# FIGHTER COMBAT COMPARISON No.2: Bf109E-3 vs Spitfire MkI



## krieghund (Dec 25, 2012)

HAPPY HOLIDAYS TO ALL

Well here is my Christmas present to the forum. It took me a long time to track down this document since I began looking for it in 1976.

Remember as you read it the author composed this in 1973 when some data on the Bf109E wasn’t so readily available. I believe this is a good product considering the time period it was composed. Computers weren’t readily accessible (I built my Heathkit H89 in 1979) and neither were good calculators and they weren’t inexpensive either. (I paid $127 for my Ti-10 in 1974)
At the end of the booklet are some letters to the author about future comparisons which looked comprehensive but he only published the P40C vs A6M2 in that series and in later years started a new series with the F6F-5 v J2M3 but never completed any more.

I do of course have my observations which are;

Lack of references to support certain statements.

Stall warning comments between 109 and Spit on pg 10.

Stated engine installation in the 109 being the DB601Aa….I think there is enough data out on the web to indicate this should be a DB601A. The 601A would have given the 109 a slightly higher critical altitude but less power below the critical altitude. Pg10.

Showing the 109 have three MG/FF cannon instead of only the wing installation. Pg12.

Another criticism about evaluating weapons is that everyone looks at weight of fire and explosive effects but I don’t think enough words are devoted to the number of rounds shot in a 3 second burst. The 109 shoots a total of 35 20mm and 102 7.9mm for a total of 137 projectiles in a three second burst. The Spit shoots a total of 540 projectiles in three seconds. This gives the Spitfire pilot 4 times the chance to obtain hits over the Bf109.

Another issue overlooked is in a turning deflection shot the 109 pilot won’t be able to obtain hits with all his guns due to the very different ballistics between the slow 20mm MG/FF and the faster velocity 7.9 MG17 rounds.

Of course there will be those who will deride the performance numbers and conclusion offered but the author used the DB601Aa so that will taint the results somewhat. Unless of course you want to compare an export Bf109E instead of a BoB Luftwaffe Bf109E.


----------



## Aozora (Dec 25, 2012)

Other problems with the report: 

a) All frontline Spitfires were using C.S propellers by early July 1940, and 100 octane fuel from early 1940 - I seem to remember seeing a thread about this a couple of years ago  here it is. The constant speed props made a big difference in Spitfire climb performance and acceleration at all altitudes, while 100 octane and +12 lbs boost completely eliminated any 109 speed advantage or instantaneous turn capability at low altitudes, particularly below c. 10,000 ft. A disadvantage was that +12 lbs boost was only available for five minutes at a time, but 5 minutes is a very long time in a combat situation.

b) the performance figures used for the Spitfire Ia are for a pre-war aircraft equipped with a two-speed prop and without armour, iff equipment etc. While the top speeds for a fully equipped B of B era Spitfire were lower, again, the C.S props made a big difference.


----------



## krieghund (Dec 25, 2012)

Agreed, also I should have stated that in 1973 not all the data of the Spitfire was out in the open either. I think plenty of cyberspace has been devoted to prove the 100 octane issue. Also the author does not speak to the issue of armor and self sealing tanks. Both types started as naked as a Zero but the Spitfire matured quicker than the 109 in this regard. The 109 really didn't get a proper leak proof tank until after the battle and the some Spits still had one fuselage tank unprotected. Of course there was a difference between the Spitire's in the field fuel tank mod and the proper tanks being installed on the assembly line.


----------



## Neil Stirling (Dec 25, 2012)

Thank you.

Neil.


----------



## Tante Ju (Dec 25, 2012)

601Aa was used in LW Emils, it was not only for export.

I agree that this report ommits some information, and repeats some old misinformation (like Emil engine cannons) that has become known since 70s. But still overall its an even handed and very through and professional approach seldom seen.

One interesting thing was that .303 Brownings were 7 inch shorter than 7,92 mm Rheinmetall-Borsig guns. So I wonder, if Brownings would fit into the 109 wings without much fuss (German guns lenght dictated that they reached just beyond the main spar, which had to be holed because of this).


----------



## krieghund (Dec 25, 2012)

I find it unfortunate the author did complete the other comparisons. I had wrote to him after the F6F vs J2M3 booklet and he claimed he had received too many bad reviews in the aviation media that he decided to just enjoy his retirement doing other stuff. The reviewers complained about not enough pictures and such. He had lots of data on all sorts of aircraft but I lost track of him.


----------



## fastmongrel (Dec 25, 2012)

Thanks Krieghund for posting. Very interesting read.


----------



## Njaco (Dec 25, 2012)

Thanks for the file Wardog!!


----------



## Shortround6 (Dec 25, 2012)

Thank you for posting!


----------



## bobbysocks (Dec 25, 2012)

thanks for posting...will have to read it when i have time....


----------



## Aozora (Dec 25, 2012)

Thanks Krieghund! Apologies if I came across as being critical without recognising your dogged ('scus the pun) determination in finding this and posting it for us - it was the end of a long, hectic, but otherwise enjoyable day.


----------



## krieghund (Dec 26, 2012)

Not a prob The Holidays are alway fraut with family antics. Now trying to find time to scan in a MiG-15 vs F-86 comparison that I happened to come into possession of.


----------



## krieghund (Dec 31, 2012)

bump


----------



## Kryten (Dec 31, 2012)

interesting , few errors as noted, for instance the Mk1a spit was not the last eight gun spit, that was the Va, also using losses to emphasise the superiority of either aircraft is futile unless you take ten of each at the same speed and alt and shout go!
ten spits bouncing and shooting down a 109 heading home does'nt show a spits superiority any more than a 109 shooting down a spit attacking a bomber, it simply shows the tactical situation at the time!
I find the notion of trying to prove the superiority of either aircraft absurd when they were obviously so closely matched, put a rookie in a 109G10 and hes going to get beaten by an ace in a hurricane!


----------



## krieghund (Jan 1, 2013)

Yes I agree so many authors fall into that but fail to take into account all the variables that control the outcome. However I do like his idea of converting the aircraft performance numbers down to the ACM attributes of the types. Then about all you can say is "well if pilot A can fly plane x to its max it will beat pilot b in plane z in this circumstance" I got heavy into this when I was at Nellis assigned to the Aggressor Squadron. Time and time again our guys would breeze into debrief in front of the F15 or F16 pilots they just hosed just cause they knew their aircraft like the back of their hand. Our F-5E's were totally austere. No RWR, and tinker toy radar and just yer instruments, oh yeah and an ACMI pod so the F15 or F16 guys couldn't talk their way out of it.


----------



## silence (Jan 1, 2013)

krieghund said:


> Yes I agree so many authors fall into that but fail to take into account all the variables that control the outcome. However I do like his idea of converting the aircraft performance numbers down to the ACM attributes of the types. Then about all you can say is "well if pilot A can fly plane x to its max it will beat pilot b in plane z in this circumstance" I got heavy into this when I was at Nellis assigned to the Aggressor Squadron. Time and time again our guys would breeze into debrief in front of the F15 or F16 pilots they just hosed just cause they knew their aircraft like the back of their hand. Our F-5E's were totally austere. No RWR, and tinker toy radar and just yer instruments, oh yeah and an ACMI pod so the F15 or F16 guys couldn't talk there way out of it.



heh - I love stories like that!


----------



## CobberKane (Jan 1, 2013)

Interesting that the author seems to think the 109's wing slats gave it more preditictable stall characteristics than the Spitfire - the great preponderance of anecdotes for pilots who flew the machines indicate the opposite; that it was the 109 that had to be treated cartefully while the Spitfire was (once off the ground) very forgiving and easy to fly. In fact this harmony of control, much commented on but almost immpossible to quatify, seems to have been the British fighter's graetest asset. I have also read that the 109s slats had a tendancy to ruin the pilots aim in turing combat, as they would open suddenly and without warning.
One thing I would suggest is that, seen over the entire course of the war, the Spitfire proved the better design due to its capacity for development. Come 1945 the spitfire was still at the cutting edge of piston engine fighter performance, while the 109 had become more and more difficult to handle


----------



## bobbysocks (Jan 1, 2013)

there was an old story that in those early days the pilots in the f 5s used "fuzz busters" in some way....that probably ought to go into the myths thread.




