Is Spitfire really the BEST British fighter???

[Soren]

I think the late war Spits were far better than the late war 109's, as they lost a lot of their manoeverability.

And accordingly did the Spitfire loose its maneuverability !
They were fairly even in late-war versions aswell.

Early war though they were very even.

Well in BoB, yeah, there they were fairly even. However the Bf109-F4 and G2, would out-dogfight any Spitfire it might meet in 41 to 43.

The Latest Spitfire of the war(Mk.XIV), was perhaps better than the latest Bf-109 (K-4), but only there did it actually become superior to the Bf-109.

Ask the Spitfire designers/Manufactures how they always felt that the Bf-109 was a step ahead of them in design in early-midwar years.

 

[Anonymous]

I disagree. The Spit V was a match for the 109-F, the Spit IX was generally superior to the 109G-2. It certainly out turned them.

The top speeds of the Spitfires and 109's tend to stay fairly close - but the 109 had little improvement to its cooling system to cope with the higher power engines. It also had no solution for high speed boundary layer seperation problems. 109G's were known to be able to maintain top speeds in combat for only about 1-2 minutes before overheating, where the Spitfires were able to sustain such speeds for over 5 minutes. The Spitfire also had better firepower and was more rugged.

Seriously, the 109 was, at best, about equal to the Spitfires it faced. If you want to argue for a superior German fighter, the FW190 is your plane.

=S=

Lunatic

 

[Soren]

I disagree. The Spit V was a match for the 109-F, the Spit IX was generally superior to the 109G-2. It certainly out turned them.

Well lets see...

Bf-109F4 vs Spitfire Mk.V (Empty for max agility):

Bf-109F4 weight: 1970 kg / Wing Area: 17.4 sq.m / Max power: 1350 hp

Spitfire Mk.V weight: 2297 kg / Wing Area: 21.46 sq.m / Max power: 1515 hp

Bf-109F4

Power-to-weight ratio (Hp pr Kg): 0.69 hp

Power-to-wing Area ratio (Hp pr Sq.m): 77.58 hp

Wingloading (Kg pr Sq.m): 113.2 kg

Special features: Leading edge Wing-slats.

Spitfire Mk.V

Power-to-weight ratio (Hp pr Kg): 0.66 hp

Power-to-Wing Area ratio (Hp pr Sq.m): 70.6 hp

Wingloading (Kg pr Sq.m): 107 kg

Special features: None.
----------------------------------------------------

The numbers speak for themselves.

Fact is the Spitfire wasnt superior, but infact a little tiny bit inferior.

 

[Nonskimmer]

Well then it must've been the Canadian pilots.

Kidding! Shutting up now.

 

[Soren]

As to speed:

Bf-109F4 max speed sea-level: 475 km/h

Spitfire Mk.V max speed sea-level: 447 km/h

Bf-109F4 Max speed at 5,800m: 637 km/h

Spitfire Mk.V max speed at 7,100m: 600 km/h

So for 1-2 minutes the 109 was faster, and after that, just as fast.

This also serves to show that the Bf-109 was better at low-level fighting.

 

[Anonymous]

In order to cool down, the 109 had to slow down considerably to prevent boundary layer seperation. The cooling system on the 109F (it was not on the E) relies on a boundry layer diverter design. What this basically means is that the radiator sits on the bottom side of the scoop, away from the wing, and there is a passage above the radiator by-passing the scoop. This allows the boundary layer to miss the scoop and improves high speed cooling by preventing turbulent air from flowing into the scoop. However, the boundary layer gets thicker with increasing speed. At some point just over 280 mph the boundary layer can no longer squeeze through that passage, turbulent air hits the raiditor, and pressure in the scoop mouth builds dramatically. This leads to the boundary layer being lifted off the wing and around the scoop in an oscillating pattern and greatly reduces the effectiveness of the cooling system.

Also, the 109F engine is rated at maxium 1400 HP for only 3 minutes, after that it is down around 1200 HP or so, which is a 30 minute rating.

