Bf-109F-4 and a bleak time for RAF

X

Slats have almost no effect on lift, their only real function is to increase critical aoa. They allow the 109 to pull higher coefficients of lift, but do not increase lift at a given cl.

Click to expand...

Which is why the effect of slats are not shown in the Russian tests. The tested turns are all sustained turns, ie. mild, 2-2.5 G turns at best. Without the slats opening, the 109 is just a fairly high wingloading aircraft with corresponding turn performance. The slats won't deploy in these mild turns, they don't make their effect felt; they deploy in the high-G, hard turns. That's why the 109 is generally described to 'shine' in hard, high-G turns.

The problem with that is induced drag is proportional to the square of the CL, so whilst the 109 can pull higher cl, it does so at the expense of far more drag than the Spitfire.

Quite simply, larger wings generate less induced drag.

Click to expand...

Problem is, your little model misses a *slight* factor, that is that it's the wing that creates both drag and lift. An bigger wing also develops proportinally higher drag, it's not that it's just develops more lift without any extra drag.

To put it simply, the 109 has far less drag than the Spitfire. Yes, to obtain the same lift it needs higher AoA used, which increases drag greatly. But wheter the 109 has more drag at high AoA or it has still less drag when it has the same lift as the Spitfire, is something that needs to be worked out by calculation.

You've already posted the information I posted a while ago but you did it selectively:

Hop said:

The Russians tested turn times for aircraft. Their figures, all at 1,000m altitude:

109F4 - 19.6 - 20.5 secs (at 2900 kg)

109G2 - 22.6 (at 3235kg) 20 - 21.5 secs (at 3023kg)

109G4 - 21 secs (at 3027kg)

Spitfire Vb - 18.8 secs (at 2920kg)

Spitfire LF IX - 18.5 (at 3351kg)

Click to expand...

Let's see (added wingloading):

Bf 109G-2 : 20 secs* at 3023kg), using 1300 HP (187 kg/m2)
Spitfire LF IX - 18.5 at 3351kg, using 1690 HP (149 kg/m2)

Let's add Soviet fighters and see if your theory that wingloading is so important makes any sense...

Yak-3 - 17 seconds (2697 kg, 182 kg/m2) - 1290 HP
Yak-9 - 17 seconds (2870 kg, 167 kg/m2) -
Lagg3 - 18 seconds (2990 kg, 170 kg/m2)
La5FN - 19 secons (3290 kg, 188 kg/m2) - 1850 HP
La-7 - 18 secons (3315 kg, 189 kg/m2) - 1850 HP

* The Russians gave both left/right handed turns for the 109, turning to one side generally means better turn turn time because of torque. Wheter it's left or right depends on propeller rotation direction) It makes sense to use the optimal turn direction, as this was the case of the Spitfire as well.

Uh-oh. Something ain't right with your model.The Spitfire's big wings supposed to give 'much less drag', but then why do I see that with so much more power, the Spitifire actual turn times are not better and generally worser than the Soviet turn times.

Especially look at the Yak-3. This plane should be an awful turner, at least in Hop's world. It has a shitty engine with 400 HP less than the Merlin. It has the smallest wing area of the entire bunch and fairly high wingloading.

Ie.


Yak-3 - 17 seconds at 2697 kg, 182 kg/m2 - 1290 HP
Spitfire LF IX - 18.5 seconds at 3351kg, using 1690 HP (149 kg/m2)
Yet it convi

The Spitfire has 22.5 m2 wing area, the Yak much less 14.8 m2 wing area.

Explain please, how can it be that the Spitfire...

- with so much power : 1690 vs 1290
- with so much bigger wings : 22.5 m2 vs 14.8 m2
- with so much better wingloading : 149 kg/m2 vs. 189

...gets OUTTURNED by the Yak-3.

If we go by your model of how things work, the Spitfire should quite simply outturn the Yak-3, because it has much better wingloading, and if it has better wingloading, it is supposed to have less drag in turns, at least according to you. But it doesn't seem to work that way in real life...

What the Yak-3 DOES have however, is :

- extremely low drag
- extremely postive power-to-weight, power-to-drag ratio.

The 109 can pull to higher AoA, possibly even generate enough lift to counteract the Spitfire's huge wing loading advantage, but it does so at the expense of enormous amounts of drag, which is why it can't turn as well as the Spitfire.

Click to expand...

As noted, the Spitfire's huge wing loading advantage already means that it has far more drag to start with. The Spitfire's 'huge wing loading advantage' also comes with huge drag because those huge wings create huge amounts of drag as well.

Especially considering that the Spitfire's big wings are not very good at creating lift/area... the Spit wing has washout on a large area, which effectively means that much of the wing is developing less AoA and lift than the rest. The Spit's wing is also of the thinnest profile of all WW2 fighters which means it actually develops the least lift per wing area. It's not an efficient lift-creating device. It was built for speed as a matter of fact. 1930s designers were fixated on the fast monoplane fighter. The Brits were no exception.

The huge wing was never meant for turns by it's designers, the only reason for it was that they needed to fulfill the RAF's requirement of houseing 8 machineguns in the wings, and they needed space (depth) for it.

Allright guys. A good debate is cool and all and everyone loves them and great information comes out of them, but lets not start insulting each other. There are better ways to get your point across.

Chingachgook said:

Hehe. You are something.

3 different tests from 3 different countries. One of which just happend to be THE COUNTRY THAT BUILT THE PLANE! You are beyond reason perhaps? Tell me again how the German test pilots did not know how to fly their own planes...

Show me a test (German even) that shows a head to head test between a Spit and a 109 where the 109 out turns the Spit. Soren. Please.

I will even help you out here. I have heard that the Brits said (at some point) that the 109F2 that they tested could out turn the Vb above 18k at higher speeds (or 22k - I have heard different versions of the story). I have not seen the real doc but I would be willing to believe it based on powerloading at higher alts...

But for everyones amusement here is the portion of the German test again...

Before turning fights with the Bf 109 E type, it must be noted in every case, that all three foreign planes have significantly smaller turning circles and turning times.
An attack on the opponent as well as disengagement can only be accomplished on the basis of existing superiority in performance.



From : Kr.-Fernschr.Ob.d.L.,Führ.Stab Ia Nr.8092/40 g.K. (II)
(only to Lfl.3)


Subject : Comparison flight between Bf 109 E, Bf 110 C, Spitfire, Hurricane and
Curtiss.

Click to expand...

Keep running circles Chinny.

The test you so love to refer to is as explained not valid as it involves the 109E which is known to have issues with its slats, plus most pilots at that point didn't dare push past the deployment of the slats. The exact same goes for the British tests, where the British test-pilots aborted any maneuver as soon as the slats deployed.

As to the Russian tests, well what Kurfürst said.

Now perhaps you'd be so kind as to back up your claim in aerodynamic terms ??

I don't know a lot about these two aircraft, but I suspect if these two planes were swapped and the Germans flew the spitfire and the British flew the Bf-109, there would have been no discernable difference in the war, or loss rate, or anything. That's how close I think they are technically. As DerAlder said, both were great aircraft. They were flown by brave and capable men, each motivated by a desire of protecting their homeland.

X

Chingachgook said:

Soren, your aerodynamic terms somehow do not pan out in any real tests done by anyone or in the combat reports (109s falling out of the sky trying to stay in turns with Spits etc - as reported by German pilots). You have to make an excuse for all of the facts. When you resort to conjecture and equivocation there is simply nothing left to say.

Click to expand...

Just today I was reading a report by a 47 pilot Hubert Zemke (also flew 38s and 51s) regarding the 109's sharply degraded performance at altitude - pilot said inexperienced 109 pilots would at times inadvertently get themselves into a spin, while other pilots would split-S and dive for denser air. 47s would pounce down upon them acheiving strong advantage w/ their excellent diving performance.

mkloby said:

Just today I was reading a report by a 47 pilot Hubert Zemke (also flew 38s and 51s) regarding the 109's sharply degraded performance at altitude - pilot said inexperienced 109 pilots would at times inadvertently get themselves into a spin, while other pilots would split-S and dive for denser air. 47s would pounce down upon them acheiving strong advantage w/ their excellent diving performance.

Click to expand...

