Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
indiaciki

New Günther Rall interview (37min)

Recommended Posts

Its an interesting inteview, although I think some questions were already asked in other ones. How much we could know from him from the technical part of things if some interviewer had ever asked him about them. Still a cool interview. I would deffinitely ask about behaviour of 109 at different stages of flight, forces on controls, differences between 109 versions and comparisson to other planes. And as I remember he had a possiblity to tranistion to FW190... wonder why he didn't do it.

 

The most interesting from the simmer part of me was his plane talk from around 4min. It is the 3rd time I think he mentiones slats as beeing the bad thing about Bf109 and said that they were problematic during combat maneuvering and during rough turns the slat would pop-out uneven and get you into a snap. And the most intriguing part of what he said about 109 in comparisson to the Spitfire in turning fight:

 

"Wing of the Spitfire was very stable, same with the Mustang P-51"  Never thought I will hear such words. It stands with a nice contrast to the Skip Holm interview that so many take as an only truth. It only shows that opinions of pilots can varry so much.

Edited by =LD=Solty

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

no it doesnt stand in contrast with the skip holm interview at all....it is known and reported by i think all 109 pilots that if not flown coordinated, that the slats will deploy uneven. skip holm doesnt deny that at all.hes just saying that the slats when deployed give increase of lift..Rall said, that he didnt need the slats...but he definitely says that if they deploy uneven that they could put you into a spin...(for sure you dont assume that means that they will deploy uneven every time, do you?) both pilots therefore say, that the slats did cause increase of lift.well, not only these two gentlemen, but so far all interviews and pilot accounts of actual 109 pilot seem to confirm that.

Edited by 9./JG27DavidRed

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

no it doesnt stand in contrast with the skip holm interview at all....it is known and reported by i think all 109 pilots that if not flown coordinated, that the slats will deploy uneven. skip holm doesnt deny that at all.hes just saying that the slats when deployed give increase of lift..Rall said, that he didnt need the slats...but he definitely says that if they deploy uneven that they could put you into a spin...(for sure you dont assume that means that they will deploy uneven every time, do you?) both pilots therefore say, that the slats did cause increase of lift.well, not only these two gentlemen, but so far all interviews and pilot accounts of actual 109 pilot seem to confirm that.

It is not about that. Look as Rall says that both Spit and Stang have according to him more stable airframe during turning. While the Holm's inteview states that the P-51 can't turn at all compared to the Bf109. The difference in perception is amazing.

And no they don't always pop-out unevenly but it shows that you had to be much more careful than with a Spitfire or P-51 during the fight in the 109 so that you won't get into a spin due to uneven slat deployment. That on its own is a disadvantage that can cost you life. 109 slats giving it higher lift is normal I don't question that. But what was their impact on turn time and turn rate is a different story entirely. Holm said, that 109G would outturn Spitfire Mk IX, Rall says that both Mustang and Spitfire are more stable in turns giving them the advantage.

 

What comes to the equasion is additional maneuvering as turning is not realy what defines a better figher plane. But it shows that this laminar flow wing of the P-51D is not as bad as people keep painting it as very easy to stall, if a 3rd highest scoring ace of the world said that it was more stable than the 109 during turning.

 

We have to be realistic about it, a normal dogfight doesn't go bellow 300kph too often, and so the P-51 is not going to be put at a great disadvantage by the 109, especially that 109G6, G10, K4 are not the same nimble E4 or F4 that would be able to hold turns at lower speeds.

Edited by =LD=Solty

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

according to him:

 

p51 initial turn is fast, but if you stay in turn against it, mind both with 109 and even 190, you got behind it.

 

many young pilots made mistake to go out of the turn and tried to dive away...the experienced pilots stayed in the fight and got behind the p51s.

 

1vs1 you dont need to fear P51

Edited by 9./JG27DavidRed

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No he doesn't state that, at least if to believe subtitles.

Mr Reschke states that P-51 was very good at instantaneous turns and that it was possible to outmaneuver them at lower speeds. And if you fly for a long time, you would know that it is entirely possible to even outmaneuver a more nimble oponent. It only shows that those planes were so close in performance that it is the pilot that counts the most in a dogfight.

 

Just as many P-51 pilots have written or said in their reports that they had no problems with turning or outturning 109s and 190s.

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/mustang/combat-reports/55-bishop-11sept44.jpg

"Ill never worry about meeting a FW 190 in a 51 since I was able to outturn, outdive and generally out-maneuver him at all altitudes, from 23,000 feet to the deck; I could follow him in anything and do a lot more besides." Richard Bishop

 

"I always felt that I can outmaneuver any German airplane with the P-51"

 

"I went into the luftbery circle, a tightest turn I could do (...) but whether it was the Mustang that much better or me beeing better than him or combination of both I was gaining on him..."

 

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/mustang/combat-reports/339-daniell-26nov44.jpg

"It wasn't difficult to get on his tail as I was turning with him."  J.S Daniel

 

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/mustang/combat-reports/352-bryan-27sept44.jpg

"At no time did I have any trouble either overtaking or out-turning the FW 190s or ME 109s". Donald Bryan

  "I had no difficulty turning inside of him firing all the way around the turn, bur observed no hits."

 

Major William T. Halton, 26 December 1944, 352nd FG

I got into a turning duel with the leader of their top cover flight and found no trouble in out turning and out climbing him at this altitude (10000).William T. Halton

 

So as you can see many pilots can have their opinions.This is a very good site at which you can read about P-51 pilots' experience

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mustang/combat-reports.html

 

It depends on many various factors. I just wanted to point out that this so hated laminar flow wing accordig to Gunther Rall was actually more stable than 109's wing. Thats it. Only pilot's feeling, not an absolute statement to follow.

