PDA

View Full Version : Late war 109s



ali19891989
05-04-2008, 05:49 AM
Does anybody know the general pilot's opinions on the late war 109s, were they highly regarded as they were at the start of the war?

stathem
05-04-2008, 06:01 AM
IBTK

20 pager NQAT

ali19891989
05-04-2008, 06:20 AM
I have to say i don't understand any of that but it appears negative about someting :?

general_kalle
05-04-2008, 06:52 AM
dont be sad. i dont understand it either.
i dont fly the late 109's

Metatron_123
05-04-2008, 07:18 AM
This game is bias because the La-7 and Spit + 25, even tho theyre made of wood, are better than the Fokker Fw-109.

DKoor
05-04-2008, 07:22 AM
Originally posted by ali19891989:
Does anybody know the general pilot's opinions on the late war 109s, were they highly regarded as they were at the start of the war? Pilots generally said that they are satisfied with their machines... TBH I don't see why they shouldn't be, Bf-109 is a fine war machine. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

Metatron_123
05-04-2008, 07:33 AM
Seriously though, as in real life, the bf-109 F is the most fun to fly.

The other day I got one Yak-1, and three I-16s. They just seem to drift into your gunsight! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

Albeit in general the Bf-109 series seems to have a good power to weight ratio, which makes them very 'energetic' to fly.

TgD Thunderbolt56
05-04-2008, 07:34 AM
Most pilots that were around long enough to have flown the early war stuff said the later models (post G2) were heavy and a bit slow because the design changed little but the added weight of the heavier engines and armament made them "feel" sluggish.

Wildnoob
05-04-2008, 07:53 AM
I renember of read in a Günther Rall interview that he sayied his preffer model was the F. he also tells about the late models that "they put one thing there and other here and the aircraft stay too heavy"

in my experience in the sim, I don't use much the BF-109, preffer the FW-190.

but, all the times I've flow the 109 late models, I like then.

Xiolablu3
05-04-2008, 08:03 AM
MOst pilots prefered the earlier models, the F model was the big favourite IIRC, but it all depends on the actual pilots.


Gunther Rall :-

'And when Crete was finished we went back to Romania, and there we got a new airplane. It was the 109 F. This was my beloved aircraft. It was the first aircraft with the round wing tips, no struts in the back, 605 engine (ed. DB 601), excellent, and not too overloaded. You know, later on they put in this, and put in this, and put in this. The aircraft became heavier, but not this one. The F was my ideal aircraft.'

http://www.virtualpilots.fi/hist/WW2History-GuntherRallEnglish.html


I'm sure none of the fighter pilots of 1944 complained of the G10's extra speed or climb.

M_Gunz
05-04-2008, 09:11 AM
Originally posted by Metatron_123:
This game is bias because the La-7 and Spit + 25, even tho theyre made of wood, are better than the Fokker Fw-109.

LOL! Spitfire made of wood! Close that book and ...........!

ADD: Fokker is not Focke-Wulf!

Pirschjaeger
05-04-2008, 09:17 AM
Interesting.

I don't know about real life but in the game I prefer the 109's but nothing newer than the G2. I find the rest just don't handle as well.

Maybe Oleg's 109s are more accurate than we thought.

Fritz

berg417448
05-04-2008, 11:07 AM
Originally posted by ali19891989:
Does anybody know the general pilot's opinions on the late war 109s, were they highly regarded as they were at the start of the war?


I'd say it depends upon the pilot. Some liked them and some didn't like them as much as the earlier models. I remember reading a quote once from a veteran Luftwaffe pilot who referred to the Me-109K as the "ultimate death trap". Obviously, there would be others who would disagree with him about that.

ali19891989
05-04-2008, 11:35 AM
Originally posted by berg417448:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by ali19891989:
I remember reading a quote once from a veteran Luftwaffe pilot who referred to the Me-109K as the "ultimate death trap". Obviously, there would be others who would disagree with him about that.

lol do you have any more info on that?

Metatron_123
05-04-2008, 11:46 AM
Originally posted by M_Gunz:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Metatron_123:
This game is bias because the La-7 and Spit + 25, even tho theyre made of wood, are better than the Fokker Fw-109.

LOL! Spitfire made of wood! Close that book and ...........!

ADD: Fokker is not Focke-Wulf! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Joking mate... Joking. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/shady.gif

berg417448
05-04-2008, 11:54 AM
Originally posted by ali19891989:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by berg417448:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by ali19891989:
I remember reading a quote once from a veteran Luftwaffe pilot who referred to the Me-109K as the "ultimate death trap". Obviously, there would be others who would disagree with him about that.

lol do you have any more info on that? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Scroll down to the bottom of the article for the 109K comments:

http://www.ipmslondon.ca/old%20site/ipmslondon.tripod.c...ingarticles/id8.html (http://www.ipmslondon.ca/old%20site/ipmslondon.tripod.com/modelingarticles/id8.html)

JG14_Josf
05-04-2008, 12:00 PM
I've read more than one pilot's account and the following illustrates a preference for 'good' ones. The context suggests that a 'bad' one or a 'good' one is more like a 'lemon' (poorly constructed, poorly maintained, or just worn out perhaps) compared to a well made or well maintained one. The preference for a 109F over a 109G is perhaps similar to a preference for a Spitfire V over a Spitfire IX when the first Spitfire IX made its way to combat pilots. Later the designs of fighter planes went towards more thrust power, more structural strength, more armor, and more powerful armament, hence the increases in weight.

To suggest that every pilot or even ˜most' pilot's preferred this to that is called prejudice I think. Each pilot managed to form a unique opinion I suspect. Gabby Gabreski, for example, spoke words that expressed an appreciation for the different qualities of the P-47 compared to the Spitfire where it wouldn't be stretching the limits of understanding to say that Gabby Gabreski "highly regarded" those differences designed into the P-47.

Can you see what I mean? A German pilot who flew an early model 109F may have regarded the increased structural strength in the 109K if he happened to notice the difference during combat.

How about some examples?

109 opinions (http://www.virtualpilots.fi/feature/articles/109myths/)


Me 109 G:
"So how does the aeroplane compare with other contemporary fighters ? First, let me say that all my comments are based on operation below 10,000 feet and at power settings not exceeding +12 (54") and 2700 rpm. I like it as an aeroplane, and with familiarity I think it will give most of the allied fighters I have flown a hard time, particularly in a close, hard turning, slow speed dog-fight. It will definitely out-maneuver a P-51 in this type of flight, the roll rate and slow speed characteristics being much better. The Spitfire on the other hand is more of a problem for the '109 and I feel it is a superior close in fighter. Having said that the aircraft are sufficiently closely matched that pilot abilty would probably be the deciding factor. At higher speeds the P-51 is definitely superior, and provided the Mustang kept his energy up and refused to dogfight he would be relatively safe against the '109.
I like the aeroplane very much, and I think I can understand why many of the Luftwaffe aces had such a high regard and preference for it."
- Mark Hanna of the Old Flying Machine Company flying the OFMC Messerschmitt Bf 109 G (Spanish version).

And from here (http://www.amazon.com/War-Diary-Hauptmann-Helmut-Lipfert/dp/0887404464)

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/519QZB24HCL._SL500_AA240_.jpg


Several times we had to fly escort for the close-support unit also operating from Pistian. In the process I made the interesting discovery that the ground attack pilots in their Fw 190s were faster at low level than were were. On the way home I waved over one of the Focke Wulfs and gestured to the pilot that I wanted to race.

We started out at the same speed, then opened the throttles simultaneously and slowly but surely the "190" pulled ahead. I couldn't keep up, even though the aircraft I was flying certainly wasn't a poor one. But this was no fighter which left me behind, but a close-support aircraft for which we "faster" fighters were supposed to be flying escort. But is was not only in level speed that this bird was superior to us. Its main strength lay in its enormous firepower and diving speed.


Diving speed is something that increases when thrust increases while mass increases as a function of T/W – D/W where the increase in thrust loading includes an increase in drag loading. In other words: added mass lowers the ability for drag to slow down the plane in dives for example.

Like this (http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/109gtac.html):


Dive
19.........Comparitive dives between the two aircraft have shown that the Me.109 can leave the Spitfire without any difficulty.

See?

To expect the game which does not model drag loading well (as proven by the game's version of relative dive performance between a Spitfire IX 25 versus a 109G-6 (Early - with under-wing cannons and running on the wrong gas) to illustrate how later war planes were viewed by the real pilots is expecting more than that which is possible perhaps – if that is what might be done.

Many pilots have recorded their opinions.

Xiolablu3
05-04-2008, 12:03 PM
Originally posted by Pirschjaeger:
Interesting.

I don't know about real life but in the game I prefer the 109's but nothing newer than the G2. I find the rest just don't handle as well.

Maybe Oleg's 109s are more accurate than we thought.

Fritz

Absolutely mirrors my opinions, and those of Galland/rall etc too.

Galland in 'The First and the Last' writes :-

'The Me109 which most of our pilots were still flying, was nicknamed by our pilots in the West 'The Bulge', and not without reason. Numerous improvements to the engine,armament, and equipment that each of the new series received were unsuited tot he basic design of the aircraft. They appeared as 'bulges', maiming the outer appearence that had once been so sleak and streamlined, and affecting its characteristics and performance.'


However the fact that the Me109 is so tiny and light exasperates the problem, as every weight gain is a larger percentage added than that added to a heavier fighter.

Still, it was always a dangerous fighter, even at the end of the war.

Rall writes :-

'Q: I was particularly interested about, when in combat, for example against the P-51 with the later fighters.
Rall: Yeah, the 109 could compete with the P51, no doubt. Maneuverability was excellent. But the P51 could do it longer! <Laughs> Ja? And the pilot sits... But, you know, if you fly seven and a half hours, you cannot fly seven and a half hours in the cockpit in the 109. You MUST have a better cockpit, which the P-51 has, they came from England. They flew 7 hours, you know? And so there are differences. But in the battle itself, the 109 certainly could compete with the P-51, even the Spitfire. You couldn't follow the Spitfire in a tight turn upwards. You couldn't follow it. But we knew exactly the Spitfire also had shortcomings. In the beginning when they dived away, they had problems with the carburetor. cshhht shhht cht cht cht (shows engine cutting out) . Until they came up to speed. So every airplane has some problems in some areas, and if you know it, you can overcome it. '



I think what we can say with certainty, is that the later models of the 109 were no longer competing for 'The best fighter in the world', whereas the earlier models like the 109E and 109F certainly were. Only the Spitfire could compete with these models at this time on an equal footing.

However by the time of the 109G6 and on, there were many many other planes with equal or better performance.

JG14_Josf
05-04-2008, 12:23 PM
I think what we can say with certainty, is that the later models of the 109 were no longer competing for 'The best fighter in the world', whereas the earlier models like the 109E and 109F certainly were. Only the Spitfire could compete with these models at this time on an equal footing.

X3,

"We" cannot say with certainty that which you say with certainty if by "We" the group includes anyone except you and the actual people who agree with you. I'm not trying to be confrontational personally here so much as the idea is to be more accurate concerning the actual topic.

Your example of proof concerning the different opinions between early and late version of the 109 with Adolf Galland is limited since Galland's flying career was interrupted during the change from 109F to 109G, Galland flew a desk and had to fly fighter missions ˜off the books' or suffer disciplinary penalties – or so the books record. Later flights by Galland included flights of 190s and Me-262s. If you can find a reference where Galland flew a 109K I'd be interested in reading about it.

Rall is an interesting example too since his after war career included a disappointing biography missing almost any mention of relative aircraft performance data. It seems to me that Rall was unique in this regard. What did he actually say that leads you to the conclusion that you find worthy of concluding?

This one:


I think what we can say with certainty, is that the later models of the 109 were no longer competing for 'The best fighter in the world', whereas the earlier models like the 109E and 109F certainly were. Only the Spitfire could compete with these models at this time on an equal footing.

You seem to be saying that Rall and Galland think that the 109F was competitive with the contemporary Spitfire while the later model 109 was not competitive with the contemporary Spitfire – according to Rall and Galland.

Again – Galland may have logged some combat time in a 109K however that remains to be known. For all anyone knows Galland may have been delighted to fight a contemporary Spitfire while Galland was flying a 109K because, for all we know, Galland may have thought the 109K to be superior to the contemporary Spitfire. My point is to point out that we don't know what you seem to have concluded with certainty.

I may not understand your words exactly.

Rall may have formed an opinion as certain as yours concerning the topic question, however I'm not so sure that the two opinions agree. This is my skeptical reply.

More data is better.


Me 109 G through the opposition's eyes
"BF109 was very good, very high scale fighter plane. If was superior to our Yaks in speed and vertical combat. It wasn`t 100% superiority, but still. Very dynamic plane. I`ll be honest with you, it was my dream during my war years, to have a plane like this. Fast and superior on vertical, but that didn`t happen.
Messer had one extremely positive thing, it was able to be successful fight Yak`s at 2000m and Aircobras at 6000m. This is truly unique ability and valuable. Of course, here Yak and P-39 were inferior. As far as combat on different altitudes, BF109 was universal, like La-5.
Me109 was exceptional in turning combat. If there is a fighter plane built for turning combat , it has to be Messer! Speedy, maneuverable,(especially in vertical) and extremely dynamic. I can`t tell about all other things, but taking under consideration what i said above, Messerschmitt was ideal for dogfight. But for some reason majority of german pilots didn`t like turn fight, till this day i don`t know why.
I don`t know what was stopping them, but it`s definitely not the plane. I know that for a fact. I remember battle of Kursk where german aces were starting "roller-coaster" rides where our heads were about to come off from rotation. No, seriously... Is it true it`s a common thing now that Messer wasn`t maneuverable?
Interviewer: Yes.
Heh.. Why would people come up with something like this... It was maneuverable...by god it was."
- Major Kozhemyako, Soviet fighter ace. Source: translation from Russian language.

Note the usage of the term "Dynamic". Could that be a reference to energy as in Dynamic Energy? If a General opinion is to be measured the 109Myth link may help round things out.

joeap
05-04-2008, 12:33 PM
Originally posted by Metatron_123:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by M_Gunz:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Metatron_123:
This game is bias because the La-7 and Spit + 25, even tho theyre made of wood, are better than the Fokker Fw-109.

LOL! Spitfire made of wood! Close that book and ...........!

ADD: Fokker is not Focke-Wulf! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Joking mate... Joking. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/shady.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Close that joke forever ....


Joking. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/halo.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blush.gif

Kurfurst__
05-04-2008, 01:28 PM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
I think what we can say with certainty, is that the later models of the 109 were no longer competing for 'The best fighter in the world', whereas the earlier models like the 109E and 109F certainly were. Only the Spitfire could compete with these models at this time on an equal footing.

However by the time of the 109G6 and on, there were many many other planes with equal or better performance.

They were certainly competing, its just that the opposition got tougher through natural selection between effective and poor designs after a couple of war years; also, after 1943, fighter designs improved so much and become so different in approach it would be difficult to pick a 'best' design; rather, we just have different approaches, and different 'packages' for the 'customers' with different needs.

Xiolablu3
05-04-2008, 01:31 PM
Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
I think what we can say with certainty, is that the later models of the 109 were no longer competing for 'The best fighter in the world', whereas the earlier models like the 109E and 109F certainly were. Only the Spitfire could compete with these models at this time on an equal footing.

However by the time of the 109G6 and on, there were many many other planes with equal or better performance.

They were certainly competing, its just that the opposition got tougher through natural selection between effective and poor designs after a couple of war years; also, after 1943, fighter designs improved so much and become so different in approach it would be difficult to pick a 'best' design; rather, we just have different approaches, and different 'packages' for the 'customers' with different needs. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes very good points.

What I mean is tho, can you really suggest that the 109K was on the same level as the Me262, Gloster Meteor etc?

Newer, better designs started competing against the 109 around the 1943/109G6 time. The 109 was no longer a clear 'Top-Dog' like it was from 1939-42.

But also, in my opinion (gathered from books/pilots etc) the added weight and gadgets started to affect the 109 negatively from the 109G6 on. Most pilots who comment on comparing the early to late 109's comment on the problem.

In comparison, most pilots loved the change from the Spitfire V to the SPitfire IX, just like pilots generally liked the change from the 109E to the F. This suggests that the 109 had reached its peak with the 'F' series, or at least the very early G series..

Interested in all your opinons however, and any pilot interviews you may have on the subject.

Kurfurst__
05-04-2008, 01:55 PM
Jets were in a class of their own, but against any piston engined fighter in 1943-1945, the 109 could compete. Messerschmitt got the basic design right - small airframe with a powerful engine, ie. lots of excess thrust, and its very difficult to make a poor fighter if it has lots of excess thrust to start with - and DB could supply the ever more powerful engines.

