Bf-109 G/Later models design

[Roland_HUNter]

Anyone have any historical information about that:
Why did the Germans not change important parts on the 109?
I mean, they should know that with a bigger wing area you could turn better.
I guess they had a bunch of tests with the captured Spit/P-51, which planes had almost or better top speed and better turning capabilities.

Then why did the Germans not change any important things on their planes? Even the not built blueprint Luftwaffe plane has such an effort to improve their wing area.

[LukeFF]

It takes time to retool a factory to produce new components, and Germany just didn't have time to have factories down for any length of time for such things. Better to just keep producing what you have in place in such circumstances. 

[Roland_HUNter]

3 hours ago, LukeFF said:

It takes time to retool a factory to produce new components, and Germany just didn't have time to have factories down for any length of time for such things. Better to just keep producing what you have in place in such circumstances. 

  I guessed it was the problem behind it, they had the same problem with the Panzer IV to switch the design into a sloped armored one. But for the 109, they had 4-5 years to change.
I read about that, but about the 109 I found nothing yet.

[ZachariasX]

4 hours ago, Roland_HUNter said:

I read about that, but about the 109 I found nothing yet.

They wanted to make it better. Repeatedly. But the flight performance didn't improve and what it could do better was less needed. That the engine required never materialized didn't help either.

 

I am not aware of anyone who wanted to give the Bf-109 larger wings. It would have made the aircraft slower. All later efforts incresed wing loading.

[CountZero]

Maybe later in war their focus was not on turn ability of airplanes but speed and fire power to stop bombers.

[Heliopause]

Design work went into the Me 309 perhaps

[Roland_HUNter]

7 hours ago, ZachariasX said:

They wanted to make it better. Repeatedly. But the flight performance didn't improve and what it could do better was less needed. That the engine required never materialized didn't help either.

 

I am not aware of anyone who wanted to give the Bf-109 larger wings. It would have made the aircraft slower. All later efforts incresed wing loading.

You can see those "newer" 109s have no bigger wing either.

With the same amount of HP the P-51 could be fast as f*ck with bigger wings. ?

(the 109 even had more HP)

 

[CUJO_1970]

21 hours ago, Roland_HUNter said:

I mean, they should know that with a bigger wing area you could turn better.
I guess they had a bunch of tests with the captured Spit/P-51, which planes had almost or better top speed and better turning capabilities.

Then why did the Germans not change any important things on their planes? Even the not built blueprint Luftwaffe plane has such an effort to improve their wing area.

 

Because turning circles was an obsolescent form of aerial combat, high wing loading was the way of the future as speed is much more important than having some big draggy wing slowing you down.

 

Eric Brown at AFDU said FW190 was "markedly superior" to the Spitfire IX in maneuverability with only exception of tight turn, the 190 was a terrible handful to fight against in the vertical once experienced pilots learned to use it that way. Spitfire became more like 190 than the other way around, and it was the 190 that was an inspiration to the designers of other late-war piston fighters such as the F8F Bearcat.

 

So higher wing loading - it was on purpose as it was the direction all fighters were headed. The only bigger wing put into production by FW was the extreme altitude Ta-152H...but those late war D-11 thru 13 and those Ta-152C kept the same wing and that higher wing loading...because that design was excellent.

 

Same principle with 109 - nothing at all wrong with the wing load per se, that airframe was in combat for 6 years while wing loading only increased and was still shooting aircraft down on the last day of the war in Europe, even if it was on the verge of obsolescence.

 

 

 

 

Edited January 17, 2022 by CUJO_1970

[K3FKefuddle]

On 1/17/2022 at 1:30 AM, Roland_HUNter said:

Anyone have any historical information about that:
Why did the Germans not change important parts on the 109?
I mean, they should know that with a bigger wing area you could turn better.
I guess they had a bunch of tests with the captured Spit/P-51, which planes had almost or better top speed and better turning capabilities.

Then why did the Germans not change any important things on their planes? Even the not built blueprint Luftwaffe plane has such an effort to improve their wing area.

You should check out Greg's Aeroplanes and Automobiles channel. His engineering analysis is first class and discusses such just topics with all the references: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCynGrIaI5vsJQgHJAIp9oSg

[Roland_HUNter]

3 hours ago, Kefuddle said:

You should check out Greg's Aeroplanes and Automobiles channel. His engineering analysis is first class and discusses such just topics with all the references: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCynGrIaI5vsJQgHJAIp9oSg

I know him, He is very good! But I got no answer for my questions from him.
Or I missed a video? Can you link it where he talks about the late 109s?

[IVJG4-Knight]

On 1/16/2022 at 5:30 PM, Roland_HUNter said:

Anyone have any historical information about that:
Why did the Germans not change important parts on the 109?
I mean, they should know that with a bigger wing area you could turn better.
I guess they had a bunch of tests with the captured Spit/P-51, which planes had almost or better top speed and better turning capabilities.

Then why did the Germans not change any important things on their planes? Even the not built blueprint Luftwaffe plane has such an effort to improve their wing area.

 

Very complex answer from me ?

109 design was just a very small area of development for Germany .

 

Fighting on 6-7 fronts in my opinion is resource consuming . Eastern, western , Strategic bomber offensive , technology and code-braking , Atlantic and naval warfare , N Afrika and Italy  etc.

 

Only in submarine warfare and type XXi they invested into the billions . One boat was 20 million Rmarks , just the metal shell , without the sonar , radar, hydraulics  and many more systems  .Trying to fit V2 rockets on submarines , rockets that again costed billions . Speer i think rememberes just the army V2 program costing 500-600 million.

 

They prioritized other things .

There were also politics at play.

 

Also on the eastern front air war was not as much of a problem as on the western front.

They has also multiple AA missile programs .Some radar guided to counter the bomber offensive which was the biggest problem.

 

Long story short they didn't see fighter vs fighter combat as a priority .

 

 

Picture take Rhine area 13 January 1945. Zaloga publication.

 

 

[JtD]

The main requirement for the development of the Bf109 were

 

- faster

- higher climb rates

- more firepower

- better high speed manoeuvering

- longer range

- better visibility

- more protection

 

And also

- cheaper production

- simpler production

- easier maintenance

 

All of which was realized, and nothing on a 1945 Bf109K was the same as on a 1939 Bf109E - with the exception of the very cell. Not even the wings.

 

And if you change the cell, you've got a new aircraft - which in Germany, was the Fw190.

Edited January 21, 2022 by JtD

[Bremspropeller]

On 1/18/2022 at 12:14 AM, CUJO_1970 said:

and those Ta-152C kept the same wing and that higher wing loading

 

The Ta 152C had a slightly larger wing, too.

[Jaws2002]

On 1/21/2022 at 4:09 AM, Bremspropeller said:

 

The Ta 152C had a slightly larger wing, too.

Yep.

 

I have this screenshot from the old Il-2 in my old Photobucket account.

