Best ETO fighter from 1939-1942

[Soren]

Marcel for your first question read my latest post.

 

[Marcel]

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

 

[claidemore]

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

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

Both the Spit and 109 were at 3000rpm for takeoff, and the Spit reduced to 2650rpm for manuevers. We can't tell from this that the 109 was NOT run at full power, and in fact, during the turn tests, it is indicated that both planes were run at full throttle. (see next argument.)

Also noteworthy would be the alt at which these tests were carried out, cause if at high alt (Which is most likely the case as it was an unfamiliar aircraft, thus room is needed in an emergency) the Spitfire's performance was better, while it was the opposite at low alt.

If we're taking about turn tests here: Turn comparisons were at 12000 ft in the RAE tests with both airplanes at full throttle.
If we're talkfing about speed test, they don't mention in the RAE test what alt the speed comparisons were made, but the German tests do. 20kmh advantage for 109 at sea level, and 10 kmh at 4000m. (this is against an early model 2 speed , [2 blade?]prop Spitifre)
Other German flight test data indicate speeds of 342-355 mph at 14-16k alt. French tests show a speed of 355 at 16k for 109E3.
Spitfire tests, with the variable pitch 3 blade props used during BoB, show speeds of 355-360 at 17-18k.
Sea level speed of 109's during 1940 (from german sources) show speeds of 280-290mph. Sea level speed of Spitfire Mk1 from 1940 show sea level speeds of 288-314 mph. That would be a low alt advantage for the Spitfire.

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

I don't think it's fair to use 'most likely' as an argument, really that's just an assumption or 'best guess'. You may be right, or you may be wrong. However, if we look at the wording from the German test:

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

As far as pilot opinions about turn rates, here are some other accounts:

J

effrey Quill wrote of his combat experience whilst flying with No. 65 Squadron:

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. (...) One engagement with several Me 109s at about 25,000 ft over the Channel sticks in my memory. It all happened very suddenly; in fact we were mildly 'bounced' and soon I found myself behind two 109s in a steep left-hand turn. I was able to turn inside the second one and fired at him from close range. He went on pulling round as sharply as he could. I followed him without any difficulty and went on firing bursts at him. There were puffs of black smoke and then a trail of white vapour streamed from his aircraft. By this time I could no longer see the first 109 and then realized that he was on my tail. As I was by now just shuddering on the verge of a g-stall, I quickly turned inwards and dived. I pulled up again when I was sure I had shaken him off... I was pleased with that little episode – partly because I was damn sure that the first 109 was not going to get home and also because I was now convinced that the Spitfire Mk I could readily out-turn the 109, certainly in the 20,000 ft region and probably at all heights.

F/Lt Al Deere (NZ), with No. 54 Squadron during the Battle of Britain, commented:

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. And this I did, as the German pilot flashed past, turning as he did so to get behind me. But it was I who finished astern of him. The rest was easy.

And best of all:

F/Sgt William H. Franklin of No. 65 Squadron recorded in his Combat Report for 25 June 1940:

65 Squadron on offensive patrol North of Abbeville sighted about 12 ME.109 at about 15,000 feet. We attacked per section, I was Blue 2. An enemy aircraft circled on to my sections tail and I broke away to engage, but Blue 3 got there before me. I was then attacked by 2 enemy aircraft, and turned sharply to get on the tail of one. I manoevured into position on his tail and fired a very short burst at about 200 yards. Enemy aircraft burst into flames and dived vertically. I was now engaged by second enemy aircraft. I manoevured onto his tail, as 2 other enemy aircraft attacked me from the rear. I broke away and after considerable manoevuring we had lost height to 4000 feet. One Me.109 again attacked from behind but I was able to turn slightly and get on his tail. I followed him as he turned and seeing me closing on him he half rolled. This brought the other two aircraft out of position for attack on me. I followed inside the first enemy aircraft and fired two very short bursts at about 250 yards and I saw enemy aircraft dive into the ground.

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

And last but not least:

Heinz Knoke was still flying a Me 109 E4 with II/JG 52 over England in May 1941 when he wrote of the Spitfires he encountered:

The bastards can make such infernally tight turns; there seems to be no way of nailing them.
The War Diary of I/JG 3 entry for 31 August 1940 states:

The Spitfires turn very well even at higher altitudes and tighter than the Bf 109.

I apologize for any confusion using quotes from original postings, I'm not fully conversant with using them on these forums.

 

[Soren]

Claidemore,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Glider]

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

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

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

 

[Soren]

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

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

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

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

Remember things look very different from inside the cockpit!

 

[claidemore]

Soren:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Glider]

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

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

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

Remember things look very different from inside the cockpit!

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

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

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

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

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Lets see some sources then...

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

 

[Glider]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Kurfürst]

Soren:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Glider]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Its a silly kneejerk stuff, selective and one sided like the ones aircraft fans produce in discussion boards, actually the only interesting part in are the pilot quotes,

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

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

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

 

[Kurfürst]

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

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

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

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

Physics just work the same everywhere.

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Glider]

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

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

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

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

Physics just work the same everywhere.

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

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

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

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

 

[Njaco]

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

 

[Soren]

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


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

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

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

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

 

[claidemore]

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

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

 

[claidemore]

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

Thanks

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

 

[kool kitty89]

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

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

 

[Kurfürst]

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

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

So how much representative is that..?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I don`t doubt it. What it does prove though is that were at least 4-cannon Spits at Malta. On that famous photo on their Malta trip, I can see about half a dozen.

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

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

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

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