PDA

View Full Version : A good account of flying A Griffon SPitfire, by Jeff Ethell...



Xiolablu3
06-12-2008, 04:53 AM
An excellent account has been written by one of America's leading aviation writers, historians, and combat-aircraft experts, Jeff Ethell. Regrettably Jeff lost his life in 1997 while doing what he loved best, flying a World War II P-38 fighter. This text is copyright 1995 to Jeff Ethell....


'Flying a Spitfire


The symbol of Britain's refusal to give up during that dark summer of 1940, the Spitfire won the hearts of both pilots and public in World War II. Regardless of the version, with either Rolls-Royce Merlin or Griffon power, all Spitfire cockpits are virtually identical and wonderfully compact. Climbing in really is (to use a very worn turn of phrase) like pulling the machine on. If everything is done correctly, the Spitfire is one of the easiest aircraft to start. The engine usually fires within two blades and runs like a clock.
While the Merlin-engine versions run very smoothly, the larger Griffon-engine machines feel as if they are angry. The sound from the exhaust stacks and the vibration transferred to the seat of the pants communicates visceral power, almost a desire to go kill something. Any hot-rod lover would enjoy this sensation of unbridled horsepower, this impatience to be turned loose and hunt. Every fighter I've been in is great fun to fly but only a very few are brutally straight about why they exist. The Griffon Spitfire is one such machine.
With enough warmth in the coolant and oil, a flip of the parking brake catch releases the brake lever on the spade control grip and the aircraft is taxiing with minimal power. The first time I had the opportunity to fly a British aircraft with this hand operated air brake system I was sceptical about it being very effective compared to hydraulic toe brakes. Within a very few minutes I was completely won over. It is far easier to manage, particularly on run up when one has to really stand on most American fighter rudder pedals. The source of high-pressure air is controlled by the brake lever on the spade control grip, or stick. The rudder pedals modulate the distribution of pressure to the left and right main wheel brakes. If the pedals are even, equal braking is applied to both sides; as one rudder pedal is applied then more brake pressure is fed to that side. Strength of application is delivered by the hand lever on the grip. The major benefit to all this is having one's feet and legs almost completely relaxed most of the time.
Lining up for take-off is intimidating with that Rolls-Royce engine sticking way out in front. There is no sense in thinking too much about it. Throttle up slowly to prevent a lurch to the right (if in a Griffon Spit where the propeller turns the opposite direction from American aircraft)...left foot moves forward almost in concert with the left hand to keep the nose straight. Monster torque shoves the right wing down rapidly, very much like the P-40, until full left aileron and full (give or take a minuscule amount) left rudder is held. The Rolls is a wounded dragon bellowing horrendously.
There is so much raw power and noise, and you are so tightly focused on keeping everything under control, the actual lift-off at around 90 kts goes by almost unnoticed. Switch hands, move the gear lever down to disengage it from the slot, inwards through the gate and then smartly all the way forward, hold momentarily, then let go. If all is well, the lever snaps outwards through the upper gate, then springs back into the upper slot. Its easy to spot a new Spitfire pilot...the aircraft porpoises as the pilot changes hands and works the gear lever.
Sitting behind this demon V-12 churning out so much power is intoxicating...the earth falls away at a rapid rate, at least for something with a propeller. A look around reveals the excellent visibility out of the bubble canopy. This lessens, to a degree, the impression of being buried within a Spitfire, though that feeling of being a part of the machine does not change. The elevator is very light while the rudder is stiff and the ailerons even more so. Every Spitfire I've flown takes a bit more muscle to roll than most fighters. As speed increases both rudder and ailerons get heavier, resulting in a curious mismatch at high speed...one has to handle the almost oversensitive elevators with a light fingertip touch while arm-wrestling the stiff ailerons. Pilots had to keep this in mind during combat, particularly when going against the FW 190 which had a sterling rate of roll and exceptionally well harmonised controls. That being said, the aircraft is very well balanced and delightful to manoeuvre. Whipping a Spit around the clouds ranks right up there at the top of aviation's great experiences.
The aircraft stalls like a Piper Cub. Though a wing tends to drop, there isn't the slightest mean streak in it unless you cob the power, which produces a very violent torque roll. Power off, gear and flaps down, main fuel tanks full, it stalls at 65 kts, which is ridiculously slow. Add a slight bit of power and that drops to 60 kts. With that enormous snout, I try to make a curving approach to landing at about 100 kts in order to keep the runway in sight as long as possible. By the time I'm rolling out across the field boundary, if at max landing weight, I should be no faster than 85 kts with power and 95 kts in a glide. At lighter weights these speeds can be reduced by 5 kts.
All Spitfires are exceptionally easy to land with no inherent tendency to swerve or groundloop. Just reduce power to idle, flare to a three point attitude and she sets down on a feather almost every time. This is a great surprise to most considering the narrow track undercarriage and full swivel, non-locking tailwheel. Why doesn't it drop a wing violently or make the pilot stomp on the rudders? I wish I knew. The genius of managing to combine light aircraft characteristics with such high performance is nothing short of miraculous compared to most other wartime tailwheel types. One or two landings in the Spitfire and you are in love for life.'

Xiolablu3
06-12-2008, 04:53 AM
An excellent account has been written by one of America's leading aviation writers, historians, and combat-aircraft experts, Jeff Ethell. Regrettably Jeff lost his life in 1997 while doing what he loved best, flying a World War II P-38 fighter. This text is copyright 1995 to Jeff Ethell....


'Flying a Spitfire


The symbol of Britain's refusal to give up during that dark summer of 1940, the Spitfire won the hearts of both pilots and public in World War II. Regardless of the version, with either Rolls-Royce Merlin or Griffon power, all Spitfire cockpits are virtually identical and wonderfully compact. Climbing in really is (to use a very worn turn of phrase) like pulling the machine on. If everything is done correctly, the Spitfire is one of the easiest aircraft to start. The engine usually fires within two blades and runs like a clock.
While the Merlin-engine versions run very smoothly, the larger Griffon-engine machines feel as if they are angry. The sound from the exhaust stacks and the vibration transferred to the seat of the pants communicates visceral power, almost a desire to go kill something. Any hot-rod lover would enjoy this sensation of unbridled horsepower, this impatience to be turned loose and hunt. Every fighter I've been in is great fun to fly but only a very few are brutally straight about why they exist. The Griffon Spitfire is one such machine.
With enough warmth in the coolant and oil, a flip of the parking brake catch releases the brake lever on the spade control grip and the aircraft is taxiing with minimal power. The first time I had the opportunity to fly a British aircraft with this hand operated air brake system I was sceptical about it being very effective compared to hydraulic toe brakes. Within a very few minutes I was completely won over. It is far easier to manage, particularly on run up when one has to really stand on most American fighter rudder pedals. The source of high-pressure air is controlled by the brake lever on the spade control grip, or stick. The rudder pedals modulate the distribution of pressure to the left and right main wheel brakes. If the pedals are even, equal braking is applied to both sides; as one rudder pedal is applied then more brake pressure is fed to that side. Strength of application is delivered by the hand lever on the grip. The major benefit to all this is having one's feet and legs almost completely relaxed most of the time.
Lining up for take-off is intimidating with that Rolls-Royce engine sticking way out in front. There is no sense in thinking too much about it. Throttle up slowly to prevent a lurch to the right (if in a Griffon Spit where the propeller turns the opposite direction from American aircraft)...left foot moves forward almost in concert with the left hand to keep the nose straight. Monster torque shoves the right wing down rapidly, very much like the P-40, until full left aileron and full (give or take a minuscule amount) left rudder is held. The Rolls is a wounded dragon bellowing horrendously.
There is so much raw power and noise, and you are so tightly focused on keeping everything under control, the actual lift-off at around 90 kts goes by almost unnoticed. Switch hands, move the gear lever down to disengage it from the slot, inwards through the gate and then smartly all the way forward, hold momentarily, then let go. If all is well, the lever snaps outwards through the upper gate, then springs back into the upper slot. Its easy to spot a new Spitfire pilot...the aircraft porpoises as the pilot changes hands and works the gear lever.
Sitting behind this demon V-12 churning out so much power is intoxicating...the earth falls away at a rapid rate, at least for something with a propeller. A look around reveals the excellent visibility out of the bubble canopy. This lessens, to a degree, the impression of being buried within a Spitfire, though that feeling of being a part of the machine does not change. The elevator is very light while the rudder is stiff and the ailerons even more so. Every Spitfire I've flown takes a bit more muscle to roll than most fighters. As speed increases both rudder and ailerons get heavier, resulting in a curious mismatch at high speed...one has to handle the almost oversensitive elevators with a light fingertip touch while arm-wrestling the stiff ailerons. Pilots had to keep this in mind during combat, particularly when going against the FW 190 which had a sterling rate of roll and exceptionally well harmonised controls. That being said, the aircraft is very well balanced and delightful to manoeuvre. Whipping a Spit around the clouds ranks right up there at the top of aviation's great experiences.
The aircraft stalls like a Piper Cub. Though a wing tends to drop, there isn't the slightest mean streak in it unless you cob the power, which produces a very violent torque roll. Power off, gear and flaps down, main fuel tanks full, it stalls at 65 kts, which is ridiculously slow. Add a slight bit of power and that drops to 60 kts. With that enormous snout, I try to make a curving approach to landing at about 100 kts in order to keep the runway in sight as long as possible. By the time I'm rolling out across the field boundary, if at max landing weight, I should be no faster than 85 kts with power and 95 kts in a glide. At lighter weights these speeds can be reduced by 5 kts.
All Spitfires are exceptionally easy to land with no inherent tendency to swerve or groundloop. Just reduce power to idle, flare to a three point attitude and she sets down on a feather almost every time. This is a great surprise to most considering the narrow track undercarriage and full swivel, non-locking tailwheel. Why doesn't it drop a wing violently or make the pilot stomp on the rudders? I wish I knew. The genius of managing to combine light aircraft characteristics with such high performance is nothing short of miraculous compared to most other wartime tailwheel types. One or two landings in the Spitfire and you are in love for life.'

Blutarski2004
06-12-2008, 11:19 AM
65 knot stall speed with full main fuel tanks ?!?!?!

Wow.....

blairgowrie
06-12-2008, 11:25 AM
I got excited just reading that review!

JSG72
06-12-2008, 01:21 PM
Just finnished reading "Griffon Spitfire Aces" by Andrew Thomas.

http://www.ospreypublishing.com/title_detail.php/title=T2989~ser=ACE~per=2 (http://www.ospreypublishing.com/title_detail.php/title=T2989%7Eser=ACE%7Eper=2)


Great read, about a superlative aircraft. From Mkxii to xxi. Filled with combat flying accounts. With 109s and 190Ds falling out of the sky trying to turn with these guys.
Many aces starting off their scores with only a month of the War to go! 190s 109s 262s 234s and Storchs. Everything fair game. And even being attacked on occasion by Mustangs!

PanzerAce
06-12-2008, 02:17 PM
Weren't there originally plans to get one of these into IL2?

Blutarski2004
06-12-2008, 06:38 PM
Oh man. I can't help but recall that train-wreck of a thread a few years back with that pseudo-know-it-all who insisted that it was impossible for a Spit XIV to turn with a 109K

The K had slats don'cha know.

Xiolablu3
06-12-2008, 07:28 PM
AFter reading this, first I thought it was a good read, and then I thought with all the recent talk about narrow track undercarriage leading to bad landing characteristics, I felt I had to post this.

The Spitfire (even in this case the heavy Griffon Spitfire) had very narrow track undercarriage, but apparantly its one of the simplest warbirds to land with no bad tendancies.

WTE_Ibis
06-12-2008, 07:43 PM
A very nice description, thank you for posting.
Cheers.

Frequent_Flyer
06-12-2008, 10:37 PM
Posted Thu June 12 2008 03:53
An excellent account has been written by one of America's leading aviation writers, historians, and combat-aircraft experts, Jeff Ethell. Regrettably Jeff lost his life in 1997 while doing what he loved best, flying a World War II P-38 fighter. This text is copyright 1995 to Jeff Ethell....



How can this possible be an accurate account..it was written by an American???? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif They make a nice razor blade... ..

Xiolablu3
06-13-2008, 12:40 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Frequent_Flyer:
Posted Thu June 12 2008 03:53
An excellent account has been written by one of America's leading aviation writers, historians, and combat-aircraft experts, Jeff Ethell. Regrettably Jeff lost his life in 1997 while doing what he loved best, flying a World War II P-38 fighter. This text is copyright 1995 to Jeff Ethell....



How can this possible be an accurate account..it was written by an American???? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif They make a nice razor blade... .. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

OK, I'll bite, in an effort to explain why you have misunderstood a few things...

An important point, which adds value to this account, is that its not a Brit reviewing a British aircraft. People tend to get attached to planes which their own country produced and look at them with rose tinted glasses.

I think you have missed the point when people have maybe questioned some accounts you have used in past when they have been American pilots reviewing American planes, and them having only flown American planes in their career. Or make that German, or British, or Russian, it doesnt matter which.

The fact that Geoff has no emotional attachment to the Spitfire makes this valuable.

I would say the same about Eric 'Winkle' Browns comments about the P51, Fw190 or Corsair. Or Gunther Ralls comments about the SPitfire, P51 or P38. Because these guys have little or no attachment to these planes.

SOme accounts (which I gather you are referring too) may have been questioned in the past, not BECAUSE they were writen by an American, but because its an American talking emotionally about the only Warbird he flew in WW2, or hes only comparing it to US birds.

A Classic bad source would be : 'I flew the P51 in WW2, after transferring from Thunderbolts, and I outturned a Bf109 in combat so I know the P51 turned better. The P51 could outturn any plane in the sky!'

1: This guy has never flown a Bf109 to compare it too.
2: We have no idea who was flying that Bf109 and what his situaion was.
3: ANY plane is going to feel light and manouverable compared to a Thunderbolt.
4: Real life side-by-side tests and maths shows that the P51 could not have been the best turner in WW2.

I hope you understand my point. We learned how to evaluate sources in History at school, and how to tell what is a useful source, what is not a very useful source.


Comments/thoughts are also more useful from people who have flown many of the different types of WW2 fighters, from both sides, as they can really compare them rather than guessing. People in this category would be Eric Brown/Mark Hanna/The 101 Israeli pilots/Geoff Ethel/Gunther Rall/Adolf Galland etc etc.

DO you understand what I mean?

DKoor
06-13-2008, 02:10 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JSG72:
Just finnished reading "Griffon Spitfire Aces" by Andrew Thomas.

http://www.ospreypublishing.com/title_detail.php/title=T2989~ser=ACE~per=2 (http://www.ospreypublishing.com/title_detail.php/title=T2989%7Eser=ACE%7Eper=2)


Great read, about a superlative aircraft. From Mkxii to xxi. Filled with combat flying accounts. With 109s and 190Ds falling out of the sky trying to turn with these guys.
Many aces starting off their scores with only a month of the War to go! 190s 109s 262s 234s and Storchs. Everything fair game. And even being attacked on occasion by Mustangs! </div></BLOCKQUOTE> http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_mad.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-mad.gif

Me wants it. Now. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

FoolTrottel
06-13-2008, 02:19 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
AFter reading this, first I thought it was a good read, and then I thought with all the recent talk about narrow track undercarriage leading to bad landing characteristics, I felt I had to post this.

The Spitfire (even in this case the heavy Griffon Spitfire) had very narrow track undercarriage, but apparantly its one of the simplest warbirds to land with no bad tendancies. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The explanation is in the text too: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Power off, gear and flaps down, main fuel tanks full, it stalls at 65 kts, which is ridiculously slow. </div></BLOCKQUOTE> and <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Why doesn't it drop a wing violently or make the pilot stomp on the rudders? I wish I knew. The genius of managing to combine light aircraft characteristics with such high performance is nothing short of miraculous compared to most other wartime tailwheel types. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

in other words, it still handles very well at low speeds.... must be them specially shaped wings...

DKoor
06-13-2008, 02:35 AM
And about having a rose tinted glasses when speaking of own aircraft.
Everyone did it.
That is the most logical thing in those times.
People are doing it NOW, let alone in those days.

The latest hassle about crappy Bf-109 this and crappy Bf-109 that winded me up quite a bit because I see a tendency to 'blacken' an aircraft that was one of the most dangerous and effective fighter of the WW2. Furthermore, it comes from a people that aren't noobs.

I don't want to position myself as a antediluvian guy here, but in all honesty after I watched a video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5svK5Xs76R4&feature=related) vid that Xio posted some time ago where Hanna speaks of very bad 109 landing chars, I was quite surprised. He also mentioned some staggering 109 accident ratio there.
While I respect him and I feel really sorry even when watching that video (to go that way is really sad http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif ) , I can't say that I've read much German 109 pilot complaints about this aircraft regarding landing gear, which made me wonder about this thing. Yes, it was noted that FW-190 is much more grateful aircraft to take off/land on ****ty grass/land runway, but the position of gears has much to with it I suppose.

Don't get me wrong, I love to read pilot reports, but just, when I want facts I don't turn in their direction, I simply read tests that were done on type.

Capt.LoneRanger
06-13-2008, 02:53 AM
Odd. If I got the chance to testflight a Spitfire, I would surely not land it with full tanks a single time. AFAIK that is a bad thing to do in aviation in general, especially with a precious old warbird.

It should also be noted that he flew a modified Mk. XXIV and the book this statement is from is largely criticized for a bad writing style and inconclusive personal opinions instead of neutral testresults.

Not my opinion, as I didn't read the book - just googling beyond Xiolablu3's source at http://www.supermarine-spitfire.co.uk/flying.html http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Xiolablu3
06-13-2008, 06:49 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Capt.LoneRanger:
Odd. If I got the chance to testflight a Spitfire, I would surely not land it with full tanks a single time. AFAIK that is a bad thing to do in aviation in general, especially with a precious old warbird.

It should also be noted that he flew a modified Mk. XXIV and the book this statement is from is largely criticized for a bad writing style and inconclusive personal opinions instead of neutral testresults.

Not my opinion, as I didn't read the book - just googling beyond Xiolablu3's source at http://www.supermarine-spitfire.co.uk/flying.html http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Whereever it is printed, doesnt mean its a less credible source/piece...Geoff Ethel still wrote it.

I must admit, I didnt research the book or anything about Ethel at all. I read a bit on his Bio and it seemed he had flown a lot of types. Where did you find that other info, could you show me? I googled beyond that page and couldnt find anything...I would like to read it...

My intention is not to mislead, we hear again and again from this source/piece...

'Feels like an extension of yourself'
'Totally Benign, with no mean streak'
'Spitfire is their favourite aircraft'
'I fell in love for life'
'Slow easy stall'

So no doubt it was one of the easiest and most pleasant WW2 warbirds to fly...

However we also often hear...

'Poorly harmonised controls as the speed gets higher'
'Arm wrestling the ailerons at high speeds'
'Terrible view over the nose, even for a tail dragger in Griffon Spits'
'Hard to control on the ground'.


These are the points I get about the Spitfire from this source/piece, whatever you want to call it, which seem to compare with other pilot accounts. Obviously I have an in-built love for the Spit - I'm from England, so I am often cheering the Spit on, but I only want to hear the truth about flying it, not a load of BS.

Xiolablu3
06-13-2008, 07:04 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by DKoor:
And about having a rose tinted glasses when speaking of own aircraft.
Everyone did it.
That is the most logical thing in those times.
People are doing it NOW, let alone in those days.

The latest hassle about crappy Bf-109 this and crappy Bf-109 that winded me up quite a bit because I see a tendency to 'blacken' an aircraft that was one of the most dangerous and effective fighter of the WW2. Furthermore, it comes from a people that aren't noobs.

I don't want to position myself as a antediluvian guy here, but in all honesty after I watched a video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5svK5Xs76R4&feature=related) vid that Xio posted some time ago where Hanna speaks of very bad 109 landing chars, I was quite surprised. He also mentioned some staggering 109 accident ratio there.
While I respect him and I feel really sorry even when watching that video (to go that way is really sad http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif ) , I can't say that I've read much German 109 pilot complaints about this aircraft regarding landing gear, which made me wonder about this thing. Yes, it was noted that FW-190 is much more grateful aircraft to take off/land on ****ty grass/land runway, but the position of gears has much to with it I suppose.

Don't get me wrong, I love to read pilot reports, but just, when I want facts I don't turn in their direction, I simply read tests that were done on type. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I understand your points, mate.

To be fair to Hanna, he does say 'I BELIEVE its a fact?',

AS IF to say

'I have been told this, and I can see why it would be true, because even an experienced pilot like me finds this plane very hard to land, I am not sure for certain'

I find the 33% figure destroyed figure highly unlikely. I mean an aircraft crashing on landing...surely most of these will be slow ground loops or planes ending up on their back, where the aircraft is repaired and back in the sky a few weeks later.

Capt.LoneRanger
06-13-2008, 08:30 AM
I'm not judging his credibility, nor am I judging the Spit. But on the other hand, compared to the P40, P51, P38, P47 and an early Seafire-Version he flew before, I have no doubt that a post-war Spit is the most effective and overwhelming aircraft he ever flew up to that point.

Here's one of his quotes about the P-38, his favorite aircraft (probably because his father flew it in WW2):

The initial reluctance of the P-38 to enter a roll was easily
counteracted: throttle back the inside engine briefly as as you turn the
wheel, then bring power back up. The plane would snap into a roll so fast
it might knock your head against the canopy. The trick was not to let the
plane get away from you when doing this. It took praciice to get it right
and make it an automatic action, especially during the heat of combat.



BTW, the books in the critics were written by Jeff Ethell himself, but IMHO it's just a matter as what you take it. Those books were never meant to be a direct comparison or correct flight-testing. He had the chance to fly them and test a few tricks he heard from other pilots and wrote a book about his experiences. That's pretty much it.

M_Gunz
06-13-2008, 10:13 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Blutarski2004:
Oh man. I can't help but recall that train-wreck of a thread a few years back with that pseudo-know-it-all who insisted that it was impossible for a Spit XIV to turn with a 109K

The K had slats don'cha know. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't think the fish are going to be that easy to catch this season. Notice how many posts
with the word Spitfire in them and still no reflex response even with a come-on like that.

When the red wiggler doesn't work it's time to haul in the lines and go out for hamburgers.

crucislancer
06-13-2008, 10:24 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by M_Gunz:
When the red wiggler doesn't work it's time to haul in the lines and go out for hamburgers. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm all for hamburgers. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Nice account of flying a Griffon Spitfire, I enjoyed it. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Frequent_Flyer
06-13-2008, 11:12 AM
Xioablu

I will use your example so read nothing into it.

A Classic bad source would be : 'I flew the P51 in WW2, after transferring from Thunderbolts, and I outturned a Bf109 in combat so I know the P51 turned better. The P51 could outturn any plane in the sky!'

At high speed the P-51 " could out turn any plane in the sky "

This was confirmed by German and Romanian pilots in many accounts I've read.

Polish pilots that flew both the Spit and the P-51 confirmed this as well.

So... the pilot in your example is correct, at speeds above X the P-51 "will out turn any plane in the sky "

Whose experience has greater validity? The German, Romanian, or Polish pilot. They are all saying the samething with regards to the P-51 at high speed, as the pilot in your example.

If the pilot in your example was an American, why would his statement be less valid than the German, Romanian, or Polish pilots .

JSG72
06-13-2008, 04:44 PM
WTF.

Who is talking about P-51s?

The thread is about the Spitfire MKXIVe.

A plane that was greatly asked for within this SIM. But alas! Not to be. I think Xiolablu3 Is just giving us an example of "A pilots thoughts" of this craft. All be it from an American and not British source.

Having read "Griffon Spitfire Aces".(This contains. Way more information, than just one pilots "Test experience") I now have a much clearer view of this aircraft. (My views on it being the ultimate "Uberfighter" have been re-inforced. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif).

Rjel
06-13-2008, 04:50 PM
How about giving Ethell the respect he deserves and edit the subject line of this post? His name was Jeff, not Geoff.

JSG72
06-13-2008, 05:10 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Rjel:
How about giving Ethell the respect he deserves and edit the subject line of this post? His name was Jeff, not Geoff. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

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

I am sure. That amongst many others, I have a few publiations, that Jeff has contributed to and sincerely respect his veiws on whichever subject alluded to.

HerrGraf
06-13-2008, 09:50 PM
JSG72, you missed the point of Frequent-Flyers' post- it's not about P51s but about judging someones opinions on thier nationality.

Xiolablu3
06-14-2008, 12:10 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Frequent_Flyer:


If the pilot in your example was an American, why would his statement be less valid than the German, Romanian, or Polish pilots . </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


It MIGHT not be, but it COULD be...

The P51 comes from the USA, people create bonds with the aircraft from their own country and they as such often taint things with emotion.

Pilots from other countries than the one the aircraft come from have no emotional attachment to the plane becasue its from 'their country'

A German pilot flying a P51 would most likely have also flown a Bf109 or FW190, so he can compare the two. The P51 could be the only warbird the American flew, how can he compare it with a Bf109 or FW190?.

Its not the fact that an American commenting on the P51 is not useful, it just depends on how much other types that American has flown. It COULD be VEREY useful source, especially if he has flown many other different types, inc. enemy and foreign aircraft, then its especially useful.

To make a different comparison. Lets take an RAF pilot who has flown just the Hurricane and Spitfire in WW2 and starts lavishing praise on the SPit, calling it 'the best plane ever' and 'much better than the Bf109'.

He only has the Hurricane to really compare it to and has probably never flown a Bf109, so how does he know?

Also ANY modern plane P51, Spitfire, Fw190 etc is going to be a step up from the Hurricane, so the Spit WILL seem a much better plane to him. It also kept him safe through WW2 and he no doubt out-turned some German planes too.

Now, on the other hand, if that RAF Spitfire pilot has tested/flown German, Japanese or American types, or has flown a lot of different planes, then his writing instantly become more useful, as he can make a real comparison between some types.

BTW why should a P51 outturn a Spitfire even at high speed? The Spitfire had a very very light elevator too. I am asking cos I am interested in what you think, not cos I'm baiting you...http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Kurfurst__
06-14-2008, 02:29 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:

BTW why should a P51 outturn a Spitfire even at high speed? The Spitfire had a very very light elevator too. I am asking cos I am interested in what you think, not cos I'm baiting you...http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Because of drag at high speed.

Think like this. The Spit can go 330 mph on the deck, the Mustang say around 370, in level flight. They both have the same engines (for practical purposes anyway). And, turning will result in higher drag.

