# Is Spitfire really the BEST British fighter???



## Chiron (Feb 21, 2005)

Is Spitfire really the de facto fighter Britian can offered against Germans'???
I heard Spitfire was unable to keep up the paste in against German new fighters such as much superior FW 190 and later the jet fighter????

By the way, I just found out that although Spitfire was one of the best planes in Europe, it proven itself ineffective against Zeros in Pacific theatre: Spitfire was faster but weak in dog fight'


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 21, 2005)

The Spit could easily deal with the Fw-190 by about the Mk.VIII. It is also widely recognised that the Mk.XIV was the best dogfighter of the war...I havent heard of any combat reports with the 262's but if the P-47 could manage them im sure the Spitfire could. I would say it was easily Britains best fighter.


----------



## mosquitoman (Feb 21, 2005)

The Tempest was right up there aswell, if not the best british fighter it was a very close second, has anybody got stats for a Tempest and a late model Spit? It's probably the only way we're going to tell


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 21, 2005)

Sure thing, Ill have a look round...


----------



## mosquitoman (Feb 21, 2005)

> Manufacture Hawker
> Model Tempest Mk V
> Type Fighter-bomber
> Power Plant 2,180 hp Napier Sabre IIA, B, or C
> ...



Here's the Tempest MkV


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 21, 2005)

> Technical data on the Supermarine Spitfire F.Mk XIV
> Powerplant 1 × Rolls Royce Griffon 65 Vee, rated at 2050 hp (1528.25 kW) Role during war Air superiority Fighter
> Fighter
> Fighter-bomber
> ...






> Technical data on the Hawker Tempest F.Mk V Series 2
> Powerplant 1 × Napier Sabre IIC H-type, rated at 2260 hp (1684.81 kW) Role during war Fighter
> Fighter-bomber
> 
> ...



Sorry its a bit messy, but you should be able to read it...

Ooops! Almost forgot the source: http://www.xs4all.nl/~fbonne/warbirds/ww2ixmanuult.html#0-index


----------



## mosquitoman (Feb 21, 2005)

I got mine from the database here


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 21, 2005)

I dont really use the database here...its not terribly good  We're hoping to expand it though...


----------



## mosquitoman (Feb 21, 2005)

oh well, looking at your results it looks like the Tempest might win, what would be useful are rate of roll, turn, dive for the manouverability side of things


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 21, 2005)

Im looking for stats on the Mk.22 at the moment...


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 21, 2005)

Well I havent found any yet, but www.supermarine-spitfire.co.uk has a nice amount of stats and history on the plane.


----------



## mosquitoman (Feb 21, 2005)

good website that

(300th post, finally)


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 21, 2005)

Well done. Have a drink


----------



## mosquitoman (Feb 21, 2005)

Not yet, when I get to 500 maybe


----------



## P51ace 16 (Feb 21, 2005)

Alright i think that the typhoon is a air superiority fighter in wwii
:evilbat:


----------



## P51ace 16 (Feb 21, 2005)

Alright i think that the typhoon is a air superiority fighter in wwii
:evilbat:


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 21, 2005)

No...the Typhoon was a poor fighter, except at really low altitudes, hence why it was used in the Ground Attack role. The Tempest was far better.


----------



## mosquitoman (Feb 21, 2005)

Yes but is it the BEST british fighter? That's the original question


----------



## P51ace 16 (Feb 21, 2005)

way better than the spitfire and all the italian fighters


----------



## P51ace 16 (Feb 21, 2005)

he he he he he he he he he he he he


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 21, 2005)

No way?!


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 21, 2005)

oh come on everything was better than the italian fighters, but yes i think the spit was our best fighter, and it gave far more service than any other.............


----------



## Chiron (Feb 21, 2005)

Hey, guys, why there were Spitfires with clipped elliptical wings? Whats that for? I think that destroyed the total beauty of Spitfire............


----------



## mosquitoman (Feb 21, 2005)

For better performance at low level I think, don't know how it helped though


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 21, 2005)

Yes it was to help with low level performance.



the lancaster kicks ass said:


> oh come on everything was better than the italian fighters, but yes i think the spit was our best fighter, and it gave far more service than any other.............



The Italians built some of the greatest fighters of the war, namely the Series 5 figthers.


----------



## Chiron (Feb 21, 2005)

By the way, did Spitfire participate in any escorting role during the bombing in Berlin????

Why didnt Britian send Spitfire to escort Lancaster to Germany?


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 21, 2005)

The Spitfire's range was average at best. It was an Interceptor, not an Escort.


----------



## Anonymous (Feb 22, 2005)

mosquitoman said:


> oh well, looking at your results it looks like the Tempest might win, what would be useful are rate of roll, turn, dive for the manouverability side of things



Tempest dive speed was very good. High speed roll rate was mediocre, as was turn performance. For turn manuvering, the Typhoon beats the Tempest, the P-51 beats the Typhoon, and the Spitfire beats the P-51, according to Boscombe Downs tests.

What made the Tempest V-2 stand out was the armament - four Hispano V's with 200 rpg is pretty hard to beat, and these were mounted in very rigid wings allowing for accurate fire. It was also a very robust plane able to sustain significant battle damage.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## mosquitoman (Feb 22, 2005)

Chiron said:


> Hey, guys, why there were Spitfires with clipped elliptical wings? Whats that for? I think that destroyed the total beauty of Spitfire............



I think it increased the roll rate


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 22, 2005)

and about the spit escort thing, even if the spit could escort the bombers to berlin, she wasn;t suited to nightfighting, whislt she was used in the role occassionlly she wasn't suited to it.................


----------



## redcoat (Feb 22, 2005)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> and about the spit escort thing, even if the spit could escort the bombers to berlin, she wasn;t suited to nightfighting, whislt she was used in the role occassionlly she wasn't suited to it.................


While the Hurricane was used as a nightfighter, the Spitfire wasn't


----------



## evangilder (Feb 22, 2005)

The mustang was a pretty unremarkable plane until fitted with the Merlin. The Merlin powered Mustangs didn't get into the war until 1943. The Spitfire became operational in 1938, 5 full years before the Merlin Mustang. The Spitfire was a great aircraft, and paired with the Hurricane, did a great job in the BoB.


----------



## mosquitoman (Feb 22, 2005)

It was a problem with night landings, the Spitfire's undercarriage wasn't as stable but the Hurricane wouldn't be totalled if it veered of the runway


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 23, 2005)

but she was used in the role occassionally, i've seen a corgi model of one in night fighter scheme and it gave a brief history of the type's service history............


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 23, 2005)

Just cos its a model it doesnt mean its real...


----------



## wmaxt (Feb 23, 2005)

Chiron said:


> By the way, did Spitfire participate in any escorting role during the bombing in Berlin????
> 
> Why didnt Britian send Spitfire to escort Lancaster to Germany?



In the early days of escorting bombers the Spitfires were used for the initial and final legs of escort duties say from England to the mid France/German border. This let the P-38/P51 escorts utilize their fuel better. The difference between the cruise speeds of the fighters about 230mph for max range and the bombers about 180mph required a manuver called the S-weave or S-turn for the fighters ti maintain position.
The 38/51s could fly straight and meet up with the bomber stream at the point the Spitfires/P-47s had to turn back.

This was a tactic that was even more effective after the fighters were able to break off from the bombere on their way home to attack/straff anywhere they could find the enemy.


----------



## Hot Space (Feb 24, 2005)

btw The Spit XIV *did* shoot down jets. It was the 1st Prop Fighter to shoot down a 262.

Hot Space


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 24, 2005)

Really? I thought that title belonged to the P-47...


----------



## Hot Space (Feb 24, 2005)

No, I read it in a iclke bookie somewhere. I'll find it later and quote from it  

Hot Space


----------



## KraziKanuK (Feb 24, 2005)

Hot Space said:


> btw The Spit XIV *did* shoot down jets. It was the 1st Prop Fighter to shoot down a 262.
> 
> Hot Space



That is debatable. 

The first Spit to get a 262 was some MK IXs from RCAF 401. This was W.Nr. 170093 flown by Hptm. H-C Buttmann on Oct 4 1944.

On Aug 28 1944, 2 P-47s of the 78th FG attacked Ofw. H Lauer's 262 but he had to crash land due to running out of fuel. (claimed shared by Myers and Croy)


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 24, 2005)

Well that story of the P-47's is the one ive heard...This claim better be good HS! 8)


----------



## Hot Space (Feb 24, 2005)

Still looking for the book, but here ya go:

http://www.aviapress.com/viewonekit.htm?EST-72263

...........also read all the 1st post here, m8:

http://www.netwings.org/dcforum/DCForumID27/4333.html

Hot Space


----------



## KraziKanuK (Feb 25, 2005)

Well I'll take what is written in the Classic 262 series before what is said on some modelling and/or gaming site.

What unit was this XIV, supposed 262 killer, from? On what date was the kill made? Some basics are missing from the claim.


----------



## Hot Space (Feb 25, 2005)

That at the moment I couldn't tell ya, m8. But I'll hunt for that book later on.

Hot Space


----------



## Andrew (Feb 25, 2005)

cheddar cheese said:


> The Spitfire's range was average at best. It was an Interceptor, not an Escort.



According to the data on this website http://www.supermarine-spitfire.co.uk/perfdata.html The Mk V111 Spit had a range of 1,180miles, whereas the Mk X1 had a range of 2,000 miles, which if correct gave these Marks of Spitfire almost as great a range as the P51D.


----------



## Andrew (Feb 25, 2005)

redcoat said:


> the lancaster kicks ass said:
> 
> 
> > and about the spit escort thing, even if the spit could escort the bombers to berlin, she wasn;t suited to nightfighting, whislt she was used in the role occassionlly she wasn't suited to it.................
> ...



Both the Hurricane and Spitfire were used as Nightfighters, they had small plates placed either side of the Engine Cowling, which were supposed to have obscured the flames from the exhaust outlets. Neither were very succesfull as Nightfighters as the pilots had to rely on picking the enemy aircraft up visually, although some Spitfires were fitted with early AI Radar.


----------



## KraziKanuK (Feb 25, 2005)

Andrew said:


> cheddar cheese said:
> 
> 
> > The Spitfire's range was average at best. It was an Interceptor, not an Escort.
> ...



That is ferry range for the Spit.     If that tank (a 170gal) was taken on a combat mission the Spit would run out of fuel before it reached home.



> although some Spitfires were fitted with early AI Radar.


If you say so. What was the Supermarine Type number?


----------



## Andrew (Feb 25, 2005)

> If you say so. What was the Supermarine Type number?



I am not sure although I will find out over the weekend, I will pay a visit to the local Library. Some Day Fighters were converted to Nightfighters by just painting them Matt Black.


----------



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

you can get stuff like that from your local library??


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 25, 2005)

I should think you can get that sorta thing from Launceston?


----------



## Anonymous (Feb 25, 2005)

KraziKanuK said:


> Well I'll take what is written in the Classic 262 series before what is said on some modelling and/or gaming site.
> 
> What unit was this XIV, supposed 262 killer, from? On what date was the kill made? Some basics are missing from the claim.



Oh? I bet your source claims a top speed for the 262 of 540 mph right? This speed was only possible for the "A" series engines, of which very few were deployed. The "B" series engines, in the great majority of combat 262's, were only capable of 505 mph in level flight. It is funny how such "definative" sources are so often selective in what data they present.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## KraziKanuK (Feb 25, 2005)

RG_Lunatic said:


> KraziKanuK said:
> 
> 
> > Well I'll take what is written in the Classic 262 series before what is said on some modelling and/or gaming site.
> ...




  

And what does speed have to do with a 262 claim?

When were the V1 - V5 a/c ever deployed? The V5 did not even have retractable u/c. What units were they assigned to? The V6 and on had B engines. Oh yes, I forgot, your are the resident expert know-it-all. 

The Classic series gives no flight data sheets.


----------



## Chiron (Feb 26, 2005)

"The Spit could easily deal with the Fw-190 by about the Mk.VIII. It is also widely recognised that the Mk.XIV was the best dogfighter of the war"

it seems that Fw-190 was much manoeuable than the Spitfire at the rate of roll in dogfight. 

And is it TRUE that British was unable to counter the Fw-190 until they acquired the essencial technology from the false landing of a Fw-190 on their land in 1942?? that sounded pretty similar to Zero's story.........


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 26, 2005)

Yes, at slow to medium speed the Fw-190 had the fastest roll rate of the war. This does not necessarily make it manoeverable...


----------



## BountyHunter15 (Feb 26, 2005)

The Spitfire had an armament consisting of two forward firing 20mm cannons and two 50 cal. machine guns in the leading edges of the wing. It also had a bomb/rocket load of 500lb. It had a maximum speed of 448mph and and could climb up to 20,000ft in about 7 minutes.It was powered by one Rolls-Royce Griffon 65 12-cylinder Vee engine.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 26, 2005)

Nice picture 8) I take it you're quoting stats for the XIV...


----------



## Hot Space (Feb 26, 2005)

I want one for Easter 8) 

Hot Space


----------



## Anonymous (Feb 26, 2005)

cheddar cheese said:


> Yes, at slow to medium speed the Fw-190 had the fastest roll rate of the war. This does not necessarily make it manoeverable...



Roll rate is a very significant part of manuverability. However, the FW suffered from a rather radical roll rate vs. speed curve. At 180 IAS the RoR was about 125 deg/sec. This ramps up almost linearly to a peak of about 162 deg/sec at 255 IAS, at which point it abruptly reverses from increaseing with speed to decreasing with speed, and drops almost linearly and at 330 IAS its down to 108 deg/sec., and by 367 IAS its down to about 87 deg/sec. (I used 75 mph spacing for the first 3 points, 37 mph spacing for the last as my graph does not go past 390 IAS).

With such a radically changing rate of roll, the pilot would have a hard time executing rolling scissors moves at the full roll rate available. I think the pilots had to choose to use less than the maximum roll rate for this reason - the feel of the stick probably allowed them to get some reasonably smooth roll control at less than the maximum capability of the plane.

On paper the P-47 does not roll nearly as well as the FW, but in practice P-47 pilots had no trouble rolling with the FW. The P-47 had a much flatter roll response curve.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 26, 2005)

and i don't think they're the stats for the Mk.XIV, and that pic's of a Mk.22/24.............


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 26, 2005)

They were the stats of an XIV...


----------



## Anonymous (Feb 26, 2005)

Spitfire Performance Testing <--- click here

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## Hot Space (Feb 26, 2005)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> and i don't think they're the stats for the Mk.XIV, and that pic's of a Mk.22/24.............



Ahh..you're wrong. The Pic is a Spit XVIII.

Hot Space


----------



## BountyHunter15 (Feb 26, 2005)

The Spitfire had two 0.5in machine guns and two 20mm cannons. It was a great fighter. it really packed a punch.


----------



## KraziKanuK (Feb 26, 2005)

BountyHunter15 said:


> The Spitfire had an armament consisting of two forward firing 20mm cannons and two 50 cal. machine guns in the leading edges of the wing. It also had a bomb/rocket load of 500lb. It had a maximum speed of 448mph and and could climb up to 20,000ft in about 7 minutes.It was powered by one Rolls-Royce Griffon 65 12-cylinder Vee engine.



According to Spitfire: the History, the Mk XVIII could carry 3x 500lb GP bombs.


----------



## Anonymous (Feb 26, 2005)

BountyHunter15 said:


> The Spitfire had two 0.5in machine guns and two 20mm cannons. It was a great fighter. it really packed a punch.



I'd rather have 6 x .50's. The Hispano was too prone to jamming until very late in the war, and if the 20mm on one side jammed, its mate on the other side was nearly useless in the Spitfire (unlike the .50's where the plane could be trimmed to handle it). This is one of the big reasons they decided to mount the two .50's on the later Spitfires - they didn't want to be toothless in battle.

See the attached doc below where the Hurc IIc suffers 3 of 4 gun jams.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## trackend (Feb 27, 2005)

Thing is statistics are useful but not everything I know the for instance the Hurricane had a higher kill figure than the Spit but the discussion is which was the best fighter not the most successful so I'm still in favor of the spit as being the best meld of man and machine this is what made it the best "like wearing a glove" as one pilot said.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 27, 2005)

although service history does have an impact on people's opinions of the best..........


----------



## Anonymous (Feb 28, 2005)

My point is that earlier in the war the 20mm cannon of all sides, except the ShVAK, were somewhat unreliable. As the war progressed they became increasingly reliable. By the end of the war the Hispano supposedly had a 1:1500 rounds fired stoppage rate, the MG151/20 was about the same, the BMG was about 1:4000 rounds. These stoppage rates do not include guns that froze.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 28, 2005)

a gun freezing over (although it's normally the lubricating oil that freezes i believe), is a pretty major promlem in the air though..............


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 28, 2005)

Especially at altitude...


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 28, 2005)

dude it's a problem at any altitude..........


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 28, 2005)

I know, the key word in my statement being *Especially*, as it is a greater problem as you get higher, because the air is colder...


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 28, 2005)

no i mean if you're guns freeze over it's a proplem, no matter what you're altitude is, not that gun freezing is more likely at higher altitudes, although i know it is..............


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 28, 2005)

I neve said it wasnt a problem, jeez, do you have to attempt to find fault with *everything* I say?


----------



## Anonymous (Feb 28, 2005)

I only pointed out that the stoppage rate figures I've given exclude cases where the guns froze, which was considered a different issue.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## Andrew (Mar 3, 2005)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> you can get stuff like that from your local library??



The Library in Slough has quite a good collection of books on Warfare.


----------



## Hot Space (Mar 3, 2005)

Any Noddy  

Hot Space


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 3, 2005)

Damn im convinced!


----------



## Medvedya (Mar 3, 2005)

Andrew said:


> the lancaster kicks ass said:
> 
> 
> > you can get stuff like that from your local library??
> ...




As well as poems by John Betjemen and the scripts for 'The Office'


----------



## Schöpfel (Mar 9, 2005)

Hello:

In my opinion the Spitfire was obviously the best British figher - up to 1944. First half of 1944 its either Spit XIV or Tempest V, the choice is a matter of taste. Beginning June 1944 I'd have to go with the Mustang III with +25 boost; it had the best all around performance. I can't think of another period of time where the RAF had an aircraft with such an enormous quality advantage over the Lufwaffe as the highly boosted Mustang IIIs had during the summer of 1944.

p.s. nice site RG_Lunatic


----------



## Maestro (Mar 10, 2005)

Schöpfel said:


> Hello:
> 
> In my opinion the Spitfire was obviously the best British figher - up to 1944. First half of 1944 its either Spit XIV or Tempest V, the choice is a matter of taste. Beginning June 1944 I'd have to go with the Mustang III with +25 boost; it had the best all around performance. I can't think of another period of time where the RAF had an aircraft with such an enormous quality advantage over the Lufwaffe as the highly boosted Mustang IIIs had during the summer of 1944.
> 
> p.s. nice site RG_Lunatic



According to a book I have here (comparing the Spitfire Mk. IX to the Mustang III), prefering one to an other was only a question of personnal taste. Those aircraft had approximately the same performances.

- The Mustang III had a greater range
- The Mustang III was faster of +/- 32 km/h
- Their speed was equivalent between 10 and 15,000 feet and between 25,000 and 32,000 feet
- The Spitfire Mk. IX had a better climb
- In a dive, the Mustang III could desengage quickly
- The Spitfire Mk. IX could out turn the Mustang III, even with the flaps down
- The Spitfire Mk. IX had a better rool rate at normal speed, but were the same at 350 km/h
- The Spitfire Mk. IX had a greater punch (2 x 20mm + 4 .303 compared to 4 x Browning machine guns for the Mustang III)


----------



## DJ_Dalton (Mar 10, 2005)

cheddar cheese said:


> The Spit could easily deal with the Fw-190 by about the Mk.VIII. It is also widely recognised that the Mk.XIV was the best dogfighter of the war...I havent heard of any combat reports with the 262's but if the P-47 could manage them im sure the Spitfire could. I would say it was easily Britains best fighter.



Egads

First off, the Spitfire was never a match for the Focke Wulf. Certainly not the VIII. And it never "Easily" dealt with anything the Luftwaffe had in the air. It was slower or same speeded for much of its incarnation and only reached the ability to climb out of trouble (against the Focke Wulf ) with the IXc and even then it wasn't faster and always had an anemic roll rate unless compared to the underwing Gondola 109G-6...lol. The IXc was however the first Spitfire to reach a form of parity with the Focke Wulf. Though, both it and its successor paid dearly in maneuverability and responsiveness for the speed to even the energy equation somewhat. 

The Spitfire is undoubtely the most overrated plane of that front. If it was up to the Spitifires to win the war by guarding the daylight bombers. The war would in all likelihood still be waging. The P-47 and P-51 won the air war over Europe. The Spitfire looked good on the bench. It was safer there.

The leading British ace of the war was Jim Johnson. He had 38 confirmed kills. Kinda puts things in perspective doesnt it?


----------



## Maestro (Mar 10, 2005)

Dalton, you are wrong. Or, as we say in French : "You're out of the track".

In the same book than the Mustang VS Spitfire comparison, I got an other chapiter about the Spitfire Mk. IX VS the Focke-Wulf FW 190A.

Here it goes :

- The Spitfire was faster at medium and high altitude (5 to 10 km/h)
- The FW-190 was faster at low altitude (5 to 10 km/h)
- The Spitfire had a better climb, it was even more noticable over 22,000 feet
- The FW-190 was faster and more manoeuvrable _in dive_
- The Spitfire was better in sharp turns

And concerning the British Aces, keep a thing in mind : most of Allied Aces (excluding USA) flew Spitfires. (James Edgar Johnson, Pierre H. Clostermann...)

Moreover, the US Navy bought Spitfires for use on carriers because they couldn't successfully land a P-51 on them.

Don't piss on the Spitfire, it was a better plane than you could imagine.


----------



## KraziKanuK (Mar 10, 2005)

Maestro, 

The P-51D was carrier qualified. This was done in the fall of 1944 using the Shangri-la.


DJ_Dalton, 

if you are going to name aces, please get the name correct.  Johnson's name was James E. "Johnny" *not* Jim. The top RAF ace was Marmaduke T.St. J. Pattle.

I would not put to much stock in what Deighton has to say.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 10, 2005)

Johnson was the RAF's top scoring Ace with 38 kills, all from a spit, all were signle engined planes, only holed once..........


----------



## Maestro (Mar 10, 2005)

I agree with Lanc, I always heard of J. E. Johnson as the top RAF ace with 38 victories.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 10, 2005)

I thought Pattle was the RAF's second leading ace...


----------



## wmaxt (Mar 10, 2005)

Maestro said:


> Dalton, you are wrong. Or, as we say in French : "You're out of the track".
> 
> In the same book than the Mustang VS Spitfire comparison, I got an other chapiter about the Spitfire Mk. IX VS the Focke-Wulf FW 190A.
> 
> ...



R. Lenard posted shots of P-51s on carriers B-25s too. 

The P-51 and the Spits never operated operationaly from carriers simply because 1) The Navy used only AIR cooled engines and 2) in the Hellcat/Corsair they had perfectly capable aircraft with better range and capacity for ordanance.


----------



## DJ_Dalton (Mar 10, 2005)

KraziKanuK said:


> Maestro,
> 
> 
> DJ_Dalton,
> ...



Well, forgive me on the precise spelling of the first name., though I think I identified the number of "confirmed" victories properly. (38). If he had scored say 125 victories I might remember with detail the spelling of a name, but when a guy claims 38, James, Jim, Johnny, Jennifer...it really doesnt matter. I don't mispell Erich Hartmann, Gunther Rall or Hiroyoshi Nishizawa.

Pat Pattle, (A South African) is credited with 41 victories. Mostly Fiats and Italian bomberst. He is said to have downed a couple 109's. E versions, but he ws dead by 1941 and never flew a Spitfire. Probably would have eschewed it.

The most overrated plane of the Western Front is the Spitfire. Of the Eastern Front the Yak-9 in all its variants.

Between the two its close. They would have been a good matchup.


----------



## Maestro (Mar 10, 2005)

Overrated ? Damn, Dalton ! You can't read ? I shown you evidence that it was NOT.



Maestro said:


> Dalton, you are wrong. Or, as we say in French : "You're out of the track".
> 
> In the same book than the Mustang VS Spitfire comparison, I got an other chapiter about the Spitfire Mk. IX VS the Focke-Wulf FW 190A.
> 
> ...



If you still think that the Spitfire was a piece of sh*t after seeing that, either you're frigging blind or you're stupid.


----------



## Nonskimmer (Mar 10, 2005)

GO MAESTRO - GO MAESTRO!  

I agree with you!


----------



## KraziKanuK (Mar 10, 2005)

wmaxt said:


> R. Lenard posted shots of P-51s on carriers B-25s too.
> 
> The P-51 and the Spits never operated operationaly from carriers simply because 1) The Navy used only AIR cooled engines and 2) in the Hellcat/Corsair they had perfectly capable aircraft with better range and capacity for ordanance.



Those P-51 pics were taken during carrier qualifying trials. Acrually the USN was consider using the P-51 because of its range. The capture of some islands negated this consideration.

The Brits used Spits from carriers.


----------



## mosquitoman (Mar 10, 2005)

The thing is that over Britain there weren't the numbers of German planes as there were over Germany, Russia etc. Richard Bong was the highest scoring American ace but he "only" got 40 kills


----------



## DJ_Dalton (Mar 12, 2005)

"The thing is that over Britain there weren't the numbers of German planes as there were over Germany, Russia etc. Richard Bong was the highest scoring American ace but he "only" got 40 kills"

No, I didn't say the Spitfire was a complete piece of shit. It was just the most overrated plane of the Western Front. The arguement that the British aces didn't down as many Germans because the German planes were lacking in numbers just doesnt hold water. Mainly because the Germans killed large numbers of Spitfires in engagements. (I will grant the FW190 was responsible for a lot of that but the Bf-109's dropped Spitfires in their manner as well.) The Germans were there to be shot down, if the British pilots were able to manage it. Even a guy like Johnson got victories vs. Bombers and the like. Though he got his share of FW's and Bf's. He was good as far as his plane allowed him to be. The Spitfire was a dueling machine. The German Planes murder weapons. That was the difference.

Even the historians will tell you that it wasn't the Spitfire that won the Battle of Britian. It was the Hurricane. The Spitfire had lines that were appealing and it got a nice reputation among the populace but the reason for it was that the British goverment sold the people on its role as the lead protectorate. What it actually accomplished was far removed from the impression left by the propaganda. 

Even the comparative tests are full of propaganda. All the nice data didn't hold water, so you have to ask yourself, Why? Restriction of ata, testing a gondola German plane, failure to test a contemporary of the XIV (G-10). You have to judge the merits by the combat and there the Spitfire was certainly at a disadvantage unless the German pilots got in or were forced into a sustained turn fight. 

One of the leading Luftwaffe Aces was Hans Philip. He downed 178 Eastern Front planes and 28 Western Front craft. To paraphrase him he stated:

"It is a joy to fly among 20 Spitfires utilizing my aircrafts abilities vs those of the Spitfire. It is another thing altogether to fly into a formation of massed bombers with their arrayed defensive guns and be forced to drive into that maelstrom. It makes one understand that one is mortal"

Very prophetic words by Philip. He was killed shortly thereafter in a attack vs bomber formations.

The Spitfire was respected. It was not feared. Those questioning its import are always gonna win the arguement based on the head to head matchups. The Spitfire just wasn't especially effective vs. the Luftwaffe Fighters. It did have some strengths.


----------



## Chiron (Mar 12, 2005)

"The Spitfire just wasn't especially effective vs. the Luftwaffe Fighters."


Is that TRUE????????

Was Germans held technological superiority over all its rivals: on land, on sea, and in the air????????????????


----------



## Anonymous (Mar 12, 2005)

Dalton...

Excuse me but that is hogwash. The Spitfire was the superior plane when compared with its rival Bf109 at almost any point in the war after 1941. There is very little comparison data vs. the G-10 because the G-10 came into the war so late. Figures I have are that it didn't enter signficant service until after October 1944 - by then the Allies owned the skies. The Spitfire XIV entered the war about a year earlier.

If you take a look at Spitfire Mk XIV versus Me 109 G/K - A Performance Comparison, every reasonable effort is made to make a fair comparsion between the two rivals.

Furthermore, a lot of the performance of the Bf109G-10 (and the G-14 and K) are gained through use of "Special Emergency Power", which was not really that valuable for combat operations. Use of the GM1 (NO2) system required the right load and rpm conditions and MW50 also be available. For most reasonable combat comparisons MW50 boosted performance but not GM1 should be considered.

Also, as I've mentioned before, the Bf109's had very limited top speed performance - the cooling system simply didn't work very well at high speeds because of the boundary layer seperation issues. Messershmitt chose to accept this limitation rather than suffer the increased drag and weight of increasing the scoop size, radiator size, and coolant capacity. The British on the otherhand, made the other choice, enlarging the cooling system and scoop mouths to try to injest the turbulent air and get what cooling could be had from it and increasing the available power to overcome the drag/weight penalties. Neither solution was optimal, but the German solution was more limiting.

Also, generally speaking the Spitfire had more effective firepower from about the Spit V on, and with the Spit XIV it also had a much superior gunsight. And Spitfire pilot enjoyed much better visability than the 109 pilot from about the Spit V on. The pilots ability to see the enemy first is a huge advantage.

In general the Bf109 simply was not as adaptable as the Spitfire. It was at its peak with the F model, after that it was increasingly obsolete.

http://www.faqs.org/docs/air/avbf1091.html gives a lot of detail on the Bf109.

In General though, I'd say both the Bf109 and the Spitfire shared the same basic flaw - both were very much limited to the interception role. They could only be used offensively with the saftey of overwhelming ground superiority, so they could operate from fields very near the front lines. You don't win wars by relying on interceptors.

The FW's were much more competitive, but also lacked range. Furthermore, the FW190A's lacked high-altitude performance, a critical weakness, and both the P-51 and P-47 were more than a match for them anyway. So few D's and Ta's saw combat as to have made little difference one way or another.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## KraziKanuK (Mar 12, 2005)

The Spit XIV equiped 616 in Jan 44. The Spit 21 in early 45. The G-10 and K-4 production started in Oct 44.

Some quotes from other sources:

"_Olivier Lefebvre, noted authority on the BF 109, has stated:

The DB605DM was cleared up to 1.75ata, the DB605DB pushed the limit up to 1.8ata, both could be sustained with use of either B4+MW-50 (as mentionned in various documents, even if it was an afterthought in the DM case) or C3-MW-50. However the DB605DC max boost at 1.98ata could be achieved with use of C3+MW-50 only.

As for the fuel supply, I own copies showing detailed stockpile status for February-April 1945... But yes the C3 was definitely scarce.

As of March 1945 only a handful of 109 gruppen were using C3 for their mounts, one of the few being the II/JG11 which were responsible for testing the 605DB/DC over January-March 1945. According to a document dated late January 1945 coming from DB the 1.80 had just been cleared following serious troubles (pre-ignition) reported by the unit testing the 1.80 ata boost. It is also noted that following the clearance of the 1.8ata boost the 1.98ata operational tests could now begin but with concern about the sparkplugs thermal resistance IIRC. C3 was not used by 109 units until the 1.98ata boost was cleared, they relied on B4+MW-50 so that C3 could go to the 190 units. And even after the clearance only few gruppen got it because of shortages due not only to C3 production but also to C3 delivery to the units.

AFAIK 1.98ata boost was cleared late February but it seems to have been slowly introduced into service, I suspect the adjustments needed on the engine and the change of sparkplugs type (supply problems ???) took longer than expected. From other documents I know that C3 and B4 had severe quality problems beginning in late 1944. While it was not much of a problem with low boost, it had some serious effect on higher boost, so it might also have slowed down the introduction of 1.98ata boost. At least DB documents underlined the need for cleaner fuels than those in use at that time. You can safely assume that by March 1945 1.98 ata boost was being introduced, unfortunately I do not have much details for April 1945, but I doubt it would have changed much, given the situation._"

So much for the use of 'boost juices''.

This is what a nazi Germany lovin zealot says about the MW graph:

"_No, my darling, what Mike Williams does is taking the DC graph which notes 'ohne MW', and then puts its data on his own chart, and claims it`s maximum performance on 1.8ata, when it`s not. Of course if he`d choose the right chart, he would have to show with much better performance both low and high.

Then he tooks the data for the slower K-6, but lists it as a K-4 on his own. Let`s not even mention the really lowly trick of putting the 109K with thin yellow line on white background, so that everyone will have difficulty seeing how badly the K-4 outpaced the SpitXIV - even compared to Mike`s own imaginative performance curve on +21 lbs.
Really classy from Mike, lowest performance on low boost and wrongly labeled, hardly visible curves for high boost.

The he gets data for a 3550 kg projected K-4 graphs from May 1944, 200 kg heavier than the normal K-4 - yeah, 'fair' representation of climb performance! And of course a little more tricks for Sondernotleistung, Mike`s chart says it 'experimental propellor'. The original doc says the serial and experimental prop produces the same climb performance, but nice trick to dismiss the numbers._"

This is the type of graph he posts to prove how superior German a/c were. Notice he has no Spit XIV or American a/c on the graph.


----------



## Maestro (Mar 12, 2005)

DJ_Dalton said:


> "The thing is that over Britain there weren't the numbers of German planes as there were over Germany, Russia etc. Richard Bong was the highest scoring American ace but he "only" got 40 kills"
> 
> No, I didn't say the Spitfire was a complete piece of s**t. It was just the most overrated plane of the Western Front. The arguement that the British aces didn't down as many Germans because the German planes were lacking in numbers just doesnt hold water. Mainly because the Germans killed large numbers of Spitfires in engagements. (I will grant the FW190 was responsible for a lot of that but the Bf-109's dropped Spitfires in their manner as well.) The Germans were there to be shot down, if the British pilots were able to manage it. Even a guy like Johnson got victories vs. Bombers and the like. Though he got his share of FW's and Bf's. He was good as far as his plane allowed him to be. The Spitfire was a dueling machine. The German Planes murder weapons. That was the difference.
> 
> ...



Dalton, you've just proved me that you're a jerk. (Now I understand why Les could be so aggressive with some newbies.)

May be the spitfire didn't win the BoB, but it got a kill ratio of 1:10 during that battle (and I think it kept that ratio until the end of the war). Does a crap plane could have done that ? No.

The reason why it didn't won that battle is because the Spitfire Mk. I was relatively new so the RAF fighter groups were mostly equiped with Hurricanes.

Also, the Hurricanes were told to attack the bombers while the Spitfires would take on the fighters. Why ? Because the Hurricane could take more damages and the Spitfire was more manoeuvrable.

Also, when Hitler (or Goering, can't remember) asked Galland what he needed to win against the RAF, he replied : "A squadron of Spitfires".

Finaly, I would like to point out an oxymoron you made. At the beginning of your post, you said :

"The arguement that the British aces didn't down as many Germans because the German planes were lacking in numbers just doesnt hold water."

Then you said :

"One of the leading Luftwaffe Aces was Hans Philip. He downed *178 Eastern Front planes* and *28 Western Front craft.*"

How can you say that when you can't name a German pilot who scored more than 40 victories on the Western Front ?


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 12, 2005)

Priller scored 68 victories against Spitfres on the Western front, out of a total of 101 kills.


----------



## DJ_Dalton (Mar 12, 2005)

Maestro said:


> [
> 
> How can you say that when you can't name a German pilot who scored more than 40 victories on the Western Front ?



Who says I can't name German Pilots that exceeded 40 Western Front victories?...lol Theres a slew of them and whats significant is that theres not a single allied pilot to exceed that number and the Brits fought the whole war. (Pat Pattle excepted) Is there huge conclusion jumping going on here by those that think the Spitifire was more than a Yak 9?

I chose Philip for a number of reasons One was that he dwarfed the records of the Western pilots. Another was that he moved from the East to the West front effortlessly and was as at ease destroying Spitfires as Yaks. The most important reason was to show how many of the top Luftwaffe met their ends vs bombers and not the Wests fighter aircraft.

By the way MOST 109's were lost to takeoffs and landings due to their power and narrow track. The ground was a more significant adversary than Spiffires. 

When Johnson took a cannon they retired him. I seem to recall that was late 1944, early 1945. Can't lose the kingdoms leading ace (38)...lol 

You don't have the data to win this arguement. Give it up.


----------



## DJ_Dalton (Mar 12, 2005)

RG_Lunatic said:


> Dalton...
> 
> Excuse me but that is hogwash. The Spitfire was the superior plane when compared with its rival Bf109 at almost any point in the war after 1941.


* 

The problem with your blanket, fact inconsistent and unsupported statement is that the Spitfires were restricted to smaller and smaller roles as the war progressed. They couldn't do what the P-47's and P-51's could. Those planes could outdive the luftwaffe and had the fuel loads to generally came in from above them. Spitfires would have lost the war people. Why do you cling to the illusion that they were an exceptional plane? The Battle of Britian? They were mauled there, pickin on Heinkels and Junkers and 110's when they could. They were outmatched vs the 109's. 

The Spit had .303's its entire existance and 2 20mm Hispanos in later variations. That gun just didn't compare with the German cannon and thats why Spitfires fell out of the air in the numbers they did. 

The Spitfire was energied up for the IX but it lost its maneuverability. It was carburated its entire existance and just could not match the German planes in hard G maneuvers. It lost its power people not to mention its unresponsiveness in the roll or at high speed. What don't you understand. For every fiction you create or misrepresentation you cling to. I'll point to another Experten that slaughtered Spitfires. The question with this Experten is which plane did he kill them in later and I think its the FW190, but that plane was more suited to bomber attacks.

Heres one. Killed per usual in an attack upon bombers by P-47's. This is the way the war went. Not the way of the Spitfire...lol

By the way the Spitfires got creamed in the wars after WWII also.

http://www.luftwaffe.cz/mayer.html*


----------



## DJ_Dalton (Mar 12, 2005)

Chiron said:


> "The Spitfire just wasn't especially effective vs. the Luftwaffe Fighters."
> 
> 
> Is that TRUE????????
> ...



Without a question.

If it wasn't for the U.S. Britain would be a good German Colony. The Russians helped too.


----------



## KraziKanuK (Mar 12, 2005)

Dalton,

I have never seen anyone as ignorant about the Spitfire as you. It is not worth the trouble to correct all the errors you have in your posts.


----------



## Nonskimmer (Mar 12, 2005)

Makes for a good laugh, though.


----------



## DJ_Dalton (Mar 12, 2005)

KraziKanuK said:


> Dalton,
> 
> I have never seen anyone as ignorant about the Spitfire as you. It is not worth the trouble to correct all the errors you have in your posts.



Its more likely you've never run across anyone that is more familiar with the air war or anyone that spent more time looking into the details rather than listening to those who ultimately prevailed awarding their own laurels. 

You're problem is going to be you can't point to anyone or anyting to dispell your utter emptiness on the issue. Thats o.k., I won't hold it against you, you've brought a knife to a gun fight, just like the Spitfire.

http://www.luftwaffe.cz/priller.html


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 12, 2005)

How can you say the Spit was over rated? I used to think the same but then again I used to think Santa Claus was real. The XIV is very widely regarded as the best dogfighter of the war. You do realise that it was just about Britains ONLY fighter, which doesnt give the Gerries a lot of choice in what to shoot down, does it?


----------



## mosquitoman (Mar 12, 2005)

There was the Tiffie and the Tempest aswell but Britain could have held on probably indefinitley in the West. The Germans just wouldn't have been able to cross the Channel


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 12, 2005)

YEah. and what do you mean we wouldnt have won without the USA? Sure, they helped, a lot, but when we won the Battle of Britain, it was just us. The USA werent even in the war at that time. The odds in the Battle of Britian were against us, but we still came through. We probably would have won with the USA, it just would have taken a whole lot longer.


----------



## mosquitoman (Mar 12, 2005)

Exactly, remember it wasn't just little old Britain. It was Britian, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, and then the escapeees from Poland, France, Holland, Belgium and Norway.


----------



## Udet (Mar 12, 2005)

Guys:

Keep the heat down if possible!

While Dalton does not require my help or aid at all, I´d like to assume you understood he did not mean AT ALL the Spitfire was a "piece of shit"; he never even mentioned such words, it was rather you guys getting sensitive here who said such phrase.

He simply said it has been overrated, and to some extent I would agree with him. 

Attempting to prevent over sensitive reactions here, i will repeat what i have said several times before: in fact the Spitfire is one of the greatest fighters of the conflict, but you can not have it all, and it certainly did not left the German fighters far behind it at all.

Dalton also makes a good point when saying it was the P-47 mainly who bore the brunt of the fighter job over Europe in 1944, and not the Spitfire or the P-51.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 12, 2005)

I agree that it was not the best fighter, but he was exaggerating his points.



> you've brought a knife to a gun fight, just like the Spitfire.



See? The pilots of the Spitfire would have a little more confidence than that. A phrase like that would be more appropriate if you was flying a Gloster Gladiator up against a flight of 190D's.


----------



## KraziKanuK (Mar 12, 2005)

Dalton, you are a *troll*.

Guys, just ignore, for the *troll* is not worth the effort to debunk his rediculously absurb statements.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 12, 2005)

!


----------



## DJ_Dalton (Mar 12, 2005)

cheddar cheese said:


> How can you say the Spit was over rated? I used to think the same but then again I used to think Santa Claus was real. The XIV is very widely regarded as the best dogfighter of the war. You do realise that it was just about Britains ONLY fighter, which doesnt give the Gerries a lot of choice in what to shoot down, does it?



I don't know anyone that regards the Spit XIV as the best plane of the war. It had a counter rotating engine to the Merlins (Griffin engine you know) and the Spit pilots didn't even consider it a spitfire. It was almost an entirely new plane. It did not have much of a performance edge over the most up motored IX and it retained the anemic roll rate and added accentuation of control surface compression at high speed that left the plane close to out of control. It was fast, but so were the contemporary German planes. If it had an edge it was real high, but it couldn't stay up there long.


----------



## Maestro (Mar 13, 2005)

DJ_Dalton said:


> Spitfires would have lost the war people. Why do you cling to the illusion that they were an exceptional plane? The Battle of Britian? They were mauled there, pickin on Heinkels and Junkers and 110's when they could. They were outmatched vs the 109's.
> 
> The Spit had .303's its entire existance and 2 20mm Hispanos in later variations. That gun just didn't compare with the German cannon and thats why Spitfires fell out of the air in the numbers they did.
> 
> ...



Okay s*cker, you're number is out ! You pissed me off !

When we give you comparisons of Spitfires VS FW-190 or Spitfire VS Bf-109, you say that's propagenda. (Now, see the section of your post I put in bold.) Where do you take you're freaking data ? In the Hitler's Youth manual ? Is it _what_ you consider as non-propagenda datas ?

When I gave you its kill ratio, the Galland thing and the Spitfire/Hurricane thing, you do as if I never said anything. Who the f*ck are you ? A Nazi pigeon ?

Now for the armament thing. From about the Mk. V on, Spitfires could be equipped of 8 x .303 OR 4 x 20mm OR 2 x 20mm + 4 x .303. From the Mk. VIII/IX on, they could also be armed with 2 x 20mm + 2 x .50.

Now I'll agree with KrazyKanuK and invite everyone to ignore you.

At best, you're a Neo-Nazi German trying to restore his own contry's pride by pissing on the Spitfire and Great-Britain. At worst, you're a freaking redneck hidding in his house of a lost town in Saskatchewan, with a Nazi flag on his bedroom wall, the book "Meine Kampf" on the table next to his bed, a picture of Hitler right besite it and an illegal machine gun hidden under his bed.

You deserve a great kick in your fat ass, punk.


----------



## Chiron (Mar 13, 2005)

Man, its getting out of control....................


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 13, 2005)

damned funny though, i aint laughed at someone trying to make a serious post like this in a long time


----------



## Nonskimmer (Mar 13, 2005)

Remind me not to piss off Maestro!


----------



## mosquitoman (Mar 13, 2005)

I believe a saying during WWII was the Mustang can't do what the Spitfire does, but it does it over Berlin


----------



## Anonymous (Mar 13, 2005)

cheddar cheese said:


> YEah. and what do you mean we wouldnt have won without the USA? Sure, they helped, a lot, but when we won the Battle of Britain, it was just us. The USA werent even in the war at that time. The odds in the Battle of Britian were against us, but we still came through. We probably would have won with the USA, it just would have taken a whole lot longer.



You are kidding arn't you? Even during this time the USA was supplying Britain. Without US supplies Britain would have starved, her war industries would have ground to a halt, and Germany would have been able to eventually manage to force British capitulation. The same is true for the Soviet Union, though by then the USA was "in the war".

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## Anonymous (Mar 13, 2005)

Udet said:


> Dalton also makes a good point when saying it was the P-47 mainly who bore the brunt of the fighter job over Europe in 1944, and not the Spitfire or the P-51.



That is hardly true. In late 1943 the P-51B arrived, and had some significant effect by early 1944. By late Spring 1944 the P-51D arrived, and had a major effect by the end of that Summer. By mid Fall, it was dominant.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## Anonymous (Mar 13, 2005)

You guys act like the Spit XIV was the primary Spitfire in 1944 and 1945. They didn't even arrive in force until mid 1944, and only about 900 were delivered through the end of the war. It was the Spit IX and its Packared powered bubble top cousin the Spit XVI that made up the majority of late war Spitfires, with something just short of 8,000 being produced. The Spit IX's (several versions with improving performance were deployed) were a good match for any late model FW190A, and the XIV for the FW190D.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## Nonskimmer (Mar 13, 2005)

RG_Lunatic said:


> cheddar cheese said:
> 
> 
> > YEah. and what do you mean we wouldnt have won without the USA? Sure, they helped, a lot, but when we won the Battle of Britain, it was just us. The USA werent even in the war at that time. The odds in the Battle of Britian were against us, but we still came through. We probably would have won with the USA, it just would have taken a whole lot longer.
> ...


He's right, I'm afraid. The USA with her industry, agriculture, merchant fleet, and lend-lease were the "crutch" if you will that allowed Britain to hang on. The Commonwealth did what we could to help, but it wouldn't have made a significant difference in time. Without American aid, even before she officially entered the war, the results would have been far more dire.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 13, 2005)

Sorry I was forgetting about the USA supply routes


----------



## KraziKanuK (Mar 13, 2005)

The LL to the Soviets had around 50% coming in the last year when the Soviet Union was already putting the boots to Germany. Some LL even arriving after the war ended.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 13, 2005)

hey we were supplying LL to russia as well you know.......


----------



## Anonymous (Mar 13, 2005)

DJ_Dalton said:


> RG_Lunatic said:
> 
> 
> > Dalton...
> ...



LOL - that is because the P-47's and P-51's had the range to reach into German held territory beyond the range of the Sptifires. The Germans wouldn't even venture into airspace patrolled by Spitfires! This "Spitfire flaw" is shared by both your 109 and the 190 wonder planes.



DJ_Dalton said:


> Those planes could outdive the luftwaffe and had the fuel loads to generally came in from above them. Spitfires would have lost the war people. Why do you cling to the illusion that they were an exceptional plane? The Battle of Britian? They were mauled there, pickin on Heinkels and Junkers and 110's when they could. They were outmatched vs the 109's.



The Spitfire's were limited to defense, just like the 109 and 190's. In the BoB, I agree the 109 was probably slightly superior for about 2 minutes of combat, after that the Spitfire was superior. Because it was not suited for offense, the 109 got beat anyway - it simply lacked the range for the job it was assigned.



DJ_Dalton said:


> The Spit had .303's its entire existance and 2 20mm Hispanos in later variations. That gun just didn't compare with the German cannon and thats why Spitfires fell out of the air in the numbers they did.



Ummm... the Spit Ia had 8 x .303's - weak but sufficient to kill any German fighter or bomber in the BoB. Some 109E's had 2 x 7.9 mm MG17's, certainly less effective than 8 x .303's, and 2 x MG-FF's or MG-FFM's with a mear 60 rpg. The cannon armed E's might be considered superior, but those 20mm were really not that useful in a dogfight and ran out of ammo fast. And the all mg armed E's made up a fair portion of the 109 force in the BoB - it had only 4 x 7.9 mm mg's.

The Spit Ib had 20mm cannon. The Spit V had 2 x 20mm + 4 x .303's, pleanty sufficient to kill any German fighter through the end of 1941. The FW-190A-1 entered combat in Sept. of '41 but that model had serious overheating problems and very weak armament. The Spit V was the dominant fighter over all German rivals until March '42 when the FW190A-3 entered service (with 2 x 20mm + 2 x 7.9 mm guns).

