That's a good point. The RAF were certainly concerned by the Fw 190, but the 109 just didn't cause the same fear. And the Luftwaffe switched over to the 190 on the Channel front as quickly as they could, which again seems strange if the 109 had a 40 mph speed advantage over the Spitfire.
Bf-109F-4 and a bleak time for RAF (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Chingachgook
- Start date
That's a good point. The RAF were certainly concerned by the Fw 190, but the 109 just didn't cause the same fear. And the Luftwaffe switched over to the 190 on the Channel front as quickly as they could, which again seems strange if the 109 had a 40 mph speed advantage over the Spitfire.
twoeagles
Senior Airman
Every Spitfire pilot was at a disadvantage against the 109 he didn't see in time...
- Thread starter
- #23
Chingachgook
Banned
- 214
- Nov 20, 2006
X
Glider
Major
Any pilot is at a disadvantage against any plane that they didn't see in time.
For example, I think the first RAF plane to shoot down a German aircraft in WW2 was a Lysander. The Wirraway that shot down a Zero, Arado 196 floatplanes had a number of kills and there are loads of other examples from all sides which people could mention.
Lord Glider, good to see you are still alive and healthy out there.
While i believe when you say you have not yet heard of any Brit pilot who flew the Spitfire Mk. V affirming he felt he was at disadvantage when confronting the 109 F, you might as well consider the following significant issues:
How would you explain the losses of RAF fighter squadrons during 1941 in western europe?
Let´s see, by 1941 the alleged plans for invading England had been cancelled (the so called Seelowe thing), the bulk of the jagdgeschwadern was sent east in preparation for the unleashing of Barbarossa.
Two geschwadern remained in the west to guard against the "winner" of the Battle of Britain: Richtofen and Schlageter.
Yup, 1941 was not a year of intense aerial action in the west, as it became a secondary theather of operations; however the 109s kept a very comfortable upper hand when confronting the Sptifire Mk Vs during such period of time.
It is noteworthy to mention that during 1941 the stab, I, II and III/JG 2 and stab., I, II and III/JG 26 had precisely the improved 109 F-1, F-2, and later that year the F-4 as the main toys to fight the RAF´s Mk Vb and Vc, not forgetting a number of the late Es remained in service for some time.
The Fw 190 was not the mainstay of JG 2 and JG 26 throughout 1941.
Acknowledged is the fact the introduction of the Fw 190 A in full the following year (1942) implied a black period in the history of the RAF but the 109 Fs -and their pilots- proved superior to the British airmen flying the Mk Vs.
I can agree the technical charts and specification sheets might indicate the 109 Fs and the Mk V were pretty well matched, but when we step out of the classroom to see what battle records indicate, the 109 F proved superior to the Mk Vs.
What do you think Glider?
Cheers
While i believe when you say you have not yet heard of any Brit pilot who flew the Spitfire Mk. V affirming he felt he was at disadvantage when confronting the 109 F, you might as well consider the following significant issues:
How would you explain the losses of RAF fighter squadrons during 1941 in western europe?
Let´s see, by 1941 the alleged plans for invading England had been cancelled (the so called Seelowe thing), the bulk of the jagdgeschwadern was sent east in preparation for the unleashing of Barbarossa.
Two geschwadern remained in the west to guard against the "winner" of the Battle of Britain: Richtofen and Schlageter.
Yup, 1941 was not a year of intense aerial action in the west, as it became a secondary theather of operations; however the 109s kept a very comfortable upper hand when confronting the Sptifire Mk Vs during such period of time.
It is noteworthy to mention that during 1941 the stab, I, II and III/JG 2 and stab., I, II and III/JG 26 had precisely the improved 109 F-1, F-2, and later that year the F-4 as the main toys to fight the RAF´s Mk Vb and Vc, not forgetting a number of the late Es remained in service for some time.
The Fw 190 was not the mainstay of JG 2 and JG 26 throughout 1941.
Acknowledged is the fact the introduction of the Fw 190 A in full the following year (1942) implied a black period in the history of the RAF but the 109 Fs -and their pilots- proved superior to the British airmen flying the Mk Vs.
