# Spitfire XIV vs Bf-109 K-4 vs La-7 vs Yak-3



## Soren (May 8, 2008)

Spitfire XIV vs Bf-109 K-4 vs La-7 vs Yak-3

With equal pilots and at altitudes ranging from 0 - 30,000 ft, which of these fighters is the overall best of the lot? 

Make your decision and then justify it as best you can.

I wish all a good debate 


Factsheet:


*Supermarine Spitfire Mk. XIV specs:*

Weight: 3,855 kg
Wing area: 22.48 m^2
Wing span: 11.23 m
Wing AR: 5.61
Wing TR: 12% to 9%
Wing Clmax: 1.36

Engine power: 2,235 HP
______________________
Lift loading: 126 kg/m^2
Span loading: 343.2 kg/m
Power loading: 1.72 kg/hp

Top speeds: 721 km/h at alt, 590 km/h at SL
Max climb rate: 4,800 + ft/min

Notes: Sensitive elevator authority at nearly all speeds (Both good bad), even at very high speeds. Good aileron authority at most speeds but stiff at very high speeds. Good to excellent vision from cockpit depending on canopy type. Gyroscopic gunsight to aid precision in high deflection shooting. 


*Messerschmittt Bf-109 K-4 specs:*

Weight: 3,362 kg
Wing area: 16.15 m^2
Wing span: 9.92 m
Wing AR: 6.09
Wing TR: 14.2% to 11.35%
Wing Clmax: 1.70

Engine power: 1,975 HP
______________________
Lift loading: 122.4 kg/m^2
Span loading: 338.9 kg/m
Power loading: 1.70 kg/hp

Top speed: 719 km/h at alt, 609 km/h at SL
Max Climb rate: 5,000 + ft/min

Notes: Good elevator authority at most speeds, becomes stiff at very high speeds. Very good aileron authority at medium speeds, but stiff at high speeds and near solid at very high speeds. Great vision from cockpit. Center mounted armament for better precision in shooting. Automatic LE slats enhancing turn performance by increasing wing Clmax critical AoA by ~25% in covered areas. Ability to instantly drop from 5 to 20 degree's (5 degree intervals) of flaps in combat (Hydraulically powered), enhancing turn performance by further increasing wing Clmax.


*Lavochkin La-7 specs:*

Weight: 3,354 kg
Wing area: 17.5 m^2
Wing span: 9.8 m
Wing AR: 5.48
Wing TR: 16% to 10%
Wing Clmax: ~1.54

Engine power: 1,830 HP
______________________
Lift loading: 124.4 kg/m^2
Span loading: 342.2 kg/m
Power loading: 1.83 kg/hp

Top speeds: 680 km/h at alt, 585 km/h at SL
Max climb rate: 3,850 + ft/min

Notes: Good elevator authority at most speeds, heavy at high speeds. Good aileron authority at all speeds. Good vision from cockpit. Center mounted armament for increases precision in shooting. Automatic LE slats for enhanced turn performance, increasing wing Clmax critical AoA by ~25% in covered areas. Ability to drop flaps in combat, enhancing turn performance by further increasing wing Clmax.

Negative point: Tooth pick prop


*Yakovlev Yak-3 specs:*

Weight: 2,692 kg
Wing area: 14.85 m^2
Wing span: 9.2 m
Wing AR: 5.69
Wing TR: 14% to 10%
Wing Clmax: ~1.35

Engine power: 1,290 HP
________________________
Lift loading: 134.2 kg/m^2
Span loading: 292.3 kg/m 
Power loading: 2.08 kg/hp

Top speeds: 646 km/h
Max climb rate: 3,645 + ft/min

Notes: Good elevator authority at all speeds. Excellent ailerons authority at all speeds. Center mounted armament for better precision in shooting. Great vision from cockpit. Ability to drop flaps in combat to enhance turn performance by increasing wing Clmax.


----------



## KrazyKraut (May 9, 2008)

You guys have yourself a poll sub-forum here, why not use it 

From the above it's a close call between 109 K-4 and MkXIV for me. I'll probably hurt somebody's feelings but I see neither the Yak-3 nor the La-7 as superior as certain sources make them. Both had problems with structural integrity: Yak-3s had problems with high g-curves and La-7s were known to have a rapidly detoriating airframe and a very short lifetime. Their admittedly impressive power/weight ratios don't justify that (for me at least). Early Yak-3s were also underarmed for the period they were flying in.

Back to MkXIV vs K-4: Both have their advantages but when it comes to dogfighting, I give the Griffon Spitfire my vote. Easier armament, better gunsight and apparently overall a little less tricky to fly than the 109.


----------



## Chocks away! (May 9, 2008)

Yes, in pure performance it's between the Bf-109 K-4 and the Spitfire XIV. 

I'd say the Spit has armament that is easier to use, and probably more docile to fly.

The armament issue arises because of the fact that in the Bf-109 gunpods worsened performance too much, so they had to find an alternative, and that is the 30 mm mk 108 in the nose. Necessary for combat against bombers.

On the other hand, I think that the La-7 and Yak-3 are probably both easier to fly than both western types, the La-7 probably overall best at low altitudes.

So I'd say the first one out is the Yak-3.

Then it's between La-7, Me-109 K-4 and Spitfire XIV.

The fact of the matter is that whatever we say, it's going to be subjective. There's no way to 'prove' which is best right now.


----------



## kool kitty89 (May 9, 2008)

Proposed variants of the K model were supposed to return to the internal mounted wing guns. (not seen since the Emil) 

2x MG 151/20 in the wings. (some say 15mm were also considered)
or 2x MK 108's in the wings.

There were also studies with the MK 103.

But iirc none of these reached production.


----------



## timshatz (May 9, 2008)

Kicked it around in my head and would go with the Lag. That's if I had to fly it in a situation where people were shooting at me. 

Reasons being:
- Relatively easy to fly (all these birds are a handful to fly)
- Good Manuver.
- Good enough speed
- Excellent Firepower
- Good/Excellent ability to handle punishment (at least from what I've read).

I also consider the radial engine in there when considering punishment. It is the only one in the list with one and they have a reputation of greater resilence when damaged. Only takes one bullet in the cooling system to kill an inline. Radials are usually stronger than that. 

That being said, if I wanted to pick one to "look good" in, it would have to be the Spitfire. That is one pretty bird.

But none of the aircraft are really at a disadvange. Late war fighters were all very well designed (if not always well made) machines.


----------



## kool kitty89 (May 9, 2008)

The 109 looks good, but more in a menacing kind of way. Not a "pretty" way.


----------



## Soren (May 9, 2008)

> The fact of the matter is that whatever we say, it's going to be subjective. There's no way to 'prove' which is best right now.



What we can prove though is the difference in performance agility between the a/c. However small characteristics, such as control harmony and the like can make one a/c harder to fly than another.

Overall between the a/c above I think the Spitfire has a small edge.


----------



## claidemore (May 9, 2008)

Yak 3 was indeed a very simple airplane to fly. 

The 40 Yak 3's given to the French by the Soviets after the war flew for two years with operational squadrons with 0 accidents. They then turned them over to training squadrons where they served as trainers till 1956. How many other fighters had such a safety record or devolved into a 10 year carreer as trainers? 

Yak 3 was the lightest most agile pure dogfighter of WWII without a doubt. Were it not for its low alt rated engines on the majority of production, a hands down winner in this discussion. The VK-107, 108 or the ASh 82-FN radial version, had they been produced in numbers, would tip the scale in the Yaks favor IMO.

I think Soren got the order right in the title of the thread, Spit, K4, La7, Yak3. 
Prophetic!


----------



## kool kitty89 (May 9, 2008)

Another thing to consider is range though, if you limited fuel capacit so they all had the same range, it would effect relative performance levels.


----------



## KrazyKraut (May 10, 2008)

claidemore said:


> Yak 3 was indeed a very simple airplane to fly.
> 
> The 40 Yak 3's given to the French by the Soviets after the war flew for two years with operational squadrons with 0 accidents. They then turned them over to training squadrons where they served as trainers till 1956. How many other fighters had such a safety record or devolved into a 10 year carreer as trainers?



Fair enough. But nearly all the La-5FNs and La-7s delivered to (now former) Czechoslovakia were grounded in 1946 on the basis of structural disintegration of the plywood: frame strenght was reduced to half! Unlike with western planes like the Mossie or Ta-154s the Russians apparently didn't treat the wood with effective preservatives. And the Czechs kept the type longer than any other country (officially until ~1950), so I guess that shows something. That's why I personally wouldn't have any confidence in a Russian plane with critical parts made of wood.


----------



## kool kitty89 (May 10, 2008)

In the short term they should be fine though.


----------



## Kruska (May 10, 2008)

claidemore said:


> I think Soren got the order right in the title of the thread, Spit, K4, La7, Yak3.
> Prophetic!





Hello Soren,

I think that this discussion/poll doesn’t stick – not fair to the a/c. The 109K-4was termed a fighter, but its mission was to intercept bombers and at the same time to be capable of performing/survive in dogfights. I believe that none of the others could match a K-4 when it comes to attacking bombers, however on a pure fighter mission the K would lose out to a Spit XIV.

Regards
Kruska


----------



## Soundbreaker Welch? (May 10, 2008)

I would argue the Spitfire Mk.I was as much a pure dogfighter as the Yak-3.


Though isn't the Yak-7 or Yak-9 more suited to fight late model Spitfires and Bf 109's? The later Yaks were faster and had better firepower to match the later generations of WWII fighters.


----------



## kool kitty89 (May 11, 2008)

The Yak-3 is later... And performance was generally equal or higher than the contemporary Yak-9. (albeit not as durrable)


----------



## Chocks away! (May 11, 2008)

The Yak-3 despite the fact that it's a great plane, it's more of a compromise as the A6M Zero was, very light, agile, not particularly impressive other than that, with the possible exception of low altitude dogfights.

I think the La-7 is more competitive in comparisson.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 11, 2008)

As others have pointed out, I think it depends on the mission. I will vote for the Bf 109K only because the Bf 109 is my favorite aircraft.

I believe that the Bf 109K and the Spit XIV are pretty equal. They both have advantages over the other, and it all depends on pilot skill as well as the type of mission.


----------



## Soren (May 11, 2008)

Kruska said:


> however on a pure fighter mission the K would lose out to a Spit XIV.
> 
> Regards
> Kruska



Well it depends Kruska. If the Spitfire pilot gets suckered into a low speed turn fight or a spiral climb then the K-4 will have the edge, however if he keeps his speed up and forces the German pilot to have to constantly battle with his ailerons to follow track then he's got a huge advantage.

Now ofcourse then some will argue that a smart 109 pilot wont allow himself to be sucked into a scissors fight, and would simply break off the attack and stay higher, but then the Spit could just as easily reverse and get its guns on him instead. 

So like I said, overall I think the Spitfire has a small edge.


----------



## Soundbreaker Welch? (May 12, 2008)

I thought the Spitfire could generally turn tighter than a Bf 109, at least for the average pilot. It was harder to make the Bf 109 make a tight turn, and inexperienced German pilots had trouble doing it, though with an expert a 109 could turn tighter than a Spitfire. 

Now I know the Spitfire XIV couldn't turn as tight as say a Spitfire I or XIII, so maybe I'm wrong.

I also thought the Bf 109 was better at Split S's than a Spitfire, and a scissors roll I thought was sorta along that line.


----------



## kool kitty89 (May 12, 2008)

It depends the model spit 109 and situation, but the maneuverability avantage went back and forth between the Spit and 109, except for the Emil with unreliable and unpleasant slats. (opened rapidly and not always simultaneously resulting in aileron snach and shuttering, also they were prone to jamming at high G's and sensitive to dirt)

One consistant advantage of the Spit over the 109 was range. (by ~25-30% better for normal range spitfires depending on comparison, as high as 50% in some cases)


----------



## Kruska (May 12, 2008)

Soren said:


> Well it depends Kruska. If the Spitfire pilot gets suckered into a low speed turn fight or a spiral climb then the K-4 will have the edge, however if he keeps his speed up and forces the German pilot to have to constantly battle with his ailerons to follow track then he's got a huge advantage.
> 
> Now ofcourse then some will argue that a smart 109 pilot wont allow himself to be sucked into a scissors fight, and would simply break off the attack and stay higher, but then the Spit could just as easily reverse and get its guns on him instead.
> 
> So like I said, overall I think the Spitfire has a small edge.



Hello Soren,

Well, since we after war generation guys had intensive time to study books and playing IL2 etc. etc. we might come to such a conclusion. However I seriously doubt that except for a few flying aces on both sides any normal pilot knew how to maneuver their a/c in such an “exquisite” way in order to achieve an advantage or stay alive.

As such I would tend to believe, and that is why I forwarded the Spit in regards to fighter attributes (maybe I am wrong) that a Spit was far more easier to handle then a 109K by some rookie or less experienced pilot, since in 1944 such experienced LW pilots were extremely rare or for sure not enough of them around to equalize for the rookies.

Regards
Kruska


----------



## Kurfürst (May 12, 2008)

Soundbreaker Welch? said:


> I thought the Spitfire could generally turn tighter than a Bf 109, at least for the average pilot. It was harder to make the Bf 109 make a tight turn, and inexperienced German pilots had trouble doing it, though with an expert a 109 could turn tighter than a Spitfire.



This what RAE concluded on the matter :

_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 aircraft 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 the tztrn suficiently from fear of stalling and spznning.*

...
The gentle stall and good control under g [of the Me 109] are of some importance, as they enable the pilotto get the most out of the aircraft in a circling dog-fight by flying very near the stall. As mentioned in section 5.1, the Me.109 pilot succeeded in keeping on the tail of the Spitfire in many cases, despite the latter aircraft's superior turning performance, because a number of the
Spitfire pilots failed to tighten up the turn sufficiently. *If the stick is pulled back too far on the Spitfire in a tight turn, the aircraft may stall rather violently, flick over on to its back, and spin. Knowledge of this undoubtedly deters the pilot from tightening his turn when being chased, particularly if he is not very experienced.*_



kool kitty89 said:


> One consistant advantage of the Spit over the 109 was range. (by ~25-30% better for normal range spitfires depending on comparison, as high as 50% in some cases)



Quite the contrary. In fact the Spitfire`s range considerably worsened during development. The 109s range considerably increased during its development.

The only wartime Spitfire with better range than the contemporary 109 was the Mk I, until July 1940, when droptanks were introduced to the E-7, boosting its range to 1300+ km. Even that is unclear because the Spit I ranges are described as either 390 or 590 miles, and the conditions are unspecified, so they may not be comparable to Emil figures.

I believe droptanks were not introduced to Spitfires until 1942 or so, even then, they used smaller ones than the Germans - 90 gallon versions, introduced sometime later, were impractical for all but the less produced Mk VII, VIII, XII and XIV versions.


----------



## Kurfürst (May 12, 2008)

I have to for the 109K-4 in this case. The two Soviet fighters, given that the original poster specifed from SL to 30k feet, gets eliminated because of their poor altitude performance. 

That leaves the K-4 and the XIV in the competition; and while performance-wise there`s very little difference between the two (the 109K is very slightly superior at low and medium altitudes, the XIV has a very slight superiority at high altitudes), so it boils down to operational, armament and misc. characteristics. While these could be debated, the 109K is a fighter with considerably more range and endurance, which makes it a better overall fighter than the short-legged XIV IMHO. The possibility of having a heavier armament (two 20mm extra if needed) is on the plus side too, and overall greater versatality is the final deciding factor.


----------



## kool kitty89 (May 12, 2008)

Hmm, okay the range values do seem to vary somewhat wildly, but I though variants of the Spit-V got 90 gal drop tanks by 1942 at the latest. (ferry range of over 1,100 mi) And 300 L isn't 90 gal (U.S. liquid gallon is legally defined as 231 cubic inches, and is equal to 3.785411784 litres (exactly)) it's 79.25 US gal or 65.99 imp. gal.

So was the Hurricane actually longer ranged than the Spit? http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/hurricane/hurricane-I-ads.jpg


----------



## Kurfürst (May 13, 2008)

I believe initially only 30 and 45 gallon droptanks were used, though someone could shed more light on that matter as to when and what dropanks were used on operational (i.e. non-ferry). 

The MkVs flown to Malta used some big overload tanks but I believe these are only ferry tanks - having a 90 gallon droptank but only a 85 gallon internal tank to return on leads to some obvious practical difficulties..

In any case the Mk IXs range w. a 90 gallon droptank was similiar to the Me 109Gs with a 66 gallon droptank, difference being the former was practical for ferry (one-way..) missions only, the latter was a practical combat mission tank.


----------



## kool kitty89 (May 17, 2008)

Interesting, then tere were the IX's with increased fuel capacity, but that's a whole other topic entirely.


----------



## drgondog (May 17, 2008)

Kurfürst said:


> This what RAE concluded on the matter :
> 
> _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 aircraft 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 the tztrn suficiently from fear of stalling and spznning.*
> 
> ...



Kurfurst - In my opinion, your illustrations/observations from the RAE reports are the best possible 'illustration' of the phrase 'it depends' when trying to compare turn performance of closely matched aircraft.


----------



## Mitya (May 19, 2008)

Soren said:


> *Lavochkin La-7 specs:*
> 
> Weight: 3,354 kg
> Wing area: 17.5 m^2
> ...


А откуда у Ла-7 1830 л.с.? АШ-82ФН 1850 "лошадок" же... И взлетный вес 3265 кг. Насколько я знаю. И скорость у земли не 585, как у вас указано (Ла-5ФН выдавал чуть меньше), а 613 км/ч, а уж на заводских испытаниях одну машину вообще разогнали до 630 км/ч. И скороподъемность не 3850 фт/мин, а 4764 фт/мин (24,2 м/с).
P.S.: вы сравниваете машины просто по ЛТХ. Не учитывая то, в каких условиях они воевали. Советские машины с низковысотными моторами. Они расчитывались для ведения боя на низких и средних высотах (до 5000 м - выше на Советско-германском фронте бои не велись почти что). Spitfire обладал высотным мотором. Пик мощности, если я не ошибаюсь, на 7620 м. Так что нельзя так их просто сравнивать...


----------



## Soren (May 19, 2008)

Mitya,

This is an English speaking forum, so please write in English.

Reactions: Dislike Dislike:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## glen (May 19, 2008)

> Factsheet:
> 
> 
> Supermarine Spitfire Mk. XIV specs:
> ...



Spitfire XIV's data is not accurate. 18lbs boost Spitfire XIV's(Jan. 44) max climb rate is 5110ft/m, 21lbs boost (Auturm 44) is more.
Engine's endurance, spitfire is better. High altitude performance, spitfire is better. Range of spitrfire XIV is much more than spitfire IX.

To be frank, I can hardly find BF109K's (Aug. 44)advantage ober 21lbs Spitfire XIV.


----------



## Mitya (May 19, 2008)

Soren said:


> Mitya,
> 
> This is an English speaking forum, so please write in English.



Оке.  
La-7
Weight: 3265 kg
...
Engine power: 1,850 HP
...
Top speeds: 680 km/h at alt, 613 (630) km/h at SL
Max climb rate: ~4700 + ft/min

I think.


----------



## glen (May 19, 2008)

Mitya said:


> Оке.
> La-7
> Weight: 3265 kg
> ...
> ...




I remember LA7 is even lighter than La5fn due to the remove of wood components. around 2600kg?


----------



## Soren (May 19, 2008)

glen said:


> Spitfire XIV's data is not accurate. 18lbs boost Spitfire XIV's(Jan. 44) max climb rate is 5110ft/m,



That is incorrect, this rate of climb was obtained by a prototype a/c. The Rate of climb of the Spitfire Mk.XIV is 4,800 ft/min at 18 lbs/sq.in. boost.




> 21lbs boost (Auturm 44) is more.



21 lbs.sq.in. boost wasn't used for anything but chasing V1's, IF it was used at all. 



> Engine's endurance, spitfire is better.



Wrong, the Bf-109 could run at full boost for 10min at a time, the Spitfire could run at full boost at only 5 min at a time.



> High altitude performance, spitfire is better.



And at low to medium alt the performance aof the Bf-109 K-4 is better.



> To be frank, I can hardly find BF109K's (Aug. 44)advantage ober 21lbs Spitfire XIV.



To be frank you don't know much glen.

Reactions: Dislike Dislike:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## glen (May 19, 2008)

Soren said:


> That is incorrect, this rate of climb was obtained by a prototype a/c. The Rate of climb of the Spitfire Mk.XIV is 4,800 ft/min at 18 lbs/sq.in. boost.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



You don't know Spitfire.

Spitfire Mk XIV versus Me 109 G/K

Spitfire Mk XIV Performance Testing


----------



## Soren (May 19, 2008)

Yes I do, but you don't glen.

You should start reading here abit, the most comprehensive site on the Bf-109 out there:
Kurfurst - Your resource on Messerschmitt Bf 109 performance

And in the future forget about Mike William's site when you want data on German a/c, he has very little and he is very selective about what data he wants to show.

Reactions: Dislike Dislike:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Soren (May 19, 2008)

Top speed of the Bf-109 K-4 is as stated 609 km/h at SL and 719 km/h at alt:


----------



## glen (May 19, 2008)

Soren said:


> Top speed of the Bf-109 K-4 is as stated 609 km/h at SL and 719 km/h at alt:



Soren, that's 1.98ata boost BF109k4, 1945 early.
18lbs spitfire XIV is of 1944 early, and whole year between them.

If you feel fair to compare 18lbs Spit with 1.98ata K4, please modify the top speed of spitfire from 595km/h to 575km/h, 18lbs spitfire is not so fast.
BTW, MW50 is philter, harmful to BF109's engine. LOL


----------



## Soren (May 19, 2008)

You're truely the most clueless member of this forum glen.



> BTW, MW50 is philter, harmful to BF109's engine



Are you serious ??! 

glen come back when you actually know what the MW-50 system is, and when you have learned to read properly as-well!

Reactions: Dislike Dislike:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Soren (May 19, 2008)

Oh and again, no Spitfire XIV ever saw action against German a/c at 21 lbs/sq.in. boost, only 18 lbs/sq.in. and only for max 5min at a time, while the German fighters could run at full boost for 10min at a time.

But hey, how was I to expect you to understand that right away..


----------



## glen (May 19, 2008)

No evidence has yet been found that +25 lbs boost was employed in service by Spitfire XIV squadrons prior to VE day. Even at +25 lbs. the Spitfire XIV still fell short of the sea level performance of the Tempest V and highly boosted Mustangs. There is clear documentation that 2nd TAF Spitfire XIVs had their Griffon engines set to +21 lbs boost. Its also clear that the Griffon engine was eventually approved for +25 lbs maximum combat boost. Although the Spitfire XIV's strength was in the medium and high altitude role, the paucity of Luftwaffe opposition led to the Squadrons engaging in ground attack, where flak was a much larger threat than Me 109s. 
------------------------------------
21lbs spitfire of 2nd TF, operated on west europe in 44-45and not only in chasing V1. It's 1.8-1.98ata K4's rival.

MW-50 (water-methanol 50/50) was injected into the air-intake and served as an anti-detonant allowing higher boost to be used below normal rated altitude. The evaporating water also cooling the charge-air thus increasing the weight of the charge. Limited by the performance of the supercharger the MW-50 induced max. output began declining 1.5-2 km. below normal rated altitude until it became impotent at and above the normal rated altitude (compare for example DB 605A-1 and AM). Max. continous use: 5-10 minutes. Penalties: drasticly shortens flight endurance and spark-plug life, added weight of MW-50 tank and piping. Most Me 109 sub-types from 1944/45 were equiped to utilise MW-50.



drasticly shortens flight endurance and spark-plug life......
however, late german pilots don't care about their enginee's life at all because their own lives are more fragile.


----------



## vanir (May 19, 2008)

I'm of the philosophy this is an inherent "opinion" question, so I gave mine as the 109K for overall performance. The DB-605D series is an excellent aero engine for the small 109 airframe. Plus according to a variety of credible Luftwaffe and RAF aces interviewed, a series I bought on DVD in their own words and with a dramatic consistency, to the specific question of late war Me-109 models and a similar period Spitfire Gunther Rall for example noted the only manoeuvre he couldn't follow a Spitfire in was a climbing turn. He said it was very competitive with all the Allied fighters right to the end of the war, but as he flew a number of captured Allied fighters personally he believed the Mustang alone was superior. When asked what an Me-109 pilot would do about a Thunderbolt he said simply, "Shoot them down." Galland stated simply for the camera, "We burned our aircraft when we surrendered. It wasn't because we didn't want the Americans to get them, but because we could still fight. Right to the very last day the Luftwaffe was still able to hold its own over Germany."

Considering the mainstay of many, if not most Jagdgeschwader was always, and had always been the various models of the 109, some using it exclusively it would seem that history claims the late model 109 of 44-45 was every bit as good as, or at least capably competitive with absolutely everything in the combined Allied arsenal. This is a simple assertion.

But I think the aircraft mentioned are all very good, and equivalent enough in performance to gain the upper hand in given circumstances. Just that the same is true for the 109K and it has the broad range of altitude performance and the best time to altitude figures out there, thanks to that magnificent fluid drive compressor. Plus the 10 minute boost is a real advantage, and its output at altitude is still in the region of 1250PS at 7km at the combat/climb 30 minute setting. That's pretty tough altitude performance that only gets matched by the Mark XIV Spit, which then loses a little low/medium altitude performance to the Messerschmitt. I think the 109K would just want to avoid chasing Spitfires up to 8km really, it's geared for combat at up to 6km and the British Supermarine just keeps getting better and better the higher you go, which is really what a two-stage supercharger is all about.

The impression I get, though to be honest I've no idea how accurate this might be, but for any two-stage Spit and probably most other types (Lightning, Thunderbolt, Mustang), 5-6km is kinda low altitude, you'd rather be higher.


----------



## vanir (May 19, 2008)

> drasticly shortens flight endurance and spark-plug life......


Don't want to get caught up in the argument, but considering you're starting off with maybe a 1000hr engine life, service every 30 say, using that stuff means you might get 750hrs and should service every 10. It doesn't mean your engine fails after a few flights or anything, unless the engine itself can't really cope putting out too much power (which is really just a question of fuel/air combustion limitations for an inline engine of a given construction).

Using 1c Maddox as a source on this point, the AM and ASM engines introduced at the start of 44 (basically just the 605A/AS but modified for high octane fuel and MW-50 use) had a reputedly terrible engine life and could fail during a mission with overuse of the MW-50 system (even within operating guidelines). The D series engines and a virtually interchangeable redevelopment of the AS engine during 1945 were a much different story however, and the additional cooling capacity of the new airframe helped give this model no real faults to speak of, which weren't quirks plaguing the series (it is said the late 109 did not tolerate fools kindly, and killed a few on the runway).

At any rate keep in mind the Gustav remained in combat service with some air forces (Spain, Czechoslovakia) in one form or another well into the 1950's. Their competitors were generally the P-51D Mustang and Mark XIV Spit also exported widely, so put simply they can't have been too bad according to impassive history.

Reactions: Dislike Dislike:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## glen (May 19, 2008)

1v1, @ sea level , spitfire has strongger dogfight ability. And "a climbing turn" is a spitfire's effective maneuver dealing wirh Bf109 from 1940 BOB to VE day, perhaps not for Spitfie V period.

BTW, Kurfurst said that Spitfire's max output is only within 5 monutes, where is the proof? in all out speed test?


BTW. both Mike Williams and Kurfurst are somewhat subjective. For example, in williams' web site, no comparation of spit V and Bf109F at all.....

Be careful when reading their articles. 

For example, kuefurst emphasized that old spit IX are the majority of RAF 44-45,that's right, but they are 25lbs , Kurfurst said " The vast majority of RAF squadrons flew the old Mk IXs until the cease of hostilities, and certainly they felt that 40-50 mph speed differenence between their Mk IX rides and the Luftwaffe G-14/AS, G-10s, K-4s and D-9s." my god, 40-50mph ,that's 18lbs spit IX's performance.

Kurfurst emphasized that Spit XIV are rare/small mumber, that is right, but BF109K and Fw190D are also rare. And those spit XIV can't even find enough enemies, so why Britain produce so many spit XIV? in order to prove RAF's strength? to plug up some oppugn 60 years later? Doesn't a/c producing consume money?

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Mitya (May 19, 2008)

glen said:


> I remember LA7 is even lighter than La5fn due to the remove of wood components. around 2600kg?


La-5FN - ~ 3300 kg. "around 2600 kg?" - вот это я не понимаю...  

On the Soviet-german front air fights doing on 0...5000 (max) m. What "tanks not fly in the cosmos" (c) (Танки в космосе не летают  ) { I dont'now what this on english say  ). Il-2 - shtirmovik - max high of fly (от силы) 2000 m. Pe-2 Tu-2 - tactics bobmer - ~2000...4000. B-17, B-24, B-29 - strategic bomber - 5000...9000 m (примерные цифры). "Altitude flight of fighters determine of altitude strike planes" (высота действия истребителей определяется высотой действия ударных машин). Soviet english fighters work on other problem. (Т.е. Советские и Союзнические машины создавались для своих задач). Вот.
P.S.: sorry my english. 
P.P.S.: high quality pictures http://mitya.diinoweb.com/files/My Photo Album/LTX/262.jpg
http://mitya.diinoweb.com/files/My Photo Album/LTX/La-7 vs Spit-14.jpg
P.P.P.S.:


seesul said:


> Mitya,
> 
> I´m sorry I´m off topic but
> congratulation to yesterday´s match Russia-Canada 5:4!
> Man, you´re World Champions!


Спасибо, seesul! Thank you!
Ага! РОССИЯ ЧЕМПИОН!!! 1:3... 4:4.. 5:4 !!! Yessssssssssssssss!!!!!!!


----------



## seesul (May 19, 2008)

Mitya,

I´m sorry I´m off topic but
congratulation to yesterday´s match Russia-Canada 5:4!
Man, you´re World Champions!


----------



## drgondog (May 19, 2008)

Soren said:


> That is incorrect, this rate of climb was obtained by a prototype a/c. The Rate of climb of the Spitfire Mk.XIV is 4,800 ft/min at 18 lbs/sq.in. boost.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



To be candid Soren you haven't demonstrated what you do know..

Education - credits from either vocational school or University applied to Aero Engineering? How far did you progress in math or physics?

Experience - what did you do to apply the knowledge Soren? Airframe Structures? Flight Mechanics? Stability and Control? Aero? Airframe Design? Powerplant? Landing gear design?

What are your credentials to attack Glen? The silence for the last month on these questions are deafening Soren.


----------



## drgondog (May 19, 2008)

Mitya said:


> La-5FN - ~ 3300 kg. "around 2600 kg?" - вот это я не понимаю...
> 
> On the Soviet-german front air fights doing on 0...5000 (max) m. What "tanks not fly in the cosmos" (c) (Танки в космосе не летают  ) { I dont'now what this on english say  ). Il-2 - shtirmovik - max high of fly (от силы) 2000 m. Pe-2 Tu-2 - tactics bobmer - ~2000...4000. B-17, B-24, B-29 - strategic bomber - 5000...9000 m (примерные цифры). "Altitude flight of fighters determine of altitude strike planes" (высота действия истребителей определяется высотой действия ударных машин). Soviet english fighters work on other problem. (Т.е. Советские и Союзнические машины создавались для своих задач). Вот.
> P.S.: sorry my english.
> ...



Mitya - your english is far better than my Russian - the only small possible correction is that "altitude of strike planes determined the altitude of the fighters (for the US)" It was the bombers, flying at their designed altitudes that determined where the fighters must fly to protect them..

Congratulations on Russia win!


----------



## starling (May 19, 2008)

the russians are only any good at low level,the me-109 would crash on take off or landing.so the spit is best.yours,starling.


----------



## Mitya (May 19, 2008)

starling said:


> the russians are only any good at low level,the me-109 would crash on take off or landing.so the spit is best.yours,starling.



NO!
Starling, you know, what Spit-9 don't use on Soviet VVS, because him characteristic was very bed for Soviet VVS. Spit-9 lose La ~100 km/h on SL. 1198 Spit-9 fliyng on PVO Moscow Leningrad. 
Spit was good plane, but he don't very-very good plane.  
Spit, La, Me was produce for other VVS and other function. 
La-7=Spit-14 for 6000 meter.  And you speak what Spit the best? Hm...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 19, 2008)

starling said:


> ,the me-109 would crash on take off or landing.



That is such an educated post! Thankyou...

 

So explain to me how all Bf 109s crashed on take off or landing. Must be a myth that the top aces flew Bf 109s right?

Reactions: Dislike Dislike:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Soren (May 19, 2008)

Someone (Bill) seems unable to refrain from sidetracking threads, and to be frank it has become a nuisance to the members on this forum. Someone (Bill) also has a hard time getting the message, for example that he is ignored because of his childish and prick like behavior. 

And someone (Bill) also knows very little about aerodynamics and its history as he has so thuroughly demonstrated many times by now.

So finally perhaps someone (Bill) should quit being a child and stop sidetracking threads and stop being a prick insulting other members and calling them amateurs when he is infact himself an amateur.

Reactions: Dislike Dislike:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 19, 2008)

Soren said:


> Someone (Bill) seems unable to refrain from sidetracking threads, and to be frank it has become a nuisance to the members on this forum. Someone (Bill) also has a hard time getting the message, for example that he is ignored because of his childish and prick like behavior.



Is he the only one? Ask yourself that....



Soren said:


> And someone (Bill) also knows very little about aerodynamics and its history as he has so thuroughly demonstrated many times by now.



If he knows very little, then what do you know?

Atleast he posted his credentials. All he has asked for was yours. So where are they?

Lets see:

He has a degree in Aeronautics. He posted his degree to show it. Where is yours?

He has worked in aeronautics and posted his credentials. Where are yours?

He is a pilot and even flown WW2 fighters such as the P-51? Have you?

Basically I am saying before you accuse someone of soemthing, then you better be able to walk the talk.



Soren said:


> So finally perhaps someone (Bill) should quit being a child and stop sidetracking threads and stop being a prick insulting other members and calling them amateurs when he is infact himself an amateur.



Someone should practice what they preach...

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Soren (May 19, 2008)

Surprise surprise, I get jumped by Adler, again, despite me AGAIN not starting throwing the mud and AGAIN after another member has been talking the same tone for quite a while.

I don't enter pissing matches, they're childish ridiculous.

And what do I know ? Well I know that aerolasticity was a very well known science before WW2, that the effects of aerolasticity is taken advantage of by a/c designers to improve a/c performance in certain flight envelopes, that the Spitfire didn't have an elliptical lift distribution, that the Bf-109 Spitfire both turned allot better than the P-51, that the Fw-190 featured elliptical lift ditribution in turns. And most importantly I can prove it, Bill can't.

Bill has made ridiculous claims such as the P-51 was close to as good a turn fighter as the Bf-109 Spitfire, that aerolasticity was seen as witchcraft by aerodynamicist during WW2 etc etc.. Which to me sounds like he hasn't opened a book on aerodynamics for quite some time and has become clueless in many of its fields, he's just playing clever.

And as for my credentials they were posted long ago.

And finally as for me not practicing what I preach, examples please, it always seems hard to find these for some reason...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 19, 2008)

Soren said:


> Surprise surprise, I get jumped by Adler, again, despite me AGAIN not starting throwing the mud and AGAIN after another member has been talking the same tone for quite a while.
> 
> I don't enter pissing matches, they're childish ridiculous.
> 
> ...



Soren all I will say is go and read your own posts.

Boo Hoo if you feel I am picking on you. It does not matter to me, the years of reading your posts brought this upon yourself.

If it is too hot in the kitchen, get out!

Case closed!

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Soren (May 19, 2008)

Anyway Bill has succesfully sidetracked yet another thread, great!


----------



## Soren (May 19, 2008)

> Boo Hoo if you feel I am picking on you. It does not matter to me, the years of reading your posts brought this upon yourself.



Hey no worries, sometimes kids need grown ups to look out for them, and you're doing a good job of taking care of Bill so far.



> If it is too hot in the kitchen, get out!



Why ? Because of some hotshot I-think-I-know-it-all ? Now way, too stubborn for that.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 19, 2008)

Soren said:


> Why ? Because of some hotshot I-think-I-know-it-all ? Now way, too stubborn for that.



Quit talking about yourself like that.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Soren (May 19, 2008)

Come on, let the kid fight for himself!


----------



## drgondog (May 19, 2008)

Soren said:


> Surprise surprise, I get jumped by Adler, again, despite me AGAIN not starting throwing the mud and AGAIN after another member has been talking the same tone for quite a while.
> 
> *Check my tone recently, check yours*
> 
> ...



I would reference your recent attacks on Glen as a solid example of the "Soren Method" of contempt for those that don't agree with you.

I believe you have a fondness for the noun 'pri*k' when civility leaves the stage?

How many do you want me to find?


----------



## Glider (May 19, 2008)

glen said:


> Soren, that's 1.98ata boost BF109k4, 1945 early.
> 18lbs spitfire XIV is of 1944 early, and whole year between them.
> 
> If you feel fair to compare 18lbs Spit with 1.98ata K4, please modify the top speed of spitfire from 595km/h to 575km/h, 18lbs spitfire is not so fast.
> BTW, MW50 is philter, harmful to BF109's engine. LOL



These are fair comments. If your going to compare the 1.98 K4 against anything, then compare it to the Spit 21.

As an aside, does anyone know the performance of the K4 *without *the MW50. In many ways this is at least as important as the 'dash' speed


----------



## kool kitty89 (May 19, 2008)

Why not the Mk.XIV? In the comparison listed the Spit is 3km/h faster.


----------



## Mitya (May 19, 2008)

drgondog said:


> Congratulations on Russia win!


Thank You very much!


----------



## Glider (May 19, 2008)

kool kitty89 said:


> Why not the Mk.XIV? In the comparison listed the Spit is 3km/h faster.



Mainly because of the timeline. The 109K4 with the 1.98 boost was only available inearly 1945 which is roughly when the Mk 21 came out.

To compare the K4 1.98 against a standard Mk XIV which was 12 months older isn't a fair comparison.


----------



## Kruska (May 20, 2008)

Hello Soren and drgondog,

As a new fellow on this forum, may I ask politely what problem you guy’s have with each other?

I surely do not know as much as many others on this Forum do, yet I will still post my opinion or perceptions – regardless of true or false – It will then be a “hopefully” good discussion that will come up with reasonable proof in order to contribute to each others existing knowledge.

Drgondog,

Hitler for sure couldn’t show up with academic degrees or a Staff officer training course, still (don’t ask me how  ) he became leader of a thousand years empire and commanded the entire Wehrmacht.

Soren,

Why do you answer to a person in such a manner as below?

Quote: You're truely the most clueless member of this forum glen.
Quote: glen come back when you actually know what the MW-50 system is, and when you have learned to read properly as-well!

Come on Soren, not everybody is an “expert”, means I can’t state something wrong without getting “screwed up” straight away? Isn’t it possible to indicate to someone else in an orderly fashion that he is wrong or misread something?

Well maybe you just had a bad day or week 

And fellows, I am not trying to play moderator or to act as such, I was just putting a question to the two of you.

Regards 
Kruska


----------



## Soren (May 20, 2008)

Ok Bill, lets solve this;

I know the purpose of downward wing twist (washout), I've explained it on here various times before; it is for preventing tip stall, or to put it more thuroughly keeping the outboard wing section from stalling before the inboard section, making sure the a/c doesn't suddenly enter an uncontrollable spin without warning as-well as keeping the ailerons effective up until the stall. The 109's slats were positioned the way they were for the very same reason.

However in the case of the 190 you will note that the wing twist was applied to such a degree as to provide elliptical lift distribution under G's (which btw is the reason for the violent departure), it was purposely done so to achieve the maximum 'e' factor and therefore L/D ratio in turns. Now ofcourse you wont see that on Lednicer's comparison as his simulation was done under 1 G, something you seem unable to grasp.

And as for the P-51 turning as well as the 109, wake up Bill! The Bf-109 throughout its versions has a lower wing power loading and it features slats + a high lift airfoil, leading to a MUCH lower lift-loading which is comparable to that of the Spitfire. On the other hand the P-51 features a laminar type airfoil which is known for low Cl low critical AoA! Now supposing you're as much into aerodynamics as you claim then how can that stray past your nose ??

And as if that wasn't enough I've presented the qoutes from ALL modern Bf109 pilots plus many vets, which all make it clear that the P-51 is a pig in a turn compared to the Bf109! You've got it presented in both black white as well as orally! When is enough Enough ? 

Infact reading you're view on the situation Bill it seems like you've mistaken the Bf-109 as the Fw-190A, the reason being that the Fw190A P-51 are close when it comes to turn performance, the Fw-190A being slightly better at low to medium alt while the P-51 is slightly better at high alt. Exactly as how you seem to think it would be against the 109, well let me let you in on a little secret: The Bf-109 is a much better turnfighter than both, easily outturning the Fw-190 in German comparative test flights. 

Now moving on..

Later you went on to claim that the P-51 could take a 30mm high explosive round to the wing, exploding, and still continue to fight on let alone fly! And to prove your point you started babbling on about -51's hit by flak shells, oddly presenting pics of rudder elevator hits (By 37mm Flak presumably) eventhough you were well aware we were talking about the wing!

Christ you're so obsessed with the P-51 that you think it's some sort of supermachine! Get over it, AND yourself!

And as for my tone against glen, well Bill if you knew him you would have the very same tone; He has on multiple occasions lied in the WW2 general subforum, claiming to have pictures info that doesn't exist. He thinks the Germans Americans, and let me qoute: *Cheated* with the results of their gun trials!

Now as for you Bill, I hope your bad habbit of sidetracking threads has ended, and not for my sake, for everyone elses.


----------



## KrazyKraut (May 20, 2008)

Glider said:


> Mainly because of the timeline. The 109K4 with the 1.98 boost was only available inearly 1945 which is roughly when the Mk 21 came out.
> 
> To compare the K4 1.98 against a standard Mk XIV which was 12 months older isn't a fair comparison.


Total delivery of K-4s is estimated at around 1,500. By early '45 about every fourth 109 was a K-4. How many of these used 1.98 ata i don't know, but only around 120 Mk.21s were completed total before V-E and most were not yet with operational squadrons. Mk.21 would be better compared against Ta-152s, I think.


----------



## starling (May 20, 2008)

my name is not bill.anyway,did the 109 not have a tendancy to crash on take off or landing.perhaps only aces could handle this problem.there is no need to get narky if one believes or not whether the said a/c had these inherent design faults.yours,preacher.


----------



## Glider (May 20, 2008)

KrazyKraut said:


> Total delivery of K-4s is estimated at around 1,500. By early '45 about every fourth 109 was a K-4. How many of these used 1.98 ata i don't know, but only around 120 Mk.21s were completed total before V-E and most were not yet with operational squadrons. Mk.21 would be better compared against Ta-152s, I think.



