The Enlightenment wrote in message ...
"Geoffrey Sinclair" wrote in message
...
The Enlightenment wrote in message ...
"Geoffrey Sinclair" wrote in message
...
The Enlightenment wrote in message ...
The 801 had a innovations such as a multipoint direct in cylinder
injection
of the fuel and completely automatic control of mixture and boost.
The
pilot only had a throttle to opperate. It's installation in the
190
was
excellent: the engine was tightly cowled to improve aerodynamics with
airflow being provided by a geared fan opperating at about 3:1 to
provide
cooling. The exhausts were beautifully installed and provided an
ejector
effect to induce cooling and thrust. I believe that only one Soviet
fighter
is regarded to have achieved this level of perfection. Around the cowl
was a
circular oil tank that was armoured and thus protected the cylinder
heads.
It was thus a very tough battle damage resistent engine that provided
the
pilot with a massive piece of armour when going in head on against an
american bombers 50s.
The trouble is the initial trials were very bad thanks to engine
over heating, at one point this threatened to have the entire
program cancelled. It also seems the engineers in JG26
did most of the work in coming up with a good fix.
The problem of this ambitious and effective installation were solved
somehow
then. The original had the cooling intake through a hollow of an
enlarged
propeller boss while the pilot suffered hot foot. The solution was to
lenghten the nose and compromise by using a gear driven fan to reduce
cowling inlet area to a minimum.
You really are lacking in knowledge of the Fw190 development,
the original prototype pilot landed complaining he felt he had
his feet in the fire. Then came the cancellation of the preferred
engine, the resultant redesign moved the cockpit further away from
the engine. The extra weight caused a deterioration of handling
characteristics, solved by increasing the wing area, the V5k and
V5g prototypes. The larger wings were standardised in the
tenth Fw190A-0 pre production model. Things like ducted
spinners were tried early as well, the first prototype and then
discarded.
It sounds like you are not aware of the development cycle or you are not
being clear. The FW190 had a number of heating problems with both its BMW
139 and 801 engines because of the aerodynamically ambitious installation.
How am I to know which ones you are refering to becuase the ones associated
with the BMW139 are the best known.
Let us see now, we are talking about the versions that ended up
with JG26 in mid 1941, but you are unclear about which engine
was powering them is this the latest claim? The fact the service
engineer officers had to do much of the work sorting out the
over heating problems?
So instead we drop back to the V1 and V2 prototypes of 1939.
The FW190 was originaly specified with a DB601 V12 or what was essentialy an
enlarged version of a Pratt and Whitney designe known as the BMW 139. The
DB601 option was cancelled due to anticipated shortages and the 139 was so
troublesome it was decided to start all over again: the result was the
BMW801 which was reliable. When the 801 was to be substituted the aircraft
was redesigned to overcome C of G issues with the new engine while the
cockpit was also moved to overcome the cabin heating issues.
http://www.aviation-history.com/focke-wulf/fw190.html
This sounds like the typical development cycle: note the exceptional
problems the typhoon tempest series had, and I am and was quite aware of
it. The cockpit was moved rewards to reduce the cabin heat problem.
Ah yes, the need to rewrite history to cope with the problems with
overclaiming. The original FW190 prototypes used the lighter
engine, the BMW139, when it was cancelled this left the BMW801,
which was heavier, moving the cockpit aft was a major component
in restoring centre of gravity, with the added bonus of reducing cockpit
heating, and for that matter exhaust fumes. See for example the URL
you posted but apparently chose not to read.
The Fw190 program came close to cancellation because of the
heating problems, the Typhoon program came close to cancellation
because of engine and airframe problems, the Tempest program
was not in danger of cancellation.
Check out the difference in fuselage length between the FW190V1 and
FW190A-1 for an idea of the "lengthening".
By the time JG26 had received Fw190s the "lengthening" of
the nose had been done (which was actually moving the cockpit
further aft) and the increase in wing size was being done.
The cooling problems were overcome through the improvement of the cooling
fan itself and the addition of removable cooling vents.
Try and stay on topic, the fundamental reality is JG26 initially
received the BMW801 version with a mixture of small and large
wing designs, before the large wing design was standardised.
They then had to make a major effort to solve engine heating
problems.
