PDA

View Full Version : Lengthy but good....



Pages : [1] 2

XyZspineZyX
10-21-2003, 04:32 AM
The Best of the Breed
by Col. "Kit" Carson
Airpower, July 1976
Vol. 6 No. 4
Anyone who believes that he can satisfactorily demonstrate which WWII fighter was the "best" out of the whole bag that appeared from 1940 to 1945 is incredibly naive. There are so many performance variables and kinds of missions, that arguing them to all to a bedrock conclusion that would convince everyone is virtually impossible. There were a few generally acknowledged leaders, however, fighters which became household words the world over: the Spitfire, Mustang, Thunderbolt, Focke-Wulf 190 all proved themselves in the crucible of war. The Me 262 was the first operational jet fighter and a dazzling achievement, years ahead of anything we had. But another household work, the highly propagandized Me 109G, was obsolete when it was built and was aerodynamically the most inefficient fighter of its time. It was a hopeless collection of lumps, bumps, stiff controls, and placed its pilot in a cramped, squarish cockpit with poor visibility.
Putting aside the relative merits of one fighter versus another, there was a simple truth that quickly emerged from your first engagement with the enemy: whichever one of you saw the other one first had the winning advantage.
The most subjective variable is the experience and ability of the pilots. Their state of training was certainly an essential factor. Thus Clair Chennault was able to recruit experienced Army and Navy reserve pilots and civilians with a solid log book into the AVG "Flying Tigers", who flew for China in 1941, and chalked up a 12 to 1 victory loss ratio with P-40s. However, he warned new arrivals, "You've got to be good out here; when you tackle a Zero in a P-40 you are already outnumbered 3 to 1." He despaired of the P-40 as a weapon, but it was all he could get. The ultimate measure of combat effectiveness in fighter operations is the victory-to-loss ratio and there are several factors in the equation that one can juggle if necessary, but you deal yourself all the high cards that you can. Chennault's low cards were the P-40 and rotten logistic support; his high cards were experienced pilots, tactical genius, and dogged determination. That's another way of saying that unless you were willing to close with the enemy in decisive combat, using all the advantages that you have, and carve your initials on him, then your government made a mistake in pinning those wings on you.
So I must leave it to the reader to conjecture about pilots and crews while we talk about airplanes. What follows is intended to give the average aviation enthusiast some idea of how the fighters in Europe compared with each other in performance and maneuverability. The data on British and German aircraft come from the Royal Aircraft Establishment, Farnborough. Data on the American fighters come from the National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics test reports and, in addition, figures on the Mustang have been verified by data from North American Aviation flight test reports where it was possible to do so.
The first German aircraft that was shot down over England and which landed intact was a Heinkel 111 brought down on 28 October 1939. Two of the four crew were dead but the airplane survived in one piece except for a few bullet holes. A Ju 88 was shot down a few days before, but it crashed into the sea, a total loss. As the war went on into 1940 and the Battle of Britain was engaged, German aircraft fell all over England. Different types were quickly recovered in various stages of disrepair and subsequently arrive at experimental stations for analysis and to be made flyable again, if possible. Those that were brought down by fighters or antiaircraft guns were usually basket cases. The more favored carcasses were those that landed because of engine failure, exhausted fuel or bad navigation. Abundantly provided by thes sources, the British soon had a "flying circus" of captured German aircraft with RAF markings that toured the air bases in Britain to allow familiarization of new crews with the armament, performance and weaknesses of the opposition.
The idea of building a fighter to meet every performance requirement is out of the question. At best, each design is a compromise with priority emphasis on one or two qualities. Thus the Spitfire was a true interceptor designed primarily for the defense of the British Isle, a sprint climber with a small turning radius. The Mustang, after its conversion to the Merlin engine in 1942, was a fast, long-range, strategic escort fighter with an easy 8-hour endurance. Like the T-bolt it would dive like a banshee, well ahead of the Spit and all German craft. However, in rate of climb the Me 109G was 200-500 feet per minute ahead of the Mustang upto 20,000 feet, then the '51 pulled ahead on up to 40,000 feet, while the Spit 14 would climb faster than any of them at any altitude from sea level up.
Generalizations in narrative form are difficult to make and by the time you get to the end, the conclusions are so fogged up the reader can't tell where he's at. We will, therefore, deal primarily in numbers of two kinds -- One group is those that are measured against time: speed, endurance, rate of climb and acceleration in a dive. The second kind is those that are measured by distance: range and turning radius. Speed, most emphatically, is not everything.
Before we get into the performance comparison competition, some acquaintance with the features of the aircraft that we're talking about is necessary for understanding of why things turned out as they did. If you're handy with a slide rule you can do your own mission profiles and performance variations.
Me 109
General Characteristics:
The characteristics of two Me-109 models are of historical interest, the "E" and the "G". The "E" formed the backbone of the German fighter strength during the Battle of Britain, its opposition being the Spitfire I and the Hurricane I. The "G" was the prevailing type in 1944 during the Battle of Europe and its main opponents were the Spit 14, the Thunderbolt, and the Mustang. So it is worthwhile to explore more fully the characteristics of the Me-109 because it was the longest-lived of the fighters produced in Germany. It was a most worthy opponent in 1939, but it was outclassed by 1942 and by 1944 was manifestly obsolete.
An intact Me-109E with wing cannon was captured by the French in the summer of 1940 and was flown to England for flight test and evaluation. There were three stages of development prior to the "G". First was an early version of 109 flying in 1938 with a 670hp Jumo 210 engine, a fixed pitch wooden prop and two synchronized guns. Second was the variable-pitch two-bladed prop model and the addition of two wing guns. Third was the "E" model, with a far more powerful engine, the DB 601, which was an inverted V-12 of 1100hp with direct fuel injection driving a 3-bladed variable-pitch prop. Its wing structure was beefed up, but in the process of "designing" in the additonal engine and structural weight, the engineers screwed up the center of gravity, and 60 pounds of permanent ballast had to be added to the rear of the fuselage to get the C.G. back. As a pilot and an engineer I can only be sympathetic with 109 pilots. Who needs that kind of milstone around his neck in a fighter? Pilots had nothing to say about the design faults of airplanes in Germany. They had damn little to say about them in England or in this country, at that time. Designers didn't have to fly their mistakes; they just produced them. Most of them didn't know how to fly and didn't want to learn, but more about that later.
In size the Me 109, all models, was the smallest fighter produced by Germany or the Allies. That gave it a high wing loading for that time, about 32 lb./sq. ft. for the "E". The Spit I and the Hurricane I were about 25 lb./sq. ft. at their normal combat weight. The 109-G was about 38 lb./sq. ft. as compared to 35 lb./sq. ft. for the P-51B.



Me-109E Me-109G
Mean weight, lbs. 5580 6450
Engine DB 601 DB 605A
Horsepower 1100/15,000 ft. 1475/22,000 ft.
Power loading, lbs./HP 5.07 4.37
Wing loading, lbs./sq. ft. 32.1 37.5
Prop. diameter, ft. 10.2 9.83
Gear Ratio 14/9 16.85/10
Wing Geometry:
Area sq. ft. 174 172
Span, ft. 32.4 32.6
Mean Chord, ft. 5.36 5.38
Aspect Ratio 6.05 6.10
Dihedral, degrees 5.75 5.75
Sweepback, degrees 1.0 1.0
Root chord, ft. 7.03 7.0
Tip chord, ft. 3.42 3.42
Root thickness, percent chord 14.8 14.2
Tip thickness, percent chord 10.5 11.3
Slat length/span, percent 46.2 Approx. same
Slat Chord/local chord, percent 11.8 Approx. same
Wing Twist, Root to tip 0 0
Speed, mph 354/12,500 ft. 387/23,000 ft.

The fastest "G" subtype was the G-10 capable of 344 mph at SL or 428 mph at 24,000 ft. with a meager range of 350 miles and an endurance of 55 minutes, but it wasn't introduced until the spring of 1944. Too little, too late, and still lacking in range and endurance.
Engine and Propellor:
In principle the DB 601 and 605 series engines were the same as the Allison or Merlin, except they were inverted and had direct fuel injection; otherwise they were 12-cylinder, 60 degree Vee, glycol-cooled engines. The prop was a 10.2 foot, 3 blade variable pitch mechanism of VDM design. Here is another major difference between their design approach and ours. The pitch on the Me-109 prop could be set at any value between 22.5 and 90 degrees, a visual pitch indicator being provided for the pilot. There was no provision for automatically governing the rpm. We did just the opposite, using a constant speed governor and flying by a constant tachometer indication of rpm. For any flight condition the rpm remained constant. We didn't know, or care, what the blade angle was.
Wings and Controls:
The wings had straight leading and trailing edge taper and no geometric twist from root to tip. The airfoil section had a 2 percent camber with the maximum thickness at the 30% chord position. The "E" thickness ratio was 14.8 percent at the root and 10.5 percent at the tip. All that was standard design practice of the mid-1930s. What was new for fighter design was the leading edge slats which ran 46% of the span. There was no damping device fitted to the slat mechanism, they'd bang open at 120 mph with the airplane clean or at 100 mph with the gear and flaps down. Each control surface was mass-balanced. Another unusual feature was that as the flaps were lowered, the ailerons automatically drooped, coming down 11 degrees for the full flap movement of 42 degrees.
There were no movable trim tab controls on the ailerons or rudder, although both had fixed tabs that could be bent on the ground. Pitch trim was affected by changing the stabilizer incidence thrugh a range of 12 degrees. The design scheme was that both the flaps and the stabilizer were coordinated mechanically from two 12-inch wheels mounted concentrically on the left side of the pilot's seat. By twirling both wheels in the same direction the pilot could automatically compensate for the change of pitch trim due to lowering or raising the flaps. Differential coordination could be set by moving one wheel relative to the other.
Performance Evaluation:
The first surprise you get in planning a test hop in the Me-109 is that you're limited to about an hour with some aerobatics at combat power, because the internal fuel capacity is only 88 gallons; with the drop tank, the "G" carried a total of 154 gallons. I'll never understand why the fuel capacity designed in Luftwaffe fighters was so limited. It was a major design deficiency that contributed to the loss of the air war, but even more puzzling is the fact that it could have been quickly changed anytime after 1940 onward, but it wasn't.
Takeoff was best done with 30 degrees of flaps. The throttle could be opened quickly without loading or choking up the engine. In fact, the Daimler-Benz engine was the best thing about that airplane. The stick had to be held hard forward to get the tail up, and it was advisable to let the airplane fly itself off. If it was pulled off at low speed the left wing would not respond and on applying aileron the wing would lift and fall again with the aileron snatching a little. If no attempt was made to pull it off quickly, the takeoff run was short and the initial climb good.
The absense of a rudder trim control in the cockpit was a bad feature at speeds above cruise or in dives. Above 300 mph the pilot needed a very heavy foot on the port rudder pedal for trimmed flight with no sideslip which is absolutely essential for gunnery. The pilot's left leg quickly tired while keeping this load on, and this affected his ability to put on more left rudder for a turn at 300 mph or above. Consequently, at high speeds the 109 could turn far more readily to the right than to the left.
Fighting Qualities:
A series of mock dogfights were conducted by the British in addition to the flight test and the following was revealed:
If the airplane was trimmed for level flight, a heavy push on the stick was needed to hold it in a dive at 400 mph. If it was trimmed into the dive, recovery was difficult unless the trim wheel was wound back, due to the excessive heaviness of the elevator forces.
Ailerons:
At low speeds, the ailerons control was good, response brisk. As speed increased the ailerons became too heavy but the response was good up to 200 mph. At 300 mph they became "unpleasant". Over 300 mph they became impossible. At 400 mph the stick felt like it was set in a bucket of cement. A pilot exerting all his strength could not apply more than one fifth aileron at 400 mph; that's 5 degrees up and 3 degrees down. The aileron situation at high combat speeds might be summarized in the following way:
(1) Due to the cramped cockpit a pilot could only apply about 40 pounds side force on the stick as compared to 60 pounds or more possible if he had more elbow room.
(2) Messerschmitt also penalized the pilot by designing in an unsually small stick top travel of plus or minus 4 inches, giving very poor mechanical advantage between pilot and aileron.
(3) At 400 mph with 40 pounds side force and only one fifth aileron displaced, it required 4 seconds to get into a 45 degree roll or bank. That immediately classifies the airplane as being unmaneuverable and unacceptable as a fighter.
Elevator:
This was a good control at slow speeds but became too heavy above 250 mph and at 400 mph it became so heavy that maneurverability became seriously restricted. When diving at 400 mph a pilot, pulling very hard could not pull enough "g" force to black himself out. The stick force per "g" was an excess of 20 pounds in a high speed dive. To black out, as a limit to the human factor in high speed maneuvers, would require over 100 pounds pull on the stick.
Rudder:
At low speeds the rudder was light, but sluggish in response. At 200 mph the sluggishness disappears, at 300 mph the absense of trim control in the cockpit became an acute problem. The pilot's leg force on the port rudder above 300 mph to prevent sideslip became excessive and unacceptable.
Control Harmony:
At low speed, below 250 mph, control harmony was good, only a little spoiled by the suggishness of the rudder. At higher speeds the aileron and elevator forces were so high that the word "harmony" is inappropriate.
Aerobatics
Not easy to do. Loops had to be started from about 280 mph when the elevator forces were getting unduly heavy; there was also a tendency for the wing slats to bang open the top of the loop, resulting in aileron snatch and loss of direction.
Below 250 mph the airplane would roll quickly, but there was a strong tendency for the nose to fall through the horizon in the last half of the roll and the stick had to be moved well back to keep the nose up.
Upward rolls were difficult, again because of elevator heaviness at the required starting speed. Due to this, only a moderate pull out from a dive to build up speed was possible and considerable speed was lost before the upward roll could be started.
The very bad maneuverability at high speed of the Me 109 quickly became known to the RAF pilots in 1940. On many occasions 109 pilots were led to self-destruction when on the tail of a Hurricane or Spitfire at moderate or low altitudes. The RAF pilot would do a snappy half roll and "split ess" pull out, from say 3,000 feet. In the heat and confusion of the moment the 109 pilot would follow, only to discover that he didn't have enough altitude to recover due to his heavy elevator forces and go straight into the ground or the Channel without a shot being fired.
Turning Radius:
At full throttle, at 12,000 feet, the minimum turning radius without loss of altitude was about 890 feet for the Me 109E with its wing loading of 32 pounds per square foot. The corresponding figure for the Spit I or Hurricane was about 690 feet with a wing loading of 25 pounds.


Summary:
Good points:
(1) Reasonable top speed and good rate of climb.
(2) Engine did not cut out under negative "g," also reliable.
(3) Good control response at low speeds.
(4) Easy stall, not precipitous.
Bad Points:
(1) Ailerons and elevator far too heavy at high speed.
(2) Poor turning radius.
(3) Absence of rudder trim control in cockpit.
(4) Aileron snatch (grabbing -- uneven airflow) when slats opened.
(5) Cockpit too cramped.
(6) Visibility poor from cockpit.
(7) Range and endurance inadequate.

While the 109 may have been a worthy opponent in the Spanish Civil War or during the Battle of France in early 1940, it became a marginal airplane against the Spits during the attack on Britain in September of that year. By 1942, even with the appearance of the "G," it was definitely obsolete. However, the Germans continued to produce it as the backbone of the Luftwaffe fighter forces. The attitude of Nazi high command was that this was going to be a quick "blitz" war and if they lost three 109s for every Spitfire shot down, that was acceptable. In fact, in 1940 the official policy was laid down that the development of all other aircraft types requiring more than 6 months for completion was prohibited. They'd turn out the existing designs like hot cakes and swamp the RAF with production.
That doesn't say much for any charitable concern they should have had for the unnecessary loss of pilots caused by going into combat with a sub-standard airplane. But, after all, no one has ever said that the Führer and G¶ring had any anxiety about their pilots or troops. Quite the contrary, the record of history shows that they had none.
Furthermore, no designer in that period would pretend that he could stretch the combat effectiveness of a fighter for 7 years, 1935 to 1942, without major changes in power plant or aerodynamics, or, better yet, going to a new design. Technology in design in that era was changing too fast. The reader might well say, "The Spitfire was certainly a long line of fighters, about 10 years, how come?"
The Spitfire was an aerodynamically clean airplane to start with, having a total drag coefficient of .021 at cruise. The Me-109 had a coefficient of .036; drag coefficiency and of the horsepower required to haul 'em around. Like golf scores, the lower the better, and no fudging.
The British, in particular the staff at Vickers Supermarine, had done their homework in aerodynamics and put out a clean airplane that had the potential of longevity and increased performance. They had only to wait for Rolls-Royce to pump up the horsepower on the Merlin, which they did by going from 790 hp in 1934 to well over 2,000 by 1945. The Merlin, in my (Col. Carson's) opinion, was the best achievement in mechanical engineering in the first half of the century.
Messerschmitt practically ignored the subject of low-drag aerodynamics and one can tell that by an inspection of the 109E or G. The fact is evident even in close-up photographs. It was aerodynamically the most inefficient fighter of its time. That's a puzzling thing when one realizes that much of the original work on high speed drag and turbulent surface friction was done in Germany in the '20s and '30s. Messerschmitt was surrounded by it. Further, the work in England and the U.S. in this field was in the open literature, at least until 1938.
I also suspect, again from the record of history, that Willy Messerschmitt was too busy becoming a Direktor of Messerschmitt A.G. to concentrate on improving his status as an ingenieur.
Having gone this far, let me carry this affront to Messerschmitt's engineering reputation one step further.
An airplane factory can get things done awfully fast, in any country and in any language, once the engineers and sheet metal benders understand what is wanted. Every factory has a "development shop" or its equivalent, which is a full scale model or prototype shop with 100 or 200 old pros in every skill. Having that many coffee drinkers, pipe smokers and "yarn spinners" around on the payroll, let's clobber 'em with a bundle of shop drawings on a clean up of the Me 109. Object: to make it a 400 mph plus airplane. Time... 30 days. The information and techniques required are currently available as of 1940. It's all written up in unclassifed reports.
(1) Cancel the camouflage paint and go to smooth bare metal. Besides the weight, about 50 pounds, the grain size is too large when it dries and it causes turbulent friction over the entire airplane surface. That may take a phone call to the brass. They're emotional about paint jobs. "Image," you know.
(2) Modify the cockpit canopy. Remove the inverted bathtub that's on there now and modify as necessary to fit the Me 209V-1 canopy. That's the airplane that set the world speed record in 1939.
(3) Get rid of the wing slats. Lock them closed and hand-fit a strip, upper and lower surface, that will close the sheet metal gaps between the slat and wing structure. That gap causes the outboard 15 feet of each wing to be totally turbulent.
(4) As aerodynamic compensation for locking the slats, setup jigs and fixtures on the assembly line to put in 2 degrees of geometric twist from the root to tip, known as "washout."
(5) Modify coolant scoop inlet fairings. The square corners that are there now induce an unnecessary amount of drag. Also lower the inlet 1 to 2 inches below wing surface to get it out of the turbulence of the wing surface.
(6) Install complete wheel well farings that cover the openings after the gear is retracted.
(7) Retract tail wheel.
All of the above could have been done in 30 days but it wasn't. I don't know why. Someone would have to ask Willy...it's for him to say.
Fw 190A
General Characteristics:
A superb airplane, every inch a fighter. It could do a half roll at cruising speed in one second. Taking this in conjunction with the airplane's high top speed and rate of climb one expected its pilots to exploit its high speed qualities to the fullest without staying in there to "mix it up" in a low speed, flaps down full throttle, gut-wrenching dog fight.
They did. The 190 pilots had a good airplane and some good advice. Nearly all of my encounters with the 190 were at high speeds. On at least two occasions when I met them, my Mustang started porposing, which means I was into compressibility, probably around 550 mph. I don't know what my air speed indicator was reading, I wasn't watching it.
On another occasion, I jumped one directly over the city of Paris and fired all my ammo, but he was only smoking heavily after a long chase over the town. Assuming I was getting 10 percent hits, that airplane must have had 200 holes in it. It was a rugged machine.


Mean weight 8580
Engine BMW 801D
Horsepower 1600
Power loading, lbs./HP 5.36
Wing loading, lbs./sq.ft. 41.7
Prop diameter, ft. 10.86
Wing Geometry:
Area, sq.ft. 205
Span, ft. 34.5
Mean chord, ft. 5.95
Aspect Ratio 5.8
Dihedral, degrees 5
Sweepback, degrees 5.5
Root chord, ft. 7.45
Tip chord, ft. 4.05
Thickness Ratio, percent 12
Maximum thickness location Between 25 and 30 percent
Top speed, mph 408/20,600 ft.

Engine and Propeller:
The BMW 801D was a 14 cylinder, twin-row radial with direct fuel injection. A 10.9 foot diameter, 3-bladed VDM prop was used and was provided with hand lever or automatic pitch control. The 801D radial air-cooled engine first appeared on the Dornier Do 217 and the Fw 190. Its most novel feature was the oil cooler system which was a number of finned tubes shaped into a ring of tubes a little larger in diameter than the cooling fan. This ring was fitted into the rounded front portion of the cowling just aft of the fan.
I don't think this was a good idea. For example, my principal aiming point was always the forward portion of an enemy ship; the engine, cockpit, wing root section. If you get any hits at all, even only a few, you're bound to put one or two slugs into the engine compartment. Having a couple of bullets riccochet off the engine block and tear up some ignition harness is not too bad at all, at least not fatal. But to have all those thin-walled oil cooling tubes ahead of the engine is bad news. Any hits or riccochets in the engine section are bound to puncture the oil tubes. Then the whole engine is immersed in oil spray, and sometimes it would flash over into a fire. All of the 12 Focke-Wulfs that I shot down sent off a trail of dense, boiling oil smoke heavy enough to fog up my gun camera lens and windshield if I were so close.
Wings and Controls:
Again, as in the case of the Me 109, no trim tabs adjustable in flight from the cockpit were provided for the aileron and rudder. European designers seem to have acquired the notion that this was a nuisance or unnecessary. Not at all; when going into a dive, it's very easy for the pilot to reach down with his left hand and flick in a couple of half turns of rudder trim. It's not only desireable, but necessary to eliminate side slip for good gunnery. The Fw 190, however, did have electric trim tabs for the elevators.
Performance Evaluation:
The Fw 190's handling qualities were generally excellent. The most impressive feature was the aileron control at high speeds. Stick force per "g" was about 9 pounds upto 300 mph rising to 12 pounds at 400 mph as compared to over 20 pounds for the Me-109.
High speed stalls under "g" load were a little vicious and could be a fatal handicap in combat. If the airplane was pulled in tight and stalled at high speed at 2 "gs" or more with the power on, turning right or left, the left wing would drop violently without warning and the airplane would flick onto its back from a left turn. I scored against a 190 under such circumstances. The message was clear, don't stall it. Our own Bell P-39 Aircobra would do the same thing.
Fighting Qualities:
Excellent high speed, with exceptional maneuverability at those speeds. Range and endurance were markedly improved over the 109. The Focke-Wulf would go 3 hours plus. Visibility with the full view canopy was superb, as it was in the Mustang.

Summary:
Bad points:
(1) Oil cooling tubes at the front of the engines was a poor choice of location. A puncture due to combat damage, or to simple failure covered the engine section with an oil spray.
(2) Lack of aileron and rudder trim controls in the cockpit.
(3) Vicious high speed snap rolls if stalled under significant "g" load.
(4) Poor turning radius due to high wing loading.
Good points:
Everything else was good. In the hands of a competent pilot the 190 was a formidable opponent. The landing approach speed was high and this shakes some pilots up a bit, but I don't think it's anything it's anything to complain about.



<CENTER>http://www.world-wide-net.com/tuskegeeairmen/ta-1943.jpg <marquee><FONT COLOR="RED"><FONT SIZE="+1">"Straighten up.......Fly right..~S~"<FONT SIZE> </marquee> http://www.geocities.com/rt_bearcat

<CENTER><FONT COLOR="ORANGE">vflyer@comcast.net<FONT COLOR>
<Center><div style="width:200;color:red;font-size:18pt;filter:shadow Blur[color=red,strength=8)">99th Pursuit Squadron

XyZspineZyX
10-21-2003, 04:32 AM
The Best of the Breed
by Col. "Kit" Carson
Airpower, July 1976
Vol. 6 No. 4
Anyone who believes that he can satisfactorily demonstrate which WWII fighter was the "best" out of the whole bag that appeared from 1940 to 1945 is incredibly naive. There are so many performance variables and kinds of missions, that arguing them to all to a bedrock conclusion that would convince everyone is virtually impossible. There were a few generally acknowledged leaders, however, fighters which became household words the world over: the Spitfire, Mustang, Thunderbolt, Focke-Wulf 190 all proved themselves in the crucible of war. The Me 262 was the first operational jet fighter and a dazzling achievement, years ahead of anything we had. But another household work, the highly propagandized Me 109G, was obsolete when it was built and was aerodynamically the most inefficient fighter of its time. It was a hopeless collection of lumps, bumps, stiff controls, and placed its pilot in a cramped, squarish cockpit with poor visibility.
Putting aside the relative merits of one fighter versus another, there was a simple truth that quickly emerged from your first engagement with the enemy: whichever one of you saw the other one first had the winning advantage.
The most subjective variable is the experience and ability of the pilots. Their state of training was certainly an essential factor. Thus Clair Chennault was able to recruit experienced Army and Navy reserve pilots and civilians with a solid log book into the AVG "Flying Tigers", who flew for China in 1941, and chalked up a 12 to 1 victory loss ratio with P-40s. However, he warned new arrivals, "You've got to be good out here; when you tackle a Zero in a P-40 you are already outnumbered 3 to 1." He despaired of the P-40 as a weapon, but it was all he could get. The ultimate measure of combat effectiveness in fighter operations is the victory-to-loss ratio and there are several factors in the equation that one can juggle if necessary, but you deal yourself all the high cards that you can. Chennault's low cards were the P-40 and rotten logistic support; his high cards were experienced pilots, tactical genius, and dogged determination. That's another way of saying that unless you were willing to close with the enemy in decisive combat, using all the advantages that you have, and carve your initials on him, then your government made a mistake in pinning those wings on you.
So I must leave it to the reader to conjecture about pilots and crews while we talk about airplanes. What follows is intended to give the average aviation enthusiast some idea of how the fighters in Europe compared with each other in performance and maneuverability. The data on British and German aircraft come from the Royal Aircraft Establishment, Farnborough. Data on the American fighters come from the National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics test reports and, in addition, figures on the Mustang have been verified by data from North American Aviation flight test reports where it was possible to do so.
The first German aircraft that was shot down over England and which landed intact was a Heinkel 111 brought down on 28 October 1939. Two of the four crew were dead but the airplane survived in one piece except for a few bullet holes. A Ju 88 was shot down a few days before, but it crashed into the sea, a total loss. As the war went on into 1940 and the Battle of Britain was engaged, German aircraft fell all over England. Different types were quickly recovered in various stages of disrepair and subsequently arrive at experimental stations for analysis and to be made flyable again, if possible. Those that were brought down by fighters or antiaircraft guns were usually basket cases. The more favored carcasses were those that landed because of engine failure, exhausted fuel or bad navigation. Abundantly provided by thes sources, the British soon had a "flying circus" of captured German aircraft with RAF markings that toured the air bases in Britain to allow familiarization of new crews with the armament, performance and weaknesses of the opposition.
The idea of building a fighter to meet every performance requirement is out of the question. At best, each design is a compromise with priority emphasis on one or two qualities. Thus the Spitfire was a true interceptor designed primarily for the defense of the British Isle, a sprint climber with a small turning radius. The Mustang, after its conversion to the Merlin engine in 1942, was a fast, long-range, strategic escort fighter with an easy 8-hour endurance. Like the T-bolt it would dive like a banshee, well ahead of the Spit and all German craft. However, in rate of climb the Me 109G was 200-500 feet per minute ahead of the Mustang upto 20,000 feet, then the '51 pulled ahead on up to 40,000 feet, while the Spit 14 would climb faster than any of them at any altitude from sea level up.
Generalizations in narrative form are difficult to make and by the time you get to the end, the conclusions are so fogged up the reader can't tell where he's at. We will, therefore, deal primarily in numbers of two kinds -- One group is those that are measured against time: speed, endurance, rate of climb and acceleration in a dive. The second kind is those that are measured by distance: range and turning radius. Speed, most emphatically, is not everything.
Before we get into the performance comparison competition, some acquaintance with the features of the aircraft that we're talking about is necessary for understanding of why things turned out as they did. If you're handy with a slide rule you can do your own mission profiles and performance variations.
Me 109
General Characteristics:
The characteristics of two Me-109 models are of historical interest, the "E" and the "G". The "E" formed the backbone of the German fighter strength during the Battle of Britain, its opposition being the Spitfire I and the Hurricane I. The "G" was the prevailing type in 1944 during the Battle of Europe and its main opponents were the Spit 14, the Thunderbolt, and the Mustang. So it is worthwhile to explore more fully the characteristics of the Me-109 because it was the longest-lived of the fighters produced in Germany. It was a most worthy opponent in 1939, but it was outclassed by 1942 and by 1944 was manifestly obsolete.
An intact Me-109E with wing cannon was captured by the French in the summer of 1940 and was flown to England for flight test and evaluation. There were three stages of development prior to the "G". First was an early version of 109 flying in 1938 with a 670hp Jumo 210 engine, a fixed pitch wooden prop and two synchronized guns. Second was the variable-pitch two-bladed prop model and the addition of two wing guns. Third was the "E" model, with a far more powerful engine, the DB 601, which was an inverted V-12 of 1100hp with direct fuel injection driving a 3-bladed variable-pitch prop. Its wing structure was beefed up, but in the process of "designing" in the additonal engine and structural weight, the engineers screwed up the center of gravity, and 60 pounds of permanent ballast had to be added to the rear of the fuselage to get the C.G. back. As a pilot and an engineer I can only be sympathetic with 109 pilots. Who needs that kind of milstone around his neck in a fighter? Pilots had nothing to say about the design faults of airplanes in Germany. They had damn little to say about them in England or in this country, at that time. Designers didn't have to fly their mistakes; they just produced them. Most of them didn't know how to fly and didn't want to learn, but more about that later.
In size the Me 109, all models, was the smallest fighter produced by Germany or the Allies. That gave it a high wing loading for that time, about 32 lb./sq. ft. for the "E". The Spit I and the Hurricane I were about 25 lb./sq. ft. at their normal combat weight. The 109-G was about 38 lb./sq. ft. as compared to 35 lb./sq. ft. for the P-51B.



Me-109E Me-109G
Mean weight, lbs. 5580 6450
Engine DB 601 DB 605A
Horsepower 1100/15,000 ft. 1475/22,000 ft.
Power loading, lbs./HP 5.07 4.37
Wing loading, lbs./sq. ft. 32.1 37.5
Prop. diameter, ft. 10.2 9.83
Gear Ratio 14/9 16.85/10
Wing Geometry:
Area sq. ft. 174 172
Span, ft. 32.4 32.6
Mean Chord, ft. 5.36 5.38
Aspect Ratio 6.05 6.10
Dihedral, degrees 5.75 5.75
Sweepback, degrees 1.0 1.0
Root chord, ft. 7.03 7.0
Tip chord, ft. 3.42 3.42
Root thickness, percent chord 14.8 14.2
Tip thickness, percent chord 10.5 11.3
Slat length/span, percent 46.2 Approx. same
Slat Chord/local chord, percent 11.8 Approx. same
Wing Twist, Root to tip 0 0
Speed, mph 354/12,500 ft. 387/23,000 ft.

The fastest "G" subtype was the G-10 capable of 344 mph at SL or 428 mph at 24,000 ft. with a meager range of 350 miles and an endurance of 55 minutes, but it wasn't introduced until the spring of 1944. Too little, too late, and still lacking in range and endurance.
Engine and Propellor:
In principle the DB 601 and 605 series engines were the same as the Allison or Merlin, except they were inverted and had direct fuel injection; otherwise they were 12-cylinder, 60 degree Vee, glycol-cooled engines. The prop was a 10.2 foot, 3 blade variable pitch mechanism of VDM design. Here is another major difference between their design approach and ours. The pitch on the Me-109 prop could be set at any value between 22.5 and 90 degrees, a visual pitch indicator being provided for the pilot. There was no provision for automatically governing the rpm. We did just the opposite, using a constant speed governor and flying by a constant tachometer indication of rpm. For any flight condition the rpm remained constant. We didn't know, or care, what the blade angle was.
Wings and Controls:
The wings had straight leading and trailing edge taper and no geometric twist from root to tip. The airfoil section had a 2 percent camber with the maximum thickness at the 30% chord position. The "E" thickness ratio was 14.8 percent at the root and 10.5 percent at the tip. All that was standard design practice of the mid-1930s. What was new for fighter design was the leading edge slats which ran 46% of the span. There was no damping device fitted to the slat mechanism, they'd bang open at 120 mph with the airplane clean or at 100 mph with the gear and flaps down. Each control surface was mass-balanced. Another unusual feature was that as the flaps were lowered, the ailerons automatically drooped, coming down 11 degrees for the full flap movement of 42 degrees.
There were no movable trim tab controls on the ailerons or rudder, although both had fixed tabs that could be bent on the ground. Pitch trim was affected by changing the stabilizer incidence thrugh a range of 12 degrees. The design scheme was that both the flaps and the stabilizer were coordinated mechanically from two 12-inch wheels mounted concentrically on the left side of the pilot's seat. By twirling both wheels in the same direction the pilot could automatically compensate for the change of pitch trim due to lowering or raising the flaps. Differential coordination could be set by moving one wheel relative to the other.
Performance Evaluation:
The first surprise you get in planning a test hop in the Me-109 is that you're limited to about an hour with some aerobatics at combat power, because the internal fuel capacity is only 88 gallons; with the drop tank, the "G" carried a total of 154 gallons. I'll never understand why the fuel capacity designed in Luftwaffe fighters was so limited. It was a major design deficiency that contributed to the loss of the air war, but even more puzzling is the fact that it could have been quickly changed anytime after 1940 onward, but it wasn't.
Takeoff was best done with 30 degrees of flaps. The throttle could be opened quickly without loading or choking up the engine. In fact, the Daimler-Benz engine was the best thing about that airplane. The stick had to be held hard forward to get the tail up, and it was advisable to let the airplane fly itself off. If it was pulled off at low speed the left wing would not respond and on applying aileron the wing would lift and fall again with the aileron snatching a little. If no attempt was made to pull it off quickly, the takeoff run was short and the initial climb good.
The absense of a rudder trim control in the cockpit was a bad feature at speeds above cruise or in dives. Above 300 mph the pilot needed a very heavy foot on the port rudder pedal for trimmed flight with no sideslip which is absolutely essential for gunnery. The pilot's left leg quickly tired while keeping this load on, and this affected his ability to put on more left rudder for a turn at 300 mph or above. Consequently, at high speeds the 109 could turn far more readily to the right than to the left.
Fighting Qualities:
A series of mock dogfights were conducted by the British in addition to the flight test and the following was revealed:
If the airplane was trimmed for level flight, a heavy push on the stick was needed to hold it in a dive at 400 mph. If it was trimmed into the dive, recovery was difficult unless the trim wheel was wound back, due to the excessive heaviness of the elevator forces.
Ailerons:
At low speeds, the ailerons control was good, response brisk. As speed increased the ailerons became too heavy but the response was good up to 200 mph. At 300 mph they became "unpleasant". Over 300 mph they became impossible. At 400 mph the stick felt like it was set in a bucket of cement. A pilot exerting all his strength could not apply more than one fifth aileron at 400 mph; that's 5 degrees up and 3 degrees down. The aileron situation at high combat speeds might be summarized in the following way:
(1) Due to the cramped cockpit a pilot could only apply about 40 pounds side force on the stick as compared to 60 pounds or more possible if he had more elbow room.
(2) Messerschmitt also penalized the pilot by designing in an unsually small stick top travel of plus or minus 4 inches, giving very poor mechanical advantage between pilot and aileron.
(3) At 400 mph with 40 pounds side force and only one fifth aileron displaced, it required 4 seconds to get into a 45 degree roll or bank. That immediately classifies the airplane as being unmaneuverable and unacceptable as a fighter.
Elevator:
This was a good control at slow speeds but became too heavy above 250 mph and at 400 mph it became so heavy that maneurverability became seriously restricted. When diving at 400 mph a pilot, pulling very hard could not pull enough "g" force to black himself out. The stick force per "g" was an excess of 20 pounds in a high speed dive. To black out, as a limit to the human factor in high speed maneuvers, would require over 100 pounds pull on the stick.
Rudder:
At low speeds the rudder was light, but sluggish in response. At 200 mph the sluggishness disappears, at 300 mph the absense of trim control in the cockpit became an acute problem. The pilot's leg force on the port rudder above 300 mph to prevent sideslip became excessive and unacceptable.
Control Harmony:
At low speed, below 250 mph, control harmony was good, only a little spoiled by the suggishness of the rudder. At higher speeds the aileron and elevator forces were so high that the word "harmony" is inappropriate.
Aerobatics
Not easy to do. Loops had to be started from about 280 mph when the elevator forces were getting unduly heavy; there was also a tendency for the wing slats to bang open the top of the loop, resulting in aileron snatch and loss of direction.
Below 250 mph the airplane would roll quickly, but there was a strong tendency for the nose to fall through the horizon in the last half of the roll and the stick had to be moved well back to keep the nose up.
Upward rolls were difficult, again because of elevator heaviness at the required starting speed. Due to this, only a moderate pull out from a dive to build up speed was possible and considerable speed was lost before the upward roll could be started.
The very bad maneuverability at high speed of the Me 109 quickly became known to the RAF pilots in 1940. On many occasions 109 pilots were led to self-destruction when on the tail of a Hurricane or Spitfire at moderate or low altitudes. The RAF pilot would do a snappy half roll and "split ess" pull out, from say 3,000 feet. In the heat and confusion of the moment the 109 pilot would follow, only to discover that he didn't have enough altitude to recover due to his heavy elevator forces and go straight into the ground or the Channel without a shot being fired.
Turning Radius:
At full throttle, at 12,000 feet, the minimum turning radius without loss of altitude was about 890 feet for the Me 109E with its wing loading of 32 pounds per square foot. The corresponding figure for the Spit I or Hurricane was about 690 feet with a wing loading of 25 pounds.


Summary:
Good points:
(1) Reasonable top speed and good rate of climb.
(2) Engine did not cut out under negative "g," also reliable.
(3) Good control response at low speeds.
(4) Easy stall, not precipitous.
Bad Points:
(1) Ailerons and elevator far too heavy at high speed.
(2) Poor turning radius.
(3) Absence of rudder trim control in cockpit.
(4) Aileron snatch (grabbing -- uneven airflow) when slats opened.
(5) Cockpit too cramped.
(6) Visibility poor from cockpit.
(7) Range and endurance inadequate.

While the 109 may have been a worthy opponent in the Spanish Civil War or during the Battle of France in early 1940, it became a marginal airplane against the Spits during the attack on Britain in September of that year. By 1942, even with the appearance of the "G," it was definitely obsolete. However, the Germans continued to produce it as the backbone of the Luftwaffe fighter forces. The attitude of Nazi high command was that this was going to be a quick "blitz" war and if they lost three 109s for every Spitfire shot down, that was acceptable. In fact, in 1940 the official policy was laid down that the development of all other aircraft types requiring more than 6 months for completion was prohibited. They'd turn out the existing designs like hot cakes and swamp the RAF with production.
That doesn't say much for any charitable concern they should have had for the unnecessary loss of pilots caused by going into combat with a sub-standard airplane. But, after all, no one has ever said that the Führer and G¶ring had any anxiety about their pilots or troops. Quite the contrary, the record of history shows that they had none.
Furthermore, no designer in that period would pretend that he could stretch the combat effectiveness of a fighter for 7 years, 1935 to 1942, without major changes in power plant or aerodynamics, or, better yet, going to a new design. Technology in design in that era was changing too fast. The reader might well say, "The Spitfire was certainly a long line of fighters, about 10 years, how come?"
The Spitfire was an aerodynamically clean airplane to start with, having a total drag coefficient of .021 at cruise. The Me-109 had a coefficient of .036; drag coefficiency and of the horsepower required to haul 'em around. Like golf scores, the lower the better, and no fudging.
The British, in particular the staff at Vickers Supermarine, had done their homework in aerodynamics and put out a clean airplane that had the potential of longevity and increased performance. They had only to wait for Rolls-Royce to pump up the horsepower on the Merlin, which they did by going from 790 hp in 1934 to well over 2,000 by 1945. The Merlin, in my (Col. Carson's) opinion, was the best achievement in mechanical engineering in the first half of the century.
Messerschmitt practically ignored the subject of low-drag aerodynamics and one can tell that by an inspection of the 109E or G. The fact is evident even in close-up photographs. It was aerodynamically the most inefficient fighter of its time. That's a puzzling thing when one realizes that much of the original work on high speed drag and turbulent surface friction was done in Germany in the '20s and '30s. Messerschmitt was surrounded by it. Further, the work in England and the U.S. in this field was in the open literature, at least until 1938.
I also suspect, again from the record of history, that Willy Messerschmitt was too busy becoming a Direktor of Messerschmitt A.G. to concentrate on improving his status as an ingenieur.
Having gone this far, let me carry this affront to Messerschmitt's engineering reputation one step further.
An airplane factory can get things done awfully fast, in any country and in any language, once the engineers and sheet metal benders understand what is wanted. Every factory has a "development shop" or its equivalent, which is a full scale model or prototype shop with 100 or 200 old pros in every skill. Having that many coffee drinkers, pipe smokers and "yarn spinners" around on the payroll, let's clobber 'em with a bundle of shop drawings on a clean up of the Me 109. Object: to make it a 400 mph plus airplane. Time... 30 days. The information and techniques required are currently available as of 1940. It's all written up in unclassifed reports.
(1) Cancel the camouflage paint and go to smooth bare metal. Besides the weight, about 50 pounds, the grain size is too large when it dries and it causes turbulent friction over the entire airplane surface. That may take a phone call to the brass. They're emotional about paint jobs. "Image," you know.
(2) Modify the cockpit canopy. Remove the inverted bathtub that's on there now and modify as necessary to fit the Me 209V-1 canopy. That's the airplane that set the world speed record in 1939.
(3) Get rid of the wing slats. Lock them closed and hand-fit a strip, upper and lower surface, that will close the sheet metal gaps between the slat and wing structure. That gap causes the outboard 15 feet of each wing to be totally turbulent.
(4) As aerodynamic compensation for locking the slats, setup jigs and fixtures on the assembly line to put in 2 degrees of geometric twist from the root to tip, known as "washout."
(5) Modify coolant scoop inlet fairings. The square corners that are there now induce an unnecessary amount of drag. Also lower the inlet 1 to 2 inches below wing surface to get it out of the turbulence of the wing surface.
(6) Install complete wheel well farings that cover the openings after the gear is retracted.
(7) Retract tail wheel.
All of the above could have been done in 30 days but it wasn't. I don't know why. Someone would have to ask Willy...it's for him to say.
Fw 190A
General Characteristics:
A superb airplane, every inch a fighter. It could do a half roll at cruising speed in one second. Taking this in conjunction with the airplane's high top speed and rate of climb one expected its pilots to exploit its high speed qualities to the fullest without staying in there to "mix it up" in a low speed, flaps down full throttle, gut-wrenching dog fight.
They did. The 190 pilots had a good airplane and some good advice. Nearly all of my encounters with the 190 were at high speeds. On at least two occasions when I met them, my Mustang started porposing, which means I was into compressibility, probably around 550 mph. I don't know what my air speed indicator was reading, I wasn't watching it.
On another occasion, I jumped one directly over the city of Paris and fired all my ammo, but he was only smoking heavily after a long chase over the town. Assuming I was getting 10 percent hits, that airplane must have had 200 holes in it. It was a rugged machine.


