Lighthunmust
Banned
Yep, angry hummingbirds zooming in to stick their oversized beaks in and then zooming out.
Best fighter in Eastern Front, 1943.
- Thread starter Tante Ju
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Yep, angry hummingbirds zooming in to stick their oversized beaks in and then zooming out.
davebender
1st Lieutenant
I agree.
However if typical combat ranges were greater then 200 meters I think most fighter aircraft designers would opt for a different weapons mix. For instance the very powerful but short range 3cm Mk108 cannon would not be installed on German fighter aircraft.
However if typical combat ranges were greater then 200 meters I think most fighter aircraft designers would opt for a different weapons mix. For instance the very powerful but short range 3cm Mk108 cannon would not be installed on German fighter aircraft.
michaelmaltby
Colonel
From Wikepedia:
Soviet pilot Nikolai G. Golodnikov, in an interview with Andrei Sukhrukov, recalled:
"I liked the Cobra, especially the Q-5 version. It was the lightest version of all Cobras and was the best fighter I ever flew. The cockpit was very comfortable, and visibility was outstanding. The instrument panel was very ergonomic, with the entire complement of instruments right up to an artificial horizon and radio compass. It even had a relief tube in the shape of a funnel. The armored glass was very strong, extremely thick. The armor on the back was also thick. The oxygen equipment was reliable, although the mask was quite small, only covering the nose and mouth. We wore that mask only at high altitude. The HF radio set was powerful, reliable and clear."
[41]
The first Soviet Cobras had a 20 mm Hispano-Suiza cannon and two heavy Browning machine guns, synchronized and mounted in the nose. Later, Cobras arrived with the M-4 37 mm cannon and four machine guns, two synchronized and two wing-mounted. "We immediately removed the wing machine guns, leaving one cannon and two machine guns," Golodnikov recalled later.[41] That modification improved roll rate by reducing rotational inertia. Soviet airmen appreciated the M-4 cannon with its powerful rounds and the reliable action but complained about the low rate of fire (three rounds per second) and inadequate ammunition storage (only 30 rounds).[41] The Soviets used the Airacobra primarily for air-to-air combat[42] against a variety of German aircraft, including Messerschmitt Bf 109s,
Focke-Wulf Fw 190s, Junkers Ju 87s, and Ju 88s.
During the battle of Kuban River, the Soviet air force relied on P-39s much more than Spitfires and P-40s. Aleksandr Pokryshkin, from 16.Gv.IAP, claimed 20 air victories in that campaign.[43] Pokryshkin, the third-highest scoring Allied ace (with a score of 53 air victories plus six shared)[44] flew the P-39 from late 1942 until the end of the war..."
Pokryshkin's auto-biography is an interesting read. He tells the story of a Fw-190 pilot who panicked and started circling the steeple of a Russian orthodox church in the Kuban region - kept circling until he crashed.
MM
Soviet pilot Nikolai G. Golodnikov, in an interview with Andrei Sukhrukov, recalled:
"I liked the Cobra, especially the Q-5 version. It was the lightest version of all Cobras and was the best fighter I ever flew. The cockpit was very comfortable, and visibility was outstanding. The instrument panel was very ergonomic, with the entire complement of instruments right up to an artificial horizon and radio compass. It even had a relief tube in the shape of a funnel. The armored glass was very strong, extremely thick. The armor on the back was also thick. The oxygen equipment was reliable, although the mask was quite small, only covering the nose and mouth. We wore that mask only at high altitude. The HF radio set was powerful, reliable and clear."
[41]
The first Soviet Cobras had a 20 mm Hispano-Suiza cannon and two heavy Browning machine guns, synchronized and mounted in the nose. Later, Cobras arrived with the M-4 37 mm cannon and four machine guns, two synchronized and two wing-mounted. "We immediately removed the wing machine guns, leaving one cannon and two machine guns," Golodnikov recalled later.[41] That modification improved roll rate by reducing rotational inertia. Soviet airmen appreciated the M-4 cannon with its powerful rounds and the reliable action but complained about the low rate of fire (three rounds per second) and inadequate ammunition storage (only 30 rounds).[41] The Soviets used the Airacobra primarily for air-to-air combat[42] against a variety of German aircraft, including Messerschmitt Bf 109s,
Focke-Wulf Fw 190s, Junkers Ju 87s, and Ju 88s.
During the battle of Kuban River, the Soviet air force relied on P-39s much more than Spitfires and P-40s. Aleksandr Pokryshkin, from 16.Gv.IAP, claimed 20 air victories in that campaign.[43] Pokryshkin, the third-highest scoring Allied ace (with a score of 53 air victories plus six shared)[44] flew the P-39 from late 1942 until the end of the war..."
