Corsair vs. BF 109G,K or FW 190's

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

Whoops, just found a note under the title "F4U1D Structural Description" note reads-(metal noted is aluminum alloy unless otherwise stated)
 
Soren said:
You've got to be kidding me FLYBOYJ.. Automatic LE slats were not a std. addition on WW2 a/c, esp. not British a/c, comparing this device to placing a handle on the right instead of the left is just plain ridiculous.
Click to expand...
No more than a test pilot being "afraid" to stall an airplane that has them.
 
No one seems to be awnsering my question which is If the Slats were such a good idea in combat, why didn't the Germans train their pilots to use them?.
As I said before, its an easy process to do.
 
Soren
"And then ofcourse its not even sure that the test pilot flying the 109 ever flew a Whirlwind."

That's true, but your first claim was
"The British test-pilots weren't used to automatic LE slats, infact they had flown no aircraft featuring it, "

At least Eric Brown had flown Whirlwind and from his description probably very early version which suffered badly from tail buffeting in tight turns. Now LE slats tests were flown by 32nd production Whirlwind, not very early my memory made a trick, in April-May 41, ie when a/c was already in sqn service. So it's not so farfetched that British test pilots had flown a/c with LE slats unlocked and after all there was Swordfish and Brown had flown that type many times. In fact it a bit strange if a testpilot ordered to fly Bf 109 would not try a a/c with LE slats before starting testing a rare captured a/c.

More probably is that British test pilots didn't try to use a bit flaps, circa 8 deg, to momentarily tighten their turns in Bf 109, because at least Spit and Hurri had only up or fully down option for flaps. And that might have led to underestimate the turning ability of well flown bf 109 in slow speed turning match. And of course it true that one can flew safely Bf 109 to its limits in turning match because it benign stall characteristics.

Juha
 
Glider said:
No one seems to be awnsering my question which is If the Slats were such a good idea in combat, why didn't the Germans train their pilots to use them?.
As I said before, its an easy process to do.
Click to expand...

I did, read my post again Glider.
 
FLYBOYJ said:
No more than a test pilot being "afraid" to stall an airplane that has them.
Click to expand...

What are you talking about ?

Stalling an aircraft at 1G is differen't than stalling it at multiple G's in turns. But British pilots weren't afraid of stalling the a/c at 1G, it was in turns they obviously mistrusted the slats and feared they would jam causing the airplane to enter an unrecoverable spin.
 
Soren said:
I did, read my post again Glider.
Click to expand...

Thanks for pointing it out, my mistake. Can I ask where you can substantiate this comment, as I am afraid that the words don't logically hold any water.
Your saying that in the later stages of the war when German training hours were under severe strain and training pilots to have the basic skills was a priority. When pilots were spending less and less time in the air, we are expected to believe they started to train the pilots in this way.
Whereas up until 1942 when the Germans had a very detailed training scheme as good as the best in the world, your saying they didn't.

You can see the problem in your argument, as this issue would have been obvious from the days of the Spanish Civil War.
 
A stall is a stall!!! If you're a test pilot 1 or 4 Gs in a turn or an accelerated straight stall shouldn't make a differance - If they (the test pilots) feared the slats would "jam" they shouldn't be flying the aircraft. It's their job to figure out the way things work including getting the aircraft into an uncontrollable spin.

Soren, you produced little evidence to back of this claim....
 
LoL, you guys are incredible!

FLYBOYJ, there's a big difference between an uncontrollable spin and an irrecoverable spin! - in the irrecoverable one your aircraft doesn't walk away unscaved. Are you seriously suggesting that the RAF test pilots were willing to itentionally crash a captured a/c just to possibly find out once where the limit might be, loosing all notes in the process and being unable to repeat the procedure again to rule out possible mistakes and conditions responsible for the end result, leaving you without the chance of ever getting it right ???!

Seriously now, put yourself in their shoes! All they'd heard about the slats was bad news about them failing in turns and sending the aircraft into an unrecoverable spin.

Test-pilots take risks, but not unnecessary ones.
 
Glider,

After the introduction of the F series with its improved and fail free LE slats new pilots would've been instructed as I mentioned. And as we know the F series entered service in 1941 - try finding pilots who started flying the F series who complain that the Spitfire was a handful in a dogfight, you won't find any..
 
That's the job of a test pilot - to test the limits of an aircraft's performance and sometimes that is done with risk and it doesn't matter if you're testing a captured enemy aircraft or the newest fighter. A determination is made to find the "edge of the envelope" and again that's the job of a properly trained test pilot...
Soren said:
Seriously now, put yourself in their shoes! All they'd heard about the slats was bad news about them failing in turns and sending the aircraft into an unrecoverable spin.

