Best Fighter in Service Before 1 September 1939

Civettone said:

yeah Hohun is amazing. But he has helped me out so much in the past already so I think I'll give him a break
Kris

Click to expand...

IMHO it is very unfortunate, but I believe you won't see Henning (HoHun) ever in this forum, because of the personal attacks (as he saw them) in another thread.

Edit:
Back to the topic. Bf 109E-3 was the best fighter at that particular date, no doubt.

Kris

So it seems that THE choice has been whittled down to either the 109 or the Spitfire.
In particular, the Spitfire I or the 109-E.

To that end, here's an interesting excerpt from Aviation-History's Sptifire page...
"The speed of the Spitfire I was marginally higher than that of its principal opponent the Luftwaffe's Messerschmitt Bf 109E, and it was infinitely more maneuverable than the German fighter although the Bf 109E could out climb and out dive the British fighter..."

So which would you rather be fighting in? The Spitfire I or The 109-E?



Elvis

Unfortunatly there are about 3 Spitfire MK Is.

The Early ones with a fixed pitch wooden 2 bladed airscrew.

An intermediate one with a 2 position airscrew.

The later ones with the variable pitch or constant speed unit.

Strangley enough it was the early ones with the fixed pitch 2 bladed airscrews that were the fastest at altitude although that might have had something to do with the lack of armour and the bullet proof windscreen that was generally thought to cause a 6mph drop in speed by itself.

Take off and climb really suffered with the fixed pitch prop.

This may affect the ratings of the 2 fighters in Sept of 1939 vrs Aug of 1940.

Ouch!
Seems like we've reached the "hot debate" stage...
It depends on your preferences.

On the speed: early Spit (w/o armour) can go 591 km/h at their rated altitude with 5' power setting, the Emil-3 can go 570 km/h at their rated altitude with 30' power setting

Shortround6 said:

Unfortunatly there are about 3 Spitfire MK Is.

The Early ones with a fixed pitch wooden 2 bladed airscrew.

An intermediate one with a 2 position airscrew.

The later ones with the variable pitch or constant speed unit.

Strangley enough it was the early ones with the fixed pitch 2 bladed airscrews that were the fastest at altitude although that might have had something to do with the lack of armour and the bullet proof windscreen that was generally thought to cause a 6mph drop in speed by itself.

Take off and climb really suffered with the fixed pitch prop.

This may affect the ratings of the 2 fighters in Sept of 1939 vrs Aug of 1940.

Click to expand...

Well, if it isn't my favourite debate foe.
You seem to be more of an expert on the subject of Spits than I (and I claim to not really know that much about different mk.'s of Spitfire), so I'll throw this back to you.
Which of those different types were in service by 9/1/39?
...or are you saying all 3 that you listed were already in service by that date?


Elvis

Vincenzo said:

On the speed: early Spit (w/o armour) can go 591 km/h at their rated altitude with 5' power setting, the Emil-3 can go 570 km/h at their rated altitude with 30' power setting

Click to expand...

Vincenzo,

Please forgive my ignorance, but could you please explain the "power setting" you referred to?
Being an Amercian, I interpret the marks you put with those numbers as meaning "feet" or "foot", as in 1 foot = 0.3048 meters.
So to me, your unit of measurement for the power setting doesn't make sense.

Thanks for your help.




Elvis

Elvis said:

Well, if it isn't my favourite debate foe.
You seem to be more of an expert on the subject of Spits than I (and I claim to not really know that much about different mk.'s of Spitfire), so I'll throw this back to you.
Which of those different types were in service by 9/1/39?
...or are you saying all 3 that you listed were already in service by that date?


Elvis

Click to expand...

The 2 blade machines were and the 2 position 3 blade machines were in service in a few numbers. The constant speed propellors, whither by De Havilland or by Rotol didn't show up until the spring/summer of 1940 although it seems that they were planned for. I believe the difference between the MK III Merlin and the Earlier versions was primarily the universal propellor shaft that could take De Havilland or Rotol propellors interchagably.
My point was that comments about the performance of Battle of Britian aircraft might not apply to aircraft flying almost a year earlier.

Elvis said:

Vincenzo,

Please forgive my ignorance, but could you please explain the "power setting" you referred to?
Being an Amercian, I interpret the marks you put with those numbers as meaning "feet" or "foot", as in 1 foot = 0.3048 meters.
So to me, your unit of measurement for the power setting doesn't make sense.

Thanks for your help.




