Corsair vs. BF 109G,K or FW 190's

[FLYBOYJ]

Originally Posted by Kurfürst

Nope, it`s a fact readily acknowledged by the report, supported by evidence from several German, Russian flying test centres and Luftwaffe pilots quoted in this thread, and last but not least, physics.

What are you talking about, that German, Russian flying test centres and Luftwaffe pilots quoted in this thread just flew the aircraft intil the slats deployed and called it a day?

Originally Posted by Kurfürst

Half-true. It was German, and it was well before the war started. FYI, leading edge slats are the invention of a WW1 German fighter pilot, who then joined later Handley-Page, and it was the latter who`s company acquired the patent for it (in Britiain).

Yes and it was the Lysander that was the first production aircraft to feature fully automatic leading edge slats....

[Glider]

Originally Posted by Soren

Glider,

After the introduction of the F series with its improved and fail free LE slats new pilots would've been instructed as I mentioned. And as we know the F series entered service in 1941 - try finding pilots who started flying the F series who complain that the Spitfire was a handful in a dogfight, you won't find any..

Certainly
Joahanns Steinhoff 1943 over Malta
The Malta Spitfires are back again, their fitted with high altitude superchargers and at anything over 25000ft they just play cat and mouse with us.
At 28000ft the Spitfire could turn in an astonishingly narrow radius. We on the other hand in the thin air had to carry out every manoeuver with caution and at full power so as not to lose control

The interesting point is that this took place at altitude which I understood to be the 109's strongest suite.

Note also that Joahanns was the commander of JG77 a very experienced pilot

PS its also worth noting that in late 1942 the Spitfire V's on Malta held their own against the G2's of JG27

[delcyros]

Thank You, Renrich and Drgondog for providing the informations on the F4-U´s structure. I will use 0.09" for wing leading edge, wing top surface: 0.049 tapered to .038" at the wingtips (use 0.049 at wingroots and 0.04" at mid wing), engine cowling: 0.072" (about the thickest I could find).
I will compile a probability-related Monte-Carlo alike step system for drawing conclusions. This takes some time as the following projectiles are simmed:
0.50 cal M2 API
13mm AP
20mm/151 API and mine + 20mm Hisp. MK V HE/HEI
30mm/108 mine

I will sim hit´s on from 1000 and 500 yards for each projectile on the following sections:
engine cowling (from near vertical, deflection shoot)
gull wingroot (from near vertical, deflection shoot and from near behind)
rear fuselage without tails.
mid wing leading edge (from head on and near vertical)

I estimate about two weeks for making the necessary maths and another week for crosschecking.

[Soren]

LoL, I never claimed that LE slats were a WW2 invention - once again someone tries to put words into my mouth.

But keep running circles around the facts if you want FLYBOYJ, doesn't matter to me. I'm just especially surprised that you don't even for a second stop to think about why RL LW pilots (Aces even) tell the exact same story as we've tried getting across to you, abit strange if it wasn't true don't you think ?

Its also abit strange how the 109 is mentioned as being embarrased by the opening of its slats if not because the pilot thought that this was the very limit of the a/c. Its a pretty clear message to me!

[Soren]

Glider,

You're comparing the Spitfire IX which has better high alt performance to the heavy 109G-6. Besides the 109G-6's favorite place to be was at low to medium alt.

Anyway can you find others ? I can't.

[FLYBOYJ]

Originally Posted by Soren

LoL, I never claimed that LE slats were a WW2 invention - once again someone tries to put words into my mouth.

No but you did say this...

"The British test-pilots weren't used to automatic LE slats, infact they had flown no aircraft featuring it"

Originally Posted by Soren

But keep running circles around the facts if you want FLYBOYJ, doesn't matter to me. I'm just especially surprised that you don't even for a second stop to think about why RL LW pilots (Aces even) tell the exact same story as we've tried getting across to you, abit strange if it wasn't true don't you think ?

No - the fact here is that RAF test pilots knew exactly what the stats did, how they performed and when they deployed...

Originally Posted by Soren

Its also abit strange how the 109 is mentioned as being embarrased by the opening of its slats if not because the pilot thought that this was the very limit of the a/c. Its a pretty clear message to me!

That's just an assumption.....

[drgondog]

Originally Posted by Soren

LoL, I never claimed that LE slats were a WW2 invention - once again someone tries to put words into my mouth.

