Leonard "Kit" Carson's opinion of the Bf 109 and Fw 190

Discussion in 'Technical' started by Oreo, Jul 27, 2012.

  1. Oreo

    Oreo Member

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2008
    Messages:
    393
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Occupation:
    jobsite dumpster truck driver
    Location:
    South Carolina
    I found this excerpt from Kit Carson's work:
    The Best of the Breed: The Me-109 and Fw-190A

    This same assessment can also be found in his book "Pursue and Destroy."

    Can anyone who knows about the topics he described tell whether he was accurate in his assessment, or what? He also gives a detailed assessment of the P-51 in his book, as well as touching on other aircraft. I'd like to know how trust-worthy his comments are.

    One thing especially, does anyone know about the "60 lbs. of permanent ballast" in the tail of a Bf 109? I have never heard or seen anything mentioned about this from any other source.
     
  2. stona

    stona Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2009
    Messages:
    7,534
    Likes Received:
    948
    Trophy Points:
    113
    #2 stona, Jul 27, 2012
    Last edited: Jul 27, 2012
    I only skimmed through his assesments of the two aircraft and they broadly agree with (even paraphrasing) other allied reports.

    Yes,the Bf 109 E did initially carry permanent ballast in the rear of the fuselage. I'd have to check exactly when,but as the E-3/E-4 started to be produced with armour fitted the ballast was reduced or removed.

    Cheers

    Steve
     
  3. krieghund

    krieghund Member

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2006
    Messages:
    611
    Likes Received:
    21
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Occupation:
    Avionics Engineer Advisor to RSAF
    Location:
    Riyadh
    Here is the Datenblatt showing 25 kg of ballast in the tail
     

    Attached Files:

  4. davebender

    davebender Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2009
    Messages:
    6,418
    Likes Received:
    64
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Michigan, USA
    There used to be a web page which pretty well rips Kit Carson and his assessment apart.
     
  5. Shortround6

    Shortround6 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2009
    Messages:
    9,778
    Likes Received:
    802
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    retired Firefighter
    Location:
    Central Florida Highlands
    I would say the ballast issue is really a non-issue.
    Various Spitfires carried different amounts of ballast depending on engine and propeller. Later 109s used a piece of armor under the oil cooler to balance the part wooden tails (no tail ballast needed or wanted). I would be willing to bet that quite a few aircraft carried ballast in order to balance modifications. P-39s could not be flown with guns removed or without ammo unless ballast was used. 60lbs of ballast might not be any worse than a more "elegant" solution, like extending the fuselage ( more weight, more surface drag, better finesse ratio, different elevator and rudder response?) or trying to shorten the engine mount.
     
  6. stona

    stona Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2009
    Messages:
    7,534
    Likes Received:
    948
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I've just read the excerpt again. He really does paraphrase some other,earlier,reports almost word for word. You almost wonder whether he actually flew the aircraft himself :)

    The problem with these kind of reports is that they simply profess one person's opinion,clouded by all that person's bias and prejudice.
    Eric Brown's "assessments" of various aircraft from all sides provoke similar debate.

    Steve
     
Loading...

Share This Page