Some irony there - I understood that the successful adoption of the Fw190 was due in part to not using DB 601 and DB 605 engines, coveted by the Bf109.
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Some irony there - I understood that the successful adoption of the Fw190 was due in part to not using DB 601 and DB 605 engines, coveted by the Bf109.
Yep, as Steve mentioned, the Bf 109 had benign stall characteristics, interesting considering its wing loading; that was the benefit of the slats. Wing loading is arframe loaded weight divided by wing area and for the Bf 109 it was a higher figure for a relatively small airframe. This did have a tendency to scare inexperienced pilots, particularly on take-off; the '109 had a comparatively high take-off and landing speed to what the pilots in the late 30s were used to in the Luftwaffe, basically Fw 56s and He 51s, but the slats helped with flying handling at steep angles of bank. The high speeds on the ground was considered a disadvantage when the Bf 109 was being pitted against the He 112 during evaluation.
This is Eric Brown's account of stalling a Gustav;
"The stall with the aircraft clean, with half fuel load and the engine throttled right back occurred at 105 mph (168 km/h). This was preceded by elevator buffet and opening of the slats about 20 mph (30 km/h) above the stall, these being accompanied by the unpleasant aileron snatching as the slats opened unevenly. The stall itself was failry gentle with the nose dropping about 10 degrees. In the landing configuration the stall occurred at 99 mph (160 km/h) with identical symptoms apart from heavier elevator buffetting."
This an account by Dave Southwood a regular display pilot of Black 6 when it was flying;
"The idle stall characteristics are very benign and are affected little by undercarriage and flap position. Stall warning, which occurs at about 6 mph (10 km/h) above the stall, is given by a slight wing rock and the stick floatingright by about 2 inches (5 cm). The stall is characterised by a left wing dropb through about 15 degrees, accompanied by a light buffet. All controls are effective up to the stall and recovery is instant on moving the stick forward.
Stall speeds are 96 mph (155 km/h) clean and 87 mph (140 km/h) with undercarriage and flap down. In a turn with 2,300 rpm/1.15 ata [atmospheres] set, stall warning is given by a light buffet at around 3g and the stall occurs at about 3.5g with the inside wing dropping. Again, recovery is instataneous on reducing the pull force on the stick."
That sounds about right. One of the secrets to the Bf 109's longevity was that its basic structure changed very little throughout its ten year production, even in Spain and Czech. The Buchon was a Bf 109G-2 aft of the firewall. The Bf 109 was optimised for rapid mass production and ease of maintenance, which is what Willi had in mind. The fuselage for example would have required redesign and rebuilding of the jigs to produce a low backed version, whereas with the Spitfire the low back came at little change and could be done on the production line.
Structurally the Spit changed little after the Mk.V. Aft of the firewall, in almost every variant the centre fuse was the same from Frame 5, the firewall to Frame 19, the sloped bulkhead to which the tail attached. The Spit of course copuld receive new wings, new engines, new tailplane (and local strengthening for the necessities of naval use). The Bf 109 couldn't because of the design. The trapezoidal firewall supported the engine mounts, which were strengthened to take more powerful and heavier DB engines, but the engines themselves changed little in physical size, the DB 605 being the same dimensions as the DB 601. The undercarriage also was attached at the lower corners of the firewall, the wing spars bolted onto a frame aft of the firewall. Whilst this made the entire structure quite strong, it meant that there was little room for flexibility in terms of making changes to its basic design.
The undercarriage could be strengthened by making fatter legs, but because they retracted the way they did, it required redesigning the firewall, the epicentre of the Bf 109's structural strength in order to fit wings where the undercarriage folded inwards. All of this represents major changes on the production line. Another interesting point is that although in the Gustav weight creep was a serious issue and power out put was managed a bit to compensate i.e. GM 1, bigger supercharger and MW 50, the Gustav's wing area did not change at all compared to the Friedrich, which was much lighter.
Last edited:
- Thread starter
- #84
Since the aeroplane in question was built in 1938 the engine cannot have been 'captured' in any normal sense of the word.
Cheers
Steve
Shortround6
Major General
I believe there were two different radial engined 109 airframes. The First used a P &W Twin Wasp (R-1830) and the 2nd used the BMW 801.