I can agree the technical charts and specification sheets might indicate the 109 Fs and the Mk V were pretty well matched, but when we step out of the classroom to see what battle records indicate, the 109 F proved superior to the Mk Vs.
What do you think Glider?
Cheers
- Thread starter
- #26
Chingachgook
Banned
- 214
- Nov 20, 2006
X
delcyros
Tech Sergeant
The single most decisive factor in aerial dogfight is pilot skill.
The Fw190 may make a good pilot out of a mediocre one due to
heavy firepower, ruggedness and maneuverability over a wider
range of speed.
However, most LW aces stayed to their Bf109´s once they
exploitet it´s merits.
The Fw190 may make a good pilot out of a mediocre one due to
heavy firepower, ruggedness and maneuverability over a wider
range of speed.
However, most LW aces stayed to their Bf109´s once they
exploitet it´s merits.
delcyros
Tech Sergeant
The author gives more tha one:
The Leistungsdatenvergleich Fw-190A and Bf-109F/G of dez. (?) 1941:
Beim-Zeugmeister: Seite 2 - Erste Tests
The JG-26 comparison between Fw-190A and Bf109F4 ( it states that the F4 is 10-20 Km/h faster than the Fw190A at altitude while both are equal at medium altitude with a slight advantage for the Fw190A at low alts
Beim-Zeugmeister: Seite 6 - Vergleich BF 109 F-4 und FW 190 A-2, Teil 2
The OKL Typenblatt doc from june 1942, again stating 670 Km/h top speed for the Bf-109F4:
Beim-Zeugmeister: Seite 9 - Übersicht OKL
The Messerschmidt Typenblatt showing a figure of 660 Km/h in 6200m:
Beim-Zeugmeister: Seite 10 - Firmendaten Messerschmitt, Teil 1
Finally the Messerschmidt company intern performance charts for the Bf109F4, dating 1943:
Beim-Zeugmeister: Seite 12 - Firmendaten Messerschmitt, Teil 3
So confirmation comes from three sources via various docs: Rechlin test flights, Company documents and comparison charts from military units (JG26).
They should be adjusted for atmosspheric circumstances according to Zdiv(Ainring) 23/1938. Not following these guidelines for measurements would exclude the use of attained datas for entry into OKL Typenblatt.
True is that none of the british test revealed the correct datas as Britain did not possessed a single DB 601E nor a Bf-109F4 for test purposes. All datas have been extrapolated from Bf-109F2 with DB601N. The author of the british tests concluded that their figures should not be taken as the max. ones but AS THE MINIMUM ONES because the engines used were faulty, did not developed the design hp and required repeated maintenance, which in turn affected the performance and the assumption of speed for the extrapolated F4.
I too, at least for the timeframe up to late 1941. The use of WEP is reported to be allowed in early 1942 latest for combat according to a doc. The altitude at which this speed could have been achieved is rather not common for 1941/42 over France or in the med, at least for dogfights. But as the JG26 comparison flyouts showed, the F4 was not slower than the A4, at least in all but low level altitudes.
lesofprimus
Brigadier General
delc, most decisive is the element of surprise, with pilot skill second....
- Thread starter
- #31
Chingachgook
Banned
- 214
- Nov 20, 2006
X
pbfoot
1st Lieutenant
hence that old saying "beware of the Hun in the sun"
lesofprimus
Brigadier General
Pretty funny there ching...
Glider
Major
Udet
Only just alive, I have been in hospital after being diagnosed with cancer which was picked up 6-8 weeks late, hence the absence. Wasn't a well boy when I went in, but am responding well to treatment, although the hair has gone.
To business.
The tactical losses the RAF sufferred in 1941 I put down to the same tactical disadvantages that the Germans suffered in the BOB. The RAF in short range aircraft were operating on the 'wrong side of the English Channel. The Germans had good radar, could see them coming and were able to get into position to intercept.
A lot of damaged planes were not going to make it home and pilot who bailed out was lost, whereas German planes could evade and make emergency landings. I wonder how many Germans were saved by the superiour dive of the 109?
