# Bf-109 vs. Spitfire....



## lesofprimus (Mar 5, 2006)

Who wins??? 

U have to take into account all the different versions and marks, so be specific.... Name ur version/mark and have fun....


----------



## plan_D (Mar 5, 2006)

I think in the early stages of development, the Spitfire was superior. I'm thinking Bf-109B through D, the Bf-109 was inferior to the Spitfire I. It would have been proven had these two types ever met in combat. As it were, the first time they met the Bf-109 was already E. And they were equal in combat. 

The Mk.II Spitfire gave no real edge over the Bf-109E, and they kept at a level playing field. The 109 took the lead with the F - but was caught up with the Spitfire V. I, personally, think the early V against a 109F would make the F the winner. 

The coming of the IX against G - I, personally, think led to the Spitfire pulling away. The Gustav was becoming difficult to handle , and many problems remained. While the Spitfire was just as easy, handled like a dream but was increasing in power and range. I don't think the Bf-109 ever caught up to the Spitfire come the Mk.IX . 

Increasing it's superiority, the VII, XII (low level), XIV and 21 just moved the Spitfire further and further ahead. I don't think the G or K model 109s were the Spitfire equals , it was all down to the German pilot to keep himself alive against a Spitfire ... because his crate was unforgiving , and no longer superior.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 5, 2006)

Its amazing how each aircraft "grew," it seems the Spitfire growth enhanced its performance while the -109s growth added a plus in one element but a negative in an other....


----------



## plan_D (Mar 5, 2006)

The engineers concentrated on the big things to improve, and left the little problems to plague the design. As the design become more powerful, the plagues grew and grew !


----------



## Jabberwocky (Mar 5, 2006)

Well, you all know I'm a Spitfire fan.

And as today is the 70th anniversary of the first Spitfire flight, I guess that I'll have to go with the sentimental favourite.

General comment is that contemporay 109s were almost always faster than Spitfires on the deck, but usually very similar at critical altitudes. 109s usually, but not always, accelerated in a dive better than Spitfires. The Spitfire seems to have had better alieron and elevator authority as a general rule. 

I'll put the 109 ahead as the better fighter until the middle of 1940. It was more developed in terms of service and reliability, had a superior engine (more power and direct injection) and heavier armament with wing cannon. The armament wasn't as well suited to fighter vs fighter combat as the 8 .303 package though, but much better for bomber destroying.

If Spitfires had been based out of France in May, 1940, I think that they would of fared only slightly better than the Hurricanes.

After mid 1940 however, the Spitfire gets a real boost in performance and pulls ahead of the 109 in my mind. There are 4 main areas of improvement leading up to and inclusive of the Battle of Britain:

1. The Rotol 3 blade fixed pitch airscrew gets swapped for a de Havilland constant speed unit, which adds 7,000 feet to the flight ceiling, cut time to altitude by around 1/4 and improves dive and turn performance. It also cut take-off distance by 1/3 and made the airplane simpler to handle at low speeds. This began in June 1940 and was finished by mid-August.

2. Internal pilot and engine armour, bullet proof windscreens, fuel tank deflection plate and IFF gear are fitted as standard after the 299th airframe and retrofitted to all other Spitfires. Domed cockpit hoods and rear vision mirrors are fitted as standard. Two step rudder pedals are introduced. This weight and drag penalty cut about 8-13 mph off top speed at altitude. With 2 pitch, 3 blade props clean Spitfire Is were doing around 367 mph @ 20,000 feet. With constant speed props, external armoured wndscreens and IFF antennas, Spitfire Is were doing around 354-358 mph @ 20,000 feet . The trade-off is that the Spitfire is now much less vulnerable to fire by stray rounds. There are first hand accounts of ground crew pulling 20mm rounds out of the foward bullet-proof screens during the BoB.

3. The RAF starts using 100 octane as its primary fighter fuel, so the Merlin II/III/XII are cleared for +12lbs emergency boost, delivering an extra 300 hp for short periods, usually 5 minutes maximum, but there are accounts of Merlins running at +12 1/2 for 30 minutes or more. At heights below 10,000 feet all out speed was increased anywhere from 28-34 miles an hour. Speeds on the deck increased from around 282 mph to 310 mph for the Spitfire I and 290 to 320 mph for the Spitfire II. 

4. The Spitfire II is introduced into combat service on 16th August, 1940. It included all the modifications to the Spitfire design as standard. Built at the new Nuffield plant, it was fitted with a Merlin XII which had a constant power rating of +9lbs, as compared with +6 1/4 lbs for the Merlin II/III and delivered about 190 hp more at this rating. Climb to 20,000 feet was cut by 3/4 of a minute to 7 minutes. Cruising speed was around 10-15mph higher. Service ceiling increased by 4,000 feet. The trade off was slightly worse speed performance at altitude. The Spitfire II was some 6-10 mph faster than the Mk I below 17,000 feet and some 4-8 mph slower above 23,000 feet. Top speed dropped to around 351 mph, some 16mph slower than the first Spitfire Mk Is tested.

So, the evolution of the Spitfire changed the fighter considerably, even in the first mark.

A Spitfire I flying in August 1939 could do 280 mph on the deck and 367 mph at 21,000 feet. It could climb to 20,000 feet in 11 and a half minutes. Service ceiling was 28,000 feet. Its engine used 87 octane fuel and was limited to a maximum of 6 1/2 lbs boost. It used a 3 blade, two pitch metal airscrew. It had self sealing fuel tanks, but no pilot, engine or fuel tank armour, no external bullet proof screen and no IFF gear.

A Spitfire I, flying in August 1940 could do 310 mph on the deck, and 355 mph at 21,000 feet. It could climb to 20,000 feet in 7.7 minutes. Service ceiling was 34,500 feet. Its engine used 100 octane and was limited to a maximum of 12 1/2 lbs boost. It used a 3 bladed constant speed metal airscrew. It was fitted with self sealing fuel tanks, internal and external armour screens, IFF gear, better gun heaters, domed canopy, rear vision mirror, mast type radio aerial and other detail improvements.

A Spitfire II, flying in August 1940 could do 320 mph on the deck, and 351 mph at 18,000 feet. It could climb to 20,000 feet in 7 minutes. Service ceiling was 38,500 feet. Its engine used 100 octane and was limited to a maximum of 12 1/2 lbs boost. It used a 3 bladed constant speed metal airscrew. It was fitted with all the same gear as the Mk I as well as improved exhausts and oil cooler.

Now, can someone please post how the 109 evolved from the 109 E-3 throught E-4 and to the E-7, so we have something to compare to? I know that the E-7 recieved the DB 601N, which gave much better power at high altitude.


----------



## schwarzpanzer (Mar 5, 2006)

I guess it's a combo of handling, speed, armour and armament so:

Early Me's had good but vicious handling, but the combat slats would have made deflection firing too far behind then BANG! too far ahead?

I would suspect pilots would be used to this trait and all flaws ironed out by the time the Mk1 Spit came online?

Speed - I think the early Me's were better?

Armour I just don't know about, both were always equal?

Armour all depends on the oppositions armament:

The hub cannon and 2X MG's would be my fave here.

- So that's the Me then? (pilots included)

E vs MkI/II - The Luftwaffe used it all wrong, it was an 'away game', the hub cannon was deleted? the pilots seemed to be shocked by the combat flaps, the RoF was inferior.

That's a win for the Spit? (pilots/tactics included)

I'd say the F was better than the V.

G vs IX? - Well they were about equal in my eyes - the G10 being better, the early G's worse.

The K was advanced, but a pig - as was the Griffon engined Spits to me.

My top choices would be a Spit IX or somewhere between a F and G10.


----------



## plan_D (Mar 5, 2006)

The Spitfire XIV had the exact same turning circle as the Spitfire IX ! How is it a pig !?


----------



## Jabberwocky (Mar 6, 2006)

Each mark of the Spitfire and 109 seemed to attempt leap-frog over the other in a continual tug-of-war in terms of performance, but they are generally remarkably even. 

The matchups are quite interesting, and show the continual push for more speed and climb throughout the war:

1940: 109 E3/E4/E7 vs Spitfire I/II

1941: 109 F1/F2 vs Spitfire Vb

1941/1942: 109 F4 vs Spitfire Vc

1942/1943 109 G2 vs Spitfire F. IX

1943-1945: 109 G6/G14 vs Spitfire LF. IX/HF. IX, Spitfire VIII, Spitfire VII

1944/1945: 109 G10/K4 vs Spitfire XIV


Plus some oddities like the low altitude Mk XII, high altitude Mk VI and the very late Mk XXI (even if it only flew 154 combat sorties in the war  ) 

I'd say that the continuing strength of the Spitfire lay in the adaptability of the Merlin for various roles, particularly with the 2 stage Merlin 60 serise (61, 63, 63A, 64, 66, 70 and 71) and the low altitude Merlin 50 serise (50, 50M, 55M) which kept the Mk V in frontline service up to mid 1944 as a low-alt fighter bomber  


Schwartz:

I'm simplyfing a bit, as the performance of the early 109s and Spitfires chopped and changed a lot. Here's what i have to go on, after spectating at a REALLY detailed thread (like calling the engine manufacturers and spending $600 on BMW technical manual detailed) at the Aces High web-board about 2 years ago:

The early 109s weren't quite as fast as the early Spitfires. The kenblatt for the Bf 109E1/E3 with the DB 601A at 1.23 ATA/ 2,400 rpm gives a figure of 555 kph/344 mph at 4.2 km/13,800 feet. A contemporary 1939 Spitfire I was doing 590kph/366 mph fully loaded, but unlike the 109, it wasn't a battle worth machine at the time.

However, the DB 601A-1a fitted to the 109E4 and some 109E3s was uprated to 1.30 ATA for 5 minutes combat power. It gave the 109 an extra 15 kph/10 mph at all heights below about 7,000m. So a Battle of Britain 109E4 was doing about 570 kph/354mph at 4.5 km/ 14,500 feet. A contemporary 1940 Spitfire was doing 351-354 mph / 565-570 kph, losing 10 mph or so because of all the extra equipment and the new prop. However, it was doing that at about 18-20,000 feet.

Finally, the 109E4/N and E7 recieved the DB 601N, which ran at a higher 30 minutes rating of 1.25 ATA, but was never cleared for a 5 minute 1.3 ATA combat rating (which doesn't mean that the engine wasn't run at 1.3 ATA, it just wasn't officially done  ) The 601N had a higher full throttle height than the 601A/ 601A-1a. Speed rose to 575 kph/ 357 mph at 5.1 kilometers/ 16,800 feet. It was also better below full throttle height, being some 10 kph/6 mph faster than the 5 minute rating for the DB 601A-1a up to full throttle height and some 25 kph/ 16 mph faster than the DB 601A at all heights.

So basic story is:

109 E1/E3 DB 601A: 
460 kph / 285 mph @ sea level
555 kph / 345 mph @ 4.2 km/ 13,800 feet

109 E3/E4 DB 601A-1a: 
480 kph / 300 mph @ sea level
570 kph / 354 mph @ 4.5 km/ 14,500 feet

109 E4N/E7 DB 601N: 
490 kph/ 305 mph @ sea level
575 kph/ 357 mph @ 5.2 km/ 16,800 feet

Early Spitfire I Merlin II/III:
455 kph/ 282 mph @ sea level
590 kph/ 367 mpg @ 6.1 km/ 20,000 feet

Spitfire I Merlin II/III with 100 octane and +12.5 lbs boost: 
500 kph/ 310 mph @ sea level 
570 kph/ 355 mph @ 6.1 km/ 20,000 feet

Spitfire II Merlin XII: 
515 kph/ 320 mph @ sea level
565 kph/ 351 mph @ 5.5 km/ 18,000 feet.

The Spitfires would of cruised at lower speeds below about 13-14,,000 feet than the 109s, but faster than the 109s above about 17-18,000 feet.


----------



## Gnomey (Mar 6, 2006)

I will go with the Spitfire here. Early on I would say the 109 was superior but as the war progressed the Spitfire became the equal of the 109 before becoming superior as it progressed through the MK-IX to the MK-XIV.


----------



## loomaluftwaffe (Mar 6, 2006)

everything has a - side, the later spitfire marks also had a - side (aside from being less beautiful) probably wasnt mentioned


----------



## elmilitaro (Mar 6, 2006)

True.


----------



## pbfoot (Mar 6, 2006)

everybody is right but I'm gonna take the 109 because of the longest combat record


----------



## 102first_hussars (Mar 7, 2006)

I think the one thing the Spit always had over the -109 was that it could stay in the air just a little bit longer.


----------



## plan_D (Mar 7, 2006)

I don't know how long the Bf-109 was serving for after the war, but the Spitfire was still in service with the RAF in 1954. Unless we count the HA-112 , the Spitfire served longer.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 7, 2006)

I voted for the Bf-109, obviously because it is my favorite plane of WW2. I however truely think they were equals on the same level. Yes each one had advantages over the other, however that is the point they each had advantages and disadvantages over the other. The Spit may have had the edge but I go with the Bf-109.

As for after the war, the Bf-109 was used by the Czech and Isreali Airforces into the 1950s and the Spanish Airforce retired there last Bf-109G in the 1960s I believe it was 1964 but not sure on that.


----------



## plan_D (Mar 7, 2006)

I thought the Spanairds only used the HA-112 Buchon ? They actually still used Bf-109Gs !? I know the Czechs and Israelis had the 109 , but the Israelis also had the Spitfire !


----------



## loomaluftwaffe (Mar 7, 2006)

you can have both, world war II was gone by then


----------



## plan_D (Mar 7, 2006)

Really? World War II was over by then !? I did not know - I thought World War II was still going on in 1949 !! My god, you're stupid . 

Obviously you're not so much into aviation as to appreciate the oddness surrounding Spitfires and Bf-109s surrounding side by side ! Just like the people who didn't find anything strange about a MiG landing at RAF Finningley while my dad stood in shock ... why !? Because he was in the freakin' Cold War - and that'd have been unheard of only ten years before !


----------



## pbfoot (Mar 7, 2006)

plan_D said:


> I don't know how long the Bf-109 was serving for after the war, but the Spitfire was still in service with the RAF in 1954. Unless we count the HA-112 , the Spitfire served longer.


I was thinking that the 109 flew combat in Spain in the late 30's and can't recall the Spit OR 109 flying combat after the 1948 Israeli war of independence maybe in Malaysia but i have no knowledge of that


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 7, 2006)

spitfire, reasons later on


----------



## The Demon of Razgriz (Mar 8, 2006)

Spitfire, hands down!


----------



## plan_D (Mar 9, 2006)

The Bf-109 came into combat in 1938 with the Kondor Legion. But the last operational sortie of a Spitfire was in 1954, on a PR mission in South-East Asia.


----------



## loomaluftwaffe (Mar 9, 2006)

The Demon of Razgriz said:


> Spitfire, hands down!


If that's so then this poll is useless! and besides, my vote goes with the 109 cause it's my favorite plane, it looks mean and i think nose armament would do better, and besides, it shot down hella lot of planes, JG52 (Erich Hartmann's wing) shot down more than 11,000 planes, and it was a crack unit (like JG301) in 1939


----------



## Smokey (Mar 9, 2006)

> Which Series of Craft Wins the Fight.... Bf-109 or the Spitfire???



Whoever had the advantage of surprise, ideally with a height advantage and with the sun behind them, would stand a good chance of winning

Didn't some versions of the Me109 have an excellent climb rate?


----------



## Jabberwocky (Mar 9, 2006)

All versions of the 109 had an excellent climb rate.

Most particularly against the Spitfire the 109E4/7, 109F4 and 109G2 had advantages usually by 200-300 feet a second peak climb rate over the Spitfire I/II, Spitfire V and Spitfire F. IX. However, once over 20,000 feet the situations changed and the Spitfire climbed a little better. With the arrival of the Merlin 63 and Merlin 66 in the nose of the Spitfire and MW 50 in the 109, the situation was reversed. The Spitfire climbed better to about 25,000 feet and then the 109 was better above that with alcohol injection and about 15 mph faster to boot.


----------



## loomaluftwaffe (Mar 10, 2006)

depends on the pilot and situational advantage, i think they're quite even


----------



## Soren (Mar 10, 2006)

Jab, you wouldn't happen to be a fan of Mike Williams would you ? 

The Bf-109K-4 out-climbed any Spit from 0 to eternity.

It took 2.3min for the Spitfire Mk.XIV to reach 10,000ft, 5.1min to reach 20,000ft and 8.35min to reach 30,000ft. By comparison it took the Bf-109K-4 3min to reach 16,400ft, and 6.7min to reach 32,800ft. 

Back to the title of the topic;

The Bf-109 vs Spitfire question is a tough one, as throughout their different versions they were always very close competitors, with the balance of superiority shifting on nearly a monthly basis. The maneuverability of the these two fighters was roughly the same throughout the war, however early in the war the Spitfire had a distinct advantage in aerobatic agility, as the Me-109E's leading edge slats weren't very reliable and would malfunction quite often if not kept almost clinically clean, and this malfunctioning would cause the plane to "Snatch" in any wild maneuvers. The problems with the 109's slats were solved with the introduction of "F" series, which additionally had greatly improved aerodynamics, this greatly improved maneuverability and the 109 was now just as maneuverable as the Spitfire, however a with speed and climb advantage going to the 109, however this balance of superiority would shift many times throughout the rest of the war.(The Spitfire was always easier to maneuver at high speed though)

So with the average pilot I would choose the Spitfire no doubt, as it was simply an easier airplane to fly when your not a very experienced pilot or an expert. With an Expert behind the controls however, I would choose the Bf-109, as the 109 would then IMO transform into the deadliest fighter to hit the skies in WW2, and its service record certainly seems to back that up. The 109 proved to be 'the' single highest scoring fighter of all time, giving birth to an unrivaled number of aces from various nations, 3 of which are the highest scoring aces of all time. Out of the 20 top aces, of any conflict, 12 flew 109's exclusively.

However it wouldn't take a very experienced pilot to fly the Spitfire to its limits, something it usually took in the 109. And since average skilled pilots were by far the norm, I think in the end the Spitfire had the advantage, as there are always going to be far more average pilots than experts. 

So my verdict is = A draw.(Tipping slightly towards the Spitfire's favor)


Regarding the post-war versions of the 109:

The Buchon is still a 109, and so is the Israeli "Avia S" series. The reason the Buchon and the S-199 etc etc models were build instead of the original DB engine models, was because there were nearly no DB engines to be had after the war, so the Spanish and Israeli airforce had to come up with something else. The Spanish went for the Roll's engine, while the Israeli's went for left over Junkers engines. Both these designs however were vastly inferior to the latest of the original 109 series, as both drag and weight had increased while power had decreased.

So the 109 actually stayed in service until 1967.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 11, 2006)

> So the 109 actually stayed in service until 1967



if you want to be padantic the spitfire's still in RAF service with the BBMF


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 13, 2006)

The Demon of Razgriz said:


> Spitfire, hands down!



Wow great first post! Good job!


----------



## Vassili Zaitzev (Mar 13, 2006)

The 109 and the spitfire had their ups and downs. The spitfire could turn better than the 109 below 15,000 feet because of its thicker wings, it also had a little longer range than the 109. The problem with the spitfire is that the engine has a cars carbourater. It you threw the spit in a dive you could stall the plane for a few precious seconds. The .303 machine guns weren't has hard hitting as the M2 .50 cals the americans used. The 109 had a direct fuel injection system so it could dive better than the spitfire. The 109 suffered from a lack of range and thin wings so It couldn't turn as well as the spit below 15,000 feet.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 13, 2006)

That is what I agree with. The Spit and 109 had advantages and disadvantages over one another but for the most part were equal. The victor was either the one who had the advantage of surprise, alltitude, or just the better pilot.


----------



## Soren (Mar 13, 2006)

Incorrect Vassili, these two planes turn equally well, with the Spitfire having a small advantage at high speed and the 109 having a small advantage at slow speeds.

And btw, the 109 actually has a thicker wing than the Spitfire.


----------



## loomaluftwaffe (Mar 13, 2006)

in 1943-1944 i think negative G carburetors came out? is this true?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 14, 2006)

loomaluftwaffe said:


> in 1943-1944 i think negative G carburetors came out? is this true?



NO..........


----------



## Jabberwocky (Mar 14, 2006)

Spitfires had several solutions to the problem of fuel loss from their float carburettors over the course of the war.

The first appeared in March 1941, when Miss Tilly Shilling developed a diaphragm with a calibrated hole that allowed negative G manouvers. It was standard on the Merlin 24 and later. It was also retrofitted to existing in service Spitfires. Most Spitfires were fitted with the modification by June. It alleviated the problems with negative G manouvers, but did not completely eliminate engine starvation in prolonged manouvers.

Later in 1941 the RAE developed a refined version of 'Miss Shilling's Orifice' allowing longer periods of inverted or negative G flight. By 1942 a 'zero G' version of the Rolls Royce SU carburetor was fitted, first apperaring in the Merlin 46 in April 1942. The new unit allowed sustained negative G flight.

The Merlin 66 and later engines recieved the US developed Bendix-Stromberg direct injection carburettor, which was fitted to more than 11,000 Spitfires. The Merlin 66 first appeared in Spitfires in April 1943.


----------



## Vassili Zaitzev (Mar 14, 2006)

oh whoops, my bad soren, i just read about it in a book THE Hardest Day about the 109 and the spit and probaly got confused.


----------



## Mosin (Mar 24, 2006)

I voted Spit. Earlier i would say the Messerschmitt and it were equel But the later models outclassed the BF-109 by sheer quality.


----------



## Nonskimmer (Mar 24, 2006)

I'm with plan_D (so to speak  ). The Spit maintained it's relatively good performance throughout it's development, although the later Griffon powered marks made a bit of a trade-off of manoeuvrability for speed. By contrast, the Bf-109 retained many of it's early bugs and the standardization of it's production eventually all but went out the window. Partially due to material considerations no doubt as the war wore on, but still a factor. 

Spits rule, man.


----------



## loomaluftwaffe (Mar 24, 2006)

yeah, as long as the books don't mention the negative sides, everything has a positive and negative effect, they wont just mention it


----------



## Nonskimmer (Mar 24, 2006)

Well which of the negatives is giving you the most grief?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 25, 2006)

Yeah he sounds like some confusious speakings here.


----------



## loomaluftwaffe (Mar 26, 2006)

they do teach confucianism here


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 27, 2006)

I am sure they do.


----------



## Nonskimmer (Mar 27, 2006)

And he still hasn't answered the question.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 27, 2006)

And probably wont either.


----------



## loomaluftwaffe (Mar 29, 2006)

I knew that old Chinese crap was useless... the only one i have in mind is that ive seen in books that Griffon engined models had so much torque


----------



## Nonskimmer (Mar 29, 2006)

Yes they did, and in the opposite direction to the Merlin powered marks. That is, the propeller shaft rotated in the opposite direction. This alone made conversion a bit of a bitch for the more veteran Spit pilots.


----------



## loomaluftwaffe (Mar 31, 2006)

I don't hear very often about all the successes the Luft had when it moved out to the ost front and the British began attacking then getting shot down by elites

and did the Spit have alot of landing accidents too? i mean its landing gear was narrow too, what was the difference in their accident records and why?


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 1, 2006)

The 109's landing gear was set more toe-out, meaning that an uneven landing could whip it around and cause and accident...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 2, 2006)

Yeap landing was the most dangerous for a Bf-109 pilot, other than the fact that everytime he took off he was up against 500 allied pilots.


----------



## loomaluftwaffe (Apr 2, 2006)

pilots, no planes... thats why the landing was more difficult

lol jk


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 2, 2006)

What?

The Landings were difficult because of the weak and narrow track.


----------



## loomaluftwaffe (Apr 4, 2006)

nevermind

well, it probably would have been worse had they been mounted in the wings
I have read that the 109 had very thin wings and mounting the landing gear in the wings would have needed alot of strengthening?

In terms of engine power, who had the better engine? the 109's DB601 or the Spit's Merlin? and what were the + and - of the inverted vee engine?

damn... so many questions


----------



## plan_D (Apr 4, 2006)

The Spitfire had a low landing speed compared to a lot of the fighters in World War II, which gave it an advantage in landing. It also had a good, early, stall warning. It did, however, have a narrow track which made ground handling difficult and did cause accidents. But the Bf-109 had the same problem with the added dread of the toe-out configuration. This meant that when touching down in a Bf-109 you really had to make sure both wheels hit at the same time to avoid a great risk of flipping the plane over. This problem did not exist in the Spitfire, or was at least no great than any other fighter. 

The first meeting between Spitfire and Bf-109 was when the Bf-109 had reached it's fourth mark, and third engine. It was then the Bf-109E-1/3 with the DB601A rated at 1,150 HP. The opposing Spitfire Mk.I had the Merlin II rated at 1,060 HP. In power alone, the Bf-109 had the advantage in power.


----------



## angel-fall (Apr 4, 2006)

I vote to 109... but the true is tow similar plane, only difference it's made it by the pilot


----------



## loomaluftwaffe (Apr 4, 2006)

wow, more ppl actually voted for the 109 than i thought... 
were the wing mounted pea shooters and cannons better than the
109's straight-line armament?


----------



## lesofprimus (Apr 8, 2006)

Depends on who u ask.... If, for example, we are talking about a veteran pilot with 20+ kills, the central armament seems to be preferred....


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 10, 2006)

I agree, I think the armament thing is pretty much based off of own oppinion. I think some preferred the central armamment and some preferred the wing armament. There are deffinate advantages to both.


----------



## B-24 Driver (Apr 16, 2006)

I saw more 109s than Spits. Mostly front views. With those nasty lights blinking at us, first from the hub and then as they got closer from the wings.

Never understood the Brits fixation on the 30 cal guns.


----------



## loomaluftwaffe (Apr 16, 2006)

more 109s than 190s?


----------



## lesofprimus (Apr 16, 2006)

B-24 Driver said:


> I saw more 109s than Spits.


I would certainly hope so, cause I dont recall seeing Spitfires escorting u guys to Germany and back...


> Never understood the Brits fixation on the 30 cal guns.


It wasnt so much a fixation of the gun, but the overabundance of the .303 cartridge that the Brits had.... Use up whatcha got, right???


----------



## loomaluftwaffe (Apr 16, 2006)

why did they have all that .30cal ammo anyways?


----------



## lesofprimus (Apr 16, 2006)

Leftovers from WW I....


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 17, 2006)

Yes and looma he said more 109s than Spitfires, not 190s.


----------



## loomaluftwaffe (Apr 17, 2006)

I was asking if he saw more 190s than 109s

cool my 1000th post


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 17, 2006)

> why did they have all that .30cal ammo anyways?



sorry to be pedantic, but it's .303 not .30, and the british rarely used the term cal........

and like les said, it's partly left over stuff from WWI, partly lack of forsight and the british thinking that the next war would be won with high volumes of rifle calibre ammo, but mostly because we could produce it very quickly and very easily, and we needed a lot of it, pretty much every gun in the army used the .303 and when to take into account all our colonies using it too, that's a LOT of guns that need ammo, and the one thing the higher ranks of the army hated was running out of ammo, they didn't care if they were out of food or water, just ammo, then when the time came when heavier guns were needed, the RAF went straight for the 20mm, to them the .50 was a waste of time, what's the point in having a midpoint? just go for the more destructive one, and i think they had the right idea..........


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 17, 2006)

loomaluftwaffe said:


> I was asking if he saw more 190s than 109s
> 
> cool my 1000th post



Should that really be surprising since there were more 109s built and used than Fw-190s.


----------



## Gnomey (Apr 17, 2006)

I agree Lanc, going straight from the .303" to the 20mm was a good idea. Although they used the "50 cal in later marks of Spitfire replacing the 4 .303"s.


----------



## alejandro_ (May 7, 2006)

Some points on the comparison Spit XIV vs Bf-109K-4

- The Spit was a more stable platform in terms of performance. At this stage the Bf-109 manufacturing quality was much lower.

- The use of a gyroscope gave the XIV quite an advantage in combats. The Luftwaffe never installed on their Bf-109 a device similar to the Ferranti gyro computing gunsight.

- Some documents state that the K4 had cooling deficciencies, this should limit the performance, together with the overall finishing of the aircraft.

- The Bf-109 in general rolls better at higher speeds, but the roll rate in the Spitfire improved after the clipped wing versions entered service. Any info on the Spifire XIV roll rate?

I would say the Bf-109 was better during 1941-42, when the E and F versions were available. After that the Spit has the advantage.

Regards.


----------



## Jabberwocky (May 7, 2006)

I dont have 109K vs Spitfire XIV roll data, but I do have Spitfire V data vs 109G data, which should be roughly similar:









Apart from the NACA curves for the Mk V (which closely match British testing), the other Spitfire data comes from THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE SPITFIRE AND SEAFIRE, a Dec 1946 address to the Royal Aeronautical Society by J Smith, Chief Designer for Supermarine from 1938 through the war years.

The Spitfire I/II curve is the yellow one, its just hard to read

The Tempest V roll rate is from the 1944 RA&AE testing. 

The 109 data comes from a June 1944 test by DVL with 30kg (66lbs) of force. 

The Mk V rolls so much better than the Mk I 2 because of the change from fabric to metal skinned alierons. A Mk IX should be similar as should a Mk XIV.

The Mk 21 rolls worse at low speed because of its Mk VIII style short span alierons were less effective at low speeds. It was much better at higher speeds due to a stiffer wings, smaller alierons leading to easire deflection and rebalanced alieron linkages (heavier but more 'positive' in their control).

The Spitfire Mk I/II is the yellow curve, its just a little hard to see.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 8, 2006)

Good info and chart there. I will agree about the early 109s having the edge and then losing slightly to the Spit later on. Overall though they were equals in my opinion.


----------



## alejandro_ (May 8, 2006)

Interesting. 



> The Mk V rolls so much better than the Mk I 2 because of the change from fabric to metal skinned alierons. A Mk IX should be similar as should a Mk XIV.[\quote]
> 
> It is also quite impressive the change from normal to clipped wings. I had always tought the Bf-109G/K had a great advantage at higher speeds but it doesn't seem to be that way. Is the Spitfire data also at 30kg input force?
> 
> Regards.


----------



## Jabberwocky (May 8, 2006)

Spitfire data is for 50lbs, or about 22.5 kg of stick force.

The Germans had slightly different standards for measuring stick force and roll, but its similar enough for a useful comparison.

The late model 109s may of rolled better thanks to some additional wing stiffening, but I haven't seen any data on that yet.


----------



## SHOOTER (May 9, 2006)

plan_D said:


> The coming of the IX against G - I, personally, think led to the Spitfire pulling away. The Gustav was becoming difficult to handle , and many problems remained. While the Spitfire was just as easy, handled like a dream but was increasing in power and range. I don't think the Bf-109 ever caught up to the Spitfire come the Mk.IX .
> 
> Increasing it's superiority, the VII, XII (low level), XIV and 21 just moved the Spitfire further and further ahead. I don't think the G or K model 109s were the Spitfire equals , it was all down to the German pilot to keep himself alive against a Spitfire ... because his crate was unforgiving , and no longer superior.



Just because a plane is "EASY" to fly generaly makes it a less effective weapon. The Spit was a notoriously poor gun platform, twitchy and very heavy on the controles at high speed. The Ailerons actualy reversed at high speed because the flimsy wing twisted so much under load. The Me-109 was a tough plane the Spit was fragile untill well after the war.

The Me was a handfull to fly but in the right parts of the envelope would run rings around the Spit. A strong pilot could make it do things that a super man in the Spit could not. In addition, it had a FI engine that could almost guarantee a clean escape while the Spit was dog meat if caught from behind.

