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

[Twitch]

Christ, 1st it was top speed as some magic factor in aerial victories now it's back to the the same old turning crap for the millionth time! When are you folks going to realize that kills are not made by one segment of performance of one particluar aircraft over another? Since Erich and I have been fortunate to seek out aces and discuss aerial combat with them I realize all of you can't but jeez at least read some pilot written bios and you'll realize it is 90% pilots skill and aggressiveness that runs up the score not because your plane can out turn or out speed an opponent.

Comparing aircraft statistics has absolutely nothing to do with aerial victories. Hartmann almost never did anything else but bounce mofos from behind and above in classic energy fighter style. He wasn't consumed with out turning enemies or out running them. If that was good enough for 352 kills maybe this fixation on pure performance factors alone is a bankrupt philosophy.

Tactical advantage, surprise, numerical superiority, aggressiveness, physical conditioning, gunnery skills and pure guts wins fights. Its simply utter horsecrap to cling to the warped belief that one or another performance factor is the magical formula to attain kills.

 

[Hunter368]

Thank you Twitch, all this number crunching gets old fast. Number crunching and having the absolutly best plane in the world did not mean anything with out having a great pilot. Pilot's skill was the biggest determining factor in who won a air combat.

End all this number crunching. What are you really go to prove? Spits shot down 109's, 109's shot down Spits. Has there ever been two closely matched planes that fought more often then the 109 and Spit?

Both were great planes with little to divide them.....just leave it at that.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Gotta agree with Twitch on this one.

 

[Kurfürst]

Just a few observations.
1.Not sure why you felt it important to include the La7 - was much lighter than La5... No German La7 test?

Actually, the La-7 is marginally heavier, but at the same time, it's massively cleaner than the La-5FN (compare speeds, it's same engine. BiG WOW! for Soviet airframe designers!!!)

3. Spit was not at 25lbs boost - at 1690hp it would be 16 or 18lbs), but I am not sure how much that would effect the test (alt dependant). More power would help turn rate.

Hmmm. The 25 Lbs boost Spit IX is really an 1945 thing. As for boost, let's keep in mind that the Russians tested the G-2 at 1.3ata, and 1310 PS, a boost rating that was valid between May 1942 - October 1943. It's contemporary during 1942 was the Spit IXF with the Merlin 61 at +15 lbs boost, and about 1390 HP at SL. The Spitfire the Soviety tested was a later, IXLF low altitude variant with merlin 66, +18 lbs ratings and 1690 HP at SL, that appeared in early 1943, but did not become really widespread until late 1943 or more so 1944. As a matter of fact, until late 1943, Mark Vs were predominant over MkIXs in the RAF. One could say, 1942 and 1943 was 'bleak time' for the RAF, at least for Spitfire Squadrons, going up in a MkV vs. a 109F is bad enough, going up in MkV vs. a Bf 109G is pure horror, especially at altitude.

Obviously, the earlier +15 Spit IXF with the less (by as much as 300 HP less) power would obviously turn worser than the later +18 Spit IXLF, and the G-2 would turn better with it's full 1.42ata boost (1475 PS at SL), cleared in October 1943, than w. the early 1942 boost of 1.3ata.

In fact, I am quite convinced that a fair, early +15/1.3ata, and later +18/1.42ata boost comparisons would show rather similiar turn times than directly comparing a late IXLF with an early G-2.

More power definietely helps turn rate though not at all speeds. At very low speeds, turn time is limited by stall speed, however the best turn time is alway developed at higher speed region than this. Faster planes outturn slower planes near the latters max speed and obviously, beyond.

IMHO, Yak3 @ 17sec might have been large radius and fast turn rate, this might explain why it did well even with higher wingloading (did anyone mention taper angle of wing plan shape?). R value would have been nice to know but russkies left this out. Did Yak3 have as small an R value as XI? We just don't know...

Actually the Yak3 had a large radius of turn, ca 290m (identical to the G-2 in Soviet tests, ie. 285 meters, presumably clean version as they don't say for certain), the Spit IXLF is given at 235 meters.

The whole Yak3 was added on my part to demonstrate how wrong is tunneled vision approach that wingloading is the sole determining factor, the last word on turn rate. Of course he does that because the sole good factor about the Spit is low wingloading, and Hop is a die-hard Spitfire fan who'd argue anything in favour of his beloved plane (I can tell, I know him for what, 5-6 years...? Seen it all already. )

It isn't, wingloading determines turn radius, and helps a bit turn time, but turn time is far more power and drag sensitive, as the Yak-3s case clearly demonstrates. OTOH, turn time is far more important than radius, as turn time will determine who will get a lead shot on the other first.

btw, slats do deploy one before another on 109 and that unequal deployment WAS disconserting to pilots (and still was pressent on Buchon ie G2 wing).

Appearantly not. I guess it was eliminated either by the wing redesign of the 109F (amongst others, it now used Frise ailerons) or the fact that the 109late-F/G/K used roller bearings instead of roller arms for deploying the slats.

Here's Dave Soutwood on flying 'Black Six' (Bf 109G-2/trop)

The 109 Lair- The Online Source for Messerschmitt 109 information

"One interesting feature is the leading edge slats. 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."

