PDA

View Full Version : Bf109 Alert - Milo Morai, SkyChimp, Blottog



Blutarski2004
01-06-2004, 10:09 AM
Gents,

Just thought I'd pass this interesting tidbit along to you, as I'm sure that it will provide a very good laugh.

Do you remember the monumental brouhaha over the Bf109G aerodynamics article by the German aero engineer Hoerner, in which he calculated a Cd-min value of .036 for the 109G. Certain parties violently disagreed with his results and alleged that the poor fellow was either an outright incompetent or had been using totally incorrect data in his work.

While pursuing a completely different discussion, I received over the holiday period the following info from an aerospace scientist friend of mine which I just HAD to share with you -


QUOTE -

Are you familiar with Sighard Hoerner's classic _Fluid Dynamic Drag_? Herr Doktor Ingeneur Hoerner was Messerschmitt's aerodynamicist in WW II and the book uses the Bf 109G as an example, providing a very thorough drag buildup. He gives the D/q (equivalent flat-plate drag area) as 6.2 sq. ft. and the Cd-min as 0.036. His drag buildup is the classic illustration of how to do it, and very illuminating.

- UNQUOTE


I cannot tell you how long I laughed when I read this ....... ;-)


BTW, I recommend that you visit the aircraft test report website which was so kindly posted yesterday by another fellow. The Bf109F test report offered several intersting insights:

(1) It claims that the 109F mixture and prop pitch control were automatic and slaved to the throttle, apparently in much the same manner as the 190 Kommandogerat.

(2) 109F high speed roll performance was better than that of the 109E, better than that of the Spitfire WITH FABRIC COVERED AILERONS, but inferior to the Spitfire WITH METAL COVERED AILERONS. Seems that the effects of aileron covering materials should be looked into more closely.

(3) 109F elevator authority at high speeds was poor, causing the a/c to require a great deal of altitude to pull out from a high speed dive. The report speculates that this may explain the several observations of apparently undamaged 109F's lawn-darting.

(4) Excellent climb and dive performance, superior to Spit Vb, even though the test 109F was suffering from engine oil pressure problems which restricted performance above 20,000 ft.



Hope everyone had a wonderful holiday.

BLUTARSKI

Blutarski2004
01-06-2004, 10:09 AM
Gents,

Just thought I'd pass this interesting tidbit along to you, as I'm sure that it will provide a very good laugh.

Do you remember the monumental brouhaha over the Bf109G aerodynamics article by the German aero engineer Hoerner, in which he calculated a Cd-min value of .036 for the 109G. Certain parties violently disagreed with his results and alleged that the poor fellow was either an outright incompetent or had been using totally incorrect data in his work.

While pursuing a completely different discussion, I received over the holiday period the following info from an aerospace scientist friend of mine which I just HAD to share with you -


QUOTE -

Are you familiar with Sighard Hoerner's classic _Fluid Dynamic Drag_? Herr Doktor Ingeneur Hoerner was Messerschmitt's aerodynamicist in WW II and the book uses the Bf 109G as an example, providing a very thorough drag buildup. He gives the D/q (equivalent flat-plate drag area) as 6.2 sq. ft. and the Cd-min as 0.036. His drag buildup is the classic illustration of how to do it, and very illuminating.

- UNQUOTE


I cannot tell you how long I laughed when I read this ....... ;-)


BTW, I recommend that you visit the aircraft test report website which was so kindly posted yesterday by another fellow. The Bf109F test report offered several intersting insights:

(1) It claims that the 109F mixture and prop pitch control were automatic and slaved to the throttle, apparently in much the same manner as the 190 Kommandogerat.

(2) 109F high speed roll performance was better than that of the 109E, better than that of the Spitfire WITH FABRIC COVERED AILERONS, but inferior to the Spitfire WITH METAL COVERED AILERONS. Seems that the effects of aileron covering materials should be looked into more closely.

(3) 109F elevator authority at high speeds was poor, causing the a/c to require a great deal of altitude to pull out from a high speed dive. The report speculates that this may explain the several observations of apparently undamaged 109F's lawn-darting.

(4) Excellent climb and dive performance, superior to Spit Vb, even though the test 109F was suffering from engine oil pressure problems which restricted performance above 20,000 ft.



Hope everyone had a wonderful holiday.

BLUTARSKI

FW190fan
01-06-2004, 10:37 AM
Yipee!

Another chance at a 8-9 page thread pissing on the 109!

You're all invited! We're going to piss this plane into oblivion because we just can't get enough of it!


Get you're Kit Carson snippets ready and we'll be off to the races!

Boo-hoo the 109 is overmodelled...

Boo-hoo it's elevators don't work...

Boo-hoo it had a poor roll-rate...

Boo-hoo it's leading edge slats keep deploying unevenly...

Boo-hoo it's landing gear is too narrow...

Boo-hoo it had short range...

Boo-hoo all the experten lied about their victory claims...

boo-hoo it was built by slave labour...

boo-hoo I'm righteous because I don't fly them and that makes me a good person...



http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

[/ihttp://www.btinternet.com/~lee_mail/Fw190-6.jpg

faustnik
01-06-2004, 10:45 AM
What are you talking about 190 fan? All the items listed above show how well the 109 is modeled in FB. What's to whine about?

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/FaustSig

Bremspropeller
01-06-2004, 11:06 AM
190Fan, where are the bikini-girls ?

I usually see them at events I'm invited in http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gifhttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif



http://www.brooksart.com/Longnose.jpg
"Once upon the time..there was an aircraft that ruled the skies of Europe..."
http://www.virtual-jabog32.de
http://www.jg68.de.vu

S77th-brooks
01-06-2004, 11:16 AM
lol cool, but wait till they get there books out lol

Boandlgramer
01-06-2004, 02:23 PM
Blutarski, thx for the info.

just a little question.
what Cd.min did your friend calculate for the BF 109 ?
how wrong was herr hoerner ?
any chance to get it ?
our laugh is much bigger, if we know , your friend is serious. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

RED_Boandl
http://www.707tkbn.org/members/sites/schmidt05.jpg

Blutarski2004
01-06-2004, 02:50 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Boandlgramer:
Blutarski, thx for the info.

just a little question.
what Cd.min did your friend calculate for the BF 109 ?
how wrong was herr hoerner ?
any chance to get it ?
our laugh is much bigger, if we know , your friend is serious. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

RED_Boandl
http://www.707tkbn.org/members/sites/schmidt05.jpg <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

B,

My friend was not studying 109 aerodynamics. We were discussing another issue related to aerodynamics and he suggested that I look to Hoerner as a reliable reference as to how it is done and gave his employment references as a validation.

