# Spit or ME ?? Rumors revealed and busted !



## Soren (Feb 16, 2005)

The Spitfire achieved fame in the Battle of Britain. It was seen as the aircraft that had saved Great Britain from Invasion. In fact it was the Hurricane that bore the brunt of the Battle of Britain, equipping 32 Squadrons to the Spitfire`s 19.

However it was the Spitfire that gained the respect of the Luftwaffe, a force accustomed to having it`s own way.

The Spitfire and Hurricane were, in truth, a great team. The Spitfire had the performance and speed to take on the German fighters, and it's widely spaced "blunderbuss" machine-guns were ideal for fighter-v-fighter dogfights. The rugged, reliable Hurricane was available in numbers that ensured the R.A.F. did not lose a battle of attrition. It's closely grouped machine-guns were good for bringing down German bombers.

What of the Spitfire`s opponent the Messerschmitt 109? Which was the better aeroplane? It is now agreed that the average 109 was some 10 mph faster than the average Spitfire in 1940. Also in theory the 109 was more manoeuvrable, having a tighter turning circle. It also had the advantage of a direct fuel-injection system for it's engine, which meant it could do negative G manoeuvres that a Spitfire would have difficulty following. (See the section on the Merlin engine) The 109 was also equipped with cannon armament. Most armchair aviators would conclude that the Messerschmitt was the better design. However the Spitfire is remembered as the Victor, and rightly so......

SPEED
SPITFIRE= 345 MPH. Bf 109 = 354 MPH.

You will no doubt see maximum speeds for the Spitfire quoted as being around 365 mph, this is without much of the equipment on board a Spitfire would have carried into battle in 1940. Foremost amongst the extra weight was a sheet of armoured metal behind the pilot. Ask most Spitfire pilots what they would prefer, the armour or a few extra mph and most would plump for the armour. With armour fitted it was rare for the pilot of a Spitfire to be killed outright by the machine-guns or low-velocity cannons of a 109. With his Spitfire shot to bits around him the Spitfire pilot could bale out or crash-land to fight another day. His biggest danger was his fuel tank catching fire or exploding. There was no problem with losing a Spitfire, fighter production had been pushed to new heights by Lord Beaverbrook, Churchill`s Minister for Aircraft Production. A Spitfire pilot would find a new aircraft waiting for him back at his airfield. It was pilots the British were short of in 1940, not aircraft.

MANOEUVRABILITY
SPITFIRE TURNING DIAMETER = 1,760 feet. BF 109 TURNING DIAMETER = 1,500 ft. 
A Spitfire pilot will tell you the Spit could turn inside the 109. A Messerschmitt pilot will tell you the 109 could turn inside the Spitfire! The truth is that both designs were capable of turning circles that would cause the pilot to "black-out" as the blood drained from the head. The pilot who could force himself to the limits without losing consciousness would emerge the victor from a turning battle, and the Spitfire pilots had supreme faith in their machine. The British aeronautical press told them that the wings came off the 109 in a dive or in tight turns, untrue but based on some early wing failures in the 109`s predecessor the Bf108.

However the 109 had a distinct advantage in manoeuvrability and turning circle at low speeds. The design of the 109, with it's leading edge slats gave a lower stalling speed. The 109 was very forgiving if stalled, with no tendency for a stall to develop into an uncontrollable spin, something that the Spitfire was prone to. Thus a Messerschmitt pilot was more at home at low speeds than his British counterpart.

Both the Spitfire and Messerschmitt became harder to control at high speeds, with greater and greater strength needed on the control column as the speed increased. However the problem was much worse in the Messerschmitt and in the high speed fights that developed in the Battle of Britain the Spitfire had the advantage. It was found that the fabric covered ailerons of the Spitfire caused the increase in force needed on the control column due to the bulging of the fabric at high speed. When metal covered ailerons were fitted the handling of the Spitfire at high speed improved greatly. Unfortunately this discovery did not take place in time to help British pilots in the summer of 1940.

ARMAMENT 
The Spitfire had eight Browning machine-guns spread out along the wing. These each had 300 rounds of normal bullets, tracer, incendiary or armour- piercing (the last type only effective against the thinnest of armour). The guns were configured so that the bullets converged on a single point some distance in front of the aircraft. At first this distance was over 400 yards, however pilots soon found that the best results were obtained if they made it 250 or 200 yards instead. The use of eight machine-guns meant that even the novice fighter-pilots thrown into the battle by the British had a chance of hitting something if they could get into firing position. On the other hand the 109`s armament favoured the marksman. The 109 had two machine guns of similar performance to the British Brownings, but mounted in the nose and synchronised to fire through the propeller. These had magazines of 1,000 rounds each, which meant the German could keep his finger on the trigger over three times longer than his British counterpart, but at the end of that time he would have still expended 400 less rounds than the Spitfire pilot. The Messerschmitt was also equipped with two 20mm cannon, but they had a low velocity, poor rate of fire and only 60 rounds per gun. Against British bombers they were devastating, but the manoeuvrable and swift Spitfires and Hurricanes were a difficult target.

VISION 
The Spitfire pilot had a much better view out of his cockpit than his German opponent. The bulged canopy had not been fitted to improve vision, it was to stop pilots bumping their head when taxiing over rough ground! The Messerschmitt canopy, on the other hand, was box-like, with lots of framework to impede view. It did have a couple of good points, it had a very good "clear view" panel that was not obscured by rain or oil thrown back from the engine, and it was made of a better quality of perspex than the Spitfire`s, which was prone to scratches. The Spitfire canopy could be slid back for a better view while taxiing and during take-off. This was impossible in the 109 due to the canopy hinging to the side.

UNDERCARRIAGE 
The two machines had similar outward retracting undercarriages of narrow track. The 109`s was always a source of problems and as much as 5% of 109`s were damaged due to take-off or landing problems with the undercarriage.

AS A WEAPONS SYSTEM 
The two aircraft were evenly matched. Victory went to the best pilot, or the one who had the height advantage or just saw his opponent first. In this respect the Spitfire pilot had the advantage of being part of a much wider weapons system. The Spitfire was linked by radio to control centres that could monitor the battle with Radar. This control could place the Spitfire squadrons where they were needed most. The British strategy and disposition could be changed at a moments notice, while the German plans were effectively unable to be changed when their aircraft left the ground.