Of course 1943 was a sort of a turning point in relative performanrce compared to the others, but it was a result of improvement of the opposing material, rather than some sort of degradation of the 109 as a design. Simply to put, the Allies finally came up with competitive fighters, just as that the relative superiority of the 109 before 1942 was not as much rooted in some unheard technological solution in the design, rather than the crappy mainstay fighters the Allies were fielding at the time. By 1943, that period was over. Its natural in war - it teaches you very quickly and in a very blunt way what is effective and what is not, and the ineffective types were simply discontinoued as a result of war experience.

Yet I can hardly pick any single fighter past 1943, with the exception of the Me 262, that could truely dominate the opposition. Overall performance - all things considered like range, payload, climb, speed, armament etc. - was very closely matched. Take a look at how closely the 'ultimate' piston engined fighters are close to each other in speed, within 20 km/h... The lesson were learned, on both sides, the experience was gained, the sound designs were chosen and the flawed ones tossed away; the technology - the engines - available was very similiar, save for the Russians, who had to make compromises, but they did not make those in pure performance, either.

JSG72
05-04-2008, 04:56 PM
I also feel that the Pilots opinions are hard to come by.
As there were few units that would have flown the 109 throughout the war.
And those that did had such a turnover of pilots it would have been hard for comparisons.

Many of the surviving fliers were posted to command posts and never flew the later models.

Think that most opinions are based on "Happy Time" with the F-4s and G-2s.(IE. Shooting down unescorted bombers or Enemy fighters that flew way, below patroling height.Thus B+Z tactics.)
The fact that Germany was fighting a mostly defensive War after the G-4s use.Meant that, any further performance related development were negated by the enablement to carry heavier armaments to counter the allied threats that were encountered from Mid '42-'45.(IL2s and heavy bombers.)
The planes that were flown "Naked" were much fewer in number and were not sufficiantly superior to counter allied superiority.

It is only in like for like comparisons that the advantages/defficiences come about. A situation that was seldom seen in WW2 flight combat.
Indeed it was only encouraged to enter combat when you had the advantage.

As ever! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Xiolablu3
05-04-2008, 05:12 PM
Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
Simply to put, the Allies finally came up with competitive fighters, just as that the relative superiority of the 109 before 1942 was not as much rooted in some unheard technological solution in the design, rather than the crappy mainstay fighters the Allies were fielding at the time.


I think many (possibly even most?) would say in fact that the SPitfire was already a better design than the Bf109 in 1939. So your theory of 'crappy Allied designs' really doesnt hold much water, does it?

JSG72
05-04-2008, 05:19 PM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
Simply to put, the Allies finally came up with competitive fighters, just as that the relative superiority of the 109 before 1942 was not as much rooted in some unheard technological solution in the design, rather than the crappy mainstay fighters the Allies were fielding at the time.



I think many (possibly even most?) would say in fact that the SPitfire was already a better design than the Bf109 in 1939. So your theory of 'crappy Allied designs' really doesnt hold much water, does it? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Forget about "Bun Fighting". Does MY! Post explain anything?

Metatron_123
05-04-2008, 05:32 PM
Well the Me-109 supposedly had it's design focused more on production simplicity where as the Spitfire was more aerodynamically designed. Or so the legend goes.

I wouldn't say that one or the other was a 'better' design as both have impressive respective records.

Don't forget we're always inclined to bash the 109 for 'losing the war' which it most certainly did not.

Fools like Goering and Hitler took care of that.

Kurfurst__
05-04-2008, 11:52 PM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:

I think many (possibly even most?) would say in fact that the SPitfire was already a better design than the Bf109 in 1939.

I guess you speak of the basic airframe, but then I would have difficulties what advantages the Spitfire as an airframe offered over that of the 109.

It was certainly much less suited for mass production, it used mixed riveting vs the all-flush riveted 109, the fuel capacity was the same, the control harmony was bad and the stall characteristics not so benign (though good), the wing had an aerodynamic design flaw which resulted in the aileron control problems which could be only corrected with a complete re-design, the aircraft was overall oversensitive in pitch. The base drag of the Spitfire was considerably greater than the 109, which is of course is the result of the bigger wing area - yet the Spitfire could not carry greater loads than the 109 at all..

I wont list the small stuff like fixed pitch props, powerplant and armament and such. because these are just technical equipment, basically, and are not too much connected to the qualities of the airframe itself. They can be changed with ease, its not the fault of the airframe itself.


So your theory of 'crappy Allied designs' really doesnt hold much water, does it?

Note the plural. The Spitfire was one exception that proves the rule - I don`t think the the commonlike Hawks, Hurricanes, Lagg-3s, I-16s, P-40s etc. look good when compared to the 109..

Sergio_101
05-05-2008, 12:57 AM
Spitfire was a direct decendent of the Supermarine Schnider cup racers
of the late 20's and early 30's.

In the era when both the 109 and Spit were designed there was a lot of "by guess and by golly".

Both aircraft were an attempt at low drag and
moderate wing loading.

Thr actual drag of the aircraft was largely dependant on the model.

Kurfie will tell youm that some 109 versions were very draggy.
Some Spits were pretty poor notably the XIV.
Both made up for it with ever increasing horsepower.

Wind tunnel based design was getting more and more important in the late 1930s.
I am sure some wind tunnel work was done on both.

The much hated P-51 was one of the lowest drag design of a piston fighter
during WWII. (if not the lowest).

The only fault in the design of the 109, shared to a large extent by the Spit
is the structure invading the fuselage space
reducing the available room for fuel and
other equipment.

Structurally both were a bit on the obsolete side of the coin.
That does not suggest either was a bad weapon.

Note that most US fighters had rather cavernous
interiors. (excepting the P-47 which used most
available space for it's turbosupercharger and ducting.)

Again, I am NOT dissing the 109 or Spit.
Both were world beaters when introduced.
Both were obsolete by war's end.

All piston fighters were obsolete by early 1947.

Sergio

Bremspropeller
05-05-2008, 03:51 AM
I think many (possibly even most?) would say in fact that the SPitfire was already a better design than the Bf109 in 1939.

Gotta disagree.
The 109, in fact, was the more modern design.
Both a/c were more or less equal, none of them really having an edge.

Bewolf
05-05-2008, 07:17 AM
Originally posted by Sergio_101:
Spitfire was a direct decendent of the Supermarine Schnider cup racers
of the late 20's and early 30's.

In the era when both the 109 and Spit were designed there was a lot of "by guess and by golly".

Both aircraft were an attempt at low drag and
moderate wing loading.

Thr actual drag of the aircraft was largely dependant on the model.

Kurfie will tell youm that some 109 versions were very draggy.
Some Spits were pretty poor notably the XIV.
Both made up for it with ever increasing horsepower.

Wind tunnel based design was getting more and more important in the late 1930s.
I am sure some wind tunnel work was done on both.

The much hated P-51 was one of the lowest drag design of a piston fighter
during WWII. (if not the lowest).

The only fault in the design of the 109, shared to a large extent by the Spit
is the structure invading the fuselage space
reducing the available room for fuel and
other equipment.

Structurally both were a bit on the obsolete side of the coin.
That does not suggest either was a bad weapon.

Note that most US fighters had rather cavernous
interiors. (excepting the P-47 which used most
available space for it's turbosupercharger and ducting.)

Again, I am NOT dissing the 109 or Spit.
Both were world beaters when introduced.
Both were obsolete by war's end.

All piston fighters were obsolete by early 1947.

Sergio

I sign that post. That coming from you, Sergio, is suprising. But I think you got your facts pretty much straight here.
With the dawn of the jet age, however, pretty much all piston engine fighters were "obsolete".

Xiolablu3
05-05-2008, 12:41 PM
Originally posted by Kurfurst__:

Note the plural. The Spitfire was one exception that proves the rule - I don`t think the the commonlike Hawks, Hurricanes, Lagg-3s, I-16s, P-40s etc. look good when compared to the 109..

Yes, I agree, however you could say that the Spitfire outclassed most of the crappy Axis designs too!. And even Hurricanes and P40s put up great fights against the better performing 109's in the BOB and Africa. The 'modern' Luftwaffe never managed to secure victory even at Malta vs Hurricanes and Biplanes and against a totally outnumbered opposition.

Although it was a close run thing :-


"Either, sir, we get the Spitfires here within days, not weeks, or we're done. That's it."
Sqn/Ldr Stan Turner to AOC Sir Hugh Lloyd about the situation on Malta



As for the Spit, only the 109 and the later Fw190 (Typhoon is comparable in time and performance) and Zero could compete in the early war. If we take your view, but from the otehr side, then all the early ' crappy Axis fighters' like the Bf110, Ar biplane series, Mc200, Ki43, Ki27 etc just could not compete.

Xiolablu3
05-05-2008, 01:05 PM
Originally posted by JSG72:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
Simply to put, the Allies finally came up with competitive fighters, just as that the relative superiority of the 109 before 1942 was not as much rooted in some unheard technological solution in the design, rather than the crappy mainstay fighters the Allies were fielding at the time.



I think many (possibly even most?) would say in fact that the SPitfire was already a better design than the Bf109 in 1939. So your theory of 'crappy Allied designs' really doesnt hold much water, does it? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Forget about "Bun Fighting". Does MY! Post explain anything? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sorry mate, we tend to react most to unreasonable posts and ignore the good ones, a flaw in humanity I'm afraid!

yes it does http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

M_Gunz
05-05-2008, 03:25 PM
Used correctly the P-40's did kick arse on 109's, no matter who don't like that!

In general but not as a rule:
the more dissimilar two planes are, the more places/situations where one can beat the other.
Corollary to that is the roles reverse just as easily.

vanir
05-05-2008, 07:03 PM
My grandparents and their friends (obviously, whom were there at the time) commented to my repeated questioning once that the late Me-109G and K models were extremely competitive indeed in individual battles with Mustangs, Yaks and Spitfires, which they saw overhead. They told me about the various models and some subtypes and gave me scale models and stuff as a kid. A feller I only knew as "Gunther" described particularly the tropicalised Gustavs and the Kurfürst in detail, whilst my grandmother of all people knew all about the Emil (subtypes, Galland's personally modified one). Ya know, sometimes it was a really interesting family (when they weren't fighting).

As for my own research, well you take something like that as a bit of responsibility, considering. But I'm not as expert as people like Kurfurst on the Me-109 (I'd like to be). But I have strived to maintain an objective appraisal, since point matter about propaganda used by all sides even after a war was always mentioned to me. I remember the books in school would often portray the Me-109 as no longer competitive by 1943 and cite the Mustang, Yak and late Spitfire as utterly superior. But this isn't exactly very honest when you take a peek at some war records like say, Erich Hartmann's career. Then follow on with credible research.

But objectivity is important. The Mustang was a very new design and definitely came at the Spitfire and 109/190 families from a new angle. Aerodynamically clean it can reach 0.8 Mach in a dive routinely, not even a Thunderbolt ought to try that according to Charles Lindbergh whom evaluated them in the field for the USAAF.

New wing designs beyond a 1941 implementation were not being used by the Luftwaffe in order to maintain necessary production, until late 1944 with the introduction of the Ta-152 series with its entirely new, low-drag wing design.

In this case, we look at the Me-109G-6 and later, and also the Spitfire Mark LF.V and F.IX contemporary, and then even the Griffon Mark XIV and Me-109K/G-10 we must consider the Mustang a very advanced conception of the new generation fighters using wartime experience from the design basis. The Mustang role continued well into the post war marketplace with good reason, and it should be given place among the Corsair and Thunderbolt, Tempest Mark II and contra-prop Seafires as post war era aerospace technologies. I'd compare them to the Ta-152 series, there is no other qualified Luftwaffe associate.

Against the Spitfire the Messerschmitt had enjoyed no further engine upgrade since the 605 series engine adopted in 1942. The Spitfire's new Griffon engine was definitely a marque to achieve or compete with, which was done by the tried and true method of "hotrodding" the 109 to produce the AM, ASM and heavy-fighter/fighter-bomber variants. Interceptor, schnellkampf or zerstöer the 109G-6 did them all and was available in numbers. According to Walter Boyne the sentiment among Luftwaffe chiefs was that it was at least as good as the best American planes (being encountered over Belgium), and combined with the 190 to make a war winning team.

Pilots themselves, in some interviews I watched remarked the Spit had one manoeuvre the 109 couldn't follow, but otherwise they were evenly matched. This makes a lot of sense, since the designs in engineering terms appear very closely matched. Check out the structure, equipment and cross sectional wing plans, even the powerplants.

The Spit got the Griffon and the 109 got a refined 605D for the G-10 and K-series in late44 which meant that by Bodenplatte the Luftwaffe and Allied air forces were again an even match in terms of equipment. The Fw-190D had also entered mass production to effectively replace the A-series (and the Ta-152 was forthcoming). Even jets were making their presence felt.

I think this torrential period sort of lost the 109 in all the excitement. From all accounts the 109K-4 was the very match of the Mustang at any altitude...for limited periods due to boosting requirements (and by match I mean on paper only, there are fundamental design differences). At higher combat altitudes (6km) this model Messerschmitt still dominated most Allied fighters with only a few exceptions. Large numbers of P-38, Yak-9, Yak-7, La-5, LaGG-3 and P-40N continued in service.

I mean Hartmann seemed to do quite well regardless of odds.

DKoor
05-05-2008, 07:38 PM
Originally posted by vanir:
I mean Hartmann seemed to do quite well regardless of odds. Yes.. and he wasn't the only one... many Bf-109 fliers were really good fighter pilots.
For instance Hungarian fighter pilots flew 109s too against Soviets near the end of the war...
Some of those pilots really knew what they are doing with 109 and have won fights vs Lavochkins and Yaks.

M_Gunz
05-05-2008, 08:47 PM
Originally posted by Sergio_101:
The much hated P-51 was one of the lowest drag design of a piston fighter
during WWII. (if not the lowest).

Total drag or coefficient of drag?
P-51 is a big plane.

M_Gunz
05-05-2008, 09:01 PM
Originally posted by vanir:
I mean Hartmann seemed to do quite well regardless of odds.

Wasn't Erich Hartmann a man who chose his own odds?

Have you seen the web page with interview of Gunther Rall in Finland not so long ago?
Gunther Rall interview in June 2003 (http://www.virtualpilots.fi/feature/photoreports/guntherrall2003/)

I regard the 109K as a fantastic fighter. A true thoroughbred built for speed.
It needs trim used as the second arm on the stick in IL2 though.
If they had that model in 1943, and I am sure they could have at least come close....

BGs_Ricky
05-06-2008, 07:03 AM
Originally posted by DKoor:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by vanir:
I mean Hartmann seemed to do quite well regardless of odds. Yes.. and he wasn't the only one... many Bf-109 fliers were really good fighter pilots.
For instance Hungarian fighter pilots flew 109s too against Soviets near the end of the war...
Some of those pilots really knew what they are doing with 109 and have won fights vs Lavochkins and Yaks. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

And some finnish pilots were still doing fine against La-5's, Yak-7/9 and P-39's in the spring/summer of '44 flying Bf-109 G-2s http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

M_Gunz
05-06-2008, 07:52 AM
I've seen it noted elsewhere even back to the 70's that the Finnish military was pretty
much elite compared to others. Their morale and training were superb and I guess still are.

Xiolablu3
05-06-2008, 10:52 AM
Originally posted by M_Gunz:
I've seen it noted elsewhere even back to the 70's that the Finnish military was pretty
much elite compared to others. Their morale and training were superb and I guess still are.

Yeah, the Finns just excell at Hand to Eye coordination task, such as shooting, driving, flying etc.

Think how small the population of Finland is and how they always have World champions in Formula 1, Rally driving etc.

The best shot/ and possibly pilot, in IL2 I have ever seen is a Finn, well named 'FlyingFinn'. Hi if you are readin this mate. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif, he posts on these boards now and again, and is a mod on Ukdedicated servers.

I have seen his hit rate after 100's of sorties at 25%.

SAlute to Finns, http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Sergio_101
05-06-2008, 07:00 PM
Not sure if I am really qualified to give a good answer
to the drag question as I do not have the data for all aircraft
of WWII.

One indicaion of the drag issue
favoring the P-51
over the Spit is that for the same
horsepower the comparable P-51 was always faster
despite weighing more.

Bigger, heavier and faster with less power....

Note the Griffon Spit, the XIV is slower than a
RR tweaked "Mustang III".

The P-51A/B/C was the cleanest P-51 varient(s) to see combat.

P-51H was faster than nearly everyone with still less power.
It lays claim to the fastest piston fighter to see operational service albeit after WWII in Europe.

I will bring up the RENO racing comparison
for a minute.
P-51s dominated untill recent years.
Reason is they are very clean and prepped for
racing are even cleaner.
Massive power meats massive power
and the latest dominant aircraft
are all powered by the transport
versions of the R-3350.

Aint no replacement for displacement.

It is unlikely that the P-51 will ever be dominant in racing again.

My point?

