Realistic max speeds WW2 fighters / Speeds of the late 109s

[parsifal]

No, not reasonable. Germany exited the war with roughly 6000 aircraft, give or take. The rest were lost. Where did they end up.


Your figures are not explaining this, and dodging the issue by trying to blame hitler, wont explain away the enormous hole in your set of numbers. A far more plausible explanation is that your numbers are either wrong and/or incomplete

 

[Ratsel]

scrapped man.. all the a/b/c/d/e/f's/g-1 through g-4s, were scapped/recycled/ coverted to trainers/ etc., same with most other RLM a/c's. Minus the ones shot down of course. point being, there gone. in the states, they produced what? 100,000,000 cars since day 1.. where did they go?

Blame Hitler? All I said was that psycho path killed himself. Trying to be funny. Guess it didn't work :/

 

[Tante Ju]

"Aeroelasticity" is a new one to me, but, if the Spitfire wing was so weak, how did 2nd TAF manage to hang a couple of 250lb. bombs under the wings of the IX, XVI XIV? As far as I remember the 109 could only carry a single bomb under the fuselage.

The gondola cannon 109 carried each weight 250 lbs.. about. How is this different from a 250 lbs bomb under each wing? And 109 was clear for manouver in this setup. I know that was variant of 109G with droptank under wing... 300 liter, each. Fuel is like - 0,70 kg / liter.. plus weight of tanks. So it is capable carry 500 lbs each wing.

You said about English tests runs.. I am sure they are made in good intent, but people of better knownledge this subject point out familiarity with 109 type was not great, and that plane captured was bad condition. Often case of captured plane I would say.

 

[parsifal]

scrapped man.. all the a/b/c/d/e/f's/g-1 through g-4s, were scapped/recycled/ coverted to trainers/ etc., same with most other RLM a/c's. Minus the ones shot down of course. point being, there gone. in the states, they produced what? 100,000,000 cars since day 1.. where did they go?

Blame Hitler? All I said was that psycho path killed himself. Trying to be funny. Guess it didn't work :/

At the end of the war, the allies scrapped approximately 6000 airframes, thats all the airframes you can attribute to scrapping at the end of the war. The rest were destroyed whilst hostilities were in progress. No significant "speed bumps" in 1945 to suggest a bonanza of aircraft destroyed by crews just before surrender. Losses were heavy and sustained throughout the war.


ill say it again, your figures dont add up, your excuse that hitler destroyed them doesnt wash, and now your claim that more than the known 6000 were destroyed at the end of the war is also falling down around your ears as well.

And for the record, you arent very funny either

 

[tomo pauk]

Yep, lets like tis post:

Mr GregP
1)I would suggest that perhaps you should study better the history of the arial warfare on the eastern front. the only reason VVS gained superiority was the withdrawl of the german fighter wings to the germany. JG52 ,JG 51, JG54 were the only fighter units in the east during the time frame you mention. Check their kill-losses ratio.
2)Hartmann was never shot down by fighter, Barkhorn was in May 44 (Surprised and badly wounded ) after nearly 1000 missions, Lipfert never in nearly 700missions ( 1943-45) BY FIGHTER
3)When the Soviets were ignoring the higher flying German , the result was that the germans simply bounced them ,scored victories , and climbed back at altitude again. Its the most basic fighter tactic of all times. What makes you believe that they did not use an altitude advantage.
4) No matter what the alleid test pilots said( Like the crude , unprofessional and misleading report posted above), no matter what modern pilots say ( who actually dont want to admit that they cannot fly the 109 as the operational pilots) , Bf 109 was capable to turn with late russian planes and if properly flown and properly built , outfight them.
5) Of course P39 could shoot down German planes. There were excellent rusiian pilots too, and P39s always enjoyed great numerical superiority.
6) LW never stoped operating on the eastern front. Fws, 109s, Me 262s even JU87 and Go 145 trainers!!! were flying against the asian hordes in 1945. Lipfert in early April 45 had orders to disband his unit and stop flying. He asked permission to continiue combat flying just becausae he had 199 kills. Do you think an terrifeid, outperformed,lier ,with an obselete aircraft , pilot would do such a thing ?
Luftwaffe in the east was overhelmed but not bitten !
7)German troops were not defeted by the Soviets, were crushed by the American people s superb productivity,.

Asian hordes? One can wonder what type of a propaganda (rasistic?) bull is one reading, to make such a statement.

As per 7) - it's so convenient to forget a sounding defeat during the Battle of Moscow, or a wholesale defeat of the 6th Army at the outskirts of Stalingrad.

