American perspective on the BF109 and FW190

[Bilbo_Baggins]

A really good read for those who haven't seen it. Do you think this personal account reflects some of the attributes that we have simulated with these airframes in-game?
 

Quote

 

The Best of the Breed
by Col. "Kit" Carson
Airpower, July 1976
Vol. 6 No. 4
Anyone who believes that he can satisfactorily demonstrate which WWII fighter was the "best" out of the whole bag that appeared from 1940 to 1945 is incredibly naive. There are so many performance variables and kinds of missions, that arguing them to all to a bedrock conclusion that would convince everyone is virtually impossible. There were a few generally acknowledged leaders, however, fighters which became household words the world over: the Spitfire, Mustang, Thunderbolt, Focke-Wulf 190 all proved themselves in the crucible of war. The Me 262 was the first operational jet fighter and a dazzling achievement, years ahead of anything we had. But another household work, the highly propagandized Me 109G, was obsolete when it was built and was aerodynamically the most inefficient fighter of its time. It was a hopeless collection of lumps, bumps, stiff controls, and placed its pilot in a cramped, squarish cockpit with poor visibility.

Putting aside the relative merits of one fighter versus another, there was a simple truth that quickly emerged from your first engagement with the enemy: whichever one of you saw the other one first had the winning advantage.
The most subjective variable is the experience and ability of the pilots. Their state of training was certainly an essential factor. Thus Clair Chennault was able to recruit experienced Army and Navy reserve pilots and civilians with a solid log book into the AVG "Flying Tigers", who flew for China in 1941, and chalked up a 12 to 1 victory loss ratio with P-40s. However, he warned new arrivals, "You've got to be good out here; when you tackle a Zero in a P-40 you are already outnumbered 3 to 1." He despaired of the P-40 as a weapon, but it was all he could get. The ultimate measure of combat effectiveness in fighter operations is the victory-to-loss ratio and there are several factors in the equation that one can juggle if necessary, but you deal yourself all the high cards that you can. Chennault's low cards were the P-40 and rotten logistic support; his high cards were experienced pilots, tactical genius, and dogged determination. That's another way of saying that unless you were willing to close with the enemy in decisive combat, using all the advantages that you have, and carve your initials on him, then your government made a mistake in pinning those wings on you.

So I must leave it to the reader to conjecture about pilots and crews while we talk about airplanes. What follows is intended to give the average aviation enthusiast some idea of how the fighters in Europe compared with each other in performance and maneuverability. The data on British and German aircraft come from the Royal Aircraft Establishment, Farnborough. Data on the American fighters come from the National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics test reports and, in addition, figures on the Mustang have been verified by data from North American Aviation flight test reports where it was possible to do so.

The first German aircraft that was shot down over England and which landed intact was a Heinkel 111 brought down on 28 October 1939. Two of the four crew were dead but the airplane survived in one piece except for a few bullet holes. A Ju 88 was shot down a few days before, but it crashed into the sea, a total loss. As the war went on into 1940 and the Battle of Britain was engaged, German aircraft fell all over England. Different types were quickly recovered in various stages of disrepair and subsequently arrive at experimental stations for analysis and to be made flyable again, if possible. Those that were brought down by fighters or antiaircraft guns were usually basket cases. The more favored carcasses were those that landed because of engine failure, exhausted fuel or bad navigation. Abundantly provided by thes sources, the British soon had a "flying circus" of captured German aircraft with RAF markings that toured the air bases in Britain to allow familiarization of new crews with the armament, performance and weaknesses of the opposition.
The idea of building a fighter to meet every performance requirement is out of the question. At best, each design is a compromise with priority emphasis on one or two qualities. Thus the Spitfire was a true interceptor designed primarily for the defense of the British Isle, a sprint climber with a small turning radius. The Mustang, after its conversion to the Merlin engine in 1942, was a fast, long-range, strategic escort fighter with an easy 8-hour endurance. Like the T-bolt it would dive like a banshee, well ahead of the Spit and all German craft. However, in rate of climb the Me 109G was 200-500 feet per minute ahead of the Mustang upto 20,000 feet, then the '51 pulled ahead on up to 40,000 feet, while the Spit 14 would climb faster than any of them at any altitude from sea level up.
Generalizations in narrative form are difficult to make and by the time you get to the end, the conclusions are so fogged up the reader can't tell where he's at. We will, therefore, deal primarily in numbers of two kinds -- One group is those that are measured against time: speed, endurance, rate of climb and acceleration in a dive. The second kind is those that are measured by distance: range and turning radius. Speed, most emphatically, is not everything.
Before we get into the performance comparison competition, some acquaintance with the features of the aircraft that we're talking about is necessary for understanding of why things turned out as they did. If you're handy with a slide rule you can do your own mission profiles and performance variations.