Mean weight 8580
Engine BMW 801D
Horsepower 1600
Power loading, lbs./HP 5.36
Wing loading, lbs./sq.ft. 41.7
Prop diameter, ft. 10.86
Wing Geometry:
Area, sq.ft. 205
Span, ft. 34.5
Mean chord, ft. 5.95
Aspect Ratio 5.8
Dihedral, degrees 5
Sweepback, degrees 5.5
Root chord, ft. 7.45
Tip chord, ft. 4.05
Thickness Ratio, percent 12
Maximum thickness location Between 25 and 30 percent
Top speed, mph 408/20,600 ft.

Engine and Propeller:
The BMW 801D was a 14 cylinder, twin-row radial with direct fuel injection. A 10.9 foot diameter, 3-bladed VDM prop was used and was provided with hand lever or automatic pitch control. The 801D radial air-cooled engine first appeared on the Dornier Do 217 and the Fw 190. Its most novel feature was the oil cooler system which was a number of finned tubes shaped into a ring of tubes a little larger in diameter than the cooling fan. This ring was fitted into the rounded front portion of the cowling just aft of the fan.
I don't think this was a good idea. For example, my principal aiming point was always the forward portion of an enemy ship; the engine, cockpit, wing root section. If you get any hits at all, even only a few, you're bound to put one or two slugs into the engine compartment. Having a couple of bullets riccochet off the engine block and tear up some ignition harness is not too bad at all, at least not fatal. But to have all those thin-walled oil cooling tubes ahead of the engine is bad news. Any hits or riccochets in the engine section are bound to puncture the oil tubes. Then the whole engine is immersed in oil spray, and sometimes it would flash over into a fire. All of the 12 Focke-Wulfs that I shot down sent off a trail of dense, boiling oil smoke heavy enough to fog up my gun camera lens and windshield if I were so close.
Wings and Controls:
Again, as in the case of the Me 109, no trim tabs adjustable in flight from the cockpit were provided for the aileron and rudder. European designers seem to have acquired the notion that this was a nuisance or unnecessary. Not at all; when going into a dive, it's very easy for the pilot to reach down with his left hand and flick in a couple of half turns of rudder trim. It's not only desireable, but necessary to eliminate side slip for good gunnery. The Fw 190, however, did have electric trim tabs for the elevators.
Performance Evaluation:
The Fw 190's handling qualities were generally excellent. The most impressive feature was the aileron control at high speeds. Stick force per "g" was about 9 pounds upto 300 mph rising to 12 pounds at 400 mph as compared to over 20 pounds for the Me-109.
High speed stalls under "g" load were a little vicious and could be a fatal handicap in combat. If the airplane was pulled in tight and stalled at high speed at 2 "gs" or more with the power on, turning right or left, the left wing would drop violently without warning and the airplane would flick onto its back from a left turn. I scored against a 190 under such circumstances. The message was clear, don't stall it. Our own Bell P-39 Aircobra would do the same thing.
Fighting Qualities:
Excellent high speed, with exceptional maneuverability at those speeds. Range and endurance were markedly improved over the 109. The Focke-Wulf would go 3 hours plus. Visibility with the full view canopy was superb, as it was in the Mustang.

Summary:
Bad points:
(1) Oil cooling tubes at the front of the engines was a poor choice of location. A puncture due to combat damage, or to simple failure covered the engine section with an oil spray.
(2) Lack of aileron and rudder trim controls in the cockpit.
(3) Vicious high speed snap rolls if stalled under significant "g" load.
(4) Poor turning radius due to high wing loading.
Good points:
Everything else was good. In the hands of a competent pilot the 190 was a formidable opponent. The landing approach speed was high and this shakes some pilots up a bit, but I don't think it's anything it's anything to complain about.



<CENTER>http://www.world-wide-net.com/tuskegeeairmen/ta-1943.jpg <marquee><FONT COLOR="RED"><FONT SIZE="+1">"Straighten up.......Fly right..~S~"<FONT SIZE> </marquee> http://www.geocities.com/rt_bearcat

<CENTER><FONT COLOR="ORANGE">vflyer@comcast.net<FONT COLOR>
<Center><div style="width:200;color:red;font-size:18pt;filter:shadow Blur[color=red,strength=8)">99th Pursuit Squadron

XyZspineZyX
10-21-2003, 12:19 PM
can't believe this hasn't been bumped!
nice find Bearcat /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif
bump

XyZspineZyX
10-21-2003, 01:25 PM
This is an awful article, filled with mistakes. It was posted several times before, each time degenerating in 10 page flame threads. Excellent contribution Bearcat, I guess you're just trying to warm the atmosphere a little?

Mods should step in and lock this one.


<center> http://www.stormbirds.com/images/discussion-main.jpg </center>


Message Edited on 10/21/0307:40AM by Huckebein_FW

XyZspineZyX
10-21-2003, 01:49 PM
"On another occasion, I jumped one directly over the city of Paris and fired all my ammo, but he was only smoking heavily after a long chase over the town. Assuming I was getting 10 percent hits, that airplane must have had 200 holes in it. It was a rugged machine."

Talk about a beast /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Nic

XyZspineZyX
10-21-2003, 02:04 PM
Dunno how accurate it is, but thanks for posting it anyway! If nothing else, it was an interesting read.

Bump...

- - - - - - - - - - - - -
Never argue with an idiot. They drag you down to their level, then beat you with experience.

XyZspineZyX
10-21-2003, 02:09 PM
AirBot wrote:
- Dunno how accurate it is, but thanks for posting it
- anyway! If nothing else, it was an interesting read.
-


The article is completely inaccurate, there is not a single paragraph without countless glaring mistakes. Not to mention the disgusting bias stated from the beginning of the article.


<center> http://www.stormbirds.com/images/discussion-main.jpg </center>

XyZspineZyX
10-21-2003, 02:34 PM
I posted this article here awhile back.

The important thing here is that it clearly settles the seemingly eternal argument. The Fw-190 was indeed the best piston driven plane of the war. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif Whew! I'm glad that's over. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

<center>
http://www.brooksart.com/Icewarriors.jpg

"Ice Warriors", by Nicolas Trudgian.

XyZspineZyX
10-21-2003, 02:38 PM
kyrule2 wrote:
- I posted this article here awhile back.
-
- The important thing here is that it clearly settles
- the seemingly eternal argument. The Fw-190 was
- indeed the best piston driven plane of the war. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif Whew! I'm glad that's over.
- /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif


No, it doesn't settle anything. Fw-190 was an excellent fighter without the opinion of an obscure person that could not gather even the basic facts about the subject at hand.


<center> http://www.stormbirds.com/images/discussion-main.jpg </center>

XyZspineZyX
10-21-2003, 02:41 PM
Huckebein_FW wrote:
- -
- No, it doesn't settle anything. Fw-190 was an
- excellent fighter without the opinion of an obscure
- person that could not gather even the basic facts
- about the subject at hand.
-
-

Legitimate disagreement with the author's opinion doesn't make him an "obscure" person. He's probably more famous that anyone of us who post on this site.

XyZspineZyX
10-21-2003, 02:51 PM
Huckebein_FW wrote:
- The article is completely inaccurate, there is not a
- single paragraph without countless glaring mistakes.
- Not to mention the disgusting bias stated from the
- beginning of the article.

and

This is an awful article, filled with mistakes. It was posted several times before, each time degenerating in 10 page flame threads. Excellent contribution Bearcat, I guess you're just trying to warm the atmosphere a little?


I just thought it was a good article...still do. I figured some of the newer folks would enjoy it. I didt think it was allthat biased either...just because he said what he said about the Me-109.... it was true for the most part. The 190 stuff was pretty comlimentary I thought.


<CENTER>http://www.world-wide-net.com/tuskegeeairmen/ta-1943.jpg <marquee><FONT COLOR="RED"><FONT SIZE="+1">"Straighten up.......Fly right..~S~"<FONT SIZE> </marquee> http://www.geocities.com/rt_bearcat

<CENTER><FONT COLOR="ORANGE">vflyer@comcast.net<FONT COLOR>
<Center><div style="width:200;color:red;font-size:18pt;filter:shadow Blur[color=red,strength=8)">99th Pursuit Squadron

XyZspineZyX
10-21-2003, 03:11 PM
Bearcat99 wrote:
-
- Huckebein_FW wrote:
-- The article is completely inaccurate, there is not a
-- single paragraph without countless glaring mistakes.
-- Not to mention the disgusting bias stated from the
-- beginning of the article.
-
- and
-
-
- This is an awful article, filled with mistakes. It
- was posted several times before, each time
- degenerating in 10 page flame threads. Excellent
- contribution Bearcat, I guess you're just trying to
- warm the atmosphere a little?
-
-
- I just thought it was a good article...still do. I
- figured some of the newer folks would enjoy it. I
- didt think it was allthat biased either...just
- because he said what he said about the Me-109.... it
- was true for the most part. The 190 stuff was pretty
- comlimentary I thought.

This article has the worst ratio of mistakes&bias per paragraph than anything else I read on the Internet about warbirds. But you considering it good. Very well.

One day I just might write a similar disparaging article about the american fighters and bombers with real data but with as much bias. I'm sure you'll enjoy that one too.



<center> http://www.stormbirds.com/images/discussion-main.jpg </center>

XyZspineZyX
10-21-2003, 04:02 PM
Bearcat99 wrote:
-

- I just thought it was a good article...still do.

Thanks for the post, Bearcat. Hadn't seen this article before. It was interesting.

XyZspineZyX
10-21-2003, 04:04 PM
Bearcat99 wrote:
- The Best of the Breed
- by Col. "Kit" Carson
- Airpower, July 1976
- Vol. 6 No. 4

A great summary of the rules and not the exceptions! Thanks Bearcat99. PS where did you find this? I have Carsons book from 1978.. what was this published in?



<div style="background:#222222;color:#e0e0e0;font-size:24px;font-weight:bold;font-face:courier;"> TAGERT
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If WAR was not the ANSWER.. Than what the H was your QUESTION?
</div>
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=forum
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=discussion

XyZspineZyX
10-21-2003, 04:47 PM
Lol, not again that Carson crap.. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif It was posted a good while ago, we took apart every one of the mistakes Carson did. Basically, it was concluded he doesn`t know crap about 109 development or performance of later models, basically he qoutes an 1940 RAF flying evaluation of a Bf 109 E, and ignores all the changes that were added to the design. The best part about it when he starts crying about "how to make a 400mph+ a/c", then list many modifications that were later incorporated in mass production... and then says none of these ever happened. Funnily enough, he list that that the Bf 109G-10 did well over 400 mph though, proving his own statements wrong in his own article. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

A fairly through critic of Carson`s article can be read here :

http://mitglied.lycos.de/luftwaffe1/Carson/Carson.html

The RAE evaluation that formed the basis of Carson`s article, and Mark Hanna`s flying experience with a later Bf 109 G model can be read here:

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



Vezérünk a Bátorság, K*sérµnk a Szerencse!
(Courage leads, Luck escorts us! - Historical motto of the 101st Puma Fighter Regiment)

Flight tests and other aviation performance data: http://www.pbase.com/isegrim

XyZspineZyX
10-21-2003, 06:46 PM
Leonard Carson was a squadronmate of Chuck Yeager's, actually had more kills, and like most high achievers in the air war, had several familiarization rides in captured Axis a/c during his tour at RAF Raydon. Postwar, as an accredited aviation engineer, I suspect that he had more opportunities to fly better maintained models of the aircraft he evaluates in this article, if only when he dropped in on Yeager at Wright-Patterson in '45-'46.

The usual tactic for neutralizing the person who offends one's personal prejudices on this board is to ask if the offender actually flew the aircraft in question. Well, this guy did (all of them), and he bet his life on his opinions of his and the enemies' aircrafts' relative strengths. And ran the table. Carson was there to write the article, and over 15 German 109 and 190 drivers were not.

As for errors, I haven't seen any cited directly in this thread. Given that the most heated critics of the article are clearly not native English (or American) speakers, we can count on misquotations or misunderstood interpretations of Carson's appraisals. For instance, the issue of the conversion of the Emil to a 400mph fighter. While the late model 109s did attain over 400 mph, they did so with a much more powerful engine three years later. Carson's critique was aimed at immediate improvement using the DB 601, and improving range & pilot view in the bargain, something never quite achieved by stock Messerschmitts.

Nobody can ignore the record of the 109, but the fact is that much was achieved in spite of the plane's faults, which multiplied as the design aged. Very probably Col. Carson didn't like the 109 for aesthetic reasons (layout, the smell-British pilots often comment on the odor of the 109 cockpit-the size, the range of vision) and the fact that it was used to kill some of his friends, but his criticisms of the aircraft cited (Emil,
Gustav-6) were valid. It was a hard airplane to fly and land without the added distractions of combat, and as a combat pilot and engineer, that offended him.

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

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

ZG77_Nagual
10-21-2003, 06:56 PM
I think it's good to read across a range of opinions. I remember reading somewhere pilot evals of the P-63 during naca tests or something ranged from 'not a dogfighter' to 'best american dogfighter if only it had a bubble canopy'. Obviously the 109s combat record goes against alot of what's in this post - sorta like the p39 - and the p39 for that matter.

http://pws.chartermi.net/~cmorey/pics/whiner.jpg

XyZspineZyX
10-21-2003, 06:59 PM
horseback wrote:

- The usual tactic for neutralizing the person who
- offends one's personal prejudices on this board is
- to ask if the offender actually flew the aircraft in
- question. Well, this guy did (all of them), and he
- bet his life on his opinions of his and the enemies'
- aircrafts' relative strengths. And ran the table.
- Carson was there to write the article, and over 15
- German 109 and 190 drivers were not.


Carson never flew 109 and probably never met one in combat.



- As for errors, I haven't seen any cited directly in
- this thread. Given that the most heated critics of
- the article are clearly not native English (or
- American) speakers, we can count on misquotations or
- misunderstood interpretations of Carson's
- appraisals. For instance, the issue of the
- conversion of the Emil to a 400mph fighter. While
- the late model 109s did attain over 400 mph, they
- did so with a much more powerful engine three years
- later. Carson's critique was aimed at immediate
- improvement using the DB 601, and improving range &
- pilot view in the bargain, something never quite
- achieved by stock Messerschmitts.


No information he gives is first hand informantion. He just compiles all the defects he found in various sources, no matter if these were accurate or not and glued them all with his tiresome bias. He even starts the article with the affirmation that in '42 Bf-109 was "obsolete". Well horseback is very well to remember that in '42 G2 was the best fighter in the world. That's quite different from "obsolete".



- Nobody can ignore the record of the 109, but the
- fact is that much was achieved in spite of the
- plane's faults, which multiplied as the design aged.
- Very probably Col. Carson didn't like the 109 for
- aesthetic reasons (layout, the smell-British pilots
- often comment on the odor of the 109 cockpit-the
- size, the range of vision) and the fact that it was
- used to kill some of his friends, but his criticisms
- of the aircraft cited (Emil,

All objections allied pilot were minor complaints regarding pilot confort, even if those comment were more adequate for allied planes. For example bubble canopy versus Erla canopy, which offered better view and better protection. Except forward view, Erla canopy was better than bubble canopy, both in visibility and protection.


<center> http://www.stormbirds.com/images/discussion-main.jpg </center>

XyZspineZyX
10-21-2003, 07:09 PM
horseback wrote:
- Leonard Carson was a squadronmate of Chuck Yeager's,
- actually had more kills, and like most high
- achievers in the air war, had several
- familiarization rides in captured Axis a/c during
- his tour at RAF Raydon. Postwar, as an accredited
- aviation engineer, I suspect that he had more
- opportunities to fly better maintained models of the
- aircraft he evaluates in this article, if only when
- he dropped in on Yeager at Wright-Patterson in
- '45-'46.
-
-
- The usual tactic for neutralizing the person who
- offends one's personal prejudices on this board is
- to ask if the offender actually flew the aircraft in
- question. Well, this guy did (all of them), and he
- bet his life on his opinions of his and the enemies'
- aircrafts' relative strengths. And ran the table.
- Carson was there to write the article, and over 15
- German 109 and 190 drivers were not.
-
- As for errors, I haven't seen any cited directly in
- this thread. Given that the most heated critics of
- the article are clearly not native English (or
- American) speakers, we can count on misquotations or
- misunderstood interpretations of Carson's
- appraisals. For instance, the issue of the
- conversion of the Emil to a 400mph fighter. While
- the late model 109s did attain over 400 mph, they
- did so with a much more powerful engine three years
- later. Carson's critique was aimed at immediate
- improvement using the DB 601, and improving range &
- pilot view in the bargain, something never quite
- achieved by stock Messerschmitts.
-
- Nobody can ignore the record of the 109, but the
- fact is that much was achieved in spite of the
- plane's faults, which multiplied as the design aged.
- Very probably Col. Carson didn't like the 109 for
- aesthetic reasons (layout, the smell-British pilots
- often comment on the odor of the 109 cockpit-the
- size, the range of vision) and the fact that it was
- used to kill some of his friends, but his criticisms
- of the aircraft cited (Emil,
-
- Gustav-6) were valid. It was a hard airplane to fly
- and land without the added distractions of combat,
- and as a combat pilot and engineer, that offended
- him.

Great summary! Which is not to imply that there are no errors, or that there are errors! Just that this is yet another data point.

Anyone that has a problem with that is just a book burning mentality.

I personaly put alot of weight in this data point in that Carson did fly them, and he did become an engineer later in life.. Granted his biases play into some of it.. but every data point will consist of some of that.. just human nature. Carsons eval is very valid.. for both the 109 EXCEPTIONS and the RULES.

<div style="background:#222222;color:#e0e0e0;font-size:24px;font-weight:bold;font-face:courier;"> TAGERT
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If WAR was not the ANSWER.. Than what the H was your QUESTION?
</div>
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=forum
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=discussion

XyZspineZyX
10-21-2003, 07:12 PM
TAO-Squadron wrote:

- I don't agree Bearcat tried to cause a flame war. I
- think he is a nice chap.


Bearcat is a nice guy, respected from many many people here , myself inclusive .

http://www.bayern.de/Layout/wappen.gif

Bavaria is one of the oldest European states.
It dates back to about 500 A.D., when the Roman Empire was overcome by the onslaught of Germanic tribes. According to a widespread theory, the Bavarian tribe had descended from the Romans who remained in the country, the original Celtic population and the Germanic invaders.

Bavarian History : http://www.bayern.de/Bayern/Information/geschichteE.html#kap0

XyZspineZyX
10-21-2003, 07:18 PM
- horseback wrote:
-- but his criticisms
-- of the aircraft cited (Emil,
-- Gustav-6) were valid. It was a hard airplane to fly
-- and land without the added distractions of combat,
-- and as a combat pilot and engineer, that offended
-- him.

That`s the exact opposite I read from every single pilot who actually flew the Emil or Gustav. Carson of course did not flew any of them, so he could hardly have any idea.



tagert wrote:
-
- I personaly put alot of weight in this data point in
- that Carson did fly them, and he did become an
- engineer later in life..


Carson did not fly any 109s during or after the war.



Vezérünk a Bátorság, K*sérµnk a Szerencse!
(Courage leads, Luck escorts us! - Historical motto of the 101st Puma Fighter Regiment)

Flight tests and other aviation performance data: http://www.pbase.com/isegrim

XyZspineZyX
10-21-2003, 07:20 PM
Huckebein_FW wrote:
-
-
- All objections allied pilot were minor complaints
- regarding pilot confort, even if those comment were
- more adequate for allied planes. For example bubble
- canopy versus Erla canopy, which offered better view
- and better protection. Except forward view, Erla
- canopy was better than bubble canopy, both in
- visibility and protection.
-
-

/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

What kind of protection does 6-8mm canopy persplex offer Huck? LOL!! As I told Issy, that 'Galland's' only offered a better view to the rear of the bulkhead that sealed off the 109's 'razorback' rear fuselage. The pilot's eye level was lower than the top of the 'razorback'. (see pic in the link posted by Issy for an example) There was no such restriction with a 'bubble' canopy. You can add up/side view with the framing of the Erla blocking the sky. Did you forget about that framing Huckie? Allied 'bubble' canopies had no such view restriction.

Comfort makes a big difference on the performance of a pilot. Would you be more re-freshed when arriving in Dallas from Detroit if you were driving a Cadillac or a VW 'Bug'?


http://www.thundercycle.com/photos/dropdead2.gif



"Only a dead 'chamber pot' is a good 'chamber pot'!"

XyZspineZyX
10-21-2003, 07:27 PM
MiloMorai wrote:
-
- What kind of protection does 6-8mm canopy persplex
- offer Huck? LOL!! As I told Issy, that 'Galland's'
- only offered a better view to the rear of the
- bulkhead that sealed off the 109's 'razorback' rear
- fuselage. The pilot's eye level was lower than the
- top of the 'razorback'. (see pic in the link posted
- by Issy for an example) There was no such
- restriction with a 'bubble' canopy. You can add
- up/side view with the framing of the Erla blocking
- the sky. Did you forget about that framing Huckie?
- Allied 'bubble' canopies had no such view
- restriction.

Even the usual half a dozen smilies don`t change the fact that Allied pilot, bubble canopy or not, didn`t see anything right behind them, thanks to the nice solid armor plate they had right behind them. Now, not even the sharpest Texas boy brought up exclusively on Cheeseburger and Cola can`t see trough a piece of metal, can he ? Russians (and to a lesser extent, the Japanese) did the best, having bubble canopy, AND transparent armor glass.

http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/Erla1.jpg

http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/erlahaube.jpg


Just imagine that what would it look like if the head armor weren`t transparent . There you go Allied bubble canopy.


Just compare the bubble canopy P-47D and a late 109 G-6. The former is totally blind to the rear, expect for the tiny mirror, while in the latter, you can see the rear pretty well, even the horizontal tailplane.

As for the Cadillac, having just seen one yesterday, I am surprised how little space there is, compared to how huge the chassis is.



Vezérünk a Bátorság, K*sérµnk a Szerencse!
(Courage leads, Luck escorts us! - Historical motto of the 101st Puma Fighter Regiment)

Flight tests and other aviation performance data: http://www.pbase.com/isegrim

Message Edited on 10/21/0308:35PM by Vo101_Isegrim

XyZspineZyX
10-21-2003, 07:41 PM
BLUTARSKI wrote:

- BTW, please explain again exactly why the Erla
- offered better rearward vision than a 360 degree
- bubble canopy. I must have missed that lesson in
- line-of-sight geometry.


Blutarski, would you post a screenshot of a late P-47D`s 360 degree bubble canopy rear view (wide view) here, please ?

Then please post my shot of the Erla canopy next to it, and tell me which one offers better view to the rear.



Vezérünk a Bátorság, K*sérµnk a Szerencse!
(Courage leads, Luck escorts us! - Historical motto of the 101st Puma Fighter Regiment)

Flight tests and other aviation performance data: http://www.pbase.com/isegrim

XyZspineZyX
10-21-2003, 07:49 PM
LOL Issy, take a look at the that pic in the link you posted in the other thread. The 109 pilot can ONLY SEE the bulkhead for the 'razorback' when looking directly back. HE CAN NOT SEE DIRECTLY BEHIND. Are you really that blind? The 109 pilot had an almost 25 degree blind spot directly to the rear because of the 'razorback'. Considering that when in a flying atitude the stab was higher than the pilot's eye level, one would hope the pilot could some of the stab but only the outer 1/3. As for the fin/rudder the pilot could only see the top, above the balance tab, because of the 'razerback'.

Allied pilots DID NOT fly with they should straps cinched tight. That allowed them to move around in their large cockpits.

Water troughs are usually made of wood or metal. They are hard to see through./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif


Vo101_Isegrim wrote:
-
-
-
- Even the usual half a dozen smilies don`t change the
- fact that Allied pilot, bubble canopy or not, didn`t
- see anything right behind them, thanks to the nice
- solid armor plate they had right behind them. Now,
- not even the sharpest Texas boy brought up
- exclusively on Cheeseburger and Cola can`t see
- trough a piece of metal, can he ? Russians (and to a
- lesser extent, the Japanese) did the best, having
- bubble canopy, AND transparent armor glass.
-
-
- Just compare the bubble canopy P-47D and a late 109
- G-6. The former is totally blind to the rear, expect
- for the tiny mirror, while in the latter, you can
- see the rear pretty well, even the horizontal
- tailplane.
-
-



http://www.thundercycle.com/photos/dropdead2.gif



"Only a dead 'chamber pot' is a good 'chamber pot'!"

XyZspineZyX
10-21-2003, 07:57 PM
MiloMorai wrote:
- LOL Issy, take a look at the that pic in the link
- you posted in the other thread. The 109 pilot can
- ONLY SEE the bulkhead for the 'razorback' when
- looking directly back. HE CAN NOT SEE DIRECTLY
- BEHIND.

Nobody said he could, Briddy. He could see the horizontal tailplane well enough though, which means that with a bit of waving with the rudder, he could see what was directly behind him, even if somewhat below, just as I can see it when somebody makes the foolish attempt to follow my Kurfurst in the climb.


-
- Allied pilots DID NOT fly with they should straps
- cinched tight. That allowed them to move around in
- their large cockpits.
-

If so, they fell up and down all the time in the canopy during manouvers. I wouldn`t think they would be that stupid.

Still, better face it that not even the mighty Allied pilots could see through metal.

This gives some idea what rear view LIMITations the head armor caused. Even the Allies admitted http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

http://www.flightjournal.com/plane_profiles/p-51_mustang/images/details_canopy1_lg.jpg





Vezérünk a Bátorság, K*sérµnk a Szerencse!
(Courage leads, Luck escorts us! - Historical motto of the 101st Puma Fighter Regiment)

Flight tests and other aviation performance data: http://www.pbase.com/isegrim

Message Edited on 10/21/0309:05PM by Vo101_Isegrim

XyZspineZyX
10-21-2003, 08:08 PM
Isegrim,

Are you implying that the views featured in a computer simulation in any way duplicate those found in real-world aircraft? Are you an Owl? If not, I would assume that your head, like the actual pilots, does not rotate through 180 deg. on a fixed axis.

The head armor in allied bubbletops was only marginally wider than the pilots head thereby allowing said pilot to lean left or right for an almost totally unobstructed view to the rear. If a 109 pilot tried to lean left or right he would simply bump his head against the canopy, Erla or standard.

By your logic, modern fighter pilots have a completely restricted rear view because of the presence of the ejection seat headrest. Is that the claim you are making?

BTW, pilot's shoulders were NOT strapped tight to the seat back, period.

Vo101_Isegrim wrote:
-
- BLUTARSKI wrote:
-
-- BTW, please explain again exactly why the Erla
-- offered better rearward vision than a 360 degree
-- bubble canopy. I must have missed that lesson in
-- line-of-sight geometry.
-
-
- Blutarski, would you post a screenshot of a late
- P-47D`s 360 degree bubble canopy rear view (wide
- view) here, please ?
-
- Then please post my shot of the Erla canopy next to
- it, and tell me which one offers better view to the
- rear.
-
-
-
- Vezérünk a Bátorság, K*sérµnk a Szerencse!
- (Courage leads, Luck escorts us! - Historical motto
- of the 101st Puma Fighter Regiment)
-
- Flight tests and other aviation performance data:
- http://www.pbase.com/isegrim

Buzz_25th
10-21-2003, 08:30 PM
Bear,

It looks like the article goes on to talk about Brit/American planes too. Do you have that? Post it if you do.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
25th_Buzz
<center>
http://www.vfa25.com/sigs/buzz.jpg

XyZspineZyX
10-21-2003, 08:40 PM
As I stated in my opening paragraph, Carson was an ace with at least fifteen kills scored during the Spring to Fall period of 1944, and on one sortie knocked down at least five German fighters of which at least one was a 109G. I do not have a book that states when and where Carson got his familiarization ride in a captured Bf-109, but as a flight leader in a highly successful fighter unit, it was more than likely that he had a half hour or so in one of the several German aircraft used for exactly the purpose of highlighting enemy aircraft faults and strengths, so that he could go back to his unit and teach his comrades the best tactics for winning their encounters with the Luftwaffe, just as senior Axis airmen were allowed access to recovered Allied aircraft by their training and tactics organization.

No doubt, in both cases, the training officers highlighted the faults of the enemy aircraft to counter the "other guys are ten feet tall and eat nails for breakfast" pathology that ignorance tends to breed. I can just see the German training officer pointing out that the Mustang couldn't climb like the '109 and that the pilot, after flying for three hours on oxygen, would probably already be exhausted by the time you run into him over Berlin.

As expected, Issie ignored the parts he didn't like, and attacked the parts that weren't there. As for the G-2 being the best fighter in world in 1942, there are proponents of the Spitfire MkIX, the P-38F, the FW-190A-3/4, and the A6M3 Type 22 Zero who might legitmately take issue.

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

XyZspineZyX
10-21-2003, 08:49 PM
Huckebein_FW wrote:

- Carson never flew 109 and probably never met one in
- combat.

It took 30sec.s to find this account.
Carson shot down two FW190's. And went on to shoot down a Me-109 that was providing high cover for them.


http://www.cebudanderson.com/carson02.htm



Message Edited on 10/21/0306:30PM by badatit

ZG77_Nagual
10-21-2003, 08:54 PM
You know, in this thread I've seen someone called a 'nazi' and a 'revisionist' just for expressing their views.
This is really a ratsuckingly bad thing to call someone.
I'd say huck and Isegrim are maybe a little reactionary - but their opinions do run counter to the popular idealization of planes like the p51. But so does this whole simm - and as we investigate we find alot of american eto pilots thought the p38 was better than the 51, vvs pilots loved the p39, according to an discussion I just looked at with a p40 pilot and test pilot - the p40 was faster than the p51 and low alt and, flown right, outclassed the zero. How much of what we know about these planes is really fact? And how much attitude or tactics?

Whether you agree with these guys or not their views have spawned some of the best discussions on this board. I for one would like to see politics kept out of it.

http://pws.chartermi.net/~cmorey/pics/whiner.jpg

XyZspineZyX
10-21-2003, 09:22 PM
Jeffrey Quill: British Test Pilot
"In October 1940 I flew a captured Me 109 E; to my surprise and relief I found the aileron control of the German fighter at high speed every bit as bad as, if not worse than the spitfire I and II with fabric-covered ailerons .It was good at low and medium speed, but at 400 miles per hour and above it was almost immovable. I thought the Me 109 performed well, particularly on the climb at altitude, and it had good stalling characteristics under G, except that the leading edge slats kept snapping in and out. It had no rudder trimmer, which gave it a heavy footload at high speed, while the cockpit ,the canopy and the rearward vision were much worse than the Spitfire"

badatit wrote:
- Huckebein_FW wrote:
-- horseback wrote:
--
-
--
-- Carson never flew 109 and probably never met one in
-- combat.
--
-
Well this guy did -

XyZspineZyX
10-21-2003, 09:26 PM
ZG77_Nagual wrote:
- You know, in this thread I've seen someone called a
- 'nazi' and a 'revisionist' just for expressing their
- views.
- This is really a ratsuckingly bad thing to call
- someone.


..... Absolutely true.


- I'd say huck and Isegrim are maybe a little
- reactionary - but their opinions do run counter to
- the popular idealization of planes like the p51.


..... Who has been singing the praises of the P51 on this thread? The only "idealization" exercise under way here relates to the love affair between Isegrim, Huckebein, and the Bf109.


- But so does this whole simm - and as we investigate we
- find alot of american eto pilots thought the p38 was
- better than the 51, vvs pilots loved the p39,
- according to an discussion I just looked at with a
- p40 pilot and test pilot - the p40 was faster than
- the p51 and low alt and, flown right, outclassed the
- zero. How much of what we know about these planes is
- really fact? And how much attitude or tactics?
-
- Whether you agree with these guys or not their views
- have spawned some of the best discussions on this
- board.


..... Only if you enjoy chatting with brick walls. H & I are fanatics, utterly unable to approach the topic of the 109 in a dispassionate manner. If you want a "best discussion" candidate, I'd submit the recent radials versus in-line engine discussion for your consideration. Quite lively, informative, and entertaining.


I for one would like to see politics kept out
- of it.


..... Again. agreed.



Blutarski

XyZspineZyX
10-21-2003, 10:01 PM
Isegrim,

Was the Erla canopy a vast improvement over earlier 109 canopy designs? Absolutely, and my hat's off to the designer. Was it the equivalent of a full bubble canopy? Not unless German pilots had X-Ray vision. Your refusal to grasp the simple rearward line-of-sight interference caused by the 80-odd centimeter wide rear spine of the 109 fuselage is laughable. That you would actually attempt to represent that configuration as superior to a 30cm wide head rest immediately behind the pilot is foolish. Are you about to claim now that the Erla canopy provided a 109 better rearward visibility than a FW190? Such a claim is ridiculous on its face. Do the geometry for yourself.

Oh yes, please forward that citation to support your categorical claim that Carson never flew a 109. I know that it is possible that he did not. but I'll bet a lunch at the restaurant of your choice that you have absolutely zero proof to back up your claim, which is just another one spun out of thin air.


Blutarski

XyZspineZyX
10-21-2003, 10:06 PM
badatit wrote:
- Huckebein_FW wrote:
-
-- Carson never flew 109 and probably never met one in
-- combat.
-
- It took 30sec.s to find this account.
- Carson shot down two FW190's. And went on to shoot
- down a ME109 that was providing high cover for them.
-
-


And you probably won't hear from Huckebein, either. When you get him well cornered, as you have so very nicely done, you will get nothing but silence from him.



Blutarski

XyZspineZyX
10-21-2003, 10:28 PM
My apologies for getting you confused with Huck, Issie. Otherwise, my comments stand. Carson's (and my ) comments were about the Emil and G-6 models, not the G-2, and Huck ignored the Spitfire IX, the FW-190, and the P-38F, which were all operational and in combat in '42. The G-2 was a contender, but you could argue pretty convincingly for the other three.

As for cut and paste, I was reading up on this stuff before the Caddie you posted was built (I got laid for the first time in the back seat of a '62 Sedan De Ville), and I still have a pretty good memory. I don't need no stinkin' cut and paste.

Now about the shoulder straps debate and visibility, didn't any of you guys ever hear of inertia belts? They weren't invented for Corollas back in the '80s, you know. They were installed in early Hellcats and Corsairs in '43, and I seem to recall a P-40 driver (Don Lopez?-"Into The Teeth of The Tiger") in China commenting about them, which meant that all the Allied planes probably had them by '44. The seat belts cinched you into your seat, and the shoulder straps kept you from smacking your face into the gunsight when you crashlanded.

Inertia belts and bubbletops trump the Galland hood and the glass armor, in my opinion, especially when it's raining .50 caliber.

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

XyZspineZyX
10-21-2003, 10:45 PM
horseback wrote:
- As I stated in my opening paragraph, Carson was an
- ace with at least fifteen kills scored during the
- Spring to Fall period of 1944, and on one sortie
- knocked down at least five German fighters of which
- at least one was a 109G. I do not have a book that
- states when and where Carson got his familiarization
- ride in a captured Bf-109, but as a flight leader in
- a highly successful fighter unit, it was more than
- likely that he had a half hour or so in one of the
- several German aircraft used for exactly the purpose
- of highlighting enemy aircraft faults and strengths,
- so that he could go back to his unit and teach his
- comrades the best tactics for winning their
- encounters with the Luftwaffe, just as senior Axis
- airmen were allowed access to recovered Allied
- aircraft by their training and tactics organization.

Sounds very reasonable.. And even if he never personally did Im sure he talk to some who had durring and after the war. Not to mention he had access to all the NACA and post war data.

- No doubt, in both cases, the training officers
- highlighted the faults of the enemy aircraft to
- counter the "other guys are ten feet tall and eat
- nails for breakfast" pathology that ignorance tends
- to breed. I can just see the German training
- officer pointing out that the Mustang couldn't climb
- like the '109 and that the pilot, after flying for
- three hours on oxygen, would probably already be
- exhausted by the time you run into him over Berlin.

Agreed.

- As expected, Issie ignored the parts he didn't like,
- and attacked the parts that weren't there.

You got him pegged. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

- As for
- the G-2 being the best fighter in world in 1942,
- there are proponents of the Spitfire MkIX, the
- P-38F, the FW-190A-3/4, and the A6M3 Type 22 Zero
- who might legitmately take issue.

Best is a relitive term.. The early 109 and ZERO's were good for the way the war started out.. close gnd support and WWI style dog fighting.. but the war quickly changed... Long distance, Endurance (time in the air) and High alt operations became the norm.. The 109 went from a fighter vs fighter to a bomber chaser.. i.e.

FORGET ABOUT DOGFIGHTING! GIVE US SOMETHING WITH BIG GUNS AND CAN CLIMB FAST SO WE CAN DEAL DEAL WITH THE B17s.

You dont need a good roll rate or dogfighting tatics to line up on a slow manuvering bomber.. Just speed, climb rate and big guns.




<div style="background:#222222;color:#e0e0e0;font-size:24px;font-weight:bold;font-face:courier;"> TAGERT
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If WAR was not the ANSWER.. Than what the H was your QUESTION?
</div>
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=forum
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=discussion

XyZspineZyX
10-21-2003, 10:45 PM
Boandlgramer wrote:
- oh my god,
- we need the patch ASAP.
- dear Oleg, please help this community.
- the same topics with the same people are fighting
- the same war with almost the same words.
- not a very good entertainment /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif
- not worth to buy new packs with popcorn.
-
- btw. copperhead,
-
- did Carson flying a 109 ?
- can you give me an answer , can you ?

Yeah Boandl, one thing wondering me all the way. If the German a/c sucks that hard, then why lasted the war until May 45. Seems even in far superior a/c the ALlies, in the East AND West, didn't manage to end that war earlier even while sitting it SUPERIOR a/c.



"......und mein Herz steigt wie ein Falke in die Lüfte!"

EJGr.Ost Kimura

http://www.jagdgruppe-ost.de/image/ejgrost.gif


http://www.jagdgruppe-ost.de/Forums/

XyZspineZyX
10-21-2003, 11:18 PM
Tagert,


I know that the Katzenjammer Twins will probably communally set their hair on fire over this, but, since we seem to be back on the Kit Carson topic, I thought I'd mention it for, ..........ahem........, general interest.


Go here - http://luthier.stormloader.com/SFTacticsI.htm


to find the following quotation concerning the 109F and 109G2 from a translated 1943 Russian air combat tacical manual (courtesy of Luthier):


QUOTE -
Me-109 loses a great deal of altitude when exiting a dive. It is very difficult for a Me-109 to exit a deep dive at a small altitude. It is also very hard to alter direction during a high-speed dive. When it is needed to alter directions during a dive, Me-109 will usually end the attack and climb to repeat the attack in a new direction.
- UNQUOTE


I could be wrong, but this sounds like poor Bf109 control response at high speed again, only talking about the F and G series in particular. Hmmmmm. Another nail in the coffin.



Blutarski

XyZspineZyX
10-21-2003, 11:59 PM
horseback wrote:
- As I stated in my opening paragraph, Carson was an
- ace with at least fifteen kills scored during the
- Spring to Fall period of 1944, and on one sortie
- knocked down at least five German fighters of which
- at least one was a 109G. I do not have a book that
- states when and where Carson got his familiarization
- ride in a captured Bf-109, but as a flight leader in
- a highly successful fighter unit, it was more than
- likely that he had a half hour or so in one of the
- several German aircraft used for exactly the purpose
- of highlighting enemy aircraft faults and strengths,
- so that he could go back to his unit and teach his
- comrades the best tactics for winning their
- encounters with the Luftwaffe, just as senior Axis
- airmen were allowed access to recovered Allied
- aircraft by their training and tactics organization.


This is complete fantasy. No Bf-109 or Fw-190 was ever given to USAAF squadrons for familiarisation with enemy equipment. Actually it was exactly the other way around. There were plenty of pilots willing to fly captured material, but they were forbidden to do so, sometimes or threatened that airfield AAA will shot them down if they take-off. In 1945, when victory was close this policy was lightned, but generaly the true performance of the german planes was not known to the british and american pilots. Russian pilots had much better information about them, and also better results against them.


- As expected, Issie ignored the parts he didn't like,
- and attacked the parts that weren't there. As for
- the G-2 being the best fighter in world in 1942,
- there are proponents of the Spitfire MkIX, the
- P-38F, the FW-190A-3/4, and the A6M3 Type 22 Zero
- who might legitmately take issue.


Zero was an obsolete plane. There was nothing pilot could except running in slow speed circles until somebody downed him. It was slow, had a bad climb and acceleration, poor dive and in general high speed handling, poor airframe strength, poor pilot protection, unsealed fuel tanks and so on. It cannot claim a place on the podium in any case.

Fw-190A3/4 were good by less performant than G2 in any characteristic. It scored only on versatility, ruggedness of the radial engine and airframe and roll rate.

F-38F is below Fw-190A3/4 in performance. It was very demanding on pilot and had an ideal size for a target. Not to mention that it was very expensive, 2 P-51 on the price of one P-38. I'd rather have pilot a P-51 and have a wingman rather than going alone in the battle.

Spitfire IX was a decent plane but not in '42, still probably the best choice for a competitor. But until boost was increased to 18lb it did not pose much of a threat. Keep in mind that SpitIX was significantly heavier than SpitV which took a serious beating in '42 from Fw-190.

G2 is an easy choice among those.


<center> http://www.stormbirds.com/images/discussion-main.jpg </center>

XyZspineZyX
10-22-2003, 12:10 AM
badatit wrote:
- Huckebein_FW wrote:
-
-- Carson never flew 109 and probably never met one in
-- combat.
-
- It took 30sec.s to find this account.
- Carson shot down two FW190's. And went on to shoot
- down a BF109 that was providing high cover for them.
-
-
- <a href="http://www.cebudanderson.com/carson02.htm"
- target=_blank>http://www.cebudanderson.com/carson0
- 2.htm</a>


So he shot down an Bf-109 of which pilot did not see him. That gave Carson a serios insight on how Bf-109 behave in battle.

Molders shot down 25 Spitfire from a total of 115 air kills early in the war (Molders died in an accident in '41). He said that Spitfire was pathetic as a fighter. Yes, he flew Bf-109. Molders opinion weights much more than that of Col. "Nobody" Carson.


<center> http://www.stormbirds.com/images/discussion-main.jpg </center>

XyZspineZyX
10-22-2003, 12:18 AM
BLUTARSKI wrote:
- ..... Only if you enjoy chatting with brick walls. H
- & I are fanatics, utterly unable to approach the
- topic of the 109 in a dispassionate manner.

Bf-109 is not the ww2 fighter I like the most. It's just that it is the best dogfighter of ww2, easily proven by the outstanding number of aces that flew until the end of war. In any airforce it flew it created aces. Take the minor axis countries and see the stats. I can give you the example of Romania. From a fighter force of 200 planes, 50 pilots were aces, 3 of them with more than 40 confirmed air kills. Not to mention that the leading ace preffered turnfighting. He survived the war, to the astonishment of FB players.



