Best ETO fighter from 1939-1942

[eddie_brunette]

P38 for me.

BTW: It is amazing how people dont like the P40. I know it is not the best here, but that plane never gets recognition.(then again same for F6F, the Mustang gets all the glory, and I'm sure the F6F is much better dogfighter than overated P51)

 

[Hop]

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..?

Just to make it clear, Kurfurst's source for this claim is a post on another forum by someone who claimed to have seen such information in the Australian archives. He didn't have any of the information from the archives, he was quoting from memory.

The post was several years ago, he promised to find information to back up his claims, but still hasn't done so.

The information that shows FC did totally switch to 100 octane fuel ranges from Wood and Dempster, who write in The Narrow Margin:

As it turned out, aviation spirit was to prove no worry for the RAF. By July 11th, the day after the Battle of Britain opened, stocks of 100 octane petrol used in the Merlin engine stood at 343,000 tons. On October 10th, 21 days before the battle closed, and after 22,000 tons had been issued, stocks had risen to 424,000 tons. With other grades of aviation spirit total stocks available on 10th October 1940 was 666,000 tons

The Narrow Margin is one of the classic works on the BoB, and one Kurfurst is happy to use for a reference when it suits him. When it doesn't, he would much rather believe unsourced comments on a forum.

The 22,000 tons Wood and Dempster refer to equals 6,844,444 imperial gallons. The Spitfire and Hurricane each carried just over 80 gallons, but I'll assume 90 gallons per sortie (they didn't have drop tanks, so that's the maximum they could use on a sortie).

That's enough fuel for 76,050 sorties, assuming every sortie drained the tanks.

In fact, between the dates Wood and Dempster mention, Fighter Command flew about 50,500 sorties.

Apart from Wood and Dempster, Mike Williams has collected combat reports from Spitfire squadrons: Spitfire Mk I versus Me 109 E

Last time I checked, he had combat reports from all but one of the Spitfire squadrons showing the use of 100 octane fuel.

 

[Glider]

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..?

I think Hops posting covers this item

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.

I admit this is new to me. My understanding was that the DB 605 was designed to run on 87 octane fuel (known as B4 fuel I believe) and later in 1944 was upgraded in to run on 96 octane fuel. As we are talking about 1942 this leaves the 109 with 87 Octane fuel. With your knowledge of the 109 I would expect you to know that, unless of course I am wrong again in which case assuming you can prove the point I will defer to your knowledge.

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?

Sorry SOren but yes I did. The climb was impacted but everything else was described as 'no noticable difference between this aeroplane and other Spitfire V types.'
Source Spitfire Mk.Vc AA.873 Report

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...

I always said that this was something I remembered. In fact the actual figure I remembered was 385lb for the whole installation but was happy to be corrected. 45kg for the bottle is around 90lb. Less than I expected, but I am not going to argue.

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.

I am certainly not going to disagree that the 4 x 20mm gun was unusual but it certainly happened. I have also seen photo's of Mk VIII and Mk IX's with 4 x 20, unusual, certainly, but it happened.
PS acording to the book Malta The Spitfire Years, all the aircraft on the second mission from the Wasp were equipped with 4 x 20, which is a lot more than half a dozen.


The problem here was that you originally stated that it couldn't be armed with 4 x 20 as the wings couldn't take the stress. No evidence was given by you for that statement.
I said it could and you blamed another site (which you are always quick to do) but my evidence came from a book details. You didn't give any evidence for your statement.
You asked for page no details which I gave and life went quiet.
Now you say its only a half dozen Spits with 4 x 20, again with no evidence.

It the same story on other point in this thread.
On my statement on the 100 octane improved performance you disbelieved me and blamed another site again. Unfortunately my source was independent and unquestioned.
You now say that the Germans had 100 octane fuel before the British again without any source.
Youa also state that FC only had 25% of its force using 100 octane again without any source.

There is a trend here Kurfurst or am I the only person to spot it (along with if I may say, Hop).

By the way I do have someone who works with me who is Hungarian so please send that page you have.

Many thanks

 

[Soren]

Sorry SOren but yes I did. The climb was impacted but everything else was described as 'no noticable difference between this aeroplane and other Spitfire V types.'
Source Spitfire Mk.Vc AA.873 Report

??????

 

[kool kitty89]

Yeah that was a quote from Kurfürst...

From what I've read the Spitfire did get stiffened wings since the wing tips were twisting in high-speed rolls this was a particular problem with the higher speeds possible with the Griffon Spits. (clipped wings didn't have this problem though)

The 4x 20mm cannon armament wasn't too powerful for the wing structure to handel but firing them did cause the wings to twist and the a/c was generally not a very stable platform for this armament. (the Fw 190 had similar problems mounting 30mm MK 108 wing guns) The spitfire was also a bit light toremain stable with 4x 20mm cannons firing even if the wings didn't twist. The Hurricane Mk.IIC was not particularly stable in firing either, though not as bad as the spit it would not have been good for dogfights. (probably decent aganst bombers) But the 2x 20mm and 2x .50 cal armament is probably the most practical.


