# Best ETO fighter from 1939-1942



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 17, 2005)

Allright everyone I am going to try this one again. What is the best fighter of the ETO for the period of 1939-1942. After thinking about I sort of have come to the conclusion (this is just my opinion) that during that time the aircraft of the ETO were most closely equal to one another. So lets see what you all think. I personally think the best was the Bf-109E until about 1941 closely followed by the Bf-109E and then the Fw-190A. Now during this time as I stated aircraft such as the Spitfire were about the same as there Luftwaffe counterparts, sure they would flip flop with the RAF having the upperhand and then the Luftwaffe would gain the upperhand. What is your opinion on this matter though. I will only list aircraft in the poll though that reached operational status and were the main ones. If I leave some out please feel free to discuss them in the thread. For all intensive purposes we will consider the Mediteranian Theatre as the ETO.


----------



## Gnomey (Sep 17, 2005)

I would say the Defiant.

Seriously though I would say that it would be between the Spitfire and the FW190. The MKV was a counter to the FW190 and was in some ways superior. This all comes down to the skill of the pilot and personal preference as the main fighters (Spitfire, 190 and 109) are all fairly equal. Being a Spitfire fan though I will say the Spitfire with the FW190 and BF109 a close second and third with the P-38 fourth.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 17, 2005)

I would pretty much agree with your assessement, especially about the equal part of the Spit, Bf-109 and Fw-190. I though would rate the 109 above the Spit due to the fact that I am a 109 fan and obviously the 190 was better than the 109 so I would put it ahead of both.


----------



## lesofprimus (Sep 17, 2005)

Fw-190A... The Brits spent more time redesigning the Spitfire, trying to combat the -190 and its superior performance, than they did they -109...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 17, 2005)

Yeap that I aqree with also. I think I have a pretty good idea about how this thread is going to go.


----------



## P38 Pilot (Sep 17, 2005)

P38 Lightning for me. Had multi roles and was very useful in carrying up 1,200 pound bomb load. Also was used by America's leading aces in the pacific.

The -38 also played a important role in the Normandy landings.


----------



## lesofprimus (Sep 17, 2005)

JUST AS A REMINDER TO THE SMALLER BRAINED, THIS POLL IS FOR 1939-1942 ONLY.........


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Sep 17, 2005)

-38, the P-38 sucked early in the war.........


----------



## lesofprimus (Sep 17, 2005)

Hence my post.... And when was D-Day again??? 1942????


----------



## syscom3 (Sep 17, 2005)

D-Day for operation Torch was Nov 1942.

P38's were operational in Iceland and England for most of 1942. I think the 1st FG and their Lightnings also engaged in some combat in North Africa, after the Torch landings. So we should include the P38 in the poll.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 17, 2005)

Yes it should be included but how effective was it in 1942.


----------



## syscom3 (Sep 17, 2005)

At the end of 1942, Id rank it #3.

the Spit and 190 were better.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 17, 2005)

The P-38 had problems in the ETO due to the cabin heating that is why I would not rank it so high here in the ETO.


----------



## syscom3 (Sep 17, 2005)

The cabin heating problem was managable in the MTO. Plus it still outperformed the hurricane at most altitudes.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 17, 2005)

In the MTO yes. That is also why I said for this thread the MTO is included with the ETO.


----------



## carpenoctem1689 (Sep 17, 2005)

I would vote for the 190-A. The spit V and the 109E were good aircraft yes, but the -190 was just all around great, and not as heavy on the stick as the -109. And it just kept on getting better to meet the needs of the reich.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 18, 2005)

I dont think anything was able to meet the needs of the Reich. The Fw-190 was though the better of the ones though.


----------



## syscom3 (Sep 18, 2005)

Id give the P38 and -190 bonus points for at least being usefull in a fighter bomber role.


----------



## carpenoctem1689 (Sep 18, 2005)

Yes, they were multi roles, and later on, both became even better fighters, evolving into better aircraft...the later war models of the P-38 making a name for itself in the PTO, and the Ta-152h showing what could be done with Kurt Tanks airframe. A testament to both aircraft.


----------



## plan_D (Sep 18, 2005)

D-Day for "Torch" was November, 1942? No, it was *in* November, 1942. See, it refers to the DAY not MONTH. 

The RAF didn't actually redesign the Spitfire due to the Fw-190. Supermarine was already in the process with organising an upgrade which would become the Spitfire Mk.VIII. However, what the Fw-190A did do was make Supermarine get it's V airframes and slam a two-stage Merlin 70 engine in 'em. So...the Fw-190 rushed the improvement of the Spitfire. 

I'd say the Spitfire IX because it was out in 1942.


----------



## lesofprimus (Sep 18, 2005)

The point of the D-Day comment was for P-38s referral to the Normandy Beach Landings, that didnt happen for 2 more years....


----------



## Jabberwocky (Sep 18, 2005)

Gnomey said:


> I would say the Defiant.
> 
> Seriously though I would say that it would be between the Spitfire and the FW190. The MKV was a counter to the FW190 and was in some ways superior. This all comes down to the skill of the pilot and personal preference as the main fighters (Spitfire, 190 and 109) are all fairly equal. Being a Spitfire fan though I will say the Spitfire with the FW190 and BF109 a close second and third with the P-38 fourth.



The Mk IX was a counter to the 190A, not the Mk V.


----------



## syscom3 (Sep 18, 2005)

plan_D said:


> D-Day for "Torch" was November, 1942? No, it was *in* November, 1942. See, it refers to the DAY not MONTH.



D-Day occured in the early hours of November 8, 1942.

If I remember correctly, the US and French forces actually fought it out for a bit. (and guess who lost yet again, hehehehehehhe)

Back to topic. I think the FW was the best throughout 1942. The Spitfire was still an excellent machine, but needed upgrades. The P38 was on the upward slope of greatness, but because it had only seen limited combat, we cant say it was great.

The 109/Hurricane/P40 were all 1939-1940 planes, getting past their prime.


----------



## plan_D (Sep 18, 2005)

Well done. The Vichy French hardly fought. But there's some interesting combat between the Vichy French Airforce and USN. By the way, the "Torch" landings were Anglo-American.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 18, 2005)

I believe there is a thread dedicated to the whole "Anglo-American" and other countries contributed the WW2 topic. Just wanted to throw that out there for the people that did not know that there were many nations in WW2.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Sep 19, 2005)

Has to be the 190A...P-38 wasnt at its best yet...


----------



## Udet (Sep 19, 2005)

I´ll clearly go for the German fighters.

I see both the E´s and F´s versions of the 109 slightly superior to their contemporary Spitfires; the arrival of the Butcher Bird to units such as the _Richtofen_ and _Schlageter_ geschwadern in the west made the situation only more dramatical for the RAF.

Even though the Home RAF managed to win the Battle of Britain in 1940, it was not due to any technical superiority of their hardware.

Just follow the calendar after the cancellation of Luftwaffe´s major operations over England in late 1940, and you will see the RAF´s performance during 1941 and 1942 showed they were going nowhere in fighting the Luftwaffe.

Pounded to hell over the Channel and France, also in North Africa upon the arrival of I./JG 27 in 1941; uncapable of providing proper air cover to British forces in some regions (i.e. may 1941, operation Merkur: the Luftwaffe had an orgy with the Royal Navy off the coasts of Crete) i do think the superiority of the Jagdwaffe over the RAF is clear.


----------



## MacArther (Sep 19, 2005)

Yeah, the P-38 was very usefull in the the early stages of the war, and the Germans ended up naming it "the Fork-tailed Devil" because of the devastation it could cause. Personally, between this and the rough and tumble P-40 I don't know which I could chose. P.S. the defiant was a turreted fighter that was hated by its crews, so I don't know how it could counter the Fw-190.


----------



## syscom3 (Sep 19, 2005)

The P38 was showing lots of promise, but it was also showing some issues (like compressability) that needed a solution. I think one of the problems the Luftwaffe had upon its first encounters with the P38, was that it was similar to the -110, and would be meat on the table. Of course they learned quickly about it.

I put the P38 above the P40 cause its high altitude performance made it more usefull.


----------



## evangilder (Sep 19, 2005)

I would certainly take a P-38 over a P-40. The "fork tailed devil" nickname is a myth though.


----------



## wmaxt (Sep 19, 2005)

The P-38 was very effective in the MTO durring that period and the recorts were that it was as/more maneuverable than its opponents at tha time. Compressibility and cold cockpits were not an issue there either (the climate was warm and the altitudes normanl close to/below 20K). On the flip side they were few, only those flown from the states in Bolero then from Britain. Their biggest impact there was in early '43.

The Spitfire, 109, 190, 38 are very close performance at that time, Throw in multy-duty and I'd go with the P-38 or the Fw-190, depending mostly on which side I flew on. The P-38 had a 6:1 kill rate in the MTO.

I've heard that the Forked-Tailed-Devil nick name is fiction but even stuff of the period mentions it and it did come from somewhere. Finaly the FG Comander of Sardinia went to Galland with the complant - the P-38s, after flying from Africa, were decimating his fighters with their performance including out maneuvering his fighters, The P-38s were well respected.

wmaxt


----------



## evangilder (Sep 19, 2005)

I am not disagreeing that it had an impact in the MTO. But the nickname was likely allied propaganda.


----------



## lesofprimus (Sep 19, 2005)

Someones voting more than 1 time for this poll... The Spitfire is getting way too many votes all of a sudden... Like 8 votes in a row, and the -190 gets none??

Someones being a scumbag....


----------



## syscom3 (Sep 19, 2005)

I guess the -190 has an image problem. 

The Spitfire does look sexier any way you cut it.


----------



## Jabberwocky (Sep 20, 2005)

The dominant fighter of the period would have to be the 190A series. Simply no other fighter of the period could match it in terms of performance.

It was more heavily armed, faster and smaller than any of its competitors. It would out accelerate a Spitfire, outdive a 109, out roll ANYTHING and had more firepower than any other fighter of the period. It terrorised the British, prompting them to speed up the introduction of the 2 speed, 2 stage Merlin Spitfire. Even the early Griffon engined variants were built expressly to catch low-level 190 raiders.

The 190 was also effective in all roles for a single engined dayfighter; interceptor, fighter, bomber destroyer, fighter bomber. About its only drawback is a lack of range and the engine problems of the A1 and A2


----------



## MacArther (Sep 20, 2005)

Despiste all of this, the P-40 could absorb more damage and still dish more out than any of the mentioned fighters. It may not have been the most glamorus, but it got the job done, and it worked well as a fighter bomber/close support aircraft.


----------



## Piaggio108 (Sep 20, 2005)

Spitfire Mk.IX
Fw-190A
Spitfire Mk.V
Bf-109F
P-38

I actualy voted -190, but then realized that the Mk.IX entered service in '42. Sry. 190 is better than the MK.V though.


----------



## wmaxt (Sep 20, 2005)

Piaggio108 said:


> Spitfire Mk.IX
> Fw-190A
> Spitfire Mk.V
> Bf-109F
> ...



Belive it or not I have a comparison (From Doc's page I think) that shows two Spit IX and P-38F. The Spits out turned it but the P-38 was right in the middle of the 2 Spits performance curves, who had different Prop reduction ratios.  

It's true the 190 had much better rolling capacity (more that 2x) but the 38 could more than hold its own with one esp. below 15,000ft. Robin Olds got 2 in a turning style dogfight, on his first encounter with German planes. 

All of these planes are so close in performance that personal prefference is a large part of the choice. I chose the P-38 because it Also has multi-roll capacity And more range, making it more flexible.

my list
P-38
Fw-190A
Spitfire
Bf-109F/P-40

Within a 1:1.3 range

wmaxt


----------



## MacArther (Sep 21, 2005)

YEESSSS!!! GO P40! thank you wmaxt!


----------



## Glider (Sep 21, 2005)

For what its worth my order would be

Equal First Spit 9 and 190 
they were to close to call and it depended on the pilot and strategic position. If pushed, I would give it to the 190 for its versatility.

Close second P38. - I haven't seen any example of a P38 outfighting a Spitfire in a trial. Robin Olds was an exceptional pilot who could do things that most pilots couldn't. An exceptional pilot in any of the above planes would almost certainly beat an average pilot in any other. 

Third 109F
It couldn't match the above three planes but was better than the P40. The Spit 5 was a good match for the 109F but the Spit 9 beat it.

Fourth P40
Sorry but I believe it to be well outclassed by the others unless at low level. It could take damage, but so could the 190 and P38. Its armament was better than the 109F, about the same as the Spit and worse than the P38 and 190.

Happy to be proved wrong in any of the above


----------



## wmaxt (Sep 21, 2005)

Glider said:


> For what its worth my order would be
> 
> Equal First Spit 9 and 190
> they were to close to call and it depended on the pilot and strategic position. If pushed, I would give it to the 190 for its versatility.
> ...



I can understand where your comming from.

Beneth 15,000ft the P-40 was a good match for the Bf-109F as a fighter and better tacticaly. I stand on what I said earlier, it's as much a matter of who your fighting for. The aircraft were that close in performance.

Its true the P-38F were the begining but they were also in service making elimination because they were relatively few is not fair. Were loking for the best that were there, not the biggest impact. The F,G and H were very compettitive with their contemporary rivals, though above 20k it took the J/K models to be truly competant against them every where. 

There is a story about a P-38H and a Griffon Spit where the Spit gave up after the P-38 was able to get firing position several times and the Spit none. I've seen tests where the Spit could out turn it but mostly just comments like 'Even the Spitfire pilots consider their mortality when faced with a P-38'. And finaly Gunther Rall comparing a Spit to a P-38 "it maneuvers about as well". No reference to models. Once again a lot is due to pilot experiance/prefference. 

wmaxt


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 22, 2005)

MacArther said:


> Despiste all of this, the P-40 could absorb more damage and still dish more out than any of the mentioned fighters. It may not have been the most glamorus, but it got the job done, and it worked well as a fighter bomber/close support aircraft.



More than a Fw-190A? Whatever, you are smoking crack!


----------



## lesofprimus (Sep 22, 2005)

Try sending a P-40 to attack a box of B-17's, then we'll see which can absorb more punishment...

Dish out more punishment???? Doubt that..... 2x 20mm, 2x 30mm, 2x 15mm wins hands down....


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Sep 22, 2005)

lesofprimus said:


> Try sending a P-40 to attack a box of B-17's, then we'll see which can absorb more punishment..


----------



## MacArther (Sep 22, 2005)

if it was as bad as you say, then why did America produce it even when its successors were in large enough numbers to take its place? My theory is that the P40 had proven itself as a tough machine, and only the increasing speed of arial combat forced it to be phased out.


----------



## Gnomey (Sep 22, 2005)

That is going to hurt!


----------



## syscom3 (Sep 22, 2005)

MacArther said:


> if it was as bad as you say, then why did America produce it even when its successors were in large enough numbers to take its place?



Upon America's entry into WW2, the P40 and P39 were the only two fighters in mass production (I'm not talking about naval aircraft either). Since you have to go to war with what you have, the P40 was thrust into the front lines. In the Pacific, the P40 performed decently because of the nature of the war. In Europe, it was different. The 109/190/Spit could outperform it under nearly all conditions.

Once the P38 and P47 were under production, the P40 was pushed aside. But, as many people understand with weapons manufacturing, once a plane is in full scale production, its hard to "just" stop it.


----------



## MacArther (Sep 22, 2005)

So maybe I'm a bit biased. I personally believe that not enough credit is given to the P40, and that the last prototype model could have given the P51 a run for its money, if not beat it.


----------



## Glider (Sep 22, 2005)

Be fair everyone. The 190 with 2x20, 2x30 and 2x15 wasn't 1942 and being so loaded, is probably the one 190 that the P40 could take on.

As long as the P40 didn't wander in front of it.


----------



## syscom3 (Sep 22, 2005)

I didnt think the P40's could fly up to 30,000 ft, let alone fight it out up there.


----------



## MacArther (Sep 22, 2005)

They couldn't, but the Fw-190 was used in the raider role early on, so the P40 would have a chance to nail 'em at the lower altitudes where the P40 held the marginal advantage.

P.S. Thanks for the go between Glider


----------



## Glider (Sep 22, 2005)

Intersting point, but could a 190 lugging that lot? B17's cruised at 25,000ft and P40 could make 30,000, just.

That said you missed the point of my posting.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 23, 2005)

MacArther said:


> if it was as bad as you say, then why did America produce it even when its successors were in large enough numbers to take its place? My theory is that the P40 had proven itself as a tough machine, and only the increasing speed of arial combat forced it to be phased out.



Yeah the P-40 was a good aircraft at the beginning of the war, however a Spitfire or Bf-109 would outperform or outfight a P-40 anyday and anytime of the war. An Fw-190 would outperform a Bf-109 and would out arm a Bf-109 so it certainly would outtfly and outfight a P-40. The P-40 is not even in the same class as a Fw-190, Spitfire, or Bf-109. You can be biased all you want but facts are facts.


----------



## MacArther (Sep 23, 2005)

Some one look up the XP-40Q, that is the model that I think would have given the P51 a run for its money.
P.S. If you could post the stats or pictures (cause I cant find any aside from kotfsc.com) that would be helpful and really nice.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Sep 23, 2005)

MacArther said:


> Some one look up the XP-40Q, that is the model that I think would have given the P51 a run for its money.
> P.S. If you could post the stats or pictures (cause I cant find any aside from kotfsc.com) that would be helpful and really nice.



Don't think so!  

It only had 4 .50 guns, was slower and not as maneuvable. Here's some other info...

"The XP-40Q Was elvulated by the USAAF But the end of the war led to cancellation of development of the Warhawk and the second XP-40Q prototype ended its carrer as a postwar air racer. 

On October 1945,a Curtiss XP-40Q suffered an engine failure during a test flight near Muroc,California and belly landed in a sweet patato field.The pilot was not injured.

XP-40Q Max Speed was 422 mph at 20,500 ft. 
Service Ceiling was 39,000 ft. "

http://www.pioneeraero.co.nz/xp-40q_version.htm

Not a bad plane, it wasn't close to the P-51.


----------



## wmaxt (Sep 23, 2005)

The Fw-190A was very effective below 20,000ft and better than the P-40. The Me-109E/F was better at altitudes of 20,000ft and over, by 15,000ft and below the P-40 was a decent match performance wise had heaver armment and was both tougher and more versatile. After the 109G and later planes came out a gap in relative performance P-40 vrs Me-109 showed the 109 had a more adaptable airframe.

wmaxt


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 24, 2005)

MacArther said:


> Some one look up the XP-40Q, that is the model that I think would have given the P51 a run for its money.



I dont think the P-40 anything would have given the P-51 a run for its money. The P-40 was outclassed by aircraft on all sides of the war by 1942.


----------



## Jabberwocky (Sep 24, 2005)

In terms of speed the best P-40 was the P-40F/L with a Packard Merlin V-1650-1. It could get to about 365 mph at 20,000 feet. Most of the 1300 produced were sent to Russia as Lend-Lease, but about 120 served with the RAF, RAAF and SAAF.

The P-40L was a lightened version intended for short-ranged interception. They stripped out most of the armour, some fuel tanks and deleted the out two wing-guns. The result was a modest increase in climb and level speed.

If you look at speed, climb and time to height the P-40 was never really competitive. Still, it could outroll anything short of a 190 or a clipped Spitfire and was decently manouevrable below 15,000 feet. It also had a good reputation as a fighter bomber, begause it was rugged and nice to fly at low altitudes.

Against a 190A any P-40 is outclassed in terms of speed, accleration, roll, climb and armament. The Allison and Packard Merlins thst it used were probably more susecptibale to damage than the radial BMW of the Focke-Wulf.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 24, 2005)

I personally think it was outclassed by the Fw-190, Bf-109, Spitfire, P-38, P-51 and I htink most people will agree.


----------



## wmaxt (Sep 24, 2005)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> I personally think it was outclassed by the Fw-190, Bf-109, Spitfire, P-38, P-51 and I htink most people will agree.



After '42 no doubt it was as developed as it could be. Prior to that it was fairly compettitive with the 109 and early Spits at lower altitudes. It was always better than the P-51 at ground attack - same armament less vulnerability.

wmaxt


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Sep 24, 2005)

Jabberwocky said:


> If you look at speed, climb and time to height the P-40 was never really competitive. Still, it could outroll anything short of a 190 or a clipped Spitfire and was decently manouevrable below 15,000 feet. It also had a good reputation as a fighter bomber, begause it was rugged and nice to fly at low altitudes.



I think the P-40 was only competative if it's pilot fully understood it's limitations (had some P-40 cheer on another thread). In the PTO it did better than actually assumed, in the ETO and MTO it had a tougher time and was definrtly outperformed by the -190. A P-40 pilot in Europe better hope to dive and split-s as much as he could!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 25, 2005)

I agree with both of your assumptions especially on the P-51 in ground attack roles.


----------



## CurzonDax (Sep 27, 2005)

Still if I remember the Lightnings, even after they had been moved to North Africa, still had problems.

:{)


----------



## CurzonDax (Sep 27, 2005)

Wadda ya mean cutting down the P-40 like that. Ya mean it can't fly around hangars like a SW Pod-Racer! Wadda ya mean that it can't turn inside a Zero at high altitude. Ya mean hollywood has it wrong!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 28, 2005)

CurzonDax said:


> Still if I remember the Lightnings, even after they had been moved to North Africa, still had problems.
> 
> :{)



You name me an aircraf that does not have problems in the desert. I dont care how good an aircraft is they all have problems in the unforgiven wasteland. Trust me I know, I have experience with it.


----------



## MacArther (Sep 28, 2005)

Owwwww.... Did I start all the mudslides headed toward me or what?!


----------



## lesofprimus (Sep 28, 2005)

and those mudslides happen in WW2 Land??? Is that next to Slovokia or Turkey???


----------



## MacArther (Sep 29, 2005)

Mudslides refering to mud slinging (aka, I REALLY got nailed). As for WW2 land, it refers to my near obsession with researching WW2, and predicting possible out comes of the scenarios if battles had been fought differently.


----------



## Marshall_Stack (Sep 29, 2005)

The P-38 was the best. It had the greatest range, two engine reliability, speed, high ceiling, and concentrated firepower. It could have been better if it used the 100 octane fuel that was avilable in the U.S. but not the U.K. The pilots that flew them were also green.

The range for a Spitfire was too limited.


----------



## CurzonDax (Sep 30, 2005)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> CurzonDax said:
> 
> 
> > Still if I remember the Lightnings, even after they had been moved to North Africa, still had problems.
> ...


]

I have to research it but the P-38 had other problems in North Africa besides the sand and dust. Must find my copy of "Fork Tailed Devil". But now really thinknig about it it was not an environmental problem but a design one with the sonic compresability on the wings in a dive. It seems, and someone more knowledgable on the P-38 and aerodynamics than I am can confirm or correct, that when the early Lightnings went into a power dive, air would pass over the wings at sonic speeds. Therefore there were a series of incidents where the wing was ripped off. It was corrected by installing a tab or a spoiler of some sort. Am I correct or wrong?

:{)

[/quote]


----------



## syscom3 (Sep 30, 2005)

You are correct about the sonic airflow over the wing. At high altitudes, the mach number was lower, and coupled with the speed of the airflow over the wings, it didnt take too much more airspeed in a dive to get into problems. If the buffeting from the turbulent air didnt rip apart the tail, then the pilot could begin to pull out of the dive at lower altitudes..... if he could.

This was a serious problem for Lockheed to figure out at first. It might have even caused the early termination of production. Eventually someone figured out what was happening, and an electrically operated dive brake was designed and installed.


----------



## wmaxt (Sep 30, 2005)

syscom3 said:


> You are correct about the sonic airflow over the wing. At high altitudes, the mach number was lower, and coupled with the speed of the airflow over the wings, it didnt take too much more airspeed in a dive to get into problems. If the buffeting from the turbulent air didnt rip apart the tail, then the pilot could begin to pull out of the dive at lower altitudes..... if he could.
> 
> This was a serious problem for Lockheed to figure out at first. It might have even caused the early termination of production. Eventually someone figured out what was happening, and an electrically operated dive brake was designed and installed.



This is true as far as it goes though the air resistance is lower to so planes get closer to it sooner. The criticle altitude was 20,000ft above that you could get into compressability, below that you were safe - in N. Africa over 20,000ft was rare. One thing that is usualy left out is that if the engines were throttled back and with a weave or two on the way down you could stay out of compressability with a 38. 

With the exceptions of cold cockpits (even part of that) and slow roll rates most of the early problems were much more inexperiance with the P-38 than the 38 itself.

The desert problems are/were the same as all aircraft have in the desert.

wmaxt


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 2, 2005)

Marshall_Stack said:


> The P-38 was the best. It had the greatest range, two engine reliability, speed, high ceiling, and concentrated firepower. It could have been better if it used the 100 octane fuel that was avilable in the U.S. but not the U.K. The pilots that flew them were also green.
> 
> The range for a Spitfire was too limited.



For the ETO I disagree. While it was a great aircraft it was better suited for the PTO. There were plenty of aircraft in the ETO that were just as good as a P-38.


----------



## Gnomey (Oct 2, 2005)

and better....


----------



## syscom3 (Oct 2, 2005)

The P38 was origionally designed to be an interceptor, not a dogfighter. The fact that it could at at least be competetive in a fighter role says volumes about its basic design. As a fighter escort, it did what it was supposed to do. Keep German fighters away from the bombers. But as an air superiority fighter, it wasnt dominating enough.

But the bottom line is this. The Spit, 109 and 190 were better planes if you wanted to mix it up one on one. The fact that the P38 could speed away from trouble was its saviour many times over.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 2, 2005)

syscom3 said:


> But the bottom line is this. The Spit, 109 and 190 were better planes if you wanted to mix it up one on one. The fact that the P38 could speed away from trouble was its saviour many times over.



Don't forget that 2nd engine!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 2, 2005)

The 2nd engine is what would sell me the P-38 however in the ETO I would rather have a Fw-190, Bf-109 or Spitfire.


----------



## wmaxt (Oct 2, 2005)

syscom3 said:


> The P38 was origionally designed to be an interceptor, not a dogfighter. The fact that it could at at least be competetive in a fighter role says volumes about its basic design. As a fighter escort, it did what it was supposed to do. Keep German fighters away from the bombers. But as an air superiority fighter, it wasnt dominating enough.
> 
> But the bottom line is this. The Spit, 109 and 190 were better planes if you wanted to mix it up one on one. The fact that the P38 could speed away from trouble was its saviour many times over.



The massive problems and the German kills ammounted to 451 P-38s lost
and only occured in the 8th AF.

The P-38 could mix it up very well with 109/190s to a 4:1 P-38 ratio. 451 P-38s were shot down for ~1,700 german aircraft (almost exclusively fighters) in the 8th AF. This was F/G/H models, close escort, outnumbered by more experianced Germans and by inexperianced AAF pilots. Later in '44 with J/L models the ratio for some groups reached 20:1.

The L model was parellel with the D mustang and could beat it in every way except cruise speed.

In Art Heidens paraphrased words - It was beautiful, the panicked German pilot trying everything twist, turn, climb, dive or split-s the doomed German just couldn't get away from a P-38L.

The P-38 could deal 1:1 with its contemporaries. And as you say if need be it could leave them in the dust. I'm not saying it was hands down the best but even when the facts are twisted it carried off a better than 1:1 ratio. That says it all.

wmaxt


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 2, 2005)

451 is really not a lot if you think about it, especially since that includes mechanical failures and other losses besides being shot down.


----------



## wmaxt (Oct 3, 2005)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> 451 is really not a lot if you think about it, especially since that includes mechanical failures and other losses besides being shot down.



No its not, and your right to in that it represents collisions, training, mechanical, and enemy fire both AAA and fighters.

When an H can mix it up with a Griffon Spit and fly away with ALL the sucessful pounces would you really rather be in the Spit?

wmaxt


----------



## Gnomey (Oct 3, 2005)

Nice info wmaxt. The P-38 did a lot better than I thought it did in the ETO.


----------



## wmaxt (Oct 3, 2005)

Gnomey said:


> Nice info wmaxt. The P-38 did a lot better than I thought it did in the ETO.



Thanks.

The P-38s main problem in the ETO was that it was available while the 8th AF was proving self escorted bombers is a great way to commit suicide. For instance it was claimed the early P-38s had less range than the P-51s but the 300gal drop tanke were NEVER used in the ETO, every where else they were flying up to 800mi (each way) missions.

wmaxt


----------



## cheddar cheese (Oct 3, 2005)

Why were the 300gals not used in the ETO?


----------



## wmaxt (Oct 3, 2005)

cheddar cheese said:


> Why were the 300gals not used in the ETO?



As far as I can tell they were never requested, The P-38s were never adequately supported in the ETO.

Another example is combat training, combat experianced pilots were seldom given more that cockpit checks. New pilots in P-38s got around 20hrs in type then off to combat. New pilots in P-51s were given 50hrs just in combat orientation prior to combat.

Problems like compressability and engine bugs occured in the P-51s (Engine), and P-47s (compressability they got dive flaps too) but the P-38s problems were delt with in combat (and in front of everyone) because the other planes weren't as ready for combat as the P-38. The amazing thing is the not ready P-38 still did better than the fixed versions of the others!

wmaxt


----------



## syscom3 (Oct 3, 2005)

Part of the reason NO fighters got belly tanks in England is the generals wanted to prove that unescorted bombing worked according to theory.

