# Best Fighter in Service Before 1 September 1939



## marshall (Aug 7, 2009)

Question is simple. What was the best fighter aircraft in service all over the world before the 1 September 1939?

This question bothers me for some time and I would like to know what other more knowledgeable people than I think about it.

The term 'best' have for me quite wide meaning, so it don't have to always mean performance.

Was it the Messerschmitt Bf 109? Or was it something else? Something American, or maybe British, or French, or Italian, or Japanese, or Russian?

So what is your opinion?


----------



## Soundbreaker Welch? (Aug 7, 2009)

Spitfire or Bf 109? Maybe the Zero? 

Those three seem to be some of the best.


----------



## davebender (Aug 7, 2009)

The A6M Zero was not yet in service.


----------



## Soundbreaker Welch? (Aug 7, 2009)

Ooops, my bad. 

Well I was looking at the Macchi 202, Mig 3, and D.520, but they came around in 1940.


----------



## Clay_Allison (Aug 7, 2009)

Bf 109. All things being equal I'd rather have one than the Spitfire. In 1939 the Bf-109 had 20mm cannons (the E-3 saw service in the Spanish Civil War). The Spitfire had all .303 MG's.

Planes in service at that time in order of my preference:
1. Messerschmidt Bf 109E
2. Supermarine Spitfire 
3. Hawker Hurricane
4. Messerschmidt Bf 110
5. Polikarpov I-16
6. Morane-Saulnier M.S.406
7. F4F Wildcat
8. Nakajima Ki-27
9. Fiat G.50
10. Fokker D.XXI

Honorable Mention: P-36 Hawk, Gloster Gladiator, Fiat CR.42, Seversky P-35, Brewster Buffalo, Fokker G.I,


----------



## Kurfürst (Aug 8, 2009)

IMHO its pretty simple - Bf 109E-3. It had variable pitch airscrew (Spits and Hurris had only fixed pitch or two pitch props at the time), cannons and all the rest of the goodies, and above all, it was around in the largest numbers of them all - and it was plenty faster than most at most altitudes. Though at this time, none of the major fighters (except perhaps for I-16?) had cocpit armor fitted yet.


----------



## Vincenzo (Aug 8, 2009)

Clay_Allison said:


> Bf 109. All things being equal I'd rather have one than the Spitfire. In 1939 the Bf-109 had 20mm cannons (the E-3 saw service in the Spanish Civil War). The Spitfire had all .303 MG's.
> 
> Planes in service at that time in order of my preference:
> 1. Messerschmidt Bf 109E
> ...




F4F was not a 31/08/39 operational fighter same for Buffalo
1. 109 Emil
2. Spit
3. Hurri
4. Hawk 75
5. 110C
6. Ki-27
7. Fokker G.1
8. G. 50
9. I-16
10 M.S.406

list of fighters of august '39, maybe some other in minor countries
(spitfire, hurricane, gladiator, gauntlet, fury, roc, blenheim, P-26, P-35, P-36, FF, F2F, F3F, Ki-10, Ki-27, A4N, A5M, I-15, i-152, I-153, I-16 (until ~type 18), Bf 110C, Bf 109 (until E-3), Spad 510, NiD 622/629, M.S. 406, D.501/510, H.75, Potez 631, C.R. 32, G.50, C.R. 42, P.7, P.11, D XVII, D XXI, G I, Hawk II/III)


----------



## Waynos (Aug 8, 2009)

Yes, I would agree that the 109E had the edge on the Spitfire (and those two were head and shoulders above everything else) at that point in history, the Spitfire/109 "who's the best" see-saw was about to begin


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 8, 2009)

At the start of hostilities in Europe, it is without a doubt the Bf 109E. At that time it had the best combination of armament, speed and maneuverability.


----------



## Clay_Allison (Aug 8, 2009)

Vincenzo said:


> F4F was not a 31/08/39 operational fighter same for Buffalo
> 1. 109 Emil
> 2. Spit
> 3. Hurri
> ...


You are right about the F4F, wrong about the buffalo. my information has the BRewster delivered in April 1939 so...

Planes in service at that time in order of my preference:
1. Messerschmidt Bf 109E
2. Supermarine Spitfire 
3. Hawker Hurricane
4. Messerschmidt Bf 110
5. Polikarpov I-16
6. Morane-Saulnier M.S.406
7. Nakajima Ki-27
8. Fiat G.50
9. Fokker D.XXI
10. Brewster Buffalo

In 1939 the Hawk 75 has all of two machine guns on it, one 50 and one 30. That's pathetic, I don't know what you'd be expected to shoot down with that.


----------



## Vincenzo (Aug 8, 2009)

2 mg in '39 was a common weaponry, but the french hawk75 had 4 7,5 mm (imho is best a .5 and a .30 in nose) (ki-27 G.50 i-16 (not all) and also the orginal buffalo have 2 mgs)

for buffalo http://www.warbirdforum.com/f2a1.htm
you can see first delivery to navy 10/06/39 first delivery to squadron 11/12/39


----------



## michaelmaltby (Aug 8, 2009)

"..At the start of hostilities in Europe, it is without a doubt the Bf 109E. At that time it had the best combination of armament, speed and maneuverability..."

" ..the Spitfire/109 "who's the best" see-saw was about to begin.."

Totally agree. 

MM


----------



## billswagger (Aug 8, 2009)

Spitfires and 109Es, but prior to the spitfire, id have to give it to the Hurricane.


----------



## Clay_Allison (Aug 8, 2009)

Vincenzo said:


> 2 mg in '39 was a common weaponry, but the french hawk75 had 4 7,5 mm (imho is best a .5 and a .30 in nose) (ki-27 G.50 i-16 (not all) and also the orginal buffalo have 2 mgs)
> 
> for buffalo http://www.warbirdforum.com/f2a1.htm
> you can see first delivery to navy 10/06/39 first delivery to squadron 11/12/39


I could forgive the only two MGs if they were at least both .50s


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 8, 2009)

Kurfürst said:


> IMHO its pretty simple - Bf 109E-3. It had variable pitch airscrew (Spits and Hurris had only fixed pitch or two pitch props at the time), cannons and all the rest of the goodies, and above all, it was around in the largest numbers of them all - and it was plenty faster than most at most altitudes. Though at this time, none of the major fighters (except perhaps for I-16?) had cocpit armor fitted yet.


The Hawk 75A did well in French hands against -109 variants during the battle of France. Although we could dispute claims, actual victories and losses, the bottom line is it could compete with the Bf 109E, at least in the manner the LW was operating against this aircraft. From Wiki but I seen other data from what I would call more reliable sources.

_"On 8 September 1939, aircraft from Groupe de Chasse II/4 were credited with shooting down two Luftwaffe Messerschmitt Bf 109Es, the first Allied air victory of World War II on the Western front. During 1939–1940, French pilots claimed 230 confirmed and 80 probable victories in H75s against only 29 aircraft lost in aerial combat. Of the 11 French aces of the early part of the war, seven flew H75s. The leading ace of the time was Lieutenant Edmond Marin la Meslée with 15 confirmed and five probable victories in the type. H75-equipped squadrons were evacuated to French North Africa before the Armistice to avoid capture by the Germans. While under the Vichy government, these units clashed with British aircraft over Mers el-Kébir and Dakar. During Operation Torch in North Africa, French H75s fought against U.S. Navy F4F Wildcats, losing 15 aircraft to seven shot down American planes."_


----------



## Clay_Allison (Aug 8, 2009)

I guess with french guns the Hawk-75 wasn't bad. Imagine what it would have done with a single 20mm H.S. 404.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 8, 2009)

Clay_Allison said:


> I guess with french guns the Hawk-75 wasn't bad. Imagine what it would have done with a single 20mm H.S. 404.



Hard to say. It did not have a high powered engine when compared to the 109 but was supposedly quite maneuverable and I think the 109s it came up against tried to dogfight it rather than use "zoom and boom." I don't know what its dive performance was like but I think on take off it was about 1000 pounds lighter than the 109E.


----------



## Clay_Allison (Aug 8, 2009)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Hard to say. It did not have a high powered engine when compared to the 109 but was supposedly quite maneuverable and I think the 109s it came up against tried to dogfight it rather than use "zoom and boom." I don't know what its dive performance was like but I think on take off it was about 1000 pounds lighter than the 109E.


If you got right on someone's tail in a turn-fight with a 20mm cannon you'd have yourself one dead 109E. The Emil was tough enough to take a few 7.5mm rounds.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 8, 2009)

IMO the Hawk 75 was the most under rated figher of WW2, at least during the first half.


----------



## Clay_Allison (Aug 8, 2009)

FLYBOYJ said:


> IMO the Hawk 75 was the most under rated figher of WW2, at least during the first half.


You can't dispute that the prewar American armament for it was an unfunny joke though. A .30 and a .50? What? no .22?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 8, 2009)

Clay_Allison said:


> You can't dispute that the prewar American armament for it was an unfunny joke though. A .30 and a .50? What? no .22?



The export Hawks had 4 .50 cals. Not overwhelming but enough to do the job if flown by a well trained pilot.


----------



## Clay_Allison (Aug 8, 2009)

FLYBOYJ said:


> The export Hawks had 4 .50 cals. Not overwhelming but enough to do the job if flown by a well trained pilot.


4 .50s is just fine. Wasn't it Thach that said that a pilot who can't hit with 4 guns will miss with 8?


----------



## Vincenzo (Aug 8, 2009)

4 7.5 mm not 4 0.50', but 4 7.5 was enough for fighter vs fighter in '39 as was enough 1 .5' nd .30'.


----------



## Clay_Allison (Aug 8, 2009)

Vincenzo said:


> 4 7.5 mm not 4 0.50', but 4 7.5 was enough for fighter vs fighter in '39 as was enough 1 .5' nd .30'.


a .50 and a .30 is not enough when some of the fighters had 20mm cannon.


----------



## Vincenzo (Aug 8, 2009)

Clay_Allison said:


> a .50 and a .30 is not enough when some of the fighters had 20mm cannon.



this is a wrong assumption, japanese Ki-27, and early Ki-43, with 2 .30 shoot down I-16 and many other western allied fighters also in '42, many of polish fighters have 2 .30 and shoot down some Bf 109.
a plane with a 20 mm is not more hard to shoot down, it's more dangerous.


----------



## Civettone (Aug 8, 2009)

Also, at that stage almost all fighters, including the Bf 109E didn't have armoured windshields and the pilot protection of the later E-4 and retrofitted older models. 

There are several examples of Fokkers and PZL's with four or even two 0.30 cals shooting down German bombers, transports and fighters. I think the Finnish Air Force during the Winter War is the classic example of how gunnery is the real key, not the calibre nor the number of guns. And remember, they actually fought against armoured I-16s.

Kris


----------



## Glider (Aug 8, 2009)

If we are going for the 1st September 1939 deadline then my personal top 5 would be 

1) Me109E
2) Spitfire
3) Hawk 75
4) Me110
5) Hurricane

A couple of comments I didn't think that the 109E 3 was in service in September 1939. It doesn't change my choice just an observation.
I rated the 110 above the Hurricane as it was so much faster than the Hurricane and as long as he wasn't tempted to dogfight the Hurricane the 110 had a very good chance.
Like a number of people I think the Hawk was a good all round fighter and with a bit more speed could have been a real threat.


----------



## davebender (Aug 8, 2009)

Hitting and killing are two different things unless you are shooting at unarmored Japanese aircraft.


----------



## Vincenzo (Aug 8, 2009)

davebender said:


> Hitting and killing are two different things unless you are shooting at unarmored Japanese aircraft.



for the time in this thread so, if, few planes were armoured


----------



## Clay_Allison (Aug 8, 2009)

Glider said:


> If we are going for the 1st September 1939 deadline then my personal top 5 would be
> 
> 1) Me109E
> 2) Spitfire
> ...


Wikipedia at least says the E-3 saw action in the Spanish Civil War which ended in April 1939


----------



## Vincenzo (Aug 8, 2009)

Glider said:


> If we are going for the 1st September 1939 deadline then my personal top 5 would be
> 
> 1) Me109E
> 2) Spitfire
> ...



the export model E-3a was delivered from spring '39 so i think there are E-3 in luftwaffe for august


----------



## evangilder (Aug 8, 2009)

For that time frame, the Bf-109 was the top, with a close second in the Spitfire.


----------



## Glider (Aug 8, 2009)

Vincenzo said:


> the export model E-3a was delivered from spring '39 so i think there are E-3 in luftwaffe for august



Thanks for the info.


----------



## Lucky13 (Aug 8, 2009)

Macchi C.200?


----------



## DAVIDICUS (Aug 8, 2009)

Yes, wouldn't the Macchi C.200 place above the Fiat G50?


----------



## Clay_Allison (Aug 8, 2009)

DAVIDICUS said:


> Yes, wouldn't the Macchi C.200 place above the Fiat G50?


Introduced a couple months too late I think.


----------



## DAVIDICUS (Aug 8, 2009)

In contravention to my dislike of Wikipedia as source data:

*Operational History

In August 1939 about 30 Macchis, by which time it had been given the name Saetta ("Lightning"), were delivered to 10° Gruppo of 4° Stormo, stationed in North Africa.*

Macchi C.200 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Vincenzo (Aug 9, 2009)

DAVIDICUS said:


> In contravention to my dislike of Wikipedia as source data:
> 
> *Operational History
> 
> ...



completely wrong M.C. 200 came in africa only early in '41, 
EDIT it's right first delivery go to 10°, was in Gorizia area NE italy, but they refused the plane, so came to 6°. delivery to 10th november only 29, full gruppo have around 50 planes with reserves, so i think can't put the 200 operational at 31/08/39


----------



## Lucky13 (Aug 9, 2009)

So, to be counted in here, it has to be operational in at least one full squadron strength before 31/08/39?


----------



## Njaco (Aug 9, 2009)

Clay_Allison said:


> Wikipedia at least says the E-3 saw action in the Spanish Civil War which ended in April 1939



Which, along with all the other attributes mentioned, would be the reason I would pick it - it was combat tested.


----------



## Amsel (Aug 9, 2009)

I'm with you Njaco. The Emil was combat tested and a great fighter for its time. Probably the best fighter in 1939.


----------



## Civettone (Aug 9, 2009)

Have to agree with that top 5: Bf 109, Spitf, P-36 (especially if with 4 0.50cal), Bf 110 and Hurricane.
But the Bloch MB.152 could be in that list too though few were operational at the end of 1939. Also honorable mention for the P-35, MS-406, the Russian I-16 and the Dutch D-XXI.


