Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
bobbysocks
Chief Master Sergeant
the other thing you have to consider is pilot fatigue and recovery. pulling violent high G maneuvers one after the other for several minutes on end takes a lot out of the pilot. the first time you do a curl with weights you are a lot faster and crisper than after the 12+ rep. yes, adrenaline is pumping but pilots still wore down. so if the pilot gets done with one dogfight ( win or evade ) and gets right into another he may be at a big disadantage trying to pull the yoke as hard and fast as needed. the second pilot he encounters may find it easier out turn him whereas the first one didnt.
stona i read that comment about the inexperienced LW pilots not pulling as tight of turns as they could have before and believe it is probably true. but then again the same could have probably been said about the raf too. no one wants to be the plane that stalls out and loses control in a dogfight. they are often the ones who end up dead.
stona i read that comment about the inexperienced LW pilots not pulling as tight of turns as they could have before and believe it is probably true. but then again the same could have probably been said about the raf too. no one wants to be the plane that stalls out and loses control in a dogfight. they are often the ones who end up dead.
Last edited:
Yep, that's right, Boobysocks. I read an account recently, while research the Bf 109 about the very same thing. Although the Spitfire could out turn the Messerschmitt in trials, the experienced German pilots were getting the better of the lesser experienced British pilots flying the Spitfire for that reason. Mind you, the same can be said for lesser experienced Bf 109 pilots. Experience teaches valuable lessons that can't be learned any other way.
The Bf 109 had idiosyncrasies that the British test pilots discovered during trials that didn't seem to hinder their German counterparts. Stick movement in the Bf 109 was restricted due to the narrow cockpit and the pilot's knees. The controls froze at high speeds, making it almost uncontrollable over around 380 mph in a dive. Also, its lack of a rudder trim made pilots tired flying lengthy flights, having to put in opposite rudder constantly when performing climbs and dives, or any manoeuvre with a high power setting. Another issue that caused consternation among even the Luftwaffe's pilots was at high angles of bank, when attempting to steep turn, the slats would snatch outwards, often asymmetrically, which would then cause the ailerons to jar or snap in movement, which had a tendency to throw off a pilot's aim if attempting to gain a bead, or prevent him from completing a tight turn. Thankfully though, the stall characteristics of the Bf 109 were benign in almost all configurations.
Early Emils had the variable pitch lever in the centre of the instrument panel, which caused pilots to do a hand dance around the cockpit at busy times; this was changed after complaints. Another oddity was that the undercarriage lever could easily be knocked in flight, which led to the lowering of the undercarriage at inopportune moments. A clever system was the location of the tailplane variable incidence wheel was next to the flap wheel - the flaps lowered by turning a wheel rather than moving a lever, which meant the incidence could be adjusted simultaneously as the flaps came down. Still a great choice of weapon to go to war in in 1939, 1940 and 1941.
The Bf 109 had idiosyncrasies that the British test pilots discovered during trials that didn't seem to hinder their German counterparts. Stick movement in the Bf 109 was restricted due to the narrow cockpit and the pilot's knees. The controls froze at high speeds, making it almost uncontrollable over around 380 mph in a dive. Also, its lack of a rudder trim made pilots tired flying lengthy flights, having to put in opposite rudder constantly when performing climbs and dives, or any manoeuvre with a high power setting. Another issue that caused consternation among even the Luftwaffe's pilots was at high angles of bank, when attempting to steep turn, the slats would snatch outwards, often asymmetrically, which would then cause the ailerons to jar or snap in movement, which had a tendency to throw off a pilot's aim if attempting to gain a bead, or prevent him from completing a tight turn. Thankfully though, the stall characteristics of the Bf 109 were benign in almost all configurations.
Early Emils had the variable pitch lever in the centre of the instrument panel, which caused pilots to do a hand dance around the cockpit at busy times; this was changed after complaints. Another oddity was that the undercarriage lever could easily be knocked in flight, which led to the lowering of the undercarriage at inopportune moments. A clever system was the location of the tailplane variable incidence wheel was next to the flap wheel - the flaps lowered by turning a wheel rather than moving a lever, which meant the incidence could be adjusted simultaneously as the flaps came down. Still a great choice of weapon to go to war in in 1939, 1940 and 1941.
Last edited:
bobbysocks
Chief Master Sergeant
all so true. i have read many p51 encounter reports where the pilot ( experienced ) stated he riding right on the edge of a stall. once they knew the characteristics of the plane and were confident of it...it made a difference.
also "out turning" depended on whether it was a turn to the left or a turn to the right. one was with the torque of the engine and was was fighting it. i know mustang pilots who told me ...they were told, " if jumped by a 109 break hard to the left ( could be right i dont remember ) as that was counter to the torgue of the 109.
also "out turning" depended on whether it was a turn to the left or a turn to the right. one was with the torque of the engine and was was fighting it. i know mustang pilots who told me ...they were told, " if jumped by a 109 break hard to the left ( could be right i dont remember ) as that was counter to the torgue of the 109.
Shortround6
Major General
Modern pilots have G suits and the F-16 in particular uses a reclined seating position to help lessen the effect's of G.
