FIGHTER COMBAT COMPARISON No.2: Bf109E-3 vs Spitfire MkI

[tomo pauk]

Interesting that the author seems to think the 109's wing slats gave it more preditictable stall characteristics than the Spitfire - the great preponderance of anecdotes for pilots who flew the machines indicate the opposite; that it was the 109 that had to be treated cartefully while the Spitfire was (once off the ground) very forgiving and easy to fly. In fact this harmony of control, much commented on but almost immpossible to quatify, seems to have been the British fighter's graetest asset. I have also read that the 109s slats had a tendancy to ruin the pilots aim in turing combat, as they would open suddenly and without warning.
One thing I would suggest is that, seen over the entire course of the war, the Spitfire proved the better design due to its capacity for development. Come 1945 the spitfire was still at the cutting edge of piston engine fighter performance, while the 109 had become more and more difficult to handle

Hi, Cobber,

It should be no wonder that Spitfire had no problems to accept 2000 HP engines, while retaining good 'manners' - it was featuring, for an European fighter, a wing of generous area. Some 40% greater than Bf-109, or most of Soviet fighters, while just a tad less than Typhoon. On the other hand, Bf-109 was the smallest fighter with 1800-2000 HP worth speaking of - a killing machine in expert's hands, a suicide for a novice to try?
The slats remained on Bf-109 until the end, seems like they were worth it.

 

[davparlr]

Aerodynamically operated slats were used on the Me-262 and most of the next generation F-86s so I guess they were effective. However, I could see where asymmetrical activation of the slats could be interesting. I would think this could be caused by yawing the aircraft causing different airspeed seen by the separate wings, or possibly manufacturing deviations or damage to the device caused by combat or general usage with age.

Slats are still used but I don't think aerodynamically actuated ones are used on high performance aircraft. Most are hydraulic powered, maybe electric.

Since operating an aircraft near its maximum is important, I am surprised stall warning systems were not aggressively pursued, at least I think they weren't. Many/all? fighters/aircraft today with fly-by-wire systems do not allow the aircraft to stall at all.

 

[Kryten]

another issue is the increase in drag with the slats open, no worries when landing but what effect this has during hard maneuvering I can only guess at, cant be helpfull I would'nt have thought!

 

[tyrodtom]

The remark about the slats of a Me109 being unpredictable is usually a British or American test pilots remark. These pilots may have a lot of experience, but how much of it's in a Me109, or any high performance AC with slats ?
They may not be so much of a surprize to German or Finnish pilots with hundreds of hours in the aircraft, they'd be accustomed to when they'd deploy under about any condition of flight, and the effect they'd have.

 

[stona]

However, I could see where asymmetrical activation of the slats could be interesting. I would think this could be caused by yawing the aircraft causing different airspeed seen by the separate wings, or possibly manufacturing deviations or damage to the device caused by combat or general usage with age.

An RAE pilot who flew a Bf 109 G in mock combat against a Lancaster and Mustang reported that the slipstream of the "target" aircraft caused the intermittent operation of the slats making accurate sighting impossible.
Not a desirable feature in a fighter no matter how used to it the experienced German pilots were.

Cheers

Steve

 

[stona]

another issue is the increase in drag with the slats open, no worries when landing but what effect this has during hard maneuvering I can only guess at, cant be helpfull I would'nt have thought!

The slats would usually operate with the wing at a high angle of attack when any extra drag would be a very small component of the total.
Cheers
Steve

 

[Shortround6]

The slats really only come into play once the angle of attack exceeds 12-15 degrees. They keep the outer wing from stalling ( on a 109) and allow the angle of attack to go even higher. A fully slated wing can go to around 23-26 degrees. As I said before, what they do for the 109 in addition to allowing this extra lift/angle of attack/higher drag to is keep the ailerons effective at angles of attack where the stalled airflow would render them ineffective and result in a loss of lateral control.

Somebody with more aeronautical knowledge than myself can try to figure out how much more lift you get from a partially slatted ( slats are 55% of leading edge?) wing at what angle of attack (at 12-15 degrees there is almost zero gain in lift with slats). The retention of lateral control in flight conditions when other planes have lost it is a big advantage even if it does degrade firing accuracy some.

