Whom to believe?

[FOF]

Browsing the net, I have often come across contradictory information regarding certain aircraft.

For instance, one website will claim a mk XIV Spit could hang with a Mustang P-51 no problem in mock dogfights, yet (in theory) outperform a FW 190D9 in most respects. Yet another website claims the D9 was "at least the equeal" of the Mustang P-51. Somehow 2+2=5 here, if you know what I mean.

Most sites agree that the Mk IX Spit was of comparable perfomance to the Fw 190A-4, yet I read an article where it was alledged that Spifire mk IX's and Tempests had a run-in in 1942 with the FW's which resulted in "a stinging defeat for the RAF", which lost 97 aircraft to FW190's.
Again, if the performance was similar, why such a one-sided battle?

There are other instances as well, but I'm sure you guys have also come across a lot of contradictory information too, so I doubt I need to cite any more examples.
I for one am rather frustrated by it all...

[Ricky]

Welcome to the study of History.
If something happened (or even if it did not), then we will have at least 2 or 3 different versions of it...

[GregP]

This is a subject of great interest to me since I have found even sources I previously considered reliable to write some incorrect things. I have posted incorrect information myself in this forum, having read the self-same wrong stuff from a supposed-reliable source... and I posted it without checking it against other sources for reasonability. I find a LOT of wrong information on the web.

When you get away from the web, actual reference books are incorrect a relatively minor amount of the time and, when they ARE, it is usually a misprint. Look at the "best fighter thread near page 22 or 23, and I posted a reply about the P-51H tat says the service date was 1944 when, in fact, it was 1945. I didn't make it up ... I read it in a book, and did not check it out against other sources.

To your observation.

I'd say the flight reviews of fighter vs. fighter are all biased to a LARGE degree by the pilot's previous training. Here is what I mean by that.

Suppose you have a pilot trained on, say, Hellcats. Hellcats have absolutely GREAT slow-speed characteristics, and can be reefed around in very tight turns ... almost as good as a Zero.

Take that pilot, who is intimately famailar with the Hellcat, possibly even in combat, and put him into, say, a Corsair. The Corsair is a GREAT fighter, but it ain't no Hellcat at low speeds, and departs controlled flight readily when you stall it at anything under 180 knots, sometimes even winding up in an inverted spin. The Takeoff & Landing characteristics of the Carsair are WAY different from a Hellcat.

So, is the Corsair a bad fighter? No, but you need to fly it like a Corsair, not like a Hellcat.

With respect to the Spitfire drivers, I wonder how many got the chance to fly the Fw 190D-9 enough to make a true comparison. Especially considering that the Germans didn't have that many to start with, and THEY didn't get that much time in them either. Ditto for the P-51 pilot.

Many Luftwaffe Aces preferred the Bf 109 all the way through the war simply because they were intimately familiar with it and knew where the switches were by feel. Changing horses would mean another "training" period. Erich Hartmann, Gunther Rall, and Gerhard Barkhorn come to mind here.


Chuckie Yeager said the P-51 was the best fighter of WWII ... but HE flew the P-51 in combat and flew the P-51 for most of his WWII career.He MIGHT have flown a Spitfire or two, or even a Zero or two, but did he study the manual enough and fly it enough to learn to FIGHT in it? If not, then his opinion is biased by P-51 training and experience, almost none of which may be in the type supposedly "evaluated."

Later in Chuck's career, he went through test pilot school at Edwards. I can't say if he flew Spits before or after that time, but learning to EVALUATE an aircraft from an engineering standpoint is WAY different than saddling up, say, an Fw 109D-9, for which you have no manual .... and taking a casul flight ... and maybe trying some of the same maneuvers that you used in the P-51, and THEN claiming the P-51 is better. Also, I'm not saying Chuck Yeager DID that ... its just illustrative of what CAN be taken as a "pilot report" when, in fact, it is a report about, "I few aircraft XYZ and didn't crash it."

Sure, we can compare wing loading, top speed, cruise speed, span loading, power loading, dimensions, weights, roll rate, and other empirical data, but unless you are an aeronautical engineer, can you tell how different two fighter might fly with some NACA airfoil versus another one? Also, almost NO fighter wing is a pure NACA airfoil to start with, they change section across the span to tailor the stall and maneuvering characteristics.

