American fighter ace & Engineer "Kit" Carson criticizes the BF109E/G and FW-190.

[6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann]

It's obvious isn't it? 109s got their arses kicked by spitfires so badly in dogfights over the channel that when the germans actually had the advantage against early russian crates, they were still so traumatized from the arsekicking from he spits that they simply were scared to enter mauneuvering fights.

 

You are aware of the Spanish Civil War I hope (I guess you don't, but I'm not gonna trade personal Insults with stupid people) where the 109s faced Biplanes and I-16s. The German 109 Tactics were developed against these, and kept, because turnfights are pretty much always a stupid Idea, and in a Combat Sitation the Superior Climber and Faster Aircraft is the Superior one, because it can ride the Energy Wave and stay on top of his enemy. 

The Aircraft that has to revert to turning is pretty much always at a dsiadvantage, because it cannot set the rules of engagement anymore. 

 

Why would you want to turn if you can't secure a quick Victory through it, if you can just bounce them repeatedly?

 

There is a German Saying: "Aber ja, natürlich ist Hans nass, er steht unter einem Wasserfall!"

Edited October 3, 2016 by 6./ZG26_Klaus__Mann

[Dakpilot]

British engineering is so poor, that the dominating Mercedes Formula 1 car is built in Brackley and its engine in Brixworth 

 

 

Cheers Dakpilot

[6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann]

British engineering is so poor, that the dominating Mercedes Formula 1 car is built in Brackley and its engine in Brixworth 

 

 

Cheers Dakpilot

Well, if you give the Brits some proper German Leadership and Stuff, of course the results are gonna be much better. I mean, we did try to initiate a collaboration in Summer of 1940, but the Brits rejected us to keep building their own Crap. Just look at what happened when we finally put a Proper Engine in a Spitfire, a DB605A. Completely Transformed it for the better. 

 

Damn...I must've hit a nerve

 

 

Way to go, you contradicted yourself in the same sentence. Calm down m8, when you resort to namecalling you've lost the argument.

Actually I only loose the argument once I call you: "Literally worse than Hitler." But that would give you too much credit. 

[Dr_Molem]

[E69_geramos109]

E69 you do know that Mtt could not replace lost a/c during the BoB but the number of Spitfires available increased.

 

Although only 6,000 worked at the Messerschmitt facilities in 1936, this number grew to 9,000 by 1939 and by 1944 the worker population had reached 18,000 - of which 47% were either foreign or forced laborers.

 

 

Wrong: in early 1944 there were 2,604 slave labourers from Buchenweld concentration camp working at various Erla plants.

 

The proportion of "foreign workers" working at Erla and its dispersed factories increased from 52% in 1943 to 61.5% in 1944:

(USSBS #7: Erla Maschinenwerke GmbH, Heiterblick, Germany.)

 

 

 

Ok and that´s why the 109 is easy to build. For sure there were slaves also building the other planes.

 

Increase of slave workers started when A. Speer was the minister of armament not at the firs years of war.

[Asgar]

Please don't stop. I'm having way too much fun reading your stuff to stop now

[=362nd_FS=Hiromachi]

[6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann]

[MiloMorai]

[E69_geramos109]

 

Okay...uhm lets fact check some of the claims geramos is making.

 

First off all why are you comparing 1941 Mk.V to 42-43 G models? Mk IX would have been their main opponent. IX IS faster than G6 and a little slower than G2 (10 km/h or so), the difference is so marginal it doesn't really matter.

Im comparing this because in terms of power and weight are so close and is a good example to determinate the more aerodynamical airframe.

The spit V was also the main spit in 1943. MkIX were in a few numbers compared to the MkV.

 

Spitfires from Mk.I to Mk.14 all out-turned their contemporary 109s at all speeds. It is very well know that spitfires had better elevator authority especially at higher speeds, your claim of 109s being able to outturn spits at high speeds is simply factually inaccurate. The spitfire also out-turns 109 in a low speed turnfight, the difference isnt that big as in a high speed turn, obviously, but still enough to outturn it in a few turns. Yes, the 109 has slats, which give you more AoA, but that wont help if you didnt start right behind the spitfire. The rest i dont know what your trying to say. Its well known that spitfires elliptical wing was perfect for aggressive dogfighting and gave the spit extremely tight turn and it also gave clear warning before a stall which made it easier to take to the limit than 109.

