- Thread starter
- #41
Gold-Clash
- Thread starter Soren
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Krazikanuk:
You are krazy.
Luftlover? I do not think so. I will present you the opposite side of the comment you posted there: I hate bullshit, wherever it may come from.
I will elaborate a bit further and try to see if you can get the idea behind my posting:
The "Luftlover" you are referring to is DJ_Dalton. Whether you like it or not the guy made several real strong points; i can say non of those having a contrary view in here came close to shatter his comments.
Yes, he referred to the funny British testing of a G-6 (gondola equipped) fighter being compared to the Spitifre. What you forgot to mention is he DID SAY the test showed the contemporary Spitfire could not achieve a significant superiority over the gondola equipped G-6.
I am not dispute the gondolas implied drag and extra-weight. Sure, a Bf109 pilot who had flown a "standard" Gustav would feel the effect of the gondolas when being put in the cockpit of the G-6/R6.
The point is the G-10 made an improvement over the G-6. If the G-6/R6 (gondolas) could hold its own against the contemporary Spitfire, the G-10/R6 could be even more capable of doing so with the Spitfire or whatever enemy fighter in turn.
A "standard" or "clean" G-10 (no gondolas) could surpass the P-51 with ease.
Get the point now?
The guncamera I have showing gondola fitted Bf109s getting chased showed me beyond any reasonable doubt the Gustav fitted in this fashion was not at all an "easy prey".
Some got pounded and went down. There are others the USAAF pilots simply could not caught.
It would be like suggesting German pilots flying gondola equipped Bf109s were told before scrambling "guys, we have good news: your fighters are capable of chewing a heavy bomber, hunt the bombers. The bad news: if you get caught by enemy fighters in your gondola Gustav you will die."
It was not the Luftwaffe style of doing business.
You are krazy.
Luftlover? I do not think so. I will present you the opposite side of the comment you posted there: I hate bullshit, wherever it may come from.
I will elaborate a bit further and try to see if you can get the idea behind my posting:
The "Luftlover" you are referring to is DJ_Dalton. Whether you like it or not the guy made several real strong points; i can say non of those having a contrary view in here came close to shatter his comments.
Yes, he referred to the funny British testing of a G-6 (gondola equipped) fighter being compared to the Spitifre. What you forgot to mention is he DID SAY the test showed the contemporary Spitfire could not achieve a significant superiority over the gondola equipped G-6.
I am not dispute the gondolas implied drag and extra-weight. Sure, a Bf109 pilot who had flown a "standard" Gustav would feel the effect of the gondolas when being put in the cockpit of the G-6/R6.
The point is the G-10 made an improvement over the G-6. If the G-6/R6 (gondolas) could hold its own against the contemporary Spitfire, the G-10/R6 could be even more capable of doing so with the Spitfire or whatever enemy fighter in turn.
A "standard" or "clean" G-10 (no gondolas) could surpass the P-51 with ease.
Get the point now?
The guncamera I have showing gondola fitted Bf109s getting chased showed me beyond any reasonable doubt the Gustav fitted in this fashion was not at all an "easy prey".
Some got pounded and went down. There are others the USAAF pilots simply could not caught.
It would be like suggesting German pilots flying gondola equipped Bf109s were told before scrambling "guys, we have good news: your fighters are capable of chewing a heavy bomber, hunt the bombers. The bad news: if you get caught by enemy fighters in your gondola Gustav you will die."
It was not the Luftwaffe style of doing business.
Soren said, "... and at 300m the Mk108 was perfectly capable of hitting with every 10-20th round."
Maybe if you were to sneak up on an unsuspecting P-51 but in a twisting turning dogfight, as here where both pilots are aware of their foe, involving longer range and deflection shooting, I am still having problems digesting your argument even though as you said, pilots prefereed their single Mk. 108 (which at longer ranges clearly could not be used in conjunction with the two machine guns).
The fact that the Germans continued the use of the Mk. 108 would also be consistent with its effectiveness against heavy bombers against which its effectiveness can not be denied. When your country is being pounded into the stone age by heavies, the fighters are merely an obstacle to the real threat you must engage.
Where have you learned of this German pilot preference and what exactly was said? I'm not challenging you but instead just unable in my mind to reconcile your position with the Mk. 108 performance specifications and what I have seen on gun camera film regarding the character of dogfights against an aware and evasive foe.
Maybe if you were to sneak up on an unsuspecting P-51 but in a twisting turning dogfight, as here where both pilots are aware of their foe, involving longer range and deflection shooting, I am still having problems digesting your argument even though as you said, pilots prefereed their single Mk. 108 (which at longer ranges clearly could not be used in conjunction with the two machine guns).
The fact that the Germans continued the use of the Mk. 108 would also be consistent with its effectiveness against heavy bombers against which its effectiveness can not be denied. When your country is being pounded into the stone age by heavies, the fighters are merely an obstacle to the real threat you must engage.
