1940: ideal fighter for the Luftwaffe?

[Shortround6]

I did a comparison a while ago in a rather long thread that compared the 109 to the Spitfire (maybe? many threads that start about other things turn into 109 vs Spitfire debates) I will try to find it. Data was taken from the 109F-4 data sheets for cruise and from a page in one of Alfred Prices books that was supposed to copy recommended speed/altitude cruise for the Spitfire using various rpm/boost settings and giving the fuel burn for each.

 

[Vincenzo]

i've a digital copy of pilot notes for Spit V (i think is not all, too few page) is reported 67 galls for hour at setting for max rich continuos (+7 lbs and 2650 rpm) and 84 galls for hour at setting for climbing (1 hour limit, +9 lbs and 2850 rpm)

 

[riacrato]

They may be later in timing but there is no change in the laws in the laws of physics or aerodynamics that would have prevented them from being developed earlier.

And by that logic, I see no reason Germany could not have fielded the Me 262... no, the Eurofighter Typhoon... in 1940.

 

[davebender]

Couldn't do that even if supplied with blueprints and a set of production jigs. Airframe and avionics contain too many components that are impossible to duplicate during 1940.

Me-262 and Jumo 004 engines are possible though.

 

[Shortround6]

And by that logic, I see no reason Germany could not have fielded the Me 262... no, the Eurofighter Typhoon... in 1940.

OK maybe I exaggerated a little, but you don't need laminar flow wings or a Meredith effect radiator like on a P-51 to do a whole lot better than the 109E. AS is proven by the 109F. The MC 202 din't used any advanced aerodynamic tricks did it? Please compare speed and power of the "E" to the Spitfire and the P-40 and consider their size and weight. P-40 can't climb for beans but at over 3/4 ton heavier and with a wing about 33% bigger than the 109E the "E" sure isn't impressing me with it's aerodynamic efficiency.

 

[tomo pauk]

What is this for an argumentation at 1940?
Wether the Ki61 nor the MC 202 could be compared the Bf 109 E3/4 at 1940!
The Ki 61 had no DB 601 A from 1940 with no water pressure cooling and at the Macci had the worst armament and was as short legged as the Bf 109E3/4!

1st and foremost, sentences ending with full stops would more likely to succeed convincing the other party in the debate that your points are of greater merit. Unlike the sentences ending with exclamation mark
IIRC the pressure water cooling was introduced from DB-601E, not the 601N and earlier. The comparison of the foreign figters vs. the Emil was there to show that Emil, for all of it's virtues, was not the pinnacle of the DB-601A-N powered fighters. Struts supporting the stabilators, fixed tailwheel, non streamlined front end, edgy canopy, un-balanced armament - there was plenty of items to improve. And most of them were improved, in Germany proper, in 1940, while foreign fighters were also far more streamlined machines than Emil. And there was no great new technology applied on those fighters.

Oh realy?! Sorry for the sarcasm but the enemy fighter was the Spitfire what is at the defensive role and only the performance of the Spitfire counts, all other fighter a/c's are none to less important at 1940 if we compare to BoB as the most important battle!

Sure enough, you know that Spitfires were far less numerous fighters from the BoB trio?
Further, a fighter that can chase Spitfire until it reaches, say, Conventry, is what was good for the LW. And it was not available.

No I have choosen exactly the right example, because the P40 has the requirements you are thinking should be needed for a german fighter, but to my opinion a 1940 Mai to June produced Tomohawk would be toast; minced meat; etc to both the Bf 109 E and Spitfire in every role and especially if the Spit and Me are at the defensive role.

Here we disagree. See above - a fighter with 150 US gals is what was needed for LW in BoB, not a fighter with 100 gals.

The JG 27 had the Bf 109 E7 till September 1941 at the desert and weather the Tomohawk or the Kittyhawk could realy match with the JG 27! All other claims are myths, please read sources which has done researches on the officialy loss lists. An April 1940 produced Tomohawk had no single chance to be a succeed escort fighter against this two birds!

LW of the 1940 have had it almost all - seasoned pilots, 4-finger tactics, Freijagd concept (until it was invoked), numbers, capable planes. They did not have the fighter with big footprint, that would prevent RAF from retreating and striking back. In N. Africa, they have the increased footprint fighter (barely), they lack the numbers, but they still have the tactical edge. RAF/RAAF/SAAF have, mostly, only the numbers, but not overwhelmingly. No wonder LW racked scores.

I think that a A6M Model 11 would be toast too at August 1940 over England against the Bf 109E , Hurricane or Spitfire.
The A6M was worst at the sticks above 400 km/h where the Spit and Me had there best performance. And you should think about the reality that german fighters always to favor boom and zoom tactics, because no single fighter of germany at WWII was a turn fighter!

