PDA

View Full Version : Pilot interview about 109 vs P-51 / Spit



x__CRASH__x
07-15-2006, 05:54 PM
Interesting views on how the 109G stacked up against the P-51D and Spit IX. I hope SoW:BoB is more true to life, and lives up to actual performace! You can't argue with real pilots who know the aircraft they flew, can you?

Interview clip (http://www.ghostskies.com/chinopics/EAA_Interviews.wmv)

Enjoy! I know I did! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Beckh_3.JG51
07-15-2006, 06:21 PM
Are you saying that P-51 did not win the war? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif
Thanks.

Scrappy_D
07-15-2006, 06:35 PM
By the time the P51 got there it really was too late http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

x__CRASH__x
07-15-2006, 06:39 PM
Throw enough of anything at someone, and eventually it will hurt.

stanford-ukded
07-15-2006, 06:40 PM
I disagree. Sponges will never hurt.

TC_Stele
07-15-2006, 06:41 PM
I liked that interview, thanks for sharing.

A lot of what they were saying makes a lot of sense from what I'm seeing, at least, in the IL2 series, especially with the P-51; sounded right on. However, I can't argue the micro details of it, just the overall "feel."

Gumtree
07-15-2006, 06:46 PM
This has been on before ,
A few times I think and I still find the assumptions made by pilots that have flown one model and assume what another model will do just as usefull as one of our virtual pilots telling us his opinions.

On one hand we have the first pilot making claims on planes he has flown and they are fair.Then he is asked to make an assumption without ever having flown the plane.

We then have the second pilot show his lack of knowledge about the Spitfire when he claims the Mk V and Mk IX are the same plane and that the extra horsepower and weight make no difference.

Whilst this is an interesting tape it bears as much value as my opinion does on the subjects that are made as assumptions.

It is a shame , as the pilots obviously know the aircraft they have access to and perhaps should have just been asked to comment on them .

Just my opinion

x__CRASH__x
07-15-2006, 07:26 PM
So you are completely invalidating their observations based on the slight differences between the Spit V and the Spit IX. Is that correct?

Brain32
07-15-2006, 07:28 PM
Thx for posting that Crash, but I'm afraid Skip has a point http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

SlickStick
07-15-2006, 07:28 PM
Originally posted by stanford-ukded:
I disagree. Sponges will never hurt.

Sure they would. Just got to soak and freeze them first. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif

Gumtree
07-15-2006, 07:34 PM
Not at all ,
Perhaps you should re read my post ,as I said opinions made on assumptions are what I was being critical of.

The opinions the gents share with us relating to their first hand experiance are relevant.The planes that they have flown they can give a first hand account on, anything else is just conjecture and I think they statement about the 2 Spits shows how it can lead to false assumptions.

AL849
07-15-2006, 07:58 PM
What about the show on the History Channel with Bud Anderson describing how they got into a fight with 109€s and out turned them and then chased them down with their P51€s.

Ratsack
07-15-2006, 08:05 PM
Originally posted by x__CRASH__x:
So you are completely invalidating their observations based on the slight differences between the Spit V and the Spit IX. Is that correct?

The differences are a little more than 'slight'. The basic airframe is the same, but the engine has more power at all altitudes, is longer and is also heavier. This will change its handling characteristics considerably.

Furthermore, there's nothing to say that the Spit IX he's flown even has the correct engine in it. This is a major issue with restored warbirds: they'll use whatever material they have to, and it sometimes isn't right. I know of at least one Spit restoration flying with a Merlin meant for a bomber.

While we're on the subject of engines in warbirds, what sort of 109G is 'this' in the video? It's obviously a Buchon rather than an original Bf109. Is it a Buchon converted to a DB605 engine, or is it an original Buchon. They're all different to the old Luftwaffe Gustav.

Apples, oranges, lemons and even the odd grapefruit.

cheers,
Ratsack

x__CRASH__x
07-15-2006, 09:31 PM
Originally posted by AL849:
What about the show on the History Channel with Bud Anderson describing how they got into a fight with 109€s and out turned them and then chased them down with their P51€s.
We don't know bupkiss about the energy states of the aircraft.
Had Bud Anderson flown a 109? I would have liked to have heard his thoughts on it.



Chuck Norris flew a 109. He said it was the only WWII fighter worthy of his skill.

AL849
07-15-2006, 09:47 PM
I don't know, he described how they made two or three circles trying to close on each others six and their P51's were making a tighter turn and closing in on the 109's. Then the 109's made a break for it but the p51's chased, over took the 109's and knocked out three of the four. Intresting story anyway.

La7_brook
07-15-2006, 10:02 PM
Originally posted by AL849:
I don't know, he described how they made two or three circles trying to close on each others six and their P51's were making a tighter turn and closing in on the 109's. Then the 109's made a break for it but the p51's chased, over took the 109's and knocked out three of the four. Intresting story anyway. not really there contlesss storys of 109,s out turning p51 with easy / its just who,s telling it! this bob guy have a lucky day , what he still in single hand kill count ant he?

luftluuver
07-15-2006, 10:11 PM
P-47s out turned 109s. It all depended on what type of turning manuever was used.

HellToupee
07-15-2006, 11:13 PM
http://www.bugsweeps.com/info/howard_hughes/sprucegoose.jpg

blue flyers preception of how the spit should handle

BfHeFwMe
07-15-2006, 11:32 PM
Come on, first guy says right out he's "flown it for an hour", @2:50 on the vid. He can figure all this out in one hour, as if he'd be pushing someones priceless airframe with such whopping time in type.

Think they were yanking someones chain, bloody obvious what the interviewers wanted to hear with them doing most of the discussion and response. Basically Skip isn't saying much if anything, they discuss and he says "sure" without any other comment on sustained turn rates. Whoopie.

Whole interview is ameturish, vague, and quite useless.

Ratsack
07-16-2006, 12:20 AM
Originally posted by BfHeFwMe:
Come on, first guy says right out he's "flown it for an hour", @2:50 on the vid. He can figure all this out in one hour, as if he'd be pushing someones priceless airframe with such whopping time in type.

Think they were yanking someones chain, bloody obvious what the interviewers wanted to hear with them doing most of the discussion and response. Basically Skip isn't saying much if anything, they discuss and he says "sure" without any other comment on sustained turn rates. Whoopie.

Whole interview is ameturish, vague, and quite useless.

Exactly.

Ratsack

Slater_51st
07-16-2006, 01:59 AM
Originally posted by Ratsack:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BfHeFwMe:
Come on, first guy says right out he's "flown it for an hour", @2:50 on the vid. He can figure all this out in one hour, as if he'd be pushing someones priceless airframe with such whopping time in type.

Think they were yanking someones chain, bloody obvious what the interviewers wanted to hear with them doing most of the discussion and response. Basically Skip isn't saying much if anything, they discuss and he says "sure" without any other comment on sustained turn rates. Whoopie.

Whole interview is ameturish, vague, and quite useless.

Exactly.

Ratsack </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I also find it quite interesting no mention of the specific model of 109G it is. Skip and the other gentleman interviewed seem like a couple of pilots swapping stories with their attentive audience, and the two guys with the camera are taking it all as gospel truth.

When I first saw the link I thought it was going to be an actual WWII pilot, sad that it is not.

Thank you for sharring and it was still very interesting!


S! Slate

Ruy Horta
07-16-2006, 02:26 AM
Although I don't want to make any comments on the validity, it is interesting to see these pilots critized for being pretty much the same as their WW2 equivalents.

Most veterans do not have the same attention for model detail as we history/game nerds have.

You'll be lucky if they enter any technical and model detail talks. So if the Spit pilot mentions that the Mk V and IX are basically the same (barring horsepower and "details"), he's pretty much correct in pilot parlance.

Same goes for 109s. Most Luftwaffe veterans won't distinguish between Gs and Ks, or between various models of G. They may mention having a 30mm or MW boost, but what exact model?

We see a/c in an ideal light and technological development history. But what about mantenance in the field, new engine vs worn one, minor improvements. Old paint, new paint, wax, clean.

Tired pilot, old pilot etc etc etc

So many variables other than our clean stats.

Best words I heard on the subject was that these a/c in reality and in general were far more evenly matched (at a similar stage in development - early , middle and late war) than we realize.

Pilots and tactical situations deceided most battles, not turnrates.

Abbuzze
07-16-2006, 02:32 AM
Originally posted by Ratsack:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by x__CRASH__x:
So you are completely invalidating their observations based on the slight differences between the Spit V and the Spit IX. Is that correct?

While we're on the subject of engines in warbirds, what sort of 109G is 'this' in the video? It's obviously a Buchon rather than an original Bf109. Is it a Buchon converted to a DB605 engine, or is it an original Buchon. They're all different to the old Luftwaffe Gustav.

Apples, oranges, lemons and even the odd grapefruit.

cheers,
Ratsack </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

A Buchon is a G2 airframe which was changed to a merlin engine, so if you change it back to a DB engine what are the major differences you mentioned?
The only big difference is the wing maybe because it is to be able to fit a 20mm cannon so this will not improve the performance. Some buchons are equiped with boundary layer "fences" instead of slats.

Kurfurst__
07-16-2006, 03:15 AM
Abuzze beat me into it - the so called Buchon originates to the fact that Spain received quite a few original G-2 airframes, but no DB engines for it; so they put something similiar into it that was available.

Ratsack
07-16-2006, 03:19 AM
Blah blah blah...

So which is it? Is it a Buchon with a two-stage Merlin, or is a conversion?

Facts please.

cheers,
Ratsack

Ratsack
07-16-2006, 03:22 AM
Originally posted by Ruy Horta:
Although I don't want to make any comments on the validity, it is interesting to see these pilots critized for being pretty much the same as their WW2 equivalents.

.

I haven't seen any criticism of the pilots. I've only seen some very mild implied criticism of the people asking the questions. Let's keep some perspective here.

cheers.
Ratsack

Matz0r
07-16-2006, 03:23 AM
The guys who did the video refered to CRS, so they would be flying in WW2 Online (*shudder*). If you'd ever flown a spit vs a 109 in that game you'd want the same answers because the spit is lightyears better than the 109 in that game. They are not as close as they are in this game.

Xiolablu3
07-16-2006, 03:32 AM
He was set up to say that about the Spitfire turn, before the camera went on...

Slater_51st
07-16-2006, 03:45 AM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
The MkIX SPit was a very big upgrade on the SPitfire V, it had far far better climb and speed, the very things that the MkV was lacking.

Comparing a MkV to a 109G is like comparing a 109F to a MkIX Spit.

I cannot watch the video, but if the 'Spit' pilot says that the MkV and MkIX SPit are anything like the same plane, then that says everything I think :P

Are the FW190 A4 and the Dora the same plane? The only real difference is the engine, right? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

It seemed like the 'spit' pilot had only a little time in the Spit, and it was the interviewers who stated the IX and V were essentially the same airframe with "500 hp" difference so their performance should have been 'similar'. I think that the 2 pilots interviewed may have been well qualified to discuss the merits of the 109G(whatever model) and the P-51, but I really don't see why so many questions were asked relative to spits. Skip was obviously proud of 'his' 109, and may have felt like talking it up abit...I know I would have http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Most interesting to me was hearing them discussing the climb and relative speeds of the 109/51. In any case these two pilots(no offense intended), have not flown these two aircraft in actual combat, and probably have not pushed them to the edge...even the more experienced 109 pilot wouldn't risk the airplane doing something stupid.

Anyways, not really criticizing anyone....just think the interviewers asked the questions they asked when they thought they'd get the answers they wanted.

S! Slate

Xiolablu3
07-16-2006, 03:46 AM
SOrry I found a codec and watched the clip after I oposted that, mate. So I edited, you replied before I had edited.

ooops http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

MArk Hanna didnt just fly them, he really beat up his OWN 109G and Spit IX, and he felt that the Spitfire was the better turner/dogfighter.

This is by far a better opinon than a guy who 'once' flew a Spitfire IX and owns just a 109G.

S/L Colin Gray, with No. 81 Squadron flying Spitfire IXs in North Africa, commented on a 3 April 1943 combat:

We were just taking off from Paddington for a diversionary sweep when the airfield was attacked without any warning whatsoever by a gaggle of bomb-carrying Focke Wulf 190s. Half a dozen of us were airborne, but the rest were still on the runway when the bombs fell, but fortunately they did not do any serious damage. I was about to land back again with a duff engine, but when I saw the bombs fall I immediately set off in hot pursuit of the invaders. I did not have much hope of catching them as the 190s had the legs on us at ground level and they had a head start from their dive, not to mention my duff engine. I chased them up the Beja road towards Tabarka, but the further we went the further they got ahead, so I eventually gave up the attempt and turned back for home. Just as I completed my turn I saw another aircraft coming towards me at high speed, and as he flashed past I recognized a 109G2. He also obviously recognized me as hostile because he immediately pulled into a screaming left-hand turn and attempted to dogfight. This was a big mistake because there was no way a 109 could turn inside a Spitfire. It took only a few minutes to get on his tail and a short burst with cannon and machine-guns produced much smoke, glycol, and large chunks falling off. The pilot immediately pulled up and bailed out, but we were still close to the ground, and although his parachute appeared to stream, it did not open before the poor beggar hit the ground. Almost at the same time I heard a yell over the R/T from Paul Hagger announcing that he too had also just knocked down another 109.
Group Captain Colin Gray DSO, DFC, Spitfire Patrol, (Hutchinson, London, 1990), p. 111.


Johannes Steinhoff, Sicily, Commander JG 77 (July 1943):
The Malta Spitfires are back again... They're fitted with a high altitude supercharger and at anything over twenty-five thousand feet they just play cat and mouse with us.
At 28,000 feet the Spitfire could turn in an astonishingly narrow radius. We on the other hand, in the thin air of those altitudes had to carry out every maneuver with caution and at full power so as not to lose control.

At the beginning of the war we flew short-range missions and encountered Spitfires, which were superior. And do not forget the Hurricanes. I think that the Supermarine Spitfire was the most dangerous to us early on. I flew the Spitfire myself, and it was a very, very good aircraft. It was maneuverable and with good climbing potential. : Major Gunther Rall

http://www.thehistorynet.com/wwii/bl-gunther-rall/index1.html


I think the Skip guy is just well proud of his 109 and wants to 'talk it up a bit' like Slater said.

Brain32
07-16-2006, 04:09 AM
MArk Hanna didnt just fly them, he really beat up his OWN 109G and Spit IX, and he felt that the Spitfire was the better turner/dogfighter.
Indeed he did m8, but do you remember what he said exactly? He said he would give a slight advantage to the Spitfire, and that pilot skill would be prevailing factor(unlike in game). I did not hear/read him say Spitfire could make circles and loops around 109...

x__CRASH__x
07-16-2006, 04:11 AM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
He was set up to say that about the Spitfire turn, before the camera went on...
Oh jesus. Did you forget to put on your tin foil hat before you came up with that thought?

I love conspiricy theroists when they see or hear something that doesn't coincide with their personal beliefs. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Xiolablu3
07-16-2006, 04:12 AM
Originally posted by Brain32:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> MArk Hanna didnt just fly them, he really beat up his OWN 109G and Spit IX, and he felt that the Spitfire was the better turner/dogfighter.
Indeed he did m8, but do you remember what he said exactly? He said he would give a slight advantage to the Spitfire, and that pilot skill would be prevailing factor(unlike in game). I did not hear/read him say Spitfire could make circles and loops around 109... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

No his exact words were : 'The Spitfire on the other hand is more of a problem for the '109 and I feel it is a superior close in fighter. Having said that the aircraft are sufficiently closely matched that pilot abilty would probably be the deciding factor. '


Looking for more information on Spitfire vs 109 turn,I did just find another Gunther Rall interview which said :

At the beginning of the war we flew short-range missions and encountered Spitfires, which were superior. And do not forget the Hurricanes. I think that the Supermarine Spitfire was the most dangerous to us early on. I flew the Spitfire myself, and it was a very, very good aircraft. It was maneuverable and with good climbing potential.

Xiolablu3
07-16-2006, 04:15 AM
Originally posted by x__CRASH__x:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
He was set up to say that about the Spitfire turn, before the camera went on...
Oh jesus. Did you forget to put on your tin foil hat before you came up with that thought?