Where have you learned of this German pilot preference and what exactly was said? I'm not challenging you but instead just unable in my mind to reconcile your position with the Mk. 108 performance specifications and what I have seen on gun camera film regarding the character of dogfights against an aware and evasive foe.
KraziKanuK
Banned
- 792
- Jan 26, 2005
No Udet, it is not Dalton, though I do think he is a 'buddy' of the other. 
As for the G-6/R6 K-4 holding its own against a contemporary Spit:
Spit LF IX vs 109G
Conclusion
22.........The Me.109G has an inferior performance to the Spitfire in ALL respects with the exception of acceleration in a dive and the slight advantage in speed which it possesses at heights between 16,000 and 20,000 feet.
The nick 'gun boat' used by LW pilots for the gondola 109s was not a nick of endearment.
As for the G-6/R6 K-4 holding its own against a contemporary Spit:
Spit LF IX vs 109G
Conclusion
22.........The Me.109G has an inferior performance to the Spitfire in ALL respects with the exception of acceleration in a dive and the slight advantage in speed which it possesses at heights between 16,000 and 20,000 feet.
The nick 'gun boat' used by LW pilots for the gondola 109s was not a nick of endearment.
- Thread starter
- #45
Udet Krazi is right, the Gondola equipped 109 lost both considderable maneuverability and performance over the cleanly equipped configuration 109. (Especially the maneuverability suffered !)
The extra weight of the Gondola's and its ammunition wich was situated in wing, wich wasnt a good thing, as a heavy loaded wing (Not talking wingloading), will not be as effective as a lightly loaded one. Also the extra drag and aerodynamic disturbance the gondola's add to the wing, isnt a good thing either.
Btw each Gondola weighed atleast 50kg, without ammunition ! Just the gun itself weighs 42.5kg, then add the aerodynamic-coating and the extra attachment-parts joints.
The extra weight of the Gondola's and its ammunition wich was situated in wing, wich wasnt a good thing, as a heavy loaded wing (Not talking wingloading), will not be as effective as a lightly loaded one. Also the extra drag and aerodynamic disturbance the gondola's add to the wing, isnt a good thing either.
Btw each Gondola weighed atleast 50kg, without ammunition ! Just the gun itself weighs 42.5kg, then add the aerodynamic-coating and the extra attachment-parts joints.
Krazi:
Thanks for posting those graphics.
The point is that when the discussed topic is aircraft, graphics are not as enlightening as guncamera footage is.
I wish i had my Luftwaffe guncamera shots available in the mpg format for immediate upload; those shots could certainly help you train your posture.
Thanks for posting those graphics.
The point is that when the discussed topic is aircraft, graphics are not as enlightening as guncamera footage is.
I wish i had my Luftwaffe guncamera shots available in the mpg format for immediate upload; those shots could certainly help you train your posture.
Gun-cam footage doesn't show anything besides one aircraft being shot down by another. This could be due to pilot error or luck. It's not always the capability of the plane that brings it on the tail of it's opponent.
You can see aircraft from both sides being blown to pieces. All it shows is the devestation that can be caused to an aircraft.
You can see aircraft from both sides being blown to pieces. All it shows is the devestation that can be caused to an aircraft.
evangilder
"Shooter"
Agreed, plan_d. Gun camera footage shows one engagement. I have seen gun cam footage of allied planes getting chewed up and axis planes getting chewed up. It doesn't really prove much.
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
plan_D said:
On the mark "D" - Unless gun camera footage could provide data like airspeed, altitude, aircraft attitude, "G" loading, etc. it is nothing more than a conformation of a kill or damage. That's why today's HUDs are so cool! 8)
delcyros
Tech Sergeant
Umm, what are the sources of these graphs?
As far as I see, they don´t fit to the generally accepted values (esspecially the K-4 graph is wrong). One reason could be that they are not recalculated to ISA standart atmospheres. This has to be checked first. The graph shows an error at 25.000 ft for the K-4 graph.
The K-4 made during tests at december at Rechlin 725 Km/h (450 mp/h), recalculated to standart atmossphere. I am convinced that this is not included here (typical for Oberammergau, a Me-262 speed tests resulted in 525 mp/h during winter, also not recalculated to standart atmossphere, later tests ar Rechlin with more involved planes confirmed the top speed of 535-540 mp/h).
As far as I see, they don´t fit to the generally accepted values (esspecially the K-4 graph is wrong). One reason could be that they are not recalculated to ISA standart atmospheres. This has to be checked first. The graph shows an error at 25.000 ft for the K-4 graph.
The K-4 made during tests at december at Rechlin 725 Km/h (450 mp/h), recalculated to standart atmossphere. I am convinced that this is not included here (typical for Oberammergau, a Me-262 speed tests resulted in 525 mp/h during winter, also not recalculated to standart atmossphere, later tests ar Rechlin with more involved planes confirmed the top speed of 535-540 mp/h).
