Updated RAF FMs in 1.07.18301

[Glider]

Originally Posted by TomcatViP

well guys maybe one day you should open a real book...those things can be highly informative from time to time

for example it is said often that the hurri turned inside the spit and not the contrary. How strange is that, humm ?

Secondly reading combat story from BOTH side will give you a hint of how fact were blurred and not bright clear as in your belief.

If you could suggest a book that shows that the 109 could turn with a Spitfire that would also be appreciated.

[fruitbat]

Originally Posted by TomcatViP

well more accurately said... the book with no "S".

this is quite a diff btw us. thank you for that

one of my favourite books from bob is 'spitfire on my tail' from the German point of view, can i not read it as it has an S in the title

[TomcatViP]

Originally Posted by Glider

If you could suggest a book that shows that the 109 could turn with a Spitfire that would also be appreciated.

well if you cld yourself suggest a book that shows tht the 109 cld not

"Blurred" did I say ?

[28_Condor]

I dont know many testimonies that 109 out-turn Sipits, but I know this one:

"The Bf 109s also had leading edge slats. When the 109 was flown, advertently or inadvertently, too slow, the slats shot forward out of the wing, sometimes with a loud bang which could be heard above the noise of the engine. Many times the slats coming out frightenened young pilots when they flew the Bf 109 for the first time in combat. One often flew near the stalling speed in combat, not only when flying straight and level but especially when turning and climbing. Sometimes the slats would suddenly fly out with a bang as if one had been hit, especially when one had throttled back to bank steeply. Indeed many fresh young pilots thought they were pulling very tight turns even when the slats were still closed against the wing. For us, the more experienced pilots, real manoeuvring only started when the slats were out. For this reason it is possible to find pilots from that period (1940) who will tell you that the Spitfire turned better than the Bf 109. That is not true. I myself had many dogfights with Spitfires and I could always out-turn them.
One had to enter the turn correctly, then open up the engine. It was a matter of feel. When one noticed the speed becoming critical - the aircraft vibrated - one had to ease up a bit, then pull back again, so that in plan the best turn would have looked like an egg or a horizontal ellipse rather than a circle. In this way one could out-turn the Spitfire - and I shot down six of them doing it. This advantage to the Bf 109 soon changed when improved Spitfires were delivered."
- Erwin Leykauf, German fighter pilot, 33 victories. Source: Messerschmitt Bf109 ja Saksan Sotatalous by Hannu Valtonen; Hurricane & Messerschmitt, Chaz Bowyer and Armand Van Ishoven.

http://www.virtualpilots.fi/feature/...yths/#stalling

Anyway, what was easy for young pilots in Spits, delivery very good pilots (veterans) in Bfs....

[Glider]

Originally Posted by TomcatViP

well if you cld yourself suggest a book that shows tht the 109 cld not

"Blurred" did I say ?

Spitfire: Portrait of a Legend by Leo McKinstry
Spitfire! The Experiences of a Battle of Britain Fighter Pilot by Brian Lane
Spitfire Pilot by Flt Lt David Crook
A large number of combat reports

Interrogation of Oberstleutnant Bar. The Spitfire is fast and very maneuverable

Gunther Rall Luftwaffe Ace and NATO General Authorised Biography

Oberleutnant Gerhard Schöpfel, Gruppenkommandeur of III./JG 26 wrote of the Me 109 E:

It was superior to the Hurricane and above 6,000 metres, faster than the Spitfire also. I believe that our armament was the better, it was located more centrally which made for more accurate shooting. On the other hand, the British fighters could turn tighter than we could.

Flight tests by both RAF and Luftwaffe pilots, In particular the tests taken in Aug 1940 at the E-Stelle Rechlin

Before turning fights with the Bf 109 E type, it must be noted in every case, that all three foreign planes have significantly smaller turning circles and turning times.
An attack on the opponent as well as disengagement can only be acomplished on the basis of existing superiority in performance.

Its also worth remembering that Molders described the Spitfire as being faultless in a turn

Both the above from Kurfursts web site

Now your contribution, I know what you feel about people making unsubstantiated claims.

[Kwiatek]

Also important thing to notice that Rechlin tested Spitfire and Hurricane had only 2-stage prop pitch not constant speed propeller - so their performance was inferior to BoB time British fighters equipped with CSP unit and 100 Octan fuel - but still even with 2-stage prop pitch Bristish fighters was better in turn then 109 like Germans found.

