Best ETO fighter from 1939-1942

[Soren]

I tend to agree Soren but the P-38G, out into operations 1942, was no slouch although some 30kts slower than the J and L, but still 345mph at 5,000 and 400+ mph at 25,000 feet with normal internal fuel load.

The upgrade to the 1325hp 1710-51/55's gave it excellent acceleration, speed and climb so it was close to both the 109G2 and Fw190A-3 in many respects. Combined with its range with just internal fuel and load carrying capability I looked at it pretty hard in comparing with all of them in late 1942.

This was the ship that Steinhoff had a lot of respect for...

But I don't get really excited about the 38 until the L series - then it was formidable across the board at all altitudes.

Steinhoff admired its armament and amazing zoom climb, that is really all. (I have his book) But as a fighter the P-38 was no match for the Bf-109 or Fw-190.

Now don't get me wrong here, I'm not trying to bash the P-38, it was great in some roles such as ground attack and for shooting down intercepting Zerstörers, but unless it had a great speed advantage (Like in the PTO) it was doomed as a fighter, esp. compared to the faster single engined fighters in the ETO. Fact is that the P-38 was considered easy meat by the LW fighter pilots.

The P-51, Spitfire Yak-3 were the only Allied fighters that the LW had any real respect for, knowing the first was bloody fast while the other was as nimble and equally or nearly as fast as their own fighters and the third was like a piece of plywood with a 1,500 HP engine strapped to it.

 

[Hop]

I would love to see a source that gives the 109 an advantage in roll rate over the Spitfire IX...

 

[claidemore]

Here's a comparison of a LF MkIX Spitfire vs 109G-6-U-2 done by British Central Fighter Establishment. This would be spring of 1943 data, but it is useful for comparison.


"TACTICAL COMPARISON WITH SPITFIRE LF.IX
Speeds
17.........The Me.109 was compared with a Spitfire LF.IX for speed and all-round manoeuvrability at heights up to 25,000 feet. Up to 16,000 feet the Spitfire holds a slight advantage when using 18 lb. boost, from 16,000 to 20,000 feet the Me.109 gains slightly in speed, and at heights above 20,000 feet the Spitfire again leads in speed to the extent of approximately 7 m.p.h. When 25 lbs.boost is employed in the Spitfire it is about 25 m.p.h. faster at heights below 15,000 feet and 7 m.p.h. faster at heights in excess of 15,000 feet.

Climb
18.........The climb of the Spitfire is superior to that of the Me.109 at all heights. It has a particularly marked advantage below 13,000 feet using 18 lbs.boost, and this is naturally more pronounced when using 25 lbs. boost. When both aircraft are pulled up into a climb from a dive, the performance is almost identical, but when climbing speed is reached the Spitfire slowly pulls away.

Dive
19.........Comparitive dives between the two aircraft have shown that the Me.109 can leave the Spitfire without any difficulty.

Turning circle
20.........The manoeuvrability of the Spitfire IX in this respect is greatly superior to that of the Me.109 and it easily out-turns the Me.109 in either direction at all speeds.

Rate of Roll
21.........Here again the Spitfire has a marked advantage at all speeds.

Conclusion
22.........The Me.109G has an inferior performance to the Spitfire in all respects with the exception of acceleration in a dive and the slight advantage in speed which it possesses at heights between 16,000 and 20,000 feet. "


....and a little more data, comparing Merlin 61 Spitifre with 190A3 and 109G2...

"Air Ministry, A.I.2.(g), Whitehall
20 March 1943
The Spitfire IX at 28,000 to 30,000 ft. is superior in speed to the Me 109 G and the Fw 190 A.

Its rate of climb at 20,000 ft. with the 0.42 reduction gear is inferior to the Fw 190 A and the Me109 G, even when operating at +18 lb. per sq. inch boost.

When fitted with the 0.477 reduction gear and at +15 lb. per sq. inch boost the Spitfire is equal in rate of climb to the Me 109 G-2; when operating at +18 lb. per sq. inch boost it is superior to all German fighters at present in service. (note: with 0.477 red gear, climb to 20k was 6.5 min at normal power, and 5.6 min at combat power with Merlin 61)

The ceiling of the Spitfire IX is considerably higher than that of the Me 109 G or the Fw 190 A at present in service. "

 

[Marcel]

Here's a comparison of a LF MkIX Spitfire vs 109G-6-U-2 done by British Central Fighter Establishment. This would be spring of 1943 data, but it is useful for comparison.


