Best ETO fighter from 1939-1942

[Glider]

My belief ??? Its what the man says himelf Juha, it has nothing to do with my belief!

Geeez..

What people say is something to be treated with care. I have seen all sorts of claims which simply don't make sense and were impossible. Pilots swear that the enemy hit the ground and blew up, but no planes were lost.
A personal favourite is the P47 pilot who straffed a PzIV and swore he saw the tank turn on its side.

I am not saying that he was lying or misleading in any way, I am sure he believes it to be true but at the end of the day he was awarded three Spitfire and we all know from the stats, that in all probability at least one of those were likely to have got away with it.

 

[claidemore]

For the FW 190A3, if we go with 106 mph stall, I get 1.52 clmax. It used a NACA 23015.3 wing.

With 1.7 cl for the 109s, that puts stall speed at 94 mph.

From that report:

Of particular interest are the figures given in the German specifications as the smallest turning radius of the 109E.

These are, at Sea Level and at 6000 m, with and without deploying flaps to aid turning :

Without use of flaps :
at 0 m - 170 m (557 feet), at 6000 m (20 000 feet) - 320 m (1050 feet).

With use of flaps :
at 0 m - 125 m (410 feet), at 6000 m (20 000 feet) - 230 m (754 feet).

I don't read german, so I'm going with Kurfursts summation above. He says radius, not circumferance here. Did he goof?

 

[kool kitty89]

I still thought that the Mustang had a lower lift airfoil than the Spitfire, the P-51 using an altered laminar flow (low lift, low drag) airfoil, while the Spitfire used a similar airfoil as the P-40. (which was similar to the P-39 and P-38's as well iirc)

claidemore's figures on the Spit IX and Mustang III seem to agree with this.

 

[Soren]

Just to give a little insight into the effects of slats flaps on a Clark Y type airfoil here are the results from tests conducted by NACA:

 

[Glider]

Claidemore,

Read the report again:

Without use of flaps :
at 0 m - 170 m (557 feet)

With use of flaps :
at 0 m - 125 m (410 feet)

That's much lower than what the British achieved!

Which brings us back to the reality of what happened compared with the theory of what should have happened.
If we believe the theory that the 109 accelerates faster, dives faster, goes faster, climbs faster and now turns faster, why didn't they slaughter the Spitfire?

In the past I have asked for examples of German fighter pilots who believed that the 109 could turn inside the Spitfire and you have never come up with any examples. Only the two aces who appear to have at best, limited experience in this.
Indeed earlier in this thread you and I were asked to quote our sources, I did, you didn't.

An aside I am lucky enough to have a copy of the picture Duel of Eagles signed by Galland and Bader. In his book on painting aircraft, Richard Taylor explains that setting the aircraft to the satisfaction of the two pilots wasn't easy. In the end it shows the Spitfire in a tight turn and the 109 unable to follow. This was agreed by both pilots as showing the aircraft in a real setting and Bader commented that, the 109 would never get me in this situation.

 

[Soren]

Claidemore,

Kurfurst didn't goof anything up, you're just no reading what he wrote.

Without use of flaps :
at 0 m - 170 m (557 feet)

With use of flaps :
at 0 m - 125 m (410 feet)

Don't you notice the 557 ft radius achieved at SL without the use of slats ??

Why do you hang on to the figures achieved at 20,000 ft??

 

[claidemore]

Claidemore,

Kurfurst didn't goof anything up, you're just no reading what he wrote.

Without use of flaps :
at 0 m - 170 m (557 feet)

With use of flaps :
at 0 m - 125 m (410 feet)

Don't you notice the 557 ft radius achieved at SL without the use of slats ??

Why do you hang on to the figures achieved at 20,000 ft??

Uhmmmm, cause I was reading too fast and skipped the first numbers? lol

 

[claidemore]

The RAE turn times were done at 12000ft, right in between the two sets of numbers in the BAUBESCHREIBUNG test. When you look at it that way, they compare quite favorably I think.

 

[Soren]

Which brings us back to the reality of what happened compared with the theory of what should have happened.
If we believe the theory that the 109 accelerates faster, dives faster, goes faster, climbs faster and now turns faster, why didn't they slaughter the Spitfire?