 

[Ratsel]

At the end of the war, the allies scrapped approximately 6000 airframes, thats all the airframes you can attribute to scrapping at the end of the war. The rest were destroyed whilst hostilities were in progress. No significant "speed bumps" in 1945 to suggest a bonanza of aircraft destroyed by crews just before surrender. Losses were heavy and sustained throughout the war.


ill say it again, your figures dont add up, your excuse that hitler destroyed them doesnt wash, and now your claim that more than the known 6000 were destroyed at the end of the war is also falling down around your ears as well.

And for the record, you arent very funny either

Show me where I said Hilter detroyed the remaining aircraft. The only thing Hitler destroyed in the end was Germany.

Do you have figures on how many German a/c the russians destroyed after the war? In East Prussia/poland/hungary/austria/chez/yugoslavia/rumania? if you do please post.

You honestly think the Allies shot down all day fighters up to the mid-1943? rather then then the Germans scrapped/recycled/converted? if you do please post.

 

[Vincenzo]

many planes were loss/scrapped in not combat operations

 

[vanir]

I fear that you version has lost something in translation; taken from the file in the National Archives in London. "Nothing to choose between them" never appears.

My source was Alfred Price quoting the report. In point 48. "At normal speeds there is nothing in it" he has transcripted as "there is practically nothing to choose between the two aircraft"

It is a reasonable paraphrase, but I had thought he was making a direct quote. He should've mentioned he was paraphrasing.

He also specifies it was a G-2 used in the test. Is there more detail to this report in other pages perhaps? How could he specify that based on your reproduction, unless there is more? Either that or he's lying.

 

[Edgar Brooks]

The gondola cannon 109 carried each weight 250 lbs.. about. How is this different from a 250 lbs bomb under each wing? And 109 was clear for manouver in this setup. I know that was variant of 109G with droptank under wing... 300 liter, each. Fuel is like - 0,70 kg / liter.. plus weight of tanks. So it is capable carry 500 lbs each wing..

You are (deliberately?) missing the point; the remark was made that the Spitfire wing flexed too much, making manouevring unsafe. This forgets (ignores) that the 109 carried only a single .303" gun in each wing, while the Spitfire I could carry 4 x .303" (87 lbs,) later the IX carried 2 with 1 20mm cannon (150lbs) all outside the propeller arc, and, when rewired, could also carry a 250 lb bomb. Even Malta Spitfire Vs, some with 2 cannon and 2 .303" (260lb) could carry 250lb bombs to Sicily, under their wings. With all that weight, they were still cleared for combat, so how was the 109 wing so much stronger?

You said about English tests runs.. I am sure they are made in good intent, but people of better knownledge this subject point out familiarity with 109 type was not great, and that plane captured was bad condition. Often case of captured plane I would say

I've read Hans-Werner Lerche's book on flying and testing captured Allied aircraft, and he and his colleagues managed to evaluate airfrrames (some severely damaged) without having recourse to manuals; you seem to be implying that Allied test pilots, some with many hours of test flying and combat experience, did not possess equal competence to deal with strange aircraft.

It is a reasonable paraphrase, but I had thought he was making a direct quote. He should've mentioned he was paraphrasing.

He also specifies it was a G-2 used in the test. Is there more detail to this report in other pages perhaps? How could he specify that based on your reproduction, unless there is more? Either that or he's lying.

The tests were on the Tempest versus a Tyhoon, Spitfire XIV, Mustang III, Fw190 the 109G; there are six pages, four of which deal with differences from the Typhoon, and, with the best will in the world, I'm not putting that little lot on here. I really think "lying" is a little strong, after all we don't know if Price saw the original handwritten (probably) report; my copy came from the version sent to the Air Ministry. Files sent to Kew are held, closed to viewing, for a minimum of 25 years from when they're presented, so it's anyone's guess where his information came from.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Folks, do understand that many captured aircraft evaluation reports are poorly written by today's standards. AFAIK there was no real formal "Test Pilot School" anywhere in the world prior to 1943 that had a standard curriculum and formal training. Some test pilots during that period had a background in engineering, some didn't and had more balls then brains, some were very good stick and rudder men and in many situations just described what they experienced to an engineer who would make final evaluations (Tony LeVier and Kelly Johnson were famous for having verbal exchanges when Tony became Lockheed's chief test pilot). AFAIK the Brits were the first to set up a formal test pilot school in 1943, USAAF in 44 and the USN in 1945.

