Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
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:
Jeffrey 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.
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.
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.
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.The problem with what you have presented is that it's all claims and heresay and is completely unsupported.
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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
Glider said:The sources that I used for the British combat experience has already been posted but for completeness is repeated here Spitfire Mk IX versus Me 109 G - Flight Testing
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.
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.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?
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.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.)
Its the pilot quotes that I used.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,
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.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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.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.
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... 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.
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.Physics just work the same everywhere.
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.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!
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.
PS: Ever read Len Deighton's book about the Spit 109?? It has the accurate figures in it.
regarding the fuel, what effect would the different carbuerators have on these machines in a turn?
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
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.
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.
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.
Re Galland you know and I know that Galland also made compimentary comments about the Spitfire.