DC-3s with Twin Wasp engines were first certified in Nov 1936 and while the first ones went to US airlines there were plenty that went overseas before the start of WW II. The single speed, single stage R-1830 was hardly on a "secrets list".
DC-3s with Twin Wasp engines were first certified in Nov 1936 and while the first ones went to US airlines there were plenty that went overseas before the start of WW II. The single speed, single stage R-1830 was hardly on a "secrets list".
- Thread starter
- #87
There were. The second BMW powered version first flew in September 1940. Unfortunately I'm not at home for a while so I can't give you the details of either the airframe or the engine, both of which I surely have
Cheers
Steve
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
Yes, the Bf109 V21 (E series airframe) had the P&W and was tested in August 1939. The second, Bf109X (F series airframe) had the BMW801 and was tested in late '41.
Posted on here some time ago about a German ace, he had many evasion gambits but the last most desperate he had to use a couple of times was to wait until the last possible second before he was shot at and then stall/change direction so he disappeared under his opponents nose out of sight and away. That must take real skill, cool and balls.
Even if all the planes are the same there are always some people better than others and can get that little bit more. Watch any F1 or Moto GP race and you can see it, even when the guys have identical machines there is almost invariably one faster than the other. You can watch those guys, study, train and practice as much as you like but you cant beat them, they just have something extra. I see top pilots in the same way.
buffnut453
Captain
The other factor that Biff alluded to that should be considered here are the relative tactics used. This thread has largely focused on 1-v-1 combat in which pilot ability clearly plays a significant role. However, tactics when considering many-v-many combat also should be considered. For example, the RAF's early war tight vic formations meant that 2 pairs of eyes were focused on the their leader and not scanning the sky for the enemy...not a good thing in a combat environment.
After the merge (in modern parlance), a many-v-many fight would rapidly dissolve into what each pilot would see as a 1-v-many scenario where he felt like the only friendly surrounded by adversaries. In this scenario, personal ability had a lot to do with whether that individual's aircraft was shot down or returned safely home but I wonder whether it significantly impacted the number of enemy shot down? BoB accounts are rife with comments along the lines of "suddenly there was an enemy in front of me so I took a quick squirt but then had to turn away because another enemy was on my tail". Perhaps the few who were getting all the kills were doing that much better but in a confused furball of 20+ fighters, and only the MkI eyeball as a sensor, I do wonder whether they were that much more situationally aware...or were they just luckier?
After the merge (in modern parlance), a many-v-many fight would rapidly dissolve into what each pilot would see as a 1-v-many scenario where he felt like the only friendly surrounded by adversaries. In this scenario, personal ability had a lot to do with whether that individual's aircraft was shot down or returned safely home but I wonder whether it significantly impacted the number of enemy shot down? BoB accounts are rife with comments along the lines of "suddenly there was an enemy in front of me so I took a quick squirt but then had to turn away because another enemy was on my tail". Perhaps the few who were getting all the kills were doing that much better but in a confused furball of 20+ fighters, and only the MkI eyeball as a sensor, I do wonder whether they were that much more situationally aware...or were they just luckier?
I think they started off above average and lucky then improved with time. In "The most dangerous enemy" Bungay described Bob Doe going from novice to ace, much of which he taught himself. It is one thing to say keep a lookout, he resolved to methodically and continuously scan all quadrants after being bounced but getting away with it.
The top guys at any activity always have more time and more awareness, with the German aces the simple fact that so many survived shows they have something special, same for the American aces prior to them going down low to straffe. However even in ground straffing there were techniques and gambits that could minimise losses, these were also made up by aces because of all their talents the most important is the will to live IMO.
Edgar Brooks
Senior Airman
The biggest problem for the Air Ministry/RAF in WWII was that the average pilot could not cope with deflection shooting; the likes of Tuck and Johnson, who were invited on grouse shooting parties, were used to the idea of leading their targets, and transferred that skill, naturally, to air fighting.
This was the reason for the refusal to introduce the .5" Browning, since it was little better than the .303" at penetrating German armour, and it was felt that four of the (faster-firing) latter had a better chance of hitting the pilot and disabling him than two of the other, slower-firing, type. When the gyro gunsight arrived in 1944, and gave the pilot a better-than-even chance of hitting what he aimed at, so the armament was changed.