Kris


----------



## marshall (Aug 9, 2009)

After reading all answers and after doing some more research myself it really seems that top fighters were Bf 109 and Spitfire. Bf 109 being more mature at 1 September but Spitfire was catching up fast and soon became equaly good fighter.

Though it seems pretty obvious, I had this feeling that there is all this hype about those two planes that they were so good that in reality they couldn't have been so good but as it occurs both types deserve the legendary status they have.

But maybe there was a fighter plane in service at the outbreak of the war that with equal development that Bf 109 and Spitfire had, could match those two?

And another question, what was the first fighter that matched or exceeded the peformance of these two types?


----------



## Clay_Allison (Aug 9, 2009)

marshall said:


> After reading all answers and after doing some more research myself it really seems that top fighters were Bf 109 and Spitfire. Bf 109 being more mature at 1 September but Spitfire was catching up fast and soon became equaly good fighter.
> 
> Though it seems pretty obvious, I had this feeling that there is all this hype about those two planes that they were so good that in reality they couldn't have been so good but as it occurs both types deserve the legendary status they have.
> 
> ...


Well, the P-51B was probably the first comparable plane that really started to outperform them within their own fighter type.


----------



## vikingBerserker (Aug 9, 2009)

Me 109 hands down, but I have to give kudos to the PZL P24G and Nakajima Ki-27 "Nate"


----------



## Civettone (Aug 9, 2009)

You know, you cannot not notice the fact that the top 5 (Bf 109, 110, Spit, Hurri and P-36) were also the 5 most powerful fighters ! All had engines around 1200 HP. 

Kris


----------



## Clay_Allison (Aug 10, 2009)

Civettone said:


> You know, you cannot not notice the fact that the top 5 (Bf 109, 110, Spit, Hurri and P-36) were also the 5 most powerful fighters ! All had engines around 1200 HP.
> 
> Kris


the next in line, the I-16 had 1100 Horsepower.


----------



## Vincenzo (Aug 10, 2009)

for true none have a 1100 bhp in flying power setting

edit for clear this mean that 1100 bhp and over were only in take off power settings


----------



## Vincenzo (Aug 10, 2009)

Civettone said:


> Have to agree with that top 5: Bf 109, Spitf, P-36 (especially if with 4 0.50cal), Bf 110 and Hurricane.



afaik no production Hawk 75 has 4 .50'


----------



## Waynos (Aug 10, 2009)

> And another question, what was the first fighter that matched or exceeded the peformance of these two types?



In service, probably the Fw 190, which appeared before the P-51.


----------



## Njaco (Aug 10, 2009)

I agree with Waynos.


----------



## Vincenzo (Aug 10, 2009)

Waynos said:


> In service, probably the Fw 190, which appeared before the P-51.



i can add Zero in summer '40 i think matched spit and emil also if have trouble with "armoured" also if it's knew for the toughness of structure


----------



## Glider (Aug 10, 2009)

Vincenzo said:


> afaik no production Hawk 75 has 4 .50'



I think that most of the French Hawk 75 's had 4 x LMG and some with 6 but am not sure of the split.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 10, 2009)

Vincenzo said:


> afaik no production Hawk 75 has 4 .50'



_Detroyat's enthusiasm, problems with the MB.150, and the pressure of continuing German rearmament finally forced France to purchase 100 aircraft and 173 engines. The first Hawk 75A-1 arrived in France in December 1938 and began entering service in March 1939. After the first few examples, aircraft were delivered in pieces and assembled in France by the Société Nationale de Constructions Aéronautiques du Centre. Officially designated Curtiss H75-C1 (the "Hawk" name was not used in France), the aircraft were powered by Pratt Whitney R-1830-SC-G engines with 900 hp (671 kW) and had metric, translated instruments, a seat for French dorsal parachutes, a French-style throttle which operated in reverse from U.S. and British aircraft (e.g. full throttle was to the rear rather than to the front) a*nd armament of four 7.5 mm FN-Browning machine guns*. 

Hawk 75A-1 - First production batch for France, *4 × 7.5 mm (.295 in) machine guns*, R-1830-SC-G engine with 900 hp (671 kW), 100 built 
Hawk 75A-2 - Second production batch for France, either R-1830-SC-G engine or 1,050 hp (783 kW) R-1830-SC3-G engine*, 6 × 7.5 mm (0.295 in) machine guns, 100 built *
Hawk 75A-3 - Third production batch for France, similar with Hawk 75A-2[5], 135 built 
Hawk 75A-4 - Last production batch for France, Hawk 75A-2 with Wright R-1820-G205A Cyclone engine with 1,200 hp (895 kW). 285 built, 81 delivered to France, others to Great Britain as Mohawk IV _


Although from Wiki, these references are mentioned in several other books I have read.


----------



## Vincenzo (Aug 10, 2009)

FLYBOYJ said:


> _Detroyat's enthusiasm, problems with the MB.150, and the pressure of continuing German rearmament finally forced France to purchase 100 aircraft and 173 engines. The first Hawk 75A-1 arrived in France in December 1938 and began entering service in March 1939. After the first few examples, aircraft were delivered in pieces and assembled in France by the Société Nationale de Constructions Aéronautiques du Centre. Officially designated Curtiss H75-C1 (the "Hawk" name was not used in France), the aircraft were powered by Pratt Whitney R-1830-SC-G engines with 900 hp (671 kW) and had metric, translated instruments, a seat for French dorsal parachutes, a French-style throttle which operated in reverse from U.S. and British aircraft (e.g. full throttle was to the rear rather than to the front) a*nd armament of four 7.5 mm FN-Browning machine guns*.
> 
> Hawk 75A-1 - First production batch for France, *4 × 7.5 mm (.295 in) machine guns*, R-1830-SC-G engine with 900 hp (671 kW), 100 built
> Hawk 75A-2 - Second production batch for France, either R-1830-SC-G engine or 1,050 hp (783 kW) R-1830-SC3-G engine*, 6 × 7.5 mm (0.295 in) machine guns, 100 built *
> ...



flyboyj this is agree with my affirmation no hawk 75 had 4 .50'. for wiki i can add that not all A-2 had 6 7.5 mm and the new engine.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 10, 2009)

Vincenzo said:


> flyboyj this is agree with my affirmation no hawk 75 had 4 .50'. for wiki i can add that not all A-2 had 6 7.5 mm and the new engine.



And I stand corrected on my earlier post.


----------



## Civettone (Aug 10, 2009)

Vincenzo said:


> afaik no production Hawk 75 has 4 .50'


My bad! Must have been mixing it up with the 4 0.30 cals and the Belgian Hurricanes with 4 0.50cals. tssssssssssssss 


Kris


----------



## Gnomey (Aug 10, 2009)

At the start of the war there isn't really any choice in the matter. At this time the BF-109E3 was the best match of capabilities and armament as well as being combat tested. I would place the Spitfire second and the Hurricane third (with the better French and Italian types about equal with it).


----------



## Clay_Allison (Aug 11, 2009)

Gnomey said:


> At the start of the war there isn't really any choice in the matter. At this time the BF-109E3 was the best match of capabilities and armament as well as being combat tested. I would place the Spitfire second and the Hurricane third (with the better French and Italian types about equal with it).


Don't sell the Bf 110 short in that pahase of the game. It might have become obsolete later but with that armament and horsepower in 1939 you could boom and zoom with the best of them.


----------



## Condora (Aug 11, 2009)

Lucky13 said:


> So, to be counted in here, it has to be operational in at least one full squadron strength before 31/08/39?



Damn!
That leaves the Westland Whirlwind out. There's a plane with no luck, not even in operational date of entry...


----------



## Vincenzo (Aug 11, 2009)

Condora said:


> Damn!
> That leaves the Westland Whirlwind out. There's a plane with no luck, not even in operational date of entry...



for true is not that that leaves the whirlwind out, no whirlwind was delivered at squadrons in '39 (need late may '40 for 1st delivery to 25th squadron)


----------



## Vincenzo (Aug 11, 2009)

What make a fighter best?
imho
fightning factors:
best vertical speed
best horizontal speed
best manuvreability (turn rate, roll rate ...)
best offence capacity (guns, ammos...)
best defence capacity (toughness of structure, armour, ss tank...) 
operational factors:
flying with bad weather
take off with bad fields
range/endurance
radio/comunications
ammos reserve
reliability
visibility

other factors are not plane relative as tatics, pilot skill...

i miss something??


----------



## krieghund (Aug 11, 2009)

Let's try the He-100D twenty five available can't help the german gene pool problem at times it has another 160km of range on the same amount of fuel I would change the armament to be three MG151/15 high velocity and flat trajectory

The Emil's problem is a deflection shot (as the A6M2) which will you hit the target with the 20's or the 7.9s'

also the biggest problem with this kind of question is what are your requirements you are building to?

fighter vs fighter or anti-bomber or other? this dictates your configuration and can put you at a disadvantage against other types ergo the Mig-1 3 built against a threat not yet materialized good for high alt not low alt same as P-39 till the Army gene pool got in the mix.

My pick would be the P-39C it has the options in my flight manual for four .50s--more range, higher roll, better climb than most just keep the battle below 15000ft


loose the dogs


----------



## Civettone (Aug 11, 2009)

perhaps the most important thing ... reliability (including maintenance)

Kris


----------



## Condora (Aug 11, 2009)

Vincenzo said:


> for true is not that that leaves the whirlwind out, no whirlwind was delivered at squadrons in '39 (need late may '40 for 1st delivery to 25th squadron)



That's what I meant.


----------



## Vincenzo (Aug 11, 2009)

Condora said:


> That's what I meant.



oh, i thinked that you referee to full sqadron part


----------



## Vincenzo (Aug 11, 2009)

Civettone said:


> perhaps the most important thing ... reliability (including maintenance)
> 
> Kris



right, i add


----------



## Civettone (Aug 11, 2009)

One more important element: cost (to produce, in wartime measured in manhours or perhaps in terms of cricical materials). 

And perhaps a smaller one: visibility. P-51B vs P-51D. 

Kris


----------



## Vincenzo (Aug 11, 2009)

Civettone said:


> One more important element: cost (to produce, in wartime measured in manhours or perhaps in terms of cricical materials).
> 
> And perhaps a smaller one: visibility. P-51B vs P-51D.
> 
> Kris



cost it's too hard for add, pratically impossible know manhours and materials (that can change with time)

visibility here it's clear that the old w/o closed cockpit are in advantage


----------



## Civettone (Aug 11, 2009)

But there are several aircraft for which we don't really know turn and roll rate, structural integrity, armour, take-off handling, etc. 

But open cockpits also have a disadvantage in bad weather... One could say their effectiveness decreases in the winter, at least on the Eastern Front.

Kris


----------



## Vincenzo (Aug 11, 2009)

we need "arrangiarci" with that know or can know.
i've look the weaponry of fighters operational before of WWII.
put out the only with 2 or 4 .30' we have:
IK-2 1 20 mm gun and 2 .30'
P. 24 (some variants) 2 20 mm guns and 2 .30'
C.R. 32 (not chinese variant and early productions) 2 .50'
C.R. 42 2 .50'
G. 50 2 .50'
M.S. 406 1 20 mm gun and 2 .30'
D. 501 1 20 mm gun and 2 .30'
D. 510 1 20 mm gun and 2 .30'
Bf 109 E-3 2 20 mm guns and 2 .30'
He 112 2 20 mm guns and 2 .30'
I-15 (some) 2 .50'
I-153 (some) 2 .50'
I-16 (uncommon) 2 20 mm guns and 2 .30'
Hawk 75 (P-36A) 1 .50' 1 .30' (P-36C) 1 .50' 3 .30' (A2 many) 6 .30'
P-35 1 .50' 1 .30'
P-26 1 .50' 1 .30'
F3F 1 .50' 1 .30'
Hurricane 8 .30'
Spitfire 8 .30'
Bk 534 1 20 mm gun and 2 .30'
G I (original nederland order) 8 .30' 
Potez 630 2 20 mm guns
Potez 631 2 20 mm guns
Blenheim IF 5 .30'
Bf 110 2 20 mm guns 4 .30'


----------



## johnbr (Aug 11, 2009)

What about the Me 109d


----------



## Condora (Aug 12, 2009)

Oh-oh!
You guys are are going to have trouble getting to a conclusion: too many variables to decide, some of them are almost impossible to determine today...

You'd better decide the parameters now, and stick to them, otherwise you'll get nowhere.
It is difficult to evaluate maintenance - yes, it is important -, but take the Hurricane and Spitfire:
one of the reasons the Hurricane was the workhorse of the Battle of Britain, was that with the same engine and firepower, although it had a slight inferior performance than the Spit, it was much easier to patch up the holes on the Hurricane, so it could fly again. The Hurricane had a less sophisticated construction, and almost as important, the groundcrews KNEW how to work with it, because it was the same used in previous airplanes (the Fury, for instance).

That kind of factor is difficult to weight, so it's best kept as a "tie break factor".


----------



## parsifal (Aug 12, 2009)

Well I will buck the trend and argue that the Spit in 1939 was superior to the Me 109, for a couple of reasons. In 1939 the Me109 was still experiencing some problems in its armamant....I believe the spinner mounted cannon wa prone to jam. The cramped conditions of the cocpit made it hard work for the pilot. It had rather vicious dive characteristics, and its high speed turns were not nearly as easy to execute as that of the Spit. The spits armament of 1939 was straightforward and simple, but above all reliable. It was more than adequate to deal with the unarmoured targets of 1939. It was fitted with armour before the 109, and in my opinion was a design that had greater design stretchability over the 109. Excluding types that did not see service, or at least no large scale service, the Spitfires flying at the nd of the war in my opinion were superior to the Me109s flying in main stream service in 1945


----------



## Vincenzo (Aug 12, 2009)

What spinner mounted cannon in '39????
and imho the armour came before on 109


----------



## Condora (Aug 12, 2009)

Parsifal,
The idea is the best fighter available when the war began, not when it ended.

The spit was a bit cramped too, if that is a factor, go for the Hurricane. 

aside: the race for guns on fighters began because armour was used to counter the growing number of machine-guns airplanes carried. Everybody was moving from the rifle calibers to the 20mm or more, to get more punch. I'm don't remember who wrote it (Braybrook again?), but the .50 was not considered as an option as it would soon be outdated by better armour, something that didn't really happen.


----------



## Clay_Allison (Aug 12, 2009)

If I was offered my choice of any 1939 plane to fly in combat, I'd choose the Bf-110. I know it seems weird but I want the heavy concentrated armament and I think I could get away with refusing to turn fight and fighting on the "Boom and Zoom".


