 33 and 222 Squadrons returned to 135 Wing in Holland with their new aircraft, 349 and 485 Squadrons had been sent to Predannack, in February 1945, similarly to convert. Owing to intense activity taking place in north west Europe, few Tempests could be spared for these new units and these were so slow in arriving that a handful of redundant Typhoon FR.Ibs were borrowed from the GSUs to give the Spitfire pilots an introduction to the Hawker 'stable'.

P.179: "485 Sqn (wrongly identified as RNZAF - this was an RAF unit) began conversion from Spitfire IXs to Tempest Vs at Predannack Feb 1945. First tempest flown 28 Feb, but this type was withdrawn early in March and replaced by Typhoons, as a temporary measure. However, conversion was abandoned April 1945, the last Typhoon flying having taken place on the 10th."

In a recent 485 Sqn book published in NZ, I don't have further details as I snaffled this info from an NZ aviation forum, includes the following serial numbers for those interested, of Typhoons and Tempests operated by 485:

Typhoons; EJ900, '904, '975, EK252, '347, '492, '512. Tempests: EJ882, NV682, '701, '756, '762, '922, '939.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## stona (Jul 2, 2016)

James W. said:


> Thanks Nuuumannn, & I would add the point that certain documents, such as pilot log books which
> give details as to aircraft serials & flight purposes/times, written at the time - are fairly reliable.



Again, caution. Log books were not, and are not, always written up at the time. I know this for a fact, even in peacetime, because I have all three of my own father's log books and you don't need to be a forensic hand writing expert to see that at many times, usually when very busy on exercises like 'Polar Mist', 'attacking' the Royal Navy or having converted to helicopters flying commandos to Port Said "for assault", several days were filled in after the events 

Some Luftwaffe log books are very unreliable and there is good evidence that some at least (one I know for certain) may have been altered post war, this is not a discussion I will enter into here! Like arguments about claims it will just generate more heat than light 

Cheers

Steve

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## stona (Jul 2, 2016)

From the Trades Union Congress (TUC)

"1944 marked the peak of wartime strike action with over two thousand stoppages involving the loss of 3,714,000 days' production. This led to the imposition of Defence Regulation 1AA, supported by the TUC, which now made incitement to strike unlawful."

It should know as it was its own members striking!

I don't know specifically about strikes at the Hawker factory, but it would not be extraordinary. Sometimes aircraft production was lost due to other industrial action. I know one of the Avro plants was temporarily shut down because the gas supply was cut off due to a strike by workers in that industry.

Cheers

Steve

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## stona (Jul 2, 2016)

James W. said:


> No documents of the kind can really be '100% kosher' though - can they Steve, not even ORBs...



Of course, there are certainly some parts of some squadron ORBs which were not written up as promptly as they should have been.

Cheers

Steve


----------



## stona (Jul 2, 2016)

A good friend who sadly passed away a few years ago used to collect union badges and was something of a historian of the trades union movement in Britain. He himself had been involved in ship building on the Clyde as a young man and could tell some stories!
What amazed me was just how many trade unions there were. The process of amalgamation into the big composite unions (like the T&GWU) was underway by the 1930s, but in an aircraft plant the workforce could still be represented by literally dozens of different unions. Labour problems were compounded by many factors. Foremost was the so called dilution of the skilled workforce by unskilled or semi-skilled labour, which started in the late 1930s and continued throughout the war. Second was that old faithful, demarcation. Particularly in an industry that was rapidly developing, with new techniques and technologies this was at the heart of much unrest.
In 1935 the Engineering Employer's Federation (EEF) was sufficiently worried that the Chairman of its Aircraft Manufacturers' Aircraft Committee wrote.

_"The variation in practice...in regard to the classes of work people employed in the different operations ...rendered the firms open to attack by the Trades Unions along the lines of comparison of practice between one firm and another."_

He was referring to practices like those at Vickers where wood workers, no longer needed in such numbers, were being converted to sem-skilled metal workers, whilst at other firms all metalwork was done by members of metal working Unions. There is a big difference to a Trade Unionist between a skilled man who has served a full apprenticeship and another man simply being payed as skilled, even if he is skilled in another trade. In February 1940 Dobson (of A V Roe) wrote that the payment of skilled rates to unskilled labour was_ "the agreed bargaining position"_ but to imagine that this did not rankle with the Unions would be naive.

Here's a couple of examples of the sort of problems, to us petty, that could arise.

As Handley Page sought to increase production machining work, normally undertaken by skilled men, was allocated to lower rated men.
The Union maintained that this work had always been undertaken by skilled men. Handley Page argued that although skilled labour had been used for small batches of parts where 'setting and operating' were done by the same man, the work for larger batches had to be divided between skilled 'setters' and semi-skilled 'operators'. Handley Page also argued that this was standard practice throughout the industry, which it was not. Cue industrial action!

Modern aircraft had metal skinned wings. At Dobson and Barlow (Bolton) the Amalgamated Engineering Union attempted to establish Blenheim wing assembly as skilled work on the grounds that the first set of wings had been skinned by fully rated men.
Sheet metal workers at Fairey's Hamble factory claimed that their Union had the right to undertake all metal skinning work.
Industry took a hard line. Roy Dobson again.

_"The point is that metal skinning of aircraft would be an impossible job if we had to rely solely on tinsmiths to do it, and it is our intention to avoid the use of this class of labour entirely on such work. In some cases we are using fitters and in other cases entirely unskilled people."_

The EEF went further, the Chairman of its National Technical Committee wrote

_"we have to eliminate not only the sheet metal workers, but shipwrights and people of that nature, as this work is essentially semi-skilled."_

One EEF Director wrote of a dispute over wing production at one of his factories.