The 109G numbers he mentioned in the short e-mail came from Hoerner's work. Some people on this forum were arguing a 109G Cd-min value below .020.

Off to Las Vegas for 4 days now. See you later.

BLUTARSKI

KIMURA
01-06-2004, 03:07 PM
On which 109G-type your friend and Mr.H√¬∂rner were refering about? On the G-types are very big differences, so G-types is not very precise.http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Boandlgramer
01-06-2004, 03:21 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Blutarski2004:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Boandlgramer:
Blutarski, thx for the info.

just a little question.
what Cd.min did your friend calculate for the BF 109 ?
how wrong was herr hoerner ?
any chance to get it ?
our laugh is much bigger, if we know , your friend is serious. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

RED_Boandl
http://www.707tkbn.org/members/sites/schmidt05.jpg <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

B,

My friend was not studying 109 aerodynamics. We were discussing another issue related to aerodynamics and he suggested that I look to Hoerner as a reliable reference as to how it is done and gave his employment references as a validation.

The 109G numbers he mentioned in the short e-mail came from Hoerner's work. Some people on this forum were arguing a 109G Cd-min value below .020.

Off to Las Vegas for 4 days now. See you later.

BLUTARSKI

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

thx Blutarski,
btw, it was always a dream of mine, to visit Las Vegas .
hehehe, i heard also a so called superstar got merried in las vegas some days ago http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

RED_Boandl
http://www.707tkbn.org/members/sites/schmidt05.jpg

Abbuzze
01-06-2004, 03:45 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Blutarski2004:
Gents,
[...]
(3) 109F elevator authority at high speeds was poor, causing the a/c to require a great deal of altitude to pull out from a high speed dive. The report speculates that this may explain the several observations of apparently undamaged 109F's lawn-darting.
[...]
BLUTARSKI

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hmm Pulling out of an 75-80‚? dive (TAS ~850km/h) needed 1500m to leavel out. Starting at 4250m leveling at 2750m... just with pulling the stick- with the right trimset!
With the wrong one you have to adjust the trim- no chance by just pulling the stick, but if using the trim, be carefull the plane reacts so good that the pilot had to push the stick foreward, to be not blacked out... also need 1500 to leaveling... Result for me: the Pilot was the limiting factor!

Hmm and if the Pilot was the Problem.. I assume even a Mustang with a light elevator would not perform better... but more comfortable for sure! If you have values for other planes would be interesting to see! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

JG53 PikAs Abbuzze
I./Gruppe

http://www.jg53-pikas.de/

http://mitglied.lycos.de/p123/Ani_pikasbanner_langsam.gif

faustnik
01-06-2004, 05:05 PM
AHT lists the P-40 flat plate equivalent at 5.71. Hard to believe the 109G had more drag than a P-40. I wonder if a different method was used for calculation?

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/FaustSig
www.7Jg77.com (http://www.7jg77.com)

Copperhead310th
01-06-2004, 05:21 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by FW190fan:
Yipee!

Another chance at a 8-9 page thread pissing on the 109!

You're all invited! We're going to piss this plane into oblivion because we just can't get enough of it!


Get you're Kit Carson snippets ready and we'll be off to the races!

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

LOl ok Jerky....i'll gladly start that off. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

"The Me 109 was obsolete the day it rolled of the line."
Kit Carson

lol funny thing is...he was right. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

http://imageshack.us/files/380th%20siggy.jpg

TX-Bomblast
01-06-2004, 05:27 PM
You guys have to remember, it's the Pilot not the plane.
TX-Bomblast
Red3

faustnik
01-06-2004, 05:30 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Copperhead310th:


LOl ok Jerky....i'll gladly start that off. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

"The Me 109 was obsolete the day it rolled of the line."
Kit Carson

lol funny thing is...he was right. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Another unbiased post brought to you by Copperhead! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Fortunately, our 190's were hardly obsolete when they "rolled off the line". http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/FaustSig
www.7Jg77.com (http://www.7jg77.com)

Korolov
01-06-2004, 05:43 PM
BLASPHEMY! LIES! ALL LIES!

http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

http://www.mechmodels.com/images/klv_ubisig1a.jpg

SkyChimp
01-06-2004, 05:44 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by faustnik:
Fortunately, our 190's were hardly obsolete when they "rolled off the line". http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Very true. Maybe it would have been better if Messerschmitt had built Fw-190s under contract.

Regards,
SkyChimp
http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/skychimp.jpg

horseback
01-06-2004, 06:06 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by faustnik:
AHT lists the P-40 flat plate equivalent at 5.71. Hard to believe the 109G had more drag than a P-40. I wonder if a different method was used for calculation?

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/FaustSig
http://www.7jg77.com

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

109 was a lot smaller and lighter, with a more powerful engine. That would make up for a lot of drag.

Cheers

horseback

"Here's your new Mustangs, boys. You can learn to fly'em on the way to the target. Cheers!" -LTCOL Don Blakeslee, 4th FG CO, February 27th, 1944

ElAurens
01-06-2004, 06:48 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by horseback:
109 was a lot smaller and lighter, with a more powerful engine. That would make up for a lot of drag.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

But, the 109 had a much smaller wing area, hence, more induced drag...

There is more to the total drag of an airframe than flat plate and cd figures...

_____________________________

http://www.blitzpigs.com/forum/images/avatars/Curtiss_logo.gif

BlitzPig_EL

WUAF_Badsight
01-06-2004, 07:52 PM
to true

& the BF-109s were FAR from obsolete in 1940

Jazz-Man
01-06-2004, 08:02 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by FW190fan:
Boo-hoo all the experten lied about their victory claims...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm sorry, but anyone who believes this is out of their mind...

Victory tallies of the German pilots in the 2nd World Ware were not only meticulously recorded, but also held to a much stricter set of guidelines then were any other countries.

Both the British and Americans found that records kept of German victories were almost totally accurate reflections of their losses.

If you are convinced, on the other hand, that you must be right because the Germans reported so many victories over Britain, and because of the now famous story of a report going to Luftwaffe command that in fact the whole RAF had been destroyed/killed, you should realize that what was failed to take into account was the fact that many of these victories did not include a dead pilot, and the British War Industry was not targetted. So in fact, the Germans had destroyed as many aircraft as the British had at the beginning of the war.. but the pilots kept comming back, and the planes kept being built.

It was for this reason that Hermann Goring once asked Galland if he would support an order for pilots to shoot British pilots in their chutes. Galland said he would never give or accept such an order, and Goring dropped the subject and said, "Good, that is what I was hoping you would say." If thats what Goring was *really* hoping he would say or not.. the desperation was there..