Once that issue was settled, belly tanks of all capacities began to show up.


----------



## wmaxt (Oct 3, 2005)

syscom3 said:


> Part of the reason NO fighters got belly tanks in England is the generals wanted to prove that unescorted bombing worked according to theory.
> 
> Once that issue was settled, belly tanks of all capacities began to show up.



Yep I mentioned that above. There NEVER were 300 gal tanks for P-38s in the ETO.

BTW: P-39s tested the first belly tanks in the AAF in '41 (they were forbiden in the AAF until '42). Lockheed flew a P-38F 3,100mi in early '42. The Lockheed tanks were the most streamlined and the 165gal tanks were used in the pacific on P-47s.

The Bolero mission flying P-38s to Britain finaly proved that drop tanks were practicle and were useful in extending range.

wmaxt


----------



## CurzonDax (Oct 3, 2005)

For the ETO I disagree. While it was a great aircraft it was better suited for the PTO. There were plenty of aircraft in the ETO that were just as good as a P-38.[/quote]

I agree. Especially with the aircraft that would be available within a year such as P-47 and P-51s. But I still love all that concentrated firepower. Still, again and some can correct me on this, wasn't the Beaufighter also more effective in warmer climates such as Africa, the Med, PTO, and Asia-Burma.

:{)


----------



## 102first_hussars (Oct 3, 2005)

I Picked The Hawker Hurricane because it was the backbone of the RAF From 1939-1942, It was the Empires mostly largely produced aircraft at the time, it accounted for 75% of the Casualties inflicted on the Luftwaffe during the battle of Britain, It wasnt as fast or had the firepower that the BF-109 did but, it had superior agility, Its Ruggedness and reliability was excellent, its firepower and Endurance was much better than the Spitfire during this time period, And during the Battle Of Britain, Canada had fought alongside the RAF with its Deployment of only 100 Hurricanes and shot down over 200 german planes and only sufferd 12 casualties.


----------



## carpenoctem1689 (Oct 3, 2005)

The hurricane up against a 190A would be in alot of trouble, because the 190 is faster, manoueverable, but cant turn as tight, and is all around just a better aircraft in terms of statistics. one of the few shortcomings was that early 190s stayed close to home from engine overheat troubles, giving the hurricane the reliability advantage, and the hurricane could take more punishment...but the 190 was still a better aircraft, even better than the spit v when it appeared.


----------



## 102first_hussars (Oct 4, 2005)

carpenoctem1689

YOUR RIGHT THE 190 WAS A BETTER AIRCRAFT THAN THE HURRICANE BUT ONLY BY A SMALL MARGIN, BECAUSE BY THE TIME THE FOCKE WOLF CAME OUT, THE HURRICANE HAD RECEIVED MAJOR UPRADES, THE 4X30.CAL MGS WERE REPLACED WITH 4X20MM CANNONS, 
THE ENGINE WAS REPLACED WITH THE ROLLS ROYCE MERLIN V-12 ENGINE PROVIDING A BONE SHATTERING 1800HP AND NOT TO MENTION, THE HURRICANE HAD FUEL INJECTION WHILE THE FW-190 WAS STILL USING A CARBORATOR MEANING THE 190 COULDNT DO A STRAIGHT DIVE WHICH AT THE TIME WAS THE MOST EFFECTIVE EVASIVE MANOUVER. SO IF THE 190 POINTED HIS NOSE DOWN TOO FAR THE ENGINE WOULD SHUT OFF, HENSE IN A COMBAT SITUATION SOURKRAUT WAS SO SCREWD.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 4, 2005)

Even with those upgrades the Fw-190 still was superior to any Hurricane. It was a different class of aircraft. The Hurricane was outdated by Fw-190 standards. When it came out it was the finest fighter in service in the world and it never left being in the top.


----------



## Gnomey (Oct 4, 2005)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Even with those upgrades the Fw-190 still was superior to any Hurricane. It was a different class of aircraft. The Hurricane was outdated by Fw-190 standards. When it came out it was the finest fighter in service in the world and it never left being in the top.


Very true Alder, I agree.


----------



## 102first_hussars (Oct 4, 2005)

But lets remember the timeline, the FW190 though made its appearance in North Africa in 42, it was small, and through this timeline 39-42 the Hurricane had the best service record, it served on all fronts, it was a good all around fighter, and the FW-190 dindnt go into mass production until 1943, and by that time the new spitfires, P47 thunderbolts, and P38Js had taken over for the Hurricane, the Battle of Britain was the ultimate test of who had the best airforce, Britain won and the majority of the aircraft used by the RAF and its Colonies were Hurricanes.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 4, 2005)

The Fw-190A first appeared in combat against the allies in 1941 not in 1942 and over France not N. Afrika. Where do you get your information from?



> The British Royal Air Force (RAF) first encountered the FW-190A-1 in air combat over the coast of northern France in September 1941. The new German aircraft was more than a match for the Spitfire V. British intelligence was initially puzzled by reports of the new German fighter, with some speculation that the type might actually be a captured French Curtiss Hawk 75 or the Bloch 151 fighter, both of which were radial-engine machines with a vague resemblance to the FW-190. By the end of the year, the British had no doubt that they were up against something much more formidable.
> www.axishistory.com/index.php?id=1155



And who cares about timelines or what not. The Fw-190 was much better than the Hurricane, any varient period. They way you are coming up with your assumption is like saying that the Sopwith Camel is better than the P-51D because the Sopwith Camel did more in 1918 than the P-51D did in the whole war.  

The BoB did not really prove who had a better airforce. The Germans lost because they made very very very dumb mistakes like a change in tactics and what not.


----------



## Parmigiano (Oct 4, 2005)

102first_hussars said:


> carpenoctem1689
> 
> THE ENGINE WAS REPLACED WITH THE ROLLS ROYCE MERLIN V-12 ENGINE PROVIDING A BONE SHATTERING 1800HP AND NOT TO MENTION, THE HURRICANE HAD FUEL INJECTION WHILE THE FW-190 WAS STILL USING A CARBORATOR MEANING THE 190 COULDNT DO A STRAIGHT DIVE WHICH AT THE TIME WAS THE MOST EFFECTIVE EVASIVE MANOUVER. SO IF THE 190 POINTED HIS NOSE DOWN TOO FAR THE ENGINE WOULD SHUT OFF, HENSE IN A COMBAT SITUATION SOURKRAUT WAS SO SCREWD.



Where did you found documentation about a 1800hp- fuel injection Merlin in 1942? Never heard of a Merlin with fuel injection until very late in the war, and I am not sure it went into production. 
I never heard about it, nor that it was fitted on a hurri. Also I never heard/read that the 190 had engine cut problems in dive, no matter how steep.

What I know is that RR was faithful to carburettors because they believed that the lower temp of the mix was offsetting the advanytages of the injection.

It reminds the story of the early merlins vs DB601 with the name changed! 





'


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 4, 2005)

102first_hussars said:


> carpenoctem1689
> 
> 
> THE ENGINE WAS REPLACED WITH THE ROLLS ROYCE MERLIN V-12 ENGINE PROVIDING A BONE SHATTERING 1800HP AND NOT TO MENTION, THE HURRICANE HAD FUEL INJECTION WHILE THE FW-190 WAS STILL USING A CARBORATOR MEANING THE 190 COULDNT DO A STRAIGHT DIVE WHICH AT THE TIME WAS THE MOST EFFECTIVE EVASIVE MANOUVER. SO IF THE 190 POINTED HIS NOSE DOWN TOO FAR THE ENGINE WOULD SHUT OFF, HENSE IN A COMBAT SITUATION SOURKRAUT WAS SO SCREWD.



I think you're a little off the mark.....

The most powerful engine the Hurricane had was the Merlin 32 that produced 1645 hp and these were on the Mark Vs. 

The BMW 801 used on the FW-190 A8 featured a pressure carburetor. This works like a fuel injection unit except an intake manifold is still used. What you describe is typical of early Spitfires and Hurricanes.....

So tell me, where did you read about all this?!?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 4, 2005)

Yeap same here I have not heard of Fw-190s engines just quitting because they were in a dive. A Fw-190 would outdive a Hurricane anyhow. Hell the BMW-801s were very good engines. Not the best but very robust and good.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 4, 2005)

I've posted this before....

The BMW 801D-2 was fed by methanol-water injection. Most revolutionary however, was the hydraulic-electric 'brain' unit, operated by a single control which was the pilot's throttle lever. It automatically adjusted fuel flow, mixture strength, propeller pitch setting and ignition timing. It also cut in a second stage of the supercharger at the correct altitude. The pilot could, if required, manually set the propeller pitch without altering any of the other settings.

Oh - I was wrong about the pressure carb - the -801 had a *FUEL INJECTION PUMP!!!! THE ENGINE COULD OPERATE IN ANY ATITUDE!!!! *See the link for additional information.....

http://cip.physik.uni-wuerzburg.de/~vernalek/glc9-2106US.html

What about the -190s engine shutting off?!?!?


----------



## carpenoctem1689 (Oct 4, 2005)

I dont know what you were talking about with a hurricane having an 1800hp engine, i dont even know if a hurricane prototype ever had such HP, much less any production aircraft. I also have never heard of a 190s engine cutting out in a dive, only that the engine overheated early on, and some fume exhaust leakage, but that was also fixed. And the reason the hurricane was so important was because it was simply the most available when it was needed, not that it was an outstanding aircraft, yes it was good in several roles, of fighter, and ground attack, but the 190 was better in every conceivable role.


----------



## wmaxt (Oct 4, 2005)

CurzonDax said:


> For the ETO I disagree. While it was a great aircraft it was better suited for the PTO. There were plenty of aircraft in the ETO that were just as good as a P-38.



I agree. Especially with the aircraft that would be available within a year such as P-47 and P-51s. But I still love all that concentrated firepower. Still, again and some can correct me on this, wasn't the Beaufighter also more effective in warmer climates such as Africa, the Med, PTO, and Asia-Burma.

:{)[/quote]

The P-38L was available at the same time as the P-47D/P-51D were available in the ETO and was superior to both and had none of the problems that were supposedly in the early models remained. The P-38s kill rate was twice the P-51s which was ahead of the P-47. Further the P-38s record was achieved with green planes, green pilots, green ground crew, insuffient support, machanical losses against experienced German pilots and 10:1 P-38 odds NONE of which the P-51/P-47s had to deal with.

Several sources claim 20:1 P-38 for the L models fighting in the same conditions in the ETO with the P-51D/P-47Ds, and even without Ls the MTO rate was 6:1 P-38.

Also the decision by Doolittle was for logistical reasons not performance, Warren Bodie summarizes the interview in his book P-38. The P-51 had 2 factories and supplied 2 times the planes so they concentrated them in the ETO. Many sources contend P-38 was wanted over the P-51/P-47 everywhere else (esp the Pacific).

In '39 through '42 the Bf-109 has to be considered with the Spit V, Fw190A, and P-38 with the P-40 and Hurricane close behind too. The best plane in this group is who is the best pilot/best mission. Long range escort was absolutly the P-38, the heavest bomb load was the P-38 (3,200lbs), high cover was P-38 (and cold fingers) and the P-38 could mix it up on ~equal terms with the others. The ETO, and its sustained very high altitude, was not involved at this time.

If you choose something else thats fine and your choice, but if you do a little research, I don't think it will be on the actual performance record of the P-38, early or late.

Try this site for a start: http://home.att.net/~C.C.Jordan/index.html There are 5 articals on the P-38 several are titled as Der Gabelscgwanz Teufel.

wmaxt


----------



## 102first_hussars (Oct 5, 2005)

K Im Back, sorry about the false apects of both planes, I got the info mixed up, the info was between the Me-109/Spitfire.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 5, 2005)

Okay and what are you still talking about then. The Bf-109 first saw combat in the Spanish Civil War and the Bf-109E were used in Poland in 1939. The Germans were already using Bf-109F's in 1942 and in N. Afrika. 

Also a Bf-109 were not stall its engine if it were in a dive or climb either. That problem was actually in the early Hurricanes and Spitfires I believe. The 109 used fuel injection.


----------



## Gnomey (Oct 5, 2005)

Correct Alder the early Spits and Hurricanes could not do a straight dive as their engines cut out (no fuel injection), they had to do a half-roll into dive sort of thing to achieve a dive giving the chased plane (generally a 109) a huge advantage which German pilots used against the British. The problem was fixed in later marks of Spits and Hurricanes but not sure from which marks.


----------



## CurzonDax (Oct 5, 2005)

The P-38L was available at the same time as the P-47D/P-51D were available in the ETO and was superior to both and had none of the problems that were supposedly in the early models remained. The P-38s kill rate was twice the P-51s which was ahead of the P-47. Further the P-38s record was achieved with green planes, green pilots, green ground crew, insuffient support, machanical losses against experienced German pilots and 10:1 P-38 odds NONE of which the P-51/P-47s had to deal with.

Several sources claim 20:1 P-38 for the L models fighting in the same conditions in the ETO with the P-51D/P-47Ds, and even without Ls the MTO rate was 6:1 P-38.

In '39 through '42 the Bf-109 has to be considered with the Spit V, Fw190A, and P-38 with the P-40 and Hurricane close behind too. The best plane in this group is who is the best pilot/best mission. Long range escort was absolutly the P-38, the heavest bomb load was the P-38 (3,200lbs), high cover was P-38 (and cold fingers) and the P-38 could mix it up on ~equal terms with the others. The ETO, and its sustained very high altitude, was not involved at this time.[/quote]

HORRAY!!!!!! YIPPPIE!!!!! Someone has come to the defense of the USAAF. By the way get off my brain cell with all this info for I probably looked that the same sources exept I also looked in Martin Caidin's Forked Tailed Devil. 

:{)


----------



## syscom3 (Oct 5, 2005)

Since the subject of the thread is 1939-1942, I dont think we need to discuss what the P38 was doing after Jan 1 1943.


----------



## wmaxt (Oct 5, 2005)

syscom3 said:


> Since the subject of the thread is 1939-1942, I dont think we need to discuss what the P38 was doing after Jan 1 1943.



If you check the post after I adressed the P-51/P-47 comment I discussed the '39/'42 issue. I agree this should be kept on topic as much as possible.

Curzon,
Martin Cadin was only 1 of the sources that claim that ratio. Martins books are sometimes derided because he he takes license sometimes, in the Forked Tailed Devil he mixes both the old myths and some real good stuff I would rate it as 6.5/7 out of 10 on the truth scale. Warren Bodies book and the Planes and Pilots page (a link is an earlier post) are both very good sources of P-38 data and history.

wmaxt


----------



## CurzonDax (Oct 5, 2005)

Curzon,
Martin Cadin was only 1 of the sources that claim that ratio. Martins books are sometimes derided because he he takes license sometimes, in the Forked Tailed Devil he mixes both the old myths and some real good stuff I would rate it as 6.5/7 out of 10 on the truth scale. Warren Bodies book and the Planes and Pilots page (a link is an earlier post) are both very good sources of P-38 data and history.


> Oh I know this. I have both books but did not know this website existed until the post. Still I am glad that someone else besides me came to the rescue of the USAAF. Sometimes I think that the USAAF fighter force in the ETO is overshadowed by the RAF and the GAF because the latter two organizations seem to have a more romantic image. But I do have to admit that the USAAF in the ETO/MTO did not come into its own until mid '43.
> 
> :{)


----------



## plan_D (Oct 6, 2005)

The Me-109E actually saw combat in the Spanish Civil War. There were apparently forty-four E-model Me-109s serving with the Kondor Legion by the wars end. They were E-1s and E-3s. 

The source: _Emiliani, A. and Ghergo, G.F. (1986) Nei Cieli di Spagna - 1936-39 Immagini e documenti delle Forze Aeree in Guerra. Giorgi Apostolo Editore, Madrid._


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 6, 2005)

Your probably right but the point was that no matter which aircraft he is talking about weather it be the Fw-190, Bf-109, or the Spitfire they saw action before 1942 and not over N. Afrika (yes they saw action in N. Afrika but that was not the first place) and it was not the Fw-190 or the Bf-109 that would stall out in a dive or climb. Just trying to get some facts straight here.


----------



## wmaxt (Oct 6, 2005)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Your probably right but the point was that no matter which aircraft he is talking about weather it be the Fw-190, Bf-109, or the Spitfire they saw action before 1942 and not over N. Afrika (yes they saw action in N. Afrika but that was not the first place) and it was not the Fw-190 or the Bf-109 that would stall out in a dive or climb. Just trying to get some facts straight here.



I'm not sure what you mean, The Spit had a negitive G carb problem and in the flight regimes in the MTO the P-38 climbed/dived/turned with any of the others, as for stall the P-38 was the best of any aircraft in WWII.

If were talking '39, '41 the P-38 and nouth Africa doesn't belong, I think most of us included '42.

wmaxt


----------



## plan_D (Oct 6, 2005)

The Spitfire wouldn't stall out in a dive or climb except in special circumstances. The problem was with inverted dives, the engine would cut out because of the carb. This was solved in the Spitfire V. The Spitfire IX was introduced in 1942 and didn't have the problem at all.


----------



## 102first_hussars (Oct 6, 2005)

No what i meant was that the, never mind I still think the Hurricane was an all around good plane and because its cobat record was very seasond it was the best of this time period.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 7, 2005)

wmaxt said:


> DerAdlerIstGelandet said:
> 
> 
> > Your probably right but the point was that no matter which aircraft he is talking about weather it be the Fw-190, Bf-109, or the Spitfire they saw action before 1942 and not over N. Afrika (yes they saw action in N. Afrika but that was not the first place) and it was not the Fw-190 or the Bf-109 that would stall out in a dive or climb. Just trying to get some facts straight here.
> ...



No I was not talking about the P-38.


----------



## The Jug Rules! (Oct 7, 2005)

Bristol Beufighter...I havent heard much about her. What did she do besides ground attack?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 7, 2005)

The Jug Rules! said:


> Bristol Beufighter...I havent heard much about her. What did she do besides ground attack?



Nightfighter


----------



## evangilder (Oct 7, 2005)

I seem to remember that the Beaufighter was called whispering death because of the quietness of the sleeve-valve engines.


----------



## CurzonDax (Oct 7, 2005)

evangilder said:


> I seem to remember that the Beaufighter was called whispering death because of the quietness of the sleeve-valve engines.



Thats what I was saying a while back. Don't know much about this plane but it seemed to be everywhere in the Med or in India-Burma. But yes it it seemed to be used as a ground attack plane, especially in the maritime role. 

:{)


----------



## cheddar cheese (Oct 7, 2005)

Great anti-shipping a/c.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Oct 7, 2005)

yup she was an exceptional bird, very tough!


----------



## evangilder (Oct 7, 2005)

I have been looking for a Beaufighter T-shirt for quite a while. Can't seem to find one here in the states.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 7, 2005)

She was a good multi role aircraft.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Oct 8, 2005)

and suprisingly manouverable.........


----------



## HealzDevo (Nov 6, 2005)

Supermarine Spitfire. Could successfully go head to head with the Bf-109E/F and the Fw-190A. The P-38 Lightning wasn't around until 1943 wasn't it?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 6, 2005)

The P-38 Lightning was in the ETO/MTO from the beginning of the US entry into the War I believe.


----------



## CurzonDax (Nov 9, 2005)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> The P-38 Lightning was in the ETO/MTO from the beginning of the US entry into the War I believe.



Wow with the Lightning in the Great War even the Red Baron would have been easy pickings. And who said we didn't have good planes in that one! (Just kidding with ya dude!)

;{)


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 12, 2005)

CurzonDax said:


> DerAdlerIstGelandet said:
> 
> 
> > The P-38 Lightning was in the ETO/MTO from the beginning of the US entry into the War I believe.
> ...



LOL Wow I wish I had cought that before you did. Ohwell it is a good laugh hell I laughed at it.


----------



## CurzonDax (Nov 13, 2005)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> The P-38 Lightning was in the ETO/MTO from the beginning of the US entry into the War II believe.



This is true, but if memory serves they first Lightning units in the ETO were the F-5 recon birds. I don't think they even flew CAP for Torch.

:{)


----------



## evangilder (Nov 14, 2005)

P-38s were attacking enemy cargho aircraft during the North African battles. Here is some inffo from one of my articles on the P-38:


> The 1st, 14th and 82nd Fighter Groups were transferred from England to the 12th Air Force in North Africa to support Operation Torch, the invasion of North Africa in October of 1942. While en route to Algeria, 2 German Ju-88 bombers were shot down by pilots of the 82nd FG over the Bay of Biscay.
> 
> The first combat in the North African campaign for the P-38 was on November 19, 1942. P-38Fs from the 1st fighter group escorted B-17s on a bombing mission to El Aouina airfield in Tunis. The P-38s did help to establish air superiority over North African skies, but the Lightning’s successes were mixed. On April 5, 1943, 31 enemy aircraft were downed by 26 P-38Fs from the 82nd FG, with the friendly losses at 6 lost. Due to the enemy tactics, the Lightnings were often forced to dogfight at 15,000 feet. In fighter engagements, the maneuverability was affected partly by the twin engines, partly by the wheel control instead of a stick. But it was highly effective against the bombers and it caused a great deal of destruction of the transports used to resupply Rommel. The transports were often attacked well out to sea, causing a complete loss of the aircraft, crew and supplies. This was one of the contributing factors to Rommel’s surrender in North Africa. During the North African campaign, 37 pilots of the 12th air force had become aces. Among these, Lt. WJ Sloan of the 82nd FG had 12 kills and Lt. HT Hanna of the 14th FG downed five Ju-87 bombers in one day on October 9, 1943 to become an “Ace in one day”.
> 
> ...


----------



## CurzonDax (Nov 14, 2005)

I guess I should have been more specific, I meant the Torch landings. The landings were in October, the 1st and the 14th groups. If I remember correctly the CAPs for the landings themselves were fighters, Spits and P-40s from Gibraltar and F4Fs from carriers. In fact future Corsair ace Tommy Blackburn was shot down during Torch. Which also begs another question, the performance of Wildcat/Martlets against 109/FW-190/French Fighters.

:{)


----------



## CurzonDax (Nov 14, 2005)

Sorry hit the submit button too early, the 1st and 14th airgroups did not get to Africa until November.

:{)


----------



## evangilder (Nov 14, 2005)

Sorry, I misunderstood. I would have to look a bit at Torch to see what were the fighters used during the landing. But the list you have does seem correct, to my recollection.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 14, 2005)

Good info there.


----------



## 102first_hussars (Nov 14, 2005)

I didnt know people were still posting here. Funny this was the first thread people got pissed at me on


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 14, 2005)

It is not hard to do....


----------



## evangilder (Nov 14, 2005)

Just proves that it's not all about you.


----------



## Gnomey (Nov 14, 2005)

Hussars if you have a problem please take a number...


----------



## 102first_hussars (Nov 14, 2005)

I was Reminissing not complaining,


----------



## book1182 (Nov 14, 2005)

My pick was a simple one. The Bf-109E/F. If you fight the Battle of Britain right and let the Bf-109 fly a loose escort then the British would have probably lost. The tactics employed by the Germans and the speed of the 109 is what made it a winner. I also like the gun package they carried.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Nov 15, 2005)

regardless of what escort was flown it was the change in german tactics from bombing airfeilds to cities that lost them the battle, amoung other things obviously........


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 16, 2005)

Yeap Lanc that was it. I dont think the type of aircraft would matter. They lost it by bad decisions.

Nice siggy gnomey.


----------



## Soundbreaker Welch? (Jan 17, 2008)

He still has the avatar? 

I like it too! Winston Churchhill!


----------



## plan_D (Jan 17, 2008)

The Fw 190A was the best fighter of this time period. The Bf 109F and Spitfire V were equals, with some edge to the Bf 109F - in my opinion. It was not until the Spitfire IX came into mass production that the RAF gained a fighter that could tangle with the best of them, and frankly the Spitfire IX maintained its record until 1945. 

I know this is an old thread, but hey - no need to let it die.


----------



## drgondog (Jan 17, 2008)

I voted Fw 190A but with reservations. 

The designs evolved amazingly between all combatants - If you start at 1939 and put an anchor that starts there and continues through 1942 I have to look hard at the Spit IX or the P-38F or Me 109E/F and ask 'what are judging on'.

Of all the combatants that existed in 1942 the most 'incremental' evolution occurred in Mustang, Corsair and Focke Wulf.

Provocative question requiring objective evealuation criteria. I think if I had been a fighter pilot in constant struggle for control of my airspace in defencse in 1942 it is between Fw 190, Spit IX and Me 109F

If I want to go deep and have great capability at medium to medium high altitude I go P-38F

If I sound confused you have me pegged.


----------



## Soren (Jan 24, 2008)

The FW-190A for sure, but the Bf-109F-4 is a close second. Both could reach 670 km/h at alt, which is pretty impressive for the time period.

As for going long and deep, well how long deep are we talking here? The Fw-190A Bf-109F could both carry drop tanks, so range was pretty decent by then.


----------



## SoD Stitch (Jan 24, 2008)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> regardless of what escort was flown it was the change in german tactics from bombing airfeilds to cities that lost them the battle, amoung other things obviously........



Definitely; the Luftwaffe almost had the RAF beaten into submission by bombing and strafing their airfields, when Goring made the fateful decision to start bombing the cities instead, thereby giving the RAF enough breathing room to regroup rearm. I understand it was a very near thing, as the RAF almost ran out of planes pilots, when the Luftwaffe shifted tactics. If the Luftwaffe had continued their assault on British airpower (including their radar stations), they probably would've won the Battle.


----------



## Glider (Jan 24, 2008)

How on earth do you chose between the 190 and the Spit IX?


----------



## drgondog (Jan 24, 2008)

Glider said:


> How on earth do you chose between the 190 and the Spit IX?



Glider, for me the Spit IX was in my opinion a better (slightly) pure fighter than the 190 (and the Mustang) but I felt the 190A was more versatile, as a fighter bomber for example, and could have easily been converted to fleet version had the LW had a carrier fleet.


----------



## Soren (Jan 24, 2008)

I can't see why the Spit IX was a better pure fighter than the Fw-190A, except if we're talking late 44 to 45 where the +25lbs boosted version appeared, but AFAIK this was only used for chasing V-1's and had a very short service life.

However we need to consider the Bf-109 here as-well, which considering its climb rate, speed and agility is a serious contender and atleast the equal of the Spitfire as a pure fighter, if not slightly better. The Bf-109 G-2 and Spitfire IX were very equal on all aspects of flight really.


----------



## Marcel (Jan 24, 2008)

Soren said:


> The FW-190A for sure, but the Bf-109F-4 is a close second. Both could reach 670 km/h at alt, which is pretty impressive for the time period.
> 
> As for going long and deep, well how long deep are we talking here? The Fw-190A Bf-109F could both carry drop tanks, so range was pretty decent by then.



Soren, do you have any numbers on how far and long a mission could be for these two fighters with the drop tanks?


----------



## Soren (Jan 24, 2008)

Not currently at hand since I'm not at home but, IIRC the Fw-190 has a range of 1200 - 1300 km with a single 300 L drop tank. The Fw-190 could carry up to three drop tanks however, so max range was probably ~2100 -2200 km.


----------



## drgondog (Jan 24, 2008)

Soren said:


> I can't see why the Spit IX was a better pure fighter than the Fw-190A, except if we're talking late 44 to 45 where the +25lbs boosted version appeared, but AFAIK this was only used for chasing V-1's and had a very short service life.
> 
> However we need to consider the Bf-109 here as-well, which considering its climb rate, speed and agility is a serious contender and atleast the equal of the Spitfire as a pure fighter, if not slightly better. The Bf-109 G-2 and Spitfire IX were very equal on all aspects of flight really.



I don't really have an answer Soren. Particularly since we are limited to 1942 for end of comparisons.

I consider all three to be excellent 'fighter-fighters'. While I like the Spit IX better than the Fw 190A2 or A3 and the Me 109F it isn't based on compelling case for any of them - but I like the Fw 190 versatility better, particularly in 1942. 

Further, I was thinking Spit IX with -66 Merlin when strictly speaking that didn't happen until 43. If comparison was between Fw 190 through A5 and Spit IX with -66 Merlin I would faver the Spit slightly because of speed and climb advantages, particularly at 20K+ altitude. 

If the -61 Merlin, I like the Me 109G2 and Fw A2-5 better. The latter because Roll rate shoud trump turn rate. In every other case they are too close to call. In every case, if they both see each other with no energy advantage, the winner is best pilot or luckiest, not the airplane. I feel this applies when you bring the Mustang into the equation also.

But ask them to perform as fighter bombers and the Fw 190 gets my nod

I think as a 'pilot's airplane' they are all in equal esteem - depending on who flew what.


Regards,

Bill


----------



## Glider (Jan 24, 2008)

Soren said:


> I can't see why the Spit IX was a better pure fighter than the Fw-190A, except if we're talking late 44 to 45 where the +25lbs boosted version appeared, but AFAIK this was only used for chasing V-1's and had a very short service life.
> 
> However we need to consider the Bf-109 here as-well, which considering its climb rate, speed and agility is a serious contender and atleast the equal of the Spitfire as a pure fighter, if not slightly better. The Bf-109 G-2 and Spitfire IX were very equal on all aspects of flight really.