Me 109
General Characteristics:
The characteristics of two Me-109 models are of historical interest, the "E" and the "G". The "E" formed the backbone of the German fighter strength during the Battle of Britain, its opposition being the Spitfire I and the Hurricane I. The "G" was the prevailing type in 1944 during the Battle of Europe and its main opponents were the Spit 14, the Thunderbolt, and the Mustang. So it is worthwhile to explore more fully the characteristics of the Me-109 because it was the longest-lived of the fighters produced in Germany. It was a most worthy opponent in 1939, but it was outclassed by 1942 and by 1944 was manifestly obsolete.
An intact Me-109E with wing cannon was captured by the French in the summer of 1940 and was flown to England for flight test and evaluation. There were three stages of development prior to the "G". First was an early version of 109 flying in 1938 with a 670hp Jumo 210 engine, a fixed pitch wooden prop and two synchronized guns. Second was the variable-pitch two-bladed prop model and the addition of two wing guns. Third was the "E" model, with a far more powerful engine, the DB 601, which was an inverted V-12 of 1100hp with direct fuel injection driving a 3-bladed variable-pitch prop. Its wing structure was beefed up, but in the process of "designing" in the additonal engine and structural weight, the engineers screwed up the center of gravity, and 60 pounds of permanent ballast had to be added to the rear of the fuselage to get the C.G. back. As a pilot and an engineer I can only be sympathetic with 109 pilots. Who needs that kind of milstone around his neck in a fighter? Pilots had nothing to say about the design faults of airplanes in Germany. They had damn little to say about them in England or in this country, at that time. Designers didn't have to fly their mistakes; they just produced them. Most of them didn't know how to fly and didn't want to learn, but more about that later.
In size the Me 109, all models, was the smallest fighter produced by Germany or the Allies. That gave it a high wing loading for that time, about 32 lb./sq. ft. for the "E". The Spit I and the Hurricane I were about 25 lb./sq. ft. at their normal combat weight. The 109-G was about 38 lb./sq. ft. as compared to 35 lb./sq. ft. for the P-51B.

