PDA

View Full Version : Figther combat tactics in the Battle of Britain



Wildnoob
07-07-2009, 08:05 AM
hello!

take a look at this interview with the BOB Spitfire ace George C. Unwin:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aBdJyLx4aqI

he shoot down 14 enemy aircraft during the battle and accumulated 600 hours of flight by the time the war started. more, he was sergeant pilot of the No. 19 squadron in 1938, witch was the first one to receive the Spitfire in that year and flow it until meet combat with it during the war.

so, ALL the pilot's diserve respect and we can't contest a aviator opinion very easly. everything of the specific fligth situation the person had should be accounted. ok, nothing more then extremetly logic. but the point I want get is the following: this guy was with probably a damm fligth experience with the aicraft he was flying when the war started and he used during all his combat service in the war, witch was just the battle of Britain.

taked some informations from this article:

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

another ones in the video's description.

he says in the interview:

"when I think about the Spitfire was so usefull in combat was it's maneuverbility. invariable in the figth, you are chassing each other around, around and around but you could turn much more tigth, smaller turning circle then any german figther especially the 109"

* sorry if I wrote any of his words wrong, sometimes I have difficult to understand verbal ones.


you are chassing each other around, around and around

seems to me that turningfigths where very frequenty and Unwin tells that the Spitfire smaller sustained turning ratio was the best feature of the plane in his view. and know, I don't want detalied explanation or anything, even because depends on infinite factors. but normally, turninfigths seems to be more comm during the BOB then later by wat I understand.

can anyone confirm this to me if possible, please?

Freiwillige
07-07-2009, 08:25 AM
Ive read reports of German pilots claiming they out turned Spitfires in 109E's during the B.O.B.!

I guess as usual it always depends on the pilot in such closely matched aircraft.

Wildnoob
07-07-2009, 09:07 AM
Originally posted by Freiwillige:
Ive read reports of German pilots claiming they out turned Spitfires in 109E's during the B.O.B.!

I guess as usual it always depends on the pilot in such closely matched aircraft.

yeah Freiwillige, both planes were very competitive.

personally, I think that the Spitfire would have a edge in sustained turnifigth when the speed get's more and more low due to it's lower wing load. but the Emil could match even that, of course depending of the situation. perhaps for Unwin (remembering to say that he used the term "I thougth" and not "it WAS") he could explored more the maneuverbility and perhaps even he was more luck to get into turninfigths to use this positive point of the Spit.

but in a summary, both very competitive planes, both ones have advantages and disadvantages that's a indiscutible fact.

maybe this info is more hard to obtain and much pratical, sorry for had ask it here, don't want bother you with it folks, so forgot it.

the attackers where trying to provide safety to the bombers attacking the defenders while the defenders where most tasked with attacking the first ones cited.

yeah, must be a inimaginable chaos (nothing new), down to 3000 meters and mix up with bombers, enemy figthers and had to stay there, because the German twin engine medium bombers where much more vulnerable then the USAAF heavy ones and with a oudated defensive armamment. so, they have to stay close to them, perhaps not having much time to zoom all the way back to high altitude always because this was unnceptable in combat situation due to the low combat persistence capacity of the BF-109E because of it's low fuel suply, that just a few minutes for combat, isn't?

do you think wat I cited above can be considerated for apparentetly more "dogfigths" in the BOB, folks?

K_Freddie
07-07-2009, 09:09 AM
The Me109E and Spit-V (I think it was) were so closely matched that you'd get conflicting reports.

Essentially the ME109E could turn better than the spit between a band of altitudes, the spit being better above an below this band. Both sides knew this and chose to fight it out when it favoured their altitude.

Otherwise Bader preferred the Big Wing, Sailor Malan (more practically) preferred hitting them ASAP, and in depth as there was no time for Big Wing. His tactic was to hit and run, drawing off the enemy fighters, so the next squad would hit the bombers with less fighter escort.

The Big Wing only worked later when the target (London Blitz) was plain obvious, and it presented a psychological shock to the axis forces who'd been told by Goering, that fighter command was a spent force.

Both tactics worked at the right time.
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif
Edt: I see it's been mentioned http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Wildnoob
07-07-2009, 09:16 AM
Originally posted by K_Freddie:
The Me109E and Spit-V (I think it was) were so closely matched that you'd get conflicting reports.

Essentially the ME109E could turn better than the spit between a band of altitudes, the spit being better above an below this band. Both sides knew this and chose to fight it out when it favoured their altitude.

Otherwise Bader preferred the Big Wing, Sailor Malan (more practically) preferred hitting them ASAP, and in depth as there was no time for Big Wing. His tactic was to hit and run, drawing off the enemy fighters, so the next squad would hit the bombers with less fighter escort.

The Big Wing only worked later when the target (London Blitz) was plain obvious, and it presented a psychological shock to the axis forces who'd been told by Goering, that fighter command was a spent force.

Both tactics worked at the right time.
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif
Edt: I see it's been mentioned http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

thank you very much mister Freddie, you had teach me many things now, really thank you! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Wildnoob
07-07-2009, 09:21 AM
Originally posted by K_Freddie:
preferred hitting them ASAP, and in depth as there was no time for Big Wing. His tactic was to hit and run, drawing off the enemy fighters, so the next squad would hit the bombers with less fighter escort.

hmm

let me see if I understand, you mean send a squadron, use the iniciative to attack the targets but don't stick around too much, break away and while another squadron will came and do the same?

something like a rotative use of the figther force for attacks to get the enemy tired and you looks like a single oponente that never give up?

PS: I know that even a unicelular organism could understand some things but I are even one, that's way I ask things that are far more then the absurd of wat is obvios.

Freiwillige
07-07-2009, 09:50 AM
There were no Spitfire mark V's in use during the battle of Briton. They only had Mk I and Mk II's.

For the Luftwaffe other than fuel their biggest disadvantage was their own leadership. They were ordered to stay close to the bombers. They flew at low speed and even had to have their flaps lowered to stay with the bombers. Once Goering made that decision the 109 lost all its advantages and became prey just like the bombers it was to protect.

Before that period the 109's were actually doing quit well.

TinyTim
07-07-2009, 10:11 AM
Yesterday, online, I have (easily) outturned several Bf-109E4s in my Bf-109E4 on a Belgrade map on UKD2 server.

Using the very common logic around here I can deduct that the 109E4 easily outturns 109E4.

DrHerb
07-07-2009, 10:24 AM
Didnt Britain have mostly inexperienced pilots during the battle, while Germany had a lage amount of seasoned pilots?

hop2002
07-07-2009, 10:39 AM
British report on a test between a captured 109 and Spitfires and Hurricanes:


When doing tight turns with the Me 109 leading at speeds between 90 mph and 220 mph the Spitfires and Hurricanes had little difficult in keeping on the tail of the Me 109.

When the Me 109 was following the Hurricane or Spitfire, it was found that our aircraft turned inside the Me 109 without difficulty when flown by determined pilots who were not afraid to pull their aircraft round hard in a tight turn. In a surprisingly large number of cases, however, the Me 109 succeeded in keeping on the tail of the Spitfire or Hurricane during these turning tests, merely because our pilots would not tighten up the turn sufficiently from fear of stalling and spinning.

The Germans also tested a captured Spitfire, Hurricane and Curtiss:

Before turning fights with the Bf 109 E type, it must be noted in every case, that
all three foreign planes have significantly smaller turning circles and turning times.


For the Luftwaffe other than fuel their biggest disadvantage was their own leadership. They were ordered to stay close to the bombers. They flew at low speed and even had to have their flaps lowered to stay with the bombers. Once Goering made that decision the 109 lost all its advantages and became prey just like the bombers it was to protect.

Before that period the 109's were actually doing quit well.

The record shows exactly the opposite. From ER Hooton, Eagle in Flames, Luftwaffe day fighter and bomber sorties and losses:

1st July to 4th August

Luftwaffe Bombers
Sorties 1150
Losses 100
Loss rate 8.7%

Luft. Fighters
sorties 3350
losses 56
loss rate 1.7%

Fighter sorties per bomber sortie 2.9
RAF fighter losses 109
Total Luftwaffe/RAF rate 1.43:1


5th August - 1st Sept
Bombers
Sorties 3850
Losses 303
Loss rate 7.9%

Fighters
sorties 12,450
losses 359
loss rate 2.9%

Fighter sorties per bomber sortie 3.2
RAF fighter losses 367
total Luftwaffe/RAF rate 1.8:1

2nd Sept - 29th Sept
Bombers
Sorties 4125
Losses 192
Loss rate 4.7%

Fighters
sorties 8450
losses 280
loss rate 3.3%

Fighter sorties per bomber sortie 2
RAF fighter losses 363
Total Luftwaffe/RAF rate 1.3:1

The Luftwaffe suffered its worst exchange rate against the RAF in August, in September the situation was quite a bit better.

It's easy to see why Goering insisted on close escort, too. Look at the loss rates for Luftwaffe bombers in July and August. 8% is a horrendous loss rate. If that had been maintained over a "tour" of 30 operations it would mean only 8% of crews would survive a tour. For a crew flying 10 missions in August it would mean a 57% chance of being shot down.

Wildnoob
07-07-2009, 10:52 AM
Originally posted by Freiwillige:
Once Goering made that decision the 109 lost all its advantages and became prey just like the bombers it was to protect.

Before that period the 109's were actually doing quit well.

ohhh, how I could forgot this. sorry!

so, they already have to operate close to the bombers even with altitude advantage, but still couldn't get the maximum of their planes in Z&B tactics because they couldn't use it extensivly because of the fuel shortage, so they focused more in the iniciative to do it I belive, witch in fact is best best way to destroy enemy planes by caugth then without they see from above. and they have this edge, so, like mister Unwin saied it's always a advantage.

but nothing of this could had be done without the profissionalism of the LW by that time of course.

Wildnoob
07-07-2009, 10:55 AM
Originally posted by hop2002:
BIt's easy to see why Goering insisted on close escort, too. Look at the loss rates for Luftwaffe bombers in July and August. 8% is a horrendous loss rate. If that had been maintained over a "tour" of 30 operations it would mean only 8% of crews would survive a tour. For a crew flying 10 missions in August it would mean a 57% chance of being shot down.

yeah, but if you see Freiwillige was rigth about the figthers. now their losses where much more high and they have lost all their edge in iniciative.

here's a pratical example (be awared that a spoiler) by the BOB movie would risk to say:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LVs37PnfKho

see until the start at 35s and check out at end of this time the reaction of the German pilot. I don't speak German and don't watch this part of the movie with subtititles, if someone know wat he says, please, could tell us?

but it's logic that he is shocked when spoted the British figthers coming from very high level while he was stick close with the bombers and couldn't have any iniciative. and now going to have the double work of take much need of care from themselfs also. I'm not critizen anything, just seeing some facts of the battle.

Flight_boy1990
07-07-2009, 11:28 AM
I have the feeling that this discussion will be long.

Anyway,as someone said,the Spitfire and the Bf-109 E-3/4 were very close performed aircrafts.
But the Messerchmitt had more advantages:
-Better vertical speed
-Higher servie ceiling (already mantioned)
-Higher dive speed
-Better control responce at high speed than the Spitfire.
-Direct injection powered engines.
So IMO this is how the turning radius between Spitfire Mk.I and Bf-109 should look like:
*High-speed-Bf-109 have better turn radius,because of the clipped wing profile and slats.
*medium-Equivalent
*low speed-SPit has advantage.

