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

I think you miss couple of points

1,at sea level the Griffon only put out about 1800hp,and the DB605DB also put out 1800hp at sea level,and the 109 is smaller and also 505kg lighter,and yet the K-4 is only 6mph faster and is completely out climbed by the mkXIV,

2,The Griffon on 21lb boost at sea level put out about 2000hp,the DB605DC also put out 2000hp.
the K-4 is the smaller lighter plane and yet is only 8mph faster and still get out climbed

why is the smaller lighter plane with such a better power to weight ratio gets out climbed and has hardy any speed abvantage,were did that P/W abvantage go to

3,the MKXIV on 25lb boost can hit 380mph at sea level,

4,I like to see the test date for the K-14,as I don't think it got any were near that speed without NOS.
 


Not something I have studied in depth but I thought the Griffon Spitfires were for medium to high altitude work, fighting at low level was the Tempests forte in the later stages of the war. Not to invalidate the argument but the RAF were thinking on other lines.
 
When the notification for rescinding of the 1.98 ata rating went out it noted that Me 109K4 reconnaissance units already being used at 1.98ata could be run to 1.9ata until they failed but must then be run at 1.8 ata.
Click to expand...

Well that is a new one. Even the Hungarian didn't know about that.

Never heard of K-4s being fitted with cameras for recon.
 
Now, from what I understand the Spitfire XIV could out-roll and out-turn the Bf 109K at all altitudes and across all speed ranges, could out-climb the Bf 109K at most altitudes, but didn't have as high a top speed nor was a quick accelerating in a dive.

Also, the AFDU found that the XIV was superior in all respects to the Bf 109G even when the 90 gallon slipper tank was in place.

So how much improvement was the K over the G?
 
I do not have any test data unfortunately. Just a remembrance from a magazine years ago.
But I guess that's not up to validity.
XIVFR, foto recon, without armament. Does that count?
 
I think most of the DB 605s were rated at between 1,435 and 1,800 ps (not HP), and there were three models (the DB 605 ASC(M), DB 605 DC and DB 605 L) that were rated at 2,000 ps for takeoff only. all of the 2,000 ps ratings were with MW-50 injection, and they never did solve the plain front main bearing issues with the DB 605.

Approximate production was 42,400 DB 605s. There were some 12 variants of the DB 605, of which maybe three were designed to run with C3 fuel. The vast majority were run on B4 fuel and produced lass than 2,000 ps even with MW-50 / GM-1. Most Bf 109K's were fitted with B4-fueled engines.

There was one DB605 variant with an adjustable screw stop that could be set to run on either B4 (DB 605 DB) or C3 (DB 605 DC) fuel. If it ran in B4 it could use the MW-50. If it ran on C3, MW-50 was not used.

The DB 605 L was similar to the DB 605 D except it had a 2-stage supercharger and made 2,000 ps for takeoff. None of the DB 605's made 2,000 hp for purposes of flight. The DB 605A/B/C had a max continuous power of 1,075 at sea level and 1,080 at 5,486 m. The DB 605 AS had a max continuous power at sea level of 1,075 HP and 1,050 HP at 7,681 m. The DB 605DB/E/F had a max continuous power of 1,075 HP at sea level and 1,050 HP at 7,681 m. The DB 605 L had a max continuous power of 1,160 HP at sea level and 930 HP at 9,449 m.

All made better at takeoff, as you might expect, but weren't making the bid power numbers for long, and they never did completely solve the bearing issues when they switched from front ball bearing on the DB 601 to front plain bearing on the DB 605.

Lest someone think this is DB-bashing, the above comments are not restricted to the DB engines. Merlins made good max power, too, but max continuous was about the same as the DB 605 engines. The DB 605's turned 2,800 rmp max but cruised at 2,400 or less. The Merlin could hit 3,000 rpm but generally cruised at 2,400 or less, too. Allisons also turned 3,000 rpm for max, and cruised at significantly less ,too.

The DB numbers come from "Powering the Luftwaffe" by Jason Wisniewski. He describes all German engines and covers them quite well.
 
Last edited:
Max cruise, yes.

Not everybody or even most cruised around at max continuous. If they were on a patrol there was no reason to use that much fuel that fast. They usually cruised at best economy unless there was a need to do otehrwise.
 
