# f6f-5 vs 109



## fly boy (Jan 8, 2009)

what do you think would happen


----------



## drgondog (Jan 8, 2009)

fly boy said:


> what do you think would happen



Depends on the mission. If high altitude escort of B-17s at 25K, the 109 probably is very effective against the F6F. The F6F needs to be in 15-20K range for all its attributes to be effective against the 109 (in my opinion).

If medium altitude/TAC flying in 9th AF it (F6F) is a better dog fighter and capable fighter bomber - probably better able to defend itself against both the Fw 190 and Me 109 at low to medium altitudes than any version of the P-47.

None of the USN ships transfer well to 8th AF and Strategic bombing campaign except later versions of F4U-4 and -5.


----------



## fly boy (Jan 8, 2009)

ok but this is more of a what if kind of thing


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 8, 2009)

As Bill pointed out, it would depend on where the battle took place.

It is not cut and dry fly boy.


----------



## Amsel (Jan 8, 2009)

Very close call. Both a/c have similar speed even at altitude. I am doing some more studying before I make my vote. I have the tendancy to vote for the Me 109 but looking at the F6F3 performance trials it seems that they are similar. 

Which Me 109 are you wanting to compare?


----------



## drgondog (Jan 8, 2009)

Amsel said:


> Very close call. Both a/c have similar speed even at altitude. I am doing some more studying before I make my vote. I have the tendancy to vote for the Me 109 but looking at the F6F3 performance trials it seems that they are similar.
> 
> Which Me 109 are you wanting to compare?



The -3 (corrected to -5) was being delivered throughout late 43 and all of 44 with the P&W 2800-10W so it's critical altitude for speed was around 22K. At that altitude its speed against the Fw 190A-5/6 and Me 109G-5/6 was significantly lower and max climb of 3100 fps for op loaded F6F-3 ( should be -5) was max around 0-3K feet. 

The 109 would be much faster and climb better at 25K. Doubt if it could out turn the F6F anywhere or roll with it at high speed but I have no data to support that conlusion..

A P-51B was far superior in speed/climb/acceleration, equal in roll, and less in turn to F6F-3 and -5 at all altitudes and the B was reasonably matched by the 109G-6 and succeeding variants.

The F4U-4 should equally put the F6F-3 and -5 at a disadvantage.

I would say for escorting B-17s it would be sorely pressed at 25K-30K by the 109G-6 and equally at a disadvantage at 20-22K escorting B24s against the Fw 190A-6. That altitude wasn't its strike zone for air to air combat.


----------



## Amsel (Jan 8, 2009)

I agree 100% that the F6F would not be a very good bomber escort. I do think though if the Me 109 was based out of Rabaul the F6F would enjoy the superiority. And the Hellcat would be the victor more times then the Me 109 in a PTO fighter sweep over the islands. Fighting in the lower altitudes the Me 109 has no advantage and the F6F3 has a 3600 fpm rate of climb at sea level and a high speed of 340mph at 10,500(overload).


----------



## renrich (Jan 8, 2009)

Remember, the question involves the F6F5 which had the more powerful engine with water injection. That model was a legitimate 400 mph AC at critical altitude in combat power.


----------



## drgondog (Jan 8, 2009)

renrich said:


> Remember, the question involves the F6F5 which had the more powerful engine with water injection. That model was a legitimate 400 mph AC at critical altitude in combat power.



Correct me if I'm wrong Ren but IIRC the -5 had the two stage 2800-10W and it's max speed was 380mph. I was actually thinking about the F6F-5 and mistakenly put -3 in post above. The -3 was even slower than the 380 with less climb.

The -6 was originally two -5's at tail end of production with R2800-18W and it and only it (the subsequent -6) was a 400mph ship - and way late in the war? I verified that with wiki but won't swear to validity of memory or wiki.


----------



## timshatz (Jan 8, 2009)

And we don't know which 109 we're talking about. Might do well against an E, ok against an F and have trouble with the G.


----------



## drgondog (Jan 8, 2009)

Amsel said:


> I agree 100% that the F6F would not be a very good bomber escort. I do think though if the Me 109 was based out of Rabaul the F6F would enjoy the superiority. And the Hellcat would be the victor more times then the Me 109 in a PTO fighter sweep over the islands. Fighting in the lower altitudes the Me 109 has no advantage and the F6F3 has a 3600 fpm rate of climb at sea level and a high speed of 340mph at 10,500(overload).




Amsel - I basically agree for USN carrier ops - mostly low to medium altitude but the 109 should always have enough time to always gain an altitude and speed advantage to start the fight and would be superior in both speed and climb in middle to high altitudes? 

Given equal quality pilots I think I would tend to favor the 109 even in pacific for Truk/Rabaul type tagets where range factor for defenders not as critical. It is hard to judge but the 109 remained competitive even at the end of the war in the Ost Front where all the fights were at low/medium altitudes against very good Soviet fighters.

Had the USN/USMC/USAAF/RAAF been facing the same quality of pilots as IJN had at beginning of the war the fights would have been much tougher even against the A6M and later variants.

The -5 would have been in its prime in late 43 through late 44 and would have been matched against 109G-6 and -10 and -14 - all very good dogfighters.. later the k-4 which was a lot faster and climbed a lot faster.


----------



## renrich (Jan 8, 2009)

According to Dean, the F6F5 with the R280010W had 2250 HP at SL, combat power, 1975 HP at 20000 feet, combat power. He also states that Vmax figures for Hellcat varied a lot according to sources with Mfg. numbers being consistently higher than USN numbers but MFG. #s showed that the F6F 5 could touch 400 mph at 20000 feet with WEP. In my book by Linnekin he states the F6F5 was an honest 400 mph AC but he may have been flying AC with F6F6 engine since he served post war. I wonder how realistic it is to always quote numbers at Vmax with WEP or combat power. Seems to me that military power is a better gauge of true performance. Also, the test of the F4U1 and F6F3 versus FW190 by the USN seemed to indicate that both Navy planes could cope nicely with the FW, which some would say was superior to the 109. To me, It looks a lot like what the mission was like as to how the various AC would perform against one another. If the fight was a long way from base, the Hellcat would have an advantage since the 109 would probably not be there. Also the Hellcat seemed to do well in the few encounters against the LW.


----------



## Soundbreaker Welch? (Jan 8, 2009)

Anybody have any information on those encounters of F6f vs. Bf 109?


----------



## renrich (Jan 8, 2009)

I show 8 kills by the F6F in the ETO and this was by US pilots. There were 2 kills by F4F with US pilots. Interestingly there were 26 kills by US piloted F4Fs in the Med. Most must have been during Torch but I would like to have particulars of all those kills. I think that some Hellcats saw action in the ETO with the FAA but not sure.


----------



## renrich (Jan 8, 2009)

Take it for what it is worth but here is Eric Brown's opinion of a fight between an F6F3 and the Me109G6. "This would involve 2 fighters of almost equal performance. The Me would not be able to to exploit it's prowess in the vertical plane, and it would certainly be out maneuvered as well as outgunned by the Hellcat, whose view would be an asset. There was really no maneuver the german fighter could use effectively to evade the Hellcat which would , nonetheless have to be flown to it's limits to ensure a kill. VERDICT; The Hellcat had a distinct edge over the ME109G-6 but would not be able to overcome it without a lot of sweat." Not bad for a fighter armed with those overweight, obsolete and underpowered BMGs.


----------



## drgondog (Jan 8, 2009)

I respect Brown but he notoriously discounts the 109 and has publically stated the F6F was his number 1 over Spit, 109, Mustang and Fw 190... and I wonder why he doesn't think a 109G-6 in a corkscrew climbing turn to right would not be a problem for an F6F-3 or -5? It was a problem for the Mustang which, in the P-51B, had a better climb rate than either the -3 or the -5 though most of the flight profile (if not all of it).

Possibly the F6F, although lower climb rate, may have had a steeper initial climb angle than a 51? Then it might stay with the 109 in a crokscrew climb.. 

Secondly it isn't clear cut that a 109 in a skilled pilot's hands won't turn with a F6F-5. I have yet to see objective turn data for either ship and god knows we have debated it long enough.

Last, why does Brown think the F6F will do well above 20K against the 109G-6, or since it is -5 we are talking about - how about against the -10 or K-4 since they also would be contemporaries?

Oh well, like so many debates here on the 109 there is a shortfall of solid flight tests evaluating combat manueverability.


----------



## Amsel (Jan 8, 2009)

> The Me 109 took a lot of training in order to fly effectively and
> needed a lot of pilot attention during high speed maneuvering which
> likely is the reason most Luftwaffer pilots engaged in single high
> speed attacks and then dove or climbed away. It also explains why
> ...


Some overview of Leonard K. Carson's book "Pursue and Destroy" which is
mostly about the P-51 and also about his career flying it. In the last part of the book he compares German fighters to American. He has flown the Me 109. It is not hard technical data though. I am a great fan of the Me 109 Btw.


----------



## Soren (Jan 9, 2009)

I mostly agree with Bill on this one.

I do believe the 109F G will outturn the F6F-3 5, not by much though.


----------



## Timppa (Jan 9, 2009)

Joe Christy mention in his book a British comparison test between Hellcat and captured Bf109G. The latter held superiority in climb and level speed, while the Hellcat was much superior in turning. Dive was almost equal, Bf109 pulling ahead, but only "foot by foot".
Hence their recommendation was to try to get the Bf109 into a turning fight.


----------



## renrich (Jan 9, 2009)

Bill, I agree with you about Brown's evaluations, and as we have discussed before, they seem often to be contradictory. In that same book, he evaluates ACM between a Hellcat and FW190 and says that pilot proficiency will determine the outcome as the two fighters are closely matched. I only quoted him because it is one man's opinion and thought it would add a little spice to the discussion. I do think that Brown's opinion that the Hellcat's battery of six fifties is very formidable in fighter versus fighter combat is probably on the mark.


----------



## renrich (Jan 9, 2009)

In one of my references, there is a evaluation flown between the F6F5 and Zero 52 and the Vmax of the Hellcat was 409 MPH at 21600 feet, Zero was 335 at 18000 feet. This thought occurred to me early this AM and while it has only a fuzzy connection to the subject of this thread, I would pose this question to those of you who are better informed than me. The Merlin and DBs that powered BFs and Spits and many others were around 1600 Cubic inches and started out generating around 1000 HP or maybe a little less but worked up in some cases to around 1700 HP which was almost an increase of 100%. The R2800 with 2800 CI started at about 1800 to 2000 HP and worked up to around 2500-2700 HP, not even a 50% increase. Why the big difference?


----------



## Thunderbolt56 (Jan 9, 2009)

Both are obviously very capable aircraft. The F6F has great firepower, plenty of armor and decent all around performance. It didn't have the same blower the P-47 had despite the fact it shared the same engine and suffered at high altitudes. 

In the vertical, I'd have to give the nod to the 109 (especially later versions with more horsepower). In a 1v1 with all other parameters the same (i.e. altitude, airspeed fuel load etc,..), I think I'd take the 109.

In Eric Bergerud's book _Fire in the Sky_, he elaborately describes how the Hellcat's strongest points were not performance-related, but were actually ease of build, stability in carrier ops, and sturdiness. It's advantages were exaggerated by tactics and training.

The 109 (at least the Gustav and later) was faster than the Zero in level flight, could dive better, had self-sealing fuel tanks, better armament and in the hands of an experienced pilot could still maneuver quite, quite well. I truly think the F6F would have its hands full with the 109.


----------



## fly boy (Jan 9, 2009)

yeah if the hellcat had anything over the 109 its like the f4f had over the zero- being able to not die in two seconds


----------



## Soren (Jan 9, 2009)

Timppa said:


> Joe Christy mention in his book a British comparison test between Hellcat and captured Bf109G. The latter held superiority in climb and level speed, while the Hellcat was much superior in turning. Dive was almost equal, Bf109 pulling ahead, but only "foot by foot".
> Hence their recommendation was to try to get the Bf109 into a turning fight.



Problem is Timppa that the British never dared flying the Bf-109 to its limits in a turn fight, the pilots got scared as soon as the slats deployed and aborted the turn, thus they never came anywhere close to a maximum performance turn in the a/c. Hence why the British concluded that the Fw-190 turned much better than the Bf-109. In reality the Bf-109 turns much much better than the Fw-190, as you can read in Rechlin tests between the two a/c.

Chief Luftwaffe test pilot Heinrich Beauvais, who flew all captured Allied a/c as-well as LW a/c made it clear that the Bf-109 could even turn better than the Spitfire. It was all about keep pulling the stick backward and not backing off when the slats deployed. 

And if the Bf-109 could outturn or even turn with a Spitfire I believe it could outturn a F6F-5 quite readily.


----------



## Doubl3Ac3 (Jan 9, 2009)

Ok lets do some guidelines here
First off it depends on altitude. Lets just say they are in that 15-20k range
Second of all what kind of mission are they doing
But the biggest one of all is the skill level of each pilot.


----------



## drgondog (Jan 9, 2009)

Soren said:


> Problem is Timppa that the British never dared flying the Bf-109 to its limits in a turn fight, the pilots got scared as soon as the slats deployed and aborted the turn, thus they never came anywhere close to a maximum performance turn in the a/c. Hence why the British concluded that the Fw-190 turned much better than the Bf-109. In reality the Bf-109 turns much much better than the Fw-190, as you can read in Rechlin tests between the two a/c.
> 
> *Soren, you have repeated this drivel for at least two years without submitting the rechlin tests or substantiation that experienced British test pilots were cowards while flying the 109.*
> 
> ...



Statement without evidence - again. It is easy to conclude that the F6F was an excellent turning a/c with relatively light W/L, good hp/wt ratio and nice roll rate - ditto Me 109. 

But less easy to conclude that either turned better than the other or better/worse than the Spit with the data to back it up.

You make the claims based on opinions and don't produce one iota of objective data.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 9, 2009)

And I still can't believe that captured -109s were never fully stalled (because the test pilots were afraid when the slats deployed)


----------



## Glider (Jan 9, 2009)

You almost have to admire his persistence against all the evidence. 

Soren you wouldn't be a politician would you or work in PR?


----------



## drgondog (Jan 9, 2009)

FLYBOYJ said:


> And I still can't believe that captured -109s were never fully stalled (because the test pilots were afraid when the slats deployed)



Joe - Totally agreed.

It is simply absurd to conclude that the RAF pilots performing comparative tests to determine strengths and weaknesses between the aircraft would not test the 109 to it's limits in both high speed and low speed stalls.

The whole point is combat advisories to the RAF and Allied fighter pilots flying against the 109 in combat.

I can buy the possibility that the captured birds weren't in top condition, but once again that is speculation - not fact.