----------



## Vincenzo (Aug 12, 2009)

Clay_Allison said:


> If I was offered my choice of any 1939 plane to fly in combat, I'd choose the Bf-110. I know it seems weird but I want the heavy concentrated armament and I think I could get away with refusing to turn fight and fighting on the "Boom and Zoom".



good choice best armament, 3rd in horizontal speed, i don't check i think good also in vertical speed


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 12, 2009)

johnbr said:


> What about the Me 109d



Why, when the Bf 109E was in service by that time?


----------



## Clay_Allison (Aug 13, 2009)

Vincenzo said:


> good choice best armament, 3rd in horizontal speed, i don't check i think good also in vertical speed


I don't know if it would have been a possible modification but 6x MG 131 in the nose + 1x MG 131 in the tail I always though would have been the perfect nose armament for that big bird. You could have gotten 1000 meter kills with that arrangement.


----------



## parsifal (Aug 13, 2009)

Vincenzo said:


> What spinner mounted cannon in '39????
> and imho the armour came before on 109





The E-3 was the most up to date subtype in 1939. According to most sources, "The Bf 109E-3 had a provision for a 20-mm MG FF cannon firing through the prop spinner, however the cannon had proved unreliable, due to overheating, and was seldom used operationally". ( Messerschmitt Bf 109 - Germany 

All but the first 77 of the Spit IA were fitted with armoured windscreens and armoured firewalls. This means that the Spit went to war with at least some armour protection. Later additional back armour was also fitted, which I understand began just before the BoF . AFAIK, no armour was fitted to the 109 until the introduction of the E-4 subtype, which began to arrive midway through the BoB. To be fair armour was retrofitted to both the E-1 and E-3 subtypes.


----------



## parsifal (Aug 13, 2009)

Condora said:


> Parsifal,
> The idea is the best fighter available when the war began, not when it ended.
> 
> The spit was a bit cramped too, if that is a factor, go for the Hurricane.



The original brief for this thread was to consider all aspect of the fighters, not just their performance. Design adptability has to be taken into account therefore. Since the 109 was designed from the outset to be compact, its ability to absorb major design changes was more difficult IMO compared to the roomier Spit

Dont disagree with the second comment, but it was positively capacious compared to the 109. The 109 had the smallest profile of any fighter in 1939, and whilst this conferred certain benefits as far as target size was concerned, it came at the price of making the cockpit very cramped. IMO it was considerably more cramped than the Spitfire.


----------



## vanir (Aug 13, 2009)

The 109D had a very short operational life due to unreliability of the DB600 engine, pilots said they prefered the B and C. Very few were made, and all those early versions were really developmental types so that in a manner of speaking the Emil was really the first truly operational, mass produced 109 (all earlier versions were in limited production only). The B and C also shared all engine types and so the only tell between those two was armament (the C had provision for guns in the wings). Most of the 109D that were produced went to zerstörer squadrons awaiting the Daimler engine 110C in 1939-40. The 110C was not in the majority until the BoF (in the BoP the 109D was used widely, I have squadron listings and OOB). The earlier 110s were also simply operational development types not really intended for combat formation and not in mass production.
The simple truth is the myth of Luftwaffe air superiority in 1939 really was just successful propaganda, and the OOB was a bit of a hack, it's like imagining an RAF of 1939 with equal numbers of Bristol Bulldogs and Gloster Gauntlet/Gladiators and Hurricane/Spits in all their front line squadrons, well I guess that's not so far from the truth considering they had the Defiant taking up squadron places.

Thus if we're going to speak in terms of historical realities, in Germany 1939 you had surplus 109B/C (serving alongside each other in use) and the 109E entering on the scene, with a handful of 109D that had low serviceability rates and poor reliability (transferred to either zerstörer sqns in lieu or requisitioned by rudimentary night fighter development sqns). Emils listed in active service during 1939 were all E-1 although certainly E-3 were being produced on the line. They had no self sealing tanks and no armour, though neither did anyone else, nobody was using those features back then. A fighter-bomber version was being made and some armour features from this became standard equipment to produce the E-3 that was entering active service on strength in 1940.

Meanwhile speaking again in terms of what was in the field the Spit was the basic MkI with no self sealing tanks and no armour, though its early update included an armoured windscreen and firewall. They were getting three speed variable pitch props ahead of the Hurricane, which was still using the two-blade Watts in 1940. Neither were using the constant speed prop yet. And as mentioned the Defiant was actually thought a good complementary fighter.

In 1939 the P-36C was a really good fighter with more modern features than others and roughly equivalent performance with other leaders (less straightline speed, better range, pilot features and dive speed, pretty equivalent everywhere else).

The Me-110 still had the Jumo engines except for the first handful of C's just entering service in December. Again there just weren't many of any of them, early ones were developmental types.

The D-520 was good too, but underpowered. Soviets and Japanese had nothing good. Central/western Europe had like Avias and Fiats, a couple of years obsolete but still combat worthy. Macchi had a great design but it was still a prototype and had no decent engine to use until 1941.

Given what was actually in the field and readily available during 1939 I'd say the best of the bunch are a 109E-1 with the aeromechanical screw, early Spit MkI with the Rotol three-speed or a P-36C with the electric constant, any of those are good for it and you could get your hands on one without being a development sqn or related to an aristocrat. Not sure the Curtiss was using reflector sights though yet, I think the Brits and Germans had the goods on that, and a tube or iron sight cuts situational awareness.

All things considered I'd go the 109 because I'm small framed anyway and wouldn't feel cramped, and the aeromechanical screw is about forty years ahead of its time. Seriously it was considered a significant advance in civilian aero manufacture in the late seventies and still regarded a nifty piece of "modern" technology. Cuts pilot workload in transitional manoeuvres by about half, greatly increases situational awareness, not that I'm a professional pilot (been a while since I flew) but just speculating.

Emil was a damn good fighter in 39-40.


----------



## Vincenzo (Aug 13, 2009)

parsifal said:


> The E-3 was the most up to date subtype in 1939. According to most sources, "The Bf 109E-3 had a provision for a 20-mm MG FF cannon firing through the prop spinner, however the cannon had proved unreliable, due to overheating, and was seldom used operationally". ( Messerschmitt Bf 109 - Germany
> 
> All but the first 77 of the Spit IA were fitted with armoured windscreens and armoured firewalls. This means that the Spit went to war with at least some armour protection. Later additional back armour was also fitted, which I understand began just before the BoF . AFAIK, no armour was fitted to the 109 until the introduction of the E-4 subtype, which began to arrive midway through the BoB. To be fair armour was retrofitted to both the E-1 and E-3 subtypes.



maybe had the provision but no emil has the cannon, but the E-3 had 2 20 in the wings not need a 3rd 20 mm. afaik Spitfire from 78th change the propeller idk of windscreen i was talking of armour and afaik in spitfire this add in '40, and afaik E-3 were already with armour


----------



## Vincenzo (Aug 13, 2009)

vanir said:


> The 109D had a very short operational life due to unreliability of the DB600 engine,
> 
> .



the 109D had the jumo engine like the B/C, i know that some english book write so but they are in wrong


----------



## Condora (Aug 13, 2009)

parsifal said:


> Design adptability has to be taken into account therefore. Since the 109 was designed from the outset to be compact, its ability to absorb major design changes was more difficult IMO compared to the roomier Spit



I see your point. 
I know it is impossible to completely forget what I know of later developments on those 39 planes, but I prefer to try and ignore that advantage I have. Take the Whirlwind, for instance (it's a later model, I know): I know the Peregrine engine was a dead-end, so I would not pick it. If I was deciding "then", maybe I would.

As I try a bit to "think the way they did then", I would not consider adaptability - or any other factors - that were not deemed important at the time. Just a personal preference on how to approach the subject...


----------



## marshall (Aug 13, 2009)

parsifal said:


> The original brief for this thread was to consider all aspect of the fighters, not just their performance. Design adptability has to be taken into account therefore. Since the 109 was designed from the outset to be compact, its ability to absorb major design changes was more difficult IMO compared to the roomier Spit



Yes, that's what I stated, that performance is not everything. Good example here can be cost of an airplane, as one fighter can be twice more expensive than the other but only slightly better and in such a situation probably the cost would be the deciding factor on which airplane is best.

About the design adaptability, I think it's an advantage but does anybody in 1939 knew that Spitfire has such a future ahead of her?


----------



## parsifal (Aug 13, 2009)

marshall said:


> About the design adaptability, I think it's an advantage but does anybody in 1939 knew that Spitfire has such a future ahead of her?




Probably not, but the same can be said about the 109. Both aircraft enjoyed exceptionally distinguished service careers. It would be wrong for me to try and argue that the 109 was not a total success, or that it was not a major influence on the war. But I just happen to believe that the Spitfire started as the better fighter, fell a little behind with the SpitV, but from the IX onward began to pull away from the equivalent marks of the 109. Ther will be many that disagree with that summary, which I respect.


----------



## vanir (Aug 14, 2009)

Vincenzo said:


> the 109D had the jumo engine like the B/C, i know that some english book write so but they are in wrong



The 109D had the DB-600 with the carburettor. I've photos. The Jumo has the radiator under the nose, the Daimler has just the oil cooler under the nose and the radiators are moved to the wings. The B and C have a nose profile a little similar to a Ju-87 because of this arrangement, the 109D looks like an Emil except for the air intake, there's no ram and its closer to the prop (uses carburettor instead of injection).

The carburettor Daimler (DB-600) puts out around 900hp and increased the absolute ceiling of the 109 from about 8400 metres to 10000 metres, most importantly it raised the service ceiling from around 5000 metres for typical prewar fighters to 7000 metres (ie. the altitude at which climb rates are still impressive, suitable for combat patrol). Most contemporaries like Merlin II are a little outdone by this (service ceiling roughly 1000m shy according to pilots on both sides).
Maximum performance is a little lower than the Merlin II however at around 3600 metres for 575km/h armed with four MG-17.

Both carburettor and injected Jumos were used in the B and the C, carb version about 640hp and injected about 700hp. As mentioned however usable combat performance is definitely below 5000 metres.

The 109D was noted by pilots for its definitive performance advantages over the earlier Jumo engine variants but nevertheless its serviceability rate was so low they actually preferred the B and C versions (ref.Alfred Price, quoting pilot anecdotes in "Messerschmitt 109, Great Aircraft of WWII"). It didn't matter however as fewer than 200 were ever built in its six months of limited production.
In September 1938 of all combined 109 versions only 510 were serviceable with the Luftwaffe, mostly the 109B with both Jumo-210D and retrofitted Ga engines. This had three MG-17, whilst a smaller number of 109C with either four MG-17 or two MG-17 and two MG FF were also in service and a bare handful of 109D most commonly with the two Oerlikons.

Re: Oerlikon motorkanone. All reports thus far appear to be of only prototype testing for this weapon, 109V4 which was a B series first tried with a heavy machine gun firing through the hub, then the MG FF with unsatisfactory results due to gun overheating and frequent jams.

The 109E-1 was initially fitted with four MG-17 whilst during production a switch to two MG FF is sometimes claimed. The E-2 was intended to mount a MG FF motorkanone but this version never appeared, and the E-3 with two MG FF and the armour features of the E-1/B was thus the next Emil produced. Some publications claim the E-3 sometimes mounted a MG FF motorkanone and two or four MG-17 but I've not seen any genuine evidence for this.

One point is valid however, that during Emil production particularly from E-3 production individual aces such as Galland and Mölders received custom fitted 109 a/c from Messerschmitt and it is a distinct possibility that any individual Emil, particularly from late 1940 could have almost any equipment fit at all, if the mount of a notable ace.
Galland's E-3 was updated to E-4 standards (improved armour and MG FF/m guns). Another E-4 he received later was fitted with a 601N motor that featured GM-1 boost. This same a/c was then updated to E-7 standards in early '41. The total armament fit and specific engine of his E-3 is not known, but it is known he "preferred the 3x MG FF cannon layout" for whatever that's worth. When he received his Me-109F-1 it was fitted with an MG FF/m motorkanone and two more in the wings, that is definite. His F-2 had a MG-151 motorkanone and two MG FF/m in the wings. This is just one example.

My Grandmother apparently knew a lot about him, she said he was known for having the fastest Messerschmitt in the Luftwaffe during 1940, and that it was a unique aircraft.


----------



## Juha (Aug 14, 2009)

Hello Vanir
I think that Vincenzo is right
what I have read vast majority of 109Ds had Jumo engine, only some had DB600 for test and evaluation but the engine was considered too unreliable and with much improved 601 in pipeline it was dropped as a standard engine for single engined a/c. 

Juha


----------



## Vincenzo (Aug 14, 2009)

vanir said:


> The 109D had the DB-600 with the carburettor. I've photos. The Jumo has the radiator under the nose, the Daimler has just the oil cooler under the nose and the radiators are moved to the wings. The B and C have a nose profile a little similar to a Ju-87 because of this arrangement, the 109D looks like an Emil except for the air intake, there's no ram and its closer to the prop (uses carburettor instead of injection).
> 
> The carburettor Daimler (DB-600) puts out around 900hp and increased the absolute ceiling of the 109 from about 8400 metres to 10000 metres, most importantly it raised the service ceiling from around 5000 metres for typical prewar fighters to 7000 metres (ie. the altitude at which climb rates are still impressive, suitable for combat patrol). Most contemporaries like Merlin II are a little outdone by this (service ceiling roughly 1000m shy according to pilots on both sides).
> Maximum performance is a little lower than the Merlin II however at around 3600 metres for 575km/h armed with four MG-17.
> ...



i'm sorry for your photos but probably they were experimental prototypes planes. Afaik no MG FF in wings before on Emil-3, but experimental .


----------



## paradoxguy (Aug 14, 2009)

vanir said:


> The 109D had the DB-600 with the carburettor. I've photos. The Jumo has the radiator under the nose, the Daimler has just the oil cooler under the nose and the radiators are moved to the wings. The B and C have a nose profile a little similar to a Ju-87 because of this arrangement, the 109D looks like an Emil except for the air intake, there's no ram and its closer to the prop (uses carburettor instead of injection).
> 
> The carburettor Daimler (DB-600) puts out around 900hp and increased the absolute ceiling of the 109 from about 8400 metres to 10000 metres, most importantly it raised the service ceiling from around 5000 metres for typical prewar fighters to 7000 metres (ie. the altitude at which climb rates are still impressive, suitable for combat patrol). Most contemporaries like Merlin II are a little outdone by this (service ceiling roughly 1000m shy according to pilots on both sides).
> Maximum performance is a little lower than the Merlin II however at around 3600 metres for 575km/h armed with four MG-17.
> ...



