Why do Spitfires turn better than Hurricanes?!

[Viper2000]

Brown was at the RAE high speed flight; decision makers acted upon his views at the time. I don't think that you'll find a substantially better source.

The Germans didn't have the opportunity to test war trophies after VE day, so their literature is unlikely to be anything like as broad as that produced by the Allies, especially at the RAE; don't forget that the RAE were the world-leaders in high speed flight until the idiotic cancellation of the Miles M.52...

[Sternjaeger II]

Originally Posted by Viper2000

Brown was at the RAE high speed flight; decision makers acted upon his views at the time. I don't think that you'll find a substantially better source.

questionable.. he wasn't the only pilot, only the one that bothered writing a somehow interesting (albeit incomplete and biased) text on his experience. RAE had to make a lot of compromises in their testings, so if you're looking for an accurate testing, look somewhere else.

The Germans didn't have the opportunity to test war trophies after VE day, so their literature is unlikely to be anything like as broad as that produced by the Allies, especially at the RAE; don't forget that the RAE were the world-leaders in high speed flight until the idiotic cancellation of the Miles M.52...

Brown's tests of our interest were mainly made during war years, the postwar years were more devoted to jet planes (he's claimed as the only Allied pilot who flew a Komet, but in fact he only glided in it).

The Luftwaffe had an extensive testing of captured planes (they even bothered to install a DB601 on a Spitfire to check its performance!).

I found some literature of interest:

"Luftwaffe Test Pilot, Flying captured Allied Aircraft of World War 2" Published in German in 1977 and English in 1980. Author: Hans-Werner
Lerche.

1. Strangers in a Strange Land Vol. 1 (Squadron Signal pub) by Hans Heiri Stapfer. Usually available on the web for
$ 10 - $ 15 used condition. A number of photos and color drawings are included as well as interesting discussions on specific aircraft that were captured.

2. Fremde Vogel unterm Balkenkreuz I have scanned photos from this book, but haven't been able to find a copy for sale.....it contains a number of photos of captured
aircraft in Luftwaffe service organized by country of origin. This book was published in the early 1980s I think.

3. Il Ricco Bottino (The Rich Booty) by Hans Werner Neulen. Excellent book on captured Italian aircraft in Luftwaffe service. around $ 18.

4. The Luftwaffe from Training School to the Front (Chapter 10) by Meyer and Stipdonk. Chapter 10 provides a number of photos of captured aircraft.

5. Foto Archiv Band 8. Although several Band in this excellent publication include at least one or two photos of captured aircraft..Band 8 includes by far the most with
several types I not seen elsewhere. You can order this one online at the following site:
www.stormbirds.com/flugzeug/ (http://www.stormbirds.com/flugzeug/)

Flugzeug magazine and Jet & Prop magazine, also available at this web address, have published excellent articles on this subject. Included are: Fiat G-12; Bloch SO 161;
Hopfner Ha 11/33; Brequet Br 521 Bizerte (2 parts); SM-75/SM 82; Rechlin September 1943 display; SE 200 etc.

6. Luftwaffe Fledglings 1935 - 1945. by Ketley and Rolfe. Although not exclusively about captured aircraft, this book nevertheless contains quite a bit of interesting
information, photos and drawings concerning captured aircraft used as trainers.

7. Modell Fan magazine ran a series of articles in the late 1970s and early 1980s entitled 'Sie Flogen mit dem Balkenkreuz' there were at least 13 or 14 articles in this
series, maybe more.

8. The Czech magazine REVI has published comprehensive articles by Igor Mrkvanek on captured Czech aircraft in Luftwaffe service. Very informative.

9. Flypast has published at least two very interesting articles on captured British aircraft in Luftwaffe Service.

10. Luftwaffe Codes, Markings and Units (Barry Rosch) contains quite a bit of information on captured aircraft organized by Luftwaffe unit. Some photos and drawings of
captured aircraft are included throughout the book.

11. The Luftwaffe Verband Journal has published several articles on aircraft evaluated at Rechlin or operated by Versuchsverband.

[Sternjaeger II]

uh and "KG 200 - The True Story" by Peter Stahl

[Viper2000]

Originally Posted by Sternjaeger II

questionable.. he wasn't the only pilot, only the one that bothered writing a somehow interesting (albeit incomplete and biased) text on his experience. RAE had to make a lot of compromises in their testings, so if you're looking for an accurate testing, look somewhere else.

Having met the man a few years ago I must say that I found him convincing, and most impressive.

The biggest problem with his books is the fact that the typist doesn't understand engine power settings and therefore incorrectly converts between psi boost and ata throughout the text, littering it with parenthetical errors which were obviously absent from the original manuscript.

Originally Posted by Sternjaeger II

Brown's tests of our interest were mainly made during war years, the postwar years were more devoted to jet planes (he's claimed as the only Allied pilot who flew a Komet, but in fact he only glided in it).

Actually he illicitly flew it under power in 1945; see the latest edition of Wings on my Sleeve. He also tested a number of piston engined types post war, most notably the Ta-152 (albeit with neither MW50 nor GM1) and Do-335.