"TACTICAL COMPARISON WITH SPITFIRE LF.IX
....

I should be careful with these kinds of tests as they usually are mor "political correct" than real. It wouldn't have looked good if the British during the war would have claimed the Bf109 superior to their prime fighter, would it?

 

[Arsenal VG-33]

Perhaps this was covered elsewhere, but I'll ask anyway: How well could the P-38 maintain flight with only one engine?

Personally, I tend to place a higher value on those P-38s which were used in photo-recconnaissance than in fighter/escort roles.

 

[claidemore]

I should be careful with these kinds of tests as they usually are mor "political correct" than real. It wouldn't have looked good if the British during the war would have claimed the Bf109 superior to their prime fighter, would it?

I will agree that the choice of wording in the report is such that it is an encouragement, rather than a discouragement, but I don't feel that the conclusions and hard data are inaccurate or misleading.

Note that they do give the nod to the 109 in dive speed, and in climb when the Spitfire has the .42 reduction gear. It also states the 109 speed advantage between 16 and 20k and points out that above 20k there is only a 7mph advantage for the Spitfire. After all, this wasn't a press release, but an air ministry test that would be only read by those who needed it and the British tended to be a bit less 'propagandaish' (is that a word?) than some other nations. I would tend to think it's a pretty fair test.

As with any question, we can't rely entirely on one source to make a decision, and as we are all aware, there are other sources that can back these tests up, ie listed performance stats, combat reports.

Be that as it may, one reason I quoted those tests was because they comment on the roll rate comparison between 109 and Spitfire, and a previous post asked to see a source about that. I don't know of any other direct comparisons to roll rate on those two fighters. Love to see one if somebody else has one.

Reason two, a previous poster also indicated that he felt the 109 had the advantage in climb, these tests show that it depended on which reduction gear the first Spit IX's with Merlin 61 had, the advantage could go either way.

 

[Hop]

You only have to read the British appraisal of the Fw 190 (which they praised heavily) to realise these reports were not written for propaganda purposes.

I'm still waiting for Soren's source for claiming the 109 rolled better than the Spitfire IX, btw.

 

[Kurfürst]

Firstly the 190 vs the Spit IX.
Spit IX vs 109G (first versions of both as this is 1942)
I feel the Spit had the advantage. It certainly had the advantage at height which is no small thing.

It depends on which versions you`re looking (for 1942).

The basic models in 1942 were the Merlin 61 powered Spit IX and the Bf 109G-1 through G-4. The basic IX was indeed better at very high altitudes than the non-pressurized G-2/G-4s of 1942, as it had more engine power available, at most practical altitudes however the 109G was considerably faster and a better climber, even at 1.3ata. When GM-1 is added however, there`s not much of a comparison at altitude anymore... See the other thread on 109G and GM-1 use and performance. An often overlooked factor is IMHO the fact it had pressurized cocpit - pilots really struggled up there, regardless of plane performance.

However, the thing is the G-2/G-4 and the IX met very little in 1942; there were very few Mark Nines around, and all of them were in Britain; the Kanalgeschwaders just transferred from the 109F to the FW 190A and only a couple of Squadrons were equipped in the West with the pressurized, GM-1 boosted Bf 109G-1s, the mainstay were Focke Wulfs (and Mark Fives).

Non pressurized 109G-2s and G-4s equipped many LW units quickly during 1942, but these were in Russia and Africa, where of course, no Mark Nines were deployed yet, and for a long time to go, so they faced Mark Vs and P-40s, which they of course outclassed in performance.

The RAF later decided that the rated altitude of the Merlin 61/63 is not very optimal (it produced power at an altitude where combat was comparatively rare, ie. above 28 000 feet). It`s rather telling about combat altitudes that they tuned the subsequent Merlin 66 powered variants rated altitude, that it was only 16 000 feet, ie. some 3000 feet below the rated altitude of FW 190As and Bf 109G.

It also had the better manoeuverability.

