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

[FLYBOYJ]

LoL, I never claimed that LE slats were a WW2 invention - once again someone tries to put words into my mouth.

No but you did say this...

"The British test-pilots weren't used to automatic LE slats, infact they had flown no aircraft featuring it"

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 ?

No - the fact here is that RAF test pilots knew exactly what the stats did, how they performed and when they deployed...

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!

That's just an assumption.....

 

[drgondog]

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!

Soren - Rall did NOT 'tell the same story' in public and in print as I pointed out to you earlier, including the source and the context as head of the German Fighter School. Are you suggesting that he won 275 fights w/o pushing his 109s to limit? or was never in an awkward combat situation that did not require skilled and aggressive turning against his enemy?

The Allied pilots that tested the 109 versus the Spit V, Spit IX, P-51B-5, the P-47D-10 in March 1944 presumably had an objective in mind, namely compare strengths and weaknesses for two reasons (minimum).
1. Advisories to Allied pilots concerning flight profiles in which they (Allied) pilots had advantages and weaknesses against the German types, and
2. Provide intelligence regarding design enhancements/modifications to improve capabilities.

Presumably they reviewed intelligence briefings from captured pilots, shared intelligence with Russians, used skilled pilots from the RAF who did their best to wring the ships out.

I could see that nobody would be enthusiastic about 1.) taking a 51 low and slow and attempted to work turns to stall point.. but there are several manuevers with a loud "Do Not Do" printed in 51 Manuals.. and that is one of them - snap rolls at high speed is another, running up throttle while low and slow with flaps deployed is another..

Unless you are suggesting that it was impossible to steal or have available Me 109G Flight Manuals by early 1944 and that German manuals had a clear prohibition against continuing turns in low speed or with slats deployed - then test pilots would do just that. It is plain silly to think that the RAF pilots were afraid to fly a flight profile not prohibited by official German manuals, or not suggested as a problem by captured pilots.

Now, I am assuming the above criteria as far as intelligence is concerned - but you are assuming as fact an even sillier proposition - namely that a leading edge slat deploying (as it is clearly designed to do) freaks out test pilots to point they suspend tests on more aggressive turns.

 

[Soren]

FLYBOYJ, the pilot who tested the 109 had most likely never flown any a/c with slats before, which is esp. apparent with his comment that the 109 was 'embarrased' by the opening o its slats - a guy who knows how slats function wouldn't fling out BS like that.

But its not the first time BS has been said by a British test-pilot, I remember a certain individual by the name of Kit Carson.

No - the fact here is that RAF test pilots knew exactly what the stats did, how they performed and when they deployed...

Thats just an assumption... and a wrong one...

Also if the British understood the slats so well then how come they couldn't manage to get them to work on the Westland and had to have them shut ???

Yes, it all supports what I and Kurfürst have been saying all along.

 

[AL Schlageter]

But its not the first time BS has been said by a British test-pilot, I remember a certain individual by the name of Kit Carson.

When did Carson become a British citizen?

I understood he was a fighter pilot in the USAAF.

 

[Jank]

Test of captured Fw190A-4 and F4U-1:

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/fw190/ptr-1107.pdf

 

[FLYBOYJ]

FLYBOYJ, the pilot who tested the 109 had most likely never flown any a/c with slats before, which is esp. apparent with his comment that the 109 was 'embarrased' by the opening o its slats - a guy who knows how slats function wouldn't fling out BS like that.

But its not the first time BS has been said by a British test-pilot, I remember a certain individual by the name of Kit Carson.

I doubt that - what do you think qualified this guys as a test pilot? My guess is he flew dozens of aircraft prior to even being considered for test pilot training...

Kit Carson wasn't a WW2 test pilot...

Also if the British understood the slats so well then how come they couldn't manage to get them to work on the Westland and had to have them shut ???

Because it was a maintenance issue and it was better just to wire them shut than have to deal with them in the field.

 

[Glider]

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.

How comes only I have to substatiate the comments.