So when both turning at 330 mph at low level, the Mustang still has a lot of excess thrust, whereas the Spit cannot accelearate any further at 330. At 330, its total drag = total thrust, thus no excess thurst for turning at all. Which translates that the Mustang is probably outturning it in sustained turns probably already around 300-310. Of course the Spit can keep up for a while (with a non-sustained turn), but eventually it will just bleed off speed, and the Mustang will be at a higher energy state.

Elevator doesn`t come into a play in here, it only matters that you`d be needing to apply enough Gs with it. And since at high speed you can only sustain a lot less Gs than at low speed (since drag is so much higher), it isnt an issue with any plane, as far as sustained turns go.

BTW, pretty much true for any faster plane vs. slower plane.

Capt.LoneRanger
06-14-2008, 03:12 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Rjel:
How about giving Ethell the respect he deserves and edit the subject line of this post? His name was Jeff, not Geoff. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You are right, the subject and the context promises a neutral analysis, which it is not. That doesn't mean were not honoring that outstanding pilot but the tactical value of this, as he used similar superlatives on all the planes he flew (which I honestly understand 200%)

@JSG72.
Quote: "The thread is about the Spitfire MKXIVe."

That's exactly my point. How do you know he flew a Mk XIVe? I only read that he flew the MkXXIV and a 2-seater rebuilt Spit. Mk.V

On a sidenote about Ethels comments: At Combatsim.com, Ethel is also quoted from his report on flying a 109 and reports a stall-speed of 65kts. Sounds "ridiculously slow" to me, too. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Kurfurst__
06-14-2008, 03:20 AM
Well these plane probably do not carry armor, self sealing tanks, guns, ammo, bulky WW2 radios anymore and a result are much much lighter in general.

Capt.LoneRanger
06-14-2008, 05:33 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
Well these plane probably do not carry armor, self sealing tanks, guns, ammo, bulky WW2 radios anymore and a result are much much lighter in general. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's exactly my point. Ethel flew these planes and wrote books about his experiences and the history of the plane-type he flew. Considering that his son wrote this story, because due to his fatal accident he didn't have the chance himself, IMHO is a good hint that these experiences are not based on flights that happened during wartime or even shortly after that. That also would explain why most of the pictures I found on the internet showed him in front of a Mk.XXIV and the modified version.

Xiolablu3
06-14-2008, 09:13 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Capt.LoneRanger:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
Well these plane probably do not carry armor, self sealing tanks, guns, ammo, bulky WW2 radios anymore and a result are much much lighter in general. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's exactly my point. Ethel flew these planes and wrote books about his experiences and the history of the plane-type he flew. Considering that his son wrote this story, because due to his fatal accident he didn't have the chance himself, IMHO is a good hint that these experiences are not based on flights that happened during wartime or even shortly after that. That also would explain why most of the pictures I found on the internet showed him in front of a Mk.XXIV and the modified version. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, all very good points, particularly the lightness factor, but on Lonerangers points isnt Jeff Ethel the son of another Ethel who flew P38's in WW2? Jeff Ethel Jnr having flown many different types of warbirds, but not in WW2? (he wasnt born until after)

Btw Kurfy where is your sig, I miss it. Can you not just cut a bit off it and reupload?

TX-Gunslinger
06-14-2008, 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 Xiolablu3:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Frequent_Flyer:
Posted Thu June 12 2008 03:53
An excellent account has been written by one of America's leading aviation writers, historians, and combat-aircraft experts, Jeff Ethell. Regrettably Jeff lost his life in 1997 while doing what he loved best, flying a World War II P-38 fighter. This text is copyright 1995 to Jeff Ethell....



How can this possible be an accurate account..it was written by an American???? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif They make a nice razor blade... .. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

OK, I'll bite, in an effort to explain why you have misunderstood a few things...

An important point, which adds value to this account, is that its not a Brit reviewing a British aircraft. People tend to get attached to planes which their own country produced and look at them with rose tinted glasses.

I think you have missed the point when people have maybe questioned some accounts you have used in past when they have been American pilots reviewing American planes, and them having only flown American planes in their career. Or make that German, or British, or Russian, it doesnt matter which.

The fact that Geoff has no emotional attachment to the Spitfire makes this valuable.

I would say the same about Eric 'Winkle' Browns comments about the P51, Fw190 or Corsair. Or Gunther Ralls comments about the SPitfire, P51 or P38. Because these guys have little or no attachment to these planes.

SOme accounts (which I gather you are referring too) may have been questioned in the past, not BECAUSE they were writen by an American, but because its an American talking emotionally about the only Warbird he flew in WW2, or hes only comparing it to US birds.

A Classic bad source would be : 'I flew the P51 in WW2, after transferring from Thunderbolts, and I outturned a Bf109 in combat so I know the P51 turned better. The P51 could outturn any plane in the sky!'

1: This guy has never flown a Bf109 to compare it too.
2: We have no idea who was flying that Bf109 and what his situaion was.
3: ANY plane is going to feel light and manouverable compared to a Thunderbolt.
4: Real life side-by-side tests and maths shows that the P51 could not have been the best turner in WW2.

I hope you understand my point. We learned how to evaluate sources in History at school, and how to tell what is a useful source, what is not a very useful source.


Comments/thoughts are also more useful from people who have flown many of the different types of WW2 fighters, from both sides, as they can really compare them rather than guessing. People in this category would be Eric Brown/Mark Hanna/The 101 Israeli pilots/Geoff Ethel/Gunther Rall/Adolf Galland etc etc.

DO you understand what I mean? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Perfectly.

Xio, you need to copy that post off and just "paste" it for use every time that particular issues comes up.

Very well said.

S~

Gunny

Frequent_Flyer
06-14-2008, 01:03 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Frequent_Flyer:


If the pilot in your example was an American, why would his statement be less valid than the German, Romanian, or Polish pilots . </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


It MIGHT not be, but it COULD be...

The P51 comes from the USA, people create bonds with the aircraft from their own country and they as such often taint things with emotion.

Pilots from other countries than the one the aircraft come from have no emotional attachment to the plane becasue its from 'their country'

A German pilot flying a P51 would most likely have also flown a Bf109 or FW190, so he can compare the two. The P51 could be the only warbird the American flew, how can he compare it with a Bf109 or FW190?.

Its not the fact that an American commenting on the P51 is not useful, it just depends on how much other types that American has flown. It COULD be VEREY useful source, especially if he has flown many other different types, inc. enemy and foreign aircraft, then its especially useful.

To make a different comparison. Lets take an RAF pilot who has flown just the Hurricane and Spitfire in WW2 and starts lavishing praise on the SPit, calling it 'the best plane ever' and 'much better than the Bf109'.

He only has the Hurricane to really compare it to and has probably never flown a Bf109, so how does he know?

Also ANY modern plane P51, Spitfire, Fw190 etc is going to be a step up from the Hurricane, so the Spit WILL seem a much better plane to him. It also kept him safe through WW2 and he no doubt out-turned some German planes too.

Now, on the other hand, if that RAF Spitfire pilot has tested/flown German, Japanese or American types, or has flown a lot of different planes, then his writing instantly become more useful, as he can make a real comparison between some types.

BTW why should a P51 outturn a Spitfire even at high speed? The Spitfire had a very very light elevator too. I am asking cos I am interested in what you think, not cos I'm baiting you...http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Define high speed. The P-51 is considerably faster in level flight or while diving. So we are restricted in comparing the two by the Spit's limitations. There are a number of aircraft that have responsive controls at slower speeds ie. the Zero and 109- neither are effective at high speeds.

Even at slower speeds the Wildcat ( in real life ) out turns a Spit.It also out turns a 109 . Turning radius is over rated.

Ultimately, a fighters best asset is its ability to get you out of trouble, as fast as you got in to trouble. Dictate the terms of the engagement.

To your other points. The points of comparision that are meaningful are not a RAF pilot comparing a Spit to Hurri to a P-51 or some combination thereof. Rather comparing actuall combat experience from the perspective of a Spit, Hurri or P-51 vs. a 109 or 190 and any combination thereof.

By your reasoning the Polish pilots many of whom flew all three the Hurri, Spit and P-51 in combat are the only ones qualified to make a valid assertion.

Xiolablu3
06-14-2008, 01:44 PM
I agree, but turning is useful if you HAVE to engage. Sometimes a fighter MUST engage, they cannot just 'decide' to disengage.

For example if they are covering people on the ground, or protecting bombers, or just in any way forced to fight. In these situations turning is very useful.

For a fighter on a free hunt role, then I agree turning is definitely over-rated, particularly in this sim. However I have seen 'Ace' pilots often stating that turn perforamnce is the most important manouvre in Air Combat. (obviously in their opinion only) Just one example is Mr Sea Harrier 'Sharkey' Ward (Harrier pilot in the Falklands with numerous A2A kills) who states this at the back of his book 'Harrier over the Falklands'.


I'm not sure about a Wildcat outurning a Spitfire, do you know how heavy the Wildcat is compared to the Spitfire? But I have never seen the results of a test run with both aircraft so I cant say for sure. Do you have one? WHy did you reach this conclusion?

Also remember that A SPitfire XIV is almost as fast as a P51 at some heights, outclimbs is, outturns it (at low-mid speeds at least) and even a MkIX outclimbs the P51, so both planes have their 'limitations' not just the Spit.


ADFU trials :-

Radius of Action
31. Without a long range tank, the Spitfire XIV has no endurance. With a 90 gallon long-range tank it has about half the range of the Mustang III fitted with 2 x 62 1/2 gallon long range tanks.

Maximum Speed
32. The maximum speed are practically identical.

Maximum Climb
33. The Spitfire XIV is very much better.

Dive
34. As for the Spitfire IX. The Mustang pulls away, but less markedly.

Turning Circle
35. The Spitfire XIV is better.

Rate of Roll
36. The advantage tends to be with the Spitfire XIV.

Conclusion
37. With the exception of endurance no conclusions can be drawn, as these two aircraft should never be enemies. The choice is a matter of taste.

For the SPitfire IX, just change the 'Top Speed' category to 'The Mustang is faster than the Spitfire IX at all heights'.

I wouldnt say the Spitfire is 'limited' vs the P51, its just better in some ways and worse in others.

Xiolablu3
06-14-2008, 02:00 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Frequent_Flyer:


By your reasoning the Polish pilots many of whom flew all three the Hurri, Spit and P-51 in combat are the only ones qualified to make a valid assertion. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not the ONLY ones, but extrememly useful. DO you have any writings by these guys pls?

The 101 Israeli pilots also flew the Spitfire IX and the P51D in combat and are not 'attached' to either plane, so can make good comparisons/sources :-

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

Gunther Rall flew Bf109's and also tested the SPitfire and P51. He felt the SPitfire was excellent, but that the P51 was a fantastic plane becasue of its range. I get the feeling from the text that he preffered the P51, its a good read :-

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

Frequent_Flyer
06-14-2008, 02:01 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
I agree, but turning is useful if you HAVE to engage. Sometimes a fighter MUST engage, they cannot just 'decide' to disengage.

For example if they are covering people on the ground, or protecting bombers, or just in any way forced to fight. In these situations turning is very useful.

For a fighter on a free hunt role, then I agree turning is definitely over-rated, particularly in this sim. However I have seen 'Ace' pilots often stating that turn perforamnce is the most important manouvre in Air Combat. (obviously in their opinion only) Just one example is Mr Sea Harrier 'Sharkey' Ward (Harrier pilot in the Falklands with numerous A2A kills) who states this at the back of his book 'Harrier over the Falklands'.


I'm not sure about a Wildcat outurning a Spitfire, do you know how heavy the Wildcat is compared to the Spitfire? But I have never seen the results of a test run with both aircraft so I cant say for sure. Do you have one? WHy did you reach this conclusion?

Also remember that A SPitfire XIV is almost as fast as a P51 at some heights, outclimbs is, outturns it (at low-mid speeds at least) and even a MkIX outclimbs the P51, so both planes have their 'limitations' not just the Spit.


ADFU trials :-

Radius of Action
31. Without a long range tank, the Spitfire XIV has no endurance. With a 90 gallon long-range tank it has about half the range of the Mustang III fitted with 2 x 62 1/2 gallon long range tanks.

Maximum Speed
32. The maximum speed are practically identical.

Maximum Climb
33. The Spitfire XIV is very much better.

Dive
34. As for the Spitfire IX. The Mustang pulls away, but less markedly.

Turning Circle
35. The Spitfire XIV is better.

Rate of Roll
36. The advantage tends to be with the Spitfire XIV.

Conclusion
37. With the exception of endurance no conclusions can be drawn, as these two aircraft should never be enemies. The choice is a matter of taste.

For the SPitfire IX, just change the 'Top Speed' category to 'The Mustang is faster than the Spitfire IX at all heights'.

I wouldnt say the Spitfire is 'limited' vs the P51, its just better in some ways and worse in others. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Frequent_Flyer
06-14-2008, 02:23 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
I agree, but turning is useful if you HAVE to engage. Sometimes a fighter MUST engage, they cannot just 'decide' to disengage.

For example if they are covering people on the ground, or protecting bombers, or just in any way forced to fight. In these situations turning is very useful.

For a fighter on a free hunt role, then I agree turning is definitely over-rated, particularly in this sim. However I have seen 'Ace' pilots often stating that turn perforamnce is the most important manouvre in Air Combat. (obviously in their opinion only) Just one example is Mr Sea Harrier 'Sharkey' Ward (Harrier pilot in the Falklands with numerous A2A kills) who states this at the back of his book 'Harrier over the Falklands'.


I'm not sure about a Wildcat outurning a Spitfire, do you know how heavy the Wildcat is compared to the Spitfire? But I have never seen the results of a test run with both aircraft so I cant say for sure. Do you have one? WHy did you reach this conclusion?

Also remember that A SPitfire XIV is almost as fast as a P51 at some heights, outclimbs is, outturns it (at low-mid speeds at least) and even a MkIX outclimbs the P51, so both planes have their 'limitations' not just the Spit.


ADFU trials :-

Radius of Action
31. Without a long range tank, the Spitfire XIV has no endurance. With a 90 gallon long-range tank it has about half the range of the Mustang III fitted with 2 x 62 1/2 gallon long range tanks.

Maximum Speed
32. The maximum speed are practically identical.

Maximum Climb
33. The Spitfire XIV is very much better.

Dive
34. As for the Spitfire IX. The Mustang pulls away, but less markedly.

Turning Circle
35. The Spitfire XIV is better.

Rate of Roll
36. The advantage tends to be with the Spitfire XIV.

Conclusion
37. With the exception of endurance no conclusions can be drawn, as these two aircraft should never be enemies. The choice is a matter of taste.

For the SPitfire IX, just change the 'Top Speed' category to 'The Mustang is faster than the Spitfire IX at all heights'.

I wouldnt say the Spitfire is 'limited' vs the P51, its just better in some ways and worse in others. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Most engagements do not start on equal terms. If you initiate you want to do so with an altitude advantage, generate as much speed as possible so your victim cannot follow you down.
When you have built up the most speed at the end of your dive the P-51 will out turn any other aircraft, Spit included. Aerodynamically it was a cleaner design than the Spit, helping it retain energy in a zoom climb.

The P-51C or D have the same Climb time to 20,000ft as the Spit X IV - 7 min.

The P-51 out dives the Spit., Therefore if it needs to disengage or follow its opponet in a dive not a problem.

Turn radius is useful if you never use your elevators. Most engagements start with you either diving or climbing.

For true comparision both aircraft should have the identical amount of fuel aboard.

In a combat situation the Spit would be heading home while the P-51 was still engaging the enemy.

Xiolablu3
06-14-2008, 02:31 PM
Absolutely the P51 was a much cleaner aircraft. It was faster with the same engine.

However the P51C/D could definitely not climb as fast as a Spitfire IX (Merlin 66 most common 1943 version), mate.

By the way, I think you will like this, you need to download the small free client in order to watch it, but its worth it...

http://www.veoh.com/videos/v6258103Kx87agGE?rank=0&json...0352452748288&rank=1 (http://www.veoh.com/videos/v6258103Kx87agGE?rank=0&jsonParams=%7B%22numResults%22%3A20%2C%22rlmin%22% 3A0%2C%22query%22%3A%22focke+wulf+p51%22%2C%22rlma x%22%3Anull%2C%22veohOnly%22%3Atrue%2C%22order%22% 3A%22default%22%2C%22range%22%3A%22a%22%2C%22sId%2 2%3A%222595730352452748288%22%7D&searchId=2595730352452748288&rank=1)

Frequent_Flyer
06-14-2008, 02:43 PM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
Absolutely the P51 was a much cleaner aircraft. It was faster with the same engine.

However the P51C/D could definitely not climb as fast as a Spitfire IX (Merlin 66 most common 1943 version), mate.

By the way, I think you will like this, you need to download the small free client in order to watch it, but its worth it...

http://www.veoh.com/videos/v6258103Kx87agGE?rank=0&json...0352452748288&rank=1 (http://www.veoh.com/videos/v6258103Kx87agGE?rank=0&jsonParams=%7B%22numResults%22%3A20%2C%22rlmin%22% 3A0%2C%22query%22%3A%22focke+wulf+p51%22%2C%22rlma x%22%3Anull%2C%22veohOnly%22%3Atrue%2C%22order%22% 3A%22default%22%2C%22range%22%3A%22a%22%2C%22sId%2 2%3A%222595730352452748288%22%7D&searchId=2595730352452748288&rank=1)[/QUOTE

................................................

However, the Spit XIV was not faster in a climb than the P-51.

The IX was slower, had no range,it could not take the fight to the enemy in the ETO until airbases were established in France.

Making its rate of climb irrelavant in comparision.

In combat your " zoom climb rate ", would mean more I would think.

Xiolablu3
06-14-2008, 02:44 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Frequent_Flyer:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
Absolutely the P51 was a much cleaner aircraft. It was faster with the same engine.

However the P51C/D could definitely not climb as fast as a Spitfire IX (Merlin 66 most common 1943 version), mate.

By the way, I think you will like this, you need to download the small free client in order to watch it, but its worth it...

http://www.veoh.com/videos/v6258103Kx87agGE?rank=0&json...0352452748288&rank=1 (http://www.veoh.com/videos/v6258103Kx87agGE?rank=0&jsonParams=%7B%22numResults%22%3A20%2C%22rlmin%22% 3A0%2C%22query%22%3A%22focke+wulf+p51%22%2C%22rlma x%22%3Anull%2C%22veohOnly%22%3Atrue%2C%22order%22% 3A%22default%22%2C%22range%22%3A%22a%22%2C%22sId%2 2%3A%222595730352452748288%22%7D&searchId=2595730352452748288&rank=1)[/QUOTE

However, the Spit XIV was not faster in a climb than the P-51.

The IX was slower, had no range,it could not take the fight to the enemy in the ETO until airbases were established in France.Making its rate of climb irrelavant in comparision. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Ahh I see, this isnt a real discussion, its an attempt at a fishing trip...

Lets not waste our time anymore, I have better things to do...http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Xiolablu3
06-14-2008, 02:45 PM
<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 Xiolablu3:

BTW why should a P51 outturn a Spitfire even at high speed? The Spitfire had a very very light elevator too. I am asking cos I am interested in what you think, not cos I'm baiting you...http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Because of drag at high speed.

Think like this. The Spit can go 330 mph on the deck, the Mustang say around 370, in level flight. They both have the same engines (for practical purposes anyway). And, turning will result in higher drag.

So when both turning at 330 mph at low level, the Mustang still has a lot of excess thrust, whereas the Spit cannot accelearate any further at 330. At 330, its total drag = total thrust, thus no excess thurst for turning at all. Which translates that the Mustang is probably outturning it in sustained turns probably already around 300-310. Of course the Spit can keep up for a while (with a non-sustained turn), but eventually it will just bleed off speed, and the Mustang will be at a higher energy state.

Elevator doesn`t come into a play in here, it only matters that you`d be needing to apply enough Gs with it. And since at high speed you can only sustain a lot less Gs than at low speed (since drag is so much higher), it isnt an issue with any plane, as far as sustained turns go.

BTW, pretty much true for any faster plane vs. slower plane. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Thanks for an interesting description, mate. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Frequent_Flyer
06-14-2008, 02:51 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Frequent_Flyer:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
Absolutely the P51 was a much cleaner aircraft. It was faster with the same engine.

However the P51C/D could definitely not climb as fast as a Spitfire IX (Merlin 66 most common 1943 version), mate.

By the way, I think you will like this, you need to download the small free client in order to watch it, but its worth it...

http://www.veoh.com/videos/v6258103Kx87agGE?rank=0&json...0352452748288&rank=1 (http://www.veoh.com/videos/v6258103Kx87agGE?rank=0&jsonParams=%7B%22numResults%22%3A20%2C%22rlmin%22% 3A0%2C%22query%22%3A%22focke+wulf+p51%22%2C%22rlma x%22%3Anull%2C%22veohOnly%22%3Atrue%2C%22order%22% 3A%22default%22%2C%22range%22%3A%22a%22%2C%22sId%2 2%3A%222595730352452748288%22%7D&searchId=2595730352452748288&rank=1)[/QUOTE

However, the Spit XIV was not faster in a climb than the P-51.

The IX was slower, had no range,it could not take the fight to the enemy in the ETO until airbases were established in France.Making its rate of climb irrelavant in comparision. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Ahh I see, this isnt a real discussion, its an attempt at a fishing trip...

Lets not waste our time anymore, I have better things to do...http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Interesting point to " disengage ". After you stand corrected on your climb rate for the Spit XIV. Correcting your inaccuracy is not " fishing ".

Its useless to continue any diologe if facts get in the way, you have an interesting take on " real discussion".

You were running out of fuel anyway. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Xiolablu3
06-14-2008, 02:53 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Frequent_Flyer:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Frequent_Flyer:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
Absolutely the P51 was a much cleaner aircraft. It was faster with the same engine.

However the P51C/D could definitely not climb as fast as a Spitfire IX (Merlin 66 most common 1943 version), mate.

By the way, I think you will like this, you need to download the small free client in order to watch it, but its worth it...

http://www.veoh.com/videos/v6258103Kx87agGE?rank=0&json...0352452748288&rank=1 (http://www.veoh.com/videos/v6258103Kx87agGE?rank=0&jsonParams=%7B%22numResults%22%3A20%2C%22rlmin%22% 3A0%2C%22query%22%3A%22focke+wulf+p51%22%2C%22rlma x%22%3Anull%2C%22veohOnly%22%3Atrue%2C%22order%22% 3A%22default%22%2C%22range%22%3A%22a%22%2C%22sId%2 2%3A%222595730352452748288%22%7D&searchId=2595730352452748288&rank=1)[/QUOTE

However, the Spit XIV was not faster in a climb than the P-51.

The IX was slower, had no range,it could not take the fight to the enemy in the ETO until airbases were established in France.Making its rate of climb irrelavant in comparision. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Ahh I see, this isnt a real discussion, its an attempt at a fishing trip...

Lets not waste our time anymore, I have better things to do...http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Interesting point to " disengage ". After you stand corrected on your climb rate for the Spit XIV.

You were running out of fuel anyway. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thats Ok, I will 'rise above it' with my faster rate of climb anyway...http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Seriously though, watch that video I posted, its an hour long and you will love it if you like the P51

Frequent_Flyer
06-14-2008, 03:00 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Frequent_Flyer:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Frequent_Flyer:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
Absolutely the P51 was a much cleaner aircraft. It was faster with the same engine.

However the P51C/D could definitely not climb as fast as a Spitfire IX (Merlin 66 most common 1943 version), mate.

By the way, I think you will like this, you need to download the small free client in order to watch it, but its worth it...

http://www.veoh.com/videos/v6258103Kx87agGE?rank=0&json...0352452748288&rank=1 (http://www.veoh.com/videos/v6258103Kx87agGE?rank=0&jsonParams=%7B%22numResults%22%3A20%2C%22rlmin%22% 3A0%2C%22query%22%3A%22focke+wulf+p51%22%2C%22rlma x%22%3Anull%2C%22veohOnly%22%3Atrue%2C%22order%22% 3A%22default%22%2C%22range%22%3A%22a%22%2C%22sId%2 2%3A%222595730352452748288%22%7D&searchId=2595730352452748288&rank=1)[/QUOTE

However, the Spit XIV was not faster in a climb than the P-51.

The IX was slower, had no range,it could not take the fight to the enemy in the ETO until airbases were established in France.Making its rate of climb irrelavant in comparision. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Ahh I see, this isnt a real discussion, its an attempt at a fishing trip...

Lets not waste our time anymore, I have better things to do...http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Interesting point to " disengage ". After you stand corrected on your climb rate for the Spit XIV.

You were running out of fuel anyway. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thats Ok, I will 'rise above it' with my faster rate of climb anyway...http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Seriously though, watch that video I posted, its an hour long and you will love it if you like the P51 </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


You will have to glide home. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Xiolablu3
06-14-2008, 03:12 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Frequent_Flyer:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Frequent_Flyer:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Frequent_Flyer:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
Absolutely the P51 was a much cleaner aircraft. It was faster with the same engine.

However the P51C/D could definitely not climb as fast as a Spitfire IX (Merlin 66 most common 1943 version), mate.

By the way, I think you will like this, you need to download the small free client in order to watch it, but its worth it...

http://www.veoh.com/videos/v6258103Kx87agGE?rank=0&json...0352452748288&rank=1 (http://www.veoh.com/videos/v6258103Kx87agGE?rank=0&jsonParams=%7B%22numResults%22%3A20%2C%22rlmin%22% 3A0%2C%22query%22%3A%22focke+wulf+p51%22%2C%22rlma x%22%3Anull%2C%22veohOnly%22%3Atrue%2C%22order%22% 3A%22default%22%2C%22range%22%3A%22a%22%2C%22sId%2 2%3A%222595730352452748288%22%7D&searchId=2595730352452748288&rank=1)[/QUOTE

However, the Spit XIV was not faster in a climb than the P-51.

The IX was slower, had no range,it could not take the fight to the enemy in the ETO until airbases were established in France.Making its rate of climb irrelavant in comparision. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Ahh I see, this isnt a real discussion, its an attempt at a fishing trip...

Lets not waste our time anymore, I have better things to do...http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Interesting point to " disengage ". After you stand corrected on your climb rate for the Spit XIV.

You were running out of fuel anyway. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thats Ok, I will 'rise above it' with my faster rate of climb anyway...http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Seriously though, watch that video I posted, its an hour long and you will love it if you like the P51 </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


You will have to glide home. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Ahha, but I have a MVIII with 650miles range...and I took drop tanks which increased my range to 1200 miles http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif

My wingman has a US built MkXVI with a large rear fuel tank, which has about the same range.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif

Frequent_Flyer
06-14-2008, 04:44 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Frequent_Flyer:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Frequent_Flyer:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Frequent_Flyer:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
Absolutely the P51 was a much cleaner aircraft. It was faster with the same engine.