Depends. Pierre Clostermann flew a Merlin 63 equipped Mark IX - which had some 300 HP more than the Merlin 61 one of 1942 - and met some 109Gs over France. He wrote, in no uncertain terms :

"I tried to fire on a '109' that I spotted in the chaos. Not possible, I couldn't get the correct angle. My plane juddered on the edge of a stall. It was comforting that the Spitfire turned better than the '109'! Certainly at high speed - but not at low speed."

Given the available, very limited performance data for the two fighters, I`d say the Merlin 61 IX and the 109G2 in 1942 probably turned very similiar, if not the G-2 having the edge in turn time; at least up to until very high alttiudes, when the DB 605A power fell off before the M 61.

Turn radius, of course would favour the Spitfire with its lower wingloading (figures at 1000m were IIRC 235 m vs 285 m). However turn radius is alltogether of secondary matter when judgind turns compared to turn rate/time.

The 109 had a better dive but the advantage was limited as the 109 was red lined at a similar level to the Spit. The initial acceleration was greater in a 109 which is a decent advantage but not overwhelming.

Good point, dive advantage is somewhat overstated usually, but it was a useful tactic to get out of guns range quickly. It was an important advantage for 109 pilots though, that they could disangage if things went bad. The 109 was without doubt the better fighter for vertical manaouvers.

The Spit was more flexible. For instance, it could be upgunned with a minimal impact on performance, when the 109 was upgunned the impact was significant.

I just don`t see anything flexible about the Spit IX. It`s very short ranged, limited to about 2/3s the distance of what the FW 190A or Bf 109G is capable of, not to mention other even more long ranged fighters like the Typhoon or P-38..

Upgunning the Spit IX, it was certainly wasn`t a possible like in the way the Bf 109G could carry extra cannons - there were only a couple of them around, given that it was found out early that the Mark V/IX airframe was insufficiently stressed for FOUR 20mm cannons, see dr. Alfred Price. The IX was basically a high altitude point defense interceptor, and capable of very little else due to its range issues.

As for adding four cannons instead of the basic four - apart from that its an academical question in the case of the Mk IX which just simply couldn`t do it - and that their weight and drag would effect the Spit 'less' - well unless the Spit is effected by physics from another universe it just isn`t so. The available primary documentation certainly doesn`t say so. Weight is weight, drag is drag, and it doesn`t matter what insignia the plane carries, it effects them all the same way.

There`s some performance data on the four cannon Spits - you may want to check trials with a Mk VC and see the how badly performance is effected by the second pair of cannon added in comparison to two cannon birds, which makes sense since a pair of Hispanos weighted a good deal more than a pair of Mausers, and the cannon stubs added considerably drag - see the RAF`s report 'Note on speed of production Spitfires', it gives some interesting figures.

I am certainly not saying it was an easy target, or that the difference is huge, far from it, but the question is which is the best.

I have to disagree overall. If you look at 1942, indeed there`s one fighter that is more flexible in it`s rols, longer ranged, faster and a better climber at most combat altitudes, can carry a heavier armament and fullfill many roles, and whats most important its also available for frontline units, but its certainly not Spitfire Nine..

PS : The G-6/U2 trials are pitting a gondola carrying G-6 nightfighter that landed in Britain in the summer 1944, the earlier Air ministry tactical hints from March 1943 are based on performance figures obtained on a damaged, tropicalised G-2/trop (its Black Six btw), but no direct comparison was made between the two aircraft.

 

[Marcel]

You only have to read the British appraisal of the Fw 190 (which they praised heavily) to realise these reports were not written for propaganda purposes.

I'm still waiting for Soren's source for claiming the 109 rolled better than the Spitfire IX, btw.

Of course they had to praise the 190 as the lost a lot of spitfires to that plane. You cannot tell your people that they lost to an inferior plane, thus saying that german pilots are better.
I'm not at all saying these reports were written for propaganda purposes, but as the differences between planes, especially the Spitfire and the Bf109 were very small, there was no harm in claiming your own planes is slightly better than the other as it is highly profitable for morale. For instance I have here two reports, comparing the Bf109E and the Spitfire MK.I. One is from the Royal Aircraft Establishment and the other is from the Luftwaffe, both claiming their own plane being better. I guess any other outcome of the tests would have been less desirable.

