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

[Glider]

Almost whatever the situation I would expect the XIVe to have the advantage as the 109K was very heavy on the controls at high speed, most tests of the 109G that I have seen use phrases such as almost solid, very heavy. The reason for the K was to get to the higher speeds which is where it was at its weakest.
The problem for the K is that the Spit was always the more agile even at slower speeds and was better in the climb. The only real advantage to the K was its dive which may help escape trouble but you had better find a cloud because when you reach the ground the K is back to square one again.

Its also interesting to take into account that the equivalent in development terms to the 109K is probably the Spit 21 which had a number of improvements which would have a significant advantage in performance and handling.

 

[Mike Williams]

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

Cheers,
Biff

Two examples come to mind. In the first case Spitfire XIVs of 130 and 350 Squadrons were patrolling over German fighter airfields when they were directed to the ME.109Ks of IV./JG 27 that were screening Me 262s taking off from Rheine airfield.

W/Cdr. George Keefer flying with 130 Squadron recorded in his Combat Report for 2 March, 1945:

I was flying with 130 Squadron and was leading them and 350 Squadron on a fighter sweep to Rheine, there being fourteen aircraft altogether. As we neared Enchede at 0755 Control warned us of enemy aircraft at Rheine. We turned towards Rheine immediately and when just north east of Rheine I saw a glint below me. At first I could not see whether there were e/a there so I left 350 on top and led 130 down. As we went down I saw about 15 109's flying s/w.
I picked one out and the e/a dived away. I closed and got in behind him and gave him a burst with all my guns and I saw strikes on his hood. The e/a flicked over on his back, went down through the cloud and I saw a parachute come out.
I fired at the e/a from dead astern and I gave him a fairly long burst. I claim this 109 destroyed. 80


P/O Louis Lambrechts of 350 (Belgian) Squadron recorded in his Combat Report for 2 March, 1945:

I was Blue 3 of 350 Squadron and we were being led by W/Cdr Keefer on a fighter sweep to Rheine. Huns were reported by control when we were near Enschede, and the Wing turned towards Rheine. The W/Cdr who was with 130 Squadron led 130 down and 350 were told to stay above. As 130 went down a dog fight started below at about 12,000 feet so I went down with F/Sgt Pauwels who was Blue 4. I picked out a Me 109 which was turning very steeply. After about two or three turns I got in behind the e/a and the e/a then dived to the deck. I followed and the e/a then pulled up again in a steep turning climb. I followed him and when at about 2,000 feet I managed to get in to about 150 yards behind the e/a. I opened fire with all guns at a 10 degree angle off. I saw strikes all over the engine and the cockpit and the e/a immediately dived away out of control. I followed and the e/a crashed to the ground.
I claim the Me 109 destroyed. 82

F/Lt Hoornaert of 350 (Belgian) Squadron recorded in his Combat Report for 2 March, 1945:

My Squadron was operating with 130 Squadron on a fighter sweep to the Enschede-Rheine area, and the W/Cdr was flying with 130 Squadron. 350 had seven aircraft airbourne and I was Blue 1. Just N/E of Rheine 130 went down on about fifteen e/a which were flying at about 11,000 to 12,000 feet and these Huns were flying S/W. I joined in the dogfight and there were aircraft turning everywhere. I started to turn in the middle of them. I found that there was a Me 109 trying to get on my tail and there began a game of hide and seek in and out of the clouds. Finally I stayed underneath the clouds and I saw the e/a quite a long way away so I opened up to full throttle and went after him. I caught him up and closed in behind to between 50 and 100 yards and I gave him everything I had. There was a big explosion and my wind screen became covered with oil and muck from the explosion. The e/a pulled up and I went underneath him. The e/a after pulling up dived down out of control and I saw it crash into a wood.
I claim this enemy aircraft destroyed. 83

F/Sgt Jacques Groensteen of 350 (Belgian) Squadron recorded in his Combat Report for 2 March, 1945:

I was flying Blue 2 to F.Lt Hoornhaert, and the squadron was operating with 130 Squadron led by W/Cdr Keefer on a fighter sweep. We were N/E of Rheine and we were giving cover to 130 who had gone down to attack. When at about 10,000 feet I saw a gaggle of e/a at about seven or eight thousand feet. I followed my No. 1 down and I picked out a Me 109 which was flying at an angle of about 90 degrees to me. I turned and got on to his tail and the e/a began to turn. I kept on to his tail and I opened fire from 400 yards closing to about 100 yards. I was dead astern and I fired with cannon and machine guns. I had closed to what I estimate about 50 yards when the pilot of the e/a jettisoned his hood, turned the aircraft on its back and baled out.
I claim the Me 109 destroyed. 84

Lt. Horst Nitschke Bf 109 K-4 334 134 Gefr. Alfred Pölz Bf 109 K-4 332 860, both killed, 14./JG 27. Lt. Manfred Stechbarth Bf 109 K-4 333 945 13./JG 27; Gefr. Robert Bf 109 K-4 334 154 15./JG 27, both wounded. IV/JG 27 lost 6 aircraft destroyed, III/JG 27 lost another 4, all in the Rheine/Achmer area on 2 March.