The Spit was designed for the first part of the last war before all who payed attention knew that dog fighting was obsolite! The light wing loading gave it excellent maneuverability, but made it slow to accellerate and roll. It also made it slower than it's competiters under average "OPPERATIONAL" conditions. Planes rairly saw top speeds and often fought at part throttle were the Me-109 had a substantial advantage. In addition, the DB-6xx could run full throttle for 10 minutes while the merlin would self destruct in five.

Finaly as a gun platform the Me was vastly supirior to any Spit. The nose mounted guns of the -109 would be effective to twice or three times the range of the Spits wing mounted guns.


----------



## SHOOTER (May 9, 2006)

Jabberwocky said:


> I dont have 109K vs Spitfire XIV roll data, but I do have Spitfire V data vs 109G data, which should be roughly similar:
> 
> The 109 data comes from a June 1944 test by DVL with 30kg (66lbs) of force.
> 
> ...



I note that the above curves are all to the same direction! If the plane was forced to roll the other way, it would not do nearly so well and the planes whose engines turned in the opposite direction would do much better. Think swapping curves between the Fw-190 and Spit-1/2? By changing direction of roll.

Secondly, the rate of roll in the Spit fell off very rapidly with more stick force! Eventialy the ailerons induced so much twist in the wing that the planes STOPPED ROLLING IN THE DIRECTION DESIRED AND REVERSESED the direction of roll! Larger Stick forces in the other planes all gennerated much higher rates of roll! 

What this means is that a strong pilot in all of the other planes could out roll a Spit just by adding more stick! Doing that in the Spit reduced the rate of roll to nothing eventialy! So no matter which way you whent, the Spit could not roll with the rest!


----------



## SHOOTER (May 9, 2006)

alejandro_ said:


> Some points on the comparison Spit XIV vs Bf-109K-4
> 
> - The Spit was a more stable platform in terms of performance. At this stage the Bf-109 manufacturing quality was much lower.
> 
> ...



The Spit was a terrible weapons platform! It was "twitchy" and the wing mounted guns were guaranteed to miss if the target was at any range other than that at which the guns were ZEROED/HARMONIZED/REGULATED.

The guns were 7-13 feet out in the wings and 45" below the LOS threw the gun sight. This meant that the bullet streams from the guns started wide rose and crossed under the sight pipper and then fell away on the opposite side of the target. If the target fuselage was 36" wide and perfectly centered under the aiming mark, the bullets would be wide of the target untill it was less than 54 yards from the 250 yard ZERO RANGE and then would hit untill 54 yards after the ZERO RANGE, untill missing completely past that range.

The -109's nose guns were all parrallel to the LOS and only 3-15" below the sight. In addition, they did not have to rise so far to meet the LOS and thus it was much easier to get hits.

Finnaly the Spits flimsy wings twisted and vibrated badly under recoil and caused enormious dispersion to the bullet stream from any one gun. Over one meter in 100! This reduced the concentraition or weight of fire dramaticaly.

To figure out the total effect of this compute the ratio of taqrgets downed to total number of planes made and missions flown. ( TOTAL RAF post BoB kills=5280/>20,000 Spits made)=.264? IIRC? The Spit is at the very bottom of this compairison! It was a lowsy weapon system! The above number includes kills by other types and gets much worse as they are removed.

Even a cursory examination of the other planes involved in the ETO shows all are better than the Spit!


----------



## Jabberwocky (May 9, 2006)

Oh S'Wounds!

He is here as well!


----------



## Jabberwocky (May 9, 2006)

SHOOTER said:


> Just because a plane is "EASY" to fly generaly makes it a less effective weapon. The Spit was a notoriously poor gun platform, twitchy and very heavy on the controles at high speed. The Ailerons actualy reversed at high speed because the flimsy wing twisted so much under load. The Me-109 was a tough plane the Spit was fragile untill well after the war.



Please point to one pilot account that describes the Spitfire as a 'notoriously poor gun platform'. All WW2 fighters underwent alieron reversal a very high speeds.

How was the Bf-109 any more rugged than the Spitfire? Same engine type, light weight and a smaller fuselage? The Spitfire was also rated to a higher critical Mach.



> The Me was a handfull to fly but in the right parts of the envelope would run rings around the Spit. A strong pilot could make it do things that a super man in the Spit could not. In addition, it had a FI engine that could almost guarantee a clean escape while the Spit was dog meat if caught from behind.



The Spitfire could out-turn the 109 if caught from behind an go back on the offensive. The 109 could only dive away, not an offensive tactic.



> The Spit was designed for the first part of the last war before all who payed attention knew that dog fighting was obsolite! The light wing loading gave it excellent maneuverability, but made it slow to accellerate and roll. It also made it slower than it's competiters under average "OPPERATIONAL" conditions. Planes rairly saw top speeds and often fought at part throttle were the Me-109 had a substantial advantage. In addition, the DB-6xx could run full throttle for 10 minutes while the merlin would self destruct in five.



Actually, all a Spitfire pilot had to do when he had run the Merlin for more than 5 minutes at emergency overboost was to inform his squadron leader.

Over Malta a Spitfire Vc pilot ran his Merlin for 30 minutes at full emergency boost, with no engine problems.



> Finaly as a gun platform the Me was vastly supirior to any Spit. The nose mounted guns of the -109 would be effective to twice or three times the range of the Spits wing mounted guns.



And yet a Spitfire with 2 x20mm and 4 x .303 could put out 3 times the weight of fire of a BF-109 with 1 x 20 and 2 x 13mm.


----------



## Jabberwocky (May 9, 2006)

SHOOTER said:


> I note that the above curves are all to the same direction! If the plane was forced to roll the other way, it would not do nearly so well and the planes whose engines turned in the opposite direction would do much better. Think swapping curves between the Fw-190 and Spit-1/2? By changing direction of roll.
> 
> Secondly, the rate of roll in the Spit fell off very rapidly with more stick force! Eventialy the ailerons induced so much twist in the wing that the planes STOPPED ROLLING IN THE DIRECTION DESIRED AND REVERSESED the direction of roll! Larger Stick forces in the other planes all gennerated much higher rates of roll!
> 
> What this means is that a strong pilot in all of the other planes could out roll a Spit just by adding more stick! Doing that in the Spit reduced the rate of roll to nothing eventialy! So no matter which way you whent, the Spit could not roll with the rest!



The data presented by the RA&AE and NACA says differently. There are obvious physical limits that you can place on mechanically actuated alierons by stick deflection. Western establishments generally used 50 lbs as the limit, while Germany used 30kg/66lbs as the limit. 

P.S the stick force rolling values for the Mk V at 1/4 alieron are these:


Spitfire V / fabric covered frise ailerons
8 lbs @ 200 mph
16 lbs @ 250 mph
27 lbs @ 300 mph
43 lbs @ 350 mph
57 lbs @ 375 mph (end of graphed values)

Spitfire V / plain ailerons with tabs
7 lbs @ 200 mph
9 lbs @ 250 mph
13 lbs @ 300 mph
18 lbs @ 350 mph
24 lbs @ 400 mph

Spitfire V / metal covered frise ailerons
4 lbs @ 200 mph
5 lbs @ 250 mph
7 lbs @ 300 mph
9 lbs @ 350 mph
12 lbs @ 400 mph.

I.e to obtain 1/4 alieron deflection @ 400 mph, a Spitfire V/IX/XIV pilot needed just 12lbs of pressure.


----------



## Jabberwocky (May 9, 2006)

SHOOTER said:


> The Spit was a terrible weapons platform! It was "twitchy" and the wing mounted guns were guaranteed to miss if the target was at any range other than that at which the guns were ZEROED/HARMONIZED/REGULATED.
> 
> The guns were 7-13 feet out in the wings and 45" below the LOS threw the gun sight. This meant that the bullet streams from the guns started wide rose and crossed under the sight pipper and then fell away on the opposite side of the target. If the target fuselage was 36" wide and perfectly centered under the aiming mark, the bullets would be wide of the target untill it was less than 54 yards from the 250 yard ZERO RANGE and then would hit untill 54 yards after the ZERO RANGE, untill missing completely past that range.
> 
> ...



Shooters figures are from a discussion at Tony Williams web-boards where he is trying to ascertain the 'effectiveness of the Spitfire as a weapons platform". I post as Montyjnr2 over there.

It seems he is a one man crusade to rid the world of the notion that the Spitfire was any good as a fighter during WW2.

For some examples check out these interesting threads:

http://www.strategypage.com/messageboards/messages/6-19197.asp

http://forums.delphiforums.com/autogun/messages/

Check the "20mm vs .50 cal" topic, the "If I were king" topic and the "Shooter2000. He's a clever chap" topics for some entertaining reading.


----------



## alejandro_ (May 9, 2006)

> The Spitfire could out-turn the 109 if caught from behind an go back on the offensive. The 109 could only dive away, not an offensive tactic.[\quote]
> 
> Apparently the dive advantage was not that much, only in the initial part and, according to some sources the distance between them was never higher than 1200 feet.
> 
> ...


----------



## Soren (May 10, 2006)

Jabberwocky said:


> The Spitfire could out-turn the 109 if caught from behind an go back on the offensive. The 109 could only dive away, not an offensive tactic.



Nope, not true, the Bf-109 turned just as well as the Spitfire, and even slightly better than the Spit at slow speeds. (Although the 109E wouldn't because of its unreliable slats)

In a very high speed fight however, where the 109 pilot and Spitfire pilot are both average in skill, then yes the Spitfire would then be easier handle in a T&B fight, but otherwise no.


----------



## wmaxt (May 12, 2006)

Soren said:


> Nope, not true, the Bf-109 turned just as well as the Spitfire, and even slightly better than the Spit at slow speeds. (Although the 109E wouldn't because of its unreliable slats)
> 
> In a very high speed fight however, where the 109 pilot and Spitfire pilot are both average in skill, then yes the Spitfire would then be easier handle in a T&B fight, but otherwise no.



I saw a documentary the other day with several Spitfire and Bf-109 pilots they report pretty much the same thing. In general the Spitfire would out maneuver the Bf-109 but a very skilled pilot in the Bf-109 could at least match the Spitfire and sometimes beat them.

wmaxt


----------



## lesofprimus (May 12, 2006)

> the Bf-109 could at least match the Spitfire and sometimes beat them.


Sometimes??? 

SOMETIMES?????


----------



## wmaxt (May 12, 2006)

lesofprimus said:


> Sometimes???
> 
> SOMETIMES?????



The German pilots were the ones that said that. They said only the best German pilots could/would get the max out of the Bf-109. For average pilots in both aircraft the Spitfire was a little easier to get the performance out of. An excellent pilot in the Bf-109 had the advantage over an average pilot in a Spitfire. This was in relation to the BoB, I don't know if it was true in later versions of either aircraft.

wmaxt


----------



## plan_D (May 14, 2006)

It's been repeated many times over, the Bf-109 was the plane of the experts. The Bf-109 could out-turn the Spitfire in some circumstances, but you needed an expert at the stick to do it. The Spitfire would generally out-turn the Bf-109 because all air forces are made up of average pilots with a few experienced pilots and even less a number of naturally talented pilots.

Funnily enough, the first encounter between the Spitfire and Bf-109 was on 13th May, 1940. Six Spitfires from No.66 Sqdn. were accompanied by Defiants of No. 264 Sqdn. flew their second operation over Europe in a patrol over Holland. They encountered a flight of Ju-87s and Bf-109s , in the combat five Defiants and one Spitfire were exchanged for four Ju-87s and a Bf-109. 

Any more detailed information on this combat would be appreciated? German units involved? Amounts of German aircraft? As I figure there were six Defiants and six Spitfires.


----------



## Hop (May 18, 2006)

According to Tony Woods claims lists, all the German claims were by 5 JG26. In total they seem to have been awarded 7 Spitfires and 1 Defiant in the Rotterdam area between 6:45 and 7:05. 

Ltn. Eckardt Roch claimed 3 Spitfires
Ltn. Hans Krug claimed 2 Spitfires
Fw. Walter Meyer claimed 1 Spitfire
Uffz. Hans Wemhöner claimed 1 Spitfire
Fw. Erwin Stolz claimed 1 Defiant

Twelve Days in May gives few details, but describes German strength as "a staffel".


----------



## Hunter368 (May 18, 2006)

wmaxt said:


> The German pilots were the ones that said that. They said only the best German pilots could/would get the max out of the Bf-109. For average pilots in both aircraft the Spitfire was a little easier to get the performance out of. An excellent pilot in the Bf-109 had the advantage over an average pilot in a Spitfire. This was in relation to the BoB, I don't know if it was true in later versions of either aircraft.
> 
> wmaxt



I have read 6 books on the BoB alone and I never have heard of that one before. The area that I know best is German day time pilots and never have I heard that said by them, especially consistently said by them (maybe one or two, but that is just personal choice). I have most likely 25-35 plus books on German pilots, never heard that more than one or twice. Like I said unless you seen it once and thought it was a general feeling by all pilots. If one or two German pilots actually did say that I think that is a very small demographic out of the number of German 109 pilots. There were plus and negatives to both planes, both were great planes, which is better? Its a personal choice, what mission are you doing, where are you fighting, etc. They are very very equal planes. It came down to pilot skill and who had the advantage at the time, thats the biggest deciding factor (at least between these two planes) in a victory. 

If you have the source on that quote (or quotes) plz pass it along.


----------



## plan_D (May 18, 2006)

According to Paul Eden, only one Spitfire was lost on that day along with five Defiants.


----------



## Hop (May 19, 2006)

Twelve Days in May says the same, 1 Spitifre and 5 Defiants lost. Another case of "Spitfire snobbery" I suppose, where German pilots attribute their losses and victories to Spitfires, as that was the plane they respected most. In the BoB, they claimed about twice as many Spitfires as Hurricanes, despite the RAF actually losing twice as many Hurricanes as Spitfires.


----------



## plan_D (May 19, 2006)

Well, the German pilots claimed eight planes (Seven Spitfires and One Defiant) , someone for a start was overclaiming in general because the RAF only lost six aircraft. And there couldn't have been seven Spitfires lost, 'cos only six were in the air !

Obviously someone was claiming Spitfires for Defiants, and then two people claimed extra prizes.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 19, 2006)

Both sides overclaimed and under verified kills, I think you will see if you actually take a look at both sides.


----------



## plan_D (May 19, 2006)

I know, I just want to know about that one date. 'Cos it was the first meeting between the Spitfire and Bf-109.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 19, 2006)

Ah I see.


----------



## PipsPriller (May 27, 2006)

Please correct me if I'm wrong but I've read that the Bf 109E, due to it's superior supercharger in the DB 601A engine, gave it a decided performance advantage over the Spitfire Mk.1 (equipped with the standard Merlin III) - even with the Spitfire advantage of 100 octane fuel. At altitudes over 25,000ft. Is that correct?

On a slightly different subject someone mentioned in an earlier post that twice as many Hurricanes were shot down as opposed to Spitfire losses. Whilst this is true the more telling statistic is the loss ratio between the two. From early May to end of October 1940, Spitfires accounted for almost 40% of combined losses, while constituting only one third of the force. 

Spitfires were shot down faster than Hurricanes!

And if anyone wants to know the source it's from "PRO AIR 22/262, 'Daily Returns of Casualties to RAF Aircraft', 25 June -29 September 1940".


----------



## Jabberwocky (May 27, 2006)

That may of been because Spitfire squadrons spent, on average, 25% more time in combat deployment than Hurricane squadrons and Spitfires were the dominant fighter in No 11 group in the later sections of the battle.

The average front line deployment during the Battle period for a Hurricane squadron was around 15 days, the average frontline deployment for a Spitfire squadron was around 20 days.

Spitfires had a much lower pilot loss rate per sortie than Hurricanes. You were about 15% less likely to survive a sortie in a Hurricane than you were in a Spitfire.

The total loss figures from June to the beginning of November are:

Hurricane: 697
Spitfire: 441
Defiant: 28
Blenheim: 132

Total casualties: 1,298

Spitfire losses as a %: 34%

Spitfires losses as a % of S/E fighters: 38.75%

The average claims per squadron for Spitfires was 62 kills.
The average claims per squadron for Hurricanes was 44 kills. By that logic, Spitfire squadrons could be reckoned to be about 50% more efficient than a Hurricane squadron.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 27, 2006)

The main reasons that Hurris were shot down more is for the reason that Jabber just stated and the fact that there were more Hurris than Spitfires. The Spitfire was the obvious better aircraft but the Hurri was the unsung hero and I think most will agree with me.


----------



## DJ_Dalton2 (May 27, 2006)

This 109 vs Spitfire issue was settled both 60 some years ago and in earlier debate. The 109 was vastly superior to the Spitfire in all its incarnations. The only Spitfire that could compete in combat mode was the XIV, but by that time all the wonderful handling was long gone.

The simple fact is Spitfires fell to German Guns in both 109's and 190's throughout the war. Several German Experten had 30 plus Spitfire kills. All but the XIV could not compete vertically with the 109's. Spitfires were fine in round de round turn fights, but thats not how the 109's fought them. The 109's took them vertical and left their Rolls Royce motors gasping and left their planes stalling from the pull.

Its over. The 109 won. You could look it up.

Now, the air war was lost by the 109's for another reason. But it had nothing to do with the Spitfire.


----------



## lesofprimus (May 27, 2006)

Ur gonna find more than a few members here that are gonna dispute ur little post, and besides, the last time u posted was over a year ago, and all ur posts were about how good the -109 was and how inferior the Spit was....

U do know that there were many German Aces flying -109's that died at the hands of Spitfire rookies who had no more than 4 hours of actual stick time, dont u???

U dont think ur slightly biased??? It's kinda obvious pal...


----------



## Soren (May 27, 2006)

The Bf-109 and Spitfire were as equal in capability as possible, with one having a small advantage at slow speeds and the other having a small advantage at high speeds. The Bf-109 wasn't vastly superior to the Spitfire, it was its equal, and vice versa.

The only area where the Bf-109 can be said to be markedly superior to the Spitfire is in climb rate, the Bf-109 always had this advantage.... Other than that, they were the same..


----------



## Hop (May 27, 2006)

> The only area where the Bf-109 can be said to be markedly superior to the Spitfire is in climb rate, the Bf-109 always had this advantage.



Whilst the early 109s generally had the advantage, the Spitfire held a decided advantage from the LF IX onwards (introduced to service in early 1943). About the only 109 that could climb with the LF IX were the models introduced in late 1944, and by that time the Spitfire IX was running on 150 octane fuel, and had a better climb rate than the 109 ever managed.

Even the 109K4, running on C3 fuel and MW 50, only managed to roughly equal the Spitfire IXs early 1943 climb performance. And the K4 only ran on C3 fuel and MW50 from March 1945, and in limited numbers.


----------



## Soren (May 27, 2006)

Sorry but that isn't the case Hop, the Bf-109K-4 beat the Spit IX in climb-rate by a vast amount, reaching 32,800 ft in just 6.7 min! I'd like to see a Spitfire top that... And the K-4's best initial climb rate in clean condition was in the area of 5,500 ft/min, at the very least!

Already in 1942 the Bf-109G-2 was climbing at 4,800 ft/min, and from then on, with the exception of the G-6, climb-rate only increased.

Most climb rates floating around in books and on websites today only qoute the 109's climb rate at Start u. Notleistung, while the figures we need are the Sonder Notleistung.


----------



## Hop (May 27, 2006)

> Sorry but that isn't the case Hop, the Bf-109K-4 beat the Spit IX in climb-rate by a vast amount, reaching 32,800 ft in just 6.7 min!



Nowhere near. That's a figure from William Green, who probably saw this doc from the German archives and misread it:






There is no way on earth the K4 (or any other prop plane) could reach 10km in 6.7 minutes. (which is an average of 4900 ft/min (25m/s) all the way up to 33,000ft)



> And the K-4's best initial climb rate in clean condition was in the area of 5,500 ft/min, at the very least!



Peak climb rate on a 109K4 with MW50 and C3 fuel, operating at 1.98 ata, was just under 25 m/s (4,880 ft/min) at just under 1Km. 

At 3km that had dropped to 22.5 m/s.

Peak climb rate on a Spitfire IX with 150 octane fuel was 5,740 ft/min.



> Most climb rates floating around in books and on websites today only qoute the 109's climb rate at Start u. Notleistung, while the figures we need are the Sonder Notleistung.



Most climb rate figures for the K4 quote Green's mistake. Luckily I have a K4 climb rate chart at 1.98 ata before me (1.98 is the highest power setting used by the 109 in service, authorised for some aircraft in March 1945, although it's not clear how many, if any, 109s actually got to use it)


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 28, 2006)

Soren said:


> The Bf-109 and Spitfire were as equal in capability as possible, with one having a small advantage at slow speeds and the other having a small advantage at high speeds. The Bf-109 wasn't vastly superior to the Spitfire, it was its equal, and vice versa.
> 
> The only area where the Bf-109 can be said to be markedly superior to the Spitfire is in climb rate, the Bf-109 always had this advantage.... Other than that, they were the same..



Could not agree more with you. Both aircraft had advantages over the other but overall were pretty much equal throughout the war.


----------



## Soren (May 28, 2006)

Hop you really should learn to read those charts...

The figures on that chart are at Start u. Notleistung, and "Without" MW-50, as-well as at a considerable overweight. Oh and they are at 1.8 ata supercharger pressure. (Notice "Grundeinstellg", and how the top figure at 1.8ata is the best climbing one)

Oh, and where did William Green misread that chart ? It says exactly 6.7min to 10k !

Btw, please show us that 1.98ata chart of yours, then I'll tell you what it says, thank you.


----------



## Hop (May 28, 2006)

> Hop you really should learn to read those charts...
> 
> The figures on that chart are at Start u. Notleistung, and "Without" MW-50, as-well as at a considerable overweight. Oh and they are at 1.8 ata supercharger pressure. (Notice "Grundeinstellg", and how the top figure at 1.8ata is the best climbing one)



I know. Note that I said the climb rate of the K4 with Mw50 and C3 fuel was close to 25 m/s, this chart shows a maximum close to 22 m/s.

The most interesting thing about this chart is that it's almost certainly the source for the mistaken "3 mins to 3,000m" and "6.7 mins to 10,000m" claims. 



> Oh, and where did William Green misread that chart ? It says exactly 6.7min to 10k



No it doesn't. You are assuming the m/s scale is also minutes. I assume Green made the same assumption. Most of the people who see this chart do.

The M/S scale is not also minutes. In fact, 1 square on that chart = 2 minutes, so the 5 m/s line is also the 10 minute line. The chart shows time to climb at climb and combat power, 1.45 ata, basic setting 1.98 ata (ie an engine configured to run at up to 1.98 ata, but actually running at 1.45 ata)

I worked this out some time ago, because the times on the time to climb line correspond to the times to climb at 1.45ata, and couldn't possibly correspond to 1 square = 1 minute. However, I've since seen the other charts, including the 1.98 ata one I mentioned earlier, and they actually have a visible minute scale along the bottom. 1 square = 2 minutes.

Look at at the time to climb from 2km to 4km on this chart. 

If 1 square = 1 minute, it takes just over 1 minute to climb 2km, a rate of 28.5 m/s. That's very fast at that altitude.

If 1 square = 2 minutes, it takes about 2.3 minutes to climb 2km. That's a rate of about 14 m/s. If you look at the climb chart at 3km (the average height between 2 and 4km) then the climb rate is 14 m/s.

You can do this at any height. Try for example 1km to 5km. It's a straight line on the climb chart, so the average speed will be half way along, at 3km. The climb rate at 3km is 14 m/s. To climb from 1km to 4km should take 285 secs at an average of 14 m/s. That's 4.75 mintues.

Look at the time to climb line. If 1 square = 2 minutes, 1km is reached at a shade over 1 minute, 5 km at just under 6 minutes. In other words, it takes about 4.75 minutes to go from 1km to 5km, if 1 square = 2 mins on that chart.

Whilst this works at any altitude, it's most obvious above 8km. Above 8km, the 109 cannot maintain maximum boost pressure, so increasing allowed boost pressure will make no difference. RPM is already at maximum because max rpm was allowed as a climbing setting above 8000m (see the line joining climb and combat and start and emergency at 8,000m)

If 1 square = 1 min, then it takes about 1.7 minutes to climb from 8 to 10 km. That's an average, at 9km, of over 19 m/s. Try plotting that on the chart, at 9 km. It's so far off the actual climb rate it's clearly nonsense. And remember, increasing allowed manifold pressure will do nothing at this altitude, because the supercharger can't even maintain 1.45 ata, let alone 1.8 or 1.98 ata.

Now, if 1 square = 2 minutes, then it takes about 3.3 minutes to climb from 8km to 10km. That's a rate of about 10m/s at 9km, which is bang on the chart.

Whatever altitude you want to plot, you will see that at 1 square = 2 minutes, the time to climb matches climb and combat power.



> Btw, please show us that 1.98ata chart of yours, then I'll tell you what it says, thank you.



It's quite clear what it says. It still only shows climb rate at climb and combat, and gives about 13.5 minutes to 10,000m. But there's no calculation needed to prove it, the extra scale for minutes is clear at the bottom.

I'd rather not post it here, because the chap who paid for it from the archives, and who first posted it on Ubi, has since removed the link. However, as he posted it on a public forum, which anyone can join and read, I have no objection in emailing it to you, if you provide an address. (if you'd rather not give out a real address, create a temporary Hotmail or similar account).


----------



## Soren (May 28, 2006)

Hop that sounds abit far fetched. (Might change my mind when I see that chart of your's though)

Please consider this before making any assumptions:

Bf-109 G-2
Weight: 3,120 kg
Max engine power: 1,350 hp at 1.32ata.

Power-loading: 2.3 kg/hp

Initial climb rate: 4,724 ft/min

HA-1112-MIL Buchon
Weight: 3,180 kg
Max engine power: 1,610 hp

Power-loading: 1.97 kg/hp

Initial climb rate: 5,580 ft/min (And these are modern measurements)

Bf-109 K-4
Weight: 3,362 kg
Max engine power: 2,000 hp at 1.98ata, or 1,850 hp at 1.8ata

Power-loading: 1.68 - 1.81 kg/hp

Initial climb rate: Atleast 5,800 ft/min at 1.98ata, and 5,500 ft/min at 1.8ata.


By comparison the Spitfire LF IX at +25 lb boost (1,970 hp), has a power-loading of 1.70 kg/hp, and climbs at 5,700 ft/min.

Also can't you just PM me the 1.98ata chart ??


----------



## Hop (May 28, 2006)

PM sent.



> Hop that sounds abit far fetched. (Might change my mind when I see that chart of your's though)



It's actually true, and I'd stake anything on that. I was certain before seeing the chart with a scale on it, even more certain (if such a thing is possible) when I saw the chart with the 1 square = 2 minute scale.



> Please consider this before making any assumptions:
> 
> Bf-109 G-2
> Weight: 3,120 kg
> ...



I assume the G2 data comes from the Finnish test? 

There are a couple of problems with that. Firstly, it's not clear whether it's corrected for standard atmosphere. In colder conditions, the engine will develop more power, and climb rate will be better.

Secondly, the Finnish pilot reported a higher initial speed, dropping as the climb continued. That gives it partial zoom climb characteristics.

Thirdly, we don't know the radiator settings. Closing the radiator fully made quite a difference to climb rate.

If you look at this graph someone put together, you can see quite clearly how the Finnish G2 figures differ from others, showing an exceptionally high initial spike before falling back:





The other problem with the comparisons is the prop. Props can be optimised for particular speeds. Optimise one for low speed, and you will get good climb rate, but not very good top speed. And of course put in more power than the prop can handle and it's largely wasted.


----------



## lesofprimus (May 28, 2006)

The bottom line is that everyones test is different, and that chart is as worthless as the sh*t paper I wiped my @ss with an hour ago...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 29, 2006)

I can completely understand what you are saying. Paper does not make an aircraft.


----------



## Soren (May 29, 2006)

I just got the chart by Hop, and its one I already have... 

It says nothing about 1.98ata, and its still with the experimental propeller, and no weight figures are given. And finally its from 8/4 -1944.

Hop,

Your theory about the Finnish pilot coming in at overspeed just doesn't cut it, cause then the climb rate at SL would've been considerably higher. Besides had the pilot noticed he was coming in too fast for the test, the test would've been aborted and retried, there's no middle ground when it comes to accurately testing the performance envelope of an aircraft. Also if you look at it, it looks kinda like an extension of the Soviet test with the Bf-109G-2/R-6, which would undoubtedly be slower because of its higher weight and drag.

Also please reconsider my last post, cause there's a logic to it all..


----------



## Hop (May 29, 2006)

I'm a bit disappointed Soren. Earlier on you said this:



> Most climb rates floating around in books and on websites today only qoute the 109's climb rate at Start u. Notleistung, while the figures we need are the Sonder Notleistung.



What does the chart I sent show? 

Sonder Notleistung

Why ask for a chart showing Sonder Notleistung if you already had it?

And why no mention of the scale? On exactly the same graph type as the first chart, it shows 1 square = 2 mins. Which, together with the fact that at 1 square = 2 mins the first chart shows climb power, rather proves the "3 mins to 5,000m" is a mistake.

If you look at the second chart in conjunction with the first, you find that climb rate went from a peak of just under 22 m/s at 1.8 ata (about 1850ps) to just under 24 m/s at 1.98 ata (about 2000ps). How much difference were you expecting?



> Your theory about the Finnish pilot coming in at overspeed just doesn't cut it, cause then the climb rate at SL would've been considerably higher.


Climbing at a higher speed than optimal actually reduces climb rate. See as an example:
http://marinergraphics.com:16080/ww2/smallwoy/109Ftrial5.JPG
(part of Ring's excellent site: http://prodocs.netfirms.com/

It's only if you allow the speed to decrease during the climb that you get a zoom effect. eg, if you start at 250 mph (and there's no suggestion the Finnish test started that high) then allow speed to drop to 200 mph by 5,000ft, in the first 5,000 ft you get not just the energy produced by the engine, but the 50 mph kinetic energy you have given up.

So yes, zoom climb might be a factor in the G2 test. Virtual Pilots have been promising a translation of the text for some time now, if it ever appears we'll know for sure.

But regardless of _why_ the Finnish test has such a high rate at 2,000m, it does have a much higher rate than comaprable tests from the Germans or Russians.



> Also please reconsider my last post, cause there's a logic to it all..



The problem I have with you post is that I have now provided 2 original German charts for the 109K4, one at 1.8 ata, one at a higher setting that you refuse to believe is 1.98ata (although there are other charts in the series that explicitly state it is 1.98). You are basing your 109K4 performance claims on tests of earlier 109s, and ignoring the results for the K4.

Are you a member of the AAW forum? I believe it's by invitation only, but if you are a member they had a good discussion on the K4 climb rate there. 

If not, Butch (who got the charts from the archives in the first place) posted some on this thread on Ubi:
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee/forums/a/tpc/f/23110283/m/6071064704/p/9

There's a good follow on discussion where he answers some of your questions. For example:



> It says nothing about 1.98ata,


"it's the DB605DC @ 1.98ata with MW-50 Wink for best curves and @ 1.45ata (climb and combat setting) for the worst ones."



> and its still with the experimental propeller


"The climb charts for DC605DC and DB605DB show no difference between 12199 and 12199, check for instance the well known climb chart posted here and there. You'll see : "Schrb 12199 u. 12159" written on the second line."

(The "well known chart" is the one I posted in this thread)



> and no weight figures are given.



The weight figures are given elsewhere in the report, 3400 kg for the K4.


----------



## Udet (May 30, 2006)

Gentlemen:

Of course there will be guys willing to debate what DJ_Dalton posted here. We know who they are; two names that come into mind real fast: Jabberwocky and Hop.

But, will their arguments prove DJ_Dalton wrong? 

Although I do find the technical scope of the discussion very enlightening and interesting, my main focus has been on the operational record of the planes.