Note the oil tank in radials was often armoured, since the oil
also acted as a coolant, and a bullet through the oil tank was
almost as bad as a bullet through the radiator of an inline engine.
The much loved US Gruman Bearcat for instance was inspired and the P47
was
built specifically to deal with the 190.
The design brief for the Bearcat was heavily into fast climb, to
intercept the incoming strikes, using the advances in ship's radar
to quickly intercept hostiles. It was the response of the USN to
carrier warfare in the Pacific not the FW190.
The designers certainly inspected and flew a captured FW190 and were
inspired to improve upon it. Yes there may have been a tactical reason
for
developing a high power to weight ratio aircraft but the FW190
demonstrated
the concept of having excess power.
I know this is really silly but the designers, if they did make a
trip to Europe, saw more than the Fw190, they would have
been exposed to other captured aircraft and the latest in
British designs. North American was interested for example
to design a lighter weight P-51, which emerged as the H model.
But somehow it all comes back to the Fw190 alone.
Irrelevant. I didn't bring up the P51 or its lightening program you just
did then for whatever rhetorical reason.
Yes change the subject, just ignore the idea there were other influences
out there.
I heard the designer talking on one of those discovery channel things and he
refered to the FW190.
Ah yes, the discovery channel, heard it on the internet as well,
and, of course, the idea "the designer", all one of him apparently
might have mentioned other designs is discarded. Only the Fw190
is allowed to be mentioned, the idea other designers were involved
and looking at other aircraft is ignored.
I merely stated that the P47 was designed to specifically deal with the
FW190. I have read this reference made more than once and it must clarly
refer to the P47C/D/D-25 version. I am looking for the reference again.
Let us understand this, the P-47 design is apparently the option
to add water injection into the engine, if this is the case then the
Fw190A series was clearly designed to cope with the P-47, like
mounting the engine 15cm further forward in the A-5 version of
early 1943, the lighter wing of the A-6 version, with 2 20 mm
MG151 cannon in each wing, the upgrading to 13mm machine
guns in the A-7 in late 1943, the use of GM-1 in the A-8 version,
clearly designed to combat the P-47's high altitude performance,
agreed?
This is very amusing, I wonder if the various paint jobs, the all
metal affairs, will be classified as "designed". Basic rule,
any change to an allied fighter is because of the FW190, just
ignore reality, it is just a "mere" point.
I like the "excess power" claim, the Fw190A had 1,600 HP
pulling around 7,500 pounds empty weight, the Spitfire V
had around 1,500 HP pulling around 5,100 pounds of empty
weight. The Fw190 was faster thanks to better aerodynamics,
the sort of thing that made the Spitfire 30 to 40 mph faster than
the Hurricane with the same engine and the P-51B around the
same speed faster than the Spitfire with effectively the same
engine. On the other hand the Spitfire could beat the Fw190
to 20,000 feet. Like all aircraft you had your trade offs.
There is no such thing as a FW 190A. There is a FW 190A-1, FW190A-2 all
the way through to A-14 I believe.
Ok, noted, in future I will expect you to quote the designs to
the accuracy you have decided here, so when quoting claims
remember it is the Fw190A-7/R6 sort of things. Assuming
the same standards are to be applied to you.
I used the generic Fw190 just like I used the generic Spitfire V,
given the V came in all sorts of versions, including clipped wings.
I note that the Fw190 starts significantly heavier than the Spitfire,
and no amount of "they weighed different things" is going to wave
away over a ton difference in less than 4 tons.
Much of your data seems wrong or chronologically irrelevent.
In other words you cannot answer it so need to ignore it.
You fail to take into account differences in equiped weight as opposed to
empty weight, the differences in what consitutes empty, loaded and equiped
between aircaft of different nationalities and manufacture. Spitfire VB
with Merlin 45 is given as producing 1440 hp and its empty weight as 5100
but its loaded weight 6650 so your figures for both spitfire and Fw190 are
dubious.
Yes folks, the great claim is the Fw190 had excess power, whatever
that means, supersonic in level flight perhaps, or at least unable to
use full engine power, after all it is in "excess", instead we rush off
into semantics, unless the weights are to the ounce they are going to
be ignored, note there were no weights produced for the Fw190A.