In June 1942 the Spit IX entered combat, armed with either 4 x 20mm or with 2 x 20mm + _2 x .50 calibers_, only a few had 2 x 20mm + 4 x .303's. So much for your statement "_The Spit had .303's its entire existance and 2 20mm Hispanos in later variations_". The German's on the otherhand, continued to mount 7.7mm guns through the end of 1943 and even into 1944!

Also, the Hispano was cleary superior to the MG151/20 for fighter vs. fighter combat.



DJ_Dalton said:


> The Spitfire was energied up for the IX but it lost its maneuverability. It was carburated its entire existance and just could not match the German planes in hard G maneuvers. It lost its power people not to mention its unresponsiveness in the roll or at high speed. What don't you understand. For every fiction you create or misrepresentation you cling to. I'll point to another Experten that slaughtered Spitfires. The question with this Experten is which plane did he kill them in later and I think its the FW190, but that plane was more suited to bomber attacks.



The Spitfire IX was a very manuverable fighter. Yes the weight went up a little and its low speed turning was slightly diminished, but improvements in the wing construction and other control surfaces made up for a good part of that. And the same thing can be said about the FW-190A, later versions included more weight and more powerful engines, diminishing some manuverability characteristics. And none of the FW190A's could operate effectively above 24,000 feet, giving the altitude advantage to the Spitfire without contest. And the 109... the 109G was noticably less manuverable than the 109F, still had weak guns, had poor armor, poor visibility, and an inability to maintain the combat speeds of any of its rivals for more than about 1 minute! The Bf109 was a very old dog by the end of 1943, it should have been withdrawn from production by the middle of that year.

As for the carberators, you have this wrong. By 1941 the British were using the American carberator designs, such as that by Bendix. These carberators were not subject to failing under negative G loads. Fuel injection had some minor response advantages, but also some reliability and mixture problems not found in carberator designs. It is very hard to say which was better during WWII. American carberators never had any G problems - many 109's died when they tried the forward bunt move to escape American fighters or later Spitfires. And later Spitfires could dive with German fighters and achieve higher dive speeds.

As for the "Experten", it's a hard call about many of them. The nature of the way German military politics worked, the units status was determined by the kills scored by its leading aces. Very often, the whole squadron flew to support one or two pilots racking up as many kills as possible. US and British units did not do this, so it is hard to compare aces from the two sides.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## Anonymous (Mar 13, 2005)

KraziKanuK said:


> The LL to the Soviets had around 50% coming in the last year when the Soviet Union was already putting the boots to Germany. Some LL even arriving after the war ended.



Actually, LL aid was at its peak in 1944. By the start of 1944 over 50,000 trucks and 100,000 jeeps had been delivered to the Soviets, not to mention huge quantities of food without which the Soviet army and industry would have ground to a halt. Without the vehicles and food the soviets would have been unable to advance in 1943.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## DJ_Dalton (Mar 13, 2005)

Maestro, you're coming a bit unglued, so left me try and address you're tangential and unspecific points one at time so that you are quite clear upon the fact that the Spitfire was a useful plane as a weapon, but not one you'd ideally equip yourself with if you had a choice.]



> Okay s*cker, you're number is out ! You pissed me off !



Yes, thats easy to do with zealots especially if the pissee is a zealot and unarmed or underarmed.



> When we give you comparisons of Spitfires VS FW-190 or Spitfire VS Bf-109, you say that's propagenda. (Now, see the section of your post I put in bold.) Where do you take you're freaking data ? In the Hitler's Youth manual ? Is it _what_ you consider as non-propagenda datas ?



As I pointed out earlier the RAF tested 2 Bf-109's in these comparative trials. Pay attention now, we shouldn't have to go over this again. When this presentation is complete I want you to take this point and file it away because it will be disposed of. The first 109 was an E model acquired and tested right around the Battle of Britain. It compared very favorably to their contemporary Spitfire. And it could do things the Spitfire could not. Outdive and Outclimb it for example. It could also operate in high G and negative G situations without the engine losing power. Some even say if its leading edge flaps and soft stall characteristics were trusted it even turned better than a Spitfire (Marseilles for instance), but I'll not contest the Spitfires purported turning edge. Level speed wise, they were close. So its up to the pilot which he prefers the nimble slower climbing and diving plane or the energy machine. 

http://www.luftwaffe.cz/rudorffer.html

The second plane tested was a Bf-109-G6/R6. FYI that is a bomber attacking variant with underwing 20 mm gondolas. Those gondolas degrade the performance of the aircraft significantly due to the increased weight and drag. The RAF decided to test this aircraft in this bomber killer configuration against a cleanly configured Spit XIV. (Thats right, they tested the best Spitfire they ever had vs. a Bf-109 two notches plus below its epitome, in a bomber attacking configuration. Even then the Spitfire was only 10 mph faster at 16,000 feet and climbed equally as well at that altitude. Additionally the zoom climb performance was equal unless full power was applied. to the Spit XIV (The Spitfire did substantially outperform this 109 at other elevations.) The following is not the source I read when I first went over this information. It does capsulize it though:

http://www.odyssey.dircon.co.uk/Spitfire14v109.htm

Case closed on these comparative Bf-109 trials. Theres nothing more to discuss. You need to read the combat anecdotes now. The Spitfires could not catch 109's unless they bounced them low on Altitude and Energy.

Regarding the Focke Wulf 190A, it certainly had a serious performance edge on the Spit V. The Spit IX tended to even the situation more. However the 190 was always vastly more maneuverable and if you don't understand that by now you never will. I'll let the test results speak for themselves:

http://www.odyssey.dircon.co.uk/Spitfire9v190.htm

Whats significant about the testing is that the RAF restricted the use of boost on the German planes, figuring that the Germans were restricted. Theres a lot of debate about this, but no hard evidence that the Germans similarly restricted themselves in emergency boost situations. Even in the very restricted boost testing required of the German aircraft, the British performance is certainly not stellar. However, what is not debateable is that the German planes performance increased significantly with additional boost. Once again, you need to refer to the anecdotal evidence about what the British planes were really able to accomplish in combat and though competent they were never dominate. The Brits were attrited by Germans. Not the other way around.



> When I gave you its kill ratio, the Galland thing and the Spitfire/Hurricane thing, you do as if I never said anything. Who the f*ck are you ? A Nazi pigeon ?



I dismissed that quote, for a number of reasons. First off, Galland himself dismissed it, but you wouldn't even bring it up if you knew the context. Goerring was livid over the bombers losses in the B.o.B. and he asked Galland why his fighters couldn't protect the bombers and what he needed to get the job done. Galland responded "A squadron of spitfires". Do you know why? The 109 was an energy machine. It could always do things no other plane could do. But it was not designed to fly slow and pick Hurricanes off the tails of bombers. To do so marginalized its strengths and made it vulnerable. Spitfires were perhaps better suited for that role and that is what Galland was saying when he bristled at Goerrings criticism. By the way, it was Hurricanes doing most of the damage.



> Now for the armament thing. From about the Mk. V on, Spitfires could be equipped of 8 x .303 OR 4 x 20mm OR 2 x 20mm + 4 x .303. From the Mk. VIII/IX on, they could also be armed with 2 x 20mm + 2 x .50.



very few Spits were 4 cannon armed. It degraded their performance



> Now I'll agree with KrazyKanuK and invite everyone to ignore you.
> 
> At best, you're a Neo-Nazi German trying to restore his own contry's pride by pissing on the Spitfire and Great-Britain. At worst, you're a freaking redneck hidding in his house of a lost town in Saskatchewan, with a Nazi flag on his bedroom wall, the book "Meine Kampf" on the table next to his bed, a picture of Hitler right besite it and an illegal machine gun hidden under his bed.
> 
> You deserve a great kick in your fat ass, punk.



Truth be told, i've been laughing under my breath at your lack of education from the inception. You're either playing Ostrich or not a smart man. We all can't be clever, just like planes are not all equal. But now I've done my part and we can move on.

Theres a difference however in following blindly and scrutinizing the evidence and its in the latter that you'll find truth and enlightenment.

[/quote]


----------



## Maestro (Mar 13, 2005)

My turn to say that you are a moron : you compare FW-190 with absolete Spits (Mk. V) !

The FW-190 came out in 1942, so you must compare it with an other Spit wich also came out in 1942 (the Mk. IX). Got it, smart ass ?

To prove you that you're a brain-washed Hitler-lover Neo-Nazi, I'll give you comparisons between Bf-109, P-51B, Spitfire Mk. IX and FW-190. Unfortunately, I don't have the comparison between the 109 and the Spit, but use your brain (may be for the first time of your life) and use the comparison of the Spit VS the P-51B to see how it could act against a Bf-109.)

*P-51B Mustang VS Spitfire Mk. IX*

- The Mustang had a greater range
- At top speed, their speed was the same between 10 and 15,000 feet and between 25,000 and 32,000 feet (otherwise, the Mustang was a little faster (30 to 45 km/h))
- The Spit had a better climb, even against a P-51B at top speed
- In dive, the Mustang could desengage easily
- The Spitfire could out turn the Mustang, even if the P-51 had his flaps down
- The Spitfire had a better roll at normal speed, but the performances were the same at 350 km/h
- The 4 x Browning MG were greatly inferior to the Spit's 2 x 20mm + 4 x .303

*P-51B Mustang VS Messershmidt Me 109G*

- The P-51 was faster than the 109 at any altitude (50 km/h at 16,000 feet and 80 km/h at 25,000 feet)
- Their climb were the same
- The Mustang was lightly superior over 25,000 feet, but the 109 had better performances under 22,000 feet
- In defensive position against a 109, the Mustang could evade it by doing a simple sharp turn
- In offensive position, the Mustang could always trap the 109

*Focke-Wulf FW 190A VS Spitfire Mk. IX*

- The Spitfire was lightly faster than the FW-190 at medium and high altitude (5 to 10 km/h)
- The FW-190 was faster at low altitude (5 to 10 km/h)
- The Spitfire had a better climb, that advantage was even more noticable over 22,000 feet
- _In dive_, the FW-190 was faster and more manoeuvrable

Note : If the Spitfire was flying at a high speed, the FW-190 couldn't successfully attack it. The better acceleration of the FW-190 made it easier to attack a Spitfire flying slowly.

Now, if you still think that I'm wrong, read the following comparison and use it as the Mustang/Bf-109 thing.

*P-51B Mustang VS Focke-Wulf FW 190*

- The P-51 was faster than the FW-190 at any altitude (approximately 80 km/h)
- Over 28,000 feet, that difference could reach 110 km/h
- They had the same climb
- The P-51B was better in dive than the FW-190
- In a turning fight, the Mustang was lightly superior
- The FW-190 had a better roll

Now, if you still percist to claim that the Spitfire was a piece of sh*t, you will prove that you're a jerk and that you will never understand the truth... Like a retard who wants to beleive in Santa Claus, even at 32 years old !


----------



## Soren (Mar 13, 2005)

First of all just so we are clear, im not with either Maestro or Dalton on this one.

Anyway *Maestro*, just a little note: Cursing and being rude does nothing to increase your credibility !


----------



## DJ_Dalton (Mar 13, 2005)

Maestro said:


> My turn to say that you are a moron : you compare FW-190 with absolete Spits (Mk. V) !



Ok, good point about comparing contemporaries. By the time they compared the "captured" FW190 to the up motored XIV, (1944) the FW190 was in a new series of motor with higher boosts and they weren't all up armored for bomber interception. 



> To prove you that you're a brain-washed Hitler-lover Neo-Nazi, I'll give you comparisons between Bf-109, P-51B, Spitfire Mk. IX and FW-190. Unfortunately, I don't have the comparison between the 109 and the Spit, but use your brain (may be for the first time of your life) and use the comparison of the Spit VS the P-51B to see how it could act against a Bf-109.)



Well, first off, I'm not contesting that the Mustang was not a much more dangerous adversary for the Luftwaffe. That was heavyweight championship fight competition. But following you're valid point just above, What planes are you comparing this Mustang to? The 1942 captured FW190 and the Wing Gondola 109G-6? I can't even begin to address this. Post the link.

Erich Hartmann shot down 7-8 Mustangs depending upon sources. 5 in one day, including one of the leading Mustang Aces "Kid Hoffer". KIA



> Now, if you still percist to claim that the Spitfire was a piece of sh*t, you will prove that you're a jerk and that you will never understand the truth... Like a retard who wants to beleive in Santa Claus, even at 32 years old !



I never said the Spitfire was a piece of shit. I think it was better than every American plane but the Corsair, Mustang and Jug. It was better than every Russian plane until the Yak 3 and La-5/7. It was better than the Zero and probably all JP planes save the Gale and better than the Italian planes.

The problem with the Spitfire is that its role was reserved after about 1943. It just didn't carry the brunt anymore. America stepped in with its power planes.

http://www.luftwaffe.cz/schnell.html


----------



## Nonskimmer (Mar 13, 2005)

Maestro said:


> Like a retard who wants to beleive in Santa Claus, even at 32 years old !


Actually, I'm 35. I...Uh, wait! Forget I said anything!  

Seriously though man, try not to let it get under your skin too much. You'll never change his mind anyway.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 13, 2005)

> better than the Italian planes.



Not the series 5 fighters. They were more than a match.


----------



## Maestro (Mar 13, 2005)

My comparisons don't come from a web site, but from an old book (in French). That book took sources from several other books. Here are all of them :

Spitfire At War Vol 1 2...........................................Alfred Price - Ian Allan
Le Grand Cirque (The Great Show)............................Pierre H. Clostermann - Corgi
Aircraft In Profile.....................................................Profile Publications
Spitfire Story..........................................................Alfred Price - Arms Armour
I Flew For The Führer...............................................Heinz Knocke - Evans
Luftwaffe Night Units 1939-45...................................Osprey - Jerry Scutts
Wings Of The Weird And Wonderful Vol. 2.................Airlife - Capt. Eric Brown
High Flyers.............................................................Micheal Fopp - Greenhill Books
WW2 Fighter Conflict...............................................Alfred Price - PBS
United States Army in World War II :
The European Theater of Operations,
Cross Channel Attack..............................................Gordon A. Harrison,
Bureau du Chef de l'Histoire Militaire,Army Department,Washington D.C., 1951
Typhoon/Tempest In Action.....................................Jerry Scutts - Squadron Signal

That's all of them.


----------



## Maestro (Mar 13, 2005)

Nonskimmer said:


> Seriously though man, try not to let it get under your skin too much. You'll never change his mind anyway.



Yeah, you're right. I'll never change his mind. I should try to calm down...


----------



## DJ_Dalton (Mar 13, 2005)

cheddar cheese said:


> > better than the Italian planes.
> 
> 
> 
> Not the series 5 fighters. They were more than a match.



Cheddar, you are correct. I neglected this plane. It was the best of motors in a very aerodynamic design. I don't know how many they made but it was exceptional.

http://1000aircraftphotos.com/Contributions/Ferone/3961.htm


----------



## Anonymous (Mar 13, 2005)

What cracks me up is that the biggest flaw of the Spitfire - its range, was at least a serious a flaw of the 190 and more serious a flaw of the 109. How can you point at the Spitfire's lack of forward action in the later part of the war as indicating it was a flawed plane and not apply the same reasoning to its German counterparts?

I wonder when he will reply to my reply?  

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## DJ_Dalton (Mar 13, 2005)

RG_Lunatic said:


> What cracks me up is that the biggest flaw of the Spitfire - its range, was at least a serious a flaw of the 190 and more serious a flaw of the 109. How can you point at the Spitfire's lack of forward action in the later part of the war as indicating it was a flawed plane and not apply the same reasoning to its German counterparts?



Range isn't the reason the Spitfire was withdrawn. It was fighting over France and escorting British bombers until they went night action and America stepped in with large scale daylight bombing and long range fighter escort. Whenever the Spitfires flew over France they attrited in significant numbers and thats including D-Day and thereafter when it was all over but the crying for the Germans.

You people are far too influenced by those that write history. You need to give it a close and careful look to determine the detail of it.

http://www.luftwaffe.cz/lemkes.html


----------



## Anonymous (Mar 13, 2005)

DJ_Dalton said:


> RG_Lunatic said:
> 
> 
> > What cracks me up is that the biggest flaw of the Spitfire - its range, was at least a serious a flaw of the 190 and more serious a flaw of the 109. How can you point at the Spitfire's lack of forward action in the later part of the war as indicating it was a flawed plane and not apply the same reasoning to its German counterparts?
> ...



That's just pure crap Dalton, the Spitfire was a relatively poor ground attack plane and suffered badly when it tried that mission.

And pointing to Lemkes success is again based really not upon his ability so much as that of his flight wing. Imagine how much easier it was to rack up the kills when you flew with a dozen or more other fighter pilots all trying to get you into the kill position. To be significant, you need to quote his unit's kills and losses, not just one pilot who they were trying to get the Knights Cross and other medals for.

http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/viewtopic.php?p=59593#59593 <== still awaiting response.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## DJ_Dalton (Mar 13, 2005)

> That's just pure crap Dalton, the Spitfire was a relatively poor ground attack plane and suffered badly when it tried that mission.



Yes it was poor. It did not take damage very well. Handled horribly damaged and had an inline motor that could fail with minimal damage.



> And pointing to Lemkes success is again based really not upon his ability so much as that of his flight wing. Imagine how much easier it was to rack up the kills when you flew with a dozen or more other fighter pilots all trying to get you into the kill position. To be significant, you need to quote his unit's kills and losses



I looked at squadron kills once for the Luftwaffe and they were huge, but it got bad at the end of the war against Jugs and Stangs. Most of their 109's went down due to landing and takeoff accidents, not battle losses. I'd have to pull the links again. But what you're argueing is not consistent with reality by 1944. The Germans were always outnumbered and they used the Schwarm technique the same way the Allies used the finger four. I'm sure you're well aware of the Nowotney Schwarm and JG54's huge across the board successes. As pertains to Lemke specifically he didn't take command until 6.23.44 and by then he'd already downed his last Spitfire. (There is a discrepancy in the kills in this link) It doesnt' mean he didn't lead a Schwarm. It doesn't mean he did either. My guess is he was number 1. He obviously had a good eye.

http://www.luftwaffe.cz/lemkes.html

The plane that won the war was the Jug. Theres little doubt about it. The P-51 was probably a more dangerous dogfight adversary, but what the Jug did it did very well and it did it all. P-51's couldnt do the ground work either. They fell out of the sky in that role. Leading Mustang ace of the war was killed in that endeavor. They say his own AA got him. I seriously doubt that, but thats another story.

Spit IX was a pig under the high engine load, especially when up motored. Focke Wulf were far too much plane for it. 109's too role specific for it. I have no idea where you're coming from.


----------



## Anonymous (Mar 13, 2005)

Most Spitfire pilots consdiered the IX to be the best dogfighter of all the Spitfires. I have no idea where you're comming from Dalton.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## DJ_Dalton (Mar 13, 2005)

RG_Lunatic said:


> Most Spitfire pilots consdiered the IX to be the best dogfighter of all the Spitfires. I have no idea where you're comming from Dalton.
> 
> =S=
> 
> Lunatic



Yeah, I'd say so too. But, it needed the speed and climb rate to get out of the "duck on a pond" mode with the FW190. But what it got changed it from a nimble plane to a plane that better show up in large numbers because there weren't gonna be many tail shot hose downs. If became more like a 109, but without equal zoom and dive characteristics. It got very fast in the end. It had too.

http://www.luftwaffe.cz/glunz.html


----------



## Anonymous (Mar 13, 2005)

Dive characteristics? The 109 was the plane lagging in dive characterisics, not the Spitfire. Early on the 109 had the edge but by the Bf109G vs. the Spit IX this had changed!

The maximum dive speed of the Bf109G was about 465 mph, the Spitfire IX was able to mange speeds in excess of 525 mph and still recover.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## DJ_Dalton (Mar 13, 2005)

RG_Lunatic said:


> Dive characteristics? The 109 was the plane lagging in dive characterisics, not the Spitfire. Early on the 109 had the edge but by the Bf109G vs. the Spit IX this had changed!



hmmmm, Not Exactly.......first off let me refer you to your erstwhile Spitfire fanatic "Krazy Kanuckistani". From his voluminous library he produced the following regarding maximum dive speeds for the IX and the 109G:

http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/viewtopic.php?p=59426#59426

Please note the Luftwaffe warning was not to exceed 750 kph. Similar to boost that was an item at the option of the pilot in emergency situations. While a reading of the Spit IX's dive ability is that the indicated speeds are simply the maximum possible. (Caveat, they are IAS and probably further from true air speed at altitude.) If you bother reading this whole link you'll notice the German ministry said the speeds were "widely exceeded" by German pilots:

http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/viewtopic.php?p=59536#59536

Now, one other little item. The seminal testing of the Bf-109G-6/R6 bomber interceptor configuration. (Gondolas):

"Dive: During the initial part of the dive, the 109 draws away slightly, but when a speed of 380 mph [611 km/hr] is reached the Spitfire XIV begins to gain on the 109. ":

http://www.odyssey.dircon.co.uk/Spitfire14v109.htm

Please note that is the best engined Spitfire (albeit horribly unmaneuverable) that Supermarine ever produced. The test was against a gondola winged G6 run at less than maximum boost and the best the finest British energy plane ever produced could do is lose ground at first and then "begin to gain"....whatever that means. 




> The maximum dive speed of the Bf109G was about 465 mph, the Spitfire IX was able to mange speeds in excess of 525 mph and still recover.



The dive speed you refer to is approximately 850 kph. I assure you the German craft actually dived at that speed. I've read no substance indicating the late war British did.

Lastly, you need to read about the standard evasion techniques the Luftwaffe employed when bounced by superior numbers of Spitfires. I have no idea what makes you think the Spitfires ever ran down German planes in dives.

Keep in mind the following data is from a 1942 FW190A run at minimal boost, once again against the best "performing" fighter the United Kingdom ever produced:

"Conclusions: In defence, the Spitfire XIV should us its remarkable maximum climb and turning circle against enemy aircraft. In the attack it can affort to 'mix it' but should beware of the quick roll and dive. 
If this manoeuvre is used by a FW190 and the Spitfire XIV follows, it will probably not be able to close 
the range until the FW190 has pulled out of its dive.":

http://www.odyssey.dircon.co.uk/Spitfire14v190.htm


If I were you I'd wave the white flag, offer my most sincere apologies, acknowledge my master and pledge an oath of fealty and obediance. 

I'm not going to exceed Erich Hartmanns confirmed kill totals on this board. It would be inappropriate. Granted the planes I get to fly are not on a par with how his produced but I still possess a mere fraction of his ability.

If anyone has any meat. They better bring it out now.

Below are four flyers from JG2 every single one of them exceeded the highest scoring Allie Ace. They may have been a Schwarm. I don't know.

http://www.luftwaffe.cz/oesau.html


----------



## Maestro (Mar 13, 2005)

If I was you, Dalton, I would not "take all infos on the internet for cash". I read several of the following books. And trust me, you should do the same.



Maestro said:


> My comparisons don't come from a web site, but from an old book (in French). That book took sources from several other books. Here are all of them :
> 
> Spitfire At War Vol 1 2...........................................Alfred Price - Ian Allan
> Le Grand Cirque (The Great Show)............................Pierre H. Clostermann - Corgi
> ...



Personnally, I prefer to trust books written by really interrested writers (Pierre H. Clostermann was the leading French Ace of WW II (32 victories) and flew Spitfires, Typhoons and Tempests in the RAF.) than trust anybody who build up a web site and claim to know what he is talking about. Think about it...


----------



## DJ_Dalton (Mar 13, 2005)

> Personnally, I prefer to trust books written by really interrested writers (Pierre H. Clostermann was the leading French Ace of WW II (32 victories) and flew Spitfires, Typhoons and Tempests in the RAF.) than trust anybody who build up a web site and claim to know what he is talking about. Think about it...



Maestro I have no idea what you're talking about. 

I've read accounts from the Experten and others. The Blonde Knight, Rall's Book and several others. 

The IX is widely recognized as the best Spit dogfighter. It still retained a little bit of its former dexterity with the up engined Merlins. It rolled like a pig and choked for nourishment in the paces the Jerrys put it through, but you have to understand the reality of carburation and when the rolls and inverted moves affected separation.

Heres a little link for the up motored IX tested against the Bf 109G6/U2 (This is the same as an R/6. Its the Gondola version. Pay particular attention to the Dive/Climb because its in these formulas that the 109's dominated the Spitfires. They just couldn't compete. EVER:

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

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

Note: they are using 25lb Boost against a Gondola laden 109..lol

http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/109gtac.html

Its not just you guys though. The 109 was bad mouthed by creative historians and its why its fallen into disregard despite the fact that theres scores of aces that literally and individually shot down hundreds of planes in it. Really, you'd have to be a complete zealot to not acknowledge there was a problem between what is said now and what happened then.

Its the greatest revisionist history in the annals of those that write historical accounts.

This guy got a Spitfire and two tanks in one pass...lol They say he was shot down 17 times. I'll bet a Spitfire never got him. If you look at his itemized record, I'll bet the bombers took him out most times.

http://www.luftwaffe.cz/eder.html


----------



## Maestro (Mar 13, 2005)

I suggest you to take a reading course...

It is written "When using a 18 lbs boost" and "When 25 lbs boost is employed". So it was not always used.

And read the repport _completely_. Particualry the three last points...

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

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

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

And then you say it rolled like a pig ? WAKE-UP !


----------



## DJ_Dalton (Mar 13, 2005)

Maestro said:


> I suggest you to take a reading course...
> 
> It is written "When using a 18 lbs boost" and "When 25 lbs boost is employed". So it was not always used.
> 
> ...



M...

If you want to pay this test any mind, ask them to go back and fly the Spitfire with a drop tank and then we can talk. This 109 WITH GONDOLAS was easily faster in a dive (despite Lunatics claim the IX could outdive the 109) It was faster in level flight at certain altitudes and it zoomed as well. 

Roll Rate was impacted by the gondolas. Turning Circle wasn't the planes stongest point and certainly not with gondolas. 

Yes!!! If you challenged me to a duel and said you can have a clean Spit IX or a Gondola G6/U2, I'd take the Spit IX and probably kill my adversary. Give me the same two planes and a clean 109 and I'd take the 109 and I know I'd kill him.


----------



## Maestro (Mar 13, 2005)

There is no mention of gondolas, drop tanks, bombs or whatever in this repport. For both the Spit and 109.

The repports I posted were almost the same results and were made with clean planes.

But I know you will remain saying that the 109 was better and blah, blah, blah, blah... But it's clear that you can't admit the truth. Even when everybody is against you.

Beleive it or not, the Spitfire could match up ANY plane the Luftwaffe had.


----------



## DJ_Dalton1 (Mar 14, 2005)

Maestro said:


> There is no mention of gondolas, drop tanks, bombs or whatever in this repport.



No there isn't a mention of Gondolas. By July 21, 1944 when Britain acquired the Bf-109 due to landing error, the British were not often in combat wtih German Fighter Aircraft. America had succeeded to that role. So the British really didn't know what they had. They knew it was a version they hadn't seen. They knew it was a 109G-6/U-2. They knew it was Werk No. 412951. So they tested it as it came to them. It was "Wild Sau" A nightfighter/bomber hunter.

In the below link, you'll have to scroll down to Bf 109G-6/U-2
Once you reach that entry it indicates it is Werk No. 412951 and states the following regarding acquisition:

"/JG 1, landed by mistake at Manston in the early hours of 21Jul.1944. It was flown to the RAE":

http://www.luftwaffe-experten.co.uk/uk.html

My first question was "What is the RAE"? and the following link tends to answer that, "Royal Aircraft Establishment":

http://www.luftwaffe-experten.co.uk/raf-farn.html

If you scroll down the list you will see an entry for the below itemized aircraft:

TP814 - Messerschmitt Bf109G-6/U2 - W.Nr.412951 - "White 16" of I./JG301 - crashed November 1944 

If you click on that link the following page downloads:

http://www.luftwaffe-experten.co.uk/tp814.html

In the photos you will clearly see a gondola winged 109 with the identification markings (TP-814) and Werk No. (412951) identifying this plane as the Bf 109G-6/U-2 landed at Manston. What is especially significant is the following printed there:

"below: Three images of TP814, this Bf109G-6/U2 was used for tractical trials by the Air Fighter Development Squadron until crashing on take-off in November 1944"

It states it was tested by the *"Air Fighter Development Squadron"* and of course the next question is "What and where is that?"

In the following link I'd have you look down at the third line, which reads:

"*A.F.D.S. Report No. 147"* I'm reasonably sure *"A.F.D.S*." means "*Air Fighter Development Squadron*":

http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/109gtac.html

If you tend to doubt that, I would suggest going back to the first link in this mystery and look for another Bf 109G-6/U-2 captured during the war. You won't find one and even if you did, it would be gondola winged. The A.F.D.S. clearly identifies the tested 109 as a G-6/U-2.

http://www.luftwaffe-experten.co.uk/uk.html

They tested a bomber hunter and even then probably couldn't operate it like the best German pilots. Its really quite comical that history is written on this comparison.


----------



## DAVIDICUS (Mar 14, 2005)

DJ_Dalton 1?

What is your relationship, if any, to DJ_Dalton?


----------



## Anonymous (Mar 14, 2005)

Umm.. Dalton... I have the Bf109G-2 and G-6 manuals. I have test reports for them too, and they don't involve any gondola laden aircraft! These manuals state "The following speeds must not be exceeded at any altitude... 750 kph in dive", and it is pretty clear that if you exceed this the prop will definitely cause the engine to overspeed - and that is a limitation that cannot be exceeded without extreme risk! When diving the pilot had to pay a lot of attention to not overspeeding the engine, a real issue with this plane in a sustained dive.

BTW: max sustained cruising speed is listed as 260 mph.

I also have several wartime documents regaurding the Spitfire:

"Effect of Mach number on dive and recover characteristics", dated March 1944, regaurding Spitfire Mk IX BS. 310 (Merlin 70).

"Level Speed performance with and without a 500 lbs Bomb fitted", dated March 1943, w.r.t Spitfire IX BS.428 (Merlin 61)

"Performance of Spitfire IX aircraft with high and low altitidue versions of the intercooled Merlin Engines" - dated Nov. '42 top Jan '43, w.r.t. Spitfire XI BS.354 (Merlin 9 SM), Spitfire IX BS. 543 (Merlin 66), and Spitfire IX BS.551 (Merlin 70).

"The effect of 'clipping' Spitfire wings", dated 27 March, 1943, w.r.t Spitfire V's AA.937 (Merlin 45) and AB.186 (Merlin 46), Spitfire IX BS.139 (Merlin 61) ,and Spitfire XII's EN221 and EN222 (Griffon IIB).

So far, I've seen no primary source document that indicates, or even claims, the Bf109G could out dive the Spitfire beyond a small advantage at the very start of a dive - and this was not enough to get out of gun range (usually figured as 1200 feet by the British) before the Spitfire started gaining when the two planes were tested in a side by side dive.

Also, you make the negative effects on the Spitfire IX and XIV handling because of the additional weight out to be far more severe than they really were. The 109 suffered much more after the F model than the Spitfire did after the V model.

=S=

Lunatic

PS: RAE is short for A. A.E.E. - which was Boscomb Down - The Royal Airforce "Aircraft and Armament Experimental Establishment".


----------



## DJ_Dalton1 (Mar 14, 2005)

> So far, I've seen no primary source document that indicates, or even claims, the Bf109G could out dive the Spitfire beyond a small advantage at the very start of a dive -



I place a great deal of stock in the pilot accounts. Comparative trials don't involve similar maintenance. You can't expect a captured aircraft to perform like an aircraft inventoried by its manufacturing nation. A captured aircraft is out of its element. Those captured on the ground, are captured on the ground for a reason. In other words the British tested Spitfire is going to perform at absolute maximum performance. You know that going in. The captured aircraft performance is entirely debateable and you certainly see that in these tests. Additionally, I don't put huge emphasis on factory testing. I know the British and especially the Russians played all kinds of games with that. Testing without armament. Testing with fuels not generally available at the time of the tests. Using experimental boost. Setting gearing for test conditions. Running at unsustainable rpm. So the issue is, "what is a primary source document"? Comparative testing? Factory testing? Factory testing in what configuration?

I place as much or more emphasis on the anecdotal or combat evidence, because its there that the planes are fully armed for war and pushed to their limits...and this part is important...AND BEYOND. To my mind, its the only place to judge. You don't judge a halfback by his 40 yard dash out of pads. You judge by what he accomplishes on game day. In WWII, in the air, the Germans won on game day vs. the British, but there were a lot of good teams in that division and they didn't win it all. 

Supermarine was writing comparative reports two full years after the war ended to "identify" where their planes stood. Why do you think they did that? I won't make you guess. It was because they knew both that they had absorbed a vicious drubbing and that America pulled their fat from the fire They were still in the resolution mode.

Anyway, so primary source document? You really want to base conclusions about which plane did what on non combat testing? You didn't pick this up from the Russian moron they had working at Jaleco referencing bogus documentation did you? I had to point out to them the F4U-4C never saw WWII. They actually didn't know. Anyway, thats another story. Ok, for the third time try this one and keep in mind its a gondola winged Wilde Sau Bf 109G-6/U-2 being tested vs. a cleanly configured Spitfire IX utilizing 25lbs of boost at certain points in the testing:

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

http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/109gtac.html




> Also, you make the negative effects on the Spitfire IX and XIV handling because of the additional weight out to be far more severe than they really were. The 109 suffered much more after the F model than the Spitfire did after the V model.



Its not only weight. Its the additional speed that degrades the Spitfire. That big wing is not a high speed maneuver wing. It rolls like a pig under high load. Abysmal.

Heres a little article I read awhile ago. I don't endorse it entirely. I only cite it for the observations. Its in the wartime observations that the truth is hidden by modern p.c. historians:

"Thomas L. Hayes, Jr., a P-51 ace of the 357th Fighter Group with 8 1/2 victories, recalled diving after a fleeing Me-109G until both aircraft neared the sound barrier and their controls locked. Both pilots took measures to slow down, but to Hayes' astonishment, the Me-109 was the first to pull out of its dive. As he belatedly regained control of his Mustang, Hayes was grateful that the German pilot chose to quit while he was ahead and fly home instead of taking advantage of Hayes' momentary helplessness. Hayes also stated that while he saw several Fw-190s stall and even crash during dogfights, he never saw an Me-109 go out of control. "

http://history1900s.about.com/library/prm/blkillingmachine1.htm

How fast do you think they were going in that dive? or do you not believe it?

By the way, if you think its incredulous regarding what some of their aircraft were truly capable of in a pinch don't read about their submarines. You really won't believe it.


----------



## Udet (Mar 14, 2005)

Maestro:

Dalton was not comparing the Fw190 with obsolete Spitfires, the Mk V in this case.

The Butcher bird on its arrival to JG units in France in early 1942 faced precisely its contemporary RAF foe, which happened to be the Mk VB, and the Spitfire units took a hell of a pounding.

Two famous events of 1942 saw Spitfire squadrons taking heavy losses at the hands of both the Fw190 and the Bf109: the Channel Dash and the Dieppe Raid.

The Spitfire was available in important numbers during 1942, never to find themselves outnumbered. RAF fighter squadrons failed big time to prevail over a Jagdwaffe which had, at the moment, a very important part of its force dealing with the VVS in the east, not to mention the units deployed elsewhere (North Africa, Mediterranean, etc.)


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 14, 2005)

i have read many accounts of comparisons between spits and -109/-190s, most will say the spit was superior, they can't all be wrong, and hell, even german pilots admit the spit was a superior plane.............


----------



## Anonymous (Mar 14, 2005)

DJ_Dalton1 said:


> > So far, I've seen no primary source document that indicates, or even claims, the Bf109G could out dive the Spitfire beyond a small advantage at the very start of a dive -
> 
> 
> 
> I place a great deal of stock in the pilot accounts. Comparative trials don't involve similar maintenance. You can't expect a captured aircraft to perform like an aircraft inventoried by its manufacturing nation. A captured aircraft is out of its element. Those captured on the ground, are captured on the ground for a reason. In other words the British tested Spitfire is going to perform at absolute maximum performance. You know that going in. The captured aircraft performance is entirely debateable and you certainly see that in these tests. Additionally, I don't put huge emphasis on factory testing. I know the British and especially the Russians played all kinds of games with that. Testing without armament. Testing with fuels not generally available at the time of the tests. Using experimental boost. Setting gearing for test conditions. Running at unsustainable rpm. So the issue is, "what is a primary source document"? Comparative testing? Factory testing? Factory testing in what configuration?



Pilot accounts are of limited value. They often mis-identify the opposing plane, especially the specific variant. Pilot skill also enters into the picture big-time. Personal bias is also a huge factor. And then their is the effect of time - which can badly distort such recollections.

All primary source documents have to be taken for what they are. In most cases, I find test documents based upon actual flight tests to be the best source IF they specify all the conditions of the test and any special factors involved. All the test documents I've referenced above do this to the extreme.



DJ_Dalton1 said:


> I place as much or more emphasis on the anecdotal or combat evidence, because its there that the planes are fully armed for war and pushed to their limits...and this part is important...AND BEYOND. To my mind, its the only place to judge. You don't judge a halfback by his 40 yard dash out of pads. You judge by what he accomplishes on game day. In WWII, in the air, the Germans won on game day vs. the British, but there were a lot of good teams in that division and they didn't win it all.



The British did about as well over German held ground as the German's did over British held ground. Neither was particularly good at offense unless the enemy was totally outclassed.



DJ_Dalton1 said:


> Anyway, so primary source document? You really want to base conclusions about which plane did what on non combat testing? You didn't pick this up from the Russian moron they had working at Jaleco referencing bogus documentation did you? I had to point out to them the F4U-4C never saw WWII. They actually didn't know.



That is not true. They doubted it saw service but it was possible it did, and they needed an easy fix to the game balance issues they faced. The problem in Fighter Ace is that the .50's only fire ball ammo, and cannon ballistics are almost identical to .50 ballistics and fire HE ammo. This makes cannon rule the game. Since there was no late-war multi cannon armed US plane, they chose to add the -4C rather than completely remodle the gun/damage system - something they could not do without great expense at that time.

And as for the -4C not having seen service, there is some evidence that it did. There are accounts by airfield personel of 4 bladed Corsairs having arrived in China armed with 4 cannon. The problem is that there are almost no primary source documents which say where any of the F4U variants went - including the -1C. What is clear is that the -4C models came off the production line between Sept. '44 and Feb. '45, that's about it.




DJ_Dalton1 said:


> Anyway, thats another story. Ok, for the third time try this one and keep in mind its a gondola winged Wilde Sau Bf 109G-6/U-2 being tested vs. a cleanly configured Spitfire IX utilizing 25lbs of boost at certain points in the testing:
> 
> "Dive
> 19.........Comparitive dives between the two aircraft have shown that the Me.109 can leave the Spitfire without any difficulty.":
> ...



Prove this claim.




DJ_Dalton1 said:


> > Also, you make the negative effects on the Spitfire IX and XIV handling because of the additional weight out to be far more severe than they really were. The 109 suffered much more after the F model than the Spitfire did after the V model.
> 
> 
> 
> Its not only weight. Its the additional speed that degrades the Spitfire. That big wing is not a high speed maneuver wing. It rolls like a pig under high load. Abysmal.



And so did the 109 - in fact it was worse. Neither plane could roll well at speed. And again, the 109 could only maintain high speeds in level flight for about 1 minute before overheating - the Spitfire was able to sustain such speeds for several minutes.



DJ_Dalton1 said:


> Heres a little article I read awhile ago. I don't endorse it entirely. I only cite it for the observations. Its in the wartime observations that the truth is hidden by modern p.c. historians:
> 
> "Thomas L. Hayes, Jr., a P-51 ace of the 357th Fighter Group with 8 1/2 victories, recalled diving after a fleeing Me-109G until both aircraft neared the sound barrier and their controls locked. Both pilots took measures to slow down, but to Hayes' astonishment, the Me-109 was the first to pull out of its dive. As he belatedly regained control of his Mustang, Hayes was grateful that the German pilot chose to quit while he was ahead and fly home instead of taking advantage of Hayes' momentary helplessness. Hayes also stated that while he saw several Fw-190s stall and even crash during dogfights, he never saw an Me-109 go out of control. "
> 
> ...



LOL - I suspect the 109's engine overspeed and seized - thus he was able to slow down faster, but of course he chose to exit combat.



DJ_Dalton1 said:


> By the way, if you think its incredulous regarding what some of their aircraft were truly capable of in a pinch don't read about their submarines. You really won't believe it.



German subs were crap compared to US subs. On the other hand, US torpedos sucked big time until about mid 1943.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## DJ_Dalton1 (Mar 14, 2005)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> i have read many accounts of *comparisons* between spits and -109/-190s, *most* will say the spit was superior



like this one following?:

http://www.odyssey.dircon.co.uk/Spitfire14v190.htm

Note they tested a 1944 XIV vs. a 1942 FW190 and even then they didn't open the FW up. But they go on to say the following:

"Dive: After the initial part of the dive, during which the FW 190 gains slightly, the Spitfire XIV has a slight advantage. 

Rate of Roll: The FW 190 is very much better

Conclusions: In defence, the Spitfire XIV should us its remarkable maximum climb and turning circle against enemy aircraft. In the attack it can affort to 'mix it' but should beware of the quick roll and dive. 
If this manoeuvre is used by a FW190 and the Spitfire XIV follows, it will probably not be able to close 
the range until the FW190 has pulled out of its dive."

I don't know about you, but I don't weight that in favor of the "best" British figher ever made. If you test a 1944 German aircraft against a 1942 British Aircraft, I guarantee you that you'll have all the performance standards in German favor, with the possible exception of turning circle and roll in the Bf 109. But roll will be very close.



> they can't all be wrong,



Why not? someones wrong. Its merely a question of who?



> and hell, even german pilots admit the spit was a superior



Now you're clearly into the "I don't know, so I'm making it up" mode. O.K. lets assume that there were German pilots that said the Spitfire was superior, (This I know to be clearly a fiction. They feasted on Spitfires), Your credibility requires that you provide one legitimate properly contexted source. 

By the way the Lancaster sucked big time. They had to go to night because it was a tinderbox.

This Experten really liked to engage Spitfires. He said they superior targets.

http://www.luftwaffe.cz/hahn.html


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 14, 2005)

hey hey hey now you've dissed the spit and i can take that, just, but NO ONE that's NO ONE, ESPECIALLY SOMEONE WITH 3 POSTS can come on here and bad mouth the lancaster, please, name ways in which the lancaster "sucked big time", nothing would give me more pleasure than proving you wrong, and believe me, whilst i can't with the spit, i can bombard you with sources of info on the lancaster, you picked the wrong guy to have a fight about the lancaster with.................


----------



## mosquitoman (Mar 14, 2005)

We went at night because we didn't have the fighter escort, the Americans were thinking of postponing daytime bomber ops and then the Mustang came along. Us Brits were just being sensible


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 14, 2005)

i'm just waiting for his response really, i can't wait to see what he has to say...........


----------



## DJ_Dalton1 (Mar 14, 2005)

DJ_Dalton1 said:


> Anyway, that's another story. Ok, for the third time try this one and keep in mind its a gondola winged Wilde Sau Bf 109G-6/U-2 being tested vs. a cleanly configured Spitfire IX utilizing 25lbs of boost at certain points in the testing:
> 
> "Dive
> 19.........Comparative dives between the two aircraft have shown that the Me.109 can leave the Spitfire without any difficulty.":
> ...



I think I already did prove it and that I proved it beyond a reasonable doubt. 

http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/viewtopic.php?p=59729#59729

But lets assume someone was obstinate or thick headed enough to hang an otherwise clearly united jury on the major charge. You can always settle for a lesser charge or find the path of least resistance with a blockhead and in comparing the planes its really not relevant how the Bf 109G-6/U-2 was configured for the dive, because regardless of how it was configured it out dove the Spitfire IX.

So say the 109 was clean if you wish. The evidence is clear indicating otherwise, but it really doesn't matter regarding the dive.

http://www.luftwaffe.cz/michalski.html


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 14, 2005)

it's rude to ignore me dj..........


----------



## DJ_Dalton1 (Mar 14, 2005)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> it's rude to ignore me dj..........



Lanny, I'm multitasking. I'm sorry for ignoring will responds asap...lol


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 14, 2005)

oh this's gonna be good...........

and multi tasking, what kind of a man are you??


----------



## DJ_Dalton1 (Mar 14, 2005)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> oh this's gonna be good...........
> 
> and multi tasking, what kind of a man are you??



Yeah, I agree concentrating well on one thing is the key to life.

Ok, The lancaster sucked for a number of reasons. First off, it lacked a belly turret and when I'm playing flying sims I always zoom up and gut shoot it. Its defenseless from underneath.

Secondly, I don't think its particularly fast so its easy to get multiple passes on it before it gets to target.

I think its got a decent bomb load, but if you hit it jusssssssst right.........KABOOM the whole thing goes up in a really nice pyrotechnics display.

Lets see what else....oh yeah........they had to go night bombing with it because they were getting murdered during the day. I see an escort there in your picture but really can't make it out. It looks more like an Aircobra than a Spitfire to me. Do you know what it is?

Anyway, night bombing resulted in the Luftwaffe's response with Wilde Sau and early one morning the Germans got confused and landed at Manston instead of France I guess and the U.K. got a nice bomber hunter to test and everyone is all confused because of it.

Thats about it.


----------



## DAVIDICUS (Mar 14, 2005)

Why did DJ_Dalton's name suddenly change to DJ_Dalton 1?

This isn't his alter ego is it?


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 14, 2005)

Right, the Lancaster didnt have belly turret in an effort for a bigger bomb bay. It escaped the German Night Fighters by outmanoevering them. 

It was also plenty fast enough. Faster than the B-17 which I gather your going to say was better than it.

And I dont think Lancasters ever bombed during the day. The RAF's early bombers did and got slaughtered, hence the change to night bombing. Hell, it was probably better than day bombing.

And you get your opinions from flight sims? Dude, as good as they may be, you cant just go around saying something because on a certain flight sim its rubbish...or maybe its you thats rubbish...

Hopefully lanc can shed some more light on your points.

BTW I think the escort is an RAF Mustang.


----------



## DJ_Dalton1 (Mar 14, 2005)

> Pilot accounts are of limited value. They often mis-identify the opposing plane, especially the specific variant. Pilot skill also enters into the picture big-time. Personal bias is also a huge factor. And then their is the effect of time - which can badly distort such recollections.



Sure, those are all legitimate reasons for questioning what pilots say they observed. In the Hayes P-51 dive story, its possible it was a K and not a lowly G-6. Certainly thats possible. We don't have a date to look at there. I doubt he mistook a FW190D for a 109, but thats possible too I suppose. But then again, according to the posters here ALL German planes had a governor on them for a maximum 750 kph dive. You see the problem for the victors is that they really can't explain how a guy like this one following beat up on the best planes they had despite being outnumbered and fighting many times from below:

http://www.luftwaffe.cz/bartels.html

They just can't explain it, so they look to justify their victory in the war upon their righteousness and the superiority of their equipment. The Allies certainly appear to have had the righteous element but there is nothing to support the technological claims for their equipment, other than their very biased and contorted non combat testing that just didn't hold up in combat. It's really quite amazing and I have no doubt that part of the testing involved morale. They wanted genuine tests to help their pilots and made recommendations regarding such, but who thinks when they were stinky they were gonna say "You're in deep shit if you try to dive out or climb out of this one." It didn't go down like that.

That Experten above shot down 9 Spitfires, 4 of which were obviously late model. He got 11 P-51's, 9 P-47's and 14 P-38's. The P-38 was a plane the Japanese really couldn't deal with unless the pilot got stupid.

Anyway he was at about 24,000 feet when they saw drop tanks falling from Jugs diving at them from above. It doesn't say for sure, but who doubts that they were outnumbered at least 2-1? He got one according to the account and then went missing. They found his plane 24 years later. I'm assuming they found some remains. Its a romantic story.

One last thing I find interesting in this story is that he was flying a G-10. Some will say that plane was not in service until winter of '44. He was flying it in June.



> All primary source documents have to be taken for what they are.