However the P51C/D could definitely not climb as fast as a Spitfire IX (Merlin 66 most common 1943 version), mate.

By the way, I think you will like this, you need to download the small free client in order to watch it, but its worth it...

http://www.veoh.com/videos/v6258103Kx87agGE?rank=0&json...0352452748288&rank=1 (http://www.veoh.com/videos/v6258103Kx87agGE?rank=0&jsonParams=%7B%22numResults%22%3A20%2C%22rlmin%22% 3A0%2C%22query%22%3A%22focke+wulf+p51%22%2C%22rlma x%22%3Anull%2C%22veohOnly%22%3Atrue%2C%22order%22% 3A%22default%22%2C%22range%22%3A%22a%22%2C%22sId%2 2%3A%222595730352452748288%22%7D&searchId=2595730352452748288&rank=1)[/QUOTE

However, the Spit XIV was not faster in a climb than the P-51.

The IX was slower, had no range,it could not take the fight to the enemy in the ETO until airbases were established in France.Making its rate of climb irrelavant in comparision. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Ahh I see, this isnt a real discussion, its an attempt at a fishing trip...

Lets not waste our time anymore, I have better things to do...http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Interesting point to " disengage ". After you stand corrected on your climb rate for the Spit XIV.

You were running out of fuel anyway. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thats Ok, I will 'rise above it' with my faster rate of climb anyway...http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Seriously though, watch that video I posted, its an hour long and you will love it if you like the P51 </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


You will have to glide home. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Ahha, but I have a MVIII with 650miles range...and I took drop tanks which increased my range to 1200 miles http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif

My wingman has a US built MkXVI with a large rear fuel tank, which has about the same range.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

With the price of fuel now, you will have to live in your Spit after you fill it http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif

luftluuver
06-14-2008, 04:54 PM
Agh but the P-51 can't afford the fuel so won't even get off the round. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif

Brain32
06-14-2008, 07:20 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> However I have seen 'Ace' pilots often stating that turn perforamnce is the most important manouvre in Air Combat. (obviously in their opinion only) Just one example is Mr Sea Harrier 'Sharkey' Ward (Harrier pilot in the Falklands with numerous A2A kills) who states this at the back of his book 'Harrier over the Falklands'. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

And Sharkey was probably very right, this was the modern age with air to air missiles and Harriers of that "era" AFAIK could only use heat seeking missiles. While in WW2 by the time you complete the turn, the faster enemy is surely waaay out of the range of your guns, but if you have a heat seeking missile you are at the sweet spot. Even though the Brits recieved their first AIM-9L's just at the begining of the war, rear aspect was and still is the best firing position for a heat seeking missile. In short modern missile fights have a lot different approach than WW2 aerial engagements...missile is always faster than nearly any plane...

***
As for pilot opinions ofcourse it's better to hear opinions from pilots that flew many types, but I only really account them seriously if they flew them in combat, not so much those that flew one-two types over the whole war and sat one Sunday afternoon in another plane and then stated their opinions...

***
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Even at slower speeds the Wildcat ( in real life ) out turns a Spit. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
That was probably one of those darn pesky wooden Spitfires http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Kettenhunde
06-15-2008, 04:41 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Rate of Roll
36. The advantage tends to be with the Spitfire XIV.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

At what velocity is this statement talking about?

If you make this statement about the two aircraft at low velocity, I would agree with it.

However, at high velocity, a normal wing Spitfire has no hope of even being close to a Mustang in rate of roll.

That's a nice opinion from Jeff Ethell, Xio.

I wonder what it would be if he flew one that was much heavier with all of its service equipment?

All the best,

Crumpp

Bremspropeller
06-15-2008, 05:45 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">However I have seen 'Ace' pilots often stating that turn perforamnce is the most important manouvre in Air Combat. (obviously in their opinion only) Just one example is Mr Sea Harrier 'Sharkey' Ward (Harrier pilot in the Falklands with numerous A2A kills) who states this at the back of his book 'Harrier over the Falklands'. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, other "Aces" disagree with Mr. Ward.
There is no point. Of course it's nice to be able to turn, but unless you're flying an F-104 or F-105 (the latter much more so), you'll always have enough turn avaliable to break off and force an overshoot.
The 104 could do that as well, but not below 400 knots b/c of pitchup-problems - it would turn inside an F-16 at high speeds (supersonic region, that is).

Today, things look a bit differently, as fighters tend to fight an angles fight and point their noses way off their flight-direction.
Together with t/v heaters and helmet-visors, we're in an entiurely different environment for A-A fighting.

DKoor
06-15-2008, 06:26 AM
The best maneuver in WW2 was speed, altitude, sharp eye sight/SA.

Everything else is a great delusion.

Bremspropeller
06-15-2008, 06:30 AM
Exactly.

stathem
06-15-2008, 07:22 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kettenhunde:

I wonder what it would be if he flew one that was much heavier with all of its service equipment?

All the best,

Crumpp </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

..Or if he were able to wind the boost up to the levels they used to use during wartime?

Kurfurst__
06-15-2008, 07:35 AM
Then he would note a far more pronounced torque in a lightly loaded plane..

Xiolablu3
06-15-2008, 07:46 AM
Just changing the subject for a minute, if you guys think the US/Canada/Hungary/Germany/any other countries has it bad for fuel prices, I can tell you that the UK is nearly at breaking point thanks to the fuel tax.

Petrol is £1.20 (about $2.15 USD) a LITRE.

Dont wait until you are at our levels (eq. $11 a gallon) before you kick up a storm, or they will just keep adding tax.

Tanker drivers are on strike today in the UK because of fuel tax.

It now costs about £60 (over $100) to fill up a tank of petrol/gas. We are taxed twice, once with fuel duty which is about 60%, and then 15% again with VAT. Its really quite unbelieveable, and I dont think anyone in the UK can quite believe we have reached these prices.

Kettenhunde
06-15-2008, 08:08 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> ..Or if he were able to wind the boost up to the levels they used to use during wartime?
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Griffon engines are pretty common and the equivalent fuel is in use today. They are commonly run an extremely high boost. Much higher than was approved during wartime!

http://www.amazon.com/Griffon-Powered-Mustangs-RaceplaneTech-1/dp/1580070345

http://www.daisey-designs.com/nx13688/ma2/missashley.htm

All the best,

Crumpp

crucislancer
06-15-2008, 09:06 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
Just changing the subject for a minute, if you guys think the US/Canada/Hungary/Germany/any other countries has it bad for fuel prices, I can tell you that the UK is nearly at breaking point thanks to the fuel tax.

Petrol is £1.20 (about $2.15 USD) a LITRE.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is something that I tell the big complainers at work all the time (the gas station down the street hit $4.50/Gallon the other day). We had some trucker strikes as well, mainly the Unions that handle container drayage, as Diesel fuel is well over $5/Gallon in California. Fuel surcharges are going through the roof. But, the UK is getting killed. It would cost me about $130 or so to fill up on UK prices.

Kurfurst__
06-15-2008, 10:32 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
Just changing the subject for a minute, if you guys think the US/Canada/Hungary/Germany/any other countries has it bad for fuel prices, I can tell you that the UK is nearly at breaking point thanks to the fuel tax.

Petrol is £1.20 (about $2.15 USD) a LITRE.

Dont wait until you are at our levels (eq. $11 a gallon) before you kick up a storm, or they will just keep adding tax.

Tanker drivers are on strike today in the UK because of fuel tax.

It now costs about £60 (over $100) to fill up a tank of petrol/gas. We are taxed twice, once with fuel duty which is about 60%, and then 15% again with VAT. Its really quite unbelieveable, and I dont think anyone in the UK can quite believe we have reached these prices. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ugly. Here in Hungary you pay ca. £0.95 per litre, [i]however[i] the wages are quite different than in the UK... minimal wage being an equivalent of £200 (net), the avarage is probably around £400 per month. Half or third as in the UK I believe..

Guys living near the Ukrainian border invented fuel-turism. Fuel being something like £0.25 or 0.5$ there per litre... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif Old Mercedes cars being very popular there. You see, they had a 100 liter fuel tank.. go over there... fill her up... cross border... sell here. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/clap.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by crucislancer
the gas station down the street hit $4.50/Gallon the other day </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

So what can I say - I envy you.

crucislancer
06-15-2008, 10:58 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
So what can I say - I envy you. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I can see why. That would come out to about $7/US Gallon. I remember it being more expensive in Hungary than the US when I was there in 2000 as well. I hope you live someplace with a good transit system. That's part of the problem here, or at least my little corner of California. A lot of folks commute to San Francisco from here, yet the bus system is lame and there's no light rail system from north of the Golden Gate.

stathem
06-15-2008, 11:22 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> ..Or if he were able to wind the boost up to the levels they used to use during wartime?
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Griffon engines are pretty common and the equivalent fuel is in use today. They are commonly run an extremely high boost. Much higher than was approved during wartime!

http://www.amazon.com/Griffon-Powered-Mustangs-RaceplaneTech-1/dp/1580070345

http://www.daisey-designs.com/nx13688/ma2/missashley.htm

All the best,

Crumpp </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

We're talking about restored Warbirds and you respond by posting links to Reno racers? Seriously?

One could take your superiority complex, oft repeated accusations of racism when people are talking about German planes, and sly digs about 'gamers' considerably more seriously if you didn't pull exactly the same crap when commentating on Spitfires, Crumpp.

Do you run any of 'your' restored Warbirds at wartime boost levels? Honest answer.

JSG72
06-15-2008, 12:03 PM
Hi. stathem.

Did you manage to get a read of "Griffon Spitfire Aces" whilst on your Cornwall holiday?

I didn't have much info before on this much respected warplane.
I have. "iii/JG54 Greenhearts" "First with the FW190d-9" and it was nice to read about the encounters from both sides.

I certainly enjoy reading about operational Tactics and usage much more gratifying than Charts and Stats.
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Frequent_Flyer
06-15-2008, 12:33 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
Just changing the subject for a minute, if you guys think the US/Canada/Hungary/Germany/any other countries has it bad for fuel prices, I can tell you that the UK is nearly at breaking point thanks to the fuel tax.

Petrol is £1.20 (about $2.15 USD) a LITRE.

Dont wait until you are at our levels (eq. $11 a gallon) before you kick up a storm, or they will just keep adding tax.

Tanker drivers are on strike today in the UK because of fuel tax.

It now costs about £60 (over $100) to fill up a tank of petrol/gas. We are taxed twice, once with fuel duty which is about 60%, and then 15% again with VAT. Its really quite unbelieveable, and I dont think anyone in the UK can quite believe we have reached these prices. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
................................................

In the context of this thread this appears to be another "climbing disengagement ". However, I am afraid my friend you will be over taken by the " truth " as your reasoning runs "dry " .

Kettenhunde
06-15-2008, 01:00 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> We're talking about restored Warbirds and you respond by posting links to Reno racers? Seriously?
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Kind of emotional aren't you?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Do you run any of 'your' restored Warbirds at wartime boost levels? Honest answer.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

We run our warbirds that have common engines and available Avgas at wartime boost. We would do it with German engines if they were more readily available. You run the aircraft by the POH and what is printed there, btw.

We can rebuild 5 Merlin's for the cost of one BMW801, Stathem.

http://www.spitfirespares.com/SpitfireSpares.com/Claire...Meteor%20002.600.jpg (http://www.spitfirespares.com/SpitfireSpares.com/Claires%20Grandad%20folder/AA%20Meteor%20002.600.jpg)

In fact I can rebuild 5 Mustangs for the cost of one FW190!

It's the availability and cost that drive the train.

Griffon's are common.

All the best,

Crumpp

Xiolablu3
06-15-2008, 02:20 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Frequent_Flyer:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
Just changing the subject for a minute, if you guys think the US/Canada/Hungary/Germany/any other countries has it bad for fuel prices, I can tell you that the UK is nearly at breaking point thanks to the fuel tax.

Petrol is £1.20 (about $2.15 USD) a LITRE.

Dont wait until you are at our levels (eq. $11 a gallon) before you kick up a storm, or they will just keep adding tax.

Tanker drivers are on strike today in the UK because of fuel tax.

It now costs about £60 (over $100) to fill up a tank of petrol/gas. We are taxed twice, once with fuel duty which is about 60%, and then 15% again with VAT. Its really quite unbelieveable, and I dont think anyone in the UK can quite believe we have reached these prices. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
................................................

In the context of this thread this appears to be another "climbing disengagement ". However, I am afraid my friend you will be over taken by the " truth " as your reasoning runs "dry " . </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

?!?!

What is your point again? Pls do tell, forgot...

Is it simply P51 ownzors Spitfire? Or do you have some evidence to your claims? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Simply you claiming that 'The Wildcat could outturn the Spitfire' does not make it true....

I have not seen an argument from you yet which is worth countering...http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Xiolablu3
06-15-2008, 02:34 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Rate of Roll
36. The advantage tends to be with the Spitfire XIV.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

At what velocity is this statement talking about?

If you make this statement about the two aircraft at low velocity, I would agree with it.

However, at high velocity, a normal wing Spitfire has no hope of even being close to a Mustang in rate of roll.

That's a nice opinion from Jeff Ethell, Xio.

I wonder what it would be if he flew one that was much heavier with all of its service equipment?

All the best,

Crumpp </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


I doubt any of the WW2 aircraft he has flown has had any service equipment from WW2 included.

The thing is that this kind of write up of flying a SPitfire is nothing unusual, almost every pilot says this sort of thing about the SPitfire compared to other WW2 warbirds.

Mark Hanna says the same thing here :-

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

Frequent_Flyer
06-15-2008, 03:59 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Frequent_Flyer:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
Just changing the subject for a minute, if you guys think the US/Canada/Hungary/Germany/any other countries has it bad for fuel prices, I can tell you that the UK is nearly at breaking point thanks to the fuel tax.

Petrol is £1.20 (about $2.15 USD) a LITRE.

Dont wait until you are at our levels (eq. $11 a gallon) before you kick up a storm, or they will just keep adding tax.

Tanker drivers are on strike today in the UK because of fuel tax.

It now costs about £60 (over $100) to fill up a tank of petrol/gas. We are taxed twice, once with fuel duty which is about 60%, and then 15% again with VAT. Its really quite unbelieveable, and I dont think anyone in the UK can quite believe we have reached these prices. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
................................................

In the context of this thread this appears to be another "climbing disengagement ". However, I am afraid my friend you will be over taken by the " truth " as your reasoning runs "dry " . </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

?!?!

What is your point again? Pls do tell, forgot...

Is it simply P51 ownzors Spitfire? Or do you have some evidence to your claims? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Simply you claiming that 'The Wildcat could outturn the Spitfire' does not make it true....

I have not seen an argument from you yet which is worth countering...http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You have agreeded the P-51 is faster, dives faster has better range, turns better at high speed, rolls faster at high speed and that the Spit XIV does not climb faster rather the same as the P-51. The cleaner aerodynamics means it retains energy better. There is nothing else to demonstrate!!!!However, You did not start out the thread admitting this. you attempted to mix and match the data of various Spit Mks. to augment your position. If your memory has slipped, reread the thread. I beleive Crumpp and Kurfurst provided the " evidence " you seek regarding turn and roll at high speed.The other facts are not in dispute.

Your original idea was, that these self evident truths about an aircraft could not be asserted with any degree of validity by a pilot of the same country of origin as the aircraft. However, you finally came around to admitting the Spitfire does not perform as well as the Mustang and you are English I presume. You came to the same conclusision the Polish, RAF ,American , German and Romanian pilots did regarding the performance of the P-51 vs. Spit. So we can accept some self evident truths irregardless of the country of origan of the pilot.-Yes?

Xiolablu3
06-15-2008, 04:25 PM
Just what DID I start out this thread saying?

I believe it was 'An account of flying a griffon Spitfire' by Jeff Ethel.. (!) Its only you who seems to want to make this into a P51 vs Spitfire contest...

However I'll bite...http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Your quote 'P51 climbs at the same speed as a Spitfire' is simply wrong. Even the earlier 1943 SPitfire IX climbs better than a 1944 P51.


SPitfire IX is a better dogfighter than the P51

Spitfire IX climbs better than the P51

P51 dives better than the Spitfire

P51 is faster than the SPitfire IX, and about the same speed as a Spitfire XIV

Which rolls faster all depends on whether its a clipped wing Spitfire, or at low speed or high speed.

The Spitfire IX outurns the P51 in most cases except maybe at very high speed (according to Kurfy and you), although I have never heard of this practically being true. (But I'm willing to look into it and I'll keep an open mind - I dont ever claim to know everything)

The SPitfire has slightly heavier firepower than the P51.

The Spitfire is better under critical situations in control. (Dont ask me what this means - its something Oleg said about the Spitfire)


Anything else?

Frequent_Flyer
06-15-2008, 04:41 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
Just what DID I start out this thread saying?

I believe it was 'An account of flying a griffon Spitfire' by Jeff Ethel.. (!)

However I'll bite...http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Your quote 'P51 climbs at the same speed as a Spitfire' is simply wrong. Even the earlier 1943 SPitfire IX climbs better than a 1944 P51.


SPitfire IX is a better dogfighter than the P51

Spitfire IX climbs better than the P51

P51 dives better than the Spitfire

P51 is faster than the SPitfire IX, and about the same speed as a Spitfire XIV

Which rolls faster all depends on whether its a clipped wing Spitfire, or at low speed or high speed.

The Spitfire IX outurns the P51 in most cases except maybe at very high speed (according to Kurfy and you), although I have never heard of this practically being true. (But I'm willing to look into it and I'll keep an open mind - I dont ever claim to know everything)

The SPitfire has slightly heavier firepower than the P51.


Anything else? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


You asserted that the Spit XIV climbed better than the P-51. I corrected you, as they both take 7 min. to attain 20,000 ft.

As far as high speed manuverability- The Luftwaffe pilots commented-At altitude and speed there was no better aircraft than the Mustang.

Xiolablu3
06-15-2008, 04:43 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Frequent_Flyer:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
Just what DID I start out this thread saying?

I believe it was 'An account of flying a griffon Spitfire' by Jeff Ethel.. (!)

However I'll bite...http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Your quote 'P51 climbs at the same speed as a Spitfire' is simply wrong. Even the earlier 1943 SPitfire IX climbs better than a 1944 P51.


SPitfire IX is a better dogfighter than the P51

Spitfire IX climbs better than the P51

P51 dives better than the Spitfire

P51 is faster than the SPitfire IX, and about the same speed as a Spitfire XIV

Which rolls faster all depends on whether its a clipped wing Spitfire, or at low speed or high speed.

The Spitfire IX outurns the P51 in most cases except maybe at very high speed (according to Kurfy and you), although I have never heard of this practically being true. (But I'm willing to look into it and I'll keep an open mind - I dont ever claim to know everything)

The SPitfire has slightly heavier firepower than the P51.


Anything else? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


You asserted that the Spit XIV climbed better than the P-51. I corrected you, as they both take 7 min. to attain 20,000 ft.

As far as high speed manuverability- The Luftwaffe pilots commented-At altitude and speed there was no better aircraft than the Mustang. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Come on mate, I cant be bothered arguing like this. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Both aircraft were outstanding and I love them both....

Frequent_Flyer
06-15-2008, 04:52 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
Just what DID I start out this thread saying?

I believe it was 'An account of flying a griffon Spitfire' by Jeff Ethel.. (!) <span class="ev_code_RED">Its only you who seems to want to make this into a P51 vs Spitfire contest...</span>
However I'll bite...http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Your quote 'P51 climbs at the same speed as a Spitfire' is simply wrong. Even the earlier 1943 SPitfire IX climbs better than a 1944 P51.


SPitfire IX is a better dogfighter than the P51

Spitfire IX climbs better than the P51

P51 dives better than the Spitfire

P51 is faster than the SPitfire IX, and about the same speed as a Spitfire XIV

Which rolls faster all depends on whether its a clipped wing Spitfire, or at low speed or high speed.

The Spitfire IX outurns the P51 in most cases except maybe at very high speed (according to Kurfy and you), although I have never heard of this practically being true. (But I'm willing to look into it and I'll keep an open mind - I dont ever claim to know everything)

The SPitfire has slightly heavier firepower than the P51.

The Spitfire is better under critical situations in control. (Dont ask me what this means - its something Oleg said about the Spitfire)


Anything else? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>



Your original idea was, that these self evident truths about an aircraft could not be asserted with any degree of validity by a pilot of the same country of origin as the aircraft. However, you finally came around to admitting the Spitfire does not perform as well as the Mustang and you are English I presume. You came to the same conclusision the Polish, RAF ,American , German and Romanian pilots did regarding the performance of the P-51 vs. Spit. So we can accept some self evident truths irregardless of the country of origan of the pilot.-Yes? This isn't Spit vs. P-51. You feel strongly about the Spit, yet you came to a conclusion setting aside your prejudice for an aircraft that represents your country of origin.

Would it not stand to reason, a pilot fighting for his life could come to the same conclusion.

How foolish would 109 pilot be to beleive he could out dive a P-47, just because he is a Luftwaffe pilot in a 109? (Pride comes before a fall)

Same principle applies.

ImpStarDuece
06-15-2008, 05:48 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Frequent_Flyer:

You asserted that the Spit XIV climbed better than the P-51. I corrected you, as they both take 7 min. to attain 20,000 ft.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Time to insert some facts here:

Time to 20,000 ft at combat ratings:

Spitfire IX (Merlin 61 @ +15): 5.6 minutes, 3,860 ft/min peak Roc
Spitfire LF IX (Merlin 66 @ +18): 4.75 minutes, 4,700 peak RoC
Spitfire XIV (Griffon 65 @ +18): 5.1 minutes, 4,700 ft/min max RoC

If you put P-51B/C/D and Spitfire IX/VIII/XIV climb charts side by side, you will find that the Spitfire is anywhere from 200-800 feet/minute faster until they start to approach 35,000 feet.

At the same time, the P-51 is anywhere from 20-40 mph faster depending on height, with the exception of the XIV, where the P-51 is faster on the deck, slower at the Griffon's peak altitudes, and at high altitude.

DKoor
06-15-2008, 06:31 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Frequent_Flyer:
How foolish would 109 pilot be to beleive he could out dive a P-47, just because he is a Luftwaffe pilot in a 109? (Pride comes before a fall)

Same principle applies. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Dunno about pride and that sort of things, that never fired me up unless we are talking about sports and few other issues which aren't related to the facts.

However I quoted this because I actually;
-never caught a P-47 in a dive with Me-109 (in game)
-however I caught it after I chased it for some time on the deck

Drawing some conclusions from the game (is not really any kind of solid proof, I admit), I fail to see how that wasn't possible IRL.
Note that apart from zoom climb, climb isn't an option in P-47 if you have Me-109 on your tail.
Both IRL and IL2. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif
Also note that in game @ SL only Bf-109G14 is actually 2kph slower than Thunderbolt D27.
That must be quite nicely trimmed bird too, because I caught up my Jug precisely in Bf-109G14 http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif.

Frequent_Flyer
06-15-2008, 07:05 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by DKoor:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Frequent_Flyer:
How foolish would 109 pilot be to beleive he could out dive a P-47, just because he is a Luftwaffe pilot in a 109? (Pride comes before a fall)

Same principle applies. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Dunno about pride and that sort of things, that never fired me up unless we are talking about sports and few other issues which aren't related to the facts.

However I quoted this because I actually;
-never caught a P-47 in a dive with Me-109 (in game)
-however I caught it after I chased it for some time on the deck

Drawing some conclusions from the game (is not really any kind of solid proof, I admit), I fail to see how that wasn't possible IRL.
Note that apart from zoom climb, climb isn't an option in P-47 if you have Me-109 on your tail.
Both IRL and IL2. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif
Also note that in game @ SL only Bf-109G14 is actually 2kph slower than Thunderbolt D27.
That must be quite nicely trimmed bird too, because I caught up my Jug precisely in Bf-109G14 http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

IRL The best diving and zoom climber was the P-47. At 30,000ft if you try to dive away from a P-47 it will over take you. Depending on the speed you have built up in the 109 you either die as a "lawn dart " without being fired or on the receiving end of 8 X .50's. At speed the 47 out manuvers the 109 .

If this is reversed, I should pull away in a dive. The 109 driver breaks off or I get credit for a " lawn Dart ". If he breaks off, I zoom climb right up his tail pipe. If he levels off on the deck why bother with him. He's out of fuel before he can rejoin the action. He's nearly dry just to get to 30,000 ft.-IRL

IRL the 56th really " over clocked " the P & W it was better on the deck than our in game bird.

If you sort thru these you will find reports just as I have described.
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/p-47/p-47-encounter-reports.html

Frequent_Flyer
06-15-2008, 07:35 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ImpStarDuece:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Frequent_Flyer:

You asserted that the Spit XIV climbed better than the P-51. I corrected you, as they both take 7 min. to attain 20,000 ft.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Time to insert some facts here:

Time to 20,000 ft at combat ratings:

Spitfire IX (Merlin 61 @ +15): 5.6 minutes, 3,860 ft/min peak Roc
Spitfire LF IX (Merlin 66 @ +18): 4.75 minutes, 4,700 peak RoC
Spitfire XIV (Griffon 65 @ +18): 5.1 minutes, 4,700 ft/min max RoC

If you put P-51B/C/D and Spitfire IX/VIII/XIV climb charts side by side, you will find that the Spitfire is anywhere from 200-800 feet/minute faster until they start to approach 35,000 feet.

At the same time, the P-51 is anywhere from 20-40 mph faster depending on height, with the exception of the XIV, where the P-51 is faster on the deck, slower at the Griffon's peak altitudes, and at high altitude. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


.............................................
Your inaccuracy is misleading http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif


Classic Aircraft of WW II: 1981 Bison Books ISBN 0 861240391 Chaz Bowyer. pg.132 Appendices 1.) Performance data- Mk. XIV- 7 min to 20,000ft.

The complete book of Fighters, William Green, Gordon swanborough-ISBN 0-07607-0904-1 copy 1998 pg. 562 Mk. XIV- time to 20,000 ft. 7 min.

Fighters Vol. II Doubleday 1964 pg. 116 Mk. XIV time to 20,000 ft - 7 min.

luftluuver
06-15-2008, 08:00 PM
Climb comaprisons

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spit14climbchart.jpg

More, http://www.spitfireperformance.com/jf319.html

Note the time to
20Kft &gt; 20,000 - 5.1 min
26Kft &gt; 6.85 min

P-51D
Time to Climb to 20,000 ft. at War Emergency Power - 6.4 min.