But again it depended on the pilots and their strenght,and of course technical situation of the machine.At the end of the BoB,a Luftwaffe fighter or bomber pilot had atleast 2 sorties to make for 24 hours,i guess you can see why at the end so many were shotdown.
A human can't think normally when his body and mind have been under huge pressure for 12-16 hours per day,and closed for so long under hot weather in this aquarium (bf-109 cockpit).

ps:If the 109's were left with the priority to stay high,and Georing continued to bomb the airfields,the story would 've been other.

Kettenhunde
07-07-2009, 11:51 AM
From ER Hooton, Eagle in Flames, Luftwaffe day fighter and bomber sorties and losses:

Depending on the OKL or RLM report, any losses occurring will be lagging in a significant amount of time.

Research is further hampered by the fact the Luftwaffe recorded any aircraft damaged is reported as a loss no matter how slight. Most of these are repaired and will show up as operational by the next day's status. It is a snapshot in a moment of time of all aircraft damaged lagging a week to 10 days at the General quartermaster staff's level.


at first the returns were made weekly, but later they were drawn up every 10 days.


http://www.ww2.dk/oob/statistics/gobintro.html

Looking at reported numbers led to such intelligence blunders as concluding Dieppe destroyed the majority of the GAF single engine fighters on the Channel.

These records are fragmented and not complete. When looking at the statistics you must keep in mind the fact they are lagging and that individual events exert a large influence that probably has nothing to do with sweeping general conclusions attempting to be made.

Most of these statistics derived from claims which are wildly inaccurate. One must understand the source of the report and how the information was collected. The official RAF History for the Battle of Britain is a popular source of these statistics. Although the study was post war, the Luftwaffe data is notably lacking as the report caveats.

Knowing the details and mechanics is essential to interpreting any Air Forces status reporting as well as understanding the limitations.

All the best,

Crumpp

Xiolablu3
07-07-2009, 01:36 PM
Originally posted by Flight_boy1990:
I have the feeling that this discussion will be long.

Anyway,as someone said,the Spitfire and the Bf-109 E-3/4 were very close performed aircrafts.
But the Messerchmitt had more advantages:
-Better vertical speed
-Higher servie ceiling (already mantioned)
-Higher dive speed
-Better control responce at high speed than the Spitfire.
-Direct injection powered engines.
So IMO this is how the turning radius between Spitfire Mk.I and Bf-109 should look like:
*High-speed-Bf-109 have better turn radius,because of the clipped wing profile and slats.
*medium-Equivalent
*low speed-SPit has advantage.

.

SOrry mate but some of these are incorrect.

The Spitfire had much better control at high speeds, the Bf109 controls locking up badly at high speeds.

If the 109 had any chance of outturning the SPitfire, it was at slow speeds, near the stall, where its slats help.

Also the Spit was good at manoures at high altitudes thanks to its large wing area :-


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

Freiwillige
07-07-2009, 01:48 PM
I had read an article once by a English historian who claimed that after years of study on both sides of the channel and wading thru countless kill claims he had concluded this.

BF-109 vs Spitfires

For every one BF-109 shot down two spitfires were lost.

Vs Hurricanes

For every one 109 lost four Hurricanes were lost

I wish I could remember the website that had all that info.

Xiolablu3
07-07-2009, 02:02 PM
If the website was talking about the Battle of Britain then thats not at all surprising - the targets for the RAF were the bombers, not the fighters.

The RAF's mission was purely to stop the bombers attacking England, and if possible to ignore the fighters.

Therefore the Bf109's only had fighters as targets, the RAF planes were trying to ignore the German fighters if possible.

Also remember that there were Bf110's in the mix of German fighters too. which would bring the average 109 kills for the RAF down even further.


If its talking about the whole war then the Allies had a very hard time finding the Luftwaffe in the last 2 yers of the war, therefore losses of Spitfires to German flak would throw the average up a lot. "wo ist der Luftwaffe?' was a common saying for the Whermacht in 1943-44.

It was extremmly rare to see a German aircraft over England in daylight in the 2nd half of the war.

Bremspropeller
07-07-2009, 02:40 PM
So IMO this is how the turning radius between Spitfire Mk.I and Bf-109 should look like:
*High-speed-Bf-109 have better turn radius,because of the clipped wing profile and slats.
*medium-Equivalent
*low speed-SPit has advantage.

It's actually the other way round.

Wildnoob
07-07-2009, 03:18 PM
thanks folks!

just would like to say that if some members understand it incorrectly, this is not a "witch is the best?" tread, no way.

I creat this topic only to understand more about figther tactics during the BOB. and at momment the BF-109 and the Spitfire are in discuss, but this not mean that is wat a I say above. we are just seeing some features of two higly competitive aircraft that took part in it.

well, sorry if had bother anyone with it, if it's case, please tell me that I'll contact the moderation to delete it, but it's not my intention, please belive me. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

hop2002
07-07-2009, 03:23 PM
yeah, but if you see Freiwillige was rigth about the figthers. now their losses where much more high and they have lost all their edge in iniciative.

Their fighter losses were higher per sortie. Their bomber losses were much lower and the RAF's losses were much higher. That sounds like a much better proposition for the Germans overall, although I can understand why the fighter pilots didn't like it.


Anyway,as someone said,the Spitfire and the Bf-109 E-3/4 were very close performed aircrafts.
But the Messerchmitt had more advantages:
-Better vertical speed
-Higher servie ceiling (already mantioned)
-Higher dive speed
-Better control responce at high speed than the Spitfire.
-Direct injection powered engines.
So IMO this is how the turning radius between Spitfire Mk.I and Bf-109 should look like:
*High-speed-Bf-109 have better turn radius,because of the clipped wing profile and slats.
*medium-Equivalent
*low speed-SPit has advantage.

Some of those are dubious to say the least. The Spitfire with 100 octane fuel and constant speed prop is going to have a better climb rate than the 109 at most altitudes.

The 109 had slightly better aileron response at high speed, worse elevator response.


ps:If the 109's were left with the priority to stay high,and Georing continued to bomb the airfields,the story would 've been other.

No. On 13 August, the day the Germans began their main campaign to destroy the RAF, the Luftwaffe had 858 serviceable 109s and 189 serviceable 110s in day fighter units.

On 7 September, the day the Luftwaffe switched to attacking London, they had 658 serviceable 109s and 112 serviceable 110s.

In contrast the RAF went from 579 serviceable Spits and Hurris on 13 August to 621 on 7 September.

As Stephen Bungay puts it:


In fact, on the evening of 6 September, Fighter Command had over 750 serviceable fighters and 1,381 pilots available to it, about 950 of whom flew Spitfires or Hurricanes. It needed 1,588 pilots to be at full establishment, which is of course what Dowding wanted, so from his point of view he was 200 short. From the Luftwaffe's point of view, he had almost 200 more pilots and 150 more planes than he had had at the beginning of July when they set out to destroy him.


Depending on the OKL or RLM report, any losses occurring will be lagging in a significant amount of time.

It doesn't seem likely. Hooton gives Luftwaffe fighter losses as:

5-11 August: 45
12-18 August: 157
19-25 August: 46
26-1 September: 111
2-8 September: 129
9-15 September: 61
16-22 September: 21

We know that the battle was fairly quiet prior to 13 August, and Hooton's figures reflect that. We know that the Luftwaffe made an all out effort on the 13th and for a week or so later, and Hooton's figures show that was their highest weekly loss of fighters. We know there was another relatively quiet week before things picked up again in the last week of August and first of September, and again Hooton's figures reflect that.


Research is further hampered by the fact the Luftwaffe recorded any aircraft damaged is reported as a loss no matter how slight.

Again that doesn't seem to apply to Hooton's figures. He explicitly states they are for 60% damage and over, and the figures tally pretty well with Wood and Dempster, who record damaged aircraft separately.


I had read an article once by a English historian who claimed that after years of study on both sides of the channel and wading thru countless kill claims he had concluded this.

BF-109 vs Spitfires

For every one BF-109 shot down two spitfires were lost.

Vs Hurricanes

For every one 109 lost four Hurricanes were lost

I'm not sure that info is very credible. We know overall losses:

600 Bf109
235 Bf110

607 Hurricanes
396 Spitfires

Kurfurst__
07-07-2009, 04:22 PM
Originally posted by hop2002:
I'm not sure that info is very credible. We know overall losses:

600 Bf109
235 Bf110

607 Hurricanes
396 Spitfires

Hmm, you figures seem to include, as usual, German aircraft lost to non-enemy related reasons (off the top of my head, there were 502 109s destroyed to enemy action during the battle, and these include planes returning to base, though written off due to being uneconomical to repair afterwards). And of course, missing the number of British heavy fighters lost.

I have seen many figures, Jerry Scutts came up with some figures for the exchange rate between British and German s-e fighters, which - unsurprisingly, given the circumstances and the difference in training and tactics - favor the Emils heavily. The problem is always what sort of reliability these figures may have - how can they arrive at the figures 60 years later, with much of the information lost...

As far as performance go, I would really like to see some figures for the climb rate at 100 octane, and I wonder how it relates to the performance of the 109E using 100 octane, too.
The main advantage for the 109E (and 110C) was of course the excellent altitude performance of the DB 601N engine (apart from the negative-G issues of the R-R engine). 100 octane avgas, when available, would of course help the RAF fighters to match the performance of the German fighters, but it only helped at low altitudes, and it was a sort of special emergency power, rather stressful to the engine. The DB 601A had something similiar in the form of the 1 minute Kurzlesitung for low altitudes, which boosted engine output by about 15%.

The turning figures is another classic debate, but its fairly pointless IMHO - it depends much on altitude, the type of engine fitted, fuel used and the skill of the pilot. As the RAE trials you have already quoted mentions, the control characteristics were also quite important, in helping a pilot to bring the maximum out of its aeroplane in a stressfull situation:



The gentle stall and good control under g are of some importance, as they enable the pilot to get the most out of the aircraft in a circling dog-fight by flying very near the stall. As mentioned in section 5.1, the Me.109 pilot succeeded in keeping on the tail of the Spitfire in many cases, despite the latter aircraft's superior turning performance, because a number of the Spitfire pilots failed to tighten up the turn sufficiently. If the stick is pulled back too far on the Spitfire in a tight turn, the aircraft may stall rather violently, flick over on to its back, and spin. Knowledge of this undoubtedly deters the pilot from tightening his turn when being chased, particularly if he is not very experienced.

and also regarding tactical-technical requirements in fighter design:



Recent discussions with the Fighter Command have made it clear that this provision of adequate lateral control at high speed is at present the most pressing control problem of fighter design. Next to this, the most important feature desired is ability to decelerate quickly, so as to avoid overshooting when making a diving attack on a much slower machine. To meet this requirement the design of a quickly operable high-drag flap for single-seater fighters is being considered.
Compared with the above, turning performance in the circling slow speed dog-fight is now considered of minor importance. The tactical situation may, however, change, and this aspect of fighting manotuvrability should not be pushed too far into the background. As shown in section 5.3, we have in the Spitfire and Hurricane, fighters considerably superior to the Me.109 in slow speed turning performance. Nevertheless, work on the effect of flaps on manoeuvrability at low speeds is desirable, since the need for making our aircraft still better in this respect may arise.

The last sentence demonstrates how many layers the question have - British fighters did not have combat flaps, only fully retracted and fully deployed, while the 109E could employ flaps to improve the turning circle quite considerably, and it could be deployed up to fairly high airspeeds as well.

It just demonstrates how complex the issue really is. In any case, most of it didn't matter - usually the one who spotted the other first, or had altitude advantage made a fast attack, either hit or missed, and zoomed away or lost his target. One on one engagements were rare, and could easily end up in one participant being shot up by the laughing third.

hop2002
07-07-2009, 04:29 PM
Hmm, you figures seem to include, as usual, German aircraft lost to non-enemy related reasons (off the top of my head, there were 502 109s destroyed to enemy action during the battle, and these include planes returning to base, though written off due to being uneconomical to repair afterwards).