The point was they came into service at basically the same time and its that which makes it a fair comparison. 
No doubt had the British been the ones with their backs against the wall it would have come out a lot sooner and in greater numbers.


----------



## KrazyKraut (May 20, 2008)

I would compare those to eachother that were likely to encounter eachother, regardless of when they first saw sunlight.

1.98 ata K-4s were likely to encounter Mk.IVXs. Mk.21s? Not likely, with so few in service. For comparison: the first Ta-152s entered service as soon as octobre '44, but they were never significant, just like the Mk.21.


----------



## starling (May 20, 2008)

i hope you are not refering 2 me soren,i have never knowingly lied on other forums and i now have a camera.i have photos of my grandad sitting in the cockpit of a very late me-109,i do not know if is possible to put a picture on here as i do not have a scanner,it is a digital camera however.starling.


----------



## Soren (May 20, 2008)

No starling I was not writing to you I was writing to Drgondog, and no I was not refering to you either, I was refering to glen.


----------



## drgondog (May 20, 2008)

Kruska said:


> Hello Soren and drgondog,
> 
> As a new fellow on this forum, may I ask politely what problem you guy’s have with each other?
> 
> ...



Kruska - as you witnessing what appears to be a hissing contest - at least from one source - there is a history.

The latest is all about Mr. Soren casting doubts about my academic background when I contradicted some of his more foolish ventures into aero theory. If you wish to dig, look into the threads about Spirfire vs 109, Best Variant, etc.

Briefly, when you catch the rascal sticking his snout in aero theory and thump his nose.. there is a huge outcry and we end up taking threads in a tangent, or someone else incurs his sarcastiv 'wit' (I'll have to look that word up again)

After I had had enough of his 'stuff' on qualifications (or lack therein) I simply said put up or shut up and posted my MS Aerospace Engineering from Univ Texas -1972.. and have been hounding him to do the same. He won't because he can't.

He is self taught on the subject and his teacher failed him miserably. I KNOW there is a lot I don't know maybe in spite of my education.. but he doesn't know what he doesn't know and makes some truly 'interesting' statements - and NEVER produces facts, in complete context of the issue, or simply moves on.

See my next post - and I apologise for this.. and I promise I won't ever call you clueless.

Regards,

Bill


----------



## parsifal (May 20, 2008)

Starling

Hohun has put up a post somewhere that shows the accident rate for Me109s due to thenarrow tracked landing gear as being only a very small increase, compared to the wide tracked FW 190. It seems pretty claear from that evidence that the claims about high accident rates is a furphy


----------



## Glider (May 20, 2008)

KrazyKraut said:


> I would compare those to eachother that were likely to encounter eachother, regardless of when they first saw sunlight.
> 
> 1.98 ata K-4s were likely to encounter Mk.IVXs. Mk.21s? Not likely, with so few in service. For comparison: the first Ta-152s entered service as soon as octobre '44, but they were never significant, just like the Mk.21.



You could always look at it the other way. What was the Mk21 most likely to encounter? the 109K


----------



## Soren (May 20, 2008)

Bill you might have an education within the aero industry but in that case you're refusing to use it, cause otherwise us two would agree allot. And your refusal to support your claims and answer my direct questions only supports that.

I've explained from the beginning that I'm an educated engineer with an interest within aerodynamics and that what I know about aerodynamics comes from the books I've read about it and from the limited knowledge you get when you fly yourself. I've never worked with any of those fancy lift distribution programs which cost a fortune. I've used programs for estimating wing Cl, Cd0, Cdp, 'e', critical AoA etc etc..

I tried being nice towards you Bill but that went right out the window when YOU starting throwing mud into my face because I misunderstood a computer generated pressure distribution illustration. You were the one who insisted on being rude and calling names, which in my book is childish prick like behavior - I thought you were smarter than that.


----------



## Soren (May 20, 2008)

> and I promise I won't ever call you clueless.



No but you'll probably call him a bonehead sometime as you seem to love to call people names..


----------



## Hunter368 (May 20, 2008)

drgondog said:


> He is self taught on the subject and his teacher failed him miserably. I KNOW there is a lot I don't know maybe in spite of my education.. but he doesn't know what he doesn't know and makes some truly 'interesting' statements - and NEVER produces facts, in complete context of the issue, or simply moves on.



Bill,

While watching you two (Soren and you) argue everyday does get old.............
I had to LMFAO while reading this little barb. That is a good one though.


----------



## drgondog (May 20, 2008)

Soren said:


> Ok Bill, lets solve this;
> 
> I know the purpose of downward wing twist (washout), I've explained it on here various times before; it is for preventing tip stall, or to put it more thuroughly keeping the outboard wing section from stalling before the inboard section, making sure the a/c doesn't suddenly enter an uncontrollable spin without warning as-well as keeping the ailerons effective up until the stall. The 109's slats were positioned the way they were for the very same reason.
> 
> ...



Let's take these one at a time

From pages 550-551 - chapter Elements of Finite wing theory, "Principles of Ideal-Fluid Aerodynamics", Krishnamurty Karamcheti, Professor of Aeronautics and Astronautics- Stanford Univesity.. Published by John Wiley and Sons -1966

"To obtain an elliptic lift distribution on a (geometrically and aerodynamically) untwisted wing, the spanwise distribution of the chord should be elliptic"

Point 1. Elliptical Wing is the optimal planform for minimum Induced Drag
Point 2. Varying the tip ratio to approximately .4 will closely approach an Elliptical Wing as far as reducing the induced drag at the sacrifice of adding more weght (for same aspect ratio)
Point 3. The downwash corresponding to an elliptic lift distribution is a constant all along the span, further the rolling and yawing moments on such a wing are zero no matter how the chord, the angle of attack and the wing section are arranged.

Further, from 12:8-9 Spanwise Lift Distribution under Load "Supersonic and Subsonic Airplane Design" by Gerald Corning Professor Aeronautical Engineering Department - University of Maryland 1960

Point 4. The downwash corresponding to a trapezoidal wing planform varies along the span
Point 5. The spanwise lift coefficient for a trapezoidal wing planform changes with the downwash along the span.
Point 6. The G forces have bearing only on the elastic properties of the wing - and have nothing to do with lift distribution Unless and Until the wing twists or bends to change the relative angle of attack from 'no load' angle.
Point 7. The changes which tend to throw lift load Outboard are a function of bending rigidity, while the changes which tend to throw lift load Inboard are a function of torsional rigidity.

Therefore - pulling high G's seemed to affect the Fw 190 for two reasons (not known when designed) a.) aeroelastic bending of the Fw190 wing, moving the lift distribution outboard, and b.) not having twist in the outboard 20% of the span. As Lednicer quotes the LW report dated January 1944 you may presume he knows more about the German explanation than you do. 

Page 89 of Lednicer's Report.

Now - it is your turn to present facts and references to support all of your points... but you 'skip' your turn usually so I'm holding my breath.

Education - Experience - and now References.


----------



## drgondog (May 20, 2008)

Hunter368 said:


> Bill,
> 
> While watching you two (Soren and you) argue everyday does get old.............
> I had to LMFAO while reading this little barb. That is a good one though.



Hunter - if it is 'old' for you, think about me! Lol.

I just will not let him skate on this subject of aero/structres when he makes so damn many mistakes - then insults the guy that disagrees with him - 'for not grasping the obvious'.

have a great day and put this battle on 'ignore'


----------



## Soren (May 20, 2008)

Oh no you don't Bill, answer my questions first!

The below just proves what I've been saying all along:


> From pages 550-551 - chapter Elements of Finite wing theory, "Principles of Ideal-Fluid Aerodynamics", Krishnamurty Karamcheti, Professor of Aeronautics and Astronautics- Stanford Univesity.. Published by John Wiley and Sons -1966
> 
> "To obtain an elliptic lift distribution on a (geometrically and aerodynamically) untwisted wing, the spanwise distribution of the chord should be elliptic"
> 
> ...


----------



## Soren (May 20, 2008)

Oh and next time read all of what Lednicer says in his article:

Lednicer:
_"A wartime Focke Wulf report (Ref. 14) indicates that at higher loading conditions (i.e. when pulling more gs) elastic deformation of the Fw 190 out wing shifts the load distribution outboard [elliptical effect = entire wing generates lift at the same angle of attack]. This would cause even more of the wing to reach its stalling lift coefficient simultaneous. Combined with the sharp stalling features of NACA 23000 airfoils, this would produce the harsh stall found in by Capt. Brown. A gentle stall would be evidenced by a more gradual progression of the 2D stall spanwise. "_

Hmmm.. you turn Bill!


----------



## Soren (May 20, 2008)

> I just will not let him skate on this subject of aero/structres when he makes so damn many mistakes - then insults the guy that disagrees with him - 'for not grasping the obvious'.



No mistakes made by me, you on other hand Bill, well lets just say you look lightly upon the facts.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 20, 2008)

starling said:


> my name is not bill.anyway,did the 109 not have a tendancy to crash on take off or landing.perhaps only aces could handle this problem.there is no need to get narky if one believes or not whether the said a/c had these inherent design faults.yours,preacher.



No one is getting cranky here. I just asked you to explain yourself, because you said the 109 is going to crash on take off and landing. That implies that is going to do so all the time, which is not true.

If that were the case then the top aces would not have flown the aircraft. If that were the case it would not have been the most numerous fighter built.

If not properly handled, yes it could happen. Is it going to happen all the time? No. Did it happen an ungodly amount of times? No.

My advice to you, so that this problem does not arise again is to actually explain your posts instead of using one liners.



Glider said:


> You could always look at it the other way. What was the Mk21 most likely to encounter? the 109K



Interesting little side note. A lot of people say that the problem with the 109 was because of its narrow track. pbfoot who has a 109E and a Spitfire readily available to him actualley went and measured them and the Spitfire's track was actually a bit narrower.



Soren said:


> I tried being nice towards you Bill but that went right out the window when YOU starting throwing mud into my face because I misunderstood a computer generated pressure distribution illustration. You were the one who insisted on being rude and calling names, which in my book is childish prick like behavior - I thought you were smarter than that.



You do the same thing Soren. You are just blind to you own faults.



drgondog said:


> Now - it is your turn to present facts and references to support all of your points... but you 'skip' your turn usually so I'm holding my breath.
> 
> Education - Experience - and now References.



We are all waiting...


----------



## Soren (May 20, 2008)

And from Gene (Crumpp):

_"Aeroelasticity is simply a byproduct of flying and all aircraft experience it. The NACA 23000 series of airfoils have a harsh stall with no washout due to the fact they produce elliptical lift along the entire airfoil. That means with no washout the entire wing stalls at once. This is why the FW-190's wing is twisted to prevent it. 

When aeroelasticity removes this twist then the FW-190 exhibits a harsh stall."_


----------



## Soren (May 20, 2008)

> You do the same thing Soren. You are just blind to you own faults.



So you claim atleast..



> We are all waiting...



No need to wait, it has already been presented, read my new posts above..


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 20, 2008)

Soren said:


> So you claim atleast..



And a majority of this forum as well.





Soren said:


> No need to wait, it has already been presented, read my new posts above..



I do not see any actual proof with sources.


----------



## drgondog (May 20, 2008)

Soren said:


> Oh and next time read all of what Lednicer says in his article:
> 
> Lednicer:
> _"A wartime Focke Wulf report (Ref. 14) indicates that at higher loading conditions (i.e. when pulling more gs) elastic deformation of the Fw 190 out wing shifts the load distribution outboard
> ...



I noted in my prior posts that you selectively quote stuff that you think supports your thesis, then reach deep (somewhere) and pull out wierd stuff and place it somewhere in the quote. You could Not have proved my point any better.

You really have no idea what you said about the elliptic wing, nor how it possibly could have helped make your point by inserting it (elliptic wing lift distribution statement) into the entire quote from Lednicer, while removing the key point I made about aeroelastic deformation as a root cause, combined with zero angle twist the last 20% of the Fw 190 span..

You don't understand what you are reading, and you don't know the context of airframe design considerations - which largely are "it depends" rather than "absolutes"

Soren, you make up stuff as you go.. I have this vision of Opus and Bill the Cat (or Lucy and Charlie Brown) talking about the Theory of Relativity every time you go theoretical on us.


----------



## Soren (May 20, 2008)

> And a majority of this forum as well.



That's a bold claim seeing how many members there are.



> I do not see any actual proof with sources.



LoL! The first is directly from Lednicer's article!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 20, 2008)

drgondog said:


> Soren, you make up stuff as you go.. I have this vision of Opus and Bill the Cat (or Lucy and Charlie Brown) talking about the Theory of Relativity every time you go theoretical on us.













Soren said:


> That's a bold claim seeing how many members there are.



Seriously...





Soren said:


> LoL! The first is directly from Lednicer's article!



For once...


----------



## Soren (May 20, 2008)

Sorry but you can't wiggle yourself out of this one Bill!

Here it is DIRECTLY from the article:





So Bill what is a matter ? Are unable to read suddenly ?


----------



## Soren (May 20, 2008)

And what Crumpp wrote (Going to dispute him as-well Bill ?):

_"Aeroelasticity is simply a byproduct of flying and all aircraft experience it. *The NACA 23000 series of airfoils have a harsh stall with no washout due to the fact they produce elliptical lift along the entire airfoil.* That means with no washout the entire wing stalls at once. This is why the FW-190's wing is twisted to prevent it. 

*When aeroelasticity removes this twist then the FW-190 exhibits a harsh stall*."_


----------



## Soren (May 20, 2008)

> Seriously...



What you have a poll or something hidden away which says this or what ? 

I'm sure if it was really like you say I would've been contacted by others than you..


----------



## drgondog (May 20, 2008)

Soren said:


> And from Gene (Crumpp):
> 
> _"Aeroelasticity is simply a byproduct of flying and all aircraft experience it. The NACA 23000 series of airfoils have a harsh stall with no washout due to the fact they produce elliptical lift along the entire airfoil. That means with no washout the entire wing stalls at once. This is why the FW-190's wing is twisted to prevent it.
> 
> When aeroelasticity removes this twist then the FW-190 exhibits a harsh stall."_



Gene is correct..Lednicer is correct.. that is why virtually ALL a/c have twist.

You think you have stumbled onto a fundamental 'aha'??

Having said this a.) All trapezoidal wings have somewhat of eliptical lift distribution, (take a look at plot in Lednicer Report that I pointed out to you many times) b.) the elliptical distribution survives through a range of angle of attack for the trapezoidal wing although downwash varies spanwise with no twist, .c) all elliptical wings have better elliptical lift distributions (take a look at the abovementioned Lednicer plot) , downwash is constant for no twist and d.) elliptical planform has and less induced drag than trapezoidal planform although a tip chord to root chord ratio of .4 will closely approach the elliptical.. as I said in the posts above.

Lednicer specifically cites the Fw 190 spanwise twist as ranging from 2+ degrees at root to zero at 81.5.. then constant from there to 100% (that would be tip root chord for you). 

I'm not sure Gene recalls this tidbit in the Lednicer report - or he has information that Lednicer was wrong about the outer 20% where Lednicer cites 'no twist'.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 20, 2008)

Soren said:


> What you have a poll or something hidden away which says this or what ?
> 
> I'm sure if it was really like you say I would've been contacted by others than you..



No Soren the PM's sent to me by members of the forum because they are tired of the arrogant and insulting way you post tells me this.


----------



## Soren (May 20, 2008)

Oh and I didn't put this in: _"[elliptical effect = entire wing generates lift at the same angle of attack]. "_ I just copy pasted the qoute from another forum as I didn't want to write it down directly myself, but now I took a photo of it instead.


----------



## Soren (May 20, 2008)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> No Soren the PM's sent to me by members of the forum because they are tired of the arrogant and insulting way you post tells me this.



PM from who ?


----------



## Soren (May 20, 2008)

drgondog said:


> Gene is correct..Lednicer is correct.. that is why virtually ALL a/c have twist.
> 
> You think you have stumbled onto a fundamental 'aha'??
> 
> ...



Gene has all the stuff there is on the 190, and so I trust him a heck of a lot more on this than you!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 20, 2008)

Soren said:


> PM from who ?



Soren over the last few years I have recieved lots of PM's from members of the forum addressing you. I am sure I am not the only moderator.

I have told you this on several occasions. There goes your selective reading again.

In addition to this, many members have called you out on it on numerous occasions. Bill is just the newest to this.

Believe it or not, I am not taking his side here. I am just tired of you. If he is the latest member to call you out then so be it.


----------



## drgondog (May 20, 2008)

Soren said:


> Sorry but you can't wiggle yourself out of this one Bill!
> 
> Here it is DIRECTLY from the article:
> 
> ...



Lol! I invite you to slither back to post 77 for the precise reference to that quote.

I invite you to see how you changed the wording when you 'quoted it' as I explained a couple of posts above this reply.

No wiggle, it is EXACTLY what I Said and Mean.

Are we in a dual personality mode here Soren.. you post funny stuff, I rebut with source - you then use my references to 'prove your point - thinking you are Me'?? 

The point I made early, middle and long on the Fw 190 violent manuevering stall was a.) elastic deformation, b.) outward shift of lift distribution and c.) no twist in outer 20% to alleveiate a sudden and complete stall of the entire wing at nearly the same time.

What point do YOU want to make with this article quote from page 89?


----------



## Soren (May 20, 2008)

Bill, 

Lednicer Crumpp are saying the same thing:

By Gene:

_Correct, however the harsh stall of the NACA 230xx is without twist. The reason for the twist was to improve stall characteristics. The wing was left straight at the ends to gain the benefits of elliptical lift production at the tips making the tips more efficient and reducing induced drag production. 

When aeroelasticity removes this twist then the FW-190 exhibits a harsh stall. 

David Lednicer conducted a interesting CFD analysis of the Focke Wulf and these were his conclusions. It's the only reasonable explaination I have seen for the two contrasting stall behaviors of the Focke Wulf. _


----------



## Soren (May 20, 2008)

And in fear of repeating myself:

I didn't write this: *"[elliptical effect = entire wing generates lift at the same angle of attack]. "* I just copy pasted the qoute from another forum as I didn't want to write it down directly myself, so it stayed there because I didn't notice it right away, but now I took a photo of the orginal text instead (Which says what I've been saying all along)

Here's where it came from, in the guy called JG14_Josf's post:
A Complete Waste of Space


----------



## Soren (May 20, 2008)

So Bill, since this time YOU missunderstood something Lednicer wrote am I then supposed to act all hotshot rude now just as you started doing ??


----------



## drgondog (May 20, 2008)

Soren said:


> Bill,
> 
> Lednicer Crumpp are saying the same thing:
> 
> ...



I am delighted but mystified regarding why you continue to make my point?

I appears that Gene agrees my interpretation of the report including 'no twist' at the tips.. I pointed that out and suggested to you that Gene may have missed that in the report - you said you would trust him more than me - but it appears he agreed my point.

Summary - Gene superbly demonstrated that he can read and comprehend - no suprise.



And I submit the quote from you that started all this

*"However in the case of the 190 you will note that the wing twist was applied to such a degree as to provide elliptical lift distribution under G's (which btw is the reason for the violent departure), it was purposely done so to achieve the maximum 'e' factor and therefore L/D ratio in turns. Now ofcourse you wont see that on Lednicer's comparison as his simulation was done under 1 G, something you seem unable to grasp."
*

Maybe I did 'grasp' what Lednicer had to say - so did Gene.. but you? Not so much.. along with 'suction' versus drag.. but you know a lot about aero.



Now is a good time to shut this one down - I really am tired of picking on you.


----------



## Kruska (May 20, 2008)

```
DerAdlerIstGelandet

Interesting little side note. A lot of people say that the problem with the 109 was because of its narrow track. pbfoot who has a 109E and a Spitfire readily available to him actualley went and measured them and the Spitfire's track was actually a bit narrower.
```

Well, now that is really interesting to hear.

Regards
Kruska


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 20, 2008)

Kruska said:


> ```
> DerAdlerIstGelandet
> 
> Interesting little side note. A lot of people say that the problem with the 109 was because of its narrow track. pbfoot who has a 109E and a Spitfire readily available to him actualley went and measured them and the Spitfire's track was actually a bit narrower.
> ...



At the museum he works at they have aflying Bf 109E as well as a Spitfire. You should check out his thread, he has many pics of them both.


----------



## Soren (May 20, 2008)

drgondog said:


> I am delighted but mystified regarding why you continue to make my point?
> 
> I appears that Gene agrees my interpretation of the report including 'no twist' at the tips.. I pointed that out and suggested to you that Gene may have missed that in the report - you said you would trust him more than me - but it appears he agreed my point.
> 
> ...



LoL ! Wiggle wiggle! Trying to dodge the subject at hand are we Bill ??

Crumpp Lednicer agree that the the Fw-190 achieved elliptical lift distribution in turns, just like I tried to explain to you, and both explaining how!

Quote from Gene:

_Aeroelasticity is simply a byproduct of flying and all aircraft experience it. The NACA 23000 series of airfoils have a harsh stall with no washout due to the fact they produce elliptical lift along the entire airfoil. That means with no washout the entire wing stalls at once. This is why the FW-190's wing is twisted to prevent it. _

_The wing was left straight at the ends to gain the benefits of elliptical lift production at the tips making the tips more efficient and reducing induced drag production. 

When aeroelasticity removes this twist then the FW-190 exhibits a harsh stall. _

And by Lednicer

_A wartime Focke Wulf report (Ref. 14) indicates that at higher loading conditions (i.e. when pulling more gs) elastic deformation of the Fw 190 out wing shifts the load distribution outboard. This would cause even more of the wing to reach its stalling lift coefficient simultaneous. Combined with the sharp stalling features of NACA 230xx airfoils, this would produce the harsh stall found in by Capt. Brown. A gentle stall would be evidenced by a more gradual progression of the 2D stall spanwise._


So who was it that was having problems with reading comprehension again Bill ??


----------



## Soren (May 20, 2008)

Is it because I have to simplify it for you Bill, is that it ???! Ok sure;

The Fw-190's wing was twisted 2 degree's but left straight at the ends so that under G's the twist was removed, thus creating elliptical lift distribution over the wing. And as we both seem to know ellipitical lift distribution is sought after because it offers the best 'e' value (Which is used to acquire the Cdi).


----------



## drgondog (May 20, 2008)

Soren said:


> LoL ! Wiggle wiggle! Trying to dodge the subject at hand are we Bill ??
> 
> Crumpp Lednicer agree that the the Fw-190 achieved elliptical lift distribution in turns, just like I tried to explain to you, and both explaining how!
> 
> ...



I really am amused that you keep using my reference above in the Lednicer Report to rebut my rebuttal to this dopey statement from you - which started all this latest 'stuff'

Soren blurts - "*However in the case of the 190 you will note that the wing twist was applied to such a degree as to provide elliptical lift distribution under G's (which btw is the reason for the violent departure), it was purposely done so to achieve the maximum 'e' factor and therefore L/D ratio in turns. Now ofcourse you wont see that on Lednicer's comparison as his simulation was done under 1 G, something you seem unable to grasp*."

So, Lednicer (and I say) aeroelastic bending caused the outboard shift in lift distribution, combined with no twist in outer region of wing, which in turn resulted in the outboard chunk of the wing reaching critical stall at the same time.. 

and you say "wing twist was provided to such a degree as to provide elliptical lift distribution under G's (which btw is the reason for the violent departure, it was purposely done so as to achieve maximum 'e' factor and therfore L/D ratio in turns.. blah, blah, blah 

This is a multiple choice test - you have a 50/50 shot.

Which explanation coincides with Gene/Lednicer and me - versus you?


----------



## Marcel (May 20, 2008)

To Soren and Bill:

Not to try and be a moderator, but couldn't you at least ignore each other? These mud throwing from both sides gets really annoying. Or maybe start your own thread, so you can bash each other all day without bothering others with it.


----------



## drgondog (May 20, 2008)

Marcel said:


> To Soren and Bill:
> 
> Not to try and be a moderator, but couldn't you at least ignore each other? These mud throwing from both sides gets really annoying. Or maybe start your own thread, so you can bash each other all day without bothering others with it.



You are right.. it is consuming too much time going in circles..


----------



## Hunter368 (May 20, 2008)

LOL


----------



## Marcel (May 20, 2008)

drgondog said:


> You are right.. it is consuming too much time going in circles..



Then try to ignore him, it's the only way to stop this fruitless battling.


----------



## Hunter368 (May 20, 2008)

Marcel said:


> Then try to ignore him, it's the only way to stop this fruitless battling.



Will not happen. 8) 

I say all of us members take a vote, whoever gets the least votes (Soren or Bill) gets voted off this forum forever.   






I am joking. (kinda like our own Survivor)


----------



## Marcel (May 20, 2008)

I just proposed a special thread for them in the "suggestions" forum


----------



## Hunter368 (May 20, 2008)

LOL I also made one for them at same time, weird. LOL


----------



## Marcel (May 20, 2008)

Ah, great minds think alike


----------



## Hunter368 (May 20, 2008)

Marcel said:


> Ah, great minds think alike



Agreed


----------



## drgondog (May 20, 2008)

Marcel said:


> Ah, great minds think alike



Or witless ones? Just kidding - to you both.


----------



## Marcel (May 20, 2008)

drgondog said:


> Or witless ones? Just kidding - to you both.



No, I would think they would argue forever  
also just joking, Bill


----------



## Hunter368 (May 20, 2008)

drgondog said:


> Or witless ones? Just kidding - to you both.




I will get you Bill.......................HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA (evil laugh again if your wondering)


----------



## Soren (May 20, 2008)

Contacted Gene on the matter and hope to be hearing from him soon.


----------



## drgondog (May 20, 2008)

Hunter368 said:


> I will get you Bill.......................HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA (evil laugh again if your wondering)



Hunter - Marcel, what I meant to say 'at least two minds alike SOMEWHERE on the spectrum'.. but then you would have known I meant the 'brilliant side not the Dim. 

I have seen Dim and you guys 'aren't'


----------



## Soren (May 20, 2008)

Stick to the topic guys, please, the argument between me and Bill will be solved soon enough.


----------



## Hunter368 (May 20, 2008)

Soren said:


> Stick to the topic guys, please, the argument between me and Bill will be solved soon enough.



Glad you are confident of that, it has been going on for a long time now......why would it stop all of a sudden?


----------



## Soren (May 20, 2008)

Like I said in the post just before Bill's last post, I have contacted Gene (Crumpp) who is the foremost expert on the Fw-190 and aerodynamics we have had on this forum. I hope to be hearing from him soon so this hot debate will be solved.

Now please let us stick to the topic from here'on instead of keep sidetracking it like Bill started out doing and has successfully achieved.

If Bill is a grown up has something to say to me he can say it in the Soren vs Bill thread made, and the same goes for me. 

Now lets stick to the topic, agree ?


----------



## Hunter368 (May 20, 2008)

Sounds good to us all.


----------



## Soren (May 22, 2008)

Ok got message from Gene (Crumpp) and here's what he had to say (I left my questions to him first);


My mail to Gene (Crumpp):



> Hello Crumpp,
> 
> I (Or we) need your knowledge on something, you see recently I got into an argument with a member at another forum for saying this:
> 
> ...



Gene's response:

_Hi Soren,

I hope things are going well for you. I appreciate your vote of confidence. 

I do know Bill. He is not only very knowledgeable but someone I consider a friend. It is very disappointing to hear that you two cannot get along discussing old airplanes.

I can certainly clarify what I meant however the two points do not seem to be related or at least I cannot see how they are related. The only thing in common is the term "elliptical lift distribution". Lednicer is referring to the cl/CL ratio which gives us a clue as to the wing efficiency. The analysis is made at 360Kts at 15,000 feet and is good for that condition. Wing efficiency will change with condition of flight and square wingtips can very easily be designed that equal elliptical wings. However they are designed to be that optimal for a specific condition of flight. For example at the Prmin point, L/Dmax, or Va would serve as a design point depending on what the performance the designer desired.

Since the Mustang and FW190 are designed to most efficient at one design point and the Spitfire has an elliptical wing which is efficient at all points, Lednicer's observation is correct in that the Spitfire probably has the most optimal of the three. Probably is used because the aerodynamic twist in the Spitfire wings in order to prevent the wing from stalling all at once reduces this efficiency. That too would be designed for an optimal point of performance.

Make Sense?_



Soren said:


> The Fw-190's wing achieved elliptical lift distribution during G's because of aeroelasticity negating the original 2 degree twist applied to the 190's wing. This is what caused the violent departure in turns when pulling G's as compared to when stalling at 1 G.




_This statement refers to the fact aeroelasticity removes the aerodynamic twist placing the airfoil sections at the same co-efficient of lift. The sections then reach CLmax all at the same time. When one side of our wing or the tips stall, the aircraft will drop a wing or if the stall is large enough, the aircraft will roll inverted. That is what Lednicer is saying. This was not a design feature. It is just an explanation for the differences in the FW190's stall behaviors._




Bill said:


> "the Fw 190 and the Spitfire and the Mustang all start with somewhat of an elliptical lift distribution BEFORE the turn and have an 'elliptical like' (more for Spit/less for Fw 190 and Mustang) lift distribution in the turn"




_That is pretty much what the spanwise lift loading notes. It has nothing to do with the stall behaviors of the FW190 but is gaining insight as to the relative efficiency of the wing designs.. 

Does that help? 

All the best,

Crumpp_

I then sent him another mail, just incase I might have misunderstood anything he said, and here's his answer (With my questions):



Soren said:


> I see, so I was wrong when I said that Fw-190's wing achieved basically fully elliptical lift distribution in turns ?



_No you are right. That is what causes the harsh stall. It is not a design feature however. It is just and explanation for the two different stall characteristics of the design._



Soren said:


> It was my understanding that the Spitfire's wing didn't achieve fully elliptical lift distribution because of the washout applied to the wing all the way out to the tips.




_You are right on this too. The Spitfire does not achieve the full efficiency benefits of elliptical wing construction due to the washout. At the same time though it is probably the most efficient of the three. If we examine the aircraft at a design optimum point, you will find little to no difference._


So the debate is now settled I hope.


----------



## Kruska (May 22, 2008)

My Mamma also told me that I was right. But the Mamma of the other boy told her boy that he was right. Anyway my Mamma told me that I was still right, and I told this the other boy, who then told me that his Mamma told him that I was not right but he was, which in turn was disputed by me after My Mamma reconfirmed me that not the other boy whose Mamma told him that he was right actually was wrong, however the Mamma of the other boy disagreed with my Mammas opinion about me and not her boy being right……..

Okay so if anybody on this forum wants to know who actually was correct please let me know in order to continue this story because I actually was told by another boy that his Mamma didn’t think that the other boys Mamma was right in thinking that my Mamma was……….

Regards
Kruska


----------



## Soren (May 22, 2008)

That's pretty ridiculous Kruska..


----------



## drgondog (May 22, 2008)

Soren said:


> Ok got message from Gene (Crumpp) and here's what he had to say (I left my questions to him first);
> 
> 
> My mail to Gene (Crumpp):
> ...



Please forward the email to me in it's entirety. And please both thank Gene for his compliment and ask Gene to read this thread and ask him to comment. 

I won't contact him directly to ask him to settle this but I would be interested if he wishes to do so at some future time

Then go back to my Post 77 where I discussed varying tip ratios to approximately .4 to obtain eliptical wing like induced drag... and discussed the effect of twist.. and the effect to twist when lift loads change due to aeroelastic effects.

Then please get to point of the effect of torsion versus bending on shift of load distribution causing the violent stall.

Then please go back to the post where I said that all wings show 'elliptical like' lift distributions, but the Spit moreso that the Fw 190 (and the Mustang)

Then please reflect that torsion at the wing tip is what caused the the entire wing to stall nearly at once. 

The implication, which I don't think you grasped, was that the wing torsion caused the outer 20 percent to actually 'go positive' from zero twist, thereby increasing that region's approach to CLmax.. as the inboard 80% which was twisted to approach CLmax.

Then contrast that to what Gene said in his email

Then contrast what I have said before about control reversals on a Spit due to the aileron loads causing torsion in the wing at the tip. 

Then contrast it to what I have said about manuevering performance is impossible to precisely predict relative to Cl as an example because that changes depending on the aeroelastic effects on the wing (and fuselage in both turn and other loads on the fuse bt the elevator and rudder) cause the geometry and angles of attack locally relative to freestream V.. affecting where it is in the CL curves relative to CLmax

Then go back and read what you just quoted from Gene - and last read what you said to start this debate.

Soren blurts - "However in the case of the 190 you will note that the wing twist was applied to such a degree as to provide elliptical lift distribution under G's (which btw is the reason for the violent departure), it was purposely done so to achieve the maximum 'e' factor and therefore L/D ratio in turns. Now ofcourse you wont see that on Lednicer's comparison as his simulation was done under 1 G, something you seem unable to grasp."

Now show each statement you got from Gene to prove your statement

You win - right??


----------



## Hunter368 (May 22, 2008)

Real debate going on now, facts. I love it.


Getting very interesting guys. Nice posting Bill and Soren


----------



## Soren (May 22, 2008)

The email IS posted in its entirety Bill, nothing was left out or altered in any way. And you can contact Gene yourself if you don't believe me.

And as you can see in my email to him I directed him to read this thread.

Now I'm not going to play all hotshot on you Bill, don't worry, like you said no one is perfect. However I hope that from now on you'll keep your snide remarks to yourself and stop insinuating I don't know what I'm talking about.

So just admit defeat so we can get on with our lives man!

Thank you.


----------



## Hunter368 (May 22, 2008)

Hmmmmmmmmm

Not saying your right or not Soren (b/c I don't know), but you might of went to far rubbing his nose in it, IF you are right.

Stick to facts, if your facts are right.....no nose rubbing is needed. Facts speak louder then any gloating does. Your post is about 25% too much, rest is valid.


----------



## drgondog (May 22, 2008)

Kruska said:


> My Mamma also told me that I was right. But the Mamma of the other boy told her boy that he was right. Anyway my Mamma told me that I was still right, and I told this the other boy, who then told me that his Mamma told him that I was not right but he was, which in turn was disputed by me after My Mamma reconfirmed me that not the other boy whose Mamma told him that he was right actually was wrong, however the Mamma of the other boy disagreed with my Mammas opinion about me and not her boy being right……..
> 
> Okay so if anybody on this forum wants to know who actually was correct please let me know in order to continue this story because I actually was told by another boy that his Mamma didn’t think that the other boys Mamma was right in thinking that my Mamma was……….
> 
> ...



Lol - My Momma thinks your Momma is right -


----------



## Kruska (May 22, 2008)

drgondog said:


> Lol - My Momma thinks your Momma is right -



Thats because I lied to my Mamma  

Regards
Kruska


----------



## parsifal (May 22, 2008)

guys, the debate bit is excellent, and facinating, the sniping is c*ap. Maybe if you work together, we might all learn something.

keep at it (the debate i mean)


----------



## Hunter368 (May 22, 2008)

drgondog said:


> Lol - My Momma thinks your Momma is right -




Bill,

I am not trying to pick sides, as you can see before this post of yours I was sticking up for you. But this post of yours comes across as you are discrediting Crumpp opinion after the fact. 

Before when Soren said he would contact Crumpp you had no problem with him contacting him. Now it seems you don't like what Crumpp has to say so you are discrediting him with this comment.

What is it Bill? Do you respect Crumpps opinion or not? Seems you are flip flopping little.

I am trying to get facts from both of you, nothing else. I don't really care who is correct and who is wrong.


----------



## drgondog (May 22, 2008)

Soren said:


> The email IS posted in its entirety Bill, nothing was left out or altered in any way. And you can contact Gene yourself if you don't believe me.
> 
> And as you can see in my email to him I directed him to read this thread.
> 
> ...



Soren - the reason I wanted to see the the email is for everyone to see what YOU said. I have zero problem with the quotes you have from Gene - I AGREE with them.

The reason I AGREE is that a.) they are right and .b) do NOTHING to support your quote I just reposted for the (4th?) time about your ridiculous statement about Fw 190 wing design and the reason it was designed that way... and my inability to read the Lednicer report.

What truly confuses me is why you think Gene's statements contradict what I have said - or more importantly why they support you?

Take that Post - and show where Gene contradicts any statement I have made. Then show how any of Gene's statements support the underlined parts of your 'statement'?

Hotshot - over and out

PS Hunter, I appreciate your concern for my 'feeler's but I am doing OK.. sniff, sniff.


----------



## Soren (May 22, 2008)

Hunter368 said:


> Hmmmmmmmmm
> 
> Not saying your right or not Soren (b/c I don't know), but you might of went to far rubbing his nose in it, IF you are right.
> 
> Stick to facts, if your facts are right.....no nose rubbing is needed. Facts speak louder then any gloating does. Your post is about 25% too much, rest is valid.



I'm in no way trying to gloat, that is again prick like behavior.

However I do often talk in absolutes, it's not the first time I've been accused of that and I know it.

But infact believe it or not all I want is for me and Bill to agree on this. And I was hoping that after Bill showed the good will by posting in my "Help me out finding a new rimfire rifle" thread, I thought we were starting to get some progress.


----------



## drgondog (May 22, 2008)

Hunter368 said:


> Bill,
> 
> I am not trying to pick sides, as you can see before this post of yours I was sticking up for you. But this post of yours comes across as you are discrediting Crumpp opinion after the fact.
> 
> ...



Nah - I have enormous respect for Crumpp, and as I noted I AGREE with the comments contained. The reason I keep drawing Soren back to my Post 77 is I sate several of the same things - then go on to explain how aeroelasticity affects load distribution over a wing - to tie into the Lednicer speculation.

I like the 'Momma' analogy a lot. Momma said some comforting things to Soren, but he was confused regarding who was saying what, and maybe is still confused regarding how to put Momma's very good advice to help support him against that mean bully that didn't always say nice things to him.

Soren - I am ready to discuss why I said Aeroelasticty was more an art than a science in WWII. But first I want You to start by describing the analytical problems to be solved to get an accurate model of an airframe as a system.

Absent your understanding of That - you will be like a goose in a barnyard when I get into the what's and the Why's??

Your ball.

As I just noted I was more interested in what Soren said to Gene?


----------



## buzzard (May 22, 2008)

My vote goes to the Spit. If the contending pilots of the Spit and '109 are both exceptionally skilled, it seems rather problematic. OTOH, if we're talking about AVERAGE pilots of 'equal ability', then the friendlier handling of the Spit should give it the edge.

In the words of Captain Eric Brown, RN...

"The Bf 109 was, indeed, a prolific, necessary and timely fighter but was not as great as the Spitfire, the Mustang or the Hellcat, which all had many fewer vices for wartime pilots to overcome."

JL


----------



## drgondog (May 22, 2008)

Soren said:


> I'm in no way trying to gloat, that is again prick like behavior.
> 
> However I do often talk in absolutes, it's not the first time I've been accused of that and I know it.
> 
> But infact believe it or not all I want is for me and Bill to agree on this. And I was hoping that after Bill showed the good will by posting in my "Help me out finding a new rimfire rifle" thread, I thought we were starting to get some progress.



We were - on my initiative until your above series of posts.

You have work to do to take Gene's comments and one by one stick them against each of your 'Fw 190 wing comments' that I just requoted for your benefit, to prove your points.. a LOT of work

Then take Gene's comments against my Post 77 and do the same thing to disprove what I said.


----------



## Soren (May 22, 2008)

Ahem!



Bill said:


> Soren said:
> 
> 
> > Crumpp Lednicer agree that the the Fw-190 achieved elliptical lift distribution in turns, just like I tried to explain to you, and both explaining how!
> ...


----------



## Soren (May 22, 2008)

Bill I posted the entire mail in its original form, and all I wrote is there in the exact original context!

So stop believing I'm trying fool anyone here man! Go contact Gene for crying out loud!


----------



## Kruska (May 22, 2008)

buzzard said:


> My vote goes to the Spit. If the contending pilots of the Spit and '109 are both exceptionally skilled, it seems rather problematic. OTOH, if we're talking about AVERAGE pilots of 'equal ability', then the friendlier handling of the Spit would give it the edge.
> 
> In the words of Captain Eric Brown, RN...
> 
> ...



 I gave the same reasons for placing the Spit above the 109

Regards
Kruska


----------



## Soren (May 22, 2008)

> Then take Gene's comments against my Post 77 and do the same thing to disprove what I said.



The problem is Bill, that you change your mind between different posts (Read the qoutes in my last post #142), which is what got us into this mess.


----------



## Kruska (May 22, 2008)

drgondog said:


> I like the 'Momma' analogy a lot. Momma said some comforting things to Soren, but he was confused regarding who was saying what, and maybe is still confused regarding how to put Momma's very good advice to help support him against that mean bully that didn't always say nice things to him.



I bow in sincere respect to your intelligence and abillity of interpretation in between the lines.

Regards
Kruska


----------



## Soren (May 22, 2008)

Again the second mail in its entirety:




Crumpp said:


> Soren said:
> 
> 
> > I see, so I was wrong when I said that Fw-190's wing achieved basically fully elliptical lift distribution in turns ?
> ...



This is what I've been saying all along, which I think everyone following this thread can testify.


----------



## Soren (May 22, 2008)

Oh btw, Gene notes that the full elliptical lift distribution occuring in turns wasn't a design feature from the start, which I said it was, so on that point I was wrong and I gladly admit it.


----------



## drgondog (May 22, 2008)

Soren - I missed your email to Gene and now I see it. Apologise for thinking you didn't show it.

Here is what one of your comments to me prior to your email to Gene

*The Fw-190's wing was twisted 2 degree's but left straight at the ends so that under G's the twist was removed, thus creating elliptical lift distribution over the wing. And as we both seem to know ellipitical lift distribution is sought after because it offers the best 'e' value (Which is used to acquire the Cdi).*

*But* - Here is what you said to Gene in the email

_The Fw-190's wing achieved elliptical lift distribution during G's because of aeroelasticity negating the original 2 degree twist applied to the 190's wing. This is what caused the violent departure in turns when pulling G's as compared to when stalling at 1 G. 
_

In other words - you 'fudged' by adding the aeroelasticity comment after I pointed it out to you

This is what I said

"_So, Lednicer (and I say) aeroelastic bending caused the outboard shift in lift distribution, combined with no twist in outer region of wing, which in turn resulted in the outboard chunk of the wing reaching critical stall at the same time.. _


and further

Bill - We just finished settling the fact that the Fw 190 cut out the outer 20% span's twist - they sacrificed tip control for aerodynamic efficiency in a straight line

Soren -The wing was left straight at the ends to gain the benefits of elliptical lift production at the tips making the tips more efficient and reducing induced drag production. 

Bill - "_This is true - and the reason it lost tip control at nearly the same time it lost the rest of the wing lift.. So? It was a design feature in cruise and an design flaw in high speed/high angle of attack manuevers. 

When aeroelasticity removes this twist then the FW-190 exhibits a harsh stall.