OTHER OPERATIONS 
The Spitfire was kept for home defence until the danger of Invasion had largely passed. From 1941 onwards they were released for service elsewhere. Over a thousand were given to the Americans and many went to Russia. In the far east they served against the Japanese where they found a worthy adversary in the A6M "Zero" long-range fighter that, like most Japanese fighters, excelled in manoeuvrability. To fight it Spitfire pilots had to adopt a "slash and run" policy and use their superior speed and diving superiority to fight, and avoid classic dogfights.

One of the epic chapters in Spitfire history was in the defence of Malta. Flown off aircraft carriers or flown from Gibraltar with enormous "slipper" fuel tanks underneath, the Spitfire helped to fend off the attacks on the brave island by the Luftwaffe and Regia Aeronautica. In the Western Desert Spitfires arrived quite late, but found themselves doing good work as the Allies took all of the southern shore of the Mediterranean and then attacked Sicily and Italy. The Spitfires began to carry bombs to harass the enemy ground forces. Up to three bombs could be carried, up to a total of 1,000 lbs.

It was here that the Spitfire met the Macchi c202 Folgore. Its designer had built the Italian seaplanes that had raced against Mitchell`s S5 and S6 in the Schneider trophy. The Macchi had the rakish lines of a thoroughbred, but there had been no Italian equivalent of Sqdn Ldr Sorley to insist on a heavy armament, so it went to war with only two machine-guns and failed to stem the tide of Allied victory.

The Spitfire was, and is, to many pilots the ultimate fighter and flying- machine. All who flew her loved her, and it will be a sad day indeed if there ever comes a time when there is no example of R.J. Mitchell`s immortal fighter able to take to the air and be at home amongst the clouds.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 16, 2005)

Nice comparison there! 8)


----------



## The Jug Rules! (Feb 16, 2005)

Hmmm... from what I have heard of the 109, she is very twitchy, and prone to get into some messy spins.


----------



## Soren (Feb 16, 2005)

The Jug Rules! said:


> Hmmm... from what I have heard of the 109, she is very twitchy, and prone to get into some messy spins.



Well what you have heard is false ! (If were talking 1940 mod. 109's and beyond)


----------



## plan_D (Feb 16, 2005)

I don't quite get the title of the thread though. And it was 11 Squadrons of Spitfire, from all the sources I've read.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 17, 2005)

Why do we always forget the VITAL service performed by the Defiant and Beaufigher?


----------



## mosquitoman (Feb 17, 2005)

Don't knock the beau, it's a great plane. Most heavily armed plane in the RAF at the time (8x0.303, 4x20mm, 8x6inch rockets or a torpedo)


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 17, 2005)

I am not knocking the Beau...The joke was more about the Defiant. 
I know it was great plane...It does tend to get overlooked though.


----------



## Soren (Feb 17, 2005)

plan_D said:


> I don't quite get the title of the thread though. And it was 11 Squadrons of Spitfire, from all the sources I've read.




Haha !!  11 Spitfire squadrons ?! You must be kidding me ?

Every book in the world will tell you there were 19 squadrons if they are correct  I bet that google will even tell you that !

So wich book ever said that there were 11 spitfire squadrons in 1940 ?


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 17, 2005)

I dont know how accurate this is, but according to www.battle-of-britain.com the squadrons in the BoB are as follows

35 Hurricane
17 Spitfire
9 Blenheim
4 Beaufighter
2 Defiant
1 Gladiator
1 Sea Gladiator
1 Martlett
1 Fulmar

Sound wrong to me though...But I could have just counted wrong.


----------



## Soren (Feb 17, 2005)

Well you got the Spitfire and Hurricane numbers wrong !


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 17, 2005)

No, the site did, I only copied what was on the site


----------



## Soren (Feb 17, 2005)

Oh, Ok well thats the problem with Internet sources


----------



## plan_D (Feb 17, 2005)

And where exactly are your sources? You never have provided any, on any subject.


----------



## Soren (Feb 17, 2005)

plan_D said:


> And where exactly are your sources? You never have provided any, on any subject.




Oh no ? Well i think you've got a very short memory then


----------



## plan_D (Feb 17, 2005)

I think you're a moron. Now provide them, or shut up...again.


----------



## KraziKanuK (Feb 17, 2005)

Another source for BoB squadrons and a/c, http://www.geocities.com/Broadway/Alley/5443/fcob8.htm

It also gives the bases and the commanders
to summerize:

as of Aug 1940

sector name - squadron

Spitfire: 
Biggin Hill - 610
Kenley- 64
Hornchurch - 54, 65, 74, 266
Middle Wallop - 609, 152
St. Eval - 234
Pembrey - 92
Duxford - 19
Coltishall - 66
Kirton-in-Lindsey - 222
Digby - 611
Church Fenton - 616
Catterick - 41
Usworth - 72
Turnhouse - 602
Dyce - 603


----------



## Soren (Feb 17, 2005)

plan_D said:


> I think you're a moron. Now provide them, or shut up...again.



15, deffidently 15 

You could have instead said that you politely disagree !


----------



## plan_D (Feb 17, 2005)

According to you every history book states 19, yet two other people have said otherwise not including me. 
I'll go with 15, as it says each squadron. You're a moron, Soren...it's so beautiful that it rolls off the tongue.


----------



## Soren (Feb 17, 2005)

15 ? where did 15 come from ? You said 11 squadrons !


----------



## KraziKanuK (Feb 17, 2005)

Hurricane squadrons

Biggin Hill - 32, 501
North Weald - 56, 151, 85
Kenley - 615, 111, 1 Can.
Tangmere - 43, 601, 145
Debden - 17, 85
Northolt - 1, 257, 303
Filton - 87, 213
Middle Wallop - 238
Duxford - 310
Coltishall - 242
Digby - 46
Wittering - 229
Usworth - 607, 79
Turnhouse - 253, 605
Dyce - 263
Wick -3, 232, 504, 
Aldergrove - 245

So it looks like plan_d is incorrect, again.


