Best ETO fighter from 1939-1942

The original document:



Hans Werner Lerche


La-5FN tested

So Bill, are you satisfied now ?????

Soren said:

Bill,

The 109 which out-turned those Yak-9's (Not P-51's) was equipped with gun-pods. So yes its pretty incredible.

Is it an encounter report or a comparative flight test? Do you have comparative flight tests between Yak-9's and 51's? Do you have them for Yak-9s and me 109s? If not what is your basis of FACTUAL comparison?

Also I know Crumpp has the comparative tests I talked about, he has presented them elsewhere, so frankly I'm not sure you've asked him or atleast he hasn't answered.

I'll ask Gene again, and I care less about you questioning whether I asked him. I don't care if you are 'not sure'. This question may be the only subject in the world for which you have an opinion and use it with 'not sure'

As for the physics, sorry but they don't lie, so you can keep talking about countless incounter reports if you like, they mean nothing, as there are atleast as many German encounter reports noting the 109 190 easily out-turned the Mustang.

You haven't presented one yet. Not ONE. Zero. NADA. Non. but even if you did it would not explain the speed in which the turn was initiated, the altitude, the throttel conditions, the load, the skill of the pilot - but we know that wouldn't slow up any forthcoming 'opinions' from you, don't we?

And not likely 'as many' encounter reports as the ratio of Mustang over the LW was in the 10:1 range for the 8th AF.

Up to 326 Mustangs were shot down in the 8th AF - more than 2000 Me 109s were awarded. The 'lost' Mustangs in air to air include all the 'unknown's for which there is no other more reliable reason than shot down. The 326 include all losses to Me 262s, Fw 190s, Do 217's, Me 110s, etc including mid air collisions

Also the Youtube video was with a REAL LIFE Mustang owner and Skip Holm, now since you seem unfamiliar with this person let me give you a little update: View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TFl8X4y9-94

And here's what two VERY experienced German pilots had to say about the slats:

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 Bf-109 could manouver better in turnfight than LaGG, Yak or even Spitfire."

You quote another opinion without context. Did he fight a 51 or fly one? Why is he in your 'opinion file' for thios discussion?

Erwin Leykauf, LW fighter pilot, 33 victories:
"Many times the slats coming out frightenened young pilots when they flew the Bf 109 for the first time in combat. One often flew near the stalling speed in combat, not only when flying straight and level but especially when turning and climbing. Sometimes the slats would suddenly fly out with a bang as if one had been hit, especially when one had throttled back to bank steeply. Indeed many fresh young pilots thought they were pulling very tight turns even when the slats were still closed against the wing. 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.
One had to enter the turn correctly, then open up the engine. It was a matter of feel. When one noticed the speed becoming critical - the aircraft vibrated - one had to ease up a bit, then pull back again, so that in plan the best turn would have looked like an egg or a horizontal ellipse rather than a circle. In this way one could out-turn the Spitfire - and I shot down six of them doing it."

And he shot down how many P-51s in a turning fight? Why is this guy in the deabate?

Oh and I forgot to say that Erwin Leykauf actually tested the Spitfire during the war.

You also evaded for perhaps the 50th time any facts or demonstrated a shred of credibility to explain why the RAF pilots somehow never attained the competence in flying the 109 in a flight regime in which leading edge slats were deployed?

You still harp on this as if the Brits were clearly timid and stupid - and could not possibly comprehend what a REAL German fighter pilot could learn and apply? If you still believe this, you are just plain silly Soren.

Click to expand...

ARE YOU IN POSSESSION OF AT LEAST ONE FLIGHT TEST BACKING YOUR OPINIONS?

Look, flight tests aren't the definitive answer but they do flight tests for a reason. The reason is to gather facts and impressions based on a planned flight profile under the conditions and criteria necessary to eliminate as many variables, and subject to an objective reproduction of the conditions.

You keep claiming you are an engineer and you keep ignoring engineering disciplines in these discussions. You babble about physics when making STATIC comparisons to prove a dynamics thesis - which are interesting and prove you have requisite math abilities to get you past the third grade - but have nothing to do with F=ma!