Elvis

Click to expand...

sorry ' was for minute, time unit of measurement, i thinked that ' was a international standard

Elvis said:

Well, if it isn't my favourite debate foe.
You seem to be more of an expert on the subject of Spits than I (and I claim to not really know that much about different mk.'s of Spitfire), so I'll throw this back to you.
Which of those different types were in service by 9/1/39?
...or are you saying all 3 that you listed were already in service by that date?


Elvis

Click to expand...

all 3 were already in service

Shortround6 said:

The 2 blade machines were and the 2 position 3 blade machines were in service in a few numbers. The constant speed propellors, whither by De Havilland or by Rotol didn't show up until the spring/summer of 1940 although it seems that they were planned for. I believe the difference between the MK III Merlin and the Earlier versions was primarily the universal propellor shaft that could take De Havilland or Rotol propellors interchagably.
My point was that comments about the performance of Battle of Britian aircraft might not apply to aircraft flying almost a year earlier.

Click to expand...

Hey that's great, thanks for clarifying that.
From the last part of your post, I get the idea that you think I'm commenting outside of the timeline prescribed by the title of this thread, however, while they may have been in the BoB, the Spit Mk.I and the 109E were also operational by 9/1/39. Some 109D's, too, but by then it was mostly 109E's.

...and as I was perusing around the net for more info on the Spit Mk.I (since we're talking about it here and thus, now I'm a little curious), I ran across a page entitled (oddly enough)...
"Spitfire Mk.I vs. Me109E A performance comparison".
Quite informative.


Elvis

Vincenzo said:

all 3 were already in service

Click to expand...

Not according to Shortround6.

Shortround6 said:

The 2 blade machines were and the 2 position 3 blade machines were in service in a few numbers. The constant speed propellors, whither by De Havilland or by Rotol didn't show up until the spring/summer of 1940

Click to expand...

...maybe you boys should hash that one out between yourselves.


Elvis

After the Watts two blade fixed pitch, the De Havilland three-position, three blade was introduced, which was fitted to most Spits by 1940 although most Hurricanes still had the two blade fixed pitch.
Then came the Rotol which was the first true constant speed fitted during 1940. After 1943 I think De Havilland started license producing the Curtiss Electric constant speed unit, which could handle higher power loads (the Rotol had a bit of lag once you got over 1500hp), so later Spits were either mostly De Havilland (Curtiss Electric) constant speeds and early Spits were mostly Rotol constant speeds, whilst the earliest Spits had De Havilland three-position variable pitch. It had three positions, not two.

Funny part is I think the Rotol mechanism was actually invented by De Havilland.

In Sept 1939 most Spits in the field will have the de Havilland three-position variable pitch, and most Hurricanes will have the Watts two blade fixed pitch. This was a large factor in aerial battles over Dunkirk, as the Luftwaffe was not expecting the Spits to perform as well as they did, that is to say with their variable pitch propellers were equivalent in all respects to the BF-109, whilst BEF Hurricanes all had Watts props and poor performance above 3500m.


Update on the BF-109D story.
I hereby stand corrected!
The BF-109D indeed is basically a 109C with the 210D Jumo instead of the 210G Jumo.
But as I knew must therefore be the case, I have opened a can of worms. At this point it appears the very limited run of BF-109C may not have achieved full production status (and may have been all taken of 109B lines and modified), whilst the first BF-109 with guns in the wings to achieve mass production was the D (ca.665 produced).
Earlier publications such as those of Alfred Price had tossed 109D production in with the 109C since there are no differences between these two airframes other than reverting to the engine of the 109B. In other words there is no change in production, no airframe alterations from the C. So he thought, and it seems logical, that the 109C was merely produced with both 210G and 210D engines where this is not the case according to current celebrations of early model designations.
However importantly other experts agree that several questions remain about the finer details of early BF-109 production, some can't even agree on armament fits. There is precious little conclusive documentation about them, as this entire period was really a development one for the Emil.
It appears the initial type the B was followed by a short run development type the C (only some 58 produced) and then the Jumo engine versions were finalised in the first mass production type the D. Concurrantly prototypes were used to develop the E which entered mass production shortly after.
So the other posters here were quite correct.

Shortround6 said:

The 2 blade machines were and the 2 position 3 blade machines were in service in a few numbers. The constant speed propellors, whither by De Havilland or by Rotol didn't show up until the spring/summer of 1940 although it seems that they were planned for. I believe the difference between the MK III Merlin and the Earlier versions was primarily the universal propellor shaft that could take De Havilland or Rotol propellors interchagably.
My point was that comments about the performance of Battle of Britian aircraft might not apply to aircraft flying almost a year earlier.

Click to expand...

if it's true that the de Havilland prop came from 78th Spit you can see here production page 001 that delivery started in february '39, if it's true that Merlin III (can take the Rotol) came from 175th Spit that delivery started in may '39.

