PDA

View Full Version : Got used to flying 109 with manual PP. Not that hard.



mortoma
11-01-2009, 09:48 PM
I have been messing with the latest 1.2 UI mod install and made myself and excellent Battle of Britain scenario to prepare for SOW. Most of the time I fly the modded 109E1 because I think it's cool to fly. Also have read a post or two in here where someone stated that most of the 109s in BOB had no automatic PP, only manual. Researched that and found it to be accurate. So of course I decided to try my hand at flying the 109 like the Germans really did it. And I am actually good at it now!!

Granted, it's much more challenging, not only getting kills but keeping yourself alive because it's one more thing to think about. But I find I'm finally able to survive most skirmishes and get a kill or two also lately. Adding to the challenge is the fact that you only have four small Mgs in the E1 and no cannons. So it take a lot more ammo and time to get a kill. This in turn of course gives a Spit AI to call in a friendly to tail you. Very tough fighting indeed......But if I can master the manual thing then I think most other people can too. Just make sure you go down to 10 or 20% PP in a hard dive and in a zoom climb you can go back up to 90 to 100% for a time. Most of the time you'll want to be in the 50 to 60% range at full throttle or near full throttle when flying level. I've also found that you can go past 2500 RPM, sometimes as high as 2700 RPM as long as it's only for a second or three, without damage to your engine. I've done it and then still afterward was able to chase down Spits and didn't hear funny engine noises either.

Eow_TK
11-01-2009, 09:54 PM
I didnt know there was manual pp? Is it on all of the models or only the MOD ones?

mortoma
11-01-2009, 10:11 PM
Originally posted by Eow_TK:
I didnt know there was manual pp? Is it on all of the models or only the MOD ones? No, it's available on all 109s, that come with the official releases. But it would be unrealistic to use it on a mid-war or late war 109. They had much more up to date automatic systems and a 109 pilot probably would not have used manual unless his auto system was damaged. Not absolutely sure about that, I'm no expert. But if you fly the Emil versions like the E4 and E7 that come with the official game it's not so unrealistic to use manual.

In order to use it, you have to go into 'controls' and bind a key or button to it. There is no default key or key combo for it. I don't think there is anyway.

M_Gunz
11-01-2009, 11:24 PM
Make sure you have a key or button set to toggle between automatic and manual control, and know where it is.

You should reassign keys in controls anyway since number keys are set to throttle and if you have a throttle then
you can set them up for prop pitch (unless you use a slider or rotary, then set em for mixture) so you don't have
to hold shift or something else (I switched mine over long ago, I forget the default) which is a pain in the a...

Important to me is binding the + and - 5% to just lower the pitch as the engine sounds too fast and bring it up
when the engine sounds too slow. I don't have to remember exactly where the pitch is, just increase/decrease as
needed and occasionally coordinate throttle

TooCooL34
11-02-2009, 01:05 AM
I'd concentrate more on SA, radiator control and my wingmen.
I might practise the skill if it were 1 vs 1 109-only-championship but aerial combat was never that kind of thing.

You do use TIR, don't you?
I saw many pilots without headtracker often stick to these kind of tricks to compensate poor SA and heat&E management, which looks like defeat was from performance inferiority.

Kurfurst__
11-02-2009, 02:55 AM
Originally posted by mortoma:
I have been messing with the latest 1.2 UI mod install and made myself and excellent Battle of Britain scenario to prepare for SOW. Most of the time I fly the modded 109E1 because I think it's cool to fly. Also have read a post or two in here where someone stated that most of the 109s in BOB had no automatic PP, only manual. Researched that and found it to be accurate. So of course I decided to try my hand at flying the 109 like the Germans really did it. And I am actually good at it now!!

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

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

BillSwagger
11-02-2009, 03:38 AM
Even pilots flying 109s would shift from auto to manual if they felt the need.

I know that auto is going to be more precise, but if I'm anticipating a dive then i'll manually shift it down, and then at the bottom of the dive click it back to auto.