By the way the Merlin output varied with height, for example, 1,470 HP
at 9,250 feet, 1,585 at 2,750 feet, 1,415 at 14,000 feet for one version.
Given the obvious desire for absolute correctness you demand of others
please tell us the altitude you are referring to.
The BMW 801C-0 used in the FW190V5 prototypes was rated at
1,660 HP, as was the 801C-1 in the FW190A-0 series.
AFAIKS loaded weight has nothing to do with opperational weight! Was the
FW 190 equiped with its home defense electronics for instance?
Ah yes, I await the claim the Fw190 had problems say because
it was carrying 2 parachutes.
The comparisons involving weight just can not be made without more time and
caution.
By the way, the decision to claim "excess power" has to take into
account weight, but this is going to be ignored for the FW190,
Funny isn't it?
The FW190A-3 had an empty weight of 6400 and a maximum of 8300 with a power of either 1600 or 1700 depending on whether the BMW801
C or D
was fitted.
http://fw190.hobbyvista.com/a-3.htm
By the way I presume you have noted the way I left the types
being compared as generic and also the use of "around"
to tell people I am making broad comparisons, not the
FW190A-5/U9 versus the temperate climate Spitfire LF VC
with clipped wings using a rotol propeller (40 pounds lighter
than a de Haviland propeller)?
Spitfire VA weights, tare 4,981 pounds, take off 6,416, max
permissible 6,700 pounds, or in other words the best part of
a ton lighter than the Fw190A-4, something like 20% less
weight with around 10% less power. So the Spitfire wins the
"excess power" game, this is becoming quite funny.
The heavyweight of the Spitfire V series was the VC, tare 5,081
pounds, take of 7,106.5 pounds, max permissible 7,300 pounds.
Given the addition of water injection in the P-47 means the fighter
was designed to specifically deal with the Fw190 do we add the
extra horsepower in the BMW engine means the Fw190 was
specifically designed to match the P-47, or Spitfire or whatever?
You've given data for a FW190A-8 equiped with an FW190A-2 engine from a
dodgy web page.
http://www.aviation-history.com/focke-wulf/fw190.html
Ah I like this, further above the URL is given is good, now it is
said to be dodgy.
Simply put I used generic figures, given the range of variants
in the FW190A series and the Spitfires. Even using the more
specific weights they consistently show the Spitfire had a better
power to weight ratio, the "excess power" idea. Live with it
instead of trying to change the subject.
The Bearcat, as it appeared, was very much in the Spitfire
sort of arrangement, with a very high climb rate. It was
designed to fight the war in the Pacific, largely below 20,000
feet, with characteristics optimised to defend its base willing
to sacrifice range for example.
The FW190 outclimbed the Spitfire V by 450 feet per minute.
I like this, at zero feet, 10,000 feet, 20,000 feet, 30,000 feet,
40,000 feet, 100,000 feet, must be specific after all, is it the
D version of the Fw190 versus the Spitfire I for example?
I am quite comfortable that there were areas of the flight envelope
where the FW190 could out climb the Spitfire, the trouble for the
FW190 was 20,000 feet and above, so the Spitfire could usually
out climb it to 20,000 feet.
Live with the reality the Bearcat was designed to defend radar
equipped aircraft carriers, intercepting incoming strikes under
control from the carrier.
The P-47B was ordered in September 1940 and first flew on
6 May 1941. This was before the RAF encountered the FW190
on 27 September 1941 and over a year before one was captured,
in July 1942. The first production P-47B was in December
1941. Rather hard to see the P-47 as built specifically unless
the US was given all the information in 1940, and knew despite
the major engine cooling problems the FW190A had that the
program would be continued.
Also note the P-47B was optimised to fight above 20,000 feet,
the FW190A below 20,000 feet.
Water injection was needed to cope with the FW at low altitude and
perhaps
this is what I am thinking of.
As far as I can tell what is being thought of is an idealised view
of the Fw190 which then becomes a benchmark with everyone
else altering to fight it, but the Fw190 continually leading the way,
despite being out performed.
It was hardly outperformed for quite some time. It was never outperformed
in roll rate though the P47C onwards and FW190A series were probably
matched in this area.
