VVS Vs. RAF

[arras]

Udet >> I newer sad Luftwafe was defeated by MiGs at battle of Moscow. When I sad stop I meant its offensive was stoped and I mentioned also other reasons for that including weather. (similary nobody say Luftwafe was defeated at battle of England)

As for soviets enjoing such a weather, problems Germans had are well known from German sources. From the same sources it is aparent that for Germans Soviets did not seem to suffer from weather as much as themselfs.

That doesnt mean they were flying they sorties as in mid summer. Simply they were prepared for winter conditions much better. Germans evaluate themselfs as totaly unprepared and whole thing as their own failure.

Best way to evaluate whole thing would be to count number of sorties flown by each country and compare it with the same data from late summer or autumn.

I don't think some of us have time and possibility to do so.

In general during firsth two years of war, Germans were always on offense during summer time while Soviets been on offense in winther. That shows howe in general fighting ability of both sides was influenced by weather. There is no reason to think that airforces were some exeptions.

[delcyros]

Nobody disputes that the VVS suffered also (in many ways more) than the Luftwaffe during winter 1941/42, Udet.
However, the Luftwaffe tried to attack on a larger scale Moscow. From 4.10.1941 till 6.12.1941, at the peak of the attacks, it flew 35 large (more than 100 planes) attacks and more than 4000 combat sorties (counted bomber planes only) against the SU capitol. From jule 1941 to january 1942 it have been around 8000 combat sorties. If you check the records of the Generalquatiermeister of the Luftwaffe (a german source) you see that the bomber force lost during this timeframe at attacks against the capitol 952 planes (including those beyond repair and lost due to landing accidents). Numerous of them during night attacks, also. What do you think was responsible for these losses? Do you really credit them all to the winter and flak? Not very probable, if you ask me.
In fact the VVS had several advantages over Moscow:
excellent ground controll, radar, dense flak and balloon obstacles, Mig-3 at well equipped airfields in numbers. According to a soviet source (e.g. Yakolews book), the losses due to mechanicle problems of the Mig´s have been quite high in the winter, he states that the PWO had an average readiness of about 35% during winter. This may confirm your opinion that VVS planes suffered also by climatics.
The canopy problems doesn´t belong to the MIg´s only. The Laggs, Yaks and so on also. Even the Bf-109 had the problem that you cannot open the canopy in flight (except you want to bail out), indeed several pilots coming from Chaikas preferred open canopy. This belongs moreso to the MIg-1, most Mig-3 had closed canopy, thanks to the task of high altitude interceptors at the PWO.

[plan_D]

Taking off and landing at night and during winter is a very dangerous activity. I'm pretty sure a huge amount of those 952 losses were due to accidents rather than enemy action.

[Soren]

Soren, I do not see any wrong thing on the numbers, I have given. They are not that contradictary as you may find.

Yest they are !

The Fw-190A would NEVER turn that tightly, and the 109E would NEVER turn that sluggishly !

The 109E would turn inside even a Spit II.

The slats produce lift but also drag, reducing the arc/sec. turning speed while allowing a higher AoA and preventing stalling to a higher degree.

Didn't you read the facts I posted about the slats ? Well read it very carefully this time, and especially note the marked part.

The Slats extend up the range of AoA where the airflow stays attached to the wing. Without slats the wing would stall at certain AoA, the airflow turning turbulent at the same moment with sudden enormous increase in drag. With slats the airflow stays non-turbulent for some extra amount of AoA, and there will not be any "stepped" increase in drag when the slats deploy, only at the point where even the slats cannot prevent the wing entering a stall.

This would result in the statistic, given. If you calculate deeper (Spitfire IIa: 292 Km/h / 181 mp/h and 19.0 sec.same source) you will find out the following:

By the above, I have already proven your calculations wrong.

taking the Powerload and wingload into account you may also draw conclusions regarding the G-factor of this specific turn, if needed. The difference therefore between -109E (with slats not fully open) and Spitfire IIa is going to be nearly zero: The Spit turns slightly faster, the Bf-109 at slower speed and therefore tighter (if slats deployed).