I leave climbing to auto as well, but on some engines, particularly when its boosted i find i can get more out of the engine by running it
at a slightly lower rpm than where auto places it. Also, you can still fry your engine using auto while boosted in some situations.

whats cool is that while auto is on, i can adjust the manual pitch so when i click off auto it will go to where ever i set it.

IMO, 109 is a much faster plane if you know how to use the prop pitch, while others insist auto is better.

Kettenhunde
11-02-2009, 04:47 AM
most of the 109s in BOB had no automatic PP, only manual

Have they modelled the fixed pitch and two stage propellers the RAF used as well?

mortoma
11-02-2009, 09:09 AM
Originally posted by M_Gunz:
Make sure you have a key or button set to toggle between automatic and manual control, and know where it is.

You should reassign keys in controls anyway since number keys are set to throttle and if you have a throttle then
you can set them up for prop pitch (unless you use a slider or rotary, then set em for mixture) so you don't have
to hold shift or something else (I switched mine over long ago, I forget the default) which is a pain in the a...

Important to me is binding the + and - 5% to just lower the pitch as the engine sounds too fast and bring it up
when the engine sounds too slow. I don't have to remember exactly where the pitch is, just increase/decrease as
needed and occasionally coordinate throttle You did your keys exactly the same way I did it. I have my numbers ( not numpad numbers ) set up to change prop pitch. With 1 being 10% and 0 being 100%. I find that you don't need 0 to 5% proper pitch as 10% is as low as you ever need to go and that's in a literally straight down dive. The + and - keys are the ones I use the most because they more realistically emulate the rocker switch in the 109 cockpit. And the 5% increments is nicer.

mortoma
11-02-2009, 09:17 AM
Originally posted by TooCooL34:
I'd concentrate more on SA, radiator control and my wingmen.
I might practise the skill if it were 1 vs 1 109-only-championship but aerial combat was never that kind of thing.

You do use TIR, don't you?
I saw many pilots without headtracker often stick to these kind of tricks to compensate poor SA and heat&E management, which looks like defeat was from performance inferiority. Whatever do you mean? If you want to realistically mimic the way most German 109 pilots did it then you have to use manual. That's just the way it was.

mortoma
11-02-2009, 09:20 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 mortoma:
I have been messing with the latest 1.2 UI mod install and made myself and excellent Battle of Britain scenario to prepare for SOW. Most of the time I fly the modded 109E1 because I think it's cool to fly. Also have read a post or two in here where someone stated that most of the 109s in BOB had no automatic PP, only manual. Researched that and found it to be accurate. So of course I decided to try my hand at flying the 109 like the Germans really did it. And I am actually good at it now!!

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

Oleg said it will be modelled accordingly, there will be several versions of the Emil. Ones with auto and manual, and ones with manual PP only, as historically. Furthermore, there will be both E-1 and E-3, and you can probably choose between versions with the armored headrest and without. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>I didn't mean to say they didn't have it. I know that they had it. But few planes had it installed at the time and in most cases it didn't work very well. Maybe in the last month or two of the battle more 109s had it but at first very few did. According to some of the experts around here and some testimony from Luftwaffe pilots anyway.

Sillius_Sodus
11-03-2009, 12:06 AM
The 190 Antons are fun to fly with manual pitch control too.

Freiwillige
11-03-2009, 12:39 AM
Originally posted by Sillius_Sodus:
The 190 Antons are fun to fly with manual pitch control too.

Historically the Fw-190 Anton would never be flown on manual. The option only existed in an emergency when the Auto engine management system
(Kommandogerat) failed. When used outside the system RPM had to be reduced and the aircraft literally limped home.

