Me-109 elevators

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

Flyboy, they can take all the shots at me they want.

If it makes them feel better, so be it. I'll just drink my Budweiser and shake my head at them. Maybe they didnt read the part "I didnt write it".
 
After reading this thread, my take would be that all discussion over which plane is better would be concerned with; what are the pilot's abilities, what are his tactics (or team tactics, to muddy the waters further), and what is the current tactical situation? That being said, let's determine a clinical test of superiority. Two equal pilots, neither one at an advantage, both spotting each other at the same time, and then you have the issue mentioned previously, which is which plane works better at what altitude, etc. Over 25,000 ft I'd go with a 109K, but if you include the 190D, I'd have to go with that. So after all this rhetoric, which plane is better? The one with the better pilot.
 
You're right, the days I saw it fly, if it was taken over 250 knots I would of been surprised...

syscom3 said:
Flyboy, they can take all the shots at me they want.

If it makes them feel better, so be it. I'll just drink my Budweiser and shake my head at them. Maybe they didnt read the part "I didnt write it".
Click to expand...
I'm with ya dude, but stay away from that budwiser - it will make your face do funny things!!!
 
Syscom3- we're not killing the messenger here. We realize some dickhead fixated on engineering details of one component of one aircraft is attempting to construct an agenda that "proves" something in a far-reaching way. It's gimme and inch and I'll take a mile.

The P-47 vs the P-39 at 27,000 feet is simply a scenario that does not make any outcome a cinch as everyone thinks. What if the P-47 is bounced by the P-39? Will the P-47 shrug off a couple 37 mm rounds and guarantee victory? Engine performance alone is insufficient to tip the scales. What about weapon weight of fire? Does that factor in?

I stand by the statement "skilled pilots have a vast reportoire of moves they can make in combat which prove no ascendency over the enemy in every application of those moves." Pilots of "equal skill" have many moves none of which is decisive alone or vastly superior to many others. Choosing the sequence and type of manuevers will vary from situation to situation.

This fantasy of "2 equal pilots beginning a combat in neutral positions" is silly. We are attempting to pervert the essence of air combat into a sporting event. This is patently wrong and impossible. 2 pilots meet head on, no advantage. What's going to happen is that each guy will make head on passes till one scores. Any pilots with "skill" will use energy fighter tactics and haul in the opposite direction until he is distanced from his foe to turn back. Neither is stupid enough to try to snap a turn 200 yards after they pass as they'd lose their speed and speed is life in combat.

If our P-39 and P-47 are involved who has the paper advantage? The P-47's weight of fire is higher than the P-39's but the P-49 cross section is far larger than the P-39 offering a much larger target. How do we calculate these factors into a fantasy equation?

The P-47's 8 .50s weight of fire equals 4.85 lbs. per second while a P-39 with 4 .50s and a 37 mm M4 produces 2.63 lbs. Translated to muzzle power in a killowatt-measured format the Jug puts out a muzzle force of 1,830 compared to 1,180 of the P-39. More yes but not overwhelmingly so. By comparison a Bf 109G with a 20 mm and 2 13mms puts out 2.32 lbs. with a muzzle power of 640.

Trading head on passes at 27,000 is how it would end up with our "equally skilled" pilots until one was lucky enough to hit hte other's plane. Because most certainly neither is dumb enough to commit to a turning fight. So we end up with a sterile contest that is no more challenging than a coin flip. I soone of 2 given fighters a better gun platform? Should that factor in?

I have tested and reviewed more combat sims of all sorts more than anyone here. I did it for a decade and can say, yes, flight sims have come a long way, but they are no replacement for cockpit time. Military flight simulators today are not Link Trainers of 1939 and Microsoft flight sims aren't either. In the old days you actually got in the cockpit and flew the damned plane. Links were for instrument training only not learning flight systems and combat maneuvering.

The anonymous emailer's stream of consciousness pondering what turned tighter the 190 or the 190 is just laughable since it is so esoteric relative to the vast scope of combat.

"Equal" pilots meeting in combat guarantees nothing. Even beyond skill is what maneuvers a pilot uses. It depends on the plane for one thing. Our 2 pilots know the same number of tricks yes but how and in what sequence they apply them would make variation. A series of manuevers prudent in one aircraft may not be in another so even these "equal" pilots have space to variation that cannot be measured or assigned arbitrarily by armchair imaginers.

These fairly tale contests we keep seeing pondered over are just that in concept- contests, not deadly life or death combat. "Who would win the P-38L or the P-51K, the Bf 109 or the FW 190?" is best left for flight sims. It just tarnishes the accomplishments of the real men that flew and fought in these machine when we reduce terms only worty of entertainment software.

Weenie eating is a contest not aerial combat.
 
Did the Link Trainer simulate G-forces? Yes or no?

Was it considered entertainment? Nope.

Analyzing performance data does not tarnish anything or anyone.