----------



## plan_D (Feb 17, 2005)

I just said I'll go with 15 because that person has just provided a good source that states 15. Still, three people said numbers other than 19. But every history book says it was 19...Soren moron...


----------



## Soren (Feb 17, 2005)

Plan_D how about you stop your obviously childish behavior and name-calling, and then actually start backing up your own statements and arguements ? 

There were exactly 19 Spitfire squadrons, and 32 Hurricane squadrons 

I dont know where you got 11 or 15 from, or where you've seen two people come with different numbers ? KraziKanuk's numbers are the same as mine


----------



## Soren (Feb 17, 2005)

plan_D said:


> I just said I'll go with 15 because that person has just provided a good source that states 15.



Where ?! Please inform us all about who stated that !


----------



## plan_D (Feb 17, 2005)

My lord he just told me to back up my own statements and arguments, that's rich coming from you. The only one on this whole site that talks about stuff, without a single source.  

You make me laugh, you really do. I could be wrong, and you right and I'd still laugh at you because you're such a moron.


----------



## Soren (Feb 17, 2005)

plan_D said:


> My lord he just told me to back up my own statements and arguments, that's rich coming from you. The only one on this whole site that talks about stuff, without a single source.
> 
> You make me laugh, you really do. I could be wrong, and you right and I'd still laugh at you because you're such a moron.



Again you totally try to dodge my request !  

And also you can call me a moron all you like, but think about what your getting out of it !!


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 17, 2005)

Actually pD, he isnt the only one who doesnt provide sources, the lanc doesnt


----------



## Soren (Feb 17, 2005)

I do provide sources  they just choose to overlook them, thats all.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 17, 2005)

Not in this thread you havent


----------



## Soren (Feb 17, 2005)

cheddar cheese said:


> Not in this thread you havent



Oh well thats easy, go read almost any book about BoB.  

But you asked, so here is one of the books where i got it from: 'Brtish Warplanes of World War II'

Do you want the authors name also ?


----------



## Soren (Feb 17, 2005)

There are also numerous sites who show the squadrons of 1940.

This one for example:

http://www.the-battle-of-britain.co.uk/Menus/squadrons.html

Btw Cheddar Cheese even the site you quoted actually has 19 Spit squadrons !


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 17, 2005)

There, wasnt so hard was it?  Now why wouldnt you give the sources like that to pD?... :wink


----------



## Soren (Feb 17, 2005)

He is very rude, thats why.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 17, 2005)

Makes sense.


----------



## Anonymous (Feb 19, 2005)

The 109 was a flawed fighter for the BoB. It simply lacked the necessary range, and without range it was unable to protect the bombers and succeed in the mission with which it was tasked. Had the German's had the Zero instead of the Bf109E they might have won the BoB.

As for those cannon - they only carried 60 rpg and they had very poor ballistics and poor RoF. For the role of escort fighter, the Bf109E4 was poorly armed. Quickly running low on both ammo and fuel, the bombers were often left defensless and slaughtered by the Spitfires and Hurricanes.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## Napier Sabre (Feb 19, 2005)

Thing that always struck me as odd was the way in which nobody addressed the fact that in the early Marks (primarily I and II) one bullet in the glycol tank under the nose, could bring the plane down. Seems it wasn't that big a problem, still seems like tempting fate to me.


----------



## Soren (Feb 19, 2005)

> The 109 was a flawed fighter for the BoB. It simply lacked the necessary range, and without range it was unable to protect the bombers and succeed in the mission with which it was tasked. Had the German's had the Zero instead of the Bf109E they might have won the BoB.



I absolutely agree 



> As for those cannon - they only carried 60 rpg and they had very poor ballistics and poor RoF. For the role of escort fighter, the Bf109E4 was poorly armed. Quickly running low on both ammo and fuel, the bombers were often left defensless and slaughtered by the Spitfires and Hurricanes.



The cannons would run out quickly yes, but not the cowl mounted 7.9mm Machine guns ! Infact the German pilot could hold his finger on the trigger much longer than a Spitfire pilot


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 19, 2005)

if anything the .303s weren't exactly the ideal weapon for taking out bombers............


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 19, 2005)

Definately not....


----------



## redcoat (Feb 19, 2005)

plan_D said:


> According to you every history book states 19, yet two other people have said otherwise not including me.
> I'll go with 15, as it says each squadron. You're a moron, Soren...it's so beautiful that it rolls off the tongue.


If you were alone in a room "plan D" you would pick an argument with yourself  

Spitfire Squadrons in Fighter Commands order of battle July 1st 1940.
Nos,64, 610, 65, 74, 54, 92, 234, 609, 19, 66, 266, 611, 222, 616, 41, 72, 152, 603, 602.

19 Squadrons in total 

source, Stephen Bungay 'the Most Dangerous Enemy, A History of the Battle of Britain'.


----------



## Udet (Feb 19, 2005)

RG:

Remember the Luftwaffe was expecting more from the speed and manouverability of their bombers and from the heavy fighter Bf 110 Zerstörer to gain air superiority over England. Both things proved failures.

I do not think "slaughtered" is an adequate term to describe the casualties of German bombers at the hands of British interceptors over the island in 1940. Yes, losses were high, but never as high -in proportion- to those suffered by the 8th air force over the continent.

The Bf 109´s role for the Battle of Britain was not precisely the main event of the presentation.

I agree the short range of the Emils would eventually arise as a dfundamental issue for the Germans to not win that battle.

I am convinced though, had the Bf109 had a greater range I see the Luftwaffe destroying the RAF over England for good. The Hurricane was clearly surpassed by the Bf109, and the great MkI, while being a formidable machine -praised by many German pilots themselves- was slightly inferior in my opinion to the Bf 109 E.


----------



## KraziKanuK (Feb 19, 2005)

The 109s were doing OK in BOB until they were ordered to fly close escort to the bombers.

Udet, not all RAF fighters squadrons were engaged in BOB. Only 11 Group squadrons were really engaged with some support from squadrons from 10 and 12 Groups bordering 11 Group. 13 Group was too far north. 

LW bomber losses were high enough to force the LW to abandon daylight attacks and go to night attacks. The USSAF never abandoned daylight attacks.

