Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Rate This Thread
Hop To
#4461392 - 02/14/19 07:46 PM Why Flight Physics get WWII dogfighting wrong (+video)  
Joined: Feb 2019
Posts: 3
WrathofAtlantis Offline
Junior Member
WrathofAtlantis  Offline
Junior Member

Joined: Feb 2019
Posts: 3
Ontario, Canada
I'll start with some FW-190A real-life observations, as this type is the most clear as to what is wrong (keeping in mind these sq/ft wingloading values: Spitfire Mk IX/Hurricane MkII: 30 lbs, FW-190A-8: 46 lbs ):

1-RCAF John Weir interview for Veterans Affairs (Spitfire Mk V vs FW-190A-4 period): "A Hurricane was built like a truck, it took a hell of a lot to knock it down. It was very manoeuvrable, much more manoeuvrable than a Spit, so you could, we could usually outturn a Messerschmitt. They'd, if they tried to turn with us they'd usually flip, go in, at least dive and they couldn't. A Spit was a higher wing loading..."

"The Hurricane was more manoeuvrable than the Spit and, and the Spit was probably, we (Hurricane pilots) could turn one way tighter than the Germans could on a, on a, on a Messerschmitt, but the Focke Wulf could turn the same as we could and, they kept on catching up, you know."

2-Gray Stenborg, 23 September 1944 (Spitfire Mk XII): "On looking behind I saw a FW-190 coming up unto me. I went into a terribly steep turn to the left, but the FW-190 seemed quite able to stay behind me. He was firing at 150 yards-I thought "this was it"-when all of a sudden I saw an explosion near the cockpit of the FW-190, upon which it turned on its back."

3-"-Squadron Leader Alan Deere, (Osprey Spit MkV aces 1941-45, Ch. 3, p. 2): "Never had I seen the Hun stay and fight it out as these Focke-Wulf pilots were doing... In Me-109s the Hun tactic had always followed the same pattern- a quick pass and away, sound tactics against Spitfires and their superior turning circle. Not so these 190 pilots: They were full of confidence... We lost 8 to their one that day...

4-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.---[b]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...[/b]"
(Jonhson escaped when he abandoned the turn fight, and dived near a Royal Navy ship that fired AAA at his pursuer)

6-A translated Russian article from "Red Fleet" describing Russian aerial tactics against the German FW-190, from Tactical and Technical Trends, No. 37, November 4, 1943.

-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."

-Since the FW-190 is so heavy and does not have a high-altitude engine, pilots do not like to fight in vertical maneuvers.

-A fairly good horizontal maneuver permits the FW-190 to turn at low speed without falling into a tail spin.

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

-In fighting the FW-190 our La-5 should force the Germans to fight by using the vertical maneuver.

7-"Dogfights" Episode 16 "Death of the Luftwaffe" dealing with the January 1st, 1945 "Operation Bodenplatte" airfield attacks:

"FW-190As fought at lower altitude and engaged in turn fighting, while the Me-109Gs attacked in dives from a higher altitude."

8-Osprey "Duel" #39 "La-5/7 vs FW-190", Eastern Front 1942-45:

P.69 "Enemy FW-190A pilots never fight on the vertical plane.---The Messerschmitt possessed a greater speed and better maneuverability in a vertical fight."

P.65 Vladimir Orekov: "An experienced Fw-190A pilot practically never fights in the vertical plane"

9-Quote from an Oseau demise witness (Jagdwaffe, "Defence of the Reich 1944-45" Eric Forsyth, p.202): "Many times I told Oseau the FW-190A was better than the Bf-109G... Each turn became tighter and his Bf-109 (Me-109G-6AS) lost speed, more so than his (P-51D) adversaries."

10-In "Le Fana de l'Aviation" #496 p. 40:
(Russian experience with lend-lease Spitfire Mk Vs)
Première citation : " Dans la journée du 29 avril, le régiment effectua 28 sorties pour escorter des bombardiers et des avions d'attaque au sol et 23 en protection de troupes, avec quatre combats aériens. Les premiers jours furent marqués par des échecs dus à une tactique de combat périmée dans le plan horizontal, alors que le Spitfire était particulièrement adapté au combat dans le plan vertical."

[Translation: "The Spitfire V failed in horizontal fighting, but was particularly adapted to vertical fighting."]