Your two synopsis (previous page) on fighters circa 1939-1940 were very interesting and informative. I just wanted to add that I agree with you that the Bf 109E-3 was never fitted operationally with a motorkanone, despite numerous publications stating such. I understand that the process of developing a successful motorkanone for the Bf 109 was long and arduous and almost ended with no success.

I was also intrigued by your comments about Adolf Galland and his custom Bf 109's--and that your grandmother knew much about him. Can I ask, was/is she German? Did she know Galland personally? On a more relevant topic , as I am sure you know, Galland also had another custom Bf 109F-2 with 13mm cowl-mounted machine guns replacing the standard 7.9mm guns. Do you know if he had a preference between this machine and the Bf 109F-2 with the wing-mounted MG FF/m cannon? I imagine that the 13mm gun-equipped Bf 109F-2 was more maneuverable than the MG FF/m machine.


----------



## Elvis (Aug 14, 2009)

marshall said:


> Question is simple. What was the best fighter aircraft in service all over the world before the 1 September 1939?
> 
> This question bothers me for some time and I would like to know what other more knowledgeable people than I think about it.
> 
> ...


As much as I'd like to say P-38, or F4F-3 or even F2A-1, all of which were in service by the beginning the war (I think that's right for the P-38?), I'd say the answer would most likely be either the Me-109 or the Spitfire.


Elvis


----------



## Juha (Aug 14, 2009)

IMHO Bf 109E-3.

Juha


----------



## Vincenzo (Aug 14, 2009)

Elvis said:


> As much as I'd like to say P-38, or F4F-3 or even F2A-1, all of which were in service by the beginning the war (I think that's right for the P-38?), I'd say the answer would most likely be either the Me-109 or the Spitfire.
> 
> 
> Elvis




for true none of that was in service


----------



## parsifal (Aug 14, 2009)

Its true that not many Me 109s were fitted with a moteur cannon firing through the hub. Thats because the few that were (mostly prior to the outbreak of the war), were all found to be failures. The gun arrangement simply did not work. The two chief designs for the pre-war 20mm gun the Hispano and Oerlikon, had both spent a lot of time and effort trying to perfect a the firing position through the propellor hub, to no avail, and this mistake was repeated by Rheinmetall when they bought back the rights to the old Becker design that formed the basis of their 20mm redevelopment program in the 30's

But what is irrefutable was that as designed, the Me109 E-3 was intended to carry an engine mounted 20mm MGFF cannon. Moreover the failure of the technology was a major blow to the effectiveness of the type. The centreline armament was intended to carry 200 rounds of ammunition, whilst the drum mounted wing guns were only designed to carry 60 rounds per gun. Straight away the total ammunition loadout was less than half in the operational units, as compared to the design specs. This severely limited the ability of the type to maintain sustained fire. Instead of having around 25 secs of continuous fire capability, the 109 as built only had about 8-10 seconds of continous fire time. Compare that to the Spit which was loaded with 300-350 RPG, giving a continuous burst capability of around 18-20 seconds. Moreover the higher rate of fire of the lighter British MGs were better suited to untrained pilots spraying bullets in all directions. The slower rate of fire and shorter burst time of the german armament made it necessary for the germans to be better marksmen, and were somewhat less effective in engaging high speed fighter targets.....

"The Spitfire had eight Browning machine-guns spread out along the wing. These each had 300-350 rounds of normal bullets, tracer, incendiary or armour-piercing (the last type only effective against the thinnest of armour). The guns were configured so that the bullets converged on a single point some distance in front of the aircraft. At first this distance was over 400 yards, however best results were obtained if the guns were configured at 250 or 200 yards instead. (Clearly the German MG FF had a range advantage over the Spits). The use of eight machine-guns meant that even the novice fighter-pilots thrown into the battle by the British had a chance of hitting something if they could get into firing position. On the other hand the 109`s armament favoured the marksman. The 109 had two machine guns of similar performance to the British Brownings, but mounted in the nose and synchronised to fire through the propeller. These had magazines of 1,000 rounds each, which meant the German could keep his finger on the trigger over three times longer than his British counterpart, but after that time he would have still expended 400 less rounds than the Spitfire pilot. The Messerschmitt was also equipped with two 20mm cannon, but they had a low velocity, relatively poor rate of fire and only 60 rounds per gun. Against British bombers they were devastating, but the manoeuvrable and swift Spitfires and Hurricanes were a difficult target.

The incendiary bullets used by the British in the Battle of Britain gave the RAF a great advantage. They could cause the fuel-tank of a target aircraft to explode and the flash of light they gave off showed the British pilot his bullets were striking home. The incendiary bullet had been developed in secret at Woolwich Arsenal and was only first used in the Battle of Britain. Named "de Wilde" ammunition by the British this was a ruse to make the Germans think it was based on the work of a Mr de Wilde in Switzerland. In fact it had been found that "proper" de Wilde bullets could only be made by hand, whereas the British design could be mass-produced. The British "de Wilde" bullets were the invention of C. Aubrey Dixon, a Captain in the Bedfordshire and Hertfordshire Regiment (he retired with the rank of Brigadier), one of the unsung heroes of the Battle of Britain." 

Germany had nothing comparable at this time. Even though the Dewilde ammunition was available until the BoB, it was under development from pre-war, so should be taken into account in this discussion


----------



## vanir (Aug 14, 2009)

> i'm sorry for your photos but probably they were experimental prototypes planes.


Dude, the 109D had the DB-600, have you not done any research on this? Every source, every single source will tell you this. My photos are of 109D in service and on the runway, several of them. In November 1938 Jagdgruppe 331 for example was re-equipped with the BF-109D and due to low serviceability of the DB-600 began to re-equip again the following May when it was redesignated JG77, only five months later with the E-1 and its DB-601.



> Afaik no MG FF in wings before on Emil-3, but experimental .


Again I urge you to do some research, you're obviously interested in the subject and it is an interesting read.

The standard armament of the 109B was 3x MG-17 and the 109C was 4x MG-17 however the MG FF was extensively tested during 1937-8 as an armament option both as a motorkanone (V4 prototype for the 109B in continued testing, and V12 prototype for the 109D) and in the wings (V9 a modified 109B taken off the line as one of the prototypes for the 109C).
It is widely recorded that the fitment of MG FF in the wings was undertaken for service evaluation/testing in a number of 109C a/c sent to Spain. Pilot feedback of the weapon is recorded in use in the field in Spain.

The 109D in service had either 4x MG-17 or 2x MG and 2x MG FF (some refer to the this version as the D-3). Only 36 109D were sent to Spain before the E-1 appeared, and of these some definitely had MG FF fitted to the wings as recorded by pilot service evaluation of the weapon fitment in the field. It is claimed some 109D also had an MG FF motorkanone instead. Pilots in general applauded fitment of the MG FF as four small calibre machine guns was becoming inadequate, but cited inaccuracy when fitted to the wings (their structure was never originally intended for gun fitment) and frequent jams due to overheating when mounted as a motorkanone. There is also at least one claim 3x MG FF were fitted to individual a/c but that such a heavy armament reduced performance too dramatically for service use in the fighter role.
Generally it is recorded by Messerschmitt AG that some pilots preferred MG FF fitted to the wngs, whilst others preferred the idea of the motorkanone fitment. This is famously outlined as the respective preferences of Adolf Galland and Werner Mölders. Galland famously said the more (heavy) guns the better, especially for new recruits (but in fact Galland's personal record is a strong background as a schlachtflieger and he is really a ground attack specialist, Mölders was the flyboy and he preferred the precision of centreline armament).

Again, of service examples it is clear that at some point on the production line the MG-17 in the wings of the E-1 was switched to MG FF. During the war the E-3 was also in production but the real distinction of this model was the armour package and not the armament, which by then (ie. during E-1 production) the MG FF in the wings had become standardised.

The armament package, including a cockpit glass revision was the feature of the E-4 as well as a new thin walled casting technique for MG FF ammunition, with a minor revision of the gun to take advantage of a lower projectile weight (improved ROF from ca.450rpm-cyclic to 540rpm-cyclic), the new gun/ammo combo termed MG FF/m (for minengeschoß or mine shell).

So there are a few differences, visual, armament and armour for the E-4. But the difference between the E-1 and E-3 is only armour, although early production E-1 initially had 4x MG-17 standard fit and all E-1/B have 4x MG-17 (but the armour of the E-3 and provision for bombs). The E-3 was also the first 109 to feature self sealing tanks standard (not sure about the E-1/B on that), and the first a/c in mass production in the world to do so though it was quickly followed by the British armour updates on the Spit and Hurri.
There is also some additional confusion as all Emils were frequently retrofitted with later equipment and kept in service, though all examples I've seen of this were E-3 and later models (updated to E-4 or E-7 standard or various engine fitments).



> I was also intrigued by your comments about Adolf Galland and his custom Bf 109's--and that your grandmother knew much about him. Can I ask, was/is she German? Did she know Galland personally?


She seemed to yes, one of her friends was a Gustav pilot who flew the 109K over Berlin. German yes, family left in the mid-fifties. We weren't allowed to talk much about it as kids because she could go off on violent rants particularly where the subject of Hitler or the SS was brought up, which I tended to do. There were times though, like when she bought me a 109 scale model kit for Christmas when I was alone with her and her friends and she would volunteer an amazing amount of technical information and personal details, mostly about Galland who she said all the women thought was extremely charismatic. Her friend Günther knew a fair bit about Marsielle but arrived in Africa too late to meet him. I don't think she was a personal friend or anything, he was still around then and she wasn't in contact or anything, perhaps met him across the room once? I was always amazed she could list off armament and engine variations in Emils and was familiar with all the major 109 variants, a very weird thing to see an old lady do. I guess I'd call her a fan of Galland.


----------



## Njaco (Aug 14, 2009)

Don't know if this helps with the conversation but I made a thread awhile ago on Galland's Bf 109s...

http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/aircraft-pictures/gallands-bf-109s-17889.html


----------



## vanir (Aug 14, 2009)

> But what is irrefutable was that as designed, the Me109 E-3 was intended to carry an engine mounted 20mm MGFF cannon. Moreover the failure of the technology was a major blow to the effectiveness of the type. The centreline armament was intended to carry 200 rounds of ammunition, whilst the drum mounted wing guns were only designed to carry 60 rounds per gun.


I think you'll find the reference sources your basing this off was talking about early MG151 development, which was intended to be in service for the Emil, became protracted and didn't wind up in production until early '41.
Also the MG FF as a motorkanone fitment was always intended to use either a 60 or a 90 round drum, a linked magazine was never speculated for it. It didn't matter, the MG FF tended to overheat in a motorkanone fitment and this caused the feed to jam, and development was already concentrated on the MG151 which was designed from the start to solve the problems of the MG FF particularly in a motorkanone fitment. Messerschmitt himself had always intended centreline armament for the 109 and it was only by RLM demand that guns were fitted to the wings, which based on what weapons were currently in production was the only way to immediately increase armament potency.

The first motorkanone fitment was actually a heavy machine gun, used in an early ground attack outlay for the 109V4 which also first tested the MG FF as one. I've no idea of the type of machine gun used, but assume it was a 12.7mm Browning derivative probably made in Belgium or Italy. The fitment was successful but it was decided something heavier was needed. Italy was experimenting with switching incendiary ammunition for a small HE charge in the 12.7mm and eventually the MG151 with its HE 15mm shell and flat trajectory, high penetration properties was supposed to be as effective as an MG FF with the benefits of a 12.7mm maching gun fitment. This was all going on in 1938.

The Emil was to be the first 109 in true mass production (all earlier versions may be considered developmental models in limited production only), the full breadth of German fighter development up to this time was to be incorporated into that model as the tactical short range fighter force of the Luftwaffe. The main production Daimler engine series (largely borne by the efforts of Ernst Udet and his race experience in developmental prototypes, the heavily modified DB-600 and 601 used in the Alpine races of 1937, pumping out to around 1650hp at a couple of hundred metres), and the refined 109 airframe that Messerschmitt envisoned with centreline armament, featuring the new MG151 motorkanone for attack and interception and two MG-17 for defence.
Reality doesn't quite work that way however, the Daimler motor needed much more development (the 601A is more like a 1000hp motor in service use) and the MG151 wasn't ready for production.


----------



## parsifal (Aug 14, 2009)

_


vanir said:



I think you'll find the reference sources your basing this off was talking about early MG151 development, which was intended to be in service for the Emil, became protracted and didn't wind up in production until early '41.
Also the MG FF as a motorkanone fitment was always intended to use either a 60 or a 90 round drum, a linked magazine was never speculated for it.

Click to expand...

_


vanir said:


> Source1:  Messeschmitt Bf 109 in action (Part 1) John Beamn Jerry Campbell, Squadron Signals Publications, 1980, Page 29 (E-3 specs). On armament it says:
> 
> "two 20mm MGFF with 60 rpg in wings and two 7.92 Rheinmetall Borsig MG 17 with 1000 rpg each in fuselage. (one engine mounted MG FF/M with 200 rpg carried by some aircraft)"
> 
> ...


----------



## vanir (Aug 15, 2009)

The MG FF was simply not ever developed or mounted to fire linked ammunition, the MG151 was. The German drum was 60rds although the Japanese made one for 90rds and I don't see any reason the Germans couldn't have placed a 90rd drum into production.
The ammunition box for the MG151 is 200 rounds of 15mm in a motorkanone fitment. When upsized to 20mm only 150 rounds could be carried due to the increased size of the shells.
The MG151 was in development by 1938 and intended to be fitted to the Me-109 (E).
The Oerlikon was Swedish, it was very old and the MG151 was simply the next step for development of an idigenous German heavy calibre aero gun.

I think it is safe to infer that if a chain linked box was developed for the MG FF which it never was, that it could carry a maximum of 150rds in a motorkanone fitment rather than 200rds, which was the ammunition store for the 15mm MG151 centreline box (mounted in the port wingroot). All 20mm motorkanone with linked ammunition fitted to the 109 had a 150rd ammo box in the port wing root. All 15mm motorkanone in the 109 had a 200rd box.


Also I frequently read completely inaccurate technical specifications listed in commercial publications and on websites, particularly about the Me109. This includes imaginary production variants with MGFF motorkanone, actual production variants with imaginary MGFF motorkanone, imaginary engine variations, imaginary variant deployments, and completely misunderstood and improperly described boosting systems. Often editors aren't very mechanically qualified and work with third party research.
Best references are primary source data or a combination of detailed research and personal qualification.

According to many researchers citing primary sources there is no evidence to support any motorkanone fitment of the MG FF in any production and service 109 ever, though it was tested on prototypes and development models. However there are enough anecdotes to suggest that some E-3 may have, which I say very loosely, may have been custom fitted with an MG FF motorkanone, there is simply no standing evidence for it.

