For the same reason the Me 109 was never envisaged to field the Jumo 213.
Griffon Spitfire was better than any Bf109?
- Thread starter ROK-BIRDMAN
- Start date
-
- Tags
- bf109 spitfire spitfire fr xiv
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Admiral Beez
Major
Envision and feasible are not the same. The Merlin powered license-made Bf 109s. If it works for a Spitfire, why not a Griffon 109?
Shortround6
Major General
Basically because the Griffon is closer to the DB 603 or Jumo 213 in size/weight.
Bare engine, not included prop, coolant, and extras is over 500lbs heavier than the Merlins they used in 109s.
Bare engine, not included prop, coolant, and extras is over 500lbs heavier than the Merlins they used in 109s.
The Messerschmitts which airframe were large enough to house an engine of a size of a Griffon/Jumo 213/DB 603 without detriments were Me 209 and Me 309.
GregP
Major
I was told by a guy who had formerly flown S-199s that, yes, if you used full power, the aircraft was very tricky to operate. But, if you used your throttle carefully, it was relatively easy to advance only enough throttle to stay straight and wasn't any harder to fly them any other Bf 109. Basically, if you used full power when on the ground or going slowly, he said you were an idiot.
I have a friend who flies a P-51D and he says it is very easy to go around ... basically you add a lot of right rudder and advance the throttle until it goes straight,and add no more throttle.
I am reminded that some drivers are Formula One champions and some aren't qualified to move the gear shift out of the neutral position.
I have a friend who flies a P-51D and he says it is very easy to go around ... basically you add a lot of right rudder and advance the throttle until it goes straight,and add no more throttle.
I am reminded that some drivers are Formula One champions and some aren't qualified to move the gear shift out of the neutral position.
Deleted member 68059
Staff Sergeant
- 1,058
- Dec 28, 2015
That is perhaps a little too sweeping a statement, although I am in general agreement with the broad thrust of what you are saying.
Even the derated & / or crippled by engine problems, the 190`s were viewed by RAF pilots as generally better than what they had as late as July 1942.
I doubt that changed fully until the IX production had peaked and V production had ceased which is October 1942. Even then,
at below 20,000feet the 190 was still in many respects better than an IX, significantly more heavily armed, and with
a far superior roll-rate. I think the point where you can say that the average Luftwaffe fighter was totally outmoded in
the west is more like late 43 - and by early 44 they were really completely outclassed when Mustangs arrived,
a slight blip occured with the 190-D9 but really, the single-stage supercharged 213A didnt produce anything like
the step-change in high altitude performance needed. They needed a D-13 in January 1944 to maintain parity.
....
Last edited:
Glider
Captain
I don't think anyone considered the Spit IX to be better than the Fw190, it was generally believed that it was as good as the 190 with both having their advantages and disadvantages. It was the skill of the pilot and of course the tactical situation which was so important.
Unfortunately for Germany, the Average German pilot wasn't as well trained as the average Allied Pilot from the middle of the war and the gap continued to increase with often fatal results for the Luftwaffe.
Calum,
Was the Fw190 flown at a remote base in order to keep the fact one was in RAF possession a better kept secret? If so where?
Cheers,
Biff
Glider
Captain
I have no record of it being treated any differently from other captured aircraft being evaluated at Farnborough and other testing establishments. It was also displayed to front line units so they could better understand what its strengths and weaknesses were.
There had been a considerable amount of criticism from all parties over the way the captured 109E had been tested, the lessons being poorly understood and incorrect information being disseminated to the front line. As a result the whole approach was changed.
The first 190A-3 was captured on the 23rd June. Test flown on the 3rd July, and although formally transferred to the AFDU it remained based with the RAE for demonstrations to interested parties. Starting on the 22nd July mock combat flights took place between the 190 and Spit IX, Typhoon and the Griffon Spitfire DP845.
Further extensive trials were undertaken against other fighters including the Mustang I, P38 and others. The last recorded flight was in late Jan 43 and she was struck off charge on he 18th September 1943.
As you might expect the RAF had access to a number of other Fw190's. A Fw190A4/U8 being captured on 20 May 1940 and another on 16th April, with a Fw190A5 being captured on the 20th June 1943. So the switching of attention from the A3 to the later versions can be understood
There had been a considerable amount of criticism from all parties over the way the captured 109E had been tested, the lessons being poorly understood and incorrect information being disseminated to the front line. As a result the whole approach was changed.
The first 190A-3 was captured on the 23rd June. Test flown on the 3rd July, and although formally transferred to the AFDU it remained based with the RAE for demonstrations to interested parties. Starting on the 22nd July mock combat flights took place between the 190 and Spit IX, Typhoon and the Griffon Spitfire DP845.
Further extensive trials were undertaken against other fighters including the Mustang I, P38 and others. The last recorded flight was in late Jan 43 and she was struck off charge on he 18th September 1943.