Frequent_Flyer
06-15-2008, 08:12 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by luftluuver:
Climb comaprisons

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spit14climbchart.jpg

More, http://www.spitfireperformance.com/jf319.html

Note the time to
20Kft &gt; 20,000 - 5.1 min
26Kft &gt; 6.85 min </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Climb comparision of a non production- prototype conversion( Mk. VIII) with its gun ports taped vs. a production aircraft( Mustang III ) with combat hours on it- But you knew that

Find the tests on the combat production VIX , better yet find the tests on one with combat hours clocked on it.

otherwise, heres a production batch first flight on Feb. 3,1945 of the P-51H- max speed 487 mph at 25,000ft. 444 mph at 5,000ft.

There was an " G " version that was faster.- 499 mph at 20,000ft it attained this hight in 3.4 min.

luftluuver
06-15-2008, 08:46 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Frequent_Flyer:
Climb comparision of a non production- prototype conversion( Mk. VIII) with its gun ports taped vs. a production aircraft( Mustang III ) with combat hours on it- But you knew that

Find the tests on the combat production VIX , better yet find the tests on one with combat hours clocked on it. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Spits took off on combat missions with tape over the gun ports. Where does it say the P-51 had combat hours?

The P-51 numbers are American numbers. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif

Agh, the graph is from 1946, so not a prototype.

What is a VIX?

Now lets see what the 'prototype' did for max speed &gt; In FS supercharger gear 446 mph at 25,400 ft.

Now what does your Green/Swanborough book say for max speed &gt; 448mph at 26,000 ft.

Gee, the production a/c was faster than the 'prototype'. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif

luftluuver
06-15-2008, 08:50 PM
Did the G or H see combat?

ImpStarDuece
06-15-2008, 09:11 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Frequent_Flyer:

There was an " G " version that was faster.- 499 mph at 20,000ft it attained this hight in 3.4 min. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Really?

Got a reference for that speed run?

The only speed I can get for the P-51G is 472 mph at 20,750 feet.

The G was essentially a new aircraft, built to British Purchasing Commission specifications. The only thing that it had in common with the other Merlin powered P-51s was the Mustang name and P-51 designation.

It had a new and larger wing with a new laminar flow profile and shape. It featured a new fuselage of reduced weight, a new, larger canopy, new larger tail (although directional stability was still unsatisfactory) and new radiator and intercoolers. It featured a new engine (1,910 hp Merlin 145M) on a new integral mounting, new landing gear, different alieron mountings, different cooling arrangements, cut down armament ect, ect.

Range on internal fuel was 485 miles, or 50 miles more than a Mk IX and 215 miles less than a Mk VIII http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

It also didn't fly until August 1944 and was about 3,000 lbs lighter when loaded than a standard P-51D. Fully loaded, it was just 100 lbs heavier than an empty P-51D. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

You may as well call a Spiteful a Spitfire, if you think that the P-51G represents the performance of a wartime Mustang.

DKoor
06-16-2008, 12:39 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Frequent_Flyer:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by DKoor:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Frequent_Flyer:
How foolish would 109 pilot be to beleive he could out dive a P-47, just because he is a Luftwaffe pilot in a 109? (Pride comes before a fall)

Same principle applies. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Dunno about pride and that sort of things, that never fired me up unless we are talking about sports and few other issues which aren't related to the facts.

However I quoted this because I actually;
-never caught a P-47 in a dive with Me-109 (in game)
-however I caught it after I chased it for some time on the deck

Drawing some conclusions from the game (is not really any kind of solid proof, I admit), I fail to see how that wasn't possible IRL.
Note that apart from zoom climb, climb isn't an option in P-47 if you have Me-109 on your tail.
Both IRL and IL2. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif
Also note that in game @ SL only Bf-109G14 is actually 2kph slower than Thunderbolt D27.
That must be quite nicely trimmed bird too, because I caught up my Jug precisely in Bf-109G14 http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

IRL The best diving and zoom climber was the P-47. At 30,000ft if you try to dive away from a P-47 it will over take you. Depending on the speed you have built up in the 109 you either die as a "lawn dart " without being fired or on the receiving end of 8 X .50's. At speed the 47 out manuvers the 109 .

If this is reversed, I should pull away in a dive. The 109 driver breaks off or I get credit for a " lawn Dart ". If he breaks off, I zoom climb right up his tail pipe. If he levels off on the deck why bother with him. He's out of fuel before he can rejoin the action. He's nearly dry just to get to 30,000 ft.-IRL

IRL the 56th really " over clocked " the P & W it was better on the deck than our in game bird.

If you sort thru these you will find reports just as I have described.
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/p-47/p-47-encounter-reports.html </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, I read a nice number of accounts, precisely from 56th FG, and they support your PoV.

In game - at high speed, Bf-109 is outclassed by a P-47, it's very dangerous to try anything else than a immediate evasive action which will trow P-47 off your six.
It really boils down to who has better eyeball mk.i http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif, both fighters have strengths and weaknesses, it's the matter of their pilots will they be able to exploit/nullify them.

Dustysquareback
06-16-2008, 01:07 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by DKoor: http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_mad.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-mad.gif

Me wants it. Now. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

+1

Kurfurst__
06-16-2008, 01:14 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Frequent_Flyer:
Your inaccuracy is misleading http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif


Classic Aircraft of WW II: 1981 Bison Books ISBN 0 861240391 Chaz Bowyer. pg.132 Appendices 1.) Performance data- Mk. XIV- 7 min to 20,000ft.

The complete book of Fighters, William Green, Gordon swanborough-ISBN 0-07607-0904-1 copy 1998 pg. 562 Mk. XIV- time to 20,000 ft. 7 min.

Fighters Vol. II Doubleday 1964 pg. 116 Mk. XIV time to 20,000 ft - 7 min. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Probably your climb figures are at Normal rating with lesser boost, as fighters generally did not climb at WEP to altitude, while Imp`s are at max output. German datasheets also usually give climb times on the everyday 30-min rating.

Brain32
06-16-2008, 10:55 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> IRL the 56th really " over clocked " the P & W it was better on the deck than our in game bird.

If you sort thru these you will find reports just as I have described.
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/p-47/p-47-encounter-reports.htm </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
I've sorted through those accounts many times I saw no such thing you mention, if anything our in-game bird is faster than RL ones, our P47D_late can maintain the SL speed of P47M/N. And if we speak about 109 things are even worse as in-game you start to loose pure horizontal fight not before you reach 360kmh, which is excellent as most other heavy weighters are better than 109's down to ridiculous 260-300kmh region http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Climb comparision of a non production- prototype conversion( Mk. VIII) with its gun ports taped vs. a production aircraft( Mustang III ) with combat hours on it- But you knew that </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ugh, while I can't even express how much more I like the P-51 than a Spitfire facts are facts and if one fact is true then it's the fact that on spitperf site you don't have to worry about tests of allied planes, they are all prime examples http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

You simply need to accept a few facts:
SpitfireMk14 turns better than a P51 at all but very high speeds
SpitfireMk14 is a better sustained climber than a P51 by a fair margin
Speeds exchange with altitude
P51 is much better looking plane

DKoor
06-16-2008, 11:23 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Brain32:
Ugh, while I can't even express how much more I like the P-51 than a Spitfire facts are facts and if one fact is true then it's the fact that on spitperf site you don't have to worry about tests of allied planes, they are all prime examples http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE> http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/modules/Forums/images/smiles/icon_lol.gif
+1

Aaron_GT
06-16-2008, 01:11 PM
I am not sure dogfighting ability is all that important (or even how you define dogfighting). What is important is the likelihood to be in the position to score a kill and having the weapons to do so. Many other factors like high speed cruise, sights, range, cannon, etc come into play.

Aaron_GT
06-16-2008, 01:19 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">You simply need to accept a few facts:
SpitfireMk14 turns better than a P51 at all but very high speeds
SpitfireMk14 is a better sustained climber than a P51 by a fair margin
Speeds exchange with altitude
P51 is much better looking plane </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

No 'P51' beer though http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Xiolablu3
06-16-2008, 04:28 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Frequent_Flyer:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
Just what DID I start out this thread saying?

I believe it was 'An account of flying a griffon Spitfire' by Jeff Ethel.. (!) <span class="ev_code_RED">Its only you who seems to want to make this into a P51 vs Spitfire contest...</span>
However I'll bite...http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Your quote 'P51 climbs at the same speed as a Spitfire' is simply wrong. Even the earlier 1943 SPitfire IX climbs better than a 1944 P51.


SPitfire IX is a better dogfighter than the P51

Spitfire IX climbs better than the P51

P51 dives better than the Spitfire

P51 is faster than the SPitfire IX, and about the same speed as a Spitfire XIV

Which rolls faster all depends on whether its a clipped wing Spitfire, or at low speed or high speed.

The Spitfire IX outurns the P51 in most cases except maybe at very high speed (according to Kurfy and you), although I have never heard of this practically being true. (But I'm willing to look into it and I'll keep an open mind - I dont ever claim to know everything)

The SPitfire has slightly heavier firepower than the P51.

The Spitfire is better under critical situations in control. (Dont ask me what this means - its something Oleg said about the Spitfire)


Anything else? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>



Your original idea was, that these self evident truths about an aircraft could not be asserted with any degree of validity by a pilot of the same country of origin as the aircraft. However, you finally came around to admitting the Spitfire does not perform as well as the Mustang and you are English I presume. You came to the same conclusision the Polish, RAF ,American , German and Romanian pilots did regarding the performance of the P-51 vs. Spit. So we can accept some self evident truths irregardless of the country of origan of the pilot.-Yes? This isn't Spit vs. P-51. You feel strongly about the Spit, yet you came to a conclusion setting aside your prejudice for an aircraft that represents your country of origin.

Would it not stand to reason, a pilot fighting for his life could come to the same conclusion.

How foolish would 109 pilot be to beleive he could out dive a P-47, just because he is a Luftwaffe pilot in a 109? (Pride comes before a fall)

Same principle applies. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I already told you I was English...hardly a major deduction on your part http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

Sorry mate, but I really dont have any more time for someone who argues that the P51B/C/D was a better climber than the Spitfire VIII/IX/XIV.

If you really do believe that, then you dont know as much about WW2 birds as you think you do. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

The Spitfire and Bf109 generally fought for the best climb rate of the prop planes throughout WW2. Each leap-frogging the other throughout the war.

R_Target
06-16-2008, 07:37 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
No 'P51' beer though http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://www.warbirdbrewing.com/warbird_beer/Gold_36_500.jpg

Warbird Beer (http://www.warbirdbrewing.com/warbird_beer/mustang_gold_ale.htm)

I don't think it's a huge seller though, as the Mustang is not quite the national obsession claimed by those who filter their perceptions through Ubiforum.

Seventh_Sonofa
06-22-2008, 11:07 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by R_Target:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
No 'P51' beer though http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://www.warbirdbrewing.com/warbird_beer/Gold_36_500.jpg

Warbird Beer (http://www.warbirdbrewing.com/warbird_beer/mustang_gold_ale.htm)

I don't think it's a huge seller though, as the Mustang is not quite the national obsession claimed by those who filter their perceptions through Ubiforum. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Jeff Ethell made his living by flying and writing about WWII combat aircraft.
He was well known as a skilled and safe pilot.
Regrettably he screwed up one to many times.
As to his flight reports, take them with a grain of salt.
Jeff Ethell made his living that way. To give reports
describing nasty snap roll tendencys and miserable dutch roll (Spits had this problem, it was never cured)
would have cost him his livelyhood.
Suspiciously I have never read a bad word in Jeff Ethell's flight reports.
Nope, he loved em all. He had a knack for calling all of them world beaters
and having us believe him.
If you gents had read his report on the P-51D you would
all be screaming about his bias.
He loved the P-51 also. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif

7eventh_Son

DKoor
06-23-2008, 02:02 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by R_Target:
I don't think it's a huge seller though, as the Mustang is not quite the national obsession claimed by those who filter their perceptions through Ubiforum. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>+1
Most people knows jack (regardless of country) about what the word P-51 means... same goes for Sturmovik, Spitfire and Bf-109 etc.

That's reality because not all people are interested in old warbirds (or any kind of airplanes for that matter) as much as we are http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif .

Xiolablu3
06-23-2008, 02:10 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Seventh_Sonofa:
describing nasty snap roll tendencys and miserable dutch roll (Spits had this problem, it was never cured)
would have cost him his livelyhood. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Evidence please Sergio? I can find absolutely nothing about this anywhere. Maybe you are just trolling, but just in case....

In your opinion the docility and ease of handling that Mark and Jeff talk about are actually fabrications?



'One day in January 1943 General Hunter, the Commander of the 8th Fighter Command, came to visit us at Debden. He said he had a 'surprise' for us. We were soon to re-equip with the very latest American fighter, the P-47 Thunderbolt. As he spoke we heard an unusual engine noise outside and one of the new fighters landed and taxied up beside one of our Spitfires. We went outside to look it over. It was huge"”the wing tip of the P-47 came higher than the cockpit of the Spitfire. When we strapped into a Spitfire we felt snug and part of the aircraft"”the Thunderbolt cockpit, on the other hand, was so large that we felt if we slipped off the *******ed seat we would break a leg! We were horrified at the thought of going to war in such a machine: we had enough trouble with the Focke-Wulf 190's in our nimble Spitfire Vs"”now this lumbering seven-ton monster seemed infinitely worse, a true 'air inferiority fighter'. Initial mock dog-fights between Thunderbolts and Spitfires seemed to confirm these feelings"”we lost four Thunderbolt pilots in rapid succession, spinning in from low level, while trying to match Spitfires in turns. In the end our headquarters issued an order banning mock dog fighting in Thunderbolts below 8,000 feet.

Gradually however, we learnt how to fight in the Thunderbolt. At high altitude, she was a 'hot ship' and very fast in the dive; the technique was not to 'mix it' with the enemy, but to pounce on him from above, make one quick pass and get back up to altitude; if anyone tried to escape from a Thunderbolt by diving, we had him cold. Even more important, at last we had a fighter with the range to penetrate deeply into enemy territory"”where the action was. So, reluctantly, we had to give up our beautiful little Spitfires and convert to the new juggernauts. The war was moving on, and we had to move with it.

The change to the Thunderbolt might have been necessary militarily, but my heart remained with the Spitfire. Even now, thirty years after I flew them on operations, the mere sound or sight of a Spitfire brings me a deep feeling of nostalgia, and many pleasant memories. She was such a gentle little airplane, without a trace of viciousness. She was a dream to handle in the air. I feel genuinely sorry for the modern fighter pilot, who has never had the chance to get his hands on a Spitfire"”he will never know what real flying was like.'


Jack Cohen who flew P51's in the war with 4 SQN until 1946 and then fought for Israel in SPitfire IX LF's:-

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


The Spitfire was a lady, and everyone who flew her had a love affair with her.
- Col Jim Goodson, 'Eagle' Squadron Pilot


I find it extremely hard to believe that the SPitfire would have all these comments made about (They are not hard to find, you just have to ask basically anyone who has flown a SPitfire to describe it IN RELATION to other WW2 planes and you get the same general comments) it if it was really just lies from an over enthusiastic writer.

Kettenhunde
06-23-2008, 04:07 AM
http://img162.imageshack.us/img162/5721/spitistallth4.jpg (http://imageshack.us)
http://img162.imageshack.us/img162/5721/spitistallth4.5062572563.jpg (http://g.imageshack.us/g.php?h=162&i=spitistallth4.jpg)

DKoor
06-23-2008, 04:57 AM
I repeatedly said on these boards that pilot accounts are not good source for aircraft performance.
Why there is such a big hassle over it I don't know, I took a lot of flak because of it.

If we left out deliberate propaganda, obvious mistakes etc...
We are still stuck with - people are different, their perception of reality is different, their experience is different (for tons of reasons) etc. etc.

That is why only controlled tests are solid info.

And I can't see why this isn't self obvious.

ImpStarDuece
06-23-2008, 08:33 AM
Some quotes from the NACA testing of their Mk VA. Bear in mind that a Griffon Spitfire, being about 2,000 lbs heavier and 60% more powerful with different CoG/balances, may be quite different. All emphasis added, and spelling mistakes/typographical errors, are my own:


"The Spitfire airplane had the unusual quality that allowed it to be flown in a partly stalled condition in accelerated flight without becoming laterally unstable. Violent buffeting occured, but the control stick could be pulled relativley far back after the inital stall flow breakdown without causing loss of control. With the gun ports open, leteral instability in the form of a right roll occurred, but not until up elevator deflection od 10 degress had been reached and unmistakable warning in the from of buffeting had occured...

The excellent stall warning made it easy for the pilot to rapidly approach maximum lift coefficent in a turn so long as the speed was low enough to avoid undersirably large accelerations at maximum coefficent."


From NACA stall testing of the same Mk VA:

"The motion of the Spitfire in stalls was not violent; in slow angle-of-attack changes or in steeply banked turn, the nose tended to ease down at the start of the stall and, even beyond maximum lift, no violent motions occured. In steeply banked turns with the gunports open, hoever, incontrollable rolling instability was noted after an unmistakable warning in the form of buffeting occured."

"STALLING CHARACTERISTICS IN MANEUVERS

The stall warning possesed by the Spitfire was especially beneficial in allowing the pilot to reach maximum lift coefficient in accelerated maneuvers... [The pilot] was able to pull rapidly to maximum lift coefficient in a turn without danger of inadvertent stalling.

The stall in accelerated conditions was very similar to taht in the gliding condition. With gunports closed, the pilot was able to pull the stick far back without interrupting the tuirn or losing control. The airplane tended to pitch down when stalled and to recover by itself if the stick were not pulled back It would be possible for a pilot pursuing an enemy in a turn to bring his sights on him momentarily by pitching beyond the stall without fear of rolling instability "

"With gunports open, a right roll occured if more than 10 degrees of up elevator were applied. The reaction caused the airport to roll out of a left turn and into a right turn... Inspite of the lateral instability that occurred in turn wioth gun ports open, the pilot was able to approach maximum lift coefficent closely because of the desirable stall warning."

"The motion beyond the stall was not violent and an unusualk amount of lateral control was available in many flight conditions, even when full up elevator was applied. The good stalling characteristics allowed the airplane to be pulled rapidly to maximum lift coefficient in accelerated maneuvers in spite of its neutral static longitudinal stability"

Xiolablu3
06-23-2008, 09:48 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
..Pretty much irrelevant underlined chart... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Of COURSE a HIGH speed stall is 'rough', it would be in ALL WW2 monoplanes. The fact is that it was extremely unlikely to occur because of the warning the Spitfire gave before stalling, unlike many other WW2 fighters.

Its not the fact that a hig speed stall is nasty, a high speed stall is bad in ANY high powered WW2 fighter, but the fact is that its very unlikely to happen in a Spitfire.

'The Spitfire buffets in steadily incrasing increasing ways until its so extreme that you would have to be crass to push it any further and depart the aircraft. It has none of the problems that most of these WW2 aircraft have near the stall.' - Mark Hanna


Deliberate spinning was prohibited in RAF WW2 manuals....that tells us nothing, plus it says in the very next sentence 'there is no difficulty in recovering'.



Sometimes I wonder if you really do know as much as you say you do...Go talk to someone who has flown a Spitfire before you assume you already know....

Kettenhunde
06-23-2008, 10:34 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
..Pretty much irrelevant underlined chart...

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Is the Pilot's Operating Handbook for the Spitfire Mk I.

While on these boards it might be an irrelevant chart, it is probably not an irrelevant chart to someone who is flying a Spitfire.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> From NACA stall testing of the same Mk VA:

"The motion of the Spitfire in stalls was not violent; in slow angle-of-attack changes or in steeply banked turn, the nose tended to ease down at the start of the stall and, even beyond maximum lift, no violent motions occured. In steeply banked turns with the gunports open, however, incontrollable rolling instability was noted after an unmistakable warning in the form of buffeting occured."
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

There is little difference. Great example though of how opinion can change perception!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Of COURSE a HIGH speed stall is 'rough', it would be in ALL WW2 monoplanes. The </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Exactly, so I fail to see the point in pushing anecdotal opinion as fact.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">the fact is that its very unlikely to happen in a Spitfire.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

We could say the exact same thing about any airplane.

What is so unique about the Spitfire in this regard?

If the slats bang open and you push the La-5, it will stall. If you ignore the vibration of the stick in the FW-190, it will stall. If you ignore the signs in &lt;insert favorite A/C&gt;, it will stall.

So what is the point of the anecdotal opinion again?

All the best,

Crumpp

Kurfurst__
06-23-2008, 03:51 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ImpStarDuece:
Some quotes from the NACA testing of their Mk VA. Bear in mind that a Griffon Spitfire, being about 2,000 lbs heavier and 60% more powerful with different CoG/balances, may be quite different. All emphasis added, and spelling mistakes/typographical errors, are my own:


"The Spitfire airplane had the unusual quality that allowed it to be flown in a partly stalled condition in accelerated flight without becoming laterally unstable. Violent buffeting occured, but the control stick could be pulled relativley far back after the inital stall flow breakdown without causing loss of control. With the gun ports open, leteral instability in the form of a right roll occurred, but not until up elevator deflection od 10 degress had been reached and unmistakable warning in the from of buffeting had occured...

The excellent stall warning made it easy for the pilot to rapidly approach maximum lift coefficent in a turn so long as the speed was low enough to avoid undersirably large accelerations at maximum coefficent." </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Bit selective aren't we..?

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


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">From NACA stall testing of the same Mk VA:

"The motion of the Spitfire in stalls was not violent; in slow angle-of-attack changes or in steeply banked turn, the nose tended to ease down at the start of the stall and, even beyond maximum lift, no violent motions occured. In steeply banked turns with the gunports open, hoever, incontrollable rolling instability was noted after an unmistakable warning in the form of buffeting occured."

"STALLING CHARACTERISTICS IN MANEUVERS

The stall warning possesed by the Spitfire was especially beneficial in allowing the pilot to reach maximum lift coefficient in accelerated maneuvers... [The pilot] was able to pull rapidly to maximum lift coefficient in a turn without danger of inadvertent stalling.

The stall in accelerated conditions was very similar to taht in the gliding condition. With gunports closed, the pilot was able to pull the stick far back without interrupting the tuirn or losing control. The airplane tended to pitch down when stalled and to recover by itself if the stick were not pulled back It would be possible for a pilot pursuing an enemy in a turn to bring his sights on him momentarily by pitching beyond the stall without fear of rolling instability "

"With gunports open, a right roll occured if more than 10 degrees of up elevator were applied. The reaction caused the airport to roll out of a left turn and into a right turn... Inspite of the lateral instability that occurred in turn wioth gun ports open, the pilot was able to approach maximum lift coefficent closely because of the desirable stall warning."

"The motion beyond the stall was not violent and an unusualk amount of lateral control was available in many flight conditions, even when full up elevator was applied. The good stalling characteristics allowed the airplane to be pulled rapidly to maximum lift coefficient in accelerated maneuvers in spite of its neutral static longitudinal stability" </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

RAE report on the same subject (Sept 1940, Spitfire Mk I)

http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e133/Kurfurst/RAE_Spit109_stall_turn-2.jpg

JSG72
06-23-2008, 04:43 PM
MMMmm...

Bit selective? Seems to be a recurring theme, throughout most threads.

I would liken a Spitfire MK1 to a MK1 Ford Escort 1600 BDA in comparison to a Spit MKxiv. Escort Cosworth!

It does not matter how they are produced.

It would be up to the pilot to be able to utilise the performance benifit. To his own ends.
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gifWe don't have the MKxiv "In game"

ImpStarDuece
06-23-2008, 04:46 PM
I don't see your point Kurfurst.

Of course I was selective. That was the point. I selected all the bits I could find on accelerated stall behaviour.

These are from US testing to determine the flight and stall characteristics of the Spitfire, comparing and contrasting it against US standards.

I was posting information on the aircraft's stall behaviour in maeuvers, not how much or little stick movement was required to stall the aircraft.

The Spitfire didn't meet three of the 15 requirments set out by the NACA, the others being - the force required for alieron deflection at high speed was termed "unsatisfactory" (there is even a RAE report on the NACA reports, saying that they didn't test the Spitfire at high enough speeds, and under reported the difficulty) and the "large pitching moment" when sideslipping.

I agree with what Kettenhund posted, it is all a matter of opinion and perception. Here is another opinion (the NACA's in this case) on the stall behaviour of a Spitfire - they found it "excellent" and "not violent".

Kettenhunde
06-23-2008, 06:35 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Here is another opinion (the NACA's in this case) on the stall behaviour of a Spitfire - they found it "excellent" and "not violent". </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

They do not characterize all the stall behaviors or situations as such.

The NACA found none of its behaviors were typical of an airplane and those same behaviors are commonly found on other designs too when you look past the opinion or fluff.

All the best,

Crumpp

Frequent_Flyer
06-23-2008, 07:58 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Frequent_Flyer:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
Just what DID I start out this thread saying?

I believe it was 'An account of flying a griffon Spitfire' by Jeff Ethel.. (!) <span class="ev_code_RED">Its only you who seems to want to make this into a P51 vs Spitfire contest...</span>
However I'll bite...http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Your quote 'P51 climbs at the same speed as a Spitfire' is simply wrong. Even the earlier 1943 SPitfire IX climbs better than a 1944 P51.


SPitfire IX is a better dogfighter than the P51

Spitfire IX climbs better than the P51

P51 dives better than the Spitfire

P51 is faster than the SPitfire IX, and about the same speed as a Spitfire XIV

Which rolls faster all depends on whether its a clipped wing Spitfire, or at low speed or high speed.

The Spitfire IX outurns the P51 in most cases except maybe at very high speed (according to Kurfy and you), although I have never heard of this practically being true. (But I'm willing to look into it and I'll keep an open mind - I dont ever claim to know everything)

The SPitfire has slightly heavier firepower than the P51.

The Spitfire is better under critical situations in control. (Dont ask me what this means - its something Oleg said about the Spitfire)


Anything else? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>



Your original idea was, that these self evident truths about an aircraft could not be asserted with any degree of validity by a pilot of the same country of origin as the aircraft. However, you finally came around to admitting the Spitfire does not perform as well as the Mustang and you are English I presume. You came to the same conclusision the Polish, RAF ,American , German and Romanian pilots did regarding the performance of the P-51 vs. Spit. So we can accept some self evident truths irregardless of the country of origan of the pilot.-Yes? This isn't Spit vs. P-51. You feel strongly about the Spit, yet you came to a conclusion setting aside your prejudice for an aircraft that represents your country of origin.

