KraziKanuK
Banned
- 792
- Jan 26, 2005
The Spit had a narrower track than the 109.Soren said:
It was hard to make the Spit's wheels touch the ground as it tended to float when it got into ground effect.
Why Allied Soviet equipment was superior
- Thread starter schwarzpanzer
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
It was hard to make the Spit's wheels touch the ground as it tended to float when it got into ground effect.
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
KraziKanuK said:
The only reason why ANY aircraft floats on landing is because its being landed too fast.
If you're landing "on the numbers" and are at the right speed you should get stall warning a few feet above the ground. This applies from anything to a Piper Cub to a Spitfire.....
Krazi,
It wasn't the fact that the landing gear was narrow which made the 109 difficult to land, it was the toe-out positioning of the wheels. This meant that when the 109 was landing, unless both wheels hit the runway at exactly the same time, it had a strong tendency to swing to the side of whichever wheel hit the runway first, the Spitfire didn't.
It wasn't the fact that the landing gear was narrow which made the 109 difficult to land, it was the toe-out positioning of the wheels. This meant that when the 109 was landing, unless both wheels hit the runway at exactly the same time, it had a strong tendency to swing to the side of whichever wheel hit the runway first, the Spitfire didn't.
Jabberwocky
Staff Sergeant
Soren said:
Both sets of translations that I have of the Finnish 109G2 and 109G6 manuals have 180 kph as the landing speed.
I'm not saying that your wrong, but that is the data I have, and the data I have to go by.
I do have 155 kph from the Ta-152 manual though
I just missed it when I skimmed through. Couldn't find anything in my 190A5/A6 manual or in my 109K4 manual for landing speeds.Interestingly, the La-5FN manual states 200kph as the landing speed. Very high for such a comparatively light fighter. I wonder why?
Willy Ellenrieder, a Messerschmitt test pilot had some interesting comments on the 109s handling on the ground and coming in to land:
"We were accustomed to the Bf 109's ill manners; bad visibility before take off because the nose pointed skywards, the frightening take -off with the common tendency to swing, the unwieldy handling during final approach and the bumpy landings"
Check again, Page #2 in the Finnish Bf-109G-6 manual, look under "Flight performance" it specifically says "Landing speed: ca. 160 km/h". However this speed is purposely high as a safe guard from coming in too slowly when mounting extra equipment, and since 160 km/h was enough when under max load and wasn't to high a speed when lightly loaded, a general landing speed of 160 km/h was established.
However remember the Finnish refused any info on flight characteristics or performance data on the 109 from the Germans when they first went to pick them up, so they had to assume the proper landing speeds in the beginning (Hence the high landing speed in the G2 manual as a safe guard), however later on with the G6 they had established their own pilot instructions (Hence the general 160 km/h landing speed).
An easy question, now here's the answer; While the La-5FN fighter has a similar wing-loading to the Bf-109G-6, the La-5FN has a comparatively low CL-max wing, and while the slats did help, the wing just didn't produce the same high amount of lift as the Bf-109's wing. The popular myth that the Lavochkin fighter(s) could outturn the Bf-109(s) is just that, a myth. Infact according to official Russian flight-tests with a Bf-109G-2/R6, this plane could turn just as well as a La-5 purposely lightened by 160 kg. (For those of you who don't know, the Bf-109G-2R6 is a bomber-interceptor version of the G-2 carrying gun-pods)
The captured Bf-109G-2/R6 in question:
And according to extensive German testing of a La-5FN, it was found that it couldn't turn as well as a cleanly loaded Bf-109. (German 109 pilots attest to this fact as-well)
The following excerpts are taken from "Luftwaffe Test Pilot" by Hans Werner Lerche. He flew virtually all captured Allied aircraft and most German types, including experimental models. His book includes a detailed wartime test report prepared by him, on the La5FN.
Hans Werner Lerche:
He tested an La5FN powered by an M- 82FNV engine in September 1944 at Gross Schimanen, East Prussia.