Firstly the 190 vs the Spit IX.
They are so close with differing strengths. The 190 was more flexible and capable of carrying a decent GA load. The Spit was better at high altitude the 190 at low altitude. The Spit had a better turn but the 190 had a better roll rate so that equalled out in most cases.
To be honest I wouldn't disagree if people chose one or the other as the best, at the end of the day the tactical position and pilot would make the difference. I am sure that the pilots of both didn't feel short changed and were more than happy with their mount.

Spit IX vs 109G (first versions of both as this is 1942)
I feel the Spit had the advantage. It certainly had the advantage at height which is no small thing. It also had the better manoeuverability. The 109 had a better dive but the advantage was limited as the 109 was red lined at a similar level to the Spit. The initial acceleration was greater in a 109 which is a decent advantage but not overwhelming.
The Spit was more flexible. For instance, it could be upgunned with a minimal impact on performance, when the 109 was upgunned the impact was significant.
I am certainly not saying it was an easy target, or that the difference is huge, far from it ,but the question is which is the best.


----------



## drgondog (Jan 24, 2008)

Glider said:


> Spit IX vs 109G (first versions of both as this is 1942)
> 
> The Spit was more flexible. For instance, it could be upgunned with a minimal impact on performance, when the 109 was upgunned the impact was significant.
> I am certainly not saying it was an easy target, or that the difference is huge, far from it ,but the question is which is the best.



Good point on armament - I had forgotten that differentiation, particularly between 190G2 and 4x20mm equipped Spit.


----------



## The Basket (Jan 24, 2008)

The Focke Wulf Fw-190 wins for me. That wide track undercarriage and big canopy make it a more modern and better thought out design. Didn't swing on take-off either. 

Spitfire was also excellent but the 190 had higher perfromance in this time frame.

The 109 was F model about now and the Fredrich was good. But I've never liked the 109 so it gets third.

But I believe the Finns and their Buffalos got the best kill ratio...so you can't ignore results!!!

The Heinkel He-100 was the best fighter in this time frame so it should have won...but it never got the nod so Fw-190 it is.


----------



## Soren (Jan 25, 2008)

Glider, I agree with about everything except the below.



> I feel the Spit had the advantage. It certainly had the advantage at height which is no small thing. It also had the better manoeuverability.



The Bf-109 Spitfire were very equal in terms of maneuverability, the Bf-109G-2 holding a slight edge in sustained turn rate, climb rate roll rate, as well as speed at at low to medium altitude. The Spitfire IX held a slight advantage in instantanous turn rate and speed at high altitude. All in all they were very similar, th pilot being the deciding factor.


----------



## Glider (Jan 25, 2008)

Soren said:


> Glider, I agree with about everything except the below.
> 
> 
> 
> The Bf-109 Spitfire were very equal in terms of maneuverability, the Bf-109G-2 holding a slight edge in sustained turn rate, climb rate roll rate, as well as speed at at low to medium altitude. The Spitfire IX held a slight advantage in instantanous turn rate and speed at high altitude. All in all they were very similar, th pilot being the deciding factor.



I would give the 109 the advantage in climb and roll rate but the Spitfire the advantage in sustained turn rate but as we both agree it is close.

What isn't in doubt, is that all three f these were ahead of anything else in service during 1942. The P38 being the only real contender


----------



## Soren (Jan 25, 2008)

I don't really see the P-38 as a contender, atleast not as a pure fighter. Had it been a good deal faster than it was I would look at it otherwise.


----------



## Arsenal VG-33 (Jan 25, 2008)

Given the years indicated, there are several other fighters from other countries that should have been listed, at least perhaps mentioned. Especially when "early war" ETO is the criterion. I would have included aircraft from countries like:

*France*: D.520, MS. 406, MB 152
*Holland*: Fokker DXXI, Fokker G.1
*Poland*: PZL P.24
*Italy*: Fiat G.50, Macchi MC 200 202, Caproni-Reggiane Re 2001
*Russia*: MiG-1 3, LaGG-3, Yak-1
*Yugoslavia*: Rogozarski IK-3
*Romania*: IAR 80

How about a poll for the "non-US-UK-Ger aircraft"?


----------



## drgondog (Jan 25, 2008)

Soren said:


> I don't really see the P-38 as a contender, atleast not as a pure fighter. Had it been a good deal faster than it was I would look at it otherwise.



I tend to agree Soren but the P-38G, out into operations 1942, was no slouch although some 30kts slower than the J and L, but still 345mph at 5,000 and 400+ mph at 25,000 feet with normal internal fuel load. 

The upgrade to the 1325hp 1710-51/55's gave it excellent acceleration, speed and climb so it was close to both the 109G2 and Fw190A-3 in many respects. Combined with its range with just internal fuel and load carrying capability I looked at it pretty hard in comparing with all of them in late 1942.

This was the ship that Steinhoff had a lot of respect for...

But I don't get really excited about the 38 until the L series - then it was formidable across the board at all altitudes.


----------



## Marcel (Jan 25, 2008)

Arsenal VG-33 said:


> Given the years indicated, there are several other fighters from other countries that should have been listed, at least perhaps mentioned. Especially when "early war" ETO is the criterion. I would have included aircraft from countries like:
> 
> *France*: D.520, MS. 406, MB 152
> *Holland*: Fokker DXXI, Fokker G.1
> ...




Although I like the Fokker D.XXI, it's is not a real contender. It was pretty outdated at the time, fixed gear, not very well armed (4 x 7.92 MG's). They did well considering the circumstances, but I feel the dutch pilots deserved much more credit for that than the plane itself. The G.I is another matter. I really believe it was much better than it's main adversary, the Bf.110C. But it wasn't a fighter pure sang. It was probably the first real multi-role fighter, being build as a scoutplane, fighterbomber and interceptor altogether. Dutch pilots said it could turn with a D.XXI which is quite a feat for such a heavy plane as the D.XXI was aready a very manouverable plane itself. So it didn't have the problem that the BF110 had. Too bad it never had the chance to prove itself.


----------



## Soren (Jan 25, 2008)

drgondog said:


> I tend to agree Soren but the P-38G, out into operations 1942, was no slouch although some 30kts slower than the J and L, but still 345mph at 5,000 and 400+ mph at 25,000 feet with normal internal fuel load.
> 
> The upgrade to the 1325hp 1710-51/55's gave it excellent acceleration, speed and climb so it was close to both the 109G2 and Fw190A-3 in many respects. Combined with its range with just internal fuel and load carrying capability I looked at it pretty hard in comparing with all of them in late 1942.
> 
> ...



Steinhoff admired its armament and amazing zoom climb, that is really all. (I have his book) But as a fighter the P-38 was no match for the Bf-109 or Fw-190.

Now don't get me wrong here, I'm not trying to bash the P-38, it was great in some roles such as ground attack and for shooting down intercepting Zerstörers, but unless it had a great speed advantage (Like in the PTO) it was doomed as a fighter, esp. compared to the faster single engined fighters in the ETO. Fact is that the P-38 was considered easy meat by the LW fighter pilots.

The P-51, Spitfire Yak-3 were the only Allied fighters that the LW had any real respect for, knowing the first was bloody fast while the other was as nimble and equally or nearly as fast as their own fighters and the third was like a piece of plywood with a 1,500 HP engine strapped to it.


----------



## Hop (Jan 26, 2008)

I would love to see a source that gives the 109 an advantage in roll rate over the Spitfire IX...


----------



## claidemore (Jan 29, 2008)

Here's a comparison of a LF MkIX Spitfire vs 109G-6-U-2 done by British Central Fighter Establishment. This would be spring of 1943 data, but it is useful for comparison. 


"TACTICAL COMPARISON WITH SPITFIRE LF.IX
Speeds 
17.........The Me.109 was compared with a Spitfire LF.IX for speed and all-round manoeuvrability at heights up to 25,000 feet. Up to 16,000 feet the Spitfire holds a slight advantage when using 18 lb. boost, from 16,000 to 20,000 feet the Me.109 gains slightly in speed, and at heights above 20,000 feet the Spitfire again leads in speed to the extent of approximately 7 m.p.h. When 25 lbs.boost is employed in the Spitfire it is about 25 m.p.h. faster at heights below 15,000 feet and 7 m.p.h. faster at heights in excess of 15,000 feet. 

Climb 
18.........The climb of the Spitfire is superior to that of the Me.109 at all heights. It has a particularly marked advantage below 13,000 feet using 18 lbs.boost, and this is naturally more pronounced when using 25 lbs. boost. When both aircraft are pulled up into a climb from a dive, the performance is almost identical, but when climbing speed is reached the Spitfire slowly pulls away. 

Dive 
19.........Comparitive dives between the two aircraft have shown that the Me.109 can leave the Spitfire without any difficulty. 

Turning circle 
20.........The manoeuvrability of the Spitfire IX in this respect is greatly superior to that of the Me.109 and it easily out-turns the Me.109 in either direction at all speeds. 

Rate of Roll 
21.........Here again the Spitfire has a marked advantage at all speeds. 

Conclusion 
22.........The Me.109G has an inferior performance to the Spitfire in all respects with the exception of acceleration in a dive and the slight advantage in speed which it possesses at heights between 16,000 and 20,000 feet. "


....and a little more data, comparing Merlin 61 Spitifre with 190A3 and 109G2...

"Air Ministry, A.I.2.(g), Whitehall 
20 March 1943 
The Spitfire IX at 28,000 to 30,000 ft. is superior in speed to the Me 109 G and the Fw 190 A. 

Its rate of climb at 20,000 ft. with the 0.42 reduction gear is inferior to the Fw 190 A and the Me109 G, even when operating at +18 lb. per sq. inch boost. 

When fitted with the 0.477 reduction gear and at +15 lb. per sq. inch boost the Spitfire is equal in rate of climb to the Me 109 G-2; when operating at +18 lb. per sq. inch boost it is superior to all German fighters at present in service. (note: with 0.477 red gear, climb to 20k was 6.5 min at normal power, and 5.6 min at combat power with Merlin 61)

The ceiling of the Spitfire IX is considerably higher than that of the Me 109 G or the Fw 190 A at present in service. "


----------



## Marcel (Jan 29, 2008)

claidemore said:


> Here's a comparison of a LF MkIX Spitfire vs 109G-6-U-2 done by British Central Fighter Establishment. This would be spring of 1943 data, but it is useful for comparison.
> 
> 
> "TACTICAL COMPARISON WITH SPITFIRE LF.IX
> ....



I should be careful with these kinds of tests as they usually are mor "political correct" than real. It wouldn't have looked good if the British during the war would have claimed the Bf109 superior to their prime fighter, would it?


----------



## Arsenal VG-33 (Jan 29, 2008)

Perhaps this was covered elsewhere, but I'll ask anyway: How well could the P-38 maintain flight with only one engine? 

Personally, I tend to place a higher value on those P-38s which were used in photo-recconnaissance than in fighter/escort roles.


----------



## claidemore (Jan 29, 2008)

Marcel said:


> I should be careful with these kinds of tests as they usually are mor "political correct" than real. It wouldn't have looked good if the British during the war would have claimed the Bf109 superior to their prime fighter, would it?




I will agree that the choice of wording in the report is such that it is an encouragement, rather than a discouragement, but I don't feel that the conclusions and hard data are inaccurate or misleading. 

Note that they do give the nod to the 109 in dive speed, and in climb when the Spitfire has the .42 reduction gear. It also states the 109 speed advantage between 16 and 20k and points out that above 20k there is only a 7mph advantage for the Spitfire. After all, this wasn't a press release, but an air ministry test that would be only read by those who needed it and the British tended to be a bit less 'propagandaish' (is that a word?) than some other nations. I would tend to think it's a pretty fair test. 

As with any question, we can't rely entirely on one source to make a decision, and as we are all aware, there are other sources that can back these tests up, ie listed performance stats, combat reports. 

Be that as it may, one reason I quoted those tests was because they comment on the roll rate comparison between 109 and Spitfire, and a previous post asked to see a source about that. I don't know of any other direct comparisons to roll rate on those two fighters. Love to see one if somebody else has one. 

Reason two, a previous poster also indicated that he felt the 109 had the advantage in climb, these tests show that it depended on which reduction gear the first Spit IX's with Merlin 61 had, the advantage could go either way.


----------



## Hop (Jan 30, 2008)

You only have to read the British appraisal of the Fw 190 (which they praised heavily) to realise these reports were not written for propaganda purposes.

I'm still waiting for Soren's source for claiming the 109 rolled better than the Spitfire IX, btw.


----------



## Kurfürst (Jan 30, 2008)

Glider said:


> Firstly the 190 vs the Spit IX.
> Spit IX vs 109G (first versions of both as this is 1942)
> I feel the Spit had the advantage. It certainly had the advantage at height which is no small thing.



It depends on which versions you`re looking (for 1942).

The basic models in 1942 were the *Merlin 61 powered Spit IX* and the *Bf 109G-1 through G-4*. The basic IX was indeed better at very high altitudes than the non-pressurized G-2/G-4s of 1942, as it had more engine power available, at most practical altitudes however the 109G was considerably faster and a better climber, even at 1.3ata. When GM-1 is added however, there`s not much of a comparison at altitude anymore... See the other thread on 109G and GM-1 use and performance. An often overlooked factor is IMHO the fact it had _pressurized cocpit_ - pilots really struggled up there, regardless of plane performance.

However, the thing is the G-2/G-4 and the IX met very little in 1942; there were very few Mark Nines around, and all of them were in Britain; the Kanalgeschwaders just transferred from the 109F to the FW 190A and only a couple of Squadrons were equipped in the West with the pressurized, GM-1 boosted Bf 109G-1s, the mainstay were Focke Wulfs (and Mark Fives). 

Non pressurized 109G-2s and G-4s equipped many LW units quickly during 1942, but these were in Russia and Africa, where of course, no Mark Nines were deployed yet, and for a long time to go, so they faced Mark Vs and P-40s, which they of course outclassed in performance.

The RAF later decided that the rated altitude of the Merlin 61/63 is not very optimal (it produced power at an altitude where combat was comparatively rare, ie. above 28 000 feet). It`s rather telling about combat altitudes that they tuned the subsequent Merlin 66 powered variants rated altitude, that it was only 16 000 feet, ie. some 3000 feet below the rated altitude of FW 190As and Bf 109G.



Glider said:


> It also had the better manoeuverability.



Depends. Pierre Clostermann flew a Merlin 63 equipped Mark IX - which had some 300 HP more than the Merlin 61 one of 1942 - and met some 109Gs over France. He wrote, in no uncertain terms :

_"I tried to fire on a '109' that I spotted in the chaos. Not possible, I couldn't get the correct angle. My plane juddered on the edge of a stall. It was comforting that the Spitfire turned better than the '109'! Certainly at high speed - but not at low speed."_

Given the available, very limited performance data for the two fighters, I`d say the Merlin 61 IX and the 109G2 in 1942 probably turned very similiar, if not the G-2 having the edge_ in turn time_; at least up to until very high alttiudes, when the DB 605A power fell off before the M 61.

Turn radius, of course would favour the Spitfire with its lower wingloading (figures at 1000m were IIRC 235 m vs 285 m). However turn radius is alltogether of secondary matter when judgind turns compared to turn rate/time.



Glider said:


> The 109 had a better dive but the advantage was limited as the 109 was red lined at a similar level to the Spit. The initial acceleration was greater in a 109 which is a decent advantage but not overwhelming.



Good point, dive advantage is somewhat overstated usually, but it was a useful tactic to get out of guns range quickly. It was an important advantage for 109 pilots though, that they could disangage if things went bad. The 109 was without doubt the better fighter for _vertical_ manaouvers.



Glider said:


> The Spit was more flexible. For instance, it could be upgunned with a minimal impact on performance, when the 109 was upgunned the impact was significant.



I just don`t see anything flexible about the Spit IX. It`s _very _short ranged, limited to about 2/3s the distance of what the FW 190A or Bf 109G is capable of, not to mention other even more long ranged fighters like the Typhoon or P-38..

Upgunning the Spit IX, it was certainly wasn`t a possible like in the way the Bf 109G could carry extra cannons - there were only a couple of them around, given that it was found out early that the Mark V/IX airframe was insufficiently stressed for _FOUR_ 20mm cannons, see dr. Alfred Price. The IX was basically a high altitude point defense interceptor, and capable of very little else due to its range issues.

As for adding four cannons instead of the basic four - apart from that its an academical question in the case of the Mk IX which just simply _couldn`t_ do it - and that their weight and drag would effect the Spit 'less' - well unless the Spit is effected by physics from another universe it just isn`t so. The available primary documentation certainly doesn`t say so. Weight is weight, drag is drag, and it doesn`t matter what insignia the plane carries, it effects them all the same way.

There`s some performance data on the four cannon Spits - you may want to check trials with a Mk VC and see the how badly performance is effected by the second pair of cannon added in comparison to two cannon birds, which makes sense since a pair of Hispanos weighted a good deal more than a pair of Mausers, and the cannon stubs added considerably drag - see the RAF`s report _'Note on speed of production Spitfires'_, it gives some interesting figures. 



> I am certainly not saying it was an easy target, or that the difference is huge, far from it, but the question is which is the best.



I have to disagree overall. If you look at 1942, indeed there`s one fighter that is more flexible in it`s rols, longer ranged, faster and a better climber at most combat altitudes, can carry a heavier armament and fullfill many roles, and _whats most important its also available for frontline units_, but its certainly not Spitfire Nine..

PS : The G-6/U2 trials are pitting a gondola carrying G-6 nightfighter that landed in Britain in the summer 1944, the earlier Air ministry tactical hints from March 1943 are based on performance figures obtained on a damaged, tropicalised G-2/trop (its *Black Six* btw), but no direct comparison was made between the two aircraft.


----------



## Marcel (Jan 30, 2008)

Hop said:


> You only have to read the British appraisal of the Fw 190 (which they praised heavily) to realise these reports were not written for propaganda purposes.
> 
> I'm still waiting for Soren's source for claiming the 109 rolled better than the Spitfire IX, btw.



Of course they had to praise the 190 as the lost a lot of spitfires to that plane. You cannot tell your people that they lost to an inferior plane, thus saying that german pilots are better.
I'm not at all saying these reports were written for propaganda purposes, but as the differences between planes, especially the Spitfire and the Bf109 were very small, there was no harm in claiming your own planes is slightly better than the other as it is highly profitable for morale. For instance I have here two reports, comparing the Bf109E and the Spitfire MK.I. One is from the Royal Aircraft Establishment and the other is from the Luftwaffe, both claiming their own plane being better. I guess any other outcome of the tests would have been less desirable.


----------



## Soren (Jan 30, 2008)

Marcel,

Your points, while completely valid, mean nothing to Hop, nomatter how much evidence you bring forth Hop will never accept it as in his mind British a/c are the best.

Hop,

If you're interested in the roll rate of the Bf-109 then start reading about the plane, esp. RLM MT tests are interesting.


----------



## Marcel (Jan 31, 2008)

Of course they are the best, Soren, they won remember


----------



## Soren (Jan 31, 2008)




----------



## Marcel (Jan 31, 2008)

Claide, I agree with you these reports make an interesting read, even though they are somewhat biased in certain ways. My main problem with these tests are lines like this:


claidemore said:


> Conclusion
> 22.........The Me.109G has an inferior performance to the Spitfire in all respects with the exception of acceleration in a dive and the slight advantage in speed which it possesses at heights between 16,000 and 20,000 feet. "


The problem is: you'll see the same conclusions in favour of the Bf109 in german tests, which makes me suspect that these "conclusions" are a litle boosted for morale. About the rollrate I don't know. I thought the Spitfire couldn't roll that fast, which was one reason why they clipped the wings on certain marks. Maybe Soren can quote the lines concerning rollrate from the RLM MT tests to shine a light on the subject from the German point of view?


----------



## Soren (Feb 1, 2008)

Go to Kurfürst's great site, there you can read the MT RLM tests. The Bf-109E displayed a very marked superiority in roll rate over the Spitfire. Why is also explained.

The roll rate didn't decrease with the introduction of the F G series.


----------



## Hop (Feb 1, 2008)

> I'm not at all saying these reports were written for propaganda purposes, but as the differences between planes, especially the Spitfire and the Bf109 were very small, there was no harm in claiming your own planes is slightly better than the other as it is highly profitable for morale.



The British test reports were not released to pilots, and I suspect the Germans followed a similar practice. They were carried out to determine best tactics, and to learn from enemy engineering. Adjusting the results for propaganda purposes would have been self defeating.

That's not to say that publications based on the tests wouldn't have had an eye on morale, for example I have a copy of a publication by RAF Middle Eastern Command on the Fw190 vs Spitfire V that's entitled 

"Who's afraid of the little Focke Wolf"

It goes on to say that whilst the 190 is faster and climbs better than the Spit V, it doesn't turn as well, and that "Being able to out-turn your opponent means almost everything in a dog-fight".

In other words, it takes the (classified) results of the test reports, and puts a slightly more optimistic spin on them for consumption by front line pilots (and even then it doesn't change the facts, because getting your own pilots killed by falsely telling them they were, for example, faster than their opponents, was not the aim of any air force)



> For instance I have here two reports, comparing the Bf109E and the Spitfire MK.I. One is from the Royal Aircraft Establishment and the other is from the Luftwaffe, both claiming their own plane being better. I guess any other outcome of the tests would have been less desirable.



When you examine test results you need to look at what's being tested, and in what way. British tests usually state the engine rpm and manifold pressure, for example, which at least lets you know if the engine was being run at full power.

Regarding the results of the Germans testing of the Spitfire I, note that they tested an example with a two pitch propeller. Sadly they don't list the engine settings they used (afaik). The British tested their captured 109 against combat ready Spitfires and Hurricanes, the RAE note that many had constant speed propellers, and all would have been running on 100 octane.

Those differences aren't down to propaganda, you can only test the enemy aircraft you have captured, and it's natural to test them against your latest fighters.



> About the rollrate I don't know. I thought the Spitfire couldn't roll that fast, which was one reason why they clipped the wings on certain marks.



The Spitfire I and II with canvas covered ailerons rolled poorly at high speed. They switched to metal ailerons early in the Spitfire V production run, and kept them for all subsequent marks.

The metal aileroned Spitfire was actually one of the better rolling fighters of the war. See for example the AFDU comparisons, or NACA 868.

The reason for clipping the wings was to improve the roll rate against Fw 190s, which were probably the best rolling aircraft of the war. The AFDU found other improvements in performance at lower altitudes as well:



> Level Speed
> 10,000 feet. In each case the clipped wing Spitfire proved the faster by a small margin estimated in the nature of 5 mph.
> 15,000 and 20,000 feet. The average results at these two heights showed that the difference in speed is not measurable.
> 25,000 feet. The standard Spitfire is very slightly faster than the clipped wing Spitfire.
> ...



All in all they found improved speed, acceleration, dive and acceleration at lower altitudes with clipped wings. 



> Go to Kurfürst's great site, there you can read the MT RLM tests. The Bf-109E displayed a very marked superiority in roll rate over the Spitfire. Why is also explained.
> 
> The roll rate didn't decrease with the introduction of the F G series.



But the Spitfire roll rate did increase greatly over the Mk I. As well as the metal ailerons, the wing stiffened, increasing reversal speed from 480 mph in the Mk I to 580 mph by late Mk Vs (and 660 for the clipped wing version).


----------



## Soren (Feb 1, 2008)

Hop,

I'd like to know more about this stiffening of the wings you're talking about.

Yes, the metal ailerons did improve roll rate at high speed, but roll rate otherwise was the same. 

And about the tests, well there's always bias, that's inevitable. The British tests with the 109 are also for the most part useless as the test pilots didn't dare past slats deployment. (The same problem posed many LW pilots early on)

The Emil had frequent problems with it's slats jamming, causing irrecoverable spins, killing many pilots and scaring the living daylight out of the ones lucky enough to recover (Rall being one of them). For this reason turn fighting sometimes proved succesfull in the Spitfire against the 109E in 1940. The picture changed significantly with the introduction of the Bf-109 F series however, and the 109 pilots could now comfortably engage in turn fights knowing the slats would function flawlessly. Marseilles and many others for this reason found turn fighting RAF fighters very effective and acquired themselves a high tally doing it.

Now I'm not saying that the Bf-109 became far superior, but it could do everything the Spitfire could do and it was faster, for a period. This balance changed many times during the course of the war.

All in all the Bf-109 Spitfire were two very equal fighter a/c in every aspect of flight, right till the end. 

I hold both a/c in a very high regard, but I also recognize the Fw-190 as a superior fighter to both in the end.


----------



## Hop (Feb 1, 2008)

> And about the tests, well there's always bias, that's inevitable. The British tests with the 109 are also for the most part useless as the test pilots didn't dare past slats deployment. (The same problem posed many LW pilots early on)



They certainly went past slats deployment. To quote from the RAE report on the 109E:



> Apart from their excessive heaviness at high speeds, the most serious defect of the Me. 109 ailerons is a tendency to snatch as the wing tip slots open. This is particularly noticeable when manoeuvring. For example, if the stick is pulled back in a tight turn, putting additional g on the aircraft, the slots open at quite a high airspeed; as they open, the stick suddenly snatches laterally through several inches either way, sufficiently to upset a pilot's aim in a dog fight. The snatch appears to be associated with the opening of the slots,* for once they are fully open a steady turn can be done, with no aileron vibration, until the stall is approached.*





> When doing tight turns with the Me. 109 leading at speeds between 90 m.p.h. and 220 m.p.h. the Spitfires and Hurricanes had little difficult in keeping on the tail of the Me. 109. During these turns the amount of normal g recorded on the Me. 109 was between 2J and 4 g. The aircraft stalled if the turn was tightened to give more than 4 g at speeds below about 200 m.p.h. *The slots opened at about 1\2 g before the stall, and whilst opening caused the ailerons to snatch; this upset the pilot's sighting immediately and caused him to lose ground. When the slots were fully open the aircraft could be turned quite steadily until very near the stall.* If the stick was then pulled back a little more the aircraft suddenly shuddered, and either tended to come out of the turn or dropped its wing further, oscillating meanwhile in pitch and roll and rapidly losing height; the aircraft immediately unstalled if the stick was eased forward. Even in a very tight turn the stall was quite gentle, with no tendency for the aircraft to suddenly flick over on to its back and spin. The Spitfires and Hurricanes could follow the Me. 109 round during the stalled turns without themselves showing any signs of stalling.





> The Emil had frequent problems with it's slats jamming, causing irrecoverable spins, killing many pilots and scaring the living daylight out of the ones lucky enough to recover (Rall being one of them). For this reason turn fighting sometimes proved succesfull in the Spitfire against the 109E in 1940.



One of the things the RAE and Germans agree on is the Spitfire I and Hurricane I easily outturned the 109E. The RAE quotes are above, the Germans, from Kurfurst's site:



> Before turning fights with the Bf 109 E type, it must be noted in every case, that
> all three foreign planes [Spitfire, Hurricane, Curtiss] have significantly smaller turning circles and turning times.





> The picture changed significantly with the introduction of the Bf-109 F series however, and the 109 pilots could now comfortably engage in turn fights knowing the slats would function flawlessly.



As the RAE test showed, the problem wasn't just in the deployment of the slats. Even when they were deployed, the Spitfire and Hurricane still easily outturned the 109.



> I'd like to know more about this stiffening of the wings you're talking about.



The RAE did a report on Spitfire aileron control, released in April 1941. That gave reversal speed (which is related to wing stiffness) as 477 or 480 mph (presumably 480 is a rounding of the observed 477 figure), and noted that at 400 mph the ailerons lose 65% of their effectiveness due to wing twist.

They don't say what type of Spitfire, the drawing shows one without cannon, and considering the date, it's almost certainly a Spitfire I/II. It had fabric ailerons.

They noted that stiffening the wing would reduce wing twist, and improve control, but that it would be a "major modification". However, the wing was changed in production versions shortly after to accommodate cannon, and later strengthened to add wing bombs, and the "universal wing", with 4 cannon bays, added. 

There's a comparison of the Spitfire and Mustang from the RAE, dated August 1942 (with all these reports remember that in general tests were done for a few months before the date of the report). The Spitfire in that test had metal ailerons, but the mark isn't given. The reversal speed was 510 mph.

The RAE test of the Fw 190 roll rate has comparisons with other allied aircraft, one of which is the Spitfire V. They give the reversal speed of the Spitfire wing as 580 mph normal, 660 mph clipped. 

The AFDU tested a clipped and normal wing Spitfire V, and gave the same reversal speeds, 580 and 660 mph. That was late 1942.

The metal ailerons improved the Spitfire roll rate a great deal, but the reduced wing twist (and resulting higher reversal speed) also helped a lot.


----------



## Glider (Feb 1, 2008)

Kurfürst said:


> It depends on which versions you`re looking (for 1942).
> 
> The basic models in 1942 were the *Merlin 61 powered Spit IX* and the *Bf 109G-1 through G-4*. The basic IX was indeed better at very high altitudes than the non-pressurized G-2/G-4s of 1942, as it had more engine power available, at most practical altitudes however the 109G was considerably faster and a better climber, even at 1.3ata. When GM-1 is added however, there`s not much of a comparison at altitude anymore... See the other thread on 109G and GM-1 use and performance. An often overlooked factor is IMHO the fact it had _pressurized cocpit_ - pilots really struggled up there, regardless of plane performance.