Gunther Rall had similar comments (to RAFtest pilots) about the 109 - relative to low speed and high speed stalling characteristics as well as the discomfort with slat deployment. He probably had a lot more hours in 109s than 90% of all LW pilots fighting in the 109. I've been told that he was a pretty good stick man. 

But Soren disagrees so we can all discount Rall's abilities.


----------



## KrazyKraut (Jan 9, 2009)

Rall stated that he would let go of the stick or push it slightly forward when the slats deployed, others said that's where real manoeuvering began. Obviously there is more than one way of flying a plane.


----------



## pbfoot (Jan 9, 2009)

These captured 109's were flown by more then one pilot , it was very common to take them to new squadrons and show them what they were facing , as well it was common to let some of the new squadron fly against the former enemy aircraft
Further more it is demeaning to any allied pilot to say that they were afraid of the slats, were german pilots smarter and braver


----------



## drgondog (Jan 9, 2009)

KrazyKraut said:


> Rall stated that he would let go of the stick or push it slightly forward when the slats deployed, others said that's where real manoeuvering began. Obviously there is more than one way of flying a plane.



for ships in a stall/buffeting phase of a turn, pushing stick slightly is the general way of changing AoA and getting out of the stall but with slats working properly the stall should be delayed after slats deployed.

Rall knew how to fly the 109. IIRC that specific comment was referring to getting back on target as the high wing tended to deploy first on the slats - causing a yaw to the high side.


----------



## timshatz (Jan 9, 2009)

drgondog said:


> high wing tended to deploy first on the slats - causing a yaw to the high side.



Boy that would be annoying.


----------



## drgondog (Jan 9, 2009)

timshatz said:


> Boy that would be annoying.



but consistent. 

High lift means more induced drag on the high lift wing.

One of the real benefits to glider training while flying recips is to better learn controlled and cordinated turns (use of rudder to 'kill' the yaw).. just like a carved turn in skis instead of a 'skid turn'. 

If using just ailerons (you know this I suspect), the high wing falls a little behind and the cotton tuft in front of you on the nose will drift to the high wing to show how your bird is yawing - you then feed in a little rudder.

Too much rudder and the tuft drifts the other way and you back off on the rudder pressure a little.


----------



## renrich (Jan 9, 2009)

I always kept one eye on the ball and "stepped on the ball." In the USN evaluation of the FW v F4U1 and F6F3 it was stated that the FW could not follow either USN AC in turns.


----------



## Glider (Jan 9, 2009)

drgondog said:


> but consistent.
> 
> High lift means more induced drag on the high lift wing.
> 
> ...



I have seen experienced PPL's be almost thrown by this. Its almost as if the light aircraft of today are almost too easy to fly and they have lost the habit of using the rudder in the turn.


----------



## Timppa (Jan 9, 2009)

Glider said:


> You almost have to admire his persistence against all the evidence..



Agreed. To me wartime report or at least theoretical calculation always carries much more weight than pure opinion. And you know what they say about opinions: _"Opinions are like ***holes: Everyone has one and they all stink"_. So I tend simply to ignore them.

That said, what Polls Forum is about if not opinions..


----------



## Soren (Jan 10, 2009)

Problem here is people only read what they wanna read.

It isn't demeaning to say that the Allied pilots who flew the Bf-109 got scared that they were about to stall when the slats popped out, cause they did, as did rookie LW pilots in the a/c. So feel free to be offended, not my problem. 

Rall's reason not to push past slat deployment was the fact that he nearly got killed in a Emil when one of the slats jammed in a tight turn, sending his a/c into an uncontrollable spin. After that he never pushed the 109 that far again in a turn.

And Bill that I haven't produced evidence of this fact is absolute rubbish, I have presented countless accounts, several which directly explained it to you, so be kind stop that BS.


----------



## Soren (Jan 10, 2009)

Glider said:


> You almost have to admire his persistence against all the evidence.
> 
> Soren you wouldn't be a politician would you or work in PR?



That's hilarious coming from you Glider. 

You must believe you have provided some evidence, I'm still waiting to see it though.

What I'd like to know even more though is what you refer to when you say "all the evidence".


----------



## Soren (Jan 10, 2009)

This is a good sum up of the 109 vs spit debate:
Performance: Spitfire vs 109


----------



## Soren (Jan 10, 2009)

Timppa said:


> Agreed. To me wartime report or at least theoretical calculation always carries much more weight than pure opinion.



Great, cause physics 100% supports what I'm saying. You can ask Bill about that as-well, he knows it, he just doesn't like my way of saying stuff (I'm too 'direct'). And why he has decided to blindside me despite us agreeing to respect one another I don't know. But nevermind that.

The methods for calculating drag lift are as follows:

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

Coefficient of lift (Cl) = Established in windtunnel tests 

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

Drag Coefficient (Cd) = Cd0 + Cdi 

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

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

And it just so happens that we have the windtunnel established Clmax Cd0 figures for both the Spitfire, Bf-109, Fw-190, F6F, F4U P-51. And from using the above physical rules of this world it can be concluded that the Bf-109 Spitfire are infact VERY close in turn performance, the early Spitfire holding an advantage ove the early 109, while the late war Bf-109 holds the advantage over the late war Spitfire. The Spitfire Bf-109 are both better turn fighters than the F6F.

Now as to pilot accounts:

*Erwin Leykauf, German fighter pilot, 33 victories.*
_"During what was later called the 'Battle of Britain', we flew the Messerschmitt Bf109E. The essential difference from the Spitfire Mark I flown at that time by the RAF was that the Spitfire was less manoeuvrable in the rolling plane. With its shorter wings (2 metres less wingspan) and its square-tipped wings, the Bf 109 was more manoeuvrable and slightly faster. (It is of interest that the English later on clipped the wings of the Spitfire.)
For us, the more experienced pilots, real manoeuvring only started when the slats were out. For this reason it is possible to find pilots from that period (1940) who will tell you that the Spitfire turned better than the Bf 109. That is not true. I myself had many dogfights with Spitfires and I could always out-turn them. This is how I shot down six of them." _

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

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

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

Skip Holm interview about P-51 vs Bf-109 vs Spitfire:

_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TFl8X4y9-94_

Mark Hanna interview on Bf-109:
Flying the Bf 109: Two experts give their reports | Flight Journal | Find Articles at BNET

And there is more where that came from!

As stated by German, British and modern pilots, the two a/c [BF109 Spitifre] were very close in all aspects of flight, esp. turn performance, and it was a matter of pilot experience in the end. We have Mark Hanna, Skip Holm, Dave Chairwood, Walter Wolfrum, Erwin Leykauf, Heinrich Beauvais etc etc and aerodynamics confirming this.

So we've got both pilot accounts (Veteran Modern pilots) and physics all matching up perfectly! 

Now is there any doubt anymore ?? I hope not cause this horse is long dead and has nearly turned to dust from all the times its been kicked since. 

Further good read can be achieved here in a previous thread where Crumpp, an expert in aerodynamics, made several very nice sustained turn rate charts for us to see: http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/aviation/corsair-vs-bf-109g-k-fw-190-s-10181-21.html


----------



## slaterat (Jan 10, 2009)

Thats not a bad article but it doesn't address the heavy elevator of the 109 at medium to high speed. In any case I still have reservations believing a 109 could turn with a Hurricane or Spifire.

1 RAF testing showed the british fighters to be far superior in turn.
2 German tests also showed this, I believe one was posted at Kurfursts
sight.
3 In the BoB , if 109s could of turned with their RAF counterparts ,the 109s
would of done better than they did ,when assigned to close escort 
German bombers.
4 Many German aces also confirm that Spits and Hurris were the better 
turners.

Back to the orignal subject of the thread though, I always thought that the Hellcat was considered a good turner for a plane of its size and loaded 
weight and that the 109 was a better turner than it should be for a plane with its high wingloading. That being said I think it would come down to pilot skill, determination and experience.

Slaterat


----------



## Soren (Jan 10, 2009)

slaterat,

1. Why is explained, the test pilots didn't go past slat deployment.
2. In one test, in 1940, with an Emil, the 109 version known to have trouble with its slats jamming in turns. 
3. The Me109s shot down more Spitfires Hurricanes during BoB than vice versa, considerably more. And that the Me-109 couldn't protect the bombers properly was because of its short range, it had nothing to do with turn peformance.
4. Four times as many German aces as-well as modern pilots make it abundantly clear that the Bf-109 can either match or outturn the Spitfire. One of them being Chief LW test pilots Heinrich Beauvais who has atleast the same amount of experience as Eric Brown.


----------



## walle (Jan 10, 2009)

> …the Bf-109 can either match or outturn the Spitfire…


I have not seen those YouTube videos before Soren, though prior to have seen them I always wanted to include the P-51 Mustang into this equation. Now, I’ve been involved in similar discussion in the past myself, advocating the BF-109 (as based on what I know, not based on regurgitation or making someone else’s opinion mine) though most of the times those discussion has ended up nasty and as such I’m somewhat hesitant to partake in this one, however, I am very interested in your thoughts around the P-51 and would love to get your quick take on it, not that you in any way are obligated to but it would be interesting to hear it.


Thanks...


//Eric


----------



## KrazyKraut (Jan 10, 2009)

BTW, the Bf 109 mentioned in that article is the D-FEHD, which (iirc) is not a real Bf 109 but a HA-1112-M1L retrofitted with some Bf 109 G-10 parts. But yes, it's probably the closest experience to flying a 109 these days.

Nice article nonetheless, very informative. Good video interview too. Thanks for that.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 10, 2009)

Soren said:


> That's hilarious coming from you Glider.
> 
> You must believe you have provided some evidence, I'm still waiting to see it though.
> 
> What I'd like to know even more though is what you refer to when you say "all the evidence".



And everyone on this forum (and I can safely say everyone) has been waiting on your evidence to your claims for the last 4 years!

We are still waiting...

We will probably still be waiting 4 years from now (if you last that long)...


----------



## Juha (Jan 10, 2009)

Some 20 RAF and 3 LW pilots tell us that Spit I turned better than 109E here, scroll down until subtitle Turning appears Spitfire Mk I versus Me 109 E

On Spit IX vs 109G again scroll down until subtitle Pilot Accounts appears, there are at least hundred of them Spitfire Mk IX versus Me 109 G - Flight Testing

Not saying that 109 was a bad turner, it was better than many older stories suggest, but maybe not as good as Soren claims. And as always the man behind the stick was a very important factor in ac vs ac comparasion.

Juha


----------



## Timppa (Jan 10, 2009)

Soren said:


> Great, cause physics 100% supports what I'm saying....
> The methods for calculating drag lift are as follows:
> 
> Lift (L) = Cl * A * .5 * r * V^2
> ...



You seem to have a "Crumppish" approach. Throw in a couple of formulas (obviously to impress) and then declare that "physics" support 100% what you are saying.

The problem is than I 'm not that easily impressed. You should go through the calculation all the way to support your case.

We had a rather interesting (and amusing) conversation about turning calculation a while back:
A Complete Waste of Space Forums-viewtopic-FW190 design advantages in high speed maneuvering

I'm afraid that dear Crumpp did not learn anything, but it prompted me to do a sustained turning calculation model in Excel. You should do the same.


----------



## lesofprimus (Jan 10, 2009)

Im so fu*kin sick of this Goddamn question it makes me wanna lock this thread.... Soren, until u show an actual scan of the Rechlin Tests u have always quoted/talked about but never provided, SHUT THE FU*K UP ABOUT THE COMPARISON!!! Im over it and so are many others here...

Keep it up and I will ban ur ass permanantly... Provide the proof, WHICH U HAVE NEVER DONE, or dont bring it up again... The argument has been hammered into the ground, and until u show hard proof of the Test data, leave it alone... This sh!t has topedoed many a decent thread, and Im not puttin up with it anymore from u...

This is about a Poll up top involving the F6F vs the 109...

And my opinion is that if u had Erich Hartmann in his 109 and David McCampbell in his Hellcat, the US Navy loses a MoH winner... If used correctly with the LE Slats, the 109, I BELEIVE, would outturn the contemporary Spit and Hellcat..

We are talking about someone who knows the handling characteristics of his aricraft as if he designed it... The average Luftwaffe pilot in late 44 would, IMO, not be able to turn with a Hellcat..

And for the love of God, would u please cease and desist in calling the Hellcats firepower "devestating/massive"... It was adequete for the job and should of had cannons...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 10, 2009)

lesofprimus said:


> Im so fu*kin sick of this Goddamn question it makes me wanna lock this thread.... Soren, until u show an actual scan of the Rechlin Tests u have always quoted/talked about but never provided, SHUT THE FU*K UP ABOUT THE COMPARISON!!! Im over it and so are many others here...
> 
> Keep it up and I will ban ur ass permanantly... Provide the proof, WHICH U HAVE NEVER DONE, or dont bring it up again... The argument has been hammered into the ground, and until u show hard proof of the Test data, leave it alone... This sh!t has topedoed many a decent thread, and Im not puttin up with it anymore from u...
> 
> ...



Really tell us how you feel Dan!


----------



## lesofprimus (Jan 10, 2009)

Im sick and tired of his incessant whining on the subject, its getting me pissed...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 10, 2009)

lesofprimus said:


> Im sick and tired of his incessant whining on the subject, its getting me pissed...



Welcome to my world. All I want is what others want. Something to back up the claims.


----------



## walle (Jan 10, 2009)

> We are talking about someone who knows the handling characteristics of his aricraft as if he designed it... The average Luftwaffe pilot in late 44 would, IMO, not be able to turn with a Hellcat..


It’s my understanding that they’ve been talking about the aircraft and the aircrafts capabilities within the framework of her design lesofprimus.

You could put me in a Ferrari mate and I wouldn’t be able to use the potential of the car, says nothing about the capabilities of the car though, but you know what? I wouldn’t mind one anyway.



//Eric


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 10, 2009)

I think Dan has made some points abundantly clear.

Some questions in my mind;

Were the RAF evaluators who were afraid of the 109s slats deploying (because of the imminent stall) always afraid or did they eventually overcome their fear and perform full stalls and tight turns with the slats deployed? Did they ever figure out they could turn and fly the plane with the slats fully deployed?

Did the same evaluators eventually check out in Lysanders to overcome their fear as that aircraft had LE slats as well?

Did the RAF not provide adequate stall/ spin training to its test pilots?

Did RAF test pilots not land any aircraft in a full stall 3 point landing?

Were RAF test pilots just cowards?

Inquiry minds want to know!


----------



## Glider (Jan 10, 2009)

I always have this question in my mind. If the 109 could so easily turn inside the Spitfire, why didn't they?

The excuse that the deployment of the slats put the pilots off doesn't hold water, as in the Me108 they had the perfect tool to train the pilots in how best to use the slats.