A link worth looking at, http://www.altus.af.mil/History/historycombat.htm

Ignore the claims.


----------



## Anonymous (Feb 19, 2005)

Napier Sabre said:


> Thing that always struck me as odd was the way in which nobody addressed the fact that in the early Marks (primarily I and II) one bullet in the glycol tank under the nose, could bring the plane down. Seems it wasn't that big a problem, still seems like tempting fate to me.



The same thing was true of the 109 and most other liquid cooled designs. A single hit to the coolant system could bring the plane down within 5 minutes or less. Later 109's were able to shut off one radiator side if it was hit to retain engine function (at reduced power limits), and later P-51's had semi-self sealing cooling system elements (of limited value).

This is why, in general, I think radial designs were superior to liquid cooled designs.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## Anonymous (Feb 19, 2005)

Soren said:


> > As for those cannon - they only carried 60 rpg and they had very poor ballistics and poor RoF. For the role of escort fighter, the Bf109E4 was poorly armed. Quickly running low on both ammo and fuel, the bombers were often left defensless and slaughtered by the Spitfires and Hurricanes.
> 
> 
> 
> The cannons would run out quickly yes, but not the cowl mounted 7.9mm Machine guns ! Infact the German pilot could hold his finger on the trigger much longer than a Spitfire pilot



Sure, but that was only two 7.9 mm guns - pretty weak firepower. And the Spitfires could land, rearm and refuel, and be back in the fight quickly, the 109's had to go all the way back to France. An escort fighter needs a larger ammo supply than an interceptor.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## Anonymous (Feb 19, 2005)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> if anything the .303s weren't exactly the ideal weapon for taking out bombers............



Ideal? Certainly not. They weren't "ideal" for fighter combat against WWII class opponents either. But, eight .303's were sufficent to destroy German bombers, which were not that resiliant, even if the were not "ideal".

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## Soren (Feb 19, 2005)

RG_Lunatic said:


> Sure, but that was only two 7.9 mm guns - pretty weak firepower. And the Spitfires could land, rearm and refuel, and be back in the fight quickly, the 109's had to go all the way back to France. An escort fighter needs a larger ammo supply than an interceptor.
> 
> =S=
> 
> Lunatic



Offcourse, however in other places such as in Africa there wasnt these range problems !


----------



## Anonymous (Feb 19, 2005)

Udet said:


> RG:
> 
> Remember the Luftwaffe was expecting more from the speed and manouverability of their bombers and from the heavy fighter Bf 110 Zerstörer to gain air superiority over England. Both things proved failures.



Agreed. But so what? Such mistakes are not a meaningful excuse if that is what you are implying.



Udet said:


> I do not think "slaughtered" is an adequate term to describe the casualties of German bombers at the hands of British interceptors over the island in 1940. Yes, losses were high, but never as high -in proportion- to those suffered by the 8th air force over the continent.



On Aug. 18 something like 30% of the Stuka's that attacked Britain did not return. 20% Stuka losses were common, and it was withdrawn from the battle as a result. In August 1940 German losses were excessive and they realized the Battle of Britian was unsustainable (admittedly the RAF was on the ropes but the German's had counted them out earlier only to find they were wrong and they could not continue based upon the available data).

I will assume your comparison to the 8th airforce losses relates to the early part of the air-war, when losses of 20+ % occured on a few occassions. But, that is not really an appopriate comparision because the B-17's were flying much much futher than the Germans. Attacks against targets in France within range of fighter escort never suffered the kind of losses the Luftwaffe' suffered over Britain.



Udet said:


> The Bf 109´s role for the Battle of Britain was not precisely the main event of the presentation.
> 
> I agree the short range of the Emils would eventually arise as a dfundamental issue for the Germans to not win that battle.
> 
> I am convinced though, had the Bf109 had a greater range I see the Luftwaffe destroying the RAF over England for good. The Hurricane was clearly surpassed by the Bf109, and the great MkI, while being a formidable machine -praised by many German pilots themselves- was slightly inferior in my opinion to the Bf 109 E.



But increasing the range of the 109E would have necessarily diminished its performance right?

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## Gemhorse (Feb 19, 2005)

While the Luftwaffe was obviously chuffed with the Bf-109 from it's action in the Spanish Civil War, then the over-running of Europe, nothing engendered the moral-boost to the people of the British Empire like the Spitfire did....

The 'Spitfire Fund' reached all corners of the Empire, and brought-out that 'back-to the-wall' fighting spirit, that although numerically inferior, the Empire's pilots fought in the Battle of Britain with a desperation that was un-paralleled....

I recall that during the BoB, Goering asked his fighter-pilots in France if there was anything they needed....the reply was 'a squadron of Spitfires'...


----------



## Napier Sabre (Feb 19, 2005)

It depends how you define the BoB, because 13 Group squadrons did see action across the north sea, usually small raids of individual bombers/reconaissance aircraft. Largely from Norway, but the Luftwaffe stopped that almost totally when the London bombings began.

Also, nearly every operational squadron was rotated into the line of battle at some point, so 13 Group squadrons would have seen action that way as well.


----------



## Gemhorse (Feb 19, 2005)

Hurricanes went to work on the bombers while the Spitfires dealt with the escorts, that was how it developed....even the Defiant had initial success against the bombers, probably they were confused with the Hurricane or Spitfire, and by coming along side could let-strip....[shame they never put forward-firing guns in them....and a Griffon...].......


----------



## Udet (Feb 20, 2005)

KraziKanuK said:


> The 109s were doing OK in BOB until they were ordered to fly close escort to the bombers.
> 
> Udet, not all RAF fighters squadrons were engaged in BOB. Only 11 Group squadrons were really engaged with some support from squadrons from 10 and 12 Groups bordering 11 Group. 13 Group was too far north.
> 
> LW bomber losses were high enough to force the LW to abandon daylight attacks and go to night attacks. The USSAF never abandoned daylight attacks.



Krazi:

You are correct. I did not suggest the Bf 109s were performing poorly though; the RAF took a good mauling as well during that battle. And as I said, I see the Bf109 E slightly superior to the Spitfire MkI.