As has been explained countles times by now many LW pilots in 1940, when the Emil was in service, were vary about the slats as they had a tendency to jam in tight turns, however some like Wolfrum, Leykauf Kaiser weren't vary about them knew of their benefits and therfore out-turned the Spitfires they encountered.

Also as has been explained countless times as-well, the Bf-109 Spitfire are VERY close when it comes to turn performance, the balance shifting back and forth through the different versions.

And as to the 109's record in the BoB, well it shot down more Spitfires Hurricanes than vice versa, pretty remarkable when one considers the very low time the 109's had over Britain. So this seems to suggest the 109 was slightly superior.

IMO the Bf-109 Spitfire are equal.

 

[claidemore]

Don't forget that in BoB the RAF was concentrating on bombers, they weren't just duking it out with 109s, so of course the 109s would get more RAF fighters than vice versa, the 109s weren't chasing bombers.

 

[kool kitty89]

So those are the German specificatons for the 109E. I assume the were from test trials and not calulation correct?

What are the RAF figures for the Spitfire Mk.I?

 

[claidemore]

Spitfire Mk I Performance Testing

Mike Williams site, very useful.

I did notice that the Spit turn figures were obtained at 68 degrees of bank, while the 109E figures were from 62 degrees of bank. That would make a bit of difference if they were both at exactly the same angle.

 

[Soren]

25 secs to complete a 360 turn ??

Come on Claidemore, that's proof enough that the British weren't pushing it in the 109!

The Soviets could do a 360 in a Fw-190A-6 in just 22 secs.

 

[kool kitty89]

The roles of the 109 and Spitfie would have been better suited in the reverse. The Spitfire having a better Fighter vs Fighter armament and the 109 having a better interceptor armament with its 2x 20mm cannons. The Spifire I also had a somewhat longer range than the 109E did iirc, so longer loiter time. The 109 also had a better initial climb rate iirc.

(of course the 109's situation was exacerbated by being forced to perform close escort, limiting tactics and advantages, along with some range as well)

 

[claidemore]

25 secs to complete a 360 turn ??

Come on Claidemore, that's proof enough that the British weren't pushing it in the 109!

The Soviets could do a 360 in a Fw-190A-6 in just 22 secs.

If you figure out the circumferance of the two turn circles, and use IAS to measure time to get around the circle, you get 29 seconds for the 109 and 22 for the Spit. Don't forget, this is 12,000 ft, not sea level.

hehe, just realized something, better be careful here, or yer gonna prove the 190 can outturn the 109!

 

[kool kitty89]

The soviets also managed a 19.5 sec turn with the P-40E (with 2 guns removed and half fuel load iirc) and 19 sec for the P-39N-1 with 18-19 sec for the P-39Q-10 (no wing guns and a 4-blade prop fitted) all at 1000 m.

 

[claidemore]

The soviets also managed a 19.5 sec turn with the P-40E (with 2 guns removed and half fuel load iirc) and 19 sec for the P-39N-1 with 18-19 sec for the P-39Q-10 (no wing guns and a 4-blade prop fitted) all at 1000 m.

Soviets also give the I-16-18 a turn time of 18.5 seconds, but nobody says a 109 can turn better than it could! Thats only a 1/2 second less than a Yak1 or P39N-1. Of course earlier I-16s had times of 14.5 seconds, so that factors in as well.

 

[kool kitty89]

Plus the I-16's probably had a better instantaneous turn rate and slightly better radius. (allowing it to get a better firing angle) In sustained turns a lower drag aiframe is particularly important, while in instantaneous turns this is much less important. (a good turn radius may still acompany a lower turn rate if the airfame isn't very clean) Lift loading is also more important in instantaneous turns than power loading.

A Finnish B-239 (Brewster) or Russian I-16 would likely easily turn better than a 109 in a short maneuver, but would probably lose in a sustained turning fight.
Circumstances would be similar with a Hurricane I vs a Spitfire I: the Spit had better power loading and a cleaner airframe, but the Hurricane had lower wing loading and a higher lift (and also very thick) airfoil. (this comparison being particularly good since thy used the same engine)

 

[Hop]

Yet another piece of evidence to support the fact that the British test pilots didn't push the 109 to its limits is a German test report on the turn radius of the Bf-109E. The Germans achieved a far smaller turn radius in their tests than the British.

