The Luftwaffe In Normandy

[Stuart Galbraith]

Thanks very much for that.

 

As for that writer thinking the Spitfire is a kiddy toy, they never had the good fortune to witness a display by the late Ray Hanna. Ironically it was a BF109 (a Buchon) that killed his son.

Edited December 11, 2018 by Stuart Galbraith

[MiloMorai]

Hanna, Spitfire, Goodwood 1998

​

[Stuart Galbraith]

The man was an absolute legend, and proof that there can be old and bold pilots.

 

I must have seen him display for years. The earliest I can remember would have been about 1980 in Henley on Thames. And Ive a strong feeling he was displaying the same Spitfire he few for years, MH434. Which had an interesting history in itself.

 

http://www.mh434.com/history/index.html

[Stuart Galbraith]

Incidentally speaking of Spitfires, this might be of some interest.

https://archive.org/details/DTIC_ADA492532/page/n17?q=spitfire

It says spitfire targets, but at least one of them looks like a Spiteful to me.

[sunday]

 

Well I did leave it till the sale, so I only kinda half bought it. Ill say no more about it, other than its the best model of engine torque ive yet seen in a flight sim.

 

Ive been kind of sheltered about from this vitriol, like I say ive only of late come back to this from a long time away. I can only put it down to some kind of political bia on his part, and less about the performance of the actual aircraft because its record speaks for itself. The BF109 was nowhere near as amenable to being continually updated as the Spitfire was.

 

Though I suppose to be honestly fair, that was partly due to the Luftwaffe having a wholly screwed up procurement system. The James Holland book on the Battle of Britain really opened my eyes to how much baggage Udet brought with him.

Here is a modern stunt/test pilot's take on flying an ME109G, that you might find enjoyable:

 

https://www.warhistoryonline.com/guest-bloggers/newly-restored-messerschmitt-bf109g-flies-test-pilot-shares-experience.html

 

 

Very enjoyable indeed. That man is a poet.

[DB]

Incidentally speaking of Spitfires, this might be of some interest.

https://archive.org/details/DTIC_ADA492532/page/n17?q=spitfire

It says spitfire targets, but at least one of them looks like a Spiteful to me.

Which of the six images? They all seem to have outward retracting undercarriage to me.

[Yama]

Well I did leave it till the sale, so I only kinda half bought it. Ill say no more about it, other than its the best model of engine torque ive yet seen in a flight sim.

 

Ive been kind of sheltered about from this vitriol, like I say ive only of late come back to this from a long time away. I can only put it down to some kind of political bia on his part, and less about the performance of the actual aircraft because its record speaks for itself. The BF109 was nowhere near as amenable to being continually updated as the Spitfire was.

I wouldn't say so, Bf-109F was considerable upgrade and superior to contemporary Spitfire. Bf-109K can be seen as equivalent to Griffon designs like XIV. Both had limitations compared to later designs like FW-190 and P-51.

[Stuart Galbraith]

 

Incidentally speaking of Spitfires, this might be of some interest.

https://archive.org/details/DTIC_ADA492532/page/n17?q=spitfire

It says spitfire targets, but at least one of them looks like a Spiteful to me.

Which of the six images? They all seem to have outward retracting undercarriage to me.

 

 

Yes, you are right. I was interpreting the mount the wing was sat on as the undercart minus the door, but as you saw the undercarriage well extend outwards. So yes, they are Spitfires.

 

This was another interesting one, continuous rod warhead tests against Lancaster, Spitfire and B29, including Valiant and Javelin components. Im guessing all these tests were done at Orford Ness, which had a RAE facility there dating back to at least WW2. The Lancaster still shows evidence of its Tiger Force paint scheme.

https://archive.org/details/DTIC_AD0159341/page/n1

[Stuart Galbraith]

 

Well I did leave it till the sale, so I only kinda half bought it. Ill say no more about it, other than its the best model of engine torque ive yet seen in a flight sim.

 

Ive been kind of sheltered about from this vitriol, like I say ive only of late come back to this from a long time away. I can only put it down to some kind of political bia on his part, and less about the performance of the actual aircraft because its record speaks for itself. The BF109 was nowhere near as amenable to being continually updated as the Spitfire was.

