Best ETO fighter from 1939-1942

[Soren]

Well Hop, then explain the Soviet figures for the Spitfire not being so superior compared to the 109.

Also how do you explain the AFDU commenting that their captured 109G "is embarrased by the opening of its slats" ??? A clear indication that they weren't pushing past slats deployment.

And finally how the heck do you then explain a captured FW-190 Jabo (An a/c heavily armored tuned for hauling loads, not dogfighting) turning MUCH better in British tests (With a Mustang III Tempest) than their captured 109G in the very same test, when the Germans themselves clearly state over and over again that the Bf-109 EASILY turns inside the FW-190 ??

LuftWaffe Chief Test pilot Heinrich Beauvais, having flown all the a/c in question, made it clear multiple times that the 109 DOES out-turn a Spitfire, he even tried to contact Eric Brown after the war in an attempt to solve the matter of the British tests, but Brown refused.

So just face it Hop, the British test pilots weren't even close to pushing the 109 to its limits.

Furthermore we don't know at what power setting the RAF was flying their captured Emil at in 1940, but we do know they didn't have the right fuel so power would've been allot lower than normal, which has a very negative effect on turn perormance.

The RAF also measured some suspiciously low Cl figures for the Emil, around 1.45 or so, which means the slats are shut against the wing. The V24, a Bf109 without slats, tested by Messerschmitt achieved a Clmax of 1.48, giving us the approx. Clmax of the 109's wing alone without the slats (Although it will be slightly higher seeing the V24's wing was shorter than normal).

The slats will increase the Clmax of the 109's wing to 1.70. (On the F series and onwards atleast)

 

[kool kitty89]

The lateral jolt/snach (not the bang or impact felt, but actual movement of the a/c) caused by the slats deploying didn't occur on 109F and later models, neither did the slats jamming in high G turns, corect Soren?

 

[Hunter368]

Very true, I think they are more closely matched then any other two planes that fought vs each other in history.

But talking about BoB Soren, I believe the 109 and Spit were equals. But I believe Germany used better fighter tactics (until Hitler and Fatboy stepped in), which resulted in a better kill ratio when talking about fighter vs fighter in BoB (and even more so in 41 42 when Germany was defending).

 

[Soren]

The lateral jolt/snach (not the bang or impact felt, but actual movement of the a/c) caused by the slats deploying didn't occur on 109F and later models, neither did the slats jamming in high G turns, corect Soren?

Very correct Koolkitty.

 

[Soren]

Very true, I think they are more closely matched then any other two planes that fought vs each other in history.

Fully agreed Hunter.

But talking about BoB Soren, I believe the 109 and Spit were equals. But I believe Germany used better fighter tactics (until Hitler and Fatboy stepped in), which resulted in a better kill ratio when talking about fighter vs fighter in BoB (and even more so in 41 42 when Germany was defending).

Not sure about that, the tactics used by the LW RAF fighters seem very similar to me. The fact that the Bf-109 acquired itself a very favourable kill/loss ratio against the Spitfire was most likely because of its fuel injection system, which meant the Spitfire Hurricane had nearly no means of escape if a 109 was on their tail (Unless the 109 pilot was unwilling to push the a/c to the limit ofcourse)

At any rate the Bf-109 Spitfire were very close to each other in every aspect of flight performance, and both were excellent fighter a/c.

 

[Hunter368]

Now that the British test pilots didn't push the captured 109's to the limit isn't unnormal, as anyone new to the type would be vary about the slats owing to the unusual feel such a device gave, the rather violent jolt it would give as the slats deployed on an Emil scaring pilots witless, making them think they were just on the edge. Fact is there weren't eve close to the edge, the slats coming out very early in a turn, long before you're even approaching the limit.

I think that is a fairly unbias reasonable explanation for all countries testing other countries planes. I would think most people should be able to except that opinion. Axis testing Allied planes and Allies testing Axis planes.

Hell I used race motor bikes when I was much younger, it always took quite a while for me to learn what a new bike was really capable of. Once I was used to it I could ride it much harder and push it to its limits.

Seems like common sense to me.

 

[Hunter368]

Fully agreed Hunter.



Not sure about that, the tactics used by the LW RAF fighters seem very similar to me. The fact that the Bf-109 acquired itself a very favourable kill/loss ratio against the Spitfire was most likely because of its fuel injection system, which meant the Spitfire Hurricane had nearly no means of escape if a 109 was on their tail (Unless the 109 pilot was unwilling to push the a/c to the limit ofcourse)

At any rate the Bf-109 Spitfire were very close to each other in every aspect of flight performance, and both were excellent fighter a/c.