Finally, the empty weight of the Bf109F-4 was 2182 kg (4812 lbs), but the maximum HP was 1400 HP (not the 1350 HP figure you quoted) - according to the Wright Field Aircraft Evaluation report. Using these figure the numbers come out a little different:

Bf-109F4

Power-to-weight ratio: 0.64 hp/kg

Wingloading (Kg pr Sq.m): 125.4 kg/m-sq.

Spitfire Mk.V

Power-to-weight ratio (Hp pr Kg): 0.66 hp/kg.

Wingloading (Kg pr Sq.m): 107 kg/m-sq.

However these figures are misleading, for more reasonable figures we have to use the normally loaded weights, 2812 kg (6200 lbs) for the Bf109F-4 and 2926 kg (6450 lbs) for the Spitfire VB. From these figures we get:

Bf-109F4

Power-to-weight ratio: 0.50 hp/kg

Wingloading (Kg pr Sq.m): 161.6 kg/m-sq.

Spitfire Mk.V

Power-to-weight ratio (Hp pr Kg): 0.52 hp/kg.

Wingloading (Kg pr Sq.m): 136 kg/m-sq.

So if we don't play with the numbers, the numbers tell a totally different story don't they?

=S=

Lunatic

 

[Soren]

So if we don't play with the numbers, the numbers tell a totally different story don't they?

=S=

Lunatic

Too bad i didnt play with the numbers.

I tend to find the German specification more accurate.

The Bf-109F4 weighed exactly 1970 kg *Empty*. (Guess the U.S. forgot to strip the last 20mm ammo-belt )

Oh and btw, you forgot the Bf-109 has "Wing-slats", wich increases lift in turns with about 20-25%.

And about the 1350/1400 hp, well difference in testing i presume. The Russians rated it at 1350 hp.

 

[Anonymous]

So if we don't play with the numbers, the numbers tell a totally different story don't they?

=S=

Lunatic

Too bad i didnt play with the numbers.

I tend to find the German specification more accurate.

That is a laugh - German figures are known to often be estimates, not tested figures.

The Bf-109F4 weighed exactly 1970 kg *Empty*. (Guess the U.S. forgot to strip the last 20mm ammo-belt )

Well, that seems quite impossible. We know the F-4 weighed more than the F-2. I'm sitting here right now looking at a document titled

Kennblatt
fur Das Flugzuergmufter Bf 109
Bauriel F-1 und F-2 mit DB601 N Motor

See the attached chart (at bottom of this post) from the GERMAN document.

As you can see the "empty" weight is 2010 kg, and I'm not sure that includes guns, they may be part of the 238 kg on the next line. Empty weight under the US/British definition usually include standard armament such as guns, armor, other essential items such as O2 systems, and usually includes coolant and hydrolic fluid but not fuel and oil or ammo. Even assuming the 2010 kg figure includes guns, the 2182 KG figure seems the more reasonable figure to use for the -4, after all we know the -4 was more than 150 kg heavier than the -2.

I cannot really read the table and it is too distorted for me to try to use translation software, perhaps someone here can translate it?

Besides, the normally loaded weights are what matters anyway.

Oh and btw, you forgot the Bf-109 has "Wing-slats", wich increases lift in turns with about 20-25%.

Where do you come up with 20-25%. I believe the figure is more like 8-10%, and they were only useful in very low speed turning. But they were a clear disadvantage in high speed combat because one of them could spontanously deploy in a high speed turn or accelearated stall forcing the pilot into a recovery manuever. Some Luftwaffe' pilots liked the slats, some did not, usually this depends on when they flew the 109 - early in the war they generally liked them, late in the war they didn't. Their value in 1941+ combat is highly questionable. I find it amazing the plane did not have a manual overide preventing spontanous slat deployment (like the La7).

I also failed to mention the 35% range advantage of the Spitfire - far more significant than slats!

And about the 1350/1400 hp, well difference in testing i presume. The Russians rated it at 1350 hp.

I thought you were using German documents? Well, I've given the better of the two figures, so you have no complaint on that issue right?

=S=

Lunatic

 

[Soren]

That is a laugh - German figures are known to often be estimates, not tested figures.

Its their aircraft, they tested it the most, they know the plane the most. (I will be damned if your telling me the U.S. knew the 109 better than the Germans !) And wich German tests have you come across that were *estimated* ?