Edited by =LD=Solty

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can confirm that. He didn't have a single doubt about his statement. 190 and 109 would always outturn the P-51. The only pilots shot down were the ones that panicked because the P-51's initital rate of turn and would abort turn and dive away thus being downed The only problem was that the P-51s came in groups of ten or 20 planes. 1 on 1 the P-51 was no match nothing to be afraid of. This was also mentioned in the Willy Messerschmitt documentary posted by Chuck on youtube. He was very clear and very confident claiming that. No doubt whatsoever. Something that subtitles cannot show. He even stated that he wouldn't claim that if he hadn't experienced it a lot of times himself.

Edited by indiaciki

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He is just as much confident about that as any of the American pilot's I have quoted are sure about having no problems outturning 109s and 190s in their P-51. 

 

Besides, Willy Reschke cannot say about many engagements with Mustangs as he had claimed 27 kills within 70 missions and 20 of that were bombers. And he has shot down 3 Mustangs. I can only imagine that one of them could have been a 1v1 duel. I don't think you can be realy confident after 3 encounters what the enemy can do or do not and that it could have been circumstance.

http://www.luftwaffe.cz/reschke.html

 

 

Also the tired argument of allied superiority in numbers. Germans have used massed airforce attacks since 1939 and nobody from the allied part complains realy ;P You don't have to have a lot, to have a lot in one place. Rall had been fighting in both times of air superiority in 1940 and struggle numerically against VVS in 1944. When you are under attack you are almost always outtumbered because your enemy will be massing his units to create at least 3:1 scenario. Thats how war works.

 

 I just wanted to point out that pilot opinion can varry very much. Even so much that an American (Holm) would say German equipment is superior and a German (Rall) pilot feel the same about American equipment and I think people shouldn't be holding somebody's words as the only truth. Yes their experience is useful, and thats why I would like to ask him how it was to fly all those planes, and how they behaved and that could have been a very useful piece of information on pilot's feedback but that doesn't mean that it is 100% accurate, there always will be human perception error. Especially when providing a comparisson.

Edited by =LD=Solty

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

show me where Günter Rall or any german ace says that the P51 turns better than a 109 or a 190....

The one in this thread? He said clearly that the P-51 as he felt, together with Spitfire were more suited for turning than Bf109, just due to the fact of slots getting in the way at combat speeds and to him those were useful only at close to landing or take off speeds, thus both Spitfire and 51 were more stable in a turn. You should sometimes listen things you comment on. 

 

You don't get it don't you? By somebody saying something doesn't mean its ultimately true. And even if he said that 109 was superior to Spitfire in turning it wouldn't make it right. Its just pilot's subjective view. I've provided both sides of the issue saying that "my plane is better" because thats what usually a pilot says, especially if he hasn't flow other planes. 

 

I have already said. Objectively the 109 would have a slight advantage over P-51 in a very sustained low alt turn fight, as it is lighter and has better power to weight ratio. Still slats produce drag when deployed and 109 will be accelerating even worse in a turn than it would without them, but it can hold itself in the air for a bit longer too. So there is your trade off. A simple yoyo for the P-51 pilot is enough to gain a position and enough energy to keep up with the slow turning 109 for a quick kill especially if he drops flaps. If 51 keeps up the fight with it at that slow speeds, he is going to stall before 109.

 

But normally almost nobody would go into such maneuvering because "speed is life" and in a normal combat environment its usually not 1v1 but many vs many where it is normal to switch targets all the time and B&Z proves superior to T&B fights.

 

If a 109 would start flying 270kph at a steep turn trying make circles one of the Spits/51s/47s/LAs/Yaks/Tempests etc. would just kill it with a one quick attack. Because its mostly not 1v1. Sim≠Life

Edited by =LD=Solty

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

mh no,..you dont get it...again show me where he states that the p51 turns better? you twist words to your liking. take your own advise and listen and especially try to comprehend things you comment on ;)

Edited by 9./JG27DavidRed

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anecdotes from pilots are highly subjective. There is no point in arguing. Those who lived to tell obciously used their planes to their advantage. Russian aces used the Aircobra well. It still doesn't make her a superior fighter. Pilot + plane + experience + situation + luck = performance

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anecdotes from pilots are highly subjective. There is no point in arguing. Those who lived to tell obciously used their planes to their advantage. Russian aces used the Aircobra well. It still doesn't make her a superior fighter. Pilot + plane + experience + situation + luck = performance

Exactly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Take that "ww2 aircraft performance" site with a grain of salt. It used to be called "spitfire performance". The guys that runs it has a "very strong opinion" ;)  about this subject, for a very long time. 

There are a million factors that can impact the relative turning performance of two aircraft. From wing area, wing loading, power loading, shape of the engine, shape of the airframe, quality of the fuel, strength of the pilot, fatigue, altitude, energy,....and God knows how many factors can mess things up.  There were enough mustangs, spits and yaks shot down by 109s and 190s and vice versa, to prove that this planes were not that far from one another in combat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Take that "ww2 aircraft performance" site with a grain of salt. It used to be called "spitfire performance". The guys that runs it has a "very strong opinion" ;)  about this subject, for a very long time. 

There are a million factors that can impact the relative turning performance of two aircraft. From wing area, wing loading, power loading, shape of the engine, shape of the airframe, quality of the fuel, strength of the pilot, fatigue, altitude, energy,....and God knows how many factors can mess things up.  There were enough mustangs, spits and yaks shot down by 109s and 190s and vice versa, to prove that this planes were not that far from one another in combat.

 

Indeed

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...