<center> http://www.stormbirds.com/images/discussion-main.jpg </center>

XyZspineZyX
10-22-2003, 12:19 AM
Col. "Nobody" Carson was the leading scorer of the 357th FG with 18.5 aerial victories and commanded the 357th's 364th Fighter Squadron. Carson was also one of the 357th's Aces- In-A-Day, downing five 190's on 27 NOV 44.

The 357th scored 609 1/2 aerial victories in 14 1/2 months of combat, placing it second amongst 8th AAF fighter groups in aerial victories.


Huckebein_FW wrote:
- badatit wrote:
-- Huckebein_FW wrote:
--
--- Carson never flew 109 and probably never met one in
--- combat.
--
-- It took 30sec.s to find this account.
-- Carson shot down two FW190's. And went on to shoot
-- down a BF109 that was providing high cover for them.
--
--
-- <a href="http://www.cebudanderson.com/carson02.htm"
-- target=_blank>http://www.cebudanderson.com/carson0
-- 2.htm</a>
-
-
- So he shot down an Bf-109 of which pilot did not see
- him. That gave Carson a serios insight on how Bf-109
- behave in battle.
-
- Molders shot down 25 Spitfire from a total of 115
- air kills early in the war (Molders died in an
- accident in '41). He said that Spitfire was pathetic
- as a fighter. Yes, he flew Bf-109. Molders opinion
- weights much more than that of Col. "Nobody" Carson.
-
-
-
-
- <center> <img
- src="http://www.stormbirds.com/images/discussion-m
- ain.jpg"> </center>

XyZspineZyX
10-22-2003, 12:33 AM
lrrp22 wrote:
- Col. "Nobody" Carson was the leading scorer of the
- 357th FG with 18.5 aerial victories and commanded
- the 357th's 364th Fighter Squadron. Carson was also
- one of the 357th's Aces- In-A-Day, downing five
- 190's on 27 NOV 44.
-
- The 357th scored 609 1/2 aerial victories in 14 1/2
- months of combat, placing it second amongst 8th AAF
- fighter groups in aerial victories.


So? you cannot compare Carson with the competence and skill of Werner Molders. I have no reason not to believe that Spitfire was a pathetic fighter compared with Bf-109. Moelders said so.


<center> http://www.stormbirds.com/images/discussion-main.jpg </center>

XyZspineZyX
10-22-2003, 12:36 AM
Answer the question Huck: Who looks to their rear by rotating their heads 180 degrees on their shoulders? Circus Freaks, perhaps? Even if they could all they would see is the rear fuselage decking.

Also, again: did the Erla haube canopy provide a better rear view than the F-16's canopy? Pleeeeaaaaase say YES!! You know you want to!!


Huckebein_FW wrote:
- lrrp22 wrote:
-- Again, I ask either of you-what human being is able
-- to look directly to the rear without twisting their
-- shoulders to the left or right? The rear view in
-- Erla-equipped 109 is still a mish-mash of frames and
-- fuselage decking, regardless of the clear panel. No
-- matter how you try and alter reality to fit your
-- freakish 109 obsession you can not deny the fact
-- that a Mustang or Thunderbolt pilot can easily look
-- around his head armor and achieve a nearly complete
-- view of the rear quarter.
-
-
- You want to convince that 1 single frame obstructed
- the view the rear more than a whole plate? Dream on
- lrrp.
-
-
-
-- How about the rear quarter view of an F-15/16/18/22?
-- Are they as blind to the rear as you claim the P-51
-- pilot to be? I'm sure you'll have some dismissive,
-- cagey reason as to why all these aircraft are just
-- more overrated American dogs but the fact remains
-- that a Mustang pilot enjoyed 360 degree visibility
-- that nearly matches all these fighters.
-
- Yeah right, 360 degrees visibility on Mustang.
- There's no point to continue. Even if I'll repost
- the reasons that totaly dismiss Carson I'll still
- have to deal with such nonsensical arguments like
- this one on visibility.
-
-
- <center> <img
- src="http://www.stormbirds.com/images/discussion-m
- ain.jpg"> </center>

XyZspineZyX
10-22-2003, 12:41 AM
lrrp22 wrote:
- There you go again, Huck.
-
- You know as well as anybody else here that Hartmann
- believed in using bounce attacks exclusively.
-
- Maybe the fact that 33,000 were produced and fought
- for the entire duration of the war might have
- something to do with the number of aces produced,
- hmmm?
-
- BTW, the P-40 produced aces in every air force that
- flew it so can it make a claim to the best
- dogfighter title?


No other fighter produced so many aces, and so many victories. You have to add kills and aces of many allied aircraft to equal the Bf-109 score. Even if you multiply the number of Mustang aces by ten you won't get the same number of aces that Bf-109 had. And that's hardly something happening by mistake. It tells the huge difference in performance that Bf-109 had over any other aircraft.

But of course, go on with your denial. You, Blutarski, tagert, Milo, cajun should meet once. Since you're always on the same threads.


<center> http://www.stormbirds.com/images/discussion-main.jpg </center>

XyZspineZyX
10-22-2003, 12:41 AM
Yeah, I can compare the competence and skill of Kit Carson to Werner Moelders.

I wonder what Moelders would have thought of the P-51? Probably a lot more than you.


Huckebein_FW wrote:
- lrrp22 wrote:
-- Col. "Nobody" Carson was the leading scorer of the
-- 357th FG with 18.5 aerial victories and commanded
-- the 357th's 364th Fighter Squadron. Carson was also
-- one of the 357th's Aces- In-A-Day, downing five
-- 190's on 27 NOV 44.
--
-- The 357th scored 609 1/2 aerial victories in 14 1/2
-- months of combat, placing it second amongst 8th AAF
-- fighter groups in aerial victories.
-
-
- So? you cannot compare Carson with the competence
- and skill of Werner Molders. I have no reason not to
- believe that Spitfire was a pathetic fighter
- compared with Bf-109. Moelders said so.
-
-
- <center> <img
- src="http://www.stormbirds.com/images/discussion-m
- ain.jpg"> </center>

Buzz_25th
10-22-2003, 12:43 AM
It was the conditions more than the plane Huck. Replace the 109 with the Yak, and you'd have just as many German aces.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
25th_Buzz
<center>
http://www.vfa25.com/sigs/buzz.jpg

XyZspineZyX
10-22-2003, 12:46 AM
lrrp22 wrote:
- Answer the question Huck: Who looks to their rear by
- rotating their heads 180 degrees on their shoulders?
- Circus Freaks, perhaps?

No, the Mustang pilot that has 360 deg visibility.



- Also, again: did the Erla haube canopy provide a
- better rear view than the F-16's canopy?
- Pleeeeaaaaase say YES!! You know you want to!!


F-16 had much taller and wider canopy, and pilot head is not obstructed by the seat. There is no comparison between the two.

http://www.aeronautics.ru/lockheed/f-16_falcon/f-16-007.jpg



<center> http://www.stormbirds.com/images/discussion-main.jpg </center>

XyZspineZyX
10-22-2003, 12:47 AM
Huckebein_FW wrote:

- No other fighter produced so many aces, and so many
- victories. You have to add kills and aces of many
- allied aircraft to equal the Bf-109 score. Even if
- you multiply the number of Mustang aces by ten you
- won't get the same number of aces that Bf-109 had.
- And that's hardly something happening by mistake. It
- tells the huge difference in performance that Bf-109
- had over any other aircraft.
-
- But of course, go on with your denial. You,
- Blutarski, tagert, Milo, cajun should meet once.
- Since you're always on the same threads.

The Bf-109 was a GREAT plane versus P.11s, I-153s, I-16s, MiG-3s and their inexperienced and surprised Russian pilots. It was agisnt planes like this that most of the kills were achieved. But how did the plane fair against modern competition? I mean, just what was its kill ratio againbst the Mustang, Thunderbolt and Spitfire?

It's easy to draw the conclusion that the Bf-109 was the be-all-end-all fighter when you compare it to the planes it scored most of its kills against. Compare it to good planes with well-trained pilots and it was nothing special.

Regards,

SkyChimp

http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/jug_sig.jpg

XyZspineZyX
10-22-2003, 01:01 AM
Vo101_Isegrim wrote:

- Blutarski, would you post a screenshot of a late
- P-47D`s 360 degree bubble canopy rear view (wide
- view) here, please ?
-
- Then please post my shot of the Erla canopy next to
- it, and tell me which one offers better view to the
- rear.

Issy, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand that the armor behind the P-47 pilot's head is only about as wide as his head, he can easily peer around it.

The advantage the bubble canopy has over the Erla is that once the P-47 pilot does than, he can see OVER the rear of the fuselage. Not so with the Erla hood. He won't be able to see a plane directly behind him on the same level.

http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/blindasabat.JPG


Not even German supermen could see through metal.



Regards,

SkyChimp

http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/jug_sig.jpg


Message Edited on 10/22/03 04:06AM by SkyChimp

Message Edited on 10/22/0304:06AM by SkyChimp

XyZspineZyX
10-22-2003, 01:05 AM
Huckebein_FW wrote:



--
-- <a href="http://www.cebudanderson.com/carson02.htm"
-- target=_blank>http://www.cebudanderson.com/carson0
-- 2.htm</a>
-
-
- So he shot down an Bf-109 of which pilot did not see
- him. That gave Carson a serios insight on how Bf-109
- behave in battle.

Carson bounced the (2)Me-109's from above and behind, firing at the closest 109.

They brake hard , and start a defensive circling manuvere.
Carson zooms.
Carson attempts a second pass,with no hits.
Again, he zooms.
The 109's then dive for the deck.
Carson makes a pass on the closest 109.
The 109 pulls up hard, and chops throttle to force an overshoot. That got him killed.

The 109 pilot "SAW" what hit him.
He had at least three moves (not to mention a wing man) before he died.




Message Edited on 10/21/0307:50PM by badatit

XyZspineZyX
10-22-2003, 01:13 AM
Vo101_Isegrim wrote:
- Still, better face it that not even the mighty
- Allied pilots could see through metal.

Issie.. I dont know if you noticed.. that picture you provided.. the canopy is pulled back. Thus that bar near the head rest would actully be up front when closed.. Again basic.

- This gives some idea what rear view LIMITations the
- head armor caused. Even the Allies admitted /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif
-
http://www.flightjournal.com/plane_profiles/p-51_mustang/images/details_canopy1_lg.jpg

Maybe in your mind.. but note that sense it is pulled back the BULDGE of the BUBBLE is now back beyond the cockpit and the skinny brace part in at the point of the head rest. When close the canopy BULDGE of the BUBBLE would allow the pilot to LEAN a little farther LEFT or RIGHT before his forhead hit the glass... THUS allowing him to get a better view of his six.. That in and of itself was the REASON for the BUBBLE canopys.. And if you dont belive my 30 or 40 words discribing it.. here is a picture that is well worth 1000 words.

http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/P51DView.jpg


OF SPECIAL INTREST here is the bullit proof head rest plate is not much wider than the pilots head and there is a good amount of room from the edge of the head rest to where the BULDGE of the BUBBLE begins.. THUS allowing the pilot to look backwards... Oh.. one other thing to note here.. the pilot is STRAPPED IN!!! /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif



<div style="background:#222222;color:#e0e0e0;font-size:24px;font-weight:bold;font-face:courier;"> TAGERT
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If WAR was not the ANSWER.. Than what the H was your QUESTION?
</div>
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=forum
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=discussion

XyZspineZyX
10-22-2003, 01:19 AM
Huckebein_FW wrote:

- This is complete fantasy. No Bf-109 or Fw-190 was
- ever given to USAAF squadrons for familiarisation
- with enemy equipment. Actually it was exactly the
- other way around. There were plenty of pilots
- willing to fly captured material, but they were
- forbidden to do so, sometimes or threatened that
- airfield AAA will shot them down if they take-off.
- In 1945, when victory was close this policy was
- lightned, but generaly the true performance of the
- german planes was not known to the british and
- american pilots. Russian pilots had much better
- information about them, and also better results
- against them.

Funny, the 325th FG in North Africa had a Bf-109F that many of the pilots flew to do just that, familiarize themselves with it.

The reason Allied force had few German planes is because most were shot down over German forces, unlike Allied planes that were pressing the war towards Germany.


- F-38F is below Fw-190A3/4 in performance. It was
- very demanding on pilot and had an ideal size for a
- target. Not to mention that it was very expensive, 2
- P-51 on the price of one P-38. I'd rather have pilot
- a P-51 and have a wingman rather than going alone in
- the battle.

Only up to 7000m. Then the P-38F was better. All Fw-190As had poor high altitude performance.

Regards,

SkyChimp

http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/jug_sig.jpg

XyZspineZyX
10-22-2003, 01:23 AM
VMF-214_HaVoK wrote:
- P-51: 4,950 air kills 11:1 "kill ratio"
- P-47: (FROM D DAY TO V-E DAY) 2,752 air kills 4.6:1
- "kill ratio"



You left out the P-38 in the ETO:

2,500 ata kills versus 1,750 losses to ALL CAUSES.





Regards,

SkyChimp

http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/jug_sig.jpg

ZG77_Nagual
10-22-2003, 01:28 AM
Blutarski - sorry for the delay - I do like extremely opinionated conversations - if the participants are out of range of eachother, reasonably intelligent and persistant - alot of interesting facts boil up - from a spectators view it's great fun and educational /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

My understanding is that the 109 had a pretty small cockpit - in which the pilot sat relatively low so this would make turning around a bit more of a task - and leaning to look around an obstruction pretty much impossible. Seems logical you might have to work a little harder to get that rear view than in the mustang. Specifically the brits talk about the malcom hood providing a great downward and rear view because you could lean out a bit into the bubble. Now I think the p51d may not have had as much 'lean out' as the malcom mustang - which explains why some thought the malcom 'B' superior to the d in this respect (and most others). If I had to guess though I'd say the 109 maybe wasn't so great in this respect - the the plexiglas head armor would help.

I don't particularly like the 109 myself - or the p51d or p47. The planes I like are way better than these /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

http://pws.chartermi.net/~cmorey/pics/whiner.jpg


http://pws.chartermi.net/~cmorey/pics/whiner.jpg

XyZspineZyX
10-22-2003, 03:02 AM
Clearly a bubble canopy offers a superior search view. However, it also often comes with a performance loss or a compromise in stability and control. I find it ironic that Carson suggests Messerschmidt should have just slapped a bubble canopy from another aircraft onto the 109, as this sort of thing actually costs a lot of allied pilot lives when done during the war. You can't just slap a bubble canopy on. The vertical stabilizer might have to be redesigned, the CG might change significantly, other unexpected side effects might occur. Changing such a significant aspect of the aircraft's basic design while retaining the same performance might entail a complete and total redesign and retooling of the factories. I don't think Germany was prepared to do this, so perhaps they decided to maintain production and performance at the expense of a moderate increase in search view.

Also, I'm really tired of people parading around kill ratios as evidence of technical superiority. Kill ratios have more, perhaps everything, to do with pilot training and experience. I think the overall ratios for the European war are very telling and point to exactly this:

Western Front

Year / LW A-to-A Kills / LW fighters lost (all causes)

'39-40 / 1,500 / 800

1941 / 1,500 / 300

1942 / 2,500 / 500

1943 / 3,000 / 2,000

1944 / 5,000 / 8,000

1945 / +500 / 1,500

What caused the drastic shift to a less than 1:1 kill ratio for Germany in 1944? Sudden overwhelming technological superiority? I don't think so. Technology may have played a minor role in certain areas, but increasing average Allied training and experience/decreasing average German training and experience along with increasing local numerical odds in favor of the Allies were far more important. That's my interpretation, at least.

--AKD

http://www.flyingpug.com/pugline2.jpg

XyZspineZyX
10-22-2003, 03:03 AM
Thanks for the post Bearcat. Very interesting read. And one I tend to believe, seeing it was written by a real WWII ace, and backed up by a quote from a RAF pilot that flew the 109. What was a bit more interesting and entertaining was reading this thread. This forum had been chilled out for the past few weeks. I think this was good therapy for those who have been trying hard to respect the requests of the mods to tone the flaming threads down. Maybe this will hold them for another few weeks. lol

BTW, I've enjoyed your posts and comments in this forum since I've been here. You've never been out of the way with anyone that I remember. And you showed great restraint while some whack was accusing you of starting this thread for the purpose of starting up a flame war and requesting that you be banned. Funny. You are a class gentleman for not engaging that person. Keep em coming Bearcat! S!

XyZspineZyX
10-22-2003, 03:15 AM
A.K.Davis wrote:
- Clearly a bubble canopy offers a superior search
- view. However, it also often comes with a
- performance loss or a compromise in stability and
- control. I find it ironic that Carson suggests
- Messerschmidt should have just slapped a bubble
- canopy from another aircraft onto the 109, as this
- sort of thing actually costs a lot of allied pilot
- lives when done during the war. You can't just slap
- a bubble canopy on. The vertical stabilizer might
- have to be redesigned, the CG might change
- significantly, other unexpected side effects might
- occur. Changing such a significant aspect of the
- aircraft's basic design while retaining the same
- performance might entail a complete and total
- redesign and retooling of the factories. I don't
- think Germany was prepared to do this, so perhaps
- they decided to maintain production and performance
- at the expense of a moderate increase in search
- view.

You really shouldnt take the word "slapped" so litterly. Carson, in his book, goes into great detail about how the stability problem was addressed. As for the re-tooling, carson also pointed out all the short commings of the 109 and how each one of them could have been addresses with a small team.. And how the little changes wouldnt have caused any major re-tooling.. Funny thing is they actually got around to some of them.. retratable tail wheel for example.. but way WAY late in the war.. When the impact of re-tooling at the plant was a real issue. The said part is they didnt do it sooner when the pressure was not as great.



<div style="background:#222222;color:#e0e0e0;font-size:24px;font-weight:bold;font-face:courier;"> TAGERT
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If WAR was not the ANSWER.. Than what the H was your QUESTION?
</div>
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=forum
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=discussion

Message Edited on 10/21/0309:56PM by tagert

XyZspineZyX
10-22-2003, 03:44 AM
Huck wrote:
This is complete fantasy. No Bf-109 or Fw-190 was
- ever given to USAAF squadrons for familiarisation
- with enemy equipment. Actually it was exactly the
- other way around. There were plenty of pilots
- willing to fly captured material, but they were
- forbidden to do so, sometimes or threatened that
- airfield AAA will shot them down if they take-off.
- In 1945, when victory was close this policy was
- lightned, but generaly the true performance of the
- german planes was not known to the british and
- american pilots. Russian pilots had much better
- information about them, and also better results
- against them.

I didn't say that the squadrons or groups were issued captured German fighters for familiarization; I said that senior pilots from each units were allowed access to the few flyable examples available before D-Day. There was a RAF unit dedicated to that purpose, and given the USAAF's tendency to copy whatever the Brits did that looked like a good idea, it seems likely. Carson wrote like someone who'd been in the cockpit of a 109, noting the same things others who'd been there had. And I did point out that the LW had a similar unit, which I believe was popularly referred to as something like "Rosarius' Zirkus" (pardon my spelling).

We do know that great numbers of flyable German Aircraft were available to Allied pilots in the post D-Day period, and the post war era had a number of German warbirds going to aeronautical schools after the Air Force got tired of them. If Carson hadn't gotten a check flight in a 109 before D-Day, he very likely got his hands on one in the immediate post war period. Certainly, Yeager, as a test pilot assigned to Wright-Patterson did, and as 'custodian' of former enemy aircraft (which he generally judged inferior to his Mustang, with the possible exception of the FW-190D-9), if his old buddy showed up on the flight line and asked (and remember, Carson was his senior), chances are that a visiting ace would be shown the greatest courtesy.

Zero was an obsolete plane. There was nothing pilot
- could except running in slow speed circles until
- somebody downed him. It was slow, had a bad climb
- and acceleration, poor dive and in general high
- speed handling, poor airframe strength, poor pilot
- protection, unsealed fuel tanks and so on. It cannot
- claim a place on the podium in any case.
-
- Fw-190A3/4 were good by less performant than G2 in
- any characteristic. It scored only on versatility,
- ruggedness of the radial engine and airframe and
- roll rate.
-
- F-38F is below Fw-190A3/4 in performance. It was
- very demanding on pilot and had an ideal size for a
- target. Not to mention that it was very expensive, 2
- P-51 on the price of one P-38. I'd rather have pilot
- a P-51 and have a wingman rather than going alone in
- the battle.
-
- Spitfire IX was a decent plane but not in '42, still
- probably the best choice for a competitor. But until
- boost was increased to 18lb it did not pose much of
- a threat. Keep in mind that SpitIX was significantly
- heavier than SpitV which took a serious beating in
- '42 from Fw-190.


As for my list of potential claimants to the title of 'Best Fighter of 1942," I could not leave out the Zero based on it's successes in that year. Certainly it was the premier dogfighter of the group, and Imperial Japanese Naval Aviators were among the most well-trained the world had seen to that point. No model of the 109 could have duplicated what it did.

I mentioned the P-38F because after the initial encounters in North Africa, American novices flying against some of the Luftwaffe's best aquitted themselves pretty well in what was supposed to be a handbuilt (the original spec and contract called for 50 aircraft, and just looking at it, you can see that it wasn't intended for mass production) bomber interceptor still in the early stages of its development. And that large target area included a lot of empty space. It was not an easy kill, between its' firepower, speed, and structural strength. Comparison of price to the Mustang which was barely in the US inventory at the time, is irrelevent, and more revealing of Huckebein than the subject matter.

And it seems to me that the RAF took control of the Channel airspace as soon as the MK IX was available to more than half its' squadrons based in Southern England. Apparently it's greater gross weight had no more effect on it than the Gustav's did relative to the Frederich's.

In any case, there are other claimants to the throne, and the G-2's lack of pilot FOV, poor range, and lesser firepower relative to the other candidates makes it a contest. I didn't say the G-2 wasn't the best; I said other aircraft had legitimate claims, a distinction too subtle for Huck's knee-jerk reflexes.

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

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

XyZspineZyX
10-22-2003, 03:45 AM
You're right Huck, the F-16 is a bad example because of the sharply reclined position of the ACES II seat. The F-15's ACES II installation is a better example.

As far as the 180 degree rotation, you are being willfully ignorant with regards to the point I am making. Have you ever driven a car? If so it should be abundantly clear to you that when you look to the rear you are not looking through the seat's head rest but around it, just like in a Mustang.

Your argument is ridiculous, and you know it.


Huckebein_FW wrote:
- lrrp22 wrote:
-- Answer the question Huck: Who looks to their rear by
-- rotating their heads 180 degrees on their shoulders?
-- Circus Freaks, perhaps?
-
- No, the Mustang pilot that has 360 deg visibility.
-
-
-
-- Also, again: did the Erla haube canopy provide a
-- better rear view than the F-16's canopy?
-- Pleeeeaaaaase say YES!! You know you want to!!
-
-
- F-16 had much taller and wider canopy, and pilot
- head is not obstructed by the seat. There is no
- comparison between the two.
-
<img
- src="http://www.aeronautics.ru/lockheed/f-16_falco
- n/f-16-007.jpg"> -
-
-
-
- <center> <img
- src="http://www.stormbirds.com/images/discussion-m
- ain.jpg"> </center>

XyZspineZyX
10-22-2003, 03:52 AM
Well, kill ratios are important. But certainly don't tell the whole story. Here's the story from the USAAF side in the ETO:



USAAF aircraft (USAAF) losses to enemy aircraft
------versus------
Enemy Aircraft (EA) destroyed in the air:

Year.................All Aircraft......Fighters
.......................USAAF/EA........USAAF/EA
===============================================
1942 (Aug - Dec)........49/169...........10/7
1943 ..................877/3865.........161/451
1944..................2902/8050........1293/5602
1945...................446/1539.........227/1362

Total................4,274/13,623.....1,691/7,422
Ratio..................(1:3.89).........(1:4.39)



These figures do not include MTO figures. They do not show losses to anti-aircraft fire, "other causes", or losses on the ground. These are strictly losses to enemy aircraft versus enemy aircraft destroyed in the air.


Regarding training, here's some stats:

http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/training.jpg




Regards,

SkyChimp

http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/jug_sig.jpg

XyZspineZyX
10-22-2003, 04:02 AM
Ty Bearcat99!/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Nice reading!

<center>
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<center>
Fly at HL as <center>Aceman</center>
http://defence-data.com/storypic/spitfire.jpg

"Take off,is only the beginnigg
Bail out, is YOUR end."

XyZspineZyX
10-22-2003, 04:20 AM
Moelders got to fly a captured Spit Mk I with an early two-speed prop and 8 X .303s, a whole other animal from the Spit MK XIVe flying as the primary air superiority fighter in 1945. I suspect his appraisal of the Spit was uprated after 'Sailor' Malan shot him up later that year.

Moelders and the rest of the Jagdewaffe had a comparatively easy war prior to the BoB, with technical and tactical superiority allowing them to develop their skills without the trauma experienced by Russian, British, French, and to a lesser degree, American fighter pilots. Most of their kills were achieved against inexperienced and underequipped novices in a target rich environment.

An awful lot of 100+ kill experten (many of them Moelders' contemporaries) died while Carson and his peers were plying their trade in 1944(after Allied tactics improved), and it wasn't due to superior numbers every time.

Carson was among the best in the ETO, and I'd take him in a Mustang over most exponents of the 109G or K(any model) in a head to head fight. He was a degreed engineer and air combat veteran writing about both subjects, and he does deserve a hearing, even if he doesn't share your prejudices.

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

XyZspineZyX
10-22-2003, 06:09 AM
SkyChimp wrote:
- Well, kill ratios are important. But certainly
- don't tell the whole story. Here's the story from
- the USAAF side in the ETO:
-
-
-
- USAAF aircraft (USAAF) losses to enemy aircraft
-------versus------
- Enemy Aircraft (EA) destroyed in the air:
-
- Year.................All Aircraft......Fighters
- .......................USAAF/EA........USAAF/EA
- ===============================================
- 1942 (Aug - Dec)........49/169...........10/7
- 1943 ..................877/3865.........161/451
- 1944..................2902/8050........1293/5602
- 1945...................446/1539.........227/1362
-
- Total................4,274/13,623.....1,691/7,422
- Ratio..................(1:3.89).........(1:4.39)
-
-
-
- These figures do not include MTO figures. They do
- not show losses to anti-aircraft fire, "other
- causes", or losses on the ground. These are
- strictly losses to enemy aircraft versus enemy
- aircraft destroyed in the air.

Interesting statistics. The loss figures for German aircraft would appear to far exceed my statistics, and German loss figures are generally considered accurate, but I wish both sets of stats were broken down into more detailed categories, since I'm just extrapolating from losses of German fighters. The 1943 numbers are especially interesting. It would appear that 3,414 (88%) of the enemy aircraft shot down in that year by the AAF were claimed by aircraft other than fighters. I suspect that the numbers for this year, and possibly the following year as well, are being significantly distorted because of bomber overclaiming. A lower overall ratio with the same fighter ratio would seem more reasonable and expected, since LW fighters from 43 on were largely tasked with engaging heavy bombers, not enemy fighters.

It would also be interesting to see the ratios of losses of aircraft crews also, as numbers of aircraft lost alone can be misleading (a four-engined bomber and 10 crew members is a much more significant loss than a single-engine fighter and 1 crew member).

--AKD

http://www.flyingpug.com/pugline2.jpg


Message Edited on 10/22/0305:11AM by A.K.Davis

XyZspineZyX
10-22-2003, 10:55 AM
Moelders words have been taken out of context by those happy and well served by doing so a few times of late.
Moelders actually had complimentary things to say about both the Spitfire1(and Hurricane too for that matter).His comment "pathetic"(I believe he said "miserable" btw - same difference /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif ) was directed at the neg G cutout of the Merlin carb and that the engine was always under or over revving with the two pitch prop.
The captured spitfire he tested at Rechlin in 1940 was not as effective as those he encountered in the BoB(100 octane fuel,constant speed props etc).And as said earlier he was shot down and wounded by sailor Malan on the 29th July 1940 when his Gruppe of 30 or so Bf109s were engaged by No74 squadron.His 109 was raked from spinner to rudder and he had to leave his unit at Wissant for a short period to recuperate from his injuries.

"Argh! I've been shot down by a miserable and pathetic fighter" LOL get real





http://www.airplane-world.addr.com/Corgi/aa30701.jpg


No601 County of London Squadron,Tangmere Pilots.
http://www.tangmerepilots-raf.co.uk

fluke39
10-22-2003, 10:56 AM
Huckebein wrote:

Only a clear pic with a pilot strapped in his seat, with bubble canopy closed, seen from behind looking backwards can prove your point.



tagert then wrote/posted:

http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/P51DView.jpg


Huckebein then wrote:

(nothing as yet.)



bubble canopy argument closed,
well done tagert -

if some of the attitude could have been left out that would have been an interesting and acceptable debate - shame about the rest of the thread./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif



<center><img src=http://mysite.freeserve.com/Angel_one_five/flukelogo.jpg>


Message Edited on 10/29/0308:52PM by Tully__

XyZspineZyX
10-22-2003, 11:06 AM
- Fw-190A3/4 were good by less performant than G2 in
- any characteristic. It scored only on versatility,
- ruggedness of the radial engine and airframe and
- roll rate.

/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

The Focke-Wulf was faster, accelerated much quicker, dove better and hand the better handling-characteristics. It's high-speed agility is much better then the Bf109's. Pilots considered the Fw much easier to fly and maintain.

The only aspects where the Messerschmitt was superrior to the Fw were:

climb
high-alt. performance
turn-raduis (which isn't a real advantage at all when flying B&Z like the germans did).


- Spitfire IX was a decent plane but not in '42, still
- probably the best choice for a competitor. But until
- boost was increased to 18lb it did not pose much of
- a threat. Keep in mind that SpitIX was significantly
- heavier than SpitV which took a serious beating in
- '42 from Fw-190.

The Spit IX had a max. alt of 43,000 ft.
Tell me any german fighter to reach that alt. by that time !
You can't, 'cause there was none /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif
The Spit was equal to the Fw190A-4 and slightly inferrior to the A-5 'till medium alts; above it's superrior.
The Messerschmitt couldn't compare to the Spit IX in alt. performance, dive, topspeed and handling.

- G2 is an easy choice among those.

Which counters the opinion of the pilots flying among the JG2 and JG26 during that time, which beleived the Fw to be much better than the Bf...

http://franz.lampl.bei.t-online.de/toryusig.jpg (http://www.virtual-jabog32.de)

http://franz.lampl.bei.t-online.de/toryusig2.jpg (http://www.jg68.de.vu)

When once you have tasted flight,
you will always walk the earth
with your eyes turned skyward;
to where you have been
and to where you always want to return.

XyZspineZyX
10-22-2003, 12:59 PM
Buzz_25th wrote:
- Bear,
-
- How about a responce to what I asked for?

Sorry Buzz...what was that something about the Spit I believe? Sorry if I got it wrong I just dont want to wade through that mess again.........

http://www.deltaweb.co.uk/spitfire/


<CENTER>http://www.world-wide-net.com/tuskegeeairmen/ta-1943.jpg <marquee><FONT COLOR="RED"><FONT SIZE="+1">"Straighten up.......Fly right..~S~"<FONT SIZE> </marquee> http://www.geocities.com/rt_bearcat

<CENTER><FONT COLOR="ORANGE">vflyer@comcast.net<FONT COLOR>
<Center><div style="width:200;color:red;font-size:18pt;filter:shadow Blur[color=red,strength=8)">99th Pursuit Squadron

XyZspineZyX
10-22-2003, 01:36 PM
Where have Issy and Huckie disappeared to?

No comment on tagert's pic. Now why would that be?/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/P51DView.jpg




http://www.thundercycle.com/photos/dropdead2.gif



"Only a dead 'chamber pot' is a good 'chamber pot'!"

XyZspineZyX
10-22-2003, 02:33 PM
MiloMorai wrote:
- Where have Issy and Huckie disappeared to?
-
- No comment on tagert's pic. Now why would that
- be?

That might be because some people here have jobs? Have you thought about that? No? I'm not surprised Milo.

tagert picture proves my point entirely, even with the pilot obviously not strapped into the seat, with the right shoulder leaned so much forward that his head almost touches the gunsight. Even in this position, impossible in fight, pilot has the same visibility to the back like in any other type of canopy, visibility to the rear is still obstructed by the armor plate. He cannot squeeze his head between canopy glass and armor plate to see to his rear, like some of you thought he can (lrrp). He is restricted to a simple lean forward to better the angle of visibility to the rear.

Now Milo with your vast drafting experience, why don't you draw some visibility lines on that pic. You have plenty of lines to follow, like the edge of equipment compartment, behind the seat, the shoulders line, the chin direction, the seat belts lines compares with the edges of the armored plate and the head of the pilot, so on.

I'll do that tomorrow, today I have no time.


<center> http://www.stormbirds.com/images/discussion-main.jpg </center>

Message Edited on 10/22/0308:35AM by Huckebein_FW

XyZspineZyX
10-22-2003, 02:37 PM
SkyChimp wrote:
-
- VMF-214_HaVoK wrote:
-- P-51: 4,950 air kills 11:1 "kill ratio"
-- P-47: (FROM D DAY TO V-E DAY) 2,752 air kills 4.6:1
-- "kill ratio"
-
-
-
- You left out the P-38 in the ETO:
-
- 2,500 ata kills versus 1,750 losses to ALL CAUSES.


... and the F4-U Corsair: 11:1

/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif



<center>http://www.uploadit.org/files/170903-G55_Firma.jpg </center>

XyZspineZyX
10-22-2003, 03:00 PM
I agree with Huck about the Fb109 being the BEST because, more than any other fighter, the Fb109 was the best fighter in the hands of the Aces who should have been transferred to the advanced fighter pilot training schools thus did Messerschmitt, his Fb109, and It's Aces lose the WAR for Germany.

you gotta check *this* out.... /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

Hukiebein_FW::
-- Fb-109 is not the ww2 fighter I like the most. It's just
-- that it is the best dogfighter of ww2, easily proven by
-- the outstanding number of aces that flew until the end of war...

Note that Huck in his/her selfishness is ignoring the suffering of Germany's Newbie pilots at the diabolical hands of the late war Fb109 in frontline conditions, much as how the high scoring Luftwaffe Aces permitted the sacrifice of Germany's Newbie pilots during their Quest for Glory in an aircraft only suited for the Best of Aces.


Yough Bear, nothing wrong with posting old articles. Only the old timer FB Noobs have read everything since the Oleg created FB on the first day, and He saw that it was good.

XyZspineZyX
10-22-2003, 03:16 PM
SkyChimp wrote:
- Well, kill ratios are important. But certainly
- don't tell the whole story. Here's the story from
- the USAAF side in the ETO:
-
-
-
- USAAF aircraft (USAAF) losses to enemy aircraft
-------versus------
- Enemy Aircraft (EA) destroyed in the air:
-
- Year.................All Aircraft......Fighters
- .......................USAAF/EA........USAAF/EA
- ===============================================
- 1942 (Aug - Dec)........49/169...........10/7
- 1943 ..................877/3865.........161/451
- 1944..................2902/8050........1293/5602
- 1945...................446/1539.........227/1362
-
- Total................4,274/13,623.....1,691/7,422
- Ratio..................(1:3.89).........(1:4.39)
-
-
-
- These figures do not include MTO figures. They do
- not show losses to anti-aircraft fire, "other
- causes", or losses on the ground. These are
- strictly losses to enemy aircraft versus enemy
- aircraft destroyed in the air.


Very nice Skychimp. Now we know how much the USAAF overclaimed. Too bad that these figures only show much the Americans claimed for themselves, and not the real figure of enemy a/c lost. The Americans were nototirous for overclaiming their real achievments.

Why don`t you show a similiar figure for bombers, too ? American records show that even those invicible US bombers had a kill ratio of 3 to 1 vs. enemy fighters. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif



Vezérünk a Bátorság, K*sérµnk a Szerencse!
(Courage leads, Luck escorts us! - Historical motto of the 101st Puma Fighter Regiment)

Flight tests and other aviation performance data: http://www.pbase.com/isegrim

XyZspineZyX
10-22-2003, 03:21 PM
I wonder if German planes sucked that much, why did Allied aces such problems with them ?

Erich Hartmann 352 WWII Germany
Gerhard Barkhorn 301 WWII Germany
Guenther Rall 275 WWII Germany
Otto Kittel 267 WWII Germany
Walter Nowotny 258(2) WWII Germany
Wilhelm Batz 237 WWII Germany
Erich Rudorffer 222(12) WWII Germany
Heinrich Baer 220(16) WWII Germany
Hermann Graf 212 WWII Germany
Heinrich Ehrler 209(5, 220?) WWII Germany
Theodore Weissenburger 209(8, 252?) WWII Germany
Hans Philip 206 WWII Germany
Walter Schuck 206(8) WWII Germany
Anton Hafner 204 WWII Germany
Helmut Lipfert 203 WWII Germany
Walter Krupinski 197 WWII Germany
Anton Hackl 192 WWII Germany
Maximilian Stotz 189 WWII Germany
Joachim Brendel 189 WWII Germany
Joachim Kirschner 188 WWII Germany
Kurt Hans Friedrich Brandle 180 WWII Germany
Guenther Josten 178 WWII Germany
Johannes Steinhoff 176(6) WWII Germany
Ernst-Wilhelm Reinert 174 WWII Germany
Gunther Schack 174 WWII Germany
Heinz "Johnny" Schmidt 173 WWII Germany
Emil Lang 173 WWII Germany
Horst Adameit 166 WWII Germany
Wolf-Dietrich Wilke 162(161?) WWII Germany
Hans-Joachim Marseille 158 WWII Germany
Heinrich Sturm 158(157?) WWII Germany
Gerhard Thyben 157 WWII Germany
Hans Beiswenger 152 WWII Germany
Peter Duettmann 152 WWII Germany
Gordon Gollob 150 WWII Germany
Fritz Tegtmeier 146 WWII Germany
Albin Wolf 144(176?) WWII Germany
Kurt Tanzer 143 WWII Germany
Friedrich-Karl "Tutti" Mueller 140 WWII Germany
Karl Gratz 138 WWII Germany
Heinrich Setz 138 WWII Germany
Rudolf Trenkel 138 WWII Germany
Horst-Guenther von Fassong 137 WWII Germany
Herbert Ihlefeld 137(7 Spain) WWII Germany
Franz Schall 137(14) WWII Germany
Walter Wolfrum 137 WWII Germany
Adolf Dickfeld 136 WWII Germany
Otto Foennekold 136 WWII Germany
Karl-Heinz Weber 136 WWII Germany
Joachim Muencheberg 135 WWII Germany
Hans Waldmann 134(2) WWII Germany
Alfred Grislawski 133 WWII Germany
Walter Oesau 133(8 Spain) WWII Germany
Johannes Weise 133(208?) WWII Germany
Adolf Borchers 132 WWII Germany
Erwin Clausen 132 WWII Germany
Wilhelm Lemke 131 WWII Germany
Heinrich "Bazi" Sterr 130 WWII Germany
Franz Eisenach 129 WWII Germany
Walter Dahl 128 WWII Germany
Franz Doerr 128 WWII Germany
Friedrich Obleser 127 WWII Germany
Rudolf Rademacher 126(8) WWII Germany
Josef "Jupp" Zwernemann 126 WWII Germany
Gerhard Hoffman 125 WWII Germany
Dietrich Hrabak 125 WWII Germany
Wolf-Udo Ettel 124 WWII Germany
Wolfgang Tonne 122 WWII Germany
Heinz Marquardt 121 WWII Germany
Heinz-Wolfgang Schnaufer 121(night) WWII Germany
Robert Weiss 121 WWII Germany
Erich Leie 118 WWII Germany
Guenther Luetzow 113(5 Spain) WWII Germany
Reinhard Seiler 118(9 Spain) WWII Germany
Hans Beerenbrock 117 WWII Germany
Hans-Joachim Birkner 117(Hartmann) WWII Germany
Jakob Norz 117 WWII Germany
Heinz "Piepl" Wernicke 117 WWII Germany
August Lambert 116 WWII Germany
Werner Moelders 115(14 Spain) WWII Germany
Wilhelm Crinius 114 WWII Germany
Werner Schroer 114 WWII Germany
Hans Dammers 113 WWII Germany
Berthold Korts 113 WWII Germany
Kurt Buhlingen 112 WWII Germany
Helmut Lent 110(102 night) WWII Germany
Kurt Ubben 110 WWII Germany
Franz Woidich 110 WWII Germany
Emil Bitsch 108 WWII Germany
Hans "Assi" Hahn 108 WWII Germany
Bernard Vechtel 108 WWII Germany
Viktor Bauer 106 WWII Germany
Werner Lucas 106 WWII Germany
Adolf Galland 104(7) WWII Germany
Heinz Sachsenberg 104 WWII Germany
Hartmann Grasser 103 WWII Germany
Seigfried Freytag 102 WWII Germany
Friedrich Geisshardt 102 WWII Germany
Egon Mayer 102 WWII Germany
Max-Hellmuth Ostermann 102 WWII Germany
Josef Wurmheller 102 WWII Germany
Herbert Rollwage 102 WWII Germany
Rudolf Miethig 101 WWII Germany
Rudolf Mueller 101 WWII Germany
Josef "Pips" Priller 101 WWII Germany
Ulrich Wernitz 101 WWII Germany
Paul-Heinrich Daehne 100 WWII Germany
Heinrich Bartels 99 WWII Germany
Wolfgang Spaate 99(5,5?) WWII Germany




Vezérünk a Bátorság, K*sérµnk a Szerencse!
(Courage leads, Luck escorts us! - Historical motto of the 101st Puma Fighter Regiment)