I really dont know what that means. The Soviets ran tests with the Vk-107 and it had phenomenal performance indicated. The motor was so unreliable they pulled it and went back to putting PF-105's in the Yak 9's. It was a complete failure in combat, couldn't be run at maximum rpm, burned up at lesser RPM and was yanked from the planes, yet folks point to the trials and say that was a heckuva motor. To this day you can find Yak's in Russia to refurbish, but you can't find a Klimov to rebuild and its not because they've cornered the market.

The same was true to a lesser extent with the British tests. They were massaged and reflect performance the combat Spits didn't match.



*Re F4U-4C and Jaleco:* .


> They doubted it saw service but it was possible it did... Since there was no late-war multi cannon armed US plane, they chose to add the -4C rather than completely remodle the gun/damage system...



Well, maybe....however when I was involved in the discussion they were insisting it was a wartime aircraft. Whether they were playing dumb or changed their tune when the evidence was presented to indicate otherwise is something only they know for sure. They were not the most discerning guys, of that I"m certain.



> And as for the -4C not having seen service, there is some evidence that it did. There are accounts by airfield personel of 4 bladed Corsairs having arrived in China armed with 4 cannon. The problem is that there are almost no primary source documents which say where any of the F4U variants went



Not exactly... but I'm not going to rehash this and have to demonstrate with documents once again, (which I didn't bother saving), that this plane wasn't even commissioned by the Marines until 1946. Thats right....1946... You culd look it up.



> What is clear is that the -4C models came off the production line between Sept. '44 and Feb. '45, that's about it.[/b]



Not exactly....this plane was being produced into 1947...once again, you could look it up.


----------



## Anonymous (Mar 14, 2005)

DJ_Dalton1 said:


> DJ_Dalton1 said:
> 
> 
> > Anyway, that's another story. Ok, for the third time try this one and keep in mind its a gondola winged Wilde Sau Bf 109G-6/U-2 being tested vs. a cleanly configured Spitfire IX utilizing 25lbs of boost at certain points in the testing:
> ...



I have seen no proof that the 109 in question had gun pods. Furthermore, it would be inconsistant with the RAE tests for it not to have been mentioned had this been the case.

As for the dive, the nature of the dive is not specified. Again, I've never said the 109 would not pull away from the Spit IX at the start of a dive. However, it was unable to extend a 1200+ foot lead from an equal start, and if the dive was long enough the spitfire would catch it.

You seem to want to pick and choose comments from different reports which support your position while ingoring those which dispute it. In the reporte sighted, http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/109gtac.html, for instance, the Spitfire comes out way on top of the 109 in the overal comparison. What's up with that?

And why the complaint about the 25 lbs of boost on the Spitfire. This was commonly available to Spitfires by about the end of '43 when 100 octane gas was supplied to RAF fighter units. And even at 18 lbs boost, the Spitfire still appears to be superior.

Finally, you seem to believe these tests were rigged to make the Spitfire look good. This makes no sense, what would the motivation of the RAE be to collect bad data? I would agree sometimes the parameters of their testing were advantageous to the Spitfire, but this is because they tended to test turn rates at 10-15,000 feet at 250-275 IAS. While this might tend to make the Spitfire look a little better than it was in relation to the FW190, and significantly better than it really was w.r.t. the P-51, it makes the 109 look better than it really was w.r.t the Spitfire. The 109's manuverablity degraded with speed even worse than that of the Spitfire.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## Anonymous (Mar 14, 2005)

DJ_Dalton1 said:


> But then again, according to the posters here ALL German planes had a governor on them for a maximum 750 kph dive.



I've never seen any such statement. But, the 109 did have such a govener - it's called a prop. The pitch of the prop could not be adjusted to a steep enough angle to allow more than 750 kph in a dive without driving the engine above its 3000 rpm absolute redline (200 rpm higher than its redline). Much above this rpm, the engine would go poof.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## Anonymous (Mar 14, 2005)

DJ_Dalton1 said:


> You see the problem for the victors is that they really can't explain how a guy like this one following beat up on the best planes they had despite being outnumbered and fighting many times from below:
> 
> http://www.luftwaffe.cz/bartels.html
> 
> They just can't explain it, so they look to justify their victory in the war upon their righteousness and the superiority of their equipment. The Allies certainly appear to have had the righteous element but there is nothing to support the technological claims for their equipment, other than their very biased and contorted non combat testing that just didn't hold up in combat. It's really quite amazing and I have no doubt that part of the testing involved morale. They wanted genuine tests to help their pilots and made recommendations regarding such, but who thinks when they were stinky they were gonna say "You're in deep s**t if you try to dive out or climb out of this one." It didn't go down like that.



That's total BS. These reports were, for the most part, limited to very small numbers of people. In the reports I have, the list of recipients is clearly identified and rarely numbers more than 50, and is clearly marked as secret and not for distribution of any kind. From these reports, guidelines as to how to engage the enemy were generated and distributed to combat pilots, but these were very general in nature. Mostly, the reports were used in the futher development of fighters, by engineers.



DJ_Dalton1 said:


> That Experten above shot down 9 Spitfires, 4 of which were obviously late model. He got 11 P-51's, 9 P-47's and 14 P-38's. The P-38 was a plane the Japanese really couldn't deal with unless the pilot got stupid.



Yes, and given the way that the German squadrons flew, one pilot would tend to get the credit for a disproportionate number of kills. It's even known that sometimes kills scored by other members of the squadron were credited to their "ace" to improve his score card.

As for the P-38, it had no problems in the PTO because none of the Japanese planes could come up to engage it above about 20,000 feet. In the ETO and MTO, this was not the case. Most P-38 pilots in that theater had less than 25 hours flight time in the P-38. Switching from cruise condition to combat condition was difficult, and this lead to many easy kills for the Germans.



> 3. As a typical case to demonstrate my point, let us assume that we have a pilot fresh out of flying school with about a total of twenty-five hours in a P-38, starting out on a combat mission. He is on a deep ramrod, penetration and target support to maximum endurance. He is cruising along with his power set at maximum economy. He is pulling 31" Hg and 2100 RPM. He is auto lean and running on external tanks. His gun heater is off to relieve the load on his generator, which frequently gives out (under sustained heavy load). His sight is off to save burning out the bulb. His combat switch may or may not be on. Flying along in this condition, he suddenly gets "bounced", what to do flashes through his mind. He must turn, he must increase power and get rid of those external tanks and get on his main. So, he reaches down and turns two stiff, difficult gas switches {valves} to main - turns on his drop tank switches, presses his release button, puts the mixture to auto rich (two separate and clumsy operations), increases his RPM, increases his manifold pressure, turns on his gun heater switch (which he must feel for and cannot possibly see), turns on his combat switch and he is ready to fight. At this point, he has probably been shot down or he has done one of several things wrong. Most common error is to push the throttles wide open before increasing RPM. This causes detonation and subsequent engine failure. Or, he forgets to switch back to auto rich, and gets excessive cylinder head temperature with subsequent engine failure.
> 
> 4. In my limited experience with a P-38 group, we have lost as least four (4) pilots, who when bounced, took no immediate evasive action. The logical assumption is that they were so busy in the cockpit, trying to get organized that they were shot down before they could get going.
> http://home.att.net/~ww2aviation/P-38-2.html



Also many of the problems with the earlier P-38's in the ETO and MTO were allieviated or eliminated in the H,J,K models which mostly fought in the PTO.



DJ_Dalton1 said:


> Anyway he was at about 24,000 feet when they saw drop tanks falling from Jugs diving at them from above. It doesn't say for sure, but who doubts that they were outnumbered at least 2-1?



There is no reason to believe this at all. P-47's were known to conduct such bounces even when badly outnumbered. Usually they could strike and run successfully.

Also, you need to read that account again. Those P-47's were after another German plane, flown by Heinz Rossinger. Bartel and his wingman Oberfähnrich Rolf Brand, bounced those P-47's.



DJ_Dalton1 said:


> He got one according to the account and then went missing. They found his plane 24 years later. I'm assuming they found some remains. Its a romantic story.



It would be interesting to see if he really scored that kill. By this time in the war, Germany was no longer maintaining strict proof of kill requirements, or good records either. And clearly, there was no guncam footage. So how did that kill get confirmed?



DJ_Dalton1 said:


> One last thing I find interesting in this story is that he was flying a G-10. Some will say that plane was not in service until winter of '44. He was flying it in June.



Yes that is interesting. But it just goes to show that the "Experten" got special treatment all around. They got the hot planes far earlier than most German pilots, and they hunted with a whole squadron trying to set them up for kills (or giving them credit for kills they really didn't score).

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## DJ_Dalton1 (Mar 14, 2005)

> I have seen no proof that the 109 in question had gun pods.



The problem is Lunatic, that you are not looking for proof. You are looking for a confession. You want the RAF to tell you "This 109 had underwing gondolas". 

Theres more than sufficient evidence to prove that the tested plane was a gondola version. Certainly more than enough for a court of law. A confession is very rare in the law and its not necessary to reach a conclusion or verdict.

Heres the evidence again. The clear indication is the underwing gondola 109G-6/U-2 (TP 814) was sent to the A.F.D.S. for comparative testing. You'd have to maintain there was a second variant tested without gondolas or that they removed the underwing gondolas. Nothing in the reports comes close to indicating that, including the capture records.

http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/viewtopic.php?p=59729#59729 

What it boils down to is that you have been discredited upon the dive speeds, among other things, and you've gotten very pigheaded and are going to concede no more ground. You probably aren't even a Spitfire fanatic, but you figure theres wiggle room and you desperately want to save face, figuring you're very loose play with statistical "facts" will cloak you with some type of expertise among those that know less. Who knows, with some of folks here you may even be able to pull it off. But I know that you understand the reality of it. Its just not about a search for the truth with you, the same way its not about a search for the truth with those that sometimes write books about the conflict.




> Furthermore, it would be inconsistant with the RAE tests for it not to have been mentioned had this been the case.



What? They dont mention the armament in these tests. You can't even tell many times if they have a loadout and many times they don't. So they'd mention the pods, but not removal of the pods?...lol 



> Again, I've never said the 109 would not pull away from the Spit IX at the start of a dive. However, it was unable to extend a 1200+ foot lead from an equal start, and if the dive was long enough the spitfire would catch it.



I"ve about reached a tolerance level with you. Ok, cite your source. This will be interesting. The 109's left the Spits in the dust in dives. Espcially in hard G. It wasn't even close and then what they did is zoom climb above them and even though the Spit was sometimes faster in level flight and was sometimes geared for remarkable slow speed climb performance it couldnt stay with the 109's? Do you know why? 



> You seem to want to pick and choose comments from different reports which support your position while ingoring those which dispute it. In the reporte sighted, http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/109gtac.html, for instance, *the Spitfire comes out way on top of the 109* in the overal comparison. What's up with that?



You know whats up with it....*Gondolas*. But even then you're characterization is off in the IX comparison. The Gondola 109 is actually faster at certain altitudes, dives better and zoom climbs as well. Its only in comparison with a XIV that the performance is clearly at a disadvantage.



> And why the complaint about the 25 lbs of boost on the Spitfire. This was commonly available to Spitfires by about the end of '43 when 100 octane gas was supplied to RAF fighter units. And even at 18 lbs boost, the Spitfire still appears to be superior.



The point being +25 boost was the maximum for the Spit and the tests are very questionable as to whether maximum ata was allowed for the German planes. You know the Brit planes were run at maximum, whether they could really handle that in combat or not, but with the German planes in these tests that is very much debateable.



> Finally, you seem to believe these tests were rigged to make the Spitfire look good.



The tests were set up so the Spitfires performed at maximum. You can't say that about the German planes. At very high speed the 109 did suffer compressability, but the Experten made kill passes at 400 mph plus.

The Spitfires finally got this one

http://www.luftwaffe.cz/pflanz.html


----------



## Maestro (Mar 14, 2005)

That's why I distrust information from most web sites. Most of them are made by amateurs.

Personnally, I prefer to trust an expert like Alfred Price or a ex-fighter pilot and WW II veteran like Pierre H. Clostermann than any s*cker claiming that they know something because they own a web site.

Dalton, if I remember well, you said in an other post you didn't know Clostermann ? Well, I really respect that man (even if he is French). Here is his short bio.

"_Pierre Clostermann was born on February 28 1921 at Curitiba, Brazil, where his father worked as a French diplomat. At an age of only sixteen he aquired his pilot's licence in November 1937. He was educated in Paris and studied engineering in USA when France fell...

In 1941 he joined the Free French Forces (341 "Alsace" Squadron). The following year he was transferred to RAF and 602 Squadron, where he served in Spitfire. During this time he destroyed at least 11 enemy aircraft, 2 probable and seven damage.

On 4 March 1945 he joined No 274 Squadron and the Hawker Tempest. His first Tempest score was a Bf 109 on his second day during a "cannon test".
In the middle of March 1945 he was posted as a Flight commander to No 56 Squadron. With this unit he destroyed a Bf109 in the air. On 8 April he was transferred to No 3 Squadron as "A" Flight commander where he on 20 April scored two Fw 190D-9s'.
Clostermann's final score in Tempest is at least 12 destroyed, 6 shared and 2 probables . He was awarded the DSO and DFC and Bar in addition to French, Belgian and American decorations.

Final Total : 33 destroyed

19 FW-190
7 ME-109
2 Dornier 24
1 Fieseler 156
1 JU-252
1 JU-88
1 JU-290
1 Heinkel 111

On the ground he destroyed :

7 JU 88
6 DO-18
4 HE-177
2 Arado 323
1 JU-252
1 Blom-Voss

Add to it some 72 locomotives , 5 tanks , 1 submarine and 2 destroyers..._"

And earlier, you were talking about propenganda. How can you trust a web site called www.luftwaffe.cz and then claiming the 109 was better ? I think _you_ ate the propagenda bait.


----------



## DJ_Dalton1 (Mar 14, 2005)

Maestro said:


> Dalton, if I remember well, you said in an other post you didn't know Clostermann ? Well, I really respect that man (even if he is French). Here is his short bio.



This guy was obviously a skilled pilot, but I don't think I commented upon him before. I have a much higher opinion of Tempests than Spitfires and most of his kills were apparently in the Tempest. Thats a lot of FW's. 



> And earlier, you were talking about propenganda. How can you trust a web site called www.luftwaffe.cz and then claiming the 109 was better ? I think _you_ ate the propagenda bait.



First off, the website doesn't claim the 109 was better than the Spitfire. Thats up to the reader to judge. But, that website is one of the finest in this field out on the net. I wish there was someone equally as thorough in the other countries documenting their fliers. He updates that site often and adds or modifies profiles. Most of the accounts clearly identify Werk No.s, promotion dates, significant engagements. Its very detail laden. He's acquired Luftwaffe records, but like everything in this field its a work in progress. Theres still no profile for Marseilles and Hartmann.


----------



## Maestro (Mar 14, 2005)

In fact, Clostermann scored (at least) 11 confirmed kills in Spitfires. (341 and 602 Squadrons being equipped with Spitfire Mk. IXc). While he scored 12 confirmed kills in a Tempest.

According to this web site : http://perso.wanadoo.fr/frenchaces/as/m+c.html , Clostermann scored 3 Bf-109 and 7 FW-190 in a Spitfire Mk. IX.


----------



## Anonymous (Mar 14, 2005)

DJ_Dalton1 said:


> > I have seen no proof that the 109 in question had gun pods.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



You are so full of crap its unbelievable Dalton! It's not about "a preponderance of the evidence", which often leads to false convictions. It's about reasonable proof, which you've provided none. What we need is the entire document, not just snippets, so we can see the exact conditions of the planes involved in the tests. I've read over a large number of these tests, and they always specify such things as underwing gondolas. In fact, after having read through many of these tests, I find it hard to believe the presense of underwing gondolas would not be restated throughout the document - normally such things are.

It is about the search for the truth. You however, have some agenda to prove the 109 was much better than the Spitfire - a position largely contradicted by fact.




DJ_Dalton1 said:


> > Furthermore, it would be inconsistant with the RAE tests for it not to have been mentioned had this been the case.
> 
> 
> 
> What? They dont mention the armament in these tests. You can't even tell many times if they have a loadout and many times they don't. So they'd mention the pods, but not removal of the pods?...lol



Read the bottom of the report you reference. It clearly says it's been edited to provide only those details releavent to the Spitfire. No real conclusion can be made from such a partial report. However, in most cases, the guns were removed from German aircraft when they were captured, and used for seperate weapons evaluations. It is quite likely the Spitfire tested against had no guns as well. Using your criteria of "proof", the most likely case is that neither plane had any guns at all.



DJ_Dalton1 said:


> > Again, I've never said the 109 would not pull away from the Spit IX at the start of a dive. However, it was unable to extend a 1200+ foot lead from an equal start, and if the dive was long enough the spitfire would catch it.
> 
> 
> 
> I"ve about reached a tolerance level with you. Ok, cite your source. This will be interesting. The 109's left the Spits in the dust in dives. Espcially in hard G. It wasn't even close and then what they did is zoom climb above them and even though the Spit was sometimes faster in level flight and was sometimes geared for remarkable slow speed climb performance it couldnt stay with the 109's? Do you know why?



Love to hear this one... 



DJ_Dalton1 said:


> > You seem to want to pick and choose comments from different reports which support your position while ingoring those which dispute it. In the reporte sighted, http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/109gtac.html, for instance, *the Spitfire comes out way on top of the 109* in the overal comparison. What's up with that?
> 
> 
> 
> You know whats up with it....*Gondolas*. But even then you're characterization is off in the IX comparison. The Gondola 109 is actually faster at certain altitudes, dives better and zoom climbs as well. Its only in comparison with a XIV that the performance is clearly at a disadvantage.



Again, I do not believe there were any Gondolas on this plane. If they were there when it was captured, they were almost certainly removed before this test.



DJ_Dalton1 said:


> > And why the complaint about the 25 lbs of boost on the Spitfire. This was commonly available to Spitfires by about the end of '43 when 100 octane gas was supplied to RAF fighter units. And even at 18 lbs boost, the Spitfire still appears to be superior.
> 
> 
> 
> The point being +25 boost was the maximum for the Spit and the tests are very questionable as to whether maximum ata was allowed for the German planes. You know the Brit planes were run at maximum, whether they could really handle that in combat or not, but with the German planes in these tests that is very much debateable.



I'll concede that point. We don't know. But I think the +18 lbs boost comparison is totally legit.



DJ_Dalton1 said:


> > Finally, you seem to believe these tests were rigged to make the Spitfire look good.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Let me ask you this Dalton... what makes you think those German accounts are accurate? I've seen pleanty of cases where claimed kills were proven bogus. If the plane was headed down and was leaking anything, it was a "kill". This was especially true on the E. front and from 1944 on on the W. front.

The only way to confirm a kill from any side is either guncam footage showing it explode, hit the ground, or pilot bail out, or through cross checking with recorded losses on the other side. All sides exagerated kill claims.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## DJ_Dalton1 (Mar 14, 2005)

> You are so full of crap its unbelievable Dalton! It's not about "a preponderance of the evidence", which often leads to false convictions. It's about reasonable proof, which you've provided none.



The judge has removed you from the jury for cause: Bias and ignorance.



> What we need is the entire document, not just snippets, so we can see the exact conditions of the planes involved in the tests.



I agree the whole document might help. I searched for it and can't find it. Then again, i'm not sure it would shed more light. We have uncontroverted evidence regarding the following:

-Two "Wilde Sau" Bf 109G-6/U-2's with underwing 20mm pods for bomber hunting "mistakenly" attempted landings at Manston Airfield in the very early morning hours of June 21, 1944. 

-One crash landed and was lost.

-The other, Werk No. 412951, landed successfully.

-It was painted thereafter in RAF markings.

-It was sent to Boscombe Down for comparative trials..

-No other 109G-6/U-2 was captured by Allies during the war.

-A 109G-6/U-2 was tested at Boscombe Down vs. a Spit IX with an engine capable of +25 boost. 

-The 109G-6/U-2 outperformed/equal performed said Sptifire in some aspects of the test.

http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/viewtopic.php?p=59729#59729

Your contention, despite lack of evidence, is that The tested 109G-6/U-2 may not be the aircraft aquired June 21, 1944 at Manston. 

or

If it is that same aircraft, you're assumption is they removed the underwing gun pods despite a complete lack of evidence indicating such, in the process ignoring the fact that the pods are still there in all the pictures with the nice new shiny RAF paint scheme.

Thats some pretty creative "We need conclusive proof" supposition. The proof it was a pod 109 is ignored and the burden of proof to prove it was podded is reasserted a second time.

How about this for the burden of proof....The aircraft taken into custody and shipped to Boscombe Down had pods, was painted with pods and is presumed to be tested with pods. The burden shifting to those that would now maintain it was not podded.

The Spit IX couldn't dive or zoom with a 109. 

The following was Adolph Galland's brother. It wasn't a Spitfire that got him.

http://www.luftwaffe.cz/gallandw.html


----------



## Maestro (Mar 14, 2005)

I agree with RG at 100% and I stated it before : if the gun pods would have been there during the test, they would have written it somewhere.


----------



## Norman_Bates (Mar 14, 2005)

well it sure looks like it probably was a bomber killer to me. 

it seems pretty clear. I didn't realize Spitfires had such a tough time with the Germans until i read this string here


----------



## Anonymous (Mar 15, 2005)

Dalton -

I am not even really a fan of the Spitfire. I think it is over-rated because its performance envelope peaked around 240-270 IAS, depending on model. At higher speeds, its roll and turn performance degraded significantly.

But, I think you are trying to make too much of a case for the 109. Like the Spitfire, it lacked good high speed handling characteristics. All your argments about what a great diver it was mean nothing, since both the P-51 and the P-47 - its primary foes in 1943-45, could easily out-dive it. P-51 pilots consistantly report that they could easily out turn the 109, and also that they could out turn the 190, but not so easily.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## Udet (Mar 15, 2005)

Guys:

The year 1942 saw the following map:

(i) Main theather of operations for the Luftwaffe: EASTERN FRONT.

(ii) Very secondary theather of operations for the Luftwaffe: ENGLAND AND CHANNEL.

(iii) Theather of operations where the RAF was located on this year: A SECONDARY ONE.

This means the bulk of the Luftwaffe and its main offensive effort was placed against the Soviet Union.

After the end of the Battle of Britain (late 1940), the RAF enjoyed virtually of an entire year (1941) to rest and to refit its fighter squadrons, since British skies and the channel were a secondary place for the Germans. It was during this period -less than a year after the end of the Battle of Britain- when the Luftwaffe switched east and chewed and swallowed the VVS.

During 1942, the Luftwaffe kept only a small fighter force in France, yet the Spitfire squadrons proved totally uncapable of dealing with the Luftwaffe. Two famous battles (Channel Dash and Dieppe) substantiate this assertion.

And not just that, losses of Spitfires were huge at the hands of both the Fw190s and Bf109s throughout 1942.

I find it strange that after achieving a victory over the Luftwaffe in the famous BoB, the RAF, after having enjoyed of one year (1941) as secondary adversary in the west, time during which the Luftwaffe did not rest that much and pulverized the massive VVS, could just not gain air superiority over a small fighter force.

Perhaps the losses of RAF fighters and pilots (which were high) during the Battle of Britain had an effect far more profound than previously acknowledged or the Spitfires which followed the MkI were inferior to both the Butcher Bird and the 109.


----------



## DJ_Dalton1 (Mar 15, 2005)

Very insightful post Udet. 

The truth about WWII is that Germany was beaten by Russia's Army, Britain's Navy and America's Air Force. It really took all three to do it and its probably a good thing for the world they were able to reign in Hitler. 

Britain's Air Force wasn't going to get it done. 

I want to state a correction. Bartels did not receive his G-10 in June, I misread the profile.

Here is a little disinformation I ran across. Its funny they discuss the Manston 109 that I've been belaboring and how it was proof of degraded 109 handling. Theres no mention of the Pods of course. Its clearly the same plane and mentions it was wrecked before it could be compared to a Tempest. I assume you are all knowledgeable enough to know that those gondola bomber busters were seriously degraded in both speed and maneuverability and were far more vulnerable to bouncing fighters. They were not designed for dogfights:

"A Luftwaffe pilot would land his Bf 109G at RAF Manston by mistake later in the war and allow comparison of the Messerschmidt against current Allied types, showing it to have few advantages and many disadvantages relative to the Spitfire Mark IX and XIV, as well as the P-51C Mustang. The Gustav was lost in an accident before it could be tested against a Tempest Mark V.":

http://www.axishistory.com/index.php?id=1154

And here we are, mere aviation buffs far more knowledgeable with our ability to use the net than those that have written history. Our power is immense. We can divine the truth if we scrutinze and search for it.

http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/viewtopic.php?p=59729#59729


----------



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

DJ_Dalton1 said:


> the lancaster kicks ass said:
> 
> 
> > oh this's gonna be good...........
> ...



ok, yes, the lanc didn't have a "belly" turret, this was to allow for a colossal bomb bay (actually longer than the B36's!!), the use of H2S and to keep the lanc's amazing manouverability. Ok so in a flight sim you can come up underneth, and it'd be stupid of me to deny that many many lancs were shot down from underneath, but did the flight sim also show the lanc pulling off evasive manouvers?? proberly not............

and if you think that just because a particular approach is covered by a gun turret a plane can't be attacked by that approach, just look ant the B-17, in thoery every possible approach is covered by a gun, look how many got shot down...........

ok about it not being fast, what 4 enginged bomber in 1942 was?? bombers will never be as fast as fighters (well, apart from the mossie of course) and the lanc was faster than a B-17 for exapmle, and about the fact that "its easy to get multiple passes on it before it gets to target", it had several hundred miles to travel to get to berlin for example, it could get attacked at anytime on the way there or the way back............

and yes you're right, the lanc had a huge payload, but about hitting it "jusssssssst right.........KABOOM the whole thing goes up in a really nice pyrotechnics display" this is true of any bomber, and unless you attack from the underneath you aint gonna hit the bomb bay, and you're unlikely to aim for the bomb bay as if you do set the bombs off, chances are you'll get blown up as well................

and the RAF was bombing by night before the lanc came into service, due to high losses, the lanc simply carried on the old tactics, and it was safer by night, if it saves lives it can't be that bad, and the escort in my pic is and RAF mustang as CC said, and would you look at that, it's a daylight raid, as of 1944 the lanc undertook more daylight raids than most people think, and without the expected early war losses.............

and i have no idea what that last paragraph was about...........

and CC i'm impressed, you're not converted to the religion that is lancasterism are you??


----------



## DJ_Dalton1 (Mar 15, 2005)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> *you're not converted to the religion that is lancasterism are you??*



As a matter of fact Lanny, I just received my confirmation. I am a Lancasterite.

Its one helluva badass Whamma Jamma.

...and one other thing. The Jerries really had absolutely nothing to compare.


----------



## Anonymous (Mar 15, 2005)

Udet,

I'd answer that the RAF did poorly against the Luftwaffe' in 1942 for the same reason the Luftwaffe' did poorly against the RAF in 1940 - their planes were not suited to fighting over enemy held territory.

In general, it is much harder to fight over enemy held, or even contested territory, than it is over friendly territory. Most Luftwaffe' kills were scored either over German held territory, or within a few miles of German held territory.

Look at the number of times Luftwaffe' pilots were shot down. It is very common for those pilots who scored large numbers of kills to have been shot down at least once for every 30 or so kills they scored. Because they were over their own territory, or close to the lines, they were usually able to get back behind their lines before bailing out or ditching the plane, therefore they were very often able to fly again.

When a USAAF pilot, or an RAF pilot after the BoB, got shot down, usually it was over German held territory and they ended up either dead or as a POW. This meant that relatively green pilots replaced them. In combination with tendancy of German units to try to rack up large numbers of kills for a few "experten" in each unit, and the fact that the Germans enjoyed periods of numerical and techinical superiority on each front at the start of the war, also goes a long way toward explaining the difference in kills for German aces vs. Allied aces.

The Spitfire was not a good air superiority fighter. But, neither was the 109 or, even though it was better in this role, the 190.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## mosquitoman (Mar 15, 2005)

Once the RAF had the long range escort, they could bomb tactical targets with much more accuracy and with low losses


----------



## Anonymous (Mar 15, 2005)

More accuracy than what?

Are you saying the bombsights on the Lanc were better than those on the B-17?

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## mosquitoman (Mar 15, 2005)

More accuracy than there would be at night


----------



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

so DJ, do you still think the lanc "sucks ass"??


----------



## DJ_Dalton1 (Mar 15, 2005)

RG_Lunatic said:


> Udet,
> 
> I'd answer that the RAF did poorly against the Luftwaffe' in 1942 for the same reason the Luftwaffe' did poorly against the RAF in 1940 - their planes were not suited to fighting over enemy held territory.



hmmm, thats gonna be hard to resolve as pertains to Russia. I guess the early success can be attributed to I-15, I-16 and Mig 3 ineffectiveness and that when the Russian Planes improved Germany was generally on the defensive fighting over German held Russian territory. I don't know. I think the B.o.B. was lost because the Hurricanes were able to evade 109's. The 109's couldn't stay and the German bombers faired poorly in their self defense. I think the Spitfires faired poorly in their offensive actions because they were an extremely overrated airplane their entire existance. (At least compared to the German fighters)



> Look at the number of times Luftwaffe' pilots were shot down. It is very common for those pilots who scored large numbers of kills to have been shot down at least once for every 30 or so kills they scored.



The germans counted all their downed planes even if they were downed by debris, as Hartmann was several times. He went down once for every 40 kills. I did read about one experten who had 61 kills if I recall correctly and he went down 17 times. However, many of these lost planes weren't immediate losses. They were nursed back to friendly territory and counted lost.



> When a USAAF pilot, or an RAF pilot after the BoB, got shot down, usually it was over German held territory and they ended up either dead or as a POW. This meant that relatively green pilots replaced them. In combination with tendancy of German units to try to rack up large numbers of kills for a few "experten" in each unit, and the fact that the Germans enjoyed periods of numerical and techinical superiority on each front at the start of the war, also goes a long way toward explaining the difference in kills for German aces vs. Allied aces.



The above seems another creative/searching attempt to explain away what can't be explained away. Of the Top 20 RAF scoring aces, 3 were taken prisoner:

Roland Tuck (30) - POW Jan. 28, 1942
John Braham (29)- POW Jun. 19, 1944
Douglas Bader(22) POW Aug. 9, 1941

http://www.acesofww2.com/UK/UK.htm

For America, the only Top 20 Ace taken prisoner at the Western Front was:

Gabby Gabreski (twenty eight)- POW Jul. 20, 1944

If you look down the list you'll find:

Hubert Zemke (17.75)- POW Oct. 30, 1944

http://www.acesofww2.com/USA/USA.htm

Tuck and Bader might have been able to increase their victory totals if they hadn't been shot down. However the British fought the entire war and like the Americans adopted the German Finger Four Schwarm as well, but does anyone really think these guys were going to get 100 kills or even 50?

It wasn't Allies being taken POW and German use of the Schwarm that dwarfed Allied victories in comparision with the Germans. It was something much more primary. The best team doesnt always win but sometimes the number of Wins and Losses define the debate.


----------



## Anonymous (Mar 15, 2005)

You seem to totally disregard the fact that the Luftwaffe' had a huge advantage during the early part of the war. Most Luftwaffe experten gained most of their kills on the E. Front, against badly outclassed opponents. By the time they faced roughly equivelant technology, they were very well seasoned vetrans with hundreds of sorties behind them. The faced pilots who were comparative novices, and when things got relatively even in terms of technology, they fought over their own territory.

Looking at the Allied Aces who got shot down vs. those that didn't is kinda stupid don't you think. Had the Experten been out of action on the first plane they lost - they'd never have been Experten!

Loss because of debrie damage does not matter - for the Germans that pilot was able to get home, for the P-51 pilot over Germany (or Spitfire pilot over France), he was not.

High kill counts of the German Experten are easily explained:

1) They faced inferior opponents early in the war where most of them racked up the majority of their kills.

2) When the quality of the opposition improved, they fought mostly over German held territory or near German held territory, frequently allowing them to be shot down and return to the cockpit where an enemy would be out of the war.

3) The whole squadron was oriented towards racking up the maximum number of kills for the few experten in the unit.

4) Because they enjoyed a huge technical advantage against their foes early in the war, they were generally much more experianced than their opponenents later in the war.

5) They had no system of rotation, they flew until the war ended or they were no longer able to fly. This means that they flew far more sorties than their Allied counterparts, and a much much higher percentage of those sorties were flown as non-rookies. The most dangerous missions for any pilot are their first few combat missions.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## DJ_Dalton1 (Mar 15, 2005)

RG_Lunatic said:


> You seem to totally disregard the fact that the Luftwaffe' had a huge advantage during the early part of the war. Most Luftwaffe experten gained most of their kills on the E. Front, against badly outclassed opponents. By the time they faced roughly equivelant technology, they were very well seasoned vetrans with hundreds of sorties behind them.



What you'll also find is that the great Luftwaffe Aces came in cycles. The aces from the B.o.B. were in very rare cases still the lead aces at the end of the war. The early aces were of course Molders, Galland, Marseilles, Pflanz, Philipp. Mid War Aces arose like Nowotney and a host of others and then late war you had Hartmann and Kittel among scores of others. (Don't hold me to the war period identified. I could be off.) In each case they attained huge kill totals. If a single Experten had fought the whole war and been lucky enough to live how many kills might he have obtained? You can't explain away the war long success on the basis of early success. Many times the same pilots were not involved in different stages of the war.

If you want to say the German training was perhaps superior. I might acquiesce to that, but I think it was far more than training. The British knew how to fly after WWI also and a great deal of what aircraft became in WWII was a result of what was learned in WWI. The Germans studied this very carefully and I think it was key to their success. I think the Americans learned the lessons of WWI fairly well too, but to some extent I think the lessons of WWI were lost on the British and Japanese. The latter of which are probably excused because they didn't fight it.



> The faced pilots who were comparative novices, and when things got relatively even in terms of technology, they fought over their own territory.



As pertains to the fighting over "*home territory*" I think we've disposed of the POW issue being a significant factor in suppressing Ace "kill totals". If you're saying that pilots fight more boldly and confidently over their own territory and that helps them increase their victory totals, I think the leading aces in the B.o.B. were German, though I am not entirely certain of this:

http://www.luftwaffe.cz/balthasar.html

The Russians certainly didn't fare extremely well until very late war and obviously defending Mother Country at all costs is probably not real good for Fighter Pilot longevity. Pat Pattle is probably a good example there.



> Looking at the Allied Aces who got shot down vs. those that didn't is kinda stupid don't you think.



I don't know. You're the one that raised this as an issue.



> High kill counts of the German Experten are easily explained:



Thats the problem, the kill totals have to be "explained away". Its "the rationalization of why the totals are not as dominate as they appear". Its a very tenuous position to have to argue from.



> 1) They faced inferior opponents early in the war where most of them racked up the majority of their kills.
> 
> 2) When the quality of the opposition improved, they fought mostly over German held territory or near German held territory, frequently allowing them to be shot down and return to the cockpit where an enemy would be out of the war.
> 
> ...



yes these reasons are part of the argument formulated to try and explain away the dominance of a defeated nation. It has to be explained away. They couldn't have been superior or at least not as superior as all that. 

=S=

Lunatic[/quote]


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 15, 2005)

> and CC i'm impressed, you're not converted to the religion that is lancasterism are you??



Why thankyou 8) Well you could say I have in a way...still wish it looked better thoguh.


----------



## helmitsmit (Mar 15, 2005)

The other reason the spit wasn't a good nightfighter was when you tookoff u couldn't see over the nose! And once in the air it was so twitchy it was amost to manuourable! Dangerous! I do think they couldn't install radar either because it would ruin the aerodynamics.


----------



## Maestro (Mar 15, 2005)

While surfing the http://perso.wanadoo.fr/frenchaces/as/m+c.html web site, I read two of the three fighter victories story Pierre H. Clostermann had. (One against a Bf-109G, the other (his second fighter victory) against a FW-190A). To prove that the Spitfire was not as bad and overrated as Dalton say, I decided to translate and tell you his *second and third victory over FW-190s (in the same mission)*.

"_Le Havre, July 27th 1943

Assigned to Earls Colne (UK), 18 American B-26 Marauder of the 323rd Bomber Group had as their fourth mission to bomb the airbase of Triqueville, near Pont-Audemer. That airfield is the home of one of the best German fighter squadron : Major Helmut-Felix Bolz's I./JG2. The Spitfire Mk. IX of the 341 and 485 squadron are assigned to high escort and take off at 17h45 under the command of Cmdr. Mouchotte, who lead the Biggin Hill Wing over occupied Europe.

The rendez-vous point is at 12,000 feet over Beachy-Head. 17 of the B-26 spot the target, most of the bombs fell in the woods North-West of the airbase. The fighters protect the return of the bombers who flies West to Trouville where they head for England.

Suddenly, the radar operator signal 14 ennemy fighters approximately 20 kilometers South of Trouville. Immediately, the French squadron move between the sun and the bombers. But the FW-190 dive on the New-Zelanders who faced them and call their French comrades for help. The 341 Squadron is 1500m lower and try to reach them when a dozen of Focke-Wulfs fell on them. Mouchotte shot at one of them without noticable result while his wingman, the Sergent-Chef Bruno fire two short bursts and see his target fell down in roll. The Captain Montet (AKA Martell) got two Germans on his tail. The Sgc Clostermann, his wingman, intervene and shoot at one of them who immediately explode. Attacked by other FW-190s, he savagely fight back. On his side, Montet shot at an other one who lost his "empennage". In a hell of a dogfight at 21,000 feet, Clostermann spot an ennemy below him. He dives on him without taking care of the rest... The German plane get bigger in his collimator. The pilot of the FW-190 saw him but it was too late for him. Clostermann close on him, shooting short bursts wich hit the back of the "fuselage", he pull-up sharply to avoid a collision. During that time, he looks at his kill flying upside-down with a black cloud of smoke getting out of the engine... The German pilot was able to bail out.

Pierre Clostermann tells the continuity : "By raising the head, I see, above me, a Spitfire - the one of Martell probably - and the famous yellow Focke-Wulf. All the stunt-flying tricks are used. It's fascinating ! Immelmann turns, rolls... but without gaining an inche on the other. Suddenly, they both turn around and attack each other head-on. That's pure madness... The Spitfire and the FW-190 were fireing of all their arms, heading on each others. The first one to break-off is doomed, because he'll expose his plane to the ennemy's guns. The breat taken, I saw at the moment where the collision semmed imminent, the Focke-Wulf shaking due to the impacts of the bullets, then fall apart. The Spitfire, wich by miracle didn't had a scratch, passes through a cloud of remains in fire wich were raining..."

The Biggin Hill Wing got 9 victories without a single lost. 5 of their victories were credited to the 341 "Alsace" Squadron and received the congratulations of the Prime Minister Winston Churchill.

Sources :

Le Grand Cirque, page 38
Le carnet de R. Mouchotte, page 231
Mission Reports Sqn. 341
Marauder Men, J.O. Moench_"

You see, Dalton, the Spitfire was not that bad.


----------



## DJ_Dalton1 (Mar 15, 2005)

Maestro said:


> You see, Dalton, the Spitfire was not that bad.



No, it wasn't that bad. Pilots couldn't hear the engines of enemy planes so getting surprised was the way most of them went down and thats how the French Ace got that Focke Wulf. It was always bad to get dived upon.

The other story is a little quizzical because the Focke Wulf appears to have turned far too much with the Spitfire even though some of the maneuvers were roll oriented. In the end they were head on which indicates the Spitfire didn't get the turning advantage and that they both were gambling immensely. I think most times the Focke Wulf wins the head on, but its not a move thats gonna result in pilot longevity.


----------



## Maestro (Mar 15, 2005)

In that case, I'll translate and post the two other fighter victories stories listed to Pierre H. Clostermann.

*His 4th victory (FW-190)* :

"_Hazebrouk, August 27th 1943

In this beginning of evening, 224 B-17 from the 8th Bomber Command divided in 4 groups must bomb a forest at Watten, near Saint-Omer. The Allies suspected the Germans set up secrets weapons on this site (in fact, they were building a V-2 site). The first bomber formation was escorted by the 24 Spitfires from the Biggin Hill Wing (12 Mk. IX from the 341 Squadron and a equal number from the New-Zelander 485 Squadron) led by Cmdr. Mouchotte.

Arrived in advance at the rendez-vous point, the B-17s are attacked by an hundred of German fighters from the I and II/JG 2 and II and III/JG 26. The Spitfires join-in at top speed and a nice show begins. During the fight, 2 New-Zelander planes dive behind a FW-190. They are followed by an other Focke-Wulf themselves. The Sgc Clostermann try to warn them and engage the last one. He follows him at a high speed, shooting short bursts at him and hitting him many times. Hit by a last burst at less than 100 meters, the German plane roll on top and crash on the ground at an awful speed. The pilot probably was the unteroffizier Krieg from the 5./JG 26 aboard the FW-190A-4 (WNr.2379). On his side, Captain Boudier also shot down a FW-190. At the radio, Cmdr. Mouchotte say that he is alone, it'll be his last message. He'll fall near Dunkerque, shot down by Leutnant Radener, Kapitän of the 6./JG 26. An other pilot from the 6th Staffel, Feldwebel Mayer will shot down Sgc Magrot who will be taken P.O.W.

The Allied protection was efficient, because only three B-17 were shot down by the Flak while an other one was shot down by a fighter. In spite of the High Command's predictions, it was the first flight group that got beaten up. Two of the following flights didn't saw any Black Cross and for the last one, protected by the biggest part of the escort, the band of Focke-Wulf has been disperced.

Sources :

Le Grand Cirque, page 45
JG 26 War Diary, Vol. 2, page 144_"

*His 5th victory (Bf-109G)* :

"_Saint-André-de-l'Eure, June 15th 1944

Jacques Remlinger and Pierre Clostermann decided to realise a project they were thinking about since december : the straffing of the Saint-André-de-l'Eure airbase, suspected of activity.

They take off at 09h50 with 12 other Spitfires from 602 Squadron. At half-way, they break the formation with the authorisation of the Squadron Leader. Arrived above the target, they spot an ennemy plane at low altitude. Clostermann head toward him at top speed, he must be quick. The airbase saw from 4000 meters high seemed damaged, but was in fact camouflaged to make peoples beleive it was. He pull-up at three or four km away from the airbase and hug the ground to avoid the Flak. At the other side of the airbase, the form of the plane appears - that's a Messerschmitt 109. Clostermann, at 50 meters high, cross at 750 km/h a second Bf-109 that he didn't saw, fockused on the other. The German Flak fired at will, without care for the Bf-109. Clostermann fires long bursts and see him turn-over and start a roll... The Messerschmitt crashed in a field south to the main airstrip.

Sources : 

Le Grand Cirque, page 122_"

A Spitfire pilot can't be sooooooo lucky.


----------



## Anonymous (Mar 15, 2005)

DJ_Dalton1 said:


> Maestro said:
> 
> 
> > You see, Dalton, the Spitfire was not that bad.
> ...



Hmmm... head to head, I like the guns with twice the range. Don't you?

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## Anonymous (Mar 15, 2005)

Dalton,

You miss two points.

First, my argument about comparing aces being rather stupid. What is stupid is to look at the top 30 Allied aces only. The point is that many many Allied pilots got shot down before ever having a chance to become vetrans and rack up lots of kills. Had the German high scoring aces been out of the war the first time their plane got shot/forced down, they'd never have become high-scoring aces and you'd not even consider them.

Secondly, when it comes to experiance I'm not talking about training, I'm talking about time in the "killing flields". None of the Allies had the luxory of shooting down 50+ much inferior enemy in order to learn how to fight. In the early part of the war, both in the West and in the East, the German pilots faced generally inferior enemy aircraft, and notably inferior enemy guns. They could afford to make a few mistakes which were not possible for their foes in the learning cycle.

So what are you trying to say Dalton? That Germans are just inhierantly better pilots?

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## DJ_Dalton1 (Mar 15, 2005)

Maestro said:


> In that case, I'll translate and post the two other fighter victories stories listed to Pierre H. Clostermann.
> 
> *His 4th victory (FW-190)* :
> 
> ...


_

interesting engagement. Say 50 of the FW were bomber hunters and 50 support. Still the GB were apparently outnumbered in this one 100-50...maybe even steven for fighter configured aircraft. Two Spits drop on a FW another FW rallies to aid and the French Ace drops on him. It sounds even up for losses. Thats a pretty good engagement for the Spitfures from what Ive read.




Sources :

Le Grand Cirque, page 45
JG 26 War Diary, Vol. 2, page 144

Click to expand...

_


> "
> 
> *His 5th victory (Bf-109G)* :
> 
> ...


_

Clostermann: "Remlinger, Remlinger.......can you confirm ...where are you?"

Remlinger: "The flak is vicious Pierre, I am dodging it"

Clostermann: "Jacques can you confirm meine messerschitt?"

Remlinger: "I've been awful busy Pierre, if you buy me a bottle of champagne I will say i saw it"

Clostermann: "You're tastes are expensive Jacques"

Remlinger: "How badly do you want credit Pierre?"_


----------



## Maestro (Mar 15, 2005)

My combat reports are as valuable as the one you read about Luftwaffe pilots.


----------



## Maestro (Mar 15, 2005)

I searched the internet in order to find combat reports of James Edgar Johnson victories, but I didn't found any. However, I found his citations for the D.F.C., it's bar, the D.S.O. and it's first bar. The citation of the D.S.O. second bar isn't listed ( thanks to www.rafweb.org ).

_Citation for the award of the Distinguished Flying Cross.

“Flying Officer James Edgar JOHNSON (83267), Royal Air Force Volunteer Reserve, No.616 Squadron.

This officer has participated in forty-six operational sorties over enemy territory and has destroyed at least four hostile aircraft. Flying Officer Johnson has at all times shown great courage.”

(London Gazette – 30 September 1941)

Citation for the award of the Bar to the Distinguished Flying Cross.

“Acting Flight Lieutenant James Edgar JOHNSON, D.F.C. (83267), Royal Air Force Volunteer Reserve, No.616 Squadron.
Since being awarded the Distinguished Flying Cross in September, 1941, this officer has participated in many sweeps over enemy territory, during which he has destroyed 2 Messerschmitt 109 Fs and damaged a Focke Wulf 190.He has also carried out a large number of convoy patrols. Flight Lieutenant Johnson is an exceptional leader and the magnificent example he sets is an inspiration to other pilots.”

(London Gazette – 26 June 1942)

Citation for the award of the Distinguished Service Order

“Acting Wing Commander James Edgar JOHNSON. D.F.C. (83267), Royal Air Force Volunteer Reserve.

This officer has led a wing on a large number of occasions and has displayed outstanding skill and gallantry. During an operation, one morning in May, 1943 his formation was heavily engaged by a large force of enemy fighters. In the ensuing combats 4 enemy aircraft were destroyed without loss. The same afternoon he took part in a similar sortie and 3 enemy fighters were destroyed, 1 of them by Wing Commander Johnson. The next day, this officer took part in another successful sortie. By his skilful and courageous leadership, Wing Commander Johnson contributed materially to the success achieved. He has destroyed at least 13 enemy aircraft.”

(London Gazette – 4 June 1943)

Citation for the award of the Bar to the Distinguished Service Order

“Acting Wing Commander James Edgar JOHNSON, D.S.O., D.F.C. (83267), Royal Air Force. Volunteer Reserve.

Since being awarded the Distinguished Service Order this officer has destroyed a further 7 enemy aircraft and shared in the destruction of another. He is a relentless fighter whose brilliant leadership and outstanding skill have inspired all with whom he has flown. Within a period of 2 months, Wing Commander Johnson led large formations of aircraft on very many sorties during which 27 hostile aircraft were shot down and a large number were damaged.”

(London Gazette – 24 September 1943)_

And I also found this on an other web site :

_Lithograph Setting: By the Fall of 1944, the German army was in retreat under cover of Luftwaffe fighters. Number 127 Wing, commanded by "Johnnie" Johnson, was sent to attack the withdrawing forces and on 27 September he scored his final victory near Venlo, Holland. In a grueling dogfight with nine Messerschmitts, Johnson’s Spitfire was hit for the first and only time during the war. Most noteworthy, all but one of his 38 victories were achieved against single-engine fighters._

Note : J.E. Johnson only flew Spitfires through out the war. He flew Mk. Is, Vs, IXs and XIVs.


----------



## Udet (Mar 16, 2005)

RG:

Drop it. This case is lost for the allies.

You said: "In general, it is much harder to fight over enemy held, or even contested territory, than it is over friendly territory".

