PDA

View Full Version : Finnish 109 ace reviews



LLv34_Stafroty
06-06-2005, 12:34 PM
interview of finnish 109 ace Hemmo Leino. Its not writed clear, its just how he said things in interview. recorded on tape and from there writed up in computer.



http://www.virtualpilots.fi/en/hist/WW2History-HemmoLeino.html#r5jak
(R-5:n pudotus, kahinoita Jak-9:en kanssa)

Q: did enemyplanes ever got chace to shoot at you? did they hit?
A: Not really.. Couple of holes the got but really not much. Just there, last fight it was, where (enemy) got place to shoot a bit. But that also because of accident. It was one of those cases, where there come two yak-9:s towards me. They came from North side and got me turn like this.W were just at one 1500m . They then started like, they were bit higher than i was when they come toward me. I was coming from South and i got red light already lite up, cos field was just at near. I was heading at Lappeenranta but when they turned behind me, i had to start drive upwards.

Q:spiral?
A: Spiral yes. There we go then. At the end we did go at five thousand and i didnt remember to take oxygen myself. All the time i was just looking that, how could i get gasoline last enought o time. we just did go Spiral, circling only. Always when i saw, that now he is gonna shoot, cos he was trying to take lead, then i just tightened my stick and always he missed. But two hits i heard and two holes there was when i arrived at Lappeenranta. But what i was meaning, that if gasoline will last long enought, then i just walk. Thought this is so delicious moment, that i could not let him leave, even if i run out of fuel in process, cos airfield was just under me. What was the airfield, oh **** cant remember. (looked at map)
Its just there next to Viipuri, there was beatiful officers club.
it could been Suurmerijoki. (for ocean operations)
was thinkin that i could make there emergency landing. I was thinking, thta i will down him, im enought already... That im that light now, that i will climb better than them. I had no problems. first one after another,and the rear one could not shoot at me at all.
But the first one, he was pulling always, to get somekind of lead there and..
It was bit special situation, that i got one course mate, who fell down at Aunus, went straitght down on Ӟ¤nisj¤rvi. He was flying curtis and he got oxygen malfunction. He didnt get oxygen and died there. And when we were reaching 5000m i was also forget my oxygen, I started to see that mate, Anderson Lasse, His smiling fave( Lars Andersen, SLM 806, killed 29.2.1944) Then i realized, **** im running out of breath and quickly grab my oxygen mask then we continues bit of time. Then noticed that ok, now boys aint staying with me anymore, first turned one, then other right aftrer and me as 3th one. and then i shot em long time, and that who i first shot at, that i was sure about that he will fall. At otherone i also shot abit. but then i reduced throttle and take heading at Lappeenranta. I wasnt sure, that- i couldnt be sure cos i didnt see them fall on ground. Then i still reported em both. And now i can see on Geust list both names, that indeed i got em both down. Next day same thing, two yak-'9:s again down, according to Geust. I dont know how mates, how they are able to see when in really good fight, how they can track and observe, that now that and that plane goes down. i always anyway had that kinda situation, that im **** happy when i get departed from fight and i notice,that it there wasnt anything to worry about. Never i got idea, that i start o look that do they fall down in ground. Yea, it wont intrest you at that moment. Idon know, i just wonder how when in situation it could start intrest you, when ur under pressure, that does someone fall down on ground. It doesnt intrest at all. Then when things starts to settle down and calm, you start to think - dang did it fall... did i get anything

Q: could you look at wreck?
A: yea. But i cant remember... Few times ive seen. Ive seen many times when others shoots, but not those i myself shot at. But its good, that we got someone like Geust, he inpects these things for us. But i cant go, i am satisfied, what is officially pointed at me. Those arent that way at least at overlcaims. Its most important that we didnt go at false claims way.
Well, there did come couple of holes, not much other then.... hits were in rear, where i suspected them to be. Always they tried... but always they shot behind, cos didtn get lead.

Q:How easy it was to follow those who were behind you?
A: Sure you could follow them. That was nothing. I actually saw when he.. It teached me to notice, that now he, soon he shoots, cos he tightened and u clearly saw that he is trying... Actually it was rather Funny. There was nothign to worry about.

Q:was the climb how tight spiral climb?
A: Yes it was at best climb rate. aproxmitaly.


This pilot says that it was rather funny to look behind you when u got yak 9 in your six trying to pull lead and you tighter as well when he does.. Doesnt this say something what that russian veteran as well said about turning ability of 109:S.

now it seems that most of the simmers think that 109 didnt turn at all, that it was lousy in such kind of fighting, but, how many of us realise, that it is the safest way to fight, when making BnZ, you dont tie urself in slow turnfight, just slash the enemy and climb, if he follows climb, other team mate will bounce him off from hanging there, with no risk at all. Why would anyone risk their life for purpose, if you can do things in safe way? well, marseille didnt do thinkgs in safest way,b ut he didt get killed by doing it..

think that and Mark Hannas and Eric Browns commments about 109.

Flaws were that it didnt have much fuel, which reduced its capability but made it as light and maneuverable.

LLv34_Stafroty
06-06-2005, 12:34 PM
interview of finnish 109 ace Hemmo Leino. Its not writed clear, its just how he said things in interview. recorded on tape and from there writed up in computer.



http://www.virtualpilots.fi/en/hist/WW2History-HemmoLeino.html#r5jak
(R-5:n pudotus, kahinoita Jak-9:en kanssa)

Q: did enemyplanes ever got chace to shoot at you? did they hit?
A: Not really.. Couple of holes the got but really not much. Just there, last fight it was, where (enemy) got place to shoot a bit. But that also because of accident. It was one of those cases, where there come two yak-9:s towards me. They came from North side and got me turn like this.W were just at one 1500m . They then started like, they were bit higher than i was when they come toward me. I was coming from South and i got red light already lite up, cos field was just at near. I was heading at Lappeenranta but when they turned behind me, i had to start drive upwards.