The German losses are on operations to all causes. The RAF losses are to all causes. They certainly include all losses on operations, they may include losses not on operations as well.

RAF figures also include aircraft written off as uneconomical to repair. The losses are therefore comparable, indeed if non operation RAF losses are included then they are biased towards the Luftwaffe.

Kurfurst__
07-07-2009, 04:33 PM
Originally posted by hop2002:
No. On 13 August, the day the Germans began their main campaign to destroy the RAF, the Luftwaffe had 858 serviceable 109s and 189 serviceable 110s in day fighter units.
On 7 September, the day the Luftwaffe switched to attacking London, they had 658 serviceable 109s and 112 serviceable 110s.

In contrast the RAF went from 579 serviceable Spits and Hurris on 13 August to 621 on 7 September.

The keyword seems to be '(entire) the Luftwaffe' and 'day fighter' units. Thing is though, between August and September, the Germans raised some night fighting units, to which 110s and 109s were transferred (and therefore, no longer showing up in the day fighter countings), and some units in the entire were always back in Germany or nearby to defend German airspace.

The question is then, wheter and to what extent the number of 109s/110s available for daily offensive operations against England changed, and what was the avarage figure - for example on 28th September (despite a pretty big and costly dogfight on the previous day), they reported 712 servicable 109s.

No41Sqn_Banks
07-07-2009, 04:38 PM
Wait ... I'm pretty sure we had the same discussion with the same numbers and the same actors some month ago. Do we really need to repeat it?

Flight_boy1990
07-07-2009, 04:40 PM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
SOrry mate but some of these are incorrect.

The Spitfire had much better control at high speeds, the Bf109 controls locking up badly at high speeds.

If the 109 had any chance of outturning the SPitfire, it was at slow speeds, near the stall, where its slats help.

Seems i messed up some things in my head http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif ...
Anyway,thanks for the correction.
I sure would love to do slow speed maneuver fight with a Spitfire...I just love the scissors.

Kurfurst__
07-07-2009, 04:43 PM
Originally posted by hop2002:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Hmm, you figures seem to include, as usual, German aircraft lost to non-enemy related reasons (off the top of my head, there were 502 109s destroyed to enemy action during the battle, and these include planes returning to base, though written off due to being uneconomical to repair afterwards).

The German losses are on operations to all causes. The RAF losses are to all causes. They certainly include all losses on operations, they may include losses not on operations as well.

RAF figures also include aircraft written off as uneconomical to repair. The losses are therefore comparable, indeed if non operation RAF losses are included then they are biased towards the Luftwaffe. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The problem is, the LW figures all fighter, the RAF figures include only SE fighters, and omits RAF heavy fighters. If you want to have a more complete picture on combat/tactical performance, I suggest you take a look on the number of aircraft damaged. Ie. according to Wood and Dempster, the losses of the two sides on operations (both enemy and non enemy related) were:

Luftwaffe
600 SE fighters destroyed (502 to enemy action)
235 TE fighters destroyed (224 to enemy action)
Total 835

182 SE fighters damaged (71 to enemy action)
68 TE fighters damaged (54 to enemy action)

RAF

607 Hurricanes
396 Spitfires
137 other type of fighters (Blenheims, Defiants etc.) destroyed
Total 1140 fighters

740 Spits/Hurris/Blenheims/Deffies seriously damaged (Cat 2, so this does not count minor Cat 1 damage with a few holes etc.) (mostly Spits and Hurris though)

In the end, you have 1085 Jerry fighters and 1850 Tommy fighters being shot up or trashed by their pilots in the duration of four months.

Flight_boy1990
07-07-2009, 05:07 PM
Hi Kurfurst,
please check your PM.

Wildnoob
07-07-2009, 06:55 PM
Originally posted by hop2002:
Their fighter losses were higher per sortie. Their bomber losses were much lower and the RAF's losses were much higher. That sounds like a much better proposition for the Germans overall, although I can understand why the fighter pilots didn't like it.

you mean that RAF losses on the ground, because at least by the introduction of this new tactic airfields where still being the primary target and so the bomber force could inflict a lot more of damage to then?

Wildnoob
07-07-2009, 07:00 PM
Originally posted by No41Sqn_Banks:
Wait ... I'm pretty sure we had the same discussion with the same numbers and the same actors some month ago. Do we really need to repeat it?

my intentions where not to bring trouble when created this topic, but seems that the opositive is happening unfortunetely. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/disagree.gif

Kettenhunde
07-07-2009, 08:32 PM
(Cat 2, so this does not count minor Cat 1 damage with a few holes etc.)

Interesting detail....

The GAF unit status reports are a snapshot in time when the technical officer reports how many aircraft the unit has that are serviceable.

The extent of damage is not considered just the fact it is in need of services. That servicing is whatever maintenance is required to return the aircraft to operational use.

It could be anything from routine preventive maintenance to extensive battle damage.

For example:

http://www.ww2.dk/oob/statistics/se290640.htm

All the best,

Crumpp

horseback
07-07-2009, 10:05 PM
Okay now boys, unless you are prepared to unzip and get out a ruler mano a mano, can we please move away from the mine is bigger than yours arguements and return to tactics and why the participants acted as they did?

The time is very important. Early in the war, after 20 years of theory and very little actual experience, just as two major factors are entering the picture that changed everything: radar and radio.

The RAF had a workable early warning system, which NO ONE had ever had before. They had radio, which allowed the ground controller to direct fighter formations to incoming enemy (presumably bomber) formations before they could make their target area.

This, more than anything, put a crimp in the supposed axiom that the bomber would always get through (which it had, in Poland and France).

Radio also allowed communication between individual aircraft, which allows for a spread formation like those used by the LW, team tactics, and for everyone in the formation to keep looking for enemy aircraft instead of keeping an eye on the leader for his hand signals.

The RAF had the second bit, but stayed with the Vic formation for much too long. They apparently considered the loose German formations unprofessional, and took some time before recognizing the tactical advantages.

It looks to me as though both sides had a well trained fighter force and well matched aircraft.

Neither side had a realistic appreciation of their aircraft's relative strengths, so of course their first instinct was to dogfight, especially because neither air force had anything special in the way of air to air gunnery training. When I consider some of the ideas about air combat that were dominant in the prewar periods, I tend to think that maybe in some things, no training is better than bad training, or training to the wrong standards.

Generally, fighters strove to get onto their targets' tails, get close and hose them down. This was the pattern of almost every early clash between air forces. Since no one knew how good the other guy was, they did the same thing they would do when practicing against their squadron mates--they'd do the usual stuff. Only after nearly getting killed or losing a few buddies did they adjust their tactics.

Both sides agree that for the most part, the Hurricane and Spit held an advantage in horizontal maneuver. The Germans adjusted fairly successfully to a vertical regime...

However, the Brits were fighting on home turf. Any aircraft downed over Britain meant the plane and aircrew were lost to Germany, but for the British, 40% or so of their pilots shot down parachuted or crashlanded safely, and were back in the air within 48 hours.

cheers

horseback

leitmotiv
07-08-2009, 05:00 AM
From: SUMMER 1940: THE BATTLE OF BRITAIN. Roger Parkinson. Page 42: 1 July 1940 Bf109: strength 893 (725 serviceable), 1 October 1940: strength 700 (serviceable 275); 6 July 1940 Hurricane and Spitfire: strength 871 (serviceable 644), 28 September 1940: strength 1048 (serviceable 732) (according to Parkinson [the British War Cabinet historian], all figures derived from the British Official History volume about the Battle)

Which is a roundabout way of making the point the LW clearly lost Bf109 strength while Fighter Command gained strength, which is a roundabout way of saying the 109 pilots failed in their job of significantly attriting Fighter Command no matter how many airplanes they claimed to have shot down.

Tactically, the 109E was superior to the Hurricane, and slightly superior to the Spitfire due to having fuel injection and two slow-firing, low-velocity cannon. Unfortunately, because the 109 force did not receive drop tanks until too late to affect the issue, the 109 was a disastrous air-superiority fighter for operations over Kent and London. The fact that the German massed attack on London on 15 September 1940 was not just repelled, but routed by massed British fighter attacks demonstrates clearly the failure of the 109 in the summer battle. With only a few minutes over London before the red light came on, the 109 was unable to fulfill the job of blowing a path through Fighter Command for the German bombers. If the entire 109 force had had drop tanks on Eagle Day, the issue might have gone the other way.

stalkervision
07-08-2009, 05:43 AM
I believe one of the most disastrous decisions the Germans took was to require the 109's to fly close escort for the bombers. The 109 was totally unsuited for this task.

Kurfurst__
07-08-2009, 06:31 AM
A thing though about 'strenght' figures - they are not directly comparable because of the different organisation in the RAF and LW.

The basic operational fighter unit with the Germans was the Gruppe (and equivalent of a RAF Wing, or US Group), with 39 aircraft in 3 Staffeln: each with 12 airaft, plus a small Stabschwarm. The Staffeln were not independent units, they relied on their mother Gruppe to provide them with supplies, maintenance facilities and so forth.
The most noteworthy thing about it was that there were no direct reserve aircraft in the Gruppen, all 12 fighters issued to the Staffeln were to fly missions. Reserve aircraft were provided by higher level organisation.

The basic operational fighter unit in the RAF was the Squadron. Unlike the German Staffel, the RAF had reserve aircraft allocated to each Squadron (16+2 IIRC during the time of the BoB), though even at full strenght, only 12 would fly, just as in the case of the German Staffeln.

The end result is, on the British 'strenght' reports of frontline, you see both the operationally used and reserve aircraft, while the German 'strenght' reports show only the aircraft issued directly to the unit, with the reserves being listed elsewhere and invisible in such listings.

The headache for Fighter Command (and pretty much everyone in the war) of course, was not replacing aircraft but replacing pilots. During the latter half of August and early September, Fighter Command simply lost more pilots than received from training centres. And while they could fill up the ranks by employing desperate measures, and therefore show up nice big numbers on 'pilots present with units' reports, it was another question how many of these pilots were actually fit for combat. The other part of the manpower problems was that, during the time of the large influx totally inexperienced pilots was the large loss rate in August amongst experienced Flight Leaders and Wing Commanders, IIRC something like 30-40% of the commanding officers like them were shot down and killed/wounded.

Kurfurst__
07-08-2009, 06:34 AM
Originally posted by stalkervision:
I believe one of the most disastrous decisions the Germans took was to require the 109's to fly close escort for the bombers. The 109 was totally unsuited for this task.

This is partly a myth; a portion of the 109s were attached as direct/close escort, but the escorting scheme was far more complex, and played to the 109s strenghts. Wood and Dempster describes it:


By September, standard tactics for raids soon became an amalgam of techniques. A Frei Jagd or fighter sweep would precede a raid to try to sweep any defenders out of the raid's path. The bombers would then fly in at altitudes between 16,000 and 20,000 feet (6,100 m), closely escorted by fighters. Escorts were divided into two parts, some operating in close contact with the bombers, and other a few hundred yards away and a little above. If the formation was attacked from the starboard, the starboard section engaged the attackers, the top section moving to starboard and the port section to the top position. If the attack came from the port side the system was reversed. British fighters coming from the rear were engaged by the rear section and the two outside sections similarly moving to the rear. If the threat came from above, the top section went into action while the side sections gained height in order to be able to follow RAF fighters down as they broke away. If attacked themselves, all sections flew in defensive circles. These tactics were skillfully evolved and carried out, and were extremely difficult to counter.