P. 40-41: " A basse et moyenne altitude, la version VB était surclassé par les chasseurs allemands et soviétiques de son époque. Pour tenter d'améliorer la maniabilité et la vitesse, les Soviétiques l’allégèrent en retirant les quatre mitrailleuses ainsi que leurs munitions, ne laissant que les canons. Cette variante fut évalué par le centre d'essais des VVS au cours de l'été de 1943. Apparemment ce ne fut pas concluant, car il n'y eu pas d'instructions pour généraliser la modification."

[Translation: To improve the Spitfire Mk VB's maneuverability and speed to the level of contemporary Soviet and German fighters, the four outer .303 machineguns were removed. This attempt at lightening the Spitfire was not conclusive, and the modification was not widely adopted.]

11-1946 US evaluation of FW-190D-9: "1-The FW-190D-9, although well armored and equipped to carry heavy armament, appears to be much less desirable from a handling standpoint than other models of the FW-190 using the BMW 14 cylinder radial engine."

12-Donald Caldwell wrote of the FW 190 D-9’s operational debut in his "The JG 26 War Diary Volume Two 1943-1945" (pages 388 – 399): "The pilot’s opinions of the “long-nosed Dora”, or Dora-9, as it was variously nicknamed, were mixed. The new airplane lacked the high turn rate and incredible rate of roll of its close-coupled radial-engined predecessor."

13-Reichlin assessment team report of Dec 10, 1941 (FW-190A-1 vs Me-109F): "In terms of maneuverability, it (FW-190A) completely outclassed the Me-109. The Focke-Wulf could out-turn and out-roll the Messerschmitt at any speed."

14-Eric Brown ("Duels in the Sky") p. 128:

FW-190A: "Care must be taken on dive pull-out not to kill speed by sinking, or on the dive's exit the FW-190 will be very slow and vulnerable."

15-Red Fleet, No. 37, November 4, 1943.:

"When climbing in order to get an altitude advantage over the enemy, there is a moment when the FW-190 "hangs" in the air. It is then convenient to fire." [This is in the context of dive pull-outs] -"However, the FW-190 is never able to come out of a dive below 300 or 250 meters (930 ft or 795 ft). Pulling out of a dive, made from 1,500 meters (4,650 ft) and at an angle of 40 to 45 degrees, the FW-190 falls an extra 200 meters (620 ft). [Meaning after levelling out, continues sinking nose up]

I explain what I think is going on in this video:


Last edited by WrathofAtlantis; 02/15/19 12:28 AM. Reason: clarity
Inline advert (2nd and 3rd post)

#4461440 - 02/15/19 12:30 AM Re: Why Flight Physics get WWII dogfighting wrong (+video) [Re: WrathofAtlantis]  
Joined: Feb 2019
Posts: 3
WrathofAtlantis Offline
Junior Member
WrathofAtlantis  Offline
Junior Member

Joined: Feb 2019
Posts: 3
Ontario, Canada

I give more details in these two videos:

Details on specific quotes:

But far more importantly, below, from 16:06 onward, mention of the dive pull out fallacy exposed by the 1989 SETP test, when 6G Corner Speed was found 80 mph higher horizontally than in all those dive pullout-based doghouse charts (Edit: Well actually 21 mph when spiraling down as they did: 276 to calculated 255. But I did see 240 on some charts, and their general conclusion suggests some higher values in true level turns: IE,: Very close to 320 mph)...:

The 1989 Society of Experimental Test Pilots test (p-47,p-51d, Corsair and Hellcat) is what really blows all those prop doghouse charts to bits: The real things ALL had minimum 6G turns at/near maximum METO speeds at 10.000 feet: 320 mph ias, NOT 220-240...

This proves all the WWII/Korea prop doghouse charts were done with dive pull-outs G measures (safer and easier), unwittingly unloading the prop disc.

The SETP did actual G-measured HORIZONTAL turns in 1989: Full asymmetric load on the prop in a REAL turn, not unloaded prop in a dive pull-out like 40 years before...

For actual turning with a loaded prop, the doghouse shape is fiction, which is why slow sustained speed turns mattered a lot more than the comparatively unuseable high G energy burning turns... Hence vertical or horizontal fighters, but comparatively very little "energy" turning above 4-5 G: As the SETP points out, there was only very short-lived high G values HORIZONTALLY, since the minimum speed to make them is top level speed...