Since the A6M was a tough game even for the Spit V, let alone for the Hurri, perhaps it would not be such a toast? Of course, the RAF was supported by far better early warning system than it was case for Australia (Darwin), so their fighters should be able to climb in timely manner?
No need to remind me about the boom'n'zoom applied by LW pilots, we all know that

The Zero would be out speeded out climbed and attacked from altitude the same as the P40 with no realy chance to have an adaquared answer. The air war at ETO at 1940 was totaly different and in a totaly other leage as the war at pacific at the same time or one year later!

While I can agree that Zero would be slower than the Spit, it took time for people to build a fighter to outclimb the Zero. And, since it would be flying at 15-20000 ft when crossing the Channel, the tactical advantage is already there (so we can trade climb rate for some armor?) - as experienced during the Darwin air raids. The air war int the PTO was very like the ETO - Axis forces trying to bomb the other into submission.

Your whole argumentation based on 1941 but not on 1940!

No, not really.

And by the way no Bf 109F was operational 1940 the first JG with Bf 109F were at March-April 1941!

Covered by Milosh.

 

[Shortround6]

i've a digital copy of pilot notes for Spit V (i think is not all, too few page) is reported 67 galls for hour at setting for max rich continuos (+7 lbs and 2650 rpm) and 84 galls for hour at setting for climbing (1 hour limit, +9 lbs and 2850 rpm)

OK, it took me a while to find the old post; #243 in the "Was the corsair as good a fighter as the spitfire or the FW?" thread.

Bf109F-4 at 1000meters

315kph/196mph for a fuel burn of 120liters/26.4imp gal, 101 miles per 100lbs of fuel
425kph/264mph for a fuel burn of 215liters/47.3imp gal, 76 miles per 100lbs of fuel

Spitfire MK V at 2000ft/606 meters
.
327.4kph/203mph for a fuel burn of 140.9liters/31imp gal, 89.8 miles per 100lbs of fuel
377.4kph/234mph for a fuel burn of 159liters/35imp gal, 91.7 miles per 100lbs of fuel
411.3kph/255mph for a fuel burn of 191liters/42imp gal, 83miles per 100lbs of fuel

Bf109F-4 at 3000meters

370kph/230mph for a fuel burn of 130liters/28.6imp gal, 109.7 miles per 100lbs of fuel.
465kph/289mph for a fuel burn of 210liters/46.2imp gal, 85.5 miles per 100lbs of fuel.

Spitfire MK V at 10,000ft/3048 meters.

362kph/225mph for a fuel burn of 132liters/29imp gal, 106.2 miles per 100lbs of fuel.
452kph/281mph for a fuel burn of 191liters/42imp gal, 91.5 miles per 100lbs of fuel.

Bf109F-4 at 5000 meters

400kph/248mph for a fuel burn of 145liters/31.9imp gal, 106.5 miles per 100lbs of fuel.
505kph/314mph for a fuel burn of 250liters/55imp gal,,, 78 miles per 100lbs of fuel.

Spitfire MK V at 20,000ft/6096 meters.

423kph/263mph for a fuel burn of 164liters/36imp gal, 100 miles per 100lbs of fuel.
483kph/300mph for a fuel burn of 209liters/46imp gal, 89.3 miles per 100lbs of fuel.

Bf109F-4 at 7000 meters

410kph/255mph for a fuel burn of 130liters/28.6imp gal, 121.6 miles per 100lbs of fuel.
510kph/317mph for a fuel burn of 210liters/46.2imp gal, 94 miles per 100lbs of fuel.

Bf109F-4 at 9000 meters

490kph/305mph for a fuel burn of 185liters/40.7imp gal, 102.7 miles per 100lbs of fuel.
540kph/336mph for a fuel burn of 220liters/48.4imp gal, 95.2 miles per 100lbs of fuel.

Spitfire MK V at 30,000ft/9144 meters.

455kph/283mph for a fuel burn of 186.4liters/41imp gal, 94.6 miles per 100lbs of fuel.
539kph/335mph for a fuel burn of 214liters/47imp gal, 97.6 miles per 100lbs of fuel.

I doubt the MK V Spit was lower drag than the MK I or II while we know that the 109F had lower drag than the 109E.

Granted this is more a measure of the total propulsive efficiency of the planes than a true measure of drag but I figure the work done ( fuel used ?) averaged over a large enough set of conditions should come somewhat close.

 

[davebender]

Germany had no pre-war plans to fight Britain. So why would they design aircraft for that purpose during 1937?

However if range/endurance is your priority then why not build an aircraft with 1,100 liters of internal fuel such as the Fw-187? And if you/RLM don't like the Fw-187 then why not build the Me-110 in larger numbers so it doesn't have to fight badly outnumbered most of the time?

