Allied tests of captured Bf-109's

[Kurfürst]

Originally Posted by claidemore

From the 1944 AFDU report on the 109G2:

This one is still from the 1940 RAE trials with the 109E, not with the G-2.

Messerschmitt Me. 109 Handling and Manoeuvrability Tests BY M. B. MORGAN, M.A. and D. E. MORRIS, B.SC., September 1940. Section 4.6. Flying Controls,

Which you will be soon able to read on my site in full anyway.

Again the experience with and pecularities of the 109E in 1940 are getting mixed up with the 1944 trials with the 109G-2/trop.

Its simple, really. In the September 1940 test, they had plenty of experience with the 109E, and found that, if its flown to the limits, they can turn with Spitfires, which were more harder to be flown to the limits because of its nastier stall and control characteristics.

In the 1944 tests with the G-2 by AFDU, the pilot appears to be rather inexperienced with the type, he did not push the Gustav to its limits, reported that in turns he was emberassed by the opening of the slats, and probably eased back too early, leading to odd turn results.

[Kurfürst]

Originally Posted by kool kitty89

Soren,
According to Kurfürst's last post the slat problems were still present on the initial Bf 109F as well and it was solved on later F models:

I am not sure if they still present with the early F model - the mechanism was similiar, but the slat design was already different, as was the wing, ailerons were now of the Friese type etc.

Unfortunately, there are no 109F trials to shed light on the issue.

[lesofprimus]

Does anybody seriously think Gunther Rall was 'afraid' of the Me 109?

I dont think Mr. Rall was afraid of anything, let alone an aircraft he knew better than his own penis... Any pilot with Ralls experience would use any advantage his aircraft had over an opponent to maximum effectiveness...

No hesitation...

Efficiently....

With deadly consequences....

Ive met Gunther Rall in the past and it only solidified my feelings above... I bet that BS about him being afraid of the slats was started up by some Soviet Propagandaist....

As far as all this trials stuff goes, let me ask a couple questions....

Who here believes that an English Test Pilot Officer can fly a Bf 109EFG as effectively and expertly as Gunther Rall, or Theo Osterkamp, or Heinz Baer, or Erich Hartmann, or Von Bonin or Reschke or Kupinski or Graf????

Is it possible to believe that the 109s in question, if they were operating perfectly under perfect conditions, with the best Test Pilot the Brits could provide, such as Flt. Lt. Lew Lewendon, would be flown better if a German Ace with 150+ kills to his credit, such as Walter Kupinski, were doing the maneuvers instead of someone who never really pushed the limits of the aircraft before???

All these flight tests are subjective at best and really dont shed that much light on determining which performed "better"... I think its retarded to use a poorly performing, unserviced enemy aircraft to compare ur countries aircraft to in combat maneuvers...

No matter how good Flt. Lt. Lew Lewendon was, or how much stick time he had accumulated, there is no way he flew any enemy aircraft to its limits....

None...

Thats comes from my Grandfathers own lips...

[drgondog]

Here is the 109 that was used to familiarize US fighter pilots - at Steeple Morden, Jan 1944.

Below that are the 109/190 two seaters that my father got to fly at Gablingen in July-Sept 1945

[FLYBOYJ]

Slam dunk Dan!!!!

[Glider]

Lesof
There is a lot of sense in this posting. If we stand back and look at the situation there were three main questions
a) Did the test pilot take the aircraft past the deployment of the slats. Yes
b) Was Gunther Rall afraid of his aircraft No
c) Could a British test pilot get the absolute best our of a foriegn aircraft No

Taking C a little further. Did it matter?
The idea behind these tests it to equip your pilots with the best information on how to handle a foriegn pilot who is in combat with you. If the Test pilot can get a similar level of performance out of an aircraft that an average opposing squadron pilot can obtain, then I suggest the job has been done.
Aces can always get the extra 5% out of an aircraft.