 

The 3d model of the Ta152C had the correct wingspan, but in game engine it had the same wing like the rest of the 190's. Sent it to Oleg, but nothing came of it.

[CountZero]

i remenber ta-152h was turning like crazy down low, grije dedicado server was something like berloga here and you would usealy see 152h outturning spit9s on deck there... but i dubt they tought about turn airplanes when they designed it... it was having that good big wings for turning only because it was made for extra high alts to shoot down b-29 type bombers when they come, when we get 152h with poland 45 i expect it to be best turning airplane out of late war airplanes in game.

Edited January 22, 2022 by CountZero

[K3FKefuddle]

On 1/20/2022 at 9:35 PM, Roland_HUNter said:

I know him, He is very good! But I got no answer for my questions from him.
Or I missed a video? Can you link it where he talks about the late 109s?

I don't think there a specific video on the subject, he brings up the subject of design priorities in one of his other videos. It might have been on the P47 or ta152 ones. In short design priorities for all fighters seems to have been speed, and reducing induced drag was part of that equation which meant not increasing wing area...or even reducing it.

Edited January 22, 2022 by Kefuddle

[JtD]

3 hours ago, Jaws2002 said:

The 3d model of the Ta152C had the correct wingspan, but in game engine it had the same wing like the rest of the 190's.

 

 

In game it had a span of 11.0m and an area of 19.5m². It also had a clmax of 1.65 as compared to 1.40 of the Fw190A. So the correct wing was there, and the lift was overestimated.

[Jaws2002]

57 minutes ago, JtD said:

 

 

In game it had a span of 11.0m and an area of 19.5m². It also had a clmax of 1.65 as compared to 1.40 of the Fw190A. So the correct wing was there, and the lift was overestimated.

 

 

 Thanks. I didn't know that. I always thought it flew like a dog because of the lower wing area....So i guess it flew like a dog, because it was a dog.

[IVJG4-Knight]

18 hours ago, Jaws2002 said:

 

 

 Thanks. I didn't know that. I always thought it flew like a dog because of the lower wing area....So i guess it flew like a dog, because it was a dog.

If we are talking about the long wing Ta and low speed turning only it does have an advantage over the fw190 because of aspect ratio. 

Edited January 23, 2022 by IVJG4-Knight

[JtD]

12 hours ago, Jaws2002 said:

So i guess it flew like a dog, because it was a dog.

 

High mass, small wing combined with what can be considered a high altitude engine. Mediocre performance down low due to mediocre power, mediocre performance up high due to high wing loading.

 

What it had was excellent speed at high altitude, and great firepower, combined with a good range. Unless you went to intercept bombers at altitudes of 8km+, you'd probably have better all around alternatives available.

But then high altitude and bomber interception were both top priorities in German aircraft development, so it does make a bit of sense the ended up with an aircraft like the Ta152C (IRL as well as as depicted in Il-2).

[Kurfurst]

On 1/17/2022 at 2:30 AM, Roland_HUNter said:

Why did the Germans not change important parts on the 109?
I mean, they should know that with a bigger wing area you could turn better.

 

Actually they did. Sorta. Kinda.

 

The first two 109F prototypes, V21 (W.Nr 5602) and V22 (W.Nr 1800) had their wingspan was reduced by 61 cm by "clipping" the tips. It was found that the smaller wings had a negative effect effect on the handling.

 

Since it wasn't such a great idea in practice, they increased the decreased wing area V23, (W.Nr 5603) was fitted with new, semi-elliptical wingtips, which would become the standard wing shape for all future versions Bf 109. In practice it remained much the same as on the previous 109s.

 

On 1/17/2022 at 2:30 AM, Roland_HUNter said:

Then why did the Germans not change any important things on their planes? Even the not built blueprint Luftwaffe plane has such an effort to improve their wing area.

 

Same reason nobody else did - the wing and its shape, distribution of lift and gravity is the heart and soul of how the aircraft flies, and its a major undertaking to get it right, for a given shape. If you touch it, you might as well start to redesign everything else. Besides, it not that they had major with it. The 109 was a fairly good turner already, and could compete well enough in that department, but air combat was decided by surprise and airspeed, not turning ability. Turning ability in any case largely depended on the pilot's skills, but airspeed was more 'hard coded' into the aircraft design. 

[Roland_HUNter]

9 hours ago, VO101Kurfurst said:

Turning ability in any case largely depended on the pilot's skills, but airspeed was more 'hard coded' into the aircraft design. 

Sadly it not true in IL-2.

[DD_Arthur]

48 minutes ago, Roland_HUNter said:

Sadly it not true in IL-2.

 

Roland, what happens in IL2 multiplayer has nothing to do with historical reality.

 

What happens in ALL multiplayer be it CFS or FPS is nonsense from a historical perspective.

[Roland_HUNter]

1 hour ago, DD_Arthur said:

 

Roland, what happens in IL2 multiplayer has nothing to do with historical reality.

 

What happens in ALL multiplayer be it CFS or FPS is nonsense from a historical perspective.

The simulators should try to simualte it, no?

[DD_Arthur]

3 minutes ago, Roland_HUNter said:

The simulators should try to simualte it, no?

 

Well yes they do. They generally give us a decent plane set to choose from, a map giving a reasonable representation of the actual terrain, weather and a 24 hour clock.

 

What we all do with that is the problem.

 

I far as I can see the only group who try and make a reasonably accurate recreation of air combat online is the ACG.

[FTC_Prancing]

Hey guys check this out!

https://flyingtincans.com/

[Heckpupper]

On 1/31/2022 at 10:43 PM, DD_Arthur said:

I far as I can see the only group who try and make a reasonably accurate recreation of air combat online is the ACG.

 

I think you mean FTC: https://flyingtincans.com/ ,

that's where all the ACG campaign runners went to go even further beyond.

[DD_Arthur]

5 hours ago, Heckpupper said:

I think you mean 

 

Well no, I did mean the ACG but if you’re doing something similar then good luck?.

 

How many pilots are you putting in the air on a Sunday atm?

[FTC_Prancing]

14 hours ago, DD_Arthur said:

 

Well no, I did mean the ACG but if you’re doing something similar then good luck?.

 

How many pilots are you putting in the air on a Sunday atm?

No worries, we're pretty new and i just wanted to let you guys know that our aim is to have a top level realistic campaign too ^^ we usually have around 80 pilots, something more, something less ?

[354thFG_Panda_]

On 1/21/2022 at 4:58 AM, JtD said:

The main requirement for the development of the Bf109 were

 

- faster

- higher climb rates

- more firepower

- better high speed manoeuvering

- longer range

- better visibility

- more protection

 

And also

- cheaper production

- simpler production

- easier maintenance

 

All of which was realized, and nothing on a 1945 Bf109K was the same as on a 1939 Bf109E - with the exception of the very cell. Not even the wings.

 

And if you change the cell, you've got a new aircraft - which in Germany, was the Fw190.