Actually I am not exactly sure that the issue was torsion (remove the twist) Soren, in fact I suspect bending because of the outboard shift to lift distribution - as I indicated several pages ago - but you wouldn't know the difference. Inboard (and aft) shift of Lift distribution from the wing stress axis usually results from Torsion as the CP tends to move aft. Outboard from bending_" - (same effect either way - the CLmax at the tip is reached at the same time as the inboard (twisted)region)

This is what Gene says

*This statement refers to the fact aeroelasticity removes the aerodynamic twist placing the airfoil sections at the same co-efficient of lift. The sections then reach CLmax all at the same time. When one side of our wing or the tips stall, the aircraft will drop a wing or if the stall is large enough, the aircraft will roll inverted. That is what Lednicer is saying. This was not a design feature. It is just an explanation for the differences in the FW190's stall behaviors.
*

Next - I will find some areas where you quoted me out of context in your email to Gene if you wish to pursue this further?.


----------



## Soren (May 22, 2008)

Bill there's no point in dismantling the email, what was said was said to the specific question comment made, it's all in the original context.

I only quoted you once and Gene got to see the whole thread as-well, so he got the whole argument in its original context.

Now come on Bill, just admit you were wrong this time.


----------



## Hunter368 (May 22, 2008)

drgondog said:


> Nah - I have enormous respect for Crumpp, and as I noted I AGREE with the comments contained. The reason I keep drawing Soren back to my Post 77 is I sate several of the same things - then go on to explain how aeroelasticity affects load distribution over a wing - to tie into the Lednicer speculation.
> 
> I like the 'Momma' analogy a lot. Momma said some comforting things to Soren, but he was confused regarding who was saying what, and maybe is still confused regarding how to put Momma's very good advice to help support him against that mean bully that didn't always say nice things to him.
> 
> ...



The Momma (made by kruska) comment that was made was not needed, all it did/does is create more bad blood between you and Soren when you responded to it. It was not witty or called for. Surely you see it for what it was, mud slinging. 

I understand you will say Soren does his fair share of mud slinging also, but will no one take the high road between you?

Then responded to the email in a great way, with facts and questions. But the damage was done already.


----------



## Soren (May 22, 2008)

I fear this will never be resovled as Bill seems unable to admit when he is wrong..

Oh and thanks for saying I basically don't know the difference between left right Bill, that was definitely the way to go!


----------



## Kurfürst (May 22, 2008)

... I wonder if the last couple of pages containing the Soren vs. Bill stuff could be moved to the Soren vs Bill thread..?


----------



## Hunter368 (May 22, 2008)

Kurfürst said:


> ... I wonder if the last couple of pages containing the Soren vs. Bill stuff could be moved to the Soren vs Bill thread..?



It was closed.


----------



## Kruska (May 22, 2008)

Hello Hunter 368,

I guess you didn’t get the message, Soren unfortunately didn’t get it either. My Momma post just pointed out that bringing in a third party doesn’t solve the problem since it is about Soren and drgondog who present opposing interpretations of their posts which are not relevant to their individual accounts towards a third party who isn’t even involved in the dispute regarding of interpretations of posted opinions by the other two parties.

So a confused Soren is now trying to back up his dispute with other participating posts.

Am I wrong? Well then I would have no problem to apologize to Soren, but what interpretation of my Momma post on your behalf makes you legible to call me a mud slinger?

Regards
Kruska


----------



## Soren (May 22, 2008)

I am not confused at all Kruska (Why would you even say that ??), and bringing in an experts opinion is definitely not straying off topic. 

Sometimes you unfortunately need two mouths to get the message across.


----------



## Marcel (May 22, 2008)

Hunter368 said:


> It was closed.



Nope, the other one is still open


----------



## drgondog (May 22, 2008)

Soren said:


> Again the second mail in its entirety:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Now, for a little context - bring forward all the 'quotes'

Soren sez
*And what do I know ? Well I know that aerolasticity was a very well known science before WW2, that the effects of aerolasticity is taken advantage of by a/c designers to improve a/c performance in certain flight envelopes, that the Spitfire didn't have an elliptical lift distribution, that the Bf-109 Spitfire both turned allot better than the P-51, that the Fw-190 featured elliptical lift ditribution in turns. And most importantly I can prove it, Bill can't.
*

Before I go further, can Soren now state that the designers of Fw 190 wing fully understand aeroelasticty effect on the wing tip in High G turns - or were they just 'having fun' with those hotshot pilots and 'give em' a suprise in a Gunfight?

My Reply to that particular jewel earlier

Bill sez -_Next - the Spitfire, with an eliptical wing, does not have a pure elliptical lift distribution, but a lot closer than the 51 and the Fw 190A and D.. I pointed out examples of the spanwise lift distribution presented in one of Lednicer's plots. 

Next - to even the least knowledgable but enthusiastic studiers of the art of wing design, the twist at the tip for the wing chord is to ensure that the tip region (simply for you, the aileron area) of the wing stalls last, with stall starting inboard and moving out board. To those pilots on this forum that means when we screw up and lose ability to fly say, on final approach, we want to sink - not roll. 

You are free to be you, Soren, and think it is all about giving the Fw 190 'elliptical lift' distribution in high G turns. You are equally free to 'prove your thesis' and now that you have said you can, please do not complain when I follow you around on this commitment

Very specifically - we do NOT design tip twist to develop 'elliptical' lift distribution as you posed for the Fw 190 a week or so ago. And last on this subject the twist is to SPECIFICALLY alter the chord angle of attack Downward so that the relative angle of attack in the outer wing doesn't stall when the inboard region reaches the stalling angle of attack._


*T quote from Gene's email to you

I do know Bill. He is not only very knowledgeable but someone I consider a friend. It is very disappointing to hear that you two cannot get along discussing old airplanes.

I can certainly clarify what I meant however the two points do not seem to be related or at least I cannot see how they are related. The only thing in common is the term "elliptical lift distribution". Lednicer is referring to the cl/CL ratio which gives us a clue as to the wing efficiency. The analysis is made at 360Kts at 15,000 feet and is good for that condition. Wing efficiency will change with condition of flight and square wingtips can very easily be designed that equal elliptical wings. However they are designed to be that optimal for a specific condition of flight. For example at the Prmin point, L/Dmax, or Va would serve as a design point depending on what the performance the designer desired.

Since the Mustang and FW190 are designed to most efficient at one design point and the Spitfire has an elliptical wing which is efficient at all points, Lednicer's observation is correct in that the Spitfire probably has the most optimal of the three. Probably is used because the aerodynamic twist in the Spitfire wings in order to prevent the wing from stalling all at once reduces this efficiency. That too would be designed for an optimal point of performance.
*

Soren sez -The Fw-190's wing was twisted 2 degree's but left straight at the ends so that under G's the twist was removed, thus creating elliptical lift distribution over the wing. And as we both seem to know ellipitical lift distribution is sought after because it offers the best 'e' value (Which is used to acquire the Cdi).

From Gene -_This statement refers to the fact aeroelasticity removes the aerodynamic twist placing the airfoil sections at the same co-efficient of lift. The sections then reach CLmax all at the same time. When one side of our wing or the tips stall, the aircraft will drop a wing or if the stall is large enough, the aircraft will roll inverted. That is what Lednicer is saying. This was not a design feature. It is just an explanation for the differences in the FW190's stall behaviors_.

To Summarize from my Post 77

*Let's take these one at a time

From pages 550-551 - chapter Elements of Finite wing theory, "Principles of Ideal-Fluid Aerodynamics", Krishnamurty Karamcheti, Professor of Aeronautics and Astronautics- Stanford Univesity.. Published by John Wiley and Sons -1966

"To obtain an elliptic lift distribution on a (geometrically and aerodynamically) untwisted wing, the spanwise distribution of the chord should be elliptic"

Point 1. Elliptical Wing is the optimal planform for minimum Induced Drag
Point 2. Varying the tip ratio to approximately .4 will closely approach an Elliptical Wing as far as reducing the induced drag at the sacrifice of adding more weght (for same aspect ratio)
Point 3. The downwash corresponding to an elliptic lift distribution is a constant all along the span, further the rolling and yawing moments on such a wing are zero no matter how the chord, the angle of attack and the wing section are arranged.

Further, from 12:8-9 Spanwise Lift Distribution under Load "Supersonic and Subsonic Airplane Design" by Gerald Corning Professor Aeronautical Engineering Department - University of Maryland 1960

Point 4. The downwash corresponding to a trapezoidal wing planform varies along the span
Point 5. The spanwise lift coefficient for a trapezoidal wing planform changes with the downwash along the span.
Point 6. The G forces have bearing only on the elastic properties of the wing - and have nothing to do with lift distribution Unless and Until the wing twists or bends to change the relative angle of attack from 'no load' angle.
Point 7. The changes which tend to throw lift load Outboard are a function of bending rigidity, while the changes which tend to throw lift load Inboard are a function of torsional rigidity.

Therefore - pulling high G's seemed to affect the Fw 190 for two reasons (not known when designed) a.) aeroelastic bending of the Fw190 wing, moving the lift distribution outboard, and b.) not having twist in the outboard 20% of the span. As Lednicer quotes the LW report dated January 1944 you may presume he knows more about the German explanation than you do. 
*

Make your own judgements..


----------



## Kruska (May 22, 2008)

Hello Soren,

Maybe confused is the wrong word, maybe wringing for help-support describes it better. But anyway, please just disregard my post for the sake of a friendly continuation between our posts and opinions, okay  

Regards
Kruska


----------



## Hunter368 (May 22, 2008)

Kruska said:


> Hello Hunter 368,
> 
> I guess you didn’t get the message, Soren unfortunately didn’t get it either. My Momma post just pointed out that bringing in a third party doesn’t solve the problem since it is about Soren and drgondog who present opposing interpretations of their posts which are not relevant to their individual accounts towards a third party who isn’t even involved in the dispute regarding of interpretations of posted opinions by the other two parties.
> 
> ...



Sorry you seem you also slightly misunderstood my post as much as I did yours.

1) Soren purposed using Crumpp who is very knowledgeable on the subject (more so then even Bill or Soren), Bill never opposed the idea at the time. Then you posted your Momma comment, which "perhaps" I (and Soren) slightly misunderstood. When Bill then made his comment about his Momma (which is what I called mud slinging by him not you), I thought he was now discrediting Crumpps opinion b/c it did not agree with his opinion. Which Bill clearly up also shortly after, agreeing with Crumpp. 

As often happens with Soren and Bill, they talk past each other. Not sure if by accident or intentional.

In summary I was commenting about Bill not you. The only thing I said about your post was I thought it was not needed and just the problem worse between them. I did reread my comment and i see how you read into my comment what you thought. I worded it poorly, I meant to slip in Bill's name not yours. Sorry


----------



## drgondog (May 22, 2008)

Hunter368 said:


> The Momma (made by kruska) comment that was made was not needed, all it did/does is create more bad blood between you and Soren when you responded to it. It was not witty or called for. Surely you see it for what it was, mud slinging.
> 
> I understand you will say Soren does his fair share of mud slinging also, but will no one take the high road between you?
> 
> Then responded to the email in a great way, with facts and questions. But the damage was done already.



Hunter - go back to the thread by Soren requesting 'help - on his trying to decide about which rimfire rifle to buy - and note the tone I used in trying to help. Decide whether that was 'high ground' and cordial. I was absolutely taking high ground and trying to help him with experiences of my own.

Then go to the thread here, AFTER my posts of yesterday, where Soren posted Gene's email and view his attitude.

That's all I'm gonna say about 'high road'


----------



## Hunter368 (May 22, 2008)

Kruska said:


> Hello Soren,
> 
> Maybe confused is the wrong word, maybe wringing for help-support describes it better. But anyway, please just disregard my post for the sake of a friendly continuation between our posts and opinions, okay
> 
> ...



I feel Soren is perfectly valid bringing in experts opinion. After all Bill is questioning Soren's lack of real education in the field, so why wouldn't Soren bring in another expert to prove his point to Bill (and help prove his point to all of us). Bill is discrediting or qestioning Soren's knowledge in the field, so let Soren bring in someone that Bill does respect to help win the debate. Sounds like a smart idea to me.

Not "wringing for help-support", just a smart thing to do. After all Bill is playing the "education card" that Soren does not have, so Soren bringing in a expert is fair.


----------



## Soren (May 22, 2008)

LoL, Bill quit it alright, just admit you were wrong for crying out loud!

You have clearly openly claimed that the Fw-190 did NOT achieve elliptical lift distribution in turns, you were proven wrong first by me then by Gene.


----------



## Hunter368 (May 22, 2008)

drgondog said:


> Hunter - go back to the thread by Soren requesting 'help - on his trying to decide about which rimfire rifle to buy - and note the tone I used in trying to help. Decide whether that was 'high ground' and cordial. I was absolutely taking high ground and trying to help him with experiences of my own.
> 
> Then go to the thread here, AFTER my posts of yesterday, where Soren posted Gene's email and view his attitude.
> 
> That's all I'm gonna say about 'high road'



Believe me I know I know, I seen your posts on rimfire thread. I give you credit, but don't stop now.

Example: Syscom can be the most annoying person to debate with on the face of the planet, as many of us will agree (Syscom take that smile off your face as you read this  ). I admit I have lost it on him a few times over the years, said things I should not have out of fustration. But to Syscom's credit he never (very very rarely anyways) fires back with anything but facts (facts in his opinion anyways LOL), he keeps his cool. I respect him for that.


----------



## Soren (May 22, 2008)

drgondog said:


> Hunter - go back to the thread by Soren requesting 'help - on his trying to decide about which rimfire rifle to buy - and note the tone I used in trying to help. Decide whether that was 'high ground' and cordial. I was absolutely taking high ground and trying to help him with experiences of my own.



Which I appreciate Bill.



> Then go to the thread here, AFTER my posts of yesterday, where Soren posted Gene's email and view his attitude.



I came across badly there Bill, I wasn't trying to gloat. But I'll apologize if that's how it came across, and since Hunter seems to agree it did then there you go.



> That's all I'm gonna say about 'high road'



The problem is Bill you shift from high to low almost constantly. Remember YOU started this mess by provoking ME, YOU were the one wishing a fight. So I only see it as appropiate that you were the one to try and establish a bridge between you and I again.


----------



## Marcel (May 22, 2008)

Maybe you (Bill and Soren) should both quit. Neither of you is going to admit anything and whatever discussion you both did, it never lead anywhere except for boring the hell out of the rest of us and having another thread closed.


----------



## Soren (May 22, 2008)

> said things I should not have out of fustration



Which I have undoubtedly also done in my fights with Bill, and I'm sure it goes both ways.

Fact is that when you're called a bonehead you're not really in the mood of saying; "Oh dang it, you were right!", and this I believe is the reason for Bill I's mud slinging.


----------



## Kruska (May 22, 2008)

Hunter368 said:


> Sorry you seem you also slightly misunderstood my post as much as I did yours.



Yes indeed  Sorry to say but I missed out on the part about Soren proposing to drgondog to use - involve Crumpp.

Regards
Kruska


----------



## drgondog (May 22, 2008)

Soren said:


> Bill there's no point in dismantling the email, what was said was said to the specific question comment made, it's all in the original context.
> 
> I only quoted you once and Gene got to see the whole thread as-well, so he got the whole argument in its original context.
> 
> Now come on Bill, just admit you were wrong this time.



And you quoted me out of context Soren as well as add to your own original statement - when you had no clue about the aeroelastic effect to cause the stall.

Here is your email to Gene

_Hello Crumpp,

I (Or we) need your knowledge on something, you see recently I got into an argument with a member at another forum for saying this:

The Fw-190's wing achieved elliptical lift distribution during G's because of aeroelasticity negating the original 2 degree twist applied to the 190's wing. This is what caused the violent departure in turns when pulling G's as compared to when stalling at 1 G. 

This I learned from reading your posts as-well as Lednicer's article, however now I am being told I have misunderstood you Lednicer by Bill, who you seem to know already. Bill says : 
"the Fw 190 and the Spitfire and the Mustang all start with somewhat of an elliptical lift distribution BEFORE the turn and have an 'elliptical like' (more for Spit/less for Fw 190 and Mustang) lift distribution in the turn"

I disagree with what Bill says.
_

*Here is the exchange with your original point and my reply to it *

Originally Posted by Soren 
*LoL ! Wiggle wiggle! Trying to dodge the subject at hand are we Bill ??

Crumpp Lednicer agree that the the Fw-190 achieved elliptical lift distribution in turns, just like I tried to explain to you, and both explaining how!*

Bill replies - "Uh, no they don't say that.. and the Fw 190 and the Spitfire and the Mustang all start with somewhat of an elliptical lift distribution BEFORE the turn and have an 'elliptical like' (more for Spit/less for Fw 190 and Mustang) lift distribution in the turn. 

Nothing about G forces 'achieve' elliptical lift in turns, they (G forces) only tend to shift lift distribution based on aeroelastic effects."

Check it out with Gene - have him copy me on the reply."

You care to point out how your quote of what I said to gene - is in context? * I underlined the aeroelastic 'addition' to your original statement to me to show how you 'alter' truth in your 'original quotes'*

Would you say you didn't alter the context by not telling Gene that the statement I made *was in reply to your statement*, and that it was a rebuttal? Or 'add' the aeroelastic piece to your email comment when


----------



## Hunter368 (May 22, 2008)

I think I see a little light at the end of the tunnel Soren and Bill!!!! Keep it going guys.

Bury the hatch.


----------



## Hunter368 (May 22, 2008)

Well perhaps Bill did not see Soren's last post or two.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 22, 2008)

Hunter368 said:


> Example: Syscom can be the most annoying person to debate with on the face of the planet



I will agree with that. I have butted heads with him probably as much as with Soren.


----------



## Hunter368 (May 22, 2008)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> I will agree with that. I have butted heads with him probably as much as with Soren.



I agree, I have walked away from the computer b/c of him out of frustration. It is like talking to a wall at times with Syscom. 

But he does not respond with rude remarks, just "his facts". Which I respect.


----------



## drgondog (May 22, 2008)

Marcel - you are right - it is boring and I will stop.

If Gene agrees with Soren he will let us all know and I welcome the correction after he reads this thread.

Regards,

Bill


----------



## Hunter368 (May 22, 2008)

Well said Bill


----------



## Soren (May 22, 2008)

Thank god!

I will accept what'ever Gene says as I know he knows more than I Bill do.


----------



## drgondog (May 22, 2008)

Soren said:


> LoL, Bill quit it alright, just admit you were wrong for crying out loud!
> 
> You have clearly openly claimed that the Fw-190 did NOT achieve elliptical lift distribution in turns, you were proven wrong first by me then by Gene.



I thought I could quit but for the last time you have misquoted me again Soren

*Originally Posted by Soren 
LoL ! Wiggle wiggle! Trying to dodge the subject at hand are we Bill ??

Crumpp Lednicer agree that the the Fw-190 achieved elliptical lift distribution in turns, just like I tried to explain to you, and both explaining how!*

Bill replies - "Uh, no they don't say that.. and the Fw 190 and the Spitfire and the Mustang all start with somewhat of an elliptical lift distribution BEFORE the turn and have an 'elliptical like' (more for Spit/less for Fw 190 and Mustang) lift distribution in the turn. 

Nothing about G forces 'achieve' elliptical lift in turns, they (G forces) only tend to shift lift distribution based on aeroelastic effects."

Check it out with Gene - have him copy me on the reply."

Care to parse this one more time..?? 

I said they ALL had elliptical like distributions BEFORE the turns and in the turns - ALL, BEFORE, IN are the key words.

the reason I said 'eliptical like' is that no wing IS pure 'elliptical' except pure elliptical planform wing - although varying tip top chord ratios can approach that. (I said that and Gene said this about tip geometry)

I said the Spit had More of an elliptical wing loading.. Gene said The Spit Had More elliptical wing loading. The reason the Spit wing fell away from Pure is that a) twist at the wing tip to delay tip stall, and b.) it wasn't a pure elliptical planform.


----------



## Marcel (May 22, 2008)




----------



## Soren (May 22, 2008)

> when you had no clue about the aeroelastic effect to cause the stall.



I was aware of that from the very beginning Bill and a long time before that as-well.


----------



## Marcel (May 22, 2008)




----------



## Hunter368 (May 22, 2008)

Very subtle Marcel. LOL


----------



## kool kitty89 (May 22, 2008)

Soren I think you need to be specific on which part Bill was wrong about.


And Bill, Soren already admitted that he was wrong about the aeroelastic effects being an intentional design feature, though they did occur in the way he described.

And mentioned earlier was that the 23000 series airfoil itself (without washout) generated an elliptical lift distribution, without an elliptical (or elliptical-like) planform


And one final thing, though the stalling occurring in high G turns is a disadvantage, the elliptical lift (and thus low induced drag) would benefit turn performance.


----------



## drgondog (May 22, 2008)

Soren said:


> I was aware of that from the very beginning Bill and a long time before that as-well.



Explain 
1. Aeroelasticity - How would you model an airframe system to yield analytical results

2. How you believe that the designers of the Fw 190 understood aeroelasticity and used that knowledge in their designs

3. How the analytical results from any approach in airframe design used during WWII were close toactual results under loads.


----------



## kool kitty89 (May 22, 2008)

Bill Soren already admitted he was wrong about that being an intentional design feature.



Soren said:


> Oh btw, Gene notes that the full elliptical lift distribution occuring in turns wasn't a design feature from the start, which I said it was, so on that point I was wrong and I gladly admit it.




plus from the original email post:



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by Soren
> I see, so I was wrong when I said that Fw-190's wing* achieved basically fully elliptical lift distribution* in turns ?
> 
> ...



On another note, the comments Spitfire seem to say that (while similar in comparing all in the optimum conditions) it's wing would be the most efficient over a wide range of operation.



> _Since the Mustang and FW190 are designed to most efficient at one design point and the Spitfire has an elliptical wing which is efficient at all points, Lednicer's observation is correct in that the Spitfire probably has the most optimal of the three. Probably is used because the aerodynamic twist in the Spitfire wings in order to prevent the wing from stalling all at once reduces this efficiency. That too would be designed for an optimal point of performance._


----------



## drgondog (May 22, 2008)

kool kitty89 said:


> Soren I think you need to be specific on which part Bill was wrong about.
> 
> 
> And Bill, Soren already admitted that he was wrong about the aeroelastic effects being an intentional design feature, though they did occur in the way he described.
> ...



Having lower induced drag is all about more efficiency of the wing, not much to do with respect to turn performance but all things equal I would prefere lower induced drag -------> implying slightly better energy retention between the two aircraft (less 'pull' against the thrust).

The stalling characteristics between the Fw 190 were more severe than a Mustang in the same high G turning manuever. Both had 'square' wing tips, Both had twist up to 81.% but the Fw 190 stopped the twist at that point, preferring to reduce the induced drag slightly from a comparable wing which twisted all the way out... which would be fine for straight line flight efficiency.

The Mustang gave plenty of warning (until full fuse tank screwed up stability) as the stall progressed from inboard to tip.

It (Fw 190) probably would have not had the severe snap stall in high G turn if the wing was perfectly rigid and that for a 'rigid - non torsioning' tip area, would have stalled more conventionally.. namely stalling from inboard out all the way, with tip area reaching stall after some decent buffeting of the tail due to the first losses in the root area?

Does that make sense?


----------



## bada (May 22, 2008)

what a funny discussion! 

so, let's talk numbers: i got the stats for the spit14 and i think kurfust has the stats for the k-4 somewhere, so let's compare how much planes were build , how much declassed and how much didn't saw action and will see what the better plane is! 







Just a little explaination:
operationnal means assigned to squadron, what does NOT mean combat-operationnal! The plane was simply assigned to a squad, nothing else!
SoC or Struck of charge : numbers only counted until june45!

Production and active duty43 (tried another view in exell)





the same for 44:






and for 45:






So, only by numbers, i will say the k-4 is much better than the spit: there were simply more of them, and as everyone knows, quantity beats quality, look at the 262 case if you don't trust me 

the spit14 has less influence on ww2 airbattles than the he-162 in my eyes!

Now, let's continu the bashing!...


----------



## kool kitty89 (May 22, 2008)

OK, Bill but what part do you still disagree with Soren about?


----------



## Kurfürst (May 22, 2008)

Excellent graphs bada. I can confirm that bada`s strenght figures for Spitfire XIVs agree well with known number of XIVs reported in service at given dates.

Its also worth remembering that not all aircraft assigned to an RAF fighter squadron flew operational sorties; British practice was to use 20-22 plane strenght squadron establishments, of which however a maximum of 12 planes would fly operational sorties; the remaining aircraft was assigned to the Squadron as reserve aircraft.

For comparison, the 109K strenght assigned to first-line units was a steady 200 in October, November and December 1944, rising to 314 by end of January 1945; no further strenght data is available unfortunately, but its worth remembering that the production of other Bf 109 subtypes practically ceased by that time in favour of the DB 605D powered G-10 and K-4.


----------



## drgondog (May 22, 2008)

kool kitty89 said:


> OK, Bill but what part do you still disagree with Soren about?



1. His misquotes of what I said as I have noted above

2. His use of my explanations to him (Soren) to try to expand what he said to Gene as if he was the author of the thought

Notably in my last two comments in response to this one this morning.

From Soren
_Bill I posted the entire mail in its original form, and all I wrote is there in the exact original context!
So stop believing I'm trying fool anyone here man! Go contact Gene for crying out loud!_

For the record - I agree everything Gene said. 

Soren misquoted his original comments that started this long running debate to Gene - he pulled out the original context 'of designing elliptical distribution' for a high G turn and inserted mine regarding 'aeroelastic effects combined with the tip design' were the causes of the stall.

I think I have laid out the specifics in my last three posts on this subject.

Soren has not admitted to either the 'ommissions' or the 'commisions', from his statements and my rebuttals ,in his email to Gene. 

He re-wrote his statements to include my corrections and posed them as his own thoughts.

Further - he is not responding to the three simple questions I asked him about Aeroelasticity... dispite his vast knowledge of the subject before this debate.

That about sums it up.


----------



## Hunter368 (May 22, 2008)

Well at least we have it out on the table now. A starting point.


----------



## drgondog (May 22, 2008)

I think I will take a nap... but I think I want the Spit XIV depending on the mission.


----------



## claidemore (May 22, 2008)

Hi Bada,

Actual production of the Mk XIV Spitfire was 957, not 482. Not sure what your sources are for those figures, but they are a bit low. I have seen figures ranging from 700+ to 1500 for the K4. 

Be that as it may, your graphs show an interesting trend. Nearly half of available Mk XIVs were usually non-operational, because, as pointed out by "glen" in a previous post, they simply weren't needed. The ones who were operational had a hard time finding anything to fight as it was. Too much competition from Mustangs, Tempests, Typhoons, P47s, P38s and Spit IXs. 

The graphs show a peak of MkXIV use about the time the allies "knew" they would win the war, so there wasn't much sense in producing hordes of planes that weren't needed. Production and use was pretty steady all through the early months of 1945, the numbers available were fullfilling the need. 

The K4 on the other hand, was needed badly. The Luftwaffe did not have the luxury of having half the supply in reserve. Still, only 314 with frontline units in January 45 (but given the fuel situation, how much flight time were they getting?). After that production fell off, as some units started reporting being given older types such as G6. 

Besides, if number of planes used is the final determinant, the Yak 3 or La7 would win hands down, with numbers in the thousands compared to numbers in the hundreds.


----------



## parsifal (May 22, 2008)

Not that it matters, but wasnt something like 80% of the LW grounded or otherwise non-operational at the end of the war, mostly due to fuel shortages, but also because of pilot deficiencies. Dont the figures for the K-4 therfore appear to be somewhat misleading from that stanpoint. Perhaps not relevant to this thread, I admit


----------



## drgondog (May 22, 2008)

parsifal said:


> Not that it matters, but wasnt something like 80% of the LW grounded or otherwise non-operational at the end of the war, mostly due to fuel shortages, but also because of pilot deficiencies. Dont the figures for the K-4 therfore appear to be somewhat misleading from that stanpoint. Perhaps not relevant to this thread, I admit



From my perspective the Mk XIV and K-4 were both in combat and should be evaluated on merit. What is debateable is to what extent the K-4, on the average, would perform to spec versus the Mk XIV at that stage of the war given the variable supply chain for parts and fuel to keep them at 'peak performance' level


----------



## Hop (May 22, 2008)

> Its also worth remembering that not all aircraft assigned to an RAF fighter squadron flew operational sorties; British practice was to use 20-22 plane strenght squadron establishments, of which however a maximum of 12 planes would fly operational sorties;



Not strictly true. Typically only 12 would fly sorties _at one time_. Because some planes are always unserviceable, a German formation with 20 aircraft on strength would often only have 12 or so available for operations. Hooton gives the figures for German fighters available in the Reich and on the west Front in June 1944 as 983, with 566 serviceable. That's a 20:12 ratio, near enough.



> Actual production of the Mk XIV Spitfire was 957, not 482. Not sure what your sources are for those figures, but they are a bit low.



I believe the figures are from a spreadsheet that lists all Spitfires produced. That shows 482 Spitfire "XIV". However, whoever has extracted the data from the spreadsheet has ignored Spitfire "XIVe", which is the Spitfire XIV with the "E" wing armament, 2 20mm cannon and 2 0.5 inch Brownings. There are another 44 of those.

They have also ignored the Spitfire _FR_ XIV. That was the Spitfire XIV with a camera mounted in the rear fuselage. It was different from the unarmed photo reconnaissance Spitfires in that it retained full armament, and flew combat sorties, it just took photos at the same time. 

There are another 423 "FR XIV" on the list, and 8 "FR XIVe".

That's a total of 957 Spitfire XIVs.


----------



## ponsford (May 22, 2008)

Numbers don’t reflect on performance in my opinion and this shouldn’t be held against LW aircraft. Alfred Price cites April 45 figures of Luftwaffe serviceability showing JG 26 and 27 could muster a little over 100 Fw 190s and Bf109s between them, which was less than either the Spitfire XIVs or Tempests facing them in NW Germany. Most all the other LW units were facing the Russians or 9th AF in south west Germany. I remember seeing a German document of serviceability for April 45, I forget where (maybe here), but it was similar to Price’s data.


----------



## Kurfürst (May 23, 2008)

Spitfire XIV (all types) production per month, originally compiled by milian:

First number production in that month, second number cumulative production by the end of the month.

Total Delivered by end of month - Number delivered that month

1943 : 18 18

*01-44 : 30 12*
02-44 : 45 15
03-44 : 50 05
04-44 : 56 06
05-44 : 68 12
06-44 : 101 33
07-44 : 129 28
08-44 : 151 22
09-44 : 185 34
10-44 : 245 60
11-44 : 300 55
*12-44 : 341 41*

01-45 : 399 58
02-45 : 511 112
03-45 : 648 137
*04-45 : 743 95*
05-45 : 815 72
06-45 : 844 29
07-45 : 873 29
08-45 : 891 18
09-45 : 898 7
10-45 : 904 6
*11-45 : 911 7 *


Bf 109K production

09-44 : 15 15
10-44 : 293 308
11-44 : 221 529
*12-44 : 325 854*

01-45 : 338 1192
02-45 : 233 1425
03-45 : 168 *1593*
April missing.



> By ponsford:
> 
> Alfred Price cites April 45 figures of Luftwaffe serviceability showing JG 26 and 27 could muster a little over 100 Fw 190s and Bf109s between them, which was less than either the Spitfire XIVs or Tempests facing them in NW Germany.



The problem is that a lot more was facing the 2nd TAF than just JG 26 and JG 27. There were a lot more other units on the West, not to mention that in _April 1945_, there was hardly a seperate 'Western' and 'Eastern' front. The Reich itself was the battleground.

I believe what you recall seeing was just the newest of Mike Williams`s brainchilds - he tries to exclude half a dozen LW unit from the unit strenght count, claiming that they weren`t in North-West Germany, but say, 100km further south or east  - waving a strenght lists which shows _the Luftlotte Reich only _he pulled off from Holm`s site and arriving at his usual dubious conclusions.  

Apart from that, I seriously doubt the RAF could muster more then 100 Tempests and Mk XIV Spitfires for operational sorties at all, there were simply not enough in Squadrons for more, and the reason for that was that they simply could not produce more, for whatever reason. 

I doubt they just didn`t want to have more - that would be rather silly in view that they were still producing ca. 320 Spit IX/XVI a month early 1945, even if that Mark was obviously a bit old to meet new requirements.


----------



## Soren (May 23, 2008)

> Soren misquoted his original comments that started this long running debate to Gene - he pulled out the original context 'of designing elliptical distribution' for a high G turn and inserted mine regarding 'aeroelastic effects combined with the tip design' were the causes of the stall.



Sorry Bill but hat's just pure BS, I didn't take "your" opinion. I put it the way I've done throughout the thread.

The full elliptical lift distribution I have always maintained was achieved in turns, i.e. where aeroelasticity affects the wing and "bends" back the orginial 2 degree's of twist causing the whole wing to stall at the same AoA. That has been my argument from the start Bill.


----------



## Marcel (May 23, 2008)




----------



## Hop (May 23, 2008)

> Total Delivered by end of month - Number delivered that month
> 
> 1943 : 18 18
> 
> ...



One of the documents Neil got from the NA shows deliveries of aircraft to the RAF, up to 3rd September each year. 

From 4th September 1943 to 3rd September 1944, 202 Spitfire XIVs.
In the next year, again up to 3rd September, 726, which means a total of 928 by early September 1945. Your figures are about 50 short by the start of September 1944, and about 37 short by September 1945.



> The problem is that a lot more was facing the 2nd TAF than just JG 26 and JG 27. There were a lot more other units on the West, not to mention that in April 1945, there was hardly a seperate 'Western' and 'Eastern' front. The Reich itself was the battleground.
> 
> I believe what you recall seeing was just the newest of Mike Williams`s brainchilds - he tries to exclude half a dozen LW unit from the unit strenght count, claiming that they weren`t in North-West Germany, but say, 100km further south or east - waving a strenght lists which shows the Luftlotte Reich only he pulled off from Holm`s site and arriving at his usual dubious conclusions.



Well, looking at the Luftwaffe claims list, scores 02/01/1945 until the end of the war against Spitfires, Typhoons and Tempests:

JG26 - 46
JG27 - 28
JG54 - 4
JG53 - 3
JG7 - 3
JG301 - 2
JG1 - 1
JG3 - 1
JG11 - 1
JG4 - 1
JG51 - 1
JG77 - 1
EJG2 - 1

(the reason for chosing the 2nd of Jan as the start date is Bodenplatte. Jan 1st wasn't typical of what units did what, either in the months before or the months after)

So 93 in total, 74 of them by JG 26 and JG 28. That's 80% by those 2 geschwader, 20% by the rest of the Luftwaffe. So the _effective_ stregth of the Luftwaffe day fighters against the RAF was 25% larger than JG 26 and JG 27 combined.



> Apart from that, I seriously doubt the RAF could muster more then 100 Tempests and Mk XIV Spitfires for operational sorties at all, there were simply not enough in Squadrons for more, and the reason for that was that they simply could not produce more, for whatever reason.



Hardly. On the 26th April 1945 the RAF had 500 Spitfire XIVs in the UK and Europe, 62 in India (or en route)

On the same date they had 426 Tempest Vs, 32 Tempest IIs.


----------



## drgondog (May 23, 2008)

Soren said:


> Sorry Bill but hat's just pure BS, I didn't take "your" opinion. I put it the way I've done throughout the thread.
> 
> The full elliptical lift distribution I have always maintained was achieved in turns, i.e. where aeroelasticity affects the wing and "bends" back the orginial 2 degree's of twist causing the whole wing to stall at the same AoA. That has been my argument from the start Bill.



This is precisely what you said in post 64 page 5

*However in the case of the 190 you will note that the wing twist was applied to such a degree as to provide elliptical lift distribution under G's (which btw is the reason for the violent departure), it was purposely done so to achieve the maximum 'e' factor and therefore L/D ratio in turns. Now ofcourse you wont see that on Lednicer's comparison as his simulation was done under 1 G, something you seem unable to grasp.
*

Summary of your first post which I took exception to
A. "wing twist was applied to such a degree as to provide elliptical lift distribution under G's (which btw was the reason for violent departure.. 


In the case of A I pointed out two things repeatedly - The departure was caused by aeroelastic effects to the wing under G loading and that the Fw 190 had an unusual twist concept - namely 2 degrees from root to zero at 81.5 percent of span - then stayed zero to the tip.

But, I pointed out, twist is applied to (ALL) trapezoidal wings to attempt to approach an elliptical wing efficiencies for lift distribution and induced drag

Here is what I said on Post 77 to support my thesis

_From pages 550-551 - chapter Elements of Finite wing theory, "Principles of Ideal-Fluid Aerodynamics", Krishnamurty Karamcheti, Professor of Aeronautics and Astronautics- Stanford Univesity.. Published by John Wiley and Sons -1966

"To obtain an elliptic lift distribution on a (geometrically and aerodynamically) untwisted wing, the spanwise distribution of the chord should be elliptic"

Point 1. Elliptical Wing is the optimal planform for minimum Induced Drag
Point 2. Varying the tip ratio to approximately .4 will closely approach an Elliptical Wing as far as reducing the induced drag at the sacrifice of adding more weght (for same aspect ratio)
Point 3. The downwash corresponding to an elliptic lift distribution is a constant all along the span, further the rolling and yawing moments on such a wing are zero no matter how the chord, the angle of attack and the wing section are arranged.

Further, from 12:8-9 Spanwise Lift Distribution under Load "Supersonic and Subsonic Airplane Design" by Gerald Corning Professor Aeronautical Engineering Department - University of Maryland 1960

Point 4. The downwash corresponding to a trapezoidal wing planform varies along the span
Point 5. The spanwise lift coefficient for a trapezoidal wing planform changes with the downwash along the span.
*Point 6. The G forces have bearing only on the elastic properties of the wing - and have nothing to do with lift distribution Unless and Until the wing twists or bends to change the relative angle of attack from 'no load' angle.*
Point 7. The changes which tend to throw lift load Outboard are a function of bending rigidity, while the changes which tend to throw lift load Inboard are a function of torsional rigidity.

*Therefore - pulling high G's seemed to affect the Fw 190 for two reasons (not known when designed) a.) aeroelastic bending of the Fw190 wing, moving the lift distribution outboard, and b.) not having twist in the outboard 20% of the span. As Lednicer quotes the LW report dated January 1944 you may presume he knows more about the German explanation than you do.* 

Page 89 of Lednicer's Report._

Summary-

I state unequivovally that "G forces have nothing to do with lift distribution, per se", that G forces DO affect the elastic properties of the wing which in turn DO affect the lift Distribution.

I conclude that the Fw 190 experienced the violent stall in high G turns because Aeroelastic effects combined with the lack of twist in the outer 20 percent of its span 

You did not understand the reason for the violent stall until I quoted the German Report dated January, 1944 and Lednicers observations on page 89 of his report. You subsequently copied the paragraph from his report and posed it as 'your find' explaning what you had said all along on Page 6, Post 89

*Oh and next time read all of what Lednicer says in his article:

Lednicer:
"A wartime Focke Wulf report (Ref. 14) indicates that at higher loading conditions (i.e. when pulling more gs) elastic deformation of the Fw 190 out wing shifts the load distribution outboard [elliptical effect = entire wing generates lift at the same angle of attack]. This would cause even more of the wing to reach its stalling lift coefficient simultaneous. Combined with the sharp stalling features of NACA 23000 airfoils, this would produce the harsh stall found in by Capt. Brown. A gentle stall would be evidenced by a more gradual progression of the 2D stall spanwise. "

Hmmm.. you turn Bill!
*

Summary -
Here you quote from page 89 of Lednicers Report (my reference to you in my post 77 above and present it as *your idea!!*

Then you quote from Gene in your Post 87
*"Aeroelasticity is simply a byproduct of flying and all aircraft experience it. The NACA 23000 series of airfoils have a harsh stall with no washout due to the fact they produce elliptical lift along the entire airfoil. That means with no washout the entire wing stalls at once. This is why the FW-190's wing is twisted to prevent it. 

When aeroelasticity removes this twist then the FW-190 exhibits a harsh stall."
*

_I restate what Lednicers page 89 says 

"A wartime Focke Wulf report (Ref 14) indicates that at higher wing loading conditions (i.e. when pulling more gs) elastic deformation of the Fw 190 outer wing shifts the load distribution outward. This would cause more of the wing to reach its stalling lift coefficient simultaneously. Combined with the sharp stalling features of the NACA 230xx airfoils, this would produce the sharp stall found by Capt. Brown._

Summary-
I say the issue is more related to the elastic deformation (aeroelastic effect) in the outer wing than just simply the fact that it had zero twist..

Then in your Post 89 you quote Lednicer's report paragraph word for word as I just stated it and tell me "You can't wiggle out of this one"

*A wartime Focke Wulf report (Ref 14) indicates that at higher wing loading conditions (i.e. when pulling more gs) elastic deformation of the Fw 190 outer wing shifts the load distribution outward. This would cause more of the wing to reach its stalling lift coefficient simultaneously. Combined with the sharp stalling features of the NACA 230xx airfoils, this would produce the sharp stall found by Capt. Brown*

Summary - so Far you appear to have moved to Lednicer from your Original Thesis below..

A. *However in the case of the 190 you will note that the wing twist was applied to such a degree as to provide elliptical lift distribution under G's (which btw is the reason for the violent departure), it was purposely done so to achieve the maximum 'e' factor and therefore L/D ratio in turns.* to 

How did you get there?

You checked with Gene first, and quoted him directly.. but even a very good as Gene is he didn't remember the part of the Lednicer report about aeroelastic efffects - and you 'parroted' his observation about no twist was the cause for CL max being reached simultaneously (BTW I believe he is right but he forgot the part about elastic deformation in the tip region accelerating the issue)

Finally you write to Gene

*Hello Crumpp,

I (Or we) need your knowledge on something, you see recently I got into an argument with a member at another forum for saying this:

The Fw-190's wing achieved elliptical lift distribution during G's because of aeroelasticity negating the original 2 degree twist applied to the 190's wing. This is what caused the violent departure in turns when pulling G's as compared to when stalling at 1 G. 
*

This is your final 'modification' after my repeated bashings of your earlier statements and BTW is is Still Wrong in one respect.

The aeroelastic effect was Not to Negate the 2 degree twist, it was to affect the *outer zero twist tip area.*.

I suspect that the torsional load created by the aileron, combined with the lack of twist in *the outer 20%* is what did it - and was TOTALLY unanticipated by any Focke Wulf structural engineers who did not have the analytical methods today to model the airframe under complex loads.

So, look at your original statements, look at my rebuttals including specifically the content from aero texts at the beginning and Lednicer's report, Look at my corrections to your statements, look at Gene's contributions and see your 'position statement above evolve - 

from 'eliptical lift under high G's' to 'aeroelastic effect negating the original 2 degree twist' ... that is a long reach Soren and you still didn'tget it right.