Story/legend has it that when Mustang pilots got the first G suits they sometimes landed with popped wing rivets and several degrees more dihedral on the wings than they took off with.
You can tell somebody about flying on the edge but that is not the same as actually doing it.
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spit109turn.gif
For the Spitfire you can do a 6 G turn at about 250mph at 12,000ft with a radius of just under 700ft but you have to to have the nose pointed down at over 25 degrees to maintain speed. Speed drops below 250mph and the plane stalls or the G load goes down (or a bit of both). a 6 G 350mph turn has a radius of 1400ft, again you need to be in an almost 20 degree dive to maintain the speed. A 5 G turn could give a radius of 800ft at about 240mph while at the same speed a 900 radius turn was about 4 1/2 Gs. There were no G meters or instruments to tell the pilot how hard/tight he was turning. At 12,000ft trying to reference the ground was pretty much useless even if you could see it. Only experience could help the pilot and most green pilots had very little experience in High G maneuvers.
Also please note that the Spitfire banked at 70.6 degrees for 3 Gs, 75 degrees for 4 Gs, 78.6 (?) for 5 Gs degrees and 80.5 degrees for 6 Gs. Can you read a turn and bank indicator anywhere near that close?
Story/legend has it that when Mustang pilots got the first G suits they sometimes landed with popped wing rivets and several degrees more dihedral on the wings than they took off with.
You can tell somebody about flying on the edge but that is not the same as actually doing it.
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spit109turn.gif
For the Spitfire you can do a 6 G turn at about 250mph at 12,000ft with a radius of just under 700ft but you have to to have the nose pointed down at over 25 degrees to maintain speed. Speed drops below 250mph and the plane stalls or the G load goes down (or a bit of both). a 6 G 350mph turn has a radius of 1400ft, again you need to be in an almost 20 degree dive to maintain the speed. A 5 G turn could give a radius of 800ft at about 240mph while at the same speed a 900 radius turn was about 4 1/2 Gs. There were no G meters or instruments to tell the pilot how hard/tight he was turning. At 12,000ft trying to reference the ground was pretty much useless even if you could see it. Only experience could help the pilot and most green pilots had very little experience in High G maneuvers.
Also please note that the Spitfire banked at 70.6 degrees for 3 Gs, 75 degrees for 4 Gs, 78.6 (?) for 5 Gs degrees and 80.5 degrees for 6 Gs. Can you read a turn and bank indicator anywhere near that close?
Gents,
Here is my two cents (bits) on what you can or can't do under G. First, Greyman you are pretty close on Eagle G technique. The way we are taught is to do something called an L-1. Basically BEFORE you get to heavy G, you tense your thighs, squeeze your abdominal muscles and force blood up to your noggin. It feels very similar to trying to take a growler when constipated. Guys who are tremendously fit from cardio (runners) have a more difficult time than weight lifters (veins are all large and soft). Taller is tougher than shorter due to the distance from the heart to the head being greater. Shorter is better (finally found truth to that statement). The goal being to keep the blood from pooling in your extremities. The G suit gives your abs something to push against, however if it (the top of the G suit)goes to high it squeezes the bottom of your lungs and can make it difficult to breath. I would turn down the top of mine (I'm 69" or 5 foot 9 inches tall).
Second, modern fighters (F-15, 16, 22, Typhoon, Flanker, Fulcrum) can all sustain heavy G. The Typhoon and F-22 can do it higher (big motors and smart wings). However, for the rest once below about 15-20K you have to be careful, with anything under 10k being an altitude where you can really hurt yourself with sustained G. And I'm talking 7+. I think my record was 7 for over 45 seconds.
When under heavy G in the jet (F-15) I would vary how I looked around. Once tapped (bounced) or the Basic Fighter Maneuver (BFM) engagement starts I would do a break turn (max performance pull to A/C or my limits whichever came first) and that was initially done looking forward, with my spine and neck straight up. Once the G went below about 7 I would lean forward a little bit (keeping my spine and neck straight), and rotate my head so as not to put any lateral stress on my neck (this type of turn is used to locate my adversary or bandit). Once I had him visual again, I would very my looking over the should tech depending on how far forward he was (deep six o'clock would be the lean forward, out to 7-9 o'clock I would just lean my head against the seat (if under heavy G)and just look up over my shoulder (which is the same as looking back).
The break turn was done to defeat any initial shots, the follow on maneuvers are done to deny him shots, force an overshoot to reversal (I get behind him) or to a separation (I leave). The goal is to survive, neutralize, go offensive or leave in that order.
Once established defensive in a fight you keep eyes on, with momentary looks into the cockpit to check airspeed and altitude. Now guys have helmet mounted devices and all that stuff is displayed to them at all times if they desire.
In WW2 dogfight timeframe I would be surprised if guys would get completely exhausted physically from G alone. The night before drinking, the poor heat, being dehydrated (this is huge even today) would be significant contributors in my book. I understand the lack of combat training, the adrenaline surge that comes on like a Tsunami when your life is on the line, and the subsequent drain upon survival. But, the planes didn't pull that many G's for greater than a few seconds, and you can hold your breath for those and be fine. Those guys were young, (20-30) and should have not had too much difficulty with them.