 

[Edgar Brooks]

AFAIK the Brits were the first to set up a formal test pilot school in 1943,

Spot on; the "Test Pilots' Flight" (one Wing Commander + one technical officer) assembled in May, 1943, with the first 13 students arriving in June. It was renamed Test Pilots' School soon after, and became the Empire Test Pilots' School in early 1944. They were helped by A AEE and RAE Farnborough, and there were other organisations like the Air Fighting Development Unit and Fighter Interception Unit, which weighed in.

 

[davparlr]

Folks, do understand that many captured aircraft evaluation reports are poorly written by today's standards. AFAIK there was no real formal "Test Pilot School" anywhere in the world prior to 1943 that had a standard curriculum and formal training. Some test pilots during that period had a background in engineering, some didn't and had more balls then brains, some were very good stick and rudder men and in many situations just described what they experienced to an engineer who would make final evaluations (Tony LeVier and Kelly Johnson were famous for having verbal exchanges when Tony became Lockheed's chief test pilot). AFAIK the Brits were the first to set up a formal test pilot school in 1943, USAAF in 44 and the USN in 1945.

Thanks, this explains a lot. I suspected that flight test procedures were significantly different than now. I remember talking to flight test pilots and was taken aback by what they did mostly, fly with 3 degrees of left bank for 3 minutes, fly 3 degrees of right bank for three minutes, fly 5 degrees of left bank for 3 minutes, fly ......etc, etc. This was certainly not the image I had of flight test. However, I did see some F-5 stall test videos where the aircraft was tumbling end over end, something you don't see very often.

 

[parsifal]

Show me where I said Hilter detroyed the remaining aircraft. The only thing Hitler destroyed in the end was Germany.

Do you have figures on how many German a/c the russians destroyed after the war? In East Prussia/poland/hungary/austria/chez/yugoslavia/rumania? if you do please post.

You honestly think the Allies shot down all day fighters up to the mid-1943? rather then then the Germans scrapped/recycled/converted? if you do please post.

I see that you have posted what are close to total Russian losses for basically everything that flies (less than what Krivosheev says, but more than just their fighter losses), but have elected to post some of the losses for fighters for the LW. how is that a comparable series of numbers?, especially when it is considered that more than half the Soviet losses were due to ground fire. For that period of the war after Kursk, there were not enough German fighter formations to make that much of a difference really....the main defenders of the german ground forces were its flak units, at least after Kursk.

I have the figures on Russian aircraft destroyed after the war, but aircraft destroyed in say Rumania (just to look at one of the countries you mentioned) would have had to have been lost before the end of hostilities. Many German aircraft were destroyed on the ground, many could not move for lack of fuel. However these aircraft were not destroyed after the war, or even close to the end of the war. Figures given by the sources previously quoted, as well as people like hayward Bergstrom and Murray the good colonel clearly show that was not the case. The germans were basically losing aircraft as fast, or faster than they could produce them. And if the destruction was on the ground, or in the air, whether it was by German demolition teams or by advancing Russians, is irrelelvant. if it was lost during the war, it doesnt matter how, or by whom....it was a loss suffered on the eastern front, because of actions taken by the soviets (either direct or indirect....it doesnt matter...a loss is a loss is a loss)

Your original post was that the a germans were not monstered by the Soviets, and losses were only relatively light. Your figures as they turn out are allegedly only for fighters, which is a misleading response to the original position taken by GregP, and ap[pear to be only for losses suffered in the air. Even these figures are at odds, and significantly lower than those given by caldwell, as posted by Milosh. And finally, the figures you quote dont include non-operational losses, which were staggeringly heavy on the Eastern Front. Whilst I agree that the Soviets did not get the better of the LW fighters, it did inflict a lot of losses on the LW, far more thasn you are posting, and, more to the point, the eastern front, with all its environmental hardships, did get the better of the LW overall. The east front played an important part in the demise of the LW, and posting partial loss figures for one arm of the LW whilst in the same post listing nearly the total losses for their oppoents is just propagandising the information.

You need to shoot straighter and answer the questions, like how many German aircraft were lost, not a select sample of some of the fighters lost compared to the total losses for the Soviets, so that comparability is built into your figures.

 

[Ratsel]

"You need to shoot straighter and answer the questions, like how many German aircraft were lost, not a select sample of some of the fighters lost compared to the total losses for the Soviets, so that comparability is built into your figures."

this is a ME 109 thread is it not? If it was about German bombers, I'd post stats for that. Point being, your also not looking at the whole picture of what happened in Germany.

"And if the destruction was on the ground, or in the air, whether it was by German demolition teams or by advancing Russians, is irrelelvant"

it IS very relelvant, as you asked " what happened to all the aircraft ". I gave you the answer on what happened to most that was not shot down.