I rest my case.


----------



## parsifal (May 23, 2008)

I wish I knew what you just said.


----------



## Hunter368 (May 23, 2008)

Don't we all!!! LOL

Just smile and nod your head like you know WTF he said, like me. They will never know.


LOL


----------



## parsifal (May 23, 2008)

I will never argue aviation technology again, never, never, never


----------



## bada (May 23, 2008)

Hop:

spit14(all series) production:

MK14 :482
MK14E: 44
FR14:423 (photo recco armed but still main role is photo recco!)
FR14E:8

And the reason, at least for me, that there were so few of them is simply because the Griffon was more a complicated (also to build) engine than the Merlin, but that stays my OPINION and nothing else.(don't have any numbers or factory repports on this)

Btw: at high alt, the mk14 would have been dead meat for the k-4.
Down there, it would have been another story.


----------



## Marcel (May 23, 2008)

Hunter368 said:


> Don't we all!!! LOL
> 
> Just smile and nod your head like you know WTF he said, like me. They will never know.
> 
> ...



Or just fall asleep  Even if they said they would quit, they still can't


----------



## drgondog (May 23, 2008)

Marcel said:


> Or just fall asleep  Even if they said they would quit, they still can't



I just have unless someone a.) wishes and explanation, or b.) wants to discuss the 'art' versus 'science' of Aeroelasticity during WWII through 1960's

In which case set up another thread - this one has been trashed enough - for which I apologise


----------



## Hunter368 (May 23, 2008)

Thanks Bill.


----------



## kool kitty89 (May 23, 2008)

But Bill Gene's statement was that the NACA 23000 series airfoil featured an elliptical lift distribution when there was no washout, not that twist/washout was applied to create elliptical lift.

A Complete Waste of Space


> Aeroelasticity is simply a byproduct of flying and all aircraft experience it. The *NACA 23000 series of airfoils have a harsh stall with no washout due to the fact they produce elliptical lift along the entire airfoil*. That means with no washout the entire wing stalls at once. This is why the FW-190's wing is twisted to prevent it.


----------



## drgondog (May 23, 2008)

kool kitty89 said:


> But Bill Gene's statement was that the NACA 23000 series airfoil featured an elliptical lift distribution when there was no washout, not that twist/washout was applied to create elliptical lift.
> 
> A Complete Waste of Space



KK - first - that wasn't Gene saying that - it was JG14_josf.. and he inserted the reference to 'elliptical' in brackets in the very same paragraph we have been using from Lednicer's report on page 89. I took Soren to task on that 'quote' as it was not accurately lifted from Lednicer. 

KK - go back to I think - #77. I state (a quote from the Karamcheti text) - that only an elliptical wing will give you a wing in which there is no downwash for the entire span - without twist.

That means for a 230xx airfoil, it will exhibit elliptical lift distribution if the planform of the wing using that airfoil is a.) elliptical, and b.) untwisted. The Fw 190A (and D) both have Trapezoidal Wings and have twist (from 0 to 81.5% span).. so Zero chance of being close to 'True' elliptical... and always less than that of a Spitfire wing using the same airfoil.

A trapezoidal wing has a spanwise downwash unless it is twisted. With that twist it will 'better approximate' an ellitical wing with respect to lift distribution, but have more induced drag than the same airfoil in an elliptical planform.

The trapezoidal wing however, if given a tip chord close to .4 will result in lowered induced drag and again closely approximate an elliptical wing with No twist with respect to induced drag.. this is a simple statement overlooking the fact that it is a blanket statement with caveats.

The Spitfire wing was 'close' to being an elliptical wing and had a lift distribution 'closer' to elliptical than the Mustang and the Fw 190. But it was NOT a true Elliptical Wing and NOT a true Elliptical Lift Distribution - but definitely better than both the 51 and the 190.

The Spits also featured twist that was constant from root to tip, IIRC, but went all the way to the tip. It started at 2.0 degrees, then twisted to -.25 degrees at the tip. The twist had the effect of 'screwing up the elliptical' from optimal by shifting the Lift Distribution to higher than elliptical 'optimal inboard of the .50 spand then lower than elliptical 'optimal outboad of the .50 span. The Twist reduced the lift distribution below lowest induced drag but gave the Spit nice aileron/tip control at low speed/high angle of attack relative to the Fw 190 and the Mustang

The Fw 190 had the aforementioned 230xx airfoil which has nice lift profile, and an unusual wing with respect to the spanwise twist of its Trapezoidal wing planform. It ranging from +2 to zero at 81.5 % of span - then stops - with zero twist and zero angle to the aerodynamic chord.

That outside 20%, I believe, would give the wing a nicer lift profile in cruise and low to medium angles of attack - than it would if twisted all the way out.

But it sacrificed some margin of error in the much debated discussion, when elastic deformation under high g turning loads caused the tip area to stall below the predicted angle of attack by FW engineers (My Opinion Only).. it stalled I believe because the torsional 'deflection' twisted the mean aerodynamic chord of that area 'positive' relative to the inboard negative twist.

I could be wrong but that is my theory.

Bill


----------



## Hunter368 (May 23, 2008)

Bill,

Damn I was just going to say the same thing, you just typed faster then me.

I have to agree with Bill on this one.














LOL


----------



## claidemore (May 23, 2008)

bada said:


> Hop:
> 
> spit14(all series) production:
> 
> ...




Note: FR MkXIV stands for Fighter/Recon, main role is fighter, secondary role is recon. Planes whose primary role was recon started with a PR prefix (Photo Recon), eg PR Mk XI. 

Also, the Griffon engine development was started in 1939, there was plenty of time to gear up for production, and in some ways was simpler to produce than the Merlin, for example oil lines/galleries as part of the castings, rather than external lines which could leak as in the Merlin.

At high alt the Mk XIV would be completely dominant over the 109K4. For example, at 32,800 ft (10k) Mk XIV (18lb boost) with much higher climb rate 2200ft/min compared to 1476 ft/min (1.8ata), higher top speed 440 compared to 428, and of course lower wingloading, not to mention the 5 blade prop. Mk XIV had a higher ceiling as well.


----------



## drgondog (May 23, 2008)

Hunter368 said:


> Bill,
> 
> Damn I was just going to say the same thing, you just typed faster then me.
> 
> ...



Bill Who?? 

Hunter there is a good textbook if you care to get a mile wide and a foot deep on Preliminary Design Considerations which covers a great deal. I think he does a good job running a middle road between complex and 'too simple' but it virtually covers everything - then has a couple of illustrative examples of design study steps from concept to complete set of analysis (other than Strucures/Aeroelasticity) to estimate 'everything'.

What it also does exceptionally well is consider judgement - trade offs for all the optional approaches to solve a performance target.

It's out of print but I highly recommend it or something like 'it'

"Supersonic and Subsonic Airplane Design" by Gerald Corning


----------



## Hunter368 (May 23, 2008)

Thanks


----------



## kool kitty89 (May 23, 2008)

Ok Bill that sounds good (and thanks for the corrections).

Not to get the thread more off topic, but how do varying elliptical planforms effect the lift distribution, ie the Spit's wing has the ellipse stretched toward the leading edge, compared to a pure elliptical wing as seen on the He 70, or He 112, or the straight LE with elliptical trailing edge of the P-47/P-35/P-43 (and the Re.2000 series fighters) or He 280. Or elliptcal with clipped tips like the CW spitfire, Tempest, or P-47N.

Or adding rounded wingtips to a trapezoidal planform. (ie Bf 109F)


----------



## Soren (May 23, 2008)

Bill you're completely in the woods with what I said or implied.

Like I've been saying from the very beginning the Fw-190 achieved elliptical lift distribution *in turns*, i.e. when aeroelasticity makes itself felt. Now if I had said that it plain simple just featured elliptical lift distribution and mentioned nothing of in which flight regime, then I could understand your confusion. But fact is I said in turns, the reason obviously being that aerodynamic forces caused the wing to "bend" (Aeroelasticity) and straighten out the original 2 degree's of twist applied to easen the stalling characteristics.

However somehow you get this twisted into I didn't know what aeroelasticity was before you even mentioned it. Well Bill I've discussed the effects of aeroelasticity and which a/c it affected most notably on this forum before, and trust me the phenomenon is very well known to me.

Now let's wait to hear what Crumpp has to say..


----------



## kool kitty89 (May 24, 2008)

Soren you also said that the areoelastic changes were planned by the designers, which you now admit as wrong. (corrected by Gene) Bu bill seems to still be thinking that you hold that true.


----------



## Mitya (May 24, 2008)

I do not know as it refers to in English, but in Russian it refers to "ПИПИСЬКОМЕРСТВО".
That is why you have decided, what Spit the best? Why? He loses Ла-7 in speed up to 4000 m. And he is better? Ла-7 loses to him after 6000 m. And it is not surprising. Soviet planes were created for the other tasks, English for the and you compare them simply on figures. And unless it is correct? NO!!! 
Well, for example, there is a group of Typhoons. They are covered with group Spit-s. Height of 1000 m. I doubt, that Spit can cover Typhoons from Me-109 and FW-190 at this height. At P. Closterman it is written, that in 1944 group of 12 Typhoons lost 6! When in the Soviet Air Forces even in 1943 loss 2 of 12 IL-2 - 2 was considered not allowable! It is present in view of from influence of fighters of the opponent.
Opinion of Czech pilot Vladimir Fros, which flied both on English, and on German, and by the Soviet machines.
Ла-7 Had no such maneuverability as Як-3, but was much more safe, due to the greater durability of a design of a glider and very reliable engine of air cooling.
In comparison with Bf 109, fighters Як-3, Ла-5 and Ла-7 looked much more maneuverable, Fros considers, that the Soviet planes surpassed Ve-109 in all respects.
Comparing Ла-5 and Ла-7 with Spit, Fros prefers the British fighter. To operate Ла-7 on all modes it was much more difficult, than Spit. Plane Lavochkina demanded the appendix of significant efforts to the handle of management while Spit it was possible to operate кончиками fingers. Under characteristics Spit also looked better, than Ла-7, however it is not necessary to forget, that the British plane was made at a factory with much higher culture of manufacture. Maintenance service Ла-7 is much easier, than at Me-109 or Spit. Engine ASH-82FN almost always was dirty because of constant emission of oil, however worked extremely reliably; to him Russian saying is to the greatest degree applicable: "Works as an animal" (Работает как зверь!  ). On Spit the fuel tank - directly ahead of the pilot very unsuccessfully settled down. Such configuration cost lives to set of pilots: the burning tank instantly transformed the plane into a crematorium.
Theoretical comparisons is one, practice - is a little bit another. In air Ла-7, as though got rid of the lacks. The Czech pilots had an opportunity to do some flying by planes of all countries struggled in the second world war, they also were free from ideologia, in other words - they can be counted independent experts. After war in Czechoslovakia comparative air fights Ла-7 with Bf 109 and Spit were carried out. On La flied Leopold Shrom which has proved advantage of the Soviet plane in everything, without exception, fights.
In 1945 carried out indicative fights in Berlin. Spit - 14, Темпест against Soviet Yak. Uniform chance at planes of allies. And know why? Because Spit has not been designed for conducting such WAR. Spit is a high-altitude interceptor, instead of a front fighter!
And compare La-7, Spit, Me-109 on one only to figures it is not true!!!
In the conclusion I shall tell opinion of our veterans: to fly better on Yak-3, and to be at war on La-7!


----------



## drgondog (May 24, 2008)

Soren said:


> Bill you're completely in the woods with what I said or implied.
> 
> Like I've been saying from the very beginning the Fw-190 achieved elliptical lift distribution *in turns*, i.e. when aeroelasticity makes itself felt. Now if I had said that it plain simple just featured elliptical lift distribution and mentioned nothing of in which flight regime, then I could understand your confusion. But fact is I said in turns, the reason obviously being that aerodynamic forces caused the wing to "bend" (Aeroelasticity) and straighten out the original 2 degree's of twist applied to easen the stalling characteristics.
> 
> ...



As long as we are waiting - parse your statements above (the originals in Bold) with the statement you posted in this post at the very top.

You said twist "*it is for preventing tip stall, or to put it more thuroughly keeping the outboard wing section from stalling before the inboard section, making sure the a/c doesn't suddenly enter an uncontrollable spin without warning" *
So by definition if a wing has twist it won't enter an uncontrollable stall without warning? 

Yet the Fw 190 exhibited such characteristics, but you said

*However in the case of the 190 you will note that the wing twist was applied to such a degree as to provide elliptical lift distribution under G's (which btw is the reason for the violent departure), *

Further in the statement above you said,

*Now ofcourse you wont see that on Lednicer's comparison as his simulation was done under 1 G, something you seem unable to grasp.
*

and I said starting in Post 77

"_Point 6. The G forces have bearing only on the elastic properties of the wing - and have nothing to do with lift distribution Unless and Until the wing twists or bends to change the relative angle of attack from 'no load' angle.
Point 7. The changes which tend to throw lift load Outboard are a function of bending rigidity, while the changes which tend to throw lift load Inboard are a function of torsional rigidity.

Therefore - pulling high G's seemed to affect the Fw 190 for two reasons (not known when designed) a.) aeroelastic bending of the Fw190 wing, moving the lift distribution outboard, and b.) not having twist in the outboard 20% of the span. As Lednicer quotes the LW report dated January 1944 you may presume he knows more about the German explanation than you do. 

Page 89 of Lednicer's Report._


The Page 89 of Lednicer's report says 

*A wartime Focke Wulf report (Ref 14) indicates that at higher wing loading conditions (i.e. when pulling more gs) elastic deformation of the Fw 190 outer wing shifts the load distribution outward. This would cause more of the wing to reach its stalling lift coefficient simultaneously. Combined with the sharp stalling features of the NACA 230xx airfoils, this would produce the sharp stall found by Capt. Brown*

I just created a thread named Aerodynamics and aeroelasticity - let's take this away from this thread. BTW you have not responded to the three questions I asked you about this subject in the thread -


----------



## drgondog (May 24, 2008)

kool kitty89 said:


> Ok Bill that sounds good (and thanks for the corrections).
> 
> Not to get the thread more off topic, but how do varying elliptical planforms effect the lift distribution, ie the Spit's wing has the ellipse stretched toward the leading edge, compared to a pure elliptical wing as seen on the He 70, or He 112, or the straight LE with elliptical trailing edge of the P-47/P-35/P-43 (and the Re.2000 series fighters) or He 280. Or elliptcal with clipped tips like the CW spitfire, Tempest, or P-47N.
> 
> Or adding rounded wingtips to a trapezoidal planform. (ie Bf 109F)



Take it to the aerodynamics and aeroelasticity thread and I will answer what I can.


----------



## Kurfürst (May 24, 2008)

Hop said:


> One of the documents Neil got from the NA shows deliveries of aircraft to the RAF, up to 3rd September each year.
> 
> From 4th September 1943 to 3rd September 1944, 202 Spitfire XIVs.
> In the next year, again up to 3rd September, 726, which means a total of 928 by early September 1945.



Your figures are about 50 short by the start of September 1944, and about 37 short by September 1945.[/QUOTE]

I don`t think 'my figures' (not really, I have given due credit for them) are short. The figures Neil claims are not for the same date and are probably counted according to a different standard.

In any case, it doesn`t change much in the big picture - after all wheter the British managed to build 150 or 200 XIVs _in span of a year_ is rather immaterial to inevitable concusion that the monthly production of the XIV was marginal, and the British simply didn`t have enough of it. 



Hop said:


> Well, looking at the Luftwaffe claims list, scores 02/01/1945 until the end of the war against Spitfires, Typhoons and Tempests:
> 
> JG26 - 46
> JG27 - 28
> ...



Before commenting on the figures you are posting, I`d like to see the source first, as the figures you claim appear to be absurd - JG 11, JG 77 etc. downing _a single_ RAF aircraft? C`mon. Even _you_ can`t seriously claim that.

EDIT : It appears that Hop`s claims are based on the 'Victory Claims in 1945' on the luftwaffe.cz site. The claims list appear to have been compiled from several book available to the compilators of the list; as a result, they are most likely incomplete due to the inavailability of all primary materials, all books on the subject, not to say the documentation quite sloppy in this period.

Victory Claims in 1945

In any case, there`s a huge difference between stating as a fact that JG 3 etc. only scored one single claim against British aircraft in all of 1945 and that compilators of this list could only find this and this and this amount of claims in the secondary sources available to them.

The difference is of course, that the compilators at luftwaffe.cz certainly do not claim their list is complete; Hop OTOH does, rather dishonestly.



> So 93 in total, 74 of them by JG 26 and JG 28. That's 80% by those 2 geschwader, 20% by the rest of the Luftwaffe. So the _effective_ stregth of the Luftwaffe day fighters against the RAF was 25% larger than JG 26 and JG 27 combined.



That is a very bizarre set of logic. What is this 'effective strenght' you introduce now?  Define it please.

Don`t get me wrong, if you want to be want to dismiss the strenght reports issued by the JGs, because you don`t like them, you want to ignore certain units, just be frank about it and do it with pride. There is no need to introduce silly new terms nobody heard about yet or to build up cover stories for it.



> > Apart from that, I seriously doubt the RAF could muster more then 100 Tempests and Mk XIV Spitfires* for operational sorties* at all, *there were simply not enough in Squadrons* for more, and the reason for that was that they simply could not produce more, for whatever reason.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Now now, there are two possibilities. One is that you don`t quite get the meaning of my sentences, which I highlighted so that it would be even clearer - _I am talking about operational Spitfires and Tempests in operational Squadrons_. You are talking about Spitfires and Tempests both _in storage and_ Squadrons. You again quote that little list we have discussed already on another board, which is not a listing of operational strenghts by type/Mark in operationally fit squadrons, rather its a combined value of both the aircraft in storage, and in Squadrons, which you also admitted on the other board earlier. 

Most of those aircraft in your figures (well over the half) are in storage, being under fitting to make ready for issue, or are reserves in store. 

For example you claim 458 Tempests of all Marks 'in the RAF'. Most readers would believe - this was aim wasn`t it - that the RAF had these 458 Tempest in Squadrons and they would fly daily sorties.. 

But another paper from the same series (I wonder why you didn`t post those figures..), but which list the actual RAF strenght of operational Tempests in Squadrons, 113 (86 servicable, and 60 or less ready for operations) with the 2nd TAF on the Continent, and 18 (13 servicable, 12 ready for operations) with the Fighter Command in the UK. 

Ie. only 131 out of the 458 you claimed were in operational fighter Squadrons.


----------



## Hop (May 24, 2008)

> EDIT : It appears that Hop`s claims are based on the 'Victory Claims in 1945' on the luftwaffe.cz site. The claims list appear to have been compiled from several book available to the compilators of the list; as a result, they are most likely incomplete due to the inavailability of all primary materials, all books on the subject, not to say the documentation quite sloppy in this period.



No, I used Jim Perry's list: http://www.lesbutler.ip3.co.uk/tony/tonywood.htm

As to how complete it is, it runs to 771 claims for April 1945. Checking against known USAAF losses:

USAAF report 72 heavy bombers lost in April to enemy aircraft, 59 to other causes, excluding flak losses. The claims list shows claims for 117 B-17s and B-24s, and another 107 "Abschuß"



> as the figures you claim appear to be absurd - JG 11, JG 77 etc. downing a single RAF aircraft?



I don't see much absurd about it. They are on the list, for example JG 11 has 186 claims, only 1 is for a Spitfire. They seem to have been mostly occupied dealing with the Soviets, claiming 64 Yak 3 and 9s, 18 IL2s, 11 PE-2s etc.

JG 77 have 154 claims, again only 1 Spitfire, again mostly Soviet aircraft. They claimed 38 IL2s, 23 Yaks, 24 La 5 and 7s, 14 Pe-2s.

Whilst you don't want to admit it, the truth is there wasn't enough of the Luftwaffe to go around.



> The difference is of course, that the compilators at luftwaffe.cz certainly do not claim their list is complete; Hop OTOH does, rather dishonestly.



Where do I say it was complete? The point isn't how many claims are on the list, although actually there are rather a lot, it's which units were facing the RAF, as opposed to the Soviets or Americans.



> That is a very bizarre set of logic. What is this 'effective strenght' you introduce now? Define it please.



It's rather simple. If 80% of the Luftwaffe claims against RAF fighters were by 2 units, then they made up 80% of the effective strength employed against the RAF fighters. That's not something you can conclude from a single battle, of course, but this is a 4 month average.



> Don`t get me wrong, if you want to be want to dismiss the strenght reports issued by the JGs, because you don`t like them,



Nobody is dismissing them. It's just a bit silly to point to all the 109K4s manufactured and claim the Spitfire XIV was outnumbered by them, when in fact the Luftwaffe was so stretched it could only deploy a fraction of them against the RAF.



> Now now, there are two possibilities. One is that you don`t quite get the meaning of my sentences, which I highlighted so that it would be even clearer - I am talking about operational Spitfires and Tempests in operational Squadrons. You are talking about Spitfires and Tempests both in storage and Squadrons.



No, I am responding to your claim:



> Apart from that, I seriously doubt the RAF could muster more then 100 Tempests and Mk XIV Spitfires for operational sorties at all, *there were simply not enough in Squadrons for more, and the reason for that was that they simply could not produce more, for whatever reason.*



Now if there were 500 in the RAF in late April 1945, and a squadron requires 20, then they certainly had enough to equip more than 5 squadrons. It couldn't be the case that they couldn't produce enough to maintain more than 5 squadrons, as you claimed, *because they already had produced enough to have 500 available*



> Most of those aircraft in your figures (well over the half) are in storage, being under fitting to make ready for issue, or are reserves in store.



Certainly. But how can you claim they couldn't produce enough to have 100 available when they had hundreds in store? That's just silly.

The truth is the RAF kept most of them in store because they didn't have any desperate need for them.



> For example you claim 458 Tempests of all Marks 'in the RAF'. Most readers would believe - this was aim wasn`t it - that the RAF had these 458 Tempest in Squadrons and they would fly daily sorties..



No, the aim was to point out how stupid your claim was, that "they simply could not produce more". To prove how wrong that was I pointed out that they _had_ produced more, that the RAF actually had 458 Tempests.



> Ie. only 131 out of the 458 you claimed were in operational fighter Squadrons.



Where did I say they were in operational squadrons? Why do you keep making up straw men?

You claimed the British couldn't produce enough to have more than 100 in service:



> *there were simply not enough in Squadrons for more, and the reason for that was that they simply could not produce more, for whatever reason.*



and I pointed out they had plenty available, so that couldn't be the reason:



> Hardly. On the 26th April 1945 the RAF had 500 Spitfire XIVs in the UK and Europe, 62 in India (or en route)
> 
> On the same date they had 426 Tempest Vs, 32 Tempest IIs.





> The difference is of course, that the compilators at luftwaffe.cz certainly do not claim their list is complete; Hop OTOH does, rather dishonestly.





> Ie. only 131 out of the 458 you claimed were in operational fighter Squadrons.



How about an apology for twice accusing me of lying, when in fact you have just misrepresented what I wrote?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 24, 2008)

Hop said:


> No, the aim was to point out how stupid your claim was



Hey chill the **** out! Why does everyone have to automaticaly resort to flaming. I am getting tired of it, and I don't care who is doing it!


----------



## Hop (May 24, 2008)

My apologies. I meant to say "silly", which is less hostile.

I would like an apology from Kurfurst for yet again accusing me of dishonesty, based on a false representation of what I wrote.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 24, 2008)

You two can take it up in a PM allright!


----------



## claidemore (May 24, 2008)

Gotta agree with Hop on this one. 
BCATP had already been shut down in the closing months of the war because RAF had more than enough pilots. There were guys with one tour on ops who couldn't get another one and were pissed about it. 

Biggest complaint of Spitfire pilots during the late war period was that they couldn't find enough 109s and 190s to fight. Very few Spitfire pilots from that period were able to run up much of a score, there just weren't any targets. Those guys flew a LOT of missions without seeing any enemy planes. 

Production of Spitfires was not a problem, in fact production was already being scaled back on many different war planes, factory workers were already being laid off, (the beginnings of unrest and unemployment and the eventual fall of Churchill from power). There simply was not a pressing need for more Spitfire and Tempest squadrons. Cripes, you only gotta read a few combat reports to see accounts of pilots who were getting into position for an attack on some 109s or 190s only to have another squadron bounce them first. 

Everyone who has done any reading on the wars closing months knows that the biggest concern for Germany was the Soviets, and they put the lions share of their resources onto the eastern front, including 109K4s. Anywhere from 50 to 70% of their fighter strength, depending on which source you are looking at. The balance was being put up against 8th Airforce bombing raids, there just weren't many missions being flown against 2TAF or 9TAF. 

It would have been a poor use of resources to build an extra 1000 MkXIV Spitfires that weren't needed. 

Besides, if production is the final determinant, Mityas plane, the La7 is the winner, with something like 5700 produced, and Yak 3 is second with 4800 produced. 109K4 and Spit XIV numbers were paltry by comparison. 

BTW, good argument in favor of the La7 Mitya.


----------



## claidemore (May 25, 2008)

Just did a brief comparison of speeds of La7 and Spitfire XIV. 
Sea level, La7 is 370 mph, XIV is 360, 10 mph advantage for La7. 
3000 meters (10,000 ft), La7 is 396 mph, XIV is 405 mph, Spitfire is 9 mph faster already. At 20,000 ft the La7 is doing 418 mph, the Spitfire 424 mph, not much difference there. Above that the La7 gets slower the Spit gets faster. 

Up to 3000m the La7 and 109K4 (1.8ata) seem to be nearly identical in speed, above that the K4 pulls ahead. 

The Tempest on the other hand, was 376 mph @ sealevel, 409 @ 10,000 ft and 431 at 20,000 ft (early variants with 9 lbs boost, 11 lb boost Tempest was 398mph @ sealevel). It's faster than either the La7 or Spit below 20,000 ft and loses to the Spit above that. 


Double post, but what the heck, been several hours since the last one! lol


----------



## Soren (May 25, 2008)

I'd much rather be in a Bf-109 K-4 than an La-7, that's for sure!

First of all the Bf-109K-4 climbs and turns better, but perhaps most crucially you can dive a heck of alot faster in the 109 as the max dive speed limit for the La-7 all soviet fighters actually was low by comparison. Top that of with superior speed at nearly all altitudes and the La-7 is definitely at a disadvantage.

I prefer the 109's automatic prop pitch as-well, cuts off the workload.


----------



## Soundbreaker Welch? (May 25, 2008)

The La-7 was a good reliable bird, could certainly be a match for a Bf 109 in the hands of a skilled pilot.


----------



## Soren (May 25, 2008)

Well yes, a good pilot in a closely matched fighter is always a dangerous foe.


----------



## Kurfürst (May 25, 2008)

Well I did some quick checking of the list Hop is using as a basis against the claim figures Hop has given for some units.

For example, JG 53. Hop claims they faced the RAF very little, claiming a mere 3 RAF aircraft in 1945 (RAF aircraft is of course limited to Spitfires, Typhoons and Tempests).

I checked it and it turns out JG 53 took a much greater toll than that, 22 aircraft identified as RAF types in total, mostly Austers, which were the favourites of JG 53`s dish in April 1945.

JG 7. Again Hop claims a mere 3 RAF planes (as above limited to just three fighter types) were lost to it in 1945.

The claims list actually lists 28, almost all of them Lancester caught in the daylight. 

And so on.



> It's rather simple. If 80% of the Luftwaffe claims against RAF fighters were by 2 units, then they made up 80% of the effective strength employed against the RAF fighters. That's not something you can conclude from a single battle, of course, but this is a 4 month average.



The fact that your base data that you`re basing your arguements is wrong is pointed out above. In any case, the whole thing is IMHO rather silly. Following your line of thinking, the air war in 1945 consisted of nothing more than a hundred or so German fighters furballing a hundred or so British fighters in NW Europe..



> It's just a bit silly to point to all the 109K4s manufactured and claim the Spitfire XIV was outnumbered by them,



Well in you`re being the only one here claiming that...

Also its not just the 109K. Its also the G-10, G-14/AS by that time, which had roughly similiar performance as the 109K.

In any case, its a simple historical fact that the LW by 1945 had completely re-armed to its latest types, for example something like 65% of their frontline 109 inventory was made up by G-14/AS, G-10 and K-4.Another 30% was methanol boosted medium altitude G-14s, and only a couple of G-6s being still around in more remote places.

By comparison, the % of XIV Squadrons compared to the RAF`s Spitfire force was insignificant, something like 5 Squadrons out of the 40 Spitfire Squadrons of the 2nd TAF in NW Europe, and they were not present in any other theatre.

In 1945, the most likely opposition a RAF pilot would face in NW Europe was a 109K-4 or G-10, or a FW 190D-9. 

In contrast, the most likely opposition a LW fighter pilot would face there was a Typhoon I or a Spitfire IX, the same opposition he would face in 1943.



> Now if there were 500 in the RAF in late April 1945, and a squadron requires 20, then they certainly had enough to equip more than 5 squadrons. It couldn't be the case that they couldn't produce enough to maintain more than 5 squadrons, as you claimed, because they already had produced enough to have 500 available.



.. by _late April 1945_. A bit late for the party isn`t it..? Of course there`s no arguement that in late April 1945 there was little need to rush them into service. The point being made is that for the most part in 1944/45, there simply wasn`t enough available of them.

Lets look at the numbers instead. 

For example, on as of 18th May 1944, Spitfires with Sqn's

MkV 531
MKVII 62
MK VIII 209
MK IX 996
Mk XII 22
*MK XIV 61.*

When we look at the production of the XIV (see a couple pages back), we see that by the end of May 1944, a mere 68 were delivered (a mere 12 in that month). 61 of those were in Squadrons. The RAF was certainly rushing the type into service as fast as they could, so fast that they had no reserves at all to replenish losses. They just couldn`t do it faster.

As of 14 December 1944, they had 120, in operationally fit sqns, and 127 in A.S.U as reserves, or roughly 50% in frontline units, roughly 50% in reserves, following the same practice as all other air forces.



> Now if there were 500 in the RAF in late April 1945, and a squadron requires 20, then they certainly had enough to equip more than 5 squadrons. It couldn't be the case that they couldn't produce enough to maintain more than 5 squadrons, as you claimed, *because they already had produced enough to have 500 available.*



Certainly not. 

Of course they could rush all into service, but that would mean that several Squadrons would need to be pulled off active duty for weeks or perhaps months to rearm and retrain, until spare parts are available, mechanics are familiar with the Griffon etc.

There would be no reserves to issue replacements from, either.

Following the similiar example, the LW had received 1192 Bf 109Ks by end of January 1945. 314 of these were found in frontline units, leaving 878 in storage, of course minus the number lost in the meantime or under repairs. Say they had 500 in store, and around 900 in store and with squadrons.

By your logic, the truth is the LW kept most of them in store because they didn't have any desperate need for them. 

In reality, just like in the RAF`s case, using them to re-equip most units would take a lot of time and with deny them of reserves.




> Where did I say they were in operational squadrons? Why do you keep making up straw men?



Well I was talking about planes ready for operations in operationally ready Squadrons.

In your reply you denied that, and begun talking about 500 Spitfire XIVs. 
*You were replying to the number of aircraft in Squadrons, and the number of sorties they could make.* Without of course revealing the true nature of your figures, which referred to something completely different (planes is storage..).

Obviously you hoped that people would be led to believe you`re talking about the number of planes in operationally ready Squadrons, when actually you started talking about something completely different. Thats a very dishonest trick IMO.



> How about an apology for twice accusing me of lying, when in fact you have just misrepresented what I wrote?



Nobody misrepresented anything, its very clear what you`re doing here.. misrepresenting the set of data you are using as fuel for your arguements.

In any case, the number of aircraft in storage has little relevance to this thread. What matters is that there were very very few Mk XIVs ready for operations in the RAF in 1945, mostly likely no more than 50.


----------



## ponsford (May 25, 2008)

I can recommend Caldwell’s JG 26 War Diary Vol. 2 and Shores Thomas' 2nd Tactical Air Force Vol. 3 for anyone interested in the combatants in 2nd TAF’s sector during 1945. Those are interesting figures Hop. They are in pretty good agreement with the information presented in these books. Worth noting is that III./JG 54 was attached to JG 26 in December 44 and then was dissolved and officially became part of JG 26 as its Fourth Gruppe in February, following which IV./JG 26 disbanded on 17 April. III./JG 26 had disbanded on 25 March. It should be mentioned that there were some jets and credit should be given to USAAF Mustangs which had some big days against JG 26 JG 27 within 2nd TAF’s sector in 1945.


----------



## bada (May 25, 2008)

claidemore said:


> Note: FR MkXIV stands for Fighter/Recon, main role is fighter, secondary role is recon. Planes whose primary role was recon started with a PR prefix (Photo Recon), eg PR Mk XI.
> 
> Also, the Griffon engine development was started in 1939, there was plenty of time to gear up for production, and in some ways was simpler to produce than the Merlin, for example oil lines/galleries as part of the castings, rather than external lines which could leak as in the Merlin.
> 
> At high alt the Mk XIV would be completely dominant over the 109K4. For example, at 32,800 ft (10k) Mk XIV (18lb boost) with much higher climb rate 2200ft/min compared to 1476 ft/min (1.8ata), higher top speed 440 compared to 428, and of course lower wingloading, not to mention the 5 blade prop. Mk XIV had a higher ceiling as well.



you're right about the pr-fr, i mis-matched the worlds "photo" and "foto", not always easy whan using 4 languages in the same day 

When i talk high alt, i talk above 8000m (+/-26000ft) what will the spit ,with it's shorts wings do there? what maneuvrability will it have there? And please don't forget the planes DOES NOT fly at maximum power continusly!
Especially not above ennemy territory! So the max speeds and other max performances for a max 5minutes time period can't be applied8) 

Anyway, i made the stats for the others 3 marks-14 (Mk-14E+FR-14+FR-14E)

here are the results:

*it is only the numbers of planes ASSIGNED to squadrons,what doesn't mean operationnal!*

from dec43 to dec44:







from jan45 to 10th may45






So, hop, i think your 500number should be reconsidered


----------



## Waynos (May 25, 2008)

I'm in danger of getting way out of my depth here but I can say that the XIV does not necessarily have the clipped wing you are referring to, it was fitted with either type.


----------



## claidemore (May 25, 2008)

Wow, where does one start? 

Kurfurst: Seriously, Austers? Hop gives you the number of "fighters" shot down by these units, and you throw in the number of unarmed spotter planes they shot down? 

So in May 44 they used 61 of 68 Mk XIVs to convert two squadrons to the type. New type, very fast, lots of interest in them, makes sense to get them out there and see what they can do. You interpret this as "rushing them into service". Fair enough, but 6 months later they had half the Mk XIVs in reserve. What happened to "rushing them into service"? 

The really intersting thing is that only 314 of the K4's made up till January 45 were with frontline units? You maintain that the Spitfire Mk XIV was rare, not a presence, of little importance, in few numbers,(not quoting, just summarizing) yet you tell us that only 1/4 of the K4's were in combat? You aren't seriously suggesting that we believe that a desperate nation surrounded by millions of advancing hostile troops, bombed practically back to the stone age, it's armies pushed out of France, Italy, North Africa, Russia, etc, etc, with Soviet troops poised to cross the Oder, was keeping 3/4s of its best and latest fighters in reserve? 

I would think lack of pilots, lack of fuel, lack of bases to operate from, and a severe attrition rate would have more to do with it. Particularly the attrition rate. 

Bada:

Most MkXIVs had either the normal span wing, or the extended wing tip wing. Even with clipped wings, wing loading was still less than any 109 in service. Short wing, maybe, but it was wide as well. 
BTW, the Mk XIV reached its top speed at 8000 meters, the K4 reached its top speed at around 7000 meters.


----------



## kool kitty89 (May 26, 2008)

Don't want to get into this again, but lower wingloading doesn't necessarily give an advantage. ie if the higher wingloading a/c (ie 109) had a significantly higher CL (coeficient of lift), this would mean no lift loading advantage. (which the 109 did by Soren's figures; due to the higher lift airfoil and LE slats, 1.7 compared to the Spit's 1.34 iirc)

Of course power loading (particularly), and aerodynamic cleanliness (and other aerodynamic featurs, or faults) come into play as well.

Kfurst do you have figures for the 109's CLmax? Particularly to compare to the 1.7 figure.


----------



## Soren (May 26, 2008)

Kurfurst has the same figures as I, the reason being it's the original figure from German windtunnel test flight data.

Bf-109 F G Clmax Cd0:


----------



## Mitya (May 26, 2008)

claidemore said:


> ...
> Sea level, La7 is 370 mph...


REALY!!!?
LOL!!! 
ГЫ ГЫ ГЫ ГЫ ГЫ!!!


----------



## Kurfürst (May 26, 2008)

Hi Mitya,

Do you have information on La 7 and Yak 3 montly production, how many was issued to frontline fighter regiments etc ?

Thanks in advance,

KF


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 26, 2008)

Mitya said:


> REALY!!!?
> LOL!!!
> ГЫ ГЫ ГЫ ГЫ ГЫ!!!



Actually that's what it is unless my sources did not translate the Russian properly. At SEA LEVEL the maximum speed is considerable LESS than what it advertised at altitude. I've seen references that give the La7 a top speed of 420 mph at 20,000 feet (or something close).


----------



## Ramirezzz (May 26, 2008)

Mitya said:


> REALY!!!?
> LOL!!!
> ГЫ ГЫ ГЫ ГЫ ГЫ!!!



what's so funny about that?
check here: 
 -7

[...]
Максимальная скорость , км/ч 
у земли 597 
[...]

what gives us exactly 370 mph of sea level spped 
Тезка, не сочти за грубость, но посмотри сначала в книжки, прежде чем гыгыкать 8)


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 26, 2008)

If you are going to post in the regular part of this forum, please post in english.

For non english discussions we have a special section.


----------



## claidemore (May 26, 2008)

kool kitty89 said:


> Don't want to get into this again, but lower wingloading doesn't necessarily give an advantage. ie if the higher wingloading a/c (ie 109) had a significantly higher CL (coeficient of lift), this would mean no lift loading advantage. (which the 109 did by Soren's figures; due to the higher lift airfoil and LE slats, 1.7 compared to the Spit's 1.34 iirc)
> 
> Of course power loading (particularly), and aerodynamic cleanliness (and other aerodynamic featurs, or faults) come into play as well.
> 
> Kfurst do you have figures for the 109's CLmax? Particularly to compare to the 1.7 figure.



I'd have to question the effectiveness of those slats in the thin air at 30-40,000 feet. 

I have no problem with 1.7 cl for the 109, RAE tests got the same number (see chart below). HOWEVER, the identical calculations done at the same time for the Spitfire, show 1.63 at the same G load. 

From two sets of data produced at the same time by the same people we can make useful comparisons and draw some conclusions. Note that the charts say 'assumed values' of clmax. Some dismiss them because of this, but assumed here does not mean 'guessed'. The values are based on calculations, and the same calculations would have been done for both planes. Thus we get numbers that are useful for comparison, whether we believe they are as accurate as numbers derived from other methods or not. 

-If we assume both charts are right, then we can evaluate the difference between the planes. 
-If we assume both charts are wrong, the errors should be the same for both (same calculations), the numbers are still useful for comparison. 
-If we assume only one chart is wrong, then in essence we are throwing out every historical document available that doesn't support our pre-concieved notions and might as well just pull numbers out of the air to 'prove' what we want to believe. 

Also note that these are complete documents, not just a snippet cut and pasted.


----------



## Soren (May 26, 2008)

> RAE tests got the same number



No they didn't Claidemore. Furthermore all their figures were estimates based on results in flight with an Emil, where thrust has a huge effect on the Clmax derived from the estimates, and the Emil wasn't running at full power. 

In short, and like I've said many times before, the RAE AFDU's tests with the 109 are worthless.

The German figures however are from windtunnel tests, and therefore very accurate. And the same goes for all German, British US windtunnel figures, these are the ones we should look at as they are by far the most accurate.


----------



## bada (May 26, 2008)

claidemore said:


> Wow, where does one start?
> 
> Kurfurst: Seriously, Austers? Hop gives you the number of "fighters" shot down by these units, and you throw in the number of unarmed spotter planes they shot down?
> 
> So in May 44 they used 61 of 68 Mk XIVs to convert two squadrons to the type. New type, very fast, lots of interest in them, makes sense to get them out there and see what they can do. You interpret this as "rushing them into service". Fair enough, but 6 months later they had half the Mk XIVs in reserve. What happened to "rushing them into service"? .



Hey claidmore!

for the right numbers, please refer to the pg13 of this discussion. about the reserve, i wouldn't call that reserve, if you look more carefully in the stats, you'll see than most of the mk14 noted as non-operationnal (still the same graph pg13) were in RSU or repair service unit or in MU (maintenance unit) what actually means that those airframes were : too dammaged or having a full overhaul. from all those airframes, a lot has been declassified after the war, the were used as spare-parts units 

There was not a large stock of mk14 available , will make a quess here(because i didn't make this kind of stats), but i would count 25% of the non-operationnal airframes as "replacement stock". the rest was scrap or on the way to became scrap!



claidemore said:


> The really intersting thing is that only 314 of the K4's made up till January 45 were with frontline units? You maintain that the Spitfire Mk XIV was rare, not a presence, of little importance, in few numbers,(not quoting, just summarizing) yet you tell us that only 1/4 of the K4's were in combat? You aren't seriously suggesting that we believe that a desperate nation surrounded by millions of advancing hostile troops, bombed practically back to the stone age, it's armies pushed out of France, Italy, North Africa, Russia, etc, etc, with Soviet troops poised to cross the Oder, was keeping 3/4s of its best and latest fighters in reserve?
> 
> I would think lack of pilots, lack of fuel, lack of bases to operate from, and a severe attrition rate would have more to do with it. Particularly the attrition rate. .



the mk14 was as rare as the 262,even more.(if referring on numbers! )
there are very few squadrons that received this bird. Can search them in the list if you want (you'll have to wait few days), then we can compare the squadron activities, geographical situation.There are also the periods of squad assignements, so it won't be so hard to do it!



claidemore said:


> Bada:
> 
> Most MkXIVs had either the normal span wing, or the extended wing tip wing. Even with clipped wings, wing loading was still less than any 109 in service. Short wing, maybe, but it was wide as well.
> BTW, the Mk XIV reached its top speed at 8000 meters, the K4 reached its top speed at around 7000 meters.