"It was obvious from the start that this aircraft was no longer comparable with the earlier Soviet fighter types of rather primitive construction, and that it was a very serious opponent to our fighters below 3000m (10,000ft). "
He describes having been made giddy by carbon monoxide entering the cockpit during his first flight; thereafter he chose to always wear an oxygen mask when flying it. He also says the noise from its engine was deafening and that he always had to put cotton wool in his ears when aboard.
His report lists the following figures:
Max speed 403mph at 20,670 ft
Rate of climb, rated power, at 300m (984ft) 16.17 m/s
Rate of climb, rated power, at 4000m (13,120 ft) 13 m/s
Rate of climb, rated power, at 7000m (22,320 ft) 6 m/s
Climb to 16,400ft (5000m) in 4min 42 sec
Service Ceiling 31,170 ft (9500m)
Power Plant: Shvetsov M- 82FNV 1,850h.p
Armament: 2x 20mm cannon with 200 rounds each.
Armour protection 57mm armoured glass windscreen, 68mm rear armoured glass plate for head protection, 7mm rear armour plate.
The summary of his report (marked 'SECRET') was sent to Messerschmitt, Dornier, Heinkel and Junkers, as well as the RLM, and reads:
"The LA 5FN represents a great improvement in performance, flying characteristics and serviceability compared to earlier Russian fighters, and its performance below 3000m is particularly noteworthy. Maximum speed is below that of our fighters at all altitudes; best climbing speed near ground level lies between those of the 190 and 109. In the climb, and turns below 3000m, the La5FN is a worthy opponent, particularly for the 190. the type's manufacturing shortcomings would hardly affect the Russians who are used to inferior flying characteristics. Range is short, flight endurance at rated power being about 40 minutes."
The report detail goes into great depth about the machine's handling characteristics, so I'll just pull out a few bits:
"Full throttle altitudes are so low that full emergency power cannot be achieved in either climbing or horizontal flight. "
"Surface finish, especially that of the wings (wood) is good; the sideways and forward extending slats fit very accurately. "
"The pilot's sitting position is comfortable. In flight the strong exhaust fumes are troublesome. The oxygen system is a copy of the German diaphragm flow economiser system."
"Longitudinal stability at normal angles of attack with undercarriage and flaps retracted or extended, is surprisingly good, even in a full power climb. In steep turns elevator forces are fully positive and fairly high, so that nose trim is advisable in a sustained turn.
Yawing oscillations damp out slowly, nevertheless gun aiming is quite easy. Roll response to rudder is mild; the nose rises or falls in response to rudder, but this is not particularly disturbing. "
He goes on to describe the forgiving stall characteristics which he ascribes to the extension of the slats.
"The smallest turning circle at rated power at 2400m is about 28/30 sec for a stable 360 degree turn at constant height. This implies a minimum time for a 360 degree turn at 1000m, with emergency power, of about 25 sec. "
He then says the aircraft has a tendency to porpoise on landing because the elevators become immersed in the wing wake and the undercarriage is poorly damped.
The tactical conclusions and advice offered to German fighter pilots are as follows:
"The La 5FN is best suited to low altitude combat by virtue of its engine performance. Its top speed at ground level is slightly below that of the 190 and 109 (using MW 50). The 109 with MW 50 is superior over the whole height band in top speed and climb rate. Acceleration is comparable. Aileron effectiveness is better than the 109. Turning times at ground level are better than the 190 and worse than the 109.
In rate of climb the 190 is poorer until 3000m. Because of its greater weight the 190 accelerates less well than the La5FN, but by the same token is superior in the dive. It is basically right to dive away like an American Thunderbolt when flying a 190, thereafter to pull away in a high speed shallow climb to reach a new attacking position, not to let the speed drop and to avoid prolonged turning dogfights."