Again I'll let you look back at my previusly presented facts.

The 109 had a conventional wing and was equipped with automatic leading edge slats. These opened out at low speed or at high speed under G loads, and restored the airflow (=lift) which would have been long separated otherwise due to turbulence.

The automatic slats will deploy in both low and high speed banking maneuvers, greatly improving turning performance at all speeds.

The Spit would need an average of 61 full turns to get an advantage of half a turn to this Bf-109E.

The slats on the 109 gave about 45-50% extra lift in banking maneuvers.

= The Spit II couldnt at all outturn the 109E in a pure T&B fight ! Not even if it wanted to real bad.

Combat records confirm these crude statistics: The Bf-109E more widely was used as an excellent energy fighter but was capable to do turnfights, also.

Thats right, in reality it was one of THE best T&B fighters of the intire war.

Major Kozhemyako, Soviet fighter ace:
"BF109 was very good, very high scale fighter plane. If was superior to our Yaks in speed and vertical combat. It wasn`t 100% superiority, but still. Very dynamic plane. I`ll be honest with you, it was my dream during my war years, to have a plane like this. Fast and superior on vertical, but that didn`t happen.
Messer had one extremely positive thing, it was able to be successful fight Yak`s at 2000m and Aircobras at 6000m. This is truly unique ability and valuable. Of course, here Yak and P-39 were inferior. As far as combat on different altitudes, BF109 was universal, like La-5.
Me109 was exceptional in turning combat. If there is a fighter plane built for turning combat , it has to be Messer! Speedy, maneuverable,(especially in vertical) and extremely dynamic. I can`t tell about all other things, but taking under consideration what i said above, Messerschmitt was ideal for dogfight. But for some reason majority of german pilots didn`t like turn fight, till this day i don`t know why.
I don`t know what was stopping them, but it`s definitely not the plane. I know that for a fact. I remember battle of Kursk where german aces were starting "roller-coaster" rides where our heads were about to come off from rotation. No, seriously... Is it true it`s a common thing now that Messer wasn`t maneuverable?
Interviewer: Yes.
Heh.. Why would people come up with something like this... It was maneuverable...by god it was."

Erwin Leykauf, German fighter pilot, 33 victories:
"The Bf 109s also had leading edge slats. When the 109 was flown, advertently or inadvertently, too slow, the slats shot forward out of the wing, sometimes with a loud bang which could be heard above the noise of the engine. Many times the slats coming out frightenened young pilots when they flew the Bf 109 for the first time in combat. One often flew near the stalling speed in combat, not only when flying straight and level but especially when turning and climbing. Sometimes the slats would suddenly fly out with a bang as if one had been hit, especially when one had throttled back to bank steeply. Indeed many fresh young pilots thought they were pulling very tight turns even when the slats were still closed against the wing. For us, the more experienced pilots, real manoeuvring only started when the slats were out. For this reason it is possible to find pilots from that period (1940) who will tell you that the Spitfire turned better than the Bf 109. That is not true. I myself had many dogfights with Spitfires and I could always out-turn them.
One had to enter the turn correctly, then open up the engine. It was a matter of feel. When one noticed the speed becoming critical - the aircraft vibrated - one had to ease up a bit, then pull back again, so that in plan the best turn would have looked like an egg or a horizontal ellipse rather than a circle. In this way one could out-turn the Spitfire - and I shot down six of them doing it."

This has nothing to do with the MIg-3 datas. But it shows that the Mig was a capable turner, also. Not exactly as good as the Bf-109 or Spit but the difference is not that big (the Spit V has a very tight turnradius and lower speed but also would need more than 35 turns to get any advantage over the Mig-3, leaving this field more to the abilities of the pilot than anything else) The Mig-3 will have the higher speed and g-loading but also will it keep it´s energy better during these tight turns. And the speed advantage would be something worrisome.

Your calculations are SO VERY OFF !

If the 109 or Spit is behind the MIG-3 and the MIG-3 tries to turn, its dead meat, simple as that !

Datas about the roll rate of both planes would be highly welcome here. Any datas anyone? Please post them.