Re tactics our tactics for escorting were based on close escort (at least in the earlier stages) a tactic that was fatally flawed. The RAF had the additional disadvantage in that a majority of the RAF squadrons were still flying Vic formations which was a lesson still to be learnt. Finally the larger raids were escorting bombers often Blenhiems or Sterlings neither of which was fast making the raids easy to intercept.
I have little doubt that had the Germans been flying Spits and the RAF 109F's the RAF would still have suffered these losses. As we all agree it was the 190 in 1942 that brought on the Black Period for the RAF in the West
In the desert the 109F was giving the Allied Huricanes and P40's a very hard time of it and it wasn't until the Spit MkV was deployed did things even up.
Personally I have always wondered why the RAF spent so much effort attacking France in 1941 which was never going to achieve anything strategically and yet refused to use those Spit V's to equip squadrons overseas that were fighting using obsolete Hurricanes. There is no reason why the Middle East squardons couldn't have been equipped with Spit V's long before they received them. Let alone the Far East. Spits may not have stopped Japan but they would have stood a much better chance.
Hello Glider:
Sorry to know of the health problems you are enduring; you have my most sincere and heartfelt wishes: don´t give up and have a prompt recovery!
I do not have time to comment more on the airplanes, but i will be back later or another day.
Cheers Glider!
Sorry to know of the health problems you are enduring; you have my most sincere and heartfelt wishes: don´t give up and have a prompt recovery!
I do not have time to comment more on the airplanes, but i will be back later or another day.
Cheers Glider!
delcyros
Tech Sergeant
Yes, Glider, I second your thoughts. But prior to this, take care of Your health, Glider, my very best whishes to You.
In Africa, the Bf-109F also had trop filters, which should lead to a significant reduction in performance. I would still put my favour on the F4 against the Spit V, altough as far as I see, most Bf109 of the JG 27 were Bf109F2 and E7 until mid 1942, when they only briefly received F4 until they got the more versatile G2 later in 42.
In Africa, the Bf-109F also had trop filters, which should lead to a significant reduction in performance. I would still put my favour on the F4 against the Spit V, altough as far as I see, most Bf109 of the JG 27 were Bf109F2 and E7 until mid 1942, when they only briefly received F4 until they got the more versatile G2 later in 42.
delcyros
Tech Sergeant
Further thoughts
What if the BF 109F4 actually achieved 670 Km/h? Shouldn´t the G2 be faster due to a more powerful engine?
Perhaps. Compare:
Kurfürst - Mtt. AG. Datenblatt, Me 109 G - 1. Ausführung
The test results show a max. speed of 632-664 Km/h (depending on individual aircraft) with:
radiator flaps 120mm open, while the usual opening was 40mm at "Schnellflugstellung"
but more seriously:
The DB 605 wasn´t cleared for WEP, so this speed also only is for "Kampf- und Steigleistung" -powersetting
This is beeing confirmed in the latter part, where the G1 achieved 660 Km/h at 7000m altitude. But here again the engine wasn´t cleared for WEP, and thus those climb- and speed figures are attained on normal, 30min. sustainable 100% powersetting.
Factoring this into comparison, the G1 and G2 indeed were faster than the F4 at the same 100% powersetting (G2: 660 Km/h; F4: 635 Km/h).
But how fast could they go with WEP?
The difference is striking for the DB 605:
at 100%: 1310 hp @ 0ft.
with WEP: 1450 hp @ 0 ft.
Since the airframe is the same and all other factors beeing equal, the 10.687% power increase should lead to a 2.67% speed increase (You need four times the power to double the speed under lab condition), or in other words, the same G1 testplane should be able to go 678 Km/h (421 mp/h) at 7000m altitude for brief times using WEP (Bf 109G1).
Now back to our Bf109 F4 with DB 601E and 635 Km/h at 100% and 6400m / (640 Km/h at 6700m) altitude*):
at 100%: 1200 hp @ 0ft.
at WEP: 1350 hp @ 0ft.
The 12.5% increase in power should translate into a 3.125% increase in speed at our reference altitudes for WEP, ergo the same Bf109F4 testplane should be able to go 655 Km/h at 6400m or 660 Km/h (410 mp/h) at 6700m using WEP powersetting (Start- und Notleistung).