It also pays to remember that pilots had no way of combatting G forces (one Norwegian pilot talks of reefing his Spitfire into a turn, and being able to see nothing except the cockpit floor; add in unheated and unpressurised cockpits, with the cold only being staved off by thick clothing and (maybe, if they worked) heated gloves, and it's little surprise that they were quickly worn out, and it was up to the CO to see the signs, and pull them off for a rest.
Pilots also didn't have the fitness regimes that they have today (the same Norwegian said how he was looked at as if he was barmy, when he and a friend would run round the camp every day.) PT was for the "other ranks," not officers, whose most strenuous exercise might be a game of cricket.
This was the reason for the refusal to introduce the .5" Browning, since it was little better than the .303" at penetrating German armour, and it was felt that four of the (faster-firing) latter had a better chance of hitting the pilot and disabling him than two of the other, slower-firing, type. When the gyro gunsight arrived in 1944, and gave the pilot a better-than-even chance of hitting what he aimed at, so the armament was changed.
It also pays to remember that pilots had no way of combatting G forces (one Norwegian pilot talks of reefing his Spitfire into a turn, and being able to see nothing except the cockpit floor; add in unheated and unpressurised cockpits, with the cold only being staved off by thick clothing and (maybe, if they worked) heated gloves, and it's little surprise that they were quickly worn out, and it was up to the CO to see the signs, and pull them off for a rest.
Pilots also didn't have the fitness regimes that they have today (the same Norwegian said how he was looked at as if he was barmy, when he and a friend would run round the camp every day.) PT was for the "other ranks," not officers, whose most strenuous exercise might be a game of cricket.
That is how it is always reported, I think it is strange snobbery. You do not have to shoot grouse to understand deflection shooting. Playing football you pass to where the player will be not where he is! Pilots should have been issued with shotguns and clay pigeons if that was the case. From what I have read the gunnery training in the RAF was poor and so it was mainly those who learned to shoot before joining that grasped what was required. You could also say that it was people who enjoyed killing animals for sport became good fighter pilots. I honestly believe this is revisionist, the RAF training was poor, so there was a post war consensus that only "grouse shooters" could become pilot aces.
As an counter argument to Tuck and Stanford I offer Adolph Malan certainly not an aristocrat no record of shooting grouse though I believe as a south african he shot a few animals. All I have read about him is that he hated the enemy and wanted to kill them, post war I believe he left the RAF in 1946 never flew again and went into politics.
Last edited:
bobbysocks
Chief Master Sergeant
actually pbehn they did have shotguns and clay pigeons...on us bases at least. my father told me for recreation they would sign one out and shoot skeet on and then...when they werent drinking in the officers club.
I have read that too about other pilots, as I said it could equally well be a liking of shooting to kill ....but that isnt so gentlemanly. Given a good gunsight and training, most allied pilots picked up deflection shooting. As I said I think it is a bit of revisionism instead of admitting training was rubbish it is much easier to say that only shooting grouse gives a pilot the skills required (dontcha know old chap and all that, what ho)
bobbysocks
Chief Master Sergeant
could be...there were some "city boys" who became aces...or at least shot EAs down.
I know, I imagine that most of the pilots in the volunteer squadrons shot grouse but few became aces. I have no idea how many VVS pilots shot grouse or even saw one. There is no doubt that pilot aces all had attributes in common, balance coordination great eyesight spatial awareness ...etc etc etc being able to shoot a bird maybe a demonstration of these attributes, being able to shoot a grouse was not the most important qualification on a prospective pilots CV. I believe Bob Doe shot rabbits (I must read the book again) but shooting rabbits doesnt fit with the "noble aristocrat" image. As I said it may well have been the ability to pull the trigger and kill that was most important.
PS I have killed 3 grouse, 4 pheasant 1 blackbird and a sparrow just driving my car so I would have been a shoe in as an ace. No credits here for pheasant they are the most suicidal of all living things, its amazing that people pay to shoot them.
Last edited:
They have The Right Stuff
Sorry, couldn't resist
Its a fact, I shared a race track (briefly) with Barry Sheene, Damon Hill Alan Carter and a few other UK motorcycle racing aces, the top boys in UK racing, the top guys really have something special I imagine the top pilot aces are (were) the same. There is always a limit, when you go at 99% they can go at 99.5% and they will keep that up until you go at 100.5% (crash or run wide) looking back it was great fun and a pleasure to see close up.
Last edited:
