Bf-109 vs. Spitfire....

[lesofprimus]

I saw more 109s than Spits.

I would certainly hope so, cause I dont recall seeing Spitfires escorting u guys to Germany and back...

Never understood the Brits fixation on the 30 cal guns.

It wasnt so much a fixation of the gun, but the overabundance of the .303 cartridge that the Brits had.... Use up whatcha got, right???

 

[loomaluftwaffe]

why did they have all that .30cal ammo anyways?

 

[lesofprimus]

Leftovers from WW I....

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Yes and looma he said more 109s than Spitfires, not 190s.

 

[loomaluftwaffe]

I was asking if he saw more 190s than 109s

cool my 1000th post

 

[the lancaster kicks ass]

why did they have all that .30cal ammo anyways?

sorry to be pedantic, but it's .303 not .30, and the british rarely used the term cal........

and like les said, it's partly left over stuff from WWI, partly lack of forsight and the british thinking that the next war would be won with high volumes of rifle calibre ammo, but mostly because we could produce it very quickly and very easily, and we needed a lot of it, pretty much every gun in the army used the .303 and when to take into account all our colonies using it too, that's a LOT of guns that need ammo, and the one thing the higher ranks of the army hated was running out of ammo, they didn't care if they were out of food or water, just ammo, then when the time came when heavier guns were needed, the RAF went straight for the 20mm, to them the .50 was a waste of time, what's the point in having a midpoint? just go for the more destructive one, and i think they had the right idea..........

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

I was asking if he saw more 190s than 109s

cool my 1000th post

Should that really be surprising since there were more 109s built and used than Fw-190s.

 

[Gnomey]

I agree Lanc, going straight from the .303" to the 20mm was a good idea. Although they used the "50 cal in later marks of Spitfire replacing the 4 .303"s.

 

[alejandro_]

Some points on the comparison Spit XIV vs Bf-109K-4

- The Spit was a more stable platform in terms of performance. At this stage the Bf-109 manufacturing quality was much lower.

- The use of a gyroscope gave the XIV quite an advantage in combats. The Luftwaffe never installed on their Bf-109 a device similar to the Ferranti gyro computing gunsight.

- Some documents state that the K4 had cooling deficciencies, this should limit the performance, together with the overall finishing of the aircraft.

- The Bf-109 in general rolls better at higher speeds, but the roll rate in the Spitfire improved after the clipped wing versions entered service. Any info on the Spifire XIV roll rate?

I would say the Bf-109 was better during 1941-42, when the E and F versions were available. After that the Spit has the advantage.

Regards.

 

[Jabberwocky]

I dont have 109K vs Spitfire XIV roll data, but I do have Spitfire V data vs 109G data, which should be roughly similar:

Apart from the NACA curves for the Mk V (which closely match British testing), the other Spitfire data comes from THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE SPITFIRE AND SEAFIRE, a Dec 1946 address to the Royal Aeronautical Society by J Smith, Chief Designer for Supermarine from 1938 through the war years.

The Spitfire I/II curve is the yellow one, its just hard to read

The Tempest V roll rate is from the 1944 RA&AE testing.

The 109 data comes from a June 1944 test by DVL with 30kg (66lbs) of force.

The Mk V rolls so much better than the Mk I 2 because of the change from fabric to metal skinned alierons. A Mk IX should be similar as should a Mk XIV.

The Mk 21 rolls worse at low speed because of its Mk VIII style short span alierons were less effective at low speeds. It was much better at higher speeds due to a stiffer wings, smaller alierons leading to easire deflection and rebalanced alieron linkages (heavier but more 'positive' in their control).

The Spitfire Mk I/II is the yellow curve, its just a little hard to see.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Good info and chart there. I will agree about the early 109s having the edge and then losing slightly to the Spit later on. Overall though they were equals in my opinion.

 

[alejandro_]

Interesting.