[TomcatViP]

Well once again you are picking extract here and there to build an argument. I only wonder if you did build yourself that way (I speak rudely tht way because I don't like your tone and especially the way you behave as ever tht look like to say: hummph, if you can't answer to this right now then you fail).

At first, did you notice that we are talking rather differently of slow speed turns ? All the argumentation is based on physics and pilot accounts and turn around the stall characteristic of the Spit wing.

if you take the both the 109 and the Spit at constant turning speed the SPit will always have an inferior radius as the Hurri will have with the Spit.

The prob with the SPitfire is her configuration : the thin wing, the wide chord, the low span ratio and the elliptical shape. In the order of appearance it will increase the AoA, aggravate the drag generated by the turbulence around the airfoil and aggravate the stall characteristic and makes the airflow around the wing tips unpredictable (hence the exaggerated washout).

The more you turn, the more E you loose. This E deficit is only compensated by your engine. The more excess of power you have the more time you will stay in that configuration. The Spitfire had less P/W ratio than the 109 (except perhaps in your 12lb+ dreams and what will come next in your request) and thicker wings.

You think you are a pilot so you know what come next...

The Spit will have to turn slightly nose down to compensate for the E loss generated from her draggier turn characteristic and inferior P/W and stay away from the low speed/high AoA/Split angle and bank dangerous situation. Invariably the plane with better stall behavior and superior P/W will stay longer in a turn where the speed decrease hence will loose less alt.

So either the Spit pilot will have to unleash the G before his opponent or will he start to spiral down.

In a turn fight, alt his G (you add the Gravity force to what your plane can do).

That's what the 109 pilots describe when they are talking abt their eggs shaped loop. You can also understand that if they are specifically asked about how horizontal where their turns: they never says it was perfectly horizontal.

Obviously, unless the training was complete, it will be hard to imagine a rookie turning that way (but will you yourself bank a Cessna at 90deg and start pulling on the yoke ?). So things are not that clear blurred in fog of war.
If you are reading with attention the test conditions of the turns chart, you'd understand that the test pilots enter the turn with plenty of excessive power to complete it.

But certainly there was no flat donuts turns in a dogfight. Your speed bleeds out unless you are nosing down.

In a modern dogfight, you see jets nosing down to be able to sustain their best turn rate. Why would you think it would be different in a Spit that had 1/5th of the P/W ratio of an 80's jet !

Talking about the 109 and Spits models alternatively taking the leads in the perf race is all about this: the aerodynamics and the P/W ratio. Once one get the upper hands, it felt more dynamics in a dogfight and keep that ounce of extra E to get the advantage in a high G engagement.

the fact is that the Emil model had the advantage during BoB. Just like The FW190 enjoyed before the IX was launched. (yeah I know you also believe that the 190 was the tank Oleg sold to us with the first opus of IL2)

End of arguments tonight. Feel free to bury my post under a wall of fantastical documents hammered en masse by all the Gang as ever.

[Glider]

A lot of words that try to hide the fact that you cannot support your statement with any published books. Its worth remembering that it was you that first suggested that we use books. You suggested that we use real books, I always do and its good advice as you can see from my reply.

I also supported my statements with quotes from official German flight tests and quotes from expert German fighter pilots. The books are quoted and the full report available on Kurfursts web site. Hardly a wall of fantastical documents hammered en masse by all the Gang all very relevent and from both sides of the conflict.

You asked me to support my statement and I did. I asked you to support yours and you didn't. Its a common pattern we have seen before.

Another habit of yours is putting words in my mouth which are not true. PLease quote where I have ever, here or anywhere, said that I consider the 190 to be anything but exceptional in 1941/2.

[Glider]

I should add that I do consider myself to be an experienced glider pilot. I went solo at 16 and flew for about 20 years until I had to stop about 10 years ago for medical reasons.

Also had some limited hours P2 (about 35) in powered aircraft of various types

[Crumpp]

Start with this one:

http://www.amazon.com/Luftwaffe-Figh.../dp/0804116962

then:

http://www.amazon.com/JG-26-War-Diar.../dp/1898697523

then:

http://www.schifferbooks.com/newschi...sbn=0764301756

Pretty much take your pick of any of the Luftwaffe histories.