----------



## drgondog (Jan 10, 2009)

Soren said:


> Great, cause physics 100% supports what I'm saying. You can ask Bill about that as-well, he knows it, he just doesn't like my way of saying stuff (I'm too 'direct'). And why he has decided to blindside me despite us agreeing to respect one another I don't know. But nevermind that.
> 
> *I don't see how I 'blindisided you' Soren. It isn't the 'direct' side that bothers me - it's the "fact" thingy that keeps getting in the way.*
> 
> ...




Back to the thesis.

1. No Rechlin Tests, or any other tests submitted, other than RAE/FRAF comparitive tests which you discount because of 'cowardly' Brit test pilots. You discount this one because the conclusion from professional (and multiple) test pilots is different from your own. Curious.

2. No tests of any kind comparing F6F-3 or -5 to a Spit or a 109 - but you dismiss the F6F ability to turn with either or both?

3. You are dabbling again in 'physics', claiming once again that what we have debated regarding Turn Performance modelling is saturated with fact from 'wind tunnel tests' - when in Fact, no such data has been forthcoming for Cd0 or reliable Hp to altitude charts. Why??

This is Physics with one equation and two unknowns (T and Cd0). How do you propose to solve this? BTW Cd0 for the airfoil is NOT Cd0 for the airframe, nor is Hp for supercharged and turbo supercharged engines linear with altitude.

If you consider my tone and questions and comments in this thread as 'blind siding' then you have a different vocabulary.

I think what everyone has said (except you) is that the question of F6F-5 vs 109G or K is an interesting question and probably has different answers depending on the engagement profile.. but there isn't much in comparitive tests or even flight data for the two ships to truly answer the question analytically. 

But you consistently make bold and unassailable opinions which don't have facts to support them - and you wonder why you 'get blind sided" ??


----------



## drgondog (Jan 10, 2009)

lesofprimus said:


> And my opinion is that if u had Erich Hartmann in his 109 and David McCampbell in his Hellcat, the US Navy loses a MoH winner... If used correctly with the LE Slats, the 109, I BELEIVE, would outturn the contemporary Spit and Hellcat..
> 
> *Probably true for any neutral engagement based on pilot skill.*
> 
> ...



Dan the -5 was equipped with two inboard 20mm and 4 x 50 cal. For this variant the damn thing also had 12% more 50 cal than the 4 gun P-51B/C.

The six fifty version carried 2400 rounds. I didn't know either fact before I started researching the Pax river test data. I wish the 51 had the same.


----------



## Soren (Jan 11, 2009)

drgondog said:


> What stopped the 'performance' thread last year was two very specific 'fact deficiencies' - one was a documented Hp to altitude set of data for each of the above airframes. The second was a lack of actual Cd0 for each of the above aircraft. Without both it is impossible to develop a reasonably accurate Free Body Force model to follow a turn or predict energy bleed for a horizontal turning manuever.



Oh but Bill we do have the actual windtunnel established Cd0 figures for each a/c. What we lack is the HP to altitude.



Timppa said:


> You seem to have a "Crumppish" approach. Throw in a couple of formulas (obviously to impress) and then declare that "physics" support 100% what you are saying.
> 
> The problem is than I 'm not that easily impressed. You should go through the calculation all the way to support your case.



Oh ok, fair enough, no problem. I'll do the calculations aswell if that is what you need. Lets use the Fw190 as our example where we know the Clmax.

*Lift equation (FW190):*

CL * A * .5 * r * V^2 = X Newtons

1.58 * 18.3 * .5 * 1.225 * 112^2 = 222152.045 N

*Convert result in Newtons into kgf:*

222152.045 Newtons = 22653.2 kgf

*Divide result with a/c weight to get Max G:*

22653.2 / 4270 = 5.3

*Max G at 112 m/s (400 km/h):*

5.3 G

So there we have the instantanious turn performance of the a/c. If we want the sustained turn performance we need take into consideration propulsive power drag. 



> We had a rather interesting (and amusing) conversation about turning calculation a while back:
> A Complete Waste of Space Forums-viewtopic-FW190 design advantages in high speed maneuvering
> 
> I'm afraid that dear Crumpp did not learn anything, but it prompted me to do a sustained turning calculation model in Excel. You should do the same.



Giving me a link to a debate with Crumpp where he is obviously right doesn't help your argument.

Now tell me all of you who take the RAF tests as gospel, if you know your physics just slightly how can you at all take them seriously ? Why am I asking this ? Because the RAF somehow managed to turn a Fw190 JABO! with a P-51B, yet they couldn't manage that with a 109 ? That doesn't seem a tad odd to you ? Esp. considering that the Bf-109 always quite easily outturned the Fw190 in German comparative tests. 

As for pilots new to the 109 not being wary of the slats, well incase the 3 aces making that quite clear to you then we can also go further if you wish:

From the RAF tests with the Bf109G against the Tempest:
_Turning Circle 
47. The Tempest is slightly better, the Me.109G *being embarrassed by its slots opening near the stall.* _

This pilot seems to have been oblivious to the purpose of the slats and how they functioned. First of all they don't begin to open 'near' the stall, and when they open they increase the Clmax critical AoA by 25%! That means you've got another 25% to go before you get near the stall.







So do you still believe that the RAF pushed the 109 to its' limits ?? Or do you finally see the pattern developing here ?


----------



## Glider (Jan 11, 2009)

Soren said:


> That's hilarious coming from you Glider.
> 
> You must believe you have provided some evidence, I'm still waiting to see it though.
> 
> What I'd like to know even more though is what you refer to when you say "all the evidence".



Soren
I am not the one who keeps spouting the same sources".


> Erwin Leykauf, German fighter pilot, 33 victories.
> "During what was later called the 'Battle of Britain', we flew the Messerschmitt Bf109E. The essential difference from the Spitfire Mark I flown at that time by the RAF was that the Spitfire was less manoeuvrable in the rolling plane. With its shorter wings (2 metres less wingspan) and its square-tipped wings, the Bf 109 was more manoeuvrable and slightly faster. (It is of interest that the English later on clipped the wings of the Spitfire.)
> For us, the more experienced pilots, real manoeuvring only started when the slats were out. For this reason it is possible to find pilots from that period (1940) who will tell you that the Spitfire turned better than the Bf 109. That is not true. I myself had many dogfights with Spitfires and I could always out-turn them. This is how I shot down six of them." ".


Small point but fair is that he was awarded three kills not six and did most of his fighting in Russia.

"


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


Walter Wolfrum did all his fighting in Russia and I do not believe he ever fought a Spitfire.

".


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


He has the right to make this statement but it’s a fact that once the first Spitfires arrived in the Desert they made a significant inpact on the Luftwaffe’s effectiveness. As has been pointed out even he admits the 109E was less manoeuvrable. 

".


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


You always mention this one quote and none of the others where he comments on the difference in manoeuvrability. 
Also you never mention another small but interesting fact that you only quote Aces. Aces as we all agree will always get that extra 10% out of their aircraft, what matters is how equally matched pilots get on. What is impressive about the quotes in the Spitfire site is the breadth of examples often Sergeant Pilots, indeed some of them describe the 109 in detail including that the LE slats being deployed and the Spitfire still turning inside them.

And again you never mention the other senior German Aces who comment on the better manoeuvrability / turning ability of the Spitfire including Galland, Hans Knoke, Molders, Gerhard Schopfel, Gunther Rall. I am sure that they cannot all have been scared of the LE Slat deployment. 
Plus of course the entry into the War Diary of I/JG 3 which would not have been authorised unless it was the feeling of the unit. In the RN when an entry was made into the ships log it was taken seriously and I suspect an entry into the war diary was treated with equal gravity.

Every time you raise this I have asked you to find examples of average 109 Pilots who have commented on the ability of the 109 to turn inside the Spitfire and you have never come up with the goods. Interestingly I have one, it’s a little unusual but valid, but thought it best for you to find some evidence as you would not believe mine.

All this has been repeated before and I apologise for imposing this on the other members of the thread again.


----------



## Timppa (Jan 11, 2009)

Soren said:


> ....If we want the sustained turn performance we need take into consideration propulsive power drag.
> ...
> Giving me a link to a debate with Crumpp where he is obviously right doesn't help your argument.



That is what I asked, full calculation of sustained turn performance.

Crumpp compared two planes, both with the practically same top speed. The (lighter) other plane has substantially lower wing loading, lower stall speed, and higher power to weight ratio. Still he claimed that the heavier plane can be better in sustained turning. You can draw your conclusions...

I actually have not presented my arguments, the Bf109G was found inferior to F6F in turning in British test. I just cited it. Too bad if you don't like it (apparently for reasons I really cannot understand)

As to my argument, Bf109F is probably very close to F6F in turning. The later G's and K's are most likely inferior. But it does not matter as they can, especially the K-4, engage and disengage from the fight at will. That is a decisive advantage.


----------



## drgondog (Jan 11, 2009)

Soren said:


> Oh but Bill we do have the actual windtunnel established Cd0 figures for each a/c. What we lack is the HP to altitude.
> 
> *Soren - "we" have yet to find and post wind tunnel data citing the Cd0 of the airframe. The Only DRAG comparison I have ever seen is in Lednicer's report that we touched on many times before and that was Fw 190D, Fw 190A, P-51 and Spit IX - IIRC that was the all in profile drag for one Reynolds number region. *
> 
> ...



*Assume the pilot DOES know the purpose of slats, and for some reason the ones on the tested ship are not operating to his expectations? Now introduce the counter evidence of the Rechlin comparitive tests. That is all anyone is asking when you dismiss either Brown or the RAE test pilots opinions of the 109 versus any other aircraft.*

All anyone asks of you regarding 'physics' is that when you quote it you demonstrate that you know it. 

Don't depend on Gene's models or tables. He knows his stuff but unless you can break down his models you don't know what his assumptions are. He may have changed his model but the one he sent to me is sea level, bench Hp at sea level - then calculate parasite drag from a calculated thrust for a table Hp at sea level, and a max speed for that setting at sea level.

Those ARE factors and data one can find in many sources (although many equally are contradictary)

It does not have an 'opinion' for any other altitude, it can not take into account a slat transistion, or control stiffness or trim condition or any other more minor but still significant modelling considerations to have a 'comprehensive physics' discussion.

Your opinions are ever so much more valued when you admit what you don't know or aren't sure of rather than dismiss opposing opinions as idiocy or get bent when someone respectfully asks you to produce evidence of your third party 'facts'.


----------



## Kurfürst (Jan 11, 2009)

Juha said:


> Some 20 RAF and 3 LW pilots tell us that Spit I turned better than 109E here, scroll down until subtitle Turning appears Spitfire Mk I versus Me 109 E



... how many of these claims of shooting down an enemy aircraft actually hold true? The RAF FC overclaimed something in the order of 2-3 to one during the Battle. Of course if you insist I can start spamming the page with LW claims of Spitfires and Hurricanes, I believe there are about 2000+ of these for just the BoB - many undoubtedly overclaiming or just damaging the aircraft. Can you explain how is this possible?

Oddly enough the site doesn't quote Erwin Leykauf and Herbert Kaiser though who claim the Emil could turn with the Spit, and oddly enough while it quotes _snippets_ from Kurfürst - R.A.E. - Messerschmitt Me.109 Handling and Manoeuvrability Tests on the qualities of the 109E, though somehow the part that states that :

_The gentle stall and good control under g (of the 109E) are of some importance, as they enable the pilot to 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._

The RAE report also mentions that no comparison flights were made with the 109E using flaps to assist its manouvre, and that their calculation of turning circles are based on guesswork of the 109E's CL, based on stall speed measurements (which themselves vary quite a bit) of the Spitfire. 

For what it worth, there are also German calculation about turning time and radii: http://www.kurfurst.org/Tactical_trials/109E_Kurvenwendigkeit/TB17-40_Kurwenwendigkeit_Me-typen.pdf

Quite clearly there were a lot more to the story than the Mike Williams site usually reveals. 



Juha said:


> On Spit IX vs 109G again scroll down until subtitle Pilot Accounts appears, there are at least hundred of them Spitfire Mk IX versus Me 109 G - Flight Testing



Oddly enough the same site quotes Pierre Clostermann's comments on in his late Tempest ride with a Sabre at +13 boost in April 1945, though somehow overlooked Pierre Clostermann's following comments while flying a Merlin 63 Spitfire Mk IXF (the +18 lbs boost version):

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

Clostermann also has some unflattering comments about the lack of performance of late war Spitfires against the latest Luftwaffe fighters, as well as some comments regarding the Tempest vs 109. 

Unsurprisingly, none of that are being quoted there.



> And as always the man behind the stick was a very important factor in ac vs ac comparasion.



Agreed and supported by the great variaty shown in pilot accounts.

BTW Eric Brown flew Bf 109G-6/U2 with Rüststatz III and VI (droptank, 2cm gunpods) that landed in July 1944 in Britain. The aircraft appearantly lacked MW50 boost, and it belonged to a _Wilde Sau_ night fighter unit. That was when flew the type for the first time, I believe I have read he flew it for a total of _one hour_.

Actually all of the RAF tests that are usually quoted are based on just a couple of aircraft:

Bf 109E-3, WNr 1304, that belly landed in France in 1939. Had some engine problems, appearantly MAP was falling with altitude.
Pingel's aircraft, a Bf 109F-2, that did a belly landing and was in a pretty awful shape esp. in the engine some test flight but no tac. comparison flights were made, as the aircraft suddenly dived and crashed after a while.
Bf 109G-2/trop, an aircraft that was left behind by the Germans in the desert in late 1942, as some of systems (hydraulics) were not working and there was some battle damage (splinter in prop). It was broken down in late 1943 and transferred to Britain, and was said to be in very poor shape, some parts were cannibalised from another 109 etc. Still exists, aka "Black Six".
Bf 109G-6/U2 w. R III and RVI, mentioned above. This was written off in a TO/L accident.

*
And most importantly of all, how did this discussion degenerated into the usual 109vsSpitfire turn exercise with the usual suspects?*


----------



## Kurfürst (Jan 11, 2009)

Amsel said:


> In the last part of the book he compares German fighters to American. He has flown the Me 109.



I am quite sure he didn't, as he is awfully ignorant of it (how the heck can he claims otherwise it had no automatic propeller pitch, that was appearing already in 1939 and was standard since about late 1940, and definitely so with the 109F...?)

Thing is Carson merely quotes parts of the RAE's report on the 109E, an early production example of the Emil captured by the French in 1939, and adds some malice to it. But geee, the Carson topic has been beaten to death so many times..


----------



## Juha (Jan 11, 2009)

Hello Kurfürst
Quote:” Of course if you insist I can start spamming the page with LW claims of Spitfires and Hurricanes, I believe there are about 2000+ of these for just the BoB - many undoubtedly overclaiming or just damaging the aircraft. Can you explain how is this possible?”