Eliptical wing was perfect to have an optimus drag per area of the wing, not for turnfight. In the spit the root of the wing stall firs than the extreme as it should be makin an agresive stall and shaking all the controls at low speeds. 

 

 

Spitfire also fought from beginning to the end. Equal to 109 in the beginning, F took a slight lead, IX gave the superiority back. And after that Spitfires had the lead till the war was over. 

Yes but the 109 was in the edge during  all the war. And doing a good job all the war. The spitfire was there but was released to secondary task during the invasion.

 

But, Spitfire does. The spitfire had pretty much identical range to 109, some models actually had higher range than contemporary 109s.

Yes but was inadecuate to make the misions where they need it. Not the 109. The 109 also could have a external fuel tank. The external fuel tanks mountings fore the spitfire were not satisfactory. 

 

Nope, thats inaccurate. If we are talking solely performance, The P-80 is a clear winner. 

Really?? The P80 was not in combat. You also have there the He162 and the Me163 in terms of only performance.

 

Theres much more to a good fighter than just top speed. The Spitfires from Mk.I to Mk.IX had perfect combination of speed, climb and maneuverability, these models had the edge over 109s. Of course when Mk.14 entered service in 1944, it outperformed 109s in every area. The fact that the spitfire served troughout the war and was able to improve with every design, new spitfire models were always able to gain the lead over 109s just makes it a clear winner. BF109 just was an inferior design compared to Spitfire.

Spitfire is far from perfect combinations... What version outperform the 109? Mk1 was inferior with E4 only with 100 octane was equal. MkII was equal also. Not talking about E4N because it was not in large numbers. F version was superior all spits V. When Spit V was still there in 1943 G2 and G6 were far superior. When MkIX M63 arrives they were equal again. Superior in some points worse in others. But in 1944 again the 109 takes the lead with G14, G6AS, G10, K4. Spit XIV is only near with the 150 fuel who kills the engine with few hours...

[E69_geramos109]

Simply false. Even the merlin engined spits climbed wayyy better than any 109s. Back in the day the Spitfire pilots would lure the germans into a climbing spiral, wait for the 109s to stall out due to their inferior turn/climb, and just pick out the stalling 109s one by one. Spitfire pilots got bored from always easily out turning and shooting down 109s so they would tease them and give them false hope by doing spiral climbs. Nazi propaganda had sunk into the heads of the luftwaffe airmen and they thought they had the superior fighter, when 20mm hispano rounds were tearing their 109s into pieces, it was too late for a reality check.  

 

You seem to be bitter because your favorite nazi fighter was outperformed by a clearly superior design. Too bad 4 you that luftwaffe didn't receive these superior machines, Galland did everything to get them some Spitfires. The arrogant leadership of the luftwaffe refused his requests, with lethal consequences. They should have taken notes from superior British engineering.

 

Just look at that thing, what a beast.

  Yes the spit outclims the 109 if you are comparing a MkIX against a E4 jaja. E4 outclims the MkI and II, F outclimb the MkVs, Only IX outclimb  the G6 (it has 250hp more) , but after that with the MW50 and AS again the 109 outclim the spit. Don´t talk again about the cheat tested Mk XIV please...

10 untis still enough that if we will ever get a 43 western front/italy scneario, we'll be getting the IX in the game 

lmfoa your always trying to divert the conversation from performance to which unit used which spitfire model, cause you just cant handle the fact that Spitfires out perform your beloved nazi fighter  

So we can talk about 1.42 ata G2 over stalingrad if the numbers are not important...

[MiloMorai]

If 150 fuel kills engines then how did P-51s fly to Berlin and back to base?

[216th_Lucas_From_Hell]

02/10/2016

 

Dear diary,

 

Today I learned that WW2 was defined by two short-ranged interceptors which clearly were better than everything else that has ever existed in this world. How could the Soviet fools have not used the Spitfire despite having 1000s of them? Why did the British ever work on the Tempest when the Spitfire was much, much better? What led the insane Germans to produce the Fw-190 and, I don't even like to say its name, the horrible Me-262, when they already had the Bf-109?!