The conclusion has been the same for a good while now: the 109 slammed the Spitfire big time. And apparently, there is nothing in the horizon which might indicate this conclusion could get modified in any manner whatsoever.

Whatever was it that the Spitfire "did better" than any of its contemporary 109s one can only get confused after studying and reading books, articles, lists of claims, watching guncamera footage and speaking with men who fought in the war. The results are crystal clear. I have no problem in letting Spitfire enthusiasts have their candies though.

From the E-3s, E-4s all the way up to the K-4...one can only wonder what the hell was it those "superb" Sptifires were achieving.

In fact, today one can know the "15 minutes of fame" attained by the Spitfire Mk.I during the Battle of Britain (1940) is bogus: there, the venerable Hurricane Mk.I took the brunt of the fight (!). 

The world reputation the Sptifre attained right after the BoB, throughout the empire and the rest of the world, was more the result of a good propaganda job and not the outcome of combat against the Luftwaffe. Necessary myths in a nation enduring the kind of situation England did during 1940. 

1941, 1942 and the first half of 1943 saw a RAF completely uncapable of achieving anything over the channel and in skies of western europe all by itself, enduring horrific losses in the process. In the meantime, the losses of, say, JG 2 and JG 26 were comfortably within the sustainable range.

(The boldness of most of these guys is nonetheless admirable; they will have a timely explanation for every argument which contests their official history.)

Now, from the second half of 1943 until the end on May 1945? BLESSED BE THE NAME OF THE LORD, for the USA was now assembling in force!!!

1941, it takes guts to even attempt making a case in favour of the Spitfire. Virtually from July to the end of that year, JG 2 and JG 26 ruled the skies over the Channel. Also I have carefully studied the very first months of that same year (1941) of units like JG 3 and I. and IV./JG 51 -before their deployment in the USSR-, which stayed in the west after the BoB. The result is the same. Spitfires uncapable of tangling with the 109s.

Furthermore, two well known battles: the Dieppe Raids and The Channel Dash, what was it the triumphant Spitfires and pilots of the Battle of Britain achieved: Nothing, and they got their butts badly badly kicked.

The reality of battle records! England can you cope? No, you can´t.
Without the massive critical support of both the 8th and 15th AFs, the RAF with all those "super" Spitfires was going nowhere. No swarms of Jugs and Mustangs: no victory against the Luftwaffe.


----------



## Jabberwocky (May 30, 2006)

Udet said:


> Gentlemen:
> 
> Of course there will be guys willing to debate what DJ_Dalton posted here. We know who they are; two names that come into mind real fast: Jabberwocky and Hop.
> 
> ...




Read up on Malta and how outnumbered Spitfire Vc sucessfully fought and beat 109F-4s and 109G-2s


----------



## Dogwalker (May 30, 2006)

After BOB and until the end of 1943 I think the MTO was the main teater of operations for western fighters.
Even the USAF losses testify that.
Instead looking at the results of single missions, I think North Africa is the best palce to study (if someone want) the prestations of different fighters in combat, since both parts had their numbers of both defensive and offensive missions to do.


----------



## Soren (May 30, 2006)

Hop,

Firstly I'm the one who's disappointed, cause apparently you don't know the difference between Sonder Notleistung and 1.98ata figures, and apparently you're convinced that running at Start u. Notleistung with 1.8ata means running at 1850 hp - Well sorry Hop, but in that case you need MW-50 applied as-well.(WHICH IT ISN'T IN YOUR PRESENTED CHART !) 

However had you presented figures at Sonder Notleistung with 1.8ata, then we could start comparing numbers, but fact is you haven't, only the one you sent to me via PM is at Sonder-Notleistung with 1.8ata. (And I specifically asked for a 1.98ata chart btw)

Secondly the chart you sent me is with a "Dünnblatt schraube 9-12199", which is an experimental propeller. (A propeller designed to sacrifice climb rate for speed)

Thirdly, you somehow magically come to the conclusion that the time to climb indications are double that of the Climb rate indications, now that is not only nonesense cause it would be a waste of paper, but also because that certainly wasn't std. practice - And lastly because then you'd certainly have been notified if that was the case. (Scientists 'also' expect people to be logical) 

Look at your Bf-109 G-1 chart from rechlin, how is 'it' set up ?? Yes thats right, both the time to climb 'and' climb rate figures are sharing the same indications for their figures. (Also, just for fun, notice how short the take-off run is, and compare that to the Spit IX.)

And finally the chart you sent me is from 8/4-1944, looong before 1.98ata boost pressure was ever cleared ! Heck its not even with the engine which could achieve 2,000 PS at 1.98ata in the first place ! (Its a D-2 engine!)


----------



## Hop (May 30, 2006)

> but fact is you haven't, only the one you sent to me via PM is at Sonder-Notleistung with 1.8ata. (And I specifically asked for a 1.98ata chart btw)



It actually is a 1.98 chart. That's why the climb performance is about 2 m/s better than the 1.8 ata chart. What do you think accounts for the difference? It can't be weight, or props, or rpm, because the climb rate above critical altitude is the same. 



> Secondly the chart you sent me is with a "Dünnblatt schraube 9-12199", which is an experimental propeller. (A propeller designed to sacrifice climb rate for speed)



Note that the first chart shows the same climb rate with the 12159 prop.



> Thirdly, you somehow magically come to the conclusion that the time to climb indications are double that of the Climb rate indications



No, I come to the conclusion they are exactly the same. The time to climb lines show the time to climb at climb and combat power. Which is rather normal, if you think about it.

The charts show climb rate at climb and combat power, and at start and emergency power. The time to climb line is for climb and combat power.



> now that is not only nonesense cause it would be a waste of paper,



Actually the size of the paper is probably the reason for the different scale. If you were to extend the line on that chart to 22 minutes on a scale where 1 square = 1 min, it would be where the text is, leaving no room for the text.

But are you saying you can't read the minutes scale on the chart I sent you? It is very, very clear. There is a "10" under the first "5", a "20" under the "10", and alongside it says: "t [min]"



> And lastly because then you'd certainly have been notified if that was the case. (Scientists 'also' expect people to be logical)



What, you mean with a seperate scale along the bottom, like the one that's actually printed there? What do you think the scale is for?



> Look at your Bf-109 G-1 chart from rechlin, how is 'it' set up ?? Yes thats right, both the time to climb 'and' climb rate figures are sharing the same indications for their figures.



That's because they're both at climb and combat power. There is no start and emergency power listed, possibly because it was banned on the DB605A for a long time.



> And finally the chart you sent me is from 8/4-1944, looong before 1.98ata boost pressure was ever cleared !


I don't think that's the date in the bottom corner. It's part of the report number, also on the page. Can't you see that what you claim is the number 4 is actually 2 Roman numerals? Appears to be IV to me. And the "8" appears to be a symbol rather than a number. The report is labelled A/IV/290/44.

Can I suggest you email Butch and direct these questions to him? He knows a lot more about the 109, especially the K4. If you tell him it's about the chart he posted at Ubi in February, he'll know which one, as he gets asked about it a lot.


----------



## Hop (May 30, 2006)

Oh, BTW Soren, if you look at the time to climb line on the second chart I sent you, you will see it is exactly the same as on the chart I posted on this thread, and the scale is explicityly labelled as 1 square = 2 mins. 

The times to climb are:

5,000m in just under 6 mins
8,000m in almost exactly 10 mins
10,000m in 13.5 minutes
12,000m in about 20.5 minutes


----------



## Soren (May 31, 2006)

Ok, it seems we’re talking about different charts here, so I’ll try to be abit more specific for you Hop….

1: The chart you sent me “is” from 8/4-1944, it says that quite clearly – 8.IV.1944. Look at other charts, the date is always at the exact same spot, the lower right corner, followed by PET. DB605 chart date

2: The chart is for an engine which isn’t even capable of 1.98ata boost, its a D-2 engine, so it can only be running at 1.8ata. 

3: 1.98ata boost pressure was cleared sometime in December 1944, and it was only cleared for the DC engine. And like previously stated, the chart you sent me is not only from 8 months earlier, but also for an entirely different engine ! (And its with a “Dünnblatt” propeller)

4: If you look at the chart you ‘presented’ for the DC/ASC engine, the climb rate is 22m/s at Start u. Notleistung, ‘without’ MW-50 and at 1.8ata.(Which is 1,725 PS btw) Then look at the chart you sent me for the D-2 engine, its 25m/s at Sonder Notleistung ‘with’ MW-50 at 1.8ata.(1,850 PS)

5: Make a guess on how high a climb rate you think the K-4 has with the DB-605DC engine with 2,000 [email protected], cause considering it has a climb rate of 25m/s with the D-2 engine at 1,850 PS, its atleast going to be around 28m/s. (Up besides the +25lb boost Spit IX, just like the Power-loading suggests)

I hope you get it this time.....


----------



## lesofprimus (May 31, 2006)

So do I cause its killing my mood........


----------



## Hop (May 31, 2006)

> 1: The chart you sent me “is” from 8/4-1944, it says that quite clearly – 8.IV.1944.



How common was the use of Roman numerals in German dates? And why just for the month?

That's not the date.



> The chart is for an engine which isn’t even capable of 1.98ata boost, its a D-2 engine, so it can only be running at 1.8ata.



It is absolutely, categorically, running at 1.98 ata. I really suggest you email Butch for further clarification on this.



> 1.98ata boost pressure was cleared sometime in December 1944, and it was only cleared for the DC engine.



It wasn't finally cleared until March, but there was a premature clearance in December.



> If you look at the chart you ‘presented’ for the DC/ASC engine, the climb rate is 22m/s at Start u. Notleistung, ‘without’ MW-50 and at 1.8ata.(Which is 1,725 PS btw)



Not according to my info. Again, email Butch.



> Then look at the chart you sent me for the D-2 engine, its 25m/s at Sonder Notleistung ‘with’ MW-50 at 1.8ata.(1,850 PS)



No, it's at 1.98 ata. Email Butch.



> Make a guess on how high a climb rate you think the K-4 has with the DB-605DC engine with 2,000 [email protected], cause considering it has a climb rate of 25m/s with the D-2 engine at 1,850 PS,



No, that's at 1.98 ata. Email Butch. He will be able to give you further supporting information that I _can't_

Butch has the full report. It is, as far as anyone knows, the only report on the K4 at 1.98 ata. If you want further information, you will only get it by talking to Butch, or one of the people he has sent the report to.

Do you at least agree now that the "3 mins to 5000m" and "6.7 mins to 10,000m" are wrong? That the figures are in fact 6 mins to 5,000m, and 13.5 mins to 10,000m, both at climb and combat power?


----------



## Soren (May 31, 2006)

It "IS" the date Hop, give it up man ! Look at every other chart like that one, the date is ALWAYS right there ! 

And no, its not at 1.98ata, cause the engine can't even run at that setting for christs sake !

And stop dodging by saying I should email Butch, he isn't any more knowledged on this if he says what you claim he says, cause anyone knowledged on this can tell its a D-2 engine, and the date certainly verifies that!

And about the Steig-Kampfleistung theory, well its possible I'll give you that, the numbers seem to match, only problem is there's nothing on that chart to confirm your theory. On one chart you've got both the info that the Steigzeit is at Steig-Kampfleistung and that the Steigzeit indications are double that of the climb rate indications - on the other one for the DC engine all that is said is Steigzeit with a Grundeinstellung of 1.98ata.


----------



## lesofprimus (May 31, 2006)

I emailed Butch and he said I was a fag, so I sent my Stormtroopers of Death to his home and they sodomized him for 13.5 minutes without lubrication...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 6, 2006)

I am not saying that that is deffinatly the date, but I have seen dates written like that on German documents from WW2.


----------



## B 25 'stoetel' (Jun 11, 2006)

I chose the Spitfire 
Why?
in the battle of Brittain they wher outnumbered and still they won.
Kill ratio: 1 spit vs 4 ME 109


----------



## lesofprimus (Jun 11, 2006)

The Spitfire did not win The BOB, the Hurricane did....


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 11, 2006)

Exactly Les and by the way great siggy there.


----------



## Glider (Jun 11, 2006)

lesofprimus said:


> I emailed Butch and he said I was a fag, so I sent my Stormtroopers of Death to his home and they sodomized him for 13.5 minutes without lubrication...


Remind me, never to really upset you.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 11, 2006)




----------



## pbfoot (Jun 11, 2006)

I'm gonna qualify my vote for the 109 it looked far more maintainer friendly to me for rearming and servicing which makes it more useful because you could turn it around faster


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 11, 2006)

I know the Bf-109 was designed with that in mind, but I dont know if it were any easier overall than the Spitfire.


----------



## pbfoot (Jun 11, 2006)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> I know the Bf-109 was designed with that in mind, but I dont know if it were any easier overall than the Spitfire.


 I just studied both of them side by side for 2 hours today and the 109 looks way easier you could open the whole engine up for inspection in 10-20 secs the same amount of time it would take you to find the tools needed for the spit or P51


----------



## Glider (Jun 11, 2006)

I think everyone agrees that these two were very close. Personally I don't think there was much in it up to the F vs VB but after that I feel the edge was with the Spitfire.

Weapons
The Spitfire was better armed with the two 20mm being more than enough to deal with any enemy bomber or fighter, and the 2 x .5 when they came in also helped. The 4 x 303 were probably only of much help against the Japs and I ignore in this context.

The 109 had one 20mm or 30mm, one better against fighters the other bombers. It also had 2 x LMG for a while which I will ignore and the 13mm was one of the weakest HMG's around and would have been of some help but not as much as the 2 x .50's on the Spitfire. 

There are good advantages for having the Main gun on the centre line but at the end of the day you still have one gun with poor ballistics. As has been said before when the advanced gun sights came into service this definately gives the advantage to the Spitfire.

SPEED
In this area I feel that they basically kept pace with each other but that is the easy bit that gets the headlines. Every review I have read tells me that the 109 became very hard to manoevour at speeds over 350mph. The Spit did get heavier but not to the same degree. It frankly matters little if one plane can go 420 and the other 410 if the faster one finds it hard to manouver or pull out of a dive. The K4 looks great on paper but it for this reason that I believe that most Sptfire Pilots in a Mk IX up would feel confident about going into combat.

The arguments that the Spit V was of little use because they did so badly over the channel I admit to ignoring. It only proves to me that the planes were well matched and the side with home advantage wins. After all how many German fighter sweeps were there of the UK? Even the tip and run raids of the Fw190's were often caught and suffered appreciable losses to the Typhoon of all planes, acting as a fighter. 

Flexibility
The Spitfire undertook other roles better than the 109 in particular PR who roamed almost at will over Europe. 109's did do PR but didn't come close to doing it as well as the Spit PR planes and often never made it to their target. The Seafire is another example. No one is saying it was a good carrier plane but it was good enough for what we wanted.

Safety
I think I am right (but willing to be proved wrong) is saying that the Germans lost more 109's in accidents than combat. I believe this to be an important and often overlooked aspect. If you have less accidents you have more planes for combat. You also have more aircrew making it to combat. 

There you have my reasons feel free to question or ignore them but at least you know why I voted for the Spitfire.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 11, 2006)

pbfoot said:


> I just studied both of them side by side for 2 hours today and the 109 looks way easier you could open the whole engine up for inspection in 10-20 secs the same amount of time it would take you to find the tools needed for the spit or P51



Cool where did you that at?


----------



## pbfoot (Jun 11, 2006)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Cool where did you that at?


I volunteered to be night security at a local airshow and for 2 nights 14 hours ea was all by myself for 2 nights with some nice birds walking between them comparing stuff


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 11, 2006)

Wow that would have been pretty cool. got any more photos?


----------



## pbfoot (Jun 11, 2006)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Wow that would have been pretty cool. got any more photos?


 yeah i kinda started my own thread


----------



## B 25 'stoetel' (Jun 12, 2006)

lesofprimus said:


> The Spitfire did not win The BOB, the Hurricane did....



The hurricane did not won the BOB allone, every aircraft of that time has done something for victory min BOB...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 12, 2006)

That has been discussed many times and the general consensus here is that the Hurricane is the true hero of the BoB. The real question to ask though is, could the Hurricane have done it without the Spitfire.


----------



## lesofprimus (Jun 12, 2006)

> The hurricane did not won the BOB allone, every aircraft of that time has done something for victory min BOB...


U arent actually trying to teach me something, are u meatball??? I know more about the Battle of Britian than u do about ur own balls... U said the Spitfire won the BOB and I corrected u... The Spitfire alone in the numbers available would have lost the BOB....


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 12, 2006)




----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jun 13, 2006)

and the hurricane lays claim to about 80% of all jerry aircraft downed due to all causes in the battle not bad going, but could the hurricane have done it without the spit? doubtful, depends how many extra hurricanes there were..........


----------



## Jabberwocky (Jun 13, 2006)

Hurricane claims between June and October 1940 are for 1593
Spitfire claims between June and October 1940 are for 1117 confirmed

Source; "The Battle of Britain" by John Lake 

So the ratio of claims is around 60:40 Hurricanes to Spitfires.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 13, 2006)

The only reason I think the Hurricane could not do it without the Spit is the fact that lets face it the Spit was the better aircraft and while the Spit was taking on the 109s the Hurricanes could move in and get the slower more vulnerable bombers. They were a team and did it exceptionally well together.


----------



## Gnomey (Jun 13, 2006)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> The only reason I think the Hurricane could not do it without the Spit is the fact that lets face it the Spit was the better aircraft and while the Spit was taking on the 109s the Hurricanes could move in and get the slower more vulnerable bombers. They were a team and did it exceptionally well together.


Agreed, I saw a program on the Battle of Britain where Alex Kershaw (Spitfire test pilot) said that "The Spitfire could of won the Battle of Britain without the Hurricane but the Hurricane couldn't of won it without the Spitfire". Even so the Hurricane was the unsung hero of the Battle of Britain.


----------



## lesofprimus (Jun 13, 2006)

That quote sounds like a very biased opinion Gnomey....


----------



## loomaluftwaffe (Jun 14, 2006)

yeah


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 14, 2006)

Depends on how many Spitfires you had. With the ammount of Spits that they had, and no Hurricanes the Spits would not have held on for very long.


----------



## Gnomey (Jun 14, 2006)

Yes undoubtablly it is biased.



DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Depends on how many Spitfires you had. With the ammount of Spits that they had, and no Hurricanes the Spits would not have held on for very long.



True with the number of Spits they had it was not possible however had they had similar numbers as they had of both types it is probably an accurate statement although with Hurricanes the British would still of inflicted substantial loses on the Luftwaffe.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jun 15, 2006)

well the hurricane wasn't a complete lemon, many -109s fell foul to the Hurricane's guns, spits weren't always there to save the day but i agree, with the same number of spits as there were hurricanes the battle would still turn out the same.........


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 15, 2006)

Dont take me wrong I am not saying the Hurricane was a lemon. It was a great aircraft. However the Bf-109 was superior to the Hurricane in almost every catagory. Did 109s fall to Hurricanes though? Ofcourse.


----------



## loomaluftwaffe (Jun 19, 2006)

would you know why so many 109s fell to Hurricanes?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 19, 2006)

Why do any aircraft get shot down by others? Think about your question.


----------



## loomaluftwaffe (Jun 19, 2006)

I meant the main reason? pilot skill? position?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 19, 2006)

Probably the fact that the British radar would vector them to the site of the Germans and they could be waiting to pounce them. Most Bf-109s fell to Spitfires though and not Hurricanes.


----------



## plan_D (Jun 19, 2006)

That's a silly question, looma. It's purely situational. The Bf-109s could have been bounced, or the German pilot might have been tricked into a turning fight. There's countless reasons.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 20, 2006)

My thoughts exactly.


----------



## SpitfireKing (Jul 11, 2006)

Well, hence the name, Spitfire V wins. For sentimental values.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 12, 2006)

Well if we are going for sentimental reasons than the Bf-109.


----------



## schwarzpanzer (Jul 12, 2006)

Could a Hurri really out-turn an Me?

The Hurri could take punishment and some had armour field-upgrades.

I also think the engine was tougher?

Plus it was fighting on home turf...


I take it we're discussing the Spit MkI/II and the Emil?

Well in that case I'd put the two equal, depending on pilot choice.

The Me was better @ high alt, the Spit @ lower. The Me could choose the venue, but it was (on Goerings orders) at the Spits best level.

For me, it would depend on the day, but if I weren't allowed the hub cannon on the Emil, then it'd probably always be the Spit.


----------



## SpitfireKing (Jul 14, 2006)

My grandfather (still living) was a bomber pilot. He wasn't a hero or anything but he did his job the best he could and fought on.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 14, 2006)




----------



## Nonskimmer (Jul 14, 2006)

SpitfireKing said:


> My grandfather (still living) was a bomber pilot. He wasn't a hero or anything but he did his job the best he could and fought on.


Mine too. Same on all counts. He flew Lancs and Halifaxes.


----------



## plan_D (Jul 15, 2006)

Schwarz, the Hurricane could out-turn the Spitfire which could out-turn the Bf-109E. The Hurricane was one of the best low-speed turners of the war, but as with all low-speed turners it was too slow to be around at the end of the war.


----------



## loomaluftwaffe (Jul 15, 2006)

but not the same case with the 109F right?


----------



## trackend (Jul 16, 2006)

We've all seen the film B of B with the Phase "give us Spitfires" in reply to Goerings question . As far as I know it was a true occurance so I'll go with Garland he was there and new the score.
That said putting your fighter squadrons in the best attacking position using radar means the first pass will be all the more effective if you know where the enemy is coming from and he is unaware of your approach vector it must help alot.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jul 16, 2006)

i believe he only said "a squadron of spitfires" in reply to Georing's question of what do you need to win the battle to annoy him didn't he?


----------



## trackend (Jul 16, 2006)

Possible Lanc but in the documentary world at war I seem to remember him saying that he believed the Spite to have the edge (I may be wrong as it's some years since I watched it)


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 17, 2006)

loomaluftwaffe said:


> but not the same case with the 109F right?



What do you mean?


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jul 17, 2006)

i think he means it's not the case with the -109F that the spit and hurricane out turn it i.e. the -109F can turn inside the hurricane and spit..............


----------



## Soren (Jul 17, 2006)

The Bf-109F will turn with the Spitfire, but not the Hurricane.


----------



## plan_D (Jul 17, 2006)

The Hurricane was a lot like the Zero. It could turn extremely well in a low-speed fight, and any German pilot would be foolish to put himself in that position against one. But it was a slow plane and was left standing in the turning fight at high speed.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 17, 2006)

Thanks Lanc, Lomma very often thows out half sentinces or phrases like that and I dont understand what he is saying or trying to say.


----------



## loomaluftwaffe (Jul 18, 2006)

yep


----------



## hellothere (Jul 21, 2006)

If where talking about the Battle of Britain (1940) then there roughly the same. the 109 had better armerment (2 20mm cannon+2 MGs) than the Spitfire (4 Mg's) but the spitfire was more easyer to fly, comfortable and the engine was quiter than the german ones


----------



## Gnomey (Jul 21, 2006)

Good points, although the Spitfire in the Battle of Britain carried 8 MG's not 4 (that was in one of the prototypes). At the time they were probably equal with the 109 being able to out dive the Spitfire because the negative G caused the Spitfire (and Hurricane) to stall.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jul 22, 2006)

a problem that was later solved with the introduction of a better carburettor


----------



## loomaluftwaffe (Jul 22, 2006)

but wasn't solved till after the battle of britain... right?
and the 20mm cannons of the 109 werent really that good, they were slow and had low muzzle velocity, but what the heck... u have cannons


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 23, 2006)

hellothere said:


> If where talking about the Battle of Britain (1940) then there roughly the same. the 109 had better armerment (2 20mm cannon+2 MGs) than the Spitfire (4 Mg's) but the spitfire was more easyer to fly, comfortable and the engine was quiter than the german ones



Not quite.

They were actually very equal at that point.

The armament was actually 8 MGs as many pointed out.

As for the Spitfire being easier to fly. Not really at that point of the War. The Spitfire did not start to take the lead in that point till later with the introduction of the Bf-109G when the 109 started to get heavier. Besides as others put out the 109 actually had a slight advantage in that it did not have to worry about the engine stalling out due to no fuel flow.

Spitfire more confortable. Yeah she was but then agian how confortable were all the small fighters of that time?


----------



## schwarzpanzer (Aug 3, 2006)

The Spit always had better visibility than the 109.


How would a Hurricane perform against a Zero? - Just out of interest.


Love that sig Gnomey, where'd you get it - if you don't mind me asking? - it's brilliant!


The 8 guns of the Spit gave a better spread, they were much easier to hit a target with, but caused much less damage.

Kinda like a shotgun or cluster-bomb works. The Hurricane and 109 had more devestating armament, but it was harder to hit a target with them.


When did the Tilly Shilling orifice see use? - IIRC it wa during the BoB?

The Bendix carbs came later and then there was another one. (Why not Weber's or Throttle bodies? )




> Yeah she was but then again how confortable were all the small fighters of that time?



You could lounge in a Spitfire. In the book 'Great Aircraft of WW2' it has a German pilots impression of the Spit and it mentions how comfortable the cockpit/controls and how quiet the engine was. Ergonomics I can guess are a big part, SAAB seems to think so.


----------



## Gnomey (Aug 3, 2006)

Thanks, see here:http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/180893-182-post.html


----------



## schwarzpanzer (Aug 4, 2006)

Thanks Gnomey.


Now it's my time to ask for sources, bwahahah! 

- Can anyone point me in the direction of info concerning the Me109 turning with, or out-turning the Spitfire please?

Thank you,


----------



## v2 (Dec 5, 2006)

Something for you, guys:
Kurfürst


----------



## Maharg (May 5, 2007)

With these two aircraft I think it was a toss of a coin. With successive variants they bettered each other. It all depends on the skill of the pilot. But, in saying that, my preference goes with the Spit.


----------



## Glider (May 5, 2007)

I would second that but my feeling is that as the war progressed and speeds increased the advantage tendeded to go with the Spitfire.

The 109 had a problem with its control surfaces at higher speed as they became very heavy, the higher the speed, the heavier the controls. This is of course something every plane had to deal with but on the 109 it was more noticable.

The other advantage the Spit had was in firepower. If the 109 had a 20mm it was better for fighting fighters but lacked the punch against bombers, with the 30mm it was better against bombers. The Spit with its 2 x 20mm (I ignore the 303in this) was more flexible and those with the 2 x HMG further increased the advantage.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 5, 2007)

Glider said:


> The other advantage the Spit had was in firepower. If the 109 had a 20mm it was better for fighting fighters but lacked the punch against bombers, with the 30mm it was better against bombers. The Spit with its 2 x 20mm (I ignore the 303in this) was more flexible and those with the 2 x HMG further increased the advantage.




Yeap but there is a reason for the 109s armament. What was Germany having to combat? The allied bomber streams.

If you look at the evolution of the 109s armament the armament was more suited for fighters in the earlier part of the war when they were escorting bombers over England, later as they went more on the defensive the armament changed to having to deal with bombers.


----------



## Soren (May 5, 2007)

Still having one center mounted 20-30mm cannon and two 13mm guns is a pretty good armament against fighters, the center configuration ensuring great accuracy.

And I doubt it was hard to hit a fighter with the 30mm cannon, it did after-all fire over 660 rounds pr. minute at 540 m/s - its all about the pilot knowing his weapons.


----------



## Glider (May 5, 2007)

The is no doubt that the approx 850 m/s of the 20mm gave much better ballistics than the 30mm at around 530 m/s. Also a point often missed is that from the Mk IX onwards the Spits had far better sights giving greatly increased accuracy enableing them to use the extra ballistics. There is no doubt in my mind that the Spit had the edge in firepower.

Plus of course the bombers were escorted by fighters and a more flexible armament would have been more benificial.

Had the Germas been equiped with the Spit then they would have had better flexibility plus the Spit could carry 4 x 20 mm at some cost to performance of course, but a lot less cost, than having to hang 2 x 20 under the wings in pods as per the 109.


----------



## Soren (May 5, 2007)

The 109's armament is much more precise though, simply because of the fact that its center fixed.


----------



## Glider (May 5, 2007)

Soren said:


> The 109's armament is much more precise though, simply because of the fact that its center fixed.



Shall we agree that the benefit of being center mounted is matched by the advanced sights that I think almost doubled the accuracy of the average squadron pilot?


----------



## Soren (May 5, 2007)

Glider said:


> Shall we agree that the benefit of being center mounted is matched by the advanced sights that I think almost doubled the accuracy of the average squadron pilot?




Advanced sights as in K-14 ?? Or just the normal sight which most featured ?

If just the normal sights, no I do not agree. If the K-14, well it does help, however not enough to balance it. The 109 doesn't have to deal with conversion, the Spit does.


----------



## Glider (May 5, 2007)

Yes the K14 and we will have to disagree. 
The spit doesn't have to deal with worse balistics of the German 20mm and extreamly poor 30mm Mk108 which is one reason why the 109 had to get so close. The K14 significantly increases the accuracy of the average pilot, that, plus the better ballistics of the UK 20mm more than makes up the difference.


----------



## Soren (May 6, 2007)

The 109 didn't have to get close, precise shots could be delivered at pretty much all normal combat ranges, long range shots could be made with accuracy as-well. The 20mm MG151 had good enough ballistics to be effective at long range, and the Mk108 could be used at long range as-well if the pilot knew his weapons. Just the fact that the Spit has to deal with conversion is enough to say its less accurate, and is only ideal at a certain range.

And as to the K-14 sight, well the ability of the pilot determined the effectiveness of the this device as range had to be plotted by the pilot.

Don't compare the K-14 to the radar gunsight of the F-86 Sabre..


----------



## Soundbreaker Welch? (May 7, 2007)

Hello, hello, hello!


----------



## renrich (May 29, 2007)

In 1944 the Spitfire IX began to use the E wing with 2-20 mm cannon and two .50 cal MGs.


----------



## Cromwell (May 29, 2007)

I think that one point that was never resolved for both the 109 and maybe a lesser extent for the Spitfire were the out-folding undercarriages and the narrow track which led to high losses of newbies in general and all pilots in fact at night or rough landing strips or side winds etc.

I never understood why a Messerschmit engineer did not come up with a clever conversion, even a half recessed landing gear.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 29, 2007)

Cromwell said:


> I think that one point that was never resolved for both the 109 and maybe a lesser extent for the Spitfire were the out-folding undercarriages and the narrow track which led to high losses of newbies in general and all pilots in fact at night or rough landing strips or side winds etc.
> 
> I never understood why a Messerschmit engineer did not come up with a clever conversion, even a half recessed landing gear.


Real simple - weight, material and producibility...

In the years the 109 and Spitfire were developed some of the materials used to carry some of the major stress loads were state of the art. High strength aluminum forgings, steels and magnesium were starting to find their way into aircraft construction. Designers of that day had to come up with a design that was light weight, strong and producible. Operational considerations were weighed when the initial prototypes were first evaluated and some of those idiosyncrasies were accepted. The pilots just had to learn to deal with them.

As the war progressed and aircraft development was at a "wartime urgency", many of the pre-war "quick and easy" design solutions that incorporated some of the previously mentioned materials became more refined, especially around the landing gear. The oleo strut evolved from a simple piston to a structural masterpiece that not only carried the aircraft weight but managed a smooth cushion when landing. At this point the engineer and operator has to ask themselves "Is interruption of the production line warranted to incorporate these improvements?" I would guess that although Germany built 35,000 109s, every production day of this aircraft was critical and if there were going to be major improvements, they better be well worth it, and it seems the lion's share of those improvement went into the propulsion, airframe and weapons systems. After 8 years of operating these squat, narrow track fighters with landing gear nothing more than a crude shock absorber, it was probably felt that it wasn't worth the effort to incorporate a better landing gear design although there were numerous accidents on both aircraft (the Spit and 109) due to their landing gear configuration.