The La-5FN in question:
However remember the Finnish refused any info on flight characteristics or performance data on the 109 from the Germans when they first went to pick them up, so they had to assume the proper landing speeds in the beginning (Hence the high landing speed in the G2 manual as a safe guard), however later on with the G6 they had established their own pilot instructions (Hence the general 160 km/h landing speed).
An easy question, now here's the answer; While the La-5FN fighter has a similar wing-loading to the Bf-109G-6, the La-5FN has a comparatively low CL-max wing, and while the slats did help, the wing just didn't produce the same high amount of lift as the Bf-109's wing. The popular myth that the Lavochkin fighter(s) could outturn the Bf-109(s) is just that, a myth. Infact according to official Russian flight-tests with a Bf-109G-2/R6, this plane could turn just as well as a La-5 purposely lightened by 160 kg. (For those of you who don't know, the Bf-109G-2R6 is a bomber-interceptor version of the G-2 carrying gun-pods)
The captured Bf-109G-2/R6 in question:
And according to extensive German testing of a La-5FN, it was found that it couldn't turn as well as a cleanly loaded Bf-109. (German 109 pilots attest to this fact as-well)
The following excerpts are taken from "Luftwaffe Test Pilot" by Hans Werner Lerche. He flew virtually all captured Allied aircraft and most German types, including experimental models. His book includes a detailed wartime test report prepared by him, on the La5FN.
Hans Werner Lerche:
He tested an La5FN powered by an M- 82FNV engine in September 1944 at Gross Schimanen, East Prussia.
"It was obvious from the start that this aircraft was no longer comparable with the earlier Soviet fighter types of rather primitive construction, and that it was a very serious opponent to our fighters below 3000m (10,000ft). "
He describes having been made giddy by carbon monoxide entering the cockpit during his first flight; thereafter he chose to always wear an oxygen mask when flying it. He also says the noise from its engine was deafening and that he always had to put cotton wool in his ears when aboard.
His report lists the following figures:
Max speed 403mph at 20,670 ft
Rate of climb, rated power, at 300m (984ft) 16.17 m/s
Rate of climb, rated power, at 4000m (13,120 ft) 13 m/s
Rate of climb, rated power, at 7000m (22,320 ft) 6 m/s
Climb to 16,400ft (5000m) in 4min 42 sec
Service Ceiling 31,170 ft (9500m)
Power Plant: Shvetsov M- 82FNV 1,850h.p
Armament: 2x 20mm cannon with 200 rounds each.
Armour protection 57mm armoured glass windscreen, 68mm rear armoured glass plate for head protection, 7mm rear armour plate.
The summary of his report (marked 'SECRET') was sent to Messerschmitt, Dornier, Heinkel and Junkers, as well as the RLM, and reads:
"The LA 5FN represents a great improvement in performance, flying characteristics and serviceability compared to earlier Russian fighters, and its performance below 3000m is particularly noteworthy. Maximum speed is below that of our fighters at all altitudes; best climbing speed near ground level lies between those of the 190 and 109. In the climb, and turns below 3000m, the La5FN is a worthy opponent, particularly for the 190. the type's manufacturing shortcomings would hardly affect the Russians who are used to inferior flying characteristics. Range is short, flight endurance at rated power being about 40 minutes."
The report detail goes into great depth about the machine's handling characteristics, so I'll just pull out a few bits:
"Full throttle altitudes are so low that full emergency power cannot be achieved in either climbing or horizontal flight. "
"Surface finish, especially that of the wings (wood) is good; the sideways and forward extending slats fit very accurately. "
"The pilot's sitting position is comfortable. In flight the strong exhaust fumes are troublesome. The oxygen system is a copy of the German diaphragm flow economiser system."
"Longitudinal stability at normal angles of attack with undercarriage and flaps retracted or extended, is surprisingly good, even in a full power climb. In steep turns elevator forces are fully positive and fairly high, so that nose trim is advisable in a sustained turn.