Sorry claid, but i NEVER saw a picture of a mk14 with "full-wings", never a drawing or even a pilot account. So, on this one, i'm hard-headed, i stay on my opinion...opinion 

About the high alt performance: the f104 has it's max speed at 13000meters or something like that, that's not the pb here, the pb is maneuvrability in combat at those heights, and i really don't see a clipped spit beeing able to maneuvre like a slatted-109 in COMBAT SITUATION. I don't know if the low wing load alone could make the spit14 clipped do acrobatics at HIGH ALT, you need wings thatfor, something were the few of the air there-above can have a "grip".
I can be completly wrong on this, but that's how i see it.

and, last thing: the yak-3 production numbers: how of those 4800were build till the 10may45?


----------



## ponsford (May 26, 2008)

Nice post claidemore, interesting!


----------



## Waynos (May 26, 2008)

Bada



> i NEVER saw a picture of a mk14 with "full-wings", never a drawing or even a pilot account. So, on this one, i'm hard-headed, i stay on my opinion




You have now, here is a scan from 'Spitfire' by Jeffrey Quill.


----------



## bada (May 26, 2008)

RB140:
F21 fin and rud install.
First prod XIVE 39MU 20-12-43
616S 1-2-44 
DeH 'Gem' mods 6-4-44 
610S Stalled on landing and wing hit ground overturned Lympne CE SOC:30-10-44

Maybe, something less "prototype" somewhere?8) 

yes, i'm suspicious about that

i said i was hard-headed


----------



## Waynos (May 26, 2008)

If you wish, here is 610 Sqn flying Spitfire F.XIV's in 1944. All F.XIV's had the standard wing planform while the FR.XIV had clipped wings to go with its low level tactical recce role and so would not be tangling with anything at high altitude.


----------



## bada (May 26, 2008)

thanks waynos!

Now my Clipped spit14 legend in my mind is cleared!


----------



## claidemore (May 26, 2008)

Good pics Waynos. 
(btw converting from clipped to full span could be done at squadron level, just a few bolts) Mk XIIs had clipped wings, so that adds to the confusion. Pic below is Mk XIV that went to India.

I believe there were 20 squadrons that flew MkXIVs before VE day. I counted them a while ago, can't remember exactly, might have been 18 with 2 converting to XIVs during the last month that didn't go operational until after victory. 

Production for the Yak 3, 4004 in 1944, 596 in 1945 (I think we can assume most of them pre-VE day, production would be scaled back after), 48 in 1946. This is in line with Soviet fighter ideology, make lots of simple planes quickly, fill the sky with them, overwhelm your enemy even if his fewer planes have better performance/firepower. Of course in the case of the Yak 3 it was so aerobatic that it could compete on even terms without numerical superiority. ditto for La7.


----------



## bada (May 26, 2008)

thanks claidmore!

Knowing the right numbers is important for me.

Maybe i had the yak3 vk107 in my mind...miss again 

anyway on the picture above (4spits) i see the RB167 but the first one seems to be RS159, it doesn't exist in my list (no RS serials)

otherwise, it funny to know the story of the planes you see on picture:

RB167	
MU 20-5-44
3501SU 1-7-44
310S 2-8-44
610S 'DW-E' 14-12-44 
Hit by flak Munster FTR 26-1-45 (SoC)

and the metal-one:
NH803	type:FRXIV builder:CHA engine:G65
6MU 13-3-45
76MU 17-9-45
Ocean Viceroy 24-9-45 (transport ship)
India 30-10-45
ACSEA 29-11-45
9RIAF SOC 26-6-47


----------



## Vincenzo (May 26, 2008)

in april 1945 there were only seven squadron of spitfire XIV, and some of them in re equip (2nd, 41st, 268th, 350th, 402nd, 414th, 430th)


----------



## Waynos (May 26, 2008)

Hey Bada, that's great info. Could you do the same for the other two in the pic with readable serials?

They are RB159 (not RS, its just a trick of the light) and RB150. I can't make out the one at the back but I think it may be RB155.


----------



## Mitya (May 26, 2008)

Kurfürst said:


> Hi Mitya,
> 
> Do you have information on La 7 and Yak 3 montly production, how many was issued to frontline fighter regiments etc ?
> 
> ...



Wait it is not a lot of. The translator does not work for me.
All will be


----------



## Mitya (May 26, 2008)

Ramirezzz said:


> Тезка, не сочти за грубость, но посмотри сначала в книжки, прежде чем гыгыкать 8)


Я не так перевел!!! Типа соррии... Я не на то умножил!!! У меня вышло примерно 570 км/ч. Почему я и удивился. Надо было на 1,609,а я что-то не то сделал...
Вот скачал тут кое-что по ла-7 как раз. выложу. А эти данные у первых серий ла-7. Последующие, насколько я знаю, выдавали больше.
Тезка, а ты английский хорошо знаешь? Может я тебе дам перевести, что напишу, а то я в переводчик загоняю и... Результат на лицо.


----------



## Hunter368 (May 26, 2008)

English????????????????


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 26, 2008)

Mitya there is a section for people who do not wish to post in english.

In the main forums please use english, this is an english speaking forum.


----------



## bada (May 26, 2008)

Waynos said:


> Hey Bada, that's great info. Could you do the same for the other two in the pic with readable serials?
> 
> They are RB159 (not RS, its just a trick of the light) and RB150. I can't make out the one at the back but I think it may be RB155.




Of course, with great pleasure!

RB159	
FF 30-12-43 (first flight)
33MU 1-1-44 (maintenance unit)
610S 'DW-D' 17-2-44 
DeH 'Gem' mods 4-6-44 (DeHavilland= certainly slight upgrade or maintenance)
610S crashed out of fuel Moldeghem Belgium CAC 20-1-45 (dammaged category C)
350S 15-2-45 
CB ops 23-2-45 (Dammaged Category B in operation)
151RU ??/??/?? (Repair unit)
41S 26-4-45
416S 20-9-45 
ASTH 21-11-45 (air service trainning= maintenance unit) 
sold scrap H.Bath 27-10-49

RB150
FF 29-11-43 
33MU 2-12-43 
610S 1-1-44 
FAAC 16-2-44 (fatal air accident category C) 
DeH 'Gem' mods 6-4-44 (DeHavilland= slight upgrade or in this case more probably repair)
610S 'DW-A' Missing after entering cloud 15m SW of Boulogne 30-8-44 W/O J J D Bonfield killed = SOC (struck of Charge)

the last one seems to not compute: never flew for the 610sq
RB155
FF 18-12-43 
39MU 24-12-43 
DeH 23-8-44 
350S 'MN-O' 19-4-45
FAAC 21-9-45 
412RSU RNethAF
SoTT 31-7-47

You can find each frame's history on this site:

de Havilland - Main , i consider it as the spit bible! Never else saw such great compiled data!


----------



## Waynos (May 26, 2008)

Thanks for that! I must have guessed wrong on the last one. It is interesting to see what became of the planes in my pics


----------



## claidemore (May 26, 2008)

Russian translators are very sensitve to font. 
Sometimes they work, sometimes they dont. I have better luck translating in small batches of text, rather than entire web pages.


----------



## Waynos (May 26, 2008)

Thanks for the link, I think it must be this one;

RB170
EA G65 39MU 17-3-44 
610S 'DW-G' 11-4-44 
AST 14-4-44 nea 26-2-51 
to 6843M 29-5-51


----------



## SDA0013 (May 27, 2008)

claidemore said:


> Production for the Yak 3, 4004 in 1944, 596 in 1945 (I think we can assume most of them pre-VE day, production would be scaled back after), 48 in 1946.



It is a mistake. 
In 1944 have constructed less than 3424 Yak-3.
Production in 1944:
2718 Yak-1 and Yak-3 (a factory № 292);
706 Lagg-3 and Yak-3 (a factory № 31);

Production in 1945:
1559 Yak-3 with gun SHVAK and 2 machine guns BS (a factory № 292);
359 Yak-3 with three guns B-20 (a factory № 292); 
462 Yak-3 with gun SHVAK and 2 machine guns BS (a factory № 31);

All planes with engine VK-105PF2.


Data from Ivan Rodionov's chronology (in Russian).

http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/economics/staff/faculty/harrison/aviaprom/ver6/1945.doc

http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/economics/staff/faculty/harrison/aviaprom/ver6/1946.doc


----------



## claidemore (May 27, 2008)

Thanks for the correction on the Yak 3 production numbers SDA0013. 

I suspect the number I got of 4004 is for Yak 3 with 20mm and 2x12.7 production, so called "1944" model some of which were made in 1945.


----------



## bada (May 27, 2008)

Hey Sda0013

do you have the monthly production numbers of the yak3?
or maybe, even the squadrons attributions dates and rates?


----------



## SDA0013 (May 31, 2008)

bada said:


> Hey Sda0013
> 
> do you have the monthly production numbers of the yak3?
> or maybe, even the squadrons attributions dates and rates?



No, I've only reports on annual aircrafts manufacture by various factories.


----------



## Vincenzo (May 31, 2008)

SDA0013 said:


> No, I've only reports on annual aircrafts manufacture by various factories.



various is all factories or not? so this is not the annual production maybe high of that indicated


----------



## Mitya (May 31, 2008)

claidemore said:


> Just did a brief comparison of speeds of La7 and Spitfire XIV.
> Sea level, La7 is 370 mph, XIV is 360, 10 mph advantage for La7.
> 3000 meters (10,000 ft), La7 is 396 mph, XIV is 405 mph, Spitfire is 9 mph faster already. At 20,000 ft the La7 is doing 418 mph, the Spitfire 424 mph, not much difference there. Above that the La7 gets slower the Spit gets faster.
> 
> ...


La-7 (s/n 452132-76):
0-616 km/h; 24,2 m/s
1000-639 km/h; 24,2 m/s
2000-661; 20
2200-666; -
3000-657; 18,6
4000-645; 15,0
5000-651; 15,0
6000-672; 12,7

Spit-14 (Griffon-65 18lb 8500 lb {spitfireperfomance.org})
0-579 km/h
1000-602
2000-624
3000-647
4000-671
5000-668
6000-668
7000 m-684 km/h
Climb
0-23,89 m/s
1219 m - 23,5
2438-23,36
3658-20,8
4877-19,0
6096-18,8
7315-16,77

Spit-14 (21lb)
0-595km/h; 25,92 m/s
1219 - 627; 24,9
2438- 656; 24,38
3658- 670; 20,83
4877- 668; 20,75
6096- 695; 20,32
7315- 722; 16,77

Only you overlook, that max characteristics are removed under certain conditions: precisely to maintain height, revolutions, etc. Above I resulted figure of characteristics La-7 and СпитфайраSpit (we shall pay attention, that at Spit there are 5 minutes a forcing, and at La-7 - 10), resulted opinion of pilots which flied both on La-7, and on Spit. Once again I shall tell. It is impossible to compare machines which intended for different tasks! Spit it is a fighter - interceptor, and La-7 is a front fighter. Sleeps could not flying in those conditions in which it was necessary to operate Yak and La. Sleeps could not fly on any grades of gasoline. The good plane sleeps. I do not argue. But. Why Johnson (I read his memoirs. It to translators questions then) marked, that at Spit there are 2 pluss: a bend and a wide ascending spiral. All pluss and minuses Spit consist in a wing. How many it has been made within war Spit and compare it to quantity made Yak, for example. Adaptability to manufacture. You look at the maximal figures. And if in another way to have a look? Whether were quickly dispersed, as they conducted on the big speeds and other, other, other... We Compare a beater Spit, FW, Me, Yak and La? Them разгонные characteristics. What we here shall see? About Tempest. Yes. He шустро drove. Only you have overlooked to specify a resource of the motor at him. And the resource at him was, if I shall be mistaken will correct, 25 hours. I.e. the machine has made a pair of starts and it is time to change the motor... But figures very beautiful. Too most was and with Yak-9y. He flied for 700 km/h, but it at 3200 revolutions ВК-107. A resource - 25 of hours. Therefore in parts have entered restriction on revolutions - 2700 max, speed has fallen up to 672 km/h. The pilot could give out and 3200, but only after such flight it is necessary to change the motor... It as with P-39 in the USSR. At you they developed the put 100...150 hours, and at us 30. But here to you to choose or you Me and FW you force down, or a resource you develop. La-5 (not Ла-7!) With M-71 has given out 672 km/h. But it have simply taken and have put on him this motor. After recommendations ЦАГИ and he could give out improvements of aerodynamics and 720 km/h. Only M-71 had a resource of 25 hours which did not suit the Soviet Air Forces. Sabre on Темпесте him sufficed yours for some reason... And for us 25 hours appeared not allowable size. So...

2 Soren: La-5FN have automatic  Except for doors engine. (on the Yak-3, Yak-9M - automat)



Kurfürst said:


> Hi Mitya,
> Do you have information on La 7 and Yak 3 montly production, how many was issued to frontline fighter regiments etc ?
> Thanks in advance,
> KF


Yes. For example, Yak-3 is put on the army - 1340. Lost- 90. La-7 - 1044; lost-62. This is 1944. 
If you want more in detail on shelfs it is possible to make.


----------



## Fireaxe888 (Apr 18, 2009)

Soviet planes in WW2 were designed for low altitude speed and maneuverability.That's because the tactical environment of the Eastern Front mostly involved flying below 3000 metres(10000 ft)At typical Eastern Front conditions the Yak wins hands down-it's extremely light and has great maneuverability.


----------



## Soren (Apr 18, 2009)

I believe the Bf-109 K-4 to be superior to any Yak or Lavochkin fighter below 3000m. The K-4 was slicker, featured a lot more power and was at least as maneuverable. Above 3000m the Spitfire takes over them both.


----------



## wwii:)aircraft (Feb 12, 2010)

im going to have to go with the spitfire. Against the k4 she was more maneuverable and had better low altitude performance. Against the la7 and yak3 she was faster, could easily out climb them, and was maneuverable enough to engage them in a turning fight.


----------



## Milosh (Feb 12, 2010)

wwii:)aircraft said:


> im going to have to go with the spitfire. Against the k4 she was more maneuverable and had better low altitude performance. Against the la7 and yak3 she was faster, could easily out climb them, and was maneuverable enough to engage them in a turning fight.



Wasn't it a Yak 3 that flew circles around a Spit XIV in a mock dogfight in Italy?


----------



## tomo pauk (Feb 12, 2010)

Guess only Zero is better vs. Yak-3 in a turning fight.

Spit is my bird here. Exceptional performance, no vices.


----------



## vinnye (Oct 5, 2012)

Spitfire xiv for me. Superb engine, good firepower and visibility and can turn and climb pretty well. I believe that the pilot would be able to choose his terms of combat or react to nullify an attack by an opponent. Sounds like a bird to fly to me.


----------



## ShVAK (Oct 5, 2012)

As much as I like the Russian fighters (and I would give it to the La-7 over the Yak-3) the Spit XIV is the best overall, and could match or beat anything in WWII. 

If I wanted a straight-up interceptor for attacking bombers the K-4 would be the optimum. That or an Me 262.


----------



## CobberKane (Oct 7, 2012)

The big shortcoming of the Soviet fighters is their relative lack of performance above 20,000ft. From the point of view of their designers this was a non-issue because the great majority of combat on the Eastern front took place below this altitude, so it makes sense that the Yak-3 and La-7 should be optimised accordingly. None the less, the Spitfire XIV could fight effectively both below and above 20,000ft, which would have to be a consideration.
Soviet fighters were also built to Stalin’s idea that ‘quantity is its own quality’; they weren’t designed to last because the factories were pumping out so many fighters it was easier to just write one off and jump in a new one. Eric Brown said the La-7 had superb performance and handling, but he didn’t appreciate the Soviet philosophy of producing engines that would last only twenty five hours and left the factory sounding as if they had only one hour to go. But it was a design philosophy that worked for the situation the Soviets were in and not really a weakness in the aircraft as such. 
Where the Soviet fighters did fall down was in the quality of control systems, gun-sights and the like. In late war British, US and German aircraft, control systems were increasingly automated and computing gun-sights were introduced, where-as the Soviet pilot still had to attend to most of the engine management input manually while relying on a sighting system at least a generation less advanced.
So for my money it’s a choice between the Bf109 K-4 and the Spitfire XIV, and of the two the Spit gets it. The K-4 just pushed the development potential of the 109 that much too far; a beast of an aircraft and a beast to fly. The XIV was no Tiger-Moth to be sure, but from all accounts it retained much of the benign flying characteristics of the preceding marks. At the end of the day I guess a fighter pilot spends enough time worrying whether the enemies planes are going to kill him without having to think the same thing of his own…


----------



## spicmart (Oct 8, 2012)

How about the Fw 190D thrown in here? 
While inferior to the Yak-3 in horizontal and vertical manoeuvering it does climb better and is faster. Don't know how much the advantage is against the La-7.
High speed rolling ability should go to the Dora I guess (not sure). 
AFAIR all three birds have positive kill/loss-ratio against their opponents.
The later Doras were also excellent at high altitude.


----------



## drgondog (Oct 13, 2012)

spicmart said:


> How about the Fw 190D thrown in here?
> While inferior to the Yak-3 in horizontal and vertical manoeuvering it does climb better and is faster. Don't know how much the advantage is against the La-7.
> High speed rolling ability should go to the Dora I guess (not sure).
> AFAIR all three birds have positive kill/loss-ratio against their opponents.
> The later Doras were also excellent at high altitude.



Curious regarding sources re: FW 190D having favorable kill/loss ratio against any Allied fighter?


----------



## spicmart (Oct 13, 2012)

drgondog said:


> Curious regarding sources re: FW 190D having favorable kill/loss ratio against any Allied fighter?



Sorry, I expressed it wrongly: did not mean any Allied fighter or theatre just the eastern front.
I think Urbanke wrote that since the beginning of the battle for Berlin until ? the Doras scored 115 kills (all aircraft) with a loss of 5 of their own.
Similar goes for Yak-3 and La-7 (have to look for the sources).


----------



## SPEKTRE76 (Oct 14, 2012)

vinnye said:


> Spitfire xiv for me. Superb engine, good firepower and visibility and can turn and climb pretty well. I believe that the pilot would be able to choose his terms of combat or react to nullify an attack by an opponent. Sounds like a bird to fly to me.




Here's a Spit to brighten your day (I do love the Bf-109 as well but I havent created one yet.)

"Training Day" - The students were rudely interupted by some pissed off Luftwaffe!


----------



## alejandro_ (Oct 15, 2012)

> I think Urbanke wrote that since the beginning of the battle for Berlin until ? the Doras scored 115 kills (all aircraft) with a loss of 5 of their own.
> Similar goes for Yak-3 and La-7 (have to look for the sources).



I am reading his book on the D-9 and I have not seen any information on such ratio. Doras were more sucessful against VVS -according to German pilots- but nowhere near to those statistics.


----------



## claidemore (Oct 15, 2012)

CobberKane said:


> So for my money it’s a choice between the Bf109 K-4 and the Spitfire XIV, and of the two the Spit gets it. The K-4 just pushed the development potential of the 109 that much too far; a beast of an aircraft and a beast to fly. The XIV was no Tiger-Moth to be sure, but from all accounts it retained much of the benign flying characteristics of the preceding marks. At the end of the day I guess a fighter pilot spends enough time worrying whether the enemies planes are going to kill him without having to think the same thing of his own…



Hate to play the devils advocate, but if Soren were here he would jump all over the statement about the K4 being a beast to fly!  His argument would be that the K4 had a more powerful engine, was lighter, more aerodynamic, and handled more like a G2 or F4 than a G6 or the other itermediary models. He would argue, and I would agree, that the K4 was not a 109 developed too far, but developed as far as it could go, ie the ultimate 109. 
I have read accounts of some Spitfire pilots being scared of the Mk XIV, (because of the extremely powerful engine). 
That being said, the MkXIV would be my number one choice for top late war high perf fighter, bar none.


----------



## GregP (Oct 15, 2012)

I went back and read the first post. I had to laugh. Soren rated the visibility as good from the cockpit! I guess he never sat on one ... it isn't. It's good to the side and just OK to the front, but you can't see much of anything forward and to the left or right. Pretty abysmal there.

I went with teh Spitfire XIV because we had to choose one from sea level to 30,000 feet, and there were only four choices. The Me 109K wasn't a great foghter by mid-to-late 1944, and I'd take the La-7 at 15,000 feet and below and the Spitifire XIV at 15,000 feet and above ... but we were asked to choose one. I picked for the ETO in 1944 and later. If I were on the Russian front, it would be the La-7 all the way. In the PTO, I'd probably pick the Yak-3.

I would not pick the Me 109K ever since, by the time the K model was oeprational, the Me 109 was obsolescent and in decline. The Me 109 would be a good choice in 1939 - 1941, but not after about mid 1942. But if you wanrted to pick for 1939 - 1941, none of tehse variants were yet operational.


----------



## drgondog (Oct 15, 2012)

claidemore said:


> Hate to play the devils advocate, but if Soren were here he would jump all over the statement about the K4 being a beast to fly!  His argument would be that the K4 had a more powerful engine, was lighter, more aerodynamic, and handled more like a G2 or F4 than a G6 or the other itermediary models. He would argue, and I would agree, that the K4 was not a 109 developed too far, but developed as far as it could go, ie the ultimate 109.
> I have read accounts of some Spitfire pilots being scared of the Mk XIV, (because of the extremely powerful engine).
> That being said, the MkXIV would be my number one choice for top late war high perf fighter, bar none.



I had this debate with Soren and quoted Uffr Georg Genth III./JG26 who preferred the G-10 over the K-4 citing "unnatural sensitivity" at altitudes above 28,000 feet making formation flying difficult. Pg 379 "The JG26 War Diary" by Caldwell.

I have read many accounts of German fighter pilots preferring the G-10 as a dogfighter over the K-4. In other words Soren's argument would have been contradicted by the vets that flew it.


----------



## drgondog (Oct 15, 2012)

"I think Urbanke wrote that since the beginning of the battle for Berlin until ? the Doras scored 115 kills (all aircraft) with a loss of 5 of their own.
Similar goes for Yak-3 and La-7 (have to look for the sources)."

The reference must mean Fw 190D vs VVS. Against the 355th FG alone, the ratio of D-9's credited destroyed in the air vs Mustangs lost was 9:2 with oth losses occurring when 190D's bounced the 355th near the deck from cloud cover. Having said that the 355th overall ratio against the 190A (in Mustangs) was 8:1 and slightly over 9:1 vs 109s.

The 190D was a fine airplane but, certainly against the West, they were confronted by both superior numbers of aircraft and skilled fighter pilots - not a great formula for success.


----------



## spicmart (Oct 15, 2012)

drgondog said:


> "I think Urbanke wrote that since the beginning of the battle for Berlin until ? the Doras scored 115 kills (all aircraft) with a loss of 5 of their own.
> Similar goes for Yak-3 and La-7 (have to look for the sources)."
> 
> The reference must mean Fw 190D vs VVS. Against the 355th FG alone, the ratio of D-9's credited destroyed in the air vs Mustangs lost was 9:2 with oth losses occurring when 190D's bounced the 355th near the deck from cloud cover. Having said that the 355th overall ratio against the 190A (in Mustangs) was 8:1 and slightly over 9:1 vs 109s.
> ...



This ratio I have read in one book about the dora that I have if not in Urbankes book. Can't find it right now, probably in the attic. 
I am sceptical about this number, too. It's way too high to put it mildly.


----------



## Vincenzo (Oct 15, 2012)

GregP said:


> The Me 109 would be a good choice in 1939 - 1941, but not after about mid 1942.



I'm curious, so what were the superiour fighters (comparating to a Gustav) in operation in the 2nd half of '42?


----------



## wuzak (Oct 15, 2012)

Vincenzo said:


> I'm curious, so what were the superiour fighters (comparating to a Gustav) in operation in the 2nd half of '42?



Spitfire IX?
Fw 190A?


----------



## GregP (Oct 15, 2012)

Hi Vicenzo,

Let’s see, Spitfire IX, P-40E below 16,000 feet in early to mid 1942, Fw 190A through A-4, the F4U Corsair COULD have been introduced earlier, but wasn’t until December 1942 and it was better by a lot if a bit later than my posted date, Grumman F6F Hellcat, Hawker Typhoon, Lavochkin La-5, martin Baker MB-3, Mitsubishi A6M5 Model 52, Mitsubishi J2M-3, Nakajima Ki-44 IIb, the P-51A would be a tough competitor in 1942, the Polikarpov I-16 Type 24 in cold snowy conditions since the Me 109 wopuld be grounded most of the time, the P-47C, and Yakovlev Yak-9 below 18,000 feet (which is wehre they fought on the Russian front).

At the time, the Me 109F was competitive, but the Me 109G was a backward step in my opinion. Yours may differ, but that’s OK, I still have my opinion. Past the me 109F, I am not fond of the Me 109 series of aircraft. There were too many high-speed faults, too many low speed faults including asymmetrically-opening slats and the landing gear issues, poor visibility, no range, and it was manually started.

As I said, just my opinion after talking with pilots who have flown MANY warbirds including the Me 109. I agree the 109 was employed effectively, but we’re talking about direct comparisons of aircraft, not pilots. The Germans HAD some great pilots. Think how much more they might have done with a better fighter aircraft.


----------



## wuzak (Oct 15, 2012)

Martin Baker MB-3?

Wan't even close to production.


----------



## GregP (Oct 16, 2012)

Nope, but it flew and was an airframe in contention. After the 109F I simply do NOT like the Me 109 series.

Your opinion may differ and that is OK. Mine is fixed by virtue of research and talking with active pilots of warbirds and WWII pilots of warbirds. It is what it is. I really like the Me 109, but not after mid-1942 ... against any competent opponent. Surprise is a different matter and the 109 was good at ambush by virtue of the pilots, not the airframe. One-on-one with an even break, it was past its prime. Again, just my opinion.

Give Hartmann a Piper Cub with two bazookas under the wings and he could probably shoot down most opponents. But give him another more competent mount than his trusty Me 109 and he would have been even better ... with a bit of practice in the new mount ... even though he didn't like the Fw 190. Given the vast difference in strengths and flying characteristics, it would only be the likely case. Given a plane with characteristics more similar to the Me 109, but with the faults corrected (see above list), he might very well have changed his mind.

I can't say and nobody else can either. Again, just my opinion, not an established fact.


----------



## Jabberwocky (Oct 16, 2012)

GregP said:


> Hi Vicenzo,
> 
> Let’s see, Spitfire IX, P-40E below 16,000 feet in early to mid 1942, Fw 190A through A-4, the F4U Corsair COULD have been introduced earlier, but wasn’t until December 1942 and it was better by a lot if a bit later than my posted date, Grumman F6F Hellcat, Hawker Typhoon, Lavochkin La-5, martin Baker MB-3, Mitsubishi A6M5 Model 52, Mitsubishi J2M-3, Nakajima Ki-44 IIb, the P-51A would be a tough competitor in 1942, the Polikarpov I-16 Type 24 in cold snowy conditions since the Me 109 wopuld be grounded most of the time, the P-47C, and Yakovlev Yak-9 below 18,000 feet (which is wehre they fought on the Russian front).




Greg, most of those you list weren't operational in the second half of 1942:

F6F, F4U (which you've already acknowledged), all three of the Japanese types you've listed and the P-47C had all yet to see combat service.

I'd consider the Yak-9 and the La-5 a match for the 109G, but only under 15,000 ft. P-51A was definitely a better fighter, but only below about 12,000 ft. Later La-5s i'd consider better than the 109Gs, but only in 1943/1944.

Typhoon (as much as I love it) was not a better fighter than the 109, being hamstrung by its slow rate of roll and its mediocre altitude performance.

Spitfire F IX was a match for the 109G, but not superior until the LF IX debuted in 1943, with the Merlin 63/66 engines with an extra 155 hp. 

P-40E I'd consider widely outclassed by the 109G. 




> At the time, the Me 109F was competitive, but the Me 109G was a backward step in my opinion. Yours may differ, but that’s OK, I still have my opinion. Past the me 109F, I am not fond of the Me 109 series of aircraft. There were too many high-speed faults, too many low speed faults including asymmetrically-opening slats and the landing gear issues, poor visibility, no range, and it was manually started.
> 
> As I said, just my opinion after talking with pilots who have flown MANY warbirds including the Me 109. I agree the 109 was employed effectively, but we’re talking about direct comparisons of aircraft, not pilots. The Germans HAD some great pilots. Think how much more they might have done with a better fighter aircraft.



Most interviews I've read don't consider the 109G a retrograde step until the G6 appeared.


----------



## alejandro_ (Oct 16, 2012)

> even though he didn't like the Fw 190.



Do you have more details? he did try the Me-262 but he wanted to stay with JG52.


----------



## Vincenzo (Oct 16, 2012)

for brevity and for my bad english i take Jabberwocky reply as my reply


----------



## stona (Oct 16, 2012)

wuzak said:


> Martin Baker MB-3?
> 
> Wan't even close to production.



Indeed. Only one prototype (R2492) flew and only three times. On the third flight Val Baker was killed in a crash of this prototype,on 12 Aug 1942. With his death the MB.3 was a dead duck. Martin Baker had only just started construction of the second (of three proposed) prototypes and work seems to have stopped immiediately.

It never even made it to the A+AEE so any assessment of its flying qualities is more or less conjecture based on hearsay and the comments made by Baker after the first two flights,both of which were curtailed due to the Napier Sabre II engine overheating.

James Martin wrote that the top speed "appeared to be 430 mph at 20,000 feet" and that Baker had flown it "with hands and feet off."

Baker did not die in vain. Aircrew safety became a priority for James Martin,culminating in his development of the ejection seats still manufactured by the company today. They have saved countless lives.

Steve


----------



## GregP (Oct 17, 2012)

Let's just say I consider ALL the planes on my list to be very competitive with the Me 109G and later variants. The g and latyer variants were a LOT heavier and had the same wing area, so they were much more heavily loaded. It made for an unfriendly aircraft to the pilot and limited combat options.

The P-40E is a good candidate. It rolls MUCH better at combat speed, had decent armament, is longer ranged, and at or below 16,000 feet or so would be a VERY bad encounter for the Me 109G. Ask most German Me 109G pilots in North Africa ... they know ... so do the P-40E pilots.

Hey, you might not agree, but this is simply my opinion. I will not engage in a heated debate or flame war, I simply don't like the Me 109G and later variants ... the F and before, yes, in spades. Too many faults and too few strengths on the later planes. 

Oh yeah, we HAVE one and I still think that way. Ours is a G-6 ... it is historic, but is not currently flyable (could be easily ... but we would need to do an annual and get it airworthy) ... and nobody wants to make it that way unless we get another engine. We have a policy of not flying any warbirds that we don't have at least two engines for. When they break, you STILL have to fix 'em and fly 'em home! If we find another DB engine for the G-6 at a decent price, we'll probably make it flyable. Otherwise, it exists and is in very good shape.

Just FYI, MiG-15 tires fit just fine on our new replica Aluminum wheels! No more Magnesium!

We are working on our Hispano Ha.1112 Buchon to make IT flyable because we have Merlins. DB's are rare and expensive! So are genuine German VDM propellers ... and small but critical parts ... as you might expect after this long since WWII. With the Ha.1112 we currently have a problem with the main gear down locks. We need the little round pieces that fit into the downlock ... and can't find them at this time. But we will. It will be fitted with a 3-blade prop to emulate the Me 109 instead of the Ha.1112, and will be painted in German colors.


----------



## Tante Ju (Oct 17, 2012)

I have once read a memoir by a P-40 pilot, he flew mock combat in Afrika against captured 109G... he was pretty firm that the P-40 had no chance whatsoever (provided the 109's pilot was not making some huge error).


----------



## cherry blossom (Oct 17, 2012)

Tante Ju said:


> I have once read a memoir by a P-40 pilot, he flew mock combat in Afrika against captured 109G... he was pretty firm that the P-40 had no chance whatsoever (provided the 109's pilot was not making some huge error).


This is quoted by Glider at http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/aviation/bf-109-vs-p-40-a-16213-24.html. The only problem is that I am not sure if Gibbs should be Gibbes


----------



## drgondog (Oct 17, 2012)

Tante Ju said:


> I have once read a memoir by a P-40 pilot, he flew mock combat in Afrika against captured 109G... he was pretty firm that the P-40 had no chance whatsoever (provided the 109's pilot was not making some huge error).



A friend of my father John Bradley 33FG was credited with two Ju 87s and 3-0-2 Me 109s and was shot down himself (but evaded) by a 109. He flew the P-40L for his scores but was of the opinion that the P-40 fared very well in the horizontal with a better roll rate and initial turn but must stay out of the vertical unless attacking from superior altitude. The P-40E May have been a better turner since it was light, but fighting in the horizontal for a P-40 was essentially a defensive situation for it.


----------



## Vincenzo (Oct 17, 2012)

The P-40E is heavily inferior to a Gustav (or to a Friedrich) it has good rolling but has not the power for being a competitive fighter the V-1710-39 has 1150 hp to 11,800 feet (oh yes maybe overboosted to lower altitude so could give more power) the DB 605A has 1250 ps to 19,000 feet and the Gustav (early) weight around 20% less of P-40E. Actually the P-40 go bad result vs 109 in Africa. The weaponry is not superiour, the 6 wings .50 had convergency issue so out of area of convergency is hard hit anything the gun and the lmg of Gustav had not this problem (with weapons in same position i'm agree that 6 .50 were more powerfull of 109 trio).


----------



## drgondog (Oct 17, 2012)

Vincenzo said:


> The P-40E is heavily inferior to a Gustav (or to a Friedrich) it has good rolling but has not the power for being a competitive fighter the V-1710-39 has 1150 hp to 11,800 feet (oh yes maybe overboosted to lower altitude so could give more power) the DB 605A has 1250 ps to 19,000 feet and the Gustav (early) weight around 20% less of P-40E. Actually the P-40 go bad result vs 109 in Africa. The weaponry is not superiour, the 6 wings .50 had convergency issue so out of area of convergency is hard hit anything the gun and the lmg of Gustav had not this problem (with weapons in same position i'm agree that 6 .50 were more powerfull of 109 trio).



I basically agree that 109 is superior to E (or N) which is why USAAF switched to P-47/51 from P-40's in MTO. 

Convergence however, isn't an issue - particularly inside 200 meters wher the vast majority of victory credits are made. The P-51B/C had only 2/3 of the firepower of the P-40E through N but had a far better record against the 109, despite gun jams... and the P-40 could out turn the 51


----------



## GregP (Oct 17, 2012)

I largely agree with you Drgondog. I never said the P-40E was superior to the Me 109G. I said I think it was better below its critical altitude of around 16,000 feet or so. Above that, the Me 109G was definitey better ... as long as the Me 109G fuel held out, after that the P-40E was better by virtue of still being in the air and ready to fight.


----------



## CobberKane (Oct 17, 2012)

GregP said:


> I largely agree with you Drgondog. I never said the P-40E was superior to the Me 109G. I said I think it was better below its critical altitude of around 16,000 feet or so. Above that, the Me 109G was definitey better ... as long as the Me 109G fuel held out, after that the P-40E was better by virtue of still being in the air and ready to fight.


 
I have a soft spot for the P40 but I think the assertion that it was in the top rank in 1942 at any altitude might be a bit optimistic. This was a period that included the Spitfire IX, Fw109A and La-5, after all. At the end of the day a P-40 just gave away too much power to machines like these to compete on even terms. Sure, a P40 might retain specific advantages like the ability to out-turn a 109G, but unless the 109 pilot is silly enough to play that game the advantage is only useful defensively. Even at its optimum altitude of 15000 ft or so the P40 pilot would be unable to prevent properly flown example of any of the aircraft aabove from climbing away or extending pretty much at will - effectively ceding the initiative.


----------



## Shortround6 (Oct 17, 2012)

The optimum altitude of a P-40 may be well below 15,000ft. One test shows that in climb a test P-40K loaded to act like a P-40N could hold 57 in MAP (1480hp) to 8,000ft. it could hold 50.5in MAP (1300hp) to 10,400ft but was down to 1090hp at 15,000ft. This for a late model engine with the 9.60 gear supercharger gear. Altitude for high speed in level flight is several thousand feet higher. The P-40 needs a fair amount of the WEP to really be competitive. The Military power rating isn't enough with the P-40s weight.


----------



## GregP (Oct 18, 2012)

The P-40 was a very good fighter at low altitude. That's all I was saying. At anything like higher altitude, it was outclassed due to a single stage, single speed supercharger. But it was a tough customer for an Me 109G at 10,000 feet with anything like equal pilot ability and a roughly equal starting position. At higher altitude, the Me 109G and later were definitey superior ... at low atitude, they were in a fight that was not a forgone conclusion.


----------



## CobberKane (Oct 18, 2012)

GregP said:


> The P-40 was a very good fighter at low altitude. That's all I was saying. At anything like higher altitude, it was outclassed due to a single stage, single speed supercharger. But it was a tough customer for an Me 109G at 10,000 feet with anything like equal pilot ability and a roughly equal starting position. At higher altitude, the Me 109G and later were definitey superior ... at low atitude, they were in a fight that was not a forgone conclusion.



They certainly gave stirling service, and plenty of 'superior' fighters went down to P40s, for sure. If a 109 pilot was silly enough to let his speed drop he could no doubt easily get himself shot down before being able to climb or spped away, as happened many times. 
I guess, as always most of it would come down to who saw the other first. If it was the 109 he should be able to climb and dictate the fight on the vertical plane. If it was the P40, and he managed to close before the 109 guy could juice it up, things would be much more even.
I think the only original 109G flying for a long time was one the RAF recovered from the desert - after being shot down by a P40


----------



## Vincenzo (Oct 18, 2012)

Greg you writed "The Me 109 would be a good choice in 1939 - 1941, but not after about mid 1942" so i've ask "what were the superiour fighters (comparating to a Gustav) in operation in the 2nd half of '42?" you nominated P-40E below 16k, 190A-4, Corsair (if introduced earlier but was not introduced earlier), Hellcat, Typhoon, La-5, MB-3, A6M5-52, J2M-3, Ki-44IIb, P-51A, I-16 type 24, P-47C, Yak-9 below 18k.
Corsair, Hellcat, A6M-5-52, J2M-3, Ki-44II, P-47C are all false reply because they were not operational. also the I-16 type 24 is false reply because is not more a operational fighter in the 2nd semester of '42. The MB-3 is a prototype with 1st flight in august '42 so no hope to see it in use in 42. Typhoon is a low level fighter and i don't see as the superiour fighter (it has powerfull engine but is also heavy) also at low level (sure has larger firepower) and had trouble for most of 2nd semster. The La-5 (is not FN for '42) sure a power for the manovring but is very slow for the 42 (580/590 km/h at FTH), the Yak-9 came in late '42 again is slow at FTH but both are good a low level.
Back to P-40E, placing even, that can get 1480hp to 8k this around 15% more that can get the 109 from a 605A (and for 605 is 30' power) still the P-40E weight 20% more of 109G-2 so also at low level the P-40E is surely a good competitor but is not a superior fighter. Sure at 15k is not a good competitor.
imo the only competitor all altitude of Gustav in 2nd semester '42 is Spitfire IX (and of this average there were 5 squadrons)


----------



## GregP (Oct 18, 2012)

As always, Vincenzo, you have your opinion and I have mine, and ... shock ... they aren't the same. I suppose we just find it hard to agree, but that's OK. Cheers.


----------



## Vincenzo (Oct 18, 2012)

the point you use false explanations for your opinion. opinion: the 109 is not good from mid '42, explanation: there were all this fighters were better, but most of those fighters were not there in mid '42 and those that were are good only at low level. So the opinion is distorted. you don't like 109 with 605 ok, but you can not write is obsolete when data show was one of best fighter of 1942.


----------



## GregP (Oct 18, 2012)

Funny, it's your complaining that sounds false to me. Why don't you just let it go and agree to disagree? You seem to want to comvimce ME that your opinion is correct each and every time ours differ and I seem to be unable to post almost anything you don't disagree with, so ... in order to push that agenda along, I'll not spar with you anymore.

You are very welcome to your opinions and I'll stick with mine. Cheers to you, really. Be happy. If you have a civil question or request, I'll answer.

I still enjoy working on WWII aircraft and flying in them occasionally, and building Allisons regardless. If it makes you any happier, we'd like to find an Italian warbird for the museum, but they are a bit scarce these days. I think most of the good ones are in Italian museums ... at least you get to see them up close! Enjoy. If you ever get to southern California and agree to be civil, look me up at the Planes of Fame in Chino some Saturday and I'll show you around.


----------



## CobberKane (Oct 18, 2012)

Jeez, youse guys...!

I think you could make a good case for the Spit IX being superior to the 109G, or at least I seem to recall that was the conclusion of the RAE when the flew them against each other. Others were undoubtedly better in certain areas or situations, but perhaps not over all. I think suggestiong the I-16 was in the running is drawing a very long bow, though.
Greg, if you ever get to New Zealand check out the Warbirds at Wanaka festival, the RNZAF musem and Peter Jacksons WW 1 aicraft museum in Blenheim. Apart from that the place is awful - crap scenery, no one speaks english and squashed hobbits all over the roads


----------



## Vincenzo (Oct 19, 2012)

GregP said:


> Funny, it's your complaining that sounds false to me. Why don't you just let it go and agree to disagree? You seem to want to comvimce ME that your opinion is correct each and every time ours differ and I seem to be unable to post almost anything you don't disagree with, so ... in order to push that agenda along, I'll not spar with you anymore.
> .



what my point is false that Corsair, Hellcat, Thunderbolt were not in operation in 2nd half of '42 or that Kittyhawk&Mustang&Soviets are low level fighters?


----------



## tomo pauk (Oct 19, 2012)

Since the debate from last 2 pages was centered around planes in service in 2nd half of 1942, the fact (not an opinion, but fact) is that neither Corsair, nor Hellcat, nor Thunderbolt are the conteders - they were not in flying in war zones in that time. Neither are the Japanes fighters Greg listed - again, a fact. The Typhoon's pilot in 1942 was in danger to be killed by it's own plane, and was hardly in position to threaten German opposition in 1942 above 15kft. Soviet fighters of 1942, ditto Japanese ones, were under-performers when compared with the top 3 (109, 190, Spit IX). Ditto against the P-38F from Aug 1942 (once the engines were cleared for 1325 HP). P-39 and -40, if we consider the altitudes from SL to 30000 ft, still come as 2nd class vs. the 3-4 from the top.
Again, facts, not opinions. So it's easy to agree with vincenzo.


----------



## Juha (Oct 19, 2012)

Spit XIV to me even if I like much the late La fighters, grat planes at low and mid altitudes. 109K had lots of common with Spit XIV, fast, especially higher up and very good climber.

On the 42 situation, 109G-2 was still very combatible, under 4km altitude there were a few planes that were faster than it, Fw 190A, early Mustangs and Hawker Typhoon but IMHO it was clearly better fighter than Warhawk, even if P-40 rolled and turned better, especially at low level. 109G was faster, climbed and accelerated better.