The RAF later decided that the rated altitude of the Merlin 61/63 is not very optimal (it produced power at an altitude where combat was comparatively rare, ie. above 28 000 feet). It`s rather telling about combat altitudes that they tuned the subsequent Merlin 66 powered variants rated altitude, that it was only 16 000 feet, ie. some 3000 feet below the rated altitude of FW 190As and Bf 109G.[/QUOTE]

Fair comment and its closer than I thought but one point comes to mind. The GM1 equipment must have had some effect on those aircraft fitted with it when the time ran out. You presumably are left with an aircraft that can either, climb well or go faster but not both. In fact if you use the GM1 to climb it must have had an impact on its general handling simply due to the weight of the equipment, which going from memory weighed about 350-400lbs. Or of course you can use it for speed and have a slower climb.

The Spit of course also had a limited time using the extra boost but wasn't handicaped by any axtra weight.





> Depends. Pierre Clostermann flew a Merlin 63 equipped Mark IX - which had some 300 HP more than the Merlin 61 one of 1942 - and met some 109Gs over France. He wrote, in no uncertain terms :
> 
> _"I tried to fire on a '109' that I spotted in the chaos. Not possible, I couldn't get the correct angle. My plane juddered on the edge of a stall. It was comforting that the Spitfire turned better than the '109'! Certainly at high speed - but not at low speed."_



True but he also said 
_I opened the throttle out wide and went into a steep climbing turn which enabled me to keep my eyes on him and gain height. Taken by suprise by my manoervre he opened fire ........ I leveled out and continued my tight turn, but at that height his short wings got insufficient grip on the rarified atmosphere and he stalled and went into a spin. Once again the superior manoeuvrability of the Spitfire had got me out of the wood........The pilot of the 109 was an old fox all the same for he shifted the kite about a lot varying the deflection and angle.
He knew my Spitfire turned better and climbed better and his only hope was to out distance me. Suddenly he pushed his stick forward and went into a vertical dive.....we went down fast 470mph towards Aumale as I was in line with his tail the lining up was easy but I had to be quick as he was gaining on me. _ Clostermann then shot the 109 down.
I think this supports a lot of what we both say, 
a) That the 109 was faster in the intial dive but it shows the danger of such an action if the enemy is able to get a bead on you.
b) That Clostermann has used the superior manoeuvrability of the Spitfire a number of times to get him out of trouble
c) That the German also was unable to turn with the Spitfire even though the pilot was experienced.
d) That Clostermann had confidence in his ability to outclimb the 109
Spitfire Mk IX versus Me 109 G - Flight Testing
This contains the full narrative and others



> I just don`t see anything flexible about the Spit IX. It`s _very _short ranged, limited to about 2/3s the distance of what the FW 190A or Bf 109G is capable of, not to mention other even more long ranged fighters like the Typhoon or P-38..


No one would pretend that the Spit had a long range but they did carry drop tanks and later ones had extra internal fuel. However in 1942 your right, its pretty poor and could be considered a minimum 



> Upgunning the Spit IX, it was certainly wasn`t a possible like in the way the Bf 109G could carry extra cannons - there were only a couple of them around, given that it was found out early that the Mark V/IX airframe was insufficiently stressed for _FOUR_ 20mm cannons, see dr. Alfred Price. The IX was basically a high altitude point defense interceptor, and capable of very little else due to its range issues.


I don't doubt that Dr Price has written about the stresses but at the end of the day, a number of MkV and Mk IX aircraft did fight with 4 x 20, more V than IX I agree but they fought well. That cannot be argued about, I should add that I haven't read of any problems impacting the aircraft during combat.

By upgunning I was talking about upgunning up to 4 x 20mm. One Spitfire was prototyped with 6 x 20mm, but not suprisingly didn't go any further.
The Spit with 4 x 20 had a minimal impact on its overall performance, certainly a lot less than upguning the 109 with an additional 2 x 20mm.


----------



## Soren (Feb 1, 2008)

All those reports are on the 109E Hop, the version which had a problem with its slats jamming, hence the aileron snatch which was completely absent in the F series and onwards. This aileron snatch and the disturbance in the flight path is something modern 109 pilots put a large question mark on as none of them have ever experienced it before, the reason being it's a decease only the Emil has. Also important is that the tests refer to sustained turns, in which power is very important, and like we all know the 109E was NOT run at full power during those trials. Also noteworthy would be the alt at which these tests were carried out, cause if at high alt (Which is most likely the case as it was an unfamiliar aircraft, thus room is needed in an emergency) the Spitfire's performance was better, while it was the opposite at low alt.

Also don't forget bias, it is very much there, in all trials.

No details are given in the German tests from 1940 but it is most likely that it wasn't flown to the max by the pilot as again it was an Emil and its problems with its slats wasn't unknown.

Also note that the official stall speed of the 109E is 62 mph. Now if you have just a basic understanding of aerdynamics it should take you no time to figure out the turn performance. The jamming of one of the slats however ruined this awesome maneuverability potential.

Onwards...

Now moving on to the later tests carried out by the RAE AFDU with a 109G, here it is made completely clear that the a/c was NOT flown past slat deployment, the 109G in question according to the British pilot being "embarrased by the opening of its slats". Also as further and conclusive evidence a Fw-190 Jabo fighter managed to easily turn with a P-51B and give the Spitfire some headache in a right hand turn. In ALL comparative trials carried out in Germany the Bf-109 ALWAYS EASILY outturned the Fw-190, the exact choice of words used being _The 109 gets on the 190's tail in no time._

And to make things more clear;


*Erwin Leykauf, German fighter pilot, 33 victories:*

_"The Bf 109s also had leading edge slats. When the 109 was flown, advertently or inadvertently, too slow, the slats shot forward out of the wing, sometimes with a loud bang which could be heard above the noise of the engine. Many times the slats coming out frightenened young pilots when they flew the Bf 109 for the first time in combat. One often flew near the stalling speed in combat, not only when flying straight and level but especially when turning and climbing. Sometimes the slats would suddenly fly out with a bang as if one had been hit, especially when one had throttled back to bank steeply. Indeed many fresh young pilots thought they were pulling very tight turns even when the slats were still closed against the wing. For us, the more experienced pilots, real manoeuvring only started when the slats were out. *For this reason it is possible to find pilots from that period (1940) who will tell you that the Spitfire turned better than the Bf 109. That is not true. I myself had many dogfights with Spitfires and I could always out-turn them.* 
One had to enter the turn correctly, then open up the engine. It was a matter of feel. When one noticed the speed becoming critical - the aircraft vibrated - one had to ease up a bit, then pull back again, so that in plan the best turn would have looked like an egg or a horizontal ellipse rather than a circle. *In this way one could out-turn the Spitfire - and I shot down six of them doing it*." _

*Walter Wolfrum, German fighter ace. 137 victories:*

_"Unexperienced pilots hesitated to turn tight, bacause the plane shook violently when the slats deployed. I realised, though, that because of the slats the plane's stalling characteristics were much better than in comparable Allied planes that I got to fly. Even though you may doubt it, I knew the Bf109 could manouver better in turnfight than LaGG, Yak or even Spitfire."_

There are even British Spitfire pilots confirming this.

And then there's the modern pilots, the best ones to ask by far, and they all say the same, the 109 turns on dime compared to most other WW2 fighters and is very similar to the Spitfire in this area:

*Mark Hanna:*
_Pitch is also delighful at 250 mph and below. It feels very positve and the amount of effort on the control column needed to produce the relevant nose movement seems exactly right to me. As CL max is reached the leading edge slats deploy - together if the ball is in the middle, slightly asymmetrically if you have any slip on. The aircraft delights in being pulled into hard manuevering turns at these slower speeds. As the slats pop out you feel a slight "notching" on the stick and you can pull more until the whole airframe is buffeting quite hard. A little more and you will drop a wing, but you have to be crass to do it unintentionally. Pitch tends to heavy up above 250 mph but it is still easily manageable up to 300 mph and the aircraft is perfectly happy carrying out low-level looping maneuvers from 300 mph and below. Above 300 mph one peculiarity is a slight nose down trim change as you accelerate. This means that running in for an airshow above 300 mph the aeroplane has a slight tucking in sensation - a sort of desire to get down to ground level ! This is easily held on the stick or can be trimmed out but is slightly surprising initially. Maneuvering above 300, two hands can be required for more aggressive performance. EIther that or get on the trimmer to help you. *Despite this heavying up it is still quite easy to get at 5G's at these speeds*. _


_So how does the aeroplane compare with other contemporary fighters ? First, let me say that all my comments are based on operation below 10,000 feet and at power settings not exceeding +12 (54") and 2700 rpm. I like it as an aeroplane, and with familiarity I think it will give most of the allied fighters I have flown a hard time, particularly in a close, hard turning, slow speed dog-fight. It will definitely out-maneuver a P-51 in this type of flight, the roll rate and slow speed characteristics being much better. The Spitfire on the other hand is more of a problem for the '109 and I feel it is a superior close in fighter. *Having said that the aircraft are sufficiently closely matched that pilot abilty would probably be the deciding factor*_

And Mark Hanna was flying the heavy and draggy Buchon! Says quite abit!

*Skip Holm:*
_Pitch control is also delightful and very positive at 250 mph and below. As pitch and accompanying G is increased, the leading edge slats start to deploy. I have not found either aircraft to have any problems with asymmetrical slat deployment, as we see in other aircraft such as an A-4 for instance. The aircraft reacts very well to heavy maneuvering, and there is never any discomfort in pulling Gs, as wing separation and accompanying wing drop is mild, is easily noticed and dealt with by lightening up on the G. Pitch force tends to get heavy at speeds above 300 mph, but is still easily managed with a little 2-hand pull or left hand re-trimming._

*Interview:*

_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TFl8X4y9-94_


And there's so much more... But importantly aerodynamics supports all of the above.

So Hop, instead of getting hung up on that bias of yours as you so often tend to do, push that logic button instead. There's no magic involved in aerodynamics, no'one is trying to lie, it can all be explained. These two fighters were VERY close in every aspect of flight, esp. in turn performance, they were both excellent defensive fighters which were loved by their pilots and respected by their enemies.


----------



## Marcel (Feb 1, 2008)

Soren said:


> The British tests with the 109 are also for the most part useless as the test pilots didn't dare past slats deployment.


Hi Soren, I have seen many posts from you about this. Is there any documentation about this that I could read? 


Soren said:


> Now I'm not saying that the Bf-109 became far superior, but it could do everything the Spitfire could do and it was faster, for a period. This balance changed many times during the course of the war.
> 
> All in all the Bf-109 Spitfire were two very equal fighter a/c in every aspect of flight, right till the end.
> 
> I hold both a/c in a very high regard, but I also recognize the Fw-190 as a superior fighter to both in the end.


I agree about the Spit and Bf1-09 being very competitive a/c, but for the FW190 I think it was mostly superio9r at lower altitudes. At higher altitudes the Spitfire or the Bf109 had the advantage, I think (except mayby for the Dora)



Hop said:


> Regarding the results of the Germans testing of the Spitfire I, note that they tested an example with a two pitch propeller. Sadly they don't list the engine settings they used (afaik). The British tested their captured 109 against combat ready Spitfires and Hurricanes, the RAE note that many had constant speed propellers, and all would have been running on 100 octane.


Correct about the Spit. Funny thing is, Molders who was one who flew the Spitfire called it a "lousy fighter", it's one of the reasons again why I have a reservation against these tests as I think the Spit proved itself quite well.



Hop said:


> Those differences aren't down to propaganda, you can only test the enemy aircraft you have captured, and it's natural to test them against your latest fighters.


One of the reasons again to be careful with the outcome of these kinds of tests.




Hop said:


> The Spitfire I and II with canvas covered ailerons rolled poorly at high speed. They switched to metal ailerons early in the Spitfire V production run, and kept them for all subsequent marks.


I could be wrong, but I seem to remember there were field conversions for the Mk.II , I suppose that improved the matter already.




Hop said:


> The metal aileroned Spitfire was actually one of the better rolling fighters of the war. See for example the AFDU comparisons, or NACA 868.
> 
> The reason for clipping the wings was to improve the roll rate against Fw 190s, which were probably the best rolling aircraft of the war. The AFDU found other improvements in performance at lower altitudes as well:
> 
> ...



One question, if the clipping of the wings improved the performance that much, why weren't all Spits clipped afterwards? In other words what was the disadvantage of clipping them?


----------



## Soren (Feb 1, 2008)

Marcel for your first question read my latest post.


----------



## Marcel (Feb 1, 2008)

I saw it, Soren. I guess wewe clashed , thanks


----------



## claidemore (Feb 1, 2008)

I'm thouroughly enjoying the postings in this thread, some excellent arguments for both sides of the comparison of Spitfires and 109s. 



> Soren said:
> 
> 
> > Also important is that the tests refer to sustained turns, in which power is very important, and like we all know the 109E was NOT run at full power during those trials.
> ...


----------



## Soren (Feb 2, 2008)

Claidemore,

The problem with what you have presented is that it's all claims and heresay and is completely unsupported.

What I have presented is supported not only by the veteran Bf-109 pilots, some veteran RAF pilots, but crucially also modern day 109 pilots who know these planes inside out and aren't biased on the subject. And then as the cherry on top, aerodynamics supports it as-well, and if one thing is for sure then it's that aerodynamics doesn't involve bias and it doesn't tell you lies.



> The way I read this last account, Bill Franklin managed to turn tight enough to get on the tail of three different 109's who initially were on his tail and shot down two of them.



Proves nothing Claidemore. Since WW2 the Spitfire has been hugely romantisized, claimed to be much superior to its opponents, that it saved Britain, etc etc.. Infact the Hurricane was responsible for a lot more of the LW's losses than the Spitfire. Also if the Spitfire was such a superior fighter, then how come it was shot down in droves by the LW and suffered more losses to 109's than it itself handed out ?? Where the German pilots just inherently far superior ?? The answer is simple, while great the Spitfire wasn't a superior fighter to the Bf-109, they were close equals, and British German pilots were both equally skilled aviators. 

Moving on to Franklin's account, well he can easily have overblown the actual chain of events in his story, making his feat look more astonishing than it actual was (Not saying he did), but that's just one thing, furthermore he might have fought against inexperienced pilots; Remember this by two very experienced LW pilots:

*Erwin Leykauf, LW ace, 33 kills:*
*Many times the slats coming out frightenened young pilots when they flew the Bf 109 for the first time in combat. One often flew near the stalling speed in combat, not only when flying straight and level but especially when turning and climbing. Sometimes the slats would suddenly fly out with a bang as if one had been hit, especially when one had throttled back to bank steeply. Indeed many fresh young pilots thought they were pulling very tight turns even when the slats were still closed against the wing. For us, the more experienced pilots, real manoeuvring only started when the slats were out. For this reason it is possible to find pilots from that period (1940) who will tell you that the Spitfire turned better than the Bf 109. That is not true. I myself had many dogfights with Spitfires and I could always out-turn them. *

*Walter Wolfrum, LW ace, 137 kills:*
*"Unexperienced pilots hesitated to turn tight, bacause the plane shook violently when the slats deployed. I realised, though, that because of the slats the plane's stalling characteristics were much better than in comparable Allied planes that I got to fly. Even though you may doubt it, I knew the Bf109 could manouver better in turnfight than LaGG, Yak or even Spitfire."*

Had anyone noticed any inferiority in turn performance between the two a/c it would've been experienced guys like these two, however none did, infact all of the experienced LW fighter pilots, if asked specifically, (Including LW chief test pilot Heirich Beauvais who flew the later Spitfires), made it VERY clear that the Bf109 was equal to or sometimes even better than the Spitfire in a turn.

Heinrich Beauvais actually tried to get into contact with Eric Brown on the matter of the RAE AFDU tests and their conclusions, as he knew something was wrong with them having himself many times tested the different versions of the Spitfire Bf-109 against each other in turns, and nearly every time the Bf-109 came out on top. Eric Brown however sadly refused to discuss the matter.


----------



## Glider (Feb 2, 2008)

I think its a bit strong to say that allied pilots who flew the Spitfire and firmly believed that the Spit coud turn inside the 109, fought life and death battles using this tactic, then reported these in their combat reports are considered to be only claims and heresy and totally unsupported evidence. 
Whereas two German aces are considered to be acceptable evidence. It should be noted that some of these RAF pilots were also future aces and experienced pilots.

If anything the experience of F/Sgts is more revealing of the true situation. Aces and other experienced pilots will always get that extra bit of peformance out of an aircraft. Many times we have all agreed that experience makes all the difference.
If an inexperienced pilot who will normally reply on more straight forward tactics is able to succeed using the turning ability of the plane, then that counts for a lot. 
Have you any evidence from inexperienced German pilots that they were able to turn inside a Spitfire?

Also can you list the British Pilots who believed that the 109 could turn inside the Spitfire?


----------



## Soren (Feb 2, 2008)

> I think its a bit strong to say that allied pilots who flew the Spitfire and firmly believed that the Spit coud turn inside the 109, fought life and death battles using this tactic, then reported these in their combat reports are considered to be only claims and heresy and totally unsupported evidence.
> Whereas two German aces are considered to be acceptable evidence.



Huh ? Have you been reading my posts at all ??

Not just two German aces Glider, nearly every one PLUS the guys today who actually fly these birds, and then ofcourse aerodynamics! 

And as to combat reports, well go take a look at some German ones please, there are plenty where the Spitfires were shot down in kurvenkampf with Bf109's, and even plenty with Fw-190's turning inside Spitfires as-well. So from these are we to conclude that the Fw-190 turns better than the Spitfire ??! I don't think so..

Remember things look very different from inside the cockpit!


----------



## claidemore (Feb 2, 2008)

Soren:


> The problem with what you have presented is that it's all claims and heresay and is completely unsupported.


Rechlin, RAE tests, the French test, German data on speeds, testimony of a german pilot and 1/JG3, these are unsupported? They all support each other and come to the same conclusions.

Have you read the Rechlin test where they state categorically that the 109 gets outturned by the Spitifre, Hurricane and Curtiss Hawk in EVERY situation? How do you dismiss this?

Kurfrst - Vergleichsfliegen Bf 109 E, Bf 110 C, Spitfire, Hurricane und Curtiss.



> Since WW2 the Spitfire has been hugely romantisized, claimed to be much superior to its opponents, that it saved Britain, etc etc.. Infact the Hurricane was responsible for a lot more of the LW's losses than the Spitfire.



Yes, Hawker Hurricanes shot down more planes during BoB; because there were more of them. The Spitfires actually had a much better kill ratio than the Hurricanes, hence the correct decision to concentrate on developing that plane rather than the Hurricane. 

I don't know what your credentials are as far as aerodynamics,(I don't have any! lol) but:



> 60 years after the RAE tests, Dr. John Ackroyd, PhD, C.Eng, FRAeS of the Aerospace Division, Manchester School of Engineering, University of Manchester, and Fellow of The Royal Aeronautical Society, took a fresh look at this subject in his paper "Comparison of turning radii for four Battle of Britain fighter aircraft". He calculated the minimum turn radii to be 686 feet for the Spitfire IA versus 853 feet for the BF 109 E-3 - which is in very good agreement with the RAE's findings.


 

I'm not saying the 109 was a dog, I believe it was a very good fighter, and a better turn fighter than many sources indicate, BUT there are just too many accounts and credible sources that show the Spitifre had a turn advantage. 

BTW Mark Hanna was killed in a crash with that Buchon and he did say that he felt the Spitfire was a better close in fighter, ie dogfighter.


----------



## Glider (Feb 2, 2008)

Soren said:


> Huh ? Have you been reading my posts at all ??
> 
> Not just two German aces Glider, nearly every one PLUS the guys today who actually fly these birds, and then ofcourse aerodynamics!
> 
> ...



I do read all your postings Soren, you know that. I repeat that you keep quoting the above two statements and as for the people who fly these today, I have read those as well. But none of the current pilots who fly them today that I have found have said that the 109 turned better than a Spitfire.
Of course a lot of Spitfires were shot down by 109's but as you well know 
a) The 109 was a good fighter and often pilot skill was the determining factor
b) Most pilots never saw what shot them down
c) What we are talking about is a turning fight which wasn't as common as most people think. 

The questions I asked are valid. Why do two German aces would could be expected to win in a combat, count for more than all the other quotes by a cross section of pilots of varied experience.

As for the German reports of turning combats please give me a link and I will happily go through them.

I have read the ones that I can find but they don't support your argument and I admit to a concern that if you had a good source you would have quoted them to support your case. The lack of them doesn't help you.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 3, 2008)

Lets see some sources then...

Claiming something and not posting a link or book with page number is not listing sources. Lets see quotes as well from both sides.


----------



## Glider (Feb 3, 2008)

Certainly
The sources that I used for the British combat experience has already been posted but for completeness is repeated here Spitfire Mk IX versus Me 109 G - Flight Testing

My main source for the German view is this virtualpilots.fi: 109myths

For the *complete *view of Mark Hanna on flying the 109 I used this site
Flying the Bf 109: Two experts give their reports | Flight Journal | Find Articles at BNET.com
Its also worth noting the the much maligned Brown review on flying the 109 is also part of this site.

For a view on flying Black 6 I used the following
The 109 Lair- The Online Source for Messerschmitt 109 information

For experience/photos in the use of Spit Vc with 4 x 20mm in combat I used Malta the Spitfire Years

For a brief summary of the engine comparison DB605 vs Merlin the following site The Luftwaffe page , Daimler-Benz DB 605

I think that covers the majority of the sources I used.


----------



## Kurfürst (Feb 3, 2008)

claidemore said:


> Soren:
> 
> Rechlin, RAE tests, the French test, German data on speeds, testimony of a german pilot and 1/JG3, these are unsupported? They all support each other and come to the same conclusions.
> 
> ...



It certainly says so and it is surely true for the early Spit I without cocpit armor, and CSP prop, and armored glass. It should be considered that the later Spit Is had gained a lot of weight and drag from the addition of those. IIRC the armor added some 73 lbs and reduced speed by 6 mph(?), whereas the CSP prop was the greatest factor, some 350 lbs was added, ie. overall about as much as the gondolas or the extra pair of cannons weighted on the 109/Spit. I wonder how they related _after_ this kind of extra weight was added to the Spit... perhaps this explains why German fighter pilots claim they could outturn Spits, too?

Its interesting also that the RAE test used the same Bf 109E, serial no 1034 that was captured and tested by the French in late 1939, after it did a belly landing in France. The aircraft did have some technical troubles with oil pressure, which the French describe in their report, and also the British tests show that there`s some problem with the supercharger, ie. the mainfold pressure is not kept contanst even up the rated altitude, it - and with it, power output - keeps dropping steadily.

The best would be to see some British figures for the Spitfire Is turn radius (w. and W/o CSP and armor) at a comparable altitude and then compare them to German figures, which are more readily available for the 109E, also with use of flaps which greatly reduced the turning radii.

Speaking of cannons, I believe the only case when four was fitted to the Spits was during a transfer flight to Malta from a carrier, and, when arriving to Malta, even those were removed for whatever reasons and not used in combat. In short, four cannon Spits simply didn`t exist for practical purposes (save a few Mk 21 at the very end of the war, but I believe those did not see air combat either.)



> I'm not saying the 109 was a dog, I believe it was a very good fighter, and a better turn fighter than many sources indicate, BUT there are just too many accounts and credible sources that show the Spitifre had a turn advantage.



From _surviving_ Spitfire pilots, that is. I wonder how many fighter pilots could tell about it when they were outturned and shot down, like those five shot down by Erwin Leykauf..?



Glider said:


> The sources that I used for the British combat experience has already been posted but for completeness is repeated here Spitfire Mk IX versus Me 109 G - Flight Testing



Oh not that stupid, biased Mike Williams article again..  

Are you aware how much was manipulated there, starting with picking the best Spitfire test available (ie. two prototype Mk IXs, the Merlin 70 one that didn`t saw service until 1944, but happily being compared to 109Gs at their 1942-43 rating), dismissing the not-so-good ones and then comparing them to the worst Bf 109G tests and dismissing the ones that show how well the Gustav could compete with his precious Spit with made up reasoning - 'abberant' and stuff...?

Its a silly kneejerk stuff, selective and one sided like the ones aircraft fans produce in discussion boards, actually the only interesting part in are the pilot quotes, not as much for how much they tell about performance - as there is selectiveness in which pilot quotes are displayed, too - but that for a, they are coming from the people who were there, and it tells their stories of air combat b, they are coming from credible people, if you take what I mean.

For example the Heinz Knoke quote is so much selective? Ie. Knoke is quoted where says they turn very tightly and it`s impossible to nail them, but someone the preceeding setence where he says some other 109 pilot just nailed a Spit is missing, and also the introduction that describes Knoke`s arrival to the unit, and _being a fresh and inexperienced pilot_, he received one of the oldest Emils in the unit...? Knoke also expresses later in his book he considered the Bf 109G better than the contemporary Spitfires, but appearantly this was not so interesting stuff to be quoted...

Or why the Steinhoff quote from his book Messerschmitts over Sicily is being edited in a similiar way..?



> BTW Mark Hanna was killed in a crash with that Buchon and he did say that he felt the Spitfire was a better close in fighter, ie dogfighter.



He also said they are sufficinently matched in that regard so that pilot skill would make the difference. I think that is the key here about the pilot accounts being tossed around. Its always from _the winner_ of that combat, thus it will always state some kind of superiority that existed and enabled the pilot to stay alive and tell it..


----------



## Glider (Feb 3, 2008)

Kurfürst said:


> It certainly says so and it is surely true for the early Spit I without cocpit armor, and CSP prop, and armored glass. It should be considered that the later Spit Is had gained a lot of weight and drag from the addition of those. IIRC the armor added some 73 lbs and reduced speed by 6 mph(?), whereas the CSP prop was the greatest factor, some 350 lbs was added, ie. overall about as much as the gondolas or the extra pair of cannons weighted on the 109/Spit. I wonder how they related _after_ this kind of extra weight was added to the Spit... perhaps this explains why German fighter pilots claim they could outturn Spits, too?


It also was done without the 100 octane fuel that significantly increased the Spits performance and of course the extra performance that the CSP prop gave. Both of which made up for any extra weight.



> Speaking of cannons, I believe the only case when four was fitted to the Spits was during a transfer flight to Malta from a carrier, and, when arriving to Malta, even those were removed for whatever reasons and not used in combat. In short, four cannon Spits simply didn`t exist for practical purposes (save a few Mk 21 at the very end of the war, but I believe those did not see air combat either.)


One of the sources I used was Malta the Spitfire years, and there is no doubt that the 4 x 20 mm Spit V's were in combat. There are photos of the planes in dispersals and references to them in combat, in particular the impact of the guns.




> Oh not that stupid, biased Mike Williams article again..
> 
> Are you aware how much was manipulated there, starting with picking the best Spitfire test available (ie. two prototype Mk IXs, the Merlin 70 one that didn`t saw service until 1944, but happily being compared to 109Gs at their 1942-43 rating), dismissing the not-so-good ones and then comparing them to the worst Bf 109G tests and dismissing the ones that show how well the Gustav could compete with his precious Spit with made up reasoning - 'abberant' and stuff...?
> 
> Its a silly kneejerk stuff, selective and one sided like the ones aircraft fans produce in discussion boards, actually the only interesting part in are the pilot quotes,


Its the pilot quotes that I used. 
However your comments are harsh as the site also gives details on the versions with the Merlin 61, 63 and 67. Not many sites are perfect and balanced, and time should be taken to compare a number of sites and draw conclusions.



> not as much for how much they tell about performance - as there is selectiveness in which pilot quotes are displayed, too - but that for a, they are coming from the people who were there, and it tells their stories of air combat b, they are coming from credible people, if you take what I mean.


I do indeed take what you mean, which is why I have asked for some examples of other German pilots. Relying on two aces doesn't hold up when compared with a number of pilots with differing experience.


----------



## Kurfürst (Feb 3, 2008)

Glider said:


> It also was done without the 100 octane fuel that significantly increased the Spits performance



Source please. I believe it`s based on a claim of Mike Williams. I claim, like many others, that were never supported by him with anything. Similiarly, he claims no Spitfire ever met a 109 without 100 octane fuel; again, this statement is not supported by anything, we have to take his word for it, and it doesn`t worth much as far as I go.



> ...and of course the extra performance that the CSP prop gave. Both of which made up for any extra weight.



.. it seems to me the same wishful thinking as the 'extra cannons don`t effect the Spits performance'. Of course they do. The extra weight added increased wing loading, and with it increased the turn radius etc.

Physics just work the same everywhere. 



> One of the sources I used was Malta the Spitfire years, and there is no doubt that the 4 x 20 mm Spit V's were in combat. There are photos of the planes in dispersals and references to them in combat, in particular the impact of the guns.



Would it be possible to share them? I haven`t seen a single so far so I am highly sceptical about any, or any _widespread_ use. TIA! 



> However your comments are harsh as the site also gives details on the versions with the Merlin 61, 63 and 67. Not many sites are perfect and balanced, and time should be taken to compare a number of sites and draw conclusions.



Harsh indeed, but well justified. I am well aware of the subject; I know what and when is manipulated on those articles (pretty much every paragraph has a spin in it...) one can check even on MW`s site that he has many more tests available to him, and he cherry picks amongst those in a manipulative manner.



> I do indeed take what you mean, which is why I have asked for some examples of other German pilots. Relying on two aces doesn't hold up when compared with a number of pilots with differing experience.



