Eric Brown's "Duels in the Sky"

[Ratsel]

Ratsel, I didn't forget anything and your analysis of what might happen is conjecture on your part. Sure, the Germans had good pilots, even great ones. Hartmann, Barkhorn and Rall come to mind right away. Best of the best in anybody's book.

The Allies had good pilots, too, and the P-51 was more than a match for the Me 109 from the time it first escorted a bomber into Europe.

In the end, the Allied side won. Near the end of the war the real problem for a typical Mustang pilot was finding an Me 109 in the air, not shooting it down.

I was speaking from the wing loading numbers, which are easily calculated, and from numerous WWII reports of Mustangs shooting down Me 109s in turning dogfights. You can find gun camera films of it easily on youtube and google.

It is not necessary to for you to attack me personally because I don't agree with you. It's OK not to agree. So, please make your points without assuming I personally forget things or went otherwise mentally unstable. Your own reasoning, if valid, is very probably more compelling than questioning mine and makes your points well enough. I'll strive to do the same for you and everyone else.

sorry but I'm not personally attacking you. flattered you feel that way though. also theres many instances of 109's shooting down P-51s in the turning dogfight also. right up till the end of the war. as far as the allies winning, well all they acomplished was to make an even greater enemy. I think you know what I'm talking about.


"Too many hounds are the death of the fox"
THAT single statement pretty much sums it up. I salute you Sir.

 

[GregP]

Ratsel, maybe you're right, but getting rid of Hitler was worth it. Just an opinon.

I don't think of Hitler as Austrian or German as much as I think of him as evil. Evil knows no nationality; he could just as easily have been any other nationality. His stragety of the "master race" and eliminating others in purges and camps is what was necessary to stop. If it crops up again, we'll stop it again.

As to the greater enemy, this is a WWII forum and I'll refiran from expanding it. At least the former Axis powers are not aligned against peace due to the treaty of Versailles as they were in the late 1930's. to my way of thinking, the Treay of Versailles was the primary cause of WWII, but that is arguable and I don't expect agreement. The Allies asked Germany to pay for WWI and the US tried to cut off Japan from natural resources.

I'm not sure what the Allied politicians of the time expected, but national survival often trumps peaceful existence. Poverty and discontent breeds war, and it DID.

Enough philosophy ... I'll quit ...

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

well all they acomplished was to make an even greater enemy. I think you know what I'm talking about.

Hold your horses there, The USSR (while just as evil), never started a World War. Never set out to exterminate a whole race. You take out the enemy that poses the biggest threat at the time, and then you worry about the other one. That is a basic strategy that has stood the test of time.

The Nazis were evil that needed to be destroyed! Plain and simple and FACT. If you don't believe that, then you might have a problem.

Now lets get this thread back on topic!

 

[Juha]

... Eric Brown also said the P-47 in a dive exceeding mach .75 was a death sentence. He also said a Bf 109G could do mach .85 in a dive, again, accurate statements?

Hello Ratsel, the highest Mach number achieved in tests flights by 109 I'm aware was Mach 0.805.

It was achieved when in order to find the explanation of accidents in the front-line units the flight test unit of Messerschmitt made series of dive tests during spring 1943. The plane used was Bf109 F W.Nr. 9228. To reduce the risk of pilot over-compensation, the control movement was limited to 50% of the reference movement of the ailerons. For the first test flights the plane was in the standard condition of a 109F with G-wings, except for the movement limitation of the ailerons and the ejection seat. At this form the plane lost stability (at median centre of gravity) at speeds over Va=650 km/h ie IAS. Movements, starting at the vertical stabilizer;appeared around the yaw and longitudinal axes.
After this the stabilizer was changed to a larger one. Meaning the late production higher wooden one. The elevator trim tab is enlarged in surface area by 100% compared to the original lower version. The horizontal stabilizer trim is limited in its upwards range of motion to +1°15 by a stop unit. With this new tail following speeds were achieved.
Maximum IAS Vamax = 737 km/h at 4.5 km, Maximum TAS Vwmax = 906 km/h at 5.8 km Maximum mach number = 0,805 at 7.0 km. This is the highest Mach number flown by 109 I'm aware. Bf 109K might well be capable to a bit higher max Mach number but was it ever tested flown in order to achieve that, I don't know.