In any case, from the statistics, it seems the Goring's tactic was not bad at all: by bombing targets in massed formations (as oposed to many small-medium sized formations earlier) in a single point which the British could not ignore, they forced Fighter Command to come up and fight, and sustain losses from the escorts.

The German bomber losses went down, British fighter loss rates increased in this kind of aerial Verdun the Luftwaffe forced upon the RAF. It was also much more effective than the previous series of raids on airfields - those destroyed only few aircraft on the ground, and despite wrecking a number of airfields, its scale was too small to have decisive effect.

stalkervision
07-08-2009, 09:12 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 stalkervision:
I believe one of the most disastrous decisions the Germans took was to require the 109's to fly close escort for the bombers. The 109 was totally unsuited for this task.

This is partly a myth; a portion of the 109s were attached as direct/close escort, but the escorting scheme was far more complex, and played to the 109s strenghts. Wood and Dempster describes it:


By September, standard tactics for raids soon became an amalgam of techniques. A Frei Jagd or fighter sweep would precede a raid to try to sweep any defenders out of the raid's path. The bombers would then fly in at altitudes between 16,000 and 20,000 feet (6,100 m), closely escorted by fighters. Escorts were divided into two parts, some operating in close contact with the bombers, and other a few hundred yards away and a little above. If the formation was attacked from the starboard, the starboard section engaged the attackers, the top section moving to starboard and the port section to the top position. If the attack came from the port side the system was reversed. British fighters coming from the rear were engaged by the rear section and the two outside sections similarly moving to the rear. If the threat came from above, the top section went into action while the side sections gained height in order to be able to follow RAF fighters down as they broke away. If attacked themselves, all sections flew in defensive circles. These tactics were skillfully evolved and carried out, and were extremely difficult to counter.

In any case, from the statistics, it seems the Goring's tactic was not bad at all: by bombing targets in massed formations (as oposed to many small-medium sized formations earlier) in a single point which the British could not ignore, they forced Fighter Command to come up and fight, and sustain losses from the escorts.

The German bomber losses went down, British fighter loss rates increased in this kind of aerial Verdun the Luftwaffe forced upon the RAF. It was also much more effective than the previous series of raids on airfields - those destroyed only few aircraft on the ground, and despite wrecking a number of airfields, its scale was too small to have decisive effect. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

well Adolph Galland in "the first and the last" seemed to think this was a disastrous decision. In fact the famous quote with goring asking him what resources he needed for the battle and his reply "spitfires" come directly from this higher command decision.

This quote is always misunderstood Galland said because he was referring to this problem. Not that the 109 was in inferior aircraft to the spitfire whatsoever. Galland ment he needed a machine like the spitfire with much better close in maneuverability if he was going to be able to cover the bombers adequately in this manor.

The 109 lacked this attribute in his opinion.

Kettenhunde
07-08-2009, 09:50 AM
RAF had reserve aircraft allocated to each Squadron (16+2 IIRC during the time of the BoB),

The RAF actually temporarily increased their establishment to 22 A/C during the battle. IIRC they then increased the number of squadrons by splitting more 18 A/C units out of the 22.

Despite their horrendous casualties, some solid pre-war planning allowed them to grow in strength during the battle.

All the best,

Crumpp

Freiwillige
07-08-2009, 11:04 AM
I think that thus far in this discussion there are two major understatements being pushed forth.

One is the rigid formations of the R.A.F. flying vic's with a tail end charlie. The Luftwaffe's Schwarm was completely superior in giving situational awareness and flexibility in combat situations.

Also in question is the role of the BF-109's stuck close escorting the bomber force. I have read many accounts from both sides stating that this was a huge tactical blunder on Herman Goering's part and he was bluntly disliked by the Jagdwaffe for this decision.

To Quote a 109 pilot, "We were stuck in the bad position of close escort with the bombers. We had to fly right along with them and always so close they could see us. We had to fly so slow that we would often have to be flying with our flaps down just to stay aloft. When attacked this put us on the defensive as it took time to get the plane up to an offensive stature and gain combat speeds. Unfortunately by that time usually the attack was well under way and it was all we could do to defend ourselves let alone the bombers, I mean we lost all of our tactical advantages in the Messerschmitt".

Wildnoob
07-08-2009, 12:18 PM
magnific discuss folks!

that's the way I was hoping to be. this topic is not intended to elect the "best" among the RAF or the LW, NO WAY! but just to see and discuss BOB figther combat tactics.

I'm so proud that this tread looks to be finally on it's tracks and many information is being shared. not talking too much because is a subject that I don't know virtually anything.

thank you very much for participate or acess this topic! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Skoshi Tiger
07-10-2009, 06:26 AM
That video looks very familiar. Fairly sure it was taken from Jane's WWII Fighters museum. I'll have to load up the old girl again and check it out!

Xiolablu3
07-11-2009, 03:10 PM
Originally posted by stalkervision:


This quote is always misunderstood Galland said because he was referring to this problem. Not that the 109 was in inferior aircraft to the spitfire whatsoever. Galland ment he needed a machine like the spitfire with much better close in maneuverability if he was going to be able to cover the bombers adequately in this manor.

The 109 lacked this attribute in his opinion.

Exactly mate.

One of the few times I have seen Gallands quote understood absolutely correctly.

JtD
07-11-2009, 03:11 PM
Galland also meant to p*ss off Göring. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Kettenhunde
07-11-2009, 11:07 PM
This quote is always misunderstood Galland said because he was referring to this problem. Not that the 109 was in inferior aircraft to the spitfire whatsoever. Galland ment he needed a machine like the spitfire with much better close in maneuverability if he was going to be able to cover the bombers adequately in this manor.


What is "close in maneuverability"?

Are you talking agility? Are you talking sustainable level turn under some defined condition? Are referring to a maximum load factor turn? Minimum Radius? Maximum Rate? What are you referring too?

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

All aircraft performance occurs at a specific velocity based on the fixed by design L/D curve of the aircraft.

I am sure that Adolf Galland understood these facts.

I would interpret his remark as goading Goering by highlighting his lack of understanding about "modern" fighter tactics.

Galland was saying:

"If you are going to force me to give up the initiative in order to fly at slower airspeed than my plane is designed for, I need an airplane that reaches its best performance numbers at that slower airspeed. We need to give up the airplane that performs best at a higher speed."

All the best,

Crumpp

JtD
07-11-2009, 11:39 PM
He said he wanted his Staffel to be equipped with Spitfires, that's all.

No need to invent quotes.

Kettenhunde
07-12-2009, 12:58 AM
JtD says:
No need to invent quotes.

No need for your "spin" that is just designed to antagonize me, either.

You are pretending to read minds:


JtD says:
Galland also meant to p*ss off Göring.

Just because I back up my opinion with some facts about aircraft performance and elaborate does not change the fact you are "inventing" as well.

That is what opinion is, speculation, mine just happens to be more informative than yours...


Crump says:
I would interpret his remark as goading Goering by highlighting his lack of understanding about "modern" fighter tactics.


All the best,

Crumpp

JtD
07-12-2009, 01:51 AM
Galland said:

"Ich bitte um die Ausrüstung meines Geschwaders mit Spitfires."

Galland also said he said that because he was angry at Göring and that he didn't mean it. So the obvious deduction is he wanted to upset Göring. Which he did. I recommend you to read "Die Ersten und die Letzten" by Adolf Galland, so you don't have to make assumptions.

You invented an "historical" quote. That is about as bad as historical discussions can go. If you can't see that's wrong, I can't help it. That's all. I'm not going to derail this any further.

Kettenhunde
07-12-2009, 03:03 AM
You invented an "historical" quote.

No I put down my opinion, just like you did.

WTE_Galway
07-12-2009, 04:03 AM
The accepted way to attack he111 late BoB was to have a faint from one side and then follow through with an actual attack from the opposite side.

This was becasue he111's only had a single gunner for both waste guns and it took time to swap sides.

Kettenhunde
07-12-2009, 12:48 PM
BTW,

It is irrelevant to the point I made what Galland was thinking.

The fact remains airplanes are flown by their V-Speeds to achieve best performance.

If you are restricted to going slow, you want the airplane that has the slower V-speeds not the one that achieves best performance at higher speeds.


"If you are going to force me to give up the initiative in order to fly at slower airspeed than my plane is designed for, I need an airplane that reaches its best performance numbers at that slower airspeed. We need to give up the airplane that performs best at a higher speed."


All the best,

Crumpp

stalkervision
07-12-2009, 07:08 PM
Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
BTW,

It is irrelevant to the point I made what Galland was thinking.

The fact remains airplanes are flown by their V-Speeds to achieve best performance.

If you are restricted to going slow, you want the airplane that has the slower V-speeds not the one that achieves best performance at higher speeds.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> "If you are going to force me to give up the initiative in order to fly at slower airspeed than my plane is designed for, I need an airplane that reaches its best performance numbers at that slower airspeed. We need to give up the airplane that performs best at a higher speed."


All the best,

Crumpp </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

well from Galland's autobiography "The First and the last" Galland to Goring after Goring's insistence on close support bomber protection.. " I tried to point out that the me-109 was superior in the attack but not so suitable for purely defensive purpose as the spitfire, which although a little slower,was much more maneuverable."

later came his famous line..

this was Galland's opinion at the time and who showed know better. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

cheers S/V

stalkervision
07-12-2009, 07:14 PM
to me the really interesting thing will be when SOW comes out how this will play out in the new sim.. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif

In bob/wov it sure works this way.

Xiolablu3
07-13-2009, 07:09 AM
Close in manouverbility is when two fighters are dogfighting at very close range and the one with the better turn usually has the advantage.

The quote and explanation is in Gallands autobiography. He felt the 109 was better in the attack thanks to its better dive and climb and flying straight ahead. But the Spitfire was better at close in manouverability/dogfighting and therefore better at defence.

'Our advantage was not in turning but in flying straight ahead, diving and climbing'....'The Spitfire which although a little slower was much more manouverable' are his exact words.

Overall he didnt want to get into turning fights with the Spitfire, he wanted to use the Bf109's strengths. Which is common sense. He felt that the Spitfires better dogfighting ability was at an advantage when being asked to fly close to the bombers, and that the SPitfire would be better suited for this task.

Its quite plainly written in his biography.

Regardless that fighters at the same bank and velocity make the same turn. Some can turn inside others when both are pushed to their limits..this is what Galland was reffering to.

Molders echoed Gallands thoughts in an early war test of Spitfires and Hurricanes with 2 blade props and no constant speed unit. He said both turned better than the Bf109.

I dont think both of these expert fighter pilots 'had it wrong'.

Xiolablu3
07-13-2009, 07:21 AM
Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
BTW,

It is irrelevant to the point I made what Galland was thinking.

The fact remains airplanes are flown by their V-Speeds to achieve best performance.

If you are restricted to going slow, you want the airplane that has the slower V-speeds not the one that achieves best performance at higher speeds.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> "If you are going to force me to give up the initiative in order to fly at slower airspeed than my plane is designed for, I need an airplane that reaches its best performance numbers at that slower airspeed. We need to give up the airplane that performs best at a higher speed."


All the best,

Crumpp </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

But he didnt say this, he said 'the Spitfire was much more manouverable'

We know that the Bf109 had problems turning at higher speeds too, so I am not sure about your theory.

stalkervision
07-13-2009, 07:25 AM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
Close in manouverbility is when two fighters are dogfighting at very close range and the one with the better turn usually has the advantage.

The quote and explanation is in Gallands autobiography. He felt the 109 was better in the attack thanks to its better dive and climb and flying straight ahead. But the Spitfire was better at close in manouverability/dogfighting and therefore better at defence.

'Our advantage was not in turning but in flying straight ahead, diving and climbing'....'The Spitfire which although a little slower was much more manouverable' are his exact words.