On the differences between pilots it's the same as between athletes. Some guys are just better than others. However, in a US fighter squadron the dudes who are good are under pressure to get everyone better, as the unit is only as strong as the weakest guy / gal. As far as planes go, some are easier to fly than others. The F-16 is fly by wire (FBW) and it takes max performing the airplane and makes it a simple event. In the Eagle it literally takes years to get good at it. FBW is the way to go. Some airplanes provide more feedback than others, and the Eagle was particularly good at giving it. You could tell your speed by how noisy it was / is, or by how much buffet you feel. Unlike a WW2 fighter, you could pull to your hearts content (once below your corner speed) and not worry about breaking anything or going out of control (with a few minor exceptions). Your second or third ride in the plane you used to go do tail slides. My IP told me to see how far I could slide backwards. The planes now are VERY forgiving.
The reason I bring that up is the P-51, Me-109, Spit references about turn performance. If one plane is easier to max perform than the others, even though it might not be the best performing (by a small margin), it would be odds on the favored in a fight. It sounds like the 109, even though it had snatching slats, was very forgiving and communicative. The longer and more defined the stall warning (point at which you stop turning and start falling) the better. A slight buffet followed by a stall / spin would not be good. Once the Brits figured out the Spit turned better, AND noticed the statistics from dogfights, (and got rid of the damn Vic formation) it would have been a good idea to concentrate training on A/C feel in the max performance turn arena. It's also very easy to look back at these events and make comments!
One thing I haven't heard much of is what type of training did the German and Brits do before getting turned loose in combat. I've heard a bit about "Clobber College" for the US guys, but not much from the rest.
Cheers,
Biff
Here is my two cents (bits) on what you can or can't do under G. First, Greyman you are pretty close on Eagle G technique. The way we are taught is to do something called an L-1. Basically BEFORE you get to heavy G, you tense your thighs, squeeze your abdominal muscles and force blood up to your noggin. It feels very similar to trying to take a growler when constipated. Guys who are tremendously fit from cardio (runners) have a more difficult time than weight lifters (veins are all large and soft). Taller is tougher than shorter due to the distance from the heart to the head being greater. Shorter is better (finally found truth to that statement). The goal being to keep the blood from pooling in your extremities. The G suit gives your abs something to push against, however if it (the top of the G suit)goes to high it squeezes the bottom of your lungs and can make it difficult to breath. I would turn down the top of mine (I'm 69" or 5 foot 9 inches tall).
Second, modern fighters (F-15, 16, 22, Typhoon, Flanker, Fulcrum) can all sustain heavy G. The Typhoon and F-22 can do it higher (big motors and smart wings). However, for the rest once below about 15-20K you have to be careful, with anything under 10k being an altitude where you can really hurt yourself with sustained G. And I'm talking 7+. I think my record was 7 for over 45 seconds.
When under heavy G in the jet (F-15) I would vary how I looked around. Once tapped (bounced) or the Basic Fighter Maneuver (BFM) engagement starts I would do a break turn (max performance pull to A/C or my limits whichever came first) and that was initially done looking forward, with my spine and neck straight up. Once the G went below about 7 I would lean forward a little bit (keeping my spine and neck straight), and rotate my head so as not to put any lateral stress on my neck (this type of turn is used to locate my adversary or bandit). Once I had him visual again, I would very my looking over the should tech depending on how far forward he was (deep six o'clock would be the lean forward, out to 7-9 o'clock I would just lean my head against the seat (if under heavy G)and just look up over my shoulder (which is the same as looking back).
The break turn was done to defeat any initial shots, the follow on maneuvers are done to deny him shots, force an overshoot to reversal (I get behind him) or to a separation (I leave). The goal is to survive, neutralize, go offensive or leave in that order.
Once established defensive in a fight you keep eyes on, with momentary looks into the cockpit to check airspeed and altitude. Now guys have helmet mounted devices and all that stuff is displayed to them at all times if they desire.
In WW2 dogfight timeframe I would be surprised if guys would get completely exhausted physically from G alone. The night before drinking, the poor heat, being dehydrated (this is huge even today) would be significant contributors in my book. I understand the lack of combat training, the adrenaline surge that comes on like a Tsunami when your life is on the line, and the subsequent drain upon survival. But, the planes didn't pull that many G's for greater than a few seconds, and you can hold your breath for those and be fine. Those guys were young, (20-30) and should have not had too much difficulty with them.
On the differences between pilots it's the same as between athletes. Some guys are just better than others. However, in a US fighter squadron the dudes who are good are under pressure to get everyone better, as the unit is only as strong as the weakest guy / gal. As far as planes go, some are easier to fly than others. The F-16 is fly by wire (FBW) and it takes max performing the airplane and makes it a simple event. In the Eagle it literally takes years to get good at it. FBW is the way to go. Some airplanes provide more feedback than others, and the Eagle was particularly good at giving it. You could tell your speed by how noisy it was / is, or by how much buffet you feel. Unlike a WW2 fighter, you could pull to your hearts content (once below your corner speed) and not worry about breaking anything or going out of control (with a few minor exceptions). Your second or third ride in the plane you used to go do tail slides. My IP told me to see how far I could slide backwards. The planes now are VERY forgiving.
