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

[Soren]

Originally Posted by Glider

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.

Already have, can't help you wont read.

You cannot support your comment.

I already did.

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.

No you're right it isn't good enough, the reason being he's doing a comparison at 28,000 ft - not the 109G-6's favorite operating alt, it is however a very nice operational altitude for the Spitfire.

PS: I do know that the Spit V turns better than the G-6, but the G-2 would've been a handful for the Spit.

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.

Wouldn't make any difference at all. Zekes were shot down in swarms despite their VASTLY superior turn performance - the reason for this: Inferior climb, speed & roll rate. The same happened to the Spitfire over channel against the FW-190, the FW-190's slaughtered the Spitfire's in dogfights using yo yo tactics.

If the 109 F or G2 could turn tighter as well they would have slaughtered the Spit V

No cause had it been all about superior performance & handling then the G-2 would've done so already with its superior speed, climb & roll rate, slow speed turn performance isn't that important. The Spitfire pilots were however excellent and did well to protect each other in aerial engagements (Something the IJN & IJA didn't do well at all), hence why the managed to hold their own. Steinhoff himself called British pilots some of the bravest and very best pilots he ever faced, much better than USAAF & USSR pilots according to him.

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

What ?! Now thats just plain lying Glider cause I've been doing nothing else, seriously !

[Soren]

Bill, the captured FW-190 [Jabo] actually managed to match the P-51B in turn performance, the P-51B didn't turn any better. Says quite abit!

In German tests the FW-190A [Fighter] proved no match for the Bf-109 in turn fights, yet another clear indication that something wasn't done quite right in those RAF tests.

Do I really need to sum up the rest ??

[drgondog]

Originally Posted by Soren

Bill, the captured FW-190 [Jabo] actually managed to match the P-51B in turn performance, the P-51B didn't turn any better. Says quite abit!

In German tests the FW-190A [Fighter] proved no match for the Bf-109 in turn fights, yet another clear indication that something wasn't done quite right in those RAF tests.

Do I really need to sum up the rest ??

No don't sum anything up - produce facts and sources - which you seem incapable of doing?

No facts on turn radius data at high and medium speeds/altitudes between Me 109 and Mustang (or F4U-1 which the Japanese thoughtfully shipped to Germany). You tried to claim Luftwaffe Test Pilot as an unequivocal source on this subject when lerches did not even address it.

You explain away Rall's observations on lack of structural integrity of 109 in dive versus Thunderbolt or Mustang as fear on his part? Would you say that to his face?

No facts or sources on limit or ultimate loads to support your thesis that the Me 109 was much stronger (or even close to being as strong) as the Mustang in a dive.

No facts or data on a Ta 152 (any version) actually flown above 475mph when you claim 500+

No facts or data from you to support a. Numerical superiority of Mustangs over Luftwaffe single engine fighters on Target Escort for period December 1, 1944 through May 30, 1944, or b.) small numerical superiority, or c.) the *:1 or 12:1 that you lovingly like to pull from a dark place and proclaim 'Fact'..not one single fact and you still have not refuted the Order of Battle I have presented to you multiple times - either for 8th/9th AF target Escort or LuftFlotte Reich.

No data to support velocity advantage of 8mm vs 30-06 with 22" or 24" barrel with 180 or 190 gr bullets - you tried to skate your argument with me by failing to dislose your ballistics as from a 29" barrel!

No, summaries jes won't do.. that only presents a platform for the Great Claimer (that would be you)..

People are not banding together to 'pick on Soren' - you seem to be a smart guy and actually I respect you - but I lose interest when I or someone else puts documents or facts/sources that you don't rebut with facts/sources -only your claim - then declare victory.

You basically treat anyone who disagrees with you as stupid - most of us are not amused by that posture.

Regards (and I mean it),

Bill

[drgondog]

Originally Posted by Soren

PS: I do know that the Spit V turns better than the G-6, but the G-2 would've been a handful for the Spit.

Isn't the G2 the alleged test bed for the March 2, 1944 RAF comparison tests?


Wouldn't make any difference at all. Zekes were shot down in swarms despite their VASTLY superior turn performance - the reason for this: Inferior climb, speed & roll rate.

Oops - inferior at high speeds, superior in the same strike zone as me 109 G-6 from your above comments. Roll rate advantage disappeared above 300 kts.. and Zeke/Zero were defeated by high speed/medium to high altitude strike zone ships like P-38, F6F and F-4U

The same happened to the Spitfire over channel against the FW-190, the FW-190's slaughtered the Spitfire's in dogfights using yo yo tactics.