CobberKane said:


> Interesting that the author seems to think the 109's wing slats gave it more preditictable stall characteristics than the Spitfire - the great preponderance of anecdotes for pilots who flew the machines indicate the opposite; that it was the 109 that had to be treated cartefully while the Spitfire was (once off the ground) very forgiving and easy to fly. In fact this harmony of control, much commented on but almost immpossible to quatify, seems to have been the British fighter's graetest asset. I have also read that the 109s slats had a tendancy to ruin the pilots aim in turing combat, as they would open suddenly and without warning.
> One thing I would suggest is that, seen over the entire course of the war, the Spitfire proved the better design due to its capacity for development. Come 1945 the spitfire was still at the cutting edge of piston engine fighter performance, while the 109 had become more and more difficult to handle


 
i had heard this remark before. the author claimed that while fixated on a target in a turning battle the 109 pilot knew he was close to stalling speed when his slats extended. he went on further to say that while the spit could out turn the 109 many pilots were reluctant to get into that tight of a turn for fear of stalling. i can sort of understand that but the plane should give you other indicators....start to shutter, etc.


----------



## krieghund (Jan 1, 2013)

Unfortunately a few WWII aircraft exhibited sharp stall characteristics which are further exasperated in the accelerated stall. One example that comes to mind is the D520. Many stories relate to the pilot's of the D520 that failed to get the most out of their mount by not taking to the edge for fear of its harsh stall charactistics and recovery.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jan 2, 2013)

Some planes stall was relatively benign, they just sort of mushed out of the turn or lost altitude on an even keel if flying level. 
Others dropped one wing before the other and even that was at different rates. Some planes wanted to flip over on their backs when one wing stalled before the other. Some planes would go into a spin very quickly when stalled and others just mushed on in a forward direction. A few of the ones that wanted to go inverted also wanted to go into inverted spins. 

Some planes gave a warning (vibration in tail, aileron buffeting or something) a few MPH above stall, others 5-10mph above stall. _HOW MUCH_ warning and how _BAD_ the stall was could make a lot of difference as to how hard the pilots pushed their aircraft. Please remember that in a hard turn the pilot was already on the verge of blacking out at times. Having the plane flip on it's back and go into an inverted spin with the pilot blacked out was probably not a good thing. 

The 109s slats gave warning and extended the ability of the ailerons to exert control in a stall or near stall condition making recovery or management of the stall much easier. They may have ruined the aim at times but helped prevent the aircraft from "departing from controlled flight". How much of an expert you were might affect your judgement of their effectiveness. 

Early Spitfires had TOO much elevator authority and in a turn could easily tighten up too much and go into a stall, This was soon "fixed" with bob weights and/or alterations to the control runs/adjustments. Again please remember that service pilots were trying to handle the controls (like the stick) while under 3-6 "G"s in a turn.


----------



## tomo pauk (Jan 2, 2013)

CobberKane said:


> Interesting that the author seems to think the 109's wing slats gave it more preditictable stall characteristics than the Spitfire - the great preponderance of anecdotes for pilots who flew the machines indicate the opposite; that it was the 109 that had to be treated cartefully while the Spitfire was (once off the ground) very forgiving and easy to fly. In fact this harmony of control, much commented on but almost immpossible to quatify, seems to have been the British fighter's graetest asset. I have also read that the 109s slats had a tendancy to ruin the pilots aim in turing combat, as they would open suddenly and without warning.
> One thing I would suggest is that, seen over the entire course of the war, the Spitfire proved the better design due to its capacity for development. Come 1945 the spitfire was still at the cutting edge of piston engine fighter performance, while the 109 had become more and more difficult to handle



Hi, Cobber,

It should be no wonder that Spitfire had no problems to accept 2000 HP engines, while retaining good 'manners' - it was featuring, for an European fighter, a wing of generous area. Some 40% greater than Bf-109, or most of Soviet fighters, while just a tad less than Typhoon. On the other hand, Bf-109 was the smallest fighter with 1800-2000 HP worth speaking of - a killing machine in expert's hands, a suicide for a novice to try?
The slats remained on Bf-109 until the end, seems like they were worth it.


----------



## davparlr (Jan 2, 2013)

Aerodynamically operated slats were used on the Me-262 and most of the next generation F-86s so I guess they were effective. However, I could see where asymmetrical activation of the slats could be interesting. I would think this could be caused by yawing the aircraft causing different airspeed seen by the separate wings, or possibly manufacturing deviations or damage to the device caused by combat or general usage with age.

Slats are still used but I don't think aerodynamically actuated ones are used on high performance aircraft. Most are hydraulic powered, maybe electric.

Since operating an aircraft near its maximum is important, I am surprised stall warning systems were not aggressively pursued, at least I think they weren't. Many/all? fighters/aircraft today with fly-by-wire systems do not allow the aircraft to stall at all.


----------



## Kryten (Jan 2, 2013)

another issue is the increase in drag with the slats open, no worries when landing but what effect this has during hard maneuvering I can only guess at, cant be helpfull I would'nt have thought!


----------



## tyrodtom (Jan 2, 2013)

The remark about the slats of a Me109 being unpredictable is usually a British or American test pilots remark. These pilots may have a lot of experience, but how much of it's in a Me109, or any high performance AC with slats ? 
They may not be so much of a surprize to German or Finnish pilots with hundreds of hours in the aircraft, they'd be accustomed to when they'd deploy under about any condition of flight, and the effect they'd have.


----------



## stona (Jan 2, 2013)

davparlr said:


> However, I could see where asymmetrical activation of the slats could be interesting. I would think this could be caused by yawing the aircraft causing different airspeed seen by the separate wings, or possibly manufacturing deviations or damage to the device caused by combat or general usage with age.



An RAE pilot who flew a Bf 109 G in mock combat against a Lancaster and Mustang reported that the slipstream of the "target" aircraft caused the intermittent operation of the slats making accurate sighting impossible.
Not a desirable feature in a fighter no matter how used to it the experienced German pilots were.

Cheers

Steve


----------



## stona (Jan 2, 2013)

Kryten said:


> another issue is the increase in drag with the slats open, no worries when landing but what effect this has during hard maneuvering I can only guess at, cant be helpfull I would'nt have thought!



The slats would usually operate with the wing at a high angle of attack when any extra drag would be a very small component of the total.
Cheers
Steve


----------



## Shortround6 (Jan 2, 2013)

The slats really only come into play once the angle of attack exceeds 12-15 degrees. They keep the outer wing from stalling ( on a 109) and allow the angle of attack to go even higher. A fully slated wing can go to around 23-26 degrees. As I said before, what they do for the 109 in addition to allowing this extra lift/angle of attack/higher drag to is keep the ailerons effective at angles of attack where the stalled airflow would render them ineffective and result in a loss of lateral control. 

Somebody with more aeronautical knowledge than myself can try to figure out how much more lift you get from a partially slatted ( slats are 55% of leading edge?) wing at what angle of attack (at 12-15 degrees there is almost zero gain in lift with slats). The retention of lateral control in flight conditions when other planes have lost it is a big advantage even if it does degrade firing accuracy some. 

In many modern planes the leading edge slats are deployed by power and are more of an adjustable airfoil than a true slat. A true slat has a slot between the leading edge and the main part of the wing that has "energized air" flowing over the wing and separating further back than a normal wing maintaining good airflow over the top of the ailerons. Some planes used "fixed" slots which higher drag in normal flight.