Originally Posted by Sternjaeger II

The Luftwaffe had an extensive testing of captured planes (they even bothered to install a DB601 on a Spitfire to check its performance!).

I suspect that they did this after an engine failure in order to make the best possible use of a rare captured airframe; there might also have been some political purpose (both internal, so that DB could demonstrate their good works to their masters) or external (IIRC they were quick to suggest that the DB engine was an improvement).

Originally Posted by Sternjaeger II

I found some literature of interest:

"Luftwaffe Test Pilot, Flying captured Allied Aircraft of World War 2" Published in German in 1977 and English in 1980. Author: Hans-Werner
Lerche.

Got it somewhere. It's interesting, though rather less technical than Brown's books. I seem to recall that quite a lot of emphasis was placed upon taking captured aeroplanes to German fighter squadrons so that they could see them up close. His observation that the B-17 was only fast due to its turbochargers is obviously correct, but of course all's fair in love and war!

I don't recall as much interest in tactical Mach numbers as was displayed by the Allies, because in the late war period the Germans often found themselves climbing into battle, whilst the Allied escort fighters were diving from on-high.

Originally Posted by Sternjaeger II

1. Strangers in a Strange Land Vol. 1 (Squadron Signal pub) by Hans Heiri Stapfer. Usually available on the web for
$ 10 - $ 15 used condition. A number of photos and color drawings are included as well as interesting discussions on specific aircraft that were captured.

2. Fremde Vogel unterm Balkenkreuz I have scanned photos from this book, but haven't been able to find a copy for sale.....it contains a number of photos of captured
aircraft in Luftwaffe service organized by country of origin. This book was published in the early 1980s I think.

3. Il Ricco Bottino (The Rich Booty) by Hans Werner Neulen. Excellent book on captured Italian aircraft in Luftwaffe service. around $ 18.

4. The Luftwaffe from Training School to the Front (Chapter 10) by Meyer and Stipdonk. Chapter 10 provides a number of photos of captured aircraft.

5. Foto Archiv Band 8. Although several Band in this excellent publication include at least one or two photos of captured aircraft..Band 8 includes by far the most with
several types I not seen elsewhere. You can order this one online at the following site:
www.stormbirds.com/flugzeug/ (http://www.stormbirds.com/flugzeug/)

Flugzeug magazine and Jet & Prop magazine, also available at this web address, have published excellent articles on this subject. Included are: Fiat G-12; Bloch SO 161;
Hopfner Ha 11/33; Brequet Br 521 Bizerte (2 parts); SM-75/SM 82; Rechlin September 1943 display; SE 200 etc.

6. Luftwaffe Fledglings 1935 - 1945. by Ketley and Rolfe. Although not exclusively about captured aircraft, this book nevertheless contains quite a bit of interesting
information, photos and drawings concerning captured aircraft used as trainers.

7. Modell Fan magazine ran a series of articles in the late 1970s and early 1980s entitled 'Sie Flogen mit dem Balkenkreuz' there were at least 13 or 14 articles in this
series, maybe more.

8. The Czech magazine REVI has published comprehensive articles by Igor Mrkvanek on captured Czech aircraft in Luftwaffe service. Very informative.

9. Flypast has published at least two very interesting articles on captured British aircraft in Luftwaffe Service.

10. Luftwaffe Codes, Markings and Units (Barry Rosch) contains quite a bit of information on captured aircraft organized by Luftwaffe unit. Some photos and drawings of
captured aircraft are included throughout the book.

11. The Luftwaffe Verband Journal has published several articles on aircraft evaluated at Rechlin or operated by Versuchsverband.

[Sternjaeger II]

Originally Posted by Viper2000

Having met the man a few years ago I must say that I found him convincing, and most impressive.

don't get me wrong, the man is a LEGEND! I met him last year or two years ago at Duxford and I was honoured to shake hands with him! but as you pointed below..

The biggest problem with his books is the fact that the typist doesn't understand engine power settings and therefore incorrectly converts between psi boost and ata throughout the text, littering it with parenthetical errors which were obviously absent from the original manuscript.

de facto making it an interesting read, but not quite the reliable reference that we need

Actually he illicitly flew it under power in 1945; see the latest edition of Wings on my Sleeve. He also tested a number of piston engined types post war, most notably the Ta-152 (albeit with neither MW50 nor GM1) and Do-335.

now that's interesting! I have the older version, bugger!
The thing that you point about the Ta-152 happened with other planes as well: the incorrect use (or lack) of fuels meant that they were more general handling tests instead of performance ones.

I suspect that they did this after an engine failure in order to make the best possible use of a rare captured airframe; there might also have been some political purpose (both internal, so that DB could demonstrate their good works to their masters) or external (IIRC they were quick to suggest that the DB engine was an improvement).

apparently it was just a genuine performance test to see whether they could improve the handling of their 109s, have a look at this interesting article
http://www.unrealaircraft.com/hybrid/spitfire.php

Got it somewhere. It's interesting, though rather less technical than Brown's books. I seem to recall that quite a lot of emphasis was placed upon taking captured aeroplanes to German fighter squadrons so that they could see them up close. His observation that the B-17 was only fast due to its turbochargers is obviously correct, but of course all's fair in love and war!