RG:

"Agreed. But so what? Such mistakes are not a meaningful excuse if that is what you are implying".

I was not implying such a thing. It was rather you who suggested the Bf 109 E was a flawed fighter for the Battle of Britain.

I do not know if you believe the Germans were idiots; do you think they did not know what the range of the Bf109E was and the distances between their bases in France and southern England??

(i) That is why the Bf 110 had many expectations placed upon it: it would clear the path for the bombers deep into England, providing adequate escort so they used to think.

Still, and again, the Bf 110 has been defamed as well. If indeed inferior in manouverability to the single engine RAF fighters, the difference was not that abysmal. There were Zerstörer pilots scoring victories in dogfights over England.

It appears like they want to create an image of the Bf110 vs Spitfire MkI similar to that of the Bf109s against the soviets I-16s and I-153s, who were clearly outclassed and outpowered by the German counterpart. 

Again, and please get my point, the Bf 110 had an awful time facing the British fighters, but the difference was not as dramatic as it has been told.

(ii) Again! The Germans also had good expectations on the speed and manouverability of their bombers! Just like the case of the Bf110, they were proved wrong. 
The Ju88 and Do17 were everything but easy targets once they had delivered their bombload. Of course not superior in manouverability to the Spitfire or Hurricane, but they made tricky targets, and a good number of British interceptors went down while attacking German bombers.

The Ju88 which saw action over England had a maximun speed of about 480km/hr while the top speed of the Hurricane MkI was 540 km/hr: not a very dramatic difference in speed.

Have you seen footage of the Ju88 bomber of 1940? The handling and manouverability were amazing.

"But increasing the range of the 109E would have necessarily diminished its performance right? "

I do not know...maybe, but maybe not.


Guys, all this to tell you that while the Battle of Britain was a British victory (any reasonable doubts on that?), the story is frequently told -of course- in accordance with the remarks of the victor.

Victory? Yes. The point is rather, how was the victory achieved? 
The Battle of Britan has got its doses of fairy tale as well. The British radar system, depicted as a perfect flawless system that took their fighter squadrons to intercept the German bomber formations to the right place everytime. "We were watching them since the very moment of their take off at their french bases". I ve been told by British veterans that a very high percentage of times RAF fighters following radar instructions simply found nothing.


----------



## Anonymous (Feb 20, 2005)

Udet,

I think the German high command were indeed largely idiots, especially Georing. They expected their bombers to be able to outrun the British fighters on their way to the targets - they could not even outrun them on the way from the targets. They expected their bombers to be more effective in defending themselves - but their armament was pitifully weak and ineffective.

The high command expected the 109's to be able to provide effective close fighter escort even knowing the range limitations, they could not. The high command refused to recognize this, further confirming they were idiots. The fact is "close escort" simply didn't work. It didn't work for the Axis and it didn't work for the Allies. Escorts must find and destroy the enemy fighters before they reach the bombers, not as they reach the bombers! Failure to recognize this fact is the sign of an inflexible command structure. Goering was an idiot and the Luftwaffe' paid heavily for this at several points during WWII.

As for the 110, I've seen pleanty of footage of the 110 trying to engage Spitfires which easily turned away so quickly the 110 had no chance to hit it. The 110's were an unqualified failure as an escort fighter, and in fact needed 109 escorts themselves!

And of course increasing the range of the 109 had to cost performance. Added weight for fuel tanks, fuel pumps, and fuel all reduce performance. Is this not obvious?

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## KraziKanuK (Feb 20, 2005)

Adding extra fuel to the P-51 made it a dog, as well. Performance of later E models that carried a dt did not degrade its performance.

The 109s did fly Frei Jagd with the bombers. It was only when the bombers complained did the order come to fly 'close escort'.

One does not have to shoot an a/c down to stop it from attacking the bombers. If the a/c is avoiding an attack by 110s it is not getting any bomber kills. That is why P-51s flew, eventually, ahead of the B-17s and B-24s.

The 110s needed escorts because they were not used in their intended role, as Udet described.


----------



## redcoat (Feb 20, 2005)

Udet said:


> KraziKanuK said:
> 
> 
> > Still, and again, the Bf 110 has been defamed as well. If indeed inferior in manouverability to the single engine RAF fighters, the difference was not that abysmal. There were Zerstörer pilots scoring victories in dogfights over England.
> ...


----------



## Gemhorse (Feb 20, 2005)

The Bf-110 just wasn't compatable against single-engined fighters, that's what was learned from the BoB.....Their best role was probably as a Nightfighter or Night Intruder, but progression to Bf-210 and the Bf-410 was pretty dismal too...they were too heavy, under-powered and had poor manoevrability....not one of 'Willi's' success stories......


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 20, 2005)

The Me-410 was actually a pretty good plane...


----------



## Udet (Feb 21, 2005)

One clarification.

The Me 410 is in my opinon, an aircraft that has not received thorough assessment.

Putting aside the flunked Me 210, the Me 410 was everything but dismal.

In terms of handling it was far superior to the Bf 110, and the design of the nose allowed the Me 410 to carry weapons capable of unleashing a real hurricane of fire. It had a fearsome punch.

The crews praised the speed and manouverability of the plane; furthermore, it brought the Luftwaffe back over England in kind of significant numbers in 1944.

I am convinced the Me 410 came to life in an era of very powerful single engine allied fighters though and its chances against them were little.

It would have been better for the Luftwaffe to devote the resources for producing the rough 1,200 Me410s to produce more Fw190s, Ta152s or even for the Me262.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 22, 2005)

I think it could be fitted every weapon in the Luftwaffe's arsenal. Its rear firing guns were also a surprise to many Allied pilots


----------



## Iskandar Taib (Mar 24, 2005)

Soren said:


> The British aeronautical press told them that the wings came off the 109 in a dive or in tight turns, untrue but based on some early wing failures in the 109`s predecessor the Bf108.



Wait a sec.. wasn't the 108 a GA aircraft??