I love conspiricy theroists when they see or hear something that doesn't coincide with their personal beliefs. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ok after watching it again, maybe I was wrong, but I really did get that impression the first time I watched it.

The editing just for that question, and the 'sure' under his breath, made me think it was some kind of set up, purely because I cannot believe what he is saying http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif Maybe he is just stupid after all! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif


Its not personal beliefs, its just fact...the Spitfire V and IX outurned the 109G except at very low speed whent he slats pop out. No way in sustained turn rate.

Abbuzze
07-16-2006, 04:25 AM
Originally posted by Ratsack:
Blah blah blah...

So which is it? Is it a Buchon with a two-stage Merlin, or is a conversion?

Facts please.

cheers,
Ratsack

Ok, I take your "Blah blah blah..." for no further difference known by you http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Ok some facts from the net, the Buchon had a single stage Merlin like the spitV.
It was a Merlin 500/45, a past war civil version of the merlin.

Performance: 1400-1600HP depending to source.

Brain32
07-16-2006, 04:30 AM
Mark Hanna:
"The Spitfire on the other hand is more of a problem for the '109 and I feel it is a superior close in fighter. Having said that the aircraft are sufficiently closely matched that pilot abilty would probably be the deciding factor."
Did I say something different? Did pilots in the interview say something different? No they did not, the first guy said that 109F and SpitMkV would be a close match, that MkV would be better than heavier 109G but also that heavier MkIX would again be in a close match with the 109G.

Kurfurst__
07-16-2006, 05:36 AM
Jesus, Spitfans getting heart attack again when seeing any version saying anything even sligtly more balanced than a monotoneous 'Spitfire Supreme' mantra... but since you guys love pilot stories so much, here are a couple of them :


"I tried to fire on a '109' that I spotted in the chaos. Not possible, I couldn't get the correct angle. My plane juddered on the edge of a stall. It was comforting that the Spitfire turned better than the '109'! Certainly at high speed - but not at low speed."

-Pierre Clostermann's "The Big Show"

BTW Clostermann is having quite a few comments on that he had a bit of trouble keeping up with the speed of the late war crates.


"Indeed many fresh pilots thought they were pulling very tight turns even when the slots were still closed against the wing. For us, the more experienced pilots, real manouvering only started when the slots were out. For this reason it is possible to find pilots from the period (1940) who will tell you that the Spitfite turned better than the Bf 109. That is not true. I myself had may dogfights with Spitfires and I could always out-turn them.

One had to enter the turn correctly, then open up with the engine. It was a matter of feel. Whem 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 tha a circle. In this way one could out-turn the Spitfire-and I shot down 6 of them doing it. This advantage to the Bf 109 soon changed when improved Spitfires wrer delivered"

- 109 E "experte", Erwin Leykau


"In personally facing the RAF in the air over the Dunkirk encirclement, I found that the Bf 109 E was faster, possessed a higher rate of climb, but was somewhat less manouverable than the RAF fighters. Nevertheless, during the campaign, no Spitfire or Hurricane ever turned inside my plane, and after the war the RAF admitted the loss of 450 Hurricanes and Spitfires during the Battle of France."


Oberst Herbert Kaiser, 68 victories, Bf 109 :
Page 470, 'The Great Book of WW2 Airplanes'.



"I like it as an aeroplane, and with familiarity I think it will give most of the allied fighters I have flown a hard time, particularly in a close, hard turning, slow speed dog-fight. It will definitely out-maneuver a P-51 in this type of flight, the roll rate and slow speed characteristics being much better. The Spitfire on the other hand is more of a problem for the '109 and I feel it is a superior close in fighter. Having said that the aircraft are sufficiently closely matched that pilot abilty would probably be the deciding factor."

-Mark Hanna


"With wide-open throttle I held the Spitfire in the tightest of shuddering vertical turns. I was greying-out, and where was this Italian [Johnson mistook a marking on the side for the 190 for Italian insignia], who should, according to my reckoning, be filling my gunsight? I couldn't see him, and little wonder, for the brute was gaining on me and in another couple turns would have me in his sight. .... I asked the Spitfire for all she'd got in the turn, but the 190 hung behind like a leech." Johnson got away by diving steeply and flattening out over the sea, and charged right for a destroyer which missed him and fortuitously "nailed" the 190.

WING LEADER. Johnny Johnson. Ballantine, NY, 1978 ed. Page 125. 19 August 1942 (Dieppe).


RE : on the Steinhoff qoute - I suppose via good old Mike 'Honest' Williams - it's might be interesting that Steinhoff also notes those Spits that outturned them at altitude also had extended wingtips - probably MkIXHFs, and there's nothing special in that, they were excellent high alt fighters just for that, and Steinhoff was flying some vanila G-6. The IXHFs equivalent would be those pressurized G-1s or G-3s with GM-1.

And about Rall, he hardly met too many Spits in combat, his unit had spent about a week or two in BoB before withdrawn from combat for rest (it was the most poorly performing one in the Battle, oddly enough, as later they become the highest scoring). It was not until 1943 Rall would shoot his first Spitfire on the Eastern Front, only meeting them a couple of times.

Anyway, pilot stories can be qouted until exhaustion, they prove little - the dead guys who were outturned rarely told about their experiences...

IIJG69_Kartofe
07-16-2006, 05:44 AM
Originally posted by luftluuver:
P-47s out turned 109s. It all depended on what type of turning manuever was used.

Idem for the 109 V/S Spitfire.

A 109 pilot claimed he has downed all his spitfires in the BOB in turning manoeuvers.

Good approach, good manoever, good aiming, and a kill.

Ratsack
07-16-2006, 05:49 AM
Originally posted by Abbuzze:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Ratsack:
Blah blah blah...

So which is it? Is it a Buchon with a two-stage Merlin, or is a conversion?

Facts please.

cheers,
Ratsack

Ok, I take your "Blah blah blah..." for no further difference known by you http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Ok some facts from the net, the Buchon had a single stage Merlin like the spitV.
It was a Merlin 500/45, a past war civil version of the merlin.

Performance: 1400-1600HP depending to source. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I was wrong about the two-stage Merlin. The four bladed prop fooled me.

Nevertheless, there would be significant differences between a converted Buchon and a real G-2, not least being that the entire forward portion of the fuselage in front of the cockpit would be new-built. I don't suppose it's actually escaped your attention that the DB conversions all look short in the nose. They are not the same as an original Bf109.

On the other hand, if it's an original Buchon with a 1,600 hp Merlin in it, its turning performance will be significantly better than a white bread G-2 that's dragging itself around the corner with 1,475 hp.

So in the absence of facts about what kind of Spit he flew, with what engine, and what kind of '109' it is that they're talking about, it tells us nothing useful.

cheers,
Ratsack

geetarman
07-16-2006, 06:00 AM
As this 109 appears to possess a G2 airframe and now has the Daimler engine in it, can it be much of a surprise the pilot thinks it out manuevers a P-51?

Hanna flew both - the 109 was a better low-speed dogfighter. The Mustang was better at high speed engagements, to the point of almost being safe from the 109. Any good Mustang pilot would admit that his plane was at it's best at higher speeds and altitudes.

Xiolablu3
07-16-2006, 06:45 AM
Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
Jesus, Spitfans getting heart attack again when seeing any version saying anything even sligtly more balanced than a monotoneous 'Spitfire Supreme' mantra... .

No, people are just annoyed at someone saying something so ridiculous as 'The 109G outturned the Spitfire IX in sustained turn.'


I dont see anyone getting a heart attack, just saying that what he said in the video was BS.

Kurfurst__
07-16-2006, 06:46 AM
err... and what's the difference?

Xiolablu3
07-16-2006, 06:53 AM
I love all warbirds, and I would never try to claim that the SPitfire was always tougher or faster than the contemporary FW190 or could always dive better than the 109, cos its not true. Everyone knows the contemporrary 109 was better at diving among other things.

Just like anyone with a slight bit of knowledge knows the Spitfire was better at sustained turn than the 109.

Brain32
07-16-2006, 06:57 AM
I would just like to know, how the feck did we got to Buchon? We don't see the plane in the back and in the whole interview nobody mantions it, the plane is reffered to as 109G.

HARRIER_401
07-16-2006, 06:59 AM
Old interview.Was posted here 2 years ago. It not the plane it is the pilot.

Brain32
07-16-2006, 07:04 AM
Tell that to Oleg, because in IL2 SpitMkIX pwns 109G6+ so badly it's not even sad, it's downright ridiculous...

F6_Ace
07-16-2006, 08:06 AM
Originally posted by Brain32:
Tell that to Oleg, because in IL2 SpitMkIX pwns 109G6+ so badly it's not even sad, it's downright ridiculous...

So, is the Spit overmodelled or the G6 undermodelled? Or, perhaps, as the VVS used Spits, the O(leg)-Factor comes into the equation and the FM is tweaked accordingly.

There was a TV programme on not so long ago (and it wasn't on this History Channel so it might have had a shred of integrity) where BoB veteran Bob Doe and a LW pilot compared aircraft (Bob sat in a 109E etc) and stories from the Battle. It was reckoned that the Spitfire gave plenty of warning of stall but that it wasn't a foregone conclusion that the Spitfire could outturn the 109. Rather, the pilot just felt more comfortable riding the stall.

Mark Hanna, an experienced pilot who has flown both should know best and he suggests it's largely down to the pilot. Compare to Il-2 and, as suggested, the game is ridiculous. A 3 year old child accidentally picking up a joystick could outfly the 109 with the Spit whilst gurgling and pointing at the screen in a bemused manner.

Go on...some fanboy now tell me that Hanna's verdict is irrelevant now because the planes have guns removed etc http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

karost
07-16-2006, 11:11 AM
this is a real pilot interview http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif
1991 Interview Adolf Galland with Don Caldwell (http://members.aol.com/geobat66/galland/caldwell.htm)

Caldwell: What was the Galland escort formation?

Galland: JG 26 was known as the most reliable wing for fighter escort, which was one of the most difficult tasks for a fighter wing. It needs a lot of discipline, and I know that all the bomber wings asked to be escorted by 26. So I think you can say that in 1940, at least, 26 was the best wing for escort. I organized this thing myself, because we didn't have any experience or rules to follow. I split up the escort between direct escort, which flies in direct contact with the bombers, mostly at the same speed, which was much too low. This was about one-third of the numbers - one Gruppe. They stayed with the bombers, and defended them - not the best way, but this was the way that the bombers wanted it. Better is the erwiderte escort ["detached" escort], which keeps the bomber stream in sight, but can go to one side, and if it finds the enemy, can go attack. Even so, after the combat, it must try to reestablish contact with the bombers after the fighting. And then we had the freie Jagd, which flew in advance of the bombers. This was many times the most successful escort. Of course, it was not seen by the bombers, and the bomber crews didn't trust it. I have discussed these tactics with the bombers many, many times, without success. They kept complaining to Goering, who listened to them. For more than forty minutes outside his train Goering blamed Moelders and myself:

.........."What do you want?"

.........."I can't even slow down to the bomber speed, without sacrificing all my mobility."

.........."What? You have the best fighter in the world!" And this was the occasion that, when Goering asked Moelders and myself what he could do to improve the capability of our wings, Moelders wanted his wing equipped with the DB 601N, and I said I wanted a wing of Spitfires. Of course, that was the end of the discussion.

Caldwell: Why, exactly, did you say that?

Galland: Why? He said we had the best fighter in the world. I said that the Spitfire was better able to slow down, because of its lower wing loading. It was also better able to turn at lower speeds. Our advantage was not in turning, but in flying straight ahead, diving, and climbing. Our turns were not tight enough. So when he said, "We have the best fighter in the world! Don't blame me!" I tried to tell him otherwise.

----------------------------------------------
Galland know what is a batter in Spitfire and he know what is an advantage in BF109 , then he use his knowledge and skill to manage a success 104 kill (http://www.luftwaffe.cz/gallanda.html).

S!

SeaFireLIV
07-16-2006, 11:21 AM
Most o` you guys whining about this and that aircraft performance would probably be the first ones to be shot down on your first flight thinking, "*%@!* That ain`t supposed to a -"


Just fly and fight and quit the whining.

DIRTY-MAC
07-16-2006, 12:17 PM
Dont foget to consider hight when talking turn capabilities, up high in thin air its harder for the Bf109s small wings to generate lift were as the Spits wings performes better,
down low and medium hight were probably were the Bf109 had its best turnrate,
I think the 109 and Spits were probably pretty evenly matched in turn rates,
on pilot accounts it would be interesting to know at what alt the turning clashes appeared, that these pilots talks about

horseback
07-16-2006, 12:52 PM
I need to clear up a couple of things here.

When we refer to the memoirs or testimony of ace pilots, we have to bear in mind that these guys were the exception rather than the norm in terms of flying skills.

We also have to bear in mind that they don't always have, as previously mentioned, the up-to-date detailed technical information we now have at our fingertips.

There were no Spitfires flying combat missions in the Battle of France. Anyone who says that the RAF lost 450 Hurricanes and Spitfires in that campaign is badly mistaken. The RAF may have lost 450 aircraft of all types in France from September 1939 to May/June 1940, including Gladiators, Battles, Blenheims, and Hurricanes, but no Spits.

The first major clashes of Spitfires and 109Es took place over Dunkirque, when most, if not all the Spitfires available were equipped with less effective two-pitch props rather than the CSP units which were the norm by the time of the Battle of Britain. Additionally, the vast majority of Spitfire pilots were going into combat for the first time, and we all know that men facing a life and death contest for the first time are usually at a distinct disadvantage against an opponent who has been there and done that a few times.

That they managed a near standoff in that first major air battle was a major accomplishment.

It has been repeated ad infinitum that the 109 is a master's aircraft; that is, it takes a particularly skilled and experienced pilot to get its full potential out of it. On the other hand, "any idiot" could fly the Spitfire.

In a contest where the majority of pilots are of average sklls, the Spitfire would be the more successful of the two most of the time. An average pilot would be able to reach far more of the Spitfire's combat potential than his 109 flying counterpart, and the disparity increases as the war grinds on, because the Spitfire was more adaptable to higher power and greater weight than the 109G and later.

Do NOT bring up Marseille and the North Africa experten; most of the Spitfire Vs they faced were burdened with the performance sapping, draggy Vokes' filter, and had their canopies either back or completely removed, because the plexiglass was so prone to scratching that they impaired visibility to a dangerous degree. Spitfire V drivers over the Channel Front felt they had a good match for the 109F/early Gs; it was the FW 190 they feared.

Finally, that video makes its appearance an average of once every 9 months; it is part of the regular rotation here, and usually announces the next round of "what if the Soviets decided to drive on through the Commonwealth and the Americans to the Channel in 1945/" threads.

As a native speaker of American English, I can say emphatically that the interviewers framed their questions to get the answers they wanted. The part when the one guys says to his buddy off-camera, "See? What'd I tell you?" should be a dead giveaway for even non-native English speakers, but people tend to hear what they want to.

The interviewees were speaking in absolute terms, and weren't given much opportunity to expand on their statements (or those expansions were simply edited out) and clarify a bit for the uninitiated. You'll note that the one gent tried to talk about how the Mustang was faster, but got cut off.

The Mustang was also an easy aircraft to fly and master, particularly compared to the mid/late 109Gs, and it had clear performance advantages over 8000m, where they met most often.

But you wouldn't get to hear that from that interview.

cheers

horseback

Kurfurst__
07-16-2006, 01:18 PM
Originally posted by horseback:
There were no Spitfires flying combat missions in the Battle of France. Anyone who says that the RAF lost 450 Hurricanes and Spitfires in that campaign is badly mistaken.

You'd only have to look up the actual losses to see it's you are badly who's badly mistaken.

[/QUOTE]The RAF may have lost 450 aircraft of all types in France from September 1939 to May/June 1940, including Gladiators, Battles, Blenheims, and Hurricanes, but no Spits. [/QUOTE]

No, as a matter of fact the RAF lost 931 aircraft between May 10 - 20 June 1940 - of course that includes quite a few bombers, but the 450ish figure for fighter losses is correct.


The first major clashes of Spitfires and 109Es took place over Dunkirque,

Which is during the Battle of France.


when most, if not all the Spitfires available were equipped with less effective two-pitch props

Tough!


rather than the CSP units which were the norm by the time of the Battle of Britain.