The Mk V rolls so much better than the Mk I 2 because of the change from fabric to metal skinned alierons. A Mk IX should be similar as should a Mk XIV.[\quote]

It is also quite impressive the change from normal to clipped wings. I had always tought the Bf-109G/K had a great advantage at higher speeds but it doesn't seem to be that way. Is the Spitfire data also at 30kg input force?

Regards.

 

[Jabberwocky]

Spitfire data is for 50lbs, or about 22.5 kg of stick force.

The Germans had slightly different standards for measuring stick force and roll, but its similar enough for a useful comparison.

The late model 109s may of rolled better thanks to some additional wing stiffening, but I haven't seen any data on that yet.

 

[SHOOTER]

The coming of the IX against G - I, personally, think led to the Spitfire pulling away. The Gustav was becoming difficult to handle , and many problems remained. While the Spitfire was just as easy, handled like a dream but was increasing in power and range. I don't think the Bf-109 ever caught up to the Spitfire come the Mk.IX .

Increasing it's superiority, the VII, XII (low level), XIV and 21 just moved the Spitfire further and further ahead. I don't think the G or K model 109s were the Spitfire equals , it was all down to the German pilot to keep himself alive against a Spitfire ... because his crate was unforgiving , and no longer superior.

Just because a plane is "EASY" to fly generaly makes it a less effective weapon. The Spit was a notoriously poor gun platform, twitchy and very heavy on the controles at high speed. The Ailerons actualy reversed at high speed because the flimsy wing twisted so much under load. The Me-109 was a tough plane the Spit was fragile untill well after the war.

The Me was a handfull to fly but in the right parts of the envelope would run rings around the Spit. A strong pilot could make it do things that a super man in the Spit could not. In addition, it had a FI engine that could almost guarantee a clean escape while the Spit was dog meat if caught from behind.

The Spit was designed for the first part of the last war before all who payed attention knew that dog fighting was obsolite! The light wing loading gave it excellent maneuverability, but made it slow to accellerate and roll. It also made it slower than it's competiters under average "OPPERATIONAL" conditions. Planes rairly saw top speeds and often fought at part throttle were the Me-109 had a substantial advantage. In addition, the DB-6xx could run full throttle for 10 minutes while the merlin would self destruct in five.

Finaly as a gun platform the Me was vastly supirior to any Spit. The nose mounted guns of the -109 would be effective to twice or three times the range of the Spits wing mounted guns.

 

[SHOOTER]

I dont have 109K vs Spitfire XIV roll data, but I do have Spitfire V data vs 109G data, which should be roughly similar:

The 109 data comes from a June 1944 test by DVL with 30kg (66lbs) of force.

The Mk V rolls so much better than the Mk I 2 because of the change from fabric to metal skinned alierons. A Mk IX should be similar as should a Mk XIV.

The Mk 21 rolls worse at low speed because of its Mk VIII style short span alierons were less effective at low speeds. It was much better at higher speeds due to a stiffer wings, smaller alierons leading to easire deflection and rebalanced alieron linkages (heavier but more 'positive' in their control).

The Spitfire Mk I/II is the yellow curve, its just a little hard to see.

I note that the above curves are all to the same direction! If the plane was forced to roll the other way, it would not do nearly so well and the planes whose engines turned in the opposite direction would do much better. Think swapping curves between the Fw-190 and Spit-1/2? By changing direction of roll.

Secondly, the rate of roll in the Spit fell off very rapidly with more stick force! Eventialy the ailerons induced so much twist in the wing that the planes STOPPED ROLLING IN THE DIRECTION DESIRED AND REVERSESED the direction of roll! Larger Stick forces in the other planes all gennerated much higher rates of roll!

What this means is that a strong pilot in all of the other planes could out roll a Spit just by adding more stick! Doing that in the Spit reduced the rate of roll to nothing eventialy! So no matter which way you whent, the Spit could not roll with the rest!

 

[SHOOTER]

Some points on the comparison Spit XIV vs Bf-109K-4

- The Spit was a more stable platform in terms of performance. At this stage the Bf-109 manufacturing quality was much lower.