Give me the Inertia moments in the three axes, the airspeed bleed rates, etc I asked you for if you want to get into either a dynamic performance discussion or an aerodynamic comparison... because you CAN'T GET TO EVEN AN ANALYTICAL THEORETICAL DISCUSSION without these and other wind tunnel data. Give me the comparative Hp as a function of altitude, give me the thrust as a function of rpm and altitude.. then we get interesting information from the CLmax, CDo, etc. Quit the BS Soren

Additionally you have skated by the recent bold statements (with no facts regarding Fw structural integrity and terminal 'guaranteed' dive speeds - also with no context or facts.

Bring out the test results or the Structural analysis that a.) prove the Me 109 was designed to 13g for a dive as you claimed last year, or that the Fw 190 wing could sustain a 12g pullout or that Fw 'cerified' the Fw 190 to 535mph in a dive. BTW - most 'certifications' are for limit loads at specified weights as reference - but you never mention the criteria and you don't produce the facts.

No strain gage data, no stress analysis docs, no book references which in turn relate to as yet unptoduced factory specs.

SO where are the facts proving your thesis that the "Mustang ain't close to a me 109". You have pulled one anecdotal reference to at least 720 degree turn with no gain on the deck at low speed - not a good place for a Mustang but this is your "proof"??

It (the Me 109) didn't come close to getting the job done against the Mustang when fighting over its own skies over Germany, when it (109) held its own against the Spit over the Channel or even Britain and against the VVS against everything they put up?... so I guess you meant the P-51 wasn't close because it was demonstrably better?

But you are an 'engineer' waving your arms and claiming the physics are irrefutable.. can you say you have taken at least one course in Advanced aero and one in Performance? And seriously used both in at least an academic model?

I have done these exercise in both academic and industrial practice. It is not easy, in fact largely impossible, to predict within 3-5% the range of key performance factors in flight test to the theoretical models used... but easy for you to do with thumbs and a calculator? I don't get it.

Until you can demonstrate that kind of competence can we please limit our debates to page numers of reputable references and stay away from the hyperbole?

Spitfire Mk. IX
Weight: 3,356 kg
Wing area: 22.48 m^2
Wing span: 11.23 m
Power: 1,580 HP

Wing AR: 5.61
Clmax: 1.36

Power-loading: 2.12
Lift-loading: 109.77

P-51B
Weight: 4,256 kg
Wing area: 21.64 m^2
Wing span: 11.21 m
Power: 1,790 HP

Wing AR: 5.80
Clmax: 1.47

Power-loading: 2.38
Lift-loading: 133.79

Click to expand...

The CLmax of the P-51B was higher than the Spitfire?!

[/QUOTE]
Also Soren where does it say that the Mustang was a P-51A with the British Fw 190? (note the P-51A was quite different than the Mustang I or 'P-51' as the armament was different for the A -the same as the B- as was the engine much more powerful -1480 hp V-1710-81-) In fact the P-51A didn't arrive until 1943 and production switched over to the P-51B after only a couple hundred were made, the only difference being the Merlin engine with different intake and an intercooler system. (making it heavier than the P-51A for about the same HP below 11,000 ft, making the P-51A a better performer up to medium altitudes, inless very high -non standard- boost pressures were used on the Merlin)

Read my posts Bill, this is the last time I'll say it!

I have provided ample evidence that the 109 easily out-turns the Mustang and that they aren't close in terms of turn performance. Or is it that you suggest that the Mustang was close to the Spitfire in turn performance as-well ??

The facts are right infront you yet you completely ignore them! You asked me to provide you with the facts and the sources, so I did and now surprise surprise you ignore them!

I have provided German, British modern comparisons conducted by skilled personnel, heck the last comparative report was in Lerche's book, the book you supposedly own yourself!

I have provided a German comparative test report on the FW190 A-9 Bf-109 G6/AS.

I have provided a report on a mock dogfight with a RAF pilot flying a FW-190 easily out-turning TWO P-51A's! (The P-51A is the lightest of Mustangs)

I have provided countless pilot anecdotes.

I have provided more than enough evidence in the field of physics to support what all the experts are saying.

And while we're talking physics, quit trying to complicate things! the physics aren't that complicated buddy, but anyone can make things seem more complicated than they really are. If you know the a/c's dimensions and weight distribution and you have the Clmax, Cd0 Cdi figures you can get a very accurate end result, one more than good enough for any accurate comparison between these a/c.