 

The 20th century was shaped by grave mistakes.

 

Attached is the letter I sent to the Lockheed Martin offices and the Sukhoi OKB outlining why the F-35 and PAK-FA projects need to be dropped immediately, in lieu of stealth evolutions of the Spitfire and Bf-109. The world has been blind for too long, and I shall be the one to open its eyes.

[Crump]

 

 

If 150 fuel kills engines then how did P-51s fly to Berlin and back to base?

 

By only operating their aircraft at a reduced overboost power setting compared to what the RAF approved..... 

[=362nd_FS=Hiromachi]

This one we saw either. Kurfurst tried to prove something about German engines reliability and Merlins and P&W R-2800s short life. Long story short, he failed: http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=99259

[MiloMorai]

By only operating their aircraft at a reduced overboost power setting compared to what the RAF approved..... 

This one we saw either. Kurfurst tried to prove something about German engines reliability and Merlins and P&W R-2800s short life. Long story short, he failed: http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=99259

 

LOL Hiro that brings back memories.

[L3Pl4K]

 

 

It's obvious isn't it? 109s got their arses kicked by spitfires so badly in dogfights over the channel:109 gets butt spanked by lack of gasoline.

that when the germans actually had the advantage against early russian crates, they were still so traumatized from the arsekicking from he spits that they simply were scared to enter mauneuvering fights.:Why should they be so stupid and turn with the Spitfire

[E69_geramos109]

Jeez, Klaus, be more delicate. It doesnt feel like a comfort zone here ... also, British cars ... I have seen Morris once in my life. Dont want to see it again. But then they make modern things like DB9 and DB11 which are amazing. 

 

 

 

I cant remember 109 in 1946, CloD 109s have their own merits but DCS up to recently was actually overperforming. It's own creators admitted that and adjusted FM reducing rate of climb for example.

No in COD is a public fact that the team fusion increases the armour of spit at 50% and oversice radiators of the 109. The other things i think are ok. A 100 octane spit can caught you in some alts. In DCS i don´t know but i dont like to trim all nose down the plane to fly straight. Lets see if they can repare it.

 

 

 

Precisely, you think. But can you actually prove which airframe is aerodynamically cleaner ? I dont know details of later 109s, which I leave to you but Spitfire was pretty darn clean, in terms of both parasitic and induced drag (drag cost of lift). The parasitic cleanliness comes from flush riveting, stretched skin vs overlapping panels, lack of flat surfaces in the incoming flow, and the smooth paint job. The induced cleanliness comes from the elliptical wing platform (something 99.9% of people ignore).

 

This is where you can start: "Fluid Dynamic Drag" by Dr. Sighard F. Hoerner, chapter 14 is relevant. 

 

Rest I leave to you Geramos. 

Yes but we are talking different things. The eliptical wing is more optimal in Drag/Area than a normal wing like 109 has. But the Spit has a more larger area than the 109 so thats why the spit has more lift drag than the 109. Not because the 109 is claner than the spit is because it has a lot more extra lift force due to his large wing. To compare the parasit drag of the airframe i have to see complete wind tunel results but the spit is not as clean as you think. The armor glass is not optimal, the radiator surface is higher than the 109. The 109 radiator has a panal hexagonal nacelles more optimal than the spit conventional ones. Spit has also bulges to fill the hispanos... And the 109 improved also a lot from E to F and From G6 to G10 and K4.

 

 

 

No it does not, Spitfire has much better control at high speeds with light elevator controls which cannot be said about the 109. Hence why I'd take 190 over 109 

 

 

 

That is not an indication of great design but inability of both Luftwaffe and Messerchmitt to find, design and build a replacement for 109. Doesnt mean it was bad design either, just saying that aircraft was in operation from first to the last day of the war doesnt automatically make it great. 

Second sentence is such a delusion that I wont even bother addressing it. 