- The use of a gyroscope gave the XIV quite an advantage in combats. The Luftwaffe never installed on their Bf-109 a device similar to the Ferranti gyro computing gunsight.

- Some documents state that the K4 had cooling deficciencies, this should limit the performance, together with the overall finishing of the aircraft.

- The Bf-109 in general rolls better at higher speeds, but the roll rate in the Spitfire improved after the clipped wing versions entered service. Any info on the Spifire XIV roll rate?

I would say the Bf-109 was better during 1941-42, when the E and F versions were available. After that the Spit has the advantage.

Regards.

The Spit was a terrible weapons platform! It was "twitchy" and the wing mounted guns were guaranteed to miss if the target was at any range other than that at which the guns were ZEROED/HARMONIZED/REGULATED.

The guns were 7-13 feet out in the wings and 45" below the LOS threw the gun sight. This meant that the bullet streams from the guns started wide rose and crossed under the sight pipper and then fell away on the opposite side of the target. If the target fuselage was 36" wide and perfectly centered under the aiming mark, the bullets would be wide of the target untill it was less than 54 yards from the 250 yard ZERO RANGE and then would hit untill 54 yards after the ZERO RANGE, untill missing completely past that range.

The -109's nose guns were all parrallel to the LOS and only 3-15" below the sight. In addition, they did not have to rise so far to meet the LOS and thus it was much easier to get hits.

Finnaly the Spits flimsy wings twisted and vibrated badly under recoil and caused enormious dispersion to the bullet stream from any one gun. Over one meter in 100! This reduced the concentraition or weight of fire dramaticaly.

To figure out the total effect of this compute the ratio of taqrgets downed to total number of planes made and missions flown. ( TOTAL RAF post BoB kills=5280/>20,000 Spits made)=.264? IIRC? The Spit is at the very bottom of this compairison! It was a lowsy weapon system! The above number includes kills by other types and gets much worse as they are removed.

Even a cursory examination of the other planes involved in the ETO shows all are better than the Spit!

 

[Jabberwocky]

Oh S'Wounds!

He is here as well!

 

[Jabberwocky]

Just because a plane is "EASY" to fly generaly makes it a less effective weapon. The Spit was a notoriously poor gun platform, twitchy and very heavy on the controles at high speed. The Ailerons actualy reversed at high speed because the flimsy wing twisted so much under load. The Me-109 was a tough plane the Spit was fragile untill well after the war.

Please point to one pilot account that describes the Spitfire as a 'notoriously poor gun platform'. All WW2 fighters underwent alieron reversal a very high speeds.

How was the Bf-109 any more rugged than the Spitfire? Same engine type, light weight and a smaller fuselage? The Spitfire was also rated to a higher critical Mach.

The Me was a handfull to fly but in the right parts of the envelope would run rings around the Spit. A strong pilot could make it do things that a super man in the Spit could not. In addition, it had a FI engine that could almost guarantee a clean escape while the Spit was dog meat if caught from behind.

The Spitfire could out-turn the 109 if caught from behind an go back on the offensive. The 109 could only dive away, not an offensive tactic.

The Spit was designed for the first part of the last war before all who payed attention knew that dog fighting was obsolite! The light wing loading gave it excellent maneuverability, but made it slow to accellerate and roll. It also made it slower than it's competiters under average "OPPERATIONAL" conditions. Planes rairly saw top speeds and often fought at part throttle were the Me-109 had a substantial advantage. In addition, the DB-6xx could run full throttle for 10 minutes while the merlin would self destruct in five.

Actually, all a Spitfire pilot had to do when he had run the Merlin for more than 5 minutes at emergency overboost was to inform his squadron leader.

Over Malta a Spitfire Vc pilot ran his Merlin for 30 minutes at full emergency boost, with no engine problems.

Finaly as a gun platform the Me was vastly supirior to any Spit. The nose mounted guns of the -109 would be effective to twice or three times the range of the Spits wing mounted guns.

And yet a Spitfire with 2 x20mm and 4 x .303 could put out 3 times the weight of fire of a BF-109 with 1 x 20 and 2 x 13mm.