 

[Mike Williams]

In this instance Me 109Ks had just taken off (presumably with full fuel if it were available) when they were set upon by Spitfires XIVs of 130 Squadron. Note that one of the Spitfire pilot's recorded that he dropped his external fuel tanks prior to engaging, so presumably entered combat with full internal fuel:

F/O G. Lord of 130 Squadron recorded in his Combat Report for 19 March 1945:

I was Blue 1 and was with the Squadron on a sweep to the Rheine-Osnabruck area. When Huns were reported at about 0930 I dropped my tank and went down and saw a number of e/a circling the aerdrome at Rheine at about 1,000 ft. I went in behind one ME 109 and closed very fast. The e/a took no evasive action and I opened fire with all guns from dead astern from about 200 yards closing to 50 yards. I saw strikes behind the cockpit. I overshot this e/a and I saw him crash land on the aerodrome. I claim this e/a damaged.
After this I pulled round and saw another 109 but as I closed in I overshot him. The e/a was trying to turn so I pulled round on to him a second time and got behind him. The e/a was trying to do a tight turn. I turned inside him and fired from 200 yards. I saw strikes behind the cockpit and the machine blew up in the air. The pilot was able to bale out and I saw the parachute go down and finish up in a tree about a quarter mile to the east of the aerodrome.
I claim this E/A destroyed.
W/Cdr Keefer reports that after his combat he saw a parachute going down over the east end of the aerodrome. 89

F/Sgt G. Hudson of 130 Squadron recorded in his Combat Report for 19 March, 1945:

I was flying Red 3 with my Squadron sweeping to Rheine-Osnabruck-Munster. We were at 12,000 ft when Red 2 (W/O Edwards) reported e/a orbitting the aerodrome at Rheine. I saw the e/a about 10,000 ft below and went down with my No 2 (W/O Miller.) We were the first in and we went for six 109's which were orbitting the aerodrome. I picked out one e/a and attacked from almost dead astern; opening fire from about 200 yards. I saw strikes on the jet tank and on the underside of the fuselage. There was a terrific burst of flame and the e/a went straight into the aerodrome and crashed. I claim this e/a destroyed.
A general melee ensued and I fired at several more e/a as they came into my sights but I did not hit them. Eventually I got on to one and I fired at him from about 30 degrees off decreasing to 15 degrees at a range of 300 yards. I saw strikes on the fuselage. Almost immediately I was hit by flak which had been intense and I had to break away. I saw no more of the second e/a which I claim as damaged.
F/Sgt Hudson adds that during the combat he had time to see an enemy aircraft land wheels down on Rheine, but as it landed it pulled up over three others which were parked on the 'drome and it hit two of them as it passed over. 90

W/Cdr George Keefer of 125 Wing and leading 130 Squadron this day recorded in his Combat Report for 19 March, 1945:

I was leading 130 (Punjab) Squadron on a sweep in the Rheine-Osnabruck area and at about 0930 when we were at 12,000 ft between the aerodromes at Rheine and Hopsten e/a were reported below. I led the Squadron down and a dog fight began at deck level near Rheine aerodrome from which there was intense light flak. I found two ME 109's going round in a turn. Eventually one straightened out and flew due east. I gave him a quick squirt from dead astern and saw strikes on the starboard wing. Closing in further I fired again and this time there were strikes on the top of the cockpit and I saw that the hood was dragging. The e/a slowed, pulled up and he stalled in from about 20 feet. I saw the e/a crash into a field. I claim this enemy aircraft destroyed.
W/O Miller who was Red 4 adds that he saw the W/Cdr attacking this machine and that as he passed over it he saw the tail assembly was badly damaged. Glycol was also pouring from the e/a. 91

Lt. Helmut Beckmann of 3./JG 27 described the combat with 130 Squadron on 19 March 1945:

In den letzten Tagen war es schon sehr schwer, überhaupt dem Platz herauszukommen, da der Tommy vom frühen Morgen bis zum Abend fast ununterbrochen unsere Plätze ausserhalb der Flakzone umflog, um uns möglichst gleich nach dem Start zu erwischen. Um diesem Übel abzuhelfen, sollten wir auf einen Platz bei Lippstadt verlegen. Heute war es nun ruhig geblieben, da angeblich auf den Feindflugplätzen qbi wegen nebels herrschte. So rollte ich mit meiner 3 Staffel zur befohlenen Zeit, etwa gegen 10.00 Uhr, an den Start, nachdem mir vom Gefechtsstand versichert wurde, dass unser Gebiet feindfrei sei. Nun weiss ich nur noch, dass ich Gas gegeben habe, einmal nach rechts rausschaute um festzustellen, ob alle acht Maschinen mitkamen, und dann riss der Film.
Als ich nach 36 Stunden im nahen Krankenhaus Neuenkirchen aufwachte, glaubte ich zunächst, ich sei in einen der frisch zugeschütteten Bombentrichter geraten und hätte mich überschlagen. Wie erstaunt aber war ich, als ich mir am nächsten Tage von meinem mich besuchenden Staffeloffizier z.b.V. erzählen lassen musste, was alles passiert war:

Wir waren also mitten im Start, als ganz unangemeldet eine Staffel Spitfires über den Platz raste und genau hinter uns sass. Bis auf die letzte Maschine, Uff Horst, der noch beim Rollen war und in Tiefstflug entkommen konnte, sind wir alle in kurzer Zeit abgeschossen worden, da wir ja wegen zu geringer Fahrt noch gar nicht handlungsfähig waren. Mein Katschmarek Oblt. Roth ist brennend abgestürzt und war sofort tot. Alle übrigen sind mit Knochenbrüchen und Verstauchungen, teilweise nach Fallschirmabsprüngen, noch glimpflich davongekommen. Mich hat man im flachen Winkel in einen gegenüber dem Platz liegenden Wald fallen sehen, wobei es so krachte, dass man annahm, es sei "kein Auge trocken geblieben". In der Nähe meiner Absturzstelle arbeitende Häftlinge haben mich dann zuerst gefunden und, bevor die Wachmannschaften heranwaren, gründlich gefilzt. Von einem, der die Absturzstelle später gesehen hat, erfuhr ich, dass meine Machine zwischen zwei Bäumen hindurch raste, an denen die Flächen hängen blieben, dann mit dem Motor durch den Stamm eines mittleren Baumes schlug, wobei er ausgerissen wurde, und mit dem Schwanzende des verbleibenden Rumpfes so auf den Boden aufprallte, dass dieser hinter dem Tank noch einmal durchbrach. An dem Mittelstück mit dem Tank hing ich dann, zum Glück fest angeschnallt, mit dem Kopf nach unten im weichen Moss, während mir dass Benzin des geplatzten Tanks den Rücken herunterlief, was durch das Ätzen Verbrennungen 2 Grades auf dem ganzen Rücken zur Folge hatte. Ausserdem hatte ich eine starke Prellung an der Innenseite des rechten Unterschenkels, wahrscheinlich durch das Herausbrechen der zwischen den Beinen liegenden Kanone hervorgerufen. Der Arzt, der mich untersuchte – ich soll mich dabei so gewehrt haben, daß mich vier Mann halten mußten, - sagte mir, dass aus meinem linken Auge einem stecknadelkopfgrossen Splitter enfernt habe. Ob das die Ursache meiner Bewusstlosigkeit war, ist mir allerdings nicht klar geworden. Als wir am folgenden Tage wegen Fliegeralarm in den Keller mussten, hörte ich, wie hinter mir jemand, auf mich deutend, zu seinem Nachbarn sagte: "Das ist der, der immer geschrien hat: Lasst mich doch los, ich bin ja längst tot." 92

Me 109's (most likley 109K) from 3./JG 27. 130 Squadron claimed 3 destroyed and 7 damaged in this raid on Rheine Airdrome. 3./JG 27 admitted 3 Me 109s destroyed, Oblt. Walter Harsh killed; Fw. Hermann Wilke and Lt. Helmet Beckman wounded. Ring Girbig wrote that, with 1 exception, the entire staffel was shot down.

 

[Glider]

Can I ask if anyone has a translation of the last part as its not oftgen you get the German view

 

[pbehn]

Can I ask if anyone has a translation of the last part as its not oftgen you get the German view

My version auto translates but it comes out as a block of text.
Post 243
In this instance Me 109Ks had just taken off (presumably with full fuel if it were available) When theywere set upon by Spitfires of 130 Squadron XIVs. Note That One of the Spitfire pilot's recorded deed he dropped his external fuel tanks prior to engaging, so presumably Entered combat with full internal fuel: F / O G. Lord of 130 Squadron recorded in his Combat Report for 19 March 1945: I was Blue 1 and what with the Squadron on a sweep to the Rheine-Osnabruck area. When Huns were reported at about 0930 I dropped my tank and went down and saw a number of I / O circling the aerdrome at Rheine at about 1,000 ft. I went in behind one ME 109 and closed very fast. The I / O Took no evasive action and opened fire with all guns I from dead astern from about 200 yards to 50 yards closing. I saw strikes behind the cockpit. I overshot this I / O and I saw him crash land on the aerodrome. I claim this I / O damaged. After this I pulled round and saw another 109 but as I closed in I overshot him. The I / O that trying to turn so I pulled round on to him a second time and got behind him. The I / O that trying to do a tight turn. I turned inside him and fired from 200 yards. I saw strikes behind the cockpit and the Machine blew up in the air. The pilot what able to bale out and I saw the parachute go down and finish up in a tree about a quarter mile to the east of the aerodrome. I claim this I / O destroyed. W / Cdr Keefer reports did after his combat he saw A parachute going down over the east end of the aerodrome. 89 F / Sgt G. Hudson of Squadron 130 recorded in his Combat Report for 19 March, 1945: I was flying with my 3 Red Squadron sweeping to Rheine-Osnabruck-Munster. We were at 12,000 ft When Red 2 (W / O Edwards) reported I / O Orbitting the aerodrome at Rheine. I saw the I / O about 10,000 ft below and went down with my No 2 (W / O Miller.) We were the first in and we went for six 109's Which were Orbitting the aerodrome. I picked out one I / O and attacked from almost dead astern; Opening fire from about 200 yards. I saw strikes on the jet tank and on the underside of the fuselage. There was a terrific burst of flame and the I / O went straight into the aerodrome and crashed. I claim this I / O destroyed. A general melee ensued and I fired at several more I / O as They Came into my sights but I did not hit them. Eventually I got on to one and I fired at him from about 30 degrees off decreasing to 15 degrees at a range of 300 yards. I saw strikes on the fuselage. Almost immediately I was hit by flak Which had been intense and I had to break away. I saw no more of the second I / O Which I claim as damaged. F / Sgt Hudson adds did during the combat he had time to see an enemy aircraft land wheels down on Rheine, but as it landed it pulled up over three others Which were parked on the 'drome and it hit two of them as it passed over. 90 W / Cdr George Keefer of 125 Wing and leading 130 Squadron this day recorded in his Combat Report for 19 March, 1945: I was leading 130 (Punjab) Squadron on a sweep in the Rheine-Osnabruck area and at about 0930 When We Were at 12,000 ft Between the aerodromes at Rheine Hopsten and I / O were reported below. I led the Squadron down and a dog fight began at deck level near Rheine aerodrome from Which There Was intense light flak. I found two ME 109's going round in a turn. Eventually one straightened out and flew due east. I gave him a quick squirt from dead astern and saw strikes on the starboard wing. Closing in Further I fired again and this time there were strikes on the top of the cockpit and I saw the hood did what dragging. The I / O slowed, pulled up and he stalled in from about 20 feet. I saw the I / O Crash Into a field. I claim this enemy aircraft destroyed. W / O Miller Who Was Red 4 adds That he saw the W / Cdr attacking this machine and did as he passed over it he saw the tail assembly which badly damaged. Glycol which therefore pouring from the I / O. 91 Lt. Helmut Beckmann of 3. / JG 27 Described the combat with 130 Squadron on 19 March 1945: In the last days it was very difficult to get out at all the place because of Tommy from early morning until evening almost continuously our seats outside the Flakzone flew around to get us straight after the start. To remedy this evil, we should relocate to a place in Lippstadt. Today it was now remained quiet as allegedly prevailed QBI on the enemy airfields because of fog. So I rolled my 3 Season to ordered time about around 10:00 clock, at the start, after I was assured by the command post that our area was free of the enemy. Now I know only that I gave gas, once to the right out looking to determine if all eight machines came along, and then tore the film. When I woke up after 36 hours in the nearby hospital Neuenkirchen, I thought at first that I was in a advised the newly filled-in bomb craters and would have beat me. How surprised but I was when I had to tell me the next day from my myself visiting squadron officer zbV what had happened: So we were right in the start, as quite unannounced a squadron Spitfires raced across the square and just sat behind us. Up to the last machine, Uff Horst, who was still in rollers and was able to escape in low-level flight, we have all been shot down in a short time, since we were not even capable of acting so due to low drive. My Katschmarek Oblt. Roth has crashed burning and died instantly. All others are with broken bones and sprains, partly by parachute jumps, yet got off lightly. Do you see fall into a lying opposite the square forest at a shallow angle, where it crashed so that it was assumed that it was "still not a dry eye". Near my crash site working prisoners have then found me first, and before the guards zoom were thoroughly frisked. From one who has seen the crash site later, I learned that my machine between two trees through racing, where the surfaces got stuck, then to the engine through the trunk of a medium-sized tree struck, said he was torn, and with the tail end the remaining hull slamming down on the ground so that this behind the tank broke through again. At the center piece with the tank I go then, firmly strapped to happiness, with his head down on the soft moss, while me that petrol of the ruptured tanks ran down his back, which had by etching burns 2 degree on the whole back to the episode. Also, I had probably caused a strong bruise on the inside of the right leg by the breaking of lying between the legs cannon. The doctor who examined me - I should have defended myself as doing that four men had to hold me, - told me that out of my left eye a pinhead-sized splinters have miles. Whether that was the cause of my unconsciousness, but I did not become clear. When we had to because of an air raid alarm in the basement the next day, I heard behind me someone, pointing to me, said to his neighbors: "That's the one who always shouted: Let me go, I'm dead already. " 92 Me 109's (most likley 109K) from 3. / JG 27, 130 Squadron destroyed Claimed 3 and 7 damaged in this raid on Rheine Airdrome. 3. / JG 27 Admitted 3 Me 109s destroyed, Oblt Walter Harsh killed. Fw. Hermann Wilke and Lt. Helmet Beckman wounded. Ring Girbig wrote that, with 1 exception, the Entire Season which shot down.