But is a important fact to stay during all war. I can not tell the 262 was the best of the war because it comes to late. The 109 was all the war and not only this. Doing a great job in all fronts fighting with a large different types of planes. And it performs great agains all of them.

 

 

 

 

Me 262 was certainly first mass produced jet, it was also probably the best jet fighter of the second world war. But was it best aircraft ? Doubtfully. 

 

You are comparing aircraft designed in different times with different ideas behind them. 

 

Also, you state Spitfire was inferior design because was build with a turn spirit. Before you said that 109 could turn better, so what does it make of 109 ? 

But with different concept. 109 and 190 turn better but at high speeds. Design went to find a better turn at high speed. The 109 can only outturn a spit cause of slats not for wing load factor. And this is important also at high speeds making a excess of lift drag with a low wing load factor. Thats why the P51 out-turns a 109 at high speed, a F6 outurns a zero, The 190 outturns the 109 etc...

 

 

Ekhem, I always thought that it was 109 that could not operate long enough over British skies ...

It could. Not for an hour but enought. Only when they began to bomb London and far objectives the minutes on the air were so low.

 

Control coordination and stability are extremely important features and precisely determine a better design. 

 

 

 

And if they had ion engine than Germans would be flying Tie fighters and Americans X-wings ... or the opposite way. 

Of corse. I think you understand my point. At the begining of the  30 a P51, P47 design would be nefastus with 700Hp engines.

[E69_geramos109]

 

 

It's obvious isn't it? 109s got their arses kicked by spitfires so badly in dogfights over the channel:Numbers dont tell the same. The 109 claims more spit kills than the spit over the 109... So flying in disadvantage, with a escort mission they scored more kills than the spitfire...

 

Edited October 3, 2016 by E69_geramos109

[Wulf]

Reality check...

 

 

 

Yes, but there were more 190s on the Channel Front in 42-43 than 109s.  So when he talks about "the opposition" he's almost certainly referring to the 190, not the 109.

[DD_Arthur]

Lol...Unfortunately, most kills were scored ambush style, AFAIK other engagements were in general so short that performance differences could not even start to tell.... Better fighting doctrines and tactics, good radio communications, ground control with good enemy ac detection is far more important than minor performance figures between WW2 top fighters.

 

Thank God!!!  Someone has actually remembered that WW2 air combat took place between formations of planes and the relatively minor performance differences between them were largely irrelevant compared with non mechanical factors like good tactics, ground control, radio comms and most important - the ability to see the enemy and react first ! 

 

Salute Micha!  

 

Any layman reading these forums would come away with the impression that air combat consisted of planes setting out on their own to meet the enemy in single combat, flying everywhere at full throttle with a fight to the death at the end!

 

Wonderweapon Syndrome at its best, lol!

[Kurfurst]

This one we saw either. Kurfurst tried to prove something about German engines reliability and Merlins and P&W R-2800s short life. Long story short, he failed: http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=99259

 

Actually, it was EKB who tried to prove that while USAAF engines run for many hundreds, if not thousands of operational hours routinely while German engines of course would fall apart after a couple of hours - all that being 'backed up' by a picking out individual anecdotal stories from secondary sources and hearsay, while simply ignoring the USAAF's own statistics in the matter, aka the big picture. 

 

 

Indeed as far as convincing EKB its pretty much a hopeless cause, but personally if I see that someone is so relentless in knocking his own head to the brick wall as EKB did, I see no reason to stop that effort.

 

BTW this is also applies to this thread ever since that extremely optimistic assessment for the Mark IX's tactical performance had been made in comparison with the 109K. Why stop it. It makes for an entertaining read.

[MiloMorai]

Mechanical reasons can be other than engine related Kurfy.

 

There was 4 YP-80As sent overseas broski, 2 to Italy (44-83028 and 44-83029) and 2 to England (44-83026 and 44-83027).

Edited October 3, 2016 by MiloMorai

[Kurfurst]

Yes, but there were more 190s on the Channel Front in 42-43 than 109s.  So when he talks about "the opposition" he's almost certainly referring to the 190, not the 109.