And so were the Victories. The Bf-109 is quite deadly, and reflects its deadly nature quite well in FB.

S!
William "Jazz-Man" Katz
Squadron Batman
RAF No.74 Squadron
http://home.sou.edu/~katzw/images/signature.jpg

DaBallz
01-06-2004, 08:08 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jazz-Man:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by FW190fan:
Boo-hoo all the experten lied about their victory claims...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm sorry, but anyone who believes this is out of their mind...

Victory tallies of the German pilots in the 2nd World Ware were not only meticulously recorded, but also held to a much stricter set of guidelines then were any other countries.

Both the British and Americans found that records kept of German victories were almost totally accurate reflections of their losses.

If you are convinced, on the other hand, that you must be right because the Germans reported so many victories over Britain, and because of the now famous story of a report going to Luftwaffe command that in fact the whole RAF had been destroyed/killed, you should realize that what was failed to take into account was the fact that many of these victories did not include a dead pilot, and the British War Industry was not targetted. So in fact, the Germans had destroyed as many aircraft as the British had at the beginning of the war.. but the pilots kept comming back, and the planes kept being built.

It was for this reason that Hermann Goring once asked Galland if he would support an order for pilots to shoot British pilots in their chutes. Galland said he would never give or accept such an order, and Goring dropped the subject and said, "Good, that is what I was hoping you would say." If thats what Goring was *really* hoping he would say or not.. the desperation was there..

And so were the Victories. The Bf-109 is quite deadly, and reflects its deadly nature quite well in FB.

S!
William "Jazz-Man" Katz
Squadron Batman
RAF No.74 Squadron
http://home.sou.edu/~katzw/images/signature.jpg <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Pure fantasy, please show me where anyone (except a German) thought the Tallies of German pilots were accurate. The Germans hyper inflated their scores so severly that there were not enough combat planes manufactured during WWII to cover them, pure unadulterated horse poop.

German claims during the BOB ran about 3X the British losses. That the British over claimed is not in doubt, but to say the German claims are correct is self delusion.

Da

FW190fan
01-06-2004, 08:10 PM
Come on Jazz-Man, notice the IRONY. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

http://people.aero.und.edu/~choma/lrg0645.jpg

Fehler
01-07-2004, 04:56 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Copperhead310th:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by FW190fan:
Yipee!

Another chance at a 8-9 page thread pissing on the 109!

You're all invited! We're going to piss this plane into oblivion because we just can't get enough of it!


Get you're Kit Carson snippets ready and we'll be off to the races!

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

LOl ok Jerky....i'll gladly start that off. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

"The Me 109 was obsolete the day it rolled of the line."
Kit Carson

lol funny thing is...he was right. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

http://imageshack.us/files/380th%20siggy.jpg <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Wow, Copperhead says it, so it must be the truth.. Good job Tard.

Guess all those people that were shot up and killed by them didnt know what you know. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Now, go back to watching Rambo or U-571 for interesting history blurps you can repeat in mindless fashion.

http://webpages.charter.net/cuda70/Fehlersig.jpg
http://webpages.charter.net/cuda70/9JG54.html

Fehler
01-07-2004, 05:18 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by DaBallz:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jazz-Man:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by FW190fan:
Boo-hoo all the experten lied about their victory claims...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm sorry, but anyone who believes this is out of their mind...

Victory tallies of the German pilots in the 2nd World Ware were not only meticulously recorded, but also held to a much stricter set of guidelines then were any other countries.

Both the British and Americans found that records kept of German victories were almost totally accurate reflections of their losses.

If you are convinced, on the other hand, that you must be right because the Germans reported so many victories over Britain, and because of the now famous story of a report going to Luftwaffe command that in fact the whole RAF had been destroyed/killed, you should realize that what was failed to take into account was the fact that many of these victories did not include a dead pilot, and the British War Industry was not targetted. So in fact, the Germans had destroyed as many aircraft as the British had at the beginning of the war.. but the pilots kept comming back, and the planes kept being built.

It was for this reason that Hermann Goring once asked Galland if he would support an order for pilots to shoot British pilots in their chutes. Galland said he would never give or accept such an order, and Goring dropped the subject and said, "Good, that is what I was hoping you would say." If thats what Goring was *really* hoping he would say or not.. the desperation was there..

And so were the Victories. The Bf-109 is quite deadly, and reflects its deadly nature quite well in FB.

S!
William "Jazz-Man" Katz
Squadron Batman
RAF No.74 Squadron
http://home.sou.edu/~katzw/images/signature.jpg <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Pure fantasy, please show me where anyone (except a German) thought the Tallies of German pilots were accurate. The Germans hyper inflated their scores so severly that there were not enough combat planes manufactured during WWII to cover them, pure unadulterated horse poop.

German claims during the BOB ran about 3X the British losses. That the British over claimed is not in doubt, but to say the German claims are correct is self delusion.

Da<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

[SARCASM ON]Yeah, pity we hung so many Germans based on their over-inflated claims of people put to death. 6 Million or more.. who could trust those numbers? Just more evidence of people trying to impress their supervisors. They never kept accurate records at all. Can't trust anything Germans ever did. Evil Nazi's..

It is much better to trust data and information from (Communist) Russia. All info from them was unbiased and totally truthful.[/SARCASM OFF]

Why is it so hard to believe mathematics?

Say Allied Pilot A flies 50 missions and gets 5 kills. He is an ace. Wonderful.

Say German Pilot flies 1000 and has 100 victories, he is a liar?

Either is 10 Percent victories per mission. So why is it so hard to believe that a guy surviving 1000 missions doesnt learn a few tricks that make him a slightly better pilot than his allied counterpart that only flies his plane 50 times?

If you use a smidgen of logic and deductive reasoning, you would see that the average German ace was really just at par with his western counterparts. The kill totals even reflect that.

But believe what you want. Lots of people thought the world was flat, even after Christopher Columbus proved it wasnt...

http://webpages.charter.net/cuda70/Fehlersig.jpg
http://webpages.charter.net/cuda70/9JG54.html

ElAurens
01-07-2004, 05:27 AM
Interesting reply Fehler. Showing the kills per sortie statistic really puts a new light on it.

The fact is that there were very good pilots in every service, on all sides.

There were aces in the PZL 11, and at least one In I16s with over 25 kills.

But you must admit that there are some here who use the total experten kill numbers as a justification for saying that they were the best pilots, period.

Thanks for shedding a little logic on the situation.

_____________________________

http://www.blitzpigs.com/forum/images/avatars/Curtiss_logo.gif

BlitzPig_EL

Fehler
01-07-2004, 06:17 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ElAurens:
Interesting reply Fehler. Showing the kills per sortie statistic really puts a new light on it.