Firstly, I put only a couple links, not spam anything
Secondly, if you have LW combat reports from BoB period, please put a couple on this site, on a new tread of course.
Thirdly, why Germans overclaimed, probably on same reasons that everybody else. If you mean, how they succeeded shot down many Spits and Hurris, Bf 109E was a very good fighter, Germans had many pilots with battle experience and their tactics were much better.

Quote:” And most importantly of all, how did this discussion degenerated into the usual 109vsSpitfire turn exercise with the usual suspects?”

You mean Soren’s posts #24, 40 and 41?

Juha


----------



## Waynos (Jan 11, 2009)

Going back a bit I know but why would British test pilots be afraid of slats? Its not as if they were unkown as they were, after all, a British invention and they were originally called 'Handley Page slots' (he British name for a slat is a slot) RAE pilots would be well familiarised with the device.


----------



## Kurfürst (Jan 11, 2009)

_Slats were first developed by Gustav Lachmann in 1918. A crash in August 1917, with a Rumper C aeroplane on account of stalling caused the idea to be put in a concrete form, and a small wooden model was built in 1917 in Cologne. In 1918, Lachmann presented a patent for leading edge slats in Germany. However, the German patent office at first rejected it as the office did not believe in the possibility of increasing lift by dividing the wing.

Independently of Lachmann, Frederick Handley-Page in Great Britain also developed the slotted wing as a way to postpone stall by reducing the turbulence over the wing at high angles of attack, and formally patented it in 1919; to avoid a patent challenge, the wealthy Handley Page offered Lachmann a job, which he accepted. That year a DeHaviland DH9 was fitted with slats and flown. Working with at the Handley-Page aircraft company, Lachmann was later responsible for a number of aircraft designs, including the Handley Page Hampden._


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 11, 2009)

Waynos said:


> Going back a bit I know but why would British test pilots be afraid of slats? Its not as if they were unkown as they were, after all, a British invention and they were originally called 'Handley Page slots' (he British name for a slat is a slot) RAE pilots would be well familiarised with the device.


My Point.

I could see during an initial flight but later on I could see the RAE wanting to evaluate the extent of their operation. Additionally if you do any type of full stalls (something at the "front end' of the flight test spectrum) you're going to have those slats deployed, additionally they should be deploying on landing. And I doubt RAE pilots never went on to fully stall captured 109s because of the LE slats opening.


----------



## Waynos (Jan 11, 2009)

There ya go, like I said. The RAE pilots would have been flying planes with slots for years before they got a 109.

I stand partially corrected though K, I didn't know that was how Lachmann got his job at HP. So they both did it independantly but HP had the cash. Sorted.


----------



## Soren (Jan 11, 2009)

*Bill,*

Bf-109 Cd0: 0.0023
Spitfire Cd0: 0.00229

We have the Clmax for each a/c so now we just need the HP vs Altitude.

And regarding the RAF tests, I've got several German tests directly contradiciting them. Take Hans Werner Lerche's comparison between the Bf-109G, La5FN Fw-190A8 in 1944:

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


Source: "Luftwaffe Test Pilot" by Hans Werner Lerche. He flew virtually all captured Allied aircraft and most German types, including experimental models. 

Then there are the tests done by Heinrich Beauvais and several others, all concluding that the Bf-109 easily outturns the Fw-190. 


*Waynos,*

The handley page slot was invented in England yes, but only a very few British a/c featured it, and those who did featured the fixed slot combination. Thus very few to none of the test pilots the RAF had had ever flown an a/c with slats, much less automatic LE slats.


----------



## Graeme (Jan 12, 2009)

B-36 XB-35: swept wing, or not?

Odd site, but from it...


> *Yes Handley Page invented the automatic leading edge slat and traded
> the patent with Messerschmitt for his method of constructing wings in
> the 1920s.* Handely Page did not invent the fixed leading edge slat or
> slot (eg Me163) or the slat that is deployed by hydraulic forces. No
> ...






Soren said:


> only a very few British a/c featured it



Interesting point. As far as British *fighters* incorporating leading edge slots/slats, there were only five (?)...

A 1926 version of the Bristol Fighter.
The Handley Page H.P.21.
The Boulton Paul P.31 Bitten.
The Westland Pterodactyl Mark V and the Whirlwind.


----------



## drgondog (Jan 12, 2009)

Soren said:


> *Bill,*
> 
> Bf-109 Cd0: 0.0023
> Spitfire Cd0: 0.00229
> ...



And you know this how?


----------



## Glider (Jan 12, 2009)

Soren
Re


Soren said:


> *Bill,*
> The handley page slot was invented in England yes, but only a very few British a/c featured it, and those who did featured the fixed slot combination. Thus very few to none of the test pilots the RAF had had ever flown an a/c with slats, much less automatic LE slats.



I might be missing something, but you seem to be working on the premise that the RAF test pilots had never flown the Lysander which at that time, was a pretty common aircraft in the RAF.


----------



## Kurfürst (Jan 12, 2009)

I do not see whats the point of debate, regardless of the avarage British pilots familiarity or unfamiliarity with leading edge slats, the RAF test against the Tempest states quite clearly the pilot was emberassed by the opening of the slats, which certainly indicates (along with the relative lack of turn performance reported, ie. compared to FW 190 results) that he was not pushing the plane too hard in turns.

So whats the point in debating the details, the report is pretty clear about the a/c not being pushed to the edge. We can ponder on the why, but on what purpose...?

And as far as the F6 goes, I believe it wasn't tested against the captured 109G, so we can only guess about their relative merits, though I would not be surprised if the F6 was slightly better, wing loading was very slightly lower, though this could be a match considering the 109's high lift devices, good handling near the stall and good power to weight ratio. 

What we know is that the G-2 required ca 20 secs to complete a 360 degree sustained turn at 1000 m, and a turning circle of 280 or so meters, presumably at low altitudes. This refers to 1.3ata performance, so at 1.42ata the turn time is likely to be a bit better. What are the comparable figures for the F6F?


----------



## Juha (Jan 12, 2009)

Hello Kurfürst
Quote:” Oddly enough the site doesn't quote Erwin Leykauf and Herbert Kaiser though who claim the Emil could turn with the Spit.”

Yes, it’s a pity that the site doesn’t quote Kaiser, because the complete quote continues after that what Soren quoted. 
“…Our first victims were Mark Vs and it was not difficult opponent to Bf 109 F(-4) except in turning combat (Kurvenkampf) – so we simply avoid that kind of combat. When Allied made amphibious landings to North-Africa, Sicily and Italy, we met Mk IXs and they were entirely different opponents. We suffered in their claws…”
Source: Hannu Valtonen Messerschmitt Bf 109 ja Saksan... p. 228, his source was Christy, Joe (Ed.) WW II: Luftwaffe Combat Planes Aces. Vol 18 Modern Aviation Library, Book Number 218. p. 86.
Juha


----------



## Kurfürst (Jan 12, 2009)

Can we see a scan of the page, Juha, and the full quote if you are so interested in full quotes? 

BTW the quote is also interesting because it shows Kaiser's unit was not meeting Mark IXs until mid/late 1943... perhaps these were HF Mk IXs, I have seen on Mike's site these were introduced in March 1943? Although I am not sure sure which of the _total of three examples of this Mark that were produced in the year 1943_ he refers to.


----------



## Juha (Jan 12, 2009)

Hello Kurfûrst
As I have wrote earlier, I haven't a scanner and anyway as the title shows, Valtonen's book is in Finnish. That's why I gave his source, there seems to be a lot of LW pilots opinions on Bf 109s in Christy's book, it might be an interesting book for you and for many of us. ISBN is 0-8306-9668-7. Valtonen gave the name in the notes as Christy but in bibliography as Cristy.

the quote ends "because they were 80kmh faster than Mk Vs and had 20mm cannon." That's all. Others are for ex Walter Wolfrum.

Juha


----------



## KrazyKraut (Jan 12, 2009)

Glider said:


> Soren
> Re
> 
> I might be missing something, but you seem to be working on the premise that the RAF test pilots had never flown the Lysander which at that time, was a pretty common aircraft in the RAF.


Even if. I dare say it's rather unlikely they used the Lysander in turning combat so I doubt they would benefit from that experience.


----------



## Juha (Jan 12, 2009)

Hello Kurfürst
in fact the landings in N-Africa happened in Nov 42 and soon after that Mk IXs arrived in NA.

KrazyKraut
in fact the only thing that might save Lysander in combat mission if it met enemy fighters was hard turning at zero feet, and Lysander pilots were trained for that, so your opinion might be wrong.

Juha


----------



## KrazyKraut (Jan 12, 2009)

Aha okay. I don't know much about the plane and it just seemed unlikely that a liaison plane would be pushed to the limits like a fighter would.


----------



## Kurfürst (Jan 12, 2009)

Juha said:


> Hello Kurfûrst
> As I have wrote earlier, I haven't a scanner and anyway as the title shows, Valtonen's book is in Finnish. That's why I gave his source, there seems to be a lot of LW pilots opinions on Bf 109s in Christy's book, it might be an interesting book for you and for many of us. ISBN is 0-8306-9668-7. Valtonen gave the name in the notes as Christy but in bibliography as Cristy.
> 
> the quote ends "because they were 80kmh faster than Mk Vs and had 20mm cannon." That's all. Others are for ex Walter Wolfrum.
> ...



Thank you for the info Juha, I will check it out, its probably very interesting. Pity that lately I order more books than I have time to read!


----------



## Juha (Jan 12, 2009)

Hello Kurfürst
I have the same problem, it's so wrong . When one has time one doesn't have money to buy all the interesting books, when one gets money he doesn't have time to read all those interesting books he had bought.

KK
Lysander wasn't a liaison plane but an army co-op plane and as Hs 126 when enemy fighters saw one its survival was mostly up to pilot's skill in horizontal fight. Of course also close coordination with observer and pilot was needed. Those Lysander/Hs 126 pilots were sometimes very skillful and flew their planes to limit.

Juha


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 12, 2009)

Kurfürst said:


> I do not see whats the point of debate, regardless of the avarage British pilots familiarity or unfamiliarity with leading edge slats, the RAF test against the Tempest states quite clearly the pilot was emberassed by the opening of the slats, which certainly indicates (along with the relative lack of turn performance reported, ie. compared to FW 190 results) that he was not pushing the plane too hard in turns.
> 
> So whats the point in debating the details, the report is pretty clear about the a/c not being pushed to the edge. We can ponder on the why, but on what purpose...?


Because during a normal flight test profile you would investigate how all systems work within and sometimes outside normal operational profiles - I remember reading that paper when the test pilot said he was "embarrassed" by the LE slats. Keep in mind that these too would of deployed if the aircraft were being landed full stall, 3 point. After a few events I would venture to guess that the RAF pilots got used to the things and eventually allowed them to work as designed. 

The point here if this pilot was "embarrased" when the slats deployed during a tight turn, he should of been horrified during stalls and landings.

How is this is relevant? - perhaps the aircraft were being flown to the extent of skill of those pilots testing it, adding to the argument of why certain 109 drivers were so sure they could out turn a Spitfire, and in the end having this issue of the LE slat deployment not a factor regardless if they (the RAE) ever did push the captured 109s to their full performance capability.


----------



## Graeme (Jan 12, 2009)

Juha said:


> Those Lysander/Hs 126 pilots were sometimes very skillful and flew their planes to limit.Juha



But no aerobatics, please...


----------



## Juha (Jan 12, 2009)

Hello KF
I took a short look on Valtonen’s book, in Christy’s book there are also Franz Stiegler’s opinion, who also compares Bf 109 and Fw 190 but on downside there is also Carlsson’s “missinfo” on 109.

On British test pilots and slats, in Valtonen’s book there is also the well known E. Brown’s article and in it he clearly stated that slats came out 30kmh before stall all up/clean. So clearly he pulled past the opening of slats. The term Emberassed might come from the fact than in turning fight slats began popping out separately when 109 hit the wake of the other a/c and so ruined aiming. But what I remember on Finns experiences British seemed to have overstated this problem.

Juha


----------



## renrich (Jan 12, 2009)

One of the advantages that the Hellcat had over the 109, according to Brown, and I think this is not arguable, was the view from the cockpit. I wonder if pilot visibility was as important as it sometimes is made out to be for this reason. I looked at a BF109 at the Cavanaugh Museum in Addison, Texas and although I was not allowed to sit in it it looked as if visibility would be awful. The cockpit is very heavily framed,(even worse than a "birdcage" Corsair) the pilot sits low in the airplane and I have read that it is hard to turn one's head because of the narrowness. A FW190 has good visiblity to the sides and rear except for the low semi reclining position of the pilot but vision to the front is severely curtailed. The comparison of the Hellcat and Corsair with an FW by the Navy remarked at the poor forward vision of the FW and how it would hamper deflection shooting. Nevertheless, the 109s and 190s were good at ACM so maybe good visibility is not as important as thought? Any observations?


----------



## Glider (Jan 12, 2009)

KrazyKraut said:


> Even if. I dare say it's rather unlikely they used the Lysander in turning combat so I doubt they would benefit from that experience.



On the contrary, if a Lysander is intercepted by a fighter all he has, is his ability to turn and manoeuvre. 

Plus as you well know, my comment was against Sorens assumption _Thus very few to none of the test pilots the RAF had had ever flown an a/c with slats, much less automatic LE slats._

Clearly they had flown aircraft with autmatic leading edge slats.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 12, 2009)

Juha said:


> On British test pilots and slats, in Valtonen’s book there is also the well known E. Brown’s article and in it he clearly stated that slats came out 30kmh before stall all up/clean. So clearly he pulled past the opening of slats. The term Emberassed might come from the fact than in turning fight slats began popping out separately when 109 hit the wake of the other a/c and so ruined aiming. But what I remember on Finns experiences British seemed to have overstated this problem.
> 
> Juha



Great info Juha, thanks!


----------



## Soren (Jan 13, 2009)

> Source and document please..



I have given all of this to you before, you seem to forget fast, but here it is again:

Bf-109G Cd0 = *0.0023*:




And the Spitfire's Cd0 you can find yourself on Mike William's site. It is *0.00229*. 




> And this relates to 109 vs F6F, Spit or Mustang how?



Are you saying you don't follow the logic that in British testing they didn't push the 109 to its limits ? Proven once with the comment "_Being embarrased by the opening of its slots_" and twice when the British fail to even turn it with a Tempest while they were able to outturn a P-51B with a Fw190 Jabo bomber.



> Yes, the La 7 was one of the apendices at the back of the book



La5FN.



> I believe you have said this many times, and that they are referenced from Rechlin 'tests', but you produce no document or tabulated results. This is/has been the subject of a lot of debate - you state but you don't produce the data.