Re the 109, the average German Pilot couldn't turn inside the Spitfire, indeed a number of experienced pilots even expert pilots couldn't turn inside the Spitfire.
The fact that (possibly) in certain circumstances the 109 might have a theoretical advantage is almost irrelevant, as the average Allied pilot could and did turn inside the 109.

There are numerous quotes from pilots of all levels of experience that the Spitfire did this and precious few examples on the 109 doing this.

[claidemore]

I don't know if Lew Lewendon is still with us, but I'll bet if you asked him if he was as good a pilot as Rall or Graf or Krupinski, he would just shrug his shoulders and smile. Ask Corky Meyer the same question, probably get a similar reaction, as well as an explanation on the differences between a fighter pilot and a test pilot, apples and oranges.

BTW; the allied planes were not flown by expereinced ace pilots either, they were flown by the test pilots at AFDU. Two planes being flown by two test pilots, arguably with equal skill and experience. The planes themselves were specifically selected to match the performance of those in service. In fact the first Spit XIV was found to have better performance than operational planes, so another MkXIV was used.

For comparison purposes, the trials provide useful information. (despite dummies like me misquoting from the wrong tests!)

AFDU, Air Fighting Developement Unit, was developed specifically to test captured enemy equipment. It grew out of RAE Farnborough which had been testing and developing planes since Word War One. They tested and flew 109E/F/Gs, Bf110/410, Ju88, 4 different FW190s, He111, He177, and others. They were also the guys responsible for sticking a Merlin in the P51. Not exactly a bunch of noobs.

https://www.airforcehistory.hq.af.mi...el.htmamateurs.

AFDU was responsible for developing tactics to counter these various e/a, they were very successful in that role, with the allied airforces attaining complete air superiority over Europe.

[Kurfürst]

Originally Posted by Glider

Re the 109, the average German Pilot couldn't turn inside the Spitfire, indeed a number of experienced pilots even expert pilots couldn't turn inside the Spitfire.
The fact that (possibly) in certain circumstances the 109 might have a theoretical advantage is almost irrelevant, as the average Allied pilot could and did turn inside the 109.

There are numerous quotes from pilots of all levels of experience that the Spitfire did this and precious few examples on the 109 doing this.

That`s your opinion of course. I am not sure on what it is based on.

And this is RAE`s opinion, on the 109E :


When the Me.109 was following the Hurricane or Spitfire, it was found that our aircraft turned inside the Me.109 without difficulty when flown by determined pilots who were not afraid to pull their aircraft round hard in a tight turn. In a surprisingly large number of cases, however, the Me. 109 succeeded in keeping on the tail of the Spitfire or Hurricane during these turning tests, merely because our Pilots would not tighten up the turn suficiently from fear of stalling and spinning.

...

The gentle stall and good control under g [of the 109E] are of some importance, as they enable the pilot to get the most out of the aircraft in a circling dog-fight by flying very near the stall. As mentioned in section 5.1, the Me.109 pilot succeeded in keeping on the tail of the Spitfire in many cases, despite the latter aircraft's superior turning performance, because a number of the Spitfire pilots failed to tighten up the turn sufficiently. If the stick is pulled back too far on the Spitfire in a tight turn, the aircraft may stall rather violently, flick over on to its back, and spin. Knowledge of this undoubtedly deters the pilot from tightening his turn when being chased, particularly if he is not very experienced.

Note that RAE didn`t even use flaps to aid the turn in the 109E.

That`s a very nice picture of that 109F, Bill, that you for sharing ! Do you have any more details on that aircraft, experience with it, perhaps?

[Soren]

Originally Posted by kool kitty89

Soren,
According to Kurfürst's last post the slat problems were still present on the initial Bf 109F as well and it was solved on later F models:

The design wasn't the same, only parts of the hingearm mechanism, some linkages were removed and the design of the slat itself was new.

[Soren]

Glider,

There's more than enough evidence to prove that the British test pilots did NOT go beyond slat deployment in the 109G, alone the comment made in their own report more than settling that fact.

