Bf-109F-4 and a bleak time for RAF

[Chingachgook]

X

 

[Kurfürst]

Kurfurst,

I am grateful for the work you have done by getting so much info together on the 109. Your website is a great resource.

Thank you for the compliments.

The German pilots you quote I put down to bravado and I think they lack validity as I said before because there is no way of knowing if the Spits were pushed to the limit.

Hmmm... and how do you know in accounts from Spitfire pilots that the 109s they flew against were pushed to the limit, how do you know the pilot in it was not a greenhorn eager for some victories...?

Would not it be reasonable to think that the ones who came down and turnfighted in 109s instead of using the proven - and quite simply, much superior in WW2 terms - tactics (use high speed instead of turning to prevent being targeted, and strike down the slow onesof staying out of slow turnfights) were the rookie pilots? That pilots who dived down on an unsuspecting Spitfire, but missed, and were foolish enough to give up their good position and started to turnfight were in fact, eager greenhorn pilots with little experience ?

Problem is, in an actual dogfight, things are practically NEVER equal. One side has the advantage, and if it can keep exploiting it, it wins.

Now for the quote, it describes a combat between 8 Bf 109s and '40+' Hurricanes and P-40s, and '20+' Spitfires. 60 planes vs. 8, even though we can be sure Stahschmidt like other pilots overestimated enemy numbers, we find that only one Spitfire pilot managed to stay behind him, all the rest were shaken off. I dunno, if this counts bad.. 8)


Now as for Mike Williams, I have seen and known the site for a long time. Simply to put, it's extremely saddening that the only drive behind gathering so many primary sources is to then quote them selectively and manipulate the evidence to push a quite obvious agenda further.

The trick is simple, quotes from are quoted en masse and selectively, we never see a single qoute from 109 pilots outturning Spits, though we know it happened, such quotes exist and you can bet the Mike Williams is aware of that. That alone makes me ignore anything that is written on those articles, almost every line is being manipulated. One example, the Bf 109V15a trial's speed graphs are quoted - you can read the full report on my site. Even though the report makes clear that the aircraft's engine was running below it's normal power by almost 50 HP, and the report presents a curve extrapolated from the actual tested figures for a normally running engine, Williams goes as far as trying to dismiss the results by claiming that the 'aircraft was running above it's officially allowed powers' (in fact it ran at 50 HP less), and then shows the lower performance graph which was achieved with less than nominal power by 50HP, and conviniently forgots to show about the other curve for full power.. Selective qouting, that is. The same goes around in the Bf 109G 'comparison', simply the worst performing planes are being picked and showed.

Sorry but using Mike Williams and his spitdweeb site is a very very unconvincing. It's just utterly biased, manipulated crap, to put it simply.

Now, let's forget about Williams and his well developed reputation as a cheater for a second, and let's concentrate on the bare facts. We have about a dozen quotes from Spitfire pilots who claim they outturned Bf 109s in combat and shot them down. Big deal, of course it happened, on both sides. Some 900 to 1000 Hurricanes and Spitfires were shot down in combat, you might imagine that quite a few of those were shot down in turning fight. If anyone would bother, he could flood this place with hundreds combat reports from victorious Bf 109 pilot, all reports would tell the same, the enemy was bested in every possible wayand was shot down. That's the very nature of the victors combat reports, and the dead tell no tales I am afraid.

Let's assume that just 10% of those 1000 lost RAF fighters were shot down in combat, that's 100 planes, and a 100 accounts. More actually, since pilots tended to overclaim by a factor of 2-3. So we would list here some 250 quotes, all telling a 109E pilot outturning and shooting down a Spitfire or Hurricane. The thread would be flooded... It would be terribly convincing about that all that happened in BoB was 109Es outturning RAF fighters, and btw the most common type of air combat was still a classic WW1 turnfight...? False, and quite obviously so, isn't it? Still, some sites still use such tricks as noted above.


It proves nothing, such combat reports are naturally slanted because it's always the victors version, and the victor become the victor because he had displayed some sort of superiority in the fight.

Besides it's very interesting to put Clostermann's and Knoke's (who was flying one of his first combat sorties BTW) accounts next to each other :

Knoke : "The bastards can make such infernally tight turns; there seems to be no way of nailing them. "

Clostermann : ""I tried to fire on a '109' that I spotted in the chaos. Not possible, I couldn't get the correct angle. '

Aren't they saying the same? Isn't it the same impression?

Maybe it's just simply a fact that pilots on both sides outturned opponents and shaked down pursuers with turns...? Hitting and outmanouvering the oppoent was a damn hard thing in those planes, most combats resulted in the sky being shot to pieces and running out of ammo. The pilots who scored, the pilots who successfully evaded were the experienced/gifted/lucky ones. Their opponents, VICTIMS were, most of the time, the unexperienced, unlucky or lame pilots.