----------



## tyrodtom (Jan 2, 2013)

If the slats were as bad as some of the allied test pilots seem to say. Why wouldn't some of the Germans wired them shut or deactivated them in some way?
It's seems sort of odd that the one aircraft that shot down by far the most aircraft of any fighter in history was a bad gun platform under some conditions because of slats.


----------



## CobberKane (Jan 2, 2013)

tyrodtom said:


> If the slats were as bad as some of the allied test pilots seem to say. Why wouldn't some of the Germans wired them shut or deactivated them in some way?
> It's seems sort of odd that the one aircraft that shot down by far the most aircraft of any fighter in history was a bad gun platform under some conditions because of slats.


 
Might have had something to do with the way the fighter was used, too; boom and zoom rather than turning attacks. What other fighters had leading edge slats? The La-5 7 spring to mind - any issues there?


----------



## tyrodtom (Jan 2, 2013)

The Me110, 210, 410, 262, all had slats, and the Me163 had fixed leading edge slots.
Even the Me108 had slats. Willy evidendly had a thing for slats.


Some USN aircraft had slots or slats, The SBD, the Helldiver, and the Avenger.


----------



## krieghund (Jan 3, 2013)

bobbysocks said:


> there was an old story that in those early days the pilots in the f 5s used "fuzz busters" in some way....that probably ought to go into the myths thread.



Actually I have a couple of photos of the installation of a couple of different types tried. We were trying to write a local TCTO but the powers that be wouldn't let it be official as the F-5E already had two RWR solutions fitted to export models. Plus it may have been for the element of technical surprise as incoming Red Flag units knew the tech level of the USAF F-5E. The actual use for the pilot would be limited as he had to interpret what it was trying to tell him but was useful in BVR engagements to inform of a lock-on and appropriate action could be taken if possible. FWIW.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jan 3, 2013)

Handley page (patent holder for slats) used them on a number of aircraft including the first 50 Halifax's. 4 engine piston bombers should not be operating at 12 degrees or more angle of attack. the 109 and the navy planes have steep landing angles of approach and a tail down attitude. The slats either help or allow better aileron control at low speed/landing situations which is a good thing. But this is somewhat different than affecting turning performance. 








Notice the fixed slot in the wing top surface just outboard of the star. The Avenger used fixed slots. Slats/slots only affect the area of the wing behind them. There would be very little change in the total lift of the avenger wing from slots of this size _BUT_ a noticeable increase in aileron response at low speed/near the stall. 

Not all slats/slots are equal and not all are intended for the same purpose/effect.


----------



## stona (Jan 3, 2013)

tyrodtom said:


> If the slats were as bad as some of the allied test pilots seem to say. Why wouldn't some of the Germans wired them shut or deactivated them in some way?
> It's seems sort of odd that the one aircraft that shot down by far the most aircraft of any fighter in history was a bad gun platform under some conditions because of slats.



Like just about every feature on just about every aircraft ever built they are a compromise. They might have compromised the ability of a pilot to sight accurately under certain conditions of flight but that was more desirable than having an aeroplane which was less controllable in other conditions of flight,noteably,in the case of the Bf 109,landing.

The original Me 210 was built without slats and look what happened to that.

Cheers

Steve


----------



## tyrodtom (Jan 4, 2013)

I have a October 2006 Flight Journal that has a article about a Bf109E in the Ed Russell collection. The pilot, John Romain's only comment about the slats were that they deployed without him noticing it. That was in landing configuration, but he doesn't mention them otherwise.


----------



## tomo pauk (Jan 4, 2013)

stona said:


> Like just about every feature on just about every aircraft ever built they are a compromise. They might have compromised the ability of a pilot to sight accurately under certain conditions of flight but that was more desirable than having an aeroplane which was less controllable in other conditions of flight,noteably,in the case of the Bf 109,landing.
> 
> *The original Me 210 was built without slats and look what happened to that.*
> 
> ...



Wasn't the abrupt design (by W. Messerschmitt?) decision to shorten the fuselage the main culprit for issues the early 210 encountered?


----------



## stona (Jan 4, 2013)

tomo pauk said:


> Wasn't the abrupt design (by W. Messerschmitt?) decision to shorten the fuselage the main culprit for issues the early 210 encountered?



Yes,but part of the fix was leading edge slats.

Cheers

Steve


----------



## GregP (Jan 5, 2013)

After reading it, no wonder he quit writing; he deserved the criticism. All my sources say the RAF lost about 150 planes or so and the Germans lost about 250 planes or so during the BOB. A clear margin regarless of location. We fly both type planes and he is clearly out in the mushrooms.

The 109 is a great plane (one of my personal favorites), but so is the Spitfire. We have about 20 pilots who have flown both and ALL choose the Spitfire as better of the two for combat. All our pilots fly VFR at relatively low altitudes when compared with WWII missions. It just ain't so at lower altitudes and NOBODY will mock-fight them at 30,000 feet these days unless paid ridiculous amounts of money with newly overhauled engines and props forthcoming in the bargain. Ain't gonna happen; too expensive. Plus, who are the qualified pilots? A great TEST pilot is not necessarily a great COMBAT pilot.

All our pilots say the 109 is decent, but no Spitfire. We have a DB-powered 109 (G-6) and an Hispano Ha.1112 Buchon, so we KNOW how they fly, particularly Steve Hinton. If there's ONE pilot who flies a LOT of warbirds these days, it's him. He is not overly fond of the Hispano, appreciates the real 109, but not like a Spitfire; has lots of hours in all three as well as lots of flight demonstrations in all.

Sorry, the text of the comparison is fraught with personal bias and inuendo. Direct comaprisons and direct combat trials are few. The real way to do it is to give two good, seasoned, combat pilots only about 20 - 40 hours in each and then fight them twice, with each pilot in each plane starting from equal positions. The results should be illuminating. Several such trials should give a good result. Unfortunately, nobody has done this to date and probably never will, 70+ years after the fact.

So, we'll probably never really know, will we? It makes the arguments fun, doesn't it? If they fought at the limits at 25,000 feet, I think the results would be almost equal IF they used variants of the same general timeframe; just a personal opinion. The real opinions of the pilots who fly them favor the Spit, but maybe that's due to MANY MORE spits flying than real 109's, more opportunity to fly said Spits and the altitudes where they fly today.


----------



## krieghund (Jan 5, 2013)

GregP said:


> After reading it, no wonder he quit writing; he deserved the criticism. All my sources say the RAF lost about 150 planes or so and the Germans lost about 250 planes or so during the BOB. A clear margin regarless of location. We fly both type planes and he is clearly out in the mushrooms.



How many of your references are after 1970? Remember he didn't have available the information we have today. Have you read his other two fighter comparisons? http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/flight-test-data/p40c-vs-a6m2-25487.html and http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/flight-test-data/f6f-5-vs-j2m3-26637.html 

If not have a read and reevaluate if he has a bias. I believe he may have been trying readjusting peoples way of thinking with all the popular press that comes after a victory, the real story can get muddled a bit.

It would be nice to hear the reasons why the pilots you cite feel the way they due about their respective mounts.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 5, 2013)

All in all it comes down to the pilots, when comparing a Spit and a 109. Both were rather equal to one another with each one having advantages and disadvantages over the other, and even swapping "superiority" over the other throughout the war. A German pilot back in 1940 knew how to get the most out of his aircraft. More than a pilot today, who has not received the same kind of training and combat experience. Same goes for the Spitfire. The Pilot who knew how to get the most out of his bird, and knew the weaknesses of the other was going to best the other. 

GregP, I am not discrediting your sources or fellow pilots (including Hinton). Steve is obviously a very experienced pilot, and one of the best in the world. I hope you do not think I am trying to do so. They are amazing pilots, I just tend to believe that those that flew the aircraft in combat knew the aircraft a little bit better.