Jaws2002
11-03-2009, 09:51 AM
That manual prop pitch in the 109 brings back memories. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

In first release of Forgotten Battles the emils HAD ONLY manual pitch. Fun times. Then I remember the K4's screaming with the manual pitch assigned on a slider. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/inlove.gifhttp://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/metal.gif I burned so many engines. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif That was a lot of work with the fast reacting K4 pitch back then. All our squad was flying 109's on manual http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif... I'm a lazy guy, so I switched to 190's. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif

stalkervision
11-03-2009, 10:01 AM
Originally posted by Jaws2002:
That manual prop pitch in the 109 brings back memories. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

In first release of Forgotten Battles the emils HAD ONLY manual pitch. Fun times. Then I remember the K4's screaming with the manual pitch assigned on a slider. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/inlove.gifhttp://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/metal.gif I burned so many engines. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif That was a lot of work with the fast reacting K4 pitch back then. All our squad was flying 109's on manual http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif... I'm a lazy guy, so I switched to 190's. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif

putting the manual prop pitch on a slider.. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif


Ya I'm lazy too jaws. That is why I always assign all these functions as "auto" http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Jaws2002
11-03-2009, 10:16 AM
Back then the prop pitch was reacting instantly to imput. In il-2 there's an advantage when assigning tasks on sliders or analog dials. You can control the prop pitch with buttons in 5% increments. With a slider (when assigned in the "Hotas" area of the controls menu), you have 1% increments, so you have a lot more precise control over the prop pitch. In the late 109's, which are very sensitive to pitch changes, that could mean the difference between being faster or destroying your engine.

Sort of the same problem with assigning trim on a slider instead of buttons. On slider the trim reacts instantly, on buttons there's a long delay.

stalkervision
11-03-2009, 10:21 AM
Cool! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif sliders for everything! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

can you imagine a joystick with all sliders. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Jaws2002
11-03-2009, 10:27 AM
That's why i never got the CH throttle to go with my CH stick and CH pedals. No sliders. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif
I got an x-45 and use the analog rotary dials for pp and trim. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/metal.gif Power and agility at my finger tips. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

horseback
11-03-2009, 02:10 PM
Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> most of the 109s in BOB had no automatic PP, only manual

Have they modelled the fixed pitch and two stage propellers the RAF used as well? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>I haven't seen anything that would say one way or the other, but my reading indicates that the Hurricane and Spitfire squadrons closest to the Channel had fully CSP units by August of 1940, even to the point of some Spits getting the units (complete with bulbous spinner) originally intended for a Hurricane.

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

Hopefully, if Oleg includes these models, he will 'issue' them to the offline player in a historically correct time/place setting.

cheers

horseback

Kettenhunde
11-05-2009, 05:51 AM
Hurricane and Spitfire squadrons closest to the Channel


Units in Northern Ireland and northern half of the UK

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

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

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

All the best,

Crumpp

M_Gunz
11-05-2009, 06:04 AM
Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Hurricane and Spitfire squadrons closest to the Channel


Units in Northern Ireland and northern half of the UK

The Squadrons rotated according to the official RAF history on a regular basis. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

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

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

hop2002
11-05-2009, 06:53 AM
Units in Northern Ireland and northern half of the UK may have still had fixed or two stage prop units as late as that winter (1940/41), but again, I don't recall anything specifically mentioned.

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

Buzzsaw-
11-05-2009, 11:00 AM
Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Hurricane and Spitfire squadrons closest to the Channel


Units in Northern Ireland and northern half of the UK

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

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

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

All the best,

Crumpp </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Complete nonsense.

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

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/19sqdn-orb-1nov39.jpg

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

http://www.spitfireperformance.../611-dhprop-june.jpg (http://www.spitfireperformance.com/611-dhprop-june.jpg)

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

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

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

Material courtesy Mike William's Spitfire site:

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

Buzzsaw-
11-05-2009, 11:07 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 mortoma:
I have been messing with the latest 1.2 UI mod install and made myself and excellent Battle of Britain scenario to prepare for SOW. Most of the time I fly the modded 109E1 because I think it's cool to fly. Also have read a post or two in here where someone stated that most of the 109s in BOB had no automatic PP, only manual. Researched that and found it to be accurate. So of course I decided to try my hand at flying the 109 like the Germans really did it. And I am actually good at it now!!

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

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

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

horseback
11-05-2009, 01:18 PM
Re: rotating squadrons to the front during BoB.

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

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

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

cheers

horseback

Kettenhunde
11-05-2009, 03:20 PM
According to Spitfire the History, all the Spitfires and Hurricanes in the UK, including those in storage, were converted by 16 August 1940.