That is a very correct point. It is kind of assuring to know would you get shot down, you will be received with tea and cookies at the very moment your feet touch the ground.


"Most Luftwaffe' kills were scored either over German held territory, or within a few miles of German held territory. "

Europe certainly is a small continent, so flying any great distances was not the top priority.


Getting back on the Spitfire topic, a good deal of the dogfights of 1942 took place over the Channel (was that enemy held territory?) and even a mere few miles off the southern British coast!

So 1942 saw the Spitfire squadrons very uncapable in dealing with the brand new Butcher Bird and the Bf109s, suffering heavy losses after having enjoyed kind of a very relaxed year of 1941 over the island, and while the Luftwaffe was having an orgy with the massive VVS in the east.

So the losses for the Luftwaffe during the BoB in 1940, if high, were comfortably within the sustainable parameter -never in the "disaster" mode as the allies put it-; the power and success of all Luftwaffe operations following the BoB substantiate this assertion.

What of RAF losses during the BoB? We know they were high as well. Though i have very serious doubts as to the actual impact of such losses for the RAF in the post-Battle of Britain period.

The performance of the RAF in 1942 is not one of a victorious air force, not one of an air force bringing up superior fighters to combat. Their condition simply did not improve until the USAAF began its assembly in the island.

I digress RG: drop it.

I´ve read kilometers of the allied revisionist delusion attempting to minimize the deeds of the hundreds and hundreds of experten. And you know something? The bulk of their ideas and comments are so ridiculous they do not resist the minimum scrutiny; one wonders what kind of wimp dared to expose himself as a Supreme Airhead, no matter how much he got paid for conducting such a particularly funny task, or what kind of interest and/or master he was serving.

Their pathology follows this sort of line: "While hundreds of German fighter pilots shot down hundreds of enemy planes in combat, two of them even reaching more than 300 kills, it is relevant to ask ourselves: is a German pilot with 325 confirmed kills the best?"

After reading such a piece of jewelry, i asked myself whether to laugh or to send a bucket of roses to the genius who wrote it.

RG, the allies have flatly failed in attempting to minimize the German experten. 

Perhaps their strongest argument to make a case is the following:

(i) Unlimited number of missions flown while the USAAF guys had a rotation system.

There they use a trick. It happens to be like the oldest trick of the book now.

Number of missions flown by a German kid opposite to those flown by a USAAF guy is a very misleading way of handling the information.

What about the number of hours in the air?
What was the range of the Bf109? How many hours in the air did most German aces effectively spend, compared to guys who flew the Mustang plane that flew thousands of extremely long range missions deep into Germany as bomber escorts?

A Mustang pilot who flew say 70 long range escort missions to Germany in 1944 might have been for about 550 hours in the air: not far from Gunther Rall´s record. Furthermore, there can be cases of USAAF pilots who effectively flew more than many experten and did not score even one third of the kills of the German guy.

I have said all air forces made superb pilots, but gentlemen, the gold medal IS the gold medal. 

Grab two USAAF aces, put them either on a Mustang or P-47 while I get Erich and put him on his late Bf109 and unleash a two vs one dogfight: i see a crystal clear outcome there.

I will reply to you other day regarding the eastern front aces.


----------



## KraziKanuK (Mar 16, 2005)

There is a little problem with your flight time example Udet.

While the Americans might have many flight hours, not was all combat time. In fact, very little of that time was combat time. The German pilot, on the other hand, was almost guaranteed combat every time he took off. Practice makes perfect is an old expression and the Germans had lots of pratice.

Then there is the number of targets. The Germans had lots while the Allies did not. In other words, the Germans had the advantage of many more available targets.

More combat took place over France than over the Channel in 1942. In these combats, if the Germans decided to oppose the RAF, the 190 stuck around while the 109 usually made one pass and then disappeared. Unlike in BoB when the RAF engaged dispite a numerical disadvantage, the Germans only engaged when they held an advantage, usually.

On BoB. The number of German a/c in their OoB decreased during BoB while the RAF's number of a/c in their OoB in the increased from the number at the start of BoB. If the LW losses were sustainable, then why did the LW switch to night bombing to cut their losses?


----------



## DJ_Dalton1 (Mar 16, 2005)

Udet said:


> RG:
> 
> Drop it. This case is lost for the allies.
> 
> ...



Very powerful post Udet,

Regarding the two vs one. If Eric Hartmann starts at equal altitude I have no doubt he kills Preddy and Johnson in His G-10 or that they bug out cause he's way too much plane and pilot to deal with. I think Hartmann would give them fits in a G-6 as well and not necessarily a late model one. The G-6 was a much faster plane than history gives it credit for. The Boscombe Down tests reveal that.

If the Americans have altitude. I bet Hartmann escapes. Hartmann was no dummy, if he saw Preddy really pulling some sharp moves....he'd climb out of it, pass on the risk and live to fight another day.

Thats how the egress would be. Hartmann would climb out of trouble. The other two would dive out. 

What I really appreciated Udet was the formulation of the scenario for which the 109 was designed for. It was designed to have a engagement edge despite being outnumbered and thats what it had, from the first day of the war to the last.


----------



## Anonymous (Mar 16, 2005)

Udet,

Cruising your plane for 4 hours to the combat area hardly accrues relevant flight hours. That's a pathetic argument.

Numbers of combat sorites is what counts - or, more specifically, numbers of combat engagements.

I agree, the FW was superior to the Spit V in 1942 - the 109F was roughly equal. And most engagements that happened over the channel were nearer the French coast than the British coast, and far more were over France than over Britain. Besides, I was not really talking about the British when I was talking about missions over enemy ground, I was talking about the USAAF.

As for "hundreds and hundreds of Experten", my count is that there were 271 German aces in WWII, of which approximately 78 were "Experten" (100 or more kills). Even that count I'm not certain of, since some appear as aces both in the East and West fronts and may have been counted twice, and for some 40 listed as aces there are no specifics for. In only 5 cases that I've found did an Experten have more kills in the West than in the East, and it is clear the norm is 3-5 kills on the Eastern front vs. 1 kill on the Western front.

Anyway, you are entirely missing my point. The German pilots, especially the Experten, were undoubtedly better combat pilots than their Allied counterparts. They got that way through experiance - experiance gained mostly through combat with very much outclassed early Soviets. Lots of practice with minimal risk makes for excellent training, of that there is no doubt. Neither the British nor the Americans had the luxury of such a training ground.

As for the Spit vs. 109, I consider them very equal planes, until the Spit XIV which was clearly superior to its 109 rivals. Where I have a problem is with Dalton's position that the 109 was the superior plane - it clearly was not.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## Maestro (Mar 16, 2005)

You, both Dalton and Udet, missed a point...



Maestro said:


> And I also found this on an other web site :
> 
> _Lithograph Setting: By the Fall of 1944, the German army was in retreat under cover of Luftwaffe fighters. Number 127 Wing, commanded by "Johnnie" Johnson, was sent to attack the withdrawing forces and on 27 September he scored his final victory near Venlo, Holland. *In a grueling dogfight with nine Messerschmitts, Johnson’s Spitfire was hit for the first and only time during the war. Most noteworthy, all but one of his 38 victories were achieved against single-engine fighters.*_
> 
> Note : J.E. Johnson only flew Spitfires through out the war. He flew Mk. Is, Vs, IXs and XIVs.



If the 109 and 190 were sooooooo superior to the Spitfire, why did Johnson (who flew over 1,000 missions) only got hit (but not shot down) once during the whole war ? More over, how was he able to shot down 37 single-engined fighters on a total of 38 victories ?


----------



## KraziKanuK (Mar 16, 2005)

Maestro, he never met an Experten.


----------



## Anonymous (Mar 16, 2005)

Kanuk, I seriously doubt that.

But, my answer would be: 2 parts skill and 3 parts luck!

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## Maestro (Mar 16, 2005)

KraziKanuK said:


> Maestro, he never met an Experten.



Who knows ?


----------



## KraziKanuK (Mar 16, 2005)

No one noticed the 'wink'? ie joke.


----------



## Nonskimmer (Mar 16, 2005)

It's alright. _I_ got it.


----------



## KraziKanuK (Mar 17, 2005)

Nonskimmer said:


> It's alright. _I_ got it.



Should I have said 'one of Dalton's experten'?


----------



## Soren (Mar 17, 2005)

KraziKanuK said:


> Should I have said 'one of Dalton's experten'?



Come on people, lets not be so harsh on each other. 

The Bf-109 was a great fighter, wich is very underrated in todays society of Plane-reseachers. However that doesnt mean the Spitfire wasnt a great plane (wich it defidently was), just that it hasnt been underrated. 

I can to some extend understand Dalton and Udet, as it can be very frustrating to see the Spitfire being worshipped as much as it is, and that the Bf-109 is always regarded as inferior(Wich it most certainly wasnt). 

In my opinion the two aircraft are very similar in Fighter vs Fighter capability. 

Take BoB for example, there the 109's gave very good considdering their fuel limitations. A very large portion of the 109's shot down in BoB, were shot down on thier way home !.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 17, 2005)

I think the late war Spits were far better than the late war 109's, as they lost a lot of their manoeverability. Early war though they were very even.


----------



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

well try to remember this, byt the BoB the -109 had had years of refinement and development, the spit was still on her first mark, if you sent a spit Mk.I and a -109A against each toher who would win??


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 17, 2005)

I think the Bf-109B was the first combat version.

Type: Single-seat fighter
Origin: Bayerische Flegzeugwerke
Service Delivery: February 1937

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Engine:
Bf 109B-0:
Model: Junkers Jumo 210B
Type: Liquid-cooled, inverted V12
Number: One Horsepower: 610 hp

Bf 109B-1:
Model: Junkers Jumo 210D
Type: Liquid-cooled, inverted V12
Number: One Horsepower: 635 hp

Bf 109B-2:
Model: Junkers Jumo 210E
Type: Liquid-cooled, inverted V12
Number: One Horsepower: 640 hp

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dimensions:
Wing span: 9.97m
Length: 8.51m
Height: 2.59m
Wing Surface Area: N/A
Weights:
Empty: 1580kg (3,483 lbs.)
Maximum, Loaded: 2120kg (4,850 lbs.)

Performance:
Maximum Speed: 292mph (470kph)
Range: N/A
Initial climb: 2,200 ft/min (670.5m/min)
Service Ceiling: 26,575 ft. (8100m)



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Armament:
Two 7.92mm MG 17 machine guns above engine.
One 7.92mm MG 17 machine guns firing through hub.

Avionics: N/A



A lot of it would be down to pilot skill, but I think the Mk1 spit would have clinched it. But remember the Spitfire was a far newer design. If you look at the British fighters of the RAF at the same period of the Bf-109B, you will probably find the 109 was far superior. It is unfair to compare the Mk.I with the 109B, as they are from different eras.


----------



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

so we're talking 1935 yeah?? compare it to the hurricane, the hurricane would walk all over the -109 with stats like that........


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 17, 2005)

Wasnt the Hurricane also a far later design than the 109 though? Im fairly sure that 109 designing and development would have started back in 1933 (not sure on that though)


----------



## Soren (Mar 17, 2005)

> I think the late war Spits were far better than the late war 109's, as they lost a lot of their manoeverability.



And accordingly did the Spitfire loose its maneuverability !  
They were fairly even in late-war versions aswell. 



> Early war though they were very even.



Well in BoB, yeah, there they were fairly even. However the Bf109-F4 and G2, would out-dogfight any Spitfire it might meet in 41 to 43.

The Latest Spitfire of the war(Mk.XIV), was perhaps better than the latest Bf-109 (K-4), but only there did it actually become superior to the Bf-109.

Ask the Spitfire designers/Manufactures how they always felt that the Bf-109 was a step ahead of them in design in early-midwar years.


----------



## Anonymous (Mar 17, 2005)

I disagree. The Spit V was a match for the 109-F, the Spit IX was generally superior to the 109G-2. It certainly out turned them.

The top speeds of the Spitfires and 109's tend to stay fairly close - but the 109 had little improvement to its cooling system to cope with the higher power engines. It also had no solution for high speed boundary layer seperation problems. 109G's were known to be able to maintain top speeds in combat for only about 1-2 minutes before overheating, where the Spitfires were able to sustain such speeds for over 5 minutes. The Spitfire also had better firepower and was more rugged.

Seriously, the 109 was, at best, about equal to the Spitfires it faced. If you want to argue for a superior German fighter, the FW190 is your plane.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## Soren (Mar 17, 2005)

RG_Lunatic said:


> I disagree. The Spit V was a match for the 109-F, the Spit IX was generally superior to the 109G-2. It certainly out turned them.



Well lets see...

*Bf-109F4 vs Spitfire Mk.V (Empty for max agility):*

Bf-109F4 weight: 1970 kg / Wing Area: 17.4 sq.m / Max power: 1350 hp

Spitfire Mk.V weight: 2297 kg / Wing Area: 21.46 sq.m / Max power: 1515 hp

*Bf-109F4*

Power-to-weight ratio (Hp pr Kg): 0.69 hp 

Power-to-wing Area ratio (Hp pr Sq.m): 77.58 hp

Wingloading (Kg pr Sq.m): 113.2 kg

Special features: *Leading edge Wing-slats.*

*Spitfire Mk.V*

Power-to-weight ratio (Hp pr Kg): 0.66 hp

Power-to-Wing Area ratio (Hp pr Sq.m): 70.6 hp

Wingloading (Kg pr Sq.m): 107 kg 

Special features: *None.*
----------------------------------------------------

The numbers speak for themselves. 

Fact is the Spitfire wasnt superior, but infact a little tiny bit inferior.


----------



## Nonskimmer (Mar 17, 2005)

Well then it must've been the Canadian pilots. 

Kidding! Shutting up now.


----------



## Soren (Mar 17, 2005)

As to speed:

Bf-109F4 max speed sea-level: 475 km/h

Spitfire Mk.V max speed sea-level: 447 km/h

Bf-109F4 Max speed at 5,800m: 637 km/h

Spitfire Mk.V max speed at 7,100m: 600 km/h

So for 1-2 minutes the 109 was faster, and after that, just as fast.  

This also serves to show that the Bf-109 was better at low-level fighting.


----------



## Anonymous (Mar 17, 2005)

In order to cool down, the 109 had to slow down considerably to prevent boundary layer seperation. The cooling system on the 109F (it was not on the E) relies on a boundry layer diverter design. What this basically means is that the radiator sits on the bottom side of the scoop, away from the wing, and there is a passage above the radiator by-passing the scoop. This allows the boundary layer to miss the scoop and improves high speed cooling by preventing turbulent air from flowing into the scoop. However, the boundary layer gets thicker with increasing speed. At some point just over 280 mph the boundary layer can no longer squeeze through that passage, turbulent air hits the raiditor, and pressure in the scoop mouth builds dramatically. This leads to the boundary layer being lifted off the wing and around the scoop in an oscillating pattern and greatly reduces the effectiveness of the cooling system.

Also, the 109F engine is rated at maxium 1400 HP for only 3 minutes, after that it is down around 1200 HP or so, which is a 30 minute rating.

Finally, the empty weight of the Bf109F-4 was 2182 kg (4812 lbs), but the maximum HP was 1400 HP (not the 1350 HP figure you quoted) - according to the Wright Field Aircraft Evaluation report. Using these figure the numbers come out a little different:

*Bf-109F4* 

Power-to-weight ratio: 0.64 hp/kg 

Wingloading (Kg pr Sq.m): 125.4 kg/m-sq. 

*Spitfire Mk.V* 

Power-to-weight ratio (Hp pr Kg): 0.66 hp/kg. 

Wingloading (Kg pr Sq.m): 107 kg/m-sq.

However these figures are misleading, for more reasonable figures we have to use the normally loaded weights, 2812 kg (6200 lbs) for the Bf109F-4 and 2926 kg (6450 lbs) for the Spitfire VB. From these figures we get:

*Bf-109F4* 

Power-to-weight ratio: 0.50 hp/kg 

Wingloading (Kg pr Sq.m): 161.6 kg/m-sq. 

*Spitfire Mk.V* 

Power-to-weight ratio (Hp pr Kg): 0.52 hp/kg. 

Wingloading (Kg pr Sq.m): 136 kg/m-sq.

So if we don't play with the numbers, the numbers tell a totally different story don't they?

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## Soren (Mar 18, 2005)

RG_Lunatic said:


> So if we don't play with the numbers, the numbers tell a totally different story don't they?
> 
> =S=
> 
> Lunatic



Too bad i didnt play with the numbers. 

I tend to find the German specification more accurate. 

The Bf-109F4 weighed exactly 1970 kg *Empty*. (Guess the U.S. forgot to strip the last 20mm ammo-belt  )

Oh and btw, you forgot the Bf-109 has "Wing-slats", wich increases lift in turns with about 20-25%.

And about the 1350/1400 hp, well difference in testing i presume. The Russians rated it at 1350 hp.


----------



## Anonymous (Mar 18, 2005)

Soren said:


> RG_Lunatic said:
> 
> 
> > So if we don't play with the numbers, the numbers tell a totally different story don't they?
> ...



That is a laugh - German figures are known to often be estimates, not tested figures.



Soren said:


> The Bf-109F4 weighed exactly 1970 kg *Empty*. (Guess the U.S. forgot to strip the last 20mm ammo-belt  )



Well, that seems quite impossible. We know the F-4 weighed more than the F-2. I'm sitting here right now looking at a document titled

_Kennblatt
fur Das Flugzuergmufter Bf 109
Bauriel F-1 und F-2 mit DB601 N Motor_

See the attached chart (at bottom of this post) from the _GERMAN_ document.

As you can see the "empty" weight is 2010 kg, and I'm not sure that includes guns, they may be part of the 238 kg on the next line. Empty weight under the US/British definition usually include standard armament such as guns, armor, other essential items such as O2 systems, and usually includes coolant and hydrolic fluid but not fuel and oil or ammo. Even assuming the 2010 kg figure includes guns, the 2182 KG figure seems the more reasonable figure to use for the -4, after all we know the -4 was more than 150 kg heavier than the -2.

I cannot really read the table and it is too distorted for me to try to use translation software, perhaps someone here can translate it?

Besides, the normally loaded weights are what matters anyway.



 Soren said:


> Oh and btw, you forgot the Bf-109 has "Wing-slats", wich increases lift in turns with about 20-25%.



Where do you come up with 20-25%. I believe the figure is more like 8-10%, and they were only useful in very low speed turning. But they were a clear disadvantage in high speed combat because one of them could spontanously deploy in a high speed turn or accelearated stall forcing the pilot into a recovery manuever. Some Luftwaffe' pilots liked the slats, some did not, usually this depends on when they flew the 109 - early in the war they generally liked them, late in the war they didn't. Their value in 1941+ combat is highly questionable. I find it amazing the plane did not have a manual overide preventing spontanous slat deployment (like the La7).

I also failed to mention the 35% range advantage of the Spitfire - far more significant than slats!



Soren said:


> And about the 1350/1400 hp, well difference in testing i presume. The Russians rated it at 1350 hp.



I thought you were using German documents? Well, I've given the better of the two figures, so you have no complaint on that issue right?

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## Soren (Mar 18, 2005)

> That is a laugh - German figures are known to often be estimates, not tested figures.



Its their aircraft, they tested it the most, they know the plane the most. (I will be damned if your telling me the U.S. knew the 109 better than the Germans !) And wich German tests have you come across that were *estimated* ?



> Well, that seems quite impossible. We know the F-4 weighed more than the F-2. I'm sitting here right now looking at a document titled
> 
> _Kennblatt
> fur Das Flugzuergmufter Bf 109
> ...



All the sources i have either qoute it as weighing 1950, 1964 or 1970 kg *Empty*. Russian test figures are 1964 kg for Empty aircraft, German figures 1970 kg.



> Besides, the normally loaded weights are what matters anyway.



Sure but what weighes the most, 2x20mm and 4x7.7mm Machine guns, or 1x20mm and 2x7.9mm machine guns ? (Simple really  )




> Where do you come up with 20-25%. I believe the figure is more like 8-10%, and they were only useful in very low speed turning.



And where does that assumption come from ?! 

A full-Wing-slat configuration gives you about 50-60% more lift (Learned that when i toulk my Flying license), and compined with Flaperons you can get 100% more lift.

The Wing-slats on the F-4 fill aprox. 40% of each wing, and will provide aprox. 25% more lift. (If not more) 

Mark Hanna quotes the Wing-slats as being extreemly useful below 300mph. (Except there would be a slight *Bump* when they activated)
And he flew the G-6 btw, a much heavier variant, and the most sluggish one to.



> But they were a clear disadvantage in high speed combat because one of them could spontanously deploy in a high speed turn or accelearated stall forcing the pilot into a recovery manuever. Some Luftwaffe' pilots liked the slats, some did not, usually this depends on when they flew the 109 - early in the war they generally liked them, late in the war they didn't.



Do you have quotes on that ?

The wing-slats were excellent for angle fighting at slow-moderate speeds. At high speeds, well, I've got not a single German report on them being a problem, do you ? ("Novice pilots tended to be thinking they should back off their turn when they deployed", as described by Galland, but really it was just a booster to turn-performance)

Also if the wing-slats were so bad, then why did 1950's jets use them ?  F-86 Sabre for example.



> I thought you were using German documents? Well, I've given the better of the two figures, so you have no complaint on that issue right?



RG i tend to look on the broader side of things, and not only rely on a single source. And no there's no complaint from me, im just trying to deliver the right numbers.


----------



## Anonymous (Mar 18, 2005)

Soren said:


> > That is a laugh - German figures are known to often be estimates, not tested figures.
> 
> 
> 
> Its their aircraft, they tested it the most, they know the plane the most. (I will be damned if your telling me the U.S. knew the 109 better than the Germans !) And wich German tests have you come across that were *estimated* ?



A. Williams and E. Guston have stated that most late war German documents quote "estimated peformance" as tested performance. The Germans simply didn't want to try to take a plane up to test it after about mid-1944. Even before that, estimated performance figures were often used, but in the last year of the war it was the rule, not the exception.



Soren said:


> > Well, that seems quite impossible. We know the F-4 weighed more than the F-2. I'm sitting here right now looking at a document titled
> >
> > _Kennblatt
> > fur Das Flugzuergmufter Bf 109
> ...



Well, I've just given you a primary source document, a German one at that, which clearly shows an empty weight of 2010 kg for the Bf109F-2. This clearly implies the tested weight of 2182 kg for the -4 is the true figure.



Soren said:


> > Besides, the normally loaded weights are what matters anyway.
> 
> 
> 
> Sure but what weighes the most, 2x20mm and 4x7.7mm Machine guns, or 1x20mm and 2x7.9mm machine guns ? (Simple really  )



Which is irrelevant since both weights include guns, ammo, fuel, and oil.



Soren said:


> > Where do you come up with 20-25%. I believe the figure is more like 8-10%, and they were only useful in very low speed turning.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



The amount of increased lift is totally dependant on the specific design of the slats, not just their length w.r.t. the wing. Based upon the change in stall speed figures, the 109 leading edge slats increased lift by about 10%, enough to decrease stall speed by about 10 mph.



Soren said:


> Mark Hanna quotes the Wing-slats as being extreemly useful below 300mph. (Except there would be a slight *Bump* when they activated)
> And he flew the G-6 btw, a much heavier variant, and the most sluggish one to.



That's absurd, the slats didn't come out anywhere near 300 mph, except one by accident in a high speed turn or accelerated stall.



Soren said:


> > But they were a clear disadvantage in high speed combat because one of them could spontanously deploy in a high speed turn or accelearated stall forcing the pilot into a recovery manuever. Some Luftwaffe' pilots liked the slats, some did not, usually this depends on when they flew the 109 - early in the war they generally liked them, late in the war they didn't.
> 
> 
> 
> Do you have quotes on that ?



The leading edge slats on the 109 pop out automatically, somewhere just above stalling speed, so they were useless below 300 mph until you got down to about 125 mph or so (I'd have to look up the exact speed of deployment). Numerous 109 pilots have stated that one flap could deploy in high speed turns or acceleated stalls. You wanted a quote...



> Q: The plane it had these wing slats and you mentioned they pop open uneven?
> A: Two meter slots on fore wings. The reason was to increase the lift during low speed take off and landing. To reduce the length of runway you need. In the air, if you make rough turns, just by gravity, the outer slot might get out. You can correct it immediately by release of stick, you know? Only little bit, psssssssht, its in, then its gone. You have to know that. And if you know it, you prevent it.
> Q: Did you use this extra lift from the slats in combat?
> A: Not at all. ... (he goes on to talk about the usefulness of the slats for taking off from short runways and stuff).
> ...



In the BoB, turning until you were on the edge of a stall was common, so the slats probably helped some. But after that, combat speeds moved up and they were no longer very useful, and sometimes even detrimental.



Soren said:


> The wing-slats were excellent for angle fighting at slow-moderate speeds. At high speeds, well, I've got not a single German report on them being a problem, do you ? ("Novice pilots tended to be thinking they should back off their turn when they deployed", as described by Galland, but really it was just a booster to turn-performance)



See above. There are others too, but it's too late for me to look for the page with all the pilot interviews on it. Some liked the slats, some did not.



Soren said:


> Also if the wing-slats were so bad, then why did 1950's jets use them ?  F-86 Sabre for example.



You're not seriously comparing hydrolically actuated leading edge slots on the F-86 to the automatically actuated slats on the 109 are you? Surely you can see there is a huge difference.



Soren said:


> > I thought you were using German documents? Well, I've given the better of the two figures, so you have no complaint on that issue right?
> 
> 
> 
> RG i tend to look on the broader side of things, and not only rely on a single source. And no there's no complaint from me, im just trying to deliver the right numbers.



Well, if that is the case then you should accept the numbers I've given. Both the German document I've referenced and the US/British document figures jive. That is pretty convincing. Perhaps you will reveal the source of the empty weight figures you are presenting? Are they primary source documents or data from someone's web page?

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## Soren (Mar 18, 2005)

Here we go Wing-slats:






Now you see how they work ? 

The Wing-slats on the Bf-109 would deploy even at 300mph, but only in tight turns, because as you can see it provides more lift when at an angle of aprox.30 degree's. =Advantage

About spontanously deploying in tight turns, well, hey thats what they were made for. (The F-86 Sabre's wing-slats worked the same when deployed, but they didnt do it automatcily IIRC)

And about my sources, well they are books wich are based on documents: *Messerschmitt Bf 109 Recognition Manual*, *Messerschmitt Bf 109: Luftwaffe Fighter (Living History , Vol 5)*. (Just to name some)

Russian books and test figure's highly agree with these numbers aswell.

My sources states (They are all very similar): 

_The Bf 109 F.2/Z had GM-1 power boosting equipment, and the Bf 109 F-2/Trop was a tropicalized version for use in North Africa. Both the Bf 109 F-1 and Bf 109 F-2 production models were intended to have the Daimler Benz DB 601 N engine of 955 kW (1355 HP), but delivery delays had necessitated the installation of the Daimler Benz DB 601 N, and was not until the Bf 109 F-3 appeared on the production lines early in 1942 that the Daimler Benz DB 601 E was installed. With this engine the Bf 109 F-3 could attain a maximum speed of 628 km/h (390 mph) at 6700 m (22000 feet). Normal cruising range was 710 km (440 miles) at 500 km/h (310 mph) at 5000 m (16500 feet), and the service ceiling was 11300 m (37000 feet). Empty and max loaded weights were 1964 kg (4330 lb) and 2746 kg (6054 lb) respectively. _

And

_The Bf 109 F-4 had the engine-mounted 15 mm MG 151 cannon replaced by a 20 mm MG 151, and the Daimler Benz DB 601 E engine of 955 kW (1355hp) installed. The Maximum speed was 637 km/h at 5800 m (19000 feet), and with normal cruising speed of 509km/h (311 mph). Empty and max loaded weights were 1970 kg (4343 lb), and 2750 kg (6062 lb) respectively. _


About the horsepower question, well its pretty much unexplainable, it seems both weight and horsepower is increased in your documents. (I suspect your weight numbers are for the F-1 'only')


Also from the site you quoted: 

_And we were young, untrained, unexperienced group _(Said by Günther Rall) And as explained by Galland ("Novice pilots tended to be thinking they should back off their turn when they deployed", as described by Galland, "but really it was just a booster to turn-performance) 

Have you read the book "Fighter" ? There's a good explanation about this in that book.


----------



## Anonymous (Mar 18, 2005)

I'll address the rest of it later...

As for the weight figures, the F-1 was lighter than the F-2, which was lighter than the F-4. You are wanting to use non-primary sources over a primary source document - this makes NO SENSE!


----------



## Soren (Mar 18, 2005)

> As for the weight figures, the F-1 was lighter than the F-2, which was lighter than the F-4.



IIRC the F1 weighed more than both the F-2 and F-4, it also had the 20mm MG-151.

About wingloading:

Lower wingloading does not automatically equals better turn rate, it is more a factor of actual liftloading. Depending on the wing`s design, it may develop more or less lift. As it stands, the P-51D had laminar flow wings, which lowered the drag, but this came at the cost of lower lift, especially under high G loads. The 109 had a conventional wing and was equipped with automatic leading edge slats. These opened out at low speed or at high speed under high G loads, and restored to airflow (=lift) which would have been long separated otherwise due to turbulance. That`s why it become so common on modern jets. This seems to be supported by the AFDU`s test, where they pitted the higher wingloading FW 190A vs. P-51B, yet they found their turning performance basically identical. I`d like to add that 109s were generally found to be the better turning machines in all German and Soviet tests vs. 190s. Also, stall characteristics of the 109 were very gentle and forgiving with plenty of warning, as opposed to the P-51. This also helped the pilots to push their aircraft to the limits of stall. And this would also help the 109 very much in outturning a Spitfire.

And a quote from Erwin Leykauf, German fighter pilot, 33 victories.

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

The Myth of the Spitfire always outturning the 109 is false. The myth is a case of "History is written by the victors"


----------



## Anonymous (Mar 19, 2005)

I agree the 109E was a match for turning with the 109F. But the Spit IX clearly out-turned the 109G - even the German pilots admit this. If you really need, I'll find sources on this tommarow (I just got done with a St. Pat's day party and am beat).

As for the slats, I've never read a single account that indicates they were of use for anything but low speed turn fighting - NOT ONE! Such low speed turnfighting was common in 1940 and 1941, but after that, only fools allowed themselves to get slow - it just makes you an easy mark for a 2nd enemy pouncing you.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## Soren (Mar 19, 2005)

> I agree the 109E was a match for turning with the 109F. But the Spit IX clearly out-turned the 109G - even the German pilots admit this.



Yes the "G-6 series" could be outturned by the Spitfire as it was the heaviest 109 variant, but not the G2-10-14. (Even the Russians admitted this, (Below))

But still the G-6 wasnt the 'Dog' it has been put out to be, and Mark Hanna quotes that he could easely outturn a P-51 in it, and that the roll rate was just as good and even better at some speeds compared to the P-51.

*Interview with Major Kozhemyako, Soviet fighter ace.*

_"BF109 was very good, very high scale fighter plane. If was superior to our Yaks in speed and vertical combat. It wasn`t 100% superiority, but still. Very dynamic plane. I`ll be honest with you, it was my dream during my war years, to have a plane like this. Fast and superior on vertical, but that didn`t happen. 
Messer had one extremely positive thing, it was able to be successful fight Yak`s at 2000m and Aircobras at 6000m. This is truly unique ability and valuable. Of course, here Yak and P-39 were inferior. As far as combat on different altitudes, BF109 was universal, like La-5.
Me109 was exceptional in turning combat. If there is a fighter plane built for turning combat , it has to be Messer! Speedy, maneuverable,(especially in vertical) and extremely dynamic. I can`t tell about all other things, but taking under consideration what i said above, Messerschmitt was ideal for dogfight. But for some reason majority of german pilots didn`t like turn fight, till this day i don`t know why.
I don`t know what was stopping them, but it`s definitely not the plane. I know that for a fact. I remember battle of Kursk where german aces were starting "roller-coaster" rides where our heads were about to come off from rotation. No, seriously... Is it true it`s a common thing now that Messer wasn`t maneuverable?
Interviewer: Yes.
Heh.. Why would people come up with something like this... It was maneuverable...by god it was."_

And he is talking 1943 ! 



> If you really need, I'll find sources on this tommarow (I just got done with a St. Pat's day party and am beat).



No need for it. I know who said it, and he is known for is pessimistic views on the Messer, even when almost all his pessimistic claims about the 109 were disproven by Heinrich Beauvais. We are ofcourse talking about Eric Brown.



> As for the slats, I've never read a single account that indicates they were of use for anything but low speed turn fighting - NOT ONE!



Im very surprised to hear that !

The slats worked at ALL speeds, and contributed to increase lift in combat-turns by a considerable margin !. 

The slats opened out at low speed or at high speed under high G loads, and restored airflow which would have been long separated otherwise due to turbulance= Greater lift in turns. (See the AoA chart a presented)

The auto-deployment of the slats was subject to extensive testing prior to WW2, and was found to be beneficial in ALL situations. The American F-86 Sabre was equipped with similar passive leading-edge slats. 

Also usually whoever claims that slats caused problems ignore that slats were only "problematic" prior to the E models. However 'Dust' caused some problems for the 109's slats in Africa though, but pilots soon learned to cover them up when their airplane was on the ground.

*Walter Wolfrum, German fighter ace. 137 victories, About the 109G and its wing-slats:*

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


----------



## Anonymous (Mar 19, 2005)

You can find specific pilot comments to assert almost any position on any plane. Unless the pilot is of particular stature, such as Gunther Rall or Galland, it's silly to keep posting chosen accounts. And your Russian pilot is talking about which Yak? The Yak-1 I would bet! The Yak-3 was superior in almost every catagory to the 109 below about 15,000 feet - so much so that the Luftwaffe' was ordered not to engage them below that altitude! And which 109?

As for the leading edge slats on the F-86, the pilot could control whether or not the would deploy. I'm not sure how much control there was, it may just have been the ability to lock them in the in position once they rectracted. As for how much lift they added, that depends on the specific wing design, you are trying to apply knowlege about another wing-slat application to the 109 which may or may not be valid. In general though, I know that wing slats help swept wings more than they do strait wings.

Again, I've never seen any comment by any German pilot that indicates the slats were useful for anything other than landing/takeoff and some who though they were useful for slow turning fights. Not one has said they were usefull for 300 mph combat. And that the 109 might out-roll a P-51 is almost funny - only at speeds below something like 200 mph could it do this - the P-51 simply was not made to fight that slow, so it's irrelevant.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## Soren (Mar 19, 2005)

> You can find specific pilot comments to assert almost any position on any plane. Unless the pilot is of particular stature, such as Gunther Rall or Galland, it's silly to keep posting chosen accounts.



Well Galland said the same.  (And Btw, Günther flew the G-6 series mostly !)



> And your Russian pilot is talking about which Yak? The Yak-1 I would bet! The Yak-3 was superior in almost every catagory to the 109 below about 15,000 feet - so much so that the Luftwaffe' was ordered not to engage them below that altitude! And which 109?



That is an Urban myth, luftwaffe pilots were 'not' ordered not to engage them below 15,000 feet, if that was so then the luftwaffe pilots would have shot down absolutely nothing ! because on the Eastern front, 90% of all dogfights were below that altitude, and the Germans tended to win those Dogfights ! So that is absolute nonesense !

If the 109 was so unmaneuverable then how come in gave birth to so many German aswell as Finnish aces, who had more air-kills than any Allied pilot ?! 



> As for the leading edge slats on the F-86, the pilot could control whether or not the would deploy. I'm not sure how much control there was, it may just have been the ability to lock them in the in position once they rectracted. As for how much lift they added, that depends on the specific wing design,



There was a passive installation, wich would help the F-86 with its swept wing-designs flaw of low stability. I,ve heard there has been a automatic one aswell, but not sure, usually the jets could do without the extra drag.



> you are trying to apply knowlege about another wing-slat application to the 109 which may or may not be valid.



No im not, I am just trying to tell that they work under the same principle ! But obviously you havent heard about the Handley-slots, and how they boosted turn performance and loops at all speeds.

I even gave you a chart on the 109's extra AoA with slats !



> In general though, I know that wing slats help swept wings more than they do strait wings.



Yes because swept wings has stability problems, but thats all.



> Again, I've never seen any comment by any German pilot that indicates the slats were useful for anything other than landing/takeoff and some who though they were useful for slow turning fights.



I just gave you some for christs sake ! 



> Not one has said they were usefull for 300 mph combat.



Don't you understand how they work ?? They deploy when airflow hits the wing at certain AoA nomatter what the speed is, and also when speed is to low to prevent stall. (Didnt you see the chart ??)

They were ment to improve maneuverability, and you can go ask any F-4 Phantom pilot about that and he will tell you the same.



> And that the 109 might out-roll a P-51 is almost funny - only at speeds below something like 200 mph could it do this - the P-51 simply was not made to fight that slow, so it's irrelevant.



Directly from Hanna's mouth:

_Above 250 mph the roll starts to heavy up, and up to 300 or so is very similar to a P-51._

He has flown the P-51 MANY times, aswell as the 109G.

The 109G-6 wasnt the unmaneuverable plane everyone says it is !

*Kyösti Karhila, Finnish fighter ace. 32 victories.*

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

He did this in a 109G-6/R6 with Gun-pods !


----------



## Anonymous (Mar 19, 2005)

Where you say "stability problems" for the F-86, you should say "low-speed stability problems". Once about 10 knots above stall, the slots were no longer needed.

Those kills are probably against novice P-51 pilots - there were a lot of them. A good P-51 pilot would never engage in that kind of turn fight against a 109.

As for the roll being similar to the P-51, that is pure crap. The P-51 roll was easy up to very high speed. And it was faster than the FW190 at about 360 IAS and beyond.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## Soren (Mar 19, 2005)

> Where you say "stability problems" for the F-86, you should say "low-speed stability problems".



Still a stability problem. The swept wing had problems at slow speed, the leading edge slats solved this.



> Once about 10 knots above stall, the slots were no longer needed.



Unless it turned, but only automatic slats would deploy in turns, not the passive ones. (IIRC the F-86 did have automatic slats in one of its models)



> Those kills are probably against novice P-51 pilots - there were a lot of them. A good P-51 pilot would never engage in that kind of turn fight against a 109.



 Offcourse, and all German pilots shot down were "Aces". 



> As for the roll being similar to the P-51, that is pure crap. The P-51 roll was easy up to very high speed.



I can see you don't know that the 'Aileron-problem' with the 109 was solved after the first G model. And btw be careful about what you call 'crap', Mark Hanna flew them both, and he knew what he was talking about !



> And it was faster than the FW190 at about 360 IAS and beyond.



Are you trying to tell me that the P-51 rolled faster than the FW190 ??!!! Now that is crap ! Have you read the AFDU's test with the Fw-190 and P-51 ??


----------



## Anonymous (Mar 20, 2005)

At about 358 IAS the P-51 and the FW190 roll about equally, above that speed, the P-51 has the advantage, the FW roll rate is declining sharply, the P-51 roll rate is delcining gradually. Also, the FW requires the full 50 lbs of stick force to achieve its roll above 350 IAS, where the P-51 could still be rolled with one hand. 50 lbs of stick force is not an easy think in the cramped cockpit of the FW.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## Soren (Mar 20, 2005)

> At about 358 IAS the P-51 and the FW190 roll about equally, above that speed, the P-51 has the advantage, the FW roll rate is declining sharply, the P-51 roll rate is delcining gradually.
> Also, the FW requires the full 50 lbs of stick force to achieve its roll above 350 IAS, where the P-51 could still be rolled with one hand. 50 lbs of stick force is not an easy think in the cramped cockpit of the FW.




You know that is just about contradicted by every single other test carried out wit the two aircraft. The Fw-190 was known for its easy and stable controls at high speeds, on the other hand the P-51 wasnt !

P-51 pilots have actually said that flying P-51 at high speeds was like driving a truck ! Also the P-51 Redlined at 505 mph, and its controls locked up.


----------



## Anonymous (Mar 20, 2005)

Soren said:


> > At about 358 IAS the P-51 and the FW190 roll about equally, above that speed, the P-51 has the advantage, the FW roll rate is declining sharply, the P-51 roll rate is delcining gradually.
> > Also, the FW requires the full 50 lbs of stick force to achieve its roll above 350 IAS, where the P-51 could still be rolled with one hand. 50 lbs of stick force is not an easy think in the cramped cockpit of the FW.
> 
> 
> ...



P-51 elevator response starts getting heavy at about 400 ias, but not horribly so. The problem occured at somewhere over 505 IAS (the stick would start oscillating). The ailerons on the other hand, were easy to operate, smooth and responsive right up to the mach limit of the laminar flow part of the wing which was up over 0.9 M (the fuselage/canopy/tail dropped the entire planes mach down to about 0.82 M).

Also, the NACA is a pretty solid source.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## Soren (Mar 20, 2005)

RG_Lunatic said:


> P-51 elevator response starts getting heavy at about 400 ias, but not horribly so. The problem occured at somewhere over 505 IAS (the stick would start oscillating). The ailerons on the other hand, were easy to operate, smooth and responsive right up to the mach limit of the laminar flow part of the wing which was up over 0.9 M (the fuselage/canopy/tail dropped the entire planes mach down to about 0.82 M).
> 
> Also, the NACA is a pretty solid source.
> 
> ...



Yes the main problem were the elevators, but the ailerons would also stiffen. 

And your chart doesnt show 'wich' FW-190 model. Btw looking at your chart, the Fw-190 and P-51's roll rate's are first equal at 373 mph or so.


----------



## Anonymous (Mar 20, 2005)

Soren said:


> RG_Lunatic said:
> 
> 
> > P-51 elevator response starts getting heavy at about 400 ias, but not horribly so. The problem occured at somewhere over 505 IAS (the stick would start oscillating). The ailerons on the other hand, were easy to operate, smooth and responsive right up to the mach limit of the laminar flow part of the wing which was up over 0.9 M (the fuselage/canopy/tail dropped the entire planes mach down to about 0.82 M).
> ...



Not much - the P-51 (B and beyond) was the first plane to have the seal-balanced aileron, maintaining aileron effectiveness at high speeds. It also had balance tabs which helped the pilot work the aileron at higher speeds (at some cost in travel at lower speeds). The ailerons became stiffer to work at high speeds, but never so stiff they could not be worked easily by a fit pilot with just one hand.



Soren said:


> And your chart doesnt show 'wich' FW-190 model.



I am pretty sure it's the FW-190A5 - this was the plane the USAAF and NACA tested. It also happens to be one of the best rolling models of the FW190, the D's did not roll as well as the A's. Their is another chart ion the last page of the doc which shows the wing span was 34.5 feet - which FW can probably at least generally be determined by that. My capture of that page is blurry. You can download the whole document at:

http://naca.larc.nasa.gov/reports/1947/naca-report-868/

and consider the data for yourself.



Soren said:


> Btw looking at your chart, the Fw-190 and P-51's roll rate's are first equal at 373 mph or so.



Look again at the chart - the lines cross just short of 360 IAS, you've either mis-read the numbering or mis-read the graph.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## KraziKanuK (Mar 20, 2005)

All Fw190 A and D a/c had the same wingspan, 10.5m. One can't use ws to determine the model.

The lines on the graph were calculated, with some a/c using British data.


----------



## Anonymous (Mar 20, 2005)

KraziKanuK said:


> All Fw190 A and D a/c had the same wingspan, 10.5m. One can't use ws to determine the model.
> 
> The lines on the graph were calculated, with some a/c using British data.



Still, I believe it's from an FW-190A. Unless it specifically says otherwise, almost all Allied FW data has to do with one of the several FW-190A's captured earlier in the war, Dora's were only captured right at the very end of the war.

Also, the P-51B-1-NA data is from one of the first two P-51B's off the line, which was used as a test bed by the NACA. Later models had improvements to the balance tabs which are not reflected in the chart.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## Soren (Mar 21, 2005)

I can't see how I've miss-read the chart, the last number is clearly 380 mph.


----------



## Soren (Mar 21, 2005)

Oh now I see it ! Theres two P-51's on the graph.

Still doesnt agree with other tests though, and certainly not pilot accounts !

-------------------------------------------------------
Anyway we were talking the 109 and Spitfire.

The myth that the Spit was a better T&B fighter is bollocks, and there's alot of evidence to back this up. 

One claim is that the Spitfire has eliptical wings. That means that the lift is spread elipticaly over the wings... Therefore it is "THE most effecient wing configuration possible". 

However the elliptical planform has very small theoretical advantage, but only "theoretical", and only valid if the planform is truely elliptical. Spitfire's planform is only approximating elliptical, and what is left has been sold out by the aerodynamic twist it's wing has. 
It has effect on just one of several factors of wing efficiency, causing only 0.05 improvement in comparison to a trapezoidal planform used on for example the Bf 109, that is, "IF" Spit's wing were truely elliptical... 
You also have to take into account the fact that the profile thicknes ratio of Spit's wing is VERY thin, both in maximum and in average. This in turn leads to the small coefficient of lift. This pretty much takes away the advantage of the large wing area. 

BTW, ever wondered where did all the elliptical wings go?
If they are so magically efficient, why nobody uses them anymore? 
The answer is simple, later aerodynamic research has proven that most of the benefits of elliptical wing were a fallacy created by insufficient or faulty research methods. They simply were not worth the trouble. 
Even the developements of Spitfire, Spiteful and Seafang gave up on the elliptic planform and went to normal trapezoid form. Wonder why?
Only thing special in it is the elliptic planform, that dropped of favour just after it, when it was found out that the theoretical benefits of elliptic planform were actually only theoretical, and practical applications did not yield benefits that would justify the almost astronomical manufacturing difficulties and costs. 
In Spitfire's case the benefits of elliptic planform (even lift distribution along the span) are nullified by the 2 degree twist (washout) that was needed for at least partially taming the nasty and violent stall behaviour of such wing. 

Besides, wing aspect ratio has larger effect on the lift/drag characteristics than the Oswald efficiency factor (where the theoretical difference between Spit's and Bf 109's wing is only in a magnitude of 0.05), and the Bf-109's wing has higher aspect ratio than the Spit's... 
Spit's wing uses the exact same NACA 2300 root profile as Bf 109's wing, but with only 13 % thickness ratio, while Bf 109 has 14.2 % thickness ratio. Lower thickness ratio translates to lower Cl max. Bf 109 uses the same NACA 2300 with thickness ratio of 11%, but Spit's wing profile gradually changes along the span to NACA 2200 (more symmetric profile with smaller Cl max) with thickness ratio of only 9 %. 
All the above leaves the Spit's lower wingloading as the only even theoretical advantage for Spit's wing, but even that is somewhat negated by wingprofile that has less Cl max and Cl in general. 

Now to add even one more disadvantage to the Spit, "It has NO wing-slats", wich the 109's already superior wings have. So whenever a turn of sufficient AoA is made, low or high speed, the slats deploy on the 109 and it turns even tighter. (Some novice LW pilots didnt know this though)


----------



## Anonymous (Mar 21, 2005)

You miss the point behind the eliptical wing. It's not supposed to improve lift characteristics, it's supposed to improve alierlon efficiency.

But in this point we agree, the gains were minimal and the production cost high - the eliptical wing was not worth it.

The higher thickness ratio of the 109 wing also implies higher drag and a lower mach number.

My point all along has been that the Spitfire and the 109 were generally well matched planes. The 109E was probably a little bit better than the Spit I. The 109F was about equal to the Spit V. The 109G was slightly inferior to the Spitfire IX. The 109G-10/K-4 were more noticeably inferior to the Spit XIVe.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 21, 2005)

Thats something I can agree with.


----------



## The Jug Rules! (Mar 21, 2005)

I'd say the Tempest is the best british fighter.


----------



## The Jug Rules! (Mar 21, 2005)

I thought that the laminar flow wing was the best.


By the way, what is so special about the laminar flow wing???


----------



## Anonymous (Mar 21, 2005)

The Jug Rules! said:


> I thought that the laminar flow wing was the best.
> 
> 
> By the way, what is so special about the laminar flow wing???



Well, the laminar flow wing has advantages and disadvantages.

The key thing about the laminar flow wing is that the point of maximum thickness is about at the center of the wing (measuring leading to trailing edge), as opposed to about 2/3 to 3/4 of the way toward the front, and it has curvature on both sides though usually a little less on the bottom than the top (conv. wings tend to be rather flat on the bottom).