Nope, CSP props were just begun to be fitted at the start of the BoB. They did not finish until mid-August.
Add to that, on May 10 not a single Spit and only a handful of Hurricanes had pilot armor, but again - tough!


Additionally, the vast majority of Spitfire pilots were going into combat for the first time, and we all know that men facing a life and death contest for the first time are usually at a distinct disadvantage against an opponent who has been there and done that a few times.

Tough! But those who left did not made much better in the BoB either - it's a deadly spiral of attrition.


That they managed a near standoff in that first major air battle was a major accomplishment.

... in revision of history perhaps, but the historcal fact is that the RAF was pretty badly bruised over Dunkerque, despite outnumbering the LW fighters. Perhaps you should look up the numbers.



It has been repeated ad infinitum that the 109 is a master's aircraft; that is, it takes a particularly skilled and experienced pilot to get its full potential out of it. On the other hand, "any idiot" could fly the Spitfire.

That's your opinion, and even if repeated ad infinitum, it will not become a fact nor would agree with the opinion of pilot's who flew the planes.


In a contest where the majority of pilots are of average sklls, the Spitfire would be the more successful of the two most of the time.

Well I am all ears of real life examples when this happened. Spitfire pilots (and NACA) seem to complain about an oversensitive elevator, coupled with extremely heavy aileron - poor control harmony is always a problem esp. for a rookie, even if stall characteristics are excellent. That's why so many rated the FW 190 so high, despite it's poor stall charactheristics.


An average pilot would be able to reach far more of the Spitfire's combat potential than his 109 flying counterpart

Maybe yes, maybe no - we'll never know since such never materialized.


and the disparity increases as the war grinds on, because the Spitfire was more adaptable to higher power and greater weight than the 109G and later.

That's an alternate way of saying the Spit suffered a lot more from gaining lot more weight, drag and torque than the 109 without real updates to the airframe.


Do NOT bring up Marseille and the North Africa experten; most of the Spitfire Vs they faced were burdened with the performance sapping, draggy Vokes' filter, and had their canopies either back or completely removed, because the plexiglass was so prone to scratching that they impaired visibility to a dangerous degree.

Tough!

[/QUOTE]Spitfire V drivers over the Channel Front felt they had a good match for the 109F/early Gs;[/QUOTE]

Ignorance was a bliss for them.


it was the FW 190 they feared.

Well at least they learned with time.



The Mustang was also an easy aircraft to fly and master, particularly compared to the mid/late 109Gs

I wonder where you did get that impression.


and it had clear performance advantages over 8000m, where they met most often.

What kind of performance advantages?


But you wouldn't get to hear that from that interview.

Well of course, the interview is with someone who actually flew both planes. Funny these kinda guys all say the same.

I think I start to understand the guys in this thread who got started up reading ridiculus things I also get annoyed when I see such.
(I'd not say either that the in a general sense the 109G would outdo the Spit in sustained turn, though there may be special circumstances where this can happen - 109G vs old MkV at high alt, for example. Between contemporaries it's unlikely, but I'd agree with that the margin is not so great as some may think - See Mark H.),

WWMaxGunz
07-16-2006, 01:38 PM
Originally posted by karost:
.........."I can't even slow down to the bomber speed, without sacrificing all my mobility."

.........."What? You have the best fighter in the world!" And this was the occasion that, when Goering asked Moelders and myself what he could do to improve the capability of our wings, Moelders wanted his wing equipped with the DB 601N, and I said I wanted a wing of Spitfires. Of course, that was the end of the discussion.

Caldwell: Why, exactly, did you say that?

Galland: Why? He said we had the best fighter in the world. I said that the Spitfire was better able to slow down, because of its lower wing loading. It was also better able to turn at lower speeds. Our advantage was not in turning, but in flying straight ahead, diving, and climbing. Our turns were not tight enough. So when he said, "We have the best fighter in the world! Don't blame me!" I tried to tell him otherwise.


Goering here = average fanboy forum member attitude, won't hear anything but his fantasies.

Galland knew his business to a T.

Great post Karost! I had NEVER seen the part where Galland explained more fully why he
wanted the Spitfires as that has always been cut off... I am sure by fanboys! So he really
wanted the Spits, or something like them (and for the purpose nothing else matched), as
close escorts. Perhaps that would free up the 109's to the best use as fast hunters.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Planes turning... depends on alt and speed. Even the Hurricane in the BoB could and did
outturn the 109E's IF the fight got low enough. As noted by Brit and Polish pilots that
I've read from that by 8000 ft the two were about even and below 4000 ft the Hurricane
had the edge as the engine was no longer gasping. But how many here would swear that no
Hurricane in the BoB could out-do anything of the 109E? It doesn't mean that the Hurri's
were better low down either, they were just better able to flat turn at the same speed.
Air combat is not dominated by flat turns. Well, except in dweeb-on-dweeb fights!

WWMaxGunz
07-16-2006, 01:47 PM
Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
That's why so many rated the FW 190 so high, despite it's poor stall charactheristics.


HUH? From YOU?

Whatever happened to "Kurt Tank tested the FW blah-blah-blah and the 190 had very gentle stall."
that was brought out over and over and over not so many years ago?

I guess it only matters what point is being argued and you made a slip to let that out.
Please quickly ammend your obvious mistake!

Kurfurst__
07-16-2006, 02:31 PM
What, got EXTRAPOLATED again, GLUNZ*?

Besides, I think you mistook me with some other. Probably with Crump. But, why would you care, for a righteous zealot, they look and small all the same, them naysayers, just another witch/heretic to be burned.

[i]* Glunz because this paranoid thinks it means something bad in german. Actually I have no idea of what it means, I guess it means nothing, just being happy feeding his paranoia. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Ratsack
07-16-2006, 04:53 PM
Originally posted by Brain32:
I would just like to know, how the feck did we got to Buchon? We don't see the plane in the back and in the whole interview nobody mantions it, the plane is reffered to as 109G.

Becase there was only ever one flying Bf109G in the world, and that was Black 6, and it was never owned by an American. Therefore, we are not talking about Black 6. Therefore, we are discussing a Buchon. The question is, what state is that Buchon in?

cheers,
Ratsack

VMF-214_HaVoK
07-16-2006, 05:58 PM
Those aircraft have nothing to do with BoB though.

VMF-214_HaVoK
07-16-2006, 05:59 PM
Bud Anderson claimed the Mustang could outturn, out zoom climb and out dive the 109. Does he count? We could do this pilot account stuff all day. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Brain32
07-16-2006, 06:50 PM
Bud Anderson claimed the Mustang could outturn, out zoom climb and out dive the 109. Does he count? We could do this pilot account stuff all day.
And? P51 can hang with the 109 for 180 degrees especially in high speed with no problem, FW can't stay with a Spit more than a 15degrees although in RL it could do 90. Also P51 is among if not the best zoom climber in the game and yes it can outzoom a 109, as good as if not better than FW can do a Spitfire, again P51 can dive with the FW's not to mention 109's and at 109's break-up speed 51 is still fine. So I don't see B.Andersons words gone with the wind here...
On the other hand we have "won t3h war TM" Insanefires...

Slater_51st
07-16-2006, 07:34 PM
I was bored so I decided to look into the issue of which 109 they were referring to. A quick google on 'Skip Holm me 109' led me to a few sites refering to Harold Kindsvater's HA-1112, and references to Skip Holm having flown it at numerous air shows, including in a mock combat with two P-51s. So, if this is the aircraft they were referring to, it truly has almost no bearing on the in-game versions. Wonder if the two interviewers knew it was a buchon?

http://www.preservedaxisaircraft.com/Luftwaffe/messerschmitt/images/HA%201112%20C4k-169.jpg

I also found this interesting blurb on Skip Holm.
"Skip Holm is one of USAF's most decorated fighter pilots. He served three tours in Viet Nam flying the F-105 Thunderchief, affectionately nicknamed the "Thud", and the F4 Phantom. Skip flew more than 250 combat mission in Thuds and 300-400 combat missions in Phantoms. That really is as real as it gets.

With a world record of 1000 hours of fighter combat time, Skip also served as a USAF test pilot flying the U-2, TR-1, and the F-117 Stealth Fighter as well as other classified projects at the famous Lockheed Skunk Works.

Skip is also a world famous race pilot and holds numerous race records, including winner of the 1981, 1984, 2000 and 2002 Reno Unlimited Air Races and the 1984 Canadian Unlimited International Air Race. Holder of World Closed Course Speed Record for reciprocating propeller driven aircraft. He set a new world's record this year at more than 517 mph. By the way, he did that flying 50 feet off the ground in tight left turns.

He is currently the CEO of Bear Aerospace building high performance jet and propeller-driven aircraft. He's also put in flight time in the film industry and has consulted on and flown in many movies including Hot Shots, Deal of the Century, Firebirds, and The Right Stuff.

Lt. Col. Holm has flown just about everything with wings that moves fast and is deadly. His specialty is flying Russian combat jets. He has total flight time of 13453 hours in fighters including: A-4, A-6, A-7, A-37, BD-5J, BD-10, F-4, RF-4, F-5, F-11, F-15, F-16, F-86, F-100, F-101, F-104, F-105, F-106, F-111, F-117, T-1, T-2, T-33, T-37, T-38, OV-1, O-2, OV-10, U-2, Casa, Draaken J35, Fouga, Gnat T-1, L-29, L-39, Mig-15, Mig-17, Mig-21, Mig-23, Sepa jet, Soko, SU27, Vampire. P-38, P-40, P-47, P-51, F-8, ME-109, Yak-3, 8, 11, 50, 55, Spitfire, Skyraider, Mosquito, Sea Fury, Corsair, T-6, T-28, T-41 plus others. Also, racers: Rare Bear, Stilleto, Tsunami, Voodoo, Mr. Awesome, Yak Attack, Jeannie 69, Healer, P51-B, Dago Red, VooDoChile, Blind Mans Bluff, Critical Mass, Sumptin Else, Jeannie II, Wild Wind."

Skip seems like a pretty cool guy http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

S! Slate

Viper2005_
07-16-2006, 07:49 PM
Originally posted by Ratsack:
Becase there was only ever one flying Bf109G in the world, and that was Black 6, and it was never owned by an American. Therefore, we are not talking about Black 6. Therefore, we are discussing a Buchon. The question is, what state is that Buchon in?


Well, there are several HA-1112s out there which have been (or are being) fitted with a DB-605.

http://www.preservedaxisaircraft.com/Luftwaffe/messerschmitt/HA1112.htm

This website is interesting:

http://www.bf109.com/flying.html

Note that:

i) the 109E certainly couldn't out turn the Spitfire I at low speed due to the difference in their wingloading. Very roughly speaking, you can rank turn radius as follows:

Merit factor = (power*wing area)/(weight^2)

The bigger the number, the better the turn radius (and thus the better the low speed turn rate).

ii) <span class="ev_code_red">the oft-quoted Mark Hanna account relates to a Buchon</span> (as you can tell from the power settings quoted, which relate to the Merlin). The specific aeroplane referred to was G-BOML:

http://www.airliners.net/search/photo.search?front=yes&...=500&keywords=G-BOML (http://www.airliners.net/search/photo.search?front=yes&maxres=500&keywords=G-BOML)

iii) he points out that his experience relates to operations at power settings of +12/2700 or less and altitudes less than 10,000 feet. That's not an awful lot of poke - about 1150-1200 bhp off the top of my head. OTOH, doubtless the aeroplane was rather lighter than its wartime cousins.

The sad fact is that there aren't a lot of authentic 109s out there. I would suggest that wartime data is probably the best way forward in this particular debate, since otherwise the risk of drawing incorrect conclusions is very real.

horseback
07-16-2006, 08:28 PM
The Great Revisionist strikes again:
Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by horseback:
There were no Spitfires flying combat missions in the Battle of France. Anyone who says that the RAF lost 450 Hurricanes and Spitfires in that campaign is badly mistaken.
You'd only have to look up the actual losses to see it's you are badly who's badly mistaken.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>The RAF may have lost 450 aircraft of all types in France from September 1939 to May/June 1940, including Gladiators, Battles, Blenheims, and Hurricanes, but no Spits. [/QUOTE]No, as a matter of fact the RAF lost 931 aircraft between May 10 - 20 June 1940 - of course that includes quite a few bombers, but the 450ish figure for fighter losses is correct.

The first major clashes of Spitfires and 109Es took place over Dunkirque,
Which is during the Battle of France. [/QUOTE] During but not generally considered part of the Battle of France. Those Spits were not engaged in the defense of France. I made no claims about total losses, I said "may have lost...". My point was that there were several RAF aircraft lost in operations as part of the Battle of France, but no Spits.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">when most, if not all the Spitfires available were equipped with less effective two-pitch props
Tough! </div></BLOCKQUOTE> I never said otherwise. My reference was to the German pilots who said that the Spit they first faced was less capable than the ones they faced later during the Battle of Britain.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">rather than the CSP units which were the norm by the time of the Battle of Britain.
Nope, CSP props were just begun to be fitted at the start of the BoB. They did not finish until mid-August.
Add to that, on May 10 not a single Spit and only a handful of Hurricanes had pilot armor, but again - tough! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>If the BoB started on 15 August 1940-Adler Tag was the term used by Goerring, I believe, then the conversion to CSP was largely completed by the time the critical phases of the Battle took place.
.<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Additionally, the vast majority of Spitfire pilots were going into combat for the first time, and we all know that men facing a life and death contest for the first time are usually at a distinct disadvantage against an opponent who has been there and done that a few times.
Tough! But those who left did not made much better in the BoB either - it's a deadly spiral of attrition. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Did we learn a new word today, Kurfy? The ones who gave up the battle of attrition were the Germans. We all agree that they could have won, IF they'd stayed the course, or IF Goerring had let the commanders on the scene determine what tactics were most effective for the Bf 109, or IF, IF, IF.

But they didn't. Get over it. You'll have to get your English country manor by working hard and saving your money instead of as inherited war booty. Good luck with that.

I agree that RAF tactics took a long time to change to something more effective, but the very stubbornness that kept them flying in vics is what kept them in the fight in the first place.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">That they managed a near standoff in that first major air battle was a major accomplishment.
... in revision of history perhaps, but the historcal fact is that the RAF was pretty badly bruised over Dunkerque, despite outnumbering the LW fighters. Perhaps you should look up the numbers. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>They felt they'd gotten a near standoff; many fighter pilots of the period wrote of their mystification that the Army was less than grateful. They had no idea how much they'd let get past them at that early phase of their on the job training, but they were sure that they had hammered the enemies that they had seen.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">It has been repeated ad infinitum that the 109 is a master's aircraft; that is, it takes a particularly skilled and experienced pilot to get its full potential out of it. On the other hand, "any idiot" could fly the Spitfire.
That's your opinion, and even if repeated ad infinitum, it will not become a fact nor would agree with the opinion of pilot's who flew the planes. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Actually, that was what guys like Rall said, like Erwin Leykau (whom you quoted on page 2 of this thread), and several others said. It was a big part of the mystique of the 109, that it was successfully flown by 'master' pilots-are you now saying that it was all propaganda?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">In a contest where the majority of pilots are of average sklls, the Spitfire would be the more successful of the two most of the time. Well I am all ears of real life examples when this happened. Spitfire pilots (and NACA) seem to complain about an oversensitive elevator, coupled with extremely heavy aileron - poor control harmony is always a problem esp. for a rookie, even if stall characteristics are excellent. That's why so many rated the FW 190 so high, despite it's poor stall charactheristics. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Here we get into a cultural expectations game. American pilots who flew the Spit all seem to have great praise for it, once they got used to it. NACA evals usually found something to carp about-that was their function, like movie critics or ambulance chasing lawyers, they had to find something wrong in order to justify their existance. Didn't you make a similar statement about NACA some time back when the subject was crude German finishes and bad brakes?

The balance between elevator and aileron throw on the Spit was different from the American standard-no German evaluations make mention of it as far as I am aware, or you would have brought it up long ago.