I grouped the FI system in with the benefits of the 109 when compared to a Spit. Both planes have + over the other plane, that is one of the + in my mind the 109 had over the Spit.

But I do agree tactics (until Hitler got involved) and FI were major factors playing in favor of the 109 pilots.

 

[kool kitty89]

Early on in the BoB the formations used by German Pilots were much more efficient (finger Four) than the RAF formations (with 1 lead and 2 abreast behaind in tight formation) The Finger Four formation took much less concentration to maintain and gave a much better defensive view to the pilots. (allowing them to watch both the target and eachothers' backs more effectively)

The RAF formations were difficult to maintain and left them volnerable to attack.

And of course the LW fighters became less effective when they switched from top cover to close escort...

 

[Kurfürst]

The RAE turn times were done at 12000ft, right in between the two sets of numbers in the BAUBESCHREIBUNG test. When you look at it that way, they compare quite favorably I think.

RAE did no test for either turn times or radius. The figures given by RAE for the 109E are rough estimates, with the Cl figures estimated from tests done to determine Cl on the Spitfire. Even on the latter, the Cl was determined, or rather again, estimated from stall speed tests. And, none of the RAE figures contain data for turn capacity of the Emil with its flaps deployed (the Spitfire didn`t have combat flaps, it was either up or down for landing). It think its quite reasonable to think that Messerschmitt AG had better understanding of the 109E`s Cl than RAE.

Its not hard to see what degree of uncertainity there is about the RAE figures. Stall speeds are hard to determine to start with, even harder when you only have pitot to measure it, and from these figures to estimate the characteristics of a rather different fighter..

BTW, the 109E RAE had tested BTW was WNr. 1304, captured by the French in late 1939 after it made a belly landing, then it was passed to the Brits. Even back in 1939 it had some engine problems (see French reports on my site), I am sure these didn`t improve by September 1940, when RAE issued its testing summary.

In any case, the RAE paper makes it clear that the 109E was able to turn with the Spitfire 'in a surprisingly large number of cases' because of its better stall and control characteristics. Simply to put, pilots found it easier to push the Emil to its limits than the Spitfire. Leykauf and Kaiser (Clostermann etc.) basically describes the same.

This explains the controversy of the subject IMHO.

@ Glider, I have not forgotten the thread, please allow me some time to respond to it. Don`t we all have bills to pay and girls to entertain..?

 

[Kurfürst]

How on earth anyone can read that and then claim they were afraid of the slots opening and backed off as soon as they did so, I don't know.

Equally, I find it bizarre that anyone could believe test pilots later in the war would be so frightened of a simple aerodynamic feature like a slot (fitted to lots of different aircraft, after all) that they would be incapable of testing the aircraft properly.

This is just another of Soren's opinions that has little basis in fact.

The Hawker Tempest Page

Tempest V Tactical Trials

INTRODUCTION
According to instructions from Air Ministry (D.A.T.) and from Headquarters, A.D.G.B., letter reference ADGB/S.29156/Air Tactics dated 29th February 1944 refers, tactical trials have been completed with the Tempest V. Aircraft No. JN.737 was delivered by the Hawker Aircraft Company on 8th January 1944 and was operationally loaded. The operational weight is 11,400 lbs.
In order to give a clear picture of the Tempest V it has been compared fully with its nearest stable companion, the Typhoon IB. In addition, tactical comparisons have been made with the Mustang III and Spitfire XIV. Combat trials have been carried out against the Me.109G, FW.190 (BMW)801D and suggestions made for combat with the new FW.190 (DB.603).

...

Turning Circle

The Tempest is slightly better, the Bf.109G being embarrassed by its slots opening near the stall.


Why you are at it, would you kindly quote the results of research in the National Archives in Australia regarding to extent use of 100 octane fuel in the Battle of Britain, and also give an explantion as to why you never accused Pips, who dig it up, when he shared it back then, that he is a liar and made it all up? Why wait so long, and why only behind his back, where he cannot respond to your accusations..?

 

[Juha]

"My belief ??? Its what the man says himelf Juha, it has nothing to do with my belief!"

