Best Fighter III

[Crumpp]

A conflict of dates but......

I am aware of this source.


It is second hand information in a modeler's periodical. Considering the volume of first hand information and original documentation I have seen that contradicts many Barnes and Noble histories, you can put in stock in it if you wish.

I don't put much in it at all.

By the time any pilot got close enough to identify whether or not the target had an oil cooler on the chin, it would be way too late. I don't know how much experience you have actually flying but good luck spotting a feature like that on another aircraft outside of engagement ranges.

I highly doubt Hermann Graf did not realize this simple fact.

I would bet the author misinterpreted a valid order that had nothing in common with the meaning he gleaned from it.

More likely he read a recommendation originating from Zirkus Rosarius which probably went along the lines of "dogfighting is not altogether recommended".

All the best,

Crumpp

 

[Soren]

Talk to any LW veteran and he will tell you that this supposed instruction to avoid the Yaks down low is pure BS and was never issued.

Nearly all the fighting which took place one the eastern front was down low, and the JagdGeschwader made the VVS pay for every meter of territory, litterally slaughtering the Yaks La's of the VVS. Esp. the Dora-9 proved extremely effective infact almost invulnerable down low to the soviet fighters.

The later versions of the 109 (G-10/ -14 K-4) were all superior to the Yak-9 and La's according the pilots of the LW. A hard climbing turn, which demanded a good sustained turn rate, was a sure way out of trouble for the 109 pilots.

The LW pilots were never instucted to avoid fighting down low with any VVS fighter, and to further stress this it was infact down low nearly all the fighting took place.

 

[SoD Stitch]

Talk to any LW veteran and he will tell you that this supposed instruction to avoid the Yaks down low is pure BS and was never issued.

Nearly all the fighting which took place one the eastern front was down low, and the JagdGeschwader made the VVS pay for every meter of territory, litterally slaughtering the Yaks La's of the VVS. Esp. the Dora-9 proved extremely effective infact almost invulnerable down low to the soviet fighters.

The later versions of the 109 (G-10/ -14 K-4) were all superior to the Yak-9 and La's according the pilots of the LW. A hard climbing turn, which demanded a good sustained turn rate, was a sure way out of trouble for the 109 pilots.

The LW pilots were never instucted to avoid fighting down low with any VVS fighter, and to further stress this it was infact down low nearly all the fighting took place.

I'd have to agree with Soren (again); I'm no expert on Eastern Front fighting tactics, but I have read The Blond Knight Of Germany several times, and it seems the majority of German encounters with the VVS took place at <5,000 ft. (1500m).

 

[magnocain]

Do you have a source on this? Thanks!

(The Aviation FactFile) Aircraft of World War Two

 

[Crumpp]

If you are looking for a very cursory review of WWII's major aircraft (i.e., a page or two for each aircraft) this is the book for you. If you are a modeler interested in paint schemas for an aircraft you are building it is also good in that good ones are provided. If you are looking for anything more, however, forget it.

Amazon.com: Aircraft of World War II (Aviation Factfile, The): Books: Jim Winchester

This book just repeats the same information. It probably cites the LW colors volume 5!

 

[Nikademus]

Hello,

been lurking for a bit, finally finishing this thread. Nice to see a bunch of knowledgable folks being able to look beyond paper stats as well as use them, yet still remain friendly in their debates. (well, most of the time.. )

"refreshing" doesn't even describe the feeling after all these years.

 

[Rich46yo]

Hello,

been lurking for a bit, finally finishing this thread. Nice to see a bunch of knowledgable folks being able to look beyond paper stats as well as use them, yet still remain friendly in their debates. (well, most of the time.. )

"refreshing" doesn't even describe the feeling after all these years.

I agree. A fascinating thread to read, even more so the fact its being discussed like gentlemen.

 

[Ramirezzz]

Talk to any LW veteran and he will tell you that this supposed instruction to avoid the Yaks down low is pure BS and was never issued.

that could be a BS from that point of view that in an aerial engagement you couldn't really distinguish between the different Yak types -they look pretty similar even on the ground from the nearest distance. BTW, their comparable to superior performance in comparison with the latest Me series was recognised by the Germans themselves - just read Lerche reports of his flights on captured La-5FN and Yak-3 in Rechlin in 1944.

Nearly all the fighting which took place one the eastern front was down low, and the JagdGeschwader made the VVS pay for every meter of territory, litterally slaughtering the Yaks La's of the VVS. Esp. the Dora-9 proved extremely effective infact almost invulnerable down low to the soviet fighters.

you can't really talk of "slaughtering " regarding that fact that in 1944 there were about 300-400 LW fighters deployed on the entire Eastern front - in fact, the non-combat casualties and the losses due the ground fire were far greater . LW wasn't a significant force on the Eastern front anymore.