P-51 varients were all very low drag and very fast
as a result. This also helped the range issue.

funny how those 3350(5,000 hp+ in race trim)s with twice the displacement of the V-1650 Merlins(3,400 hp+ in race trim)
are little faster though.

Sergio

Xiolablu3
05-07-2008, 02:20 AM
Yeah, the P51 is a very sleak design, and an excellent fighter, however speed isnt everything. The Spitfires wings added extra drag, but lead to a fighter with some of the best trade off between speed and handling in all of WW2.

I seem to be quoting this page all the time recently, here goes again...

ISraeli pilots comment on the P51, Spitfire LF IX and Avia S199 (Me109 with Jumo engine and cannon pods)


Gordon Levett compares the three combat aircraft flown by the 101 in 1948 :

In mock dog-fights, we concluded that the Messerschmitt could out-climb, out-dive and out-zoom the Spitfire and Mustang. The Spitfire could out-turn the Messerschmitt, the most important manoeuvre in air combat, and both could out-turn the Mustang. The Mustang was the fastest, the Messerschmitt the slowest, though there was not much in it. The Mustang had the best visibility, important for a fighter aircraft, the Messerschmitt the worst. The Spitfire cockpit fitted like a glove, the Messerschmitt like a strait-jacket, the Mustang like a too comfortable armchair. The Spitfire had two 20-mm cannon and four .303-in machine guns (sic; actually, the 101 Squadron Spits had two .50s, not four .303s), the Mustang six 12.7-mm machine guns (i.e. .50-calibre), and the Messerschmitt two 20-mm cannon and two 7.92-mm machine guns (sic; actually two 13.1-mm machine guns) synchronised to fire through the arc of the propeller.... Despite the pros and cons the Spitfire was everyone's first choice. (Levett 1994)

George Lichter (During WW2 flew P-47C/Ds and P-51Ds in Europe with the USAAF's 374th Fighter Squadron 361 FG) :-

During his air combat career, George Lichter spent extensive time in the P-47, the P-51D, the S-199, and the Spitfire LF9. He felt the S-199 flew like ****, saying "You really had to fly it all the time." He loved the Thunderbolt's power and armor and preferred it over the P-51 for combat duty. While he felt the P-51 was perhaps more maneuverable, it had an Achilles heel - its inline engine, which if hit would conk out quickly. The P-51's Merlin engine would give you 30 minutes at the absolute most after being hit. The P-47's radial could take enormous damage and still get you home.

Like many other pilots, Lichter loved flying the Spitfire most of all. "It was an absolute dream. The Thunderbolt was like a truck, and the Spitfire was like a Porsche."

Jack Cohen :-

Jack Cohen, too, enjoyed the Spitfire.

Well as far as the Spitfire was concerned, she was just the perfect aeroplane to fly. She had no vices - you did something wrong she'd turn around and say, you know, "don't do it again." Not like some of these American planes. I mean, you know they'd turn round and bite you the second you did something wrong. But the Spit really didn't have any faults - it was like flying a Tiger Moth. Very easy to fly. (Hyde 2000)

http://101squadron.com/101/aircraft.html


Regardless of the P51's range, speed and low drag, all these pilots preffered the Spitfire LF IX for combat.

JG53Frankyboy
05-07-2008, 02:42 AM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
.................
Regardless of the P51's range, speed and low drag, all these pilots preffered the Spitfire LF IX for combat.

i read these pilots "reports" ( also the often quted ones that the Bf109F was the nicest variant of all 109s..........) more as " it was the nicest plane to fly " - what not means it was the most combat capable one.

the Bf109F was most likely the best 109 for flying - in general meaning.
but in a combat, the later versions were most propably more usefull as a combat plane, even when their flying charackteristics had lacked in comparison to that earlier one.........

Xiolablu3
05-07-2008, 02:44 AM
'In mock dog-fights, we concluded that the Messerschmitt could out-climb, out-dive and out-zoom the Spitfire and Mustang. The Spitfire could out-turn the Messerschmitt, the most important manoeuvre in air combat, and both could out-turn the Mustang. The Mustang was the fastest, the Messerschmitt the slowest, though there was not much in it. The Mustang had the best visibility, important for a fighter aircraft, the Messerschmitt the worst. The Spitfire cockpit fitted like a glove, the Messerschmitt like a strait-jacket, the Mustang like a too comfortable armchair. The Spitfire had two 20-mm cannon and four .303-in machine guns (sic; actually, the 101 Squadron Spits had two .50s, not four .303s), the Mustang six 12.7-mm machine guns (i.e. .50-calibre), and the Messerschmitt two 20-mm cannon and two 7.92-mm machine guns (sic; actually two 13.1-mm machine guns) synchronised to fire through the arc of the propeller.... DESPITE THE PROS AND CONS THE SPITFIRE WAS EVERYONES FIRST CHOICE'


Leverett clearly isnt talking about pleasure flying in this statement, since he only lists the combat abilities of each, such as visibility, armament, turn rate, speed, cockpit etc.

JG53Frankyboy
05-07-2008, 02:51 AM
and Lichter ?

or do you think a Bf109F-4 would be a better combat plane in a 1944 western environment than a Bf109G-14 ?

Xiolablu3
05-07-2008, 03:00 AM
Originally posted by JG53Frankyboy:
and Lichter ?

or do you think a Bf109F-4 would be a better combat plane in a 1944 western environment than a Bf109G-14 ?

WHy is a later model of Bf109 comparable to comparing the SPitfire LF IX and the P51D?

Of course a pilot in combat would choose the Spitfire IX over the Spitfire V, or the 109G14 over the 109F4.

However between the SPitfire LF IX and the P51, if the pilots had the choice, and the range doesnt matter, it states 'The Spitfire was everyones first choice'.

I think we can safely say that Leverette used to discuss these 3 planes extensively with his few collegues who flew them in the early Israeli air force. To think otherwise is ridiculous, seeing as there were only about 25-30 pilots. They flew mock combats in all of them to assess the abilities, as the Egyption air force were flying the same types. They needed to know the abilities of these planes against each other.

To avoid the obvious conclusion of their statements and try to twist their words to what they MIGHT be saying is a bit daft in this case. Leverrete even backs up the obvious meaning of the others when he says 'EVERYONES first choice'

No41Sqn_Banks
05-07-2008, 03:11 AM
Originally posted by JG53Frankyboy:
and Lichter ?

or do you think a Bf109F-4 would be a better combat plane in a 1944 western environment than a Bf109G-14 ?

Simply compare it with the game. If you set up a server with Bf 109 G2 and Bf 109 G14 vs. 42-44 allied a/c you will definitly find pilots who choose the Bf 109 G2.

In real life a pilot does not have this option, he can't choose his a/c.

Hkuusela
05-07-2008, 03:32 AM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
The Spitfire could out-turn the Messerschmitt, the most important manoeuvre in air combat...
[...]
Leverett clearly isnt talking about pleasure flying in this statement, since he only lists the combat abilities of each, such as visibility, armament, turn rate, speed, cockpit etc.
Out-turning is not the most important manouvre in air combat and that raises the question if the Spit was actually prefered because it suited the pilot's way to fight. And the pilot's way to fight might not have been the most efficient one.

Bewolf
05-07-2008, 03:51 AM
Originally posted by Hkuusela:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
The Spitfire could out-turn the Messerschmitt, the most important manoeuvre in air combat...
[...]
Leverett clearly isnt talking about pleasure flying in this statement, since he only lists the combat abilities of each, such as visibility, armament, turn rate, speed, cockpit etc.
Out-turning is not the most important manouvre in air combat and that raises the question if the Spit was actually prefered because it suited the pilot's way to fight. And the pilot's way to fight might not have been the most efficient one. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That confused me as well. Turning ability as the most important combat manoeuver rings more true to the opening stages of world war 1 compared to the consequent development of air combat tactics, relying more on hit and run tactics. Speed, Climb and Zoom is much more important in this regard. Turn is just a bonus and a bit of compensation for those planes that can't keep up with these requirements.

No41Sqn_Banks
05-07-2008, 03:54 AM
Originally posted by Hkuusela:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
The Spitfire could out-turn the Messerschmitt, the most important manoeuvre in air combat...
[...]
Leverett clearly isnt talking about pleasure flying in this statement, since he only lists the combat abilities of each, such as visibility, armament, turn rate, speed, cockpit etc.
Out-turning is not the most important manouvre in air combat and that raises the question if the Spit was actually prefered because it suited the pilot's way to fight. And the pilot's way to fight might not have been the most efficient one. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Out-turning is the most important defensive maneouvre in air combat according to "Notes on Air Gunnery and Air Fighting" (published 1943) by Wing Commander E. M. Donaldson, D.S.O., A.F.C.

In general angle fight and energy fight are both respectable air combat tactics, both have benefits and drawbacks. You can't say "tactic a is always better than tactic b", you can only say "tactic a is in this situation better than tactic b". And the situation includes a/c performance, combat environment, a/c location, a/c energy state, mission goal, pilot experience, ...

Don't forget that every a/c can use both tactics, depending on the situation. (Just think about Spitfire vs. Zero and Spitfire vs. Fw 190.)

Of course you don't need any turning if you always have altitude advantage, (local) air superiority and can run away (in a dive) without compromising the mission goal. You can't compare the situation on a dogfight server with a real combat situation.

Hkuusela
05-07-2008, 05:00 AM
Originally posted by No41Sqn_Banks:
Out-turning is the most important defensive maneouvre in air combat according to "Notes on Air Gunnery and Air Fighting" (published 1943) by Wing Commander E. M. Donaldson, D.S.O., A.F.C.

In general angle fight and energy fight are both respectable air combat tactics, both have benefits and drawbacks. You can't say "tactic a is always better than tactic b", you can only say "tactic a is in this situation better than tactic b". And the situation includes a/c performance, combat environment, a/c location, a/c energy state, mission goal, pilot experience, ...

Don't forget that every a/c can use both tactics, depending on the situation. (Just think about Spitfire vs. Zero and Spitfire vs. Fw 190.)

Of course you don't need any turning if you always have altitude advantage, (local) air superiority and can run away (in a dive) without compromising the mission goal. You can't compare the situation on a dogfight server with a real combat situation.
I don't think that is true either. Out-turning is probably the most important defensive manouvre if your a/c turns well. It can also dive well and climb well or run like hell (he who fights and runs away, lives to run another day...), which are all defensive manouvres. You don't need altitude advantage if you have an a/c that is faster and climbs better. That's probably why development was NOT towards better turning a/c, but faster a/c. Not saying that turning ability did/does not matter though.

Kettenhunde
05-07-2008, 05:07 AM
Out-turning is probably the most important defensive manouvre if your a/c turns well.

All aircraft at the same angle of bank and velocity will make exactly the same turn.

Velocity has the largest influence on turn performance. In general, the slower aircraft will outturn the faster one.

DKoor
05-07-2008, 05:09 AM
Level turn advantage on itself is pretty much quite crappy advantage.
The only thing that truly wins is better airspeed.

So that remark as horizontal turning being most important maneuver... well maybe so, but those KiA A6M, Ki-43 etc. guys that did it religiously would witness what is really so good about it - if only they could.

Similar thing one sees online...
No one in sane mind ever turns when he has any other option.

Hkuusela
05-07-2008, 05:31 AM
Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
All aircraft at the same angle of bank and velocity will make exactly the same turn.

Velocity has the largest influence on turn performance. In general, the slower aircraft will outturn the faster one.
So what you're saying is, that if you take two a/c and bank them equally and pull the stick, they will make exactly the same turns without either stalling before the other? I must have misunderstood your message.

TinyTim
05-07-2008, 06:48 AM
Originally posted by DKoor:
No one in sane mind ever turns when he has any other option.

Could very well be the statement of the month on these boards. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

No41Sqn_Banks
05-07-2008, 06:52 AM
Take 2 a/c, A and B. A is at 250mph, B is at 400mph.

Turning radius of A (the slower a/c) is smaller than turning radius of B (the faster a/c) - in general regardless of the turning capabilities of the 2 a/c at same speed.

No41Sqn_Banks
05-07-2008, 07:07 AM
Originally posted by DKoor:
No one in sane mind ever turns when he has any other option.

Exactly that is the point. Sometimes you don't have any other option, e.g. you need to stay in the area for mission purpose (bomber escort, bomber intercept).
Then running away is not an option, or let's say the worst option, as it is exactly what the enemy wants you to do. When running away the mission is already lost and either you bombers or your ground troops get slaughtered.

JG14_Josf
05-07-2008, 07:21 AM
Turning radius of A (the slower a/c) is smaller than turning radius of B (the faster a/c) - in general regardless of the turning capabilities of the 2 a/c at same speed.

No41Sqn>Banks,

If you do not include the rate of acceleration on the lift vector, or g, when describing turn performance there can be no way to accurately quantify the actual turn radius. Your statement is like saying the plane that is turning a smaller radius is the plane that is turning the smaller radius.

If the plane traveling at a speed of 400 km/h is decelerating down through corner speed and the g force produced during the whole turn is over 6 g while the slow turning plane is turning at 2 g and 250 mph then the faster plane can be accurately compared to the slower plane as to turn radius and turn rate.

Example:

http://mysite.verizon.net/res0l0yx/IL2Flugbuch/Corner%20time.jpg

The Mig can turn a sustained horizontal turn at .4 Mach while generating just over 3gs while the turn radius is about 1,000 feet (this chart is a little fuzzy but this chart is not a game chart). The F-86 can decelerate down through .5 Mach (faster speed) and generate about 7g while the turn radius is smaller and the turn rate is considerably faster. In that case (not generally but specifically in that case) the fast F-86 will be turning a smaller turn radius at a much faster turn rate compared to the slow flying Mig.

Maximum turn performance (smallest radius and fastest rate) is achieved when the plane is generating the most g force at the slowest possible speed. That is not the same thing as saying that the slower plane turns a smaller radius. The faster plane can turn the smaller radius especially when the faster plane is designed to turn at a slower corner speed. When the plane is designed to ˜sustain' a slower sustained turn that plane can turn a slow sustained turn and the size of the turn radius during that slow sustained turn will be determined by how much g force the plane can generate during that slow sustained or "horizontal" turn.

No41Sqn_Banks
05-07-2008, 07:44 AM
Originally posted by JG14_Josf:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Turning radius of A (the slower a/c) is smaller than turning radius of B (the faster a/c) - in general regardless of the turning capabilities of the 2 a/c at same speed.

In that case (not generally but specifically in that case) the fast F-86 will be turning a smaller turn radius at a much faster turn rate compared to the slow flying Mig.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Exactly that's why I wrote "in general" and not "always" http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif

Edit: Anyhow in this particular situation the F-86 will overshoot, only has a snapshot situation and will requiere a lot of lead. Furthermore as you wrote, the faster a/c will decelerate through corner speed, and by this loose a lot of cinetic energy. Loosing a lot of energy only to get in a snapshot position, that is something "No one in sane mind" would do, if "he has any other option". So it's very doubtful that the pilot of the faster F-86 will try to turn with the slower Mig-15, and if he does he gives up his energy advantage.

M_Gunz
05-07-2008, 08:33 AM
Originally posted by Hkuusela:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
All aircraft at the same angle of bank and velocity will make exactly the same turn.

Velocity has the largest influence on turn performance. In general, the slower aircraft will outturn the faster one.
So what you're saying is, that if you take two a/c and bank them equally and pull the stick, they will make exactly the same turns without either stalling before the other? I must have misunderstood your message. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You can go slower in the same bank and still hold alt in some planes than others.

Hkuusela
05-07-2008, 08:35 AM
Originally posted by No41Sqn_Banks:
Take 2 a/c, A and B. A is at 250mph, B is at 400mph.

Turning radius of A (the slower a/c) is smaller than turning radius of B (the faster a/c) - in general regardless of the turning capabilities of the 2 a/c at same speed.
Yes, but if you take a/c A at 250 mph and a/c B at 250 mph, there probably will be a difference between them in their turning capability, so I don't believe that all a/c at a given speed will turn equally at the same bank. But as I said, I probably misunderstood Kettenhunde's post, so he probably will elaborate.

Hkuusela
05-07-2008, 08:44 AM
Originally posted by M_Gunz:
You can go slower in the same bank and still hold alt in some planes than others.
Yes, but the premiss was that the velocity is the same (through the turn, I suppose...). But I still find it hard to believe, that the only relevant factors are speed and bank angle.

stathem
05-07-2008, 08:47 AM
No, it's right.

However such a turn will cause an amount of g, say x

If x is greater than the plane's accellerated stall limit, then it won't be able to turn at that speed and bank angle without stalling - or more properly the pilot will sense the stall onset and back off either the speed or bank angle, so he won't be turning the same. Which is why one plane may seem to 'turn' better than another.

Bewolf
05-07-2008, 08:56 AM
And here the interesting part of the thread stops and it comes down to odd abstract number games between just a few members. Pity.

M_Gunz
05-07-2008, 08:57 AM
That's not a premise, he was making a geometric statement.