How was the increased high speed manoeuvring achieved? What did they physically change in the design for it? It is one thing I noticed in game from F4 to G2 in game and a bit more in the K4.

[JtD]

All controls were changed - ailerons, rudder, elevator. Geometry, balance, internals. Except for E->F the changes were mostly small, but the sum of them made a noticable difference.

[JeanStravinsky]

On 1/18/2022 at 12:14 AM, CUJO_1970 said:

 

Because turning circles was an obsolescent form of aerial combat, high wing loading was the way of the future as speed is much more important than having some big draggy wing slowing you down.

 

Eric Brown at AFDU said FW190 was "markedly superior" to the Spitfire IX in maneuverability with only exception of tight turn, the 190 was a terrible handful to fight against in the vertical once experienced pilots learned to use it that way. Spitfire became more like 190 than the other way around, and it was the 190 that was an inspiration to the designers of other late-war piston fighters such as the F8F Bearcat.

 

So higher wing loading - it was on purpose as it was the direction all fighters were headed. The only bigger wing put into production by FW was the extreme altitude Ta-152H...but those late war D-11 thru 13 and those Ta-152C kept the same wing and that higher wing loading...because that design was excellent.

 

Same principle with 109 - nothing at all wrong with the wing load per se, that airframe was in combat for 6 years while wing loading only increased and was still shooting aircraft down on the last day of the war in Europe, even if it was on the verge of obsolescence.

 

 

 

 

 

 

  On the Me-109 and FW-190 maneuverability in turns:

 

 6- Pierre Clostermann: Audio from the past [E16], WW2 Pierre Clostermann. Chuck Owl channel in Youtube. https://youtu.be/c2zdA9TcIYo 12:44 "Alors il y a les legendes sur le Spitfire... Ahhh puis alors les legendes... Les legendes ont la vie dure... Une des legendes c’est que le Spitfire tournait mieux que le Messerschmitt 109, ou que le FW-190: Eh ben ca c’est une belle blague. D’ailleurs tout ceux qui se sont retrouves avec un FW-190A ou un Messeschmitt tournant a l’interieur, a basse vitesse, eh bien, en general ne sont pas revenus pour se plaindre de la legende. Pourquoi? Au dessus de 280 a 300 noeuds, le Spitfire tournait mieux que le Messerscmitt 109. D’abord en combat tournoyant la vitesse descend descent descent descent, et arrive a un moment, ou la vitesse tombant en dessous de 200 noeuds, le 109 tournait a l’interieur du Spitfire."

https://youtu.be/c2zdA9TcIYo
(At 12:44)

Translation: "So there are legends on the Spitfire... Ahhh the legends... Legends are hard to kill... One of those legends is that the Spitfire turned better than the Messerschmitt 109, or the FW-190. Well that is a good joke... In fact, all those who found themselves with a 109 turning inside them, at low speeds, well those in general did not come back to complain about the legend... Why? Above 280 to 300 knots, the Spitfire turned better than the Me-109. But, first and foremost, in a turning battle, the speed goes down and down and down and down, and at one point there comes a time, when the speed has gone down below 200 knots, that the Me-109 turns inside the Spitfire."

 

 

  Clostermann was the RAF mission record holder (432), had 10 FW-190 kills (18 total), and was a trained Caltech engineer: He is the only WWII pilot I know of to have given fellow pilots technical conferences on German aircrafts...

 

  But, in case this does not do it, what was the opinion of the top Spitfire ace (36 kills), and top FW-190A killer (20) on a similar turning aircraft at low speeds? (Actually, the FW-190A was probably marginally better than the Me-109G at low speeds):

 

  Johnny Johnson "My duel with the Focke-Wulf": "With wide-open throttles I held the Spitfire V in the tightest of vertical turns [Period slang for vertical bank]. I was greying out. Where was this German, who should, according to my reckoning, be filling my gunsight? I could not see him, and little wonder, for he was gaining on me: In another couple of turns he would have me in his sights. -I asked the Spitfire for all she had in the turn, but the enemy pilot hung behind like a leech. -It could only be a question of time..."

 

 "Tactical and Technical Trends", No. 37, November 4, 1943 (a US Army translation of a Russian "Red Fleet" article detailing one year of front wide combat:

-The speed of the FW-190 is slightly higher than that of the Messerschmitt; it also has more powerful armament and is more maneuverable in horizontal flight.

-They interact in the following manner:
Me-109G will usually perform dive and climb attacks using superior airspeed after their dive.
FW-190 will commit to the fight even if our battle formation is not broken, preferring left turning fights. There has been cases of such turning fights lasting quite a long time, with multiple planes from both sides involved in each engagement."

-Being very stable and having a large range of speeds, the FW-190 will inevitably offer turning battle at a minimum speed.

 

  That being said, I think the Me-109G and the FW-190A were actually not that far apart in turning ability at low speeds (below 250 mph, since above that speed the Fw-190A was literally the worst fighter of WWII in turns or loops, due to an incredibly strong tendency to mush). Me-109 pilots tended to keep power high and stay at high speeds, which might have contributed to the perception of poor turning in many circumstances. Also, when using the rudder to maintain a sustained speed turn (3 Gs at 70 degrees of bank), this at speeds above 250 mph, the Me-109 pilot already had a heavy left foot load (from a right drifting trim change at 250 mph that had no rudder trim to alleviate) which made sustaining high speed left turns much more difficult than right turns above 250 mph, making high speed sustained left turns poorer than right turns. 5-6 Gs fully banked 90 degrees turns would have been unaffected by the rudder trim, but such steep turns were not often that practical in real life use, since it dropped you below the opponent...

 

  As to turn fighting being outdated, this was (for the Germans at least) largely a false impression left by the Eastern Front and the Russian doctrine of one-way radios (hit and run was mostly effective on an unaware target: Diving attacks, in real life, were easily broken by turning, or going head-to-head).

 

  Concerning the one-way radios, most often only the Russian flight leader had a two-way radio: Gunther Rall: "It was like fighting an apparatus: You took out the tip of the V, and the rest of the formation milled about in confusion."

 

  This is what happened when a 136 kill Eastern Front ace was transferred into an environment with two-way radios and where turn fighting was the key to survival (as one FW-190A-8 ace put it: "Our wings were never level in combat: We turned continuously to one side, without a pause. Outnumbered as we were by then (1945), it was the only way to survive."