 

[Soren]

Marcel,

Your points, while completely valid, mean nothing to Hop, nomatter how much evidence you bring forth Hop will never accept it as in his mind British a/c are the best.

Hop,

If you're interested in the roll rate of the Bf-109 then start reading about the plane, esp. RLM MT tests are interesting.

 

[Marcel]

Of course they are the best, Soren, they won remember

 

[Soren]

 

[Marcel]

Claide, I agree with you these reports make an interesting read, even though they are somewhat biased in certain ways. My main problem with these tests are lines like this:

Conclusion
22.........The Me.109G has an inferior performance to the Spitfire in all respects with the exception of acceleration in a dive and the slight advantage in speed which it possesses at heights between 16,000 and 20,000 feet. "

The problem is: you'll see the same conclusions in favour of the Bf109 in german tests, which makes me suspect that these "conclusions" are a litle boosted for morale. About the rollrate I don't know. I thought the Spitfire couldn't roll that fast, which was one reason why they clipped the wings on certain marks. Maybe Soren can quote the lines concerning rollrate from the RLM MT tests to shine a light on the subject from the German point of view?

 

[Soren]

Go to Kurfürst's great site, there you can read the MT RLM tests. The Bf-109E displayed a very marked superiority in roll rate over the Spitfire. Why is also explained.

The roll rate didn't decrease with the introduction of the F G series.

 

[Hop]

I'm not at all saying these reports were written for propaganda purposes, but as the differences between planes, especially the Spitfire and the Bf109 were very small, there was no harm in claiming your own planes is slightly better than the other as it is highly profitable for morale.

The British test reports were not released to pilots, and I suspect the Germans followed a similar practice. They were carried out to determine best tactics, and to learn from enemy engineering. Adjusting the results for propaganda purposes would have been self defeating.

That's not to say that publications based on the tests wouldn't have had an eye on morale, for example I have a copy of a publication by RAF Middle Eastern Command on the Fw190 vs Spitfire V that's entitled

"Who's afraid of the little Focke Wolf"

It goes on to say that whilst the 190 is faster and climbs better than the Spit V, it doesn't turn as well, and that "Being able to out-turn your opponent means almost everything in a dog-fight".

In other words, it takes the (classified) results of the test reports, and puts a slightly more optimistic spin on them for consumption by front line pilots (and even then it doesn't change the facts, because getting your own pilots killed by falsely telling them they were, for example, faster than their opponents, was not the aim of any air force)

For instance I have here two reports, comparing the Bf109E and the Spitfire MK.I. One is from the Royal Aircraft Establishment and the other is from the Luftwaffe, both claiming their own plane being better. I guess any other outcome of the tests would have been less desirable.

When you examine test results you need to look at what's being tested, and in what way. British tests usually state the engine rpm and manifold pressure, for example, which at least lets you know if the engine was being run at full power.

Regarding the results of the Germans testing of the Spitfire I, note that they tested an example with a two pitch propeller. Sadly they don't list the engine settings they used (afaik). The British tested their captured 109 against combat ready Spitfires and Hurricanes, the RAE note that many had constant speed propellers, and all would have been running on 100 octane.

Those differences aren't down to propaganda, you can only test the enemy aircraft you have captured, and it's natural to test them against your latest fighters.

About the rollrate I don't know. I thought the Spitfire couldn't roll that fast, which was one reason why they clipped the wings on certain marks.

The Spitfire I and II with canvas covered ailerons rolled poorly at high speed. They switched to metal ailerons early in the Spitfire V production run, and kept them for all subsequent marks.

The metal aileroned Spitfire was actually one of the better rolling fighters of the war. See for example the AFDU comparisons, or NACA 868.

The reason for clipping the wings was to improve the roll rate against Fw 190s, which were probably the best rolling aircraft of the war. The AFDU found other improvements in performance at lower altitudes as well:

Level Speed
10,000 feet. In each case the clipped wing Spitfire proved the faster by a small margin estimated in the nature of 5 mph.
15,000 and 20,000 feet. The average results at these two heights showed that the difference in speed is not measurable.
25,000 feet. The standard Spitfire is very slightly faster than the clipped wing Spitfire.
In all level speed runs the clipped wing Spitfire accelerated rather better than the standard Spitfire.