Well, there`s a combat report from Adolph Galland, too, which notes the shooting down of a Spit in 'Kurvenkampf'. Doubtlessly, there are many others, how far do you want to go comparing them...? There were some 1140 British fighters, SE and TE lost in the BoB from July to October; hundreds more shot up. Do you want to take a guess how many of those occured in turn combat..? Or all but these 6-7 noted above were diving onto an unsuspecting opponent etc..?


----------



## Glider (Feb 3, 2008)

Kurfürst said:


> Source please. I believe it`s based on a claim of Mike Williams. I claim, like many others, that were never supported by him with anything. Similiarly, he claims no Spitfire ever met a 109 without 100 octane fuel; again, this statement is not supported by anything, we have to take his word for it, and it doesn`t worth much as far as I go.


This source confirms that the switch to 100 octane fuel enabled the power of the Merlin to be increased by 30% and the change started in March 1940. I take it you will agree, that a 30% increase would improve performance.
As the Germans didn't have 100 octane fuel, my assumption is that the Germans didn't use it in the test.
History of Aircraft Lubricants - Google Book Search




> .. it seems to me the same wishful thinking as the 'extra cannons don`t effect the Spits performance'. Of course they do. The extra weight added increased wing loading, and with it increased the turn radius etc.


Please advise where I said that it wouldn't impact performance. I said it would have a minimal impact, particually compared the extra weight of the podded 20mm on a 109.



> Physics just work the same everywhere.


Totally agree. Whilst we are on this subject, can I ask you to advise what the impact was on a 109 with the GM equipment. I think it weighed about 350-400lb and once the GM was used, dead weight added to the 109. I have asked before but there wasn't a reply. As you say, physics work everywhere.



> Would it be possible to share them? I haven`t seen a single so far so I am highly sceptical about any, or any _widespread_ use. TIA!


 Page 203 has a photo of a 4 gunned Mk V in a blast pen, on page 207 Plt Officer Peck reported opening fire with his 4 x 20mm, German fighters also report in their combats that the Spitfires were of the latest version with 4 x 20mm. You may not have the book but others do and will be able to confirm what I say if you ask. 
What is interesting is what isn't in the book considering you conviction that this never happened. There is nothing about impact on performance or on the guns being taken out for any reason.

Re Galland you know and I know that Galland also made compimentary comments about the Spitfire.


----------



## Njaco (Feb 3, 2008)

regarding the fuel, what effect would the different carbuerators have on these machines in a turn?


----------



## Soren (Feb 3, 2008)

> I don't know what your credentials are as far as aerodynamics,(I don't have any! lol) but:
> 
> 
> Quote:
> 60 years after the RAE tests, Dr. John Ackroyd, PhD, C.Eng, FRAeS of the Aerospace Division, Manchester School of Engineering, University of Manchester, and Fellow of The Royal Aeronautical Society, took a fresh look at this subject in his paper "Comparison of turning radii for four Battle of Britain fighter aircraft". He calculated the minimum turn radii to be 686 feet for the Spitfire IA versus 853 feet for the BF 109 E-3 - which is in very good agreement with the RAE's findings.




LoL! This guy certainly must have been blinded by bias if he came to the conclusion the difference was ever that large, even without slats!

As to my credentials, well I'm an educated engineer amongst other things and I've been studying aerodynamics for quite some years by now, so although I can't call myself an expert on the subject as I've still got to fully learn some of the more complex parts I do know my fair share and more than enough to be able to determine the turn rate radius of an a/c.

PS: Ever read Len Deighton's book about the Spit 109?? It has the accurate figures in it.


----------



## claidemore (Feb 4, 2008)

Soren said:


> PS: Ever read Len Deighton's book about the Spit 109?? It has the accurate figures in it.



Hi Soren,
Yes, I have Deightons book, as well as several others on the Battle of Britain. 
Deightons book has a lot of innacuracies, and it's not considered the gospel truth about BoB. It really reads more like historical fiction than non-fiction. He is mostly a writer of spy novels, this was his first attempt at a serious 'history' book. It was quite controversial when it first came out and he was accused by RAF personell who served during the battle of fabricating 'facts' in the book. It is often categorized as a good 'first' book about the Battle of Britain. 
He makes some good points though, and is one of the first to attempt to look at things from both sides.


----------



## claidemore (Feb 4, 2008)

Soren:
Don't know if you have time, but I'd like to see your calculations( or conclusions at least) on the turn rate and radius of Spit 1 and IX and 109E3/4 and 109G6. That would be cool. 

Thanks

edit: a few numbers;
109E4-combat weight-5875 lbs, hp-1175, wing loading 34lbs/sq. ft, power load 5 lbs/hp
Spitfire Mk1-combat weight 6050 lbs, hp-1030 (1300 with 100octane/12lb boost), wing loading 24 lbs/sq.ft, power load 5.8-(4.6) lbs/hp
109G1-combat weight 6692 lbs, hp-1310 (1942 rating), wing loading 39 lbs/sq ft, power load 5.1lbs/hp
Spitfire Mk IX (Merlin 61), combat weight 7445 lbs, hp-1565, wing loading 30 lbs/sq. ft, power load 4.7 lbs/hp


----------



## kool kitty89 (Mar 5, 2008)

Njaco said:


> regarding the fuel, what effect would the different carbuerators have on these machines in a turn?




The Bf/Me-109's engine had fuel injection so there would be no effect in a turn. (it also gave better throttle response) The Merlins used on early spitfires used a carburetor which would cause engine cut-out in -G maneuvering (nosing down or inverted flight) this would not occur if the pilot maintained a +G load. I beleive this problem was rectifies by the Spitfire Mk-V.


----------



## Kurfürst (Mar 6, 2008)

Glider said:


> This source confirms that the switch to 100 octane fuel enabled the power of the Merlin to be increased by 30% and the change started in March 1940. I take it you will agree, that a 30% increase would improve performance.



Of course. The thing is though, only about 1/4th of Fighter Command was to run on 100 octane fuel, at least until about November, when they finally converted fully. 

So how much representative is that..?



Glider said:


> As the Germans didn't have 100 octane fuel, my assumption is that the Germans didn't use it in the test.
> History of Aircraft Lubricants - Google Book Search



Nope, the Germans had _produced _ and _used _100 octane fuel, that is, before the British had 100 octane fuel; in fact this was one the driving powers behind Britain being so eager to get 100 octane, too, but Britain was forced to import it, initially via vulnerable sea lanes, as it did not produce it domestically, unlike Germany.



Glider said:


> Please advise where I said that it wouldn't impact performance. I said it would have a minimal impact, particually compared the extra weight of the podded 20mm on a 109.



Well then please provide evidence to your baseless claim that adding two _heavier_ cannnons to the Spitfire had 'minimal impact'.

You haven`t checked out four cannon Spitfire trials, have you?



Glider said:


> Totally agree. Whilst we are on this subject, can I ask you to advise what the impact was on a 109 with the GM equipment. I think it weighed about 350-400lb and once the GM was used, dead weight added to the 109. I have asked before but there wasn't a reply. As you say, physics work everywhere.



Well, probably there wasn`t a reply because you make up things, like this '350-400lb', and then ask me to prove it wrong instead of you backing up your own claims.

Now as to the factual value, GM-1 certainly didn`t add more to the G-1/G-3 than about 45 kg actually when the bottles were full, and I certainly fail to see the logic as to how this weight, when much of it was the GM1 fuel itself, and I fail to see how fuel, that have run out, adds weight...



> Page 203 has a photo of a 4 gunned Mk V in a blast pen, on page 207 Plt Officer Peck reported opening fire with his 4 x 20mm, German fighters also report in their combats that the Spitfires were of the latest version with 4 x 20mm. You may not have the book but others do and will be able to confirm what I say if you ask.



I don`t doubt it. What it does prove though is that were at least _4-cannon Spits at Malta_. On that famous photo on their Malta trip, I can see about half a dozen.

Thats pretty much sums up the role 4-cannon Spits during the war. Appearantly it didn`t work out. That leaves the Spit, save the almost-made-it Mk 21s, with two cannons possible only.

In that sense, the 4 cannons had truely minimal impact on the Spitfire`s performance, being mounted only a handful of aircraft during the entire war.




> Re Galland you know and I know that Galland also made compimentary comments about the Spitfire.



He said its slow and turns well. Not unlike biplanes I would say.


----------



## eddie_brunette (Mar 6, 2008)

P38 for me.

BTW: It is amazing how people dont like the P40. I know it is not the best here, but that plane never gets recognition.(then again same for F6F, the Mustang gets all the glory, and I'm sure the F6F is much better dogfighter than overated P51)


----------



## Hop (Mar 6, 2008)

> Of course. The thing is though, only about 1/4th of Fighter Command was to run on 100 octane fuel, at least until about November, when they finally converted fully.
> 
> So how much representative is that..?



Just to make it clear, Kurfurst's source for this claim is a post on another forum by someone who claimed to have seen such information in the Australian archives. He didn't have any of the information from the archives, he was quoting from memory.

The post was several years ago, he promised to find information to back up his claims, but still hasn't done so.

The information that shows FC did totally switch to 100 octane fuel ranges from Wood and Dempster, who write in The Narrow Margin:



> As it turned out, aviation spirit was to prove no worry for the RAF. By July 11th, the day after the Battle of Britain opened, stocks of 100 octane petrol used in the Merlin engine stood at 343,000 tons. On October 10th, 21 days before the battle closed, and after 22,000 tons had been issued, stocks had risen to 424,000 tons. With other grades of aviation spirit total stocks available on 10th October 1940 was 666,000 tons



The Narrow Margin is one of the classic works on the BoB, and one Kurfurst is happy to use for a reference when it suits him. When it doesn't, he would much rather believe unsourced comments on a forum.

The 22,000 tons Wood and Dempster refer to equals 6,844,444 imperial gallons. The Spitfire and Hurricane each carried just over 80 gallons, but I'll assume 90 gallons per sortie (they didn't have drop tanks, so that's the maximum they could use on a sortie).

That's enough fuel for 76,050 sorties, assuming every sortie drained the tanks.

In fact, between the dates Wood and Dempster mention, Fighter Command flew about 50,500 sorties.

Apart from Wood and Dempster, Mike Williams has collected combat reports from Spitfire squadrons: Spitfire Mk I versus Me 109 E

Last time I checked, he had combat reports from all but one of the Spitfire squadrons showing the use of 100 octane fuel.


----------



## Glider (Mar 6, 2008)

Kurfürst said:


> Of course. The thing is though, only about 1/4th of Fighter Command was to run on 100 octane fuel, at least until about November, when they finally converted fully.
> 
> So how much representative is that..?


I think Hops posting covers this item





> Nope, the Germans had _produced _ and _used _100 octane fuel, that is, before the British had 100 octane fuel; in fact this was one the driving powers behind Britain being so eager to get 100 octane, too, but Britain was forced to import it, initially via vulnerable sea lanes, as it did not produce it domestically, unlike Germany.


I admit this is new to me. My understanding was that the DB 605 was designed to run on 87 octane fuel (known as B4 fuel I believe) and later in 1944 was upgraded in to run on 96 octane fuel. As we are talking about 1942 this leaves the 109 with 87 Octane fuel. With your knowledge of the 109 I would expect you to know that, unless of course I am wrong again in which case assuming you can prove the point I will defer to your knowledge.




> Well then please provide evidence to your baseless claim that adding two _heavier_ cannnons to the Spitfire had 'minimal impact'.
> 
> You haven`t checked out four cannon Spitfire trials, have you?


Sorry SOren but yes I did. The climb was impacted but everything else was described as 'no noticable difference between this aeroplane and other Spitfire V types.'
Source Spitfire Mk.Vc AA.873 Report





> Well, probably there wasn`t a reply because you make up things, like this '350-400lb', and then ask me to prove it wrong instead of you backing up your own claims.
> 
> Now as to the factual value, GM-1 certainly didn`t add more to the G-1/G-3 than about 45 kg actually when the bottles were full, and I certainly fail to see the logic as to how this weight, when much of it was the GM1 fuel itself, and I fail to see how fuel, that have run out, adds weight...


I always said that this was something I remembered. In fact the actual figure I remembered was 385lb for the whole installation but was happy to be corrected. 45kg for the bottle is around 90lb. Less than I expected, but I am not going to argue.




> I don`t doubt it. What it does prove though is that were at least _4-cannon Spits at Malta_. On that famous photo on their Malta trip, I can see about half a dozen.
> 
> Thats pretty much sums up the role 4-cannon Spits during the war. Appearantly it didn`t work out. That leaves the Spit, save the almost-made-it Mk 21s, with two cannons possible only.



I am certainly not going to disagree that the 4 x 20mm gun was unusual but it certainly happened. I have also seen photo's of Mk VIII and Mk IX's with 4 x 20, unusual, certainly, but it happened.
PS acording to the book Malta The Spitfire Years, all the aircraft on the second mission from the Wasp were equipped with 4 x 20, which is a lot more than half a dozen.


The problem here was that you originally stated that it couldn't be armed with 4 x 20 as the wings couldn't take the stress. No evidence was given by you for that statement.
I said it could and you blamed another site (which you are always quick to do) but my evidence came from a book details. You didn't give any evidence for your statement.
You asked for page no details which I gave and life went quiet.
Now you say its only a half dozen Spits with 4 x 20, again with no evidence.

It the same story on other point in this thread.
On my statement on the 100 octane improved performance you disbelieved me and blamed another site again. Unfortunately my source was independent and unquestioned.
You now say that the Germans had 100 octane fuel before the British again without any source.
Youa also state that FC only had 25% of its force using 100 octane again without any source. 

There is a trend here Kurfurst or am I the only person to spot it (along with if I may say, Hop).

By the way I do have someone who works with me who is Hungarian so please send that page you have.

Many thanks


----------



## Soren (Mar 6, 2008)

> Sorry SOren but yes I did. The climb was impacted but everything else was described as 'no noticable difference between this aeroplane and other Spitfire V types.'
> Source Spitfire Mk.Vc AA.873 Report




??????


----------



## kool kitty89 (Mar 6, 2008)

Yeah that was a quote from Kurfürst...

From what I've read the Spitfire did get stiffened wings since the wing tips were twisting in high-speed rolls this was a particular problem with the higher speeds possible with the Griffon Spits. (clipped wings didn't have this problem though)

The 4x 20mm cannon armament wasn't too powerful for the wing structure to handel but firing them did cause the wings to twist and the a/c was generally not a very stable platform for this armament. (the Fw 190 had similar problems mounting 30mm MK 108 wing guns) The spitfire was also a bit light toremain stable with 4x 20mm cannons firing even if the wings didn't twist. The Hurricane Mk.IIC was not particularly stable in firing either, though not as bad as the spit it would not have been good for dogfights. (probably decent aganst bombers) But the 2x 20mm and 2x .50 cal armament is probably the most practical.


I'll also agree that the P-40 was possibly the most important a/c in the USAAF inventory up to 1942. It was available in more numbers than any other aircraft and had decent range and armament. Plus the Merling engined varients as well as the V-1710-81 powered P-40M/N had decent performance up to 18,000 ft. (though the M/N didn't apear until 1943 and the M was predominantly an export model) It held ground for the USAAF (particularly in the Pacific) when nothing better was available in numbers. The early P-38 was better in almost all ways (except in ease of maintainence, and training) but there weren't all that many available and they were needed even more in the Pacific. 

The P-39 could have been a good early war contender but the USAAC ruined it. Not just the removal of the turbo but the other changes the AAC made in the name of streamlining. The wings were shortened (decreasing lift and lift-drag ratio and limiting climb and turn rates, room for growth in weight, and the amount of space wor internal stores or possibly underwing stores) they shrank the canopy making the cockpit cramped for anyone taller than 5"8" and they lengthened the rear fusalage messing up CoG and giving the Airacobra its trademark instability.


----------



## Glider (Mar 10, 2008)

Kurfürst said:


> Well, probably there wasn`t a reply because you make up things, like this '350-400lb', and then ask me to prove it wrong instead of you backing up your own claims.
> 
> Now as to the factual value, GM-1 certainly didn`t add more to the G-1/G-3 than about 45 kg actually when the bottles were full, and I certainly fail to see the logic as to how this weight, when much of it was the GM1 fuel itself, and I fail to see how fuel, that have run out, adds weight...



Kurfurst
I have continued to look into this and admit I haven't found anywhere that states the 385lb that I remembered.

I have however found a source giving the weight of the GM-1 installation in a Ju88S. This is of course going to be a lot larger than the weight in a 109, but the figures are interesting.

The complete installation (dry) weighed 400lb, plus 900lb being the weight of the Nitros Oxide assuming full tanks which were 75 gallons. This is a total weight of 1,300lb.

The figure I had in mind is about 30% of this which sounds possible for a 109 sized installation. 
If you could give me your source for the tank only weight of 45kg it might help us get to the bottom of the question.
My source is Janes Fighting Aircraft of WW2 page 297.


----------



## broke91hatch (Mar 13, 2008)

I had to go with the 109. Just the staggering amount of losses they inflicted, they dominated the skies in the early stages of the war.


----------



## Glider (Mar 15, 2008)

broke91hatch said:


> I had to go with the 109. Just the staggering amount of losses they inflicted, they dominated the skies in the early stages of the war.



And you have every right to make that statement, the 109 is the plane to beat in the first few years of the war.

I would take the 109E over the Spit Ia for sure.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Mar 15, 2008)

Why not the Fw 190? The only major problem the early 190 had was altitude performance above 20,000 ft. And the A-4 onward (arguably) had the heaviest armament of any fighter at the time. (the outer wing MG-FF cannons were poor with much lower muzzel velocity and ROF than the MG 151/20's or Hispano-based 20mm guns, but the wing root MG 151/20's were almost as good as Hispano Guns and were mounted on the centerline -being more accurate and concentrated) It was also tougher than most other ETO a/c and had a decent range.

As a bomber interceptor, the modest high-alt performance was countered by the heavy armament, making it still more deadly than 109 of the same time, and much tougher. Also there were very few escort fighters at the time and even if P-38s had been used they had problems at altitude as well, despite turbocharging. And below 18,000 ft (which could quickly be reached in maneuvering) the 190 could outfight just about any opponent at the time and it could easily brake off with its excellent roll and good dive speed.


----------



## Glider (Mar 15, 2008)

I personally consider the 190 and the Spit IX to be a draw and if someone has a preference for the 190 over the Spit IX then I would not disagree. Personally I would go for the Spit IX over the 190 but its a preference. I am sure the pilots of both planes were confident that they were in the best fighters in the world, anywhere.

My comment was around the Spit Ia and the 109E, in which case I would go for the 109. 

PS haven't heard from Kurfurst recently, have you?


----------



## Soren (Mar 17, 2008)

He's probably forgotten about this thread, he's got lots of work to do for his website.

About the Fw-190 vs the Spit, well I'd take the Fw-190 for the simple reason that at high speeds it was allot more maneuverable, and considering it could out-turn and out-climb a P-51 at low to medium alt it was a very competitive fighter. 

The brilliant and flawless kommandogerät of the Fw-190 also gives it a great advantage as prop pitch, fuel mixture etc etc is all out of the pilots mind and taken care of to perfection. 

According to the Germans the Fw-190 kept its dominance over the Spitfire till the end, the Bf-109's esp. the Fw-190's racking up some VERY impressive tallies over the Channel in 43.

That having been said the Spitfire Mk.XIV was definitely superior to the Anton and a close equal to the Dora-9. 

The Fw-190 Dora-9, Spitfire Mk.XIV F4U-4 Corsair are the three best massed produced piston engined fighters of the war IMO.


----------



## Glider (Mar 18, 2008)

Soren said:


> The Fw-190 Dora-9, Spitfire Mk.XIV F4U-4 Corsair are the three best massed produced piston engined fighters of the war IMO.



Have to agree with this.

PS apologies for the incorrect naming early in the thread


----------



## Hop (Mar 18, 2008)

> According to the Germans the Fw-190 kept its dominance over the Spitfire till the end, the Bf-109's esp. the Fw-190's racking up some VERY impressive tallies over the Channel in 43.



Source?


----------



## Hunter368 (Mar 18, 2008)

I was wondering how long that comment would go unchallanged by some Brit.

LOL


----------



## kool kitty89 (Mar 18, 2008)

The only thing the Spit IX could do better than the 190A (of the same period) in maneuvering was in a turn, the 190 could dive and roll (especially) better, and climb was similar. Though the Spitfire started to gain an advantage above the 190's ~19,000 ft critical altitude and above 25,000 ft would have a clear advantage. (as did the Merlin P-51's) But dogfights would quickly descend to lower altitudes where the 190 would have an advantage.


----------



## claidemore (Mar 18, 2008)

The Spitfire Mk IX and FW190A were equal in climb only in the early production of Mk IXs with the Merlin 61. With the Merlin 66 and 70, the Spitfire had a marked climb advantage over the 190's and indeed most fighters till the end of the war. Best climb rate for a 190 would be 3200+ft/min, best climb rate for a MkIX would be 4700+ ft/min. No comparison. 

The MkIX was also much superior in the climbing combat turn compared to the 190, 190s would always stall if they tried to follow a Spit in that maneuver. 

The 190 had a faster intial dive, but the Spitfires max dive speed was comparable, and MkIX pilots had no trouble catching up to 190s that attempted to escape by diving. 

In a dogfight at low altitude vs the Spit, the 190 was very much at a disadvantage, since it's best maneuver, the half-roll and dive, would be removed from the equation as alt got lower. There are plenty of reports of 190's not recovering from dives. 

Most of the 190s success against Spitfires was against MkVs where it had large perfromance advantages. Once the Mk IX was in combat, the balance changed and got progressively worse for the 190 pilots. In fact some channel Jagedgeschwaders like JG2 switched from their 190As to late model 109s, and eventually to Dora 9's. (what's with that number 9?) 

I'm not saying the 190 was completely dominated and decimated, they were still formidible fighters, but they certainly never again enjoyed air superiority as they had in their first operational year.


----------



## Soren (Mar 18, 2008)

Claidemore,

The FW-190 A-5 climbed at over 4,100 ft/min, and top SL speed was 570+ km/h, allot faster than the Spitfire Mk.IX. Hence the high tally the FW-190 acquired itself against the Spitfire over the Channel.



> There are plenty of reports of 190's not recovering from dives.



LoL, like one or possibly two ? 

Claidemore the FW-190 had the lightest and best harmonized controls of ANY WW2 fighter, being capable of far more aggressive rolls pull outs than the Spitfire. Hence why the Split S maneuver was almost a foolproof escape maneuver for any 190 with a Spit on its tail, the Spitfire simply had no chance of following it.
 
Also you need to remember at which speeds the actual fighting was taking place, cause at these speeds the 190 was everybit as good a turn fighter as the Spitfire, hence why most German after action reports note Spitfires shot down in 'Kurvenkampf', directly translated turn or angles fighting.



> and MkIX pilots had no trouble catching up to 190s that attempted to escape by diving.



That's definitely not true Claidemore! The FW-190 enjoyed a great advantage in dive acceleration and speed! 

In short the FW-190A stayed superior to the Spitfire Mk.IX except in climb rate and low speed turn performance. Not that it matted since the Dora-9 saw service in 44 and was a far superior fighter to both.


----------



## claidemore (Mar 19, 2008)

Soren said:


> Claidemore,
> 
> The FW-190 A-5 climbed at over 4,100 ft/min, and top SL speed was 570+ km/h, allot faster than the Spitfire Mk.IX. Hence the high tally the FW-190 acquired itself against the Spitfire over the Channel.
> 
> ...



There were plenty of other planes to fight the Dora, including Mk XIV Spits. 

I don't know if any 190As shot down any MkXIV spits, but MkIXs definately got some long nosed 190s. 

I liken the Spitfire Mk IX to the old saying, "God made all men equal, except for the Scots........... who he made just a wee bit better."


----------



## Soren (Mar 19, 2008)

Claidemore,

The Spitfire Mk.IX boosted to +25 lbs/sq.in. didn't see service until late 44, and even then not many saw service. In 1943 when the FW-190 A-5 was in service it was much faster than the Spitfire Mk.IX then in service, and climb rate was similar.

If you want to compare late 1944 fighters we can do that as-well, as most German fighters by then were all over the Spitfire Mk.IX. 

As for dive acceleration, again you're missing out. The FW-190 was ALLOT faster in a dive than the Spitfire, easily out-accelerating it and therefore hitting a higher speed in the end. If the Spitfire choose to do a shallow dive the 190 had successfully escaped.

As for 190's failing to pull out of a dive, well there are only a few incidents of this, and all where because of the pilot forgetting to trim back the incidence of their horizontal stabilizers, causing the a/c to nose over.

I'd like to the see the reports you talk of though..



> Yes, agreed, if it had enough height to do it without augering in.



The 190 wouldn't need much height at all for that, infact at 450 km/h it would need just as much as the Spitfire and less as speed increases.

Like I said the FW-190 could do much more aggressive pull outs than the Spitfire, being capable of taking higher G loads and controls being much better harmonized.

And as for max dive speed, well the FW-190A was approved for 850 km/h (531.5 mph).



> But, we hear this argument a lot and it speaks volumes to me. The advantage of the 190 was in "escaping", a defensive attitude, not an offensive one.



You've got to be kidding me! 

The FW-190 was faster, dived faster, and was allot more maneuverable! It was a totally offensive type a/c, being more on the offensive against the Spitfire than vice versa as proven with the incredibly high tallies it achieved against it over the channel.


----------



## drgondog (Mar 19, 2008)

claidemore said:


> The Spitfire Mk IX and FW190A were equal in climb only in the early production of Mk IXs with the Merlin 61. With the Merlin 66 and 70, the Spitfire had a marked climb advantage over the 190's and indeed most fighters till the end of the war. Best climb rate for a 190 would be 3200+ft/min, best climb rate for a MkIX would be 4700+ ft/min. No comparison.
> 
> The MkIX was also much superior in the climbing combat turn compared to the 190, 190s would always stall if they tried to follow a Spit in that maneuver.
> 
> ...



Good post. The Spit IX outclimbed the 51B-5 with both the 1650-3 and 1650-7 in it. It was only with 44-1 fuel, the -7 and 75" boost that the 51B got 4380 fpm with full Gross weight and racks at 9680 pounds..

And the 51B out climbed and was faster than the Fw 190A-5 at SL, at 20,000 feet and far better at 30,000 feet. It turned with it and the Spit outturned the Mustang. It turned with the 109 and the Spit IX out turned the 51B, until high speed and altitude, then they were very close.

But, all those Fw 190s and 109s must have gone down to acts of God, because no Allied fighter could touch their performance..


----------



## claidemore (Mar 19, 2008)

Hi Soren:
The max dive speed for FW190As, afaik, was 750kmh, not 850. What is your source for the 850kmh dive?

190s also reported heavy elevator forces in pullout at max speed dives, same as every other WWII fighter. Well harmonized controls don't give the plane any magical abilities in dive pullouts, it's still a mechanical muscle powered control. I believe the Spitfire wing has a higher mach number as well, and the famous 'oversensitive' elevators would be an advantage in pullout. 

I'd like to adress your comment about Spitfires stalling and flipping on their back. Something I'd never heard of outside of testing with dramatic shifts of CoG. 

Pilot handbook for the Spit IX says: "At the stall either wing and the nose drop gently. Recovery is straightforward and easy." 
Warning of a stall in all cases is felt in tail buffetting, from 10mph to 5 mph before the stall (depending on wing, clipped or standard). 

Only in those few planes that had rear fuselage fuel tanks, and a corresponding shift in CoG, was there any mention of a 'flick' stall. 

The 190 on the other hand, gave no warning of a stall, and was also prone to aileron reversal in tight turns. There are reports of poor performance in a loop as well. 

I mis-spoke when responding to your comment about "one or two cases". I realize now that you were referring to 190s augering in, and my reference to Brackens books was about Spits pursuing diving 190s. 

Here's a few accounts from Mike Williams site: (all my books are in storage which is really frustrating for me! )



> I broke down and right and caught another FW as he commenced to dive away. At 14,000 ft. approx. I gave a burst of cannon and M/G, 400 yds range, hitting E/A along fuselage. Pieces fell off and E/A continued in straight dive nearly vertical. I followed E/A down to 5,000 ft. over Boulogne and saw him hit the deck just outside of Boulogne and explode and burn up. Returned to base at 0 ft.
> 1 FW 190 Destroyed.
> 
> The leading one then broke off and the rear one started to dive towards France, taking slight evasive action. The dive started at about 10,000 feet and I got many bursts from astern at ranges from 200 to 400 yards. I saw cannon strikes, and his tank burst. Then, after about another second, black smoke and flames poured from his tail. At 2,000 feet my ammunition gave out and I saw him slowly carry on his dive to the right, flaming and smoking, until he crashed in a field (This, I think, was just S.E. of St. Omer). I came back at zero feet.
> ...



I know the 190s had their successes too. Their biggest advantage over France until D-Day was the fact that they were operating in their own airspace, giving an overall tactical/situational advantage, similar to the Spits and Hurricanes during BoB with 109Es operating at max range. 
But that tactical/situational advantage doesn't mean the plane itself was better. When you compare the advantages of the two planes against each other, the Spitfire has the edge, and will come out ahead in a greater variety of situations. 
I agree that the 190 was a very good fighter (almost as good as a Spit! lol) , it has always been one of my favorites, and the two planes performance similarities and differences make for a great discussion.