Q:spiral?
A: Spiral yes. There we go then. At the end we did go at five thousand and i didnt remember to take oxygen myself. All the time i was just looking that, how could i get gasoline last enought o time. we just did go Spiral, circling only. Always when i saw, that now he is gonna shoot, cos he was trying to take lead, then i just tightened my stick and always he missed. But two hits i heard and two holes there was when i arrived at Lappeenranta. But what i was meaning, that if gasoline will last long enought, then i just walk. Thought this is so delicious moment, that i could not let him leave, even if i run out of fuel in process, cos airfield was just under me. What was the airfield, oh **** cant remember. (looked at map)
Its just there next to Viipuri, there was beatiful officers club.
it could been Suurmerijoki. (for ocean operations)
was thinkin that i could make there emergency landing. I was thinking, thta i will down him, im enought already... That im that light now, that i will climb better than them. I had no problems. first one after another,and the rear one could not shoot at me at all.
But the first one, he was pulling always, to get somekind of lead there and..
It was bit special situation, that i got one course mate, who fell down at Aunus, went straitght down on Ӟ¤nisj¤rvi. He was flying curtis and he got oxygen malfunction. He didnt get oxygen and died there. And when we were reaching 5000m i was also forget my oxygen, I started to see that mate, Anderson Lasse, His smiling fave( Lars Andersen, SLM 806, killed 29.2.1944) Then i realized, **** im running out of breath and quickly grab my oxygen mask then we continues bit of time. Then noticed that ok, now boys aint staying with me anymore, first turned one, then other right aftrer and me as 3th one. and then i shot em long time, and that who i first shot at, that i was sure about that he will fall. At otherone i also shot abit. but then i reduced throttle and take heading at Lappeenranta. I wasnt sure, that- i couldnt be sure cos i didnt see them fall on ground. Then i still reported em both. And now i can see on Geust list both names, that indeed i got em both down. Next day same thing, two yak-'9:s again down, according to Geust. I dont know how mates, how they are able to see when in really good fight, how they can track and observe, that now that and that plane goes down. i always anyway had that kinda situation, that im **** happy when i get departed from fight and i notice,that it there wasnt anything to worry about. Never i got idea, that i start o look that do they fall down in ground. Yea, it wont intrest you at that moment. Idon know, i just wonder how when in situation it could start intrest you, when ur under pressure, that does someone fall down on ground. It doesnt intrest at all. Then when things starts to settle down and calm, you start to think - dang did it fall... did i get anything

Q: could you look at wreck?
A: yea. But i cant remember... Few times ive seen. Ive seen many times when others shoots, but not those i myself shot at. But its good, that we got someone like Geust, he inpects these things for us. But i cant go, i am satisfied, what is officially pointed at me. Those arent that way at least at overlcaims. Its most important that we didnt go at false claims way.
Well, there did come couple of holes, not much other then.... hits were in rear, where i suspected them to be. Always they tried... but always they shot behind, cos didtn get lead.

Q:How easy it was to follow those who were behind you?
A: Sure you could follow them. That was nothing. I actually saw when he.. It teached me to notice, that now he, soon he shoots, cos he tightened and u clearly saw that he is trying... Actually it was rather Funny. There was nothign to worry about.

Q:was the climb how tight spiral climb?
A: Yes it was at best climb rate. aproxmitaly.


This pilot says that it was rather funny to look behind you when u got yak 9 in your six trying to pull lead and you tighter as well when he does.. Doesnt this say something what that russian veteran as well said about turning ability of 109:S.

now it seems that most of the simmers think that 109 didnt turn at all, that it was lousy in such kind of fighting, but, how many of us realise, that it is the safest way to fight, when making BnZ, you dont tie urself in slow turnfight, just slash the enemy and climb, if he follows climb, other team mate will bounce him off from hanging there, with no risk at all. Why would anyone risk their life for purpose, if you can do things in safe way? well, marseille didnt do thinkgs in safest way,b ut he didt get killed by doing it..

think that and Mark Hannas and Eric Browns commments about 109.

Flaws were that it didnt have much fuel, which reduced its capability but made it as light and maneuverable.

anasteksi
06-06-2005, 01:08 PM
aika helmi! millon toi on otettu yl¶s?

LLv34_Stafroty
06-06-2005, 01:11 PM
siin o linkki ja hae sill¤ nimijutul mit¤ siin lukee alla

BigganD
06-06-2005, 01:16 PM
109 was a good turner, and it is getting better in every patch..

anasteksi
06-06-2005, 01:23 PM
i hope it will be better in 4.0 http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Buzzsaw-
06-06-2005, 01:27 PM
Salute

This is not a description of a horizontal turnfight, but a description of a 109 evading by doing a spiral climb at best climb speed, ie. 270 kph.

Considering the 109G2 and G6, (not sure which one this pilot was flying) had a much better climbrate than the Yak-9, it is not surprising that it would be possible to out spiral climb a Yak.

In a horizontal turnfight, it would be a different matter.

In the game it is very easy to do just this type of maneuver with the 109.

Here is a more accurate translation, from the English side of the Icebreakers site:

-------

It was a case as two Yak-9s came toward me. They approached from the North and made me turn at them. The altitude was about one and a half thousand (meters). They engaged me, being a little above. I was coming from South and my red light was on (indicating low fuel), because our base was nearby. I was heading for Lappeenranta but as they slipped behind my back I had to start climbing.

In a spiral climb??
Yes, a spiral. We kept climbing. Finally we were at 5000m and I had forgotten to put on the oxygen mask. All the time I was worrying how far my petrol reserve would take me. We kept going round and round in a spiral. Each time I saw the enemy was about to shoot I pulled some more and each time he missed. But I heard two snaps and I came to Lappeenranta with two holes. But my underlying intention was that in case there is enough fuel, I shall take a shoot. I thought this is such a juicy situation that I shall not let them out of my hands even though I should run out of petrol, because there was an airfield just below. Which airfield was it? I can't recall, it was the old base with a manor as the Officer Mess. We did not operate from there...
(looking for the airfield in maps)
It was just next to Viipuri. There was this grand Officer Mess.
Suur-Merijoki maybe, the seaplane base?
Suur-Merijoki right! We had talked about it, and decided that one could make an emergency landing there. I was thinking that I shall get him, I have enough... <span class="ev_code_RED">My plane was so light that I was able to climb better than they could.</span> There were no problems. We flew nose to tail and the rearmost Yak had no chance of shooting. But the one behind me kept jerking, trying to get deflection ...
It was such a special situation, that I have a training mate who was killed in Olonez, he vertically dived in the Lake Oneg He did not get enough oxygen and it killed him. And I, too, had forgotten about my oxygen when approaching five thousand (meters). The face of my mate, Lasse Andersen, appeared to me before my eyes. (Lars Andersen was killed on 29 Feb 1944). Then it dawned to me, oh my, I shall be short of breath soon, I grabbed my oxygen mask and kept turning. Then I saw the (Russian) boys were being left behind. First one turned and dived, then the other one and I as the third. Then I kept shooting at them as long as I could. I was sure that the first one I fired at was in my opinion definitely going to fall. I got to shoot at the other one too, but then I throttled back and took direction to Lappeenrant I was not sure, I could not be sure because I had not seen them crash. Yet I reported them. Now that I can find in the Geust list both names, so they both fell down.
And the very next day the same thing. Another two, another two Yak-9s (shot down) according to Geust. I don't know how fellows are able to see in a real intense scrap, how they can observe a plane going down and crash. I always was in such situation that I was **** satisfied getting disengaged and finding that that one will not be a problem anymore. It never occurred to me to watch whether he hit the ground. Yes, it is not interesting at that stage. I don't know, I wonder how in such a situation someone, under stress, can be interested in watching whether the victim goes down or not. It is not in the least interesting. When you have calmed down then you start thinking "Did he fall - did I shoot down something?"