The fastest "G" subtype was the G-10 capable of 344 mph at SL or 428 mph at 24,000 ft. with a meager range of 350 miles and an endurance of 55 minutes, but it wasn't introduced until the spring of 1944. Too little, too late, and still lacking in range and endurance.
Engine and Propellor:
In principle the DB 601 and 605 series engines were the same as the Allison or Merlin, except they were inverted and had direct fuel injection; otherwise they were 12-cylinder, 60 degree Vee, glycol-cooled engines. The prop was a 10.2 foot, 3 blade variable pitch mechanism of VDM design. Here is another major difference between their design approach and ours. The pitch on the Me-109 prop could be set at any value between 22.5 and 90 degrees, a visual pitch indicator being provided for the pilot. There was no provision for automatically governing the rpm. We did just the opposite, using a constant speed governor and flying by a constant tachometer indication of rpm. For any flight condition the rpm remained constant. We didn't know, or care, what the blade angle was.
Wings and Controls:
The wings had straight leading and trailing edge taper and no geometric twist from root to tip. The airfoil section had a 2 percent camber with the maximum thickness at the 30% chord position. The "E" thickness ratio was 14.8 percent at the root and 10.5 percent at the tip. All that was standard design practice of the mid-1930s. What was new for fighter design was the leading edge slats which ran 46% of the span. There was no damping device fitted to the slat mechanism, they'd bang open at 120 mph with the airplane clean or at 100 mph with the gear and flaps down. Each control surface was mass-balanced. Another unusual feature was that as the flaps were lowered, the ailerons automatically drooped, coming down 11 degrees for the full flap movement of 42 degrees.
There were no movable trim tab controls on the ailerons or rudder, although both had fixed tabs that could be bent on the ground. Pitch trim was affected by changing the stabilizer incidence thrugh a range of 12 degrees. The design scheme was that both the flaps and the stabilizer were coordinated mechanically from two 12-inch wheels mounted concentrically on the left side of the pilot's seat. By twirling both wheels in the same direction the pilot could automatically compensate for the change of pitch trim due to lowering or raising the flaps. Differential coordination could be set by moving one wheel relative to the other.
Performance Evaluation:
The first surprise you get in planning a test hop in the Me-109 is that you're limited to about an hour with some aerobatics at combat power, because the internal fuel capacity is only 88 gallons; with the drop tank, the "G" carried a total of 154 gallons. I'll never understand why the fuel capacity designed in Luftwaffe fighters was so limited. It was a major design deficiency that contributed to the loss of the air war, but even more puzzling is the fact that it could have been quickly changed anytime after 1940 onward, but it wasn't.
Takeoff was best done with 30 degrees of flaps. The throttle could be opened quickly without loading or choking up the engine. In fact, the Daimler-Benz engine was the best thing about that airplane. The stick had to be held hard forward to get the tail up, and it was advisable to let the airplane fly itself off. If it was pulled off at low speed the left wing would not respond and on applying aileron the wing would lift and fall again with the aileron snatching a little. If no attempt was made to pull it off quickly, the takeoff run was short and the initial climb good.
The absense of a rudder trim control in the cockpit was a bad feature at speeds above cruise or in dives. Above 300 mph the pilot needed a very heavy foot on the port rudder pedal for trimmed flight with no sideslip which is absolutely essential for gunnery. The pilot's left leg quickly tired while keeping this load on, and this affected his ability to put on more left rudder for a turn at 300 mph or above. Consequently, at high speeds the 109 could turn far more readily to the right than to the left.
Fighting Qualities:
A series of mock dogfights were conducted by the British in addition to the flight test and the following was revealed:
If the airplane was trimmed for level flight, a heavy push on the stick was needed to hold it in a dive at 400 mph. If it was trimmed into the dive, recovery was difficult unless the trim wheel was wound back, due to the excessive heaviness of the elevator forces.
Ailerons:
At low speeds, the ailerons control was good, response brisk. As speed increased the ailerons became too heavy but the response was good up to 200 mph. At 300 mph they became "unpleasant". Over 300 mph they became impossible. At 400 mph the stick felt like it was set in a bucket of cement. A pilot exerting all his strength could not apply more than one fifth aileron at 400 mph; that's 5 degrees up and 3 degrees down. The aileron situation at high combat speeds might be summarized in the following way:
(1) Due to the cramped cockpit a pilot could only apply about 40 pounds side force on the stick as compared to 60 pounds or more possible if he had more elbow room.
(2) Messerschmitt also penalized the pilot by designing in an unsually small stick top travel of plus or minus 4 inches, giving very poor mechanical advantage between pilot and aileron.
(3) At 400 mph with 40 pounds side force and only one fifth aileron displaced, it required 4 seconds to get into a 45 degree roll or bank. That immediately classifies the airplane as being unmaneuverable and unacceptable as a fighter.
Elevator:
This was a good control at slow speeds but became too heavy above 250 mph and at 400 mph it became so heavy that maneurverability became seriously restricted. When diving at 400 mph a pilot, pulling very hard could not pull enough "g" force to black himself out. The stick force per "g" was an excess of 20 pounds in a high speed dive. To black out, as a limit to the human factor in high speed maneuvers, would require over 100 pounds pull on the stick.
Rudder:
At low speeds the rudder was light, but sluggish in response. At 200 mph the sluggishness disappears, at 300 mph the absense of trim control in the cockpit became an acute problem. The pilot's leg force on the port rudder above 300 mph to prevent sideslip became excessive and unacceptable.
Control Harmony:
At low speed, below 250 mph, control harmony was good, only a little spoiled by the suggishness of the rudder. At higher speeds the aileron and elevator forces were so high that the word "harmony" is inappropriate.
Aerobatics
Not easy to do. Loops had to be started from about 280 mph when the elevator forces were getting unduly heavy; there was also a tendency for the wing slats to bang open the top of the loop, resulting in aileron snatch and loss of direction.
Below 250 mph the airplane would roll quickly, but there was a strong tendency for the nose to fall through the horizon in the last half of the roll and the stick had to be moved well back to keep the nose up.
Upward rolls were difficult, again because of elevator heaviness at the required starting speed. Due to this, only a moderate pull out from a dive to build up speed was possible and considerable speed was lost before the upward roll could be started.
The very bad maneuverability at high speed of the Me 109 quickly became known to the RAF pilots in 1940. On many occasions 109 pilots were led to self-destruction when on the tail of a Hurricane or Spitfire at moderate or low altitudes. The RAF pilot would do a snappy half roll and "split ess" pull out, from say 3,000 feet. In the heat and confusion of the moment the 109 pilot would follow, only to discover that he didn't have enough altitude to recover due to his heavy elevator forces and go straight into the ground or the Channel without a shot being fired.
Turning Radius:
At full throttle, at 12,000 feet, the minimum turning radius without loss of altitude was about 890 feet for the Me 109E with its wing loading of 32 pounds per square foot. The corresponding figure for the Spit I or Hurricane was about 690 feet with a wing loading of 25 pounds.
Summary:
Good points:
(1) Reasonable top speed and good rate of climb.
(2) Engine did not cut out under negative "g," also reliable.
(3) Good control response at low speeds.
(4) Easy stall, not precipitous.
Bad Points:
(1) Ailerons and elevator far too heavy at high speed.
(2) Poor turning radius.
(3) Absence of rudder trim control in cockpit.
(4) Aileron snatch (grabbing -- uneven airflow) when slats opened.
(5) Cockpit too cramped.
(6) Visibility poor from cockpit.
(7) Range and endurance inadequate.
While the 109 may have been a worthy opponent in the Spanish Civil War or during the Battle of France in early 1940, it became a marginal airplane against the Spits during the attack on Britain in September of that year. By 1942, even with the appearance of the "G," it was definitely obsolete. However, the Germans continued to produce it as the backbone of the Luftwaffe fighter forces. The attitude of Nazi high command was that this was going to be a quick "blitz" war and if they lost three 109s for every Spitfire shot down, that was acceptable. In fact, in 1940 the official policy was laid down that the development of all other aircraft types requiring more than 6 months for completion was prohibited. They'd turn out the existing designs like hot cakes and swamp the RAF with production.
That doesn't say much for any charitable concern they should have had for the unnecessary loss of pilots caused by going into combat with a sub-standard airplane. But, after all, no one has ever said that the Führer and Göring had any anxiety about their pilots or troops. Quite the contrary, the record of history shows that they had none.
Furthermore, no designer in that period would pretend that he could stretch the combat effectiveness of a fighter for 7 years, 1935 to 1942, without major changes in power plant or aerodynamics, or, better yet, going to a new design. Technology in design in that era was changing too fast. The reader might well say, "The Spitfire was certainly a long line of fighters, about 10 years, how come?"
The Spitfire was an aerodynamically clean airplane to start with, having a total drag coefficient of .021 at cruise. The Me-109 had a coefficient of .036; drag coefficiency and of the horsepower required to haul 'em around. Like golf scores, the lower the better, and no fudging.
The British, in particular the staff at Vickers Supermarine, had done their homework in aerodynamics and put out a clean airplane that had the potential of longevity and increased performance. They had only to wait for Rolls-Royce to pump up the horsepower on the Merlin, which they did by going from 790 hp in 1934 to well over 2,000 by 1945. The Merlin, in my (Col. Carson's) opinion, was the best achievement in mechanical engineering in the first half of the century.
Messerschmitt practically ignored the subject of low-drag aerodynamics and one can tell that by an inspection of the 109E or G. The fact is evident even in close-up photographs. It was aerodynamically the most inefficient fighter of its time. That's a puzzling thing when one realizes that much of the original work on high speed drag and turbulent surface friction was done in Germany in the '20s and '30s. Messerschmitt was surrounded by it. Further, the work in England and the U.S. in this field was in the open literature, at least until 1938.
I also suspect, again from the record of history, that Willy Messerschmitt was too busy becoming a Direktor of Messerschmitt A.G. to concentrate on improving his status as an ingenieur.
 

