P-39 D Aircobra vs. Me-109

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

And the in the colder climate there were less problems with overheating.

On Il-2,
I hvaen't played online yet (waiting to get data the transfer to my new computer) I've only had it (1946 DVD) for about a year.

If you have more comments PM me. (also there's some interesting news on 1-C's developments in Aircraft of World War II - Warbird Forums - Search Results if you haven't checked it recently)

And back on topic.
 
And soren, I agree, but also the historical a/c library (in the game) does seem to match most of your figures, including maneuverability, and turn rate of the 109 and 190. (most are based on historical records, many Russian, and figures which were calculated are listed as such)


Of course, performance in actual game-play is another story. (though it's probably the most accurate and complex for a recreational PC simulater currently out there; though there are some strange things missing) But certainly not admisable as actual evidence in this type of discussion. (fun to try out the scenarios though )


And back on topic again.
 
drgondog said:
And does anyone want to do max rolls in an A-4 two or three times at 300 degrees/sec?
Click to expand...
Don't try it!! Three continuous max rate rolls in an A-4 will diverge you into an ass-over-teakettle tumble with compressor stalls, flameout, and 15K altitude loss if you manage to recover it. It's called roll divergence. This according to a training film we had at the NAS, which had some pretty impressive footage from testing at Pax River, both cockpit view and air to air.
I can vouch for an awesome roll rate. When my TA-4 pilot asked if I wanted to try some gentle maneuvering and suggested a gradual roll into a 60° bank, I took the stick and tried to comply. At the slightest nudge, we did a helmet-banging snap that was past inverted and reached 270° before he got it stopped. "You've never flown boosted controls, have you? You've got to get used to having no aerodynamic feedback. The controls on this thing feel the same at 150 knots as at 450. Takes a little getting used to."
Cheers,
Wes
 
Last edited:
Well-thought out, well-designed sims should get the relative performance right but a) most game designers don't have a significant aero background and b) it's difficult, if not impossible, to get sufficient accurate information on all the factors much beyond wing and power loading to consider game comparisons reliable.

Were somebody like Dave Lednicer and his former co-workers at AMI write an air combat sim, you may be able to trust the results, but you'd also be talking about several tens of thousands of hours of research, steady and unsteady CFD and aerostructural analysis, and several tens of thousands of hours writing and debugging code.
 

I highly doubt the P-63 "equaled" the Merlin Mustang...
 
The primary advantage the Mustang had over the P-63 was speed and acceleration at medium to high speed because of relative drag. For low to medium altitude performance/maneuverability the P-63 does out climb, out turn and out roll the P-51B/D. That said the two stage/two speed Allison version in the P-63 was outclassed by the Merlin 1650-3 and -7 at escort altitudes for US and not even worth discussing external range and payload. It was ideal for VVS operations.
 

I think quite a few people tend to forget that the relative performance of piston-engined aircraft is heavily dependent on altitude. It's really somewhat counter-intuitive as tuition is based on everyday life, and not many people are pilots or aerospace engineers.
 
Last edited:
FLYBOYJ said:
I checked out a cut away of an Fw - it seems that ailerons were actuated with push tubes. Again I'd like to find out about this aileron misadjustment - if it was true it was an easy fix.
Click to expand...
You don't suppose the "difficulty" might have been lack of documentation, special tools, or test jigs? Or a conceptually simple task made difficult by poor access or visibility?
Ever change the O-ring seals on Dunlop vs Goodyear pneumatic disc brake assemblies used on F-27s? Conceptually simple, and Dunlops are a piece of cake, but Goodyears are an unholy PITA! For those of you who haven't done this, (FBJ, SR6, Adler, I'm sure you know what I'm talking about), the Dunlops have separate simple round O-rings for each piston cylinder that drop right into their grooves and then you bolt the two HEAVY halves of the assembly together, torque, safety wire and you're done. Goodyears, on the other hand, use a single large serpentine gasket ring that snakes its way around the perimeter of the entire assembly following a too shallow groove which it refuses to stay in. The specs prohibit using any type of "goop" to anchor it in place and require that it be installed and under compression within one hour of coming out of the package, or be discarded. To top it off, the assembly halves don't even have alignment pins, specifying the use of a particular oddball size extra long drift tool in each bolt hole to align the (even heavier than Dunlop) halves together. If the gasket jumps the track while you're aligning the halves, it's considered pinched and you have to go get a new one and start over. (And get woken up tomorrow during your rest period by the Purchasing Manager wanting to know why you expended two gaskets on one job!)
"Simple" but not so easy. You all out there who haven't worked in aircraft maintenance get the picture?
Cheers,
Wes
 