The reason I bring that up is the P-51, Me-109, Spit references about turn performance. If one plane is easier to max perform than the others, even though it might not be the best performing (by a small margin), it would be odds on the favored in a fight. It sounds like the 109, even though it had snatching slats, was very forgiving and communicative. The longer and more defined the stall warning (point at which you stop turning and start falling) the better. A slight buffet followed by a stall / spin would not be good. Once the Brits figured out the Spit turned better, AND noticed the statistics from dogfights, (and got rid of the damn Vic formation) it would have been a good idea to concentrate training on A/C feel in the max performance turn arena. It's also very easy to look back at these events and make comments!
One thing I haven't heard much of is what type of training did the German and Brits do before getting turned loose in combat. I've heard a bit about "Clobber College" for the US guys, but not much from the rest.
Cheers,
Biff
Last edited:
The Pilot Factor:
After re-reading a few of the posts I thought I would add a few more comments to the discussion.
Pilots: You are only as good as your training and your natural ability. Training in basic stuff and advanced all add up. For US guys flying from the UK into Europe, they had to be instrument qualified, proficient in long range navigation for a large chunk of a continent, and able to operate the systems so as not to run out of gas or otherwise cause an early landing. The natural ability is what a person can mentally and physically do. Some guys had tremendous vision (ability to spot the other guy first), some were great shots, and some were always trying to get a little bit better each flight.
Everyone one of you have been in traffic and see people do stupid stuff. They might have driven several hundred thousand miles, but it's like they have only done the first 100 miles over an over again. Some people try to keep getting better, others think they are good enough, and some I'm convinced don't give a s--t. Pilots are just like that.
Aircraft:
Bf-109. First (or one of the first) really modern fighters. Simple construction, simple cockpit layout. Pros: Very forgiving in flight, pretty much on par performance wise, weapons depending on the version. Cons: Short legged, cramped cockpit, hard to check six due to banging your noggin into things, no heat, and that damn take off and landing thing... Also has a very cool sinister look about it, more so than any other in my book.
Spit. Simple construction, straight forward cockpit. Pros: Able to check six, on par or above performance wise (depending on the variant / timeframe), easy to operate, weapons depending on the version. Cons: Short legged.
P-51. Simple construction, roomy well laid out cockpit. Pros: Visibility (D), range, weapons, performance on par, quantity found over Europe on any given day. Cons: Range means less performance
The fights:
I think on any given day in a pure one on one, any of these aircraft are a good fight for each other. Earlier in the war the Germans had the advantage of experience (tactics), and a good airplane. The Brits and the US, in that order played a big game of catch up and it cost them dearly. Later, as attrition became a factor against Germany, it worked for the Allies. As the Germans lost their experienced guys, the Allies gained theirs, and that transition period was in my opine when the Merlin powered Mustang showed up. Right tool, right location, and history favored it with timing to create legend status.
Food for thought:
The 109 created a LOT of very high scoring aces (ALL of the top scorers). And this is not a slam against the plane at all, but what else did they really have to fly? Guys got good in it because desire for longevity (living) and lack of a rotation force (the situation) forced them to. Yes, there were Fw-190's, but the Luftwaffe kept buying (or building) 109's en masse and sending them to the boys on the front. Every few months, here is a new 109 with a bigger (more powerful motor), different guns, and a few more bumps on it. I think it's easier to keep making something you know how, rather than learn / re-tool to make something new.
What is in my opine a shame is that it didn't get easier to take off land, or check six out of. It's like Willie didn't give a crap, or the Luftwaffe didn't force him to fix those things (how did they not know). At least Tank was working on the visibility issue.
Okay gents it's late and I'm probably rambling. I'm sure guys will chime in a tell me the error of my ways!
Cheers,
Biff
After re-reading a few of the posts I thought I would add a few more comments to the discussion.
Pilots: You are only as good as your training and your natural ability. Training in basic stuff and advanced all add up. For US guys flying from the UK into Europe, they had to be instrument qualified, proficient in long range navigation for a large chunk of a continent, and able to operate the systems so as not to run out of gas or otherwise cause an early landing. The natural ability is what a person can mentally and physically do. Some guys had tremendous vision (ability to spot the other guy first), some were great shots, and some were always trying to get a little bit better each flight.
Everyone one of you have been in traffic and see people do stupid stuff. They might have driven several hundred thousand miles, but it's like they have only done the first 100 miles over an over again. Some people try to keep getting better, others think they are good enough, and some I'm convinced don't give a s--t. Pilots are just like that.
Aircraft:
Bf-109. First (or one of the first) really modern fighters. Simple construction, simple cockpit layout. Pros: Very forgiving in flight, pretty much on par performance wise, weapons depending on the version. Cons: Short legged, cramped cockpit, hard to check six due to banging your noggin into things, no heat, and that damn take off and landing thing... Also has a very cool sinister look about it, more so than any other in my book.