 

[jim]

The P-47 flown was by Lindberg not Yaeger, it was a C model and the air force wanted to investigate its dive speed limitations compared to manufacturer quotes. He found Republic Air overstated its safe dive speed by more than 100mph and discovered some unairworthy features under aerobatic combat conditions, so the P-47D series was meant to fix those. The D has a higher safe dive speed than the C.

The Messer had a very clean and streamlined, lightweight airframe with a good divespeed, but suffered elevator and other control issues at very high speed. Despite the fact its airframe Mach limit is comparatively high (beaten only by things like the Spit and Mustang), it isn't much more than a thrown stone at that speed. These kind of figures are really just the bonus round on a gameshow, you've already lost control of the aircraft and corkscrewed 15km in a plummet and incredibly when most fighters would've desintegrated you're in one piece, but if you ever manage to land the thing it'll be joining the scrap heap.

Ratsel that's a very big can of worms you've opened but I don't think I'm really up to it today. In October 44 southern Germany and Bohemia trust me they were putting whatever was laying around the factory floor in anything except the K-4, G-10 and Erla lines (they made G-10 and K-4). Believe me some G-14 had 605A-1 crate motors in them and were barely more than restamped G-6s with an engine replacement and the new radio navigation set fitted, with an MW50 field kit slapped on and a guage bolted in. If the opportunity was there several G-6, particularly G-6/AS issued in Feb44 which had blown engines by April but were otherwise in perfect condition, were actually taken back to an assembly lot and had the update gear fitted, you can tell these by the heavier jig restamping, right over the old G-6 numbers.
And fuel was assigned by airfield, not aircraft models. By Jan45 the aircraft were assigned from the body of accessable remaining service fighters by what fuel was available where. If 5./JG301 had DB motors and 12./JG301 had DC motors then 5 staffeln gets sent to one field with B4 and 12 staffeln gets split and sent to another with C3.

The only evidence that 605DC or ASC motors ever used 1.98ata and C3 (ie. 2000hp trim) is the fact JG301 operated G-10 and G-14/AS but the airfield those staffeln were stationed was exclusively supplied with C3 fuel, there is no record of B4 deliveries or supply to them, only of C3. Since we know the G-10 exclusively used the DB-605D series engine from the 109K, these should have been the DC engine.
The Luftwaffe in 1945 simply sent the Antons to C3 fields, Messers and Doras to B4 fields, essentially letting chips lay where they fell because logistics and industry was so bad. The majority of G-10 and K-4 were at B4 fields with either not enough C3 delivered for their sortie rate or no C3 supplied. But even where a 605DB is using C3 fuel it doesn't have to be recalibrated, it can function at 1.8ata without using MW50, which improves throttle height at overboost.

The DC is just a DB engine with 1.98ata recalibration and spark tuning for C3. It's a field mod, takes seconds, the nomenclature is purely administrative and the stamping is for fuel identification.
Same with the ASM/AM deal, the M for MW50 was restamped onto A-1 and AS engines using the older chamber design but late series piston crowns. They're retuned for C3 fuel and 1.7ata overboost but are otherwise A-1 engines and A-1 engines fitted with a 603 blower. The D motor sought to find some kind of midpoint between the AM and ASM performance extremes (4500m and 6500m) greatly improve reliability and performance at lower engine settings on the basic A-1, oil cooling, airflow dynamics and bottom end were the big concerns. The ASB motor is a D motor bottom end used with the 603 blower, I've compared technical details between the ASB and DB and there are none other than the blower, which has slightly different performance curves at medium settings and is more fuel efficient.

So the G-14 in October 44 mostly got 605ASM and were low engine life hotrods with 1800bhp field performance and 1500hp overboost at 6000 metres. The only differences that weren't purely administrative between it and a G-6/AS in March 44 are MW50 kit, a guage and some new radios. If it was a factory conversion it got a new instrument panel, if it was done in the field the guage was just bolted to the cockpit interior. Some done in the field didn't get MW50, just the new radios but were still reclassified as G-14. Most G-6/AS didn't have MW50, all G-14/AS did. In March 1945 however the G-14/AS started getting the ASB motor when they came in for an engine replacement (the ASM and AM hole pistons at full throttle within dozens of flying hours), so a 1945 G-14 could be K-4 standard like the G-10.

