Jabberwocky said:
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.
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:
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.
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:
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
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:
Great stuff guys! Think about this though on the landing speeds - 1.3 X stall speed = proper landing speed.....
Food for thought....
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.