Would it not stand to reason, a pilot fighting for his life could come to the same conclusion.

How foolish would 109 pilot be to beleive he could out dive a P-47, just because he is a Luftwaffe pilot in a 109? (Pride comes before a fall)

Same principle applies. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I already told you I was English...hardly a major deduction on your part http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

Sorry mate, but I really dont have any more time for someone who argues that the P51B/C/D was a better climber than the Spitfire VIII/IX/XIV.

If you really do believe that, then you dont know as much about WW2 birds as you think you do. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

The Spitfire and Bf109 generally fought for the best climb rate of the prop planes throughout WW2. Each leap-frogging the other throughout the war. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Been busy so I have not had a chance to be enlightened by my friend from across the pond.
your not as polite as most of the Brits I have a business relationship with. My Co. has an office in the UK ,New Zealand , Australia and Burmuda.

The facts are these. The Spitfire and the 109 were obsolete before the battle of Britain. Even Kurfurst your chief antagonist should agree. The 109 needed to be kept in production because the German engineers could not produce a radial engine/ supercharger combination that performed nearly as well as the P & W of the American's. Otherwise, the 190 is a far supereior aircraft. The dilema the Axis faced was , the Americans were taking the war toGermany, Romania, Poland, Hungary and even Russia at high altitude, the 190 literally could not soar with the Eagles. The 109 gave a bit of a better showing.

Britan had no other aircraft of its own design to replace the spitfire to improved upon its woeful range.It took the British the entire war to figure out what the Amereican's learned quickly. " He who gets there with the most , wins " The P-51 got there and was far superior in all relavant and meaningful stats.As the war progressed , the Poles, RAF and the Americans with few exceptions were having their Spitfires replaced by P-51's. Not the inverse. Everyone recognized as a fighting instument the P-51 was superior to the Spitfire. For the record the only turn a Spit performed better than the Mustang was the turn for home, before the battle began." The Mustang could do for eight hours what the Spitfire could only do for 45 mins."- That is not my quote, rather someone who flew them both. Range and Speed kills. The B-29 together with the P-51 were the deadlist combination of aircraft in WW II.

Here something for you to ponder. If the Brit's or the Germans designed an aircraft that had just decent range the Battle of Britian could have been a decisive victory for either party.

However, neither could engineer the balance between outstanding performance and range. Both the 109 and the Spit were made heavier and less manuverable without approaching the outstanding range of the P-51. To say nothing of its better performance. The Germans eventually put an inline engine into the 190 to get better high altitude performance. The P-47 still outperformed it. The air war was won at high altitude over Europe, the US pounded Japan from high altitude. With the P-51 as " body guard " in both theaters.A role no other aircraft could have been performed as well. As for the Spitfire outclimbing the P-51. Thats about as relavant as the fact the Bearcat outclimbed all piston aircraft of world war II. You need to be at the dance !!!!!!!.

JSG72
06-24-2008, 01:58 PM
Think you will probably find that this thread was about the Spitfire MKXIV. A plane that was taken into operation over Europe in the last few months of the War. A time when p-51s were less likely to be escorting bombers. because most of the Luftwaffe had moved East to fight the Russians. Leaving the ME-262s to defend against the bombers. Now P-51 against ME-262?

The Spitfire MKXIV was used in the low/medium Altitude fights with the Luftwaffe fighters that were defending the Homeland against ground assault. These altitudes were where speed of climb and manouvreability counted. and where the Spitfire MKXIV excelled. And did not just rely on weight of numbers. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

MB_Avro_UK
06-24-2008, 04:31 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Frequent_Flyer:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Frequent_Flyer:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
Just what DID I start out this thread saying?

I believe it was 'An account of flying a griffon Spitfire' by Jeff Ethel.. (!) <span class="ev_code_RED">Its only you who seems to want to make this into a P51 vs Spitfire contest...</span>
However I'll bite...http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Your quote 'P51 climbs at the same speed as a Spitfire' is simply wrong. Even the earlier 1943 SPitfire IX climbs better than a 1944 P51.


SPitfire IX is a better dogfighter than the P51

Spitfire IX climbs better than the P51

P51 dives better than the Spitfire

P51 is faster than the SPitfire IX, and about the same speed as a Spitfire XIV

Which rolls faster all depends on whether its a clipped wing Spitfire, or at low speed or high speed.

The Spitfire IX outurns the P51 in most cases except maybe at very high speed (according to Kurfy and you), although I have never heard of this practically being true. (But I'm willing to look into it and I'll keep an open mind - I dont ever claim to know everything)

The SPitfire has slightly heavier firepower than the P51.

The Spitfire is better under critical situations in control. (Dont ask me what this means - its something Oleg said about the Spitfire)


Anything else? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>



Your original idea was, that these self evident truths about an aircraft could not be asserted with any degree of validity by a pilot of the same country of origin as the aircraft. However, you finally came around to admitting the Spitfire does not perform as well as the Mustang and you are English I presume. You came to the same conclusision the Polish, RAF ,American , German and Romanian pilots did regarding the performance of the P-51 vs. Spit. So we can accept some self evident truths irregardless of the country of origan of the pilot.-Yes? This isn't Spit vs. P-51. You feel strongly about the Spit, yet you came to a conclusion setting aside your prejudice for an aircraft that represents your country of origin.

Would it not stand to reason, a pilot fighting for his life could come to the same conclusion.

How foolish would 109 pilot be to beleive he could out dive a P-47, just because he is a Luftwaffe pilot in a 109? (Pride comes before a fall)

Same principle applies. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I already told you I was English...hardly a major deduction on your part http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

Sorry mate, but I really dont have any more time for someone who argues that the P51B/C/D was a better climber than the Spitfire VIII/IX/XIV.

If you really do believe that, then you dont know as much about WW2 birds as you think you do. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

The Spitfire and Bf109 generally fought for the best climb rate of the prop planes throughout WW2. Each leap-frogging the other throughout the war. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Been busy so I have not had a chance to be enlightened by my friend from across the pond.
your not as polite as most of the Brits I have a business relationship with. My Co. has an office in the UK ,New Zealand , Australia and Burmuda.

The facts are these. The Spitfire and the 109 were obsolete before the battle of Britain. Even Kurfurst your chief antagonist should agree. The 109 needed to be kept in production because the German engineers could not produce a radial engine/ supercharger combination that performed nearly as well as the P & W of the American's. Otherwise, the 190 is a far supereior aircraft. The dilema the Axis faced was , the Americans were taking the war toGermany, Romania, Poland, Hungary and even Russia at high altitude, the 190 literally could not soar with the Eagles. The 109 gave a bit of a better showing.

Britan had no other aircraft of its own design to replace the spitfire to improved upon its woeful range.It took the British the entire war to figure out what the Amereican's learned quickly. " He who gets there with the most , wins " The P-51 got there and was far superior in all relavant and meaningful stats.As the war progressed , the Poles, RAF and the Americans with few exceptions were having their Spitfires replaced by P-51's. Not the inverse. Everyone recognized as a fighting instument the P-51 was superior to the Spitfire. For the record the only turn a Spit performed better than the Mustang was the turn for home, before the battle began." The Mustang could do for eight hours what the Spitfire could only do for 45 mins."- That is not my quote, rather someone who flew them both. Range and Speed kills. The B-29 together with the P-51 were the deadlist combination of aircraft in WW II.

Here something for you to ponder. If the Brit's or the Germans designed an aircraft that had just decent range the Battle of Britian could have been a decisive victory for either party.

However, neither could engineer the balance between outstanding performance and range. Both the 109 and the Spit were made heavier and less manuverable without approaching the outstanding range of the P-51. To say nothing of its better performance. The Germans eventually put an inline engine into the 190 to get better high altitude performance. The P-47 still outperformed it. The air war was won at high altitude over Europe, the US pounded Japan from high altitude. With the P-51 as " body guard " in both theaters.A role no other aircraft could have been performed as well. As for the Spitfire outclimbing the P-51. Thats about as relavant as the fact the Bearcat outclimbed all piston aircraft of world war II. You need to be at the dance !!!!!!!. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I have been on this forum for 6 years.

Your post is the most biased that I have ever seen and that is a huge achievement on your part http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif.

Get your head out of Comic Books and Hollyweird
and accept that the 109s and Spitfires were the equal of the Mustang.

I can't believe that I'm posting this but it has to be said.

Best Regards,
MB_Avro.

R_Target
06-24-2008, 05:55 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by MB_Avro_UK:
... post is the most biased that I have ever seen... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Maybe you should re-read some of your old threads.

Aaron_GT
06-24-2008, 05:56 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">As for the Spitfire outclimbing the P-51. Thats about as relavant as the fact the Bearcat outclimbed all piston aircraft of world war II. You need to be at the dance !!!!!!!. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It sounds like you don't understand the very different roles for which the aircraft were designed for and when they were designed.

The Spitfire and 109 were designed as short range quick response fighters before RDF was in operation. In this instance high climv rate is -critically important- to get to interception altitude as soon as possible. The F8F shares this requirement. While fleets had radar the range was short (a bit like if Chain Home and Chain Home Low was only installed at airfields rather than on the English coast). To safely operate a fleet under threat from bombers again a high rate of climb was an advantage. To some extent it also came through the power to weight ratio and aerodynamics for carrier operation before the combination of laminar flow and high lift devices (leading edge slats, blown flaps, etc) became common.

The P-51 was requested to a requirement which did not require a point-defence capability so the designers were more free to use the new technology of laminar flow giving the P-51 superlative range, although it didn't come into its own until married with the Merlin.

The UK was under a lot of pressure and had some failed projects, e.g. the Tyhoon which failed to live up to expectations and the Tempest which lacked range. The range of the Spitfire was extended quite considerably but still lagged behind the P-51. Initially, though, the 8th AF used a lot of Spitfires. By early 1944 there wasn't quite somuch pressure to develop a long range single engined fighter as one could simply be bought. With limited resources why reinvent the wheel? Although it was to some extent in 1944 by marrying a laminar flow wing to a Spitfire XIV to create the 494mph Spiteful, a shade over the P-51H of a similar vintage and a pretty good reworking of an obselte design.

I don't think it is necessarily the case that British designers -couldn't- design a ong range fighter but rather that the requirements for the Spitfire, Hurricane and Typhoon were for short range aircraft to defend against a short range threat over 30 miles of water. In the 1930s in the UK and USA it was assumed that bombers would not require escort and so for the UK no long range fighter was needed. By the time such a need arose industry was committed. The USA has very different geography, issued different specifictions, built different airtcraft. The longer range aircraft designed to interceptor specs (P-38, P-47) turned out to be good for long range escort by serendipity.

JSG72
06-24-2008, 06:06 PM
Did anyone mention the MKXIV Spitfire in the last few posts? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Frequent_Flyer
06-24-2008, 07:03 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by MB_Avro_UK:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Frequent_Flyer:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Frequent_Flyer:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
Just what DID I start out this thread saying?

I believe it was 'An account of flying a griffon Spitfire' by Jeff Ethel.. (!) <span class="ev_code_RED">Its only you who seems to want to make this into a P51 vs Spitfire contest...</span>
However I'll bite...http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Your quote 'P51 climbs at the same speed as a Spitfire' is simply wrong. Even the earlier 1943 SPitfire IX climbs better than a 1944 P51.


SPitfire IX is a better dogfighter than the P51

Spitfire IX climbs better than the P51

P51 dives better than the Spitfire

P51 is faster than the SPitfire IX, and about the same speed as a Spitfire XIV

Which rolls faster all depends on whether its a clipped wing Spitfire, or at low speed or high speed.

The Spitfire IX outurns the P51 in most cases except maybe at very high speed (according to Kurfy and you), although I have never heard of this practically being true. (But I'm willing to look into it and I'll keep an open mind - I dont ever claim to know everything)

The SPitfire has slightly heavier firepower than the P51.

The Spitfire is better under critical situations in control. (Dont ask me what this means - its something Oleg said about the Spitfire)


Anything else? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>



Your original idea was, that these self evident truths about an aircraft could not be asserted with any degree of validity by a pilot of the same country of origin as the aircraft. However, you finally came around to admitting the Spitfire does not perform as well as the Mustang and you are English I presume. You came to the same conclusision the Polish, RAF ,American , German and Romanian pilots did regarding the performance of the P-51 vs. Spit. So we can accept some self evident truths irregardless of the country of origan of the pilot.-Yes? This isn't Spit vs. P-51. You feel strongly about the Spit, yet you came to a conclusion setting aside your prejudice for an aircraft that represents your country of origin.

Would it not stand to reason, a pilot fighting for his life could come to the same conclusion.

How foolish would 109 pilot be to beleive he could out dive a P-47, just because he is a Luftwaffe pilot in a 109? (Pride comes before a fall)

Same principle applies. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I already told you I was English...hardly a major deduction on your part http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

Sorry mate, but I really dont have any more time for someone who argues that the P51B/C/D was a better climber than the Spitfire VIII/IX/XIV.

If you really do believe that, then you dont know as much about WW2 birds as you think you do. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

The Spitfire and Bf109 generally fought for the best climb rate of the prop planes throughout WW2. Each leap-frogging the other throughout the war. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Been busy so I have not had a chance to be enlightened by my friend from across the pond.
your not as polite as most of the Brits I have a business relationship with. My Co. has an office in the UK ,New Zealand , Australia and Burmuda.

The facts are these. The Spitfire and the 109 were obsolete before the battle of Britain. Even Kurfurst your chief antagonist should agree. The 109 needed to be kept in production because the German engineers could not produce a radial engine/ supercharger combination that performed nearly as well as the P & W of the American's. Otherwise, the 190 is a far supereior aircraft. The dilema the Axis faced was , the Americans were taking the war toGermany, Romania, Poland, Hungary and even Russia at high altitude, the 190 literally could not soar with the Eagles. The 109 gave a bit of a better showing.

Britan had no other aircraft of its own design to replace the spitfire to improved upon its woeful range.It took the British the entire war to figure out what the Amereican's learned quickly. " He who gets there with the most , wins " The P-51 got there and was far superior in all relavant and meaningful stats.As the war progressed , the Poles, RAF and the Americans with few exceptions were having their Spitfires replaced by P-51's. Not the inverse. Everyone recognized as a fighting instument the P-51 was superior to the Spitfire. For the record the only turn a Spit performed better than the Mustang was the turn for home, before the battle began." The Mustang could do for eight hours what the Spitfire could only do for 45 mins."- That is not my quote, rather someone who flew them both. Range and Speed kills. The B-29 together with the P-51 were the deadlist combination of aircraft in WW II.

Here something for you to ponder. If the Brit's or the Germans designed an aircraft that had just decent range the Battle of Britian could have been a decisive victory for either party.

However, neither could engineer the balance between outstanding performance and range. Both the 109 and the Spit were made heavier and less manuverable without approaching the outstanding range of the P-51. To say nothing of its better performance. The Germans eventually put an inline engine into the 190 to get better high altitude performance. The P-47 still outperformed it. The air war was won at high altitude over Europe, the US pounded Japan from high altitude. With the P-51 as " body guard " in both theaters.A role no other aircraft could have been performed as well. As for the Spitfire outclimbing the P-51. Thats about as relavant as the fact the Bearcat outclimbed all piston aircraft of world war II. You need to be at the dance !!!!!!!. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I have been on this forum for 6 years.

Your post is the most biased that I have ever seen and that is a huge achievement on your part http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif.

Get your head out of Comic Books and Hollyweird
and accept that the 109s and Spitfires were the equal of the Mustang.

I can't believe that I'm posting this but it has to be said.

Best Regards,
MB_Avro. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

ImpStarDuece
06-24-2008, 07:15 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Aaron_GT:


The UK was under a lot of pressure and had some failed projects, e.g. the Tyhoon which failed to live up to expectations and the Tempest which lacked range. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'd just like to point out that the Typhoon and Tempest handily outranged most Spitfires, and that the Tempest neither "lacked range" or was outranged by its older sibling.

The Typhoon, with 2 x 44/45 Imp gal 'torpedo' long range tanks had a combat radius of about 75-80% more that of the Spitfire Mk V/IX, when they were operating with a 45 Imp gal slipper tank.

The Tempest V had about 10% better range still than the Typhoon, with slightly more fuel (158 vs 154 imp gal) and a more aerodynamic shape. With full internal fuel only, it had a combat radius (including allowances for combat, climbing and fast cruising) of about 240 miles, about 30 miles better than the Typhoon.

The Tempest V also had the option of filling an extra 30 imp gal in the nose tank, specifically for long range operations.

The Typhoon, with 2 x 45 gal tanks, maxed out at about 250 imp gal of fuel. Giving it a best combat radius of about 375 miles (or enough to get past the Rhur from Southern England)

The Tempest, with a full nose tank and 2 x 90 gal long range tanks, maxed out at about 370 imp gal, or 120 gal more than the Typhoon. This gave it a combat radius of about 500 miles, or enough to get to Frankfurt or Hannover, with fuel to spare.

The reason the Tempest was never uses as a long rangefighter was that it really didn't have to the chance to be used as one. It was diverted to combat the V1 meanace when it was first introduced, and then operated quite happily from Continental bases afterwards, as the Western Allies established themselves.

Frequent_Flyer
06-24-2008, 07:39 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Frequent_Flyer:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by MB_Avro_UK:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Frequent_Flyer:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Frequent_Flyer:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
Just what DID I start out this thread saying?

I believe it was 'An account of flying a griffon Spitfire' by Jeff Ethel.. (!) <span class="ev_code_RED">Its only you who seems to want to make this into a P51 vs Spitfire contest...</span>
However I'll bite...http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Your quote 'P51 climbs at the same speed as a Spitfire' is simply wrong. Even the earlier 1943 SPitfire IX climbs better than a 1944 P51.


SPitfire IX is a better dogfighter than the P51

Spitfire IX climbs better than the P51

P51 dives better than the Spitfire

P51 is faster than the SPitfire IX, and about the same speed as a Spitfire XIV

Which rolls faster all depends on whether its a clipped wing Spitfire, or at low speed or high speed.

The Spitfire IX outurns the P51 in most cases except maybe at very high speed (according to Kurfy and you), although I have never heard of this practically being true. (But I'm willing to look into it and I'll keep an open mind - I dont ever claim to know everything)

The SPitfire has slightly heavier firepower than the P51.

The Spitfire is better under critical situations in control. (Dont ask me what this means - its something Oleg said about the Spitfire)


Anything else? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>



Your original idea was, that these self evident truths about an aircraft could not be asserted with any degree of validity by a pilot of the same country of origin as the aircraft. However, you finally came around to admitting the Spitfire does not perform as well as the Mustang and you are English I presume. You came to the same conclusision the Polish, RAF ,American , German and Romanian pilots did regarding the performance of the P-51 vs. Spit. So we can accept some self evident truths irregardless of the country of origan of the pilot.-Yes? This isn't Spit vs. P-51. You feel strongly about the Spit, yet you came to a conclusion setting aside your prejudice for an aircraft that represents your country of origin.

Would it not stand to reason, a pilot fighting for his life could come to the same conclusion.

How foolish would 109 pilot be to beleive he could out dive a P-47, just because he is a Luftwaffe pilot in a 109? (Pride comes before a fall)

Same principle applies. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I already told you I was English...hardly a major deduction on your part http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

Sorry mate, but I really dont have any more time for someone who argues that the P51B/C/D was a better climber than the Spitfire VIII/IX/XIV.

If you really do believe that, then you dont know as much about WW2 birds as you think you do. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

The Spitfire and Bf109 generally fought for the best climb rate of the prop planes throughout WW2. Each leap-frogging the other throughout the war. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Been busy so I have not had a chance to be enlightened by my friend from across the pond.
your not as polite as most of the Brits I have a business relationship with. My Co. has an office in the UK ,New Zealand , Australia and Burmuda.

The facts are these. The Spitfire and the 109 were obsolete before the battle of Britain. Even Kurfurst your chief antagonist should agree. The 109 needed to be kept in production because the German engineers could not produce a radial engine/ supercharger combination that performed nearly as well as the P & W of the American's. Otherwise, the 190 is a far supereior aircraft. The dilema the Axis faced was , the Americans were taking the war toGermany, Romania, Poland, Hungary and even Russia at high altitude, the 190 literally could not soar with the Eagles. The 109 gave a bit of a better showing.

Britan had no other aircraft of its own design to replace the spitfire to improved upon its woeful range.It took the British the entire war to figure out what the Amereican's learned quickly. " He who gets there with the most , wins " The P-51 got there and was far superior in all relavant and meaningful stats.As the war progressed , the Poles, RAF and the Americans with few exceptions were having their Spitfires replaced by P-51's. Not the inverse. Everyone recognized as a fighting instument the P-51 was superior to the Spitfire. For the record the only turn a Spit performed better than the Mustang was the turn for home, before the battle began." The Mustang could do for eight hours what the Spitfire could only do for 45 mins."- That is not my quote, rather someone who flew them both. Range and Speed kills. The B-29 together with the P-51 were the deadlist combination of aircraft in WW II.

Here something for you to ponder. If the Brit's or the Germans designed an aircraft that had just decent range the Battle of Britian could have been a decisive victory for either party.

However, neither could engineer the balance between outstanding performance and range. Both the 109 and the Spit were made heavier and less manuverable without approaching the outstanding range of the P-51. To say nothing of its better performance. The Germans eventually put an inline engine into the 190 to get better high altitude performance. The P-47 still outperformed it. The air war was won at high altitude over Europe, the US pounded Japan from high altitude. With the P-51 as " body guard " in both theaters.A role no other aircraft could have been performed as well. As for the Spitfire outclimbing the P-51. Thats about as relavant as the fact the Bearcat outclimbed all piston aircraft of world war II. You need to be at the dance !!!!!!!. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I have been on this forum for 6 years.

Your post is the most biased that I have ever seen and that is a huge achievement on your part http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif.

Get your head out of Comic Books and Hollyweird
and accept that the 109s and Spitfires were the equal of the Mustang.

I can't believe that I'm posting this but it has to be said.

Best Regards,
MB_Avro. </div></BLOCKQUOTE> </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ignore the facts, and agree with you,otherwise my post is the "most biased" in six years. That strikes me as counterintuative.
For starters equality only exits in the "eyes of the law", not in reality.Fact: The P-51 outperformed both the 109 and the Spitfire in speed,dive,range,payload capacity, high altitude performance and looks. -This message was approved by the EEOC., they are not a comicbook.

Frequent_Flyer
06-24-2008, 08:14 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">As for the Spitfire outclimbing the P-51. Thats about as relavant as the fact the Bearcat outclimbed all piston aircraft of world war II. You need to be at the dance !!!!!!!. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It sounds like you don't understand the very different roles for which the aircraft were designed for and when they were designed.

The Spitfire and 109 were designed as short range quick response fighters before RDF was in operation. In this instance high climv rate is -critically important- to get to interception altitude as soon as possible. The F8F shares this requirement. While fleets had radar the range was short (a bit like if Chain Home and Chain Home Low was only installed at airfields rather than on the English coast). To safely operate a fleet under threat from bombers again a high rate of climb was an advantage. To some extent it also came through the power to weight ratio and aerodynamics for carrier operation before the combination of laminar flow and high lift devices (leading edge slats, blown flaps, etc) became common.

The P-51 was requested to a requirement which did not require a point-defence capability so the designers were more free to use the new technology of laminar flow giving the P-51 superlative range, although it didn't come into its own until married with the Merlin.

The UK was under a lot of pressure and had some failed projects, e.g. the Tyhoon which failed to live up to expectations and the Tempest which lacked range. The range of the Spitfire was extended quite considerably but still lagged behind the P-51. Initially, though, the 8th AF used a lot of Spitfires. By early 1944 there wasn't quite somuch pressure to develop a long range single engined fighter as one could simply be bought. With limited resources why reinvent the wheel? Although it was to some extent in 1944 by marrying a laminar flow wing to a Spitfire XIV to create the 494mph Spiteful, a shade over the P-51H of a similar vintage and a pretty good reworking of an obselte design.

I don't think it is necessarily the case that British designers -couldn't- design a ong range fighter but rather that the requirements for the Spitfire, Hurricane and Typhoon were for short range aircraft to defend against a short range threat over 30 miles of water. In the 1930s in the UK and USA it was assumed that bombers would not require escort and so for the UK no long range fighter was needed. By the time such a need arose industry was committed. The USA has very different geography, issued different specifictions, built different airtcraft. The longer range aircraft designed to interceptor specs (P-38, P-47) turned out to be good for long range escort by serendipity. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Very good points Sir. However the war was only fought over the English channel for a few weeks.
To climb high as a "Bomber interceptor " also requires range. The Brits discovered this the hard way in the battle of Britian. The Spitfire had little time in the bomber stream to effect an interception. The Germans also learned in the battle of Britain that the 109 had no range and could not effectively defend the their bombers. Neither side addressed this flaw effectively with either the 109 or the Spit. Thus the reason the Spitfire was replaced by the P-51 in almost every unit as the war progressed. To your point regarding my "lack of understanding of design specifications ".What was more important than range for an aircraft in WW II? Be it a bomber or a fighter. The Zero would have been useless if its range was limited to either the 109 or spit's..Defending an aircraft carrier is a losing proposition. You had better be able to deliver punishment to your enemy. That is the only effective way to defend an aircraft carrier. When a weapon system is put out to comprtative bid. The design/engineering teams goal had better be to exceed the required specs. weather in reality or theory.

WOLFMondo
06-25-2008, 01:30 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Frequent_Flyer:
Thus the reason the Spitfire was replaced by the P-51 in almost every unit as the war progressed. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Where did you pull that out from?! Maybe in US service but certainly not in RAF service.

Again people see long range as the be all and end all. The RAF didn't need long range escorts as bomber command worked at night and by the time of D-Day it needed a tactical fighter, not a long range escort so the Spitfire was perfect for the job and thousands of them were used by the 2nd TAF.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Frequent_Flyer:
.What was more important than range for an aircraft in WW II? B </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The VVS did just fine with short range fighters. The US needed range in the Pacific and to escort their bombers. You need a plane fit for purpose and long range isn't always a requirement. It depends on the type of warfare your carrying out. For the US it was useful, for the Germans it was useful (although at the end a fast climbing interceptor was more useful), for the RAF and VSS it wasn't the be all and end all.

This thread is full of revisionist history.