So, take most comparisons with a grain of salt unless the pilot in question is collecting data points while flying the same profile as he did with the OTHER fighter.

After all, why evaluate the P-39 at 25,000 feet? It never GOT there in real life because the performance was best at 15,000 feet and lower. Conversely, the P-51 didn't achieve its maximum speed until it got higher than 15,000 feet.

Therein lies the rub. Non-standardized flight test profiles.

To me, as graphed from sea level to service ceiling, I would like to see top speed vs. altitude, rate of climb vs. altitude, instantaneous rate of turn vs. altitude, and sustained rate of turn vs. altitude. The thing to remember is that all aircraft have a best cornering speed. For most jets, that speed is 400 to 550 knots. For most WWII fighters, the speeds vary widely.

The Zero was deadly at 180 - 220 mph, but was meat on the table at 350 mph.

The Spitfore was touted as a great maneuvering fighter, but at 200 mph, a Zero would eat it up. If the Spitfire stayed at 275 mph and above, then the Spitfire could outturn the Zero and engage or disengage at will.So, the instances of differing opinions about fighters will likely continue.

Want an obvious contradiction? The Russian LOVED the P-39 and shot down a lot of Luftwaffe planes with it. The other Allies thought it wa a pirce of garbage and didn't even want to fly it.

Who is right? Depends on who you ask, but most American abd British pilots were never trained to fight in a P-39 using it strengths, so they hated it. Mosr Russians WERE trained to employ it at low level and use its strengths .. and they loved it.

Go figure, huh?

[robert]

quote:Originally posted by FOF

Browsing the net, I have often come across contradictory information regarding certain aircraft.

For instance, one website will claim a mk XIV Spit could hang with a Mustang P-51 no problem in mock dogfights, yet (in theory) outperform a FW 190D9 in most respects. Yet another website claims the D9 was "at least the equeal" of the Mustang P-51. Somehow 2+2=5 here, if you know what I mean.

Most sites agree that the Mk IX Spit was of comparable perfomance to the Fw 190A-4, yet I read an article where it was alledged that Spifire mk IX's and Tempests had a run-in in 1942 with the FW's which resulted in "a stinging defeat for the RAF", which lost 97 aircraft to FW190's.
Again, if the performance was similar, why such a one-sided battle?

There are other instances as well, but I'm sure you guys have also come across a lot of contradictory information too, so I doubt I need to cite any more examples.
I for one am rather frustrated by it all...



Hmmn...are you sure that the Spitfires in the second example weren't Spitfire Mk.Vs, which were certainly inferior to the Fw 190A? The reason I ask is because the Tempest didn't enter service until January 1944, so the aircraft mentioned in the article must have been Typhoons to fly in 1942 - perhaps the author also mixed up the Spit V and Spit IX?

[simon]

I have to agree with what Greg says, apart from the odd occassional repeating myth (For example, just ask Corsarius what he thinks of the Me163 Komet's tendencies to explode at random!), most books seem pretty good apart from the odd typo here and there.

The internet however is altogether far less reliable since anyone can start an internet site proclaiming his or herself an expert on the topic concerned, whilst in reality they may know virtually nothing or even worse have a vague knowledge of the subject (For example getting the aircraft names right but the mark numbers wrong).

This forum is no exception to this rule however among our group at the moment are more than enough genuinely knowledgable people that any errors and typos usually get picked up pretty quickly.

The best methods really are to cross reference, take your information where possible from at least three sources and go with the consensus. Any glaring discrepencies are usually down to either genuine typos, a misconception on the part of the writer, or a partisan viewpoint.

In the case of the first two if it is an internet site (including here), then why not e-mail them or post a message to let them know if you think something is wrong, very few people will take offence to this and many are genuinely grateful, and ina ny case that is how many of the debates get started. Partisan writers who usually have some sort of political agenda behind their comments are usually best ignored, and in any case can only rarely be swayed.

[FOF]

Greg, you brought some excellent points up.