There are two advantages to this. First, the airflow over the wing climbs a shallower grade as it passes over the wing, which reduces drag and increases the mach number (as compared to a conv. wing of equal thickness). The second advantage is the inside of the wing has more capacity for fuel and weapons.

The disadvantage of the laminar flow wing is for a given wing area there is less lift, though this is not so critical a factor at high speeds. The laminar flow wing is actually advantagous in high-speed turning as long as the angle of attack is kept within what is called the "laminar flow bucket", as such a turn will induce almost no added drag. However beyond that angle of attack, outside the "bucket" the drag is worse than a conventional wing - so the pilot has to be careful about how tight he turns.

It should be noted that on the P-51 the inner parts of the wing, from about the crook in (on the D) are conventional in design, the outer parts are what is termed "near laminar flow" because the top has a little more curvature than the bottom and the whole shape has a (extremely mild) S to it (imagine the points of the "S" are the leading and trailing edges). Also, in practice, the laminar flow properties of the P-51 wing were considered to last only about 50-70 flight hours before the shape became too distorted to support laminar flow.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## Soren (Mar 22, 2005)

> You miss the point behind the eliptical wing. It's not supposed to improve lift characteristics, it's supposed to improve alierlon efficiency.



No I don't miss the point, i just disproved the claim about the eliptical wings of the spitfire providing more lift.



> But in this point we agree, the gains were minimal and the production cost high - the eliptical wing was not worth it.



Exactly.



> The higher thickness ratio of the 109 wing also implies higher drag and a lower mach number.



Yet the 109 was always faster, until the Spit XIV. Anyway combined with superior speed the 109 had greater lift-loading, wich equals better turning ability ! (Not to mension its slats) 



> My point all along has been that the Spitfire and the 109 were generally well matched planes. The 109E was probably a little bit better than the Spit I.



I would actually say those two were very equal, but the 109 had the slats and fuel-injection wich made it superior. However range was a real downside for the 109.



> The 109F was about equal to the Spit V.



Now here I disagree, the 109F was both faster, and a better T&B fighter, plus it had equal roll rate. The F series turned tighter than the E series, as both Wing-loading and Lift-loading were lower in the F series. I must also remind you that against the F series the Spit didnt do good a job, they were beaten badly by the 109F !



> The 109G was slightly inferior to the Spitfire IX.



Yeah the G-6 was, but by NO means at all the G-10 or 14, they were noticably superior !



> The 109G-10/K-4 were more noticeably inferior to the Spit XIVe.



I agree, the Spit XIV was Superior, but also inferior in some ways, you must remember that the G-10 and K-4 had almost eleminated the aileron and Elevator problems at high speed for the 109 ! In a T&B fight the Spit XIV would be equal at best, but overall it was a better aircraft though. So here we agree.


----------



## Anonymous (Mar 22, 2005)

Soren said:


> > The higher thickness ratio of the 109 wing also implies higher drag and a lower mach number.
> 
> 
> 
> Yet the 109 was always faster, until the Spit XIV. Anyway combined with superior speed the 109 had greater lift-loading, wich equals better turning ability ! (Not to mension its slats)



On paper maybe (and this is quite debatable), but in fact the Spitfires, after the 109E, were always rated as having better rates of turn. Time and time again, both British and the bulk of German sources credit the Sptifire as having been the superior turning plane.



Soren said:


> > The 109G-10/K-4 were more noticeably inferior to the Spit XIVe.
> 
> 
> 
> I agree, the Spit XIV was Superior, but also inferior in some ways, you must remember that the G-10 and K-4 had almost eleminated the aileron and Elevator problems at high speed for the 109 ! In a T&B fight the Spit XIV would be equal at best, but overall it was a better aircraft though. So here we agree.



And how did the G-10 and K-4 eliminate elevator and aileron problems? I've never seen anything to indicate this. The 109K was a bad rolling plane at even moderately high speed.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## Soren (Mar 22, 2005)

> On paper maybe



No, by the laws of physics !  



> (and this is quite debatable), but in fact the Spitfires, after the 109E, were always rated as having better rates of turn. Time and time again, both British and the bulk of German sources credit the Sptifire as having been the superior turning plane.



Well first of all you wont find any account about that with an 109F, cause none were tested by the allies IIRC. Galland said the F series turned tighter than the E series, and for many reasons, it had lower liff-loading, better power-loading etc etc.. 

*Galland about the Bf-109F: *
_"It climbed and turned like hell" _



> And how did the G-10 and K-4 eliminate elevator and aileron problems? I've never seen anything to indicate this.



Ever heard about "flettner tabs" ?  The only slight problem was diving to a speed above 750-800 km/h, at that speed it would take two hands to pull up, but still it could with relative ease pull out of the dive. 

The G series could pull out of a 750-800 km/h dive easier than a P-51 Mustang ! This is also confirmed by many Allied P-51 fighter pilots.

For one Thomas L. Hayes, Jr. recalled diving after a fleeing Me-109G until both aircraft neared the sound barrier and their controls locked: 
_Both pilots took measures to slow down, but to Hayes' astonishment, the Me-109 was the first to pull out of its dive. As he belatedly regained control of his Mustang, Hayes was grateful that the German pilot chose to quit while he was ahead and fly home instead of taking advantage of Hayes' momentary helplessness. Hayes also stated that while he saw several Fw-190s stall and even crash during dogfights, he *never* saw an Me-109 go out of control."_

And a little quote:

*Robert C.Curtis, American P-51 pilot. *

_My flight chased 12 109s south of Vienna. They climbed and we followed, unable to close on them. At 38,000 feet I fired a long burst at one of them from at least a 1000 yards, and saw some strikes. It rolled over and dived and I followed but soon reached compressibility with severe buffeting of the tail and loss of elevator control. I slowed my plane and regained control, but the 109 got away. 
On two other occasions ME 109s got away from me because the P 51D could not stay with them in a high-speed dive. At 525-550 mph the plane would start to porpoise uncontrollably and had to be slowed to regain control. The P 51 was redlined at 505 mph, meaning that this speed should not be exceeded. But when chasing 109s or 190s in a dive from 25-26,000 feet it often was exceeded, if you wanted to keep up with those enemy planes. The P 51B, and C, could stay with those planes in a dive. The P 51D had a thicker wing and a bubble canopy which changed the airflow and brought on compressibility at lower speeds."_



> The 109K was a bad rolling plane at even moderately high speed.



That is untrue ! It had better roll rate than any other 109 infact, and its wingspan was reduced from 10.6m to 9.94m. Each newer 109 version handled better in high speeds, the best being the 109 K series.


----------



## Soren (Mar 22, 2005)

Looks like the Bf-109F was tested, but only shortly, and not against other aircraft.

*AFDU 28 October 1941: TACTICAL TRIALS - Me.109F AIRCRAFT- 7:*
_No manoeuvrability trials were carried out against other aircraft but the Me.109F was dived up to *420* mph, IAS, with controls trimmed for level flight and it was found that although the elevators had become heavy and the ailerons had stiffened up appreciably,* fairly tight turns were still possible*_

At 420 mph, the E series wouldnt be capable of that.


----------



## Soren (Mar 22, 2005)

109 test pilots, Russians included, have said that the 109 had pretty good roll at higher speeds - again not as good as the 190s, P-51 or P-47 - but it maintained a good lateral control ability. Recovering from extremerely fast 750-900 km/h vertical dives was the problem - not level flight or even normal combat flying.
Spitfire and a 109 had equal roll rates at up to 400 mph speeds. Not even the favourite warhorse of the Americans, P-51, exactly shined with its roll rate at high speeds. As I've told before P-51 pilots have actually said that flying P-51 at high speeds was like driving a truck.

An often quoted British report made of an Bf-109 E talks about the "short stick travel", "due to the cramped cockpit a pilot could only apply about 40 pounds side force on the stick" and "at 400 mph with 40 pounds side force and only one fifth aileron displaced, it required 4 seconds to get into a 45 degree roll or bank. That immediately classifies the airplane as being unmaneuverable and unacceptable as a fighter."
The report claims that The 109-E needed 37lb stick force for a 1/5 aileron deflection at 400mph. Coincidentally, the Spitfire 1 required 57 lb stick force from the pilot for similar deflection at similar speed. This is a 54% higher stickforce for the Spitfire pilot.
The British test is taken as gospel by many, while it is just one test, made by the enemy, using a worn out and battle damaged airframe. German flight tests report pilots using aileron forces of over 45 lbs and 109's stick was designed for elevator stick forces of up to or over 85kg, over 180 lbs. So it was more matter of the pilot and the test procedures, than maneuverability of the Bf 109. Several details of that test are suspicious and German chief test pilot Heinrich Beauvais disagreed with it and with Eric Brown. Beauvais tried to get into contact after the war with Eric Brown to discuss the matters, but Brown refused to discuss the 109 with him. This being the case, it seems that Brown wasn't willing to listen a pilot who'd flown more on the 109 than he ever had, and was more interested on believing his negative findings of the 109 than being proven wrong by an expert.


----------



## KraziKanuK (Mar 22, 2005)

> The British test is taken as gospel by many, while it is just one test, made by the enemy, using a worn out and battle damaged airframe.



Always like this 'worn out and damaged' line.  As if the Germans did not fly older a/c or put a/c that had been damaged back into combat. 

'Sorry Herr 109 but that belly landing you just did has put you on the retired list.' 

A German a/c that had 60% or more damaged was considered a write-off. Less than 60% meant the a/c wwas repaired and put back into service.


----------



## Soren (Mar 22, 2005)

KraziKanuK said:


> > The British test is taken as gospel by many, while it is just one test, made by the enemy, using a worn out and battle damaged airframe.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Yes, but other British tests against 'used' enemy a/c's have been carried out with factory-fresh Spitfires. So It had to be mentioned.


----------



## Soren (Mar 22, 2005)

IIRC the 109 E tested first Belly-landed on British soil, and was restored by the British for testing. So some stresses were caused to the body of the 109 E in question prior testing.


----------



## Anonymous (Mar 22, 2005)

Soren the reason I say "on paper" is because you look at one aspect of a thing without looking at the whole of it. Take the slats for instance. Yes they will apparently come out at higher speeds with higher angles of attack. You then conclude that this makes for a turn advantage. The fact is, a high speed turn does not involve just elevator, it involves rudder and a bank angle. Tests clearly showed that in such a turn, the tendancy of one slat to deploy well before the other created a turn disadvantage, not an advantage. Pilots had to make their high speed turns such as to avoid a slat popping out, and if it did, they had to release the stick for several seconds to allow it to go back in and then recover control.

Furthermore, slats were advantageous if the fueslage weight far exceeded the weight distrubuted to the wing. When the wing weight was relatively high, they tend to cause near or totally unrecoverable flat spins.

Finally, the 109F may or may not have turned as well as the Spit V, that is a debatable point. What is not debatable is the fact that the Spit V had twice the firepower of the 109F, was much more rugged, had much better range, and the pilot's visability was considerably better.

When it comes to rate of roll, the 109's were inferior at high speeds to almost all contemporary allied fighters.

As for the "flettner tab", more commonly called a trim tab, yes of course I've heard of them. But this was by no means unique to the 109, and in fact German trim-tab technology was no where near as advanced as Allied trim tab technology - visit the NACA library for proof of this.

And if you read about the 109 and its ability to pull out of a dive, the trim tab had to be set all the way toward climb to do so. More importantly, in a high speed dive the 109 was totally unstable as a gun platform starting, if I recall correctly, below 400 IAS (I think it was 375 IAS).

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## KraziKanuK (Mar 22, 2005)

The Flettner was a not trimable. It moved in the opposite direction to what the rudder moved. It was used to decrease the 'work load' for the pilot at high speeds.


----------



## Anonymous (Mar 23, 2005)

KraziKanuK said:


> The Flettner was a not trimable. It moved in the opposite direction to what the rudder moved. It was used to decrease the 'work load' for the pilot at high speeds.



That's what a trim tab is. It is a small fin on a bigger fin that helps the pilot to hold the bigger fin in the desired position. To trim the rudder to the left for instance, the trim tab is deflected to the right. Several types of trim tabs existed, some simply added force against the fin itself, others were balanced against the levers that operated the fin, and others involved springs to dampen the effect (sometimes these caused an increase in flutter).

Trim tabs were nothing new, they'd been around since WWI. The NACA has a number of WWII documents concerning trim tabs of various kinds, including balanced trim tabs and spring balanced trim tabs.

What the German's never found was the "seal balanced" aileron. Without high pressure wind tunnels there was no reasonable way to research aileron behavior at high speeds.
 
=S=

Lunatic


----------



## Soren (Mar 23, 2005)

> Yes they will apparently come out at higher speeds with higher angles of attack. You then conclude that this makes for a turn advantage.



That is because it 'is' an advantage in a T&B fight.



> The fact is, a high speed turn does not involve just elevator, it involves rudder and a bank angle.



No'one ever said this. Offcourse a rolling maneuver must be achieved for a turn, and the 109F had an equal roll rate to the Spit V up to 400 mph, so it wasnt a problem.



> Tests clearly showed that in such a turn, the tendancy of one slat to deploy well before the other created a turn disadvantage, not an advantage.



Oh no !! That is 'not' true ! This 'Myth' was started by Eric Brown, because the E series had a high tendency for the slats Jamming, but this was not their normal function. Also the F series had this jamming problem virtually eliminated.



> Pilots had to make their high speed turns such as to avoid a slat popping out, and if it did, they had to release the stick for several seconds to allow it to go back in and then recover control.



Sadly only one man will agree with you on that... (Eric Brown) And Every modern day 109 pilot will disagree with him on that. And this downright inexperienced comment made by Brown was denied by virtually every 109 pilot still alive at the time, including Galland ! Not to mension Germany's chief test pilot, Heinrich Beauvais who even tried to contact Brown and correct his statement, but Brown refused to meet him ! He refused to be proven wrong by an expert ! 

The slats were there to increase maneuverability, not to hamper it. The slats were found beneficial in ALL situations. Why else do you think there were put on a 'Fighter' ?! 

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

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


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

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


*Galland about the 109's leading edge slats: *

_"Novice pilots tended to be thinking they should back off their turn when they deployed, but really it was just a booster to turn-performance" _




> Furthermore, slats were advantageous if the fueslage weight far exceeded the weight distrubuted to the wing. When the wing weight was relatively high, they tend to cause near or totally unrecoverable flat spins.



Eric Brown  



> And if you read about the 109 and its ability to pull out of a dive, the trim tab had to be set all the way toward climb to do so. More importantly, in a high speed dive the 109 was totally unstable as a gun platform starting, if I recall correctly, below 400 IAS (I think it was 375 IAS).



I guess you havent read the AFDU's tests with the 109F i presented, so i will quote it again.

*AFDU 28 October 1941: TACTICAL TRIALS Me.109F AIRCRAFT- 7: *

_No manoeuvrability trials were carried out against other aircraft but the Me.109F was dived up to *420 mph, IAS*, with controls *trimmed for level flight *and it was found that although the elevators had become heavy and the ailerons had stiffened up appreciably, *fairly tight turns were still possible.* _

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

In many aspects the Messerschmitt 109 is a much better fighter than people usually make of it. It has some of the legendary "how did they think of that", high-tech-like, aspects as North American P-51 and Supermarine Spitfire had. While Spitfire had the much vaunted elliptical wing (effect of which is only theorectical), the P-51 had its (again , much debated) laminar flow wing (trapeze in this case) and a very interesting cooler arrangement with a device for splitting and separation of the "dirty" turbulent boundary layer, and the capacity to generate thrust by heating the air flowing through it to negate the otherwise very high cooler drag (again, much debated); 109 had some very nice aspects too. 
109 had a hydraulically driven (fluid coupled) clutch driving its supercharger, which made it capable of avoiding wasting power at lower altitudes. At those altitudes normal gear+clutch driven supercharger equipped planes were wasting a significant amount of their HP compressing air which could not be used by the engine. Later 109s even had a two gear, fluid coupled supercharger which gave very good power up to 11km.Even a normal 109G could produce full power up to 7 km (around 21.000 ft) with a normal single-gear supercharger. This supercharger was a low tech (sic), single stage single gear (sic) device, while the Allied designers used up to two stage, intercooled (in some cases) two gear superchargers to achieve similar power as the simple fluid clutch. 

Later on (P-38, P- 47, bombers) Allied designers used bulky and hard-to-manufacture turbo-superchargers to keep up with the latest German advances. The engine used by 109s (DB601, DB603, DB605) had a direct to chamber fuel injection. Daimler Benz engines could compete with British and US engines using high octane fuels and very hard alloys, while itself using only 87 octane fuel !. 

As for some interesting details on the 109, it had a very interesting cooler arrangement that actually resembles very much that of the P-51. It happens that the coolers, which look like very small, are in fact embedded into the wings and have a very low wetted surface. Also they look like normal coolers which just dip into the airflow , but they are a bit more complex. The cooler is embedded in the wing so that a plate over the cooler would skin off the dirty boundary layer like in the P-51 cooler and let it pass , while using the "clean" air for cooling. This makes it possible to use less surface for cooling which means more speed. The similarities don't end here, just as in P-51 the cooler rear end has a plate designed to adjust the amount of air flowing through the cooler (it is opened and closed automatically or with manual override). The design of this flap seems quite the same as the one on P-51, which was designed to generate the "Meredith Effect". The Meredith Effect is actually a cooler acting like a jet engine. Jet engines are actually very simple, you have a compressor compressing air, fuel heating it and a nozzle turning the heat into momentum. In this case you have a cooler heating the air, the mouth of the cooler (and airspeed) compressing the air and the flap on the back working as a nozzle to convert heat to momentum. This effect could generate up to 300hp on the P-51 and it would in most cases (high speeds) almost zero out the drag of the cooler scoop. 

On landing modern combat aircraft drop flaps and as they drop flaps, also their ailerons "droop" down to act as flaps for the rest of the wing. This same feature was also in the 109. The boost control on 109 was automatic up to the critical altitude of the supercharger (as was the mixture control). The oil cooler and cooler flaps were automatic (with manual override). The 109 tail was almost like the ones on modern fighters, the whole tailplane could be moved with trim. 

As for ammunition, the Germans were ahead of their time. They used similar centrifugal fusing in the 20mm and 30mm shells that was common before the modern proximity fusing became available. They used thin-shelled cannon shells which could contain up to 4 times more explosive than normal shells. They used very high order explosives (compared to the ones Allied were using, HA41 and PETN against torpex). 

Germans also realized that the most efficient way to kill an aircraft, in addition to penetrating it with armor piercing rounds (which do little damage unless they hit one of the important parts), is to make large holes with large explosive shells or to use incendiary ammunition to light the plane up. The incendiary devices used by the Germans were excellent and were made of materials like magnesium, elektron thermite and phosphor. Phosphor has the effect of lighting up in room temperature and in general burning everything if it is in contact with oxygen. Elektron thermite on the other hand (a mixture of magnesium and aluminium) burns at a VERY high temperature (so high that it will light up airplane aluminium). 

Most German aircraft had electrically operated (fired) armament, which made selection of different weapons configurations and counting of ammunition easy. Some of the planes also had a mechanism to pneumatically reload guns when the trigger was released if the last shell was not fired. This made it possible to unjam the guns just by pressing the trigger repeatedly.

It was possible to change the whole engine and/or wings of a 109 standing on its wheels in a matter of a few hours with no special lifts (only a mechanical hoist was required). 


All these things are very often forgotten !


----------



## KraziKanuK (Mar 23, 2005)

Soren, 

never hear of the injection 'carbs' used on American and British a/c engines? 

There was well over 100,000 GE tc manufactured. Not that hard to manufacture. You should compare the size of a tc and and a sc.

The Spit used the Meredith Effect for its rads.

Late in the war the Germans were developing multi speed, multi stage intercooled engines. The Germans also had to use the bulky and heavy 'boost juice' (MW50, GM1) systems to achieve high power outputs.

I do like the fluid coupling for the sc.


RG,

the Flettner does nothing in 'balancing' the a/c for 'hands free' flight. The trim tabs do that.


----------



## Anonymous (Mar 24, 2005)

Soren said:


> > Yes they will apparently come out at higher speeds with higher angles of attack. You then conclude that this makes for a turn advantage.
> 
> 
> 
> That is because it 'is' an advantage in a T&B fight.



Mis-quoting or intentionally putting a partial quote out of context as you have done hre is unacceptable Soren.



Soren said:


> > The fact is, a high speed turn does not involve just elevator, it involves rudder and a bank angle.
> 
> 
> 
> No'one ever said this. Offcourse a rolling maneuver must be achieved for a turn, and the 109F had an equal roll rate to the Spit V up to 400 mph, so it wasnt a problem.



First off, the high-speed roll of the 109F was inferior even to that of the full wing Spit V's, but for clipped wing Spits it was not even close. If you study the Spit tests, there was a high degree of variance between roll rates of different planes, so some Spit V's may have rolled as poorly at speed as the 109F, but most rolled better.

In a high speed banked turn the inner wing will approach stall before the outer wing - therefore its slat will deploy first. To avoid this, the 109 pilot must execute steeper banks during the turn, which is often less optimal for turn rate.



Soren said:


> > Tests clearly showed that in such a turn, the tendancy of one slat to deploy well before the other created a turn disadvantage, not an advantage.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



You forgot Gunther Rall. He also comments on the issue of single slat deployment in turns. Must be a conspiracy to defame the 109!



Soren said:


> The slats were there to increase maneuverability, not to hamper it. The slats were found beneficial in ALL situations. Why else do you think there were put on a 'Fighter' ?!



Primarily to decrease stall speeds in level flight to allow lower takeoff and landing speeds. They were advantagous is low speed turns (below 200 IAS) but they also had drawbacks if the turn was not very precisely executed - something hard to do in a swirling dogfight.



Soren said:


> > Furthermore, slats were advantageous if the fueslage weight far exceeded the weight distrubuted to the wing. When the wing weight was relatively high, they tend to cause near or totally unrecoverable flat spins.
> 
> 
> 
> Eric Brown



Wrong - from "Advanced Restricted Report 3D29 - EFFECTS OF WING LEADING-EDGE SLOTS ON THE SPIN AND RECOVERY CHARACTERISTICS OF AIRPLANES", By Anshal I. Neihouse and Marvin Pitkin, NACA, April 1943.

The USA and Britain were well aware of leading edge wing-slats even before WWII. However, when adding up the advantages and disadvantages they choose not to employ them. It is interesting that the NACA had at least 3 studies on wing slats (prior to the end of WWII). The basic conclusion is that unless they are needed for takeoff/landing they are undesireable.



Soren said:


> > And if you read about the 109 and its ability to pull out of a dive, the trim tab had to be set all the way toward climb to do so. More importantly, in a high speed dive the 109 was totally unstable as a gun platform starting, if I recall correctly, below 400 IAS (I think it was 375 IAS).
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I've read the accounts of numerous German pilots saying that to pull the 109G out of a hard dive it was necessary to trim it fully for the climb. Furthermore, in such a high speed dive the 109 had to travel rather strait. The P-51 and P-47 were known to easily escape a 109 or 190 by excuting a corkscrew dive - if the German plane tried to follow, the P-51 or P-47 would easily end up on his six.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------



Soren said:


> In many aspects the Messerschmitt 109 is a much better fighter than people usually make of it. It has some of the legendary "how did they think of that", high-tech-like, aspects as North American P-51 and Supermarine Spitfire had. While Spitfire had the much vaunted elliptical wing (effect of which is only theorectical), the P-51 had its (again , much debated) laminar flow wing (trapeze in this case) and a very interesting cooler arrangement with a device for splitting and separation of the "dirty" turbulent boundary layer, and the capacity to generate thrust by heating the air flowing through it to negate the otherwise very high cooler drag (again, much debated); 109 had some very nice aspects too.
> 109 had a hydraulically driven (fluid coupled) clutch driving its supercharger, which made it capable of avoiding wasting power at lower altitudes. At those altitudes normal gear+clutch driven supercharger equipped planes were wasting a significant amount of their HP compressing air which could not be used by the engine. Later 109s even had a two gear, fluid coupled supercharger which gave very good power up to 11km.Even a normal 109G could produce full power up to 7 km (around 21.000 ft) with a normal single-gear supercharger. This supercharger was a low tech (sic), single stage single gear (sic) device, while the Allied designers used up to two stage, intercooled (in some cases) two gear superchargers to achieve similar power as the simple fluid clutch.



The fluid clutch is not all plusses either. At high altitudes, or after protracted use, the fluid heats up and starts to eat into peak power levels. And if the fluid heats up too much, the system fails and you have no supercharger at all. Probably not much of a problem on a plane that could maintain peak speeds for only 1-2 minutes.



Soren said:


> Later on (P-38, P- 47, bombers) Allied designers used bulky and hard-to-manufacture turbo-superchargers to keep up with the latest German advances. The engine used by 109s (DB601, DB603, DB605) had a direct to chamber fuel injection. Daimler Benz engines could compete with British and US engines using high octane fuels and very hard alloys, while itself using only 87 octane fuel !.



Actually, to be competitive they had to use the better grade fuel. Almost all data we see involves the better grade fuel, I think called C3 but I'd have to look it up to be sure. Also if you study German fuels a little bit, you will see that when run rich, they were not really that bad, the low octane rating really relates more to when they were run lean. They were not as good as US/British fuels, but that was as much due to fuel technology as anything else. The Germans never produced their own tetra-ethyl lead, they relied on a huge supply they'd purchased from the USA in the pre-war years (from none other but Prescott Bush!). When they ran out of this, after a year to a year and a half of war, they lacked a suitable replacement.

Ummm... "bulky and hard-to-manufacture turbo-supercharger"??? Impossible for the Germans to build, not so hard for the USA, which built more turbo-superchargers in just 3.5 years than Germany built combat aircraft in the 6 years of WWII plus those built prior to the war! And as for bulk, the turbo-supercharger was no more bulky than a supercharger unit of the same boost capacity, it was just a littlemore spread out because of the inter-cooler requirements. Look at the supercharger on the F4U-4, it is every bit as big as the turbo-supercharger on the P-47.



Soren said:


> As for some interesting details on the 109, it had a very interesting cooler arrangement that actually resembles very much that of the P-51. It happens that the coolers, which look like very small, are in fact embedded into the wings and have a very low wetted surface. Also they look like normal coolers which just dip into the airflow , but they are a bit more complex. The cooler is embedded in the wing so that a plate over the cooler would skin off the dirty boundary layer like in the P-51 cooler and let it pass , while using the "clean" air for cooling. This makes it possible to use less surface for cooling which means more speed.
> 
> The similarities don't end here, just as in P-51 the cooler rear end has a plate designed to adjust the amount of air flowing through the cooler (it is opened and closed automatically or with manual override). The design of this flap seems quite the same as the one on P-51, which was designed to generate the "Meredith Effect". The Meredith Effect is actually a cooler acting like a jet engine. Jet engines are actually very simple, you have a compressor compressing air, fuel heating it and a nozzle turning the heat into momentum. In this case you have a cooler heating the air, the mouth of the cooler (and airspeed) compressing the air and the flap on the back working as a nozzle to convert heat to momentum. This effect could generate up to 300hp on the P-51 and it would in most cases (high speeds) almost zero out the drag of the cooler scoop.



Not hardly....

First off lets look at the Bf109 scoop/cooling design:







As you can see the radiators are indeed quite small. The "boundary layer diverter" mechanism was a fix for a problem discovered on the E models. The radiator is mounted to the bottom of the scoops and the boundary layer is allowed to flow through a space between the top side of the radiator and the wing. This helps to avoid injestion of the turbulent boundary layer which makes the radiators more efficient than they would be if there were larger but no space was provided for the boundary layer. Because the boundary layer has to make a significant turn upward to follow the diverter, this is only partially effective and at high speeds as the boundary layer gets thicker and has more mass and as pressure builds in the scoop, the boundary layer still lifts off the bottom of the wing and around the scoop entirely resulting in the "gulping" effect. The boundary layer diverter design helps to get a little more efficiency out of the small scoops of the 109 but it hardly "solves" the issue. There is no significant thrust generated for a number of reasons which I'll cover further down.

Now lets look at the P-51 radiator-thrust design:






First off, as is quite apparent, the P-51 radiator is HUGE compared to the two scoop radiators of the Bf109. Furthmore, the radiator has three to four times frontal area of both Bf109 radiators combine, which makes it inherantly more efficient for transfering heat.

Next, lets consider the boundary layer diversion method. On the P-51 the scoop is spaced more than an inch and a half away from the bottom surface of the wing (this varied a bit through different models). This means the boundary layer misses the scoop inlet entirely and encounters no obstruction that could rip it away from the scoop inlet until it is well past the inlet. The problem is completely solved.

Now lets look at how the thrust system works. First high speed cold air enters the scoop and proceeds down a widening passage which acts as an expansion chamber. The expansion chamber futher cools the air, slows its velocity, and increases the pressure (I know this is counter-intuative but its true). Then the (relatively) slow moving air passes through the radiator grilling, which is designed in the form of little ">" shapped fins stretched over the tubeing to form a sort of one-way valve. The heated air then passes into a narrowing passage which acts as a compression chamber.

When air passes through the radiator it is heated unevenly. Air molecules which make contact with the radiator fin elements are super-heated. Those that pass mid-way between the elements are much less heated. These molecules exchange heat in the compression chamber. One hot molecule and one cold molecule take up less volume than two warm molecules (assuming the total heat energy level is the same). So the air in the compression chamber is being compressed by its momentum into the narrowing passage and at the same time it is expanding as the heat in the molecules is transfered from the hottest molecules to the cooler molecules.

Finally, the hot air is vented through the thrust nozzel, which is designed and regulated for pressure. This provides thrust. At medium-high to high speeds, the jet of air comming out the thrust nozzel is supersonic, which provides usable thrust beyond speeds where a prop is no longer able to provide much thrust. Not only that, but the stream of hot expanding air is directed right into the wake of the fuselage. This wake is where parasitic drag normally "sucks" the plane back, and is the biggest part of an airplane's drag. Just like a tracer bullet, the P-51's exhaust fills the vacuum wake and reduces drag.

The Bf109 cooling system lacks both an expansion chamber and a compression chamber. The cold boundary layer air is re-introduced into the radiator exhaust in the space behind the radiator, virtually eliminating the chances of producing much thrust from expanding air. The cooling flaps at the back of the scoops are not designed to sustain high pressures behind the radiator, nor to control the outflow to generate a supersonic thrust stream, they are there simply to regulate the radiators to prevent excess cooling, primarily in dives. And finally, the radiator exhaust does not flow into the fusealge wake to help cancel out the parasitic drag.

The 109 has no meaningful "Meredith effect" thrust!

Note: The "Meredith effect" explanation is incomplete, trying to attribute all of the advantage of the radiator design to the thrust generated. A good portion of the advantage was the projection of super-heated air into the vacuum wake of the fuselage, nullifying parasitic drag.

Finally, the "300 HP" equivalent claim is based upon comparison of the Spitfire IX with the P-51 in level flight at speeds of about 275 IAS. In fact, the thrust generated could be much higher. In a 400 mph IAS dive at medium altitude for instance, the thrust could equal 900 HP equivalent. Power generated declines a little with decreasing altitude (as ambient air temp rises). The thrust generated/parasitic drag cancelled has the same geometric relationship to speed as does drag. Therefore, the proper way to consider it is that it cancels out about 12-15% of the P-51's total drag (perhaps more, the only figure I've seen quoted by Schumed was that it cancelled out 90-100% of the cooling sytem drag - which could be as much as 20% of total drag).



Soren said:


> As for ammunition, the Germans were ahead of their time. They used similar centrifugal fusing in the 20mm and 30mm shells that was common before the modern proximity fusing became available. They used thin-shelled cannon shells which could contain up to 4 times more explosive than normal shells. They used very high order explosives (compared to the ones Allied were using, HA41 and PETN against torpex).



The German's used mostly PETN+TNT in their aircraft cannon shells, the British and Americans used mostly RDX+TNT. The two mixes are comparable, if anything RDX is superior but only a little.

As for "four times" as much as normal shells, well that way exagerated. The German 20mm 96g mine round carried 18 grams of HE. The much smaller Soviet ShVAK 65 gram round had 6.7 grams of HE. The 129 gram Hispano round was loaded with 11.3 grams of HE. Clearly, the thin-walled mine rounds carried about double the HE payload for the given round weight in the 20mm class. Even this is deceptive, since the projectile weight is relatively low for its actual size.

Furthermore, the "mine" rounds had several disadvantages. They had to be surface contact fused - the thin wall construction that allowed the larger HE payload also meant the round could not survive penetration. It also carried no appreciable sharpnel mass with it, relying solely on the HE content to do damage. On the 20mm rounds (and the Ausf. A 30mm rounds which were by far the large majority of 30mm's) the fuse required the nose of the round to be very flat giving poor ballistic performance. And finally, the weight of the round for its overall volume was low, giving poor sectional density for its size, again making for poor ballistic performance. And of course, about 25% of these rounds were duds and the duds were unlikely to do significant damage because they lacked both mass and espeically hardness. The extremely poor velocity retention of the rounds meant that at longer ranges they were quite likely to bounce off the target slightly before detonatiing.

In the 20mm class, the Hispano was the better overall cannon. Its rounds carried about 2/3rds the HE content and retained good velocity and ballistic characteristics. And they were able to support delay action fuses, allowing penetration into the target vitals before detonation.

No modern aircraft ammo follows the German "mine" concept of using a _soft_ thin walled shell! So the term "ahead of their time" is really not applicable.



Soren said:


> Germans also realized that the most efficient way to kill an aircraft, in addition to penetrating it with armor piercing rounds (which do little damage unless they hit one of the important parts), is to make large holes with large explosive shells or to use incendiary ammunition to light the plane up. The incendiary devices used by the Germans were excellent and were made of materials like magnesium, elektron thermite and phosphor. Phosphor has the effect of lighting up in room temperature and in general burning everything if it is in contact with oxygen. Elektron thermite on the other hand (a mixture of magnesium and aluminium) burns at a VERY high temperature (so high that it will light up airplane aluminium).



White Phosporous is not a great incendiary filler, except in anti-personel rounds. The material is hard to handle and subject to spontaneous ignition prior to firing. When it is delivered, it has no burst capacity, it fizzles. It also is highly subject to being lightly dispursed if added to an HE type round. And it tends to blow away in windy environments. WP requires ambient oxygen, something not readily available at high altitudes. And finally, it is relatively light, so it is kind of wasteful in terms of volume occupied. WP was not a good incendiary for anti-aircraft ammo.

Elektron, ~50% aluminum + ~50% magnesioum, was not "thrermite", which is powerdered or granulated aluminum and iron-oxide. Elektron was also inferior to the US incendiary metal compositions. IM11 (.50 M1 Incendiary and M8 API) was composed of ~25% aluminum + ~25% magnesium + ~50% barium-nitrate, in the form of an alloy. Like Elektron IM11 burns at about 4000-4500 degrees F, but unlike Electron it ignites easily when both heated (by fireing) and compressed (by striking the target), it requires no abmbient oxygen, and when it bursts it burns uniformly (i.e. it all goes up at once), giving a few seconds of intense heat as opposed to the slow burning Elektron. IM28 (.50 M23 Incendiary) was an alloy composed of ~25% aluminum + ~25% magnesium + ~50% potassium perchlorate, and burns even more viciously than IM11. Both Incendiary Metal alloys include a strong oxidizer (barium-nitrae or potassium perchlorate) which Elektron lacked. The Germans even tried to duplicate IM11, but failed to create an alloy of the materials in usable quantities. They also tried using the formula by mixing ~25% aluminum powder + ~25% magnesium powder + ~50% barium-nitrate powder, bound with wax, but of course this did not work very well as you cannot "crush" a goo to generate combustion, so they had to add HE, which of course over-disperses the incendiary.

The ability to use IM11 was one of the main reasons the USA felt okay about sticking with the .50 BMG. They had a superior incendiary round.

For fighter vs. fighter combat, 6 x .50's were much superior to 1 x MG151/20's + 2 x MG131 13mm guns. They had a huge volume of fire advantage and a significant ballistics/range advantage and more than enough killing power to quickly take out any enemy single engine fighter.



Soren said:


> Most German aircraft had electrically operated (fired) armament, which made selection of different weapons configurations and counting of ammunition easy. Some of the planes also had a mechanism to pneumatically reload guns when the trigger was released if the last shell was not fired. This made it possible to unjam the guns just by pressing the trigger repeatedly.



Gun rechargers rairly worked! The recharger was necessary because of the electrically primed ammo, which was prone to stoppages for a dude primer or (more often) bad primer contact. Also, the nature of the Mauser gun meant that after firing, it could fail to load the next round, so they _needed_ the rechargers for this reason.

Even so, German jam rates (gun not able to be recharged) were never lower than British jam rates throughout the war, and usually they were higher (except the early Hispano period). Usually jamming resulted from problems with the feed mechanism or belt, which a recharger cannot fix. Percussion ammo was extremely reliable, so there was less need to "recharge" the guns to clear a dud round - this cannot be said for electrically primed ammo, which was very depenant upon a solid clean connection between the firing pin and the primer cap. A gun-bay is a dirty place.

The Hispano II also had a recharger. Some US planes also had rechargers for their .50's. But the jam rate on the .50 BMG was so low (1:4000 rounds fired) that rechargers were removed from later designs, they were deemed not worth the weight. The recharger was removed from the Hispano V, which had a 1:1500 rounds fired jam rate, again it was deemed not worth the weight. Typical jam rates for the MG151/20 were something around 1:1000, and for the MK108 something around 1:200-300, and the German pilots were even taking care not to fire under high-G to prevent jams!

Round counters were possible for percussion primed guns as well. But the Allies saw no significant advantage in having them. Simply loading more tracers when the belts got low to signal you were running low was enough. From about mid '44 on most US pilots didn't use tracers, except to note the belts were running low. And only some guns on German planes had round counters - for instance on the Ta152 the MG151/20's have round counters, the MK108 does not.

The primary reason for using electrically primed ammo was to allow for sychronized fire through the prop. This worked very well for the MG17 and the MG131, but not so well for the MG151/20 - which fired at only ~500 rpm when sync'd to fire through the prop on the FW190 (and TA) wing root cannon.



Soren said:


> It was possible to change the whole engine and/or wings of a 109 standing on its wheels in a matter of a few hours with no special lifts (only a mechanical hoist was required).



The F4U-1d, F4U-4, and F6F all had "quick change" engines that could be changed in less than 4 hours using only a hoist and 2 mechanics (less if more mechanics were working on it), in the pitching and rolling bay of an Aircraft Carrier.



Soren said:


> All these things are very often forgotten !



And some are simply not true (109 meredith effect - superior German incendiary), and many are made to be much more significant than they really were.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## KraziKanuK (Mar 24, 2005)

A 109 required 8-9 hours to change an engine with 2 mechs.


----------



## Soren (Mar 24, 2005)

RG_Lunatic said:


> Mis-quoting or intentionally putting a partial quote out of context as you have done hre is unacceptable Soren.



Have I mis-quoted you ?  How ? 


About the Wing-slats, well not all are identical RG, the principle is. I showed you how they work on the 109, but you ignored it, i also gave you quotes but you ignored them. (Now thats unacceptable RG !)

The slats would pop out together if the ball was in the middle, slightly asymmetrically if you have any slip on ! That is how they function, and that is what prevents spins and stalls, and makes the plane a better T&B fighter. (They don't pop out asymmetrically for no reason !)
The slats were very sensitive to the posistion of the plane, and would pop out accordingly, wich is an advantage. Even when on the ground they will pop out, as when stationary the 109 points at a sufficient AoA for the slats to pop out.
The automatic-slats would pop out nomatter if it was High speed or slow speed turns, the AoA just had to be sufficient.

Günther rall flew MANY German aswell as U.S. aircraft, so he isnt very reliable when talking the 109 (Especially since NO other 109 pilot will agree with him !  )
Anyway his incident can be explained as it happened in an E-3 (High tendency for slats jamming, remember  ), and he was a beginner at the time. After that he never tried to turn that tightly again, so he never learned it. Walter Wolfrum, Erwin Leykauf, Adolf Galland and Heinrich Beauvais, just to name a few, all disagree with Günther.

And about the uncontrollable spins caused by the slats: Now thats ridiculous ! The slats were there to prevent this aswell, and made sure that any spin caused was easely recoverable !

Mark Hanna said you'd have to be downright "Stupid" to spin the 109 unintentionally !


----------



## Anonymous (Mar 24, 2005)

Grrrr... you miss the key info about the slats and spins... it depends where the weight is distributed. With planes which have very little weight distrubuted in the wings the slats are advantagous for spins, for planes with heavier wings they go from "no appreciable effect" to making spins more easy to get into and more difficult to recover.

The 109 had very light wings - practically nothing in them, so it would fall into the first class (unless it had underwing pods).

What you did was to take one sentance out of a paragraph and reply to it out of context.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 30, 2005)

Soren said:


> And Every modern day 109 pilot will disagree with him on that.



First having said the 109 is my favorite aircraft of WW2 and I will stick up for it anyday but I just have to wonder how many _*modern day 109 pilots *_are there? I know of _*109 pilots that are still alive*_, but _*modern day 109 pilots*_?

Sorry I just had to poke some fun!


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 30, 2005)

but that's so unlike you.........


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 30, 2005)

I know its a shocker huh?


----------



## Anonymous (Mar 30, 2005)

But even you Adler are not going to say the 109 out-turned the Sptifire are you? Let alone say it easily out-turned the Spit as Soren is contending.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 30, 2005)

I will deffinatly say that certain versions at certain times during the war could have done so. Forinstance when the F came out I would say yes she could outturn a Spit of the same day.


----------



## Anonymous (Mar 30, 2005)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> I will deffinatly say that certain versions at certain times during the war could have done so. Forinstance when the F came out I would say yes she could outturn a Spit of the same day.



Perhaps, but it would be close. But the way Soren describes it, any 109 could out turn any Spitfire any day of the war.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## Soren (Mar 30, 2005)

RG_Lunatic said:


> DerAdlerIstGelandet said:
> 
> 
> > I will deffinatly say that certain versions at certain times during the war could have done so. Forinstance when the F came out I would say yes she could outturn a Spit of the same day.
> ...



No im not ! Don't put words into my mouth, its not polite RG !

The G6 would most likely not turn inside a Spitfire, but the F series, G-10 and G-14 would RG ! This is confirmed by all 109 veterans, and even modern day aerodynamic-computers will give you supportive stats on that just by using the two aircrafts measurements !


----------



## Anonymous (Mar 31, 2005)

Jeeze, can't you take a little kidding there Soren? My appologies, I really didn't mean to offend you.

Read Alder's post on this.

http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/viewtopic.php?p=59489#59489

Loads of German aces saying otherwise.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## Soren (Mar 31, 2005)

RG_Lunatic said:


> Jeeze, can't you take a little kidding there Soren? My appologies, I really didn't mean to offend you.



No offense taken, but i don't appriciate beeing fed with unspoken words.

My appologies for not realising it was a joke.




> Read Alder's post on this.
> 
> http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/viewtopic.php?p=59489#59489
> 
> Loads of German aces saying otherwise.



Where are these German accounts saying otherwise ? I see none, only British accounts. 

Only pilots from the period of 1940 will say the Spitfire turned tighter, and there a reason for that. Heres an explanation why:

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

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


----------



## Anonymous (Mar 31, 2005)

From Adler's post...



> Oberleutnant Gerhard Schöpfel, Gruppenkommandeur of III./JG 26 wrote of the Me 109 E: It was superior to the Hurricane and above 6,000 metres, faster than the Spitfire also. I believe that our armament was the better, it was located more centrally which made for more accurate shooting. On the other hand, the British fighters could turn tighter than we could. Also I felt that the Messerschmitt was not so strong as the British fighters and could not take so much punishment.





> Günther Rall, who served with III./JG 52 during the Battle of Britain, reflected on the strengths and weaknesses of the adversaries at that time: The elliptical wings of the Spitfires had fantastic characteristics, great lift. They were very maneuverable. We couldn't catch them in a steep climb. On the other hand they could stall during inverted maneuvers, cutting off the fuel because the force of gravity prevented the flow of fuel. But they were still a highly respected enemy. In contrast, our Bf 109s had shortcomings. I didn't like the slats and our cockpits were very narrow, with restricted rear visability. Fighter pilots need a good all-round field of vision and we didn't have it. 64 Adolf Galland wrote of the matchup: "the ME-109 was superior in the attack and not so suitable for purely defensive purposes as *the Spitfire, which although a little slower, was much more manueuverable*" and in a fit of frustration uttered the famous passage to Göring "I should like an outfit of Spitfires for my Squadron".



Interesting comment about the guns on this one:



> Oblt Hans Schmoller-Haldy of JG 54 commented: My first impression was that it had a beautiful engine. It purred. The engine of the Messerschmitt 109 was very loud. Also the Spitfire was easier to fly, and to land than the Me 109. The 109 was unforgiving of any inattention. I felt familiar with the Spitfire from the start. That was my first and lasting impression. But with my experience with the 109, I personally would not have traded it for a Spitfire. It gave the impression, though I did not fly the Spitfire long enough to prove it, that the 109 was the faster especially in the dive. Also I think the pilot's view was better from the 109. In the Spitfire one flew further back, a bit more over the wing. *For fighter-versus-fighter combat, I thought the Spitfire was better armed than the Me 109. The cannon fitted to the 109 were not much use against enemy fighters, and the machine guns on top of the engine often suffered stoppages.* The cannon were good if they hit; but their rate of fire was very low. The cannon had greater range than the machine guns. But we were always told that in a dogfight one could not hope to hit anything at ranges greater than 50 metres, it was necessary to close in to short range.



Time and time again as I read pilot accounts, I see a few German's felt the 109 turned better than the Spitfire, some felt the two planes were about equal in terms of turn performance, and many felt the Spitfire turned better. Virtually every British pilot seems to have felt the Spit out-turned the 109, and virtually every comparative test seems to bear this out.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## Soren (Mar 31, 2005)

Remember this quote: "_ For this reason it is possible to find pilots from that period *(1940)* who will tell you that the Spitfire turned better than the Bf 109. *That is not true*_

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

All the German pilots who said the Spit turned tighter are from that period (1940), you will find *None* from any period beyond this who says the same !

Also the claim that the Spit outturned the 109 simply runs from any aerodynamic and physic rule available !


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 31, 2005)

There were several versions of the 109 that would turn better or atleast put up a good fight against a Spit however even though I am probably the biggest 109 fan in this forum I will not try and say that all versions were the best. I have read many accounts of it and many could out turn one however as you all know the 109 and the Spit were always being outdone by one another in development. Towards the end of the war the 109 was lagging a bit in the fight because it was getting heavier and heavier and the airframe could not handle it. The F was the finest varient to match up against a Spitfire.


----------



## Udet (Mar 31, 2005)

DerAdler:

The late versions of the Spitfire were becoming authentic pigs, like the Mk. 21.

They got heavier and sturdier as they evolved.

The chances of the Mk. 21 against the Fw190Ds could be qualified as lacking.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 1, 2005)

well the spit would be much faster.........

but the .21 was post war was it not??


----------



## Soren (Apr 1, 2005)

> well the spit would be much faster.........



Yes, but not in a dive, and its roll rate was considderably worse than the Fw-190D's. Also it didnt have good high speed maneuverability compared to the Fw-190D. 



> but the .21 was post war was it not??



Yes, it came "just" to late.


----------



## Soren (Apr 1, 2005)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> There were several versions of the 109 that would turn better or atleast put up a good fight against a Spit however even though I am probably the biggest 109 fan in this forum I will not try and say that all versions were the best. I have read many accounts of it and many could out turn one however as you all know the 109 and the Spit were always being outdone by one another in development. Towards the end of the war the 109 was lagging a bit in the fight because it was getting heavier and heavier and the airframe could not handle it. The F was the finest varient to match up against a Spitfire.




People like saying the 109 got heavier, and sure it did, up to the G-6 that is. The G-10 and G-14 were all lighter, and had a very powerful engine, wich could do 698 km/h in level flight. The G-10 and 14 would both turn inside a Spit, although it would always be tough to do so.

The K-4 had improved ailerons and shortned wings for better high speed maneuverability, but weighed as much as the G-6. The K-4 wouldnt be likely to turn inside a Spit XIV though.


----------



## Soren (Apr 1, 2005)

About the La's, I guess you didnt see the tests i quoted in another thread, so I'll post it again.

After lots of tests with the La-5FN, these were some of the conclusions...

The testing was carried out in September 1944 at Gross Schimanen, East Prussia.