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

All the best,

Crumpp

Kurfurst__
11-05-2009, 04:30 PM
Originally posted by Buzzsaw-:
Kurfurst's suggestion that all 109's were flying with auto pitch prior to Sept. of 1940, and that pilots used an auto system has no grounds in fact. I would suggest he provide some proof before making such absurd claims.

Not that anyone would actually believe anything you say, but its always fun to wipe the floor with you. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

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

http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e133/Kurfurst/109_stuff/Verstellautomatik_16Dec1939_Bf109E_.jpg

stalkervision
11-05-2009, 04:39 PM
I can't read german. what does it say Kurf?

Kurfurst__
11-05-2009, 04:45 PM
Originally posted by stalkervision:
I can't read german. what does it say Kurf?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Buzzsaw-
11-06-2009, 12:07 AM
Salute

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

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


Report on the 109E3 tested by the RAF:

(for reference, this test is posted on Kurfurst's site: http://www.kurfurst.org/Tactic...UKtrials/Morgan.html (http://www.kurfurst.org/Tactical_trials/109E_UKtrials/Morgan.html) )

<<<

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

<<<

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

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

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

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

How do you explain all this Kurfie?

hop2002
11-06-2009, 01:45 AM
Ulrich Steinhilper, Spitfire on my Tail:


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

Kurfurst__
11-06-2009, 03:48 AM
Originally posted by Buzzsaw-:
Salute

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

Dear Sir, I call you a liar.

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


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

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

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

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

See the Dashboard of WNr 4101 (via Lynn Ritger)

http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e133/Kurfurst/WNr4101_Verstellautomatiknotiz_viaR.jpg

Bremspropeller
11-06-2009, 08:37 AM
Once again we get the usual <span class="ev_code_PINK">Kurfurst</span> technique of providing only a cropped and edited source.

One can almost grab the irony of this statement. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

Kettenhunde
11-06-2009, 09:43 AM
From DH's POV the work was done but to the RAF, it was not completed.

http://img265.imageshack.us/img265/8048/csprop.jpg (http://img265.imageshack.us/i/csprop.jpg/)

http://img40.imageshack.us/img40/519/cspropii.jpg (http://img40.imageshack.us/i/cspropii.jpg/)


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

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

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

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


All the best,

Crumpp

hop2002
11-06-2009, 11:32 AM
The facts are DH says the conversion was completed and the RAF says it was not completed.

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

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

Kettenhunde
11-06-2009, 12:06 PM
That's not quite what it says.

When you remove the authorís interpolation that is what it says hop.

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

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

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

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


All the best,

Crumpp

stalkervision
11-06-2009, 04:25 PM
I had always thought the two pitch propeller was also 2-bladed. This was not the case, the two pitch propellers were also 3 bladed and indistinguishable from a photograph if converted to CSP.

Me too. we've been had. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

M_Gunz
11-06-2009, 07:44 PM
What about the Hurricanes?

Kettenhunde
11-07-2009, 10:03 AM
What about the Hurricanes?


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

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

M_Gunz
11-07-2009, 11:44 AM
And all new ones being produced with CSP? 500 that go to the units most needing them, not spread out?

Kettenhunde
11-07-2009, 12:00 PM
The 500 unitís accounts for roughly half of the existing airframes of Hurricanes and Spitfires the RAF has on hand in June/July 1940. New production delivered in August most likely came off the production line with the modification of the 2 speed DH propeller to CSP.

M_Gunz
11-07-2009, 02:49 PM
I would have expected the Spitfires to get priority on the new props and weren't most RAF fighters Hurricanes?
Roughly half of the existing airframes is more than the number of Spits at the time wasn't it? You wouldn't
happen to have numbers existing even if you don't numbers converted by any date? Were there 600 or so RAF
fighters total at the start?

Buzzsaw-
11-07-2009, 03:41 PM
Notice how Kurfurst has changed his tune when confronted with the facts.

The cropped document he produced earlier he used to claim most 109's had auto pitch, implying only the first aircraft built in 1938 were not equipped.