Last edited by WrathofAtlantis; 03/12/19 01:10 AM. Reason: clarity
#4461572 - 02/15/19 06:32 PM Re: Why Flight Physics get WWII dogfighting wrong (+video) [Re: WrathofAtlantis]  
Joined: Feb 2019
Posts: 3
WrathofAtlantis Offline
Junior Member
WrathofAtlantis  Offline
Junior Member

Joined: Feb 2019
Posts: 3
Ontario, Canada
I'll just post here a reply I made in another forum...:

Originally Posted by Lixma 06;3799661
So a Spitfire can't turn with a Hurricane - but a Fw-190 weighing an extra ton with almost double the wing loading can?

Is this the thesis here?

50% more wingloading. Yes. And if you understand the difference between force and energy, you will see there is nothing here that violates physical laws.

You can get more force out of something than you put in... And this greater output of force can depress the energy outcome... Energy is affected by force. This is why the Spitfire behaves like it is heavy in low speed turns: The magic of leverage (combined with airflow) makes it fight itself. It does do way better at high speeds, since higher speeds (or dives) unload the prop...

And yes, this is a revolution in our understanding of flight physics (for powerful low wing single traction props at least)... There is nothing I can do to reduce the scale of this...

The SETP 1989 test Corner speeds absolutely confirms this. The older "live data" prop doghouse charts were all made with dive pull outs, and if you (like me) find this hard to understand, you have to realize how much safer and easier it is to gather hundreds of data points while upright (prop unloaded), as opposed to hanging sideways (with the prop correctly overloaded asymmetrically)...

Unbelievably, they ignored that diving unloaded the prop... Because the width of the prop, in their minds, was just a narrow trust vector line... Somewhat less unbelievably, given its informal nature, the 1989 SETP test did not trigger further investigation into this.

They tried to gather jet-like "energy" theory turn data, and found props just don't fight like this at all. Shaw may have been right for jets, but he was clueless about props.


Last edited by WrathofAtlantis; 02/16/19 12:07 AM.
#4470817 - 04/17/19 06:28 AM Re: Why Flight Physics get WWII dogfighting wrong (+video) [Re: WrathofAtlantis]  
Joined: Dec 2015
Posts: 434
FsFOOT Offline
former EAW Developer
FsFOOT  Offline
former EAW Developer

Joined: Dec 2015
Posts: 434
Southern California, USA

Very interesting stuff. Especially the last post. I would only like to make my opinion I don't think there ever can be a "definative answer" to these comparison questions, which could be made into an 'absolute best' configuration in a game or even simulator to 'finally answer' the questions of the classic comparisons eg. Spit vs 109, etc. when the actual accounts of seasoned WWII and immediate post-war testors often contradict each other. And the empirical figures and records also are subject to doubt. See below;


109 test flight reports

The problem with Me performance numbers

When talking about the Messerchmitt 109 performance, we must take into account that many western sources are simply wrong. They are based on original wartime allied test flights flown with damaged planes, or with such equipment that the planes do not represent a normal fighter variant. Also western sources often fail to quote the used power setting. Was the engine runnign on continuous, 30 minute or 5 minute power? Western performance numbers (US/FAF/RAF) are always quoted with maximum power settings. Luftwaffe standard was to test all climb and level speed performance with the 30 minute setting, which really gives a more "real life" performance. Some Allied tests are quite good, but especially Me 109 tests are often very suspicious.

A good example this are the 109 F-4 tests. The only test flight of the type was flown by the RAF. All other "tests", American reports included, are copies of the British test. US never flew a single test flight of a Me 109 F-4 and their "report" fails to mention that the plane ran roughly, engine was derated and did not develop its full power, hence "the numbers must be regarded as absolute minimum performance for the plane". These numbers have since changed into gospel in western aviation literature, and these numbers are copied from book to book as the maximum performance of the plane.

German level speed tests are usually recorded with "Steig & Kampfleistung", "climb & combat" power, 30 minute maximum.
The "Start & Notleistung" - "takeoff and emergency" setting was not in tests. If it was used, the sheet mentions it. These settings were usually available for 1 to 5 minutes, depending on engine series, hence it is often referred as the 5 minute power setting.