Well, that seems quite impossible. We know the F-4 weighed more than the F-2. I'm sitting here right now looking at a document titled

Kennblatt
fur Das Flugzuergmufter Bf 109
Bauriel F-1 und F-2 mit DB601 N Motor

See the attached chart (at bottom of this post) from the GERMAN document.

As you can see the "empty" weight is 2010 kg, and that clearly means no guns installed. It appears that 25 kg are accounted for the MG17's and 100 kg for the 20mm motor cannon (this seems high but when you factor in the charger, drum, and mountings... maybe its reasonable?). Empty weight under the US/British definition usually include standard armament such as guns, armor, other essential items such as O2 systems, and usually includes coolant and hydrolic fluid but not fuel and oil or ammo. In order to be comparing apples to apples, the 2182 KG figure seems the more reasonable figure to use, after all we know the -4 was more than 150 kg heavier than the -2.

I cannot really read the table and it is too distorted for me to try to use translation software, perhaps someone here can translate it?

All the sources i have either qoute it as weighing 1950, 1964 or 1970 kg *Empty*. Russian test figures are 1964 kg for Empty aircraft, German figures 1970 kg.

Besides, the normally loaded weights are what matters anyway.

Sure but what weighes the most, 2x20mm and 4x7.7mm Machine guns, or 1x20mm and 2x7.9mm machine guns ? (Simple really )

Where do you come up with 20-25%. I believe the figure is more like 8-10%, and they were only useful in very low speed turning.

And where does that assumption come from ?!

A full-Wing-slat configuration gives you about 50-60% more lift (Learned that when i toulk my Flying license), and compined with Flaperons you can get 100% more lift.

The Wing-slats on the F-4 fill aprox. 40% of each wing, and will provide aprox. 25% more lift. (If not more)

Mark Hanna quotes the Wing-slats as being extreemly useful below 300mph. (Except there would be a slight *Bump* when they activated)
And he flew the G-6 btw, a much heavier variant, and the most sluggish one to.

But they were a clear disadvantage in high speed combat because one of them could spontanously deploy in a high speed turn or accelearated stall forcing the pilot into a recovery manuever. Some Luftwaffe' pilots liked the slats, some did not, usually this depends on when they flew the 109 - early in the war they generally liked them, late in the war they didn't.

Do you have quotes on that ?

The wing-slats were excellent for angle fighting at slow-moderate speeds. At high speeds, well, I've got not a single German report on them being a problem, do you ? ("Novice pilots tended to be thinking they should back off their turn when they deployed", as described by Galland, but really it was just a booster to turn-performance)

Also if the wing-slats were so bad, then why did 1950's jets use them ? F-86 Sabre for example.

I thought you were using German documents? Well, I've given the better of the two figures, so you have no complaint on that issue right?

RG i tend to look on the broader side of things, and not only rely on a single source. And no there's no complaint from me, im just trying to deliver the right numbers.

 

[Anonymous]

That is a laugh - German figures are known to often be estimates, not tested figures.

Its their aircraft, they tested it the most, they know the plane the most. (I will be damned if your telling me the U.S. knew the 109 better than the Germans !) And wich German tests have you come across that were *estimated* ?

A. Williams and E. Guston have stated that most late war German documents quote "estimated peformance" as tested performance. The Germans simply didn't want to try to take a plane up to test it after about mid-1944. Even before that, estimated performance figures were often used, but in the last year of the war it was the rule, not the exception.

Well, that seems quite impossible. We know the F-4 weighed more than the F-2. I'm sitting here right now looking at a document titled

Kennblatt
fur Das Flugzuergmufter Bf 109
Bauriel F-1 und F-2 mit DB601 N Motor

See the attached chart (at bottom of this post) from the GERMAN document.

As you can see the "empty" weight is 2010 kg, and that clearly means no guns installed. It appears that 25 kg are accounted for the MG17's and 100 kg for the 20mm motor cannon (this seems high but when you factor in the charger, drum, and mountings... maybe its reasonable?). Empty weight under the US/British definition usually include standard armament such as guns, armor, other essential items such as O2 systems, and usually includes coolant and hydrolic fluid but not fuel and oil or ammo. In order to be comparing apples to apples, the 2182 KG figure seems the more reasonable figure to use, after all we know the -4 was more than 150 kg heavier than the -2.