The only difference between the 605A-1 and 605AS is they put a DB-603 blower on the AS and made some tuning changes, this experimentation was performed in early 1942 after they were playing around with GM-1 on the channel front for about a year. A higher altitude engine was a more long term fix for a high altitude interceptor, the Fw-190A had become preferred as a low-mid altitude one.

From the very beginning the 605A was designed to use about 1550hp at normal military but the piston crowns and combustion chambers just couldn't deliver and it had burn through problems even at 1475hp, the 1300hp restriction was placed until new piston crowns entered production, but it was always chasing 1550hp military (the 601A-1 actually achieves this in mid-43 at about 1500 metres but they wanted it on the bench).

By this time MW30 (meant for bombers) or MW50 was already planned for series production but the engine kits were still in the development and planning stages, BMW/Focke Wulf and Daimler/Messerschmitt had two different ideas and approaches on the subject, and Tank's höhenjäger team had already supplied the first interim Dora prototypes based off A-6 airframes and were finding the new Jumo 213A was underpowered in the heavy little airframe, so they didn't know what kind of overboost system they were going to try, whilst Tank actually asked for Daimler engines.

Oh christ there's so much to it. Look the moral of the story is that from 1944 to the end of the war the Me-109 had little in the way of standardised equipment, performance or specification by subtype and that was the whole idea of simplifying production. Instead of having categorised fitments you just had a custom order policy and everybody, JG26, JG301, JG54 all operated mixed formations by then, and then the Erla factory made their own fighter-only specification. G-6, G-8, G-14, G-10 and K-4 all leap into a big fog there, a G-14/AS in Feb45 can be higher spec than a G-10 in Dec44, the Erla G-10 is higher performing than a common K-4 but Erla also made a lightened and streamlined K-4 in 1945 that must've been the fastest Messer of the war (figures around 730km/h and higher are tossed around for Erla G-10).

You bring the impression Ratsel that it was organised all nicely like a comfy American airplane plant in Indiana wheat fields on a pleasant sunny afternoon. It wasn't. Models and fitments were all over the place. I've read authoritive accounts of simply grabbing engines from broken crates and putting them in mix and match G-6 airframes and sending it out the door in early 45, G-14 with crate 605A-1 bolted in because that was the engine available and artillery shells were popping all around the factory at the time.

Mr Vanir
Goog post. I would like to ask you what made the Erla built 109s faster . The streamline was along the lines of clean wing surgaces,clean radiators which -according to Mr Kurfust site- led to +12km/h? As far as i know no new propellers were produced that would add additionaly 12km/h.
But most interesting what made the Erla K4s lighter?
Whats your sources and which book would you recomend that contains the most recent informations about Bf 109 ? The books that i poses are over 10 years old and apparently lack new informations
Thank you in advance.

 

[Ratsel]

Hello Ratsel, the highest Mach number achieved in tests flights by 109 I'm aware was Mach 0.805.

It was achieved when in order to find the explanation of accidents in the front-line units the flight test unit of Messerschmitt made series of dive tests during spring 1943. The plane used was Bf109 F W.Nr. 9228. To reduce the risk of pilot over-compensation, the control movement was limited to 50% of the reference movement of the ailerons. For the first test flights the plane was in the standard condition of a 109F with G-wings, except for the movement limitation of the ailerons and the ejection seat. At this form the plane lost stability (at median centre of gravity) at speeds over Va=650 km/h ie IAS. Movements, starting at the vertical stabilizer;appeared around the yaw and longitudinal axes.
After this the stabilizer was changed to a larger one. Meaning the late production higher wooden one. The elevator trim tab is enlarged in surface area by 100% compared to the original lower version. The horizontal stabilizer trim is limited in its upwards range of motion to +1°15 by a stop unit. With this new tail following speeds were achieved.
Maximum IAS Vamax = 737 km/h at 4.5 km, Maximum TAS Vwmax = 906 km/h at 5.8 km Maximum mach number = 0,805 at 7.0 km. This is the highest Mach number flown by 109 I'm aware. Bf 109K might well be capable to a bit higher max Mach number but was it ever tested flown in order to achieve that, I don't know.