I was reading some Pilot encounter reports from P-47 FGs from late 1943. They reported the same, the P-47 would outdive, outturn and outclimb the Me 109 at those high altitudes.

The Me 209s (an later version of the Me 109 I presume 8) ) they encountered however, did outdive, outturn and outclimb their P-47s with ease.

Chingachgook said:

Soren, your aerodynamic terms somehow do not pan out in any real tests done by anyone or in the combat reports (109s falling out of the sky trying to stay in turns with Spits etc - as reported by German pilots). You have to make an excuse for all of the facts. When you resort to conjecture and equivocation there is simply nothing left to say.

Click to expand...

Unfortunately my perception is that you are describing your own attitude here. You make vogue references to 'real tests' and '109s falling out of the sky reported by German pilots'. That's all fine but there are plenty of such accounts available from both sides, they prove little apart from that the opposing pilot's experience and the initial tactical and energy situation were major factors in manouvering fights.

A while you claim Soren is 'making an excuse' to your voguely references and massively generalized 'facts', you on the other hand simply close your eyes and ignore the accounts Soren has posted. Ie.


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."

Herbert Kaiser, German fighter ace. 68 victories.
"Personally, I met RAF over Dunkirk. During this battle not a single Spitfire or Hurricane turned tighter than my plane. I found that the Bf 109 E was faster, possessed a higher rate of climb, but was somewhat less manouverable than the RAF fighters. Nevertheless, during the campaign, no Spitfire or Hurricane ever turned inside my plane, and after the war the RAF admitted the loss of 450 Hurricanes and Spitfires during the Battle of France." In the desert there were only a few Spitfires, and we were afraid of those because of their reputation from the Battle of Britain. But after we shot a couple of them down, our confusion was gone."

Erwin Leykauf, German fighter pilot, 33 victories.
"During what was later called the 'Battle of Britain', we flew the Messerschmitt Bf109E. The essential difference from the Spitfire Mark I flown at that time by the RAF was that the Spitfire was less manoeuvrable in the rolling plane. With its shorter wings (2 metres less wingspan) and its square-tipped wings, the Bf 109 was more manoeuvrable and slightly faster. (It is of interest that the English later on clipped the wings of the Spitfire.)
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. This is how I shot down six of them."

Pierre Clostermann, Spitfire pilot.
"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."


Judging from pilot accounts, the 109 would always outturn a Spitfire and emerge as a victor, and the Spitfire would always outturn a 109 and emerge as a victor.

Oddly enough, there are few accounts from pilots describing how they were outturned and shot down from either side. I presume that has to do something with the conseqences. Dead pilots are horrible story-tellers.

Adolf Galland in a conversation with Goring in August 1940 was able to turn tighter than the 109

Heinz Knoke wrote of the Spitfires 'The bastards can make such infernally tight turns there seems to be no way of nailing them'.

The War Diary of I/JG 3 for August 31st 1940 states that the Spitfires turn very well at higher altitudes and tighter than the 109.

Gunther Rall wrote that the Spitfire had great lift and was very manoeverable and he couldn't catch them in a climb. In contrast he wrote that he didn't like the slats on the 109 and found the cockpit narrow compared to the Spitfire.

In short gentlemen for every quote you can find praising one aircraft, you will find another praising the other.

IE THEY WERE A FAIR MATCH

APOLOGIES SHOULD HAVE READ
Adolf Galland in a conversation with Goring in August 1940 the Spitfire was able to turn tighter than the 109

There is a pretty decent book titled Spitfire V in Action by Caygill
which paints a balanced picture of combat over Northern France before,
during, and after the Fw190 came on the scene. And indeed what you find
(and this book draws from RAF and Luftwaffe accounts) is that there was
a large variability in performance, with pilots on both sides liking and
disliking their aircraft for various reasons. Overall, though, it appears
that the Mk V Spit could hold it's own in the horizontal plane, but would
be foolish to try and outrun the 109F in a dive. And in the end, the RAF
losses during the period examined were about twice the Luftwaffe's, which
is telling (of course, fighting over France already put the Spit pilot at a
disadvantage in terms of fuel management).