Having gone this far, let me carry this affront to Messerschmitt's engineering reputation one step further.
An airplane factory can get things done awfully fast, in any country and in any language, once the engineers and sheet metal benders understand what is wanted. Every factory has a "development shop" or its equivalent, which is a full scale model or prototype shop with 100 or 200 old pros in every skill. Having that many coffee drinkers, pipe smokers and "yarn spinners" around on the payroll, let's clobber 'em with a bundle of shop drawings on a clean up of the Me 109. Object: to make it a 400 mph plus airplane. Time... 30 days. The information and techniques required are currently available as of 1940. It's all written up in unclassifed reports.

(1) Cancel the camouflage paint and go to smooth bare metal. Besides the weight, about 50 pounds, the grain size is too large when it dries and it causes turbulent friction over the entire airplane surface. That may take a phone call to the brass. They're emotional about paint jobs. "Image," you know.
(2) Modify the cockpit canopy. Remove the inverted bathtub that's on there now and modify as necessary to fit the Me 209V-1 canopy. That's the airplane that set the world speed record in 1939.
(3) Get rid of the wing slats. Lock them closed and hand-fit a strip, upper and lower surface, that will close the sheet metal gaps between the slat and wing structure. That gap causes the outboard 15 feet of each wing to be totally turbulent.
(4) As aerodynamic compensation for locking the slats, setup jigs and fixtures on the assembly line to put in 2 degrees of geometric twist from the root to tip, known as "washout."
(5) Modify coolant scoop inlet fairings. The square corners that are there now induce an unnecessary amount of drag. Also lower the inlet 1 to 2 inches below wing surface to get it out of the turbulence of the wing surface.
(6) Install complete wheel well farings that cover the openings after the gear is retracted.
(7) Retract tail wheel.
All of the above could have been done in 30 days but it wasn't. I don't know why. Someone would have to ask Willy...it's for him to say.

Fw 190A
General Characteristics:
A superb airplane, every inch a fighter. It could do a half roll at cruising speed in one second. Taking this in conjunction with the airplane's high top speed and rate of climb one expected its pilots to exploit its high speed qualities to the fullest without staying in there to "mix it up" in a low speed, flaps down full throttle, gut-wrenching dog fight.
They did. The 190 pilots had a good airplane and some good advice. Nearly all of my encounters with the 190 were at high speeds. On at least two occasions when I met them, my Mustang started porposing, which means I was into compressibility, probably around 550 mph. I don't know what my air speed indicator was reading, I wasn't watching it.
On another occasion, I jumped one directly over the city of Paris and fired all my ammo, but he was only smoking heavily after a long chase over the town. Assuming I was getting 10 percent hits, that airplane must have had 200 holes in it. It was a rugged machine.
Engine and Propeller:
The BMW 801D was a 14 cylinder, twin-row radial with direct fuel injection. A 10.9 foot diameter, 3-bladed VDM prop was used and was provided with hand lever or automatic pitch control. The 801D radial air-cooled engine first appeared on the Dornier Do 217 and the Fw 190. Its most novel feature was the oil cooler system which was a number of finned tubes shaped into a ring of tubes a little larger in diameter than the cooling fan. This ring was fitted into the rounded front portion of the cowling just aft of the fan.
I don't think this was a good idea. For example, my principal aiming point was always the forward portion of an enemy ship; the engine, cockpit, wing root section. If you get any hits at all, even only a few, you're bound to put one or two slugs into the engine compartment. Having a couple of bullets riccochet off the engine block and tear up some ignition harness is not too bad at all, at least not fatal. But to have all those thin-walled oil cooling tubes ahead of the engine is bad news. Any hits or riccochets in the engine section are bound to puncture the oil tubes. Then the whole engine is immersed in oil spray, and sometimes it would flash over into a fire. All of the 12 Focke-Wulfs that I shot down sent off a trail of dense, boiling oil smoke heavy enough to fog up my gun camera lens and windshield if I were so close.
Wings and Controls:
Again, as in the case of the Me 109, no trim tabs adjustable in flight from the cockpit were provided for the aileron and rudder. European designers seem to have acquired the notion that this was a nuisance or unnecessary. Not at all; when going into a dive, it's very easy for the pilot to reach down with his left hand and flick in a couple of half turns of rudder trim. It's not only desireable, but necessary to eliminate side slip for good gunnery. The Fw 190, however, did have electric trim tabs for the elevators.
Performance Evaluation:
The Fw 190's handling qualities were generally excellent. The most impressive feature was the aileron control at high speeds. Stick force per "g" was about 9 pounds upto 300 mph rising to 12 pounds at 400 mph as compared to over 20 pounds for the Me-109.
High speed stalls under "g" load were a little vicious and could be a fatal handicap in combat. If the airplane was pulled in tight and stalled at high speed at 2 "gs" or more with the power on, turning right or left, the left wing would drop violently without warning and the airplane would flick onto its back from a left turn. I scored against a 190 under such circumstances. The message was clear, don't stall it. Our own Bell P-39 Aircobra would do the same thing.
Fighting Qualities:
Excellent high speed, with exceptional maneuverability at those speeds. Range and endurance were markedly improved over the 109. The Focke-Wulf would go 3 hours plus. Visibility with the full view canopy was superb, as it was in the Mustang.
Summary:
Bad points:
(1) Oil cooling tubes at the front of the engines was a poor choice of location. A puncture due to combat damage, or to simple failure covered the engine section with an oil spray.
(2) Lack of aileron and rudder trim controls in the cockpit.
(3) Vicious high speed snap rolls if stalled under significant "g" load.
(4) Poor turning radius due to high wing loading.
Good points:
Everything else was good. In the hands of a competent pilot the 190 was a formidable opponent. The landing approach speed was high and this shakes some pilots up a bit, but I don't think it's anything it's anything to complain about.