Ah yes, the generic attempts to try and inflate the time scale, the
Fw190A was probably the best all round fighter in 1941, when it
worked, and assuming you did not want things like carrier operations,
long range escort or high altitude interceptions. It spent the 1942
to mid 1943 period in this best category, the Spitfire IX was the
equivalent, the P-47 slightly "better", the P-51B and Spitfire XIV
decidedly better by the end of the year, and the P-47 was improving.
By the way the earlier P-51As were faster at low altitude than the
Fw190s, so I guess they are the "superior" fighter in 1942.
Meantime, since it is known the FW190 had an outstanding roll rate,
we will announce how important that was, you know, if you can out
roll your opponent you always win, and of course, ignore the way rolling
rates varied with speed.
So tell us all what speeds and stick forces are you talking about, with
50 pounds stick force and 250 mph the P-47C-1 rolled at 85 degrees
per second, the P-47D-30, with 30 pounds stick force and 220 mph
rolled at 60 degrees per second.
By the way the P-40 managed around 130 degrees per second at
360 mph, on 50 pounds stick force, see how that compares to the
FW190.
As far as I can tell what is being thought of is an idealised view
of the Fw190 which then becomes a benchmark with everyone
else altering to fight it, but the Fw190 continually leading the way,
despite being out performed.
The P47B (of which only 170 were built an which never seemed to have seen
service at all ) was a dramatically weaker aricraft in terms of roll rate
and manouverability to the P47C/P47D which first flew an inconclusive combat
in March 43 and entered service with Zemke in Jan 43.
Thus there was ample time for RAF combate expereience to have been fed into
the P47C program.
It would be odd if there was not such a system in place at all.
Yes folks, the flat "P-47 was designed" statement is now reduced to
hey they might have, could have, should have sent data to the USA,
well after the design had been finalised.
Of course the P-47C was being delivered in August 1942, around 1
month after the British captured an FW190, but we know the US
supermen only need that sort of time to redesign an aircraft and
have it in production, of course the German supermen still produce
better aircraft, and the rest of us fall around laughing.
Presumably the introduction of paddle bladed propellers to the
P-47 was a reaction to the outstanding rate of climb of the Fw190,
particularly above 20,000 feet, correct?
Both water injection and paddle bladed propellors with cooling cuffs were
needed to improve low altitude perfomance where the P47 was initialy at a
speed disadvantage.
Yes folks, fitting a new propeller and water injection is a "design",
meantime the Fw190 remained in its original configuration, no
additional power or armament and so on, with the allies unable
to match it apparently. The fact the FW190A series went through
a series of improvements means by this absurd definition that the
Fw190 was designed to take on the Spitfire, P-47, P-51, Tempest
etc. as their performance was revealed to the Germans. As opposed
to all types were modified to improve performance.
P-47B. This was the first production model, and 171 were built. Deliveries
started late in 1942, and some went into action in Europe on April 8, 1943.
In combat, the P-47B-RE had inadequate climbing and maneuverability, but it
had plenty of speed and firepower. It also had excellent diving capability,
and its heavy structure could absorb terrific punishment. Its wingspan was
40 feet, 9 inches; area, 300 square feet; gross weight, 13,360 pounds; top
speed, 429mph at 27,800 feet.
The P-47 had been designed to operate well in the 20,000 feet plus
area, all that effort to incorporate a supercharger, and so sacrificed
climbing ability.
The P47C and P47D made dramatic improvements over the B model that
relate to
an 13 inch extension to the engine position. I have seen references more
than once that some P47 development preceded on the basis of besting the FW
190A (roll rate I believe). The 13 inch extension was credited with a
major improvement in manoeuvrability and entered production for the P47C
although some P47B airframes were modified with an 8 inch extension for
maintenance reasons.
Yes folks, note how the memories are all about what the FW190
is supposed to have done, no other design apparently had anything
at all to do with P-47 improvements.
The P-47B was 35 feet long, the C and D models 36 feet 1 inch.
SNIP
The Ju388L was in production for around 6 months in 1944, with
around 10 converted from Ju188 and 60 built new. Those 600
engines must have had a very short lifetime if all they did was power
the Ju388L. The night fighter version appears to be more prototypes
than production.
Not all aircraft entered service. All the sources i have seen credit it
with a production run of 300.