But what is the reliability of German tests? Some have argued that they are propaganda and cannot be trusted. Incorrect. For example with the 109s, RLM had aggressively committed themselves to the Me 109 as the only single-engined fighter the Luftwaffe was going to purchase, and there was no competition at all. The Kennblatt figures weren't provided for the benefit of the marketing department, but they were the yardstick against which the aircraft delivered by Messerschmitt were measured. Failing to meet the figures would result in customer complaints, corrective action and financial consequences - and in the Third Reich perhaps even more severe results. If anything, the factory and test flight centers produced usually very accurate information. As the Finnish State Aircraft Factory test flight pilots commented, only two of all the fighter planes delivered to FiAF in the war years actually matched the factory papers: the Brewster B-239 and Messerschmitt 109. Other types, including the British, French, American and Italian planes, different often wildly from their "paper performance".

Case: Bf.109E
RAF Royal Aircraft Establishment (RAE) Farnborough handling trials,Bf.109E Wn: 1304.
Messerschmitt Me (sic) 109 Handling and Manoeuvrability Tests, M.B. Morgan and D.E. Morris, Communicated by the Principal Director of Scientific Research - Air, Reports and Memoranda No. 2361, Great Britain, September 1940. (Probably also using data from RAE Jan 1941 testing).
Comparitive Trials between Me109E and British Fighter Aircraft, RAE (?), 14 August 1941
Here we have two interesting reports. They're actually a 1941 report from tests conducted in September of 1940 from an aircraft that was captured by the French in 1939 (see next chapter). At the time the tests were conducted in 1940, they didn't have oxygen bottles for the 109, so test could only be done at low to medium altitude, where they thought combat would take place anyway. At these altitudes the result was indeed that both the Spitfire and Hurricane could out-turn the Bf109, and this was reported to the squadrons, whose pilots would have reacted in combat according to this perceived strength. Later, well after the Battle was over, testing at higher, "combat" altitudes showed the opposite to be true at these heights.
There is even more confusion. The 109 tested is claimed to be "Me 109E-3 Werk-Nr 1304" which is documented to have been captured. However, there is some discrepency as to WerkNr 1304 actually being an Me109E-1. So what have they tested? E-1? E-3? E-4? Did they test one of the crash landed, damaged planes? So we got major confusion with the tested plane. Also, Bf 109 E-3 WNr. 1304 (RAF AE 479) was at one point crash landed, among other things, and it received a new tail section from a Bf 109 E-4 WNr. 1980.
Another problem is with the test itself, when compared to a Spitfire. Overall the accuracy of the test suffers from the fact that it was flown with a crash landed plane wirh a worn, several years old engine producing less power than usual. It was then flown against a brand new Spitfire with a 1940 engine. As shown by the test data, the turns were made in the 120mph range which is too slow for the 109 slats to be deployed, which doesn't compare the maximum turning abilities of each aircraft. Further inspection of the report will show that the test was conducted with the "Rotol" Spitfire. The Rotol Spitfire had a Merlin III engine, not the Merlin II. At 11,000 feet it had a climb rate of 2,905 ft/min, the turn test was conducted at 12,000ft. This test was conducted 19 March 1940. Now look at the other two Spitfires in the test. Their test date was in July 1939. The climb rate of the 1939 aircraft at 12,000 feet was only about 2,000ft/min vs the 2,900 ft/min of the Rotol aircraft. The Rotol aircraft is inconsistant with the performance of the aircraft in the field. The 109 was captured in 1939, therefore for an accurate representation to be made it should be compared to other 1939 aircraft. We are talking about taking 1940 technology and applying it to a 1939 matchup, taking an aircraft with 45 % more climb rate than aircraft available at the time the 109E was in service in 1939.
The 1940 report clearly states that the performance of the 1939 aircraft was not even near equal to that of the 1940 test (2100ft/min vs 2900 ft/min @ 10,000ft). The 109E matchup was done with the Spitfire employing 1940 technology, a constant speed propeller that was not in use in 1939. The matchup was also done with a Merlin III engine that was not available in 1939 aircraft. Also, it was done with a captured battle worn aircraft of questionable service against a brand new aircraft. The report does not state the maximum speed of the 109E by which one could gauge the relative engine horsepower output compared to other known DB601 engines. Also, it doesn't state a matchup between the 109E and Spitfire MkI employing a Merlin II engine and a standard propeller at the time, rather with the new 1940 constant speed propeller.
The French flew their test with the same Me 109 E-3 (E-1?). The test results are not available in English, but to author's knowledge their recorded performance numbers are higher than in the British tests. Since British tests do not give the used power setting, it is extremerely hard to find the truth between different test results.

