f6f-5 vs 109

[pbfoot]

These captured 109's were flown by more then one pilot , it was very common to take them to new squadrons and show them what they were facing , as well it was common to let some of the new squadron fly against the former enemy aircraft
Further more it is demeaning to any allied pilot to say that they were afraid of the slats, were german pilots smarter and braver

[drgondog]

Originally Posted by KrazyKraut

Rall stated that he would let go of the stick or push it slightly forward when the slats deployed, others said that's where real manoeuvering began. Obviously there is more than one way of flying a plane.

for ships in a stall/buffeting phase of a turn, pushing stick slightly is the general way of changing AoA and getting out of the stall but with slats working properly the stall should be delayed after slats deployed.

Rall knew how to fly the 109. IIRC that specific comment was referring to getting back on target as the high wing tended to deploy first on the slats - causing a yaw to the high side.

[timshatz]

Originally Posted by drgondog

high wing tended to deploy first on the slats - causing a yaw to the high side.

Boy that would be annoying.

[drgondog]

Originally Posted by timshatz

Boy that would be annoying.

but consistent.

High lift means more induced drag on the high lift wing.

One of the real benefits to glider training while flying recips is to better learn controlled and cordinated turns (use of rudder to 'kill' the yaw).. just like a carved turn in skis instead of a 'skid turn'.

If using just ailerons (you know this I suspect), the high wing falls a little behind and the cotton tuft in front of you on the nose will drift to the high wing to show how your bird is yawing - you then feed in a little rudder.

Too much rudder and the tuft drifts the other way and you back off on the rudder pressure a little.

[renrich]

I always kept one eye on the ball and "stepped on the ball." In the USN evaluation of the FW v F4U1 and F6F3 it was stated that the FW could not follow either USN AC in turns.

[Glider]

Originally Posted by drgondog

but consistent.

High lift means more induced drag on the high lift wing.

One of the real benefits to glider training while flying recips is to better learn controlled and cordinated turns (use of rudder to 'kill' the yaw).. just like a carved turn in skis instead of a 'skid turn'.

If using just ailerons (you know this I suspect), the high wing falls a little behind and the cotton tuft in front of you on the nose will drift to the high wing to show how your bird is yawing - you then feed in a little rudder.

Too much rudder and the tuft drifts the other way and you back off on the rudder pressure a little.

I have seen experienced PPL's be almost thrown by this. Its almost as if the light aircraft of today are almost too easy to fly and they have lost the habit of using the rudder in the turn.

[Timppa]

Originally Posted by Glider

You almost have to admire his persistence against all the evidence..

Agreed. To me wartime report or at least theoretical calculation always carries much more weight than pure opinion. And you know what they say about opinions: "Opinions are like ***holes: Everyone has one and they all stink". So I tend simply to ignore them.

That said, what Polls Forum is about if not opinions..

[Soren]

Problem here is people only read what they wanna read.

It isn't demeaning to say that the Allied pilots who flew the Bf-109 got scared that they were about to stall when the slats popped out, cause they did, as did rookie LW pilots in the a/c. So feel free to be offended, not my problem.

Rall's reason not to push past slat deployment was the fact that he nearly got killed in a Emil when one of the slats jammed in a tight turn, sending his a/c into an uncontrollable spin. After that he never pushed the 109 that far again in a turn.

And Bill that I haven't produced evidence of this fact is absolute rubbish, I have presented countless accounts, several which directly explained it to you, so be kind stop that BS.

[Soren]

Originally Posted by Glider

You almost have to admire his persistence against all the evidence.

Soren you wouldn't be a politician would you or work in PR?

That's hilarious coming from you Glider.

You must believe you have provided some evidence, I'm still waiting to see it though.

What I'd like to know even more though is what you refer to when you say "all the evidence".

[Soren]

This is a good sum up of the 109 vs spit debate:
Performance: Spitfire vs 109

[Soren]

Originally Posted by Timppa

Agreed. To me wartime report or at least theoretical calculation always carries much more weight than pure opinion.

Great, cause physics 100% supports what I'm saying. You can ask Bill about that as-well, he knows it, he just doesn't like my way of saying stuff (I'm too 'direct'). And why he has decided to blindside me despite us agreeing to respect one another I don't know. But nevermind that.

The methods for calculating drag & lift are as follows:

Lift (L) = Cl * A * .5 * r * V^2

Coefficient of lift (Cl) = Established in windtunnel tests

Drag (D) = Cd * A * .5 * r * V^2

Drag Coefficient (Cd) = Cd0 + Cdi

Induced drag coefficient (Cdi) = (Cl^2) / (pi * AR * e)

Coefficient of drag at zero lift (Cd0) = Established in windtunnel tests

And it just so happens that we have the windtunnel established Clmax & Cd0 figures for both the Spitfire, Bf-109, Fw-190, F6F, F4U & P-51. And from using the above physical rules of this world it can be concluded that the Bf-109 & Spitfire are infact VERY close in turn performance, the early Spitfire holding an advantage ove the early 109, while the late war Bf-109 holds the advantage over the late war Spitfire. The Spitfire & Bf-109 are both better turn fighters than the F6F.

