First of all, I have no aeronautical engineering background whatsoever, I am not a pilot, and I have understood that Franek and all of you have very high knowledge in your respective special fields. My approach is that of someone interested more in the men and the history than in the machines. I found the discussion about the pilot statements interesting.

” barkhorn stated yak-9u as best fighter for low altitudes. . . I am very curious how he could distinguish Yak-9U variant in the air.”

- I think it may be quite simple: He or some other German guy flew a captured Yak-9U to test it against German fighters. Otherwise, I agree with Franek. As Grislawski said: “Yak, LaGG, MiG - whatever, sometimes we couldn’t tell.”

“rall stated his 109g(6?) wasn't able to catch la-5 and yak-9. . . .I find it surprising, it was underlined by a Polish Yak1/9 pilot Edward Chromy, that they were slower but more manouverable than their German enemies.”

- Here we apparently have two conflicting statements. The question is which one you find surprising - Rall’s or Chromy’s? Who had the largest amount of experience? From which tactical positions did Chromy encounter his “German enemies”? When did he usually encounter them? If he encountered German “free hunters” over Soviet territory immediately after he had taken off himself, he would have a Yak fighter with filled fuel tanks - adding quite some weight to the little fighter - against German fighters with maybe only half filled tanks (thus with less relative weight), and maybe also an altitude superiority.

“grislaski is quoted, that his 109 can't outturn yak-1 . . . I cannot exclude it but otherwise I find it quite stupid to turn with Yak when it is possible to make a safe zoom attack.”

- I got the impression that:
a) Grislawski didn’t always enjoy the privilege of being able to choose the tactical position in the air combats;
b) Grislawski was such a damned good pilot that he knew how to take his Bf 109 to the end, even out-turning enemy fighters which when equally compared were more maneuverable. Although one German pilot described entering a turning combat with P-40s as “tantamount to suicide” (or something similar), Marseille frequently challenged P-40s in turning fights. I think he knew what he was doing. Another extremely skilful “turn fighter” on the Bf 109 was Max-Hellmuth Ostermann, who learned how to out-turn even I-16s. See my forthcoming biography on Ostermann. . .

“general schwabedissen stated, yak-3 and la-7 were superior to 109g and 190a . . . am not sure what qualifications General Schwabediessen had.”

- I think that what Jens refers to here is the book “The Russian Air Force in the Eyes of German Commanders” (USAF Historical Division, Air University 1960), where Schwabedissen simply lines up statements made by various German commanders (including air unit commanders). Schwabedissen makes only few own statements.

It always is interesting to listen to the veterans when they speak of what the have experienced themselves. Realities at the frontlines were much different than test results in calm conditions.

We should remember to take both pilot accounts and all kinds of aircraft performance statistics with a grain of salt. I think there were pilots who were so in love with the plane they flew, that they found it better than anything else - even if that was not true. I think there were pilots who due to one traumatic experience while flying one aircraft, learned to loathe that aircraft type, and saw nothing good in it. But when there is a whole row of pilots who say the same thing about a particular aircraft in combat conditions, I think that could be of greater value than some test results in calm conditions.

A single combat - like the one between Yaks and Lightnings - definitely is of very little value when it comes to making an assessment of how these aircraft compared to each other. I can give you examples of I-16s or PZL P.11s beating up Bf 109 Es or Fs, but surely no one would be able to come up with an overall test result that would indicate that the I-16 or the PZL P.11 could be regarded as generally superior to the Bf 109 E or F.

Finally - thanks, Ruy, for reminding us all of the golden rules!

BTW - now it is clear. “Black Cross/Red Star”, Vol. 3 WILL be published by Eagle Editions in the autumn of 2005. (There will be some more surprises from my pen in the nearest future. There was one small hint above.)

All best from a quite busy writer :D

Christer Bergström

http://www.graf-grislawski.elknet.pl/index.htm

http://www.bergstrombooks.elknet.pl/bc-rs/

http://www.bergstrombooks.elknet.pl/...-ace/index.htm

Jens

I have reasons to doubt German statements.

Pardon, I am not sure if I understand you.

Rall ended his Eastern Front career in the early 1944, when Yak-3 and Yak -9U were not available. Most common was Yak-1 which had speed limit of 650 km/h. Rall's story does not sound very reliable to me, unless he was in a very infavourable position.

I stand by my comment - numbers of Yak-9U available were quite limited

This is actually a question to our French friends - were French Yaks capable of bombload? Personally I do not think so.

I have a full report in Russian. This is only a small bit of it.

Factory data of La-7 seemed to be reached with polished skin and so on, which i think was more or less normal for german tests.


First of all, I have no aeronautical engineering background whatsoever, I am not a pilot, and I have understood that Franek and all of you have very high knowledge in your respective special fields. My approach is that of someone interested more in the men and the history than in the machines. I found the discussion about the pilot statements interesting.

” barkhorn stated yak-9u as best fighter for low altitudes. . . I am very curious how he could distinguish Yak-9U variant in the air.”