I'm sure many of you are familiar with "Kit" Carson's (a Mustang pilot) famous (infamous?) article entitled "Best of the breed" in which he evaluated several WW2 fighter planes.

He had some rather disparaging remarks about the bf 109G, basically dismissing the plane as unacceptable as a fighter. This came as quite a surprise to me, since I had always held the 109 in high regard.

A few days after reading this article, I came across a counter-argument on the net entitled "Why Carson was an idiot" in which the author (whose name I didn't catch)proceeded to dismiss pretty much Carson's entire piece on the 109, with sometimes startling facts.

Had I never read the counter-argument, I may well have started to take Carson's article as law, concerning the 109.

(I don't have links to the respective articles, but would be happy to copy & paste them here, if it's permissible.)

[Ricky]

quote:The internet however is altogether far less reliable since anyone can start an internet site proclaiming his or herself an expert on the topic concerned, whilst in reality they may know virtually nothing or even worse have a vague knowledge of the subject (For example getting the aircraft names right but the mark numbers wrong).

This forum is no exception to this rule however among our group at the moment are more than enough genuinely knowledgable people that any errors and typos usually get picked up pretty quickly.


Speaking as one who is responsible for many errors and vague posts[:I], I must say it is nice to have the knowledgeable types around to provide correct information!

Keep up the good work guys!
:D

[FOF]

quote:Originally posted by robert

Hmmn...are you sure that the Spitfires in the second example weren't Spitfire Mk.Vs, which were certainly inferior to the Fw 190A? The reason I ask is because the Tempest didn't enter service until January 1944, so the aircraft mentioned in the article must have been Typhoons to fly in 1942 - perhaps the author also mixed up the Spit V and Spit IX?


I checked and double-checked, and no reference was made to mk V's. Go figure...

[GregP]

Thinking back to everything I have read about WWII in Europe, it seems to me that here is what happened.

The Bf 109 was invented for the new German air force about the same time or slightly earlier than the Spitfire. The early Spitfires were good, especially when the three-bladed propellers were fitted, but the Bf 109 had the advantage of being battle tested in Spain.

By the time WWII started, the Bf 109 had a slight edge over its Spitfire rival. So ... Supermarine worked tirelessly to overcome that edge, and DID. SO, Messerschmitt did the same. The history of these two fighters is one of each factory working to give its product an edge over the competing fighter, mostly based on the observations of the combat pilots. So, when a Bf 109E pilot compains about the Spitfires being able to roll better, or turn better, or SOMETHING, then Messerschmitt AG starts thinkjing about how thye can improve the 109 in those areas.

It is worth noting that the Bf 109 and the Spitfire were around at the START of WWII, and they were both there at the end. Of the two, the Spitfire's ultimate development was the more capable of the two, but the Bf 109K models at the end of the war could climb well, were FAST up high, and only had a few bad characteristics (never DID have rudder trim and rolling was VERY difficult above 400 mph).

As a matter of personal opinion, I believe the Spitfire could have been improved aven further to an aircraft capable of 500 mph and beyond, but it was overtaken by jet propulsion before that happened. What MIGHT have been developed in the Spitire line can be imagined by looking at the original Tempest, and then looking at the Sea Fury. So, I'd say there was another 10% to 15% of better performance available to be had ... at a price in both development costs and time.

However, even if jets had NOT been invented, the Spitfire could NOT have been developed into a multirole, electronic marvel since it was not an airframe on which to hang extra weight. Avionics development outstripped piston engines pretty early, and no radar-equipped piston fighter had the performance of its lighter, non radar-equipped bretheren.

As a day fighter, if the war had dragged on for another year or two, the Spitfire had more potential to tap, and no doubt would have been right at the forefront of the piston fighter breed. Whether or not it would have been the best is a question of some emotion to many people.

Just ask Corsarius about the Commonwealth Ca-15 and see what HE says. Also, take into account the Martin-Baker MB-5 guys, and the "might have been" advocated of the Ficke-Wulf Ta-152 series. I also think that the Russians would have been right there, assuming they could have gotten gasoline of more than 80 octane to use (most of the Russian engines produced the medium power they did because of poor fuel ... it was all they had). They also didn't have many turbosuperchargers to use either.

