Bf109 information, lighting a fuse and running for cover!

[ACE-OF-ACES]

It is also a bit of a myth that the USAAF allways had a altitude advantage.. The Lw would enter the area at a hight above that of the bombers.. Just ecanse the escorts picked them up prior to the B17s.. They knew the escorts hung out above the bombers..

Granted once the Lw got into position to attack the bombers.. they would dive down to the bombers giving up the alt advantage.. but at the same time trading alt for speed

[ACE-OF-ACES]

And it should also be noted that the Lw was not interested in shooting down the escorts.. They avoided them at all cost.. The goal was to get to the bombers.. Many a poor 109 was shot down while trying to line up the B17 as a P51 snuck up the 109s rear.. Long story short, the dog fight was the exception to the rule.. Where each fighter knew he was in a fight with the other.. Most pilots were shot down before they even knew they were in a fight.. Which was the case for most if not all of Hartmans victums due to Hartmans never turn tatics

[5./JG27.Farber]

Anyway back to this website... (and all the others like it)

I was talking to a Aeronautical engineer over steam (I will let him name himself if he wishes) he basically said something like, "just like any other flight page, this is grains of truth mixed with BS..."

So I guess what we have learned here is that none of the information we ever find will give us definative answears on aircraft performance... These debates of this source said this and that source said that will just continue... Would be nice if we just new the right physics for the game but I suppose it will always be a bit of science and a bit of legend...

[CaptainDoggles]

Originally Posted by ACE-OF-ACES

And before anyone jumps me here.. Note I am not saying this was the case in every case.. All I am pointing out is the idea a Lw 109 fighter was allways outnumbered (jumped by 4 or more Mustangs) in every case is a myth

Hmmm.

Well, I agree that the Luftwaffe were not always outnumbered 100% of the time.

But the whole point of Big Week was to exhaust, attrit and otherwise destroy the Luftwaffe in preparation for the D-Day landings and I'll maintain that Allied air superiority was the norm. Allied numbers were very very high during this period. For example, during one of the Berlin raids, they sent 800 escort fighters. While the Luftwaffe may have achieved local superiority in some cases, this would have been the exception, not the rule.

By February of 1944 the LW was feeling the effects of chronic fuel shortages, and the situation only got worse from there.

There's a report I don't have a link to, made by Galland in April of 1944 that was published in Caldwell and Muller's book. In the report he states that in the preceding 4 months the Luftwaffe had lost more than 1000 pilots. He goes on to state that in nearly every engagement his fighters are outnumbered by more than 6:1.

The Germans experimented with "Big Wing" formations like the RAF had done earlier in the war, and while it was successful in some cases, they soon learned just how hard it is to get a Big Wing together when dealing with fuel shortages and inexperienced pilots.

By June, the Luftwaffe had been rendered ineffective over North-Western France and the Allies enjoyed air superiority for the duration of the D-Day landings.

[CaptainDoggles]

Originally Posted by ACE-OF-ACES

Long story short, the dog fight was the exception to the rule.. Where each fighter knew he was in a fight with the other.. Most pilots were shot down before they even knew they were in a fight..

Very true, and this is why I feel that the OP's website is silly when it makes pronouncements like "The Bf-109 was superior to the P-51"

[CaptainDoggles]

Originally Posted by 5./JG27.Farber

Anyway back to this website... (and all the others like it)

I was talking to a Aeronautical engineer over steam (I will let him name himself if he wishes) he basically said something like, "just like any other flight page, this is grains of truth mixed with BS..."

Most flight websites are like this, but there are some good ones out there. You have to be literate in the underlying math and physics to discern between the two, though.

So I guess what we have learned here is that none of the information we ever find will give us definative answears on aircraft performance... These debates of this source said this and that source said that will just continue... Would be nice if we just new the right physics for the game but I suppose it will always be a bit of science and a bit of legend...

It's always science.

The problem is that aircraft performance is complicated stuff, and this is compounded by the fact that aircraft design was a nascent art at the time. Lessons were still being learned, and they don't necessarily do stuff the same way we do things now.

On top of that, things get lost over the years and much of the available data is incomplete.

Aircraft performance is ideally recorded in conjunction with the atmospheric conditions on the day the test was flown. That data is then converted to standard atmospheric conditions. The data is supposed to represent an idealized aircraft flying in the standard atmosphere, and engineers understand that aircraft performance exists as a range of values within an acceptable tolerance.

Test data can often contradict other test data. Sometimes the reasons for the contradiction can be discovered if there is qualitative data accompanying the test. Often this data does not exist or is insufficient and so the difference cannot be resolved. This is where the "legend' bit comes into play.

[5./JG27.Farber]

Yes yes. All of these conclusions are what I expected. Gentleman you have been part of an experiment!

You see in the next release we will see FM/DM tweeks... We will see arguments for this and that... Those who back the RAF will be dubbed "fanboise" and those who back the Luftwaffe will be called "Luftwhiners"... So by proposing my information first with a fail we can take a good long hard look at variuos sources and subject them to "our laymen brains" and that of experts - with a pinch of salt and realise we just might be wrong!

Hope this helps avoid any arguments of FM/DM tweeks in the near future!

[CaptainDoggles]

Originally Posted by 5./JG27.Farber

Yes yes. All of these conclusions are what I expected. Gentleman you have been part of an experiment!

You see in the next release we will see FM/DM tweeks... We will see arguments for this and that... Those who back the RAF will be dubbed "fanboise" and those who back the Luftwaffe will be called "Luftwhiners"... So by proposing my information first with a fail we can take a good long hard look at variuos sources and subject them to "our laymen brains" and that of experts - with a pinch of salt and realise we just might be wrong!

Hope this helps avoid any arguments of FM/DM tweeks in the near future!

Good effort, but you're going to be disappointed. Many people have agendas, and the VVS are a particularly polarizing subject.

[Kurfürst]

Rather badly researched and biased article I'd say with a large amount of clear errors, ie. the production number of Bf 109G, no Spitfire Mk V reached 400 mph, and he got it all wrong about the ailerons (109A-E had plain type ailerons, F-K had Frise type ailerons, and all Spits - maybe post-war versions didn't? - had Frise.)

The only really good point is about roll inertia, the 109 indeed seem to have been praised for brisk aileron control (that means, quick response, not neccessarily the same as maximum rate of roll) at low to medium speeds. And of course the 109 benefited from its high-lift devices on the wing in numerous ways, but the main thing about the 109-p51 climb rate difference was obviously that the latter was about a ton heavier.

[Ibis]

And here's another:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&fe...&v=TFl8X4y9-94