I'll also agree that the P-40 was possibly the most important a/c in the USAAF inventory up to 1942. It was available in more numbers than any other aircraft and had decent range and armament. Plus the Merling engined varients as well as the V-1710-81 powered P-40M/N had decent performance up to 18,000 ft. (though the M/N didn't apear until 1943 and the M was predominantly an export model) It held ground for the USAAF (particularly in the Pacific) when nothing better was available in numbers. The early P-38 was better in almost all ways (except in ease of maintainence, and training) but there weren't all that many available and they were needed even more in the Pacific.

The P-39 could have been a good early war contender but the USAAC ruined it. Not just the removal of the turbo but the other changes the AAC made in the name of streamlining. The wings were shortened (decreasing lift and lift-drag ratio and limiting climb and turn rates, room for growth in weight, and the amount of space wor internal stores or possibly underwing stores) they shrank the canopy making the cockpit cramped for anyone taller than 5"8" and they lengthened the rear fusalage messing up CoG and giving the Airacobra its trademark instability.

 

[Glider]

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...

Kurfurst
I have continued to look into this and admit I haven't found anywhere that states the 385lb that I remembered.

I have however found a source giving the weight of the GM-1 installation in a Ju88S. This is of course going to be a lot larger than the weight in a 109, but the figures are interesting.

The complete installation (dry) weighed 400lb, plus 900lb being the weight of the Nitros Oxide assuming full tanks which were 75 gallons. This is a total weight of 1,300lb.

The figure I had in mind is about 30% of this which sounds possible for a 109 sized installation.
If you could give me your source for the tank only weight of 45kg it might help us get to the bottom of the question.
My source is Janes Fighting Aircraft of WW2 page 297.

 

[broke91hatch]

I had to go with the 109. Just the staggering amount of losses they inflicted, they dominated the skies in the early stages of the war.

 

[Glider]

I had to go with the 109. Just the staggering amount of losses they inflicted, they dominated the skies in the early stages of the war.

And you have every right to make that statement, the 109 is the plane to beat in the first few years of the war.

I would take the 109E over the Spit Ia for sure.

 

[kool kitty89]

Why not the Fw 190? The only major problem the early 190 had was altitude performance above 20,000 ft. And the A-4 onward (arguably) had the heaviest armament of any fighter at the time. (the outer wing MG-FF cannons were poor with much lower muzzel velocity and ROF than the MG 151/20's or Hispano-based 20mm guns, but the wing root MG 151/20's were almost as good as Hispano Guns and were mounted on the centerline -being more accurate and concentrated) It was also tougher than most other ETO a/c and had a decent range.

As a bomber interceptor, the modest high-alt performance was countered by the heavy armament, making it still more deadly than 109 of the same time, and much tougher. Also there were very few escort fighters at the time and even if P-38s had been used they had problems at altitude as well, despite turbocharging. And below 18,000 ft (which could quickly be reached in maneuvering) the 190 could outfight just about any opponent at the time and it could easily brake off with its excellent roll and good dive speed.

 

[Glider]

I personally consider the 190 and the Spit IX to be a draw and if someone has a preference for the 190 over the Spit IX then I would not disagree. Personally I would go for the Spit IX over the 190 but its a preference. I am sure the pilots of both planes were confident that they were in the best fighters in the world, anywhere.

My comment was around the Spit Ia and the 109E, in which case I would go for the 109.

PS haven't heard from Kurfurst recently, have you?

 

[Soren]

He's probably forgotten about this thread, he's got lots of work to do for his website.

About the Fw-190 vs the Spit, well I'd take the Fw-190 for the simple reason that at high speeds it was allot more maneuverable, and considering it could out-turn and out-climb a P-51 at low to medium alt it was a very competitive fighter.

The brilliant and flawless kommandogerät of the Fw-190 also gives it a great advantage as prop pitch, fuel mixture etc etc is all out of the pilots mind and taken care of to perfection.

According to the Germans the Fw-190 kept its dominance over the Spitfire till the end, the Bf-109's esp. the Fw-190's racking up some VERY impressive tallies over the Channel in 43.

That having been said the Spitfire Mk.XIV was definitely superior to the Anton and a close equal to the Dora-9.

The Fw-190 Dora-9, Spitfire Mk.XIV F4U-4 Corsair are the three best massed produced piston engined fighters of the war IMO.

 

[Glider]

The Fw-190 Dora-9, Spitfire Mk.XIV F4U-4 Corsair are the three best massed produced piston engined fighters of the war IMO.

Have to agree with this.