Climb
The average difference in time during zoom climbs from 20,000 to 25,000 feet was 15 seconds in favour of the standard Spitfire.
From 10,000 to 15,000 feet no differences were indicated.

Dive
In all diving tests the clipped wing Spitfire drew away from the standard Spitfire.

Manoeuvrability
At all heights to 25,000 feet the rate of roll is considerably improved by removal of the wing tips.

The minimum turning circle of the clipped wing Spitfire at 20,000 ft has been increased by 55 feet at 1,025 feet compared with the FW 190 turning circle of 1,450 feet (RAE Farnborough figures). This slight increase does not therefore detract from the fighting qualities of the aeroplane in any way, since the clipped wing version is unlikely to be in combat with the standard Spitfire.

All in all they found improved speed, acceleration, dive and acceleration at lower altitudes with clipped wings.

Go to Kurfürst's great site, there you can read the MT RLM tests. The Bf-109E displayed a very marked superiority in roll rate over the Spitfire. Why is also explained.

The roll rate didn't decrease with the introduction of the F G series.

But the Spitfire roll rate did increase greatly over the Mk I. As well as the metal ailerons, the wing stiffened, increasing reversal speed from 480 mph in the Mk I to 580 mph by late Mk Vs (and 660 for the clipped wing version).

 

[Soren]

Hop,

I'd like to know more about this stiffening of the wings you're talking about.

Yes, the metal ailerons did improve roll rate at high speed, but roll rate otherwise was the same.

And about the tests, well there's always bias, that's inevitable. The British tests with the 109 are also for the most part useless as the test pilots didn't dare past slats deployment. (The same problem posed many LW pilots early on)

The Emil had frequent problems with it's slats jamming, causing irrecoverable spins, killing many pilots and scaring the living daylight out of the ones lucky enough to recover (Rall being one of them). For this reason turn fighting sometimes proved succesfull in the Spitfire against the 109E in 1940. The picture changed significantly with the introduction of the Bf-109 F series however, and the 109 pilots could now comfortably engage in turn fights knowing the slats would function flawlessly. Marseilles and many others for this reason found turn fighting RAF fighters very effective and acquired themselves a high tally doing it.

Now I'm not saying that the Bf-109 became far superior, but it could do everything the Spitfire could do and it was faster, for a period. This balance changed many times during the course of the war.

All in all the Bf-109 Spitfire were two very equal fighter a/c in every aspect of flight, right till the end.

I hold both a/c in a very high regard, but I also recognize the Fw-190 as a superior fighter to both in the end.

 

[Hop]

And about the tests, well there's always bias, that's inevitable. The British tests with the 109 are also for the most part useless as the test pilots didn't dare past slats deployment. (The same problem posed many LW pilots early on)

They certainly went past slats deployment. To quote from the RAE report on the 109E:

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.

The Emil had frequent problems with it's slats jamming, causing irrecoverable spins, killing many pilots and scaring the living daylight out of the ones lucky enough to recover (Rall being one of them). For this reason turn fighting sometimes proved succesfull in the Spitfire against the 109E in 1940.

One of the things the RAE and Germans agree on is the Spitfire I and Hurricane I easily outturned the 109E. The RAE quotes are above, the Germans, from Kurfurst's site:

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

The picture changed significantly with the introduction of the Bf-109 F series however, and the 109 pilots could now comfortably engage in turn fights knowing the slats would function flawlessly.

As the RAE test showed, the problem wasn't just in the deployment of the slats. Even when they were deployed, the Spitfire and Hurricane still easily outturned the 109.

I'd like to know more about this stiffening of the wings you're talking about.

The RAE did a report on Spitfire aileron control, released in April 1941. That gave reversal speed (which is related to wing stiffness) as 477 or 480 mph (presumably 480 is a rounding of the observed 477 figure), and noted that at 400 mph the ailerons lose 65% of their effectiveness due to wing twist.

They don't say what type of Spitfire, the drawing shows one without cannon, and considering the date, it's almost certainly a Spitfire I/II. It had fabric ailerons.

They noted that stiffening the wing would reduce wing twist, and improve control, but that it would be a "major modification". However, the wing was changed in production versions shortly after to accommodate cannon, and later strengthened to add wing bombs, and the "universal wing", with 4 cannon bays, added.