Also, where does the turning radius and low speed handling information come from? The 109 had a higher wing loading than the Spitfire and just about everything I've read says the Spitfire could outturn the 109. The Spitfire was also supposedly pretty docile at low speeds as a result of the low wing loading, no tendency to stall or spin during landing approaches. When the RAF deployed the Typhoon they lost a number of pilots who were used to the docile handling of the Spitfire. The 109 was supposedly a bear to land (partly due to the undercarriage).


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 24, 2005)

she was also a bugger to take off in due to the torque..............


----------



## KraziKanuK (Mar 24, 2005)

I would say the LW took a mauling in BoB.

from After The Battle's "The Battle of Britain-Then and Now"

Royal Air Force airmen killed: 537
Luftwaffe Airmen killed: 2,662
Me109 and 110 airmen killed: 549

Royal Air Force aircraft lost: 1,017
Luftwaffe aircraft lost: 1,882
Me109 and 110 aircraft lost: 871


----------



## Anonymous (Mar 24, 2005)

Offense is more costly than defense unless the enemy is totally outclassed. Simple as that.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## hellmaker (Mar 25, 2005)

KraziKanuK said:


> Royal Air Force airmen killed: 537
> Luftwaffe Airmen killed: 2,662
> Me109 and 110 airmen killed: 549
> 
> ...



Impressive statistics KraziK...


----------



## Soren (Mar 25, 2005)

Aprox 95% of all RAF aircraft lost were shot down by 109's, the 110 was easy prey for the Spit's and Hurri's.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 25, 2005)

> Aprox 95% of all RAF aircraft lost were shot down by 109's



because the LW had no other serious fighters, again like you say the 110 wasn't gonna get many kills..............


----------



## Sgt. Pappy (Sep 2, 2006)

Hey again everyone! I know this is one ooold post, but i was once again wondering if you pros could give me some info. I posted on a different thread some of the following questions:

1) Could Spit VIII's (c type wing) carry a full 1000 lb bomb load (whether they carried it operationally or just phiscally)?

2) Did they actually have a 1,180 mi. range with full internal and external fuel load? And if it actually did carry more fuel than the other spits, why was it still lighter than the Mk.IX (fully loaded)?

3) I've read in www.spitfireworld.com that the Mk. IX (at least late versions) had wing tanks AND a rear fuselage tank. If so, then why did all other sources say it only had 980 mi. of range?

As u can see, I really want to be the ultimate Spit finatic so i wanna know it all! Thanks again!

-Cheers-


----------



## Hop (Sep 2, 2006)

Maximum bomb load on any of the Spitfires was 1 500 lb bomb under the fuselage, and 1 250 lb bomb under each wing. However, I'm not sure if the Spitfire VIII was ever cleared for wing bombs. There's no technical reason why it couldn't have carried them, it's just a question of whether they did.



> Did they actually have a 1,180 mi. range with full internal and external fuel load?



Depends on speed, but 1,180 miles was certainly doable. This is from an RAAF test of the Spitfire VIII:







The Spitfire VIII had 123 gallons internal, and could take a 90 gallon external tank.



> And if it actually did carry more fuel than the other spits, why was it still lighter than the Mk.IX (fully loaded)?



In normal configuration (full internal fuel, ammunition, no external stores) the Spitfire VIII was heavier than the IX. However, later IXs had more internal fuel added, and the maximum takeoff weight was increased to compensate. The VIII had a slightly stronger airframe, and so could have safely carried more, but if there was no pressure to do so, it's unlikely they would have been cleared for a higher weight. Having said that, I have no idea what weight the VIII was cleared for. It's important to realise MTOW changed during the war for many aircraft, they usually increased as the war went on, and were reduced post war in the interests of safety.



> I've read in www.spitfireworld.com that the Mk. IX (at least late versions) had wing tanks AND a rear fuselage tank. If so, then why did all other sources say it only had 980 mi. of range?



Most sources quote a test they've seen, or an aircraft data card. The rear tanks were introduced late, and it's hard to find information on them.

Jeffery Quill tells in his autobiography of a flight he made in a Spitfire IX with rear fuselage tank and drop tank, from Salisbury Plain, up to the Firth of Forth and back. It was something over 1,200 miles, and he flew the whole thing at low level because of poor weather (range goes up at higher altitudes).

Your best bet for range is to look at the fuel, calculate consumption (and the Spitfire VIII figures above should be good for most Spitfire IXs as well) and work out the range from there. Don't forget to allow for warm up and takeoff, fuel used in climbing, combat allowance, reserves etc.

Conservative figures for a Spitfire:

Warm up and takeoff - 10 gallons
Climb to 20,000ft - 15 - 20 gallons
10 mins combat - 20 gallons


----------



## Sgt. Pappy (Sep 2, 2006)

Wow, Hop thanks a bunch for the info! It really clears up a lot of things. But I wonder why such a brilliant plane like the Mk. IX (with added fuel) didnt seem to enter the "Spit Hall of Fame" - I've barely heard of any Spit IX's with extra fuel ever serving with any AF. I'm assuming this is because the lack of its need since the Mk.IX (with regular fuel load) was good enough for the roles in which it was needed and the P-51's/P-47's had already proven their greatness and would, instead do long-range escort sorties. 

And the Spit was never a truly dedicated Jabo a/c so i guess that's the likliest explanation as to why the Spit8 has not been known to carry the wing bombs. That explanation, coupled with the fact that the Mk.VIII was flown in the PTO where fuel was life, would help explain the minimal bomload for which they were cleared. However, i believe it could, as the Mk.IX could.


----------



## Hop (Sep 11, 2006)

Just noticed in some stuff from the Australian archives that their Spitfire VIIIs were cleared and equipped to carry wing and fuselage bombs.


----------



## Hunter368 (Sep 11, 2006)

mmmm interesting I will read this thread when I get more time. BoB is one of my favorite battles of all time.


----------



## Sgt. Pappy (Oct 15, 2006)

ok so after much nerdy research, i found that the Mk. XII Spitfire had about 389 mi. of range - internal fuel. Through some sad calculations, the plane flew about 4.7 miles for each Imp. Gallon. The Mk. XIV must have been at least similar, and from 'Late Marque Spitfire Aces: 1942 - 1945" by Alfred Price, the Mk. XIV's of very late 1944 had rear fuselage tanks of 75 IG. (for the Mk. XIV's with malcolm hoods). In addition to the 2x 27 IG wing tanks, my calculations had lead me to believe that the Mk. XIV's with all this fuel could fly over 700 miles with internal fuel. Am I finally correct? Could the Mk. XIV have flown over 1000 miles with all this fuel and a 90 IG drop tank?