----------



## Kryten (Jan 6, 2013)

I would be interested to compare the knowledge of tactics and flying between a WW2 vet and a modern pilot though, back then they were still feeling thier way developing and discarding tactics and aircraft as they went along, we have the benefit of hindsight and many years training these days!
would it be fair to say a modern pilot with years behind the stick of far more accomplished designs would find the flaws of an old aircraft the same way a modern racing driver can see the flaws in an old race car?
after all you only have what you know for comparison?


----------



## Glider (Jan 6, 2013)

I admit this is an interesting thought. Its only a personal thought but the main difference I could think of is the change brought on by technology and the different skills needed.
For instance a modern fighter pilot can more or less do what they want with the controls, the computers will stop the aircraft doing anything dangerous and for a given control input, find the limit of performance for the pilot. An experienced pilot WW2 pilot will be more aware of the edge of the envelope and how to get that last bit of performance out of the design.
A modern pilot has very sophisticated head up display units, helmet dsiplays and audio warnings if anything is amiss. An experienced WW2 pilot would be more aware of what is going on inside the cockpit without spending a lot of time actually looking at the instruments. Scanning is a useful skill.

Keeping a lookout is also a skill. Everyone will agree that its as critical today as ever, but, there is no getting around that radar proximity warnings and other devices tend to ease the load. A ww2 pilot only had the eyes in their head and practice makes perfect. 

In the early 70's trainee helicopter pilots at Culdrose were forbidden from joining the gliding club as what we taught, did in some way hinder their learning. To be honest I don't know what and we didn't expect it but it was an issue for the trainees.

As for tactics I doubt if they have changed much.


----------



## finnster (Feb 5, 2013)

Another error: The idea of a no warning stall in the Spitfire.
All the spits had ample buffet warning of the stall, and NACA reports argue that the Spit V could be flown 'partly stalled'.


----------



## Tante Ju (Feb 6, 2013)

Yes there was good warning but actual stall in Spitfire was brutal compared to 109. Spitfire had lower stall speed, so the stall happened later though. But when happened, it was very wild.

Both aircraft had good stall charactertics, 109 being more forgiving from what I read. This was one of best selling point for 109 vs. for example 51, Yakovles, Dewo 502 or Fw 190, F4U etc.



GregP said:


> After reading it, no wonder he quit writing; he deserved the criticism. All my sources say the RAF lost about 150 planes or so and the Germans lost about 250 planes or so during the BOB. A clear margin regarless of location.



Real sources tell 109s had 2:1 success ratio against British fighters in 1940, increasing to about 4:1 by 1941 when on defense... clearly most of it was down to better tactics and experience, but not all.


----------



## Milosh (Feb 6, 2013)

And the RAF had ~2:1 ratio vs the Luftwaffe during the BoB.


----------



## Glider (Feb 6, 2013)

Tante Ju said:


> Real sources tell 109s had 2:1 success ratio against British fighters in 1940, increasing to about 4:1 by 1941 when on defense... clearly most of it was down to better tactics and experience, but not all.



Can I ask what the 'real' sources are. For instance I would not be surpised if two RAF fighters were lost to every Me 109. This may well be correct but would ignore that fact that a lot of RAF fighters were shot down by Me110's and the bombers defensive fire. Also when we say RAF fighters are we excluding the Blenhiem and Defiants which were lost. It could be that it might well be 109's vs Hurricanes and Spits but again would this exclude the Hurricanes and Spits shot down while trying to intercept the bombers which were the priority target.

I must emphasise that I am not doubting your figures but am simply trying to show that without understanding how they were compiled, they are interesting but not really gold standard evidence.


----------



## Tante Ju (Feb 6, 2013)

Milosh said:


> And the RAF had ~2:1 ratio vs the Luftwaffe during the BoB.



No, it had ~ 1:1. RAF fighters had it worse of course (as did both sides bombers).


----------



## Glider (Feb 6, 2013)

Statments like this mean nothing unless we know what the source is for any figures quoted by any party


----------



## Glider (Feb 7, 2013)

Still waiting to see where your tats have come from Tante Ju


----------



## Tante Ju (Feb 7, 2013)

I am still waiting to see where the other stats come from, too. Perhaps in meantime you should do some research yourself, to see real losses. Search forum for example.


----------



## Glider (Feb 7, 2013)

I am more than happy to see what I can find but remember I have not been making any claims. 

However you are the one quoting loss ratios with nothing to back them up. I pointed out in an earlier posting that without any details the claims being made are usless and now we find you are playing,_ I will show you mine if I see yours first,_ which to be honest is pretty pathetic.

Take your posting 46 _No, it had ~ 1:1. RAF fighters had it worse of course (as did both sides bombers). _ What on earth is that trying to say

My guess is that you are saying that the RAF lost as many aircraft as the Luftwaffe, but I don't know what you mean. Are you talking about the whole of the RAF ie including Coastal Command and training aircraft destroyed in the conflict, or are you just talking about fighter and bomber command. Or are you talking about those lost in the daytime fighting excluding night raids on both sides.

All I am asking is that you say on what basis you made the statement


----------



## Tante Ju (Feb 7, 2013)

Yes all aircraft losses in period.


----------



## Glider (Feb 9, 2013)

Thanks for the clarification. I admit to waiting with some interest for your sources as I have drawn a complete blank when looking for german losses not part of the fighting over the UK. 
Indeed German aircraft that crash landed on return were often not considered to be losses. RAF aircraft in this type of incident were written off as losses as they were not available for service in the short term and when repaired, were included in the new build stats. Which I admit is a pragmatic appraoch with the benefit of simplicity


----------



## stona (Feb 9, 2013)

tyrodtom said:


> If the slats were as bad as some of the allied test pilots seem to say. Why wouldn't some of the Germans wired them shut or deactivated them in some way?
> It's seems sort of odd that the one aircraft that shot down by far the most aircraft of any fighter in history was a bad gun platform under some conditions because of slats.



Because amongst other things the Bf 109 would become very difficult to fly slowly or at high angles of attack,there were enough landing accidents as it was.
Cheers
Steve


----------



## stona (Feb 9, 2013)

finnster said:


> Another error: The idea of a no warning stall in the Spitfire.
> All the spits had ample buffet warning of the stall, and NACA reports argue that the Spit V could be flown 'partly stalled'.



The Spitfire wing was far more advanced than that of the Bf 109. It had been designed by Beverley Shenstone,who had been involved in the design of the first swept and delta wings in Germany and is credited thus,in print,by Alexander Lippisch.

Shenstone spent hundreds of hours blending the wing's shape and form to create a geometrically and helically twisted wing that was aerodynamically unique in that it balanced wing twist with planform effect and lift distribution needs.It traded pure lifting ability with performance ability. It is not an ellipse like the oft quoted He 70 but a far more complex three dimensional shape,incorporating two different aerofoils,NACA 2213 and 2209.
Have you seen it described mathematically? Shenstone couldn't do the maths himself and was helped by Professor Raymond Howland of University College Southampton. I certainly can't do it!
Howland is one of many,including even Shenstone himself,who have been lost and forgotten in the mythology surrounding the Spitfire. Many made important or vital contributions. The designer watching sea gulls soaring over a cliff top is the stuff of movies and there it should stay.

People still argue about the Spitfire v Bf 109 _radius_ of turn,but the Spitfires _rate_ of turn is demonstrably higher. If you want all the maths then try to find Ackroyd and Lamont's dense "Comparison of turning radii for four Battle of Britain fighter aircraft". One thing is sure,no matter how well flown,slats deployed in a slower speed combat turn,_the Bf 109 will stall before the Spitfire._

Shenstone worked hard on the wing/fuselage join area,where on a normally shaped aircraft lift degenerates and speed sapping turbulence and drag occurs,especially under high propeller power effect.Perfecting this area preserved curvilinear lift distribution by continuing the wings lifting effect and lowering fuselage interference drag turbulence to astounding levels. Compared to the Bf 109 the Spitfire delivers the low drag,high speed characteristics desirable in a fighter far better.