I have supplied you with that before as-well, but again you forget.


----------



## Soren (Jan 13, 2009)

Juha said:


> On British test pilots and slats, in Valtonen’s book there is also the well known E. Brown’s article and in it he clearly stated that slats came out 30kmh before stall all up/clean. So clearly he pulled past the opening of slats. The term Emberassed might come from the fact than in turning fight slats began popping out separately when 109 hit the wake of the other a/c and so ruined aiming. But what I remember on Finns experiences British seemed to have overstated this problem.



I disagree, esp. since the 109's slats did NOT pop in and out during turning fights because of a wake or turblunce, that is merely an old untrue myth. It never happens. If it were to happen it would mean that a normal wing would experience the same effect and a sudden drop of lift when following another a/c, but it doesn't.

Dave Southwood, a modern 109 pilot, has addressed this issue before and made it quite clear that he has never experienced such a thing in the 109G ever whilst following or turning with other a/c.


----------



## HoHun (Jan 13, 2009)

Hi Juha,

>The term Emberassed might come from the fact than in turning fight slats began popping out separately when 109 hit the wake of the other a/c and so ruined aiming. But what I remember on Finns experiences British seemed to have overstated this problem.

Absolutely. Radinger/Schick in their "Me 109" note that the Bayerische Flugzeugwerke and the Deutsche Versuchsanstalt für Luftfahrt undertook extensive trials of the slats in a major test program (worth 2,000,000 Reichsmark), which resulted in the deletion of the locking mechanism which originally held down the slats while the flaps were extended by less than 10 degrees. (If you're familiar with the US analysis of a captured Me 110, they found the remnants of such a locking mechanism which had been disabled, so it was not only used in the Me 109.)

Another series of test flights were undertaken in 1936 to determine if there was any danger of the slats during spins. Gustav Lachmann of Handley Page suggested that the slats should be equipped with a pneumatic retraction device to safeguard against the opened slats making the spin irrecoverable, but it turned out that this device had never to be used during the trials.

The results of these test flights were that the handling characteristics of the Me 109 were made much more docile in turns and aerobatics with flaps retracted by the freely operating slats.

If you read the French comparison report on the D.520 vs. Me 109E trials, you'll find that the two fighters had virtually identical turn rates at the test altitude, but the Me 109 could be flown reliably at the edge of the stall with sufficient warning to stay in the turn, while the D.520 lacked such a warning and sooner or later flicked out of the turn when the pilot inadvertently flew it into the stall.

(The Spitfire could be reliably flown on the edge of the stall like the Messerschmitt too, relying on aerodynamic wash-out to achieve a gradual instead of an abrupt stall. For the record, I don't think the Me 109 could match the Spitfire's sustained turn, except perhaps when you take a particularly heavy and poorly performing Spitfire variant like a tropicalized Spitfire V against a very light and well turning Messerschmitt variant like the Me 109F-4.)

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)


----------



## Juha (Jan 13, 2009)

Hello HoHun
thanks a lot for the info. I have read the French test report from Kurfürst page and also E. Brown was critical to the stall characters of D.520. He also noted that the stall of Bf 109 itself was bening and descriped it much like the Finnish test pilot Kokko, so IMHO Brown had flown 109 to its limits.
IIRC Brown wrote that like in 190 also in Spit the pilot needed skill to be able to flown the a/c to the limit. 

And thanks for posting the page from Groehler's book in Production rate thread, I have noticed earlier that Valtonen has been in times careless in his notes, not mentioning all of his sources or leaving some pages away from where he has obtained his info.

Juha


----------



## drgondog (Jan 13, 2009)

Soren said:


> I disagree, esp. since the 109's slats did NOT pop in and out during turning fights because of a wake or turblunce, that is merely an old untrue myth. It never happens. If it were to happen it would mean that a normal wing would experience the same effect and a sudden drop of lift when following another a/c, but it doesn't.
> 
> Dave Southwood, a modern 109 pilot, has addressed this issue before and made it quite clear that he has never experienced such a thing in the 109G ever whilst following or turning with other a/c.



Soren - both could be 'right'. Dave could be right that it never happened to him.

In turbulence there are indicial random velocity vectors... and non-predictible.

If you have a 'block' of particularly turbulent air impinging on a wing, the vertical components (of flow) could conceivably cause a local stall condition.. 

It (local vertical indicial gust) could conceivably happen in level flight in rough weather. 

What would not be expected to occur would be a sustained and continuous set of similar conditions which would sustain the stall conditions for a period of time.


----------



## Soundbreaker Welch? (Jan 13, 2009)

Another thing is modern WWII recreators probably try to not fly in as dangerous weather conditions as pilots were forced to fly in WWII.

109's probably had to operate in strong winds, some thunderstorms, and even snowstorms. Nowdays they try to limit that, because it's dangeous flying.


----------



## Glider (Jan 14, 2009)

All
This might be of interest, in an old magazine I have found an article by Eric Brown where he describes a flight in the Me109G-6/U2 in 1944. 
The article is in Air Enthusiast June 1973 and yes I did buy it new. As the magazine is still going I have sent them a message asking if I can scan and post it but until I hear back this will have to do.


Getting into it he describes the cockpit as being small and narrow but that the cockpit framing didn’t produce serious blind spots but that the armour glass was very slightly smoky and the aircraft didn’t seem as well built as the earlier versions they had seen. The blind flying panel was better equipped than the Fw190.

The forward view is described as terrible but the aircraft was easily steerable due to the toe pedal-operated wheel brakes and throttle response was particularly good.

On take off is was best to raise the tail early due to the poor forward view but that this was easy to do as the thrust line was higher on the 109 compared to most allied aircraft. Take off was commendably short and considerably better than the Spitfire IX whilst the strong swing to port was easily held with the rudder. The only thing to be wary of was that the 109 had to be flown off the ground. Any attempt to pull it off earlier resulted in the aileron snatching as the wing slots opened unevenly. That said with a good throttle response and a short take off run, that shouldn’t be a problem.

The 109 climbed well and at a steep angle, Stability being excellent in the longitudinal and lateral planes, but neutral directionally. Control harmony for a fighter was considered poor, the rudder was light, the ailerons moderately light and the elevators very heavy.
Over application of the longitudinal control in manoeuvres easily induced the slats to deploy which in turn gave rise to aileron snatching, completely ruining the sighting on any aircraft being attacked._I suspect this is what is meant by embarrassed_

At its cruising speed the Gustav is described as being delightful to fly but this changed at speed. In a dive at 400mph he says that they were very heavy almost as if they had seized. The maximum dive that he achieved in the 109 below 10,000ft was 440mph and the solidity of the control was such, that he considered this to be the absolute limit.

Above 25,000 ft he believed the 109 to be an efficient dogfighter and attacker of bomber formations. 

He was particularly interested in the slats and their operation, the operation of which when doing high G manoeuvres resulting aileron snatching. These tests were undertaken with a clean aircraft and half a fuel load.

The first tests were stalls and this occurred at 105mph and was proceeded by elevator buffet and the opening of the slats about 20mph above the stall. The stall itself was fairly gentle with the nose dropping and the port wing simultaneously dropping about 10 degrees.
The stall in landing configuration was similar.

Dummy attacks were undertaken on a Lancaster and a Mustang III where it was found that the slipstream of these aircraft caused the intermittent operation of the BF109’s slats throwing off the sighting.
Landing 
The approach was steeper than with the Spitfire but the elevator feel is described as very positive giving delightfully accurate control at 118 mph. A substantial change of attitude was needed on the flare and even after touchdown, lift did not spill rapidly and bouncing could easily occur on rough ground. Once down, the brakes could be applied harshly to give a short landing run but care had to be taken to avoid a swing.

The rest of the article gives a summary of the Air Fighter Development Squadrons results against the Spit LF IX, Spit XIV and the Mustang but these are well known.


----------



## Soren (Jan 14, 2009)

Yeah, this aileron snatching is something which never happens according to veteran as-well as modern 109 pilots. The 109E had some problems with the slats jamming, making them rather dangerous in turns, and this was solved with a new slat operating design from the F series onwards.

So I have a feeling that either Brown has never said the above, or that there was something wrong with the slat mechanism on the a/c he flew. 

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


----------



## drgondog (Jan 14, 2009)

Soren said:


> Yeah, this aileron snatching is something which never happens according to veteran as-well as modern 109 pilots. The 109E had some problems with the slats jamming, making them rather dangerous in turns, and this was solved with a new slat operating design from the F series onwards.
> 
> So I have a feeling that either Brown has never said the above, or that there was something wrong with the slat mechanism on the a/c he flew.
> 
> ...




Soren - it still isn't out of the question that Brown was flying a fully functioning 109G, ditto Southwood.

My father never remarked about slat snatching for the two seater he flew at Gablingen but he flew the 190D-9 much more and I don't recall that he even rat raced with Mustangs in the 109. The one thing he remarked on was the significant increase in stiffness of controls above 300kts in the 109 in both roll and turn.

But back to Brown. There is no reason to suppose he didn't fly the 109 thoroughly based on the above recount of 'snatching'..

Free floating LE Slats should always be subjected to possible differential deployment in medium high to high AoA manuevers or gusting/turbulence. 

The question is 'So what' if easily corrected and sustained manuevering isn't difficult as a result. In a turn, the high wing is always at a slightly higher 'effective AoA' and any turbulence Could cause (not Will Cause) deployment - from incidental to complete - depending on that pressure differential at that point at that time. Apparently this wasn't a severe issue to most 109 drivers.

The elevator buffet/slat open on landing approach would be a classic example of slightly changing differences in AoA which could cause a slat to partially deploy.


----------



## Glider (Jan 14, 2009)

I admit the bit that caught my eye was the aircraft being 'clean' with a half tank of fuel. This would indicate to me that the gun pods had probably been removed before the flight.

I would certainly agree that when your in a situation where there is a difference in the pressure on the wings then its likely that the automatic LE slats would deploy individually, I don't see how you can stop them.


----------



## Soren (Jan 14, 2009)

I think the final proof that he [Brown] wasn't flying a properly functioning a/c lies in the mentioned stall speed of 105 mph. That is way too high for the Bf-109G, the true stall speed being around 85 mph flaps gear up. That's a 20 mph difference, strongly indicating something was wrong with the slats. Heck the landing speed is 90 mph.


----------



## drgondog (Jan 14, 2009)

Soren said:


> I think the final proof that he [Brown] wasn't flying a properly functioning a/c lies in the mentioned stall speed of 105 mph. That is way too high for the Bf-109G, the true stall speed being around 85 mph flaps gear up. That's a 20 mph difference, strongly indicating something was wrong with the slats. Heck the landing speed is 90 mph.



Soren - Good point. 

Possible explanation for this is 'take no chances' with an unfamiliar bird. I landed the 51 always about 5kts above the manual - 'just because that's what He did''


----------



## Juha (Jan 15, 2009)

Soren
where You get the info, FAF’s Bf 109 G6 manual says that landing speed was circa 160kmh that is 100mph, Brown’s stall speed 105mph all up is reasonable, and in line with British MTO tests
Kurfrst - No. 209 Group : TEST OF ME.109G-2 (TROP).

“Stalling speed is 102 m.p.h. indicated flaps and wheels down, and 112 m.p.h. with flaps and wheels up.”

Juha


----------



## Soren (Jan 15, 2009)

I get my info from pilots handbooks and original Messerschmitt specifications.

I dunno about the FAF's figures but the landing speed of the Bf-109 K-4 is 150 km/h as listed in German manuals Juha. The landing speed of the Bf-109G6, which was 200 kg lighter, is 145 km/h. And the landing speed of the Bf-109 F-4 is 135 km/h as listed in the POH.

So no, the British figures don't add up at all.


----------



## Juha (Jan 15, 2009)

Hello Soren
now yes landing speed of F-4 was 135kmh IAS (145kmh TAS) but it was lighter and the G6 which Brown flew probably had gun gondolas, because max speed Brown gave was 618kmh which he wrote was in close agreement with Messerschmitt's figure 621kmh which is the speed of G6/R6. I'd not be surprised if gungongolas and long cannon barrels raised stalling speed. MTO 109G-2 had some problems which might well raised stalling speed.

Juha


----------



## Soren (Jan 15, 2009)

Well maybe, we cannot rule that out Juha.


----------



## drgondog (Jan 15, 2009)

Juha said:


> Hello Soren
> now yes landing speed of F-4 was 135kmh IAS (145kmh TAS) but it was lighter and the G6 which Brown flew probably had gun gondolas, because max speed Brown gave was 618kmh which he wrote was in close agreement with Messerschmitt's figure 621kmh which is the speed of G6/R6. I'd not be surprised if gungongolas and long cannon barrels raised stalling speed. MTO 109G-2 had some problems which might well raised stalling speed.
> 
> Juha



Juha - I wonder why would IAS and TAS (135 to 145) be so far apart in normal landing altitudes? If that far apart at sea level for example, what would the calibration error be at altitude? Just curious.


----------



## Juha (Jan 15, 2009)

Hello Soren
the Flugzeug-Entwicklung-Blatt Bf 109 20.8.1944 gives landing speed for G-5, G-6 and G-6 AS (G-14) as 170kmh.

Hello Drgondog
in fact it is only interpolation from the Kennblatt für das Flugzeugmuster Bf 109 F-1 und F-2 page 6, which gave landing speed as 140kmh IAS (150 kmh TAS) at 2700kg. Max speed at SL is given with 1,3 ata as 495 kmh TAS /487 kmh IAS.

Juha

ADDITION: Drgondog, if you want the TAS vs IAS for 109F-1, -2 at a certain altitude, I can check the info for You.


----------



## Soundbreaker Welch? (Jan 15, 2009)

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



That still is a flaw in the 109. A novice German pilot who hears a clunk when his slats deploy, or is suddenly forced to roll his plane when the slats come out; the experience might well disorient him and make him lose vital concentration in a fight, even enough to be shot down by a following enemy fighter, or even have his plane go into a stall.

I haven't heard of many WWII fighter planes that had this problem. They did have other problems, such as the Spitfire being forced to dive upside down. But even a flaw like that, once you know about it, is not so jarring as slats that function poorly.


----------



## drgondog (Jan 15, 2009)

Juha said:


> Hello Soren
> the Flugzeug-Entwicklung-Blatt Bf 109 20.8.1944 gives landing speed for G-5, G-6 and G-6 AS (G-14) as 170kmh.
> 
> Hello Drgondog
> ...




Thx Juha, don't go to that trouble - I was just confused when I noted the difference between IAS (instrument) and TAS (actual) at presumably low altitude where both should have been same with well calibrated instruments?