You could have inspected the wreck?
Well, I cannot recall...I have seen some. I often have seen how others have shot, but I never checked the own ones... It is great that there is someone like Geust researching these things for Several I cannot make any new demands, I am satisfied with the score officially credited to me. At least it is not exaggerated. The main thing is that I did not make a career as storyteller.
Well, I did have a couple of holes. Not many other cases...The hits were in the rear, where I guessed they would be. They kept trying. But always they lagged behind, being unable to take deflection.

How well could you observe those pursuers?
It could be done quite well. There was nothing. I did see when he would...I learned to notice that there, now he is about to shoot because he tightened his turn and it could be seen that he tried... Actually it was very amusing. I was not in any trouble.
How steep was the climbing angle?
It was about the optimal rate of climb

----------

This is a basic tactic which those who fly on the servers call "rope a dope". Ie. the better climbing plane spirals till the poorer climbing aircraft stalls out, then the higher plane hammerheads and is on the lower aircraft's tail.

The only difference in the game, is that because the later 109's stall speed and manual prop pitch are so poorly modelled, they can spiral climb at 200 kph, in their 'helicopter' climb.

Buzzsaw-
06-06-2005, 01:51 PM
Salute

Full English interview with Hemmo Leino courtesy the ICEBREAKERS:

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

LLv34_Stafroty
06-06-2005, 01:57 PM
wow, i was tryin to find that in english but i didnt http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif thx for finding it out http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

notice Buzzu when he says: How well could you observe those pursuers?
It could be done quite well. There was nothing. I did see when he would...I learned to notice that there, now he is about to shoot because he tightened his turn and it could be seen that he tried... Actually it was very amusing. I was not in any trouble.
How steep was the climbing angle?
It was about the optimal rate of climb

The English version sounds bit weird when first readin it in Finnish.. only in my opinion, what about other Finns?

Buzzsaw-
06-06-2005, 02:01 PM
Salute

The full English site is here:

http://icebreakers.compart.fi//WW2History.html

This is a very valuable site, full credit to those who have created it.

LLv34_Stafroty
06-06-2005, 04:54 PM
aint it odd Buzzu that how it seems that how they trusted their planes when they talk abot 109, how full of self coinfidence they were when flyin that plane. in game pilots sure dont feel that.

LeadSpitter_
06-06-2005, 05:27 PM
The 109 was a very good turning ac low speed and low altitude especially the f2 f4 g2 series, the g6 got very heavy as well as the g10 g14 k4.

look at the mig3 vs 109g2 or fredrick at 3000m turn time then low alt 1000m where the 109 had advantage in sustained turn rate and speed but mig3 had both at 3000m.

The fabric elevators caused ballooning highspeed, that and the 109s cramped cockpit, I have seen some tests that show 80lbs of stickpressure the pilot can pull on ailerons then many others that show 30-50lbs only on elevator.

The early spitfire had similiar problems with its ailerons being fabric covered and causing ballooning which were replaced by metal ailierons.

The 109 had a advantage on pointing its nose very high deflections over other ac quicker which is not the same as a sustained combat turn.

The 109 was an excellent low speed turning ac the problem is we dont see its climb advantage in game, but the i16 yak la hurricane h75 p36 b239 p40 zeke ki43 spitfire all had a better low speed turn rate.

then many others had a much better highspeed elevator authority over the 109 like the 190 p51 p47 p40 h75 p39 yak9u and many others.

Giving the 109 a better spiral climb and climbrate would help alot and fixing the pp exploit and its trottle back ability like airbrakes while in a dive.

Also its stall characteristics are much to low in game.

I dont think there is one plane in game with all its advantages modeled.

weather its climb, highspeed manaueverability, stable gunplatform, dive accelaration etc.


The biggest advantage in this game seems to be ac that can kill .50 .60 range in one burst everytime ac that have to aim .20 range and get hits for about 8-10 seconds.

Dms seem to be the major cause of the problem not gunstrenght.

Also the max do not exceed dive warning label is when the ac recieved full compressibility depending on thier mach number at altitude.

The only weapons which seem difficult to aim are the US 20mm in the p38 p39, the p63s 30mm cannon, mk103 and the me262u4s 50mm cannon.

Everything else is similiar in accuracy, moreso for shvak accurate as far as 1.0 range, mk108 .50 .60 range, hispano .40 range and mg151 20mm at .30 range which is why they are top dogfighting weapons. Then .50 cal .303 cannont destroy a oilbarrel past .30 range they will just bounce off until coming to .25 range then it can destroy them.


sry for ranting ot a bit, great read stafroty. Hard to tell it says he was at 1500m and the yaks dove on him with altitude advantage so they were higher speed and most likely had higher stick pressures then the lower speed 109 which manuevered into the spiral climb faster and yaks. It does not really give enough info to say the 109 outturned the yak always .

But any ac low speed can evade a higher speed ac diving on it dont mean they can out turn them all alts and all speeds.

It doesnt say what type of 109 nor yak model or about speeds, so to assume the 109 can out turn all yaks all speeds and altitudes is pretty ridiculous.

LLv34_Stafroty
06-06-2005, 06:25 PM
"The 109 was an excellent low speed turning ac the problem is we dont see its climb advantage in game, but the i16 yak la hurricane h75 p36 b239 p40 zeke ki43 spitfire all had a better low speed turn rate." Mark Hanna and Eric Brown and finnish pilots have bit different pic in their mind when against spit, yak or La. One Finnish pilot told thta La could not pull up lead enough for shot, he will always aprox one feet shoot short.. Same told other Fin pilot who said it was amusing to se pilots trying to pull lead in their yak9s..

"The fabric elevators caused ballooning highspeed, that and the 109s cramped cockpit, I have seen some tests that show 80lbs of stickpressure the pilot can pull on ailerons then many others that show 30-50lbs only on elevator."

ur joking right? urban legend?

"The 109 was a very good turning ac low speed and low altitude especially the f2 f4 g2 series, the g6 got very heavy as well as the g10 g14 k4."

how did G-6 go heavy comparing to G-2? how big difference in weight? at least Finn pilots didnt much notice difference in these two. yet they did with 20mm cannon condolas on wings http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif


"then many others had a much better highspeed elevator authority over the 109 like the 190 p51 p47 p40 h75 p39 yak9u and many others."