Here's an odd thing however. The 109F-1 entered production late in 1940 which was before the MG151 and some sources claim it was fitted with an MGFF/m motorkanone in lieu plus 2x MG17. The entire run was grounded and recalled in January following some fatal structural failures. When the F-2 appeared several months later it had the MG151 with 200rds of 15mm.
If the F-1 had a MGFF/m, it had a 60rd box, of this there is no question.


----------



## paradoxguy (Aug 15, 2009)

paradoxguy said:


> I was also intrigued by your comments about Adolf Galland and his custom Bf 109's--and that your grandmother knew much about him. Can I ask, was/is she German? Did she know Galland personally? On a more relevant topic , as I am sure you know, Galland also had another custom Bf 109F-2 with 13mm cowl-mounted machine guns replacing the standard 7.9mm guns. Do you know if he had a preference between this machine and the Bf 109F-2 with the wing-mounted MG FF/m cannon? I imagine that the 13mm gun-equipped Bf 109F-2 was more maneuverable than the MG FF/m machine.





vanir said:


> She seemed to yes, one of her friends was a Gustav pilot who flew the 109K over Berlin. German yes, family left in the mid-fifties. We weren't allowed to talk much about it as kids because she could go off on violent rants particularly where the subject of Hitler or the SS was brought up, which I tended to do. There were times though, like when she bought me a 109 scale model kit for Christmas when I was alone with her and her friends and she would volunteer an amazing amount of technical information and personal details, mostly about Galland who she said all the women thought was extremely charismatic. Her friend Günther knew a fair bit about Marsielle but arrived in Africa too late to meet him. I don't think she was a personal friend or anything, he was still around then and she wasn't in contact or anything, perhaps met him across the room once? I was always amazed she could list off armament and engine variations in Emils and was familiar with all the major 109 variants, a very weird thing to see an old lady do. I guess I'd call her a fan of Galland.



Thanks for the interesting background on your grandmother. You echoed my sentiments that hearing a civilian mature woman recite a litany of Bf 109 specifications must have been very unusual, to say the least. During our relationship, I twice visited an aviation museum with my ex-girfriend in San Diego, California, USA, and pointed out the Bf 109G-10 hanging upside down with its Erla Haube, smoothed-over Beule, cowl-mounted machine guns and motorkanone, and black tulip pattern on its nose several times, yet at the peak of our relationship, all she recalled of the Bf 109 was the tulip pattern. (Aside: no written description was provided, but I presume the paint job was intended to evoke Hartmann's Bf 109.) Galland must have been an unbelieveable lady's man for your grandmother to remember and recite the specifications of his fighter aircraft!


----------



## parsifal (Aug 15, 2009)

Hi Vanir

This is all great stuff, and very credible, but you have not provided any verifiable sources other than to say that the commericial sources are no good, and that primary sources are really the only way to go. Okay, but thats still not a proper referenced source, leaving your readers unable to verify or look at the basis of your statements.


----------



## Milosh (Aug 15, 2009)

parsifal, many of these books and websites do what I call 'copy and paste' from each other and just perpetuate any inaccuracies.

The best example of this is the fitting of MG151s in the cowl of the 109K-4.


----------



## Juha (Aug 15, 2009)

Hello Vanir
Quote:" Dude, the 109D had the DB-600, have you not done any research on this? Every source, every single source will tell you this..."

That's not correct, the books whose writers had used original German documents tell that Bf 109Ds normally had Jumo 210 D curburator engine, same as in 109B. The injection type 210 G used in 109C was short in supply and so 109D got Jumo 210 D, which were easier to make. look for ex. Willy Radinger's Walter Schick's Messerschmitt Me 109... Alle Varianten: von Bf(Me) 109A bis Me 109E (1997) p. 72.

Juha


----------



## Soundbreaker Welch? (Aug 15, 2009)

I don't know if anybody mentioned this but the good 'ole Brewster Buffalo was already on the scene in 1939, in very limited numbers.



Like only 11 planes in the US navy. 


Still, if you did get your hands on one, it was really not a bad fighter.

http://www.warbirdforum.com/saga.htm


----------



## Juha (Aug 15, 2009)

Hello Welch
IIRC only one Brewster F2A-1was accepted by the navy by 1st Sept 39, 11 by mid November 39.

So IMHO it just missed the deadline. But Finns thought that denavalized F2A-1s, the B-239s, were better than Hawk 75As (P-36s) or Hurricane Mk Is or Fiat G.50. And they used them all.

Juha


----------



## Vincenzo (Aug 15, 2009)

Juha said:


> Hello Vanir
> Quote:" Dude, the 109D had the DB-600, have you not done any research on this? Every source, every single source will tell you this..."
> 
> That's not correct, the books whose writers had used original German documents tell that Bf 109Ds normally had Jumo 210 D curburator engine, same as in 109B. The injection type 210 G used in 109C was short in supply and so 109D got Jumo 210 D, which were easier to make. look for ex. Willy Radinger's Walter Schick's Messerschmitt Me 109... Alle Varianten: von Bf(Me) 109A bis Me 109E (1997) p. 72.
> ...



I'm agree

Vanir i never eared a D-3 variant


----------



## Elvis (Aug 15, 2009)

Vincenzo said:


> Elvis said:
> 
> 
> > As much as I'd like to say P-38, or F4F-3 or even F2A-1, all of which were in service by the beginning the war (I think that's right for the P-38?), I'd say the answer would most likely be either the Me-109 or the Spitfire.
> ...


 NONE of those?...


Warbird Alley's Buffalo page said:


> In June 1939 the first of 54 F2A-1 production planes was delivered, the first nine sent to equip VF-3 aboard USS Saratoga.





Warbird Alley's Spitfire page said:


> The Spitfire Mk I became operational at Duxford, Cambridgeshire, in July 1938





Warbird Alley's Me-109 page said:


> The first production model, the Bf 109B-1, was delivered in early 1937 to the JG132 'Richthofen' squadron, Germany's top fighter unit


You are correct about induction dates of F4F -3 and P-38, though. 
As far as I can tell, they did come on-line after 9/1/39.

Still, my vote remains split between the Spit and the Messerschmitt.


Elvis


----------



## Vincenzo (Aug 15, 2009)

obvious i talking only of US 3 fighters at start of your phrase. the first F2A remane alone until autumn 1939 and the first was not for the VF-3, in older topic there is a page with all delivery date for F2A-1

this it's link at (web) page http://www.warbirdforum.com/f2a1.htm


----------



## vikingBerserker (Aug 15, 2009)

I believe the VF-3 was the first Navel Squadron fully equiped with the plane, or 9 out of the 11 that had been delivered up to that time.

_F2A Buffalo in action_ by Squadron Signal Publications, page 7


----------



## vanir (Aug 15, 2009)

Juha said:


> Hello Vanir
> Quote:" Dude, the 109D had the DB-600, have you not done any research on this? Every source, every single source will tell you this..."
> 
> That's not correct, the books whose writers had used original German documents tell that Bf 109Ds normally had Jumo 210 D curburator engine, same as in 109B. The injection type 210 G used in 109C was short in supply and so 109D got Jumo 210 D, which were easier to make. look for ex. Willy Radinger's Walter Schick's Messerschmitt Me 109... Alle Varianten: von Bf(Me) 109A bis Me 109E (1997) p. 72.
> ...



Again you're talking about assumptions from an obvious typo. The typo is obviously, plainly the 109C is being discussed. 
The Me-109C was supposed to receive the 210Ga injection motor but most wound up with the 210D of the 109B because the injection engines were in short supply. The text is referring to the C and not the D.
That was followed on by a retrofit of both 109B and 109C with the 210Ga where possible during 1938, so several 109B also had a 210Ga motor in 1938.

Theoretically the 109B was supposed to have the carburettor 210D and the 109C the injected 210Ga.

But in service use the Me109B and C both featured the 210D and 210Ga engine, whilst first series Bertas sent to Spain also had the earlier 210B (600hp) development series engine. In 1938-39 any Me109B or C could have either the 210D or 210Ga motor, and the only difference was the armament between the two types.

The Me109D was a change to the initial series (carburettor) Daimler motor. It had the radiator moved from under the cowling the wings because the Daimler motor was fitted. All Me-109D had the Daimler motor. Not one single Me109D had a Jumo motor. The only difference between an Me109C and an Me109D was the Daimler motor. If you put a Jumo in an Me109 airframe on the lines where the C and D were being produced, you'd have a C.

No Jumo engines were fitted to a production Me109 after the C.

Using primary source references will prevent this kind of confusion


----------



## vanir (Aug 15, 2009)

Follow up post:

109B Note the radiator under the nose like a Ju87 and the air intake on the starboard side, signifying the Jumo engine.




109C again the radiator under the nose, you can see the machine gun ports in the wings denoting a Caesar. Can still see the air intake.




And here is the 109D, with the radiator moved to the wings. It looks like an Emil, except for the long air intake on the port side for the carburettor Daimler. Detail on the air intake is good and you can clearly see the absence of the radiator under the nose. Clearly a Daimler motor.


----------



## Elvis (Aug 16, 2009)

Vincenzo said:


> obvious i talking only of US 3 fighters at start of your phrase.]


No, it wasn't obvious.
If it was, we wouldn't be having this little side discussion right now.
You need to write what you mean and don't assume that others will get "the gist" of what you're trying to convey.
Often, this is where problems begin.


Elvis


----------



## Juha (Aug 16, 2009)

Hello Vanir
Quote:" Again you're talking about assumptions from an obvious typo. The typo is obviously, plainly the 109C is being discussed."

Now Willy Radinger's Walter Schick's book is based on Messerschmitt AG's documents, are you suggesting that they made a mistake or that the mistake originated from Messerschmitt AG? Also Marco Fernández-Sommerau states in his Messerchmitt Bf 109 Recognition Manual (2004) p. 34 that 109D was powered by Jumo 210 D. So what are your sources? What primary sources You have used? The plane you claimed to be a 109D might well be one of the protos, painted as a service machine. Do you remember He 113? I see the situation from what I have read that Germans made a same kind of trick with some their Bf 109 protos, painted them as service a/c and claimed they were new 109Ds. Green took the bait and after that the story is repeated in numerous publicications.

Now the new books claim that 109C and D were 4 guns planes, C with 210 G and D with 210 D.

Juha


----------



## Marcel (Aug 16, 2009)

Clay_Allison said:


> Don't sell the Bf 110 short in that pahase of the game. It might have become obsolete later but with that armament and horsepower in 1939 you could boom and zoom with the best of them.



Hmmm, most Messers shot down by the Dutch LVA were Bf110. This done by an, on paper, far inferior a/c like the Fokker D.XXI makes me suspect the Bf110 wasn't that good.


----------



## Elvis (Aug 16, 2009)

Marcel said:


> Hmmm, most Messers shot down by the Dutch LVA were Bf110. This done by an, on paper, far inferior a/c like the Fokker D.XXI makes me suspect the Bf110 wasn't that good.


I wrote about this in a different thread, but the problem with the BF110 wasn't that it wasn't a good airplane, its that it was applied to the wrong application.
It should've ALWAYS been an attack/light bomber aircraft, not a "bomber escort" (essentially putting it in the "fighter" role), as it was originally used.
So to say that the Bf110 wasn't a good plane because it couldn't dogfight with a Fokker D.XXI , is like saying the B-17 wasn't a good plane because it couldn't dogfight with a 109.
Its knid of a non-sensical statement.


Elvis


----------



## Marcel (Aug 16, 2009)

The tread was about fighters. I still think the Bf110 wasn't a good fighter (not talking about the later use as a nightfighter which has totally different demands). BTW, the G.1 was in the same class as the Bf110. It was found to be able to dogfight the D.XXI, the D.XXI having only a slight advantage being lighter. I'm not saying the G.1 was better than the Bf110 as an aircraft, but it was certainly a better _fighter_ in the context of 1939.


----------



## Vincenzo (Aug 16, 2009)

Elvis said:


> No, it wasn't obvious.
> If it was, we wouldn't be having this little side discussion right now.
> You need to write what you mean and don't assume that others will get "the gist" of what you're trying to convey.
> Often, this is where problems begin.
> ...



in contest of this thread saw my previous topics imho was clear.


----------



## Vincenzo (Aug 16, 2009)

Marcel said:


> The tread was about fighters. I still think the Bf110 wasn't a good fighter (not talking about the later use as a nightfighter which has totally different demands). BTW, the G.1 was in the same class as the Bf110. It was found to be able to dogfight the D.XXI, the D.XXI having only a slight advantage being lighter. I'm not saying the G.1 was better than the Bf110 as an aircraft, but it was certainly a better _fighter_ in the context of 1939.



I think with just tatics the 110 was a good fighter for '39, but surely it's not a dogfighters


----------



## Vincenzo (Aug 16, 2009)

Vanir here Me-109 at D variant page a explanation for you photos of 109 D with DB engine


----------



## Elvis (Aug 17, 2009)

Marcel said:


> The tread was about fighters. I still think the Bf110 wasn't a good fighter (not talking about the later use as a nightfighter which has totally different demands). BTW, the G.1 was in the same class as the Bf110. It was found to be able to dogfight the D.XXI, the D.XXI having only a slight advantage being lighter. I'm not saying the G.1 was better than the Bf110 as an aircraft, but it was certainly a better _fighter_ in the context of 1939.


Sorry Marcel, misinterpreted your post.
You're right, the Bf110 wasn't a good fighter.


Elvis


----------



## Elvis (Aug 17, 2009)

Vincenzo said:


> in contest of this thread saw my previous topics imho was clear.


No, really, you weren't, but its not the end of the world, Vinnie. 
Just work on being as clear as possible, in the future.


Elvis


----------



## Tzaw1 (Aug 17, 2009)

> _Jun20'39_ - Deliveries of F2A-1 models to the US Navy begin; *the first production aircraft is rolled out*. One F2A-1 goes to NAS Anacostia for engine cooling tests.
> _Dec '39_ - Eleven F2A-1 aircraft have been accepted by the US Navy and enter service with Squadron VF-3. The remaining 43 aircraft on Navy order are released top Finland using commercial model engines.


From Francis H. Dean, _America's Hundred-Thousand_


----------



## Elvis (Aug 17, 2009)

The engines were "export specific".


Elvis


----------



## Vincenzo (Aug 17, 2009)

Elvis said:


> No, really, you weren't, but its not the end of the world, Vinnie.
> Just work on being as clear as possible, in the future.
> 
> 
> Elvis



was obvious i in the 7th i've writed that 109 and spit there were. So it's obvious that you don't read all the topics


----------



## Vincenzo (Aug 17, 2009)

A curiosity
there were only four fighters that runs enough over 500 km/h, two british and two germans: spit and hurri, 109 E and 110 C, both the couple with one engine RR merlin and DB 601, so theyr good speed was for good designs or for the good engines?