The fact is that there were very good pilots in every service, on all sides.

There were aces in the PZL 11, and at least one In I16s with over 25 kills.

But you must admit that there are some here who use the total experten kill numbers as a justification for saying that they were the best pilots, _period_.

Thanks for shedding a little logic on the situation.

_____________________________

http://www.blitzpigs.com/forum/images/avatars/Curtiss_logo.gif

__BlitzPig_EL__<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hartmann, Rahl, Nowotny, Galland and others were probably very good pilots, as a matter of fact, I am SURE they were. If you also take into account that (At the time) the Luftwaffe was probably the best trained air force in the world at the start of WWII. Their leaders were (At least) supportive of innovation. Even in the USAAF, forward thinkers were often thought of as rebels. (LOL) By their high point they (Luftwaffe)were probably also the most experienced, flying sortie after sortie, day after day.

With that in mind, the numbers the Luftwaffe manifested really werent that impressive (As a whole.)

Still, every nation had their top guys. I honestly believe that given similar experiences, the U.S., G.B., and USSR would have had pilots with equal numbers.

In the end, tactics, experience and luck were needed to be a great fighter pilot. Look at some of the AVG guys that came back to fly against the Japanese in the Pacific. Some of those guys were barely pilots when they went to fly in China. But superior tactical planning from (Rebel) Chennault, and the experiences learned over Burma made them superior to the peers at the onset of WWII for the U.S.

The same could and should be said of the Luftwaffe pilots that flew in the Spanish Civil War.

So, people that think the Germans were liars because of the numbers a handfull of pilots posted must not be looking at the issue objectively.

They were men. Some of them were even good men. Gunther Rahl seems to me to be a very polite, conservative, and honest fellow. I have watched or read a lot of interviews about him and have always been impressed. I bet he would have been polite, conservative, and honest if he would have flown a Yak, a Spitfire, or a P-51...

If ya know what I mean.

http://webpages.charter.net/cuda70/Fehlersig.jpg
http://webpages.charter.net/cuda70/9JG54.html

nicolas10
01-07-2004, 07:26 AM
I wish the high speed dives were better modeled in the game. I'd be nice if the ac didn't break up unrealistically, but that you could get in a fast dive and not pull out or have other various problems.

Nic

The first official D12 whiner!

nicolas10
01-07-2004, 07:35 AM
I'm sorry but someone who has hundreds of missions under his belt, and over a hundred of victories HAS to be better than your pilot who flies 50 missions. I read a french ace account (a good pilot), saying that when they met an experten (100+ kills, usually shown with the flower crown on the tail), they'd just try and evade until the guy went away. He proceeded to say that once they were 6 - 8 planes and an experten came here, and they couldn't do anything and just tried to evade until the guy went away. The german did shoot down a couple planes and then went away unharmed. Heck if you're a hot shot, and you have so much experience, how can you not be better than a noob with 50 missions?

Nic

The first official D12 whiner!

Fehler
01-07-2004, 08:29 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by nicolas10:
Heck if you're a hot shot, and you have so much experience, how can you not be better than a noob with 50 missions?

Nic

The first official D12 whiner!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, personally, I wouldnt call a guy with 50 mission a n00b, at least not in air combat! But "Better" pilot is really a subjective term. Better for what reason? Better shooter? Better knowledge of his planes limitations/advantages? Better vision? Better at what exactly?

I think all sides had some pretty excellent pilots, just as I am sure both sides had poor ones.

The thing that makes me laugh is, if you apply some member's logic (AKA Kit Carson Trumpeteers); then if the 109 was such a horrible plane, that would make the aces that flew them super human.. to fly something so crappy, yet do so well in it.

But since those people cant swallow the fact that it WAS a pretty good plane, then to support their claims of aircraft inferiority, they say.. "Well evil Nazi pilots lied about how many they shot down..." They really want their cake and eat it too, if ya know what I mean.

From a logical standpoint, I am sure that there were some inaccuracies in logging kills on both sides. Some from excitement of battle. (I shoot a plane, it dives away looking crippled, you shoot the same plane, we both log a kill) Some from error. ( I hit a guy he goes spinning out of control, I figure him for dead, buy he recovers and limps home alive.) And of course some for propaganda purposes. (We shot down 50 planes today! Hooray for the team! - we really only got 47 but fifty sounds a lot better!)

Some people here would like to re-write history though... "We won, so one of our top pilot had to be the best! No one has an MVP for the losing team!" That's the real problem, as I see it. Well, I have offered an angle of thinking for those thick headed people to feel better that their favorite pilot would have scored as well as Hartmann. "If Pilot X would have flown as many missions as Hartmann.. He would have been better!" Great.. Who knows..

Hartmann swears he never lost a wingman, a feat he was most proud of - Now that's something truly special!

http://webpages.charter.net/cuda70/Fehlersig.jpg
http://webpages.charter.net/cuda70/9JG54.html

hop2002
01-07-2004, 08:35 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>If you are convinced, on the other hand, that you must be right because the Germans reported so many victories over Britain, and because of the now famous story of a report going to Luftwaffe command that in fact the whole RAF had been destroyed/killed, you should realize that what was failed to take into account was the fact that many of these victories did not include a dead pilot, and the British War Industry was not targetted. So in fact, the Germans had destroyed as many aircraft as the British had at the beginning of the war.. but the pilots kept comming back, and the planes kept being built.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The Germans claimed around 3500 RAF aircraft shot down. I've seen it suggested that the British casualties were underreported, with many planes not being recorded as lost, as long as a single part was salvagable.

The problem with that is we know how many pilots the RAF lost. The RAF lost around 420 Spitfire and Hurricane pilots. If you compare pilot losses to overall losses, it usually runs at around 1 pilot lost for every 1.5 to 2 planes lost. That means RAF losses could not have been any higher than is commonly reported. (Approx 900 Spits and Hurricanes, around 1,100 fighters in total)

ZG77_Nagual
01-07-2004, 09:01 AM
A thing I allways find myself wanting to say - the German 109 aces flew basically the same plane for a LONG time. They got lots and lots of combat experience and were pretty much never rotated out. Granted the 109 was a decent plane - but these guys knew it incredibly well - this is why they say 'thus and such' was inferior to the 109 or whatever. They had the things down. A few P38 and P40 pilots did the same thing in the pacific - also the vvs p39 pilots - they got to know the planes and could make them work against anything else that was in the same ballpark.

FW190fan
01-07-2004, 09:45 AM
Wow, I throw the Kit Carson blurb out there and Copperhead takes it hook, line, and sinker.