There's a comparison of the Spitfire and Mustang from the RAE, dated August 1942 (with all these reports remember that in general tests were done for a few months before the date of the report). The Spitfire in that test had metal ailerons, but the mark isn't given. The reversal speed was 510 mph.

The RAE test of the Fw 190 roll rate has comparisons with other allied aircraft, one of which is the Spitfire V. They give the reversal speed of the Spitfire wing as 580 mph normal, 660 mph clipped.

The AFDU tested a clipped and normal wing Spitfire V, and gave the same reversal speeds, 580 and 660 mph. That was late 1942.

The metal ailerons improved the Spitfire roll rate a great deal, but the reduced wing twist (and resulting higher reversal speed) also helped a lot.

 

[Glider]

It depends on which versions you`re looking (for 1942).

The basic models in 1942 were the Merlin 61 powered Spit IX and the Bf 109G-1 through G-4. The basic IX was indeed better at very high altitudes than the non-pressurized G-2/G-4s of 1942, as it had more engine power available, at most practical altitudes however the 109G was considerably faster and a better climber, even at 1.3ata. When GM-1 is added however, there`s not much of a comparison at altitude anymore... See the other thread on 109G and GM-1 use and performance. An often overlooked factor is IMHO the fact it had pressurized cocpit - pilots really struggled up there, regardless of plane performance.

The RAF later decided that the rated altitude of the Merlin 61/63 is not very optimal (it produced power at an altitude where combat was comparatively rare, ie. above 28 000 feet). It`s rather telling about combat altitudes that they tuned the subsequent Merlin 66 powered variants rated altitude, that it was only 16 000 feet, ie. some 3000 feet below the rated altitude of FW 190As and Bf 109G.[/QUOTE]

Fair comment and its closer than I thought but one point comes to mind. The GM1 equipment must have had some effect on those aircraft fitted with it when the time ran out. You presumably are left with an aircraft that can either, climb well or go faster but not both. In fact if you use the GM1 to climb it must have had an impact on its general handling simply due to the weight of the equipment, which going from memory weighed about 350-400lbs. Or of course you can use it for speed and have a slower climb.

The Spit of course also had a limited time using the extra boost but wasn't handicaped by any axtra weight.

Depends. Pierre Clostermann flew a Merlin 63 equipped Mark IX - which had some 300 HP more than the Merlin 61 one of 1942 - and met some 109Gs over France. He wrote, in no uncertain terms :

"I tried to fire on a '109' that I spotted in the chaos. Not possible, I couldn't get the correct angle. My plane juddered on the edge of a stall. It was comforting that the Spitfire turned better than the '109'! Certainly at high speed - but not at low speed."

True but he also said
I opened the throttle out wide and went into a steep climbing turn which enabled me to keep my eyes on him and gain height. Taken by suprise by my manoervre he opened fire ........ I leveled out and continued my tight turn, but at that height his short wings got insufficient grip on the rarified atmosphere and he stalled and went into a spin. Once again the superior manoeuvrability of the Spitfire had got me out of the wood........The pilot of the 109 was an old fox all the same for he shifted the kite about a lot varying the deflection and angle.
He knew my Spitfire turned better and climbed better and his only hope was to out distance me. Suddenly he pushed his stick forward and went into a vertical dive.....we went down fast 470mph towards Aumale as I was in line with his tail the lining up was easy but I had to be quick as he was gaining on me. Clostermann then shot the 109 down.
I think this supports a lot of what we both say,
a) That the 109 was faster in the intial dive but it shows the danger of such an action if the enemy is able to get a bead on you.
b) That Clostermann has used the superior manoeuvrability of the Spitfire a number of times to get him out of trouble
c) That the German also was unable to turn with the Spitfire even though the pilot was experienced.
d) That Clostermann had confidence in his ability to outclimb the 109
Spitfire Mk IX versus Me 109 G - Flight Testing
This contains the full narrative and others

I just don`t see anything flexible about the Spit IX. It`s very short ranged, limited to about 2/3s the distance of what the FW 190A or Bf 109G is capable of, not to mention other even more long ranged fighters like the Typhoon or P-38..