 

  So here is what happened on June 7th, 1944, to a 136 kill ace who thought turn fighting was obsolete:

 

  -“Defenders of the Reich” JG 1 p. 247: Ofhr. Hubert Heckmann (5 kills, survived the War): “I became wingman to the new Kommandeur, Hptm. Karl-Heinz Weber. His only experience was from the Eastern Front, and from time to time he used the words “pull up during air combat”. I assumed that he would make use of this method in the West, and I warned him about doing so. As his Kaczmarek I did not want to lose my protégé on his first mission- that would be a bad omen. But he cast all my well-meant recommendations to the wind on our first mission. Weber had a highly polished aircraft and whereas we all looked like gray mice, he differed from the rest of the formation. Besides he had Methanol on board. (Me-109G-6AS with MW-50)—(7^th June) Flying at 1000 m. about 30 P-51s showed up some 500 meters above us. After passing us they made a downward turn. Weber didn’t turn in, but pulled up steep into the sky, dragging a Methanol cloud behind him. I yelled “turn in!” but he did not listen. I saw 4 P-51s coming down on me, and pulled into a slight left bank to distract them from Weber. My self-sacrifice was of no use; two P-51s stayed behind me, and the other two went after Weber. I fought my two opponents for more than 30 minutes. They moved off when, eventually, they lost much of their speed. That evening we were informed Hptm. Weber (136 kills) was dead.”

 

  

  Me-109G pilots, especially in early 1944, tended to turn poorly because they did not chop the throttle and turned at high power. By late 1944, you see in accounts that Me-109Gs are starting to turn much better: They were finally "getting it", but very late compared to the Allies, who had long been chopping their throttles...

 

  The Japanese Navy never "got it", which meant turning was the preserve of a few pilots who bucked the IJN doctrine emphasizing vertical maneuvers. As one US Navy pilot put it in September 1942:

 

  "In my opinion they (Zero pilots) have generally poor fighter tactics. Zeroes could not be shaken by us if they would chop their throttle and sit on our tail." 

 

(This new discovery of the Zero's actual tactical doctrine -that is, to avoid turns whenever possible- is to the credit of aviation historian Justin Pyke, consulting original intelligence archives of the period)

 

 This pragmatic realisation of the importance of turn fighting (which was against the long standing hit and run dogma, which dominated since at least the early 1930s, the 1930s Polish PZL P fighters being entirely designed around it, being capable of 850 km/h dives and having fully mobile tails for faster dive pull-outs), meant that the relative dominance of turn fighting was accepted as an informal fact by front-line units in Allied forces faster than by Axis forces, but never formalized (which is why it is virtually unknown today, hit and run being the preserve of a few aces loitering to score on stragglers, these few high scoring exceptions seemingly distorting the entire perception of hit and run's importance relative to turn fighting).

 

The simple WWII reality is that the available guns with actual live rounds turned out not to work all that well at high angles and high crossing speeds... Turn fighting, on the other hand, protected from fire coming from outside the circle (you can't draw lead on a curve you are not sharing), and "trapped" a steady target because once engaged, you could not roll out (as usual, German pilots were often the last to get it):

 

 Lt. Col. Horace C Craig, P-47 ace, observed (Osprey 8th fighter command at war, "Long Reach", P.31): "Once a turn is started, it is of the utmost importance to NEVER reverse your turn. It has been my observation that a great majority of the victories of my unit were made good when the Hun reversed his turn."

 Maj. Robert Elder, 350th FS, 24 March 1945, (P-51D 0-4212717): "Just as I was at about 30 degrees angle off, this Jerry reversed his turn (they are stupid that way), and I latched on to his tail at about 100 yards range. I got strikes all over the plane, and he caught fire in the air and crashed burning." 

 

 The Japanese Army did not share the Navy's turn-avoidance doctrinal emphasis, and this is what front line commanders thought of "outdated" turn fighting in late 1944:

  

-From Osprey "Ki-43 'Oscar' aces of World War 2": P.50: "(Sgt Toshimi Ikezawa, Ki-43 ace) I heard Major Eto had refused delivery of the Ki-84. -- A Hayate pilot would simply drop the nose, and be off in a flash... They could not avoid an attack if it came from above however, because of the Ki-84's poor rate of turn. 

   This meant the Hayates would routinely head for home while we (Ki-43s) were left to dogfight with the Spitfires. 50th Sentai pilots became notorious for firing a few cannon bursts at the enemy and then fleeing the scene... I think we owe our survival to the Ki-43, as the Ki-84 would have left you in a mighty tight spot if you were attacked from above by P-51s. ---Skilled (Spitfire Mk VIII) enemy pilots such as flight leaders would pull out of their dives when they realized they could not catch us [unaware]. New pilots would dive straight down on us, leaving them vulnerable in a turning fight." 

 

  As to the importance of lowering throttle in turns, I'll just point out to these two quotes:

 

  "I learned to fly with the "Cannon-Mersu" (MT-461). I found that when fighter pilots got in a battle, they usually applied full power and then began to turn. In the same situation I used to decrease power, and with lower speed was able to turn equally well.."
" When the enemy decreased power, I used to throttle back even more. In a high speed the turning radius is wider, using less speed I was able to out-turn him having a shorter turning radius. Then you got the deflection. --250kmh seemed to be the optimal speed. (160 mph)"
- Kyösti Karhila

 

  Hansemann:  http://www.spitfireperformance.com/mustang/combat-reports/33...

 

"The second Me-109 was maneuvering to get on my tail, and a dogfight developed at 500 ft. (after climbing from 150 ft. following a slow gaining attack on a landing Me-109) At first he began to turn inside me. Then he stopped cutting me off as I cut throttle, dropped 20 degrees of flaps and increased prop pitch. Every time I got to the edge of the [German] airdrome they opened fire with light AA guns. [Meaning was forced to turn multiple consecutive 360s continuously, even when going towards the enemy ground fire...] Gradually I worked the Me-109G away from the field, and commenced to turn inside of him as I reduced throttle settings."

 

 

  Not only was turn fighting not obsolete, but its importance relative to hit and run never stopped increasing throughout the prop era. Real-life guns were simply not that great on targets zooming past you... (Unlike in electronic games: Just consider how at 400 mph your rounds are 1/4 slower relative to your speed, 1/8 at 200: Which will look flatter shooting?: Captured FW-190s were found to be sighted to hit about six to ten feet above aiming point)... Even Eric Hartmann, the king of stalking lone stragglers, was forced to fire so close, to have a conclusive effect, that most of the times he ended up "shot down", it was caused by his target's flying debris. His record is not quite the endorsement of hit and run it would seem (and I also doubt his score was 352)...

 

  

 

  

 

  

 

 

  

 

  

 

  

 

  

 

 

 

  

 

  

Edited November 30, 2022 by JeanStravinsky

[Youtch]

On 11/30/2022 at 5:48 PM, JeanStravinsky said:

On 1/18/2022 at 12:14 AM, CUJO_1970 said:

 

Because turning circles was an obsolescent form of aerial combat, high wing loading was the way of the future as speed is much more important than having some big draggy wing slowing you down.

 

Eric Brown at AFDU said FW190 was "markedly superior" to the Spitfire IX in maneuverability with only exception of tight turn, the 190 was a terrible handful to fight against in the vertical once experienced pilots learned to use it that way. Spitfire became more like 190 than the other way around, and it was the 190 that was an inspiration to the designers of other late-war piston fighters such as the F8F Bearcat.