References: Impossible to Follow? The 109 tested is claimed to be "Me 109E-3 Werk-Nr 1304" which is documented to have been captured. However, there is some discrepency as to WerkNr 1304 actually being an Me109E-1: Could this aircraft have been mixed up with other E-1's and E-3's captured and may have been damaged resulting in lower performannce:

Case: French test report of the above aircraft, White 1, WerkNr 1304, AE479:
Read it here
This is the test of White 1, WerkNr 1304, AE479. It was captured in 1939 and tested by the French, where they made a couple dozen flights testing it against a D.520. During a high power climb test, the engine malfunctioned due to lack of proper oil and coolant. The aircraft was subsequently handed over to the British, who tested up until September of 1940 or after, nearly a year after it had been captured.
The important things to note are that the climb rates listed are based on averaging time to climb. There is also a second climb table near the very end of the report that appears to correct the original. I believe the second table reflects climb with the radiators in a different configuration. The French seem to have considered 1100 PS, 1.4 ata as the 5 minute setting. The climb table looks to have been compiled at that power setting. There is also a table of Vmax values along with the altitude, rpm and MAP for each speed. The one I found most interesting is 490 kph at 2500 meters, 2400 rpm and 1.26 ata ( 960 mm Hg ). I make that 990 PS, 282 mph Vmax at sealevel. But, my speed conversion from altitude to sea level could be wrong. If I grokked the comment after the last part of the report, they roasted the engine during testing. This is important to note, as the British tested later the same 109!
Or to make things yet more confusing, did the Brits test two different Emils? The Rolls-Royce speed tests were only done at partial power and with radiators open (or I'm missing the pages with full-power tests), but they conform well with the French speed tests at full power and with radiators open. The conclusion is that the French speed data, though not calibrated, is nevertheless correct (or even slightly low). In other words, the French top speed figure of 570 km/h for the Me 109E-3 is perfectly realistic. What's more, the French had an early DB601A with the low full throttle height, a late-model DB601A (which became available at some time between December 1939 and August 1940) would have given an even higher top speed due to the reduced air density at the higher full throttle height.
This French test was flown with open radiators up to 4000 meters, then gradually closing the radiators up to 8300 meters. At that time test had to be abandoned due to engine problems, as the engine malfunctioned. They related that to the temperature outside. The temperature was +6c on the ground and -17c at 5000m. The French considered it possible to make the climb radiators closed, which would enhance climb rate. Engine problem stems most likely from the French substitute oil and coolant, that had a lower calorific value which induced serious engine troubles.
Also note that the 109's leading edge slats may have been taped shut during these tests. Both the French and the British used this captured aircraft in mock dogfights to test the relative performance of the aircraft to the D.520 and the Spitfire. The French and British may have been so afraid of the slats, that they taped them shut so as not to interfere with their maneuvering during mock dogfights. Almost all jet aircraft today have leading edge slats to increase lift during takeoff and landing. Most military jets automatically regulate the use of slats during maneuvering. If these slats were operational on this particular 109, there would have been a marked change in the stall boundary when the wing camber changed due to deployment of the leading edge slats. This change is not present in the graph. The only conclusion that can be made is that the slats were not operational during testing. Without use of operational leading edge slats to increase lift at low speeds and high g's, the entire stall boundary curve on this graph is not representational of combat aircraft.
So the conclusion? The French data, supported by the Rolls-Royce data, suggests a top speed of 570 km/h (or above) at 1.2 ata. WEP is 1.3 ata. The French data is for an early-type DB601A with low full throttle height, while at the time of the Battle of Britain, the new type with increased full throttle height and accordingly increased top speed was available. The French data suggests a 482 km/h sea level speed. This is confirmed by the Me 109V15a (the Emil prototype) which achieved a sea level speed of 486 km/h @ 951 PS. (The DB601A-1 provides 990 PS at sea level at the 5 min rating.) The French climbed to 5000 m in 6:18 min with radiators fully open in an aircraft that probably wasn't cooling correctly.

Case: Bf 109 E-3/4
Auszüge aus Flugzeugdatenblatt Bf 109 E-1, E-3 nach L.Dv.556/3. German flight test numbers.