So, Copperhead agrees with Mr. Carson that the 109 was obsolete the day it entered service.

Copperhead, if you are able to do so (which I don't think you are) then put your money where your mouth is and PROVE it.

I'll even make it easy on you. You don't even have to stick with the year it first saw combat in the Spanish civil war, hell you don't even have to stick with the first 2 years it saw combat in WWII. (In case you didn't know it Copperhead, WWII began in September 1939.)

So go ahead Copperhead, put you're money where your mouth is and PROVE to us all that the 109 was already obsolete when it entered service. You can compare it to any Allied fighter in widespread service to 1942.

That gives you several years to work with. Since the 109 was obsolete upon introduction as you and Mr. Carson maintain, certainly it will be easy to show it was obsolete several YEARS after it's introduction wouldn't it?

http://people.aero.und.edu/~choma/lrg0645.jpg

nicolas10
01-07-2004, 09:49 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Fehler:
Well, personally, I wouldnt call a guy with 50 mission a n00b, at least not in air combat!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well I used that as a figure of speach, I wouldn't say that either, but when you compare to some guys with 500-1000 missions, it could look like a noob.

Nic

The first official D12 whiner!

DONB3397
01-07-2004, 10:56 AM
I believe this is the third thread on roughly the same subject --109 performance vs. allied a/c (e.g. P-51D and Spit). It seems likely to turn into another "brouhaha" based on narrow data points.

Here are a couple of points that may be worth considering: 1) German aces outscored the top aces of any other air arm in WWII by a significant margin(if you assume over-claiming took place on both sides); and 2)the best of these pilots flew variants of the 109 during all or most of their WWII careers.

As several posters have written, LW pilots (at the outset of the war) were well-trained and eventually flew more missions in the 109 than their counterparts flew in their a/c. This Experience/longevity yielded 105 aces with more than 100 victories, and a couple with more than 300 (Hartmann and Barkhorn). Hartmann flew variants of the 109 exclusively, and Barkhorn flew them through most of his career.

Does that make the 109 a great plane? Maybe, for a while. It was simply built in greater numbers than any other warplane in history, and remained the standard LW fighter throughout WWII. It was also, arguably, the best piston-engined air superiority figther for longer than any other, although this period probably ended by 1943.

It would be interesting to hear from the statisticians and engineers one more time on this subject.

Winning isn't everything;
It's the only thing!
http://us.f2.yahoofs.com/bc/3fe77b7e_1812a/bc/Images/Sig---1.jpg?BC9Rt._AyoTnLZQo

nicolas10
01-07-2004, 11:01 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by DONB3397:
I believe this is the third thread on roughly the same subject --109 performance vs. allied a/c (e.g. P-51D and Spit).<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The third? Now that is funny!

Nic

The first official D12 whiner!

horseback
01-07-2004, 11:03 AM
When comparing LW experten to Western Allies' aces, you have to consider a number of factors.

Let's start with training. Pre and early war LW fighter training was very good, and it started on top of a 'hunter' culture and mindset, with an appreciation of marksmanship that most other European air forces (with the exception of the Finnish AF)didn't have. It was, however, not comparable to the rigors of the Imperial Japanese Naval Pilot program, which produced some outstanding pilots as well. US Naval aviators could also make a claim as being at least as well trained prewar and throughout WWII. Navy & Marine aviators were acknowledged as being among the best prewar by most authorities, with a similar emphasis on marksmanship. Deflection shooting was part of the training syllabus, something only the Germans also trained for.

Mission emphasis. As Christer Bergstrom has noted on these boards, the 'hunter' culture of the German fighter corps placed a great deal of emphasis on kills. All other mission requirements tended to be looked down on, and escort, ground support, reconnaissance missions were accepted grudgingly by fighter pilots who had to do them when no other resources were available to Command. The German fighter pilot culture appears to ask "How can I get more kills on this mission?" The Allied fighter pilots' culture appeared to ask "How can I best hurt the enemy on this mission?" While there were exceptions to this rule, it seems that military requirements were often subordinated to the desire to get more kills. I should point out that it wasn't selfishness, necessarily, but that these pilots were trained from day one that their job was to shoot down the enemy, and everything else is nonesense.

This leads to the issue of overclaiming. We should differentiate between what the German Propaganda Ministry claimed and what the pilots themselves claimed. Overclaiming was rife at the beginning of the war for all sides, with fluid lines and ground combat muddying up the picture. This continued to large degree during the BoB, where a beaten opponent could go down smoking or burning into low level clouds or mist, to crash (or recover and make it back to base) unseen. Once the Allies had to fly over German held territory, and the Germans could actually confirm claims by crash sites or camera film and/or witnesses, in the case of clashes over the Channel, did the Germans' accuracy improve to the degree they now get credit for the whole war for. Once the Allies went to an offensive posture in the air war, the uncertainty of credit for kills was increased for them. It seemed that the Germans wouldn't extend them the courtesy of checking Allied pilots' claims over German held territory because that would provide their enemy insight into their losses and capabilities. Postwar evaluations continue to be vague, not least because many German units (and bureaucracies) destroyed their records before surrendering, in a regrettable fit of unsportsmanlike conduct. We are therefore left to rely on the memories of an ever shrinking pool of old men.

Opportunity. From 1941 on, the German fighter pilot operated in a "target rich" environment, initially with superior equipment, and for the most part, rarely with less than equal equipment to his opponents. As the defender in the West and Med, he managed to maintain the intiative, picking his time and place of attack on the bombers or their escorts, who were required to hold a preset course to their target. Added to this was the fact that he rarely had to go far to find the enemy. German pilots (and Axis pilots in general) spent a lot higher percentage of their sorty time in visual contact with the enemy. An American escort fighter pilot spent 45 minutes to an hour climbing through overcast, forming up with other elements of his unit, climbing to altitude, and flying to his rendezvous with the bombers, all the time on oxygen and alert for a surprise bounce from out of the sun (it didn't happen often as the war ground down, but it did happen, and nobody wanted it to happen to them), before his actual chance for enemy contact. Given the size of bomber formations, and the relative scarcity of German interceptors, an RAF or USAAF fighter pilot had far less chance to make contact, much less engage, enemy aircraft on any given mission.

Familiarity with your weapons. Many German pilots flew their whole careers (up to ten years) in the Bf-109 in it's several flavors as it evolved. It required a great deal of skill to fly well almost from the start, and when the FW-190 arrived, it must have seemed somewhat easier to deal with, from all accounts. Because the two aircraft had similar advantages over their opponents, tactics for the two aircraft didn't have to change much. The FW was a heavier fighter with a heavier punch, but it enjoyed the same superiority in the dive/climb over the primary e/a they faced. The veteran German pilot had an intimacy with his aircraft from long experience, and could play it like a concert violinist at Carnegie Hall.