It has nothing to do with the plane. If you want to find out the technical limits of the plane, read the technical reports and forget the pilot accounts.

 

[twoeagles]

Ching, I think you hit Udet's pickle switch.

 

[Soren]

Still desperately holding on to pilot-accounts are we Chinny ??

Funny enough all these are from 1940 as-well.

So my question is: How many times do you have to read what Leykauf and Wolfrum said before you undertsand it ??

The slats would not deploy together because of the design. One wing is going slower than the other in a turn... Hence one slat would open sooner. That was an issue on ALL 109s not just E.

It is very apparent you know nothing about aerodynamics. Ever wondered why one slat deploys abit sooner ? They're supposed to do this you know.

I'll let Mark Hanna put into perspective for you;

Mark Hanna, modern day 109 pilot:
"As the stall is reached, the leading-edge slats deploy-together, if the ball is in the middle; slightly asymmetrically, if you have any slip on."

And btw the slat design changed with the Friedrich, eliminating the frequent jamming of one slat suffered by the Emil, causing it to flick over or spin. The Emil's slats had to be kept almost clinically clean for them to function properly, something which just wasn't possible in the field - this problem was solved by the new design introduced with the Friedrich.


Keep digging Chinny...

 

[Soren]

lol Udet, tell us how you really feel.

Is it too hard to respond to Udet's post Chinny ? Finding it troublesome to come up with a good argument are we ??

 

[Chingachgook]

X

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Very entertaining folks. Just adding something. These are fighter command admitted losses throughout the war. It was taken from "Janes 1946." This also includes aircraft that returned to base but were scrapped due to battle damage.

1939 3

1940 1186

1941 651

1942 688

1943 569

1944 397

1945 64

-----------------

Total 3558

Here's a site that has Luftwaffe losses broken down, it is inconclusive but detailed. It does provide some interesting interesting information in showing how badly Fighter Command did against the Luftwaffe after the Battle of Britain.

Luftwaffe Research Online

draw your conclusions but I think pilot skill had a lot to do with these encounters despite the performance of these aircraft.

 

[Soren]

The test is also a "Pilot account" Chinny, a pilot was doing the testing, when are you going to get this ?? Its no'more worth than the British tests with the machine, both pilots nearly pissed their pants as soon as the slats came out.

And I don't care even if your whole family is made up of aerodynamicists, cause YOU obviously have no clue what you're talking about - Your last comments about the operation of the slats demonstrates this very clearly.

There's a reason the slats were put on the 109, a fighter, and virtaully all fighters after WWII you know - They greatly improve turn performance.

Now please share with us what your so knowledgable friend says about the slats - this should be interesting.

 

[twoeagles]

"

draw your conclusions but I think pilot skill had a lot to do with these encounters despite the performance of these aircraft

."

Bingo, Joe. Put Barkhorn or Graf or Wolfrum or Galland into a Spitfire and they
will shoot down a mess of 109's. Put Malan, Johnson, Unwin, etc into
109's and they will flame a lot of Spitfires. The hand on the stick was
more important than the plusses and minuses of relative performance.

 

[Soren]

Oh and while we're on the subject of tests:

The Russian tests suggest that the La-5FN and La-7 both turn either slightly worse or better than the Spitfire IX:

Spitfire LF IX - 18.5 seconds (3351kg, 149 kg/m2) - 1690 HP
La5FN - 19 seconds (3290 kg, 188 kg/m2) - 1850 HP
La-7 - 18 secods (3315 kg, 189 kg/m2) - 1850 HP

And guess what ! According to extensive German testing of the La-5FN, carried out by Hans Werner Lerche in Sept. 1944, it was found that the La-5FN couldn't turn as well as a cleanly loaded Bf-109G. (German 109 pilots attest to this fact as-well):

Hans Werner Lerche

The La-5FN in question

The summary of this report (marked 'SECRET') was sent to Messerschmitt, Dornier, Heinkel and Junkers, as well as the RLM.

And incase you don't read German, here's a translation of the final conclusion for you:

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. "

Funny isn't it ??

 

[mkloby]

I'm quite enjoying this! These engineer gurus! I don't trust engineers and their charts...

 

[davparlr]

I'm quite enjoying this! These engineer gurus! I don't trust engineers and their charts...

I bet you do every time you rotate your aircraft to take off or trust the instruments to get you through an overcast (or at least will soon). And certainly will when you climb into a V-22 for take off! And if you think all situations are tested, you are in for a surprise.