_"the job was not a fitters job, or a patternmakers job, or a woodworkers job, but one which had developed in the evolution of the industry, metal wing assembly, and the employer had the right to select the men most suitable for the job, irrespective of the Union to which they may belong."_

Faced with such an assault on their most cherished principles it is hardly surprising that the Trades Unions resisted this sort of measure, and industrial action was always one of the weapons they could use to fight the changes. In 1944, with the war clearly being won, it is no surprise to me that many issues, previously tolerated in the interests of war production, started bubbling to the surface, the plethora of strikes and other industrial actions simply reflecting the frustrations of the work force, sometimes built up over several years.

Cheers

Steve

Reactions: Informative Informative:
4 | Like List reactions


----------



## wuzak (Jul 6, 2016)

Shooter8 said:


> Part two; Because British testers were not familiar and experienced with LE Slats they did not duplicate the true performance of the plane and because of the sudden lurch as the slats deployed, they were afraid, or reluctant to enter that part of the envelope. (Remember that stalling was often fatal and should be avoided at all costs!) Were those trials more free form and combat oriented, the above differences would have been very easy to see.



This is (part) of what the RAE had to say about the Bf 109E they had received from the French:



Royal Aircraft Establishment Report No B.A.1460 said:


> 5. Fighting Qualities of the Me.109
> 5.1 Dog Fights with Spitfire and Hurricane
> Mock fights were staged between the Me.109 and a Spitfire, both flown by pilots of the R.A.E. In addition a number of fighter pilots, all of whom had recent experience of operational flying, visited the R.A.E. with their SPitfires and Hurricanes in order to practice combat with the Me.109; during these fights the Me.109 was flown by an R.A.E. pilot who had completed the handling testes described earlier in this report, and thus was thoroughly familiar with the aeroplane and could be expected to get the best out of it. A brief account of teh information provided by these fights has already been published. The following notes summarise the results obtained.
> 
> ...





Royal Aircraft Establishment Report No B.A.1460 said:


> When the Me.109 was following the Hurricane or Spitfire, it was found that our aircraft turned inside the Me.109 without difficulty when flown by determined pilots who were not afraid to pull their aeroplanes round hard in a tight turn. In a surprisingly large number of cases, however, the Me.109 succeeded in keeping on the tail of the Spitfire or Hurricane during these turning tests, merely because our pilots would not tighten up their turn sufficiently from fear of stalling and spinning.



Doesn't sound like the RAE testers had any issues flying the Bf/Me 109 at or near the stall in a turn.




Shooter8 said:


> But they certainly do have almost everything to do with "maneuverability"!
> Slats allow more AoA before the plane stalls and increase the CoL dramatically! These traits do wonders for "Maneuverability" in more ways than just allowing the plane to turn tighter at any given speed, they also reduce the need to chase the target around the circle so far before you shoot him! That is because the dramatically increased AoA gives you as much as 10-12 degrees more "Chord Angle" to shoot across the circle!
> Example; Draw a large circle on any piece of paper, then Bi-sect it. At the intercept of the diameter and circle, draw a line tangent to the circle. Then at that triple point use a protractor to construct a line as a "Chord" angle of 13 degrees to the tangent line. This line represents the MAXIMUM possible range from the attacking plane to the target. ( I use 13 degrees as it is closer to the stall angle than 95% of all fighter pilots in WW-II could SAFELY fly! Stalling at anything less than 2-4000' AGL is always fatal!)
> Then draw a second cord line, but this time use a 25 degree angle to the tangent. See how much farther the target is from the shooter.
> You have just extended the "Effective" Range of your weapons, provided that they are not "geometrically limited"! ( Read ALL planes with wing mounted guns!)



This "shooting across the chord" has been bugging me for a while.

Firstly, I assume it is the chord of the radius on which the attacking aircraft is turning. 

But isn't that physically impossible in WW2 aircraft? That if the AoA is increased the turn is tightened, and that at the stall the turn cannot be tightened further.

To "shoot across the chord" would require the aircraft to be at an angle to the tangent of its turn radius. But if the turn is already so tight that you are at the stall, how can you do that? Can it be done in WW2 aircraft at all? Is that sort of like the start of a Cobra manoeuvre? And wouldn't your Bf 109 be falling out of the sky if you tried it?

Shooting across the chord of the target's turn radius is much more understandable. This can even be done with the attacking aircraft flying in a straight line.

If both aircraft are in a turn, then the attacker needs to be turning more tightly than the target. Physics tells me that the bullets fired from fixed guns on a fighter will always go outside the radius of its turn. In other words, below the aircraft and out of sight of the pilot, unless the turns re quite wide.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## gumbyk (Jul 6, 2016)

wuzak said:


> To "shoot across the chord" would require the aircraft to be at an angle to the tangent of its turn radius. But if the turn is already so tight that you are at the stall, how can you do that? Can it be done in WW2 aircraft at all? Is that sort of like the start of a Cobra manoeuvre? And wouldn't your Bf 109 be falling out of the sky if you tried it?



Exactly.


----------



## GregP (Jul 6, 2016)

Every wing, whether slatted or not, has an angle of attack at which it stalls. Basic aerodynamics.

It is easy to compute the radius of turn at any given airspeed and g-load. If any 2 planes are both pulling 4-g at 180 knots, they both have exactly the same radius of turn in a level turn. In WWII, very few fighters had enough excess power to sustain high g-loads in a level turn for long, and none had the extra power to sustain high g-loads in a level turn at 25,000 feet. If they wanted to "reef it around" up there, it was in a descending turn, not a level turn.

I'd venture to say that no Bf 109 could turn with a well-flown Spitfire of any mark and any Bf 109 variant. But the number of pilots who could reef a Spitifre around near stall safely at low altitudes was probably about the same percentage as the number of Luftwaffe pilots who could do it equally well in their Bf 109s.

