Spitfire XIV vs Bf-109 K-4 vs La-7 vs Yak-3

[Hunter368]

Bill,

Damn I was just going to say the same thing, you just typed faster then me.

I have to agree with Bill on this one.














LOL

[claidemore]

Originally Posted by bada

Hop:

spit14(all series) production:

MK14 :482
MK14E: 44
FR14:423 (photo recco armed but still main role is photo recco!)
FR14E:8

And the reason, at least for me, that there were so few of them is simply because the Griffon was more a complicated (also to build) engine than the Merlin, but that stays my OPINION and nothing else.(don't have any numbers or factory repports on this)

Btw: at high alt, the mk14 would have been dead meat for the k-4.
Down there, it would have been another story.

Note: FR MkXIV stands for Fighter/Recon, main role is fighter, secondary role is recon. Planes whose primary role was recon started with a PR prefix (Photo Recon), eg PR Mk XI.

Also, the Griffon engine development was started in 1939, there was plenty of time to gear up for production, and in some ways was simpler to produce than the Merlin, for example oil lines/galleries as part of the castings, rather than external lines which could leak as in the Merlin.

At high alt the Mk XIV would be completely dominant over the 109K4. For example, at 32,800 ft (10k) Mk XIV (18lb boost) with much higher climb rate 2200ft/min compared to 1476 ft/min (1.8ata), higher top speed 440 compared to 428, and of course lower wingloading, not to mention the 5 blade prop. Mk XIV had a higher ceiling as well.

[drgondog]

Originally Posted by Hunter368

Bill,

Damn I was just going to say the same thing, you just typed faster then me.

I have to agree with Bill on this one.

LOL

Bill Who??

Hunter there is a good textbook if you care to get a mile wide and a foot deep on Preliminary Design Considerations which covers a great deal. I think he does a good job running a middle road between complex and 'too simple' but it virtually covers everything - then has a couple of illustrative examples of design study steps from concept to complete set of analysis (other than Strucures/Aeroelasticity) to estimate 'everything'.

What it also does exceptionally well is consider judgement - trade offs for all the optional approaches to solve a performance target.

It's out of print but I highly recommend it or something like 'it'

"Supersonic and Subsonic Airplane Design" by Gerald Corning

[Hunter368]

Thanks

[kool kitty89]

Ok Bill that sounds good (and thanks for the corrections).

Not to get the thread more off topic, but how do varying elliptical planforms effect the lift distribution, ie the Spit's wing has the ellipse stretched toward the leading edge, compared to a pure elliptical wing as seen on the He 70, or He 112, or the straight LE with elliptical trailing edge of the P-47/P-35/P-43 (and the Re.2000 series fighters) or He 280. Or elliptcal with clipped tips like the CW spitfire, Tempest, or P-47N.

Or adding rounded wingtips to a trapezoidal planform. (ie Bf 109F)

[Soren]

Bill you're completely in the woods with what I said or implied.

Like I've been saying from the very beginning the Fw-190 achieved elliptical lift distribution in turns, i.e. when aeroelasticity makes itself felt. Now if I had said that it plain simple just featured elliptical lift distribution and mentioned nothing of in which flight regime, then I could understand your confusion. But fact is I said in turns, the reason obviously being that aerodynamic forces caused the wing to "bend" (Aeroelasticity) and straighten out the original 2 degree's of twist applied to easen the stalling characteristics.

However somehow you get this twisted into I didn't know what aeroelasticity was before you even mentioned it. Well Bill I've discussed the effects of aeroelasticity and which a/c it affected most notably on this forum before, and trust me the phenomenon is very well known to me.

Now let's wait to hear what Crumpp has to say..

[kool kitty89]

Soren you also said that the areoelastic changes were planned by the designers, which you now admit as wrong. (corrected by Gene) Bu bill seems to still be thinking that you hold that true.

