P51D/K vs Me109K-14

[Soren]

Back from holiday.

Bill,

Why do present the AFDU tactical trials of the Mustang & Bf-109G ?? Like I said the British test-pilots hardly even dared fly the 109! As soon as the slats came out they would aborted what'ever maneuver they were trying to perform emmidiately, convinced the a/c was about to stall - fact is the 109 wasn't even approaching a stall !

It was the same for many new 109 pilots in the LW, they were convinced the aircraft was close to stalling when the slats began to deploy, and that the Emil suffered jams with its slats didn't help convince them otherwise. In the beginning of his career Günther Rall was nearly killed in an Emil as one of the slats jammed in a turn, sending the 109 into a spin, Rall managed to recover from it though, but from that day on he never pushed the 109 to limit again, relying purely on energy tactics - eventhough this jamming problem was completely solved with the introduction of the Friederich series, an a/c which was praised for its excellent maneuverability & turn performance.

In short the AFDU trials with the Bf-109 are worth nothing at all.

Pilots who know the limits of the 109 have this to say:

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 Bf-109 could manouver better in turnfight than LaGG, Yak or even Spitfire."

Erwin Leykauf, LW 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."

Mauno Fräntilä, Finnish fighter ace. 5 1/2 victories:
Did your flying and tactics change with the new plane?
"No, it was basically the same. Except now we had better climb rates than the Russians and we could split better. And of course gain surprise. With speed, you could hit and run. And not spend much time in their sights.
The Russkies never followed to a dive. Their max dive speeds were too low, I suppose. It was the same in the Continuation War, their La-5's and Yak-9's turned quickly back up.
The Messerschmitt was exellent. You got always away when you pushed your nose down, and it then rose like an elevator. You soon had upper hand again.
You should never lose your speed. Always get back up. The one who is higher has the advantage. You could shake the other with a climbing turn, he had to turn harder. Tighten the turn when the other tries to get into shooting position. The Messerschmitt climbed better, so it got away. Handy.
The one who is in the inside of the circle loses his speed and doesn't get into position. You could use it against Yak-9's and La-5's, they were no more nimble."


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."

Kyösti Karhila, Finnish fighter ace. 32 victories. Two P-51 shootdowns with three-cannon Messerschmitt 109 G-6/R6:
"I got both in a turning battle, out-turning them. We did several times 360 degrees until he became nervous, then pulled a little too much. His plane "warned", the pilot had to give way a little and I was able to get deflection. When I got to shoot at the other one, the entire left side was ripped off.
- So you did several full circles, you must have flown near stalling speed. Did you fly with "the seat of your pants" or kept eye on the dials? What was the optimum speed in such a situation, it was level flight?
It was level flight and flying by "the seat of your pants". What should I say, I should say I was doing 250kmh and the Mustang must have more than 300kmh. That is why I was able to hang on but did not get the deflection.
- And you was flying a three cannon plane?
Yes, but I did fly another one as mine was under maintenance. It was the experience that counted. Experience helped to decide when you had tried different things.
- In which altitude did these Mustang dogfights take place?
It must have been about 2000m."

Kyösti Karhila, Finnish fighter ace, 32 victories, :
"The Messerschmitt became stiff to steer not until the speed exceeded 700kmh."

Esko Nuuttila, Finnish fighter pilot:
"It was amazing feeling to take off in Messerschmitt after the Fiat (G.50). It was gung ho and no hesitation! The performance and handling of the plane were excellent and all systems were in their correct place. Of all different planes I have flown the easiest to fly were the Pyry (advanced trainer) and the Messerschmitt."

Jouko "Jussi" Huotari, Finnish fighter ace. 17 victories:
"I got in a dogfight against a Yak-9. I was the underdog, quite close to the water. The Yak-9 had bounced me from behind somewhere and the turning started. I pulled the stick, clenching my teeth, and he followed me. We completed four circles about, but then he disengaged and headed for East, for home. We had been on wavetops, altitude no more than 50m. I arrived at the base. I looked for holes but found only one, in the right wing (of the Me 109 G-6)."