Yawing oscillations damp out slowly, nevertheless gun aiming is quite easy. Roll response to rudder is mild; the nose rises or falls in response to rudder, but this is not particularly disturbing. "
He goes on to describe the forgiving stall characteristics which he ascribes to the extension of the slats.
"The smallest turning circle at rated power at 2400m is about 28/30 sec for a stable 360 degree turn at constant height. This implies a minimum time for a 360 degree turn at 1000m, with emergency power, of about 25 sec. "
He then says the aircraft has a tendency to porpoise on landing because the elevators become immersed in the wing wake and the undercarriage is poorly damped.
The tactical conclusions and advice offered to German fighter pilots are as follows:
"The La 5FN is best suited to low altitude combat by virtue of its engine performance. Its top speed at ground level is slightly below that of the 190 and 109 (using MW 50). The 109 with MW 50 is superior over the whole height band in top speed and climb rate. Acceleration is comparable. Aileron effectiveness is better than the 109. Turning times at ground level are better than the 190 and worse than the 109.
In rate of climb the 190 is poorer until 3000m. Because of its greater weight the 190 accelerates less well than the La5FN, but by the same token is superior in the dive. It is basically right to dive away like an American Thunderbolt when flying a 190, thereafter to pull away in a high speed shallow climb to reach a new attacking position, not to let the speed drop and to avoid prolonged turning dogfights."
The La-5FN in question:
Excellent post. I imagine that must have been quite disturbing in some situations , as most Eastern combat was at low level. This would not be ideal for diving away. I reckon a few Fw-190 pilots found themselves in bad situations with a La-5FN. But overall, obviously, the 190 was the superior machine.
I'll have to look into that book ...
I'll have to look into that book ...
Nonskimmer
Captain
Agreed. Me too.plan_D said:
Jabberwocky
Staff Sergeant
Ok, finally got it sorted. The 109G2 manual states "Approach speed is 180kph", but the G-6 manual has the lower "ca.160" kph speed figure. My mistake for not noticing it.
On the La-5FN:
I also have a translation of the Rechlin tests as well, but I generally tend to stick to the rule of judging an aircraft by its official test results, rather than those carried out by other airforces. I don't think that a March 1945 test of a 1943 production LA-5FN will be 100% representative of a fighter designed for a life at the front of only a few months.
The May and October 1943 Russian reports for La-5FNs numbers 39210104 and 39210495, both at 3320kg take off weight, give a sustained turn time of around 19.5-20.5 seconds at low altitude (1000m) and 30-32 seconds at about 5000m, with around 1-2 seconds variance with regard to direction of turn. TsAGI data gives 19 seconds best sustained turn. Flight reports of the La-7, which is in essence a cleaned up and lightened La-5FN, give remarkably similar performance figures, about 18.5-21 seconds for a sustained turn at 1000m and 30-31 seconds for a turn at 5000m over 4 different airframes and 12 months between all 4 tests ( No.s 452101-39, 38100869, 452132-76 and 45210203)
Confusingly, the NII Russian tests and TsAGI max speed data for the La-5FN as around 620 kph at 6000m with the 2 minute emergency rating, some 30kph less than the Messerschmitt tests. But the Russian figures for the La-5FN are some 50 kph faster at sea level, 573 kph for test data and 580 kph from TsAGI charts, as opposed to 520 kph from the German tests. So many contradictions, sigh
Perhaps we have a reflection of the RAF tests with the Bf-109 or the USAAF tests of the 190: under-reporting of the types performance due to an unfamiliarity of operation confliction with under/over estimation of other aspects of performance from previous reports. Combine that with the age of the airframe and it might make some sense. Just a thought though.
If we go by the German judgement that the La-5FN was worse than a 109 but better than the 190, then maybe turn time should be lower than 25 seconds. Russian tests of a captured 190A-4 gave a sustained turn of 22-23 seconds at 1000m. If the La-5FN is better than this, then perhaps the 19-21 second figures aren't unreasonable after all.