I don't recall as much interest in tactical Mach numbers as was displayed by the Allies, because in the late war period the Germans often found themselves climbing into battle, whilst the Allied escort fighters were diving from on-high.

this proves though that surely there are other tests that have been made and data has been collected, sourcing it is another story though..

[Viper2000]

Originally Posted by Sternjaeger II

de facto making it an interesting read, but not quite the reliable reference that we need

It's pretty easy to untangle the typographical errors because the conversions are in parentheses, obviously added by the typist after the fact. You can just ignore them and then it's all good. In any case, the conversion errors tend to be glaring - provided that you know roughly what the correct answer should be, it's pretty easy to weed them out.

The main advantage of Brown's test results is that they are internally consistent; it's the same guy flying all the aeroplanes, so you get a real comparison between aeroplanes rather than a comparison between pilots.

This is especially important when you come to consider handling, since it was strength limited in large parts of the envelope, particularly at high speed.

His tests of German aeroplanes are especially good because of course his German was good enough that he understood the captions in the cockpit, could interrogate pilots & ground crew, read manuals if available etc.. This means that there's considerably less risk of under-performance due to poor technique than might otherwise be the case.

Originally Posted by Sternjaeger II

now that's interesting! I have the older version, bugger!

I think that he decided that the statute of limitations had expired for the latest edition... AFAIK he just flew the thing for the heck of it, on the basis that the fuel was going to be disposed of and the aircraft scrapped, so why not? (Other than the obvious health & safety issues of course).

Originally Posted by Sternjaeger II

The thing that you point about the Ta-152 happened with other planes as well: the incorrect use (or lack) of fuels meant that they were more general handling tests instead of performance ones.

This sort of thing applies to all captured aeroplanes; you have to read the small print very carefully so that you know what you're actually comparing.

The lack of MW50 & GM1 doesn't necessarily fatally compromise the Ta-152 tests, since you can calculate the additional power which they would have provided and hence deduce what the maximum performance would have been. Of course, to do this properly you need to have enough other test data to infer the shape of the drag polar, but you only really need this information for a relatively narrow range of CL. It's really amazing how much you can deduce about aircraft performance from quite limited data. In fact, some people make careers of it.

For example, one of the main reasons for scrupulously fitting exhaust nozzle blanks to shiny new fighter jets when they're in the static park at an airshow is that if I know the nozzle throat area then an experienced observer estimate the engine thrust with rather better accuracy than the layman might expect.

In any case, the handling is generally more interesting than the kinematic performance, since it's far easier to calculate kinematic performance than it is to calculate handling characteristics, especially at transonic speeds.

[QUOTE=Sternjaeger II;281235]apparently it was just a genuine performance test to see whether they could improve the handling of their 109s, have a look at this interesting article
http://www.unrealaircraft.com/hybrid/spitfire.php

I think I might have come across this before at some point. The comparison argument is a strange one, because firstly it's irrelevant to combat, and secondly no two installations are alike in any case.

Since the Germans weren't stupid, my best guess is that:

1. They expected engine failure, and therefore opted to premptively replace the engine.
2. They realised that the Spitfire V was obsolete, but since they didn't have high performance fuel they couldn't investigate its development potential by over-boosting the engine; therefore the only way to investigate the aircraft's ability to handle extra power was to add the next generation of DB engine instead.

In the latter instance, this would imply that they were yet to capture a flyable Mark IX or XII.

It's worth noting that the RAE, with access to high grade fuels, took the former route with their early captured Fw190s, handily exceeding rated boost (and possibly rpm, though I'd have to check my copy of Wings of the Luftwaffe). I suppose this might technically be called the fly it like you stole it approach...

Originally Posted by Sternjaeger II

this proves though that surely there are other tests that have been made and data has been collected, sourcing it is another story though..

I have no doubt that the Germans collected vast amounts of data on a myriad of subjects, since that is their nature, but I suspect that a lot of it either went up in smoke some time in 1945 or else was carted off by one or other of the victorious Allies (most likely the USSR or the USA; the British mission essentially consisted of whatever Sir Roy Feddon could beg or borrow, and much of what he obtained was instantly stolen at gunpoint by the yanks...).

However, it's important to remember that the Germans were under no obligation to (for example) use the same standard atmosphere assumptions as us, or to test their aeroplanes according to the same methodology. So if you want to make a really satisfactory comparison it's not sufficient to just perform a unit conversion and overlay the data; you've got to actually drill down to find out what the assumptions underlying the test results were, and then correct everything to a common standard.

Otherwise it's apples vs oranges.

I think I went into this in my flight testing thread.

Hopefully in a few patches time, when things are sufficiently stable for serious testing, we will have amassed enough of this underlying information on assumptions to allow everything to be converted to modern ISO standard conditions so that fair comparisons can be made.

However, since I don't have a great deal of German data on test methodologies, German standard atmospheres and so on, I'm very much reliant upon the wider community to fill in the gaps.

[TomcatViP]

Ta 152, Spit Pr XII, Komet ... Where are our sturdy early war planes Hurri and Spit I ???