This,added to the wings lift coefficient,helping retain vital energy, meant that a pilot could remain on the offensive with a working,energised wing at higher bank angles than a Bf 109 or Hurricane.
Addressing all these factors in one wing was advanced stuff,beyond anything yet seen in the mid 1930s.

Examples. 
The ellipsoidal shape of the wing has a narrow tip which might be prone to stall.To cure tip stalling a crude solution would be to put a drag inducing fence along the leading edge near the wing root to trigger an earlier stall at a specific point inboard. This simple solution would have ruined the ellipse's low induced drag benefits. 

A similar crude cure seen at the time might be a vertical wing fence chordwise (over the top of the wing) to cure any spanwise airflow problem,but the penalty this time is a loss of lifting area. This was actually done on Spanish built 109s. It did improve the small tapered wing's lift patterns,but with a penalty.

Shenstone worked out how he could twist the wing and vary the twist along it,whilst degrading to a minimum amount the ellipse's low induced drag figure.

By adding twist the ellipse's stalling issue was solved for the smallest of penalties and,in a feature often overlooked,Shenstone added a touch of forward sweep that further benefited the ellipse as it moved the stall forwards and inboard,away from those pointed wing tips. The ailerons kept "working" too,beyond the stall,which is what those US test pilots noticed.
Forward sweep also minimised the washout angle,upsetting the ellipse less,and speeding up the boundary layer.

The word genius is much overused,but Shenstone's work on the Spitfire wing may well be touched with it. A wing designed in 1934/5 was capable of operating at speeds unimaginable at the time,a _tactica_l Mach number of 0.82 is astounding,the P-51 only managed 0.78. The wing is a far more advanced design than any of its production contemporaries.

Alex Henshaw noted that this sharp,responsive,aerobatic,400mph wing was aerodynamically stable at that speed and on the approach at 60mph. In both situations it neither stalled,nor dropped a wing unexpectedly. I don't know where the idea that the Spitfire had a viscious stall came from

Cheers

Steve


----------



## krieghund (Feb 9, 2013)

Unfortunately an issue from the creation of the Spitfire was corrected with the wing for the Spiteful


----------



## Tante Ju (Feb 9, 2013)

stona said:


> The Spitfire wing was far more advanced than that of the Bf 109. It had been designed by Beverley Shenstone,who had been involved in the design of the first swept and delta wings in Germany and is credited thus,in print,by Alexander Lippisch.
> 
> Shenstone spent hundreds of hours blending the wing's shape and form to create a geometrically and helically twisted wing that was aerodynamically unique in that it balanced wing twist with planform effect and lift distribution needs.It traded pure lifting ability with performance ability.



Its called washout. Its commonly used on all WW2 fighters (that is those without slats which cure the same problem). Washout and washin



> It is not an ellipse like the oft quoted He 70 but a far more complex three dimensional shape,incorporating two different aerofoils,NACA 2213 and 2209.



Again, common used on 1930s, 1940 planes. The 3rd and fourth digits simply show the wing thickness percentage (13% at the root, 9% at the tip in the case of the Spitfire). The Fw 190 for example had 15,3% at the root, and 9% at the tip (NACA 23015.3 airfoil at the root and the NACA 23009 airfoil at the tip). The wing was designed using the NACA 23015.3 airfoil at the root and the NACA 23009 airfoil at the tip. The 109 used "2R1" from 14% to 11,35% (NACA 2414 to 2411). 12,9 % was used in the mid-section.

The NACA four-digit wing sections are simply a description of the wing profile and define the profile by:

First digit describing maximum camber as percentage of the chord.
Second digit describing the distance of maximum camber from the airfoil leading edge in tens of percents of the chord.
Last two digits describing maximum thickness of the airfoil as percent of the chord.

So the major difference between the 109 wing and the Spitfire wing apart from relative thickness is that the Spitfire has maximum camber of 20% from the airfoil leading edge while the 109 has 40%.



> People still argue about the Spitfire v Bf 109 _radius_ of turn,but the Spitfires _rate_ of turn is demonstrably higher. If you want all the maths then try to find Ackroyd and Lamont's dense "Comparison of turning radii for four Battle of Britain fighter aircraft". One thing is sure,no matter how well flown,slats deployed in a slower speed combat turn,_the Bf 109 will stall before the Spitfire._



This has nothing to do with wing shape. The Spitfire simply uses a much larger wing, so its stall speed is much lower. Besides you have it backwards - turn radii is depends on stall speed, in which the lower wing loading plane (Spitfire) will generally have an advantage. Sustained turn rate however is greatly dependant on available power (power vs drag) - this tends to muddy the water since by simply adding power the sustained turn rate will get better and will favour the plane with the higher power loading (109). 



> Shenstone worked hard on the wing/fuselage join area,where on a normally shaped aircraft lift degenerates and speed sapping turbulence and drag occurs,especially under high propeller power effect.Perfecting this area preserved curvilinear lift distribution by continuing the wings lifting effect and lowering fuselage interference drag turbulence to astounding levels.



Again, nothing special in this. Most designers paid careful attention to this.



> Compared to the Bf 109 the Spitfire delivers the low drag,high speed characteristics desirable in a fighter far better.



Demonstrarably untrue since the Spitfire had fairly high drag. Compare the Spitfire to any other first line fighter and its slower on the same power. Again, largely a function of using a very large wing.



> This,added to the wings lift coefficient,helping retain vital energy, meant that a pilot could remain on the offensive with a working,energised wing at higher bank angles than a Bf 109 or Hurricane.



Again, you mix thing up. The Spitfire used a relatively thin wing with _low _lift coefficient. Sq. feet by Sq. feet, it developed less lift than the 109 wing. It just had a lot more wing area to play with.



> Addressing all these factors in one wing was advanced stuff,beyond anything yet seen in the mid 1930s.



Hardly. Washout, differing wing profile was common to practically all aircraft of the era.



> The wing is a far more advanced design than any of its production contemporaries.



Replace 'advanced' with 'overhyped' and agree with you. It may have been advanced compared to it's _British_ production contemporaries, which is where the hype comes from. This is no degradation to the Hurricane, who's designers aimed for nothing more than an interim type.



> I don't know where the idea that the Spitfire had a viscious stall came from



Its described in manuals of Spitfire and even British reports... The aircraft had good stall warning and good near stall characteristics. This was a good thing, but far from unique. It had bad control harmony. _When_ it stalled it had a tendency to flick over its back and violently enter a spin. The 109 had good stall warning and very benign near stall characteristics, ideal control harmony, and no tendency to enter a spin (which was an RLM requirement).


----------



## tomo pauk (Feb 9, 2013)

Nothing like a good Spitfire vs. Bf-109 debate 

<grabs popcorn>


----------



## stona (Feb 9, 2013)

I'm not going through everything point by point.

Do you believe that the Bf 109 wing was a sophisticated a design as a Spitfires,given the slats and the problems with spanwise flow? What was the tactical Mach number for the 109 wing, does 0.75 ring any bells.

Do you think that the Bf 109 was more slippery than the Spitfire? I'm sure you can look up the figures as easily as I can. The Bf 109 was a very draggy design,it was small and needed a lot of power to overcome this. This got worse through successive versions up to the G-10/K which did achieve better values than earlier Gs. I don't have figures for the F readily to hand.

I've got

Spitfire Mk I A late model Cd 0.0197 Cdo 0.0180 Cdi 0.0010

Bf 109 E Cd 0.0265 Cdo 0.0246 Cdi 0.0018

Lamont and Ackroyd's paper is modern but Vensel and Phillip's war time reports are also of interest,particularly regarding coefficients of lift ( Cl). The Bf 109 must have suffered a loss of wing lift efficiency with its drag creating tapered wing design.They also postulate a de facto reduction of aspect ratio due tip drag in comparison with the Spitfire's elliptical wing tips. 