You can fly the turner in the same bank and speed as the faster moving plane but then you
wouldn't be using your advantage to get on his tail. Ohhh, he's so fast and I can't slow
down because turns at the same bank and speed have the same radius. Oh what shall I do?
I'd better not bank more even though I can at this speed and he might not. Oh drat that
turn rule!

It was Israelis who had those planes. Did they have any long range missions? Were they
mostly fighting offense or defense?

In the ETO it was speed and high altitude while in Russia the action was mostly lower.
What plane serves anywhere best is a matter of what you and your enemies are doing.
So best for one place is not the same everywhere.

Hkuusela
05-07-2008, 09:01 AM
Originally posted by stathem:
No, it's right.

However such a turn will cause an amount of g, say x

If x is greater than the plane's accellerated stall limit, then it won't be able to turn at that speed and bank angle without stalling - or more properly the pilot will sense the stall onset and back off either the speed or bank angle, so he won't be turning the same. Which is why one plane may seem to 'turn' better than another.
That's pretty much my point originally. So, in other words all aircraft at the same angle of bank and velocity don't necessarily make exactly the same turn, since the other one may stall. The one that does not could be said to turn better. I don't think it only seems to turn better. If it makes a turn that the other plane can't make, it turns better.

Hkuusela
05-07-2008, 09:12 AM
Originally posted by Bewolf:
And here the interesting part of the thread stops and it comes down to odd abstract number games between just a few members. Pity.
You may be right. Back to the subject (I think). Turning is not the best defensive manouvre actually even if you have the better turning a/c. You only lose speed and will get shot down by some other enemy a/c, even if you manage to out-turn the initial foe. Out-turning is the best defensive manouvre if that is all you've got. Naturally there are variables that affect to this though.

M_Gunz
05-07-2008, 09:12 AM
Originally posted by stathem:
No, it's right.

However such a turn will cause an amount of g, say x

If x is greater than the plane's accellerated stall limit, then it won't be able to turn at that speed and bank angle without stalling - or more properly the pilot will sense the stall onset and back off either the speed or bank angle, so he won't be turning the same. Which is why one plane may seem to 'turn' better than another.

G's for the flat turn is set only by the bank angle.
And your speed is affected by your drag and excess power both.
The better turning plane will have less induced drag than the other in the same turn.

Bewolf
05-07-2008, 09:30 AM
Originally posted by Hkuusela:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bewolf:
And here the interesting part of the thread stops and it comes down to odd abstract number games between just a few members. Pity.
You may be right. Back to the subject (I think). Turning is not the best defensive manouvre actually even if you have the better turning a/c. You only lose speed and will get shot down by some other enemy a/c, even if you manage to out-turn the initial foe. Out-turning is the best defensive manouvre if that is all you've got. Naturally there are variables that affect to this though. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That pretty much sums it up. Ongoing Turning is a game you can only play if the opposition plays along. Else it's just a matter of time until you end up on the floor, in one way or another. It may provide you with a few chance exploits here and there in regular combat. But that's about it.

Bremspropeller
05-07-2008, 09:46 AM
Note that the "Messerschmitt" they're talking of is actually an Avia S-199.
That would be a G-10 airframe, with a Jumo 211 engine (yes, the Stuka engine) and the two 20mm-gondolas.

Thats makes it pretty much differnt to fly than a normal 109.
However, that lame donkey was still abble to
1) outclimb both, Spit IX and P-51D
2) outturn the P-51D


http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

M_Gunz
05-07-2008, 09:47 AM
Originally posted by Hkuusela:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by stathem:
No, it's right.

However such a turn will cause an amount of g, say x

If x is greater than the plane's accellerated stall limit, then it won't be able to turn at that speed and bank angle without stalling - or more properly the pilot will sense the stall onset and back off either the speed or bank angle, so he won't be turning the same. Which is why one plane may seem to 'turn' better than another.
That's pretty much my point originally. So, in other words all aircraft at the same angle of bank and velocity don't necessarily make exactly the same turn, since the other one may stall. The one that does not could be said to turn better. I don't think it only seems to turn better. If it makes a turn that the other plane can't make, it turns better. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

If a plane stalls then it's no longer flying the same bank and speed. It stalled.

Bank determines what fraction of your lift is pulling you into the turn.
Your speed is the product of power and drag, your AOA is however much you need to hold altitude
and maintain the bank angle.

If you don't provide enough energy then you spiral down, if you add too much power you climb.
If you drop the nose to keep from climbing then you also have to lower power to keep from
speeding up.

A 2G turn done at high speed has a wider radius than a 2G turn done at low speed but they are
both at the same bank angle.

Hkuusela
05-07-2008, 10:11 AM
Originally posted by Bewolf:
That pretty much sums it up. Ongoing Turning is a game you can only play if the opposition plays along. Else it's just a matter of time until you end up on the floor, in one way or another. It may provide you with a few chance exploits here and there in regular combat. But that's about it.
And even further back to the subject, the statement that turning is the most important manouvre of air combat certainly at least raises the question if that premiss is why the Spit was prefered. I'd probably prefer it too if I wanted the best turning a/c. Now, before I get hosed, I want to say, that this does not answer the question which is the better a/c. It only makes one suspect, that maybe the test does not after all answer the question at hand.

JG14_Josf
05-07-2008, 10:20 AM
So it's very doubtful that the pilot of the faster F-86 will try to turn with the slower Mig-15, and if he does he gives up his energy advantage.

No41Sqn_Banks,

I read your word choice of "general" and commented upon that word choice so your choice of selecting the http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif gremlin appears to be some sort of pot shot at me. Why?

Why do you think that I didn't understand your use of the word "general" when I commented upon that fact?

Here:

In that case (not generally but specifically in that case) the fast F-86 will be turning a smaller turn radius at a much faster turn rate compared to the slow flying Mig.


What is your beef with me? Why use the whisper gremlin on me? I don't get it.

Look here: (http://www.acepilots.com/korea_mahurin2.html)


But we could outperform them with the F-86's slab tail, we could turn faster than they could, we could dive faster, and we could pull out quicker.

And here: (http://www.acepilots.com/korea_blesse.html)


But if you're an F-86 pilot you had a couple of things you could try with this gopher, and one of them is turn.

I see no point in arguing with you. You say something. I respond to what you say. We can both be accurate. When you say this or that happens ˜generally' I can respond with a specific case whereby the slower plane is flying a larger radius turn while both planes are maximizing turn performance. When you say that this pilot in this plane will do this or that I can respond with the pilot's describing what they did in their own words.

This does not have to turn into a flame war. You can speak generally and I can write specific things. Your comment about the general relationship between speed and turn radius inspired me to throw in the specific relationship between speed, g force, radius, and turn rate where maximum turn performance is flown at the highest g possible at the slowest possible speed and radius will be minimized while rate is maximized.

The F-86 pilots can be understood better (more accurately) when reading their words in context better than reading one quote.

M_Gunz
05-07-2008, 10:25 AM
Originally posted by Bewolf:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Hkuusela:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bewolf:
And here the interesting part of the thread stops and it comes down to odd abstract number games between just a few members. Pity.
You may be right. Back to the subject (I think). Turning is not the best defensive manouvre actually even if you have the better turning a/c. You only lose speed and will get shot down by some other enemy a/c, even if you manage to out-turn the initial foe. Out-turning is the best defensive manouvre if that is all you've got. Naturally there are variables that affect to this though. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That pretty much sums it up. Ongoing Turning is a game you can only play if the opposition plays along. Else it's just a matter of time until you end up on the floor, in one way or another. It may provide you with a few chance exploits here and there in regular combat. But that's about it. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

If you are defending something stationary like a city, a few good turning planes would be an
asset. His game is to turn just enough to sucker the faster plane to bleed speed until he's
ready to be pwned. That's what the angle fighter wants.

All in all it's better to have the faster planes just because they get to choose the fight
more often. They have the initiative or refusal unless caught unaware.

Britain didn't do badly by Spits and Hurri's in the BoB. That was against veterans of one war
and two invasions to the RAF's getting pushed off the mainland where they had Hurri's only.

Xiolablu3
05-07-2008, 10:30 AM
Originally posted by Bremspropeller:
Note that the "Messerschmitt" they're talking of is actually an Avia S-199.
That would be a G-10 airframe, with a Jumo 211 engine (yes, the Stuka engine) and the two 20mm-gondolas.

Thats makes it pretty much differnt to fly than a normal 109.
However, that lame donkey was still abble to
1) outclimb both, Spit IX and P-51D
2) outturn the P-51D


http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

It was an absolute dog of an aircraft tho, and there we have more evidence that paper specs are not proof of a good plane.

The Jumo engine produced about the same power as the DB605 IIRC.

The RR Merlin was comparable in power to the Daimler Benz, and produced almost as much Horsepower with 27 litres rather than the DB's 33.9.

The DB is closer to the Griffon in displacement, than the Merlin, so its not really surprising that the engine could produce a little more power.

Merlin 27 litres
DB605 33.9 litres
Griffon 36.7 litres

No41Sqn_Banks
05-07-2008, 10:46 AM
@JG14_Josf: Sorry, was not meant as an offense.

Kettenhunde
05-07-2008, 11:02 AM
So, in other words all aircraft at the same angle of bank and velocity don't necessarily make exactly the same turn, since the other one may stall.

Not really a correct statement.

All aircraft at the same angle of bank and velocity will make exactly the same turn is a correct statement.

Not all aircraft have the power available to make the same turn and maintain altitude.

All aircraft have the option of trading altitude for more power. The nature of doing this is such that a small altitude loss translates into a considerable amount of thrust.

Here:


Velocity and radius are linked. Least that is what I was taught in all the Aerodynamic and Aircraft performance classes I took for my degree. How are we going to increase our airplanes velocity without affecting the radius?

Our aircraft's design particulars determine the sustainable angle of bank. However we can easily do a quick parametric study to determine the effects of increasing our velocity.

Two aircraft traveling at 200Kts make a 65 degree bank.

Radius of turn:

R = Vk^2 / (11.26 * tanAoB)

200^2 / 11.26 * 65 = 1656.5 ft

1656.5 ft radius

Rate of Turn

(1091 * tan 65) / 200 = 11.7 deg/sec

30 seconds to complete a 360 degree turn.

210^2 / (11.26 * tan 65)

Radius = 1826 ft

A 170 ft increase in radius!!!

Well he is not going to outturn anything by increasing his speed!

Let's see the effect on Rate of turn. That increase in speed should help somewhat.

(1091 * tan 65) / 210 = 11.14deg/sec

32 seconds to complete a 360 degree turn.

Well that did not work either. We have increased our rate of turn not decreased it and are going through our circle at .56 degrees a second less than before! Not really going to be noticeable but with that increase in radius, we are not going to be really outturning anything that could match the original parameters.

The airplane with slower stall speed generally speaking must go slower if he is to outturn his opponent. He must bring the fight down to the vicinity of the less capable at sustained turn performance aircrafts stall speed before any real turn advantage is realized.

Since we know that velocity is the key to zoom climb performance, the moment one opponent begins to be outturned, he can zoom above his opponent. This works in general for all aircraft. If he has not given up altitude, then he will be above his better turning opponent.

Studying these pages might help to shed some insight!


http://selair.selkirk.bc.ca/aerodynamics1/Lift/Page13.html


quote:
Keep in mind that the radius of turn equation is universal, therefore this graph is valid for any airplane, from a C-150 to a Boeing 747.


http://selair.selkirk.bc.ca/aerodynamics1/Lift/Min_Radius.html


quote:
By placing nose below horizon you are giving up E for angles, in that situation routine respond for 109 would be to go for E and transform fight from turning fight into E fight with advantage for 109.


Sure you are giving up some E for angles. It does not matter as long as you get gun solution. Remember, fighter aircraft are not playing a game of tag. Once solution is met, the other aircraft does not become "it" with the whole process starting anew. The other aircraft dies in the real world.

As for transitioning, the aircraft dropping his nose is increasing it's sustainable load factor. The idea is to change it's sustainable angle of bank and not it's velocity.

The other aircraft is still going slower in it's turn. If both aircraft zoom, the faster aircraft will zoom the farther distance.

That is exactly the science behind how Focke Wulf pilots fought Spitfires successfully in close quarter dogfights. This works for F6F's vs. Zeke's, P47's vs 109's, or any scenario where an opponent has a slower stall speed and better sustained turn performance.

Good level turn performance is a very useful defense maneuver and is seen as such by designers. It is not much use on the offense unless the opponent decides to play that game.


quote:
keep speed and fly tighter


I know what you meant FatCat. This is the scenario the better turning aircraft can do. He is keeping his velocity but can choose from a higher angle of bank. This will result in in him outturning the other plane.

He is not increasing his velocity if he wants to outturn his opponent. So there is not "two" things the aircraft with better sustained turn performance can do, there is only one!

However the range of angles of bank that this superiority is exhibited is a very small portion of the envelope. Until the dirt barrier is reached, the other aircraft can still gain angles if he wishes.

The largest influence on turn performance is going to be the aircraft velocity. Generally speaking, the superior turning aircraft is the slower velocity aircraft.

All the best,

Crumpp

http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/23110283/m/443...201055346#7201055346 (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/23110283/m/4431070246?r=7201055346#7201055346)

And Here:


Your idea is correct but I think your have a misconception on the scale of that excess power.

Let's answer the question:

If we are making a maximum performance sustained turn, where is all this surplus PS?

If we are making less than a maximum performance sustained turn, are you aware of how much power is needed to effect performance? I think your having a problem of scale here. Your concept is correct however there simply is not that much power available to do much of anything that will make a difference in the air. Remember, our performance differences have to be rather dramatic to even be noticeable.

We need a large amount of excess power. I doubt any WWII fighter has that much excess PS and still can outturn another aircraft.

This isn't thrust either! This is power that we still have to convert to thrust.

Now let's make a quick SWAG of a Spitfire Mk IX Merlin 66 (+18) vs. FW190A8. Not to argue about specific numbers but let's just look at the excess power available at the Spitfire's maximum sustainable load factor.

It's not the numbers we care about, it is the performance trend.

The Spitfire can sustain ~3.65G's using all 1402.5 THP available.

The FW190A8 using all of its available 1683 THP can sustain about 3.27G's.

This leaves us a total of a .38G sustained turn advantage for the Spitfire.

To SWAG our Pr difference for the Spitfire:

D2/D1 = W2/W1

D2/1402.5 = (7500 * 3.27)/(7500 * 3.65)
D2 = {(7500 * 3.27)/(7500 * 3.65)} * 1402.5
D2 = 1256 THP

1402.5 - 1256 = 146.6 THP

That is a whooping 244lbs of excess thrust at the Spitfires best sustained turn performance velocity of 195KEAS.

Our ROC if we decide to "climb away" in our turn is going to be:

sin y = 244lbs/(7,500* 3.27) = .0099

ROC = 101.3 * 195KEAS * sin y

ROC = 196.5 fpm or 3.27 fps. In a 10 second period, our Spitfire would be 30 feet above it's starting altitude.

In short there is not anything really useful the Spitfire can do such a tiny bit of excess power.

Now compare that with a 9800lbs aircraft pointing its vector of lift just 5 degree's below the horizon produces ~512THP or 854lbs of thrust!

That is a ~589 SHP increase to our excess power. Of course we have lost ~200 feet in 10 seconds of flight but our velocity gain can make that back up.

All the best,

Crumpp

Kettenhunde
05-07-2008, 11:09 AM
You may be right. Back to the subject (I think). Turning is not the best defensive manouvre actually even if you have the better turning a/c. You only lose speed and will get shot down by some other enemy a/c, even if you manage to out-turn the initial foe. Out-turning is the best defensive manouvre if that is all you've got. Naturally there are variables that affect to this though.

That's correct.

Brain32
05-07-2008, 11:19 AM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
It was an absolute dog of an aircraft tho, and there we have more evidence that paper specs are not proof of a good plane.

The Jumo engine produced about the same power as the DB605 IIRC.

Absolute dog yet it could both outclimb and outturn a P51 and outclimb SpitIX hmmm, what's in-game G6 then super dog? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Jumo211J produced about 1400HP, but note this was hanged on G-10 airframe that was powered by 1800hp DB605D and on top of that had gondolas. So if that cr@p could do above, what could about 300Kg lighter and cleaner airframe with 400HP more do? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Bremspropeller
05-07-2008, 11:23 AM
+1, Brain.

That's what I said, yet Xio didn't get my thought.

anarchy52
05-07-2008, 11:31 AM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:

The Jumo engine produced about the same power as the DB605 IIRC.

Avia used Jumo 211F, at least according to Wikipedia.
Jumo 211F produced 1340 PS ( http://www.enginehistory.org/German/Jumo%20211/j18.jpg ), DB605 developed between 1475 and 2000 PS.

1944 Bf-109G10 had about 500 PS advantage in power with a bit less weight and drag over Avia.

Late 109s in game are very disappointing.

