Could the Bf 109 E really out-turn the Spitfire Mk I? (1 Viewer)

[SaparotRob]

View attachment 891641

P-40s had a rudder trim tab, which was pretty easy to use, and that made all the difference, apparently (though still annoying to a lot of pilots, as it was another thing to be dealt with - trim had to be dialed out when climbing out of a dive), and the torque issue was largely eliminated when they lengthened the fuselage / tail by 22", according to pilots like James "Stocky" Edwards who found this issue particularly frustrating.

As for turning and general agility, pilots operating in North Africa and Italy, on both sides, seemed to agree that the P-40 easily out-turned and out rolled the Bf 109. Which isn't really surprising as it had a lower wing loading and a much higher rate of roll at all speeds.

Canadian ace James 'Stocky' Edwards

View attachment 891648
note that here is another reference to a captured Bf 109 being used for training.

This is from Ospreys "P-40 Aces of the MTO" (2002), page 34, last paragraph. Source is a letter from the pilot. Context was an early morning 24 March 1943, the 59th FS flew a sweep back over Djebal Tebera and "encountered opposition over the target". This is from an interview with Lt Richard E. Holcomb,. who was credited with one Bf 109 damaged on this engagement:

"Lt Harry Haines and I ended up in a ground-level dogfight right over the German airbase. It was quite a fight, as we were out-turning them and shooting up aeroplanes on the ground while they climbed to start the fight again. We would run for home until their cannon shots came close to Harry's tail and again we would out-turn them. I felt sure we at least two were damaged as they left the fight but we couldn't confirm them."

General Benjamin Davis of the 99th FS ("Tuskegee") had a lot of praise for and confidence in P-40s:

"The P-40 operations in the Pacific and Europe were much like the F-86 and the MiG in Korea*. All the MiG's had to do was stay away from the F-86's; yet we had an eleven-to-one kill ratio of F-86's over MiG's**. Same thing with the P-40 and the Me 109. If the German fighters wanted to stay away, the P-40's couldn't get them. When the Me 109's came down to engage the P-40's we were superior."
Interview Tom Russel

https://www.3squadron.org.au/subpages/AAWRussell.htm

"After 3 Squadron had gone through Hurricanes at that time and onto Kittyhawks, Kittyhawk could out turn a 109, it couldn't out climb, but it could out dive it too because of its weight. But the Germans learned very quickly against Peter Jeffrey and his men, not to fight on an equal level. So they would stand up above and come down and pick you off if they could. "

Interview Jack Doyle

https://www.3squadron.org.au/subpages/AWMDoyle.htm

"Climbing was the plane's weakness, I think, wasn't it?

Yes. Look, there are three things, if you can have one of those things and get into a fight with enemy aircraft you can stay alive - if you can out-climb them, if you can out-run them, or if you can out-turn them you can stay alive. If you can't out-run them you've got to stay and fight as long as they want you to fight, as long as you don't run out of petrol first you're relatively safe - I'm speaking in theory. You're not safe if there's ten of them and one of you. But in the main the Kittyhawk could out-turn most enemy aircraft so you could at least stay alive, but you might have to stay where they wanted you to and not where you wanted to be. "
This is from an interview with 3 RAAF double ace and squadron commander Bobby Gibbes interview: Australians at War Film Archive

"Well, against the Italians we probably had a superior aeroplane. But when the Germans brought the 109s in they were in many ways, almost every way, a very much better aeroplane. They could out-climb us, they were faster, they had a much better ceiling - in other words, they could get much higher - and they'd look down on us. We could never look down on them. The only .... Our ability, though, was we were able to out-turn a Messerschmitt and we could in actual fact, being a very heavy aeroplane, we could out-dive them. But when the Germans woke up to the fact that we could out-turn them, very seldom would they stay in and try and dogfight. They'd just generally dive - what they call `pick and zoom' - dive down, pick off a straggler, and then they'd climb up again and you'd probably only get a very fleeting shot at them because they'd be traveling at very high speed. Or else they'd dive straight past their target aircraft, keep on going down and with an initial speed there was no way you could catch them. We all, always tried to fly together as a team and not to work as individuals.