 

So higher wing loading - it was on purpose as it was the direction all fighters were headed. The only bigger wing put into production by FW was the extreme altitude Ta-152H...but those late war D-11 thru 13 and those Ta-152C kept the same wing and that higher wing loading...because that design was excellent.

 

Same principle with 109 - nothing at all wrong with the wing load per se, that airframe was in combat for 6 years while wing loading only increased and was still shooting aircraft down on the last day of the war in Europe, even if it was on the verge of obsolescence.

 

 

 

 

Expand  

 

 

  On the Me-109 and FW-190 maneuverability in turns:

 

 6- Pierre Clostermann: Audio from the past [E16], WW2 Pierre Clostermann. Chuck Owl channel in Youtube. https://youtu.be/c2zdA9TcIYo 12:44 "Alors il y a les legendes sur le Spitfire... Ahhh puis alors les legendes... Les legendes ont la vie dure... Une des legendes c’est que le Spitfire tournait mieux que le Messerschmitt 109, ou que le FW-190: Eh ben ca c’est une belle blague. D’ailleurs tout ceux qui se sont retrouves avec un FW-190A ou un Messeschmitt tournant a l’interieur, a basse vitesse, eh bien, en general ne sont pas revenus pour se plaindre de la legende. Pourquoi? Au dessus de 280 a 300 noeuds, le Spitfire tournait mieux que le Messerscmitt 109. D’abord en combat tournoyant la vitesse descend descent descent descent, et arrive a un moment, ou la vitesse tombant en dessous de 200 noeuds, le 109 tournait a l’interieur du Spitfire."

https://youtu.be/c2zdA9TcIYo
(At 12:44)

Translation: "So there are legends on the Spitfire... Ahhh the legends... Legends are hard to kill... One of those legends is that the Spitfire turned better than the Messerschmitt 109, or the FW-190. Well that is a good joke... In fact, all those who found themselves with a 109 turning inside them, at low speeds, well those in general did not come back to complain about the legend... Why? Above 280 to 300 knots, the Spitfire turned better than the Me-109. But, first and foremost, in a turning battle, the speed goes down and down and down and down, and at one point there comes a time, when the speed has gone down below 200 knots, that the Me-109 turns inside the Spitfire."

 

 

  Clostermann was the RAF mission record holder (432), had 10 FW-190 kills (18 total), and was a trained Caltech engineer: He is the only WWII pilot I know of to have given fellow pilots technical conferences on German aircrafts...

 

  But, in case this does not do it, what was the opinion of the top Spitfire ace (36 kills), and top FW-190A killer (20) on a similar turning aircraft at low speeds? (Actually, the FW-190A was probably marginally better than the Me-109G at low speeds):

 

  Johnny Johnson "My duel with the Focke-Wulf": "With wide-open throttles I held the Spitfire V in the tightest of vertical turns [Period slang for vertical bank]. I was greying out. Where was this German, who should, according to my reckoning, be filling my gunsight? I could not see him, and little wonder, for he was gaining on me: In another couple of turns he would have me in his sights. -I asked the Spitfire for all she had in the turn, but the enemy pilot hung behind like a leech. -It could only be a question of time..."

 

 "Tactical and Technical Trends", No. 37, November 4, 1943 (a US Army translation of a Russian "Red Fleet" article detailing one year of front wide combat:

-The speed of the FW-190 is slightly higher than that of the Messerschmitt; it also has more powerful armament and is more maneuverable in horizontal flight.

-They interact in the following manner:
Me-109G will usually perform dive and climb attacks using superior airspeed after their dive.
FW-190 will commit to the fight even if our battle formation is not broken, preferring left turning fights. There has been cases of such turning fights lasting quite a long time, with multiple planes from both sides involved in each engagement."

-Being very stable and having a large range of speeds, the FW-190 will inevitably offer turning battle at a minimum speed.

 

  That being said, I think the Me-109G and the FW-190A were actually not that far apart in turning ability at low speeds (below 250 mph, since above that speed the Fw-190A was literally the worst fighter of WWII in turns or loops, due to an incredibly strong tendency to mush). Me-109 pilots tended to keep power high and stay at high speeds, which might have contributed to the perception of poor turning in many circumstances. Also, when using the rudder to maintain a sustained speed turn (3 Gs at 70 degrees of bank), this at speeds above 250 mph, the Me-109 pilot already had a heavy left foot load (from a right drifting trim change at 250 mph that had no rudder trim to alleviate) which made sustaining high speed left turns much more difficult than right turns above 250 mph, making high speed sustained left turns poorer than right turns. 5-6 Gs fully banked 90 degrees turns would have been unaffected by the rudder trim, but such steep turns were not often that practical in real life use, since it dropped you below the opponent...

 

  As to turn fighting being outdated, this was (for the Germans at least) largely a false impression left by the Eastern Front and the Russian doctrine of one-way radios (hit and run was mostly effective on an unaware target: Diving attacks, in real life, were easily broken by turning, or going head-to-head).

 

  Concerning the one-way radios, most often only the Russian flight leader had a two-way radio: Gunther Rall: "It was like fighting an apparatus: You took out the tip of the V, and the rest of the formation milled about in confusion."

 

  This is what happened when a 136 kill Eastern Front ace was transferred into an environment with two-way radios and where turn fighting was the key to survival (as one FW-190A-8 ace put it: "Our wings were never level in combat: We turned continuously to one side, without a pause. Outnumbered as we were by then (1945), it was the only way to survive."

 

  So here is what happened on June 7th, 1944, to a 136 kill ace who thought turn fighting was obsolete:

 

  -“Defenders of the Reich” JG 1 p. 247: Ofhr. Hubert Heckmann (5 kills, survived the War): “I became wingman to the new Kommandeur, Hptm. Karl-Heinz Weber. His only experience was from the Eastern Front, and from time to time he used the words “pull up during air combat”. I assumed that he would make use of this method in the West, and I warned him about doing so. As his Kaczmarek I did not want to lose my protégé on his first mission- that would be a bad omen. But he cast all my well-meant recommendations to the wind on our first mission. Weber had a highly polished aircraft and whereas we all looked like gray mice, he differed from the rest of the formation. Besides he had Methanol on board. (Me-109G-6AS with MW-50)—(7^th June) Flying at 1000 m. about 30 P-51s showed up some 500 meters above us. After passing us they made a downward turn. Weber didn’t turn in, but pulled up steep into the sky, dragging a Methanol cloud behind him. I yelled “turn in!” but he did not listen. I saw 4 P-51s coming down on me, and pulled into a slight left bank to distract them from Weber. My self-sacrifice was of no use; two P-51s stayed behind me, and the other two went after Weber. I fought my two opponents for more than 30 minutes. They moved off when, eventually, they lost much of their speed. That evening we were informed Hptm. Weber (136 kills) was dead.”