JG53Frankyboy
05-07-2008, 11:38 AM
a big proplem of the Jumo Avia "109s" for its realy bad halndling was its propeller - a
propeller from a He111, the Junkers VS-11.

as the Jumo 211F's weight was comparable to the DB605A's weight , this propeller was heavier and made the plane nose heavy.


and btw, i belive the americans showed very good how a fast escort fighter with a good fuel suply can work to protect bombers - if you dont belice it over europe, you propably belive it in the pacific.
with enough fuel the escort can mantain their higher speed around the bomberformation and can quickly intercept incomming enemy fighters.

the proplem of the germans in their 109s over england 1940 was that thy had not enough fuel on board to make both, staying with the bombers AND mantaining high speed...........

Hkuusela
05-07-2008, 12:01 PM
I'm sorry, Hunde, you lost me on line two... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Xiolablu3
05-07-2008, 12:32 PM
Originally posted by Brain32:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
It was an absolute dog of an aircraft tho, and there we have more evidence that paper specs are not proof of a good plane.

The Jumo engine produced about the same power as the DB605 IIRC.

Absolute dog yet it could both outclimb and outturn a P51 and outclimb SpitIX hmmm, what's in-game G6 then super dog? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Jumo211J produced about 1400HP, but note this was hanged on G-10 airframe that was powered by 1800hp DB605D and on top of that had gondolas. So if that cr@p could do above, what could about 300Kg lighter and cleaner airframe with 400HP more do? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well 400 more HP at Emergency POwer, its would probably be about as fast as a Spitfire XIV, but without the great handling from the low wing loading and large wings. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

But seriously :-

It was in the handling that it was a dog, not its performance :-


Jack Cohen, he means the Avia 199 when he says 'Meeserschmitt' and '109' :-

You had to rely on brute force with this thing. I mean, you had no real trimming. In the Spit, you had the trimming tabs in the cockpit, you could adjust your trim for your tail, for your wings, anything. And the 109s, the ones that we had, didn't have it. So you had a little tab on the tail which was a set piece. If you opened your throttle and you weren't really prepared for it, she'll swing you off the runway when you're coming into land. And you had to rely on brute force - on your right leg I think it was - to hold her straight.

As far as I'm concerned there was nothing about the109s that the pilots liked. No, nothing. I didn't like the armament at all. The firing through the prop I didn't like. The guns of the Messerschmitt used to fire through the propeller and if your synchronising went out you'd shoot your prop off. Put holes in it.



Syd Antin :-

It had very narrow landing gear, for which reason it ground-looped very easily and several of our pilots ground-looped it. I never did. I was fortunate, I'm not saying that in a bragging way, but I managed to handle it OK. I could understand and sympathize with anybody who had problems with it because it was very delicate.

Another terrible thing about it was you could not open the canopy in flight. It was fixed such that you either had it closed and locked or you could jettison it completely if you got into an emergency situation where you had to bail, of course. There was nothing in between. That was not good. Another thing even worse... is that fact that it had two .30-caliber machine guns in the cowl synchronized to fire through a three-bladed, paddle-bladed, wooden prop. We had at least two or three of our pilots experienced the synch going out and shooting off their own props. That was a hell of a situation....

I remember, too, the hydraulic system wasn't buffered. You had to push a button to put the landing gear down. It operated on a hydraulic system. If you didn't get your thumb off that button real fast after you pushed it, the pressure of the hydraulic fluid building up in the system would pop that *******ed button back out at you - it would almost break your thumb. '


Gordon Levett wrote:

The (Avia) was not popular with the pilots. It was, suprisingly, much smaller than the Spitfire or Mustang. With its splayed feet, upside-down engine, paddle-bladed propeller and ugly, bulbous spinner, it looked waspish and business-like.... Like the Spitfire, its undercarriage retracted outwards and the landing wheels were narrowly close together. It was a tricky aeroplane to handle on the ground, particularly with a cross-wind, and had a tendency with inexperienced pilots to ground-loop on landing and sometimes finish up on its back. Worse, the cockpit hood was hinged on the starboard side and was pulled over the pilot's head to lock on the port side, instead of sliding backwards and forwards like most other fighters. This meant that pilots had to take-off or land with the hood shut, trapping the pilot inside if the aircraft should finish up on its back. The entire squadron spent most of one afternoon releasing an unhurt pilot who was trapped in his upside down Messerschmitt after somersaulting on landing, with the ground soaked in petrol and the petrol tanks dripping relentlessly. I can still hear today his screams begging us to be careful and not cause a spark. (Levett 1994)



'Normally when you land a fighter, you come over the field, make a 360-degree turn and lower flaps and gear. That's when you're at your most vulnerable, so you don't want to stay that way. You land as fast and as quickly as possible. Now in the S-199s, we landed them like Fortresses (B-17s). We took long sweeping passes over the field until our speed dropped, then landed. (Finkel, pers. comm.)


Some pilot was coming in - I don't remember who it was, I think it was Sandy Jacobs - and Bill Pomerantz and I were standing there watching him. Bill and I made a bet and sure enough, Sandy cracked it up. I asked Bill for the money, and he looked at me with this expression on his face and said, 'You wouldn't take money from a tragedy, would you?'"



So, from guys who have been to war in both plane :-

Spitfire :- A dream

Avia S199 :- Even tho it could outclimb the SPitfire, Awful.


Interestingly I am reading more and more about this happening in both 109s and Avias, it seems that the synchronisation went out a lot and a lot of propellers were shot off.

Adolf Galland writes about it in the first and last. He landed with big holes through his prop.

About the Jumo vs DB, I found this, not sure if its accurate tho :-

'Both the Jumo 211 and the DB 605 were 12-cylinder, inverted-V, liquid-cooled engines, but the Jumo 211F produced only 75% of the DB 605AM's power at takeoff and less than 85% of its maximum continuous power. The two engines weighed about the same, but the Jumo drove the massive VS 11 propeller that produced much more torque and P-factor (airflow twisting force) than the standard fighter propeller married to the DB 605. The VS 11 was wood coated with a thin layer of plastic with leading edges of brass.

Nor did the Jumo 211 allow a cannon to fire through the spinner hub. Forced to remove the standard 20mm MG 151/20 from that position, Avia installed what the Luftwaffe called the Rüstsatz 6: a MG 151/20 gun pod with 120 rounds per gun under each wing. The cowl guns remained 13mm MG 131 machine guns with 300 rounds per gun. The ETC 50/VIId bomb rack could in theory carry up to four 70kg bombs or a 300L drop tank. In practice, the S-199 was limited to two 70kg bombs because the load impinged on its already dubious performance and handling. '

JG14_Josf
05-07-2008, 12:33 PM
@JG14_Josf: Sorry, was not meant as an offense.


OH... (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V3FnpaWQJO0&feature=related)

DKoor
05-07-2008, 01:35 PM
Originally posted by Brain32:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
It was an absolute dog of an aircraft tho, and there we have more evidence that paper specs are not proof of a good plane.

The Jumo engine produced about the same power as the DB605 IIRC.

Absolute dog yet it could both outclimb and outturn a P51 and outclimb SpitIX hmmm, what's in-game G6 then super dog? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Jumo211J produced about 1400HP, but note this was hanged on G-10 airframe that was powered by 1800hp DB605D and on top of that had gondolas. So if that cr@p could do above, what could about 300Kg lighter and cleaner airframe with 400HP more do? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE> http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Yes, in game 109G6_EARLY as it is now, is probably the worst German fighter (in its time frame, relatively speaking) overall.

Kurfurst__
05-07-2008, 01:44 PM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:

The RR Merlin was comparable in power to the Daimler Benz, and produced almost as much Horsepower with 27 litres rather than the DB's 33.9.

The DB is closer to the Griffon in displacement, than the Merlin, so its not really surprising that the engine could produce a little more power.

Merlin 27 litres
DB605 33.9 litres
Griffon 36.7 litres

I don`t quite get this stuff about about displacements - the Merlin and DB 601/605 engines were comparable to each other in both weight and dimensions.

Having 27 liters to work with on an engine of the same size and weight only resulted in the Merlin being relatively fuel thirsty, for the same amount of power developed. R-R should have gone for increased displacements much earlier.

The Griffon was much heavier beast - by ca 200 kg - than either the Merlin or the DB 605, it was more comparable to the DB 603/Jumo 213.

Bremspropeller
05-07-2008, 04:21 PM
So, from guys who have been to war in both plane :-

Spitfire :- A dream

Avia S199 :- Even tho it could outclimb the SPitfire, Awful.

Yep, and Galland stated the 109 "fit like a glove".

That's not exactly bad in my book...

MB_Avro_UK
05-07-2008, 04:56 PM
Originally posted by Bremspropeller:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">So, from guys who have been to war in both plane :-

Spitfire :- A dream

Avia S199 :- Even tho it could outclimb the SPitfire, Awful.


Yep, and Galland stated the 109 "fit like a glove".

That's not exactly bad in my book... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Sooo...what does Galland mean by 'fits like a glove?'. My Skoda car 'fits like a glove' to me but I would not race with a Porsche 911 http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Best Regards,
MB_Skoda.

Freiwillige
05-07-2008, 05:38 PM
Does anybody know the general pilot's opinions on the late war 109s, were they highly regarded as they were at the start of the war?

The BF-109 F-4 is considered to be the best 109 produced by many veteran Luftwaffe pilots. Galland, Hartmann, Rall and many others have made this statement.

The BF-109 G series was a (forced) replacment of the beloved F series. I say forced because and I'll quote
"Dictates of the air war forced the Messerschmitt desighn people to sacrafice handeling and maneuverability in order to increase its maximum speed"
-Sqaudron signal publications (Messerschmitt Bf 109 in action part 2)

Also "Desighned around the more powerfull yet heavier Db-605 engine, local streangthening was requiered which increased weight which, in turn, requiered that the undercarriage be streangthened which again increased weight; all of which increased wing loading and decreased handeling."

And "Weight of the new G series escalated (By the G-6 model) to over 6500 pounds, But the R.M.L. felt that, givin the war conditions, The consiquent loss of handeling was a fair trade off with the gain in power and speed acheived by the DB605 installation. Many pilots in the feild felt otherwise, claiming that the "G" series was a regressive step from the "F" series."

BF-109 F-4 Weight 6,396lb normal load
BF-109 G-6 (late)Weight 6,940lb normal load
thats a 543lb gain!

The avia S-99 is not a fair comparison against the Messerschmitt 109. It was a 109 G-14AS airframe that was to be matched to remaining DB605 engines in Czeckoslovakia, but only 20 were mated before fire destroyed the remaining DB605's in a Czeck warehouse. "Since the aiframes had plenty of life left the Czeck's decided to re-engine them with the Jumo 211F.
This resulted in a completely new forward cowling, Spinner and propeller. The resulting aircraft did not handle well in any situation. It was so bad, in fact, that it soon acquired the nickname "Mule". Some were sold to Isreals fledgling air force in 1948. Although the aircraft saw some limited combat, The "Mule" proved to be just as unpopular with the Chel Ha'Avir and was quickly phased out of service."

Kettenhunde
05-07-2008, 06:03 PM
I'm sorry, Hunde, you lost me on line two...

Sorry about that.

I wasn't trying to lose you.

Hkuusela
05-08-2008, 01:03 AM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
So, from guys who have been to war in both plane :-

Spitfire :- A dream

Avia S199 :- Even tho it could outclimb the SPitfire, Awful.
In all fairness we must note, that they are not talking about the Bf 109. They are talking about a fighter with less power and possibly more weight (?) (gondolas) than the 109. It is not hard to imagine, that an aircraft like this would be trickier to fly than the 109, which was a handful in some situations.

And then we have the appraisal of the FAF pilots, who had flown the Brewster and liked it very much. Cpt Hans Henrik Wind testified, that the 109 took some getting used to after the Brewster. The cockpit was small, but once you got used to it, you noticed, it was well designed with the instruments well placed. He talked about ergonomics (!). Wind stated, that it was very hard to make the 109 spin by pulling too hard and if you did, it would recover by centering the stick. Very docile. And these are Wind's words: "Once you learned the tricks, you could do anything with it". Now the Finns did not fly the Spitfire, they shot some down, so they could not compare the two. But they did fly American planes like the Brewster and P-36 and the British Hurricane. So it was not like they had flown this one aircraft and not knew of anything better. They just liked the 109. According to their words it was a killing machine, and killing was their business in the war.

Back to the subject: IIRC the FAF pilots did either prefer the G2 to the G6 or they saw no relevant difference.

M_Gunz
05-08-2008, 02:33 AM
Originally posted by JG53Frankyboy:
the proplem of the germans in their 109s over england 1940 was that thy had not enough fuel on board to make both, staying with the bombers AND mantaining high speed...........

It's rough when you have 15 minutes of fuel for a 60 minute task.

Xiolablu3
05-08-2008, 05:02 AM
Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:

The RR Merlin was comparable in power to the Daimler Benz, and produced almost as much Horsepower with 27 litres rather than the DB's 33.9.

The DB is closer to the Griffon in displacement, than the Merlin, so its not really surprising that the engine could produce a little more power.

Merlin 27 litres
DB605 33.9 litres
Griffon 36.7 litres

I don`t quite get this stuff about about displacements - the Merlin and DB 601/605 engines were comparable to each other in both weight and dimensions.

Having 27 liters to work with on an engine of the same size and weight only resulted in the Merlin being relatively fuel thirsty, for the same amount of power developed. R-R should have gone for increased displacements much earlier.

The Griffon was much heavier beast - by ca 200 kg - than either the Merlin or the DB 605, it was more comparable to the DB 603/Jumo 213. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thanks for the info, I dont actually know too much about the engines, what I wrote was copied from a web page.

BUT :- DOnt forget you must add the MW50 and piping to the weight of the 1944 DB605 if you are comparing Alcoholic Bf109's with the Spitfire IX.

As far as I can see, the DB605 was slightly more weight (756kg) than the merlin 66 without this added weight of the MW50 and piping.

The figures I have are

745kg for Merlin 66

756kg for DB 605 (no MW50)

From :-

http://www.aviation-history.com/engines/db605.htm

http://www.spitfireart.com/merlin_engines.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rolls-Royce_Merlin



However I am not sure how much an MW50 system+parts actually added in weight to the aircraft. Maybe Kurfy can tell us? (And maybe elaborate on the DB info?

DKoor
05-08-2008, 05:55 AM
The type of comparison you people are discussing here about is so irrelevant that it isn't funny.

Avia S.199 for instance has in common with wartime 109 as much as Hurricane has with Bf-109E. It was an airplane, yes. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif
Also should be noted here that German pilots who flew 109 in combat should be quoted here.
I'll probably show up later with some material in this regard.

And just another thing...

Overall performance of fighter is what matters not weight of engine or so... of what possible goodness may comparison between a few engines and their parts serve, I'm not really sure.
Unless we are talking about yet another UBi "what if" they had bigger coolants, less drag, nicer cockpit, flower perfume installed in pit etc. fictitious BS that serve no purpose at all.

Xiolablu3
05-08-2008, 06:38 AM
The Avia 199 was a Bf109G airframe with a different engine and propellor, plus the gunpods.

The Hurricane and Bf109were completely different airframes AND engines.

All the comments about the trim, cockpit and things that are not to do with the engine/prop/flight perfmance are valid for the bf109 too.

But anyway, engines just came up in the discussion. Noone is saying that the Bf109 was such a dog of a plane as the Avia S199. - it wasnt. However we can attribute some of hte comments made about the cockpit/hood/absence of trim/poor visibilty etc to both the Avia and the Bf109, as these things were the same on both planes.

Bremspropeller
05-08-2008, 07:40 AM
All the comments about the trim, cockpit and things that are not to do with the engine/prop/flight perfmance are valid for the bf109 too.


The 199 has more torque abnd therefore reqires more rudder input than the 109.
Flight performance was also different.

Bewolf
05-08-2008, 07:57 AM
Not to count in center of gravity changed due to the added wight of the engine, making handling even worse.

JG53Frankyboy
05-08-2008, 08:41 AM
Originally posted by Bewolf:
Not to count in center of gravity changed due to the added wight of the engine, making handling even worse.

as already was mentioned here, a Jumo 211F and a DB605A had almost the same dry weight..........

according to " Die deutsche Luftfahrt: Band 2 Flugmotoren und Strahltriebwerke" both at 720kg.

but if you leave out the MW50 tank behind the cockpit of a G-14/G-10 fuselage, yes, the center of gravity changed to the front when using a Jumo 211F , that didnt "needed" these ~70 litres of liquid..................... even when the tank was installed in the very center of the plane, just behind the cockpit.

anyway, the speed perfomance of a S-199 was rated by 598km/h at 6000m.
to compare here a finnish test of a Bf109G-2, with a non alcoholic DB605A , beeing restrictet to 1,3ATA use -> ~ 1300HP as max
http://kurfurst.allaboutwarfare.com/Performance_tests/1.../109G2_MT215_en.html (http://kurfurst.allaboutwarfare.com/Performance_tests/109G_MT215/109G2_MT215_en.html)

but, perfomance does little say about handling, espacially in slow speed around the airfield pattern - important for accidant rate.

and that the 109 was not so well known for a very good view out of the cockpit, well - and that its cockpit construction could make proplem when lying on the back with the pilot still inside.........
the Chechs btw gave their Avias later an improved back slide canopy with a light bubble shape (compare it to the Malcom hood of the P-51B/C, just not that extremly rounded). So , they were aware of the proplems.