Overall he didnt want to get into turning fights with the Spitfire, he wanted to use the Bf109's strengths. Which is common sense. He felt that the Spitfires better dogfighting ability was at an advantage when being asked to fly close to the bombers, and that the SPitfire would be better suited for this task.

Its quite plainly written in his biography.

Regardless that fighters at the same bank and velocity make the same turn. Some can turn inside others when both are pushed to their limits..this is what Galland was reffering to.

Molders echoed Gallands thoughts in an early war test of Spitfires and Hurricanes with 2 blade props and no constant speed unit. He said both turned better than the Bf109.

I dont think both of these expert fighter pilots 'had it wrong'.

me neither. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

JtD
07-13-2009, 09:33 AM
Gallands exact words are "erheblich wendiger", i.e. "considerably more maneuverable". "Much more" translates back into "sehr viel" which in German is significantly more than "erheblich". http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Kettenhunde
07-13-2009, 09:41 AM
Are you talking agility? Are you talking sustainable level turn under some defined condition? Are referring to a maximum load factor turn? Minimum Radius? Maximum Rate? What are you referring too?

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

All aircraft performance occurs at a specific velocity based on the fixed by design L/D curve of the aircraft.

I am sure that Adolf Galland understood these facts.

JtD
07-13-2009, 09:56 AM
Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
Are you talking agility? Are you talking sustainable level turn under some defined condition? Are referring to a maximum load factor turn? Minimum Radius? Maximum Rate? What are you referring too?

Ask Galland.

Manu-6S
07-13-2009, 10:20 AM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
Close in manouverbility is when two fighters are dogfighting at very close range and the one with the better turn usually has the advantage.

The quote and explanation is in Gallands autobiography. He felt the 109 was better in the attack thanks to its better dive and climb and flying straight ahead. But the Spitfire was better at close in manouverability/dogfighting and therefore better at defence.

'Our advantage was not in turning but in flying straight ahead, diving and climbing'....'The Spitfire which although a little slower was much more manouverable' are his exact words.

Overall he didnt want to get into turning fights with the Spitfire, he wanted to use the Bf109's strengths. Which is common sense. He felt that the Spitfires better dogfighting ability was at an advantage when being asked to fly close to the bombers, and that the SPitfire would be better suited for this task.

Its quite plainly written in his biography.

Regardless that fighters at the same bank and velocity make the same turn. Some can turn inside others when both are pushed to their limits..this is what Galland was reffering to.

Molders echoed Gallands thoughts in an early war test of Spitfires and Hurricanes with 2 blade props and no constant speed unit. He said both turned better than the Bf109.

I dont think both of these expert fighter pilots 'had it wrong'.

If the Spit were catched at lower speed and lower altitude (close escort) they could still take the DEFENSIVE advantage of their better turn rate. Think... in Il2 what do you do when bounced? You make a tight turn.

Instead a slower and lower 109... if bounced they could do nothing except dive (still risky)


Remember that turning is only a defensive manouvre. You can't win by turning... with a faster plane and a good SA you are untouchable.

Kettenhunde
07-13-2009, 10:27 AM
To ensure we are all on the same sheet of music for understanding propeller aircraft "turning", let’s go over a few general characteristics of turn performance in power producers.

Conditions represent an established sustainable level turn. If break the condition of maintaining altitude during the turn or sustainable performance, we will match turn performance for any aircraft as long as we are traveling the same velocity and use the same angle of bank.

Of course the ability to establish the turn is another discussion as well.

First a "turn" can be divided into three components, rate, radius, and load factor. All are tied together and a function of velocity and angle of bank.

Typical sustainable angle of bank for a propeller fighter:

http://img219.imageshack.us/img219/5862/typicalbankangle.jpg (http://img219.imageshack.us/i/typicalbankangle.jpg/)


Radius is the least important to a fighter. It determines how much sky we need to complete a turn. It has nothing to do with getting a gun solution.

It is most useful to ground attack platforms for terrain and air defense avoidance.

Notice the bottom of our curve is flat. From ~150KEAS to ~210KEAS our radius of turn is practically the same. At the stall and Vmax, our radius widens. In a jet, the radius is infinity at both ends but a propeller aircraft can still turn at the stall point. Granted it is poor performance and tough to fly the plane in this condition.

Typical turn radius characteristics:

http://img196.imageshack.us/img196/8176/radiusofturn.jpg (http://img196.imageshack.us/i/radiusofturn.jpg/)

Now let’s look at rate, the most important characteristics to a fighter aircraft. Rate determines how fast we move through the degrees of the circle. It is how fast we can bring our guns to bear on a target.

Notice that we have an optimal rate of turn as well as the ability to choose whether we want to match rate of turn at a high speed or a low speed.

Notice at ~180KEAS and ~220KEAS we can sustain the same rate of turn performance. The rate does not change only the velocity we can sustain it.

Two aircraft traveling at a rate of 20 degrees a second will complete a turn at exactly the same time no matter what the radius.

http://img213.imageshack.us/img213/6820/poweroffpoweron.jpg (http://img213.imageshack.us/i/poweroffpoweron.jpg/)


Our next characteristic is maximum load factor. This represents the largest sustainable angle of bank.

The aircraft which can sustain the highest load factor at the highest speed can use it to gain an energy advantage.

http://img189.imageshack.us/img189/129/spitfiremerlin6618.jpg (http://img189.imageshack.us/i/spitfiremerlin6618.jpg/)

All of these points occur at a V-speed fixed by the design of the aircraft. The difference in where these speeds occur determines much about the most effective way to dogfight the aircraft. They can be stacked very close in velocity or farther apart depending on how the designer sets the aircraft up.

All the best,

Crumpp

Kettenhunde
07-13-2009, 11:05 AM
with a faster plane and a good SA you are untouchable


That is the case. This is why designers have moved towards faster speeds rather than concentrating on better sustained turn performance.

Not many Sopwith Camels found in the front line squadrons of todays Air Forces....

At the same angle of bank and velocity, all aircraft will make exactly the same turn.

http://www.pprune.org/archive/index.php/t-187127.html

That is why turn charts are universal:


Figure 1 can be used to determine the turn radius and rate-of-turn for any
aircraft, given speed and angle of bank (assuming the aircraft maintains level flight). It may also be used in the reverse context.

http://www.tscm.com/maneuver.pdf

And aircraft can have such instruments as turn coordinators and "standard rate of turn" in flying.

http://aircraftspruce.com/menu...urncoordinators.html (http://aircraftspruce.com/menus/in/turncoordinators.html)

All the best,

Crumpp

Kettenhunde
07-14-2009, 01:20 AM
He felt that the Spitfires better dogfighting ability

Somehow the ability to turn a small circle is being confused with dogfighting.


"Adolf Galland rated the Spitfire so highly he told Goering 'Give me a squadron of Spitfires'." - Here's a quote from his book The First And The Last:

"The theme of fighter protection was chewed over again and again. Goering clearly represented the point of view of the bombers and demanded close and rigid protection. The bomber, he said, was more important than record bag figures. I tried to point out that the Me109 was superior in the attack and not so suitable for purely defensive purposes as the Spitfire, which, although a little slower, was much more manoeuvrable. He rejected my objection. We received many more harsh words. Finally, as his time ran short, he grew more amiable and asked what were the requirements for our squadrons. Moelders asked for a series of Me109's with more powerful engines. The request was granted. 'And you ?' Goering turned to me. I did not hesitate long. 'I should like an outfit of Spitfires for my group.' After blurting this out, I had rather a shock, for it was not really meant that way. Of course, fundamentally I preferred our Me109 to the Spitfire, but I was unbelievably vexed at the lack of understanding and the stubbornness with which the command gave us orders we could not execute - or only incompletely - as a result of many shortcomings for which we were not to blame. Such brazen-faced impudence made even Goering speechless. He stamped off, growling as he went."

http://www.aeroflight.co.uk/misc/myths1.htm

Bremspropeller
07-14-2009, 01:42 AM
He stamped off, growling as he went.

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

glvaca
07-14-2009, 03:36 AM
Kettenhunde,

What I think you're missing is that rate and radius at a given speed do matter. A lot. If you can sustain a better or same rate of turn at a smaller radius you will keep up your E while outturning your opponent thus getting the shot by pulling lead.

This is what the Spit does better than the 109.

Explain it more technically if you must but there has to be something that allows one plane to outturn the other and I'm not talking about instantanious turning but sustained.

Cheers,
Glenn

Kettenhunde
07-14-2009, 05:17 AM
at a given speed do matter.

I am not missing anything. You just stated the point I made in the original post.

The Spitfires best performance occurs at a slower velocity than the Bf-109's.

Therefore, the speed is extremely important.


Crumpp says:

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

All aircraft performance occurs at a specific velocity based on the fixed by design L/D curve of the aircraft.

I am sure that Adolf Galland understood these facts.

I would interpret his remark as goading Goering by highlighting his lack of understanding about "modern" fighter tactics.

Galland was saying:

"If you are going to force me to give up the initiative in order to fly at slower airspeed than my plane is designed for, I need an airplane that reaches its best performance numbers at that slower airspeed. We need to give up the airplane that performs best at a higher speed."



If you can sustain a better or same rate of turn at a smaller radius


There are situations where radius is important but it is not a primary characteristic of fighter aircraft turn performance for designers.

This is one reason why fighters have progressed to faster, heavier platforms that achieve the same rate at a higher velocity.


there has to be something that allows one plane to outturn the other and I'm not talking about instantanious turning but sustained.


There is something that allows aircraft to have a rate, radius, or load factor performance difference.

It is what the aircraft can sustain that makes the difference. If an aircraft reach a velocity and angle of bank, it can match the turn. It just cannot necessarily maintain the same altitude. If it trades a little altitude, then it can match performance. An agile enough aircraft will even be able to pull lead and zoom back to gun solution.

My point is you cannot expect an aircraft to operate below its best performance V-speeds and reach maximum performance.

Sustained Turn Performance is about 3 different characteristics:

Load Factor:


Specifically, a higher limit load factor is a significant advantage, producing a higher turn rate and forcing an opponent to slow down to match your turn.

Radius of Turn:


Maximum performance turn radius is largely a function of speed. The really tight turns are made only at low speeds. At the same speed, two opposing airplanes have different turn radii only if they're at different load factors. In that case, their turn rates are different as well and it's difficult to isolate the advantage of a small turn radius

Rate of turn:


The heart of turn performance mission relation is the consideration of turn rate. In almost every tactical situation, turn rate is the measure of maneuvering advantage.


A sustained turn rate advantage allows the pilot to put continual pressure on the adversary, eventually producing a shot opportunity or forcing the opponent to make a
mistake.

http://www.aviation.org.uk/doc...ricted-FTM108/c6.pdf (http://www.aviation.org.uk/docs/flighttest.navair.navy.milunrestricted-FTM108/c6.pdf)


"Rate Kills" is a common fighter saying. Simply put, a fighter with a higher turn rate can out maneuver a fighter with a tighter Turn Radius. The ability to put your nose on the bandit to allow a shot is more important that being able to fly in a tighter circle.

http://www.sci.fi/~fta/chap3.htm (http://www.sci.fi/%7Efta/chap3.htm)

All the best,

Crumpp

glvaca
07-14-2009, 09:50 AM
You know, this is the first time one of your post does actually makes sense to me. Not that your other posts are nonesense, rather it all goes over my head.
Here you actually define, to my knowledge, for the first time clearly what does give you an advantage instead of picking appart non sientific expressions like I myself make often because it's what I've picked up on my queste to understand what I've seen work in the game.