So all these arguments are probably academic and useful for making accurate
simulations, and very interesting in their own right. It is difficult to pry the
human element out of the data, too. I can speak from first hand experience
flying for an aggressor squadron training the fleet that something as simple
as a pilot not having breakfast before flying can make a difference in his
fighting and his judgement. If he had a bad day, was it the fault of the
aircraft? And having been involved professionally in flight test for the
last 30 years, I can speak for the wide variability in data collection.

In the end, unless you guys have access to real birds, you just have to pick
what lights your fire and accept that there are going to be, 60 years after
the fact, rebuttals for every argument you might surface.

This thread is a very good ride, however!

twoeagles said:

So all these arguments are probably academic and useful for making accurate
simulations, and very interesting in their own right. It is difficult to pry the
human element out of the data, too. I can speak from first hand experience
flying for an aggressor squadron training the fleet that something as simple
as a pilot not having breakfast before flying can make a difference in his
fighting and his judgement. If he had a bad day, was it the fault of the
aircraft? And having been involved professionally in flight test for the
last 30 years, I can speak for the wide variability in data collection.

Click to expand...

Interesting comment. You never think of combat fighting in terms like this. It is common to have a bad day at tennis, golf, and the office, but having a bad day in combat is another thing. In football, intangibles like momentum is definately a factor. I suspect this is the same in combat. Soldiers and airman who think they can win have an advantage over those who doubt.

X

Glider said:

Adolf Galland in a conversation with Goring in August 1940 was able to turn tighter than the 109

Heinz Knoke wrote of the Spitfires 'The bastards can make such infernally tight turns there seems to be no way of nailing them'.

The War Diary of I/JG 3 for August 31st 1940 states that the Spitfires turn very well at higher altitudes and tighter than the 109.

Gunther Rall wrote that the Spitfire had great lift and was very manoeverable and he couldn't catch them in a climb. In contrast he wrote that he didn't like the slats on the 109 and found the cockpit narrow compared to the Spitfire.

In short gentlemen for every quote you can find praising one aircraft, you will find another praising the other.

IE THEY WERE A FAIR MATCH

Click to expand...

And funny enough all those comments are from 1940, at which point most pilots didn't like pushing the envelope in the 109. Günther Rall for one nearly died as one of the slats on his Emil failed to open, and this scared him enough to never attempt such rough maneuvers again - hence why he didn't like the slats.

Erwin Leykauf and Walter Wolfrum both explain this as-well.

X

X

X

X

And i will continue sticking with combat records: the Spitfire was not going anywhere against the Luftwaffe. The model had its 15 minutes of fame during the famous BoB, and there were no sufficient merits even by then.

I do not care if against the Fw 190 or the Bf 109...i would like to see the bottom of the channel with a neat finery of Spitfire carcasses here and there. For every German fighter lying on the botton how many Spitfires you think you would find?

Two highly published battles of 1942, one of them fought mainly over the water of the channel -Unternehmen Cerberus- and the other one, the Dieppe "Raid" -nice choice of words to conceal an attempt to establish a beachhead that ended in a massacre..."oh well, it was only a minor rehearsal"-, showed the wonderfully acrobatic Spitfires were uncapable against the Luftwaffe.

I digress: the fierce aerial battle during the channel dash was fought over the water of the channel, thus shattering the forseeable argument of the "tactical disadvantage" in having to fight "over enemy territory"...so, over the bloody sea the Luftwaffe emerged overwhelmingly victorious over the hyper manouverable Spitfires.

So, 1941, 1942 and the first half of 1943, before the full assembly of the 8th AF the Spitfires achieved exactly what....? See the list of Luftwaffe claims for the second of half of 1943 and throughout the entire 1944 and one can only wonder if those guys were actually flying, as the bulk of the Luftwaffe´s claims are P-51s, P-47s and the B-17s and B-24s.

For every Spitfire claimed by German pilots during such periods there are at least 5 U.S. fighters destroyed in combat...oh yes, there we have "Market Garden", when the RAF did send the Spitfires in numbers, and during the days of the failed operation the Spitfires again were sent down to the ground in juicy numbers.

Now it´s time to get a sip from my milkshake.

Cheers.