Yep until the Spit IX emerged



No cause had it been all about superior performance & handling then the G-2 would've done so already with its superior speed, climb & roll rate, slow speed turn performance isn't that important. The Spitfire pilots were however excellent and did well to protect each other in aerial engagements (Something the IJN & IJA didn't do well at all), hence why the managed to hold their own. Steinhoff himself called British pilots some of the bravest and very best pilots he ever faced, much better than USAAF & USSR pilots according to him.

I talked to Steinhoff about those comments to Toliver because I wanted to understand his context - he fought Britain early and USSR most of his career - when he got back to West he mostly was with Me 262 and had very rare encounters w/Mustang and Jug in Conventional fighters.. like Rall and Hartman and Krupinski, etc most LW Experten above 50 awards did not deal with USAAF on a daily basis.. certainly very few above 100.

Bar, Bartels, Hahn, Ihlefeld, Dahl and others survived 1943-1945 on West Front but Nowatny, Mayer, Schwaiger, Wessling and many others did not.

What ?! Now thats just plain lying Glider cause I've been doing nothing else, seriously !

see my comments in thread below. You are better person and debater than reflected by that comment to Glider.

[Juha]

Soren

“Besides the 109G-6's favorite place to be was at low to medium alt.”

And how you definite low and medium altitude? Finns thought that Bf 109G-6 wasn’t at its best at low level and from 2000m to 3000m was the worst height to fought against Soviet fighters in Bf 109G-6. They thought that the best altitude for G-6 was from 5 to 7 km.

“I do know that the Spit V turns better than the G-6, but the G-2 would've been a handful for the Spit.”

How is it so, G-6 had two MG 131s instead of two MG17 cowling mgs and FuG 16 instead of FuG VII, but those were main differences. G-2 was a bit faster, lacking the cowling bulges and a bit better climber but some 90kg more weight should not have big influence on turning ability.

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Not taking sides here but I would just like to make an observation. I think some people seem to think that there word is like the word of god and proof eneogh.

How about some actual sources here...

[Soren]

I have presented plenty of sources and facts Bill, you just either ignore them or claim I use one singularly for the entire subject. Claiming I present no sources is very wrong and immature of you Bill, esp. considering you in the very next moment try to critize and make up which sources I use as reference for particular arguments. You're trying very hard to put words into my mouth. I used LW Test Pilot by Lerche for information on the P-47 esp., which Lerche provides plenty of info on, I never claimed I used Lerche's book as reference for comparative info on the Mustang & LW a/c, I never said that Bill, and its about time you get that !

The 109G captured & tested by the RAF was a G-6 IIRC, I have photos at home. It featured gun-pods and a center rack for 300 L droptank.

The Ta-152H topped 500 mph according to reports from the pilots who flew it.

As to the 7.92x57mm vs 30.06 debate, well I can't really remember exactly what was said but one but thing is for sure, the std. 8x57 IS is a 198gr FMJ-BT bullet at 790 m/s, where'as the std. 30.06 round during WW2 was a 150 gr FMJ Spitzer bullet at 855 m/s. With a 154gr FMJ Spitzer bullet muzzle velocity was 890 m/s for the 8x57mm. (This is all from 600mm barrels) The main difference however is that the 8x57mm is more effective with heavier bullets than the 30.06.

Anyway why do you insist upon getting off topic Bill ???

As to Steinhoff, well here's what he says:
"Well, first of all, when we fought the RAF, it was almost evenly matched in fighters against fighters, so true dogfights, even in the Schwarm [German fighter formation], were possible. That was the truest test of men and their machines, and only the best survived. You learned quickly, or you did not come back. When the Americans arrived, they came over in such force that by the time I arrived back from Russia to fight them, there was no opportunity to engage in that kind of sportive contest. Attacking hundreds of [Boeing] B-17 and [Consolidated] B-24 bombers with fighter escorts was not what I considered sportive, although I must admit it had many moments of excitement and sheer terror. "

This is from an interview with him.

[Soren]

Originally Posted by Juha

Soren

“Besides the 109G-6's favorite place to be was at low to medium alt.”

And how you definite low and medium altitude? Finns thought that Bf 109G-6 wasn’t at its best at low level and from 2000m to 3000m was the worst height to fought against Soviet fighters in Bf 109G-6. They thought that the best altitude for G-6 was from 5 to 7 km.

