Bf-109 vs. Spitfire....

May I make the suggestion that if you want to talk about "Wing breakage" everyone go to that thread or if you want to talk about "100 Octane Gas", you can go to that thread. This having the same discussion across 3 threads is ridiculus.

Kurfürst said:

It should be noted that all the above claims by Glider are made up on his own regards the contents of the manual - it doesn't contain anything like he says, in fact he just posted exactly the same manual I have... OOPS, so much for NZT Typhoon conspiracy theories about 'forged' documents...

Click to expand...

For those who read the above you shold check out
The link to the 100 octane thread http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/aviation/use-100-octane-fuel-raf-pt-2-a-20108-8.html and look up
a) Posting 108 where Kurfurst wrote
Please see the Spitfire II pilots notes from July 1940, showing similiar limitations when 87 octane fuel is used (a PDF version can be found at Zeno's Warbirds website). He then posted a hardcopy showing the Spit II Pilots notes with both 87 Octane and 100 Octane.
b) my posting 112 where I wrote
Re the Pilots Notes we have an interesting situation. I also have a copy of the Spit II Pilots notes dated July 1940 and they only mention 100 Octane. Its odd as I would expect the Pilots notes for around May 1941 to mention both fuels as by that time they were being passed to training units that didn't have 100 Octane.
c) My Posting 116 where I wrote
I have been looking at the two different copies of the Pilots Notes and the one on Zenos warbirds site as quoted by Kurfurst cannot be for June 1940. I say this as in section 35 page 9 on the firing controls it gives a description of the controls for the IIA which had 8 x LMG and the IIB with 2 x 20mm and 4 x LMG. In June 1940 the IIB wasn't even a glimmer on the horizon.
The original one only mentions the LMG and doesn't refer to it as a IIA only a II which again is correct.

Its only fair to add that Zeno's is dated June 1940 so no blame can be given to Kurfurst for his confusion.

There is no doubt that
a) Kurfurst posted the Zeno website Spitfire II as evidence,
b) that I checked it out
c) that I commented on the differences

For Kurfurst to pretend that he didn't is clearly wrong and to then claim that I have made these claims up on my own regards is beyond the pale.

Coming in late, but I have to go with the 109. More mass-production friendly, nose cannon armament, better weapons load overall.

It's a tough choice, probably the toughest when it comes to comparing WW2 fighters because there are so many models available. I have never reached a conclusion, but if I ever do that probably is the day I lose my interest in WW2 aircraft

Me 109 has mass production and maintenance going for it which is all too often ignored. Spitfire was a tad larger from the start so it was easier to gun up and add equipment without ruining the lines of the plane. Spitfire had a bad start and a lack of importance in the mid-to-late of the war due to it not being able to escort anything deeper into Germany. Its performance-wise best examples were available pretty early but again not very significant until late '44. Me 109 starts better but has a low point in the mid of its career, which was unfortunately the time things got really hot over Europe. It catches up later but the war is almost over by then. Interestingly they both start and end the war with pretty similar performance.

The Mk 108 gun does it for me. You would have to have great gunnery skills to hit with it but if you did, it would blow anything out of the sky.

I often wonder: Would it have been possible to integrate the MG151 into the wings instead of pods and how much aerodynamically better would such an installation be?

I imagine an alternative G-6 that has 3 MG151/20 (one nose and two in the wings) and no cowling guns. That would keep the fuselage as clean as the Friedrich had it. Later you could replace the engine gun with the MK108 and later maybe even the wing guns with that cannon.

riacrato said:

I often wonder: Would it have been possible to integrate the MG151 into the wings instead of pods and how much aerodynamically better would such an installation be?

I imagine an alternative G-6 that has 3 MG151/20 (one nose and two in the wings) and no cowling guns. That would keep the fuselage as clean as the Friedrich had it. Later you could replace the engine gun with the MK108 and later maybe even the wing guns with that cannon.

Click to expand...

I don't know how that would work out with the wing radiators. Would you move the radiator to a Yak-Style underbelly design?

If you did that and at the same time changed the landing gear to wide, outward-retracting gear for better landing/takeoff handling, you might be talking about the perfect 109.

riacrato said:

I often wonder: Would it have been possible to integrate the MG151 into the wings instead of pods and how much aerodynamically better would such an installation be?

I imagine an alternative G-6 that has 3 MG151/20 (one nose and two in the wings) and no cowling guns. That would keep the fuselage as clean as the Friedrich had it. Later you could replace the engine gun with the MK108 and later maybe even the wing guns with that cannon.

Click to expand...

There was the Me 109K-6 with internally mounted wing MK108 cannons.

riacrato said:

I often wonder: Would it have been possible to integrate the MG151 into the wings instead of pods and how much aerodynamically better would such an installation be?