From the site reference so kindly provided by "Elvis".

Spitfire Mk I versus Me 109 E

It appears that the First Rotol equiped Spitfires didn't reach the squadrons until Nov/Dec of 39. It also appears that the DeHavilland 2 pitch propellor could be refitted/modified into a constant speed unit.

I would also like to say that just because an engine/propshaft "could" be fitted with a certain constant speed propellor doesn't it mean it "WAS" fitted with that propellor right away. There were shortages of these propellors and it seems bomber command might have had priority at times.

As far as Elvis's comment " I get the idea that you think I'm commenting outside of the timeline prescribed by the title of this thread, however, while they may have been in the BoB, the Spit Mk.I and the 109E were also operational by 9/1/39"

I know you were trying to be helpful but it appears the British didn't help matters because they made no distiction between any of these MK Is no matter what propellor, pilot protection, self-sealing tanks or maximium alllowable boost they were using.
SO in Sept. 1939 you could have a MK I with no pilot protection or self sealing tanks using a 2 bladed wooden propellor and a max boost of 6 1/2 lbs while in Aug of 1940 you could have a MK I with 73lbs of aromour, a bullet proof windscreen, self sealing tanks, a Rotol (or DeHavilland) constant speed propellor and a max boost of 12lbs. TO the British they were both MK I's with no "A"s or "B"s or "*" or anything help us latter day peaple keep them straight

Shortround6 said:

From the site reference so kindly provided by "Elvis".

Spitfire Mk I versus Me 109 E

It appears that the First Rotol equiped Spitfires didn't reach the squadrons until Nov/Dec of 39. It also appears that the DeHavilland 2 pitch propellor could be refitted/modified into a constant speed unit.

I would also like to say that just because an engine/propshaft "could" be fitted with a certain constant speed propellor doesn't it mean it "WAS" fitted with that propellor right away. There were shortages of these propellors and it seems bomber command might have had priority at times.

As far as Elvis's comment " I get the idea that you think I'm commenting outside of the timeline prescribed by the title of this thread, however, while they may have been in the BoB, the Spit Mk.I and the 109E were also operational by 9/1/39"

I know you were trying to be helpful but it appears the British didn't help matters because they made no distiction between any of these MK Is no matter what propellor, pilot protection, self-sealing tanks or maximium alllowable boost they were using.
SO in Sept. 1939 you could have a MK I with no pilot protection or self sealing tanks using a 2 bladed wooden propellor and a max boost of 6 1/2 lbs while in Aug of 1940 you could have a MK I with 73lbs of aromour, a bullet proof windscreen, self sealing tanks, a Rotol (or DeHavilland) constant speed propellor and a max boost of 12lbs. TO the British they were both MK I's with no "A"s or "B"s or "*" or anything help us latter day peaple keep them straight

Click to expand...

i can agree for rotol prop the merlin III can not must, so we have not spitfire with rotol for 31 august but for de havilland prop spit they are surely in delivery from february.

vanir said:

Update on the BF-109D story.
.

Click to expand...

I don't understand you tell that the C have the MG-17 in the wings or not? Afaik it'have .
In some sources the engine of D it's not the same of B but it's a different sub version (Jumo 211 Da)

Vincenzo said:

i can agree for rotol prop the merlin III can not must, so we have not spitfire with rotol for 31 august but for de havilland prop spit they are surely in delivery from february.

Click to expand...

I would guess that it is the 2 position ( fine or corse) De Havilland propellor rather than the full range or constant speed unit. Much better than the fixed pitch wooden propellor but not as good as the coonstant speed units.

I did a fair bit of research on this a little while ago as I was looking over some remodelling requests for early Spits in the Il2 game (I was remodelling some Kittyhawks at the time). The de Havilland prop following on from the Watts (ca.Feb39 presumably) was definitely a three-position.
De Havilland were making other two-position props for their other aircraft, iirc two-blade units. They were one of the pioneers of variable pitch propellers after all.

Like I said it was the Rotol that was constant speed but I recall reading somewhere the mechanism was actually designed by de Havilland (so this is probably the reason for descriptions of retrofitted de Havilland props with the constant speed mechanism). The de Havilland constant speed actually put into production was a licensed version of the Curtiss Electric and came later, this mechanism I don't think would adapt to an earlier variable pitch unit.

Germany had developed the aeromechanical screw in 1938.


edit. hang on I just had a funny thought. Perhaps what they mean by three-position was that it could be feathered? Well that's just egg on my face isn't it lol
that's okay, if one has to get something wrong or misinterpret stuff at least I'm in the right company to be corrected and get it right