Against VVS fighters, esp. the later ones, low to medium alt wasn't the favorite operational alt as the VVS fighters performed at their best there, where'as the 109 performed allot better at alt by comparison. The Germans had no problems fighting at low alt against the VVS though as their crates featured MW-50 boost.

By comparison the Spitfire didn't perform at its best at low alt.

How is it so, G-6 had two MG 131s instead of two MG17 cowling mgs and FuG 16 instead of FuG VII, but those were main differences. G-2 was a bit faster, lacking the cowling bulges and a bit better climber but some 90kg more weight should not have big influence on turning ability.

The G-2 weighs 148 kg's less than the G-6, and climb rate is very much better, which improves turn performance.

[Juha]

Soren
"The Germans had no problems fighting at low alt against the VVS though as their crates featured MW-50 boost."

I think they had problems with VVS otherwise the LW losses would have been lighter but yes, MW-50 made situation better for LW although I don't thing that all LW's G-6s had the system.

"The G-2 weighs 148 kg's less than the G-6"
where you got that number. If you look for ex. Kurfürst's site, it gives 90 kg difference between G-2 and G-6 kannonvogels. That goes with the recollections of Finnish 109 pilots who said that there wasn't much difference between them.

[Glider]

Originally Posted by Soren

Already have, can't help you wont read.

Sorry, but no you didn't comment on this

Your saying that in the later stages of the war when German training hours were under severe strain and training pilots to have the basic skills was a priority. When pilots were spending less and less time in the air, we are expected to believe they started to train the pilots in this way.
Whereas up until 1942 when the Germans had a very detailed training scheme as good as the best in the world, your saying they didn't.

You can see the problem in your argument, as this issue would have been obvious from the days of the Spanish Civil War.

No you're right it isn't good enough, the reason being he's doing a comparison at 28,000 ft - not the 109G-6's favorite operating alt, it is however a very nice operational altitude for the Spitfire.

Interesting. I will need to find out what type of Spit they were. If it was a low level version presumably your saying that the Spit would beat the G6 at any altitude

PS: I do know that the Spit V turns better than the G-6, but the G-2 would've been a handful for the Spit.

PPS The Spit V was against the G2 not the G6

Wouldn't make any difference at all. Zekes were shot down in swarms despite their VASTLY superior turn performance - the reason for this: Inferior climb, speed & roll rate. The same happened to the Spitfire over channel against the FW-190, the FW-190's slaughtered the Spitfire's in dogfights using yo yo tactics.

No one would disagree that the FW190 was a much better fighter than the Spit V, but we are talking about the 109.

[Kurfürst]

Originally Posted by Glider

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

Selective quoting... some parts missing from that qoute.

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

I understand they specifiy they had problems with this special kind of Spit (the reference to it is clear in the context, but this is missing from the quote) over 7600+m. That`s actually well above the rated altitude (5800m) of the contemporary standard Bf 109G, which is why they remark about the probkem being specifically over 25000ft..which is quite understandable as well if you take into account the parts left out from your quote. Of course it would be another matter if JG 77 at the time would have been equipped with the special high altitude 109G subtypes as well.

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

Yes, but at this time which he gives account in his book, he was basically describes the latest gossip of other JG 77 pilots about new enemy a/c.

[Kurfürst]

Originally Posted by drgondog

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

Hmm, to me it seems the first part of the question can be decided by the relative falling of power at rated altitude and the respective outputs of the engine at altitude (unless there`s significant difference, I believe the relative turn will be the same as at low altitude), while the turning ability above 300 kts is basically a question of excess thrust vs. drag in turns.

In fact, turning radius is largely definied by stall speed =~ wingloading, and here you can`t expect much of a difference between the two aircraft - nothing meaningful at least. Sustained turn rate is largely about available power vs. thrust, at high speed a good indication is power required /max speed reached, at low speeds, we can draw some conclusions based on climb rates.

[renrich]

The Zeke did not have an inferior rate of climb. From 1941 to 1943 it was at least equal to the Allied types it faced in climb rate. Since this thread is supposed to be about Corsair versus BF and FW, how about some discussion of the USN comparison of a FW190A4 and F6F3 and F4U1.

[Jank]

See Post #85

[otftch]

The Brits sent Spitfires to the far east and the Zeros chewed them up.This was probably due more to tactics than airframe limitations.However the Corsair chewed up even the late model Japanese aircraft.On paper the F4F should have been totally outclassed by the Zero,but held its own pretty well.Tactics again. A Phillipene pilot knocked down a bunch of Zeros using a P-26.It all comes down to pilot skill.
Ed