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."

Major Kozhemyako, VSS 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 in fights with 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."

Mark Hannah, Mordern 109 pilot:
"I like it as an aeroplane, and with familiarity I think it will give most of the allied fighters I have flown a hard time, particularly in a close, hard turning, slow speed dog-fight. It will definitely out-maneuver a P-51 in this type of flight."

And there's plenty more, even from Spitfire pilots.

Now I shouldn't have to post all this really, cause if your understanding of aerodynamics is as good as you claim you would know all this already as even the basics are indicative enough of the clear superiority of the Bf-109.

Compared to the P-51 Mustang the Bf-109 has a MUCH smaller wetted area, a MUCH lower lift-loading, a MUCH lower power-loading and more available power to begin with - these basic facts are all you need really, but we can go through all the rest as-well if you wish ??

So like I said, the P-51 Mustang is NO match in a turn fight at any practical speed for any Bf-109.

Other facts:

1.)The top 3 aces of all time all flew 109's exclusively. Of the 20 top aces, of all time, 12 flew 109's exclusively.
2.)The Bf-109 was credited with shooting down more enemy aircraft and producing more aces than any single fighter in the annals of aerial warfare.

[Hop]

Why do present the AFDU tactical trials of the Mustang & Bf-109G ?? Like I said the British test-pilots hardly even dared fly the 109! As soon as the slats came out they would aborted what'ever maneuver they were trying to perform emmidiately, convinced the a/c was about to stall

What is this claim based on? The British knew exactly what slats were, and how they behaved on the 109.

As early as 1940 and their test of a captured 109E, they gave the speed the slats opened as 111 mph, and noted the stalling speed was 75 mph.

From the report:

The slots open at about 110 m.p.h., and as they open the ailerons snatch slightly, and there is then slight aileron vibration. At 83 m.p.h. the aircraft becomes unsteady laterally and aileron buffeting sets in which increases in intensity as' the stall is approached. There is thus ample warning of the approach of the stall.

and:

The aircratt 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 0.5 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.

Eric Brown commented on the slats:

I was particularly interested in the operation of the slats, the action of which gave rise to aileron snatching in any high-g manoeuvres such as loops or tight turns, so I did a series of stalls to check their functioning more accurately. The stall with the aircraft clean, with half fuel load and the engine throttled right back occurred at 105 mph (168 km/h). This was preceded by elevator buffet and opening of the slats about 20 mph (30 km/h) above the stall, these being accompanied by the unpleasant aileron snatching as the slats opened unevenly. The stall itself was fairly gentle with the nose dropping and the port wing simultaneously dropping about 10 degrees.

So the British certainly knew that the slats opened at much higher than stall speed (and any test pilot would have known this anyway, as slats were hardly unknown devices). They also knew that the 109 had a fairly gentle stall, so the idea they would be frightened of stalling the aircraft is daft.

[FLYBOYJ]

Originally Posted by Soren

Back from holiday.

Bill,

Why do present the AFDU tactical trials of the Mustang & Bf-109G ?? Like I said the British test-pilots hardly even dared fly the 109! As soon as the slats came out they would aborted what'ever maneuver they were trying to perform emmidiately, convinced the a/c was about to stall - fact is the 109 wasn't even approaching a stall !

I know you responded to Bill, but I had to comment on this...

Soren, even back in 1940 what kind of competent test pilot (even one flying a captured enemy aircraft) would be afraid or even hesitant of stalling an aircraft????? Cripes, one could slow the thing down in either Vs or Vs1 and ease into a stall with little or no problems. Power off stalls would could be done with no need to input rudder so the aircraft would stall straight ahead, and I would expect this to be done on the first or second flight. I've test flown homebuilts and once the aircraft seems to be sound, the first thing I start doing is stalling it and acquiring a feel on how the aircraft would perform during landing, and I'm sure this was done to captured aircraft on both sides...