Soren
blind faith may be good in religious matters, I don't know for sure. But blind faith to believe what was said, especially when limited to those statements which concur with one's prejudices, only made understanding the past much more difficult.

As we know, German confirmed claims on Spits exceeded the real losses during the BoB, both because of overclaiming and because of Germans claimed more Hurricanes as Spitfires than Spitfires as Hurricanes, made it probably that Leykauf did not got even 3 Spits. Of course without careful checking of primary sources, which might be impossible because the paucacity of LW material, we cannot be sure.

Juha

 

[Glider]

I am confused, Can I ask how the following quotes which have been mentioned a couple of times, show that the British Test Pilots didn't take the 109 through the deployment of the slats.

If people cannot prove that these tests support the oft mentioned claim that the test pilots didn't take them through the deployment can I ask that they stop making that claim. Its clearly wrong, insulting and starting to sound like a scratched record.

Apart from their excessive heaviness at high speeds, the most serious defect of the Me. 109 ailerons is a tendency to snatch as the wing tip slots open. This is particularly noticeable when manoeuvring. For example, if the stick is pulled back in a tight turn, putting additional g on the aircraft, the slots open at quite a high airspeed; as they open, the stick suddenly snatches laterally through several inches either way, sufficiently to upset a pilot's aim in a dog fight. The snatch appears to be associated with the opening of the slots, for once they are fully open a steady turn can be done, with no aileron vibration, until the stall is approached.

When doing tight turns with the Me. 109 leading at speeds between 90 m.p.h. and 220 m.p.h. the Spitfires and Hurricanes had little difficult in keeping on the tail of the Me. 109. During these turns the amount of normal g recorded on the Me. 109 was between 2J and 4 g. The aircraft stalled if the turn was tightened to give more than 4 g at speeds below about 200 m.p.h. The slots opened at about 1\2 g before the stall, and whilst opening caused the ailerons to snatch; this upset the pilot's sighting immediately and caused him to lose ground. When the slots were fully open the aircraft could be turned quite steadily until very near the stall. If the stick was then pulled back a little more the aircraft suddenly shuddered, and either tended to come out of the turn or dropped its wing further, oscillating meanwhile in pitch and roll and rapidly losing height; the aircraft immediately unstalled if the stick was eased forward. Even in a very tight turn the stall was quite gentle, with no tendency for the aircraft to suddenly flick over on to its back and spin. The Spitfires and Hurricanes could follow the Me. 109 round during the stalled turns without themselves showing any signs of stalling.

The comments about the 109 being embarrased clearly refers to the 109 losing its sighting position which is quite understandable

 

[drgondog]

I am confused, Can I ask how the following quotes which have been mentioned a couple of times, show that the British Test Pilots didn't take the 109 through the deployment of the slats.

If people cannot prove that these tests support the oft mentioned claim that the test pilots didn't take them through the deployment can I ask that they stop making that claim. Its clearly wrong, insulting and starting to sound like a scratched record.

Apart from their excessive heaviness at high speeds, the most serious defect of the Me. 109 ailerons is a tendency to snatch as the wing tip slots open. This is particularly noticeable when manoeuvring. For example, if the stick is pulled back in a tight turn, putting additional g on the aircraft, the slots open at quite a high airspeed; as they open, the stick suddenly snatches laterally through several inches either way, sufficiently to upset a pilot's aim in a dog fight. The snatch appears to be associated with the opening of the slots, for once they are fully open a steady turn can be done, with no aileron vibration, until the stall is approached.

When doing tight turns with the Me. 109 leading at speeds between 90 m.p.h. and 220 m.p.h. the Spitfires and Hurricanes had little difficult in keeping on the tail of the Me. 109. During these turns the amount of normal g recorded on the Me. 109 was between 2J and 4 g. The aircraft stalled if the turn was tightened to give more than 4 g at speeds below about 200 m.p.h. The slots opened at about 1\2 g before the stall, and whilst opening caused the ailerons to snatch; this upset the pilot's sighting immediately and caused him to lose ground. When the slots were fully open the aircraft could be turned quite steadily until very near the stall. If the stick was then pulled back a little more the aircraft suddenly shuddered, and either tended to come out of the turn or dropped its wing further, oscillating meanwhile in pitch and roll and rapidly losing height; the aircraft immediately unstalled if the stick was eased forward. Even in a very tight turn the stall was quite gentle, with no tendency for the aircraft to suddenly flick over on to its back and spin. The Spitfires and Hurricanes could follow the Me. 109 round during the stalled turns without themselves showing any signs of stalling.