I conclude that the 670 Km/h figure is off by 1.5% from the expected one.
Perhaps an individual plane in excellent state may go that fast but it cannot be expected that all production models achieve this speed under the given circumstances. My thought.
Since the BAL limits for production models were 3% (+-), this is in within acceptable tolerances.
*) Kurfürst - Mtt. AG. Datenblatt, Me 109 G - 1. Ausführung
the dataset shows 660 Km/h @ 6200m altitudes for 100% (Kampf- und Steigleistung) powersetting for the BF 109F4 (not G1 as the link name imply)which does not agree to the 635 Km/h attained by other tests. The explenation may be that this specific test -unlike others- wasn´t recalculated for compressibility effects, as the author suggest (check notes). Confirmation comes from OKL Typenblätter, as this dataset was not used furtherly for entry into Typenblatt.
What if the BF 109F4 actually achieved 670 Km/h? Shouldn´t the G2 be faster due to a more powerful engine?
Perhaps. Compare:
Kurfürst - Mtt. AG. Datenblatt, Me 109 G - 1. Ausführung
The test results show a max. speed of 632-664 Km/h (depending on individual aircraft) with:
radiator flaps 120mm open, while the usual opening was 40mm at "Schnellflugstellung"
but more seriously:
The DB 605 wasn´t cleared for WEP, so this speed also only is for "Kampf- und Steigleistung" -powersetting
This is beeing confirmed in the latter part, where the G1 achieved 660 Km/h at 7000m altitude. But here again the engine wasn´t cleared for WEP, and thus those climb- and speed figures are attained on normal, 30min. sustainable 100% powersetting.
Factoring this into comparison, the G1 and G2 indeed were faster than the F4 at the same 100% powersetting (G2: 660 Km/h; F4: 635 Km/h).
But how fast could they go with WEP?
The difference is striking for the DB 605:
at 100%: 1310 hp @ 0ft.
with WEP: 1450 hp @ 0 ft.
Since the airframe is the same and all other factors beeing equal, the 10.687% power increase should lead to a 2.67% speed increase (You need four times the power to double the speed under lab condition), or in other words, the same G1 testplane should be able to go 678 Km/h (421 mp/h) at 7000m altitude for brief times using WEP (Bf 109G1).
Now back to our Bf109 F4 with DB 601E and 635 Km/h at 100% and 6400m / (640 Km/h at 6700m) altitude*):
at 100%: 1200 hp @ 0ft.
at WEP: 1350 hp @ 0ft.
The 12.5% increase in power should translate into a 3.125% increase in speed at our reference altitudes for WEP, ergo the same Bf109F4 testplane should be able to go 655 Km/h at 6400m or 660 Km/h (410 mp/h) at 6700m using WEP powersetting (Start- und Notleistung).
I conclude that the 670 Km/h figure is off by 1.5% from the expected one.
Perhaps an individual plane in excellent state may go that fast but it cannot be expected that all production models achieve this speed under the given circumstances. My thought.
Since the BAL limits for production models were 3% (+-), this is in within acceptable tolerances.
*) Kurfürst - Mtt. AG. Datenblatt, Me 109 G - 1. Ausführung
the dataset shows 660 Km/h @ 6200m altitudes for 100% (Kampf- und Steigleistung) powersetting for the BF 109F4 (not G1 as the link name imply)which does not agree to the 635 Km/h attained by other tests. The explenation may be that this specific test -unlike others- wasn´t recalculated for compressibility effects, as the author suggest (check notes). Confirmation comes from OKL Typenblätter, as this dataset was not used furtherly for entry into Typenblatt.
Glider
Major
Udet and Delcyros appreciate your thoughts. Delc, the last posting does raise some interesting questions about the relationship between the F4 and the G2. Wish I knew the awnsers
Sgt. Pappy
Airman 1st Class
- 197
- Jun 7, 2006
*Salute* Glider, God speed with your health exams... Here's hoping you get better not soon... but NOW.