 

  

  Me-109G pilots, especially in early 1944, tended to turn poorly because they did not chop the throttle and turned at high power. By late 1944, you see in accounts that Me-109Gs are starting to turn much better: They were finally "getting it", but very late compared to the Allies, who had long been chopping their throttles...

 

  The Japanese Navy never "got it", which meant turning was the preserve of a few pilots who bucked the IJN doctrine emphasizing vertical maneuvers. As one US Navy pilot put it in September 1942:

 

  "In my opinion they (Zero pilots) have generally poor fighter tactics. Zeroes could not be shaken by us if they would chop their throttle and sit on our tail." 

 

(This new discovery of the Zero's actual tactical doctrine -that is, to avoid turns whenever possible- is to the credit of aviation historian Justin Pyke, consulting original intelligence archives of the period)

 

 This pragmatic realisation of the importance of turn fighting (which was against the long standing hit and run dogma, which dominated since at least the early 1930s, the 1930s Polish PZL P fighters being entirely designed around it, being capable of 850 km/h dives and having fully mobile tails for faster dive pull-outs), meant that the relative dominance of turn fighting was accepted as an informal fact by front-line units in Allied forces faster than by Axis forces, but never formalized (which is why it is virtually unknown today, hit and run being the preserve of a few aces loitering to score on stragglers, these few high scoring exceptions seemingly distorting the entire perception of hit and run's importance relative to turn fighting).

 

The simple WWII reality is that the available guns with actual live rounds turned out not to work all that well at high angles and high crossing speeds... Turn fighting, on the other hand, protected from fire coming from outside the circle (you can't draw lead on a curve you are not sharing), and "trapped" a steady target because once engaged, you could not roll out (as usual, German pilots were often the last to get it):

 

 Lt. Col. Horace C Craig, P-47 ace, observed (Osprey 8th fighter command at war, "Long Reach", P.31): "Once a turn is started, it is of the utmost importance to NEVER reverse your turn. It has been my observation that a great majority of the victories of my unit were made good when the Hun reversed his turn."

 Maj. Robert Elder, 350th FS, 24 March 1945, (P-51D 0-4212717): "Just as I was at about 30 degrees angle off, this Jerry reversed his turn (they are stupid that way), and I latched on to his tail at about 100 yards range. I got strikes all over the plane, and he caught fire in the air and crashed burning." 

 

 The Japanese Army did not share the Navy's turn-avoidance doctrinal emphasis, and this is what front line commanders thought of "outdated" turn fighting in late 1944:

  

-From Osprey "Ki-43 'Oscar' aces of World War 2": P.50: "(Sgt Toshimi Ikezawa, Ki-43 ace) I heard Major Eto had refused delivery of the Ki-84. -- A Hayate pilot would simply drop the nose, and be off in a flash... They could not avoid an attack if it came from above however, because of the Ki-84's poor rate of turn. 

   This meant the Hayates would routinely head for home while we (Ki-43s) were left to dogfight with the Spitfires. 50th Sentai pilots became notorious for firing a few cannon bursts at the enemy and then fleeing the scene... I think we owe our survival to the Ki-43, as the Ki-84 would have left you in a mighty tight spot if you were attacked from above by P-51s. ---Skilled (Spitfire Mk VIII) enemy pilots such as flight leaders would pull out of their dives when they realized they could not catch us [unaware]. New pilots would dive straight down on us, leaving them vulnerable in a turning fight." 

 

  As to the importance of lowering throttle in turns, I'll just point out to these two quotes:

 

  "I learned to fly with the "Cannon-Mersu" (MT-461). I found that when fighter pilots got in a battle, they usually applied full power and then began to turn. In the same situation I used to decrease power, and with lower speed was able to turn equally well.."
" When the enemy decreased power, I used to throttle back even more. In a high speed the turning radius is wider, using less speed I was able to out-turn him having a shorter turning radius. Then you got the deflection. --250kmh seemed to be the optimal speed. (160 mph)"
- Kyösti Karhila

 

  Hansemann:  http://www.spitfireperformance.com/mustang/combat-reports/33...

 

"The second Me-109 was maneuvering to get on my tail, and a dogfight developed at 500 ft. (after climbing from 150 ft. following a slow gaining attack on a landing Me-109) At first he began to turn inside me. Then he stopped cutting me off as I cut throttle, dropped 20 degrees of flaps and increased prop pitch. Every time I got to the edge of the [German] airdrome they opened fire with light AA guns. [Meaning was forced to turn multiple consecutive 360s continuously, even when going towards the enemy ground fire...] Gradually I worked the Me-109G away from the field, and commenced to turn inside of him as I reduced throttle settings."

 

 

  Not only was turn fighting not obsolete, but its importance relative to hit and run never stopped increasing throughout the prop era. Real-life guns were simply not that great on targets zooming past you... (Unlike in electronic games: Just consider how at 400 mph your rounds are 1/4 slower relative to your speed, 1/8 at 200: Which will look flatter shooting?: Captured FW-190s were found to be sighted to hit about six to ten feet above aiming point)... Even Eric Hartmann, the king of stalking lone stragglers, was forced to fire so close, to have a conclusive effect, that most of the times he ended up "shot down", it was caused by his target's flying debris. His record is not quite the endorsement of hit and run it would seem (and I also doubt his score was 352)...

This is one of the most interesting post i have read in a long time. Thanks for sharing.

 

 

On 11/30/2022 at 5:48 PM, JeanStravinsky said:

when using the rudder to maintain a sustained speed turn (3 Gs at 70 degrees of bank), this at speeds above 250 mph, the Me-109 pilot already had a heavy left foot load (from a right drifting trim change at 250 mph that had no rudder trim to alleviate) which made sustaining high speed left turns much more difficult than right turns above 250 mph, making high speed sustained left turns poorer than right turns

Can you please explain more, i am not sure to understand.  Many thanks in advance.

[JG7_X-Man]

On 1/16/2022 at 8:30 PM, Roland_HUNter said:

Anyone have any historical information about that:
Why did the Germans not change important parts on the 109?
I mean, they should know that with a bigger wing area you could turn better.
I guess they had a bunch of tests with the captured Spit/P-51, which planes had almost or better top speed and better turning capabilities.

Then why did the Germans not change any important things on their planes? Even the not built blueprint Luftwaffe plane has such an effort to improve their wing area.

 

@Roland_HUNter The Spitfire was always in catch up with the Luftwaffe until late '43.

Bf 109E-1 - Bf 109E-4 all better than the Spitfire I

Bf 109F-2 - Bf 109F-4 all better than the Spitfire II and Spitfire V

 

Remember - the 109 always had a fuel injected engine could perform negative G maneuvers that a Spitfire would have difficulty following.

 

It was only when the Spitfire was equipped with the Griffon and the  Rolls-Royce Merlin engine with the "two stage" super charger that the Spitfire started to pull away significantly in performance.