I note none of the "sources" are provided, only the claim of
multiple sources, the Ju388L was not a high priority item in
1944, the need was for fighters, the jets could take over
reconnaissance, production numbers were of the order of
60 to 70.
Where are your sources?
Translation, none of the "sources" are provided, you would have
thought at he very least one could have been done so. Instead
the only source provided says the original claim is wrong which
is a new one, the only data posted shoots down the original claim.
According to this source we are both wrong.
I have no problems with the fact the 1945 German aircraft production
figures are debatable, as are some of the 1944 figures. So I do
not expect any source to be accurate to say the 10s, but the claim
is hundreds of extra aircraft.
http://www.nasm.si.edu/research/aero...unkers_388.htm
Under the "Hubertus" program of 1944, plans called for production of 300-400
Ju-388s a month at seven different manufacturers. But only 176 were
completed by the war's end, mostly at Allgemeine Transportanlagen
Gesellschaft in the Leipzig suburb of Mockau
Sigh, I suppose it is worthwhile pointing out the original claim was
for 300 reconnaissance versions, this is now down to 176 of all
versions, bomber and night fighter included. Does not change the
point that even if there were 176 reconnaissance versions going though
600 engines is a major problem.
The night fighter did not enter service as the BMW801T version was no
faster
than a standard Ju 88G7 with BMW801D at the altitudes British bombers
could
fly at. It was an iron in the fire should the B29 appear.
The US could have deployed hundreds of B-29s in Europe
in 1944, given what appeared in the Pacific. The JU388J
prototype did not fly until early 1944 and needed a new type
of pressure cabin given the radar being fitted. The Germans
had considerable problems designing good pressure cabins,
and work was slow. The J version was not an iron in the fire,
more like the metal to make the axe to chop down the tree to
build the fire to put the iron in.
There were plenty of pressure cabine aircraft produced. They were simply
reduced in number for economcy reasons.
Yes folks, the reality is the Germans had continual problems with
pressure cabin designs, but hey, let us just assume it was all
economic reasons, not design problems plus requirements.
Everyone had their moments with pressure cabins, hence the
way they were a minority.
The Me109G-5 was produced in large numbers but not as large numbers as its
unpressurised version the Me 109G6. The TA 152 was ofcourse pressurised as
was the Me 262.
The TA152C versions were not pressurised.
What exactly is large numbers for the G-5?
Please give the reference for Me262 pressurisation.
Presumably any problems ecountered during development of German aircraft is
proof to you of the failure of the type. Thus if a prototype leaked air
due to faulty sealing foam then that is all the proof you need?
Yes folks, when in doubt try and rewrite history, go and take a
look at the problems the Ju3988 pressure cabin had, given the
need to fit radar. This delayed the program, hence the way it
lagged the other two versions and never entered production.
Finally the Ju 388 was not needed.
Yes folks, the Ju388 goes from being the B-29 killer all ready to
go to not needed, after the facts have been presented about the
Ju388. After all it was going to be a stretch to have it in production
in 1944 and the Ju388 versus the P-51 for example is not a good move.
So switch to the standard wonder Luftwaffe aircraft, the Me262.
There were no B29s in Europe. The Me
262B with radar would have dealt with it in anycase. The Jumo 004D with
duplex injectors (overcoming high altitude thin air flameouts) were also
entering production and this would have pushed the aircrafts opperational
altitude well above the B29s service ceiling. Even without this it was
capable of reaching the B29.
Yes folks, just ignore the fact the USAAF deployed B-29s in
bombing raids in June 1944 from India. Just announce the
Me262 as equipped in May or June 1945 would have dealt
with all those raids from June 1944 onwards. Just like they
dealt with all those B-17 and B-24 raids.
Oh yes, the equipment that never saw service was the answer.
(snip) Fw190D information,
The Ta152H-1 had an empty weight of around 8,900 pounds supported
by a wing area of 251 square feet, The Spitfire XIV had an empty weight
of around 6,600 pounds and wing area of 242 square feet. I doubt the
TA152H with its long wings would win a turning contest with a Spitfire
XIV except at very high altitudes.
When comparing "empty weights", you have to be careful about what is
included in the figures. Depending on the definition, weapons, radio gear
and other operational equipment might be included or not. I'd only
seriously
compare empty weights if I have a complete weight break-down where every
item is listed seperately. Unfortunately, for some types such data is
hard
to find.