PS apologies for the incorrect naming early in the thread

 

[Hop]

According to the Germans the Fw-190 kept its dominance over the Spitfire till the end, the Bf-109's esp. the Fw-190's racking up some VERY impressive tallies over the Channel in 43.

Source?

 

[Hunter368]

I was wondering how long that comment would go unchallanged by some Brit.

LOL

 

[kool kitty89]

The only thing the Spit IX could do better than the 190A (of the same period) in maneuvering was in a turn, the 190 could dive and roll (especially) better, and climb was similar. Though the Spitfire started to gain an advantage above the 190's ~19,000 ft critical altitude and above 25,000 ft would have a clear advantage. (as did the Merlin P-51's) But dogfights would quickly descend to lower altitudes where the 190 would have an advantage.

 

[claidemore]

The Spitfire Mk IX and FW190A were equal in climb only in the early production of Mk IXs with the Merlin 61. With the Merlin 66 and 70, the Spitfire had a marked climb advantage over the 190's and indeed most fighters till the end of the war. Best climb rate for a 190 would be 3200+ft/min, best climb rate for a MkIX would be 4700+ ft/min. No comparison.

The MkIX was also much superior in the climbing combat turn compared to the 190, 190s would always stall if they tried to follow a Spit in that maneuver.

The 190 had a faster intial dive, but the Spitfires max dive speed was comparable, and MkIX pilots had no trouble catching up to 190s that attempted to escape by diving.

In a dogfight at low altitude vs the Spit, the 190 was very much at a disadvantage, since it's best maneuver, the half-roll and dive, would be removed from the equation as alt got lower. There are plenty of reports of 190's not recovering from dives.

Most of the 190s success against Spitfires was against MkVs where it had large perfromance advantages. Once the Mk IX was in combat, the balance changed and got progressively worse for the 190 pilots. In fact some channel Jagedgeschwaders like JG2 switched from their 190As to late model 109s, and eventually to Dora 9's. (what's with that number 9?)

I'm not saying the 190 was completely dominated and decimated, they were still formidible fighters, but they certainly never again enjoyed air superiority as they had in their first operational year.

 

[Soren]

Claidemore,

The FW-190 A-5 climbed at over 4,100 ft/min, and top SL speed was 570+ km/h, allot faster than the Spitfire Mk.IX. Hence the high tally the FW-190 acquired itself against the Spitfire over the Channel.

There are plenty of reports of 190's not recovering from dives.

LoL, like one or possibly two ?

Claidemore the FW-190 had the lightest and best harmonized controls of ANY WW2 fighter, being capable of far more aggressive rolls pull outs than the Spitfire. Hence why the Split S maneuver was almost a foolproof escape maneuver for any 190 with a Spit on its tail, the Spitfire simply had no chance of following it.

Also you need to remember at which speeds the actual fighting was taking place, cause at these speeds the 190 was everybit as good a turn fighter as the Spitfire, hence why most German after action reports note Spitfires shot down in 'Kurvenkampf', directly translated turn or angles fighting.

and MkIX pilots had no trouble catching up to 190s that attempted to escape by diving.

That's definitely not true Claidemore! The FW-190 enjoyed a great advantage in dive acceleration and speed!

In short the FW-190A stayed superior to the Spitfire Mk.IX except in climb rate and low speed turn performance. Not that it matted since the Dora-9 saw service in 44 and was a far superior fighter to both.

 

[claidemore]

Claidemore,

The FW-190 A-5 climbed at over 4,100 ft/min, and top SL speed was 570+ km/h, allot faster than the Spitfire Mk.IX. Hence the high tally the FW-190 acquired itself against the Spitfire over the Channel.

4100 is still less than 4700, and the 190 loses climb speed quickly as alt increases (compared to a Spitfire. Mk IX's are still climbing at over 2000ft/min at 30000ft!) Also the MkIX was superior to the 190As above 28,000ft in every respect, with a service ceiling 4000 feet higher.
With 25lbs boost the MkIX was 354-358 mph @ SL, exactly the same as the 190A-5, and still faster at other altitudes. As you know, RAF also started using Spitfire Mk XIIs, Typhoons and Tempests against the low level hit and run raids by FW190s cross-channel.


LoL, like one or possibly two ?

Like half the accounts in the two Canadian Spitfire books by Robert Bracken.

Claidemore the FW-190 had the lightest and best harmonized controls of ANY WW2 fighter, being capable of far more aggressive rolls pull outs than the Spitfire. Hence why the Split S maneuver was almost a foolproof escape maneuver for any 190 with a Spit on its tail, the Spitfire simply had no chance of following it.

Yes, agreed, if it had enough height to do it without augering in.

But, we hear this argument a lot and it speaks volumes to me. The advantage of the 190 was in "escaping", a defensive attitude, not an offensive one.