 

Every Luftwaffe pilot (IRL) knew not to get into an extended horizontal turn fight with a Spitfire. In video games - that rule isn't followed as there is no risk really in our arm chair combat flying game. In game, you can turn with an Spitfire in the same Bf 109 generation class. The idea is to keep your speed up, use oblique turns only (out-of-plane maneuvers) and get an altitude advantage and don't loose it! Against AI (ACE), this is easy. Against humans, it takes practice and usually works especially with over confident Spitfire pilots and they usually claim cheating as they don't know how to read their opponent's energy state LOL.

 

Note: If things went as the Luftwaffe had planned, the Me 262 would have replaced the Bf 109 anyway.

[[F.Circus]MoerasGrizzly]

The imo excellent Wages of Destruction goes into some detail as to why the BF109 development went the way it did economically. The short version is that most of the BF109 variants are stopgap measures for the fact that production of a replacement plane did not materialize. The 109 should've gone the way of the Hurricane, but the failure of several R&D projects, the simple fact that the Nazis faced a perpetual resource shortage and the urgent need for more fighter planes when the Allies stepped up their air assaults meant that endlessly iterating the bf109 was a value proposition.

 

Ultimately this is an airframe from 1935. There's only so much you can do with it, and that really starts to show from the G onwards.

Edited February 24, 2023 by [F.Circus]MoerasGrizzly

[Kurfurst]

On 2/24/2023 at 11:37 AM, [F.Circus]MoerasGrizzly said:

The imo excellent Wages of Destruction goes into some detail as to why the BF109 development went the way it did economically. The short version is that most of the BF109 variants are stopgap measures for the fact that production of a replacement plane did not materialize. The 109 should've gone the way of the Hurricane, but the failure of several R&D projects, the simple fact that the Nazis faced a perpetual resource shortage and the urgent need for more fighter planes when the Allies stepped up their air assaults meant that endlessly iterating the bf109 was a value proposition.

 

Tooze has zero understanding of fighter aircraft development. It was more of a case several alternatives that emerged (Fw 190, various Italian planes, Messerschmitt's own 209/309 line), but none of them could actually offer a real advantage and materially surpass the 109 base design which was built on sound engineering principles, and simply got things right. The evaluations made of these planes showed that clearly. The 190s production ratio was cut back for this very reason to 1/3 from the originally insisted 50-50, the Italian planes had little to offer and were hand built by small shops with several times the man hours required, and the new Messerschmitt designs merely showed slight speed increase with greatly reduced manouverability and simply not worth the change, as the same improvements to the 109 would yield similar gains on the existing 109 design without messing with production lines. 

 

Ultimately the Germans wanted to retire the 109 largely on the basis that it could not carry an optimal heavy armament. Against fighters, they considered it completely fine, their headache were the large heavy bombers they were going against. To that it must be added that the 'optimal armament' in the German high brass mind was totally out of this world and they literally asked for things like carrying 3 MK 103s and 2 MK 108s and the like. No other plane in existence could carry that kind of insane firepower either, and IMO it was more of a desperate attempt to somehow make up for loosing air superiority and the experienced pilots with an surrealistic amount of firepower mounted. This was nonsense - the 'normal' firepower on the existing planes seemed to worked perfectly well when used by experienced pilots over Schweinfurt, Ploesti etc., their problems were elsewhere. Ultimately they wanted total conversion to the Ta 152 (because of its size and altitude performance against mythical B-29 capabilities) and the jets.

 

On 2/24/2023 at 11:37 AM, [F.Circus]MoerasGrizzly said:

Ultimately this is an airframe from 1935. There's only so much you can do with it, and that really starts to show from the G onwards.

 

Yeah an airframe from 1935, that merely got a complete overhaul in 1938 (109E), a complete redesign of all major aerodynamic structures in 1939-40 (109F), and a vast amount detail refinement in 1943 (109K).  As for the 109G, it was only a minor change compared to the 109F airframe, so much so that they literally shared their parts manual, and was essentially a 109F with very minor changes. The only thing that's left more or less the same of the original 1935 design was the fuselage section between the engine and the tail unit. 

Edited March 1, 2023 by VO101Kurfurst

[Bremspropeller]

4 hours ago, VO101Kurfurst said:

Yeah an airframe from 1935, that merely got a complete overhaul in 1938 (109E), a complete redesign of all major aerodynamic structures in 1939-40 (109F), and a vast amount detail refinement in 1943 (109K).  As for the 109G, it was only a minor change compared to the 109F airframe, so much so that they literally shared their parts manual, and was essentially a 109F with very minor changes. The only thing that's left more or less the same of the original 1935 design was the fuselage section between the engine and the tail unit. 

 

There was no more volume for more gas. Even the similarily sized 190A managed to squeeze 115l of additional fuel into the fuselage and when they finally wised up they'd later start to put additional fuel bladders into the wings, which weren't crowded with landing-gears and radiators. The war ended before serial production, though.

 

The 190 was the better design for future growth and overall combat potential.

 

 

[JG7_X-Man]

@Bremspropeller and @VO101Kurfurst you guys know of any documentation on long term plans for the 109 as test flights began on April 1941 on the Me 262. I would have through the 109 would be phased out immediately if the 262 had come online sooner. I agree 100% on the RLM had no need to replace to 109 but fewer units were using it as the war progressed for sure - what those percentages are, I don't know.

[sevenless]

6 hours ago, JG7_X-Man said:

@Bremspropeller and @VO101Kurfurst you guys know of any documentation on long term plans for the 109 as test flights began on April 1941 on the Me 262. I would have through the 109 would be phased out immediately if the 262 had come online sooner. I agree 100% on the RLM had no need to replace to 109 but fewer units were using it as the war progressed for sure - what those percentages are, I don't know.

 

Not directly answering your question, but Prien/Rodeike has this to say about the 109s planned after the K4 and usually that source is regarded as being pretty reliable:

 

[JeanStravinsky]

On 2/21/2023 at 11:38 PM, Youtch said:

This is one of the most interesting post i have read in a long time. Thanks for sharing.

 

 

Can you please explain more, i am not sure to understand.  Many thanks in advance.

 

  It basically means that when turning at high power while sustaining the altitude and speed, which you would tend to do to not cede the "higher ground" (sliding below the opponent is assumed bad by most pilots), you cannot bank the aircraft very steeply to maintain that altitude (around 60 degrees at most), which brings in the rudder as an important assistance to turning that would otherwise be irrelevant at 90 degrees (and losing altitude). The problem is the Me-109's strong right-nose drifting above 250 mph, which already fully occupies the left foot to keep the nose centered, preventing assistance for mild 3G left sustained altitude turns, since just to keep the nose drifting opposite to your left turn is already a heavy foot load at 250-270 mph... (Me-109 squadrons in 1943 joked that the Me-109 pilot can be recognized by his over-developed left leg).

 

  The solution would be to reduce power to allow the turn to slow to around 200 mph or less, which would liberate the left rudder pressure to help the turn (and that rudder load, even for 2 degrees of rudder deflection at 250-270 mph, is already very heavy, contrary to the gradual build up you might imagine), but the Luftwaffe and Japanese Navy were wedded to speed and hit and run, so their turning doctrine did not allow reducing the power to accommodate a slower, tighter radius (very important in real life, to gain aiming lead).