*Turning circles:*

_"The smallest turning circle at rated power at 2400m is about 28/30 sec for a stable 360 degree turn at constant height. This implies a minimum time for a 360 degree turn at 1000m, with emergency power, of about 25 sec."_

*The tactical conclusions and advice offered to German fighter pilots:*

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


Source: "Luftwaffe Test Pilot" by Hans Werner Lerche. He flew virtually all captured Allied aircraft and most German types, including experimental models. 

These tests should be regarded as atleast as reliable as Allied tests !

Hans Werner Lerche:






The La-5FN in question:


----------



## Schöpfel (Apr 1, 2005)

Greets:



> but the .21 was post war was it not??
> 
> Yes, it came "just" to late.



Apparently the Spitfire F. Mk. 21 was operational before war's end. See Operational Record Book from No. 91 Squadron Here

I wouldn't try turning my 109 against a Spit if my life was on the line...


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 1, 2005)

i wouldn't have to worry, i'd be in the spit


----------



## Soren (Apr 1, 2005)

Schöpfel said:


> Greets:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



None saw any action, according to all my sources.



> I wouldn't try turning my 109 against a Spit if my life was on the line...



Tell that to Marseilles who prefered turn-fights, and shot down a good number of Spits and Hurri's doing so. 

Experienced 109 pilots knew they could turn tighter, and that their aircraft could climb better, so they didnt hesitate to turn with a Spit.


----------



## Anonymous (Apr 1, 2005)

Soren said:


> About the La's, I guess you didnt see the tests i quoted in another thread, so I'll post it again.
> 
> After lots of tests with the La-5FN, these were some of the conclusions...
> 
> The testing was carried out in September 1944 at Gross Schimanen, East Prussia.



Saw it before Soren. As before I have to say...

WRONG THREAD! (post it in the La7 thread or make a new one)

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## Soren (Apr 1, 2005)

RG_Lunatic said:


> Soren said:
> 
> 
> > About the La's, I guess you didnt see the tests i quoted in another thread, so I'll post it again.
> ...



Why is it the wrong thread ??


----------



## Anonymous (Apr 1, 2005)

Soren said:


> Why is it the wrong thread ??



Ummm... this is the *"Is Spitfire really the BEST British fighter???"* thread.

I'm just trying to prevent this thread from diverging further than it already has. Your post makes more sense in the Spit vs. La7 thread or in a new thread.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## Soren (Apr 1, 2005)

RG_Lunatic said:


> Soren said:
> 
> 
> > Why is it the wrong thread ??
> ...


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 1, 2005)

well i really don't see what else could be the best apart from the tempest..........


----------



## Schöpfel (Apr 1, 2005)

Hallo Soren:



> None saw any action, according to all my sources.



Hmmm. did you look at the excerpt from 19 Squadron's Operations Record Book describing action? What source could there be that would trump this documented historic record? Could you share that with us? Thanks!



> Tell that to Marseilles


Oh, I would love to converse with Marseilles, however that's not possible  Can you recommemend the source where-in he describes out turning Spitfires? I would find such reading facinating!


----------



## Soren (Apr 1, 2005)

> Hallo Soren:
> 
> Hmmm. did you look at the excerpt from 19 Squadron's Operations Record Book describing action? What source could there be that would trump this documented historic record? Could you share that with us? Thanks!



Yeah, for one: "British Warplanes of World War II" by Daniel J. March.

And no, None are as accurate as the Squadron's Operations Record book, but it says nothing about these planes seeing any action. 



> Oh, I would love to converse with Marseilles, however that's not possible



Yeah he got hit by the tail-plane, and didnt open his parachute. All this because of an engine fire (Possibly the best Fighter pilot who ever lived)



> Can you recommemend the source where-in he describes out turning Spitfires? I would find such reading facinating!



Absolutely !! 

"Bf 109 Aces of North Africa and the Mediterranean" by Jerry Scutts.

Great book !


----------



## KraziKanuK (Apr 2, 2005)

Soren said:


> People like saying the 109 got heavier, and sure it did, up to the G-6 that is. The G-10 and G-14 were all lighter, and had a very powerful engine, wich could do 698 km/h in level flight. The G-10 and 14 would both turn inside a Spit, although it would always be tough to do so.
> 
> The K-4 had improved ailerons and shortned wings for better high speed maneuverability, but weighed as much as the G-6. The K-4 wouldnt be likely to turn inside a Spit XIV though.



G-6

wingspan - 9.92 m

K-4

wing span - 9,92 m

By improved ailerons, do mean those using the Flettner tabs? There was only about 200 were so fitted, out of the approx 1700 K-4 built. They were not a great success.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 2, 2005)

Schöpfel said:


> Greets:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



They were operational but never made into the war.


----------



## Soren (Apr 2, 2005)

KraziKanuK said:


> Soren said:
> 
> 
> > People like saying the 109 got heavier, and sure it did, up to the G-6 that is. The G-10 and G-14 were all lighter, and had a very powerful engine, wich could do 698 km/h in level flight. The G-10 and 14 would both turn inside a Spit, although it would always be tough to do so.
> ...




Recent actual measurements have said 10.6m for the F-4 and 9.94m for the K-4. But all my bookreferences say 9.92m for both.

However there is a German specification book out there, wich says the K-4 had shortened wingspan from all the other models, wich is why i believe the newest measurements.


----------



## KraziKanuK (Apr 2, 2005)

Soren said:


> Recent actual measurements have said 10.6m for the F-4 and 9.94m for the K-4. But all my bookreferences say 9.92m for both.
> 
> However there is a German specification book out there, wich says the K-4 had shortened wingspan from all the other models, wich is why i believe the newest measurements.



I have factory drawing, all in German, of the wing that says 9.92m as well as many other dimensions related to the wing. The title block says Me109F - Me109K.


----------



## Soren (Apr 2, 2005)

KraziKanuK said:


> Soren said:
> 
> 
> > Recent actual measurements have said 10.6m for the F-4 and 9.94m for the K-4. But all my bookreferences say 9.92m for both.
> ...



That settles it then. Whats the document called btw ? What other wing- specifications are there ?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 2, 2005)

All of m sources say they were all 9.92m from the F to the K.

Here is what I have in all of my sources but this whole argument here should really be in another thread.

Bf-109B
Dimensions:
Wing span: 9.97m
Length: 8.51m
Height: 2.59m
Wing Surface Area: N/A

Weights:
Empty: 1580kg (3,483 lbs.)
Maximum, Loaded: 2120kg (4,850 lbs.)

Dimensions:
Wing span: 32 ft. 4½ (9.97m)
Length: 28 ft. 0.66 in. (8.51m)
Height: 8 ft. 0½ in. (2.59m)
Wing Surface Area: 174 sq. ft.

Weights:
Empty: 3522 lb.
Maximum, Loaded: 5062 lb.

Bf-109E

Dimensions:
Wing span: 32 ft. 4.5 in. (9.97m)
Length: 28 ft. 8 in. (8.9m)
Height: 8 ft. 10 in. (2.6m)
Wing Surface Area: N/A

Weights:
Empty: 2018kg (4,440 lb.)
Maximum, Loaded: 2509kg (5,520 lb.)

Bf-109F

Wing Span: 9.92m
Lenght: 8.90m
Height: 2.60m
Wing Surface Area: 16.10 sq m.

Wieghts:
Empty: 2590kg (5698 lb)
Loaded: 3117kg (6857lb)

Me-109G

Wingspan: 9.92m
Length: 9.02m
Height: 3.40m
Wing Surface Area: 16.05 sq m.

Weights:
Empty: 2258kg (4,968 lbs.)
Loaded: 3106kg (6,834 lbs.)
Maximum Overloaded: 3207kg (7,055 lbs)

Me-109K

Wingspan: 9.92m
Lenght: 9.02m
Height: 3.40m
Wing Surface Area: 16.05 sq. m

Weights:
Empty: 2700kg (5940lb)
Loaded: 3386kg (7438lb)


----------



## KraziKanuK (Apr 2, 2005)

Soren said:


> That settles it then. Whats the document called btw ? What other wing- specifications are there ?



It is titled _Flugel_ (the u should have .. above it)

Not specs but dimensions related to slats, flaps, ailerons, chords, etc.


----------



## Soren (Apr 2, 2005)

KraziKanuK said:


> Soren said:
> 
> 
> > That settles it then. Whats the document called btw ? What other wing- specifications are there ?
> ...



Ok, thanks. 

How about Wing area ?

By looking Adler's sources above, something is obviously wrong with the Wing-span and Wing-Area spec's. (The E series didn't have a larger wing-surface-area than the F series and beyond)

All the sources I have state the B-E seris had a wing-span of 9.87m, and the F-K series a wing-span of 9.92m. The B-E series had a Wing-Area of 16.17 sq.m, the F-K series N/A.

Do you have any Wing-Area spec's on the F series and beyond Krazi ?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 2, 2005)

Well that is what all of my sources say about the wing area. All I know is that after the F the 109 got faster and performance wise was better but it got more sluggish and anyone who has flown the magnificant 109 will tell you that it at high speeds the controls would stiffen up a bit. At high alltitudes though she would give anything a run for there money.


----------



## KraziKanuK (Apr 2, 2005)

It says the area is 16.05m2.

One thing to watch for is if the area is calculated using what is under the fuselage or not. ie span x mean chord. Some areas are given from the root chord out, naturally x2.


----------



## Soren (Apr 2, 2005)

> It says the area is 16.05m2.



Strange, why would the larger wings of he F-K series have a smaller wing-area than the B-E series smaller wings ? 



> One thing to watch for is if the area is calculated using what is under the fuselage or not. ie span x mean chord. Some areas are given from the root chord out, naturally x2.



Yes, that is offcourse also a possibility.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 2, 2005)

Soren said:


> > It says the area is 16.05m2.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Well I can only tell you what every book I have ever read on the Bf-109 has said.


----------



## Soren (Apr 3, 2005)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Well I can only tell you what every book I have ever read on the Bf-109 has said.



Offcourse, its not you im blaming, its the sources. My books more or less tells the same story as yours, except there's no Wing-area spec's on the F-K series.


----------



## KraziKanuK (Apr 3, 2005)

Soren said:


> Strange, why would the larger wings of he F-K series have a smaller wing-area than the B-E series smaller wings ?




square tip vs rounded tip

The F-K had ~1"length more per half span but most of the tip was removed.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 4, 2005)

That might explain it.


----------



## Anonymous (Apr 6, 2005)

(http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/viewtopic.php?p=61962#61962)


Soren said:


> I guess you havent read the AFDU's tests with the 109F i presented, so i will quote it again.
> 
> AFDU 28 October 1941: TACTICAL TRIALS Me.109F AIRCRAFT- 7:
> 
> No manoeuvrability trials were carried out against other aircraft but the Me.109F was dived up to 420 mph, IAS, with controls trimmed for level flight and it was found that although the elevators had become heavy and the ailerons had stiffened up appreciably, fairly tight turns were still possible.



I found this report - Interesting that you chose to leave out the rest of the paragraph, let me add that for you...



> "....
> It is considered however, that the aircraft could have been_ out-turned easily by a Spitfire_. At high speeds the ailerons are more effective than the fabric ailerons of the Spitfire, but not as good as the metal ones. _As a result of the heaviness of the elevators at speeds over 400 m.p.h, violent evasion is not possible_, and the aircraft would present a simple target to a following Sptifre. Similarly, a Spitfire attacked by a Me.109F from above should have no difficulty in evading if he turns sharply towards the direction of attack. It is considered that recovery from a high speed dive near the ground would be difficult, as the loss of height entailed is considerable. This may account for occasional reports of Me.109F's being seen to dive straight into the ground without apparently being fired at."



It is not right to put things out of context Soren. You implied this report indicated the Bf109F could turn with the Spitfire, which it most certainly does not!

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## Soren (Apr 6, 2005)

RG_Lunatic said:


> (http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/viewtopic.php?p=61962#61962)
> 
> 
> Soren said:
> ...



I didnt put anything out of context, the point is that the 109 would pull out of 420 mph dive easely, even more easely than a P-51 ! (And yes there are P-51 pilots who confirm this !) 

Also didnt you forget this part: "No manoeuvrability trials were carried out against other aircraft" 

So NO tests against the Spit were carried out, thereby "Considderet" means absolutely NOTHING ! And a British pilot offcourse would prefere the a Spit, afterall it is a BRITISH plane !


----------



## Anonymous (Apr 6, 2005)

You cannot use one sentance out of a paragraph to claim the 109 was able to make competitve turns against other aircraft when the very next line clearly disputes such a claim.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## Soren (Apr 6, 2005)

RG_Lunatic said:


> You cannot use one sentance out of a paragraph to claim the 109 was able to make competitve turns against other aircraft when the very next line clearly disputes such a claim.
> 
> =S=
> 
> Lunatic



I didnt !!! I used lots of other facts ! This was merely to show you that the 109 would still do tight turns even at a 420 mph dive !


----------



## Anonymous (Apr 6, 2005)

Soren said:


> I didnt !!! I used lots of other facts ! This was merely to show you that the 109 would still do tight turns even at a 420 mph dive !



Tight compared to what? A Bf110? It cannot be a very tight turn if the Spitfire can "easily" out-turn it.

I have no problem with your having used this as evidence except you should have included the following sentance. It is not right to quote such a source that you think I don't have access to in this way - it makes all your other sources dubious. What did you leave out from them?

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## Soren (Apr 6, 2005)

> Tight compared to what? A Bf110? It cannot be a very tight turn if the Spitfire can "easily" out-turn it.



Hey it was a "SPITFIRE" pilot who flew it ! Wich means he isnt used to the controls, and he most certainly backs off alot in a turn when he hears the Slats pop out ! 

Also remember that it was "Consideret" that the Spitfire turned tighter, but no trials were ever carried out against one !  

Also this is said RG: "At high speeds the ailerons are more effective than the fabric ailerons of the Spitfire, but not as good as the metal ones" 

Thats quite a statement by a Spitfire pilot !


----------



## Anonymous (Apr 6, 2005)

Your missing the point.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## Soren (Apr 6, 2005)

RG_Lunatic said:


> Your missing the point.
> 
> =S=
> 
> Lunatic



No Im not RG, your just a little to quick with your accusations.


----------



## Anonymous (Apr 6, 2005)

Soren said:


> No Im not RG, your just a little to quick with your accusations.



Says the person who accused me of altering a document and then presenting it with absolutely no evidence to support the false and slanderous accusation!  

You on the otherhand, are caught red-handed mis-representing a test report you thought I didn't have access too, and now you're indignant about being called on it?

I'm willing to accept that maybe you didn't intend to do this, but I'm also going to ask you to be especially careful not to mis-represent documents you quote or reference in the future. If a document contains info that supports your position and also info that contradicts your position, if you wish to quote or otherwise refrence the document you either need to provide access to the document or you need to present both the supporting and contradicting parts.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



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

but at the same time he's trying to present an argument, if you're arguing a point you use your resorces to your own advantage, you're unlikely to make a point in an argument, then cancel it out with a contradicting argument............


----------



## Anonymous (Apr 7, 2005)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> but at the same time he's trying to present an argument, if you're arguing a point you use your resorces to your own advantage, you're unlikely to make a point in an argument, then cancel it out with a contradicting argument............



In these debates about history, it is important to be truthfull and to disclose fully. It is not right to present a snippet from a paragraph that misrepresents what that paragraph actually says, especially if you believe the other party lacks access to the document you are referencing.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## Soren (Apr 7, 2005)

RG_Lunatic said:


> Says the person who accused me of altering a document and then presenting it with absolutely no evidence to support the false and slanderous accusation!



Says the Person who accused me of being just a new 'Nick' for a totally different Person !  



RG_Lunatic said:


> In these debates about history, it is important to be truthfull and to disclose fully. It is not right to present a snippet from a paragraph that misrepresents what that paragraph actually says, especially if you believe the other party lacks access to the document you are referencing.
> 
> =S=
> 
> Lunatic



I didnt do anything wrong RG !!!!!!! I was trying to show you that even at *420 mph* the 109 would still turn fairly tight !!! 

And why in Gods name would I think you didnt have acces to the reference !!?? 

With all due respect, your getting really paranoid RG !! 

The reason I suspected you falsified that other document was because I had never heard such outrages cruise stats, and that I didnt see any link to your reference ! Also I had seen you "modifying" a roll-rate chart, and it looked real enough(remember the one you enhanced ?), so that the speed and rate-of roll indications were up close to the results. 

(Btw after you gave me the link to the cruise speed reference I did apologize, so actually you have no right to behave this childishly RG !) 

Also you provided no cruise speed for the Spit XIV, but at the same time called mine faulty ! Now Thats wrong RG !


----------



## Anonymous (Apr 7, 2005)

Soren said:


> RG_Lunatic said:
> 
> 
> > Says the person who accused me of altering a document and then presenting it with absolutely no evidence to support the false and slanderous accusation!
> ...



Jesus - you cannot take a joke man. Grrr.



RG_Lunatic said:


> In these debates about history, it is important to be truthfull and to disclose fully. It is not right to present a snippet from a paragraph that misrepresents what that paragraph actually says, especially if you believe the other party lacks access to the document you are referencing.



I didnt do anything wrong RG !!!!!!! I was trying to show you that even at *420 mph* the 109 would still turn fairly tight !!![/quote]

Go back and read what you wrote. You implied that this somehow supported your argument that the 109 could out-turn the Spitfire. Clearly it does not.



Soren said:


> And why in Gods name would I think you didnt have acces to the reference !!??
> 
> With all due respect, your getting really paranoid RG !!



Such documents are often very hard to find. You didn't know about RING's website at that time.



Soren said:


> The reason I suspected you falsified that other document was because I had never heard such outrages cruise stats, and that I didnt see any link to your reference ! Also I had seen you "modifying" a roll-rate chart, and it looked real enough(remember the one you enhanced ?), so that the speed and rate-of roll indications were up close to the results.



Enhancement to help you see what is there is totally different from creating or altering the document to show something that is not there.



Soren said:


> (Btw after you gave me the link to the cruise speed reference I did apologize, so actually you have no right to behave this childishly RG !)



And I told you right off where it was from - the P-51 Pilot Handbook. Your "apology" was half hearted at best, and the accusation of falsifying documents is not insignificant.



Soren said:


> Also you provided no cruise speed for the Spit XIV, but at the same time called mine faulty ! Now Thats wrong RG !



I've not been able to find one from a reliable primary source. However, I've never seen a cruise figure for the Spitfire XIV above 325 mph, except your one fan site which does not give a reference for the data. I'm sorry, but fansite claims are not sufficient - how do you know that site is not created by some 13 year old kid who just wants the Spitfire to have been the hands down best fighter or WWII and does not understand the importance of verifying such information before presenting it as fact on the web?

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## DAVIDICUS (Apr 7, 2005)

RG_Lunatic said, "how do you know that site is not created by some 13 year old kid who just wants the Spitfire to have been the hands down best fighter or WWII."

Hmmm. There wouldn't be any of those folks on this forum woiuld there? Lanc? Is that you?


----------



## Anonymous (Apr 7, 2005)

DAVIDICUS said:


> RG_Lunatic said, "how do you know that site is not created by some 13 year old kid who just wants the Spitfire to have been the hands down best fighter or WWII."
> 
> Hmmm. There wouldn't be any of those folks on this forum woiuld there? Lanc? Is that you?



LOL - I don't mean to insult the kids, I'm sorry for not choosing my example more carefully.

My point is that young kids are less likely to understand the importance of not propogating false data to the public. We don't know anything about the website author, and he does not give any verifiable references for the figures he presents. That is not a reliable source.

My appologies to the younger members on this board. I'm sure they would never present suspect data as fact on such a site.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



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

and i'm 14 i'll have you know!!!

and actually Crazy, the founder of this site, is also 14 or 15 i think as well so be carefull what you say infront of the all powerful..........


----------



## Soren (Apr 7, 2005)

> Jesus - you cannot take a joke man. Grrr.



Well if that was a joke, then your jokes really suck !  



> Go back and read what you wrote. You implied that this somehow supported your argument that the 109 could out-turn the Spitfire. Clearly it does not.



I implied ?  No what I implied was, that even at speeds of 420 mph the 109 would still turn fairly tight, and that previus statements such as "Above 350 mph the 109 could not turn at all because the elevator would lock up" is TOTALLY untrue !! 



> Such documents are often very hard to find. You didn't know about RING's website at that time.



And how the **** do you know when i had acces to any Website ? 




> Enhancement to help you see what is there is totally different from creating or altering the document to show something that is not there.



Yes, but how could i know your werent doing the same with other documents, as your little "Roll-chart-modifycation" looked very convincing ?




> And I told you right off where it was from - the P-51 Pilot Handbook.



But no link !!! Eventhough you had it, and that was where you got it from.



> Your "apology" was half hearted at best, and the accusation of falsifying documents is not insignificant.



And again I ask you, how the ¤%#% can you know if it was a half hearted or whole hearted apology ?! 

Being accused of being another person isnt insignificant either ! And if you think you can back out of it just by saying it was a joke, then your mistaken.



> I've not been able to find one from a reliable primary source.



RG you claimed that "300 mph" was written on the "Fourth Fighter group site", wich it wasnt ! 



> However, I've never seen a cruise figure for the Spitfire XIV above 325 mph, except your one fan site which does not give a reference for the data. I'm sorry, but fansite claims are not sufficient



RG, the book "British Warplanes of WW2" says the same !




> - how do you know that site is not created by some 13 year old kid who just wants the Spitfire to have been the hands down best fighter or WWII and does not understand the importance of verifying such information before presenting it as fact on the web?




RG how do you know that about any site ?


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 7, 2005)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> and i'm 14 i'll have you know!!!
> 
> and actually Crazy, the founder of this site, is also 14 or 15 i think as well so be carefull what you say infront of the all powerful..........



Actually horse is the founder of the site...

And im not surprised they think youre 13 lanc, your profile still says you are


----------



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

this is odd, just looking threw a couple of books i have, i have "British Aircraft of WWII" by David Mondey, i can assure you it is a very well researched book and i've found it to be of much use, and it quotes the Mk.XIV's cruising speed an 362mph!!


----------



## Anonymous (Apr 7, 2005)

Soren said:


> > Enhancement to help you see what is there is totally different from creating or altering the document to show something that is not there.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, but how could i know your werent doing the same with other documents, as your little "Roll-chart-modifycation" looked very convincing ?



If I had not presented the unmodified version first, I think you would have a point. But given that I did, I think it was clear the "modification" was only to help you read it.



Soren said:


> > And I told you right off where it was from - the P-51 Pilot Handbook.
> 
> 
> 
> But no link !!! Eventhough you had it, and that was where you got it from.



When the source is a publically available published document, no "link" is necessary. A sufficient number of people have access to such documents to ensure that any hanky-panky with the content will likely be caught.

I didn't want to provide a link to RING's PRO Documents until I'd downloaded most of what is on that site. It's gone down for months in the past, no telling when it might go down again, and I didn't want to temp the fates by having a bunch of people downloading it and possibly eating up the available bandwidth. This way, if it does go down and RING says he does not intend to put it back up, I can make the non-copywrited info available, and preserve the availablility of this valuable information.



Soren said:


> > Your "apology" was half hearted at best, and the accusation of falsifying documents is not insignificant.
> 
> 
> 
> And again I ask you, how the ¤%#% can you know if it was a half hearted or whole hearted apology ?!



That's how it appeared to me. Being that I'm the offended party, I decide how sincere I feel the apology is.



Soren said:


> Being accused of being another person isnt insignificant either ! And if you think you can back out of it just by saying it was a joke, then your mistaken.



If you could not see the humor in my comment... I don't know what to say. Honestly, I just intended it to be funny, and I thought it was. I'm truely sorry you didn't take it that way.



Soren said:


> > I've not been able to find one from a reliable primary source.
> 
> 
> 
> RG you claimed that "300 mph" was written on the "Fourth Fighter group site", wich it wasnt !



I'm sure it's there somewhere.



Soren said:


> > However, I've never seen a cruise figure for the Spitfire XIV above 325 mph, except your one fan site which does not give a reference for the data. I'm sorry, but fansite claims are not sufficient
> 
> 
> 
> RG, the book "British Warplanes of WW2" says the same !



What exactly does it say? Does it give a time limit for such a speed? Does it give a date for the figures - post-war Spitfires were upgraded with new nozzle technology allowing faster cruises.

I'm not saying it isn't possible, just that so far I've not seen a credible source that indicates a faster than about 325 mph sustained cruise for any wartime Spitfire.



Soren said:


> > - how do you know that site is not created by some 13 year old kid who just wants the Spitfire to have been the hands down best fighter or WWII and does not understand the importance of verifying such information before presenting it as fact on the web?
> 
> 
> 
> RG how do you know that about any site ?



Well, some sites are .mil sites, some are aircraft manufacturers, some are museum sites, some are from respected authors (such as T. Williams) - we know something about the credibility of such sources. Some, such as the fourth-fighter-group or RING's PRO Research site provide primary source documents in the raw, which are very credible. Others provide references for the information presented, which again makes them more credible.

But a site that simply puts up data with no references... well we just don't really know. And sometimes they are presenting known wrong data - Francillon's error concering the Ki-44 mounting Ho-103's is a good example, it can be found on many sites, often w/o reference.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## Anonymous (Apr 7, 2005)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> this is odd, just looking threw a couple of books i have, i have "British Aircraft of WWII" by David Mondey, i can assure you it is a very well researched book and i've found it to be of much use, and it quotes the Mk.XIV's cruising speed an 362mph!!



Well, that is a reputable source. Does it give a date for that figure? Does it give an altitude? Does it state whether this is "estimated" or "as tested" data? Does it give the range at that speed?

=S=

Lunatic


----------



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

ok perhaps i should have made myself clear, in no way did i wish to enter this argument at this time, i was simply presenting a fact............


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 7, 2005)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> but at the same time he's trying to present an argument, if you're arguing a point you use your resorces to your own advantage, you're unlikely to make a point in an argument, then cancel it out with a contradicting argument............



And yes RG_Lunatic does this also, but he will not admit it. 



RG_Lunatic said:


> Well, that is a reputable source. Does it give a date for that figure? Does it give an altitude? Does it state whether this is "estimated" or "as tested" data? Does it give the range at that speed?



Just because it is not an American book does not mean it is not reputable and not true.  sorry I had to pick some fun here, I normally do this to Lanc!


Other than that wow, I missed a lot in this thread!


----------



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




----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 7, 2005)

See I stick up for you too lad!


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 7, 2005)

RG_Lunatic said:


> the lancaster kicks ass said:
> 
> 
> > this is odd, just looking threw a couple of books i have, i have "British Aircraft of WWII" by David Mondey, i can assure you it is a very well researched book and i've found it to be of much use, and it quotes the Mk.XIV's cruising speed an 362mph!!
> ...



Actually that post there by RG was pretty sound. HE did say it was a reputable source and he looked to be just answering a question, although perhaps slightly aggressively.


----------



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

that makes little sence to me?? who's post was "sound"?? who was being aggressive??


----------



## Soren (Apr 7, 2005)

> If I had not presented the unmodified version first, I think you would have a point. But given that I did, I think it was clear the "modification" was only to help you read it.



Yes, it was quite clearly for help ! But thats not the point, the point is that I wasnt able to see any distortion what so ever on your small Modified Roll-chart, and thought it was maby a seperate chart for the FW and P-51 only. I didn see it was the same until i looked real hard at it, and it was even a close-up ! 

Also Falsifying pic's is sadly relatively easy with todays computer programs.

Anyway I asked you if the Cruise speed document was falsified, like was it a question. And when you demanded an apology eventhough you didnt apply a link to begin with, I apologized, and then you amazingly had the inkindness of not accepting my apology, eventhough i really shouldnt have apologized for anything. 



> When the source is a publically available published document, no "link" is necessary.



Then why did I need to link the AFDU's test-results of the 109 ? (Now your backing off on your previus statements)



> I didn't want to provide a link to RING's PRO Documents until I'd downloaded most of what is on that site. It's gone down for months in the past, no telling when it might go down again, and I didn't want to temp the fates by having a bunch of people downloading it and possibly eating up the available bandwidth. This way, if it does go down and RING says he does not intend to put it back up, I can make the non-copywrited info available, and preserve the availablility of this valuable information.



Thats a pretty awkward excuse RG.



> That's how it appeared to me. Being that I'm the offended party, I decide how sincere I feel the apology is.



You may decide how you feel it, but not how I mean it !



> I'm sure it's there somewhere.



RG, I thoroughly went through that site, and it isnt there.



> What exactly does it say? Does it give a time limit for such a speed?



No, no time limit, as cruise speed is the speed in wich the airplane can sustain without overheating.



> Does it give a date for the figures - post-war Spitfires were upgraded with new nozzle technology allowing faster cruises.



Data ? You mean sources ? Yes it does, its stats are obtained from the RAF.



> I'm not saying it isn't possible, just that so far I've not seen a credible source that indicates a faster than about 325 mph sustained cruise for any wartime Spitfire.



RG the Spit IX's cruise speed was 325 mph.



> Well, some sites are .mil sites, some are aircraft manufacturers, some are museum sites, some are from respected authors (such as T. Williams) - we know something about the credibility of such sources. Some, such as the fourth-fighter-group or RING's PRO Research site provide primary source documents in the raw, which are very credible. Others provide references for the information presented, which again makes them more credible.
> 
> But a site that simply puts up data with no references... well we just don't really know. And sometimes they are presenting known wrong data - Francillon's error concering the Ki-44 mounting Ho-103's is a good example, it can be found on many sites, often w/o reference.



Well this so called fan site seems very much to use the same speed numbers as all my available sources, so theres your reference.


----------



## Royzee617 (Apr 7, 2005)

What criteria does anyone suggest for distinguishing 'best'?

Kills? Sortie count? Numbers on strength? Longevity? Design? Aesthetics?

One thing is for sure the Spitfire was effective at the start of WW2 and remained so at its end. The only comparable fighter was the Bf109.

IMHO it is often down to personal opinion.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 7, 2005)

Royzee617 said:


> One thing is for sure the Spitfire was effective at the start of WW2 and remained so at its end. The only comparable fighter was the Bf109.



Are you crazy. So you are saying that a Bf-109 was the only thing comparable when a Fw-190 was better then a 109?


----------



## Anonymous (Apr 7, 2005)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> the lancaster kicks ass said:
> 
> 
> > but at the same time he's trying to present an argument, if you're arguing a point you use your resorces to your own advantage, you're unlikely to make a point in an argument, then cancel it out with a contradicting argument............
> ...



Alder, I almost always give the source link or present the images of the relevant pages. When have I picked a piece of data out of an obscure source and quoted it out of context w/o providing a link or the full content of the document being referenced?

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## Royzee617 (Apr 8, 2005)

What I meant was that just about only the Spitfire and Bf109 were effective fighters throughout the whole of WW2... the FW190 was not operational until 1941 (I think). 

That said both the Spit and 109 had changed considerably in that time... remarkable testament to their original design. Can you imagine any modern plane being so versatile or with such capacity for improvement?

The Zero was still around but only worth using as a suicide plane by 1944-45.

The Hurricane was a great plane but really of an older generation compared to the Spit technically speaking. 

It is also remarkable that the RAF chose to keep on accepting improved Spitfires instead of favouring successors... what does this say about Hawker's Tiffies and Tempests? Just that the Spit was brilliant at everything.... not quite.

The key to the Spit's longevity has as much to do with the engine as the aerodynamics. We'd have lost WW2 without Rolls Royce and their Merlin (et seq).... Spit, Lanc, Hurri, Mustang etc etc... stupefyingly brilliant! Lucky for us they ran in the Schneider Trophy Race pre-WW2.

Personally I would have liked to see the MB5 operational.... and as for the Meteor.... urgh! Talk about functional when alongside the elegant Me 262. Not a "real man's plane" a 'stopgap' that is still around...


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 9, 2005)

all those points are very valid there, although just as a note the merlin wasn't used in the Schneider trophy races........


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 9, 2005)

However I think the 190 had a far more versatile airframe than that of the Spitfire or 109.


----------



## mosquitoman (Apr 9, 2005)

The Meteor looked good, the later marks with a radar for nightfighting looked ing though


----------



## Royzee617 (Apr 9, 2005)

The point I was trying to make was that ONLY the Spit and 109 saw the whole war through as frontline aircraft. The Wurger is a splendid plane but arrived later.

To throw a spanner or two in the works... wasn't the Mustang also in RAF service as a fighter (?) and what about the Mossie? That was a fighter too...


----------



## mosquitoman (Apr 9, 2005)

The Mossie was a fighter-bomber/nightfighter when it came to that side of things. It wasn't a straight day fighter


----------



## Anonymous (Apr 9, 2005)

Royzee617 said:


> The point I was trying to make was that ONLY the Spit and 109 saw the whole war through as frontline aircraft. The Wurger is a splendid plane but arrived later.
> 
> To throw a spanner or two in the works... wasn't the Mustang also in RAF service as a fighter (?) and what about the Mossie? That was a fighter too...



The P-47 and P-38 saw service in Europe from the US entry to end of war. Does the fact the USA didn't start fighting in 1939 exclude it? Does this also exclude the Soviets and Japanese?

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## mosquitoman (Apr 9, 2005)

No, but we're talking about the best BRITISH fighter, not any other country's air arm


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 9, 2005)

well look at it this way, if a country joined the conflict a week before it ended and had planes flying in the conflict for that whole week, were those planes there from the start of the conflict 'till the end?? because that's the way your theory works.........


----------



## Anonymous (Apr 9, 2005)

Well, I'd agree that was not a valid contender Lanc. But anything over two years service certainly is.

Point taken Moss, though I don't know how length of service became a requirement of "best".

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 9, 2005)

well perhaps not length of service but service history cirtainly plays a huge part.........


----------



## Anonymous (Apr 9, 2005)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> well perhaps not length of service but service history cirtainly plays a huge part.........



Well, that really goes to "signficance" rather than "best" I think.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 9, 2005)

well it depends on your exact definition of "best"........


----------



## Anonymous (Apr 9, 2005)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> well it depends on your exact definition of "best"........



I think "best" clearly means "superior", which means which would you rather have, X units of item A or item B, with no other considerations involved (such as cost, service life, etc...).


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 9, 2005)

but again all the other things like cost and service life all have to be considdered...............


----------



## Anonymous (Apr 9, 2005)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> but again all the other things like cost and service life all have to be considdered...............



Not when the criteria is "best". Those things are considered when the criteria is "most signficant" or "most effective".


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 9, 2005)

well look at it from the account or manufacture's point of view, to them the best aircraft is the one that best value for money or the easiest to manufacture, what i'm trying to say is that untill we lay down a fair definition of the word "best", your opinion is based entirely on your viewpoint...........


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 9, 2005)

No im with RG here.


----------



## Anonymous (Apr 9, 2005)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> well look at it from the account or manufacture's point of view, to them the best aircraft is the one that best value for money or the easiest to manufacture, what i'm trying to say is that untill we lay down a fair definition of the word "best", your opinion is based entirely on your viewpoint...........



Well certainly - but who here is taking the accountant's viewpoint? I think the context of this board is pretty clear, when we say best we mean "superior in combat". Don't you?


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 9, 2005)

yes but i still feel there are allot more factors to considder.........


----------



## Anonymous (Apr 9, 2005)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> yes but i still feel there are allot more factors to considder.........



Sure. But for that we really need a more appropriate thread title, such as "Was the Spitfire really the most EFFECTIVE British fighter???"


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 9, 2005)

well in the context of this threat i feel that service record should be considdered.............

and the time is now 19:45..............


----------



## Anonymous (Apr 9, 2005)

The of course the Spitfire was the BEST British fighter - hell it was about the only British fighter with a long service life.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 9, 2005)

In fact, were there any other British fighters that were in frontline service along side the Spitfire for the whole war?


----------



## mosquitoman (Apr 9, 2005)

The Hurricane was still operational in the Far East in 1945


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 9, 2005)

but not alongside the psit in frontline fighter duties.............

and no CC, there was no other fighter that stayed with the spit for the whole war, she was one of only a couple of aircraft to be in production from the start of the war right till the end and beyond, just out of interest what were the other few??


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 9, 2005)

The 109 has to be one.

We including American aircraft?


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 9, 2005)

depends which ones............

and i'm boored of my siggy.......


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 9, 2005)

My one made you jealous?  

Well the P-38 was


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 9, 2005)

was she produced right up 'till the end of the war??

and no i just want something different...........


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 9, 2005)

Yes it was 8)


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 9, 2005)

then no, i don't think we'll include american aircraft...........


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 9, 2005)

Well I think we will 8)


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 9, 2005)

that's funny, i was just thinking we wouldn't.........


----------



## Maestro (Apr 9, 2005)

Concerning the British plane that flew alongside the Spitfire for the whole war, I think the Hurricane did. If I remember well, the No. 1 Squadron used Hurricanes until late in the war. May be until the end of it.


----------



## mosquitoman (Apr 9, 2005)

It wasn't in production all the way through but it was being used as a fighter bomber in the Far East untill the end. It was operational on D-Day and afterwards as a secure postal service aircraft to get orders to the front safely and securely


----------



## Anonymous (Apr 9, 2005)

But the Hurc can hardly be considered a contender vs. the Spit do you think?


----------



## Gemhorse (Apr 9, 2005)

Wow, have you guys been having a right old ding-dong while I've been absent !!!......Needless to say, IMHO the Spitfire was the 'Best British Fighter', and my reasons for this was firstly the huge 'morale-booster' they were to all in the British Commonwealth, through the 'Spitfire Fund'...It was abit like what 'Doolittle's Raid' on Japan was to the US, it inspired the people that the Armed Forces were fighting back.....

The Mk.1 could sustain a continuous rate of turn inside a BF-109E without stalling, the latter was known for flicking into a vicious stall spin without prior warning if pulled around too quickly....

The Mk.II was _the_ flying machine when it came to the Spitfire, which enjoyed the best balance of power-to-weight...

The Mk.V was clearly at a disadvantage against the superior Fw-190 when it was introduced in 1941, morale was affected to a certain extent, but the RAF pilots still had confidence in the soundness of their Spits, they simply treated the Fw-190's with more respect than the Bf-109F's...the Fw's were not as prevalent in 1941 in combat as the Bf's, and the RAF countered by pulling in a total of 48 Sqn.'s into the frontline fighting. The Mk.V was the first 'truly-global' Spitfire, being used by the Allies in all major theatres of the War. The Luftwaffe pilots were prepared to 'mix-it' with the FW-190, due to it's fabulous rate-of-roll, unlike the Bf-109F/G pilots who tended to rely on sweeping attacks from altitude. Despite being hamstrung in performance, the Mk.V pilots nevertheless took the fight to the Luftwaffe at every oppurtunity, and this showed in continuing kills of Fw-190's Bf's, the clipped wing helping in the lower-altitude combats...

The Mk.VIII was more robust than earlier models, great for the rougher airstrips of Burma etc., and the firing selector was improved by a vertically-arranged rocker system on the spad grip, press the top part and you got mg's, the lower, cannons, and in the middle, the lot, which was ideal for both ground-strafing or aerial combat. The Mk.VIII had two plus points, should the enemy get astern of you: [1.] you could out-climb them in a sustained ascent; [2.] if you had height, you could out-dive them, being almost twice as heavy as any enemy fighter likely to be encountered...One of our NZer's, Flg Off. Ken Rutherford clobbered at least 3 'Oscars' in a Mk.VIII, the most nimble of Jap fighters....

The Mk.IX was superior to the Fw-190 above 25,000 ft., it's two-stage, two-speed supercharger on the Merlin 61 coming in with a bang at about 16,000 ft. There were different variants of Mk.IX's, the one just mentioned known officially as Mk. LF IXC's, but the pilots called them IXB's, and the officially known F IXC, which the pilots called IXA's, these being powered by Merlin 61, 63 or 63A engines, which gave superior performance against Fw-190's below 27,000 ft. Also about this time, Fighter Command introduced the Mk.II Gyro Gunsight, which was a great improvement over the earlier GM 2 Reflector Gunsight, enabling pilots to score hits at ranges as great as 600 yds, and at deflection angles up to 50 degrees. Essentially, by 1944 the RAF finally had a fighter designed to operate in excess of 30,000 ft. where it had the edge on both Fw's Bf's, and it was probably the most popular version of all...depending on the individual pilot, that is.....

The Griffon Mk.'s VII and XIV both had greater range with increased fuel capacity, the Mk.VII being easier to handle of the two, but the Mk.XIV was the real performer....It really shocked the Luftwaffe when introduced, as they liked to 'bounce' on RAF fighters from height and these aircraft would be climbing up to tackle them head-on, throttles wide-open!..These Spitfires were probably the toughest to master, basically being an 'engine with wings', their torque requiring utmost care taking-off. Their roll-rate was exceptional, climb-rate was in excess of 5000 ft/min and were notably used against the V1 attacks...As far as the War went, it was the superior Spitfire in all aspects....

The Mk.XVI was basically a Mk.IXB with a licenced Merlin 66 produced in the US by Packard. Unfortunately, all the minor adjustments made to the Mk.IX's Merlin weren't included in the blueprints sent to Packard, and some pilots believe they weren't as quick...Wg Cdr. R.W.F. 'Sammy' Sampson firmly believes this, but others really liked them, particuarly the clipped-wing LF XVI E. One other problem they had was a certain rev-range in which they wouldn't run smoothly, in their 'formation long-range economy-cruise', and this was caused by Packard using a slightly modified carburettor. Avoiding that rev-range was the only solution.... They came on stream around Sept. 1944, and were used for dive skip-bombing which they excelled at. They were used in 'No Ball' attacks against V2 sites and other similar attacks and were believed to be the most offensively-optimised Spitfire, by some......

One RAF pilot who flew P-51D's after the Spitfires, stated that the Mustang without a doubt was a great aircraft to fly, especially the roomier cockpit on long missions, but that said, he wouldn't have traded any of his past Spitfires for any other Allied fighter....every Spit he flew was different, you just didn't get that feeling of 'individuality' with the Mustang, and simply put, didn't want to fly any other type than the Spitfire.......

So to a large degree, it was the pilots who decided that the Spitfire was 'Best'....The main difference between the Spitfires and the Typhoon / Tempests, was the latter were much heavier for a start...24 to 12 cylinder engines, but also the Hawkers had a much greater cruise speed, so that if combat was offered, they were already ripping-along and had that combat-speed right there on tap....They perhaps were no where as manoeuvrable as Spitfires, and even the heavy Mk.XIV [2000 lb heavier loaded than the Mk.VIII], may not have had as much manoeuvrabilty, it made-up for this in it's exceptional roll-rate and climb, with it's extra prop blade...the only 5-blader of the War, I believe........

Also, I do agree with one comment made, the Martin-Baker MB5 would have made a great addition to the British arsenal......

The only drawback I believe the Spitfire had, was it's range, and I guess that was one area that could have received more development earlier on, but then it was a much smaller aircraft to American fighters....this was overcome, to a point, in the PR versions, sacrificing guns for fuel tanks, and they did that PR run right into Germany virtually every day of the War. Initially, the Spitfire was built as a Defensive fighter too, and since all the big British bombers did the Nightshift, there wasn't much call for an escort fighter with great range....But wasn't she a LEGEND !!!!!


----------



## Nonskimmer (Apr 9, 2005)

Gemhorse said:


> ....But wasn't she a LEGEND !!!!!


She was indeed. 
And like you indicated, the single biggest killer was the relatively poor range. Didn't the USAAF conduct experiments to improve the Spit's range (can't remember the exact mark used.), but the Air Ministry paid it little attention?


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 10, 2005)

WAS a legend?? she IS a legend people!!

but yes there really can be no argument, the spit has to be the best.........


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 10, 2005)

I agree with RG that the criteria should not be what started before the war started and I agree with mossy that this is about the best British aircraft and not other nations aircraft. As for other things I have to respond to.



Royzee617 said:


> What I meant was that just about only the Spitfire and Bf109 were effective fighters throughout the whole of WW2... the FW190 was not operational until 1941 (I think).



Actually the Fw-190V-1 first flew on June 1, 1939 several months before the war started and the Fw-190A-1 entered service in Sept 1940 only one year after the war started. So the Fw-190 evolved quite a lot throughout the war and started as a great aircraft and ended as a great aircraft. This to me would qualify this to be compared with the Spit just as a 109 was.



RG_Lunatic said:


> Alder, I almost always give the source link or present the images of the relevant pages. When have I picked a piece of data out of an obscure source and quoted it out of context w/o providing a link or the full content of the document being referenced?



Quite a bit you talk about a subject and say from my sources or from what I have read but you do not list from where you have read or whom you heard it from. That is all.


----------



## Anonymous (Apr 10, 2005)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> RG_Lunatic said:
> 
> 
> > Alder, I almost always give the source link or present the images of the relevant pages. When have I picked a piece of data out of an obscure source and quoted it out of context w/o providing a link or the full content of the document being referenced?
> ...



Which is a totally different thing. Not looking up the refrence and stating that something is from memory does not present it as "fact".

Sourcing such info and quoting it out-of-context while providing no access to the source is quite a different thing. If no one has the book or document in question (or those that do do not look it up and comment), that info is going to be taken as fact even though it does not say what the author of the post is claiming it does.

You see the difference?

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## Soren (Apr 10, 2005)

First I would like to say that the Spitfire without doubt was THE best British/Allied fighter of the war. And by 44 and onwards only ONE plane, Allied or Axis, could really match it, and that was the FW-190D.




Gemhorse said:


> The Mk.1 could sustain a continuous rate of turn inside a BF-109E without stalling, the latter was known for flicking into a vicious stall spin without prior warning if pulled around too quickly....



You couldnt be more wrong ! 

The Spit and 109 turned VERY equally, and only the Spit would get into nasty stall spins, not the 109 ! (And this is both scientifically and practically proven !)


----------



## Anonymous (Apr 10, 2005)

Jeeze, just last night I saw a documentary where the German pilot was saying that while he thought the 109E could turn with the Spitfire, most pilots were afriad to push it to the limits because there was practically no warning before it stalled into a nasty spin. By contrast the Spitfire gave ample warning and the spin was mild and easy to recover.


----------



## Soren (Apr 10, 2005)

RG_Lunatic said:


> Jeeze, just last night I saw a documentary where the German pilot was saying that while he thought the 109E could turn with the Spitfire, most pilots were afriad to push it to the limits because there was practically no warning before it stalled into a nasty spin. By contrast the Spitfire gave ample warning and the spin was mild and easy to recover.



RG the 109 had slats remember !  

The 109 would only spin uncontrollably if one of the slats jammed, wich they did often did on the E series. If the slats didnt jam, then the spin would be VERY easely recovered, much easier than a spin with a Spitfire.


----------



## mosquitoman (Apr 10, 2005)

The shape of the Spitfire wing meant that the plane would shudder before it stalled, giving the pilot a warning


----------



## Anonymous (Apr 10, 2005)

Soren said:


> RG_Lunatic said:
> 
> 
> > Jeeze, just last night I saw a documentary where the German pilot was saying that while he thought the 109E could turn with the Spitfire, most pilots were afriad to push it to the limits because there was practically no warning before it stalled into a nasty spin. By contrast the Spitfire gave ample warning and the spin was mild and easy to recover.
> ...



You and your magic slats. That is not what the German pilots say at all. 

Now you claim the slats prevented spins too.


----------



## Soren (Apr 10, 2005)

RG_Lunatic said:


> You and your magic slats. That is not what the German pilots say at all.
> 
> Now you claim the slats prevented spins too.



OMG... have you totally forgotten how slats work ??!!!

Yes, they did make spins more easely recoverable ! Go back and read all the info about the slats i presented and come again. 


(Funny thing is you even admitted this yourself after I pounded you with facts !  )


----------



## KraziKanuK (Apr 10, 2005)

RG_Lunatic said:


> Jeeze, just last night I saw a documentary where the German pilot was saying that while he thought the 109E could turn with the Spitfire, most pilots were afriad to push it to the limits because there was practically no warning before it stalled into a nasty spin. By contrast the Spitfire gave ample warning and the spin was mild and easy to recover.



An unintensional spin in a Spit was very dangerous and hard to recover from. This from the father of a friend who was a Spit pilot in WW2.


----------



## Anonymous (Apr 11, 2005)

But it was easy to tell when the Spit was on the virge of a spin. On the 109, there was little or no warning. So a pilot pushing the envelope in a Spit knew when he was about to be in trouble, where one doing so in the 109E had much less confidence as to where the line actually was.