Now we got US fanboys modelled elevator in 109s which is clearly wrong. now, 109:s cant much do BnZ tactics, cos they cant aim when divin over 450kmh. plane is so stiff that is useless use BnZ tactics, 109 are forced on TnB tactics where only G-2 shines. realistic. no.

"Also its stall characteristics are much to low in game."

Define that bit more clearly, if using Bussaws "rule of stall" P-39 Stalls under 60kmh with flaps http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif at least i got control of ailerons and others at 60kmh while makin nasty stall fight.
109 was really capable Stall fighter, this also said by Mark Hanna and Eric brown. have you seen video where 109 climbs up and levels at REALLY slow speed? bet not.

"The only weapons which seem difficult to aim are the US 20mm in the p38 p39, the p63s 30mm cannon, mk103 and the me262u4s 50mm cannon."

with hispano, dont take lead, that quarantees u get hits http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif i dont find it hard to hit with 37mm cannon or with hispano 20mm. u just gotta learn to use em.

"sry for ranting ot a bit, great read stafroty. Hard to tell it says he was at 1500m and the yaks dove on him with altitude advantage so they were higher speed and most likely had higher stick pressures then the lower speed 109 which manuevered into the spiral climb faster and yaks. It does not really give enough info to say the 109 outturned the yak always .

But any ac low speed can evade a higher speed ac diving on it dont mean they can out turn them all alts and all speeds.

It doesnt say what type of 109 nor yak model or about speeds, so to assume the 109 can out turn all yaks all speeds and altitudes is pretty ridiculous." how you can find it ridiculous, even russian veteran said so, remember what Crazyivan once translater to us and what is it kurfurst using now as his signature.


you gotta learn to shoot mate, nothin more http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

S.taibanzai
06-06-2005, 07:29 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Buzzsaw-:
Salute

This is not a description of a horizontal turnfight, but a description of a 109 evading by doing a spiral climb at best climb speed, ie. 270 kph.

Considering the 109G2 and G6, (not sure which one this pilot was flying) had a much better climbrate than the Yak-9, it is not surprising that it would be possible to out spiral climb a Yak.

In a horizontal turnfight, it would be a different matter.

In the game it is very easy to do just this type of maneuver with the 109.

Here is a more accurate translation, from the English side of the Icebreakers site:

-------

It was a case as two Yak-9s came toward me. They approached from the North and made me turn at them. The altitude was about one and a half thousand (meters). They engaged me, being a little above. I was coming from South and my red light was on (indicating low fuel), because our base was nearby. I was heading for Lappeenranta but as they slipped behind my back I had to start climbing.

In a spiral climb??
Yes, a spiral. We kept climbing. Finally we were at 5000m and I had forgotten to put on the oxygen mask. All the time I was worrying how far my petrol reserve would take me. We kept going round and round in a spiral. Each time I saw the enemy was about to shoot I pulled some more and each time he missed. But I heard two snaps and I came to Lappeenranta with two holes. But my underlying intention was that in case there is enough fuel, I shall take a shoot. I thought this is such a juicy situation that I shall not let them out of my hands even though I should run out of petrol, because there was an airfield just below. Which airfield was it? I can't recall, it was the old base with a manor as the Officer Mess. We did not operate from there...
(looking for the airfield in maps)
It was just next to Viipuri. There was this grand Officer Mess.
Suur-Merijoki maybe, the seaplane base?
Suur-Merijoki right! We had talked about it, and decided that one could make an emergency landing there. I was thinking that I shall get him, I have enough... <span class="ev_code_RED">My plane was so light that I was able to climb better than they could.</span> There were no problems. We flew nose to tail and the rearmost Yak had no chance of shooting. But the one behind me kept jerking, trying to get deflection ...
It was such a special situation, that I have a training mate who was killed in Olonez, he vertically dived in the Lake Oneg He did not get enough oxygen and it killed him. And I, too, had forgotten about my oxygen when approaching five thousand (meters). The face of my mate, Lasse Andersen, appeared to me before my eyes. (Lars Andersen was killed on 29 Feb 1944). Then it dawned to me, oh my, I shall be short of breath soon, I grabbed my oxygen mask and kept turning. Then I saw the (Russian) boys were being left behind. First one turned and dived, then the other one and I as the third. Then I kept shooting at them as long as I could. I was sure that the first one I fired at was in my opinion definitely going to fall. I got to shoot at the other one too, but then I throttled back and took direction to Lappeenrant I was not sure, I could not be sure because I had not seen them crash. Yet I reported them. Now that I can find in the Geust list both names, so they both fell down.
And the very next day the same thing. Another two, another two Yak-9s (shot down) according to Geust. I don't know how fellows are able to see in a real intense scrap, how they can observe a plane going down and crash. I always was in such situation that I was **** satisfied getting disengaged and finding that that one will not be a problem anymore. It never occurred to me to watch whether he hit the ground. Yes, it is not interesting at that stage. I don't know, I wonder how in such a situation someone, under stress, can be interested in watching whether the victim goes down or not. It is not in the least interesting. When you have calmed down then you start thinking "Did he fall - did I shoot down something?"

You could have inspected the wreck?
Well, I cannot recall...I have seen some. I often have seen how others have shot, but I never checked the own ones... It is great that there is someone like Geust researching these things for Several I cannot make any new demands, I am satisfied with the score officially credited to me. At least it is not exaggerated. The main thing is that I did not make a career as storyteller.
Well, I did have a couple of holes. Not many other cases...The hits were in the rear, where I guessed they would be. They kept trying. But always they lagged behind, being unable to take deflection.

How well could you observe those pursuers?
It could be done quite well. There was nothing. I did see when he would...I learned to notice that there, now he is about to shoot because he tightened his turn and it could be seen that he tried... Actually it was very amusing. I was not in any trouble.
How steep was the climbing angle?
It was about the optimal rate of climb

----------

This is a basic tactic which those who fly on the servers call "rope a dope". Ie. the better climbing plane spirals till the poorer climbing aircraft stalls out, then the higher plane hammerheads and is on the lower aircraft's tail.

The only difference in the game, is that because the later 109's stall speed and manual prop pitch are so poorly modelled, they can spiral climb at 200 kph, in their 'helicopter' climb. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Wrong !!

Spiral climb can not be used like it was in real

Why here it is some example

As far as I know the rollrate of every plane was different if you roll with the propellerdirection and against it. Changing the power should also influence the initial rollrate.

The torque should also influence turning ability, sustained turns to the right or to the left are different.

Test FW190A vs Spit XIV:
Turning Circle: The Spitfire XIV can easily turn inside the FW 190. In the case of a right-hand turn, this difference is not so pronounced.
http://www.odyssey.dircon.co.uk/Spitfire14v190.htm

Why? cause the torque pull a plane into a turn or press it out of it. Griffonspits have an engine turning to the other direction as a 109 and the earlier Merlinspits.
As a result a late Spit couldn´t follow a late 109 in a upward spiral cause if a 109 do it to the left the torque pull the spit to the right, so it should bleed more energy cause the pilot need more rudder, ailerons to follow the BF.