----------



## renrich (May 30, 2007)

A half recessed gear would have resulted in too much drag. Because of trying to reduce weight in the main wing spar the designer in effect on the BF attached the main gear to the fuselage resulting in the narrow track.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 30, 2007)

Cromwell said:


> I think that one point that was never resolved for both the 109 and maybe a lesser extent for the Spitfire were the out-folding undercarriages and the narrow track which led to high losses of newbies in general and all pilots in fact at night or rough landing strips or side winds etc.
> 
> I never understood why a Messerschmit engineer did not come up with a clever conversion, even a half recessed landing gear.



I cant remember who it was pbfoot maybe who went and measured the tracks of the 109 and the Spitfire at the musuem airfield near where he lives and the Spit was actually slightly narrower than that of the Bf 109.


----------



## Hunter368 (May 30, 2007)

Really? Wow never knew that.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 30, 2007)

I might be mistaken but I thought was what it was or the 109 was only a very slight narrower. I cant remember now.  

I need to find the thread.


----------



## Cromwell (Jun 9, 2007)

Maybe because the Hurricane had a wider track - outward opening cart - it was therefore able to help the RAF win the 'Crashing War' during the Battle of Britain.

I am sure that the Luftwaffe must have lost a bucket-load of good planes and pilots simply because they did not have the Hurricane's undercarriage arrangement.

Same for the RAF and the Spit of course as the Hurricane was moved into ground attack and night raiding roles.

I wonder what the Stats say in terms of pilots lost through landing or taking off because of undercarriage-related crashes ?


----------



## Soren (Jun 9, 2007)

The Spits landing gear was narrower yes, however it didn't have any problems with toe out as the 109 did, which meant the Spit was easier to land and take off.


----------



## Jackson (Jun 10, 2007)

I saw some show where a test pilot flew them both, back to back..

The Spit was more of a pilots plane, the '109 was more of a war plane..

Even visually looking at them both, I know what he meant..

He admitted to loving them both


----------



## claidemore (Feb 6, 2008)

I believe the 109 struts were longer as well.


----------



## Njaco (Feb 6, 2008)

The landing and take-off of the Bf 109 was covered in another thread and I got my butt chewed on that one. Apparently didn't happen as often as reported. (crashes that is)


----------



## pbfoot (Feb 6, 2008)

Both aircraft are toed out 1/2" or 1.7cm the camber on the 109 is pronounced . Most aircraft I have been told are towed out as one method used to to give directional stability on landing as it sort of self centres the aircraft on touch down


----------



## Soren (Feb 7, 2008)

The Spitfire's landing gear hos no toe out AFAIK. The straight landing gear also helped on landings.


PS: Pbfoot, I hope that isn't your hand that's stuck there! Man you just can keep you fingers to yourself can you ??


----------



## pbfoot (Feb 7, 2008)

Soren said:


> The Spitfire's landing gear hos no toe out AFAIK. The straight landing gear also helped on landings.
> 
> 
> PS: Pbfoot, I hope that isn't your hand that's stuck there! Man you just can keep you fingers to yourself can you ??


I don't know about afaik I measured both of them side by side front and rear of tires centre to centre


----------



## Soren (Feb 7, 2008)

AFAIK = As Far As I Know


----------



## pbfoot (Feb 20, 2008)

I have what i think is another point in favour of the 109 . I was cleaning the aircraft when I looked at cleaning the glass . Now anyone who has flown or worked ATC has seen the bug mark on the glass that always forces you to takes a second look to make sure its not another aircraft. Cleaning the glass in the Spit is much harder then the 109 and impossible particularly behind the seat. Clean glass could make all the difference in a dogfight IMHO


----------



## Negative Creep (Feb 20, 2008)

On the subject of glass, the Spitfire had a clearer canopy (with the exception perhaps of the Galland hood 109s) with fewer obstructions. Of course the last ones had bubble canopies as well, so that must be a point in its favour.


----------



## claidemore (Feb 21, 2008)

Quite a while ago, there was a fairly lenghty debate on this thread about the climb rate of the Bf109 K4. One argument was for climb to 10k in 6.7 minutes, the other argument was for climb to 10k in 13.4 minutes. The disagreement coming from how a particular historical document was read. 

Today a chart with climb rate for the Me262 was posted on another thread, indicated a 'calculated' climb rate for a 5700 kg Me262 of 10 minutes to reach 10k alt. That lines up pretty well with the 8 minutes to 10k of the F-86 Sabre jet. 

That would indicate that the 109 K4 could not have climbed to 10k in 6.7 minutes, the 13.4 minute figure has to be the correct one. 

___________________________________________

By the by...after reading this thread, it seems quite apparent that one on one, the choice of plane, 109 or Spit, is largely a matter of personal preference, or considering one aspect of performance to be more important than others. 

However, for a large organization, given the choice of plane, the logical choice would probably have to be the Spitfire. Lower accident rate, easier to fly, able to provide maximum performance from average pilots, different weapon loadouts with little or no effect on flight characteristics, and a continued development that never had to sacrifice in one area to gain in another. 

This was the case with the Israeli Air Force, they could not keep their Czech 109 deriviant the Avia S-199s operational, even though in combat with Egyptian Spitfires they came out ahead.[admittedly the "mule" Avia was not as good as a DB engined 109]


----------



## Soren (Feb 22, 2008)

The only figures available for the Bf-109 K-4 in time t0 climb are Steig u. Kampfleistung figures. At SonderNotleistung (1.98ata) the Bf-109 K-4 would likely reach 10km in 9min or less.


----------



## drgondog (Feb 22, 2008)

Soren said:


> The only figures available for the Bf-109 K-4 in time t0 climb are Steig u. Kampfleistung figures. At SonderNotleistung (1.98ata) the Bf-109 K-4 would likely reach 10km in 9min or less.



That is impressive..


----------



## claidemore (Feb 22, 2008)

I just had a look at the graphs on Kurfurst site. As easy to read as the nose on your face, though I did have to get some German words translated. Thats one of the perks of reseraching things you find on this forum, you get to learn a little about other languages!

Two scales on the bottom, upper one is m/s, lower one is minutes. They are clearly indicated, and I did get them confused for a few seconds. Lines rising from left to right are climb time, lines rising from right to left are climb rate. 

Two graphs show K4 to 10k at 13.4 minutes,the other graph shows 13 minutes even. 13 minutes even would be with MW and 1.45 ata. That would be the K4s that saw the majority of combat. The Mk IX Spitfire with Merlin 61 climbed to 30,000 ft in 9.2 minutes at combat rating and with Merlin 66 it took 8.4 minutes and the prototype 1943 Spit XIV took 8.35 minutes to 30000ft

Anyhooo...The calculated figures for 109 K4 @ 1.98 ata show a climb rate at 10k of 7.5m/s, and K4 @ 1.45 ata with 6 m/s The Spitfire MkXIV with Griffon 65 and 18lb boost shows a cllimb rate at 10k of 9.6 m/s the Spit Mk IX with Merlin 66, 18lb boots, is at 10.7m/s. 

At sea level, K4 @1.98 ata 22-22.5 m/s(or 24.5-25m/s on one graph), K4 @ 1.45 ata 16.5 m/s and Spit XIV 18lb boost at 23.8 m/s, Spit XIV 21lb boost 25.9m/s and Spit IX(Merlin 66) is 23.4 m/s. 
At 4500 meters, the 1.98 K4 and Spit XIV have exactly the same climb rate. 
At 6700 meters, the 1.98 K4 is climbing at 16.5m/s and the Spit XIV is ahead again at 18.3m/s

(all data comes from original source documents at Kurfursts and Mike Williams sites.)


Obviously the K4 was very competitive in the climb department, particularly as the engine was approved for higher boost ratings, but the often heard statement that it was the best climbing plane of WWII seems to be erroneous.


----------



## drgondog (Feb 23, 2008)

claidemore said:


> I just had a look at the graphs on Kurfurst site. As easy to read as the nose on your face, though I did have to get some German words translated. Thats one of the perks of reseraching things you find on this forum, you get to learn a little about other languages!
> 
> Two scales on the bottom, upper one is m/s, lower one is minutes. They are clearly indicated, and I did get them confused for a few seconds. Lines rising from left to right are climb time, lines rising from right to left are climb rate.
> 
> ...



The F8F, F7F, and P-38L will always be 'competitive', even P-51H and Ta 152


----------



## Soren (Feb 23, 2008)

Claidemore,

The 13.4 13 min time to climb figures were achieved at Steig u. Kampfleistung, and that is clearly noted as-well.

The climb rate figures at SL is with radiator flaps open, which has a very negative effect on climb performance.

At 1.98ata and with closed radiators the max climb rate of the K-4 is above 28 m/s, or 5,500 + ft/min. 

At 1.98 ata 10km would be reached in approx. 9min or less.

So it's quite true that the Bf-109 K-4 was the best piston engined climber of WW2.


----------



## Kurfürst (Feb 23, 2008)

claidemore said:


> Two graphs show K4 to 10k at 13.4 minutes,the other graph shows 13 minutes even. 13 minutes even would be with MW and 1.45 ata. That would be the K4s that saw the majority of combat.



A small correction : 1,45 ata was a 30-minute rating for the DB 605D ie. G-10 and K-4, and no MW 50 was injected at this setting. This was of course not the maxmum output of the engine, rather an (rough) equivalent of what the USAAF called 15-min Military and the RAF as 'Normal' rating. The equivalent of thE USAAF`s WEP or the RAF`s 'combat' rating is the Sondernnotleistung rating at 1,75/1,80/1,98ata (depending on engine model, ie. DM or DB/DC).

At 1,98ata maximum WEP I calculate 8.36 mins required to 30 000 feet, I didn`t do it with 1,8ata rating, but its fairly easy to do by the climb graphs.


----------



## claidemore (Feb 23, 2008)

Kurfürst said:


> A small correction : 1,45 ata was a 30-minute rating for the DB 605D ie. G-10 and K-4, and no MW 50 was injected at this setting. This was of course not the maxmum output of the engine, rather an (rough) equivalent of what the USAAF called 15-min Military and the RAF as 'Normal' rating. The equivalent of thE USAAF`s WEP or the RAF`s 'combat' rating is the Sondernnotleistung rating at 1,75/1,80/1,98ata (depending on engine model, ie. DM or DB/DC).



Thanks, you are right, the heading on the graph indicates MW , but the 1.45 rated lines do not show it's use. 
So, am I correct now in understanding that MW was only used on 1.75 ata or higher engines?


----------



## claidemore (Feb 23, 2008)

Soren said:


> Claidemore,
> 
> The climb rate figures at SL is with radiator flaps open, which has a very negative effect on climb performance.
> 
> ...



I don't read German, and my translations are crude, so I didn't see anywhere where it indicated open radiator,but it makes sense that they would be open, why burn out a a test engine? 
The Spit XIV tests also used open radiators, so the comparison would be the same. The 8.35 time to 30k on a Spit XIV was at 18lbs boost btw, at 21 or 25 lbs, it would be even less. 

Spitfire Mk XXI was climbing to 30k in 7.85 minutes with Griffon 61 @ 18lb boost (1943 test). Spit 21s were delivered to squadron in Jan 45, and first operational use April 10, 45, but saw no combat. 

I don't see any K4 graphs indicating 28m/s? is that a calculated rate? Or where did you get that figure from? 

Comparing apples to apples, if you close the radiators on a Spit XIV as well, wouldn't it still have the same advantage as it had when both planes had radiators open? 

Spit IX 25lb boost with rad open did 5080 fps at sea level, Spit VIII did 5580 @ sea level. 

I know it has been generally accepted that the K4 achieved the max climb rate for a prop plane in WWII. I always thought it seemed odd that a higher wing loaded, lower hp/lb plane could have higher climb rate, and always attributed it to some unknown (to me) engineering or design feat in the closing months of the war. After this bit of research I believe the numbers show that the K4 was actually a very close second to the latest Spitfire Mks, definately when comparing operational planes, but also for the non-operational and test planes.

I know this might end up a double post, but seemed the eaiest way to reply to two people.


----------



## Kurfürst (Feb 23, 2008)

claidemore said:


> Thanks, you are right, the heading on the graph indicates MW , but the 1.45 rated lines do not show it's use.
> So, am I correct now in understanding that MW was only used on 1.75 ata or higher engines?



Yup, MW-50 injection only occured at the maximum ouput regime on all MW-50 Bf 109s that saw operational service.


----------



## Soren (Feb 23, 2008)

Claidemore,

First of all 10km is 32,800 ft, and the Spitfire Mk.XIV could barely make that in 10min.

The light Spitfire VIII test-bed JF.319 made it to 32,000 ft in 9.25min, missing another 800 ft to reach 10km.

At 1.98ata with open radiators the K-4's time to climb to 10km is around 9.2 min, calculated. With rads closed it's below 9min, probably around 8.5min.

Finally, at 3,364 kg and with 1,975 HP I believe the Bf-109 K-4 is the piston engined fighter of WW2 with the highest power to weight ratio.


----------



## claidemore (Feb 23, 2008)

Soren said:


> Claidemore,
> 
> First of all 10km is 32,800 ft, and the Spitfire Mk.XIV could barely make that in 10min.
> 
> ...



According to this chart:
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/jf319climb.gif
Spit XIV, 18lbs boost reached 32800 ft in 9.6 minutes. Tested, not calculated
21 lbs boost is going to be less. 

Since the times claimed for the K4 are calculated, I thought I would try to duplicate those calculations. 

When I calculated climb times using climb rate graphs for 1.98ata K4(with MW50) and did the same calculations for the 18lb boost XIV.... I got 9.2 min for XIV (which agrees pretty close with the graph and chart mentioned above) but I got 10.3 minutes for K4. 

Obviously my calculations didn't come up with the same number for the 109 as yours. Maybe I'm not using the right method to calculate it, but since I used the same calculations for both graphs, the results are indicative of the difference between the planes performance. 

If your calculations of climb time using climb rate graphs shows 9.2 min for the K4, what would the same calculations show for the Spit XIV using it's climb rate graphs?


Agree with the hp per weight; on the 109K4 I get 3.78 lbs / hp and 4.14 for Spit XIV. Of course wing loading is 43lbs/sq ft for K4 and the Spit XIV is 35lbs/sq ft.


----------



## Soren (Feb 24, 2008)

How did you calculate your time to climb figures Claidemore ? Did you include engine performance figures ? did you take into account that the Bf-109 K-4 at 1,325 Hp reaches 10km in 13min ?

Also wing-loading doesn't matter, lift loading does, and with slats in the K-4 still has a higher CL, 1.48 vs the Spitfire's 1.36.


----------



## Hop (Feb 24, 2008)

Standard German testing procedure for the 109 was to open the radiators about half way. What evidence do you have that the figures for the K4 are for fully open radiators?

Against that, standard RAF practice was to override the automatic control and open the radiators fully. 



> According to this chart:
> http://www.spitfireperformance.com/jf319climb.gif
> Spit XIV, 18lbs boost reached 32800 ft in 9.6 minutes. Tested, not calculated
> 21 lbs boost is going to be less.



JF319 was one of the prototype Spitfire XIVs. It had lower supercharger gearing for MS supercharger setting. That means it delivered more power at very low altitude, but less at medium altitude.

As you can see, JF319 maintains maximum climb rate only up to 2,000 ft, above that the climb drops away rapidly.

Production Spitfire XIVs had higher gearing in MS supercharger, meaning they produced less power, but to a higher altitude. See http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spit14climbchart.jpg

If you look at the differences, the production gearing gives a lower climb rate below 3,000 ft, but higher climb rates up to about 14,000 ft. The net result is the production plane climbs to altitude faster.

Looking at the production Spitfire XIV, the first 9,000 ft are covered at an average of 4750 ft/min. That means 1.89 minutes to 9,000 ft.

The next 5,000 ft are covered at an average of 4,050 ft/min, which means 1.23 mins.

The next 8,000 ft average 3,675 ft/min, for 2.18 mins.

The last 10,800 ft average just over 2,800 ft/min, but I'll round it down. That's 3.86 mins.

Total time to 32,800 ft is 9.16 minutes. That's for the Spitfire running at 18 lbs boost.


For the 109K4, at 1.98 ata, the first 800m is covered at an average of 24.7 m/s. That's 32.4 secs.

The 4,600m average 22.5 m/s. 204.4 secs

The next 600m are at 19.3 m/s. 31.1 secs.

The last 4,000m average 12.5 m/s. 320 secs.

Total to 10,000m is 587.9 secs, which is 9.8 minutes.

Now those two comparisons are not quite fair. The 109 is running at 1.98ata, which _may_ have been used in service in the last few months of the war. The Spitfire is running 18 lbs boost, not the 21 lbs that was used late war.

The 109 almost certainly has half open radiators. The Spitfire fully open.

Even the Spitfire LF VIII, running at 18 lbs boost, a mid 1943 aircraft, has a similar time to 10,000m as the 109K4 running at 1.98 ata, and the Spitfire VIII doesn't climb quite as well as the Spitfire IX.



> I don't see any K4 graphs indicating 28m/s? is that a calculated rate? Or where did you get that figure from?



He made it up.



> I know it has been generally accepted that the K4 achieved the max climb rate for a prop plane in WWII.



William Green started that. He misread a climb graph that shows the K4 at climb and combat power (about 1.45 ata iirc). Instead of the 1 square = 2 mins that the graph actually shows, Green seems to have assumed 1 square = 1 min, which doubled the actual climb rate (and halved the time to climb).

Soren seems to have made the same mistake earlier in this thread.


----------



## Soren (Feb 24, 2008)

I haven't made anything up Hop (Unlike you), I calculated the time to climb figure.

The German figures are with radiators open (never said fully, again something you made up), that's fact, std. procedure.

The Bf-109 K-4 takes 13min to 32,800 ft with just 1,325 HP and the std. prop (0.8 min faster than with the Dünnblatt prop), that's pretty darn fast for such a low powerrating. At 1.98ata power is increased to 1,975 HP, giving quite an increase in climb rate. 

With the experimental Dünnblatt prop max climb rate is 25 m/s, with the thicker std. prop alone this figure will increase quite significantly and with closed rads it will increase even further.

So from this I calculated a time to climb 32,800 ft in less than 9min at 1.98ata, which is being very conservative.

Even at 25 lbs/sq.in. boost the Spitfire Mk.IX needs well over 9min's to reach 32,800 ft, over 10 min to be correct.

Ofcourse you being the hardcore Spitfire fan that you are you will always try to downplay the performance of the 109, despite the fact that the 109 throughout its different versions in actuality outclimbed the contemporary Spitfire quite easily. The Bf-109 also benefitted from better performance for the given HP compared to the Spitfire, again something you'll try to dispute.

But heck I'm looking forward to you disputing this Hop, it's always very entertaining.


----------



## Kurfürst (Feb 24, 2008)

Thing is though, all these figures vary greatly in practice - raditor position is considerable source of drag for example, was usually assumed to be ca. half-open up to rated altitude in German calculations, and gradually closing above that to fully closed at the ceiling, but it was noted that this is somewhat pessimistic as the automatically controlled radiator flaps would, in practice, close 1-1.5 km above rated altitude, with reduced drag and improved climb; another aspect was that while the radiator flaps could be overridden in the 109F-K, and closed at will, there was no such possibility on the later Spitfires, and therefore the flap position came down to the current engine and outside temperature conditions; I believe these figures for the Spitfires all assume an optimum change between MS and FS gears, ie. as opposed to real life where it was not so optimal, done by automatics with some 'lag' and there was no possibilty for manual operation - the result in practice was that the engine continued to run in MS gear and deliver less power for a while at an altitude band where it would have been more advantageous to run in FS gear; and all these hotly debated figures refer to maximum power, wheter you call it _'Combat Power'_, or _'Sondernotleistung'_. Now,_ 'Combat Power'_ was cleared for 5 minutes of use at a time for either the Merlin or the Griffon engine, _'Sondernotleistung'_ on the other hand was cleared for 10 minutes for the DB 605D. That may be a problem in the former case, for climbs of ~10 minutes duration, when you are only cleared for 5 minutes.

And so on. The point is, these values were far from set in stone. They would vary considerably even amongst the exactly same types, due to differences in serial production quality between individual planes.


----------



## Hop (Feb 24, 2008)

So you knew the radiators were half open, and yet you re-"calculated" 109 performance for fully closed radiators, to compare with the Spitfire with fully open radiators?

And you accuse me of trying to downplay the performance of the 109? 



> So from this I calculated a time to climb 32,800 ft in less than 9min at 1.98ata, which is being very conservative.



And you think a 109 can climb at 1.98 ata for close to 10 minutes with the radiators fully closed, without overheating the engine?



> Ofcourse you being the hardcore Spitfire fan that you are you will always try to downplay the performance of the 109,



Wait a second. I compared a 109 running at 1.98 ata, which may have been used in the last couple of months of the war, against Spitfires running at 18 lbs. I didn't use the 21/25 lbs figures that _were_ used before the 109 started running at 1.98 ata.

I also compared a Spitfire running with fully open radiators, against a 109 with half open radiators.

Yet _I_ am trying to downplay the performance? Note how I didn't re-"calculate" Spitfire performance to closed radiators.



> despite the fact that the 109 throughout its different versions in actuality outclimbed the contemporary Spitfire quite easily.



Well, not really. The Spitfire I/109E4 had similar climb rates. The Spitfire V/109F matchup probably goes to the 109 for most of the time. With the introduction of the Merlin 63/66/70 in the Spitfire, the Spitfire outclimbed the 109, and that remained the position for the rest of the war.

Just look how you have had to rearrange the figures to get the 109K4 climbing better than the Spitfire XIV. You compare a vanilla Spitfire XIV with fully open radiators against a 109 with fully closed radiators, running on a power setting it might have used in the last few months of the war.



> The Bf-109 also benefitted from better performance for the given HP compared to the Spitfire, again something you'll try to dispute.



For most of the war, yes. No surprise there, it was a smaller plane, and had to make do with lower hp engines.



> Even at 25 lbs/sq.in. boost the Spitfire Mk.IX needs well over 9min's to reach 32,800 ft, over 10 min to be correct.



With fully open radiators. Why the double standard? Why pick the figures for the Spitfire with fully open rads, and make up figures for the 109 with fully closed rads?


----------



## Soren (Feb 24, 2008)

No Hop, I used figures with fully closed rads for the Spitfire and time to climb 32,800 ft still took over 10min, sorry to disappoint you.


----------



## claidemore (Feb 24, 2008)

Hi Soren. 

I used the graph with K4 climb rates and times, the one dated 19/1/45 with a stamped number 5026\ 28. It has five different climb rates, and two climb times, one for K4 and K6 respectively. I used the climb rate lines, doing a calculation for each rise of 500 meters using an average climb rate for the beginning and end of each 500 meter segment. LOL crude, slow, manual, amateur method I know!

I calculated the K4 @ 1.45 ata and got a figure of 13.5 minutes which agrees exactly with the climb time for that plane on that graph. So my calculations are very close. Did the same for the 1.98 ata line on that graph and got 10.3 minutes. 

Using the same method for calculating the Spit XIV 18lb boost, I get a time to 32,800 ft of 9.8 minutes. 

I think whatever formula somebody else uses to calculate climb time on the K4, it needs to be 'proofed' against the 1.45 K4 which has a plotted climb time. Then it needs to be done on the Spit XIV as well to proove it. Then we know that we have figures that can be compared. 

I believe wing loading is directly related to lift? Slats would not be open during a climb, so I don't know how they would have any effect here.


----------



## Hop (Feb 25, 2008)

> No Hop, I used figures with fully closed rads for the Spitfire and time to climb 32,800 ft still took over 10min, sorry to disappoint you.



I'm sorry, could you point me to that data?

Rolls Royce tests on Jl165:
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/jl165rrclimb.jpg

0 - 5,000 ft at an average of 5,350 ft/min - 0.93 mins
5 - 11,000 ft, 5,080 ft/min - 1.18 mins
11 - 32,800 ft, 3,450 ft/min - 6.32 mins

Total - 8.43 mins

A&AEE test on Jl165:
Spitfire IX Trials at +25 boost

FS climb with radiator flaps closed - 8.29 mins (point 29, not 29 secs) to 30,000 ft.

How long from 30 - 32,800 ft?

First method is to extrapolate from the graph of Jl165. Climb rate peaked at 4,750 ft/min at 11,400ft. It declined up to 32,800 ft. That's 21,400 ft, the halfway point would be 10,700, add it to 11,400 and the halfway point for the last stage is 22,100 ft. Climb rate at 22,100 ft is 3,100 ft/min.

So the climb above 11,400 ft is 21,400ft at an average of 3,100 ft/min, 6.9 mins. It took 2.39 mins to reach 11,400 ft, so the total is 9.29 mins

The other way to calculate how long it took to climb from 30 to 32,800 ft is to compare with other similar Spitfires (VIIIs or IXs with Merlin 66). 

BS 543 took about 1.5 mins, which would make the total 9.79 mins 
JF934 took about 1.2 mins, which would make the total 9.49 mins.

The final way is simply to extend the line on the graph. That looks like 1,750 ft/min for the last 2,800 ft, which is 1.6 mins. Total time 9.89 mins

Try as I might, I can't find any figures that show more than 10 minutes to 32,800 ft. Even for the A&AEE test of Jl165, where it performed worse than it had some months earlier at RR. The figures range from a low of 8.43 minutes to a high of 9.89 minutes. How can that equal "over 10 minutes"?



> I used the climb rate lines, doing a calculation for each rise of 500 meters using an average climb rate for the beginning and end of each 500 meter segment. LOL crude, slow, manual, amateur method I know!



There's no need to do small segments, just find the halfway point along each straight line.

For example, if the plane climbs at 20 m/s at 1,000, and 10 m/s at 5,000m, then the halfway point is 3,000m. Read off the climb rate at 3,000m, and apply that rate for the entire 4,000m.

It's more accurate, and with most aircraft much quicker, because you typically have 5 or less segments to do, for any altitude.


----------



## claidemore (Feb 25, 2008)

Hop said:


> There's no need to do small segments, just find the halfway point along each straight line.
> 
> For example, if the plane climbs at 20 m/s at 1,000, and 10 m/s at 5,000m, then the halfway point is 3,000m. Read off the climb rate at 3,000m, and apply that rate for the entire 4,000m.
> 
> It's more accurate, and with most aircraft much quicker, because you typically have 5 or less segments to do, for any altitude.



Rgr that. Wife hates it when I spend 1/2 hour plotting figues. 

For me, this project and discussion has shown that the later marks of Spitfire had a better climb rate than the 109K4, not only against the planes that saw operational service, but also against the top available tested plane data. 

109K4 is still the winner for hp/weight, AFAIK. Closest I found was a Yak 3 with VK107 engine at 3.79 lbs/hp compared to the 3/74 for the 109K4. 

A little off topic, but the 107 engined Yak3 is always listed as being too late to see combat in WWII. 


> He was the commander of 897 IAP.
> Karavay and some other pilots went to Zavod no.31 at Tbilisi for planes and they found some new models of Yak fighters.
> They took possession of them and brought to the unit by evading the usual procedures.
> Karavay used the plane in fights above Hungary. He shot down one Bf-109 on 23.03.1945 above Mór and one more above lake Balaton on 22.04.1945 while flying this machine. (Yak 3 VK107A)


----------



## Glider (Feb 25, 2008)

What I find interesting is how well the Spit IX did. A 1942 design with power settings that were available (I think) from early 1944, holding its own against a new fighter (redesigned 109K) using power settings that were in use only in the last few months of the war.

Not bad


----------



## claidemore (Feb 25, 2008)

Agreed. 

I was just reading about the Israeli Spitfires the other day, four Spit IXs shot down three British Spit XVIII's and one Tempest V. Obviously the Spit IX had a lot going for it.


----------



## Hop (Feb 25, 2008)

> What I find interesting is how well the Spit IX did. A 1942 design with power settings that were available (I think) from early 1944,



18 lbs boost was introduced for the Spitfire IX with the Merlin 63 engine. I believe EN306 was the first, first flight 13 Jan 1943.


----------



## Glider (Feb 25, 2008)

Hop said:


> 18 lbs boost was introduced for the Spitfire IX with the Merlin 63 engine. I believe EN306 was the first, first flight 13 Jan 1943.



Thanks for that. My comment was based on the 25lb boost but I wondered about the 18lb boost.


----------



## Kurfürst (Feb 29, 2008)

Hop said:


> And you think a 109 can climb at 1.98 ata for close to 10 minutes with the radiators fully closed, without overheating the engine?



I would not rule out the possibility, given the engines thermal output (simply to put, the DB 605D is not putting out much heat thanks to MW50s cooling qualities), and the generous coolant and oil radiator capacity of the aircraft.



Hop said:


> Wait a second. I compared a 109 running at 1.98 ata, which may have been used in the last couple of months of the war, against Spitfires running at 18 lbs. I didn't use the 21/25 lbs figures that _were_ used before the 109 started running at 1.98 ata.



Well the +25 lbs rating was limited to Service TRIALS before 1.98ata was introduced, the +21 rating was an act of desperation in the summer of 1944, and its use was limited to V-1 patrols; when these ended, they reverted to +18.

In fact, the service introduction of +25 lbs (which was later recalled a month or so later and they reverted to +18 because of accidents with the new rating and fuel), and _possibly_ (and theres very little evidence to it, actually) +21 for the Griffon, too occured at the same time as the introduction of 1.98ata, in the early months of 1945.

These are all 1945 ratings for all practical purposes.



Hop said:


> I also compared a Spitfire running with fully open radiators, against a 109 with half open radiators.



Now THAT is just muddying the water... the 'fully open' radiators on the Spitfire - as you are well aware - meant actually _less_ exit area on the Spitfire than on the 109, not to mention all this 'fully open' and 'half open' stencils are applied by you only, the RAF and the LW never used such terms, what you re-named was actually the standard in the two airforces for climb rates.



Hop said:


> Well, not really. The Spitfire I/109E4 had similar climb rates. The Spitfire V/109F matchup probably goes to the 109 for most of the time. With the introduction of the Merlin 63/66/70 in the Spitfire, the Spitfire outclimbed the 109, and that remained the position for the rest of the war.



That latter a very bold and doubtful statment IMHO. 



Hop said:


> Just look how you have had to rearrange the figures to get the 109K4 climbing better than the Spitfire XIV. You compare a vanilla Spitfire XIV with fully open radiators against a 109 with fully closed radiators, running on a power setting it might have used in the last few months of the war.



You are being unfair here. Simply there isnt any other figures for the Spitfire XIV, the calculated figures we have for the type only exist for +18 lbs, there is none for +21 which the XIV _might _have used in the last few months of the war in air-to-air combat, and all the details for these figures are missing, we dont know what kind of airframe conditions (polished, good, bad, standard or not) the figures relate to, nor if the figures are understood for open or closed radiators.

Oddly enough, you are complaining about that he is _not_ making up figures for a higher boost, and not making up the conditions of the aircraft..




Hop said:


> I'm sorry, could you point me to that data?
> 
> Rolls Royce tests on Jl165:
> http://www.spitfireperformance.com/jl165rrclimb.jpg
> ...



Well, looking at this climb chart is says the aircraft was tested at 7234 lbs. The normal takeoff weight of the Mk IX was apprx. 7450 lbs.

Is it a surprise that a lightly loaded aircraft missing 220 lbs weight climbs faster than if it would have been fully loaded..?


----------



## Kurfürst (Feb 29, 2008)

Glider said:


> What I find interesting is how well the Spit IX did. A 1942 design with power settings that were available (I think) from early 1944, holding its own against a new fighter (redesigned 109K) using power settings that were in use only in the last few months of the war.
> 
> Not bad



In the climb department, the IX was pretty good. Holding its own... well, ask Clostermann about it. The IX may have had a similiar climb rate as late war 109s (or the late war XIVs), but it was just hopelessly slower than either the XIV, Tempest or the Mustang or the 109K for that matter; the latter two could _cruise_ faster at altitude than the IX would manage _at full throttle_.