----------



## claidemore (Mar 19, 2008)

drgondog said:


> Good post. The Spit IX outclimbed the 51B-5 with both the 1650-3 and 1650-7 in it. It was only with 44-1 fuel, the -7 and 75" boost that the 51B got 4380 fpm with full Gross weight and racks at 9680 pounds..
> 
> And the 51B out climbed and was faster than the Fw 190A-5 at SL, at 20,000 feet and far better at 30,000 feet. It turned with it and the Spit outturned the Mustang. It turned with the 109 and the Spit IX out turned the 51B, until high speed and altitude, then they were very close.
> 
> ..



Agree completely. 
An now that you mention Mustangs, the Mustang 1s were operating during the period covered by this thread, which I beleive were faster than the 190 @ SL and were used in the same type of role as the Jabo 190s. They flew those same Mustang 1s from 41 to 44, and didn't have a lot of losses. Thats one of the unsung heros of the war IMO.


----------



## Soren (Mar 19, 2008)

Claidemore,

Read the FW-190A-5 manual, there the max permitted dive speed is listed, 850 km/h (531.5 mph).

As for your quotes, NONE of them are a case of the 190 failing to pull out of the dive because of high elevator forces, they were ALL shot down, there's a BIG difference.

At high speeds the FW-190 had the lightest and best harmonized controls of any WW2, infact the controls became almost dangerously light at very high speeds, there being a great risk of he pilot overstressing the airframe in tight pull outs, and the FW-190's wings could take over 12 G's!

Furthermore the 190 gave plenty of warning of the stall, however if the ailerons were improperly adjusted aileron reversal would occur which resulted in premature stalls in turns causing dramatically poorer turn performance. Hence the poor results the US Navy got with their captured A-5, as it suffered from improperly adjusted ailerons, as did Faber's A-3. 

The later captured FW-190 Jabo featured properly adjusted ailerons and performed much better than previously captured examples, turning with a Mustang III, and this is despite it being a heavilily armored equipped Jabo!

With properly adjusted ailerons the FW-190 gave plenty of warning of the stall and was a very potent turn fighter, out-turning the Mustang at low to medium altitudes and being capable of following a Spitfire through the first 145 degrees. That coupled with its much superior roll rate, speed dive acceleration made it a better fighter than the Spitfire and allowed it acquire itself a very high Kill/loss ratio against it over the channel from 1942 and onwards.


----------



## Soren (Mar 19, 2008)

drgondog said:


> It turned with the 109 and the Spit IX out turned the 51B, until high speed and altitude, then they were very close.



Bill you know as well as I that the P-51B wasn't even close to the Bf-109 in terms of turn performance. 

Also the Bf-109 was everybit as good a turn fighter as the Spitfire, the 109 G.2 and Spit IX being close equals in 42 43. 

The FW-190 A-5 was faster, dive quicker and was more maneuverable than both, hence its huge success against the Spitfire.

The P-51B was more of a match for the 190, featuring excellent speed at all altitudes and good high speed control. 



> But, all those Fw 190s and 109s must have gone down to acts of God, because no Allied fighter could touch their performance..



Come on Bill, that's unnecessary and completely useless. I like it better when you hold your composure and commit yourself to a serious debate.


----------



## claidemore (Mar 19, 2008)

Hi Soren,

As much as I enjoy debating with you on this topic, I enjoy reasearching and reading manuals even more! 

I have the 190A5 manual, in German (pdf). Since I'm a mono-lingual knuckle dragger, I haven't even attempted to translate it and I'm not sure how to go about translating a pdf with an online translater. (I did tranlate the Yak3 manual from Russian, but it was html, so I could cut and paste it easily)

If there is no english version out there, wouldn't it be cool if some fluent german speaking guy could translate it for us and post it here on these forums? 

Claidemore


----------



## drgondog (Mar 19, 2008)

claidemore said:


> Agree completely.
> An now that you mention Mustangs, the Mustang 1s were operating during the period covered by this thread, which I beleive were faster than the 190 @ SL and were used in the same type of role as the Jabo 190s. They flew those same Mustang 1s from 41 to 44, and didn't have a lot of losses. Thats one of the unsung heros of the war IMO.



You are absolutely correct - I didn't interject the Mustang III to put it in this period - just to illustrate a comparison versus the Spit IX, and indirectly the Fw 190A-5. The Mustang I was an excellent a/c up to 20,000 - much like the 190A-5 and had a lower wing loading than the P-51B/C and D..it was the best 'initial turning' performance Mustang.

The RAF didn't use the 20mm in the I (IIRC) but the P-51As in Africa were initially equipped with them. I wish the gun had remained - even two, inboard would have been quite effective I believe..


----------



## drgondog (Mar 19, 2008)

Soren said:


> Bill you know as well as I that the P-51B wasn't even close to the Bf-109 in terms of turn performance.
> 
> *In fact, that is not the case. I don't believe that you have yet submitted one shred of proof or data to substantiate your own claims despite months of debate on the topic.
> 
> ...



Soren, debating with you is rarely 'serious' - primarily because you remind one of great salesmen - i.e "Don't confuse Selling with Delivering" - in other words don't hold me to facts when I want to tell you how good my _____ is!" (you can fill in the blanks).

How can you contineu to use terms like 'far better' in discussing turn advantage of the Me 109G (or Fw 190A-5) over Spit IX, when you have yet to prove that either can objectively MATCH the Spit IX, much less turn better - all conditions being equal? 

You can blather all you want about pilots 'being afraid' to turn at low speeds but you can't prove it. You can pontificate about control rigging but provide no substance to demonstrate that any characteristic was unfairly applied to any test aircraft.

You talk about 12 G pullouts for an Fw 190 as if it is a well established fact. Actaully I'm prepared to believe it but out of curiosity can you point to strain gage results of such stresses in real life? or even hydraulic tests on wing structures to failure? Probably not.

You make comments that pilots like Gunther Rall were afraid to use leading edge slats in a 109 as if you two just had a conversation over the subject and he confessed his 'sins' of not trusting the 109 because of a bad experience! Where in the world did you get that idea?

Earlier you claimed that the 109 was stressed to 13 G but that proof point got lost somewhere along the way.

So, Fact sources for
1. 109G or K out turning either a Fw 190, or SpitIX or P-51B at any altitude.
2. 190 pdesigned to pull 12G's
3. 190 'approved' to dive at 535mph
4. 190 out turn Spit IX or P-51B
5. 109 or Fw 190 outclimb the Spit IX or P-51B

Include the load conditions and condition of the airframe for the tests and the design docs or pilot operating handbook for the 'approved' dive speeds and loads.

It is a complete mystery why you make such unequivocal statements and makes most of your posts repititious rather than intellectually engaging?

I hope I wasn't too emotional for you?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 19, 2008)

This shall be interesting...


----------



## kool kitty89 (Mar 19, 2008)

Soren didn't say the Me 109 would greatly out-turn the Spit IX (at least not in the last few pages of this thread) he actually said they would be fairly close matches in this respect. 

Just by looking at the properties of these a/c (wing loading, wing properties, LE-slats, power loading) the Me 109 (and Spitfire) should out-turn the P-51B and Fw 190. And the 190 should out-turn the P-51 at low altitude (below 18,000 ft) but quickly lose this advantage with altitude. The 190 would hold the advantage of roll over the others and have better low-speed turning ability than the P-51. 

Though (at least in early models) the Fw 190 began losing its roll advantage above ~250 mph.

Much of this seems to be supported by anecdotal data... (I don't have any off hand though)


----------



## Glider (Mar 19, 2008)

I asked for similar information earlier in the thread and am still waiting so we will see.


----------



## Soren (Mar 19, 2008)

Bill,

I have provided source for most of what I've said, that you choose not to read them is not my problem. But since you asked I'll provide it again:

About the 109 and pilots being vary of the slats, this is a proven fact Bill, something which I have proven to you multiple times by now.

*Walter Wolfrum, German fighter ace. 137 victories:*_"*Unexperienced pilots hesitated to turn tight, bacause the plane shook violently when the slats deployed.* I realised, though, that because of the slats the plane's stalling characteristics were much better than in comparable Allied planes that I got to fly. Even though you may doubt it, I knew the Bf-109 could manouver better in turnfight than LaGG, Yak or even Spitfire."_

*Erwin Leykauf, LW fighter pilot, 33 victories:*
_"The Bf 109s also had leading edge slats. When the 109 was flown, advertently or inadvertently, too slow, the slats shot forward out of the wing, sometimes with a loud bang which could be heard above the noise of the engine. *Many times the slats coming out frightenened young pilots when they flew the Bf 109 for the first time in combat.* One often flew near the stalling speed in combat, not only when flying straight and level but especially when turning and climbing. Sometimes the slats would suddenly fly out with a bang as if one had been hit, especially when one had throttled back to bank steeply. *Indeed many fresh young pilots thought they were pulling very tight turns even when the slats were still closed against the wing. For us, the more experienced pilots, real manoeuvring only started when the slats were out. For this reason it is possible to find pilots from that period (1940) who will tell you that the Spitfire turned better than the Bf 109. That is not true. I myself had many dogfights with Spitfires and I could always out-turn them. *
One had to enter the turn correctly, then open up the engine. It was a matter of feel. When one noticed the speed becoming critical - the aircraft vibrated - one had to ease up a bit, then pull back again, so that in plan the best turn would have looked like an egg or a horizontal ellipse rather than a circle. In this way one could out-turn the Spitfire - and I shot down six of them doing it." _

*Mauno Fräntilä, Finnish fighter ace. 5 1/2 victories:*
_Did your flying and tactics change with the new plane? 
"No, it was basically the same. Except now we had better climb rates than the Russians and we could split better. And of course gain surprise. With speed, you could hit and run. And not spend much time in their sights. 
The Russkies never followed to a dive. Their max dive speeds were too low, I suppose. It was the same in the Continuation War, their La-5's and Yak-9's turned quickly back up. 
The Messerschmitt was exellent. You got always away when you pushed your nose down, and it then rose like an elevator. You soon had upper hand again. 
You should never lose your speed. Always get back up. The one who is higher has the advantage. You could shake the other with a climbing turn, he had to turn harder. Tighten the turn when the other tries to get into shooting position. The Messerschmitt climbed better, so it got away. Handy. 
The one who is in the inside of the circle loses his speed and doesn't get into position. You could use it against Yak-9's and La-5's, they were no more nimble." _

*Herbert Kaiser, German fighter ace. 68 victories: *
_"Personally, I met RAF over Dunkirk. During this battle not a single Spitfire or Hurricane turned tighter than my plane. I found that the Bf 109 E was faster, possessed a higher rate of climb, but was somewhat less manouverable than the RAF fighters. Nevertheless, during the campaign, no Spitfire or Hurricane ever turned inside my plane, and after the war the RAF admitted the loss of 450 Hurricanes and Spitfires during the Battle of France." In the desert there were only a few Spitfires, and we were afraid of those because of their reputation from the Battle of Britain. But after we shot a couple of them down, our confusion was gone."_

*Kyösti Karhila, Finnish fighter ace. 32 victories. Two P-51 shootdowns with three-cannon Messerschmitt 109 G-6/R6:*
_"I got both in a turning battle, out-turning them. We did several times 360 degrees until he became nervous, then pulled a little too much. His plane "warned", the pilot had to give way a little and I was able to get deflection. When I got to shoot at the other one, the entire left side was ripped off. 
- So you did several full circles, you must have flown near stalling speed. Did you fly with "the seat of your pants" or kept eye on the dials? What was the optimum speed in such a situation, it was level flight? 
It was level flight and flying by "the seat of your pants". What should I say, I should say I was doing 250kmh and the Mustang must have more than 300kmh. That is why I was able to hang on but did not get the deflection. 
- And you was flying a three cannon plane? 
Yes, but I did fly another one as mine was under maintenance. It was the experience that counted. Experience helped to decide when you had tried different things. 
- In which altitude did these Mustang dogfights take place? 
It must have been about 2000m."_ (These were actually LaGG-3's which makes it even more amazing)

*Kyösti Karhila, Finnish fighter ace, 32 victories, :*
_"The Messerschmitt became stiff to steer not until the speed exceeded 700kmh."_

*Esko Nuuttila, Finnish fighter pilot:*_"It was amazing feeling to take off in Messerschmitt after the Fiat (G.50). It was gung ho and no hesitation! The performance and handling of the plane were excellent and all systems were in their correct place. Of all different planes I have flown the easiest to fly were the Pyry (advanced trainer) and the Messerschmitt."_

*Jouko "Jussi" Huotari, Finnish fighter ace. 17 victories:*
_"I got in a dogfight against a Yak-9. I was the underdog, quite close to the water. The Yak-9 had bounced me from behind somewhere and the turning started. I pulled the stick, clenching my teeth, and he followed me. We completed four circles about, but then he disengaged and headed for East, for home. We had been on wavetops, altitude no more than 50m. I arrived at the base. I looked for holes but found only one, in the right wing (of the Me 109 G-6)."_


*Helmut Lipfert, German fighter ace. 203 victories:*_"I cast a quik glance at the machine and then climbed up after the other enemy aircraft. Damn, he could turn! Finally I was sitting behind him. I turned so tightly that condensation trails formed behind both wingtips and my Me shuddered on the verge of a stall more than once. Fortunately, the 109 turned extremely well.
The whole air battle took place at a very low altitude. I sat behind the Russian like a shadow, and now and then I succeeded in hitting him."_

*Major Kozhemyako, VSS fighter ace: *
_"BF109 was very good, very high scale fighter plane. If was superior to our Yaks in speed and vertical combat. It wasn`t 100% superiority, but still. Very dynamic plane. I`ll be honest with you, it was my dream during my war years, to have a plane like this. Fast and superior on vertical, but that didn`t happen. Messer had one extremely positive thing, it was able to be successful in fights with Yak`s at 2000m and Aircobras at 6000m. This is truly unique ability and valuable. Of course, here Yak and P-39 were inferior. As far as combat on different altitudes, BF109 was universal, like La-5.
Me109 was exceptional in turning combat. If there is a fighter plane built for turning combat , it has to be Messer! Speedy, maneuverable,(especially in vertical) and extremely dynamic. I can`t tell about all other things, but taking under consideration what i said above, Messerschmitt was ideal for dogfight."_

*Mark Hannah, Mordern 109 pilot:*_"I like it as an aeroplane, and with familiarity I think it will give most of the allied fighters I have flown a hard time, particularly in a close, hard turning, slow speed dog-fight. It will definitely out-maneuver a P-51 in this type of flight." _

Satisfied ?

As for the comparative tests with the 109 190 I promised, I forgot to provide these that's true, will do so when I find them. I do promise you though Bill, they are there, you can trust me 100% on that! (Ask Gene, he's got them, all of them!)

I remember quite a few phrases from the tests though, "_the 109 getting on the 190's tail in no time_" being one of them. LW Chief test pilot Heinrich Beauvais also made it clear that the FW-190 was absolutely no match in turn fight against the Bf-109, something which was thuroughly established in all the tests he carried out with the a/c.

Shall we move on to the aerodynamics ?

*Bf-109 G-2*
Weight: 2,890 kg
Wing area: 16.15 m^2
Wing span: 9.92 m
Power: 1,455 HP

Wing AR: 6.09
Clmax: 1.70

Power-loading: 1.98
Lift-loading: 105.26 

*Spitfire Mk. IX*
Weight: 3,356 kg
Wing area: 22.48 m^2
Wing span: 11.23 m
Power: 1,580 HP

Wing AR: 5.61
Clmax: 1.36

Power-loading: 2.12
Lift-loading: 109.77

*P-51B*
Weight: 4,256 kg
Wing area: 21.64 m^2
Wing span: 11.21 m
Power: 1,790 HP

Wing AR: 5.80
Clmax: 1.47

Power-loading: 2.38
Lift-loading: 133.79


As you can see the P-51 aint even close to the Bf-109 or Spitfire

The funny thing about all this though is that I know you're already aware of it, so that I have to explain over and over again is tiring. You have said yourself many times that most Mustangs lost to 109s were so because they engaged in slow speed turn fights.


----------



## drgondog (Mar 19, 2008)

kool kitty89 said:


> Soren didn't say the Me 109 would greatly out-turn the Spit IX (at least not in the last few pages of this thread) he actually said they would be fairly close matches in this resBill you know as well as I that the P-51B wasn't even close to the Bf-109 in terms of turn performance.
> pect.
> 
> *Actually you are right.. Soren's specific comment was " Bill you know as well as I that the P-51B wasn't even close to the Bf-109 in terms of turn performance.  so I will modify the checklist above to reflect that*
> ...



So, Soren said the Spit vs 109 was close but the Brits said the 109 was outurned 'significantly' by the Mustang III at max internal load!

I'll just rephrase the 'call to fact' for Soren, to isolate 109 versus P-51B and contrast against both normal gross weight, altitude, and speed, much less against 10,100#! 

There is so much emphasis placed on easy to calculate aerodynamics characteristics such as W/L, A/R, etc w/o understanding that real life aerodynamic effects such as drag, power to weight, altitude, engine performance at the altitude, wing body effect, flow separation, etc and combine it with pilot skills and initial tactical position... not to mention engaging with an engine out of tune, on the verge of an overhaul, etc.

These fighters were ALL pretty damn good. Boneheads that quote selective aero characteristics to try to claim victory in these discussions without objective comparative data are idiots - myself included if I fall into that trap.

KK - don't get wrapped up in discussions like CL, angle of attack, W/L, flat plate drag, wetted drag, wing body effects, power loading, hp or other 'interesting data unless YOU can personally weave that into a cogent discussion and relate the THEORY to ACTUAL. 

Others in this forum have a lot LESS theoretical background than I do and I am amazed at the bulls**t that flows as a result of a little knowledge of a few terms.

Guys like me (who bailed out after 6 years in the airframe industry) spend their LIVES trying to match the model to the reality in predicting performance.

I am now stepping down from my soapbox and apologise to you for lecturing you on this.

Soren, you now have the opportunity to prove your points rather than 'sell'


----------



## Soren (Mar 19, 2008)

Oh almost forgot, here's a British RAF pilot out-turning two P-51A's in a FW190 with ease in August 1943:


----------



## Soren (Mar 19, 2008)

Forgot this as-well:

Take Off Roll is a good way to predict the sustained turn performance of an a/c:






The Bf-109 F-4 has 240m take off roll, that's 85m shorter than the Spitfire Mk.V.

Landing speed is 130 km/h (81 mph).


----------



## drgondog (Mar 19, 2008)

Soren said:


> Bill,
> 
> About the 109 and pilots being vary of the slats, this is a proven fact Bill, something which I have proven to you multiple times by now.
> 
> ...



The funny thing Soren, is that I have always been aware of YOUR opinions but you have never backed it up with objective flight test comparisons!

I DID say that the Mustang and 109 were very close at low speeds Soren, and I agree  that Mustang pilots were warned to avoid a low speed low altitude fight. Having said that, MY information is anecdotal , as yours is, regarding the 109 slight superiority at low speed and altitude.

In reality probably more 109s were downed in fights with Mustangs than the reverse - but that is all about pilot skill with two matched airplanes at low speed.

I have also stated that the Mustang gains advantage as the airspeed approaches 250mph and then increases the edge as the speed increases. That is also a combination of anecdotal information but supported by RAF Flight tests. You have yet to present rebuttal flight tests to bolster your 'anecdotal' quotes. Until you do, you are in an opinion based holding pattern

You somehow translate your belief system into a factual fabric that 'the P-51 ain't even close to the Bf109 or Spitfire, and that statement is simply *untrue*. 


Conversely you have never proven it. Conversely you negate the RAF tests carried out by pilots interested in facts, with anecdotal references.

Net - quit dragging out silly quotes from VVS pilots extolling the virtues of the 109 - particularly since by and large the LW 'had its way' with the VVS, whereas the US FC Mustangs 'had its way with the LW'. 

What logic compels you to cite anecdotal discussions of this type as factual basis for fighter to fighter performance? 

As to posing as an aero by showing you know how to multiply and divide, tell me something interesting like the Roll, Pitch and Yaw Moments of Inertia for the two fighters, the calculated airspeed bleed in a 3g turn at 20,000 feet for an entry velocity of 400mph in a level turn, at normal gross weight for both aircraft and give me the calculated and and actual stick forces for a properly rigged ship of both types while holding the 3g turn? 

At what speed in the 3g turn under those entry conditions is each CLACULATED to stall?

Let's start with something that reflects that you KNOW what you talk - relative to performance - or aerodynamics - instead of some gomer talking about shooting down Laag's when he thinks they are 51's?

In other words talk about something more intersting than your opinions?


----------



## Juha (Mar 19, 2008)

Soren
Karhila's Mustangs were in fact Yak-9s from 13 KIAP, KBF.
Thanks for Nuuttila's opinion, haven't notice that before. Not all Finnish pilots, IMHO in fact only few, would call Pyry, notarious tip-staller, easy plane to fly. Which only shows that pilot opinions were not universal. IMHO most Finnish Bf 109G pilots thought that 109 was better in vertical and Yak-9s and La-5s in horizontal manouvres. And the important question is which version of Yak-9s and La-5s Finns had met. For example Yak-9M and -9DD were easier opponents than Yak-9s and La-5 was a quite diffirent animal than La-5FN.
And IIRC most of the time the Bf 109G-2 was the main LW fighter the use of 1,42 ata was forbitten, so IMHO you should use 1,3 ata (Kampf und Stieg) power in your comparations.

Juha


----------



## Soren (Mar 20, 2008)

Bill,

The 109 which out-turned those Yak-9's (Not P-51's) was equipped with gun-pods. So yes its pretty incredible.

Also I know Crumpp has the comparative tests I talked about, he has presented them elsewhere, so frankly I'm not sure you've asked him or atleast he hasn't answered.

As for the physics, sorry but they don't lie, so you can keep talking about countless incounter reports if you like, they mean nothing, as there are atleast as many German encounter reports noting the 109 190 easily out-turned the Mustang.

Also the Youtube video was with a REAL LIFE Mustang owner and Skip Holm, now since you seem unfamiliar with this person let me give you a little update: 
_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TFl8X4y9-94_

And here's what two VERY experienced German pilots had to say about the slats:

*Walter Wolfrum, German fighter ace. 137 victories:*
_"Unexperienced pilots hesitated to turn tight, bacause the plane shook violently when the slats deployed. I realised, though, that because of the slats the plane's stalling characteristics were much better than in comparable Allied planes that I got to fly. Even though you may doubt it, I knew the Bf-109 could manouver better in turnfight than LaGG, Yak or even Spitfire."_

*Erwin Leykauf, LW fighter pilot, 33 victories:*
"Many times the slats coming out frightenened young pilots when they flew the Bf 109 for the first time in combat. One often flew near the stalling speed in combat, not only when flying straight and level but especially when turning and climbing. Sometimes the slats would suddenly fly out with a bang as if one had been hit, especially when one had throttled back to bank steeply. Indeed many fresh young pilots thought they were pulling very tight turns even when the slats were still closed against the wing. For us, the more experienced pilots, real manoeuvring only started when the slats were out. For this reason it is possible to find pilots from that period (1940) who will tell you that the Spitfire turned better than the Bf 109. That is not true. I myself had many dogfights with Spitfires and I could always out-turn them. 
One had to enter the turn correctly, then open up the engine. It was a matter of feel. When one noticed the speed becoming critical - the aircraft vibrated - one had to ease up a bit, then pull back again, so that in plan the best turn would have looked like an egg or a horizontal ellipse rather than a circle. In this way one could out-turn the Spitfire - and I shot down six of them doing it." 

Oh and I forgot to say that Erwin Leykauf actually tested the Spitfire during the war.


----------



## Soren (Mar 20, 2008)

Found another report I had put away in my archive, not the one I was talking about which involved A-8's vs 109's at low to medium alts (Crumpp has that one), but just as interesting as it involves the A-9 vs the G-6/AS:

Aircraft Comparison FW 190A-9 and Bf 109 AS/MW 50 - From A German Report

*HP 5156*

*Report from JG 11 on 29th October 1944 on mock air battle between Fw 190A-9 and Bf 109 G-6/AS/MW 50.*

_A Schwarm of Me 109 at 8,000 metres climbed up to attack a Rotte of Fw 190 at 10,000 metres. On the turn with 1.1 boost, the Me 109 Schwarm out climbed the Fw 190 Rotte by about 200 metres and at the same time without fully opened throttles and not flying flat out, they out turned the Fw 190 Rotte. 

First attack was from above and behind with 1.1 boost and flaps retracted and a normal steep turn without opening to maximum possible speed, the Fw 190A-9 was easily overtaken and out turned.

Second attack from behind and below on the number one of the Rotte, aircraft was easily overtaken, out turned and outstripped in the inside turn. 

On full throttle it is easily possible to out climb the A-9 without losing position since speed can be reduced by throttling back and doing very tight turns.

Appreciation: Me 109 AS/MW 50 obviously superior at high altitude to the Fw 190A-9. Secondly, now known that on July 14th, Air Officer for Technology issued instructions for preventing burning out of pistons on DB 603 and DB 605AS with methyl alcohol water injection. _


----------



## Soren (Mar 20, 2008)

Bill,

If you believe the P-51B 109G are close in terms of turn performance then you are horribly mistaking. The Bf-109 featured not only a higher lift airfoil but also Automatic LE slats, plus it was smaller, lighter and possessed a much lower power-loading. There's simply no way it's close Bill, it's far from it.

*Fact* is that the P-51 wasn't anywhere near as good a turnfighter as the 109, something which is not only supported by both veteran 109 P-51 pilots, but also modern Bf-109 P-51 pilots and crucially aerodynamics. Now you can deny this if you like but you've got everyone knowledgable on the subject against you then.

Forget about the RAE tests, as has been explained countless time the British pilots didn't put the a/c to its limits, just like every new pilot in the type. (Erwin Leykauf Walter Wolfrum made that abundantly clear) The British test pilots weren't familiar with the slats, and thus didn't know their characteristics or benefits. Plus the earlier 109 they had tested suffered from its slats jamming all the time, not exactly giving a booster to the moral to try that again! Hence their comment that the 109 was embarrased by the opening of its slats! That more than anything verifies the fact the British test pilots didn't push the a/c to its limits.


----------



## Soren (Mar 20, 2008)

Oh I almost forgot this as-well;

From Hans Werner Lerche's book: _Luftwaffe Test Pilot_ (Which I thought you owned yourself)

Low altitude comparative tests with FW-190A-8, Bf-109G La-5FN:

*Tactical conclusions and advice offered to German fighter pilots: *

_"The La 5FN is best suited to low altitude combat by virtue of its engine performance. Its top speed at ground level is slightly below that of the 190 and 109 (using MW 50). The 109 with MW 50 is superior over the whole height band in top speed and climb rate. Acceleration is comparable. Aileron effectiveness is better than the 109. Turning times at ground level are better than the 190 and worse than the 109.
In rate of climb the 190 is poorer until 3000m. Because of its greater weight the 190 accelerates less well than the La5FN, but by the same token is superior in the dive. It is basically right to dive away like an American Thunderbolt when flying a 190, thereafter to pull away in a high speed shallow climb to reach a new attacking position, not to let the speed drop and to avoid prolonged turning dogfights. "_

Surprise surprise, once again, like in every other German comparative test the 109 turns allot better than the 190.

Funny how you somehow missed this...


----------



## Soren (Mar 20, 2008)

The original document:







*Hans Werner Lerche*





*La-5FN tested*


----------



## Soren (Mar 20, 2008)

So Bill, are you satisfied now ?????


----------



## drgondog (Mar 20, 2008)

Soren said:


> Bill,
> 
> The 109 which out-turned those Yak-9's (Not P-51's) was equipped with gun-pods. So yes its pretty incredible.
> 
> ...




ARE YOU IN POSSESSION OF AT LEAST ONE FLIGHT TEST BACKING YOUR OPINIONS? 

Look, flight tests aren't the definitive answer but they do flight tests for a reason. The reason is to gather facts and impressions based on a planned flight profile under the conditions and criteria necessary to eliminate as many variables, and subject to an objective reproduction of the conditions.

You keep claiming you are an engineer and you keep ignoring engineering disciplines in these discussions. You babble about physics when making STATIC comparisons to prove a dynamics thesis - which are interesting and prove you have requisite math abilities to get you past the third grade - but have nothing to do with F=ma!

Give me the Inertia moments in the three axes, the airspeed bleed rates, etc I asked you for if you want to get into either a dynamic performance discussion or an aerodynamic comparison... because you CAN'T GET TO EVEN AN ANALYTICAL THEORETICAL DISCUSSION without these and other wind tunnel data. Give me the comparative Hp as a function of altitude, give me the thrust as a function of rpm and altitude.. then we get interesting information from the CLmax, CDo, etc. Quit the BS Soren

Additionally you have skated by the recent bold statements (with no facts regarding Fw structural integrity and terminal 'guaranteed' dive speeds - also with no context or facts.

Bring out the test results or the Structural analysis that a.) prove the Me 109 was designed to 13g for a dive as you claimed last year, or that the Fw 190 wing could sustain a 12g pullout or that Fw 'cerified' the Fw 190 to 535mph in a dive. BTW - most 'certifications' are for limit loads at specified weights as reference - but you never mention the criteria and you don't produce the facts.

No strain gage data, no stress analysis docs, no book references which in turn relate to as yet unptoduced factory specs.

SO where are the facts proving your thesis that the "Mustang ain't close to a me 109". You have pulled one anecdotal reference to at least 720 degree turn with no gain on the deck at low speed - not a good place for a Mustang but this is your "proof"??