Case: Me 109 F-4
Practically all Me 109 F-4 its performance reports stem from a single British test flown with a damaged airplane with derated engine. All other test "reports" are copied from this one test.
In summary, from the article: " After the review of several hundred pages of British reports about planes of the variants Bf 109 F-1/-2/-4 the picture became apparant, that only with exactly one captured Bf 109 F-4 and its engine performance measurement were done. As already the climbing time, then also the British maximum speeds give a clear reference to, that the available engine did not even obtain the power output for climb/combat power. As best climbing rate for the climbing on 4876 m are indicated about 1006 m/min, for the climbing on 6705 m 8.2 minutes. Again these are values, which were clearly below the German for climb/combat power. These were on one hand a maximum climbrate of 1111 m/min for the climbing to 5000 m. The British values for the maximum climbrate lay thereby even below the German mean value. On the other hand according to German data sheets the climb time to 7000 m altitude was 7.4 Minuten.
The American test, "Combat Evaluation Report Nr. 110" for the Bf 109 F, 7th February 1943", are only a compilation of the British test reports sent to the USA and no American flight tests were flown with F-4s. And to top it, the transferred report is riddled with errors in converting the numbers and drawing the performance curves. For example the reported climb rate is the British climb time for 16,500 feet converted to 15,000 feet. Also in the American summary are existing further serious transfer errors. This becomes clear due to a comparison of the fire trials results from the British and the American test. In the British original version is told, that .5" B. Mk. II armor penetrating ammunition had no chance to penetrate the pilot armor of the Bf 109 F-4 under the listed conditions, if the projectile punched in below the fill level of the fuel tank. In the US version this projectile received a 30% chance for penetration of the pilot armor independing of the location the fuel tank was entered. This way on the US side the British firing trial results were wrongly mixed for .5" and 20 mm ammunition.
On the British sources all test protocols are missing, which would document the real power output of the DB 601 E during the test flights by telling boost pressure and revolutions per minute. Also complete top speed/climbtime curves instead of the few listed measurement points would be very helpfull. The source situation permits nevertheless to make some evaluations. The German sources present for the whole timeframe from sommer 1941 till spring 1943 consistent performance values for top speeds as well as climb ability. There was clearly differentiated between the power settings take off/emergency power and climb/combat power. The period of the initial prohibition of use of the take-off/emergency power of the DB 601 E could be narrowed down very exactly. For the British sources it is totally unclear with which engine power settings the test was flown. Problems with the available engine were indicated, but not mentioned in the final report. Additionally there were inconsistent specifications, like the reaching of higher speeds in spite of a higher weight specification for the test plane. Anglophone authors seem to have known the German sources not at all. The performances told by them are all in a range, which is only told by Allied sources."
Source: Article about the performance of the Bf 109 F-4, written by Michael Rausch.

Case: AFDU 28 October 1941: Tactical trials - Me.109F aircraft
4. The controls are well balanced and the aircraft is pleasant to fly, but is not so easy to take off as the Me.109E. The elevator control is fairly heavy but the rudder control is light and is effective even at low speeds, the aircraft being very sensitive to over-correction on the rudder during take-off. The Me.109F is not as easy to land as the Spitfire, although it is a little easier than the Me.109E, due to its slightly better forward view. The speed of appraoch for landing is about 110 m.p.h. and the angle is rather steep, which necessitates a big change of attitude before the final touch down. Although the landing speed is high, the resultant run is short and brakes can be safely applied as soon as the aircraft is on the ground.
7. No manoeuvrability trials were carried out against other aircraft but the Me.109F was dived up to 420 m.p.h., I.A.S., with controls trimmed for level flight and it was found that although the elevators had become heavy and the ailerons had stiffened up appreciably, fairly tight turns were still possible. [...] It is considered that recovery from a high speed dive near the ground would be difficult, as the loss of height entailed is considerable. This may account for occasional reports of Me.109F being seen to dive straigth into the ground without apparently being fired at.

