Allied tests of captured Bf-109's

[Glider]

So the theory is that the pilots made it up?

Has anyone got a link to the full comparison report. I thought that I did but it seems to be missing some parts that you are all quoting from. That may well be the cause of some of my confusion

[Hunter368]

Originally Posted by Glider

So the theory is that the pilots made it up?

Has anyone got a link to the full comparison report. I thought that I did but it seems to be missing some parts that you are all quoting from. That may well be the cause of some of my confusion

Glider I was referring to the following comments:


"109E and early F had the slats operated by wing arms, the late F and all G series had it deployed by bearings, probably hence the much smoother operation noted by Southwood on the G-2. Changes in the K also had the slats made out of steel.

Condition of the aircraft is an interesting thing, as all the 109 tested by the Brits were in damaged state; the 109E WNr 1304 was captured by the French after it belly landed behind the lines, and had some engine troubles with the oil; the F-2 they had a similiar story, but was probably in the worst shape of all; I believe they got a belly landed F-4, but I have no details of it; the G-2/trop Black Six was found in the desert in North Africa, with battle damage, splinters on the propeller and malfuncitioning radiator flaps.

Only the G-6/U2 that landed in error in Britainwas in normal condition, however that one had gunpods, being a Wilde Sau nightfighter (and probably some service history and repairs/rebuilds behind it, given it supposed to be GM-1 carrier, yet had no GM-1 system and was issued to a Wilde Sau unit.. probably rebuilt as a normal Gustav after sustaining battle damage)."

[drgondog]

What is and has been missing from these discussions and candidly from just about every comparative report I have ever seen is the Test Plan.

Every Test Program should have well articulated objectives and the strategies to achieve them.

If one of your objectives is to try to get enough data to draw conclusions, you not only should fly within repeatable boundary conditions but also with different pilots flying the same profiles to sort out some of the subjectivity that will be introduced by skill variances.

I haven't yet seen anything in Any report, or any book on the subject of Axis vs Allied Fighter comparisons which even contains the following:

Turn Comparison Tests;
Three airspeed values, three altitudes - left and right turns.
Start in Trail, pursue aircraft in front until gain or lose ground in the turn.
Repeat series after exchanging pilots
Repeat series for different flap settings within airspeed limitations
etc, etc

This is a key difference between cobbling together a flight comparison between two skilled pilots who encounter each other and decide to 'rat-race' and professional test pilots trying to filter out as many variables as much as possible.

In the example Dan gave, he is of course right about skill levels of a Krupinski or Rall or a Preddy or Gabreskis against even a skilled test pilot.. but I would add something here also.

Give Rall or Yeager or Krupinski 50 hours (probably much less) in your airplane and he will whip you one on one in his 'new bird' - this is the difference between talent and situational awareness versus a skilled excution of describable manuevers and flight conditions in a test program.

So, one can say they don't believe the test results for a variety of reasons -

but I haven't seen anyone put a finger on exactly what the Test Plan was, whether it was detailed in execution, what conditions they set for comparisons, etc., or even the differences described quantitatively?

What we have seen are persistent comments regarding why the Test Plan was flawed - and I believe they could well be flawed - just nobody has pulled out the smoking gun...

Fear of leading edge slats is not high on the list of 'probable cause' explaining the report.

Having said that, if the 109G2 airframe was bent, if the engine was below standard, if one pilot or low time pilots flew the 109 against superior talent, if something was mechanically wrong with the slats, if flight control surfaces were damaged or improperly rigged, etc - any of those parameters would affect a well designed objective comparison for specific profiles.

I'm in agreement with Dan that a Comparison Flight Test is not The 'answer' but it is, if properly planned and executed, a potential high value approach to yielding conclusions regarding relative strengths and weaknesses.

[Hunter368]

Agreed

[Soren]

Fact still is that the captured 109G wasn't flown to its limits, as both German, British, Finnish & Soviet testimony as-well as aerodynamics confirm.

Furthermore the a/c tested were all either damaged, featuring gun-pods, underperforming engines, flown with the wrong fuel and last but not least flown by pilots extremely inexperienced in the type, not even having recieved any pre-flight instructions on any of the a/c's characteristics.

And thus the British trials with the 109 are, like I've always said, worth completely nothing.

If we want to compare a/c accurately we must only rely on aerodynamics and the figures achieved by the a/c's country of origin, as this is the only way to ensure that the a/c is in prestine condition and performing its best.