Cheers

Steve


----------



## Tante Ju (Feb 9, 2013)

stona said:


> Do you believe that the Bf 109 wing was a sophisticated a design as a Spitfires,given the slats and the problems with spanwise flow?



Yes it was half a generation better, especially from the production point of view, since it was designed to tolerate much looser tolerances in production.

Problems with slats and spanwise flow?



> What was the tactical Mach number for the 109 wing, does 0.75 ring any bells.



Yes, what was it? What is 'tactical mach number'?



> Do you think that the Bf 109 was more slippery than the Spitfire?



Yes.



> I'm sure you can look up the figures as easily as I can. The Bf 109 was a very draggy design,it was small and needed a lot of power to overcome this.



No. Figures show that it was one of the fastest on any given power. All versions are faster than the Spitfire on the same power. Only late Yakovlevs better it, which is partially explained by their clean wooden construction and some other compromises. Mustang is slightly better, but not by much.



> This got worse through successive versions up to the G-10/K which did achieve better values than earlier Gs. I don't have figures for the F readily to hand.



Again if it was so bad, explain why it was faster. On less power...



> I've got
> 
> Spitfire Mk I A late model Cd 0.0197 Cdo 0.0180 Cdi 0.0010
> 
> Bf 109 E Cd 0.0265 Cdo 0.0246 Cdi 0.0018



I see root of confusion - you believe coefficient of drag is a quality number for aerodynamic cleaness. It really isn't, it just a coefficient comparing total drag of aircraft to wing area. Since wing is only responsible for part of the drag, it doesn't really show much.

Take an example. We have same fuselage, with drag value of 100. We add the same wing to it in two sizes, size is 100, drag value is again 100, one is larger by 40%, size is 140, drag value is 140. 

So with small wing of 100 area, we have 100 + 100 = 200 drag. Drag coefficient (wing area is basis) = 200 / 100 = 2.000
With 30% larger wing of 130 area, we have 100 + 140 = 240 drag. Drag coefficient (wing area is basis) = 240 / 140 = 1.710

The larger wing area aircraft, even if nothing was changed just wing area, and even if drag is actually 20% greater, the 'drag coefficent' on wing area basis is 16% lower...

See? Drag coefficient does not tell you how much drag you have.



> Lamont and Ackroyd's paper is modern but Vensel and Phillip's war time reports are also of interest,particularly regarding coefficients of lift ( Cl).



It sounds like an interesting study. Can you post this?



> The Bf 109 must have suffered a loss of wing lift efficiency with its drag creating tapered wing design.They also postulate a de facto reduction of aspect ratio due tip drag in comparison with the Spitfire's elliptical wing tips.



Yes it's possible, still, everyone acknowledges the higher lift coeffcient of the 109 wing, including the British. There is not much surprise, a thicker wing will develop more lift, and a slats can sustain higher angles of attack (again more lift). Washout compromises wing lift ability. Simple physics.


----------



## Glider (Feb 9, 2013)

A simple question. If the Me109E was modern and more advanced than the early Spitfires. 

Why was the aircraft largely totally redesigned in the Me109F with new engines, wing, slats, and tail?


----------



## Shortround6 (Feb 9, 2013)

There is a source for confusion here:

There are _TWO DIFFERENT_ 109s. 

With a _LARGE_ difference in drag. 

The Emil was a barn door, to be polite. 

The F was a much better job, being some 40kph (or more?)faster at 5,000 meters (F-2 to E-3) power difference was?? 

Spitfire changed a bit over time too, usually more drag ( 20mm wing guns, larger radiators and such).

Picking isolated examples for different time periods doesn't tell us a whole lot. 

109F probably had 5-10% less drag than a Spit V based off of fuel consumption at cruising speeds. But that doesn't really tell us what difference between an "E" and a Spit I or II was. Or the difference between a "G" with bumps and a Spit IX.


----------



## Tante Ju (Feb 9, 2013)

Shortround6 said:


> The Emil was a barn door, to be polite.



So, being a barn door at all, how was it so much faster than anything else out there, hmm? Even the Spitfire, with more power, could only match its speed...

The 109F had a much better engine. The F-2 with a 601N engine could do about 615 kph, the 109E with 601A engine about 570 kph. Then there was a the E with 601N engine, and given the power difference between the A and N, I reckon it did about 590-595 kph. So with the F they chopped down about 20 kph worth of drag. Its significant, but not breathtaking. The armored glass on the Spit worth about 10 kph alone did it not? We had this discussion not long ago about early PR Spits, these were cleaned up and achieved about the same with more or less the same airframe.

A simple challange. Find a Spitfire that is faster on equal power. Any Mark. Say mid-1942 you have early Spit with Merlin 61, about 1340 HP at SL, and early Gustav with restricted 605A (ca 1290 HP), Mark Niner goes about 500 kph, Gustav goes about 530 km/h... with much less power that is.

Or go back Emil and Mark One, both go about 570 kph at altitude, but the Merlin III is about 100 HP stronger at altitude than 601A... not bad from a barn door eh.


----------



## Glider (Feb 9, 2013)

krieghund said:


> Unfortunately an issue from the creation of the Spitfire was corrected with the wing for the Spiteful



What I always find interesting in this type of highlight are the bits that are not highlighted. 
The first highlight starts [U_It had faults_[/U] not highlighted is the line before when it states _perfectly adaquate for the speeds they were flying mid war_ 
In other words in late 1942 with speeds of approx 410 mph Supermarine were looking at the future. I don't know when FW and Republic started looking into the future for there new wing designs that evolved into the Ta 152 and P47H but it was probably around that time. No one is saying that the P47 or Fw190 had flawed wing designs. This observation also covers the second highlight

Third Highlight, Supermarine decided to try a low laminar wing, why not, it was a great success on the P51 and Hawker did the same to develop the Tempest. I would have been critical if they hadn't looked into it.

*Not highlighed*. The bit where the decision had been made that Mk 21 airframe with a suitable engine would meet the need for a high performance fighter. The new low drag wing to be added later during production

Next Highlight _To obtain a roll aster than any existing fighter _ Again why not, the Spitfire had a decent roll rate but no one is pretending that it had the best in the world. its the one area a Fw 190 always had an advantage.


----------



## Glider (Feb 9, 2013)

Tante Ju said:


> So, being a barn door at all, how was it so much faster than anything else out there, hmm? Even the Spitfire, with more power, could only match its speed...
> 
> The 109F had a much better engine. The F-2 with a 601N engine could do about 615 kph, the 109E with 601A engine about 570 kph. Then there was a the E with 601N engine, and given the power difference between the A and N, I reckon it did about 590-595 kph. So with the F they chopped down about 20 kph worth of drag. Its significant, but not breathtaking. The armored glass on the Spit worth about 10 kph alone did it not? We had this discussion not long ago about early PR Spits, these were cleaned up and achieved about the same with more or less the same airframe.
> 
> ...



Certainly
Me 109 E3 - 1,100hp 355 mph, Spitfire I Merlin III with 87 Octane 1,030 hp 353 mph, I think we can call that one a draw

Me109 G6 - 1,455hp 398 mph at 20,700ft Spit IX merlin 61 1,565 hp 403 mph at 27,000ft again close to a draw

Me109 K4 - 1,775 hp 442mph Spit XIV Griffon 65 2,035 hp 447 mph edge to the 109

However the key thing is that the difference wasn't that much. As you have pointed out yourself the Spit is a much bigger aircraft with a larger wing so you would expect the 109 to have the edge using this crude method but its close.

I suspect the theory is impacted by a number of factors. 
In the BOB the Spit 1 had 100 octane fuel which increased the engine power to 1,300 h with little or no difference in the headline max speed. It did significantly improve the max speed at lower altitudes and climb but not at the rated engine speed. This leads to a misleading comparison if you just compare Hp to speed.