Originally posted by Kurfurst__:

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

When confronted with the fact that a 109 built in mid '39 doesn't have one, he backtracks and suggests the device was introduced in Nov/Dec. '39.


Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
early production aircraft which did not yet have the automatic propeller pitch device (which appears to have been introduced in around November - December 1939

When he is faced with the issue of the pilot accounts from 1940, of flying with manual pitch, he backtracks further.


Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
we can certainly say that I./JG 52 and II./JG 53 had planes from probably still an earlier batch, that were not fitted with the new device for some time.


In fact, he has to resort to the example of a captured 109E4 example to actually provide proof that 109E's were equipped with auto pitch.


Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
Bf 109E-4/B WNr. 4101 (appearantly it was a rebuild from an older E-3, and before that, an E-1), originally built by Erla in 1939 as an E-1

And anyone following the discussion will notice he has STILL not posted the complete document from where he produced the cropped and edited page on which he based his original claim... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

I doubt we'll see it.

Buzzsaw-
11-07-2009, 03:51 PM
Salute

Crummp you seem to be having a problem in reading exactly what is written.

The actual maintenance technicians report the work having been done, it is only the paper pushers who are raising an issue, since they didn't get the proper forms issued to them.

Further proof is in this document, which notes that all conversions were scheduled to be done by September '40, and also reveals the answer to the question as to when the Hurricane two pitch models were converted:

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/hurricane/hurricane-csprop.jpg

Hurricanes were given 2nd priority in conversion to constant speed propellors behind the Spitfires.

Note the reference to all Spitfires being finished by September, and also note that Spitfire Squadrons based in Kent and Wessex would be converted first, the Squadrons based in Northern England, Northern Ireland and other low combat areas were the last to be converted in September.

Note also, that CSP equipped Hurricane 1B's were being supplied in priority to front line Squadrons, and two pitch models were removed to low combat areas.

The first CSP Hurricanes were in combat as early as April of 1940 in France:

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/hurricane/1-orb-18april40.jpg

Material supplied courtesy WWII Aircraft Performance site:

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/

Kurfurst__
11-07-2009, 04:13 PM
Originally posted by Buzzsaw-:
Notice how Kurfurst has changed his tune when confronted with the facts.

Nobody backtracks from anything, I am stating the same all along the way, while you are using pathethic strawman arguements, and try some sort of lousy trick to force me into posting the whole manual so you could have it. Its so transparent that I am actually embarrassed instead of you...

Tell you what, if only you have asked it nicely, you'd already have it. This way, on the other hand, you only further established yourself as a hapless fool. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

TheGrunch
11-07-2009, 05:07 PM
Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
Tell you what, if only you have asked it nicely, you'd already have it. This way, on the other hand, you only further established yourself as a hapless fool. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif
Could I have the manual please, Kurfurst? Pretty please? I can only find a (presumably) earlier one, and the only page that seems to be scanned from the original is the front cover. Is the manual you are quoting from scanned from the original document?

Kettenhunde
11-07-2009, 05:14 PM
Seems to me that adoption of a CSP was pretty much the same for both the RAF and Luftwaffe. The RAF converting from dual pitch propellers at the same time the Luftwaffe converted from variable pitch propellers.

The RAF converted much later than I originally thought.

All the best,

Crumpp

Buzzsaw-
11-07-2009, 05:15 PM
Originally posted by Kurfurst__:

...you are using pathethic strawman arguements, and try some sort of lousy trick to force me into posting the whole manual so you could have it.

Now why would anyone want to restrict other's access to original documents?

Why wouldn't that person post them so they are all public and open for all to see?

Very strange. Unless that person is more interested in controlling access to the facts.

If anyone goes to the WWII Aircraft site, they will see original documents, unedited posted to support the text:

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/

This contrasts with Kurfurst's site, where only documents which have already been posted at other sites in orginal unedited form are made available:

http://www.kurfurst.org/

Kettenhunde
11-07-2009, 05:29 PM
The cropped document he produced earlier he used to claim most 109's had auto pitch,


I don't understand what your issue is buzzsaw. It is a fact the VDM propeller for the Bf-109E was the standard hydraulic-electric CSP produced and patented by VDM.