 

[Mike Williams]

Can I ask if anyone has a translation of the last part as its not oftgen you get the German view

Hello Glider, here's my quick take on that passage.

Lt. Helmut Beckmann of 3./JG 27 described the combat with 130 Squadron on 19 March 1945:

During the last days, it was very difficult to ever get out of the airfield because the British flew around our field outside the Flak zone almost continuously from early morning until evening to catch us as soon as possible after take-off. To overcome this curse we needed to relocate to Lippstadt airfield. Today it had remained quiet as there was supposedly qbi on the enemy airfields because of fog. So I rolled with my 3 Squadron around 10:00 clock as ordered, to the take-off, after I was assured by headquarters that our area was free of the enemy. Now I know only that I opened up the throttle, looked out around once to the right to determine whether all eight aircraft came along, and then took-off. When I woke up after 36 hours in the nearby Neuenkirchen hospital, I thought at first that I was caught in a freshly filled-in bomb crater which would have flipped me. How surprised I was the next day when my squadron officer zbV visited me and told me what had happened: We were right in the middle of taking off when, quite unannounced, a squadron of Spitfires sped across the airfield and sat closely behind us. We were all shot down in a short time, because we were so inferior/low except the last aircraft flown by Uff Horst who was still rolling and was able to escape in low-level flight, My wingman Oblt. Roth crashed burning and died instantly. All the others had broken bones and sprains, in some cases by parachute jumps, yet got off lightly. I saw I had fallen and lay in a shallow angle in the woods across from the airfield, where it crashed so that it was assumed that it was "still not a dry eye". Working prisoners found me first near my crash site and before the guards approached I was thoroughly frisked. I learned, from someone who had seen the crash site later, that my aircraft sped between two trees where the wings got stuck, then struck through the trunk of a medium-sized tree where the engine was torn off, and with the tail end the remaining fuselage slamming down on the ground so that this broke through behind the tank. I then hung in the middle section with the tank, fortunately strapped firmly, with my head down on the soft moss, while the petrol from the ruptured tanks ran down my back, which had painful 2 degree burns on the whole back. Also, I had a strong bruise on the inside of the right leg probably caused by the breaking of the cannon lying between the legs. The doctor who examined me - I defended myself such that four men had to hold me, - told me that a pinhead-sized splinter was removed out of my left eye. Whether that was the cause of my unconsciousness was not clear. When we had to move to the basement because of an air raid alarm the next day, I heard behind me someone pointing to me say to his neighbors: "That's the one who shouted: Let me go, I'm long dead.