As for the ailerons bulging at very high speeds, didn't the Emil have similar issues, and weren't they solved by a change in design too?
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">An average pilot would be able to reach far more of the Spitfire's combat potential than his 109 flying counterpart
Maybe yes, maybe no - we'll never know since such never materialized.

and the disparity increases as the war grinds on, because the Spitfire was more adaptable to higher power and greater weight than the 109G and later.
That's an alternate way of saying the Spit suffered a lot more from gaining lot more weight, drag and torque than the 109 without real updates to the airframe. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Nooo, that's a direct way of saying that the Spitfire was much more capable of adding more weight and power than the 109 without a loss of handling. I have yet to hear any Spitfire pilot wax nostalgic about the greater sweetness of the Mark V, or imply, much less state outright, that the MK IX or MK VIII were less maneuverable or balanced in combat than earlier marks.

The Gryffon powered Marks were a whole other story, though a good bit of the problem was the torque going in the 'wrong' direction...

On the other hand, EVERY experte I've heard of states flatly that the 109 reached it's apex as a fighter with the 109F-4 version, and the aircraft became increasingly intractable and harder to fly as weight and power were increased after the F-4.

No one here is denying that the 109 series was a great one, but I am saying that the Spitfire was easier to master and fly in combat, and that it 'peaked' much later in its development than the 109 (with the Mk VIII/IX).

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Do NOT bring up Marseille and the North Africa experten; most of the Spitfire Vs they faced were burdened with the performance sapping, draggy Vokes' filter, and had their canopies either back or completely removed, because the plexiglass was so prone to scratching that they impaired visibility to a dangerous degree. Tough! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Still doing our Word of the Day exercises, I see. Good for you!
Spitfire V drivers over the Channel Front felt they had a good match for the 109F/early Gs; </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Ignorance was a bliss for them.

it was the FW 190 they feared.
Well at least they learned with time.[/QUOTE]You may be right; certainly the vast majority of experten over the Channel Front got fat on Spitfire kills prior to the summer of 1943.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The Mustang was also an easy aircraft to fly and master, particularly compared to the mid/late 109Gs
I wonder where you did get that impression. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>From reading German casualty reports.

Do a little research; every comparison of major US fighter types of WWII concludes that the Mustang was an easier fighter to master than the P-47 or P-38, and pilot accounts confirm that impression.

The German equivalent was the 190; also easier to fly and fight in than its stablemate, and much more feared in the West from 1943 (when the 109 started getting heavy) through the war's end.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">and it had clear performance advantages over 8000m, where they met most often. What kind of performance advantages? </div></BLOCKQUOTE> Speed, high speed maneuver, handling (the Pony's controls stayed much lighter quite deep into hard maneuvers, requiring less strength and endurance to fly at the edge than the Messerschmitt-especially the later models), better all around the higher both aircraft got, vastly superior dive-but that's the combat reality, not factory performance figures.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">But you wouldn't get to hear that from that interview.
Well of course, the interview is with someone who actually flew both planes. Funny these kinda guys all say the same.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>Especially when they're cut off from making their whole point. That may be good for winning debates, but it does tend to obscure the whole truth. I'd be fascinated to hear what the man had to say about the Mustang's greater speed, and how it applied to combat. I'd also be fascinated to learn if he ever took either fighter over 25,000 ft to see if their relative strengths and weaknesses still applied.

I think I start to understand the guys in this thread who got started up reading ridiculus things I also get annoyed when I see such.
(I'd not say either that the in a general sense the 109G would outdo the Spit in sustained turn, though there may be special circumstances where this can happen - 109G vs old MkV at high alt, for example. Between contemporaries it's unlikely, but I'd agree with that the margin is not so great as some may think - See Mark H.), [/QUOTE] Again, it's a matter of pilot skill, and I still maintain that the easier and more forgiving aircraft has a decisive edge until the pilots flying both aircraft are true masters, and then I think Lady Luck may be the deciding factor.

At that level, the burning question is, does your rabbit's foot have more mojo than my four leaf clover?

cheers

horseback

x__CRASH__x
07-16-2006, 08:49 PM
OMG! That Buchon has JG27 markings on it!! I think I'm going to vomit! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/sadeyes.gif

http://www.preservedaxisaircraft.com/Luftwaffe/messerschmitt/images/HA%201112%20C4k-169.jpg

Ratsack
07-16-2006, 08:58 PM
Originally posted by Viper2005_:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Ratsack:
Becase there was only ever one flying Bf109G in the world, and that was Black 6, and it was never owned by an American. Therefore, we are not talking about Black 6. Therefore, we are discussing a Buchon. The question is, what state is that Buchon in?


Well, there are several HA-1112s out there which have been (or are being) fitted with a DB-605.

http://www.preservedaxisaircraft.com/Luftwaffe/messerschmitt/HA1112.htm

This website is interesting:

http://www.bf109.com/flying.html

Note that:

i) the 109E certainly couldn't out turn the Spitfire I at low speed due to the difference in their wingloading. Very roughly speaking, you can rank turn radius as follows:

Merit factor = (power*wing area)/(weight^2)

The bigger the number, the better the turn radius (and thus the better the low speed turn rate).

ii) <span class="ev_code_red">the oft-quoted Mark Hanna account relates to a Buchon</span> (as you can tell from the power settings quoted, which relate to the Merlin). The specific aeroplane referred to was G-BOML:

http://www.airliners.net/search/photo.search?front=yes&...=500&keywords=G-BOML (http://www.airliners.net/search/photo.search?front=yes&maxres=500&keywords=G-BOML)

iii) he points out that his experience relates to operations at power settings of +12/2700 or less and altitudes less than 10,000 feet. That's not an awful lot of poke - about 1150-1200 bhp off the top of my head. OTOH, doubtless the aeroplane was rather lighter than its wartime cousins.

The sad fact is that there aren't a lot of authentic 109s out there. I would suggest that wartime data is probably the best way forward in this particular debate, since otherwise the risk of drawing incorrect conclusions is very real. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


I asked what state the Buchon was in because even if it was converted to a DB, there's nothing to say its performance would be comparable to a wartime Bf109G. As I said in one of my earlier posts in this thread, most of the DB-converted Buchons look short in the nose. Check out the G-10 conversion flying in Germany: it's definitely not right. Even the panel lines around the underside of the nose aren't quite right.

In any case, it looks like the so-called '109G' they were talking about was actually a Merlin Buchon, not a conversion. Comparing a wartime G-2 to that bird would be ludicrous. All bets are off.

I absolutely agree with your last paragraph, Viper. Wartime data is by far the best, where it's available. I'll go further and say that the best wartime data comes from the country of origin of the aircraft in question, as opposed to tests of captured foreign types. I would rely on the latter only in the absence of any other contemporary data.

cheers,
Ratsack

ElAurens
07-16-2006, 09:42 PM
All I know is that every real pilot I have talked to that has time in high power prop aircraft says the spin/departure model in the game is totally wrong.

All the banter in this thread is conjecture at best, and the typical red vs. blue "Mine is bigger than yours" playground schoolboy talk at worst.

It isn't even entertaining anymore.

Nothing that we do as "pilots" in this sim has any relevancy to what happened in WW2 at all. Our virtual craft are mere shells of the real thing and in no way are indicative of how the real things flew. Stop kidding yourselves.

BfHeFwMe
07-16-2006, 10:13 PM
Ah, now I understand how his 109 was superior, it was powered by Merlin, heart of a Spitfire!

That was smart, http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif if you can't beat them, join them.

Hey Oleg, one Buchon to go please! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/bigtears.gif

La7_brook
07-16-2006, 11:59 PM
Originally posted by horseback:
The Great Revisionist strikes again:<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by horseback:
There were no Spitfires flying combat missions in the Battle of France. Anyone who says that the RAF lost 450 Hurricanes and Spitfires in that campaign is badly mistaken.
You'd only have to look up the actual losses to see it's you are badly who's badly mistaken.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>The RAF may have lost 450 aircraft of all types in France from September 1939 to May/June 1940, including Gladiators, Battles, Blenheims, and Hurricanes, but no Spits. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>No, as a matter of fact the RAF lost 931 aircraft between May 10 - 20 June 1940 - of course that includes quite a few bombers, but the 450ish figure for fighter losses is correct.

The first major clashes of Spitfires and 109Es took place over Dunkirque,
Which is during the Battle of France. [/QUOTE] During but not generally considered part of the Battle of France. Those Spits were not engaged in the defense of France. I made no claims about total losses, I said "may have lost...". My point was that there were several RAF aircraft lost in operations as part of the Battle of France, but no Spits.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">when most, if not all the Spitfires available were equipped with less effective two-pitch props
Tough! </div></BLOCKQUOTE> I never said otherwise. My reference was to the German pilots who said that the Spit they first faced was less capable than the ones they faced later during the Battle of Britain.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">rather than the CSP units which were the norm by the time of the Battle of Britain.
Nope, CSP props were just begun to be fitted at the start of the BoB. They did not finish until mid-August.
Add to that, on May 10 not a single Spit and only a handful of Hurricanes had pilot armor, but again - tough! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>If the BoB started on 15 August 1940-Adler Tag was the term used by Goerring, I believe, then the conversion to CSP was largely completed by the time the critical phases of the Battle took place.
.<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Additionally, the vast majority of Spitfire pilots were going into combat for the first time, and we all know that men facing a life and death contest for the first time are usually at a distinct disadvantage against an opponent who has been there and done that a few times.
Tough! But those who left did not made much better in the BoB either - it's a deadly spiral of attrition. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Did we learn a new word today, Kurfy? The ones who gave up the battle of attrition were the Germans. We all agree that they could have won, IF they'd stayed the course, or IF Goerring had let the commanders on the scene determine what tactics were most effective for the Bf 109, or IF, IF, IF.

But they didn't. Get over it. You'll have to get your English country manor by working hard and saving your money instead of as inherited war booty. Good luck with that.

I agree that RAF tactics took a long time to change to something more effective, but the very stubbornness that kept them flying in vics is what kept them in the fight in the first place.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">That they managed a near standoff in that first major air battle was a major accomplishment.
... in revision of history perhaps, but the historcal fact is that the RAF was pretty badly bruised over Dunkerque, despite outnumbering the LW fighters. Perhaps you should look up the numbers. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>They felt they'd gotten a near standoff; many fighter pilots of the period wrote of their mystification that the Army was less than grateful. They had no idea how much they'd let get past them at that early phase of their on the job training, but they were sure that they had hammered the enemies that they had seen.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">It has been repeated ad infinitum that the 109 is a master's aircraft; that is, it takes a particularly skilled and experienced pilot to get its full potential out of it. On the other hand, "any idiot" could fly the Spitfire.
That's your opinion, and even if repeated ad infinitum, it will not become a fact nor would agree with the opinion of pilot's who flew the planes. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Actually, that was what guys like Rall said, like Erwin Leykau (whom you quoted on page 2 of this thread), and several others said. It was a big part of the mystique of the 109, that it was successfully flown by 'master' pilots-are you now saying that it was all propaganda?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">In a contest where the majority of pilots are of average sklls, the Spitfire would be the more successful of the two most of the time. Well I am all ears of real life examples when this happened. Spitfire pilots (and NACA) seem to complain about an oversensitive elevator, coupled with extremely heavy aileron - poor control harmony is always a problem esp. for a rookie, even if stall characteristics are excellent. That's why so many rated the FW 190 so high, despite it's poor stall charactheristics. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Here we get into a cultural expectations game. American pilots who flew the Spit all seem to have great praise for it, once they got used to it. NACA evals usually found something to carp about-that was their function, like movie critics or ambulance chasing lawyers, they had to find something wrong in order to justify their existance. Didn't you make a similar statement about NACA some time back when the subject was crude German finishes and bad brakes?

The balance between elevator and aileron throw on the Spit was different from the American standard-no German evaluations make mention of it as far as I am aware, or you would have brought it up long ago.

As for the ailerons bulging at very high speeds, didn't the Emil have similar issues, and weren't they solved by a change in design too?
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">An average pilot would be able to reach far more of the Spitfire's combat potential than his 109 flying counterpart
Maybe yes, maybe no - we'll never know since such never materialized.

and the disparity increases as the war grinds on, because the Spitfire was more adaptable to higher power and greater weight than the 109G and later.
That's an alternate way of saying the Spit suffered a lot more from gaining lot more weight, drag and torque than the 109 without real updates to the airframe. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Nooo, that's a direct way of saying that the Spitfire was much more capable of adding more weight and power than the 109 without a loss of handling. I have yet to hear any Spitfire pilot wax nostalgic about the greater sweetness of the Mark V, or imply, much less state outright, that the MK IX or MK VIII were less maneuverable or balanced in combat than earlier marks.

The Gryffon powered Marks were a whole other story, though a good bit of the problem was the torque going in the 'wrong' direction...

On the other hand, EVERY experte I've heard of states flatly that the 109 reached it's apex as a fighter with the 109F-4 version, and the aircraft became increasingly intractable and harder to fly as weight and power were increased after the F-4.

No one here is denying that the 109 series was a great one, but I am saying that the Spitfire was easier to master and fly in combat, and that it 'peaked' much later in its development than the 109 (with the Mk VIII/IX).

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Do NOT bring up Marseille and the North Africa experten; most of the Spitfire Vs they faced were burdened with the performance sapping, draggy Vokes' filter, and had their canopies either back or completely removed, because the plexiglass was so prone to scratching that they impaired visibility to a dangerous degree. Tough! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Still doing our Word of the Day exercises, I see. Good for you!
Spitfire V drivers over the Channel Front felt they had a good match for the 109F/early Gs; </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Ignorance was a bliss for them.

it was the FW 190 they feared.
Well at least they learned with time.[/QUOTE]You may be right; certainly the vast majority of experten over the Channel Front got fat on Spitfire kills prior to the summer of 1943.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The Mustang was also an easy aircraft to fly and master, particularly compared to the mid/late 109Gs
I wonder where you did get that impression. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>From reading German casualty reports.

Do a little research; every comparison of major US fighter types of WWII concludes that the Mustang was an easier fighter to master than the P-47 or P-38, and pilot accounts confirm that impression.

The German equivalent was the 190; also easier to fly and fight in than its stablemate, and much more feared in the West from 1943 (when the 109 started getting heavy) through the war's end.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">and it had clear performance advantages over 8000m, where they met most often. What kind of performance advantages? </div></BLOCKQUOTE> Speed, high speed maneuver, handling (the Pony's controls stayed much lighter quite deep into hard maneuvers, requiring less strength and endurance to fly at the edge than the Messerschmitt-especially the later models), better all around the higher both aircraft got, vastly superior dive-but that's the combat reality, not factory performance figures.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">But you wouldn't get to hear that from that interview.
Well of course, the interview is with someone who actually flew both planes. Funny these kinda guys all say the same.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>Especially when they're cut off from making their whole point. That may be good for winning debates, but it does tend to obscure the whole truth. I'd be fascinated to hear what the man had to say about the Mustang's greater speed, and how it applied to combat. I'd also be fascinated to learn if he ever took either fighter over 25,000 ft to see if their relative strengths and weaknesses still applied.

I think I start to understand the guys in this thread who got started up reading ridiculus things I also get annoyed when I see such.
(I'd not say either that the in a general sense the 109G would outdo the Spit in sustained turn, though there may be special circumstances where this can happen - 109G vs old MkV at high alt, for example. Between contemporaries it's unlikely, but I'd agree with that the margin is not so great as some may think - See Mark H.), [/QUOTE] Again, it's a matter of pilot skill, and I still maintain that the easier and more forgiving aircraft has a decisive edge until the pilots flying both aircraft are true masters, and then I think Lady Luck may be the deciding factor.

At that level, the burning question is, does your rabbit's foot have more mojo than my four leaf clover?

cheers

horseback[/QUOTE] well if u want to talk loss how about OP circus/by 1941 german radar coverge of northern france was efficient the performance of the latest bf109f4 was superior to the spitfire vb in all but tight turns, and it was the luftwaffe that begin to inflict a prohibitive loss rate upon fighter command .during august 1941, jg2 and jg26 shot down 98 spitfires and 10 hurricnes for the loss of 18 in action ,by noveber 41 fighter command called a halt to offensive op,s and imbarked on winter conservation.

Abbuzze
07-17-2006, 12:43 AM
At the end it seems that every conversion of a 109 to a different engine could outturn a P51 (no matter if it get a better or worse engine). So the question is why shouldn´t a original 109 do this?