No one would pretend that the Spit had a long range but they did carry drop tanks and later ones had extra internal fuel. However in 1942 your right, its pretty poor and could be considered a minimum

Upgunning the Spit IX, it was certainly wasn`t a possible like in the way the Bf 109G could carry extra cannons - there were only a couple of them around, given that it was found out early that the Mark V/IX airframe was insufficiently stressed for FOUR 20mm cannons, see dr. Alfred Price. The IX was basically a high altitude point defense interceptor, and capable of very little else due to its range issues.

I don't doubt that Dr Price has written about the stresses but at the end of the day, a number of MkV and Mk IX aircraft did fight with 4 x 20, more V than IX I agree but they fought well. That cannot be argued about, I should add that I haven't read of any problems impacting the aircraft during combat.

By upgunning I was talking about upgunning up to 4 x 20mm. One Spitfire was prototyped with 6 x 20mm, but not suprisingly didn't go any further.
The Spit with 4 x 20 had a minimal impact on its overall performance, certainly a lot less than upguning the 109 with an additional 2 x 20mm.

 

[Soren]

All those reports are on the 109E Hop, the version which had a problem with its slats jamming, hence the aileron snatch which was completely absent in the F series and onwards. This aileron snatch and the disturbance in the flight path is something modern 109 pilots put a large question mark on as none of them have ever experienced it before, the reason being it's a decease only the Emil has. 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. 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.

Also don't forget bias, it is very much there, in all trials.

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.

Also note that the official stall speed of the 109E is 62 mph. Now if you have just a basic understanding of aerdynamics it should take you no time to figure out the turn performance. The jamming of one of the slats however ruined this awesome maneuverability potential.

Onwards...

Now moving on to the later tests carried out by the RAE AFDU with a 109G, here it is made completely clear that the a/c was NOT flown past slat deployment, the 109G in question according to the British pilot being "embarrased by the opening of its slats". Also as further and conclusive evidence a Fw-190 Jabo fighter managed to easily turn with a P-51B and give the Spitfire some headache in a right hand turn. In ALL comparative trials carried out in Germany the Bf-109 ALWAYS EASILY outturned the Fw-190, the exact choice of words used being The 109 gets on the 190's tail in no time.

And to make things more clear;


Erwin Leykauf, German fighter pilot, 33 victories:

"The Bf 109s also had leading edge slats. When the 109 was flown, advertently or inadvertently, too slow, the slats shot forward out of the wing, sometimes with a loud bang which could be heard above the noise of the engine. 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.
One had to enter the turn correctly, then open up the engine. It was a matter of feel. When one noticed the speed becoming critical - the aircraft vibrated - one had to ease up a bit, then pull back again, so that in plan the best turn would have looked like an egg or a horizontal ellipse rather than a circle. In this way one could out-turn the Spitfire - and I shot down six of them doing it."

Walter Wolfrum, German fighter ace. 137 victories:

"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."

There are even British Spitfire pilots confirming this.

And then there's the modern pilots, the best ones to ask by far, and they all say the same, the 109 turns on dime compared to most other WW2 fighters and is very similar to the Spitfire in this area:

Mark Hanna:
Pitch is also delighful at 250 mph and below. It feels very positve and the amount of effort on the control column needed to produce the relevant nose movement seems exactly right to me. As CL max is reached the leading edge slats deploy - together if the ball is in the middle, slightly asymmetrically if you have any slip on. The aircraft delights in being pulled into hard manuevering turns at these slower speeds. As the slats pop out you feel a slight "notching" on the stick and you can pull more until the whole airframe is buffeting quite hard. A little more and you will drop a wing, but you have to be crass to do it unintentionally. Pitch tends to heavy up above 250 mph but it is still easily manageable up to 300 mph and the aircraft is perfectly happy carrying out low-level looping maneuvers from 300 mph and below. Above 300 mph one peculiarity is a slight nose down trim change as you accelerate. This means that running in for an airshow above 300 mph the aeroplane has a slight tucking in sensation - a sort of desire to get down to ground level ! This is easily held on the stick or can be trimmed out but is slightly surprising initially. Maneuvering above 300, two hands can be required for more aggressive performance. EIther that or get on the trimmer to help you. Despite this heavying up it is still quite easy to get at 5G's at these speeds.