Which makes me wonder... were any Mk. VIII's fitted with these rear tanks? And even if they werent, would any one of you consider its 1180 mile range at least average?


----------



## Soundbreaker Welch? (Oct 18, 2006)

If they could go a 1,000 miles, they could have made it to Berlin.


----------



## Soundbreaker Welch? (Oct 18, 2006)

Double post......Duh.....What to fill it?


Willy.....





And Reggie..........


----------



## Hop (Oct 19, 2006)

I believe "Late Marque Spitfire Aces: 1942 - 1945" mentions sweeps by Spitfire XIVs from their base in Somerset as far as the Swiss border and back, which is a 1,000 mile round trip.



> If they could go a 1,000 miles, they could have made it to Berlin.



Berlin is about 600 miles from most British fighter fields. The US fields in East Anglia were a bit closer, but still over 500 miles by anything but the shortest route. You also need more fuel for bomber escort, because you fly a less efficient profile.


----------



## Chingachgook (Nov 30, 2006)

Soren said:


> MANOEUVRABILITY
> SPITFIRE TURNING DIAMETER = 1,760 feet. BF 109 TURNING DIAMETER = 1,500 ft.
> A Spitfire pilot will tell you the Spit could turn inside the 109. A Messerschmitt pilot will tell you the 109 could turn inside the Spitfire! The truth is that both designs were capable of turning circles that would cause the pilot to "black-out" as the blood drained from the head. The pilot who could force himself to the limits without losing consciousness would emerge the victor from a turning battle, and the Spitfire pilots had supreme faith in their machine. The British aeronautical press told them that the wings came off the 109 in a dive or in tight turns, untrue but based on some early wing failures in the 109`s predecessor the Bf108.
> 
> ...



Soren,
I've been perusing old threads again. 

So as not to be a total hypocrite I know that I need to "confront the brutal facts" as I have asked you to do.

These turn radius figures... do you have a source? I would like to investigate - Truth is more important than BIAS - even my own bias. 

THANK YOU.


----------



## Jabberwocky (Dec 1, 2006)

> SPITFIRE TURNING DIAMETER = 1,760 feet. BF 109 TURNING DIAMETER = 1,500 ft.



This particular statistic I question.

The RAE tested a Spitfire Mk I in September 1940 and found that the minimum radius of turn without loss of height at 12,000 feet was 696 ft. 

For what version of the Spitfire and what version of the Bf-109 is that 1,760/1,500 comparison, I wonder?


----------



## Sarge714 (Dec 1, 2006)

At 3g DATCOM is listing at max AoA at SL

Hurricane Mk1 (7691lbs)
Speed = 162mph
Rate = 21.9dps
Radius = 621ft

Bf-109E-4T (5851lbs)
Speed = 164mph
Rate = 21.6dps
Radius = 635ft

Note the radius varies with speed generally reducing with higher speeds assuming the pilot was strong enough to pull max AoA.

I don't currently have a Spitfire Mk 1 entered into the program. A Spitfire Mk 14, but that is a totally different animal.


----------



## Chingachgook (Dec 1, 2006)

Wow, 109E is dangerously close to Hurrie - the slats overcome the big wingloading deficit? 

What is DATCOM? Would this program be based on reported stall #s? Clmax or Clman? Wing properties?


How does any aircaft acheive high alpha? I heard one aero engineer say that once you are into high angle it is less airfoil section and more about wingload/powerload.


----------



## Hop (Dec 1, 2006)

> At 3g DATCOM is listing at max AoA at SL
> 
> Hurricane Mk1 (7691lbs)
> Speed = 162mph
> ...



That's far too high a weight for a Hurricane I. Normal loaded weight, with a variable pitch prop, was about 6,300 lbs.


----------



## Sarge714 (Dec 2, 2006)

Chingachgook said:


> Wow, 109E is dangerously close to Hurrie - the slats overcome the big wingloading deficit?



My own theory is the slats were more an an anti-spin device since they don't increase the lift until you are at a high Alpha. Don't forget at the AoA where the slat is working the center wing is stalled and not producing a lot of lift. Of course exceed this and you get a violent spin entry.



Chingachgook said:


> What is DATCOM? Would this program be based on reported stall #s? Clmax or Clman? Wing properties?



We got tired of anecdotal evidence producing fantasy aircraft. After using DATCOM the best key phrase to describe it is “brutally honest”. It’s about 4000 pages of hard core math.

https://oscommerce.darcorp.com/prod...d=132&osCsid=99ef93316a48428257a38a9050314dea

The purpose of the Datcom (Data Compendium) is to provide a systematic summary of methods for estimating basic stability and control derivatives. The Datcom is organized in such a way that it is self-sufficient. For any given flight condition and configuration the complete set of derivatives can be determined without resort to outside information. The book is intended to be used for preliminary design purposes before the acquisition of test data. The use of reliable test data in lieu of the Datcom is always recommended. However, there are many cases where the Datcom can be used to advantage in conjunction with test data. For instance, if the lift-curve slope of a wing-body combination is desired, the Datcom recommends that the lift-curve slopes of the isolated wing and body, respectively, be estimated by methods presented and that appropriate wing-body interference factors (also presented) be applied. If wing-alone test data are available, it is obvious that these test data should be substituted in place of the estimated wing-alone characteristics in determining the lift-curve slope of the combination. Also, if test data are available on a configuration similar to a given configuration, the characteristics of the similar configuration can be corrected to those for the given configuration by judiciously using the Datcom material. 

On top of this you’ll need Dr Roskam’s enhancements.

https://oscommerce.darcorp.com/product_info.php?cPath=21&products_id=42




Chingachgook said:


> How does any aircaft acheive high alpha? I heard one aero engineer say that once you are into high angle it is less airfoil section and more about wingload/powerload.



Max AoA is where te wing stalls. Wingloading and power effects also effect turn rates/radius.