Ratsack
07-17-2006, 12:55 AM
Originally posted by La7_brook:
well if u want to talk loss how about OP circus/by 1941 german radar coverge of northern france was efficient the performance of the latest bf109f4 was superior to the spitfire vb in all but tight turns, and it was the luftwaffe that begin to inflict a prohibitive loss rate upon fighter command .during august 1941, jg2 and jg26 shot down 98 spitfires and 10 hurricnes for the loss of 18 in action ,by noveber 41 fighter command called a halt to offensive op,s and imbarked on winter conservation.

Which is also when the FW190A began to bite.

The RAF first encountered FW190s in early Sept (to their discomfort). By Nov 1941 they had a reasonably accurate intelligence picture of the new fighter's performance and they were justifiably concerned.

In contrast, they thought they had the measure of the Bf109F. We might think they were mistaken, but that's a hindsight call, and not the perception at the time.

In addition, we should remember that not all the units in JG2 and JG26 were simultaneously equipped with the latest types. From memory (I'm at work, so I don't have the source in front of me), the first unit in JG26 to convert to the FW190A-1 was changing over from the Bf109E-7. Now, the E-7 was a good plane, but I don't think you'd say it was a match for the Spit Vb or Vc. Both of the latter were about 20 mph faster than the E, with a rate of climb only slightly inferior.

Similarly, there would've been a fair proportion of F-2s in JG2 & 26, too.

So it's not as simple as comparing the performance stats of a Spit V with those of a Bf109F-4.

cheers,
Ratsack

Ratsack
07-17-2006, 12:56 AM
Originally posted by Abbuzze:
At the end it seems that every conversion of a 109 to a different engine could outturn a P51 (no matter if it get a better or worse engine). So the question is why shouldn´t a original 109 do this?

You'll get no argument from me about the Bf109 out turning a P-51. Out turning a Spitfire? That's a whole different game.

cheers,
Ratsack

La7_brook
07-17-2006, 01:11 AM
Originally posted by Ratsack:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by La7_brook:
well if u want to talk loss how about OP circus/by 1941 german radar coverge of northern france was efficient the performance of the latest bf109f4 was superior to the spitfire vb in all but tight turns, and it was the luftwaffe that begin to inflict a prohibitive loss rate upon fighter command .during august 1941, jg2 and jg26 shot down 98 spitfires and 10 hurricnes for the loss of 18 in action ,by noveber 41 fighter command called a halt to offensive op,s and imbarked on winter conservation.

Which is also when the FW190A began to bite.

The RAF first encountered FW190s in early Sept (to their discomfort). By Nov 1941 they had a reasonably accurate intelligence picture of the new fighter's performance and they were justifiably concerned.

In contrast, they thought they had the measure of the Bf109F. We might think they were mistaken, but that's a hindsight call, and not the perception at the time.

In addition, we should remember that not all the units in JG2 and JG26 were simultaneously equipped with the latest types. From memory (I'm at work, so I don't have the source in front of me), the first unit in JG26 to convert to the FW190A-1 was changing over from the Bf109E-7. Now, the E-7 was a good plane, but I don't think you'd say it was a match for the Spit Vb or Vc. Both of the latter were about 20 mph faster than the E, with a rate of climb only slightly inferior.

Similarly, there would've been a fair proportion of F-2s in JG2 & 26, too.

So it's not as simple as comparing the performance stats of a Spit V with those of a Bf109F-4.

cheers,
Ratsack </div></BLOCKQUOTE> so lets look at that / was the spits just bad flyers or JG2 and JG26 that good or were the planes alot closer match then sum have us make out here ?

Kurfurst__
07-17-2006, 01:21 AM
Originally posted by horseback:
The Great Revisionist strikes again:

Then kiss my revisionist butt my dear Great Ignorant American and do some reading first, as such remarks don't seem to help you.



<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The first major clashes of Spitfires and 109Es took place over Dunkirque,
Which is during the Battle of France. </div></BLOCKQUOTE> During but not generally considered part of the Battle of France.[/QUOTE]

LOL, by who....? YOU?


Those Spits were not engaged in the defense of France. I made no claims about total losses, I said "may have lost...". My point was that there were several RAF aircraft lost in operations as part of the Battle of France, but no Spits.

Dancing, evading, twisting it out and denying. Nice.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">rather than the CSP units which were the norm by the time of the Battle of Britain.
Nope, CSP props were just begun to be fitted at the start of the BoB. They did not finish until mid-August.
Add to that, on May 10 not a single Spit and only a handful of Hurricanes had pilot armor, but again - tough!
If the BoB started on 15 August 1940-Adler Tag was the term used by Goerring, I believe, then the conversion to CSP was largely completed by the time the critical phases of the Battle took place. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>.

Again, our friend makes a new version - suddenly now the start of the Battle is Adler Tag, not as early July as even 99.9% the British historians and even the RAF's own site account it.


Did we learn a new word today, Kurfy?

Maybe you did, but considering your knowladge base here, I can't possible learn anything from you on this subject.


The ones who gave up the battle of attrition were the Germans. We all agree that they could have won, IF they'd stayed the course, or IF Goerring had let the commanders on the scene determine what tactics were most effective for the Bf 109, or IF, IF, IF.

Nice move away from discussing the reasons for tactical difficulties faced by the RAF, a little chestpounding.


But they didn't. Get over it. You'll have to get your English country manor by working hard and saving your money instead of as inherited war booty. Good luck with that.

Jesus christ, given your responses, you are so immensely primitive and ignorant that there's no word for it.
I'd not want to live in England even if they'd pay for it, that's a dream fancied by rich yanks who despite all their money, still got that inferiority complex with the Old World, and do all kind of silly things like buying hundred year old rotten bricks from there and showing their neighbour that geez, it's from Europe and was dang expensive! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif Or get their English country manor when they got bored with the aforementioned US style of living.


That they managed a near standoff in that first major air battle was a major accomplishment.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">... in revision of history perhaps, but the historcal fact is that the RAF was pretty badly bruised over Dunkerque, despite outnumbering the LW fighters. Perhaps you should look up the numbers.
They felt they'd gotten a near standoff </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Now ain't that great to feel you've got a standoff when you're beaten. When the Jagdwaffe felt the same, at least they had some valid reasons to back it up.



<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">It has been repeated ad infinitum that the 109 is a master's aircraft; that is, it takes a particularly skilled and experienced pilot to get its full potential out of it. On the other hand, "any idiot" could fly the Spitfire.
That's your opinion, and even if repeated ad infinitum, it will not become a fact nor would agree with the opinion of pilot's who flew the planes. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually, that was what guys like Rall said, like Erwin Leykau (whom you quoted on page 2 of this thread), and several others said. [/QUOTE]

Erwin Laykau said novice pilot's could not turn the plane to it's limits; but that's the case with every fighter, and quite different from saying the plane is difficult to master. As for Rall, I didn't see him supporting your claims. Other pilots outright disagree with it, see below.


It was a big part of the mystique of the 109, that it was successfully flown by 'master' pilots-are you now saying that it was all propaganda?

I say what you are saying is propaganda. Those pilot's to no small extent become master pilots because they survived long enough in a plane that forgave their piloting errors, and made up for their tactical mistakes with it's performance, and allowed them a very wide tactical margin.


Here we get into a cultural expectations game. American pilots who flew the Spit all seem to have great praise for it, once they got used to it.

'American pilots'. 'All'...


NACA evals usually found something to carp about-that was their function, like movie critics or ambulance chasing lawyers, they had to find something wrong in order to justify their existance. Didn't you make a similar statement about NACA some time back when the subject was crude German finishes and bad brakes?

No, and did I hear it right that you just dismissed NACA for being just a bunch of old women always finding something to carp about..?


The balance between elevator and aileron throw on the Spit was different from the American standard-no German evaluations make mention of it as far as I am aware, or you would have brought it up long ago.

No, it's a thing that wartime RAE reports complain about the same as modern day pilots.

Jeff Ethell (http://www.ethell.com/jethell/jeffethell/index.htm)

i]'Sitting behind this demon V-12 churning out so much power is intoxicating...the earth falls away at a rapid rate, at least for something with a propeller. A look around reveals the excellent visibility out of the bubble canopy. This lessens, to a degree, the impression of being buried within a Spitfire, though that feeling of being a part of the machine does not change. The elevator is very light while the rudder is stiff and the ailerons even more so. Every Spitfire I've flown takes a bit more muscle to roll than most fighters. As speed increases both rudder and ailerons get heavier, resulting in a curious mismatch at high speed...one has to handle the almost oversensitive elevators with a light fingertip touch while arm-wrestling the stiff ailerons. Pilots had to keep this in mind during combat, particularly when going against the FW 190 which had a sterling rate of roll and exceptionally well harmonised controls. That being said, the aircraft is very well balanced and delightful to manoeuvre. Whipping a Spit around the clouds ranks right up there at the top of aviation's great experiences.'[/i]


As for the ailerons bulging at very high speeds, didn't the Emil have similar issues, and weren't they solved by a change in design too?

That's a discussion on it's own.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">and the disparity increases as the war grinds on, because the Spitfire was more adaptable to higher power and greater weight than the 109G and later.
That's an alternate way of saying the Spit suffered a lot more from gaining lot more weight, drag and torque than the 109 without real updates to the airframe.

Nooo, that's a direct way of saying that the Spitfire was much more capable of adding more weight and power than the 109 without a loss of handling.

That's your own wishful thinking and it conviniently ignores physics and facts. Even the heaviest subtype of the Bf 109 was not heavier than the MkIX.


I have yet to hear any Spitfire pilot wax nostalgic about the greater sweetness of the Mark V, or imply, much less state outright, that the MK IX or MK VIII were less maneuverable or balanced in combat than earlier marks.

Well the Spitfire manuals themselves show the increasesing stall speed, but the same is being told by J Johnson, who said he felt the MkV being the most manouverable, but personally preferring the IXLF for being a great compromise, and the XIV 'not a Spitfire anymore'. IIRC Unwin otoh preferred the MkV, after that they felt heavy for him.

Alex Henshaw, chief test pilot at the Castle Bomwich Spitfire factory.

"I loved the Spitfire in all of her many versions. But I have to admit that the later Marks, although they were faster than the earlier ones, were also much heavier and so did not handle so well. You did not have such positive control over them. One test of manouverability was to throw the Spitfire into a flick roll and see how many times she rolled. With the Mark II or the Mark V one got two and a half rolls but the Mark IX was heavier and you got only one and a half. With the later and still heavier versions one got even less.The essence of aircraft design is compromise, and an improvement at one end of the performance envelope is rarely achieved without a deterioration somewhere else."

Uh-oh. I hear the cracks forming on your version.


[On the other hand, EVERY experte I've heard of states flatly that the 109 reached it's apex as a fighter with the 109F-4 version, and the aircraft became increasingly intractable and harder to fly as weight and power were increased after the F-4.

Then I doubt you heard many or any at all.

Does Eric Hartmann count as an Experte? He flew only the Bf 109G, of which he said:

It was very manoeuverable, and it was easy to handle. It speeded up very fast, if you dived a little. And in the acrobatics manoeuver, you could spin with the 109, and go very easy out of the spin. The only problems occurred during take-off. It had a strong engine, and a small, narrow-tread undercarriage. If you took off too fast it would turn [roll] ninety degrees away. We lost a lot of pilots in take-offs. "

Pinter Gyula, 2nd Lt., RHAF. 101st Fighter Regiment:

"Apart from performance, it was also very important the plane to possess a sort of 'goodwill'.
The Bf 109 - except for take-offs - was an easy-to-fly airplane, and in addition it brought back the pilot even with serious damage. My plane, 'Blue 1' received hits multiple times, in one case when attacking a Boston formation the skin on the left wing was ripped off on half square meters, the main spar was damaged and the undercarriage tire was blown to pieces, yet it dropped without any problem and the plane landed just like it was a training session. Not to mention it`s valuable quality that it never caught fire during landing on the belly after a fatal hit, in contrast to many other type, with which such emergency procedure put us at a serious risk because of the danger of fire and explosion. To summerize : we loved the Bf 109.
We did not like war. Alas, as we were soldiers, we performed our duty. The end of this sad story is marked by white marble in the world`s cemeteries."

Under the Red Star, page 98 :

As related above, the late model 109s ("Gustavs") were tested in the usual manner by experienced test-pilots, including Yuri A. Antipov (who tested both the Bf 109G-4 and the Bf 109G-6), Vladimir Ye. Golofastov and Grigori M. Shiyanov. According to the comments of Shiyanov the Soviet test-pilots gave very high marks to the German fighter, considered an excellent fighter. The simple structure and easy handling characteristics made it suitable for "pilots with relatively low qualifications, coming directly from the pilots schools". In short: a soldier's aircraft (samolet-soldat)!

AFDU tactical trials, 109G2/trop (pardon the OCR errors) :


6. The new engine (D.H.605) is little better than the old one (D.B.601) in the 109F, the main improvement
being an increase in rated height. The fine performance is due largely to the size of the aeroplane. It is remarkably small and light considering the size of the engine.

Recamendations .
9. The small size of the 109G remains aprim reason for its good performance. It is recarmended that British aeroplanes should be designed to be small, but that skittishness on the ground should be prevented by having a nosewheel undercart.

10. British cockpits should be freed of auxiliary technical controls which need the attention of the pilot, and the regulation of oxygen flow, adjustment of cwlant and oil radiator flaps and airscrew pitch should be controlled by reliable automatics.

7. The cockpit is simple. A number of technical controls such as regulation of oxygen flow, adjustment of cwlant radiator and oil radiator flaps and airscrew pitch control have been made automatic and need no attention ran the pilot. The pilot is then able to give more attention to fighting tactics, teamwork, navigation and practical flying.

Yugoslav airforce was an interesting mix of both western and russian airplanes including P-47, Yak-3 and Bf-109. That gave pilots a unique chance to fly and compare the aircrafts from "both sides".
This is one of their instructors comparing the Yak 3 and 109G-2:

'In all, Jak 3 had marvelous flying performance and excellent manouvrebility, it was invented for peacetime flying and aerobatics, but you had to have a hand for it. On other hand Messerschmitt was much more simple to fly, especially in air combat, of course once you learned to cope its small rudder on take-off and landing.'

And so on.


No one here is denying that the 109 series was a great one, but I am saying that the Spitfire was easier to master and fly in combat, and that it 'peaked' much later in its development than the 109 (with the Mk VIII/IX).

OK, that's your impression, but given the above, it does not have much of a factual basis.



[QUOTE]The Mustang was also an easy aircraft to fly and master, particularly compared to the mid/late 109Gs
I wonder where you did get that impression.
From reading German casualty reports. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Which German casualty reports contain tactical comparisons between the Mustang and German types?


Do a little research; every comparison of major US fighter types of WWII concludes that the Mustang was an easier fighter to master than the P-47 or P-38, and pilot accounts confirm that impression.

I did a little research and it shows nasty stall characteristics, CoG problems, porpoising at high speeds, criticized low-speed roll rate. Not to mention it was greatly more difficult to fly because of the many manual functions engine operation required compared to German types, where it was all automatic. If the others were even harder to master, than it's bad news, but in any case I can't see how the relative qualities between US aircraft would tell anything about how it relate to foreign aircraft.


The German equivalent was the 190; also easier to fly and fight in than its stablemate, and much more feared in the West from 1943 (when the 109 started getting heavy) through the war's end.

Easier to fly and flight, well the same again, the 190 had some nicely balanced controls, thrilling roll rate, and that's it. It didn't have the extremely forgiving nature of the 109, nor it's stall characteristics. Otherwise, both types were equally easy to operate, both having HOTAS controls. Regardless how the Brits feared it in the MkV, German tactical comparisons are not at all giving similiar view, in fact they well understood the different qualities offered by the Bf 109 and FW 190.


Speed, high speed maneuver, handling (the Pony's controls stayed much lighter quite deep into hard maneuvers, requiring less strength and endurance to fly at the edge than the Messerschmitt-especially the later models), better all around the higher both aircraft got, vastly superior dive-but that's the combat reality, not factory performance figures.