It's a nice theory, Soren, but the British report of the 109E you are referring to says the exact opposite:

Apart from their excessive heaviness at high speeds, the most serious defect of the Me. 109 ailerons is a tendency to snatch as the wing tip slots open. This is particularly noticeable when manoeuvring. For example, if the stick is pulled back in a tight turn, putting additional g on the aircraft, the slots open at quite a high airspeed; as they open, the stick suddenly snatches laterally through several inches either way, sufficiently to upset a pilot's aim in a dog fight. The snatch appears to be associated with the opening of the slots, for once they are fully open a steady turn can be done, with no aileron vibration, until the stall is approached.

When doing tight turns with the Me. 109 leading at speeds between 90 m.p.h. and 220 m.p.h. the Spitfires and Hurricanes had little difficult in keeping on the tail of the Me. 109. During these turns the amount of normal g recorded on the Me. 109 was between 2J and 4 g. The aircraft stalled if the turn was tightened to give more than 4 g at speeds below about 200 m.p.h. The slots opened at about 1\2 g before the stall, and whilst opening caused the ailerons to snatch; this upset the pilot's sighting immediately and caused him to lose ground. When the slots were fully open the aircraft could be turned quite steadily until very near the stall. If the stick was then pulled back a little more the aircraft suddenly shuddered, and either tended to come out of the turn or dropped its wing further, oscillating meanwhile in pitch and roll and rapidly losing height; the aircraft immediately unstalled if the stick was eased forward. Even in a very tight turn the stall was quite gentle, with no tendency for the aircraft to suddenly flick over on to its back and spin. The Spitfires and Hurricanes could follow the Me. 109 round during the stalled turns without themselves showing any signs of stalling.

How on earth anyone can read that and then claim they were afraid of the slots opening and backed off as soon as they did so, I don't know.

Equally, I find it bizarre that anyone could believe test pilots later in the war would be so frightened of a simple aerodynamic feature like a slot (fitted to lots of different aircraft, after all) that they would be incapable of testing the aircraft properly.

This is just another of Soren's opinions that has little basis in fact.

As to Leykauf's claims during the BoB, as far as I can from Tony Wood's list he made 3 for Spitfires and 1 for a Hurricane (he claimed another Hurricane in 1941). One thing to bear in mind is that the Jagdwaffe consistently claimed Spitfires when fighting Hurricanes. In total they claimed 1,228 Spitfires and 720 Hurricanes, the RAF actually lost 385 Spitfires and about 600 Hurricanes to all causes.

So about 1 in 4 Luftwaffe claims for a Spitfire actually resulted in a Spitfire shot down.

25 secs to complete a 360 turn ??

Come on Claidemore, that's proof enough that the British weren't pushing it in the 109!

The Soviets could do a 360 in a Fw-190A-6 in just 22 secs.

What altitude did the Soviets test at? Don't you understand that turn times rise, and turn radius increases, as altitude increases?

In fact, if you assume a linear drop, then at 12,000 ft the 109 in the German test turns an 853 circle, compared to 885 ft in the British test. That's not much difference.


But I can't really see the point of this argument. The RAE tested the 109E, and concluded the Spitfire easily turned better. The German report gives a larger radius than the RAE test of the Spitfire, and the German comparative test of a captured Spitfire, Hurricane and Curtiss said:

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.

 

[Soren]

Claidemore,

The proof is right there infront you, the British test pilots did NOT push the 109 to its limits, if they had they would've achieved far lower figures. Soviet German tests and crucially aerodynamics confirm this, not to mention the AFDU's own comments on the slats.

With a Bf-109 F-2 (In rough shape) the Soviet established a time of 19.5 secs to do a 360 turn (21 secs with gun-pods).

And IIRC the Germans established that it took the Emil 18.5 secs to complete a 360 turn when flown to its limits. (Kurfürst will have the details)

Now that the British test pilots didn't push the captured 109's to the limit isn't unnormal, as anyone new to the type would be vary about the slats owing to the unusual feel such a device gave, the rather violent jolt it would give as the slats deployed on an Emil scaring pilots witless, making them think they were just on the edge. Fact is there weren't eve close to the edge, the slats coming out very early in a turn, long before you're even approaching the limit.