 

[silence]

Holy crap! Sounds like Beckman's plane went down in way you'd only see from George Lucas!

 

[Koopernic]

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

Almost whatever the situation I would expect the XIVe to have the advantage as the 109K was very heavy on the controls at high speed, most tests of the 109G that I have seen use phrases such as almost solid, very heavy. The reason for the K was to get to the higher speeds which is where it was at its weakest.
The problem for the K is that the Spit was always the more agile even at slower speeds and was better in the climb. The only real advantage to the K was its dive which may help escape trouble but you had better find a cloud because when you reach the ground the K is back to square one again.

Its also interesting to take into account that the equivalent in development terms to the 109K is probably the Spit 21 which had a number of improvements which would have a significant advantage in performance and handling.

In terms of fuel the Spitfire VIII and XIV had 95 Imp Gallons in the area between the engine and cockpit with additional leading edge wing tanks that increased internal fuel to 120 Imperial gallons. Only the bottom tank was protected. This is 501.6 Litres of fuel. The Me 109K4 had 400L in a tank behind and underneath the pilot with an additional 86 litres for the MW50 tank. The Me 109K4 with the appropriate engine and fuel setup (DB605DB/DC) could fly a mission on approximately 1.8 ata boost on either B4+MW50 or an all C3 fuel mission by filling of the supplementary tank with C3. In this case the difference between 501.6L and 486L is only 2.9%. I doubt there was any difference in range considering the Griffon was a much heavier engine (both the single stage and duel stage intercooled Griffons were much heavier). The Mk XIV clearly had a very short range and even in the non teardrop versions the use of a tail tank was only for special missions and required permission. It's stability issues were such that its combat mission usefulness can be completely discounted. When the short range of the Me 109 is quoted (360miles for the K4) it should be noted this is a maximum cruise speed of nearly 350-380mph.

The 1.8 ata Me 109K4 seems faster than the Mk XIV at most altitudes below 22,500ft and the XIV developed a consistent superiority only above that altitude, this applies to both the 18psig and 21psig boost Griffons. The Me 109K14 with the two stage supercharger on the DB605L engine unlikely to have suffered any altitude disadvantage and may have superiority as its speed at 1.75ata and with a 4 blade prop was to be 453mph.

In terms of roll rate we have little information. The little data we have is of chart of a Me 109G6 roll rate at 30kg stick force shows its roll rate about equal to the Mk IX with full wing tips when at high speed.

The Me 109 had a high roll rate at low speed. Tests in which the aileron deflection per 50lb stick force of the Spitfire is shown to be greater than the Me 109G can be disregarded as a factoid for comparison purposes as they do not take into account the Spitfires slightly greater wing aero elasticity. These measurements were a case of British engineers attempting to understand a different design by breaking it down into its components.

Furthermore we know the Me 109K4 had a modified wing and this might translate to improved roll rate, it would be wrong to assume that the K4 simply had the same wing as the G6. Some Me 109G6 were made by by licence producer of Me 109's WNF with spring tabs on the ailerons clearly to improve high speed roll rate. Drawings exist of Me 109K4 with spring tables on the ailerons so the intention was there. Given the state of the war one can imagine that it was hard to introduce such a new mechanism.

This would eliminate the supposed higher stick forces though as the Me 109 had a relatively torsionally stiff wing so 'stiff' ailerons doesn't necessarily translate to low roll rate. The Me 109 wing spar was around the 50% of chord mark not 25% or so of the spitfire.

Tabs of various types were used in an number of late war high speed aircraft to reduce control surface loads. They were common on bombers but started to appear on late war Corsairs, Hellcats, Arado 234 and indeed the Spitfire 21 had aileron balance tabs and it was surely not beyond the German industry to introduce these in mass as well.

The Me 109K6, Me 109K14 all would have received Mk108 canon integrated into the wings rather than fitted in gondolas underneath. Hence with 3 x Mk 108 30mm guns and 2 x MG131 13.2mm guns the aircraft was well armed. This gun was lighter than any 20mm guns, even the short barrelled Hispanos used in Spitfires (24 series).

We would also need to consider the possibility of the development of an advanced fuel equal or close to equal to allied 150PN or US 115/145 boosting power of the DB605L into the 2000-2200hp territory.

The Me 109 was still competitive to the very end even though the Germans were keen to replace it.

 

[Milosh]

Furthermore we know the Me 109K4 had a modified wing

How did the wing of the K-4 differ from the G series 109s?

 

[GregP]

The Bf 109 K was an attempt to standardize the myriad G-subvariants. As for the wing, it had large rectangular fairings for the 660 x 190 mm main wheels (larger than the G), but was otherwise a standard G-series wing as far as I can tell. I can find nothing specific that says otehrwise, but I can find a lot of references that say the reason for the K was to standardize all the G subvariants. A few things were moved around, like hatches and fuel inlets, etc, but it wasn't a major redesign ... it was a cleanup of an existing design, incorporating the "best" of the feature on the many Gs with a few new improvements.

Fletner tabs would be a distinct improvement, but not nearly as much as fletner tabs with a trim tab as well. Interesting that some K's didn't have fixed tabs on the rudder since the purpose was "standardization."

I have never heard or seen it claimed that the K was as maneuverable or could roll as well as a Spitfire, but I wasn't a bad fighter for the time. While it had speed, it also wasn't maneuverable at aspeed, so the speed was an escape element or an attack element and, when the distance closed, it would need to slow down to be effective.