The first 109 I flew was a 109F and I carried out comparative tests with it with a Spitfire Mark V and the Kittyhawk. We all started in line abreast. The Messerschmitt ran away. The Spit V came fairly well after in climb and speed and they both left the Kittyhawk quite badly. And later when we captured the 109G at Gambut, it had been slightly damaged and it was repaired by my squadron engineering officer, Ken McRae. I then flew it forward to the base at Mersa Matruh - no, from Gambut up to the Martuba aerodromes, escorted by two Kittyhawks. While I had it there I carried out some simulated attacks on my squadron. By then the German Air Force had retreated out of range so I was able to do this with safety. My people knew I was up there. The purpose had been basically to let them see - some of the new boys see - what a 109 looked like. But its performance was quite terrific. Kittyhawk could out turn it quite comfortably and if the Messerschmitt boys came in and tried to dog fight, they were gone. We could dive away from them. If we started with same speed and they dived away, we could catch them in the dive."

As I noted previously, they captured several Bf 109s and tested with them.

The Germans by the way also drew very similar conclusions. These excerpts are from interviews transcribed in Shores Mediterranean Air War Volume II:

This is Rudolf Sinner, technical officer of II./JG 27 in 1942:

View attachment 891643
Frederich Körner Oblt I./JG 27 until shot down on 4 July 1942
View attachment 891646
Ernst Düllberg, Staffelkaptain of II.Gruppe JG 27 and later Kommandeur of II Gruppe

View attachment 891647

There were numerous references and claims, and attribution of combat losses, to the non-existent P-46 which is the long-tailed P-40F and L, and maybe also the K

Werner Schrorer, 'experten' ace with I and III. / JG 27:

View attachment 891649

"The superiority of the British types in dogfights was notorious"

The P-40 could out-turn the slightly more agile MC 202 as well:

This was from a letter by Lt Richard T Conly of the 315th FS / 324th FG describing an April 29 encounter over Tunisia in which he scored his first confirmed victory:

'When I pulled back up, I had just climbed to about 7000 ft when another '202 jumped me at nine o'clock high. I turned into him, and he started turning to get on my tail. At this point I really swore by a P-40, because I could dogfight and out turn him with ease. He saw I was going to get a shot and headed for the deck, strait down. I never got farther than 100 yards behind him, and he stayed right in my sights. I watched my tracers pound into him all the way. Those good old six "fifties" raked him from the tail up. He hit the deck about 50 ft just offshore and went strait in. I almost got wet in the splash.'



I think the high speed roll issues and lack of a rudder tab were pretty well known problems with the Bf 109



You are conflating a difference in turn rate with the actual locking up of controls, which isn't the same thing. Many aircraft had different rates of roll left or right vis a vis engine torque.



The A6M did also have a similar 'locking up' problem at high speeds. And a very similar escape maneuver was used with P-40s, P-39s, F4Fs and F4Us against the A6M ...



It's also well known that the Fw 190 did not turn well, though some people will insist to the contrary in the face of all evidence. Of course you can always find outliers e.g. Clostermann



Actually many aircraft dealt with the torque by having one wing slightly shorter than the other (as on the MC 202) or having a canted vertical stabilizer (as also seen on the MC 202 and several other WW2 aircraft)

Informative plus great read equal winner.

 

[drgondog]

Interesting, because I did read that the mod for the fin did what I wrote. Was the dorsal fin mod combined with other internal updates that achieved strengthening? I seem to recall that
there were some enlarged fasteners. Anyway, looks like I will have to refresh on that!
BTW, it does remind me of doing inspections on the BAe Nimrod (DH Comet based) which had a large Dorsal fin mod. It surprised me how lightweight the dorsal fin was, bearing in mind it's size.
Cheers

Eng

The beam that formed the fin structure was heavily reinforced with doublers and rivets. That was strictly internal, inside the tail cone/empennage assy and nothing about the 104-25001 or 109-25001 Dorsal Fin Assembly touched any structure that would resist a lateral load of significance.