So how does the aeroplane compare with other contemporary fighters ? First, let me say that all my comments are based on operation below 10,000 feet and at power settings not exceeding +12 (54") and 2700 rpm. I like it as an aeroplane, and with familiarity I think it will give most of the allied fighters I have flown a hard time, particularly in a close, hard turning, slow speed dog-fight. It will definitely out-maneuver a P-51 in this type of flight, the roll rate and slow speed characteristics being much better. The Spitfire on the other hand is more of a problem for the '109 and I feel it is a superior close in fighter. Having said that the aircraft are sufficiently closely matched that pilot abilty would probably be the deciding factor

And Mark Hanna was flying the heavy and draggy Buchon! Says quite abit!

Skip Holm:
Pitch control is also delightful and very positive at 250 mph and below. As pitch and accompanying G is increased, the leading edge slats start to deploy. I have not found either aircraft to have any problems with asymmetrical slat deployment, as we see in other aircraft such as an A-4 for instance. The aircraft reacts very well to heavy maneuvering, and there is never any discomfort in pulling Gs, as wing separation and accompanying wing drop is mild, is easily noticed and dealt with by lightening up on the G. Pitch force tends to get heavy at speeds above 300 mph, but is still easily managed with a little 2-hand pull or left hand re-trimming.

Interview:

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TFl8X4y9-94


And there's so much more... But importantly aerodynamics supports all of the above.

So Hop, instead of getting hung up on that bias of yours as you so often tend to do, push that logic button instead. There's no magic involved in aerodynamics, no'one is trying to lie, it can all be explained. These two fighters were VERY close in every aspect of flight, esp. in turn performance, they were both excellent defensive fighters which were loved by their pilots and respected by their enemies.

 

[Marcel]

The British tests with the 109 are also for the most part useless as the test pilots didn't dare past slats deployment.

Hi Soren, I have seen many posts from you about this. Is there any documentation about this that I could read?

Now I'm not saying that the Bf-109 became far superior, but it could do everything the Spitfire could do and it was faster, for a period. This balance changed many times during the course of the war.

All in all the Bf-109 Spitfire were two very equal fighter a/c in every aspect of flight, right till the end.

I hold both a/c in a very high regard, but I also recognize the Fw-190 as a superior fighter to both in the end.

I agree about the Spit and Bf1-09 being very competitive a/c, but for the FW190 I think it was mostly superio9r at lower altitudes. At higher altitudes the Spitfire or the Bf109 had the advantage, I think (except mayby for the Dora)

Regarding the results of the Germans testing of the Spitfire I, note that they tested an example with a two pitch propeller. Sadly they don't list the engine settings they used (afaik). The British tested their captured 109 against combat ready Spitfires and Hurricanes, the RAE note that many had constant speed propellers, and all would have been running on 100 octane.

Correct about the Spit. Funny thing is, Molders who was one who flew the Spitfire called it a "lousy fighter", it's one of the reasons again why I have a reservation against these tests as I think the Spit proved itself quite well.

Those differences aren't down to propaganda, you can only test the enemy aircraft you have captured, and it's natural to test them against your latest fighters.

One of the reasons again to be careful with the outcome of these kinds of tests.

The Spitfire I and II with canvas covered ailerons rolled poorly at high speed. They switched to metal ailerons early in the Spitfire V production run, and kept them for all subsequent marks.

I could be wrong, but I seem to remember there were field conversions for the Mk.II , I suppose that improved the matter already.

The metal aileroned Spitfire was actually one of the better rolling fighters of the war. See for example the AFDU comparisons, or NACA 868.

The reason for clipping the wings was to improve the roll rate against Fw 190s, which were probably the best rolling aircraft of the war. The AFDU found other improvements in performance at lower altitudes as well:

All in all they found improved speed, acceleration, dive and acceleration at lower altitudes with clipped wings.

But the Spitfire roll rate did increase greatly over the Mk I. As well as the metal ailerons, the wing stiffened, increasing reversal speed from 480 mph in the Mk I to 580 mph by late Mk Vs (and 660 for the clipped wing version).

One question, if the clipping of the wings improved the performance that much, why weren't all Spits clipped afterwards? In other words what was the disadvantage of clipping them?