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

[Ramirezzz]

Originally Posted by Mitya

REALY!!!?
LOL!!!
ГЫ ГЫ ГЫ ГЫ ГЫ!!!

what's so funny about that?
check here:
-7

[...]
Максимальная скорость , км/ч
у земли 597
[...]

what gives us exactly 370 mph of sea level spped
Тезка, не сочти за грубость, но посмотри сначала в книжки, прежде чем гыгыкать

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

If you are going to post in the regular part of this forum, please post in english.

For non english discussions we have a special section.

[claidemore]

Originally Posted by kool kitty89

Don't want to get into this again, but lower wingloading doesn't necessarily give an advantage. ie if the higher wingloading a/c (ie 109) had a significantly higher CL (coeficient of lift), this would mean no lift loading advantage. (which the 109 did by Soren's figures; due to the higher lift airfoil and LE slats, 1.7 compared to the Spit's 1.34 iirc)

Of course power loading (particularly), and aerodynamic cleanliness (and other aerodynamic featurs, or faults) come into play as well.

Kfurst do you have figures for the 109's CLmax? Particularly to compare to the 1.7 figure.

I'd have to question the effectiveness of those slats in the thin air at 30-40,000 feet.

I have no problem with 1.7 cl for the 109, RAE tests got the same number (see chart below). HOWEVER, the identical calculations done at the same time for the Spitfire, show 1.63 at the same G load.

From two sets of data produced at the same time by the same people we can make useful comparisons and draw some conclusions. Note that the charts say 'assumed values' of clmax. Some dismiss them because of this, but assumed here does not mean 'guessed'. The values are based on calculations, and the same calculations would have been done for both planes. Thus we get numbers that are useful for comparison, whether we believe they are as accurate as numbers derived from other methods or not.

-If we assume both charts are right, then we can evaluate the difference between the planes.
-If we assume both charts are wrong, the errors should be the same for both (same calculations), the numbers are still useful for comparison.
-If we assume only one chart is wrong, then in essence we are throwing out every historical document available that doesn't support our pre-concieved notions and might as well just pull numbers out of the air to 'prove' what we want to believe.

Also note that these are complete documents, not just a snippet cut and pasted.

[Soren]

RAE tests got the same number

No they didn't Claidemore. Furthermore all their figures were estimates based on results in flight with an Emil, where thrust has a huge effect on the Clmax derived from the estimates, and the Emil wasn't running at full power.

In short, and like I've said many times before, the RAE & AFDU's tests with the 109 are worthless.

The German figures however are from windtunnel tests, and therefore very accurate. And the same goes for all German, British & US windtunnel figures, these are the ones we should look at as they are by far the most accurate.

[bada]

Originally Posted by claidemore

Wow, where does one start?

Kurfurst: Seriously, Austers? Hop gives you the number of "fighters" shot down by these units, and you throw in the number of unarmed spotter planes they shot down?

So in May 44 they used 61 of 68 Mk XIVs to convert two squadrons to the type. New type, very fast, lots of interest in them, makes sense to get them out there and see what they can do. You interpret this as "rushing them into service". Fair enough, but 6 months later they had half the Mk XIVs in reserve. What happened to "rushing them into service"? .

Hey claidmore!

for the right numbers, please refer to the pg13 of this discussion. about the reserve, i wouldn't call that reserve, if you look more carefully in the stats, you'll see than most of the mk14 noted as non-operationnal (still the same graph pg13) were in RSU or repair service unit or in MU (maintenance unit) what actually means that those airframes were : too dammaged or having a full overhaul. from all those airframes, a lot has been declassified after the war, the were used as spare-parts units

There was not a large stock of mk14 available , will make a quess here(because i didn't make this kind of stats), but i would count 25% of the non-operationnal airframes as "replacement stock". the rest was scrap or on the way to became scrap!

Originally Posted by claidemore

The really intersting thing is that only 314 of the K4's made up till January 45 were with frontline units? You maintain that the Spitfire Mk XIV was rare, not a presence, of little importance, in few numbers,(not quoting, just summarizing) yet you tell us that only 1/4 of the K4's were in combat? You aren't seriously suggesting that we believe that a desperate nation surrounded by millions of advancing hostile troops, bombed practically back to the stone age, it's armies pushed out of France, Italy, North Africa, Russia, etc, etc, with Soviet troops poised to cross the Oder, was keeping 3/4s of its best and latest fighters in reserve?

I would think lack of pilots, lack of fuel, lack of bases to operate from, and a severe attrition rate would have more to do with it. Particularly the attrition rate. .

the mk14 was as rare as the 262,even more.(if referring on numbers! )
there are very few squadrons that received this bird. Can search them in the list if you want (you'll have to wait few days), then we can compare the squadron activities, geographical situation.There are also the periods of squad assignements, so it won't be so hard to do it!

Originally Posted by claidemore

Bada:

Most MkXIVs had either the normal span wing, or the extended wing tip wing. Even with clipped wings, wing loading was still less than any 109 in service. Short wing, maybe, but it was wide as well.
BTW, the Mk XIV reached its top speed at 8000 meters, the K4 reached its top speed at around 7000 meters.

Sorry claid, but i NEVER saw a picture of a mk14 with "full-wings", never a drawing or even a pilot account. So, on this one, i'm hard-headed, i stay on my opinion...opinion

About the high alt performance: the f104 has it's max speed at 13000meters or something like that, that's not the pb here, the pb is maneuvrability in combat at those heights, and i really don't see a clipped spit beeing able to maneuvre like a slatted-109 in COMBAT SITUATION. I don't know if the low wing load alone could make the spit14 clipped do acrobatics at HIGH ALT, you need wings thatfor, something were the few of the air there-above can have a "grip".
I can be completly wrong on this, but that's how i see it.

and, last thing: the yak-3 production numbers: how of those 4800were build till the 10may45?

[ponsford]

Nice post claidemore, interesting!

[Waynos]

Bada

i NEVER saw a picture of a mk14 with "full-wings", never a drawing or even a pilot account. So, on this one, i'm hard-headed, i stay on my opinion

You have now, here is a scan from 'Spitfire' by Jeffrey Quill.

[bada]

RB140:
F21 fin and rud install.
First prod XIVE 39MU 20-12-43
616S 1-2-44
DeH 'Gem' mods 6-4-44
610S Stalled on landing and wing hit ground overturned Lympne CE SOC:30-10-44

Maybe, something less "prototype" somewhere?

yes, i'm suspicious about that

i said i was hard-headed

[Waynos]

If you wish, here is 610 Sqn flying Spitfire F.XIV's in 1944. All F.XIV's had the standard wing planform while the FR.XIV had clipped wings to go with its low level tactical recce role and so would not be tangling with anything at high altitude.

[bada]

thanks waynos!

Now my Clipped spit14 legend in my mind is cleared!

[claidemore]

Good pics Waynos.
(btw converting from clipped to full span could be done at squadron level, just a few bolts) Mk XIIs had clipped wings, so that adds to the confusion. Pic below is Mk XIV that went to India.

I believe there were 20 squadrons that flew MkXIVs before VE day. I counted them a while ago, can't remember exactly, might have been 18 with 2 converting to XIVs during the last month that didn't go operational until after victory.

Production for the Yak 3, 4004 in 1944, 596 in 1945 (I think we can assume most of them pre-VE day, production would be scaled back after), 48 in 1946. This is in line with Soviet fighter ideology, make lots of simple planes quickly, fill the sky with them, overwhelm your enemy even if his fewer planes have better performance/firepower. Of course in the case of the Yak 3 it was so aerobatic that it could compete on even terms without numerical superiority. ditto for La7.

[bada]

thanks claidmore!

Knowing the right numbers is important for me.

Maybe i had the yak3 vk107 in my mind...miss again

anyway on the picture above (4spits) i see the RB167 but the first one seems to be RS159, it doesn't exist in my list (no RS serials)

otherwise, it funny to know the story of the planes you see on picture:

RB167
MU 20-5-44
3501SU 1-7-44
310S 2-8-44
610S 'DW-E' 14-12-44
Hit by flak Munster FTR 26-1-45 (SoC)

and the metal-one:
NH803 type:FRXIV builder:CHA engine:G65
6MU 13-3-45
76MU 17-9-45
Ocean Viceroy 24-9-45 (transport ship)
India 30-10-45
ACSEA 29-11-45
9RIAF SOC 26-6-47

[Vincenzo]

in april 1945 there were only seven squadron of spitfire XIV, and some of them in re equip (2nd, 41st, 268th, 350th, 402nd, 414th, 430th)

[Waynos]

Hey Bada, that's great info. Could you do the same for the other two in the pic with readable serials?

They are RB159 (not RS, its just a trick of the light) and RB150. I can't make out the one at the back but I think it may be RB155.

[Mitya]

Originally Posted by Kurfürst

Hi Mitya,

Do you have information on La 7 and Yak 3 montly production, how many was issued to frontline fighter regiments etc ?

Thanks in advance,

KF

Wait it is not a lot of. The translator does not work for me.
All will be