HayateAce
05-08-2008, 08:46 AM
In the end, the 109 series had an unsolvable, fatal flaw:

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/partyhat.gif

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/3f/P-51_Mustang_edit1.jpg/800px-P-51_Mustang_edit1.jpg

Hkuusela
05-08-2008, 08:53 AM
Is the view out of the Spit dramatically better than out of the 109?

AFAIK the gondolas made the 109 considerably harder to handle and it required more speed in landing. Kurfurst...?

JG53Frankyboy
05-08-2008, 09:04 AM
Originally posted by Hkuusela:
Is the view out of the Spit dramatically better than out of the 109?

AFAIK the gondolas made the 109 considerably harder to handle and it required more speed in landing. Kurfurst...?

sure, every additonal weight is causing a higher landing speed - it was around 215 kg.....
as a speedloss in general, with MG151 gondoloas the speedloss was ~8km/h - compared to a clean configuration.


about the view, i belive the Spitfires bubble shaped canopy helped here a lot !
the isralies had no "P-51D"-style canopies in their Spitfire LF.IXs



and about the general topic issues:
one of the biggest proplems german build late war 109s had (as almost every equipment i guess) was thier very low building quility - in fuselage and even more the engines...........

the Swiss btw were not amused about thier 12 deliverd ( may 1944) Bf109G-6 . lot of structural damage and engine failures.
mainly caused because of the huge use of "slave" labour.
after the war , in 1947, they asked the swedes for there in licence produced DB605 engines , each would have cost 191.000 sFr .
well, the US forces sold thier P-51Ds in those times, 17.000 sFr each ! .......... Guess what the Swiss Airforce did, yes, thiey bought the Mustangs - 130 of them http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

DKoor
05-08-2008, 10:22 AM
Originally posted by Bremspropeller:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">All the comments about the trim, cockpit and things that are not to do with the engine/prop/flight perfmance are valid for the bf109 too.


The 199 has more torque abnd therefore reqires more rudder input than the 109.
Flight performance was also different. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>+ Avia S.199 shooting its own bigger prop (out of sync) and other probs... what a miracle. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Like I said all this hilarity is so wrong that it's not even funny.

DKoor
05-08-2008, 10:34 AM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
All the comments about the trim, cockpit and things that are not to do with the engine/prop/flight perfmance are valid for the bf109 too. That kinda says everything that is important here.


But anyway, engines just came up in the discussion. Noone is saying that the Bf109 was such a dog of a plane as the Avia S199. - it wasnt. However we can attribute some of hte comments made about the cockpit/hood/absence of trim/poor visibilty etc to both the Avia and the Bf109, as these things were the same on both planes.
But I can easily see some of UBi inhabitants equalizing Avia and Bf-109. That's why I said in the first place, that it is utterly pointless bringing this Avia thing here when there is zillion pilot comments and official tests of the wartime Bf-109G.

Metatron_123
05-08-2008, 02:48 PM
I'm getting the unnavoidable feeling that all this has been covered in dozens of discussions before, and that we are over analyzing everything.

I hope you realize Bf-109 pilots never gave a second thought about these details, and that most veterans don't know what sub-type they were flying! (apart from G model K model etc)

Give it a rest and go and blow some stuff up on Il-2. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Hkuusela
05-08-2008, 03:07 PM
Originally posted by JG53Frankyboy:
the Swiss btw were not amused about thier 12 deliverd ( may 1944) Bf109G-6 . lot of structural damage and engine failures.
mainly caused because of the huge use of "slave" labour.
That's interesting. I have a feeling I've read some similar remarks of the Finnish G6's, that did not reach the quality of the earlier G2's. I suppose the difference was explained with the fact that the G2's were bought new whereas the G6's were used. Fellow Finns...? Anyone...?

Kettenhunde
05-09-2008, 03:49 AM
the Chechs btw gave their Avias later an improved back slide canopy with a light bubble shape (compare it to the Malcom hood of the P-51B/C, just not that extremly rounded). So , they were aware of the proplems.


It would be interesting to see that development. I wonder how much speed the aircraft lost.

Freiwillige
05-09-2008, 04:24 AM
I hope you realize Bf-109 pilots never gave a second thought about these details, and that most veterans don't know what sub-type they were flying! (apart from G model K model etc)

I have to respectfully disagree with that statement. No Pilot in the Luftwaffe or any airforce for that fact were that clueless. They new the model they were flying all the way down to the Rustatz<-spelling? kit on the aircraft.

Now granted they may not remember what aircraft they were flying at the time they got xx kill. But keep in mind that they flew alot of differant 109's and 190's E-4, E-4B, F-0, F-2, F-4, G-2, G-5, G-6, G-2 again cause G-6 was having engine repairs ETC. But at the time they knew it was a G-6 R3 with the MW-50.

After all they were highly trained and if we know the sub types just flying them on the P.C. they surely knew them when their lives depended on it!

Also I read a facinating story about a p-51 pilot over Romania who's group tangled with some 109's and he ended up fighting with Eric Hartman or more like Hartmann was toying with him. He goes on to explain that his thoughts on the 109 being inferior to the Mustang were changed when Hartman was following his dives, passing him in climbs staying on his six throughout all menouvers and eventually pulling next to him and waving! But as they were both depleted of ammo neither could do much. I wish I can find that story again...Its on the net.

JG53Frankyboy
05-09-2008, 04:39 AM
Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">the Chechs btw gave their Avias later an improved back slide canopy with a light bubble shape (compare it to the Malcom hood of the P-51B/C, just not that extremly rounded). So , they were aware of the proplems.


It would be interesting to see that development. I wonder how much speed the aircraft lost. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://www.franky.fliegerhospital.de/Avia%20199%20Cockpit.jpg

http://hsfeatures.com/avias199_1.htm

as this one is realy far from being rounded as the Mustang-Malcom-Hood, i doubt the speed loss was huge, if there was any at all.

Freiwillige
05-09-2008, 04:52 AM
http://www.virtualpilots.fi/hist/pdf/ErichHartmann.pdf

Thats the link at the bottom of the p-51 pilot who has a fight with hartmann and lives to tell about it. Great story and very facinating read!

luftluuver
05-09-2008, 05:41 AM
Originally posted by Freiwillige:
http://www.virtualpilots.fi/hist/pdf/ErichHartmann.pdf

Thats the link at the bottom of the p-51 pilot who has a fight with hartmann and lives to tell about it. Great story and very facinating read!

Bogus story.
For starters, victory tallies on the tail had been discontinued and Hartmann had well over 200 victories at the time.

In Jan 1945, Hartmann's 109G-6 had a white spinner and a partial black tulip.

Why no mention of the commander chevrons?

The only P-51 claimed by Hartmann was in March 1945, victory #347.

Kettenhunde
05-09-2008, 05:47 AM
i doubt the speed loss was huge, if there was any at all.


There certainly was a speed loss unless we bend the laws of physics. The track and wider canopy of a sliding type canopy adds considerable drag over a side hinge.

Xiolablu3
05-09-2008, 06:47 AM
Originally posted by luftluuver:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Freiwillige:
http://www.virtualpilots.fi/hist/pdf/ErichHartmann.pdf

Thats the link at the bottom of the p-51 pilot who has a fight with hartmann and lives to tell about it. Great story and very facinating read!

Bogus story.
For starters, victory tallies on the tail had been discontinued and Hartmann had well over 200 victories at the time.

In Jan 1945, Hartmann's 109G-6 had a white spinner and a partial black tulip.

Why no mention of the commander chevrons?

The only P-51 claimed by Hartmann was in March 1945, victory #347. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>



I have read this story before, and I cant help but laugh at the German making 'A knife cutting motion across his throat' and pointing at the P51.

It sounds pretty ridiculous.


The rest of the artical is a good read however, thanks!

BTW what does 'Bubi' actually mean? I thought it was 'baby' because of his young looks, but if I google 'Erich 'baby' Hartmann' I get nothing, so I guess I am wrong?

JG53Hunter
05-09-2008, 07:31 AM
"Bubi" is like "little Boy".
Boys where called "Bube" in German but the word is a bit antiquated in our days.

Xiolablu3
05-09-2008, 08:06 AM
Originally posted by JG53Hunter:
"Bubi" is like "little Boy".
Boys where called "Bube" in German but the word is a bit antiquated in our days.

Thanks for that mate.

I have been reading the Wikipedia page on Erich, and its very interesting.

Of particular interest :-

'Hartmann accorded the Russian pilots a distinct lack of respect in the first year of his service. Hartmann recalled that most Soviet fighters did not have proper gunsights, and that Soviet pilots resorted to drawing hand-painted sights on the windshield. Hartman said that while he considered the P-39 Airacobra, Curtiss P-40 and Hawker Hurricane inferior to the Fw 190 and Bf 109, they provided the Soviets with valuable gunsight technology:

In the early days, incredible as it may seem, there was no reason for you to feel fear if the Russian fighter was behind you. With their hand-painted "gunsights" they couldn't pull the lead properly or hit you'

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erich_Hartmann

Apparantly Hartmann, for a time, used a black Tulip design around the engine cowling near the spinner of his aircraft, so Soviet personnel consequently nicknamed him Cherniye Chort ("Black Devil"). However, Hartmann's opponents were often reluctant to stay and fight if they noticed his personal design. As a result, this aircraft was often allocated to novices, who could fly it in relative safety. On 21 March, Hartmann scored JG 52s 3,500th kill of the war. Adversley, the reluctance of the Soviet airmen to fight, caused Hartmann's kill rate to drop. Hartmann then had the tulip design removed, and his aircraft painted just like the rest of his unit. In the following two months, Hartmann amassed over 50 kills'


The most likely points the story of 'the knife cutting gesture' being false. I must say I had my doubts before I even read this.

Fighter pilots (at least in the West) werent out to kill other pilots, they were there to shoot down aircraft. Galland writes how he would absolutely refuse an order to shoot at parachutes. Numerous RAF pilots state how they never even thought about the other person in the other plane until they saw him bail out.

This page is a good read :-

http://www.acesofww2.com/germany/aces/Hartmann.htm

Kettenhunde
05-09-2008, 08:54 AM
But I can easily see some of UBi inhabitants equalizing Avia and Bf-109. That's why I said in the first place, that it is utterly pointless bringing this Avia thing here when there is zillion pilot comments and official tests of the wartime Bf-109G.

Dkoor,

You are absolutely correct. There is no way to make any intelligent comparison between an Avia S-199 and a Bf-109.

Shifting the CG points completely changes the stability and control of the design. Without major structural design changes I don't think many aeronautical organizations would have approved the Jumo 211F as a suitable engine for the Bf-109 airframe. The engines suitability is border line at best depending on the amount of risk the converting agency is willing to assume. I would find it very hard to believe that the NACA or RAE would have assumed such a level of risk for an operational fighter type.

All the best,

Crumpp

Xiolablu3
05-09-2008, 10:26 AM
Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">But I can easily see some of UBi inhabitants equalizing Avia and Bf-109. That's why I said in the first place, that it is utterly pointless bringing this Avia thing here when there is zillion pilot comments and official tests of the wartime Bf-109G.

Dkoor,

You are absolutely correct. There is no way to make any intelligent comparison between an Avia S-199 and a Bf-109.

Shifting the CG points completely changes the stability and control of the design. Without major structural design changes I don't think many aeronautical organizations would have approved the Jumo 211F as a suitable engine for the Bf-109 airframe. The engines suitability is border line at best depending on the amount of risk the converting agency is willing to assume. I would find it very hard to believe that the NACA or RAE would have assumed such a level of risk for an operational fighter type.

All the best,

Crumpp </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

As I have already said, there are some things which are EXACTLY the same for the Bf109 and the Avia S199, as in the cockpit, visibility, trim tabs, rather than real trim, non sliding hood. So some things definitely ARE comparable.

Anything which includes flight performance or engine/prop are definitely NOT comparable.

Kettenhunde
05-09-2008, 10:57 AM
So some things definitely ARE comparable.


Nothing in terms of handling or performance is in any way comparable. The location of a few controls may not have changed but the forces experienced in flight most certainly have changed.

I would question how useful a comparison of trim as the forces are completely different. What worked well for the Bf-109 will not work for the S-199. It would require major airframe redesigns. In fact I would go so far as to say the comparison would be silly.


non sliding hood.

People think this is a disadvantage for an aircraft. That is a myth folks. Ok so the pilot cannot taxi or fly with the canopy open. Not a big deal especially from an aerodynamic standpoint. Facts are having the canopy open increases our drag. Lift, drag, and Angle of Attack all have a fixed and defined relationship. Opening the canopy raises our drag and increases our limited Angle of Attack. It puts us closer to the stall point and causes the aircraft to require more power for the same condition of flight.

Facts are from an aerodynamic POV a hinged canopy is ideal as it represents the lowest drag design. Mooney, Cirrus, Diamond, and many of today's ultra low drag aircraft incorporate a hinged design for this very reason.

All the best,

Crumpp

JSG72
05-09-2008, 11:09 AM
Originally posted by Freiwillige:
[QUOTE]I hope you realize Bf-109 pilots never gave a second thought about these details, and that most veterans don't know what sub-type they were flying! (apart from G model K model etc)


I have to respectfully disagree with that statement. No Pilot in the Luftwaffe or any airforce for that fact were that clueless. They new the model they were flying all the way down to the Rustatz<-spelling? kit on the aircraft.

Now granted they may not remember what aircraft they were flying at the time they got xx kill. But keep in mind that they flew alot of differant 109's and 190's E-4, E-4B, F-0, F-2, F-4, G-2, G-5, G-6, G-2 again cause G-6 was having engine repairs ETC. But at the time they knew it was a G-6 R3 with the MW-50.

After all they were highly trained and if we know the sub types just flying them on the P.C. they surely knew them when their lives depended on it!

Not wanting to cause a 4 page discussion. But IMHO and through any of the Luftwaffe Histories/Diaries I have read. (There have been Hundreds). I find very little Pilot referances to aircraft Subtype being flown. It is only through reading Unit returns that Plane and subtypes are learnt.
They would certainly know if a new type was meant to be Faster/better armed/Longer ranged. However it would be in the interests of Security. Not to inform Pilots of the exact details of their particular subtype.

The same would apply to allied pilots.

Certainly through studying these craft After the War and comparing and contrasting them. We can then find the advantages/disadvantages of one over the other.
The fact that I have been flying the FW190A-8 on a PC for the past 6 odd years certainly gives me a clearer picture than a Luftwaffe Flieger thrown into battle in '44/'45.

Luftwaffe Units flew specific subtypes in accordance with their Units role at the time. With the result that pilots didn't get the chance to compare. They may, on many occasions been taught on something that bore little resemblance to the planes flown by the Unit they were posted to.
Nicknames were given to aircraft types by the pilots. Such as...
"Buele"/G5/G6/G14
"Kannonboot"/G6/R6, G5/R6, G14/R5
"Jabo" Any craft fitted with bomb racks of whichever Subtype.

They had to fly what they had and Yes their lives depende on it.The "Regime" instilled in them. That they were, flying the best.

Pilots can give good examples of experiences whilst flying "A Plane".
It is only with great hindsight and with the results of Postwar evaluations and of Historians, trawling through Factory and Unit records that we can establish specific Subtypes. It is normally researchers who can fill in the Type/Subtype and sometimes where they were stationed at the time.

And that is the reason why we can play this on the PC.
Just my 2/100s worth. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Xiolablu3
05-09-2008, 12:38 PM
Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> So some things definitely ARE comparable.


Nothing in terms of handling or performance is in any way comparable. The location of a few controls may not have changed but the forces experienced in flight most certainly have changed.

I would question how useful a comparison of trim as the forces are completely different. What worked well for the Bf-109 will not work for the S-199. It would require major airframe redesigns. In fact I would go so far as to say the comparison would be silly.


non sliding hood.

People think this is a disadvantage for an aircraft. That is a myth folks. Ok so the pilot cannot taxi or fly with the canopy open. Not a big deal especially from an aerodynamic standpoint. Facts are having the canopy open increases our drag. Lift, drag, and Angle of Attack all have a fixed and defined relationship. Opening the canopy raises our drag and increases our limited Angle of Attack. It puts us closer to the stall point and causes the aircraft to require more power for the same condition of flight.