Also you need to remember at which speeds the actual fighting was taking place, cause at these speeds the 190 was everybit as good a turn fighter as the Spitfire, hence why most German after action reports note Spitfires shot down in 'Kurvenkampf', directly translated turn or angles fighting.

Ditto for the Spit pilots.



That's definitely not true Claidemore! The FW-190 enjoyed a great advantage in dive acceleration and speed!

Great advantage in dive acceleration, slim advantage in dive speed. Trouble is, the ground is only so far away, and thats as far as you can dive. Once the 190 levels off, it starts to lose speed quickly. The Spit is still above it, and can maintain a shallow dive angle long enough to catch the 190. Not saying the 190s never got away, just that they didn't always get away. That's how the Spit 1s and Hurricanes often caught 109E's in BoB as well.

In short the FW-190A stayed superior to the Spitfire Mk.IX except in climb rate and low speed turn performance. Not that it matted since the Dora-9 saw service in 44 and was a far superior fighter to both.

There were plenty of other planes to fight the Dora, including Mk XIV Spits.

I don't know if any 190As shot down any MkXIV spits, but MkIXs definately got some long nosed 190s.

I liken the Spitfire Mk IX to the old saying, "God made all men equal, except for the Scots........... who he made just a wee bit better."

 

[Soren]

Claidemore,

The Spitfire Mk.IX boosted to +25 lbs/sq.in. didn't see service until late 44, and even then not many saw service. In 1943 when the FW-190 A-5 was in service it was much faster than the Spitfire Mk.IX then in service, and climb rate was similar.

If you want to compare late 1944 fighters we can do that as-well, as most German fighters by then were all over the Spitfire Mk.IX.

As for dive acceleration, again you're missing out. The FW-190 was ALLOT faster in a dive than the Spitfire, easily out-accelerating it and therefore hitting a higher speed in the end. If the Spitfire choose to do a shallow dive the 190 had successfully escaped.

As for 190's failing to pull out of a dive, well there are only a few incidents of this, and all where because of the pilot forgetting to trim back the incidence of their horizontal stabilizers, causing the a/c to nose over.

I'd like to the see the reports you talk of though..

Yes, agreed, if it had enough height to do it without augering in.

The 190 wouldn't need much height at all for that, infact at 450 km/h it would need just as much as the Spitfire and less as speed increases.

Like I said the FW-190 could do much more aggressive pull outs than the Spitfire, being capable of taking higher G loads and controls being much better harmonized.

And as for max dive speed, well the FW-190A was approved for 850 km/h (531.5 mph).

But, we hear this argument a lot and it speaks volumes to me. The advantage of the 190 was in "escaping", a defensive attitude, not an offensive one.

You've got to be kidding me!

The FW-190 was faster, dived faster, and was allot more maneuverable! It was a totally offensive type a/c, being more on the offensive against the Spitfire than vice versa as proven with the incredibly high tallies it achieved against it over the channel.

 

[drgondog]

The Spitfire Mk IX and FW190A were equal in climb only in the early production of Mk IXs with the Merlin 61. With the Merlin 66 and 70, the Spitfire had a marked climb advantage over the 190's and indeed most fighters till the end of the war. Best climb rate for a 190 would be 3200+ft/min, best climb rate for a MkIX would be 4700+ ft/min. No comparison.

The MkIX was also much superior in the climbing combat turn compared to the 190, 190s would always stall if they tried to follow a Spit in that maneuver.

The 190 had a faster intial dive, but the Spitfires max dive speed was comparable, and MkIX pilots had no trouble catching up to 190s that attempted to escape by diving.

In a dogfight at low altitude vs the Spit, the 190 was very much at a disadvantage, since it's best maneuver, the half-roll and dive, would be removed from the equation as alt got lower. There are plenty of reports of 190's not recovering from dives.

Most of the 190s success against Spitfires was against MkVs where it had large perfromance advantages. Once the Mk IX was in combat, the balance changed and got progressively worse for the 190 pilots. In fact some channel Jagedgeschwaders like JG2 switched from their 190As to late model 109s, and eventually to Dora 9's. (what's with that number 9?)

I'm not saying the 190 was completely dominated and decimated, they were still formidible fighters, but they certainly never again enjoyed air superiority as they had in their first operational year.

Good post. The Spit IX outclimbed the 51B-5 with both the 1650-3 and 1650-7 in it. It was only with 44-1 fuel, the -7 and 75" boost that the 51B got 4380 fpm with full Gross weight and racks at 9680 pounds..

And the 51B out climbed and was faster than the Fw 190A-5 at SL, at 20,000 feet and far better at 30,000 feet. It turned with it and the Spit outturned the Mustang. It turned with the 109 and the Spit IX out turned the 51B, until high speed and altitude, then they were very close.

But, all those Fw 190s and 109s must have gone down to acts of God, because no Allied fighter could touch their performance..