And yes, people have the right to discuss aviation without having to mention pilots every second word they write. They are important, but they are not supermen. And they are not engineers (at least most of them aren't).
They are not more important than engineers. And I don't think engineers are dickheads for making performance evaluations that allow them to build the machines flown by pilots. If they were, there wouldn't be many pilots alive today...

But if you really want to know what pilots thought about the Bf109, here's a very good article:

http://www.virtualpilots.fi/en/feature/articles/109myths/

Now, isn't it more sensible to confirm these accounts with performance data? I think it is.

And I haven't seen anyone claiming that home flight simulators are a replacement, or even get close to military flight simulators.
 
Twitch, the P39 and P47 behave in very predictable and repeatable ways at any altitude. All they are is some mathematical numbers that can be simulated any way you want. Whether its a home PC or a NASA super computer, as long as your using the correct aerodynamic tables and engine performace figures, your're going to be flying 'them" with a high degree of accuracy.
 
gaussianum said:
Did the Link Trainer simulate G-forces? Yes or no?
Click to expand...
No
While I agree to a point, the pilot's perspective has to be there, after all how else is the thing going to fly? Also consider that you may get different perspectives on the perfomance of the aircraft based on pilot ability...
YEP!!!
gaussianum said:
And I haven't seen anyone claiming that home flight simulators are a replacement, or even get close to military flight simulators.
Click to expand...
No but Syscom might somewhat argue that!!
 
Indeed FlyboyJ. However, technology is progressing so fast that future military pilots may well have to fly their planes with a screen and a joystick in front of them. That is if they're lucky, and are not replaced by these "babies":

http://www.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?fsID=175

But I'm sure it'll still be a while before that happens, at least 10 to 20 years, I guess.
 
Agree to a point....

I actually worked ont he first one before Ryan was bought out by Northrop. As you say, I think we're several years off, but at the same time I approach this technology very cautiously - I remember 40 years ago when many said there will never be fighters dogfighting ever again....
 
FLYBOYJ said:
.....I remember 40 years ago when many said there will never be fighters dogfighting ever again....
Click to expand...

One of the great technological predictions....."we dont need guns in the fighters anymore. Long range missles will do"
 
syscom3 said:
One of the great technological predictions....."we dont need guns in the fighters anymore. Long range missles will do"
Click to expand...
YEP!!! And within a few years the F4 had a centerline cannon - installed in the field!!!!
 

The first statement is not true in general. There has been the "dogfighting" type of pilot.

About the "Spitfire vs. 109" fight - Sim devs made it to: "dogfighter vs. BnZ plane" - : that was just not the case in WW2. I asked a friend (more than 1000 sorties in 109 and D9) several times about his dogfights vs. Spitfires: He just didn´t understand what I wanted to know - he never experienced anything like this and nobody ever told him about that during the war. For him the Spitfire was a good plane, but the fight was won by the better pilot. When he recognized, he was the better dogfighter, he continued the fight. When he realized the opponent was better, he did stick to his personal escape strategy (when no help came in time). He flew until the last days of the war.
 
Last edited:
flight sims are games, not simulators!

I play Cliffs of dover and HSFX mod 1946, it's folly to think you can learn anything about the abilities of the real aircraft from a game written by people who have never flown any of the aircraft they model!
what they can teach you is about team tatics and basic flight maneuvers, but best not to try and draw conclusions about aircraft prformance from them.
 

i play a few console "sims"....and the flight characteristics of the fighters are far from what i have heard first hand or read about. the russian developers ( my experience is in console only ) dummied down all the american fighters....actually they made the 109 a dream to fly...especially the G6 and K4 ( personal favorite is the G-2 ). of cource the best planes in the air are the later VVS...La5/7 and yaks. these are games and meant for fun...but what raises the hair on the back of my neck is a lot of these players...if they have no other aviation interest except gaming...think this was how the planes really flew. i constantly hear...oh this plane couldnt turn with that plane...or this was only used as a boom and zoomer....where as it was far from the truth. it was like you said these guys would mix it up..if they figured they were the better pilot, had the advantage, or had no other choice they pressed on....if they got over their heads they did their best to lose him to live and fight another day. they didnt have a "respawn" option...

Twitch...i recommend you read the reports on these 2 pages.....and find some books written BY LW pilots.....then tell me if there were real dogfights or not.

Mustang Encounter Reports

P-47 Encounter Reports
 
Last edited:
syscom3 said:
One of the great technological predictions....."we dont need guns in the fighters anymore. Long range missles will do"
Click to expand...

That goes with Spitfires don't need pilot armour (rear) because they are too fast for anything to get behind them.

Steve
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

Spitfire vs Me-109
Replies
3
Views
1K
PAT303
P
Z
Large gun Me 109
2 3
Replies
47
Views
3K
Engineman
E
S
Why did the Me 109 roll and turn so bad at speed?
5 6 7
Replies
134
Views
10K
GregP
S
Me 109 post K
Replies
4
Views
1K
fubar57
Bf 109 everything
2 3 4
Replies
63
Views
3K
special ed
S
Menu
Log in
Register