 

 

Edited April 18, 2018 by Mcdaddy

[taffy2jeffmorgan]

Very interesting, thanks for posting.

[Guest deleted@134347]

(3) Vicious high speed snap rolls if stalled under significant "g" load.  

 

that is on-point for 190w and p39 he mentioned...

[Y-29.Silky]

Good read. I'll go grab my popcorn and wait for the experts to weigh in below.

[HBPencil]

This Kit Carson piece has been posted before and although it's an interesting read it also spawned a really deplorable multi-page flame fest that got locked. Watch out for squalls old chap 

[Bilbo_Baggins]

3 hours ago, Sambot88 said:

That was quite enlightening. Respect for your enemy coming in the form of "You should have done this" is usually the most honest and heartfelt, leading to the most honest analysis.

 

I thought this part below were some interesting ideas in hindsight. I wonder what could have also been suggested to decrease the heavy stick forces which as we know in the sim right now are a serious problem for the Messerschmitt airframes.

 

Object: to make it a 400 mph plus airplane. Time... 30 days. The information and techniques required are currently available as of 1940. It's all written up in unclassifed reports.

(1) Cancel the camouflage paint and go to smooth bare metal. Besides the weight, about 50 pounds, the grain size is too large when it dries and it causes turbulent friction over the entire airplane surface. That may take a phone call to the brass. They're emotional about paint jobs. "Image," you know.
(2) Modify the cockpit canopy. Remove the inverted bathtub that's on there now and modify as necessary to fit the Me 209V-1 canopy. That's the airplane that set the world speed record in 1939.
(3) Get rid of the wing slats. Lock them closed and hand-fit a strip, upper and lower surface, that will close the sheet metal gaps between the slat and wing structure. That gap causes the outboard 15 feet of each wing to be totally turbulent.
(4) As aerodynamic compensation for locking the slats, setup jigs and fixtures on the assembly line to put in 2 degrees of geometric twist from the root to tip, known as "washout."
(5) Modify coolant scoop inlet fairings. The square corners that are there now induce an unnecessary amount of drag. Also lower the inlet 1 to 2 inches below wing surface to get it out of the turbulence of the wing surface.
(6) Install complete wheel well farings that cover the openings after the gear is retracted.
(7) Retract tail wheel.
All of the above could have been done in 30 days but it wasn't. I don't know why. Someone would have to ask Willy...it's for him to say

Edited April 18, 2018 by Mcdaddy

[=EXPEND=CG_Justin]

I just hope all the "experts" about to weigh in on this thread seriously take into account the very first sentence in the piece. I'm no expert, nor am I checked out in a real 109 or 190 so I have no real frame of reference, I have a good general idea because of the reading I've done, but no frame of reference. I am sure many of our "experts" are lacking in the frame of reference/actual experience fields as well.

 

 

Great read, thanks for sharing!

[Poochnboo]

Kit Carson wasn't the only one who felt that the '109 was obsolete by 1943. I was surprised to read that no less an advocate of the BF 109, Adolph Galland, thought so too. He got most of his kills in the airplane, but once he flew the ME262, he tried to convince Goring that Germany should stop producing the 109 and that all German fighter factories should be building nothing but the FW190 and ME262. 

As we know, that didn't happen. Thank Heavens for Hermann Goring. 

[Field-Ops]

2 hours ago, Sambot88 said:

Its interesting that he didn't mention the automation systems of the 109 though. I would have figured that would weigh heavily in its favor given the author's focus on pilot comfort and survival. Either way, that was a fun read. Thanks OP.

I felt the same. His mention of the pilot needing to take into account the propeller pitch indicated to me that the automation that took place after the 109-E3 was not factored into the analysis. 
 

All in all a good read. The praise of the Fw190 was well earned. Only a few minor quirks but she was meant for speed and it showed. So glad we have a couple of them in the Great Battle's series to fly.

[Bilbo_Baggins]

44 minutes ago, Field-Ops said:

 

All in all a good read. The praise of the Fw190 was well earned. Only a few minor quirks but she was meant for speed and it showed. So glad we have a couple of them in the Great Battle's series to fly.

 

Incredible aileron authority at high speeds. However, it's interesting that in-game the LA5/Lagg-3 airframe's ailerons still rival and surpass the 190.

Edited April 18, 2018 by Mcdaddy

[pilotpierre]

Thanks for posting, interesting read.

[1_Robert_]

Good read, I appreciate you posting that. 

[TWC_Ace]

109 design was obsolete long before the second half of the war. All that was done was "tuning" already old horse for the race.

Edited April 18, 2018 by blackram

[Lensman]

No mention of the F series (the best), continual reference to the Me109 when it should be the bf 109, no mention of the Eastern-front, some truths, some falsehoods, somewhat misleading and US-centric.

Try this:  http://vintageaviationecho.com/bf109e/

 

 

[Mac_Messer]

I would say Carson`s account is a tad inapropriate since the aircraft modeled in BoX are eastern front serving aircraft, not BoB/Normandy serving.

[Ehret]

Pilots are the most important part and in the game; we have a distorted reality where we are perfectly healthy every time - immortal, practically. Thus AF accidents by bad gears, poor visibility, tiring cramped cockpit - all don't matter but irl they sure did... No wonder the 109 had such short endurance - it's doubtful anyone would manage multi hours sorties in the 109 anyway, on Pervitin or not.

[Sambot88]

22 minutes ago, Lensman said:

No mention of the F series (the best), continual reference to the Me109 when it should be the bf 109, no mention of the Eastern-front, some truths, some falsehoods, somewhat misleading and US-centric.

Try this:  http://vintageaviationecho.com/bf109e/

 

 

 

 

[Bilbo_Baggins]

2 hours ago, Mac_Messer said:

I would say Carson`s account is a tad inapropriate since the aircraft modeled in BoX are eastern front serving aircraft, not BoB/Normandy serving.