Look at the a/c's wingspan, wing-area, wing-loading and airfoil data, and then try to compare it with the 109's data. Then you will see just how much worse the MIG really was.

Walter Wolfrum, German fighter ace. 137 victories.
"Unexperienced pilots hesitated to turn tight, bacause the plane shook violently when the slats deployed. I realised, though, that because of the slats the plane's stalling characteristics were much better than in comparable Allied planes that I got to fly. Even though you may doubt it, I knew the Bf109 could manouver better in a turnfight than LaGG, Yak or even Spitfire."

And some additional facts about the 109:
- The top 3 aces (of any conflict) all flew 109's exclusively. Of the 20 top aces (of any conflict) 12 flew 109's exclusively.
- Me-109 was credited with shooting down more enemy aircraft and producing more aces than any single fighter in the annals of aerial warfare.

[plan_D]

The Bf-109 could turn inside the Spitfire then but it rarely did. From those German ace accounts it was only veterans that knew how to turn inside a Spitfire, it wasn't just a case of flipping it on it's wing tip and pulling back on the stick.

An air force is never full of veterans so the Spitfire was generally better for the turn fights because the green pilots would be willing to do it just as much as the veterans.

You've already mentioned the Bf-109E slats jamming at times too, so that doesn't need to be mentioned.

[plan_D]

Also, I have just read a report on the turning Spitfire Vs. Me-109 by Wing Commander G.H Stainforth, 9th June 1940. It clearly states that the Hurricane easily out-turned the Me-109 and the Spitfire did it just as easily.

On the Me-109 it states;

Although the aileron control was very good up to moderate speeds the aircraft is generally extremely unmanoeuverable owing to:-

(a) Its large turning circle

(b) Impossibility of tightening up the turn owing to the uneven opening of slots and the tendency of the wings to stall unevenly, resulting in flick and the slowing down of the rate of turn.

(c) Extremely heavy aileron control at high speeds

Quite obviously this would be a Bf-109E as it is June, 1940. It might be one of the hybrid Es that the RAF concocted during the Battle of Britain from bits and pieces of the E models they captured.

[plan_D]

I have just read a report on the Me-109F dated October 28th, 1941.

I quote; It is considered, however, that the aircraft could have been out-turned easily by a Spitfire. At high speed the ailerons are more effective than the fabric ailerons of the Spitfire, but are not as good as the metal ones. As a result of the heaviness of the elevators at speeds over 400 m.p.h, violent evasion is not possible, and the aircraft would prevent a simple target to a following Spitfire...

From the conclusion of the same report it states; The Me.109F, although very similar in appearance to the Me.109E is much superior to it in all-round performance...The aircraft has a superior initial climb and dive to that of the Spitfire, but it is considered that the Spitfire could easily out-turn the Me.109F, especially at high-speeds.

[Soren]

The Bf-109 could turn inside the Spitfire then but it rarely did.

No, it did it quite often actually. There just ain't many British pilots left to tell you that, as they died discovering it.
Marseilles preferred outturning a Spit or any other foe more than anything else.

It rarely happened in BoB though, as MANY novice pilots didnt dare turning that hard in a "E" series, as its slats would jam quite often if not maintained properly(A little dirt could easely make them jam),
and because of the loud bang and slight notch the plane would make when they deployed. (This scared MANY novice LW pilots)

What 'could' happen to the 109E, was that one slat could jam, giving more lift on 'one' of the wings, sending the 109 into a vicious spin. This is what Günther Rall experienced as a novice, and he never turned that tightly in a 109 again, even when this problem was solved.

--------------------------------

Fact is most German 109 (And 190) pilots used Bouncing tactics as they were MUCH safer than T&B tactics, and because the 109 was unrivaled in the climb.
Eventhough the 109 was an excellent T&B fighter and unrivaled by most of its foe's in this kind of fighting, it was NEVER safe, as a passing enemy fighter could quite easely pick you off while you were concentrating about turning inside your prey.