Kurfurst__
06-25-2008, 02:17 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WOLFMondo:

The RAF didn't need long range escorts as bomber command worked at night </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Bomber Command worked - a could hardly hit a barndoor for years - at night because the RAF did not have an escort fighter, a lesson costly learned over the German Bay in 1939.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">and by the time of D-Day it needed a tactical fighter, not a long range escort so the Spitfire was perfect for the job and thousands of them were used by the 2nd TAF. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

... so a combination of short range and limited payload is what makes the perfect tactical fighter (what is that anyway..)? I cannot see why.

It sole merit as a fighter bomber was that it was available.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Frequent_Flyer:
The facts are these. The Spitfire and the 109 were obsolete before the battle of Britain. Even Kurfurst your chief antagonist should agree. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Nope, I don`t agree. They needed good interceptors and both design were well suited for that job.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Frequent_Flyer:
The 109 needed to be kept in production because the German engineers could not produce a radial engine/ supercharger combination that performed nearly as well as the P & W of the American's. Otherwise, the 190 is a far supereior aircraft. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Nope. The 109 was kept in production because the 190 was not combat ready with its powerplant problems for some time until 1943, and because it simply did not have the qualities the 109 possessed, thus it could not replace it either. German statistics for 41 and 42 show 109s costed about 2/3s the labour time of a 190, but lasted about twice as long on the frontline. This may be partly because they were stationed primarly on the EF and the Med, but then again, some German reports make it clear the 190 was not sent to those theatres because its powerplant was simply not reliable enough.

In any case, the Germans didn`t have much of a problem until 1944, until they faced high altitude fighters. The 109 with gondies would happily match the 190`s firepower; the 190 was more suited for Jabo roles and generally attacking bombers, and could cede the role of a high altitude fighter to the 109.
The problem came when the Germans suddenly needed high altitude fighters to match the escorts (which the 109 could do better) and heavily armed fighters to knock down the bombers. This double requirement could not be met until the introduction of the AS and D high altitude powerplants, the MK 108 and the FW 190D.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Frequent_Flyer:
The Germans also learned in the battle of Britain that the 109 had no range and could not effectively defend the their bombers. Neither side addressed this flaw effectively with either the 109 or the Spit. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That`s not very true either; in case of the 109, the range went up from 660 km to 1330 km with later E models with droptanks, and to ca. 1000 km on internal, and 1600+ km with droptanks with the F and later models; endurance was sufficient for the German`s need for escort missions, after all they were not flying the distances the Allies did.

The most common Spitfire models (ie. I, V, IX, XVI, and from the Griffon engined ones XII and XIV) showed a gradual decline in penetration range (defined largely by range on internal fuel capacity) due to R-R obsession with fuel-inefficient supercharging, but at least droptanks were available, albeit late in 1942, which increased their range; the Mk VII/VIII, altough produced in smaller numbers and never truely becoming definiative, was a very successfull attempt to increase range to reasonable level.

As to the range issue, this table sums it up nicely. I don`t see anything special about the P-51 'technologies' - it was an efficient airframe, and they stuffed more fuel into it than the others. Increased range at the cost of reduced performance. It was a happy combination for the USAAF.

http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e133/Kurfurst/109G_51B_Spit_Tempest_RANGE.jpg

Seventh_Sonofa
06-25-2008, 02:20 AM
The reason US fighters posessed such great range potential was obvious.
The US is a big place. Defending against a potential enemy
was seen as the role of a "Persuit plane".
Speed and range were of paramount importance.
This does not explain why others did not follow the same
ideas. The USSR is a big place.
Britian had a huge empire.
Germany however had few reasons to concern itself with long range fighters.
On the surface Japan seemed to have pulled of a miracle with aircraft
like the Zero and Betty. But the truth is that their great range came at
the price of having very light structure and no aircrew protection.

I think the extreme range of US Fighters was more of the result of
the point of view of the USAAC brass in the mid 1930s. They saw
long range persuit aircraft as a top priority over maneuverability
and climb. Once the fighting started it became nearly impossible
for the combatants to redesign or modify their aircraft.

7eventh_son

luftluuver
06-25-2008, 05:23 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">in case of the 109, the range went up from 660 km to 1330 km with later E models with droptanks </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

How did the range double? The drop tank did not double the fuel capacity.

.....................
The Americans had their own share of short range fighter &gt; P-39, P40, P-47. The only long range fighter the Americans had was the P-38 until the Merlin powered P-51 came along.

Aaron_GT
06-25-2008, 06:19 AM
Frequent_Flyer:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">To climb high as a "Bomber interceptor " also requires range. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not really. The Spitfire and Hurricane managed to get to operating altitude without having huge range by virtue of having (for their time in 1940, and the Spitfire later with engine upgrades) high climb rates. If you want long loiter times then range is going to be very useful, but the RAF doctrine was to use RDF to vector straight to the target.

The USA's position was somewhat different - with a much bigger relative coastline the radar density was going to be much lower, and so you want a good loiter capability for standing patrols, and to be able to move what air assets are available longer distances to intercept. Ver y much horses for courses. With the UK being reliant on the USA and Empire for fuel and having a smaller home territory to defend then radar and a more point-defence system made more sense to conserve the fuel.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The Spitfire had little time in the bomber stream to effect an interception. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It seemed to have sufficient range to sweep over France from 1941, so it would seem sufficient to combat bombers flying over its home air bases. Given that the combat was rather intense it was likely out of ammunition before range was an issue.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">What was more important than range for an aircraft in WW II? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Depends on the mission, really.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The Zero would have been useless if its range was limited to either the 109 or spit's </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Different mission parameters mean different designs.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Defending an aircraft carrier is a losing proposition </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well the USN didn't seem to think so.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">You had better be able to deliver punishment to your enemy. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That is part of the strategy, but if you have to operate within range of land bases (which you can't sink with torpedoes) in support of a landing at a range from land bomber bases which means that the ability to destroy the enemy's land air bases it would seem prudent to have some means of stopping your carrier being sunk by enemy torpedo fighters or high level bombers.
One of the reasons for the island hopping in the Pacific was to provide unsinkable aircraft carriers (island air strips) for the USAAF and deny them to the Japanese. In the context of an attack on the Japanese mainland then the F8F as a fleet defensive fighter made sense. In fact all nations with carriers in WW2 promoted the use of both strike fighters and light strike bombers AND fleet defence fighters.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The design/engineering teams goal had better be to exceed the required specs. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

In reality in WW2 in all nations often aircraft fell short of the design requirements, and sometimes they exceeded it. Sometimes specifications were changed and the aircraft had no chance of meeting the changed specifications. It's hardly that simple in the middle of a rather big war.

Seventh_Sonofa:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Britian had a huge empire. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, but you have to think about what this empire comprised and populated. In the period of early air power Empire was pretty much settled with fairly secure borders. All that was needed were aircraft to patrol the native populations from the nearest airbase. Thus fighter aircraft with high performance and long range were not anticipated to be required in the 1930s for Empire. It wasn't until late 1941 that it was realised that this policy was shortsighted, and by then the Mustang was on order.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Germany however had few reasons to concern itself with long range fighters. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually it designed a series of long range fighters and recon aircraft from the mid 1930s for the anticipated assault on Russia. It is just that they were based on the somewhat flawed Zerstorer concept.

hop2002
06-25-2008, 09:02 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Very good points Sir. However the war was only fought over the English channel for a few weeks. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

So your contention is that the Spitfire was only effective for a few weeks?

Perhaps you could explain the kill claims in the ETO, then, with the USAAF claiming about 7,500 German aircraft destroyed by their fighters in the air in the ETO, and the RAF claiming about 10,700. And please, no silliness about USAAF claims being more accurate.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">To climb high as a "Bomber interceptor " also requires range. The Brits discovered this the hard way in the battle of Britian. The Spitfire had little time in the bomber stream to effect an interception. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It didn't seem to cause a problem in the BoB. German bomber losses were running at a very high rate, 8.7% in July, 7.9% in August, 4.7% in September. Note that German loss rate decreased as they came further inland, closer to RAF bases, so lack of range obviously wasn't a critical factor, on either side.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Thus the reason the Spitfire was replaced by the P-51 in almost every unit as the war progressed. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Do you just make up facts as you go along?

In January 1944, just as the first true fighter Mustangs were being delivered, the RAF in the UK had 27 squadrons of modern Spitfire fighters, those with Griffons or two stage Merlins. They had 9 squadrons of Mustangs.

At the end of the war in Europe in May 1945, they had 30 squadrons of Spitfires with Griffons or two stage Merlins and 15 squadrons of Mustangs.

The Mustang was one of the fighter types used to replace the obsolete Spitfire V, but then so were later Spitfires. The idea that "the Spitfire was replaced by the P-51 in almost every unit as the war progressed" is just your fantasy, and nothing to do with the facts.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">What was more important than range for an aircraft in WW II? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Combat ability.

And as to range, the amount required varies according to circumstance. None of the USAAF fighters produced early in the war had the ability to escort to Berlin and back, for the simple reason it wasn't a requirement. When the requirement arose, more fuel was added, as were bigger drop tanks, and the range was available.

When the RAF had a requirement for longer range Spitfires overseas, they produced the Spitfire VIII. It had two tanks in the wing leading edge, a larger tank ahead of the cockpit (which it shared with later Spitfire IX/XVIs). That took total fuel capacity up to 123 imperial gallons, 213 with a drop tank. The fuel consumption achieved on test:

http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/878_1156872291_90bsmall.jpg


The RAF also began fitting 75 gallon rear fuselage tanks to the Spitfire IX/XVI in 1944. That took fuel capacity for those with a larger forward fuselage tank to 170 gallons internal, 260 gallons with a drop tank.
Kurfurst, the chart you posted:
http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/878_1214405540_109g_51b_spit_tempest_range.jpg

Notice anything? Max range on the 109 is 615 miles in 3.1 hours, 198 miles an hour. The Spitfire ranges are given at considerably higher speed:

Me 109G - 615 miles, 3.1 hours - 198 mph
Spitfire IX - 420 miles, 1.6 hours - 263 mph
Spitfire XIV - 500 miles, 1.8 hours - 278 mph
Tempest V - 760 miles, 3 hours - 253 mph
Mustang III - 890 miles, 3.6 hours - 247 mph.

Even the fast cruising speeds for the Spitfires are faster than the 109. 321 mph for the 109, 332 mph for the Spitfire IX, 375 mph for the Spitfire XIV.

Different standards at work in that table.

Aaron_GT
06-25-2008, 10:13 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I'd just like to point out that the Typhoon and Tempest handily outranged most Spitfires, and that the Tempest neither "lacked range" or was outranged by its older sibling. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

My point was more compared to the P-51, against which it had a little more than 3/4 of the range, as compared to Spitfire having not much more than half the range of the P-51. But if you count combat radius it means cutting the combat radius by a bit more (how much is going to depend on mission profile - if you are operating a 2nd TAF 'taxi rank' then the loiter time near the target is going to cut the combat radius much more than a simple in-and-out strike mission).

Kurfurst__
06-25-2008, 11:53 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by hop2002:
Kurfurst, the chart you posted:
http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/878_1214405540_109g_51b_spit_tempest_range.jpg

Notice anything? Max range on the 109 is 615 miles in 3.1 hours, 198 miles an hour. The Spitfire ranges are given at considerably higher speed:

Me 109G - 615 miles, 3.1 hours - 198 mph
Spitfire IX - 420 miles, 1.6 hours - 263 mph
Spitfire XIV - 500 miles, 1.8 hours - 278 mph
Tempest V - 760 miles, 3 hours - 253 mph
Mustang III - 890 miles, 3.6 hours - 247 mph.

Even the fast cruising speeds for the Spitfires are faster than the 109. 321 mph for the 109, 332 mph for the Spitfire IX, 375 mph for the Spitfire XIV.

Different standards at work in that table. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I doubt there would be different standards, after all, there would be no point making a comparison table then would be?

The table simply gives maximum range and maximum endurance. They are not directly linked, as maximum range does not occur at the same engine ratings and speed as maximum endurance does. For this reason German range tables show seperate setups as to how to obtain maximum range, and maximum time in the air.
The fact that aircraft need to warm up, taxy and climb to altitude, then descent and still have some fuel reserves to go around, all of which takes away fuel and time from 'useful' level cruising to obtain maximum range, complicate matters further.

I suppose technical executions also play quite a bit, ie. on the Spitfire, you had to taxy, take off etc. on your internal fuel capacity, leaving you less fuel for the return cruise; on the 109 and 190, it was ensured that your main tank was always fully topped, and you could use 100% of it for the return cruise.

In any case, 'maximum range' has only one possible meaning, at a given speed, and at a given engine setting. I am sure the RAF officials were professional enough to compare the same thing. In any case, the figures for the Spitfire IX LF for example agree well with the ones issued on RAF datasheets:
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spitfire-lfix-ads.jpg

So as to why the Merlin offered such a short endurance, I cannot answer, but perhaps its fuel economony got worse at lower powers, the engine perhaps taking a lot of fuels in while running in near-idle positions. Perhaps because it is so heavily supercharged - you have to spend fuel driving that big supercharger, wheter its doing useful job or not. In cruise conditions, say at +0 boost or 1 ata, it does very little useful work, its basically just maintains pressure, but the engine is not supercharged anymore, and it relies on its sheer volume. The Merlin had small volume, and a low CR to boot (diesel engines, which are very fuel economic, have very high CR for example).

As to the ferry tanks installed to some Spitfires late in war, I am not sure whats your point there to mention them, after all they were just that, ferry tanks, rather than operationally viable tanks for escort duties; even the 90 gallon droptank was not very useful but on on the Mk VIII and XIV alone to increase penetration range.

MB_Avro_UK
06-25-2008, 02:19 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by R_Target:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by MB_Avro_UK:
... post is the most biased that I have ever seen... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Maybe you should re-read some of your old threads. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is a quote from your post:

&lt;Everyone recognized as a fighting instument the P-51 was superior to the Spitfire.&gt;

Can I ask, who is 'everyone'? The whole world?

If someone posted here that the Spitfire was the best fighter in WW2 I would challenge their assumption.

There was no 'best' fighter. It depended on their particular role.

The Luftwaffe was not destroyed either by Mustangs,Jugs or Spitfires but by the Russian Air Force.

(The best beer in the world is English http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif)

Best Regards,
MB_Avro.

Kurfurst__
06-25-2008, 02:22 PM
Belgian. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif

MB_Avro_UK
06-25-2008, 02:39 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
Belgian. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Belgian beer has a 'Stealth Bomber' tactic. You don't know you've been hit until it is too late...

Best Regards,
MB_Avro.

R_Target
06-25-2008, 02:41 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by MB_Avro_UK:
This is a quote from your post:

&lt;Everyone recognized as a fighting instument the P-51 was superior to the Spitfire.&gt; </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, it's not. You've mistaken me for someone else. I wouldn't make such a claim anyway. However, I heartily endorse Captain Brown's opinion below.

luftluuver
06-25-2008, 02:50 PM
That is all well and good Kurfurst but look at the Mk VIII chart and what you say is trash.

The 109E-3's range and duration varied from 0.55hr to 2.20hr and 257mi to 413mi depending on the altitude flown and if Max Continuous (1.15ata) or Max Economy throttle setting was used.

Kurfurst__
06-25-2008, 03:09 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by MB_Avro_UK:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
Belgian. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Belgian beer has a 'Stealth Bomber' tactic. You don't know you've been hit until it is too late...

Best Regards,
MB_Avro. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yup - a 0,33 bottle at 12%. Deceiving little beasts. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/784.gif

R_Target
06-25-2008, 03:11 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by luftluuver:
The Americans had their own share of short range fighter &gt; P-39, P40, P-47. The only long range fighter the Americans had was the P-38 until the Merlin powered P-51 came along. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The Allison Mustang was no slouch either.

MB_Avro_UK
06-25-2008, 03:24 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by R_Target:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by MB_Avro_UK:
This is a quote from your post:

&lt;Everyone recognized as a fighting instument the P-51 was superior to the Spitfire.&gt; </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, it's not. You've mistaken me for someone else. I wouldn't make such a claim anyway.


My sincere apologies R_Target http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/touche.gif

My mistake and sorry. Will rectify later.

Best Regards,
MB_Avro.

Aaron_GT
06-25-2008, 05:00 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The Allison Mustang was no slouch either. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

True, but it was not suitable as an escort fighter at the altitude the 8th AF was operating at, hence the use of the P-38, P-47 and, yes, the Spitfire initially prior to the P-51B. The P-38 and P-47 had been designed as high altitude interceptors, the P-51 was not. It's later good altitude performance was due to the Merlin. There wasn't the space to put a turbo in and long range fuel without a bigger plane.

luftluuver
06-25-2008, 05:10 PM
Spits did the initial and final legs, freeing up Merlin Ponies for the long range escorting.

Frequent_Flyer
06-25-2008, 07:02 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WOLFMondo:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Frequent_Flyer:
Thus the reason the Spitfire was replaced by the P-51 in almost every unit as the war progressed. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Where did you pull that out from?! Maybe in US service but certainly not in RAF service.

Again people see long range as the be all and end all. The RAF didn't need long range escorts as bomber command worked at night and by the time of D-Day it needed a tactical fighter, not a long range escort so the Spitfire was perfect for the job and thousands of them were used by the 2nd TAF.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Frequent_Flyer:
.What was more important than range for an aircraft in WW II? B </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The VVS did just fine with short range fighters. The US needed range in the Pacific and to escort their bombers. You need a plane fit for purpose and long range isn't always a requirement. It depends on the type of warfare your carrying out. For the US it was useful, for the Germans it was useful (although at the end a fast climbing interceptor was more useful), for the RAF and VSS it wasn't the be all and end all.

This thread is full of revisionist history.[/QUOTE

<span class="ev_code_BLUE">The VVS did just fine with short range fighters</span>.
................................................


The VVS lost four aircraft for every one the Luftwaffe lost. Give me $4 dollars for every $1 I give you that would be " Fine " ?.

This " fine " situation was do in large part because the VVS had to keep their " disposable " assets in harms way near the front. They had NO range.

The RAF had no choice they could not produce a long range fighter. When it became clear they coud'nt ,they cut their losses and reequiped their units with the Mustang.

WTE_Galway
06-25-2008, 07:34 PM
Couple of random non-spitfire comments.

There is a mention back at the start of the thread of something like 33% of 109's lost in landing accidents. Whilst that is vaguely possible for one particular type of 109 (I have no idea) it is not correct overall. I have at home (not accessible from here) figures for the entire production of 109's, some 36,000 aircraft and just under 2000 of those (5%) were lost in accidents of all types.

Also a bit of random trivia ... regarding the P51/Bf109 comments, I have read claims by a number of German pilots that the most formidable opponent for the 109 was the occasional DB powered MC202 they came across. That of course may have had more to do with the quality of the respective pilots than the aircraft.

Frequent_Flyer
06-25-2008, 07:35 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by MB_Avro_UK:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by R_Target:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by MB_Avro_UK:
... post is the most biased that I have ever seen... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Maybe you should re-read some of your old threads. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is a quote from your post:

&lt;Everyone recognized as a fighting instument the P-51 was superior to the Spitfire.&gt;

Can I ask, who is 'everyone'? The whole world?

If someone posted here that the Spitfire was the best fighter in WW2 I would challenge their assumption.

There was no 'best' fighter. It depended on their particular role.

The Luftwaffe was not destroyed either by Mustangs,Jugs or Spitfires but by the Russian Air Force.

(The best beer in the world is English http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif)

Best Regards,
MB_Avro. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>



The German war effort in the air and on the Ground was undermined by decesion makers who knew very little about engineering , even less about logistics and nothing about politics.

The fact Russia's decesion makers knew half what the Germans did, just prolonged the inevitable.

Eisenhower / Roosevelt let the Russians bleed the Germans white and the rest as they say is "history".

For us, who never sat in a fighter's cockpit, to conjecture and talk rhetoric we really know nothing of, is just entertainment.

Frequent_Flyer
06-25-2008, 08:13 PM
Kurfurst,

You must be a lawyer, you took three paragraphs to say what I succinctly put in two sentences. Making the same point I did and than claiming to disagree. Regarding the interdependance of the 109 and 190 to compensate for each other.

Why would Germany the cheif aggressor of WW II need a short range interceptor ( 109) ? This is a poor decesion for clearly an aggressive philosophy.

quote:
Originally posted by Frequent_Flyer:
The facts are these. The Spitfire and the 109 were obsolete before the battle of Britain. Even Kurfurst your chief antagonist should agree.

.................................................
Nope, I don`t agree. They needed good interceptors and both design were well suited for that job.
................................................

quote:
Originally posted by Frequent_Flyer:
The 109 needed to be kept in production because the German engineers could not produce a radial engine/ supercharger combination that performed nearly as well as the P & W of the American's. Otherwise, the 190 is a far supereior aircraft.
................................................

Nope. The 109 was kept in production because the 190 was not combat ready with its powerplant problems for some time until 1943, and because it simply did not have the qualities the 109 possessed, thus it could not replace it either. German statistics for 41 and 42 show 109s costed about 2/3s the labour time of a 190, but lasted about twice as long on the frontline. This may be partly because they were stationed primarly on the EF and the Med, but then again, some German reports make it clear the 190 was not sent to those theatres because its powerplant was simply not reliable enough.

In any case, the Germans didn`t have much of a problem until 1944, until they faced high altitude fighters. The 109 with gondies would happily match the 190`s firepower; the 190 was more suited for Jabo roles and generally attacking bombers, and could cede the role of a high altitude fighter to the 109.
The problem came when the Germans suddenly needed high altitude fighters to match the escorts (which the 109 could do better) and heavily armed fighters to knock down the bombers. This double requirement could not be met until the introduction of the AS and D high altitude powerplants, the MK 108 and the FW 190D.

WOLFMondo
06-26-2008, 05:30 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Frequent_Flyer:


The VVS lost four aircraft for every one the Luftwaffe lost. Give me $4 dollars for every $1 I give you that would be " Fine " ?.

This " fine " situation was do in large part because the VVS had to keep their " disposable " assets in harms way near the front. They had NO range.

The RAF had no choice they could not produce a long range fighter. When it became clear they coud'nt ,they cut their losses and reequiped their units with the Mustang. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

But they didn't need range for a tactical fight. You need to look at RAF numbers of Mustangs. They were a drop in the ocean of Spitfires and even Typhoons. For every Mustang squadron in RAF service you probably 20 more Spitfire squadrons, if not more. If range was such an issue for the RAF then why did the British build 20,000 Spitfires?

You can argue all you want about why the VVS lost so many aircraft but it wasn't to do with lack of range. I've never once read about a VVS pilot complaining about lack of range.

luftluuver
06-26-2008, 08:35 AM
If the no BPC, there would have been no P-51. If it was not for the USN, there would have been no P-51s in the USAAF.

Kettenhunde
06-26-2008, 09:24 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The 109 was kept in production because the 190 was not combat ready with its powerplant problems for some time until 1943, and because it simply did not have the qualities the 109 possessed, thus it could not replace it either. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The FW190 was never designed to replace the Bf-109. It was designed to deliver outstanding performance using alternative production resources to the mainstream thinking of the day in the Germany's aeronautical design industry.

The two designs complemented each other well with the Bf-109 being generally superior at high altitudes and the FW190 being generally superior at low altitudes.

The major problems with the BMW801D2 were solved in June 1942. Development continued throughout the war with a major program to increase power production in the engine beginning in July 1942. Additionally in 1943 the formulation of the oil was unwittingly changed either through sabotage or incompetence resulting in early thermal breakdown. This caused over 500 motors to sling a rod during 1943. I would be interested in seeing your source to figure out where it fits in the history of the design.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">German statistics for 41 and 42 show 109s costed about 2/3s the labour time of a 190, but lasted about twice as long on the frontline. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Whose reports on the Labor? Can you send me a copy? I find it very hard to swallow that a design with LE slats required more labor than a simple airfoil.

The length of service is probably as you point out a function of the location in combination with some other factors. The Kanalfront was the primary location for FW190 fighter variants in the 41 and 42. It was also the major theater of combat in the conduct of the air war in the west. Complicating this is the increasing use of the FW190 in the more dangerous ground attack role of the bombenflugzeugen and jadgflugzeugen variants.

However, despite the increasing reliance on the design for major combat roles, the major contribution I would think is the fact engine was not fully developed until June 1942 leading to the shorter lifecycle of the Focke Wulf.

All the best,

Crumpp

Mr_Zooly
06-26-2008, 02:11 PM
It would be interesting to know how a Griffon engined Mustang might have performed.

Bremspropeller
06-28-2008, 05:59 AM
The 190 outshone the 109 in medium and low altitudes.

There were few reasons why the 190s were not sent to the eastern fron in large quantities.

- they were more useful on the western front because of their fighting ability (only two fighter wings were to secure the whole channel for almost three years - and they did their job admiringly well!)

- russians didn't employ "state of the art" fighters 'till mid-end '43

- 109s were at bit easier to maintain

Aaron_GT
06-29-2008, 06:10 AM
I am surprised that the 190 wasn't intended to be replaced by the 109. It was standard RAF practice to have the replacement under development at the point a machine entered service trials. Hence the replacement for the Spitfire and Hurricane was anticipated to be the Tornado with development from 1937, although it was a long, drawn out, and not entirely happy development before the Tempest arrived and it did not replace the Sptifire before war's end.

Surely the LW would have been operating a similar sort of policy?

Xiolablu3
06-29-2008, 07:34 AM
Some nice videos interviews with Luftwaffe and RAF pilots....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=STFdRrWBW2w&NR=1

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


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hF9lYAbC6D8&feature=related

Frequent_Flyer
06-29-2008, 08:45 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The 109 was kept in production because the 190 was not combat ready with its powerplant problems for some time until 1943, and because it simply did not have the qualities the 109 possessed, thus it could not replace it either. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The FW190 was never designed to replace the Bf-109. It was designed to deliver outstanding performance using alternative production resources to the mainstream thinking of the day in the Germany's aeronautical design industry.

The two designs complemented each other well with the Bf-109 being generally superior at high altitudes and the FW190 being generally superior at low altitudes.

The major problems with the BMW801D2 were solved in June 1942. Development continued throughout the war with a major program to increase power production in the engine beginning in July 1942. Additionally in 1943 the formulation of the oil was unwittingly changed either through sabotage or incompetence resulting in early thermal breakdown. This caused over 500 motors to sling a rod during 1943. I would be interested in seeing your source to figure out where it fits in the history of the design.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">German statistics for 41 and 42 show 109s costed about 2/3s the labour time of a 190, but lasted about twice as long on the frontline. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Whose reports on the Labor? Can you send me a copy? I find it very hard to swallow that a design with LE slats required more labor than a simple airfoil.