Now as to pilot accounts:

Erwin Leykauf, German fighter pilot, 33 victories.
"During what was later called the 'Battle of Britain', we flew the Messerschmitt Bf109E. The essential difference from the Spitfire Mark I flown at that time by the RAF was that the Spitfire was less manoeuvrable in the rolling plane. With its shorter wings (2 metres less wingspan) and its square-tipped wings, the Bf 109 was more manoeuvrable and slightly faster. (It is of interest that the English later on clipped the wings of the Spitfire.)
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. This is how I shot down six of them."

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 turnfight than LaGG, Yak or even Spitfire."

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. I found that the Bf 109 E was faster, possessed a higher rate of climb, but was somewhat less manouverable than the RAF fighters. Nevertheless, during the campaign, no Spitfire or Hurricane ever turned inside my plane, and after the war the RAF admitted the loss of 450 Hurricanes and Spitfires during the Battle of France." 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."

Pierre Clostermann, Spitfire pilot.
"I tried to fire on a '109' that I spotted in the chaos. Not possible, I couldn't get the correct angle. My plane juddered on the edge of a stall. It was comforting that the Spitfire turned better than the '109'! Certainly at high speed - but not at low speed."

Skip Holm interview about P-51 vs Bf-109 vs Spitfire:
YouTube - Skip Holm interview about Bf-109

Mark Hanna interview on Bf-109:
Flying the Bf 109: Two experts give their reports | Flight Journal | Find Articles at BNET

And there is more where that came from!

As stated by German, British and modern pilots, the two a/c [BF109 & Spitifre] were very close in all aspects of flight, esp. turn performance, and it was a matter of pilot experience in the end. We have Mark Hanna, Skip Holm, Dave Chairwood, Walter Wolfrum, Erwin Leykauf, Heinrich Beauvais etc etc and aerodynamics confirming this.

So we've got both pilot accounts (Veteran & Modern pilots) and physics all matching up perfectly!

Now is there any doubt anymore ?? I hope not cause this horse is long dead and has nearly turned to dust from all the times its been kicked since.

Further good read can be achieved here in a previous thread where Crumpp, an expert in aerodynamics, made several very nice sustained turn rate charts for us to see: http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/avi...-10181-21.html

[slaterat]

Thats not a bad article but it doesn't address the heavy elevator of the 109 at medium to high speed. In any case I still have reservations believing a 109 could turn with a Hurricane or Spifire.

1 RAF testing showed the british fighters to be far superior in turn.
2 German tests also showed this, I believe one was posted at Kurfursts
sight.
3 In the BoB , if 109s could of turned with their RAF counterparts ,the 109s
would of done better than they did ,when assigned to close escort
German bombers.
4 Many German aces also confirm that Spits and Hurris were the better
turners.

Back to the orignal subject of the thread though, I always thought that the Hellcat was considered a good turner for a plane of its size and loaded
weight and that the 109 was a better turner than it should be for a plane with its high wingloading. That being said I think it would come down to pilot skill, determination and experience.

Slaterat

[Soren]

slaterat,

1. Why is explained, the test pilots didn't go past slat deployment.
2. In one test, in 1940, with an Emil, the 109 version known to have trouble with its slats jamming in turns.
3. The Me109s shot down more Spitfires & Hurricanes during BoB than vice versa, considerably more. And that the Me-109 couldn't protect the bombers properly was because of its short range, it had nothing to do with turn peformance.
4. Four times as many German aces as-well as modern pilots make it abundantly clear that the Bf-109 can either match or outturn the Spitfire. One of them being Chief LW test pilots Heinrich Beauvais who has atleast the same amount of experience as Eric Brown.

[walle]

…the Bf-109 can either match or outturn the Spitfire…

I have not seen those YouTube videos before Soren, though prior to have seen them I always wanted to include the P-51 Mustang into this equation. Now, I’ve been involved in similar discussion in the past myself, advocating the BF-109 (as based on what I know, not based on regurgitation or making someone else’s opinion mine) though most of the times those discussion has ended up nasty and as such I’m somewhat hesitant to partake in this one, however, I am very interested in your thoughts around the P-51 and would love to get your quick take on it, not that you in any way are obligated to but it would be interesting to hear it.


Thanks...


//Eric

[KrazyKraut]

BTW, the Bf 109 mentioned in that article is the D-FEHD, which (iirc) is not a real Bf 109 but a HA-1112-M1L retrofitted with some Bf 109 G-10 parts. But yes, it's probably the closest experience to flying a 109 these days.

Nice article nonetheless, very informative. Good video interview too. Thanks for that.