improving the 109??

stona · Jun 19, 2016

Here's a typical day, selected at random....you can believe me or not, I don't care.

Wednesday August 21st, 1940

56 Squadron, North Weald:
Hurricane P3153, shot down by return fire from Do 17.

152 Squadron, Warmwell:
Spitfire ? slightly damaged by return fire from Do 17. Repairable.

236 Squadron St Eval
Blenheim R2776, parked aircraft destroyed by bombing.

238 Squadron, Middle Wallop
Hurricane? damaged in combat with Ju 88s. Repairable.

302 Squadron, Leconfield
Hurricane P3934, force landed close to base following combat with Ju 88s. Repairable.

604 Squadron, Middle Wallop
Blenheim ? Damaged in bombing. Repairable.

611 Squadron Digby
Spitfire II P7290 damaged by return fire from Do 17. Repairable.
Spitfire II P7304 DITTO
Spitfire II P7301 nosed over on landing, probably due to burst tyre following combat. Repairable.
Spitfire II P7292 damaged by return fire from Do 17. Repairable.
Spitfire II P7305 Hit a chock left on runway and nosed over. Repairable.

On this day only 1 (possibly 2) of the 11 aircraft damaged was due to an accident. All the others were combat related.

Cheers

Steve

pbehn · Jun 19, 2016

stona said:
ue to burst tyre following combat. Repairable.
Spitfire II P7292 damaged by return fire from Do 17. Repairable.
Spitfire II P7305 Hit a chock left on runway and nosed over. Repairable.

Great post and bears out the results of the enquiry into accidents, some were due to war time operations stretching personnel so that chocks and things were left about while others like a flat tyre could easily be the result of enemy action while still being classed as an accident.

GrauGeist · Jun 19, 2016

Dang those pesky wheel-chocks!

bobbysocks · Jun 19, 2016

250-300 hour life span for aircraft had nothing to do with the engine. they could and did do engine changes regularly. the 250-300 was the number they came up with in regards to the air frame. due to the stress of G forces inflicted in course of battle they felt it was compromised at approximately that juncture. it was not fit for combat. many were used as trainers...WW bombers were painted up in outlandish colors and used as "form up" aircraft.
as for tail draggers....as has been sited previously german pilots remarked how childishly easy the spitfire was to land. I have never read a brit or us pilot say the same thing about the 109...if you have please print it.

Shortround6 · Jun 19, 2016

Shooter8 said:
But it was 20,000 and we made over 100,000 total! Except for the Germans, no other country made 30,000 fighters and we made more planes with Tricycle gear than the RAF made Spitfires during the war. Also many of our late war planes were tail draggers because of government forced economics, not choices.

Minor correction. The British, the Russians and the Japanese made over 20,000 fighters each. Well over 20,000 each.
AS for the last sentence, what trike fighters were available for production (ready to go. prototypes built and tested?) in 1943-44-45 that the US could have built instead of tail draggers?

Airframes · Jun 19, 2016

Damn ! I've run out of popcorn !

Shortround6 · Jun 19, 2016

Shooter8 said:
Almost all true. Not all combat planes had such short life expectancies! That most combat planes failed to last that long is very true! But their life "Expectancies" in some cases were very much higher! While most R-R built Merlins had a "Life Expectancy" of 150 hours, most lasted much less than half that, at least early in the war, while the early Allison had a LE of 1,000 hours and might last 300, or more. All of this depending on how they were used. Full throttle could shorten any engines life to minutes, not hours and this was/is a fact of life. But actual life and expected life were two very different things for the most part and should not be confused.

Last sentence is quite true, many people confuse expected life or overhaul life (# of hours an engine could run before being pulled for overhaul as a precaution). with average life which was the average life of engines passing through the repair/overhaul facility.

Having said that your numbers for the Merlin are total hogwash as is your numbers for the Allison.

RR was claiming 240 hours for a fighter engine in 1939 and 300 hours for a bomber engine.
in 1944 they were claiming 300 hours for a fighter engine, 360 hours for a bomber engine and 480 hours for a transport engine.
In 1945 the hours went up again.

Those are expected life or hours before overhaul.
From 1942 on 35% of the engines passing though the repair organizations had reached their expected life.
From 1942 on of all the engines passing through the average hours were approximately 60% of expected life.