In other words rather than note it the Ta152H-1 had an empty
weight around a ton lower than the Spitfire and indeed around
the loaded weight of the Spitfire XIV you will announce that shock
horror, the Spitfire could have weighed a little more empty. Anything
but actually confront the problems with the "best turning" claim.
What does empty mean? Does it include all radios, guns, dingies etc that
can add up to hundreds of pounds?
yes folks, apparently semantics rules, try and cope with the
fact the Ta152 was heavier than the Spitfire, after all look
at the loaded weight of one and the empty weight of the other.
Then cope with the fact they had similar wing area.
The long wings of the Ta 152H reduced the fantastic roll rate compared to
the Fw 190A and Fw 190D.
To put it mildly, given the inevitable effects of long wings and the
need to watch wing loadings.
Assuming that the wing loading of the TA 152H was higher than the Spit
XIV
(assuming Griffon 65 variant to allow the spit half a chance to match
speed)
then the higher aspect ratio wings of the TA152 might still be more
efficient. Because of the higher aspect ratio they would be more
efficient
and probably have less induced drag so the aircraft would wash of less
airspeed.
Ah I see, the claim of always is now "might" no real information
just a whole lot of I hopes.
Find a test that proves that the Spit could out turn the Ta 152H.
This is becoming hysterical, apparently there must be a test
somewhere about turning abilities, presumably carefully matched
by weight and altitude, but the claim is the Ta152H can out turn
the Spitfire end of story, and when asked for proof the answer
comes back, I have none, go disprove it. Thanks for such a
wonderful example of how the claims are made up, not factual.
Heard of Captain Eric Brown,
"In so far as manoeuvrability was concerned the story was mutch
the same, the Spitfire was certainly the better of the two below
30,000 feet, there being little to choose between British and German
fighters between that altitude and 35,000 feet, but above the latter
altitude the Ta152H-1 enjoyed a decided edge."
You see the blanket claim about Ta152 having better turning ability
is simply wrong, as expected at high altitude it had an edge but it
was designed for such a thing.
By the way just how much faster was the Ta152 after it had used
it MW-50 and GM-1, say compared to the Spitfire HF IX? Or for
that matter the Spitfire VII?
GM-1 in particular was an excellent compensation for the lower octane fuels
available to the Luftwaffe and MW-50 to an lessor extent. GM1 added a lot
of weight but it was the only way to get around the octan lag the Germans
suffered. Allies simply loaded up with 150 octane and found that the
slight improvement that GM-1 would have offered with fuel this good was not
worth the weightmof adding things such as GM1. There was some 10 minutes
of GM-1 available as I recall.
Yes folks, note how my question is not being answered, we have
a wonderful technical description of the system but no mention of
what happens if the system is out of fuel or not working. Captain
Brown thinks the Ta152H-1 speed was 425 mph at 35,000 feet
without the boosting. The HF Spitfire IX could do around 416 mph
at 27,000 feet, the HF mark VII 424 mph at 29,400 feet. Both of
these types were around in 1942.
Finally when the RAF fitted a liquid oxygen supply to the HF VII
engine they achieved around a 40 mph speed increase, only used
in trials though.
Turning circle is usually measured at sustained speed without loosing
altitude. For instance a Spit might turn inside a Me 109F but the 109
pilot could pull G, use his automatic slats to warn him of incipient
stall
and bleed of speed faster to turn inside the spit anyway. Of course you
don't get to play this trick indefinetly.
I like this, please show all those Bf109 pilots that survived turning
contests with a Spitfire. How many did so regularly. The Bf109
was easily out turned by the Spitfire, unless the Bf109 was moving
much slower, end of story. The Spitfire had the further advantage
of a much better signalled stall than either the Fw190 of Bf109.
The Bf109 wing slats had a habit of deploying asymmetrically,
which caused aiming problems and was a fun effect near the stall.
I think that might be incorrect. A 109 might turn inside a Spitfire using
this techniqe but he presumably had only 1 turn or less to do it since he
would loose energy and speed and thus allow the spitfire to regain the upper
hand.