This rule applies to all the fighters of WW2, as a T&B fight isnt safe nomatter what a/c your sitting in. Ask any Zero pilot about this and he will quite strongly agree

From those German ace accounts it was only veterans that knew how to turn inside a Spitfire

During BoB this is true, but after BoB the 109 did it frequently and many novices learned about this ability from the beginning.

it wasn't just a case of flipping it on it's wing tip and pulling back on the stick.

Umm.. Yes it was ! It was a case of not freaking out and ease off when the slats deployed, but keep pulling back the stick.

The mistake made by many LW novice's (And British test-pilots), was to ease off when the slats deployed, as the loud bang and slight notch scared the hell out of them, all they needed to do was to keep pulling.

An air force is never full of veterans so the Spitfire was generally better for the turn fights because the green pilots would be willing to do it just as much as the veterans.

Again this is only true for the BoB.

You've already mentioned the Bf-109E slats jamming at times too, so that doesn't need to be mentioned.

I didn't mention it in my previous post at all. It was mentioned in one of my quotes, but that can hardly be blamed on me

[Soren]

Originally Posted by plan_D

I have just read a report on the Me-109F dated October 28th, 1941.

I quote; It is considered, however, that the aircraft could have been out-turned easily by a Spitfire. At high speed the ailerons are more effective than the fabric ailerons of the Spitfire, but are not as good as the metal ones. As a result of the heaviness of the elevators at speeds over 400 m.p.h, violent evasion is not possible, and the aircraft would prevent a simple target to a following Spitfire...

Plan_D British test-pilots did exactly the same as novice LW pilots did when trying to turn the 109 ! They eased off the turn as soon as the slats popped out, and wouldnt go any further.

The british even verify this themselves in many tests:

"the Bf.109G being embarrassed by its slots opening near the stall. "

British test-pilots would almost **** their pants when the 109's slats deployed, and would think "Hell no !" and then drop the maneuver entirely. That is why these test-results are so inaccurate.

[delcyros]

I can confirm this. According to the RAF comparison flight of a Hurricane and a Bf-109E it seems that the testpilot did not explored the limits of the Me. Later he wrote: "(...) I never got out that much of the Messerschmidt, compared to those Luftwaffe pilots."
Another thing is the stiffness of it´s rudders. It is a very twoshapedargument, since you have also to take the forces at the controllstick into account to give 80% or more. If factoring this you clearly find out that the Spit is going to be very stiff, also (indeed you need more power at 350 mp/h in a Spit to initiate a turn than in a Me).However, the one, who stays in vertical maneuvering keeps his energy against the one, who tries to outturn.
But back to the turning datas. Soren, you still failed to provide own datas about it. The slats are described but in howfar do they work? We need datas to compare them. 200 mp/h are not that bad for a Fw-190 to turn sustainably. Actually I have these numbers from a Rechlin test (Fw-190A). If there is something wrong with them I would like to know.
Roll datas cannot be calculated exactly by comparing pure datas. We need statistics about different speeds and altitudes for them. A few expectations may be granted in the way you described them.

[Soren]

Originally Posted by delcyros

But back to the turning datas. Soren, you still failed to provide own datas about it.

Own data's ? Have you read Hans Werner Lerche's (Luftwaffe test-pilot) book ? He flew virtually all captured Allied aircraft and most German types, including experimental models.

The slats are described but in howfar do they work? We need datas to compare them.

What do you mean the slats arent fully described ? I've already presented you all the facts about how the automatic slats work. What more do you want ? Their piece by piece description ?

To put it simple; The 'automatic slats' work at all speeds, and their deployment depends on the wings AoA.

200 mp/h are not that bad for a Fw-190 to turn sustainably.

Come on ! your quoting the 109E to have just as bad a turn-rate as the Fw-190A, which is just not true !

The 190's turn-rate numbers are very suspicious aswell.

Actually I have these numbers from a Rechlin test (Fw-190A). If there is something wrong with them I would like to know.

So where did you get the 109 numbers from ? Cause they certainly don't compare to the ones I've seen before !

Roll data's cannot be calculated exactly by comparing pure data's. We need statistics about different speeds and altitudes for them.

No but accurate assumptions can be made from them.