Spit. Simple construction, straight forward cockpit. Pros: Able to check six, on par or above performance wise (depending on the variant / timeframe), easy to operate, weapons depending on the version. Cons: Short legged.
P-51. Simple construction, roomy well laid out cockpit. Pros: Visibility (D), range, weapons, performance on par, quantity found over Europe on any given day. Cons: Range means less performance
The fights:
I think on any given day in a pure one on one, any of these aircraft are a good fight for each other. Earlier in the war the Germans had the advantage of experience (tactics), and a good airplane. The Brits and the US, in that order played a big game of catch up and it cost them dearly. Later, as attrition became a factor against Germany, it worked for the Allies. As the Germans lost their experienced guys, the Allies gained theirs, and that transition period was in my opine when the Merlin powered Mustang showed up. Right tool, right location, and history favored it with timing to create legend status.
Food for thought:
The 109 created a LOT of very high scoring aces (ALL of the top scorers). And this is not a slam against the plane at all, but what else did they really have to fly? Guys got good in it because desire for longevity (living) and lack of a rotation force (the situation) forced them to. Yes, there were Fw-190's, but the Luftwaffe kept buying (or building) 109's en masse and sending them to the boys on the front. Every few months, here is a new 109 with a bigger (more powerful motor), different guns, and a few more bumps on it. I think it's easier to keep making something you know how, rather than learn / re-tool to make something new.
What is in my opine a shame is that it didn't get easier to take off land, or check six out of. It's like Willie didn't give a crap, or the Luftwaffe didn't force him to fix those things (how did they not know). At least Tank was working on the visibility issue.
Okay gents it's late and I'm probably rambling. I'm sure guys will chime in a tell me the error of my ways!
Cheers,
Biff
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
Really good info there, Biff...allows for some good insight 
As far as the Luftwaffe pilot training, it was pretty rigorous leading up to, and during the first years of, the war. As the war wore on, Luftwaffe resource and material shortages compromised the program to the point where, in the final stages of the war, training was nearly non-existant.
Prior to 1941, the Luftwaffe training program started with 6 months at the Recruit Training Depot (Fliegerersatzabteilung), which was comparable to boot camp. Here the prospective pilot focused on physical training, endless drills and was introduced to basic flight principles like map reading, two-way radio and lectures. Once he's completed this, he moved on to an Air Traning Company (Fluganwarterkompanie) for two months, studying general aeronautical subjects.
Once this portion had been completed, he moved on to Elementary Flying School (A/B Schule) where he recieved hands-on training in such aircraft as the Bücker Bü131 and Focke-Wulf Fw44.
The next step is the A2 license portion of his training. This is a little more involved and includes courses in Navigation, Meteorology, Aeronautical Engineering, Aerodynamics and Flying Procedures. For the B2 portion, the student flew more advanced aircraft, like the Arado Ar66 and Ar76, Gotha Go145 along with retired combat types like the Heinkel He51 and the Henschel Hs123 (before it was recalled and put back into service). During this portion of his school, he'll have logged between 100 and 150 hours of flight time. Once his B2 portion was successfully completed, he received his Pilot's License (Luftwaffenflugzeugfuehrerschein) and his Pilot's Wings (Flugzeugfuehrerabzeichen).
At this point, the pilot will go on to specialist school depending on whether he's going into single-engined fighter or single-engined dive bomber service.
If the pilot is going to be assigned multi-engined duties (twin-engined fighter, bomber, recon), then he'll continue to a C portion of school, where he'll receive an additional 50 to 60 hours flying time over the course of 6 months. Also, the pilot will have advanced ground training in a variety of subjects, and fly early type multi-engined aircraft as the Dornier Do17, Heinkel He111 and the Junkers Ju86.
Once the C portion is completed, the pilot receives his advanced pilot's license and will continue on to their respective specialty training. IF the pilot is to be assigned bomber or reconnaissance duty, they will receive an additional 50 to 60 hours of blind flying training, the twin-engine fighter pilot bypassed this requirement.
From here, there was additional time in the various specialty schools, where they were assigned to their groups, operated advanced trainer aircraft and learned the various procedures unique to their assignments. Then on to Operational Training Units (Ergaenzungseinheiten) where they were introduced to their front line aircraft and received "hands-on" experience.
So basically, from the time a pilot candidate stepped foot in boot camp, to the time they arrived at their Operational Training Unit, a Luftwaffe pilot with a single-engine rating has had 13 months of training with about 150 to 200 hours logged. For the multi-engine rated pilots, they've had 20 months of training and 220 to 270 hours logged.
As I mentioned before, this was the procedure until things started falling apart around 1941.
As far as the Luftwaffe pilot training, it was pretty rigorous leading up to, and during the first years of, the war. As the war wore on, Luftwaffe resource and material shortages compromised the program to the point where, in the final stages of the war, training was nearly non-existant.
Prior to 1941, the Luftwaffe training program started with 6 months at the Recruit Training Depot (Fliegerersatzabteilung), which was comparable to boot camp. Here the prospective pilot focused on physical training, endless drills and was introduced to basic flight principles like map reading, two-way radio and lectures. Once he's completed this, he moved on to an Air Traning Company (Fluganwarterkompanie) for two months, studying general aeronautical subjects.
