How The Spitfire Mk XIV Compared to the K4 and Other Questions

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

Vincenzo said:
the source for 180 to 219 would be this
Spitfire Special: E. R. Hooton, Michael Roffe: 9780711002937: Amazon.com: Books
Click to expand...

Thanks for digging out the source, but a little dated, I'd say.

A bit more recent one, not giving the answer but gives some figures. Because of the overclaim and misidentifications IMHO it's impossible to achieve surely the right result on 109 vs Spit combat results during the BoB:

Hurricanes, overall 499 damaged and 597 destroyed, when hit by fighters 140 damaged and 238 destroyed, when hit by bombers 70 damaged and 36 destroyed, when hit by enemy aircraft 93 damaged and 132 destroyed. in addition to the above Bf110s hit 71 Hurricanes, shooting down 36 of them.

Spitfires, overall 413 damaged and 379 destroyed, when hit by fighters 161 damaged and 192 destroyed, when hit by bombers 67 damaged and 34 destroyed, when hit by enemy aircraft 69 damaged and 52 destroyed. in addition to the above Bf110s hit 26 Spitfires, shooting down 8 of them.

Bf109s, overall 241 damaged and 665 destroyed, when hit by fighters 52 damaged and 448 destroyed, which firstly shows up the disadvantage of flying over enemy controlled territory ... Enemy action accounted for another 20 damaged and 40 destroyed Bf109s.

Bf110s, overall 92 damaged and 275 destroyed, when hit by fighters 48 damaged and 185 destroyed, the stronger airframe and second engine clearly playing a part in the better survival ratio versus the Bf109. Enemy action accounted for another 14 damaged and 15 destroyed Bf110s.
Luftwaffe bombers seem to have shot down a minimum of 97 Spitfires and Hurricanes

BoBT[hen]a[nd]N[ow] seems to be the more accurate, I use the Mason figures for 1 to 9 July only. Other publications like Spitfire by Morgan and Shacklady have published individual histories for each aircraft built, which can be used as a check. Unfortunately the Hawker Hurricane, again by Mason, does not have a history for every Hurricane, the histories are very brief and there appears to be a high error rate. Even BoBTaN has 3 Spitfire losses which have defied all attempts to find their serial numbers, being carried as unknown. So they could be double counted, or possibly actually only damaged.


Geoffrey Sinclair https://groups.google.com/forum/?fr...ory.war.world-war-ii/ldstisRH7XE/R1nAgZ9C1O8J
 
Last edited:
As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.

Britain was pretty chaotic between June and September and some details would have been written down but possibly got lost in the rush to do things. Also the Air Ministry, the War Office and the Admiralty were rolled into the Ministry Of Defence in 1964 and a lot of records went to landfill.
 
Last edited:
fastmongrel said:
a lot of records went to landfill.
Click to expand...
Destruction of government records is not permitted; at the end of a file's, or department's, life the records are parcelled up and sent to the National Archive (formerly Public Records Office,) where they remain hidden from view for a minimum of 25-30 years. Files from 1964 would not have been seen until 1994 (at least.)
Sensitive files can have a closure time of 50, 75, 100, even 150 years, and that is entirely up to the NA's committee; new information is surfacing all the time, which is why it's rather dangerous to rely on material from the 60s/70s, since the relevant files may not yet have been made available.
There is then the problem of files being handled by civil servants, with little, or no, knowledge of aircraft, and I've lost count of the mis-named files I've found; a few weeks ago I pulled out a file on "fuselage construction," only to find it was the A.P. for the Whitley, with the first few pages missing.
 
Vincenzo said:
Thank you for the link
there is something of strange
Click to expand...

It's not perfect, especially on Bf 110 there is a problem, Zerstörern losses were 209, or 239 if we include those lost by Erpr.Gr. 210, which were mostly used as fighter-bombers. IMHO those recon 110s lost should not be include in a fighter comparation.
 

Suffice to say though , regardless of the last few per cent it clearly indicated the Bf110 to be out of it's depth in this kind of campaign?
 

So it should be but in real life it's sometimes different. I know that substantial part of the WWII docus were lost when the HQ of the FiAF moved from Munkkiniemi.

And I have heard a rumor that many WWII RN destroyer logbooks, or DD Flotilla war diaries, I cannot recall which ones, were destroyed in error after the war. Is that true I don't know.
 
The Bf 110s operated by Epro.Gr. 210 were either fighter bombers or C-6s. I would count both in the fighter losses column, just as I'd count an allied P-47 or Typhoon later.

Cheers

Steve
 

I can only pass on what I was told by an ex civil servant in 2007 when trying to find the records of a relative who won the Air Force Cross and is buried in Salerno Commonwealth war grave cemetery. I was told that in 1963 lorry loads of Air Ministry paperwork went into the foundations of the Hanger Lane Gyratory system on the London North Circular road. I doubt anyone deliberately destroyed paperwork that had a national interest but if every piece of paper produced by Civil Servants and Local Govt was kept a repository the size of the Isle of Wight would be required. Sometimes the Baby gets thrown out with the bathwater.

We never did find out why my Mothers Cousin won the AFC nor how he came to die in 1943 his records dont exist or rather they dont exist where they should exist.
 
Is there reliable figures of own losses for each side? How many spits were lost, how many 109s etc, as reported by each side. forget claims for the moment, try and work from each side own loss records. but even this has its weaknesses

I think to arrive at reliable overall loss figures is more difficult than it looks. Many aircraft came back absolutely shot to pieces, but werent listed as a loss for some time. I think to get best possible figures is to look at own losses as recorded by their respective owners, and then add in all the aircraft listed as greater than 50% damage, or sent back to the factory for a rebuild. You should get at least a reasonable figure on each sides overall losses.