Generally I think its a case of 109 turn time being discounted and La-5FN turn time being overhyped. Certainly in interviews with former Russian pilots they recall no porblem out-turning 109s, usually reveling in their recollections of their 'superior' performance. But, if I read more German pilot interviews, I'm sure I'd probably see the same thing from the other side
On the La-5FN:
I also have a translation of the Rechlin tests as well, but I generally tend to stick to the rule of judging an aircraft by its official test results, rather than those carried out by other airforces. I don't think that a March 1945 test of a 1943 production LA-5FN will be 100% representative of a fighter designed for a life at the front of only a few months.
The May and October 1943 Russian reports for La-5FNs numbers 39210104 and 39210495, both at 3320kg take off weight, give a sustained turn time of around 19.5-20.5 seconds at low altitude (1000m) and 30-32 seconds at about 5000m, with around 1-2 seconds variance with regard to direction of turn. TsAGI data gives 19 seconds best sustained turn. Flight reports of the La-7, which is in essence a cleaned up and lightened La-5FN, give remarkably similar performance figures, about 18.5-21 seconds for a sustained turn at 1000m and 30-31 seconds for a turn at 5000m over 4 different airframes and 12 months between all 4 tests ( No.s 452101-39, 38100869, 452132-76 and 45210203)
Confusingly, the NII Russian tests and TsAGI max speed data for the La-5FN as around 620 kph at 6000m with the 2 minute emergency rating, some 30kph less than the Messerschmitt tests. But the Russian figures for the La-5FN are some 50 kph faster at sea level, 573 kph for test data and 580 kph from TsAGI charts, as opposed to 520 kph from the German tests. So many contradictions, sigh
Perhaps we have a reflection of the RAF tests with the Bf-109 or the USAAF tests of the 190: under-reporting of the types performance due to an unfamiliarity of operation confliction with under/over estimation of other aspects of performance from previous reports. Combine that with the age of the airframe and it might make some sense. Just a thought though.
If we go by the German judgement that the La-5FN was worse than a 109 but better than the 190, then maybe turn time should be lower than 25 seconds. Russian tests of a captured 190A-4 gave a sustained turn of 22-23 seconds at 1000m. If the La-5FN is better than this, then perhaps the 19-21 second figures aren't unreasonable after all.
Generally I think its a case of 109 turn time being discounted and La-5FN turn time being overhyped. Certainly in interviews with former Russian pilots they recall no porblem out-turning 109s, usually reveling in their recollections of their 'superior' performance. But, if I read more German pilot interviews, I'm sure I'd probably see the same thing from the other side
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
Great stuff guys! Think about this though on the landing speeds - 1.3 X stall speed = proper landing speed.....
Food for thought....
Food for thought....
loomaluftwaffe
Tech Sergeant
- 1,840
- Dec 20, 2005
great post, ive read many articles about La-5 aces and it states that they were mostly shooting down 190s flying low
- Thread starter
- #71
schwarzpanzer
Senior Airman
- 662
- Aug 8, 2005
PlanD:
Perhaps a bad comparison, the 7.62 SLR bullet is similar to the .30 Garand's. The 7.92 Kurz and Soviet intermediate round are very similar.
The differing accuracy would make this a bad comparison though, that's why I chose the M16.
You contradictedyourself by saying superior firepower is a deadlier bullet, then said it was full-auto.
The M16's, that aren't 3-round burst versions, are more lethal at close range, due to both individual round ballistics (Like Jabberwocky said) and a higher RoF.
Even the bust-fire variants are more lethal.
It might, they weren't built very well in '44 you know. Would you call the Sten sturdy then?? No reports of them breaking when dropped though, so it's a pointless 'discussion'.
You could hit someone with a Garand, but could not with a StG - making the Garand more sturdy IMHO.
The Chinese pilots were novices, that may have had something to do with it. Also the runway was very short.