Engines arrived at repair organizations for three reasons. Normal overhaul or repair if engine had mechanical difficulties before reaching expected life, Repair of crash damage, Many if not most engines involved in a nose over or prop strike were pulled and sent to a repair organization for instance. There was a special repair for cracked gear cases involving welding and a reinforcing strut/brace from the top of the gear case to the crankcase. Third reason was the repair of battle damage, like bullet holes. Depending on location they could be "patched" or damaged component replaced (change one cylinder bank vs entire engine?)
If one engine comes through the door with 300 hours on the clock for overhaul and the next comes through the door with 2 hours on clock after novice pilot does a nose stand and wrecks the prop. Yep you have about a 150 hour average life but it gives a rather distorted picture of the durability or reliability.

GrauGeist · Jun 19, 2016

Shortround6 said:
AS for the last sentence, what trike fighters were available for production (ready to go. prototypes built and tested?) in 1943-44-45 that the US could have built instead of tail draggers?

I'm going to guess we'll see such types as the XP-50, XP-54, XP-55, XP-56, XP-67, XP-77...

In otherwords, anything with tricycle gear just to say "see?", regardless of the fact they weren't viable options.

Shortround6 · Jun 19, 2016

Just so we are all on the same page with the Spitfire wing:

Wing on the Spitfire 21, 22, 24 and up

May be it's me but I am having a hell of time trying to get my straight edge to line up with either the trailing edge or leading edge of the last wing.

Shortround6 · Jun 19, 2016

Shooter8 said:
Not really. The Ju-86, IIRC, with the Jumo-207 Turbo was only ever tested a prototype and not a production plane.

Actually they built and used about 40 of the Ju86P model.

Which gave fits to the British over England and the Mid east and also operated over Russia.
The later Ju-86R model was built only as prototypes and the number of Blohm and Voss 6 engine BV 222 flying boats that used the Jumo 207 may be in dispute. They were used in service.
The Jumo 207 powered more planes by a factor of at least 8 than the Jumo 222 ever did.

DerAdlerIstGelandet · Jun 19, 2016

Ok everyone. I think it is quite clear we can not expect much from "sharkshooter8fromaheloat5000ft", so lets get this back on topic.

Except you shooter, I am still waiting for your response.

gumbyk · Jun 19, 2016

Shooter8 said:
I do not know. I thought we had a better handle on conversion than that here? We alone used two stage training, did we not? First the Bipe, then the mono-wing, then possibly a much faster trainer before finally converting to the actual fighter plane?

NZ Training was DH-82, AT-6, P-40, F4U. So 'Your' training was not unusual. We still had pilots rolling the Corsair on take-off. Brian Cox tells of watching a Corsair torque-roll on take-off while he was lined up waiting for his first flight.

FLYBOYJ said:
It's quite evident you're not a pilot and know little about flight training during WW2 aside what you're reading in books. Tail draggers will ALWAYS have a higher accident rate when operated in a combined fleet. I know of many pilots with thousands of hours of tail dragger time and they have had at least one ground loop. Please understand that some of the members here are actively engaged in aviation, flying or maintaining warbirds.

I was always told with tail-draggers and ground-loops that you either have had one, will have one, or are just about to have one.
As for me, while I don't have 'many thousands of hours', the pilot who was flying the aircraft had 20k+ when we ground-looped.

pbehn · Jun 19, 2016

Tricycle landing gear is much better as far as I know but requires a level concrete runway.

DerAdlerIstGelandet · Jun 19, 2016

pbehn said:
Tricycle landing gear is much better as far as I know but requires a level concrete runway.

You can land and take off on a soft field. It is actually required to learn how in order to get your private license.

For takeoff you set flaps, and hold the yoke back all the way to prevent the nose from settling into the ground. Basically you sort of pop a wheelie down the ground strip.The acft will actually lift off too early (and it needs too) because of the combination of flaps and having the yoke pulled back. Because of the low airspeed you have to relieve pressure on the yoke, lowering the nose slightly and remain in ground effect until airspeed is built up. Then climb out.

With landing, you add a lil power and try and keep the wheels from touching down until the aircraft just settles in softly and does not sink into the soft grass field. Then you hold the yoke back and use aerodynamic breaking to slow down so you don't sink in.

BiffF15 · Jun 19, 2016

Shooter8 said:
This is true and also the most important attribute, but a lesser known and more important tactic was to initiate a "Horizontal Rolling Scissors" fight, IF you were home over your own territory and had the fuel to fight it out instead of running all the time so you could make it back across the channel.
When you have the fuel, the HRS maneuver turns a defensive fight into an offensive fight where the better rolling and faster plane has a huge advantage and if he is any type of Marksman, a kill!

Shooter8,

If you are fighting over your home you have some advantages as well as disadvantages.

Adv's: You can fight until you run out of gas, get shot down, or crash and the odds of getting back into the fight are higher than your enemy.
You can build lighter higher performing aircraft because there time aloft will be short (they don't have far to travel to get to the fight).