I cannot really read the table and it is too distorted for me to try to use translation software, perhaps someone here can translate it?

All the sources i have either qoute it as weighing 1950, 1964 or 1970 kg *Empty*. Russian test figures are 1964 kg for Empty aircraft, German figures 1970 kg.

Well, I've just given you a primary source document, a German one at that, which clearly shows an empty weight of 2010 kg for the Bf109F-2. This clearly implies the tested weight of 2182 kg for the -4 is the true figure.

Besides, the normally loaded weights are what matters anyway.

Sure but what weighes the most, 2x20mm and 4x7.7mm Machine guns, or 1x20mm and 2x7.9mm machine guns ? (Simple really )

Which is irrelevant since both weights include guns, ammo, fuel, and oil.

Where do you come up with 20-25%. I believe the figure is more like 8-10%, and they were only useful in very low speed turning.

And where does that assumption come from ?!

A full-Wing-slat configuration gives you about 50-60% more lift (Learned that when i toulk my Flying license), and compined with Flaperons you can get 100% more lift.

The Wing-slats on the F-4 fill aprox. 40% of each wing, and will provide aprox. 25% more lift. (If not more)

The amount of increased lift is totally dependant on the specific design of the slats, not just their length w.r.t. the wing. Based upon the change in stall speed figures, the 109 leading edge slats increased lift by about 10%, enough to decrease stall speed by about 10 mph.

Mark Hanna quotes the Wing-slats as being extreemly useful below 300mph. (Except there would be a slight *Bump* when they activated)
And he flew the G-6 btw, a much heavier variant, and the most sluggish one to.

That's absurd, the slats didn't come out anywhere near 300 mph, except one by accident in a high speed turn or accelerated stall.

But they were a clear disadvantage in high speed combat because one of them could spontanously deploy in a high speed turn or accelearated stall forcing the pilot into a recovery manuever. Some Luftwaffe' pilots liked the slats, some did not, usually this depends on when they flew the 109 - early in the war they generally liked them, late in the war they didn't.

Do you have quotes on that ?

The leading edge slats on the 109 pop out automatically, somewhere just above stalling speed, so they were useless below 300 mph until you got down to about 125 mph or so (I'd have to look up the exact speed of deployment). Numerous 109 pilots have stated that one flap could deploy in high speed turns or acceleated stalls. You wanted a quote...

Q: The plane it had these wing slats and you mentioned they pop open uneven?
A: Two meter slots on fore wings. The reason was to increase the lift during low speed take off and landing. To reduce the length of runway you need. In the air, if you make rough turns, just by gravity, the outer slot might get out. You can correct it immediately by release of stick, you know? Only little bit, psssssssht, its in, then its gone. You have to know that. And if you know it, you prevent it.
Q: Did you use this extra lift from the slats in combat?
A: Not at all. ... (he goes on to talk about the usefulness of the slats for taking off from short runways and stuff).
- Gunther Rall Interview
http://www.virtualpilots.fi/hist/WW2History-GuntherRallEnglish.html#start

In the BoB, turning until you were on the edge of a stall was common, so the slats probably helped some. But after that, combat speeds moved up and they were no longer very useful, and sometimes even detrimental.

The wing-slats were excellent for angle fighting at slow-moderate speeds. At high speeds, well, I've got not a single German report on them being a problem, do you ? ("Novice pilots tended to be thinking they should back off their turn when they deployed", as described by Galland, but really it was just a booster to turn-performance)

See above. There are others too, but it's too late for me to look for the page with all the pilot interviews on it. Some liked the slats, some did not.

Also if the wing-slats were so bad, then why did 1950's jets use them ? F-86 Sabre for example.

You're not seriously comparing hydrolically actuated leading edge slots on the F-86 to the automatically actuated slats on the 109 are you? Surely you can see there is a huge difference.

I thought you were using German documents? Well, I've given the better of the two figures, so you have no complaint on that issue right?