Last edited:
XBe02Drvr said:
You don't suppose the "difficulty" might have been lack of documentation, special tools, or test jigs? Or a conceptually simple task made difficult by poor access or visibility?
Wes
Click to expand...
This would not surprise me but without the benefit of a manual in front of use, we'd just be speculating. It's funny though, I work with German built gliders (DG and Shemp-Hirth). Great aircraft but their maintenance and parts manuals leave a lot to be desired, a lot of guessing and missing items. I've found this with other German manufacturers as well. It seems that they assume the maintainer with "assume" certain tasks
 
BINGO! No wonder the "grunts in the field" cuss and fume over some of these procedures! I think the product support people in a lot of European, and especially German outfits assume their products will be maintained by factory trained specialists in white lab coats working in spotless well equipped shops. If they saw a bunch of filthy, exhausted, hungry, Corporals and Sergeants working under a bedsheet in the Russian steppes in winter, they'd be as aghast as the similarly dressed Dutch guys were who came over to NDT inspect the wing bolt pins when we D checked a couple of our Fokkers. We thought we had a clean shop, but they called it a pigpen, and insisted we enclose and (attempt to) climate condition their working area. They actually did work in white lab coats and insisted on short turn around laundry, since they only brought three suits each with them. They were aghast at our blue work uniforms which only got laundered once a week, and asked our DOM if he had any "real" certificated aircraft maintenance engineers onboard.
Turns out there was nothing special about the NDT process they used, and any local contractor could have done it. It's just that Fokker wouldn't certify any outside vendors except in Europe to do it. Apparently that's one of the issues that led to the split between Fokker and Fairchild. They could build the airplane, but they weren't allowed to do the wing bolts. (In addition to the infamous APU issue.)
Those Dutch guys kept asking where the "maintenance engineers" were. "You mean the mechanics?" "No, mechanics work on cars and motorbikes. You have to be a certificated Aircraft Maintenance Engineer to work on planes. We don't see any of those here. How do you get away with this?"
Culture clash, anyone?
Cheers,
Wes
 
Last edited:


Difference in language. One of the major problems with the Anglo-French Concord[e] was creating an Anglo-French glossary.
 
The P-39s that the Russians got (N&Q) were much superior to the D, F, K, L and P-400 that fought in the Pacific. Check the P-39N in wwiiaircraftperformance, especially climb. And the Russians lightened these planes by removing the wing guns and the IFF radio even further increasing the climb rate. The N and Q differed only in wing armament, so after the Russians removed that they were the same plane. Fully capable at all altitudes against the LW.
 

You do realise you are replying to an 11 year old post?
 

Just a thought. Pilots only take things out of aircraft if they need to, which if you think of the posting you made, say's rather a lot. Can you seriously think of any other airforce taking out the radios with all the advantages they give, unless they really had to.
 
The IFF was the transponder that identified the aircraft to ground based radar. The Russians not having a ground based radar network with plotting rooms this gear did little good (most Russian built aircraft not having IFF gear) so telling the P-39s from other Russian aircraft and German aircraft would have not simplified things much.
 


It is also quite possible that, in 1941 and 1942, Japan's air forces were better, in air-air combat than the Luftwaffe. Indeed, I think there is evidence that this is true: the Spitfire, P-39, and P-40 were more successful against the Luftwaffe than against the Japanese.
 
The Japanese had, until Dec 1941, been pretty much engaged in China (The Nomonhan incident being a bit over two years earlier) which gave the Japanese time to re-equip and rotate units. This allowed them to go to war with a well trained force and things went fairly well for them in the first few months so losses were not great, once losses exceeded the ability of the Japanese to train replacements the Japanese capability dropped quickly.

The Germans on the other hand had suffered losses in Poland, in France and the low countries and then the BoB. Granted it gave a lot of pilots experience but it also cost many more pilots than the Japanese had lost in China. German overall pilot quality may have been declining even before the North African and Russian campaign. Russian pilot quality being pretty poor in general. As always you have wide variations which make it hard to generalize but some accounts speak of Soviet pilots, even of long service, only getting 30 or so hours of flying per year in peace time.
The BoB/lean into France, North Africa and Russia also having different tactical situations. With fewer mass bomber attacks flying in the upper teens/low twenties for altitude there wasn't quite the race to 30,000ft there had been over Europe. Tactical mission were much more the order of the day (but certainly not exclusive)
and low/medium altitude planes could be used to advantage (although there was still an element of high cover on many occasions in NA).
The Japanese went to bombing from the hi teens and low twenties again with escorting fighters even higher and so altitude performance became more important in some areas.

Just some ideas, feel free to poke holes.
 
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
J
Yak-9U Vs Bf-109
Replies
0
Views
783
Jerrybandit67
J
S
Spitfire vs. Dora mass battle
2
Replies
31
Views
2K
spicmart
S
Z
Large gun Me 109
2 3
Replies
47
Views
3K
Engineman
E
M
P-39 Turbo - Here We Go Again
Replies
13
Views
2K
GregP
Menu
Log in
Register