[drgondog]

That`s a very nice picture of that 109F, Bill, that you for sharing ! Do you have any more details on that aircraft, experience with it, perhaps?[/quote]

Kurfurst - I had than one mislabeled as the G2 some time ago and noticed only recently that it was an F.

Short answer - no. I think it was the F that you mentioned earlier that had crash landed and was repaired. It was part of a show in which a Ju 88, an Me 110 and the 109F were flown by the RAF to each US base to familiarize American pilots with flight controls (as a potential escape vehicle) as well as lectures on the characteristics.

I'll dig around and see if I can find the others. Of course you are welcome to use it - thyere are no copyright issues that I can imagine.

Regards,

Bill

[Glider]

This is my posting from the previous thread. The sections in bold report what happened after the slats deployed and pressure continued until the stall.
That they should do this one one aircraft and not another makes no sense.

Apart from their excessive heaviness at high speeds, the most serious defect of the Me. 109 ailerons is a tendency to snatch as the wing tip slots open. This is particularly noticeable when manoeuvring. For example, if the stick is pulled back in a tight turn, putting additional g on the aircraft, the slots open at quite a high airspeed; as they open, the stick suddenly snatches laterally through several inches either way, sufficiently to upset a pilot's aim in a dog fight. The snatch appears to be associated with the opening of the slots, for once they are fully open a steady turn can be done, with no aileron vibration, until the stall is approached.

When doing tight turns with the Me. 109 leading at speeds between 90 m.p.h. and 220 m.p.h. the Spitfires and Hurricanes had little difficult in keeping on the tail of the Me. 109. During these turns the amount of normal g recorded on the Me. 109 was between 2J and 4 g. The aircraft stalled if the turn was tightened to give more than 4 g at speeds below about 200 m.p.h. The slots opened at about 1\2 g before the stall, and whilst opening caused the ailerons to snatch; this upset the pilot's sighting immediately and caused him to lose ground. When the slots were fully open the aircraft could be turned quite steadily until very near the stall. If the stick was then pulled back a little more the aircraft suddenly shuddered, and either tended to come out of the turn or dropped its wing further, oscillating meanwhile in pitch and roll and rapidly losing height; the aircraft immediately unstalled if the stick was eased forward. Even in a very tight turn the stall was quite gentle, with no tendency for the aircraft to suddenly flick over on to its back and spin. The Spitfires and Hurricanes could follow the Me. 109 round during the stalled turns without themselves showing any signs of stalling.

The comments about the 109 being embarrased clearly refers to the 109 losing its sighting position which is quite understandable
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In Kurfurst earlier posting the interesting thing is that both of the quotes he mentions state that the Spitfire had a tighter turning circle but that if an experienced pilot was up against a less experienced pilot then the 109 had a chance.
There should be no suprise there.

AS for the comment that Note that RAE didn`t even use flaps to aid the turn in the 109E.
As far as I can see it doesn't say that it did or didn't.

[Glider]

As an aside I would hate to fly the 2 seat 109 from the back. The engine, nose and front seat gets in the way of half the visibility. The wing looks like it gets in the way of the rest.

[Hunter368]

[quote=Glider;336932]This is my posting from the previous thread. The sections in bold report what happened after the slats deployed and pressure continued until the stall.
That they should do this one one aircraft and not another makes no sense.


That was covered already why that would not be true Glider. See post #4 on this thread, it covers it nicely and clearly.

[drgondog]

Originally Posted by Glider

As an aside I would hate to fly the 2 seat 109 from the back. The engine, nose and front seat gets in the way of half the visibility. The wing looks like it gets in the way of the rest.

Flying a 51 from the back seat can't be much better.. I had to wind my way down the transient to the active but it wasn't that bad taking off.

By his accounts it was a pleasant aircraft to fly, but felt the Fw 190 was lighter on the controls and more fun to fly at medium to high speeds.