 

Undoubtedly so. But even in 1941 the air combat results over the Channel front were just as bad against the 109F as in 1942, when the 190A's appearance finally gave Fighter Command a good excuse to cease with the costly and very onesided affair of 'leaning over the continent' and giving that whole 'strategy' a good thought. 

 

Bottomline - the Mark V entered into service in 1941 and was more or less a match for the older 109E that was already being phased out, it was outclassed by the 109Fs appearing over the Channel front, and later Africa, and the margin that just got wider as the 109F was uprated, the 109G and then the 190A appeared in large numbers. Yet the aging and increasingly obsolate Mark V remained the mainstay Spitfire until early 1944, especially in the Med in which it took even longer for RAF fighter units to receive newer Marks. 

 

 

As far as Il-2 and BoK goes, iirc we get a Mark Vb the Soviets got and it will face the uprated 109Fs and Gs... not a very promising scenario for Spittie pilots, I am afraid. It would make a good match with the 109E though.

[=362nd_FS=Hiromachi]

 

 

Mechanical reasons can be other than engine related Kurfy.

Precisely, to assume that every mechanical reason equals to engine issue is misinterpretation of statistics.  

[MiloMorai]

Precisely, to assume that every mechanical reason equals to engine issue is misinterpretation of statistics.  

But it does fit the agenda.

[E69_geramos109]

omfg geramos       you just broke the stupid meter, already addressed your other absurd claims multiple times, but you still keep coming up with them

ill just stop theres no point. Lets just say that your in for a NASTY surprise when the spitfire arrives.  thought you wouldve learned your lesson back in the day on AoE

 

 

 

P-80 did as a matter of fact see some action, they flew combat sorties in italy, there were also lots of them stationed in england, but as the mustangs, spits n tempests were handling the germans just fine, there was no need for moar p80s. P-80 outclassed both me262 and he162, go look up the performance figures. Why are you bringing up the me163? Because you cant handle the fact the the allies did in fact have superior aircraft? Does it really hurt that much?

the rockets the germans came up with are pathetic. Check out the rockets the allies had:

Cmon this can not be serius. You are talking about P80 like it was a significant airplane.

 

For sure is a better design   thats why all the later fighters like F86 and Migs had the wing similar than the 262.

     Same for rokets. Thats why they call Von Braun after the war 

Thank God!!!  Someone has actually remembered that WW2 air combat took place between formations of planes and the relatively minor performance differences between them were largely irrelevant compared with non mechanical factors like good tactics, ground control, radio comms and most important - the ability to see the enemy and react first ! 

 

Salute Micha!

 

Any layman reading these forums would come away with the impression that air combat consisted of planes setting out on their own to meet the enemy in single combat, flying everywhere at full throttle with a fight to the death at the end!

 

Wonderweapon Syndrome at its best, lol!

Thats what im trying to say all the time. Evolution during the war went to have a faster airplane who takes more profit of the aerodynamical to have advantage on this kind of tactical situations. 

To have a better turn is ok but is a minor thing against speed, range and other design factors. Thats why i consider the P51 airframe better than the Me109

Edited October 3, 2016 by E69_geramos109

[Kurfurst]

Precisely, to assume that every mechanical reason equals to engine issue is misinterpretation of statistics.  

 

Sure. Keep your head buried in the sand instead of confronting reality. 

 

There is not much room for interpretation in the USAAF operating statistics though, I am afraid. 

 

As the table shows, the main fighter V-1650 (USAAF licenced Merlin) did, on avarage, 133 hours before overhaul, while the Allison V-1710 could expect 186 hours in average during 1944, by which time the engineers already had plenty of time to refine the basic design.

 

Bomber engines would last longer, which points to that the type of use and operating environment is also a decidedly a factor in engine wear: bomber engines would spend most of their operating in far less stressing cruising operating regimes, and seldom stress the engines with sudden throttle movements and operation in the 'excess' outputs like at War Emergency Power. To an extent, this also applies to escort fighters - most of the cc 10 hour sorties were easy on the engine, with lot of low powered cruising, with plenty of warm up time at the bases etc - quite a different use than the abuse scrambling interceptors would put their fighter's engines through.