As you might expect the RAF had access to a number of other Fw190's. A Fw190A4/U8 being captured on 20 May 1940 and another on 16th April, with a Fw190A5 being captured on the 20th June 1943. So the switching of attention from the A3 to the later versions can be understood
Avia S199s were terrible fighters .. wouldnt choose that to justify the 109 design "keeping pace"
"German fighters were using 87 octane fuel but US, UK using 100/150 octane fuel when they are testing captured Bf109." Not sure this would have made much difference unless the engine were adjusted to use higher boost levels.
GregP
Major
Yet again, I never said they were great. I said they were in front-line service for a long time. The Bf 109 was a very good piston-era fighter when competently-flown. I would not want to be in the Bf 109 versus an F8F Bearcat but, again, it depends on who is flying the Bearcat and who is in the Bf 109.
Last edited:
The 109 deserves it's place in history as it remained close to the top for the entire war. Having said that it was close by late 1944 but other aircraft had surpassed
it. One notable overtake was the other aircraft which had been in competition for the whole war as well - the Spitfire.
Specifically the Griffon powered Mk XIV. Galland said the only good thing about the MK XIV was that there weren't too many of them.
MK XIV's were used in ground attack at the late war stage and would release their drop tanks to take on 190's but pilots didn't need to when
taking on 109's. Tests by allied pilots to compare the XIV against Mustangs, Tempests and P47's all concluded the XIV was the superior fighter.
The 109 doesn't seem to have had enough airframe size and strength ? to allow significant upgrades as the Spitfire and 190 did. Not sure if that is
right but I have read it and various reasons for it quite a few times.
it. One notable overtake was the other aircraft which had been in competition for the whole war as well - the Spitfire.
Specifically the Griffon powered Mk XIV. Galland said the only good thing about the MK XIV was that there weren't too many of them.
MK XIV's were used in ground attack at the late war stage and would release their drop tanks to take on 190's but pilots didn't need to when
taking on 109's. Tests by allied pilots to compare the XIV against Mustangs, Tempests and P47's all concluded the XIV was the superior fighter.
The 109 doesn't seem to have had enough airframe size and strength ? to allow significant upgrades as the Spitfire and 190 did. Not sure if that is
right but I have read it and various reasons for it quite a few times.
Shortround6
Major General
I don't know if it is right either but the 109 was designed around a 600-700hp engine of under 1000lbs and an armament of TWO machine guns OR 1 cannon (not one cannon plus 2 mgs.) BMW had a competitor engine to the Jumo 210 and both were similar in size to the Kestrel.
Everything after that (the 109A-B) was stretching the original design.
Once Mitchell decided to use the PV 12 engine instead of the Kestrel (over 30% heavier) and go with the eight machine guns the Spit was starting out around 34% heavier with a wing closer to 40% larger.
It sure seems like the Spitfire had more room to "grow".
Agree with the reasoning for the Spitfire having room to grow as that is what happened.
The other ting I read re the 190 was that although it wasn't a big plane to start with it was structurally strong compared to the 109. Perhaps this
gave the ability to hang bigger stuff (longer engine for the D ?) off it. Others here will have a better idea of the structural soundness of the 190 than
I have.
Shortround6
Major General
In some cases the weight of the original plane may give a better indication than size (wing area ?)
You can beef up structure but that is harder to do if you have beef up a lot of it instead of just a few parts.
The big radial engine was a lot heavier than the DB 601/605 engines so swapping in the Jumo 213 while not easy, wouldn't have been as hard as trying to stick a Jumo 213 in a 109.
You can beef up structure but that is harder to do if you have beef up a lot of it instead of just a few parts.
The big radial engine was a lot heavier than the DB 601/605 engines so swapping in the Jumo 213 while not easy, wouldn't have been as hard as trying to stick a Jumo 213 in a 109.
Thanks. I didn't know the radial was that heavy.
wuzak
Captain
The Me 209 II was to use the DB 603, and initial prototypes used the Jumo 213.
It was a basically a 109. Except for the engine and its cowling. And the wings with new undercarriage. And taller fin and rudder. and new tail plane. But apart from that....
The big problem when fitting the DB 603 was its length. And weight, obviously.
GregP
Major
That's funny since the Merlin is a 37L engine of some 744 kg dry weight. The Griffon was 36.7 L and 900 kg.
The Bf 109's DB 601 engine was 33.9L and 600kg while the DB 605 was 35.7L and 756 kg. The Bf 109 could at least take the weight of a Merlin, since it did.
The DB 603 was 44.52L and 920 kg. It didn't go into the Bf 109, but was used in the Me 410.
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
To touch on the Bf109's legacy of "narrow landing gear" and such - the Bf109 had a tail-wheel lock that helped prevent ground loops.
It's main gear track was no narrower than the Spitfire or F4F's.
A small airframe and narrow gear combined with a high-torque engine will wreak havoc on any inexperienced pilot, regardless of what they're flying.
It's main gear track was no narrower than the Spitfire or F4F's.
A small airframe and narrow gear combined with a high-torque engine will wreak havoc on any inexperienced pilot, regardless of what they're flying.