 

Conpletely irrelevant strawman argument. We are talking performance qualities and character of the same airframes and same handling attributes found in the airframes we have in-sim. Stick forces, aileron designs, etc, were not changed through the 109G series or 190A series. Of course there are different versions but by and large these are the same airframe designs.

2 hours ago, Lensman said:

No mention of the F series (the best), continual reference to the Me109 when it should be the bf 109, no mention of the Eastern-front, some truths, some falsehoods, somewhat misleading and US-centric.

Try this:  http://vintageaviationecho.com/bf109e/

 

 

 

Friedrich in performance terms is not much more than a 100kg lighter Gustav. Much of the same applies. By and large they were the same airframes, with the G model having a better, stiffer wing design.

Edited April 18, 2018 by Mcdaddy

[Rjel]

PURSUE and DESTROY is an excellent book derived from the magazine series mentioned above. It was first published in the WINGS/AIRPOWER magazines in the mid 1970s. After the war Kit Carson became an Aeronautical Engineer. That sometimes gets left out of the arguments about his opinions. He was a good writer. I wish he'd have written more books.

[303_Bies]

14 hours ago, Mcdaddy said:

The "E" formed the backbone of the German fighter strength during the Battle of Britain, its opposition being the Spitfire I and the Hurricane I. The "G" was the prevailing type in 1944 during the Battle of Europe and its main opponents were the Spit 14, the Thunderbolt, and the Mustang.

Spitfire XIV wasn't one of the main opponents of Bf-109G. Spitfire XIV barely ever met Bf-109G. First Spitfires XIV started flight over Europe in december 1944. When it comes to fights between Bf-109G and late allied fighters it was for sure less than 5% against Spitfires XIV. Even early in 1945 when war was already over there was a lot more Spitfires IX than XIV.

 

"The Mk XIV was used by the 2nd Tactical Air Force as their main high-altitude air superiority fighter in northern Europe with six squadrons operational by December 1944.^[33]

One problem which did arise in service was localised skin wrinkling on the wings and fuselage at load attachment points; although Supermarine advised that the Mk XIVs had not been seriously weakened, nor were they on the point of failure, the RAF issued instructions in early 1945 that all F and FR Mk XIVs were to be refitted with clipped wings.^[34]"

 Morgan and Shacklady 2000, pp. 411–412.

 

 

14 hours ago, Mcdaddy said:

The pitch on the Me-109 prop could be set at any value between 22.5 and 90 degrees, a visual pitch indicator being provided for the pilot. There was no provision for automatically governing the rpm. We did just the opposite, using a constant speed governor and flying by a constant tachometer indication of rpm.

Bf-109F and later had automatic manifold and RPM governor when allied fighters still lacking.

 

The first surprise you get in planning a test hop in the Me-109 is that you're limited to about an hour with some aerobatics at combat power, because the internal fuel capacity is only 88 gallons; with the drop tank, the "G" carried a total of 154 gallons. I'll never understand why the fuel capacity designed in Luftwaffe fighters was so limited. It was a major design deficiency that contributed to the loss of the air war, but even more puzzling is the fact that it could have been quickly changed anytime after 1940 onward, but it wasn't.

Just like Spitfire.

 

Edited April 18, 2018 by bies

[JtD]

Once you've read through all the criticism of the poor aerodynamics of the Bf109 ask yourself:

 

Why did it need less power to achieve a particular speed than all contemporary British and American fighters except for the P-51 needed?

[Avimimus]

I found it interesting how the recommendations for the Bf-109 would've brought it more in line with the P-51...

[DD_Arthur]

Not any sort of flame - just a straight question; 

 

Did Kit Carson actually get to fly a '109 or '190?

[Avimimus]

12 hours ago, Mac_Messer said:

I would say Carson`s account is a tad inapropriate since the aircraft modeled in BoX are eastern front serving aircraft, not BoB/Normandy serving.

 

I noticed that... typically Cold War era insensitivity ...effectively implying that there was no Russian airwar (when in reality the majority of German aircraft were on the Russian front during 1944).

[Ehret]

3 hours ago, JtD said:

Once you've read through all the criticism of the poor aerodynamics of the Bf109 ask yourself:

 

Why did it need less power to achieve a particular speed than all contemporary British and American fighters except for the P-51 needed?

 

Smaller, lighter, cramped, taking less fuel and number of guns. In the game, according to the specs, the P-39-L is faster than 109Gs (2,4 and 6) at similar engine power at SL. Take-off power for the Airacobra is 1325hp and she flies 539km/h; for G2 1310hp for 530km/h, G4 1310hp for 517km/h and G6 is... just bad.

Edited April 18, 2018 by Ehret

[US63_SpadLivesMatter]

4 hours ago, JtD said:

Once you've read through all the criticism of the poor aerodynamics of the Bf109 ask yourself:

 

Why did it need less power to achieve a particular speed than all contemporary British and American fighters except for the P-51 needed?

Small size is itself an aerodynamic property.

[Rjel]

2 hours ago, Avimimus said:

 

I noticed that... typically Cold War era insensitivity ...effectively implying that there was no Russian airwar (when in reality the majority of German aircraft were on the Russian front during 1944).

How do you come to that conclusion? Granted I only skimmed his comments and haven't read the book in a few years, but I don't see any mention of the Eastern Front in the posted comments by Carson. Why too should he have given two hoots in Hell about the Eastern front when he was a fighter pilot in the 8th AF in 1944-45? That was his war. He didn't at that point in time or even when he wrote his book in 1976-77, have 70 years of hindsight to base his opinions like we do now. To that end, can you show me any real evidence the average Soviet fighter pilot or later day historian during the cold war was lavishing praise on all those gallant U.S. and RAF aircrew? Should you care to look for them, there are numerous newsreels from the war years that were aimed at U.S. movie audiences that made considerable mention of the war in the East.