----------



## Anonymous (Apr 11, 2005)

Soren said:


> RG_Lunatic said:
> 
> 
> > You and your magic slats. That is not what the German pilots say at all.
> ...



Not hardly Soren. How would having one slat out and one slat in help you recover from a spin?

The fact is some pilots liked the automatic slats, some pilots did not. Clearly it was not a very useful technology, as virtually every side had the opportunity to employ them early in WWII but aside from the La5/7 no other fighter chose to do so.

The slats were mainly to assist on takeoff, and especially landing. Even with the slats the 109 had a high landing speed for such a small plane and was dangerous to land. Any assistance they gave in combat was purely incidental.


----------



## Soren (Apr 11, 2005)

RG_Lunatic said:


> Not hardly Soren. How would having one slat out and one slat in help you recover from a spin?
> 
> The fact is some pilots liked the automatic slats, some pilots did not. Clearly it was not a very useful technology, as virtually every side had the opportunity to employ them early in WWII but aside from the La5/7 no other fighter chose to do so.
> 
> The slats were mainly to assist on takeoff, and especially landing. Even with the slats the 109 had a high landing speed for such a small plane and was dangerous to land. Any assistance they gave in combat was purely incidental.



RG the automatic slats made the plane more maneuverable ! I've shown loads of facts to verify this ! 

Remember the lower stall speed, and extra lift under sufficient AoA ?


----------



## Anonymous (Apr 11, 2005)

In some circumstance they could. But in real combat situations, they generally didn't. Even Gunther Rall says he'd rather have just had more wing area. The slats were useful in low speed combat, not one account from any German pilot indicates they were useful in medium or high speed combat. Mostly, they were for landing.

Did you hear the comments by the pilot who flies both the Spitfire and the 109 on a regular basis? He said the Spitfire was easy to fly, the 109 was not so easy to fly. To get maximum performance out of a 109 the pilot had to be extremely good, to get the same level of performance out the Spitfire, the pilot only had to be average.


----------



## Soren (Apr 11, 2005)

> In some circumstance they could.




In some circumstances ? RG, Willy the creator put them there because he found them beneficial in ALL situations !



> But in real combat situations, they generally didn't.



YES THEY DID !! AND THAT IS A BLOODY FACT !! 

Your basing all you impressions of 109 on the E series, wich slats would Jam alot.



> * Even *Gunther Rall says he'd rather have just had more wing area.



Even ?!!! Thats the only Vet 109 Pilot you will find who says this, and it has been explained hundreds of time why he thinks this his 190 "E" tunred badly...... HIS SLATS JAMMED wich was common with the E series !! 

As explained many times earlier, only a few pilots who flew the E series will tell you that the 109 turned badly and got into nasty spins, reason for this is as explained above.



> The slats were useful in low speed combat, not one account from any German pilot indicates they were useful in medium or high speed combat. Mostly, they were for landing.



Oh no not one account right !! I gave you LOTS of accounts verifying the slats usefullness in high speed or low speed !! Even Aerodynamic facts !!



> Did you hear the comments by the pilot who flies both the Spitfire and the 109 on a regular basis? He said the Spitfire was easy to fly, the 109 was not so easy to fly. To get maximum performance out of a 109 the pilot had to be extremely good, to get the same level of performance out the Spitfire, the pilot only had to be average.



First of all Charlie Brown is Eric Brown, remember !  And his statements have been proven wrong so many times by experten LW pilots that his statements are worth nothing !

He even refused to meet a German WW2 LW Test-pilot who could prove him very wrong !


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 11, 2005)

Soren said:


> > Did you hear the comments by the pilot who flies both the Spitfire and the 109 on a regular basis? He said the Spitfire was easy to fly, the 109 was not so easy to fly. To get maximum performance out of a 109 the pilot had to be extremely good, to get the same level of performance out the Spitfire, the pilot only had to be average.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



First of all Erich never claimed to have flown a 109. Erich probably has spoken to more Luftwaffe pilots who have flown the 109 then any of us so I would take his word just about all the time. Soren please dont take me wrong here I would stick up for a 109 any day it is my favorite plane of WW2 however if you have read any of the stats that I have posted in the 109 threads and read many many accounts of 109 pilots they will tell you that the 109 was not the easiest plane to handle especially at high speeds. The 109 could be unforgiving to an unexperienced pilot.


----------



## Anonymous (Apr 11, 2005)

Soren said:


> > In some circumstance they could.
> 
> 
> 
> In some circumstances ? RG, Willy the creator put them there because he found them beneficial in ALL situations !



Who says? The plane had a high landing speed even with the slats, can you imagine what it would have been w/o them? That alone is justification for installing them, even if they provided no other benefit.



> The slats were useful in low speed combat, not one account from any German pilot indicates they were useful in medium or high speed combat. Mostly, they were for landing.





Soren said:


> Oh no not one account right !! I gave you LOTS of accounts verifying the slats usefullness in high speed or low speed !! Even Aerodynamic facts !!



No, you gave me lots of accounts where German pilots claimed the slats helped in turning, but none indicated at high or even medium speeds.



Soren said:


> > Did you hear the comments by the pilot who flies both the Spitfire and the 109 on a regular basis? He said the Spitfire was easy to fly, the 109 was not so easy to fly. To get maximum performance out of a 109 the pilot had to be extremely good, to get the same level of performance out the Spitfire, the pilot only had to be average.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Umm... no, they arn't the same person. And if they are, please let me know where I can get whatever youth drugs that guy is taking! 8)

If you'd actually watched the program, you'd realize that Lt. Charlie Brown could not possibly be Eric Brown. Lt. Charlie Brown is a flying instructor at RAF Cranwell. I suppose it's possible he might be Eric Brown's granson


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 11, 2005)

Personally I like Charlie Brown!


----------



## Soren (Apr 11, 2005)

IIRC "Eric Charlie Brown" was his full name ! 

Anyway, the 109 wouldnt get into any uncontrollable spins, and the slats among other things would see to that.

The 109 was a handful to fly at high speeds, as its controls were heavy, but still reacted very well though. The Stick pressure needed for aileron deflection at high speeds was less than that of the Spit !


----------



## Soren (Apr 11, 2005)

> No, you gave me lots of accounts where German pilots claimed the slats helped in turning, but none indicated at high or even medium speeds.



Indicated ??!!!

RG one of the purposes of automatic slats on fighters is to improve turn performance ! Go ask any F4 Phantom or F-86 Sabre pilot about this ! 

Don't you rememeber the chart i presented ??! The AoA just had to be sufficient, and the slats would pop out, high speed or low speed.

The purpose of the modern day forward shooting slats on "Airliners" is to increase lift at low speeds accuring at landing or take off.


----------



## Gemhorse (Apr 12, 2005)

I totally disagree that the Bf-109 had miraculous advantage because of the slats, Soren....
That particular quote I made was from George 'Grumpy' Unwin, then flying Mk.IA's with the Duxford Wing during the BoB.....He went on to say, ''The Spitfire would give a shudder to signal that it was close to the edge, so as soon as you felt the shake you eased off the stick pressure...'' - I have to agree with the others, in that in all of my reading, the Messerschmitt's slats weren't all they were cracked up to be, many pilots found them more of an irritating inconveniance than really useful...but again, there were those that could work very well with them.

I have to add that New Zealanders had quite alot to do with Spitfires, our RAF 485 [NZ] Sqn. flew them from April 1941 until August 1945, and two of our chaps had the distinction of test-flying in the prototype Spitfire K5054; Arthur Clouston [later Air Cmdr.], and Henry Ramsbottom-Isherwood [later Wg. Cmdr.]....Clouston was involved in work with RAE as a test-pilot and in 1935 did spinning tests that were used in the Spitfire prototype's development, [designer Reg Mitchell wrote about it with praise], and again later in camoflage trials. - Isherwood [as he was called], was a test-pilot at A AEE and was involved with K5054's gun-heating trials in Oct. 1937, he was well known for his leadership of No. 151 Hurricane Wing that went to Russia in 1941.
There were 200 NZ pilots who were in 485 [NZ] Sqn. during the War, about 20% of all NZ pilots flying Spitfires for the RAF in other Squadrons, so if you have any continuing doubts about the Spitfire's abilities in battles with the Luftwaffe, there's at least a dozen books of 'Our Chap's Battle Histories' you can read, then after that, you can start on the Aussies, Canadians, S. Africans and the English pilots themselves, many books in fact, that you can read, that should adequately convince you, that the RAF beat a numerically superior Luftwaffe with Spitfires and Hurricanes in the BoB, and continued to push them until D-Day, and on into Germany until the Allies won.....

The Spitfire [like the Mosquito], was a very unique and capable aircraft...

In saying that, both the Luftwaffe's fighters were very good too, and that's what makes all this so bloody fascinating....
- I think Soren, alot of who won what, was really also about the individual pilot's skill too.....


----------



## KraziKanuK (Apr 12, 2005)

This is what G Rall had to say about the slats.

"Q: Did you use this extra lift from the slats in combat?

A: Not at all. I mean, its also a matter of experience of the pilot, you know? When I think of the Russian... This is another thing, of the Russian airfields. In the wintertime you had mud and fall. MUD. And we had problems. When you takeoff, you roll and roll, you know? You get the mud into the cooler, ja? And we tried to overcome this by all technical gimmicks which didn't work."

on the 109F
"Lovely, - highly maneuverable. Absolutely the best model. The 109G was overloaded"
On the slats (once again) he said that they were necessary for the landing in particular, otherwise the landing speed would have been too high. However he did not prefer them in combat, for they would be snapping and throwing the plane around. Being asked, he said that in a rough turn, the outboard slat would jump out and completely snap the aircraft (say left to right).
Asked whether he knew any that had the slats fixed, his answer was a NO."


----------



## Soren (Apr 12, 2005)

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

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

*Franz Stigler, German fighter ace. 28 victories:*

"_- Did pilots like the slats on the wings of the 109? 
Yes, pilots did like them, since it allowed them better positions in dogfights along with using the flaps. These slats would also deploy slightly when the a/c was reaching stall at higher altitudes showing the pilot how close they were to stalling.....this was also useful when you were drunk "_

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

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

*Adolf Galland German fighter ace. 104 victories:*

_"Novice pilots tended to be thinking they should back off their turn when they deployed, but really it was just a booster to turn-performance"_


The reason for Günther Rall's statement about the slats, is due to his 109"E"'s slats once jamming, and ever since that experience he never tried to turn that hard in a 109 again ! (Also he flew many other aircraff than the 109, so his memory is sketchy !)

_And we were young, untrained, unexperienced group _(Said by Günther Rall) And as explained by Galland ("_Novice pilots tended to be thinking they should back off their turn when they deployed, but really it was just a booster to turn-performance_") 

All the German pilots who said the Spit turned tighter are from the period (1940), you will find *None* from any period beyond this who says the same ! 

Also the claim that the Spit outturned the 109 simply runs from any aerodynamic and physic's rule available !

----------------------------------------

The 109 had a conventional wing and was equipped with automatic leading edge slats. These opened out at low speed or at high speed under G loads, and restored the airflow (=lift) which would have been long separated otherwise due to turbulance.

The Slats extend up the range of AoA where the airflow stays attached to the wing. Withouth slats the wing would stall at certain AoA, the airflow turning turbulent at the same moment with sudden enormous increase in drag. With slats the airflow stays non-turbulent for some extra amount of AoA, and there should not be any "stepped" increase in drag when the slats deploy, only at the point where even the slats cannot prevent the wing entering a stall.

Here's a chart showing the difference between a Wing fitted with slats and one without slats:


----------



## Anonymous (Apr 12, 2005)

Soren said:


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



Every example which is specific indicates they deployed at low speed, near the stall.

As to your diagram, it relates to leading edge slats on large aircraft (Douglas 558-II) at low speeds. The relevant studies can be found on the nasa site you listed by searching on "slat". Furthermore, these slats were locked in the closed position at speed, and they were interconnected so that they would always deploy the same amount in all conditions. Rolling and yawing issues are also indicated as more pronounced when the slats are used than when they are not.

So your chart does not apply to high speeds, as in the tests, the slats were locked at such speeds.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## Soren (Apr 12, 2005)

RG_Lunatic said:


> Soren said:
> 
> 
> > *Erwin Leykauf, German fighter pilot, 33 victories:*
> ...


----------



## Anonymous (Apr 12, 2005)

See my edit to the post.

The chart you have given is irrelevant to high speed stalls - the flaps on the tested aircraft were always locked at even medium speeds.

At higher speeds you cannot achieve the necessary angle of attack to cause the slats to deploy anyway.

I'm still waiting for a single source, even one, that specifically says the slats were of use at high speeds. So far - nada.

And the slats on the F-86 were interlinked so that they would always deploy togehter and the same amount. And they were locked in the in position except when flying at very low speeds (takeoff and landing).


----------



## Soren (Apr 12, 2005)

RG_Lunatic said:


> The chart you have given is irrelevant to high speed stalls - the flaps on the tested aircraft were always locked at even medium speeds.



RG only "Airliners" or "BIG" airplanes have the slats locked at high speeds !!


----------



## Anonymous (Apr 12, 2005)

Soren said:


> RG_Lunatic said:
> 
> 
> > The chart you have given is irrelevant to high speed stalls - the flaps on the tested aircraft were always locked at even medium speeds.
> ...



The F-86 slats were locked after takeoff, and unlocked before landing.


----------



## Soren (Apr 12, 2005)

> As to your diagram, it relates to leading edge slats on large aircraft (Douglas 558-II) at low speeds.



Nope it relates purely to the function of slats ! 



> At higher speeds you cannot achieve the necessary angle of attack to cause the slats to deploy anyway.



Hahahaha !! Thats total BS !  (Lets see a source thats specifically says this ?  )



> I'm still waiting for a single source, even one, that specifically says the slats were of use at high speeds. So far - nada.



Its bloody well-known areodynamics RG !!! 



> And the slats on the F-86 were interlinked so that they would always deploy togehter and the same amount. And they were locked in the in position except when flying at very low speeds (takeoff and landing).



Go ask any F-86 Sabre and F4 Phantom pilots about that, and they will whole heartedly disagree. (But im warning you, I have a former F-86 Sabre pilot in my family !)


----------



## Soren (Apr 12, 2005)

In normal straight flight the Slats are inside the wings, but as soon as the AoA is sufficient they pop out, nomatter the speed. (The previus illustration actually explained this aswell !)

Anyway here's ANOTHER illustration to make you understand this !:


----------



## Anonymous (Apr 12, 2005)

Soren said:


> Go ask any F-86 Sabre and F4 Phantom pilots about that, and they will whole heartedly disagree. (But im warning you, I have a former F-86 Sabre pilot in my family !)



My Dad flew the navy F-86 (the F-J), he was a flight instructor and combat evaluation officer before commanding a tacron. He also was one of the first team in Europe to train NATO on how to use A-2-A missiles. He said the slats were only useful for takeoff and landing and were not useful in combat manuvers and were normally locked after takeoff.

So go ahead and ask your family member - I'm sure he will tell you the same thing.


----------



## Anonymous (Apr 12, 2005)

Soren said:


> In normal straight flight the Slats are inside the wings, but as soon as the AoA is sufficient they pop out, nomatter the speed. (The previus illustration actually explained this aswell !)
> 
> Anyway here's ANOTHER illustration to make you understand this !:



But you cannot normally get that angle of attack at speed. If you do you enter an accerated stall, and then the slats won't deploy anyway and if they did they'd likely rip right off.


----------



## Soren (Apr 12, 2005)

RG_Lunatic said:


> But you cannot normally get that angle of attack at speed. If you do you enter an accerated stall, and then the slats won't deploy anyway and if they did they'd likely rip right off.



Absolute nonesense !

------------------------------------------

My uncle flew the F model of the Sabre, however he isnt really in near proximity. My father flew the F4 Phantom for some time, and he strongly states that it WAS the Slats wich made the F4 far more maneuverable.

*Facts about the F4 and its slats:*

_The most significant change at 71-0237 was the replacement of the blown leading-edge wing droops of earlier Phantoms by slats. This was done in the interest of obtaining enhanced combat maneuverability, which had been one of the Phantom's weak points. The outer leading edge slats were were driven by a hydraulic jack and terminated in a large "dogtooth" at the inboard end where the wing folding joint had once been. Immediately downstream of the dogtooth edge was a small wing fence. The inboard wing was also fitted with powered slats which terminated about three feet from the root. The inner 3 feet of the leading edge were fixed. 

The first production F-4E to be fitted with slats was 71-0237, but the first to actually fly with slats was 71-0238 which made its maiden flight on February 11, 1972. *The addition of these slats greatly enhanced the maneuvering performance, and the USAF decided to retrofit earlier F-4Es with these slats.* The USAF ordered the first slat modification kits in April of 1972, and the first retrofitted F-4E (serial number 69-7524) flew on September 28, 1972. 304 earlier production block F-4Es were retrofitted with these slats, which included just about every surviving F-4E except for those serving with the Thunderbirds. _

Source: "McDonnell F-4 Phantom: Spirit in the Skies" by David Donald and Jon Lake.


----------



## Soren (Apr 12, 2005)

More facts about slats on "Fighter's": 

_Slats are auxiliary airfoils fitted to the leading edge of the wing. *At high angles of attack, they automatically move out ahead of the wing.* The angle of attack of the slat being less than that of the mainplane, there is a smooth airflow over the slat which tends to smooth out the eddies forming over the wing. *Slats are usually fitted to the leading edge near the wing tips to improve lateral control.* _


----------



## Gemhorse (Apr 12, 2005)

All things considered Soren, and I can acknowledge that the slats may well have been found useful by some Luftwaffe pilots...certainly not all, the Spitfire was still an aerodynamically superior aircraft, it just didn't need such things as it's performance and handling made it basically a delight to fly. In saying that, the latter models grew successively heavier in the interests of more power, and range, but then so did the Messerschmitts...If you're gonna compare them, wings to wings, the elliptical Spitfire wing will always be known as a very successful design, in all it's different armament arrangements and the 'fuel wing' as used by the PR Spits.....in fact, if you really want a good comparison of Spit vs 109 and 190's, Wg. Cmdr. Alfred Ball of No.4 PRU states, '' Until the end of 1942 we were still flying the old Mk.IV's with Merlin 45's. We could match the E's in speed and cope with the F's too, provided we saw them in time, for we could out-turn them, but could not afford to lose height as they could out-dive us. It was another story with the G's and 190's. They were both faster, but the 190's best height was around 24,000 ft. and provided we stayed around 30,000 ft. we had a chance at full throttle, it depended on an early sighting of them. The G had a better ceiling than the 190 but we could out-turn them both if we got our turn-time just right, but it was touch n' go until we received the Mk.XI in early '43. - For the remainder of the War, the Mk.XI with it's Merlin 60 series and, later, Mk.XIX with the Griffons, Spitfires were able to range freely over Germany, indeed, worldwide, with acceptable losses even against the 262 and 163 jets...But the contribution made by a relatively small number of PR Spitfires to the overall Allied victory was truly outstanding...''

I have a book written in 2000 called ''Spitfire - the NZ story'' about mostly 485 [NZ] Sqn., and the ORB of the Sqn. records all the combats that took place, and all the Luftwaffe's best aircraft still fell to earlier Mk.'s of Spit, and indeed we got knocked-off too, but what I'm trying to say is, despite the advent of later models and the 190's intro etc., all-in-all, it was a well contested battle between all these fine aircraft, but it was also a battle of tactics and strategy, and between the pilots with their respective training, which between Air Forces was quite different....And in some respects comparing Aces isn't really contributive, as the Air War from theatre to theatre was very different.......

Gemhorse


----------



## Anonymous (Apr 13, 2005)

Soren said:


> IIRC "Eric Charlie Brown" was his full name !



Soren, the guy is under 40 years old. His parents were probably kids when Erich Brown was testing 109's during WWII!

THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO WAY IT IS THE SAME GUY!

Next time the show comes around, you should watch it. RAF Lt. Charlie Brown flies one of the few operational 109's left in existance, as well as a variety of Spitfires. They are also restoring another 109 to flying condition.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## Soren (Apr 13, 2005)

RG_Lunatic said:


> Soren, the guy is under 40 years old. His parents were probably kids when Erich Brown was testing 109's during WWII!
> 
> THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO WAY IT IS THE SAME GUY!



Yes, i was mixing two persons. As far as i remembered "Charlie" was just the middle name, but I was wrong and I acknowledge that. I shouldnt have relied on my memory, I should have looked it up.



> Next time the show comes around, you should watch it. RAF Lt. Charlie Brown flies one of the few operational 109's left in existance, as well as a variety of Spitfires. They are also restoring another 109 to flying condition.



I think I've seen it already, for some time ago.

I've also seen Mark Hanna fly several 109's. (However mostly old models) 

IIRC Charlie only flew the G6, and never the F model or later G models. (He might have flown an early D model, but not sure)

--------------------------------------------

Gemhorse your reference makes it sound like the 109G was a better T&B fighter than the F model, wich makes it totally merit-less !

Also that Allied pilots claim they could turn inside a 109 easier than a 190, is totally ludacris ! EVERY German and even Russian test claims the 109 easely turns inside the 190, except at speeds in excess of 400mph !

Fact is the 109 and Spit turned very equally. 109 pilots say the 109 turned tighter, while Spit pilots say the spit turned tighter, aerodynamics say the 109 (Except G6) turned tighter or as tight as the Spit= They were VERY equal !

The 109 turned tightly because of its thick wings and leading edge automatic slats. While the Spit turned tight because of its large wing area.



Gemhorse said:


> but what I'm trying to say is, despite the advent of later models and the 190's intro etc., all-in-all, it was a well contested battle between all these fine aircraft, but it was also a battle of tactics and strategy, and between the pilots with their respective training, which between Air Forces was quite different....And in some respects comparing Aces isn't really contributive, as the Air War from theatre to theatre was very different.......
> 
> Gemhorse



I agree Gemhorse.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 13, 2005)

I think a point was made earlier about the Spitfire giving you warning when it was going to stall. Due to the elliptical wing, when entering a stall, the wing stalled at the wingtip first, giving a "buzz" then mushy feeling of the controls. This is the ideal stall characteristics a designer is looking for. I'm guessing the 109 does not give this pronounced warning, with or without slats. Because of this, one may be given the illusion that they are achieving a tighter turn.  

Flying an aircraft that gives little or no stall warning, especially in a steep turn makes one a little apprehensive!


----------



## Schöpfel (Apr 13, 2005)

Well, my namesake Gerhard Schöpfel, who flew BF 109 E-4's with III./JG 26 during the Battle of Britain commented:



> *the British fighters could turn tighter than we could*



I'll have to go with that


----------



## Soren (Apr 13, 2005)

Schöpfel said:


> Well, my namesake Gerhard Schöpfel, who flew BF 109 E-4's with III./JG 26 during the Battle of Britain commented:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



If his words should be taken gospel, and the 90% rest of the 109 pilots knowledge means nothing, then yes.

The German LW chief test-pilot Heinrich Beauvais's statements are good enough for me.  (He flew all captured Allied aircraft, and German experimentals)


----------



## Anonymous (Apr 13, 2005)

The problem with such statements Soren is that we don't know what politics were involved. Did that test pilot report what he really thought, or did he report what his superior's wanted to hear?

And the same holds true for many of the Allied tests, especially those at Boscomb Down. Often the tests were kinda rigged to make the Brit planes look better than they really were as compared to both German and American aircraft. For example, the choice to test turnrates at 10000 feet at 250 IAS initial speed very much favors the Spitfire, which turned its best at that speed.

Again, what I have to say is that when the pilots of both sides are claiming that their planes turned better, odds are the planes were actually about a match for each other.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## Soren (Apr 13, 2005)

> The problem with such statements Soren is that we don't know what politics were involved. Did that test pilot report what he really thought, or did he report what his superior's wanted to hear?



RG, 

Heinrich Beauvais didnt say this in a report, he genuinly knows it. He even tried to contact Eric Brown, as to correct Eric about his downright lies about the 109. 




> Again, what I have to say is that when the pilots of both sides are claiming that their planes turned better, odds are the planes were actually about a match for each other.



I agree with this to some extend.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 14, 2005)

Soren every pilot thinks his aircraft is better then the others. Many will over exagerate there claims.


----------



## DJ_Dalton1 (Apr 18, 2005)

I want to thank my new friend Peter Evans at 

http://p069.ezboard.com/fluftwaffeexperten71774frm90.showMessage?topicID=41.topic

for being kind enough to provide me with the full text of CFE-3, which is the report for the Bf-109 in question. I’ll try to attach the salient parts of the report but if my attempt fails Peter has the document in his files. (The zip file transfered and is below.)

Everyone is free to draw their own conclusions, but Peter’s document is dispositive to me that the subject aircraft was tested with under wing gondolas. In support of that conclusion I would cite the report under “Brief Description of the Aircraft”. Initially, the report states under paragraph 2:

“The Me-109G/6 is a small single wing, single seater, single engine, short range fighter…”

This is certainly true, however the report further clarifies the nature of the fighter tested in the tactical trial by stating the following under paragraph 4:

“The armament consists of 2 x 13 mm machine guns mounted above the engine, 1 MG 151/20 mm cannon firing through the airscrew hub, and 2 x 151/20 mm cannon in under wing gondolas”. 

Additionally, the photos of this tested aircraft depict it configured with under wing gondolas. No mention is made in CFE-3 that said gondolas were removed for the test on the contrary the description of the tested plane indicates a gondola configuration.

What does it all mean? Well it means the Bf-109G-6 was capable of performance significantly exceeding that indicated. It means that the climb rate and speed of the 109 tested was significantly under reported. It means the Bf-109G-6 was probably at least an even odds match for the Spitfire IX and it probably means that the Spitfire XIV was not superior in all respects. (Significantly, the 109G-6 was not the pinnacle of performance in the 109. The G-14, G-10 and K-4 exceeded its performance in that order.)

But what it really means is that the German Experten of WWII did not amass their mind numbing records with inferior planes.


----------



## DJ_Dalton1 (Apr 18, 2005)

RG_Lunatic said:


> [
> What the German's never found was the "seal balanced" aileron. Without high pressure wind tunnels there was no reasonable way to research aileron behavior at high speeds.
> 
> =S=
> ...



The FW190 was a marvelous rolling plane even at very high speed. The 109 was a good rolling plane without gondolas, granted not as good as some. (Yaks for instance) With the ability of the FW to roll and all the P51's and P47's downed are you sure their aerilon attributes weren't fully understood by the Germans.


----------



## DJ_Dalton1 (Apr 18, 2005)

RG_Lunatic said:


> [
> The USA and Britain were well aware of leading edge wing-slats even before WWII. However, when adding up the advantages and disadvantages they choose not to employ them. It is interesting that the NACA had at least 3 studies on wing slats (prior to the end of WWII). The basic conclusion is that unless they are needed for takeoff/landing they are undesireable.



Interesting, the allies chose not to employ slats so they must have been of little value. The NACA concluded they weren't needed. What did the Germans conclude?

I've read numerous reports of 109's out-turning Spitfires. I usually defer on that because the Spitfire enthusiasts should have something to cling to. I always considered turn fighting very stupid though. It was very British.


----------



## Anonymous (Apr 18, 2005)

The aileron on the FW would have been much more effective if they'd known about the seal balanced aileron. The FW aileron is very effective but the performance curve is radical. It peaks at 255 IAS and then begins a very steep drop off that is almost linear. This is because air pressure is leaking through the seam between the wing and the aileron, canceling out the aileron effect.

Above about 355 IAS the P-51 out rolled the FW190. I have no figures for the P-47D's with the improved aileron tech on them.


----------



## Anonymous (Apr 18, 2005)

DJ_Dalton1 said:


> RG_Lunatic said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...



The German's had no centralized objective aeronautical research agency. Each builder did their own thing. Willie Messershmitt liked slats, so they were on his designs. Kurt Tank did not, so they weren't.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 19, 2005)

DJ_Dalton1 said:


> I always considered turn fighting very stupid though. It was very British.



Wow someone is baiting here! Here fishy, fishy, fishie, Here....


----------



## DJ_Dalton2 (Apr 19, 2005)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> DJ_Dalton1 said:
> 
> 
> > I always considered turn fighting very stupid though. It was very British.
> ...



Not really Der Adler. When the Germans lost pilots like Werner Voss in WWI flying Fokker Triplanes they learned a lesson from it. Werner flew into several British planes and was reported to have damaged every one in the flight but eventually his great skills were neutrualized by the numbers and he was shot down and killed. A pilot needs an "out". There is no out in maneuverability. You have to be able to outspeed, outdive or outclimb your adversary to manufacture a combat "out". So the Germans took their Triplane lesson and developed the Fokker DVII. The Bf-109 was merely a refinement of that developement. It couldn't outdive the heavy and powerful American planes but it could outclimb them and many times could outrun them. (More difficult with the Mustang) With the British adversaries they could outdive and outclimb them and many times outrun them as well. They weren't nearly as interested in turning, though the 109 was not a bad turning plane. It had a distinct edge energy fighting though and thats predominately how the Luftwaffe fought it. When your turning low and slow you're always vulnerable to that "joiner". That why when fighting from a numbers deficit you energy fight. (Unless you are Hans Marseilles...lol) The Germans were many times vastly outnumbered but still held their own even with the Americans whose planes matched up much better vs. Germany than the other nations. In the very end it got bad. America had the ceiling and Germany had fewer and fewer planes. Still if you were fighting one on one at equal altitude there was only one plane to fly. It wasn't a Spitfire, unless you thought you could get the other guy to turn.


----------



## KraziKanuK (Apr 19, 2005)

A lone silver Dreidecker stalked the evening sky. Below him, a flight of unsuspecting British fighters supporting a reconnaissance mission. Patiently he waited for just the right moment. As the mission wore on, two British SE5a's became separated. The pilot was just two kills short of his fiftieth victory. Few pilots would consider tackling two enemy aircraft alone but Werner Voss was no ordinary pilot. He liked the odds. Like a hungry leopard his Dreidecker pounced on his would be prey with deadly precision, forcing the two British SE5s to the ground.

Suddenly and without warning, the predator became the prey as seven SE5a's Dropped down upon the unsuspecting ace from nowhere. Hopelessly outnumbered it seemed like the only choices were to turn and run or fight to the bitter end.

As McCudden put it:
"We were just on the point of engaging six Albatros Scouts away to our right, when we saw ahead of us, Just above Poelcapelle, an S.E. half spinning down closely pursued by a silvery blue triplane at very closed range. The S.E. certainly looked very unhappy, so we changed our minds about attacking the six V-strutters, and went to the rescue of the unfortunate S.E". 

For whatever reason Voss chose to fight. Perhaps he was unaware of the odds. Perhaps the enemy had him so well surrounded that he was unable to put the superior climbing ability of the Fokker Dreidecker to use. For what ever reason he chose to fight and he couldn't have picked a more dangerous group to fight. His opponents were not just any British pilots. This was B Flight of 56 Squadron. All seven of the pilots were aces. For the next ten minutes Voss would fly circles around his adversaries as he emptied his Spandaus and managed to pepper every enemy plane with bullet holes. In the meantime his enemy tried in vain to bring down this most noble opponent but the silver-blue triplane was simply too agile and Voss too talented a flyer for the British.

Suddenly Voss's airplane went into a shallow dive, it's propeller no longer turning. No one knows for sure why. The dreidecker had been flying for almost 90 minutes, the limit of its fuel endurance, so Voss may have run out of fuel. Or perhaps the fuel tank had been punctured and Voss was forced to shut off the engine to prevent the plane from catching fire. Perhaps, after ten minutes of fighting Voss had run out of ammunition and was attempting to surrender. Or maybe Voss had been wounded and could no longer control the plane and was attempting to surrender. No one knows for sure.

As the Dreidecker banked into the shallow turn, Voss made the fatal error of crossing the path of Arthur Rhys Davids.

"Eventually I got east and slightly above the triplane and made for it, getting in a whole Lewis drum and a corresponding number of Vickers into him. He made no attempt to turn, until I was so close to him I was certain we would collide. He passed my right-hand wing by inches and went down." 

Voss's Dreidecker then went into steep uncontrolled dive which Flight Leader James McCudden described as:

"I shall never forget my admiration for that German pilot, who single handed, fought seven of us for ten minutes . . . I saw him go into a fairly steep dive and so I continued to watch, and then saw the triplane hit the ground and disappear into a thousand fragments, for it seemed to me that it literally went into powder."


----------



## Schöpfel (Apr 19, 2005)

> If his words should be taken gospel, and the 90% rest of the 109 pilots knowledge means nothing, then yes



Well, of course I like the BF 109 best, however, we lose credibility when we claim the 109 had better range than the Mustang, could dive better than a P-47 and turn better than the Spitfire. 
With regard to your 90% figure, ok I’ll bite 

Gerhard Schöpfel
the British fighters could turn tighter than we could

Heinz Knoke said of Spitfires:
The bastards can make such infernally tight turns; there seems to be no way of nailing them. 

Werner Mölders:
The Spitfire was “faultless in the turn”

Adolf Galland: "the ME-109 was superior in the attack and not so suitable for purely defensive purposes as the Spitfire, which although a little slower, was much more manueuverable”

Johannes Steinhoff
At 28,000 feet the Spitfire could turn in an astonishingly narrow radius. We on the other hand, in the thin air of those altitudes had to carry out every maneuver with caution and at full power so as not to lose control

Erwin Leykauf
I myself had many dogfights with Spitfires and I could always out-turn them. One had to enter the turn correctly, then open up the engine. It was a matter of feel. When one noticed the speed becoming critical - the aircraft vibrated - one had to ease up a bit, then pull back again, so that in plan the best turn would have looked like an egg or a horizontal ellipse rather than a circle.

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

In this sample, one could argue that 5 of 7 or 71% of German pilots thought the Spitfire could out-turn BF 109. Leykauf was talking more tactics than sustained turn, but we'll count it  I thought Walter Wolfrum just flew East Front? 

If we add some readily available British accounts (yes I know they are all dishonest liers  , although there may be some commonwealth types there as well):

Colin Gray
there was no way a 109 could turn inside a Spitfire

Hap Kennedy:
We knew from years of experience, dating back to the boys who had been in the Battle of Britain, that the 109 with its slim thirty-two foot wing was initially faster in a dive than we were. But we accepted that compromise happily in exchange for our broad superior-lift wing with its better climb and turn.

Jeffrey Quill
Nearly all our engagements with Me 109s took place at around 20,000 - 25,000 ft. The Spitfire had the edge over them in speed and climb, and particularly in turning circle

Al Deere
My experience over Dunkirk had taught me that when attacked the best counter was to go into a right turn. In this manoeuvre, the Spitfire was infinitely superior to the Messerschmitt, and so long as one remained in the turn, the enemy pilot could not bring his guns to bear

Andrew McDowall
In my opinion Me 109's cannot hit Spitfires in tight right hand turn because they can't turn inside you in stern attack

George Unwin
the Messerschmitt couldn't turn like a Spitfire...the Spitfire could sustain a continuous rate of turn inside the BF 109E without stalling

Geoffrey Wellum
However, in a Spitfire, just before the stall, the whole aircraft judders, it's a stall warning, if you like. With practice and experience you can hold the plane on this judder in a very tight turn. You never actually stall the aircraft and you don't need to struggle to regain control because you never lose it. A 109 can't stay with you.

Hugh Dundas
In one vital aspect the ME109 was at a disadvantage against the British airplanes. It could be out-turned both by the Spitfire and the Hurricane

*That makes 13 of 15 or 87% felt Spitfire could out-turn BF 109*  
Still I think BF 109 was the better aircraft!


----------



## DJ_Dalton2 (Apr 19, 2005)

Schopfel, the only issue I have with these statements pertains to which model of the 109 were the pilots referring. The E was not nearly as adept a turner or climber as the F. The F could not climb with the G. I think it may even be true that in grab at 20-25k the Spitfire with its lift enhanced wings may have climbed marginally better. I know this to be true with the E, though questionable with the F and untrue with the G. 

So much depends on the model of the planes but in the following period plane matchups:

109E vs. Spitfire I
109F/G2 vs. Spitfire V
109G-2/G-6 vs Spitfore IX
109G-10/ K vs Spitfire XIV

The German 109s had dive and climbing advantages at most altitudes with very low altitude and very high altitude exceptions. Speed advantages swung back and forth depending upon the matchup and the altitude of the aircraft.

The Spits generally out turned the 109's, mostly because it was silly for a 109 to turn when it could out power the Spitfire throughout most of the operational altitude range. When a 109 got in trouble it could always outdive a Spitfire.


----------



## DJ_Dalton2 (Apr 19, 2005)

KraziKanuK said:


> A lone silver Dreidecker stalked the evening sky. Below him, a flight of unsuspecting British fighters supporting a reconnaissance mission. Patiently he waited for just the right moment. As the mission wore on, two British SE5a's became separated. The pilot was just two kills short of his fiftieth victory. Few pilots would consider tackling two enemy aircraft alone but Werner Voss was no ordinary pilot. He liked the odds. Like a hungry leopard his Dreidecker pounced on his would be prey with deadly precision, forcing the two British SE5s to the ground.
> 
> Suddenly and without warning, the predator became the prey as seven SE5a's Dropped down upon the unsuspecting ace from nowhere. Hopelessly outnumbered it seemed like the only choices were to turn and run or fight to the bitter end.
> 
> ...



thx krazy...poignant story


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 20, 2005)

DJ_Dalton2 said:


> So much depends on the model of the planes but in the following period plane matchups:
> 109E vs. Spitfire I
> 109F/G2 vs. Spitfire V
> 109G-2/G-6 vs Spitfore IX
> 109G-10/ K vs Spitfire XIV



In this case I would say the 109E would outlfy a Spitfire I and a 109F could outlfy a Spitfire V. After this there were advantages for both aircfraft and disadvantages for both. The G could outclimb the Spit and probably could fly faster however the Spitfire IX could defianatly outturn it. Same for the G-10/K and the Spitfire XIV. The Me-109G varients are my favorite fighters of WW2 also but I will not kid myself saying that a late 109 could outturn a Spit. *Both aircraft though had advantages and disadvantages and were both well matched for one another.*


----------



## Udet (Apr 20, 2005)

I will not heat up discussing whether the Spitfire outturned the Bf109...

Unlike RG, for instance, i do not claim any plane to be a flawless marvel.

Let´s assume the Bf109 could not turn inside a Sptifire.
Having that in mind i still find the Bf 109 superior to each one of its contemporary version of the British fighter.

The Battle of Britain had its particular features, and the British took full advantage of them accordingly; the Bf 109 did not have sufficient range to stay there any longer? Well, it surely was not the fault of British pilots, who simply used that advantage.

But to affirm the Spitfire MkI was "better" than the Bf109 E during the BoB is quite unaccurate.

I see the Emil an overall superior fighter to the MkI. Do not forget the Emil had a fuel injection engine while the Spit had a carbureted one. Even on a negative G turn the Spitfire would be in trouble against a Bf 109 chasing him.

How would I substantiate this assertion? Easy: the battle record.

No Spitfire pilot handled the Bf109 the way Bf109 pilots handled the Spitfire. Evidence is plentiful and at hand.

So, the Spitfire might had turned better than the Bf109, but the rest of the departments also played their role -climbing, diving, speed, pilots, etc.- and it is there where the Sptifire would not surpass the Bf 109.

Also the way you handle the Spitfire remarks made by some German pilots are processed and presented in such a manner it makes look the Sptifire was "beyond" the capabilities of the German fighter. Something that obviously is untrue.


----------



## Anonymous (Apr 20, 2005)

Udet said:


> I will not heat up discussing whether the Spitfire outturned the Bf109...
> 
> Unlike RG, for instance, i do not claim any plane to be a flawless marvel.



Where did I say this? My point in this thread all along has been that the Spitfire and the Bf109 were well matched, with the advantage going slightly to the 109 through the first half of the war, and slightly to the Spitfire through the last half of the war.



Udet said:


> Let´s assume the Bf109 could not turn inside a Sptifire.
> Having that in mind i still find the Bf 109 superior to each one of its contemporary version of the British fighter.



But I thought you didn't claim any one plane was a "flawless marvel"? Yet here you are claiming the 109 was superior to what many, probably most, people consider the best fighter of WWII, through every progression of versions... hmmm....



Udet said:


> The Battle of Britain had its particular features, and the British took full advantage of them accordingly; the Bf 109 did not have sufficient range to stay there any longer? Well, it surely was not the fault of British pilots, who simply used that advantage.
> 
> But to affirm the Spitfire MkI was "better" than the Bf109 E during the BoB is quite unaccurate.



And where did I do that exactly?



Udet said:


> I see the Emil an overall superior fighter to the MkI. Do not forget the Emil had a fuel injection engine while the Spit had a carbureted one. Even on a negative G turn the Spitfire would be in trouble against a Bf 109 chasing him.
> 
> How would I substantiate this assertion? Easy: the battle record.



Well, when the 109's outnumbered the Spitfires in the BoB, the 109's scored more kills - though really not that many more. What does that prove, other than that superior numbers is an advantage?



Udet said:


> No Spitfire pilot handled the Bf109 the way Bf109 pilots handled the Spitfire. Evidence is plentiful and at hand.



I thought you did not claim one fighter was a "flawless marvel"... but there you are claiming it yet again!



Udet said:


> So, the Spitfire might had turned better than the Bf109, but the rest of the departments also played their role -climbing, diving, speed, pilots, etc.- and it is there where the Sptifire would not surpass the Bf 109.



So you will only give in that the Spitfire _might_ have turned better... but in every other respect the 109 was superior... but I thought you didn't claim..



Udet said:


> Also the way you handle the Spitfire remarks made by some German pilots are processed and presented in such a manner it makes look the Sptifire was "beyond" the capabilities of the German fighter. Something that obviously is untrue.



Again, where did I say this? My whole argument has been that they were well matched and that the advantage shifted constantly during the war, early on the advantage generally being with the Germans, and later with the Brits.

You have an interesting way of making claims while at the same time claiming not to make them Udet! Are you perchance pursing a career in politics?


----------



## Soren (Apr 20, 2005)

> Well, when the 109's outnumbered the Spitfires in the BoB, the 109's scored more kills - though really not that many more. What does that prove, other than that superior numbers is an advantage?



"But offense is harder than defense", isnt that what you used to say ?


----------



## Gemhorse (Apr 20, 2005)

Udet made one point I'd forgotten, the Bf-109E had the advantage of fuel injection over the Spitfire's more conventional carburettor, which did make a difference; I recall reading RAF pilots commenting on that during the BoB...

Also, one other point that wasn't really about combat, was the Bf's shocking undercarriage set-up, which was responsible for many landing accidents...Willi never really got that sorted-out....- In the same context, the Spit's wasn't that great either, both the Hurricane and Fw-190 had a distinct advantage with their wider-track undercarts. These factors did played a part in the various theatres these aircraft flew in, in terms of 'hardiness' and Sqn. readiness......Finally, the Seafires' biggest problem was also the undercart, many were lost because of failed landings....When you add-up the extra work that went into these repairs, it did effect Sqn./Geschwader aircraft readiness figures....[Just thought I'd mention that.........]

Gemhorse


----------



## Gemhorse (Apr 20, 2005)

Oh, and one other point;..... Sqn.Ldr. Pete Brothers commented on the Fw-190, late 1942 when flying Spit VB's....
''The controls of the Fw-190 were roller bearing, and we saw just how effective this was when Arnim Faber's captured aircraft was demonstrated to us at Tangmere several months after the Dieppe raid. I clearly remember that you could put a penny on the aileron and it would push it down, and it's opposite surface on the other wing up, until the coin finally slid off !''..........

Gemhorse


----------



## Anonymous (Apr 20, 2005)

Soren said:


> > Well, when the 109's outnumbered the Spitfires in the BoB, the 109's scored more kills - though really not that many more. What does that prove, other than that superior numbers is an advantage?
> 
> 
> 
> "But offense is harder than defense", isnt that what you used to say ?



How are these two contentions in conflict with one another smarty pants? LOL - they arn't! Offense is harder than defense, and all other things being approximately equal, numeric advantage must be sufficient to overcome this if the agressor is to win.

Also, the distances involved for the Luftwaffe' in the BoB were quite minimal compared to those faced by BC and the USAAF. Much less superiority was required.

During August 1940 the RAF lost about 75% more planes than the Luftwaffe', but the Luftwaffe' lost more than twice as many pilots. Planes could be replaced, pilots could not!

Besides, if I recall correctly (maybe I'm wrong on this?), when all was said and done, didn't the Luftwaffe' loose more planes than the RAF in the whole of the BoB?

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 21, 2005)

well yes i think they did as they also lost bombers as well as fighters, something we didn't have to face............


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 21, 2005)

RG_Lunatic said:


> Udet said:
> 
> 
> > I will not heat up discussing whether the Spitfire outturned the Bf109...
> ...



And this is what I completely agree with.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 22, 2005)

I agree too.


----------



## Maestro (Apr 22, 2005)

I agree. Even if I'm a great fan of the Spitfire...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 22, 2005)

The 109 is my favorite aircraft of WW2 but I never claim that it was outright better then the Spitfire. They both had there advantages and disadvantages but were well matched.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 22, 2005)

which i think does make things more interesting...........


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 24, 2005)

What that they were well matched?


----------



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

yeah............


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 25, 2005)

Oh okay! I see.


----------



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

well i think it's interesting how they both "played" off each other, like if one development was introduced annother development was made to the opposing aircraft and both aircraft saw huge development through the war..........


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 26, 2005)

That is true, and they were both developed right up till the end of the war.


----------



## mosquitoman (Apr 26, 2005)

Yep, they were still used against each other well after WWII aswell, with Israel and Palestine. Occasionally they were on the same squadron aswell


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 27, 2005)

That is true. The Isrealis used them both for quite some time.


----------



## Maestro (Apr 27, 2005)

Hmmm... A Nazi Germany plane with a Jewish symbol on it... Does it looks weird to any one else ?


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 27, 2005)

but try not to call german planes "nazi Germany" planes, it keeps politics out, and besides the plane had little to do with the actually nazi party save for the fact that the nazis let it be developed...............

and aint those 109s the spainish built ones??


----------



## Nonskimmer (Apr 27, 2005)

Maestro said:


> Hmmm... A Nazi Germany plane with a Jewish symbol on it... Does it looks weird to any one else ?


I was thinking the same thing. For so many years it bore a swastika, and now a Star of David. Ironic.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 27, 2005)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> and aint those 109s the spainish built ones??



Actually they were Czech built Avia S-199's

The Isrealis also used P-51's, Mossies, and B-17's.

The 109's were also used by the Spanish, Switzerland, Czechoslovakia, and Finland after the war into the 1950's.


----------



## Anonymous (Apr 27, 2005)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> but try not to call german planes "nazi Germany" planes, it keeps politics out, and besides the plane had little to do with the actually nazi party save for the fact that the nazis let it be developed...............



That is not true. Willie Messerchmitt played politics in a big way and was definately a member of the Nazi party (so was Kurt Tank). Only good Nazi industrialists got contracts, and many key positions even in science and engineering pretty much required Nazi party membership.

Who knows what other German fighter designs might have been developed had the non-Nazi German's been allowed to participate?

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## plan_D (Apr 27, 2005)

This website is dedicated to World War 2 aircraft. By naming the aircraft "Nazi Germany" designs you're bringing politics into a non-politcal discussion. 
I don't think many people want to be discussing the politics of it all on here. If they do I'm sure a thread would be started about it. I'm not having a go or anything, I'm just saying it would be easier for everyone in an aircraft discussion if politics, including names, would be kept out of it. Even if, as we know, in Germany mainly [if not only] selected political party members above all. 

Just my thought on it.


----------



## Anonymous (Apr 28, 2005)

That's fine with me, but please don't say that the German engineering efforts were not Nazi efforts, because they were. I have a problem with denying this aspect of WWII Germany. It is a big part of the German war machine - and comes into play in many areas. For instance, if you look at the cost of a Panzer in RM and index that to 1944 US$, it appears the Panzer is not much more expensive than a Sherman - but that discounts the fact that a lot of forced and slave labor is involved. If you exclude consideration of the nature of the Nazi regime, it perverts other aspects of the analysis.

I agree we should not over-focus on this, but lets not deny it either.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## Schöpfel (Apr 28, 2005)

All 109s and 190s wore the Nazi party symbol and were in effect the Nazi's right fist utilized in the furtherance of their goals. To deny this is delusional.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 28, 2005)

we're not trying to deny it, but the moment you call it a "Nazi German" plane you've bought politics into the disscussion..........