RG i tend to look on the broader side of things, and not only rely on a single source. And no there's no complaint from me, im just trying to deliver the right numbers.

Well, if that is the case then you should accept the numbers I've given. Both the German document I've referenced and the US/British document figures jive. That is pretty convincing. Perhaps you will reveal the source of the empty weight figures you are presenting? Are they primary source documents or data from someone's web page?

=S=

Lunatic

 

[Soren]

Here we go Wing-slats:

Now you see how they work ?

The Wing-slats on the Bf-109 would deploy even at 300mph, but only in tight turns, because as you can see it provides more lift when at an angle of aprox.30 degree's. =Advantage

About spontanously deploying in tight turns, well, hey thats what they were made for. (The F-86 Sabre's wing-slats worked the same when deployed, but they didnt do it automatcily IIRC)

And about my sources, well they are books wich are based on documents: Messerschmitt Bf 109 Recognition Manual, Messerschmitt Bf 109: Luftwaffe Fighter (Living History , Vol 5). (Just to name some)

Russian books and test figure's highly agree with these numbers aswell.

My sources states (They are all very similar):

The Bf 109 F.2/Z had GM-1 power boosting equipment, and the Bf 109 F-2/Trop was a tropicalized version for use in North Africa. Both the Bf 109 F-1 and Bf 109 F-2 production models were intended to have the Daimler Benz DB 601 N engine of 955 kW (1355 HP), but delivery delays had necessitated the installation of the Daimler Benz DB 601 N, and was not until the Bf 109 F-3 appeared on the production lines early in 1942 that the Daimler Benz DB 601 E was installed. With this engine the Bf 109 F-3 could attain a maximum speed of 628 km/h (390 mph) at 6700 m (22000 feet). Normal cruising range was 710 km (440 miles) at 500 km/h (310 mph) at 5000 m (16500 feet), and the service ceiling was 11300 m (37000 feet). Empty and max loaded weights were 1964 kg (4330 lb) and 2746 kg (6054 lb) respectively.

And

The Bf 109 F-4 had the engine-mounted 15 mm MG 151 cannon replaced by a 20 mm MG 151, and the Daimler Benz DB 601 E engine of 955 kW (1355hp) installed. The Maximum speed was 637 km/h at 5800 m (19000 feet), and with normal cruising speed of 509km/h (311 mph). Empty and max loaded weights were 1970 kg (4343 lb), and 2750 kg (6062 lb) respectively.


About the horsepower question, well its pretty much unexplainable, it seems both weight and horsepower is increased in your documents. (I suspect your weight numbers are for the F-1 'only')


Also from the site you quoted:

And we were young, untrained, unexperienced group (Said by Günther Rall) And as explained by Galland ("Novice pilots tended to be thinking they should back off their turn when they deployed", as described by Galland, "but really it was just a booster to turn-performance)

Have you read the book "Fighter" ? There's a good explanation about this in that book.

 

[Anonymous]

I'll address the rest of it later...

As for the weight figures, the F-1 was lighter than the F-2, which was lighter than the F-4. You are wanting to use non-primary sources over a primary source document - this makes NO SENSE!

 

[Soren]

As for the weight figures, the F-1 was lighter than the F-2, which was lighter than the F-4.

IIRC the F1 weighed more than both the F-2 and F-4, it also had the 20mm MG-151.

About wingloading:

Lower wingloading does not automatically equals better turn rate, it is more a factor of actual liftloading. Depending on the wing`s design, it may develop more or less lift. As it stands, the P-51D had laminar flow wings, which lowered the drag, but this came at the cost of lower lift, especially under high G loads. The 109 had a conventional wing and was equipped with automatic leading edge slats. These opened out at low speed or at high speed under high G loads, and restored to airflow (=lift) which would have been long separated otherwise due to turbulance. That`s why it become so common on modern jets. This seems to be supported by the AFDU`s test, where they pitted the higher wingloading FW 190A vs. P-51B, yet they found their turning performance basically identical. I`d like to add that 109s were generally found to be the better turning machines in all German and Soviet tests vs. 190s. Also, stall characteristics of the 109 were very gentle and forgiving with plenty of warning, as opposed to the P-51. This also helped the pilots to push their aircraft to the limits of stall. And this would also help the 109 very much in outturning a Spitfire.