Even if 4.0 is a step ahead, I didn´t noticed all this influence till now, but I hope they will include it till BOB.

But this missing torqueeffect when playing around with the throttle - this real demonstrate the limitations of the new engine...

Tachyon1000
06-06-2005, 10:36 PM
I'm not so sure about the use of spiral climb for 109s in this game. In all the instances I can recall when my target has spiral climbed on me, I found myself at best able to close very slowly at maximum throttle, burning out engine, etc and at worst falling behind or fluttering and stalling and certainly never, never in a position to shoot.

However reverse that situation and I believe I have found any number of planes being able to turn inside me, climb with me, and make shots. Surely, I am no great pilot, but the spit and probably the p51 can surely turn inside the 109 and climb better from my experience.

I find the 109 to be a death trap, despite the fact that I flew it nearly exclusively for about a year. I'm glad others seem to know how to fly it although I'd like to give them a good smack in the head.

Kurfurst__
06-07-2005, 08:30 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by LLv34_Stafroty:
"The 109 was a very good turning ac low speed and low altitude especially the f2 f4 g2 series, the g6 got very heavy as well as the g10 g14 k4."

how did G-6 go heavy comparing to G-2? how big difference in weight? at least Finn pilots didnt much notice difference in these two. yet they did with 20mm cannon condolas on wings http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not much difference in weigth between the 109 models, really.

Ie. full takeoff weights with out extra loads like bombs etc.

F-4 : 2890 kg
G-2 : 3050 kg
G-6 : 3150 kg
G-14/U4 : 3318 kg
G-10 : 3297 kg
K-: 3362 kg

10-15% diffo at best, hardly worth the volumes it is spoken of.

Blutarski2004
06-07-2005, 10:39 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
how did G-6 go heavy comparing to G-2? how big difference in weight? at least Finn pilots didnt much notice difference in these two. yet they did with 20mm cannon condolas on wings http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Not much difference in weigth between the 109 models, really.

Ie. full takeoff weights with out extra loads like bombs etc.

F-4 : 2890 kg
G-2 : 3050 kg
G-6 : 3150 kg
G-14/U4 : 3318 kg
G-10 : 3297 kg
K-: 3362 kg

10-15% diffo at best, hardly worth the volumes it is spoken of. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


..... Not true, Kurfurst. The effect of a 10-15 percent weight gain in a fighter was VERY considerable. See following from FIGHTER FACTS AND FALLACIES, by John G Lee (Asst Director of Research, United Aircraft Corporation).

Please note that when the author makes his evaluations on a particular point, he does so on the assumption that the two aircraft in question are equal in all other regards.


GROSS WEIGHT INCREASED BY 10 PCT

-1 pct top speed
-14 pct climb at sea level
-4 pct service ceiling
+13 pct take-off run
+5 pct landing speed
+10 pct turn radius


Extrapolating from these values, the performance cost of a 15 percent weight increase would be approximately -

-1.5 pct top speed
-21 pct climb at sea level
-6 pct service ceiling
+20 pct take-off run
+7 pct landing speed
+15 pct turn radius


In the case on the later models of the Me109, a considerable portion of the increased engine power in successive 109 marks was unavoidably devoted to making up for the effects of increased weight. For example, it required about 1 percent additional power to restore the climb performance lost by every 1 percent increase in weight. Instantaneous turn performance could not be restored without an increase in wing area; but sustained turn performance would probably improve from the increased power output.

Anyone who cares to read the entire book synopsis can find it by searching ORR under "Fighter Facts and Fallacies".

LLv34_Stafroty
06-07-2005, 10:48 AM
anyway Blut, can you find any note at that magic book how much increaced engine power and paddle props gave on performance?

Kurfurst__
06-07-2005, 10:55 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Blutarski2004:
In the case on the later models of the Me109, a considerable portion of the increased engine power in successive 109 marks was unavoidably devoted to making up for the effects of increased weight. If this weight gain could have been avoided, performance of the late G's and K's would likely have been quite remarkable. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hmm, imho their performance was quite remarkable still, and the critique is true for any figther of WW2. I always see this lame arguement about how the weight went up on the Bf 109... what`s the fuss? didn`t the weight go up on EVERY other major fighter as well? Of course it did. Then what?
What`s so special about the 109, which hardly the worst case in subsequent weight increase : from F-4 to K-4, weight increased 16%, power increased 48%, firepower multiplied, speed, ceiling and climb rate, dive limits increased, ground handling, directional stability was improved etc.

The first Spitfire Mk I weighted 5925 lbs, the last Spitfire XIV weighted 8500 lbs. A weight increase of 43%.
One could see the same happening with the P-47 types, FW 190 types (3800 to 4370 kg, +15%). Even between the P-51 B and D there was about a good 10% weight increase.

So what`s so special about the 109`s weight increase? It`s common thing in a ww2 fighter development. I don`t get your point.

Blutarski2004
06-07-2005, 11:42 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">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 Blutarski2004:
In the case on the later models of the Me109, a considerable portion of the increased engine power in successive 109 marks was unavoidably devoted to making up for the effects of increased weight. If this weight gain could have been avoided, performance of the late G's and K's would likely have been quite remarkable. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hmm, imho their performance was quite remarkable still, and the critique is true for any figther of WW2. I always see this lame arguement about how the weight went up on the Bf 109... what`s the fuss? didn`t the weight go up on EVERY other major fighter as well? Of course it did. Then what?
What`s so special about the 109, which hardly the worst case in subsequent weight increase : from F-4 to K-4, weight increased 16%, power increased 48%, firepower multiplied, speed, ceiling and climb rate, dive limits increased, ground handling, directional stability was improved etc.

The first Spitfire Mk I weighted 5925 lbs, the last Spitfire XIV weighted 8500 lbs. A weight increase of 43%.
One could see the same happening with the P-47 types, FW 190 types (3800 to 4370 kg, +15%). Even between the P-51 B and D there was about a good 10% weight increase.

So what`s so special about the 109`s weight increase? It`s common thing in a ww2 fighter development. I don`t get your point. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


..... There is absolutely nothing special about the the weight gain of the 109. The same performance effects would have been felt by any fighter. We could just as well be talking about the P51 or the Spitfire. My post is simply in response to your comment that a 10 or 15 percent weight gain was "hardly worth the volumes it is spoken of". In the case which you have presented above (i.e. - 16 pct weight gain; 48 pct power gain) one third of the power increase went to "pay" for the added weight.