 

[Jabberwocky]

I note that the above curves are all to the same direction! If the plane was forced to roll the other way, it would not do nearly so well and the planes whose engines turned in the opposite direction would do much better. Think swapping curves between the Fw-190 and Spit-1/2? By changing direction of roll.

Secondly, the rate of roll in the Spit fell off very rapidly with more stick force! Eventialy the ailerons induced so much twist in the wing that the planes STOPPED ROLLING IN THE DIRECTION DESIRED AND REVERSESED the direction of roll! Larger Stick forces in the other planes all gennerated much higher rates of roll!

What this means is that a strong pilot in all of the other planes could out roll a Spit just by adding more stick! Doing that in the Spit reduced the rate of roll to nothing eventialy! So no matter which way you whent, the Spit could not roll with the rest!

The data presented by the RA&AE and NACA says differently. There are obvious physical limits that you can place on mechanically actuated alierons by stick deflection. Western establishments generally used 50 lbs as the limit, while Germany used 30kg/66lbs as the limit.

P.S the stick force rolling values for the Mk V at 1/4 alieron are these:


Spitfire V / fabric covered frise ailerons
8 lbs @ 200 mph
16 lbs @ 250 mph
27 lbs @ 300 mph
43 lbs @ 350 mph
57 lbs @ 375 mph (end of graphed values)

Spitfire V / plain ailerons with tabs
7 lbs @ 200 mph
9 lbs @ 250 mph
13 lbs @ 300 mph
18 lbs @ 350 mph
24 lbs @ 400 mph

Spitfire V / metal covered frise ailerons
4 lbs @ 200 mph
5 lbs @ 250 mph
7 lbs @ 300 mph
9 lbs @ 350 mph
12 lbs @ 400 mph.

I.e to obtain 1/4 alieron deflection @ 400 mph, a Spitfire V/IX/XIV pilot needed just 12lbs of pressure.

 

[Jabberwocky]

The Spit was a terrible weapons platform! It was "twitchy" and the wing mounted guns were guaranteed to miss if the target was at any range other than that at which the guns were ZEROED/HARMONIZED/REGULATED.

The guns were 7-13 feet out in the wings and 45" below the LOS threw the gun sight. This meant that the bullet streams from the guns started wide rose and crossed under the sight pipper and then fell away on the opposite side of the target. If the target fuselage was 36" wide and perfectly centered under the aiming mark, the bullets would be wide of the target untill it was less than 54 yards from the 250 yard ZERO RANGE and then would hit untill 54 yards after the ZERO RANGE, untill missing completely past that range.

The -109's nose guns were all parrallel to the LOS and only 3-15" below the sight. In addition, they did not have to rise so far to meet the LOS and thus it was much easier to get hits.

Finnaly the Spits flimsy wings twisted and vibrated badly under recoil and caused enormious dispersion to the bullet stream from any one gun. Over one meter in 100! This reduced the concentraition or weight of fire dramaticaly.

To figure out the total effect of this compute the ratio of taqrgets downed to total number of planes made and missions flown. ( TOTAL RAF post BoB kills=5280/>20,000 Spits made)=.264? IIRC? The Spit is at the very bottom of this compairison! It was a lowsy weapon system! The above number includes kills by other types and gets much worse as they are removed.

Even a cursory examination of the other planes involved in the ETO shows all are better than the Spit!

Shooters figures are from a discussion at Tony Williams web-boards where he is trying to ascertain the 'effectiveness of the Spitfire as a weapons platform". I post as Montyjnr2 over there.

It seems he is a one man crusade to rid the world of the notion that the Spitfire was any good as a fighter during WW2.

For some examples check out these interesting threads:

http://www.strategypage.com/messageboards/messages/6-19197.asp

http://forums.delphiforums.com/autogun/messages/

Check the "20mm vs .50 cal" topic, the "If I were king" topic and the "Shooter2000. He's a clever chap" topics for some entertaining reading.