It was a bit like the Zero in the Pacific by 1944; manouverable, but simply too slow.


----------



## Glider (Feb 29, 2008)

As a matter of interest what was the cruising speed of the 109K and at what altitude are you talking about?
Just a thought but if the 109K could cruise faster than a Spitfire at max speed then why did they find it so difficult to intercept allied PR planes such as the SPit or the Mossie 

Re the Zero I do find that amusing, didn't know they went over 400mph.


----------



## Soren (Feb 29, 2008)

Any PR fighter was difficult to intercept Glider. And the Mossie was only a head ache to catch for the German Zerstöreres, the Bf-109 had no problem catching the Mossie.


----------



## Glider (Feb 29, 2008)

Soren said:


> Any PR fighter was difficult to intercept Glider. And the Mossie was only a head ache to catch for the German Zerstöreres, the Bf-109 had no problem catching the Mossie.



Then why didn't they?


----------



## Soren (Feb 29, 2008)

They did. Ask Erich.


----------



## Glider (Feb 29, 2008)

The main question was the statement that the 109K could go faster than a Spit IX at full throttle at altitude. Now this may well be the case I truly do not know the cruise performance of the 109K hence my question ,what was the cruising speed of the 109K at what altitude.

I admit that I find it hard to believe that the 109K would cruise at over 410 mph, which you must admit is a legitimate doubt. It is interesting as Cruise speeds are strategically often more important than headline max speeds but are often harder to find out.
The best I can come up with is 366mph for the 109K but that will differ by height and definition of cruise. I believe this is a fair question and await a reply.


----------



## claidemore (Feb 29, 2008)

Slower cruising speed just means you gotta get outa bed 5 min earlier to get to the fight.


----------



## Soren (Feb 29, 2008)

Higher cruising speed means an energy advantage at the start of the engagement, height being the same ofcourse.

Glider,

The cruising speed of the K-4 was higher than that of earlier 109's as it was a cleaner a/c. The cruising speed of the K-4 is 645 km/h at 8.4 km according to the charts I have, which is 403.1 mph at 27,559 ft.


----------



## Kurfürst (Mar 1, 2008)

Glider said:


> As a matter of interest what was the cruising speed of the 109K and at what altitude are you talking about?



Sore already answered that correcty, it would do 400 mph at ca 27500 feet. That was pretty much what the Mk IX LF would manage at 5-min WEP. The Mk IX LF`s maximum cruise speed was 328 mph, at 20000 feet, rather disappointingly slow, given the high-drag airframe.

It also pretty interesting if you think it over in the context of high speed, high altitude engagments; ie. if you think in terms of excess thrust, at 27 500 feet a Mk IX, flying at full throttle and 400 mph, has zero excess thrust for manouvering; a 109K, or a Mustang, which can achieve this speed at much lower power output than full throttle, still has hundreds of horsepower worth of excess thrust for manouvres.

In layman`s terms, they can run circles around the old Spitfire IXs at these speeds and altitudes.



Glider said:


> Just a thought but if the 109K could cruise faster than a Spitfire at max speed then why did they find it so difficult to intercept allied PR planes such as the SPit or the Mossie



For the same reason Spitfires found it hard to intercept PR 109s and He 177s over England. High flying, fast single targets the radar may not pick up in time, are difficult to vector onto and intercept.

Think about how far away a recce plane cruising at 300+ mph will get in 10-15 minutes it takes for you to climb to his altitude at 30 000 feet, while you clims at 170 mph.



> Re the Zero I do find that amusing, didn't know they went over 400mph.



The point was that while the Zero was very manouverable and climbed well, it was outclassed by later US fighters like P-38, F4U etc simply because the latter were much faster and could dictate the fight.


----------



## Glider (Mar 1, 2008)

Kurfürst said:


> In layman`s terms, they can run circles around the old Spitfire IXs at these speeds and altitudes.


It would be a little worrying for the Germans if they didn't have an advantage over a Spit IX 



> For the same reason Spitfires found it hard to intercept PR 109s and He 177s over England. High flying, fast single targets the radar may not pick up in time, are difficult to vector onto and intercept.


I admit that you have mentioned this before. I know that the He177 was used as a recce on Atlantic missions but not over the UK. Do you have any details as to these missions?
Re the 109 I understood that the Germans were unable to undertake many missions recce missions which is one of the reasons why the invasion was a success.


----------



## Soren (Mar 1, 2008)

Glider,

The Germans were mislead by foney radio transmissions and mock ups situated in such a way that they believed the invasion would come further North. (Hence the stronger defences there)


----------



## Glider (Mar 1, 2008)

That is of course part of the story but I do not believe that a nation such as Germany which knows knows the importance of defeating an attempted invasion succeeds, would only rely on radio intercepts.

Besides the claim is that _For the same reason Spitfires found it hard to intercept PR 109s and He 177s _ I have not heard of the He177 being used over the UK and believe that the 109 was ineffective. 
All I am asking is for something to support that statement.


----------



## claidemore (Mar 1, 2008)

Kurfürst said:


> In layman`s terms, they can run circles around the old Spitfire IXs at these speeds and altitudes.
> 
> 
> QUOTE]
> ...


----------



## Soren (Mar 1, 2008)

> the Mustang could not outturn any Spit at any speed, nor could the 109 or 190A/D for that matter.



The Bf-109 can did out-turn the Spitfire.


----------



## Soren (Mar 1, 2008)

Glider,

Not only foney radio tranmissions, also ground mock ups of a/c, vehicles, ships etc etc.. This mislead the Germans who were using their PR a/c just the same as the British. 

The British would simply let out allot of foney radio transmissions about their own forces, where they were assmbled, where they needed go and what their mission was. The Germans recieving these transmissions sent out PR a/c to check it out and thought they found the possible Allied invasion fleet. They were mock ups however..


----------



## Kurfürst (Mar 2, 2008)

Glider said:


> Besides the claim is that _For the same reason Spitfires found it hard to intercept PR 109s and He 177s _ I have not heard of the He177 being used over the UK and believe that the 109 was ineffective.



What you havent heard of and what you wish to believe has rather little substance behind it I am afraid...

Perhaps do some reading first.


----------



## Kurfürst (Mar 2, 2008)

claidemore said:


> Maybe, if excess thrust was the only factor affecting turn. From everything I have read, anecdotal and official tactical trials, the Mustang could not outturn any Spit at any speed, nor could the 109 or 190A/D for that matter. Dont forget the Mustang weighs about 1000 lbs? more than a Spit IX.



Basically all manouvering is about excess thrust. Sustained turning is all about your excess thrust matching the increased decelerating force from increased drag when you are turning (and flying at a higher AoA than when in level flight, ie. higher induced drag).

So to put it into practical terms, lets see an example.

Plane A can achieve 400 mph with 1500 HP at altitude, and at this point it has 0 excess thrust (since its neither accelerating or decelerating). It can cruise at 330 mph with 1000 HP.

Plane B can achieve 440 mph at altitude with the same 1500 HP, and can achieve 400 mph when cruising using 1000 HP. 

So similiarly, Plane B has 0 excess thrust _at 440 mph_, and has 500 HP excess thrust at 400 mph. 

So when Plane A and Plane B will start turning at 400 mph, the drag experienced by both will rapidly increase, because in turn your induced drag will increase rapidly. Overall drag will increase on both aircraft, and now both would need greater thrust to sustain 400 mph in turns. Since Plane A has no more excess thrust at all, it will start to decelerate (quite rapidly) when it commences a turn at 400 mph. Plane B can use its 500 HP-worth of excess thrust to sustain its speed_ AND_ turn at the same time.

Weight of course matters, but its not so simple (the 109, for example, is much lighter than the Spit); weight actually effects how high your drag is in turn, which gets us back to excess thrust. The Spitfire has large wings for its size and weight, but at the same time its also a very draggy airframe compared to others, hence why its relatively slow, and outclassed by others at high speed turns, climbs acceleration.




> Yes the Spit IX could only do 408-415 mph level speed at alt, (and that's not at 5 min WEP either).



No, the 404 mph figure for the Spitfire LFIX is at five minute WEP, at maximum output. It couldnt go faster than this, unless in dive.



> Yet they shot down a lot of 109s and 190's.



Oh, it had a successfull combat record, no doubt. It would be more interesting to see though what ratios it achieved against enemy fighters, I doubt it would be all that positive, but then again it had a lot of other factors in it - relying too much on old Marks through the war, pilot experience and tactics for example.



> Considered by most knowledgeable people to be the best all round fighter of WWII, and considered best by pilots who also flew Hurricanes, Mustangs, P47s, Typhoons, P40's etc. It had an ideal balance of climb, dive, maneuverability, speed and firepower. Other planes might be better at one thing or another, but the Spit IX was darn good at everything.



I have no idea who are those 'most knowledgeable people' are. It surely had good qualities, which is why it was liked so much by its pilots, and why it is widely considered a successfull WW2 fighter design. On the other hand, it had some serious defects as well. Lack of speed and range should be mentioned first and foremost, and poor control characteristics. Actually, both of the former vices can be traced back the high drag of the design. I guess the death of the lead engineer was a blow that the design team couldnt recover from.


----------



## Hop (Mar 2, 2008)

Kurfurst's argument appears to be later German fighters like the K4 and Dora outclassed the Spitfire IX. The thing is, in the real world these late war German fighters were too little, too late, and had very little impact.

Let's look at some figures. From the start of August 1944 to the end of the war, the Jagdwaffe claimed 200 Spitfires, 83 Typhoons and Tempests.

RAF Tempests alone claimed 203 German fighters (109s, 190s and 262s) in the same period.

Kurfurst likes to claim the RAF had to soldier on with the Spitfire IX, because they were short of more modern types. As of 26th April, the RAF had on charge the following (figures are UK&Western Europe/Overseas):

Mustang III&IV - 782/224 (Mustang III is P-51B/C, IV is P-51D)
Spitfire XIV - 500/62
Tempest V - 426
Tempest II - 39

Now, as to reconnaissance, we have seen the unsourced opinion of Soren and Kurfurst. Here are some sourced facts, from people with rather better reputations:

First, RV Jones. Jones was in charge of British technical intelligence during the war. In 1940 and 41 he was involved in the battle against the German blind bombing beams, in 1943 and 1944 he was involved in the battle against the V weapons.

Jones writes in his autobiography that he came up with the idea of using a double agent to feed the Germans information that the V-1s were overshooting London. He hoped the Germans would reduce the flight time, causing the V-1s to fall short of London. The double agents then fed back the information that the V-1s were right on target.

Jones says that when the German launching headquarters was overrun, he had two surprises. First was that some of the bombs had been fitted with radio locators. Both the reports of the radio locators and the agents in London were plotted on a map at the headquarters. The Germans assumed the radio devices were inaccurate, because they reported the bombs were tending to fall short, and that the agents reports must be accurate. Jones continues:



> In this helpful conclusion, Wachtel was supported by the evidence of photographic reconnaissance, which incidentally revealed one of the biggest surprises of the whole war. *It turned out that there seemed to have been no German photographic reconnaissance of London from 10th January 1941 to 10th September 1944. We had expected that the Germans would have flown regular reconnaissances of the whole of southern England, but Fighter Command had been so effective in interception that the Germans had not succeeded in making a reconnaissance of London for 3 years and 9 months, no more than 50 miles inside our own coastline, while our own reconnaissance pilots were often flying over 500 miles of German occupied territory. I knew of no more startling contrast in the entire war, a joint tribute to Fighter Command and our own reconnaissance units.*
> 
> I had a slight inkling of the situation before we captured Wachtel's map, because *I had read a glowing tribute to the new German twin jet fighter, the Me 262, which a secret German report said was so good it had succeeded in photographic reconnaissance of London "hitherto considered impossible".*



Jones then goes on to say that because of cloud on that sortie, only the damage in North London could be photographed. Although much of it was from 1941 and 1942, because it had not been photographed before, the V-1 was credited with causing it, which vindicated the reports of the double agents.

Secondly, Dr Alfred Price. He doesn't (as far as I know) detail German reconnaissance efforts against Britain, but he does describe German efforts against the Normandy area:



> Throughout the Battle of Normandy Allied army commanders received frequent and comprehensive photographic coverage of the enemy positions in front of them. *In stark contrast, German field commanders often received no warning of a build-up of Allied forces until the leading units came within view of their forward positions.* During the battle Luftwaffe reconnaissance units endeavoured to fly two types of operation: high-speed low-altitude visual and photographic reconnaissance sorties by day, flown by Messerschmitt 109s of the tactical reconnaissance units; and high-altitude night photographic missions by Me 410s and Ju 188s of strategic reconnaissance units.
> The tactics employed by the Bf 109 reconnaissance units were straightforward enough, though often hazardous in view of the magnitude of the opposition. Usually the aircraft operated in pairs, one of each pair conducting the reconnaissance while the other kept watch for enemy fighters. On rare occasions a fighter escort would be provided if a reconnaissance of a particularly heavily defended area were required, but usually the reconnaissance pilots had to penetrate the defences on their own.
> *In the nature of things, photographs taken at night gave considerably less information than those taken by day. However, the all-pervading Allied fighter patrols rendered high-altitude daylight photography too dangerous to be contemplated.* During a night mission the aircraft would run through the target area at high speed, at altitudes of around 20,000ft, and release a photo-flash bomb fused to ignite at about 4,000ft above the surface. On ignition the bomb gave a flash of 6,000,000 candlepower lasting for a third of a second, and this automatically closed the shutter of the camera and wound on the film for the next photograph. Then the shutter opened again for the next shot. Usually four or five pictures were taken in this way, at ten-second intervals. By the end of that time the night fighter and gun defences in the area were thoroughly alerted and the German crew had to dive to low altitude and beat a hasty retreat.
> *As was to be expected, such reconnaissance methods produced only a fragmentary picture of the Allied dispositions. The powerful defences took a mounting toll of both aircraft and crews, and, if they were to survive, the latter had often to break off their missions at the first sign of trouble.
> The lack of aerial reconnaissance had serious consequences.*



Price goes on to say the situation only changed when the Ar 234 was deployed.

So that's two respected sources that say the Luftwaffe were not succeeding with their recce efforts.

However, the situation is summed up by a third. The USAF commissioned historical studies of the war effort, their own and the Luftwaffe's. One is on Luftwaffe intelligence operations, and covers recce flights. It was written by Generalleutnant Andreas Nielsen.

Writing about German efforts to photograph the invasion fleet in the run up to D Day:



> The almost impenetrable fighter screens above England complicated aerial reconnaissance to such a degree that results were obtained only accidentally. Thus, no information could be gathered as to possible secondary landings, for instance in Norway, Denmark or along the German North Sea coast.



David Kahn, in Hitler's Spies: German Military Intelligence in World War II, sums up German recce efforts:



> The curve of the effectiveness of German aerial reconnaissance matched that of the rise and fall of German arms in general more closely than that of any other form of intelligence. In seeking physical evidence, it depended more upon strength—control of the air—or speed to obtain this evidence than almost all other forms of intelligence. This strength was naturally a function of the overall German strength. For the first half of the war, German air superiority permitted German aerial reconnaissance, and it in turn helped German arms win their victories. But with the German defeats on the ground and in the air, reconnaissance became sparser and less effec
> . Toward the end it became almost nonexistent. *In December 1944, an air force officer noted that no air reconnaissance of British industry had taken place for three years. German aerial reconnaissance made no great discoveries, as the Allies' did of the V-l sites. It could not get planes over London to correct the fake reports of turned-around agents about the impact points of these flying bombs. It failed to spot the bringing-up of the troops from Siberia that stopped the Germans at Moscow. A mournful comment by the navy on 22 May 1944, while the Germans were trying desperately to discover where the expected invasion of Europe would come, may serve as its epitaph: "Especially on account of the lack of constant comprehensive air reconnaissance, the [enemy's] main transport effort in one sector or another of the Channel coast is not ascertainable"*



I'm sure the Germans managed night time recce of Britain, the USAF study even talks of successful missions over Britain, although without mentioning the time. But night recce, as Dr Price points out, is very much second best.


----------



## Glider (Mar 2, 2008)

Kurfürst said:


> What you havent heard of and what you wish to believe has rather little substance behind it I am afraid...
> 
> Perhaps do some reading first.




I have done, quite a lot over the years and whilst I agree the He177 was used as a naval recce aircraft I have not heard of it being used over the British Isles. I also know that it was used in the little Blitz in the first three months of 1944 and that all the aircraft that took part incurred heavy losses. Remember that was at night over very short distances with London only being around 60 miles from the French coast.

I have never heard of any German aircraft (Arado 234 excepted) that could fly over the UK in daylight on Recce missions on anything like the basis of the Allied PR aircraft Mossies, Spits and to a lesser degree Lightnings.

You are the one who says that this happened and I am willing to agree with you, but only if you can support that statement.


----------



## Kurfürst (Mar 2, 2008)

I guess I must have hit some nerve.

To make things clear, these are some of the favourite subjects of Hop, he use to argue repeatadly over the same for years on various board. Much like David Irving`s favourite subject being non-existance of the Holocaust, Hop`s favourite subject is the non-existance of recconnaisance flights over the UK after 1940. He also resambles Irving in handling the historical evidence.

The 'no recconnaisance occured over England' is one his favourites; this has been discussed over this board already, yet he pretends that he is ignorant of the evidence presented to him back then. It is not neccesary to go over it again, as Hop is very dishonest and will continue to ignore the evidence, and repeat the same all the same, or perhaps in an 'improved' form over the next time, to give a push to the agenda.

It is suffice to notice, though, that in contrast of the _opinon_ of RV Jones which Hop could muster (and usually quotes as 'evidence') with sweat to support his agenda, the more specific, serious literature is replete with description of recconnaissance sorties over England; other than guesses of a British civil engineer from the war who had no idea on enemy reconnaissance operations at all.

*Blandford* quotes for example He 177 pilots who did their - rather uneventful, they couldn`t be intercepted, though once they saw a Spitfire below struggling to climb to their altitude before giving up - armed recconnaissance sorties as far up as Birmingham in the summer of 1943; initially they only carried cameras, later, as they penetrated so easily at high altitude, they also carried two 2200 lbs bombs to combine PR runs with harassment raids; *Clostermann*, a Spitfire and Tempest pilot describes his first hand intercepting experience with long range photo-reconnaissance Bf 109Gs (appearantly from Norway) over Scape Flow in 1944; *Nick Beale*, the author of a great many books on the Luftwaffe and Allied air forces describes how LW recconnaissance photographed parts the Allied invasion fleet in port, which was subsequently bombed by bombers in the night; *Petrick/Mankau* describes the reconnaissance sorties of Me 410 over England during 43-44; so on.

In other hands, we have RV Jones`s guesswork about LW reconnaissance over England, and the documented recce sorties flown by the Luftwaffe.

The recommended reading is Vol 2 of Aufklärer Luftwaffe Reconnaissance Aircraft and Units, 1942 – 1945, by David Wadman, in the Luftwaffe Color Series.







Its also worth to read the report by Generalleutnant Andreas Nielsen, as not only it gives the reader an impression on German air force during the war, but also of Hop`s willingness to selectively quote and manipulate the sources. For this reason he never provides the link to it, so here it is 
AFHRA: Numbered USAF Historical Studies: 151-200

Its perfectly redundant to go into detail over all these again, just because a revisionist re-started his usual 'stuff'. He has been quoting RV Jones opinion, ie. that V-1 launch sites has been issued with old recce photos _of London_ (did Lonndon moved between 1940 and 1944..? I think not.) and because of that could have been absolutely no photo reconnaissance _over entire England_ through the war of course. 

As obvious the logical fellacies and dishonesty is, it is one of Hop`s favourite revisionist stories, debunked over far too many boards, so lets leave it at that.



Hop said:


> Kurfurst's argument appears to be later German fighters like the K4 and Dora outclassed the Spitfire IX. The thing is, in the real world these late war German fighters were too little, too late, and had very little impact.



I am afraid this isn`t the truth, but barely Hop turning the events upside down; ie. in the end of January 1945, the LW reported 314 Bf 109 K-4s, 619 high altitude G-14/AS and G-10; 431 MW50 boosted G-14s, and only 71 old G-6s. I have no figures for the end of January for D-9s, but a month earlier even those amounted 183. In short, there was no shortage of modern types.

This is in direct contrast to the RAF, which was predominantly equipped by Mark IXs and Typhoons from 1943, and even Mark V Spitfires. A brief glance overt the 2nd TAF`s inventory towards the end of 1944 confirms that.

Like I said above, its and old story and a thorn in the eye for Hop, as on one hand, we have the detailed strenght reports from the RAF and Luftwaffe at this period of the war, and they show the facts on type strenghts, they show the sorties, and naturally Hop was shown all these repeatadly. 

Its difficult to argue with these, and Hop doesn`t even attempts, rather resorts to empty rhetorics; Again its not neccessary to go over all of this because someone pretends to be ignorant of these facts. 

its sufficient evidence that Hop cannot and will not support his claims with anything; rather, he will jump to his next claim, and when cornered about that and asked to support them with something, he will proceed to another claim. Like Goebbels, he will repeat the same lie hoping it will become a truth.



Hop said:


> Let's look at some figures. From the start of August 1944 to the end of the war, the Jagdwaffe claimed 200 Spitfires, 83 Typhoons and Tempests. RAF Tempests alone claimed 203 German fighters (109s, 190s and 262s) in the same period.



Again, its sufficient again to cross - check these claims of Hop with the known RAF loss figures, ie. take example the RAF losses occured during Bodenplatte alone (and the Germans certainly claimed more there then what the RAF actually lost, its common thing).

Like in the case of the availability of late war fighters, everything turns upside down in HopWorld.



Hop said:


> Kurfurst likes to claim the RAF had to soldier on with the Spitfire IX, because they were short of more modern types.



Indeed they were. See below :






In fact they had to soldier on with the Mark V for far too long, they didn`t even had enough Mk IXs with units, not to say Mk XIVs.

Lets take for example, No 610 Sqns. They received their first Mk XIVs in January 1944. Production was so slow, they didn`t have a full compliement of fighters -_ even for a single Squadron, ie. 20-odd fighters !_ - until March 1944..

Even by the end of May 1944, the RAF had a mere 60-odd Mk XIVs in service; about 1/3 of these wouldn`t even fly missions, being Sqn reserves.

as on of 14th December 1944, there were altogether 120 Spitfire Mk. XIVs. with the operationally fit Squadrons:

41 Squadron,130 Squadron, 350 Squadron, 402 Squadron, 610 Squadron, 430 Squadron, 2 Squadron. 

Of these 120 planes in six squadrons, 72 would fly missions; the rest were reserves, that, in British practice, were directly attached to the units.

Mark XIVs were in fact rarer than Me 262s in service.

Its all documented well.



Hop said:


> As of 26th April, the RAF had on charge the following (figures are UK&Western Europe/Overseas):
> 
> Mustang III&IV - 782/224 (Mustang III is P-51B/C, IV is P-51D)
> Spitfire XIV - 500/62
> ...



There is not much to comment on this, expect that figures have been made up, and these can be confirmed by the order of Battles and RAF strenght reports of units.

Hop is simply lying and making up numbers; lately I have seen him lying similiar figures being _'on the RAFs charge'_. Truth is, he is selective with the numbers - thats whu you dont see any Mk IX or Mark V figures to get a comparison - and he also manipulated the meaning of the figures he uses as a basis.

This has been confirmed by those who`s numbers Hop is using and quotes either distorted or selectively.


----------



## Kurfürst (Mar 2, 2008)

Glider said:


> I have done, quite a lot over the years and whilst I agree the He177 was used as a naval recce aircraft I have not heard of it being used over the British Isles. I also know that it was used in the little Blitz in the first three months of 1944 and that all the aircraft that took part incurred heavy losses.



Well this is the source, so all you have to do now is to read it:

Amazon.co.uk: Target England: Edmund L. Blandford: Books

[QUOTERemember that was at night over very short distances with London only being around 60 miles from the French coast.[/QUOTE]

This has been discussed not so long ago, no He 177s were operating 'from 60 miles from the French coast', they were operating from bases much further away - the recce ones in particular operated from the bases at the German border IIRC - yet you continue to lay the same claim again.

So now I ask you to support it.



> I have never heard of any German aircraft (Arado 234 excepted) that could fly over the UK in daylight on Recce missions on anything like the basis of the Allied PR aircraft Mossies, Spits and to a lesser degree Lightnings.



Well have you heard of daylight on recce missions by 109Es in the Battle of Britain..? No? Yet it happened.

Its funny you know. All this talk about PR Spits, Mossies - which didn`t came into existance well after the 109s (and 190s, too) were doing the same job for some time - and the firm belief it wasn`t 'anything like the basis of the Allied PR aircraft'.

I guess its just a classic logical fellacy, ie. if _we_ had PR aircraft, there is no way that _they_ could have the same on the other side.



> You are the one who says that this happened



Nope, there are plenty of respected authors, too.



> and I am willing to agree with you, but only if you can support that statement.



Well, you can do your reading, I gave you plenty of literature above.


----------



## Glider (Mar 2, 2008)

Kurfürst said:


> Basically all manouvering is about excess thrust. Sustained turning is all about your excess thrust matching the increased decelerating force from increased drag when you are turning (and flying at a higher AoA than when in level flight, ie. higher induced drag).
> 
> So to put it into practical terms, lets see an example.
> 
> ...



This is almost priceless. 
1) So in other words your saying that a 400mph Fw109 and Me109 is dead meat for a Mustang which can go 440mph because at 400mph a Mustang has excess thrust that the other two don't have. I somehow don't think you really meant that.
2) You are saying that the Spitfire _hence why its relatively slow, and outclassed by others at high speed turns, climbs acceleration_
Which of the German aircraft was better at high speed turns?
Re climb we are talking about a 1942 Spit IX that *you agreed *could match the climb of the end of war 109K with a boost that may or may not have been used in the last few months of the war. 
What chance the earlier 109G's which weighed a lot more than the 109K and had less powerful engines?
3) The equivalent to the 109K with the 1.98 boost would of course be the Spit 20 if you want to talk about like for like.
4) You forget that the Spit IX had more or less been replaced as an intercepter by the Spit XIV by the time the 109K was around 



> On the other hand, it had some serious defects as well. Lack of speed and range should be mentioned first and foremost, and poor control characteristics. Actually, both of the former vices can be traced back the high drag of the design. I guess the death of the lead engineer was a blow that the design team couldnt recover from.



*Lack of range *was always a problem but there were versions that matched the 109 and it was always sufficient for the tasks as the Allies had other aircraft that had a longer reach.
*Lack of Speed *I question, certainly when compared to the 109G and 190A. The aircraft performed at different heights but that is no suprise, all aircraft have different characteristics and the Spit was flexible enough to be able to fight at all altitudes.
*Poor Control Characteristics *I am not aware of any unique poor control characteristics, could you name any one in particular, with of course supporting references?


----------



## Soren (Mar 2, 2008)

Glider,

The earlier 109's weren't any heavier than the K-4, the K-4 was infact abit heavier at 3,364 kg.


----------



## Glider (Mar 2, 2008)

Kurfürst said:


> Well this is the source, so all you have to do now is to read it:
> 
> Amazon.co.uk: Target England: Edmund L. Blandford: Books
> 
> [QUOTERemember that was at night over very short distances with London only being around 60 miles from the French coast.



This has been discussed not so long ago, no He 177s were operating 'from 60 miles from the French coast', they were operating from bases much further away - the recce ones in particular operated from the bases at the German border IIRC - yet you continue to lay the same claim again.

So now I ask you to support it.[/QUOTE]

Kurfurst
I cannot believe that you are claiming that London isn't 60 miles from the French coast, get an Atlas and look it up.

Let me make it simple for you. 
Allied PR aircraft were in danger from when they crossed the French coast, they then flew to Berlin and beyond, hundreds of mile behind the German lines by day and night.
German PR aircraft were in danger when they crossed the British coast and hardly ever made it to London about 25 miles from the British coast by day or night.




> Well have you heard of daylight on recce missions by 109Es in the Battle of Britain..? No? Yet it happened.


OK I will give you that PR missions were flown during the BOB, not exactly the same as He177 flying over the UK in daylight is it.



> Its funny you know. All this talk about PR Spits, Mossies - which didn`t came into existance well after the 109s (and 190s, too) were doing the same job for some time - and the firm belief it wasn`t 'anything like the basis of the Allied PR aircraft'.


The first PR flight by a Spitfire over Aachen took place on 18th November 1939
On 10 February 1940 PR Spitfires took photographs of the German naval bases at Wilhelmshaven and Emden
The PR Spit IV entered service in October 1940 with a range of 2000 miles taking photos as far away as Stettin
The PR Spit VI on 14th March 1941 took photographs of Berlin.
I think the point is well made. The following source may be of interest
Photo Reconnaissance Spitfires
As an aside, it speaks well of the design team who took over after the death of Mitchell. 



> I guess its just a classic logical fellacy, ie. if _we_ had PR aircraft, there is no way that _they_ could have the same on the other side.


This is an interesting comment. I was thinking that you may be working on the assumption that if the He177 was used as a Navel Recce aircraft it was also used over the British mainland.
By the way, I am still waiting for a source for this. If its included in the book you mentioned, can I have the page numbers? I remind you that I did this for you when you questioned the 4 cannon armed spitfires mentioned in the book Malta the Spitfire Years.


> Well, you can do your reading, I gave you plenty of literature above.



You gave me one book that I suspect doesn't cover the statements you made. As mentioned if you could give me the page nos


----------



## Glider (Mar 2, 2008)

Soren said:


> Glider,
> 
> The earlier 109's weren't any heavier than the K-4, the K-4 was infact abit heavier at 3,364 kg.



My mistake. I thought that postings had been made that the K version was lighter than the G's, but your right, I should have checked it first.


----------



## claidemore (Mar 2, 2008)

In regards to the 2TAF documents with plane types used by various squadrons in 1944. 

The squadrons shown with Hurricanes or Spit Mk V's, were not front line operational squadrons. They were either new, or being rotated back to England to regroup with new pilots etc. They used those older planes basically as advanced trainers, then switched to newer types before going operational. 

The MkV was not soldiering on, it was being held in reserve. No MkVs were stationed in Europe after D-Day, the only time they might have even entered European air space would be when a reserve squadron would do a cross-channel sweep just to give some new pilots a chance to feel what an operational flight was like. 

And the Mk IX was already being pulled out of the interceptor/fighter role, and being used in ground attack. There were enough Mk XIVs and Mustang III/IVs and Tempests to do that job, and the Mk IXs were being fitted with bombs etc.

Saying there were only X number of Mk XIVs vs X number of 109/190's is pretty misleading, since there were also, Mustangs, P47s, P38s, Tempests, Typhoons, and Mk IX/XVI/VIII spits.


----------



## Kurfürst (Mar 2, 2008)

Glider said:


> This is almost priceless.
> 1) So in other words your saying that a 400mph Fw109 and Me109 is dead meat for a Mustang which can go 440mph because at 400mph a Mustang has excess thrust that the other two don't have. I somehow don't think you really meant that.



Well _at 400 mph_ at high altitude the earlier 109G and FW 190A would of course would be at the same disadvantage against the Mustang as the Mk IXs vs the 109K. At slower speeds it may be a different matter, but at least the LW was introducing a parallel cure to that with the high altitude 109s that appeared the same time as the Mustang.



Glider said:


> 2) You are saying that the Spitfire _hence why its relatively slow, and outclassed by others at high speed turns, climbs acceleration_
> Which of the German aircraft was better at high speed turns?



Any, which had higher excess thrust, ie. 109K, 190D etc.