Finally keep in mind that my comparisons are at SL.

KoolKitty,

Yes the P-51's Clmax was higher than the Spitfire's.

Lerche's report on La-5FN is a bit strange, max speed appr 40Kmh lower at all altitudes than in Soviet service tests of early La-5FNs. Maybe the explanation is that the a/c Lerche flew was one of the early FNs, produced in late 43, so at least one year old when Germans got it. And those produced ½ year earlier than the report was written were even faster, 580kmh at SL and 635-648kmh max speed.

But even the a/c Lerche flew wasn't inside 1939-42 timeframe, so we are little off the topic.

Juha

Let me make simple for you Bill; Below I will present all the stuff you so far have been completely ignoring:

1. Two German experten explaining why many pilots didn't push the 109 to its limits:

Walter Wolfrum:
"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 Bf-109 could manouver better in turnfight than LaGG, Yak or even Spitfire"

Erwin Leykauf:
"Many times the slats coming out frightenened young pilots when they flew the Bf 109 for the first time in combat. One often flew near the stalling speed in combat, not only when flying straight and level but especially when turning and climbing. Sometimes the slats would suddenly fly out with a bang as if one had been hit, especially when one had throttled back to bank steeply. Indeed many fresh young pilots thought they were pulling very tight turns even when the slats were still closed against the wing. 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."

2. In the RAE AFDU's own papers it is clearly noted that the 109 is "embarrassed by the opening of its slots", clearly indicating an unwillingness to go beyond the deployment of the slats.

However the above wasn't unnormal as explained by Erwin Leykauf Walter Wolfrum, pilots inexperienced with the type being vary of the slats and unwilling to tighten the turn after the initial deployment, fearing the a/c was about to stall. Fact is the pilots weren't even close to a stall, as real maneuvering only started AFTER the slats had deployed, which they did VERY early on in the AoA range.


3. The facts brought forth by modern pilots who actually fly the a/c in question.

Mark Hanna:
"I like it as an aeroplane, and with familiarity I think it will give most of the allied fighters I have flown a hard time, particularly in a close, hard turning, slow speed dog-fight. It will definitely out-maneuver a P-51 in this type of flight."

And

"The Spitfire, on the other hand, is more of a problem for the 109, and I feel it is a superior close-in fighter. Having said that, the aircraft are sufficiently closely matched that pilot ability would probably be the deciding factor. "

Note: Mark Hanna (May he rest in peace) flew the Buchon, a much heavier and draggier version of the 109.


Skip Holm:
"Once airborne and cleaned-up, the aircraft is a delight. A classic! And real fighter, ready to rock and roll! And the speed it loves to roll around is 250 mph and below. The roll rate is very good and very positive at 250 mph. Above 250 mph the ailerons get heavy and at 300 they are very similar to a P-51. Any speed after that results in the ailerons getting fairly solid and you need two hands on the stick for any meaningful roll rates. Most of my flights have been in formation with P-51s and the Me-109 is more maneuverable than the P-51 in most conditions. "

Skip Holm Interview (Including a Mustang owner in the beginning which he flies with): View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TFl8X4y9-94

Note: Skip Holm flies ALL the aircraft in question!

4. All the German comparative tests, in all of which it is made abundantly clear that the Bf-109 EASILY out-turns the FW-190.


JG 11 report HP 5156 from 29th October 1944 regarding mock dogfights between FW-190 A-9's and Bf-109 G6/AS's:
"A Schwarm of Me 109 at 8,000 metres climbed up to attack a Rotte of Fw 190 at 10,000 metres. On the turn with 1.1 boost, the Me 109 Schwarm out climbed the Fw 190 Rotte by about 200 metres and at the same time without fully opened throttles and not flying flat out, they out turned the Fw 190 Rotte.

First attack was from above and behind with 1.1 boost and flaps retracted and a normal steep turn without opening to maximum possible speed, the Fw 190A-9 was easily overtaken and out turned.

Second attack from behind and below on the number one of the Rotte, aircraft was easily overtaken, out turned and outstripped in the inside turn.

On full throttle it is easily possible to out climb the A-9 without losing position since speed can be reduced by throttling back and doing very tight turns.