I imagine an alternative G-6 that has 3 MG151/20 (one nose and two in the wings) and no cowling guns. That would keep the fuselage as clean as the Friedrich had it. Later you could replace the engine gun with the MK108 and later maybe even the wing guns with that cannon.

Click to expand...

Physically it would have been possible, but difficult; in the original wing (B-E), because of the wheelbays and slots, plus the mid-chord wing spar, there were only two bays which were available. When the MG 17s were added to the outer of the two bays the ammunition belts had to be fed, via a system of rollers, outboard to near the wingtips, then back around to the wingroots and back to the gun. Parts of the breech mechanism had to be accomodated by cutting a hole into the leading edge of the flap.

The MG FF was able to be squeezed in by mounting it in the outer bay with the rear part of the breech block passing through a hole in the spar and the drum magazine feeding the breech forward of the spar. When Galland had one of his 109Fs converted to carry wing mounted MG-FF/Ms it was a factory conversion job.

The MG-FF weighed 26.3 kg/58 lbs while the MG-151/15 weighed 38.1 kg/84 lbs; MG-151/20 42.5 kg/93.5. lbs. The MG-FF was 1370 mm/ 54 in long overall (does anyone know the barrel length?) while the MG-151/15 was 1917 mm/75.5 in overall with a barrel length of 1250 mm/49.25 in ; MG-151/20 1766 mm/69.6 in, barrel 1104.9 mm/43.5 in - not forgetting that barrel length was the length back to the chamber. The MK-108 was shorter than any of them - 1057 mm/41.6 in but heavier 58 kg/130 lbs

My guess would be that an unacceptably large hole would have had to have been cut into the main spar to accomodate the breech mechanism of the MG-151s, while finding room for the magazines may have been a problem without adding bulges and larger servicing hatches. Weight wasn't a problem because the gondola mounted arrangement was heavier overall. Accomodating the MK-103 must have meant some extensive internal redesign and strengthening of the wing.

Clay_Allison said:

I don't know how that would work out with the wing radiators. Would you move the radiator to a Yak-Style underbelly design?

If you did that and at the same time changed the landing gear to wide, outward-retracting gear for better landing/takeoff handling, you might be talking about the perfect 109.

Click to expand...

The Me 209II ( V5 and V6) used Jumo 213s with annular radiators and had redesigned wings with internal armament in the wing-roots and wide-track undercarriages. The Fw 190D was the preferred choice of the Luftwaffe, because the Me 209 didn't perform as well, in spite of the development work which went into it.

To clay allison, i disagree:
Spitfire V BF-109E
Armanent-8 .50 cal. MGs Armanent-2 20mm or 30mm cannons, 2 or 4 7.92mm Mauser MGs.
Cost-12,604 pounds Cost-42,900 reich marks(about 107,250 pounds)
Number built-20,351 Number Built- 33,984 AND this number includes the Bf-109Es that were built by Spian
and other countries after the war. Nazi Germany only built a little less than half that
so aprox. 15,000 were built by Germany during the war.

to clay allison, i have my point. the spitfire tured out to have amanent advantage and definatly a cost advantage. Since it had cost advantage, it was definately better for mass production. i rest my case.

Zniperguy114 said:

To clay allison, i disagree:
Spitfire V BF-109E
Armanent-8 .50 cal. MGs Armanent-2 20mm or 30mm cannons, 2 or 4 7.92mm Mauser MGs.
Cost-12,604 pounds (1939) Cost-42,900 reich marks(about 107,250 pounds)
Number built-20,351 Number Built- 33,984 AND this number includes the Bf-109Es that were built by Spian
and other countries after the war. Nazi Germany only built a little less than half that
so aprox. 15,000 were built by Germany during the war.

Click to expand...

Sorry, you are wrong on several counts:
Spitfire V either 8x .303 (VA - 94 built): 2 x 20mm Hispano w/60 (VB) or 120 rpg (VC), 4 x .303.

The relative value of the RM vs the Pound is also wrong; in 1940 it was (roughly) five RM to the £ so 42,900 RM = £8,580 - making the 109 about 2/3rds the price.

The average price of building Spitfires did drop as mass production kicked in fully, but so did that of the 109.

30,573 109s were built in Germany 1938-'45, the rest were built post-war by other countries

sorry NZTyphoon, i must have had one crapy source. Thanx for clearing that up for me anyway.

No problem, it happens to all of us!

And i can add why compare 109E with spit V, at time of spit V the 109 was F-4

riacrato said:

I often wonder: Would it have been possible to integrate the MG151 into the wings instead of pods and how much aerodynamically better would such an installation be?