- I think it may be quite simple: He or some other German guy flew a captured Yak-9U to test it against German fighters. Otherwise, I agree with Franek. As Grislawski said: “Yak, LaGG, MiG - whatever, sometimes we couldn’t tell.”

“rall stated his 109g(6?) wasn't able to catch la-5 and yak-9. . . .I find it surprising, it was underlined by a Polish Yak1/9 pilot Edward Chromy, that they were slower but more manouverable than their German enemies.”

- Here we apparently have two conflicting statements. The question is which one you find surprising - Rall’s or Chromy’s? Who had the largest amount of experience? From which tactical positions did Chromy encounter his “German enemies”? When did he usually encounter them? If he encountered German “free hunters” over Soviet territory immediately after he had taken off himself, he would have a Yak fighter with filled fuel tanks - adding quite some weight to the little fighter - against German fighters with maybe only half filled tanks (thus with less relative weight), and maybe also an altitude superiority.

“grislaski is quoted, that his 109 can't outturn yak-1 . . . I cannot exclude it but otherwise I find it quite stupid to turn with Yak when it is possible to make a safe zoom attack.”

- I got the impression that:
a) Grislawski didn’t always enjoy the privilege of being able to choose the tactical position in the air combats;
b) Grislawski was such a damned good pilot that he knew how to take his Bf 109 to the end, even out-turning enemy fighters which when equally compared were more maneuverable. Although one German pilot described entering a turning combat with P-40s as “tantamount to suicide” (or something similar), Marseille frequently challenged P-40s in turning fights. I think he knew what he was doing. Another extremely skilful “turn fighter” on the Bf 109 was Max-Hellmuth Ostermann, who learned how to out-turn even I-16s. See my forthcoming biography on Ostermann. . .

“general schwabedissen stated, yak-3 and la-7 were superior to 109g and 190a . . . am not sure what qualifications General Schwabediessen had.”

- I think that what Jens refers to here is the book “The Russian Air Force in the Eyes of German Commanders” (USAF Historical Division, Air University 1960), where Schwabedissen simply lines up statements made by various German commanders (including air unit commanders). Schwabedissen makes only few own statements.

It always is interesting to listen to the veterans when they speak of what the have experienced themselves. Realities at the frontlines were much different than test results in calm conditions.

We should remember to take both pilot accounts and all kinds of aircraft performance statistics with a grain of salt. I think there were pilots who were so in love with the plane they flew, that they found it better than anything else - even if that was not true. I think there were pilots who due to one traumatic experience while flying one aircraft, learned to loathe that aircraft type, and saw nothing good in it. But when there is a whole row of pilots who say the same thing about a particular aircraft in combat conditions, I think that could be of greater value than some test results in calm conditions.

A single combat - like the one between Yaks and Lightnings - definitely is of very little value when it comes to making an assessment of how these aircraft compared to each other. I can give you examples of I-16s or PZL P.11s beating up Bf 109 Es or Fs, but surely no one would be able to come up with an overall test result that would indicate that the I-16 or the PZL P.11 could be regarded as generally superior to the Bf 109 E or F.

Finally - thanks, Ruy, for reminding us all of the golden rules!

BTW - now it is clear. “Black Cross/Red Star”, Vol. 3 WILL be published by Eagle Editions in the autumn of 2005. (There will be some more surprises from my pen in the nearest future. There was one small hint above.)

All best from a quite busy writer

Christer Bergström

Thanks for the link to La-5FN/-7 specs Jens. Very interesting. The comparisions otherhand, checked only vs. Spit IX, are problematic. You probably noticed that the difference between empty and full weights are 560 - 590kg for Las and 1764kg for poor Spit, not very realistic for comprasion between fighters, I'm pretty sure that a Spit pilot would drop his bombs before entering dogfight. Spit IX could have one of several different Merlin types, that in the table is, surprise, surprise, weakest for LF and F Spits, IIRC. And one must remember that from summer 44 at least those with Merlin 66 were modified for 150oct petrol and the 25lb/sqin boost allowed with that petrol pushed the max power appr. 2020hp for 5 minutes at low level. With more realistic t/o weight of appr. 3400kg the comparision become rather different.

Juha

Jens

I have reasons to doubt German statements, this based on some accounts that I was able to verify. I can also mention some statements of Galland that were discussed on this board previously.

Pardon, I am not sure if I understand you.

Rall ended his Eastern Front career in the early 1944, when Yak-3 and Yak -9U were not available. Most common was Yak-1 which had speed limit of 650 km/h. Rall's story does not sound very reliable to me, unless he was in a very infavourable position.

I stand by my comment - numbers of Yak-9U available were quite limited. Bock states that the first kill on a Yak-9U was achieved on 30.04.1945 (42 GIAP). Perhaps our Russian friends can comment this info, nonetheless I do not think Bock did a significant error if any.

This is actually a question to our French friends - were French Yaks capable of bombload? Personally I do not think so.

I have a full report in Russian. This is only a small bit of it.