The Bf 109 also had a good indicator of impending stall when the slats went out, so they probably knew they could pull at LEAST until the slats nibbled out. Spitfires only gave a slight airframe shudder before departing. A good pilot in combat will know his mount well, and the ones who did had an enormous advantage over the less-seasoned pilots of the opposition, regardless of which side they were on.

Certainly Bf 109s turned with and shot down Spitfires. The reverse is also true, even when good pilots were in the Bf 109s.

No surprises there. The good pilots were good for a reason and had a better chance of survival than the less-skilled pilots when dogfighting. Neither one had a good chance of survival if he was caught napping straight and level by an ambushing enemy, even if the enemy was average in skill.


----------



## BiffF15 (Jul 6, 2016)

wuzak said:


> This is (part) of what the RAE had to say about the Bf 109E they had received from the French:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Wuzak,

I think what he is saying in current fighter speak is called shooting across the circle. The circle term comes from what a plane appears to be doing from a Gods eye view. Imagine if you will a plane is in an established turn and its leaving bread crumbs as it flies. Eventually it would arrive back roughly where it began and that appears to be a circle. Now imagine there are two planes, one chasing the other, and for the offender to be able to shoot at the defender, he needs to be in gun range, nose in lead, and in plane (we will skip the latter for now). The offender can not be in lead &a range unless his turn circle is not aligned (called misaligned). That is called shooting across the circle (usually referred to in missile shots today) and is what I believe he is speaking to.

Circle sizes vary greatly due to speed, altitude, and how hard a guy is pulling, as well as whether or not it's a level turn or descending. They "breathe" in size with the above variables in mind.

If a bandit is on your turn circle, and you are max performing your plane, and the bandit is of close performance and maxing out his plane, he can't shoot you with the gun unless it's canted up (like the Eagle). However if he misaligned circles he can.

Cheers,
Biff

Reactions: Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## wuzak (Jul 6, 2016)

BiffF15 said:


> Wuzak,
> 
> I think what he is saying in current fighter speak is called shooting across the circle. The circle term comes from what a plane appears to be doing from a Gods eye view. Imagine if you will a plane is in an established turn and its leaving bread crumbs as it flies. Eventually it would arrive back roughly where it began and that appears to be a circle. Now imagine there are two planes, one chasing the other, and for the offender to be able to shoot at the defender, he needs to be in gun range, nose in lead, and in plane (we will skip the latter for now). The offender can not be in lead &a range unless his turn circle is not aligned (called misaligned). That is called shooting across the circle (usually referred to in missile shots today) and is what I believe he is speaking to.
> 
> ...



If I understand correctly, if the circles on which the two aircraft are turning are concentric then neither will be able to get a shot off with fixed forward firing guns.

But if the circles are not concentric there will be points at which one or both of the aircraft will be able to get off a shot.

In which case, it seems to me, that the radii of the circles doesn't really matter. The only thing that matters is the relative position of those circles and that the tangent intersects at some point.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Greyman (Jul 6, 2016)

BiffF15 said:


> However if he misaligned circles he can.



Not precisely what you are referring to, but an anecdote comes to mind;

_Two days later on a similar type of sortie, after encountering no opposition, I dived the Wing to eight thousand feet and did a circuit or two over a fighter base near St. Omer. As I circled the field, I saw a lone Junkers 87 taxiing out on the main runway. To my amazement, he turned into the wind and took off. Initially, the pilot must not have known that we were above him. As soon as he was airborne, he must have switched on his radio and been warned of our presence by the Ground Station. He did a very sharp turn and attempted to come in to land again. Claude Weaver was leading Yellow Section of 421 Squadron and at that moment was inside me and below as I circled the field. His request to attack the Stuka was granted. As the Stuka leveled off to touch down, Claude's cannon shells were exploding all around him on the runway. Understandably, he went around again. Twisting and turning, the 87 was chased by his pursuers away from the airdrome while I circled above him at three thousand feet. The Stuka pilot gave an admirable performance of defensive flying against overwhelming odds and just over the top of the ground turned inside his pursuers repeatedly as they attacked. Ignoring my feeling that his performance had earned him a chance to live, I called Claude Weaver and said:

'Yellow One, if you guys don't put that fellow out of his misery in another minute, I'll go down and do it for you.'

My message had been like waving a red flag to Weaver. Leaving the rest of his Section to keep the Stuka busy, he dived away from him on the treetops and came back at him from below. Attacking on a tangent to the Stuka's orbit for the first time I saw cannon shells exploding all over the aircraft. As though in slow motion the Stuka, pouring smoke, sliced into the ground with his port wing and, with his engine on fire, ground along in a cloud of dust. Claude Weaver reported that at the very last, the pilot stood up, the cockpit a cauldron of fire. He put him away with a merciful burst of machine gun. The Stuka pilot had gained the respect of everyone, but the time in the War had passed for chivalry - Hitler had one less pilot for the final battle._

- Wing Commander Hugh Godefroy DSO, DFC and Bar, Croix de Guerre with Gold Star (Fr)

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## gumbyk (Jul 6, 2016)

wuzak said:


> If I understand correctly, if the circles on which the two aircraft are turning are concentric then neither will be able to get a shot off with fixed forward firing guns.
> 
> But if the circles are not concentric there will be points at which one or both of the aircraft will be able to get off a shot.
> 
> In which case, it seems to me, that the radii of the circles doesn't really matter. The only thing that matters is the relative position of those circles and that the tangent intersects at some point.


The inner circle will get a shot at the aircraft on the outer circle, but not the other way around...


----------



## BiffF15 (Jul 6, 2016)

wuzak said:


> If I understand correctly, if the circles on which the two aircraft are turning are concentric then neither will be able to get a shot off with fixed forward firing guns.
> 
> But if the circles are not concentric there will be points at which one or both of the aircraft will be able to get off a shot.
> 
> In which case, it seems to me, that the radii of the circles doesn't really matter. The only thing that matters is the relative position of those circles and that the tangent intersects at some point.