Click to expand...

It was certainly possible - the 109K heavy fighter variants (ie. K-6) integrated a pair of MK 108s into the leading edge of the wing, with 45 rounds per gun. Alternatively, MG 151/20 installation was possible in the same place, with 100 rpg. Post war, the Spanish integrated a 20 mm French Hispano cannon into the wing of the 109G:



Aerodynamically speaking, integrating the guns into wings would yield only limited gains in drag.

The gondola armament in the 109F-K came with a speed loss of -8 km/h (at SL, at around 520 km/h). The speed loss would be a bit greater of course for later, faster variants, ie. the G-14's top speed (w/o gondolas about 570 km/h at SL) loss was about 10 km/h, and the speed loss would be a bit higher on the 109K with top speed at SL at around 600 km/h, say, 12 km/h. The top speed loss would be about 50% greater at rated altitude of ca 7000m. In comparison the difference between the K-4 and the K-6 (the latter as noted with wing MK 108) was about 5 km/h at SL, and 10 km/h at rated altitude. In short we are talking about a very modest speed gain, in the order of 8 km/h, if integral wing guns were to be adopted.

As far as weight goes, there was no difference between the MG 151/20 gondola weapons, and the wing installation of a pair of MG 151/20s in the FW 190A. The weight of the two was almost exactly the same, the difference being a few kilograms.

NZTyphoon said:

30,573 109s were built in Germany 1938-'45, the rest were built post-war by other countries

Click to expand...

Total production up to and including March 1945 was 33 984 Bf 109s. An unknown number, about 500-1000 were still produced in April 1945. This includes the 309 produced in Győr, Hungary (I believe the actual number of Győrs production was twice as high, so this may only include the ones handed over to the LW according to the license agreement), the rest were in German factories, principially by three main factories of Messerschmitt AG at Regensburg, W.N.F. in Wienerneustadt, and Erla Maschinenwerke in Leipzig. 1860 of these were produced before 1939. The post war production was in fact quite marginal, a couple of dozen in both Spain and by the Czech, and let us recall that the Spanish 'production' was in effect just fitting and modifying the existing Bf 109G-2 airframes they received from German production, sans engines, guns and other equipment.

In terms of the BoB I dont think there was much qualitative difference bwtween the two aircraft. The Germans held the advantage in pilot experience, and initially had the advantage in tactical handling. Later the Luftwaffe lost way in its target priorities, and made errors in the tactical employment of its fighters as well, and never did grasp the importance of massed attacks and concentration of effort.

For all that, the Luftwaffe didnt really lose the Battle, they just didnt win. By staying in the battle, and not getting itself destroyed the RAF can claim victory, whereas the Luftwaffe cannot. Does this in any way reflect badly on the Me109e? Possibly. It lacked the range and endurance to provide effective escort for the bombers, which played a really big role in the demise of the overall force.

I am reading a book at the moment called "1941 Part II - The Blitz to the non-stop offensive". Its written by a man called John Foreman. It gives a daily account of the Fighting over western europe in that critical year, and details how the RAF managed to gain control of the skies over France in 1941, gradually forcing the Luftwaffe to yield ground and airspace as time went by. But whilst the RAF gradually won control of the airspace, the Luftwaffe remained in the battle, despite being heavily outnumbered (later on at least). It was a story of dogged determination and relentless pressure on the Germans, that eventually yielded dividends for the allies. The Spitfire figures prominantly in those daylight battles

I have seen the statement " the Luftwaffe didnt really lose the Battle, they just didnt win" many times from many sources in the past, so I'm not attacking your post, which I though was very good, but it does raise a question with me.

In what sense did the Luftwaffe not lose the BoB? An attacking force came over with the intent of smashing Britains defences and failed. If William the conquerors army had returned to Normandy in 1066 there would be no question that Harolds forces had won the battle, they didn't and there is equally no doubt who really won.

As the RAF beat off the attacker and finished the battle in a stronger position than they had started it, unlike the Luftwaffe, I don't think there is any doubt as to who won that particular battle. My opinion of course.

I must agree that the Luftwaffe attempted to achieve certain aims and failed so from that perspective Germany lost the battle. Where I suspect people go wrong is blaming it on the failings of the 109 which is very unfair. The plane did what it was designed to do, it wasn't designed as a long range fighter and to try to use it as such and then depend on it, was asking for trouble. To then not even prepare for the use of drop tanks despite the lessons of the Spanish Civil War was almost criminal folly.
It wasn't the pilots or even the aircraft, it was the leadership who gave their aircrews what was an impossible task with the tools they had. That however is normally the way in any battle, land sea or air.