Appreciation: Me 109 AS/MW 50 obviously superior at high altitude to the Fw 190A-9. Secondly, now known that on July 14th, Air Officer for Technology issued instructions for preventing burning out of pistons on DB 603 and DB 605AS with methyl alcohol water injection."

And

Low altitude comparative tests between FW-190A-8, Bf-109G La-5FN conducted at Rechlin:

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. "

5. A captured German FW-190 Jabo turns as-well as a Mustang III in British AFDU tactical trials.

6. RAF pilot easily out-turns TWO P-51A's in mock dogfight in August 1943


7. Aerodynamics supports what all the experts are saying:

The Bf-109G-2 has a much lower lift loading power loading than the P-51B, whilst it is only slightly lower than the Spitfire Mk.IX's.

8. Take off roll is a good indicator of sustained turn performance, and in the Bf-109 F-4's Kennblatt you will find the take off landing roll figures for the 109 F-4 are much shorter than for the Spitfire Mk.V.




Well I could go on and on but I'll stop for now...

Juha,

The La-5FN in question was captured in September 1944, and was not an earlier production version. The a/c was noted to be in very good condition.

Soren said:

Let me make simple for you Bill; Below I will present all the stuff you so far have been completely ignoring:

1. Two German experten explaining why many pilots didn't push the 109 to its limits:

Walter Wolfrum:
"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 Bf-109 could manouver better in turnfight than LaGG, Yak or even Spitfire"

Erwin Leykauf:
"Many times the slats coming out frightenened young pilots when they flew the Bf 109 for the first time in combat. One often flew near the stalling speed in combat, not only when flying straight and level but especially when turning and climbing. Sometimes the slats would suddenly fly out with a bang as if one had been hit, especially when one had throttled back to bank steeply. Indeed many fresh young pilots thought they were pulling very tight turns even when the slats were still closed against the wing. 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."

Click to expand...

I understand that Walter Wolfrum did all his fighting on the Eastern Front and its by no means certain that he ever fought any Spitfires. If he did, its more than likely that he fought MkV's as relatively few Mk IX's were sent to Russia. What is certain is that the Russian Pilots would not have been as well trained as the Western Allies so this must question the statement.
Erwin Laykauf I believe shot down three Spitfires in 1940 before being transferred to the Eastern Front so his experience although valid isn't massive.
I used to have a link to a site that gave details of all German aces but seem to have lost it. They were listed many ways if anyone canfind it I would appreciate the link

2. In the RAE AFDU's own papers it is clearly noted that the 109 is "embarrassed by the opening of its slots", clearly indicating an unwillingness to go beyond the deployment of the slats.

However the above wasn't unnormal as explained by Erwin Leykauf Walter Wolfrum, pilots inexperienced with the type being vary of the slats and unwilling to tighten the turn after the initial deployment, fearing the a/c was about to stall. Fact is the pilots weren't even close to a stall, as real maneuvering only started AFTER the slats had deployed, which they did VERY early on in the AoA range.

Click to expand...

This keeps getting mentioned but HOP did a posting giving more details that belies this claim.
The question I have asked before on this is a simple one. 'If the secret to dominating the RAF SPitfires in 1940 was training new pilots to fly through the deployment of the slats. Why didn't they? Its simple to do and in the Me108 they had the ideal trainer.

3. The facts brought forth by modern pilots who actually fly the a/c in question.

Mark Hanna:
"I like it as an aeroplane, and with familiarity I think it will give most of the allied fighters I have flown a hard time, particularly in a close, hard turning, slow speed dog-fight. It will definitely out-maneuver a P-51 in this type of flight."

And

"The Spitfire, on the other hand, is more of a problem for the 109, and I feel it is a superior close-in fighter. Having said that, the aircraft are sufficiently closely matched that pilot ability would probably be the deciding factor. "

Note: Mark Hanna (May he rest in peace) flew the Buchon, a much heavier and draggier version of the 109.


Skip Holm:
"Once airborne and cleaned-up, the aircraft is a delight. A classic! And real fighter, ready to rock and roll! And the speed it loves to roll around is 250 mph and below. The roll rate is very good and very positive at 250 mph. Above 250 mph the ailerons get heavy and at 300 they are very similar to a P-51. Any speed after that results in the ailerons getting fairly solid and you need two hands on the stick for any meaningful roll rates. Most of my flights have been in formation with P-51s and the Me-109 is more maneuverable than the P-51 in most conditions. "

Skip Holm Interview (Including a Mustang owner in the beginning which he flies with): View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TFl8X4y9-94

Note: Skip Holm flies ALL the aircraft in question!

