quote:

Originally posted by Kettenhunde:

quote:

Hurricane and Spitfire squadrons closest to the Channel

quote:

Units in Northern Ireland and northern half of the UK

The Squadrons rotated according to the official RAF history on a regular basis.

According to surviving BoB pilots on video they certainly did. And two I've seen remarked that
the new squads coming in flew the old 3 plane vics into battle because no one told them it would
be certain disaster. They said everybody was tired to exhaustion and thought someone else was
supposed to do it. As they said, the new guys went in and learned the hard way to fly finger-4.

Germans didn't put II Gruppe in till mid-Sept was it that the Tech Officer was testing his auto
pitch prop 109 on the 17th? I Gruppe out, II Gruppe in or just II Gruppe as added reserves?

quote:

Units in Northern Ireland and northern half of the UK may have still had fixed or two stage prop units as late as that winter (1940/41), but again, I don't recall anything specifically mentioned.

According to Spitfire the History, all the Spitfires and Hurricanes in the UK, including those in storage, were converted by 16 August 1940.

quote:

Originally posted by Kettenhunde:

quote:

Hurricane and Spitfire squadrons closest to the Channel

quote:

Units in Northern Ireland and northern half of the UK

The Squadrons rotated according to the official RAF history on a regular basis.

The first CSP's the RAF recieved offered no increase in performance. DH engineers worked on a solution and IIRC, in June of 1940 found one.

DH says they completed the conversion by August 1940 but the RAF contest's DH claims saying the conversion was not complete until much later. They finally dropped the matter in early 1943 as the propellers where no longer in service and the issue was unresolved.

All the best,

Crumpp

Complete nonsense.

The first CSP prop equipped Spitfires were available in November of 1939.



Production of new Spitfires after that point was focused on CSP equipped models. Older versions of the Spitfire which were equipped with the two pitch airscrews were replaced as soon as possible, with the last of those which were in operational combat areas being replaced or having their props upgraded in June and July of 1940, prior to the start of the BoB.

http://www.spitfireperformance.../611-dhprop-june.jpg

Tests of a CSP equipped Spitfire done in March of 1940 showed a clear improvement in climb over the two pitch version of the aircraft.

The constant speed aeroplane was fitted with bolt on bullet proof windscreen, (which went on outside of the standard windscreen) armour plating over the fuel tank, and a domed top on the sliding hood to allow of more headroom for the pilot. None of these modifications had been made to the two-pitch version it was compared with. These modifications would increase drag.

The result of these mods meant the two pitch version without these mods was faster at the rated alt, but one fitted with them was calculated to be slower.

Material courtesy Mike William's Spitfire site:

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spittest.html

quote:

Originally posted by Kurfurst__:

quote:

Originally posted by mortoma:
I have been messing with the latest 1.2 UI mod install and made myself and excellent Battle of Britain scenario to prepare for SOW. Most of the time I fly the modded 109E1 because I think it's cool to fly. Also have read a post or two in here where someone stated that most of the 109s in BOB had no automatic PP, only manual. Researched that and found it to be accurate. So of course I decided to try my hand at flying the 109 like the Germans really did it. And I am actually good at it now!!

They did have automatic prop pitch, already at the start of the war, but it would appear that not all Emils got them - I presume the first production models (nota bene, Emils entereted production at the end of 1938).

Oleg said it will be modelled accordingly, there will be several versions of the Emil. Ones with auto and manual, and ones with manual PP only, as historically. Furthermore, there will be both E-1 and E-3, and you can probably choose between versions with the armored headrest and without.

Kurfurst's suggestion that all 109's were flying with auto pitch prior to Sept. of 1940, and that pilots used an auto system has no grounds in fact. I would suggest he provide some proof before making such absurd claims.

Re: rotating squadrons to the front during BoB.

I was aware of this practice, but did not concern myself with it, because the pilot memoirs I've read seemed to conflict about how this was handled. Some specifically say that they were issued new Spits (or Hurricanes) before departing for the combat zones, leaving the aircraft they had been flying behind in Scotland or wherever, and some seem to indicate that they took their original issue of planes south with them.

Since none of them complained that they were stuck with old fashioned 'close' canopies, fabric wings or fixed or dual pitch props when they entered combat, I can only assume that they had what they considered the RAF's latest and greatest when they faced the Luftwaffe over the Channel.

This seems basic to me when you consider that even in early 1943, when the Spit Mk V was still the most numerous fighter in the RAF's inventory, a steadily increasing proportion of Mk IX equipped squadrons were likely to be encountered around the Channel. You always try to put your best stuff where it does you the most good.

cheers

horseback

quote:

According to Spitfire the History, all the Spitfires and Hurricanes in the UK, including those in storage, were converted by 16 August 1940.

Same source and the book mentions the contrevorsy with the RAF. From DH's POV the work was done but to the RAF, it was not completed.