Wuzak,

Your assumptions are mostly correct for two fairly equal planes / pilots. If one plane turns better, over time with no change to the fighting techniques, the better turning plane will have the advantage. Hence the reports that read something along the lines of how many turns (circles) it took for one to get on the tail of the other.

However, if the poorer turning plane can get into what is called the riding position he can still maintain the offensive if he makes the proper adjustments. I will not go into more detail than that for fear of publishing techniques an adversary could use.

Cheers,
Biff

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Greyman (Jul 6, 2016)

BiffF15 said:


> ... unless it's canted up (like the Eagle).



How much variation in pitch attitude is there in the Eagle? 0 ft / 50,000 ft / stall speed / mach one / etc.


----------



## BiffF15 (Jul 6, 2016)

Greyman said:


> How much variation in pitch attitude is there in the Eagle? 0 ft / 50,000 ft / stall speed / mach one / etc.



Greyman,

Gear & flaps down at approach speed in level flight 6 degrees aircraft nose up (ANU). No flap 9 ANU. Speed there is 155-170KIAS. Touchdown is about 135-150.

The heavier you are the more ANU you will encounter. The basic empty weight of an F-15A/C is approx 35k. With a full fuel & weapons load it's about 61k.

At FL500 and sub sonic I think ANU would be approx 3-5, and super would be 3 or less.

The word stall when fighting really never gets used. I have seen 60 ANU at 65KIAS in a clean A, and CLIMBING. God I loved flying that plane! Swept wing fighters usually have control authority of some kind well below 100KIAS. In the Eagle when the stick gets to the seat, you leave it there then start using the rudders and or throttles.

The A/B was my favorite. It was like an 18 year old nymphomanic, eager to please and very responsive. The C/D was like her 35 year old sister. Still fun but requiring much more coaxing...

Cheers,
Biff

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
4 | Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Jul 6, 2016)

This right here:


BiffF15 said:


> The A/B was my favorite. It was like an 18 year old nymphomanic, eager to please and very responsive. The C/D was like her 35 year old sister. Still fun but requiring much more coaxing...


Is one of the best statements I have seen in a good long while!

Reactions: Like Like:
4 | Like List reactions


----------



## BiffF15 (Jul 7, 2016)

James W. said:


> Here is how top RNZAF ace Wingco flying Evan Mackie described such a lateral turning fight with a FW 190D.
> 
> "One particular combat with a long-nosed FW 190, took place at 3,000 ft on a clear day, uninterrupted
> by either flak, or other aircraft. Using +11lbs boost & 3,750 rpm the Tempest would almost get into a
> ...



JW,

Imagine two circles, one large and one slightly smaller. The FW-190 is on the smaller circle while the Tempest is on the bigger. Small vs large is one component (radius) and the other is who gets around the circle the fastest (rate). 

The Tempest could motor around his circle faster than the FW-190, or out rate him. It sounds like the Tempest pilot had quite a bit of room between him and his adversary, which when the FW-190 "snap rolled", allowed him gain a momentary offensive position at least once. The good pilots know when to break even golden rules and use it to their advantage. Or they realize that damn near all rules have caveats.

Cheers,
Biff

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Greyman (Jul 7, 2016)

BiffF15 said:


> At FL500 and sub sonic I think ANU would be approx 3-5, and super would be 3 or less.



So the gun datum being up from the line of flight isn't a correction of any kind - sounds like the difference would certainly be noticeable.


----------



## BiffF15 (Jul 7, 2016)

Greyman said:


> So the gun datum being up from the line of flight isn't a correction of any kind - sounds like the difference would certainly be noticeable.



Greyman,

The gun is in the right wing root about 6' off centerline. It's electrically activated (DC power) and hydraulicly powered and fires at a cockpit selectable rate of 3 or 6k rounds per minute. It's canted up 2.5 degrees and towards the left such that the bullets cross the nose over 2k feet in front of the plane. With a radar lock and under heavy G the gunsight will even compensate for flex in the fuselage. 940 rounds roughly equates to 9.4 seconds of trigger time. All courtesy of MacAir and GE.

The Eagle first flew in the early 70's, started sitting 24/7 alert by the mid 70's. I've sat alert in it here in the US, at Keflavik (the only US fighter that sits there in the winter), and in the Middle East. It still sits alert in the US and other places to this day. Kill ratio is 104 to Zero to which I have contributed none...

The F-22 is totally badass and won't even work up a sweat killing Eagles in a 2 vs 8 scenario. However it has some big shoes to fill over time as the Eagle set the bar high.

All from guys with slide rules and imagination!

The up canted gun allows less lead when firing, all to help keep the guy from going under your nose (sound familiar?). It's unnoticeable when employing the gun.

Cheers,
Biff

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
3 | Informative Informative:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## Peter Gunn (Jul 7, 2016)

BiffF15 said:


> Greyman,
> 
> *SNIP*
> 
> ...



Oh NOES! Suddenly the marble pedestal I had you on has TOTALLY crumbled to dust...



That's really just my envy showing through. BTW, the kid says to say "Hi"... so "Hi".