Case: Me 109 G-2
There are some trustworthy numbers of the 109s as well. The Finnish test flight report of Me 109 G-2 "MT-215" was flown 6.5.1943 by captain Pekka Kokko, famoust Finnish test pilot, with a regular combat squadron plane with full combat equipment, including all ammo for all guns and full fuel load. The report specifically mentions the radiators opening fully at some points during the climb test. The max-speed tests were run with the radiators manually shut. Its level speed peaked at about 6400 meters at roughly 645 km/h on 30 minute power setting. The climb rate peaked at 2000 meters when the plane grabbed altitude 24,7 meters per minute. Height/climbrate: 3000m / 18,9 m/sec - 4000 m / 17,2 m/sec - 5000 m / 17,2 m/sec - 6000 m / 15,1 m/sec - 7000 m / 13,4 m/sec - 8000 m / 13,7 m/sec, 9000 m / 9,0 m/sec, 10 000 m / 5,9 m/sec. Climb to 4000 meters: 3,2 mins - 5000 meters: 4,1 mins - 6000 meters: 5,1 mins and 8000 meters: 7,6 minutes.
Other data: stall speed clean 170 km/h (could not be clearly defined). The nose sunk and the plane banked calmly to the right wing. At landing configuration the stall speed was 145 km/h. With full power the plane could be held hanging from the prop at 60° nose-up attitude ASI showing 130-140 km/h. Up to 350 km/h with a hard pull in the bank plane could be stalled (!) At 1000m altitude 180° turn required 10 s (G-2), starting speed 450 km/h, final speed 380 km/h. Full circle 18 s with final speed 330 km/h. Full 360° bank required 22 s with 360 km/h, bank angle 70° acceleration 3 g.

Case: Me 109 G-6
For example 109 G-6 model's performance numbers are usually quoted from a flight test flown by mr. Brown. The actual plane was a 109 G-6/U2, which is a three cannon night fighter variant with night fighting equipment. Authors now take these numbers, drop away the information that it was a 3-cannon night fighter and voila, we got weak performance numbers for the G-6. The 3-cannon night fighter G-6 made 621 km/h in 30 minute power setting. A clean G-6 does 635-640 km/h with 30 min setting and 650+ km/h with 5 min WEP setting. So you can see that the wing cannons not only decreased speed, but they decreased the climb rate, roll rate and overall agility of the plane.

Case: Spitfire Mk XIV versus Me 109 G/K A Performance Comparison
An article looking and correcting the errors at Mike Williams's "Spitfire Mk XIV versus Me 109 G/K A Performance Comparison" article. The foreword says: The following article is intended to correct the various errors, flaws presented in a series of articles on the relative performance of the Messerschmitt Bf 109 and Supermarine Spitfire by Mike Williams. The article can be read at

Quotes from the article:
"G-5/-6/-14/AS could maintain 620 kph at 8.4km in cruise (385mph at 27 550 ft ), the G-10 628kph (390mph), the K-4 645 kph (400mph) at the same alttiude. Naturally at full power much higher speeds could be reached at this altitude - 700 kph/435mph in case of the K-4. Datasets for G-10 and K-4 are with the early production, and weaker DB 605 DM engine. Even with this they compare favourably at the same altitude to the all-out level speed of the Spitfire L.F. Mk IX, 631 kph or 392 mph at 8.4km / 27550 ft. Maximum continous cruise speed of the Spitfire F. Mk. XIV was 380 mph 25 000 ft (611 kph at 7620m), given by AIR 15/741."

Me 109 G-14
Allied examination of a captured plane, W.Nr. 413601, can be read at 109 Lair by selecting Articles / evaluations / G-14.

Something to read

"Messerschmitt Bf 109 A-E, Development - Testing - Production" by Willy Radinger & Walter Schick. In the foreword it states that work on the book was begun in 1994 and Walter Schick died in 1995. It states he is writing the book to correct the many errors that have crept into aviation books over the years. Several Messerschmitt employees helped out in the book, one of which is Lukas Schmid who began working there in 1934 and was group leader on the project in 1937 and subsequently a flight test pilot.
The book lists many statistics, even the Werknummer of the prototypes and types of aircraft produced in low numbers. It also contains a reproduction of the certification of the 11 November 1937 world speed record flight of 610.950 kph set by the Vf 109 V13 recorded as a Bf113R.