Some think if you say something wasn't "as good as" another something, you are trashing it. Nothing could be further from the truth. Neither of the main German fighters was a "bad" fighter. They had their strong points and weak points, just like Allied fighters did. A well-flown Bf 109 was a serious threat to anything it encountered. The same can be said of a well-flown Yak-3, Hurricane, etc.

By the end of the war, there were significantly more "good" Allied pilots in general service than in German service. Their guys didn't suddenly "get bad," they suffered attrition that wasn't replaced by graduates from flight schools. The Top German aces were always top of the line pilots. But even if you had, say, 45 of them in one squadron, how much good are they going to do against 700 fighters flying over their airfield or around it just out of flak range waiting for some idiot to take off?

You can be an Erich Hartmann, but if you get attacked by 50 "good" Allied pilots at the same time, you are ... in some difficulty.

So the Bf 109 K wasn't a bad fighter, but it certainly wasn't a super Bf 109 either. It was a cleanup of the G variants with some tweaking. If the fletner tabs helped, great. They'd have been needed on the rudder (had it along with two fixed tabs) elevators (don't know) and ailerons (fitted to some K-4s, but not all).

The only variant I know that was supposed to use a 4-bladed prop was the K-14, of which anywhere from 0 to 2 were delivered, depending on who you believe, so there were not a bunch of Bf 109s flying about with 4-bladed props until the later Hispano Ha.1112 was developed.

The Ha.1112 we are restoring was delivered in 1958, so it doesn't really count as a WWII aircraft.

 

[pbehn]

Some think if you say something wasn't "as good as" another something, you are trashing it. Nothing could be further from the truth. Neither of the main German fighters was a "bad" fighter. They had their strong points and weak points, just like Allied fighters did. A well-flown Bf 109 was a serious threat to anything it encountered. The same can be said of a well-flown Yak-3, Hurricane, etc.

With the anniversary of the BoB there have been a lot of coverage. One old veteran BoB Hurricane pilot said as long as he saw the enemy he always felt he could deal with it. Bungays history of the BoB also says that the massed dogfights were inconclusive, once both sides were engaged (not bounced) the pilots were more concerned looking behind than in front so kills were as much dependent on luck as skill. 1 on 1 a hurricane was at a severe disadvantage against the 109 because it was slower and so couldnt break away, that doesnt mean it was a sitting duck, if caught 1 on 1 over England the pilot always knew his adversary had to break off to get home so he could play for a draw.

 

[GregP]

Yes, most fighters were built for a reason ... they usually beat the other offerings at the time. Any significant develolment was usually in one or two areas, not "all over." Allied pilots who "caught" an A6M Zero late in the war might have been sorry they did so if the Zero was flown by a competent pilot.

When the British adopted the Hurricane, it was one of the better offerings out there and was a decent fighter if not the fastest. Most fighters have one or two maneuvers at which they are hard to beat, even for more developed opponents.

There was nothing wrong with flying a Hurricane ... as long as you saw the enemy coming. Ditto for the Bf 109. Of course, if you DID see the enemy ... but they outnumberd you by a LOT, it might not matter. 150 against 16 is NOT a fair fight, even if the 16 were Me 262s.

 

[stona]

And one thing you had a better chance of doing in a Spitfire Mk XIV, particularly a low back, was seeing that enemy coming. It is a very important advantage. Seeing your enemy before he saw you was a matter of life and death, literally.

Cheers

Steve

 

[Juha]

... The Me 109K14 with the two stage supercharger on the DB605L engine unlikely to have suffered any altitude disadvantage and may have superiority as its speed at 1.75ata and with a 4 blade prop was to be 453mph.

Simply question, how many 109K-14 were flown and tested?

In terms of roll rate we have little information. The little data we have is of chart of a Me 109G6 roll rate at 30kg stick force shows its roll rate about equal to the Mk IX with full wing tips when at high speed.

That's interesting, especially because when Germans tested the elastic properties of the 109F-2 wing, the test pilots were unable to use 30kg stick force, only appr 21 kg, achieving max roll rate of appr. 70 deg/sec. at 3,000m. There are also graphs for bigger deflections and the 9deg graph goes up to appr 31 kg stick force, but these are clearly marked as extrapoliert, ie calculated. I wonder was the Me 109G-6 test(your source=?)flown at 6,000m. The F-2 tests were planned to be flown also at 6,000m but the "prevailing air situation", probably meaning that there were too often P-51s around Rechlin, prevented that.

... Tests in which the aileron deflection per 50lb stick force of the Spitfire is shown to be greater than the Me 109G can be disregarded as a factoid for comparison purposes as they do not take into account the Spitfires slightly greater wing aero elasticity. These measurements were a case of British engineers attempting to understand a different design by breaking it down into its components.

IMHO the well known NACA tests were flown and so the wing aero elasticities were naturally included.

Furthermore we know the Me 109K4 had a modified wing and this might translate to improved roll rate, it would be wrong to assume that the K4 simply had the same wing as the G6. Some Me 109G6 were made by by licence producer of Me 109's WNF with spring tabs on the ailerons clearly to improve high speed roll rate. Drawings exist of Me 109K4 with spring tables on the ailerons so the intention was there. Given the state of the war one can imagine that it was hard to introduce such a new mechanism.

This would eliminate the supposed higher stick forces though as the Me 109 had a relatively torsionally stiff wing so 'stiff' ailerons doesn't necessarily translate to low roll rate. The Me 109 wing spar was around the 50% of chord mark not 25% or so of the spitfire.