The later versions of the 109 (G-10/ -14 K-4) were all superior to the Yak-9 and La's A hard climbing turn, which demanded a good sustained turn rate, was a sure way out of trouble for the 109 pilots.

La-7 was superior to the G-6 and G-10 almost in every way, and particularlyit's climbing rate was more than comparable. As for Yak-9 - it isn't correct to compare this plane which production started much earlier than the production of the latest "Gustav" version - it was pretty mediocre fighter, just an improved light long range version of Yak-7. It was easy to produce and to mantain, not to mention the Yakovlevs great personal ability to push his airplanes into production istead of more modern ones.

according the pilots of the LW.

IMHO the veterans memories , couldn't be quoted as reliable sources - there're all written from a very subjective point of view, just as the russian ones.

 

[Soren]

Your response is understandable considering where you're from.

The LW was by no means a small force on the Eastern front by 1944, and like it or not the LW DID slaughter the VVS in almost every aerial engagement. Esp. the JagdGeschwader's Dora-9's really handed it to the La's Yaks of the VVS, the not even the La-7 proved to be any macth at all.

And btw I have Hans Werner Lerche's book, and what he says is that the Bf-109G is both faster, climbs faster and turns better than the La-5FN.

He makes no mention of any supposed superiority of the Yak-3 either, he does note it was a good fighter though, and it was.

The La-7 held nothing over the Bf-109 G-10 except a slightly higher SL speed, thats all, the G-10 was slightly superior in turning performance climb rate. A sure way of getting any VVS fighter off your tail according to most 109 pilots was making a steep climbing turn, no VVS could follow that.

Now this doesn't mean that the La-7 wasn't a good fighter, however it is often grossly overrated, esp. by the Russians.

And yes, Hartmann did down 350 + VVS a/c, the far majority being fighters.

 

[Ramirezzz]

Your response is understandable considering where you're from.

hovewer, that doesn't affect my objectivity in any aspect - that means only that my knowledge on the airwar on the Eastern Front is much greather than on the Western))

The LW was by no means a small force on the Eastern front by 1944, and like it or not the LW DID slaughter the VVS in almost every aerial engagement.

I don't quite understand what do you mean by "slaughtering" - please define it. During the whole year ( 1944), all COMBAT VVS losses were about 7860airplanes, including all aircraft types, not only fighters or bombers.
From that amount more than a half (about 4300) was lost due to ground fire and flak - so their losses in aerial combats were just about 3700( again , of all aircraft types). At the same time, the NON-combat losses were almost 1,6 times higher - 12000 planes. So I don't see any "slaughtering" of VVS by LW at all. Their own pilots after flying scools were the force under which VVS suffered the most .
Now this doesn't mean the LW didn't make any troubles to VVS at all, but their performance esspecialy in the late stage of war is highly overestimated - the western view of the aerial combat on the Eastern front was very one-sided due to understandable reasons.

Esp. the JagdGeschwader's Dora-9's really handed it to the La's Yaks of the VVS, the not even the La-7 proved to be any macth at all.

The FW 190 in general wasn't deployed on the Eastern front in the great numbers - in fact, if you refer to the LW veterans memories , the soviet pilots always emphasized that the most dangerous german aircraft was not the Fw 190 but the Me 109 .

And btw I have Hans Werner Lerche's book, and what he says is that the Bf-109G is both faster, climbs faster and turns better than the La-5FN.
He makes no mention of any supposed superiority of the Yak-3 either, he does note it was a good fighter though, and it was.

I talked only about Yak-3 performance in Rechlin - the La-5FN which was tested by Lerche was one of the early versions with an old engine with a lot of flying hours already made. Then the gasoline type the germans used whas not the same which was recommended to use in Ash-82FN - (87 octanes against 100). No wonder it couldn't achieve the same speed as the serial models in VVS (100 km/h more than the La-5FN in Rechlin).
That doesn't wonder me at all - almost the same story has happened to the Bf 109F-1 which was tested in NII VVS in late 1941 - due to the wrong supercharge settings it couldn't achive the same airspeed at the high altitudes as the original model.
As for Yak-3 , this is a quote from Lerche report :
"My reply to his questions regarding the Yak-3 was that performance
measurement tests had not been made yet, but due to the extremely light weight of
the aircraft combined with the high aerodynamic quality and available engine
power, excellent climb and superior low-level dog-fighting performance might be
expected compared to our Bf 109 and FW 190 fighters. "

The La-7 held nothing over the Bf-109 G-10 except a slightly higher SL speed, thats all, the G-10 was slightly superior in turning performance climb rate.

according to my sources the G-10 has a climb rate about 18 m/s against 18.3 of Lavochkin.
As for turning performance, I don't have an exact numbers on wing loading of G-10 - the WL of G-6 was something about 200 kg/m2, which is 13kg more than a WL of Lavochkin. If you have the exact data, please post it.