Kryten said:
Both the Spit and 109 suffered overly heavy stick forces at high speed, the problem for the 109 was the cockpit did not allow the pilot the room to overcome the weight!
Click to expand...

Stick forces is a generalisation. The Spitfire in particular had extremely sensitive and light controls, some argued that the elevator control in particular was too light. The Bf 109 was not bad in this respect either, though British test pilots exhibited some bias against it, preferring what they were familiar with.
The lack of rudder trim is also a problem for the Bf 109, requiring input from the pilot to fly straight, particularly when going fast. Skidding around the sky does nothing to help gunnery, not a problem for old hands, but most of them were dead by mid 1944..

At high speeds both suffered from very stiff ailerons which required considerable input to move. Here the ergonomics of the cockpit designs had an influence. It was easier for a Spitfire pilot to apply a high force to his yoke than it was for a Bf 109 pilot to apply a similar force to his stick. The Bf 109 cockpit was so cramped that some pilots claim that full movement of the stick was anyway impossible.

Cheers

Steve
 
There is no doubt that the spitfire was a rock star at climbing, a result of the efficiency of its low wing loading at producing lift no doubt. I seem to recall that Me 109K4 climb rate data is for a kanonboot, ie a version with a pair of gondola guns adding weight and drag. Of course the Me 109K4 was a little more lightly armed than the Mk XIV in some ways this is fair, in some ways not as the highly centered armament of the 109 more effective. The K6 version was to have the guns integrated into the wing rather than beneath.

The Mk XIV entered service at the same time as the me 109G6ASM/G14AS around March 44 and there is no doubt that the Spitfire is superior. However production seems higher of the advanced Messerschmitt versus the Griffon Spitfire. Each side made compromises, the British tending to be cautious at interfering with the Castle Bromwich shadow factory but using the Supermarine factory as a bit of a jobbing shop, the German desperately tring to standardise.

It seems to me that in the short period from October to the end of the war the Germans produced more K4s than the British did Mk. xiv, xviii, F21, F22,F24 through from March 1944 through the post war period.

The reliability of the DB605 seems a quality control issue since examplars varied in life from dismally short to quite long.

The Germans were trying to get rid of the Me 109. The June 1945 prime German piston fighter would have been a Fw 190D13 or TA 152 likely with jumbo 213EB engine. Likely more powerful and faster than the Spitfire though still with a higher wing loading than the Spitfire.

Figures show that the spitfire pilot could get more aileron defection per unit force, however the aeroelastic twist of the spitfire wing made roll rate of the 109 and spitfire about the same. The exception being the clipped wing versions which were very fast rollers (see NACA 868 roll rate chart)
 
Last edited:
British fighter production from late 44 does seem a bit leisurely possibly the workers began to feel the end was near and didnt need to put 100% in as they had done for the previous 5 years. Mind you the RAF had more fighters than it knew what to do with by then after the losses during the Battle of the Bulge most Squadrons were back to full strength within 72 hours as spare aircraft arrived from Britain.
 
It seems to me that in the short period from October to the end of the war the Germans produced more K4s than the British did Mk. xiv, xviii, F21, F22,F24 through from March 1944 through the post war period.
Click to expand...

K-4 production in 1944 was 1194. In 1945, it was 401.

Spitfire production of the Mks mentioned was 1965.
 
K-4 production: 532 +1 K-2 accepted until November 30 1944, from december 44 only delivery records to air fleets seem to have survived. 325 in 12/44, 338, 233, 168 in first 3 months of 45. Nobody knows if all planes were counted at that stage of the war, especially as many of them were taken-over by units directly from the factory.
 

The aero-elasticity issue with the Spitfire wing was much more of an issue for earlier marks. The XIV and VIII had a strengthened wing, which pushed the problem further up in the speed range.

This chart shows comparative rolling performance of several different aircraft.

The Spitfire IX and XIV, with standard wing, is shown to be superior to all but the Fw 190 and Spitfire 21 up to 300mph IAS. Up to 400mph IAS the Spitfire IX and XIV are still ahead of the Mustang III (P-51B) and Bf 109G.

Unless the Bf 109K has much improved roll rate I can't see how it matches the XIV in this respect.
 
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
779
Dimlee
Menu
Log in
Register