Juha


----------



## CobberKane (Oct 19, 2012)

Juha said:


> Spit XIV to me even if I like much the late La fighters, grat planes at low and mid altitudes. 109K had lots of common with Spit XIV, fast, especially higher up and very good climber.
> 
> On the 42 situation, 109G-2 was still very combatible, under 4km altitude there were a few planes that were faster than it, Fw 190A, early Mustangs and Hawker Typhoon but IMHO it was clearly better fighter than Warhawk, even if P-40 rolled and turned better, especially at low level. 109G was faster, climbed and accelerated better.
> 
> Juha



I agree, Juha. The advantages of the P40 - turn and roll - are most useful defensively. The advantages of the 109G - speed, climb - can be used to dictate the nature of the encounter. As the purpose of a fighter is to shoot down enemy aircraft first and foremost, I would contend that the 109G is clearly superior. Not to knock the P40 though, it was tough, easy to maintain in front line conditions and frequently got the better of the 109. Its one of my favourites, but you gotta be realistic!


----------



## Vincenzo (Oct 20, 2012)

tomo pauk said:


> Ditto against the P-38F from Aug 1942 (once the engines were cleared for 1325 HP).



For check

i remember (maybe wrong) that first P-38 w/o cooling trouble was the J, so the F also if the engin can give 1325 HP to 25k actually give around 100 hp less (and this would be true also for G)


----------



## tomo pauk (Oct 20, 2012)

Here is what the manual states:


----------



## Vincenzo (Oct 20, 2012)

see here http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/p-38/P-38G-1_42-12687_FS-M-19-1538-A.pdf


----------



## tomo pauk (Oct 21, 2012)

Yep, I've seen those reports. Interestingly, the P-38G makes 404 mph at 22600, on 1225 HP. 
From here, the P-38F makes 392 mph at 20000 ft, engine settings 3000 rpm and 47" (= 1325 HP?).
As for the table from the post #317, the critical altitudes should've been typed under the 'without ram', not 'with ram' title?

Anyway, my point is that a P-38 over-performs the P-40 of the same era by a wide margin. Even the P-38E is untouchable, making 387 mph with engine running at 3000 rpm, 40.5" MAP (=1100 HP), at 20000 ft.


----------



## alejandro_ (Jan 11, 2013)

When reading interviews with Lavochkin/Yakovlev you can see that all of them, when comparing their aircraft with Luftwaffe’s, point out the superior diving of the German models. Diving mainly depends on: 

- Weight of the aircraft.
- Aerodynamic profile.

It’s normal that the Fw-190 has a superior diving capability because it’s noticeably heavier, but Lavochkin’s weight is similar to Bf 109. Another reason could be the engine settings/pitch angle. German cockpits were more automatized when it came to engine handling. I had a discussion on this and it was pointed out that the pitch angle of the Bf 109 went up to 90°, while Lavochkin only went to 45°, thus the propeller acted like a brake. Can someone confirm/provide more detail?


----------



## vinnye (Jan 11, 2013)

My vote would be for the Spitfire XIV, followed by the 109 - which had poorer vision from the cockpit.
But, I would avoid low level dogfighting with any Soviet fighter!


----------



## tomo pauk (Jan 11, 2013)

alejandro_ said:


> When reading interviews with Lavochkin/Yakovlev you can see that all of them, when comparing their aircraft with Luftwaffe’s, point out the superior diving of the German models. Diving mainly depends on:
> 
> - Weight of the aircraft.
> - Aerodynamic profile.
> ...



Capability to perform a diving attck also depends on engine's capabilities. German fighter engines were far better (not just at) altitude than Soviet ones. So the Bf-109 was 'at home' when flying at 20000 ft, unlike the VVS oposition, that was at 15000 at their best. With altitude advantage, no wonder VVS pilots were likely to be at the receiving end of the diving attack.
A for the props, I'd like to learn more, too.


----------



## Aozora (Jan 11, 2013)

I dunno why but I read this thread from page 1 - lawdy, some people get passionate... Anyway conditions of poll - "Equal pilots at altitudes ranging from 0 - 30,000, feet which of these fighters is the overall best of the lot." 

First a comment on the figures given by "Soren"?

Messerschmittt Bf-109 K-4 specs:

Weight: 3,362 kg
Wing area: 16.15 m^2
Wing span: 9.92 m
Wing AR: 6.09
Wing TR: 14.2% to 11.35%
Wing Clmax: 1.70

Engine power: 1,975 HP
______________________
Lift loading: 122.4 kg/m^2
Span loading: 338.9 kg/m
Power loading: 1.70 kg/hp

Top speed: 719 km/h at alt, 609 km/h at SL
Max Climb rate: 5,000 + ft/min

But, according to this: (Hitchcock 1979)










Max emergency speed = 710 km/h @ 7,500 m (440 mph @ 24,750 ft) at S/L = 580 km/h (360 mph)

Climb rate without MW50 = 14.1 m/s (46.5 ft/sec) = 2,790 ft/min with MW50 = 18 m/s (59 ft/sec) = 3,543 ft/min maximum, so where does the 5,000+ ft/min come from? 

Supermarine Spitfire Mk. XIV specs:

Weight: 3,855 kg
Wing area: 22.48 m^2
Wing span: 11.23 m
Wing AR: 5.61
Wing TR: 12% to 9%
Wing Clmax: 1.36

Engine power: 2,235 HP
______________________
Lift loading: 126 kg/m^2
Span loading: 343.2 kg/m
Power loading: 1.72 kg/hp

Top speeds: 721 km/h at alt, 590 km/h at SL
Max climb rate: 4,800 + ft/min

According to Price (Trials aircraft)






Top speed = 446 mph = 718km/h @ 25,400 ft; 363 mph = 584 km/h @ S/L
Max climb rate S/L = 5,110 ft/min

Why bother with a poll when the figures upon which it is based are inaccurate? Where did the original "Fact Sheet" figures come from and was there ever any original, reliable documentation given to back them? Anyway, I voted Spitfire XIV.


----------



## parsifal (Jan 12, 2013)

you never met Soren. he was.....unique to put politely


----------



## Vincenzo (Jan 12, 2013)

On K-4 maybe this is usefull Kurfürst - Performance of 8 - 109 K4 and K6 with DB 605 ASCM/DCM


----------



## DonL (Jan 12, 2013)

> Why bother with a poll when the figures upon which it is based are inaccurate? Where did the original "Fact Sheet" figures come from and was there ever any original, reliable documentation given to back them? Anyway, I voted Spitfire XIV.



As Vincenzo showed, this datas from Soeren came from original primary german sources and to my opinion they are the most accurate for german a/c's.

I'm always doubtful about foreign data's about german a/c's especialy when they come from WWII Aircraft Performance


----------



## Glider (Jan 12, 2013)

DonL said:


> As Vincenzo showed, this datas from Soeren came from original primary german sources and to my opinion they are the most accurate for german a/c's.
> 
> I'm always doubtful about foreign data's about german a/c's especialy when they come from WWII Aircraft Performance



I think its best to concentrate on the original papers, not the where they came from. No one is going to retype things in this level of detail.

I have had a quick look at both sets of papers, The ones from Kurfurst's site and the ones in posting 323 and to be honest there is little if anything difference between them. Only if you look at the performance figs for the DB605D do you get any difference, the others seem pretty similar. I admit to having a question on this as I thought that the DB605D was an early version of the engine, in which case why would it have a better performance.

On this basis the question would be, how many had the the DB605D? If anyone knows I would welcome any details.


----------



## tomo pauk (Jan 12, 2013)

> I think its best to concentrate on the original papers, not the where they came from. No one is going to retype things in this level of detail.



Well put.


----------



## CobberKane (Jan 12, 2013)

I think we can take it that the Soviet fighters would be out of their depth above 20000ft, so the next obvious question is are others competitive below that altitude. The spit XIV had that terrific climb - would it have been enough to enable it to disengage from the Yak//La at lower altitudes? If so, it's hard to go past.
An interesting subject might the Soviet fighters v The Tempest, which I understand performed best at similar heights.


----------



## Milosh (Jan 12, 2013)

Wasn't there a mock combat between a Spit XIV and a Soviet fighter (Yak?) in Italy late in the war and the Soviet fighter won?


----------



## parsifal (Jan 12, 2013)

Soviet fighters were built for a purpose, and that was to protect their own strike aircraft long enough to complete the mission. Soviet strike aircraft were overwhelmingly hedge hopper aircraft. Once the initiative passed to the VVS (arguable as to when, but at least from January 1944), the ability of the LW to outperform them above 15000 feet was pretty much academic.

Soviet doctrine, after 1942, was never to gain overall air superiority. it was about swamping the zone of operations with enough aircraft to make them assured of being able to complete their strategic mission. 

In that scenario, if the Germans expended their diving passes on the Soviet fighters and not concentrate on the Sturmoviks, the Soviet Fighters had achieved their mission. Soviet fighters were far from invulnerable, but they were more survivable than a Sturmovik. If the Germans wasted their time and resources chasing Soviet fighters and not the Sturmoviks, the Soviet Fighters had already won.

Evaluations of the effectiveness of various types need to take into account what they were meant to be doing. Soviet fighters simply had to draw fire and optinally (from a Soviet perspective) stay alive to return. nothing more.....


----------



## Tante Ju (Jan 12, 2013)

CobberKane said:


> The spit XIV had that terrific climb - would it have been enough to enable it to disengage from the Yak//La at lower altitudes?



Up about 2000 m altitude - no. Above - yes.



> An interesting subject might the Soviet fighters v The Tempest, which I understand performed best at similar heights.



Tempest is about as fast as La 7, faster than Yak 3. Both run circles around it though..


----------



## Aozora (Jan 12, 2013)

Glider said:


> I think its best to concentrate on the original papers, not the where they came from. No one is going to retype things in this level of detail.
> 
> I have had a quick look at both sets of papers, The ones from Kurfurst's site and the ones in posting 323 and to be honest there is little if anything difference between them. Only if you look at the performance figs for the DB605D do you get any difference, the others seem pretty similar. I admit to having a question on this as I thought that the DB605D was an early version of the engine, in which case why would it have a better performance.
> 
> On this basis the question would be, how many had the the DB605D? If anyone knows I would welcome any details.



Yep, the fact is that because of WWII Aircraft Performance and  Messerschmitt Bf 109 performance and this site, come to that, we all have access to information and data that wouldn't be readily available, including original documents: what gets my goat is the partisan crap that blights a lot of aircraft v aircraft "discussion" (going waay off on a tangent for a moment; having looked up "Kurfurst" on this and other forums this guy has a real attitude which means I take what he says about the 109 or any German aircraft with a bucketful of salt, unless backed up with solid evidence; by contrast, from what I have seen here and elsewhere, Mike Williams is at least courteous and factual).



CobberKane said:


> I think we can take it that the Soviet fighters would be out of their depth above 20000ft, so the next obvious question is are others competitive below that altitude. The spit XIV had that terrific climb - would it have been enough to enable it to disengage from the Yak//La at lower altitudes? If so, it's hard to go past.
> An interesting subject might the Soviet fighters v The Tempest, which I understand performed best at similar heights.



Here's some interesting info from German test pilot Hans-Werner Lerche (Luftwaffe Test Pilot - Janes (translated) 1980. Lots of reading): 






The next 2 pages are on other aircraft: the Yak 3 accidentally landed intact at a German airfield 9 January 1945...









Lerche flew the Yak 3 to Oranienberg be shown to Goering...






Testing the Tempest V:


----------



## Glider (Jan 12, 2013)

Excellent book, one for my birthday list. Re Kurfurst I have crossed swords with him a number of times and been accused of all sorts of things by him but an original document is an original document. His reading shall we say, may be somewhat imaginative and its always worth checking the translation, ensuring that he hasn't been selectve in what he has chosen to show. But if there is a full scan then its worth taking it seriously.


----------



## DonL (Jan 12, 2013)

> His reading shall we say, may be somewhat imaginative and its always worth checking the translation, ensuring that he hasn't been selectve in what he has chosen to show. But if there is a full scan then its worth taking it seriously.



Thank you for making this point!


----------



## Juha (Jan 12, 2013)

DonL said:


> As Vincenzo showed, this datas from Soeren came from original primary german sources and to my opinion they are the most accurate for german a/c's.
> 
> I'm always doubtful about foreign data's about german a/c's especialy when they come from WWII Aircraft Performance



I don't recall a German docu showing a standard 109K-4 with 721km/h max speed. The GL/C-E2 cards I have seen on 109K-4 show max speed of 710km/h at FTH (7,5km) with emergency power (Not.). That is in line of with graphs in Kurfürst’s site and seems not to have been corrected for the compression effect, so showing some 5km/h too high speed.

Juha


----------



## Juha (Jan 12, 2013)

Glider said:


> Excellent book, one for my birthday list. Re Kurfurst I have crossed swords with him a number of times and been accused of all sorts of things by him but an original document is an original document. His reading shall we say, may be somewhat imaginative and its always worth checking the translation, ensuring that he hasn't been selectve in what he has chosen to show. But if there is a full scan then its worth taking it seriously.



I also had crossed swords with Kurfürst and I also be careful with his claims but his site is excellent and for ex in his 109K specs part he correctly points out that in the graphs the thick lines are results of calculations by Mtt for 109K with an experimental thin blade airscrew and that the most important graph is the thin line which is that of 109K-4 with standard airscrew and he also notices that the compression effect was ignored in the calculations. 

Juha


----------



## parsifal (Jan 13, 2013)

ah yes, you can add me to the list of the victims of the "Kurfurst Effect". He and Soren seriously argued that there were no losses to enemy action of any tigers in Normandy. And they would both mercilessly attack anyone who had the remerity to oppose them and their crackpot theories.

Enough said. im going to have dinner.


----------



## Aozora (Jan 13, 2013)

Juha said:


> I also had crossed swords with Kurfürst and I also be careful with his claims but his site is excellent and for ex in his 109K specs part he correctly points out that in the graphs the thick lines are results of calculations by Mtt for 109K with an experimental thin blade airscrew and that the most important graph is the thin line which is that of 109K-4 with standard airscrew and he also notices that the compression effect was ignored in the calculations.
> 
> Juha



All true; it's unfortunate that Kurfürst has such a rotten attitude towards others on the internet which IMHO spoils and completely over shadows his good work in accessing and posting such information. I probably shouldn't have raised this here because the guy cannot post to defend himself, plus it belongs more in this thread. 

One interesting point which hasn't yet been raised is that the DB605 started life as an unreliable engine and never really overcame a reputation as being a "sick" engine right up to the end of the war: one wonders how reliable the various D version were, especially with the lack of adequate materials and increasingly poor build qualities; would the D engine be capable of reliably developing full power after even a few sorties? (From Mankau Petrick Messerschmitt Bf 110/Me 210/Me 410: pages 211 349):


----------



## jim (Jan 13, 2013)

To Parsifals, Juhas , Gliders , Aozoras and any other
Why you spend your presious time attacking Mr Kurfust ?!! He CAN NOT answer your (false) claims. You are not satisfeid enough that he has been banned? You feel the need to throw mud at him?
Accept the lies of WW2 Aircraft performance and leave Mr Kurfust alone!
For people with proper judgement his work on his site speaks for itself.
a technical question Is it possible an aircraft with equal power and less total wet area than another plane to be slower?


----------



## Kryten (Jan 13, 2013)

""Accept the lies of WW2 Aircraft performance and leave Mr Kurfust alone!""

pot kettle black mate, best work from a position of balance before you make statements like that!


----------



## Shortround6 (Jan 13, 2013)

jim said:


> a technical question Is it possible an aircraft with equal power and less total wet area than another plane to be slower?




Yes, quite possible as "total wet" area is just one component of drag.

Others are 

Frontal area.

induced drag, the drag created by the wing in producing lift. Different airfoils and wings have different lift to drag ratios. 

general shape and/or interference drag. Changing small items (windscreens, exhaust outlets and such) can make a difference. Classic is the bullet proof windscreen on the Spitfire, worth 6mph. Didn't change the frontal area, didn't change the slope of the windscreen (overall shape), increase the "total wet area" by it's perimeter and thickness? It did change the airflow around the canopy due the square edges disturbing the airflow. Also check wing root fillets on many aircraft. They increase "total wet area" but decrease the interference drag at the fuselage/wing joint.

I am sure that there are other components of drag I have left out. 

Another question is are you sure that both aircraft actually have "equal power"? propeller shaft horsepower is not thrust and thrust is what makes speed. Any difference in propeller efficiency? any difference in exhaust thrust?


----------



## Juha (Jan 13, 2013)

jim said:


> ...
> For people with proper judgement his work on his site speaks for itself.



I wrote that Kurfürst's site is excellent, You disagree?



jim said:


> a technical question Is it possible an aircraft with equal power and less total wet area than another plane to be slower?



Now 109K-4 was faster than Spit XIV at low and middle altitudes when using MW-50 but high up Spit was faster.


----------



## Vincenzo (Jan 13, 2013)

Juha said:


> I also had crossed swords with Kurfürst and I also be careful with his claims but his site is excellent and for ex in his 109K specs part he correctly points out that in the graphs the thick lines are results of calculations by Mtt for 109K with an experimental thin blade airscrew and that the most important graph is the thin line which is that of 109K-4 with standard airscrew and he also notices that the compression effect was ignored in the calculations.
> 
> Juha



Where he notices that the compression effect was ignored? 
imho that curves not ignore the compression effect.


----------



## Vincenzo (Jan 13, 2013)

On the page uploaded from Aozora
i'm not agree that DB 605 non offered better performance of DB 601, also w/o emergency power the DB 605 can use the 30 minutes setting that give aroun the same power of DB 601 in emrgency power so it's clear the DB 605 give better performance


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 13, 2013)

Knock this **** off! 

1. Kurfurst is not here to defend himself. Be an adult and don't insult someone who can't defend themselves. You guys act like a bunch of damn children sometimes!

2. Quit your insults to each other! Grow the hell up!

One more insulting remark from any member, and *all members involved* will get some time off. I don't care who started it. I am so sick and tired of this trivial BS! I know toddlers that act more mature. How many times do we have to do this? 

Now get back on topic.


----------



## Tante Ju (Jan 13, 2013)

Vincenzo said:


> On the page uploaded from Aozora
> i'm not agree that DB 605 non offered better performance of DB 601, also w/o emergency power the DB 605 can use the 30 minutes setting that give aroun the same power of DB 601 in emrgency power so it's clear the DB 605 give better performance



I agree. DB 605A even with 30 min rating seem to offer better performance than 601E at max rating.


----------



## Juha (Jan 13, 2013)

Vincenzo said:


> Where he notices that the compression effect was ignored?
> imho that curves not ignore the compression effect.



It is my interpretion of the fact that Mach effect wasn't taken into account.

Juha


----------



## Aozora (Jan 13, 2013)

Vincenzo said:


> On the page uploaded from Aozora
> i'm not agree that DB 605 non offered better performance of DB 601, also w/o emergency power the DB 605 can use the 30 minutes setting that give aroun the same power of DB 601 in emrgency power so it's clear the DB 605 give better performance



I have no doubt the DB 605 was more powerful than the DB601E - Mankau and Petrick made the point that until initial problems with the DB605 were solved the use of emergency power was forbidden, thus limiting the maximum power. Without seeing the relevant power curves for the DB605 v DB601E how are we to know?

What is more important - and my question was - in light of the changes made to the 605 design versus the 601, and the general concerns of the RLM over the DB605, how *reliable* was the DB 605 by the time the K-4 got into service, particularly with the steep decline in build quality/possible sabotage and shortages of important metals? It also needs to be noted that in late October 1944, because of constant attacks on the oil industry, aviation fuels were in short supply, so much so that Luftwaffenkommando West ordered that operations be curtailed:










On top of which, on 2 November, the USAAF attacked more oil targets with 1,100 bombers... 

Was this order ever rescinded?


----------



## Vincenzo (Jan 13, 2013)

Juha said:


> It is my interpretion of the fact that Mach effect wasn't taken into account.
> 
> Juha



As is well known i've not technician formation but i've the impression that mach effect and compressibility error are not the same, i hope some can give educated info.


----------



## tomo pauk (Jan 13, 2013)

My 2 cents: 
DB-605 of 1944 was far more reliable than in 1943 or 1942. DB has made many of changes required that 605A functions well even in the confines of the small airframe, and we do not encounter any restrictions after late 1943, for the 605. Since the engine power was pushed to 2000 PS in 1945, the engine reliability seem okay. Despite the increasing difficulties for the German armament industry all together.
If the RLM was concerned over reliabilty of the DB-605A, that might apply for the time before late 1943?


----------



## wuzak (Jan 13, 2013)

Vincenzo said:


> As is well known i've not technician formation but i've the impression that mach effect and compressibility error are not the same, i hope some can give educated info.



It is my understanding that the Mach effect causes compressibility.


----------



## Aozora (Jan 13, 2013)

tomo pauk said:


> My 2 cents:
> DB-605 of 1944 was far more reliable than in 1943 or 1942. DB has made many of changes required that 605A functions well even in the confines of the small airframe, and we do not encounter any restrictions after late 1943, for the 605. Since the engine power was pushed to 2000 PS in 1945, the engine reliability seem okay. Despite the increasing difficulties for the German armament industry all together.
> If the RLM was concerned over reliabilty of the DB-605A, that might apply for the time before late 1943?



Mankau and Petrick seem to have seen records which led them to a different opinion. Is there any evidence to show that the DB 605 of 1944 was more reliable, and, if so, what evidence? It is all very well quoting test bed performance figures, but operational reliability under adverse conditions can be altogether different.


----------



## CobberKane (Jan 13, 2013)

Tante Ju said:


> Up about 2000 m altitude - no. Above - yes.
> 
> 
> 
> Tempest is about as fast as La 7, faster than Yak 3. Both run circles around it though..



By 'run circles around' do you meant the Soviet fighters could out-turn the Tempest, or that they comprehensively outclassed it?


----------



## Shortround6 (Jan 13, 2013)

Aozora said:


> It is all very well quoting test bed performance figures, but operational reliability under adverse conditions can be altogether different.



yes it can, Both Merlin and Sabre engines had very short lives in adverse conditions while the Merlin engines in bombers were rated at 360 hours in 1944 and in transports at 480 hours. Forward fighter fields can be very dusty/dirty places and without very good filters they can destroy engines in short order but that is a different sort of failure than burning piston crowns or valves or other signs of local overheating or operational problems (oil foaming)that will exist regardless of the amount of dirt the engine swallows. 

While engine failure records are interesting, unless they breakdown the kind of failure or cause, they really don't tell us if the engine was reliable or not. A Merlin in 1939 in a fighter was supposed to be good for 240 hours flying from English sod airfields, Flying out of Malta or in NA engines many times didn't last 100 hours. It doesn't mean the 1941/42 Merlins were less reliable. It means the conditions were _really_ adverse.


----------



## Aozora (Jan 14, 2013)

Shortround6 said:


> yes it can, Both Merlin and Sabre engines had very short lives in adverse conditions while the Merlin engines in bombers were rated at 360 hours in 1944 and in transports at 480 hours. Forward fighter fields can be very dusty/dirty places and without very good filters they can destroy engines in short order but that is a different sort of failure than burning piston crowns or valves or other signs of local overheating or operational problems (oil foaming)that will exist regardless of the amount of dirt the engine swallows.
> 
> While engine failure records are interesting, unless they breakdown the kind of failure or cause, they really don't tell us if the engine was reliable or not. A Merlin in 1939 in a fighter was supposed to be good for 240 hours flying from English sod airfields, Flying out of Malta or in NA engines many times didn't last 100 hours. It doesn't mean the 1941/42 Merlins were less reliable. It means the conditions were _really_ adverse.



Yep, and the British developed and used filters for both the Sabre (very quickly, in the case of French based 2TAF Typhoons) the Merlin and the Griffon, as did the Americans for the Packard Merlin and the Germans for the DB 605. 

In view of the comments of Mankau and Petrick (who have read original documentation) I am trying to pin down whether the DB 605, especially the DB/DC series, had inherent design faults which were never fully resolved. So far there has been nothing concrete showing that the final versions of the 605 could reliably develop the 2,000 PS, often cited, in operational service, especially when Allied bombing meant that there were shortages of all grades of avgas and a lack of methanol for MW50. Because of these factors I have serious doubts over whether the majority of K-4s in operational service could reach their full performance potential because they were more than likely restricted to using B4 grade fuel without the benefit of MW50.


----------



## tomo pauk (Jan 14, 2013)

Aozora said:


> Mankau and Petrick seem to have seen records which led them to a different opinion.



Let's assume they have seen the records. What are these records saying for the DB-605A for 1942, 1943, early 1944, late 1944? Eg. Napier Sabre was in shambles in 1942, but far less in 1944.



> Is there any evidence to show that the DB 605 of 1944 was more reliable, and, if so, what evidence? It is all very well quoting test bed performance figures, but operational reliability under adverse conditions can be altogether different.



In search for the records, one might go to BA-MA and check out for himself. 
We know that Notleistung was banned between late 1942 and late 1943, until the DB solved the issues by having a proper de-aerator installed in the lubrication system. After late 1943, there are no issues mentioned about the DB-605A having any issues. The DB-605ASM, in mid 1944, goes to 1800 PS. In my book, that means the engine is reliable. 
Operating the engines under the adverse conditions does not provide benefits for any engines, again there is no point to single out the 605 here. You can note that ex-Yu air force was operating the BF-109s (G-2 to G-10 G-12(two-seater)) into the 1950s, and those were received as second-hand planes, mostly from Bulgaria.



Aozora said:


> ...
> 
> In view of the comments of Mankau and Petrick (who have read original documentation) I am trying to pin down whether the DB 605, especially the DB/DC series, had inherent design faults which were never fully resolved.



As for Mankau Petrick, applies what I wrote above. Talking about the 'inherent design faults' for the DB-605 family is eggrageration. 



> So far there has been nothing concrete showing that the final versions of the 605 could reliably develop the 2,000 PS, often cited, in operational service, especially when Allied bombing meant that there were shortages of all grades of avgas and a lack of methanol for MW50. Because of these factors I have serious doubts over whether the majority of K-4s in operational service could reach their full performance potential because they were more than likely restricted to using B4 grade fuel without the benefit of MW50.



If there was C3 and MW50 around, why not? Why questioning the capability of the DB-605D to 'reliably develop' the 2000 PS, if the pre-requisites (availablity of C3 and MW50) could not be met? Those are not the 'inherent design faults'. No R-2800C, turbo, will make 2800 HP without 130 grade fuel and ADI, same applies for DB-605D. The R-2800C running on 87 oct fuel, no ADI, can make what, 1800 HP?


----------



## Tante Ju (Jan 14, 2013)

CobberKane said:


> By 'run circles around' do you meant the Soviet fighters could out-turn the Tempest, or that they comprehensively outclassed it?



Yes I mean they were much more manouverable in rolling and horizontal plane (the La 7 was also very fast, about as fast Temptest, depending on test). Not on all acounts of course, Tempest was very good plane, and very versatile. IMHO easy best British fighter of war. Good armament, good range, good cocpit, fast and acceptable maneuverability.



Aozora said:


> Mankau and Petrick seem to have seen records which led them to a different opinion. Is there any evidence to show that the DB 605 of 1944 was more reliable, and, if so, what evidence? It is all very well quoting test bed performance figures, but operational reliability under adverse conditions can be altogether different.


 


Aozora said:


> So far there has been nothing concrete showing that the final versions of the 605 could reliably develop the 2,000 PS, often cited, in operational service, especially when Allied bombing meant that there were shortages of all grades of avgas and a lack of methanol for MW50. Because of these factors I have serious doubts over whether the majority of K-4s in operational service could reach their full performance potential because they were more than likely restricted to using B4 grade fuel without the benefit of MW50.



You are guessworking... if you have data about showing reliability of these engines (or lack of it), please share them. Saying 'there is no evidence to the contrary of what I say' is logic flawed - if I read Mankau, they qoute German meetings, yes until about late 1943 there is lot of meetings about DB 605 reliability but afterwards I cannot really find. I suppose it has been fixed with lubrication system fixed.

And why were K-4s more likely restricted to fly with B-4 fuel? And why K-4 especially - because its best 109?  There are plenty of examples of late war 109s flying C-3 on Kurfurst site, so you have bring some more concrete to this table.

Lack of methanol too?  First hear. Where you read this? Also methanol was not absolutely required - it was anti freeze agent. Even pissing into the booster tank would do nicely for boosting...

Also difference between B-4 109 or C-3 fuel 109 was not that great. Latter was faster by some 10-15 km/h at low altitudes looking at graph.

Maybe you have some real information for your serious doubts. Sources, from which we can learn. I have seen most late war engines had very short practical life - 50 hours. Klimon, Merlin, Griffon Daimler, Sabre - doesnt really matter. Engines were pushed to extreme.


----------



## cimmex (Jan 14, 2013)

Aozora said:


> .... there were shortages of all grades of avgas and a lack of methanol for MW50. Because of these factors I have serious doubts over whether the majority of K-4s in operational service could reach their full performance potential because they were more than likely restricted to using B4 grade fuel without the benefit of MW50.


where did you hear this, there was never lack of Methanol in Germany during WW II.
cimmex


----------



## Aozora (Jan 14, 2013)

Tante Ju said:


> You are guessworking... if you have data about showing reliability of these engines (or lack of it), please share them. Saying 'there is no evidence to the contrary of what I say' is logic flawed - if I read Mankau, they qoute German meetings, yes until about late 1943 there is lot of meetings about DB 605 reliability but afterwards I cannot really find. I suppose it has been fixed with lubrication system fixed.



And where is solid data from you showing that yes, the DB605 was fully developed and reliable by 1944? I've presented published evidence from authors who have read the records, you've presented nothing but opinion.



Tante Ju said:


> And why were K-4s more likely restricted to fly with B-4 fuel? And why K-4 especially - because its best 109?  There are plenty of examples of late war 109s flying C-3 on Kurfurst site, so you have bring some more concrete to this table.



Doesn't concern me whether the K-4 was best 109 or worst; all I'm asking is that people answer my questions with some solid information without turning this into a "pissing contest", or stupid accusations of bias over which was the better aircraft. Please point me to the "plenty of examples...on Kurfurst site" - I see tests, but nothing much to indicate operational K-4s in large numbers.



Tante Ju said:


> Lack of methanol too?  First hear. Where you read this? Also methanol was not absolutely required - it was anti freeze agent. Even pissing into the booster tank would do nicely for boosting...
> 
> Maybe you have some real information for your serious doubts. Sources, from which we can learn. I have seen most late war engines had very short practical life - 50 hours. Klimon, Merlin, Griffon Daimler, Sabre - doesnt really matter. Engines were pushed to extreme.



Maybe you all have real information you can share about exactly how reliable the DB 605 was, or how much methanol was available to the Luftwaffe? Until such solid information can be presented then I'm perfectly entitled to express my doubts, just as you are entitled to your opinions.


----------



## Tante Ju (Jan 14, 2013)

Maybe you should read this. You can see units with 109K (IRC kurfurst somewhere in article gave exact numbers, but cannot find it.. :/ but sure 109K was very common) and example of planes with C-3 fuel triangle, Allied reports of 109 with C-3 etc. This goes against your doubts of C-3 lack strongly...

Kurfürst - OKL, GdJ-Grp. Qu-, Br. B. Nr. 1561/45 g.Kdos. von 20. März 1945.

Yes you are entitled to your opinion. In the meantime, I ask you to post your sources about alleged lack of C-3 and MW-50.

Also the "accurate" figures you quoted for XIV are for prototype and not representative for serial production XIV. Gearing of engine was changed.

BTW anyone seen flight test for serial XIV?


----------



## Milosh (Jan 14, 2013)

*Reichmarschall Göring* : This means that with regard to the DB605, it is impossible to predict whether the engine is ever going to be a useful engine.

*Eisenlohr *: The engineering changes and the available test results reveal that there is a high probability that concerning the question bearings, the worst is behind us and the situation is going to improve, even if it is not going to be a robust engine, but at least one that can be run at maximum output by the frontline units with full justification. The testing at Rechlin proceeded completely well so far. Cuno reported that four weeks are still required for completion.

R*eichmarschall Göring* :You have the confidence in that can work out?

*Eisenlohr* : Yes sir.

*Reichmarschall Göring* : Nallinger, do you still have great confidence in your child?

*Nallinger* : On the basis of our latest testings we have the absolute confidence in that with the engneering changes I've reported, the engine will be fixed with regard to the bearings and the Startleistung is going to be cleared for use.

*Reichmarschall Göring* : What do you think, Petersen?

*Petersen* : I share this conviction and additionally am convinced that in conjunction with the oil centrifuge, the engine is going to be allright with regard to the bearings. That has always been the experience of the past, the maintenance people predicted that the engine is going to fail soon if the oil pressure dropped below a certain figure, below 100 atü. The new 177s with oil centrifuges have worked well so far, and no bearing failures have been suffered, so that I'm able to say: If these measures which I would like to call detail work are added, the oil centrifuge in conjection with the 605, that the bearing story can be considered to have ended.

*Reichmarschall Göring* : What do you say, Scheibe?

*Scheibe* : According to the understanding at Junkers, there should actually be no problem fixing the engine with regard to the bearings. If a far-fetched solution is necessary, then - as Nallinger elaborated - the lubrication has to be taken out of the crankshaft, if it's possible to use the example of the Jumo 211 as a reference which runs in the power-boosted forms N and P at virtually the same speeds without bearing problems.

Kurfürst - Transcript of Generalluftzeugmeister meeting on 7th September, 1943.

Unfortunately, it does not say if the bearing problem was actually fixed.


----------



## tomo pauk (Jan 14, 2013)

Many thanks for input, Milosh.
Many people are swift to point out the issues DB-605A had during some 12 months, claiming the DB-601E/F was better. The same 601E that was not allowed to make Start Notleistung for some 7-8 months, from June 1941- Jan/Feb 1942.


----------



## Aozora (Jan 14, 2013)

Tante Ju said:


> Maybe you should read this. You can see units with 109K (IRC kurfurst somewhere in article gave exact numbers, but cannot find it.. :/ but sure 109K was very common) and example of planes with C-3 fuel triangle, Allied reports of 109 with C-3 etc. This goes against your doubts of C-3 lack strongly...
> 
> Kurfürst - OKL, GdJ-Grp. Qu-, Br. B. Nr. 1561/45 g.Kdos. von 20. März 1945.
> 
> Yes you are entitled to your opinion. In the meantime, I ask you to post your sources about alleged lack of C-3 and MW-50.


Already posted - Caldwell citing orders from Luftwaffenkommando West ordering fighter units to only operate under favourable conditions, 30 October 1944 - no evidence given that these orders were rescinded. 
Also from Kurfurst:Kurfrst - Articles - Notes for "Spitfire Mk XIV versus Me 109 G/K A Performance Comparison" 





Also attached (also from Kurfurst via Fischer-Tropsch) pdf file on Luftwaffe fuel consumption
Methanol:
Caldwell JG26 War Diary vol 2





DB605


----------



## tomo pauk (Jan 14, 2013)

Aozora said:


> I have no doubt the DB 605 was more powerful than the DB601E - Mankau and Petrick made the point that until initial problems with the DB605 were solved the use of emergency power was forbidden, thus limiting the maximum power. Without seeing the relevant power curves for the DB605 v DB601E how are we to know?



'Who are we to know'? Some rhetorycs. 
The power curve for the Db-605E is to be found here (1320 PS @ 4,8 km, Notleistung), the power of the DB-605A is here, at 4,8 km giving the same power, but on Steig Kampfleistung. At 6 km the DB-605A gives 1220 PS, same rating, the DB-601E giving 1150, Notleistung.



> What is more important - and my question was - in light of the changes made to the 605 design versus the 601, and the general concerns of the RLM over the DB605, how *reliable* was the DB 605 by the time the K-4 got into service, particularly with the steep decline in build quality/possible sabotage and shortages of important metals? It also needs to be noted that in late October 1944, because of constant attacks on the oil industry, aviation fuels were in short supply, so much so that Luftwaffenkommando West ordered that operations be curtailed:



I'll thank you for the excerpts, but attaching the problems with fuel quality quantity to the way the engine was designed produced ('inherent design flaws' was it?) does not make a good analysis. In the excerpt by Olivier Lefebvre, the fuel low quality was mentioned among culprits, along with spark plug issues (availability of suitable types). You can note in Allied technical reports that their spar plugs (lead fouling) was an issue with engines running at high boost. You can check the reports at Mike Williams' site.

You keep talking about the "general concerns of the RLM over the DB605", without posting the reports that confirm that, more so the reports dated after late 1943. Yes, the M P book says that there were the issues, and that aplies to the time before late 1943. The engine was reliable enough to power the Bf-109 110, even if that was on St Kampf, for a year. Once the issues were fixed, the ban on Notleistung was called off. The proof is in the pudding? 

You can read in your own excerpts that many a Fw-190D-9 was capable of 590 km/h. Should we all now start to throw rocks at Jumo-213A?

From the latest excerpts, much of the blame for DB-605A having problems was on Willy's hands.


----------



## Aozora (Jan 14, 2013)

tomo pauk said:


> 'Who are we to know'? Some rhetorycs.
> The power curve for the Db-605E is to be found here (1320 PS @ 4,8 km, Notleistung), the power of the DB-605A is here, at 4,8 km giving the same power, but on Steig Kampfleistung. At 6 km the DB-605A gives 1220 PS, same rating, the DB-601E giving 1150, Notleistung.
> 
> 
> ...


 
And where are the DB605 DB/DC power curves? At least I am making the effort to provide supporting evidence, which, so far, has not been properly refuted.


----------



## tomo pauk (Jan 14, 2013)

The tables are here and here, just a few clicks away from the DB-605A, along with DB-605AM/AS/ASM data.


----------



## Aozora (Jan 14, 2013)

tomo pauk said:


> The tables are here and here, just a few clicks away from the DB-605A, along with DB-605AM/AS/ASM data.



Thanks for that. 8)


----------



## Aozora (Jan 15, 2013)

Tante Ju said:


> Maybe you should read this. You can see units with 109K (IRC kurfurst somewhere in article gave exact numbers, but cannot find it.. :/ but sure 109K was very common) and example of planes with C-3 fuel triangle, Allied reports of 109 with C-3 etc. This goes against your doubts of C-3 lack strongly...
> 
> Kurfürst - OKL, GdJ-Grp. Qu-, Br. B. Nr. 1561/45 g.Kdos. von 20. März 1945.
> 
> ...


 
I can find photos of K-4s with 87 fuel triangles:








(from Prien and Rodeike Bf 109 F,G K Series, 1995 and Wołowski Bf 109 Late versions, 2010 resp.) And, of course, the DB 605DB/DC could be easily switched from one fuel type to another, so having a C-3 triangle didn't have mean that there was C3 in the tank. As for the Allied Reports? Proves that there were supplies of C-3 for individual aircraft from June, July 1944 and January 1945; none of them indicates which units the 109s belonged to.

I can also find a March 1945 directive from the_ Führer's_ HQ halting production of the 109 and DB605 immediately, because of the fuel situation:


----------



## Tante Ju (Jan 15, 2013)

Aozora said:


> I can find photos of K-4s with 87 fuel triangles:



I can find K-4s (and G-10, G-14) with 100 octane / C-3 fuel triangles too, but IMHO there is no doubt that both types of fuel was employed. This did not effect G-14s much, since only G-10 and K-4 could take real advantage of high octane fuel.

Also aircraft of JG 3 were not meant to use high boost as per orders on Kurfurst site, so use of B-4 is logical. So they used 1.8ata. If power same on B-4 or C-3 - why use C-3..?

A couple of K-4s with C-3 triangle from Kurfurst site:






_Commander of 11./JG 53 (III. Gruppe), Lt. G. Landt, in the cocpit of his Bf 109K-4, Yellow 1, photographed at Kreuzstraße airfield, in April 1945.
The 'C-3' notice instructing the ground crew for filling the aircraft with 'C-3' grade fuel is blurry but visible on the cocpit. _
Photograph via Janda-Poruba, Messerschmitt 109K, Camouflage and Markings.

*Note. this aircraft belongs to one gruppe cleared for 1.98ata boost and has C-3 fuel triangle. *






_Fw. K.-H. Böttner in the cocpit of an early Bf 109K-4. Note the C-3 fuel triangle to the right, above the tactical markings. _
Photograph via Janda-Poruba, Messerschmitt 109K, Camouflage and Markings.






_Bf 109 G-10/U4 "Rosemarie" belonging to II./JG 52, photographed at Neubiberg airfield, 8th May 1945. The aircraft formerly belonged 
to II./JG 51. The pilot, Ofw. Richter of 7./JG 52 is relieved having just successfully flown to American captivity. The 100-octane fuel sign
marked on the fuselage is particularly worthy of note._ 
Photograph via Janda-Poruba, Messerschmitt 109G-10/U4.






_The personal Bf 109G-10/U4 of Magg. Visconti, an Italian ace with 26 victories to his name. The C-3 fuel triangle is again visible. The fascist 
Italian Air Force, the ANR, was supplied from aviation fuel reserves of the OKL, and the major proportion of the supplies were C-3._
Photograph via Nino Arena.

Allied reports of various 109s with C-3 fuel found in tank.


























Manifold pressure gauges of K-4, marked for 1.8 and 2.0 ata.











Aozora said:


> And, of course, the DB 605DB/DC could be easily switched from one fuel type to another, so having a C-3 triangle didn't have mean that there was C3 in the tank.



By same logic having 87 octane triangle does not mean there was 87 octane in the tank.  

Kurfürst posted this a while ago (love google  ). It shows that that C-3 was readily available on Bavarian airfields to about to same amount as B-4. Units noted to use high ata were at Bavarian airfields according to Kurfurst post, and practically 80% of them were 109s.



> _On April 22 1945 Luftwaffenkommando West reported the following fuel stocks on airfields in Bavaria:
> 
> B-4 = 350,000 liters
> C-3 = 284,000 liters
> ...





> As for the Allied Reports? Proves that there were supplies of C-3 for individual aircraft from June, July 1944 and January 1945; none of them indicates which units the 109s belonged to.



Why this is relevant? 109s were obviously using C-3, as opposed to what you say. You have posted Allied intellgence estimates before, I still cannot figure out what did you wanted to prove with that... such reports are well known to be inaccurate anyway.



> I can also find a March 1945 directive from the_ Führer's_ HQ halting production of the 109 and DB605 immediately, because of the fuel situation:



Yes it was planned to phase out all piston engined fighters and replace them with TL units (and Ta 152). The March 1945 operational orders found on Kurfurst site note this too, but with more detail. 109 units were practically all to be switched to K-4s, then eventually disband. 

It is also known that 109 production continued in March and April, until the factories were overrun.