Flight tests and other aviation performance data: http://www.pbase.com/isegrim

XyZspineZyX
10-22-2003, 03:21 PM
Leopold Steinbatz 99 WWII Germany
Horst Hannig 98 WWII Germany
Gustav Roedel 98 WWII Germany
Hans Schleef 98 WWII Germany
Helmut Mertens 97 WWII Germany
Dieter von Eichel-Streiber 96 WWII Germany
Heinrich Hoefmeier 96 WWII Germany
Franz Hrdlicka 96(45?) WWII Germany
Siegfried Lemke 96 WWII Germany
Hermann Schleinghege 96 WWII Germany
Leopold Muenster 95 WWII Germany
Rudolf Resch 95(1 Spain) WWII Germany
Siegfried Simsch 95 WWII Germany
Anton Doebele 94 WWII Germany
Heinrich Kloepper 94 WWII Germany
Edmund Rossmann 93 WWII Germany
Siegfried Schnell 93 WWII Germany
Helmut Bennemann 92 WWII Germany
Gerhard Loos 92 WWII Germany
Oskar Romm 92 WWII Germany
Anton Resch 91 WWII Germany
Ebberhard von Boremski 90 WWII Germany
Guenther Heeger 90 WWII Germany
Lothar Mai 90 WWII Germany
Georg Schentke 90 WWII Germany
Heinz Kemethmueller 89 WWII Germany
Josef Jennewein 86 WWII Germany
Anton Mader 86 WWII Germany
Freidrich Wachowiak 86(126?) WWII Germany
Ulrich Woehnert 86 WWII Germany
Gerhard Koeppen 85 WWII Germany
Heinz Ewald 85(Barkhorn) WWII Germany
Gerhard Koeppen 85 WWII Germany
Walter Zellot 85 WWII Germany
Peter Kalden 84 WWII Germany
Werner Quast 84 WWII Germany
Heinrich Prinz zu Sayn-Wittgenstein 83(night) WWII Germany
Walter Ohlrogge 83 WWII Germany
Otto Wessling 83 WWII Germany
Hans Gruenberg 82(5) WWII Germany
Emil Darjes 82 WWII Germany
Hans Goetz 82 WWII Germany
Horst Hasse 82 WWII Germany
Helmut Missner 82 WWII Germany
Franz Beyer 81 WWII Germany
Hubertus von Bonin 81(4 Spain) WWII Germany
Hugo Broch 81 WWII Germany
Max-Hermann Luecke 81 WWII Germany
Willi Nemitz 81 WWII Germany
Wilhelm Philipp 81 WWII Germany
Rudolf Wagner 81 WWII Germany
Herbert Bachnick 80 WWII Germany
Wolfgang Ewald 79(1 Spain) WWII Germany
Otto Wuerfel 79 WWII Germany
Georg-Peter Eder 78(12) WWII Germany
Heinrich Krafft 78 WWII Germany
Karl-Gottfried Nordmann 78 WWII Germany
Josef Haiboeck 77 WWII Germany
Johannes-Hermann Meier 77 WWII Germany
Hans-Joachim Kroschinski 76 WWII Germany
Maximilian Mayerl 76 WWII Germany
Alexander Preinfalk 76 WWII Germany
Alfred Teumer 76 WWII Germany
Edwin Theil 76 WWII Germany
Johannes Bunzek 75 WWII Germany
Helmut Grollmus 75 WWII Germany
Karl Neumann 75 WWII Germany
Johannes Pilcher 75 WWII Germany
Hans Roehrig 75 WWII Germany
Joachim Wandel 75 WWII Germany
Gustav Fielinghaus 74 WWII Germany
Otto Gaiser 74 WWII Germany
Friedrich Haas 74 WWII Germany
Anton Lindner 73 WWII Germany
Gerhard Michalski 73 WWII Germany
Otto Schultz 73 WWII Germany
Adolf Glunz 72(71?) WWII Germany
Wilhelm Herget 72(57 night) WWII Germany
Klaus Mietusch 72 WWII Germany
Wilhelm Mink 72 WWII Germany
Karl-Heinz Schnell 72 WWII Germany
Hans Fuss 71 WWII Germany
Alfred Heckmann 71 WWII Germany
Wilhelm Herget 71(57 night) WWII Germany
Guenther Scheel 71 WWII Germany
Hans-Heinrich Doebrich 70 WWII Germany
Heinz Gossow 70 WWII Germany
Karl Hoffmann 70 WWII Germany
Hermann-Friedrick Joppien 70 WWII Germany
Herbert Lange 70 WWII Germany
Rudolf Linz 70 WWII Germany
Emil Omert 70 WWII Germany
Rudolf Richter 70 WWII Germany
Helmut Rueffler 70 WWII Germany
Ernst Suss 70 WWII Germany




Vezérünk a Bátorság, K*sérµnk a Szerencse!
(Courage leads, Luck escorts us! - Historical motto of the 101st Puma Fighter Regiment)

Flight tests and other aviation performance data: http://www.pbase.com/isegrim

XyZspineZyX
10-22-2003, 03:22 PM
Armin Koehler 69 WWII Germany
Ernst Weissmann 69 WWII Germany
Eugen-Ludwig Zweigart 69 WWII Germany
Kurt Dombacher 68 WWII Germany
Walter Hoeckner 68 WWII Germany
Herbert Huppertz 68(76?) WWII Germany
Heinrich Jung 68 WWII Germany
Herbert Kaiser 68 WWII Germany
Richard Lepple 68 WWII Germany
Fritz Losigkeit 68 WWII Germany
Guenther von Maltzahn 68 WWII Germany
Hans Streloew 68 WWII Germany
Otto Tange 68 WWII Germany
Gustav Denk 67 WWII Germany
Fritz Dinger 67 WWII Germany
Herbert Findeisen 67 WWII Germany
Karl Fuchs 67 WWII Germany
Erbo Graf von Kageneck 67 WWII Germany
Franz Sche*ss 67 WWII Germany
Franz Schwaiger 67 WWII Germany
Hubert Strassl 67 WWII Germany
Erwin Fleig 66(Moelders) WWII Germany
Reinhold Hoffmann 66 WWII Germany
Werner Streib 66(night) WWII Germany
Franz Czech 65 WWII Germany
Heinrich Fuellgrabe 65 WWII Germany
Berthold Grassmuck 65 WWII Germany
Karl-Heinz Kempf 65 WWII Germany
Manfred Meurer 65(night) WWII Germany
Guenther Radusch 65(63 night, 1 Spain) WWII Germany
Waldemar Semelka 65 WWII Germany
Bernd Gallowitsch 64 WWII Germany
Juergen Harder 64 WWII Germany
Rolf Hermichen 64 WWII Germany
Walter Lindner 64 WWII Germany
Viktor Petermann 64 WWII Germany
Heinz Roekker 64(63 night) WWII Germany
Franz Ruhl 64 WWII Germany
Rudolf Schoenert 64(night) WWII Germany
Walter Borchers 63 WWII Germany
Franz Goetz 63 WWII Germany
Karl Hammerl 63 WWII Germany
Heinrich Hoffmann 63 WWII Germany
Gerhard Homuth 63 WWII Germany
Hermann Staiger 63 WWII Germany
Wilhelm Hubner 62 WWII Germany
Helmut Neumann 62 WWII Germany
Hannes Trautloft 61(4 Spain) WWII Germany
Hans-Ekkehard Bob 60(59?) WWII Germany
Gerhard Beutin 60 WWII Germany
Werner Streib 60 WWII Germany
Horst Carganico 60 WWII Germany
Kurt Kelter 60 WWII Germany
August Mors 60 WWII Germany
Karl "Fox" Munz 60 WWII Germany
Alfred Rauch 60 WWII Germany
Kurt Tangermann 60 WWII Germany
Kurt Welter 60 WWII Germany
Walter Wever 60 WWII Germany
Franz Eckerle 59 WWII Germany
Alfred Franke 59 WWII Germany
Georg Michalek 59 WWII Germany
Hans Stahlschmidt 59 WWII Germany
Karl Steffen 59 WWII Germany
Paul Zorner 59(night) WWII Germany
Hermann Buchner 58(12) WWII Germany
Lutz-Wilhelm Burckhardt 58 WWII Germany
Siegfried Engfer 58 WWII Germany
Wilhelm Freuworth 58 WWII Germany
Herbert Friebel 58 WWII Germany
Hans-Joachim Langer 58 WWII Germany
Gerhard Raht 58(night) WWII Germany
Heinz-Wilhelm Ahnert 57 WWII Germany
Mertin Becker 57(night) WWII Germany
Walter Brandt 57 WWII Germany
Herbert Broennle 57 WWII Germany
Hugo Dahmer 57 WWII Germany
Heinrich Dittlmann 57 WWII Germany
Kurt Ebener 57 WWII Germany
Adolf Kalkum 57 WWII Germany
Johannes Seifurt 57 WWII Germany
Edmund Wagner 57 WWII Germany
Hermann Wolf 57 WWII Germany
Herbert Bareuter 56 WWII Germany
Helmut-Felix Bolz 56 WWII Germany
Alfred Burk 56 WWII Germany
Manfred Eberwein 56 WWII Germany
Gustav Fransci 56(night) WWII Germany
Heinrich Hackler 56 WWII Germany
Isken Herrmann 56 WWII Germany
Helmut Holtz 56 WWII Germany
Eduard Isken 56 WWII Germany
Josef Kraft 56(night) WWII Germany
Helmut Schoenfelder 56 WWII Germany
Guenther Seeger 56 WWII Germany
Heinz Struening 56(night) WWII Germany
Helmut Wick 56 WWII Germany
Hans-Deiter Frank 55(night) WWII Germany
Wilhelm-Ferdinand Galland 55 WWII Germany
Erich Hohagen 55 WWII Germany
Gabriel Tautscher 55 WWII Germany
Johann Badum 54 WWII Germany
Wilhelm Balthasar 54(7 Spain) WWII Germany
Karl-Heinz Bendert 54 WWII Germany
Wilhelm Hauswirth 54 WWII Germany
Kurt Knappe 54 WWII Germany
Heinz Leber 54 WWII Germany
Herbert Puschmann 54 WWII Germany
Heinz Vinke 54(night) WWII Germany
Franz-K Barten 53 WWII Germany
Heinz-Edgar Berres 53 WWII Germany
Albert Brunner 53 WWII Germany
August Geiger 53(night) WWII Germany
Hans-Joachim Heyer 53 WWII Germany
Herbert Luetje 53(51 night) WWII Germany
Julius Meimberg 53 WWII Germany
Friedrich Rupp 53 WWII Germany
Karl Sattig 53 WWII Germany
Heine Cordes 52 WWII Germany
Martin Drewes 52(43 night) WWII Germany
Hans Ehlers 52 WWII Germany
Alfred Gross 52 WWII Germany
Willi Kientsch 52 WWII Germany
Ludwig Hafner 52 WWII Germany
Werner Hoffmann 52(night) WWII Germany
Rudolf Pflanz 52 WWII Germany
Heinrich Wefers 52 WWII Germany
Egmont Prinz zu Lippe-Weissenfeld 51(night) WWII Germany
Rudolf Schmidt 51 WWII Germany
Otto Schultz 51 WWII Germany
Walter Duellberg 50 WWII Germany
Hermann Greiner 50(46 night) WWII Germany
Hans-Joachim Jabs 50 WWII Germany
Emil Knittel 50 WWII Germany
Frank Lisendahl 50 WWII Germany
Fritz Lueddecke 50 WWII Germany
Wilhelm Schilling 50 WWII Germany
Fritz Schroeter 50 WWII Germany
Kurt Welter 50(night) WWII Germany
Karl Willius 50 WWII Germany
Rudolf Ehrenberger 49 WWII Germany
Reinhard Kollack 49(night) WWII Germany
Klaus Quaet-Faslem 49 WWII Germany
Fredrich Beckh 48 WWII Germany
Paul Gildner 48(44 night) WWII Germany
Johannes Hager 48(47 night) WWII Germany
??? Reiff 48 WWII German




Vezérünk a Bátorság, K*sérµnk a Szerencse!
(Courage leads, Luck escorts us! - Historical motto of the 101st Puma Fighter Regiment)

Flight tests and other aviation performance data: http://www.pbase.com/isegrim

XyZspineZyX
10-22-2003, 03:22 PM
Peter Seigler 48 WWII Germany
Heinz-Gerhard Vogt 48 WWII Germany
Oskar Zimmermann 48 WWII Germany
Heinz Golinski 47 WWII Germany
Guenther Hannack 47 WWII Germany
Eckhard Hubner 47 WWII Germany
Fritz Karch 47 WWII Germany
Herbert Kutscha 47 WWII Germany
Guenther Ruebell 47 WWII Germany
Erich Schmidt 47 WWII Germany
Werner Stumpf 47 WWII Germany
Hans-Hermann Augenstein 46(night) WWII Germany
Ludwig Becker 46(night) WWII Germany
Wolfgang Boewing-Trueding 46 WWII Germany
Guenther Fink 46 WWII Germany
Rudiger Kirchmayr 46 WWII Germany
Erwin Laskowski 46 WWII Germany
Hans-Karl Mayer 46(8 Spain) WWII Germany
Guenther Rammelt 46 WWII Germany
Karl "Quax" Schnoerrer 46 WWII Germany
Franz Schulte 46 WWII Germany
Paul Semrau 46(night) WWII Germany
Alfred Surau 46 WWII Germany
Ernst Borngen 45 WWII Germany
Ernst Druenkler 45 WWII Germany
Juergen Brocke 45 WWII Germany
Rudolf Frank 45(night) WWII Germany
Ernst-Erich Hirschfeld 45 WWII Germany
??? Kuken 45 WWII Germany
Lothar May (Mai?) 45(90?) WWII Germany
Karl-Wolfgang Redlich 45(2 Spain) WWII Germany
Gerhard Schopfel 45 WWII Germany
??? Frese 44 WWII Germany
Juergen Hoerschelmann 44 WWII Germany
Wilhelm Hofmann 44 WWII Germany
Reinhold Knacke 44 WWII Germany
Heinz Knoke 44(52?) WWII Germany
Walter Matoni 44 WWII Germany
Wilhelm Moritz 44 WWII Germany
Richard Quante 44 WWII Germany
Wilhelm Steinmann 44 WWII Germany
Otto Vinzent 44 WWII Germany
Karl Boris 43 WWII Germany
Ludwig Franzisket 43 WWII Germany
Kurt Goltzsch 43 WWII Germany
Alois Lechner 43 WWII Germany
Hubert Muetherich 43 WWII Germany
Josef "Josi" Pohs 43 WWII Germany
Paul Stolte 43 WWII Germany
Rudolf Klemm 42 WWII Germany
Emil Reinhard 42 WWII Germany
Herbert Schramm 42 WWII Germany
Werner Baake 41(night) WWII Germany
Heinz Bretnuetz 39(2 Spain) WWII Germany
Leopold Fellerer 41(39 night) WWII Germany
Ludwig Meister 41(night) WWII Germany
Robert Olejnik 41 WWII Germany
Johannes Schmidt 41 WWII Germany
Gerhard Schneider 41 WWII Germany
Heinz Arnold 40 WWII Germany
Karl Boehm-Fettelbach 40 WWII Germany
Peter Bremer 40 WWII Germany
Klaus Bretschneider 40(14 night) WWII Germany
Wolf-Dietrich Huy 40 WWII Germany
Wolfgang Neuhoff 40 WWII Germany
Gerhard Schoepfel 40 WWII Germany
Georg Seckel 40 WWII Germany
Guenther Steinhausen 40 WWII Germany
Eckart-Wilhelm von Bonin 39 WWII Germany
Alfons Klein 39 WWII Germany
Kurt Lasse 39 WWII Germany
Bernhard Lausch 39 WWII Germany
Dietrich Schmidt 39 WWII Germany
Georg Seelmann 39 WWII Germany
Rudolf Sinner 39 WWII Germany
Fritz Stendel 39 WWII Germany
Hans Dortenmann 38 WWII Germany
Pepi Gabl 38 WWII Germany
Walter Loos 38 WWII Germany
Stefan Litjens 38 WWII Germany
Theodore Osterkamp 38(32 WWI) WWII Germany
Detler Rohwer 38 WWII Germany
Erwin Sawallisch 38 WWII Germany
Wolfgang Schellmann 38(12 Spain) WWII Germany
Kurt Sochatzky 38 WWII Germany
Guenther Bahr 37(36 night) WWII Germany
Gerhard Koall 37 WWII Germany
Karl-Heinz Leesmann 37 WWII Germany
Klaus Neumann 37(5) WWII Germany
Wolfgang Traft 37 WWII Germany
Wilhelm Beier 36(night) WWII Germany
Helmut Belser 36 WWII Germany
Helmut Bergmann 36 WWII Germany
Walter Ehle 36(33 night) WWII Germany
Georg Keil 36 WWII Germany
Friedrich Koerner 36 WWII Germany
Elias Kuehlein 36 WWII Germany
Waldemar Radener 36 WWII Germany
Herbert Wehnelt 36 WWII Germany
Hans Weik 36 WWII Germany
Fuelbert Zink 36 WWII Germany
Guenther Bertram 35 WWII Germany
Graf Heinrich von Einsiedel 35 WWII Germany
August Luy 35 WWII Germany
??? Meltzer 35 WWII Germany
Bruno Stolle 35 WWII Germany
Paul Brandt 34 WWII Germany
Hans von Hahn 34 WWII Germany
Heinz-Horst Hissbach 34 WWII Germany
Wilhelm Johnen 34 WWII Germany
Karl Kennel 34 WWII Germany
Johannes Naumann 34 WWII Germany
Karl-Heinz Plucker 34 WWII Germany




Vezérünk a Bátorság, K*sérµnk a Szerencse!
(Courage leads, Luck escorts us! - Historical motto of the 101st Puma Fighter Regiment)

Flight tests and other aviation performance data: http://www.pbase.com/isegrim

XyZspineZyX
10-22-2003, 03:23 PM
Herbert Schob 34(6 Spain) WWII Germany
Walter Stengel 34 WWII Germany
Horst Tietzen 34(7 Spain) WWII Germany
Helmut Wettstein 34 WWII Germany
Heinz Beyer 33 WWII Germany
Heinz-Martin Hadeball 33(night) WWII Germany
Harro Harder 33(11 Spain) WWII Germany
Josef Kociok 33(21 night) WWII Germany
Erwin Leykauf 33 WWII Germany
Wolfgang Lippert 33(4 Spain) WWII Germany
Ernst-Wilhelm Modrow 33(night) WWII Germany
Waldemar Soffing 33 WWII Germany
Hans Stechmann 33 WWII Germany
??? Ulbrich 33 WWII Germany
Ferdinand Vogel 33 WWII Germany
Hugo Frey 32 WWII Germany
Rudolf Glockner 32 WWII Germany
Joachim Hacker 32 WWII Germany
Werner Husemann 32 WWII Germany
Werner Machold 32 WWII Germany
Guenther Specht 32 WWII Germany
Gerhard Weigand 32 WWII Germany
Martin "Tino" Becker 31(night) WWII Germany
Peter Crump 31 WWII Germany
Carl von Lieres 31 WWII Germany
Hubert Rauh 31(night) WWII Germany
Karl-Heinz Scherfling 31(night) WWII Germany
Hermann Seegatz 31 WWII Germany
Hermann Segatz(?) 31 WWII Germany
Gustav Sprick 31 WWII Germany
Erich Bartz 30 WWII Germany
Max Bucholz 30 WWII Germany
Gerhard Friedrich 30 WWII Germany
Josef Foezoe 30(3 Spain) WWII Germany
??? Furch 30 WWII Germany
Werner Gerth 30 WWII Germany
??? Hamer 30 WWII Germany
Friedrich Heimann 30 WWII Germany
Karl-Heinz Langer 30(68?) WWII Germany
Friedrich "Nose" Mueller 30(night) WWII Germany
Hans Mueller 30(night) WWII Germany
Rudolf Pingel 30(4 Spain) WWII Germany
Emil Pusch 30(night) WWII Germany
Walter Adolph 29(1 Spain) WWII Germany
Otto Bertram 29(8 Spain) WWII Germany
Franz Blazytko 29 WWII Germany
??? Leiste 29 WWII Germany
Paul Szameitat 29 WWII Germany
Heinrich Wohlers 29 WWII Germany
Ernst Andres 28 WWII Germany
Anton Benning 28 WWII Germany
Hans-Joachim Heinecke 28 WWII Germany
Hans Krause 28(night) WWII Germany
Fritz Lau 28(night) WWII Germany
Lothar Linke 28(25 night) WWII Germany
August Luebking 28 WWII Germany
Helmut Pfueller 28 WWII Germany
Willi Reschke 28 WWII Germany
Rudolf Sigmund 28(26 night) WWII Germany
Franz Stigler 28 WWII Germany
Hermann Wischniewski 28 WWII Germany
Guenther Bleckmann 27 WWII Germany
Emil Claude 27 WWII Germany
Kurt Ebersberger 27 WWII Germany
Heinz Grimm 27(26 night) WWII Germany
Fritz Gromotka 27 WWII Germany
Anton Hoerwick 27 WWII Germany
Hans Kolbow 27 WWII Germany
Wilhelm Mayer 27 WWII Germany
Horst Petzchler 27 WWII Germany
Otto Russ 27 WWII Germany
Werner Thierfelder 27 WWII Germany
Friedrich Dahn 26 WWII Germany
Hans Knauth 26 WWII Germany
Anton-Rudolf Piffer 26 WWII Germany
Dietrich Putzkuhl 26(night) WWII Germany
Hans Remmer 26 WWII Germany
Willi Reschke 26 WWII Germany
Peter Werfft 26 WWII Germany
Franz-Josef Zoufahl 26 WWII Germany
Egon Albrecht 25 WWII Germany
??? Bellof 25 WWII Germany
Walter Engel 25 WWII Germany
??? Flogel 25 WWII Germany
August Kayser 25 WWII Germany
Alfons Koester 25(29?, night) WWII Germany
Alfred Kuhn 25(night) WWII Germany
Fritz Liebelt 25 WWII Germany
Arnold Lignitz 25 WWII Germany
Helmut Merkel 25(50?) WWII Germany
Emil Schact 25 WWII Germany
Helmut Schulte 25(night) WWII Germany
Karl Stadek 25 WWII Germany
Guenther Stedtfeld 25 WWII Germany
Eckehard Tichy 25 WWII Germany
Horst Walter 25 WWII Germany
Karl Wuensch 25 WWII Germany
Rudi Zwesken 25 WWII Germany
Emil Babenz 24 WWII Germany
Harry von Bulow-Bothcamp 24(6 WWI) WWII Germany
Helmut Dahms 24 WWII Germany
Helmut Hoppe 24 WWII Germany
Karl Hulshoff 24 WWII Germany
Hannes Keller 24 WWII Germany
Hans-Heinrich Koenig 24 WWII Germany
Florian Salwender 24 WWII Germany
Klaus Scheer 24 WWII Germany
Wolfgang Thimmig 24 WWII Germany
Arnold Doering 23 WWII Germany
Horst Patuschka 23(night) WWII Germany
Hans Pragen 23 WWII Germany
August Schneider 23 WWII Germany
Leo Schumacher 23 WWII Germany
Horst Sternberg 23 WWII Germany
Helmut Viedebantt 23 WWII Germany
Artur Beese 22 WWII Germany
Heinz Busse 22 WWII Germany
Rudolf Dassow 22 WWII Germany
Reinhold Eckardt 22 WWII Germany
??? Fuchs 22 WWII Germany
Herbert Kroh 22 WWII Germany
Otto Mayer 22 WWII Germany
Robert Menge 22(4 Spain) WWII Germany
Erhard Peters 22 WWII Germany
Rolf-Peter Pringle 22 WWII Germany
Hans Richter 22 WWII Germany
Guenter Scholz 22 WWII Germany
??? Simon 22 WWII Germany
Hans-Joachim Steffens 22 WWII Germany
Willi Unger 22 WWII Germany
Hans-Juergen Westphal 22 WWII Germany
Rolf Kaldrack 21 WWII Germany
Horst Reuter 21 WWII Germany
Johannes Schalk 21 WWII Germany
Robert Spreckles 21 WWII Germany
Heinrich Steis 21 WWII Germany
Franz von Werra 21 WWII Germany
Maximilian Winkler 21 WWII Germany
Robert Wolf 21 WWII Germany
David Wollmann 21 WWII Germany
Rudolf Artner 20 WWII Germany
Paul Becker 20 WWII Germany
??? Busch 20 WWII Germany
Erich Gerlitz 20 WWII Germany
Hans Hahn 20 WWII Germany
Gotthard Handrick 20 WWII Germany
Werner Haugk 20 WWII Germany
Guenther Heckmann 20 WWII Germany
Harald Jung 20 WWII Germany
Lothar Keller 20 WWII Germany
Johannes Kiel 20 WWII Germany
Georg Munderloh 20 WWII Germany
Willi Roth 20 WWII Germany
Gerhard Schaschke 20 WWII Germany
Paul Schauder 20 WWII Germany
Erich Scheyda 20 WWII Germany
Walter Schneider 20 WWII Germany
Gerhard Schwartz 20 WWII Germany
??? Seidel 20 WWII Germany
Gerhard Sommer 20 WWII Germany
Wilhelm Spiess 20 WWII Germany
Hans Tetzner 20 WWII Germany
Hans Udet 20 WWII Germany
Georg Christl 19 WWII Germany
Hans Dipple 19 WWII Germany
Karl-Heinz Krahl 19 WWII Germany
Peter Reischer 19 WWII Germany
Winifried Schmidt 19 WWII Germany
Hermann Sommer 19 WWII Germany
Fritz Stritzel 19 WWII Germany
Oscar Boesch 18 WWII Germany
??? Brewes 18 WWII Germany
Rudi Dueding 18 WWII Germany
Heinz Ebeling 18 WWII Germany
Hannes Gentzen 18 WWII Germany
Guenther Gerhard 18 WWII Germany
Hermann Grabmann 18(6 Spain) WWII Germany
Erich Groth 18 WWII Germany
Helmut Haugk 18 WWII Germany
Kurt Holler 18 WWII Germany
Kurt Matzak 18 WWII Germany
Eduard Meyer 18 WWII Germany
Walter Meyer 18 WWII Germany
Josef Nabrich 18(17 night) WWII Germany
Hans Peterburs 18 WWII Germany
Wolfgang Schenk 18 WWII Germany
Ernst Scheufele 18 WWII Germany
Heinz Schumann 18 WWII Germany
Friedrich-Wilhelm Stakejahn 18 WWII Germany
Alfred Wehmeyer 18 WWII Germany
Dietrich Weinitschke 18 WWII Germany
Joachim Blechschmidt 17 WWII Germany
Paul Galland 17 WWII Germany
Peter Jenne 17 WWII Germany
Theodore Rossiwall 17 WWII Germany
Wolfgang Schneeweis 17(night) WWII Germany
Horst Ulenberg 17 WWII Germany
Arthur Beth 16 WWII Germany
Erich Demuth 16 WWII Germany
Heinrich Dreisbach 16 WWII Germany
Georg Fengler 16 WWII Germany
Wutz Galland 16 WWII Germany
Hans-D Hartwein 16 WWII Germany
Rudolf Huebl 16 WWII Germany
Heinz Mahikuch 16 WWII Germany
Conny Meyer 16 WWII Germany
Erich Mix 16(3 WWI) WWII Germany
Karl Wenschelmeyer 16 WWII Germany
??? Conter 15 WWII Germany
Ulrich Diesing 15 WWII Germany
Hermann Guhl 15 WWII Germany




Vezérünk a Bátorság, K*sérµnk a Szerencse!
(Courage leads, Luck escorts us! - Historical motto of the 101st Puma Fighter Regiment)

Flight tests and other aviation performance data: http://www.pbase.com/isegrim

XyZspineZyX
10-22-2003, 03:25 PM
Richard Heller 15 WWII Germany
Josef Kunz 15 WWII Germany
Fritz Sengschmidt 15 WWII Germany
Guenther Tonne 15(20?) WWII Germany
Waldemar Wuebke 15 WWII Germany
Sophuu Baagoe 14 WWII Germany
Heinz Birk 14 WWII Germany
Walter Blume 14 WWII Germany
Felix-M Brandis 14 WWII Germany
Wendelin Bruekel 14 WWII Germany
Albert Espenlaub 14 WWII Germany
Wilhelm Gath 14 WWII Germany
Georg "Schorsch" Kraft 14 WWII Germany
Hans Witzel 14 WWII Germany
Hermann Foerster 13 WWII Germany
Werner Gayko 13 WWII Germany
Werner Gerhard 13 WWII Germany
Heinz Halstrick 13 WWII Germany
Emil Kaiser 13 WWII Germany
Guenther Kelch 13 WWII Germany
Harry Koch 13 WWII Germany
Willi Kothmann 13 WWII Germany
Eduard Neumann 13 WWII Germany
Joachim Schlichting 13(5 Spain) WWII Germany
Johann Aistleitner 12 WWII Germany
Xaver Ellenrieder 12 WWII Germany
Gerhard Gleuwitz 12 WWII Germany
Heinz Gomann 12 WWII Germany
Erich Javer 12 WWII Germany
Gerhard Kepler 12 WWII Germany
Eduard Koslowski 12 WWII Germany
Erich Krainik 12 WWII Germany
Franz Kunz 12 WWII Germany
Johannes Lutter 12 WWII Germany
Ernst Maak 12 WWII Germany
Karl-Heinrich Matern 12 WWII Germany
Erhardt Meek 12 WWII Germany
Heinz Nacke 12 WWII Germany
Wolfgang Neu 12 WWII Germany
Hans niederhoefer 12 WWII Germany
Heinrich Rosenberg 12 WWII Germany
Wolfgang Rost 12 WWII Germany
Ludwig Scharf 12 WWII Germany
Johannes Schmidt 12 WWII Germany
Erich Schoefbock 12 WWII Germany
Franz Weinhausen 12 WWII Germany
Peter Ahrens 11 WWII Germany
Walter Fieser 11 WWII Germany
Joachim Guenther 11 WWII Germany
Wilhelm Hachfeld 11 WWII Germany
??? Hartl 11 WWII Germany
Engelbert Heiner 11 WWII Germany
Freidrich Hoffman 11 WWII Germany
Georg Kiefner 11 WWII Germany
Wolfgang Kosse 11 WWII Germany
Herbert Krenz 11 WWII Germany
Erwin Leibold 11 WWII Germany
Siegfried Ney 11 WWII Germany
Guenther Reubell 11 WWII Germany
August Schneider 11 WWII Germany
Erich Schwarz 11 WWII Germany
Waldemar Teige 11(9 night) WWII Germany
Hans Vollett 11 WWII Germany
Joseph Buerschgens 10 WWII Germany
Hans Berschwinger 10 WWII Germany
Guenther Bloemertz 10 WWII Germany
Josef Burschgens 10 WWII Germany
August Fischer 10 WWII Germany
Heinz de Fries 10 WWII Germany
Eugen von Geinanth 10 WWII Germany
Viktor Gruber 10 WWII Germany
Gerhard Guttmann 10 WWII Germany
Ludwig Hartmann 10 WWII Germany
Alfred Jacobi 10 WWII Germany
Eberhard Kaross 10 WWII Germany
Ernst Klager 10 WWII Germany
Hans Klein 10 WWII Germany
Wilhelm Mueller 10 WWII Germany
Karl Pfeiffer 10 WWII Germany
Werner Schumacher 10 WWII Germany
Guenther Schwanecke 10 WWII Germany
Alfred Seidel 10 WWII Germany
Hans Stolinberger 10 WWII Germany
Karl Strohecker 10 WWII Germany
Franz Stuckler 10 WWII Germany
Robert Unzeitig 10 WWII Germany
Siegfried Wandam 10 WWII Germany
Emil Woltersdorf 10 WWII Germany
Bruno Buzzi 9 WWII Germany
Ernst Christof 9 WWII Germany
Edgar Doerre 9 WWII Germany
Heinz Hanke 9 WWII Germany
Kurt Hermann 9 WWII Germany
Hajo Herrmann 9 WWII Germany
Kurt Jenisch 9 WWII Germany
??? Koch 9 WWII Germany
Heinz Krug 9 WWII Germany
Rudolf Leuschel 9 WWII Germany
Wilhelm Makrocki 9 WWII Germany
Arthur Mendl 9 WWII Germany
Horst Oberlander 9 WWII Germany
Hugo Schneider 9 WWII Germany
Gerhard Schulwitz 9 WWII Germany
Willi Szuggar 9 WWII Germany
??? Weneckers 9 WWII Germany
Heinfried Wiegand 9 WWII Germany
Alexander von Winterfelt 9(0 WWI) WWII Germany
Josef Zirngibl 9 WWII Germany
Lorenz Andreson 8(8) WWII Germany
??? Bahnsen 8 WWII Germany
Georg Beyer 8 WWII Germany
Heinrich Beirwirth 8 WWII Germany
Erwin Busch 8 WWII Germany
??? Buttner 8(8) WWII Germany
Wolfgang Falck 8(night) WWII Germany
Deiter Gerhard 8 WWII Germany
Alfred Heidl 8 WWII Germany
Kurt Hein 8 WWII Germany
Hermann Hoffmann 8 WWII Germany
Ernst Jackel 8 WWII Germany
Hans Johanssen 8 WWII Germany
Friedrich Lang 8 WWII Germany
Heinz Lennartz 8(8) WWII Germany
Heinrich Lesch 8 WWII Germany
Werner Methfessel 8 WWII Germany
Karl Metnich 8 WWII Germany
Rudolf Rademacher 8(8) WWII Germany
Ralph von Rettberg 8 WWII Germany
Martin Rysayy 8 WWII Germany
Karl-F Schlossstein 8 WWII Germany
Gottfried Schmidt 8 WWII Germany
Hans Schubert 8 WWII Germany
Otto Stammberger 8 WWII Germany
Guenther Wegman 8(8) WWII Germany
Theodore Weissenberger 8(8) WWII Germany
Heinz-Guenther Adam 7 WWII Germany
Hans-Joachim Bahr 7 WWII Germany
Erich Beulich 7 WWII Germany
Max Clerico 7 WWII Germany
Karl Ebbinghausen 7 WWII Germany
Helmut Eberspaecher 7 WWII Germany
Karl-Heinz Ehlen 7 WWII Germany
Guenther Eichhorn 7 WWII Germany
Walter Gruenlinger 7 WWII Germany
Gerhard Grzymalla 7 WWII Germany
Eberhard Henrici 7 WWII Germany
Walter Holl 7 WWII Germany
Walter Horten 7(Galland) WWII Germany
Werner Huebner 7 WWII Germany
Herbert Kaminski 7 WWII Germany
Karl Laub 7 WWII Germany
Theodore Lindemann 7 WWII Germany
Bruno Mischkot 7 WWII Germany
Rudolf Scheffel 7 WWII Germany
Otto Stammberger 7 WWII Germany
Joachim Zeller 7 WWII Germany
Peter Andel 6 WWII Germany
Sigfried Benz 6 WWII Germany
Josef Gartner 6 WWII Germany
Heinz Gottlob 6 WWII Germany
Hans Hartigs 6 WWII Germany
Bodo Helms 6 WWII Germany
Otto-Heinrich Hilleke 6 WWII Germany
??? Hoehn 6 WWII Germany
Heinrich Jessen 6 WWII Germany
Dietrich Kehl 6 WWII Germany
Rolf von Lillenhoff 6 WWII Germany
Friedrich Luedecke 6 WWII Germany
Rudolf Lueder 6 WWII Germany
Willi Makenstedt 6 WWII Germany
Fritz Mueller 6(6) WWII Germany
Bela Preisler 6 WWII Germany
Heinz Schmidt 6 WWII Germany
Heinrich Vandeweerd 6 WWII Germany
??? Baudach 5(5) WWII Germany
Kurt Bohn 5 WWII Germany
Paul Bohn 5 WWII Germany
Hans-Joachim Borreck 5 WWII Germany
Franz Bozicek 5 WWII Germany
Gottfried Dietze 5 WWII Germany
Hans Dirksen 5 WWII Germany
Johannes Edmann 5 WWII Germany
??? Eickhoff 5 WWII Germany
Franz Elles 5 WWII Germany
Hans-Joachim Fast 5 WWII Germany
Hans-Juergen Frolich 5 WWII Germany
Erich Fuhrmann 5 WWII Germany
Josef Grumm 5 WWII Germany
August Hachtel 5 WWII Germany
Hubert Heckman 5 WWII Germany
Horst Hennig 5 WWII Germany
??? Heim 5(5) WWII Germany
Heinrich Heuser 5 WWII Germany
Erich Klein 5 WWII Germany
Herbert Kowalski 5 WWII Germany
Gerhard Lang 5 WWII Germany
Friedrich Lindelaub 5 WWII Germany
Franz Leuders 5 WWII Germany
??? Lutzka 5 WWII Germany
Kurt Mueller 5 WWII Germany
Gerhard Mueller-Duhe 5 WWII Germany
Wolfgang Polster 5 WWII Germany
Emil Puttfargen 5 WWII Germany
Eckhard Roch 5 WWII Germany
??? Schrieber 5(5) WWII Germany
Paul-August Stolte 5 WWII Germany
Adolph Tabbat 5 WWII Germany



Vezérünk a Bátorság, K*sérµnk a Szerencse!
(Courage leads, Luck escorts us! - Historical motto of the 101st Puma Fighter Regiment)

Flight tests and other aviation performance data: http://www.pbase.com/isegrim

XyZspineZyX
10-22-2003, 03:26 PM
Well it's because they flew Fw190s /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Nic

XyZspineZyX
10-22-2003, 03:26 PM
Please pardon me for only posting here my shorter list. I have the complete one, it contains about 3 times as many names.



Vezérünk a Bátorság, K*sérµnk a Szerencse!
(Courage leads, Luck escorts us! - Historical motto of the 101st Puma Fighter Regiment)

Flight tests and other aviation performance data: http://www.pbase.com/isegrim

XyZspineZyX
10-22-2003, 03:26 PM
/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

Issy, shouldn't those Aces be posted to the advanced fighter training schools instead of here, at the ubi.com?

XyZspineZyX
10-22-2003, 03:33 PM
I dug up some more data.

A more complete list of German aces (containing about 2500+ names, but as far as I know, there are some 5000+ in total) shows :

62 118 confirmed kills by Luftwaffe fighter pilots.

The Luftwaffe`s own records on the other hand, show the loss of :

12 806 Luftwaffe daylight fighter lost to all forms of enemy action (AAA, air combat, fighters, bombers, destoryed on ground etc.) between Marc 1942 - December 1945.





Vezérünk a Bátorság, K*sérµnk a Szerencse!
(Courage leads, Luck escorts us! - Historical motto of the 101st Puma Fighter Regiment)

Flight tests and other aviation performance data: http://www.pbase.com/isegrim

XyZspineZyX
10-22-2003, 03:40 PM
This Russian performance graph shows the performance of the "obsolate" Bf 109 G-2 vs. other 1942 planes:

http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/109/fghterchart.jpg



This other chart complied for real life performance test show a late 109`s performance vs. other late Soviet, German and British aircraft :

http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/Tempest%20vs%20La7%20K4%20D9%20SPEED.jpg


Both seem to be well over 400 mph.


It`s seems Mr. Carson had little idea on the reality behind his statements.



Vezérünk a Bátorság, K*sérµnk a Szerencse!
(Courage leads, Luck escorts us! - Historical motto of the 101st Puma Fighter Regiment)

Flight tests and other aviation performance data: http://www.pbase.com/isegrim

XyZspineZyX
10-22-2003, 03:56 PM
Vo101_Isegrim wrote:
-
- -
- The Americans
- were nototirous for overclaiming their real
- achievments.
-
-

One should strive to be as fair as possible. Germans overclaimed as well. So did most others.

XyZspineZyX
10-22-2003, 03:59 PM
SkyChimp wrote:
-
- The Bf-109 was a GREAT plane versus P.11s, I-153s,
- I-16s, MiG-3s and their inexperienced and surprised
- Russian pilots. It was agisnt planes like this that
- most of the kills were achieved. But how did the
- plane fair against modern competition? I mean, just
- what was its kill ratio againbst the Mustang,
- Thunderbolt and Spitfire?



well, teh 109 wasn´t THE überplane (although the k was very good) but it was definetally able to fight against those aircraft. it did well against the spitfire in bob and north africa. (yeah i know, vogue filters but nevertheless). in most of the other situations the circumstances were very special. the g6 may have been the worst version but often they were equipped with gunpods or rockets to attack bombers. the numerical superiority which the allies often (not always) had is also a factor.
i or nobody can say which plane was the best of all (im starting to think this question is diumb anyway). the late 109s were still worthy opponents and i´d chose it over a p47 in a dogfight.

i wouldn´t say it was better than a mustang but the late versions were still dangerous.

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



http://homepage.ntlworld.com/paul.bryant3/ETSigGermany.gif




under 30k?

XyZspineZyX
10-22-2003, 04:02 PM
Huckebein_FW wrote:
- MiloMorai wrote:
-- Where have Issy and Huckie disappeared to?
--
-- No comment on tagert's pic. Now why would that
-- be?
-
- That might be because some people here have jobs?
- Have you thought about that? No? I'm not surprised
- Milo.
-
- tagert picture proves my point entirely, even with
- the pilot obviously not strapped into the seat, with
- the right shoulder leaned so much forward that his
- head almost touches the gunsight. Even in this
- position, impossible in fight, pilot has the same
- visibility to the back like in any other type of
- canopy, visibility to the rear is still obstructed
- by the armor plate. He cannot squeeze his head
- between canopy glass and armor plate to see to his
- rear, like some of you thought he can (lrrp). He is
- restricted to a simple lean forward to better the
- angle of visibility to the rear.
-
- Now Milo with your vast drafting experience, why
- don't you draw some visibility lines on that pic.
- You have plenty of lines to follow, like the edge of
- equipment compartment, behind the seat, the
- shoulders line, the chin direction, the seat belts
- lines compares with the edges of the armored plate
- and the head of the pilot, so on.



..... The only logical explanation for the above comment is that you cannot possibly be referring to the same photo which the rest of us are seeing. There is a surfeit of room in the cockpit to see past the head-rest. It is no coincidence that rear-view mirrors disappeared from P51's and Spitfires after the introduction of bubble canopies.


Blutarski

XyZspineZyX
10-22-2003, 04:14 PM
http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2003-9/379643/109K4right.jpg


http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2003-9/379643/109K4up.jpg


The 'blind spot' for the 109K pilot.


http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2003-9/379643/P-51_top.jpg


http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2003-9/379643/P-51_sid.jpg


Notice the small 'yellow' area behind the head armour. That is the area the P-51 pilot cannot see.



http://www.thundercycle.com/photos/dropdead2.gif



"Only a dead 'chamber pot' is a good 'chamber pot'!"

Message Edited on 10/22/03 02:56PM by MiloMorai

Message Edited on 10/22/0303:14PM by MiloMorai

XyZspineZyX
10-22-2003, 04:14 PM
Luftwaffe claims lists here:

http://tonywood.cjb.net/


Luftwaffe losses here:

http://www.butler98.freeserve.co.uk/thtrlosses.htm


You can make your own decisions about them. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif


-jippo

XyZspineZyX
10-22-2003, 04:16 PM
horseback wrote:
- I didn't say that the squadrons or groups were
- issued captured German fighters for familiarization;
- I said that senior pilots from each units were
- allowed access to the few flyable examples available
- before D-Day. There was a RAF unit dedicated to
- that purpose, and given the USAAF's tendency to copy
- whatever the Brits did that looked like a good idea,
- it seems likely.

One of the RAF units involved was No 1426 (Enemy Aircraft) Filght, more popularly known as the 'RAFWAFFE', formed initially under the auspices of the AFDU (Air Fighting Development Unit).

It toured both British and American bases, demonstrating its captured aircraft. My source notes that the Bf 109 and Fw 190 were understandably of great interest to American fighter and bomber pilots.

-------------------------------------
When the (German) rationalisation drive began it was found that the armed forces had greatly inflated the demand for raw materials by exaggerating the quantity needed for each unit of production. The large firms held substantial stocks of scarce materials, particularly aluminium, which had been allocated on the basis of 16,000 lb for each aircraft, regardless of the fact that a fighter consumed only a quarter of this quantity. Aircraft firms had so much ingot aluminium in store that they used it to produce non-essential goods - ladder, greenhouses, even mosquito nets.

Professor R.J. Overy, 'War and Economy in the Third Reich'

XyZspineZyX
10-22-2003, 04:17 PM
MiloMorai wrote:

- Notice the small 'yellow' area behind the head
- armour. That is the area the P-51 pilot cannot see.


Pretty funny drawings! /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

I hope you are not going to argue something with those. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif



-jippo

XyZspineZyX
10-22-2003, 04:24 PM
They serve the purpose jippo - showing the huge 'blind spot' of the 109 compared to the very small area of a 'bubble canopy' a/c.

If you want to spend the time doing more precise drawings, be my guest.



http://www.thundercycle.com/photos/dropdead2.gif



"Only a dead 'chamber pot' is a good 'chamber pot'!"

XyZspineZyX
10-22-2003, 04:29 PM
MiloMorai wrote:
- They serve the purpose jippo - showing the huge
- 'blind spot' of the 109 compared to the very small
- area of a 'bubble canopy' a/c.
-
- If you want to spend the time doing more precise
- drawings, be my guest.


No, no.

You guys do them. But when you make them, use same method for both. Now 109 visibility lines are drawn from the middle while in P-51 not. 109 show the shadow of lower fuselage, while P-51 not.


-jippo

XyZspineZyX
10-22-2003, 04:50 PM
Jippo01 wrote:

-
- You guys do them. But when you make them, use same
- method for both. Now 109 visibility lines are drawn
- from the middle while in P-51 not. 109 show the
- shadow of lower fuselage, while P-51 not.
-
-

Because the P-51 pilot could look around the head armour. The reduction in what the 109 pilot would see by moving his head to the left or right would be minimal. If one wanted to get really technical, the metal framing for the 'Galland' would also mask some vision to the rear./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

You want a side image of the P-51, here you go.

http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2003-9/379643/P-51_sid.jpg




http://www.thundercycle.com/photos/dropdead2.gif



"Only a dead 'chamber pot' is a good 'chamber pot'!"

XyZspineZyX
10-22-2003, 05:00 PM
SkyChimp wrote:

- The Bf-109 was a GREAT plane versus P.11s, I-153s,
- I-16s, MiG-3s and their inexperienced and surprised
- Russian pilots. It was agisnt planes like this that
- most of the kills were achieved. But how did the
- plane fair against modern competition? I mean, just
- what was its kill ratio againbst the Mustang,
- Thunderbolt and Spitfire?

A bit late, but this thread should give you a little insight to this question when comparing the 109F and MkV Spitfire, which I assume you'll accept as being modern according to this list.

http://forums.ubi.com/messages/message_view-topic.asp?name=us_il2sturmovik_gd&id=yxdxc&tpage=2

Ruy "SPADES" Horta
http://www.xs4all.nl/~rhorta
-----------------------------
Il-2 - VEF JG 77
-----------------------------
'95-02 - WB Jagdgeschwader 53
'99-00 - DoA Jagdstaffel 18
-----------------------------
The rest is history...

http:\\www.xs4all.nl\~rhorta\brother.jpg

adlabs6
10-22-2003, 05:08 PM
I fail to understand the reason that this topic persists. Can you guys not give me and anyone else reading ANY article in the world the basic right to form an opinion about what I read for myself? I don't believe everything that's printed, few do.

And when a procession of "experts" come to discredit something, in this case the artile Bear posted and its author, I look on their words with the same scrutiny as the article itself. Perhaps a little more.

Everyone speaks with a bias, life causes this. I think most readers should be credited with being able to recognize this reality, and compensate for it.

<html>
<body>
<table cellpadding="2" cellspacing="0" border="0" width="600" align="center">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td valign="top" bgcolor="#ffffff">
<font face="Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif"><font color="000000">adlabs<font color="#ff9900">6</font></font>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td valign="top" bgcolor="#42524e">
<div align="center"><font color="#999999">
http://www.geocities.com/adlabs6/B/bin/sigtemp.JPG (http://mudmovers.com/Sims/FB/fb_skins_historical_adlabs6.htm)
<small><font color="#ff6600">NEW</font> at mudmovers! Click the pic to download my skins from mudmovers.com!</small>
</font>
Skinner's Guide at mudmovers (http://mudmovers.com/Sims/FB/fb_skinnersguide.htm) | Skinner's heaven (http://www.1java.org/sh) | IL2skins (http://www.il2skins.com)
<font color="#999999">
My Forgotten Battles Webpage (http://www.geocities.com/adlabs6/B/index.html) Current Wallpaper: <font color="#999999">Bf-109 Morning Run</font></font>

<A HREF="http://forums.ubi.com/messages/message_view-topic.asp?name=us_il2sturmovik_gd&id=zhiwg" TARGET=_blank>"Whirlwind Whiner"
The first of the few</A>
</div>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</body>
</html>

Buzz_25th
10-22-2003, 06:48 PM
Vo101_Isegrim

The answer to your list is simple. I said it before, but it was ignored, so here it is again.

The Germans were good pilots. They got high scores because of the conditions. They were better than the enemy. They would have had the same high scores if they were flying Yaks.

There is nothing special about the 109.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
25th_Buzz
<center>
http://www.vfa25.com/sigs/buzz.jpg

XyZspineZyX
10-22-2003, 07:12 PM
Here are how much a P-51 D pilot really sees.

http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/P51DView.jpg


I marked the centerline with a yellow line. Blue lines show the maximum edges of the pilot`s sighting line. The black area shows the blinds spots.

It can be clearly seen that even as the pilot looks backwards, his view is seriously impared by the armor plate. Even if he looses his belt.

Sorry, armor plate is not transparent, not even for yanks.

I am still waiting to BLUTARSKI to produce a rear view of the "excellent bubble canopy P-47D".

Why don`t you post it, Blutto ? You are afraid that it will prove you wrong ? I am sure you are.



Vezérünk a Bátorság, K*sérµnk a Szerencse!
(Courage leads, Luck escorts us! - Historical motto of the 101st Puma Fighter Regiment)

Flight tests and other aviation performance data: http://www.pbase.com/isegrim

XyZspineZyX
10-22-2003, 07:49 PM
Huckebein_FW wrote:
-
- In fact that pic shows how little protection P-51
- pilot had. The blind spot is gives also the angles
- of protection. There is no such equivalency on
- Bf-109. Angles of protection are much much wider
- than the blind spots.

Very much agreed. It amuses me how could the Allies come up with such a poor headrest design. They made it solid, so that the pilot couldn`t possible see trough it, even if when by 1944 headarmor with armor glass was nothing new.

Attempted to make up for that by installing a bubble canopy, and a rather narrow plate, at the cost of reduced directionaly stability and worser handling characteristics, and max. speed. This made the pilot very vulnerable to all shots that came from anywhere else than perfectly behind. Not to mention that the Allied head plates were very thin compared to German ones, they usually used only 9-10mm thickness, whereas the Bf 109 used a combination of 14mm armor and 60mm armor glass in the rear. I bet we will see a lot of moaning from the Yankwhiners because of frequent PKs in Mustangs. It will even surprass the "P47 roll rate" hysteria.

Evenwith these handicaps, rear view was still inaduquate, as can be seen by the fact that even late P-47s with their very roomy (Mustang was extremely cramped compared to that) retained their rear view mirrors. They obviously didn`t feel it was good, otherwise why keep the mirrors when they caused considerable drag ? The Swedish Air Force must have come to similiar conclusion, as they re-equipped all their bubble canopy P-51s with large sized rear view mirror.




Vezérünk a Bátorság, K*sérµnk a Szerencse!
(Courage leads, Luck escorts us! - Historical motto of the 101st Puma Fighter Regiment)

Flight tests and other aviation performance data: http://www.pbase.com/isegrim

XyZspineZyX
10-22-2003, 08:14 PM
Huck,

Tell us again how Mustang pilots were strapped tight to their seats...



http://www.cebudanderson.com/images/spook.jpg

http://www.cebudanderson.com/images/vin2033.jpg

http://www.cebudanderson.com/images/c041.jpg

http://www.cebudanderson.com/images/m0011a.jpg

http://www.cebudanderson.com/images/m0243a.jpg

http://www.franka.clara.net/357th_images/Howell.JPG


Huckebein_FW wrote:
- tagert wrote:
-- Vo101_Isegrim wrote:
---
--- Here are how much a P-51 D pilot really sees.
--
-- LOL! Dream On!
-
-
- Yes, and this is how much it sees if he leans
- forward, without being strapped in his seat. If he
- is then he sees a lot less.
-
-
- In fact that pic shows how little protection P-51
- pilot had. The blind spot is gives also the angles
- of protection. There is no such equivalency on
- Bf-109. Angles of protection are much much wider
- than the blind spots.
-
-
- <center> <img
- src="http://www.stormbirds.com/images/discussion-m
- ain.jpg"> </center>

XyZspineZyX
10-22-2003, 08:16 PM
- SkyChimp wrote:
-
-- The Bf-109 was a GREAT plane versus P.11s, I-153s,
-- I-16s, MiG-3s and their inexperienced and surprised
-- Russian pilots. It was agisnt planes like this that
-- most of the kills were achieved. But how did the
-- plane fair against modern competition? I mean, just
-- what was its kill ratio againbst the Mustang,
-- Thunderbolt and Spitfire?


Good question Chimp, and of course there`s the answer :


LW aces on the Western Front :

http://www.luftwaffe.cz/western.html

That`s 36 gentleman, with a total of 2423 confirmed aerial victories against the western allies, for an avarge of 67 WF kills/ pilot.

In other words, the avarge of these LW aces is the ~double that of the total number of kills made by the highest scoring W. Allied pilots.



I have more :

Vs. Spitfires (I think we can call it a modern plane with experienced pilots):

58 pilots, making 767 Spitfire kills. Avarage 13 Spitfire killed/pilot.

Best : Pips Priller with 68 (!!!) Spitfire kills.

http://www.luftwaffe.cz/spit.html


Vs. Thunderbolts :

29 listed pilots, 189 Thunderbolt kills (2244 in total). Avarage 6.5 P-47 kills/pilot.

Best : Hoffman with 13 P-47 kills.

http://www.luftwaffe.cz/thunderbolt.html


Vs. Mustangs :

22 listed pilots, 100+ Mustang kills (2010 in total). Avarage 4.5 P-51 kills/pilot.

Best : Steinmann with 11 P-51 kills.

http://www.luftwaffe.cz/mustang.html


Vs. Lightnings:

http://www.luftwaffe.cz/lightning.html

14 listed pilots, 89 Lightning kills (1285 in total). Avarage 6.35 P-38 kills/pilot.

Best : Bartels with 14 P-38 kills.



Vezérünk a Bátorság, K*sérµnk a Szerencse!
(Courage leads, Luck escorts us! - Historical motto of the 101st Puma Fighter Regiment)

Flight tests and other aviation performance data: http://www.pbase.com/isegrim

XyZspineZyX
10-22-2003, 08:25 PM
Vo101_Isegrim wrote:
-
-- SkyChimp wrote:
--
--- The Bf-109 was a GREAT plane versus P.11s, I-153s,
--- I-16s, MiG-3s and their inexperienced and surprised
--- Russian pilots. It was agisnt planes like this that
--- most of the kills were achieved. But how did the
--- plane fair against modern competition? I mean, just
--- what was its kill ratio againbst the Mustang,
--- Thunderbolt and Spitfire?
-
-
- Good question Chimp, and of course there`s the
- answer :
-
-
- LW aces on the Western Front :
-
- <a href="http://www.luftwaffe.cz/western.html"
- target=_blank>http://www.luftwaffe.cz/western.html
- </a>
-
-
- That`s 36 gentleman, with a total of 2423 confirmed
- aerial victories against the western allies, for an
- avarge of 67 WF kills/ pilot.
-
- In other words, the avarge of these LW aces is the
- ~double that of the total number of kills made by
- the highest scoring W. Allied pilots.
-
-
-
- I have more :
-
- Vs. Spitfires (I think we can call it a modern plane
- with experienced pilots):
-
- 58 pilots, making 767 Spitfire kills. Avarage 13
- Spitfire killed/pilot.
-
- Best : Pips Priller with 68 (!!!) Spitfire kills.
-
- http://www.luftwaffe.cz/spit.html
-
-
-
- Vs. Thunderbolts :
-
- 29 listed pilots, 189 Thunderbolt kills (2244 in
- total). Avarage 6.5 P-47 kills/pilot.
-
- Best : Hoffman with 13 P-47 kills.
-
- <a href="http://www.luftwaffe.cz/thunderbolt.html"
- target=_blank>http://www.luftwaffe.cz/thunderbolt.
- html</a>
-
-
-
- Vs. Mustangs :
-
- 22 listed pilots, 100+ Mustang kills (2010 in
- total). Avarage 4.5 P-51 kills/pilot.
-
- Best : Steinmann with 11 P-51 kills.
-
- <a href="http://www.luftwaffe.cz/mustang.html"
- target=_blank>http://www.luftwaffe.cz/mustang.html
- </a>
-
-
-
-
- Vs. Lightnings:
-
- <a href="http://www.luftwaffe.cz/lightning.html"
- target=_blank>http://www.luftwaffe.cz/lightning.ht
- ml</a>
-
-
- 14 listed pilots, 89 Lightning kills (1285 in
- total). Avarage 6.35 P-38 kills/pilot.
-
- Best : Bartels with 14 P-38 kills.


And what is very important is that those fighter kills were made despite the fact that it was forbidden to engage enemy fighters unless necessary. There was a very short period in '44 in which Bf-109 flew top cover for Fw-190, and engaged the escorts. Thought it proves successful, it was dropped because of chronic shortages of fuel. In rest of the time any german fighter that took-off in West had to attack bombers only.


If Skychimps wants a realistic comparison he has to get a statictic for the kill ratios in fighter sweep missions only and this result should be divided with the number sorties in this type of mission. Such a factor could give a realistic picture of the capabilities of the various planes in ETO.





<center> http://www.stormbirds.com/images/discussion-main.jpg </center>

Message Edited on 10/22/0302:27PM by Huckebein_FW

XyZspineZyX
10-22-2003, 08:27 PM
Isegrim wrote:

- I am still waiting to BLUTARSKI to produce a rear
- view of the "excellent bubble canopy P-47D".
-
- Why don`t you post it, Blutto ? You are afraid that
- it will prove you wrong ? I am sure you are.


..... The reason you're still waiting is because I don't recall you ever having asked. Perhaps you are confusing me with someone else.



Blutarski

XyZspineZyX
10-22-2003, 08:34 PM
Issy,

I can find 22 Mustang pilots that averaged more than 4.5 '109 kills- IN ONE FIGHTER GROUP!

If you're wondering, its the 357th FG (No doubt the 4th and 354th, too).



Isegrim wrote:

- Vs. Mustangs :
-
- 22 listed pilots, 100+ Mustang kills (2010 in
- total). Avarage 4.5 P-51 kills/pilot.
-
- Best : Steinmann with 11 P-51 kills.
-
- <a href="http://www.luftwaffe.cz/mustang.html"
- target=_blank>http://www.luftwaffe.cz/mustang.html
- </a> -

XyZspineZyX
10-22-2003, 08:35 PM
BLUTARSKI wrote:
-
- ..... The reason you're still waiting is because I
- don't recall you ever having asked. Perhaps you are
- confusing me with someone else.


Great, then I ask you NOW. Post a rear view picture of the P-47 or P-51, either in-game or from real life. Come on, why the hesitation ? You have doubts that it will prove your point ?

I must admit, so do I. That`s why none of you post those.





Vezérünk a Bátorság, K*sérµnk a Szerencse!
(Courage leads, Luck escorts us! - Historical motto of the 101st Puma Fighter Regiment)

Flight tests and other aviation performance data: http://www.pbase.com/isegrim

XyZspineZyX
10-22-2003, 08:41 PM
Hi Isegrim,

I'm just wondering if you could clear up the purpose behind some of your posts in this thread for me.

To simplify my question,

If two sides fight in a war:

One side fields a greater number of pilots, who are rotated out after a relatively small number of sorties or combat hours,

And another side fields a smaller number of pilots, who are never rotated out, barring extreme circumstances,

Why do you think it is notable that the second side would produce a higher number of individual kills per pilot?

I think it would be much more remarkable if this did not occur. It doesn't require a very great deal of knowledge about statistics to work out what is happening in this scenario.

Not only are the total number of kills going to be spread among a much smaller group of people, but they're given the entire war to amass their total, and to build up the experience needed to get more kills. By inference surely the P-11 or F2A1 would count as the greatest planes in the war due to its kill/loss ratio? Does that suggestion imply that there may be more to war than how many kill marks an individual pilot can amass?

I seem to recall making a very similar post to this one some time ago and never got a response.


http://home.iprimus.com.au/djgwen/fb/worker_parasite.jpg

Need help with NewView? Read this thread. (http://forums.ubi.com/messages/message_view-topic.asp?name=us_il2sturmovik_gd&id=yzbcj)

XyZspineZyX
10-22-2003, 08:50 PM
clint-ruin wrote:
- Hi Isegrim,
-
- I'm just wondering if you could clear up the purpose
- behind some of your posts in this thread for me.
-
- To simplify my question,
-
- If two sides fight in a war:
-
- One side fields a greater number of pilots, who are
- rotated out after a relatively small number of
- sorties or combat hours,
-
- And another side fields a smaller number of pilots,
- who are never rotated out, barring extreme
- circumstances,
-
- Why do you think it is notable that the second side
- would produce a higher number of individual kills
- per pilot?
-
- I think it would be much more remarkable if this did
- not occur. It doesn't require a very great deal of
- knowledge about statistics to work out what is
- happening in this scenario.
-
- Not only are the total number of kills going to be
- spread among a much smaller group of people, but
- they're given the entire war to amass their total,
- and to build up the experience needed to get more
- kills. By inference surely the P-11 or F2A1 would
- count as the greatest planes in the war due to its
- kill/loss ratio? Does that suggestion imply that
- there may be more to war than how many kill marks an
- individual pilot can amass?
-
- I seem to recall making a very similar post to this
- one some time ago and never got a response.

Yes, that's why kill ratios tell us little or nothing about the quality of an aircraft, yet again and again people bring kill ratios into discussions of technical quality with total disregard for the hundreds of other factors that affect these numbers.

Planes don't kill planes, people do.

--AKD

http://www.flyingpug.com/pugline2.jpg

XyZspineZyX
10-22-2003, 09:34 PM
Back to the original post..

It was a good read. I may agree or disagree with some of the tings written, but overall it was a good read! I love to read thing by people who were actually fortunate enough to fly these planes.

But I also take things with a grain of salt. I may like brunette women, others prefer blondes, I am strong in my convictions towards my preference, other also have the right to strong with theirs. (Brunettes RULE!) LOL!

As far as fighter aircraft in WWII, and in this sim, every plane is unique and has strengths and weaknesses. That's the beauty of this game! But that's not to say that an inferior plane at advantage cant beat a superior opponent. Surprise, skill, knowledge of your adversary, and sheer *** luck /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif are just as important as climb rate, turning ability, and mathematical equations.

And the best thing is, we get to make mistakes and try it again. Most pilots never had that luxury! /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

I read a post here once that someone said he had 551 flights in an airplane... with 550 successful landings. WOW, I'd love to hear about the "1" that got away! /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif




Message Edited on 10/29/0309:45PM by Tully__

XyZspineZyX
10-22-2003, 09:45 PM
Isegrim,

(1) Oh gee, excuse me. Take out "control response" and just substitute "high speed roll performance", which has been (as you well know) the topic of my discussion(?) with you for at least two months. Can you do that?

(2) You seem to have lost sight of the topic. Let me re-state the argument for you in VERY SIMPLE TERMS -

There is a quotation in the afore-mentioned circa 1943 Russian air combat manual. Go find it in my previous post. It was cited verbatim - not twisted, not manipulated, and not taken out of context. It states that 109F and 109G2 series fighter had difficulty in changing direction at dive speeds. I ascribe that as more anecdotal evidence of poor aileron response at high speeds. Your lengthy argument about pitch response have no bearing on this point. You do understand the difference between PITCH and ROLL, do you not?

Just respond to that cited quotation, please. Leave out all the insults, evasions, unrelated P51 red herrings, straw man arguments, and not-so-clever circumlocutions. JUST ANSWER THE POINT.

So far, you're just still hitting your thumb with that hammer.



Blutarski

XyZspineZyX
10-22-2003, 09:55 PM
lrrp22,

Nice P51 photo selection, but it is interesting to note that several of the a/c DO appear to have rear-view still mirrors fitted. Wonder why. Perhaps easier to quickly check 6 without turning around?



Blutarski

XyZspineZyX
10-22-2003, 10:05 PM
Vo101_Isegrim wrote:
-
- BLUTARSKI wrote:
--
-- ..... The reason you're still waiting is because I
-- don't recall you ever having asked. Perhaps you are
-- confusing me with someone else.
-
-
- Great, then I ask you NOW. Post a rear view picture
- of the P-47 or P-51, either in-game or from real
- life. Come on, why the hesitation ? You have doubts
- that it will prove your point ?
-
- I must admit, so do I. That`s why none of you post
- those.
-


So let me get this straight ....

You did not ask me before. You are asking me NOW. And you ask in the same breath why I have hesitated in responding? Brilliant stuff, Isegrim. Have you seen the P51D rear view image already posted by another forum member. It makes the my point nicely.

While we are on the subject of photos, can you offer any rear view photos of of a 109 with an Erla canopy?

By the way, since we seem to be in the "reminding" mode here, when are you going to provide the historical test report citation data for those 109 "Rollwendigkeit" charts that you have posted. This makes, I think, the fourth time I've asked on three separate threads.


Blutarski



Message Edited on 10/22/03 09:15PM by BLUTARSKI

Message Edited on 10/22/0309:21PM by BLUTARSKI

XyZspineZyX
10-22-2003, 10:08 PM
Today's jet fighters with bubble canopies have mirrors too. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

XyZspineZyX
10-22-2003, 10:26 PM
LEXX_Luthor wrote:
- Today's jet fighters with bubble canopies have
- mirrors too.


Thanks LEXX, Interesting point. With all the attention paid to cockpit visibility, the presence of such a mirror must be as a device to reduce the need for continual neck craning.



Blutarski

XyZspineZyX
10-22-2003, 10:34 PM
I'm sure that's it Blutarski. In the heat of the moment it provides a quick and easy way to check your dead six.

BLUTARSKI wrote:
- lrrp22,
-
- Nice P51 photo selection, but it is interesting to
- note that several of the a/c DO appear to have
- rear-view still mirrors fitted. Wonder why. Perhaps
- easier to quickly check 6 without turning around?
-
-
-
- Blutarski
-
-

XyZspineZyX
10-22-2003, 11:18 PM
So, I suppose the argument now is "well, the Erla hood Bf-109 had better visability than the P-47 bubble top."

Yeah, the view from the P-47D bubble top was just terrible:

http://www.web-birds.com/9th/365/365-00.jpg



Regards,

SkyChimp

http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/jug_sig.jpg


Message Edited on 10/23/0303:13AM by SkyChimp

XyZspineZyX
10-23-2003, 01:46 AM
Here's a pic from a book of mine by Michael Ullmann, a German guy who knows what he's talking about. The book is about different Luftwaffe paintschemes and markings,but the pic and caption speak for itself. Sorry for the size...

http://www.uploadit.org/files/231003-ErlaHaube.jpg


47|FC
http://rangerring.com/wwii/p-47.jpg


Message Edited on 10/22/0307:47PM by necrobaron

XyZspineZyX
10-23-2003, 01:49 AM
necrobaron wrote:
- Here's a pic from a book of mine by Michael Ullmann,
- a German guy who knows what he's talking about. The
- book is about different Luftwaffe paintschemes and
- markings,but the pic and caption speak for itself.
- Sorry for the size...
-
- <img
- src="http://www.uploadit.org/files/231003-ErlaHaub
- e.jpg">
-
-
-
- 47|FC
- http://rangerring.com/wwii/p-47.jpg
-
-
- Message Edited on 10/22/03 07:47PM by
- necrobaron

Great excerpt, Necro, thanks!

Regards,

SkyChimp

http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/jug_sig.jpg

XyZspineZyX
10-23-2003, 01:52 AM
SkyChimp wrote:Great excerpt, Necro, thanks!

Gotta fight the good fight,ya know!/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

47|FC
http://rangerring.com/wwii/p-47.jpg

XyZspineZyX
10-23-2003, 06:02 AM
A picture is worth a 1000 words...

http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/P51DView.jpg


http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/P51D_top.jpg


http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/P51D_top_zoom_measure.jpg


And somone wanted a P47 shot?

http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/P47_bubble.jpg


5000 and counting


<div style="background:#222222;color:#e0e0e0;font-size:24px;font-weight:bold;font-face:courier;"> TAGERT
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If WAR was not the ANSWER.. Than what the H was your QUESTION?
</div>
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=forum
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=discussion


Message Edited on 10/22/0310:08PM by tagert

XyZspineZyX
10-23-2003, 08:46 AM
...man.. tagert.....that last one of the 47s is really nice

XyZspineZyX
10-23-2003, 11:43 AM
I'm sorry; I'm a little bit confused by Huck's and Isegrim's argument about bubble canopy visibility. How can the armor plate block the pilot's view to the rear while at the same time offering little protection to the pilot's head from shots fired from the rear? Is the headrest armor plate made of a material that is optically opaque, yet allows bullets to pass unhindered? Are they suggesting the headrest was armored with construction paper?

Huck, can you not see the shoulder straps in Tagert's photo? The pilot isn't wearing lederhosen; he's strapped in, though I would suggest he lose the baseball cap to check six more effectively. I don't know if there were inertia reels on the 51 (once the Dixie Wing of the CAF gets their 51 I'll be able to tell you) but the Harvard I've flown in does. They're a little sticky after 50 years, but even with them locked, checking six isn't a big problem with a bubble canopy. And counter to Isegrim's attempt at LOS (line of sight) documentation, checking six does not involve holding one's eyeballs stationary in the cockpit while rotating one's body around them. Is this how you check your blind spot while driving? That's how it works in the GAME, not real life. Rowan's BoB was actually a little better than Il-2 in this regard, as you could move your virtual head from side to side. You have to move your head to the side as you rotate it around, even if there is no armor to look around (as in the Harvard.) The cervical vertebrae curve forward slightly, and attach to the skull's occipital condyles, which are well posterior to its geometric center. In other words, the skull juts forwards from its perch on the spinal column, so turning it side to side also moves the eyes laterally, helping see around the armor in this case. The Erla Haube doesn't provide as much lateral room to move one's head, and the rear bulkhead is much further back than the American armor, making a larger blind cone behind the 109 (a 109 pilot can't move his head to the side of the rear bulkhead, unless he loses the canopy first.) Rudder would help to see around this, but would help all pilots, not just the 109 drivers. Mirrors were still used with bubbles, as someone correctly stated, they let you check behind you without moving (also nice for avoiding vertigo.)

Isegrim, we all know later versions of the 109 were 400+ mph aircraft. Col. Carson did, too. His critique was not that the aircraft never achieved this speed, but that it could have done so in 40-41, not 42-43. I have previously implored you to read everything, not just the parts you like. This obviously hasn't worked so let's try another exercise. Read the article aloud (when you're by yourself, I'm not trying to embarrass you.) Sometimes if the data comes in through two different senses, it sinks in better. Carl Sagan suggested this technique in his book "Broca's Brain". Your post on German kill confirmation was great, why are you so irrational when it comes to the 109?

Do you two not see the ridiculousness of your "arguments"? What's next, the "liar, liar, pants on fire!" defense? Or how about "I know you are, but what am I?"

Getting back to the original topic, Col. Carson's article is correct as far as I can tell. Badatit, thanks for the link. I had suspected at least one of Col. Carson's kills was a 109, but couldn't find any kind of a breakdown. A 2v1 maneuvering fight against a pair of 109's, in which he shoots down one. I'd say that counts as combat experience opposing them, certainly more than anyone posting here has. Isegrim and Huck are quick to point out Col. Carson never flew one, and conclude from this that he is unqualified to critique the aircraft. Yet they have no difficulty doing so, without any 109 time themselves, let alone 99+ missions in WWII fighters, 18.5 kills (including at least one 109), or an aerospace engineering degree. No doubt the response they're forming for this tidbit is: a) it's made-up, b) the 109 pilots were rookies c) the 109's had gun pods d) the sun was in their eyes (...my car ran out of gas, there was an earthquake, flood, tidal wave, it WASN'T MY FAULT... sorry, I was channeling John Bellushi there for a second.)

Time to fess up, guys. Which one of you wrote the "rebuttal" to Col. Carson's article, found here:

http://mitglied.lycos.de/luftwaffe1/Carson/Carson.html

My money is on Isegrim, but I'm not ruling out Huck either. For those not familiar with the flame-fest associated with this article, my (lengthy) response to the link above is here:

http://forums.ubi.com/messages/message_view.asp?name=us_il2sturmovik_gd&id=yyzsp

Peruse this post, and the associated thread, but only if you're really bored and have time on your hands. There's some good data in amongst the insults, but you'll have to dig.

Huck, while I'm here, could you explain to me exactly how a single spar wing is torsionally more rigid than a two-spar structure, as you mentioned previously? As to your never claiming that the 109 had a torsion box spar, your posting in the 109 wing structure thread of a crude torsion box diagram certainly suggested that you were claiming just that. If you chose that venue to start posting random aero structure facts unassociated with the 109 wing (as you now seem to be claiming), your first choice of topic with which to enlighten us certainly seems provocative in hindsight (yes, I'm being sarcastic.) It's okay to admit you were wrong. I bit off on it too until we started getting folks posting diagrams and photos of the spar. If you'd rather attempt to delude yourself and us by saying that your post was never meant to suggest the 109's structure, I can't see you learning anything more from this discussion.

For the record, I don't think any flavor of 109 was a uniformly bad (or good) aircraft. It has its strengths and its weaknesses. Admittedly, Col. Carson spends more time discussing 109 weaknesses. In comparison with the 190 (also covered in the original post), there were more weaknesses to discuss. If you'd like to address any of Col. Carson's points (again) I'd be more than happy to entertain a discussion. Some rules though:

- Leave out the scatological/pedophilic references (Isegrim)
- Argument by distraction will not be entertained. I'm not a lawyer. I'm an engineer. Bringing other unrelated aircraft performance numbers, Willy Messerschmitt's political ambitions (Col. Carson should have left this out, too), or the Euro/Dollar exchange rate into the discussion are examples of arguing by distraction. This isn't the Simpson trial; it's a (hopefully civil) discussion of an article Bearcat 99 posted.
- Don't submit criteria for data unless you are willing to have your data subjected to the same criteria. I.e. don't criticize Col. Carson for using only one data source (which he doesn't - read the source notes) then build an argument bashing his drag conclusions based on data from one wind tunnel run.


Huck, while I'm here, could you explain to me exactly how a single spar wing is torsionally more rigid than a two-spar structure, as you mentioned previously? As to your never claiming that the 109 had a torsion box spar, your posting in the 109 wing structure thread of a crude torsion box diagram certainly suggested that you were claiming that. If you chose that venue to start posting random aero structure facts not associated with the 109 wing (as you now seem to be claiming), your first choice of topic with which to enlighten us certainly seems provocative in hindsight (yes, I'm being sarcastic.) It's okay to admit you were wrong. I bit off on it too until we started getting folks posting diagrams and photos of the spar. If you'd rather attempt to delude yourself and us by saying that your post was never meant to suggest the 109's structure, I can't see you learning anything more from this discussion.

For the record, I don't think the 109 (in any of its flavors) was a uniformly bad (or good) aircraft. It had its strengths and its weaknesses. Admittedly, Col. Carson spends more time discussing its weaknesses. In comparison with the 190 (also covered in the original post), there were more weaknesses to discuss. If you'd like to address any of Col. Carson's points (again) I'd be more than happy to entertain a discussion. Some rules though:

- Leave out the scatological/pedophilic references (Issy)
- Argument by distraction will not be entertained. I'm not a lawyer. I'm an engineer. Bringing other unrelated aircraft performance numbers, Willy Messerschmitt's political ambitions, or the Euro/Dollar exchange rate into the discussion are examples of arguing by distraction. This isn't the Simpson trial; it's a (hopefully civil) discussion of an article Bearcat 99 posted.
- Don't submit criteria for data unless you are willing to have your data subjected to the same criteria. I.e. don't criticize Col. Carson for using only one data source (which he doesn't - read the source notes) then build an argument bashing his drag conclusions based on data from one wind tunnel run.

Blotto

"Only the spirit of attack, born in a brave heart, will bring success to any fighter craft, no matter how technically advanced." - A. Galland

"Look, do you want the jets, or would you rather I slap the props back on?" - W. Messerschmitt

http://home.mindspring.com/~blottogg/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/14fsPatch.gif

XyZspineZyX
10-23-2003, 11:53 AM
Back to original topic. If 109 was so bad, how come 109s are always considered when there's a discussion about best planes in FB ?

So, Bf 109E-4 is not a force to be reckoned with in 1940 ?!
So, Bf 109F-4 is not a force to be reckoned with in 1941 ?!
So, Bf 109G-2 is not a force to be reckoned with in 1942 ?!
So, Me 109G-6 Late is not a force to be reckoned with in 1943 ?!
So, Me 109K-4 is not a force to be reckoned with in 1944 ?!

A plane which was still among best figters 10 years after its first flights is a success, IMO.

<center>http://easyweb.globalnet.hr/easyweb/users/ntomlino/uploads/sig.jpg

Message Edited on 10/23/0311:57AM by Hristos

XyZspineZyX
10-23-2003, 12:15 PM
Sorry for the double text guys, but I can't seem to edit the repeats out. My posts are long enough without the duplications.

Hristos, the 109 WAS a formidable opponent, in all its variants. But it still had shortcomings (as do all designs.) Such a broad statement is imprecise though, and this imprecision is also why I hate using combat statistics to try to prove aircraft engineering strengths and weaknesses. The 109 racked up so many kills for many different reasons, not all of which had anything to do with the specific aircraft itself. The Luftwaffe went into WWII as an experienced, well trained, well equipped force (thanks for the training numbers SkyChimp.) They learned their lessons in Spain and applied them. Stalin shot most of the experienced pilots because they'd been "corrupted" in the west. The Luftwaffe also made a habit of getting in the first punch, at least at the beginning of the war. As previously mentioned, Jagdpiloten also flew many more missions than their average Allied counterpart (if they survived long enough), giving them the opportunity to post some impressive numbers. 109's especially flew Frei Jagd, allowing them more flexibility over engagement conditions than Jabo, Ramjager or escort pilots. And the 109 had strengths (as do most fighters) which the experten were very capable of exploiting. Mike Spick's book "Luftwaffe Fighter Aces" covers these points better and in more detail.

To attempt to ignore the 109's weaknesses, and disparage Col. Carson as "a clown" for pointing them out, does a disservice to him, the men who flew the 109, those who opposed it, and all of their achievements.

Blotto

"Only the spirit of attack, born in a brave heart, will bring success to any fighter craft, no matter how technically advanced." - A. Galland

"Look, do you want the jets, or would you rather I slap the props back on?" - W. Messerschmitt

http://home.mindspring.com/~blottogg/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/14fsPatch.gif

XyZspineZyX
10-23-2003, 12:17 PM
Well, I just found out that I can look behind the headrest of my car, even when strapped to the seat. I can even look to my eight o'clock when looking over my right shoulder and to four when looking left.

XyZspineZyX
10-23-2003, 12:29 PM
Yes JtD you are correct with the car headrest comparison.

I post these drawings again to show the blind spot of the 109 compared to the 'bubble' canopy, P-51 in the example.

http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2003-9/379643/109K4right.jpg

http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2003-9/379643/109K4up.jpg


http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2003-9/379643/P-51_top.jpg

http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2003-9/379643/P-51_sid.jpg


Notice how the 'razorback' of the 109 blanks a large area, while in the P-51, there is only a very small area that is blanked.


http://www.thundercycle.com/photos/dropdead2.gif



"Only a dead 'chamber pot' is a good 'chamber pot'!"

XyZspineZyX
10-23-2003, 12:32 PM
Hristos wrote:
- So, Me 109K-4 is not a force to be reckoned with in
- 1944 ?!

I don't think so. Not in 1944. Just like a lot of other people you don't seem to be aware of the fact, that the K-4 productions acounted for roughly zero percent of total 109 production. (rounded to the nearest 5%)
If you want to compare a 1944 109 with something, take the major model: The G-6. You could even take the G-2, since there were more G-2's around than K-4's.

XyZspineZyX
10-23-2003, 12:46 PM
Thanks for the pics, Milo. They're worth more than my close to 1000 words on the subject. But to be perfectly fair, consider that the pilot in the 109 had a little lateral movement available for his head, too. That would have allowed him to see the tips of the horizontal stab, but still would have left a blind cone directly behind him, for the reasons I mentioned previously.

Blotto

"Only the spirit of attack, born in a brave heart, will bring success to any fighter craft, no matter how technically advanced." - A. Galland

"Look, do you want the jets, or would you rather I slap the props back on?" - W. Messerschmitt

http://home.mindspring.com/~blottogg/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/14fsPatch.gif

XyZspineZyX
10-23-2003, 12:48 PM
There is no doubt,the bubble canopy offers a better rear visibility than the Messerschmitt's canopy, but SOME german pilots unstrapped their shoulder belts in order to lean more forward and gain some backward visibility.
This does still not equal to the view offered by a bubble-hood, but it was still a dramaticly improvement.
I'm sure, there were some allied pilots to do the same in a Razorback a/c /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif


http://franz.lampl.bei.t-online.de/toryusig.jpg (http://www.virtual-jabog32.de)

http://franz.lampl.bei.t-online.de/toryusig2.jpg (http://www.jg68.de.vu)

When once you have tasted flight,
you will always walk the earth
with your eyes turned skyward;
to where you have been
and to where you always want to return.

XyZspineZyX
10-23-2003, 12:56 PM
Hristos wrote:
- Back to original topic. If 109 was so bad, how come
- 109s are always considered when there's a discussion
- about best planes in FB ?
-
- So, Bf 109E-4 is not a force to be reckoned with in
- 1940 ?!
- So, Bf 109F-4 is not a force to be reckoned with in
- 1941 ?!
- So, Bf 109G-2 is not a force to be reckoned with in
- 1942 ?!
- So, Me 109G-6 Late is not a force to be reckoned
- with in 1943 ?!
- So, Me 109K-4 is not a force to be reckoned with in
- 1944 ?!
-

Not if I get my P-38. A much maligned aircraft IMO the best of the war.

To Issy and Huck: If the 109 was so good why were the Germans unable to stop American bombers? You listed earlier all of these German aces with monstrous kill totals. Most American pilots were relative noobs to them. Why was the Normandy invasion virtually unopposed?

BTW, If the Erla hood was so much better than a bubble why are modern fighters designed with bubble canopy's and not an Erla? Ejection seats provide a similar obstruction to the headrest arnor plate.

XyZspineZyX
10-23-2003, 01:14 PM
- Not if I get my P-38. A much maligned aircraft IMO
- the best of the war.

At the pacific theatre, yes, not so in the skies of europe. The Lightning suffered of the bad weather over here.

- To Issy and Huck: If the 109 was so good why were
- the Germans unable to stop American bombers?

Easy question: try attacking an enemy whose pilots have twice or (later) even much more of that experience on their flown fighters.
Try attacking bombers which are ten times superrior (number) to your fighter force.

Most American pilots were
- relative noobs to them

Not right; america also had very good pilots, just like any nation involved in the war.

Why was the Normandy
- invasion virtually unopposed?

Ask Hitler and his friends...
Priller (Kdr. JG26) got up with his wingman to "visit" the landing areas. He wasn't intercepted.
The allies hadf about 16,000 missions flown at 6th june '44.
Germany flew about 50 to 100.

Just a short brief...

http://franz.lampl.bei.t-online.de/toryusig.jpg (http://www.virtual-jabog32.de)

http://franz.lampl.bei.t-online.de/toryusig2.jpg (http://www.jg68.de.vu)

When once you have tasted flight,
you will always walk the earth
with your eyes turned skyward;
to where you have been
and to where you always want to return.

XyZspineZyX
10-23-2003, 01:37 PM
viperUSAF wrote:
--
- Not if I get my P-38. A much maligned aircraft IMO
- the best of the war.
-

Are you related to Banderss guy in any way ? /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

<center>http://easyweb.globalnet.hr/easyweb/users/ntomlino/uploads/sig.jpg

XyZspineZyX
10-23-2003, 01:39 PM
Bremspropeller wrote:
-- Not if I get my P-38. A much maligned aircraft IMO
-- the best of the war.
-
- At the pacific theatre, yes, not so in the skies of
- europe. The Lightning suffered of the bad weather
- over here.

I believe it had more to do with poor fuel quality and maintenance. Octane booster hand to be mixed in by hand with British gasoline. The turbocharged Allison was very sensitive to detonation. 25,000 feet is extremely cold no matter where you are. The H model Lightning fixed most of the problems with cockpit heating and engine reliability. All that needed fixing after that was high speed roll compressibilty. This was fixed in the J and L models with dive flaps and powered ailerons.

-
-- To Issy and Huck: If the 109 was so good why were
-- the Germans unable to stop American bombers?
-
- Easy question: try attacking an enemy whose pilots
- have twice or (later) even much more of that
- experience on their flown fighters.
- Try attacking bombers which are ten times superrior
- (number) to your fighter force.

They seemed to be stopping them ok before American fighters started escorting the bombers.

-
- Most American pilots were
-- relative noobs to them
-
- Not right; america also had very good pilots, just
- like any nation involved in the war.

I meant experience wise compared to the huge list of German aces that Isegrim posted.

- Why was the Normandy
-- invasion virtually unopposed?
-
- Ask Hitler and his friends...
- Priller (Kdr. JG26) got up with his wingman to
- "visit" the landing areas. He wasn't intercepted.
- The allies hadf about 16,000 missions flown at 6th
- june '44.
- Germany flew about 50 to 100.

My own opinion is that the Luftwaffe was pretty much done by mid 1944.

- Just a short brief...
-
- <a
- target="_blank"href="http://www.virtual-jabog32.de
- "><img
- border="0"src="http://franz.lampl.bei.t-online.de/
- toryusig.jpg"></a>
-
- <a target="_blank"href="http://www.jg68.de.vu"><img
- border="0"src="http://franz.lampl.bei.t-online.de/
- toryusig2.jpg"></a>
-
- When once you have tasted flight,
- you will always walk the earth
- with your eyes turned skyward;
- to where you have been
- and to where you always want to return.
-

XyZspineZyX
10-23-2003, 01:46 PM
JtD wrote:
- Hristos wrote:
-- So, Me 109K-4 is not a force to be reckoned with in
-- 1944 ?!
-
- I don't think so. Not in 1944. Just like a lot of
- other people you don't seem to be aware of the fact,
- that the K-4 productions acounted for roughly zero
- percent of total 109 production. (rounded to the
- nearest 5%)
- If you want to compare a 1944 109 with something,
- take the major model: The G-6. You could even take
- the G-2, since there were more G-2's around than
- K-4's.
-
-

?!?!!?!

G-2 is a 1942 model.
G-6 is a 1942/1943 model. 1944 versions had vastly improved performance and usually sported MK 108.
G-6AS, G-10 and K-4 are 1944 models.

Over 1000 K-4s were produced, with production starting in late 1944. And that's a careful statement, until someone provides an exact number.

G-2 in 1944 ?! Only in Mistels /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif


<center>http://easyweb.globalnet.hr/easyweb/users/ntomlino/uploads/sig.jpg

Message Edited on 10/23/0301:48PM by Hristos

XyZspineZyX
10-23-2003, 03:19 PM
Hristos wrote:
- G-2 is a 1942 model.

Sure, but was used well into 1944 as fighter. (Mediterrainian)

- G-6 is a 1942/1943 model. 1944 versions had vastly
- improved performance and usually sported MK 108.
- G-6AS, G-10 and K-4 are 1944 models.

Sure, but just because a new type came of the assembly line, it doesn't mean that all 3000 planes serving in the Luftwaffe got replaced in this instant.

- Over 1000 K-4s were produced, with production
- starting in late 1944. And that's a careful
- statement, until someone provides an exact number.

I got 750 from October 1944. Wouldn't want to argue -50%/+ 100%. But mor than 20000 G types were produced, the vast majority of those G-6.

You might want to check this page. It's in German, but plane types and dates should be understandable to everyone reading arabic numbers.

http://www.ww2.dk/air/jagd/jg51.htm
Replacing model is a lengthy process:
E models in use with JG 51 until 7/42
F models in use with JG 51 until 4/43
G-2 model in use with JG 51 until 7/43
G-6 model in use with JG 51 until 12/44 (end of record)
G-14 model in use with JG 51 from 10/44
K-4 model not in use with JG 51 until 12/44
The dates above shows the last time an aircraft of this type is mentioned in the record. It doesn't mean that JG 51 flew primarily Emil until summer 1942. It is exactly one Emil that lasted this long.
I don't know how accurate this site is, but I think the impression you get is correct.

XyZspineZyX
10-23-2003, 03:27 PM
Blottog, a person who pretends to have a aeronautical degree and thinks that Cd0 for Bf-109 is 0.036 is either a miserable propagandist or never had such degree.

He puts the correct value for Spitfire 0.021, but gives a value for Bf-109 larger than for a bomber. Even Rata had a better Cd0 than 0.036.

Correct value for G2 is 0.023 as given in original docs. This coupled with small size gave the small drag characteristic of the 109.

The entire Carson article is filled with such lies and glaring mistakes. Deabating them here is useless. We well debate a single phrase in a ten page thread.

My very simple question for Blottog is: do you believe that Bf-109 had 0.036 Cd0 as claimed by the aeronautical "expert" Carson?


<center> http://www.stormbirds.com/images/discussion-main.jpg </center>

Message Edited on 10/23/0309:54AM by Huckebein_FW

XyZspineZyX
10-23-2003, 03:46 PM
JtD wrote:
- G-2 was used well into 1944 as fighter. (Mediterrainian)

Okay, looks like I am wrong here. I could only find until late 1943.

XyZspineZyX
10-23-2003, 03:50 PM
- I meant experience wise compared to the huge list of
- German aces that Isegrim posted.

AFAIK, 281 Mustang pilots qualified as aces by shooting down 5 planes or more...

- My own opinion is that the Luftwaffe was pretty much
- done by mid 1944.

It wasn't yet done by mid '44 but theese were the months when the LW got it's neck broken. It bled out in the following months 'till April'45.

@ Huck:
-My very simple question for you is: do you believe that Bf-109 had 0.036 Cd0 as claimed by the aeronautical "expert" Carson?

Depends on what a 109 he flew. There were pretty well polished 109s out there which surely didn't have 0.036, but there were also some F.U. machines which certainly had 0.036 or worse. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif


http://franz.lampl.bei.t-online.de/toryusig.jpg (http://www.virtual-jabog32.de)

http://franz.lampl.bei.t-online.de/toryusig2.jpg (http://www.jg68.de.vu)

When once you have tasted flight,
you will always walk the earth
with your eyes turned skyward;
to where you have been
and to where you always want to return.


Message Edited on 10/23/0302:53PM by Bremspropeller

XyZspineZyX
10-23-2003, 05:54 PM
Huckebein_FW wrote:
- BLUTARSKI wrote:
--
-- Huckebein_FW wrote:
--
-- Isegrim and I proved that bubble
--- cockpits offered zero protection against MG fire
--- from behind for no advantage in visibility. I know
--- how hard that must hurt.
--
-- ..... Perhaps to each other, but I certainly find
-- your arguments utterly unconvincing.
-
-
- Utterly unconvincing to you? You still haven't
- produced a single argument on your entire presence
- on this forum.

Actually he has, you just choose not to see it.. Kind of like you choose not to comment on milos pictures... why? Where they too many of them? Ok, Ill combined them for you and add a little TEXT explaining the P51 L n R view

http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/sidebyside.jpg


http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/topbytop.jpg


By the way these are not to scale relitive to each other, so no measurments should be made relitive to either


<div style="background:#222222;color:#e0e0e0;font-size:24px;font-weight:bold;font-face:courier;"> TAGERT
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If WAR was not the ANSWER.. Than what the H was your QUESTION?
</div>
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=forum
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=discussion

Message Edited on 10/23/0309:57AM by tagert

XyZspineZyX
10-23-2003, 07:50 PM
Huckebein_FW wrote:
- Utterly unconvincing to you? You still haven't
- produced a single argument on your entire presence
- on this forum.


..... Sadly yes. You and Isegrim have produced exactly, what, one side profile photo of an Erla canopied 109K? All the rest is purely unsupported allegation. Hence, I find your arguments "utterly unconvincing". I asked how the pilot was supposed to see through that 80cm wide razor-back of the aft 109 fuselage, which is also taller than the head of the seated pilot, but no answer yet. The see-through glass head rest is a nice touch and a clever solution for the close confines of the famously cozy 109 cockpit, and the Erla is clearly a much better canopy design than those of the earlier 109 models, but IMO a bubble canopy it is not. Here's an argument for you -> If the 109 Erla canopy was indeed so superior to a bubble canopy in both visibility AND pilot protection, why is it that almost all modern fighters from late WW2 onward have been equipped with bubble canopies, even to the detriment of aerodynamic cleanliness? Feel free to respond at your leisure.

You always manage to make me smile, Huckebein. You yourself are always so full of arguments, usually theoretical and unsupported. It's the facts part that you seem to have trouble with - even when they are staring you in the face like that pilot peering over his shoulder at you in the P51 cockpit photo posted by Tagert. I, on the other hand, try to avoid arguments. I much prefer rational discussion of historical facts and data. I post items of historical record which are of interest to me and hopefully of interest to the forum here as well. And you know it.

BTW, here's a suggestion to resolve the debate over canopy vision. All the dimensions of the 109K and the P51D are well known. Someone like Gibbage, if he would be so kind, could render 3D images of the respective a/c and do 3D shadow projections of both for view from the cockpit. Would that settle it for you?



Blutarski

XyZspineZyX
10-23-2003, 09:08 PM
tagert wrote:

- By the way these are not to scale relitive to each
- other, so no measurments should be made relitive to
- either



Milos drawings are still rubbish.

In the side profile the obstruction by the P-51 armor will actually appear to be larger compared to 109.

in top view the drawings are drawn differently compared to each other. In 109 drawing lines are drawn from the worst possible point from the center, in P-51 lines are from best possible situation from the sides. Such comparison is worthless. Use either one by all means, but the same for both.

If it is really that difficult to prove that P-51 had a better view that one must cheat when drawing, I may be soon converted to believe 109 boys. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif


-jippo

XyZspineZyX
10-23-2003, 09:08 PM
Tag,


You know what they say .."what goes around, comes around".

I think it's game/set/match on this canopy foolishness.



Blutarski

XyZspineZyX
10-23-2003, 09:27 PM
Jippo01 wrote:
- Milos drawings are still rubbish.

Really?

- In the side profile the obstruction by the P-51
- armor will actually appear to be larger compared to
- 109.

Not following you here.. which view?

- in top view the drawings are drawn differently
- compared to each other. In 109 drawing lines are
- drawn from the worst possible point from the center,
- in P-51 lines are from best possible situation from
- the sides. Such comparison is worthless.

Well you do have a small point.. but you missed the big point milo was making with that.. The bubble canopy allows you to lean.. thus those so called BEST POINTS are not really obtainable in the 109.. but you are correct.. they would could be a little farther to the L n R but not much.. the flat glass would stop the pilots head from looking back and around.. like the bubble canopy allows you to do.


- Use either one by all means, but the same for both.

The 109 could be drawn to show the head shift L n R a bit more.. so I agree it is not perfect.. but far from rubbish. The point was the bubble allows you to lean out farther.. the cockpit of the P51 witout the bubble is much wider than the 109 (note i said they were not to scale).

- If it is really that difficult to prove that P-51
- had a better view that one must cheat when drawing,
- I may be soon converted to believe 109 boys.

That is your choice! But cheat? PLEASE! You have a point.. but it is small.. if drawn to show the slight ablity of the 109 pilot to shift his head a little L n R it would end up in a drawing that allows him to just see the tips of the elevators.. ie pretty much what he is seeing now in the drawing.



<div style="background:#222222;color:#e0e0e0;font-size:24px;font-weight:bold;font-face:courier;"> TAGERT
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If WAR was not the ANSWER.. Than what the H was your QUESTION?
</div>
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=forum
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=discussion

Message Edited on 10/23/0301:30PM by tagert

XyZspineZyX
10-23-2003, 09:42 PM
I'll post this again in case anyone missed it. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif Here's a pic from a book of mine by Michael Ullmann, a German gentleman who knows what he's talking about. The book is about different Luftwaffe paintschemes and markings,but the pic and caption speak for itself. Sorry for the size...

http://www.uploadit.org/files/231003-ErlaHaube.jpg




47|FC
http://rangerring.com/wwii/p-47.jpg

XyZspineZyX
10-23-2003, 09:42 PM
They are rubbish if they are to be used as evidence of something, yes. They don't prove anything, so the are rubbish as proof.


The blue area is pretty much all that can be concluded from the side profile:

http://www.kolumbus.fi/jan.niukkanen/p51fov.jpg


Milo is trying to show the effect of the leaning again in the side profile. But he doesn't know the curvature of the fuselage nor the position of cockpit framing in relation to the viewpoint so the diagram fails completely.

I think the difference should be shown in 3d to really see it.


-jippo



Message Edited on 10/23/0308:43PM by Jippo01

XyZspineZyX
10-23-2003, 09:50 PM
Jippo01 wrote:
- They are rubbish if they are to be used as evidence
- of something,

Disagree 100%. The purpose was to simply show how much the view is improved with a bubble canopy vs a razor back type of aircraft.. At no point did he claim there were BLUE PRINT QUALITY (like some do here) for you to go and bet the bank/farm on. If you assumed they took into account every pilot head size then that was your mistake.

- yes.

no.

- They do prove anything,

Huh? Agreed 100%! They do *PROVE* that a bubble canopy is beter then a razor back.. They were not intended to be used to MEASURE from to BUILD things from or BET money on.. I even went as far as to POINT OUT they were not to scale with regards to each other. the 109 cockpit is NO WHERE NEAR AS WIDE as a P51.

- so the are rubbish as proof.

Disagree 100% they are perfect PROOF that a bubble is better than a razor back... if you thought it was more than that.. sorry bout your bad luck!

- The blue area is pretty much all that can be
- concluded from the side profile:

Nope. that blue field you added is in ONE plane, and it assumes the pilot looks up and OVER leaing back with his head upside down.. they dont do that! They lean L or R and look.

- Milo is trying to show the effect of the leaning
- again in the side profile. But he doesn't know the
- curvature of the fuselage nor the position of
- cockpit framing in relation to the viewpoint so the
- diagram fails completely.

Not true.

- I think the difference should be shown in 3d to
- really see it.

No need.. in that the statement is simple.. a bubble canopy with provide you with a better view.. it really is that simple.


<div style="background:#222222;color:#e0e0e0;font-size:24px;font-weight:bold;font-face:courier;"> TAGERT
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If WAR was not the ANSWER.. Than what the H was your QUESTION?
</div>
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=forum
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=discussion

Message Edited on 10/23/0301:53PM by tagert

XyZspineZyX
10-23-2003, 09:53 PM
tagert wrote:


Tagert, I think you are not a very smart lad, sorry.

Can't help you any more than that... /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif


-jippo

Buzz_25th
10-23-2003, 10:50 PM
You wouldn't need to ban them Huck. Everybody would leave../i/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

Being a good mod is not banning everybody. Anybody can do that.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
25th_Buzz
<center>
http://www.vfa25.com/sigs/buzz.jpg

XyZspineZyX
10-23-2003, 10:57 PM
Jippo,

I make one observation (pardon the play on words, totally inadvertent) regarding your diagrams. Your placement of the eyes assumes that the pilot is facing straight ahead. If so, then the rearward line of vision is not possible, since it would require the pilot to look backwards through his skull. No insult intended; just an observation.

I agree that a 3D rendering is probably the only real means of showing the case in toto, assuming that all can agree upon (a) where the eyeballs go, and (b) how well they can be rotated and/or displaced within their respective cockpits.

In that respect, and just for yucks, try the following test for yourself and let me know your opinion.

Without twisting the torso, the head of an erect pilot (please no bad jokes) can be rotated about 60 degree L & R. Effective binocular vision is about 45 degrees L & R from the facing of the head, with an additional 45 degrees of single eye peripheral vision. Therefore, without twisting the torso, a pilot will have a lateral arc of binocular vision of around 105 degrees L & R and an extreme arc of vision of 150 degrees L & R.

Assuming that the posterior and hips are securely strapped into a seat, allow an additional 45 degrees of spinal or torso twist. This will increase the lateral binocular vision arc to approximately 150 degrees L & R and the extreme vision arc to about 195 degrees L & R.

When you twist the head and torso to their extremes and lean slightly in the direction of head rotation, the eye moves to a position well out over the shoulder and outside the assumed limit of any headrest. The advantage of a roomy cockpit. Once past the headrest, one ought to be able to actually see (peripherally at least) directly astern and even slightly beyond one's dead 6 o'clock

The ability to see peripherally beyond 150 degrees, coupled with an inability to lean laterally within the cockpit, is PERHAPS an explanation of why the glass block headrest was associated with the Erla canopy. Assuming that the glass block headrest was provided on the assumption that the pilot would be able to look through it, it would have enabled the pilot to scan his high 6 o'clock over the spine of his fuselage. However, the glass block still does not solve the problem of the elevated spine of the aft fuselage of the 109 blocking vision aft to his level and low 6 o'clock.

Enough from me. I'm off to see my chiropractor now.



Blutarski

XyZspineZyX
10-23-2003, 11:14 PM
Jippo, you say you are an architec, right?

As was explained by me and others, the 109 pilot could not move his head as far sideways as a bubble canopy pilot could (see photos posted). I already said the cone could be moved in >>slightly<< for the 109 pilot to allow for the >>slight<< sideways movement of the 109 pilot's head.

As for garbage, your additions to my diagrams are trully garbage. I told you to do better ones if you don't like what you see from me. You declined. Where are you blind spots for the for/aft bars in the Erla? Add the framing for the 'Galland' while your at it? You also did not allow for the P-51's pilot head movement.

How much sky could the respective pilots scan? The 109 pilot was restricted immensly compared to what the P-51 pilot could./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif Even the heavy framing on the front of the 109's cockpit was more restrictive.

If you want to get that picky, the side profiles do not have the pilot moving his head to the side in the P-51, which would decrease his blind spot further.

And just a reminder, the subject was vision to the rear./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif


http://www.thundercycle.com/photos/dropdead2.gif



"Only a dead 'chamber pot' is a good 'chamber pot'!"

XyZspineZyX
10-24-2003, 12:05 AM
Anyone who actually followed this monster from the beginning may find this thread from the SimHQ FB forum interesting.

http://oldsite.simhq.com/simhq3/sims/boards/bbs/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=98;t=004775;p=1

It covers many of the issues discussed here, and of particular interest are the postings from real life pilots BeerCamel-SimHQ and Hammfist.

One excerpt that is especially relavant to the discussion here:

"Just in case anyone thinks only modern fighters have this capability [unobstructed 6 o'clock view], my father flew both P-40s and P-51s. He says that you could check high six in the P-40, and both deep six and high six in the P-51H (he leaned to one side and looked around the armor)."

Enjoy /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

----------------------------------------
Whatever I've done, I've been staring down the barrel of a gun.

XyZspineZyX
10-24-2003, 12:36 AM
MiloMorai wrote:

- How much sky could the respective pilots scan? The
- 109 pilot was restricted immensly compared to what
- the P-51 pilot could. Even the heavy framing on the
- front of the 109's cockpit was more restrictive.

Neither P-51 or 109 pilots could see straight to the rear, and is also not that important, because in combat it is supposed that the pilot maneuvers his plane.

Crucial is that the six o'clock high position be visible, which was not in a Mustang, but it was in a 109. The reason for this is that planes maneuver with the wings banked, for a simple sustained turn the wings are banked to 70 degrees. That means if you want to see the enemy following you through a maneuver then you need visibility in the rear high not rear left or right (because the last two are pointing one towards the sky, the other towards the ground, none at the enemy).

This is a very important observation and is not obvious if you never tried a sim with a 3d cockpit or piloted a warbird before.

http://home.comcast.net/~bogdandone/visibility.JPG



<center> http://www.stormbirds.com/images/discussion-main.jpg </center>

XyZspineZyX
10-24-2003, 02:13 AM
Huckebein,


It's clear that you pay no attention to anyone on this thread. So, let us refer the question to a German authority on the 109 series, Michael Ulmann, who wrote the book from which the Erla canopy photo was extracted. If you scroll to the right of the photo, you will see its translated caption, which reads as follows:


QUOTE -

The Erla type hood on this late production Bf 109 reveals the crude welding around thw windshield framing and the generally heavy construction. The rear head armour is obvious as is the extensive use of 66 an an interior finishing colour. IT IS OBVIOUS THAT THE AVERAGE Bf 109 PILOT DID NOT ENJOY THE SAME LEVEL OF VISIBILITY AS THAT OF A P47D OR P51D (emphasis mine). Camouflage is 74/75/76, while the antenna mast is 70.

- UNQUOTE


You will, no doubt, spare no effort to dredge up some reason to dismiss this as well, because you seem to be emotionally unable to admit that you are wrong about anything. That being so, let me save you some time and trouble. Just reply as follows: "Oh this book was just about LW camouflage and markings; this guy knows nothing about cockpits and visibility". or perhaps: "Oh that Ulmann guy, he's a well known Luftwaffe-hater". I'm sure that you will snap one of these rationales right up.

I'm really puzzled by you. Why is it simply not good enough to say that the Erla canopy was a great improvement over the old style canopy? Why is it necessary that you also have to believe it was absolutely the best canopy design under the sun? And all this on the irrational basis of no real evidence that you can put forth. Are you just a troll?



Blutarski






Message Edited on 10/24/0301:18AM by BLUTARSKI

XyZspineZyX
10-24-2003, 02:39 AM
Posted by V101 Isegrim "If so, they fell up and down all the time in the canopy during manouvers. I wouldn`t think they would be that stupid."

Well, that shows how much you know about seat straps in a cockpit. Shoulder straps slightly loose allow lateral and forward movement of the torso, while the tight thigh and and centre seat straps hold you firmly into your seat. That's the point of a 5 point harness. It allows a degree of movement without "falling up and down all the time in the canopy during manoeuvres"

And before you claim that I don't know what I'm talking about..I do, because that's how I wear them when I'm flying.

"If I had all the money I've spent on drink....I'd spend it on drink!"

XyZspineZyX
10-24-2003, 02:47 AM
EPP_Gibbs wrote:
- Posted by V101 Isegrim "If so, they fell up and down
- all the time in the canopy during manouvers. I
- wouldn`t think they would be that stupid."
-
-

Well he must think German pilots were STUPID as well, since the 109 pilot has slack shoulder belts in the posted photo.


http://www.thundercycle.com/photos/dropdead2.gif



"Only a dead 'chamber pot' is a good 'chamber pot'!"

XyZspineZyX
10-24-2003, 05:20 AM
I'm still waiting for Issy or Huck to argue with Mr.Ullmann about the caption in the pic I posted. Now what would he know?/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

47|FC
http://rangerring.com/wwii/p-47.jpg

XyZspineZyX
10-24-2003, 05:51 AM
BLUTARSKI wrote:
- Jippo,
-
- I make one observation (pardon the play on words,
- totally inadvertent) regarding your diagrams. Your
- placement of the eyes assumes that the pilot is
- facing straight ahead. If so, then the rearward line
- of vision is not possible, since it would require
- the pilot to look backwards through his skull. No
- insult intended; just an observation.


And that was the point. Using a side profile to showthe other angles past pilots shoulder can't be properly done.

I showed what can be properrly done in side profile, nothing more nothing less, they could be pictures of reindeers for that matter.


-jippo

XyZspineZyX
10-24-2003, 05:58 AM
MiloMorai wrote:
- Jippo, you say you are an architec, right?
-
- As was explained by me and others, the 109 pilot
- could not move his head as far sideways as a bubble
- canopy pilot could (see photos posted). I already
- said the cone could be moved in >>slightly<< for the
- 109 pilot to allow for the >>slight<< sideways
- movement of the 109 pilot's head.
-
- As for garbage, your additions to my diagrams are
- trully garbage. I told you to do better ones if you
- don't like what you see from me. You declined. Where
- are you blind spots for the for/aft bars in the
- Erla? Add the framing for the 'Galland' while your
- at it? You also did not allow for the P-51's pilot
- head movement.
-
- How much sky could the respective pilots scan? The
- 109 pilot was restricted immensly compared to what
- the P-51 pilot could Even the heavy framing on the
- front of the 109's cockpit was more restrictive.
-
- If you want to get that picky, the side profiles do
- not have the pilot moving his head to the side in
- the P-51, which would decrease his blind spot
- further.
-
- And just a reminder, the subject was vision to the
- rear.


You can argue about the cockpit until your hearts bleed.I just pointed out that the first drawing didn't work. You can add the effects of framing in pic if you wish. But remember that many have already argued regarding the FB development that pilots were able to soo around the struts.

I think I'm still better off with my drawings cause they don't have anything invented, and have same standards for both of the reindeers.


-jippo

XyZspineZyX
10-24-2003, 06:13 AM
tagert wrote:
- The Autobanh.. Yes the Autobanh.. in that the
- Germans knew way before the war started that they
- had to move things around fast when war broke out..

The Autobahn was a Weimar project, Hitler adopted and claimed its conception falsely.

- But they also knew they had to develop the
- *rubbernecker* gene! The master race knew this was
- esential to winning the air war..

Funny you mention this, but the one time I had a lengthy talk with Julius Meimberg (JG 2 and JG 53, Knight's Cross, +250 combat mission with 53 confirmed kills all in the West) it looked exactly how he demonstrated it (as a 80+ year old) without the accompanied stick movement and without the "rubbernecker gene"...

Guess that's why they literally call it Rubbernecking in the USAF.

His first claim dated 19 may 1940, his last 17 april 1945

As a side noted he claimed 3 P-47s on a single sortie on 26 december 1944 (he had to bail his G-14 though)

The bio info is from Obermaier, but his biography can now be bought in German, which although I started reading it some months ago got side tracked because of some other reading projects (Chkalov, and Adm. Scheer's biographies to name but two titles).

Ruy "SPADES" Horta
http://www.xs4all.nl/~rhorta
-----------------------------
Il-2 - VEF JG 77
-----------------------------
'95-02 - WB Jagdgeschwader 53
'99-00 - DoA Jagdstaffel 18
-----------------------------
The rest is history...

http:\\www.xs4all.nl\~rhorta\brother.jpg

XyZspineZyX
10-24-2003, 06:15 AM
lrrp22 wrote:
- Oh Huck, you're The Dean's Peanuts! You crack me
- up, you really do!!
-
- You were the one claiming that the P-47M could never
- do 470+ mph, not me. If you are going to take a
- position that contradicts all existing data, don't
- you think that YOU should be the one to post
- supporting documention?


All existing data about P-47M?? what data are you talking about? I asked chimp for a SEFC chart for P-47M, he couldn't bring one. I asked you to provide a single performance test document about P-47M you couldn't either, though you promised.

I still have to see a single performance document about P-47M.

When I make a performance claim for a german aircraft I bring a document for it. Something that I never saw until now for an american plane. Should I always believe those claims without any documents?


<center> http://www.stormbirds.com/images/discussion-main.jpg </center>

Message Edited on 10/24/0301:36AM by Huckebein_FW

XyZspineZyX
10-24-2003, 06:18 AM
tagert wrote:
- necrobaron wrote:
-- I'm still waiting for Issy or Huck to argue with
-- Mr.Ullmann about the caption in the pic I posted.
-- Now what would he know?
-
- LOL! And I know he didnt miss it.. We have all
- reposted it many times! Funny.. this all leads back
- to the fact that they dont care about truth.. They
- just care about arguing.

Have Mr.Ullmann brought a proof together with his affirmation? I'd like to see that proof. Otherways it's just one of those polite affirmations to get his book more easily published and more easily digested by the public.


<center> http://www.stormbirds.com/images/discussion-main.jpg </center>

Message Edited on 10/24/0312:22AM by Huckebein_FW

XyZspineZyX
10-24-2003, 07:17 AM
MiloMorai wrote:
-
- Huckebein_FW wrote:
-- SkyChimp wrote:
--- Your argument makes sense if pilots could turn there
--- heads like Linda Blair. But real life pilots
--- couldn't, and didn't. They turned and leaned.
--- Except for Bf-109 pilots who could not lean.
--
-- Those pictures are made with normal degrees of head
-- movement, this pictures are completely realistic.
--
-
- Huckie has a hard time differentiating between a
- game and the 'real thing'.

Those pictures from the game serve the purpose much better than some lines on a drawing. Those cockpits are careful 3D models of the originals. They are not perfect copies, but they are perfectly acceptable for this discution.

The only complain that can be made is that in FB the pilot cannot lean his head towards one side to the canopy like in real life. Of course this movement is very limited, in fact in picture posted by tagert, with P-51 from behind, we can clearly see that the pilot touches the canopy with the shoulders, even though he has his right shoulder leaned forward. That means that practicaly the pilot can only move his head, he cannot move his shoulders to either sides (he can move them only back and forth). And don't forget that 109 pilot can also lean his head to the sides and improve the lateral visibility angle.

Look at the picture below. Does a movement to the sides (x axis in picture) bring something relevant in view? No. All we want to see is somewhere close to y axis, which indicates the plane decribed by the movement in pitch. When two fighters are engaged, both pilots can find their enemy looking somewhere around the plane described by the pitch movement of his aircraft (and certainly not in the plane described by the yaw motion).

Erla canopy gives visibility where it matters.

http://home.comcast.net/~bogdandone/visibility2.jpg



<center> http://www.stormbirds.com/images/discussion-main.jpg </center>

Message Edited on 10/24/0301:22AM by Huckebein_FW

XyZspineZyX
10-24-2003, 07:17 AM
Huckebein_FW wrote:Have Mr.Ullmann brought a proof together with his
- affirmation? I'd like to see that proof. Otherways
- it's just one of those polite affirmations to get
- his book more easily published and more easily
- digested by the public.


*Necro slaps self on the forehead* I knew it. LOL! Well,I think the pic is pretty good proof. I mean LOOK at it! And I hardly think people are going to rush out and buy a book about Luftwaffe paintschemes just because Mr.Ullmann said the 109 had an inferior view compared to the bubble-top. Besides this book was originally published in German for Germans. This is a common fact,except apparently to you and Isegrim. This isn't rocket-science we're talking about here....I think I'll believe Mr.Ullmann,who actually knows what he's talking about,over you Huck. I find it amazing you're using a video game to try to prove your point.

47|FC
http://rangerring.com/wwii/p-47.jpg


Message Edited on 10/24/0301:19AM by necrobaron

XyZspineZyX
10-24-2003, 07:27 AM
necrobaron wrote:
- Huckebein_FW wrote:Have Mr.Ullmann brought a proof
- together with his
-- affirmation? I'd like to see that proof. Otherways
-- it's just one of those polite affirmations to get
-- his book more easily published and more easily
-- digested by the public.
-
-
- *Necro slaps self on the forehead* I knew it. LOL!
- Well,I think the pic is pretty good proof. I mean
- LOOK at it! And I hardly think people are going to
- rush out and buy a book about Luftwaffe paintschemes
- just because Mr.Ullmann said the 109 had an inferior
- view compared to the bubble-top.

If this book is about Luftwaffe paint schemes then why talk at all about visibility? Fact is that particular affirmation has no relevance in the context of the book and it's offered without proof. Why should someone believe Mr.Ulmann on this matter? Because he wrote a book about LW paintschemes?


<center> http://www.stormbirds.com/images/discussion-main.jpg </center>

XyZspineZyX
10-24-2003, 07:32 AM
necrobaron wrote:
- I find it amazing you're using a video game to
- try to prove your point.

Not at all. Those cockpits are good geometrical replicas of the originals. If you have something to reproach them do it.

Only thing that we'll be a better proof would be rear visibility pictures from both planes in mock fights. Do you have the resources to do it?


<center> http://www.stormbirds.com/images/discussion-main.jpg </center>

XyZspineZyX
10-24-2003, 07:39 AM
It's not the only book he's written. The guy knows his stuff and has a history in the field of aviation in Germany. His knowledge on the Luftwaffe is extensive. Btw,it's a great book,in case you care. Even if you don't care about the painstschemes(which are fascinating),the book is full of rare photos,and other bits of knowledge. I'd recommend it!/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif In any case,I'd give a German who is an expert on the Luftwaffe the benefit of a doubt. If he says the 109 had poor visibility,I'm inclined to believe him.

47|FC
http://rangerring.com/wwii/p-47.jpg

XyZspineZyX
10-24-2003, 07:45 AM
Huckebein_FW wrote:Only thing that we'll be a better proof would be
- rear visibility pictures from both planes in mock
- fights. Do you have the resources to do it?

Nope. I doubt many do./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif You still forget you can't lean in FB. You are glued to a certain POV. A pilot,in RL,couldn't fly effectively with his necked craned at such an angle that is depicted in your pics for any period of time,whether they be Axis OR Allied....

47|FC
http://rangerring.com/wwii/p-47.jpg

XyZspineZyX
10-24-2003, 07:56 AM
necrobaron wrote:
- Huckebein_FW wrote:Only thing that we'll be a better
- proof would be
-- rear visibility pictures from both planes in mock
-- fights. Do you have the resources to do it?
-
- Nope. I doubt many do. You still forget you can't lean
- in FB. You are glued to a certain POV. A pilot,in
- RL,couldn't fly effectively with his necked craned
- at such an angle that is depicted in your pics for
- any period of time,whether they be Axis OR
- Allied....

No, I did not forget it. I answered this in a previous post on this page. Leaning to the sides of the cockpit does not bring the enemy in sight better. The enemy plane cannot be there if he engaged you. Also the head of the pilot is not turned for more than 90 degrees, an absolutely normal position, the rest of it is the peripheral vision. Try it yourself.


Here is my previous post:

The only complain that can be made is that in FB the pilot cannot lean his head towards one side to the canopy like in real life. Of course this movement is very limited, in fact in picture posted by tagert, with P-51 from behind, we can clearly see that the pilot touches the canopy with the shoulders, even though he has his right shoulder leaned forward. That means that practicaly the pilot can only move his head, he cannot move his shoulders to either sides (he can move them only back and forth). And don't forget that 109 pilot can also lean his head to the sides and improve the lateral visibility angle.

Look at the picture below. Does a movement to the sides (x axis in picture) bring something relevant in view? No. All we want to see is somewhere close to y axis, which indicates the plane decribed by the movement in pitch. When two fighters are engaged, both pilots can find their enemy looking somewhere around the plane described by the pitch movement of his aircraft (and certainly not in the plane described by the yaw motion).

Erla canopy gives visibility where it matters.

http://home.comcast.net/~bogdandone/visibility2.jpg




<center> http://www.stormbirds.com/images/discussion-main.jpg </center>

Message Edited on 10/24/0302:12AM by Huckebein_FW

XyZspineZyX
10-24-2003, 08:17 AM
Huckebein_FW wrote:No, I did not forget it. I answered this in a
- previous post on this page. Leaning to the sides of
- the cockpit does not bring the enemy in sight
- better. The enemy plane cannot be there if he
- engaged you. Here is my previous post:
-
- The only complain that can be made is that in FB the
- pilot cannot lean his head towards one side to the
- canopy like in real life. Of course this movement is
- very limited, in fact in picture posted by tagert,
- with P-51 from behind, we can clearly see that the
- pilot touches the canopy with the shoulders, even
- though he has his right shoulder leaned forward.
- That means that practicaly the pilot can only move
- his head, he cannot move his shoulders to either
- sides (he can move them only back and forth). And
- don't forget that 109 pilot can also lean his head
- to the sides and improve the lateral visibility
- angle.
-
- Look at the picture below. Does a movement to the
- sides (x axis in picture) bring something relevant
- in view? No. All we want to see is somewhere close
- to y axis, which indicates the plane decribed by the
- movement in pitch. When two fighters are engaged,
- both pilots can find their enemy looking somewhere
- around the plane described by the pitch movement of
- his aircraft (and certainly not in the plane
- described by the yaw motion).
-
- Erla canopy gives visibility where it matters.


Well said, BUT having visibility "where it matters" and where it "brings something relevent into view" isn't the same thing as having better visibility all around. Your pics are nice for your argument,but situations change. For example,explain to me how,with the Galland,you could see an enemy on your six,when you can't even see the bulk of your horizontal or vertical stabs? It'd be awfully easy for one to sneak up on you in the 109. Unless,you're moving the 109 to bring the enemy into view,you'd likely not see it. That's not required with a bubble-top. A simple glance back,and you'd likely see the enemy closing in on you. Even in your pics the 109 is banking and is in a turn. Try the same thing where you're straight and level and have a bogey on your six and see which has the better view. Admittedly,since you can't lean in FB,neither the P-47 nor the 109 would have a distinct advantage....

47|FC
http://rangerring.com/wwii/p-47.jpg


Message Edited on 10/24/0302:21AM by necrobaron

XyZspineZyX
10-24-2003, 09:01 AM
necrobaron wrote:

- Well said, BUT having visibility "where it matters"
- and where it "brings something relevent into view"
- isn't the same thing as having better visibility all
- around.

Good comment but I doubt that bubble canopy offers better visibility all around. It might offer on the sides, but Erla offers better rear high visibility.


- Your pics are nice for your argument,but
- situations change. For example,explain to me
- how,with the Galland,you could see an enemy on your
- six,when you can't even see the bulk of your
- horizontal or vertical stabs?

It's very hard to tell how much of the vertical stabilisers are visible on both planes, without the in-game capability to lean the heads to the sides. It might be better but how much better it's impossible to tell now, without climbing in both cockpits.


- It'd be awfully easy
- for one to sneak up on you in the 109. Unless,you're
- moving the 109 to bring the enemy into view,you'd
- likely not see it. That's not required with a
- bubble-top. A simple glance back,and you'd likely
- see the enemy closing in on you.

So you are talking about a sneak attack against a non-maneuvering plane. Well then normal procedure is to dive at distance and hit the plane from below in a zoom, because this way the target has no visibility, even if he wags the tail. So you'll see the enemy in the rear only if he didn't see you first.

Very important is to note that such attacks can be a surprise for only a plane or two, the rest of the group is allerted by radio. And that only if the attacker succeded to keep the surprise, a thing very hard to do unless he attacks a lone plane. 109 might require some rudder work but that doesn't matter because it is not in combat.

- Even in your pics
- the 109 is banking and is in a turn. Try the same
- thing where you're straight and level and have a
- bogey on your six and see which has the better view.
- Admittedly,since you can't lean in FB,neither the
- P-47 nor the 109 would have a distinct advantage....

In combat 109 has the visibility advantage, because 109 can check better the rear high position, important while maneuvering. Also 109 maneuvers better in pitch than P-51 or P-47. That brings the enemy easier in sight.

Many say that the majority of pilots downed durring ww2 never saw their attacker. This requires a little explanation. Those pilots (most of them) were actually engaged in a fight but lost the situational awarness and some enemy fighter downed them. As I said cases of downed pilots while cruising were rare. This is why I think the visibility to the rear high is more important than to rear sides. Both Erla and bubble canopy offer visibility to the rear high and to the rear laterals, but in different degrees.

In my opinion Erla offers a better compromise between visibility and pilot protection than bubble canopy.


<center> http://www.stormbirds.com/images/discussion-main.jpg </center>

XyZspineZyX
10-24-2003, 01:22 PM
Here`s the good reason why Blutarski and the rest of the clowns didn`t posted the rear view from P-47 :

P-47D w. Bubble canopy :

http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/P-47D.jpg


Here`s a picture of a Yak. Should be very similiar to the view from a P-51D :

http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/Yak.jpg



And here`s the Erla haube :

http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/Erla1.jpg



Clearly the Erla provided a better rear view.


As sorry Blussy-Puss, it doesn`t really matter how many time you parrot it. The Carson clown never flew a 109, ANY verion, and has no idea of it. He`s qouting an old British evaluation for 109E.




Vezérünk a Bátorság, K*sérµnk a Szerencse!
(Courage leads, Luck escorts us! - Historical motto of the 101st Puma Fighter Regiment)

Flight tests and other aviation performance data: http://www.pbase.com/isegrim

XyZspineZyX
10-24-2003, 01:30 PM
JtD wrote:
- I don't think so. Not in 1944. Just like a lot of
- other people you don't seem to be aware of the fact,
- that the K-4 productions acounted for roughly zero
- percent of total 109 production. (rounded to the
- nearest 5%)

1800 K-4s were built, 2500 very similiar G-10 and roughly 1500-2000 G-6/AS and G-14/AS. Though luck, these late versions were built in huge numbers, smarty.


- If you want to compare a 1944 109 with something,
- take the major model: The G-6. You could even take
- the G-2, since there were more G-2's around than
- K-4's.

Ridiculus. You have no idea on this.

Yeah, expect the fact that there were around 150 K-4s in service in early automn 1944 already, rising to 200-250 by the end of the year, and 314 by the end of January 1945. This latter number meant that every 4th 109s in German service was K-4.

And let me tell you a secret, too. You could not find a G-6 with the first line units by that time. They were all put in reserve, G-14s, G-10s, K-4s replacing them in frontline units.

In fact these late 109s were much more common in LW service than the P-51s in US service. One shouldn`t forgot that Merlin Mustang accounted for about zero percent of US fighter production (rounded to the nearest 5 percent).



Vezérünk a Bátorság, K*sérµnk a Szerencse!
(Courage leads, Luck escorts us! - Historical motto of the 101st Puma Fighter Regiment)

Flight tests and other aviation performance data: http://www.pbase.com/isegrim

XyZspineZyX
10-24-2003, 02:06 PM
Vo101_Isegrim wrote:
- Here`s the good reason why Blutarski and the rest of
- the clowns didn`t posted the rear view from P-47 :
<snip>
- Clearly the Erla provided a better rear view.

These are pictures from the game IL2:FB, in which the pilot's head remains fixed and can't move sideways.

The discussion is about the view in real life, where the pilot could move around.

You can't argue from a game to what real life was like. But you can argue from real life to what the game should be like.

The distinction is important.

Regards,

RocketDog.

XyZspineZyX
10-24-2003, 02:35 PM
BLUTARSKI wrote:
- If the 109 Erla canopy was
- indeed so superior to a bubble canopy in both
- visibility AND pilot protection, why is it that
- almost all modern fighters from late WW2 onward have
- been equipped with bubble canopies, even to the
- detriment of aerodynamic cleanliness? Feel free to
- respond at your leisure.

I think this clever statement should have cut long ago the discussion on Erla vs. Bubble canopy.

Huckebein_FW wrote:
- Why should someone believe Mr.Ulmann on this matter?
- Because he wrote a book about LW paintschemes?

Why do we have to believe you when you only quote FB screenshots to prove your statements? And even taking those shots for RL, just think what a pilot would see by bending his head laterally in the Bf.109 and in the P-47. I I believe that in the first I would just see more iron, while in the second, just putting his eye(s) beside the armor plate, he would see some sky at his 6.

I give you an easy example.
You are driving your car and you have your headrest just behind your head. I mean those big headrest like those Mercedes have. Now, just turn your head right 90?, bend your neck right, roll your eyes right and move a bit forward your left shoulder (sounds complicated but it is just normal if you're not paralyzed). What do you see now? MIRACLE!!! You're watchig your 6!!!!
Now try to do the same in a van and tell me if you can check six through the back metal doors.

Now, beside some combat conditions in which an enemy a/c is not necessarily at your six since you both move a lot (as you correctly stated in one of your rare reasonable posts), please now just admit that bubble canopy offers better visibility that the Erla, otherwise even Donald Duck can not take you seriously!!





<center>http://www.uploadit.org/files/170903-G55_Firma.jpg </center>

XyZspineZyX
10-24-2003, 02:44 PM
Isegrim, I used "Issy" as a shortcut until I found out it bothered you, when I switched to Isegrim. Huckebein as expressed his satisfaction with "Huck", which I will continue to use.

Nice data, too bad it's not for the E-7. What are the sources for these numbers? I'm more than a bit skeptical of your data, which shows a Spit V maxing out at 288 mph at sea level, among other things. If this is RAE data, what configuration was it for? Can I assume by your typical argument by distraction, that you agree with the E-7 and MkI numbers I provided? I'm not wed to them, but they're all I had handy at the time (from "Airplanes of the Luftwaffe", David Donald, and "British Warplanes" by Daniel J. March), and were given in HP for both aircraft, not PS for the 109 mistyped as HP.

As to steel plates lack of transparency, thanks but I'm aware of this. What you and Huck seem to be unwilling to admit is that pilots could look around the plate, but could not look around the 109's rear fuselage. I can't state it any more plainly than that. Tell me what you see when you look at Tagert's photo? I need to know if I'm going to be able to convert the physics in your world to the laws employed in the world the rest of us occupy.

Blotto

"Only the spirit of attack, born in a brave heart, will bring success to any fighter craft, no matter how technically advanced." - A. Galland

"Look, do you want the jets, or would you rather I slap the props back on?" - W. Messerschmitt

http://home.mindspring.com/~blottogg/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/14fsPatch.gif

XyZspineZyX
10-24-2003, 03:00 PM
Vo101_Isegrim wrote:
-
- Cajun76 wrote:
-- What am I, a prophet? lol
--
-- Really outstanding stuff Isegrim, except not one
-- source was used. Your relative speed chart is
-- nothing more than irrelevant numbers if you merely
-- post them on your authority, which is nil.
-
-
- You are indeed from the more funn guys ! Noi sources
- were used ? LOL. Can you prove that?
-
- Well let`s see what did I use... The 109F-1/2 pilots
- manual... 109G-2 tests at Rechlin test center... G-6
- data from G-6 Manual... K-4 data from flight test by
- Messerscmitt... all primary sources.
-
- Similiarly, Spitfire flight data comes from the
- British themselves from RAE.
-


Well now, now we're getting somewhere. You've posted sources. I said no sources were used before, because..... no sources were posted. Now, if someone from the other side of these debates can confirm these numbers, I will happily accept them. Now for the juicy part....



- **You really hoped for there`s a slightest chance I
- can`t give source for EVERYTHING ?** You must have
- your friends post in your mind.
-
-
-- **Would you care to enlighten us on which speed record
-- you're referring to? Source, plane info, dates,
-- that sort of thing. I am trying to learn as best I
-- can.... **
-
- **Then the best place for you is a library. You know,
- large place full of books. **
-


** added by Cajun for emphasis

You just contradicted yourself, and you were doing so well..... /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif Please provide *your* source about the 109 speed record. Seems interesting...... However, your 'arguments' (I use this term loosely) are worse than Huckbeins', you might want to consult him before you post the source of this claim.