Pokryshkin's auto-biography is an interesting read. He tells the story of a Fw-190 pilot who panicked and started circling the steeple of a Russian orthodox church in the Kuban region - kept circling until he crashed.
MM
Last edited:
I'd disagree with your conclusion.
Planes in question here (109, Yaks) either did not have the engine power, or available place, to mount 4-8 guns their ammo (okay, 4 HMGs might be possible); under-wing gondolas added drag, weight and hampered roll rate for 109, for example. The P-39 have had it's wing LMGs removed pronto in VVS service - showing that those were more liability than asset.
The inability of V-1710 to have the motorkannone installed forced P-40 to carry a hefty load of guns ammo - perhaps too much for 1100-1300 HP . It also forced Bell to perform 'acrobatics' in order to mount a cannon into single-engined fighter. Both US birds would've been better served with only 20mm + 2xHMGs in hull, substantially reducing the weight penalty of bulit-in armament ammo.
The ability of Merlin to carry a cannon wouldve enabled Spitfire to carry 3 cannons 'stead of 2 + LMGs, while the 3-cannon Hurricane would've had reduced weight penalty vs. 4-cannon bird (with still more than enough punch).
I'd disagree with your conclusion.
Planes in question here (109, Yaks) either did not have the engine power, or available place, to mount 4-8 guns their ammo (okay, 4 HMGs might be possible); under-wing gondolas added drag, weight and hampered roll rate for 109, for example. The P-39 have had it's wing LMGs removed pronto in VVS service - showing that those were more liability than asset.
The inability of V-1710 to have the motorkannone installed forced P-40 to carry a hefty load of guns ammo - perhaps too much for 1100-1300 HP . It also forced Bell to perform 'acrobatics' in order to mount a cannon into single-engined fighter. Both US birds would've been better served with only 20mm + 2xHMGs in hull, substantially reducing the weight penalty of bulit-in armament ammo.
The ability of Merlin to carry a cannon wouldve enabled Spitfire to carry 3 cannons 'stead of 2 + LMGs, while the 3-cannon Hurricane would've had reduced weight penalty vs. 4-cannon bird (with still more than enough punch).
Erich Hartmann said on more then one occasion, that he wasn't a great shot. He also said on more
then one occasion that he filled the enemy a/c in his windscreen so that there will be no chance of
missing. target rich enviroment as He said only meant that there was more planes trying to kill Him
too.
anyways, when all was said and done. the Bf109 was King of the Eastern Front in 1943.
then one occasion that he filled the enemy a/c in his windscreen so that there will be no chance of
missing. target rich enviroment as He said only meant that there was more planes trying to kill Him
too.
anyways, when all was said and done. the Bf109 was King of the Eastern Front in 1943.
I'd agree with that. Our biased preconceptions here in the West have led to us having one or two nasty surprises. Believe me,if I had time I would love to become more familiar with Russian aircraft,and Japanese for that matter.
Cheers
Steve
Lighthunmust
Banned
The Fw190 had centerline and wing armament. Making hits with a Fw190 was certainly easier than with a ME-109. I just pulled off the shelf Shackcklady's "Butcher Bird" to see if what he has to say about the topic. If I recall correctly the Fw190 was "in its element" flying on the Eastern Front. At Eastern Front altitudes much of the flight performance advantage of the ME-109 disappeared and the armament was not superior to what the Russians were flying. I really think it is a close call between the Fw190 and La-5FN. Sure many of the top jagflieger flew the Messerschmitt, but I think some of that is due to more experience with it and the reluctance of anyone facing combat to stop using a weapon that works for them to gamble on one that may work better. No doubt the ME-109 was a threat to any aircraft in the air, but not an overwhelming threat to the best aircraft of the Russians.
Shortround6
Major General
I would note that the Spitfire carried as much armament in ONE wing as many 109s or Russian aircraft did in the entire airplane.
Hurricane was probably handicapped more by it's thick wing than by the weight of one extra Hispano gun. You could stick a Griffon in a Hurricane and it wasn't going to be a 400mph fighter. There are performance figures available for Hurricane MK IIs with 8 MGs, 12 Mgs and 4 cannon. the speed difference between a MK IIA and IIC was 6mph. The bigger hit was climb and ceiling, Initial cimb rate was reduced by 400fpm and time to 20,000ft increased by 0.6 minutes. Ceiling dropped from 41,000ft to 36,000ft but nobody was going to fight a Hurricane at anywhere near that height anyway.
Split the difference in performance between the IIA and IIB and you almost at the point of the difference between two different production airplanes of the same type.