Hello Juha,

Thanks for this information. Very informative. The fastest speed I found was with Bf 109G-10 Curtis Wright serial number "T-2-122" which achieved transsonic speed of Mach .82 or about 966kph.

 

[renrich]

In May, 1944, the Pacific war and the war in Europe were anything but winding down. Overlord in the ETO had not taken place. The kamikaze threat began in October, 44, and the Corsair was needed even more. The F4U1D had a significant edge in performance over the F6F3 and later the F4U4 had an even greater advantage over the F6F5. The F6Fs were good at the air to ground role and in fact were somewhat more survivable in that role than the F4U. It was in the pure fighter role and fleet defense that the F4U excelled over any other shipboard fighter.

The poor visibility and the difficult stall characteristics of the Corsair were largely eliminated by May, 1944. It would always be a more demanding AC to operate than the Hellcat but the better performance was a worthwhile trade off.

 

[tomo pauk]

How well Corsair compares vs. a contemporary Seafire as a fleet defense fighter?

 

[Ratsel]

to my way of thinking, the Treay of Versailles was the primary cause of WWII, but that is arguable and I don't expect agreement.

on this, I agree with you 1000%

As too the stall of the Corsair, I've seen enough videos to determine there was nothing violent or unusual about it. It dips just the port wing a bit, from the "stall and how to recover' footage I've seen anyways. Stalling to land on a moving carrier deck is always dangerous.

Mr Vanir
Goog post. I would like to ask you what made the Erla built 109s faster . The streamline was along the lines of clean wing surgaces,clean radiators which -according to Mr Kurfust site- led to +12km/h? As far as i know no new propellers were produced that would add additionaly 12km/h.
But most interesting what made the Erla K4s lighter?
Whats your sources and which book would you recomend that contains the most recent informations about Bf 109 ? The books that i poses are over 10 years old and apparently lack new informations
Thank you in advance.

Erla built 109s were not faster then Mtt-Reg or WNF/Gyor built 109's. OR that Erla K-4's were lighter. Dunno where that came from.

 

[Milosh]

Hello Juha,

Thanks for this information. Very informative. The fastest speed I found was with Bf 109G-10 Curtis Wright serial number "T-2-122" which achieved transsonic speed of Mach .82 or about 966kph.

This was not a Curtis Wright number. It is the re-numbering of the Foreign Evaluation number FE-122. When the Air Technical Service Command underwent reorganization the Technical Data Laboratory Branch became part of T-2 Intelligence. The machines were given new numbers; "FE-" was replaced with "T2-

 

[Milosh]

Erla built 109s were not faster then Mtt-Reg or WNF/Gyor built 109's. OR that Erla K-4's were lighter. Dunno where that came from.

A person that did an in depth study of neubau 109s has no Ks built at Erla, though at least one K-4/R6 was built at Erla. Isn't the /R6 designation for heavy fighter with 20mm under wing gondies?

 

[Ratsel]

Was talking G's in general. The Erla built prototype had the cannons installed inside the wing. There is a pic of the wing floating around the net somewhere.

 

[jim]

on this, I agree with you 1000%

As too the stall of the Corsair, I've seen enough videos to determine there was nothing violent or unusual about it. It dips just the port wing a bit, from the "stall and how to recover' footage I've seen anyways. Stalling to land on a moving carrier deck is always dangerous.


Erla built 109s were not faster then Mtt-Reg or WNF/Gyor built 109's. OR that Erla K-4's were lighter. Dunno where that came from.

From Mrs Vanirs post #40 on page 3

 

[Juha]

Thanks a lot, Ratsel
I was unaware of the US test.