In many modern planes the leading edge slats are deployed by power and are more of an adjustable airfoil than a true slat. A true slat has a slot between the leading edge and the main part of the wing that has "energized air" flowing over the wing and separating further back than a normal wing maintaining good airflow over the top of the ailerons. Some planes used "fixed" slots which higher drag in normal flight.

 

[tyrodtom]

If the slats were as bad as some of the allied test pilots seem to say. Why wouldn't some of the Germans wired them shut or deactivated them in some way?
It's seems sort of odd that the one aircraft that shot down by far the most aircraft of any fighter in history was a bad gun platform under some conditions because of slats.

 

[CobberKane]

If the slats were as bad as some of the allied test pilots seem to say. Why wouldn't some of the Germans wired them shut or deactivated them in some way?
It's seems sort of odd that the one aircraft that shot down by far the most aircraft of any fighter in history was a bad gun platform under some conditions because of slats.

Might have had something to do with the way the fighter was used, too; boom and zoom rather than turning attacks. What other fighters had leading edge slats? The La-5 7 spring to mind - any issues there?

 

[tyrodtom]

The Me110, 210, 410, 262, all had slats, and the Me163 had fixed leading edge slots.
Even the Me108 had slats. Willy evidendly had a thing for slats.


Some USN aircraft had slots or slats, The SBD, the Helldiver, and the Avenger.

 

[krieghund]

there was an old story that in those early days the pilots in the f 5s used "fuzz busters" in some way....that probably ought to go into the myths thread.

Actually I have a couple of photos of the installation of a couple of different types tried. We were trying to write a local TCTO but the powers that be wouldn't let it be official as the F-5E already had two RWR solutions fitted to export models. Plus it may have been for the element of technical surprise as incoming Red Flag units knew the tech level of the USAF F-5E. The actual use for the pilot would be limited as he had to interpret what it was trying to tell him but was useful in BVR engagements to inform of a lock-on and appropriate action could be taken if possible. FWIW.

 

[Shortround6]

Handley page (patent holder for slats) used them on a number of aircraft including the first 50 Halifax's. 4 engine piston bombers should not be operating at 12 degrees or more angle of attack. the 109 and the navy planes have steep landing angles of approach and a tail down attitude. The slats either help or allow better aileron control at low speed/landing situations which is a good thing. But this is somewhat different than affecting turning performance.

Notice the fixed slot in the wing top surface just outboard of the star. The Avenger used fixed slots. Slats/slots only affect the area of the wing behind them. There would be very little change in the total lift of the avenger wing from slots of this size BUT a noticeable increase in aileron response at low speed/near the stall.

Not all slats/slots are equal and not all are intended for the same purpose/effect.

 

[stona]

If the slats were as bad as some of the allied test pilots seem to say. Why wouldn't some of the Germans wired them shut or deactivated them in some way?
It's seems sort of odd that the one aircraft that shot down by far the most aircraft of any fighter in history was a bad gun platform under some conditions because of slats.

Like just about every feature on just about every aircraft ever built they are a compromise. They might have compromised the ability of a pilot to sight accurately under certain conditions of flight but that was more desirable than having an aeroplane which was less controllable in other conditions of flight,noteably,in the case of the Bf 109,landing.

The original Me 210 was built without slats and look what happened to that.

Cheers

Steve

 

[tyrodtom]

I have a October 2006 Flight Journal that has a article about a Bf109E in the Ed Russell collection. The pilot, John Romain's only comment about the slats were that they deployed without him noticing it. That was in landing configuration, but he doesn't mention them otherwise.

 

[tomo pauk]

Like just about every feature on just about every aircraft ever built they are a compromise. They might have compromised the ability of a pilot to sight accurately under certain conditions of flight but that was more desirable than having an aeroplane which was less controllable in other conditions of flight,noteably,in the case of the Bf 109,landing.

The original Me 210 was built without slats and look what happened to that.

Cheers

Steve

Wasn't the abrupt design (by W. Messerschmitt?) decision to shorten the fuselage the main culprit for issues the early 210 encountered?