1) You make a comment about the training of the German pilots which I question giving my reasons for questioning your comments. I ask you to support your comment.
You cannot support your comment.
2) You make a definate statement that I will not find any example of a German pilot finding the the Spitfire a handfull.
I do, but suddenly that isn't good enough.
3) I point out that the Spit V over Malta held their own against the 109G2's. Clearly the only way that could happen is if the Spit could turn faster than the 109 as its slower, dives less well, has a slower climb and doesn't roll as well either. If the 109 F or G2 could turn tighter as well they would have slaughtered the Spit V
No comments from you
4) You have been asked a number of times to support your comment that the British test pilots were afraid or nervous of the slat deployment.
You cannot or have not supported that comment

The emphasis old son, is on you.

 

[Graeme]

Also if the British understood the slats so well then how come they couldn't manage to get them to work on the Westland and had to have them shut ???

They broke.



Page 47 of 'Whirlwind' by Victor Bingham-1987

 

[Soren]

Kit Carson wasn't a WW2 test pilot...

He certainly seems to think so though

 

[drgondog]

FLYBOYJ, the pilot who tested the 109 had most likely never flown any a/c with slats before, which is esp. apparent with his comment that the 109 was 'embarrased' by the opening o its slats - a guy who knows how slats function wouldn't fling out BS like that.

But its not the first time BS has been said by a British test-pilot, I remember a certain individual by the name of Kit Carson.

The Kit Carson who was an 18.5 victory ace who shot down 7 me 109s and 2 Me 26s's?? 'Kit' would be a HIGHLY unusual name for a RAF test pilot


Thats just an assumption... and a wrong one...

Also if the British understood the slats so well then how come they couldn't manage to get them to work on the Westland and had to have them shut ???

Yes, it all supports what I and Kurfürst have been saying all along.

Soren - it is highly possible that he 109G2 captured in Afrika was the test ship. What is probable is that the pilots that flew it in tests with the 109 against the Allied fighters in March 1944 would not have matched the skill with the 109 that a top German pilot with hundreds of hours in the airplane.

What is improbable is that the RAF pilot would be afraid of the slats. What is improbable is that Gunther Rall intentionally limited his observations of relative merits of Me 109 versus Mustang to steep climbing turn as the 'out' manuever if a 'tight horizontal turn" was equally effective?

What is just as improbable is that a Luftwaffe pilot would fly the Mustang in the Rechlin trials any better than the RAF pilot would fly the 109 in England.

What is equally improbable is that Lerches does NOT make any reference to Mustang inferiority to 109 while he was flying both - even by anecdotal reference to OTHER pilot recollections in comparative flights, if the me 109 showed clear superiority??

Lets sum it up.

Two 'tainted' or accurate flight comparisons by RAF test pilots in which the first, March 1944, tests the P-51B against the Fw190 and Me 109 in comparative trials - and comments that the Mustang out turns the 109 and 190 but is out turned by the Spitfire(s). No data attached. RAF makes no recommendation for performance adjustment/design for Mustang as a result of theses tests.

A 'tainted' trial (?) by USN test pilots flying F4U-1 versus same version P-51B slightly out turns and outclimbs P-51B. No data attached. If true we can conclude that the Navy pilots were less experienced in Mustangs and may not have achieved a fair test - but if so, the F4U-1 out turns Mustang which out turns the Fw 190 and Me 109 by virtue of only published test results and inference.

A Report by Soviets in which they demonstrated superior 360 degree turn time of an me 109 over an P-51A by 20 secs to 23 secs. No data regarding energy lost or airspeed after completion of first turn - or airsppeeds entering the turn. No dat other than 100m altitude.

No report, 'tainted' or otherwise of LW test pilots making judgements of ANY Me 109 in trials against Mustang at Rechlin. Only anecdotal comments produced so far are the above mentioned ones by Gunther Rall but none by experienced Test Pilot lerches. No data presented.

A Post war RAF Test series in which the P-51D, the Spit XIV and Spit (?) , plus Tempest V, plus Meteor V, plus Me 109 (unspecifed model) Fw 190A and P-47D and P-38L are flown in various comparitive tests. The P-51D out turns the Fw190, the Me 109 and one of the Spits. The Tempest and other Spit out turns the Mustang. No data presented to support anecdotal comments or graphs.