----------



## Juha (Jan 15, 2009)

Hello Drgondog
a bit odd I admit but Germans maybe thought that the rather small difference between TAS and IAS, probably from position error or whatever in English, didn't matter in a single-seat fighter. LW single seat fighter pilots were not instrument trained anyway and probably didn't care were the true max speed of their kites at zero feet 495 or 487 kmh, what was important was were their a/c faster or slower than enemy a/c.

Juha


----------



## Juha (Jan 15, 2009)

Hello Soundbreaker Welch
I don't know, a docile stall was a big plus. If a/c had a harsh high speed stall it would inhibite less experienced or less good pilots to fly to limit in fear of stalling, especially at low level or stalling at altitude where they crashed but where a Bf 109 pilot would have had time to get the situation in hand.

Juha


----------



## drgondog (Jan 15, 2009)

Juha said:


> Hello Drgondog
> a bit odd I admit but Germans maybe thought that the rather small difference between TAS and IAS, probably from position error or whatever in English, didn't matter in a single-seat fighter. LW single seat fighter pilots were not instrument trained anyway and probably didn't care were the true max speed of their kites at zero feet 495 or 487 kmh, what was important was were their a/c faster or slower than enemy a/c.
> 
> Juha



No, but flying on instrument on final approach i would not want to be confused. Fortunately TAS higher than IAS - lol.


----------



## Soren (Jan 20, 2009)

I got the landing speeds on all German a/c, and the 109G6 it is 145 km/h and the K-4 150 km/h. The Ta-152H-1's is 155 km/h, the Fw-190 D-9's is 167 km/h, and the Fw-190 A-8's is 175 km/h.

I think you've been looking at the turn around speeds right before final approach Juha, cause that is 170 km/h for the Gusrav series.


----------



## Juha (Jan 20, 2009)

Hello Soren
no, I gave my sources, check them. and FAF Pilot's Notes for G6 gave 180 kmh when coming over the a/f boundary.

Juha

ADDITION. At least partly the different figures might come from that FAF landing speed might be for a plane which still had full ammo on board and maybe a little more fuel also while German figures might be for an a/c with all ammo used and with almost empty tank. Flugzeug-Entwicklung-Blatt Bf 109 20.8.1944 gives landing speed at flying weight, which isn’t given. But in that case FAF figures and that from Flugzeug-Entwicklung-Blatt Bf 109 20.8.1944 are more relevant to Brown’s case because if one studies stall speed while trying to figure out how good opponent the fighter is, the stalling speed at combat weight is the important one.


----------



## delcyros (Jan 20, 2009)

180 Km/h over airfield boundary and 145 Km/h landing speed do match well together. 
You always are faster during the approach for safety reasons. It´s better to have excess speed to allow some margin of maneuvering without the fear of a stall.
I have seen approach speed suggestions in excess of 200 Km/h for the Fw-190A, too.


----------



## Juha (Jan 20, 2009)

Hello Delcyros
as i wrote earlier, the landing speed of 109 G6 according to the FAF Pilot's Notes for G6 was 160kmh. And Finnish airfields were usually small when compared to international standards.

Juha


----------



## Soren (Jan 21, 2009)

Well I'm sorry Juha but your claims just go against all MTT Rechlin docs I have. Would you care to share that document you claim mentions a 170 km/h landing speed though ? 

At any rate the landing speed for the Gustav series was 145 km/h, the approach speed being 170 km/h. The landing speed of the Bf-109K-4 was 150 km/h with the approach speed being 175 km/h. 

Infact to sum it up:

*WW2 fighter a/c landing approach speeds*
Bf-109G: 145 km/h 170 km/h
Bf-109K: 150 km/h  175 km/h
Spitfire XIV: 145 km/h 170 km/h
Ta-152H: 155 km/h 180 km/h
Me-262A-1a: 180 km/h 220 km/h
Fw-190A: 175 km/h 200 km/h
Fw-190D: 167 km/h  195 km/h
P-51D: 175 km/h 208 km/h
P-47D: 180 km/h  210 km/h


----------



## Glider (Jan 22, 2009)

Surely for all practical purposes, the landing speed is in fact the approach speed. Try approaching at the lower 'touchdown' speed and the result is likely to be one hole in the ground.


----------



## drgondog (Jan 22, 2009)

Soren said:


> Well I'm sorry Juha but your claims just go against all MTT Rechlin docs I have. Would you care to share that document you claim mentions a 170 km/h landing speed though ?
> 
> At any rate the landing speed for the Gustav series was 145 km/h, the approach speed being 170 km/h. The landing speed of the Bf-109K-4 was 150 km/h with the approach speed being 175 km/h.
> 
> ...



Soren - all those are weight dependent - what are you using for weight assumptions (I assume landing flaps)..


----------



## drgondog (Jan 22, 2009)

Glider said:


> Surely for all practical purposes, the landing speed is in fact the approach speed. Try approaching at the lower 'touchdown' speed and the result is likely to be one hole in the ground.



Glider , for the only one I have personal experience in flying the 51D is pretty much correct. The book has 105mph for 'over the fence' and I usually did mine at 110 - turning into final I was around 130+ which also close to Soren's figures - all around 8500 pounds.

It would be higher with a full fuel load.


----------



## Juha (Jan 22, 2009)

Hello Soren and all others
I cannot remember from where I got/downloaded the Flugzeug-Entwicklungs-Blatt Bf 109, I took a quick look on Kurfürst’s site but didn’t notice it there. It might be there or I downloaded it from another site in Autumn 2006. Because I cannot give the credit to right person I would not share it here. It might be one of those documents which were given to me on condition that I’ll not circulate them without permission and I don’t have time to go through my correspondence now. The 170kmh is the value of VLande.

But on the other hand the English translation of the FAF Pilots Notes for 109G6 can be find here virtualpilots.fi: Tervetuloa Virtuaalilentjt - Virtual Pilots ry:n www-sivuille
It doesn’t jump out there at first blick, at least it took me a short while to find it today, but it is on that site. Probably it’s location on the site is deliberate, so I’ll not give the full URL and hope that those who looked it respect its conditions of use. And the PN is well worth of little effort to all who are interested in Bf 109, so at least for most of us. While I looked the docu I noticed that there are much material that You have used here so You probably know the site already. 

Juha


----------



## Juha (Jan 23, 2009)

Hello
so the docu gives VLande as 170kmh and doesn’t give at which weight. I looked the docu again and the weight in question is simply the weight at which the landing speed is 170kmh and if You look the Kennblatt for Bf 109 F1, F2 , it gives Landegeschwindigkeit at 2700kg as 140 kmh IAS, 150 kmh TAS. For 109 F-4 we have info from its Kennblat that its landing speed at 2560kg was 135kmh (IAS or TAS). Also at least Kennblatt for G-1 in its table of max speeds at different altitudes gave info that for it at sea level IAS=TAS. And at least the Finnish translation of Messerschmitt AG’s Flight and Maintenance Manual for 109G2 from March 1943, which happened to be the lightest or with G-4 one of the two lightest models of G-series, clearly states that approach speed for G-2 was 180 kmh but doesn’t give the info at what weight. 

Those facts IMHO indicates that Brown's info that combat loaded 109 G-6 stalled at 105mph (169kmh) all up isn't unreasonable, especially if the plane was still had its cannongondoles as his speedinfo indicates.

Juha


----------



## Soren (Jan 23, 2009)

drgondog said:


> Soren - all those are weight dependent - what are you using for weight assumptions (I assume landing flaps)..



I absolutely agree. The figures are all for normal combat weight, and with landing flaps yes. So it naturally also depends upon how effective the flaps are. (The P-47 for one had VERY large flap surfaces)


----------



## Juha (Jan 24, 2009)

At normal Combat weight? 
Now normal take off weight for K-4 was 3362 kg incl 296kg fuel, which means only internal fuel, 89kg ammo and 77kg MW50 fluid. Landing speed was 150kmh at 3000kg, so if all ammo was still onboard and all MW50 used there would have been only 11kg fuel left, IMHO at that fuel level the plane wasn’t combat capable, at least not for long , more probably the landing situation was ¼ fuel (74kg) still on board plus 15 kg ammo+MW50.
Source: Bf 109G-14/ASM, G-14/U-4 and K-4 performance chart provided by BUTCH2K, dating so faded that all I can figure out is 3. .44

And from Finnish 109G-2 test flown by Kokko: “Suitable glide speed on approach all down 200-220kmh, minimum at threshold 180kmh. If one must turn, speed must be increased…The plane sits on three-points at 155kmh” But no info on weight.
Source: Raunio’s Lentäjän näkökulma II

Juha


----------



## Juha (Jan 24, 2009)

Hello all
I found another source where one can find the Flugzeug-Entwicklungs-Blatt Bf 109, see
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/me109/glce2-109g6.jpg

Mine is from other source, but is a copy of the same docu. That 170kmh landing speed is probably at normal combat weight.

Juha


----------



## Juha (Jan 24, 2009)

Soren
in Your message #98 you claimed
Quote:” is way too high for the Bf-109G, the true stall speed being around 85 mph flaps gear up” You source for that, please! Because Dave Southwood, who you have cited, says in a article in Luftwaffe Eagles - the Messerschmitt Fighters p. 62 (on Flying 109G-2 Black 6) “Stall speeds are 96mph (155km/h) clean and 87 mph (140km/h) with undercarriage and flap down.” And I bet he didn't have ammo on board.

And on landing “The threshold is crossed at 109 mph (175km/h).”

Juha


----------



## delcyros (Jan 24, 2009)

V-Lande at this document refers to planes with either pressurized cabin or GM-1/Mw-50 equipment. These are significantly heavier than G-2models.


----------



## Juha (Jan 24, 2009)

Hello Delcyros
G-5 was pressurized and its T/o weight was 3300kg but G-6 wasn't, T/o weight is given as 3,2 metric tons, now normal G-6Trop weighted 3154kg so more or less the same, if given as x,y metric tons the figure would be 3,2. And the object of latest part of this discussion is was the 109G-6 which E. Brown tested defective as Soren claims, the plane had when it landed in England in error gun gondolas and as such its t/o would have been 3369kg so IMHO in fact the chart is good for this discussion. In fact all planes are a bit too light and didn't have underwing loads as the plane Brown tested probably had in form of gun gondolas. And all are G-series planes re Soren's landing speed list.

Juha


----------



## JoeB (Feb 1, 2009)

Soundbreaker Welch? said:


> Anybody have any information on those encounters of F6f vs. Bf 109?


There was only one, May 8 1944 between 800 Sdn FAA Hellcat I's (ie. F6F-3's) off HMS Emperor v. Bf109's of 8 and 10./JG5, off Norway. The Hellcats were initially surprised but 2 Hellcats and 3 Bf109's (a G6 and 2 G2's) were lost per each side's loss accounts. 

All USN F6F victories in Europe were against German bomber and transport types in the invasion of Southern France, flying from CVE's Tulagi and Kasaan Bay. They spotted German fighters at long range once, but the enemy declined to give combat. Those were F6F-5's. If more German fighters had been around in Southern France those F6F-5's would probably have aquitted themselves well in combat against them, IMO.

USN F6F units in 44-45 (F6F-5's weren't widely used till second half of '44) were at least as effective as USAAF fighter units v the Japanese, some evidence would say more so (the Japanese thought so). And USAAF fighter units generally had the better of LW fighter units in the same period. I don't see any special relative disadvantage to the F6F in Pacific v Europe that would have reversed that situation. USN fighter would probably have done at least as well v the Germans too in the same period, assuming their a/c were used appropriately.

The big limitation of the F6F for late ETO missions was shorter range than the P-51. Most key USAAF air combat missions by then were P-51 missions, and the F6F couldn't have reached all those places. And being slower is more of a disadvantage when your at the edge of your range, because then the ability to disengage at will is more important. In the P-47's main mission of that period (mostly 9th/12th AF units by then), fighter-bomber, the F6F would have been a credible substitute, as capable or more of defending itself against German fighters in the typical (though less common) air combat situations of 9th and 12th AF P-47 units. 

Joe


----------



## drgondog (Feb 1, 2009)

JoeB said:


> USN fighter would probably have done at least as well v the Germans too in the same period, assuming their a/c were used appropriately.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Joe - the operative deficiencies of the F6F in ETO is that a.) it was less capable at high altitude (bomber escort altitudes) for the range comparisons between the two, and b.) the P-51 was a better performer And had the longer range for ETO/MTO target escort.

For 1944 forward it is hard to see where the Hellcat would have been a better choice than P-47/P-51 for 8th AF/15th AF Strategic role, whereas they would have been superb for 9th AF.


----------



## dragonandhistail (Feb 2, 2009)

I have to side with the Hellcat in this fight. It's score in the Pacific was unmatched and if fitted to escort bombers with the proper high altitude equipment it would have been just as deadly vs the 109. I believe it had more kills in the Pacific than the Mustang had in Europe. If it had been substituted for the P-47 in Europe in 1943 it would have swept the Luftwaffe from the skies like the Jug did. It was more rugged, had a better engine, and was more maneuverable. The F model 109 would have been the biggest challenge for it. The underpowered overloaded G series 109s would have been easy targets especially with declining pilot skills and training after 1943.


----------



## Amsel (Feb 2, 2009)

Welcome! Great post and I am not just saying that because Utah is my native state.


----------



## drgondog (Feb 2, 2009)

dragonandhistail said:


> I have to side with the Hellcat in this fight. It's score in the Pacific was unmatched and if fitted to escort bombers with the proper high altitude equipment it would have been just as deadly vs the 109. I believe it had more kills in the Pacific than the Mustang had in Europe. If it had been substituted for the P-47 in Europe in 1943 it would have swept the Luftwaffe from the skies like the Jug did. It was more rugged, had a better engine, and was more maneuverable. The F model 109 would have been the biggest challenge for it. The underpowered overloaded G series 109s would have been easy targets especially with declining pilot skills and training after 1943.



What 'high altitude" equipment did you have in mind - that was actually installed in the F6F-5? It had water/meth boost for MP only

The -6 (experimental) had the 2stage 2speed turbo R2800-18 and 21 but never made production. So this bird maxed out at 23k critical altitude at 390mph at Military Power - about 50mph slower than a 51 and about 20 below an Fw 190 at that altitude and 30 below a G6 A/S.

It did have more kills than the 51 by about 200. The competition?

It would have substituted OK for the 47 in extending the range maybe another 100 miles in escort mode but still far short of Berlin, Schweinfurt, Brunswick, Munich, Posnan so it would have been a penetration/withdrawal support from Hannover back to England - leaving half of Germany uncovered.

