Good High Altitude Performer

[lesofprimus]

So, you're saying the Ta152's didn't provide top cover then?

Yep.... Not for Me-262's...

 

[gaussianum]

German pilot account seems to hold that the 109F was much faster than the Mk V but outclassed in manouverability.

Only at high altitude, right? I always thought the Bf 109 F was the most maneuverable of the messerschmitts.

 

[Erich]

there is only 1 acct of the Ta 152 flying high escort and that was for it's own Dora 9's of II./JG 301. The Ta's came away with no combat this day

 

[GregP]

Hi Schawrzpanzer,

1. Oil and fuel: There was more to it tahn low viscosity. Automotive oil will bubble at low partial pressures, and you lose lubrictation. You need an oil that stays liquid and useful, and has a markedly different ash content than automotive oils.

2. On the R-2800, the magnetos were wound with some air insulation. At high altitudes, there isn't much air and the current would arc between windings. For a long time they thought the superchargers was at fault, but tests in altitude chambers proved it was the mags.

Ditto for fuel. You don't want the fuel to boil in the lines, so automotive fuel will simply not work.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

On the R-2800, the magnetos were wound with some air insulation. At high altitudes, there isn't much air and the current would arc between windings. For a long time they thought the superchargers was at fault, but tests in altitude chambers proved it was the mags.

The Ignition harnesses were actually pressurized.......

Here's an article on it...

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3897/is_199904/ai_n8830808

 

[delcyros]

I repick two points for You, Schwarzadler.
= High altitude=low air density= low specific drag (true)
specific drag (against any surface) is lower in thinner air but: The speed of sound is also lower, this causes a rapid increase in drag on all flat pointed surfaces at a speed between Mach 0.7 and 1.3.
at 11.000 m altitude Mach 1.0 = 1063 Km/h (recalculating standart atmosphere), TA-152 H TAS 750Km/h = Mach 0.71 at this altitude. This seems to be more a problem for faster planes like jets but if you enter a dive you will have to deal with the additional drag in every A/C.
The next is cooling. In opposition to what You might think, cooling in thinner air (regardless of it´s temperature) is more difficult than in denser atmospheres. The cooling by cold air has indeed a higher theoretical cooling aspect but it is FAR MORE DIFFICULT FOR THE ENGINE to disperse its high engine temp. by interchanging with far fewer air molekules.
Hope this helps.

 

[Udet]

Jabberwocky:

You continue to present only magnificent information about the Spitfires.

Yes, a fine toy it was. But it was not as good as your data attempts to prove.

When are you going to give it up?

The Spits proved uncapable of dealing with the hardware the Luftwaffe presented in the air.

One more time, here it goes: without the massive USAAF involved, the RAF would still be trying to figure out how to tangle with the Luftwaffe.

Cheers

 

[loomaluftwaffe]

if the us didnt help, it would have been a battle of attritions between ever improving spits and 109s/190s, Germany, having more industry and planes that are easier to mass produce, would probably have won.

 

[lesofprimus]

Germany would still of had to beat the Russians, and in mid to late 1944, that wasnt gonna happen, US involvement or not...

 

[loomaluftwaffe]

ive heard of this "operation citadel" which could have stopped the Soviet counterattack

 

[lesofprimus]

Hitler was too far gone by then to make any offensive operation succeed... If he had listend to Guderian, things might have been different on the Eastern Front....

 

[Gnomey]

Operation Citadel was the German code name for the attack on the Kursk salient...

 

[schwarzpanzer]

That was the last point where the war could have turned, but it was a shambles.

Like the rest of the war, the Germans had a higher attrition rate, but it was not more than 2/3 and after such losses Germany could only retreat.

It could have gone better, but is that a subject for another thread?...


Jabberwocky:

I've heard of the de Havilland prop, forgotten mostly, but it was that important??

Thanks Jabberwocky.

The other reason was that the DB 601 delivered more power at high altitudes. This didn't really change until the 2 stage Merlins were introduced in the Spitfire IX.

There was something weird about the DB605's supercharger now I think, forget what it was though any help please?

I reckon the Me109, P51 Spit were evenly matched on 'hard' attributes, with the P51 Spit though having far superior 'soft' attributes (Ease of use, ergonomics etc).

I think the F was the best handling full-production Me109, but IIRC there were specialised lighter versions? - Forget what they were used for.

GregP:

Automotive oil will bubble at low partial pressures, and you lose lubrictation. You need an oil that stays liquid and useful, and has a markedly different ash content than automotive oils.

Ah right, thanks. Automotive engines at the time were like vegetable oil and had extremely high ash content - were you reffering to these - or modern oils?

Point 2 I'll never understand, but thanks anyway.

Ditto for fuel. You don't want the fuel to boil in the lines, so automotive fuel will simply not work.

Would it do this with mechanical direct fuel injection?


Thanks for the link FBJ!


delcyros:

Thanks for the info.

The speed of sound is also lower, this causes a rapid increase in drag on all flat pointed surfaces at a speed between Mach 0.7 and 1.3.

Is this anything to do with compressability? If so, swept or eliptical wings will rule?

The next is cooling. In opposition to what You might think, cooling in thinner air (regardless of it´s temperature) is more difficult than in denser atmospheres. The cooling by cold air has indeed a higher theoretical cooling aspect but it is FAR MORE DIFFICULT FOR THE ENGINE to disperse its high engine temp. by interchanging with far fewer air molekules.