You posted them earlier? (Or was it Soren?)
Just misinformed? or blinded by RussoPhobia?
I have (links) but the Threads have been deleted.
I'd call that bad equipment, simple as.
The 5.56 is good (slightly better on Auto) @ that range.
The 7.92 Kurz could (apparently) penetrate a German-pattern steel helmet @ 600m, so penetration/range is good.
The StG was useless for melee attacks though - in addition to the butt being unuseable, I don't think a bayonet could be fitted IIRC?
Hehe, not quite.
Similar, but upwards and forwards a bit - hard spring rates?
This would not be a problem in Britain though - long runways.
I like the Kar98k, it just had it's disadvantages.
In a bad landing the Spitfire will bound forward (and if there's anything in it's way...), the FW will invert itself and the Me109 will break it's legs and slide on it's belly. I'd prefer the last option, with it's strong bulkhead, as did some WW2 pilots.
Did anyone land an Me without deploying the combat flaps? - I'd say it would be near impossible?
Ah yes, but that's not what I was meaning. That was a desirable trait to some.
Perhaps a bad comparison, the 7.62 SLR bullet is similar to the .30 Garand's. The 7.92 Kurz and Soviet intermediate round are very similar.
The differing accuracy would make this a bad comparison though, that's why I chose the M16.
You contradictedyourself by saying superior firepower is a deadlier bullet, then said it was full-auto.
The M16's, that aren't 3-round burst versions, are more lethal at close range, due to both individual round ballistics (Like Jabberwocky said) and a higher RoF.
Even the bust-fire variants are more lethal.
It might, they weren't built very well in '44 you know. Would you call the Sten sturdy then?? No reports of them breaking when dropped though, so it's a pointless 'discussion'.
You could hit someone with a Garand, but could not with a StG - making the Garand more sturdy IMHO.
The Chinese pilots were novices, that may have had something to do with it. Also the runway was very short.
You posted them earlier? (Or was it Soren?)
Just misinformed? or blinded by RussoPhobia?
I have (links) but the Threads have been deleted.
I'd call that bad equipment, simple as.
The 5.56 is good (slightly better on Auto) @ that range.
The 7.92 Kurz could (apparently) penetrate a German-pattern steel helmet @ 600m, so penetration/range is good.
The StG was useless for melee attacks though - in addition to the butt being unuseable, I don't think a bayonet could be fitted IIRC?
loomaluftwaffe said:
Hehe, not quite.
Jabberwocky said:
Similar, but upwards and forwards a bit - hard spring rates?
This would not be a problem in Britain though - long runways.
I like the Kar98k, it just had it's disadvantages.
.Soren said:
In a bad landing the Spitfire will bound forward (and if there's anything in it's way...), the FW will invert itself and the Me109 will break it's legs and slide on it's belly. I'd prefer the last option, with it's strong bulkhead, as did some WW2 pilots.
Did anyone land an Me without deploying the combat flaps? - I'd say it would be near impossible?
KraziKanuK said:
Ah yes, but that's not what I was meaning. That was a desirable trait to some.
Do you want me to smack you with a StG , schwarz? Then we'll see if you can hit someone with one.
Chinese pilots flying Spitfires? And these were where and when?
So, in other words, you haven't a clue of my sources. You just call them bias out of hand because my information disagrees with yours , but you have yet to provide sources , schwarz ! Misinformed and what sources can you provide to prove this?
No the threads in question have not been deleted. You just haven't got any evidence for your arguments.
No, using a M-16 on Auto would waste ammo. With a SLR , you use single aimed shots. And you would be able to drop many more people using this method with a SLR , than blasting away on Auto with a M-16.
Chinese pilots flying Spitfires? And these were where and when?
So, in other words, you haven't a clue of my sources. You just call them bias out of hand because my information disagrees with yours , but you have yet to provide sources , schwarz ! Misinformed and what sources can you provide to prove this?