Maybe you should clean it up a bit and then an admin should make it sticky with a different tittle. If it doesn't exist somewhere else off course.

Thanks!
Best
Glenn

Kettenhunde
07-14-2009, 10:08 PM
Not that your other posts are nonesense, rather it all goes over my head.


It is not my intention to confuse or talk over anyone's head. I don't post to make myself feel smart nor do I have the market cornered on knowledge.

There is no shame in not knowing the details, either. I sunk a considerable amount of time, effort, and money into an education on this stuff as well as becoming a pilot. If you ever have any questions or I can help you out let me know.

Just so we are clear, your participation in any discussion is welcome and I learn things too from others participation.

All the best,

Crumpp

HellToupee
07-14-2009, 11:21 PM
Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">with a faster plane and a good SA you are untouchable


That is the case. This is why designers have moved towards faster speeds rather than concentrating on better sustained turn performance.

Not many Sopwith Camels found in the front line squadrons of todays Air Forces....
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Designers have been moving towards faster speeds? Explains while new generation fighters don't go much faster than aircraft from the 60s. Only really the mig-25/31 have focused on speed and the expense of maneuverability, maneuverability otherwise has been a big focus in recent designs thrust vectoring etc

Kettenhunde
07-15-2009, 12:46 AM
Explains while new generation fighters don't go much faster than aircraft from the 60s.

While this is true it is not due to a lack of desire for speed, it is a limitation in technology for increasing speed combined with other technological developments which have no bearing on WWII fighter design trends.

This has nothing to do with the fact designers seek speed if possible even today.

In modern fighter development, we have hit a wall and are limited by our ability to target as well as the nature of supersonic flight.

Modern fighters reach the target at supersonic speeds but are forced to dogfight at subsonic speeds. Their thrust production is such that there is little difference in performance.

All fighters have very similar possible speeds in the realm they fight. In some ways we have regressed to WWI as the only characteristic that can really be influenced by design today is maneuverability. All aspect missiles and thrust vectoring technology have help to shape that nature.

WWII fighters did not have thrust vectoring technology or the ability to carry all aspect missiles.

Those limitations and technological restrictions will eventually be overcome and the focus on speed will resume.

It was limits in technology that kept WWI biplanes designers from concentrating on speed too.

So yes, as a general design trend, speed is life for a fighter aircraft and designers will seek a speed advantage.

That is why we have fast heavy aircraft like the F-22 as a fighter and not some Light Sport Aircraft design.

All the best,

Crumpp

Manu-6S
07-15-2009, 01:13 AM
Originally posted by HellToupee:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">with a faster plane and a good SA you are untouchable


That is the case. This is why designers have moved towards faster speeds rather than concentrating on better sustained turn performance.

Not many Sopwith Camels found in the front line squadrons of todays Air Forces....
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Designers have been moving towards faster speeds? Explains while new generation fighters don't go much faster than aircraft from the 60s. Only really the mig-25/31 have focused on speed and the expense of maneuverability, maneuverability otherwise has been a big focus in recent designs thrust vectoring etc </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It's also because there is the guided missile threat... you can't extend no more, but you need maneuverability to evade a guided missile.

Insuber
07-15-2009, 04:52 AM
Originally posted by TinyTim:
Yesterday, online, I have (easily) outturned several Bf-109E4s in my Bf-109E4 on a Belgrade map on UKD2 server.

Using the very common logic around here I can deduct that the 109E4 easily outturns 109E4.

I have to disagree, it's exactly the opposite !

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

Ins

Kettenhunde
07-15-2009, 10:32 AM
It's also because there is the guided missile threat... you can't extend no more, but you need maneuverability to evade a guided missile.


Exactly, just like WWI, the technology has restricted the designer.

All the best,

Crumpp

stalkervision
07-15-2009, 12:39 PM
Originally posted by HellToupee:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">with a faster plane and a good SA you are untouchable


That is the case. This is why designers have moved towards faster speeds rather than concentrating on better sustained turn performance.

Not many Sopwith Camels found in the front line squadrons of todays Air Forces....
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Designers have been moving towards faster speeds? Explains while new generation fighters don't go much faster than aircraft from the 60s. Only really the mig-25/31 have focused on speed and the expense of maneuverability, maneuverability otherwise has been a big focus in recent designs thrust vectoring etc </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

faster speeds increase turn radius when you have to come back around again in a d/f. Also at faster speeds g's increase tremendously on pilots. Aircraft can take it but not the pilots.

That is why there will soon be d/fighting remote piloted drones. The technology is already available and we will see one soon I am sure.

Then the days of the piloted fighter will be numbered.

Freiwillige
07-15-2009, 02:11 PM
The days of the piloted fighter are already numbered. I have heard it said the the F-22 is the last gen of piloted fighters.

stalkervision
07-15-2009, 02:32 PM
Originally posted by Freiwillige:
The days of the piloted fighter are already numbered. I have heard it said the the F-22 is the last gen of piloted fighters.

I believe your right. when you have air to air and air to ground missiles that can pull tremendous g's there is really no alternative imo.

HellToupee
07-16-2009, 03:01 AM
Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Explains while new generation fighters don't go much faster than aircraft from the 60s.

While this is true it is not due to a lack of desire for speed, it is a limitation in technology for increasing speed combined with other technological developments which have no bearing on WWII fighter design trends.

This has nothing to do with the fact designers seek speed if possible even today. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

They seek speed but it is not the focus of design. When designing a fighter to fight other fighters large focus is put on manuverability F-15/su27 etc, Mig-25/31 were designs focusing on speed but they designed for bomber interception.



In modern fighter development, we have hit a wall and are limited by our ability to target as well as the nature of supersonic flight.

Modern fighters reach the target at supersonic speeds but are forced to dogfight at subsonic speeds. Their thrust production is such that there is little difference in performance.

All fighters have very similar possible speeds in the realm they fight. In some ways we have regressed to WWI as the only characteristic that can really be influenced by design today is maneuverability. All aspect missiles and thrust vectoring technology have help to shape that nature.

Its not that they can't make faster aircraft they can recent aircraft f-18 for example are slower than the aircraft they replaced its that aircraft in air superiority role need to be able to dogfight, those all aspect missiles with head mounted sights still need the aircraft to be roughly facing the target. Speed comes at the expense of subsonic maneuverability.



WWII fighters did not have thrust vectoring technology or the ability to carry all aspect missiles.

Those limitations and technological restrictions will eventually be overcome and the focus on speed will resume.

It was limits in technology that kept WWI biplanes designers from concentrating on speed too.

So yes, as a general design trend, speed is life for a fighter aircraft and designers will seek a speed advantage.

That is why we have fast heavy aircraft like the F-22 as a fighter and not some Light Sport Aircraft design.

All the best,

Crumpp

Speed was important for WW1 fighters, many designs were built for speed and not to turn with the enemy like the S.E.5a and the Spad S.XIII. Performance was actually very important in ww1.

Kettenhunde
07-16-2009, 04:49 AM
A major objective in fighter aircraft design over the years has been the achievement of ever higher maximum speeds.


In figure 11.43, the upper-bound curve of maximum speed as a function of years clearly....



....shows this trend and is characterized by a series of ever higher plateaus that correspond to different levels of technical capability.

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/pao/History/SP-468/ch11-7.htm


Helltoupee says:

They seek speed but it is not the focus of design. When designing a fighter to fight other fighters large focus is put on manuverability F-15/su27 etc, Mig-25/31 were designs focusing on speed but they designed for bomber interception.


No, the focus on sustained level turn as a portion of maneuverability is result of the technological plateau of speed development.

I do not address maneuverability as a whole in this thread, just one small part of an aircrafts maneuverability picture.

So the answer to your original question:


Helltoupee asks:
Designers have been moving towards faster speeds?

Is a resounding, "YES!" Do not mistake a plateau in a general trend with the trend itself.

All the best,

Crumpp

BillSwagger
07-16-2009, 06:37 AM
Depending on the camp, and the intention, engineers would focus on different design proficiencies.

To say that one design feature was focused on or favored is hard to substantiate.
Neither side knew what the other was developing, so they just made planes that did their job and met satisfactory standards and probably made some advances to improve on past flaws or enemy engagements.

The air tactics changed when the war changed.

Kettenhunde
07-16-2009, 07:33 AM
To say that one design feature was focused on or favored is hard to substantiate.


It is not hard to substantiate.

NASA does it quite clearly.


A major objective in fighter aircraft design over the years has been the achievement of ever higher maximum speeds.


So won't MIT, Purdue, Embry Riddle, or any other school that has an aeronautical engineering department.

All the best,

Crumpp

Kettenhunde
07-16-2009, 08:13 AM
From the AIAA library:

http://img39.imageshack.us/img39/1734/speedinaircraftdesign.jpg (http://img39.imageshack.us/i/speedinaircraftdesign.jpg/)

http://img197.imageshack.us/img197/3064/speedn.jpg (http://img197.imageshack.us/i/speedn.jpg/)


All the best,

Crumpp

Xiolablu3
07-16-2009, 08:21 AM
Of course speed matters, but so do other factors, such as turning, climb/dive rate and manouverability.

Just as the F104 starfighter debacle showed. Speed is not the only thing that matters...

Many real life combat pilots feel that turning ability is extrememly important for a fighter. We have big heavy fighers nowadays becasue they NEED to carry big heavy bombs, lots of fuel and missiles. Not because people dont want a manouverable light fighter, which they do.

The F16 Falcon is a dogfighter with numerous innovations including a frameless, bubble canopy for better visibility, side-mounted control stick to ease control while under high g-forces, and reclined seat to reduce the effect of g-forces on the pilot. The F-16 has an internal M61 Vulcan cannon and has 11 hardpoints for mounting various missiles, bombs and pods. It was also the first fighter aircraft deliberately built to sustain 9-g turns. It has a thrust-to-weight ratio greater than one, providing power to climb and accelerate vertically — if necessary.

The best thing would OBVIOUSLY be to have a fighter which turned better AND was as fast as the opposition. Thats why we have fighters which include thrust vectoring and whole programs devoted to super-manouverability in fighters. And programs such as the "Lightweight Fighter program"
Based on his experiences in the Korean War and as a fighter tactics instructor in the early 1960s Colonel John Boyd and mathematician Thomas Christie developed the Energy-Maneuverability (E-M) theory to model a fighter aircraft's performance in combat. Maneuverability was the key to a process Boyd called the "OODA Loop" (for "Observation-Orientation-Decision-Action"). Boyd's work called for a small, lightweight aircraft with an increased thrust-to-weight ratio.

This lead to the F16.

JtD
07-16-2009, 08:37 AM
The paper, while a good read, is 30 years old.

I think speed is not as important anymore as it was in WW2. A few extra knots now don't give you the same advantage they did back then. The technology that evolved most in the last decades was computers. It shows on combat planes, too. Maybe just as fast, but way more deadly due to superior electronics.

Also, with no major conflict going on, the focus is much more on cost reduction than performance.

I also agree that the human is a limiting factor in the performance (hardly possible to fly supersonic tactical support with a human behind the stick), but so far the pro outweigh the cons. I tend to believe that the human will be the most efficient control unit for a combat plane for quite some more time.

Kettenhunde
07-16-2009, 08:38 AM
Speed is not the only thing that matters...

Let's not turn the discussion in another direction it has not taken, please.

I never said a thing about maneuverability and no such statement has been made about speed being the only thing that matters. Let's not attempt to imply that either.


Crumpp says:
This is why designers have moved towards faster speeds rather than concentrating on better sustained turn performance.


If the general design trend of fighter aircraft was toward sustained level turn performance, fighter designed would have progressed toward slower and lighter aircraft that can turn small circles at high rates like the Sopwith Camel.