And a quote from Erwin Leykauf, German fighter pilot, 33 victories.

"The Bf 109s also had leading edge slats. When the 109 was flown, advertently or inadvertently, too slow, the slats shot forward out of the wing, sometimes with a loud bang which could be heard above the noise of the engine. Many times the slats coming out frightenened young pilots when they flew the Bf 109 for the first time in combat. One often flew near the stalling speed in combat, not only when flying straight and level but especially when turning and climbing. Sometimes the slats would suddenly fly out with a bang as if one had been hit, especially when one had throttled back to bank steeply. Indeed many fresh young pilots thought they were pulling very tight turns even when the slats were still closed against the wing. For us, the more experienced pilots, real manoeuvring only started when the slats were out. For this reason it is possible to find pilots from that period (1940) who will tell you that the Spitfire turned better than the Bf 109. That is not true. I myself had many dogfights with Spitfires and I could always out-turn them.
One had to enter the turn correctly, then open up the engine. It was a matter of feel. When one noticed the speed becoming critical - the aircraft vibrated - one had to ease up a bit, then pull back again, so that in plan the best turn would have looked like an egg or a horizontal ellipse rather than a circle. In this way one could out-turn the Spitfire - and I shot down six of them doing it."

The Myth of the Spitfire always outturning the 109 is false. The myth is a case of "History is written by the victors"

 

[Anonymous]

I agree the 109E was a match for turning with the 109F. But the Spit IX clearly out-turned the 109G - even the German pilots admit this. If you really need, I'll find sources on this tommarow (I just got done with a St. Pat's day party and am beat).

As for the slats, I've never read a single account that indicates they were of use for anything but low speed turn fighting - NOT ONE! Such low speed turnfighting was common in 1940 and 1941, but after that, only fools allowed themselves to get slow - it just makes you an easy mark for a 2nd enemy pouncing you.

=S=

Lunatic

 

[Soren]

I agree the 109E was a match for turning with the 109F. But the Spit IX clearly out-turned the 109G - even the German pilots admit this.

Yes the "G-6 series" could be outturned by the Spitfire as it was the heaviest 109 variant, but not the G2-10-14. (Even the Russians admitted this, (Below))

But still the G-6 wasnt the 'Dog' it has been put out to be, and Mark Hanna quotes that he could easely outturn a P-51 in it, and that the roll rate was just as good and even better at some speeds compared to the P-51.

Interview with Major Kozhemyako, Soviet fighter ace.

"BF109 was very good, very high scale fighter plane. If was superior to our Yaks in speed and vertical combat. It wasn`t 100% superiority, but still. Very dynamic plane. I`ll be honest with you, it was my dream during my war years, to have a plane like this. Fast and superior on vertical, but that didn`t happen.
Messer had one extremely positive thing, it was able to be successful fight Yak`s at 2000m and Aircobras at 6000m. This is truly unique ability and valuable. Of course, here Yak and P-39 were inferior. As far as combat on different altitudes, BF109 was universal, like La-5.
Me109 was exceptional in turning combat. If there is a fighter plane built for turning combat , it has to be Messer! Speedy, maneuverable,(especially in vertical) and extremely dynamic. I can`t tell about all other things, but taking under consideration what i said above, Messerschmitt was ideal for dogfight. But for some reason majority of german pilots didn`t like turn fight, till this day i don`t know why.
I don`t know what was stopping them, but it`s definitely not the plane. I know that for a fact. I remember battle of Kursk where german aces were starting "roller-coaster" rides where our heads were about to come off from rotation. No, seriously... Is it true it`s a common thing now that Messer wasn`t maneuverable?
Interviewer: Yes.
Heh.. Why would people come up with something like this... It was maneuverable...by god it was."

And he is talking 1943 !

If you really need, I'll find sources on this tommarow (I just got done with a St. Pat's day party and am beat).