PS : I very much agree with Twitch about the "usefullness" of turns in combat tactics, still, for me it's somehow still interesting to learn how these factors work and what different designs resulted.. It's also about a bit of myth-debunking. 8)

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Tactical advantage, surprise, numerical superiority, aggressiveness, physical conditioning, gunnery skills and pure guts wins fights. Its simply utter horsecrap to cling to the warped belief that one or another performance factor is the magical formula to attain kills.

Bravo!

Boys and girls here's the phrase for the day -

T H R E E - D I M E N S I O N A L​

​

 

[the lancaster kicks ass]

you don't believe in Einstein's thories as to the 4th dimension then?

 

[FLYBOYJ]

you don't believe in Einstein's thories as to the 4th dimension then?

Not when it comes to aerial combat...

 

[Kurfürst]

Kurfurst posted:
The above has gotten you kicked off a boeard or two hasn't it Kurfurst.

I can't recall being kicked of from any board for criticizing the presentations of Mike Williams... You on the other hand, we both know who we are. You run a couple of nicks on several boards, usually Morai Milo, and I won't bother to list the dozen other you parallely use. And unfortunately it is you who has been banned 3 times from two different boards for attacking my person.

Just to get things straight. You have 11 post nick, and half of your post are about attacking my person. That should be proof enough for any reasonable guy about your identity and agenda. I will waste no more characters on that.

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.

Well you've been offered in the past to detail what sort of biased outlook/interpretation you have found at my site - which is strange since my site doesn't have any articles on it just the original flight tests and papers... hmm. My objective with the site is to provide and objective, unbiased and above all, unmanipulated data to give the reader a good overview on Bf 109 performance, as opposed to some negative, agenda driven examples seen lately. As such all valid crititque is welcome, and if founded, it has a good chance that changes will be made on the site.

You however in the past as in the present remained at vogue accusations of bias, and every time you were asked to detailed your concerns in an email or other form either refused or that was the end of it.

Again, all this just gives the impression of a poorexcuse for flaming and personal attacks, with which your working can be described on any board you visit.

Best to just peruse their document finding skills and make your own decisions with what is original source from test flights.

Good approach, I agree.

Calculated figures mean nothing.

Hmm, decisionmakers in WW2 considered those reliable enough to decide on which aircraft are to put into production and which are not. I guess if it was good enough for them, it's good enough for me. Besides, generally there's excellent agreement between calculated figures, which are anyway semi-based on data from previous flight tests, and performance trials.

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

That would be a wise choice, as Olivier Lefebrve obviously possess far more material and knowladge on the subject than I can ever hope for. The half of the satisfaction with my site is the large amount of positive feedback I get from aviation fans wishing to learn more and finding my site useful in that, and the other half is from the fact that a noted expert like Olivier considered my site worthy enough both in it's goal and it's accuracy to make an offer to host it under his own site.

 

[Hunter368]

People People stop already.

 

[mkloby]

Not when it comes to aerial combat...

What about air assault

Does anybody know if there's a museum in the US that has a 109F?

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Olivier Lefebrve obviously possess far more material and knowladge on the subject than I can ever hope for.

Has he ever flown a high performance aircraft?

 

[mkloby]

Has he ever flown a high performance aircraft?

Dude he flew one on MS Flight Sim.
I have no idea who he is and I'm just kidding.

 

[pbfoot]

Bravo!

Boys and girls here's the phrase for the day -

T H R E E - D I M E N S I O N A L​

​

How is this for a tweak on 3 dimensional Spatial Orientation

 

[Kurfürst]

Has he ever flown a high performance aircraft?

I don't know, maybe you should ask him at allaboutwarfare.com ! What I know however, that he measures the documents he collected on aviation and in particular the 109 in tons, rather than pages. No kidding.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

How is this for a tweak on 3 dimensional Spatial Orientation

Thanks!

I don't know, maybe you should ask him at allaboutwarfare.com ! What I know however, that he measures the documents he collected on aviation and in particular the 109 in tons, rather than pages. No kidding.

I've gone on the site - he does have a lot of knowledge and documents. Again, it's comical to see hairs split with regards to this subject matter when many so called experts have never flown a real aircraft, let alone a high performance aircraft.

 

[mad_max]

Flyboy,

Olivier's book will totally be one you will want. He's straightened out quite a few folks
posting some wrong thoughts about the 109. He is the most unbiased person I've seen
posting on boards. Want to learn some good tidbits, then visit the boards he posts on
and search for his posts. They all got different tidbits in them. I could put a nice little
paperback together just from his postings.

Kurfurst,

You accuse alot of folks of being someone they aren't. I'd suggest taking a big breath
and let it out slowly. I'm giving you a job well done on your website, but I don't agree
with some of the deductions that you come up with. I do no different to Mike Williams and
his website.

BTW I have never been kicked off one board yet and don't plan to. Please you've done
good, but you need to calm down and not be so bitter in life. It's nice to see you've eliminated
the webpage where you trash on Mike. A good start..now just let it go and be happy.

Regards,

 

[Soren]

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...