All the best,

Crumpp

Kurfurst__
11-07-2009, 05:35 PM
Originally posted by TheGrunch:
Could I have the manual please, Kurfurst? Pretty please? I can only find a (presumably) earlier one, and the only page that seems to be scanned from the original is the front cover. Is the manual you are quoting from scanned from the original document?

Drop me an email at kurfurst@atw.hu ! Its from the complete short manual for E-1 and E-3, sent over to me by a friend long time ago.

Kettenhunde
11-07-2009, 06:16 PM
Now why would anyone want to restrict other's access to original documents?

Because your behavior precludes you from participating in any serious discussion and causes you to be ignored as I will continue to do after this reply.

You are impossible to take seriously, buzzsaw.

Go back and read the documents you posted. You can't follow a conversation and in fact just confirmed what M_Gunz and I were discussing.

Your memo about the Hurricane confirms the RAF position that the CSP upgrade was NOT completed in July but in fact took much longer than DH claims. The document confirms that work cannot start any earlier than middle September 1940 and they estimate they can possibly finish in the Autumn. It says absolutely nothing about the work is completed.

It talks about the rotol CSP as being standard too. The rotol CSP does not represent a performance increase over the 2 speed propellers according to the RAF. The RAF was not happy with its delivered performance which is why the DH propeller was sought after to replace it.

All the best,

Crumpp

M_Gunz
11-07-2009, 06:17 PM
Originally posted by Buzzsaw-:
In fact, he has to resort to the example of a captured 109E4 example to actually provide proof that 109E's were equipped with auto pitch.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
Bf 109E-4/B WNr. 4101 (appearantly it was a rebuild from an older E-3, and before that, an E-1), originally built by Erla in 1939 as an E-1

And anyone following the discussion will notice he has STILL not posted the complete document from where he produced the cropped and edited page on which he based his original claim... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

I doubt we'll see it. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

If I followed that part of the discussion then I remember that he was pointing out just what 109 someone else's British
report was about. You know, that report that told of the captured 109 having no auto-prop that somehow proves the 109's
in the BoB that did not have auto-prop.
All that Kurfurst did was to show the so-called proof invalid, he didn't originate it nor did he choose the report.

Buzzsaw-
11-07-2009, 06:55 PM
Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Now why would anyone want to restrict other's access to original documents?

Because your behavior precludes you from participating in any serious discussion and causes you to be ignored as I will continue to do after this reply.

You are impossible to take seriously, buzzsaw.

Go back and read the documents you posted. You can't follow a conversation and in fact just confirmed what M_Gunz and I were discussing.

Your memo about the Hurricane confirms the RAF position that the CSP upgrade was NOT completed in July but in fact took much longer than DH claims. The document confirms that work cannot start any earlier than middle September 1940 and they estimate they can possibly finish in the Autumn. It says absolutely nothing about the work is completed.

It talks about the rotol CSP as being standard too. The rotol CSP does not represent a performance increase over the 2 speed propellers according to the RAF. The RAF was not happy with its delivered performance which is why the DH propeller was sought after to replace it.

All the best,

Crumpp </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Once again Crumpp imposes a 'Ban' on those who make a point that causes him to look foolish.

Actually Crumpp you are the one who can't follow a discussion. I have already posted documents which clearly show the Spitfire had far superior climb performance with the Rotol CSP prop, your claim to the contrary not withstanding. (go back and re-read the thread) So your claim that is shows no improvement is clearly incorrect.

Regarding the adhoc de Havilland mods, which were done without formal paperwork authorization from the RAF, they are just another example of the conversions from two pitch to CSP which took place in the emergency enviroment which was a fact in June of 1940. The fact that you can't read the documents you posted yourself is a clear indication of a tendency which has been noted by others. That being a refusal to acknowledge anything which might contradict your imagined infallability.

Bremspropeller
11-07-2009, 08:12 PM
You are impossible to take seriously, buzzsaw.

That's just what I've been saying for years. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif