Difficult to see what RAF would have done with more Spit XIV, it was the Heer that was crying for more fighter cover when British fighter pilots suffered more often from lack of targets than from overwork in air defencework. Spit IXs and XVIs could do CAS job as well or poorly as XIV.
How The Spitfire Mk XIV Compared to the K4 and Other Questions (1 Viewer)
Difficult to see what RAF would have done with more Spit XIV, it was the Heer that was crying for more fighter cover when British fighter pilots suffered more often from lack of targets than from overwork in air defencework. Spit IXs and XVIs could do CAS job as well or poorly as XIV.
- Thread starter
- #82
It looked looked cooler though.
But the Spit XIV was developed before Operation Overlord, so from then to early 1945/late 44 it probably did pretty well against newer German aircraft.
you can only used so many planes
that's 29 Spitfire squadrons,all we need to know now is how many were mkXIV's
the G-14 entered service in July 44 and the G-6 with MW-50 in May or June http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/aviation/messerschmitt-bf-109-performance-chronology-41004.html?highlight=109
that's 29 Spitfire squadrons,all we need to know now is how many were mkXIV's
the G-14 entered service in July 44 and the G-6 with MW-50 in May or June http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/aviation/messerschmitt-bf-109-performance-chronology-41004.html?highlight=109
Last edited:
I'm in Dubai and don't have Rodeike and Prien handy so flying blind but I would only count Mk XIV, Spitfire F.21 and maybe Mk XVIII as being produced during the war. (Mk XVIII missed the war but production may have started). I think maybe 900 Mk XIV were produced.
To be frank I was probably counting in Me 109G10 production, these were effectively the equal of the Me 109K4 though a little slower due to a non retractable tail wheel. I seem to recall 433mph or 437mph. A few Me 109G10/AS were produced for about 2 weeks with the DB605AS engine but most of the 2600 produced had one of the more advanced engines such as the DB605DB/DC. Even late war Me 109G14AS was indistinguishable from a G10 from the front. In that sense the Germans didn't do to badly versus the Spitfire as production was still concentrated on the non Griffon variants.
Every time a new Me 109 model was developed someone would take the compatible improved parts and produce a mutant 109 in their subcontracting factory. Eg WNF or ERLA. For instance ERLA developed a clear view frameless canopy which became standard across all 109 production and produced some 109s with aileron servo tabs. This would have improved roll rate. The Spitfire F21 introduced aileron balance tabs to reduce stick forces as well. Obviously at a certain point, the country was being invaded and was effectively subdivided by Feb 1945 some of the improvements could not be implemented in production.
Last edited:
GregP
Major
Hey Wuzak,
I've downloaded thar roll chart before and it certainly better than nothing, but gives us zero quantitative numbers, only relative roll. Would be nice if we had numbers, wouldn't it? I DO have a sheet showing the time to make a 360° turn for many Soviet tupes, but it give no airspeed!
Somethimes I wonder if these people really wanted anyone else to know anything about their airplanes at all. If you are taking the data anyway, then take ALL the data!
I've downloaded thar roll chart before and it certainly better than nothing, but gives us zero quantitative numbers, only relative roll. Would be nice if we had numbers, wouldn't it? I DO have a sheet showing the time to make a 360° turn for many Soviet tupes, but it give no airspeed!
Somethimes I wonder if these people really wanted anyone else to know anything about their airplanes at all. If you are taking the data anyway, then take ALL the data!
These people wanted to put their aircraft features in the best light while hiding its worst features.
The illustrations suggest that the chart gives bank angle achieved relative to the time at which a Fw 190A had achieved at 180 degrees though the chart says 'rate of roll' which is actually something different. If correct it shows how extremely sprightly the 190 was in this regard.
It seems to be contradicted by the NACA 868 roll rate chart but that chart gives roll rate with 50lbs of stick force. NACA 868 is also a roll rate (which is a speed), not bank rate (which is an acceleration) and perhaps not as practical an indicator. Or perhaps this is just terminology. The one Me 109G roll rate I have seen used a 30kg (stick force) and was pretty good. Above 400mph the P-51B ins shown as rolling faster (at 50lbs stick force) than even a Fw 190. This is a result of its internally balanced ailerons in which high pressure air from the deflected ailerons was channelled to sort of bellows that impinged on the aileron and reduced stick forces. These worked well inside a laminar flow wing. To be noted is the fact that allied investigators seemed to have trouble rigging the Fw 190's pushrod controls and allied test pilots complained of flutter (something which did not occur in properly set up 190 ailerons)
180 degrees of roll is what is needed to do a split S and up to 90 degrees what is required for a maximum effort turn. Noteworthy of the 190's handling is that its controls were supposed to be well harmonised which no doubt helped initiate the turn during to roll manoeuvre.
It's often assumed that the Me 109K4 was just an Me 109G with an improved engine, but the fact that they took a year to go from the Me 109K1 to the K4 suggests they made substantial changes and that might include changes to wing stiffness.
Not taken into account is the reality that 109 pilots could beat any allied pilot in an arm wrestle
Last edited:
In fact the original plan was for the K series to have a largely wooden wing. Wolf-Hirth GmbH started to work on a wooden wing as early as mid-1943 and no less than 3,395 pairs of wings were to come from the Butchowitz company of Brno. Eventually all sorts of issues led to the K series using the 'Proven' metal wing. This implies that it was essentially the same as earlier wings.
The K series was really designed around new and heavier armament rather than the more powerful engines which anyway found their way into other versions.
Cheers
Steve
Changing the goal posts, you be, as you said;
As for the G-10,
G 10 Erla 544
G 10 Mttr 177
G 10/R6 Erla 971
G 10/U4 WNF 356
These numbers are till the end of Feb 1945.
J. Prien has admitted there are errors in his 109 book and should be re-written.
As for the Spitfire, no need to guess, Spitfire - Main
drgondog
Major
So, for each model Spit vs 109, the thrust of the engine plus the Lift of the wing offsets the Weight of each respective airframe and Thrust = Total Drag + W*sin(alpha) and Lift = W*cos(alpha). If we postulate that CDo and Form Drag are about the same (argue the differences later) then Total Drag = Zero Lift Parasite Drag plus Induced Drag.
Induced Drag = (CL)^^2/(Pi*AR*e); CL = Lift/(Q*S) = W*sin(alpha)/(Q*S)
If the Bf 109K Weight = 7450 pounds. Spit XIV Weight = 8400 pounds 109K W= .88 of Spitfire W.
Wing Area S 109 = 172sq ft; Spit Wing Area = 242 Sq Ft.
for 109 ------> CL= 7450*Sin(alpha)/Q*172)
for Spit------> CL= 8400*Sin(alpha)/Q*242) let Sin(alpha)/Q = K
CL109 = K*7450/162 = K*43.3
CLSpit= K*8400/242 = K*34.7
-----------> Ratio of 109 CL to Spit CL = 43.3/34.7= 1.24
-----------> For equal Oswald efficiency and AR the Induced Drag Ratio of the 109 over the Spit is (1.24)^^2 = 55% greater than the Spit. To get to the actual Drag to insert into Total Drag = Parasite Drag + Induced Drag we need all the differences including climb angle and climb speeds to obtain Q= 1/2*(rho*V^^2) and Sin(Alpha), the Real CDo for each.
]
To summarize, despite the same thrust engine performance, and despite the 10% less weight, the offset to the much greater wing loading of the Bf 109K in climb seriously impacts its advantages of smaller size and gross weight because of the much higher Induced Drag in climb...
Those same factors are not near as important at high speed in level flight which is why the Bf 109K should be faster than the Spit XIV given same HP at the compared altitude.
Last edited:
well what i was getting at is that I think that the propeller efficiency on the K-4 is not as good as it should be,which I think is down to it 3-bladed propeller
and if we go back to 42 when both planes had 3-bladed propeller, and look at climb tests of two planes the G-1 6706lb on 1.3ata and the mkVc 6965lb on 16lb boost,both have about the same P/W but yet this time the 109 out climbed the Spit,and in 42 when the mkIX came out it soon switch to a 4-bladed propeller,but the 109 did not move to a 4-balded propeller and it about this time that the 109 starter to get out climbed by the Spit.
could this be down to the 109 centerline armament,as the Russian did not used a 4-bladed propeller,and they used centerline armament as well on all their planes.
Countries which used wing armament switch to 4 or more bladed propeller,and they must have done this for a reason.
and if we go back to 42 when both planes had 3-bladed propeller, and look at climb tests of two planes the G-1 6706lb on 1.3ata and the mkVc 6965lb on 16lb boost,both have about the same P/W but yet this time the 109 out climbed the Spit,and in 42 when the mkIX came out it soon switch to a 4-bladed propeller,but the 109 did not move to a 4-balded propeller and it about this time that the 109 starter to get out climbed by the Spit.
could this be down to the 109 centerline armament,as the Russian did not used a 4-bladed propeller,and they used centerline armament as well on all their planes.
Countries which used wing armament switch to 4 or more bladed propeller,and they must have done this for a reason.
Last edited:
Airframes
Benevolens Magister
The use of a certain type of prop was more to do with absorbing, and using, the power of the engine fitted, to the best advantage, rather than what type, and location of the armament fit and, by it's very nature, would always be a compromise.
Very basically, this can be achieved by the use of more blades, or by the use of larger, wider chord blades.
Whilst aircraft such as the Spitfire moved to a 4, or later, a 5 blade prop, and ultimately, a contra-rotating prop, the German aircraft industry tended to favour the wider chord approach, although 4 blade props were experimented with on some fighters, and were also fitted in service to some twin-engine types, for example for high-altitude work.
Very basically, this can be achieved by the use of more blades, or by the use of larger, wider chord blades.
Whilst aircraft such as the Spitfire moved to a 4, or later, a 5 blade prop, and ultimately, a contra-rotating prop, the German aircraft industry tended to favour the wider chord approach, although 4 blade props were experimented with on some fighters, and were also fitted in service to some twin-engine types, for example for high-altitude work.
wuzak
Captain
What version of Spitfire is that?
The Spitfire VIII and XIV had stronger wings than the V, even though it was of teh same profile.
I'm not changing the goal posts, I tentatively said that it 'seems' that K4 production exceeded production of all of the griffon spitfire fighter variants including post war production of Mk XIV, Mk XVIII, F21,F22,F23,F24.
Your own figures add up to nearly 2100 G10's (till end of Feb) and around 1600 K4's, these seem to be delivery records rather than production records meaning some K4's may have been left in factories. Hence it seems certain that K4 production exceeded Griffon Spitfire production till the end of the surrender, though perhaps not when counting post war production though it might be still be so. If the G10 is counted as more or less equal to the K4 then the statement is definitely correct.
The two stage Griffon was a much bigger engine than the DB605DC 900kg dry versus 745kg hence one can allow the Me 109 150L or so of MW50. Had something the equal of the 150PN fuel been available to the Luftwaffe Me 109 could have kept pace especially if the servo spring tab (flettner ailerons) were properly perfected.
Sure you are changing the goal posts as you eliminated some Spitfire Mks when it was shown that of the Mks you first mentioned there was more produced than the K-4.
The Lw did have 150PN fuel, it was C3 and have seen a British report on C3 that gave it a PN of 165.
As for the K-4s: new build production data from primary sources
Where was the other 65L of MW50 stored in the a/c as the fuselage tank was of 85L capacity?
The Lw did have 150PN fuel, it was C3 and have seen a British report on C3 that gave it a PN of 165.
As for the K-4s: new build production data from primary sources
Where was the other 65L of MW50 stored in the a/c as the fuselage tank was of 85L capacity?
GregP
Major
Never saw a report that rated C3 at 150, much less 165. HAVE seen it rated at much less, though.
Not saying the report was never written; I never saw it so far.
Not saying the report was never written; I never saw it so far.
It was a consideration, but as said above, the Germans went down another route using broader 'paddle blade' propellers to absorb and exploit the power of the engine. This obviously worked as a quick glance at the rates of climb attained by aircraft like the Fw 190 D or Ta 152 will show.