[delcyros]

No, I haven´t read Lercher´s book (yet). Does he provide more datas or just subjective experiences of the turning datas?
I don´t want to know in detail about the slats, it´s airflow principle is known to me. I just want to know if there are any datas to confirm this?
E.g. a comparison between a Bf-109E with working slats and with fixed slats. There should be differences in the turning performances. If you have datas, I suggest to post them.
The Bf-109E would always turn inside the Fw-190. If you check the turning datas you will find this confirmed. While the turnrate is close to each other (keep in mind that in this particular test the slats of the Bf-109E are not fully deployed, thus are reducing the Bf-109E´s performance a bit), the turning diameter of the Fw-190A-4 is much larger thanks to it´s higher speed at turning. The difference is quite big.
If you have turning datas (you said you have seen other datas), please post them.

[Soren]

No, I haven´t read Lercher´s book (yet). Does he provide more datas or just subjective experiences of the turning datas?

Yes he does, and the Fw-190A's turnrate lies at around 25-26 sec for a full 360 degree turn without loss of height !

I don´t want to know in detail about the slats, it´s airflow principle is known to me. I just want to know if there are any datas to confirm this?

Wait a minute, you just said you knew their airflow principle, but then you say you need data to confirm this ? Its bloody simple aerodynamics buddy !

They work the way I (And the illustration) explained to you, but since you seem to have missed this, I will explain it again:

Without slats the wing would stall at certain AoA, the airflow turning turbulent at the same moment with sudden enormous increase in drag. With slats the airflow stays non-turbulent for some extra amount of AoA, and there will not be any "stepped" increase in drag when the slats deploy, only at the point where even the slats cannot prevent the wing entering a stall.

You can also see this confirmed on the illustration that I gave you, as it is clearly stated that seperation is delayed. And it is also clearly stated that the "stall-angle" of the wing is increased.

E.g. a comparison between a Bf-109E with working slats and with fixed slats. There should be differences in the turning performances. If you have datas, I suggest to post them.

Del, what are you talking about ? No 109 had fixed slats, they were all fitted with "Automatic slats". The German Me163 Komett had fixed slats, and yes they increased drag, although that didnt matter much on a rocket propelled a/c. Bottom line is (As explained above) the "Automatic-slats" DONT give any increase in drag at all !

I can tell you this aswell, the auto-deployment of the slats was subject to extensive testing prior to WW2, and was found to be beneficial in all situations, and they were therefore installed on the 109 permanently. If they in anyway were unessential or degraded A/C maneuverability they would have been removed as they were expensive and complicated to make, but they weren't removed.

The Bf-109E would always turn inside the Fw-190.

Exactly, and every mock-fight between them proved this, as it is quoted time and again that the 109 "Easely" outturns the 190.

If you check the turning data's you will find this confirmed. While the turnrate is close to each other (keep in mind that in this particular test the slats of the Bf-109E are not fully deployed, thus are reducing the Bf-109E´s performance a bit), the turning diameter of the Fw-190A-4 is much larger thanks to it´s higher speed at turning. The difference is quite big.

As I've already said the Fw-190A's turn-rate would normally lie around 25-26 sec for a full 360 degree turn without loss of height.

Now where did you get those 109 numbers from ?

------------------------------------------

More 109 pilot quotes:

Herbert Kaiser, German fighter ace. 68 victories:
"Personally, I met RAF over Dunkirk. During this battle not a single Spitfire or Hurricane turned tighter than my plane. In the desert there were only a few Spitfires, and we were afraid of those because of their reputation from the Battle of Britain. But after we shot a couple of them down, our confusion was gone."

Helmut Lipfert, German fighter ace. 203 victories:
"I cast a quik glance at the machine and then climbed up after the other enemy aircraft. Damn, he could turn! Finally I was sitting behind him. I turned so tightly that condensation trails formed behind both wingtips and my Me shuddered on the verge of a stall more than once. Fortunately, the 109 turned extremely well.
The whole air battle took place at a very low altitude. I sat behind the Russian like a shadow, and now and then I succeeded in hitting him.......
He (Russian pilot) turned sharply, leaving a heavy vapor trail, and dove away towards the northeast.......... I cut him off and closed in at high speed. My airspeed indicator was showing more than 750 km/h.
I opened fire rather too soon, but he didn't change direction, instead he put his nose down briefly so that I was suddenly a level higher than he was. I put my nose down as well, but as I was about to fire he pulled up again, and this time I ended up below him."