Blutarski2004
06-07-2005, 11:46 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by LLv34_Stafroty:
anyway Blut, can you find any note at that magic book how much increaced engine power and paddle props gave on performance? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


..... No real discussion of paddle blade props per se. The only comment re props was that they had about an 86 pct efficiency in converting engine power to linear thrust, could be design optimized for either speed or climb and that one performance area would be affected by favoring the other.

Increased engine power (i.e. + 10 pct power) affects performance approx as follows -

POWER LOADING REDUCED BY 10 PCT
+3 pct top speed
+13 pct climb at sea level
+3 pct service ceiling
-0 pct take-off run
-5 pct landing speed
(see note 4) turn radius

Note 4: Under certain circumstances the drag of an airplane can be so great that the engine power is insufficient to pull it around in as tight a turn as would otherwise be possible. In these cases a lower power-loading, lower span-loading, or a reduction in drag will all serve to reduce turn radius.

Go here -

http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/63110913/m/5171...171073792#5171073792 (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/63110913/m/5171073792/r/5171073792#5171073792)

for the whole post.

Skalgrim
06-07-2005, 12:35 PM
when the weigh make so big differ between f4 and k4, then should spit14 has much more problem with the weigh as k4



spit4 has much more weigh gets as the k4 compare to the early models

johnnie johnson had say spit14 was not the spit like he had know before.

.

Blutarski2004
06-07-2005, 01:18 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Skalgrim:
when the weigh make so big differ between f4 and k4, then should spit14 has much more problem with the weigh as k4



spit4 has much more weigh gets as the k4 compare to the early models

johnnie johnson had say spit14 was not the spit like he had know before.

. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


..... True. From the figures I have at hand:

(Spitfire I / Seafire 47)
Normal Weight: 5820 / 10,300 lbs
Wing Loading : 24.1 / 42.2 lbs per ft2

In terms of instantaneous turn ability and general lightness of handling, we are in a sense talking very different planes

lrrp22
06-07-2005, 01:28 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Skalgrim:
when the weigh make so big differ between f4 and k4, then should spit14 has much more problem with the weigh as k4

spit4 has much more weigh gets as the k4 compare to the early models

johnnie johnson had say spit14 was not the spit like he had know before.

. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The Spitfire was a larger aircraft with a much bigger wing so was better able to cope with the increased weight.


.

lrrp22
06-07-2005, 01:44 PM
However, the Spit XIV's wingloading was only 35.1 lbs/sq ft vs. the K-4's 42+ lbs/sq ft. The Seafire 47 was a late 40's carrier fighter that had virtually nothing in common with any mark of wartime Spitfire.


Luftwaffe pilot Hermann Weber's comments regarding the K-4 to IPMS London, Ontario on 9 November, 2003:

"...Hermann Weber's description of the Bf-109K-4 as 'the ultimate death trap for pilots,' whose pilot was 'all shook up' whenever the engine-mounted 30mm gun fired, we gain an amazing insight in to the world of sixty years ago by listening to veterans (by the way, the Bf-109K-4 was, according to Hermann, a very poor dogfighter due to its altered centre of gravity)."

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Blutarski2004:

..... True. From the figures I have at hand:

(Spitfire I / Seafire 47)
Normal Weight: 5820 / 10,300 lbs
Wing Loading : 24.1 / 42.2 lbs per ft2

In terms of instantaneous turn ability and general lightness of handling, we are in a sense talking very different planes </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Kurfurst__
06-07-2005, 02:03 PM
We are talking here in physics, not fairy tales, lrrp22. Bigger wings don`t help at all, it`s not a magic wand. 10% increase in weight effect a bigger wing a/c just like another. 40% increase in weight effects a bigger winged aircraft than 15% weight increase in a smaller winged aircraft.

I guess it would be interesting to see how the transition looks like in case of the Emil to Kurfurst, Mk I to MkXIV, ie the first and last wartime versions.

The fact that the Mk I was faster than the Emil on somewhat less power, but the MkXIV was somewhat slower than the K-4 with more power suggest what is quite clear from their respective development history : the lack of improvements, which can be best described 'ad hoc', on the Spitfire airframe considerably reduced the effiency of the design, while Willy M did considerable improvement over the Emil with the F and K series.

Here`s what Franz Stiegler LW ace told about the K series :

"Franz also said he once flew a 4-engine flying boat. Franz Stigler liked the 109G as well and also enjoyed flying the K-4. The K-4, he said was very much like the G yet could leave all other fighters behind in climb. In control feel he said the K felt identical to the G. He described on many occasions where they would just bank away from the fighters and climb away from them (my guess this is probably after attacking them?). He also flew a Spitfire once, saying that he liked the aircraft."

Also Stieglers comments are in good agreement with the technical data.

jugent
06-07-2005, 02:08 PM
Dont think that this game will be as it was in WW2.
Dont get the idea that Maddox will give the LW-Ac their full capacity.

LW was defeated by the superiority in numbers.
The FW and Me was formidable oponents for every Allied fighter.
The killration during BoB for Me109/Vs Spit was that Me shot down more spits than vice verca.

An example of how it is in this game is;
How can the inline engine of the 109 get badly damaged and smear the windshield by a single MG-hit when the Lagg:s, spits hurricanes and mustangs mostly can take several hits without notable malfunctions?

lrrp22
06-07-2005, 02:39 PM
Doesn't matter, Isegrim- The final wartime variant of the Spitfire still had much lower wing loading and better handling than the final wartime variant of the Bf 109.

What the larger wing did was allow the Spitfire to absorb weight increases and still maintain acceptable handling. The 109 had much less room to grow.

All Stiegler's comments confirm is that the late G's he was comparing the K-4 to were overweight as well. He says nothing about handling, only climb. I believe that Stiegler also comments that the 109's handling was all down hill after the F-4. Too much horsepower, too much weight- not enough airplane.

Blutarski2004
06-07-2005, 03:22 PM
Lrrp,

You are changing the argument from apples versus apples to oranges versus apples. I don't think that anyone disagrees that, other things being more or less equal, the a/c with lower wing loading will turn tighter.

I think I am going to evacuate before the big collision which is about to occur. Good luck. Everyone, keep your helmets on.

Bremspropeller
06-07-2005, 03:32 PM
The K-4 might have been a "death trap" because of it's high power and torque which would affect the plane quite much at low speeds. Sudden thrust-lever inputs could cause the plane to flick over - just as any other plane being flown at the lower edge of it's flight envelope with an un-aware pilot.
Even a Mustang-jockey could kill himself in this situation.

The combination of a relatively small and light aircraft with a ~2000HP engine WAS deadly for pilots with a low training standard.