Additionally, if you're still talking about bubble vs. razorback, no one can really help you..... The next time you are typing a reply, try turning around and looking behind you in a natural way, you'll see that 1) you are not in a simulation 2) the slight twist of the shoulders, the bending of the neck and movement of your eyes is not fixed, but rotate along several axis at once, moving your POV to the left or right (depending on which way you turned) in an outward arc, to the right or left, depending on which way you turned. Even Huckbein realizes now that pilots with bubble cockpits could look around the headrest. His current position is that it does not offer enough protection. Please upgrade to Huckbeins current denial software for ease of discussion, that way I and others don't have to re-prove our points.

Good hunting,
Cajun76

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it."
-Aristotle

XyZspineZyX
10-24-2003, 03:23 PM
Isegrim wrote:

Great, finally one step forward towards civilized discussion. Too bad I am always forced to use such harsh ways to make you guys behave. Let`s hope that the rest of the crown will follow you example, and their stupid insults will cease.


I've been referring to you as Isegrim throughout this thread, which is the first time I've posted your name since learning of your preferences. Don't give yourself, or your namecalling, too much credit. Try to keep up and pay attention.

On that note, here's the data for the E-7 and MkI (for the third time on this and a previously linked thread):

(Blotto: So explain why exactly the Spitfire Mk I was faster than the 109E-7 with 170 fewer horsepower and a bigger wing? Admittedly, this speed was at 18,500 ft., versus 12,300 for the E-7. Since both were mechanically supercharged, I can only explain the different altitudes to a difference in supercharger gearing and/or shift point. The Spit weighed about 100 lb. less empty, but this and the altitude difference hardly seem enough explanation [although it does put that 60 lb. of ballast into perspective]. An engineer would look at this discrepancy and say; "hmm, my drag data or flat plate area must be off." The critic apparently sees the data as the goal, not aircraft performance.)

You cut and pasted this into your post Isegrim. Do you not read what you paste, or do you merely agree with it?

Since then I found data from a previous post. The source was quoted as FIGHTER COMBAT COMPARISON No.2: Messerschmitt Bf109E-3 versus Supermarine Spitfire Mk.IA, Tacitus Publications, M Rubenstein, 1973

Aircraft Design Comparison

..................Bf109E-3............Spitfire Mk.IA

Engine............DB601Aa.............R/R Merlin III
Output (t/o)..... 1175hp@2480rpm......880hp@3000rpm
..................1020hp@2400rpm......1030hp@3000r pm
..................@14765ft (no ram)...@16250ft (no ram)
Red Gear Ratio....0.53:1..............0.477:1
Ram Recovery......37.5%...............50%
Propeller.........3-blade VDM.........3-blade Rotol
..................constant speed......constant speed
Empty Weight......4189 lbs............4810 lbs
Normal Loaded.....5875 lbs............6200 lbs
Combat Weight.....5479 lbs............5811 lbs
Length............28ft 4.25 in........29ft 11in
Span..............32ft 4.50in.........36ft 10in
Height............8ft 2.33in..........12ft 7.75in
Wing Area.........176.53 sq ft........242 sq ft
Aspect Ratio......5.94................5.61
Wing Loading......31.0 lb/sqft........24.0 lb/sqft
Power Loading.....4.66 lb/hp..........5.64lb/hp
Prof Drag Area....4.975 sq ft.........5.182 sq ft
Max Speed.........355mph@16400ft......362mph@18500ft
Max Climb Rate....3730 ft/min.........3240 ft/min
Range.............410 miles...........575 miles
Service Ceiling...35600 ft............37000 ft

With higher empty and loaded weights, higher power loading (though admittedly 10 more HP at altitude) and larger wing area (implying larger overall surface area) the Spit is 7 mph faster than the E-3. This time the difference in altitude is 2100 feet. Ram effect helped the Spitfire, but was not included in the HP figure. How does all of this this establish the 109E-3 as a low drag airframe?

The Fredrich was better (probably the best from a drag standpoint) but started getting worse again as the F's developed into the G's.

Blotto

"Only the spirit of attack, born in a brave heart, will bring success to any fighter craft, no matter how technically advanced." - A. Galland

"Look, do you want the jets, or would you rather I slap the props back on?" - W. Messerschmitt

http://home.mindspring.com/~blottogg/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/14fsPatch.gif

XyZspineZyX
10-24-2003, 03:27 PM
A good picture showing the extremely cramped canopy of the P-51D. The minimal clearance between the armor plate and the plexiglass is visibile.


http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/detail_p51d_17.jpg



I wonder how US pilot`s "looked behind the armor plate". By sticking their head through the plexiglass ? There was absolutely no other way.



Vezérünk a Bátorság, K*sérµnk a Szerencse!
(Courage leads, Luck escorts us! - Historical motto of the 101st Puma Fighter Regiment)

Flight tests and other aviation performance data: http://www.pbase.com/isegrim

Message Edited on 10/24/0304:31PM by Vo101_Isegrim

XyZspineZyX
10-24-2003, 03:39 PM
Cippacometa wrote:
-
- BLUTARSKI wrote:
-- If the 109 Erla canopy was
-- indeed so superior to a bubble canopy in both
-- visibility AND pilot protection, why is it that
-- almost all modern fighters from late WW2 onward have
-- been equipped with bubble canopies, even to the
-- detriment of aerodynamic cleanliness? Feel free to
-- respond at your leisure.
-
- I think this clever statement should have cut long
- ago the discussion on Erla vs. Bubble canopy.


..... In the real world, one would think so. So far the only response has been more flight sim screenshots.



Blutarski

XyZspineZyX
10-24-2003, 03:42 PM
Blottogg wrote:

- Since then I found data from a previous post. The
- source was quoted as FIGHTER COMBAT COMPARISON No.2:
- Messerschmitt Bf109E-3 versus Supermarine Spitfire
- Mk.IA, Tacitus Publications, M Rubenstein, 1973
-
- Aircraft Design Comparison
-
- ..................Bf109E-3............Spitfire Mk.IA
-
- Engine............DB601Aa.............R/R Merlin III
- Output (t/o)..... 1175hp@2480rpm......880hp@3000rpm
- ..................1020hp@2400rpm......1030hp@3000r pm
- ..................@14765ft (no ram)...@16250ft (no
- ram)
- Red Gear Ratio....0.53:1..............0.477:1
- Ram Recovery......37.5%...............50%
- Propeller.........3-blade VDM.........3-blade Rotol
- ..................constant speed......constant speed
- Empty Weight......4189 lbs............4810 lbs
- Normal Loaded.....5875 lbs............6200 lbs
- Combat Weight.....5479 lbs............5811 lbs
- Length............28ft 4.25 in........29ft 11in
- Span..............32ft 4.50in.........36ft 10in
- Height............8ft 2.33in..........12ft 7.75in
- Wing Area.........176.53 sq ft........242 sq ft
- Aspect Ratio......5.94................5.61
- Wing Loading......31.0 lb/sqft........24.0 lb/sqft
- Power Loading.....4.66 lb/hp..........5.64lb/hp
- Prof Drag Area....4.975 sq ft.........5.182 sq ft
- Max Speed.........355mph@16400ft......362mph@18500ft
- Max Climb Rate....3730 ft/min.........3240 ft/min
- Range.............410 miles...........575 miles
- Service Ceiling...35600 ft............37000 ft
-
- With higher empty and loaded weights, higher power
- loading (though admittedly 10 more HP at altitude)
- and larger wing area (implying larger overall
- surface area) the Spit is 7 mph faster than the E-3.
- This time the difference in altitude is 2100 feet.
- Ram effect helped the Spitfire, but was not included
- in the HP figure. How does all of this this
- establish the 109E-3 as a low drag airframe?
-

Well the answer to your question is that you were foundamenally wrong with your assertion about plane speeds from the start, which is why you have come to a false conclusion:

http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/Spit%20I%20speed.jpg


So, as far as real data goes, the Spit I can do ~350 mph at 18 500 ft, where the air is thinner, with more power, with more ram recovery (according to your source at least), wheras the 109E-7 makes 5mph more at an altitude where the air is slightly denser.



Vezérünk a Bátorság, K*sérµnk a Szerencse!
(Courage leads, Luck escorts us! - Historical motto of the 101st Puma Fighter Regiment)

Flight tests and other aviation performance data: http://www.pbase.com/isegrim

XyZspineZyX
10-24-2003, 03:48 PM
I realize you've been busy Isegrim, but I am still waiting for that world speed record holding 109 source. Was it really faster than an I-16?

Good hunting,
Cajun76

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it."
-Aristotle

XyZspineZyX
10-24-2003, 03:52 PM
Cajun76 wrote:
-
- I realize you've been busy Isegrim, but I am still
- waiting for that world speed record holding 109
- source. Was it really faster than an I-16?
-

You never read any book on the 109, right, Cajun ? It`s so obvious, any good book would list them, but try Jerry Scutt`s : Messerscmitt, the operational record for a start.

Besides, even the critic of the Clown Carson article mentions it.




Vezérünk a Bátorság, K*sérµnk a Szerencse!
(Courage leads, Luck escorts us! - Historical motto of the 101st Puma Fighter Regiment)

Flight tests and other aviation performance data: http://www.pbase.com/isegrim

XyZspineZyX
10-24-2003, 03:55 PM
Vo101_Isegrim wrote:
- A good picture showing the extremely cramped canopy
- of the P-51D. The minimal clearance between the
- armor plate and the plexiglass is visibile.

- I wonder how US pilot`s "looked behind the armor
- plate". By sticking their head through the
- plexiglass ? There was absolutely no other way.

Beside the fact that your picture kicks in the *** your own statement, since it clearly shows at least 20 cm on each side of the armor plate where you can put your eyes to look at your 6, just read this:

"[The Mustang] major production version, the P-51D... differed from the P-51B/-51Cs by introducing as standard a bubble canopy to provide the pilot with an excellent all- round view...", from WWII Aviation Archive.
And I've read similar statements in many books.

Anyway, if you still "believe", just keep on doing so, it will be fine for me: I'm not here to change your weird "faith", that's your problem, not mine!

Cheers!



<center>http://www.uploadit.org/files/170903-G55_Firma.jpg </center>

XyZspineZyX
10-24-2003, 03:57 PM
Isegrim, I'm serving overseas in Japan, it's 2355 local, and the local library is closed on base. Maybe, just maybe you could post a link or article easily educating me about the world speed record holding 109, that held it for a really long time. Thanks,

Good hunting,
Cajun76

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it."
-Aristotle

XyZspineZyX
10-24-2003, 04:13 PM
Picture of the Erlan Haube for the Clowns to argue and further deny.

http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/109/123-2364_IMG.jpg


Real world photo. Clearly can be seen, that even without using the bonus perspective the armor glass provides, even from the edge of the head armor about 2/3s of the horizontal stabiliser can be seen.

Of course if we took the Armor glass and the lenghty rear extension of the canopy in account, he could see even further to his back, and could see a lot more of his 6 o clock high area than in a Mustang.


That`s why the Clowns didn`t provie ANY SINGLE COCPIT PHOTO.






Vezérünk a Bátorság, K*sérµnk a Szerencse!
(Courage leads, Luck escorts us! - Historical motto of the 101st Puma Fighter Regiment)

Flight tests and other aviation performance data: http://www.pbase.com/isegrim

XyZspineZyX
10-24-2003, 04:22 PM
Blottogg wrote:
-
- As to Col. Carson "pretending" to have an aero
- degree, that seems to be your crime, not his.
- Calling him a "propagandist" because you don't like
- what he wrote doesn't put you in a very good light,
- either. Why not hurl names at the RAE? They did
- the testing after all. Is it because you can
- associate a name and a face to Col. Carson? He
- worked hard for his rank, his degree and his
- experience. You talk about respect and banning
- those who show you none, then go right around and do
- the same thing you accuse others of. Knock it off.


Now this is unbelievable, how should I call a person that propagating such miserable lies. He gives for Bf-109 the Cd0 for a primitive 4 engine bomber (Halifax). He constructed his entire argument on a lie, this totaly discredits him. His main point in that article was that Bf-109 was outdated because it had outdated aerodynamics. He gives for Bf-109 a Cd0 of 0.036, a value not to be found in any british test, it is totaly his invention, he was fabulating.


- Argue 0.036 vs. 0.028 to death if you
- want, but the 109's drag was never one of its strong
- points.

This shows again how limited is your knowledge on Bf-109. 0.028 value comes from a french test made in 1941 on Emil. Should I repeat to you once again that F and later models were completely redesigned aerodynamically? Cd0 value for 109G is 0.023. Spitfire IX Cd0 is 0.022. This coupled with the wing area make the flate plate are much much smaller for Bf-109G. This is why Bf-109 was much faster at sea level than Spitfire models with similar power.


-
- I don't know that the Halifax had a 0.036 Cd either,
- but it doesn't sound improbable. Huck, its a
- COEFFICIENT, and as such independent of size.

Blotto, I'm sorry but this clearly shows that you never practiced your degree. Drag coeficient is dependent of size. This is a basic problem in aerodynamics. Getting correct drag or lift coefficients from scaled models. A 1/3 scaled model of a Bf-109 does NOT have the same Cd0 with the normal sized Bf-109, because the skin friction is much smaller on the scaled down model. This is why wind tunnels have increased air density and velocity and decreased air viscosity (with the scale ratio of the model).


- That's why we multiply it by flat plate area, or
- wing area, to get overall drag, which would
- obviously be much higher for the Halifax. Such a
- comparison would shine an interesting light on the
- Emil's efficiency though.

As I said before this is not true. A scaled down model of a Halifax does not have the same Cd0 with the real size one. This is why Reynolds numbers were calculated, the ratio between pressure drag and skin friction.

Here's the drag coeficient vs lift coeficient chart for Bf-109G, clearly showing that at zero lift Cd is 0.023:

http://home.comcast.net/~bogdandone/109G_polar.jpg



<center> http://www.stormbirds.com/images/discussion-main.jpg </center>

Message Edited on 10/24/0310:26AM by Huckebein_FW

ZG77_Nagual
10-24-2003, 04:22 PM
Puss is also a generic term for face - and more frequently used in that way - in fact I've never heard it used the way you describe without a 'y' added - lets not unnecessarily amplify the allread-waxed-well-past-ridiculous personal tone of this thread.

The Erla obviously has good visibility - D mustang is better however. - particularly downward - and to a lesser degree to the rear. On second thought - I can't support that position - except I think the mustangs down fron view was probably better. Have to do some more research.

http://pws.chartermi.net/~cmorey/pics/whiner.jpg


Message Edited on 10/24/0311:29AM by ZG77_Nagual

XyZspineZyX
10-24-2003, 04:23 PM
Huckebein_FW wrote:
- Those pictures from the game serve the purpose much
- better than some lines on a drawing. Those cockpits
- are careful 3D models of the originals. They are not
- perfect copies, but they are perfectly acceptable
- for this discution.

Folks keep in mind here that Huckie has forgot one important fact about the 3D models of the cockpits. The 3D models do not allow you to LEAN and LOOK.

That is to say the current 3D models do not allow you to tilt your head, bend your neck, or even twist you upper body to look back left or right.

The current 3D model is as if your head can ONLY turn on one axis L or R like a record player.

To try and strike a *BALANCE* the sim makes up for the lack of LEAN and LOOK the sim actually allows you to turn your head farther on that axis than it can in real life. To try and make up for the lack of LEAN and LOOK. Many refer to this as the LINDA BLAIR effect.

This *BALANCE* actually makes a Real Life aircraft with a GOOD view BAD (P51) in the sim, and makes a Real Life aircraft with a BAD view GOOD (109) in the sim.

Therefore the 3D views that Huckie presented do not represent what a pilot would see inside a real cockpit.



<div style="background:#222222;color:#e0e0e0;font-size:24px;font-weight:bold;font-face:courier;"> TAGERT
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If WAR was not the ANSWER.. Than what the H was your QUESTION?
</div>
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=forum
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=discussion

XyZspineZyX
10-24-2003, 04:42 PM
Vo101_Isegrim wrote:
- A good picture showing the extremely cramped canopy
- of the P-51D. The minimal clearance between the
- armor plate and the plexiglass is visibile.
-
-http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/detail_p51d_17.jpg


Folks, note here that Izzie is once again posting a picture of a P51 with the canopy pulled back. In doing so the narrow part of the canopy that makes contact with the forward frame is at the point of the head rest. When the canopy is closed the BULDGE of the BUBBLE will be moved forward and thus allowing much more head movemnt Left and Right.

For example, note here how much room the pilot has when the canopy is closed and the BULDGE of the BUBBLE is where the pilot sits

http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/P51DView.jpg



Again, this is all BASIC stuff, but it is clear that some here are having problems *seeing* it. In that this is the second time I have had to clear this up for him.

If you want to get a *feel* for what it is we are talking about.. Get in your avg car and roll the window up. Now turn your head towards the window and lean until your forhead makes contact with the window. Now look back.. How much of the SIDE of your car and world can you see? Not much! Now roll the window down and stick your head out about 2 inches. Now look back.. How much of the side of your car and world can you see? ALOT MORE!


<div style="background:#222222;color:#e0e0e0;font-size:24px;font-weight:bold;font-face:courier;"> TAGERT
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If WAR was not the ANSWER.. Than what the H was your QUESTION?
</div>
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=forum
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=discussion

Message Edited on 10/24/0308:58AM by tagert

XyZspineZyX
10-24-2003, 04:43 PM
Well, it's a miraculous thing, but Isegrim ACTUALLY provided some facts to support an argument. Will wonders never cease?

It was I who originally posted that Tacitus data cited by Blottog. The Tacitus authors devoted a paragraph to relative profile drag issues. Their comment was that, although the 109E3 did have a slightly smaller total profile drag area than the Spitfire Mk1A (4.975 versus 5.182 sq ft), the very slight difference (about 4 pct) versus the physically much larger Spitfire (4.5 ft greater wingspan; 1.5 feet longer) indicated that the Spitfire was a much cleaner aerodynamic design, with a superior drag co-efficient.

What the addition of a slab of bullet-proof glass to the front of the Spitfire's cockpit and an aerial did to drag-coefficient is anyone's guess. But (362 -6 -2 =) 354mph still indicates a better drag co-efficient for the much larger Spitfire, assuming that both test a/c were in equal states of efficiency. As for the 350mph figure, I can certainly believe it to be a valid average speed estimate for aircraft in active front line service.

BTW, I understand that the 109E7 was powered by a different engine, DB601N. However the functional difference between this engine and the DB601Aa of the 109E3 is unclear.



Blutarski

XyZspineZyX
10-24-2003, 04:46 PM
Vo101_Isegrim wrote:
-
-
- Picture of the Erlan Haube for the Clowns to argue
- and further deny.

Nice horizontal 5 o'clock view from the Erlan. Thanx. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif
Now can you please provide 6 o'clock view from the same?

You have an amazing amount of iconocraphic material, congratulations!
Thus, I would also like you to show us the same views from a P-47 or a P-51. Come on, I'm sure you have these pics! /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif



<center>http://www.uploadit.org/files/170903-G55_Firma.jpg </center>

XyZspineZyX
10-24-2003, 04:48 PM
Vo101_Isegrim wrote:
-
-
- Picture of the Erlan Haube for the Clowns to argue
- and further deny.
-
-http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/109/1232364_IMG.jpg

-
-
- Real world photo. Clearly can be seen, that even
- without using the bonus perspective the armor glass
- provides, even from the edge of the head armor about
- 2/3s of the horizontal stabiliser can be seen.
-
- Of course if we took the Armor glass and the lenghty
- rear extension of the canopy in account, he could
- see even further to his back, and could see a lot
- more of his 6 o clock high area than in a Mustang.
-
-
- That`s why the Clowns didn`t provie ANY SINGLE
- COCPIT PHOTO.

Folks one thing to realise here is that a CAMERA and it LENS are very differnt from a HUMAN HEAD and EYES.

The CAMEAR BODY thickness between the BODY of the CAMERA and the LENS is much LESS then the TOP of your head with a HELMET ON to where your EYES are located.

That is to say you can press a CAMERA right up on the GLASS and the LENS with it..Where as the TOP of your HEAD with a HELMENT on keeps your EYES that much father back

Again basic, but it is clear that little FACT needed to be pointed out here.



<div style="background:#222222;color:#e0e0e0;font-size:24px;font-weight:bold;font-face:courier;"> TAGERT
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If WAR was not the ANSWER.. Than what the H was your QUESTION?
</div>
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=forum
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=discussion

XyZspineZyX
10-24-2003, 05:40 PM
This thread is truly a long read.. Bearcat got the Lengthy part right, for sure! I read one post, and two more pages appear!

Any of you seen "Willie Wanka and the Chocolate Factory"? This is the "Everlasting Gob-stopper" of threads! LOL, ROFLMAO!

I have to thank all of you guys for a great laugh.

On a serious note: Isegrim, I dont understand the point you are trying to make about the helicopter. Can you elaborate? I looked at the picture and thought, why the heck did he post this?!?

Also, (In my opinion), the late model hoods for the 109 were designed to get the best possible view out of the plane without redesigning the hull section. It wasnt as good as the bubble top designs, but was a whole lot better than the earlier ones on the 109.

With their factories being bombarded day and night, I dont think it was very feasable to redesign the whole aircraft, tool up for production, and produce mass quantities with limited resources. For those that dont think the bombing campaign on Germany was that important, Albert Speer was quoted as saying something to the effect that it was the MOST costly campaign against Germany during the war and caused considerable damage towards their manufacturing capability. Speer was the Minister of Armaments for Hitler from 1942 to the end of the war, so I guess he would know a thing or two about Germany's production capabilities.

http://webpages.charter.net/cuda70/Fehler.jpg




Message Edited on 10/24/0304:53PM by Fehler

XyZspineZyX
10-24-2003, 05:53 PM
Very interesting, Horseback.

I am sure you can provide us with photographs of your magnificent advantures in Mustangs and Spitfires. Please do post those picture of the cocpit. Or did you forgot your camara at home ? That would be a pity.

I am also interested in your description about the time you spent in 109s canopy. What model BTW ? Were you really THAT much unable to twist your torso a mere 45 degrees? Funny, I could do that with no extra space.

I think this gentleman has neither much of a problem with it, despite his rather generous stature :

http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/109/123-2367_IMG.jpg




Vezérünk a Bátorság, K*sérµnk a Szerencse!
(Courage leads, Luck escorts us! - Historical motto of the 101st Puma Fighter Regiment)

Flight tests and other aviation performance data: http://www.pbase.com/isegrim

XyZspineZyX
10-24-2003, 05:58 PM
Vo101_Isegrim wrote:
-
- BLUTARSKI wrote:
--
-- Nice phot of two helicopters, Isegrim. Where's the
-- Erla Haube, you moron?
-
- [sigh]
-
- Poor Blutarski.


That photo is from an aviation museum 25km from my home, Erla haube is in the picture, photo is taken from inside of it.


-jippo

XyZspineZyX
10-24-2003, 05:59 PM
Fehler wrote:

- On a serious note: Isegrim, I dont understand the
- point you are trying to make about the helicopter.
- Can you elaborate? I looked at the picture and
- thought, why the heck did he post this?!?


Apart from the helicopters though, you could have noticed that the picture shows the vision from the cocpit of a late 109 with Erla Haube, showing an apprx. 5 o clock position.

As I already noted it, you can see well about 2/3s of the horizontal stabiliser of your own plane (this is supposed to be an impossibility according to Milo`s funny drawings), and you are not even yet using the bonus field of vision provided by the trasnaparent rear armor glass. You only see on the photo what is visible to the left of it. And that`s already a lot.

It`s also an amusing photo, as it shows what impossiblilties a human body can do. Despite the expert opinion of tagert, we can actually see that somebody could indeed twist his torso to the right at least b0 degrees to make that photo.



Vezérünk a Bátorság, K*sérµnk a Szerencse!
(Courage leads, Luck escorts us! - Historical motto of the 101st Puma Fighter Regiment)

Flight tests and other aviation performance data: http://www.pbase.com/isegrim

XyZspineZyX
10-24-2003, 06:00 PM
horseback wrote:
- The P-51 was quite a bit roomier than the Spitfire,
- quite a bit less than the P-47, and lightyears
- bigger than the Messerschmitt. The torso twisting I
- did in the Mustang would not have been possible in
- the 109, even if it had a Bubbletop canopy.

This is because you also sat in a 109 cockpit right? Give me a break horseback.

Keep in mind that germans favoured short pilots because they have better G-load endurance. All german aces were short.


<center> http://www.stormbirds.com/images/discussion-main.jpg </center>

XyZspineZyX
10-24-2003, 06:01 PM
Jippo01 wrote:
-
- That photo is from an aviation museum 25km from my
- home, Erla haube is in the picture, photo is taken
- from inside of it.
-
-
--jippo


Jippo, if you have some time, could you take a panorama shot of the cocpit visibility inside the museum ? I you could provide me a series of shots that would cover 360 degree, I could make it into one single panorama shot.

That would very much solve the case (for the reasonable characters here).



Vezérünk a Bátorság, K*sérµnk a Szerencse!
(Courage leads, Luck escorts us! - Historical motto of the 101st Puma Fighter Regiment)

Flight tests and other aviation performance data: http://www.pbase.com/isegrim

XyZspineZyX
10-24-2003, 06:07 PM
Vo101_Isegrim wrote:
-
- Jippo, if you have some time, could you take a
- panorama shot of the cocpit visibility inside the
- museum ? I you could provide me a series of shots
- that would cover 360 degree, I could make it into
- one single panorama shot.
-
- That would very much solve the case (for the
- reasonable characters here).
-


I think already the picture you showed should do the trick. I think I have an external shot of the 109 and the choppers behind it if they don't get their bearings from the one shot. If somebody has probles to understand how the things are arranged in the museum I can try and find it.

But to tell you the truth, I'm very busy, and doubt if I will have time to visit the museum any time shortly. Work at the office and all FB related stuff is hardly giving time to breath.

But if it is worth anything, I can give my word that your pic is right. I have seen it before and I have seen the pla + choppers and the things are just like they are in the photo. There is no way around that.

Link to the museum:
http://www.jiop.fi/ksimuseo/index.html



-jippo

XyZspineZyX
10-24-2003, 06:21 PM
Ahh, Im sorry. I have a small monitor (17"), and I am quite secure in my manhood with it.. LOL I really didnt realize the photo was taken from inside a cockpit! Where is the yellow-stained-gritty-egg-smeared glass? /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

http://webpages.charter.net/cuda70/Fehler.jpg

XyZspineZyX
10-24-2003, 06:32 PM
Isegrim,


My apologies. Your description of the photo failed to state that the photographer was actually situated inside the cockpit, and the photo did not provide sufficient clue to make it obvious.

I hereby retract my "moron" accusation.

But, did you take any photos toward your six o'clock? I thought not.



Blutarski

XyZspineZyX
10-24-2003, 06:43 PM
Jippo01 wrote:
- That photo is from an aviation museum 25km from my
- home, Erla haube is in the picture, photo is taken
- from inside of it.
-
-


Thanks, Jippo - alles klar. The circumstances of the photo show that the pilot could see about well enough back to his 5 o'clock, a point which I have never disputed.

As I mentioned in my previous "chiropractic" post to you, my argument really has to do with visibility to 6 o'clock level and low. We know from the testimony of a number of real world pilots that this is possible in a bubble canopied a/c. It is not possible in a 109 (or a P47B/C or a P51B/C or a P40 or early Spit) because, even with an Erla canopy, the high spine of the aft fuselage obstructs the view.



Blutarski

XyZspineZyX
10-24-2003, 06:49 PM
Got into those cockpits at an airshow in the early 1980's, some time before this thread began. Being a poor sailor at the time, I had run out of 110 film for my Kodak,and blew my remaining cash on a seat in the Mustang and the Spit (which now sits in the San Diego Aeronautical Museum). Mea culpa, mea maxima culpa. While the lack of film was a pity, the real pity was that I didn't wear a hat that day, and got an unbelievable sunburn, which made wearing my uniform hat the next day sheer torture. The 24 pictures I did take are probably in a box in my ex-wife's garage, including an outrageous shot of two Thunderbirds passing each other head to head.

I never claimed to have sat in a 109 cockpit, although that would have required you to read the post carefully. My comparison is from from reading Johnny Johnson's, Douglas Bader's, and other wartime pilots' biographies who DID sit in 109 cockpits (there's a famous shot of the captured Bader in a 109F, with Galland on the wing next to him)and looking at pictures, as well as viewing the 109 at the National Aerospace Museum in Washington DC (from the outside) a few years ago.

I could point out that the occupants of the 109 cockpits posted so far are all sitting with their shoulders at or below the sill line, while the Mustang seats you a couple of inches (call it 5+ cm) higher, and can raise you almost twice that distance higher before your head bumps into the hood. That alone confers a greater field of view for the Mustang pilot, ignoring framing and razorback issues. I note that you ignore the description of the armor plate, or the other descriptive passages, concentrating instead on my veracity.

There's one point in particular you could address: would turning your upper torso 45 degrees in the 109 affect your control of the aircraft? I'm given to understand that the 109's stick had a limited travel, and we're all familiar with drivers who can't look behind them without unconsciously changing lanes, so wouldn't a similar principal apply here? Fine control of the aircraft affected by the pilot twisting around in a cramped space? I noted that I had room to turn around without losing easy reach of the controls in the Mustang, and that I still could apply a lot of leverage to the stick. Does the same hold true for the 109? There is a tendency to transfer movement from motion in one part of the body to another (films of early Wildcats show the a/c weaving and rising and falling in time to the pilot handcranking his gear up-that sort of thing); doesn't this also factor into our discussion?

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

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

XyZspineZyX
10-24-2003, 07:04 PM
tagert, that pic you like to post with Erla canopy only shows that the guy is huge. This one gives a much better idea how much room was in a Bf-109 cockpit, as compared with how much room was in a Mustang. If you want to make somebody believe that Mustang had more visibity to the rear than that seen in the pic from the rear of P-51, you should post a similar pic with Erla canopy shot from the same angle (above and in lateral).

http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/nonrubbernecker.jpg



http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/detail_p51d_17.jpg



<center> http://www.stormbirds.com/images/discussion-main.jpg </center>

Message Edited on 10/24/0301:05PM by Huckebein_FW

XyZspineZyX
10-24-2003, 07:28 PM
Huckebein_FW wrote:
- tagert, that pic you like to post with Erla canopy
- only shows that the guy is huge. This one gives a
- much better idea how much room was in a Bf-109
- cockpit, as compared with how much room was in a
- Mustang. If you want to make somebody believe that
- Mustang had more visibity to the rear than that seen
- in the pic from the rear of P-51, you should post a
- similar pic with Erla canopy shot from the same
- angle (above and in lateral).


Folks.. the thing to notice here is that Huckie failed to note that the guy in this picture is leaing forward and looking down..

http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/nonrubbernecker.jpg


Where as the guy in this photo is sitting up straight.

http://www.uploadit.org/files/231003-ErlaHaube.jpg


Therefore it is not really a size issue as much as a body position issue. Again, basic stuff, but an easy mistake to make if you can not visualize 3D from a 2D picutre.


<div style="background:#222222;color:#e0e0e0;font-size:24px;font-weight:bold;font-face:courier;"> TAGERT
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If WAR was not the ANSWER.. Than what the H was your QUESTION?
</div>
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=forum
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=discussion

XyZspineZyX
10-24-2003, 07:35 PM
tagert wrote:

- Folks.. the thing to notice here is that Huckie
- failed to note that the guy in this picture is
- leaing forward and looking down..

- Where as the guy in this photo is sitting up
- straight.


You failed to note that the guy really is huge. He is a lot taller and more muscular than the other fellow.


-jippo

XyZspineZyX
10-24-2003, 08:01 PM
Jippo01 wrote:
-
- tagert wrote:
-
-- Folks.. the thing to notice here is that Huckie
-- failed to note that the guy in this picture is
-- leaing forward and looking down..
-
-- Where as the guy in this photo is sitting up
-- straight.
-
-
- You failed to note that the guy really is huge. He
- is a lot taller and more muscular than the other
- fellow.


Jippo,

..... Not to be too terribly picky about this, but, based upon two sample photographs only, how can one tell whether pilot (A) is average and pilot (B) is huge? Perhaps pilot (A) is actually small and pilot (B) is average. I certainly cannot judge.

Based upon the evidence at hand in this thread, one assumption or another is required in order to pursue either conclusion.



Blutarski

XyZspineZyX
10-24-2003, 08:04 PM
BLUTARSKI wrote:
-
- ..... Not to be too terribly picky about this, but,
- based upon two sample photographs only, how can one
- tell whether pilot (A) is average and pilot (B) is
- huge? Perhaps pilot (A) is actually small and pilot
- (B) is average. I certainly cannot judge.
-
- Based upon the evidence at hand in this thread, one
- assumption or another is required in order to pursue
- either conclusion.


Good point! /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Advice taken! /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif


-jippo

XyZspineZyX
10-24-2003, 08:23 PM
Jippo,


It is nice to conduct an interesting and rational discussion with someone. What a breath of fresh air.


Blutarski

XyZspineZyX
10-24-2003, 08:29 PM
It is nice indeed. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif


-jippo

XyZspineZyX
10-24-2003, 08:47 PM
Five-nine equates to 176cm. When I met Rall, I thought he was about my height, so by your standards, he would have been a giant among the jagdefleiger in more than figurative terms. As for fighter pilot's heights in general, they have long tended to be shorter than average, regardless of nationality. It was more self-selecting than official policy.

Now we know that that had more to do with relative heart-lung efficiencies (internal organs tend to be about the same size in adults, without height affecting the size)than with some kind of inherent superiority. A great many of the taller aces appear to have been superior athletes involved in strenuous sports (soccer, American football, rugby, wrestling) calling for good body control under stress, and the ability to judge relative distance and trajectory.

Johnny Johnson was about six one, or about 190cm, and he was a husky man (rugby player) who might not have been able to get into a Spit's cockpit without that side door flap they had. He commented on the tighter fit of the Messerschmitt (I think it was a 109F, although the 109's cockpits varied little in size from type to type). From that and other descriptions, I could extrapolate a bit about how much room I might have in the 109, given that I believe Allied fighters had inertia reel shoulder belts and 109s and FWs, judging from the photographic record, did not.

Size might determine which cockpit you fit in, not how good you are. G-load endurance is more a result of physical fitness, something not fully appreciated in the '30s and '40s. The best pilots in most air forces today are in their late twenties and older, because they maintain their fitness and add the skills and experience younger men can't match.

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

XyZspineZyX
10-24-2003, 08:56 PM
Blutarski, thanks for the data, and sorry I didn't site you as the intermediate source. I lost track of where I got the info, but luckily kept the original source from your post.

Isegrim, thanks for the elaboration of the data I posted. From your addition, it seems that the way to make a Spitfire MkIA fly more like a 109E-3 is to add weight and drag. How again is this supposed to show that Col. Carson was wrong in describing the 109E's drag characteristics as poor? And when you get a chance, tell your buddy with the web site that he dropped an order of magnitude in his Cd's. A pass through spell check wouldn't hurt the site, either. Thanks too for the Erla photo from in the cockpit. I had to do a double take too before I understood what the photo showed. Camera lenses, angles and positions aside, I can still hide a whole lot of fighter behind that 109 before the pilot can see it. It does show a bit more horizontal slab than I expected, though. That blind spot to the rear doesn't exist with a bubble canopy (unless, as previously suggested, you fly with a neck-brace, or confine your flying to PC sims.)

Huck, you're correct that Reynolds number corrections need to be made to normalize aerodynamic data to account for variations in size, velocity and viscosity. Reynolds numbers don't need to be exactly equal to allow comparison, however. There are several critical boundaries (for laminar/turbulent transition, and compressibility) where exact Reynolds numbers are very important, but for general comparison, getting well within an order of magnitude means the two systems are comparable. The formula for Reynolds number (from "Fundamentals of Aerodynamics" by John D. Anderson, Jr.) is:

Re = rho(V)c/mu

rho = air density
V = freestream velocity
c = wing chord (an arbitrary vehicle dimension to normalize vehicle size)
mu = viscosity constant (a constant for both of our examples)

Freestream Mach number also has to be taken into account since we're above M = 0.4 (actually, we're right at 0.4 for the Halifax, but about 0.5 for the 109):

M = V/a

a = the speed of sound

Cd is a function of both Re and M, and as such velocity affects comparative Cd's as Vsquared. For the orders of magnitude we're talking about with the 109 and the Halifax, airspeed and altitude (affecting density) will have almost as large an effect on the determination of Cd as relative vehicle size (affecting representative chord lengths.) I don't know what airspeeds or altitudes the two Cd's were calculated with, but assuming maximum speed at altitude, and that the chords are proportional to the wingspans, the wingspan ratio is:

32.3 ft./104.2 ft. = 3.22

With the Halifax MkIII topping out at 282 mph at 18,500 ft., the ratio between the squares of the velocities is:

(282)^2/(355)^2 = 0.633

Differences in density at 18,500 versus 16,400 are small, about 7% (in slugs/ cu. ft., but the ratio is nondimensional)

0.001355/0.001448 = 0.935

Combining these ratios, the ratio of the Re for the Halifax and the 109 is:

3.22 x 0.633 x 0.935 = 1.91 (discounting Mach effects and leaving V to the first power, the ratio is 2.39)

The Re values don't match exactly, but they're close enough to allow direct comparison. Reynolds number is a factor, but in this comparison the two are well within an order of magnitude of each other, and not close to laminar flow (low Re) or compressibility (high Re) differences. It becomes a much bigger player with subscale models (substituting water or oil for air as the fluid works well, unless Mach effects are being examined), highly compressible flow, or order of magnitude variations of altitude and/or airspeed. If Oryx drops by, he could no doubt explain it better than I, and perhaps find a mistake in my admittedly rusty math. Until then, how's my lack of engineering practice holding up?

Was the Cd of 0.023 you provided for a G-2 or a later G variant? G-2's were still pretty slick, while the G series started getting lumpy again with the G-6. And even after the clean up, it was (by your numbers) still dirtier than the Spitfire. With its radiator arrangement and wing fillets, the Spitfire was also draggier than the P-51B, though the bubble P-51D got closer to the Spitfire's drag.

Cajun76, I didn't spend too much time at Yokota, but had two years at Misawa. Misawa was a blast, but you guys have the better deal. Now go to bed.

Blotto

"Only the spirit of attack, born in a brave heart, will bring success to any fighter craft, no matter how technically advanced." - A. Galland

"Look, do you want the jets, or would you rather I slap the props back on?" - W. Messerschmitt

http://home.mindspring.com/~blottogg/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/14fsPatch.gif

XyZspineZyX
10-24-2003, 09:02 PM
Had I known this thread would become this monstrosity I would never have poste that article..../i/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

<CENTER>http://www.world-wide-net.com/tuskegeeairmen/ta-1943.jpg <marquee><FONT COLOR="RED"><FONT SIZE="+1">"Straighten up.......Fly right..~S~"<FONT SIZE> </marquee> http://www.geocities.com/rt_bearcat

<CENTER><FONT COLOR="ORANGE">vflyer@comcast.net<FONT COLOR>
<Center><div style="width:200;color:red;font-size:18pt;filter:shadow Blur[color=red,strength=8)">99th Pursuit Squadron

XyZspineZyX
10-24-2003, 09:11 PM
Blottogg wrote:
- Blutarski, thanks for the data, and sorry I didn't
- site you as the intermediate source. I lost track
- of where I got the info, but luckily kept the
- original source from your post.


..... No apologies of any kind are necessary. I have learned a great deal from your posts as well.



Blutarski

XyZspineZyX
10-24-2003, 11:26 PM
Blottogg wrote:
- Huck, I wasn't able to find the full RAE report Col.
- Carson used, but portions of it are here:
-
- http://www.geocities.com/capecanaveral/hangar/9378/flybf109.html

Very cool thanks!

- No mention of Cd, but if you doubt the 0.036 number,
- I suggest you take it up with the RAE, not Col.
- Carson. I'm inclined to believe that the RAE's
- testing was consistent with that used for the
- Spitfire, and less inclined to believe so for
- Meudon's numbers. My response to this site's:

Same here.

- Criticism of this drag number was previously posted
- (in another of these pointless threads trying to
- convince Isegrim and Huck that the world is, in
- fact, round), but I'll re-post the relevant portion
- here (Col. Carson's text in quotes, the unnamed
- critic's comments in plain text following, and my
- comments in parentheses including "Blotto:")
-
- "The Spitfire was an aerodynamically clean airplane
- to start with, having a total drag coefficient of
- .021 at cruise. The Me-109 had a coefficient of
- .036"
-
- 0.36 for the 109 is plain BS. Tests in Charles
- Meudon showed a CD of 0.24-0.28,
- (BLOTTO: still higher than the Spitfire, and I've already made clear how much I trust data from this source when it is taken out of context by the critic.)
-
- depending on surface condition. 0.36 is close to the
- test with a 500kg bomb and reduced wing area. And this
- is once more just the CD value, to know more about
- total drag characteristics you have to multiply it
- with wing area.
-
- (BLOTTO: Well, flat plate area actually. But wing area is often used as a substitute in drag calculations. I find it suspect that the critic doesn't hesitate to tout low wing area when it suits his argument, yet dismisses it as irrelevant when it runs counter to his beliefs about turn performance. Engineering is not a buffet.)
-
- Well, the Spit did
- have a lot, right? Let´s see:
- Spit: 0.21*244 = 51.24
- 109: 0.28*171 = 47.9
- Once more the 109 beats the Spitfire, even assuming
- the worst drag coefficient
-
- (BLOTTO: from his source, not Col. Carson's)
-
- Oh wait, i made a mistake. the
- CD is for the 109V24 with a wingare of only 15.1m^2
- or 162ft^2. It´s for a rough camouflage painting
- btw, so really the worst you can expect. Now..:
- 109: 0.28*161 = 45.2
- Significantly better than that of the Spitfires.
-
- (BLOTTO: So explain why exactly the Spitfire Mk I was faster than the 109E-7 with 170 fewer horsepower and a bigger wing? Admittedly, this speed was at 18,500 ft., versus 12,300 for the E-7. Since both were mechanically supercharged, I can only explain the different altitudes to a difference in supercharger gearing and/or shift point. The Spit weighed about 100 lb. less empty, but this and the altitude difference hardly seem enough explanation [although it does put that 60 lb. of ballast into perspective]. An engineer would look at this discrepancy and say; "hmm, my drag data or flat plate area must be off." The critic apparently sees the data as the goal, not aircraft performance.)
-
- History also tells us that 109 usually was faster
- with slightly less power.
-
- (BLOTTO: Not my history books.)
-
- "Messerschmitt practically ignored the subject of
- low drag aerodynamics"
-
- This is the biggest joke in the article. From 1937
- on the world record for top speed was in the hand of
- Messerschmitt with a short interruption by Heinkel.
- The record for the 209 lasted over 30 years, though
- the upcoming jet age definitly helped it to survive
- so long, pulling away attention, until it was broken
- by rather sportive reasons. However it clearly shows
- why Messerschmitt is still known as a pioneer in low
- drag and light construction.
-
- (BLOTTO: I don't know the specifics of the record flight, but I'm fairly sure that a powerful engine, in a heightened state of tune, was responsible for the record speed, not an airframe with external braces for it's horizontal stabilizer. I'd give more credence to Col. Carson's provided Cd, though the critic's source also stipulates a Cd high enough to support Col. Carson's statement.)
-
-- End excerpt -

WOW! As allways BLOTTO NICE WORK! Thanks for taking the time to shead some light on each one of those points. This thread is a keeper! Oh by the way I added the BOLD to your replys to make them stand out a little better.. Hope you dont mind!