[delcyros]

Could be that there is some miscommunication?
Slats: you (again and again and...) describe how they work. Ok. What I want to know is how far makes this a difference, in numbers (e.g. take a bf-109 with slats in working condition and those which are (arteficially) fixed and compare the turning datas: turning speed in sec., stall speed, turning diameter and so on. Of course there is no additional drag if the slats are n ot deployed, they disappear in the leading wing surface. But they produce beside of lift a specific amount of drag if they are deployed, and that´s what I want to know. I know that there have been tests with these automatic slats in bf-108 planes, but while the wing is almost the same, you cannot compare the bf-108 with the bf-109, there is lot of differences in the performances.
The sources for bf-109 E is the RAF comparison flight between Hurricane and bf-109E in 1940. You will find this document if you run www.lanpartywolrd.com/ww2/files and search for aircraft comparsison files. There is lot of datas (scanned original documents, but also manuals and lot of other stuff).For bf109F2 and Fw-190 A is the Rechlin test in oktober 1942 (see my first post to this problem).
25-26 sec. is quite high for a Fw-190A4. The A-8 comes close to this (24.5 sec at 218 mp/h after my sources) but the A-4? The Rechlin tests show me a differnet figure for it.

[Soren]

Could be that there is some miscommunication ?

It certainly seems that way !

Slats: you (again and again and...) describe how they work. Ok. What I want to know is how far makes this a difference, in numbers (e.g. take a bf-109 with slats in working condition and those which are (arteficially) fixed and compare the turning datas: turning speed in sec., stall speed, turning diameter and so on.

As I've said earlier, the slats (When deployed) provide about 45% extra lift to the wing. Now it should be easy for you to calculate the rest.

Of course there is no additional drag if the slats are n ot deployed, they disappear in the leading wing surface. But they produce beside of lift a specific amount of drag if they are deployed, and that´s what I want to know.

I repeat: A wing without slats will stall at a certain AoA, the airflow turning turbulent at the same moment with a sudden enormous increase in drag. With slats the airflow stays non-turbulent for some extra amount of AoA, and there will not be any "stepped" increase in drag when the slats deploy, only at the point where even the slats cannot prevent the wing entering a stall.

A wing without slats will stall at a lower AoA, and therefore produce alot more drag (Earlier on) in banking maneuvers, than a wing equipped with slats. Which means that a fighter equipped with slats will lose energy at a slower rate in banking maneuvers, than a fighter without slats.

I tried to explain this to you many times, but you obviously missed it yet again.

I know that there have been tests with these automatic slats in bf-108 planes, but while the wing is almost the same, you cannot compare the bf-108 with the bf-109, there is lot of differences in the performances.

Del, what are you now talking about ?

The slats were tested on the Bf-109 ! Your not seriously trying tell me that you actually believe that they would put Auto-slats on a Bf-109 without testing it first, now are you ?!

I was talking about tests with the 109 ! And on the 109 the slats were found beneficial in all situations, also by Willy himself ! That is why they were fitted permanently on the 109, and never removed. The auto-slats were highly expensive and complicated to manufacture, so if they in any way degraded A/C maneuverability or performance, they would've been instantly removed, but they weren't !

The sources for bf-109 E is the RAF comparison flight between Hurricane and bf-109E in 1940. You will find this document if you run www.lanpartywolrd.com/ww2/files and search for aircraft comparsison files.

Which makes the rest of your data totally merit-less. You can't compare two totally different tests from different country's !

Furthermore RAF's tests with the 109 are useless, as they barely dared flying it. And I've explained before why.

Btw notice the site's description

25-26 sec. is quite high for a Fw-190A4. The A-8 comes close to this (24.5 sec at 218 mp/h after my sources) but the A-4? The Rechlin tests show me a differnet figure for it.

The Fw-190A's turn rate lies at 25.5 - 26 sec.