But keep running circles around the facts if you want FLYBOYJ, doesn't matter to me. I'm just especially surprised that you don't even for a second stop to think about why RL LW pilots (Aces even) tell the exact same story as we've tried getting across to you, abit strange if it wasn't true don't you think ?

Its also abit strange how the 109 is mentioned as being embarrased by the opening of its slats if not because the pilot thought that this was the very limit of the a/c. Its a pretty clear message to me!

Soren - Rall did NOT 'tell the same story' in public and in print as I pointed out to you earlier, including the source and the context as head of the German Fighter School. Are you suggesting that he won 275 fights w/o pushing his 109s to limit? or was never in an awkward combat situation that did not require skilled and aggressive turning against his enemy?

The Allied pilots that tested the 109 versus the Spit V, Spit IX, P-51B-5, the P-47D-10 in March 1944 presumably had an objective in mind, namely compare strengths and weaknesses for two reasons (minimum).
1. Advisories to Allied pilots concerning flight profiles in which they (Allied) pilots had advantages and weaknesses against the German types, and
2. Provide intelligence regarding design enhancements/modifications to improve capabilities.

Presumably they reviewed intelligence briefings from captured pilots, shared intelligence with Russians, used skilled pilots from the RAF who did their best to wring the ships out.

I could see that nobody would be enthusiastic about 1.) taking a 51 low and slow and attempted to work turns to stall point.. but there are several manuevers with a loud "Do Not Do" printed in 51 Manuals.. and that is one of them - snap rolls at high speed is another, running up throttle while low and slow with flaps deployed is another..

Unless you are suggesting that it was impossible to steal or have available Me 109G Flight Manuals by early 1944 and that German manuals had a clear prohibition against continuing turns in low speed or with slats deployed - then test pilots would do just that. It is plain silly to think that the RAF pilots were afraid to fly a flight profile not prohibited by official German manuals, or not suggested as a problem by captured pilots.

Now, I am assuming the above criteria as far as intelligence is concerned - but you are assuming as fact an even sillier proposition - namely that a leading edge slat deploying (as it is clearly designed to do) freaks out test pilots to point they suspend tests on more aggressive turns.

[Soren]

FLYBOYJ, the pilot who tested the 109 had most likely never flown any a/c with slats before, which is esp. apparent with his comment that the 109 was 'embarrased' by the opening o its slats - a guy who knows how slats function wouldn't fling out BS like that.

But its not the first time BS has been said by a British test-pilot, I remember a certain individual by the name of Kit Carson.

No - the fact here is that RAF test pilots knew exactly what the stats did, how they performed and when they deployed...

Thats just an assumption... and a wrong one...

Also if the British understood the slats so well then how come they couldn't manage to get them to work on the Westland and had to have them shut ???

Yes, it all supports what I and Kurfürst have been saying all along.

[AL Schlageter]

Originally Posted by Soren

But its not the first time BS has been said by a British test-pilot, I remember a certain individual by the name of Kit Carson.

When did Carson become a British citizen?

I understood he was a fighter pilot in the USAAF.

[Jank]

Test of captured Fw190A-4 and F4U-1:

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.o...0/ptr-1107.pdf

[FLYBOYJ]

Originally Posted by Soren

FLYBOYJ, the pilot who tested the 109 had most likely never flown any a/c with slats before, which is esp. apparent with his comment that the 109 was 'embarrased' by the opening o its slats - a guy who knows how slats function wouldn't fling out BS like that.

But its not the first time BS has been said by a British test-pilot, I remember a certain individual by the name of Kit Carson.

I doubt that - what do you think qualified this guys as a test pilot? My guess is he flew dozens of aircraft prior to even being considered for test pilot training...

Kit Carson wasn't a WW2 test pilot...

Originally Posted by Soren

Also if the British understood the slats so well then how come they couldn't manage to get them to work on the Westland and had to have them shut ???

Because it was a maintenance issue and it was better just to wire them shut than have to deal with them in the field.

[Glider]

Originally Posted by Soren

Glider,

You're comparing the Spitfire IX which has better high alt performance to the heavy 109G-6. Besides the 109G-6's favorite place to be was at low to medium alt.

Anyway can you find others ? I can't.

How comes only I have to substatiate the comments.