[drgondog]

Originally Posted by Hunter368

Condition of the aircraft is an interesting thing, as all the 109 tested by the Brits were in damaged state; the 109E WNr 1304 was captured by the French after it belly landed behind the lines, and had some engine troubles with the oil; the F-2 they had a similiar story, but was probably in the worst shape of all; I believe they got a belly landed F-4, but I have no details of it; the G-2/trop Black Six was found in the desert in North Africa, with battle damage, splinters on the propeller and malfuncitioning radiator flaps.

Only the G-6/U2 that landed in error in Britainwas in normal condition, however that one had gunpods, being a Wilde Sau nightfighter (and probably some service history and repairs/rebuilds behind it, given it supposed to be GM-1 carrier, yet had no GM-1 system and was issued to a Wilde Sau unit.. probably rebuilt as a normal Gustav after sustaining battle damage)."

Hunter - I think the 109F pic I posted above is the F-4

[drgondog]

Originally Posted by drgondog

Hunter - I think the 109F pic I posted above is the F-4

The second thing I wonder is why we would assume the aircraft remained in damaged condition?

God knows there were lots of damaged aircraft captured in Sicily and Italy to scavenge parts - and failing that the Brits knew how to work with sheet metal, etc to rebuild what they didn't have parts for?

[Hunter368]

Originally Posted by Soren

Fact still is that the captured 109G wasn't flown to its limits, as both German, British, Finnish & Soviet testimony as-well as aerodynamics confirm.

Furthermore the a/c tested were all either damaged, featuring gun-pods, underperforming engines, flown with the wrong fuel and last but not least flown by pilots extremely inexperienced in the type, not even having recieved any pre-flight instructions on any of the a/c's characteristics.

And thus the British trials with the 109 are, like I've always said, worth completely nothing.

If we want to compare a/c accurately we must only rely on aerodynamics and the figures achieved by the a/c's country of origin, as this is the only way to ensure that the a/c is in prestine condition and performing its best.

I would have to agree, both of Allied planes and Axis planes.

[kool kitty89]

Glider,
Let me try to sum up what's wrong with the reasoning on the "embarrassed" issue:

You say that the "embarassed by opening of the slots" statment refers to the aileron snatch, but this quote is from the 1944 Me-109G vs Tempest turn tests. And the test reffering to the "snatch" is a 1940 Bf 109E test. And as explained the 109G would not have suffered from aileron snatch.

[Juha]

Now Eric Brown wrote on his flights in the G-6/U2 that the opening of the slots ruined sighting and noticed that the flaw of 109E was still there. Brown flew the plane, after all. But on the other hand I have always thought that he was overcritical on 109G-6.

Finns wrote that when the slots opened one felt jerks/twitchs on the stick and elevators lightened but the control remained up to extreme limits.

Juha

[Glider]

Originally Posted by Juha

Now Eric Brown wrote on his flights in the G-6/U2 that the opening of the slots ruined sighting and noticed that the flaw of 109E was still there. Brown flew the plane, after all. But on the other hand I have always thought that he was overcritical on 109G-6.

Finns wrote that when the slots opened one felt jerks/twitchs on the stick and elevators lightened but the control remained up to extreme limits.

Juha

Exactly the point I have been trying to make.

[Glider]

Double post, apologies

[Kurfürst]

Brown said that flying into the slipstream of a heavy bomber throw the plane around and upset the aim. Which is what has been described for other fighters in similiar situation anyway, slats or no slats, it isn`t too special.

BTW Brown flew the G-6/U2 for an hour in total, and it was his first flight try in a 109.

[Juha]

Kurfürst
Brown first made turns, noticed that that the opening of the slats ruined sighting and noticed that the flaw of 109E was still there. And according to his writing he continued after slats opened up to stall, which was mild.
Because he was interested in the working of slats, he tested them further and made mock attacks against a Lanc and fought a mock combat against Mustang flown by a fellow RAE pilot. In both cases, with the Lanc AND with the MUSTANG the slipstream got slats open unevenly and spoiled the sighting.

Brown had tested also 109E, I cannot now remember exactly when, but anyway after 40-41 timeframe.

Source: Wings of LW pp 151 and 155.

[Glider]

Anyone who flies into the slipstream of any aircraft is going to get thrown around. I suspect that slats might make it worse if it caused the slats to deploy.
Its only of academic interest, as no one could draw a bead on anything in that situation