The report discusses this issue. Several reasons mentioned, including extra drag from radio mast, not installed on the prototype.

Christer

I do not think Germans captured any flyable Yak-9U and I doubt they were awared of any particular designations. I believe it is a post war interpretation.

It was a common knowledge at the time, the thing pilots were learned before entering the combat. See also a reply to Jens.

Point a is valid but only partially. Grislawski should keep an altitude advantage which favoured his aircraft. Of course I can imagine he sometimes was taking the risk but it was his error of judgement.
Point b - of course skilled pilot is able to do miracles and use some tricks like full throttle flying on high angles of attack. Otherwise I would be rather sceptical in such claims. One or two such combats may turn into a ordinary deed by power of a gossip. Combat reports are necessary. Not to forgotten is a quality of an opposing pilot of course - a very important factor.

See my reply to Jens.

Yes, but often veterans tend to 'colourise' their stories. I always try to verify their statements with combat reports etc.

It is just a sample, nonetheless I find it interesting because it is coming from an official document from the period. No further details are known and I cannot exclude it was a high speed combat in which Lightnings could use power advantage.

Indeed. More, if 109 is downed in such a combat, I would consider it almost exclusively an error of a German pilot.

PS A very recommended reading!
http://lend-lease.airforce.ru/englis...es/golodnikov/

One very small correction
 

Sorry
I was a little bit careless in my last message.
the max boost allowed with 150oct. petrol was +25lb/sqin, IIRC in other way expressed 81"HG.

Juha

Juha
You can edit your posts!
I will check Spitfire figures but you are correct this is a stinky bussiness. Anyway, flying Spitfire IX, I would recommend to keep altitude advantage and in case of enemy attack to climb away. I have to note that I have heard (it is somewhere on my PC) an interview with a Soviet ace Shatskij who flew Spitfires in PVO. He claimed Spit was the best aircraft he ever flew and that everything Soviet was a piece of crap. ;)

The weights for the Spitfire in that comparison are way over normal service load.

With full internal fuel and ammunition, the Spitfire IX weighed approx 7,450 lbs. The comparison on that site gives a weight of 4309 kg, which is 9,500 lbs.

So the Spitfire in that comparison is carrying 2,050 lbs of extra load, over and above normal fuel and ammunition.

The maximum load you could add to a Spitfire IX would be:

2 250 lbs bombs on the wings: 580 lbs (with bomb racks)

90 gallon drop tank on the centre line: 790 lbs

That's still 630 lbs short, which could only be made up by adding a rear fuselage fuel tank, of about 70 gallons.

That's way over maximum takeoff weight.

The power is correct, for a Merlin 63 at 21,000 ft, but I'd bet everything I own that the Russian fighters were not making 1850 hp at that altitude, and that their HP figures are the maximum they achieved. The Merlin 63, 66 and 70 were good for 1710 - 1720 hp with 100/130 octane fuel, around 2000 hp with 100/150 (less for the Merlin 63, as it couldn't run at 25 lbs boost, only 21, so approx 1900 hp).

Nash
I think more appropriate would be to compare Merlin 66 and 70 equipped Spitfires, as those were of 1944 standard as La-7 was. On the other hand, should not we compare La-7 with Spitfire XIV?
Interestingly, Soviets considered Spitfire LF.IX(!) their best high altitude fighter. She remained in service up until early 1950s.

I am not sure if I should post a separate reply but I think it would be clearer.
Great there is a separate board but woul it be possible to have some storage area for photos and drawings?

Finally something technical. The main difference between Soviet and Western aircraft was that they largely consisted of wood. Wood allows to make very aerodynamic shapes but it takes volume and weight to achieve same endurance. That was the main reason the world moved to metal designs and still continues the way.

Here is my contribution:

Performance for the La-7 during test flights of mass produced aircraft at the LII in the summer of 1944:

Max speed at 6,000 m (20,000 fet) = 674 km/h (418 mph)
Max speed at sea level = 582 km/h (361 mph)

Source: Gordon, Khazanov, "Soviet Combat Aircraft", Vol. 1, p. 54.

Performance for the Bf 109 G-6 accodring to German test flights:

Max speed at 6,000 m = 624 km/h
Max speed at sea level = 518 km/h

Source: Test flight by Messerschmitt works. I am unable to post the source here, but anyone interested can have a scanned copy of it. (That's the purpose of posting sources - so that other people can check your statements, isn't it?)

No wonder the Germans regarded the La-7 as a most dangerous adversary. However, at higher altitude, the Bf 109 G-6 pilots sure had even greater problems with the P-51s, not least as far as speed is concerned.

I have no reliable source for this, but wasn't the P-51C and P-51D almost 50 mph faster than the Bf 109 G-6 at 20,000 ft altitude? Isn't that about the same difference as the difference in speed between the Bf 109 F-2 and the I-16 Mark 24 at 9,800 feet flight attitude - the altitude around where most of the air combat on the Eastern Front took place - (304 mph for I-16 Mark 24, compared to the Bf 109 F-2’s 346 miles per hour at that altitude)?