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
delcyros said:
Was the true airspeeds calculated at 59F sea level, 29.92 atmospheric pressure (1013 mb and 15C for my European friends)?
Its my understanding that the 450 mph figure for a Bf 109 K4 is based on estimates using a non-standard thin-bladed propeller. Somewhere around 444 mph would be about right using the standard production 9.12159 propeller. All 109K charts that I've seen are based on calculations from Messerschmitt's Oberammergau facility. That's where the one above is from. Any one have datas for flight tests of Bf 109K-4s?
Well, I´ll be damned.
If you happen to watch a reasonable long film from the guncamera, i´d bet anything guncamera footage can provide with relevant data on the performance of the planes involved.
If you watch a mere 10 second long film commencing at the very right moment when the enemy plane is getting hit, i give you the point it told nothing beyond showing the end of a plane.
A different tale comes when you can have a 1 minute long -or even more- film from the same action.
If you can have a reasonably longer view of the enemy plane being pursued and watch it attempting evasive action -turning, diving, climbing- it is an entirely different case. Furthermore, even if after attempting evasive action the film goes on until showing you the pilot bringing his guns to bear and hit the mark you´ve nearly got the whole thing.
It is upon such film cases that i base my comments on the performance of aircraft.
Moving back on topic...i have these kind of films of gondola equipped Bf109s -either G-6s or G-10s, i could not tell it that accurate- being pursued or tailed. Some got pounded and went down, but -whatever the graphics and specifications might tell- several others found their way out.
I see everything but a "clumsy" plane. If you want to know clumsy -and impaired manouvering- go watch an IL-2 getting creamed.
Conclusion: if a gondola fitted G-10 could manage to evade the pursuers, i can confidently affirm a "standard" or "clean" G-10 could perform even better.
The BG109 G-10 is so beautiful.
If you happen to watch a reasonable long film from the guncamera, i´d bet anything guncamera footage can provide with relevant data on the performance of the planes involved.
If you watch a mere 10 second long film commencing at the very right moment when the enemy plane is getting hit, i give you the point it told nothing beyond showing the end of a plane.
A different tale comes when you can have a 1 minute long -or even more- film from the same action.
If you can have a reasonably longer view of the enemy plane being pursued and watch it attempting evasive action -turning, diving, climbing- it is an entirely different case. Furthermore, even if after attempting evasive action the film goes on until showing you the pilot bringing his guns to bear and hit the mark you´ve nearly got the whole thing.
It is upon such film cases that i base my comments on the performance of aircraft.
Moving back on topic...i have these kind of films of gondola equipped Bf109s -either G-6s or G-10s, i could not tell it that accurate- being pursued or tailed. Some got pounded and went down, but -whatever the graphics and specifications might tell- several others found their way out.
I see everything but a "clumsy" plane. If you want to know clumsy -and impaired manouvering- go watch an IL-2 getting creamed.
Conclusion: if a gondola fitted G-10 could manage to evade the pursuers, i can confidently affirm a "standard" or "clean" G-10 could perform even better.
The BG109 G-10 is so beautiful.
Sal Monella
Airman 1st Class
There isn't an emoticon for laughing so hard that you cry so this will have to do.
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
Udet said:
It still doesn't give you speed, altitude, G loading, aircraft attitude, etc. or any relevant data on how the aircraft is actually maneuvering. I've filmed air-to-air maneuvering (and was filmed) and unless you have outside data to show what's really going on "looks are very deceiving."
evangilder
"Shooter"
Yes, it shows a Bf-109 being tailed, but does it really show the flight characteristics of the airplane? Not really, it shows the flying skills of the pilot. Hmm, long turning fight, one of 2 possibilities, good piloting skills of the plane being pursued, or bad gunnery skills of the pilot in the camera airplane. Which you choose depends on you.
lesofprimus
Brigadier General
Now now fellas... I do see some validity in Udet thoughts... While the footage may not show the specifics, it does show that in given circumstances, a P-47 can out turn a Fw-190A and a P-38 cannot turn inside a Bf-109.......
Or visa versa.....
Some clips i have viewed show a P-51 make such a weak hearted attempt at evasion, u woulda thought the pilot was sleeping during aerial evasion techniques..... The guys Mustang was obliterated........
U know that he has the capabilities to make a tight ass turn and try to disengage, but he basically waggles his wings and slow turns to the left, and gets smoked........
Or visa versa.....
Some clips i have viewed show a P-51 make such a weak hearted attempt at evasion, u woulda thought the pilot was sleeping during aerial evasion techniques..... The guys Mustang was obliterated........
U know that he has the capabilities to make a tight ass turn and try to disengage, but he basically waggles his wings and slow turns to the left, and gets smoked........
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
lesofprimus said:
True blue Les, but with that in mind, I don't think a series of gun camera footage is really going to show you accurate aircraft performance comparisons, it may give you a good idea, or as you pointed out, if a pilot is asleep at the wheel, or in our case, the stick