Many (How many??) encounter reports are on file in which a.) the Mustang out turns the Me 109G and later models, b.) the Mustang catches and shoots down the Me 109 in dives or watches them disintegrate. The Mustang shoots down more Me 109s than any other single fighter, the fw 190 is second.

And your case for the Me109 being superior in turn at altitudes above 15,000 feet and 300 kts is?

 

[Soren]

How comes only I have to substatiate the comments.

1) You make a comment about the training of the German pilots which I question giving my reasons for questioning your comments. I ask you to support your comment.

Already have, can't help you wont read.

You cannot support your comment.

I already did.

2) You make a definate statement that I will not find any example of a German pilot finding the the Spitfire a handfull.
I do, but suddenly that isn't good enough.

No you're right it isn't good enough, the reason being he's doing a comparison at 28,000 ft - not the 109G-6's favorite operating alt, it is however a very nice operational altitude for the Spitfire.

PS: I do know that the Spit V turns better than the G-6, but the G-2 would've been a handful for the Spit.

3) I point out that the Spit V over Malta held their own against the 109G2's. Clearly the only way that could happen is if the Spit could turn faster than the 109 as its slower, dives less well, has a slower climb and doesn't roll as well either.

Wouldn't make any difference at all. Zekes were shot down in swarms despite their VASTLY superior turn performance - the reason for this: Inferior climb, speed roll rate. The same happened to the Spitfire over channel against the FW-190, the FW-190's slaughtered the Spitfire's in dogfights using yo yo tactics.

If the 109 F or G2 could turn tighter as well they would have slaughtered the Spit V

No cause had it been all about superior performance handling then the G-2 would've done so already with its superior speed, climb roll rate, slow speed turn performance isn't that important. The Spitfire pilots were however excellent and did well to protect each other in aerial engagements (Something the IJN IJA didn't do well at all), hence why the managed to hold their own. Steinhoff himself called British pilots some of the bravest and very best pilots he ever faced, much better than USAAF USSR pilots according to him.

4) You have been asked a number of times to support your comment that the British test pilots were afraid or nervous of the slat deployment.
You cannot or have not supported that comment

What ?! Now thats just plain lying Glider cause I've been doing nothing else, seriously !

 

[Soren]

Bill, the captured FW-190 [Jabo] actually managed to match the P-51B in turn performance, the P-51B didn't turn any better. Says quite abit!

In German tests the FW-190A [Fighter] proved no match for the Bf-109 in turn fights, yet another clear indication that something wasn't done quite right in those RAF tests.

Do I really need to sum up the rest ??

 

[drgondog]

Bill, the captured FW-190 [Jabo] actually managed to match the P-51B in turn performance, the P-51B didn't turn any better. Says quite abit!

In German tests the FW-190A [Fighter] proved no match for the Bf-109 in turn fights, yet another clear indication that something wasn't done quite right in those RAF tests.

Do I really need to sum up the rest ??

No don't sum anything up - produce facts and sources - which you seem incapable of doing?

No facts on turn radius data at high and medium speeds/altitudes between Me 109 and Mustang (or F4U-1 which the Japanese thoughtfully shipped to Germany). You tried to claim Luftwaffe Test Pilot as an unequivocal source on this subject when lerches did not even address it.

You explain away Rall's observations on lack of structural integrity of 109 in dive versus Thunderbolt or Mustang as fear on his part? Would you say that to his face?

No facts or sources on limit or ultimate loads to support your thesis that the Me 109 was much stronger (or even close to being as strong) as the Mustang in a dive.

No facts or data on a Ta 152 (any version) actually flown above 475mph when you claim 500+

No facts or data from you to support a. Numerical superiority of Mustangs over Luftwaffe single engine fighters on Target Escort for period December 1, 1944 through May 30, 1944, or b.) small numerical superiority, or c.) the *:1 or 12:1 that you lovingly like to pull from a dark place and proclaim 'Fact'..not one single fact and you still have not refuted the Order of Battle I have presented to you multiple times - either for 8th/9th AF target Escort or LuftFlotte Reich.