All the best,

Crumpp

quote:

Originally posted by Buzzsaw-:
Kurfurst's suggestion that all 109's were flying with auto pitch prior to Sept. of 1940, and that pilots used an auto system has no grounds in fact. I would suggest he provide some proof before making such absurd claims.

Not that anyone would actually believe anything you say, but its always fun to wipe the floor with you.

Instruction about the operation of the automatic propeller pitch system (Luftschraube-Verstellautomatik) from the 16 December 1939 Bf 109E manual:

I can't read german. what does it say Kurf?

quote:

Originally posted by stalkervision:
I can't read german. what does it say Kurf?

These are simple instruction to the pilot what to do in various cases.

For example, if the automatic propeller pitch mechanism fails (C), the pilot is to switch off the auto pitch via a switch on the port canopy wall.

In case of emergency landing (D, Notlandung), pilot is to again switch off the auto pitch via a switch on the port canopy wall, and set propeller pitch manually to feather postion (Segelstellung = Gliding position) using the thumb switch on the throttle or via the pitch lever on the dashboard.

Point is, these instructions for the auto prop pitch system are already in the 16 December 1939 revision of the Emil manual...

There are many others like this in the manual, making reference to the Luftschrauben-Verstellautomatik, and at the same time making references to aircraft without this system, ie. 'on planes without the Luftschrauben-Verstellautomatik'.

It seems to me that the early production aircraft produced did not yet have this system, but it was clearly introduced to new aircraft by late 1939, and the two setups co-existed in Squadrons. During the Battle of Britain, older aircraft were retrofitted with the new auto prop system as well.

Salute

Once again we get the usual Kurfurst technique of providing only a cropped and edited source. In the past he has done this, only to have his claims discredited when the same document he had provided in edited form was provided in its entirety by another poster, and information which had been either cropped out or edited was brought to light.

Post the entire document, or don't post anything. ALL pages.


Report on the 109E3 tested by the RAF:

(for reference, this test is posted on Kurfurst's site: http://www.kurfurst.org/Tactic...UKtrials/Morgan.html )

<<<

2.5. Airscrew. – A 10.2-ft. diameter three-blade variable-pitch metal airscrew is fitted. It is of V.D.M. design, the pitch being controlled electrically. This type of airscrew is used very widely on German military aircraft. The pilot can set the pitch at any value between 22.5 deg. and 90 deg., i.e. the airscrew is fully feathering. A stationary electric motor fixed to the crankcase just behind the airscrew hub is used to alter the blade setting through a flexible drive and a differential reduction gear. A pitch indicator is provided in the cockpit ; this is coupled mechanically to the electric motor, and takes-the form of a clock face with hour and minute hands, about ten minutes on this " clock " being equivalent to 1 deg. change of pitch. There is no provision for overning the r.p.m. and the pilot must set the pitch to give the r.p.m. desired for any condition of flight.

<<<

There is no indication of any automatic pitch control in this aircraft.

If all 109's had automatic pitch control from 1939, why is this model missing this device?

Note also the many references in German pilot accounts of the nessesity of using manual pitch.

Plus the often posted on these boards German pilot account of Sept 17th 1940, of the 'new' automatic pitch equipped 109's being introduced in his Squadron, with the fact that he was forced to fly this 'new' aircraft, while the other pilots got to fly the old manual pitch versions.

How do you explain all this Kurfie?

Ulrich Steinhilper, Spitfire on my Tail:

quote:

Typical of these youngsters was a young Gefreiter who arrived in late September. His flying time was minimal - he had only fired a few shots at a ground target, had never flown on oxygen and still had no idea how to use his radio. We tried to increase their experience before they actually came along on combat missions by taking them up on patrols between missions. Then we would talk on the radio, climb to altitudes in excess of 8,000 metres (25,000 ft) and make them use oxygen. Of special importance was teaching them how to change the pitch of their propeller to get maxmum pull from the engine at high altitude. A flat pitch would allow the engine to rev up to its maximum so that the super-charger would deliver the maximum volume of air to the cylinders and produce optimum power; changing to a coarser pitch would have that engine power converted into more pull and consequently speed our rate of climb. It was vital they mastered this technique if they were to keep up in a battle-climb or at high altitude.
After about ten hours of 'tuition' we would take them out over the Channel to shoot at shadows on the water or cross to Dungeness and shoot at a black medieval tower which stood there (the old Dungeness Lighthouse). Finally when we could not excuse them combat duty any more we would have to take them along with us. This became the case with the Gefreiter and so I took him as my Rottenhund Iwingman]. We began our climb almost immediately after take-off and he was constantly using the radio to ask us to slow down so that he could keep up. It was obvious that he wasn't manipulating the pitch control with the skill of the more seasoned pilots to produce the same power as our machines. We tried to tell him what to do on the radio but to no avail.

quote:

Originally posted by Buzzsaw-:
Salute

Once again we get the usual Kurfurst technique of providing only a cropped and edited source. In the past he has done this, only to have his claims discredited when the same document he had provided in edited form was provided in its entirety by another poster, and information which had been either cropped out or edited was brought to light.