I wouldn't say so, Bf-109F was considerable upgrade and superior to contemporary Spitfire. Bf-109K can be seen as equivalent to Griffon designs like XIV. Both had limitations compared to later designs like FW-190 and P-51.

 

 

I think Spitfire was, give or take a model or 2, roughly level with the BF109 up to the F model, which was one hell of a good combat aircraft to give it its due. When the MkIX Spitfire came out, I think the BF109 was really at the end of its development line. You only have to read in the Haynes book the RAE report on comparative evaluation between the MKXIV and the BF109G, and in the summation it says 'The Spitfire XIV is superior to the ME109G in every respect'.

 

Course that doesnt count the BF109K, but I get the impression Eric Brown thought the FW190D9 was about the second or third best fighter aircraft of the war. And still inferior to a Mk XIV Spitfire. Tellingly the D9 he flew was apparently a D13, and had some tech the D9 didnt have.

[Yama]

They were flying Bf-109G-2 (or was it G-6), and probably quite worn airframe and engine, so basically 1942 a/c vs 1944 one. Comparison would have been more even with Bf-109G-10.

 

Spitfire XIV was great, but it was handful to fly, and later marks become downright unfriendly.

[MiloMorai]

A G-14 as the G-10 was a late '44 a/c.

​

Spit vs 109G, http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spit9v109g.html

[Stuart Galbraith]

That's a truly excellent article, thanks for that.

 

Ive also been reading the Osprey Book on Spitfire aces of 1944/45, and its hard to overestimate the kind of ascendency the RAF had in the last year of the war. For sure part of that was due to lack of fuel and training on the part of the Luftwaffe. But its interesting to note that even when the RAF captured these aircraft and evaluated them, they kept getting the same results.

 

Its forgotten quite how powerful some of the later spitfires were. I think it was in one of the Alfred Price books, he speaks of one being used by the RAF High Speed Research flight, and one of them achieved such a high mach number, the propeller fragmented. It was also found that for some strange reason the Spitfires elliptical wing was superior at high speeds to the laminar flow wing. And the Spitfire wasnt even the most advanced aircraft in development, you only have to look at the Spiteful or the later Tempests to see what the Luftwaffe would have had to cope with if the war had gone on an extra year.

[DB]

A high speed dive resulted in the separation of the prop and reduction gear from the rest of a test aircraft. The pilot dead-sticked into Odiham, as I recall. It wasn't a particularly late model.

[Stuart Galbraith]

I thought it was a griffin powed model, but in fairness its been about 30 years since I read Prices book.

 

In the account Price wrote, I think he talked about the pilot making a forced landing and having to rescue the data recorded from the burning wreck. OTOH, Ive a feeling I saw a picture of the one that dead sticked into Odiham, and that appeared to be an MkIX. Perhaps the high speed flight just got through a lot of kites.....

[Stuart Galbraith]

[Stuart Galbraith]

The Germans clearly saw the light in the end, if the registration of this one is any guide.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wZIBjXz3Cqs&feature=player_embedded

[Stuart Galbraith]

This makes a good comparison, great to see a G14 still flying.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HuUe8GQMlCM

[bojan]

Local estimates - Spit VB < 109g6 < Spit IX < S-49A < Yak-3 < Yak-9P < S-49C <<<<<<<<< P-47D. Basically, in air combat (training) P-47 so outclassed them so much that P-47D could basically chose a point when and how to attack 9/10 times. P-47 was also only non-jet with a realistic chance to intercept Mosquito. Difference in performances between Spit VB and S-49C was considered to be smaller that between S-49C and P-47.

Edited December 12, 2018 by bojan

[MiloMorai]

A high speed dive resulted in the separation of the prop and reduction gear from the rest of a test aircraft. The pilot dead-sticked into Odiham, as I recall. It wasn't a particularly late model.

 

There is a book called 'Spitfire: The History'. It has been called the bible of the Spitfire. The high dive Spitfire was a XI.

​

Another book is 'Six Months to Oblivion' by Werner Girbig is worth reading.

[Yama]

A G-14 as the G-10 was a late '44 a/c.