For those Spit-fanboys: have a closer look at your pilot-reports. Almost any report I've read about the late Spits mentioned that they were still great fighters but lacked their good low-speed handling (not too surprising: wing-loading increased as well as the maximal torque - this leads to a tricky behaviour at low speeds in case of uncareful thrust-adjustments).
However they retained their agility in comparison with the 109.

At the end of the war both planes had much wider turn-radiusses. But fighting a Mk. XIV in a K-4 was still more or less like fighting a Mk. I in an Emil (except that carburator-thing of course). Both planes got more challenging to fly towads the end of the war.
The reason why considerably less british pilots killed themselves in pure flying-accidents than their german counterparts was their better training and not a better plane.

lrrp22
06-07-2005, 04:33 PM
I agree.

However, the Spitifre XIV had virtually identical wing loading as the Bf 109F-4, widely regarded as the sweetest handling 109. The K-4's wing loading was the same as that of a max-loaded P-51D carrying 269 gallons of internal fuel. It actually had slightly higher wing loading than the P-47M.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bremspropeller:
The K-4 might have been a "death trap" because of it's high power and torque which would affect the plane quite much at low speeds. Sudden thrust-lever inputs could cause the plane to flick over - just as any other plane being flown at the lower edge of it's flight envelope with an un-aware pilot.
Even a Mustang-jockey could kill himself in this situation.

The combination of a relatively small and light aircraft with a ~2000HP engine WAS deadly for pilots with a low training standard.


For those Spit-fanboys: have a closer look at your pilot-reports. Almost any report I've read about the late Spits mentioned that they were still great fighters but lacked their good low-speed handling (not too surprising: wing-loading increased as well as the maximal torque - this leads to a tricky behaviour at low speeds in case of uncareful thrust-adjustments).
However they retained their agility in comparison with the 109.

At the end of the war both planes had much wider turn-radiusses. But fighting a Mk. XIV in a K-4 was still more or less like fighting a Mk. I in an Emil (except that carburator-thing of course). Both planes got more challenging to fly towads the end of the war.
The reason why considerably less british pilots killed themselves in pure flying-accidents than their german counterparts was their better training and not a better plane. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

vocatx
06-07-2005, 05:18 PM
I was flying a Luftwaffe fighter campaign a few months ago in original Il-2. In one mission I got FOUR Yaks on my tail at about three thousand meters. We merged with roughly equal "e". The only thing I knew to try was a spiral climb. I put the nose up, trying to hold my speed about 250kph, and eventually all the Yaks stalled and dropped away.

I don't know if the FM in this program (FB 3.4m) will allow this to happen, and you don't have CEM in Original, so you can't use manual pitch like you do in FB. I have been doing some fairly extensive off-line test lately with various marks of the Me 109 against Spit, P-38, 39, 47, 51, and 63 to see exactly where my advantages lie. I have found that I can outclimb all but the Spit if I use manual pitch in a spiral, no matter whether I'm in a F,G, or K. The K doesn't manuever quite as well in slow speed turning as the earlier models, but there is a definite advantage in climb rate due to the more powerful engine.

Now, what all this means in real life is probably nothing. After all, this is a SIM. It doesn't matter how the planes reacted in real life (though I do prefer things to be historically accuate), we've all just got to know how the sim planes fly against each other, no matter if it's version 1.0 or 4.0.

vocatx
06-07-2005, 05:25 PM
By the way, Stafroty, I loved the interview. It's a shame that so much history is being lost every day, just because nobody took the time to write it down.
S!

Kurfurst__
06-08-2005, 04:40 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by lrrp22:
However, the Spitifre XIV had virtually identical wing loading as the Bf 109F-4, widely regarded as the sweetest handling 109. The K-4's wing loading was the same as that of a max-loaded P-51D carrying 269 gallons of internal fuel. It actually had slightly higher wing loading than the P-47M. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

As noted several times, wing loading alone is an meaningless figure, as it does not take into account the airfoil type and lift coefficent, and lift increasing devices such as slats or combat flaps (which, btw, were both absent on the Spit and they achieved good lift by more old fashioned ways, using big wings).
The difference in even wingloading was less in the case of XIV/K4, than in the case of the MkI/Emil - but even then, various anecdotal evidence, counterclaiming which plane was more tighter turning, only poins there was not much of a diffo, if any. Next to that even in 1940, turning was considered a secondary issue in combat, even by the British.

The point has been otherwise, that the XIVs weight and thus handling detoriated more than the K-4s compared to their earlier versions - especially if add that the XIV was the least clean version of the Spitfire, while the K-4 was the most clean one. Personally, I think the rather large advantage in excess power for the 109K is far more important in this matter.

Bremspropeller
06-08-2005, 05:18 AM
Wasn't rather the Friedrich the cleanest ? It had less "Beulen" you know http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Kurfurst__
06-08-2005, 05:29 AM
One could think, but the drag loss for the more streamlined MG cowlings seems to be in an order of -3kphcompared to the Friedrich cowling (G-6`s 'beulen' were responsible for -9). A bit of minus for the new antenna arrays 1-2kph.

On the plus side, the later ones had internal armor glass unlike the E/F, (no data, but can be quite substantial, ie. -10kph on early spits), only semi retracatble taiwheel (a few kph, say 5), and 109F/G had no wheel well doors (+10kph alone).

So to the eye the 109F is rather more pleasant, but for speed pov, the 109K is the dragster. it also had the highest dive limits of all 109s, 850 kph.

HayateAce
06-08-2005, 05:56 AM
"....according to Hermann, a very poor dogfighter due to its altered centre of gravity...."


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

Abbuzze
06-08-2005, 07:24 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by lrrp22:
I agree.

However, the Spitifre XIV had virtually identical wing loading as the Bf 109F-4, widely regarded as the sweetest handling 109. The K-4's wing loading was the same as that of a max-loaded P-51D carrying 269 gallons of internal fuel. It actually had slightly higher wing loading than the P-47M.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Would you be so friendly and post some figures when posting things like this?? I think you have calculated them, of have a www-adress with this.
Thanks!

Skalgrim
06-08-2005, 09:43 AM
Liftloading count for turning, 109g has similar liftloading like spit9

that is too the base that plane like ta152 with poor wingloading turn good, because her wing make many lift

when you compare differ plane must you use liftloading, because differentially wing make differentially lift too with same areal

..

DHex
06-08-2005, 10:40 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by lrrp22:
Doesn't matter, Isegrim- The final wartime variant of the Spitfire still had much lower wing loading and better handling than the final wartime variant of the Bf 109.

What the larger wing did was allow the Spitfire to absorb weight increases and still maintain acceptable handling. The 109 had much less room to grow.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Judging turning ability of the planes only by wingloading is the most common error appearing almost in all discussions about maneuverability. Its only one of the many variables affecting turning of the plane, and such comparison can only be true when all the other things are equal. But in case of Spit XIV vs K4 they are not equal, moreover almost all the other variables are in K4 favor. K4 had better wing aspect ratio, higher coefficient of lift, and better thrust to weight ratio. And by putting all this into equations we get pretty close turnrates.