No data to support velocity advantage of 8mm vs 30-06 with 22" or 24" barrel with 180 or 190 gr bullets - you tried to skate your argument with me by failing to dislose your ballistics as from a 29" barrel!

No, summaries jes won't do.. that only presents a platform for the Great Claimer (that would be you)..

People are not banding together to 'pick on Soren' - you seem to be a smart guy and actually I respect you - but I lose interest when I or someone else puts documents or facts/sources that you don't rebut with facts/sources -only your claim - then declare victory.

You basically treat anyone who disagrees with you as stupid - most of us are not amused by that posture.

Regards (and I mean it),

Bill

 

[drgondog]

PS: I do know that the Spit V turns better than the G-6, but the G-2 would've been a handful for the Spit.

Isn't the G2 the alleged test bed for the March 2, 1944 RAF comparison tests?


Wouldn't make any difference at all. Zekes were shot down in swarms despite their VASTLY superior turn performance - the reason for this: Inferior climb, speed roll rate.

Oops - inferior at high speeds, superior in the same strike zone as me 109 G-6 from your above comments. Roll rate advantage disappeared above 300 kts.. and Zeke/Zero were defeated by high speed/medium to high altitude strike zone ships like P-38, F6F and F-4U

The same happened to the Spitfire over channel against the FW-190, the FW-190's slaughtered the Spitfire's in dogfights using yo yo tactics.

Yep until the Spit IX emerged



No cause had it been all about superior performance handling then the G-2 would've done so already with its superior speed, climb roll rate, slow speed turn performance isn't that important. The Spitfire pilots were however excellent and did well to protect each other in aerial engagements (Something the IJN IJA didn't do well at all), hence why the managed to hold their own. Steinhoff himself called British pilots some of the bravest and very best pilots he ever faced, much better than USAAF USSR pilots according to him.

I talked to Steinhoff about those comments to Toliver because I wanted to understand his context - he fought Britain early and USSR most of his career - when he got back to West he mostly was with Me 262 and had very rare encounters w/Mustang and Jug in Conventional fighters.. like Rall and Hartman and Krupinski, etc most LW Experten above 50 awards did not deal with USAAF on a daily basis.. certainly very few above 100.

Bar, Bartels, Hahn, Ihlefeld, Dahl and others survived 1943-1945 on West Front but Nowatny, Mayer, Schwaiger, Wessling and many others did not.

What ?! Now thats just plain lying Glider cause I've been doing nothing else, seriously !

see my comments in thread below. You are better person and debater than reflected by that comment to Glider.

 

[Juha]

Soren

"Besides the 109G-6's favorite place to be was at low to medium alt."

And how you definite low and medium altitude? Finns thought that Bf 109G-6 wasn't at its best at low level and from 2000m to 3000m was the worst height to fought against Soviet fighters in Bf 109G-6. They thought that the best altitude for G-6 was from 5 to 7 km.

"I do know that the Spit V turns better than the G-6, but the G-2 would've been a handful for the Spit."

How is it so, G-6 had two MG 131s instead of two MG17 cowling mgs and FuG 16 instead of FuG VII, but those were main differences. G-2 was a bit faster, lacking the cowling bulges and a bit better climber but some 90kg more weight should not have big influence on turning ability.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Not taking sides here but I would just like to make an observation. I think some people seem to think that there word is like the word of god and proof eneogh.

How about some actual sources here...

 

[Soren]

I have presented plenty of sources and facts Bill, you just either ignore them or claim I use one singularly for the entire subject. Claiming I present no sources is very wrong and immature of you Bill, esp. considering you in the very next moment try to critize and make up which sources I use as reference for particular arguments. You're trying very hard to put words into my mouth. I used LW Test Pilot by Lerche for information on the P-47 esp., which Lerche provides plenty of info on, I never claimed I used Lerche's book as reference for comparative info on the Mustang LW a/c, I never said that Bill, and its about time you get that !