No the threads in question have not been deleted. You just haven't got any evidence for your arguments.
No, using a M-16 on Auto would waste ammo. With a SLR , you use single aimed shots. And you would be able to drop many more people using this method with a SLR , than blasting away on Auto with a M-16.
Good posts on the landing speeds and the La-5FN, really interesting to read.
Jabberwocky said:
First of all this test was carried out in September 1944.
Secondly Lerche notes the excellent condition of the aircraft, especially the surface finish, so this plane probably didn't see much service, if any at all.
This is unlike the Russians which only evaluated a couple of 109's which either had to be repaired because of damage from crash landings, or ones which were carrying a bomber-interceptor setup(As-well as lacking its main wheel-doors). And even then the Bf-109G-2/R6 which they evaluated still managed to turn as-well as a La-5 purposely lightened by 160 kg. (Quite impressive!)
And about the turn times;
You know all those turn times are really worth nothing at all, as each country had its own set of rules and methods for carrying out these tests, so we're never going to get an accurate idea of how these aircraft actually handeled by comparing scattered test-results from each country like that.
The Russians seem to get lower figures with each a/c they test in this manner compared to the the Germans, the 22.5 sec 360 degree turn with a Fw-190A-4 being significantly lower than any German results with the Fw-190A-4, highly suggesting that the Russians utilized drastically different methods for carrying out these tests. My guess is that the Russians carried out their tests at lower altitudes and that there was no real set of rules on how to carry out the turn as long as it was a horizontal turn, that would partly explain the difference between German and Russian results.
I would suspect that the Finnish methods for carrying such tests were the same as the Russian's - at low altitude with no specific set of rules on how to carry out the turn.
And according to Finnish tests with a Bf-109G-2(MT-215 to be specific) fully loaded with fuel and ammunition(The G-2 weighs just about 3,100 kg in that condition), with an entry speed of 450 km/h a 360 degree horizontal turn took only 18 seconds to complete and with a final speed of 330 km/h. That is 1-2 sec quicker than any TsAGi tests with the Lavochkin -5FN and -7 fighters.
But enough with the turn times....
If we compare the Bf-109K-4 and La-7 for example, the top speeds at sea-level are pretty much the same, yet the Bf-109 climbs alot better than the La-7 at all heights,(Heck even a G-10/14 climbs alot better) that along with the lower landing speed and higher aspect thickness ratio wing of the 109, clearly indicates that the Bf-109K-4 has a much lower lift-loading.
Jabberwocky said:
No, you can't compare them at all, the RAF tests with the 109 are worthless, completely worthless, the British test-pilots didn't even dare to fly the plane for christs sake. As soon as the slats came out they would piss their pants thinking the aircraft was about to stall, abandoning the maneuver entirely ! Well, it just so happens that the slats came out real early in any wild maneuvers, so the British got nothing out of their tests at all. It was a really dumb mistake by the RAF considering that the guy who actually invented the automatic-slats was British, yet he wasn't contacted by the RAF at all, not once, decieving allied pilots, having them assume that the 109 was as sluggish a turn-fighter as RAF tests had mistakenly established - something I bet cost more than a few Spitfire pilots their lives.
The Russians on the other hand were used to flying fighters equipped with slats, and could therefore push the 109 much closer to the limit. However unfortunately the few 109's captured by the Russians were in pretty bad shape, one had lost part of its wing during a crash landing, and another (Bf-109G-2/R6) was missing its main wheel-doors as-well as being unusually heavily equipped.