Because of higher overall weight and bigger wing area Spit XIV was slower to react in all instant maneuvers (bigger effect of inertia). High wing area negatively affected roll rate too.

So in the end its pretty hard to say which of these planes was better turner - I don't have enough data needed to make exact calculations, but just using rough approximation its possible that K4 was even better turner.

lrrp22
06-08-2005, 11:01 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by DHex:
I don't have enough data needed to make exact calculations, but just using rough approximation its possible that K4 was even better turner. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

DHex

History doesn't support that approximation.

A couple of points. First, we don't really know definitively the lift loading factors for either of these airplanes. Isegrim/Kurfurst invariably quotes the lowest lift loading available for the Spitfire despite the fact that most sources show a better number. Second, your K-4 power loading 'advantage' depends on rare, and possibly non-extant, power settings (1.98 ATA) for the K-4 vs. minimum power settings (+18 lbs) for the Spit XIV.

Finally, wing loading and lift loading comparisons ignore the fact that the K-4 was simply packing an awful lot of power and weight into a very small airframe/wing. There are advantages to that approach but it comes with some fairly serious disadvantages as well.

DHex
06-08-2005, 12:17 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by lrrp22:
A couple of points. First, we don't really know definitively the lift loading factors for either of these airplanes. Isegrim/Kurfurst invariably quotes the lowest lift loading available for the Spitfire despite the fact that most sources show a better number. Second, your K-4 power loading 'advantage' depends on rare, and possibly non-extant, power settings (1.98 ATA) for the K-4 vs. minimum power settings (+18 lbs) for the Spit XIV. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Points you made are true, and that's exactly that I meant with lack of exact numbers. But the fact is that by taking best numbers for K4 we end up with even better turnrates than Spit. Of course these numbers may not be accurate, but in any case it shows that turn performance of these planes was pretty close and Spit wasn't better turning plane only because of his lower wingloading.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Finally, wing loading and lift loading comparisons ignore the fact that the K-4 was simply packing an awful lot of power and weight into a very small airframe/wing. There are advantages to that approach but it comes with some fairly serious disadvantages as well. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Interesting point - in fact a lot of power and weight plus small airframe and wing (but with high CL) produces best raw numbers in almost all characteristics. Downside is that such plane is hardest to control and fully use his potential.

Kurfurst__
06-09-2005, 09:27 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by lrrp22:
Second, your K-4 power loading 'advantage' depends on rare, and possibly non-extant, power settings (1.98 ATA) for the K-4 vs. minimum power settings (+18 lbs) for the Spit XIV. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hmm, 1.98ata was cleared in February 1945 according to Butch2k, and also according to him, it was definetely used.

"AFAIK 1.98ata boost was cleared late February but it seems to have been slowly introduced into service, I suspect the adjustments needed on the engine and the change of sparkplugs type (supply problems ???) took longer than expected....You can safely assume that by March 1945 1.98 ata boost was being introduced, unfortunately I do not have much details for April 1945, but I doubt it would have changed much, given the situation."

Furthermore, the statement, or the better, denial becomes futile in view of the orders issued to units to increase boost pressure to 1.98ata, according to a classified order dated 20th March 1945 from the LW high command (OKL, Lw.-Führüngstab, Nr. 937/45 gKdos.(op) 20.03.45) :

The document cleared the use of 1.98ata for I./JG 27, III/JG 27, III/JG 53, IV/JG 53.These units had (as per 9th April 1945.), 142 Bf 109s on-strenght, see Alfred Price : The Last year of the Luftwaffe.
Possibly other units may have converted before this date, II./JG 11 was testing it in January-February 1945.

Now as for ridiculus lowest vs. highest power claim.. let`s compare the K-4 on it`s lowest boost (1.8ata, 1850 HP) to the XIV at it`s highest boost (+21lbs, 2040 HP), at take off weights .

Which gives :

K-4 : 1850 HP / 3.362t = 550 HP /ton
XIV : 2040 HP / 3.859t = 528 HP /ton
So the Spit looses out even in most favourable conditions.

Now, Highest vs. highest (1.98ata, 2000 HP)

K-4 : 2000 HP / 3.362t = 595 HP /ton
XIV : 2040 HP / 3.859t = 528 HP /ton

We have 10% higher thrust-to-weight on the K-4, and that the XIV had considerably higher drag, as evidenced from the fact that the K-4 was faster at all heights until the power output disadvantage rose to as much as +200 HP on the XIV (speaking of high altitudes above 7000m). Ie, on 1850/1840 HP max. SL speeds were 595 kph, and 580 kph, respectively.

lrrp22
06-09-2005, 10:51 AM
There are a couple of problems with your comparison, Isegrim.

First, the 1.8 ATA DB605D was rated at 1850 PS, not HP. Second, as you know, to run 1.8 ATA the the 605DB's timing had to be ******ed which led to a 50 PS power reduction. So an operational 1.8 ATA 605D would operate at around 1775 HP. Who knows what they had to do to get the 605DC to finally run at 1.98 ATA? Olivier's statements on 1.98 ATA are hardly as clear cut as you make them.

Second, you're completely ignoring the fact that the Griffon 65 at +21 lbs boost peaked at nearly 2200 HP around 10,000 ft. Again you are skeweing the comparison to the benefit of the K-4. There is still no explanation as to how they finally got the 605DC to run at 1.98 when they had had nothing but failures even in late February.

Finally, the 20 March 'order' to increase boost to 1.98 ATA was in fact a statement of intent to upgrade the various fighter units. The majority of the 'orders' put forth in that document were never implemented- i.e., Fw 190D-12's (never produced) and Ta 152C/H's to Fw gruppen, K-4's to JG5 in Norway, more jets, etc.

Your comparisons tend to compare on-the-ground operational realities for the Allies vs. theoretical/calculated/estimated/intended numbers for the Luftwaffe.

Abbuzze
06-09-2005, 03:16 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by lrrp22:

First, the 1.8 ATA DB605D was rated at 1850 PS, not HP. S </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Correct 1PS is 0.98632HP - BUT you know that the kind of estimating this values is different??

PS (DIN-PS) is the Power the build in engine develop at the gearbox including all generators or other parts are driven by the mainengine. With exhaustpipes, filters, water pump...


HP (SAE-PS in the US for example) is WITHOUT generators, exhaustpipes, filters, water pump.

The difference is between 5-15% in advantage for PS... So you are right, but the miscalculation is less than 1.5% for the pure calculation but instead at least 5% for the different way to estimate the pure figure!