However, as an aviation engineer for 29 years, albeit mostly avionic crew station design, I know that charts and test can be manipulated to reflect personal desires, somewhat like political polls. Opinions of test results and performance results are often at odds, even with the most knowledgeable of engineers. Personal attacks on this subject is not really warranted. I suspect all are right in their specific operational envelope.

 

[Soren]

Did you get the Performance docs I sent you btw Davparlr ?

 

[mkloby]

I bet you do every time you rotate your aircraft to take off or trust the instruments to get you through an overcast (or at least will soon). And certainly will when you climb into a V-22 for take off! And if you think all situations are tested, you are in for a surprise.

However, as an aviation engineer for 29 years, albeit mostly avionic crew station design, I know that charts and test can be manipulated to reflect personal desires, somewhat like political polls. Opinions of test results and performance results are often at odds, even with the most knowledgeable of engineers. Personal attacks on this subject is not really warranted. I suspect all are right in their specific operational envelope.

I don't rotate, I will my A/C off the deck Instruments are one thing - charts are another! I'm wary and when doing planning I take performance charts w/ a grain of salt. We've all seen numbers on charts regarding performance that just don't jive w/ reality.

 

[Chingachgook]

X

 

[mad_max]

Kurfurst posted:

Sorry but using Mike Williams and his spitdweeb site is a very very unconvincing. It's just utterly biased, manipulated crap, to put it simply.

Now, let's forget about Williams and his well developed reputation as a cheater for a second, and let's concentrate on the bare facts.

The above has gotten you kicked off a boeard or two hasn't it Kurfurst. You seem to constantly
post this stuff wherever you show up. I think you should look in the mirror when you say
such things.

Lots of new information in Mike William's site and Kurfust's site. Both need a pat on the back,
BUT both are definitely done by individuals that have a biased outlook/interpretation
of the documents and data they've found.

Best to just peruse their document finding skills and make your own decisions with what
is original source from test flights. Calculated figures mean nothing.

Myself I'll wait for Olivier's book on the 109 series thank you very much.

Regards,

 

[Jabberwocky]

Very entertaining folks. Just adding something. These are fighter command admitted losses throughout the war. It was taken from "Janes 1946." This also includes aircraft that returned to base but were scrapped due to battle damage.

1939 3

1940 1186

1941 651

1942 688

1943 569

1944 397

1945 64

-----------------

Total 3558

Here's a site that has Luftwaffe losses broken down, it is inconclusive but detailed. It does provide some interesting interesting information in showing how badly Fighter Command did against the Luftwaffe after the Battle of Britain.

Luftwaffe Research Online

draw your conclusions but I think pilot skill had a lot to do with these encounters despite the performance of these aircraft.

Those RAF Fighter Command figures are certainly too low. Foreman's Fighter Command War Diaries places the figure at around 7,500 for just ETO operations, not including the Pacific, CBI or MTO.

 

[Jabberwocky]

Oh and while we're on the subject of tests:

The Russian tests suggest that the La-5FN and La-7 both turn either slightly worse or better than the Spitfire IX:

Spitfire LF IX - 18.5 seconds (3351kg, 149 kg/m2) - 1690 HP
La5FN - 19 seconds (3290 kg, 188 kg/m2) - 1850 HP
La-7 - 18 secods (3315 kg, 189 kg/m2) - 1850 HP

And guess what ! According to extensive German testing of the La-5FN, carried out by Hans Werner Lerche in Sept. 1944, it was found that the La-5FN couldn't turn as well as a cleanly loaded Bf-109G. (German 109 pilots attest to this fact as-well):


Funny isn't it ??

Really funny.

Especially when the test says in the first paragraph of pg 4: "performance at this altitude at about 28 to 30 s for the stationary full circle without altitude change. This is equivalent to a shortest time for a full circle at emergency power and 1000 m of about 25 s."

A 25 second turn at 1000m would put the tested aircraft some 6 seconds, or 31.5%, behind the Russian tests for 19 sec for the same type of aircraft.

The report also mentions the "the aforementioned [troublesome] turning characteristics of the La 5", which you can draw what you will from.

According to Soviet tests the FW-190A8 could do a 360 degree turn in 21-22 seconds. So this leaves me wondering how accurate this assesment of the La-5FN really is, when the report also states that "The times for a full circle are better than those of the Fw-190A8 at ground level and worse than those of the Bf-109"


Inconsistencies stacked up on inconsistencies. It all depends on how you want to interpret the data...

 

[Chingachgook]

X

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Those RAF Fighter Command figures are certainly too low. Foreman's Fighter Command War Diaries places the figure at around 7,500 for just ETO operations, not including the Pacific, CBI or MTO.

I believe Foreman's figures includes all causes - the figures I posted were due to direct air-to-air combat. Combine those numbers with all causes and they may add up to the figures posted by Foreman.