The length of service is probably as you point out a function of the location in combination with some other factors. The Kanalfront was the primary location for FW190 fighter variants in the 41 and 42. It was also the major theater of combat in the conduct of the air war in the west. Complicating this is the increasing use of the FW190 in the more dangerous ground attack role of the bombenflugzeugen and jadgflugzeugen variants.

However, despite the increasing reliance on the design for major combat roles, the major contribution I would think is the fact engine was not fully developed until June 1942 leading to the shorter lifecycle of the Focke Wulf.

All the best,

Crumpp </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

.................................................

The major problems with the BMW801D2 were solved in June 1942.

................................................

The "major" problem with the engine/supercharger was never solved. Thus, the reason for the inline " D " variant.

luftluuver
06-29-2008, 08:52 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Frequent_Flyer:
The "major" problem with the engine/supercharger was never solved. Thus, the reason for the inline " D " variant. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

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

Kettenhunde
06-29-2008, 09:44 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The "major" problem with the engine/supercharger was never solved. Thus, the reason for the inline " D " variant.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Exactly. It wasn't solved in any WWII single stage supercharged engine.

Because of this, the single stage superchargers never achieved low earth orbit nor could they carry man to the moon.

We had to find other technology to do those things....

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

All the best,

Crumpp

Xiolablu3
06-29-2008, 12:13 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif Guys, I stopped responding to his trolling, so he is now trying it on you chaps...

Anyone who knows anything about WW2 fighters knows that the FW190 was more rugged and suited to the front line than the Bf109...

German pilots described it like this, the Bf109 was a race horse that you had to keep in pristine condition, and carefully look after it. The FW190 was like a massive strong Farm horse which couild pull massive weights and was rugged and tough.

Frequent_Flyer
06-29-2008, 12:43 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The "major" problem with the engine/supercharger was never solved. Thus, the reason for the inline " D " variant.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Exactly. It wasn't solved in any WWII single stage supercharged engine.

Because of this, the single stage superchargers never achieved low earth orbit nor could they carry man to the moon.

We had to find other technology to do those things....

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

All the best,

Crumpp </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I did not know the 190 was suppose to go to the moon. I thought it was just suppose to get among the high altitude bomber stream. to utilize its superior fire power vs. 109. Maybe, they should have figured out the how to get high altitude performance out of the engine, before trying a " moon shot". http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif

Frequent_Flyer
06-29-2008, 12:57 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif Guys, I stopped responding to his trolling, so he is now trying it on you chaps...

<span class="ev_code_RED">You stopped responding when the facts did not support your position. It than became trolling and beneath your dignity to " respond".True to your form, you will just start another thread with the same agenda... over and over again.</span>


Anyone who knows anything about WW2 fighters knows that the FW190 was more rugged and suited to the front line than the Bf109...

German pilots described it like this, the Bf109 was a race horse that you had to keep in pristine condition, and carefully look after it. The FW190 was like a massive strong Farm horse which couild pull massive weights and was rugged and tough. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

<span class="ev_code_RED">Actually the Luftwaffe pilot's analogy was: the 109 was compared to " fencing" ....</span>

joeap
06-29-2008, 01:24 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by MB_Avro_UK:

The Luftwaffe was not destroyed either by Mustangs,Jugs or Spitfires but by the Russian Air Force.

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't think that is correct.

Kettenhunde
06-29-2008, 02:40 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Maybe, they should have figured out the how to get high altitude performance out of the engine, before trying a " moon shot". </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Exactly! I think that is why the United States had to have the German engine technology and scientist after the war.

Without them a Space Program would have been impossible for the United States. We just did not have the technology to compete.

All the best,

Crumpp

luftluuver
06-29-2008, 02:53 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
Exactly! I think that is why the United States had to have the German engine technology and scientist after the war.

Without them a Space Program would have been impossible for the United States. We just did not have the technology to compete. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You mean rocket engine technology because it is not certainly jet engine technology.

Kurfurst__
06-29-2008, 03:25 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:

German pilots described it like this, the Bf109 was a race horse that you had to keep in pristine condition, and carefully look after it. The FW190 was like a massive strong Farm horse which couild pull massive weights and was rugged and tough. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think its Alfred Price, and I dont think he was either German or Luftwaffe... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Frequent_Flyer
06-29-2008, 03:27 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Maybe, they should have figured out the how to get high altitude performance out of the engine, before trying a " moon shot". </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Exactly! I think that is why the United States had to have the German engine technology and scientist after the war.

Without them a Space Program would have been impossible for the United States. We just did not have the technology to compete.

All the best,

Crumpp </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

About as "impossible "as Nuclear Fission was for the United States to engineer.

JSG72
06-29-2008, 03:43 PM
Can't believe I haven't posted on this nonsensacle thread for almost 4 days now? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Kettenhunde
06-29-2008, 05:43 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> About as "impossible "as Nuclear Fission was for the United States to engineer.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Otto Hahn of Germany-Nobel Prize winner famous for his discovery of nuclear fission.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://www.aip.org/history/mod/fission/fission1/01.html

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> News of the German discovery of fission had reached America within weeks, relayed by Danish physicist Niels Bohr. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://www.ornl.gov/info/swords/forties.html

Should I set the hook or let em go??

All the best,

Crumpp

Xiolablu3
06-29-2008, 07:08 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JSG72:
Can't believe I haven't posted on this nonsensacle thread for almost 4 days now? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hey dont you slate my thread, or I'll gitcha...http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Its back tot he old spirit of the UBI-ZOO, how can you not love it? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

Frequent_Flyer
06-30-2008, 09:11 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> About as "impossible "as Nuclear Fission was for the United States to engineer.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Otto Hahn of Germany-Nobel Prize winner famous for his discovery of nuclear fission.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>



Are you intimating there is relavance between the person given credit for discovering Nuclear Fission and the intellect and resources necessary to engineer Fission into a weapon? than sucessfully deliver it.

Using this logic: Since the Chinese are generally credited with the discovery of gunpowder, they should be credited with the Mars landings. Need a picture?

http://www.aip.org/history/mod/fission/fission1/01.html

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> News of the German discovery of fission had reached America within weeks, relayed by Danish physicist Niels Bohr. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://www.ornl.gov/info/swords/forties.html

Should I set the hook or let em go??



................................................

I beg of you to release me, I'm only a small fish.

Before you let me swim up stream focus on your original assertion, simply: the BMW radial engined's problems were " solved". Its performance in the FW-190 fell away drastically at high altitudes, even with the massive GM-1 boost system the performance was disappointing.Limiting its potential as an air superiority fighter,especially against the P-51 and P-47. If the problems were solved than the RLM directive calling for the ability to operate at higher altitudes would have been met.They would not have spent from April 1942 till May of 1944 developing the " D " series with an inline engine. In order to get the high altitute performance. Care to enlighten me? The resources of men and material could have been better used.

I guess the Americans just got lucky stealing the technology for the Pratt and Whitney plus supercharger for the P-47 from the Germans before the war. They could never have developed that on their own. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

.............................................
All the best,

Crumpp </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

luftluuver
06-30-2008, 09:35 PM
What GM1 boost system would that be?

Frequent_Flyer
06-30-2008, 09:50 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by luftluuver:
What GM1 boost system would that be? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Nitrous Oxide

luftluuver
06-30-2008, 09:54 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Frequent_Flyer:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by luftluuver:
What GM1 boost system would that be? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Nitrous Oxide </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

In what 190?

Frequent_Flyer
06-30-2008, 10:01 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by luftluuver:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Frequent_Flyer:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by luftluuver:
What GM1 boost system would that be? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Nitrous Oxide </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

In what 190? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Fw-190A-8

Kettenhunde
07-01-2008, 02:42 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> I guess the Americans just got lucky stealing the technology for the Pratt and Whitney plus supercharger for the P-47 from the Germans before the war. They could never have developed that on their own. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't think you have examined very many facts or engine power curves in reaching your conclusions.

First of all, the German engines did very well at high altitudes. They are easily comparable with any supercharged engine of the day. As the British concluded after the war, there was little to choose among engines. The Germans simply worked around their resource limitations quite effectively. Any country would have done the same had it been necessary.

Here is a comparison done by Daimler Benz. The BMW801D curve is at the lower boost pressure of 1.42ata and not the pure manifold pressure increase of the FW190A8 fighter variants.

http://img377.imageshack.us/img377/2103/dbcomparisonsmallio3.jpg (http://imageshack.us)
http://img377.imageshack.us/img377/2103/dbcomparisonsmallio3.9fa890c358.jpg (http://g.imageshack.us/g.php?h=377&i=dbcomparisonsmallio3.jpg)

Now the Germans did have a shortage of raw materials and strategic resources. Their chemical engineering and metallurgical science was extremely well developed.

As for the turbocharger technology, the Germans produced several turbocharged designs and production motors.

http://img119.imageshack.us/img119/8184/turboqk2.jpg (http://imageshack.us)
http://img119.imageshack.us/img119/8184/turboqk2.fc26e631ae.jpg (http://g.imageshack.us/g.php?h=119&i=turboqk2.jpg)

From a design standpoint raw power is not the most important aspect when selecting a power plant. Power to weight ratio is the driving factor.

The P38 and the P47 series are the only turbocharged fighters to be produced during the war for a reason. At very high altitudes we see a design benefit in power to weight. However, for a good portion of these aircrafts operating envelopes at lower altitudes we see a reduction in power to weight when compared to some of the supercharged engines of the day. Additionally superchargers deliver instant power and do not suffer from boost lag. This on demand power is very important in a maneuvering dogfight.

Both the P47 and P38 are extremely large aircraft for a reason. They are literally airplanes built around their engine turbosuperchargers. Additionally when you get past the turbosupercharger, both aircraft engines are normally carbureted with all of its associatied limitations.

http://img399.imageshack.us/img399/2308/p47superchgwk2.jpg (http://imageshack.us)
http://img399.imageshack.us/img399/2308/p47superchgwk2.0847da2c11.jpg (http://g.imageshack.us/g.php?h=399&i=p47superchgwk2.jpg)

http://img399.imageshack.us/img399/715/p38turbosiz3.jpg (http://imageshack.us)
http://img399.imageshack.us/img399/715/p38turbosiz3.66c9d81fab.jpg (http://g.imageshack.us/g.php?h=399&i=p38turbosiz3.jpg)

Most countries did not feel the advantages outweighed the disadvantages of turbocharged fighter aircraft. That is not to say that both Republic and Lockheed did not do outstanding jobs in producing turbocharger aircraft. It is to say that the technology had limitations.

http://www.aerosuperchargers.com/Documents_and_images/S...ger%20Turbo_3.31.pdf (http://www.aerosuperchargers.com/Documents_and_images/Supercharger%20Turbo_3.31.pdf)

All the best,

Crumpp

Blutarski2004
07-01-2008, 08:26 AM
Just for reference -

Someone made a claim that the Japanese homeland was crushed by high-altitude bombing in WW2.

Not true.

High altitude bombing was attempted at first, but failed in producing the necessary effect on the ground. Hence, LeMay altered tactics and sent the B29s in at low altitude at night to attack Japanese cities with incendiaries. This proved highly successful.

I don't believe that either the high-altitude day or low-altitude night bombing efforts involved the use of long range fighter escort.

Xiolablu3
07-01-2008, 08:52 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 Xiolablu3:

German pilots described it like this, the Bf109 was a race horse that you had to keep in pristine condition, and carefully look after it. The FW190 was like a massive strong Farm horse which couild pull massive weights and was rugged and tough. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think its Alfred Price, and I dont think he was either German or Luftwaffe... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think it was Kurt Tank who said it, I guess he was a little biased, he didnt really like the 109.

WHat I read :-


'Tank's goal was to build a 'Dienstpferd'; a cavalry horse, not a racehorse, and he over-designed the '190 for future weight gain. '

'Tank, who had been in the cavalry during World War I, called the FW-190 a "cavalry horse", built to endure rough field conditions, as opposed to other fighters built mostly with performance in mind, which he called "racehorses"'



After more digging, apparantly Tanks exact words were :-

'"The Messerschmitt 109 and the British Spitfire, the two fastest fighters in the world at the time we began work on the Fw 190, could both be summed up as a very large engine on the front of the smallest possible airframe. These designs, both of which admittedly proved successful, could be likened to racehorses: given the right amount of pampering and an easy course, they could outrun almost anything; but the moment the going became tough, they were liable to falter."

"During World War I, I served in the cavalry and in the infantry. I had seen the harsh conditions under which military equipment has to work in wartime. I felt sure that a quite different breed of fighter would also have a place in any future conflict: one that could operate from ill-prepared front line airfields, one that could be flown and maintained by men who had received only a short training and one that could absorb a reasonable amount of battle damage and still get back. This was the background thinking behind the Focke-Wulf 190; it was to be not a ˜racehorse' but a Dienstpferd, a cavalry horse."

"Obviously, if it was fitted with an engine that developed the same power, a racehorse fighter with a lighter structure would always be able to out-run and outclimb the sort of fighter we had in mind; yet we could not allow this difference to become too great. The design problem centered around building a stronger airframe and one able to carry heavier weapons without sacrificing too much in the way of flying performance."'

Kurfurst__
07-01-2008, 10:28 AM
I stand corrected. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Kettenhunde
07-01-2008, 10:58 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> After more digging, apparantly Tanks exact words were :-
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Some of that is Kurt Tank, some paraphrased, and some of it is just made up or taken out of context.

All the best,

Crumpp

Xiolablu3
07-01-2008, 11:22 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
I stand corrected. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

NP you corrected me, I thought it was LW pilots who said it. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

I knew I had heard it before.

However Tank obviously favoured his design.

WOuld you know what Willy thought of the FW190?

Xiolablu3
07-01-2008, 11:23 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> After more digging, apparantly Tanks exact words were :-
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Some of that is Kurt Tank, some paraphrased, and some of it is just made up or taken out of context.

All the best,

Crumpp </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Can you elaborate/ give the proper version, mate?

I guess you must have it if you are sure he didnt say those words. But could he have said them at a different time/interview to whatever you are comparing them too?

I am really interested in his true words, how can you be sure he didnt say this? (Admittedly I just copied and pasted off a website) I actually nearly put 'APPARANTLY said' in capitals.

Ironically, after checking again who wrote it, its from an article by Alfred Price...well done Kurfy http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

http://www.flightjournal.com/Me2/dirmod.asp?sid=F999E8C...41538B791C97D9109334 (http://www.flightjournal.com/Me2/dirmod.asp?sid=F999E8C39FCE47DEB4CDBABBFBF37179&nm=The+Magazine&type=PubPagi&mod=Publications%3A%3AArticle+Title&mid=13B2F0D0AFA04476A2ACC02ED28A405F&tier=4&id=5349F3BB991741538B791C97D9109334)

Do you really think Price would simply make up a quote from Tank?

Kettenhunde
07-01-2008, 02:34 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> I took part in the First World War as an infantryman and calvary soldier and saw the rough conditions a soldier was forced to live in during wartime. A piece of equipment made for combat should stress simplicity, robust construction, and ease of maintenance for the average skilled person in its layout. It was no simple task to harmonize these ideals with extremely light construction, refined aerodynamics, and good reliability. The goal could only be achieved with an extremely powerful engine.

--Dipl.-ing Prof. Dr.-Ing. eh. Flugkapitän Kurt Tank </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Do you really think Price would simply make up a quote from Tank?
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Of course not but I do think he would paraphrase what Professor Tank related to him. Alfred Price had absolutely no reason not to report the truth as he saw it.

All the best,

Crumpp

Frequent_Flyer
07-01-2008, 07:46 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> I guess the Americans just got lucky stealing the technology for the Pratt and Whitney plus supercharger for the P-47 from the Germans before the war. They could never have developed that on their own. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't think you have examined very many facts or engine power curves in reaching your conclusions.

First of all, the German engines did very well at high altitudes. They are easily comparable with any supercharged engine of the day. As the British concluded after the war, there was little to choose among engines. The Germans simply worked around their resource limitations quite effectively. Any country would have done the same had it been necessary.

Here is a comparison done by Daimler Benz. The BMW801D curve is at the lower boost pressure of 1.42ata and not the pure manifold pressure increase of the FW190A8 fighter variants.
.................................................
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; &gt;<span class="ev_code_RED">&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;</span>

<span class="ev_code_WHITE">What you have attempted to demonstrate is historically inaccurate and false. But here we go. If the high altitude performance of the BMW Radial engine/supercharger was in your words " comparable " to the P&W 2800 and Merlin. Than the poor high altitude performance of the FW-190A series had to be its poorly engineered ( included in the term "poorly engineered " is power to weight ratio ) and aerodynamically flawed airframe. A delemma, but you choose. Choosing either deficiecy, the German engineers could not develop a high altitude fighter capable of challenging the P-51 or P-47. Until,they "wasted "two years developing the inline "D " variant that produced the high altitude performance the RLM sought.If the RLM had your' power chart' before the end of hostilities they clearly would have abondoned the " D " variant and th Ta-152. They missed that memo. The reality the Germans faced,their cities and war assets were being destroied from high altitude by the 8th AF. Escorted to thier targets by fighters that outperformed the 190 at these altitudes.</span>
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;<span class="ev_code_RED">&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;.</span>.

http://img377.imageshack.us/img377/2103/dbcomparisonsmallio3.jpg (http://imageshack.us)
http://img377.imageshack.us/img377/2103/dbcomparisonsmallio3.9fa890c358.jpg (http://g.imageshack.us/g.php?h=377&i=dbcomparisonsmallio3.jpg)

Now the Germans did have a shortage of raw materials and strategic resources. Their chemical engineering and metallurgical science was extremely well developed.

As for the turbocharger technology, the Germans produced several turbocharged designs and production motors.

http://img119.imageshack.us/img119/8184/turboqk2.jpg (http://imageshack.us)
http://img119.imageshack.us/img119/8184/turboqk2.fc26e631ae.jpg (http://g.imageshack.us/g.php?h=119&i=turboqk2.jpg)

From a design standpoint raw power is not the most important aspect when selecting a power plant. Power to weight ratio is the driving factor.

The P38 and the P47 series are the only turbocharged fighters to be produced during the war for a reason. At very high altitudes we see a design benefit in power to weight. However, for a good portion of these aircrafts operating envelopes at lower altitudes we see a reduction in power to weight when compared to some of the supercharged engines of the day. Additionally superchargers deliver instant power and do not suffer from boost lag. This on demand power is very important in a maneuvering dogfight.


<span class="ev_code_RED">&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt;</span>
Actually the P-47 had a Turbo and supercharger.( ( although a perfectly positioned smudge covers it) Check the color illustration below. The red, represents exhaust gases that power a 11.5 inch turbine fan blade and the yellow represents the " supercharged air ". Combine these with the lager paddle blade ,propeller cuffs and higher octane fuel and the 10 ton beast still bested the Fw-190 and 109 at med. to low altitudes.Going on to further distinguish
itself as the ultimate ground pounder.

Perhaps if the Germans would have dumbed down to the American technology they could have " solved" their high altitude design deficiencies http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;<span class="ev_code_RED">&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;</span>



...............................................
Both the P47 and P38 are extremely large aircraft for a reason. They are literally airplanes built around their engine turbosuperchargers. Additionally when you get past the turbosupercharger, both aircraft engines are normally carbureted with all of its associatied limitations.

<span class="ev_code_RED">&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;</span>.That may be, but poor high altitude performance was not a limitation associated with the P&W. Rather, a huge disadvantage associated with the BMW. Considering the altitude the war was fought at above Germany, A fatal flaw in engineering .

&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; &gt;<span class="ev_code_RED">&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; &gt;</span>

&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;
http://img399.imageshack.us/img399/2308/p47superchgwk2.jpg (http://imageshack.us)
http://img399.imageshack.us/img399/2308/p47superchgwk2.0847da2c11.jpg (http://g.imageshack.us/g.php?h=399&i=p47superchgwk2.jpg)

http://img399.imageshack.us/img399/715/p38turbosiz3.jpg (http://imageshack.us)
http://img399.imageshack.us/img399/715/p38turbosiz3.66c9d81fab.jpg (http://g.imageshack.us/g.php?h=399&i=p38turbosiz3.jpg)

Most countries did not feel the advantages outweighed the disadvantages of turbocharged fighter aircraft. That is not to say that both Republic and Lockheed did not do outstanding jobs in producing turbocharger aircraft. It is to say that the technology had limitations.

http://www.aerosuperchargers.com/Documents_and_images/S...ger%20Turbo_3.31.pdf (http://www.aerosuperchargers.com/Documents_and_images/Supercharger%20Turbo_3.31.pdf)

All the best,

Crumpp </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

luftluuver
07-02-2008, 05:38 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Frequent_Flyer:
Fw-190A-8 </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
You sure about that?

Frequent_Flyer
07-02-2008, 04:42 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by luftluuver:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Frequent_Flyer:
Fw-190A-8 </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
You sure about that?[/QUOTE

You may find this site useful. It answers your inquiry.

http://www.faqs.org/docs/air/avfw190.html


I have a number of sources (non internet ) all confirm the following:
FW-190A-8- 1,334 built
introduced on this series, FuG 16ZY radio, and GM-1 powerboosting; or provisions for an internal auxiliary fueal tank in place of the massive GM-1 boost sytem. The boost sytem proved so disappointing the aux. fuel tanks were prefered. the fuselage bomb rack was was repositioned

the usual Rustsatze ( field converstion) R1 to R6,R7, R11 and " U "( Umrust-Bausatze = factory converstion sets )U1,3 and 11.

Xiolablu3
07-02-2008, 05:15 PM
I know that there are numerous historians talking about FW190A's with MW50, but I BELIEVE they are incorrect.


SO I have read anyway. Apparantly MW50 was only tested on a few examples, and never put into production.

Maybe Crumpp or Luftluvver can elaborate on this? Thanks guys http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

luftluuver
07-02-2008, 05:20 PM
Your production number is a wee bit off, so casts doubt on all else.

Also read page 4 in Technical Description #264 for the A-8

I see various /R number mentioned in the link but no /R4 mentioned.

total: 5175
http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2005-12/1114844/Fw190prod.gif

and posted by Crumpp at one time

http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2005-12/1114844/Fw190-production.jpg

Frequent_Flyer
07-02-2008, 05:31 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by luftluuver:
Your production number is a wee bit off, so casts doubt on all else.

Also read page 4 in Technical Description #264 for the A-8

I see various /R number mentioned in the link but no /R4 mentioned.

total: 5175
http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2005-12/1114844/Fw190prod.gif

and posted by Crumpp at one time

http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2005-12/1114844/Fw190-production.jpg </div></BLOCKQUOTE>



Therefore,.......... What........? Please fill in your blanks.

luftluuver
07-02-2008, 05:40 PM
Fill in what blanks? Your references royally screwed up the production numbers so casts doubt on what else they say. Not so hard to understand.

Frequent_Flyer
07-02-2008, 06:53 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by luftluuver:
Fill in what blanks? Your references royally screwed up the production numbers so casts doubt on what else they say. Not so hard to understand. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Your single ,uncorroborated source you referenced is without question " The Truth "?. However, if I ascertain an inconsistancy in your " Golden" data, do we than reason every post of Crumps should be " doubted". Aircraft production facilities were in a number of different countries.Constantly targerted by the allies, overrun, destroyed, sabatoged by their own workforce. Lets not rule out the possibility of fraud commited by the production managers at these facilites.Or by late in the war the accounting deparment even cared.Was the original data collected, audited for authenticity, buy an independant procurement committe. To ensure Germany's treasury department received what it paid for? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif However,you beleive this single document is beyond a shaddow of a doubt " The Truth ".-This is what I find " hard to understand ".

Back to your original inquiry- the GM-1 was introduced on the A-8. I am in the process of filing a motion for discovery with Herr Tanks estate. If the information is held by a private collector, the chain of custody for this information may not be very strict, precluding it from being admissable. In which case you will have nothing more than what you introduced to me. A peice of information that is someones unsubstantiated guess.

luftluuver
07-03-2008, 07:26 AM
Single source?

Two independent sources. One by a respected reasearcher/historian compiled from German records. The other you will have to ask Crumpp about.

Frequent_Flyer
07-03-2008, 10:03 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by luftluuver:
Single source?

Two independent sources. One by a respected reasearcher/historian compiled from German records. The other you will have to ask Crumpp about. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Respect has nothing what so ever to do with it.
After Germany was pummelled from the air and ground. It could'nt shelter nor feed a large percentage of its people. It's capital was being divided bt the conquerors. Half of Germany and the countries like Poland,Czech. etc. (where what remained of some of the production facilities) are now occupied and ruled by a communist government. What was left of any records, not destroyed by the war and the Germans themselves, were being pilfered by the Americans, British and Russians in search of " intelligence". There was no " freedom of information act" or exchange between the east and west. There is no way the Germans themselves could " authenticate " production records.Even if they had the desire to. The allies were more concerned with rounding up war criminals and scientist not production records after the war. What they may have discovered was classified in the US for 50 years. To have access to the Russian archives and be able to " certify " there accuracy is impossible.

Crumpp could make it his lifes mission to collect, collate and authenticate these records and there accuracy will always be justifiable questioned.Nothing more than a unsubstantiated guess.

The real question is who cares. Knowing these numbers ,plus or minus any degree of accuracy have no relavance to your question, regarding the GM-1 boost sytem .

There seems to always be a " straw man " that appears whenever a certain few on these boards are presented with facts that logically cotradict thier position.

Kettenhunde
07-03-2008, 12:29 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Actually the P-47 had a Turbo and supercharger </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

They also had a normally aspirated carburetor at the intake manifold. This means they were subject to all the limitations of a carbureted engine too.

Carburetors:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Prone to icing which can lead to engine stoppage
Poor fuel atomization
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Fuel Injection:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Allows fuel/air mixture to be optimized for each cylinder
More HP for the same amount of fuel </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://www.eci2fly.com/pages/products_kitengineexp.aspx#carbvsfis

http://img157.imageshack.us/img157/156/p47carbtk1.jpg (http://imageshack.us)
http://img157.imageshack.us/img157/156/p47carbtk1.ef76bebcd4.jpg (http://g.imageshack.us/g.php?h=157&i=p47carbtk1.jpg)

As for the engine power curves, one can pick whatever source they want to examine but the results are the same when the engines are examined under the same atmospheric conditions.

The last point to you:

I like your enthusiasm for these aircraft. Don't lose that.

You seem to have confused being ignored though with being correct. It's not the same thing.

Xio,

You are correct in that there were not any serial production Alkohol-Einspritzung equipped BMW801D2 engines.