1) You make a comment about the training of the German pilots which I question giving my reasons for questioning your comments. I ask you to support your comment.
You cannot support your comment.
2) You make a definate statement that I will not find any example of a German pilot finding the the Spitfire a handfull.
I do, but suddenly that isn't good enough.
3) I point out that the Spit V over Malta held their own against the 109G2's. Clearly the only way that could happen is if the Spit could turn faster than the 109 as its slower, dives less well, has a slower climb and doesn't roll as well either. If the 109 F or G2 could turn tighter as well they would have slaughtered the Spit V
No comments from you
4) You have been asked a number of times to support your comment that the British test pilots were afraid or nervous of the slat deployment.
You cannot or have not supported that comment

The emphasis old son, is on you.

[Graeme]

Originally Posted by Soren

Also if the British understood the slats so well then how come they couldn't manage to get them to work on the Westland and had to have them shut ???

They broke.



Page 47 of 'Whirlwind' by Victor Bingham-1987

[Soren]

Kit Carson wasn't a WW2 test pilot...

He certainly seems to think so though

[drgondog]

Originally Posted by Soren

FLYBOYJ, the pilot who tested the 109 had most likely never flown any a/c with slats before, which is esp. apparent with his comment that the 109 was 'embarrased' by the opening o its slats - a guy who knows how slats function wouldn't fling out BS like that.

But its not the first time BS has been said by a British test-pilot, I remember a certain individual by the name of Kit Carson.

The Kit Carson who was an 18.5 victory ace who shot down 7 me 109s and 2 Me 26s's?? 'Kit' would be a HIGHLY unusual name for a RAF test pilot


Thats just an assumption... and a wrong one...

Also if the British understood the slats so well then how come they couldn't manage to get them to work on the Westland and had to have them shut ???

Yes, it all supports what I and Kurfürst have been saying all along.

Soren - it is highly possible that he 109G2 captured in Afrika was the test ship. What is probable is that the pilots that flew it in tests with the 109 against the Allied fighters in March 1944 would not have matched the skill with the 109 that a top German pilot with hundreds of hours in the airplane.

What is improbable is that the RAF pilot would be afraid of the slats. What is improbable is that Gunther Rall intentionally limited his observations of relative merits of Me 109 versus Mustang to steep climbing turn as the 'out' manuever if a 'tight horizontal turn" was equally effective?

What is just as improbable is that a Luftwaffe pilot would fly the Mustang in the Rechlin trials any better than the RAF pilot would fly the 109 in England.

What is equally improbable is that Lerches does NOT make any reference to Mustang inferiority to 109 while he was flying both - even by anecdotal reference to OTHER pilot recollections in comparative flights, if the me 109 showed clear superiority??

Lets sum it up.

Two 'tainted' or accurate flight comparisons by RAF test pilots in which the first, March 1944, tests the P-51B against the Fw190 and Me 109 in comparative trials - and comments that the Mustang out turns the 109 and 190 but is out turned by the Spitfire(s). No data attached. RAF makes no recommendation for performance adjustment/design for Mustang as a result of theses tests.

A 'tainted' trial (?) by USN test pilots flying F4U-1 versus same version P-51B slightly out turns and outclimbs P-51B. No data attached. If true we can conclude that the Navy pilots were less experienced in Mustangs and may not have achieved a fair test - but if so, the F4U-1 out turns Mustang which out turns the Fw 190 and Me 109 by virtue of only published test results and inference.

A Report by Soviets in which they demonstrated superior 360 degree turn time of an me 109 over an P-51A by 20 secs to 23 secs. No data regarding energy lost or airspeed after completion of first turn - or airsppeeds entering the turn. No dat other than 100m altitude.

No report, 'tainted' or otherwise of LW test pilots making judgements of ANY Me 109 in trials against Mustang at Rechlin. Only anecdotal comments produced so far are the above mentioned ones by Gunther Rall but none by experienced Test Pilot lerches. No data presented.

A Post war RAF Test series in which the P-51D, the Spit XIV and Spit (?) , plus Tempest V, plus Meteor V, plus Me 109 (unspecifed model) Fw 190A and P-47D and P-38L are flown in various comparitive tests. The P-51D out turns the Fw190, the Me 109 and one of the Spits. The Tempest and other Spit out turns the Mustang. No data presented to support anecdotal comments or graphs.

Many (How many??) encounter reports are on file in which a.) the Mustang out turns the Me 109G and later models, b.) the Mustang catches and shoots down the Me 109 in dives or watches them disintegrate. The Mustang shoots down more Me 109s than any other single fighter, the fw 190 is second.

And your case for the Me109 being superior in turn at altitudes above 15,000 feet and 300 kts is?