Once this portion had been completed, he moved on to Elementary Flying School (A/B Schule) where he recieved hands-on training in such aircraft as the Bücker Bü131 and Focke-Wulf Fw44.
The next step is the A2 license portion of his training. This is a little more involved and includes courses in Navigation, Meteorology, Aeronautical Engineering, Aerodynamics and Flying Procedures. For the B2 portion, the student flew more advanced aircraft, like the Arado Ar66 and Ar76, Gotha Go145 along with retired combat types like the Heinkel He51 and the Henschel Hs123 (before it was recalled and put back into service). During this portion of his school, he'll have logged between 100 and 150 hours of flight time. Once his B2 portion was successfully completed, he received his Pilot's License (Luftwaffenflugzeugfuehrerschein) and his Pilot's Wings (Flugzeugfuehrerabzeichen).
At this point, the pilot will go on to specialist school depending on whether he's going into single-engined fighter or single-engined dive bomber service.
If the pilot is going to be assigned multi-engined duties (twin-engined fighter, bomber, recon), then he'll continue to a C portion of school, where he'll receive an additional 50 to 60 hours flying time over the course of 6 months. Also, the pilot will have advanced ground training in a variety of subjects, and fly early type multi-engined aircraft as the Dornier Do17, Heinkel He111 and the Junkers Ju86.
Once the C portion is completed, the pilot receives his advanced pilot's license and will continue on to their respective specialty training. IF the pilot is to be assigned bomber or reconnaissance duty, they will receive an additional 50 to 60 hours of blind flying training, the twin-engine fighter pilot bypassed this requirement.
From here, there was additional time in the various specialty schools, where they were assigned to their groups, operated advanced trainer aircraft and learned the various procedures unique to their assignments. Then on to Operational Training Units (Ergaenzungseinheiten) where they were introduced to their front line aircraft and received "hands-on" experience.
So basically, from the time a pilot candidate stepped foot in boot camp, to the time they arrived at their Operational Training Unit, a Luftwaffe pilot with a single-engine rating has had 13 months of training with about 150 to 200 hours logged. For the multi-engine rated pilots, they've had 20 months of training and 220 to 270 hours logged.
As I mentioned before, this was the procedure until things started falling apart around 1941.
GregP
Major
Pretty damned good summation there, Biff.
When I look at the victory claims for the Luftwaffe, I see the bulk of the claims came between 1942 and mid-1944, and tapered off to almost nothing after that, reletively speaking. I think a LOT of it was attrition as Biff says. Also, when the Germans had about the same number of airplanes in the air as the Allies ... it was a toss-up. When the Allies were throwing 200 planes a day at Germany who had lost most of the really good pilots, then it was a case of "if you show youeself ... you're probably going to die ..."
I believe the Bf 109 had wonderful manners around the stall and was a formidable combat aircraft right to the end. But ... I'm not so sure the dogfights were really allowed to GET to the stall point when they were way up high.
I don't think ANYBODY was pulling more than around 3 g's at 25,000+ feet in a WWII fighter ... the capability just wasn't there. So, if you are limited to low g maneuvers, then the winner will probably be the pilot who plans the best attack for low-g maneuvers. That's a skill that was very necessary in the ETO at bomber stream altitude.
When I look at the victory claims for the Luftwaffe, I see the bulk of the claims came between 1942 and mid-1944, and tapered off to almost nothing after that, reletively speaking. I think a LOT of it was attrition as Biff says. Also, when the Germans had about the same number of airplanes in the air as the Allies ... it was a toss-up. When the Allies were throwing 200 planes a day at Germany who had lost most of the really good pilots, then it was a case of "if you show youeself ... you're probably going to die ..."
I believe the Bf 109 had wonderful manners around the stall and was a formidable combat aircraft right to the end. But ... I'm not so sure the dogfights were really allowed to GET to the stall point when they were way up high.
I don't think ANYBODY was pulling more than around 3 g's at 25,000+ feet in a WWII fighter ... the capability just wasn't there. So, if you are limited to low g maneuvers, then the winner will probably be the pilot who plans the best attack for low-g maneuvers. That's a skill that was very necessary in the ETO at bomber stream altitude.
Last edited:
- Thread starter
- #50
Two good posts re-training and flying the aircraft above.
I would say that efforts were made to improve rearward visibility in the Bf 109, though they were less than astoundingly successful. Initially the 'Galland Panzer' was introduced in the head armour behind the pilot, this being a clear view panel of armoured glass. Having seen WW2 era German armoured glass close up I use the term 'clear view' loosely. Later the 'Erla Haube' which dispensed with much of the heavy cockpit framing was introduced.
What was never attempted was to fit something like the Malcolm hood fitted by the British to the Spitfire (also found its way on to some Mustangs), neither was their any attempt at a low back Bf 109 as there was with the Spitfire. This was actually not a simple thing to achieve on the Spitfire and may well have been impossible for the smaller Bf 109.