----------



## Civettone (Aug 17, 2009)

Engines !!!

Engines is what it's all about. Sometimes I even go so far as to think of aircraft as nameless or typeless aircraft but with a specfic engine. So you would have a R-2800 fighter, a 2 x Jumo 211 bomber, an Ash 82 trainer, etc ... It puts things in perspective, more objective and without looking at a name with its connotation, or without looking at the looks of an aircraft. Just the stats and specifications, nothing more.

Kris


----------



## Condora (Aug 17, 2009)

Come on, there's a bit of both: you have lots of examples of different planes with the same engine, and some are not as good as the others...


----------



## red admiral (Aug 17, 2009)

Vincenzo said:


> A curiosity
> there were only four fighters that runs enough over 500 km/h, two british and two germans



Macchi C.200 is just in squadron service by the start of the war. Re 2000 flying but not ordered for RAI so no production.


----------



## Vincenzo (Aug 17, 2009)

red admiral said:


> Macchi C.200 is just in squadron service by the start of the war. Re 2000 flying but not ordered for RAI so no production.


it was not in squadron service. the 10° gruppo that get some planes in august but they prefereed the biplanes so go back the planes to 6° gruppo, the delivery were slow (29 at 10th november) not a squadriglia was ready before of war. 
The speed of macchi it 's ~500 km/h with my "runs enough over 500 km/h" i wanted a plane actually over (like a 510 km/h)


----------



## Elvis (Aug 17, 2009)

Vincenzo said:


> was obvious i in the 7th i've writed that 109 and spit there were. So it's obvious that you don't read all the topics


You are correct.
I responded to the initial question, which is the subject of this thread, not the ongoing conversation that had ensued.
However, it was your response to my post that was not clear.
You wrote that *NONE* of my choices were in service by 9/1/39, and that, my friend, was an incorrect statement (as I proved in a later response).
That is all you stated in that response. 
If you were commenting on _some_ of my choices, then you needed to note those specific aircraft in your response.
You did not, thus your response was not clear because it did not completely state the point you were trying to make.

OK, this needs to get dropped now. 

You weren't clear in your response. Live with it, don't live with, I don't care, but its getting petty.
I am not going to respond to anymore comments on this particular matter, in this thread.
If you _must_ continue this, PM me.


Elvis


----------



## Waynos (Aug 17, 2009)

More to it that just the engine through really. If you list single Merlin types (just types) you staert well enough with the Spit and Hurri, then it all goes a bit smelly with the BP Defiant and Hawker Hotspur


----------



## Civettone (Aug 17, 2009)

Someone should make a graph of maximum speed vs horsepower. Or perhaps not only maximum power but rather a coefficient of performance. 

It's simply no coincidence that the best fighter are _usually_ the fighters with the most powerful engines. Just look at what the best fighters of WW1 were. 

Spad XIII, Camel, SE.5a, F.2B, D-VII, D-XII, Ballila, ... all had the most powerful engines available. Also when looking at the twenties and thirties, the best fighters seem to have the most powerful engines available. For instance: in the early thirties they all had 300-350 hp, mid thirties the engine power was around 650 hp, and all those fighters were similar in performance.

When we think about inferior fighters, they usually have less power than the ones we consider to be superior. How rare is it that fighters with less powerful engines are superior to more powerful fighters? 

Of course the aircraft design matters. But I often notice that a fighter can catch up with another design as soon as they upgrade the engine. Just look at Japanese fighters and at Italian fighters. Both countries were using rather outdated designs (technically speaking) but as soon as they could use engines with decent power they could compete with allied adversaries. 

I'll even go further: I think there are few fighter aircraft with similar engine power and engine/weight ratio which differ sufficient to call one superior to the other. As such there are few really bad fighter designs...

Of course you could mention the Defiant but that's an obvious exception as it was in no way comparable to a conventional fighter. But even then, it did reach 500 kmh just like the Hotspur. I mean, just look at the Blackburn Roc and what it did with the 300 hp weaker Bristol engine.

One should make a list of all fighters together with their HP.

Kris


----------



## Civettone (Aug 17, 2009)

Ok, I devoted half an hour looking up this information from wikipedia

They are all fighters from the 20s. I've listed them by engine power. 
Perhaps the 20s were not the best choice as back in those days, fighter designs mainly focused on manoeuvrability and not so much on speed. But not to let the effort go to waste, here it is:

Spad S.81/1 with Hispano-Suiza 8Fb inline engine, 224 kW (300 hp) 240 km/h (149 mph) 
Fiat CR.1 with Isotta-Fraschini Asso V8 engine, 239 kW (320 hp) 270 km/h (168 mph) !
Fiat CR.20 with Fiat A.20, 306 kW (410 hp) 270 km/h (167 mph)
Gourdou-Leseurre GL.30 with a Gnome-Rhône 9Ady, 313 kW (420 hp) 250 km/h (155 mph) 
Gloster Gamecock with Bristol Jupiter VI 9-cylinder radial, 425 hp (317 kW) 155 mph 250 km/h
Fairey Firefly I with Curtiss D.12C 12-cylinder inline liquid-cooled, 430 hp 185 mph (298 km/h) 
Bristol Bulldog with Bristol Jupiter VII radial piston engine, 440 hp (328 kW) 178 mph, 287 km/h
Gloster Goldfinch with Bristol Jupiter VIIF 9-cylinder supercharged radial, 450 hp (335 kW) 172 mph (276 km/h)
Gloster Gorcock with Napier Lion IV 12-cylinder broad arrow water cooled, 450 hp (335 kW) 164 mph (263 km/h) 
NiD 42 C1 with Hispano-Suiza 12Hb, 336 kW (450 hp) 265 km/h (165 mph)
AW Siskin with Armstrong Siddeley Jaguar IV radial engine, 450 hp (336 kW) 156 mph, 251 km/h
Fokker D-XVI with Armstrong Siddeley Jaguar, 340 kW (460 hp) 330 km/h (205 mph)
Fairey Firefly II with Rolls-Royce F.XIS 12-cylinder inline liquid-cooled, 480 hp (358 kW) 223 mph (359 km/h)
Dewoitine D-27 with Hispano-Suiza 12Mc liquid-cooled V12 engine, 373 kW (500 hp) 312 km/h (194 mph) 
Svenska Jaktfalken with Bristol Jupiter VIIF radial engine, 520 hp (388 kW) 310 km/h (193 mph) 
Fokker D-XIII with Napier Lion XI, 425 kW (570 hp) 270 km/h (170 mph)
Fokker D-XIV with Hispano-Suiza 12Hb, 440 kW (590 hp) 274 km/h (170 mph)

Also ... they date from 1923 to 1929. Some have supercharged engines which means they achieve higher speed at altitude which was not possible for other aircraft. 

But look at that Fiat CR.1: very manoeuvrable but also very fast with merely 320 hp!

Kris


----------



## Shortround6 (Aug 17, 2009)

I think you are on to something.

Perhaps a thread of it's own?


----------



## Elvis (Aug 18, 2009)

Civettone said:


> Someone should make a graph of maximum speed vs horsepower.
> 
> Kris


"..._Tower Control calling *Captain HoHun and his Graph of Democracy*.
Captain, this thread is in danger! WE NEED YOUR HELP!!!
...calling Captain Hohun...come in, Captain Hohun!_..."


Sorry, my brain does strange things later at night, like channel old time Saturday afternoon matinee movie serial-esque type responses. 

Seriously, if you need a graph(s) done, Hohun's your man. That guy does some real beautiful work.





Elvis


----------



## Juha (Aug 18, 2009)

Yes kris
engines were very important. Look for ex. the quantum leap from Bf 109D to 109E. There was some major redesign in cooling systems but main difference was the change from Jumo 210 D to DB601A.

Also the big improvement when Spitfire IX was created, it was in essence a Spitfire V with some local strengthening powered by the new 60 Series Merlin instead of Merlin 45 or 46.

And P-51A vs P-51B.

Juha


----------



## Civettone (Aug 18, 2009)

yeah Hohun is amazing. But he has helped me out so much in the past already so I think I'll give him a break  



Kris


----------



## vanir (Aug 18, 2009)

Re: BF-109D

Due to the adamance of posters regarding the Jumo engine am currently investigating primary sources, which I had previously taken on face value from the work of people such as Alfred Price (whom also used primary sources as the basis of research, but closer to the end of the war when a lot of it was still a mess).

What I'm turning up is getting more confusing by the minute. I've photos of JGr 132 with OOB for 109D and pictures of what appear to me to be 109C. I have anecdotes from LEMB members I've PM'd for documentation saying they've "seen photographs of 109D in service which are definitely fitted with Daimler motors" and am waiting for some to be sent to my email box.
So far I have planview drawings sent to me of both Jumo and Daimler engine 109 and both of them have radiators under the nose (the external differences being exhaust stacks and air intake). Certainly the two DB600 protoypes had the radiators moved to the wings suchlike the Emil. But now it seems there are at least three 109D outlays, one which is really a 109C (aside from the engine no changes whatsoever that have yet been identified to me were made between the C and D variants), also a DB600 engine with the radiator under the nose, and what maybe propaganda photos of the DB600 engine with the radiators moved to the wings.

I'll post updates as I have them. In the case of the Jumo engine 109D this is appears to be a wholly administrative variant change, with no actual change on the production line from the C to the D. But as mentioned the planview with a DB600 and radiator under the nose is fascinating, other than the obvious difference of the exhaust stacks it looks pretty much identical to a 109C at first glance. Weird.


----------



## Timppa (Aug 19, 2009)

Civettone said:


> yeah Hohun is amazing. But he has helped me out so much in the past already so I think I'll give him a break
> Kris



IMHO it is very unfortunate, but I believe you won't see Henning (HoHun) ever in this forum, because of the personal attacks (as he saw them) in another thread.

Edit:
Back to the topic. Bf 109E-3 was the best fighter at that particular date, no doubt.


----------



## Civettone (Aug 21, 2009)

Kris


----------



## Elvis (Aug 21, 2009)

So it seems that THE choice has been whittled down to either the 109 or the Spitfire.
In particular, the Spitfire I or the 109-E.

To that end, here's an interesting excerpt from Aviation-History's Sptifire page...
"_The speed of the Spitfire I was marginally higher than that of its principal opponent the Luftwaffe's Messerschmitt Bf 109E, and it was infinitely more maneuverable than the German fighter although the Bf 109E could out climb and out dive the British fighter..._"

So which would you rather be fighting in? The Spitfire I or The 109-E?



Elvis


----------



## Shortround6 (Aug 21, 2009)

Unfortunatly there are about 3 Spitfire MK Is.

The Early ones with a fixed pitch wooden 2 bladed airscrew.

An intermediate one with a 2 position airscrew.

The later ones with the variable pitch or constant speed unit. 

Strangley enough it was the early ones with the fixed pitch 2 bladed airscrews that were the fastest at altitude although that might have had something to do with the lack of armour and the bullet proof windscreen that was generally thought to cause a 6mph drop in speed by itself. 

Take off and climb really suffered with the fixed pitch prop.

This may affect the ratings of the 2 fighters in Sept of 1939 vrs Aug of 1940.


----------



## Condora (Aug 21, 2009)

Ouch!
Seems like we've reached the "hot debate" stage... 
It depends on your preferences.


----------



## Vincenzo (Aug 21, 2009)

On the speed: early Spit (w/o armour) can go 591 km/h at their rated altitude with 5' power setting, the Emil-3 can go 570 km/h at their rated altitude with 30' power setting


----------



## Elvis (Aug 21, 2009)

Shortround6 said:


> Unfortunatly there are about 3 Spitfire MK Is.
> 
> The Early ones with a fixed pitch wooden 2 bladed airscrew.
> 
> ...


Well, if it isn't my favourite debate foe. 
You seem to be more of an expert on the subject of Spits than I (and I claim to not really know that much about different mk.'s of Spitfire), so I'll throw this back to you.
Which of those different types were in service by 9/1/39?
...or are you saying all 3 that you listed were already in service by that date?


Elvis


----------



## Elvis (Aug 21, 2009)

Vincenzo said:


> On the speed: early Spit (w/o armour) can go 591 km/h at their rated altitude with 5' power setting, the Emil-3 can go 570 km/h at their rated altitude with 30' power setting


Vincenzo,

Please forgive my ignorance, but could you please explain the "power setting" you referred to?
Being an Amercian, I interpret the marks you put with those numbers as meaning "feet" or "foot", as in 1 foot = 0.3048 meters.
So to me, your unit of measurement for the power setting doesn't make sense.

Thanks for your help.




Elvis


----------



## Shortround6 (Aug 21, 2009)

Elvis said:


> Well, if it isn't my favourite debate foe.
> You seem to be more of an expert on the subject of Spits than I (and I claim to not really know that much about different mk.'s of Spitfire), so I'll throw this back to you.
> Which of those different types were in service by 9/1/39?
> ...or are you saying all 3 that you listed were already in service by that date?
> ...



The 2 blade machines were and the 2 position 3 blade machines were in service in a few numbers. The constant speed propellors, whither by De Havilland or by Rotol didn't show up until the spring/summer of 1940 although it seems that they were planned for. I believe the difference between the MK III Merlin and the Earlier versions was primarily the universal propellor shaft that could take De Havilland or Rotol propellors interchagably.
My point was that comments about the performance of Battle of Britian aircraft might not apply to aircraft flying almost a year earlier.


----------



## Vincenzo (Aug 21, 2009)

Elvis said:


> Vincenzo,
> 
> Please forgive my ignorance, but could you please explain the "power setting" you referred to?
> Being an Amercian, I interpret the marks you put with those numbers as meaning "feet" or "foot", as in 1 foot = 0.3048 meters.
> ...



sorry ' was for minute, time unit of measurement, i thinked that ' was a international standard


----------



## Vincenzo (Aug 21, 2009)

Elvis said:


> Well, if it isn't my favourite debate foe.
> You seem to be more of an expert on the subject of Spits than I (and I claim to not really know that much about different mk.'s of Spitfire), so I'll throw this back to you.
> Which of those different types were in service by 9/1/39?
> ...or are you saying all 3 that you listed were already in service by that date?
> ...




all 3 were already in service


----------



## Elvis (Aug 22, 2009)

Shortround6 said:


> The 2 blade machines were and the 2 position 3 blade machines were in service in a few numbers. The constant speed propellors, whither by De Havilland or by Rotol didn't show up until the spring/summer of 1940 although it seems that they were planned for. I believe the difference between the MK III Merlin and the Earlier versions was primarily the universal propellor shaft that could take De Havilland or Rotol propellors interchagably.
> My point was that comments about the performance of Battle of Britian aircraft might not apply to aircraft flying almost a year earlier.