Jabberwocky said:
Major Kozhemyako, Soviet fighter ace:
"BF109 was very good, very high scale fighter plane. It was superior to our Yaks in speed and vertical combat. It wasn`t 100% superiority, but still. Very dynamic plane. I`ll be honest with you, it was my dream during my war years, to have a plane like this. Fast and superior on vertical, but that didn`t happen. Messer had one extremely positive thing, it was able to be successful fight Yak`s at 2000m and Aircobras at 6000m. This is truly unique ability and valuable. Of course, here Yak and P-39 were inferior. As far as combat on different altitudes, BF109 was universal, like La-5.Me109 was exceptional in turning combat. If there is a fighter plane built for turning combat , it has to be Messer! Speedy, maneuverable,(especially in vertical) and extremely dynamic. I can`t tell about all other things, but taking under consideration what i said above, Messerschmitt was ideal for dogfight. But for some reason majority of german pilots didn`t like turn fight, till this day i don`t know why.I don`t know what was stopping them, but it`s definitely not the plane. I know that for a fact. I remember battle of Kursk where german aces were starting "roller-coaster" rides where our heads were about to come off from rotation. No, seriously... Is it true it`s a common thing now that Messer wasn`t maneuverable?
Interviewer: Yes.
Heh.. Why would people come up with something like this... It was maneuverable...by god it was."
Erwin Leykauf, German fighter pilot, 33 victories:
"The Bf 109s also had leading edge slats. When the 109 was flown, advertently or inadvertently, too slow, the slats shot forward out of the wing, sometimes with a loud bang which could be heard above the noise of the engine. Many times the slats coming out frightenened young pilots when they flew the Bf 109 for the first time in combat. One often flew near the stalling speed in combat, not only when flying straight and level but especially when turning and climbing. Sometimes the slats would suddenly fly out with a bang as if one had been hit, especially when one had throttled back to bank steeply. Indeed many fresh young pilots thought they were pulling very tight turns even when the slats were still closed against the wing. For us, the more experienced pilots, real manoeuvring only started when the slats were out. For this reason it is possible to find pilots from that period (1940) who will tell you that the Spitfire turned better than the Bf 109. That is not true. I myself had many dogfights with Spitfires and I could always out-turn them. One had to enter the turn correctly, then open up the engine. It was a matter of feel. When one noticed the speed becoming critical - the aircraft vibrated - one had to ease up a bit, then pull back again, so that in plan the best turn would have looked like an egg or a horizontal ellipse rather than a circle. In this way one could out-turn the Spitfire - and I shot down six of them doing it."
Walter Wolfrum, German fighter ace. 137 victories:
"Unexperienced pilots hesitated to turn tight, bacause the plane shook violently when the slats deployed. I realised, though, that because of the slats the plane's stalling characteristics were much better than in comparable Allied planes that I got to fly. Even though you may doubt it, I knew the Bf109 could manouver better in turnfight than LaGG, Yak or even Spitfire."
Mauno Fräntilä, Finnish fighter ace. 5 1/2 victories:
"The Messerschmitt was exellent. You got always away when you pushed your nose down, and it then rose like an elevator. You soon had upper hand again. You should never lose your speed. Always get back up. The one who is higher has the advantage. You could shake the other with a climbing turn, he had to turn harder. Tighten the turn when the other tries to get into shooting position. The Messerschmitt climbed better, so it got away. Handy. The one who is in the inside of the circle loses his speed and doesn't get into position. You could use it against Yak-9's and La-5's, they were no more nimble."
And that was just a tiny drop in the water, there are plenty more where that came from.....
FLYBOYJ said:
Very true, if you take the Spitfire Mk.XIV's landing speed of 100mph for example and divide it with 1.3, you get 76 mph which is almost exactly spot on.
Here are the landing speeds of some of the most common late war period fighters:
Spitfire Mk.XIV:
100 mph (160 km/h), gear flaps down, power on.
Bf-109K-4:
155 km/h (96 mph), gear flaps down, power on.
F4U-4 Corsair:
90-95 kt's (103-109 mph), gear flaps down, power on.
Fw-190 Dora-9:
167 km/h (103 mph), gear flaps down, power on.
P-51D Mustang:
115-120 mph (185-193 km/h), gear flaps down, power on.
Users who are viewing this thread
Similar threads