 

[pbfoot]

Do me a favour Ratsel . I hve been told by reputable sources that a manual for German pilots was not easily accessable to the pilots . I'm given to understand that the rather then using a manual and to quote this particular Experten the the flight charecteristics were beat into their head in class . I've had the opportunity to talk more then a few pilots that are either current on type or flew the thing back when . As a matter of fact the 109 I was associated with had no manual at all and it is a flyer

 

[bobbysocks]

7)German troops were not defeted by the Soviets, were crushed by the American people s superb productivity,.

yes the american industrial might and the fact that it was able to operate at maximum output without impunity accounted greatly in the war's out come. BUT so did the soviet industrial might and man power. being beyond the reach of Lw ac they cranked out tanks and ac at a staggering rate...hell, they even were still making tanks in stalingrad while the city was under seige! hartmann claimed ( in an interview) they were out numbered 20:1 on the eastern front...30:1 in romania. the last time the LW was able to mass ac for a major strike was against the american bombers in russia during the second ( or third ) shuttle mission. other than that they were stretched horribly thin over a very long front to the point of almost being ineffectual. also hartmann, by his own admission, only picked fights he could win....if he didnt have the upper hand he did not engage. read his quotes and theories. the other thing you have to remember is that the soviet philosophy ( and communist doctrine ) was the end justifies the means. individuals were expendable for the greater good. in the battle of stalingrad troops were sent into battle with only 5 rounds of ammunition and expected to scavange a rifle and more ammo from a dead comrade. their aircraft ( some of the IL models excepted ) were not armored as heavily as german ac. the reduced armor ( just as with the jap zero ) meant 2 things...some better flight characteristics but easier kills. that didnt matter to the soviets because they could replace pilots and aircraft quicker than the LW could. they knew it was a war of attrition and went about bleeding germany as dry as they could. what seriously aided the soviets was the continuation of large daylight deep raids but the american AF...which tied up a lot or LW ac for home defense...and the opening of the western front in france on D-Day. now pressed from 3 sides they german resources were maxed out. the germans were out produced, out manned, out fought...its as simple as that. like was said before...they bit off way more than they could chew. to say they were not beaten by the soviets....who else defeated them at moscow, kursk, stalingrad, berlin, etc?

 

[Ratsel]

Do me a favour Ratsel . I hve been told by reputable sources that a manual for German pilots was not easily accessable to the pilots . I'm given to understand that the rather then using a manual and to quote this particular Experten the the flight charecteristics were beat into their head in class . I've had the opportunity to talk more then a few pilots that are either current on type or flew the thing back when . As a matter of fact the 109 I was associated with had no manual at all and it is a flyer

whats the favor?

 

[pbfoot]

whats the favor?

Did the LW pilots have flight manuals

 

[parsifal]

"You need to shoot straighter and answer the questions, like how many German aircraft were lost, not a select sample of some of the fighters lost compared to the total losses for the Soviets, so that comparability is built into your figures."

this is a ME 109 thread is it not? If it was about German bombers, I'd post stats for that. Point being, your also not looking at the whole picture of what happened in Germany.

"And if the destruction was on the ground, or in the air, whether it was by German demolition teams or by advancing Russians, is irrelelvant"

it IS very relelvant, as you asked " what happened to all the aircraft ". I gave you the answer on what happened to most that was not shot down.

I agree its a Me 109 thread, but our sub-discussion arose because of your erroneous claim at Post 186, where you claim roughly 30000 Soviet Aircraft lost in exchange fopr perhaps 5000 german. At that point you did not mention that your losses were toal losses for the Soviets (including lossses sustained on the ground) whilst your german losses were for airborne fiighters only. That is not a valid comparison and it took some time and cajoling to get a clarification out of you . Plus it is based on claimed losses, which are notoriously inaccurate for all sides.

"And if the destruction was on the ground, or in the air, whether it was by German demolition teams or by advancing Russians, is irrelelvant"

it IS very relelvant, as you asked " what happened to all the aircraft ". I gave you the answer on what happened to most that was not shot down.

You didnt give me an answer, you gave me an unsupported opinion, which is different. My statements are based on veriviable source material, and therein lies the difference

It would be beneficial to your claims if the aircraft destroyed on the ground were simply dismantled postwar. However, the numbers captured after surrender and destroyed after surrender don't add up to 94000. They add up to 6000. Your posts are implying that more than 6000 survived the war and were destroyed after the surrender. That is not correct. You've asked me to provide veriable sources. I have done that. You have not

 

[Ratsel]

Did the LW pilots have flight manuals

of course, you can find them on the net. I have two, one in German one in English translation. Whether they refered to them all all, I suspose so.