- As to Col. Carson "pretending" to have an aero
- degree, that seems to be your crime, not his.

Exactally!

- Calling him a "propagandist" because you don't like
- what he wrote doesn't put you in a very good light,
- either.

Agreed 100%

- Why not hurl names at the RAE? They did
- the testing after all. Is it because you can
- associate a name and a face to Col. Carson? He
- worked hard for his rank, his degree and his
- experience. You talk about respect and banning
- those who show you none, then go right around and do
- the same thing you accuse others of. Knock it off.

Would be funny if it wasnt so sad...

- I don't know the Cd of any variant of the 109 (other
- than the RAE's number.) But I do know that
- comparing the 109E-7 to the Spitfire MkI (Col.
- Carson used data from the E-3 test, but I don't have
- that handy), the Spitfire has 170 fewer HP, 100 lb
- less weight, and 73 sq. ft. more wing area. With
- those two handicaps (and a 100 lb. weight
- advantage), it still flew faster than the 109.

That FACT allways get ignored somehow? /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

- The only way it could have done that (barring radical
- compound supercharging which it didn't have) was to
- have a lower Cd than the 109.

AGREED 100%

- That's why they did
- the Fredrich redesign in the first place.
- Messerschmitt recognized the drag was too high, why
- can't you?

The million dollar question! /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

- Col. Carson's criticism stems from the
- fact that modifications he suggested (canopy,
- radiators, retractable tail wheel, etc.) could have
- been done in 1940. Instead, the Germans waited, and
- with some of the improvements never implemented them
- (incorporating them into later Me-209/309 prototypes
- instead.)

E X A C T A L L Y!!! Col Carson made note of that in many ways.. He pointed out how easy it would have been to do to. Even with the non-disrupt production lines restions it could have been implimented! Funny thing is they did get around to SOME of the items DURRING some of the most demanding production times.. ie the end of the war, instead of early on when the impact would have been much less.. IF ANY!

- Argue 0.036 vs. 0.028 to death if you
- want, but the 109's drag was never one of its strong
- points.

Exactally.. Lumps and Bumps.. And even when they got rid of the Bumps on the nose they added lumps to the wings for wheel wells.

- I don't know that the Halifax had a 0.036 Cd either,
- but it doesn't sound improbable. Huck, its a
- COEFFICIENT, and as such independent of size.

DING! Give that man a cigar!!

- That's why we multiply it by flat plate area, or
- wing area, to get overall drag, which would
- obviously be much higher for the Halifax.

Funny how that is left out in some of the posters here.

- Such a comparison would shine an interesting light on the
- Emil's efficiency though.

Agreed.

- I'm still waiting for a confirmation or denial of
- authorship of the above link. My money is still on
- Isegrim.

Does have that same *feel* to it.

- Meanwhile Huck, I'm also still waiting for that
- explanation of how much stiffer a single spar wing
- can be.

JOIN THE CLUB!!!!

- Let me get you started here:
-
- http://www.rmcs.cranfield.ac.uk/aeroxtra/e339ex1999.htm" (http://www.rmcs.cranfield.ac.uk/aeroxtra/e339ex1999.htm)

Cool link thanks!

- Make t4>>t1 thru t3 for the single spar structure,
- and t1=t4 for the two spar, with equal cross
- sectional area sums (t1+t2+t3+t4) for both cases.
- Let me know how that works out. The front "spar"
- radius will hurt stiffness, but it'll still be
- stiffer than the single spar case. That's why they
- build them that way these days.

LOL!

- As if this canopy thing wasn't dead already, are
- either Huck or Isegrim related to Kraut in the
- thread link EnjoyTheSilence posted? Kraut's got the
- same "I've never been there, but I'll tell you how
- it was because only I know" attitude they have.

I noticed that too.

- Since Kraut (and apparently Huck and Isegrim) object
- to the views of four pilots, let me be the fifth.
- Looking down the side of the canopy in my F-16, I
- could look down the length of the fuselage strake,
- and see my speed brakes open and close (I couldn't
- quite see the air refueling door.) I could do this
- over the headrest, but found the view better AROUND
- the headrest.

DING!!!! Thank You!

- I also routinely looked over my right
- shoulder at the left wingtip, and vice versa, as
- part of my BFM warm-up routine. This was all fairly
- easy 'till about 5 g's, after which you risked
- pulling a neck muscle (done that twice.) And this
- was with a bulky helmet the WWII guys didn't have to
- worry about.

ANOTHER GOOD POINT!!

- You tighten up the lap belt to stay
- out of the canopy, and only tighten up the shoulder
- straps just before impact.

EXACTALLY! Funny how something so simple is so misunderstood! You would think that people who are of driving age would have seen a SEAT BELT and SHOULDER BELT in a car once and be able to realise this.. Well I can cut them some slack here.. NEWER cars have that one belt.. Back in the 70s when they 1st came out with shoulder belts they were TWO seperate belts.. the old style LAP belt and the shoulder belt.. So maybe that explains why they dont get it?

- I do admit the
- bulletproof glass for the head armor was a good
- idea. The Russians had the best of both worlds with
- their late war fighters, and probably had the best
- implementation of all.
- The only reason I can think
- of for the western allies using steel is for better
- protection from multiple hits.

Agree 100%

- Huck with your pictures from FB, you're trying to
- apply the simulator to reality, instead of the other
- way around like you should be. Trust me, reality
- won't bend like sim code will.

EXACTALLY!

- And unless you
- achieve a sudden, extreme and permanent bias
- reduction, I don't want you moderating any forum I
- post to. You're talk of deletions, bans and locks
- smack of book burning, whether you intended that or
- not.

Agreed 100%


<div style="background:#222222;color:#e0e0e0;font-size:24px;font-weight:bold;font-face:courier;"> TAGERT
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If WAR was not the ANSWER.. Than what the H was your QUESTION?
</div>
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=forum
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=discussion

XyZspineZyX
10-24-2003, 11:45 PM
Huckebein_FW wrote:
-
-
- Keep in mind that germans favoured short pilots
- because they have better G-load endurance. All
- german aces were short.
-
-

That is a very sweeping statement Huck. What do you call short? Under/over 170cm? (5'8")



http://www.thundercycle.com/photos/dropdead2.gif



"Only a dead 'chamber pot' is a good 'chamber pot'!"

XyZspineZyX
10-25-2003, 12:32 AM
i cant stand it anymore ...vo101 isegrim wrote
In fact these late 109s were much more common in LW service than the P-51s in US service. One shouldn`t forgot that Merlin Mustang accounted for about zero percent of US fighter production (rounded to the nearest 5 percent)... i write.are you kidding me?..read this http://www.p51.mustangsmustangs.com/p51Production.shtml i guess this is propaganda as well.zero %?. come on

http://images.ar15.com/forums/smiles/anim_sniper2.gif
U.S INFANTRY 1984-1991

Message Edited on 10/24/0304:53PM by tenmmike

XyZspineZyX
10-25-2003, 03:59 AM
I'm still waiting for Isegrim to educate me about this 109 record holder. He's probably consulting Huckbein per my advice.

BTW, I had a chance to look at this 'critique' of Carsons article. Does anyone know who wrote it, for sure? I don't think I've ever seen a more disparate collection of personal insults, mixed with fuzzy math and selective, twisted arguments. Just for the tone presented alone, I would put no faith in the author of the 'critique', as the author is not equiped to handle a rational thought pattern.

The only thing that article proves is that freedom of speech is alive and well and that no matter what silliness comes out of peoples fingertips or mouths, Allied sacrifices in WWII have mostly not gone in vain.

And I would love to vist Misawa, Blotto, I hear it's very pretty up there, and I can inflict my limited, broken Japanese on the locals.... /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Good hunting,
Cajun76

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it."
-Aristotle

XyZspineZyX
10-25-2003, 09:34 AM
Another shot.

As I said before bubble canopy might offer slightly better view to the sides, useful in checking six only in cruise.

Erla canopy offers better visibility to the upper rear, there were the engaging aircraft should be in maneuvers. And to calm down tagert, the pilot does not need to lift the chin up to the ceiling, it only has to turn the head towards the inner side of the turn, and use peripheral vision to check the six o'clock high.

Clearly visible in the picture is how much better the pilot protection is in a Bf-109 compared to american planes.

http://home.comcast.net/~bogdandone/visibility3.JPG



<center> http://www.stormbirds.com/images/discussion-main.jpg </center>

Message Edited on 10/25/0303:47AM by Huckebein_FW

XyZspineZyX
10-25-2003, 10:43 AM
Not sure, but isn't the headrest in the P-51 and P-47 similar? Read up on Robert S. Johnson's experience to learn the first hand account of how much an American headrest can protect the pilot. After all, he did write about it, after the war. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Good pic, Huckbein, but an average sized person would have trouble leaning back or twisting around enough for a high 6 look. Not saying it's impossible, but a bubble equipped -51 or -47 pilot would have an easier time looking up or around his headrest. The P-47 Johnson was flying had a seat that could go up and down. This would increase or decrease his protection and visibility inversely, depending on what he needed. At the time, he needed every ounce of protection he could get. 3 20mm shells were reported as hitting the headrest, inches from his head. Seeing as the only 20mm recorded as hitting the plane came from the initial attack, and the fact he saw the 190s boring in, they came from at least the same altitude, if not higher, before he had dropped his seat for his encounter with Egon Mayer. Some thing to consider...

Good hunting,
Cajun76

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it."
-Aristotle

XyZspineZyX
10-25-2003, 11:20 AM
Huckebein_FW wrote:
- Another shot.
-
- As I said before bubble canopy might offer slightly
- better view to the sides, useful in checking six
- only in cruise.
-
- Erla canopy offers better visibility to the upper
- rear, there were the engaging aircraft should be in
- maneuvers. And to calm down tagert, the pilot does
- not need to lift the chin up to the ceiling, it only
- has to turn the head towards the inner side of the
- turn, and use peripheral vision to check the six
- o'clock high. #

Hmmm... what your picture shows to me is how the 109 pilot could only see six o'clock (very) high because of the spine of the fuselage and would be almost unable to look round the side of the headrest, whereas the P-51 pilot could see much lower. I know which I would prefer.

- Clearly visible in the picture is how much better
- the pilot protection is in a Bf-109 compared to
- american planes.

It would be clear if there was a pilot in the 109, but there isn't so it's impossible to tell. The 109's armoured glass section only looks bigger because the cockpit is much smaller.

Overall, I've seen nothing here to presuade me that bubble canopies don't offer better views. I think their continued use on modern fighter aircraft pretty much concludes the argument.

RocketDog.

XyZspineZyX
10-25-2003, 12:39 PM
Huckebein, the view with the Erlahaube is not bad . but IMHO there is no doubt about, the view of the mustang D-series is better.

so guys, let this thread (Bearcats Monster- Thread) die his deserved death .

http://www.bayern.de/Layout/wappen.gif

Bavaria is one of the oldest European states.
It dates back to about 500 A.D., when the Roman Empire was overcome by the onslaught of Germanic tribes. According to a widespread theory, the Bavarian tribe had descended from the Romans who remained in the country, the original Celtic population and the Germanic invaders.

Bavarian History : http://www.bayern.de/Bayern/Information/geschichteE.html#kap0

Message Edited on 10/25/0302:03PM by Boandlgramer

XyZspineZyX
10-25-2003, 01:44 PM
I agree, Huck's pictures are more convincing. The P-51 clearly had better visibility in all a regards.

First, the photos are not taken at the same angle.

Second, it's clear the headrest in the Bf-109 is nealy as wide as the canopy itself limiting the ability of the pilot to look around the side.

Third, there is clearly an inability of the Bf-109 pilot to see over the top of the rear of the fuselage.

Thanks Huck.



Regards,

SkyChimp

http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/jug_sig.jpg

XyZspineZyX
10-25-2003, 03:00 PM
nice read Bearcat.......keep em coming!!!!!/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

http://www.endlager.net/fis/pix/banners/fis_banner_01.jpg



Your Post Could Not Be Completed Because:

Board is busy currently unable to post.

Please make any needed corrections and try again

XyZspineZyX
10-26-2003, 06:16 PM
Huckebein_FW wrote:
- Another shot.
-
- As I said before bubble canopy might offer slightly
- better view to the sides, useful in checking six
- only in cruise.
-
- Erla canopy offers better visibility to the upper
- rear, there were the engaging aircraft should be in
- maneuvers. And to calm down tagert, the pilot does
- not need to lift the chin up to the ceiling, it only
- has to turn the head towards the inner side of the
- turn, and use peripheral vision to check the six
- o'clock high.

Folks the funny thing to notice here is that this is one case where the twins are at odds. In that one of the clamed early on that you were starped in so tight that you could not turn your head to look back L or R at all.. Yet now it is used as an argument for the 109.

Also note that no one is arguing that you can not turn your head and take adv of the peripheral vision.. What we are simply pointing out is that the 109 cockpit is not as wide and is a razor back.

Therefore both the P51 and the 109 can check the *upper rear* but only the P51 can check the *lower rear* all the way back to the tail itself.

- Clearly visible in the picture is how much better
- the pilot protection is in a Bf-109 compared to
- american planes.

http://home.comcast.net/~bogdandone/visibility3.JPG


What Huckie fails to note here is that the head rest of the 109 is made out of bullet proof glass and the P51 is a plate of steel.

As noted the P51 pilot can simply LEAN farther L and R because there is actually ROOM between the pilot head protection and the canopy. Where as with the 109 the pilot head protection is as wide as the canopy. Thus the METAL FRAME holding the bulit proof glass now BLOCKS some of the view to the six.

As a test sit in a car with a bucket seat and head rest... place a small object in the back window of your car that is directly behind that seat.. Now turn and look at the object..

NOTE that your body position.. You naturally turned your head and leaned a little in that direction..

Also NOTE that the head rest of the bucket seat is near the edge of your perfieral view..

Also note how far the top of your head is PAST the width of the seat.. You can lean and look due to this space between the *edge of your seat* and the *side of the car (window)* this *SPACE* is what the P51D provides and the 109 has very little of.

Now take another look at the 109 head protection with the bullet proof glass... NOTE that it is as WIDE as the seat itself.. where as with the P51 head protection it is only as wide as your head (ie head rest like in your car). Thus the FRAME holding that GLASS is at the point where it actully blocks your view to the six.. ie it is right at the point where you would be looking when you turn and lean.

This does not show up in the game because in the game it does not allow you to lean.. it just turns your head like linda blair... thus much more of the head rest shows up in your view then it would in real life...

That simple fact is why the game view in the 109 is actully pretty good.. and the P47D is actully pretty bad...


<div style="background:#222222;color:#e0e0e0;font-size:24px;font-weight:bold;font-face:courier;"> TAGERT
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If WAR was not the ANSWER.. Than what the H was your QUESTION?
</div>
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=forum
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=discussion

XyZspineZyX
10-26-2003, 06:31 PM
EVALUATION AND COMPARISON TRIALS OF P-51B AND F4U-1 AIRPLANE

[...]

3, <u> Vision </u>

Vision in the P-51 is notably poor forward, because of low pilot position and heavy framing. Vision aft is also poor, because of the limited head travel allowed by the narrow cocpit.

4, <u>Cocpit, Controls etc.</u>

The cocpit is cramped for space, but the arrengements of controls is good. [...]




It seems P-51`s cocpit was narrow, head travel was limited, and was cramped for space. Unlike the fantasies of some.



Vezérünk a Bátorság, K*sérµnk a Szerencse!
(Courage leads, Luck escorts us! - Historical motto of the 101st Puma Fighter Regiment)

Flight tests and other aviation performance data: http://www.pbase.com/isegrim

XyZspineZyX
10-26-2003, 06:42 PM
The above was the US Navy`s evaluation of P-51B.

Here`s it`s British counterpart for Allison powered P-51. The statements regarding the cocpit size should be just as true for all P-51s, since it`s size never changed.

[i]

"AEROPLANE ARMAMENT EXPERIMENTAL ESTABLISHEMENT.
BOSCOMBE DOWN.

MUSTANG P-51 (ALLISON V 1710 F.3.R)

HANDLING TRIALS

[...]

3, COCPIT LAYOUT

... The head room provided is inaduquate. Even with seat fully down, the avarage sized pilot feels very cramped. No undue noise or vibration was experienced under any conditions of flight.

3.2 View

The view for a single engined fighter is good, esp. to the front over either side of the fusalge. This is due to the narrowness of the nose compared to other fighters such as the Spitfire. The rear view mirror is mounted on the inside of the hood but the resulting view to the rear is very poor."



Vezérünk a Bátorság, K*sérµnk a Szerencse!
(Courage leads, Luck escorts us! - Historical motto of the 101st Puma Fighter Regiment)

Flight tests and other aviation performance data: http://www.pbase.com/isegrim

XyZspineZyX
10-26-2003, 06:42 PM
Vo101_Isegrim wrote:
-
-
-
- EVALUATION AND COMPARISON TRIALS OF P-51B AND F4U-1
- AIRPLANE
-
- [...]
-
- 3, <u> Vision </u>
-
- Vision in the P-51 is notably poor forward, because
- of low pilot position and heavy framing.
- Vision aft is also poor, because of the limited
- head travel allowed by the narrow cocpit.
-
- 4, <u>Cocpit, Controls etc.</u>
-
- The cocpit is cramped for space, but the
- arrengements of controls is good. [...]
-
-
-
-
- It seems P-51`s cocpit was narrow, head travel was
- limited, and was cramped for space. Unlike the
- fantasies of some.


By American standards it was cramped. By German standards it was spacious.

Regards,

SkyChimp

http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/jug_sig.jpg

XyZspineZyX
10-26-2003, 06:46 PM
" EVALUATION AND COMPARISON TRIALS OF P-51B AND F4U-1 AIRPLANE "


Isn't it beautiful when someone makes a mistake and doesn't even see it by himself? And then keeps calling others dreamers?


Isegrim, while I believe that this comparison is valid, TAKE A CLOSE LOOK at your own posting.

It compares the P-51 B with the F4U-1. But this discussion is about the bubble canopy of the P-51 D .

Notice that there is a difference between a B and a D.
Same goes for the P-51 series. "B" series Mustang is a completely different story than the "D" series all are talking about here.


Thanks for listening (I know you didn't).


- Future


CAN SOMEONE OF THE MODS LOCK THIS DA*N THREAD?

XyZspineZyX
10-26-2003, 06:51 PM
Just so noone can blame me telling crap, check this:

http://usaaf.com/aircraft/p51.htm

That should clear out some dust in Isegrim's vision.

XyZspineZyX
10-26-2003, 07:06 PM
tagert wrote:
-
- Therefore both the P51 and the 109 can check the
- *upper rear* but only the P51 can check the *lower
- rear* all the way back to the tail itself.


Except we have already seen on photos that a 109 pilot could see most of his horizontal tail even w/o looking through the armor glass section. Looking through that would probably show it even further back.


You on the other hand was unable to support the claim that the P-51 could check the "lower rear" (which is, BTW, as evidenced by photos, easily possible in the Erla Haube 109), neither that he could see "all the way back to the tail itself".

Narrowness of the cocpit makes this hardly a possibility, altough probably he could see the tip of the horizontal stabiliser.

No funny drawings please. They just make you look ridiculus and unconvincing.




Vezérünk a Bátorság, K*sérµnk a Szerencse!
(Courage leads, Luck escorts us! - Historical motto of the 101st Puma Fighter Regiment)

Flight tests and other aviation performance data: http://www.pbase.com/isegrim

XyZspineZyX
10-26-2003, 08:04 PM
For this '09 pilot, being able to see well where Ise and Huck say did not help nor save him.

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





http://www.thundercycle.com/photos/dropdead2.gif



"Only a dead 'chamber pot' is a good 'chamber pot'!"

XyZspineZyX
10-26-2003, 09:28 PM
MiloMorai wrote:
- For this '09 pilot, being able to see well where Ise
- and Huck say did not help nor save him.

That is just lack of style. Only bad taste & poor form.

Remember that you talking about human life.


In addition to that this must be the MOST stupid argument I have seen. Pilot of P-51 and 109 could see their rear quarters just fine by applying little rudder.

And everyone insists on arguing...


-jippo

XyZspineZyX
10-26-2003, 09:44 PM
Jippo01 wrote:
-
- MiloMorai wrote:
-- For this '09 pilot, being able to see well where Ise
-- and Huck say did not help nor save him.
-
- That is just lack of style. Only bad taste & poor
- form.
-
- Remember that you talking about human life.
-
-
- In addition to that this must be the MOST stupid
- argument I have seen. Pilot of P-51 and 109 could
- see their rear quarters just fine by applying little
- rudder.
-
- And everyone insists on arguing...
-
-
--jippo
-
-

For refference, you can't ingame. I have one track, in the 190A-8, where and AI P-51 neatly hid in my blindspot for about twenty minutes, despite my heavy use of rudder, rolls, and pitch manuvers to check it. It was only when I went to the external mode, and actually looked behind me that I spotted him, and was able to take appropriate defensive manuvers.

I can send the track to anyone who is interested. You have to watch it with view control turned off, to get the full effect.

Harry Voyager

http://groups.msn.com/_Secure/0YQDLAswcqmIpvWP9dLzZVayPXOmo6IJ16aURujNfs4dDETH84 Q6eIkCbWQemjqF6O8ZfvzlsvUUauJyy9GYnKM6!o3fu!kBnWVh BgMt3q2T3BUQ8yjBBqECLxFaqXVV5U2kWiSIlq1s6VoaVvRqBy Q/Avatar%202%20500x500%20[final).jpg?dc=4675409848259594077

XyZspineZyX
10-27-2003, 08:34 AM
Huckebein_FW wrote:

- All german aces were short.


Not all of them, Huck.

Erich Rudorffer, who survived the war with 222 victories, was about 6'6".

Most of his kills were with the FW190, and no doubt Rudorffer benefitted from the outstanding forward view, as well as the excellent search view provided by the real-life FW190.

British pilots flying a captured Focke-Wulf described it's search view as the best they had ever seen.

This was prior to the "blown" canopy of the later FW-190 variants that provided an even better search view.


<center><img src= "http://www.luftwaffepics.com/LCBW4/FW190-A0-52.jpg" height=215 width=365>

<center>"We are now in a position of inferiority...There is no doubt in my mind, nor in the minds of my fighter pilots, that the FW190 is the best all-round fighter in the world today."

Sholto Douglas, 17 July 1942

XyZspineZyX
10-27-2003, 11:24 AM
Vo101_Isegrim wrote:
- Yes, in engine, armament etc. Cocpit was the same
- width though, not an inch bigger on the P-51D.

(compared to P-51B)

The cockpit section was totally reworked on the P-51D. I superimposed some drawings and it's obvious that the cockpit in the D was far more roomy than in the B. It was higher, longer and wider. I think it was wider at the base, too. Of course they didn't widen the fuselage.

Sorry for the small size. But I think the difference is easy to see.

http://mitglied.lycos.de/jaytdee/cockpitsp51.jpg

XyZspineZyX
10-27-2003, 11:28 AM
Thanks, I already had posted a link to some pics where you can see the difference on the real planes. Just go back to then lower half of page 16 and look for the link.

( I know I'm lazy )


- Future

XyZspineZyX
10-27-2003, 11:38 AM
Cajun76 wrote:
- One more thing. Isegrim, since you have no info on
- this world record setting and holding 109, that held
- this record for a very, very long time, I'll let it
- drop. It's just another in a long stream of
- fabrications from you, and as such, is expected.
- It's your MO.

The 109 set several speed records. Best known are a modified 109E that set a speed record in 1937: 611 km/h with 1700 hp DB 601 at zero alt and the 109R (209) which held the total speed record from 1939 to 1969. The 109R was no true 109, but a racing aircraft designated 109 for marketing reason.

Anyway, flying 611@0km was there for some years and I'd consider this a very long time considering that the war meant huge advances with aero engineering.

XyZspineZyX
10-27-2003, 01:02 PM
http://freespace.virgin.net/john.dell/bf109/Bf109Chrono.html

Isegrim couldn't seem to supply any info on it, thanks. The version that posted a 611 km/h @ 0m seems to be a modified 109B, designated Bf-109 V-13. The 109E's didn't start getting produced until 1939. The 109V-13 seems to have held the record for about 17 months, until the He-100 throughly beat it. 379mph - 463mph As WW2 didn't start until 6 months after the '109R' broke the record, the pace of a/c developement was rather slow during this period, compared to the pace during the war. The 109R was pure propaganda, as you are correct: it was a 209.

Good hunting,
Cajun76

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it."
-Aristotle

XyZspineZyX
10-27-2003, 01:03 PM
JtD, there was no 109E in 1937.

There was the V13 though. This was a 'cleaned up' a/c with a streamline canopy, smoother forward forward fuselage, capped spinner and revised water and oil coolers. The record was for Class C and raised Howards Hughes record from 567.114kph to 610.950kph. The flight took place on Nov. 11 1937.

The official certificate contains 2 errors. It says a Bf 113R and DB600 engine. Theengine used was a DB601R.


The other a/c, as can be seen, the 209V1 looked nothing like the current model of the 109.


ps I see cajun has already posted just before me. Photos of the V13 can be found here http://www.messerschmitt-bf109.de/php-bf109v/bf109v13.php?sortby=id

http://007toku.infoseek.livedoor.com/10034.JPG


http://www.thundercycle.com/photos/dropdead2.gif



"Only a dead 'chamber pot' is a good 'chamber pot'!"



Message Edited on 10/27/0307:17AM by MiloMorai

XyZspineZyX
10-27-2003, 01:50 PM
Sorry for the mistakes. I called it E because it was powered by a DB 601 as opposed to the Jumo from the B series. V13 had more in common with the Emil than with B.

And I forgot the Heinkel. But the V8 that set the speed records was highly modified, too. More than the V13.

So to cut it short: The 109 set a speed record that lasted 17 month. It's up to you if this is "very long". ;-)

XyZspineZyX
10-27-2003, 05:15 PM
Cajun76 wrote:
- Isegrim wrote:
- It also explains why 109s held speed records for
- long-long time.
-
- This was in reference to a discussion about CoD vs
- HP. This is the statement that got me interested.
- Seems he's trying to sell the idea that '109s', ie.
- multiple planes, the 109 family is holding speed
- records for a long-long time.



Cajun to understand why Bf-109 had very good aerodynamics you have to look at flat plate area. Let's compare it with a Mustang, arguably the most aerodynamic plane of ww2.

Bf-109G
0.023 * 16.05 = 0.369

P-51D
0.018 * 21.65 = 0.389

Spitfire IX
0.022 * 22.48 = 0.494

This clearly shows which airframe produces the least drag. This is why Bf-109 was as fast as Mustang with the same HP rating. Also Spitfire will be much slower than Bf-109 with the same HP rating.

Yak3 has the smallest flat plate area, but a lot of necessary equipment is missing, like armor, ammunition, competitive supercharger and so on, this is why only Yak9U derivatives were produced after the war. Nevertheless Yak3 had aprox the same max speed at sea level with Mustang with only 1240HP (compared with 1720HP for Mustang).

Also it is very important to say that Bf-109 produces the least induced drag from all ww2 fighters.

Induced drag coef:

Cdi = (Cl^2)/(Pi*e*AR)

e = aprox (1 - 1/AR)

Since most late war fighters had a Clmax between 1.45 and 1.55, the difference in Cdi comes from the difference in aspect ratio, where again Bf-109 is the best.


Bf-109G
6.15

Mustang
5.87

Spitfire
5.56

Since Bf-109 has the smallest Cdi and the smallest wing area (only Yak3 has a smaller wing area) it means that it also has the smallest induced drag.



Now let's put parasite drag (computed from Cd0) and induced drag (computed from Cdi) together to get the whole picture. Parasite drag added to induced drag make the total drag of the airplane.

Parasite and induced drag combine in different procents from total drag depending of the aircraft maneuver.

For a normal ww2 fighter, induced drag is less than 5 procents at max speed at sea level, incresing with altitude to 10 procents.

At climbing speeds induced drag is slightly less than parasite drag, indicating how important induced drag can be.

In sustained turns, induced drag is three times more than parasite drag!!! showing that planes that have good Cd0 but poor induced drag (from a small aspect ratio wing) have poor sustained turn rate.

Now you see that regardless of maneuver Bf-109 produces less drag than any other aircraft!!(except Yak3 and Mustang in extreme high Mach dives)

Since the Bf-109 HP rating was always competitive among liquid cooled engines, it had a big, powerful, fuel efficient very modern engine, DB605. That means that Excess thrust was always best (only La7 reached it at the end of war). This couple with a small mass, meant Bf-109 had the largest ratio between excess thrust and weight, giving excellent flight performance. Basically everything depends on this from sustained turn, climb, zoom climb, dive, acceleration.

American fighters are the worst in this respect, they have the worst ratio between excess thrust and weight compared to fighter planes of any nation. They had small parasite drag (small Cd0) and with it good max speed. Nothing else worth noting regarding american designs. They perform poorly in anything: from climb, zoom climb, acceleration, turn, they can be used only in hit and run attacks. They have outdated armament and pilot is poorly protected. Superior numbers allowed USAAF fighters to use hit and run effectively, helped also by the fact that LW cannot lift in the air fighters to engage the escorts, because of the chronic fuel shortages, beginning with March '44.

As you can see, small dimension of the plane is an aerodynamic quality in itself. Not only that it generates the same flat plate area with planes having better Cd0, but also means less airframe weight. It was easy to improve Bf-109 Cd0 by elongating the fuselage, but that would have brough additional weight (and wing area), more skin drag, for a minimal advange in Cd0.




<center> http://www.stormbirds.com/images/discussion-main.jpg </center>

XyZspineZyX
10-27-2003, 06:06 PM
499th post. I think that you guys ought to invite Bearcat to put up the 500th!

<CENTER>


<IMG SRC="http://www.apqa16.dsl.pipex.com/airplane1.3.jpg"


Ladies & gentlemen, this is the captain speaking. Thankyou for choosing to fly Mandarin Airlines. Those passengers sitting on the left-hand side of the aeroplane please make yourselves comfortable. Those sitting on the right... please look to your left!

XyZspineZyX
10-27-2003, 08:51 PM
Huckebein_FW wrote:
- Cajun76 wrote:
-- Isegrim wrote:
-- It also explains why 109s held speed records for
-- long-long time.
--
-- This was in reference to a discussion about CoD vs
-- HP. This is the statement that got me interested.
-- Seems he's trying to sell the idea that '109s', ie.
-- multiple planes, the 109 family is holding speed
-- records for a long-long time.
-
-
-
- Cajun to understand why Bf-109 had very good
- aerodynamics you have to look at flat plate area.
- Let's compare it with a Mustang, arguably the most
- aerodynamic plane of ww2.
-
- Bf-109G
- 0.023 * 16.05 = 0.369
-
- P-51D
- 0.018 * 21.65 = 0.389
-
- Spitfire IX
- 0.022 * 22.48 = 0.494
-
- This clearly shows which airframe produces the least
- drag. This is why Bf-109 was as fast as Mustang with
- the same HP rating. Also Spitfire will be much
- slower than Bf-109 with the same HP rating.
-
- Yak3 has the smallest flat plate area, but a lot of
- necessary equipment is missing, like armor,
- ammunition, competitive supercharger and so on, this
- is why only Yak9U derivatives were produced after
- the war. Nevertheless Yak3 had aprox the same max
- speed at sea level with Mustang with only 1240HP
- (compared with 1720HP for Mustang).
-
- Also it is very important to say that Bf-109
- produces the least induced drag from all ww2
- fighters.
-
- Induced drag coef:
-
- Cdi = (Cl^2)/(Pi*e*AR)
-
- e = aprox (1 - 1/AR)
-
- Since most late war fighters had a Clmax between
- 1.45 and 1.55, the difference in Cdi comes from the
- difference in aspect ratio, where again Bf-109 is
- the best.
-
-
- Bf-109G
- 6.15
-
- Mustang
- 5.87
-
- Spitfire
- 5.56
-
- Since Bf-109 has the smallest Cdi and the smallest
- wing area (only Yak3 has a smaller wing area) it
- means that it also has the smallest induced drag.
-
-
-
- Now let's put parasite drag (computed from Cd0) and
- induced drag (computed from Cdi) together to get the
- whole picture. Parasite drag added to induced drag
- make the total drag of the airplane.
-
- Parasite and induced drag combine in different
- procents from total drag depending of the aircraft
- maneuver.
-
- For a normal ww2 fighter, induced drag is less than
- 5 procents at max speed at sea level, incresing with
- altitude to 10 procents.
-
- At climbing speeds induced drag is slightly less
- than parasite drag, indicating how important induced
- drag can be.
-
- In sustained turns, induced drag is three times more
- than parasite drag!!! showing that planes that have
- good Cd0 but poor induced drag (from a small aspect
- ratio wing) have poor sustained turn rate.
-
- Now you see that regardless of maneuver Bf-109
- produces less drag than any other aircraft!!(except
- Yak3 and Mustang in extreme high Mach dives)
-
- Since the Bf-109 HP rating was always competitive
- among liquid cooled engines, it had a big, powerful,
- fuel efficient very modern engine, DB605. That means
- that Excess thrust was always best (only La7 reached
- it at the end of war). This couple with a small
- mass, meant Bf-109 had the largest ratio between
- excess thrust and weight, giving excellent flight
- performance. Basically everything depends on this
- from sustained turn, climb, zoom climb, dive,
- acceleration.
-
- American fighters are the worst in this respect,
- they have the worst ratio between excess thrust and
- weight compared to fighter planes of any nation.
- They had small parasite drag (small Cd0) and with it
- good max speed. Nothing else worth noting regarding
- american designs. They perform poorly in anything:
- from climb, zoom climb, acceleration, turn, they can
- be used only in hit and run attacks. They have
- outdated armament and pilot is poorly protected.
- Superior numbers allowed USAAF fighters to use hit
- and run effectively, helped also by the fact that LW
- cannot lift in the air fighters to engage the
- escorts, because of the chronic fuel shortages,
- beginning with March '44.
-
- As you can see, small dimension of the plane is an
- aerodynamic quality in itself. Not only that it
- generates the same flat plate area with planes
- having better Cd0, but also means less airframe
- weight. It was easy to improve Bf-109 Cd0 by
- elongating the fuselage, but that would have brough
- additional weight (and wing area), more skin drag,
- for a minimal advange in Cd0.
-
-
-
-
let me just lock that in, gotta go to work soon. thanks Huckebein.

Good hunting,
Cajun76

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it."
-Aristotle

XyZspineZyX
10-27-2003, 09:08 PM
cajun, this might interest you.

What a surprise for the Allies that the Germans were short of fuel in March 1944 for the Allied offensive against the 'oil' industry did not begin until 12 May 1944.

http://members.tripod.com/~Sturmvogel/images/ussbs/fig12.gif


As can be seen in the graph, production was at its max in March 1944.


Monthly German Production Of Liquid Fuels And Lubricants January, 1944 To March, 1945

(Thousands of Tons per Month)
Production: Aviation Gasoline - Motor Gasoline - Diesel Oils - Lubricating Oils - Fuel Oil

Jan to Apr 44 average 170 - 121 - 100 - 73 - 76
June 1944 52 - 75 - 69 - 55 - 95
December 1944 26 - 50 - 66 - 29 - 59
March 1945 0 - 39 - 39 - 0 - 0

The full report is here http://www.angelfire.com/super/ussbs/index.html


Huckebein_FW wrote:

-
-
- Superior numbers allowed USAAF fighters to use hit
- and run effectively, helped also by the fact that LW
- cannot lift in the air fighters to engage the
- escorts, because of the chronic fuel shortages,
- beginning with March '44.
-
-



http://www.thundercycle.com/photos/dropdead2.gif



"Only a dead 'chamber pot' is a good 'chamber pot'!"

Message Edited on 10/27/0303:10PM by MiloMorai

XyZspineZyX
10-27-2003, 09:15 PM
MiloMorai wrote:
- cajun, this might interest you.
-
- What a surprise for the Allies that the Germans were
- short of fuel in March 1944 for the Allied offensive
- against the 'oil' industry did not begin until 12
- May 1944.


I understand that Germany seized huge stocks of oil reserves upon the collapse ot Italy in late 1943. See STRATEGY FOR DEFEAT for details.


Blutarski

XyZspineZyX
10-27-2003, 11:41 PM
The problem wasn't always the amount of oil itself, in many cases it was the inability to transport and deliver it.


<center><img src= "http://perso.wanadoo.fr/christophe.arribat/stoffwjabo.jpg" height=205 width=385>

<center>"We are now in a position of inferiority...There is no doubt in my mind, nor in the minds of my fighter pilots, that the FW190 is the best all-round fighter in the world today."

British Air Marshall, Sholto Douglas, 17 July 1942

XyZspineZyX
10-27-2003, 11:42 PM
Huck, for the last time, you're not an engineer. Stop trying to use the tools of the trade without the training. At least you're not trying to pretend you're a carpenter. The thought of you doing what you do with equations with a nail-gun instead scares me. And don't even think about the medical field.

Again, from "Fundamentals of Aerodynamics", John D. Anderson Jr.:

Cdi = Cl^2/(pi*e*AR)

Cdi = induced drag coefficient
Cl = lift coefficient
pi = 3.1417...
AR = aspect ratio
e = (1 + delta)
delta = induced drag factor (this is the effect of taper ratio on lift distribution and induced drag. For elliptical distribution, delta = 0. For AR = 6, and taper ratios of 0.2-0.4 such as with the fighters we're discussing, delta < 0.01, i.e. not very much, which is why most aircraft manufacturers don't build elliptical wings. Though they help a bit, they cost more than they're worth.)

Using e = (1 - 1/AR) as you posted (where'd you get this BTW?) would yield:

Cdi = Cl^2/(pi*(AR-1))

Which contains the same relationships, but isn't very accurate. It may have been an approximation factor for comparing wings with straight leading and trailing edges and large AR's, but with varying tapers.

True, Clmax is in the 1.5 range for all the aircraft in your "example" (I don't know the specifics, but they should all be pretty close.) We're not calculating Cdi max though, so this isn't really important. If we had Cl/Cd curves for the wings, we could figure out drag for cruise as well as max performance (Clmax, Cdi max). During cruise (where all these high speeds everyone seems interested in occur), Cl is much less than Clmax.

As for induced drag itself:

Di = q*S*Cdi

q = (rho*V^2)/2
rho = air density
V = velocity
S = wing area

So with a small wing area and light weight (implying low Cl), I don't doubt the 109 had a low Di. Since Di for level flight is <10% of total drag, this isn't the major limit to aircraft speed, however. You are correct that Di increases in turns, though it will be 3x parasitic drag only for one [high) g loading. This would help the 109's sustained turning, as would its high P/W. The 109's relatively low Di does put it's parasitic drag in an even poorer light though, as we'll see.

As for overall drag, you can mess with flat plate areas, wing areas and Cd's all you want to (these can vary from source to source based on how they're calculated, and I don't have a reliable source handy for any of them anyway.) Without this data, we can still "back out" the product Cd*S by calculating overall drag, avoiding having to define Cd by using S = wing area, or some abstract flat-plate area. The bottom line on how much drag an aircraft produces is how fast it goes, how much power it takes to do that, and what conditions this speed is achieved at (altitude mostly.) So, for constant speed, drag = thrust, and from high school physics:

T = D = P/V

V = velocity (max level speed in our case)
P = power (1 HP = 550 ft.lb./sec)

Divide power by velocity to get thrust, and drag. Use max speed as V, and max power at that altitude for P (actually multiply this by the propeller efficiency factor. Since I don't have these handy, we'll call it a wash. This may actually hurt the 109's numbers a bit, since its stubby blades were probably less efficient than the Spit's or P-51's, giving it less thrust.) So, using numbers from Blutarski's source (which I posted previously) for the Spitfire MkIA:

D = P/v = (1030HP*550ft.lb./sec)/(362mph*(88ft./sec)/60mph)

D = 1066 lbf.

To get Cd*S:

D = rho(V^2)*Cd*S/2 = 1066 lbf.

Cd*S = (1066*2)/(rho*(V^2)) = 2132/(0.001355 slugs/ft^3)*(531 ft/sec^2)) = 5.50 ft^2

Doing the same for the 109E-3 (I'll spare you the math)

Cd*S = 5.49 ft^2

So the Spitfire, with significantly more wing area (and hence overall wetted area), has a Cd*S product only 0.01 ft.^2 higher than the 109E-3. The only way it could do that is with a lower Cd, since its S value will be higher no matter how you define it. Given the 109's relatively low Cdi, and that Cd = Cdi + Cdp, it puts the 109's Cdp (parasitic drag coefficient) in a fairly poor light. BTW, dividing 5.49 ft^2 by 177 ft^2 (109E-3 wing area) gives a C=0.031, so the RAE may have been a little high on their 0.036 number, though I don't know how they calculated it.

I'm not doing this to embarrass you Huck, nor for an ego boost. I'm doing this because if I don't, some forum readers might think your way of "engineering" is actually the right way. As I've said before, engineering is not a buffet. You can't pick and choose what parts of it to use to suit your preconceptions, and you can't apply its formulas out of an educated context. Proper engineering is passionless. Apply your zeal and math skills towards an engineering degree, but unhitch your ego from the 109. This contest of "you're airplane's Cd is higher than my airplane's" sounds a lot like the "my dad can beat up your dad" line you may have used when you were a kid, and is just as pointless.

Huck, first it was the wing torsion subject (how'd those numbers work out BTW?) Then it was Reynolds numbers. I'm tired of tutoring you in aero engineering. If you want to do this stuff, go get a degree. Your homework is to perform the above calculations with the 109G-6, P-51D and Spitfire MkIX numbers (list your sources, too.) This is the last freebie, after this I'm charging tutoring fees. I didn't enjoy this number crunching when I was getting credit for it, much less now when I'm doing it for free.

Blotto

"Only the spirit of attack, born in a brave heart, will bring success to any fighter craft, no matter how technically advanced." - A. Galland

"Look, do you want the jets, or would you rather I slap the props back on?" - W. Messerschmitt

http://home.mindspring.com/~blottogg/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/14fsPatch.gif


Message Edited on 10/27/03 03:44PM by Blottogg

Message Edited on 10/27/0303:44PM by Blottogg

XyZspineZyX
10-27-2003, 11:51 PM
"I wonder what Carson would have thought of the 109's if he were an I-153 pilot."


He would have shot it down ..

XyZspineZyX
10-27-2003, 11:53 PM
FW190fan wrote:
- The problem wasn't always the amount of oil itself,
- in many cases it was the inability to transport and
- deliver it.
-


..... True, but if the Germans were able to transport fueld from Romanian oil refineries to the various fronts, moving Italian stocks would have been equally possible. The domestic German rail transport system was not put under concentrated attack until mid-late 1944.



Blutarski