As to which type did what shooting, thats a whole level higher in degree of difficulty.
 
Hi Spacefire,
To answer one of your original questions, the only information I have on the Spitfire F.R. XIVE is from William Green's Fighters Vol. 2 by Doubleday:
Engine: R/R Griffon 65: 2,050 hp.
Combat Weight: 8,500 lbs.
Armament: 2 x 20mm/120 rpg. + 2 x 0.5 in./250 rpg.
Maximum Speed: 448 mph./26,000 ft. 417 mph./12,000 ft.
Maximum Cruise Speed: 362 mph./20,000 ft.
Range Clean: 460 mls. @ 245 mph.
Range Max.: 850 mls.
Climb: 20,000 ft./7.0 minutes.
Service Ceiling: 44,500 ft.

I know that is information from a coffee table type book but it is all I have sir.

I have several posts on another site that are still very much in progress and no where near completed as GregP pointed out earlier. But maybe they can help give you some information in the direction you are looking for.
http://www.warbirdsforum.com/topic/6085-bf-109K-performance/
http://www.warbirdsforum.com/topic/6010-spifire-mk-xiv-comparo-k4questions-43801.html

Good luck sir and may God bless, Jeff
 
There are two aspects of this comparison and that is the handling and the weight involved in delivering the extra power to the aircraft. The Me109 may well have the speed but it relied on a different tank of fuel that for most of the flight was just extra weight. What would be interesting is what is the climb and acceleration with max power but without the extra boost. I would expect the Spit to have a better performance without the boost
While both only have a limited time of extra power the Spits didn't involve the extra tank and plumbing. Also of course if in a tight corner the Spit could ignore the time limit and buy the ground crew a few rounds in the bar as an apology.

The second aspect is the handling. Both fighters get heavier on the controls with speed but the 109 was very bad at speed and this alone is a major problem
 
Hello Glider
a valid guestion because methanol production in Germany dropped dramatically in 1945 after it was dropped under 50% of planned in 1944. In 1945 the monthly production was only 10% of the planned one.
So without MW50 DB 605DB could still produce its max power 1850ps/1,825 hp with 1.8 ata boost and 2,800 rpm if C3 fuel is available. If B4 was used without MW50 the max power was 1,430ps/1,410 hp at 1.45 ata and 2,600 rpm.
Without MW50 DB 605DC produce max 1850ps/1,825 hp with 1,8 ata boost and 2,800 rpm with C3 which was its planned fuel.
 
Last edited:

IIRC, there was severe flooding at an archive location where many destroyer and other Admiralty records were being held and most were lost. I've also read that many admiralty records regarding gunnery trials etc, were destroyed because, IIRC, they were no longer relevant to current operations.
 

I certainly could be wrong but IIRC C3 fuel was used by the 190 units and B4 by the 109 units. Clearly there would be some overlap but the 109 units were at a clear disadvantage a lot of the time. Its a bit like the Ki84. Give it the fuel used by the USAAF and it was second to none, give it the fuel it actually had to use and things started to slip
 

Generally but there was some 109s that used C3 fuel even during the BoB.
 

Hello RCAFson, thanks for the clarification!

Juha
 

C3 was the only option for 190A and F but late in the war there was more C3 available and that was the reason behind DB605DC, Germans calculated that there was enough C3 for ay least some 109 units, too.
 
Gents let me know your thoughts.

If a Spit XIV were to meet a Me-109K both with full loads, the Spit would have a slight (depending on your definition) advantage. My assumption is the fuel used was the predominate (most prolific), pilots are of equal skill, and time aloft prior to engagement are the same. Hence the Spit having a performance advantage (airframe to airframe regardless of pilot skill).

If the same Spit were to meet the same 109K (henceforth called "K") with the K closer to empty fuel than full, and the Spit the exact opposite, then the K would be of equal or better performance. The caveat to this is the K pilot won't be able to stay in a protracted fight due to needing enough fuel to RTB.

Using the opposite of the above situation, Spit nearer to empty and K full, then the Spit would have a larger performance advantage, however would need to close the deal quickly in order to have fuel for RTB and or a separation AND RTB.

If the above is true, the Spit has a slight to larger advantage in 2 out of 3 situations.

Given the same situations with a Mustang vice the K, the results would be a little different.

Both heavy, advantage K. Not a realistic scenario given the distance Mustangs flew, so I'm just saying.

Mustang light, K heavy, advantage Mustang. More likely than the previous.

Mustang light, K light, "close" to equal.

Results: a push for the purpose of this conversation so far.

My question is: Would the most likely, IE "realistic" engagements between a Spit and a K occur with the Spit in the bottom half of it's fuel load, giving it a larger performance advantage? Also would that be the same for the Mustang, which would vary from about slight negative to positive performance advantage?

My goal here is to establish what "most likely" occurred or would have occurred.

Cheers,
Biff
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

S
Fw 190D-9 vs. Spitfire Mk. XIV, same engines
Replies
8
Views
2K
dedalos
D
S
Design and properties of the Spitfire Mk. 21+ wing
2 3 4
Replies
64
Views
6K
Jabberwocky
J
S
Spitfire vs. Dora mass battle
2
Replies
33
Views
3K
Snautzer01
A
How did B-17 and B-24 formations avoid shooting each other?
2 3 4
Replies
61
Views
5K
Peter Gunn
M
How Would You Like To Ride Here?
Replies
9
Views
777
Dimlee
Menu
Log in
Register