Facts are from an aerodynamic POV a hinged canopy is ideal as it represents the lowest drag design. Mooney, Cirrus, Diamond, and many of today's ultra low drag aircraft incorporate a hinged design for this very reason.

All the best,

Crumpp </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Did you even read what the real pilots wrote about the hood?

I'll quote it again for you :-

Gordon Levett wrote:

The (Avia) was not popular with the pilots. It was, suprisingly, much smaller than the Spitfire or Mustang. With its splayed feet, upside-down engine, paddle-bladed propeller and ugly, bulbous spinner, it looked waspish and business-like.... Like the Spitfire, its undercarriage retracted outwards and the landing wheels were narrowly close together. It was a tricky aeroplane to handle on the ground, particularly with a cross-wind, and had a tendency with inexperienced pilots to ground-loop on landing and sometimes finish up on its back. Worse, the cockpit hood was hinged on the starboard side and was pulled over the pilot's head to lock on the port side, instead of sliding backwards and forwards like most other fighters. This meant that pilots had to take-off or land with the hood shut, trapping the pilot inside if the aircraft should finish up on its back. The entire squadron spent most of one afternoon releasing an unhurt pilot who was trapped in his upside down Messerschmitt after somersaulting on landing, with the ground soaked in petrol and the petrol tanks dripping relentlessly. I can still hear today his screams begging us to be careful and not cause a spark. (Levett 1994)


Syd Antin :-

Another terrible thing about it was you could not open the canopy in flight. It was fixed such that you either had it closed and locked or you could jettison it completely if you got into an emergency situation where you had to bail, of course. There was nothing in between. That was not good.

Jack Cohen, he means the Avia 199 when he says 'Meeserschmitt' and '109' :-

You had to rely on brute force with this thing. I mean, you had no real trimming. In the Spit, you had the trimming tabs in the cockpit, you could adjust your trim for your tail, for your wings, anything. And the 109s, the ones that we had, didn't have it. So you had a little tab on the tail which was a set piece. If you opened your throttle and you weren't really prepared for it, she'll swing you off the runway when you're coming into land. And you had to rely on brute force - on your right leg I think it was - to hold her straight.

As far as I'm concerned there was nothing about the 109s that the pilots liked. No, nothing. I didn't like the armament at all. The firing through the prop I didn't like. The guns of the Messerschmitt used to fire through the propeller and if your synchronising went out you'd shoot your prop off. Put holes in it. '


You would have to be pretty stupid to have the hood open when you wanted the best performance for your aircraft. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

Kettenhunde
05-09-2008, 01:16 PM
Me 109 G-6:
One thing that was absolutely good about it, was the wild performance of the aircraft. Other good points were the visibility during the flight, the sitting position, the cockpit wasn't unnecessary roomy, the impression of controlled flight and sturdy construction: no vibrations or shakings, the electrically heated flightsuit and gloves.
- Torsti Tallgren, Finnish post war fighter pilot. Source: Hannu Valtonen, "Me 109 ja Saksan sotatalous" (Messerschmitt Bf 109 and the German war economy), ISBN 951-95688-7-5.




Me 109 G:
Hemmo Leino's Messerschmitt 109 G being followed by two Yak-9s, while mr. Leino climbed from them using spiral climb:
"-How well could you observe those pursuers?
It could be done quite well. There was nothing. I did see when he would...I learned to notice that there, now he is about to shoot because he tightened his turn and it could be seen that he tried... Actually it was very amusing. I was not in any trouble.
- About looking down, could you stretch yourself to look down or were you tightly strapped in the seat?
We used to pull the belts tight"
- Hemmo Leino, Finnish fighter ace. 11 victories. Source: Interview by Finnish Virtual Pilots Association.
- Notice that mr. Leino tells he is tightly strapped in his seat, yet he was able to see the two Yaks on his tail. So he had both good neck - and good visibility backwards from the cockpit.




"Other factors affecting the '109 as a combat plane include the small cramped cockpit. This is quite a tiring working environment, although the view out (in flight) is better than you might expect; the profuseion of canopy struts is not particularly a problem. In addition to the above the small cockpit makes you feel more a part of the aeroplane."
- Mark Hanna of the Old Flying Machine Company flying the OFMC Messerschmitt Bf 109 G (Spanish version).



http://www.virtualpilots.fi/feature/articles/109myths/#cockpit

And so on and so forth....you know what they say about opinions, right?

Facts are the side hinged canopy of the Bf-109 was designed to not only maximize the aerodynamics of the aircraft but as a pilot safety feature too. It was designed so that it could not jam and trap the pilot inside. Sliding canopies on rails were vulnerable to this type of malfunction if the canopy or rail became deformed due to battle damage.

That is why many pilots carried an axe as part of their flight gear.


You would have to be pretty stupid to have the hood open when you wanted the best performance for your aircraft.

Well, you are calling many veterans in the VVS stupid. It became a cultural phenomenon among the VVS fighter pilots to fly and fight with their canopies open. They felt it gave them better visibility.

Which is what most of this thread is about, cultural phenomenon based on opinions. It is much better to base our judgements on facts.


All the best,

Crumpp

JSG72
05-09-2008, 01:57 PM
Why are we now talking about AVIAS? and Post War evaluations.

Kind of, reinforces my opinions. about subjective questions posted on here.

M_Gunz
05-09-2008, 06:58 PM
You could........... try. To follow the! discussion.

luftluuver
05-09-2008, 06:59 PM
Yes we know about opinions. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

If the 109 had this special design so it wouldn't jam them, iirc the G model, why the complaints about jettisoning the canopy.

The Russians flew with no canopies or open canopies because there plexi was so bad > turning yellow and grazing.

The Spit, for one, had an emergency release handle for the canopy.

Yes it should be better to base judgments of facts.

Kettenhunde
05-09-2008, 08:43 PM
If the 109 had this special design so it wouldn't jam them, iirc the G model, why the complaints about jettisoning the canopy.


I have seen complaints the canopy cannot be opened in flight.

http://img106.imageshack.us/img106/7105/canopyon5.jpg (http://imageshack.us)
http://img106.imageshack.us/img106/7105/canopyon5.e76a09b9ba.jpg (http://g.imageshack.us/g.php?h=106&i=canopyon5.jpg)



The Spit, for one, had an emergency release handle for the canopy.


The Spitfire had a sliding rail canopy that was prone to jamming.

Not anything peculiar about the Spitfire, just a consequence of having a rail trapping a roller. Any bend or distortion of either the canopy or the rail makes for a jam.

The idea behind a sliding canopy is that you open it for take off and landing just in case of an accident.

In fact for 80 pounds, you can get a replica of the crowbar used to un-jam the canopy.

http://www.spitfirespares.com/SpitfireSpares.com/Pages/canopy.html

That is not to say the Bf-109 canopy did not jam either. It just takes much more to do so because of the design.

Understand no one is trying to change a fanatical mind. There are those whose racial prejudice tells them the Germans were just incapable of any intelligent design.


luftluver says:
The Russians flew with no canopies or open canopies because there plexi was so bad > turning yellow and grazing.



The aircraft in our regiment had movable canopies, but before combat we locked them in the open position. In the first place, our canopies had a large number of cross-pieces and the celluloid of the canopy was somewhat dark, causing poor visibility in itself. We also feared that the canopy would jam. If we were shot up and had to bail out, we could not jettison it.


http://lend-lease.airforce.ru/english/articles/golodnikov/part1.htm

All the best,

Crumpp

DKoor
05-10-2008, 12:50 AM
Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
The Spitfire had a sliding rail canopy that was prone to jamming.

Not anything peculiar about the Spitfire, just a consequence of having a rail trapping a roller. Any bend or distortion of either the canopy or the rail makes for a jam.

The idea behind a sliding canopy is that you open it for take off and landing just in case of an accident.

In fact for 80 pounds, you can get a replica of the crowbar used to un-jam the canopy.

http://www.spitfirespares.com/SpitfireSpares.com/Pages/canopy.html

That is not to say the Bf-109 canopy did not jam either. It just takes much more to do so because of the design.

Understand no one is trying to change a fanatical mind. There are those whose racial prejudice tells them the Germans were just incapable of any intelligent design. +1

And yes, this is a sig material.

Just because http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif .

Kurfurst__
05-10-2008, 04:43 AM
http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e133/Kurfurst/Spit_cocpit-1.png

Xiolablu3
05-10-2008, 10:25 AM
Originally posted by DKoor:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
The Spitfire had a sliding rail canopy that was prone to jamming.

Not anything peculiar about the Spitfire, just a consequence of having a rail trapping a roller. Any bend or distortion of either the canopy or the rail makes for a jam.

The idea behind a sliding canopy is that you open it for take off and landing just in case of an accident.

In fact for 80 pounds, you can get a replica of the crowbar used to un-jam the canopy.

http://www.spitfirespares.com/SpitfireSpares.com/Pages/canopy.html

That is not to say the Bf-109 canopy did not jam either. It just takes much more to do so because of the design.

Understand no one is trying to change a fanatical mind. There are those whose racial prejudice tells them the Germans were just incapable of any intelligent design. +1

And yes, this is a sig material.

Just because http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif . </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thats rubbish, but you can believe whatever you want.

Kettenhunde often has a policy even to blame real pilots thoughts about anything on 'racial prejudice'

Its simply a FACT that these guys hated hated the Avia S199/aka the Bf109 hood and cockpit, for reasons they list.

If you want to blame that on racial prejudice, be my guest.

DKoor
05-10-2008, 11:11 AM
That was a +1 in a way that I never ever read that some Bf-109 wartime pilot complained how uncomfortable and problematic canopy hindered their combat efficiency (in any way) on the type.

I'm just speaking of Bf-109 not Avia.

While Avia pilots may dislike their canopies, who could tell what opinion would they have in Luftwaffe service... in 1940 during BoB operations for instance?
Or Luftwaffe Bf-109 pilots during some other WW2 timeframe?

However to find answer to that question we may search for Luftwaffe pilot opinions on the type...

...or we may continue to search for pilot accounts of some exotic obsolete abortion of a planes.

Regardless of type, operator etc.

Kettenhunde
05-10-2008, 11:41 AM
Kettenhunde often has a policy even to blame real pilots thoughts about anything on 'racial prejudice'


That is simply not true. You can find many opinions that are conflicting. Some people like oranges while others like apples.

That is just life.

Don't confuse opinions with facts.

Prejudice is when we pre-judge or have opinions formed before we have any facts.


prej"¢u"¢dice<noun>:
a preformed opinion, usually an unfavorable one, based on insufficient knowledge, irrational feelings, or inaccurate stereotypes

Any of those three conditions constitute prejudice.

When the facts are presented and one continues to disparage, "It's <insert race>, it must be bad", then we are prejudging.

That is racism, isn't it? Or is it just an emotional fanatical devotion to a 60 year old airplane? Either way it's not something I wish battle on a BBS.

No one has made any claims about views out of cockpit. All of that are pilot opinions and both sides of that opinion have been offered. Those opinions do not influence or change facts.

What is a fact though, are the aerodynamic benefits of a hinged canopy and the other fact is the Bf-109's canopy was purposely designed to reduce the chance of jamming as a safety feature to the pilot. Those two points are fact and not opinion.

It is a case of engineers taking care of the pilot without his knowledge.


...or we may continue to search for pilot accounts of some exotic obsolete abortion of a planes.


The science will tell you cannot make any intelligent comparison between a Bf-109 and a Avia S-199. They are not the same aircraft.

All the best,

Crumpp

JSG72
05-10-2008, 11:57 AM
.....And so! Getting back to the Thread title and question?

Looks like sergios response to Kurfust Which was instigated by someone mentioning "Spitfire" ... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif caused the thread to turn the corner..... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Xiolablu3
05-10-2008, 12:16 PM
Mark Hanna talks about flying 109's late DB engined, Hispano and Merlin Buchons :-

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5svK5Xs76R4

And comments on the Spitfire :-

http://www.livevideo.com/video/0C14899680E64262A15A0BBB...anna-s-spitfire.aspx (http://www.livevideo.com/video/0C14899680E64262A15A0BBBCB03765B/mh434-mark-hanna-s-spitfire.aspx)

The 109 'got' him in the end, he died in a crash flying it.



(But obviously hes making it all up, and is simply racist, as Kettenhunde will no doubt tell us http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif)

M_Gunz
05-10-2008, 12:19 PM
I just watched a Propaganda Channel show named Dogfights and after the start where the P-51
is all that and fries too there comes a part where the pilot who was there talked about this
109 that outmaneuvered his P-51. And it becomes how the regular 109's were meat on the table
but actually some 109's were better fighters than the P-51.
The trouble is that not all 109's sent up were the same but I have a feeling that the ones
that did not do well were just rookie pilots not getting even 90% out of their planes.

But score one for reality that it got into the show that yes there were 109's able to turn
tables on P-51's.

JSG72
05-10-2008, 12:30 PM
No Kiddin' http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

109s Turning tables?

You may find that Pilots/wingmen ability/Commanders/Situations. Are what turn tables and not Specific aircraft performance.

luftluuver
05-10-2008, 12:34 PM
Give us a break Kurfurst, a 1936 Spitfire. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif You whine about ppl giving wrong info on the 109, so why do you do it for the Spitfire?

On pg 55 of Spitfire: The History can be found a pic of a canopy showing the hood jettison 'handle' for a Mk I.

luftluuver
05-10-2008, 12:43 PM
It became a cultural phenomenon among the VVS fighter pilots to fly and fight with their canopies open. They felt it gave them better visibility.


The aircraft in our regiment had movable canopies, but before combat we locked them in the open position. In the first place, our canopies had a large number of cross-pieces and <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">the celluloid of the canopy was somewhat dark, causing poor visibility in itself</span> . We also feared that the canopy would jam. If we were shot up and had to bail out, we could not jettison it.

Talk about selecting facts. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Hkuusela
05-10-2008, 12:47 PM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
Mark Hanna talks about flying 109's late DB engined, Hispano and Merlin Buchons :-

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5svK5Xs76R4

And comments on the Spitfire :-

http://www.livevideo.com/video/0C14899680E64262A15A0BBB...anna-s-spitfire.aspx (http://www.livevideo.com/video/0C14899680E64262A15A0BBBCB03765B/mh434-mark-hanna-s-spitfire.aspx)

The 109 'got' him in the end, he died in a crash flying it.



(But obviously hes making it all up, and is simply racist, as Kettenhunde will no doubt tell us http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif)
He tells the 109 is a "very fine fighter", "fast, turns very well, it's manouverable, it's a good aeroplane". Then he goes on telling it is extremely hard to take off and land, the news value of which is close to nil. Of course he did not fly it daily, which is what the wartime pilots did, so it must have been harder for him. However, just about everybody on this forum know the 109 was difficult to land and take off. Otherwise it was a very fine fighter, as Mr Hanna testifies.

JSG72
05-10-2008, 12:55 PM
Luftluuver. The Canopy specialist?

I http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif to you

It doesn't matter what we write. Few, will read and even fewer will answer. Most that do. Fall into 2 catagories.

1)They have an interested but opposing opinion. And like to know more.

Or!

2)Are just winding you up.

Kurfurst. Falls into. Both catagories. IMHO.

Kettenhunde
05-10-2008, 02:08 PM
The 109 'got' him in the end, he died in a crash flying it.


I would say flying a high performance aircraft got him.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=exmm5ZhgXOU

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ze2nEipDLR0

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NhbmvEoNMOc

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kmxF8zi1lnw

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gWSvKT6h3ro&feature=related

Mark Hanna had engine failure and did not make the runway. Maybe to some the fact he was in a Buchon made some difference.

Using your logic, we could say that this C172 got him huh?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UGZYiZLUfgE

More like engine failure on landing got him. Landing being the most dangerous phase of flight for any singe engine piston aircraft.

All the best,

Crumpp

Kettenhunde
05-10-2008, 02:28 PM
On pg 55 of Spitfire: The History can be found a pic of a canopy showing the hood jettison 'handle' for a Mk I.

I don't think anyone ever disputed this fact, Luftluver. We all know the Spitfire had a system to eject the canopy.

Most WWII fighters had similar systems, something which seems to escaped you.

That does not change the fact a sliding rail canopy is more vulnerable to jamming than a side hinge.

It also does not change the fact a sliding rail canopy is not as aerodynamic as the side hinge canopy system.

Here is the Spitfire Mk XIV POH. The crowbar is labeled number 29. Obviously canopy jams in the Spitfire were important enough that the crowbar remained standard equipment:

http://img115.imageshack.us/img115/5948/spit26no4.jpg (http://imageshack.us)
http://img115.imageshack.us/img115/5948/spit26no4.92275ab975.jpg (http://g.imageshack.us/g.php?h=115&i=spit26no4.jpg)

All the best,

Crumpp

JSG72
05-10-2008, 02:52 PM
109 pilots. Towards the end of the War jumped in their craft and flew missions.
The fact that illustrations from manuals showed the location of every single item within the confines of their airframe.