The statistics laid out in the book for Me 109 E-3 are:
Takeoff weight minus useful load = 2053kg 4526lbs (including 100kg for pilot, parachute, special clothing, additional equipment, fuel 400ltr oil 29.5 ltr 3000 rnd MG 17 120 rnds MG FF and ballast 25kg)

Max allowed takeoff weight = 2610kg 5754lb

Speed with 30 minute continuous power:
km kph mph
0 460 285.85
1 480 298.25
2 500 310.68
3 520 323.11
4 540 335.54
5 555 344.86
6 555 344.86
7 550 341.75

km min ft
1 1 3,280
3 3 9,842
6 6.3 19,685
9 16 29,527

Service ceiling 10.3km (33,792 ft)
Tightest turn radius at ground level = 125 m = 410 ft
Tightest turn radius at 6km = 230 m = 754 ft

Power Plant DB601A
ground level : 4km altitude
_hp_ rpm ltr/hr
1175 2500 433 1 min increased output
1015 2400 321 5 min increased output
0950 2300 288 30 min increased output
0860 2200 260 Continuous output

_hp_ rpm ltr/hr
1100 2400 318 5 min increased output
1100 2400 318 30 min increased output
1000 2400 283 Continuous output
0975 2250 269 Continuous output economic

Propeller: VDM variable-pitch, three blades, 3.10m diameter

( European Air War)

#4485241 - 08/06/19 04:32 AM Re: Why Flight Physics get WWII dogfighting wrong (+video) [Re: WrathofAtlantis]  
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 3,380
PipsPriller Offline
Senior Member
PipsPriller  Offline
Senior Member

Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 3,380
All makes for some very fascinating reading. Many thanks for posting.

"Somewhere out there is page 6!"
"But Emillo you promised ....... it's postpone"
#4497392 - 11/16/19 07:31 PM Re: Why Flight Physics get WWII dogfighting wrong (+video) [Re: PipsPriller]  
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 1,246
elephant Offline
elephant  Offline

Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 1,246
Originally Posted by PipsPriller
All makes for some very fascinating reading. Many thanks for posting.

+1 thumbsup

WOFF UE, BOC member, Albatros pilot.

#4503173 - 01/09/20 11:55 AM Re: Why Flight Physics get WWII dogfighting wrong (+video) [Re: WrathofAtlantis]  
Joined: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,820
FlyingToaster Offline
FlyingToaster  Offline

Joined: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,820
If I'm right, X-plane uses simulation based more on airflow instead of the airplane, so could give a more accurate assessment? Has anyone tried an FW-190 vs spitfire/109/hurricane/whatever in X-plane (if it allows multiplayer)?

#4505814 - 02/01/20 05:41 PM Re: Why Flight Physics get WWII dogfighting wrong (+video) [Re: WrathofAtlantis]  
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 6,305
GrayGhost Offline
GrayGhost  Offline

Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 6,305
What does "simulation based more on airflow instead of the airplane" mean exactly?

44th VFW
#4505836 - 02/01/20 08:31 PM Re: Why Flight Physics get WWII dogfighting wrong (+video) [Re: GrayGhost]  
Joined: Jun 2010
Posts: 1,181
DaBBQ Offline
Bug Stompe....Quisling
DaBBQ  Offline
Bug Stompe....Quisling

Joined: Jun 2010
Posts: 1,181
Originally Posted by GrayGhost
What does "simulation based more on airflow instead of the airplane" mean exactly?

Due to limited CPU power during the 80/90/00's, developers could not model the airflow over each part of the aircraft to give an accurate feeling of flight in a simulator so tables were used to give a lift/drag number for each flight envelope. While il-2 is the most accurate WW2 simulator, you can still see tables being used when planes can dive really fast through thicker air and the P-38 suffering Mach tuck at wrong speeds.

Moderated by  Andy Bush, RacerGT 

Quick Search
Recent Articles
Support SimHQ

If you shop on Amazon use this Amazon link to support SimHQ

Recent Topics
Larry King Dies at 87
by Blade_RJ. 01/24/21 02:58 AM
Hank Aaron was 86
by F4UDash4. 01/22/21 05:21 PM
Simple things that trip you up
by DBond. 01/22/21 02:24 PM
Mira Furlan was 65
by F4UDash4. 01/22/21 02:11 PM
Our funny and absurd world
by PanzerMeyer. 01/21/21 06:01 PM
1955 Belgium GP
by KraziKanuK. 01/19/21 09:14 PM
How tools got their names
by Blade_RJ. 01/18/21 02:47 AM
Phil Spector Dies.
by RedToo. 01/17/21 05:49 PM
Copyright 1997-2016, SimHQ Inc. All Rights Reserved.

Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.6.0