Then only really certain thing in MY mind is that the Spitfire would have been near the top of the breed had the piston not been outmoded by jets. As it turned out, Supermarine did not survive the jet age. They were a premier maker of piston aircraft, but could not survive the developemnt of jets.

Perhaps I judge them too harshly. Maybe they folded because post-WWII England didn't need a wartime supply of jets, so the government only chose to buy a few ... and Supermaire simply didn't make the grade due to politics. I have not studied the company and the Englkish political situation in the late 1940s and early 1950s enough to say with confidence why Supermarine "went away."

[robert]

quote:Originally posted by GregP
As it turned out, Supermarine did not survive the jet age. They were a premier maker of piston aircraft, but could not survive the developemnt of jets.

Perhaps I judge them too harshly. Maybe they folded because post-WWII England didn't need a wartime supply of jets, so the government only chose to buy a few ... and Supermaire simply didn't make the grade due to politics. I have not studied the company and the Englkish political situation in the late 1940s and early 1950s enough to say with confidence why Supermarine "went away."


Supermarine didn't exactly "fold". They were, of course, a subsidiary of Vickers-Armstrong from 1928 on, and when Vickers-Armstrong, English Electric, and Bristol merged to form the British Aircraft Corporation, the Supermarine name disappeared. The Supermarine design office was closed in 1958, and most of the staff were transferred to Weybridge, where they worked on the TSR.2. Since BAC eventually became British Aerospace, it's accurate to say that the Eurofighter Typhoon is, in a way, a direct descendent of the Spitfire.

The last Supermarine fighters to bear the name were the Swift, a failure as a fighter for the RAF, but successful as a reconnaissance aircraft,

http://www.thunder-and-lightnings.co.uk/swift/index.html

and the quite awesome Scimitar, which was both well-liked by its pilots and the possessor of a horrendous accident record. Go figure!

http://www.thunder-and-lightnings.co.uk/scimitar/index.html

[Corsarius]

Supermarine produced an 'ultimate' spitfire successor in the Spiteful, and it's navalised version, the Seafang. Of course, these, like the CA-15, died stillborn after jets were introduced.

[tenmmike]

quote:Originally posted by GregP

Thinking back to everything I have read about WWII in Europe, it seems to me that here is what happened.

The Bf 109 was invented for the new German air force about the same time or slightly earlier than the Spitfire. The early Spitfires were good, especially when the three-bladed propellers were fitted, but the Bf 109 had the advantage of being battle tested in Spain.

By the time WWII started, the Bf 109 had a slight edge over its Spitfire rival. So ... Supermarine worked tirelessly to overcome that edge, and DID. SO, Messerschmitt did the same. The history of these two fighters is one of each factory working to give its product an edge over the competing fighter, mostly based on the observations of the combat pilots. So, when a Bf 109E pilot compains about the Spitfires being able to roll better, or turn better, or SOMETHING, then Messerschmitt AG starts thinkjing about how thye can improve the 109 in those areas.

It is worth noting that the Bf 109 and the Spitfire were around at the START of WWII, and they were both there at the end. Of the two, the Spitfire's ultimate development was the more capable of the two, but the Bf 109K models at the end of the war could climb well, were FAST up high, and only had a few bad characteristics (never DID have rudder trim and rolling was VERY difficult above 400 mph).

As a matter of personal opinion, I believe the Spitfire could have been improved aven further to an aircraft capable of 500 mph and beyond, but it was overtaken by jet propulsion before that happened. What MIGHT have been developed in the Spitire line can be imagined by looking at the original Tempest, and then looking at the Sea Fury. So, I'd say there was another 10% to 15% of better performance available to be had ... at a price in both development costs and time.

However, even if jets had NOT been invented, the Spitfire could NOT have been developed into a multirole, electronic marvel since it was not an airframe on which to hang extra weight. Avionics development outstripped piston engines pretty early, and no radar-equipped piston fighter had the performance of its lighter, non radar-equipped bretheren.

