Best ETO fighter from 1939-1942

[Juha]

Soren
"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."

Leykauf claimed 3 Spitfires and IIRC Wolfrum's all claims were on Eastern Front, so what is your definition to "quite a few"?

Juha

 

[claidemore]

A man once said: The secret to success is to leave two or three things unsaid every day.

I really don't want to see this thread get locked, it's far and away my favorite and I feel like I'm learning something.

claidemore

 

[Soren]

Erwin Leykauf shot down six Spitfires during the BoB Juha, as he said himself.

Three passed confirmation with the OKL with another two Hurricanes shot down.

 

[Juha]

Soren
"Erwin Leykauf shot down six Spitfires during the BoB Juha, as he said himself."

How You know that he shot down 6 Spits? Have you done some research on subject or is that only your belief?

Juha

 

[pbfoot]

I think saying someone bagged an opponent by outurning him is a little misleading , if both aircraft started manouvering at the same time from the same position and energy level would be the only was to base the abilities of both aircraft. then toss into the mix capabilities of the pilot and the maintainence of the aircraft

 

[Hunter368]

Very good point PB and how often does that actually happen in combat? Almost never is the answer.

 

[Glider]

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.

I have heard this quite often but never any evidence. The reason why I have this question is that the Me108 had the same slats and if the the problem was common then it would have been dealt with before the war started. Certainly it would have been looked at and improved. Don't get me wrong I am not saying that it didn't happen but I do not believe that it was common.

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.

The comment about the British test pilots not pushing them through the envelope has been addressed a number of times. You have read those postings and believe that point should be dropped.

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.

The experience of Leykauf and Wolfrun has been covered, in fact their lack of experience against Spitfires would be more accurate.

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.

This I don't understand. In the 109myths site which I know you are aware of, a number of times visiting pilots mention that they were given a flight in a Me108 precisely to give them experience on the use of slats.
I know the 108 wasn't a primary trainer but if the use of the slats made the sort of difference which is claimed, then its use as a conversion trainer has so much logic, that I am confident it would have been used.

The best way to train a pilot is to let them experience their fears and realise that they are exagerated.

 

[pbfoot]

What was the problem with the slats , was in not included in the training of the aircrew, were the groundcrew not able to maintain them . Having looked at the things and played with them I wonder why the LW was unable to use or maintain them

 

[Soren]

Soren
"Erwin Leykauf shot down six Spitfires during the BoB Juha, as he said himself."

How You know that he shot down 6 Spits? Have you done some research on subject or is that only your belief?

Juha

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

Geeez..

 

[kool kitty89]

Why did't they fix the problem of slats on the Bf 108 like they did on the 109F?

 

[claidemore]

I'd like to go back to the figures posted regarding clmax of the various planes.

With a bit of research, a dollar store calculator, and the Mustang III (sorry don't have a I or II manual) and Spit IX manuals I get the following numbers.

Spitfire Mk IX, standard wing, 7445 lbs, stall speed of 86mph and clmax of 1.62.

Mustang III @9300 lbs I get stall speed of 90 mph and clmax of 1.2

If I go with Sorens stall speed for 109G2 of 90mph, @3035 kg/6678 lbs I get a clmax of 1.86. I don't have an independant source for that stall speed.

For the FW 190 A3 @8564 lbs and a stall speed of 127 mph I get clMax of 1.06. (Stall speed might be lower than that, with a correspondingly higher cl number, but thats the best info I have.)

I have NOOO idea how to turn those numbers into min turn radius, or sustained turn times at various speeds.

A question about the slats, don't they open as you slow down to land? So wouldn't every pilot be familiar with them if they did more than one landing?

That being said, it does seem there is something amiss in the AFDU trials, which show the 190 as being nearly equal in turn to the Mustang III and Tempest, while the 109 was easily outturned by both. This doesn't line up with Soviet experience and comments about the two german planes, nor with generally held 'opinion'.

 

[Soren]

I think saying someone bagged an opponent by outurning him is a little misleading , if both aircraft started manouvering at the same time from the same position and energy level would be the only was to base the abilities of both aircraft. then toss into the mix capabilities of the pilot and the maintainence of the aircraft

Very good point PB, which is exactly why after action reports shouldn't be taken as gospel.

As for the problem with the Emil's slats, they were overly sensitive to dirt and the design didn't work very well under G's, frequent jams occuring. This was rectified with the introduction of the F series, the design remaining the somewhat he the same but with numerous modifications. The G series introduced a new design which operated smoother and wasn't susceptible to dirt.

 

[Soren]

Claidemore,

I see you're beginning to see the point of it all, good.

As for the slats deploying at slow speed while landing, yes that's completely true, however this is under one G, at several G's the characteristics are different as the the whole a/c, including the slats, are under enormous stress.

 

[Soren]

Yet another piece of evidence to support the fact that the British test pilots didn't push the 109 to its limits is a German test report on the turn radius of the Bf-109E. The Germans achieved a far smaller turn radius in their tests than the British.

The report is here on Kurfürst's site: Kurfrst - Baubeschreibung fr das Flugzeugmuster Messerschmitt Me 109 mit DB 601.

 

[kool kitty89]

For the FW 190 A3 @8564 lbs and a stall speed of 127 mph I get clMax of 1.06. (Stall speed might be lower than that, with a correspondingly higher cl number, but thats the best info I have.)

That doesn't seem right to me either, the Fw 190 used a high lift arfoil (same as the F4U actually) so those figures would contradict that...


Also here's a US roll rate chart including the 190A-4 and P-51B:

 

[Soren]

The stall speed of the FW-190 A-8 was below 167 km/h as that was the landing speed, so probably around 160 km/h flaps gear down and 170 km/h flaps gear up.

The Clmax of the FW-190's wing was somewhere around 1.58 to 1.62.

The FW-190 features the NACA 23000 series airfoil (15% root 9% Tips), an airfoil like Koolkitty points out which is known for its unusually high Clmax.

 

[claidemore]

Yet another piece of evidence to support the fact that the British test pilots didn't push the 109 to its limits is a German test report on the turn radius of the Bf-109E. The Germans achieved a far smaller turn radius in their tests than the British.

The report is here on Kurfürst's site: Kurfrst - Baubeschreibung fr das Flugzeugmuster Messerschmitt Me 109 mit DB 601.

Lol. This is where you get yourself into trouble Soren.
It is POSSIBLE that the Brit pilots didn't push the 109, and there is evidence that indicates that may have been the case, but you can't really call it a FACT. Could just as easily been that the plane needed an oil change, or RAE gave it a poor paint job, or a combination of things. (thats more likely, there is seldom one cause to a problem, it's always compound)

I ain't ready to turn my coat yet, but I have come to see the 109 as a more capable turn fighter than I used to think. I'd still like to see some accurate numbers or graphs like the one HoHun gave us for the Wildcat vs Hurricane thread.

That 109E test you gave us shows 1050 ft radius, the RAE tests show 885 ft. Brits got a smaller turn circle? With flaps the 109 got 754 in the German test, while the RAE still has 696 for the Spit 1.

 

[kool kitty89]

Those figures on the 190 make more sence.

 

[Soren]

Regarding the Clmax of the Bf-109 F, G K series wing, it is 1.70 as described in German documents:

Bf-109 Clmax Cd0

 

[Soren]

Claidemore,

Read the report again:

Without use of flaps :
at 0 m - 170 m (557 feet)

With use of flaps :
at 0 m - 125 m (410 feet)

That's much lower than what the British achieved!