Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
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.
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?
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 also had the better manoeuverability.
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.
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 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.
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.
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?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. "
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.
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.
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.
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.
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)
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.
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.
I'd like to know more about this stiffening of the wings you're talking about.
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.
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."
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 minimumI 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..
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.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.
Hi Soren, I have seen many posts from you about this. Is there any documentation about this that I could read?The British tests with the 109 are also for the most part useless as the test pilots didn't dare past slats deployment.
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)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.
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.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.
One of the reasons again to be careful with the outcome of these kinds of tests.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.
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 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:
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).