 

Transport engines last the longest, for obvious reasons, they were often older, and lower powered types, the R-1830 Twin Wasp for example had a rather limited max output somewhere between 800 and 1200 HP (turbocharged), but would most operate at 600 or so HP. Its pretty pointless to compare it with fighter engines that would put out (in total, including the supercharger drive power requirements) 2000-2500 HP and far more often pressed to such stressing conditions.

Edited October 3, 2016 by VO101Kurfurst

[Crump]

 

 

As the table shows, the main fighter V-1650 (USAAF licenced Merlin) did, on avarage, 133 hours before overhaul, while the Allison V-1710 could expect 186 hours in average during 1944, by which time the engineers already had plenty of time to refine the basic design.

 

On the V-1650 Merlin it is interesting that the overhauled engines have a longer average lifespan than the new engines.  The ratio of overhauled to new is also higher.

 

I would imagine that is due to design improvements being incorporated at overhaul.

Do you have the full report?

[=362nd_FS=Hiromachi]

 

 

Sure. Keep your head buried in the sand instead of confronting reality. 

There is nothing to confront and frankly its you who has surrounded himself with his own delusions. The amount of misquoted materials and words by you, pointed back in that axishistory thread, speaks for itself.

I have no interest in arguing with you, it was interesting to observe those kinds of discussions 10 or 15 years ago but not anymore. 

[6./ZG26_5tuka]

Propaganda and twisted history is strong with this one.

[Kurfurst]

There is nothing to confront and frankly its you who has surrounded himself with his own delusions. The amount of misquoted materials and words by you, pointed back in that axishistory thread, speaks for itself.

I have no interest in arguing with you, it was interesting to observe those kinds of discussions 10 or 15 years ago but not anymore. 

 

Oh, as far as I can see you are not lacking the interest to argue but the capacity to do so. Pointing back to 10 year old discussions then leaving in a hurry once facts are on the table show precisely that.

[JG13_opcode]

10 untis still enough that if we will ever get a 43 western front/italy scneario, we'll be getting the IX in the game

lmfoa your always trying to divert the conversation from performance to which unit used which spitfire model, cause you just cant handle the fact that Spitfires out perform your beloved nazi fighter

That's twice you've called it a "nazi fighter".

 

You and a few others in this thread are taking this wayyyy too seriously.

 

I can literally see drops of emotion seeping out of my monitor when I read this thread.

[MiloMorai]

Oh, as far as I can see you are not lacking the interest to argue but the capacity to do so. Pointing back to 10 year old discussions then leaving in a hurry once facts are on the table show precisely that.

What facts?

[Crump]

 

 

What facts?

 

Do you see a huge difference in engine life under the operational stresses of combat between the combatants of World War II?

 

I don't.

 

Deployments are just rough on airplanes and engines......

[MiloMorai]

Do you see a huge difference in engine life under the operational stresses of combat between the combatants of World War II?

 

I don't.

 

Deployments are just rough on airplanes and engines......

Really? That is nice to know.

[-=PHX=-SuperEtendard]

For sure is a better design   thats why all the later fighters like F86 and Migs had the wing similar than the 262.

 

If i'm correct the wings in the Me-262 were angled to set the CoG, a small angle not enough for having that much difference from a straight wing in high speed performance. The HG project planned to have swept wings with greater angles, those would have made a difference.

[E69_geramos109]

If i'm correct the wings in the Me-262 were angled to set the CoG, a small angle not enough for having that much difference from a straight wing in high speed performance. The HG project planned to have swept wings with greater angles, those would have made a difference.

Actual liners have so similar angle. Omg all this years airbus making the wrong thing instead to put a P80 shape wing.

[-=PHX=-SuperEtendard]

Actual liners have so similar angle. Omg all this years airbus making the wrong thing instead to put a P80 shape wing.

 

mm liners have swept wings more similar to F-86 and MiG-15 (35º?) than Me-262 (19º?)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[216th_Lucas_From_Hell]

Geramos, nobody is saying that swept wings don't have their value, but stating the Me-262 was somehow the mother of all designs because it had a little bit of wing sweep is a bit comical. I mean, check out this sexy Burgess-Dunne A-55, circa 1916. The best design of the past century, by a long shot.