Cheers
Steve
GregP
Major
The Fw 190D and Ta 152 were never great climbers. They were OK, even good. They had the horsepower but were well short of late Spitfire. Most of the late-war palnes were over 4,000 feet per minute and the Fw 190D / Ta 152 weren't at normal weights. They were when light but weren't very effective at the misson when very light.
Maybe that paddle bladed prop was good for high-altitude speed and flying, but it surely wasn't a climb prop unless the Ta 152 / Fw 190D were quite light. Any plane with high power to weight will climb well when very light. But the Allied fighers did it when loaded for longer-range combat as well.
If you get away from Max power with MW-50 / GM-1, they didn't climb very well at all. They DID have some great combat qualities, though and were generally formidable in other areas, particularly armament and turn / roll. Can't say much for the Ta 152 as it almost didn't make the war, with 43 delivered ... who cares about 43 airplanes when you are in a 1,000-plane raid escorted by 700 P-51's?
But there were significant numbers of Fw 190D's delivered and flown and they acquitted themselves well for a 426 mph airplane late in the war, being thought of as Germany's best fighter by many, particularly by those who actually encountered them.
Maybe that paddle bladed prop was good for high-altitude speed and flying, but it surely wasn't a climb prop unless the Ta 152 / Fw 190D were quite light. Any plane with high power to weight will climb well when very light. But the Allied fighers did it when loaded for longer-range combat as well.
If you get away from Max power with MW-50 / GM-1, they didn't climb very well at all. They DID have some great combat qualities, though and were generally formidable in other areas, particularly armament and turn / roll. Can't say much for the Ta 152 as it almost didn't make the war, with 43 delivered ... who cares about 43 airplanes when you are in a 1,000-plane raid escorted by 700 P-51's?
But there were significant numbers of Fw 190D's delivered and flown and they acquitted themselves well for a 426 mph airplane late in the war, being thought of as Germany's best fighter by many, particularly by those who actually encountered them.
I'm not comparing it with a Spitfire but other German types. Almost every pilot who flew either type commented on the rate of climb. Just a few examples:
"I found it [D-9] much better than the Me 109 and the big wooden propeller gave it terrific acceleration and it climbed much better." Fritz Ungar JG 54.
"It [D-9] flew faster, and the best thing was the fast climb." Heinz Marquardt JG 51.
"But really, even now, the machine [D-9] proves its superiority with every flight. Enormous climbing ability, far better acceleration in a dive, significantly higher cruising speed and definitely improved turning capability compare to a Fw 190 or 109." Hans Dortenmann JG 54
Reschke, echoing Dortenmann, described the rate of climb of the Ta 152 as enormous.
I'll take their words for it.
Cheers
Steve
"I found it [D-9] much better than the Me 109 and the big wooden propeller gave it terrific acceleration and it climbed much better." Fritz Ungar JG 54.
"It [D-9] flew faster, and the best thing was the fast climb." Heinz Marquardt JG 51.
"But really, even now, the machine [D-9] proves its superiority with every flight. Enormous climbing ability, far better acceleration in a dive, significantly higher cruising speed and definitely improved turning capability compare to a Fw 190 or 109." Hans Dortenmann JG 54
Reschke, echoing Dortenmann, described the rate of climb of the Ta 152 as enormous.
I'll take their words for it.
Cheers
Steve
Edgar Brooks
Senior Airman
Just a little wide of the mark, since Castle Bromwich was run by a management team supplied by Southampton, the present lot not being up to the job.
Not generally known is that the 1940 delays were mostly due to a militant faction, who would order a strike at the drop of a hat; this only ended when Beaverbrook called the workforce together, and gave them a simple choice. They could either build Spitfires or go down into the coalmines. The rest, as they say, is history, but the workforce were trained for mass production, so it was decided to set them going on Merlin-powered Spitfires, which is how it remained until 1945.
The Supermarine "factory" (actually dispersed into 65 different locations after the Southampton bombing) was responsible for building the entire production runs of the VI (100) VII (140) VIII (1650) P.R.X (16) P.R.XI (471) XII (100) P.R.XIII (18 ) XIV (957) which is not bad for a "jobbing shop." The XVIII (designed for Far Eastern work) XIX 21 were mostly post-war, so can largely be discounted.
Last edited:
Users who are viewing this thread
Similar threads