And it could not possibly have replaced the Jug in 1943 as it barely made it o the fleet by June, 1944. Its first flight test was April, 1944 when the big air battles over Germany were being settled by Mustangs, Fw 190s and Me 109s

Unless you have something in mind to make it 'go faster' at 25-30,000 feet it will not do well against the 109G-6 up there - at least not as well as the P-47D-25 and beyond and mid altitude performance would have been similar - bringing it to pilot skills. IIRC the G-6 A/S was faster, climber much faster had about the same roll and maybe turned better than the F6F-5. Usually a couple of those will work for you, particularly when you have an altitude advantage coming into the fight... as escorting B-17s would keep a somewhat sluggish F6F at 25-28K enabling the 109 to come in with an advantage. The F6F truly was in its element from SL to say 20K but at the higher altitudes in high blower the climb rate was pretty low.

I think the F6F was a very fine airplane but I do not think it would have performed better against 109s and 190s than the Jug and nowhere close to a 51 in the ETO.


----------



## fly boy (Feb 2, 2009)

what about if the dogfight was over a US fleet i know the hellcats with a carrier in the area have a advantage but i still wonder?


----------



## drgondog (Feb 2, 2009)

fly boy said:


> what about if the dogfight was over a US fleet i know the hellcats with a carrier in the area have a advantage but i still wonder?



Well, if the fight is more than 300 miles away from the 109 land base - there is no fight as all of them have ditched.


----------



## fly boy (Feb 2, 2009)

ok and the flak would have killed them off had it been a fight


----------



## HoHun (Apr 18, 2009)

Hi Dragon,

>I have to side with the Hellcat in this fight. It's score in the Pacific was unmatched and if fitted to escort bombers with the proper high altitude equipment it would have been just as deadly vs the 109. 

>The underpowered overloaded G series 109s would have been easy targets especially with declining pilot skills and training after 1943.

Hm ... in fact, the F6F was probably more of a match for the Me 109G-6 at low altitude than up high.

Here is a performance comparison of the two types.

The Me 109G-6 is "status of the current series production" (in January 1944) less the gondola weapons. It has a fixed tailwheel, MG 131 blisters, main wheel blisters and standard camouflage paint. It does not have MW50, GM-1 or the AS engine for improved performance. Since the F6F-5 is a 1944 aircraft, I have calculated the Me 109G-6 performance for 1.42 ata/2800 rpm. As far as I can tell it is a typical "overloaded underpowered G series 109", and it's lighter loaded and better powered than the F6F 

(The one problem this Me 109G-6 really has is drag, not weight or power. It was possible to increase sea level speed on the same engine by 45 km/h through drag reduction measures alone - this was only implemented in series production with the Me 109K-4.)

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)


----------



## Soren (Apr 18, 2009)

Those goes well with my educated guesses.

Btw, the landing speeds of the Bf-109 F series are(From Kennblatt):
F-1/2: 130 km/h
F-4: 135 km/h

And these are at full weight.

The K-4 has a landing speed of 150 km/h at 3,000 kg, so it would be around 155 km/h at full weight (3,364 kg).


----------



## drgondog (Apr 19, 2009)

HoHun said:


> Hi Dragon,
> 
> >I have to side with the Hellcat in this fight. It's score in the Pacific was unmatched and if fitted to escort bombers with the proper high altitude equipment it would have been just as deadly vs the 109.
> 
> ...



I'm curious about your math.

What did you use for Cd0 values and where did you get them

What did you use for trim drag for large control surface deflections at Clmax in High G/High bank angle turns? The Induced Drag contribution of the tail surfaces varies with CL (and AoA) and becomes significant at Clmax.

Still, nice work - particularly if you used a simplified approach that assumes boundary conditions which don't vary much between the ships you are comparing in turn performance.


----------



## Soren (Apr 19, 2009)

Hi Bill,

I'm pretty sure he used the true Cd0, Clmax power figures for the a/c, which in the case of the 109F/G K are:

Clmax: 1.70
Cd0: 0.0023

And for the F6F:

Clmax: 1.51
Cd0: N/A (But I remember reading that it was very low, despite the clunky appearance of the a/c, around 0.0019 IIRC)


----------



## drgondog (Apr 19, 2009)

Soren said:


> Hi Bill,
> 
> I'm pretty sure he used the true Cd0, Clmax power figures for the a/c, which in the case of the 109F/G K are:
> 
> ...



This has always been the root of our arguments and debates about turn performance - no verifiable reference to two of the most important factors in calculation of rate of turn in equilibrium at Clmax.

Trim drag is also important at low medium speeds with high control surface deflections required to maintain altitude in comparisons.

I saw two references to .0163 for Cd0 of the 51 but have yet to see the original source (NAA or NACA) reference.

Good to have you back bonehead,

Respectfully

the other bonehead


----------



## Soren (Apr 20, 2009)

Hehe, thanks for the welcome, it's good to be back 

Well we have the Clmax of both a/c and the Cd0 of the 109G, and those three things are atleast established facts from original documents. All we're missing is the Cd0 of the F6F.

So it very much looks like the 109 has the advantage in the horizontal regime to me. But I'm definately willing to debate it with you Bill and I'm not going to make any full conclusion until the end. I want us to agree and I am sorry that I have been so blunt, aggressive biased in the past. I just want us all to get along with each other.


----------



## Soren (Apr 21, 2009)

Hey Bonehead, what ou say we figure out how these two a/c compared ?


----------



## drgondog (Apr 21, 2009)

Soren said:


> Hey Bonehead, what ou say we figure out how these two a/c compared ?



Soren - my suspicion is that the 109 pounds the F6F in the horizontal and vertical but I am sooooo weary of screwing around with the spreadsheet when so much of the input data is either questionable with respect to facts that more than one source reliably points to.

I was having fun with HoHum because the P-38 would be a VERY interesting ship to look at close to stall in High G manuevers, particularly with manuevering flaps and two different airfoils. 

The inboard secion (also completely immersed in propwash) has a much higher Clmax with the fowlers deployed - so what happens when the outboard NACA 4412 wing stalls out at a lower AoA -or is the effective AoA of the inboard section with flaps deployed high enough to stall the way it should - inboard to outboard?

And what effect does the counter rotating prop upwash have on the inboard section at high AoA?

I haven't looked at the twist on the outboard wing - if its a couple of degrees it might keep 'trucking' and not lose ailerons.

At any rate it is good to see you back and don't go humble on me - we both know I was part of a two dimensional problem

Regards,

Bonehead2


----------



## Soren (Apr 21, 2009)

Yeah the P-38 discussion is interesting, and no doubt the maneuvering flaps would help raise the Clmax, but as with all kinds of trailing edge flaps they add a lot of drag. So I believe they'd be very handy at low speeds, one had to be careful about using them too early or one might loose potential energy way to quickly. The advantage the 109 has is first and foremost that it's a lot lighter and smaller, which is always a plus for a fighter, but also that it's got both the low drag + high lift LE slats and the split trailing edge flaps. (These compliment each other excellently) So if the P-38 tries to take it down low slow the 109 jocky could simply apply a little flaps and he'd be on the P-38's tail rather quickly.

That is my opinion atleast.


----------



## drgondog (Apr 21, 2009)

Soren said:


> Yeah the P-38 discussion is interesting, and no doubt the maneuvering flaps would help raise the Clmax, but as with all kinds of trailing edge flaps they add a lot of drag. So I believe they'd be very handy at low speeds, one had to be careful about using them too early or one might loose potential energy way to quickly. The advantage the 109 has is first and foremost that it's a lot lighter and smaller, which is always a plus for a fighter, but also that it's got both the low drag + high lift LE slats and the split trailing edge flaps. (These compliment each other excellently) So if the P-38 tries to take it down low slow the 109 jocky could simply apply a little flaps and he'd be on the P-38's tail rather quickly.
> 
> That is my opinion atleast.



I think about it in another way - independent of the speed in which both engage in a turning fight, they each have certain advantages which have to be looked at in a model.

The P-38 does not have the same degree of rudder feed requirement in a high G turn because of the counter rotating props and will be able to turn in either directtion with no distinct disadvantage.

The boosted ailerons of the J-25 and all P-38L gave this big beast excellent roll at all speeds and the power available vs power required gives it pretty good capability in the full spectrum of speeds.

It got very high praise in comparisons with the P-51 and P-40 in turn capability BEFORE manuevering flaps were installed and before boosted ailerons. The biggest flaw was sluggish roll to initiate or follow a turn before boosted ailerons.

The P-38J-25 and beyond had slightly better acceleration than a 51D but it had a lot more drag - and it has more drag than a 109 and it has a larger lift (wing) loading than either the 109 or the 51. The power loading for the 109G-6 (and beyond) was better than both the 51D and 38.

Both the 109 and the P-38 have a lot of drag when the manuevering flaps are down and the slats are out - but I suspect that the 109's only possible wing disadvantage is more potential asymmetric drag with the high wing than low wing with slats deployed - but would be difficult to account for that in the context of rudder trim drag to keep the nose on track. The 51 had a LOT less drag than both and I know this had a lot to do with the 51's ability to be comparable to the 109 in a turn.

The 38 was more forgiving on elevator forces in high G than either the 51 or the 109. I don't know what the metrics are, howver.

Intangible - The best air to air ratio in the 8th AF was the 479th when they were flying late model J's before conversion to Mustang in late Sept 1944 - but that also is when the 109 pilot skills were on the down slope. It was a very different beast from the ones that Expertens would use to train their wingman on the art of the kill.


There was something about the combinations of improvements in the P-38J-25 that made it a very formidable dog fighter beyond the metrics that surface in a model. If I had time I would really look at the wing.


----------



## Soren (Apr 21, 2009)

I'm not really sure about the assymmetric drag, atleast I've never heard it mentioned by any pilots. The Emil had a lot of problems with its slats though, mostly due to frequent jamming of one of them, which could cause irrecoverable spins. The issue was solved completely with the F series though, the common consensus amongst pilots being that the a/c feels completely stable in turns and gives ample warning of an impeding stall, which comes a good deal after the slats deploy.

Anyway considering the much lower weight and smaller size of the 109, as-well has its higher Clmax and power to weight ratio, I am certain the 109 has a clear advantage in the horizontal compared to the P-38... and F6F, although the F6F would be closer. As for against the P-51, well at slow speeds its no contest, the Bf-109 easily beats the P-51 in a slow speed low alt turn fight. But at high alts, a P-51 is gonna have the advantage over a 109G-6 as its simply got loads more power available plus a lot less drag. Those are my observations at least.

At any rate a low wing loading (Or "lift loading") pretty much lost its importance at around 1942 where most fights took place at speeds exceeding 450 km/h, and at that speed most fighters could pull well over 6 G's, which is around the limit for a pilot. Thus light harmonious controls became more important than a low wing loading.


----------



## drgondog (Apr 22, 2009)

Soren said:


> I'm not really sure about the assymmetric drag, atleast I've never heard it mentioned by any pilots. The Emil had a lot of problems with its slats though, mostly due to frequent jamming of one of them, which could cause irrecoverable spins. The issue was solved completely with the F series though, the common consensus amongst pilots being that the a/c feels completely stable in turns and gives ample warning of an impeding stall, which comes a good deal after the slats deploy.
> 
> *You know from your own experience two things - one is that you have to use rudder to carve a turn (best illustration is soaring and watching the tuft of yarn in front of cockpit). And you know the reason for that is the 'high wing is achieving more slightly more lift, and induced drag, on the high wing which gets us back to the first note.
> 
> ...



I agree with only a few mental reservations... and the P-38 is squarely in the strike zone where the lighter controls in high speed than the 109 may have been a 'plus' for the 38J-25 and above - if not necessarily a deciding factor.

Wing (lift) loading is stiil a relative factor of merit because it describes to a degree that when all things are equal (including airfoil/twist, fuselage, engine, weight) except the wing area, that the lower wing loading should enable a steeper bank angle for the same relative AoA (and velocity) to the wing... 

or conversely for the same bank angle and velocity, the lower wing loading Wing has more lift (same Cl, same AOA, same airfoil, same velocity - more wing area) enabling a sustained turn at same radius and velocity as the higher wing loading ship - but over a greater range of velocities. 

Taken further the lower wing loading ship can go slower at a greater bank angle to shorten the radius and maintain the same G level

All generalities and pardon me for rambling on the subject that you already know... i just needed to think through my caveats.

This analogy is why I still believe intuitively (w/o knowing what the 'blended CLmax for the 38 wing is) that a 109 in a sustained turn with a P-38 will out turn the P-38 (latest and greatest version) to the same g level tolerance of the pilots 

Then we change the game to reflect a different wing, different Aspect Ratio, different drag charactristics, different engine, different control forces, etc and try to calculate turn performance.


----------



## Soren (Apr 26, 2009)

> My sense is that the 109, because of the slats creating creating more lift on the outboard half of the wing, is slightly more influenced by the upper wing than a P-38.



I don't see how as the slat on the lower wing is also creating more lift. 

But again it depends on what kind of turn it is, cause if its a directly flat turn then both wings create the same amount of lift. The slats, which work by means of airpressure, should by themselves "sense" when extra lift is needed or not.


----------



## drgondog (Apr 26, 2009)

Soren said:


> I don't see how as the slat on the lower wing is also creating more lift.
> 
> But again it depends on what kind of turn it is, cause if its a directly flat turn then both wings create the same amount of lift. The slats, which work by means of airpressure, should by themselves "sense" when extra lift is needed or not.



For the wing to rise (by virtue of the aileron deflection) and the other wing to fall (by reverse aileron deflection) you are in a state of asymmetry.

For the wing that rises, independent of the slat, there is a local delta lift caused by the aileron - which in turn causes a local delta drag - tending to 'pull more' on the upper wing. 

This is the reason you can't roll an a/c to the same point on the horizon without rudder input, or maintain a non yaw condition in the turn w/o rudder input.

The rudder is required to counteract the yaw created by the up wing.

When a slat deploys, say before stall is reached, it will continue to deploy slightly more on the upper wing ( theoretically for the reasons given above) as the upper wing is closer to effective AoA for stall due to the deflection of the aileron. 

Think of the down deflection of the upperwing aileron as local hinged flap which gives both a higher local CL and CD.


----------



## Soren (Apr 26, 2009)

I know but that could simply be offset by less aileron deflection to one direction. I really think it boils down to the same thing, which also seems to be confirmed by the pilots who express the a/c to be very stable in turns and a joy to push to the edge.


----------



## drgondog (Apr 26, 2009)

Soren said:


> I know but that could simply be offset by less aileron deflection to one direction. I really think it boils down to the same thing, which also seems to be confirmed by the pilots who express the a/c to be very stable in turns and a joy to push to the edge.



It has nothing to do with more or less stable.

If you reduce the side force on the stick and give the stick less deflection - resulting in less aileron deflection deflection -

It doesn't boil down to the same thing. Increase in lift for the wing - by whatever method - will increase drag on the wing.