The fact is that combats were flown by the a/c delivered to the units not by some paper planes with all those improvements which might have been intented to install in future.

Tabs of various types were used in an number of late war high speed aircraft to reduce control surface loads. They were common on bombers but started to appear on late war Corsairs, Hellcats, Arado 234 and indeed the Spitfire 21 had aileron balance tabs and it was surely not beyond the German industry to introduce these in mass as well.

The Me 109K6, Me 109K14 all would have received Mk108 canon integrated into the wings rather than fitted in gondolas underneath. Hence with 3 x Mk 108 30mm guns and 2 x MG131 13.2mm guns the aircraft was well armed. This gun was lighter than any 20mm guns, even the short barrelled Hispanos used in Spitfires (24 series).

We would also need to consider the possibility of the development of an advanced fuel equal or close to equal to allied 150PN or US 115/145 boosting power of the DB605L into the 2000-2200hp territory.

Again speculations. Tabs were sometimes problematic and then testing took time to get acceptable behaviour for slow, medium and high speeds

The Me 109 was still competitive to the very end even though the Germans were keen to replace it.

In that we agree.


Juha

 

[tomo pauk]

In terms of fuel the Spitfire VIII and XIV had 95 Imp Gallons in the area between the engine and cockpit with additional leading edge wing tanks that increased internal fuel to 120 Imperial gallons. Only the bottom tank was protected. This is 501.6 Litres of fuel. The Me 109K4 had 400L in a tank behind and underneath the pilot with an additional 86 litres for the MW50 tank. The Me 109K4 with the appropriate engine and fuel setup (DB605DB/DC) could fly a mission on approximately 1.8 ata boost on either B4+MW50 or an all C3 fuel mission by filling of the supplementary tank with C3. In this case the difference between 501.6L and 486L is only 2.9%. I doubt there was any difference in range considering the Griffon was a much heavier engine (both the single stage and duel stage intercooled Griffons were much heavier). The Mk XIV clearly had a very short range and even in the non teardrop versions the use of a tail tank was only for special missions and required permission. It's stability issues were such that its combat mission usefulness can be completely discounted. When the short range of the Me 109 is quoted (360miles for the K4) it should be noted this is a maximum cruise speed of nearly 350-380mph.

There is no doubt that any DB 605 was more frugal with fuel than any Griffon; the DB 605 was already more frugal than Merlin. Quirk with Spitfire is that 170 imp gal (773 L) drop tank was available from mid-war on, and that, combined with rear tanks was bound to give considerable range/radius. Spitfire XIV cruised at 360 mph on 'max weal mixture'.
The "its combat mission usefulness can be completely discounted" statement will need backing up from a good source, we know that RAF was not fond with Mustang's fuselage tanks (another less-than-ideal solution that worked), that USAF used regularly.

The 1.8 ata Me 109K4 seems faster than the Mk XIV at most altitudes below 22,500ft and the XIV developed a consistent superiority only above that altitude, this applies to both the 18psig and 21psig boost Griffons. The Me 109K14 with the two stage supercharger on the DB605L engine unlikely to have suffered any altitude disadvantage and may have superiority as its speed at 1.75ata and with a 4 blade prop was to be 453mph.

The K14 will have less power at lower altitude than K4, some 200-300 PS deficit, when both aircraft are using C3+MW 50; situation reverses from some 7 km up. Granted, the entire two stage program in Germany in ww2 lagged 18-20 months to be of any use.
With K14 and it's two-stage DB 605L, had it reached service, the rear tank is mandatory filled with MW 50, since it was necessary with both 1.75 ata @ 2800 rpm (Notleistung) and with 1.43 ata @ 2600 rpm (Kampleistung), due to the lack of intercooler and too high a compression ratio. With only 400 L in the K14, the Spitfire 21 or 24, or Spiteful, will have a superior range/radius.

The Me 109K6, Me 109K14 all would have received Mk108 canon integrated into the wings rather than fitted in gondolas underneath. Hence with 3 x Mk 108 30mm guns and 2 x MG131 13.2mm guns the aircraft was well armed. This gun was lighter than any 20mm guns, even the short barrelled Hispanos used in Spitfires (24 series).

Of course the MG 131 was lighter than 20 mm cannons, the 20 mm sported far greater firepower. Quirk with integral MK 108 is that it never left the mock-up stage. We can compare that (or not) with Spitfire actually having 4 cannons.

We would also need to consider the possibility of the development of an advanced fuel equal or close to equal to allied 150PN or US 115/145 boosting power of the DB605L into the 2000-2200hp territory.

The late war German C3 fuel was already between Allied 130 and 150 PN fuel, not much will it gain with 'straight' 150 PN fuel. Decrease the compression ratio and/or install the intercooler and engine will withstand greater boost (for more power).

The Me 109 was still competitive to the very end even though the Germans were keen to replace it.

Very true.

 

[Koopernic]

There is no doubt that any DB 605 was more frugal with fuel than any Griffon; the DB 605 was already more frugal than Merlin. Quirk with Spitfire is that 170 imp gal (773 L) drop tank was available from mid-war on, and that, combined with rear tanks was bound to give considerable range/radius. Spitfire XIV cruised at 360 mph on 'max weal mixture'.
The "its combat mission usefulness can be completely discounted" statement will need backing up from a good source, we know that RAF was not fond with Mustang's fuselage tanks (another less-than-ideal solution that worked), that USAF used regularly.
The K14 will have less power at lower altitude than K4, some 200-300 PS deficit, when both aircraft are using C3+MW 50; situation reverses from some 7 km up. Granted, the entire two stage program in Germany in ww2 lagged 18-20 months to be of any use.
With K14 and it's two-stage DB 605L, had it reached service, the rear tank is mandatory filled with MW 50, since it was necessary with both 1.75 ata @ 2800 rpm (Notleistung) and with 1.43 ata @ 2600 rpm (Kampleistung), due to the lack of intercooler and too high a compression ratio. With only 400 L in the K14, the Spitfire 21 or 24, or Spiteful, will have a superior range/radius.