[Mitya]

I do not know as it refers to in English, but in Russian it refers to "ПИПИСЬКОМЕРСТВО".
That is why you have decided, what Spit the best? Why? He loses Ла-7 in speed up to 4000 m. And he is better? Ла-7 loses to him after 6000 m. And it is not surprising. Soviet planes were created for the other tasks, English for the and you compare them simply on figures. And unless it is correct? NO!!!
Well, for example, there is a group of Typhoons. They are covered with group Spit-s. Height of 1000 m. I doubt, that Spit can cover Typhoons from Me-109 and FW-190 at this height. At P. Closterman it is written, that in 1944 group of 12 Typhoons lost 6! When in the Soviet Air Forces even in 1943 loss 2 of 12 IL-2 - 2 was considered not allowable! It is present in view of from influence of fighters of the opponent.
Opinion of Czech pilot Vladimir Fros, which flied both on English, and on German, and by the Soviet machines.
Ла-7 Had no such maneuverability as Як-3, but was much more safe, due to the greater durability of a design of a glider and very reliable engine of air cooling.
In comparison with Bf 109, fighters Як-3, Ла-5 and Ла-7 looked much more maneuverable, Fros considers, that the Soviet planes surpassed Ve-109 in all respects.
Comparing Ла-5 and Ла-7 with Spit, Fros prefers the British fighter. To operate Ла-7 on all modes it was much more difficult, than Spit. Plane Lavochkina demanded the appendix of significant efforts to the handle of management while Spit it was possible to operate кончиками fingers. Under characteristics Spit also looked better, than Ла-7, however it is not necessary to forget, that the British plane was made at a factory with much higher culture of manufacture. Maintenance service Ла-7 is much easier, than at Me-109 or Spit. Engine ASH-82FN almost always was dirty because of constant emission of oil, however worked extremely reliably; to him Russian saying is to the greatest degree applicable: "Works as an animal" (Работает как зверь! ). On Spit the fuel tank - directly ahead of the pilot very unsuccessfully settled down. Such configuration cost lives to set of pilots: the burning tank instantly transformed the plane into a crematorium.
Theoretical comparisons is one, practice - is a little bit another. In air Ла-7, as though got rid of the lacks. The Czech pilots had an opportunity to do some flying by planes of all countries struggled in the second world war, they also were free from ideologia, in other words - they can be counted independent experts. After war in Czechoslovakia comparative air fights Ла-7 with Bf 109 and Spit were carried out. On La flied Leopold Shrom which has proved advantage of the Soviet plane in everything, without exception, fights.
In 1945 carried out indicative fights in Berlin. Spit - 14, Темпест against Soviet Yak. Uniform chance at planes of allies. And know why? Because Spit has not been designed for conducting such WAR. Spit is a high-altitude interceptor, instead of a front fighter!
And compare La-7, Spit, Me-109 on one only to figures it is not true!!!
In the conclusion I shall tell opinion of our veterans: to fly better on Yak-3, and to be at war on La-7!

[drgondog]

Originally Posted by Soren

Bill you're completely in the woods with what I said or implied.

Like I've been saying from the very beginning the Fw-190 achieved elliptical lift distribution in turns, i.e. when aeroelasticity makes itself felt. Now if I had said that it plain simple just featured elliptical lift distribution and mentioned nothing of in which flight regime, then I could understand your confusion. But fact is I said in turns, the reason obviously being that aerodynamic forces caused the wing to "bend" (Aeroelasticity) and straighten out the original 2 degree's of twist applied to easen the stalling characteristics.

Soren this is what you said to start this on page 5, post 51(?), the underlines in your text are mine

Ok Bill, lets solve this;

I know the purpose of downward wing twist (washout), I've explained it on here various times before; it is for preventing tip stall, or to put it more thuroughly keeping the outboard wing section from stalling before the inboard section, making sure the a/c doesn't suddenly enter an uncontrollable spin without warning as-well as keeping the ailerons effective up until the stall. The 109's slats were positioned the way they were for the very same reason.