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Peter Gunn (Jul 7, 2016)

Greyman said:


> Not precisely what you are referring to, but an anecdote comes to mind;
> 
> _Two days later on a similar type of sortie, after encountering no opposition, I dived the Wing to eight thousand feet and did a circuit or two over a fighter base near St. Omer. As I circled the field, I saw a lone Junkers 87 taxiing out on the main runway. To my amazement, he turned into the wind and took off. Initially, the pilot must not have known that we were above him. As soon as he was airborne, he must have switched on his radio and been warned of our presence by the Ground Station. He did a very sharp turn and attempted to come in to land again. Claude Weaver was leading Yellow Section of 421 Squadron and at that moment was inside me and below as I circled the field. His request to attack the Stuka was granted. As the Stuka leveled off to touch down, Claude's cannon shells were exploding all around him on the runway. Understandably, he went around again. Twisting and turning, the 87 was chased by his pursuers away from the airdrome while I circled above him at three thousand feet. The Stuka pilot gave an admirable performance of defensive flying against overwhelming odds and just over the top of the ground turned inside his pursuers repeatedly as they attacked. Ignoring my feeling that his performance had earned him a chance to live, I called Claude Weaver and said:
> 
> ...



In bold, the true (horrific) cost of war. 

I love debating and discussing air combat as much as anyone, but there's always that human factor/cost we sometimes tend to forget. And in this case, not just the Stuka pilot. I wonder how Mr. Weaver felt years later about it.


----------



## Greyman (Jul 7, 2016)

Peter Gunn said:


> I wonder how Mr. Weaver felt years later about it.



Unfortunately Weaver was shot down 28 January 1944. He was killed when his parachute caught on his tailplane and he was dragged to the ground. But I see your point.

The man giving the quote (Godefroy) once strafed a German dispatch rider reading his map in Normandy. The soldier saw him coming at the last second just before he opened fire and raised his arm to shield himself. Godefory said that 'pathetically human gesture' haunted him for the rest of his life.




BiffF15 said:


> The up canted gun allows less lead when firing, all to help keep the guy from going under your nose (sound familiar?). It's unnoticeable when employing the gun.



Interesting to hear, since I'm stuck in a WWII mindset. I forgot to take into account the fact that modern fighters don't have to 'fly with the gunsight' like WWII aircraft did - and that modern gunsight pipers generally don't point straight down the line of flight.


----------



## BiffF15 (Jul 7, 2016)

Greyman said:


> Interesting to hear, since I'm stuck in a WWII mindset. I forgot to take into account the fact that modern fighters don't have to 'fly with the gunsight' like WWII aircraft did - and that modern gunsight pipers generally don't point straight down the line of flight.




Greyman,

Actually without a radar lock it acts very similar to the standard gyro compensated gun sight of WW2 fame. Assumptions are built in, and ranging is done using the Mk1 eyeball and or stadiamtric ranging off the recticle size in mils. Once you get good at it you have a good feel for where to put your adversary in the HUD before you squeeze the trigger, and I squeezed whether the lock had settled or not (radar locks can be broken, run off, or take valuable seconds to settle). It's better to have API and his buddy HEI going down range to give him (the adversary) something other to worry about or maneuver to avoid.

Cheers,
Biff

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Greyman (Jul 7, 2016)

Do you know if canting the gun up a few degrees is a common practice in most modern designs? 

I have a lot of WWII documentation of the British trying to solve the problem of only having a 3 - 4 degree 'fighting view' over the nose of their fighter aircraft. Naturally they quickly saw the easy solution of pointing the guns up a few degrees - but in the end were dead-set against the practice due to the obvious dangers when ground strafing or fighting enemy aircraft at very low levels.

Hearing about the Eagle's cannon and lack of nose-down attitude near the ground - perhaps the danger, as seen by WWII RAF officials, was miscalculated. It certainly seemed intuitive to me.


----------



## BiffF15 (Jul 8, 2016)

Greyman,

F-15 and F-18s do. Do not know of any others. Strafing is doable as the Eagle and Hornet both do. When the Eagle was designed the slogan was not a pound for air to ground. Of course that didn't completely work out, then the Strike Eagle production started and the rest is history.

From the footage I've seen most gun shots from WW2 were low aspect (angle off tail of adversary A/C). Today those are the hardest shots since that is the lowest visual profile and ranges have increased. 

Cheers,
Biff

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## stona (Jul 8, 2016)

BiffF15 said:


> From the footage I've seen most gun shots from WW2 were low aspect (angle off tail of adversary A/C). Today those are the hardest shots since that is the lowest visual profile and ranges have increased.
> Cheers,
> Biff



That is certainly the case for most successful attacks, and those are the ones for which the camera footage mostly survives. WW2 pilots of all nationalities struggled to estimate their angle off and range which obviously made hitting anything rather unlikely.
The introduction of gyro gun sights did improve gunnery generally, and certainly any sort of deflection shooting.
I did a quick analysis of the average ranges at which pilots (both US and UK/Commonwealth) claimed to have started and finished an engagement. The average at which they opened fire was about 350 yards, and weighted by a few acknowledged long shots. They often broke off at extremely close range, 50 yards appears in some reports.
Cheers
Steve

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Jul 8, 2016)

Just a thought, if an attack was a high deflection shot would the target appear on screen or just tracers firing into an open sky?


----------



## Greyman (Jul 8, 2016)

pbehn said:


> Just a thought, if an attack was a high deflection shot would the target appear on screen or just tracers firing into an open sky?



Generally speaking that would be more a case of how many 'G's the shooter was pulling. But yeah, the more 'G's being pulled the quicker the rounds are going to disappear off the bottom frame.

EDIT: perhaps not so much 'G's as rate of turn. With a 500 mph 'five-G' shot vs. a 200 mph 'four-G' shot ... I'm bad at math but I bet the latter shot would have the rounds move out of frame faster.

Or more accurately - have your gun camera diverge away from your fired bullet paths.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## BiffF15 (Jul 9, 2016)

Greyman you are correct in your assumptions. G is usually synonymous with rate of turn except in rare instances (nose falling through the back half of a loop or when aircraft is a falling leaf).