Edited April 18, 2018 by Rjel
spelling

[Poochnboo]

"I would say Carson`s account is a tad inapropriate since the aircraft modeled in BoX are eastern front serving aircraft, not BoB/Normandy serving."

 

Odd post. Does the poster actually believe that the Luftwaffe had "Eastern Front Airplanes," and "Western Front Airplanes?" When a Russian BF109G unit got the orders that it was being sent to Germany to join the home defense units, they did not "Westernize" the airplanes. Ground crews packed up everything onto trains and they headed west. The pilots jumped into their machines and flew back to their new field in Germany. And they began intercepting American bombers. Flying the same airplanes. No doubt that Kit Carson came up against some of these very same units. 

[Avimimus]

2 hours ago, Rjel said:

How do you come to that conclusion? Granted I only skimmed his comments and haven't read the book in a few years, but I don't see any mention of the Eastern Front in the posted comments by Carson.

 

<- Exactly that. Complete omission of their existence.

 

2 hours ago, Rjel said:

Why too should he have given two hoots in Hell about the Eastern front when he was a fighter pilot in the 8th AF in 1944-45?

 

Probably because thousands of people died and this made victory (and survival) much easier for him and his comrades?

 

2 hours ago, Rjel said:

That was his war. He didn't at that point in time or even when he wrote his book in 1976-77, have 70 years of hindsight to base his opinions like we do now. To that end, can you show me any real evidence the average Soviet fighter pilot or later day historian during the cold war was lavishing praise on all those gallant U.S. and RAF aircrew? Should you care to look for them, there are numerous newsreels from the war years that were aimed at U.S. movie audiences that made considerable mention of the war in the East.

 

Yes, I agree. I mentioned it as a 'typical' case of 'insensitivity'.

 

I was just observing that this type of thing was common until recently. Part of it was lack of access to records, part of it was bias, part of it was disinterest.  It isn't necessarily to impune Carson. Just observe that a bias is at work (whether it be intentional or unintentional, cultural or practical). It was common in the era he was writing and may explain the complete lack of acknowledgement or analysis of the Russian airwar.

 

I'd argue that a lot of our knowledge of the air-war in WWI is insensitive to French aviators (and their losses) - likely because of a mixture of language barriers, lingering chauvinism in England towards France (and American general disinterest), and loss of records during the second world war. This goes beyond any one author.

[Rjel]

So in that short excerpt Carson should have made mention of the Eastern Front as opposed to presenting what he considered to be the topic he had chosen? That being issues with the Bf-109 and Fw-190? By not doing so that proves a bias? That defies logic. At least on my mind. 

[Mitthrawnuruodo]

Carson isn't only discussing Western experiences. He makes sweeping assertions about the Bf 109 design without considering actions in the East. It is not unreasonable to say that such an analysis is incomplete.

 

Quote

There were a few generally acknowledged leaders, however, fighters which became household words the world over: the Spitfire, Mustang, Thunderbolt, Focke-Wulf 190 all proved themselves in the crucible of war.

 

Many people would feel obliged to qualify such a statement. We know that there were other aircraft types that proved themselves.

 

Of course, the existence of bias does not make Carson's statements untrue. Nevertheless, it is important to recognize that it is always there.

 

In any engineering practice, certain aspects of a design will appear nonsensical to outside users. The Bf 109 is no exception. 

 

 

Edited April 19, 2018 by Mitthrawnuruodo

[danielprates]

What a great piece of information. 

 

Does the book contain more annalisys in other planes? Quote them if it does!

6 hours ago, Mitthrawnuruodo said:

any engineering practice, certain aspects of a design will appear nonsensical to outside users. The Bf 109 is no exception. 

 

Yeah. Like ease of production,  or cost reduction for instance. It is often unfair to look at a design and simply state: "why isn't this better?",  as if there were not other considerations.

 

Curiously, the author is forgetting an easy compairson: german tanks. They are always regarded as the best in any given period of the war,  specially later on,  still everybody agrees that their price and production difficulty and complexity were a serious issue,  one that may have costed the german victory. 

Edited April 19, 2018 by danielprates

[CastorTroy]

http://www.cebudanderson.com/carson02.htm

 

Leonard "Kit" Carson's account of the air battle of 14 January, 1945

Edited April 19, 2018 by CastorTroy

[Talisman]

On ‎4‎/‎18‎/‎2018 at 1:42 PM, bies said:

Spitfire XIV wasn't one of the main opponents of Bf-109G. Spitfire XIV barely ever met Bf-109G. First Spitfires XIV started flight over Europe in december 1944. When it comes to fights between Bf-109G and late allied fighters it was for sure less than 5% against Spitfires XIV. Even early in 1945 when war was already over there was a lot more Spitfires IX than XIV.

 

"The Mk XIV was used by the 2nd Tactical Air Force as their main high-altitude air superiority fighter in northern Europe with six squadrons operational by December 1944.^[33]

One problem which did arise in service was localised skin wrinkling on the wings and fuselage at load attachment points; although Supermarine advised that the Mk XIVs had not been seriously weakened, nor were they on the point of failure, the RAF issued instructions in early 1945 that all F and FR Mk XIVs were to be refitted with clipped wings.^[34]"

 Morgan and Shacklady 2000, pp. 411–412.

 

 

Bf-109F and later had automatic manifold and RPM governor when allied fighters still lacking.

 

Just like Spitfire.