 

   The result is that the Me-109G keeps the power high, keeps the speed above 230-250 mph in the turn, and then turned badly to left if it lost altitude in moderate amounts (because of not turning hard enough to be fully banked at 90 degrees). So if the opponent chooses to turn left at that higher speed, but loses only moderate amounts of altitude, then the Me-109 becomes out-turned by just about everything, even though at lower speed/power, or at a higher 90 bank with lots of height loss, it would not be out-turned, and would on the contrary out-turn Spitfires below about 220 mph, as Clostermann said.

 

  The Russian Air Force in Yak-9s also had a policy of keeping the power to maximum throughout the mission, but a few pilots knew better and would reduce the throttle to turn better. I think there is a physics problem in that there is a leverage issue (input reversal) that makes lower power turn better (or makes 190s turn better than most types at low speed for that matter, even though they actually turn absolutely horribly at high speeds).

 

  Cutting throttle seemed more common on La-5FNs, and Karhila, in his 109G-6 with gondolas, would cut the throttle even more, and accept the turning contest...

 

  This really shows how important the smaller radius was, and how important low speed turning was in WWII: The dynamic was a contest of cutting the throttle, for who could get the smallest radius. It was "a race where the slowest won", to quote a saying of the period... Spitfires, having no partial flaps, had to be content with faster wider circles, but they had good 3 axis control in pre-stall buffeting, so they would lift the nose and stall briefly, to take (mediocre) pot-shots at the smaller, slower German circles of (mostly) FW-190As (since 109s tended to -wrongly- keep the speed high). The 190A's high speed handling was so horrible, it gave its pilots almost no choice but to fight "correctly" with the throttle down... But the 190A could be fast however, and in those occasions it just went dead straight, with hardly any maneuvering. Or the pilot was a newbie, and the 190A tried to maneuver at high speeds, usually going down for thousands of feet with the nose up, with the often described "pancaking" belly first at the end... (Very common and extremely typical: Also never observed with 109s...)

 

  Despite their high throttle policy, the Russian Air Force understood the importance of turning at low speeds, as did the Japanese Army. These are just about the only two services that "got it" (somewhat) for most of the War. One of the most stubborn groups, when it came to sticking with speed and hit and run, was the Luftwaffe's Me-109 pilots (especially pilots coming in from the East), but the most stubborn clinger to speed over turning was the Japanese Navy (a recent discovery by historian Justin Pyke). US Navy pilots even berated Zero pilots for not cutting their throttles and turning...

 

   The easiest way to tell the extent of the hold of the hit and run doctrine on a pilot is when, with a Japanese Navy pilot for instance, the first thing he emphasizes: "You must fire at the last moment. 50 meters, 30 meters."

 

  THAT is extremely typical of the hit and run doctrine, because this high speed method is so easily broken by simply turning at low speed: In order to work (and hit and run can be made to work, sort of), the target must be unaware as long as possible during the attack, and the guns also do not like mismatching speeds, so you have to use them at point-blank range to give them a chance.... That is why Eric Hartmann was shot down over a dozen times by debris...

 

  What is the FIRST thing a WWII Russian-trained pilot will emphasize? : "It is very important to not be on the outside of the turn, to gain a steady aiming lead."

 

  Or take as an example, how the Japanese Army deals with hit and run: 

 

  Oblt Losigkeit (German test flying Me-109E-7, in Japan, against Ki-27): “The Ki-27 often turns, so I cannot dive on it.”

 

  Osprey "Ki-43 aces of WWII" p.50: Sgt. Toshimi Ikezawa, Ki-43 ace: "I heard Major Eto had refused delivery of the Ki-84 (640-660 km/h). They could not avoid an attack if it came from above, because of the Ki-84's poor rate of turn (17-18 s. left, 20-21 s. right). I think we owe our survival to the Ki-43 (540 km/h, 13 s. turn either way), as the Ki-84 would have left you in a tight spot if attacked from above by P-51s. Skilled Spitfire [Mk VIII] pilots would pull out of their dives when they realized they could not catch us [unaware]. New [Spitfire] pilots would continue to dive straight down on us, leaving them vulnerable in a turning fight..."

 

  If you read Western Front Me-109G combat accounts from the late 1944 period vs the early 1944 period, you see the heavier later Me-109G/Ks turn much better by the Fall of 1944, because their pilots finally learned to cut the throttle (keep in mind cutting the throttle was against theories taught at fighter schools)...

 

  (Note MW-50 boosting is probably not a factor in this Fall '44 improvement in 109G turning performance: It was not as widely used on 109s as is assumed, to the point I read two separate instances of C-3 dependent FW-190As landing at Me-109G bases, in October and November 1944, and becoming stranded there because no C-3 fuel was available...: Meaning all those 109s at those two separate bases used no MW-50 by late 1944... MW-50 was mostly a widespread Summer of 1944 thing for G-14s, this system being based on the assumption that speed was all that mattered...: But the word was slowly getting around that you cut the throttle and turned ALL THE TIME if you wanted to survive while being out-numbered in the West... A very interesting account demonstrates this well:

 

 -“Defenders of the Reich” JG 1 p. 247: Ofhr. Hubert Heckmann (5 kills, survived the War): “I became wingman to the new Kommandeur, Hptm. Karl-Heinz Weber. His only experience was from the Eastern Front, and from time to time he used the words “pull up during air combat”. I assumed that he would make use of this method in the West, and I warned him about doing so. As his "Kaczmarek", I did not want to lose my "protégé" on his first mission- that would be a bad omen. But he cast all my well-meant recommendations to the wind on our first mission. Weber had a highly polished aircraft (thus emphasizing speed) and whereas we all looked like gray mice, he differed from the rest of the formation. Besides he had Methanol on board (again, emphasis on speed in every option: Me-109G-6AS with MW-50)—7th June Flying at 1000 m. about 30 P-51s showed up some 500 meters above us. After passing us they made a downward turn. Weber didn’t turn in, but pulled up steep into the sky, dragging a Methanol cloud behind him. I yelled “turn in!” but he did not listen. I saw 4 P-51s coming down on me, and pulled into a slight left bank (meaning he reduced his turn to entice them to him) to distract them from Weber. My self-sacrifice was of no use; two P-51s stayed behind me, and the other two went after Weber. I fought my two opponents for more than 30 minutes. They moved off when, eventually, they lost much of their speed. That evening we were informed Hptm. Weber (136 kills) was dead."

 

   So much for air combat experience, and the rules of air combat, being universal... Just consider for a moment what you just read: A 5 kill ace was desperately trying to save the bacon of a naive 136 kill ace, who still thought turns were bad and the vertical was king...

 

  

Edited July 30, 2023 by JeanStravinsky
clarity