- Thread starter
- #31
I do not think Spitfire carried four cannons in each wing... i.e. many Russian aircraft and 109 carried three cannon which had fire frequence 125% compared to French Hispano-Suiza cannon... we discuss this. More does not mean more in every condition. Satan lives in details.
Just look at below graph. Spitfire V carries 2 cannon, with 120 shell total for fire, fires 20 shell a second. Bf 109G carries 3 cannon, with 470 shell total, fires 37 shell a second. What happens to "Big Wing" theory, one big plane can carry, small plane can't? Also small plane - 80 km/h faster..
This is what Jakovlev and Messerschmitt follow - clean, small plane for fighter. Botk fanatical about weight. I see their wisdom.This shows 5-gun Me 109G2, Fw 190A4, Spitfire VB, P-39, La 5F (not FN - FN is better engine version)
This shows 3-gun Me 109G2, P-47D-10, true La 5FN
Choice seems simple - over 5000m, Bf 109G. Under 5000m - La 5FN. But Eastern Front combat dictated by Shturmowik flights - they flew at height of trees, where La 5FN is better.
Last edited:
I'd say that Bf 109G was rather easy but physically demanding to fly. The heaviness of elevators meant that it was almost impossible to achieve high speed stall in 109G. The stall itself was benign and if pilot didn't take fright of the opening of the slats 109 could be safely flown to its limits. If one run problems with 109G it was usually during takeoff and during landing. On the other hand take off and landing were easier in 190A, but its high speed stall was very harsh and especially at low level inhibit many pilots to fly it to the limit.
Of course in 190A pilot had better view, especially to rear and clearly more powerful armament than in basic 109G.
Juha
PS P-40K-5, try to find specs for La-5FN, especially speed and climb graphs, you might get a surprise when you compared those to the 109G-2 graphs. And both the Soviet tests and FAF experience showed that La-5F/FN was a bit better turner than 109G at low level where most of aircombats happened in the Eastern Front
Of course in 190A pilot had better view, especially to rear and clearly more powerful armament than in basic 109G.
Juha
PS P-40K-5, try to find specs for La-5FN, especially speed and climb graphs, you might get a surprise when you compared those to the 109G-2 graphs. And both the Soviet tests and FAF experience showed that La-5F/FN was a bit better turner than 109G at low level where most of aircombats happened in the Eastern Front
Last edited:
- Thread starter
- #34
michaelmaltby
Colonel
".... The P-39 have had it's wing LMGs removed pronto in VVS service - showing that those were more liability than asset."
When they pulled up a Soviet P-39 out of the muskeg of North Eastern Russia a year or two ago the LMG cavities were packed with rations ....good made in USA-type rations ...you know ... cans of lard.
The more I read about the Soviet Air Force in WW2 the more I appreciate it ..... they and the USSR were real winners in WW2. Reverse Marshall Plan to USSR.
Still - I get the feeling that flying the Me-109 was like putting on a "glove". Stressful yet satisfying and functional. But it was old by 1941 and in conditions Russia-style, winter-style, I'd rather fly a FW-190. A great balance of punch, power and strength - like the proved-out Typhoon. The FW-190 is a 'Mit' not a 'Glove' and a mitt is what I'd want to fly in Russia.
@p-40: " The Me-109 was king in 1942 ...." [or words to that effect]. I agree but I think it would be more truthful to say ".. in 1942 over the skies of Russia a German pilot (or Hungarian, Romanian or Italian pilot in a Me-109 was the king ...." If you agree ... observe how it speaks to the building of the Soviet Air Force. When you read the stories these old Soviet pilots tell about wartime - and American equipment - it's both positive and candid (Communists are taught to be candid, I'm told)
The real question on this thread isn't just the machines .... but the state of the opposing Air Forces in 1942. By December, 1942 - at Stalingrad - the Soviet AF achieved air supremacy.
MM
When they pulled up a Soviet P-39 out of the muskeg of North Eastern Russia a year or two ago the LMG cavities were packed with rations ....good made in USA-type rations ...you know ... cans of lard.
The more I read about the Soviet Air Force in WW2 the more I appreciate it ..... they and the USSR were real winners in WW2. Reverse Marshall Plan to USSR.
Still - I get the feeling that flying the Me-109 was like putting on a "glove". Stressful yet satisfying and functional. But it was old by 1941 and in conditions Russia-style, winter-style, I'd rather fly a FW-190. A great balance of punch, power and strength - like the proved-out Typhoon. The FW-190 is a 'Mit' not a 'Glove' and a mitt is what I'd want to fly in Russia
. @p-40: " The Me-109 was king in 1942 ...." [or words to that effect]. I agree but I think it would be more truthful to say ".. in 1942 over the skies of Russia a German pilot (or Hungarian, Romanian or Italian pilot in a Me-109 was the king ...." If you agree ... observe how it speaks to the building of the Soviet Air Force. When you read the stories these old Soviet pilots tell about wartime - and American equipment - it's both positive and candid (Communists are taught to be candid, I'm told
)The real question on this thread isn't just the machines .... but the state of the opposing Air Forces in 1942. By December, 1942 - at Stalingrad - the Soviet AF achieved air supremacy.