However in the case of the 190 you will note that the wing twist was applied to such a degree as to provide elliptical lift distribution under G's (which btw is the reason for the violent departure), it was purposely done so to achieve the maximum 'e' factor and therefore L/D ratio in turns. Now ofcourse you wont see that on Lednicer's comparison as his simulation was done under 1 G, something you seem unable to grasp


"However somehow you get this twisted into I didn't know what aeroelasticity was before you even mentioned it. Well Bill I've discussed the effects of aeroelasticity and which a/c it affected most notably on this forum before, and trust me the phenomenon is very well known to me".

Now let's wait to hear what Crumpp has to say..

As long as we are waiting - parse your statements above (the originals in Bold) with the statement you posted in this post at the very top.

You said twist "it is for preventing tip stall, or to put it more thuroughly keeping the outboard wing section from stalling before the inboard section, making sure the a/c doesn't suddenly enter an uncontrollable spin without warning"
So by definition if a wing has twist it won't enter an uncontrollable stall without warning?

Yet the Fw 190 exhibited such characteristics, but you said

However in the case of the 190 you will note that the wing twist was applied to such a degree as to provide elliptical lift distribution under G's (which btw is the reason for the violent departure),

Further in the statement above you said,

Now ofcourse you wont see that on Lednicer's comparison as his simulation was done under 1 G, something you seem unable to grasp.


and I said starting in Post 77

"Point 6. The G forces have bearing only on the elastic properties of the wing - and have nothing to do with lift distribution Unless and Until the wing twists or bends to change the relative angle of attack from 'no load' angle.
Point 7. The changes which tend to throw lift load Outboard are a function of bending rigidity, while the changes which tend to throw lift load Inboard are a function of torsional rigidity.

Therefore - pulling high G's seemed to affect the Fw 190 for two reasons (not known when designed) a.) aeroelastic bending of the Fw190 wing, moving the lift distribution outboard, and b.) not having twist in the outboard 20% of the span. As Lednicer quotes the LW report dated January 1944 you may presume he knows more about the German explanation than you do.

Page 89 of Lednicer's Report.


The Page 89 of Lednicer's report says

A wartime Focke Wulf report (Ref 14) indicates that at higher wing loading conditions (i.e. when pulling more gs) elastic deformation of the Fw 190 outer wing shifts the load distribution outward. This would cause more of the wing to reach its stalling lift coefficient simultaneously. Combined with the sharp stalling features of the NACA 230xx airfoils, this would produce the sharp stall found by Capt. Brown

I just created a thread named Aerodynamics and aeroelasticity - let's take this away from this thread. BTW you have not responded to the three questions I asked you about this subject in the thread -

[drgondog]

Originally Posted by kool kitty89

Ok Bill that sounds good (and thanks for the corrections).

Not to get the thread more off topic, but how do varying elliptical planforms effect the lift distribution, ie the Spit's wing has the ellipse stretched toward the leading edge, compared to a pure elliptical wing as seen on the He 70, or He 112, or the straight LE with elliptical trailing edge of the P-47/P-35/P-43 (and the Re.2000 series fighters) or He 280. Or elliptcal with clipped tips like the CW spitfire, Tempest, or P-47N.

Or adding rounded wingtips to a trapezoidal planform. (ie Bf 109F)

Take it to the aerodynamics and aeroelasticity thread and I will answer what I can.

[Kurfürst]

Originally Posted by Hop

One of the documents Neil got from the NA shows deliveries of aircraft to the RAF, up to 3rd September each year.

From 4th September 1943 to 3rd September 1944, 202 Spitfire XIVs.
In the next year, again up to 3rd September, 726, which means a total of 928 by early September 1945.

Your figures are about 50 short by the start of September 1944, and about 37 short by September 1945.[/quote]

I don`t think 'my figures' (not really, I have given due credit for them) are short. The figures Neil claims are not for the same date and are probably counted according to a different standard.

In any case, it doesn`t change much in the big picture - after all wheter the British managed to build 150 or 200 XIVs in span of a year is rather immaterial to inevitable concusion that the monthly production of the XIV was marginal, and the British simply didn`t have enough of it.

Originally Posted by Hop

Well, looking at the Luftwaffe claims list, scores 02/01/1945 until the end of the war against Spitfires, Typhoons and Tempests:

JG26 - 46
JG27 - 28
JG54 - 4
JG53 - 3
JG7 - 3
JG301 - 2
JG1 - 1
JG3 - 1
JG11 - 1
JG4 - 1
JG51 - 1
JG77 - 1
EJG2 - 1

Before commenting on the figures you are posting, I`d like to see the source first, as the figures you claim appear to be absurd - JG 11, JG 77 etc. downing a single RAF aircraft? C`mon. Even you can`t seriously claim that.

EDIT : It appears that Hop`s claims are based on the 'Victory Claims in 1945' on the luftwaffe.cz site. The claims list appear to have been compiled from several book available to the compilators of the list; as a result, they are most likely incomplete due to the inavailability of all primary materials, all books on the subject, not to say the documentation quite sloppy in this period.

Victory Claims in 1945

In any case, there`s a huge difference between stating as a fact that JG 3 etc. only scored one single claim against British aircraft in all of 1945 and that compilators of this list could only find this and this and this amount of claims in the secondary sources available to them.

The difference is of course, that the compilators at luftwaffe.cz certainly do not claim their list is complete; Hop OTOH does, rather dishonestly.

So 93 in total, 74 of them by JG 26 and JG 28. That's 80% by those 2 geschwader, 20% by the rest of the Luftwaffe. So the effective stregth of the Luftwaffe day fighters against the RAF was 25% larger than JG 26 and JG 27 combined.

That is a very bizarre set of logic. What is this 'effective strenght' you introduce now? Define it please.

Don`t get me wrong, if you want to be want to dismiss the strenght reports issued by the JGs, because you don`t like them, you want to ignore certain units, just be frank about it and do it with pride. There is no need to introduce silly new terms nobody heard about yet or to build up cover stories for it.

Hardly. On the 26th April 1945 the RAF had 500 Spitfire XIVs in the UK and Europe, 62 in India (or en route)

On the same date they had 426 Tempest Vs, 32 Tempest IIs.

Now now, there are two possibilities. One is that you don`t quite get the meaning of my sentences, which I highlighted so that it would be even clearer - I am talking about operational Spitfires and Tempests in operational Squadrons. You are talking about Spitfires and Tempests both in storage and Squadrons. You again quote that little list we have discussed already on another board, which is not a listing of operational strenghts by type/Mark in operationally fit squadrons, rather its a combined value of both the aircraft in storage, and in Squadrons, which you also admitted on the other board earlier.

Most of those aircraft in your figures (well over the half) are in storage, being under fitting to make ready for issue, or are reserves in store.

For example you claim 458 Tempests of all Marks 'in the RAF'. Most readers would believe - this was aim wasn`t it - that the RAF had these 458 Tempest in Squadrons and they would fly daily sorties..

But another paper from the same series (I wonder why you didn`t post those figures..), but which list the actual RAF strenght of operational Tempests in Squadrons, 113 (86 servicable, and 60 or less ready for operations) with the 2nd TAF on the Continent, and 18 (13 servicable, 12 ready for operations) with the Fighter Command in the UK.

Ie. only 131 out of the 458 you claimed were in operational fighter Squadrons.

[Hop]

EDIT : It appears that Hop`s claims are based on the 'Victory Claims in 1945' on the luftwaffe.cz site. The claims list appear to have been compiled from several book available to the compilators of the list; as a result, they are most likely incomplete due to the inavailability of all primary materials, all books on the subject, not to say the documentation quite sloppy in this period.

No, I used Jim Perry's list: http://www.lesbutler.ip3.co.uk/tony/tonywood.htm

As to how complete it is, it runs to 771 claims for April 1945. Checking against known USAAF losses:

USAAF report 72 heavy bombers lost in April to enemy aircraft, 59 to other causes, excluding flak losses. The claims list shows claims for 117 B-17s and B-24s, and another 107 "Abschuß"

as the figures you claim appear to be absurd - JG 11, JG 77 etc. downing a single RAF aircraft?

I don't see much absurd about it. They are on the list, for example JG 11 has 186 claims, only 1 is for a Spitfire. They seem to have been mostly occupied dealing with the Soviets, claiming 64 Yak 3 and 9s, 18 IL2s, 11 PE-2s etc.

JG 77 have 154 claims, again only 1 Spitfire, again mostly Soviet aircraft. They claimed 38 IL2s, 23 Yaks, 24 La 5 and 7s, 14 Pe-2s.

Whilst you don't want to admit it, the truth is there wasn't enough of the Luftwaffe to go around.

The difference is of course, that the compilators at luftwaffe.cz certainly do not claim their list is complete; Hop OTOH does, rather dishonestly.

Where do I say it was complete? The point isn't how many claims are on the list, although actually there are rather a lot, it's which units were facing the RAF, as opposed to the Soviets or Americans.

That is a very bizarre set of logic. What is this 'effective strenght' you introduce now? Define it please.

It's rather simple. If 80% of the Luftwaffe claims against RAF fighters were by 2 units, then they made up 80% of the effective strength employed against the RAF fighters. That's not something you can conclude from a single battle, of course, but this is a 4 month average.

Don`t get me wrong, if you want to be want to dismiss the strenght reports issued by the JGs, because you don`t like them,

Nobody is dismissing them. It's just a bit silly to point to all the 109K4s manufactured and claim the Spitfire XIV was outnumbered by them, when in fact the Luftwaffe was so stretched it could only deploy a fraction of them against the RAF.

Now now, there are two possibilities. One is that you don`t quite get the meaning of my sentences, which I highlighted so that it would be even clearer - I am talking about operational Spitfires and Tempests in operational Squadrons. You are talking about Spitfires and Tempests both in storage and Squadrons.

No, I am responding to your claim:

Apart from that, I seriously doubt the RAF could muster more then 100 Tempests and Mk XIV Spitfires for operational sorties at all, there were simply not enough in Squadrons for more, and the reason for that was that they simply could not produce more, for whatever reason.

Now if there were 500 in the RAF in late April 1945, and a squadron requires 20, then they certainly had enough to equip more than 5 squadrons. It couldn't be the case that they couldn't produce enough to maintain more than 5 squadrons, as you claimed, because they already had produced enough to have 500 available

Most of those aircraft in your figures (well over the half) are in storage, being under fitting to make ready for issue, or are reserves in store.

Certainly. But how can you claim they couldn't produce enough to have 100 available when they had hundreds in store? That's just silly.

The truth is the RAF kept most of them in store because they didn't have any desperate need for them.

For example you claim 458 Tempests of all Marks 'in the RAF'. Most readers would believe - this was aim wasn`t it - that the RAF had these 458 Tempest in Squadrons and they would fly daily sorties..

No, the aim was to point out how stupid your claim was, that "they simply could not produce more". To prove how wrong that was I pointed out that they had produced more, that the RAF actually had 458 Tempests.

Ie. only 131 out of the 458 you claimed were in operational fighter Squadrons.

Where did I say they were in operational squadrons? Why do you keep making up straw men?

You claimed the British couldn't produce enough to have more than 100 in service:

there were simply not enough in Squadrons for more, and the reason for that was that they simply could not produce more, for whatever reason.

and I pointed out they had plenty available, so that couldn't be the reason:

Hardly. On the 26th April 1945 the RAF had 500 Spitfire XIVs in the UK and Europe, 62 in India (or en route)

On the same date they had 426 Tempest Vs, 32 Tempest IIs.

The difference is of course, that the compilators at luftwaffe.cz certainly do not claim their list is complete; Hop OTOH does, rather dishonestly.

Ie. only 131 out of the 458 you claimed were in operational fighter Squadrons.

How about an apology for twice accusing me of lying, when in fact you have just misrepresented what I wrote?

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Originally Posted by Hop

No, the aim was to point out how stupid your claim was

Hey chill the **** out! Why does everyone have to automaticaly resort to flaming. I am getting tired of it, and I don't care who is doing it!

[Hop]

My apologies. I meant to say "silly", which is less hostile.

I would like an apology from Kurfurst for yet again accusing me of dishonesty, based on a false representation of what I wrote.

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

You two can take it up in a PM allright!