Nope, again it's just your own wishful thinking, it's how it is your the little world your created for yourself, but it's not supported by either factory figures, nor flight tests, nor anything. I can say because I saw these all myself. Especially the remarks at high altitudes where the 109 control forces were not getting heavy in the thin air.

The vastly superior dive and the combat reality :

Robert Curtis, 52FG, 13 victories in the MTO:

"I flew the B-model at first, but only for a few missions before getting a D-model in June 1944. In the B-model I had two encounters with German fighters which involved high-speed dives from high altitude. one chasing a FW-190 and th eother chasing a Me-109. In both cases I was able to stay with these fighters even though speeds of 550 mph were reached, greatly exceeding the 505 mph red line speed of the P-51.

Once I received my D-model, however, I was never able to stay with these fighters in such high-speed dives. At speeds over 505 mph the aircraft would start to "porpoise" uncontrollably, so I had to slow down to stop this behavior, allowing the enemy aircraft to escape. A North American Tech. Rep. visited our squadron, but was unable to suggest the reason for this behavior, or any way, other than not to dive at such high speeds, to overcome this apparent defect. I test flew a D-model over Madna airstrip, Italy, in July 1944, and found that the porpoising again started at speeds over 505 mph. <snip>... whatever the reason for this behavior, it made the D-model a less capable fighter plane, because most experienced German pilots would Split-S into a high-speed dive to escape a dangerous situation at high altitude.
..
"My flight chased 12 109s south of Vienna. They climbed and we followed, unable to close on them. At 38,000 feet I fired a long burst at one of them from at least a 1000 yards, and saw some strikes. It rolled over and dived and I followed but soon reached compressibility with severe buffeting of the tail and loss of elevator control. I slowed my plane and regained control, but the 109 got away.

On two other occasions ME 109s got away from me because the P 51D could not stay with them in a high-speed dive. At 525-550 mph the plane would start to porpoise uncontrollably and had to be slowed to regain control. The P 51 was redlined at 505 mph, meaning that this speed should not be exceeded. But when chasing 109s or 190s in a dive from 25-26,000 it often was exceeded, if you wanted to keep up with those enemy planes. The P 51b, and c, could stay with those planes in a dive. The P 51d had a thicker wing and a bubble canopy which changed the airflow and brought on compressibility at lower speeds"


[QUOTE]But you wouldn't get to hear that from that interview.
Well of course, the interview is with someone who actually flew both planes. Funny these kinda guys all say the same.


Again, it's a matter of pilot skill, and I still maintain that the easier and more forgiving aircraft has a decisive edge until the pilots flying both aircraft are true masters, and then I think Lady Luck may be the deciding factor.

Problem is, that both aircraft were renowned for their very forgiving nature, though neither were without their vices.



At that level, the burning question is, does your rabbit's foot have more mojo than my four leaf clover?

Err, but that's what Mark H. basically said, too... planes so closely matched that pilot makes the difference. Or Lady Luck.

WOLFMondo
07-17-2006, 01:22 AM
JG2 and JG26 faced almost every sort of British pilot and were excellent pilots themselves, although by the time the 190 appeared, British pilots were getting far better training and for far longer than your average BoB era pilot.

GR142-Pipper
07-17-2006, 01:24 AM
Originally posted by HellToupee:
http://www.bugsweeps.com/info/howard_hughes/sprucegoose.jpg

blue flyers preception of how the spit should handle True....only feather about four of the engines first (all on one side, of course). http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

GR142-Pipper

Ratsack
07-17-2006, 01:49 AM
Originally posted by La7_brook:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Ratsack:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by La7_brook:
well if u want to talk loss how about OP circus/by 1941 german radar coverge of northern france was efficient the performance of the latest bf109f4 was superior to the spitfire vb in all but tight turns, and it was the luftwaffe that begin to inflict a prohibitive loss rate upon fighter command .during august 1941, jg2 and jg26 shot down 98 spitfires and 10 hurricnes for the loss of 18 in action ,by noveber 41 fighter command called a halt to offensive op,s and imbarked on winter conservation.

Which is also when the FW190A began to bite.

The RAF first encountered FW190s in early Sept (to their discomfort). By Nov 1941 they had a reasonably accurate intelligence picture of the new fighter's performance and they were justifiably concerned.

In contrast, they thought they had the measure of the Bf109F. We might think they were mistaken, but that's a hindsight call, and not the perception at the time.

In addition, we should remember that not all the units in JG2 and JG26 were simultaneously equipped with the latest types. From memory (I'm at work, so I don't have the source in front of me), the first unit in JG26 to convert to the FW190A-1 was changing over from the Bf109E-7. Now, the E-7 was a good plane, but I don't think you'd say it was a match for the Spit Vb or Vc. Both of the latter were about 20 mph faster than the E, with a rate of climb only slightly inferior.

Similarly, there would've been a fair proportion of F-2s in JG2 & 26, too.

So it's not as simple as comparing the performance stats of a Spit V with those of a Bf109F-4.

cheers,
Ratsack </div></BLOCKQUOTE> so lets look at that / was the spits just bad flyers or JG2 and JG26 that good or were the planes alot closer match then sum have us make out here ? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It's the tactical situation that matters. JG2 & 26 had instructions to keep their force in being, and not engage in combat unnecessarily. With radar coverage, they climbed to altitude and then attacked with the height advantage, if they attacked at all. Usually, they would make the attack when the RAF formation was turning for home, because this was when they were most likely to become disorganised, and were therefore most vulnerable.

There were obviously sensible tactics on the part of the Germans, and one can€t fault them for that. These tactics adequately explain the differences in loss rate. They tell us little or nothing about the relative merits of the machines involved.


Cheers,
Ratsack

WWMaxGunz
07-17-2006, 02:04 AM
Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
What, got EXTRAPOLATED again, GLUNZ*?

Besides, I think you mistook me with some other. Probably with Crump. But, why would you care, for a righteous zealot, they look and small all the same, them naysayers, just another witch/heretic to be burned.

[i]* Glunz because this paranoid thinks it means something bad in german. Actually I have no idea of what it means, I guess it means nothing, just being happy feeding his paranoia. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Sheesh! Is that the best you can drag up? Yes, I am paranoid and extremely prone to heart
attacks while you are the master of reasoned debate. Yeah sure oh bender of truth.

EDIT:ADD
And to illustrate the point, never in all those discussions did you ever post that the FW had
this stall you say in this thread. Never did you correct anyone who posted that the FW had a
very gentle and controllable stall.

Crump? Maybe one of the 10 or so LW fanboys pushing the idea once it got mentioned.
And yet I don't say they are wrong either. I understand there was a torque problem when it
was flown either incorrectly or to the edge which did kill rookies on occasion ad did stop
a whole string of FW's from catching one P-38 in a tight spiral climb but I don't call that
a bad stall characteristic.

It's a matter of what is posted to support one point and the same not posted when it is
inconvenient to the agenda at hand which ruins what appreciation of the knowledge you do
give out. In simpler words, you are far too slanted and we both know it.

jermin122
07-17-2006, 02:21 AM
I would like to believe Skip's words rather than those of some spit fans here. What he says is much more persuasive.

WOLFMondo
07-17-2006, 02:31 AM
No airshow pilots comments should be taken as gospelhttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

They don't push the airframes to even 50% of what there capable. You simply don't take a WW2 fighter worth millions and not replacable historical artifact and push it to its boundries, adding to its already substantial metal fatigue and shortening the airframe life by a considerable amount, for an airshow.

Kurfurst__
07-17-2006, 02:40 AM
Talk, talk, talk WWMaxGunz.

Quote me where I said the FW 190 had gentle stall. I am quite certain I never did.

It's just a case that you are far too fanatic to differ between who says and what, and you can't even realise that.

WWMaxGunz
07-17-2006, 03:55 AM
And when I quote next year that you said the 190 had poor stall characteristics, you will
say the same, prove you said it, as if you are so wise. But that is how word-game-debaters
work.

Viper2005_
07-17-2006, 05:05 AM
Once I received my D-model, however, I was never able to stay with these fighters in such high-speed dives. At speeds over 505 mph the aircraft would start to "porpoise" uncontrollably, so I had to slow down to stop this behavior, allowing the enemy aircraft to escape. A North American Tech. Rep. visited our squadron, but was unable to suggest the reason for this behavior, or any way, other than not to dive at such high speeds, to overcome this apparent defect

Sounds like a classic case of snaking to me, most likely brought about by flow problems over the bubble canopy. The 262 and Meteor suffered from the same problem, but could get there in level flight.

The solution was to modify the tail.

Now, let's consider the turn rate question.

Since the internet can't even agree on the 109's wing area, I'll be generous and assume 17.3m^2. Doubtless kurfurst can correct me (the lower end of the range is 16.1 m^2). The G-6 is quoted as maving a mass of 3148 kg in combat trim. Takeoff power is 1475 hp.

The Spitfire LF.IX has a wing area of 242 sq. feet, which is 22.43 m^2. It has a maximum weight of 7450 lb in combat trim, which equates to 3379 kg. Meanwhile, the Merlin 66 gives 105 bhp at 5750' and +18 boost.

For the sake of argument, let's fight at sea level. We'll assume that the Merlin gives 1650 bhp down there at +18.

Thus Merit Factor (109) = (17.3*1475)/(3148^2) = 0.00257 (3sf)
Merit Factor (Spitfire) = (22.48*1650)/(3379^2) = 0.00325 (3sf)

So I'd expect the Spitfire to beat the 109 in a sustained turning contest, all things being equal. However, it's a fairly close run thing.

Let's look at the fw-190A3 just for the sake of argument.

Wing area = 18.3 m^2.
Power = 1730 hp
Mass = 3995 kg

Merit factor = (18.3*1730)/(4995^2) = 0.00127 (3sf)

So, I would expect the Fw-190 to have the worst sustained turn performance of the three.

What about the P-51D?

Well, the Maximum weight of the Mustang IV is 9478 lb, but it couldn't really turn at that weight, so let's use the mean weight of 8540 lb instead. That's 3874 kg.

Power is the same as the Spitfire, so 1650 hp.

Wing area is 233.4 square feet, or 21.68 m^2.

So, Merit factor = (21.68*1650)/(3874^2) = 0.00238

So, based upon this very simplistic system, I would expect the Mustang to be slightly out turned by the 109G in a sustained low-speed turn, but it's pretty close!

At the end of the day, this is a very simplistic way of looking at things. It assumes that all wings are created equal (they aren't) and that all pilots are created equal (they certainly aren't!). In addition, different aeroplanes of the same type often have considerably different performance. So the chances are that a good Mustang would out turn a bad 109, and vice versa.

This method of comparison only works in a sustained turning fight at low speed; and is effectively based upon the assumption that in this condition most drag is lift-induced, and all the wings produce the same CLmax. This isn't too far from the truth, but it certainly leaves a lot to be desired.

At high speed, all bets are off. Ditto for instantaneous turns.

The fact is that if you want to stay alive in air combat, there is a considerable body of evidence to suggest that your best bet is to stay fast and avoid turning contests. If you want to score kills, your best bet is to hit targets that haven't seen you coming.

As such, the turn performance of a fighter aeroplane isn't the be all and end all.

Kurfurst__
07-17-2006, 05:39 AM
The sustained turn rate question was measured by the Soviets (2nd largest operator of the IXLF btw), as well on captured Bf 109G-2s, at 1000m altitude. It seems very reasonable to me, they got 18,5 and 20 secs for the IXLF and G-2 respectively. Looking at the other figures for gondie G-2 (21-22), I'd say the G-6 was probably 20.5-21secs. As for the Mustang, they tested an Allison one for 23 secs.

Now as for the wing area, it was constant 109F-K, being 16,05 m2 all the time in the orig docs(and sometimes qouted as 16,2, but 17 is certainly wrong). Power (1475ps SL) peaking at 1550 PS at 2100m.

The problems with comparisons are many, so many factors are unknown. Sustained turn times are to no small extent determined by excess thrust available, so power, drag and weight are major factors here. To me the Spitfire always appeared as a brute force solution (lots of power and large wing area, but also large drag and higher weight, the former factors in the end outweighting the latter, but as such the greater power is a bit misleading, as it had to overcome larger drag and weight). The 109 is a more of a high effiency solution, 'powerful engine in the smallest possible airframe', being the reason it can achieve very good power-to-weight and excess thrust figures even at less power available.

But, as I said, I am perfectly happy with the very reasonable Tsagi figures. I can very often conviniently outturn everybody in the classic Spitdweeb style (bank, then turn until one of you die) in a 109G, the only 'trick' being flying on my corner speed, while the other guy just don't. And thus he gets outturned - he wouldn't if he would fly his more manouerable plane proper...

It depends a lot on the circumstances as well. Simple trick against the slower but more manouverable plane is to manourver against him at high speeds... his engine just can't develop enough power. A MkV would run circles around a Gustav at 1000m and at slow turns... bring him up to 7000m and see if he still turns on a dime where the performance gap widens so greatly between you. Ie if turn at ~400 kph IAS (600 kph TAS), he, as his level speed is max 600, has zero excess thrust, and can't turn without loosing speed at all. Bring it down 500 kph TAS(~330 IAS), and it's a perfect speed for you turn, but he still barely has excess power for turns at such altitude.

It's all about the circumstances, it's just that most people can't take advantage of their energy, whereas during the war all efforts of development were aimed to maximimize energy.

Richardsen
07-17-2006, 08:11 AM
I did send an Email to Old Flying Machine Company a few years ago, and i asked about wich of their Warbirds was most manuverable.

The Spit according to Nigel Lamb was the best turner. P40 was also good, but did lack power to stay with the spit. The 109 was good at very low speeds, but terrible at higher speeds.

Min turn radius was difficult to say, but in sustaind turn the spit was clearly better.

P51 and Corsair was way off compared to those above.

Sorry my poor english

JZG_Thiem
07-17-2006, 08:57 AM
Originally posted by WOLFMondo:
No airshow pilots comments should be taken as gospelhttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

They don't push the airframes to even 50% of what there capable. You simply don't take a WW2 fighter worth millions and not replacable historical artifact and push it to its boundries, adding to its already substantial metal fatigue and shortening the airframe life by a considerable amount, for an airshow.

how do you explain the funny labels (especially the red ones) then? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

http://img353.imageshack.us/img353/9076/im000203ld1.jpg

WOLFMondo
07-17-2006, 09:05 AM
If you think airshow pilots push those planes anywhere near there limits your mistaken.

ElAurens
07-17-2006, 10:40 AM
Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
But, as I said, I am perfectly happy with the very reasonable Tsagi figures.


The end is near.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

HayateAce
07-17-2006, 10:58 AM
Hmmm, don't know what the problemo is. I shoot down 109s online, LEFT and RIGHT. I use P51s, P47s, Spits, and my FAVE the P38J. Seems like the natural order of things to me.

H O R R I D O !

http://www-rcf.usc.edu/~nagle/guncam.jpeg

Pirschjaeger
07-17-2006, 11:22 AM
Originally posted by AL849:
What about the show on the History Channel with Bud Anderson describing how they got into a fight with 109€s and out turned them and then chased them down with their P51€s.

And the pilots in the 109 were equal to the P51 pilots right,...cause we know the Nazis would have never put young and inexperienced boys in the cockpit.? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

Fritz

cawimmer430
07-17-2006, 11:25 AM
I've heard comments on the 109 that it was easy to fly, or an aircraft for the experts. Personally, in the game, I prefer it to the Focke-Wulf 190. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Anyway, this is what Collins-Jane's "Aircraft of World War II" had to say about the BF-109 in general.

http://img103.imageshack.us/img103/8767/me109jw5.jpg

leitmotiv
07-17-2006, 07:28 PM
http://shockwaveproductions.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=5290

WOLFMondo
07-18-2006, 03:44 AM
Seen that interview before. First pilot never flew a Spit and goes by 'what he's read' and the 2nd said the IX and V were almost the same aircraft which isn't the case at all. It also doesn't state what BF109G model it is, is it a G2? G6? G14?

Ratsack
07-18-2006, 04:30 AM
It wasn't a Gustav at all. It was a Buchon.