By contrast, the RAF had a tendency to assume that "if he's a pilot, he should be able to fly whatever we give him." Pilots transitioned from the Hurricane to the Spitfire after what would appear to be two of three familiarization flights, if the pilots' memoirs are to be believed. In North Africa, units went from Hurricanes to Tomahawks (a very different kind of fighter) with disastrous initial results. American pilots for the most part trained on P-39s and P-40s until deployment to England or the Med, and then spent a few weeks learning to fly frontline fighters. This was hard enough for P-47s or Mustangs, but with P-38 units, it could be horrendous. It took a while for the Allies to recognize that learning to fly a new fighter took a little time, and a lot of pilots (even experienced combat pilots) were lost in operational accidents during and shortly after transition. Units taking new types into combat had long transition periods, but once the a/c had entered the inventory, often the only ones with experience in the a/c transitioned to were a few flight leaders and/or the Squadron CO.

Finally, there was the rotation issue. The RAF, and later the USAAF, recognized that most people break down under the constant pressure of being overseas, never mind combat. At the same time, they had lots of pilots in the pipeline who could benefit from the old pros' experience, and from a military standpoint, improve the overall quality of the people entering combat units. Distinguished combat pilots could sell War Bonds if they were unsuited for traing duties.

The Germans noted that the ace pilots, the ones who excelled in combat, were the least likely to break down or would at least last longer in the field. Average pilots could be, and often were, assigned to training and staff duties for rest purposes. But at some point, it takes a tiger to teach a tiger. There was also the problem of the training pipeline. The LW didn't increase training facilities or change candidacy requirements until long after things started going south for them. They didn't have the numbers of new young studs coming in to combat units that the Allies had. They were barely keeping pace with combat losses when they needed to expand their forces as late as 1942. Thus, the 'tigers' stayed in the hunt and honed their already formidable skills while the 'cubs' weren't getting fully ready to take their places.

Thus the best of the surviving experten were able to become the 'best' fighter pilots ever, having been given the training skills, weapons and opportunity to a degree unmatched elsewhere. We should remember, however, that most air victories are suprise parties rather than a joust between knights of the air. As the classic expression goes, most victims "never saw it coming." All of these men have admitted that they were extremely lucky that they weren't fatally surprised at some point in their careers.

Generally speaking, the top-line fighters of the major powers fell into the same general performance perameters, each with its own relative strengths and weaknesses. The ability to exploit your aircraft's strengths and take advantage of your opponents relative weaknesses was more important than the aircraft you or your opponent flew. The top LW aces simply had the opportunity to hone their skills and get really good, and given the same circumstances with a Spitfire/P-38 (only US made aircraft of similar capability at war's start) instead of the Messerschmitt/FW-190 would probably done just as well. The same could be said about the top Allied aces, were they given similar circumstances.

Cheers

horseback

"Here's your new Mustangs, boys. You can learn to fly'em on the way to the target. Cheers!" -LTCOL Don Blakeslee, 4th FG CO, February 27th, 1944

Blottogg
01-07-2004, 11:28 AM
Sure BLUTARSKI, drop this bomb and then cut out of town for four days!

My responses to several points that have been raised so far, in no particular order:

- I don't think any of the more realistic posters to this and previous 109 threads think the 109 was a bad aircraft. It had strengths and weaknesses like all aircraft, representing engineering compromises and technology limits at the time it was designed. Carson blasted its short range as not being what the Luftwaffe needed at the time (BoB), and he was correct. It's high speed handling was perhaps comparable to it's 1939 contemporaries, but compared poorly to later war fighters the later 109 variants were forced to compete with, as well as the 190.

- The arguments started when certain posters foisted the (incorrect) belief that aircraft superiority could be numerically proven via Cd figures, aces produced, or kill ratios. Ignoring the resultant mathematical hocus-pocus for a second, the situation in which the aircraft was used, and what was expected of it, can affect these statistics greatly, which is one reason I avoid trying to prove efficient aerodynamics with sortie statistics. The two doesn't correlate, but in the absence of any other data, some folks will grab at whatever is available, applicable or not. Instead of kill ratios or Cd, why not argue superiority based on tire pressure? It's available, and just as relevant.

- Discussing kill ratios independent of "aircraft design superiority", Issegrim (in one of his more coherent moments) posted an excellent summary of Luftwaffe kill verification procedures. My inclination is that the Germans were more anal-retentive than other nations in awarding kill credit, at least early in the war. I'm sure they over claimed more when the action was over their enemies' territories (BoB, Stalingrad), but so did every other air force. Argue a kill here or there, but I have no doubt that Hartmann, Barkhorn, Rall and the other experten racked up triple-digit kill scores.

- As for how to make an ace, several things seem to be required, regardless of nation or aircraft. Eyesight, hand-eye coordination, intelligence, aggression, creativity and determination are all helpful. Marksmanship was obviously a plus too, and most of the aces could shoot before they could fly. Enough basic flight instruction to ingrain flying into muscle memory is essential too. If you have to think about how to get the plane to do what you want, you have that many fewer brain bytes left to figure out how to kill the guy. Last, but perhaps most important, is experience. Learning how to look for aircraft takes time, even with excellent eyesight. Judging when to attack and when to "coffee break" is an acquired skill. And getting used to killing people while being shot at takes some time, too. The aircraft matters also, but without the above first, anyone flying a fighter, no matter how well the plane performs, is little more than cannon fodder. That being said, I don't think Hartman would have done as well in a Storch. The aces knew to play to their strengths and their opponent's weaknesses (this sounds obvious, but isn't), and their aircraft were good enough to allow them that ability.

- As far as Cd goes, a high drag coefficient does not a bad fighter make (nor does the reverse necessarily make a good fighter.) What it does mean is that the 109 needed lower weight and a smaller airframe than a Mustang in order to go fast. It still went fast, but with a different set of engineering compromises than the 'Stang.

Sorry for being long-winded (again), but hope I made sense and extinguished more flames than I set.

Blotto

"Speed is life." - Anon
"Sight is life. Speed is merely groovy." - "Junior"

DONB3397
01-07-2004, 11:53 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Generally speaking, the top-line fighters of the major powers fell into the same general performance perameters, each with its own relative strengths and weaknesses. The ability to exploit your aircraft's strengths and take advantage of your opponents relative weaknesses was more important than the aircraft you or your opponent flew.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thoughtful, well-written post, Horseback. Culture and training and experience in the a/c they flew, probably made the pilot at least as important as the plane they flew. And perhaps that explains the kill counts reported.