Ah yes, the "mights" have appeared, what was definite is now
a might, by the way the Bf109E had a turning circle around 20%
more than the Spitfire I.
It seems we have a new concept of turning fight, bleed speed until
near stall and hope you do not get shot, that way you can out turn
your faster opponent, this of course being a 1 on 1 fight, without
anyone else to indulge themselves against such slow targets. By
the way the IJAAF Oscar fighters used this tactic with combat flaps
to help the slow speed turn rate, presumably there was an interchange
between the Luftwaffe and the IJAAF.
Again show all the Luftwaffe pilots who were doing this. The
preferred tactics were to fight in the vertical plane.
The Me 109 might have had a shakey stall due to its slats but this also
warning of incipient stall. Furthermore the spitfire had a nasty stall and
could spin away.
Funny about that, all the pilots reports are that the Bf109 and
Fw190 stall performance was worse than that of the Spitfire,
but hey, when in doubt make something up to say the opposite,
presumably the Spitfire report is on the web somewhere and is
therefore claimed true.
The spits advantage was its big wing, made possible by
high octane fuel restoring the power to weight ratio it would otherwise have
losts with its small discplacement light weight Merlin engine. The wing
had a habbit of twisting and increasing the washout angle thus warning the
pilot.
By the way the Spitfire I empty was around 4,341 pounds, take off
6,200 pounds. The Bf109E-3 empty weight was around 4,421
pounds, loaded weight around 5,532 pounds. The Spitfire had
242 square feet of wing area, the Bf109E-3 174 square feet.
This is very funny, apparently if the Spitfire did not have 100
octane fuel it would have needed to have a smaller wing.
What next, if not lighter parachutes then a smaller tail?
In other words folks, just invent some sort of irrelevant point,
the Spitfire must not be allowed to out turn the Bf109, so
have the Spitfire at say 500 mph and the Bf109 near stall and
use those figures. Oh yes, the Spitfire cannot do anything
except continue the turn, despite what the German fighter does.
****************
PS most links work.
Pity you do not take the time to read them then.
http://www.jg53.com/html/history/air...axis-bf109.htm
I dispute your claim that the Spit could outturn a 109. The reason being,
any test that showed the Spit could outturn a 109 was done at a constant
speed (Minimum radius of turn without loss of height) . This is a flawed
test because in combat the 109 pilot used the tactic of dumping speed
rapidly and making a slower and sharper turn than the Spit was capable of.
Remember the 109 had those leading edge slats? That's what they were for!
The slats were automatic, the pilot did not have control over them,
and I like the idea of pilots deliberately dumping speed in a fight.
Stalling speed of Bf109G-6/U2 in "landing configuration" 99 mph,
in clean condition with half fuel load and the engine throttled back
105 mph, the slats opened around 20 mph above the stall, so
we are talking about those wonder slats opening at 130 mph, or
WWI fighter speeds, I can just see many Bf109 pilots doing this.
The Spitfire IX stall flaps and undercarriage up 84 mph, down 70 mph
Spitfire V stall flaps and undercarriage up 71 mph, down 68 mph
Spitfire XIV stall flaps and undercarriage up 87 mph, down 75 mph
Quote:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
The Spitfire had a lower wing loading than the Bf 109 and this would
normally give the better turning circle. However the 109 had help with it's
leading edge slats which gave a lower stalling speed, and thus was able to
turn tighter than a simple comparison of wing areas might suggest
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
So in other words the fact the Bf109 had a significantly higher
wing loading than the Spitfire could be partially negated by
slats, of course this then becomes totally negated in dream land.
Two very different appraisals of the turning circles of the Spitfire and
Bf109 can be found in the books "Fighter" by Len Deighton and "The Most
Dangerous Enemy" by Stephen Bungay. The former has a diagram showing the
Bf109s turning circle to be inside that of the Spitfire (750 feet and 880
feet respectively) while the latter has a diagram showing the opposite (850
feet and 700 feet respectively). Crucially all the tests of mock combats
between captured Bf109s and Spitfires always give the Spitfire the edge.
So "Fighter" probably has the graph marked incorrectly.
http://freespace.virgin.net/john.dell/spitcom.htm
Quote:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
Though the Spitfire had a tighter turn radius, the advantage was more
theoretical than real since the Messerschmitt's automatic wing slats warned
the pilot of impending stalls, enabling average pilots to get the most out
of the machine.