Instead the general trend is towards heavier, more powerful, and faster fighter aircraft. That is a generally accepted fact you will hear in any engineering department.

All the best,

Crumpp

Kettenhunde
07-16-2009, 08:45 AM
I think speed is not as important anymore as it was in WW2.

We have reached a technological plateau.


Crumpp says:
the focus on sustained level turn as a portion of maneuverability is result of the technological plateau of speed development.


This is actually a plateau we are close to busting too. Future fighters will concentrate on combat at supersonic and very soon hypersonic speeds. Medium range and short range supersonic combat will require different design characteristics.

As always, the general design trend toward faster speed will continue as it has since the Orville and Wilbur first took to the air.


Do not mistake a plateau in a general trend with the trend itself.


All the best,

Crumpp

Xiolablu3
07-16-2009, 08:46 AM
Yes fighter aircraft are heavier, because planes like the F5 Freedom Fighter which have very tight turning circles cannot carry anywhere near the ordanance or fuel that the heavier fighters can.

The effort was put into making these heavier fighters turn better, rather than not care about turn rate and dismiss it as unimportant.

Using all sorts of expensive tech like thrust vectoring, the latest fighters turn very tightly at high G loads. Pilots also wear G-suits so they can sustain very tight turns at high speeds.

Lots of effort is made to make fighters still as light as possible.

'Not a pound for air to ground'

Kocur_
07-16-2009, 08:58 AM
Originally posted by horseback:
The RAF had a workable early warning system, which NO ONE had ever had before.

RAF indeed had something noone had before, that is radar-based early warning system. But EW systems existed before. They relied mostly on net of ground posts, which upon noticing enemy formation would give information to a local command center on their estimated course, altitude, strenght and so on. Information collected by local centers would be sent upwards to higher level or central command center. It worked well as long as there was enough of space between outer line of posts and raid's targets for the information to be distributed and for the fighters to get to the right place for interception.
In case of Geat Britain, due to obvious reasons the "early" part was not very much so, as it was a short trip from outer ground posts edge visibility range to the very heart of the nation, so radar was unusually precious invention. There were stand-off sonic-based detection devices, but were less and less efective as planes were getting faster.

I belive France had something like that and I'm positive Poland did. Without EW and command system P.11s would never intercept Luftwaffe formations, which they did on several occasions. They were far too slow to intercept anything above Hs 126 so being in the air at right time and place, 3D-wise, was the only chance.

Actually such non-radar EW systems are just weeks or maybe months younger than air raids themselves, as observers and public telephones were first used to provide information on incoming bomber after first Zeppelins raids on Paris and London. British Observers Corps created during WW1 was there during BoB and I belive it still exists.

JtD
07-16-2009, 08:58 AM
Originally posted by Kettenhunde:

We have reached a technological plateau.

I disagree with that, there is a lot of technological evolution just not revolution. It's not like 40 years of stand still.

There's nothing from keeping us to make fighters as fast as the SR.71, but as it currently is it offers no real benefits on the battlefield.

Bremspropeller
07-16-2009, 09:03 AM
Just as the F104 starfighter debacle showed. Speed is not the only thing that matters...

Well, that didn't hamper the 104 to be the best ACM-platform of the early sixties.
Well, maybe aside the Lightning.
But the Lightning had to declare a fuel emergency, onece it's gear was up http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

The 104 was actually a lot better than most people would guess and believe.
That's the work of the press.
It certainly had a marvellous reputation among the pilots.

The F-16 didn't quite come up after the "F-104 debacle" - it was moreover a fix for the F-4 situation.
The F-4 was a helluva aircraft.
But it was too big, carried too much a/g stuff around and didn't turn that well - it was never designed to do so - not even from the 50s standpoints (the F-8 and F-104 were DESIGNED to be fighters).

The F-4 actually could sustain a 7g turn - but only at very high subsonic speeds and thus it's radius was pretty bad.
The F-16 and F-18 were designed to get a better turnrate at lower speeds; the F-16 is actually limited to 25° AoA not because it's airframe isn't capable of more degrees, but because it would only kill it's turnrate.
The F-18 in turn can go a lot farthe, but at the expense of e-bleed. It also has the lower T/W-ratio.

That's details, however.

With the emerge of all-aspect IR-missiles and later on, with T/V-missiles and their high off-bore capability, turning itself is becoming a bit less imortant.
The ability of pointing the nose into one direction and sqeezing of a heater is f growing importance.
Modern IR-missiles really do have eye-watering turning and "e-management" capabilities.

Whether furure planes will be drones or not has yet to be determined, though.
The Brits thought that missiles would be the "future" of air-defense in the late 50s.
That's what cost them their role among the top producers of fighter aircraft.

Xiolablu3
07-16-2009, 09:05 AM
"The F-15's superior maneuverability and acceleration are achieved through high engine thrust-to-weight ratio and low wing loading. Low wing-loading (the ratio of aircraft weight to its wing area) is a vital factor in maneuverability and, combined with the high thrust-to-weight ratio, enables the aircraft to turn tightly without losing airspeed."

http://www.fas.org/programs/ss...air/fighter/f15.html (http://www.fas.org/programs/ssp/man/uswpns/air/fighter/f15.html)

Kettenhunde
07-16-2009, 09:11 AM
Yes fighter aircraft are heavier, because planes like the F5 Freedom Fighter which have very tight turning circles cannot carry anywhere near the ordanance or fuel that the heavier fighters can.

The effort was put into making these heavier fighters turn better, rather than not care about turn rate and dismiss it as unimportant.

Using all sorts of expensive tech like thrust vectoring, the latest fighters turn very tightly at high G loads. Pilots also wear G-suits so they can sustain very tight turns at high speeds.

Lots of effort is made to make fighters still as light as possible.

'Not a pound for air to ground'

We have reached a technological plateau.

Read what I write and please do not argue against points I am not making.

All the best,

Crumpp

Bremspropeller
07-16-2009, 09:19 AM
Low wing-loading (the ratio of aircraft weight to its wing area) is a vital factor in maneuverability and, combined with the high thrust-to-weight ratio, enables the aircraft to turn tightly without losing airspeed.

Not neccessaryly:
F-15s get kicked their butts quite often by F-16s in DACT (depends a lot on the pilots, though).
The F-16 has by far the higher wingloading.
While a low wing-load will certainly help, it's not the game-winner.


As said propably a thousand times before:
comparing two aircraft's turning-capabilities JUST by wing-loading is rubbish.

Lift is dynamic pressure * lift-coefficient * wing-area

There are THREE parametres to influence a plane's turning-capabilities.
Wingload is only one of them.
Most of the magic is done by the lift-coefficient part of the equation.

Kettenhunde
07-16-2009, 09:46 AM
Terms are being confused and mismatched leading to assumptions.

That is a very bad way to have a discussion about the science of aircraft. If we can't contain it, it is of little use to continue things. It digresses into "Crumpp is a Nazi" statements and personal attacks.

The original point and ONLY point is:

Aircraft designer seek speed as a primary characteristic. That is separate from the fact technology sometimes limits a designer pushing other parameters to the forefront.

Let’s not confuse sustained level turn ability with maneuverability, too.
My statements are restricted too the earlier discussion has been about sustained level turn.

Maneuverability is a recent addition to the thread that just popped up in the middle in rebuttal to statements I made about sustained level turn.

Sustained level turn is a subcomponent of maneuverability and by no means represents the entire maneuverability picture. In fact there are several notable designs that have poor sustained level turn ability but are considered extremely maneuverable fighter aircraft.

Maneuverability is a different subject.

Despite some misconceptions put forth, modern fighter design is moving away from considering sustained level turn as holding much significance to a combat fighter.

It is a misconception to think thrust vectoring, supersonic cruise, and super-maneuverability are designed for sustained performance enhancement. They are designed to defeat all aspect missiles and to increase instantaneous performance at high speed.

The Euro-fighter Typhoon is good example of this design philosophy.

http://img43.imageshack.us/img43/1842/instantvssustained.jpg (http://img43.imageshack.us/i/instantvssustained.jpg/)

All the best,

Crumpp

JtD
07-16-2009, 10:22 AM
You can keep repeating the technological plateau thing as often as you wish, the technology for higher speed is there. You can go faster, but you don't want to. The role of the fighter aircraft in this world does not require higher speeds than currently exist. It is more important to improve other aspects of combat aircraft. Each and every machine is a compromise. You rather go stealthy than fast today.

I'm not arguing that speed is more important than sustained level turn, which was your original point. In my opinion, you're absolutely right with that. I just disagree with your plateau argument and I'd disagree if you said that speed was one of the high importance development aspects today.

Maybe it's time for a modern fighter design philosophy topic.

Gammelpreusse
07-16-2009, 10:34 AM
Originally posted by JtD:
You can keep repeating the technological plateau thing as often as you wish, the technology for higher speed is there. You can go faster, but you don't want to. The role of the fighter aircraft in this world does not require higher speeds than currently exist. It is more important to improve other aspects of combat aircraft. Each and every machine is a compromise. You rather go stealthy than fast today.

I'm not arguing that speed is more important than sustained level turn, which was your original point. In my opinion, you're absolutely right with that. I just disagree with your plateau argument and I'd disagree if you said that speed was one of the high importance development aspects today.

Maybe it's time for a modern fighter design philosophy topic.

I may be wrong here, but is that technology you speak about in it's usage limited due to the extremly high costs and compromises you have to accept to make it work?

AFAIK costs and efforts raise expotentially the faster you go, one reason why supersonic aircraft are pretty much limited to military usage and the Concorede never made a profit.

Seen this way, and unless we get other engine technologies I can see Kettenhundes points.

BillSwagger
07-16-2009, 10:38 AM
It seems like more modern and future aircraft designs will take the pilot out of the physical cockpit and be controlled by a computer or satellite 1000s of miles away.

Kettenhunde
07-16-2009, 10:41 AM
JtD says:
You can go faster, but you don't want to.

Sure we do. That is why supersonic cruise is considered important. It was developed so we can fight in the supersonic realm of flight.

We didn’t sink billions into developing that technology just to concentrate on airplanes that sustain level turn in really small circles at subsonic speeds.


JtD says:
I just disagree with your plateau argument

You are free to disagree without issue from me.

It is a mistake to think it is my plateau argument, though.

It is a direct quote from NASA's Langley Center's History of Design Trends. I do agree with them on the subject.


A major objective in fighter aircraft design over the years has been the achievement of ever higher maximum speeds. In figure 11.43, the upper-bound curve of maximum speed as a function of years clearly....



....shows this trend and is characterized by a series of ever higher plateaus that correspond to different levels of technical capability.

http://img193.imageshack.us/img193/3369/speedplateaus.jpg (http://img193.imageshack.us/i/speedplateaus.jpg/)

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/pao/History/SP-468/ch11-7.htm


Billswagger says:
It seems like more modern and future aircraft designs will take the pilot out of the physical cockpit

That is where things are headed I think. In the future, it will be bandits at 99,000 feet as pilot adjusts the throttle on the hydrogen burning engines at the same time yells at the guys in the next room to turn down the TV and get him a sandwich from the fridge.

All the best,

Crumpp

JtD
07-16-2009, 12:36 PM
Originally posted by Gammelpreusse:

I may be wrong here, but is that technology you speak about in it's usage limited due to the extremly high costs and compromises you have to accept to make it work?

AFAIK costs and efforts raise expotentially the faster you go, one reason why supersonic aircraft are pretty much limited to military usage and the Concorede never made a profit.

Seen this way, and unless we get other engine technologies I can see Kettenhundes points.