Hey that's great, thanks for clarifying that.
From the last part of your post, I get the idea that you think I'm commenting outside of the timeline prescribed by the title of this thread, however, while they may have been in the BoB, the Spit Mk.I and the 109E were also operational by 9/1/39. Some 109D's, too, but by then it was mostly 109E's.

...and as I was perusing around the net for more info on the Spit Mk.I (since we're talking about it here and thus, now I'm a little curious), I ran across a page entitled (oddly enough)...
"Spitfire Mk.I vs. Me109E A performance comparison".
Quite informative.


Elvis


----------



## Elvis (Aug 22, 2009)

Vincenzo said:


> all 3 were already in service


Not according to Shortround6.


Shortround6 said:


> The 2 blade machines were and the 2 position 3 blade machines were in service in a few numbers. The constant speed propellors, whither by De Havilland or by Rotol didn't show up until the spring/summer of 1940


...maybe you boys should hash that one out between yourselves.


Elvis


----------



## vanir (Aug 22, 2009)

After the Watts two blade fixed pitch, the De Havilland three-position, three blade was introduced, which was fitted to most Spits by 1940 although most Hurricanes still had the two blade fixed pitch.
Then came the Rotol which was the first true constant speed fitted during 1940. After 1943 I think De Havilland started license producing the Curtiss Electric constant speed unit, which could handle higher power loads (the Rotol had a bit of lag once you got over 1500hp), so later Spits were either mostly De Havilland (Curtiss Electric) constant speeds and early Spits were mostly Rotol constant speeds, whilst the earliest Spits had De Havilland three-position variable pitch. It had three positions, not two.

Funny part is I think the Rotol mechanism was actually invented by De Havilland.

In Sept 1939 most Spits in the field will have the de Havilland three-position variable pitch, and most Hurricanes will have the Watts two blade fixed pitch. This was a large factor in aerial battles over Dunkirk, as the Luftwaffe was not expecting the Spits to perform as well as they did, that is to say with their variable pitch propellers were equivalent in all respects to the BF-109, whilst BEF Hurricanes all had Watts props and poor performance above 3500m.


Update on the BF-109D story.
I hereby stand corrected!
The BF-109D indeed is basically a 109C with the 210D Jumo instead of the 210G Jumo.
But as I knew must therefore be the case, I have opened a can of worms. At this point it appears the very limited run of BF-109C may not have achieved full production status (and may have been all taken of 109B lines and modified), whilst the first BF-109 with guns in the wings to achieve mass production was the D (ca.665 produced).
Earlier publications such as those of Alfred Price had tossed 109D production in with the 109C since there are no differences between these two airframes other than reverting to the engine of the 109B. In other words there is no change in production, no airframe alterations from the C. So he thought, and it seems logical, that the 109C was merely produced with both 210G and 210D engines where this is not the case according to current celebrations of early model designations.
However importantly other experts agree that several questions remain about the finer details of early BF-109 production, some can't even agree on armament fits. There is precious little conclusive documentation about them, as this entire period was really a development one for the Emil.
It appears the initial type the B was followed by a short run development type the C (only some 58 produced) and then the Jumo engine versions were finalised in the first mass production type the D. Concurrantly prototypes were used to develop the E which entered mass production shortly after.
So the other posters here were quite correct.


----------



## Vincenzo (Aug 22, 2009)

Shortround6 said:


> The 2 blade machines were and the 2 position 3 blade machines were in service in a few numbers. The constant speed propellors, whither by De Havilland or by Rotol didn't show up until the spring/summer of 1940 although it seems that they were planned for. I believe the difference between the MK III Merlin and the Earlier versions was primarily the universal propellor shaft that could take De Havilland or Rotol propellors interchagably.
> My point was that comments about the performance of Battle of Britian aircraft might not apply to aircraft flying almost a year earlier.



if it's true that the de Havilland prop came from 78th Spit you can see here production page 001 that delivery started in february '39, if it's true that Merlin III (can take the Rotol) came from 175th Spit that delivery started in may '39.


----------



## Shortround6 (Aug 22, 2009)

From the site reference so kindly provided by "Elvis".

Spitfire Mk I versus Me 109 E

It appears that the First Rotol equiped Spitfires didn't reach the squadrons until Nov/Dec of 39. It also appears that the DeHavilland 2 pitch propellor could be refitted/modified into a constant speed unit.

I would also like to say that just because an engine/propshaft "could" be fitted with a certain constant speed propellor doesn't it mean it "WAS" fitted with that propellor right away. There were shortages of these propellors and it seems bomber command might have had priority at times. 

As far as Elvis's comment " I get the idea that you think I'm commenting outside of the timeline prescribed by the title of this thread, however, while they may have been in the BoB, the Spit Mk.I and the 109E were also operational by 9/1/39"

I know you were trying to be helpful but it appears the British didn't help matters because they made no distiction between any of these MK Is no matter what propellor, pilot protection, self-sealing tanks or maximium alllowable boost they were using. 
SO in Sept. 1939 you could have a MK I with no pilot protection or self sealing tanks using a 2 bladed wooden propellor and a max boost of 6 1/2 lbs while in Aug of 1940 you could have a MK I with 73lbs of aromour, a bullet proof windscreen, self sealing tanks, a Rotol (or DeHavilland) constant speed propellor and a max boost of 12lbs. TO the British they were both MK I's with no "A"s or "B"s or "*" or anything help us latter day peaple keep them straight


----------



## Vincenzo (Aug 22, 2009)

Shortround6 said:


> From the site reference so kindly provided by "Elvis".
> 
> Spitfire Mk I versus Me 109 E
> 
> ...



i can agree for rotol prop the merlin III can not must, so we have not spitfire with rotol for 31 august but for de havilland prop spit they are surely in delivery from february.


----------



## Vincenzo (Aug 22, 2009)

vanir said:


> Update on the BF-109D story.
> .



I don't understand you tell that the C have the MG-17 in the wings or not? Afaik it'have .
In some sources the engine of D it's not the same of B but it's a different sub version (Jumo 211 Da)


----------



## Shortround6 (Aug 22, 2009)

Vincenzo said:


> i can agree for rotol prop the merlin III can not must, so we have not spitfire with rotol for 31 august but for de havilland prop spit they are surely in delivery from february.



I would guess that it is the 2 position ( fine or corse) De Havilland propellor rather than the full range or constant speed unit. Much better than the fixed pitch wooden propellor but not as good as the coonstant speed units.


----------



## vanir (Aug 23, 2009)

I did a fair bit of research on this a little while ago as I was looking over some remodelling requests for early Spits in the Il2 game (I was remodelling some Kittyhawks at the time). The de Havilland prop following on from the Watts (ca.Feb39 presumably) was definitely a three-position.
De Havilland were making other two-position props for their other aircraft, iirc two-blade units. They were one of the pioneers of variable pitch propellers after all.

Like I said it was the Rotol that was constant speed but I recall reading somewhere the mechanism was actually designed by de Havilland (so this is probably the reason for descriptions of retrofitted de Havilland props with the constant speed mechanism). The de Havilland constant speed actually put into production was a licensed version of the Curtiss Electric and came later, this mechanism I don't think would adapt to an earlier variable pitch unit.

Germany had developed the aeromechanical screw in 1938.


edit. hang on I just had a funny thought. Perhaps what they mean by three-position was that it could be feathered? Well that's just egg on my face isn't it lol
that's okay, if one has to get something wrong or misinterpret stuff at least I'm in the right company to be corrected and get it right


----------



## Elvis (Aug 23, 2009)

Vanir,

Who's wrong?
Even, "feathered", is a position.
We just have to come to some kind of agreement as to whether its a two position or a three position prop.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Shortround6,

True, but on 9/1/39, a Spitfire pilot could be flying with a 2 bladed fixed prop or a 3 bladed vari-pitch prop, but we now know they wouldn't be flying with a constant speed prop, so that one's out.
Still, as you say, they're ALL Mk.I's.

SO, going on the assumption that the vari-pitch prop is going to give the most superior performance, would you guys rather fly that plane, or the Me-109E?


Elvis


----------



## vanir (Aug 23, 2009)

I'm going to be controversial again, this is anecdotal from Rall, who clearly states the service ceiling of the Emil was about a thousand metres higher than the Spit during BoB. When I talk about service ceiling of course I'm talking about that height at which climb rate begins to drop dramatically, which is often roughly about 1500m or so above the full throttle height for most a/c it seems, modified by conditions such as ram air intake. The service ceiling is quite a bit lower than the absolute (maximum) ceiling in most cases.
Typical prewar (fixed pitch) not much higher than 3500m (for example a Hurricane with a Watts didn't perform well above this height). For variable pitch like the Jumo 210 equipped 109 it might be 4500m which is a good height. Many other prewar fighters performed well up to about 4000m whilst bombers cruising at 4500-5000m were considered to be at high altitude. The absolute ceilings of these aircraft would be more like 8500m for fighters and 7500m for bombers so their actual performance by altitude isn't well represented by this (it usually takes a lot of fuel and patience to reach absolute ceiling), but indeed a formation of interceptors will already be cruising at a good altitude so would always be diving on attack anyway, regardless that this would be well above their best performance altitude.

For the BoB Spit according to Rall, it didn't climb well above 6000m where the Emil was strong to 7000m and for this specific reason, frei jäger roamed at this altitude for its notable advantages over the Spit during initial engagement. He notes of course they could not do this when tied by close escort doctrine, and this took away one of the main advantages of the Emil, so pilots didn't like those sorties much and preferred to roam free.
In a level flight engagement in the Spit's altitude region I'd say the tables are a little turned, the Emil had some advantages but required a successful tactical approach to make use of them.

Nevertheless add to the fact the aeromechanical screw cuts about 50% pilot workload in any transitional manoeuvring, increasing situational awareness, it trumps even the Rotol and the variable position type doesn't have the performance flexibility for maintaining maximum thrust delivery through varied conditions.

I like the Spit, but I'd be in an Emil.


----------



## Vincenzo (Aug 24, 2009)

After my post number 71st on weapon this is on speed
i put a list of fastest fighters, at time, i put fighter from around 450 km/h and over. the 400/450 km/h fighters was not slow for the time, there are many under 300 km/h fighters in the late '30, but i don't count it for a fastest work and for this reason: this speed are can also with biplanes.
The rated altitude are from 3 to 6 km

Around 450 km/h
Seversky P-35 
Polikarpov I-16 not guns variant 
Hawk 75 with fixed carriage

450/500 km/h
Fokker D.XXI 
Nakajima Ki-27 
Fiat G.50 
Morane Saulnier M.S.406 
Messerschmitt Bf 109 Jumo engined 
Curtiss Hawk 75A P-36
Fokker G.I 
Potez 631 
Messerschmitt Bf 110 B 

Over 500 km/h
Heinkel He 112 B
Hawker Hurricane I 

Around and over 550 km/h
Messerschmitt Bf 109 E 
Supermarine Spitfire I 
Messerschmitt Bf 110 C


----------



## Civettone (Aug 24, 2009)

Can we also include the He 100D ?


Kris


----------



## Vincenzo (Aug 24, 2009)

Civettone said:


> Can we also include the He 100D ?
> 
> 
> Kris



afaik He 100 was not a before of war fighter, but if you have different history...


----------



## Clay_Allison (Aug 24, 2009)

Vincenzo said:


> afaik He 100 was not a before of war fighter, but if you have different history...


maybe he means He-112, the fighter the 109 beat in the fighter competition.


----------



## Vincenzo (Aug 24, 2009)

Clay_Allison said:


> maybe he means He-112, the fighter the 109 beat in the fighter competition.



The 112 B is in list


----------



## Civettone (Aug 24, 2009)

Weren't the first He 100D-0's delivered before September 1939 ??



Kris


----------



## Vincenzo (Aug 24, 2009)

afaik all were delivered after the start of war, also there are not order for He 100, also if built no air force for delivered


----------



## Condora (Aug 25, 2009)

Built and flying before the war, but never entered service in the Luftwaffe.
The Luftwaffe used it's pictures to "intoxicate" the allies that they had a new aircraft. 

Of the two dozen built, some were sold to URSS and Japan, and are supposed to have influenced the development of the LaGG-3, MiG-1, and Ki-61.


----------



## Elvis (Aug 25, 2009)

I can see it, however, from this view...






...it almost appears to be loosely based on the Stuka dive bomber, only "slicker" and (obviously) higher performing.


Elvis


----------



## Vincenzo (Aug 25, 2009)

After some research the 3 D-0 were built before of war, imho they are not actual fighter, a fighter need a air force that operate its


----------



## Clay_Allison (Aug 25, 2009)

The thread title does say best IN SERVICE before 9/01/39, not best invented.


----------



## vanir (Aug 26, 2009)

Weren't the first BF-110C delivered in Nov39, first used in combat at Heliogoland in Dec against Wellingtons.
AFAIK the 32 BF-110 on strength with LG(Z)1 and ZG1 up to this time were the development models with Jumo engines in service testing (110B).

Also Polikarpov I-16 is 460km/h in 1936 with M-25 (type 5 iirc), in 1939 with M-62R top speed is 525km/h (type 18 I think) or with M-63 and cannon (type 24) 500km/h.

And isn't Hurricane more like 550km/h with Rotol. 510km/h was for Watts I believe tested 1938 during a speed run with the two blade prop (it broke a record).

Also I think the Boulton Paul Defiant was delivered before Sep39, top speed 505km/h.


c'mon say it, we'd all rather be in the Boulton Paul Defiant against any other a/c in 1939 right? Right?


----------



## Condora (Aug 26, 2009)

vanir said:


> c'mon say it, we'd all rather be in the Boulton Paul Defiant against any other a/c in 1939 right? Right?



Fast enough to fly away, with rear-facing weapons to discourage any pursuer?
Mmmm... Is the rear gunner Dr. Jones Sr.?


----------



## Vincenzo (Aug 26, 2009)

vanir said:


> Weren't the first BF-110C delivered in Nov39, first used in combat at Heliogoland in Dec against Wellingtons.
> AFAIK the 32 BF-110 on strength with LG(Z)1 and ZG1 up to this time were the development models with Jumo engines in service testing (110B).
> 
> Also Polikarpov I-16 is 460km/h in 1936 with M-25 (type 5 iirc), in 1939 with M-62R top speed is 525km/h (type 18 I think) or with M-63 and cannon (type 24) 500km/h.
> ...