Juha

 

[renrich]

TP, this subject of Seafire V Corsair was discussed ad nauseum on another thread with no one giving ground. Seafire was a joy to fly according to US pilots who flew them but was handicapped by lack of range, overall performance, deck landing problems which resulted in availability issues, short firing times, ditching problems, etc. Seafire was a modified land plane. Corsair was designed at the outset as a ship board fighter. With the kamikaze threat a fighter defending the fleet needed every bit of performance, endurance and firing duration it could muster. The Corsair was good at fleet protection and good in the escort role and good as a fighter bomber. Limited deck space dictated that a single purpose AC was not as desirable as a multi role AC.

 

[tomo pauk]

Ren, I'm just too aware that Corsair was a better all-around CV plane (just love the machine), but at the particular issue (the best fleet defender) Seafire did have it's pluses - rate of climb IIRC, a thing that USN was looking after with Beracat?

 

[GregP]

Ratsel,

The stalll of the Corsair is not so benign if the flaps are up, the ball is not centered, and the g-force isn't near 1.0. Any accelerated stall can be quite intersting.

Not saying it is dangerous, unless you aren't a trained Corsair pilot, but the stall over the carrier deck at 87 knots has very little to do with a combat stall at 225+ knots caused by pulling too hard on the stick.

Naturally, the same can be said of all WWII fighters, and there are very few videos of hard-maneuvering, accelerated stalls, with the ball in solid slip or skid. In this category, give me a Hellcat anytime!

 

[davparlr]

From "America's Hundred Thousand" "A modern evaluation of a Corsair found it to be "the weapon of choice" over a P51D, a P47D and an F6F5. A WW2 pilot noted the Corsair as a "high strung predator" while the Hellcat was a "nice safe pussycat." Why would the Navy state that the Hellcats should be replaced ASAP by Corsairs if the Corsair was not superior? As a matter of fact, post war, the Bearcats in the fleet were replaced by Corsairs because the Corsair was a better fighter-bomber.

Very weak, untraceable, and disappointing reference here. "Modern evaluation"? What was the models that were compared? F4U-1A, F4U-4, or F4U-5. The F4U-1D was more of a contemporary of the P-51D. The F4U-4 was a good year later but similar to the late P-51D in performance. The P-51D was definitely out of the class of the powerful 1946 F4U-5, but probably not so for the P-51H.

The much better reference Joint Fighter Conference listed the P-47 the best fighter above 25k, the P-51 next and the F4U-1D third, below 25k, the P-51 was listed as best, the F4U-1D second, still an impressive performance by a carrier fighter.

I agree with all your arguments on the F6F. The F4U was better and its selection for continuation after the war was decisive.

You think a P-51 can't out-turn a 109? Why in the world would you think that? I'd agree if the opponent were Me 109F, but the P-51D usually fought against the G and later variants, with equal wing loading, so the instantaneous turn rates would be very similar, with the sustained turn rates being related to the airfoils and excess power. Most aerial attacks were decided well before the sustained turn rates would come into play.

On a "Dogfight" show, Bud Anderson, in an interview, claimed that, in May, 1944, he and his flight of four P-51, shown as "B"s, were able to close in on four Bf-109s in a sustained turning fight, and the program claimed the P-51 had a tighter turning circle. The program can be suspect but I am sure Bud's telling of the incident is more reliable.


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aB6ka32iTbU

Also, an article in "The Aeroplane" claims the P-51III (B) could out turn a Bf-109G, for what it is worth.


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=owwUq7yirfE

 

[Ratsel]

yep "Dogfight" is never biased towards Americans lol

 

[GregP]

C'mon Ratsel,

You should quit putting down TV programs, combat pilots, and other assorted items and make your points from your own data, verified by you, not from sarcasm and inuendo. I daresay Bud Anderson was there and you probably weren't, but I have no proof of that. Many WWII pilot opinions are colorerd by the fact that they flew only about 1 - 3 aircraft types after training, so they have no real basis for comparing their opponent's mount, except combat, because they never flew one.

Your points may be valid, but your method of delivery obscures that. C'mon, don"t put people down, make your points with YOUR facts and let it ride. Otherwise, it starts to look like name-calling, and that is nver nice or fun.

When you are making your intended points from facts, they are usually pretty good. Stick with it.