This doesn't mean that the toughness of the P-47 or the ease with which a P-51 handled (over very long distances), as well as their flight characteristics, weren't critical differences at the back end of the war. Allied pilots by then were also better trained for reasons you pointed out.

But this thread is about the 109. Its record was pretty good. Was it the plane? Or the pilots (culture/training/experience)?

Both, I think. No doubt drag coefficients, wing loading, aileron covering and control surface responsiveness made huge differences in aircraft performance and survivability. But if a pilot knew those characteristics for his plane, and knew them in his gut, almost instinctively, he generally had an advantage over his opponent.

That is, of course, if he saw the opponent first.

Winning isn't everything;
It's the only thing!
http://us.f2.yahoofs.com/bc/3fe77b7e_1812a/bc/Images/Sig---1.jpg?BC9Rt._AyoTnLZQo

BBB_Hyperion
01-07-2004, 12:48 PM
For those intrested in the book Blutarski2004 named its called.

Fluid Dynamic Drag

Practical Information on Aerodynamic Drag and Hydrodynamic Resistance

by
Sighard F. Hoerner
Dr. Ing .

Published by the Author
1965

It describes in Detail the Drag calculation for every Part .

He is talking about 44 G Model didnt found correct type maybe Data helps this is what is used.

total wing area S = 172 ft‚¬≤
wing span b = 32 ft
aspect ratio A = 6.1
overall length l = 29 ft
gross weight W = 6700 lb
wing loading = 39 lb/ft‚¬≤
maximum speed V 610 km/H
reciprocating engine = DB 605A
maximum power = 1200 hp
in altitude of z = 22000 ft

Cd S = 1140/184 = 6.2 ft‚¬≤

Cd = 0.036 Cdwet ~= 0.0105

Aerodynamic Efficiency.
Considering drag on basis of origin, the following breakdown is found for Me-109:

skin-friction drag (smooth surface , turbulent) 33 %
surface roughness and surface imperfections 15 %
exposed parts, especially those of the engine 33 %
interference drag(including that due parts) 6 %
influence of compressibility(on 10% of drag) 6 %
induced drag under maximum-speed conditions 7 %

Several definitions are possible for an aerodynamic "efficiency" ratio.

Eta = Dusefull / Dtotal

Depending on what is understood as "useful" or "necessary" or "unavoidable".
Considering for instance the last tabilation, the skin friction drag and the induced drag as minimum limit of the usefull drag , the efficiency of the Me109 is about 40 %

This figure indicates that more than half of the total drag of this airplane could theoretically be avoided by extremly clean design and faultless construction of skin and details. If rebuilding the Me-109 in a manner that eta a would reach 100 % the maximum speed would increase from 610 km/h to 800 km/h, if using same powerplant.

This are quotes from the book quite intresting http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif but drag is not all .

Regards,
Hyperion

horseback
01-07-2004, 01:11 PM
It is instructive to note that the La-7 was basically an aerodynamically cleaned up La-5FN. The engine and basic planform were, I believe, essentially the same. What could have been accomplished if Messerschmitt had turned his staff loose on the 109's problems in the same way?

Cheers

horseback

"Here's your new Mustangs, boys. You can learn to fly'em on the way to the target. Cheers!" -LTCOL Don Blakeslee, 4th FG CO, February 27th, 1944

horseback
01-07-2004, 01:26 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Blottogg:

Judging when to attack and when to "coffee break" is an acquired skill. And getting used to killing people while being shot at takes some time, too. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Top USN ace David McCampbell admits to literally taking 'smoke breaks' during his US record nine kill sorty during the Battle of Leyte Gulf.

Most of the successful aces learned to concentrate on the task at hand (disabling an enemy aircraft) rather than be distracted by concerns about killing a fellow human being. Many accounts of air combat indicate that their concentration was so focussed that they were surprised at seeing people in enemy planes. They also appeared to ignore (at least on an emotional level) the idea that the enemy was trying to kill them as long as the possibility didn't seem too immediate.

I would liken it to a boxing or wrestling match, where your 'muscle memory' responds automatically to a given situation, freeing you to think a few moves ahead, accepting a few physical indignities that would normally upset you mightily in order to win your contest.

Cheers

horseback

"Here's your new Mustangs, boys. You can learn to fly'em on the way to the target. Cheers!" -LTCOL Don Blakeslee, 4th FG CO, February 27th, 1944

KIMURA
01-07-2004, 02:25 PM
The Germans claimed around 3500 RAF aircraft shot down. I've seen it suggested that the British casualties were underreported, with many planes not being recorded as lost, as long as a single part was salvagable.

The problem with that is we know how many pilots the RAF lost. The RAF lost around 420 Spitfire and Hurricane pilots. If you compare pilot losses to overall losses, it usually runs at around 1 pilot lost for every 1.5 to 2 planes lost. That means RAF losses could not have been any higher than is commonly reported. (Approx 900 Spits and Hurricanes, around 1,100 fighters in total)[/QUOTE]

After OKL report of Octobre 1940 the LW cost on a/c was a follow:

1385 caused by RAF
404 caused by accident and others.

But on the other there are no real RAF numbers available til today. These 915 RAF losses are the numbers Churchill published just after BoB, but newer reveived a undated from the still sealed RAF archives.

MiloMorai
01-07-2004, 02:49 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by KIMURA:

But on the other there are no real RAF numbers available til today. These 915 RAF losses are the numbers Churchill published just after BoB, but newer reveived a undated from the still sealed RAF archives.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This site lists all the RAF losses - pilot, a/c type, sn.

http://www.the-battle-of-britain.co.uk/Diary/Diary-index.htm

BTW, Horseback very nice post.http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

DaBallz
01-07-2004, 07:03 PM
Excellent post Horseback, there is a story about Richard Ira Bong witnessing the attack of a base by Japanese planes, P-51s scrambled to intercept and shot them down. One Japanese bailed from his burning plane with no parachute near where Bong was standing. It made him sick.

In reading many combat descriptions I noticed few pilots made more than passing refference to the human being they were killing. Some resumed fire when the poor bastard tried to bail.

The focus was on destroying an enemy weapon.