I found something similar to this out in my own research. A Laminova-type oil cooler would work wonders here? What about the weird rad on the He 100? (or was it 112?).

Germany, having more industry and planes that are easier to mass produce, would probably have won.

Too many types and too few raw materials IMHO.

I agree with your last 2 posts lesofprimus.

 

[Jabberwocky]

Jabberwocky:

You continue to present only magnificent information about the Spitfires.

Yes, a fine toy it was. But it was not as good as your data attempts to prove.

When are you going to give it up?

The Spits proved uncapable of dealing with the hardware the Luftwaffe presented in the air.

One more time, here it goes: without the massive USAAF involved, the RAF would still be trying to figure out how to tangle with the Luftwaffe.

Cheers

Give up? I wasn't aware that i was trying?

I just continue to present factual information about the Spitfire, it is only you that seems to have any trouble with the raw data that I post.

EDIT: Removed most of my comments, as it's really not worth the time and effort to get into a flame war about the perpetual 109 vs Spitfire debate. They were both excellent machines.

 

[plan_D]

Agreed, Jabberwocky. Both were excellent machines, you are right not to waste your time with Udet. The rest of us on here appreciate your information on the Spitfire.

 

[schwarzpanzer]

Even me and PlanD appreciate it, so you must be doing something right Jabberwocky!

I (and I think everyone here?) wants to hear you're opinions Udet. You should just moderate yourself more - this coming from a 24 carat arguementatist!!

Maybe start a new thread? (Me109 vs Spit) - but don't attempt to blast down anyone who disagrees with you (even if it is PlanD! )

 

[lesofprimus]

Maybe start a new thread? (Me109 vs Spit)

Ok. I created a new thread and added a Poll....

 

[Jabberwocky]

Nah, I'm not that argumentative

The Spitfire vs 109 debate is something that always gives a lively discussion in these circles, it's just the nature of the beast. However, I'm not going to get into an argument trying to explicitly prove the superiority of two planes that flew combat 65 years ago. Its amazing how these things tend to bring the worst out in some people and it will never satisfactorily answer the question or change the opinion of a person on either side. Heated argument just creates polarity.

My personal feeling is that the two planes were quie closely matched, but that the Spitfire appears to have got the better of the deal as the war progressed and RAF tactics changed and caught up with German ones. People always point at the record of German aces and elite Gruppen to back up the 109s claim to superiority. I usually just wonder if the LuftWaffe would of performed better or worse if they had Spitfires instead of 109s as one of their primary fighter types.

I present Spitfire data, because that's what I have. I have a hard-drive and bookshelf full of miscellaneous Spitfire information, and I'm collecting more all the time.

For the record, my pick for the best fighter of WW2 was the FW-190, if only because it was the vanguard of the move away from hard manouvering, horizontal turn fighters towards true energy fighters. It was perhaps the best single package of any WW2 fighter: high speed, highly agile, heavy firepower and excellent visibility in the air, combined with a rugged airframe, excellent rough field capabilities, easy maintence and the ability to turn it into a dediated fighter bomber, bomber destroyer, night fighter ect ect with just a few modifications.

 

[schwarzpanzer]

Jabberwocky:

However, I'm not going to get into an argument trying to explicitly prove the superiority of two planes that flew combat 65 years ago. Its amazing how these things tend to bring the worst out in some people and it will never satisfactorily answer the question or change the opinion of a person on either side. Heated argument just creates polarity.

I find it amazing, it's like hindsight in a weird muddled kinda way.

I think the main problem is trying to swim through the reams of propaganda.

I've learnt a lot from being here and others have learn't from me, that's something I love!

Also, what to other people is common knowledge is new to me and vice-versa.

Sharing info seems to happen a lot (but all my links seem to have been deleted!).

So long as these discussions don't turn into flame-type arguements, I think they are great for critical thinking and maybe changing opinions.

I usually just wonder if the LuftWaffe would of performed better or worse if they had Spitfires instead of 109s as one of their primary fighter types.

For the close formation defence of bombers Goering insisted on, I believe a lot better. "If you want me to do that, then give me Spitfires!"

It's horses for courses really - like the sniper rifle vs SMG debate, which would you choose?

Certain situations call for certain equipment. War situations are a combination of fate and leadership - does the equipment suit the purpose?

Which purposes are better/more vital?

I present Spitfire data, because that's what I have. I have a hard-drive and bookshelf full of miscellaneous Spitfire information, and I'm collecting more all the time.

You see Udet may have only Me109 info...

If you compared notes in a (reasonably ) civilized manner, I'm sure you'd learn a lot from each other?

- Then again, people can be stubborn and just won't hear a different opinion.

Now PlanD, Soren and myself I like because we have similar information, with gaps that the other(s) can fill.

We just view the info differently and eventually sometimes realise the others viewpoint.

We all get narked at each other, but don't get too shirty IMO.


Agreed with the FW190, kinda a Jack of all trades. Then again, like most equipment, it had it's problems.

The British equipment like the Spitfire and Mossie never had anything drastically wrong with them(?) and it's important to trust your equipment.

I suppose what would you have as an ideal plane...( new thread idea forming!)

 

[Gemhorse]

Jabba's pretty on to it though, the PR Spits were right up there, and also the Mosquito was developed to tackle altitude, starting with the early Ju.86P flights over Britain, which unfortunately pettered-out before combat could eliminate them....If anything, the Ta.152 was belatedly developed to counter specifically these two types of aircraft that relentlessly overflew Germany throughout the War on PR missions...the jets didn't make much impression on their sorties either.....