Click to expand...

The above statements are true but they also say that at higher speeds the 109 looses its advantage. If I had to choose between a plane that has the advantage at higher speed and one that has the advantage at lower speed, I would take the former.

4. All the German comparative tests, in all of which it is made abundantly clear that the Bf-109 EASILY out-turns the FW-190.

Click to expand...

I agree with Soren on this. All the reports that I have read imply that the 109 could turn inside the 190.

IIRC the La-5FN was an early model from late 43 production batch. Yes it was captured in Sept (or Oct) 44. For some reason, weariness etc, it was clearly slower than those service tested in SU.

I voted for Bf 109, thinking F-4 but really cannot choose between Bf 109F-4 anf Fw 190A-4. And of course I could have voted Spitfire because of Mk I and Mk IX but the latter was very late comer in 39-42 timeframe and IMHO Mk V wasn't as good as 109F or 190A and because of that period I chose between 109 and 190.

One more point, again no Soviet planes! Not that I'd have choosen one but IMHO at least Yak-7B or La-5 (meaning the earliest high back version known also as LaG-5 and contemporary to Spit Mk IX) should have included into the vote.

Juha

Soren said:

Read my posts Bill, this is the last time I'll say it!

I have provided ample evidence that the 109 easily out-turns the Mustang and that they aren't close in terms of turn performance. Or is it that you suggest that the Mustang was close to the Spitfire in turn performance as-well ??

RAF Test Pilots in two separate cpmparative reports placed the Spitfire above the Mustang and the Mustang above the Me 109. Both were a.) comparative without context in either altitude or airspeed.

Soren has produced zero reports, amusing anecdotes and a lot of unsustantiated statements.. zero facts

The facts are right infront you yet you completely ignore them! You asked me to provide you with the facts and the sources, so I did and now surprise surprise you ignore them!

Zero reports from Rechlin, zero flight test data

I have provided German, British modern comparisons conducted by skilled personnel, heck the last comparative report was in Lerche's book, the book you supposedly own yourself!

You once claimed that Lerche was involved in a flight test set of comparisons between the Mustang and the Me 109 - which is this discussion - and he never did nor did he mention it in his book. The only references to Me 109 and Mustang comparisons were from Rall, recounting that the advantage a Me 109 must use is the tight climbing turn - and you Dismissed THAT expert opinion but embraced Skip Holm's?

I own the book - shall we exchange page references?

I have provided a German comparative test report on the FW190 A-9 Bf-109 G6/AS.

I have provided a report on a mock dogfight with a RAF pilot flying a FW-190 easily out-turning TWO P-51A's! (The P-51A is the lightest of Mustangs)

You have two RAF test pilots rebutting that and the report documenting their opinions from a series of flight tests comparing the Mustang to two different Spits, the Fw 190, the Me 109 and the P-47.


I have provided countless pilot anecdotes.

I havene't bothered - how many do you want me to point you to in various Encounter Reports?

I have provided more than enough evidence in the field of physics to support what all the experts are saying.

Your demonstrated knowledge of Aerospace Engineering is low when it comes to either the thory of Fluid Mechanics, Aerodynamics or Flight Dynamics ... I'm amused by your reference to the field of physics . Once and for all what is your educational achievement in Engineering in any field and how far have you gone with respect to either theoretical Aerodynamics, Noundary Layer Theory, Wing Body Theory? How far have you gone with respect to Flight Mechanics or Airframe Structures?

And while we're talking physics, quit trying to complicate things! the physics aren't that complicated buddy, but anyone can make things seem more complicated than they really are. If you know the a/c's dimensions and weight distribution and you have the Clmax, Cd0 Cdi figures you can get a very accurate end result, one more than good enough for any accurate comparison between these a/c.

Bulls**t Soren.

The airframe aerodynamics for example has a great influence in energy loss. The power curves as a function of altitude, thrust available as a function of altitude and airspeed, power required to support the model rate of turn and altitude, etc are ALL required to get a close model.