Test-pilots take risks, but not unnecessary ones.
Click to expand...
You said "they heard." I'd put my self in their shoes and consult with an engineer and maintenance personnel assigned to the program to assure that the slats were working properly and I'm sure the Air Ministry at that time had procedures to develop a test flight profile based on information they wished to attained. Again not exploiting the aircraft to its fullest is just nonsense.
 
AL Schlageter said:
It doesn't say the pilot was embarrassed, only the plane was.
Click to expand...
Yes - there is no evidence in any of those reports that the pilots "backed off" any maneuvers based on the slats deploying. BTW the first aircraft to have automatic operating leading edge slats? Well it wasn't German and it was well before the war stated...



"It was equipped with automatic wing slats and slotted flaps, which were novel features for the era. The combination of these wing enhancements gave the Lysander a stalling speed of 65 mph"

So with that Soren, I doubt the British lacked knowledge of automatic leading edge slats and their function....
 
FLYBOYJ said:
Again not exploiting the aircraft to its fullest is just nonsense.
Click to expand...

Nope, it`s a fact readily acknowledged by the report, supported by evidence from several German, Russian flying test centres and Luftwaffe pilots quoted in this thread, and last but not least, physics.

FLYBOYJ said:
BTW the first aircraft to have automatic operating leading edge slats? Well it wasn't German and it was well before the war stated....
Click to expand...

Half-true. It was German, and it was well before the war started. FYI, leading edge slats are the invention of a WW1 German fighter pilot, who then joined later Handley-Page, and it was the latter who`s company acquired the patent for it (in Britiain).
 
Kurfürst said:
Nope, it`s a fact readily acknowledged by the report, supported by evidence from several German, Russian flying test centres and Luftwaffe pilots quoted in this thread, and last but not least, physics.
Click to expand...
What are you talking about, that German, Russian flying test centres and Luftwaffe pilots quoted in this thread just flew the aircraft intil the slats deployed and called it a day?


Yes and it was the Lysander that was the first production aircraft to feature fully automatic leading edge slats....
 

Certainly
Joahanns Steinhoff 1943 over Malta
The Malta Spitfires are back again, their fitted with high altitude superchargers and at anything over 25000ft they just play cat and mouse with us.
At 28000ft the Spitfire could turn in an astonishingly narrow radius. We on the other hand in the thin air had to carry out every manoeuver with caution and at full power so as not to lose control

The interesting point is that this took place at altitude which I understood to be the 109's strongest suite.

Note also that Joahanns was the commander of JG77 a very experienced pilot

PS its also worth noting that in late 1942 the Spitfire V's on Malta held their own against the G2's of JG27
 
Thank You, Renrich and Drgondog for providing the informations on the F4-U´s structure. I will use 0.09" for wing leading edge, wing top surface: 0.049 tapered to .038" at the wingtips (use 0.049 at wingroots and 0.04" at mid wing), engine cowling: 0.072" (about the thickest I could find).
I will compile a probability-related Monte-Carlo alike step system for drawing conclusions. This takes some time as the following projectiles are simmed:
0.50 cal M2 API
13mm AP
20mm/151 API and mine + 20mm Hisp. MK V HE/HEI
30mm/108 mine

I will sim hit´s on from 1000 and 500 yards for each projectile on the following sections:
engine cowling (from near vertical, deflection shoot)
gull wingroot (from near vertical, deflection shoot and from near behind)
rear fuselage without tails.
mid wing leading edge (from head on and near vertical)

I estimate about two weeks for making the necessary maths and another week for crosschecking.
 
LoL, I never claimed that LE slats were a WW2 invention - once again someone tries to put words into my mouth.

But keep running circles around the facts if you want FLYBOYJ, doesn't matter to me. I'm just especially surprised that you don't even for a second stop to think about why RL LW pilots (Aces even) tell the exact same story as we've tried getting across to you, abit strange if it wasn't true don't you think ?

Its also abit strange how the 109 is mentioned as being embarrased by the opening of its slats if not because the pilot thought that this was the very limit of the a/c. Its a pretty clear message to me!
 
Glider,

You're comparing the Spitfire IX which has better high alt performance to the heavy 109G-6. Besides the 109G-6's favorite place to be was at low to medium alt.

Anyway can you find others ? I can't.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

J
Yak-9U Vs Bf-109
Replies
0
Views
783
Jerrybandit67
J
S
Fw 190D-9 vs. Spitfire Mk. XIV, same engines
Replies
8
Views
2K
dedalos
D
FW-190 and The Battle of Britain
2 3
Replies
40
Views
2K
Admiral Beez
A
S
HELP A NEWBIE - FW 190's on Drive to Leningrad
Replies
8
Views
2K
sopwith21
S
S
Spitfire vs. Dora mass battle
2
Replies
31
Views
2K
spicmart
S
Menu
Log in
Register