The 109G captured tested by the RAF was a G-6 IIRC, I have photos at home. It featured gun-pods and a center rack for 300 L droptank.

The Ta-152H topped 500 mph according to reports from the pilots who flew it.

As to the 7.92x57mm vs 30.06 debate, well I can't really remember exactly what was said but one but thing is for sure, the std. 8x57 IS is a 198gr FMJ-BT bullet at 790 m/s, where'as the std. 30.06 round during WW2 was a 150 gr FMJ Spitzer bullet at 855 m/s. With a 154gr FMJ Spitzer bullet muzzle velocity was 890 m/s for the 8x57mm. (This is all from 600mm barrels) The main difference however is that the 8x57mm is more effective with heavier bullets than the 30.06.

Anyway why do you insist upon getting off topic Bill ???

As to Steinhoff, well here's what he says:
"Well, first of all, when we fought the RAF, it was almost evenly matched in fighters against fighters, so true dogfights, even in the Schwarm [German fighter formation], were possible. That was the truest test of men and their machines, and only the best survived. You learned quickly, or you did not come back. When the Americans arrived, they came over in such force that by the time I arrived back from Russia to fight them, there was no opportunity to engage in that kind of sportive contest. Attacking hundreds of [Boeing] B-17 and [Consolidated] B-24 bombers with fighter escorts was not what I considered sportive, although I must admit it had many moments of excitement and sheer terror. "

This is from an interview with him.

 

[Soren]

Soren

"Besides the 109G-6's favorite place to be was at low to medium alt."

And how you definite low and medium altitude? Finns thought that Bf 109G-6 wasn't at its best at low level and from 2000m to 3000m was the worst height to fought against Soviet fighters in Bf 109G-6. They thought that the best altitude for G-6 was from 5 to 7 km.

Against VVS fighters, esp. the later ones, low to medium alt wasn't the favorite operational alt as the VVS fighters performed at their best there, where'as the 109 performed allot better at alt by comparison. The Germans had no problems fighting at low alt against the VVS though as their crates featured MW-50 boost.

By comparison the Spitfire didn't perform at its best at low alt.

How is it so, G-6 had two MG 131s instead of two MG17 cowling mgs and FuG 16 instead of FuG VII, but those were main differences. G-2 was a bit faster, lacking the cowling bulges and a bit better climber but some 90kg more weight should not have big influence on turning ability.

The G-2 weighs 148 kg's less than the G-6, and climb rate is very much better, which improves turn performance.

 

[Juha]

Soren
"The Germans had no problems fighting at low alt against the VVS though as their crates featured MW-50 boost."

I think they had problems with VVS otherwise the LW losses would have been lighter but yes, MW-50 made situation better for LW although I don't thing that all LW's G-6s had the system.

"The G-2 weighs 148 kg's less than the G-6"
where you got that number. If you look for ex. Kurfürst's site, it gives 90 kg difference between G-2 and G-6 kannonvogels. That goes with the recollections of Finnish 109 pilots who said that there wasn't much difference between them.

 

[Glider]

Already have, can't help you wont read.

Sorry, but no you didn't comment on this

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.

No you're right it isn't good enough, the reason being he's doing a comparison at 28,000 ft - not the 109G-6's favorite operating alt, it is however a very nice operational altitude for the Spitfire.

Interesting. I will need to find out what type of Spit they were. If it was a low level version presumably your saying that the Spit would beat the G6 at any altitude

PS: I do know that the Spit V turns better than the G-6, but the G-2 would've been a handful for the Spit.

PPS The Spit V was against the G2 not the G6

Wouldn't make any difference at all. Zekes were shot down in swarms despite their VASTLY superior turn performance - the reason for this: Inferior climb, speed roll rate. The same happened to the Spitfire over channel against the FW-190, the FW-190's slaughtered the Spitfire's in dogfights using yo yo tactics.

No one would disagree that the FW190 was a much better fighter than the Spit V, but we are talking about the 109.