Ratsack

WWMaxGunz
07-18-2006, 06:01 AM
Add to wing area the AOA creating the coefficient of lift to explain Spitfire flat turning
better at lower speeds. Induced drag formula has wing area as linear factor but effectively
AOA is squared for drag as is speed. That I believe is why that Gunther Rall loosened up
on the stick when the slats came out in turns according to what he said in the Finnish
interview, or at least I read it that way when they asked directly about asymmetric slat
deployment and his answer did not include any about getting both slats out just that when
they came out (psssht) he loosened stick and they went back in and I see that he preserved
speed (E) right there.

Narrower wings with slats, better for less drag at high speed and low AOA, versus the wider
wings that need less AOA in turns for the same lift but drag more at low AOA for sure. To
keep your speed up in the 109 is what the 109 Aces that I have read from did, depending on
the opposing plane (and soon enough the quality of pilot becomes apparent) of course. If a
P-51 then it's a different fight, those will not outturn a P-40 at less than high speed.

The Bud Anderson text should be viewed with understanding of altitude which was very high
and speed which was likewise high. The P-51's were jumped but the 109's were spotted before
getting very close so the P-51 section had time to gain speed and make a defensive turn.
Two of the 109 pilots were not experienced judging from their actions. Of the other two,
the one that got away was less experienced than the leader who was good but at that point
being chased by two enemies which limited his options somewhat while he bought time for his
team mate. Twice that one did blow speed trying to force Anderson in front and the first
time while it did work, IMO Anderson got away by a small edge as the 109 had sacrificed too
much speed in his rough maneuver and not due to the wonder power of his P-51. The second
time he did not get sucked into being the one out front (or was it that Anderson did the
speed loss, I'd have to re-read it) and he clearly out-flew the 109 pilot as he had more
than a slight edge to make his shot by.

But without noting the altitude, speed and piloting there is no using any of the text to
show anything about "P-51's outturning 109's" as if that holds true just anywhere. It's
really noobish for people to make such blanket statements or even to just leave out the
conditions as factors let alone actually believe such and complain if the sim varies from
such.

I do see that K really knows how to handle his loved one right and reaps the rewards!
Good on yer, Kurfurst! Salute!

Pirschjaeger
07-18-2006, 09:03 AM
I'm surprised people get so excited about this or even take it so seriously. No disrespect to the pilots in the interview but what do they really know? Yes, more than you and I but that doesn't mean they know enough. One guy flew a plane for an hour and judged it against another. Nothing wrong with that as long as we are smart enough to know that he didn't fly in combat, the plane was not new, and he only flew for an hour. To add, he read about the other one.

I learnt nothing from the interviews. Simply interesting to hear someone's opinion. That's all.

Fritz

MEGILE
07-18-2006, 10:28 AM
My whole life has been a lie...

Monty_Thrud
07-18-2006, 10:52 AM
http://premium1.uploadit.org/bsamania//Kingfisher.jpg

Ruy Horta
07-18-2006, 11:32 AM
Originally posted by Ratsack:
Becase there was only ever one flying Bf109G in the world, and that was Black 6, and it was never owned by an American. Therefore, we are not talking about Black 6. Therefore, we are discussing a Buchon. The question is, what state is that Buchon in?

Besides Black 2 there were/are three other DB-powered 109Gs (or re-engined Buchon made to G-standard).

The argument if a rebuilt Buchon constitutes a 109G is academic.

Asgeir_Strips
07-18-2006, 01:16 PM
Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by horseback:
The Great Revisionist strikes again:

Then kiss my revisionist butt my dear Great Ignorant American and do some reading first, as such remarks don't seem to help you.



<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The first major clashes of Spitfires and 109Es took place over Dunkirque,
Which is during the Battle of France. </div></BLOCKQUOTE> During but not generally considered part of the Battle of France. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

LOL, by who....? YOU?


Those Spits were not engaged in the defense of France. I made no claims about total losses, I said "may have lost...". My point was that there were several RAF aircraft lost in operations as part of the Battle of France, but no Spits.

Dancing, evading, twisting it out and denying. Nice.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">rather than the CSP units which were the norm by the time of the Battle of Britain.
Nope, CSP props were just begun to be fitted at the start of the BoB. They did not finish until mid-August.
Add to that, on May 10 not a single Spit and only a handful of Hurricanes had pilot armor, but again - tough!
If the BoB started on 15 August 1940-Adler Tag was the term used by Goerring, I believe, then the conversion to CSP was largely completed by the time the critical phases of the Battle took place. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>.

Again, our friend makes a new version - suddenly now the start of the Battle is Adler Tag, not as early July as even 99.9% the British historians and even the RAF's own site account it.


Did we learn a new word today, Kurfy?

Maybe you did, but considering your knowladge base here, I can't possible learn anything from you on this subject.


The ones who gave up the battle of attrition were the Germans. We all agree that they could have won, IF they'd stayed the course, or IF Goerring had let the commanders on the scene determine what tactics were most effective for the Bf 109, or IF, IF, IF.

Nice move away from discussing the reasons for tactical difficulties faced by the RAF, a little chestpounding.


But they didn't. Get over it. You'll have to get your English country manor by working hard and saving your money instead of as inherited war booty. Good luck with that.

Jesus christ, given your responses, you are so immensely primitive and ignorant that there's no word for it.
I'd not want to live in England even if they'd pay for it, that's a dream fancied by rich yanks who despite all their money, still got that inferiority complex with the Old World, and do all kind of silly things like buying hundred year old rotten bricks from there and showing their neighbour that geez, it's from Europe and was dang expensive! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif Or get their English country manor when they got bored with the aforementioned US style of living.


That they managed a near standoff in that first major air battle was a major accomplishment.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">... in revision of history perhaps, but the historcal fact is that the RAF was pretty badly bruised over Dunkerque, despite outnumbering the LW fighters. Perhaps you should look up the numbers.
They felt they'd gotten a near standoff </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Now ain't that great to feel you've got a standoff when you're beaten. When the Jagdwaffe felt the same, at least they had some valid reasons to back it up.



<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">It has been repeated ad infinitum that the 109 is a master's aircraft; that is, it takes a particularly skilled and experienced pilot to get its full potential out of it. On the other hand, "any idiot" could fly the Spitfire.
That's your opinion, and even if repeated ad infinitum, it will not become a fact nor would agree with the opinion of pilot's who flew the planes. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually, that was what guys like Rall said, like Erwin Leykau (whom you quoted on page 2 of this thread), and several others said. [/QUOTE]

Erwin Laykau said novice pilot's could not turn the plane to it's limits; but that's the case with every fighter, and quite different from saying the plane is difficult to master. As for Rall, I didn't see him supporting your claims. Other pilots outright disagree with it, see below.


It was a big part of the mystique of the 109, that it was successfully flown by 'master' pilots-are you now saying that it was all propaganda?

I say what you are saying is propaganda. Those pilot's to no small extent become master pilots because they survived long enough in a plane that forgave their piloting errors, and made up for their tactical mistakes with it's performance, and allowed them a very wide tactical margin.


Here we get into a cultural expectations game. American pilots who flew the Spit all seem to have great praise for it, once they got used to it.

'American pilots'. 'All'...


NACA evals usually found something to carp about-that was their function, like movie critics or ambulance chasing lawyers, they had to find something wrong in order to justify their existance. Didn't you make a similar statement about NACA some time back when the subject was crude German finishes and bad brakes?

No, and did I hear it right that you just dismissed NACA for being just a bunch of old women always finding something to carp about..?


The balance between elevator and aileron throw on the Spit was different from the American standard-no German evaluations make mention of it as far as I am aware, or you would have brought it up long ago.

No, it's a thing that wartime RAE reports complain about the same as modern day pilots.

Jeff Ethell (http://www.ethell.com/jethell/jeffethell/index.htm)

i]'Sitting behind this demon V-12 churning out so much power is intoxicating...the earth falls away at a rapid rate, at least for something with a propeller. A look around reveals the excellent visibility out of the bubble canopy. This lessens, to a degree, the impression of being buried within a Spitfire, though that feeling of being a part of the machine does not change. The elevator is very light while the rudder is stiff and the ailerons even more so. Every Spitfire I've flown takes a bit more muscle to roll than most fighters. As speed increases both rudder and ailerons get heavier, resulting in a curious mismatch at high speed...one has to handle the almost oversensitive elevators with a light fingertip touch while arm-wrestling the stiff ailerons. Pilots had to keep this in mind during combat, particularly when going against the FW 190 which had a sterling rate of roll and exceptionally well harmonised controls. That being said, the aircraft is very well balanced and delightful to manoeuvre. Whipping a Spit around the clouds ranks right up there at the top of aviation's great experiences.'[/i]


As for the ailerons bulging at very high speeds, didn't the Emil have similar issues, and weren't they solved by a change in design too?

That's a discussion on it's own.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">and the disparity increases as the war grinds on, because the Spitfire was more adaptable to higher power and greater weight than the 109G and later.
That's an alternate way of saying the Spit suffered a lot more from gaining lot more weight, drag and torque than the 109 without real updates to the airframe.

Nooo, that's a direct way of saying that the Spitfire was much more capable of adding more weight and power than the 109 without a loss of handling.

That's your own wishful thinking and it conviniently ignores physics and facts. Even the heaviest subtype of the Bf 109 was not heavier than the MkIX.


I have yet to hear any Spitfire pilot wax nostalgic about the greater sweetness of the Mark V, or imply, much less state outright, that the MK IX or MK VIII were less maneuverable or balanced in combat than earlier marks.

Well the Spitfire manuals themselves show the increasesing stall speed, but the same is being told by J Johnson, who said he felt the MkV being the most manouverable, but personally preferring the IXLF for being a great compromise, and the XIV 'not a Spitfire anymore'. IIRC Unwin otoh preferred the MkV, after that they felt heavy for him.

Alex Henshaw, chief test pilot at the Castle Bomwich Spitfire factory.

"I loved the Spitfire in all of her many versions. But I have to admit that the later Marks, although they were faster than the earlier ones, were also much heavier and so did not handle so well. You did not have such positive control over them. One test of manouverability was to throw the Spitfire into a flick roll and see how many times she rolled. With the Mark II or the Mark V one got two and a half rolls but the Mark IX was heavier and you got only one and a half. With the later and still heavier versions one got even less.The essence of aircraft design is compromise, and an improvement at one end of the performance envelope is rarely achieved without a deterioration somewhere else."

Uh-oh. I hear the cracks forming on your version.


[On the other hand, EVERY experte I've heard of states flatly that the 109 reached it's apex as a fighter with the 109F-4 version, and the aircraft became increasingly intractable and harder to fly as weight and power were increased after the F-4.

Then I doubt you heard many or any at all.

Does Eric Hartmann count as an Experte? He flew only the Bf 109G, of which he said:

It was very manoeuverable, and it was easy to handle. It speeded up very fast, if you dived a little. And in the acrobatics manoeuver, you could spin with the 109, and go very easy out of the spin. The only problems occurred during take-off. It had a strong engine, and a small, narrow-tread undercarriage. If you took off too fast it would turn [roll] ninety degrees away. We lost a lot of pilots in take-offs. "

Pinter Gyula, 2nd Lt., RHAF. 101st Fighter Regiment:

"Apart from performance, it was also very important the plane to possess a sort of 'goodwill'.
The Bf 109 - except for take-offs - was an easy-to-fly airplane, and in addition it brought back the pilot even with serious damage. My plane, 'Blue 1' received hits multiple times, in one case when attacking a Boston formation the skin on the left wing was ripped off on half square meters, the main spar was damaged and the undercarriage tire was blown to pieces, yet it dropped without any problem and the plane landed just like it was a training session. Not to mention it`s valuable quality that it never caught fire during landing on the belly after a fatal hit, in contrast to many other type, with which such emergency procedure put us at a serious risk because of the danger of fire and explosion. To summerize : we loved the Bf 109.
We did not like war. Alas, as we were soldiers, we performed our duty. The end of this sad story is marked by white marble in the world`s cemeteries."

Under the Red Star, page 98 :

As related above, the late model 109s ("Gustavs") were tested in the usual manner by experienced test-pilots, including Yuri A. Antipov (who tested both the Bf 109G-4 and the Bf 109G-6), Vladimir Ye. Golofastov and Grigori M. Shiyanov. According to the comments of Shiyanov the Soviet test-pilots gave very high marks to the German fighter, considered an excellent fighter. The simple structure and easy handling characteristics made it suitable for "pilots with relatively low qualifications, coming directly from the pilots schools". In short: a soldier's aircraft (samolet-soldat)!

AFDU tactical trials, 109G2/trop (pardon the OCR errors) :


6. The new engine (D.H.605) is little better than the old one (D.B.601) in the 109F, the main improvement
being an increase in rated height. The fine performance is due largely to the size of the aeroplane. It is remarkably small and light considering the size of the engine.

Recamendations .
9. The small size of the 109G remains aprim reason for its good performance. It is recarmended that British aeroplanes should be designed to be small, but that skittishness on the ground should be prevented by having a nosewheel undercart.

10. British cockpits should be freed of auxiliary technical controls which need the attention of the pilot, and the regulation of oxygen flow, adjustment of cwlant and oil radiator flaps and airscrew pitch should be controlled by reliable automatics.

7. The cockpit is simple. A number of technical controls such as regulation of oxygen flow, adjustment of cwlant radiator and oil radiator flaps and airscrew pitch control have been made automatic and need no attention ran the pilot. The pilot is then able to give more attention to fighting tactics, teamwork, navigation and practical flying.

Yugoslav airforce was an interesting mix of both western and russian airplanes including P-47, Yak-3 and Bf-109. That gave pilots a unique chance to fly and compare the aircrafts from "both sides".
This is one of their instructors comparing the Yak 3 and 109G-2:

'In all, Jak 3 had marvelous flying performance and excellent manouvrebility, it was invented for peacetime flying and aerobatics, but you had to have a hand for it. On other hand Messerschmitt was much more simple to fly, especially in air combat, of course once you learned to cope its small rudder on take-off and landing.'

And so on.


No one here is denying that the 109 series was a great one, but I am saying that the Spitfire was easier to master and fly in combat, and that it 'peaked' much later in its development than the 109 (with the Mk VIII/IX).

OK, that's your impression, but given the above, it does not have much of a factual basis.



[QUOTE]The Mustang was also an easy aircraft to fly and master, particularly compared to the mid/late 109Gs
I wonder where you did get that impression.
From reading German casualty reports. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Which German casualty reports contain tactical comparisons between the Mustang and German types?


Do a little research; every comparison of major US fighter types of WWII concludes that the Mustang was an easier fighter to master than the P-47 or P-38, and pilot accounts confirm that impression.

I did a little research and it shows nasty stall characteristics, CoG problems, porpoising at high speeds, criticized low-speed roll rate. Not to mention it was greatly more difficult to fly because of the many manual functions engine operation required compared to German types, where it was all automatic. If the others were even harder to master, than it's bad news, but in any case I can't see how the relative qualities between US aircraft would tell anything about how it relate to foreign aircraft.


The German equivalent was the 190; also easier to fly and fight in than its stablemate, and much more feared in the West from 1943 (when the 109 started getting heavy) through the war's end.

Easier to fly and flight, well the same again, the 190 had some nicely balanced controls, thrilling roll rate, and that's it. It didn't have the extremely forgiving nature of the 109, nor it's stall characteristics. Otherwise, both types were equally easy to operate, both having HOTAS controls. Regardless how the Brits feared it in the MkV, German tactical comparisons are not at all giving similiar view, in fact they well understood the different qualities offered by the Bf 109 and FW 190.


Speed, high speed maneuver, handling (the Pony's controls stayed much lighter quite deep into hard maneuvers, requiring less strength and endurance to fly at the edge than the Messerschmitt-especially the later models), better all around the higher both aircraft got, vastly superior dive-but that's the combat reality, not factory performance figures.

Nope, again it's just your own wishful thinking, it's how it is your the little world your created for yourself, but it's not supported by either factory figures, nor flight tests, nor anything. I can say because I saw these all myself. Especially the remarks at high altitudes where the 109 control forces were not getting heavy in the thin air.

The vastly superior dive and the combat reality :

Robert Curtis, 52FG, 13 victories in the MTO:

"I flew the B-model at first, but only for a few missions before getting a D-model in June 1944. In the B-model I had two encounters with German fighters which involved high-speed dives from high altitude. one chasing a FW-190 and th eother chasing a Me-109. In both cases I was able to stay with these fighters even though speeds of 550 mph were reached, greatly exceeding the 505 mph red line speed of the P-51.