It (the Me 109) didn't come close to getting the job done against the Mustang when fighting over its own skies over Germany, when it (109) held its own against the Spit over the Channel or even Britain and against the VVS against everything they put up?... so I guess you meant the P-51 wasn't close because it was demonstrably better?

But you are an 'engineer' waving your arms and claiming the physics are irrefutable.. can you say you have taken at least one course in Advanced aero and one in Performance? And seriously used both in at least an academic model? 

I have done these exercise in both academic and industrial practice. It is not easy, in fact largely impossible, to predict within 3-5% the range of key performance factors in flight test to the theoretical models used... but easy for you to do with thumbs and a calculator? I don't get it. 

Until you can demonstrate that kind of competence can we please limit our debates to page numers of reputable references and stay away from the hyperbole?


----------



## kool kitty89 (Mar 20, 2008)

> Spitfire Mk. IX
> Weight: 3,356 kg
> Wing area: 22.48 m^2
> Wing span: 11.23 m
> ...


The CLmax of the P-51B was higher than the Spitfire?!




[/QUOTE]
Also Soren where does it say that the Mustang was a P-51A with the British Fw 190? (note the P-51A was quite different than the Mustang I or 'P-51' as the armament was different for the A -the same as the B- as was the engine much more powerful -1480 hp V-1710-81-) In fact the P-51A didn't arrive until 1943 and production switched over to the P-51B after only a couple hundred were made, the only difference being the Merlin engine with different intake and an intercooler system. (making it heavier than the P-51A for about the same HP below 11,000 ft, making the P-51A a better performer up to medium altitudes, inless very high -non standard- boost pressures were used on the Merlin)


----------



## Soren (Mar 20, 2008)

Read my posts Bill, this is the last time I'll say it!

I have provided ample evidence that the 109 easily out-turns the Mustang and that they aren't close in terms of turn performance. Or is it that you suggest that the Mustang was close to the Spitfire in turn performance as-well ??

The facts are right infront you yet you completely ignore them! You asked me to provide you with the facts and the sources, so I did and now surprise surprise you ignore them!

I have provided German, British modern comparisons conducted by skilled personnel, heck the last comparative report was in Lerche's book, the book you supposedly own yourself! 

I have provided a German comparative test report on the FW190 A-9 Bf-109 G6/AS.

I have provided a report on a mock dogfight with a RAF pilot flying a FW-190 easily out-turning TWO P-51A's! (The P-51A is the lightest of Mustangs)

I have provided countless pilot anecdotes.

I have provided more than enough evidence in the field of physics to support what all the experts are saying.

And while we're talking physics, quit trying to complicate things! the physics aren't that complicated buddy, but anyone can make things seem more complicated than they really are. If you know the a/c's dimensions and weight distribution and you have the Clmax, Cd0 Cdi figures you can get a very accurate end result, one more than good enough for any accurate comparison between these a/c.

Finally keep in mind that my comparisons are at SL.


----------



## Soren (Mar 20, 2008)

KoolKitty,

Yes the P-51's Clmax was higher than the Spitfire's.


----------



## Juha (Mar 20, 2008)

Lerche's report on La-5FN is a bit strange, max speed appr 40Kmh lower at all altitudes than in Soviet service tests of early La-5FNs. Maybe the explanation is that the a/c Lerche flew was one of the early FNs, produced in late 43, so at least one year old when Germans got it. And those produced ½ year earlier than the report was written were even faster, 580kmh at SL and 635-648kmh max speed. 

But even the a/c Lerche flew wasn't inside 1939-42 timeframe, so we are little off the topic.

Juha


----------



## Soren (Mar 20, 2008)

Let me make simple for you Bill; Below I will present all the stuff you so far have been completely ignoring:

1. Two German experten explaining why many pilots didn’t push the 109 to its limits: 

*Walter Wolfrum:*
_“Unexperienced pilots hesitated to turn tight, bacause the plane shook violently when the slats deployed. I realised, though, that because of the slats the plane's stalling characteristics were much better than in comparable Allied planes that I got to fly. Even though you may doubt it, I knew the Bf-109 could manouver better in turnfight than LaGG, Yak or even Spitfire”_

*Erwin Leykauf:*
_“Many times the slats coming out frightenened young pilots when they flew the Bf 109 for the first time in combat. One often flew near the stalling speed in combat, not only when flying straight and level but especially when turning and climbing. Sometimes the slats would suddenly fly out with a bang as if one had been hit, especially when one had throttled back to bank steeply. Indeed many fresh young pilots thought they were pulling very tight turns even when the slats were still closed against the wing. For us, the more experienced pilots, real manoeuvring only started when the slats were out. For this reason it is possible to find pilots from that period (1940) who will tell you that the Spitfire turned better than the Bf 109. That is not true. I myself had many dogfights with Spitfires and I could always out-turn them."_

2. In the RAE AFDU’s own papers it is clearly noted that the 109 is _“embarrassed by the opening of its slots”_, clearly indicating an unwillingness to go beyond the deployment of the slats. 

However the above wasn’t unnormal as explained by Erwin Leykauf Walter Wolfrum, pilots inexperienced with the type being vary of the slats and unwilling to tighten the turn after the initial deployment, fearing the a/c was about to stall. Fact is the pilots weren’t even close to a stall, as real maneuvering only started AFTER the slats had deployed, which they did VERY early on in the AoA range.


3. The facts brought forth by modern pilots who actually fly the a/c in question. 

*Mark Hanna:*
_“I like it as an aeroplane, and with familiarity I think it will give most of the allied fighters I have flown a hard time, particularly in a close, hard turning, slow speed dog-fight. It will definitely out-maneuver a P-51 in this type of flight."_

And

_“The Spitfire, on the other hand, is more of a problem for the 109, and I feel it is a superior close-in fighter. Having said that, the aircraft are sufficiently closely matched that pilot ability would probably be the deciding factor. "_

*Note:* Mark Hanna (May he rest in peace) flew the Buchon, a much heavier and draggier version of the 109.


*Skip Holm:*
_"Once airborne and cleaned-up, the aircraft is a delight. A classic! And real fighter, ready to rock and roll! And the speed it loves to roll around is 250 mph and below. The roll rate is very good and very positive at 250 mph. Above 250 mph the ailerons get heavy and at 300 they are very similar to a P-51. Any speed after that results in the ailerons getting fairly solid and you need two hands on the stick for any meaningful roll rates. Most of my flights have been in formation with P-51s and the Me-109 is more maneuverable than the P-51 in most conditions. "_

*Skip Holm Interview* (Including a Mustang owner in the beginning which he flies with): 
_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TFl8X4y9-94_

*Note:* Skip Holm flies ALL the aircraft in question!

4. All the German comparative tests, in all of which it is made abundantly clear that the Bf-109 EASILY out-turns the FW-190.


*JG 11 report HP 5156 from 29th October 1944 regarding mock dogfights between FW-190 A-9's and Bf-109 G6/AS's:*
_"A Schwarm of Me 109 at 8,000 metres climbed up to attack a Rotte of Fw 190 at 10,000 metres. On the turn with 1.1 boost, the Me 109 Schwarm out climbed the Fw 190 Rotte by about 200 metres and at the same time without fully opened throttles and not flying flat out, they out turned the Fw 190 Rotte. 

First attack was from above and behind with 1.1 boost and flaps retracted and a normal steep turn without opening to maximum possible speed, the Fw 190A-9 was easily overtaken and out turned.

Second attack from behind and below on the number one of the Rotte, aircraft was easily overtaken, out turned and outstripped in the inside turn. 

On full throttle it is easily possible to out climb the A-9 without losing position since speed can be reduced by throttling back and doing very tight turns.

Appreciation: Me 109 AS/MW 50 obviously superior at high altitude to the Fw 190A-9. Secondly, now known that on July 14th, Air Officer for Technology issued instructions for preventing burning out of pistons on DB 603 and DB 605AS with methyl alcohol water injection."_

And

*Low altitude comparative tests between FW-190A-8, Bf-109G La-5FN conducted at Rechlin:*

_Tactical conclusions and advice offered to German fighter pilots: _

_"The La 5FN is best suited to low altitude combat by virtue of its engine performance. Its top speed at ground level is slightly below that of the 190 and 109 (using MW 50). The 109 with MW 50 is superior over the whole height band in top speed and climb rate. Acceleration is comparable. Aileron effectiveness is better than the 109. Turning times at ground level are better than the 190 and worse than the 109.
In rate of climb the 190 is poorer until 3000m. Because of its greater weight the 190 accelerates less well than the La5FN, but by the same token is superior in the dive. It is basically right to dive away like an American Thunderbolt when flying a 190, thereafter to pull away in a high speed shallow climb to reach a new attacking position, not to let the speed drop and to avoid prolonged turning dogfights. "_

5. A captured German FW-190 Jabo turns as-well as a Mustang III in British AFDU tactical trials.

6. RAF pilot easily out-turns TWO P-51A's in mock dogfight in August 1943





7. Aerodynamics supports what all the experts are saying:

The Bf-109G-2 has a much lower lift loading power loading than the P-51B, whilst it is only slightly lower than the Spitfire Mk.IX's.

8. Take off roll is a good indicator of sustained turn performance, and in the Bf-109 F-4's Kennblatt you will find the take off landing roll figures for the 109 F-4 are much shorter than for the Spitfire Mk.V.







Well I could go on and on but I'll stop for now...


----------



## Soren (Mar 20, 2008)

Juha,

The La-5FN in question was captured in September 1944, and was not an earlier production version. The a/c was noted to be in very good condition.


----------



## Glider (Mar 20, 2008)

Soren said:


> Let me make simple for you Bill; Below I will present all the stuff you so far have been completely ignoring:
> 
> 1. Two German experten explaining why many pilots didn’t push the 109 to its limits:
> 
> ...


I understand that Walter Wolfrum did all his fighting on the Eastern Front and its by no means certain that he ever fought any Spitfires. If he did, its more than likely that he fought MkV's as relatively few Mk IX's were sent to Russia. What is certain is that the Russian Pilots would not have been as well trained as the Western Allies so this must question the statement.
Erwin Laykauf I believe shot down three Spitfires in 1940 before being transferred to the Eastern Front so his experience although valid isn't massive.
I used to have a link to a site that gave details of all German aces but seem to have lost it. They were listed many ways if anyone canfind it I would appreciate the link



> 2. In the RAE AFDU’s own papers it is clearly noted that the 109 is _“embarrassed by the opening of its slots”_, clearly indicating an unwillingness to go beyond the deployment of the slats.
> 
> However the above wasn’t unnormal as explained by Erwin Leykauf Walter Wolfrum, pilots inexperienced with the type being vary of the slats and unwilling to tighten the turn after the initial deployment, fearing the a/c was about to stall. Fact is the pilots weren’t even close to a stall, as real maneuvering only started AFTER the slats had deployed, which they did VERY early on in the AoA range.


This keeps getting mentioned but HOP did a posting giving more details that belies this claim. 
The question I have asked before on this is a simple one. 'If the secret to dominating the RAF SPitfires in 1940 was training new pilots to fly through the deployment of the slats. *Why didn't they?* Its simple to do and in the Me108 they had the ideal trainer.




> 3. The facts brought forth by modern pilots who actually fly the a/c in question.
> 
> *Mark Hanna:*
> _“I like it as an aeroplane, and with familiarity I think it will give most of the allied fighters I have flown a hard time, particularly in a close, hard turning, slow speed dog-fight. It will definitely out-maneuver a P-51 in this type of flight."_
> ...



The above statements are true but they also say that at higher speeds the 109 looses its advantage. If I had to choose between a plane that has the advantage at higher speed and one that has the advantage at lower speed, I would take the former.



> 4. All the German comparative tests, in all of which it is made abundantly clear that the Bf-109 EASILY out-turns the FW-190.


I agree with Soren on this. All the reports that I have read imply that the 109 could turn inside the 190.


----------



## Juha (Mar 20, 2008)

IIRC the La-5FN was an early model from late 43 production batch. Yes it was captured in Sept (or Oct) 44. For some reason, weariness etc, it was clearly slower than those service tested in SU. 

I voted for Bf 109, thinking F-4 but really cannot choose between Bf 109F-4 anf Fw 190A-4. And of course I could have voted Spitfire because of Mk I and Mk IX but the latter was very late comer in 39-42 timeframe and IMHO Mk V wasn't as good as 109F or 190A and because of that period I chose between 109 and 190.

One more point, again no Soviet planes! Not that I'd have choosen one but IMHO at least Yak-7B or La-5 (meaning the earliest high back version known also as LaG-5 and contemporary to Spit Mk IX) should have included into the vote.

Juha


----------



## drgondog (Mar 20, 2008)

Soren said:


> Read my posts Bill, this is the last time I'll say it!
> 
> I have provided ample evidence that the 109 easily out-turns the Mustang and that they aren't close in terms of turn performance. Or is it that you suggest that the Mustang was close to the Spitfire in turn performance as-well ??
> 
> ...



The Encounter Reports you advanced were at low altitude, but you have never said that 'The Me 109 is often out turned at medium altitudes and out turned at high altitudes'. Is that what you are saying now?


----------



## Hunter368 (Mar 20, 2008)

Bill and Soren,

If I could interject for a moment. Both of you use anecdotes from third parties allot, while it can be interesting......for the most part it is not worth allot. Encounter reports mean nearly nothing, they are all bais. Don't use them.

Bill, flight tests done by the allies are not worth allot in my eyes, they most often prove bais by the country doing it. Allies won the war so they write the history books how they want, you (me and everyone else in North America) hear nothing about how great the P-51 was, when it was not the one plane wonder that won the war.

Soren same thing do not use Axis tests to try and prove your points.

Please stick to physics and proven aerodynamics facts to prove your points. Use nothing but unbais ways to prove your points or your points mean nothing to us.

Not to mention all this sarcasm and small shots at each other just pollutes and waters down your points you actually make. So don't do it, facts speak volumes.


----------



## drgondog (Mar 20, 2008)

Hunter368 said:


> Bill and Soren,
> 
> If I could interject for a moment. Both of you use anecdotes from third parties allot, while it can be interesting......for the most part it is not worth allot. Encounter reports mean nearly nothing, they are all bais. Don't use them.
> 
> ...



*Quit lecturing Hunter, the debate has attempted to arrive at facts. The battleground has been the question of Fact versus Opinion. You have introduced the concept of civility and I agree with you. I have found it difficult with Soren's style and think I will just ignore him from this point on for that reason.*

Back to Fact. The Soren statements to date are that the Me 109 is far better than the Mustang in turn, the Fw 190 is stressed for 12g's, the Fw 190 is certified for 535mph in dive.

What facts have You extracted in this debate to support the above statements? I haven't seen any. These are the facts I have been asking for. I repeat, what facts have you seen to support those three statements I took exception to from Soren.

What aerodynamic theory and applied mechanics in these discussions lead you to believe any statement about turn performance for the Mustang and Me 109 at any altitude, for any entering speed, for any accelerations, for any conditions whatsoever is extractable from the platform of PHYSICS or AERODYNAMICS. I haven't seen one. I think I understand the theory and application to the real world. 

I am sorry my style offended you. 

I do respect you, but saying that, your post is offensive. My father and mother are no longer available to scold me - you don't have that kind of respect. If you have something that I say that offends you, take it off line unless you wish a reaction addressing your own rudeness.

If you feel the sarcasm dilutes the facts, look past the sarcasm and re read the posts to see a.) what facts have been offered to support the three unequivocal statements by Soren which I challenged. Please bring them to my attention without editorial comment and I will respond with great courtesy.

Also go back and refresh my memory regarding any statement that I have made about the Mustang being the "best fighter in the war". Please bring them to my attention, because if I said that I was incorrect. If you fail to find that comment, please let me know so that we don't have that little issue between us. 

Regards,

Bill


----------



## Soren (Mar 20, 2008)

Bill drop the bullsh*t and realize the facts put before you!

You requested me to post the facts, I did and now you try to dispute them with your ridiculous arguments.

And I HAVE posted Rechlin tests, again something you COMPLETELY ignored!

The tests Lerche conducted were RECHLIN TESTS!!!!

I have also posted tests conducted by JG 11, again completely ignored by you.

I have posted comments by the vets and the folks who fly these birds today, again completely ignored by you Bill!

And as for my knowledge within Aerodynamics, well so far it has only been demonstrated to be better than yours Bill! You've just kept your mouth shut when'ever we try to compare these a/c aerodynamically, the reason being you're completely unaware of how to calculate measure these things! 

You keep babbling about the airflow around the a/c, well Bill, what do you think Cl, Cd0 Cdi refers to ???

And tell me, if you think you're so unbelievably good at aerodynamics how can the P-51 be close to an a/c in turn performance which is MUCH lighter, smaller, has more power available, features a higher lift wing and automatic LE slats ??? 

Do you want to know the effect LE slats have on the critical AoA Clmax of a wing ? Here you go:





That's a 25% increase in Clmax critical AoA!

Do you also want to know why laminar flow airfoils are inefficient on fighters without LE slats or flaps ??


But who cares, keep running those circles Bill, you're only fooling yourself.


----------



## Hunter368 (Mar 20, 2008)

Wow Bill,

I have to say your post has surprised me. I did not intend to offend anyone with my post. Even rereading it looking for that......I can't see how I offended you in anyway.

Hell I even got a PM from a very respected member of the forum thanking me for my attempt of getting this "debate" back on course, less all the snide remarks from both you and Soren. Shows you how bad this "debate" has gotten.

The whole point of my post was to get you and Soren to debate based on facts alone in a respectful way.......to the benefit of us all. You both make yourselves look bad the way you are doing it.

Instead you took it as me taking shots at you (Soren) when I was not. I was not and cannot lecture to you on aerodynamics, you know far more on the subject then I.

I can debate with you facts, third party examples, history etc. But that was not my intention. I am trying to get this debate back from insults to facts. Notice I have not posted any comment here other then my attempt to get rid of useless comments and get back to facts.

Not to mention you took comments from my first post twisted them into things I never said. You claim you never indulged in the same thing as Soren, when you have. You both were doing it.

I am not trying to turn this into an arguement, I respect your knowledge a great deal, I truely do. But you lose your cool quickly, then your "debating" skill slips into snide remarks.

Example: Please post where I said (in my first post) "Bill you claim the P-51 was the wonder plane", I never said that. Reread my post, I never said any such thing. You lost your cool and assumed much in my post which was untrue.

I am not trying to get involved in your debate with Soren. I am just trying to get your debate with Soren clearer for us all to read and enjoy (less all the BS). 

Now if your still offended by my first post or this one, PM me if you want and I will explain more. Not trying to turn this into a pissing match with you, its not my style. But post again like the last one and I will respond.

Soren and Bill you both need to relax and take a deep breath. Walk away from the forum for a day or so and chill out.


----------



## Soren (Mar 20, 2008)

> This keeps getting mentioned but HOP did a posting giving more details that belies this claim.
> The question I have asked before on this is a simple one. 'If the secret to dominating the RAF SPitfires in 1940 was training new pilots to fly through the deployment of the slats. Why didn't they? Its simple to do and in the Me108 they had the ideal trainer.



As has been explained the Emil suffered from its slats jamming in turns, making pilots vary about the slats and unwilling to attempt to push the a/c beyond slat deployment, fearing the a/c was on the verge of a stall. 

Günther Rall was nearly killed in an Emil as one of the slats jammed in a turn, throwing the a/c into a vicous spin, fortunatly he recovered, but he never tried to push the 109 that far again. 

The problem with the LE slats was however solved with the introduction of the F series, a new roller design ensuring smooth operation of the slats, and most new pilots were then ofcourse instructed to push the 109 to the limit in turns from then on, there being nothing to be afraid of anymore. But the point is that the Britih test pilots and some of the old 109 jocks didn't know about this and continued to be vary about the slats, Rall never even attempted to push the a/c that far having nearly died once doing so, also he didn't have to seeing he had perfected his own tactics during the BoB which proved very effective. 

As Dave Southwood puts it, having flown Black 6:
_"When these deploy at low speeds or in a turn, a 'clunk' can be heard and felt, but there is no disturbance to the aircraft about any axis. I understand that the Bf109E rolled violently as the slats deployed, and I am curious to know the difference to the Gustav that caused this"_

A British pilot having either previous flown the Emil, or never flown a 109 before, would therefore naturally be vary about the slats and not push past slats deployment, somthing which is made clear by Leykauf Wolfrum and the comments made in the AFDU report.

And as for the Bf-108 being used as a trainer, well AFAIK this wasn't the primary trainer for LW fighter pilots. Furthermore the Bf-108 features the same slats as the Emil, so even if some pilots had trained in this type they'd still have high chance of experiencing that bad very dangerous habbit of the slats jamming in turns.

It was all about getting past that fear though as Wolfrum Leykauf both explain, both having successfully out-turned and shot down quite a few Spitfires.


----------



## Soren (Mar 20, 2008)

Hunter,

That's the way it always is with Bill, he blows into a frenzy of insults everytime someone talks negatively about his precious Mustang, ignoring all the facts put before him, making it impossible to have a serious debate with him. 

As long as he refuses to realize the facts we can't debate this any further with him.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 20, 2008)

Folks - let get back to being a little civil here - I don't want to close this thread but will do so if things continue to get heated.


----------



## evangilder (Mar 20, 2008)

This has gotten WAY out of hand. I will go one further and state that the next snide comment will result in closing of this thread, I don't care WHO it is from.


----------



## Juha (Mar 20, 2008)

Soren
"It was all about getting past that fear though as Wolfrum Leykauf both explain, both having successfully out-turned and shot down quite a few Spitfires."

Leykauf claimed 3 Spitfires and IIRC Wolfrum's all claims were on Eastern Front, so what is your definition to "quite a few"?

Juha


----------



## claidemore (Mar 20, 2008)

A man once said: The secret to success is to leave two or three things unsaid every day.

I really don't want to see this thread get locked, it's far and away my favorite and I feel like I'm learning something. 

claidemore


----------



## Soren (Mar 20, 2008)

Erwin Leykauf shot down six Spitfires during the BoB Juha, as he said himself. 

Three passed confirmation with the OKL with another two Hurricanes shot down.


----------



## Juha (Mar 20, 2008)

Soren
"Erwin Leykauf shot down six Spitfires during the BoB Juha, as he said himself."

How You know that he shot down 6 Spits? Have you done some research on subject or is that only your belief?

Juha


----------



## pbfoot (Mar 20, 2008)

I think saying someone bagged an opponent by outurning him is a little misleading , if both aircraft started manouvering at the same time from the same position and energy level would be the only was to base the abilities of both aircraft. then toss into the mix capabilities of the pilot and the maintainence of the aircraft


----------



## Hunter368 (Mar 20, 2008)

Very good point PB and how often does that actually happen in combat? Almost never is the answer.


----------



## Glider (Mar 20, 2008)

Soren said:


> As has been explained the Emil suffered from its slats jamming in turns, making pilots vary about the slats and unwilling to attempt to push the a/c beyond slat deployment, fearing the a/c was on the verge of a stall.


I have heard this quite often but never any evidence. The reason why I have this question is that the Me108 had the same slats and if the the problem was common then it would have been dealt with before the war started. Certainly it would have been looked at and improved. Don't get me wrong I am not saying that it didn't happen but I do not believe that it was common.



> The problem with the LE slats was however solved with the introduction of the F series, a new roller design ensuring smooth operation of the slats, and most new pilots were then ofcourse instructed to push the 109 to the limit in turns from then on, there being nothing to be afraid of anymore. But the point is that the Britih test pilots and some of the old 109 jocks didn't know about this and continued to be vary about the slats, Rall never even attempted to push the a/c that far having nearly died once doing so, also he didn't have to seeing he had perfected his own tactics during the BoB which proved very effective.


The comment about the British test pilots not pushing them through the envelope has been addressed a number of times. You have read those postings and believe that point should be dropped.



> A British pilot having either previous flown the Emil, or never flown a 109 before, would therefore naturally be vary about the slats and not push past slats deployment, somthing which is made clear by Leykauf Wolfrum and the comments made in the AFDU report.


The experience of Leykauf and Wolfrun has been covered, in fact their lack of experience against Spitfires would be more accurate.



> And as for the Bf-108 being used as a trainer, well AFAIK this wasn't the primary trainer for LW fighter pilots. Furthermore the Bf-108 features the same slats as the Emil, so even if some pilots had trained in this type they'd still have high chance of experiencing that bad very dangerous habbit of the slats jamming in turns.


This I don't understand. In the 109myths site which I know you are aware of, a number of times visiting pilots mention that they were given a flight in a Me108 precisely to give them experience on the use of slats.
I know the 108 wasn't a primary trainer but if the use of the slats made the sort of difference which is claimed, then its use as a conversion trainer has so much logic, that I am confident it would have been used.

The best way to train a pilot is to let them experience their fears and realise that they are exagerated.


----------



## pbfoot (Mar 20, 2008)

What was the problem with the slats , was in not included in the training of the aircrew, were the groundcrew not able to maintain them . Having looked at the things and played with them I wonder why the LW was unable to use or maintain them


----------



## Soren (Mar 20, 2008)

Juha said:


> Soren
> "Erwin Leykauf shot down six Spitfires during the BoB Juha, as he said himself."
> 
> How You know that he shot down 6 Spits? Have you done some research on subject or is that only your belief?
> ...




My belief ??? Its what the man says himelf Juha, it has nothing to do with my belief!

Geeez..


----------



## kool kitty89 (Mar 20, 2008)

Why did't they fix the problem of slats on the Bf 108 like they did on the 109F?


----------



## claidemore (Mar 20, 2008)

I'd like to go back to the figures posted regarding clmax of the various planes. 

With a bit of research, a dollar store calculator, and the Mustang III (sorry don't have a I or II manual) and Spit IX manuals I get the following numbers. 

Spitfire Mk IX, standard wing, 7445 lbs, stall speed of 86mph and clmax of 1.62. 

Mustang III @9300 lbs I get stall speed of 90 mph and clmax of 1.2

If I go with Sorens stall speed for 109G2 of 90mph, @3035 kg/6678 lbs I get a clmax of 1.86. I don't have an independant source for that stall speed.

For the FW 190 A3 @8564 lbs and a stall speed of 127 mph I get clMax of 1.06. (Stall speed might be lower than that, with a correspondingly higher cl number, but thats the best info I have.) 

I have NOOO idea how to turn those numbers into min turn radius, or sustained turn times at various speeds.

A question about the slats, don't they open as you slow down to land? So wouldn't every pilot be familiar with them if they did more than one landing?

That being said, it does seem there is something amiss in the AFDU trials, which show the 190 as being nearly equal in turn to the Mustang III and Tempest, while the 109 was easily outturned by both. This doesn't line up with Soviet experience and comments about the two german planes, nor with generally held 'opinion'.


----------



## Soren (Mar 20, 2008)

pbfoot said:


> I think saying someone bagged an opponent by outurning him is a little misleading , if both aircraft started manouvering at the same time from the same position and energy level would be the only was to base the abilities of both aircraft. then toss into the mix capabilities of the pilot and the maintainence of the aircraft



Very good point PB, which is exactly why after action reports shouldn't be taken as gospel.

As for the problem with the Emil's slats, they were overly sensitive to dirt and the design didn't work very well under G's, frequent jams occuring. This was rectified with the introduction of the F series, the design remaining the somewhat he the same but with numerous modifications. The G series introduced a new design which operated smoother and wasn't susceptible to dirt.


----------



## Soren (Mar 20, 2008)

Claidemore,

I see you're beginning to see the point of it all, good.

As for the slats deploying at slow speed while landing, yes that's completely true, however this is under one G, at several G's the characteristics are different as the the whole a/c, including the slats, are under enormous stress.


----------



## Soren (Mar 20, 2008)

Yet another piece of evidence to support the fact that the British test pilots didn't push the 109 to its limits is a German test report on the turn radius of the Bf-109E. The Germans achieved a far smaller turn radius in their tests than the British.

The report is here on Kurfürst's site: Kurfrst - Baubeschreibung fr das Flugzeugmuster Messerschmitt Me 109 mit DB 601.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Mar 20, 2008)

> For the FW 190 A3 @8564 lbs and a stall speed of 127 mph I get clMax of 1.06. (Stall speed might be lower than that, with a correspondingly higher cl number, but thats the best info I have.)



That doesn't seem right to me either, the Fw 190 used a high lift arfoil (same as the F4U actually) so those figures would contradict that...


Also here's a US roll rate chart including the 190A-4 and P-51B:


----------



## Soren (Mar 20, 2008)

The stall speed of the FW-190 A-8 was below 167 km/h as that was the landing speed, so probably around 160 km/h flaps gear down and 170 km/h flaps gear up.

The Clmax of the FW-190's wing was somewhere around 1.58 to 1.62.

The FW-190 features the NACA 23000 series airfoil (15% root 9% Tips), an airfoil like Koolkitty points out which is known for its unusually high Clmax.


----------



## claidemore (Mar 20, 2008)

Soren said:


> Yet another piece of evidence to support the fact that the British test pilots didn't push the 109 to its limits is a German test report on the turn radius of the Bf-109E. The Germans achieved a far smaller turn radius in their tests than the British.
> 
> The report is here on Kurfürst's site: Kurfrst - Baubeschreibung fr das Flugzeugmuster Messerschmitt Me 109 mit DB 601.