No need for it. I know who said it, and he is known for is pessimistic views on the Messer, even when almost all his pessimistic claims about the 109 were disproven by Heinrich Beauvais. We are ofcourse talking about Eric Brown.

As for the slats, I've never read a single account that indicates they were of use for anything but low speed turn fighting - NOT ONE!

Im very surprised to hear that !

The slats worked at ALL speeds, and contributed to increase lift in combat-turns by a considerable margin !.

The slats opened out at low speed or at high speed under high G loads, and restored airflow which would have been long separated otherwise due to turbulance= Greater lift in turns. (See the AoA chart a presented)

The auto-deployment of the slats was subject to extensive testing prior to WW2, and was found to be beneficial in ALL situations. The American F-86 Sabre was equipped with similar passive leading-edge slats.

Also usually whoever claims that slats caused problems ignore that slats were only "problematic" prior to the E models. However 'Dust' caused some problems for the 109's slats in Africa though, but pilots soon learned to cover them up when their airplane was on the ground.

Walter Wolfrum, German fighter ace. 137 victories, About the 109G and its wing-slats:

Unexperienced pilots hesitated to turn tight, because the plane shook violently at the moment when the slats deployed. I realised, though, that because of the slats the plane's stalling characteristics were much better than in comparable Allied planes that I got to fly. Even though you may doubt it, I knew the Bf109 could manouver better in a turnfight than LaGG, Yak or even Spitfire."

 

[Anonymous]

You can find specific pilot comments to assert almost any position on any plane. Unless the pilot is of particular stature, such as Gunther Rall or Galland, it's silly to keep posting chosen accounts. And your Russian pilot is talking about which Yak? The Yak-1 I would bet! The Yak-3 was superior in almost every catagory to the 109 below about 15,000 feet - so much so that the Luftwaffe' was ordered not to engage them below that altitude! And which 109?

As for the leading edge slats on the F-86, the pilot could control whether or not the would deploy. I'm not sure how much control there was, it may just have been the ability to lock them in the in position once they rectracted. As for how much lift they added, that depends on the specific wing design, you are trying to apply knowlege about another wing-slat application to the 109 which may or may not be valid. In general though, I know that wing slats help swept wings more than they do strait wings.

Again, I've never seen any comment by any German pilot that indicates the slats were useful for anything other than landing/takeoff and some who though they were useful for slow turning fights. Not one has said they were usefull for 300 mph combat. And that the 109 might out-roll a P-51 is almost funny - only at speeds below something like 200 mph could it do this - the P-51 simply was not made to fight that slow, so it's irrelevant.

=S=

Lunatic

 

[Soren]

You can find specific pilot comments to assert almost any position on any plane. Unless the pilot is of particular stature, such as Gunther Rall or Galland, it's silly to keep posting chosen accounts.

Well Galland said the same. (And Btw, Günther flew the G-6 series mostly !)

And your Russian pilot is talking about which Yak? The Yak-1 I would bet! The Yak-3 was superior in almost every catagory to the 109 below about 15,000 feet - so much so that the Luftwaffe' was ordered not to engage them below that altitude! And which 109?

That is an Urban myth, luftwaffe pilots were 'not' ordered not to engage them below 15,000 feet, if that was so then the luftwaffe pilots would have shot down absolutely nothing ! because on the Eastern front, 90% of all dogfights were below that altitude, and the Germans tended to win those Dogfights ! So that is absolute nonesense !

If the 109 was so unmaneuverable then how come in gave birth to so many German aswell as Finnish aces, who had more air-kills than any Allied pilot ?!

As for the leading edge slats on the F-86, the pilot could control whether or not the would deploy. I'm not sure how much control there was, it may just have been the ability to lock them in the in position once they rectracted. As for how much lift they added, that depends on the specific wing design,

There was a passive installation, wich would help the F-86 with its swept wing-designs flaw of low stability. I,ve heard there has been a automatic one aswell, but not sure, usually the jets could do without the extra drag.

you are trying to apply knowlege about another wing-slat application to the 109 which may or may not be valid.

No im not, I am just trying to tell that they work under the same principle ! But obviously you havent heard about the Handley-slots, and how they boosted turn performance and loops at all speeds.