MM
Hello Tante JU
yes, it was only the problems with B-20 production which forced to use the same armament in early La-7s than was used in La-5FN.
On Spitfire armament; VC could carry 4 20mm Hispano IIs, and at first many carried that armament, but it was decided that it was too heavy for Mk V Spit, so armament was changed to lighter. But FAF also removed the 20mm gun gondolas from 109G-6/R6s we received from Germany because it was thought that performance penalty was too much for La-5FN, Yak-9 and Airacobra infested skies over Karelian Isthmus in Summer 44.
PS IIRC I-16s carried, Typ 5 2x7,62mm mgs, Typ 10 and several other Typs 4x7,62mm mgs, Typ 17 and a couple other Typs 2x7,62mm + 2x20mm cannon and one of the very late Typ 2x7,62mm + 1x12,7mm.
Juha
yes, it was only the problems with B-20 production which forced to use the same armament in early La-7s than was used in La-5FN.
On Spitfire armament; VC could carry 4 20mm Hispano IIs, and at first many carried that armament, but it was decided that it was too heavy for Mk V Spit, so armament was changed to lighter. But FAF also removed the 20mm gun gondolas from 109G-6/R6s we received from Germany because it was thought that performance penalty was too much for La-5FN, Yak-9 and Airacobra infested skies over Karelian Isthmus in Summer 44.
PS IIRC I-16s carried, Typ 5 2x7,62mm mgs, Typ 10 and several other Typs 4x7,62mm mgs, Typ 17 and a couple other Typs 2x7,62mm + 2x20mm cannon and one of the very late Typ 2x7,62mm + 1x12,7mm.
Juha
Last edited:
I did and have. the La-5FN is an impressive aircraft. but to the Germans shooting down the La-5, it was like picking grapes,
if you get my meaning
' the laquer coffin ' Shortround6
Major General
I do not think Spitfire carried four cannons in each wing... i.e. many Russian aircraft and 109 carried three cannon which had fire frequence 125% compared to French Hispano-Suiza cannon... we discuss this. More does not mean more in every condition. Satan lives in details.
Yes, Satan does live in the details.
I said "I would note that the Spitfire carried as much armament in ONE wing as many 109s or Russian aircraft did in the entire airplane."
I did not say all, or most or even a majority. details?
How many 109Fs and Gs were were built with a single cannon and two 7.9mm MGs?
Hispano fires a heavier shell at a higher velocity than the MG 151, granted it has less explosive but depending on projectile and year it can penetrate a fair amount of armor and THEN explode behind it. details
Yes ir fires a bit slower but the higher velocity and shorter time of flight make defection shooting just a bit easier. details
Just look at below graph. Spitfire V carries 2 cannon, with 120 shell total for fire, fires 20 shell a second. Bf 109G carries 3 cannon, with 470 shell total, fires 37 shell a second. What happens to "Big Wing" theory, one big plane can carry, small plane can't? Also small plane - 80 km/h faster..
Hmmm, Spitfire 2560 grams per second (not counting the four .303s) 109 fires 3404 grams per second (not counting two synchronized 7.9). Not quite the 37 to 20 ratio in fire power you imply. a 32% increase instead of 85%, not counting machineguns. details.
Guns installed in wing are inaccurate but guns installed in pods under wing are???
While the fighters listed are 1942-43 fighters the Spitfire Vb is a 1941 era plane, about 1 year behind the G-2. What boost are the figures for the Vb using and is the 109G-2 using GM-1?.
I can see Jakovlev's wisdom. He only had about 1260hp to work with at best and then at lower altitudes than many western engines.
Lighthunmust
Banned
Speaking of details; I believe the phrase is actually "The Devil is in the details"..
I did and have. the La-5FN is an impressive aircraft. but to the Germans shooting down the La-5, it was like picking grapes,
if you get my meaning
Hello P-40K-5
now "the quaranteed laquer coffin" was the nickname to the early LaGG-3s, even late LaGG-3s, especially Series 66 planes were better being lighter with more powerful M-105PF engine, slats and some aerodynamic improvements, La-5 had still clearly more power with M-82 and -5F (M-82F) and -5FN (Ash-82FN) were still better.
Juha