The well modelled Dynamic representation will show the energy loss as the thrust required to maintain the expected velocity falls below the required threshold. The asymetric loads on the airframe influence the attitude of the airframe, the stick forces and control surface deflections, the effect of wing-body airflows..

All of these are affected by altitude and power available at that altitude.

And on and on and on.

The simple fact is that these two airframes are close in performance, and close enough that wind tunnel data, seat of the pants performance calcs from wing tunnel data are not accurate enough to accurately model the comparisons.

Just go back and contemplate the disappointment the German engineering team experienced when the Dora flight test results for simple straight line speed fell short because the wind tunnel model did not accurately model the expected increase in drag for the real cowl. IIRC that was around 3% just on that factor

You are babbling about wind tunnel data of lift and drag as if they represent the only factors in predicting performance accurately..

I'm not trying to complicate things - simply posing the question "do you really think you know anything about Aero and Flight Mechanics?"

I say no.

Finally keep in mind that my comparisons are at SL.

Click to expand...

The Encounter Reports you advanced were at low altitude, but you have never said that 'The Me 109 is often out turned at medium altitudes and out turned at high altitudes'. Is that what you are saying now?

Bill and Soren,

If I could interject for a moment. Both of you use anecdotes from third parties allot, while it can be interesting......for the most part it is not worth allot. Encounter reports mean nearly nothing, they are all bais. Don't use them.

Bill, flight tests done by the allies are not worth allot in my eyes, they most often prove bais by the country doing it. Allies won the war so they write the history books how they want, you (me and everyone else in North America) hear nothing about how great the P-51 was, when it was not the one plane wonder that won the war.

Soren same thing do not use Axis tests to try and prove your points.

Please stick to physics and proven aerodynamics facts to prove your points. Use nothing but unbais ways to prove your points or your points mean nothing to us.

Not to mention all this sarcasm and small shots at each other just pollutes and waters down your points you actually make. So don't do it, facts speak volumes.

Hunter368 said:

Bill and Soren,

If I could interject for a moment. Both of you use anecdotes from third parties allot, while it can be interesting......for the most part it is not worth allot. Encounter reports mean nearly nothing, they are all bais. Don't use them.

Do you see me interjecting anecdotes or Encounter reports in this discussion Hunter? If not, why include me in your little admonition?

Bill, flight tests done by the allies are not worth allot in my eyes, they most often prove bais by the country doing it. Allies won the war so they write the history books how they want, you (me and everyone else in North America) hear nothing about how great the P-51 was, when it was not the one plane wonder that won the war.

Hunter - I am not describing a 'wonder plane' If you have paid attention to my many posts on best you will note most of my comments on those subjects are devoted to a balance between the F4u, the me 262 for productive fighters. I have stated and continue to state the Importance of the Mustang. So why do you bring this comment up with me?

On the question of flight tests - do you discount flight tests?

If so, what do you use to substitute facts derived from flight tests? Wikipedia? Other? Computer models? Gut feel?

As to who won the war writes the history. Was the war won in 1943 and 1944 when the flight tests were performed on both sides? Were the pilots interested in facts about aircraft their country might wish to purchase to improve their military capabilty, or more interested in making their 'pride and joy' stand out favorably in contrast to facts?

Were they disinterested in passing on to operational units certain caveats about deficiencies in the aircraft they were testing with respect to adversaries they were likely to encounter? I take from your dismissal that the RAF pilots were solely interested in proving the Spitfire superior to all other aircraft with no regards to an objective 'buy' criteria for their country's Government? That these tests and reports are from the mantle of the 'winners'

Hunter, Flight Tests are neither discounted by manufacturers or Customers (RAF, USAAF, LW) for basis of evaluating the claims of the manufacturer. The manufacturer is keenly interested because wind tunnel tests and the hand crank methods of airframe analysis and performance often were mostly at variance with reality.

If you are you suggesting a better way - please contribute.

Soren same thing do not use Axis tests to try and prove your points.

Soren has not used Axis Tests yet in these performance discussions, because he can't find them. He has ridiculed the RAF test results based on timidity of RAF pilots, poorly rigged flight controls, worn out aircraft, etc. but has submitted zero rebuttal tests.