With the given technologies you can make planes go faster than they do. Today engines are much better than the one from 30 or 40 years ago. Still, the trend is to make engines more efficient, not more powerful and to dedicate the resources saved by this to other, more important purposes. If speed was of the same importance as it was in WW2, you'd see faster planes.

JtD
07-16-2009, 01:03 PM
Originally posted by Kettenhunde:


Sure we do. That is why supersonic cruise is considered important. It was developed so we can fight in the supersonic realm of flight.

We didn’t sink billions into developing that technology just to concentrate on airplanes that sustain level turn in really small circles at subsonic speeds.

Actually supercruise is 50 years old and has been in military and civil use since then. So I'm not sure what you spent all these billions on.
Supercruise is more of an efficiency thing than a fighting thing anyway. There's not much more than flying straight at that speed anyway, unless you accept to fly it without a pilot.



It is a mistake to think it is my plateau argument, though.

It is your argument. I didn't say it was your idea or something.


It is a direct quote from NASA's Langley Center's History of Design Trends. I do agree with them on the subject.

It still is a single, 30 year old paper. Not the final truth to technological evolution on this planet.


A major objective in fighter aircraft design over the years has been the achievement of ever higher maximum speeds. In figure 11.43, the upper-bound curve of maximum speed as a function of years clearly......shows this trend and is characterized by a series of ever higher plateaus that correspond to different levels of technical capability.
http://img193.imageshack.us/img193/3369/speedplateaus.jpg (http://img193.imageshack.us/i/speedplateaus.jpg/)

I'd like to point out two things:
1st) The data points are highly selective.
2nd) Even with that selection you can basically put a curve of any desired shape into that graph and make it support any ideas you may have.

As a sidenote you can also see that the latest fighter designs don't go up to the maximum possible speed. The F-15 has a higher top speed than the F-22, and don't tell me the F-22 hit a plateau the F-15 got past 30 years ago.

Technological development ALWAYS is a combination of evolution and revolution. You have steps sometimes, maybe leaps, but there's always development in between. Sometimes this makes up the bigger part. And while I don't see any leaps since the realization of supersonic flight, I can see a lot of evolution.

With todays technology, it's not a question of how much you can, but of how much you want. And obviously, designers don't want speed as much as they did some time ago.

Don't think I need to push this further, it's a philosophy thing which is fun to discuss but not on an internet forum.

Kettenhunde
07-16-2009, 07:56 PM
Actually supercruise is 50 years old


The ability to reach and maintain supersonic speeds above mach 1.5 without the use of afterburner is a recent development.

It represents the ability to maneuver at speeds over 300knots faster than any of its competition.

It goes to further prove my point that the general design trend is to seek speed.


F-22 testing marks the first time in history a fighter has flown supercruise, sustaining speeds of Mach 1.5 or greater without using afterburner, achieved at a low power setting, and at less than 275 flight hours in the testing process



This capability greatly expands the F-22's operating envelope in both speed and range over current fighters that must use afterburner to operate at supersonic speeds.


http://www.f22-raptor.com/technology/supercruise.html


It still is a single, 30 year old paper. Not the final truth to technological evolution on this planet.


Ahh now you are going to attack the credibility of NASA's official history of aircraft design trends.

It is mirrors what I was taught in school and other papers on the subject as well. Some of those papers have already been referenced in this thread.

It focuses on a very narrow subject which the author and organization are well qualified to discuss, the design trends of aircraft.


As a sidenote you can also see that the latest fighter designs don't go up to the maximum possible speed. The F-15 has a higher top speed than the F-22, and don't tell me the F-22 hit a plateau the F-15 got past 30 years ago.


First the F-22 is not even on the chart.

Secondly you have no clue what Vmax the F-22 is capable of and neither do I. It is classified.

Consequently any speed estimate is pure conjecture.


The aircraft is much faster than an F-15 and is also a stealth fighter as well.

http://www.kitsune.addr.com/Ri...GAW_F-22E_Raptor.htm (http://www.kitsune.addr.com/Rifts/Rifts-Earth-Vehicles/Golden_Age/GAW_F-22E_Raptor.htm)

All the best,

Crumpp

SILVERFISH1992
07-16-2009, 08:01 PM
How about the F-35 Lightning II?

Its not as fast but it can hover. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif

danjama
07-16-2009, 08:25 PM
what's all of this got to do with combat tactics in the battle of britain?!

horseback
07-16-2009, 08:45 PM
Originally posted by SILVERFISH1992:
How about the F-35 Lightning II?

Its not as fast but it can hover. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif But NO WAY is it going to be able to turn with a Bf 109E if it doesn't have slats.

cheers

horseback

danjama
07-16-2009, 09:05 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

Kettenhunde
07-16-2009, 09:49 PM
what's all of this got to do with combat tactics in the battle of britain?!



Well you stretch it to say the BoB fighters were a match up of speed vs. level sustained turning ability.

It is just typical ubizoo and every topic morphs into something else.

If you go back about 4 pages sifting past the last few pages you will find some good info about the BoB fighters.

"All after" the discussion on Gallands quote is wrestling with one tangent after another.

Most of it due to terminology confusion as people read one thing and think it means something else.

All the best,

Crumpp

JtD
07-16-2009, 10:49 PM
Originally posted by Kettenhunde:

The ability to reach and maintain supersonic speeds above mach 1.5 without the use of afterburner is a recent development.

The Concorde could do this, too. 30 years old. It's not a technological limit.


It represents the ability to maneuver at speeds over 300knots faster than any of its competition.

Unless any of the other opposition uses the afterburner. 40 year old planes can maneuvre at the same speed, they are just using more fuel when doing so. So the focus were range and endurance, not speed.


Ahh now you are going to attack the credibility of NASA's official history of aircraft design trends.

No, I'm not.


First the F-22 is not even on the chart.

Yes, because it isn't 30 years old like the chart.


Secondly you have no clue what Vmax the F-22 is capable of and neither do I. It is classified.

Consequently any speed estimate is pure conjecture.

Maybe for you. There's enough data around to allow for acceptable estimates.


The aircraft is much faster than an F-15 and is also a stealth fighter as well.

Didn't you just say speed estimates are pure conjectures? Then why quote one?
Which, btw, is a reference to a pen and paper game, listing the in game stats for the F-22<span class="ev_code_red">E</span> and F-22<span class="ev_code_red">F</span>. They don't exist. It's interesting to see how far you're going to "prove" a point.

Over and out.

Kettenhunde
07-17-2009, 01:15 AM
Then why quote one?


I quoted it to highlight the futility of a nonsense comparison between the F-15 and the F-22 when you don't have any facts.

I think the conversation is done. You are entitled to your opinion just as I am. I don't see anything valid that overrides the findings of NASA, the AIAA, or my education so you are not going to convince me otherwise.

Thanks and good luck.

All the best,

Crumpp

Bremspropeller
07-17-2009, 02:50 AM
The Concorde could do this, too. 30 years old. It's not a technological limit.

No it couldn't.
I needed the burners up to M1.7 - only THEN, it could go back to dry power.


Unless any of the other opposition uses the afterburner. 40 year old planes can maneuvre at the same speed, they are just using more fuel when doing so. So the focus were range and endurance, not speed.

Depends.
Most fighters of the past generation have a fairly signifigant drop in G-capabilities above M1.0
The Typhoon for example could go 9g well into the supersonic regime.
The difference between past fighters having to rely on A/B and more modern design would be that today's fighters still had their afterburners up the sleeve.


Didn't you just say speed estimates are pure conjectures?

Sure they are, but the F-22 enjoys a higher thrust-to-weight than the F-15.
On top of that, the oft-quoted top-speed of the F-15 (M2.54) is only achievable by overspeeding the engines.
Thus, the operational "normal" top-speed should be somewhere near the M2.2 mark.

And on top of THAT, it's a matter of materials.
The 104 was limited by it's canopy and the aluminium-skin for example. Thrust/ drag wise, it could have gone much faster.

Don't know, how the stealth-paint/ skin of the F-22 handles high Mach-numbers...

HellToupee
07-17-2009, 03:10 AM
Originally posted by Bremspropeller:
No it couldn't.
I needed the burners up to M1.7 - only THEN, it could go back to dry power.

Uhh thats how most aircraft super cruise, the concord and others like the EE.Lighting could exceed the speed of sound without using After burners, but its actually more fuel efficient to use burners to get up to cruising speed faster.

Bremspropeller
07-17-2009, 03:47 AM
Uhh thats how most aircraft super cruise,

Supercruise is defined by "exceeding M1.0 at the use of dry power only".
That includes getting there.

Dou have any links to the Concorde being able of passing M1.0 without the burners?
As you said it's propably a matter of fuel-consumption over time used to reach M2.0

Being close to the range-limit, that actually makes a difference in being able to "make the trip" legally, or not.

JtD
07-17-2009, 07:48 AM
No it couldn't.
I needed the burners up to M1.7 - only THEN, it could go back to dry power.


It was a design feature of the Concorde to be able to make the transition without after burners. Any link dealing with the Concorde should contain the info.

Kettenhunde
07-17-2009, 11:11 AM
JtD says:
It was a design feature of the Concorde to be able to make the transition without after burners. Any link dealing with the Concorde should contain the info.

MMMM...


Concorde is the only civil airliner in service with a 'military style' afterburner system installed to produce more power at key stages of the flight. The reheat system, as it is officially known, injects fuel into the exhaust, and provides 6,000Lb of the total available thrust per engine at take off.



The reheats are turned back on, by the piano switches behind the thrust leavers, for around 10 minutes once the aircraft is clear of land, to push the aircraft through Mach1 and on to Mach1.7 where they are no longer required.


http://www.concordesst.com/powerplant.html


The crossing of the transonic barrier requires an increase of thrust. Four Olympus engines, at full throttle and champing at the bit, would puff in vain before the barrier. They would not have enabled me to take off at the weight planned for me. To reduce my weight when my cargo and passenger load amounted to only 6% of my total weight would have been suicidal. Therefore, we had to fire up Olympus: commonly called afterburning or reheat (1), a device used by supersonic fighters for their foray above Mach 1. Afterburning pushes strongly but delivers as a bonus a bucket full of decibels.

Moreover, its efficiency is horrible, lower than the first gasoline engines. Of course, at 25,000 feet the noise caused by the passage above Mach 1 would have bothered only the rare birds flying at that altitude. But used at take off, the noise level would outpass the norms already being imposed. Alas, there was no alternative to this inelegant manner to increase the thrust. The optimists estimated that the human ears would eventually grow accustomed to the noise.



Post-Combustion

The thrust in relation to aircraft weight is 1.66 times greater than that of a B.747. This explains Concorde's relatively short takeoff time.
This powerful thrust comes from a normal jet engine with the addition of a post-combustion system. The aim of post-combustion is to reheat the exhaust gases from the engine to increases thrust by 27%.
Post-combustion is used for takeoff and is cut by the pilot after 30 seconds to lessen noise. At this time you can feel a slight braking sensation.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The postcombustion.
In order to increase the push of a turbojet could be burned additional fuel in the take off and also in order to cross the transonic zone of Mach 1, point in which the aerodynamic resistance increases in considerable form. Upon appearing the airplanes to reaction, the pilots called to this problem "the barrier of the sound." The Concorde uses the Postcombustión between Mach 0.9 and Mach 1.7. The Postcombustión increases the temperature and the energy of the gas in the nozzle equally and allows to obtain 10 120 percent between a more than push. This supposes practically have the equivalent push to a second motor, but it demands to have a complex nozzle, variable in profile and area. When the Postcombustión is selected the nozzle it opens up more adopting a profile internal first convergent and after divergent order to provide supersonic push. This process is extremely noisy and is only used in supersonic airplanes..


http://www.concorde-jet.com/e_moteurs.htm