During WW2 I would expect those intelligence officers responsible for evaluating a captured enemy aircraft and gathering information to insist that during the flight test profile the aircraft being fully evaluated to know EXACTLY when the slats would deploy and EXACTLY when the aircraft would stall in bank angles in increments from 10 to 60 degrees, at least! Shoot - If I was the test pilot I would want to know how the slats worked and how the aircraft stalled with them deployed. After doing this one could easily take the aircraft into simulated combat against other aircraft and know exactly where and when the slats will deploy and where and when then aircraft is going to stall.

I'm sorry Soren, I have a very hard time believing that and if there actually was a test pilot who was afraid, or for a better word "cautious" about pushing a new or even captured aircraft to it's limits to test an "unknown" system (in this case the L/E slats) then that fellow doesn't belong in a capacity to test aircraft....

[Soren]

Quit the excuses Hop, testing stall speed hasn't got anything to do with this, and that you even assumed this is ridiculous. Stalls under zero G is another thing than stalls under G.

Straight from the AFDU:
"The Tempest is slightly better, the Me.109G being embarrassed by its slots opening near the stall"

The slats don't open near the stall, they start to open way before that.

And like Walter Wolfrum said:
"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 Bf-109 could manouver better in turnfight than LaGG, Yak or even Spitfire."

And Erwin Leykeuf:
"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. "

A pilot who is flying a new plane isn't going to "fool" around as crashing is always a distinct possibility. The bang and slight notch which accompanied the deployment of the slats scared new pilots, making them believe a stall was emanant - the British test pilots suffered the same problems & concerns, hence why they didn't push the 109 to the limit in turns.

If you still dont "buy" the facts above then tell me this; How come when the Bf-109G will easily out-turn the FW-190 that it doesn't easily out-turn both the Mustang Mk.III & Tempest in the AFDU tactical trials, as a FW-190G (Ground attack version) manages to turn with both in the AFDU tactical trials ??

The answer is easy: The British test-pilots didn't push the Bf-109 past the deployment of the slats being afraid the a/c was about to stall, just like the new LW pilots. And the fact that the AFDU says the following only underlines this fact: "the Me.109G being embarrassed by its slots opening near the stall"

[FLYBOYJ]

Originally Posted by Soren

The British test-pilots didn't push the Bf-109 past the deployment of the slats being afraid the a/c was about to stall, just like the new LW pilots. And the fact that the AFDU says the following only underlines this fact: "the Me.109G being embarrassed by its slots opening near the stall"

Show us proof of that Soren - "Flight testing 101" - one of the first thing you ascertain is stall characteristics, that is needed to understand how the aircraft is going to behave at low speeds and landing. No properly trained pilot "should be afraid" of stalling an aircraft - that's just plain hogwash!!!

[Soren]

I didn't say they were afraid of stalling the a/c FLYBOYJ, I said they were afraid the a/c was about to stall when the slats came out in turns. The slats go *bang!* when they deploy in turns as the critical AoA is approached quickly, thus the slats deploy quickly, and this scared new pilots who weren't used to or knew anything about the slats. Stalling the a/c in slow & straight flight wasn't a problem as the deployment of the slats was then slow and gradual, so no loud bang or notch was felt.

The proof is right infront of you.

[FLYBOYJ]

Originally Posted by Soren

I didn't say they were afraid of stalling the a/c FLYBOYJ, I said they were afraid the a/c was about to stall when the slats came out in turns. The slats go *bang!* when they deploy in turns as the critical AoA is approached quickly, thus the slats deploy quickly, and this scared new pilots who weren't used to or knew anything about the slats. Stalling the a/c in slow & straight flight wasn't a problem as the deployment of the slats was then slow and gradual, so no loud bang or notch was felt.

The proof is right infront of you.