​

Spit vs 109G, http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spit9v109g.html

I've talked about that article before. Examples seem hand-picked to 'prove' that performance of Bf-109G was inferior. G-1 and G-5 were pressurized special versions. G-6 had gondola guns to drag performance down. Finnish flight test result is summarily dismissed as 'aberrant' because it doesn't fit the preconception. German Rechlin test which matched the Finnish results is not included in the graphs...

[Stuart Galbraith]

Local estimates - Spit VB < 109g6 < Spit IX < S-49A < Yak-3 < Yak-9P < S-49C <<<<<<<<< P-47D. Basically, in air combat (training) P-47 so outclassed them so much that P-47D could basically chose a point when and how to attack 9/10 times. P-47 was also only non-jet with a realistic chance to intercept Mosquito. Difference in performances between Spit VB and S-49C was considered to be smaller that between S-49C and P-47.

 

In theory.

 

In reality, you can read Robert Shaw's 'Fighter Combat' and find an account by a P47 pilot (I think it was the ace Robert Johnson) where he was flying DACT against a brand new MkIX spitfire, and the only area he said the P47 had any superiority was in roll. Which he made work for him, but it was kind of telling he felt that was the one area of advantage he had.

 

And it wasnt even the latest model of Spitfire come to that. I strongly doubt the P47 could have beat a Spitfire XIV in a prolonged dive, even if initially it out accelerated it.

[MiloMorai]

 

A G-14 as the G-10 was a late '44 a/c.

​

Spit vs 109G, http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spit9v109g.html

I've talked about that article before. Examples seem hand-picked to 'prove' that performance of Bf-109G was inferior. G-1 and G-5 were pressurized special versions. G-6 had gondola guns to drag performance down. Finnish flight test result is summarily dismissed as 'aberrant' because it doesn't fit the preconception. German Rechlin test which matched the Finnish results is not included in the graphs...

 

 

Straight from the School of Kurfurst. Final text in the article, "This is but a snapshot in time of the 1942-43 period. During 1944 both Spitfires and Me 109s gained significant performance increases."

[bojan]

...where he was flying DACT....

 

Not comparable. That assumes that they are already in combat, while local estimats included all scenarios, including hot scramble from the airfield, radar directed intercept, free-range patrol etc. In those scenarios P-47s got 9/10 chance opportunity to initiate combat to their advantage.

Spit got really good marks for manuevar fight, but that was Yak (especially Yak-3) territory.

 

To be fair to Brits, Mosquito was also so better than anything trialed (Pe-2, Il-2, A-G P-47) that was not even funny.

Edited December 13, 2018 by bojan

[Stuart Galbraith]

 

...where he was flying DACT....

 

Not comparable. That assumes that they are already in combat, while local estimats included all scenarios, including hot scramble from the airfield, radar directed intercept, free-range patrol etc. In those scenarios P-47s got 9/10 chance opportunity to initiate combat to their advantage.

Spit got really good marks for manuevar fight, but that was Yak (especially Yak-3) territory.

 

To be fair to Brits, Mosquito was also so better than anything trialed (Pe-2, Il-2, A-G P-47) that was not even funny.

 

 

If you are saying a P47 could dictate the fight, then you are undoubtedly right. But in not sure one cannot say the the later Spitfires were incapable of doing exactly the same. I gather BNZ worked pretty well with those. In fact they were even doing it with the MkVIII vs Zero's over Burma, which were hithertoo near untouchable with earlier Spitfires. The later spitfires pretty much exchanged the values of the early ones. The first ones were moderately powered and highly manoeuvrable, the later ones arguably gave up a lot of manoeuvrablity, but gained in power output.

 

 

Mosquito was WW2's best light bomber, as long as the glue lasted. Which for us was about 1947, after we flogged a load of them abroad. There was also apparently some issues with operating them in Burma I gather. If you havent already got it, I can recommend the Haynes book on the Mosquito. Its far better than the average tome they come out with, even showing practically new ones being made in New Zealand from reverse engineered jigs. That really impressed the hell out of me.

 

[MiloMorai]

The original Mossie fuselage mold were concrete.