I have no problem with your perception of bias. I have a problem with anybody's ability to prove or disprove bias based on their own bias. I also have a problem making unequivocal statements about performance superiority with zero substantiating facts.

Please stick to physics and proven aerodynamics facts to prove your points. Use nothing but unbais ways to prove your points or your points mean nothing to us.

Hunter, how deep are you prepared to go in your examination of 'proven aerodynamics'? Have you seen any proven aero in this discussion? Have you seen any Physics in this discussion? Can we simplify the Physics discussion to the equation Force = mass x acceleration?

Can we complicate the discussion of Force to include the aerodynamics of the wing, tail, wing body effect, lift, all forms of drag, asymetrical loads affecting stability and control, available thrust as a function of altitude, integration of the drop in velocity as the drag reduces the velocity when the available power drops below the thrust requirements to maintain the turn accelerations?

Or do you have different aerodynamics in mind to predict Flight Mechanics and Dynamics of Performance.

Have you seen or do you understand the geometry, the aerodynamic model, the Flight Dynamics array of factors including cg, three axix moments of intertia, static and dynamic margins, thrust profiles, drag profiles as a function velocity, etc - all necessary for computer runs in a well designed Performance model?

If so, are the Physics 'evident', or is the Aero clear to you?

In my ignorance it isn't clear to me so help me out. For that matter bring in someone who does because I don't think it is you (I could be wrong) and I know it isn't Soren

Not to mention all this sarcasm and small shots at each other just pollutes and waters down your points you actually make. So don't do it, facts speak volumes.

Click to expand...

Quit lecturing Hunter, the debate has attempted to arrive at facts. The battleground has been the question of Fact versus Opinion. You have introduced the concept of civility and I agree with you. I have found it difficult with Soren's style and think I will just ignore him from this point on for that reason.

Back to Fact. The Soren statements to date are that the Me 109 is far better than the Mustang in turn, the Fw 190 is stressed for 12g's, the Fw 190 is certified for 535mph in dive.

What facts have You extracted in this debate to support the above statements? I haven't seen any. These are the facts I have been asking for. I repeat, what facts have you seen to support those three statements I took exception to from Soren.

What aerodynamic theory and applied mechanics in these discussions lead you to believe any statement about turn performance for the Mustang and Me 109 at any altitude, for any entering speed, for any accelerations, for any conditions whatsoever is extractable from the platform of PHYSICS or AERODYNAMICS. I haven't seen one. I think I understand the theory and application to the real world.

I am sorry my style offended you.

I do respect you, but saying that, your post is offensive. My father and mother are no longer available to scold me - you don't have that kind of respect. If you have something that I say that offends you, take it off line unless you wish a reaction addressing your own rudeness.

If you feel the sarcasm dilutes the facts, look past the sarcasm and re read the posts to see a.) what facts have been offered to support the three unequivocal statements by Soren which I challenged. Please bring them to my attention without editorial comment and I will respond with great courtesy.

Also go back and refresh my memory regarding any statement that I have made about the Mustang being the "best fighter in the war". Please bring them to my attention, because if I said that I was incorrect. If you fail to find that comment, please let me know so that we don't have that little issue between us.

Regards,

Bill

Bill drop the bullsh*t and realize the facts put before you!

You requested me to post the facts, I did and now you try to dispute them with your ridiculous arguments.

And I HAVE posted Rechlin tests, again something you COMPLETELY ignored!

The tests Lerche conducted were RECHLIN TESTS!!!!

I have also posted tests conducted by JG 11, again completely ignored by you.

I have posted comments by the vets and the folks who fly these birds today, again completely ignored by you Bill!

And as for my knowledge within Aerodynamics, well so far it has only been demonstrated to be better than yours Bill! You've just kept your mouth shut when'ever we try to compare these a/c aerodynamically, the reason being you're completely unaware of how to calculate measure these things!

You keep babbling about the airflow around the a/c, well Bill, what do you think Cl, Cd0 Cdi refers to ???

And tell me, if you think you're so unbelievably good at aerodynamics how can the P-51 be close to an a/c in turn performance which is MUCH lighter, smaller, has more power available, features a higher lift wing and automatic LE slats ???

Do you want to know the effect LE slats have on the critical AoA Clmax of a wing ? Here you go:


That's a 25% increase in Clmax critical AoA!