 

[stona]

Wasn't the abrupt design (by W. Messerschmitt?) decision to shorten the fuselage the main culprit for issues the early 210 encountered?

Yes,but part of the fix was leading edge slats.

Cheers

Steve

 

[GregP]

After reading it, no wonder he quit writing; he deserved the criticism. All my sources say the RAF lost about 150 planes or so and the Germans lost about 250 planes or so during the BOB. A clear margin regarless of location. We fly both type planes and he is clearly out in the mushrooms.

The 109 is a great plane (one of my personal favorites), but so is the Spitfire. We have about 20 pilots who have flown both and ALL choose the Spitfire as better of the two for combat. All our pilots fly VFR at relatively low altitudes when compared with WWII missions. It just ain't so at lower altitudes and NOBODY will mock-fight them at 30,000 feet these days unless paid ridiculous amounts of money with newly overhauled engines and props forthcoming in the bargain. Ain't gonna happen; too expensive. Plus, who are the qualified pilots? A great TEST pilot is not necessarily a great COMBAT pilot.

All our pilots say the 109 is decent, but no Spitfire. We have a DB-powered 109 (G-6) and an Hispano Ha.1112 Buchon, so we KNOW how they fly, particularly Steve Hinton. If there's ONE pilot who flies a LOT of warbirds these days, it's him. He is not overly fond of the Hispano, appreciates the real 109, but not like a Spitfire; has lots of hours in all three as well as lots of flight demonstrations in all.

Sorry, the text of the comparison is fraught with personal bias and inuendo. Direct comaprisons and direct combat trials are few. The real way to do it is to give two good, seasoned, combat pilots only about 20 - 40 hours in each and then fight them twice, with each pilot in each plane starting from equal positions. The results should be illuminating. Several such trials should give a good result. Unfortunately, nobody has done this to date and probably never will, 70+ years after the fact.

So, we'll probably never really know, will we? It makes the arguments fun, doesn't it? If they fought at the limits at 25,000 feet, I think the results would be almost equal IF they used variants of the same general timeframe; just a personal opinion. The real opinions of the pilots who fly them favor the Spit, but maybe that's due to MANY MORE spits flying than real 109's, more opportunity to fly said Spits and the altitudes where they fly today.

 

[krieghund]

After reading it, no wonder he quit writing; he deserved the criticism. All my sources say the RAF lost about 150 planes or so and the Germans lost about 250 planes or so during the BOB. A clear margin regarless of location. We fly both type planes and he is clearly out in the mushrooms.

How many of your references are after 1970? Remember he didn't have available the information we have today. Have you read his other two fighter comparisons? http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/flight-test-data/p40c-vs-a6m2-25487.html and http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/flight-test-data/f6f-5-vs-j2m3-26637.html

If not have a read and reevaluate if he has a bias. I believe he may have been trying readjusting peoples way of thinking with all the popular press that comes after a victory, the real story can get muddled a bit.

It would be nice to hear the reasons why the pilots you cite feel the way they due about their respective mounts.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

All in all it comes down to the pilots, when comparing a Spit and a 109. Both were rather equal to one another with each one having advantages and disadvantages over the other, and even swapping "superiority" over the other throughout the war. A German pilot back in 1940 knew how to get the most out of his aircraft. More than a pilot today, who has not received the same kind of training and combat experience. Same goes for the Spitfire. The Pilot who knew how to get the most out of his bird, and knew the weaknesses of the other was going to best the other.

GregP, I am not discrediting your sources or fellow pilots (including Hinton). Steve is obviously a very experienced pilot, and one of the best in the world. I hope you do not think I am trying to do so. They are amazing pilots, I just tend to believe that those that flew the aircraft in combat knew the aircraft a little bit better.

 

[Kryten]

I would be interested to compare the knowledge of tactics and flying between a WW2 vet and a modern pilot though, back then they were still feeling thier way developing and discarding tactics and aircraft as they went along, we have the benefit of hindsight and many years training these days!
would it be fair to say a modern pilot with years behind the stick of far more accomplished designs would find the flaws of an old aircraft the same way a modern racing driver can see the flaws in an old race car?
after all you only have what you know for comparison?