 

[Milosh]

Germany had no pre-war plans to fight Britain. So why would they design aircraft for that purpose during 1937?

But Germany did have plans to invade the Soviet Union.

 

[davebender]

Contingency plans prove nothing. I wouldn't be surprised if the USA still has contingency plans to invade Canada. That doesn't mean we intend to execute those plans. They are for emergency (or retaliatory) use only.

 

[tyrodtom]

Contingency plans prove nothing. I wouldn't be surprised if the USA still has contingency plans to invade Canada. That doesn't mean we intend to execute those plans. They are for emergency (or retaliatory) use only.

How about Gen. Wever's "Ural bomber" the Ju 89. Just a name I suppose.

 

[The Basket]

Range was never a European thing and it showed in many designs. The 109 and Spitfire were both designed to be underpowered so we're designed to be very light on fuel and it wasn't a design feature anyway. America is far bigger and thinking of pacific combat meant more range.

More fuel meant a big heavy aircraft which would have been a slug with an engine like the Kestrel Goshawk or Jumo 210.

Twins had more range as they could be physically bigger so the Bf 110 was very much forward thinking as the weaknesses in range of the 109 was answered by the 110. I must say that I believe one needs to give the 110 far more kudos as a design and as a concept than is given.

 

[stona]

The Luftwaffe didn't have aircraft with longer ranges due to one word....."doctrine". The Germans were never going to build one in the late thirties because they didn't envisage a scenario where they would need one.

The RAF didn't have fighters with longer range because they were designed as interceptors to counter the nightmare bombing scenario that was prevalent in the minds of politicians and senior military men during the 1920/30s. They were designed to defend against bombers coming across the Channel or North Sea in conjunction with a Command and Control system which is the model for all modern systems.They did that very well.

Cheers

Steve

 

[cimmex]

Sorry, I do not understand the whole sense of this thread. Why in 1940 Germany should want a new fighter. The Bf109E was one of the best planes in the world. The design of the F model is already finished and production is already prepared. Please try to imagine a view of 1940 and not from today.
cimmex

 

[stona]

Sorry, I do not understand the whole sense of this thread. Why in 1940 Germany should want a new fighter. The Bf109E was one of the best planes in the world. The design of the F model is already finished and production is already prepared. Please try to imagine a view of 1940 and not from today.
cimmex

Yes,but its shortcomings became all to evident in 1940 during the BoB.
The Spitfire's shortcomings were similarly highlighted the following year.
These failings had little to do with the design of the aircraft but rather their inability to perform roles for which they were not intended.
Cheers
Steve

 

[cimmex]

"Yes,but its shortcomings became all to evident in 1940 during the BoB."
You are right of course but this showed up in fall 1940, to have a suitable fighter in 1940 you have to start development many years before without that knowledge.
Ok those "what ifs" are not my world, I'm more interested in (technical) facts, have fun...
cimmex

 

[stona]

I tend to agree. Decisions were,and are,made for all sorts of military and political reasons.The results were that in 1940 the Luftwaffe was operating the Bf 109 E as it primary single engined fighter.
That's how it was.Different decisions may have led to something different though it is unlikely to have changed the final outcome of the conflict. I do not subscribe to the view that wars (not battles) are won by narrow margins (what ifs like a drop tank on the Bf 109, or real differences like the availability of 100 octane fuel for the RAF etc).
Hindsight is a wonderful luxury.
Cheers
Steve

 

[The Basket]

Incorrect.

Germans did have a doctrine for a long range fighter.

It was called the Bf 110.

 

[stona]

And what exactly was the Bf 110 designed to do?

As a "zerstorer" it fitted with the Luftwaffe doctrine exactly. It would be a huge leap to describe the Bf 110 in 1940 as a long range air superiority fighter or escort fighter in the way we would later describe the P-51.
It was forced into this role (maybe not strictly "long range") in 1940 and didn't do too well.

Between May and September 1940 the Luftwaffe lost 57% of its initial strength in single engined fighters. For twin engined fighters this figure is a staggering 94%. I wouldn't have wanted to fly a Bf 110 over Britain. The percentage of operationally ready crews gives a clue as to your likely fate. In July 1940 this stood at 84% but by September had fallen to 60%.

Cheers

Steve

 

[Vincenzo]

OK, it took me a while to find the old post; #243 in the "Was the corsair as good a fighter as the spitfire or the FW?" thread.

I doubt the MK V Spit was lower drag than the MK I or II while we know that the 109F had lower drag than the 109E.

Granted this is more a measure of the total propulsive efficiency of the planes than a true measure of drag but I figure the work done ( fuel used ?) averaged over a large enough set of conditions should come somewhat close.

thanks, maybe i not understand what's the source for Spit V data?