----------



## Soren (Dec 2, 2006)

Very interesting Sarge714, however on top of this I've got to ask; Are you an educated aerodynamicist ?


----------



## Chingachgook (Dec 2, 2006)

Sarge,

How close is DATCOM calculations to known real world test results? If you put data in for a Cessna 152 how well do the numbers line up with the real aircrafts performance?


----------



## Sarge714 (Dec 3, 2006)

Chingachgook said:


> Sarge,
> 
> How close is DATCOM calculations to known real world test results? If you put data in for a Cessna 152 how well do the numbers line up with the real aircrafts performance?



Roskam has a data list for several aircraft that you can compare against. The DATCOM manual compares the quality of each computed stability derivative. Most fall in the instrument noise from flight test. A couple derivatives have larger margins. For example control force has a 30% margin. And subsonic calc's are more accurate than trans/super sonic.

The most impressive I've worked with so far was the Zero roll rate. The data in NACA 868 says is in the 55dps at 160mph. DATCOM says the A6M5 could do 109dps at 183 mph (30 lbs of stick force). 

If you watch this video of Steve Hinton flying the A6M5 it supports the DATCOM roll rate.


_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NUN9FqDAHEU_

DATCOM has been a good tool to help separate the BS/Propaganda from reality.


----------



## Chingachgook (Dec 3, 2006)

This may be why Hinton rated Zero just behind Bearcat among his fav warbirds when I talked with him. His Zero has no wing gunz - that may have some effect?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 3, 2006)

Good information Sarge - but as discussed here before, what happens to that roll rate at 300+ mph?


----------



## Sarge714 (Dec 3, 2006)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Good information Sarge - but as discussed here before, what happens to that roll rate at 300+ mph?



DATCOM shows for the A6M5 about 57dps at 300mph IAS at SL. The NACA data shows about 42+ dps for the same speed at 10,000ft.


----------



## denis (Dec 10, 2006)

the japs called the bau whispering death


----------



## lesofprimus (Dec 10, 2006)

Its Japanese, not Japs... Please refrain from using derogatory racial slang terms here...


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Dec 10, 2006)

he wouldn't have ment it to cause any offense we use the term readily and freely over here without compalaint.............


----------



## lesofprimus (Dec 10, 2006)

Thats not true, everytime that word is used I say something... Its derogatory and demeaning and has no use here....


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Dec 10, 2006)

no by over here i meant Britain.........


----------



## MH434 (Dec 19, 2006)

Soren said:


> MANOEUVRABILITY
> SPITFIRE TURNING DIAMETER = 1,760 feet. BF 109 TURNING DIAMETER = 1,500 ft.
> A Spitfire pilot will tell you the Spit could turn inside the 109. A Messerschmitt pilot will tell you the 109 could turn inside the Spitfire! The truth is that both designs were capable of turning circles that would cause the pilot to "black-out" as the blood drained from the head. The pilot who could force himself to the limits without losing consciousness would emerge the victor from a turning battle, and the Spitfire pilots had supreme faith in their machine. The British aeronautical press told them that the wings came off the 109 in a dive or in tight turns, untrue but based on some early wing failures in the 109`s predecessor the Bf108.
> 
> ...




I do not agree with this, Spits have much lower wingloading.
Most reports says spits did turn tighter.

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spit109turn18.gif

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spit109turn.gif

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/bank45.gif


----------



## Chingachgook (Dec 19, 2006)

Soren never actually gave the source for this... We are not really sure where it came from.


----------



## Kurfürst (Dec 19, 2006)

MH434 said:


> I do not agree with this, Spits have much lower wingloading.
> Most reports says spits did turn tighter.
> 
> http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spit109turn18.gif
> ...




I wouldn't put much faith into those turn diagrams. They're estimates, and they can't even get the basic data such as power outputs. The Clmax are assumed, which makes the dataset as good as any guess... 

The best you can do is to dig up some British source for the Spitfire, and some German sources for the 109, preferably in comparable conditions, and then see what gives.

For the 109, there are plentyful of German sources for turn.

The British estimate gives it 206 meters for the Spitfire, and 260 meters for the 109E, at 12 000 feet or 3657 meter altitude. 

A Messerschmitt company document from August 1940 gives the turn time for a 360 degree sustained turn with 5-min power as 18.92 seconds, and the turn radius as 203 meters.

The Bf 109E manual gives the smallest turn radiuses as the follows :

W/o flaps, 0 meter altitude : 170 m
W. flaps, 0 meter altitude : 125 m

W/o flaps, 6000 meter altitude : 320 m
W. flaps, 6000 meter altitude : 230 m

A particularly interesting thing is the use of combat flaps. The 109E had combat flaps, and it could use them up to fairly high airspeeds. The Spitfire flaps could be only used for landing (having only 2 positions, up and down). As seen, flaps have a very marked effect on turn radius, and it could be entirely possible that the Emil can get minimally smaller turning radiuses by using them (ie. using flaps 109E: 230m/6000m vs. Spit : 206m/3600m, and altitude has marked negative effect on turn radius)


The British give something like 24-25 seconds for the 109E, so I presume they grossly overstated turn times for the aircraft, given the German figures. I presume that is because the only Bf 109E available for evalutation for the Brits was one that was originally crashlanded and captured by the French back in 1939, who later handed over the Brits, but the aircraft was in fairly rough shape even back in the French evaluations reports which mention it's poor powerplant condition.

The British estimate give ca 18.5 seconds for the Spit, which is pretty much the same as the Bf 109E turn time. The same can be said about turn radiuses, 20-30 meter differences in turn radius is good for an 'academic' debate, but it practice you can wipe your butt with such 'advantage'.


----------



## Soren (Dec 19, 2006)

Chingachgook said:


> Soren never actually gave the source for this... We are not really sure where it came from.



Its from the Spitfire-community of all places buddy ! 

Seems even these guys agree the 109 turned tighter.

Funny isn't it ?


----------



## Chingachgook (Dec 19, 2006)

Soren, learn to be a bit more specific. You may have found it on their website, but who did the test, where, when etc.


----------



## Soren (Dec 19, 2006)

You and your tests


----------