All the best,

Crumpp

Kettenhunde
07-03-2008, 12:33 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The other you will have to ask Crumpp about. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://www.moduni.com/product_info.php/manufacturers_id.../products_id/3500448 (http://www.moduni.com/product_info.php/manufacturers_id/970350/products_id/3500448)

Frequent_Flyer
07-03-2008, 05:54 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
[QUOTE]Actually the P-47 had a Turbo and supercharger </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

They also had a normally aspirated carburetor at the intake manifold. This means they were subject to all the limitations of a carbureted engine too.

Carburetors:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Prone to icing which can lead to engine stoppage
Poor fuel atomization
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Fuel Injection:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Allows fuel/air mixture to be optimized for each cylinder
More HP for the same amount of fuel </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The problem here is at 25,000 ft. a cubic foot of air weighs 45 % vs. sea level. Fuel injection alone does not help, nor in combination with a single stage super charger, performance will start to decline at 20,000 ft.

So the Gemans were not able to get high altitude performace from their BMW radial engine design because it was a " dead end" technology they could not improve upon- no sense beating a dead Wulf.

Meanwhile, the two fine gentlemen at Republic engineer a turbo supercharger that extends the rated performance of the superior P & W engine up to aprox. 35,000 ft. The BMW offering starts to fall off at 20,000. A real problem considering by no accident the air war above Germany was fought on average between 26-28,000 ft.



[QUOTE]I like your enthusiasm for these aircraft. Don't lose that.

You seem to have confused being ignored though with being correct. It's not the same thing[QUOTE]
................................................
I never expect a reply, nor will I presume that either of us is correct. I always assume the individual I am engaged with is at least as intelligent as I am. Listening is a skill. Practicing both of these principles I have learned and earned quite a bit.

Kettenhunde
07-03-2008, 08:35 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Crumpp says:
First of all, the German engines did very well at high altitudes. They are easily comparable with any supercharged engine of the day. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You don't read what others write so any discussion with you is pointless.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">A real problem considering by no accident the air war above Germany was fought on average between 26-28,000 ft.

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Your facts are not correct again.

http://img110.imageshack.us/img110/1569/bombingaltitudeat6.jpg (http://imageshack.us)
http://img110.imageshack.us/img110/1569/bombingaltitudeat6.9871390e00.jpg (http://g.imageshack.us/g.php?h=110&i=bombingaltitudeat6.jpg)

All the best,

Crumpp

Frequent_Flyer
07-04-2008, 10:38 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Crumpp says:
First of all, the German engines did very well at high altitudes. They are easily comparable with any supercharged engine of the day. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
I have been refering to the BMW radial engine that powered the FW-190A series. Not " German engines" in general.

Will you be willing to accept the following "generally accepted" historical developmental progression of the FW-190A,D and Ta-152?
" The FW-190A was a great success....Its only shortcoming was that performance fell away drastically at high altitudes....During 1942 Tank's staff concertrated on a series of more definative offshoots of the Fw 190. designated Fw 190Ra-1 to Ra-6, with the principal objective of improving high-altitude performance.... The answer appeared to lie with a change of engine.The offical view was that the Jumo 213 should be fitted, but designer Dipl Ing Kurt Tank favoured the bigger DB 603. Both were inverted-V12 liquid-cooled engines in 1490kw ( 2,000-hp) class. From early 1942 numerous prototype and development aircraft were flow with these engines, mostly B-sereies or C- series aircraft and many having turbochargers in prominent ventral fairings....Tank and his staff never wavered in their support for the big 445-litre DB 603, and work never stopped on projects powered by it, leading to various Fw 190C,the ta 152C and the Ta 153.... this programme received massive attention largely because by 1943 Germany could see that it was fast losing control of the sky, even in its own airspace, and superior high-altitude fighters were desperately needed "

Combat Aircraft of Hitlers Luftwaffe 1939-1945, edited by David Donald,copyright 1994, aerospace publishing Ltd. (Pages 71-84)ISBN: 0-7607-2283-8

"Work on adapting the basic airframe ( FW-190A) to take liquid cooled engines and improving the high altitude capabilites of the fighter was being undertaken by Foke-Wulf design team led by Proffesssor Dipl. Ing. Kurt Tank. Work on three high altitude interceptor variants powered by liquid cooled engines was inaugurated almost simultaneously..ultimately leading to the Fw 190D powered by the Junkers Jumo 213. "

War Planes of the Second World War, Fighters Volume One, William Green, 1960 Doubleday Pages ( 102-3)

There are five other references all saying the same thing, I am sure all incorrect to.

The designer himself understood the BMW radial engine ,relative to its adversaries, did not perform well enough at high altitudes, even turbocharged.
It took a further two years of development, creating a completly redesigned aircraft ( FW-190D ) for production purposes, using a heavier inline engine, to produce a fighter that was equal in high altitude performance to the turbo/supercharged radial engined P-47.


In April of 1943 the P-47 began high altitude escort duties. The Dora was deliverd to units in August of 1944.

In June of 1941 the Fw 190 BMW radial "A" series experienced combat. It took till August 1944 to deliver ( not a radial but an inline ) a production aircraft with " comtemporary" high altitude performance.

Why could'nt the BMW radial engine combined with a supercharger,turbocharged, BM-1 boost etc.acheive this?

Yet in March of 1942 the first production P-47B's with a turbo/supercharged radial engine could (R-2800-21 w/o water injection) attain 429 mph at 27,000 ft. normal loaded weight 12,245

The FW 190A8 ( 1,700 hp (un boosted) BMW 801-2) acheived 408mph at 20,600 ft. normal loaded weight 9,750

Again I'm sure my data is incorrect, night is really day , Elvis is really living, the US did'nt really land on the moon ( I'm sure you will tell me, if it did happen it was really the Germans) etc.

If you choose to "discuss", the above referenced is what I am interested in hearing your educated opinion on. Simply pointing to a chart and telling me the BMW was as good as its contemoraries does not explain why Professor Tank did not concurr.



You don't read what others write so any discussion with you is pointless.
....................................
I have read what you refrenced along with your opinion on the various topics.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">A real problem considering by no accident the air war above Germany was fought on average between 26-28,000 ft.

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Your facts are not correct again.
.........................................
Interesting, the cart is dated 9-44,it might be missing some relavant data. I will assume since there is not a notation to tne contrary this would include every bombing mission the USAAF under took, except there is no data for missions averaging above 28,000 ft. In Europe or otherwise. I would at least expect recognition that missions exceeded 28,000.Would you have information dated in 1946 allowing for the collection of all data? However, even though incomplete it still demonstrates 100% of the bomber missions were performed above or at where the FW-190A series altitude performance falls away.


http://img110.imageshack.us/img110/1569/bombingaltitudeat6.jpg (http://imageshack.us)
http://img110.imageshack.us/img110/1569/bombingaltitudeat6.9871390e00.jpg (http://g.imageshack.us/g.php?h=110&i=bombingaltitudeat6.jpg)

All the best,

Crumpp </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Bremspropeller
07-04-2008, 11:17 AM
GM-1 and MW-50 are both BS, when relied to any Anton version.

Crumpp's figures are out of Peter Rodeike's "Jagdflugzeug Fw 190" book.
Rodeike actually counted-out every single Fw 190 that was knowingly produced (done by production number).

Therefore, Crumpp's source can be taken as the most reliable.

Aaron_GT
07-04-2008, 02:08 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">However, even though incomplete it still demonstrates 100% of the bomber missions were performed above or at where the FW-190A series altitude performance falls away. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It still had a good margin over B-17s and B-24s at that altitude. The RAF considered that for an interceptor a margin of 30 to 40 mph over the target was needed, and this was easily achieved. The margin over the Mosquito at the same altitude was around 0 to 20 mph and interception was difficult.

By the same logic to make interception relatively simple the escort fighters would also ideally have a 30 to 40 mph speed advantage. Assuming P-51s with external tanks gone against a standard 190A8 this was just about achieved, with a larger margin over ones with extra cannon. So the escorts wouldn't have had an easy job - a missed pass could mean a lot of time catching up with the 190s closing on the bombers, althoufg not quite the game of chess it became over Korea where the speeds and altitue meant planning combat many moves ahead to have a hope of being in the same piece of sky as your quarry (hence the interest in missiles).

Improving high altitudes speeds (e.g. by 30 mph) would mean that there would be little chance of the escorts playing catchup against a LW formation - i.e. you'd need to counter with defence of waves of escorts. With the relatively light (for the time) armament of the P-51B then there would be a chance of letting too many interceptors through, although you could argue with that a long firing time it would make sense to take any shot on the off chance. However I'd argue that with an increasig chance of having to rely on a single pass against any particular formation of 190s (you'd get to make another single pass at the next formation) more hitting power was required, seemingly recognised in the P-51D with 50% more hitting power.

Kettenhunde
07-04-2008, 02:45 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Combat Aircraft of Hitlers Luftwaffe 1939-1945, edited by David Donald,copyright 1994, aerospace publishing Ltd. (Pages 71-84)ISBN: 0-7607-2283-8

War Planes of the Second World War, Fighters Volume One, William Green, 1960 Doubleday Pages ( 102-3)
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That is your sources? No wonder.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The designer himself understood the BMW radial engine ,relative to its adversaries, did not perform well enough at high altitudes, even turbocharged.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Better ask BMW about that.

http://img399.imageshack.us/img399/5416/bmw801turbowv5.jpg (http://imageshack.us)
http://img399.imageshack.us/img399/5416/bmw801turbowv5.2d6bd77aab.jpg (http://g.imageshack.us/g.php?h=399&i=bmw801turbowv5.jpg)

All the best,

Crumpp

Frequent_Flyer
07-04-2008, 03:23 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">However, even though incomplete it still demonstrates 100% of the bomber missions were performed above or at where the FW-190A series altitude performance falls away. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It still had a good margin over B-17s and B-24s at that altitude. The RAF considered that for an interceptor a margin of 30 to 40 mph over the target was needed, and this was easily achieved. The margin over the Mosquito at the same altitude was around 0 to 20 mph and interception was difficult.

By the same logic to make interception relatively simple the escort fighters would also ideally have a 30 to 40 mph speed advantage. Assuming P-51s with external tanks gone against a standard 190A8 this was just about achieved, with a larger margin over ones with extra cannon. So the escorts wouldn't have had an easy job - a missed pass could mean a lot of time catching up with the 190s closing on the bombers, althoufg not quite the game of chess it became over Korea where the speeds and altitue meant planning combat many moves ahead to have a hope of being in the same piece of sky as your quarry (hence the interest in missiles).

Improving high altitudes speeds (e.g. by 30 mph) would mean that there would be little chance of the escorts playing catchup against a LW formation - i.e. you'd need to counter with defence of waves of escorts. With the relatively light (for the time) armament of the P-51B then there would be a chance of letting too many interceptors through, although you could argue with that a long firing time it would make sense to take any shot on the off chance. However I'd argue that with an increasig chance of having to rely on a single pass against any particular formation of 190s (you'd get to make another single pass at the next formation) more hitting power was required, seemingly recognised in the P-51D with 50% more hitting power. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

In theory the 54 Bomber combat wing and even down to 18 bomber formations defensive fire would at least give the FW-190 something to think about. While the next groupe of P-51's are lining up on their tail. Regarding this whole process, I found this to be an interesting perspective, from a letter written by Oberstleutnant Hans Philipp, Kommondore of JG 1. 'Against 20 Russians trying to shoot you down, or even 20 Spitfires, it can be exciting, even fun.But curve in towards 40 Fortress and all your past sins flash before your eyes. And when you yourself have reached this state of mind, it becomes that much more difficult to have to drive every pilot of the Geschwader to do the same'

This gets overlooked in my opinion. when most of the discussion centers around fighter vs. escort. The bombers while slow and ungainly presented a real threat.

Philipp was a 200+ Eastern Front Ace.

Aaron_GT
07-04-2008, 04:22 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">In theory the 54 Bomber combat wing and even down to 18 bomber formations defensive fire would at least give the FW-190 something to think about. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Going through bomber defensive fire was, no doubt, terrifying but the escorts downed a greater proportion of the fighters than defensive guns. With the choice being flexible mounts with high dispersion but good slew rates or turrets with good dispersion but slow slew rates against planes zipping by at speeds in the hundreds of miles an hour the defensive gunners had an almost impossible task unless the attacking fighter plodded up from dead astern (which some of the 190s with extra cannon did indeed do on occasion). From the Battle of Britain onwards the emphasis for day interception was to maximise angular speeds for the defensive positions, thus denying them a good chance of hitting, the exception being the head-on. (Night fighting prior to Village Inn is another matter). Th LW -did- use 190s in astern attacks, though. This -was- very dangerous against US bombers which could typically bring 2 to 6 .50s on them depending on position, range and bomber type.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">While the next groupe of P-51's are lining up on their tail. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

If the 190s are close enough to be at risk from bomber defensive fire and the P-51s are only just lining up and are not already at firing range then the P-51s have left it too late as the 190s will have opened fire on the B-17 formation before the P-51s are in range - the 190s will be closing on the B17s at 100 mph or more and the P-51s on the 190s at 30 mph. If the 190s are doing a head on then the closing speed will be 650 mph or so and the chances of the P-51s catching up are even smaller - another reason why the head on was favoured as it gives the escorts a much smaller window of attack opportunity, with the downside being a lot harder to target the bombers at such a high closing speed.

Basically escorts need to engage the interceptors as far from the formation as they dare, hence the tying of 109s close to the bombers in the Battle of Britain being such a mistake. At first USAAF escorts were tied too closely, but they were freed up more as the war went on. If you can attack a formation of interceptors as they are climbing or forming up for a pass then you can break up the attack well in advance. Waiting until the bomber defensive guns are worrying the interceptors is too late.

It's all a bit like 3D aerial chess. With the speed differential between B29s, Migs and F-86s that was even more so as then you have a 250 mph speed margin from astern over the bombers and much larger turn radii so the vertical becomes much more important - one pass from the Migs (the heavy cannon armament to give them a good one pass kill chance) and the Migs need to move in all axes for the next pass and the F-86s really need tp predict well in advance where they are going to be, and be there, and the Migs will spend almost all of the time out of defensive fire due to the speed differentials with the bombers.

One of the things that really destroyed the LW, though, was when the escorts were freed up to attack airfields, training flights, aircraft low on fuel and ammunition close to landing. They then became planes that were easy to shoot down that would not then be bothering the next raid. The attrition from this on the LW was enormous. The other was the increasing lack of fuel which meant pilot training was curtailed even more (and this means operational training flights too, and other self training, not just basic training).

Frequent_Flyer
07-04-2008, 05:15 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Combat Aircraft of Hitlers Luftwaffe 1939-1945, edited by David Donald,copyright 1994, aerospace publishing Ltd. (Pages 71-84)ISBN: 0-7607-2283-8

War Planes of the Second World War, Fighters Volume One, William Green, 1960 Doubleday Pages ( 102-3)
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That is your sources? No wonder.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The designer himself understood the BMW radial engine ,relative to its adversaries, did not perform well enough at high altitudes, even turbocharged.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Better ask BMW about that.

http://img399.imageshack.us/img399/5416/bmw801turbowv5.jpg (http://imageshack.us)
http://img399.imageshack.us/img399/5416/bmw801turbowv5.2d6bd77aab.jpg (http://g.imageshack.us/g.php?h=399&i=bmw801turbowv5.jpg)

All the best,

Crumpp </div></BLOCKQUOTE>



There is only One reality. As you clearly point out, we are not in possession of the same data- So we are not going to get there.

I sincerely appreciate your efforts.

Frequent_Flyer
07-04-2008, 06:24 PM
quote:Aaron_GT
Basically escorts need to engage the interceptors as far from the formation as they dare, hence the tying of 109s close to the bombers in the Battle of Britain being such a mistake. At first USAAF escorts were tied too closely, but they were freed up more as the war went on. If you can attack a formation of interceptors as they are climbing or forming up for a pass then you can break up the attack well in advance. Waiting until the bomber defensive guns are worrying the interceptors is too late.
...............................................

I beleive ultimately " outlaw " groups (as they were refered to )were sent ahead of the bomber formation as "head hunters". While some of the escorts remained as top cover over the bomber stream. They were charged with cutting off any "intact" line abreast head-on assault. As you stated once the green light was given for " Seek and destroy " .The tenacity of the escorts made the LW pay in the air and on the ground.

At the point of attack. what was the typical ratio of attacking aircraft vs. escort?

I would guess in most cases the LW outnumbered the escorts. Making the defensive fire very important for breif periods within the engagement. I do not beleive in the scheme of things they contributed much to the destruction of the LW. However, with all that lead in the air it only takes one lucky round to disable an inline engine or kill a pilot.

Kettenhunde
07-05-2008, 03:31 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I would guess in most cases the LW outnumbered the escorts. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://img78.imageshack.us/img78/5121/sizeofopposingforceslw1.jpg (http://imageshack.us)
http://img78.imageshack.us/img78/5121/sizeofopposingforceslw1.bfbbe351ed.jpg (http://g.imageshack.us/g.php?h=78&i=sizeofopposingforceslw1.jpg)

It is obvious that the Luftwaffe put up a terrific fight despite the overwhelming odds against it. Credit belongs to the brave men who went forth everyday to do battle with Hitler's Air Force. It was not the planes that won the day, it was the men. Both sides had very good tools to do the job.

The largest difference was in the training the men recieved to do that job.

http://img78.imageshack.us/img78/2082/lossratestm4.jpg (http://imageshack.us)
http://img78.imageshack.us/img78/2082/lossratestm4.73fbb93bf5.jpg (http://g.imageshack.us/g.php?h=78&i=lossratestm4.jpg)

The average allied fighter pilot had considerably more training and flying experience. The average Luftwaffe pilot could barely fly in the spring of 1944 much less fight in his aircraft effectively.

http://img356.imageshack.us/img356/6400/traininghoursvc9.jpg (http://imageshack.us)
http://img356.imageshack.us/img356/6400/traininghoursvc9.cdfc8fc942.jpg (http://g.imageshack.us/g.php?h=356&i=traininghoursvc9.jpg)

http://img356.imageshack.us/img356/3811/flyinghoursvo3.jpg (http://imageshack.us)
http://img356.imageshack.us/img356/3811/flyinghoursvo3.1144a1644e.jpg (http://g.imageshack.us/g.php?h=356&i=flyinghoursvo3.jpg)

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Already in early 1944, the Luftwaffe fighter pilot training was shortened to an average of 160 flight hours. A few weeks later, it was further shortened to only 112 hours. Finally, in the spring of 1944, the B flight schools were disbanded, and the pilots were sent into first-line service directly after A schools. The condition for the A2 flight certificate included a basic training of sixty training flights with a total of 15 flight hours. Meanwhile, the average USAAF or RAF fighter pilot's training consisted of 225 flight hours.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://www.bergstrombooks.elknet.pl/normandy.htm

Allied Tactics:

http://img356.imageshack.us/img356/9557/alliedachivementses3.jpg (http://imageshack.us)
http://img356.imageshack.us/img356/9557/alliedachivementses3.26dc847753.jpg (http://g.imageshack.us/g.php?h=356&i=alliedachivementses3.jpg)

Luftwaffe tactics are dictated by the limitations of their aircrew experience and their fighter control systems.

Luftwaffe tactics:

http://img381.imageshack.us/img381/7174/lwtactics1944ix3.jpg (http://imageshack.us)
http://img381.imageshack.us/img381/7174/lwtactics1944ix3.1c102a784a.jpg (http://g.imageshack.us/g.php?h=381&i=lwtactics1944ix3.jpg)

http://img381.imageshack.us/img381/9460/lwtacts19442ex3.jpg (http://imageshack.us)
http://img381.imageshack.us/img381/9460/lwtacts19442ex3.c1f604555c.jpg (http://g.imageshack.us/g.php?h=381&i=lwtacts19442ex3.jpg)

All the best,

Crumpp

Aaron_GT
07-05-2008, 06:04 AM
The LW was more or less using Big Wing tactics and these take time to organise. Using forward air units to scatter the units of often ill trained LW pilots for whom formation flying was difficult enough was an effecive tactic. Disrupt it for 15 minutes and at 250 mph TAS and the bomber formation is 60 miles away. At a chase speed of high cruise of 350 mph and that's 10 minutes to catch up, or 25 minutes of respite for the bombers which might have completed the mission in that time. Goering seemed to have failed to understand this sort of thing in 1940, thankfully.

When originally designed the B-26 had excellent speed compared to defensive fighters. Debate ranged in WW2 over whether faster, more lightly armed or unarmed bombers made more sense than slower (fighter speeds caught up with the B-17) bombers with heavy defensive armament. If the B-26 had been available at its original design speed (or Mosquito) then in the example above 15 minutes or respite would turn into a 90 mile lead and an extra 5 minutes free of molestation, and around a 25 mph margin of the 190s over the bombers would make them much more difficult to repeatedly attack. This is wy bomber speed was seen as so critical and even seemingly small improvements of 15 mph here, 10 mph there were worth the effort. This is also why some Lancaster units (it seems to have been common in Free French units) removed the draggy upper turret to gain that extra 15 mph.

Aaron_GT
07-05-2008, 06:10 AM
Crump - check your PMs.

Frequent_Flyer
07-05-2008, 11:50 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I would guess in most cases the LW outnumbered the escorts. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://img78.imageshack.us/img78/5121/sizeofopposingforceslw1.jpg (http://imageshack.us)
http://img78.imageshack.us/img78/5121/sizeofopposingforceslw1.bfbbe351ed.jpg (http://g.imageshack.us/g.php?h=78&i=sizeofopposingforceslw1.jpg)

It is obvious that the Luftwaffe put up a terrific fight despite the overwhelming odds against it. Credit belongs to the brave men who went forth everyday to do battle with Hitler's Air Force. It was not the planes that won the day, it was the men. Both sides had very good tools to do the job.

The largest difference was in the training the men recieved to do that job.

http://img78.imageshack.us/img78/2082/lossratestm4.jpg (http://imageshack.us)
http://img78.imageshack.us/img78/2082/lossratestm4.73fbb93bf5.jpg (http://g.imageshack.us/g.php?h=78&i=lossratestm4.jpg)

The average allied fighter pilot had considerably more training and flying experience. The average Luftwaffe pilot could barely fly in the spring of 1944 much less fight in his aircraft effectively.

http://img356.imageshack.us/img356/6400/traininghoursvc9.jpg (http://imageshack.us)
http://img356.imageshack.us/img356/6400/traininghoursvc9.cdfc8fc942.jpg (http://g.imageshack.us/g.php?h=356&i=traininghoursvc9.jpg)

http://img356.imageshack.us/img356/3811/flyinghoursvo3.jpg (http://imageshack.us)
http://img356.imageshack.us/img356/3811/flyinghoursvo3.1144a1644e.jpg (http://g.imageshack.us/g.php?h=356&i=flyinghoursvo3.jpg)

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Already in early 1944, the Luftwaffe fighter pilot training was shortened to an average of 160 flight hours. A few weeks later, it was further shortened to only 112 hours. Finally, in the spring of 1944, the B flight schools were disbanded, and the pilots were sent into first-line service directly after A schools. The condition for the A2 flight certificate included a basic training of sixty training flights with a total of 15 flight hours. Meanwhile, the average USAAF or RAF fighter pilot's training consisted of 225 flight hours.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://www.bergstrombooks.elknet.pl/normandy.htm

Allied Tactics:

http://img356.imageshack.us/img356/9557/alliedachivementses3.jpg (http://imageshack.us)
http://img356.imageshack.us/img356/9557/alliedachivementses3.26dc847753.jpg (http://g.imageshack.us/g.php?h=356&i=alliedachivementses3.jpg)

Luftwaffe tactics are dictated by the limitations of their aircrew experience and their fighter control systems.

Luftwaffe tactics:

http://img381.imageshack.us/img381/7174/lwtactics1944ix3.jpg (http://imageshack.us)
http://img381.imageshack.us/img381/7174/lwtactics1944ix3.1c102a784a.jpg (http://g.imageshack.us/g.php?h=381&i=lwtactics1944ix3.jpg)

http://img381.imageshack.us/img381/9460/lwtacts19442ex3.jpg (http://imageshack.us)
http://img381.imageshack.us/img381/9460/lwtacts19442ex3.c1f604555c.jpg (http://g.imageshack.us/g.php?h=381&i=lwtacts19442ex3.jpg)

All the best,

Crumpp </div></BLOCKQUOTE>



As your data evinces the total number of attacking forces is sustantially greater than the intercepting. Combined with the disparity in training,produced the in evitable Luftwaffe losses.


Although, what may get overlooked in examining the totals. Is the concentration of intercepting aircraft vs. escort at the point of attack.


The formation and concentration of the bomber wing changed throughout the campaign.For the point of discussion, I beleive for most of 1944, The formation was reduced to 12 bombers in three squadrons.Occuping airspace of ( 950 yards X 425 yards X 2900ft ) per wing. The intervals between wings, the best I could asertain may have been from four to six miles. I do not know what the average escort to bomber ratio was when the " little friends" could make the round trip. But if it was one flight of escort per formation of bombers or 1:3.Even if it was 1:1, that is a lot of air space to cover.

The Germans could with relative accuracy, deduce the objective from the bombers line of approach and concentrate their attacking forces near these objectives. Conceivably having greater number of attacking aircraft at the "point of attack " vs. escorts, since their concentration is diluted over many miles. At least initially,this may have offset the vast disparity in pilot quality, and allow for greater sucess of the first and maybe only pass.

The bombers line of egress,also easily deduced, would have considerable fewer escorts as they would be otherwise occupied. Theoritically giving a new concentration of intercepting aircraft even better odds at the " point of attack".

In my estimation this is really where the greater training paid dividends for the allied pilots both escorts and the bomber crews.

Kettenhunde
07-05-2008, 02:49 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Although, what may get overlooked in examining the totals. Is the concentration of intercepting aircraft vs. escort at the point of attack.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://img65.imageshack.us/img65/6369/fighterescortbq1.jpg (http://imageshack.us)
http://img65.imageshack.us/img65/6369/fighterescortbq1.6b9dfc37ef.jpg (http://g.imageshack.us/g.php?h=65&i=fighterescortbq1.jpg)

The Luftwaffe largest interception formation was Gruppe with few rare exceptions.

As stated in the documents posted earlier. For control purposes, the Luftwaffe normally attacked in smaller [Gruppe (- )] formations, one attack at a time.

They did not achieve local numerical superiority except on a few rare occasions. At those times they gave a very good accounting of themselves. In fact several Geschwader Kommanduer's pushed Galland to ignore the bombers for 2 weeks and just concentrate on killing Allied fighters. Goering would have none of it and it was never done.

All the best,

Crumpp