Gunshots today are at a much greater range and in training the minimum range is 500' in most cases. I think this is due to the closure problems a defender can hand the offender and reaction time. I have been inside the 500' bubble while fighting on an occasion or two and I sucked up some serious seat cushion. I have also flown with some bubble violators and that is equally uncomfortable (whether as the offender or defender).

The three rules of gun employment are: in range, in lead and in plane. In range means inside the tactical limits of your weapon. In lead is your nose in front of where he's going. If you have shot skeet it's the same. The best way I can explain in plane is this. Imagine a line coming out of the defenders nose. If he is flying straight (up, down, or level flight) then his line is straight. If he is turning its turning and is basically going where he is going. The offender then must make his line cross or lay on top of the defender. The offenders wings do not have to be parallel to the defenders.

Once the above conditions have been met you can squeeze the trigger, however you need to be cognizant of your range and closure, AND if you miss the goal is to not to overshoot or be forced into a role reversal. The stick movements when employing the gun are very smooth in order to keep the pipper on the target. No pulsing the stick when squeezing the trigger. However, should you miss the reposition can be very abrupt with full stick and or rudder.

Cheers,
Biff

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## BLine22 (Jul 9, 2016)

BiffF15 said:


> When the Eagle was designed the slogan was not a pound for air to ground.


The Tomcat guys thought the same way but eventually the Bombcat appeared.


----------



## BLine22 (Jul 9, 2016)

stona said:


> That is certainly the case for most successful attacks, and those are the ones for which the camera footage mostly survives. WW2 pilots of all nationalities struggled to estimate their angle off and range which obviously made hitting anything rather unlikely.
> The introduction of gyro gun sights did improve gunnery generally, and certainly any sort of deflection shooting.
> I did a quick analysis of the average ranges at which pilots (both US and UK/Commonwealth) claimed to have started and finished an engagement. The average at which they opened fire was about 350 yards, and weighted by a few acknowledged long shots. They often broke off at extremely close range, 50 yards appears in some reports.
> Cheers
> Steve


wiki- on Hartman
His favourite method of attack was to hold fire until extremely close (20 m (66 ft) or less), then unleash a short burst at point-blank range.

During the course of his career, Hartmann was forced to crash-land his fighter 14 times due to damage received from parts of enemy aircraft he had just shot down or mechanical failure


----------



## BiffF15 (Jul 9, 2016)

BLine22 said:


> The Tomcat guys thought the same way but eventually the Bombcat appeared.



BLine,

When the Bombcat appeared the airframe finally made a contribution to the team.

Cheers,
Biff

Reactions: Funny Funny:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## stona (Jul 9, 2016)

pbehn said:


> Just a thought, if an attack was a high deflection shot would the target appear on screen or just tracers firing into an open sky?



It depends. There is plenty of footage from fighters making quarter and other attacks with deflection (even beam attacks) on bombers, which are essentially flying straight and level, and because the fighter is flying a gentle pursuit curve the target is always visible and in the sight despite the relatively high angle off. It is all about relative angles and positions.
There is an RAF gunnery manual called "Bagging the Hun" which includes a lot of illustrations of what an attacking pilot would expect to see, many in the form of problems for which the reader is expected to estimate range and angle off. If you can find a copy (and I've seen it online) you can find out just how bad you would have been at making the estimates! I was truly awful.
Cheers
Steve


----------



## drgondog (Jul 9, 2016)

James W. said:


> & didn't he have to jump, when he ran out of juice attempting to evade a persistent P-51 cluster attack?
> He was a lucky guy, even to the extent of surviving Stalin's 'care' - after being handed over to them..
> 
> Sometimes luck beats skill, its a good attribute to have on your side, as Chuck Yeager ( still going at nearly a century) can attest.



Hartmann didn't run out of juice - he ran out of options and took the smart 'out' by bailing out.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Agree Agree:
1 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## fubar57 (Jul 9, 2016)

This the one Steve.......?






​

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## stona (Jul 9, 2016)

That's the one. Have a go, it's not as easy as it seems 
Cheers
Steve


----------



## GregP (Jul 10, 2016)

I recall reading he DID run out of fuel once in a dogfight, but I didn't follow that up with any research to find out if I could locate that in more than one source. He survived and that is good enough for me to know his luck held for the entire war.

He was rather definitely not an F-104 fan. Got him "retired" from the Luftwaffe.


----------



## drgondog (Jul 10, 2016)

One of the most respected Thud drivers I knew, a pioneer Weasel in the 355th, was TDY as a squadron CO in early 70s that flew NATO Red Flag missions extremely low level in F-104 to badly embarrass USAF/RAF/NATO Base commander. He loved it almost as much as the F-105. He loved the RCAF folks he flew with also, citing them to be as good as any he ever flew with

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## BiffF15 (Jul 10, 2016)

James W. said:


> Yeah, for sure, that's why I wrote "juice", to be a bit ambiguous about it, rather than imply 'chickening out'
> & "he ran out of options" as you put it well, or "juice" - to fight 'em with any real prospect of a good outcome.
> 
> (& by not writing B4 avgas specifically), but I guess his luck held with the parachute ride down,
> both canopy-wise & not being gut-shot by the P-51s.



JW,

I don't quite know what to make of a couple of comments here. If I have misinterpreted I apologize in advance.

Jumping out of an airplane prior to being shot down is not, in my opine, chickening out. I have seen enough gun footage, and read kill accounts where Lutwaffe pilots jumped out, especially in the last year of the war to think they were probably instructed to do so. Planes are more easily replaced than pilots particularly in WW2.

Running out of gas in a fight can happen, easily. That it didn't happen more is surprising especially considering the lack of endurance of 109s and 190s. It's easy when sitting at a desk to critique what someone does or did in a life or death duel. It's much more difficult to actually do it. I can easily imagine flying a mission, and towards the latter half of it ending up in a large furball. Fuel flow goes up tremendously, and time remaining aloft drops precipitously. Also if my friends are engaged in a defensive fight and I can sway the battle I will. If that means the Luftwaffe loses one more BF-109 then so be it, they were easily replaced.