_With the letter from OKL - General of Fighters - Gruppe Qu. on 20th March 1945 it was decided:

OKL, GdJ-Grp. Qu-, Br. B. Nr. 1561/45 g.Kdos.
Luftwaffe Supreme High Command, General of Fighters Group, Qu.-, Br. B. No. 1561/45 Confidental Orders.
Die Entwicklung im Rüststand der Tagjagdverbande stützt sich auf die im Notprogramm festgelegten Standardbaureihen und sieht vor:

Für Bf 109-Verbände : K-4
Für FW 190-Verbända : D-9, D-12 mit Übergang auf Ta 152 H
und C

Mit Anlauf und Einfließen der Ta 152 in FW 190 Gruppen wird für diese Verbände eine baureihenbedingte Rüststandsverbesserung erzielt. 

Bf 109-Entwicklung schließt im wesentlichen mit K-4 ab und führt - soweit nicht Auflösung vorgesehen - zwangsläufig zu Umrüstungen der Bf 109 Verbände auf TL. Reinrassigkeit der Geschwader wird vordringlich angestrebt, Kombinierung artgleicher Baureihen sind vorübergehend und nach Maßgabe der Fertigung in Kauf zu nehmen.

The development in the equipment status of day fighter units is based on the standard types laid down in the emergency program and anticipates :

for Bf 109 units : K-4
for FW 190 units : D-9, D-12 with changeover to Ta 152 H 
and C

With the arrival of the Ta 152 and it`s assignment to FW 190 Gruppen will result in an improvement in the equipment status of these units.

Bf 109 development will essentially conclude with the K-4 and will inevitably lead to the conversion of Bf 109 units - those not scheduled for disbandment - to jet fighters. Homogeneity of the Geschwader is urgent to be strived for, combination of similar types is temporary and because of the levels of production to be accepted ._

Obviously with the jet fighters coming along there was no sense to produce piston engined fighters any more.

Essentially you are trying to argue that because of general fuel supply problems, C-3 was not available to 109 units. But the research done by Kurfurst makes this position very illogical. Ie. you try to argue that we do not know if 109K units had C-3 available, because Allied reports do not say which unit etc.

But then.

1.
Für die Verbande mit Bf 109-Austattung ergab sich dann folgende Rüststandentwicklung :

19. III. / JG 53: Bf 109 K-4	bleibt, 1,98 Ladedruckerhöh. (no change, boost increase to 1.98 ata)
20. IV. / JG 53	Bf 109 K-4	bleibt 1,98 Ladedruckerhöh. (no change, boost increase to 1.98 ata)

2.
On April 22 1945 Luftwaffenkommando West reported the following fuel stocks on airfields in Bavaria:

B-4 = 350,000 liters
*C-3 = 284,000 liters*
J-2 = 1,897,000 liters

3.





Commander of 11./JG 53 (III. Gruppe), Lt. G. Landt, in the cocpit of his Bf 109K-4, Yellow 1, photographed at Kreuzstraße airfield, in April 1945.
The 'C-3' notice instructing the ground crew for filling the aircraft with 'C-3' grade fuel is blurry but visible on the cocpit. 

i.e.

1. Order was made for II. / JG 53 to increase boost to 2000 HP levels
2. C-3 fuel was available at Bavarian airfields where II. / JG 53 was deployed
3. Photo evidence exists of II. / JG 53 aircraft using C-3

And your counter evidence evidence is basically this: "general fuel situation was bad"... yes?


----------



## DonL (Jan 15, 2013)

I realy get not the intention by Aozora.

We all know that the engines had different performance with B4 or C3 fuel.
We all know that the LW had C3 engines at the frontline (FW 190 BMW 801 and the DB 605 engines with C3 fuel).
We all know that the K4 had different performance with B4 and C3 fuel, nothing is new about this and I can't understand what this have to do with the performance charts of the K4, where this issue is outlined.

What's the intention of this discussion?


----------



## Tante Ju (Jan 15, 2013)

My thought exactly.. I also do not get this (alleged) 'constructional flaw / general unreliability of DB 605' thing.. tomo pauk already covered the problem with this at no. 365 post.. short: no evidence of such concern after autumn 1943.. so whats the point of this discussion?


----------



## Milosh (Jan 15, 2013)

Some minutes of a meeting (not the best translation)

_1.)Boost 1,8ata with B4 fuel
Reason for the meeting were the problems in “field” and at the serial production facility “Genshagen” because of the “white flame” effect during the use of the Higher output. First it is shown by Hr. Dr. Scherenberg how the “white flame” followed by burned pistons, develop. Because of the results of the engine knocking test the lower quality of the fuel is the main reason for the problems. DB has allready solved the problem with adjusting the ignition timing by 5°(???) . This allowes the use of “Sondernotleistung” and the 1.45 and 1.80ata settings. But because of later ignition , 50PS are lost during the “Sondernotleistung”, Where the 1,45 ata setting doesn’t lose power. DB although mentions the problems with the bad fit of the valvesitrings or the plug thread , that where reasons for the glow-ignition too. But because of improovments in the production these failurs are said to be canceled.

All agreed and the decision was done, that all engines should get the new ignition time. The lose of power is not so critical. But, because of hints from DB (DaimlerBenz), there should be test flight with 5 planes within all alts, but especially above rated alt, to get knowledge about the power loose above rated alt.

END SHEET ONE

This will be done at II/JG11. It is asked, if the ignition timing can be set on old value
if better fuel quality is back. Answer is delayed till it is for sure that only better fuel is used, and if it is shown, that later ignition does have no influence on the planes perfromance. DB mentions that the later ignition point although is better for the plugs that have a thermal problem at all.
It is mentioned too, that the performance lose will be decrease with increasing engine run time , means with less oil lose. It indicates too, that new engines with less oil usage are better in performance than the ones with at first high usage and the lower usage of oil. From the troop should be taken 1 engine with 15-20h for oil consumption and performance tests to be done in Genshagen. Because the b4 fuel is mostly used in the east, the order for the new ignition point/time should get out asap by…

2.)1.98 boost with c3 fuel the first report shows, that the test with the 1.9, and 1.98 boost had negative results.
Then a telegram from Rechlin was shown (they tested 4 engines) that criticized the clearing of the Sondernotleistung by Gen. Ing. Paul direct from the company to A.Galland bevor sufficient tests were done. Rechlin although defend themselves, that they did NOT give the new boost free for the Troop. (looks like some thought they did). DB on the other hand shows their positive test results for the 1.9 , 1.98 usage. They say, that the clearance for the 1.98 boost was given with the same TAGL (?) (think a kind of order) as the 1.8 ata boost was cleared..both on the same day!.

SHEET THREE

It was then decided (after hearing all the reports) than currently only II/JG11 should test the 1.98 boost and that the 1.9ata engine test should be finished when the engines failed. (so no more test after them). The JG should then only get 1.8 ata engine supplies. Heavy punnishment is threaten when this order is not followed. The 1.98 clearance decission may only come from department 4 of general staff. It is suggested that some recon planes should be equiped with 1.98 boost. Decission was not done. To disburden the current 1.98 and 1.9 engines it is suggested to give them the new ignition time too. So, all engines flowen with the sondernotleistung will Be set to the new ignition point/time.

The JG’s in field complain about the plug failurs. Especially in the last time the number of failurs increased. DB reports about improoved plug modells and better quality control e.g. with x-ray controlling. Again DB points out that the cooling of the
109 is insufficient and wishes that the LW will solve this problem asap. This was mentioned by Gen.-Ing Paul and arrangements where done instandly.
DB points out that the performance of the “cell” (fuselage/wings) is extremely bad, and even worser J. It makes no sense to increase the power output of the engine when on the other side the plane quality is decreasing dramatically. Is is reported that a coparison of a 109 with a mustang was arranged for Mr. Sauer, but he failed to come. The result of the comparison was, spoken of produktion quality only, shocking for the 109.

SHEET FOUR

At the end of the meeting, from Mr. Dr. Scherenberg points out that DB allready is testing a boost up to 2.3ata (J). But it can be not juged in any way because of only a low test base at the moment._


----------



## Milosh (Jan 15, 2013)

Tante Ju, do you know how many flights could be flown with that 264,000 ltr of C3?

710 with 400 ltr
405 with 700 ltr

That is, if no Fw190A/F/Gs took any C3 fuel.

_..an extract from Lorant/Goyat "Bataille dans le ciel d'Allemagne" ...(a translation) Please not the date.

At Kleinkarolinenfeld, around ten pilots who no longer had aircraft piled into a truck at dawn on *27 April 1945* in order to drive to the airfield at Bad Wörishofen and take delivery of Messerschmitt 109s fresh out of the factories. Fw. Arnulf Meyer (9. Staffel) never forgot the scenes they witnessed that day:

Rows of Messerschmitt 109s and Focke-Wulf 190s lined up around the airfield perimeter, others out in the open (!) under the odd camouflage net. Teams of oxen in yokes in the midst of all this enabled the aircraft to be moved around without utilizing any manpower or fuel… At least one hundred fighters from the assembly lines were dispersed around the field. The Officer that met us showed us the latest sub-types to be delivered: Focke-Wulfs with in-line engines and in particular the Messerschmitt Bf 109 K, an improved sub-type of our “Gustav” model. There was bustling activity on the field. Aircraft were landing and taking off constantly. There was no airfield protection Rotte in the air. Our surprise was even greater when we were told that thirty brand new aircraft were due to arrive at the depot that day if the necessary pilots to ferry them in could be found. We were presented to the airfield commander who had set up his office in a comfortably appointed wooden shack: a fatherly Major who gave us a pleasant welcome. Of course we wanted to take the Bf 109 Ks… He asked us for our papers indicating our various type ratings but after scrutinizing them, he handed them back with a shake of the head and simply said: “sorry, I can’t give you any K-4s. You’ve only flown the G-10, so take the G-10s!”

We tried to explain to him that whether they were the G or K variant, they were still Messerschmitt 109s and any mods were almost certainly to be of a minor nature, unlikely to impact on the handling qualities of the aircraft. He did not appear particularly convinced by our arguments, but I noted how keenly he eyed us smoking our American cigarettes. These were retrieved from US prisoners and our Spieß always had them in his stocks. As naturally as possible, I offered the Major one of these cigarettes. His face lit up. Just for good measure, I left a barely started packet on his desk. He thanked me and told us that he was going to see what he ‘‘could do”. In the minute that followed, more packets of cigarettes changed hands and in this way we soon had authorization to take the Messerschmitt Bf 109 K-4s!

We went to select our Messerschmitts in the company of the line chief, who asked us what our destination airfield was. The fuel crisis had also reached this field. Our aircraft were fueled with enough for thirty minutes flying time, which was largely sufficient to get back to Kleinkarolinenfeld. On the other hand the armament magazines were empty. We were given parachutes and life jackets. Suddenly we saw a car drawing up and out climbed the depot commander. He told us in a voice bereft of emotion that he was not sorry that we were taking the 109 Ks. Then he read the text of a teleprinter message he had just received. The presence of American troops and tanks was reported ten kilometers from Bad Wörishofen and he was ordered to immediately destroy all the aircraft housed on the airfield. The Major explained to us that the 109s were easier to blow up than the 190s, as they carried as standard a delayed-action 3 kg explosive charge in the fuselage housed next to the fuselage fuel tank. We smoked a last cigarette together with the officer. The imminent debacle seemed more of a relief to him than anything else. He had fought during the First World War and had been wounded but was of the opinion that the disaster befalling our country was of a much more serious nature on this occasion. He hoped that we would soon be back among our families and that we would not risk our lives pointlessly. He started up his car and drove off.

My first takeoff in the Bf 109 K held no surprises. The aircraft was poorly trimmed and the compass was not functioning, which meant that I had to follow my comrades blindly. A typical product of our war industry in 1945: the instruments were incorrectly calibrated and there was nothing coming through the oxygen mask. Fortunately our flight level did not exceed 1,000 meters. We all landed without incident at Kleinkarolinenfeld. Happily enough the brakes worked…
_


----------



## parsifal (Jan 15, 2013)

so, even though I confess to not knowing a great deal about this, it almost certainly suggest that there were some sort of reliability issue with the DB605 engine when using 1.8 ata or above.

Or am i misreading that material?


----------



## Shortround6 (Jan 15, 2013)

I think there are a number of things going on here.

There are 3 things that can affect the reliability and durability of an engine.

1. Climate conditions and usage. Out of control of the factory (beyond fitting filters), Dust, dirt etc and use/abuse of the engine, Merlins in transport service had an "expected" life around 40-50% higher than fighter engines at the end of the war. The transport engines were not running 25lbs of boost if even 18lbs and had long periods of pretty steady running. Does this mean Merlin fighter engines were unreliable? 

2. Design and/or construction flaws. Flaws in the design or the construction as _intended_ by the factory. Arnstrong Siddeley Tigers and G-R 14N engines had problems due to a lack of center bearing. DB 605s changed from ball bearings in places to sleeve or plain bearings, these may take a while to sort out. Early Allison's had problems with a few parts in addition to the early reduction gear. 

3. Sub-standard construction or quality control. The engines being built are _not_ being built as the company _intended_ due to poor workers, poor materials supplied or other factors. A problem with late war Japanese engines and apparently late war German engines. Perhaps some Russian engines at times? 

The Germans may have got the DB 605 sorted out in 1943? and it may have performed as it was _supposed_to in 1944 (or most of it) but by late 1944 and for 1945 did the allied bombing cause shortages of any materials or a drop in the quality of materials? Did the labor get less skilled? Was the lubricating oil the same quality in the spring of 1945 that it was in the spring of 1944? 

I don't know but I can sure understand how the reliability/durability of the 605 could go down hill in the final months of the war without it being an inherently defective or faulty engine.


----------



## riacrato (Jan 15, 2013)

Milosh said:


> Tante Ju, do you know how many flights could be flown with that 264,000 ltr of C3?
> 
> 710 with 400 ltr
> 405 with 700 ltr
> ...


You also can't do a lot of flights with 350,000 litres of B-4. The relation is what counts. I doubt anyone denies an overall fuel shortage within the LW.


----------



## Tante Ju (Jan 15, 2013)

I doubt the Germans (or anybody for that matter) hoarded all the precious fuel to airfields anyway.. such would only ensure that it would be easy target to enemy raids and an even distribution would only mean that a lot of fuel would be in places where it is not needed so much, while other places would not get their requirement. I suppose there was some central distribution store, in protected underground bunkers, and airfields only contained fuel enough for a week or two operation's requirement..?

As riacrato says, its the relative volumes that is interesting. The C-3/B-4 ratio seems pretty much 50/50. 

Personally I doubt that anyone's late war piston engine would be very long lived. About 50 hours realistic TBO seems commonly mentioned for those engines, or even less.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jan 15, 2013)

We have the figures for the Merlin and they are well above that. 

American Radials in Pacific were also well above 50 hours. With many flights lasting 4-6 hours ( without picking extreme examples) changing engines every 10 flights or so would be ridiculous. Fighting on the eastern front a 50 hour engine might be good for 20-30 flights ( or more?) and would be less of a logistic burden. 

The Americans and British also had fewer, if any _real_ material or alloy shortages. Most western allied engines had longer overhaul times at the end of the war than at the beginning. Allisons were much better at the end that at the beginning. Early Allsion crankshafts were alloy steel but NOT shot peened or nitrided. Both processes were added as the war went along greatly improving crankshaft life.


----------



## Denniss (Jan 15, 2013)

There was a problem with the DB605DB/DC with 1.8ata caused by deteriorating B4 fuel quality. Thus DB had to change the (ignition) firing order to compensate this at the cost of 50PS (1850 to 1800). The 2ata setting for 2000PS was merely experimental in late 1944 and was in operational testing. Kuffies site should have a document stating the date it was officially cleared for use.


----------



## Tante Ju (Jan 15, 2013)

Do you have any figures? In Soviet service, Merlins barely lasted 60-70 hours.. Allisons the same. Thats for early war engines with less strain. Of course conditions were bad - but the same that Soviet and German engines were exposed to!

As you said, there is a huge difference between short flights with high percentage of high power regime, and long flights most of which is spent at cruising or below rating (rather more typical for escort flights or CAP for Western fighters late in the war).


----------



## Aozora (Jan 15, 2013)

Tante Ju said:


> Kurfürst posted this a while ago (love google  ). It shows that that C-3 was readily available on Bavarian airfields to about to same amount as B-4. Units noted to use high ata were at Bavarian airfields according to Kurfurst post, and practically 80% of them were 109s.
> 
> Why this is relevant? 109s were obviously using C-3, as opposed to what you say. You have posted Allied intellgence estimates before, I still cannot figure out what did you wanted to prove with that... such reports are well known to be inaccurate anyway.
> 
> ...


 
Look back through my posts and tell me that I said C-3 wasn't being used - what I did point out, and you have proved it, was that C-3 was in short supply. Was the 30 October 1944 order from Luftwaffenkommando West, stating that sorties were to be only carried out when conditions were right, ever rescinded? And there were other orders and directives issued raising concerns about having to limit operations because of fuel supply limitations.



DonL said:


> I realy get not the intention by Aozora.
> 
> We all know that the engines had different performance with B4 or C3 fuel.
> We all know that the LW had C3 engines at the frontline (FW 190 BMW 801 and the DB 605 engines with C3 fuel).
> ...





Tante Ju said:


> My thought exactly.. I also do not get this (alleged) 'constructional flaw / general unreliability of DB 605' thing.. tomo pauk already covered the problem with this at no. 365 post.. short: no evidence of such concern after autumn 1943.. so whats the point of this discussion?


1.98 ata cleared for use in March 1944, about six weeks before wars end? After the K-4 had been opeartional for how long?

So whats so all fired wrong about asking questions about events that happened 70 years ago and asking for some solid evidence, hmmm? I have found references by _German_ authors stating that the DB 605 was considered to be a "sick" engine by the RLM, so I am, again, making an inquiry and asking for something to prove this one way or the other. It's called free speech and historical enquiry.


----------



## Aozora (Jan 15, 2013)

Tante Ju said:


> Personally I doubt that anyone's late war piston engine would be very long lived. About 50 hours realistic TBO seems commonly mentioned for those engines, or even less.



And your evidence for this is?


----------



## Tante Ju (Jan 15, 2013)

Aozora said:


> Look back through my posts and tell me that I said C-3 wasn't being used - what I did point out, and you have proved it, was that C-3 was in short supply. Was the 30 October 1944 order from Luftwaffenkommando West, stating that sorties were to be only carried out when conditions were right, ever rescinded? And there were other orders and directives issued raising concerns about having to limit operations because of fuel supply limitations.



As others pointed out, you seem to mix up general shortages of aviation fuel with shortages of a specific fuel type. We have very little data about the relative amounts of low and high octane german fuels, but that certainly does not show one was in even shorter supply than the other. I do not get your point about the LwKdo order at all either.



Aozora said:


> 1.98 ata cleared for use in March 1944, about six weeks before wars end? After the K-4 had been opeartional for how long?



I believe the 109K was operational from early November.. DC engine a bit later it seems. That makes it - about four - five months after introduction? Looks perfectly normal to me, in fact pretty on the short side for a new engine. Merlin two stage series went from +15 to +18 in what, five months too? Then to +25 lbs in in what, a bit more than a year? Even there troubles not much unlike DB.. Soviet engines essentially struggled through the whole whole on the same rating.

2000 HP was about very best anyone could get out this sized engine. That includes Merlin. Soviet Klimov engines were falling apart at 1500 all the time.. its not really sign of a very bad engine to me.



> So whats so all fired wrong about asking questions about events that happened 70 years ago and asking for some solid evidence, hmmm?



That you ask for solid evidence but provide none in a very provocative manner? What is your point with this is unclear to not only me but also others. This discussion is on the popular topic of the 'best' late war fighters. Top of each of their line. Then you start this whole thing about sick engines and stuff.



> I have found references by _German_ authors stating that the DB 605 was considered to be a "sick" engine by the RLM, so I am, again, making an inquiry and asking for something to prove this one way or the other.



German authors indeed noted the bad reputation the DB 605 received due to its early teething problems. You seem to aim to make it look like it was a bad engine from the start till the end. That's OK too, but it would only serve others curiousity if you would be able to supply that with some sources.. not saying 'prove me wrong!' That is not very constructive IMHO. Nothing to learn. These subjects you bring up were discussed already in this forum (and I see some others). Why repeat same discussion of there is nothing new to say..?



> It's called free speech and historical enquiry.



To me its doubtful what purpose it serves.


----------



## Tante Ju (Jan 15, 2013)

Aozora said:


> And your evidence for this is?



See here for keeping this thread clear. Merlin 46, developed only about 1400 HP, had already had lifespan no longer than 40-50-60 hours of use - in practice, not R-R brochure of selling...  Are you want to tell me, Merlin developing as much as 2000 HP at war's end lasted longer?! And certainly not better at all than 'sick' DB or BMW of same type at same (which lasted about over 100 hours by this time - in practice). Or even worse Klimov at 1500 HP.

http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/aviation/western-engine-reliability-35560.html#post975474


----------



## Shortround6 (Jan 15, 2013)

Tante Ju said:


> . Soviet engines essentially struggled through the whole whole on the same rating.



That is because they were based on a rather obsolete engine. The Hispano may have been OK when first introduced but a number of design features limited it's potential to make power. This makes it a rather bad example to use. 

Hispano (and Russian engines) were 36 liter engines that weighed a lot less than other peoples 27-35 liter early war engines. Hispanos ( and Russian ) engines used a 170mm stoke. 18 mm longer than the Merlin and Allison, 10mm longer than the DB engines and 5 mm longer than a Ju 211. Max French RPM was pretty much 2400 RPM with 2500rpm coming into use around the winter of 1939/40. Since the stress on the crankshaft, rods, pistons and areas of the block holding the crank go up with the Square of the speed running the engine at 2600-2700rpm is going to have some serious consequences. Increasing the boost level and BMEP in the cylinder may be a little tough too. Russians did use a slightly under sized bore (thicker cylinder walls?) and accepted shorter engine life in return for high performance. Their version also gained around 200lbs over the French engine. How much was due to Russian castings, how much due to different cylinder heads, how much due to a need to beef up the engine and how much was due to the different supercharger drive and supercharger I don't know. The French engine used only two valves per cylinder and Klimov used three but they both used a rather strange intake system that used one carburetor for every pair of cylinders. It may have helped solve the carburetor icing issue but did nothing for power production. 



Tante Ju said:


> 2000 HP was about very best anyone could get out this sized engine. That includes Merlin. Soviet Klimov engines were falling apart at 1500 all the time.. its not really sign of a very bad engine to me.



Running a Klimov 105 at 1500hp qualifies you for the grenade award of the month. The M (VK)-107 was the "rated" at 1400-1600hp depending on exact model and year. 4 valves per cylinder and about 400lbs heavier than an M-105. They managed to get it to 100 hours post war but production stopped twice in the post war years while "problems" were sorted out. 

I believe that Aozora is being much too harsh on the DB 605 but claiming that the Allison, Merlin and British and American radials had 50-60 hour lives when operated in "normal" conditions ( western oil and decent airstrips) isn't looking at thngs in a balanced way either. 

Engine "life" was not a guarantee the engine would make it that long. It was the MAX life of the engine, If the engine actually made it that far it was supposed to be pulled from service at that point and over hauled and NOT run any further. 

Rolls Royce claims that from 1942 on 35% of engines passing though repair organizations had reached their expected service life. They also claim that the _average_ life of the engines passing though repair organizations from 1942 onwards was about 60%
of the "nominal" life for the type. 

While the repair organizations couldn't count engines lost in service they were repairing some battle damaged and crash damaged engines.


----------



## Milosh (Jan 15, 2013)

riacrato said:


> You also can't do a lot of flights with 350,000 litres of B-4. The relation is what counts. I doubt anyone denies an overall fuel shortage within the LW.



Luft4: Czechoslovakia, Austria and Southeastern Germany
On Apr 9 1945, there was *62* serviceable Bf109s and *57* serviceable Fw190s. That is close to a 1:1 ratio.

The Fw190s certainly aren't going to left on the ground because the Bf109s were using the C3 fuel.


----------



## Tante Ju (Jan 16, 2013)

Last I checked Czechoslovakia, Austria and Southeastern Germany is not in Bavaria...


----------



## riacrato (Jan 16, 2013)

Also in april 45 some Fw 190s will be Doras running on B4.


----------



## Milosh (Jan 16, 2013)

Tante Ju said:


> Last I checked Czechoslovakia, Austria and Southeastern Germany is not in Bavaria...



If you look up the bases for the 4 units cleared for using 1.98ata, you will find that they are to be found in se Germany, err Bavaria.






Now where is that red area? I think someone failed their German geography lessons.


----------



## Milosh (Jan 16, 2013)

riacrato said:


> Also in april 45 some Fw 190s will be Doras running on B4.



The number posted is for BMW801 powered Fw190s which required C3 fuel.


----------



## Tante Ju (Jan 16, 2013)

double post


----------



## Tante Ju (Jan 16, 2013)

Milosh said:


> If you look up the bases for the 4 units cleared for using 1.98ata, you will find that they are to be found in se Germany, err Bavaria.



No. None of them were under Luftlotte 4 (Luftflotte 4 was itself under Luftflotte 6). These were Eastern Front Luftflotten. Einsatzbereitschaft im Bereich Luftflotte 4, 9.4.45

Only II/JG 11 was under Luftlotte 6 in Eastern front, bases show it was located near Berlin. It ran on C-3 (obviously).

III, IV JG 53, I, III JG 27 (4 units cleared for using 1.98ata) were under Luftflotte Reich / Lw.Kdo *West*. JG 27 in Central North Germany, moving to South Germany (Bavaria) later, JG 53 Gruppe were in Bavaria all the time. Einsatzbereitschaft im Bereich Luftflotte Reich, 12.4.45

So your post about whatever was in Luftflotte 4 is total irrelevant. Lots of pictures of G-10 with C-3 fuel triangle photographed in Czech lands anyway.



Milosh said:


> The number posted is for BMW801 powered Fw190s which required C3 fuel.



... totally elsewhere.


----------



## AirWolf (Jan 16, 2013)

Which one of these fighters served the longest during the second world war?


----------



## drgondog (Jan 17, 2013)

The Spit XIV was operationally at squadron level in January 1944. The two soviet fighters in mid 1944 and the 109K in late 1944.


----------



## AirWolf (Jan 17, 2013)

Thank you, drgondog


----------



## CORSNING (Jan 19, 2013)

Just a comment on the Russians getting 60-70 hrs. out of there Merlins and Allisons Motors: In a letter written by R.M. Hazen, Chief Engineer of Allison Division of GMC to the Commanding General of the AAF, Material Center in Washington, D.C., Hazen writes about his concerns of the amount of boost being used in the V-1710-39/73. This letter is dated December 12, 1942. Hazen states that information from the Middle East reports that they are resetting boost controls to 66"Hg. and from Aultralia some pilots are operating for prolonged periods at around 70"Hg. 1,770 hp. and 1,780 hp respectively. No engine life span is noted in this letter.

A letter from HEADQUARTERS, NORTHWEST AFRICAN STRATEGIC AIR FORCE APO520 sent by Charles F. Born, Brigadier General, CSC, to the Commanding General, Northwest African Air Forces APO 650, dated August 26, 1943, Gen. Born states the British have operated at full throttle at sea level their V-1710-39 Mustangs at 72"Hg for as much as 20 minutes at a time without hurting the engines. Gen. Born continues by stating. According to them (the British), the Allison is averaging 1500 hours between bearing failures as compared to 500 to 600 hours for the Merlin.

Nikolay Golodnikov, Russian ace said that they were getting about 50 hours out of the early Allisons and about 100 hours out of the later Allisons. He further made a statement saying that you could fly your fighter in such a manner as to extend the engine life or you could push it to levels that allowed you to shoot down Messers and Fokkers.

Hmmmmm.....I'll bet if old Hazen ever saw how the Russians pushed his Allisons his eyes would have popped socket and his pants would have been filled.


----------



## CORSNING (Jan 19, 2013)

The following is what I have been able to come up with to date: The first set of figures I believe are reprosentative of an early production A/C built at Zavod 381 and introduced into combat by 63GAIP in August of 1944. The second set of figures are from the graph on the Technical section of this sight. The Graph appears to be an early La-7 "Standard" series operational in the October/November 1944 time period. The third set of figure I believe are for the improved engine and cowing "bugs out" series that became operational in November 1944 through 1945.
First column is altitude in meter/Speed in mph/Climb in fpm.

[email protected]+18lbs...+21lbs

...S.L...370/3396....382/4460......383/4762........359/4700.......366/5080
1000...386/3444.....396/4460.....397/4762........376/4675.......389/5035
2000...402/3542.....405/4015.....411/3936........390/4675.......397/4985
3000...391/3129.....401/3627.....408/3660........405/4510.......412/4485
4000...393/2696.....398/2924.....401/2952........416/3850.......416/4095
5000...393/2755.....400/2775.....405/2952........415/3690.......418/4070
6000...406/2479.....414/2596.....418/2499........422/3670.......432/4025
7000...406/1968.....406/2184.....414/2007........435/3510.......445/3485
8000...398/1495.....401/1332.....405/1495........447/2690.......447/2940
9000...303/1003.....(395)/(480).(396)/984........444/2400.......444/2410

Note: La-7 No.452132-76 chart states that these were sustained climb rates. The chart shows the ability of the A/C to reach 1000m in .65 minutes (5046fpm avg.) and to be able to climb from 1000m to 1600m in .35 minutes (5623fpm avg.).

Figures for the Spifire are take off the graphs displayed at www.aircraftperformance.org. which is the best sight I have come across for official A/C perfomance of WW2. Mr. Williams has done a superb job of setting this sight up for all to see.

Erik Pilawskii in his book Soviet Air Force Fighter Colours 1941-1945 writes the following about the Standard La-7 of 1944/45 with all the production irregularities corrected:
Handling and control harmony were superlative, its rate of roll equalled that of the Fw 190 and its turning circle second to no enemy fighter. Few could stay with the La-7 at low and medium altitudes and by comparison its accelleration, climb and maneuverability left German fighters behind.
The loss rate of the Lavochkin was half that of the Yak-3. The combat recordsw of the La-7 show 115 were lost to all military causes (less than half of these in aerial combat), while at the same time unquestionably accounting for more than 3,100 aerial victories.


----------



## jim (Jan 19, 2013)

CORSNING said:


> The following is what I have been able to come up with to date: The first set of figures I believe are reprosentative of an early production A/C built at Zavod 381 and introduced into combat by 63GAIP in August of 1944. The second set of figures are from the graph on the Technical section of this sight. The Graph appears to be an early La-7 "Standard" series operational in the October/November 1944 time period. The third set of figure I believe are for the improved engine and cowing "bugs out" series that became operational in November 1944 through 1945.
> First column is altitude in meter/Speed in mph/Climb in fpm.
> 
> [email protected]+18lbs...+21lbs
> ...


 
Excellent,eeeeeeexcellent data.They trully deserve a place in the site that you consider the best.
So "less than half of these in aerial combat " (of 115) and "more than 3100 victories" leads to a kill/loss ratio of far more than 62:1 !!!!!!
Typical soviets claims
Do you have ANY IDEA of the total LW strength during the time that LA7 was operational ?


----------



## CORSNING (Jan 19, 2013)

Duplicate post, sorry guys.


----------



## CORSNING (Jan 19, 2013)

jim,
I only posted what was written in the book. Hey man, I thought it was a little out there also. And the crack you made about the site I consider the best, well I consider this the best site to find out the truth about WW2 aircraft. If you make a wrongful statement there is a wealth of knowledge in the members on this site and someone is always willing to help you see the right information.
And finally to answer your question, NO, I do not know the strength of the Luftwaffe on the Eastern Front in late 1944-45.
Please enlighten us.
And by the way, I stand firm on the figures posted until corrected with better official documentation.


----------



## Milosh (Jan 19, 2013)

CORNSING, OoB for the Lw Luftwaffe Orders of Battle 1945

The Luftwaffe on the Eve of Overlord, 31 May 44

Serviceable Aircraft Strengths
Single-engined fighters	1063
Twin-engined fighters	151
Night fighters	572
Fighter-bombers	278
Ground-attack aircraft	352
Night harassment aircraft	305
Twin-engined bombers	840
Four-engined bombers	97
Long-range reconaissance aircraft	153
Short-range and army cooperation aircraft	210
Coastal aircraft	123
Transport aircraft	719
Kampfgeschwader 200 (misc. aircraft	65

Total	4928 

Luftwaffe Order of Battle, 10 January 1945

Serviceable Aircraft Strengths

Single-engined fighters	1462
Night fighters	808
Ground-attack aircraft	613
Night harassment aircraft	302
Multi-engined bombers	294
Anti-shipping aircraft	83
Long-range reconaissance aircraft	176
Short-range and army cooperation aircraft	293
Coastal aircraft	60
Transport aircraft	269
Misc. aircraft (KG 200)	206

Total	4566 

Luftwaffe Order of Battle, 9 April 1945
Serviceable Aircraft Strengths

Single-engined fighters	1305
Night fighters	485
Ground-attack aircraft	712
Night harassment aircraft	215
Multi-engined bombers	37
Long-range reconaissance aircraft	143
Short-range and army cooperation aircraft	309
Coastal aircraft	45
Transport aircraft	10
Misc. aircraft (KG 200)	70

Total	3331

Note this is serviceable aircraft strengths which is typically 60-70% of aircraft on hand.


----------



## CORSNING (Jan 19, 2013)

Thank you Milosh. See there, I told you this site was the best filled with great people. Hey, where did jim go?


----------



## jim (Jan 20, 2013)

CORSNING said:


> Thank you Milosh. See there, I told you this site was the best filled with great people. Hey, where did jim go?


 
I went to my bed! Yopu know there s a time diference between europe and America
1) About 1000 La 7s saw active service during WW2. There were 400 on 1/1/45 . So every single example scored on average more than 3 kills?!?
2) La7 entered limited service mid seprember 1944. Initially it was grounded due engine and wings problems. I suspect that winter would limit flying further . Any way was typically in action for the last 280 days of the war. So la 7 units were scoring on average over 11 kills every single day of their operational life!!!!???? That quite a claim even for soviets!
3)If we we make the unreasonable assumption that La 7s did not shot down night fighters ,night ground attack planes, or the aircrafts that were operating against the western alleis and were out of range(eg Jg26,Jg2, JG27,JG7) , La7s alone, according to you, shot down the entire eastern front lw a couple of times during their service life 
Yhe fact that something is written in a book does not mean that we have to accept it without judging it . Especially such redecilous claims


----------



## fastmongrel (Jan 20, 2013)

CORSNING Possibly the kill claims for the La-7 have been added to the claims for the La-5. The Russians might have considered the La-7 as just another mark of the La family like a Spit Va and a Vc or IX and not bothered to split the 2 sets of figures.


----------



## CORSNING (Jan 20, 2013)

Woa there Jimmy boy,
There is no according to me in any of my post #399. As I said "what I have been able to come up with so far". If you look at the post I believe I made it clear that the information about kills was from Erik Pilawskii's book. I continued in a following post admitting I thought the numbers were out there in space. I was looking for some knowledgable help in finding the truth.


----------



## Vincenzo (Jan 20, 2013)

Milosh in the 45 orbats there are not twin engine fighters, we all are sure that there were twin engine fighters in '45 so you missed the line?


----------



## parsifal (Jan 20, 2013)

Getting accurate figures on losses on the eastern front is always problematic. Both sides have incomplete records, and both make fantastically inaccurate claims as to how many opponents were shot down.

One source I stumbled across published these figures and made some comments about them

Comparison of losses:

Year/ Luftwaffe/ SU Airforce/ Ratio 


1941 2,800 10,300 3.68 
1942 2,299 7,800 3.39 
1943 3,128 11,200 3.58 
1944 2,913 9,700 3.33 


Totals 11,140 39,000 3.50 

Regarding losses there is always a striking difference between the LW and the SU. The Soviet force always suffers more losses despite having a large numerical advantage in the period 1943-45. For both forces 1943 is the year of worst losses.

These losses are for losses ihn the air. Losses on the groubd are not included, and the LW lost a much greater percentage on the ground as the war progresed. Conversely the VVS lost many6 aircraft on the ground early in the war. bWe dont know how may of those LA-7 claims are for aircraft shot up on the ground. From memeory the LW was losing around 4-500 a/c in non-combat related incidents or on the ground each and every month in 1944, for the Eastern Front. 

Another thing missing is the losses per sortie statistic. Unfortunately I don’t have data for sorties in the East, with one exception. Historian Gröhler in "Stärke, Verteilung und Verluste der deutschen Luftwaffe im zweiten Weltkrieg" gives for the Eastern front in 1944 0,00703 losses per sortie with the equivalent number in the West being 0.0537.

Usually a loss rate over 5% means an airforce cannot continue to operate efficiently. On the other hand a rate of ~1% in 1944 when the Soviet airforce had such a quantitative advantage is very low. It definitely doesn’t paint a very good picture of the Soviet pilots.

For anyone who wants to learn more about the airwar in the East I can recommend the books of Christer Bergström.


----------



## Juha (Jan 20, 2013)

fastmongrel said:


> CORSNING Possibly the kill claims for the La-7 have been added to the claims for the La-5. The Russians might have considered the La-7 as just another mark of the La family like a Spit Va and a Vc or IX and not bothered to split the 2 sets of figures.



Having once leafed through Erik Pilawskii's book I doubt that, the La-7 section was one of the reasons I left the book on bookseller's shelf. Too much reliance on Soviet claims. IMHO La-7 was a very good fighter, the best VVS had with La-5FN but not nearly that good against late war 109s.


----------



## spicmart (Jan 20, 2013)

Does somebody has detailed knowledge how the Fw 190D-9 would have faired against those soviet fighter being also an excellent low and medium alt fighter?
The stats favor the La-7 being significantly lighter (almost 1000 Kg TOW)and having a better to power to weight ratio.
It should have been superior in every department sans diving and said to being unequalled in its realm?
So does the Dora stand a chance?


----------



## Juha (Jan 20, 2013)

spicmart said:


> Does somebody has detailed knowledge how the Fw 190D-9 would have faired against those soviet fighter being also an excellent low and medium alt fighter?
> The stats favor the La-7 being significantly lighter (almost 1000 Kg TOW)and having a better to power to weight ratio.
> It should have been superior in every department sans diving and said to being unequalled in its realm?
> So does the Dora stand a chance?



Of course Dora stand a chance, it rolled very well and was sturdier


----------



## spicmart (Jan 20, 2013)

The La-7 was said to have excellent control harmony as good as the 190`s and was supposed to have as good a roll rate.
Yet a good equipment, even it makes a plane heavier, can relieve a pilot from his workload.


----------



## CORSNING (Jan 20, 2013)

parsifal, thank you for the information sir.

juha, I was studying the fw 190D-9 just before I started researching for this thread. When I get home tonight I'll see what I can dig up.

Thanks to all you Guys for your efforts on the information you have posted, Jeff.


----------



## CORSNING (Jan 20, 2013)

spicmart,
I didn't forget you buddy. The following information for the Fw 190D-9 comes from a Focke-Wulf graph in Deitmar Hermann's book Longnose. Information for the Bf 109K-4 comes from a graph on Kurfurst's sight. Both A/C are using MW-50. The D-9 is powered by the Jumo 213A and the K-4 is powered by the DB605D.
Altitude is in meters and speed/climb is in mph/fpm.


Altitude.Fw 190D-9....Bf 109K-4

.....0.....380/4428.....378/4830
1000.....392/4298.....397/4840
2000.....404/4124.....411/4645
3000.....409/4103.....420/4440
4000.....419/3985.....428/4235
5000.....429/3493.....437/4035
6000.....429/2991.....446/3435
7000.....422/2499.....442/2950
8000.....416/1987.....438/2450
9000.....405/1485.....432/1940

Both A/C are using B4 fuel and 1.8ata boost.

Note 1.: As far as I know the D-9 figures are from actual flight testing. 

Note 2.: As far as I can tell the speed figures for the K-4 are from actual flight testing but the climb figures may be calculated. I can't read German worth a broken dick or I would be more positive on the K-4.

juha,
I originally bought Erik's book because I was building Russian 1/72 models at the time. Erik's book helped considerably with over a dozen models. He does tend to get carried away when he speaks of there performance though.


----------



## Juha (Jan 20, 2013)

Hello Corsning
IMHO it would have been more accurate to use DB605DB/ASB graph for 109K-4 using B4 fuel plus MW50 which gives appr. 595/370mph at SL and appr. 713km/h/443mph at FTH which are fairly close the GLM/C-E2 datacard info for 109K-4 with 1.8ata and MW50 (580km/h/360mph at SL and 710km/h/440mph at FTH), especially because in the graph the compression effect was not taken into account in the calculations. Not that that would have had much effect in real world where +-3% marginal was common in acceptance tests.

Juha


----------



## CORSNING (Jan 20, 2013)

Juha,
God bless you. I've already started to do a work up on the DB and DC engined K-4 and will post as soon as I can but right now work tomorrow is calling me so I have to go to bed. God bless you all and have a good night. I'll see what I can do about terrorizing you all tomorrow. And by the way Juha you are probably right, its just that German junk throws me off, from time to time.


----------



## jim (Jan 21, 2013)

A would like to ask a question.
La 7 weas faster at SL than K-4 1,8. According to Corsing s datas 11mph , according to Juha s wishes 29mph
1) Both aircrafts HAVE 1850 HP
2) la 7 has very good cowling surface but a RADIAL engine while K-4 an in line engine.
3) La7 has a bubble canopy , which is useful but druggier than the classic canopy of the K-4
4)La 7 has a wing surface of 17,59 m2 vs 16,05m2 of the K-4
5) Both aircrafts have fuselages of similar size, fully covered landing gear , and generally are well streamlined
6) La 7 has 3 20mm gun ports on the nose. K4 has two 13mm openings
7) All russian fighters use rather outmoded wing profiles( i think so,if wrong correct me)

The question is: Where the speed advantage of La 7 comes from? the difernce, according to juha , is almost 50Km/h!!!
propellers efficiencies deont explain anything. K4 had a brand new desigh and even if La 7 s was even better the 29mph gap is huge to be explaned by propellers efficiencies alone
And the phenomenon gets even better. K4 ,even with 2000ps, is still much slower. Even if careful construction is achieved ,and K4 gets the 12 kph bonus reported in Kurfusts site, still is far behind La 7
Even the better supercharger of K4 , which provides better power curve ,fails to provide k4 with a speed anywhere near the La 7 before the medium altitudes area.
Any logical explanation?
PS Even the allien P51 in order to achieve speeds similar to la 7s needs laminar flow wing, very advanced cooling system design, exceptional construction quality, super-duper fuels and sometimes sanding.