Do you also want to know why laminar flow airfoils are inefficient on fighters without LE slats or flaps ??


But who cares, keep running those circles Bill, you're only fooling yourself.

Wow Bill,

I have to say your post has surprised me. I did not intend to offend anyone with my post. Even rereading it looking for that......I can't see how I offended you in anyway.

Hell I even got a PM from a very respected member of the forum thanking me for my attempt of getting this "debate" back on course, less all the snide remarks from both you and Soren. Shows you how bad this "debate" has gotten.

The whole point of my post was to get you and Soren to debate based on facts alone in a respectful way.......to the benefit of us all. You both make yourselves look bad the way you are doing it.

Instead you took it as me taking shots at you (Soren) when I was not. I was not and cannot lecture to you on aerodynamics, you know far more on the subject then I.

I can debate with you facts, third party examples, history etc. But that was not my intention. I am trying to get this debate back from insults to facts. Notice I have not posted any comment here other then my attempt to get rid of useless comments and get back to facts.

Not to mention you took comments from my first post twisted them into things I never said. You claim you never indulged in the same thing as Soren, when you have. You both were doing it.

I am not trying to turn this into an arguement, I respect your knowledge a great deal, I truely do. But you lose your cool quickly, then your "debating" skill slips into snide remarks.

Example: Please post where I said (in my first post) "Bill you claim the P-51 was the wonder plane", I never said that. Reread my post, I never said any such thing. You lost your cool and assumed much in my post which was untrue.

I am not trying to get involved in your debate with Soren. I am just trying to get your debate with Soren clearer for us all to read and enjoy (less all the BS).

Now if your still offended by my first post or this one, PM me if you want and I will explain more. Not trying to turn this into a pissing match with you, its not my style. But post again like the last one and I will respond.

Soren and Bill you both need to relax and take a deep breath. Walk away from the forum for a day or so and chill out.

This keeps getting mentioned but HOP did a posting giving more details that belies this claim.
The question I have asked before on this is a simple one. 'If the secret to dominating the RAF SPitfires in 1940 was training new pilots to fly through the deployment of the slats. Why didn't they? Its simple to do and in the Me108 they had the ideal trainer.

Click to expand...

As has been explained the Emil suffered from its slats jamming in turns, making pilots vary about the slats and unwilling to attempt to push the a/c beyond slat deployment, fearing the a/c was on the verge of a stall.

Günther Rall was nearly killed in an Emil as one of the slats jammed in a turn, throwing the a/c into a vicous spin, fortunatly he recovered, but he never tried to push the 109 that far again.

The problem with the LE slats was however solved with the introduction of the F series, a new roller design ensuring smooth operation of the slats, and most new pilots were then ofcourse instructed to push the 109 to the limit in turns from then on, there being nothing to be afraid of anymore. But the point is that the Britih test pilots and some of the old 109 jocks didn't know about this and continued to be vary about the slats, Rall never even attempted to push the a/c that far having nearly died once doing so, also he didn't have to seeing he had perfected his own tactics during the BoB which proved very effective.

As Dave Southwood puts it, having flown Black 6:
"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"

A British pilot having either previous flown the Emil, or never flown a 109 before, would therefore naturally be vary about the slats and not push past slats deployment, somthing which is made clear by Leykauf Wolfrum and the comments made in the AFDU report.

And as for the Bf-108 being used as a trainer, well AFAIK this wasn't the primary trainer for LW fighter pilots. Furthermore the Bf-108 features the same slats as the Emil, so even if some pilots had trained in this type they'd still have high chance of experiencing that bad very dangerous habbit of the slats jamming in turns.

It was all about getting past that fear though as Wolfrum Leykauf both explain, both having successfully out-turned and shot down quite a few Spitfires.

Hunter,

That's the way it always is with Bill, he blows into a frenzy of insults everytime someone talks negatively about his precious Mustang, ignoring all the facts put before him, making it impossible to have a serious debate with him.

As long as he refuses to realize the facts we can't debate this any further with him.

Folks - let get back to being a little civil here - I don't want to close this thread but will do so if things continue to get heated.

This has gotten WAY out of hand. I will go one further and state that the next snide comment will result in closing of this thread, I don't care WHO it is from.