Cheers
Steve
I would say that efforts were made to improve rearward visibility in the Bf 109, though they were less than astoundingly successful. Initially the 'Galland Panzer' was introduced in the head armour behind the pilot, this being a clear view panel of armoured glass. Having seen WW2 era German armoured glass close up I use the term 'clear view' loosely. Later the 'Erla Haube' which dispensed with much of the heavy cockpit framing was introduced.
What was never attempted was to fit something like the Malcolm hood fitted by the British to the Spitfire (also found its way on to some Mustangs), neither was their any attempt at a low back Bf 109 as there was with the Spitfire. This was actually not a simple thing to achieve on the Spitfire and may well have been impossible for the smaller Bf 109.
Cheers
Steve
GregP
Major
There actually WAS an attempt at a low-back Bf 109. Here is a pic:
They fitted a captured AMerican radial (I think an 1820) and also did the semi-bubble canopy. It never made it into production ... but it DID exist and COULD have made it into service.
Bad Willy, bad boy ... shoulda' done it to the production birds.
They fitted a captured AMerican radial (I think an 1820) and also did the semi-bubble canopy. It never made it into production ... but it DID exist and COULD have made it into service.
Bad Willy, bad boy ... shoulda' done it to the production birds.
Grau,
Thanks for the info! USAF pilot training produces a pilot (with wings) in about 12 months, then on to a top off school for fighter guys called IFF, or Introduction to Fighter Fundamentals. Here they learn basic set ups, more advanced formation, and fundamentals of Basic Fighter Maneuvers (BFM). This course is designed to be a low cost way to get the basics down prior to showing up to a fighter (more expensive to fly).
To be more specific I am curious as to what prep fighter guys got beyond the basic check out in type. Did the Luftwaffe have a "Clobber College" spin up, done at either the Training Unit or the Operational Unit? Today, kids get everything at the school house, then a buffet refresher when they get to their unit (along with some specialization depending on units unique capabilities). The Luftwaffe seems to have missed a great opportunity to turn the knowledge the experienced guys had into a skill set the new guys could use to survive or thrive.
Cheers,
Biff
Thanks for the info! USAF pilot training produces a pilot (with wings) in about 12 months, then on to a top off school for fighter guys called IFF, or Introduction to Fighter Fundamentals. Here they learn basic set ups, more advanced formation, and fundamentals of Basic Fighter Maneuvers (BFM). This course is designed to be a low cost way to get the basics down prior to showing up to a fighter (more expensive to fly).
To be more specific I am curious as to what prep fighter guys got beyond the basic check out in type. Did the Luftwaffe have a "Clobber College" spin up, done at either the Training Unit or the Operational Unit? Today, kids get everything at the school house, then a buffet refresher when they get to their unit (along with some specialization depending on units unique capabilities). The Luftwaffe seems to have missed a great opportunity to turn the knowledge the experienced guys had into a skill set the new guys could use to survive or thrive.
Cheers,
Biff
Why would he use a captured motor? I would think if one was serious about making this change, you would use a engine type in production (by your nation). It was a green house versus a bubble, but still better than what the regular 109 flew with. Pretty incredible they could make jet engines and not bubble canopies!
Cheers,
Biff
- Thread starter
- #54
I think that's V21. It's not low backed, it's high fronted if you know what I mean 
It's a completely new fuselage, widened from frame 7 (roughly second frame in front of horizontal stabiliser). The cockpit was redesigned because of the big lump bolted on the front. There was also extensive redesign of the engine mounts (obviously) and the wing-fuselage join and fillet. It's not really much of a Bf 109 at all, apart from the wings.
It was built 1938-9, the engine was not captured, and was flying at Augsburg in mid/late 1939. It eventually went to the DVL (Braunschweig) where it was still flying in September 1940. It was probably superseded by the BMW 801 powered Bf 109 X which first flew on 2nd September 1940.
It was an experimental aircraft to compare inline and radial installations in single seat fighters. It was never intended as a production version, though the view must have been much better than the standard Bf 109.
Cheers
Steve
It's a completely new fuselage, widened from frame 7 (roughly second frame in front of horizontal stabiliser). The cockpit was redesigned because of the big lump bolted on the front. There was also extensive redesign of the engine mounts (obviously) and the wing-fuselage join and fillet. It's not really much of a Bf 109 at all, apart from the wings.
It was built 1938-9, the engine was not captured, and was flying at Augsburg in mid/late 1939. It eventually went to the DVL (Braunschweig) where it was still flying in September 1940. It was probably superseded by the BMW 801 powered Bf 109 X which first flew on 2nd September 1940.
It was an experimental aircraft to compare inline and radial installations in single seat fighters. It was never intended as a production version, though the view must have been much better than the standard Bf 109.
Cheers
Steve
There was plenty of room for improvement in terms of ergonomics regarding the Bf 109. One thing was its puny rudder and lack of rudder trim, which I mentioned earlier. The canopy could have been improved also. Pilots were advised not to open the hood with the engine running as the hinges would wear and it'd fall off! This meant during taxying, the sliding panels in the hood were opened for better visibility. Eric Brown claimed these were 'primitive'. The problem was that it opened to the right. When John Allison had his prang in Black 6 in the late 1990s, he was stuck in the upturned airframe for nearly an hour hanging from his shoulder straps (I can't remember how long exactly) before a crane could be able to lift the aircraft so the hood could be opened. A sliding hood wouldn't have gone amiss.