A sure way of getting any VVS fighter off your tail according to most 109 pilots was making a steep climbing turn, no VVS could follow that.

the same trick did Kozhedub in his La-7 and even in La -5FN - that all depends on which aircraft type you've encountered as an enemy.

And yes, Hartmann did down 350 + VVS a/c, the far majority being fighters.

so what? you can't define the performance of the AF as such only from the standpoint of of the leading aces performance- in that way LW has clearly outperformed not only the VVS , but the RAF and USAF as well.


Sorry for my English - after all, it's not even my second foreign language

 

[Soren]

Ramirezz,

Lets blame it on your english (Which seems fine btw) that you somehow missed these crucial points in Lerche's statement:

"My reply to his questions regarding the Yak-3 was that performance
measurement tests had not been made yet, but due to the extremely light weight of
the aircraft combined with the high aerodynamic quality and available engine
power, excellent climb and superior low-level dog-fighting performance might be
expected compared to our Bf 109 and FW 190 fighters."

After actually flying the Yak-3 Lerche noticed no advantages over the LW fighters. Also worthy of note is that Lerche never flew the Fw-190 Dora-9, Bf-109 G-10, -14, G-6AS or K-4, and therefore never compared any of the captured enemy fighters to these. Lerche only flew the Bf-109 F-4, G-2 G-6 Fw-190 A-8 to which all his comparisons were made, Lerche's job was afterall mainly to fly captured aircraft.

As to the state of the La-5FN tested, as noted it was very good, nothing worn or anything. And as to the fuel, well the Germans weren't strangers to the fuel used by the VVS and ofcourse they used the right fuel for the tests, they weren't amateurs Ramirezz, their job was to obtain accurate performance figures which were crucial for the guys at the front. There wasn't cut any corners buddy!

As to wing-loading and turn performance, well wing-loading is only one of several factors that influence the turn performance of an a/c. Infact wing-loading is very mis-leading as CLmax isn't taken into consideration, something which is needed in order to determine the lift-loading, and lift-loading is what mainly determines the instantanous turn rate of an a/c.

The Bf-109 features a higher AR wing which means a high CLmax L/D ratio, and its got much less wing taper. All this means that the 109's wing is more efficient than the Lavochkin's both in terms of lift and induced drag.

 

[magnocain]

The f4u could kill all of them...

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

The f4u could kill all of them...

What a great well educated and well thought out posting!

 

[magnocain]

:

 

[Sgt. Pappy]

Don't forget thrust, Soren; thrust is an aircraft's friend when it comes to turning.

 

[Soren]

Thats right Sgt. Pappy, and don't worry I aint forgetting it.

 

[Sgt. Pappy]

Heh, I know. Just me feeling special again.
And since you're one of the few masters knowledgeable enough about the Luftwaffe I can trust, any reason why the 190 did not utilize the leading edge wing slats? Was it something against Messerschmitt?

 

[Soren]

Kurt Tank didn't like them that much, the extra complexity in construction wasn't worth the end benefit. At the speeds where many fights were taking place by 1942 and onwards the FW-190 would easily black out the pilot in tight turns.

 

[helmitsmit]

Why wasn't the FW190 the standard Luftwaffe fight from 1942 onwards? Wasn't it clearly superior to the ME 109 at medium attitudes and more of a match against the allies?

 

[drgondog]

Why wasn't the FW190 the standard Luftwaffe fight from 1942 onwards? Wasn't it clearly superior to the ME 109 at medium attitudes and more of a match against the allies?

The Fw 190, until the arrival of the 190D, was less able at altitudes that B-17s and B-24s operated in over Germany. The 109, particularly the G6/AS and G-10 were more or less equal to the P-51 and P-47 at high altitudes, whereas the Fw 190 struggled more, pilot being equal skill, at 22,000 feet and above.

And I don't think 'clearly superior' is the right phrase for the Fw 190 over the 109 at medium altitudes. Better roll rate, probably accelerated faster and much heavier firepower are all good things but the 109 was faster in level flight, climbed better and at a steeper angle, and in the hands of a pro could out turn the 190.

!09 remained excellent throughout the war... and better against allied fighters at high altitude

Galland, however, DID recommend that all fighter production from early 1944 be diverted solely to Fw 190 and Me 262