The comments about the 109 being embarrased clearly refers to the 109 losing its sighting position which is quite understandable

Thank you Glider.. context is a wonderful thing.

 

[Hunter368]

Just a question Glider and Bill, you both have more knowledge then I on the test in question. Could you please tell me the following:

How many pilots actually flew the 109 in question while testing it, their names?

How many hours did each pilot actually fly the 109 while testing it?

 

[drgondog]

Just a question Glider and Bill, you both have more knowledge then I on the test in question. Could you please tell me the following:

How many pilots actually flew the 109 in question while testing it, their names?

How many hours did each pilot actually fly the 109 while testing it?

Short answer - I am away from home and don't have access to my files. I will have to dig anyway. Two, maybe three is my recollection.

Short answer on the time is I don't know.

If the test pilots were the same as the ones ones that flew the 109G and Fw 190 A4(?) to all the US 8th AF FC command bases in fall of 1943 they would have signigicant time from a familiarization standpoint before the comparison trials against the 51B.

Having said that, I have no idea how one would research aerobatic time in either one? They certainly had more time to familiarize themselves with the German ships than the P-51B-5 used in the trials as it arrived in late november 1943.

I found an interesting report by the USN regarding Full Flight Test comparsons between F6f-6, F4U-1 and Fw 190A4 (BMW801D)..

It was intersting to see how badly the Fw 190 performed in turn comparisons. One part of the report cited that the F4U-1 went from starting with the Fw 190 on his six to being on the 190 six in three full turns..and that the Fw 190 'out' manuever was limited to climb if there was enough separation.

I am not stating this is proof of any kind but does represent side by side comparisons and was the USN approach to having a briefing in case the USN encountered the Fw 190 in Ops.

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/fw190/ptr-1107.pdf

I'll try to find out more about the pilot names - doubt that experience with type in context of aerobatics will surface with what I have.

Regards,

Bill

PS

The trials were conducted between December 1943 and Feb 1944. The report was dated 8 March 1944.

One of the more interesting things about the report was the stated weight of 10,100 pounds for the P-51B-5 they tested - which about 500 pounds over Max TO Gross for a fully loaded internal 51B. I still wonder if that was a typo. A better represntative weight would have been a combat load without external fuel... or closer to 9600 at take off.

A 51 at target in eastern Germany would be closer to 8800-9000 pounds.

 

[Hunter368]

Ok Bill I will wait until you dig that up before I respond.

Can you please get their names and qualifications. Also the amount of time they flew the 109 when testing it.

Thanks

 

[kool kitty89]

In case ayone didn't catch this the first time:

RAE did no test for either turn times or radius. The figures given by RAE for the 109E are rough estimates, with the Cl figures estimated from tests done to determine Cl on the Spitfire. Even on the latter, the Cl was determined, or rather again, estimated from stall speed tests. And, none of the RAE figures contain data for turn capacity of the Emil with its flaps deployed (the Spitfire didn`t have combat flaps, it was either up or down for landing). It think its quite reasonable to think that Messerschmitt AG had better understanding of the 109E`s Cl than RAE.

So there wasn't an actual turn test for the 109E.

The comments about the 109 being embarrased clearly refers to the 109 losing its sighting position which is quite understandable

Firstly this coment comes from the 109G vs Tempest testing:

The Hawker Tempest Page

Tempest V Tactical Trials

...

Turning Circle

The Tempest is slightly better, the Bf.109G being embarrassed by its slots opening near the stall.

And second the 109F and later models no longer had problems with aileron snatching, lateral shutter, or high G jamming of the slats. Although the pilot could still feel and hear a shock from the slat deployment on later models iirc, there was no effect on the aircraft its self, so no change in sighting.

 

[Kurfürst]

The comments about the 109 being embarrased clearly refers to the 109 losing its sighting position which is quite understandable

This is quite laughable. You cut and paste an 1940 test on a 109E and an 1944 test on a 109G, put the quotes out of context from the two records, parts taken from here and there like in the Frankenstein story.. and result looks equally silly.

I am sorry to see you signed up for Hop`s Freak Show.

 

[evangilder]

Thank you for the last snide comment, Kurfurst. This thread is now closed.

 

[lesofprimus]

Freakin dumbass, this thread was a good one too....