Once I received my D-model, however, I was never able to stay with these fighters in such high-speed dives. At speeds over 505 mph the aircraft would start to "porpoise" uncontrollably, so I had to slow down to stop this behavior, allowing the enemy aircraft to escape. A North American Tech. Rep. visited our squadron, but was unable to suggest the reason for this behavior, or any way, other than not to dive at such high speeds, to overcome this apparent defect. I test flew a D-model over Madna airstrip, Italy, in July 1944, and found that the porpoising again started at speeds over 505 mph. <snip>... whatever the reason for this behavior, it made the D-model a less capable fighter plane, because most experienced German pilots would Split-S into a high-speed dive to escape a dangerous situation at high altitude.
..
"My flight chased 12 109s south of Vienna. They climbed and we followed, unable to close on them. At 38,000 feet I fired a long burst at one of them from at least a 1000 yards, and saw some strikes. It rolled over and dived and I followed but soon reached compressibility with severe buffeting of the tail and loss of elevator control. I slowed my plane and regained control, but the 109 got away.

On two other occasions ME 109s got away from me because the P 51D could not stay with them in a high-speed dive. At 525-550 mph the plane would start to porpoise uncontrollably and had to be slowed to regain control. The P 51 was redlined at 505 mph, meaning that this speed should not be exceeded. But when chasing 109s or 190s in a dive from 25-26,000 it often was exceeded, if you wanted to keep up with those enemy planes. The P 51b, and c, could stay with those planes in a dive. The P 51d had a thicker wing and a bubble canopy which changed the airflow and brought on compressibility at lower speeds"


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">But you wouldn't get to hear that from that interview.
Well of course, the interview is with someone who actually flew both planes. Funny these kinda guys all say the same.


Again, it's a matter of pilot skill, and I still maintain that the easier and more forgiving aircraft has a decisive edge until the pilots flying both aircraft are true masters, and then I think Lady Luck may be the deciding factor.

Problem is, that both aircraft were renowned for their very forgiving nature, though neither were without their vices.



At that level, the burning question is, does your rabbit's foot have more mojo than my four leaf clover?

Err, but that's what Mark H. basically said, too... planes so closely matched that pilot makes the difference. Or Lady Luck. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Although automatic prop control, pitch and all that adds to pilot convenience and simplicity, i would still prefer the manual approach. Lets say the 109 was a Carrier Fighter in the pacific, flying long distances after a flight, you'd have no chance of getting back to your carrier with everything regarding the engine automatic. its much easier to get the most fuel economy out of a fighter that has manual control compared to the 109. And on long strikes from england to berling (p51) such finecontrol of the fuel-flow and pitch and bla bla bla was necessary to have an acceptable safety-margin (combat etc)

Ratsack
07-18-2006, 08:46 PM
Originally posted by Ruy Horta:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Ratsack:
Becase there was only ever one flying Bf109G in the world, and that was Black 6, and it was never owned by an American. Therefore, we are not talking about Black 6. Therefore, we are discussing a Buchon. The question is, what state is that Buchon in?

Besides Black 2 there were/are three other DB-powered 109Gs (or re-engined Buchon made to G-standard).

The argument if a rebuilt Buchon constitutes a 109G is academic. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, it most certainly is not. Have a look at the photos of those so-called 'G' conversions. Their noses are short. The forward fue****e mod to the Buchon airframe is not the same as an old Bf109G. Any change in geometry will change the handling.

Most definitely not just an academic difference.

cheers,
Ratsack

Kurfurst__
07-19-2006, 01:46 AM
Although automatic prop control, pitch and all that adds to pilot convenience and simplicity, i would still prefer the manual approach. Lets say the 109 was a Carrier Fighter in the pacific, flying long distances after a flight, you'd have no chance of getting back to your carrier with everything regarding the engine automatic. its much easier to get the most fuel economy out of a fighter that has manual control compared to the 109. And on long strikes from england to berling (p51) such finecontrol of the fuel-flow and pitch and bla bla bla was necessary to have an acceptable safety-margin (combat etc)

The 109 originally started with manual pitch angle control (controlled by a thumb rocker switch on the throttle), but just before the war it seems Automatic was added. However, the direct manual pitch control function was remtined for various purposes, and could be engaged by turning automatic off.

JG53Frankyboy
07-19-2006, 02:01 AM
Originally posted by Kurfurst__:

The 109 originally started with manual pitch angle control (controlled by a thumb rocker switch on the throttle), but just before the war it seems Automatic was added. However, the direct manual pitch control function was remtined for various purposes, and could be engaged by turning automatic off.

the original pitch control was a lever on the instrument panel.

JG53Frankyboy
07-19-2006, 02:04 AM
Originally posted by Ratsack:

No, it most certainly is not. Have a look at the photos of those so-called 'G' conversions. Their noses are short. .............

cheers,
Ratsack

?

PikeBishop
07-19-2006, 02:52 AM
Dear All,
Please note that since turn rate is directly related to wing loading, this would also be linked to the amount of fuel being carried which would affect the weight and so the wing loading. For example the P51's would probably be at their half fuel load at the most when they met 109's. The 109's would have anything up to a full load but they carry less fuel anyway. Only then would you discover which could outmanoeuver the other. On paper at combat weight they both have the same wing loading. (35lbs /square foot I think.....the Spitfire 9 has 31lb/sq ft)
Best regards,
SLP

Xiolablu3
07-19-2006, 03:05 AM
Originally posted by Kurfurst__:


Jesus christ, given your responses, you are so immensely primitive and ignorant that there's no word for it.
I'd not want to live in England even if they'd pay for it, that's a dream fancied by rich yanks who despite all their money, still got that inferiority complex with the Old World, and do all kind of silly things like buying hundred year old rotten bricks from there and showing their neighbour that geez, it's from Europe and was dang expensive! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif Or get their English country manor when they got bored with the aforementioned US style of living.

.

Those damn English again, messing up the countryside with their piles of rubble!


http://mysite.orange.co.uk/donno2006/home.jpg

JG53Frankyboy
07-19-2006, 03:09 AM
without its own Golfcourt its not worth its money http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Kurfurst__
07-19-2006, 03:50 AM
Originally posted by JG53Frankyboy:
the original pitch control was a lever on the instrument panel.

Actually both :

Page 21, VI. Verhalten in besonderen F¤llen, D. Notlandung, Step 3.

' Luftschaube in Segelflug : Luftschrauben-Verstellautomatik durch Kippschalter an linker Rumpfwand auschalten, und Luftschraube durch Daumenschalter am Gashebel oder Verstellschraubeschalter am Ger¤tebrett in Segelflug bringen. '




Those damn English again, messing up the countryside with their piles of rubble!

Nice flat, but it doesn't have the panorama over the whole city, as the place I live at. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif And, though a bit roomier than my place, I am worried about the costs of heating up that place in the winter. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

JG53Frankyboy
07-19-2006, 04:42 AM
Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JG53Frankyboy:
the original pitch control was a lever on the instrument panel.

Actually both :

Page 21, VI. Verhalten in besonderen F¤llen, D. Notlandung, Step 3.

' Luftschaube in Segelflug : Luftschrauben-Verstellautomatik durch Kippschalter an linker Rumpfwand auschalten, und Luftschraube durch Daumenschalter am Gashebel oder Verstellschraubeschalter am Ger¤tebrett in Segelflug bringen. '



.............. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

but only one of them in one plane http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif
at at the beginning there was only the lever at the panel - later, planes with the lever or the thumpswitch flew alongside in one unit....... there for both is mentioned http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Viper2005_
07-19-2006, 05:03 AM
how do you explain the funny labels (especially the red ones) then?

So it's redlined at 1.32 ata and 2600 rpm. That's not exactly pushing hard.

Max continuous is 1.16 ata and 2300 rpm. Positively gentle.

Speed is redlined at 550 km/h IAS. That's pretty pedestrian; 341 mph, or 297 knots.

Crucially however, in civil flying, those redlines will be obeyed. Combat reports are full of people diving beyond the redline on the ASI, and operating engines flat out for far longer than the official time limit.

There is even a story of a Lancaster pilot who continued to Berlin after losing an engine on takeoff. He kept up with his formation by simply operating the remaining engines flat out.

You won't see that at an airshow.

I have just read about the plans to fly Vulcan 558. To preserve engine life, they're talking about operating at a constant 80% rpm and controlling performance with energy management, since the engines need to be changed after 600 throttle cycles. In combat, they operated at up to 103% rpm, and did what they liked with the throttles.

Since the aircraft is lighter without its operational equipment, they don't need all that power. In fact, they estimate that their B.2 will perform much more like the original B.1 due to its lighter weight. So it'll be beautiful to watch, but it certainly won't be authentic. At 80% rpm it probably won't even sound right!

About the only people who push aeroplanes hard at airshows are their manufacturers, who want to impress in order to make sales and can be quite confident in their ability to source spares!

Ruy Horta
07-21-2006, 04:06 PM
Originally posted by Ratsack:
No, it most certainly is not. Have a look at the photos of those so-called 'G' conversions. Their noses are short. The forward fue****e mod to the Buchon airframe is not the same as an old Bf109G. Any change in geometry will change the handling.

Most definitely not just an academic difference.

cheers,
Ratsack

Ratsack,

Before making such assumptions it does pay off to know exactly what you are talking about.

The Messerschmitt company's own FM + BB is a rebuilt Buchon wit DB 605D, it is anything but a "short nosed" bird. It may be something of mixed crate, but it is generally a G-6.

Black 2 has been rebuilt in a similar way, to G-10 standard, and again few could find fault with this crate. It may not be a pure G-10, but its the closest thing you'll come to see one, and few would find clues that it isn't original.

I don't know the details of Red 7, but it is the latest in the line up of flyable G-standard (G-2/4) a/c and it looks very authentic.

I believe that Red 7 is actually a genuine restored Messerschmitt, but I haven't dug up its details.

But again, although Black 6 was a genuine wartime Gustav, it is academic if it really performs closer to the wartime crates compared to these radical rebuilts.

Again, we are not discussing quick and dirty Buchon rebuilts.

Besides, although you can learn a lot from classic warbird, you have to remember they are not flying with full wartime equipment and never to the max, so at best you get a "general" idea of their combat performance.

Ratsack
07-21-2006, 04:28 PM
Originally posted by Ruy Horta:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Ratsack:
No, it most certainly is not. Have a look at the photos of those so-called 'G' conversions. Their noses are short. The forward fue****e mod to the Buchon airframe is not the same as an old Bf109G. Any change in geometry will change the handling.

Most definitely not just an academic difference.

cheers,
Ratsack

Ratsack,

Before making such assumptions it does pay off to know exactly what you are talking about.

. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

There's no need to be condescending. I know waht I'm talking about, and I'm not assuming anything. I am making strong inferences based on photographic evidence.

If I had a scanner, I would gladly share the pics with you. When I get back to the office I will scan them there and post them, then you can see for yourself. I will be out of town nearly all of next week, so that will be the week after.

Regarding the rebuilds, I don't doubt for a second that the companies involved are making every attempt to get as close as they can to the originals. However, that does not mean that they are able to reproduce 'original' conditions. If the orginal Buchons have been rebuit twice already (once to take a Hispano engine, then again to take Merlin), it would not be surprising if there now limits on what can be done to the load-bearing members to get them to take a DB engine.

cheers,
Ratsack

JZG_Thiem
07-21-2006, 04:54 PM
I believe that Red 7 is actually a genuine restored Messerschmitt, but I haven't dug up its details.


Red7 is (was, cuz its about to be restored after fatal landing accident) a buchon.

The pic i posted from the cockpit is actually Red7 (at Oppenheim airshow) a few weeks be4 it crashed.

Afaik it mostly resembles a G6, with the "bulgeless hood" for better forward visibility.

The only real genuine 109 left is black 6, which is maybe being on static display in the future. Add to that a 109 F4 which seems to be in the hands of Flugwerk GmbH. However they removed the according part of their website lately (or at least the link).

Ruy Horta
07-22-2006, 12:45 AM
This discussion is pretty ironic, you've just got to trust me on this one.

Again, to split hairs on Buchon origines at this level of rebuilt (especially in the warbird scene) is pretty much academic.

The G-1 to G-6 were basically the same a/c, yes I know my details, but essentially this stands.

The Buchon had essentially been based on the G-2. When you combine a Buchon airframe with an original DB engine, you get pretty close to the original. If you take the extra effort to modify said airframe to match the relevant wartime sub-type more closely, it really doesn't matter that much if it was a Buchon or an original wartime a/c. Certainly not in terms of basic handling.

Again, having no wartime equipment and not flying to their limits (and beyond) are, to some extend or another, essentially traits shared by all classic warbirds.

If you wish to disqualify all (ex-)Buchons, that's up to you, but I personally think it's nitpicking.

Besides, I really hope that some original Buchons will remain, it is an aircraft with a quality of its own.

Ratsack
07-22-2006, 01:34 AM
Originally posted by Ruy Horta:
This discussion is pretty ironic, you've just got to trust me on this one.


I'm not asking anybody to trust me on this. I said I'd provide the evidence in a week or so.


Originally posted by Ruy Horta:
Again, to split hairs on Buchon origines at this level of rebuilt (especially in the warbird scene) is pretty much academic.


Not if it affects the way the machine flies, which is almost certainly will. As I said in an earlier post, I know of at least one Spitfire flying with a Merlin from a bomber in it. Don't try to tell me that aircraft would perform like a fighter. This is the same sort of issue with the rebuilt Buchons.


Originally posted by Ruy Horta:
The G-1 to G-6 were basically the same a/c, yes I know my details, but essentially this stands.


I never said that it didn't. The Buchon is based on a G-2 airframe. No worries.


Originally posted by Ruy Horta:
The Buchon had essentially been based on the G-2. When you combine a Buchon airframe with an original DB engine, you get pretty close to the original. If you take the extra effort to modify said airframe to match the relevant wartime sub-type more closely, it really doesn't matter that much if it was a Buchon or an original wartime a/c. Certainly not in terms of basic handling.


Well, we don't know about that, do we? It's just your opinion.


Originally posted by Ruy Horta:
Again, having no wartime equipment and not flying to their limits (and beyond) are, to some extend or another, essentially traits shared by all classic warbirds.


Indeed, which is why I opined above that the best evidence for performance of wartime aircraft is a wartime test, preferably by the air force or air ministry that were the customers. Opinions of the pilots of restored warbirds rank well below the views of airforces testing captured equipment, and these fall far short of original tests by the users, in my view.


Originally posted by Ruy Horta:
If you wish to disqualify all (ex-)Buchons, that's up to you...


Yes, I do. And I'd also disqualify all restored Spitfires and Mustangs and any other warbird you care to name as a source of comparative data on the performance of these machines. Too much has changed, and the machines themselves are now too valuable to really flog the way you'd need to.


Originally posted by Ruy Horta:
but I personally think it's nitpicking.


I disagree, for the reasons above.


Originally posted by Ruy Horta:
Besides, I really hope that some original Buchons will remain, it is an aircraft with a quality of its own.

I agree completely. A Buchon with a DB is not a restoration; it's a conversion. The Buchon with the original Merlin or Hispano is the real thing.

cheers,
Ratsack

Ruy Horta
07-22-2006, 01:48 AM
Ratsack,

Reading your lastest post I think we are not so far apart on our opinions as it might appear afterall.

First, the irony I was refering to was about me having this discussion, but that didn't come out clear enough - blame my writing skills.

I fully agree that original service tests are the most reliable, followed by captured a/c tests, followed by classic warbird flying.

Where I found fault with the thread was how pilots should perceive their a/c and the level of technical knowledge they should convey.

Where we do differ is the level of difference between a (extensively) restored original Bf 109 and a (extensively) rebuilt Buchon, restored to Bf 109 standard. As warbirds go, I maintain that the difference is more academic than practical. The biggest difference being the huge aura that the original will carry and that will be absent from the rebuilt (and then only to those who are susceptible for such things - and I am one of them).

Finally I didn't mean to be condescending, its just the way I sometimes write/discuss/argue.

Pretty harmless...