Glider said:


> Re climb we are talking about a 1942 Spit IX that *you agreed *could match the climb of the end of war 109K with a boost that may or may not have been used in the last few months of the war.
> What chance the earlier 109G's which weighed a lot more than the 109K and had less powerful engines?



a, I`ve certainly not agreed anything like that, the 1942 Spit IX at its +15 ratings was outclimb by its contemporary G-2 with ease.
b, the earlier G-2s were of course much lighter, ie G2 : 3037 kg, K4 : 3362 kg.



> 3) The equivalent to the 109K with the 1.98 boost would of course be the Spit 20 if you want to talk about like for like.



In timeframe, yes, but not in operational importance. I belive the Mark 20 series didnt saw air to air combat, having done but a couple patrols towards the wars end.



> 4) You forget that the Spit IX had more or less been replaced as an intercepter by the Spit XIV by the time the 109K was around



No, unfortunately. 

The 2nd TAF towards the end of 1944, when the 109K appeared, though it had all the Mk XIV Squadrons in the RAF, had only six Mk XIV Sqns and something like 30+ Mk IX/XVIs.





> *Lack of range *was always a problem but there were versions that matched the 109 and it was always sufficient for the tasks as the Allies had other aircraft that had a longer reach.
> *Lack of Speed *I question, certainly when compared to the 109G and 190A. The aircraft performed at different heights but that is no suprise, all aircraft have different characteristics and the Spit was flexible enough to be able to fight at all altitudes.






> *Poor Control Characteristics *I am not aware of any unique poor control characteristics, could you name any one in particular, with of course supporting references?



In particular I am referring the very poor control harmony, ie. extremely sensitive elevator (made the aircraft difficult to fly to the limit and made a poor gun platform) coupled with excessively heavy ailrons.

One Spitfire pilot put it, very vividly, as it was like 'touching the elevator with a light fingertip while arm wrestling the ailrons'. I am sure you`d agree its not a good combination to have in the midst of combat..

Nice info PR Spits, thank you. Do you read Hungarian, btw - as I can only give you the page in the Hungarian edition of Blandford`s book..


----------



## claidemore (Mar 2, 2008)

Lets use 6k and 20,000 feet for climb comparisons, since charts for either plane usually show results for those heights, and they are only 300 or so feet apart. 

1942 Spit Mk IX with Merlin 61, time to 20,000ft/6k, is 6.5 min at normal 12 lb boost, 5.6 at combat 15 lb boost.
A recon G2(closest data to a clean fighter G2) according to German data, is 5.8 min at presumably 1.3 ata. Knock off .2 min for the camera weight, and you have parity in climb to 6k, with one plane or the other having the edge at different alts. This pretty much agrees with British tactical trials of the two types. I know the Finnish G2 test shows slightly faster times, but the Finns were cheatin!  

With Merlin 66/70 the Mk IX was reaching 6k in 4.75/4.85 minutes.

Clean 109 G-6s were 6.5 minutes, add gunpods it's 6.7min. 109K4 with 1.45 ata was also 6.5 minutes to 6k and with 1.98 ata it was 5 minutes to 6k (still longer than the 66/70 Merlin Mk IX) The superior climb rate of the Mk IX was one of the reasons it could still fight effectively in 44 and 45. 

As for excess thrust in turn at high speeds, if we follow that logic, then the Mk XIV should also turn faster than a Mk IX at 400mph, yet all reports say that turn was identical. There is never any mention of the Mk XIV turning better as speed increases. Same thing happened when the Mk V was up-engined to the Mk IX.


----------



## wing angel (Jan 12, 2009)

if its a spitfire mk 5 vs bf-109 then its down to skill

if a german ace was vs a british recruit then the ace would win

but if ace on ace then it would be close but the spit would win

BF-109 cant bank and dive lol


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 12, 2009)

wing angel said:


> BF-109 cant bank and dive lol



Care to prove that. I am not saying you are wrong, but lets see some proof of that.


----------



## Colin1 (Jan 12, 2009)

wing angel said:


> if its a spitfire mk 5 vs bf-109 then its down to skill
> if a german ace was vs a british recruit then the ace would win
> but if ace on ace then it would be close but the spit would win
> BF-109 cant bank and dive lol


A Bf109 what? Which version?
I'm not sure if you're saying the Bf109x can't bank and can't dive or that it can't bank-and-dive.
Your post is a little lacking in data to prove your point but diving was a stock manoevre of German pilots who'd gotten uninvited company on their tails, they would simply bunt the nose down and dive away, something the earlier Spitfires had no answer for.


----------



## Soren (Jan 14, 2009)

The std. 109 evasive maneuver was either a hard climbing turn or a quick dive with full right rudder followed by a spiral climb.


----------



## Colin1 (Jan 14, 2009)

Soren said:


> ...or a quick dive with full right rudder...


How was the dive executed?
Did they bunt the nose forward to give themselves a few seconds on the pursuing, carburetted Spitfire, or was it another way?


----------



## Soren (Jan 14, 2009)

The std. evasive maneuver in the early years was different Colin, the Emils would usually dive to take advantage of the British fighter's carburator issues. 

The std. evasive maneuvers in the F, G K series was as explained either a hard climbing turn or a quick dive with full right rudder emmidiately followed by a tight spiral climb. The quick nose over dive was to throw off the aim of the pursuer, while the tight spiral climb was to get him off your tail. The hard climbing turn was made to take advantage of the Bf-109's two strongest assets, its' excellent turn climb performance. Nearly no Allied a/c could follow a 109 in a hard climbing turn, besides maybe the Spitfire in some rare cases.


----------



## claidemore (Jan 15, 2009)

Spitfire pilots loved it when 109s tried the hard climbing spiral as an evasive maneuver.


----------



## Soren (Jan 15, 2009)

claidemore said:


> Spitfire pilots loved it when 109s tried the hard climbing spiral as an evasive maneuver.



And what is your source for that claim ?


----------



## claidemore (Jan 16, 2009)

Johnson, Closterman, Godefroy, and others. 

Here is one sample:



> S/L. H.C. Godefroy D.F.C. of 403 (RCAF) Squadron recorded in his Combat Report for 1 July 1943:
> 
> I was leading Sunrise squadron as top cover to 421 Squadron. We had turned up sun and were flying towards Abbeyville when I saw 5 aircraft climbing up in line abreast in front of me. I ordered my squadron to attack. Yellow section remained as top cover while Red and Blue sections dived down slightly below the E/A and came up line abreast dead astern. I picked the leader. *He must have seen me because he pulled up to the right and I followed him and at about 250 yards gave him a three second burst with cannon and machine guns. There were hits all around the fuselage and cockpit* and it would appear that I killed the pilot. He stayed in this turn for a short while and then spun down and crashed North East of Abbeville.
> 1 Me 109 Destroyed
> ...


----------



## Kurfürst (Jan 16, 2009)

These doesn't seem as evasive manouvers to me... in the first instance they dived down with altitude advantage, the second he was picking off a 109 attacking another Spitfire.

Ie. quite typical of the realities of air combat, real 'duels' were quite rare.


----------



## parsifal (Jan 16, 2009)

surely it must depend on the actual situation. If your attacker is above you, and you start to climb, you are going to lose kinetic energy, whilst gaining potential energy (ie altitude), whilst the 109 might do that well, even perhaps better than most (i dont know), in the short term it is probably going to be dead, because it is slowing down in the face of a serious threat. They might as well paint a sign "hit me" on their tails. 

If the 109 has the altitude advantage, and can climb faster than the allies, (something I am unconvinced of) no combat. If he dives to engage, then by implicatiuon his dive characteristics are not as good as those of his opponents (something else i am not convinced of). If the oppoennts can dive quicker they will hit the deck faster, and hit maximum speed more quickly. The German plane is generally not going to be able to close to effective range. 

All this proves is that the characteristics of the aircrarft, whilst important, are not the determining factor in the combat. they are a factor, but so too is the pilot experience, the level of surprise, and tactical situation (which usualy means altitude)


----------



## drgondog (Jan 16, 2009)

The key question is which operational scenarios must be present for the 109s excellent corkscrew climb ability making it impossible for the trailing a/c to be able to shoot (and score) effectively.

1. High closing speed for attacker - and getting too close w/o scoring?

2. Level flight in trail closer than 100 yards?

3. Both ships diving, 109 pulls into zooming corkscrew climb'

Encounter reports are subjective - and rarely state 'he beat me with a corkscrew climb'... I'm more curious about the 109 driver that consistently beats a trailing Mustang or Spitfire with this manuever to see whether it is a consistent set of tactical scenarios which enabled the 109 to get away from a six o'clock disadvantage.


----------



## claidemore (Jan 17, 2009)

Kurfürst said:


> These doesn't seem as evasive manouvers to me... in the first instance they dived down with altitude advantage, the second he was picking off a 109 attacking another Spitfire.
> 
> Ie. quite typical of the realities of air combat, real 'duels' were quite rare.



In the first report Godefroy did a low yo-yo, which brought them up at the same alt but with similar, or slightly more energy. A simple manuever which keeps the attacking pilot from overshooting. The 109, according to Godefroys report, saw him and attempted to escape by doing a climbing turn (pulled up to the right). That is about as close to the tactic Soren claims was the standard 109 evasion tactic as you will find in any combat report. 

In the second report the 109 was doing a climbing turn. Whether it was a climbing turn to attack "Red 1" (Shouldices interpretation), or an evasive manuever, we can't be sure, cause we don't have the 109 pilots testimony and he was the only one that knew. In either case, it was a climbing turn done with a pursuing Spitfire, and it resulted in fatal results for the 109. 

I had to look a long time to find a half dozen reports of 109 pilots going into a climbing turn when attacked. For those half dozen instances, there are scores of instances where the 109 simply dived away to escape. And I don't mean dived and then did a zoom climb to regain alt, they just nosed over and made a run for it, which is a sensible thing to do when you are already at a tactical disadvantage with an enemy plane on your six. Some of those diving 109s got caught if the Spitfire stuck to it long enough, eventually you run out of altitude and have to level off. But a lot of them got away too, and a successful escape manuever tends to get repeated, hence a multitude of reports of diving to escape vs a handful of reports of 109s doing a climbing turn to escape (or attempt to turn the tables and get an advantage).

I'm sorry, but I simply do not believe that a hard climbing turn was a standard 109 evasion manuever, or even a particularly effective one.


----------



## Soren (Jan 25, 2009)

Well sorry but you have presented no reliable source which contradicts it so far I'm afraid Claidemore. And seeing that the Bf-109 can turn as well as the Spitfire but can climb faster, I don't see why it wouldn't be an effective maneuver.


----------



## Glider (Jan 26, 2009)

Soren said:


> Well sorry but you have presented no reliable source which contradicts it so far I'm afraid Claidemore. And seeing that the Bf-109 can turn as well as the Spitfire but can climb faster, I don't see why it wouldn't be an effective maneuver.



I still think you must be in politics or PR.

By the way what source do you have for the comment that the standard Luftwaffe evaision against a spit was a climbing tight turn. Nice statement but nothing to support it.

I have a copy of Duel of Eagles signed by Galland and Bader. In a book on his paintings Robert Taylor explains that he had to put a lot of effort into the composition of the painting. In the end he shows the Spitfire going into a turning climb. Bader and Galland agreed to the compositon, both agreeing that it looked good, showed the 109 to be on the offensive and that the Spit was safe.


----------



## parsifal (Jan 26, 2009)

I dont profess to be any sort of expert in this, but something is nagging in the back of my head that during the Battle Of Britain standard Luftwaffe 109 tactics were to dive away, which was strange, becauise in a dive (according to this author, whom I canno remember) the 109s controls tended to freeze up and become incredibly stiff. This problem, apparently was made worse by the small and cramped cockpit of the 109. This account also said that with its direct fuel injection engine, the 109 could outclimb both the early marks of Spitfire and the Hurricane

I will try and find the details of this author.....perhaps it is an innaccurate account


----------



## Colin1 (Jan 26, 2009)

parsifal said:


> ...during the Battle Of Britain standard Luftwaffe 109tactics were to dive away, which was strange, because in a dive (according to this author, whom I cannot remember) the 109s controls tended to freeze up and become incredibly stiff
> 
> This problem, apparently was made worse by the small and cramped cockpit of the 109


the controls of all the aircraft (Bf109, Hurricane and Spitfire) would freeze up in a prolongued dive. The effectiveness of the bunt (pushing the nose down in negative g and diving away) was useful in the short term. 
If the Spitfire attempted the same manoevre, it would starve its carburated engine for a few seconds; if it attempted to circumvent this fuel starvation by rolling and then following, it would still lose precious seconds on the fleeing Bf109.

Cockpits of all combatants too, were cramped, I don't see how this would have affected the control surfaces at high speeds.


----------



## Glider (Jan 26, 2009)

It is of course correct to say that all aircraft had the controls stiffen with speed the 109 E-G was more heavily impacted than most. I don't know about the K that was very different.


----------



## Kurfürst (Jan 26, 2009)

Recommended reading:

Kurfürst - R.A.E. - Messerschmitt Me.109 Handling and Manoeuvrability Tests
Kurfrst - A.F.D.U. Tactical Trials - Me.109F aircraft

Dive recoveries do not seem too problematic as long as the operating instructions are followed: keep in mind that Me 109 manuals instructed the pilot not to trim into the dive, but keep a forward pressure on the stick.

I can't say it positively, but I believe the elevator gearing on the 109K was the same as before, altough for the late G and K it seems an alternate control gearing was also present (projected?), which would mean more limited maximum deflection angles for the elevator, and consequently, more mechanical advantage for the pilot on the stick.

On the Spitfire the elevator forces were a magnitude lighter (4 lbs/G vs 20 lbs/G on the 109s), but this appears to have been a bit too much, and created other problems, with so small stick movements the aircraft was difficult to be controlled precisely on the stall boundary, especially in combat, and there was a realistic danger of just snapping the aircraft in two by overloading it in recovery or in high-G turns. Early Spitfire manuals specifically mention this characteristic.


----------



## claidemore (Jan 26, 2009)

I've never heard any reports of a Spitfire breaking in two during a high G pullout, but there are reports of 109s losing wings doing the same. Spitfires tended to bend rather than break, I offer the PRMk XI that achieved a +.9?mach number in a dive as an example. 

Soren: 109's climbed faster? 

I believe a 109E could outclimb a Mk 1 Spitfire with 2 speed prop and 87 octane fuel. With constant speed prop and 100 octane, afaik the Spitfire had the better climb rate. 
109F vs Spitfire MkV the 109 had the advantage early on or against tropicalized MkVs with Vokes filters, but once boost was increased in the Merlin 45, the Spitfire again had the advantage. 
Spitfire Mk IX vs any 109 model, the Mk IX outclimbed them all with climb rates as high as 5700 ft/min. The highest documented climb rate for the 109K with DB605 and 1.98 ata was 4900 ft/min. 'Operational 109Ks would have had a max climb rate of 4429 ft/min @ s.l. against 18lb boosted Mk IX which had a climb rate of 4620 ft/min @ s.l.

Point is, it would be innacurate to make a broad sweeping claim that 109s climbed faster than Spitfires. Against other fighters, perhaps. 

Contradictory to your statement that the standard evasive manuever of the 109 vs the Spitfire was a steep climbing turn, it was the Spitfire pilot that could use the climbing turn to force the 109 into a flick stall and turn the tables on it.


----------



## Juha (Jan 26, 2009)

Hello Claidemore
there were some cases with early Mk Vs (IIRC), re Quill's memoirs, but the problem was temporarily corrected by adding bob weight to elevator control run while permanent solution was developed.

Juha


----------



## Juha (Jan 26, 2009)

On climb
at least Spit VIII, even with under fuselage bomb rack climbed better than 109G-8, especially after 2nd stage kicked on.

Juha


----------



## Kurfürst (Jan 26, 2009)

claidemore said:


> I've never heard any reports of a Spitfire breaking in two during a high G pullout, but there are reports of 109s losing wings doing the same. Spitfires tended to bend rather than break, I offer the PRMk XI that achieved a +.9?mach number in a dive as an example.



Oh, there are plenty, but not on certain sites.  Didn't the Spitfire had these little fences on the wing top, exactly because skin wrinkling, failurues?







But for example the Mk II manual also instructs the pilot to caution:








claidemore said:


> With constant speed prop and 100 octane, afaik the Spitfire had the better climb rate.



Do you have figures for the Mk I and E model at maximum output? I have not seen one yet. 



claidemore said:


> 109F vs Spitfire MkV the 109 had the advantage early on or against tropicalized MkVs with Vokes filters, but once boost was increased in the Merlin 45, the Spitfire again had the advantage.



I would have the check the figures, but I kinda doubt that - the boost was also increased on the 109F, in early 1942. Sadly there are no good figures for these, or for the +16 Spit Vs (the one we have is a rare and heavy 4 cannon version).



claidemore said:


> Spitfire Mk IX vs any 109 model, the Mk IX outclimbed them all with climb rates as high as 5700 ft/min.



Again, only on certain sites.  The early 109G certainly had a climb advantage over the contemporary Spitfire IXF, especially with GM-1, under which condition the Mk IX (any model) simply cannot compete. As for the 5700 ft/min climb rate, its not realistic, or comparing apples to apples: it was done with, IIRC, a _half loaded_ Spitfire IX, which had its radiator flaps _in minimum drag position_. The Germans trials assumed the radiator flaps in a moderately open position, and fully loaded aircraft. 

The comparable figures would be of course at full take off weight, and radiator flaps in the climbing position. There is one trials with a 109G-2 with the radiator flaps in minimum drag position, and it does some 4800 fpm, that is, using the 30-min rating..


----------



## claidemore (Jan 26, 2009)

Kurfurst:
Skin wrinkling and a note of caution in a Mk II pilots manual is a long way from breaking in two. 

I am well aware of your feelings about certain web sites, however, I started researching Spitfires nearly 30 years ago, long before the internet became the 'information highway'.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 26, 2009)

Kurfürst said:


> Oh, there are plenty, but not on certain sites.  Didn't the Spitfire had these little fences on the wing top, exactly because skin wrinkling, failurues?



Gotta jump in here........

Those fences were to support the skin structure above the wheel well which not only wrinkled due to aerodynamic loads, but mostly by ground crews walking over them.

Below is a Mk I wing drawing - there is no reinforcing structure in that area.


----------



## drgondog (Jan 26, 2009)

IIRC - the Spit had two flight control issues. One the wing, while long in chord, was not stiff enough per se to be immune to control reversal in high g tuening manuevers. Occasionally the wing/aileron forces would 'torse' the tip area, twisting the tip region to a High AoA and create an opposite direction roll.

The second is that some of the earlier (pre IX) Spits did los some wings in High g pullouts - but ill defined causes. The Mustang of course had similar failures until the uplock kits solved the 'gear drop/gear door open' issue for the high g pullout and the stiffer ammo door eliminating the 'local increase in wing camber' in the transonic region.

Claidmore - what do you have on the above?


----------



## claidemore (Jan 27, 2009)

I've heard of wings bending, wrinkling, and rivets popping out and I've heard of Spits that augered in. 
A Canadian pilot (Buck McNair I think) once got a Spit IX out of a (nearly)terminal dive by trimming, which the manual doesn't reccomend. I know that when they started dive bombing with MkIXs after D-Day, there were problems with wings wrinkling and bending, and they imposed limitations on the angles they should dive at. 

This is the first I've heard of possible wing structure failure in Mk Vs. I'm curious to know what form these structure failures took. My guess is wrinkling, bending and popped rivets. 

Interpret the precautions in the Spit II manual as you will. It says the wings will certainly fail if the 10g limit is "much" exceeded. How much is "much"? 

The spar on the Spitfire wing was exceptionally strong and springy. I recently watched a Youtube video of a 30mm Mk108 cannon test on a MkII Spitfire wing. A single shot blew a huge hole in the wing, but the spar was still holding the wing in place.


----------



## parsifal (Jan 27, 2009)

Ive read that the Spit was unsuitable for conversion to a 40mm conversion in the same way as the Hurricane. I believe the reason was because of the relative weakness in the wings. Any truth to that. If not, why want the Spit as successful as the Hurricane, or the Typhoon for that matter in the FB role? Is this relevant to this debate????


----------



## Glider (Jan 27, 2009)

claidemore said:


> This is the first I've heard of possible wing structure failure in Mk Vs. I'm curious to know what form these structure failures took. My guess is wrinkling, bending and popped rivets.
> 
> .



It wasn't, it was a problem with the CG moving as the planes became more heavily loaded as time went on with extra equipment. Once recognised it was soon fixed.

I am confident Kurfurst knows this, as its one of those things that keeps getting raised every so often.


----------



## parsifal (Jan 27, 2009)

i found this on the Net, from a guy called Bob Best. Its a good read, if nothing else...

"It is often stated that the Spitfire and Hurricane could both out-turn the Bf109. In his memoirs, Spitfire pilot Alan Deere claimed that it was impossible for a Bf109 to follow him in a turn, and that a hard defensive turn would quickly turn the tables on an attacking German. However, some sources claim the exact opposite, and some - but not all - German pilots also state that theirs was the better turning mount. Who, then, is right? How much difference did the aircraft flown make to the outcome of the Battle of Britain?

In making a comparison, there are several variables to consider. Altitude is one variable, as the German machine is held to be superior at higher altitudes by virtually all sources. Pilot quality is another factor, and it is this which may have made the Messerschmitt seem less maneuverable in combat for a couple of reasons.

First, many of its pilots believed it was not structurally sound. Its wings were both small and thin - so thin that prominent bulges were needed to house the breeches of its wing-mounted guns. The undercarriage was mounted on the fuselage rather than on the wing spar, the latter not being strong enough to withstand the impact of landing, which also gave it a dangerously narrow undercarriage track. The tailplane had bracing struts to cure structural problems resulting from engine vibration. The German machine looked light and dainty and its pilots simply did not trust its strength, although it was more than adequate given the light weight of the aircraft as a whole. In fact the whole design philosophy of the machine had been to make the wings as small and thin as possible to give maximum speed and maneuverability, which also dictated the overall small size of the plane to keep its weight to a minimum.

Second, when it was approaching its limits of low-speed handling, its leading edge slats automatically deployed, with a loud bang clearly audible over the engine roar! Although still having a considerable margin before stalling once the slats deployed, most pilots would back off their turn at that point, believing they were right on the verge of stalling. Many others did not even reach this point, and used the point of the slats deploying as the limit of safe performance, flying their aircraft in order to prevent their deployment at all. In this way these slats hindered their machines maneuverability, rather than being used to enhance it as was intended. This was a deficiency of the pilots, rather than of the designers, but when flown without the assistance of the slats the Bf109 would certainly be less maneuverable than its opponents.

An opposite fallacy exists with regard to the Bf109's ability to escape from the Spitfire by diving away. Early in the Battle, Spitfire pilots gave up the chase as considerable distance would be lost initially by the Spitfire having to roll before diving to prevent engine cut-out. However, as some pilots, through ignorance or frustration, followed they found that the 109 would have to pull up sooner or later, and when they did pull up it was done gently to avoid overstressing the thin wings, which was a genuine weakness of the design. The Spitfire pilots had no such fear, as their larger, thicker wings had a hefty "leaf-spring" spar which conferred enormous strength, and could simply "cut the corner" when pulling up their nose to make up their lost ground. Furthermore, diving to a lower altitude played to a strength of the Spitifre, as its performance was better at low altitude than high altitude, where the 109 had the advantages.

This is itself a factor to be considered in this comparison was the captured Bf109 that the British tested. They did not have an oxygen bottle for their captured Bf109, so tested it at only low to medium altitudes, where they thought combat would take place anyway. At these altitudes the result was indeed that both the Spitfire and Hurricane could out-turn the Bf109, and this was reported to the squadrons, whose pilots would have reacted in combat according to this perceived strength. Later, well after the Battle was over, testing at higher, "combat" altitudes showed the opposite to be true at these heights. Yet pilots in the Battle had consistently confirmed what the initial testing had told them, and claimed they were able to out-turn the German machine at all altitudes!

Finally, in assessing the merits of the machines, there is one final variable - the improvements made to the Spitfire and Hurricane between May and October, or more precisely, to their powerplant. Both started their service careers with two-blade fixed-pitch propellors being turned by an engine running on 87-octane fuel. In 1938 production of both types switched to a three-blade two-pitch propellor. To be more precise, this meant the engine was changed to a new version of the Merlin which could accomodate the new propellor, and this changeover caused some production delays. Since supplies of the newer engine were scarce, rather than convert earlier examples many of them were withdrawn from front-line service and placed in Operational Training Units, where their performance was not critical but they still served a more than useful function. With the Hurricane, however, sheer weight of numbers produced meant many two-bladers stayed in front-line squadrons, and numerous examples served in the battle for France. In fact, the majority in France were two-bladers, and having less-than-sparkling performance, these may have had something to do with the German assessment of the Hurricane as being markedly inferior. It was, but the margin was not as great as they thought.

The next change was to upgrade the propellor from a two-pitch to a variable-pitch. This change started only in early 1940 on the production lines, but there was no program put in place to upgrade existing examples. It was only when Geoffrey de Havilland sent teams out to the squadrons on his own initiative - and in hope he would later be paid for the work - that the older aircraft were all updated. These mobile conversion teams would arrive at a squadron, fit one propellor in front of the local fitters, assist with the conversion of a second, then just supervise the third. This done, enough kits were left for the whole squadron and they were on their way. This program started in July and was finished by mid-August.

The final upgrade was to the petrol. In 1940, producing 100 octane fuel was a complex process and the plant to produce it on a commercial scale did not exist in Britain. However, supplies had been imported from overseas and stockpiled from well before the war. In May 1940, these supplies were released to squadrons and the effect was startling to the pilots, as their Merlins went from 1,030 to 1,310 horsepower. This gave marked improvements to acceleration and climb rate, although the extra weight of the armour and radios then being fitted offset this slightly.

The net effect of these incremental changes was that performance of the British machines varied wildly. Within six months, the Luftwaffe went from facing the Hurricane Ia with a two-bladed wooden propellor and a Merlin II engine producing 990 hp, to facing the new Spitfire IIa with a constant-speed propellor and a 1,175 hp Merlin XII engine, while their own Bf109E's performance remained constant. Add to this that even similar aircraft vary in performance from example to example, and it is no wonder that performance comparisons are so difficult and opinions are so varied!

Finally, how an aircraft is flown in combat will differ from the way it is flown in clinical trials. This could also have resulted in a self-fulfilling prophecy. Perhaps, having been told their mounts turned tighter as a results of their own testing, RAF pilots always tried to turn inside their opponents. If they were the better pilots or if conditions were favourable they may have done so, scored a kill and lived to tell the tale of how they did it, perpetuating the myth. If not....


What can be said with certainty is this: the performances of Bf109 and Spitfire were very close, with any edge either held in any area being only minor. Even the Hurricane only lagged behind its contemporaries in speed, but compensated with far greater resilience. Man, not machine, would have made the major difference in clashes between these aircraft."


----------



## Juha (Jan 27, 2009)

Hello
IIRC in his memoirs Quill tells that after some accidents he tested high g pullout in early Mk V and the plane disintegrated IIRC during Quill's black out.
But as I wrote the problem was temporarily corrected by adding bob weight onto elevator control cables while permanent solution was developed.

External wing reinforcing stakes can be found only in some/many Mk Vs IIRC, late and earlier marks didn't have them. 

Juha


----------



## Juha (Jan 27, 2009)

On turning
IMO with equal pilots Spit usually outturned 109 but good 109 pilot could outturn average Spit pilots. Having seeing Rall grinningly telling that he did it, otherwise he would not has been sitting where he sat. Bär, during the BoB highest claiming LW NCOpilot, also had habit to fight horizontally during the BoB, not always successfully. He was once shot down into drink and IIRC once just made it to France.

Juha


----------



## Soundbreaker Welch? (Jan 27, 2009)

As I see it the Spit was a lovely plane to fly, the 109 not so much. 

It still had an impressive kill ratio though.


----------



## Glider (Jan 27, 2009)

This might be of interest

_thought I remembered reading an interview on this subject many years ago- and finally found it in a yellowed copy of Alfred Price's 'Spifire At War' (published 1974). It's germane to this discussion (as my teacher used to say) because the person being interviewed is none other than Mr Eric Newton who spent the war with the Air Accident Investigation Branch. He was still employed by them as an investigator in 1974- the time of the interview- so presumably still had the facts at his fingertips. This body was, and is, independent of the RAF.

Mr Newton was called in to investigate Spitfire crashes which could not be immediately attributed to pilot error (the same crashes which are detailed in Morgan and Shacklady). He says:

"Out of a total of 121 serious or major accidents to Spifires reported to us between the begining of 1941 and the end of the war, 68 involved structural failure in the air. Initially the most common reason for such failures, with 22 instances in 1941 and 1942, was aileron instability. The symptoms were not at all clear cut: the aircraft were usually diving at high speed when they simply fell to pieces. Only after one of the pilots had survived this traumatic experience and parachuted successfully were we able to find the cause. During his dive he saw both of his ailerons suddenly flip up, producing an extremely violent pitch- up which caused the wing to fail and the aircraft to break up. In collaboration with RAE we did a lot of tests and found that aileron up- float was made possible by stretch in the control cables; in those days tensioning was a hit or miss affair with no compensation for temperature. On our recommendation the RAF introduced a tensometer which ensured accurate tensioning of the controls; this, and the simultaneous introduction of metal surfaced ailerons ('42/'43), cured almost all the cases of aileron instability in the Spitfire.

The next most serious cause of structural failure in the Spitfire was pilots overstressing the airframe. She was extremely responsive on the controls and one must remember that in those days there was no accelerometer to tell the pilot how close he was to the limit. So it was not difficult to exceed the aircraft's 10G ultimate stress factor (what was the 109's?- Berkshire) during combat or when pulling out from a high speed dive; during the war we were able to put down 46 major accidents to this cause, though undoubtedly there were many other occasions when it happened and we did not see the wreckage. Incidentally, if there was a structural failure in the Spitfire it was almost inevitably the wing that went; the fuselage was far less likely to fail first (the same for most low wing monoplane fighters?-except the Typhoon?- Berkshire).

I once asked a very senior RAF officer why the accelerometer- technically a simple instrument- was not introduced during the war. He replied that he was sure it would have an adverse effect on the fighting spirit of the pilots (same was said re the parachute in WW1!- Berkshire).

Whether that would have been so I cannot say. But I do know that when they finally introduced the accelerometer into service in the Hunter in 1954, and began educating the pilots on structural limitations and the dangers of overstressing, accidents to this cause virtually ceased.

After structural failure the next largest category of accidents proved on investigation to have followed loss of control by the pilot (36 cases). Of these 20 occured in cloud and could be put down to pilot error; one must remember that in the rush to get pilots operational instrument training was not up to peacetime standards. A further 13 accidents were shown to have been caused by oxygen starvation; the oxygen system had been used incorrectly with the result that the pilot had passed out and the aircraft had crashed. As a result of our investigations the system was modified to make it easier to operate.

The remaining 3 accidents in the loss of control category were initiated by the pilot pulling excessive G and blacking himself out.

Engine failures and fires contributed a further 17 accidents, and the remainder could be put down under the 'miscellaneous' heading (long story here about fuel leaks and explosions on the ground- Berkshire)

As I have mentioned we investigated a total of 121 Spitfire accidents during the war. The causes did not always fit simply into neat categories mentioned above. For example, a pilot might lose control in cloud and his aircraft then broke up in the ensuing dive due to aileron instability- in that case the accident would have been listed under two categories. There were one or two accidents caused by the light- weight plastic bucket seats fitted to some batches of Spitfires. The trouble was they were not strong enough and if there was a heavy pilot who pulled a bit of G they tended to collapse- on to the elevator control runs which ran underneath. We soon had that type of seat replaced.