Jabberwocky,

If you haven't noticed it yet, all German turn-times are higher than Soviet ones for the same aircraft, the reason being that the clock was started earlier by the Germans than by the Russians - Compare the Russian Fw-190 A-8 turn time with the German for the same a/c for example.

There's no way this can be interpreted incorrectly.

But as always, the end result of a test is never better than the pilot carrying out that test - The one that dares to push it right to the limit is the one who will bring home the best results. That is why test results are no better than pilot-accounts.

And about the troublesome turning characteristics, well, you're going to have to point out to me where that is written cause I sure can't find any such comments.

Btw, the La-5FN in question was in excellent condition.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Flyboy,

Olivier's book will totally be one you will want. He's straightened out quite a few folks
posting some wrong thoughts about the 109. He is the most unbiased person I've seen
posting on boards. Want to learn some good tidbits, then visit the boards he posts on
and search for his posts. They all got different tidbits in them. I could put a nice little
paperback together just from his postings.

Max, you're probably very correct and his book sounds worth-wild - my point is I have seen dozens and dozens of folks attempting to argue aircraft performance based on performance charts, sometimes not fully understanding what they are talking (but acting like and "expert") about because they have never used those charts in conjunction with operating a real aircraft. I have flown jets (L-29s and L-39s to name a few) and there are at least a half dozen performance charts within their flight manual. For the most part you only need to extrapolate a small segment of that information to safely operate the aircraft - the same holds true for WW2 aircraft.

Kurfurst,

You accuse alot of folks of being someone they aren't. I'd suggest taking a big breath
and let it out slowly. I'm giving you a job well done on your website, but I don't agree
with some of the deductions that you come up with. I do no different to Mike Williams and
his website.

BTW I have never been kicked off one board yet and don't plan to. Please you've done
good, but you need to calm down and not be so bitter in life. It's nice to see you've eliminated
the webpage where you trash on Mike. A good start..now just let it go and be happy.

Regards,

Gentlemen, despite my prejudices as mentioned with regards these types of discussions, be rest assured when it gets out of hands the Mods will quickly act upon "the situation" and take quick and decisive action to those we feel are a disruption to this forum. Heated debut within reason is always welcomed...

 

[FLYBOYJ]

the La-5FN in question was in excellent condition.

Good point Soren - one has to consider the condition of the aircraft, fuel, pilot ability, weather conditions, and even maintenance, further clouding the issue...

 

[Soren]

Soren,

Well, lets see what you have found...

109G turns "better" than La5FN in German test.

Spitfire LF IX turns slightly faster than La5FN in Soviet test.

109G does not turn as fast as La5FN in Soviet test (but 109G has wing gondolas? source? - I am not saying it didn't I just want source).

That is interesting, you have found something new. It is not conclusive but still interesting. It is a "this is to that so that is to this" equivocation.

Just a few observations.
1.Not sure why you felt it important to include the La7 - was much lighter than La5... No German La7 test?
2.Not sure why you omitted the Vb... It turns not as fast as XI in Soviet test (but out turns IX in radius in RAE tests) it would have made your case look better in some ways...
3. Spit was not at 25lbs boost - at 1690hp it would be 16 or 18lbs), but I am not sure how much that would effect the test (alt dependant). More power would help turn rate.
4. No quantitative values on the German test, we do not know how much better the G was over the La5FN.
5. Still no LF XI vs 109G/F direct comparison. Two tests under different protocol - but I like the idea of comparing them.
6. Soviet test was of turn speed through 360degrees, no radius quantified. Was German test concluded based on radius and not turn rate?

The Greman test was obviously about turn rate, as the one which turned 360 degree's the fastest is the better turn fighter.

IMHO, Yak3 @ 17sec might have been large radius and fast turn rate, this might explain why it did well even with higher wingloading (did anyone mention taper angle of wing plan shape?). R value would have been nice to know but russkies left this out. Did Yak3 have as small an R value as XI? We just don't know...

Chinny, the higher the taper ratio the more troublesome your aircraft will be to turn as it will suffer from tip stall - Hence why the La-5/7 has slats, cause without them it would have some nasty and unpredictable stall tendencies, like those suffered by the Yak.

The 'e' factor AKA Oswald efficiency factor represents the planform efficiency of the wing, and it is incoperated in the Cdi calculation I presented earlier.

So don't worry, nothing has been left out.

btw, slats do deploy one before another on 109 and that unequal deployment WAS disconserting to pilots (and still was pressent on Buchon ie G2 wing). I did say it was designed that way did I not? Yes I understand why the slats deploy one before the other - ment to delay (or tame) the stall, keep outboard of wing flying... My father (tech sgt) did mantainance on F-86 in USAF which had slats, and did big wing retrofits during Korea (first to get rid of slats then I think they fitted them again on bigger wing).

The unequal deployment of the slats is not at all what the inexperienced pilots were concerned about - it was the loud bang and slight notch it gave when the slats deployed that scared them, aborting the maneuver emmidiately afraid the a/c was about to stall - what experienced pilot knew was that all you had to do at this point was keep pulling cause the a/c wasn't even close to stalling.