Where did you read that (i.e. Tech Order, etc)?

 

[Engineman]

The beam that formed the fin structure was heavily reinforced with doublers and rivets. That was strictly internal, inside the tail cone/empennage assy and nothing about the 104-25001 or 109-25001 Dorsal Fin Assembly touched any structure that would resist a lateral load of significance.

Where did you read that (i.e. Tech Order, etc)?

Unfortunately, my info is locked-away in our house-move at the moment. I don't want to rely on inaccurate memory!

Cheers

Eng

 

[drgondog]

Unfortunately, my info is locked-away in our house-move at the moment. I don't want to rely on inaccurate memory!

Cheers

Eng

I was a stress guesser for several years and would make some comments.

First the center of pressure for normal/perpendicular loads on the triangle style dorsal fin was near the fin. At that location any side loads from a yaw or the prop vortex would be absorbed by the fin spar that I mentioned above. There would be no 'tipping' over, which is a good thing because the ability to beam out a side load throughout the length of the fin would have to be absorbed in tension from the nut plates on the left side and compression on the right side of the base of the fin. There is no 'beam' or stiffener just off the centerline to assist in a load path of a side load, just 'oil can' capability of the upper right side skin to absorb a 'normal' (to the skin) load. If the intention was to act as a structural member capable of absorbing a side load, the fin base would have been broader and a stiffener or beam cap fore and aft would have been paced between the frames forward and aft at the tailcone bulkhead.

 

[Engineman]

I was a stress guesser for several years and would make some comments.

First the center of pressure for normal/perpendicular loads on the triangle style dorsal fin was near the fin. At that location any side loads from a yaw or the prop vortex would be absorbed by the fin spar that I mentioned above. There would be no 'tipping' over, which is a good thing because the ability to beam out a side load throughout the length of the fin would have to be absorbed in tension from the nut plates on the left side and compression on the right side of the base of the fin. There is no 'beam' or stiffener just off the centerline to assist in a load path of a side load, just 'oil can' capability of the upper right side skin to absorb a 'normal' (to the skin) load. If the intention was to act as a structural member capable of absorbing a side load, the fin base would have been broader and a stiffener or beam cap fore and aft would have been paced between the frames forward and aft at the tailcone bulkhead.

I had a little look, it seems that the late lamented FLYBOYJ had posted some info! Here are his enclosures from his post 11 Dec 2011.

I think that is the info I recall. Appreciate your extra info!

Cheers

Eng

 

[bada]

In the Manuals Section, there is this:

Mustang manuals

If still required, couln't see it posted elsewhere on this site Here tis the beast/beauty Bobby

ww2aircraft.net

And there should also be the: "P-51-factory-maintenance-notes 43-53 compendium.pdf" but couldn't find it. i checked on my local drive, a lot of interesting stuff inside about reinforcements.

 

[drgondog]

I had a little look, it seems that the late lamented FLYBOYJ had posted some info! Here are his enclosures from his post 11 Dec 2011.

I think that is the info I recall. Appreciate your extra info!

Cheers

Eng


View attachment 891914

View attachment 891910View attachment 891911View attachment 891912

Note that in no part of this TO does it state that the dorsal fin provides structural integrity. It is there solely to stabilize rotational and asymmetric flows around the empennage.

The structural approach was to beef both the horizontal and vertical stabilizer with rivets of greater shear capability to match the extra doublers added to increase shear cross section.

 

[Engineman]

Note that in no part of this TO does it state that the dorsal fin provides structural integrity. It is there solely to stabilize rotational and asymmetric flows around the empennage.

The structural approach was to beef both the horizontal and vertical stabilizer with rivets of greater shear capability to match the extra doublers added to increase shear cross section.

Thanks for the detail!

Eng