Con's: When fighting over your own country the bombs are falling on your base, field, and home. You are defensive and on the receiving / losing end of the fight.

While the 109 was designed as an offensive fighter time and technology shifted it to a point defense fighter. It was a good fighter made en masse. While it did have more kills than any other fighter I think whether that classifies it as the best ever, in my opinion, can be easily argued. The 109 did not have far to travel to get to the fight, could fight until low on gas, then do an almost idle descent to landing. It's opponents flew from England, in aircraft that were heavier (due to structure to make a long legged fighter, and fuel) which gives the 109 a distinct advantage. That is why it had a performance advantage over the Allied fighters, as well as the other German prop fighters. They were designed for different tasks.

The horizontal rolling scissors fight rewards the most maneuverable fighter, not the fastest. If two planes are equal that fight would most likely be won by the better "stick". I have been in that type of fight with F-16s, F-15s, F-14s, Mig-29s and F-18s. Each brings a different twist and pilot to the fight. All things being equal the pilot who makes the smallest or least amount of mistakes is usually the winner.

This forum has many individuals in here who are extremely knowledgeable. I entered here thinking I would contribute more than I would learn. How mistaken I was. Your time here might be more enjoyable if you approached this as a learning event or exchange of information rather than as the instructor.

Cheers,
Biff

DerAdlerIstGelandet · Jun 19, 2016

BiffF15 said:
Shooter8,

If you are fighting over your home you have some advantages as well as disadvantages.

Adv's: You can fight until you run out of gas, get shot down, or crash and the odds of getting back into the fight are higher than your enemy.
You can build lighter higher performing aircraft because there time aloft will be short (they don't have far to travel to get to the fight).

Con's: When fighting over your own country the bombs are falling on your base, field, and home. You are defensive and on the receiving / losing end of the fight.

While the 109 was designed as an offensive fighter time and technology shifted it to a point defense fighter. It was a good fighter made en masse. While it did have more kills than any other fighter I think whether that classifies it as the best ever, in my opinion, can be easily argued. The 109 did not have far to travel to get to the fight, could fight until low on gas, then do an almost idle descent to landing. It's opponents flew from England, in aircraft that were heavier (due to structure to make a long legged fighter, and fuel) which gives the 109 a distinct advantage. That is why it had a performance advantage over the Allied fighters, as well as the other German prop fighters. They were designed for different tasks.

The horizontal rolling scissors fight rewards the most maneuverable fighter, not the fastest. If two planes are equal that fight would most likely be won by the better "stick". I have been in that type of fight with F-16s, F-15s, F-14s, Mig-29s and F-18s. Each brings a different twist and pilot to the fight. All things being equal the pilot who makes the smallest or least amount of mistakes is usually the winner.

This forum has many individuals in here who are extremely knowledgeable. I entered here thinking I would contribute more than I would learn. How mistaken I was. Your time here might be more enjoyable if you approached this as a learning event or exchange of information rather than as the instructor.

Cheers,
Biff

You bring a lot to the table my friend. Hell I think you are our resident fighter pilot. I listen when you speak...

FLYBOYJ · Jun 19, 2016

BiffF15 said:
Your time here might be more enjoyable if you approached this as a learning event or exchange of information rather than as the instructor.

The quote of the day!!!!

gjs238 · Jun 19, 2016

Shortround6 said:
Just so we are all on the same page with the Spitfire wing:

Wing on the Spitfire 21, 22, 24 and up

May be it's me but I am having a hell of time trying to get my straight edge to line up with either the trailing edge or leading edge of the last wing.

Can anyone explain the fabric patches over the gun openings in the wings?

DerAdlerIstGelandet · Jun 19, 2016

gjs238 said:
Can anyone explain the fabric patches over the gun openings in the wings?

to prevent dirt, grime, bugs, etc from getting into the guns, and to prevent them from icing up.

Basically to protect it until they were was needed.

gumbyk · Jun 19, 2016

gjs238 said:
Can anyone explain the fabric patches over the gun openings in the wings?

To prevent dirt/moisture getting in there and freezing at altitude.

improving the 109??

Major

Colonel

Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung

Chief Master Sergeant

Major General

Benevolens Magister

Major General

Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung

Major General

Major General

Private Chemtrail Disperser

Master Sergeant

Colonel

Private Chemtrail Disperser

Tech Sergeant

Private Chemtrail Disperser

"THE GREAT GAZOO"

Tech Sergeant

Private Chemtrail Disperser

Master Sergeant

Users who are viewing this thread

Similar threads