I read somewhere there are in squadrons 95 Bf 110 at start of war (27 B and 68 C) if need i look the web page where i read it.

see for russian fighters I-15 and I-16 fighters it's for a game but data from good russian book (i see same other page more hard to find)

for hurricane there are only watts prop at time, and for true rotol prop non up the max speed see Willaims site

the 264th squadron (the first with defiant) was formed the 30 october...


----------



## Condora (Aug 26, 2009)

Vincenzo said:


> I read somewhere there are in squadrons 95 Bf 110 at start of war (27 B and 68 C) if need i look the web page where i read it.



The DB 601 were available for the Bf110 in 1938. They had almost a year's production when the war started.


----------



## Altea (Aug 28, 2009)

Vincenzo said:


> see for russian fighters I-15 and I-16 fighters it's for a game but data from good russian book (i see same other page more hard to find)
> 
> ...



Your link seems to be not very reliable, or a little outdated. 

The I-16 tip 6 never existed.

The best I 16 tip 5 was the serial number 521560. It reached 429 km/h at SL and 475 at 3000m with a simple M25A. 

The experimental I-16 tip 24 reached 489 km/h at 4780m. 

Serial planes were usualy slower. 440-457km/h for the tip 5

460-490 km/h for the tip 24 to 29. There were huge disparities from a serial soviet plane to another.

Anyway, on september the 1st, only a few I-16 tip 18 were in service ( I-16 with the M-62 engine)


Regards.


----------



## Vincenzo (Aug 28, 2009)

can i ask your source?


----------



## Altea (Aug 29, 2009)

Vincenzo said:


> can i ask your source?



Of course

Istrebitel’ I-16 - Mikhail Maslov - Exprint
I-5, I-15, I-15bis- Polygon 1
Encyclopédie illustrée de l’aviation - Editions Atlas
Soviet air force fighters -W Green, G swanborough- Putnam and Jane’s
Poslednye istrebiteli Polikarpova I-18a, I-185 – Yoori Googlya - Arkhivpress Kiev
Istrebitel’ I-16 - Mikhail Maslov – Armada
Les avions de chasse Polikarpov – Herbert Leonard – ouest france
Polikarpov Fighters in action part II, - squadron signal 162
L’aviation de chasse républicaine espagnole – Juan Arraez Cerda- -Avions HS 3
Les faucons de Staline -Kosminkov-Hazanov- Hors série Fanatique de l’aviation
V nebe Ispanii 1936-1939ie gody - S Abrosov – Moskva 2003
Le Polikarpov I-16 – Christophe Cony – Avions 
Polikarpov I-16 fighter Its foreruners and progeny -Red star 3 -Yefim Gordon and K dexter;- Midland Publishing
POLIKARPOV I-16 -P. Laurreau, J. Arraez Cerda, S. Soulard, G. Duranthie-Éditions J. Kytka-English version translated by Brinsley Best...
....

And classics...
Samoletostroenie part 1
Shavrov Part1 История конструкций самолетов в СССР до 1938...
... i probably miss some of them. But *never *forget to be aware browsing some russian forums as airforce.ru, Sukhoi.ru,13th airbase Glasnet .ru, airpages ru where you can find a lot of great specialists of the question...

Regards

Altea


----------



## Civettone (Aug 29, 2009)

Hope to see some more input from you in the future, Altea!


And eum, the He 100D was delivered before WW2. So one could say it counts. Sure, it wasn't operational but still ... 

Kris


----------



## Waynos (Aug 29, 2009)

For a long time it was thought the He 100 had entered services, though it was reported as the He113. RAF pilots even filed comnbat reports where they described dogfighting it! Such is the fog of war. But at least it existed, another frequently reported fighter, the Fw198, was a complete figment of the imagination.


----------



## Vincenzo (Aug 29, 2009)

Altea said:


> Of course
> 
> Istrebitel’ I-16 - Mikhail Maslov - Exprint
> I-5, I-15, I-15bis- Polygon 1
> ...



Thank you
for true for Shavrov part 1, I-16 type 6 there is "И-16, тип 6 — серийный, как и тип 5, но с двигателем М-25А в 730 л. с. и с двумя пулеметами." and speed indicated are not the same but not away from my link so it's no so bad


----------



## Elvis (Aug 30, 2009)

Vincenzo said:


> for true for Shavrov part 1, I-16 type 6 there is "И-16, тип 6 — серийный, как и тип 5, но с двигателем М-25А в 730 л. с. и с двумя пулеметами." and speed indicated are not the same but not away from my link so it's no so bad.


...and for those of us who don't speak Russian, that translates to "_I-16, type 6 - serial, like type 5, but with the engine M-25A at 730 liters. with. and with two machine guns._"

However, it's 730_HP_, or in metric-speak, 537KW. Not "730 litres".
A "Litre" is a measurement of displacement, which in this case is 29.8.

Here's a quick rundown of the different varients, from Military Factory's I-16 page. 

TsKB-12 - Prototype Model Designation fitted with M-22 radial piston engine generating 480hp.
TsKB-12bis - Second Prototype Model Designation with improved performance and uprated Wright SR-1820-F3 Cyclone powerplant.
I-16 Type 1 - Base Pre-Production Model Designation fitted with M-22; 10 produced.
I-16 Type 4 - Fitted with imported-Cyclone powerplant.
I-16 Type 5 - M-25 700hp license-built Cyclone powerplant; improved armor.
I-16 Type 6 - Initial Major Production Variant fitted with M-25A 730hp powerplant.
I-16 Type 10 - Fitted with M-25V 750hp powerplant; 4 x 7.62mm machine guns.
I-16 Type 17 - Provision for six 82mm rockets; 2 x 20mm cannons in place of standard machine guns; reinforced structure throughout.
I-16 Type 18 - M-62 radial piston engine generating 920hp; 4 x 7.62mm machine guns.
I-16 Type 24 - M-62 OR M-63 radial piston engines delivering 1,000hp and 1,,100hp respectively; reinforced wing elements; 4 x 7.62mm machine guns.
I-16 Type 28 - Fitted with M-63 radial piston engine.
I-16 Type 30 - Fitted with M-63 radial piston engine.
I-16 SPB - Dive Bomber Variant
I-16UTI - Dual-Control Trainer Model 



Elvis


----------



## Altea (Aug 30, 2009)

> Elvis said:
> 
> 
> > ...and for those of us who don't speak Russian, that translates to "_I-16, type 6 - serial, like type 5, but with the engine M-25A at 730 liters. with. and with two machine guns._"
> ...


----------



## Vincenzo (Aug 30, 2009)

Altea, please, for help me in research can give russian name of your russian source


----------



## Altea (Aug 30, 2009)

Vincenzo said:


> Altea, please, for help me in research can give russian name of your russian source



Unfortunately i don't have cyrillic on my PC. Well i have but it bugs. So browse russian sites like airwar.ru or airpages.ru, and "cut" references from there.

For instance at ?-16

Источники 

"История конструкций самолетов в СССР,1938-1950гг." /В.Б. Шавров/ 
"Самолеты сталинских соколов" /К. Косминков, Д. Гринюк/ 
"Истребитель И-16." /Михаил Маслов/; приложение к журналу "М-ХОББИ", №2 1997 г. 
"Истребитель И-16." /"Война в воздухе" № 41,42,43./ 
"Советские самолеты" /А.С. Яковлев/ 

or have a look at commercial sites

www.Aviapress.com: plastic model kits, military books and magazines - the choice of the whole internet 


but please avoid as much as you can _squadron signal _ series for soviet planes. Plenty of flood, errors, _clichés _, pure inventions and prejudices off all kinds...

Regards


----------



## Civettone (Aug 30, 2009)

Altea, wasn't there also a I-16 Sturmovik version ??


Kris


----------



## Vincenzo (Aug 31, 2009)

Civettone said:


> Altea, wasn't there also a I-16 Sturmovik version ??
> 
> 
> Kris



do you talking of 20 mm variants?


----------



## Altea (Aug 31, 2009)

Hello



Civettone said:


> Altea, wasn't there also a I-16 Sturmovik version ??
> 
> 
> Kris





There were several sturmovik versions derivated from the I-16.

First you had the *TsKB-18* project in 1934. It was a derivative of Polikarpov tip 4, with increased wing span to 10m, armored cockpit and 4 ShKAS or PV-1 machine guns and 100kg bombs (it's unclear if there were provision for 2 x 100kg bombs, or 100 kg in total). One tested from spring 1935 with inconclusive results. Supposingly due to it’s weak M-22, lost Shturmovik competition against the Yatsenko DI-6. Moroever in 1935 zavod 19 delivered more than 600 M-25 (licence buil WC 1820) engines, and some guenine american Wright Cyclones from imported kits. 

So two tip 5 were transformed in 1936 and fitted with 6 ShKAS, that could be inclinated at 20° for ground fire, non serial.



> *Vincenzo*
> 
> do you talking of 20 mm variants?



Nothing common, except the I-16. The canon fitted I-16 was called *TsKB-12P *(Pushka = Canon) project. It was a I-16 tip 5, with 2 ShVAK canons and 2 ShKAS in the wings. Tested from july to september 1936. Produced from 1937 in zavod 21 as Polikarpov I-16 tip 12.

But we have already treated that subject. 

http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/av...e-1-september-1939-a-20093-13.html#post551185

_The Tip 17 was the tip 10 airframe variant fitted with canons.
You forgot the tip 12, that was the tip 5 variant fitted with the same 20 canons_

_I-16 Type 28 - Fitted with M-63 radial piston engine. 

It was the canon armed variant of the tip 24.
You forgot to mention the tip 27, the canon armed variant of the tip 18._

I just mention that heavily armed soviet monoplanes I-16P or Tupolev I-14 and Grigorovitch IP-1 with recoilness APK 37- 76 mm Kurchevski canons were primary intended to fight against heavy planes as Tupolev TB-3, not ground targets.



At the end of 1937, was flyng the experimental SN° 9211, with 6 wing ShKASes with possibility to inclinate them at 9°, provision for 6 25 kg bombs and fixed main gears.
Curiously it’s quoted as Polikarpov I-16 tip 11 by the main I-16 specialist Mikhail Maslov. But serial rather number seemes to design a I-16 tip 9. Why not? Maybe the tip 9 was the prototype for the hypothetical Polikarpov I-16 tip 11 serie. Whatever this last attempt to make a Shturmovik from the I-16 was never produced.

Some images about the 9211 shturmovik version











and it's _pivotable_ ShKAS battery.





Regards

Altea


----------



## Elvis (Sep 1, 2009)

Altea,

You should write to Military Factory and Google and let them know about those errors.

...btw, which of the I-16 fighter varients was most numerous during WWII?



Elvis


----------



## Vincenzo (Sep 1, 2009)

Elvis said:


> Altea,
> 
> You should write to Military Factory and Google and let them know about those errors.
> 
> ...



i think the error are comon of english (old) source, talking of not "english speaking" aircrafts


----------



## Altea (Sep 1, 2009)

Elvis said:


> Altea,
> 
> You should write to Military Factory and Google and let them know about those errors.



first, it's not my buisiness,
secund, it often has no effect: some redactors are as much hopeless as pretentious. See squadron signal 162 book as example of shame. Of course nobody's perfect, and _errare humanum est_. But NOT at *virtually every *sentence! _Perseverare diabolicum _. No excuses to that bullshit, it was published during _glasnost-perestroïka_ period, when soviet archives were open about more than 10 years. 
I don't make illusions any more about human kind.



> ...btw, which of the I-16 fighter varients was most numerous during WWII?




Without any doubt the UTI-4: 3189 built from 1938 to 1942

see table from:

Èñòðåáèòåëü È-16 - - Ìîäèôèêàöèè

year: 1938 1939 1940 1941 1942 *Total*
type 5: 274 53 0 0 0 *327* 
тип 10: 508 426 0 0 0 * 934 *
тип 12: 12 0 0 0 0 *12 *
тип 15: (УТИ-4) 352 635 1103 1016 83 * 3189 *
тип 17: 27 314 0 0 0 *341* 
тип 18: 0 177 0 0 0 *177 * 
тип 24: 0 155 760 19 0 *934 * 
тип 27: 0 59 0 0 0 *59 * 
тип 28: 0 16 277 0 0 *293* 
тип 29: 0 0 570 80 0 *650 * 

Then the last 24,27, 28,29 types

btw i don't advice you to trust that site too much in other aspects, since it's from Mikhail Maslov book of 1997 Armada, with a lot of errors, corrected in the 2005th Exprint edition

Regards


----------



## vikingBerserker (Sep 1, 2009)

That's great info, thanks Altea!


----------



## Altea (Sep 2, 2009)

Hello,

Since there is a kind of opinion poll here, i would quote first:

Bf 109E
Spit mkI


and alltogether

Curtss H75, Morane MS-406, Polikarpov I-16 tip18, I-153, Fiat G-50, Hurricane mkI. 

With some nuances. Pilot for pilot, if being very experienced one i would choose unstable and very nervous I-16. In other cases lazy Hurricane, well balanced MS-406 or easy I-153 for a rookie. It gives more chances to survive.


----------



## Elvis (Sep 2, 2009)

Altea said:


> ...it's not my buisiness...



Altea,

First off, thank you for answering my question. I do appreciate the effort.
Second, you do what you want, but you made it your business when you tore my post apart.
If you know the information is incorrect, or outdated, I would think the people who run those sites would want to know that.
Could be that they already know, but have forgotten to update the page.
Your email could serve as a _kindly_ reminder.


Elvis


----------



## Altea (Sep 29, 2009)

Vincenzo said:


> Altea, please, for help me in research can give russian name of your russian source




Sorry for being late. My sources:

http://www.servimg.com/image_preview.php?i=15&u=13426640






I think the best book for the I-16 should be the *corrected* edition in french and english I-16, a revolutionnary plane in Kytka editions, in some mounths...The old one is close to the Maslov's 1997 armada variant.


----------



## Tzaw1 (Sep 29, 2009)

You can see too:


----------



## Vincenzo (Sep 29, 2009)

happy to see so many material, but there is a trouble as i writing in cyrillic with latin keyboard?


----------



## Altea (Sep 30, 2009)

Tzaw1 said:


> You can see too:




I wouldn't advice Voina v Vozduke 137, it seems to be a cpoy paste from squadron signal. The others books are very good. Maybe Mikhail Maslov's book need to be updated (in operationnal). Technical is perfect as usual.




> happy to see so many material, but there is a trouble as i writing in cyrillic with latin keyboard?



Try with Lexilogos keyboard

Clavier russe cyrillique en ligne - LEXILOGOS >>

Regards


----------



## Vincenzo (Sep 30, 2009)

thank you usefull link


----------