Da

jazman777
01-07-2004, 07:11 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Fehler:
But believe what you want. Lots of people thought the world was flat, even after Christopher Columbus proved it wasnt...
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Funny how you would propagate that myth:

http://www.id.ucsb.edu/fscf/library/RUSSELL/FlatEarth.html

---
Every decent man is ashamed of the government he lives under - H. L. Mencken

horseback
01-07-2004, 07:42 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by nicolas10:
I'm sorry but someone who has hundreds of missions under his belt, and over a hundred of victories HAS to be better than your pilot who flies 50 missions. I read a french ace account (a good pilot), saying that when they met an experten (100+ kills, usually shown with the flower crown on the tail), they'd just try and evade until the guy went away. He proceeded to say that once they were 6 - 8 planes and an experten came here, and they couldn't do anything and just tried to evade until the guy went away. The german did shoot down a couple planes and then went away unharmed. Heck if you're a hot shot, and you have so much experience, how can you not be better than a noob with 50 missions?

Nic

The first official D12 whiner!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think you're citing Pierre Closterman in his book "The Big Show ". There was a similar situation described in "1000 Destroyed: The Life and Times of the 4th FG;" where one guy in a 109 had flights from 3 or 4 squadrons chasing him 'round, and every so often he'd be able to snap off a shot and send someone limping for home. In this case, though, a dozen-plus Mustangs & Thunderbolts could chase a single 109 'til he ran out of fuel, and that's essentially what they did. The pilot who was telling the story (I think it was Millikan) told his flight to stay after the guy because he was too dangerous to let him get away. Finally, the poor devil had to try to run for home, and the 4th FG guy got him.

Another account in "The Eagles' War" by Vern Haugland, tells of an incident in N. Africa describes eight Spitfires of 92 Squadron getting caught low and slow by a pair of experten. Haugland quotes Leo Nomis, an American in the RAF who was flying one of the Spits (probably Mk Vc Trops with that big air dam Vokes' filter under the nose; he mentioned that they flew without the canopy attached, because the perspex only got dusty and scratched) as a Number 4 in a line-astern formation:

"The two 109s bounced the eight of us, and the altitude varied between 1,000 and 3,000 feet above the flat terrain as they began what proved to be a series of individual attacks. The words clueful, for clever, and clueless, for stupid, were in overuse with the RAF at that time. Clueful would be to describe these 109s, particularly the leader. The two German pilots provided a classic example of deflection shooting, and of how a 109 should be effectively used against a Spitfire.

"They kept their advantage of speed and altitude at all times; they never allowed themselves to become a target; they attacked individually and yet in unison; and it wasn't more than a minute before they had us all over the sky and split up into sections of two. My first vivid recollection after being split up was of being in a climbing turn right on the tail of the South African and observing two Spitfires about a mile off rolling over and hitting the ground, one afte the other, leaving great towers of black smoke in the blue air. These proved to be another South African and an English sergeant pilot, victims of a lightning overhead pass by the 109 leader, who seemed a positive wizard at this.

"The instant tragedy caused everyone to start yelling at once over the R/T (receiver transmitter), and an insane garble was the result. Meanwhile, the 109s were far from breaking off the attack. In retrospect, it seemed as if we had been catapulted into a nightmare, with the two 109s the central supernatural characters. It seemed unreal that two 109s could possibly achieve the systematic destruction of eight Spitfires."

He goes on to describe the only successful tactic they had,turning inside the 109s, but since they could not do so with equal speed, they couldn't get into shooting position on their enemies. He then mentions that he had become above average as a defensive flyer some time before, and:

"Now, on this morning, it was really put to the test. I had tried to keep both 109s in sight, and it wasn't easy. I was hanging on the tail of the South African, Charlie Hewitson, as RAF discipline required to the death. It was unpardonable for a No. 2 man to forsake his leader.

"The next event in the drama also shook us to the teeth. Rose, the Australian, was gibbering wildly on the R/T that our petrol was getting low, the fact of which we were all acutely aware. He and his No. 2 had cut across Hewitson and me and were about 500 feet above and 1,000 yards ahead when they received a 90-degree deflection burst from one of the 109s. Nothing seemed to happen for a moment, and then the No. 2, a Canadian sergeant, began to stream a thin but very visible vapor of petrol.

"I was watching this as though it were a film unfolding before me in a cinema. From previous experiances I knew that petrol vapor usually signalled an impending explosion. Just as I was thinking this the Spitfire did explode. Pieces of various sizes fell back toward us, and the engine plummeted straight down.

"We were in another climbing turn, and I remember a large piece of wing spinning by, and then the horror of seeing the pilot's body falling down and away past our wingtips. The clearest memory I have of that moment is that the body seemed to be leaving a trail of papers in its wake as it fell away and became smaller and smaller. Probably these were maps and charts that had been tucked into the man's boots. I watched fascinated for a second more and saw no parachute open."

Nomis and his leader managed to avoid getting shot down on the leader's next pass, and:

"As suddenly as it began, the shambles ended. We had been trying to circle back to the British lines. Not only were we low on petrol, but everyone had little ammunition remaining (they had shot up a truck column earlier in the mission). Then the 019s were gone, almost as if they had been phantoms. They must also have run short of petrol, or God knows how it would have ended. The five of us remaining made our way back to base, saturated with perspiration."

This event occured about a month after Marseille's death, or they would have assumed that he was the 109 leader. Later on they were told that it was most likely Eric Rudorffer.

Rudorffer was most likely flying a G-2/Trop against Spitfire Mk Vs with all the tropical equipment that robbed them of anything like parity. For a pilot of his skills, they were sitting ducks. Until the advent of the Spitfire MK IX and American pilots in P-38s and Merlin engined P-40s, the Jagdewaffe had the upper hand by a wide margin in terms of performance on the Western Desert. Once the Allies could put up large numbers of planes with comparable performance, the jig was up.

Cheers

horseback

"Here's your new Mustangs, boys. You can learn to fly'em on the way to the target. Cheers!" -LTCOL Don Blakeslee, 4th FG CO, February 27th, 1944

DONB3397
01-07-2004, 08:14 PM
Great read, Horseback. I'll be headed for the bookstore tomorrow.

Speaking of the desert, storms and sand from the prop wash of other a/c did nearly as much damage to these planes as the LW. The last planes to take off sometimes flew missions with engine(s) suffering from the ingestion of silicon particles I understand. My father crewed in a B-24 with the 15th AF, 461st BG, out of Lybia in 1943. They sometimes had 20-25% of the aircraft return because of engine trouble before the first waypoint.

Your mention of the missing canopy reminded me of the difficulties these guys must have faced in that theater.

Winning isn't everything;
It's the only thing!
http://us.f2.yahoofs.com/bc/3fe77b7e_1812a/bc/Images/Sig---1.jpg?BC9Rt._AyoTnLZQo

[This message was edited by DONB3397 on Thu January 08 2004 at 05:41 AM.]