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 28, 2005)

RG_Lunatic said:


> Willie Messerchmitt played politics in a big way and was definately a member of the Nazi party (so was Kurt Tank). Only good Nazi industrialists got contracts, and many key positions even in science and engineering pretty much required Nazi party membership.
> 
> Who knows what other German fighter designs might have been developed had the non-Nazi German's been allowed to participate?
> 
> ...



That is completely true. Polotics played big parts in who got to design aircraft and who got the contracts. If you were not big in the party you were not even considered. That is one reason why Messerchmitt, Focke-Wulf, Heinkel, and Junkers were chosen over so many others. The Heinkel He-112's were better then Me-109's but the 109's were chosen because of Willie's standing with the party.

Had the other companies been allowed to compete there may have been a whole new line of aircraft that were far superior to what was being made. German R D may have been completely different.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 28, 2005)

i've been wondering for a while, what's R&D??


----------



## KraziKanuK (Apr 28, 2005)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> i've been wondering for a while, what's R&D??



Research Development


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 28, 2005)

ah, and may i advice you to not use that smiley in that context on me again..........


----------



## DAVIDICUS (Apr 28, 2005)

Oh, and Lanc, "BoB" means Battle of Britain and "TLSLA" means the Lancaster smells like ass.


----------



## evangilder (Apr 28, 2005)

Oops!


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 28, 2005)

i believe i can be forgiven for not finding that humerous in the least??


----------



## plan_D (Apr 28, 2005)

Don't worry, Lanc. I laughed enough for the both of us.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 28, 2005)

I thought it was.


----------



## plan_D (Apr 28, 2005)

Anyway, since this isn't a political discussion then it best for everyone that they be German designs, British designs, American designs and Soviet designs. 

I think it's safe to say, RG, that all on here know about the basics of the German technological programme being based on the biggest political party members getting first choice. There are very few things in Germany during World War 2 that didn't come from a Nazi. I can think of a few but no time for that [Hetzer Tank Destroyer was one]. 

Keep it simple and to do with aviation. No one is denying Germany's Nazi past...why would we? We enjoyed kicking their ass so much.


----------



## KraziKanuK (Apr 28, 2005)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> ah, and may i advice you to not use that smiley in that context on me again..........


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 28, 2005)

i found it very patronising..........


----------



## Anonymous (Apr 28, 2005)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> i found it very patronising..........



Learn the difference between when you are being laughed at and when people are laughing with you Lanc. It will serve you well not to react inappropriately to a good natured smile or laugh, even if it is a little bit at your expense.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## Anonymous (Apr 28, 2005)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> That is completely true. Polotics played big parts in who got to design aircraft and who got the contracts. If you were not big in the party you were not even considered. That is one reason why Messerchmitt, Focke-Wulf, Heinkel, and Junkers were chosen over so many others. The Heinkel He-112's were better then Me-109's but the 109's were chosen because of Willie's standing with the party.
> 
> Had the other companies been allowed to compete there may have been a whole new line of aircraft that were far superior to what was being made. German R D may have been completely different.



This is very true. The lack of diversity in German R&D certainly hurt them.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 28, 2005)

RG_Lunatic said:


> the lancaster kicks ass said:
> 
> 
> > i found it very patronising..........
> ...



dude you don't know the first thing about me, i can take a joke, someone who doesn't know me, patronising me after i put my hands up as i didn't know what something ment and so had to ask, is not a joke..........

and to KK, i know you didn't, really mean to patronise me, this's all Rg's fault...........


----------



## plan_D (Apr 28, 2005)

Wait a second, lads. I just need to get the popcorn, keep your guns holstered for the moment.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 28, 2005)

hang on which argument are you on about??


----------



## plan_D (Apr 28, 2005)

...do I have to know? I just know one is brewing...I can taste it, like I can taste this Stella...mmm...I'm sorry, what were you saying?


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 28, 2005)

but why is it RG is always a part of the arguments we have.............


----------



## plan_D (Apr 28, 2005)

Because he likes to irritate people? Because he's American? Because he's American? Because he's American? Because he's a twat? Because he's a tit? Because he resembles Hitler's left testicle? Because...he likes to be a part of the arguments we have? Because he doesn't like you? Because I don't like you? 

I don't know!  

If anyone takes offence to all that...calm down!


----------



## Nonskimmer (Apr 28, 2005)

Whatever pills you're on, I want a few.


----------



## plan_D (Apr 28, 2005)

I'm not on pills <twitch> I don't do any kind of dr...<twitch> drugs...this is just all my co...co...common..th...th <twitch> thought. 
I'll have you...erm...erh...arh, god <twitch> KNOW!!...that I...am very...very...


...oh, god I forgot what I'm talking about...


----------



## Nonskimmer (Apr 28, 2005)

They say beer is good for those annoying bouts of dementia. 
Or maybe it was the cause of them, I can't remember.


----------



## plan_D (Apr 28, 2005)

To beer! The cause of, and solution to all life's problems. 

Beer, holiday in can! It's liquid bread it's GOOD for you! Who's up for a liquid lunch?


----------



## Nonskimmer (Apr 28, 2005)

I'll have the barley soup, with a beer!


----------



## evangilder (Apr 28, 2005)

Beer, the real vitamin B!


----------



## plan_D (Apr 28, 2005)

Beer, I really love it. I could kiss and hug it but I'd rather chug it.


----------



## DAVIDICUS (Apr 28, 2005)

The Lancaster may smell like ass, but after a few beers, she smells like ass. Wait, ... what did I just say? 

Give me another beer.


----------



## plan_D (Apr 28, 2005)

I don't know, you seem to have an unhealthy infatuation with the Lancaster...I think you've had enough. 

Mine all mine...Skimmer and his twin can have one too.


----------



## Nonskimmer (Apr 28, 2005)

Thanks buddy! I love ya man!  

I'll um...take the couch.


----------



## plan_D (Apr 28, 2005)

Wow, you must really be drunk...the couch looks nothing like a chick, but oh k...whatever floats yah boat...


----------



## Nonskimmer (Apr 28, 2005)

:-"


----------



## plan_D (Apr 28, 2005)

Beer, helping ugly people have sex since 1389.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 29, 2005)

plan_D said:


> Because he likes to irritate people? Because he's American? Because he's American? Because he's American? Because he's a twat? Because he's a tit? Because he resembles Hitler's left testicle? Because...he likes to be a part of the arguments we have? Because he doesn't like you? Because I don't like you?
> 
> I don't know!
> 
> If anyone takes offence to all that...calm down!



Propably because he likes to irritate people in a way to get a rise out of them.


----------



## DAVIDICUS (Apr 29, 2005)

No, that's me.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 29, 2005)

do you mean "get a rise" in the way i'm so despirately hoping you don't..........


----------



## DAVIDICUS (Apr 29, 2005)

Lanc, uh ... I think you were the only one who read it in that context. But if that's the only way to get a rise out of you ...


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 29, 2005)

Im loving the Ginger beard look Davidicus


----------



## Anonymous (Apr 29, 2005)

Grrrrr....


----------



## plan_D (Apr 29, 2005)

That could be another way to get a rise out of Lanc. He may like a little aggressive attitude


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 30, 2005)

RG_Lunatic said:


> Grrrrr....



Oh come on RG admit it that antagonizing is what you like doing. Or is it just the picture turning you on?!


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 30, 2005)

you guys make me sick!!


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 30, 2005)

Ah, the laxatives are finally kicking in...


----------



## Nonskimmer (Apr 30, 2005)

Success!


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 30, 2005)

but seriously, good news, the effects of the laxitives have, as of yesterday, gone completely!!


----------



## DAVIDICUS (Apr 30, 2005)

We'd love to give you a "special" laxitive Lanc.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 30, 2005)

Ugh *shudder* 

Loving the new siggy 8)


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 30, 2005)

no stop it with that picture it's sick!!


----------



## Nonskimmer (Apr 30, 2005)

I don't even wanna know where that fella's other hand is!


----------



## DAVIDICUS (Apr 30, 2005)




----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 30, 2005)

And just WHY is the ginger guy looking so content?


----------



## DAVIDICUS (Apr 30, 2005)

"Ginger" guy?

I didn't know you two were on a "spice" name basis.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 30, 2005)

Oh yes, he calls me Basil, after Basil FAWLTY, for reasons I will leave to your own imagination


----------



## mosquitoman (Apr 30, 2005)

This thread is just wrong....


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 30, 2005)

lanc started it!


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 30, 2005)

i did not!!


----------



## mosquitoman (Apr 30, 2005)

It doesn't matter, I'm finishing it.

The best British fighter was the Tempest, the Spit was a close second


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 30, 2005)

t'other way round if you ask me..........


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 30, 2005)

No im with MM 8)


----------



## Gemhorse (Apr 30, 2005)

I'll go along with Mossieman on that, but I'm sure he'll agree that if the Hornet was well into the fray, this may have been different......


----------



## mosquitoman (Apr 30, 2005)

Yeah I agree Gemhorse, the only reason the Tempest is better is because the chin radiator makes it look good


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 1, 2005)

but the Mk.II looks so much better than the Mk.V.........


----------



## plan_D (May 1, 2005)

That section on this thread between the actual aircraft talk was wrong out of 10.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 1, 2005)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> no stop it with that picture it's sick!!



It is the sickest picture I have ever seen.


----------



## Anonymous (May 1, 2005)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> the lancaster kicks ass said:
> 
> 
> > no stop it with that picture it's sick!!
> ...



There is something weird about it too... look at their eyes. I think they are on some kind of drugs.


----------



## Nonskimmer (May 1, 2005)

Drum roll please! 
I'm sure someone is about to post an even worse one.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 1, 2005)

RG_Lunatic said:


> DerAdlerIstGelandet said:
> 
> 
> > the lancaster kicks ass said:
> ...



They are contact lenses. I have seen the exact kind of contact lenses at the store where I buy some of my metal clothling. I would never buy those contact lenses, they are quite gay! Well look who is whering them!


----------



## DAVIDICUS (May 1, 2005)

"_There is something weird about it too... look at their eyes. I think they are on some kind of drugs._"

I'm not sure but I think that comes from an intense night of biting one's pillow and screaming. 

Maybe Lanc can confirm this. I understand they performed some "laxitive" procedure on him. Took him a few days to recover.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 1, 2005)

Now that is just sick!


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 1, 2005)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> but the Mk.II looks so much better than the Mk.V.........



I agree.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 1, 2005)

Why is that they did not look much different from one another.


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 1, 2005)

Well the Mk.II has a radial.





Mk.V





Mk.II


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 1, 2005)

Exuse me I got confused there I was thinking Spitfire Mk. II and Mk. V.


----------



## Nonskimmer (May 1, 2005)

Love the pics!


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 1, 2005)

That explains it


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 1, 2005)

The spits were almost identical in looks.


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 1, 2005)

Pretty much, apart from the later ones with buble canopies. They looked much better


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 2, 2005)

I agree.


----------



## mosquitoman (May 2, 2005)

The later Spits were bigger aswell


----------



## KraziKanuK (May 2, 2005)

mosquitoman said:


> The later Spits were bigger aswell



Bigger?

Weight increased.

The wing stayed the same size. The fuselage got longer with the Griffon and the larger rudder.


----------



## plan_D (May 2, 2005)

Yes, genius, so they were bigger.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 3, 2005)

LOL


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 3, 2005)

but how can they be bigger, the wingspan didn't increase, only the weight and length........


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 3, 2005)

Exactly, longer = bigger


----------



## plan_D (May 3, 2005)

Thank you, CC. Lanc was being sarcastic.


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 3, 2005)

You can never tell with him though...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 3, 2005)

True dat, true dat!


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 3, 2005)

no i was definatly being sarcastic.........


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 3, 2005)

Now that, was THAT sarcastic?


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 3, 2005)

no my statement prvios to this current statement was in fact not sarcasm..........


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 3, 2005)

That statement, was that sarcastic? 

Could be here a while...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 3, 2005)

Wind them up and watch them go!


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 3, 2005)

I wouldnt do that to these guys


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 3, 2005)

Lets try and get back on topic here.


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 3, 2005)

Ok. Tempest best, Spitfire second 8)


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 3, 2005)

I would agree because the Tempest's development started later and lessons learned with the Spit were applied to the Tempest.


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 3, 2005)

Also looked better


----------



## plan_D (May 3, 2005)

The Tempest was a descendant of the Spitfire. It certainly evolved from the Spitfire. I agree that the Tempest is better but the Spitfire did more...and looked better.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 3, 2005)

Well offcouse once the Hurricane was gone, the Spit was to England as the Bf-109 was to Germany.


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 3, 2005)

However the 109 was backed up by the Fw-190, which I belive was better. Until the Tempest the Brits didnt have another complimentary fighter to the Spitfire.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 3, 2005)

but we didn't need one.........


----------



## plan_D (May 3, 2005)

Lancaster is right, we did not need another fighter. The Spitfire completed all rolls that were needed of it and the British air doctrine. Our bombing campaign was at night where the Mosquito was the fighter for the job.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 3, 2005)

I disagree. The Spit was great but she too was getting outclassed by other fighters. The Fw-190 would give any Spit atleast a run for its money.


----------



## plan_D (May 3, 2005)

The Fw-190 was superior to the Spitfire Mk.V but the Spitfire was always a great base for improvement. Instead of a new fighter Britain could just upgrade the Spitfire. 
The Spitfire Mk. VIII and IX (Sticking with just Merlin engined for the moment) could both hang with the Fw-190 in any dogfight.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 3, 2005)

Oh dont worry no arguments here.


----------



## Glider (May 3, 2005)

Can I ask for peoples views on the Tempest as a fighter. It strikes me as being the only UK contender to challange the Spitfire as a fighter.
Speed and firepower were definately up on the Spit, plus diving speed. I always had in my mind that the Tempest was similar to a late P47 with better guns. Unfortunately I don't have the detailed numbers to come to a conclusion.
Any comments suggestions ideas welcome


----------



## mosquitoman (May 3, 2005)

We had the Typhoon as the running partner of the Spit before the Tempest came along, she excelled and taking out the 190s bombing British ports at low level


----------



## Udet (May 3, 2005)

Sure the Typhoon/Tempest toys were fine assets.

In the previous months to Dday in Normandy, some RAF typhoon squadrons had their fighters fitted with rails under the wings to install non-guided rockets for ground attack missions.

Such gear caused drag and affected the flying capabiities of the Typhoon.

I have no less than a dozen gun camera shots clearly showing Typhoons equipped in such fashion getting pounded and destroyed at low altitude combats by Luftwaffe fighters.


----------



## plan_D (May 3, 2005)

It was soon realised that the Typhoon wasn't a capable fighter. The Typhoon was fast and was an excellent low-level interceptor but that was about it in the fighter role. That is why the Typhoon was relegated to ground-attack where it proved to be an excellent machine. 
The Typhoon never contended the Spitfire for the title of front-line fighter. 

Udet, do you ever think that you base your arguments too much on gun camera? There's gun camera footage of almost every aircraft in the war being shot to pieces. 
I've got a remarkable one of a Fw-190 having it's port side blasted to pieces by a P-47.


----------



## DAVIDICUS (May 3, 2005)

Hey guys, can you post this film footage? Sounds really interesting.


----------



## plan_D (May 3, 2005)

The footage I have is part of an amazing video I have of the P-47, with lots of gun camera footage as well as other stuff. It's 26 MB though. I also have a few newsreels from Germany. Leningrad and Kursk film footage, Halftrack footage, D-Day footage and Ardennes footage. Russia footage and StuG footage.


----------



## Udet (May 3, 2005)

Plan_D:

I do agree with you.

I happen to have hours of Luftwaffe guncamera footage, which of course play an influence on my judgement regarding airwarfare over Europe.

I wonder if there are any guys from the USA who have had the chance of watching one sole shot of their beloved Mustangs getting chewed by German interceptors. Most of those i have met have not. 

They mostly get to see the same boring over-repetitive stuff of some German interceptors pounding a few B-17s and B24s.

The rest is pretty much about the same images of Fw190s and Bf109s getting pounded by their gallant heroes. I can say i know the shots by heart.

Happened to be in Saratov, Russia, two years ago for the city´s victory day parade (May 9th) where by a mere coincidence made contact with a man who sold me the stuff -the cheapest deal of my life-.


I do agree with you the Typhoon failed as a fighter. The Bf 109 and the Fw 190 proved extremely nasty experiences to many Typhoon pilots.

Sure it was fast and capable as ground attacker though.


Plan, the guncamera footage, while of course not being the ultimate element to come up with conclusions, plays a vital role.

I have shots of the sturdy P-47s vaporizing in huge fireballs. Mustangs having their pilots getting extirpated out of the cockpit by the German guns in quite a violent and disturbing fashion. A shot of a stricken Spitfire whose pilot opens the cockpit to bale out -you see the head and partial torso of the British guy emerging right out the cockpit-, a short burst of the German pilot hindered his attempt. Shturmovik rear gunners having a horrible end at the hands of German interceptors -some of them turned into human torches attempting a doomed bale out-. The USA baptized "Fork tailed devil" getting bounced: the pilot receiving the German burst right overhead.

Just to name some.


----------



## plan_D (May 3, 2005)

Of course it should provide some influence. I have seen camera footage of many Allied fighters as well as Axis fighters being brought down by their opponent. 

It's awful to watch some and the odd realisation comes to mind that in that plane is a dying or dead man.


----------



## Anonymous (May 3, 2005)

plan_D said:


> The footage I have is part of an amazing video I have of the P-47, with lots of gun camera footage as well as other stuff. It's 26 MB though. I also have a few newsreels from Germany. Leningrad and Kursk film footage, Halftrack footage, D-Day footage and Ardennes footage. Russia footage and StuG footage.



Didn't I post that here long ago? 8)

Yep... I did!

http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1113&highlight=p47

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## Anonymous (May 3, 2005)

The Tempest was a good low level fighter/attack plane. The Spitfire was not.

The two complimented each other very well, the Tempest able to take the fight from about 18,000 feet down to the deck, and the Spitfire being able to take it from 15K up to 35K.

What the British (and German) fighters lacked was range.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 4, 2005)

but the spit was designed as an intorceptor more than a fighter.........


----------



## plan_D (May 4, 2005)

I didn't get it from here though, RG. My brother gave me it. 

The Spitfire was an interceptor. Every British fighter up to the EE Lightning have all been interceptors with little range beyond British airspace.


----------



## Anonymous (May 4, 2005)

plan_D said:


> I didn't get it from here though, RG. My brother gave me it.



I was just pointing out that it was available here and that he could see it if he chooses.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## plan_D (May 4, 2005)

Okay. It's an awesome video. The Ju-88 cut in half.  

And those buildings! My god, talk about ammo store. BOOM!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 4, 2005)

plan_D said:


> I didn't get it from here though, RG. My brother gave me it.
> 
> The Spitfire was an interceptor. Every British fighter up to the EE Lightning have all been interceptors with little range beyond British airspace.



That is probably because for the most part of the war until 1944 the British fighters were intercepting German aircraft attacking England. It was not till later in the war and after that they needed deep striking power.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 5, 2005)

Oh, screw you guys!  

Well, in 18 and 14, we took a little trip
Along with Colonel Jackson down the mighty Missisip
We took a little bacon and we took a little beans
And we met the bloody British in the town of New Orleans
We fired our guns and the British kept a comin'
There wasn't nigh as many as there was a while ago
We fired once more and they began a running
Down the Mississippi to the Gulf of Mexico


----------



## KraziKanuK (May 5, 2005)

Fair trade by the US of A?


----------



## Nonskimmer (May 5, 2005)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Oh, screw you guys!
> 
> Well, in 18 and 14, we took a little trip
> Along with Colonel Jackson down the mighty Missisip
> ...


Awesome tune!


----------



## Nonskimmer (May 5, 2005)

Heated discussions are fine and dandy, but this is becoming downright personal. If you guys want to continue this, take it to PM's please.


----------



## plan_D (May 5, 2005)

Alright, NS, I'll stop.


----------



## Nonskimmer (May 5, 2005)

Thanks. You can have the last word next time.


----------



## plan_D (May 5, 2005)

I'll try and not be swayed by his marvellous talent of annoying people.


----------



## evangilder (May 5, 2005)

I second that, NS. This has gotten WAY off topic.


----------



## Nonskimmer (May 5, 2005)




----------



## plan_D (May 5, 2005)

Why you little...


----------



## evangilder (May 6, 2005)

All of the war of 1812 debate has been moved to the 1800-1914 area. Lets keep up the thread about British fighters. It was actually a good discussion that got a little sidetracked.


----------



## plan_D (May 6, 2005)

I started an 1812 thread in the...place...1800-1914...thing. 

Anywho, where were we? Oh yeah...

The Tempest was the best but it was the son of the Spitfire. Lessons learnt from the Spitfire were put into the Tempest. Without the Spitfire, the Tempest would have never existed. So there...Tempest lovers..and the Spitfire was better looking.


----------



## GT (May 6, 2005)

Update.


----------



## evangilder (May 6, 2005)

Love that Zero gif, GT! 8)


----------



## Hot Space (May 6, 2005)

That's one of the best Sig's I think I've seen 8) 

Hot Space


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 6, 2005)

Yeah thats pretty damn cool 8)


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 6, 2005)

it aint a siggy though........

and you list the P-51 amoung the other greats, a spit would eat the 'stang for breakfast............


----------



## Hot Space (May 6, 2005)

Well it is kinda I guess  

Hot Space


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 6, 2005)

Not without choking and requiring the Heimmlich Manouver before taking another go at it.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 6, 2005)

it's not a siggy not only does it not appear in each of his posts, it's shows the file name and is above the black line..........

and you guys know damn well the spit could beat a P-51..........


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 6, 2005)

Which Spit? Spit XIV beat a P-51B maybe, but what about a P-51D? Or H?


----------



## GT (May 6, 2005)

Update.


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 6, 2005)

Nice Corsair pic. Im guessing thats a later model as it appears to have the 4x20mm.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 6, 2005)

dude a Mk.XIV beats a P-51D anyday!!


----------



## Hot Space (May 6, 2005)

cheddar cheese said:


> Which Spit? Spit XIV beat a P-51B maybe, but what about a P-51D? Or H?



A Spit F.22/24 would stamp on it  

Hot Space


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 6, 2005)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> dude a Mk.XIV beats a P-51D anyday!!



Not on the day when the Spit is on the ground and the P-51 strafes it 

Nah I dont think it would be as straightforward as youre making out.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 6, 2005)

oh come on the P-51 wasn't most nimble was it i mean yeah i know she could dogfight but the Spit was the master of dogfights........


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 6, 2005)

GT said:


> Spitfire Rules together with some other outstanding fighters!!
> 
> Cheers
> GT



NOTE THE CORSAIR - IT HAS 3 KILLS ON IT! THIS WAS FLOWN BY A MAJOR SOTO FROM THE HONDURAN AF DURING THE "SOCCER WAR" WITH GUATEMALA. GREAT PHOTO! (2 Corsairs and 1 P-51)


----------



## GT (May 6, 2005)

Update.


----------



## mosquitoman (May 8, 2005)

A saying from WWII: A Mustang can't do what a Spitfire does, but it does it over Berlin


----------



## wmaxt (May 8, 2005)

mosquitoman said:


> A saying from WWII: A Mustang can't do what a Spitfire does, but it does it over Berlin



And the P-38 with a good pilot could hold it own with the Spit and fight effectivly over Berlin!


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 8, 2005)

wmaxt said:


> mosquitoman said:
> 
> 
> > A saying from WWII: A Mustang can't do what a Spitfire does, but it does it over Berlin
> ...



I agree


----------



## plan_D (May 8, 2005)

The pilots with the skill to make a P-38 do the same as a Spitfire were few and far between.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 8, 2005)

Bong, Mcguire, Robbins, MacDonald, Johnson, Lynch, Craigg, Westbrook, to name a few!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 9, 2005)

I agree what made the P-51 stand out over the Spit was its range. The Spit compares with the Me-109 as more suited for homeland defence and intercepting. The 51 and 38 were deffinatly more suited for long range escort duty and flights deep into Germany.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 9, 2005)

As I mentioned earlier, you had to be a good pilot to fly a P-38. If you were a good pilot and flew a P-51, you became a great pilot. The great pilots who flew P-38s did phenomenal things with this airplane, like turn inside a Zero or any other Japanese aircraft. As Plan D stated however, the pilots who could do this were far and few between!

I think if P-38 stateside training would have emphasized more, the idiosyncrasies of this aircraft, courses on how to manage its fuel system for maximum range (as taught by Charles Lindbergh during his Pacific tour) and how to maximize the P-38 firepower, you would of seen this aircraft emerge operationally superior, in many cases to the P-51, especially if the L models would have entered service earlier!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 10, 2005)

I agree with you on the comarison to the P-51. I personally think the P-38 could have been the best allied fighter.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 10, 2005)

i think your taking it a bit too far........


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 10, 2005)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> i think your taking it a bit too far........



Remember Lanc, he said "could of been."


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 10, 2005)

fair enough.........


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 10, 2005)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> fair enough.........



"But if they only put Merlins in that thing."


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 10, 2005)

Actually I believe tests with the Merlins we done (on paper). There were no significant improvemnts so they stuck with the Good 'ol Alliscon


----------



## evangilder (May 10, 2005)

I think it was said that to put Merlins in a P-38 would have been difficult because it would have required structural changes.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 10, 2005)

cheddar cheese said:


> Actually I believe tests with the Merlins we done (on paper). There were no significant improvemnts so they stuck with the Good 'ol Alliscon



I know, still would of like to of known the actual results!  



> I think it was said that to put Merlins in a P-38 would have been difficult because it would have required structural changes.



BIG changes! - I wonder if modified, would the back pistons on the merlins would have had the heating problems like the Allisons?


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 10, 2005)

P-38 with Griffon engines...  Would liked to have seen that!


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 10, 2005)

cheddar cheese said:


> P-38 with Griffon engines...  Would liked to have seen that!



Now that's a thought!


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 10, 2005)

Or even a couple of R-2800's


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 10, 2005)

cheddar cheese said:


> Or even a couple of R-2800's



Now that ridiculous


----------



## evangilder (May 10, 2005)

I think radials in a P-38 would have made for a great ground attack airplane though.


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 10, 2005)

Sure would - The XP-58 was cancelled because of its engine problems, stick in a couple of Radials and problem solved!


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 10, 2005)

evangilder said:


> I think radials in a P-38 would have made for a great ground attack airplane though.



I think it would of looked a little funny!


----------



## evangilder (May 10, 2005)

FLYBOYJ said:


> evangilder said:
> 
> 
> > I think radials in a P-38 would have made for a great ground attack airplane though.
> ...



You're probably right, but think of the sound! 8)


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 10, 2005)

Well, do you think the P-61 looks funny?  The two would have looked similar, barring the notable size of nacelle.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 10, 2005)

evangilder said:


> I think radials in a P-38 would have made for a great ground attack airplane though.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 10, 2005)

if they're too the same scale that thing's huge!!


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 10, 2005)

Wow!


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 10, 2005)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> if they're too the same scale that thing's huge!!



Same scale, the R2800 is grafted from a P-47


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 10, 2005)

Stick it on an XP-58 then...thats bigger


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 10, 2005)

cheddar cheese said:


> Stick it on an XP-58 then...thats bigger



I'll try to find one to the same scale


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 10, 2005)

Here ya go, not too sure of the scale, used a NA B-28 nacelle


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 10, 2005)

That would look more reasonable. 8)


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 10, 2005)

cheddar cheese said:


> That would look more reasonable. 8)



Very "P-61ish" 8)


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 10, 2005)

Yep....Just as I said


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 10, 2005)

Who knows, maybe like that the P-58 could of done 450 mph?!?


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 10, 2005)

i'm still suspect of them figures.........


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 10, 2005)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> i'm still suspect of them figures.........



Its a nice thought though!


----------



## wmaxt (May 10, 2005)

FLYBOYJ said:


> the lancaster kicks ass said:
> 
> 
> > i'm still suspect of them figures.........
> ...



The early design numbers for the P-38 were spot on, these should be pretty close.

The Merlin issue is confusing at best. Even with the records and people involved Bodie shows that the overall aircraft weight might be better or worse. The consensus seemed to be that it would be about as hard as the P-51 conversion was and the results would be great. Esp. if the mixture control was installed too.

The evidence is that the P-38 had the potential to have been the the best fighter of the war (if it wasn't anyway). We do know that it is right there with a few other deserving fighters and that's fair or maybe even better.

wmaxt


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 11, 2005)

I think the 38 would have had to have been structurally strengthened for some radials but had it worked she may have been quite a powerful beast. As even said, think of the sound. I also dont think she would have looked that bad.


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 11, 2005)

I prefer radials to inlines most of the time.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 11, 2005)

I dont, I prefer the more sleaker look of inlines.


----------



## alejandro_ (Jul 4, 2005)

RG_Lunatic/guest



> 5 minutes was the recommended limit of WEP usage. But pilots often maintained WEP power for 15 minutes or even longer. The 5 minutes was a recommended limit, nothing prevented longer usage. A properly operating P-51 at good speed had no overheating problems at any power level. The 109 on the otherhand, would overheat after one to two minutes at high speeds (and not necessarily even at full power).



I was very surprised about this, very interesting. Do you have any more information or a source I can check?



> Also, the Packard Merlin was known to be more robust than the RR Merlin. It was built using superior materials, and production quality was generally higher. This is not a dig at the British, they simply did not have as good of alloys and they were more pressed to maximise production quantities at the cost of a little production quality.



Again, I was very surprised, any further info/source? The lack of materials was one of the main reasons why the germans went for MW-50 and GM-1. General Electric was leading in the field of turbochargers, which could be seen in the P-47.

Regards.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 4, 2005)

I agree, I had not heard of the 109 overheating after 2 min. at top speed. Quite interesting if it is true, but I doubt it.


----------



## wmaxt (Jul 5, 2005)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> I agree, I had not heard of the 109 overheating after 2 min. at top speed. Quite interesting if it is true, but I doubt it.



I've read all the top fighters Including the Mustang had cooling limitations at altitude, high power, extended operations. Remember the air at those altitudes is very thin and has little heat transfer ability. I suspect there was a limit on the Bf-109 especialy with power adders (these tend to exceed the engine block/heads ability to transfer the heat quickly enough) but I doubt the 2min unless it is when using power adders (NOX, water/methanol).

wmaxt


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 6, 2005)

Oh I agree with you that they had limations and such not but they would not overheat after 2 min. This is just a myth that I dont believe holds any weight. I may be wrong but I doubt it.


----------



## alejandro_ (Jul 6, 2005)

In this discussion the maximum cruising speed of the Spitfire, P-51 and Bf-109 was compared. Could someone provide the maximum cruising speed of the later Spitfires and how do they compare to the german counterparts. In this web site I found:




> the G-5/-6/-14/AS could maintain 620 kph at 8.4km in cruise (385mph at 27 550 ft ), the G-10 628kph (390mph), the K-4 645 kph (400mph) at the same alttiude. Naturally at full power much higher speeds could be reached at this altitude - 700 kph/435mph in case of the K-4. Datasets for G-10 and K-4 are with the early production, and weaker DB 605 DM engine. Even with this they compare favourably at the same altitude to the all-out level speed of the Spitfire L.F. Mk IX,
> 631 kph or 392 mph at 8.4km / 27550 ft.
> 
> Maximum continous cruise speed of the Spitfire F. Mk. XIV was 380 mph 25 000 ft (611 kph at 7620m), given by AIR 15/741.



http://kurfurst.atw.hu/articles/MW_KvsXIV.htm


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 6, 2005)

Depends on the Aircraft. The Spitfire and the Bf-109 and Fw-190A stayed pretty close to each other on performance, the Fw-190D and Ta-152 overtook the Spitfire pretty much on performance. There were actually a lot of aircraft that would outperform a Spitfire but they were not built in large numbers to make any difference.


----------



## alejandro_ (Jul 6, 2005)

Yes, I have been involved in many discussions regarding the Bf-109G-10/K-4 vs Spitfires Mk XIV/21. I was surprised to read some facts I didn't know, for example the MW-50 limitations and cooling systems of P-51, Bf-109 and Spitfire. However, when I came accross the Bf-109 dara things didn't make that much sense. If the spitfire cooling is better, how comes it has a lower maximum cruising speed?

On the other hand I think that data should be taken with caution. The cruise velocities for a G-2 were much lower (I checked on the manual).


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 6, 2005)

Hmmm I am sure that there is a lot of info on performance out there that is incorrect.


----------



## Lunatic (Jul 7, 2005)

alejandro_ said:


> Yes, I have been involved in many discussions regarding the Bf-109G-10/K-4 vs Spitfires Mk XIV/21. I was surprised to read some facts I didn't know, for example the MW-50 limitations and cooling systems of P-51, Bf-109 and Spitfire. However, when I came accross the Bf-109 dara things didn't make that much sense. If the spitfire cooling is better, how comes it has a lower maximum cruising speed?
> 
> On the other hand I think that data should be taken with caution. The cruise velocities for a G-2 were much lower (I checked on the manual).



Maximum cruising speed for the Spitfire and the Bf109's (late G models and K) were about 375 mph at high altitude, which is about the same. In both cases, the maximum time such a cruise could be maintained was somewhat limited, the term "cruise" <usually> refers to operating in the lean fuel setting more than the ability to sustain such speeds for extended periods. Niether plane could really sustain such a cruise for more than 20-30 minutes as that was the limit of their fuel anyway (cruise speeds are substantially lower with an external tank). Sustainable cruise speeds were more in the 330 mph range.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 7, 2005)

Agreed to this post. Perforamance whise the Spits and the 109s were closer than a lot of people think. Each had its own advantages and disadvantages though.


----------



## alejandro_ (Jul 7, 2005)

Yes, the data I found didn't make any reference to the conditions for these speeds to be achieved. 

Lunatic

I noticed that in some of your posts you refer to the MW-50, saying that it is only used in climb for extended. According to many sources, the Bf-109 pilots would escape on a dive making use of it. I had never heard about the 2 minuts limitations when operating at high speeds. Also, it was not recommended follow the Bf-109 in a dive at less than 3000 meters. The tests posted in another thread specified that the elevators had to be trimmed, but I don't know how this would affect the combat performance. Seconds needed to prepare the elevator? pilot attention to the controls? 

Finally, you have any more info regarding the use of WEP for more than 5 minutes in the Mustang and late Spitfire? 

Regards.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 7, 2005)

I concur with what you just wrote. I too have never seen anything saying that a 109 would overheat after 2 min of run time. Maybe Erich who Falkeinz would have some info on this.


----------



## KraziKanuK (Jul 7, 2005)

Early 109s using MW boost had a low time limit of usage.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 7, 2005)

Yeah but that the engine would overheat after 2 minutes?


----------



## wmaxt (Jul 7, 2005)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Yeah but that the engine would overheat after 2 minutes?



Power adders, like these, can cause local overheating, 2 minutes is not unreasonable. Consider power adders are by definition almost always beyond the original design of the basic engine/cooling system. 

wmaxt


----------



## alejandro_ (Jul 7, 2005)

Krazinuk



> Early 109s using MW boost had a low time limit of usage.



Any more info? I am really curious about this issue because I had never come across this problems and many people I have argued with point it out as a major advantage versus Spitfire XIV or P-51D.

Regards.


----------



## Soren (Jul 7, 2005)

MW-50 was usually limited at 10min, I don't know where this 2min figure has derived from.

And in comparison to the Bf-109K-4`s 10 minute limitation of running at maximum power, the Griffon 65 engine of the Spitfire XIV was limited to mere 5 minutes of running at maximum power.

Also the 109K-4 had a max continuous cruise speed of 400mph, and it was NOT limited. For the lowest possible fuel consumption, this figure would offcourse be lower.


----------



## Lunatic (Jul 8, 2005)

Soren said:


> MW-50 was usually limited at 10min, I don't know where this 2min figure has derived from.
> 
> And in comparison to the Bf-109K-4`s 10 minute limitation of running at maximum power, the Griffon 65 engine of the Spitfire XIV was limited to mere 5 minutes of running at maximum power.
> 
> Also the 109K-4 had a max continuous cruise speed of 400mph, and it was NOT limited. For the lowest possible fuel consumption, this figure would offcourse be lower.



Two minutes was the maximum time the 109G6 was capable of full power operation in level flight, according to the Soviets. Yes MW50 could be used for 10 minutes - in a climb. However, at full level speed overheating became an issue. I'm not sure if this was resolved or not in later 109G and K models. Actually, I believe the 109K had enough MW50 for four 10 minute WEP sessions, with 5 minutes at normal power being required between sessions?

The 5 minute limit on the Griffion (and Merlin) was really just a manufacture recommendation - there was no limit to its use. There were many cases where pilots exceeded this by a large margin. I think there is a pilot quote where he was running from the Germans and said he'd been at WEP for 10 minutes and wasn't about to back off the throttle.

Actually the figure I've seen for the 109K-4 is 390 mph max continous cruise, but it could only maintain that speed for about 20 minutes before running out of fuel (after climbing, dropping ext tank, and leaving enough to land). And to get that cruise speed it had to be high (thinner boundary layer and colder air). To get it's 45 minutes of patrol time (after dropping tank) it needed to cruise much slower. The 390 mph cruise is done at a relatively rich setting - German fuel was not so bad in the rich condition, but it was really poor in the lean condition.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



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

there you go lunatic, we welcome posts like that!


----------



## Soren (Jul 8, 2005)

> Two minutes was the maximum time the 109G6 was capable of full power operation in level flight, *according to the Soviets*.



Seriusly would you rely on Soviet data for any U.S. a/c ? no.  




> Yes MW50 could be used for 10 minutes - in a climb. However, at full level speed overheating became an issue. *I'm not sure if this was resolved or not in later 109G and K models*.



Must have been, cause the 109K-4 "Handbuch" mentions NO such limits at all.



> Actually, I believe the 109K had enough MW50 for four 10 minute WEP sessions, with 5 minutes at normal power being required between sessions?



Four 10min sessions ?!  

No it was only 2½ 10min sessions im afraid  The 109K-4 carried 26min worth of MW-50 fuel. (75 L.)



> Actually the figure I've seen for the 109K-4 is 390 mph max continous cruise, but it could only maintain that speed for about 20 minutes before running out of fuel (after climbing, dropping ext tank, and leaving enough to land). And to get that cruise speed it had to be high (thinner boundary layer and colder air). To get it's 45 minutes of patrol time (after dropping tank) it needed to cruise much slower. The 390 mph cruise is done at a relatively rich setting - German fuel was not so bad in the rich condition, but it was really poor in the lean condition.



 And just where did you acquire these figures ?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 10, 2005)

Im not sure. I am not saying that it would not overheat at 2 min. I just have not heard it. I am up for grabs on this one.


----------



## wmaxt (Jul 10, 2005)

I don't know what the limits are either, The P-51s and P-38J/Ls had extreamly efficient cooling systems even to the point they offset a portion of their drag. The P-51 with it's larger plenum was the best system but in some circumstances it still wasn't enough. The 5min max for Allied aircraft was more to avoid overstressing the engine than anything else, in a fight it was ignored.

In the late model German fighters I don't know but restrictions become much less important your desperate, airframe life is minimal, your right over your home field and you have more planes than qualified pilots. Then again those engines were built good enough there almost impossible to reproduce today.

wmaxt


----------



## Hop (Jul 11, 2005)

Remember cooling is as much to do with the radiators as it is engine power. Just because MW 50 use was permitted for 10 minutes doesn't mean the radiators could cope for that long.

AFAIK, the Germans did speed tests used closed radiators. With closed radiators, cooling is minimal, and the engine will overheat quickly.

So MW 50 might have been useable for 10 minutes, but after a short period you'd have to open the radiators, which would slow down the plane.

Spitfires could not fully close their radiators, they were always at least half open, so cooling (on the VIII/IX at least) was always sufficient. 

I believe most Mustang speed figures are also done with partially open radiators, a British test of a Mustang IV (P-51D) at 25 lbs boost notes cooling at the "normal" setting of 7.25" was inadequate, and 8.5" was used instead.



> Finally, you have any more info regarding the use of WEP for more than 5 minutes in the Mustang and late Spitfire?



There's this from US instructions to P-51 pilots:

"It is often asked what the consequences will be if the 5-minute limit at Take-off Power is exceeded. Another frequent inquiry is how long a period must be allowed after the specified time limit has elapsed until Take-off Power can be used. These questions are difficult to answer, since *the time limit specified does not mean that engine damage will occur if the limit is exceeded. Instead, the limit means that the total operating time at high power should be kept to a reasonable minimum in the interest of prolonging engine life. *

It is generally accepted that high-power operation of an engine results in increased wear and necessitates more frequent overhaul than low-power operation. However, it is apparent that a certain percentage of operating time must be at full power. The engine manufacturer allows for this in qualification tests in which much of the running is done at Take-off Power to prove ability to withstand the resulting loads. It is established in these runs that the engine will handle sustained high power without damage. Nevertheless, it is still the aim of the manufacturer and to the best interest of the pilot to keep within reasonable values the amount of high-power time accumulated in the field. The most satisfactory method for accomplishing this is to establish time limits that will keep pilots constantly aware of the desire to hold high-power periods to the shortest period that the flight plan will allow, so that the total accumulated time and resulting wear can be kept to a minimum. *How the time at high power is accumulated is of secondary importance; i.e., it is no worse from the standpoint of engine wear to operate at Take-off Power for one hour straight than it is to operate in twelve 5-minute stretches, provided engine temperatures and pressures are within limits.* In fact, the former procedure may even be preferable, as it eliminates temperature cycles which also promote engine wear. *Thus if flight conditions occasionally require exceeding time limits, this should not cause concern so long as constant effort is made to keep the over-all time at Take-off Power to the minimum practicable.* "



> However, when I came accross the Bf-109 dara things didn't make that much sense. If the spitfire cooling is better, how comes it has a lower maximum cruising speed?



It didn't. 

The problem is the definition of "cruise" can be very different to different people. The Spitfire LF VIII (basically the same as the IX, slightly heavier, but retracting tail wheel) had a speed of 386 mph at it's 1 hour rating, ie it could maintain 386 mph for an hour. (and the amount of fuel used at that speed means it wouldn't have had sufficient fuel to maintain that speed for an hour)



> On the other hand I think that data should be taken with caution. The cruise velocities for a G-2 were much lower (I checked on the manual).



Cruise is normally a setting designed to balance speed with range, these high cruise figures are the fastest it's possible to maintain for a considerable period, and not by any stretch of the term "normal".



> Depends on the Aircraft. The Spitfire and the Bf-109 and Fw-190A stayed pretty close to each other on performance, the Fw-190D and Ta-152 overtook the Spitfire pretty much on performance.



The Spitfire was both faster and had a better climb rate than the 190D. Only at extreme altitudes, above 30,000ft, did the handfull of Ta 152s built outperform the Spitfire XIV. Below that the Spitfire was faster with a higher climb rate. The Ta 152 was really a specialist aircraft designed to operate at extreme altitude, it's performance at the actual altitudes combat was taking place at was no more than average by 1944 standards.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 11, 2005)

Exactly and the same goes for the Fw-190 and even Bf-109G and K.


----------



## alejandro_ (Jul 12, 2005)

Hop

Thank you for that info on the P-51 engine WEP. I assume the conditions would be similar for the Griffon engines in the Spitfires.



> Remember cooling is as much to do with the radiators as it is engine power. Just because MW 50 use was permitted for 10 minutes doesn't mean the radiators could cope for that long





From this statement I understand that you cannot apply MW-50 for long periods at full power. Do you have any german data for this point? the only place were I read about the engine overheating were soviet tests, and the model tested was a G-6, which didn't have MW-50 -the G-6 with it was named G-6/AS-.

Regards.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 12, 2005)

I have read that the 109G could overheat from sitting at fly on ground for too long on really hot days. Whether this is true or not I do not know. Anyone know?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 12, 2005)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> I have read that the 109G could overheat from sitting at fly on ground for too long on really hot days. Whether this is true or not I do not know. Anyone know?



Actually any recip could overheat at idle on the ground on a hot day!


----------



## Hop (Jul 12, 2005)

> From this statement I understand that you cannot apply MW-50 for long periods at full power.



I think you can, provided the engine doesn't get too hot. And to stop it getting too hot you have to open the radiators more, which means you can't go as fast.

In other words, the German speed figures can only be achieved for short periods. Even if you can run at the required power settings for longer, you have to open the radiators to do so, and the published German speed figures are usually obtained with both maximum power and closed radiators.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 13, 2005)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Actually any recip could overheat at idle on the ground on a hot day!



That is what I always though atleast. So did the 109G overheat quicker than others or is this just a statement about a 109G.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 13, 2005)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> FLYBOYJ said:
> 
> 
> > Actually any recip could overheat at idle on the ground on a hot day!
> ...



I never heard that the -109 overheated quicker (or later) than allied contemporaries.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 13, 2005)

I am going to have to find where I read that. I am just trying to see if anyone else knows anything else about it because it really is the first time that I read that.


----------



## alejandro_ (Jul 14, 2005)

The Bf-109G/K had some issues that should be taken into account when comparing to the Spitfire. By the end of the war the materials and productiom standards were becoming poorer:



> Another point to consider here is the following; *the K-4 may have been the latest variant of the venerable 109 but it was above all a product of Germany's late-war industry ..with all the associated quality control problems.. accounts from pilots who flew K-4s in late April 1945 list an array of defects..aircraft poorly trimmed, instruments incorrectly calibrated, no oxygen and no master compass...* With chaos reigning as Hartmann's unit fell back before the Russians is it likely that he would take off in an aircraft that would potentially let him down....but of course we'll never know...



http://members.aol.com/falkeeins/Sturmgruppen/hartmann.html

The second issue is maneouvrability; at high speeds the late G and K had improved over previous versions but at medium and low regimes it was worse. 

It would be nice if somebody can provide more data on these issues.

Regards.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 14, 2005)

I can actually believe that. They were getting desperate at that time of the war.


----------



## TenGunTerror (Jul 1, 2009)

In terms of air victories alone, it is the Hurricane by a landslide.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 2, 2009)

TenGunTerror said:


> In terms of air victories alone, it is the Hurricane by a landslide.




*07-14-2005, 08:18 AM *


----------



## trackend (Jul 2, 2009)

All I can say on the subject of cooking is on the WT at the Duxford's spring show after 9 minutes sitting at the ready on the runway all three spites started to complain that they needed to get in the air as the engines were getting too warm, Two Merlins and one Griffon


----------



## Juha (Jul 2, 2009)

Hello
Quote from Dave Southwood, ex Black 6 display pilot on 109 engine overheating on ground: " in this respect it is at least as bad as a Mk IX Spitfire"

Juha


----------



## Gnomey (Jul 2, 2009)

TenGunTerror said:


> In terms of air victories alone, it is the Hurricane by a landslide.





FLYBOYJ said:


> *07-14-2005, 08:18 AM *



*STOP BUMPING OLD DEAD THREADS!!*


----------



## Marcel (Jul 3, 2009)

Gnomey said:


> *STOP BUMPING OLD DEAD THREADS!!*



Why? Some old subjects could be interesting enough to revive for newer members. If it shouldn't be revived, it should be closed, I think.


----------



## claidemore (Jul 3, 2009)

Nothing wrong with reviving an old thread, if there is new information, or some other good reason for it. I think many of us when we first joined these forums, found an old discussion that we were interested in and had further information to add. 

On the other hand, reading through multiple old threads and then replying to each of them with a short comment, is really a form of flooding. 

I believe that was the reason for the instruction to stop bumping old threads. 

Claidemore

PS. Ironically, every time we respond to this particular old dead thread, we are guilty of bumping it one more time!


----------



## Gnomey (Jul 3, 2009)

Marcel said:


> Why? Some old subjects could be interesting enough to revive for newer members. If it shouldn't be revived, it should be closed, I think.



It is not that it shouldn't be revived. If there is something interesting to be added then by all means add it. It is the bumping of old threads with pointless and relatively meaningless comments which add nothing to the discussion that annoy both Joe and I.



claidemore said:


> Nothing wrong with reviving an old thread, if there is new information, or some other good reason for it. I think many of us when we first joined these forums, found an old discussion that we were interested in and had further information to add.
> 
> On the other hand, reading through multiple old threads and then replying to each of them with a short comment, is really a form of flooding.
> 
> ...



Exactly Claidemore. And yes we should stop bumping it unless someone has an interesting tidbit to provide.


----------