I have flown 106 combat missions in the Eagle. About 1/3 as a wingman, the rest after having checked out as a flight lead or IP. I briefed without fail that we would all come back from the the sortie, period dot. I would never want to look my friends wife in the face and tell her I could have saved your husband except for this or that. Your responsibility as the flight lead is to not wade in over your head unless the mission required it. You job as the wingman is to protect your buds, and as a team to make the other guy die for his country not vice versa.


"It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat. "

Theodore Roosevelt

352 kills. The number one Ace ever. In order to shoot someone down with a gun you must get in close, so close you could be shot as well. Hartmanns observe, decide, attack, retreat mantra (pardon if not exactly correct) sounds very similar to something John Boyd "invented". Read his book to see what influence that has had on the military.

Cheers,
Biff

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
12 | Like Like:
3 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## gjs238 (Jul 10, 2016)

BiffF15 said:


> JW,
> 
> I don't quite know what to make of a couple of comments here. If I have misinterpreted I apologize in advance.
> 
> ...



Goddamn - why am I prohibited from giving bacon more than once?!

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 10, 2016)

gjs238 said:


> Goddamn - why am I prohibited from giving bacon more than once?!


It's good, I did it for you

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 10, 2016)

gjs238 said:


> Goddamn - why am I prohibited from giving bacon more than once?!



Don't worry, I gave him an extra serving as well.

It is nice to have people with actual experience in air combat to offset the armchair warriors.

Reactions: Like Like:
4 | Like List reactions


----------



## rochie (Jul 10, 2016)

BiffF15 said:


> JW,
> 
> I don't quite know what to make of a couple of comments here. If I have misinterpreted I apologize in advance.
> 
> ...


Biff, all i can offer is a very simple thank you for bringing a bit of sense and perspective to this thread !

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Jul 10, 2016)

Excellent reply, Biff 



gjs238 said:


> Goddamn - why am I prohibited from giving bacon more than once?!


I covered one for ya'

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 10, 2016)

Once again James W. Displays his stupidity!

Biff - it's evident we're dealing with a moron and armchair ace who would probably piss his pants in a real airplane. Your service to your country is appreciated, your posts and experience are always welcomed around here

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## BiffF15 (Jul 10, 2016)

Gents, 

I learn far more than I contribute here, or I get far more than I give! 

The folks who pass through here I think are learning something I picked up awhile ago. And that this place is a very unique and special place to learn, contribute, exchange and vet knowledge and ideas. I arrogantly enough thought I could contribute much more than I have when I discovered this place. However you guys have been a class act in gingerly shepparding me through the learning process!

It is a privilage to come in here!

Cheers,
Biff

Reactions: Like Like:
7 | Winner Winner:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Friendly Friendly:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 10, 2016)

James W. said:


> C'mon, I wrote that I DIDN'T want to imply that he'd chickened out..
> Jeeze I think I know a bit about how he'd feel, from this gang up.
> Take it easy, eh fella..



Again, you're backpedaling like the armchair wimpy asshole that you are. The plot thickens.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Jul 10, 2016)

James W. said:


> C'mon, I wrote that I DIDN'T want to imply that he'd chickened out..
> Jeeze I think I know a bit about how he'd feel, from this gang up.


Of course he didn't chicken out, you are just showing how much you don't know not how much you do. I am not a pilot and have never met a WW2 ace but I did share a track with Barry Sheen and Damon Hill, the aces and the champions are not in their position because they are mad or reckless they have cool courage and continue to think when others panic. I read one account of a German ace who could judge when he was coming into being hit by a deflection shot because he was disappearing under the nose of his attacker, then he bunted forward, briefly was a target,then went into the ether as far as his attacker is concerned.

Watch any top class motor race, or motorcycle race, no one "chickens out" they are all driving or riding at the limit all the time, there is always someone who is better at taking things to the limit, they are the aces

Reactions: Like Like:
4 | Like List reactions


----------



## gumbyk (Jul 10, 2016)

From someone who was there and flew both...

Reactions: Like Like:
5 | Like List reactions


----------



## fubar57 (Jul 10, 2016)

Nice!!


----------



## michaelmaltby (Jul 11, 2016)

Sensible man.


----------



## BiffF15 (Jul 15, 2016)

pbehn said:


> Just a thought, if an attack was a high deflection shot would the target appear on screen or just tracers firing into an open sky?


Pbehn,

Sorry to take so long to reply, I missed your question the first time through.

We do not employ the gun via a screen, looking outside at the target is a must to insure separation / collision avoidance. We do use the HUD but that's not required. High aspect, high line of sight shots will see you pull and sometimes release the trigger before the target aircraft gets into the HUD. Do to time of flight for the bullets if you are still on the trigger when he enters the HUD those bullets will fall aft of the target and therefore be wasted depending on range. We don't use tracers either, as technology has given us a means by which we know where the rounds are / going. And it's wicked accurate.

Cheers,
Biff

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Jul 16, 2016)

BiffF15 said:


> Pbehn,
> 
> Sorry to take so long to reply, I missed your question the first time through.
> 
> ...


Great post Biff, it kinda makes you wonder why so many shots miss the target on star wars, but then again I didnt see anyone with an iPad using the internet on Star Trek.