Similar to later versions of the Spit IX. They often had hgher powered engines with little difference to headline speed because they were tuned to low altitude performance. 

It just shows that if you want to use crude measures you get crude results.


----------



## tomo pauk (Feb 9, 2013)

Shortround 6 is, as usually, on the money. 

My 2 cents: We see here a comparison of a 'small' fighter (Bf-109), in several flavors, with a 'medium-sized' fighter (SPitfire), also several variants. Wing area of the Spitfire, standard wing, was 242.1 ft2, wing are of the Bf-109G was 173.3 ft², ie. about 3/4 of Spitfire's. The bigger plane need to be a darn streamlined job, if the drag (as force, not coefficient (Cd)) is to remain in the ballpark. Or, the drag will be about the same if the streamlining of the smaller plane is not that good. IMO, that was the case when we compare the Spitfire with Bf-109E. The speed was at the ball park, the engine power too (not, as Tante Ju believes, that Emil was the one with 100 HP less), both planes using 1940 state of the art props exhaust stacks. That directs us that smaller plane is less streamlined. Germans knew that very well, hence they made Friedrich (retractable tailwheel, shallow radiators, no tail strut, compete redesign of front of the plane), that was faster at same engine power than Emil.
We can also note that Spitfire's wing was, at root, only 13,2% thick, so maybe the laminar flow wing was not needed more than a rework of cooling system undercarriage covering?

Hi, Glider,
Was it really so that Tempest have had laminar flow wings? IMO that's very unlikely, esp. since the Sea Fury was so good carrier bird, with less wing span area.
The laminar flow wing P-47 was the XP-47F, 1st delivery on Sept 17th, 1942. Again, the P-47 was one of the fastest airplanes (or the fastest, from the time of introduction?) even with it's standard airfoil.

added: the Emil have had at disposal 1000 PS at 12900 ft, or 1020 PS at 14760 ft, depending on DB-601A version. Spitfire I was 1030 HP (1044 PS) at 16250 ft. So the Spitfire was having edge in power.


----------



## Glider (Feb 9, 2013)

I certainly could be wrong as this isn't my strong suite but its my belief that the low drag laminer wing was the major defining feature of the Tempest. Of course there were others but that was the key one.


----------



## tomo pauk (Feb 9, 2013)

It was certainly the wing that gave it the edge vs. Typhoon. Wing being only 14,5% thick (= 5 in thinner than that of Typhoon, the Typhoon's wing was 19.5% thick at the root), maximum thickness was at 37,5% of the chord (30% of the chord for Typhoon).

The 'Mustang' by Gruenhagen gives the 'minimum pressure at 0.4 chord' for the P-51's wing, that would mean the max thickness was at 40% of the chord? 
The max thickness was 16,5% at the root.
added: the pg. 40 of Gruenhagen's book confirms the 40% figure


----------



## krieghund (Feb 9, 2013)

Glider said:


> What I always find interesting in this type of highlight are the bits that are not highlighted.
> The first highlight starts [U_It had faults_[/U] not highlighted is the line before when it states _perfectly adaquate for the speeds they were flying mid war_
> In other words in late 1942 with speeds of approx 410 mph Supermarine were looking at the future. I don't know when FW and Republic started looking into the future for there new wing designs that evolved into the Ta 152 and P47H but it was probably around that time. No one is saying that the P47 or Fw190 had flawed wing designs. This observation also covers the second highlight
> 
> ...



Sorry for the confusion I had used this in a previous forum discussion about the wing and its roll rate..but it was the wing redesign bit I really wanted to get across....had prop fighters not been eclipsed by the jets I believe the Spiteful would have made its mark!!


----------



## krieghund (Feb 9, 2013)

Tante Ju said:


> So, being a barn door at all, how was it so much faster than anything else out there, hmm? Even the Spitfire, with more power, could only match its speed....



Of course with a little "Vorsprung Durch Technik" and the same engine one could go quite a bit faster.............


----------



## Glider (Feb 9, 2013)

No problem I should have toned down the comments. Apologies

Had for some reason the Jets not arrived for a few years the UK would have been in very good shape. The Hornet, Tempest II, Spiteful and Sea Fury for the Navy, were a pretty good combination that would take some beating


----------



## Kryten (Feb 9, 2013)

krieghund said:


> Of course with a little "Vorsprung Durch Technik" and the same engine one could go quite a bit faster.............



The 109 coupled a large engine with a small airframe, growth potential was less than the larger Spit, I wonder how far the He100 could have been developed?

also would the He100 have had the Me109's structural weaknesses?


----------



## Shortround6 (Feb 9, 2013)

Tante Ju said:


> So, being a barn door at all, how was it so much faster than anything else out there, hmm? Even the Spitfire, with more power, could only match its speed...
> 
> The 109F had a much better engine. The F-2 with a 601N engine could do about 615 kph, the 109E with 601A engine about 570 kph. Then there was a the E with 601N engine, and given the power difference between the A and N, I reckon it did about 590-595 kph. So with the F they chopped down about 20 kph worth of drag. Its significant, but not breathtaking.



Perhaps I was in error, however an old William Green book ( correction welcome) says that in a comparison between an 109F-0 and a 109E-4/N using similar power plants (?) the F-0 could could complete a 360 degree turn at 1000 meters in 18 seconds compared to the 25 needed by the E-4/N, From 1000 meters in a combat turn it could gain 2,900ft compared to 1,970ft, Initial climb rate went from 3,420ft/min to 3,730ft/min and time to 16,500ft (5000 meters) dropped from 6.1 minutes to 5.2 minutes. 

Is the "F" that much lighter or was the reduction in drag responsible? 





Tante Ju said:


> The armored glass on the Spit worth about 10 kph alone did it not?



Yes. Early Spits could do about 585-590kph. 




Tante Ju said:


> Or go back Emil and Mark One, both go about 570 kph at altitude, but the Merlin III is about 100 HP stronger at altitude than 601A... not bad from a barn door eh.



As has been noted the difference is not quite 100hp (could 60 hp or under?) depending on the version of the 601 and the speed on the 109Es seems to vary from 555kph to 570kph. With the 109s smaller wing (73%) and smaller fuselage it sure doesn't look like it has much less drag than a MK I Spit.


----------



## krieghund (Feb 10, 2013)

Kryten said:


> The 109 coupled a large engine with a small airframe, growth potential was less than the larger Spit, I wonder how far the He100 could have been developed?
> 
> also would the He100 have had the Me109's structural weaknesses?



Well there was a larger wing in the works to anticipate a weight increase, the MG151/15 could be fitted (I would opt for three), its only real weakness revealed was that the landing gear struts needed beefing up and V4 was dived to 850 kph. The structure was already flown to 746 kph with a reduced wing span. I would have gone to a conventional oil cooler and used the methanol cooling evaporators for extra cooling of the engine as the special Ki-61 had shown that this extra area of cooling surface was more than adequate for the DB601. Also the cooling system was low pressure and leaky as it was and damage to the cooling panels was not going to result in a catastrophic engine failure as experienced in a high pressure radiator equipped aircraft. Contrary to some publications, all He100's were produced with the evaporative systems with the production models having a retractable auxiliary radiator for ground running, takeoff and climb.

It is also interesting to note that the He100 was used as a chase plane for the jet aircraft tested at Reichlin.

The Bf109 bested the He112 but Heinkel came back with the He100 to best it, however, the world is fortunate that in many instances the RLM viewed the world through their belly button, politics not withstanding.


----------



## stona (Feb 24, 2013)

I've decided to have a go point by point astime allows 

I wrote

"Shenstone worked hard on the wing/fuselage join area,where on a normally shaped aircraft lift degenerates and speed sapping turbulence and drag occurs,especially under high propeller power effect.Perfecting this area preserved curvilinear lift distribution by continuing the wings lifting effect and lowering fuselage interference drag turbulence to astounding levels."