Another problem on the ground was that it was tail heavy, so any increase in power would cause the tail to swing, or 'lead', which resulted in ground loops, so stabbing on the brakes during taxying, which was the only way to turn the aircraft as that microscopic rudder was totally ineffectual until the tail had been raised in the take-off run, was done quite severely. Although I've posted this picture in another thread just recently, it illustrates a few of the issues pilots had with the '109 on the ground. Closed hood with sliding panels, fish tailing along as all tail draggers did, poor visibility in almost all directions, those awkwardly splayed out wheels...
I read an article by one of Black 6's regular airshow pilots and he did enjoy flying it compared to the Spit, but did say it was more demanding in the air. He said - and this was common among period aircraft, so I believe - that Black 6 had to be taxied out almost immediately after start up as it would overheat quite quickly otherwise.
Pilots did like flying the Bf 109, although British test pilots were more critical (as they almost always were), complaining that control harmony was extremely poor, having a light rudder and heavy elevator - this is in the Gustav. Its handling was quite different compared to its predecessors owing to extra weight and excrescences without any increase in lift. Pilots missed the sweet handling of the Emil and Friedrich and its widely recognised that the Friedrich was the zenith of the type's development as a pure fighter. Although as I mentioned in another thread, the debate about whether its armament of two MGs and a single cannon in the nose was sufficient is well known and opinions varied. The Gustav was the most versatile of the breed, but it was overtaken in performance by newer Allied types, even the Friedrichs had better performance than some Gustav variants. I did read one German pilot's account about having flown the Spitfire, he believed the Bf 109 had better all round visibility owing to the location of the Spitfire's cockpit in relation to its wing. Horses for courses and I guess it does depend on what you're used to.
Last edited:
I think that's V21. It's not low backed, it's high fronted if you know what I mean
It's a completely new fuselage, widened from frame 7 (roughly second frame in front of horizontal stabiliser). The cockpit was redesigned because of the big lump bolted on the front. There was also extensive redesign of the engine mounts (obviously) and the wing-fuselage join and fillet. It's not really much of a Bf 109 at all, apart from the wings.
It was built 1938-9, the engine was not captured, and was flying at Augsburg in mid/late 1939. It eventually went to the DVL (Braunschweig) where it was still flying in September 1940. It was probably superseded by the BMW 801 powered Bf 109 X which first flew on 2nd September 1940.
It was an experimental aircraft to compare inline and radial installations in single seat fighters. It was never intended as a production version, though the view must have been much better than the standard Bf 109.
Cheers
Steve
Steve,
This sort of reminds me of the P-40Q. Curtiss attempted to remain relevant with the addition of more power, aero improvements, and the "blown" canopy. It makes me wonder if the P-40/Allison had as much money and effort thrown at it as the Bf-109 did what would have been the outcome.
In the case of the radial powered 109 someone had to realize the green house / bubblish canopy was better or they would have left it a "razorback" I would think. I would also think with it's more rounded fuselage there was a bit more room inside.
If 109 pilots were told to taxi with the canopy closed and try to stick a small portion of their cranium out to see, why in the hell didn't they make better hinges for it (of just make it a bubble)? It will probably never be known but it almost seems like Willie and Goering had a relationship that worked well for Willie and not so much for the other fighter manufacturers, or guys who flew them.
Cheers,
Biff
Wiili was quite the force of nature, so I believe. He liked to get his way and often manipulated situations to achieve that, often at the expense of personal relationships. He was quite uncompromising with his designs adhering to the philosophy of performance at all costs, which goes some way of explaining the odd ball nature of the Bf 109 and the fact that so little of it changed over the nearly 10 years it was in production. He fell out with many of his own staff and other designers over specific design issues, such as Alexander Lippisch over the Me 163 being tailless, until he got his way. Like all brilliant men, I guess, a little bit egocentric.
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
Great info Biff! I once read that during the Israeli/ Arab wars pilots flying MiG-21 sometimes succumbed to fatigue during dogfights just by swinging the back and forth at high Gs. I also believe that the MiG-15 was made with a sick "extension" so pilots had some leverage when going into "yanking and banking" maneuvers.
- Thread starter
- #59
It had more to do with the redesign and raising of the cockpit in order to see over the nose at all. One of the trumpeted reasons for an inverted engine in the inline version was forward visibility. Though the high angle the aircraft sat at on its undercarriage made forward vision very limited on the ground, it was not bad in WW2 terms once airborne.
The Pratt and Whitney engine fitted was already in Germany, probably as part of some exchange or licensing deal I can't remember. This was 1938/9, more than three years before the US entered the war.
Cheers
Steve
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
In the 1930's, BMW had a license to build the Pratt Whitney Hornet (became the BMW 132) and this engine was used in several pre-war aircraft, like Junkers (including the Ju52/3m) and the first Fw200.