No it's not - if the slats deployed loudly with a *bang* as you say, that would be all the reason why to fly the aircraft through the full deployment of the slats, at varying air speeds and at varying angles of attack. You are now talking "new pilots," I'm talking test pilots, RAF pilots who flew captured birds, that's where this whole discussion originated from. I'd like to see a pilot report, flight test card or some other documented evidence that RAF test pilots were afraid or cautious of flying a captured Bf 109 through full slat deployment at varying angles of attack, at varying speeds and on to a full stall.

[FLYBOYJ]

Here Soren...

Jeffrey Quill, Chief Test Pilot for Supermarine, compared the Me 109E to
the Spitfire I as follows:
My experience in fighting against the BF. 109 E in a Spitfire Mk. I was
mostly around or above 20,000 feet and led me to the conclusion that the
Spitfire was slightly superior both in speed and rate of climb, that is
was a more 'slippery' or lower drag aeroplane, and that it was
outstandingly better in turning circle. 106
In October 1940 I flew a captured Me 109E; to my surprise and relief I
found the aileron control of the German fighter every bit as bad - if
not worse - at high speed as that of the Spitfire I and II with
fabric-covered ailerons. They were good at low and medium speed, but at
400 mph and above they were almost immovable. I thought the Me 109E
performed well, particularly on the climb at altitude, and it had good
stalling characteristics under g except that the leading-edge slats kept
snapping in and out. But it had no rudder trimmer - which gave it a
heavy footload at high speed - while the cockpit, the canopy and the
rearward vision were much worse than in the Spitfire. Had I flown the Me 109 earlier I would have treated the aeroplane with less respect in
combat.

Spitfire Mk I versus Me 109 E

[Soren]

In every German evaluation flight the Bf-109 easily out-turns the FW-190, yet in the AFDU trials it somehow doesn't achieve out-turning two a/c both of which the FW-190 manages to turn with. Odd isn't it ?

The AFDU comments:
"the Me.109G being embarrassed by its slots opening near the stall"

Remember the first 109 the British test-pilots got to fly was the Emil, which slats unfortunately had a frequent habbit of jamming in turns. So the British test pilot's first experience with an a/c equipped with automatic LE slats is one with a violant departure & spin in hard turns because of the slats jamming. So who's to blame the test pilots for thinking the same will happen if you push the Bf-109G that far ? - Hence the comment above made in the AFDU report.

Is this proof enough ??

[Soren]

Originally Posted by FLYBOYJ

Here Soren...

Jeffrey Quill, Chief Test Pilot for Supermarine, compared the Me 109E to
the Spitfire I as follows:
My experience in fighting against the BF. 109 E in a Spitfire Mk. I was
mostly around or above 20,000 feet and led me to the conclusion that the
Spitfire was slightly superior both in speed and rate of climb, that is
was a more 'slippery' or lower drag aeroplane, and that it was
outstandingly better in turning circle. 106
In October 1940 I flew a captured Me 109E; to my surprise and relief I
found the aileron control of the German fighter every bit as bad - if
not worse - at high speed as that of the Spitfire I and II with
fabric-covered ailerons. They were good at low and medium speed, but at
400 mph and above they were almost immovable. I thought the Me 109E
performed well, particularly on the climb at altitude, and it had good
stalling characteristics under g except that the leading-edge slats kept
snapping in and out. But it had no rudder trimmer - which gave it a
heavy footload at high speed - while the cockpit, the canopy and the
rearward vision were much worse than in the Spitfire. Had I flown the Me 109 earlier I would have treated the aeroplane with less respect in
combat.

Spitfire Mk I versus Me 109 E

Again its a Emil, and the snapping in and out suggests something is awfully wrong!

Dave Southwood, modern Bf-109 pilot:
One interesting feature is the leading edge slats. When these deploy at low speeds or in a turn, a 'clunk' can be heard and felt, but there is no disturbance to the aircraft about any axis. I understand that the Bf109E rolled violently as the slats deployed, and I am curious to know the difference to the Gustav that caused this.