In the nature of my work I tend to concentrate on an aircraft's failings and ignore its good points; but how safe was the Spitfire? I think the figures speak for themselves; a total of more than 22,000 were built, and we were called in on only 130 occasions- and in not all of those was the Spitfire at fault. If one considers that she was not a simple trainer built for ease of handling, there can be no doubt that the Spifire was a remarkably safe little aircraft."

To summarise:
There were 121 Spitfire crash investigations between 1941 and May 1945 involving serious structural failure:
22 aileron instability
46 pilot overstressed airframe
20 pilot error in cloud
13 misuse of oxygen system- pilot error
3 pilot blacked out
17 engine failure/fire_


----------



## Tony Hill (Jan 28, 2009)

Glider said:


> This might be of interest




It certainly is, thank you very much for posting it. 

82 out of 121 cases involving what I would classify as Pilot error. That is not counting engine fires relating to misuse rather than "breaking" on their own!


.


----------



## Timppa (Jan 28, 2009)

Pierre Clostermann (interviewed by Alexandre Jaeg):
_"Spitfire. The Germans called her the oeillade of the peacock because of her beauty. My God but this plane was a beauty! She had feminine lines with the soft curves of a woman's hips all around a bubble of plexiglas for the canopy that sat calmly on her fuselage. In spite of her wing cannons she had the grace of a swan. There was something beyond the first impression beauty of the Spitfire that caused a certain reverence, a silence whenever she was discussed among the pilots. Even today, a generation later, the friends of my son refer to the Spitfire with reverence as if there was something mythical about her. 

AJ: We can say that between us this same romantic mythical feeling about the Spitfire still exists today. 

PC: Ah yes! Then you too realize the beauty of this magnificent plane! Today, fifty years after the Battle of Britain, the old pilots of the time show a tear of admiration whenever they set eyes on the beautiful lines of the Spitfire. For them it is as though they are remembering their pretty petite fiancée of the first aerial love of their life. Today's young pilots only dream to try it, to have one flight in the Spitfire. But beware! Just as a woman mistreated if the Spitfire is mistreated it will take vengeance and kill. I found written in the archives a piece from Corky Miller, a test pilot for Grumman, who wrote something astonishing about his flight in the Spitfire. It is as if one is reading an account of a virgin experiencing her first encounter. Corky miller writes: "There is no question that the Spitfire has one of the most beautiful silhouettes of all of the major fighters to evolve from the drawing board. Her elliptical wing and long fuselage are beautiful to watch in flight or on the ground. The long nose and the rearward elevated attitude in flight promotes much improved pilot visibility compared to other fighters where one is obliged to roll partially inverted or to zigzag in taxing in order to maintain adequate visibility. I was warned prior to my test flight that her hydraulic pumps were troublesome, problematic, and that I should not trust the brakes. As soon as I placed myself on the flight line and arrived at the moment of truth I applied throttle and I was delighted with her acceleration. She lifted off in a short 150 meters into a wind of only 20 knots. She climbed like a Japanese Zero. Any shortcomings of this plane that had been expressed to me prior to this test flight had completely vanished in my mind by now. A slow speed stall at 110 km/h revealed only a slight drop of the right wing. She responded and recovered promptly from the stall as soon as I re-applied power. Despite the busy array of instruments and switches in the cockpit that is typical of British planes I found that I did not need any compensators; everything was located where it seemed natural. Her stability on the three axes was sufficiently sensitive to delight a fighter pilot yet sufficiently stable to permit smooth flying in turbulent air. I felt that the Spitfire was a better pilot intrinsically that her pilot riders in the cockpit. Aerobatics were a delight. She responded to my thoughts apparently without any effort. Her qualities of flight were so marvelous that I proceeded on with a few reverse Cuban eights. They were no more complicated to perform in the Spitfire than to eat a piece of cake. Upside down I hung in the harness but found it quite comfortable. I never derived as much pleasure in flying any fighter as the Spitfire. She made me feel comfortable in any attitude of flight. Now I gained some understanding how the pilots in the Battle of Brittan could form up repeatedly day after day, exhausted, yet admirably succeed in their mission and in the end defeat the Luftwaffe. I confess that my Tomcats, Wildcats, Hellcats, and the Corsairs and Thunderbolt P-47s are beasts of burden compared to this thoroughbred, the Spitfire. She is analogous to an Arabian stallion. As for the landing she was no more difficult than to down a dry martini." 

AJ: That is eloquent! 

PC: Yes! And it was written by a well-known test pilot of fighter aircraft. Most pilots who flew the Spitfire remember it fondly. Presently, there are about 50 Spitfires still flying in refurbished condition. The only problem is that in some of the restored the engines are not typical of the original Merlins or Griffons; the sound of the Rolls Royce engines was always something special. Later on in the war when I transitioned from the Spitfire to the big raw Hawker Tempest Mk V, well, let me just say that I was in another universe altogether. It was similar to comparing a gazelle to a rhinoceros." _
The Hawker Tempest Page


----------



## Soundbreaker Welch? (Jan 30, 2009)

Beautiful post.


----------



## alejandro_ (Oct 6, 2009)

Going back to Bf-109E versus Spitfire MkI/II. Is there any other website showing a comparison apart from wwiiaircraftperformance? in this website the level speeds shown are for a Bf-109E1, are there graphs showing E3 and E4?


----------



## TempestMKV (Jan 5, 2010)

alejandro_ said:


> Going back to Bf-109E versus Spitfire MkI/II. Is there any other website showing a comparison apart from wwiiaircraftperformance? in this website the level speeds shown are for a Bf-109E1, are there graphs showing E3 and E4?



Kurfurst - Your resource on Messerschmitt Bf 109 performance


----------



## Cromwell (Jan 26, 2010)

Soundbreaker Welch? said:


> As I see it the Spit was a lovely plane to fly, the 109 not so much.
> 
> It still had an impressive kill ratio though.



One thing I have noticed in our discussions of aircraft A vs B is that we tend to assume they operate 1 vs 1 in making comparisons

What about the effect of numbers ? Deployment tactics ?


I know for example that the Thach Weave worked with 2 Wildcats 


Box formations of B17s were a much tougher prospect than just 'a' B17 on its own etc etc


What about the Melee of say 10 versus 10 - I have a feeling this may soon start to even the playing field in some respects and smooth out some of the advantages of any one type.


----------



## Colin1 (Jan 26, 2010)

Cromwell said:


> One thing I have noticed in our discussions of aircraft A vs B is that we tend to assume they operate 1 vs 1 in making comparisons
> 
> What about the effect of numbers ? Deployment tactics ?
> 
> ...


Because that would be exactly what you say it is - a comparison of tactics vs tactics, rather than machine vs machine. 

The 'effect of numbers' argument breaks down over the Eastern Front where the best Luftwaffe tactics simply couldn't shoot the VVS fighters down faster than they could be replaced. That only tells you that if you swarm a quality machine with enough inferior machines, you'll eventually defeat it.

1 vs 1, under idealised conditions, tells us more about the merits of the machines and what the designers got right or wrong.

I don't think there's anything wrong with your melee approach, as long as it's depicted as such because it's a different issue.


----------



## Cromwell (Jan 26, 2010)

The 'effect of numbers' argument breaks down over the Eastern Front where the best Luftwaffe tactics simply couldn't shoot the VVS fighters down faster than they could be replaced. That only tells you that if you swarm a quality machine with enough inferior machines, you'll eventually defeat it.


I thought the La-7 was pretty good ?

Maybe from 43 to 45 Russian planes were not such a pushover, even if in greater numbers, they could also hold their own 1-to-1 I believe.


----------



## NZTyphoon (Jan 26, 2010)

Kurfürst said:


> Oh, there are plenty, but not on certain sites.  Didn't the Spitfire had these little fences on the wing top, exactly because skin wrinkling, failurues?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



As I have discussed here  Wing breakage; 109 or Spitfire? #80 and 83 Using these pages as a reference gives a false impression of events.Reinforcing strips (hardly wing fences) were added above the wheelbays of a small number of Spitfires, but this was by no means representative of the majority of them. The pages from Morgan and Shacklady simply show that while there were several incidents involving Spitfires there were also several causes for them - only to be expected in a mass produced, high performance fighter which was often put under considerable strain. 

To summarise:
There were 121 Spitfire crash investigations between 1941 and May 1945 involving serious structural failure:
22 aileron instability
46 pilot overstressed airframe
20 pilot error in cloud
13 misuse of oxygen system- pilot error
3 pilot blacked out
17 engine failure/fire (Glider)

121 out of 22,000? Sure, there would have been other incidents which were not investigated, but, overall this compares very favourably with some modern aircraft (the stats for the likes of the "Century series" of aircraft such as the F-102 F-106 would make interesting reading).

BTW nobody has yet come up with any _reliable, accurate _109 accident and incident statistics. However, I have read, for example, that 1,500 109s were lost or damaged in landing or take off accidents:


> The magazine has it wrong or has misintepretated the numbers. Luftwaffe lost about 1500 Me-109's in landing gear failures. Note that German loss reports often lump destroyed and damaged (10 to 60% damaged) together. It was also a standard practise to rebuild even heavily damaged airframes. While rebuilding/refurnishing these planes were also upgraded to the latest standards and latest equipment. This means that large proportion of these damaged/destroyed planes were not complete losses, but returned to squadron service.


  Scource: 109 Myths  Lots of badly damaged Spitfires were repaired and put back into service as well, of course.

While there is some discussion about the wheel track of the 109 v the Spitfire ("Me 109 E is 1,97 meters; 109 G 2,06 meters and 109 K 2,1 meters. However - Spitifre's undercarriage width was 1,68 meters.)" a fundemental difference is that the 109's undercarriage was angled outwards, while the Spitfire's was straight; in the event of a skewed landing the sideways forces on the 109's undercarriage were often enough to collapse the leg sideways back into the wing, often breaking the complicated undercarriage pivot point. Also, as mentioned, the cg was well behind the undercarriage. The biggest weakness of the Spitfire was to nose over, often damaging the propeller through "pecking". Finally, yep, the Seafire also had real problems on carriers, but no 109 ever took off and landed on a carrier at sea, so no-one knows whether it would have experienced similar, if not far worse problems. 

In the meantime we have yet to see any stats on 109 flight accidents.


----------



## Kurfürst (Jan 27, 2010)

NZTyphoon said:


> Using these pages as a reference gives a false impression of events.


----------



## riacrato (Jan 27, 2010)

NZTyphoon said:


> Using these pages as a reference gives a false impression of events.Reinforcing strips (hardly wing fences) were added above the wheelbays of a small number of Spitfires, but this was by no means representative of the majority of them. The pages from Morgan and Shacklady simply show that while there were several incidents involving Spitfires there were also several causes for them - only to be expected in a mass produced, high performance fighter which was often put under considerable strain.


And this is different to the Me 109 wing failures how?



> To summarise:
> There were 121 Spitfire crash investigations between 1941 and May 1945 involving serious structural failure:
> 22 aileron instability
> 46 pilot overstressed airframe
> ...


I have not seen the primary source for this, so excuse me if it was posted in this thread. But does it say specifically these 121 were the only accidents, or was it simply a sample for analytic purposes. Very significant for your _121 out of 22,000_.


----------



## NZTyphoon (Jan 27, 2010)

riacrato said:


> And this is different to the Me 109 wing failures how?.


The Spitfire V test alluded to by Kurfurst was after a series of Spitfire V crashes which occured in 1942. Investigation by Jeffrey Quill, amongst others, showed that the sole reason for these crashes was bad loading on the part of RAF squadrons, which brought the cg far too far back in the fuselage. KF likes to think this report was representative for all Spitfires and has posted it several times as "evidence" that all Spitfires were inherently accident prone. Read the rest of the discussion in the threads posted in the wing breakages.

Again, Kurfurst has used the " Pilot's Notes" several times in the past as evidence that the Spitfire was all but impossible to fly, yet the only place these pages can be found is on his own website  

BTW Kurfurst has yet to post any reliable information on 109 crash statistics. 


riacrato said:


> I have not seen the primary source for this, so excuse me if it was posted in this thread. But does it say specifically these 121 were the only accidents, or was it simply a sample for analytic purposes. Very significant for your 121 out of 22,000.


This was a quote from Glider from information taken from Spitfire A Complete Fighting History. I don't have the book, and I should revise my posting to include this as a quote. I seem to recall that this was out of a chapter written by one of Britain's leading air crash experts.


----------



## riacrato (Jan 27, 2010)

NZTyphoon said:


> Again, Kurfurst has used the " Pilot's Notes" several times in the past as evidence that the Spitfire was all but impossible to fly, yet the only place these pages can be found is on his own website


So you think he fabricated them?
As for reliable information on the number of 109 crashes. That would be very hard to acquire. And without putting it into perspective (airfield conditions, crews...) not very representative of the plane. I thought I saw a comparison of the allegedly reliable and forgiving Fw190 vs the Me 109 on this forum a while ago and the difference was not very significant.


> This was a quote from Glider from information taken from Spitfire A Complete Fighting History. I don't have the book, and I should revise my posting to include this as a quote. I seem to recall that this was out of a chapter written by one of Britain's leading air crash experts.


Then maybe Glider can shed some light into this.


----------



## Cromwell (Jan 27, 2010)

Colin1 said:


> Because that would be exactly what you say it is - a comparison of tactics vs tactics, rather than machine vs machine.
> 
> The 'effect of numbers' argument breaks down over the Eastern Front where the best Luftwaffe tactics simply couldn't shoot the VVS fighters down faster than they could be replaced. That only tells you that if you swarm a quality machine with enough inferior machines, you'll eventually defeat it.
> 
> ...



I wonder if some types of plane lend themselves better to working in groups - bit like ants or bees working in organised teams / hives etc ?

They said the B17 was a better group formation plane than the Liberator for example - well I have read that here and there, although the Liberator could fly further more efficiently even if it did slip and slide etc etc


----------



## Colin1 (Jan 27, 2010)

Cromwell said:


> I wonder if some types of plane lend themselves better to working in groups - bit like ants or bees working in organised teams / hives etc ?
> 
> They said the B17 was a better group formation plane than the Liberator for example - well I have read that here and there, although the Liberator could fly further more efficiently even if it did slip and slide etc etc


For the most part, no
the pilot makes the plane; put one of the best weapons of the Korean War, the MiG-15, in the hands of a bunch of farmers (N Korean pilots) and you may as well have just taken them up in a C-130 and chucked them out without parachutes.

Good pilot training, to incorporate team tactics that constantly evolve are what make good planes better, there'd need to be a serious gulf of performance between the aircraft of a nation flying like that and an opposing nation who aren't, in order for that to hold untrue.

I'm not familiar with the flight characteristics of the B-24 but your point holds true about strategic bomber formations of the period, these would obviously benefit from collaborative formations, both from the combinational effectiveness of their collective firepower, their statistically improved chances of survival and by extension, putting more bombers over the target area. 

These are, however, reactive formations insofar as they can only sit and wait for the enemy to come to them. F-86 teams had the advantage of proactive behaviour where they could get in among the MiGs and impose the fight they wanted to fight, on them.


----------



## NZTyphoon (Jan 27, 2010)

riacrato said:


> As for reliable information on the number of 109 crashes. That would be very hard to acquire. And without putting it into perspective (airfield conditions, crews...) not very representative of the plane. I thought I saw a comparison of the allegedly reliable and forgiving Fw190 vs the Me 109 on this forum a while ago and the difference was not very significant.



Exactly the same comments could be made about statistics on Spitfire crashes. Yet we have people using very select pieces of information to imply that the Spitfire was either inherently unsafe and/or accident prone. I repeat, the selected paragraph from a report on Spitfire V crashes in 1942 is related to a very particular set of circumstances caused by poor maintenance at a squadron level. It is, in fact, evidence that Supermarine and the RAF were very actively engaged in solving the problem.

This is the page, in full, presented by Kurfurst (only the first paragraph was shown originally)





(from #83 "Wing Breakages..." et al)


NZTyphoon said:


> Quill devotes an entire chapter to longitudinal stability (pages 229-241 Murray 1983) in his book "Spitfire a Test Pilot's Story" in which he goes into detail about the problems involving several Spitfire Vs which broke up in 1942; Quill describes the problem of Spitfire Vs breaking up; he then goes on to describe the solutions which were a): to ensure that when new equipment was added that the loading was kept within limits and b):the design of bobweights, which were added to the elevator circuit, as well as the modified elevators fitted to later Spitfire marks. After the bob-weights were fitted, and the loading sorted out, the problem disappeared.
> 
> Quill
> "In general configuration the Mk I and Mk II production aeroplanes were almost identical to the prototype and so there was no problem with their stability." (231-232)
> ...



It is worth noting that the bob weights could be removed once the redesigned elevators, with larger balance weights, were introduced. The serial No's, BTW, are from Shacklady and Morgan.



riacrato said:


> So you think he fabricated them?



Just pointing out that they can only be found on Kurfurst's photobucket page (not his website, as I said earlier).  A set of Spitfire II Pilot's Notes can be found  here and they look nothing like those presented by Kurfurst. Nor do they look like any Pilot's Notes I have seen, from a variety of different RAF aircraft






Your guess is as good as mine. 8)

From Glider (edited extract from # 300)



Glider said:


> _thought I remembered reading an interview on this subject many years ago- and finally found it in a yellowed copy of Alfred Price's 'Spifire At War' (published 1974). It's germane to this discussion (as my teacher used to say) because the person being interviewed is none other than Mr Eric Newton who spent the war with the Air Accident Investigation Branch. He was still employed by them as an investigator in 1974- the time of the interview- so presumably still had the facts at his fingertips. This body was, and is, independent of the RAF.
> Mr Newton was called in to investigate Spitfire crashes which could not be immediately attributed to pilot error (the same crashes which are detailed in Morgan and Shacklady).
> 
> ....In the nature of my work I tend to concentrate on an aircraft's failings and ignore its good points; but how safe was the Spitfire? I think the figures speak for themselves; a total of more than 22,000 were built, and we were called in on only 130 occasions- and in not all of those was the Spitfire at fault. If one considers that she was not a simple trainer built for ease of handling, there can be no doubt that the Spifire was a remarkably safe little aircraft."
> ...



'Nuff said...


----------



## Glider (Jan 27, 2010)

This might be of interest. It should be noted that the words are very similar to Kurfurst's paper. He did post a link once and there were some problems with the paper he put a link to. 

Namely it was dated June 1940 but gave the instructions for firing 2 x 20mm and 4 x LMG or 8 x LMG. Also it had the details for both 87 and 100 Octane fuel. In June 1940 the were no Spit IIB and they all had 100 Octane fuel.

The one I have posted is dated July 1940 and despite titled Spit IIa and IIb only gives the instructions for firing 8 x LMG. Also the fuel is only 100 Octane. This would be correct as in July 1940 all Spit II were in the front line and only had 100 Octane.

Kurfurst's paper must date from around June 1941 when Spit II were being issued to training command who did use 87 Octane.


----------



## bada (Jan 28, 2010)

Glider said:


> This would be correct as in July 1940 all Spit II were in the front line and only had 100 Octane.
> 
> Kurfurst's paper must date from around June 1941 when Spit II were being issued to training command who did use 87 Octane.




there was only ONE spitII assigned to squadron in July40 and there still were a lot if them inJune41 assigned to front line active squadrons (not OTU's).

Statistics ongoing, will be posted when finished.


----------



## Kurfürst (Jan 28, 2010)

Glider said:


> This might be of interest. It should be noted that the words are very similar to Kurfurst's paper. He did post a link once and there were some problems with the paper he put a link to.
> 
> Namely it was dated June 1940 but gave the instructions for firing 2 x 20mm and 4 x LMG or 8 x LMG. Also it had the details for both 87 and 100 Octane fuel.



It should be noted that all the above claims by Glider are made up on his own regards the contents of the manual - it doesn't contain anything like he says, in fact he just posted exactly the same manual I have... OOPS, so much for NZT Typhoon conspiracy theories about 'forged' documents... 



Glider said:


> In June 1940 the were no Spit IIB and they all had 100 Octane fuel.



I'd like to see your evidence of that. In the last discussion of the subject, you were able to post a paper, from the spring of 1940, which said that _select_ bomber and fighter stations were to be supplied with 100 octane fuel. You claimed that this was allegadly revised at a later date . You gave several different dates of this was supposed to happened, but despite asked numerous times, you still couldn't provide a copy of the document that is supposed to say this...



> The one I have posted is dated July 1940 and despite titled Spit IIa and IIb only gives the instructions for firing 8 x LMG. Also the fuel is only 100 Octane. This would be correct as in July 1940 all Spit II were in the front line and only had 100 Octane.
> 
> Kurfurst's paper must date from around June 1941 when Spit II were being issued to training command who did use 87 Octane.



Nope, you made up the contents of my paper, and in fact I have the exact same manual you have just posted. The manual makes clear notes of the risks of overstressing the airframe due to the sensitive pitch control and limited pitch stability of the aircraft. You have also failed to provide evidence to your 100 octane claims so far.


----------



## Kurfürst (Jan 28, 2010)

NZTyphoon said:


> Yet we have people using very select pieces of information to imply that the Spitfire was either inherently unsafe and/or accident prone.



On the contrary, we have a single Spitfire fan poster, you, migrated here from wikipedia, where he was shown a Spitfire manual previously. 

He did not like the limitations and warnings laid down in that wartime manual, so he in desperation he made up a conspiracy theory that the documents are forgery, an accusation he continues to repeat, partly because that he has no source to offer to the contrary at all. His only option is to make various excuses to dismiss the presented flight manuals, British wartime reports of wing breakages caused by worsening pitch stability, and dimiss also respected works like Morgan and Shacklady who contribute two chapters to structural failure problems of the Spitfire, and two main causes being a, aileron stability problems b, the aircraft's newly developed tendency to tighten up turns on its own. 



NZTyphoon said:


> I repeat, the selected paragraph from a report on Spitfire V crashes in 1942 is related to a very particular set of circumstances caused by poor maintenance at a squadron level. It is, in fact, evidence that Supermarine and the RAF were very actively engaged in solving the problem.



Contrary to your claim, it had nothing to do with poor maintenance at a squadron level. 

Contrary to your claim, it was not limited to a 'few squadrons'. You refer to Quill having said that, which is false, and it is actually your own very liberal interpretation of his words: _"However the importance of these loading instructions* was not generally appreciated in squadrons* and in the daily round of operational activity they tended to be disregarded. ... There was thus a real chance that, as of that moment,* in almost every squadron* in the Command Spitfires were flying in a dangerous state of instability...."_

That is very far fetched compared to your claim that it only effected only a few squadrons - Quill states exactly the contrary.

Also contrary to your claims, the main cause of this defect was a faulty decision. Morgan and Shacklady details these on page 143: the RAF was well aware that the Mk V may have problems with the CoG shifting as a result of added equipment (given that it was originally meant as an interim solution, basically a Mk I with a new Merlin 45 engine). The idea of adding inertia for the Mk VA and Mk VB was already considered in June 1941. As a result of dismissive comments from pilots from operational Squadrons with this installation (compaints of inertia weights making the Spit difficult to land and reducing its manouveribility), and trials at RAE it was decided to fit the inertia weights only to the Mk Mk VI, PR IV, VI, VII and Seafire I and II. 

*However, the inertia weights were not to be fitted I, II, and *V in 1941, provided several items were to be deleted. In retrospect this was a faulty decision, and lead to several fatal accidents with the MK V involving total structural failure, and prompted another investigation in early 1942 (the paper I have also posted, which you also implied to be forgery or manipulative  ). Eventually the inertia weights were to be fitted after all, but not until several planes and pilots were lost to this design defect, that could prove fatal with the type's inherent low pitch stability characteristics.

I also suggest the readers to read the actual writing from Morgan and Shacklady which I have posted in the other thread in its full, original form, rather than the selected, cropped and 'interpreted'  version of it by our friend NZT Typhoon. The full original text can be read here: http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/polls/wing-breakage-109-spitfire-22553-5.html#post622314


----------



## Njaco (Jan 28, 2010)

May I make the suggestion that if you want to talk about "Wing breakage" everyone go to that thread or if you want to talk about "100 Octane Gas", you can go to that thread. This having the same discussion across 3 threads is ridiculus.


----------



## Glider (Jan 28, 2010)

Kurfürst said:


> It should be noted that all the above claims by Glider are made up on his own regards the contents of the manual - it doesn't contain anything like he says, in fact he just posted exactly the same manual I have... OOPS, so much for NZT Typhoon conspiracy theories about 'forged' documents...


For those who read the above you shold check out 
The link to the 100 octane thread http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/aviation/use-100-octane-fuel-raf-pt-2-a-20108-8.html and look up 
a) Posting 108 where Kurfurst wrote
_Please see the Spitfire II pilots notes from July 1940, showing similiar limitations when 87 octane fuel is used (a PDF version can be found at Zeno's Warbirds website). He then posted a hardcopy showing the Spit II Pilots notes with both 87 Octane and 100 Octane._
b) my posting 112 where I wrote
_Re the Pilots Notes we have an interesting situation. I also have a copy of the Spit II Pilots notes dated July 1940 and they only mention 100 Octane. Its odd as I would expect the Pilots notes for around May 1941 to mention both fuels as by that time they were being passed to training units that didn't have 100 Octane._
c) My Posting 116 where I wrote 
_I have been looking at the two different copies of the Pilots Notes and the one on Zenos warbirds site as quoted by Kurfurst cannot be for June 1940. I say this as in section 35 page 9 on the firing controls it gives a description of the controls for the IIA which had 8 x LMG and the IIB with 2 x 20mm and 4 x LMG. In June 1940 the IIB wasn't even a glimmer on the horizon.
The original one only mentions the LMG and doesn't refer to it as a IIA only a II which again is correct.

Its only fair to add that Zeno's is dated June 1940 so no blame can be given to Kurfurst for his confusion._

There is no doubt that 
a) Kurfurst posted the Zeno website Spitfire II as evidence,
b) that I checked it out
c) that I commented on the differences 

For Kurfurst to pretend that he didn't is clearly wrong and to then claim that I have made these claims up on my own regards is beyond the pale.


----------



## Clay_Allison (Jan 28, 2010)

Coming in late, but I have to go with the 109. More mass-production friendly, nose cannon armament, better weapons load overall.


----------



## riacrato (Jan 28, 2010)

It's a tough choice, probably the toughest when it comes to comparing WW2 fighters because there are so many models available. I have never reached a conclusion, but if I ever do that probably is the day I lose my interest in WW2 aircraft 

Me 109 has mass production and maintenance going for it which is all too often ignored. Spitfire was a tad larger from the start so it was easier to gun up and add equipment without ruining the lines of the plane. Spitfire had a bad start and a lack of importance in the mid-to-late of the war due to it not being able to escort anything deeper into Germany. Its performance-wise best examples were available pretty early but again not very significant until late '44. Me 109 starts better but has a low point in the mid of its career, which was unfortunately the time things got really hot over Europe. It catches up later but the war is almost over by then. Interestingly they both start and end the war with pretty similar performance.


----------



## Clay_Allison (Jan 28, 2010)

The Mk 108 gun does it for me. You would have to have great gunnery skills to hit with it but if you did, it would blow anything out of the sky.


----------



## riacrato (Jan 29, 2010)

I often wonder: Would it have been possible to integrate the MG151 into the wings instead of pods and how much aerodynamically better would such an installation be?

I imagine an alternative G-6 that has 3 MG151/20 (one nose and two in the wings) and no cowling guns. That would keep the fuselage as clean as the Friedrich had it. Later you could replace the engine gun with the MK108 and later maybe even the wing guns with that cannon.


----------



## Clay_Allison (Jan 29, 2010)

riacrato said:


> I often wonder: Would it have been possible to integrate the MG151 into the wings instead of pods and how much aerodynamically better would such an installation be?
> 
> I imagine an alternative G-6 that has 3 MG151/20 (one nose and two in the wings) and no cowling guns. That would keep the fuselage as clean as the Friedrich had it. Later you could replace the engine gun with the MK108 and later maybe even the wing guns with that cannon.


I don't know how that would work out with the wing radiators. Would you move the radiator to a Yak-Style underbelly design?

If you did that and at the same time changed the landing gear to wide, outward-retracting gear for better landing/takeoff handling, you might be talking about the perfect 109.


----------



## Milosh (Jan 29, 2010)

riacrato said:


> I often wonder: Would it have been possible to integrate the MG151 into the wings instead of pods and how much aerodynamically better would such an installation be?
> 
> I imagine an alternative G-6 that has 3 MG151/20 (one nose and two in the wings) and no cowling guns. That would keep the fuselage as clean as the Friedrich had it. Later you could replace the engine gun with the MK108 and later maybe even the wing guns with that cannon.



There was the Me 109K-6 with internally mounted wing MK108 cannons.


----------



## NZTyphoon (Jan 30, 2010)

riacrato said:


> I often wonder: Would it have been possible to integrate the MG151 into the wings instead of pods and how much aerodynamically better would such an installation be?
> 
> I imagine an alternative G-6 that has 3 MG151/20 (one nose and two in the wings) and no cowling guns. That would keep the fuselage as clean as the Friedrich had it. Later you could replace the engine gun with the MK108 and later maybe even the wing guns with that cannon.



Physically it would have been possible, but difficult; in the original wing (B-E), because of the wheelbays and slots, plus the mid-chord wing spar, there were only two bays which were available. When the MG 17s were added to the outer of the two bays the ammunition belts had to be fed, via a system of rollers, outboard to near the wingtips, then back around to the wingroots and back to the gun. Parts of the breech mechanism had to be accomodated by cutting a hole into the leading edge of the flap.

The MG FF was able to be squeezed in by mounting it in the outer bay with the rear part of the breech block passing through a hole in the spar and the drum magazine feeding the breech forward of the spar. When Galland had one of his 109Fs converted to carry wing mounted MG-FF/Ms it was a factory conversion job.

The MG-FF weighed 26.3 kg/58 lbs while the MG-151/15 weighed 38.1 kg/84 lbs; MG-151/20 42.5 kg/93.5. lbs. The MG-FF was 1370 mm/ 54 in long overall (does anyone know the barrel length?) while the MG-151/15 was 1917 mm/75.5 in overall with a barrel length of 1250 mm/49.25 in ; MG-151/20 1766 mm/69.6 in, barrel 1104.9 mm/43.5 in - not forgetting that barrel length was the length back to the chamber. The MK-108 was shorter than any of them - 1057 mm/41.6 in but heavier 58 kg/130 lbs

My guess would be that an unacceptably large hole would have had to have been cut into the main spar to accomodate the breech mechanism of the MG-151s, while finding room for the magazines may have been a problem without adding bulges and larger servicing hatches. Weight wasn't a problem because the gondola mounted arrangement was heavier overall. Accomodating the MK-103 must have meant some extensive internal redesign and strengthening of the wing.


----------



## NZTyphoon (Jan 30, 2010)

Clay_Allison said:


> I don't know how that would work out with the wing radiators. Would you move the radiator to a Yak-Style underbelly design?
> 
> If you did that and at the same time changed the landing gear to wide, outward-retracting gear for better landing/takeoff handling, you might be talking about the perfect 109.



The Me 209II ( V5 and V6) used Jumo 213s with annular radiators and had redesigned wings with internal armament in the wing-roots and wide-track undercarriages. The Fw 190D was the preferred choice of the Luftwaffe, because the Me 209 didn't perform as well, in spite of the development work which went into it.


----------



## Zniperguy114 (Jan 30, 2010)

To clay allison, i disagree:
Spitfire V BF-109E
Armanent-8 .50 cal. MGs Armanent-2 20mm or 30mm cannons, 2 or 4 7.92mm Mauser MGs.
Cost-12,604 pounds Cost-42,900 reich marks(about 107,250 pounds)
Number built-20,351  Number Built- 33,984 AND this number includes the Bf-109Es that were built by Spian 
and other countries after the war. Nazi Germany only built a little less than half that 
so aprox. 15,000 were built by Germany during the war.