I was actually referring to WW2 gun cams. There is an often used clip of a plane opening fire on He111 with the tracer curving off well behind. If the tracer was landing on target the He111 wouldnt be in frame, just a lot of tracer firing at a blue sky.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Airframes (Jul 16, 2016)

Not quite true. Gun cameras in WW2 were normally fitted in a location, and aligned, to allow the lens to 'see' the target, and could be set at a different angle to the gun sight, allowing for paralax.
For example, the Hurricane Mk1 had the camera in the starboard wing leading edge, outboard of the prop arc, the Spitfire had the camera in the port or starboard wing root, depending on Marque, with the Mustang having a similar mount, whilst the Typhoon had the camera in the lower engine nacelle on the starboard side.
Regardless of the mounting position, the camera and lens were aligned to converge on the line of the center line axis of the aircraft concerned, at a given distance, perhaps 200 or 300 yards.
Later in the war, some German fighters had the camera 'shooting' through the gun sight, via a prism arrangement.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Jul 16, 2016)

The Me262 had it's "gun camera" mounted behind the small aperture in the nose.


----------



## GrauGeist (Jul 18, 2016)

Well, ALEX Hogarth, would you like to explain to me why my comment regarding the Me262's gun camera is considered "dumb" to you?


----------



## pbehn (Jul 18, 2016)

GrauGeist said:


> Well, ALEX Hogarth, would you like to explain to me why my comment regarding the Me262's gun camera is considered "dumb" to you?


Maybe he did what I did, scrolling on a kindle I accidentally disagreed with three of Wurgers posts, some of which you couldnt possibly disagree with.


----------



## GrauGeist (Jul 18, 2016)

pbehn said:


> Maybe he did what I did, scrolling on a kindle I accidentally disagreed with three of Wurgers posts, some of which you couldnt possibly disagree with.


There is that, indeed!

I've tried to "Like" several posts in the past with my ipad, and ended up "Disliking" by mistake!
Of course, there was the mad-dash to fix that before anyone noticed! 

And just to clarify the Me262's gun-camera location:

Reactions: Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 18, 2016)

GrauGeist said:


> Well, ALEX Hogarth, would you like to explain to me why my comment regarding the Me262's gun camera is considered "dumb" to you?



Who is Alex Hogarth? 

Guy has not even posted here...lol


----------



## gjs238 (Jul 18, 2016)

GrauGeist said:


> Well, ALEX Hogarth, would you like to explain to me why my comment regarding the Me262's gun camera is considered "dumb" to you?



Smells like James W.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GregP (Jul 19, 2016)

Graugeist may have been a lot of things, but dumb has never been one of them.

Probably a mistake, as surmised, since a camera location isn't all that damned debatable. It's there or it isn't. In this case, it is. So, I'd bet Alex made a mistake and just didn't sign back in out of embarrassment.

Reset and continue, like the continuous "continue" in here ... listen for bitchin' Betty and the copilot pressing reset and saying "continue."

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Peter Gunn (Jul 19, 2016)

GrauGeist said:


> The Me262 had it's "gun camera" mounted behind the small aperture in the nose.




I'm sorry, that's just plain dumb...












 HA! Sorry, I couldn't resist...

Uh, no, I'm not Alex whatshisnuts in disguise.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## tyrodtom (Jul 19, 2016)

GregP said:


> Graugeist may have been a lot of things, but dumb has never been one of them.
> 
> Probably a mistake, as surmised, since a camera location isn't all that damned debatable. It's there or it isn't. In this case, it is. So, I'd bet Alex made a mistake and just didn't sign back in out of embarrassment.
> 
> Reset and continue, like the continuous "continue" in here ... listen for bitchin' Betty and the copilot pressing reset and saying "continue."



How does bitching Betty know when to bitch ? Does it go by airspeed , angle of attack, bank angle, etc ? Does it compensate for higher or lighter gross weights ? It sounds like she's a cautious mother-in-law.


----------



## BiffF15 (Jul 19, 2016)

tyrodtom said:


> How does bitching Betty know when to bitch ? Does it go by airspeed , angle of attack, bank angle, etc ? Does it compensate for higher or lighter gross weights ? It sounds like she's a cautious mother-in-law.



Tyrodtom,

On the Eagle "Betty" has sensors all over the aircraft, and along with weight your knows when you exceed certain limits. She then yells, "OVER G, OVER G", or whatever. It's nicely recorded on your tapes to be played back in the debrief for everyone's entertainment! And oh by the way it's a bottle of booze to the bar or greater depending on the severity...

Cheers,
Biff

PS: I have relatives from Coeburn.

Reactions: Like Like:
4 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## tyrodtom (Jul 19, 2016)

BiffF15 said:


> Tyrodtom,
> 
> On the Eagle "Betty" has sensors all over the aircraft, and along with weight your knows when you exceed certain limits. She then yells, "OVER G, OVER G", or whatever. It's nicely recorded on your tapes to be played back in the debrief for everyone's entertainment! And oh by the way it's a bottle of booze to the bar or greater depending on the severity...
> 
> ...


No kidding, I worked at Morgan McClure in Coeburn for many years, raced at LPR just outside of Coeburn hundreds of times. Lonesome Pine airport just a few miles away is where I took my first flight in 1963.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## gjs238 (Jul 19, 2016)

GregP said:


> Reset and continue, like the continuous "continue" in here ... listen for bitchin' Betty and the copilot pressing reset and saying "continue."




Holy crap, there is a Wikipedia page about Betty!
Bitching Betty - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Jul 19, 2016)

gjs238 said:


> Holy crap, there is a Wikipedia page about Betty!
> Bitching Betty - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


There's even a wiki page about "Sweaty Betty" but it appears to be a British activewear company for women...however, I suppose they don't realize it's been a rather...um...unkind name for "certain" women here in the U.S. for ages

Reactions: Funny Funny:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## ALEX Hogarth (Aug 9, 2016)

GrauGeist said:


> Well, ALEX Hogarth, would you like to explain to me why my comment regarding the Me262's gun camera is considered "dumb" to you?


Sorry wasnt aware i had only just noticed

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------

