omg the meserchmitch i so easy to shoot with the spit i love it

[Richie]

Long wide curves.....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3AWoj...8&feature=plcp

[AbortedMan]

What's most amazing to me about this thread is not "why are you people feeding the troll"... but "How are you people feeding the troll?" I seriously can't understand a word this guy types...I'm amazed there are people here that can decipher the garbled mess enough to put together a reply.

...It took me all 3 of Raaaid's posts and a helluva lot of re-reading to figure out that the "3d effect" he was referring to was the depth of field effect.

For some reason, in my head I have a vision of Raaaid excitedly sitting at a computer in a mental hospital, paranoid and biting his nails because he managed to sneak into the doctor's office for the 100th time to use his computer and post on the banana forums before the big guys in white uniforms drag him off back to his cell after sedating him in his straitjacket.

[*Buzzsaw*]

Originally Posted by Richie

Long wide curves.....

Salute

The documentary is riddled with inaccuracies... 55 seconds of firing for the Germans... No. For their MG's maybe, not for cannon. No mention of the mere 7 seconds of cannon ammunition, nor of the cannon's extremely low velocity or poor trajectory, absolutely the worst type of weapon to use for dogfight deflection shooting.

And the comments about "...long wide curves" are in relation to a 109 pilot escaping, as are all the comments about negative G.

I'll post again:

it must be noted in every case, that
all three foreign planes have significantly smaller turning circles and turning times.

People have a little trouble with reading it appears.

IN EVERY CASE

The German report says nothing about "long wide curves" or any other method. This is a guide which was issued to all of the 109 Staffel commanders.

The documentary relies entirely on anecdote and not factual, objective tests. As per the excerpt I posted above, there were tests done of the 109E vs Allied planes by the Germans, but also by the French, British, and Russian. Guess what? They all agreed, the 109E did not turn well, it was inferior to French, British and Soviet planes in that regard. Both the British and Soviet tests, indicated a turn time of approx. 25 seconds.

I can provide anecdotes and combat reports which suggest the Hurricane was faster than the 109E, the following details how a Hurricane pilot chased down and shot down a 109E:



Here's a link to another report where a Hurricane chased down a 109E

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.o...ler-7oct40.pdf

Does that mean the Hurricane was always faster than the 109E? No, they're just anecdotes of a situation which happened in combat.

The British did at least 4 separate different tests of the 109 vs Hurricanes and Spitfires, and all the tests were conclusive. At all speeds and in all types of turn contests, the Spitfires and Hurricanes were superior. Below one with Hurricane:

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.o...ricane-109.pdf

Yes, the Germans liked their plane, it had definite advantages, but it also had weaknesses, and turn contests were often fatal.

Yes, any plane can outturn any plane given the most optimum circumstance, ie. full fuel on one, nearly empty on another, one with superior alt or E etc. But in a balanced situation, the 109E was not a good choice to turnfight in. Which is why the German pilots who knew the facts made their recommendations for 109E's not to turn fight.

This is a wonderful example of a wishful thinking thread made up by someone who obviously can't master the skill required to fight in the vertical and is letting his frustration get the better of him rather than working on improving his skills.

[lonewulf]

Originally Posted by Richie

Long wide curves.....

" I want to resolve this once and for all" Hahahah, ... well pal, I don't think you have somehow. These sorts of stories have their place but they don't prove very much. A couple of guys who, in reality, may have had just an hour or two of actual combat flying between them, making sweeping assessments about aircraft they've never flown. If we can take anything at all from this it's maybe that while German fighter tactics (shoot and scoot) may have been difficult for Fighter Command to counter, and allowed the Jagdflieger to notch up impressive victory totals, it didn't win them the Battle. German bombers were shot down in numbers that made the whole exercise an unattractive proposition going forward. As for the comments about armaments, well, we all know that cannon rounds make bigger holes. However, you still have to successfully position your aircraft in order to use them. I personally think agility is a more important factor. As for the totally misleading comment about the 55 seconds of continuous fire, well, for the two cowling mounted MGs maybe, but certainly not for the cannon. And if eight .303 Browning MGs are 'pop guns', how would you describe just two MG 17s, after your 7 seconds of cannon ammo is gone? And finally we have the mysterious reference to "long wide curves". What does that mean exactly and how will this help you defeat a pesky Spit? Anyone know??