You can read the rest here:
The 109 Lair- The Online Source for Messerschmitt 109 information

[FLYBOYJ]

Originally Posted by Soren

In every German evaluation flight the Bf-109 easily out-turns the FW-190, yet in the AFDU trials it somehow doesn't achieve out-turning two a/c both of which the FW-190 manages to turn with. Odd isn't it ?

The AFDU comments:
"the Me.109G being embarrassed by its slots opening near the stall"

Remember the first 109 the British test-pilots got to fly was the Emil, which slats unfortunately had a frequent habbit of jamming in turns. So the British test pilot's first experience with an a/c equipped with automatic LE slats is one with a violant departure & spin in hard turns because of the slats jamming. So who's to blame the test pilots for thinking the same will happen if you push the Bf-109G that far ? - Hence the comment above made in the AFDU report.

Is this proof enough ??

No it's not - the statement by Jeffrey Quill Clearly shows he stalled the the aircraft and witnessed the slats functioning. I don't know what paragraph you extracted that statement from the "AFDU comments" but it seems to be vague and indirect.

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

Your original post was "The British test-pilots didn't push the Bf-109 past the deployment of the slats being afraid the a/c was about to stall."

The PIREP from Jeffery Quill clearly states otherwise....

[Soren]

Oh and since we're at it, another comment by Dave Southwood:
The Bf109G is heavy to manoeuvre in pitch, being similar to a Mustang

Again, the mustang suffers from heavy elevators at high speeds as-well.

[Soren]

Originally Posted by FLYBOYJ

No it's not - the statement by Jeffrey Quill Clearly shows he stalled the the aircraft and witnessed the slats functioning. I don't know what paragraph you extracted that statement from the "AFDU comments" but it seems to be vague and indirect.

It is neither vague or indirect FLYBOYJ.

As to where the statement is from, you can read it on Mike Williams site: Tempest V Performance Data Or I can provide you the original ?

Turning Circle
47. The Tempest is slightly better, the Me.109G being embarrassed by its slots opening near the stall.

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

Your original post was "The British test-pilots didn't push the Bf-109 past the deployment of the slats being afraid the a/c was about to stall."

The PIREP from Jeffery Quill clearly states otherwise....

Since we were talking about the Bf-109G what I meant obviously was: the British test pilots didn't push the Bf-109G past the deployment of the slats being afraid the a/c was about to stall.

Now how about stop refusing to consider the facts I provide and start thinking how come the AFDU trials turned out the way they did ?

[FLYBOYJ]

Originally Posted by Soren

It is neither vague or indirect FLYBOYJ.

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

All it says there was some embarrassment about the slots - perhaps it scared the bejeezers out of some test pilot or the writer was trying to make fun of the -109. In either case that statement no where comes close to proving that captured Bf 109Gs were never stalled during evaluation, that they were never flown at high angles of attack and that there was any reluctance or prohibitions in allowing the slats to deploy or dealing with a high AoA or high speed stall after they were deployed.

Originally Posted by Soren

As to where the statement is from, you can read it on Mike Williams site: Tempest V Performance Data Or I can provide you the original ?

Turning Circle
47. The Tempest is slightly better, the Me.109G being embarrassed by its slots opening near the stall.

I read it fully...

What would make you think that RAF test pilots wouldn't fully test the slat mechanism on the "G" when they did so on the "E" several years earlier - you're not making sense...

This is not a plug for the Spitfire in the old turning battle, but more of an invalidation of your original statement about RAF test pilots not fully stalling the Bf 109, be it an Emil or Gustaf. Unless there was something dreadfully wrong with the slats or airframe, the test pilots evaluating the aircraft would of had the slats and *bang" figured out within a few flights....

Originally Posted by Soren

Since we were talking about the Bf-109G what I meant obviously was: the British test pilots didn't push the Bf-109G past the deployment of the slats being afraid the a/c was about to stall.

Now how about stop refusing to consider the facts I provide and start thinking how come the AFDU trials turned out the way they did ?

No Soren again, read above - no pilot would be afraid of letting an aircraft stall unless he was 100 AGL...