If the high wing has slightly more lift (which it does) then it also has slightly more drag. As you 'decrease' the stick force gradually to center it, the airplane reaches the neutral yaw and roll (presumably) state - at which point the only rudder forces required are largely there to offset the torque contribution from the engine.

Without increase in Torque, but increasing aileron deflection more rudder force is required to keep the ac from a yaw to the upwing.


----------



## Soren (Apr 26, 2009)

But it's the same for every a/c Bill, that's really all I'm trying to point out here. 

The high wing will always be creating slightly more lift, and so wether it has slats or not wont make a difference, it just means an increased critical AoA for both wings. The slats start to extend at around 10 to 11 degrees AoA and fully extend at around 14 to 15 degrees AoA, so when pulling hard turns the slats are deployed fully symmetrically.


----------



## drgondog (Apr 27, 2009)

Soren said:


> But it's the same for every a/c Bill, that's really all I'm trying to point out here.
> 
> *Soren - every wing exhibits same type behavior in a turn. Pause here and think about the relative chord angle from leading edge of each wing to the trailing edge of the aileron. They are at Different angles relative to the freestream AoA*
> 
> ...



Not likely. 

With the lower effective freestream AoA (relative to aileron deflection change in effective chord) on the down wing it tends to enter the stall AoA for the aileron region later, after the high wing is already entering into stall AoA for the aileron region.

The high wing slat is activated by the impending stall before the low wing.

Statistically, because of wake turbulence that may be encountered in a turn chasing another a/c, the slat deployment may happen at the same time if the lower wing encounters indicial gusts which increase the relative AoA instantaneously over the freestream AoA.


----------



## Soren (Apr 28, 2009)

I'm not entirely sure what it is you're trying to suggest Bill but it seems to go against what every pilot of the type says, and I certainly haven't experienced anything negative flying a slat equipped a/c. All I've experienced is a notable increase in turn performance, esp. a low speeds.

But to get back to the subject at hand;

Since the slats start to deploy already at 10 degrees AoA (On the 109 according to MTT documents) and are fully deployed at 15 degrees AoA (which is still 2 degrees from the original airfoils critical AoA), both slats will be fully deployed (aka symmetrically) in any form of high performance turn. The stall will occur at around 20 degree's AoA.


----------



## drgondog (Apr 28, 2009)

Soren said:


> I'm not entirelysure what it is you're trying to suggest Bill but it seems to against what every pilot of the type says, and I certainly haven't experienced any of that flying a slat equipped a/c. All I've experienced is a notable increase in turn performance, esp. a low speeds.
> 
> But to get back to the subject at hand;
> 
> Since the slats start to deploy already at 10 degrees AoA (On the 109 according to MTT documents) and are fully deployed at 15 degrees AoA (which is still 2 degrees from the original airfoils critical AoA), both slats will be fully deployed (aka symmetrically) in any form of high performance turn. The stall will occur a around 20 degree's AoA.



I believe the data. Where we are bogged down is visualizing the physics of the outboard span of the wing where the outer edge of the slat exists and the aileron exists. These are two extra lift devices for the wing in flight

Soren, take the slats out of the discussion for now.

Break this down to a 'local wing-upsdide' and a 'local wing-downside'

The LW-U has a 'flap (aileron) which deflects down. This 'new' condition for that LW-U is now experiencing is one of a.) increased Lift, b.) increased drag and c.) an increase in the 'local AoA' of the Freestream to the 'new' LWA environment.

Bring the wing back in for the outboard span area.

With the deflection of the aileron for LW-U the effective chord line of the airfoil/aileron ('flap') from leading edge of the wing (and slat) to the trailing edge of the aileron. For small to medium deflections this local effect increases Camber And Chord angle to the freestream.

For the LW-U this results in an immediate increase in local AoA to the freestream, increased Lift (just like a flap deflection in landing) and increased drag.

Bring the slat back in. It senses the pressure distribution behind the outer region of the slat as the AoA of the entire wing closes on 10 degrees. 

But the slat on the LW-U will experience that change earlier because the local AoA of the aileron region (and outboard slat region) is higher than the inboard section of the wing. This upwing slat should start the deployment slightly earlier than it would if the aircraft was in level, symmetric flight.

The lift distribution on the inboard span does not change perceptibly, but the outboard span increases its lift (and drag) contribution from level flight with same AoA to wing and airframe.

The exact opposite scenario will occur for LW-U which has equal but Negative lift and the same drag - but the new 'effective chord' and angle to Freestream has the Opposite effect on local AoA, which reduces the local Lift/Drag of that aileron region of span relative to the inboard wing.

On the lower wing, the inboard span experiences no perceptible change in lift, but the outboard span decreases its Lift contribution in comparison to level flight.

Think of this in a different way. When the Up Wing Aileron deflects down - it is similar to locally reducing the twist of the wing and locally increasing AoA and locally increasing Lift and Drag - whereas the Down Wing aileron deflection Up Increases local twist and Reduces local Lift, Drag and AoA.

The Up wing will 'tug' on the airframe more than the Down wing and in parallel the Up wing slat should start to deploy slightly sooner than the down wing.

The pilot flying this aircraft should not sense anything unusual except he will be applying slightly more rudder than he would if the slats are 'wired shut'.

I don't know another way to describe this.


----------



## Soren (Apr 28, 2009)

Oh I understood from the beginning, but I've never heard anyone comment about using more rudder than usual in slat equipped a/c, and I've never experienced it myself. But if it is the case then it is extremely minute and insignificant, so much so that it really can't be sensed.


----------



## drgondog (Apr 28, 2009)

Soren said:


> Oh I understood from the beginning, but I've never heard anyone comment about using more rudder than usual in slat equipped a/c, and I've never experienced it myself. But if it is the case then it is extremely minute and insignificant, so much so that it really can't be sensed.



>Since the slats start to deploy already at 10 degrees AoA (On the 109 according to MTT documents) and are fully deployed at 15 degrees AoA (which is still 2 degrees from the original airfoils critical AoA), both slats will be fully deployed (aka symmetrically) in any form of high performance turn. The stall will occur at around 20 degree's AoA.>

Where I underlined your comment would suggest that you didn't quite understand the concept of a modest asymmetrical early deployment of the high wing slat first. I am not suggesting it is a 'zero to full' slat deployment as they don't work that way.

Since you have to fly simultaneously in two exact same aircraft -one with/one without slats deployed - how would you know how much incremental rudder was required?

Which slat equipped aircraft do you have time in?


----------



## Soren (Apr 29, 2009)

I haven't flown two otherwise identical a/c, one with slats and one not, but I fly the Cessna Aerobat, and I've tried several STOL a/c of the same weight, and they do turn a lot better.

Also we flew 3 STOL a/c in formation once, chasing each other, and I never felt any disturbance to the slats. Ofcourse I could feel the propwash, but so would I in any a/c.

And regarding what I said about the slats being deployed symmetrically, I was talking about a high performance turn where both wings have exceeded 15 degree's AoA, at that point both slats will be fully deployed and are therefore symmetric.


----------



## Glider (Apr 29, 2009)

I only flew in an Aerobat a couple of times some years ago and could be very wrong, but I thought they had Fowler flaps, not leading edge flaps as in the 109 which would perform quite differently.


----------



## Soren (Apr 29, 2009)

The Aerobat doesn't have slats.


----------



## Glider (Apr 29, 2009)

Thats what I thought


----------



## Soren (Apr 29, 2009)

I mostly fly the aerobat, but its' been a while now since I sold it. I worked out a deal where I can get to fly it when'ever I want though, as long as I pay for the gas. It's a great little a/c, but the STOL (A CH107 once IIRC) a/c I've tried were definitely better at tight maneuver, despite having roughly the same wing loading, and the slats were no doubt the reason behind that.


----------



## Glider (Apr 29, 2009)

I admit that I didn't like the aerobat, it was tight for space and I didn't like the visibility. However I wasn't paying so wasn't in a position to complain.


----------



## drgondog (Apr 29, 2009)

Soren said:


> I haven't flown two otherwise identical a/c, one with slats and one not, but I fly the Cessna Aerobat, and I've tried several STOL a/c of the same weight, and they do turn a lot better.
> 
> Also we flew 3 STOL a/c in formation once, chasing each other, and I never felt any disturbance to the slats. Ofcourse I could feel the propwash, but so would I in any a/c.
> 
> And regarding what I said about the slats being deployed symmetrically, I was talking about a high performance turn where both wings have exceeded 15 degree's AoA, at that point both slats will be fully deployed and are therefore symmetric.



That would be true... at the point of near stall. 

I have never seen any data about the rate of deployment for the 109 so I really don't know what the characteristics would be from say, 13 degrees to 17 degrees. I suspect it is gradual (post E) and entirely dependent on the local pressure distribution of the airfoil behind the slats.


----------



## 88l71 (Jun 26, 2009)

lesofprimus said:


> And for the love of God, would u please cease and desist in calling the Hellcats firepower "devestating/massive"... It was adequete for the job and should of had cannons...



The F6F was notoriously rugged, and hard for a Zero to bring down, and the Zero had double the cannon armament of the 109. The P-51, which had the same firepower as the F6F, had no trouble bringing down the Messerschmitt. So since we're comparing two aircraft in a hypothetical combat it's about relative firepower, not absolute. The Hellcat is a very large fighter, almost the size of a P-47, with a reputation for extreme ruggedness while the 109 is a much smaller and lighter airframe.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 27, 2009)

88l71 said:


> The F6F was notoriously rugged, and hard for a Zero to bring down, and the Zero had double the cannon armament of the 109. The P-51, which had the same firepower as the F6F, had no trouble bringing down the Messerschmitt. So since we're comparing two aircraft in a hypothetical combat it's about relative firepower, not absolute. The Hellcat is a very large fighter, almost the size of a P-47, with a reputation for extreme ruggedness while the 109 is a much smaller and lighter airframe.



Would you like to explain "no trouble"?


----------



## Soundbreaker Welch? (Jun 28, 2009)

In terms of ruggedness, it was easier for a P-51 to bring down a 109 than a 190, due to the lesser amount of armor.


----------



## Vincenzo (Jun 28, 2009)

this is true only if have talking with same plane, a less armoured plane can be more hard to shoot down simply he denied you more easily the fire possiblity


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 28, 2009)

Soundbreaker Welch? said:


> In terms of ruggedness, it was easier for a P-51 to bring down a 109 than a 190, due to the lesser amount of armor.



Does that make a plane "no trouble" to shoot down? Is that the only factors involved?


----------



## Soundbreaker Welch? (Jun 30, 2009)

Well like Vincenzo said, that extra armor wasn't everything, the small size of the 109 was an asset to it's sucsess. It was harder for a fighter with guns in the wings to get a good convergence on it. Plus without the added weight the 109 was a dogfighter from the start, while the FW 190 took some tweaking.


----------



## fritzie 101 (Jun 30, 2009)

It depends on the pilot,although the Hellcat was definitely more rugged both structurally and in terms of engine reliability the R-2800 could keep on going with whole cylinders blown off,one hit in the cooling system of the DB 605 or any liquid cooled engine and it was just a matter of how much time you had before you went down. That's why P/F 51s had such a hard time in Korea. the mustang was a much better air to air fighter than ground attack plane.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 30, 2009)

Since everyone is missing the point I was trying to make, please go back and read post #164.


----------



## delcyros (Jun 30, 2009)

Judging from ammo expendeture figures of p-51 groups after action reports, no statistically meaningful distinction between fw-190 and bf-109 can be observed.
It appears that range was far more a factor for gun effeciency than the type of (fighter) aircraft engaged. This is not true for the Me-262 and Ar-234 jets. Both of which required more avg. rounds per kill.


----------



## drgondog (Jun 30, 2009)

delcyros said:


> Judging from ammo expendeture figures of p-51 groups after action reports, no statistically meaningful distinction between fw-190 and bf-109 can be observed.
> It appears that range was far more a factor for gun effeciency than the type of (fighter) aircraft engaged. This is not true for the Me-262 and Ar-234 jets. Both of which required more avg. rounds per kill.



I absolutely agree 100%. 

Statistically speaking the 8th AF FC destroyed far more Me 109s than Fw 190s but I'm still researching the relative percentage between P-51, P-47 and P-38's in destruction of each a/c.

I also feel sure the ammo expenditure for downing Jets was far hiher because of range. So many of the Encounter roports on destroyed 262s report ranges of 600-900 as 'starting point'


----------



## Soundbreaker Welch? (Jun 30, 2009)

I don't think the 109 was ever no trouble to shoot down, unless it had a real rookie at the stick. It was a good opponent for the P-51.


----------



## drgondog (Jun 30, 2009)

Soundbreaker Welch? said:


> I don't think the 109 was ever no trouble to shoot down, unless it had a real rookie at the stick. It was a good opponent for the P-51.



Whatever the real number was, the claim was "90% of the victims never knew they were a victim until it was too late"

All good airplanes are vulnearble when another a/c has your six


----------



## finnster (Dec 14, 2009)

Soren said:


> I disagree, esp. since the 109's slats did NOT pop in and out during turning fights because of a wake or turblunce, that is merely an old untrue myth. It never happens. If it were to happen it would mean that a normal wing would experience the same effect and a sudden drop of lift when following another a/c, but it doesn't.
> 
> Dave Southwood, a modern 109 pilot, has addressed this issue before and made it quite clear that he has never experienced such a thing in the 109G ever whilst following or turning with other a/c.



Odd, If i remember Brown's account properly, they opened assymetrically on him when he was behind a p51. But I may well be misremembering it. I'll have to re-read his account when I get home this weekend.
And slipstream effect can, as you suggest, affect other traiing aircraft profoundly.
My first flightinstructor told me a story about trying to pull in behind a b52 to take a picture from his Canadaire F86 Sabrejet and winding up tossed around to the point where he wound up losing about several thousand feet of altitude.
Of course, the b52 is a huge plane- and generates massive vortices as well as slipstream!

finnster


----------



## finnster (Dec 14, 2009)

I just realized i'm replying to an OLD post- no point to it. sorry.


----------



## finnster (Dec 14, 2009)

Ah Henning, as usual the voice of reason 
Thank god!
finnster



HoHun said:


> Hi Juha,
> 
> >The term Emberassed might come from the fact than in turning fight slats began popping out separately when 109 hit the wake of the other a/c and so ruined aiming. But what I remember on Finns experiences British seemed to have overstated this problem.
> 
> ...


----------



## Soren (Dec 14, 2009)

Hello Finnster 

About the story with the B52, I must point out that any fighter flying behind that beast would get affected the same, it really has nothing to do with the slats. Neither the Bf109 or F86 ever experienced problems following other a/c in turns, and they used the same slat design.


----------