----------



## Vincenzo (Jan 21, 2013)

From George on Allaboutwarfare i've this data for the La 7 45210139
at wer (forced) 597 km/h SL, 646 km/h at 2 km, 636 km/h at 3,3 km, 626 km/h at 4,7 km, 632 km/h at 5 km, 655 km/h at 6,1 km
for the 45213276 at wer
616 km/h SL, 665 km/h at 2, 655 km/h at 3,25 km, 644 km/h at 4,65, 651 km/h at 5km, 677 km/h at 6,25 km
the former is a june '44 plane the later is a april 45 plane

add: of 5 La 7 test data in the George file the 45213276 is fastest, is also fastest of average of early, mid and late La-7, this obviously
the alone data for a fastest La 7 it's for calculated speed this are: 630 km/h SL, 670 km/h 2 km, 655 km/h 4,7, 661 km/h 5, 680 km/h 6

the tables are in russian and i don't speack russian so maybe i've missinterpreted some


----------



## Tante Ju (Jan 21, 2013)

High altitude propeller used on 109K may explain low level speeds. 109 airscrew had to be optimized between 0 - 8 km, La -7 airscrew for half that altitude range at best, because engine was essentially low-altitude only.


----------



## tomo pauk (Jan 21, 2013)

Hi, Vincenzo,
Could you please provide a link to the tables?


----------



## Juha (Jan 21, 2013)

jim said:


> A would like to ask a question.
> La 7 weas faster at SL than K-4 1,8. According to Corsing s datas 11mph , according to Juha s wishes 29mph
> 1) Both aircrafts HAVE 1850 HP
> 2) la 7 has very good cowling surface but a RADIAL engine while K-4 an in line engine.
> ...



Hello Jim
Lets see
La-7 max speed at SL 612km/h in 1944 and 613km/h in 1945 according to Yefim Gordon and 592km/h according to Milos Vestsík.
The canopy of La-7 wasn't a pure bubble but more a half-way solution between bubble and highback
Most of La-7s had only 2 20mm ShVAK cannon only few had 3 B-20s

Juha


----------



## Aozora (Jan 21, 2013)

CORSNING said:


> Juha,
> God bless you. I've already started to do a work up on the DB and DC engined K-4 and will post as soon as I can but right now work tomorrow is calling me so I have to go to bed. God bless you all and have a good night. I'll see what I can do about terrorizing you all tomorrow. And by the way Juha you are probably right, its just that German junk throws me off, from time to time.


 
This might be of some interest to you:


----------



## CORSNING (Jan 21, 2013)

Thanks Aozora, I haven't had the time to read it yet but it looks great, thanks again.

tomo try this sight: www.btinternet.com/~fulltilt/Perform.html

jim, I'll probably be puting foot in my mouth but when looking at the climb rate graphs it appears that full power for the K-4 kick in from 550-750 meters. At 750 meters the K-4 with the 605D engine is going 392 mph.


----------



## tomo pauk (Jan 21, 2013)

Bad link


----------



## CORSNING (Jan 21, 2013)

Sorry tomo, I'll try again tomorrow. Hey man, try to go to Google and punch it in.
Best of luck, Jeff.


----------



## tomo pauk (Jan 22, 2013)

Works


----------



## alejandro_ (Jan 22, 2013)

> The question is: Where the speed advantage of La 7 comes from? the difernce, according to juha , is almost 50Km/h!!!



If you are referring to the model that reached 640km/h, it's an experimental model. It was not built in large quantities. Bf 109 K-4 top speed at sea level is ~365mph, 588km/h.



> 5) Both aircrafts have fuselages of similar size, fully covered landing gear , and generally are well streamlined



At this stage of the war I would expect La-7 to be better finished that K-4. Soviet designers had time and resources to improve aerodynamics and manufacturing of La-7. The Germans couldn't afford this. K-4 is an attempt to standarise Bf 109 production.



> 6) La 7 has 3 20mm gun ports on the nose. K4 has two 13mm openings



As others have said, most La-7 had 2 ShVAK guns. 



> propellers efficiencies deont explain anything. K4 had a brand new desigh and even if La 7 s was even better the 29mph gap is huge to be explaned by propellers efficiencies alone



La-7 had a new propeller. It would be interesting to see an engine power graph for both models. The supercharger critical altitude could be different in both models.


----------



## tomo pauk (Jan 22, 2013)

alejandro_ said:


> ...
> 
> La-7 had a new propeller. *It would be interesting to see an engine power graph for both models*. The supercharger critical altitude could be different in both models.









In really low altitudes, the DB-605 has between 100-150 HP more, DB using MW-50 and C3, ASh using 'forsage' (dashed red line, 10 min setting).


----------



## CORSNING (Jan 22, 2013)

Nice graph tomo. 
The La-7 performance when first introduced to squadrons was a disappointment. They loved the plane but the specs were lower than they were lead to believe. A cleanup of design ensued with many cowling and fuselage gaps being sealed in production around October 1944.

The following performance figures are from the graphs at Kurfurst for the Bf 109K-4:

Altitude (m).DB605DB/ASB...DB605DC/ASC
..................B4 and MW50....C3 NO MW
......0..........369/4360..........365/4260
1000...........383/4365..........378/4250
2000...........396/4202..........392/4095
3000...........404/4044..........401/3925
4000...........413/3890..........410/3760
5000...........422/3680..........420/3590
6000...........431/3552..........423/3425
7000...........441/3129..........438/2940
8000...........436/2480..........437/2430
9000...........430/1968..........430/1930
10000.........421/1485..........420/1435
11000.........407/ 964...........407/ 925
12000.........388/ 462...........390/ 425

As before, speeds: Not sure if actual test or calculations. Climbs I believe were calculated.

NOTE: I have read in several places that the K-4 had a few different versions of the 605 engine installed in production A/C. I do not know exactly what versions were actually used in combat.

alejandro is correct about most La-7s having only 2x20mm armament. The three gun (B-20) model did not appear until 1945.


----------



## Vincenzo (Jan 22, 2013)

tomo pauk said:


> Works



it not work for me also today


----------



## tomo pauk (Jan 22, 2013)

Think I have the answer for jim's question:



> 7) All russian fighters use rather outmoded wing profiles( i think so,if wrong correct me)



The La-5/7 were featuring the NACA 230 series wing profile, ie. same as Fw-190 and Bearcat, for example. The Bf-109 was the one with outdated profile.

Looking at CORSRING's posts, the K-4 was not using both C3 and MW-50 in the same time, so the 'base' power was 1800-1850 HP, not the 2000 HP. So no power advantage vs. ASh-82 FN at really low altitudes.

Here you go, Vincenzo


----------



## Vincenzo (Jan 22, 2013)

ty tomo at first are around the same of George


----------



## CORSNING (Jan 22, 2013)

Very nice tomo. I have not learned how to copy from one sight post on another.


----------



## tomo pauk (Jan 22, 2013)

> how to copy from one sight post on another.



I'm not getting that 

added: I've got the graphs for the La7, (here), even while the speed measured is IAS, the top speed at SL is under 600 km/h, on 'augmented power', or 'forsage'.
Unfortunately, the author states engine as 'two stage'.


----------



## Vincenzo (Jan 22, 2013)

Corsning you writed that Graph give 389 mph SL but as i can read it's more a 359 mph
what's wrong?


----------



## CORSNING (Jan 22, 2013)

Vincenzo and tomo,
I am not leaving you guys, I took my wife out to party tonight, and am unable to respond at this time in a gentlemanly manner. I have to DJ at her place of establishment in the morning (she is a bar tender). But if I have the mental capacity after that (I will be asking God's help by the way) I will get back with you and try to sort this all out.

jim,
Where do you live. So that in the future I can be more considerate of your time zone?


----------



## GregP (Jan 23, 2013)

I'd like to throw in something here. The Bf / Me 109 was pretty outdated by the time of the K-4. It was a superlative digfighter at 180 - 290 mph, but was losing a lot when faster than 320 mph. At 400+ mph, it wasn't fighting at all ... it was running TO a fight or FROM a fight, but was definitely not maneuvering IN a fight. It was barely controllable at 450 mph and the pilot was almost unable to change directions at that speed.

The same cannot be said for some of the competition.

I really like the 109, but a fast dogfighter it wasn't.


----------



## CORSNING (Jan 23, 2013)

The graph I used is from this sight. You have to go to the TECHNICAL section and look under FLIGHT TEST DATA. Bottom of the first page is asking for Russian A/C data. I looked at the graph again and it looks like the sea level speed is 615/617 at a glance. I cant remember where the 389 came from so I'll have to look at my files closer when I get back home today.

tomo, I have not learned how to post another sight like you did the La-7 information. I have to type it out letter by letter.


----------



## Tante Ju (Jan 23, 2013)

GregP said:


> I'd like to throw in something here. The Bf / Me 109 was pretty outdated by the time of the K-4. It was a superlative digfighter at 180 - 290 mph, but was losing a lot when faster than 320 mph. At 400+ mph, it wasn't fighting at all ... it was running TO a fight or FROM a fight, but was definitely not maneuvering IN a fight. It was barely controllable at 450 mph and the pilot was almost unable to change directions at that speed.
> 
> The same cannot be said for some of the competition.
> 
> I really like the 109, but a fast dogfighter it wasn't.



Bf 109F recovering and leveling out from near vertical dive at 520 mph within 4000 feet in appx. 4 seconds. Bf 109K was redlined at 527 mph and had lightened elevator forces.


----------



## tomo pauk (Jan 23, 2013)

Oookay, CORSRING, by 'sight' you mean 'site', web site? If the document is in the PDF format, download it on your PC, than upload it here, via 'Manage attachments' button when replying on 'Advanced' mode. In case the web site is no longer hosted at original place, one can use 'Wayback machine' to get some of the contents of the 'former' web site. 

If you don't want to type out stuff, nor you want to upload the whole document, you can use screen grab, usually activated by clicking on the button resembling to the old photo-aparatus. Select the area of the page, or whole page, and, usually after you un-click the mouse, the selected area is copied into clipboard. Then fire up the MS Paint ( usually installed with Windows), paste the clipboar content, edit the picture if needed (borders mostly, size sometimes), save as JPG.
For screen capture you can use 'prt sc', or print screen button on your keyboard, the screen is copied into clipboard that way, too. 

Unfortunately, some stuff is usually lost forever, so I have a habit to download a whole web page sometimes, then to take my time to extract the 'good' stuff. Ie. first shoot, ask questions later


----------



## Vincenzo (Jan 23, 2013)

Ty Corsning 
this is the graph http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/fl...performance-data-vvs-fighter-types-29604.html
Tomo can you translate the graph note? i think that graph data are the same of George under Ла-7 эталон ном and Ла-7 эталон ф so i don't think they cam from test


----------



## Juha (Jan 23, 2013)

Tante Ju said:


> Bf 109F recovering and leveling out from near vertical dive at 520 mph within 4000 feet in appx. 4 seconds...



It wasn't a standard Bf 109F but a Bf 109F with G-wings, and with enlarged vertical stabilizer that was later incorporated in the late 109Gs and K-4s. The elevator trim tab is enlarged in surface area by 100% compared to the standard version. The horizontal stabilizer trim is limited in its upwards range of motion to +1°15 by a stop unit. Also the control movement was limited to 50% of the reference movement of the ailerons.

But I agree that 109K-4 was still a capable fighter, with excellent roc and speed. It was also small, so more difficult to see.

Juha


----------



## CORSNING (Jan 23, 2013)

tomo, WHAT! I'm an old fart. That's waaaaaaaay to much monkey business for me.

Vincenso, yep that's the graph all right.

Juha, I agree. The rest of you listen to him. Sounds like he knows what he's talking about.


----------



## Tante Ju (Jan 23, 2013)

Juha said:


> It wasn't a standard Bf 109F but a Bf 109F with G-wings, and with enlarged vertical stabilizer that was later incorporated in the late 109Gs and K-4s. The elevator trim tab is enlarged in surface area by 100% compared to the standard version. The horizontal stabilizer trim is limited in its upwards range of motion to +1°15 by a stop unit. Also the control movement was limited to 50% of the reference movement of the ailerons.
> 
> But I agree that 109K-4 was still a capable fighter, with excellent roc and speed. It was also small, so more difficult to see.
> 
> Juha



Yes I read report but I do not think it effects anything as far as manouvre in pitch concerned.


----------



## Juha (Jan 23, 2013)

As the report say (translation) "The first flights were pre-tests to the high-speed flights. They were done with a throttle position equivalent to a boost of 1.0 at sea level. The first tests demonstrated that at speeds over Va=650 km/h the plane lost stability (at median centre of gravity). Movements, starting at the vertical stabilizer; appeared around the yaw and longitudinal axes. Nine test flights were performed with the usual smaller tail with a horn mass balance. (Flight report Nr. 879/270). To reduce the instability around the yaw axis the stabilizer of Me109 W.Nr. 14026 was attached to W.Nr. 9228 (the vertical stabilizer destined for the 109 G production model)."

So normal 109F couldn't dive anywhere near 520mph (837km/h) and probably the elevator trim tab was enlarged in surface area by 100% compared to the standard version for some reason. And as we know wings of 109G were stronger than those of 109F.


----------



## Tante Ju (Jan 23, 2013)

But we are taling 109K which had all of these improvements (quite probably as a result of these trials) and also had different gearing for the elevator for lighter stick forces. Probably for these reasons it was cleared for dives up to 850 km/h (or 100 km/h greater than F/G).

Also importance of Va (IAS) and Vw (TAS). We are talking about 830 kph TAS (which depending on altitude may be quite a bit less than 650 kph IAS).


----------



## CORSNING (Jan 23, 2013)

Just letting you all know that I edited my post #398. I put the actual numbers in from the graph from the TEST FLIGHT DATA section. I do not know where the original numbers came from that I posted. Sorry guys, Jeff.


----------



## Milosh (Jan 23, 2013)

Yes one must take altitude into consideration.

This is for the Bf109G-6 (diving speed limits)

The maximum permissible indicated airspeeds in the different heights are not being observed and are widely exceeded. On the basis of evidence which is now available the speed limitations ordered by teleprint message GL/6 No. 2428/41 of 10.6.41 are cancelled and replaced by the following data:

Up to 3 km	(9,842 ft.)	750 km/h.	(466 m.p.h.)
At 5 km	(16,404 ft)	700 km/h.	(435 m.p.h.)
At 7 km	(22,965 ft)	575 km/h.	(357 m.p.h.)
At 9 km	(29,527 ft)	450 km/h.	(280 m.p.h.)
At 11 km	(36,089 ft)	400 km/h.	(248 m.p.h.)

These limitations are valid for the time being for all building series including the Me 109 G. A corresponding notice is to be placed upon all air-speed indicators in aircraft.


----------



## drgondog (Jan 23, 2013)

Milosh said:


> Yes one must take altitude into consideration.
> 
> This is for the Bf109G-6 (diving speed limits)
> 
> ...



What was the documented Vmax in Mach number for the "do not exceed' dynamic pressure loading. I know the max dive documented for the P-51D was .85/.86 terminal dive - and annotated as 'written off' due to various components which had clearly reached Ultimate stress.

What was the highest Mach number documented for the 190G/K, versus the Placard dive limit warning to pilots?


----------



## Juha (Jan 23, 2013)

Tante Ju said:


> But we are taling 109K which had all of these improvements (quite probably as a result of these trials) and also had different gearing for the elevator for lighter stick forces. Probably for these reasons it was cleared for dives up to 850 km/h (or 100 km/h greater than F/G).
> 
> Also importance of Va (IAS) and Vw (TAS). We are talking about 830 kph TAS (which depending on altitude may be quite a bit less than 650 kph IAS).



You are right on vertical vertical stabilizer and wings (wings of K-4 were stronger than those of early Gs) but Va max reached in the tests was 737km/h and I doubt that the control movement of the ailerons was similarly restricted in K-4s. Probably the horizontal stabilizer trim wasn't limited in its upwards range of motion to +1°15 by a stop unit in K-4s. Not sure on the elevator trim tab surface area.


----------



## Juha (Jan 23, 2013)

drgondog said:


> What was the documented Vmax in Mach number for the "do not exceed' dynamic pressure loading. I know the max dive documented for the P-51D was .85/.86 terminal dive - and annotated as 'written off' due to various components which had clearly reached Ultimate stress.
> 
> What was the highest Mach number documented for the 190G/K, versus the Placard dive limit warning to pilots?



In that German test max Mach number reached was .805, the highest reached in 109 I'm aware of was during Curtiss tests with a captured 109G-10, .82.

Juha


----------



## parsifal (Jan 23, 2013)

dumb question....how would an aircraft like the 109, with notoriously stiff controls at high speed and such limited interior space for the pilot to pull on the stick, be able to be pulled out a dive going Mach 0.82? Is that even possible?


----------



## Milosh (Jan 23, 2013)

Using the stab trim wheel, which several pilots have noted they did.


----------



## Juha (Jan 23, 2013)

Or simply pulling as hard one could, the narrowness of the cockpit didn't hinder straight pull but one needed muscles.


----------



## tomo pauk (Jan 23, 2013)

The interior was narrow, but not short IIRC. So no obstacles to pull the stick.


----------



## spicmart (Jan 24, 2013)

With both having similar dimensions what design features made the La-7 a better dogfighter in the higher speed realm than the Me109K-4?


----------



## parsifal (Jan 24, 2013)

I dont understand why, but i think it goes to the details of the design. The CGs, the wing design, the engine characteristics, the wing loading, the design and area of the control surfaces, would all be factors in the manouvre characteristics of each type. However in reality there wasnt much difference between types of a given genre


----------



## alejandro_ (Jul 4, 2013)

A few days ago I finished reading the war diary of Helmut Lipfert, which I really enjoyed. In one of the chapters you can fin a combat aganst a Yak-3 (I guess it could also have been a Yak-9U). It took place over the Gran bridgehead (Hungary) in January 1945. He was probably flying a Bf 109 G-10/14

_At about the same time I made acquaintance of the new Yak. This latest Russian fighter was somewhat superior to us in speed and maneouvrability, it's armament was equal to ours, and only in the dive did our machines prove to be superior. Our new meeting with the new Yak almost ended badly: Prokoph and I were inside friendly territory and suspecting nothing untoward. It was my custom in the air never to fly straight and level. Not only did I continually change direction, but altitude as well. As a result many wingmen didn't like flying with me. But thanks to this constant remaining in motion it was impossible for the enemy to sneak up unnoticed. Prokoph was the best wingman of all for this type of flying.*

So it was that I noticed a lone Yak approaching from behind. We were low on fuel and therefore didn't want to get involved in combat. The Russian appeared to have other ideas. Although we were flying at maximum speed he drew even nearer and finally forced us to start turning. We escaped the first attack only by breaking away suddenly. The Ivan pulled up and away and then came down again behind Prokoph. At first I flew around the circle and tried to get *on the enemy's tail, but that was out of the question. By no we were turning at full throttle near ground level. The Russian took his time and repeatedly pulled up out of the turn., dropped down again, allowed for deflection and fired.

When he began to fire I issued corrections to Prokoph. who listened to my words and inmediately did as instructed. mMy wingman was hit several times, but he followed my instructions precisely and so avoided being shot down. This was too much for me. "Keep turning" , I called to Prokoph, and tightly as possible! I'm going to climb above the Russian and come down from above to help you.

Prokoph's aircraft was hit several more times in the tail. If I hadn't been so furious, I would have had to admire the Russian for the way he repeatedly sheared upward, dropped down into the circle from above and only fired when he had allowed adequate deflection. Prokoph didn't whine and cry for help, rather he turned for his life. Then I was in a position to come down from above. "Straighten out, Prokoph!". 

The Russian machine straightened out almost simultaneously and I fired a fraction of a second before the enemy pilot. My full burst hit him just as he opened fire, causing him to break away and turn around. I had hit him well, but he had nevertheless scored several more hits on Prokoph. I now moved in behind the Russian, who swung gently back and forth in front of me so all I could do was spray bullets instead of aiming precisely. In spite oh his black smoe trail he pulled away and steadily increased the range between us. I might still have been able to catch him, but our fuel was must gone. I had no choice but to turn away.

There was no deniying that I was impressed with this Russian type. The new Yak appeared to me a far more dangerous adversary than the Mustang.

Prokoph, whom I had inmediately sent home, had already landed when I returned. "Now then, Herr Hauptmann", he greeted me, "we'ill want to get our own back for that!"

Our chance was not long in coming. There now seemed to be nothing but these new Yaks -which we designated the Yak-3- over the Gran bridgehead. It was well that we had met them before. Most of our comrades didn't want to believe our reports and had to learn the hard way. We had a running series of bail-outs._

Pag 158-159


----------



## jim (Jul 4, 2013)

alejandro_ said:


> A few days ago I finished reading the war diary of Helmut Lipfert, which I really enjoyed. In one of the chapters you can fin a combat aganst a Yak-3 (I guess it could also have been a Yak-9U). It took place over the Gran bridgehead (Hungary) in January 1945. He was probably flying a Bf 109 G-10/14
> 
> _At about the same time I made acquaintance of the new Yak. This latest Russian fighter was somewhat superior to us in speed and maneouvrability, it's armament was equal to ours, and only in the dive did our machines prove to be superior. Our new meeting with the new Yak almost ended badly: Prokoph and I were inside friendly territory and suspecting nothing untoward. It was my custom in the air never to fly straight and level. Not only did I continually change direction, but altitude as well. As a result many wingmen didn't like flying with me. But thanks to this constant remaining in motion it was impossible for the enemy to sneak up unnoticed. Prokoph was the best wingman of all for this type of flying.*
> 
> ...



Mr Alejandro
I believe you have noticed that Lipfert flew WITHOUT MW50. He makes absolutely no mention in the entire book for Mw50.


----------



## spicmart (Jul 4, 2013)

Me 109 G-10/14? Those were as fast as or faster than the most common Yak-3 with Klimov 105 as engine which made about 660 km/h.
The G-10 reached 685 km/h iirc.


----------



## davparlr (Jul 4, 2013)

spicmart said:


> Me 109 G-10/14? Those were as fast as or faster than the most common Yak-3 with Klimov 105 as engine which made about 660 km/h.
> The G-10 reached 685 km/h iirc.



I think the Yak-3 and Yak-9U of 1945 (Gran Bridgehead) was faster than the G-14 with any engine, below 15k. Nether could stay with the P-51D at any altitude.


----------



## spicmart (Jul 4, 2013)

Forgot that speeds depended on altitude...


----------



## alejandro_ (Jul 5, 2013)

> I believe you have noticed that Lipfert flew WITHOUT MW50. He makes absolutely no mention in the entire book for Mw50.



And how do you know? he barely mentions anything on engines in the entire book. In Bf 109 G-14 MW-50 was standard at the end of the war.



> I think the Yak-3 and Yak-9U of 1945 (Gran Bridgehead) was faster than the G-14 with any engine, below 15k. Nether could stay with the P-51D at any altitude.



At low level the Yak-3 is in general superior, the G-14 should have the edge at higher altitudes. I am going to make a chart to see how the German model compares to Yak-3/9U.


----------



## Aozora (Jul 5, 2013)

spicmart said:


> Me 109 G-10/14? Those were as fast as or faster than the most common Yak-3 with Klimov 105 as engine which made about 660 km/h.
> The G-10 reached 685 km/h iirc.


 
Not absolutely relevant to the Lipfert combat; note the comment:



> By now we were turning at full throttle near ground level. The Russian took his time and repeatedly pulled up out of the turn., dropped down again, allowed for deflection and fired.



Turning at full throttle, meaning that the aircraft were in maximum rate turns so, although flying at full throttle they could not be flying at maximum speed - in those conditions, as noted, the Yak was able to turn with the 109s, spiral climb out of his turn and attack - classic high yo-yo

Regia Aeronautica

http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/aviation/high-yo-yo-2121.html


----------



## alejandro_ (Jul 5, 2013)

I have put together a graph comparing the performance of Yak-3, Yak-9U and Bf 109 G-14 with MW 30. The maximum speed of the latter is slightly lower than with Mw 50.


----------



## tomo pauk (Jul 5, 2013)

Alejandro, what would be the engine powers at 2000-3000 m?


----------



## spicmart (Jul 6, 2013)

Would a Me 109F-4 not have been a better opponent to the Yak-3 as for similar power and wing loading?


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 6, 2013)

Perhaps but the 109F-4 had been out of prodcution for a considerable period of time before the Yak-3 showed up. Around 2 years, it is rather doubtful that any 109F-4 remained in front line service when the Yak-3 made it's operational debut.


----------



## spicmart (Jul 6, 2013)

So it was just not practical to reintroduce an advanced F-model to specifically combat these kind of opponents (La-7, Yak-3)?


----------



## Tante Ju (Jul 7, 2013)

spicmart said:


> So it was just not practical to reintroduce an advanced F-model to specifically combat these kind of opponents (La-7, Yak-3)?


 
That would be the K-4...


----------



## spicmart (Jul 7, 2013)

Tante Ju said:


> That would be the K-4...



It had a higher wing loading and was nowhere near as manoeuverable as either afaik.


----------



## alejandro_ (Jul 8, 2013)

> Alejandro, what would be the engine powers at 2000-3000 m?



Tomo, you can find the data for VK-105PF-2 in the graph below. there are also data on the German engines but it is very general.

1


----------



## GregP (Jul 8, 2013)

The K-4 is nothing like an F model.

The F-4 was 6,063 lbs loaded normal gross (could be heavier but wasn't for combat ... mostly). It had 1,350 HP. Wing area was 173 sq ft. So, we have a gross weight wing loading of 3.5.25 lbs per square foot and a power loading of 4.5 lbs per HP. Ithink the internet is wrong here I thin the engine was 1,350 PS, not s,350 HP , and the power loadiong would be marginally higher.

The K-4 was about 7496 lbs gross and had 1,677 HP with the DB 305. Same wing area, so the wing loading was 43.6 lbs per sq ft. Power loading was 4.47 lbs per HP.

Being 1,000 pounds heavier, the K-4 was NOT an F model, but an upgraded G-model that tried to standardize the changes that happened in the various dash number G-series planes.. Many references will verify that.

The G and K did NOT have good characteristics in the landing pattern, but the top numbers were quite good if one could overlook the faults of the airframe that were never corrected. Most of the expert pilots were quite used to the 109 by the time the G and K came out and were not handicapped by the faults as were the novices ... the experts were used to the beast and knew it's every nuance. There is a great advantage to being used to your mount when some of the numbers are VERY good. Familiarity can instill confidence that is hard to overcome.

THe Bf 109 was a flawed chariot by mid-1944 (not alone there), but remained very dangerous in the hands of a pilot familiar with it to the end ... much more so than the Zero ever did. The thing is, the top guys WERE familiar with their mounts and the inexperienced guys probably didn't fly enough to get that way ... experience helped a LOT.


----------



## Milosh (Jul 8, 2013)

> The G and K did NOT have good characteristics in the landing pattern



What were these not so good characteristics?


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 8, 2013)

spicmart said:


> So it was just not practical to reintroduce an advanced F-model to specifically combat these kind of opponents (La-7, Yak-3)?



What would you have to _leave out_ of the "G/K" to get back to the weight of the "F"? 

The DB 605 is heavier than the 601 but new 601s would be hard to come by and have less power than the 605. 

Pull the 13mm MG 131s and go back to the 7.9mm MG 17s?

Any increases in armor or weight of protected fuel tank (however it was protected?) 

Pull any MW/50-GM 1 systems? 

Basically there wasn't _that much_ difference in the airframe of an "F" or a "G". most, if not all of the weight came from increased powerplant weight, increased armament, increase protection (?) or increased operational equipment ( better radio fit?). SO it is a question of what you can take back out to lighten the plane. And what effectiveness you loose against other opponents or at other altitudes.


----------



## spicmart (Jul 8, 2013)

That'd make the 109 a specialized low alt fighter just like the aforementioned fighters. But the Germans preferred more rugged, hence the armor, multi purpose machines, I guess.


----------



## fastmongrel (Jul 8, 2013)

Milosh said:


> What were these not so good characteristics?



As far as I can tell the same problems all long nosed liquid cooled fighters had with visibility. Every thing else is an urban myth.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 8, 2013)

A 109G-6 was about 10% heavier (give or take) than an F-4 in empty equipped or loaded (clean) condition so should be about the same in landing configuration. SO a higher wing loading and slightly faster approach speed. That is at a minimum. 
_WHERE_ the weight was added may make a difference, With the proper distribution ( or a little ballast) the CG may not change enough to affect things much at all. With less than proper distribution a shift in CG location may make for a rather exciting time while landing, especially if the plane gets a little bit out of shape on the approach and a novice pilot tries to make a last minute correction. 
I sure haven't flown one and I don't know from reading but there seems to be a popular perception that some of the later ones were more of handful (more powerful engines may give more torque roll?) you also have the problem that not ALL 109s had the same fit of equipment. Different armament, different MW/50 tanks/ equipment, different tails (metal or wood, wood required extra armor under oil cooler for CG reasons) may mean that not all 109Gs had the exact same CG or handled the same at landing speeds. 

I am not sure if the larger lumps and bumps on some late 109s wings for larger landing gear did anything to airflow at low speeds. Maybe they did nothing. 

perhaps the "urban myth" comes from putting low time pilots in a plane that was not easy to land to begin with. Several pilots noting that the 109E was harder to land than a Spitfire or Hurricane. With the experience of the pilots going down and the newer 109s being even a bit harder to land (and many other aircraft got harder to land as they got heavier, more powerful versions) the accident rate was going to go up.
The provision of a few hundred two seaters ( and the planned supply of hundreds more ) shows that something was going on.


----------



## Milosh (Jul 8, 2013)

From what I have read, the 109 was docile until the wheels touched the ground, then all hell could break loose if it only touched down on one wheel. There was no tendency to nose over like a Spit if the brakes were applied hard.


----------



## riacrato (Jul 8, 2013)

I'm not aware of any reports that the G or K were much more difficult to land or take off but as you note the increased wing loading and more power and torque must've had some impact. The fact that Germany was introducing two seaters to me is not really an indication. There were also two seaters for the FW. It's simply an evolution in training principles.


----------



## GregP (Jul 8, 2013)

I have read in several places that the G-models were somewhat of a handful in the landing pattern. I even read one which said the Bf 109G was VERY difficult in landing configuration and had to be flown at relatively high power just to stay airborne with full flaps down.

I can say that nobody I know who has flown the Spanish Ha.1112 Buchon likes it much and I know maybe 6 such people. However, these guys are landing on pavement. 

I have also heard from former Luftwaffe fighter pilots that the Bf 109 was not difficult when operated from grass fields as they did in WWII ... until the G and later models came along. These were said to have been more difficult due to extra weight, making the margins that much smaller. Recall that their front line "airfields" were basically some farmer's field. Most of them are not really long enough to be called runways, so short-field techniques HAD to be used in both takeoff and landing unless a suitable aerodrome could be carved out of the pastures.

It might well be that all the difficulties went away when operating from actual grass airstrips of sufficient length, but the average famer's field in WWII Europe wasn't of typical airstrip dimensions in any way, shape, or form. Some were, of course, but not many. That's why they invented droppable, reusable JATO units for the heavier aircraft ... to aid initial acceleration to get airborne.

Most of the former German pilots I have heard praise the Bf 109 were speaking of the E or F models. None seemed partitularly fond of the G and later variants, but that well may be due to the fact that, by then, the war was going badly and conditions were getting worse progressively. By early 1945, most probably knew the war was lost and were flying useless missions out of a sense of duty and patriotism rather than with high morale and a sense of impending victory. 

That could easily carry over into attitudes about the aircraft after the war ended. It is also possible they modified their real feelings since they were speaking to an American audience, but that would seem disingenuous and unlikely. Why would they care about our feelings 60+ years later? After all, if we weren't interested in what they had to say, we wouldn't have invited them to speak. Everyone was friendly at these talks, so I tend to think they were being honest and forthright. Some were even there with a former Allied fighter pilot friend.


----------



## alejandro_ (Jul 9, 2013)

When you take into account the engine power of Yak-3/9U and Bf 109 G-14 the performane of the Yak-3 is really impressive:

DB 605 AM: 1.800HP with C-3/MW 50.
VK-105PF-2: 1.210 HP.
VK-107A: 1.650HP

IMO light weight and good finishing had a lot to do with it. The number of hours required to build a Yak-3 was 2.5 times that of a Yak-9.


----------



## Tante Ju (Jul 9, 2013)

Impressive aerodynamics, smooth finish of the wooden wing, very small (14 sq. meter) wings. BTW interesting info on the man hours.

In any case, the Yakovlev 3 was probably the most efficient fighter airframe of the whole war. A totally shitty engine and world-class performance!


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 9, 2013)

We are back to the " efficient" thing again. 

High performance on limited power isn't that great a trick if the payload is also limited.


----------



## Tante Ju (Jul 9, 2013)

Yes we are.  Payload does not effect performance very much though.. 

I also wonder if there was any serious payload mentioned in any fighter procurement program requirement though.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 9, 2013)

Payload actually has quite an impact on performance in the design stage. 

Payload is not specifically mentioned in an aircraft "procurement program requirement" but is addressed by armament required, and the range/endurance (fuel supply) and any radio requirement. Also things like dinghy's/flotation equipment and so on. 

In the _initial_ requirements for the P-39 and P-38 fighters the ONLY difference was the requirement that lead to the P-38 called for TWICE the endurance of the specification that lead to the P-39 (both having turbos at this point). The extra fuel (=payload) required a different design but by using two engines that actual amount of fuel (payload) actually much more than doubled. 

_ALMOST_ all requirements also call for a specific landing or stalling speed and either spell out field requirements or say that the plane should be able to operate from a "standard" field with the manufacturers _knowing_ what that meant at any given time. British pre war also had a standard air pressure for tires regardless of type of aircraft. Things like that were seldom put in a specific request but are often covered by a sentence telling the bidders to refer to a general specification or limit documents for all aircraft. The US rarely, if ever, specified the desired "G" limits for an aircraft in the specific aircraft requirement. The required "G" limits and safety margins ( and many other things ) well spelled out in a general specification that applied to ALL aircraft submissions. Transports had a certain "G" limit, bombers a different one, fighters another and so on. Landing limits and other things were spelled out. 

Failure to meet the landing speed ( wing loading/wing area) might mean failure to get the contract even if the speed/climb goals were meet. 

Once a design is accepted and placed in production they seem a lot more tolerate of weight gain/ wing loading increases that increase stalling speed by a few percent. 

And if you think that payload doesn't affect performance much think again. It may not do much to speed but it has some serious affects on climb. 

Adding just 400lbs to a late model P-39 added 24 seconds to it's climb to 15,000ft. cut 200fpm from it's climb at 15,000 ft and required about 150-300 ft more runway at sea level. 

Russians spent an awful lot of time fiddling with armament ( take one gun out, swapping one 12.7 for two 7.62s, designing light weight throw away guns) to try to get around their limited engine power. Practically every series fighter they made had at least one version/prototype with heavier than normal armament so they _knew_ what the increase in weight (payload) would cost them in performance and in many cases they were not prepared to make the sacrifice.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 9, 2013)

GregP said:


> I have read in several places that the G-models were somewhat of a handful in the landing pattern. I even read one which said the Bf 109G was VERY difficult in landing configuration and had to be flown at relatively high power just to stay airborne with full flaps down.
> 
> I can say that nobody I know who has flown the Spanish Ha.1112 Buchon likes it much and I know maybe 6 such people. However, these guys are landing on pavement.
> 
> ...



I have been to several airshows in Germany that featured original flying Bf 109Gs. The airshows were at grass strips. The 109s (and the B-17 because the strip was not long enough) were the only aircraft that would not land on the grass strip. They would fly to the local airport and park there.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GregP (Jul 9, 2013)

Makes me wonder, Der Adler, since the Bf 109 was designed to be operated from grass strips. Maybe it was the insurance ... I would think that any WWII fighter, but particularly the Bf 109, Spitfire, and Hurricane, would be very much at home on a grass strip. It's easier to handle directional swings, easier on the tires, and easier on the airframe in general.

Curious, but I certainly don't doubt what you posted.

Our birds operate from pavement, mostly due to insurance restrictions. Too bad the underwriters aren't pilots, huh?


----------



## parsifal (Jul 9, 2013)

so for a tail dragger, which is the more safe surface...paved, or grassed


----------



## GregP (Jul 9, 2013)

Most people I know who fly conventional gear planes prefere grass unless they have very tight-fitting wheel pants. The tight ones can clog up with grass and cause issues.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 9, 2013)

GregP said:


> Makes me wonder, Der Adler, since the Bf 109 was designed to be operated from grass strips. Maybe it was the insurance ... I would think that any WWII fighter, but particularly the Bf 109, Spitfire, and Hurricane, would be very much at home on a grass strip. It's easier to handle directional swings, easier on the tires, and easier on the airframe in general.
> 
> Curious, but I certainly don't doubt what you posted.
> 
> Our birds operate from pavement, mostly due to insurance restrictions. Too bad the underwriters aren't pilots, huh?



I think it had to do with insurance, and probably just not wanting to risk an acft that has so few flying.

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


----------



## parsifal (Jul 9, 2013)

Id say that grass strips were more susceptible to break up and less able to be used all weather......at least in a wartime envioronment. Certainly in Russia, operating on rough strips increased the maintnence and attrition issues for the LW. for the western allies, operating for most of thewar from the prepared strips, attrition and maintence issues seemed to be a far more manageable problem....


----------



## davparlr (Jul 9, 2013)

Tante Ju said:


> Impressive aerodynamics, smooth finish of the wooden wing, very small (14 sq. meter) wings. BTW interesting info on the man hours.
> 
> In any case, the Yakovlev 3 was probably the most efficient fighter airframe of the whole war. A totally shitty engine and world-class performance!



According to a Russian site (see below), the Yak 3 with 1290 hp has a max speed of 352 mph at SL. The Allison powered P-51 is similar in performance with about the same hp, 1300, and has a max airspeed of around 360 mph. And the P-51 is much bigger and heavier. So the Yak may have the most efficient "airframe" but it appears to fall a bit short of the overall aircraft efficiency of the P-51, which is the most important. In addition, the Yak seems only to carry 75 gallons of fuel and would burn this up in about one half hour at combat conditions. Deduct fuel for take off and climb, and return to base and landing and I suspect Yak is only capable of contesting the airspace over its own base.

Yak-3


----------



## Jabberwocky (Jul 10, 2013)

davparlr said:


> In addition, the Yak seems only to carry 75 gallons of fuel and would burn this up in about one half hour at combat conditions. Deduct fuel for take off and climb, and return to base and landing and I suspect Yak is only capable of contesting the airspace over its own base.



Yak-3 had either 440 or 450 litres of fuel (sources differ, but 440 litres seems to be the most commonly quoted figure), in two wing fuel tanks. That's 116 or 119 US gallons.

That's idential to the Hawker Hurricane (97 Imperial gallons) and just a little less than the lightweight versions of the P-40. Its more than the majority of Merlin-powered Spitfires - which had still air cruising ranges of 540-440 miles (depending on the engine) - and its also more than the internal fuel capacity of the 109E/F/G and the MC 202.

I'd suggest then that the Yak-3's range, on internal fuel anyway, was as good or better than the majority of its European contemporaries (at least those powered by V-12 inline engines). 

Later Yak-3s with VK-107As had fuel capacity increased to 518 litres/137 gallons.


----------



## alejandro_ (Jul 10, 2013)

> Id say that grass strips were more susceptible to break up and less able to be used all weather......at least in a wartime envioronment.



In bad weather mud would go into air intakes, affecting the performance. Early La-7 had this problem with dust. Lipfert mentions similar problems with his Bf 109 when operating in bad weather.



> BTW interesting info on the man hours.



You can find it in Yefim Gordon's Red Star volumen on Yakovlev fighter aircraft. It is a shame that this book is still one of the few you can find in English. Such an important aircraft deserves more attention IMO.


----------



## Glider (Jul 10, 2013)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> I have been to several airshows in Germany that featured original flying Bf 109Gs. The airshows were at grass strips. The 109s (and the B-17 because the strip was not long enough) were the only aircraft that would not land on the grass strip. They would fly to the local airport and park there.



Its an interesting onservation which I hadn't thought of before. In the UK te Hurricane and Spitfrie are flown from grass strips. They sometimes visit Southend airport as its the closest airport to Europe that has customs. Even then they fly from the grass next to the runway


----------



## mario29811 (Sep 12, 2016)

After pondering the topic, I believe that the Spit still reigns supreme. The Bf-109 K variants were designed specifically to shoot down bombers with the heavy 30mm cannon armament. However, in a dogfight, the lighter 7.7 mills of the spit would be more effective. As for the Yak planes made of Stalinium, they have poor structural integrity, so all it takes is for the Spitfire to dive and make a sudden turn for the yaks to crack and snap (the mark 14 was fixed of the earlier version's tendencies to stall in a sudden dive).


----------



## tomo pauk (Sep 12, 2016)

I believe that most, if not all Spifire XIV have had 4 LMGs replaced by 2 .50s, carried in the 'E wing'. Those two plus 2 cannons are IMO a far better tool for 'anti-fighter' job.
Soviet aircraft have had it's share of shortcomings, poor structural integrity was not on the list.


----------



## GregP (Sep 13, 2016)

Yaks don't crack and snap, they are structurally quite strong and the arframe is robust. Maintenance is easy, and the systems are simple.

A great aircraft to fly and to work on. There are panels that hinge open along the fuselage and they give pretty decent access to any needed interior fuselage items. Our guys don't find it a difficult aircraft to keep airworthy. Then again, we are flying an Allison since there are no running Klimovs around to speak of, and almost no parts survived that are useful, except in museums who aren't interested in lending any for measurements.

We fly a MiG-15 that is relatively easy to keep flying, the Yak-3, and we had a museum pilot who owned a Yak-52 and flew airshows with it. Maintenance was generally easy with a few headaches to be expected as the M-14 got to higher hours. Once the cowl flap stuck open and he almost had a forced landing due to overcooling the engine, but an airport magically appeared at the right time and he landed, had it fixed quickly, and didn't have the issue ever again. The only difficult item in the Yak-52 was access to anything in the aft fuselage. That was a tough one. Eddie Andrini had very few issues with his Yak. We get occasional Yak-50 visitors and they have few issues.

We flew an AN-2 for years with few issues.

The guys over in Phoenix, Arizona have a LOT of former Soviet hardware and they are mostly easy to keep flying. A TS-11 is a tad more difficult, but that's due to parts more than anything else. The L-29s and L-39s aren't too bad and seem robust to most owners. I'm quite sure JoeB can pitch in there seeing as how he is crew chief on a racing L-39.

To date, I have seen very few issues with owning a former Soviet aircraft other than getting manuals translated. When it comes to THAT, avoid the Chinese manuals. You can take any Chinese manual to three different translators and get three different translations that are each expensive. Chinese is not a technical language and can be interpreted several ways. If you MUST get a manual translated, start with a Russian or Polish manual. At least the translations are always accurate.

I had a friend in Phoenix who acquired a MiG-15 UTI from China (based at Deer Valley), with Chinese manuals. After three useless $1,500 translations, he bought Polish manuals and finally had his book! It actually wasn't difficult to put it together at all.


----------