The reply was.
. 
"Again, nothing special in this. Most designers paid careful attention to this."

Obviously not enough in the case of the Bf 109. H.Muttray in "Die Aerodynamische Zuzammenfugung von Tragflugel und Rumf" published in 1934 showed the benefits of a well designed wing fillet (for the reasons I originally gave) and demonstrated that it was important for the radii of the fillet to increase towards the rear.
This feature is absent from the Bf 109. Sighard Hoerner in "Fluid Dymanic Drag" calculated that 5% of the Bf 109's total drag stemmed from this area. He also calculated that,given more careful design of this area,along with a general "clean up" the Bf 109 could have flown 20 mph faster.

Shenstone paid particular attention to this area of the Spitfire and it was certainly something special that he achieved here. 

Cheers

Steve


----------



## cimmex (Feb 24, 2013)

I cannot agree, not many planes show a similar wing fuselage joint as the Spitfire, maybe the 
I-16. What’s about P-51, P-47 or Tempest, Spiteful to name only a few.
cheers
cimmex


----------



## Shortround6 (Feb 24, 2013)

A lot of it has to with _HOW/WHERE_ the fuselage-wing joint is. A wing coming out of a slab sided fuselage at mid fuselage needs little or no fillet. A wing coming out of a fuselage in the low/mid position needs a "small" fillet depending on exact contours of the fuselage at that point while a fuselage that is essentially sitting on top of the wing (or hanging from it which is why true high wing aircraft lost favor) need larger a fillet. 

Fillets require a bit (a lot?) of hand fitting and have compound curves (usually) which add to the difficulty of manufacture and maintenance. you seldom get something for nothing.


----------



## stona (Feb 24, 2013)

cimmex said:


> I cannot agree, not many planes show a similar wing fuselage joint as the Spitfire, maybe the
> I-16. What’s about P-51, P-47 or Tempest, Spiteful to name only a few.
> cheers
> cimmex



Read Muttray,it's in German. I'm not an aerodynamicist.


----------



## stona (Feb 24, 2013)

Shortround6 said:


> A lot of it has to with _HOW/WHERE_ the fuselage-wing joint is. A wing coming out of a slab sided fuselage at mid fuselage needs little or no fillet. A wing coming out of a fuselage in the low/mid position needs a "small" fillet depending on exact contours of the fuselage at that point while a fuselage that is essentially sitting on top of the wing (or hanging from it which is why true high wing aircraft lost favor) need larger a fillet.



It's far more complicated than that.

Cheers

Steve


----------



## stona (Feb 24, 2013)

Next the famous "washout".
It was a stated previously a known factor and common to many wings. It dates back to the examination of seeds (Zanonia Macrocarpa) by Ahlborn around the turn of the 20th century. Wing warping,creating a twist,was well known to the early gliders like Etrich ( who called his gliders "zanonia") and Lillienthal. Men like Hill,Dunne Lippisch and Weiss as well notably Frederick Handley Page with his German aerodynamicist Lachmann all looked into it and tried it on various designs. Lachmann incidentally started a furious debate in the 1930s over the relative merits of his preferred tapered wings and other shapes,particularly those based on ellipses.Anyone who understands the Lotz method of calculus will enjoy the letters and debate in Flight magazine in 1936/7 
Essentially it is a twist in the wing that allows the airflow between root and tip to stay attached longer and flow better over the wing's surface. The remarkable factor in Shenstone's Spitfire wing is the small amount of "wash out" applied to achieve this. On a loaded Spitfire wing the washout is +2 degrees at the root and - 0.5 degrees at the tip,a total twist axis of only 2.5 degrees along the wing.More "washout" equals more drag.
It is again a remarkable achievement.

Next maybe Shenstone's brilliant unequal chord aileron design.  

Cheers
Steve


----------



## Shortround6 (Feb 24, 2013)

stona said:


> It's far more complicated than that.



I don't doubt that it is.

But you can't point to planes with different type/position wing to fuselage joints/intersections and claim that because they don't use a large fillet that _NO_ type of wing to fuselage joints/intersections needs/benefits from large fillets. Or that one type/size fillet fits _all_ wing to fuselage joints/intersections. 

I am sure no Aerodynamicist and don't pretend to know more than the ones who were paid to design the planes at the time. I figure most of them had pretty good reasons for doing what they did but at times there may have been conflicting requirements.


----------



## Tante Ju (Feb 24, 2013)

stona said:


> Read Muttray,it's in German. I'm not an aerodynamicist.



He does not seem to say anything around your lines. He does note the importance of using a fillet, and the major point seems to be that the fillet must be designed appropriately, ie. to preserve the original lift distribution of the continous wing. This seems to be straighforward, since drastic changes of lift distrubtion would likely cause turbulance. From that it also follows that the proper fillet design is unique for each wing's lift distrubution, which could vary greaty between design and design. Just like elliptical wing shape was not a "best" solution, neither the shape of the spitfire wing fillet would work for a Mustang, Fw 190 or Me 109 which had different lift distribution characteristics. 

Essentially you thrown around his name and the people he lists as references without him actually saying something along your lines of Spitfire hyping... 


_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ZljRxXsBpc_ 

_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EgvfklVzYZo_


----------



## Aozora (Feb 24, 2013)

Tante Ju said:


> He does not seem to say anything around your lines. He does note the importance of using a fillet, and the major point seems to be that the fillet must be designed appropriately, ie. to preserve the original lift distribution of the continous wing. This seems to be straighforward, since drastic changes of lift distrubtion would likely cause turbulance. From that it also follows that the proper fillet design is unique for each wing's lift distrubution, which could vary greaty between design and design. Just like elliptical wing shape was not a "best" solution, neither the shape of the spitfire wing fillet would work for a Mustang, Fw 190 or Me 109 which had different lift distribution characteristics.
> 
> Essentially you thrown around his name and the people he lists as references without him actually saying something along your lines of Spitfire hyping...
> 
> ...




Anything the Spitfire could do, the 0-9 could do better: the Germans could do everything better than you  


_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WO23WBji_Z0_


----------



## Tante Ju (Feb 24, 2013)

Very mature...


----------



## Aozora (Feb 24, 2013)

Tante Ju said:


> Very mature...



Mainly tired of these endless 109 v Spitfire "debates" which mostly go nowhere because both "sides" are so fixed in their opinions and will quote anything which confirms their own POV to the exclusion of anything else. For instance, you didn't bother to include other parts of the Spitfire v 109 film because they had some complementary things to say about the Spitfire, as well as pointing out some weaknesses.


_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eBCnsjuCExk_


_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vihSJOBN1zE_


_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U0yWzgDsHNI_

the latter, amongst other things, points out twice as many Spitfires were built during the B of B than 109s, despite the early problems experienced getting the Spitfire into production, and despite its apparent complexity, as does the article extract below. (Of course, according to 109 partisans, who seem to want things both ways, the Spitfire was far too complex, yet its construction was crude cf the 109. Somehow the British managed to fumble around enough to manufacture 22,000 of them with relatively few problems). 







The 109 might have been more simple and advanced structurally, but that didn't mean a thing when the production lines were set at idle. Question, when did 109 production start to overhaul that of the Spitfire, was it 1943 or 1944?

Nor did you provide any evidence to show that the wing fillets of the Spitfire were problematic throughout its career, just a whole lot of opinion.

Fact is both the 109 and Spitfire were fine aircraft, each of which had design limitations.


----------



## GregP (Feb 26, 2013)

I'll go out on a limb here and say the 109 and Spitfire were very well matched. If the fighters had been swapped the British would have fixed the canopy, landing gear and added a bit of range. The Germans would have used the Spitfire as-is and would have done well.

They were quite comparable for most of the war with Spitfire being a better in 1944 -1945, but not by enough for the outcome to not have been decided by the pilots.


----------