As a day fighter, if the war had dragged on for another year or two, the Spitfire had more potential to tap, and no doubt would have been right at the forefront of the piston fighter breed. Whether or not it would have been the best is a question of some emotion to many people.

Just ask Corsarius about the Commonwealth Ca-15 and see what HE says. Also, take into account the Martin-Baker MB-5 guys, and the "might have been" advocated of the Ficke-Wulf Ta-152 series. I also think that the Russians would have been right there, assuming they could have gotten gasoline of more than 80 octane to use (most of the Russian engines produced the medium power they did because of poor fuel ... it was all they had). They also didn't have many turbosuperchargers to use either.

Then only really certain thing in MY mind is that the Spitfire would have been near the top of the breed had the piston not been outmoded by jets. As it turned out, Supermarine did not survive the jet age. They were a premier maker of piston aircraft, but could not survive the developemnt of jets.

Perhaps I judge them too harshly. Maybe they folded because post-WWII England didn't need a wartime supply of jets, so the government only chose to buy a few ... and Supermaire simply didn't make the grade due to politics. I have not studied the company and the Englkish political situation in the late 1940s and early 1950s enough to say with confidence why Supermarine "went away."
good post greg

[tenmmike]

also when checkig a website i try and compare with my own data that i have and if the website has a "agenda" fortunaly for me i have ppl i know from all over the world and things can be figured out through a preponderance of evidence

[GregP]

Hi Tenmmike,

Glad to see you're still alive and kicking! I have learned the hard way to check my data before posting. Wish I learned it sooner.

I wonder if the Me-262 had flown yet? Maybe we should drive out and see, huh?

Anyway, good to hear from you.

[tenmmike]

quote:Originally posted by GregP

Hi Tenmmike,

Glad to see you're still alive and kicking! I have learned the hard way to check my data before posting. Wish I learned it sooner.

I wonder if the Me-262 had flown yet? Maybe we should drive out and see, huh?

Anyway, good to hear from you.
HEY GREG I DONT KNOW IF IT IS OR NOT THERE WEB SITE SAYS NOTHING NEW ...ID LIKE TO GO THERE AGAIN BUT IM NOT IN ANY CONDITION TO DO THAT AGAIN UNTILL I GET DONE WITH SURGURY AND ALL THAT CRAP AGAIN...(DISREGARD THE CAPS)

[Ricky]

Flying Me 262?
What website?
[:0]

[Ricky]

Oh, Stormbirds.
Wow...
[8D]

[GregP]

Tennmike and I went over to Payne Field and visited the Stormbirds hanger a few months back. They had five Me-262s in various stages of completion, with one almost done and about ready to fly again after the landing gear collapsed on an earlier flight.

Awesome to see and I'd love to help out and watch the next "first flight." These guys (and gals) have done a really good job of building up new Me-262 airframes. The entire gun system is made from wood, and is painted black, so it looks real. They have some steel weights up forward to make the CG corect, and were wiring the avionics while we were there. Prior to that, the plane flew twice with only the aircraft controls and a radio wired up temporarily. On the second flight, one main gear leg failed after it was down and locked. The down lock was 0.020" too short! Whay can you say? Oops ...

Anyway, tennmike ... GET BETTER.

[tenmmike]

flying 262 here http://www.stormbirds.com/project/

[ickysdad]

quote:Originally posted by GregP

This is a subject of great interest to me since I have found even sources I previously considered reliable to write some incorrect things. I have posted incorrect information myself in this forum, having read the self-same wrong stuff from a supposed-reliable source... and I posted it without checking it against other sources for reasonability. I find a LOT of wrong information on the web.

When you get away from the web, actual reference books are incorrect a relatively minor amount of the time and, when they ARE, it is usually a misprint. Look at the "best fighter thread near page 22 or 23, and I posted a reply about the P-51H tat says the service date was 1944 when, in fact, it was 1945. I didn't make it up ... I read it in a book, and did not check it out against other sources.

To your observation.

I'd say the flight reviews of fighter vs. fighter are all biased to a LARGE degree by the pilot's previous training. Here is what I mean by that.

Suppose you have a pilot trained on, say, Hellcats. Hellcats have absolutely GREAT slow-speed characteristics, and can be reefed around in very tight turns ... almost as good as a Zero.