----------



## Zniperguy114 (Jan 30, 2010)

to clay allison, i have my point. the spitfire tured out to have amanent advantage and definatly a cost advantage. Since it had cost advantage, it was definately better for mass production. i rest my case.


----------



## NZTyphoon (Jan 30, 2010)

Zniperguy114 said:


> To clay allison, i disagree:
> Spitfire V BF-109E
> Armanent-8 .50 cal. MGs Armanent-2 20mm or 30mm cannons, 2 or 4 7.92mm Mauser MGs.
> Cost-12,604 pounds (1939) Cost-42,900 reich marks(about 107,250 pounds)
> ...



Sorry, you are wrong on several counts:
Spitfire V either 8x .303 (VA - 94 built): 2 x 20mm Hispano w/60 (VB) or 120 rpg (VC), 4 x .303.

The relative value of the RM vs the Pound is also wrong; in 1940 it was (roughly) five RM to the £ so _42,900 RM = £8,580_ - making the 109 about 2/3rds the price.

The average price of building Spitfires did drop as mass production kicked in fully, but so did that of the 109.

30,573 109s were built in Germany 1938-'45, the rest were built post-war by other countries


----------



## Zniperguy114 (Jan 30, 2010)

sorry NZTyphoon, i must have had one crapy source. Thanx for clearing that up for me anyway.


----------



## NZTyphoon (Jan 30, 2010)

No problem, it happens to all of us!


----------



## Vincenzo (Jan 31, 2010)

And i can add why compare 109E with spit V, at time of spit V the 109 was F-4


----------



## Kurfürst (Feb 1, 2010)

riacrato said:


> I often wonder: Would it have been possible to integrate the MG151 into the wings instead of pods and how much aerodynamically better would such an installation be?



It was certainly possible - the 109K heavy fighter variants (ie. K-6) integrated a pair of MK 108s into the leading edge of the wing, with 45 rounds per gun. Alternatively, MG 151/20 installation was possible in the same place, with 100 rpg. Post war, the Spanish integrated a 20 mm French Hispano cannon into the wing of the 109G:







Aerodynamically speaking, integrating the guns into wings would yield only limited gains in drag. 

The gondola armament in the 109F-K came with a speed loss of -8 km/h (at SL, at around 520 km/h). The speed loss would be a bit greater of course for later, faster variants, ie. the G-14's top speed (w/o gondolas about 570 km/h at SL) loss was about 10 km/h, and the speed loss would be a bit higher on the 109K with top speed at SL at around 600 km/h, say, 12 km/h. The top speed loss would be about 50% greater at rated altitude of ca 7000m. In comparison the difference between the K-4 and the K-6 (the latter as noted with wing MK 108) was about 5 km/h at SL, and 10 km/h at rated altitude. In short we are talking about a very modest speed gain, in the order of 8 km/h, if integral wing guns were to be adopted.

As far as weight goes, there was no difference between the MG 151/20 gondola weapons, and the wing installation of a pair of MG 151/20s in the FW 190A. The weight of the two was almost exactly the same, the difference being a few kilograms.



NZTyphoon said:


> 30,573 109s were built in Germany 1938-'45, the rest were built post-war by other countries



Total production up to and including March 1945 was 33 984 Bf 109s. An unknown number, about 500-1000 were still produced in April 1945. This includes the 309 produced in Győr, Hungary (I believe the actual number of Győrs production was twice as high, so this may only include the ones handed over to the LW according to the license agreement), the rest were in German factories, principially by three main factories of Messerschmitt AG at Regensburg, W.N.F. in Wienerneustadt, and Erla Maschinenwerke in Leipzig. 1860 of these were produced before 1939. The post war production was in fact quite marginal, a couple of dozen in both Spain and by the Czech, and let us recall that the Spanish 'production' was in effect just fitting and modifying the existing Bf 109G-2 airframes they received from German production, sans engines, guns and other equipment.


----------



## parsifal (Feb 1, 2010)

In terms of the BoB I dont think there was much qualitative difference bwtween the two aircraft. The Germans held the advantage in pilot experience, and initially had the advantage in tactical handling. Later the Luftwaffe lost way in its target priorities, and made errors in the tactical employment of its fighters as well, and never did grasp the importance of massed attacks and concentration of effort.

For all that, the Luftwaffe didnt really lose the Battle, they just didnt win. By staying in the battle, and not getting itself destroyed the RAF can claim victory, whereas the Luftwaffe cannot. Does this in any way reflect badly on the Me109e? Possibly. It lacked the range and endurance to provide effective escort for the bombers, which played a really big role in the demise of the overall force.

I am reading a book at the moment called "1941 Part II - The Blitz to the non-stop offensive". Its written by a man called John Foreman. It gives a daily account of the Fighting over western europe in that critical year, and details how the RAF managed to gain control of the skies over France in 1941, gradually forcing the Luftwaffe to yield ground and airspace as time went by. But whilst the RAF gradually won control of the airspace, the Luftwaffe remained in the battle, despite being heavily outnumbered (later on at least). It was a story of dogged determination and relentless pressure on the Germans, that eventually yielded dividends for the allies. The Spitfire figures prominantly in those daylight battles


----------



## Waynos (Feb 1, 2010)

I have seen the statement " the Luftwaffe didnt really lose the Battle, they just didnt win" many times from many sources in the past, so I'm not attacking your post, which I though was very good, but it does raise a question with me.

In what sense did the Luftwaffe not lose the BoB? An attacking force came over with the intent of smashing Britains defences and failed. If William the conquerors army had returned to Normandy in 1066 there would be no question that Harolds forces had won the battle, they didn't and there is equally no doubt who really won.

As the RAF beat off the attacker and finished the battle in a stronger position than they had started it, unlike the Luftwaffe, I don't think there is any doubt as to who won that particular battle. My opinion of course.


----------



## Glider (Feb 1, 2010)

I must agree that the Luftwaffe attempted to achieve certain aims and failed so from that perspective Germany lost the battle. Where I suspect people go wrong is blaming it on the failings of the 109 which is very unfair. The plane did what it was designed to do, it wasn't designed as a long range fighter and to try to use it as such and then depend on it, was asking for trouble. To then not even prepare for the use of drop tanks despite the lessons of the Spanish Civil War was almost criminal folly.
It wasn't the pilots or even the aircraft, it was the leadership who gave their aircrews what was an impossible task with the tools they had. That however is normally the way in any battle, land sea or air.


----------



## Waynos (Feb 1, 2010)

I agree there, I don't think the Luftwaffes defeat in the BoB was anything to do with the 109. I'm not sure what range has to do with it though, All the targets that needed to be attacked could be reached by the 109, and after 5 mins in a dogfight a pilot was knackered anyway (not to mention about 7 secs firing time of cannon ammo).

I think the real reason for the defeat would take the thread off topic, but I think the 109 pilots and planes performed as well as their leadership allowed them to during the battle and carry no blame at all for the loss, except maybe for underestimating the opposition slightly, but dont all fighter pilots do that?.

People seem to view the outcome of the BoB as a total shock, but forget that the LW was facing the best prepared fighter defence screen in the world and also there first opponent that they could'nt simply drive into on the ground.


----------



## parsifal (Feb 1, 2010)

The ability to loiter over a target is very important. Its not an issue of range so much as endurance. The Me 109s simply could not hang around lonmg enough to protect the bombers effectively, from what Ive read. If they could loiter they could double back, dive, climb, manouvre, and concentrate a whole lot bette than they could with effecctively only a 120 mile combat radius.

The Spitfire suffered the same restrictions in terms of its range, so it is unfair to criticise the 109 without at least acknowledging that the Brits had similar problems.

If the Germans had been differently equipped, say with an aircraft like the zero, I think they probably would have won the battle. They could have continued their harassment of the British fighter forces long after the battle around the bombers was over, or long before the bombers arrived into the battle area, and given the german fighters more time to do what they were there to do....shoot down Fighter Commnad, as a secondary objective, minimise the losses to their own bombers.


----------



## Waynos (Feb 1, 2010)

But how long did Mustangs hang around over Germany when they were escorting allied bomber raids? Didn't they just escort them out and back too, engaging enemy fighters while the bombers were over the target area?

A pet theory of mine as to something the LW 'could have done better' would be low and fast fighter bomber raids by Bf 110, escorted by 109's, concentrated against the Chain Home stations rather than the largely ineffectual and intermittent Stuka raids they did launch. KInock that out and FC's response is in disarray, demading standing patrols in place of scrambles and leading to fatigue and being forced to commit more squadrons to the battle while others don't get rested.


----------



## Glider (Feb 1, 2010)

The problem wasn't with the Ju87 or its payload, the problem was the design of the masts. Basically these were large metal structures built with steel girders. When a bomb went off near by the blast had little or no effect as the blast was deflected between the structures with almost no damge to the radar itself.
A low level strike would have had the same troubles and losses were likely to have been as high if not higher as the AA defences were pretty good and a low flying aircraft a decent target.


----------



## Waynos (Feb 1, 2010)

If the problem wasn't the Ju-87 how come it is the only German combat type that was withdrawn from the battle? I feel a fast low flying raider like the Bf 110 could have approached under the radar screen and given little warning, its higher performance added to that would have reduced its vulnerability. The Ju 87 was a problem only because it approached at a nice detectable altitude at a stupidly low speed. its load and accuracy was fine.

One raid put Ventnor out of action briefly but was never followed up, possibly due to the high losses. My point is mainly in the way the attacks on the Radar Stations were carried out, but I think a 'Mossie-esque' approach by Bf-110s would also be a more survivable way of doing it for the sake of the crews, who can then do it again, and again instead of swimming to captivity if they are lucky.

I don't pretend this makes them invulnerable or is fool proof, but I just feel it would have been better than what was actually done.


----------



## Glider (Feb 1, 2010)

You certainly could be right but at the end of the day, the masts would still be standing unless you were very lucky.


----------



## Clay_Allison (Feb 1, 2010)

Waynos said:


> But how long did Mustangs hang around over Germany when they were escorting allied bomber raids? Didn't they just escort them out and back too, engaging enemy fighters while the bombers were over the target area?
> 
> A pet theory of mine as to something the LW 'could have done better' would be low and fast fighter bomber raids by Bf 110, escorted by 109's, concentrated against the Chain Home stations rather than the largely ineffectual and intermittent Stuka raids they did launch. KInock that out and FC's response is in disarray, demading standing patrols in place of scrambles and leading to fatigue and being forced to commit more squadrons to the battle while others don't get rested.



Mustangs spread out and hunted quite a bit if I understand the way the missions ran correctly. I believe escort missions had different fighter groups relaying the escort duty.


----------



## Kurfürst (Feb 1, 2010)

Glider said:


> To then not even prepare for the use of drop tanks despite the lessons of the Spanish Civil War was almost criminal folly.



The E-7 was introduced in late August and was capable of carrying a 300 liter droptank, boosting range to 1300 or so km. It just didnt become widespread overnight. By late October the older models were retrofitted for use of droptanks, so I guess it the criticism is somewhat unfair, as they made the correct measures (obviously it took some time developing and producing it, so probably preceedes the Battle). Nevertheless, the range issue was serious, no doubt.


----------



## Kurfürst (Feb 1, 2010)

Waynos said:


> If the problem wasn't the Ju-87 how come it is the only German combat type that was withdrawn from the battle?



It wasn't withdrawn. Stukas continued to fly anti shipping missions and occasional raids on airfields until the end of the Battle. They simply didn't have the range for deeper penetrations, ie. London, and escorting them amongst level bombers would have create tactical difficulties.


----------



## Waynos (Feb 1, 2010)

Kurfürst said:


> It wasn't withdrawn. Stukas continued to fly anti shipping missions and occasional raids on airfields until the end of the Battle. They simply didn't have the range for deeper penetrations, ie. London, and escorting them amongst level bombers would have create tactical difficulties.



Occasional, as in not very often and only when there were no defenders? By stopping using Ju 87's for attacking important coastal targets, ie the radar stations, is a de facto withdrawal, just like we did with the Defiant. It wasn't actually removed, they were just sent to defend Cornwall


----------



## Kurfürst (Feb 1, 2010)

Its a matter of how you look at it, and you can see it as both a withdrawal or sending them to other duties. I think a lot prestige/propaganda is involved which term people use, but its worth keeping in mind that Stukas first and foremost "attended" to the coastal shipping during the whole Battle. IIRC they were only employed once or twice against airfields and radar stations, which sometimes worked spendidly, at other times with heavy losses - but thats fairly typical to any other aircraft in the Battle, and owes a lot more to the given tactical situation then the tecnical aspects of the aircraft. In the end the Stukas were grouped near Calais and went back primarly what they did the best, attack shipping. And occasional yes, do ponder about the fact that the early Stuka B had very short range (about as much or less as the 109E), and only limited bombload and this was an important factor in that it did not take part in the late August / September phase of the Battle, where targets were further away and required pure tonnage, rather then precision.

Its just employing your tools the way it suits them the best. Defiants were for example well suited for night fighter work, much better than Spits or Hurris.


----------



## Glider (Feb 1, 2010)

Kurfürst said:


> The E-7 was introduced in late August and was capable of carrying a 300 liter droptank, boosting range to 1300 or so km. It just didnt become widespread overnight. By late October the older models were retrofitted for use of droptanks, so I guess it the criticism is somewhat unfair, as they made the correct measures (obviously it took some time developing and producing it, so probably preceedes the Battle). Nevertheless, the range issue was serious, no doubt.



I was aware of this, but the folly was that knowing the role that the 109 was going to undertake that the Luftwaffe went into battle without drop tanks. Having used them in the Spanish Civil War they knew how important drop tanks were.
For the BOB they were too little too late.


----------



## Waynos (Feb 2, 2010)

Fair point well made Kurfurst. If anything that brings me back to my original point that the LW erred in not maintaining the radar stations as a prime target throughout the battle.Raids by Bf110's against the Chain Home network as the main bomber force attacked the airfields/London would wreak havoc I believe. Its not just about the masts either. the control rooms were mainly above ground and it was very difficult to direct the fighter defences when you were being bombed. One station had its service interrupted when a lucky bomb hit a nearby road and severed the main power line. I just find it odd that this vital part of the defence chain was allowed a relatively easy battle.


----------



## Milosh (Feb 3, 2010)

Some 109E-1. E-3 data


----------



## Vincenzo (Feb 3, 2010)

go here for E-3 data Kurfrst - Baubeschreibung fr das Flugzeugmuster Messerschmitt Me 109 mit DB 601.


----------



## Milosh (Feb 3, 2010)

Vincenzo said:


> go here for E-3 data Kurfrst - Baubeschreibung fr das Flugzeugmuster Messerschmitt Me 109 mit DB 601.



Yes Vincenzo but the table is in Imperial and I think easier to read/understand.

Something seems wrong with Kururst's '1300km or so' (810mi). The best range for the E-3 on 400ltr is 413mi. The extra 300ltr in the drop tank should give another 308mi. This gives a total of 721mi (1160km), almost 90mi (55mi) short of the 810mi.


----------



## Vincenzo (Feb 3, 2010)

Milosh said:


> Yes Vincenzo but the table is in Imperial and I think easier to read/understand.
> 
> Something seems wrong with Kururst's '1300km or so' (810mi). The best range for the E-3 on 400ltr is 413mi. The extra 300ltr in the drop tank should give another 308mi. This gives a total of 721mi (1160km), almost 90mi (55mi) short of the 810mi.



metric it's a standard near in all the world...

maybe but saw the error in your handbook on speed maybe there are error also in range


----------



## Milosh (Feb 3, 2010)

Vincenzo said:


> metric it's a standard near in all the world...
> 
> maybe but saw the error in your handbook on speed maybe there are error also in range



Let me rephrase > laid out in a table is easier to understand. Imperial for those that are more familiar with Imperial.

What would the error? Are you confusing max speed with cruise speed?


----------



## Kurfürst (Feb 4, 2010)

Milosh said:


> Yes Vincenzo but the table is in Imperial and I think easier to read/understand.
> 
> Something seems wrong with Kururst's '1300km or so' (810mi). The best range for the E-3 on 400ltr is 413mi. The extra 300ltr in the drop tank should give another 308mi. This gives a total of 721mi (1160km), almost 90mi (55mi) short of the 810mi.



Given that the figures come from the actual World War II German range table for the 109E, I'd say the problem is likely to be in your thinking.

More fuel carried will yield better _avarage_ miles-per-gallon in an aircraft, given that a larger percantage will be burned under ideal conditions for max range, ie. cruise at economic speed and power at proper altitude, and a smaller percentage will be used up uneconomically take off and climb. Carrying double the fuel does not mean that the aircraft will have to climb to altitude twice as well...


----------



## Vincenzo (Feb 4, 2010)

Milosh said:


> What would the error? Are you confusing max speed with cruise speed?



no max speed of E-3 it's 570 km/h at 5 km (or 572 a 4.8) so in old british 354 at 16404 (or 355 at 15748)


----------



## Kurfürst (Feb 5, 2010)

This should be of interest to this thread, taken from a British report of 1943:


----------



## NZTyphoon (Feb 6, 2010)

This was the time (according to Morgan and Shacklady) when Supermarine introduced flush riveting to all Spitfires, including Mk IX and XIIs plus the last of the Spitfire Vs, as well as new, higher quality paints. Another example of a report describing poor surface finish on a Spitfire was that of N3297, the Mk III prototype re-engined with a Merlin 61 to become a Mk IX prototype:


> The airframe was in very poor condition and deteriorated appreciably during the progress of the tests. In several places the paint had flaked away from the skin; this was particularly noticable in the case of the ailerons, wher large patches had broken off, leaving an uneveness in the surface of 1?16" or more. The panels of the engine cowling too were badly fitting, there being gaps of 1/8 " to 1/4" in some of the joints...


(Price, The Spitfire Story 2002, p. 128 )

What the excerpt (why not present the whole report?) does not say is how old/how much service the Spitfires had seen, whether the airframes had been repaired etc. Without that sort of detail there is really nothing surprising about aircraft with poor surface finish not meeting performance specs.


----------



## Cromwell (Feb 7, 2010)

NZTyphoon said:


> This was the time (according to Morgan and Shacklady) when Supermarine introduced flush riveting to all Spitfires, including Mk IX and XIIs plus the last of the Spitfire Vs, as well as new, higher quality paints. Another example of a report describing poor surface finish on a Spitfire was that of N3297, the Mk III prototype re-engined with a Merlin 61 to become a Mk IX prototype:
> 
> (Price, The Spitfire Story 2002, p. 128 )
> 
> What the excerpt (why not present the whole report?) does not say is how old/how much service the Spitfires had seen, whether the airframes had been repaired etc. Without that sort of detail there is really nothing surprising about aircraft with poor surface finish not meeting performance specs.



I think with the influx of impressed or voluntary labour into factories during the war - plus the need for rapid turnround it is hardly surprising quality may have dropped off somewhat.


----------



## pbfoot (Feb 7, 2010)

The quality of the fit and finish of normal spits was not to the same standard as those Mk's used for PRU or Recce


----------



## NZTyphoon (Feb 7, 2010)

pbfoot said:


> The quality of the fit and finish of normal spits was not to the same standard as those Mk's used for PRU or Recce



This would definitely be true of the early PR Spitfires, where all panel lines were filled, rubbed smooth and coats of smooth "camoutint" paint applied. [The PR Spits were the first in the line to use the new egshell finish; on the fighters the matt finish upper surface colours were still being used into 1941. The first colour to be manufactured in the eggshell finish for universal use was Sky - sometimes referred to as Sky Type S).] Nor did the early PR Spitfires have aerial masts and fuselage to tail IFF aerials. Of course none of the PR aircraft, with the exception of the PR Mk I Type G (later Mk VII) or Mk XIII, had gun ports in the wing leading edge, ejector chutes, cannon bulges etc, all of which shaved mph off the top speed of the fighters.

From 1943 all Spitfires used flush riveting on the fuselage (this can be seen in the fourth and fifth photos:  Spitfire IX/XI/XVI family fuselage details ), leading to a much smoother finish on all surfaces. Once all Spitfires started being painted with eggshell finish paints and more attention was paid to the fit and finish of all components, the gap between the PR types and fighters narrowed.

BTW; also note the finish of the early 611 Sqn Spitfire in the last photo, one of a series taken in 1942 - this aircraft was immaculate with a well polished airframe, and was typical of all aircraft in the unit. This was rather different from the Spitfires mentioned in the report...


----------



## wwii:)aircraft (Feb 11, 2010)

Both fighters fought during the entire war and both were still advance enough to compete with later fighters, but out of the two, the spitfire was the superior one. The spitfire was a very easy plane to fly and to land, unlike the 109, it had better cockpit visibility, and it almost always had a better armament, although it is arguable that the 109G's and K's 30mm cannons were stronger. 

Another thing is that every spitfire was equal or superior to the 109s they were fighting especially the Spitfire ix vs the 109G. Probably the only place were the spitfire might have not been superior was with the 109F-4/z vs spitfire Vc, and 109k14 vs spitfire xiv, 21, or 24.


----------



## GTFOX (Jan 3, 2011)

Good discussion here.

Seems the empirical evidence of a 4 to 1 kill ratio Spits to 109 indicate the better plane. The German's respect for it as well speaks volumes. I have read articles that the Germans borrowed heavily from British designs in early 30's, when both began designs. 

Still, I am confused as to what performance characteristics are accurate. I have seen articles stating the spits outperformed 109's at higher altitudes, but many here state the opposite. Which is correct? As that is the key. Radar allowed them time to get high and ready before engaging. 

First both planes , due to limits of fuel, are more suited for defense than escort. Ad to Spit, just as after Spits started escorting over Europe, they started taking losses. So it is how you use the plane that is important. Many of the 109's lost were simply due to running out of fuel. Radar and Ultra would also allow the Brits to know where that plane came from and where it is going, so it's exact fuel situation which could give the RAF pilots an advantage in how and when to attack, knowing that the 109 pilot must balance that into his overall flight plan. Undoubtedly many would have to leave the bombers late into the sortie to get home. Leaving the bombers as slow ducks for hurricanes and 2nd wave spits to pick off.

In the BoB, the Brits floated tethered balloons that forced level bombers to fly higher and decreased their accuracy. This would lead me to think the spit was the better craft at high altitudes. Doubtful fighter command would try to force bombers up if it worked against the spit's optimum altitude, as lower altitudes also increased accuracy and effectiveness of ground AAA.

Also the spits were only used vs the 109's. Hurricanes went after bombers. A huge mismatch that results in Hurricanes having larger kill numbers. Canes' had good armor and could usually survive light flak from 109's. So a 109 would need to spend a relatively longer time engaging a hurricane and expend more ammo so that the spits could get in behind him. The limited rear view of the 109 was crucial as a the pilot will lose track of what's behind him. The hurricane pilot would turn towards the closing spit to expose the 109's side

Not helping the German assault was the bombers were only 2 engined, slow, and generally poorly designed for intense fighter challenge. Making the 109's job difficult as that fuel limitation is dictated by the flight times of the bombers.

Also, fighter command, knowing that a few spits could cause serious havoc to bomber/109 groups could hold back planes on the ground where repairs could be made more completely.

I would not say that either side had a significant advantage in quality of pilots. But obviously the Brits were fighting for their very lives and country and their courage was remarkable. German pilots are being asked to perform a task that even Hitler himself really did not want to undertake. I cannot think most of their pilots had that edge a fighter pilot needs to have compared to the Brits.


----------



## parsifal (Mar 20, 2011)

Gtfox

welcome to the forum, and good first post.

Just remember that this is a partisan audience especially in issues like this thread. You are going to get divergence of views, misuse or misinterpretation of reports and other facts, and downright baloney. You have to sift through the mountains of information and decide what you think is true, and what isnt. a good rule of thumb, if the claim is inconsistent with known history, it should not be relied upon unless it is solidly based on reliable material


----------



## Shortround6 (Mar 20, 2011)

GTFOX said:


> Still, I am confused as to what performance characteristics are accurate. I have seen articles stating the spits outperformed 109's at higher altitudes, but many here state the opposite. Which is correct? As that is the key. Radar allowed them time to get high and ready before engaging.



You have to be very careful as to EXACTLY which Spitfire is being compared to which 109. For example the there were three rather different MK I Spitfires depending on which propeller was fitted with further variations in weight depending on armor and selfsealing tanks. Also the difference between 87 octane fuel and 100 octane fuel. Now by the Battle of Britain the 100 octane was standard, the early 2 blade fixed pitch propeller was history and most of not all service aircraft had armor and selfsealing tanks but the possibility of confusion between "published" performance figures and combat results can get rather extreme. Another factor in trying to compare aircraft, especially at high altitude is that there are really three "Ceilings" a plane has if not four. 
1. Absolute ceiling. Usually not listed, it is the highest altitude an airplane can fly straight and level. It is a pretty useless figure as it varies from plane to plane of the same type because of individual differences in engines airframes, finish ,etc. The plane cannot turn, it cannot climb, and it can't even slow down without loosing altitude. 
2. Service ceiling. Widely quoted but again not a whole lot of use except as a reference point. In most air forces or specifications it is the altitude at which a plane can still climb at 100 feet per minute. It is subject to the same variations from plane to plane as the Absolute ceiling. 
3. combat ceiling, sometimes found in specifications. this was the altitude at which the using air force thought the plane could still reasonably fight at, usually defined by a climb rate of 500fpm or 1000fpm or what the using air force though was needed. Not usually applied to bombers. This altitude was actually a bit more consistent from plane to plane a 2-5% difference in performance didn't have quite the impact it did on the altitude specifications. 
4. Formation ceiling. This maybe one I made up  the altitude at which a group of airplanes of the same type can reasonably be expected to keep formation given the expected 2-5% (or what ever) variation in their performance. The larger the formation the more they are held back by the worst performing plane in the group. 

As an example of the differences between the the two different three bladed propellers and the difference between service ceiling and effective or combat ceiling see: Spitfire Mk I Performance Testing

1st and 3rd test charts. While the service ceiling changed by an estimated 300ft the altitude at which the plane could climb at 1000fpm changed by at least 3,000ft if not 4,000ft and the altitude at which it could climb at 500fpm changed by 2,000-3,000ft. Please note that the time to climb from 25,000ft to 30,000ft changed from about 6.8 minutes to 5.4 minutes. Also please note that the climb performance was at the book recommended climb rpm of 2600rpm instead of the full throttle 3000rpm which might make a difference in actual combat  

Climb performance is a rough, very rough, indicator of how much surplus energy a plane has for maneuvering. Any flight except straight and level (and diving) is going to increase drag and slow the plane down. Comparing climb rates at a certain altitude can give an idea of how well a plane might resist slowing down or be able to recover after slowing down. It does not take into account the drag of the aircraft, different aircraft even if they have close to the same drag in level flight may have different drag while pulling the same "G" turn at the same speed. 

Another point if you are not aware of it already.
100 octane fuel did nothing for the performance of the British planes OVER about 17,000ft in the BoB. 



GTFOX said:


> In the BoB, the Brits floated tethered balloons that forced level bombers to fly higher and decreased their accuracy. This would lead me to think the spit was the better craft at high altitudes. Doubtful fighter command would try to force bombers up if it worked against the spit's optimum altitude, as lower altitudes also increased accuracy and effectiveness of ground AAA.



I guess that depends on what is meant by low altitude and high altitude. Rather vague terms that changed over time and location. what Height were the Balloons deployed? Wikipedia says 5000ft (I obviously would welcome another source) which is still in the low altitude range for fighters. The British had little in the way of small rapid fire AA guns at the time (20-40mm) and the bigger stuff 3in,3.7in and 4.5 in don't work very well that low. they have trouble swinging fast enough to track the low flying targets, their rate of fire is low so that they can only get off a few shots per engagement. Their fire control (predictors and fuse setters) need more time to work. The barrage balloons helped force the bombers up to the heights where the heavy AA was effective although the heavies didn't get really effective until 10,000ft or so.


----------



## Koopernic (May 25, 2014)

loomaluftwaffe said:


> why did they have all that .30cal ammo anyways?



Hi loomaluftwaffe

The issue wasn't just ammunition production but also the production of sufficient barrels, it takes tooling to do that.

RAF bomber command operated mainly at night and for the purpose of defending against an Luftwaffe Ju 88 or Me 110 night fighter the 0.303 was adequate. Such night fighters do not make high speed firing passes, nor could they be seen from far off enough to take advantage of the 0.5 inch guns greater range. If a German night fighter was spotted by the bomber and received defensive fire experienced night fighter pilots broke of the attack. It was better to live to kill another day as it were: most bombers were simply shot down unawares so it was better not to risk being injured by the bomber as the odds were in the night fighters favor that the next intercept would be undetected.

Consider also the higher fire rate of the 0.303, the fact that four could be carried in a rear turret. I've seen the vibration of 0.5 inch guns firing, they couldn't have been very accurate.

Almost from the first time that the Germans used night fighter radar about 1941 they experimented with blind fire radar devices that could be used to aim and fire the guns. There was a series of them called "Pauke", even in their earlier forms with lobe switching antenna there was a fair degree of accuracy. It was hoped to perfect the device and deploy it in large numbers. It became a very serious device when the first microwave radars were to come out.

The FuG 244 or FuG 245 radar when fitted with the "oberon" device became "Pauke". The radar was locked onto the target, the Oberon computer computed a firing solution and injected this into the Patin autopilot and fired the guns. A large unguided rocket called R100 fitted with a proximity fuse could also be fired by the system instead of the guns. These devices never saw service but didn't miss the war by much.

With this kind of system there is little point in having 0.303, 0.5 or even 20mm guns as the missile out ranges them all.

Towards the end of the war the RAF started deploying a radar device called 'village inn' that could be used to aim the rear turret of 4 engine bombers via a reflector site that used the cathode ray tube, those turrets often had 0.5 inch brownings and there was some work in disposing of the tail turret guns entirely, simply having the position manned, and using remote controlled ventral and tail turrets with twin 20mm guns.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 25, 2014)

Koopernic said:


> Consider also the higher fire rate of the 0.303, the fact that four could be carried in a rear turret. I've seen the vibration of 0.5 inch guns firing, they couldn't have been very accurate.


Where have you seen them fire from? A turret? Gun camera film? I think the accuracy of the 0.5 has been documented previously on this forum.


----------



## nuuumannn (May 26, 2014)

> U have to take into account all the different versions and marks, so be specific.... Name ur version/mark and have fun....



Spitfire, Old Boy, goes without saying.  Mk.XIV; “The Spitfire XIV is superior to the Bf 109G in every respect.” taken from Air Fighting Development Unit report No.117 dated 16 June 1944.


----------



## GrauGeist (May 26, 2014)

Might be a little late to mention that Looma hasn't been online since 2011...


----------



## amitavakala (Jul 22, 2014)

I only played IL2 Sturmovik, and I flied all the fighters there. it is 109 G2 which is my favourite. As per my experience in the game the only two other planes which were pure dog fighter at any altitudes are Spitfire and Macchi C.202. In that sense Mustang was not a pure dog fighter although it was a very good fighter. Russian La and Yaks were extremely good dog fighters but at low altitudes. Now in 109 G2 vs Spitfire MK.IX fight if G2 restricts itself to slat opening then MK.IX will beat 109 G2. If G2 goes beyond slat opening gradually G2 gains advantage in turn fight. The advantage with G2 was that it could still able to hold the altitude at any height with slat opening with a vicious turn which later models could not do (at higher altitude). Here G2s extreme low stall speed comes into action. I feel the only few things which have better stall speed than G2 are Zeppelins and gas balloons.


----------