Of course the MG 131 was lighter than 20 mm cannons, the 20 mm sported far greater firepower. Quirk with integral MK 108 is that it never left the mock-up stage. We can compare that (or not) with Spitfire actually having 4 cannons.

The late war German C3 fuel was already between Allied 130 and 150 PN fuel, not much will it gain with 'straight' 150 PN fuel. Decrease the compression ratio and/or install the intercooler and engine will withstand greater boost (for more power).

Very true.

I have never seen any documentation to indicate that C3 was better than 97/130 and that comes from British technical intelligence on the fuel tanks in captured or downed German aircraft. Officially it seems to have remained 96/125. In fact it started of at only 93/115 I doubt you'll find any. Where did you hear that claim? The processes of alkylation to produce alkylate or polymerisation of butylene to produce of iso-octane to produce high octane and PN fuel from the kinds of coal derived hydrocarbons the Germans had required lots of plant that the Germans didn't have or was being bombed from 1944 onwards just as it had come on line. They were struggling to make enough B4 let alone better the allies 100/130 fuel.

150PN fuel is actually 110PN/150PN against which the Germans had 97RON/130PN (test figures not official ones). The PN means performance number and is a percentage increase in power possible when running rich. So allied 100/130 gave a 30% boost when rich. Allied 100/130 was in fact 102/130. Hence 150PN could create 16% more power than 130PN. That would get the Me 109K4 to 2.15 ata and certainly above 2.0 ata.

Both the Mk VIII/XIV and the Me 109 had about 95 gallons/400L in the main fuselage tanks. The Spitfire VII/VIII/XIV added about 25 gallons in the wing leading edges and the Me 109 about 21 gallons in a supplementary tail tank. Little difference.

If the Luftwaffe wanted to do something crazy and of marginal utility instead of adding a 170 gallon slipper tank they could add 200 imp gallons or 900L of fuel in the form of 3 x 66 gallon/300L drop tanks to the Me 109, this in fact was used on reconnaissance versions of the Me 109. They might try something like a small 'dachelbauch' (dachhound belly, the German equivalent of a conformal slipper tank) tank say 150L combined with the wing drop tanks. No problem, but the Luftwaffe felt no pressing need to do so or felt it was of dubious utility. Useful for long standing patrols over an area yet still in clean range of base.

In terms of proving the tail tank of marginal utility, we hear much of its restrictions in use. It was no doubt very useful in ferrying or deploying the spitfire to theatre without the cost, safety issue and inconvenience of drop tanks.

There was never a chance of an intercooled DB605L since adding 200kg of intercooler and radiator didn't make a lot of sense as opposed to adding 200L of MW50 in the case of the size restricted Me 109. The Me 109 had already accepted an engine size change when it went from the Kestrel/Jumo 210 to the DB601 and then DB605. Fitting the Griffon sized Jumo 213 wasn't possible.

Since the DB605 consumed a little less fuel than the Griffon and since the Giffon had to operate on rich mixture (about 20% greater consumption) instead of using MW50 as a charge cooler there was likely no difference in range even if the Me 109 was forced to use MW50 as an Anti Detonant. The range corsing posted suggested the range of 460 miles was at a 226 mph cruise for at least part of the mission which is impractical for even escort combat duty in Europe.

Plain drop tanks were the solution.

Many Me 109 developments, such as the in wing canon armament I suspect, were delayed due to the severe production stresses experienced by the Reich at the close of the war. The use of 4 canon seems to have been limited to the Griffon variants, maybe 700 produced during the war?

 

[wuzak]

Higher PN fuels helped at lower altitudes, not at the altitudes where the XIV excelled.

Intercooling may have been heavier than simple ADI, but it never ran out. The performance afforded by intercooling was accessible at all times during a flight.

The DB 605 was, in terms of capacity, the same size as the Griffon.

The 170 galllon slipper tank was a ferry tank. Not for combat. The 90 gallon drop tank was fo combat, and the ADFU determined that a XIV was superior in all respects to a Bf 109G with the tank in place.

From the introduction of the universal wing, 4 x 20mm cannon was an option on every Spitfire. I believe that still holds true for the E-wing used on the XIV.
http://spitfiresite.com/2010/04/concise-guide-to-spitfire-wing-types.html/3

I believe that the Mk 108 was a poor air to air weapon. While the round was heavier, it's muzzle velocity was only ~60% of the Hispano's. The Mk 103 was the great 30mm hope of the Luftwaffe, but it wasn't really sorted before the end of the war.

 

[Vincenzo]

page 13 rich mixture rating 116% and 120% of US 130 grade
http://www.fischer-tropsch.org/Tom Reels/Linked/A5464/A5464-0638-0654 Item 6A.pdf

 

[Milosh]

page 13 rich mixture rating 116% and 120% of US 130 grade
http://www.fischer-tropsch.org/Tom Reels/Linked/A5464/A5464-0638-0654 Item 6A.pdf

There is another report I have seen that puts the 'rich mixture' even higher than 120% of 130PN.

 

[Vincenzo]

i just posted the first i found
this reports were already posted time ago...