[Richie]

I don't really trust anybody. So I'll never be satisfied. You hear so many different stories from so many different sources you don't know witch one to take as truth. I guess fly one yourself is the only way. Anything an allied pilot does when he's flying a 109 the German pilot can do it better and the same with a Spitfire. Molders took a Spitfire for a test and didn't like it at all. He thought it flew like a civil aircraft. An American pilot took a 109 up and couldn't believe it he said his friend should have had 180 109 kills not 18.

[*Buzzsaw*]

Originally Posted by Richie

Molders took a Spitfire for a test and didn't like it at all. He thought it flew like a civil aircraft.

Actually what he said:

"It was very interesting to carry out the flight trials at Rechlin with the Spitfire and the Hurricane. Both types are very simple to fly compared to our aircraft, and childishly easy to take-off and land. The Hurricane is good-natured and turns well, but its performance is decidedly inferior to that of the Me 109. It has strong stick forces and is "lazy" on the ailerons.

The Spitfire is one class better. It handles well, is light on the controls, faultless in the turn and has a performance approaching that of the Bf 109. As a fighting aircraft, however, it is miserable. A sudden push forward on the stick will cause the Motor to cut; and because the propeller has only two pitch settings (take-off and cruise), in a rapidly changing air combat situation the motor is either overspeeding or else is not being used to the full."

Notice he refers to the two pitch propellor. This is because the captured aircraft did not have the later Constant speed, which performed much better. His comparison of 109E was against the worst version of the Spitfire.

[Richie]

All Allied aircraft are the whores of the Sunday History Channel as far as I'm concerned. I couldn't care less how great they are. I wouldn't be caught dead in one. Especially a Mustang.

[*Buzzsaw*]

Originally Posted by Richie

All Allied aircraft are the whores of the Sunday History Channel as far as I'm concerned. I couldn't care less how great they are. I wouldn't be caught dead in one. Especially a Mustang.

Too bad you have that attitude.

All the fighter planes of the era were works of art as far as I'm concerned. You see one up close, sit in the cockpit, see the engine start up and feel the ground shake, you get a real feel for what a thrill it must have been to fly them.

All the old Aces I have talked to, from Germans like Franz Stigler or Canadians or Americans all get that gleam in their eye when they talk about flying the planes.

By the way, Franz Stigler thought the P-51 was hell of an aircraft, he flew a captured one during the war for evaluation purposes, and he flew nearly every German fighter including the 109, 190 and 262.

[Faustnik]

Originally Posted by *Buzzsaw*

By the way, Franz Stigler thought the P-51 was hell of an aircraft, he flew a captured one during the war for evaluation purposes, and he flew nearly every German fighter including the 109, 190 and 262.

People should read more books for Cpt. Brown. He flew more different aircraft than anyone.

[swift]

Originally Posted by lonewulf

" I want to resolve this once and for all" Hahahah, ... well pal, I don't think you have somehow. These sorts of stories have their place but they don't prove very much. A couple of guys who, in reality, may have had just an hour or two of actual combat flying between them, making sweeping assessments about aircraft they've never flown. If we can take anything at all from this it's maybe that while German fighter tactics (shoot and scoot) may have been difficult for Fighter Command to counter, and allowed the Jagdflieger to notch up impressive victory totals, it didn't win them the Battle. German bombers were shot down in numbers that made the whole exercise an unattractive proposition going forward. As for the comments about armaments, well, we all know that cannon rounds make bigger holes. However, you still have to successfully position your aircraft in order to use them. I personally think agility is a more important factor. As for the totally misleading comment about the 55 seconds of continuous fire, well, for the two cowling mounted MGs maybe, but certainly not for the cannon. And if eight .303 Browning MGs are 'pop guns', how would you describe just two MG 17s, after your 7 seconds of cannon ammo is gone? And finally we have the mysterious reference to "long wide curves". What does that mean exactly and how will this help you defeat a pesky Spit? Anyone know??

Uhm, use a bit of imagination *hinthint*

This manoeuvre might have been in many cases a good excape manoeuvre because of a speed advantage of the 109 combined perhaps with a better climb performance when using a slow climb rate. With enough speed advantage there is no way a plance could catch up just by short cutting when the curve is wide enough however nimble the chasing plane was but it allowed to keep an eye on the pursuing aircraft which was likely the reason to fly a wide curve