Take that pilot, who is intimately famailar with the Hellcat, possibly even in combat, and put him into, say, a Corsair. The Corsair is a GREAT fighter, but it ain't no Hellcat at low speeds, and departs controlled flight readily when you stall it at anything under 180 knots, sometimes even winding up in an inverted spin. The Takeoff & Landing characteristics of the Carsair are WAY different from a Hellcat.

So, is the Corsair a bad fighter? No, but you need to fly it like a Corsair, not like a Hellcat.

With respect to the Spitfire drivers, I wonder how many got the chance to fly the Fw 190D-9 enough to make a true comparison. Especially considering that the Germans didn't have that many to start with, and THEY didn't get that much time in them either. Ditto for the P-51 pilot.

Many Luftwaffe Aces preferred the Bf 109 all the way through the war simply because they were intimately familiar with it and knew where the switches were by feel. Changing horses would mean another "training" period. Erich Hartmann, Gunther Rall, and Gerhard Barkhorn come to mind here.


Chuckie Yeager said the P-51 was the best fighter of WWII ... but HE flew the P-51 in combat and flew the P-51 for most of his WWII career.He MIGHT have flown a Spitfire or two, or even a Zero or two, but did he study the manual enough and fly it enough to learn to FIGHT in it? If not, then his opinion is biased by P-51 training and experience, almost none of which may be in the type supposedly "evaluated."

Later in Chuck's career, he went through test pilot school at Edwards. I can't say if he flew Spits before or after that time, but learning to EVALUATE an aircraft from an engineering standpoint is WAY different than saddling up, say, an Fw 109D-9, for which you have no manual .... and taking a casul flight ... and maybe trying some of the same maneuvers that you used in the P-51, and THEN claiming the P-51 is better. Also, I'm not saying Chuck Yeager DID that ... its just illustrative of what CAN be taken as a "pilot report" when, in fact, it is a report about, "I few aircraft XYZ and didn't crash it."

Sure, we can compare wing loading, top speed, cruise speed, span loading, power loading, dimensions, weights, roll rate, and other empirical data, but unless you are an aeronautical engineer, can you tell how different two fighter might fly with some NACA airfoil versus another one? Also, almost NO fighter wing is a pure NACA airfoil to start with, they change section across the span to tailor the stall and maneuvering characteristics.

So, take most comparisons with a grain of salt unless the pilot in question is collecting data points while flying the same profile as he did with the OTHER fighter.

After all, why evaluate the P-39 at 25,000 feet? It never GOT there in real life because the performance was best at 15,000 feet and lower. Conversely, the P-51 didn't achieve its maximum speed until it got higher than 15,000 feet.

Therein lies the rub. Non-standardized flight test profiles.

To me, as graphed from sea level to service ceiling, I would like to see top speed vs. altitude, rate of climb vs. altitude, instantaneous rate of turn vs. altitude, and sustained rate of turn vs. altitude. The thing to remember is that all aircraft have a best cornering speed. For most jets, that speed is 400 to 550 knots. For most WWII fighters, the speeds vary widely.

The Zero was deadly at 180 - 220 mph, but was meat on the table at 350 mph.

The Spitfore was touted as a great maneuvering fighter, but at 200 mph, a Zero would eat it up. If the Spitfire stayed at 275 mph and above, then the Spitfire could outturn the Zero and engage or disengage at will.So, the instances of differing opinions about fighters will likely continue.

Want an obvious contradiction? The Russian LOVED the P-39 and shot down a lot of Luftwaffe planes with it. The other Allies thought it wa a pirce of garbage and didn't even want to fly it.

Who is right? Depends on who you ask, but most American abd British pilots were never trained to fight in a P-39 using it strengths, so they hated it. Mosr Russians WERE trained to employ it at low level and use its strengths .. and they loved it.

Go figure, huh?


GregP,
To your defence on the P51H gaff,it's predecessor the P51G initiated the development of the lightwieght fighter program of the P-51.The "H" decended from it and it(the P51G) was produced in prototype form in eary '44 pretty for sure.