We will ignore the Spitfire also had a well signalled stall by design,
we will just pretend the Bf109 alone had this feature and then overclaim
the warning. We will ignore the opening of the Bf109 slats caused
aileron snatching for example. We will invent poor Spitfire stalling
characteristics.
http://people.history.ohio-state.edu...b/6252ls13.htm
Quote:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
However the 109 had a distinct advantage in manoeuvrability and turning
circle at low speeds. The design of the 109, with it's leading edge slats
gave a lower stalling speed.
Yes folks, presumably we are talking about something like the
Bf109B versus a later Spitfire, I note yet again no attempt to
qualify the models being discussed. And the actual results from
combat evaluations are ignored in favour of an opinion on the web.
http://dspace.dial.pipex.com/jazzitoria/aspit-2.htm
MANOEUVRABILITY
SPITFIRE TURNING DIAMETER = 1,760 feet. BF 109 TURNING
DIAMETER = 1,500 ft.
Speed, altitude, weights being used? Oh sorry that is right it is
on the web and the preferred answer therefore it is right. We will
just ignore the turning circle diagrams in the books previously
mentioned, since they give figures of less than half the above,
which means if the above figures are correct we are talking high
speed, where the Bf109 had more aileron problems than the Spitfire,
making them even less believable.
A Spitfire pilot will tell you the Spit could turn inside the 109. A
Messerschmitt pilot will tell you the 109 could turn inside the Spitfire!
And reality will tell you the combats were rarely joined with both sides
at the same speed and altitude, so tuning inside becomes possible
for the slower flying types.
The truth is that both designs were capable of turning circles that would
cause the pilot to "black-out" as the blood drained from the head. The pilot
who could force himself to the limits without losing consciousness would
emerge the victor from a turning battle, and the Spitfire pilots had supreme
faith in their machine. The British aeronautical press told them that the
wings came off the 109 in a dive or in tight turns, untrue but based on some
early wing failures in the 109`s predecessor the Bf108.
My, how about that, slip in a British intelligence error, is it time to
roll out the official Luftwaffe appreciations of the Spitfire in 1940?
However the 109 had a distinct advantage in manoeuvrability and turning
circle at low speeds. The design of the 109, with it's leading edge slats
gave a lower stalling speed. The 109 was very forgiving if stalled, with no
tendency for a stall to develop into an uncontrollable spin, something that
the Spitfire was prone to. Thus a Messerschmitt pilot was more at home at
low speeds than his British counterpart.
Translation the facts will not interfere with the preferred conclusions.
It seems the Spitfire I in take off weight condition stalled at around
73 mph, the Bf109E-4, weight unknown, at 75 mph.
see for trials results,
http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/spit1.html
3. The Spitfire then allowed the Me 109 to get on to his tail and attempted
to shake him off this he found quite easy owing to the superior
manoeuvrability of his aircraft, particularly in the looping plane and at low
speeds between 100 and 140 mph. By executing a steep turn just above
stalling speed, he ultimately got back into a position on the tail of the Me 109.
5. As for the 109G-2 vs the Mk IX just look at the performance graphs, the
109G-2 is faster than the MK IX right up to 23000 ft. The 109 also outclimbs
the Spit below 10000 ft and they are roughly equal between 10000 ft and
18000 ft. Once again the Spit doesn't dominate until the higher altitudes.
The above quote is not from the URL listed above.
I have no problems that the Bf109, and Fw190 held performance
advantages at times, depending on versions, altitude and so forth,
I am not the one making the "always superior" claims.
By the way what is stopping the Spitfire pulling G as well?
1 probably can't wash of speed as fast
2 It isn't as manouverable at low speed.
Translation, such techniques can only be done by the favoured
design. "Probably" is considered definite, followed by the
unsupported opinion about low speed handling.
Note this would refer to the Me 109F series.
Ah yes, the Bf109F series, the lightest of all the wartime types,
is used as the "typical" case, in service for around a year in the
west. Which F series, the F-0 which had the Bf109E engine or
the later F-4, the highest performer in the series? It makes a
difference.
(snip) Fw190 D model information.
Geoffrey Sinclair
Remove the nb for email.