The Spitfire V may have been inferior to the 'Freidrich' (109F) but first you have to include things like speed/energy retention, stall speed (and essentially wing loading), roll rate at all speeds, etc. It's not just accel. and speed, and climb rate that wins the battle, though those are very useful assets for a fighter.
Considering the pilots are equal, and are both very good, the SpitV may be quite untouchable and even a danger. We have 4 main tactics - BnZ (Boom and Zoom in which the pilot dives to gain speed, attacks and zoom climbs w/ that speed until out of range), which was the 109's main tactic, theres the TnB (turn and burn which is simply turn fighting), the RnD (Rope and Dope, which utilizes the zoom climb to hang pitiful, slower enemies trying to follow up), and we have maneuver fighting.. i.e. scissors, rolling scissors, splitS etc.
The spitV's better roll at lower speeds and better turning allow it to split S or maneuver away from the 109. A scissors would maul the 109 as well. Both planes generally have the same aerodynamics when fully 'cleaned up', but the Spitfire's ability to outturn the 109 eventually will end up in a non-sustained turn fight .. the 109 attempting to find a long range deflection shot as the spit turns to evade. If the 109 resumes attempts at the BnZ, the spit pilot will continue to outmaneuver the Freidrich. The best SpitV pilots could dodge the BnZ with no or little loss of altitude and speed. The clipped wing V's also were very useful as they rolled similarly to the Butcher Bird, which had worse turning than the 109 at lower speeds. If the 109 even tries an RnD, a good spit pilot will level out to gain speed while the 109 loses it all. Many-a-time has the good Spitfire pilot shot down the 190 during 1941 and beyond. Don Gentile is one of them, who, on his first sortie in the SpitV shot down 2 x 190's.
(BTW, if anyone knows of any Spitfire V cutaways, please fill me in!)
The Spitfire V may have been inferior to the 'Freidrich' (109F) but first you have to include things like speed/energy retention, stall speed (and essentially wing loading), roll rate at all speeds, etc. It's not just accel. and speed, and climb rate that wins the battle, though those are very useful assets for a fighter.
Considering the pilots are equal, and are both very good, the SpitV may be quite untouchable and even a danger. We have 4 main tactics - BnZ (Boom and Zoom in which the pilot dives to gain speed, attacks and zoom climbs w/ that speed until out of range), which was the 109's main tactic, theres the TnB (turn and burn which is simply turn fighting), the RnD (Rope and Dope, which utilizes the zoom climb to hang pitiful, slower enemies trying to follow up), and we have maneuver fighting.. i.e. scissors, rolling scissors, splitS etc.
The spitV's better roll at lower speeds and better turning allow it to split S or maneuver away from the 109. A scissors would maul the 109 as well. Both planes generally have the same aerodynamics when fully 'cleaned up', but the Spitfire's ability to outturn the 109 eventually will end up in a non-sustained turn fight .. the 109 attempting to find a long range deflection shot as the spit turns to evade. If the 109 resumes attempts at the BnZ, the spit pilot will continue to outmaneuver the Freidrich. The best SpitV pilots could dodge the BnZ with no or little loss of altitude and speed. The clipped wing V's also were very useful as they rolled similarly to the Butcher Bird, which had worse turning than the 109 at lower speeds. If the 109 even tries an RnD, a good spit pilot will level out to gain speed while the 109 loses it all. Many-a-time has the good Spitfire pilot shot down the 190 during 1941 and beyond. Don Gentile is one of them, who, on his first sortie in the SpitV shot down 2 x 190's.
(BTW, if anyone knows of any Spitfire V cutaways, please fill me in!)
delcyros
Tech Sergeant
That is all very true.
My question is how would You measure energy retention? This is a general question as it don´t belong to Spit and -109 exclusively. To answer this might help to judge other planes as well.
The 109F2 and SpitV were perfectly equal.
The F4 -for me- seems to be the peak in development of the 109. The G2 even tops the acceleration, climb and top speed but for significant tradeoffs in low speed handling (heavier airframe). The G4 barely matches the F4 in performance and is inferior in terms of handling but it is more versatile, has a heavier punch and a more rugged undercarriege (which always was a weakness for 109 - just another strange similarity to the spit).