Lol. This is where you get yourself into trouble Soren.  
It is POSSIBLE that the Brit pilots didn't push the 109, and there is evidence that indicates that may have been the case, but you can't really call it a FACT. Could just as easily been that the plane needed an oil change, or RAE gave it a poor paint job, or a combination of things. (thats more likely, there is seldom one cause to a problem, it's always compound)

I ain't ready to turn my coat yet, but I have come to see the 109 as a more capable turn fighter than I used to think. I'd still like to see some accurate numbers or graphs like the one HoHun gave us for the Wildcat vs Hurricane thread.

That 109E test you gave us shows 1050 ft radius, the RAE tests show 885 ft. Brits got a smaller turn circle? With flaps the 109 got 754 in the German test, while the RAE still has 696 for the Spit 1.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Mar 20, 2008)

Those figures on the 190 make more sence.


----------



## Soren (Mar 20, 2008)

Regarding the Clmax of the Bf-109 F, G K series wing, it is 1.70 as described in German documents:

Bf-109 Clmax Cd0


----------



## Soren (Mar 20, 2008)

Claidemore,

Read the report again:

_Without use of flaps : 
*at 0 m - 170 m (557 feet)*

With use of flaps : 
*at 0 m - 125 m (410 feet)* _

That's much lower than what the British achieved!


----------



## Glider (Mar 20, 2008)

Soren said:


> My belief ??? Its what the man says himelf Juha, it has nothing to do with my belief!
> 
> Geeez..



What people say is something to be treated with care. I have seen all sorts of claims which simply don't make sense and were impossible. Pilots swear that the enemy hit the ground and blew up, but no planes were lost. 
A personal favourite is the P47 pilot who straffed a PzIV and swore he saw the tank turn on its side.

I am not saying that he was lying or misleading in any way, I am sure he believes it to be true but at the end of the day he was awarded three Spitfire and we all know from the stats, that in all probability at least one of those were likely to have got away with it.


----------



## claidemore (Mar 20, 2008)

For the FW 190A3, if we go with 106 mph stall, I get 1.52 clmax. It used a NACA 23015.3 wing.

With 1.7 cl for the 109s, that puts stall speed at 94 mph.

From that report:



> Of particular interest are the figures given in the German specifications as the smallest turning radius of the 109E.
> 
> These are, at Sea Level and at 6000 m, with and without deploying flaps to aid turning :
> 
> ...



I don't read german, so I'm going with Kurfursts summation above. He says radius, not circumferance here. Did he goof?


----------



## kool kitty89 (Mar 20, 2008)

I still thought that the Mustang had a lower lift airfoil than the Spitfire, the P-51 using an altered laminar flow (low lift, low drag) airfoil, while the Spitfire used a similar airfoil as the P-40. (which was similar to the P-39 and P-38's as well iirc)

claidemore's figures on the Spit IX and Mustang III seem to agree with this.


----------



## Soren (Mar 20, 2008)

Just to give a little insight into the effects of slats flaps on a Clark Y type airfoil here are the results from tests conducted by NACA:


----------



## Glider (Mar 20, 2008)

Soren said:


> Claidemore,
> 
> Read the report again:
> 
> ...



Which brings us back to the reality of what happened compared with the theory of what should have happened.
If we believe the theory that the 109 accelerates faster, dives faster, goes faster, climbs faster and now turns faster, why didn't they slaughter the Spitfire?

In the past I have asked for examples of German fighter pilots who believed that the 109 could turn inside the Spitfire and you have never come up with any examples. Only the two aces who appear to have at best, limited experience in this.
Indeed earlier in this thread you and I were asked to quote our sources, I did, you didn't.

An aside I am lucky enough to have a copy of the picture Duel of Eagles signed by Galland and Bader. In his book on painting aircraft, Richard Taylor explains that setting the aircraft to the satisfaction of the two pilots wasn't easy. In the end it shows the Spitfire in a tight turn and the 109 unable to follow. This was agreed by both pilots as showing the aircraft in a real setting and Bader commented that, the 109 would never get me in this situation.


----------



## Soren (Mar 20, 2008)

Claidemore,

Kurfurst didn't goof anything up, you're just no reading what he wrote.

_Without use of flaps : 
at 0 m - 170 m (557 feet)

With use of flaps : 
at 0 m - 125 m (410 feet)_

Don't you notice the 557 ft radius achieved at SL without the use of slats ?? 

Why do you hang on to the figures achieved at 20,000 ft??


----------



## claidemore (Mar 20, 2008)

Soren said:


> Claidemore,
> 
> Kurfurst didn't goof anything up, you're just no reading what he wrote.
> 
> ...



Uhmmmm, cause I was reading too fast and skipped the first numbers? lol


----------



## claidemore (Mar 20, 2008)

The RAE turn times were done at 12000ft, right in between the two sets of numbers in the BAUBESCHREIBUNG test. When you look at it that way, they compare quite favorably I think.


----------



## Soren (Mar 20, 2008)

> Which brings us back to the reality of what happened compared with the theory of what should have happened.
> If we believe the theory that the 109 accelerates faster, dives faster, goes faster, climbs faster and now turns faster, why didn't they slaughter the Spitfire?



As has been explained countles times by now many LW pilots in 1940, when the Emil was in service, were vary about the slats as they had a tendency to jam in tight turns, however some like Wolfrum, Leykauf Kaiser weren't vary about them knew of their benefits and therfore out-turned the Spitfires they encountered. 

Also as has been explained countless times as-well, the Bf-109 Spitfire are VERY close when it comes to turn performance, the balance shifting back and forth through the different versions.

And as to the 109's record in the BoB, well it shot down more Spitfires Hurricanes than vice versa, pretty remarkable when one considers the very low time the 109's had over Britain. So this seems to suggest the 109 was slightly superior. 

IMO the Bf-109 Spitfire are equal.


----------



## claidemore (Mar 20, 2008)

Don't forget that in BoB the RAF was concentrating on bombers, they weren't just duking it out with 109s, so of course the 109s would get more RAF fighters than vice versa, the 109s weren't chasing bombers.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Mar 20, 2008)

So those are the German specificatons for the 109E. I assume the were from test trials and not calulation correct?

What are the RAF figures for the Spitfire Mk.I?


----------



## claidemore (Mar 20, 2008)

Spitfire Mk I Performance Testing

Mike Williams site, very useful.

I did notice that the Spit turn figures were obtained at 68 degrees of bank, while the 109E figures were from 62 degrees of bank. That would make a bit of difference if they were both at exactly the same angle.


----------



## Soren (Mar 20, 2008)

25 secs to complete a 360 turn ?? 

Come on Claidemore, that's proof enough that the British weren't pushing it in the 109!

The Soviets could do a 360 in a Fw-190A-6 in just 22 secs.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Mar 20, 2008)

The roles of the 109 and Spitfie would have been better suited in the reverse. The Spitfire having a better Fighter vs Fighter armament and the 109 having a better interceptor armament with its 2x 20mm cannons. The Spifire I also had a somewhat longer range than the 109E did iirc, so longer loiter time. The 109 also had a better initial climb rate iirc.

(of course the 109's situation was exacerbated by being forced to perform close escort, limiting tactics and advantages, along with some range as well)


----------



## claidemore (Mar 20, 2008)

Soren said:


> 25 secs to complete a 360 turn ??
> 
> Come on Claidemore, that's proof enough that the British weren't pushing it in the 109!
> 
> The Soviets could do a 360 in a Fw-190A-6 in just 22 secs.



If you figure out the circumferance of the two turn circles, and use IAS to measure time to get around the circle, you get 29 seconds for the 109 and 22 for the Spit. Don't forget, this is 12,000 ft, not sea level.

hehe, just realized something, better be careful here, or yer gonna prove the 190 can outturn the 109!


----------



## kool kitty89 (Mar 20, 2008)

The soviets also managed a 19.5 sec turn with the P-40E (with 2 guns removed and half fuel load iirc) and 19 sec for the P-39N-1 with 18-19 sec for the P-39Q-10 (no wing guns and a 4-blade prop fitted) all at 1000 m.


----------



## claidemore (Mar 20, 2008)

kool kitty89 said:


> The soviets also managed a 19.5 sec turn with the P-40E (with 2 guns removed and half fuel load iirc) and 19 sec for the P-39N-1 with 18-19 sec for the P-39Q-10 (no wing guns and a 4-blade prop fitted) all at 1000 m.



Soviets also give the I-16-18 a turn time of 18.5 seconds, but nobody says a 109 can turn better than it could! Thats only a 1/2 second less than a Yak1 or P39N-1. Of course earlier I-16s had times of 14.5 seconds, so that factors in as well.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Mar 20, 2008)

Plus the I-16's probably had a better instantaneous turn rate and slightly better radius. (allowing it to get a better firing angle) In sustained turns a lower drag aiframe is particularly important, while in instantaneous turns this is much less important. (a good turn radius may still acompany a lower turn rate if the airfame isn't very clean) Lift loading is also more important in instantaneous turns than power loading.

A Finnish B-239 (Brewster) or Russian I-16 would likely easily turn better than a 109 in a short maneuver, but would probably lose in a sustained turning fight.
Circumstances would be similar with a Hurricane I vs a Spitfire I: the Spit had better power loading and a cleaner airframe, but the Hurricane had lower wing loading and a higher lift (and also very thick) airfoil. (this comparison being particularly good since thy used the same engine)


----------



## Hop (Mar 20, 2008)

> Yet another piece of evidence to support the fact that the British test pilots didn't push the 109 to its limits is a German test report on the turn radius of the Bf-109E. The Germans achieved a far smaller turn radius in their tests than the British.



It's a nice theory, Soren, but the British report of the 109E you are referring to says the exact opposite:



> Apart from their excessive heaviness at high speeds, the most serious defect of the Me. 109 ailerons is a tendency to snatch as the wing tip slots open. This is particularly noticeable when manoeuvring. For example, if the stick is pulled back in a tight turn, putting additional g on the aircraft, the slots open at quite a high airspeed; as they open, the stick suddenly snatches laterally through several inches either way, sufficiently to upset a pilot's aim in a dog fight. *The snatch appears to be associated with the opening of the slots, for once they are fully open a steady turn can be done, with no aileron vibration, until the stall is approached.*





> When doing tight turns with the Me. 109 leading at speeds between 90 m.p.h. and 220 m.p.h. the Spitfires and Hurricanes had little difficult in keeping on the tail of the Me. 109. During these turns the amount of normal g recorded on the Me. 109 was between 2J and 4 g. The aircraft stalled if the turn was tightened to give more than 4 g at speeds below about 200 m.p.h. *The slots opened at about 1\2 g before the stall, and whilst opening caused the ailerons to snatch; this upset the pilot's sighting immediately and caused him to lose ground. When the slots were fully open the aircraft could be turned quite steadily until very near the stall. If the stick was then pulled back a little more the aircraft suddenly shuddered, and either tended to come out of the turn or dropped its wing further, oscillating meanwhile in pitch and roll and rapidly losing height; the aircraft immediately unstalled if the stick was eased forward.* Even in a very tight turn the stall was quite gentle, with no tendency for the aircraft to suddenly flick over on to its back and spin. The Spitfires and Hurricanes could follow the Me. 109 round during the stalled turns without themselves showing any signs of stalling.



How on earth anyone can read that and then claim they were afraid of the slots opening and backed off as soon as they did so, I don't know.

Equally, I find it bizarre that anyone could believe test pilots later in the war would be so frightened of a simple aerodynamic feature like a slot (fitted to lots of different aircraft, after all) that they would be incapable of testing the aircraft properly.

This is just another of Soren's opinions that has little basis in fact.

As to Leykauf's claims during the BoB, as far as I can from Tony Wood's list he made 3 for Spitfires and 1 for a Hurricane (he claimed another Hurricane in 1941). One thing to bear in mind is that the Jagdwaffe consistently claimed Spitfires when fighting Hurricanes. In total they claimed 1,228 Spitfires and 720 Hurricanes, the RAF actually lost 385 Spitfires and about 600 Hurricanes to all causes. 

So about 1 in 4 Luftwaffe claims for a Spitfire actually resulted in a Spitfire shot down.



> 25 secs to complete a 360 turn ??
> 
> Come on Claidemore, that's proof enough that the British weren't pushing it in the 109!
> 
> The Soviets could do a 360 in a Fw-190A-6 in just 22 secs.



What altitude did the Soviets test at? Don't you understand that turn times rise, and turn radius increases, as altitude increases?

In fact, if you assume a linear drop, then at 12,000 ft the 109 in the German test turns an 853 circle, compared to 885 ft in the British test. That's not much difference. 


But I can't really see the point of this argument. The RAE tested the 109E, and concluded the Spitfire easily turned better. The German report gives a larger radius than the RAE test of the Spitfire, and the German comparative test of a captured Spitfire, Hurricane and Curtiss said:



> Before turning fights with the Bf 109 E type, it must be noted in every case, that
> all three foreign planes have significantly smaller turning circles and turning times.


----------



## Soren (Mar 20, 2008)

Claidemore,

The proof is right there infront you, the British test pilots did NOT push the 109 to its limits, if they had they would've achieved far lower figures. Soviet German tests and crucially aerodynamics confirm this, not to mention the AFDU's own comments on the slats.

With a Bf-109 F-2 (In rough shape) the Soviet established a time of 19.5 secs to do a 360 turn (21 secs with gun-pods).

And IIRC the Germans established that it took the Emil 18.5 secs to complete a 360 turn when flown to its limits. (Kurfürst will have the details)

Now that the British test pilots didn't push the captured 109's to the limit isn't unnormal, as anyone new to the type would be vary about the slats owing to the unusual feel such a device gave, the rather violent jolt it would give as the slats deployed on an Emil scaring pilots witless, making them think they were just on the edge. Fact is there weren't eve close to the edge, the slats coming out very early in a turn, long before you're even approaching the limit.


----------



## Soren (Mar 20, 2008)

Well Hop, then explain the Soviet figures for the Spitfire not being so superior compared to the 109.

Also how do you explain the AFDU commenting that their captured 109G _"is embarrased by the opening of its slats"_ ??? A clear indication that they weren't pushing past slats deployment.

And finally how the heck do you then explain a captured FW-190 Jabo (An a/c heavily armored tuned for hauling loads, not dogfighting) turning MUCH better in British tests (With a Mustang III Tempest) than their captured 109G in the very same test, when the Germans themselves clearly state over and over again that the Bf-109 EASILY turns inside the FW-190 ??

LuftWaffe Chief Test pilot Heinrich Beauvais, having flown all the a/c in question, made it clear multiple times that the 109 DOES out-turn a Spitfire, he even tried to contact Eric Brown after the war in an attempt to solve the matter of the British tests, but Brown refused.

So just face it Hop, the British test pilots weren't even close to pushing the 109 to its limits. 

Furthermore we don't know at what power setting the RAF was flying their captured Emil at in 1940, but we do know they didn't have the right fuel so power would've been allot lower than normal, which has a very negative effect on turn perormance.

The RAF also measured some suspiciously low Cl figures for the Emil, around 1.45 or so, which means the slats are shut against the wing. The V24, a Bf109 without slats, tested by Messerschmitt achieved a Clmax of 1.48, giving us the approx. Clmax of the 109's wing alone without the slats (Although it will be slightly higher seeing the V24's wing was shorter than normal).

The slats will increase the Clmax of the 109's wing to 1.70. (On the F series and onwards atleast)


----------



## kool kitty89 (Mar 20, 2008)

The lateral jolt/snach (not the bang or impact felt, but actual movement of the a/c) caused by the slats deploying didn't occur on 109F and later models, neither did the slats jamming in high G turns, corect Soren?


----------



## Hunter368 (Mar 20, 2008)

Soren said:


> Very true, I think they are more closely matched then any other two planes that fought vs each other in history.
> 
> But talking about BoB Soren, I believe the 109 and Spit were equals. But I believe Germany used better fighter tactics (until Hitler and Fatboy stepped in), which resulted in a better kill ratio when talking about fighter vs fighter in BoB (and even more so in 41 42 when Germany was defending).


----------



## Soren (Mar 20, 2008)

kool kitty89 said:


> The lateral jolt/snach (not the bang or impact felt, but actual movement of the a/c) caused by the slats deploying didn't occur on 109F and later models, neither did the slats jamming in high G turns, corect Soren?



Very correct Koolkitty.


----------



## Soren (Mar 20, 2008)

Hunter368 said:


> Very true, I think they are more closely matched then any other two planes that fought vs each other in history.



Fully agreed Hunter. 



> But talking about BoB Soren, I believe the 109 and Spit were equals. But I believe Germany used better fighter tactics (until Hitler and Fatboy stepped in), which resulted in a better kill ratio when talking about fighter vs fighter in BoB (and even more so in 41 42 when Germany was defending).



Not sure about that, the tactics used by the LW RAF fighters seem very similar to me. The fact that the Bf-109 acquired itself a very favourable kill/loss ratio against the Spitfire was most likely because of its fuel injection system, which meant the Spitfire Hurricane had nearly no means of escape if a 109 was on their tail (Unless the 109 pilot was unwilling to push the a/c to the limit ofcourse) 

At any rate the Bf-109 Spitfire were very close to each other in every aspect of flight performance, and both were excellent fighter a/c.


----------



## Hunter368 (Mar 20, 2008)

Soren said:


> Now that the British test pilots didn't push the captured 109's to the limit isn't unnormal, as anyone new to the type would be vary about the slats owing to the unusual feel such a device gave, the rather violent jolt it would give as the slats deployed on an Emil scaring pilots witless, making them think they were just on the edge. Fact is there weren't eve close to the edge, the slats coming out very early in a turn, long before you're even approaching the limit.



I think that is a fairly unbias reasonable explanation for all countries testing other countries planes. I would think most people should be able to except that opinion. Axis testing Allied planes and Allies testing Axis planes.

Hell I used race motor bikes when I was much younger, it always took quite a while for me to learn what a new bike was really capable of. Once I was used to it I could ride it much harder and push it to its limits.

Seems like common sense to me.


----------



## Hunter368 (Mar 20, 2008)

Soren said:


> Fully agreed Hunter.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I grouped the FI system in with the benefits of the 109 when compared to a Spit. Both planes have + over the other plane, that is one of the + in my mind the 109 had over the Spit.

But I do agree tactics (until Hitler got involved) and FI were major factors playing in favor of the 109 pilots.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Mar 21, 2008)

Early on in the BoB the formations used by German Pilots were much more efficient (finger Four) than the RAF formations (with 1 lead and 2 abreast behaind in tight formation) The Finger Four formation took much less concentration to maintain and gave a much better defensive view to the pilots. (allowing them to watch both the target and eachothers' backs more effectively) 

The RAF formations were difficult to maintain and left them volnerable to attack.

And of course the LW fighters became less effective when they switched from top cover to close escort...


----------



## Kurfürst (Mar 21, 2008)

claidemore said:


> The RAE turn times were done at 12000ft, right in between the two sets of numbers in the BAUBESCHREIBUNG test. When you look at it that way, they compare quite favorably I think.



RAE did no test for either turn times or radius. *The figures given by RAE for the 109E are rough estimates*, with the Cl figures estimated from tests done to determine Cl on the Spitfire. Even on the latter, the Cl was determined, or rather again, _estimated_ from stall speed tests. And, none of the RAE figures contain data for turn capacity of the Emil with its flaps deployed (the Spitfire didn`t have combat flaps, it was either up or down for landing). It think its quite reasonable to think that Messerschmitt AG had better understanding of the 109E`s Cl than RAE.

Its not hard to see what degree of uncertainity there is about the RAE figures. Stall speeds are hard to determine to start with, even harder when you only have pitot to measure it, and from these figures to estimate the characteristics of a rather different fighter..

BTW, the 109E RAE had tested BTW was WNr. 1304, captured by the French in late 1939 after it made a belly landing, then it was passed to the Brits. Even back in 1939 it had some engine problems (see French reports on my site), I am sure these didn`t improve by September 1940, when RAE issued its testing summary.

In any case, the RAE paper makes it clear that the 109E was able to turn with the Spitfire 'in a surprisingly large number of cases' because of its better stall and control characteristics. _Simply to put, pilots found it easier to push the Emil to its limits than the Spitfire. _Leykauf and Kaiser (Clostermann etc.) basically describes the same.

This explains the controversy of the subject IMHO. 

@ Glider, I have not forgotten the thread, please allow me some time to respond to it. Don`t we all have bills to pay and girls to entertain..?


----------



## Kurfürst (Mar 21, 2008)

Hop said:


> How on earth anyone can read that and then claim they were afraid of the slots opening and backed off as soon as they did so, I don't know.
> 
> Equally, I find it bizarre that anyone could believe test pilots later in the war would be so frightened of a simple aerodynamic feature like a slot (fitted to lots of different aircraft, after all) that they would be incapable of testing the aircraft properly.
> 
> This is just another of Soren's opinions that has little basis in fact.



The Hawker Tempest Page

_Tempest V Tactical Trials

INTRODUCTION
According to instructions from Air Ministry (D.A.T.) and from Headquarters, A.D.G.B., letter reference ADGB/S.29156/Air Tactics dated 29th February 1944 refers, tactical trials have been completed with the Tempest V. Aircraft No. JN.737 was delivered by the Hawker Aircraft Company on 8th January 1944 and was operationally loaded. The operational weight is 11,400 lbs.
In order to give a clear picture of the Tempest V it has been compared fully with its nearest stable companion, the Typhoon IB. In addition, tactical comparisons have been made with the Mustang III and Spitfire XIV. Combat trials have been carried out against the Me.109G, FW.190 (BMW)801D and suggestions made for combat with the new FW.190 (DB.603). 

...

Turning Circle

The Tempest is slightly better, *the Bf.109G being embarrassed by its slots opening near the stall.*_


Why you are at it, would you kindly quote the results of research in the National Archives in Australia regarding to extent use of 100 octane fuel in the Battle of Britain, and also give an explantion as to why you never accused Pips, who dig it up, when he shared it back then, that he is a liar and made it all up? Why wait so long, and why only behind his back, where he cannot respond to your accusations..?


----------



## Juha (Mar 21, 2008)

"My belief ??? Its what the man says himelf Juha, it has nothing to do with my belief!"

Soren
blind faith may be good in religious matters, I don't know for sure. But blind faith to believe what was said, especially when limited to those statements which concur with one's prejudices, only made understanding the past much more difficult.

As we know, German confirmed claims on Spits exceeded the real losses during the BoB, both because of overclaiming and because of Germans claimed more Hurricanes as Spitfires than Spitfires as Hurricanes, made it probably that Leykauf did not got even 3 Spits. Of course without careful checking of primary sources, which might be impossible because the paucacity of LW material, we cannot be sure. 

Juha


----------



## Glider (Mar 21, 2008)

I am confused, Can I ask how the following quotes which have been mentioned a couple of times, show that the British Test Pilots didn't take the 109 through the deployment of the slats.

If people cannot prove that these tests support the oft mentioned claim that the test pilots didn't take them through the deployment can I ask that they stop making that claim. Its clearly wrong, insulting and starting to sound like a scratched record.

_Apart from their excessive heaviness at high speeds, the most serious defect of the Me. 109 ailerons is a tendency to snatch as the wing tip slots open. This is particularly noticeable when manoeuvring. For example, if the stick is pulled back in a tight turn, putting additional g on the aircraft, the slots open at quite a high airspeed; as they open, the stick suddenly snatches laterally through several inches either way, sufficiently to upset a pilot's aim in a dog fight. *The snatch appears to be associated with the opening of the slots, for once they are fully open a steady turn can be done, with no aileron vibration, until the stall is approached*. _

_When doing tight turns with the Me. 109 leading at speeds between 90 m.p.h. and 220 m.p.h. the Spitfires and Hurricanes had little difficult in keeping on the tail of the Me. 109. During these turns the amount of normal g recorded on the Me. 109 was between 2J and 4 g. The aircraft stalled if the turn was tightened to give more than 4 g at speeds below about 200 m.p.h. *The slots opened at about 1\2 g before the stall, and whilst opening caused the ailerons to snatch; this upset the pilot's sighting immediately and caused him to lose ground. When the slots were fully open the aircraft could be turned quite steadily until very near the stall.* If the stick was then pulled back a little more the aircraft suddenly shuddered, and either tended to come out of the turn or dropped its wing further, oscillating meanwhile in pitch and roll and rapidly losing height; the aircraft immediately unstalled if the stick was eased forward. Even in a very tight turn the stall was quite gentle, with no tendency for the aircraft to suddenly flick over on to its back and spin. The Spitfires and Hurricanes could follow the Me. 109 round during the stalled turns without themselves showing any signs of stalling_.

The comments about the 109 being embarrased clearly refers to the 109 losing its sighting position which is quite understandable


----------



## drgondog (Mar 21, 2008)

Glider said:


> I am confused, Can I ask how the following quotes which have been mentioned a couple of times, show that the British Test Pilots didn't take the 109 through the deployment of the slats.
> 
> If people cannot prove that these tests support the oft mentioned claim that the test pilots didn't take them through the deployment can I ask that they stop making that claim. Its clearly wrong, insulting and starting to sound like a scratched record.
> 
> ...



Thank you Glider.. context is a wonderful thing.


----------



## Hunter368 (Mar 21, 2008)

Just a question Glider and Bill, you both have more knowledge then I on the test in question. Could you please tell me the following:

How many pilots actually flew the 109 in question while testing it, their names?

How many hours did each pilot actually fly the 109 while testing it?


----------



## drgondog (Mar 21, 2008)

Hunter368 said:


> Just a question Glider and Bill, you both have more knowledge then I on the test in question. Could you please tell me the following:
> 
> How many pilots actually flew the 109 in question while testing it, their names?
> 
> How many hours did each pilot actually fly the 109 while testing it?



Short answer - I am away from home and don't have access to my files. I will have to dig anyway. Two, maybe three is my recollection. 

Short answer on the time is I don't know. 

If the test pilots were the same as the ones ones that flew the 109G and Fw 190 A4(?) to all the US 8th AF FC command bases in fall of 1943 they would have signigicant time from a familiarization standpoint before the comparison trials against the 51B. 

Having said that, I have no idea how one would research aerobatic time in either one? They certainly had more time to familiarize themselves with the German ships than the P-51B-5 used in the trials as it arrived in late november 1943.

I found an interesting report by the USN regarding Full Flight Test comparsons between F6f-6, F4U-1 and Fw 190A4 (BMW801D)..

It was intersting to see how badly the Fw 190 performed in turn comparisons. One part of the report cited that the F4U-1 went from starting with the Fw 190 on his six to being on the 190 six in three full turns..and that the Fw 190 'out' manuever was limited to climb if there was enough separation.

I am not stating this is proof of any kind but does represent side by side comparisons and was the USN approach to having a briefing in case the USN encountered the Fw 190 in Ops.

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/fw190/ptr-1107.pdf

I'll try to find out more about the pilot names - doubt that experience with type in context of aerobatics will surface with what I have.

Regards,

Bill

PS

The trials were conducted between December 1943 and Feb 1944. The report was dated 8 March 1944.

One of the more interesting things about the report was the stated weight of 10,100 pounds for the P-51B-5 they tested - which about 500 pounds over Max TO Gross for a fully loaded internal 51B. I still wonder if that was a typo. A better represntative weight would have been a combat load without external fuel... or closer to 9600 at take off.

A 51 at target in eastern Germany would be closer to 8800-9000 pounds.


----------



## Hunter368 (Mar 21, 2008)

Ok Bill I will wait until you dig that up before I respond.

Can you please get their names and qualifications. Also the amount of time they flew the 109 when testing it.

Thanks


----------



## kool kitty89 (Mar 21, 2008)

In case ayone didn't catch this the first time:


Kurfürst said:


> RAE did no test for either turn times or radius. *The figures given by RAE for the 109E are rough estimates*, with the Cl figures estimated from tests done to determine Cl on the Spitfire. Even on the latter, the Cl was determined, or rather again, _estimated_ from stall speed tests. And, none of the RAE figures contain data for turn capacity of the Emil with its flaps deployed (the Spitfire didn`t have combat flaps, it was either up or down for landing). It think its quite reasonable to think that Messerschmitt AG had better understanding of the 109E`s Cl than RAE.



So there wasn't an actual turn test for the 109E.




Glider said:


> The comments about the 109 being embarrased clearly refers to the 109 losing its sighting position which is quite understandable



Firstly this coment comes from the 109G vs Tempest testing:


Kurfürst said:


> The Hawker Tempest Page
> 
> _Tempest V Tactical Trials
> 
> ...


 And second the 109F and later models no longer had problems with aileron snatching, lateral shutter, or high G jamming of the slats. Although the pilot could still feel and hear a shock from the slat deployment on later models iirc, there was no effect on the aircraft its self, so no change in sighting.


----------



## Kurfürst (Mar 21, 2008)

Glider said:


> The comments about the 109 being embarrased clearly refers to the 109 losing its sighting position which is quite understandable



This is quite laughable. You cut and paste an 1940 test on a 109E and an 1944 test on a 109G, put the quotes out of context from the two records, parts taken from here and there like in the Frankenstein story.. and result looks equally silly.

I am sorry to see you signed up for Hop`s Freak Show.


----------



## evangilder (Mar 21, 2008)

Thank you for the last snide comment, Kurfurst. This thread is now closed.


----------



## lesofprimus (Mar 22, 2008)

Freakin dumbass, this thread was a good one too....


----------