 

Hello bies,

 

For the record, I think you will find that Spitfire XIV operations on the continent of Europe started in Spring 1944 in the form of sweeps, patrols, scrambles and escorts (including France and the Netherlands).  Later, Spitfire XIV squadrons also took part in Operation Overlord and beyond.  As well as taking part in the June 1944 Normandy invasion and afterwards operating from continental Europe with 2nd TAF to the end of the war, Spitfire XIV squadrons also operated over Germany from September 1944 escorting bombers.  I believe that it would make complete sense for this combat flight simulator to model the main high altitude air superiority fighter belonging to the RAF for the BoBP edition, especially as Mk XIV Spitfires were operating from airfields attacked by the LW during the BoBP.  Are we to have airfields attacked that operated the Spitfire Mk XIV, but the Spit XIV is not allowed to fight back?

In real life, the Allies had air superiority over Europe and their LW opponents were in decline.  This will not be the case for our combat flight simulation in MP (air superiority not modelled); therefore, I believe it makes sense for the historic aircraft development technological time line to be given important consideration for our simulation.  The Spitfire XIV and Bf-109G are on a historical matching technological development time line and both were in the same combat area together.  If the LW were not always keen to make an appearance to fight in 1944 and 1945 as much as the Allies would have liked, because the sides were not even, I don't think that should mean that we should not have the Spitfire XIV in our simulation, just because it is claimed only a few real life fights took place with the Bf-109G.  I think a 21lbs boost Mk XIV Spitfire would be very much in keeping with the history surrounding BoBP and the technological time line of aircraft development and operational use at the time. 

 

Happy landings,

 

Talisman  

Edited April 19, 2018 by 56RAF_Talisman

[Poochnboo]

Interesting how easily some people's feelings get hurt on these forums. Someone is insulted that Carson didn't mention the Eastern Front. Carson is talking about German aircraft performance. And mentions ways that Willi Messerchmidt could have improved the '109. He talks about the 109's and 190's roll rates and dive speeds...etc..

  Where, in his disertation, would he have included something about the battles on the Russian Front? And why?

7 hours ago, danielprates said:

Curiously, the author is forgetting an easy compairson: german tanks

Why would Carson, who was a fighter pilot and is evaluating German fighters, have included tanks in his writings? Maybe I'm misunderstanding something here. 

"Does the book contain more annalisys (analysis) in other planes? Quote them if it does!"

 He does, as a matter of fact. He talks about the P-39, which he flew in training, and actually liked. "We could beat anyone at 100 feet in a P-39......the '39 was a damn good airplane on the deck. The best - and that's why the Russians liked them..."

The P-47. "It was heavy...had a big roomy cockpit and the pilot felt as though he was steering the base hospital down the runway. ...it had speed at altitude, however and 8 guns and it was supercharged. It would dive like a lead brick and could maneuver surprisingly well."

He had nothing good to say about the Lightning, though. "It was a  complicated airplane for a pilot. Logistical support required per hour of flying was too high. It cost 2 1/2 times as much to build as a P-51. The German pilots were not afraid to jump a group of P-38's...the indentification problem was easy. Those twin contrails were visable for 6 or 7 miles..."

There was more, of course. But pick up the book if you can find it. It's good. 

[danielprates]

56 minutes ago, Poochnboo said:

Why would Carson, who was a fighter pilot and is evaluating German fighters, have included tanks in his writings? Maybe I'm misunderstanding something here. 

 

Bad writing of my part. Often happens when texting on the phone,  in the privy. You didn't seem bother to read the rest though,  which was the useful part of my post! I was merelly stating that german tanks provide a good example on why you cant just design the best thing possible,  without incurring in indirect disavantages like unit cost,  maintenance and production hardships etc. Then I ran away with it and just assumed the writer must have known something about that,  but now coming to think of it,  was probably a bad assumption of my part.

 

The book seems wonderfully filled with interesting information! All quotes deserve their own thread on the forum!

 

I'll be sure to look for it!

[Poochnboo]

No, I did read the whole thing. But like I said, I didn't understand, at first, why you thought he should have included that in his piece when he was writing about airplanes. But I get it, now. The book is probably long out of print, by the way. At least I think so. I've had my copy since 1978.

[Tyberan]

On 18/04/2018 at 6:50 AM, Mcdaddy said:

The Merlin, in my (Col. Carson's) opinion, was the best achievement in mechanical engineering in the first half of the century.

 

Dont think anyone could refute that. Excellent engine.

On 18/04/2018 at 6:50 AM, Mcdaddy said:

The Merlin, in my (Col. Carson's) opinion, was the best achievement in mechanical engineering in the first half of the century.

 

Dont think anyone could refute that. Excellent engine.

[Aap]

8 hours ago, Poochnboo said:

Interesting how easily some people's feelings get hurt on these forums. Someone is insulted that Carson didn't mention the Eastern Front. Carson is talking about German aircraft performance.  Where, in his disertation, would he have included something about the battles on the Russian Front? And why?

 

I don't think people are insulted by it, they just point out how limited view Carson had on his comment about Bf109 being useless and not even considering it's usefulness on the Eastern Front, where most of the fighting took place. An over-exaggerated comparison, but consider a seal hunter from Namibia claiming that warm clothing is useless during seal hunting, while most of the seal hunting is done in Greenland and Canada. There are also some clearly inaccurate claims in his comments.

[Kurfurst]

On 2018. 04. 18. at 11:09 PM, DD_Arthur said:

Not any sort of flame - just a straight question; 

 

Did Kit Carson actually get to fly a '109 or '190?

 

Not at time as far as I know. The analysis he presents is loosely based on Morgan’s evaluation of a captured 109E and later AFDU brief tactical trials of 109G2/G6.