I even gave you a chart on the 109's extra AoA with slats !

In general though, I know that wing slats help swept wings more than they do strait wings.

Yes because swept wings has stability problems, but thats all.

Again, I've never seen any comment by any German pilot that indicates the slats were useful for anything other than landing/takeoff and some who though they were useful for slow turning fights.

I just gave you some for christs sake !

Not one has said they were usefull for 300 mph combat.

Don't you understand how they work ?? They deploy when airflow hits the wing at certain AoA nomatter what the speed is, and also when speed is to low to prevent stall. (Didnt you see the chart ??)

They were ment to improve maneuverability, and you can go ask any F-4 Phantom pilot about that and he will tell you the same.

And that the 109 might out-roll a P-51 is almost funny - only at speeds below something like 200 mph could it do this - the P-51 simply was not made to fight that slow, so it's irrelevant.

Directly from Hanna's mouth:

Above 250 mph the roll starts to heavy up, and up to 300 or so is very similar to a P-51.

He has flown the P-51 MANY times, aswell as the 109G.

The 109G-6 wasnt the unmaneuverable plane everyone says it is !

Kyösti Karhila, Finnish fighter ace. 32 victories.

Two P-51 shootdowns with three-cannon Messerschmitt 109 G-6/R6:
"I got both in a turning battle, out-turning them. We did several times 360 degrees until he became nervous, then pulled a little too much. His plane "warned", the pilot had to give way a little and I was able to get deflection. When I got to shoot at the other one, the entire left side was ripped off.
- So you did several full circles, you must have flown near stalling speed. Did you fly with "the seat of your pants" or kept eye on the dials? What was the optimum speed in such a situation, it was level flight?
It was level flight and flying by "the seat of your pants". What should I say, I should say I was doing 250kmh and the Mustang must have more than 300kmh. That is why I was able to hang on but did not get the deflection.
- And you was flying a three cannon plane?
Yes, but I did fly another one as mine was under maintenance. It was the experience that counted. Experience helped to decide when you had tried different things.
- In which altitude did these Mustang dogfights take place?
It must have been about 2000m."

He did this in a 109G-6/R6 with Gun-pods !

 

[Anonymous]

Where you say "stability problems" for the F-86, you should say "low-speed stability problems". Once about 10 knots above stall, the slots were no longer needed.

Those kills are probably against novice P-51 pilots - there were a lot of them. A good P-51 pilot would never engage in that kind of turn fight against a 109.

As for the roll being similar to the P-51, that is pure crap. The P-51 roll was easy up to very high speed. And it was faster than the FW190 at about 360 IAS and beyond.

=S=

Lunatic

 

[Soren]

Where you say "stability problems" for the F-86, you should say "low-speed stability problems".

Still a stability problem. The swept wing had problems at slow speed, the leading edge slats solved this.

Once about 10 knots above stall, the slots were no longer needed.

Unless it turned, but only automatic slats would deploy in turns, not the passive ones. (IIRC the F-86 did have automatic slats in one of its models)

Those kills are probably against novice P-51 pilots - there were a lot of them. A good P-51 pilot would never engage in that kind of turn fight against a 109.

Offcourse, and all German pilots shot down were "Aces".

As for the roll being similar to the P-51, that is pure crap. The P-51 roll was easy up to very high speed.

I can see you don't know that the 'Aileron-problem' with the 109 was solved after the first G model. And btw be careful about what you call 'crap', Mark Hanna flew them both, and he knew what he was talking about !

And it was faster than the FW190 at about 360 IAS and beyond.

Are you trying to tell me that the P-51 rolled faster than the FW190 ??!!! Now that is crap ! Have you read the AFDU's test with the Fw-190 and P-51 ??

 

[Anonymous]

At about 358 IAS the P-51 and the FW190 roll about equally, above that speed, the P-51 has the advantage, the FW roll rate is declining sharply, the P-51 roll rate is delcining gradually. Also, the FW requires the full 50 lbs of stick force to achieve its roll above 350 IAS, where the P-51 could still be rolled with one hand. 50 lbs of stick force is not an easy think in the cramped cockpit of the FW.

=S=

Lunatic