Does not prove, factotum that they actually were familiar with the "Facts".

Notice I say 109s as opposed to "Spitfires".

The level of training, being somewhat in the order of 3:1. And the level of familiarisation could be down to 20:1

luftluuver
05-10-2008, 02:57 PM
Your the one going on and on about sliding canopies trapping pilots Crumpp. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

The canopy's front edge got caught in the airstream and lifted the canopy free of the a/c. As for the guide rails, there is already turbulence around the area caused by the front windscreen.

Nice diagrams in S:TH of some wind tunnel tests showing this.

JSG72
05-10-2008, 03:11 PM
That's it! Stay focused guys.

Get your reply in. Make that guy feel small. (Asif.)

Ignore. Any posts that may be, perhaps be closer to reality.
And so. Carry on the good fight. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

We will. All be much wiser.

Kettenhunde
05-10-2008, 03:18 PM
Nice diagrams in S:TH of some wind tunnel tests showing this.

You mean the testing in October 1944 investigating it destroying the horizontal stabilizer and striking the aircraft? I don't know what that has to do with fact the canopy still jammed due to the fact is a sliding rail design.


Your the one going on and on about sliding canopies trapping pilots Crumpp

Baloney.

Luftluver says:
If the 109 had this special design so it wouldn't jam them, iirc the G model, why the complaints about jettisoning the canopy.


Your insinuation is that there was no real rhyme or reason to the Bf-109's canopy design. The Germans just were not smart enough to figure out that whole "canopy on rails thing".

Nice Avatar BTW. Is that a poor German being run over by an Englishman? Not smart enough to get a faster car, huh?

All the best,

Crumpp

Kettenhunde
05-10-2008, 03:21 PM
The level of training, being somewhat in the order of 3:1. And the level of familiarisation could be down to 20:1


Certainly. These aircraft are not trainers and demand skill to fly. Lack of training will translate into higher combat and accident losses.

Statistically, the majority of accidents occur on landing in a SE aircraft no matter what the design.

All the best,

Crumpp

JSG72
05-10-2008, 03:33 PM
Thankyou!

I would surmise(Oh ****. Not Fact). that many JG/KGs lost more aircraft through training/landing incedents, than actual combat.

Judging by Unit, Monthly returns and Wartime photographic evidence?

luftluuver
05-10-2008, 03:54 PM
Believe what you want Crumpp. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

Yup, nice sig isn't it. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

DKoor
05-10-2008, 04:36 PM
Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
These aircraft are not trainers and demand skill to fly. Unless we are talking about the Spitfire... then some (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3e-Ra0dH-Lg) may disagree... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

Kettenhunde
05-10-2008, 05:18 PM
Unless we are talking about the Spitfire... then some may disagree...

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

luftluuver
05-10-2008, 05:29 PM
And then there was the Fw190 with <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">3</span> http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif canopy rails.

JSG72
05-10-2008, 05:44 PM
Doh! 2 rails surely. Central was not a rail meerly a guide? the 2 deforming and the third allowing for the deformation of the Fug ariel (****. I am being drawn in. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif).

Stick to Topic. Stick to topic. Stick to topic. Stick to topic. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

What is it about these late War 109s and what were the pilots thoughts?

Kettenhunde
05-10-2008, 07:11 PM
Doh! 2 rails surely. Central was not a rail meerly a guide? the 2 deforming and the third allowing for the deformation of the Fug ariel (****. I am being drawn in.

A 20mm Cartridge certainly must have come in handy to unstick the canopy. I have no doubt that they did stick too!

There is no third rail though. It looks like it but that is the guide tube, breech, and barrel of the ejection system.

All the best,

Crumpp

JSG72
05-10-2008, 07:17 PM
Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Doh! 2 rails surely. Central was not a rail meerly a guide? the 2 deforming and the third allowing for the deformation of the Fug ariel (****. I am being drawn in.

A 20mm Cartridge certainly must have come in handy to unstick the canopy. I have no doubt that they did stick too!

All the best,

Crumpp </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The cartridge was only for use in emergencies!

I.E. When all else failed. Or jettison of canopy when shot up by the hords of Allied aircraft (Ahem!) on your tail.

Would have caused much hilarity amongst ground crew.(Black men) If all pilots chose to use this option on disembarkation of a perfectly landed craft.

Now! Late War 109s What do you know?

DKoor
05-10-2008, 07:29 PM
Originally posted by JSG72:
Now! Late War 109s What do you know? Thanks.


1.
I'd like to know why is it that Bf-109G6AS is the best 109 in game?

Why is that?

It's the best fast/agile 109 combo in game.

One would expect the K4 to have supremacy in spite of having even poorer maneuverability performance.

2. Why they produced such low performance 109's like 109G6_EARLY and LATE (Galland hood) when Bf-109G2 outperforms them by a huge margin (for that time)?
Was it option for Mk108 installation or... some other non comprehensible (to average flying enthusiast Joe) thing?
IMO Bf-109G2 and even Bf-109F4 were able to carry MG151/20 gondolas which were enough for most available targets... also I'm almost convinced with slight modifications they could take Mk108 pods as well.
Also funny thing to note... in game it's actually better to take Bf-109F4 (1941 plane in game) over Bf-109G6 (1943 plane in game)... that kinda speaks volumes just how bad Bf-109G6 is in game.
**
But I can easily see this takes a whole new thread to decypher. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Kettenhunde
05-10-2008, 07:43 PM
The cartridge was only for use in emergencies!


It's got a safety for on the ground. One of the USAAF test pilots jettisoned EB-104's canopy in the hanger accidently. Scared the **** out of everyone around and shot the canopy some 40 feet behind the aircraft.

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


All the best,

Crumpp

Kettenhunde
05-10-2008, 08:12 PM
Why is that?

I don't know, why would that be?

From a performance standpoint the Bf-109K4 is a monster and outperforms every variant beneath it.

It can sustain a higher load factor than the F series. Now the stability and control forces were not as pleasant as the F series but that is a consequence of design growth.

All the best,

Crumpp

M_Gunz
05-10-2008, 09:19 PM
Are we to judge the modeling of planes by how well the models fit a bunch of gamers with PC
controllers doing what the gamers choose to as the basis for how close to history the models are?

Last I checked the G-6 has bigger guns and more armor than the G-2 with same wings.
It probably didn't get enough engine to make up and then some until the A/S type.

luftluuver
05-10-2008, 09:44 PM
You all can call it what ever you want to but it was still a channel piece in which rollers traveled just like the side channels were guides.

Btw, when the Smithsonian was doing the tear down for the restoration on their F-8, a live 20mm was found.


A 20mm Cartridge certainly must have come in handy to unstick the canopy. I have no doubt that they did stick too!

The 20mm was needed because the canopy would not leave the a/c. It had to pushed back further til the airstream could grab the canopy.

Kernow
05-11-2008, 02:57 AM
Originally posted by DKoor:
2. Why they produced such low performance 109's like 109G6_EARLY and LATE (Galland hood) when Bf-109G2 outperforms them by a huge margin (for that time)?
Was it option for Mk108 installation or... some other non comprehensible (to average flying enthusiast Joe) thing?
In a 1 v 1 fight you probably would be better aoff in a G-2 (especially playing a computer game with dubious realism settings like externals etc). In the real world the better viz, extra armour and superior firepower of the G-6 would have counted for far more if you were flying as part of a team with BnZ, hit-and-run tactics. I suppose the pros & cons of the G-2/G-6 might have been debateable at the time, but in RL the advantage isn't as obvious as it would seem from online DF experience.

If you flew as a team utilizing the surprise bounce for offense and wingman tactics for defense, why would you want the extra yank-and-bankability of the G-2?

Kurfurst__
05-11-2008, 03:27 AM
Originally posted by luftluuver:
Give us a break Kurfurst, a 1936 Spitfire. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif You whine about ppl giving wrong info on the 109, so why do you do it for the Spitfire?

On pg 55 of Spitfire: The History can be found a pic of a canopy showing the hood jettison 'handle' for a Mk I.

On pg 55 of Spitfire: The History there is a picture of a canopy showing a rubber ball hanging from the top of the canopy front, but it appears to be just that, without any mechanism linked to it. It is described as a 'Martin-Baker hood jettison system', but no indication is given wheter this was something of they toyed with or if it was standardized, and if so, how a rubber ball (painted in red) hanging on a string was supposed to jettison the canopy.

Appearantly its not a jettison system, its a rubber ball, painted in red, probably serving as handle so that the pilot can actually pull something in dive, in which the canopy is 'very difficult to open', as noted by reports and the manual. I doubt it could be jettisoned, expect perhaps if the pilot pushed it back manually to the extreme.. which is not much of a jettison 'system'.

http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e133/Kurfurst/Spit_cocpit-1.png

Spitfire II manual, summer 1940, does not note any jettison system, the same problem exists appearantly, rubber ball (painted in red) present or not.

http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e133/Kurfurst/Spit_cocpit2.png

It would appear that it was very difficult to get out from a Spitfire if it begun to dive.

Kettenhunde
05-11-2008, 05:55 AM
You all can call it what ever you want to but it was still a channel piece in which rollers traveled just like the side channels were guides.


There are no rollers that traveled in it. It has nothing in common with the side channels.

It is the guide tube that fits over the barrel/breech of the ejection system. It traps the expanding gas from the 20mm cartridge so that the canopy is lauched straight back and the rollers are sheared off.

All the best,

Crumpp

luftluuver
05-11-2008, 06:42 AM
Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> You all can call it what ever you want to but it was still a channel piece in which rollers traveled just like the side channels were guides.

There are no rollers that traveled in it. It has nothing in common with the side channels.

It is the guide tube that fits over the barrel/breech of the ejection system. It traps the expanding gas from the 20mm cartridge so that the canopy is lauched straight back and the rollers are sheared off. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Must have been fun getting the canopy to track properly with only 2 guide points.

Items #15 and #16 in Fig 11 in the A-8 manual in the section 'Fuselage' provided the 3rd point.

Kettenhunde
05-11-2008, 06:46 AM
Items #15 and #16 in Fig 11 in the A-8 manual in the section 'Fuselage' provided the 3rd point.


That is roller afixed to the guide tube of the canopy ejection system. There are two of them.

If you want to call it a rail, then by all means do so. If you want to check out the real thing, stop by sometime.

There is no trapped roller on the back. The only rollers that are trapped are the front ones in their tracks.

All the best,

Crumpp

luftluuver
05-11-2008, 06:55 AM
To the end of the outer tube and it runs in a track(channel).

Kettenhunde
05-11-2008, 07:11 AM
The whole thing fits over the barrel of the ejection system Luftuver.

Understand?

If you have an Ersatzteilliste, look in that.

Konstruktionsgruppe 1 Rumpfwerk, Seite 6. It is plain as day. The correct name of the part the canopy ejection system rest's in is the Oberseite.

The rails on the side are the Obergurt Links and Rechts.

The ejection system is just a U shaped channel. The other is a box trapping the roller.

All the best,

Crumpp

One13
05-11-2008, 09:21 AM
Originally posted by Kurfurst__:

On pg 55 of Spitfire: The History there is a picture of a canopy showing a rubber ball hanging from the top of the canopy front, but it appears to be just that, without any mechanism linked to it. It is described as a 'Martin-Baker hood jettison system', but no indication is given wheter this was something of they toyed with or if it was standardized, and if so, how a rubber ball (painted in red) hanging on a string was supposed to jettison the canopy.

Appearantly its not a jettison system, its a rubber ball, painted in red, probably serving as handle so that the pilot can actually pull something in dive, in which the canopy is 'very difficult to open', as noted by reports and the manual. I doubt it could be jettisoned, expect perhaps if the pilot pushed it back manually to the extreme.. which is not much of a jettison 'system'.


From Spitfire Pilot's Notes-
Spitfire Mk.II
Hood jettisoning- The hood may be jettisoned in an emergency by pulling the lever mounted inside the top of the hood in a foward and downward movement, and pushing the lower edge of the hood outboard with the elbows.

Spitfire Mk.IX
the hood may be jettisoned in an emergency by pulling the rubber knob inside the top of the hood foward and downward and then pushing the lower edge of of the hood outwards with the elbows.

Blutarski2004
05-11-2008, 11:51 AM
Originally posted by One13:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kurfurst__:

On pg 55 of Spitfire: The History there is a picture of a canopy showing a rubber ball hanging from the top of the canopy front, but it appears to be just that, without any mechanism linked to it. It is described as a 'Martin-Baker hood jettison system', but no indication is given wheter this was something of they toyed with or if it was standardized, and if so, how a rubber ball (painted in red) hanging on a string was supposed to jettison the canopy.

Appearantly its not a jettison system, its a rubber ball, painted in red, probably serving as handle so that the pilot can actually pull something in dive, in which the canopy is 'very difficult to open', as noted by reports and the manual. I doubt it could be jettisoned, expect perhaps if the pilot pushed it back manually to the extreme.. which is not much of a jettison 'system'.


From Spitfire Pilot's Notes-
Spitfire Mk.II
Hood jettisoning- The hood may be jettisoned in an emergency by pulling the lever mounted inside the top of the hood in a foward and downward movement, and pushing the lower edge of the hood outboard with the elbows.

Spitfire Mk.IX
the hood may be jettisoned in an emergency by pulling the rubber knob inside the top of the hood foward and downward and then pushing the lower edge of of the hood outwards with the elbows. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


....... Actually, Martin-Baker is a well-known firm in the aero-space industry of today, specializing in design and manufacture of pilot ejection seat technology. Pre-WW2, they were a modest UK aircraft designer and manufacturer (who created some very interesting fighter prototypes, btw). IIUC, the canopy ejection system designed for the later-war Spitfire is what led M-B into their current field of ejection-seat and pilot survival technology.

DKoor
05-11-2008, 12:11 PM
Originally posted by Kernow:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by DKoor:
2. Why they produced such low performance 109's like 109G6_EARLY and LATE (Galland hood) when Bf-109G2 outperforms them by a huge margin (for that time)?
Was it option for Mk108 installation or... some other non comprehensible (to average flying enthusiast Joe) thing?
In a 1 v 1 fight you probably would be better aoff in a G-2 (especially playing a computer game with dubious realism settings like externals etc). </div></BLOCKQUOTE>+1 ... I notice the big difference in both quake and real.


In the real world the better viz, extra armour +1


and superior firepower ...this should be weighted this particular advantage.. while it is obvious how having MG131 is superior over 7,62, weight (?) and nose bulges are not welcome... cannon is primary 109 weapon.


of the G-6 would have counted for far more if you were flying as part of a team with BnZ, hit-and-run tactics. I disagree. A team flying Bf-109G2 would do better in the game and IRL <span class="ev_code_red">if</span> the difference in performance was same as in this game.


I suppose the pros & cons of the G-2/G-6 might have been debateable at the time, but in RL the advantage isn't as obvious as it would seem from online DF experience. I agree with this. Pilot experience plays big part and also physical endurance etc.


If you flew as a team utilizing the surprise bounce for offense and wingman tactics for defense, why would you want the extra yank-and-bankability of the G-2? Also agree to the question, but extra performance is always welcome, especially if it's so high.

http://i29.tinypic.com/nb6hag.gif

Kurfurst__
05-11-2008, 01:11 PM
Originally posted by One13:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kurfurst__:

On pg 55 of Spitfire: The History there is a picture of a canopy showing a rubber ball hanging from the top of the canopy front, but it appears to be just that, without any mechanism linked to it. It is described as a 'Martin-Baker hood jettison system', but no indication is given wheter this was something of they toyed with or if it was standardized, and if so, how a rubber ball (painted in red) hanging on a string was supposed to jettison the canopy.

Appearantly its not a jettison system, its a rubber ball, painted in red, probably serving as handle so that the pilot can actually pull something in dive, in which the canopy is 'very difficult to open', as noted by reports and the manual. I doubt it could be jettisoned, expect perhaps if the pilot pushed it back manually to the extreme.. which is not much of a jettison 'system'.


From Spitfire Pilot's Notes-
Spitfire Mk.II
Hood jettisoning- The hood may be jettisoned in an emergency by pulling the lever mounted inside the top of the hood in a foward and downward movement, and pushing the lower edge of the hood outboard with the elbows.

Spitfire Mk.IX
the hood may be jettisoned in an emergency by pulling the rubber knob inside the top of the hood foward and downward and then pushing the lower edge of of the hood outwards with the elbows. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thanks m8, so appearantly the Red Rubber Ball was introduced some time around the Mk IX, right, and its basically a manual operated, the pilot throwing the canopy off by the hand force, ie. not by springs (109) or a by the force of a 20mm cartridge (190)?

I wonder how the mechanism looked like, I guess it just disengaged some claws normally holding the canopy in its place, or something like that.. Anyone having a diagram of how it worked, what happened when the rubber ball was pulled forward and downward?