Dear Sir, I call you a liar.

Post the entire document, or don't post anything. ALL pages.

quote:

Originally posted by Buzzsaw-:
Report on the 109E3 tested by the RAF:
....
(for reference, this test is posted on Kurfurst's site: http://www.kurfurst.org/Tactic...UKtrials/Morgan.html )

There is no indication of any automatic pitch control in this aircraft. If all 109's had automatic pitch control from 1939, why is this model missing this device?

The report you are quoting is that of Bf 109E-3 Werknummer 1304. This aircraft was captured by the French in late 1939 (around November IIRC). It belonged to the Erla production batch that was produced between 31 March 1939 and 31 August 1939. The French tested it in 1939, then handed over to the Brits, who made several tests with it as well.

In short, its an early production aircraft which did not yet have the automatic propeller pitch device (which appears to have been introduced in around November - December 1939, after the aircraft was delivered, and it certainly just appear all the sudden on all planes. It took the RAF some 1.5 - 2 months to fit CSPs to all aircraft, after to process was started, in late June 1940.

quote:

Note also the many references in German pilot accounts of the nessesity of using manual pitch.

I know of two such accounts,
one from Ulrich Steinhilper, from I./JG 52, from late September, just posted by Hop, and
one from Erich Bodendiek, from II./JG 53, from 17 September, describing that his unit was retrofitted with the new auto pitch device, and has been using

One plus one, thats two.
Based on this, we can certainly say that I./JG 52 and II./JG 53 had planes from probably still an earlier batch, that were not fitted with the new device for some time.

On the other hand, I./JG 51 had certainly had aircraft with the new auto pitch device.

Bf 109E-4/B WNr. 4101 (appearantly it was a rebuild from an older E-3, and before that, an E-1), originally built by Erla in 1939 as an E-1, was brought down over Britain, when flown by Leutnant Wolfgang Teumer of 2/JG51. The British Air Intelligence Enemy aircraft report noted on the aircraft:

Airframe made by Erla Flugzeugwerke in 1940. Works number 4101. A plate described the aircraft as being `Me109 Ele E3'. Engine DB601 A-1. Number 64760 made by Daimler Benz, Genshagen. The new type of supercharger was fitted. A constant speed airscrew is fitted with a notice on the dashboard. `Machine has automatic airscrew. Follow the short instructions for use'. Armament: 2 MG 17s and two 20mm shell guns. Armour - normal fuselage bulkhead and pilot's head protection and curved head shield. This aircraft was brought down by fighter action and the pilot made a very good belly landing, the aircraft being little damaged.

See the Dashboard of WNr 4101 (via Lynn Ritger)

quote:

Once again we get the usual Kurfurst technique of providing only a cropped and edited source.

One can almost grab the irony of this statement.

quote:

From DH's POV the work was done but to the RAF, it was not completed.

The facts are DH says the conversion was completed and the RAF says it was not completed.

I had always thought the two pitch propeller was also 2-bladed. This was not the case, the two pitch propellers were also 3 bladed and indistinguishable from a photograph if converted to CSP.

The rotol 3 bladed CSP directed for production change in 1939 and tested in March 1940 did not offer any noticeable increase in performance over the dual pitch propellers according to the RAF. The later 4 bladed Rotol was long after the Battle of Britain if we use the RAF end dates.

Seems to me that adoption of a CSP was pretty much the same for both the RAF and Luftwaffe. The RAF converting from dual pitch propellers at the same time the Luftwaffe converted from variable pitch propellers.


All the best,

Crumpp

quote:

The facts are DH says the conversion was completed and the RAF says it was not completed.

That's not quite what it says. It says the paper work was the bone of contention, with the air ministry asking for proof the work had been done. That's not the same thing at all.

There's a big difference between work and paper work.

quote:

That's not quite what it says.

When you remove the author’s interpolation that is what it says hop.

The author sides with DH's based on DH employees accounts. The RAF's side is not further researched.

By DH's account some 500 units were produced but by the RAF's account, ~900+ A/C requiring the conversion were on the books....

I can see why the RAF contested DH's claims.

I don't pretend to know the answers either or offer any solutions. Only that the facts are DH says one thing and the RAF another....


All the best,

Crumpp

quote:

I had always thought the two pitch propeller was also 2-bladed. This was not the case, the two pitch propellers were also 3 bladed and indistinguishable from a photograph if converted to CSP.

Me too. we've been had.

What about the Hurricanes?

quote:

What about the Hurricanes?

DH claims to have done the Hurricanes at the same time.

Those 500 units produced by DH is to upgrade the entire RAF's single engine dayfighter complement of Hurricanes and Spitfires in July/August of 1940.

And all new ones being produced with CSP? 500 that go to the units most needing them, not spread out?