Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
According to spitfireperformance.com, the Spitfire Mk.I running 100 octane developed more horsepower, was faster at all altitudes, had equivalent climb rates to the BF-109E all at a lower wing loading. It also had better dogfighting armament in its 8x .303 wing guns, which had a high rate of fire, uniform exterior ballistics and a superior incendiary bullet. The Spitfire Mk.1 also had better visibility, was easier to fly, had a torsionally stiffer wing, a constant speed propeller and much more development potential.
Even if the BF-109E had been the equal of the Mk.1, it wouldn't have been enough. The Spitfires had an inherent operational advantage by flying over home turf. The BF-109E needed to overmatch the Spitfire to win, which it did partially through tactics and pilot skill, but not in performance.
I meant that each individual choice hampered the design, not that the engine and motor cannon resulted in poor landing gear geometry... even though that is partially true.
I think the unsuitability of their designs for mass production (trainers on up) made their lack of funds even worse.
I'm not suggesting the Luftwaffe strap an R1820 onto a BF-109 airframe, but rather a clean-sheet design. Single row radial engines are easier to build and maintain than V12s. With careful layout and detail design, I estimate that an R1820 powered fighter could meet or exceed Spitfire MK.IX levels of performance on 87 octane gas with roughly BoB level of technology.
The Ash-82 was a development of the M-25, which was a licensed copy of an early Wright Cyclone. My argument is that the Germans would have been better off had they followed a similar development path.
Actually the 110 did have a greater range than the 109, roughly 40-50% more, this would actually mean a slightly better than 40-50% increase in operational radius as the fuel needed to climb to altitude has to be taken out of the "nominal" range.The Me 110 like the Me 109 lacked the range to have much of any impact except in a tiny South East part of England. The Fw 187 did have the range.
They also show how critical 100 octane fuel was to the viability of the RAFs defence operations.
In actual combat these Fw 187AO were flown with the second seat position loaded with ballast. One can only imagine the fuel that could have been carried 400-500L litres? A massive camera?
Only 100/130 octane fuel made the Spitfire faster.
The Fw 187A0 carried 1110 Liters of internal fuel which gave a range of 1440km, about 880 miles. If the second cockpit had of been converted to a 400 Litre tank one would expect about 40% more range Stripped of guns & excess armour with engines tuned it probably would have made a difficult to intercept recon. There was plenty of room for a camera in that seat position.
The Me 110 received its first DB601 engine in late 1938. These engines weighed 580kg vs 440kg dry but knock on effects raised the weight of the sluggish Me 110B->Me 110C not by 140kg per engine but 200kg. Thus a 400kg increase or a 10% increase over the Fw 187 empty weight and 8% loaded and fuelled.
Or how much better it would've been with black crosses instead of roundels !Just imagine how good the Spitfire would have been if it hadn't been made?
I was thinking more about turning the engine upside down and taking an angle grinder to any curved surface.Or how much better it would've been with black crosses instead of roundels !
No Black crosses add 15% to all performance specs of WW2 weapon systemsI was thinking more about turning the engine upside down and taking an angle grinder to any curved surface.
In truth a plane probably suffers a 15% drop in performance when everything it needs is added, almost all of these discussions concern aircraft that were not mass produced.No Black crosses add 15% to all performance specs of WW2 weapon systems
I'm not suggesting the Luftwaffe strap an R1820 onto a BF-109 airframe, but rather a clean-sheet design. Single row radial engines are easier to build and maintain than V12s. With careful layout and detail design, I estimate that an R1820 powered fighter could meet or exceed Spitfire MK.IX levels of performance on 87 octane gas with roughly BoB level of technology.
I understand, but in a way it is understandable when you realise they are extrapolating from prototype or experimental results. The reason is obvious, the Spitfire and Mosquito were so damned pretty an ugly hairy assed version must have been quicker.I'm not sure that you've understand the joke. An aircraft XYZ will do, say, 350 mph if it has British roundels or Japanese rising suns, however you need to add 15% on that figure if it has black crosses on itself.
S/R I wish you wouldn't say things like "do the math" I am tempted to do it and end up knowing less than beforenow just do the math, 1820 cu in times the rpm, divide by 2 (one power stroke every other revolution.) then divided by 1728 to get cubic ft of air per minute.
gives the R-1820 about 1320 cu ft of air per minute (disregarding boost at the moment) compared to the Merlins 1432 cu ft of air per minute. (zero boost) Now 6lbs of boost is about a 40% increase in airflow (very roughly) and 12lbs is 80%. a 1200hp R-1820 used 45in (7.75lbs) for take-off but could only hold that power to a bit over 4000ft.
QUOTE].
And turn the fuselage into Tardis.No Black crosses add 15% to all performance specs of WW2 weapon systems
With most things in physics concerning engines and aircraft I can build up a mental picture to understand it, with WW2 aircraft engines that never happens, beyond the basics there are just too many variables for my little head to cope with.Don't worry, I stay away from things like "if a train left Chicago for New York at 40mph and a train left New York for Chicago at the same time doing 60mph.........."
Maybe if I just say arithmetic
Unless you mistyped Spitfire MK.IX there is not a chance on the face of the earth of this happening without large quantities of fairy dust or magic reindeer towing the radial engine fighter.
Please note that a P-36 with a two row radial had 22% more drag than than a P-40 long nose.
An R-1820 using 87 octane fuel in 1940 was lucky to get to 1000hp.
The G series ran at 2200rpm, the G100s could run at 2350rpm and the G-200s could run at 2500rpm.
now just do the math, 1820 cu in times the rpm, divide by 2 (one power stroke every other revolution.) then divided by 1728 to get cubic ft of air per minute.
gives the R-1820 about 1320 cu ft of air per minute (disregarding boost at the moment) compared to the Merlins 1432 cu ft of air per minute. (zero boost) Now 6lbs of boost is about a 40% increase in airflow (very roughly) and 12lbs is 80%. a 1200hp R-1820 used 45in (7.75lbs) for take-off but could only hold that power to a bit over 4000ft.
Now we get back to boost, The later models of the R-1820 were rated on 91 octane or 100 octane fuel, not 87. The British never used 91 octane or perhaps I should say they never bought it or issued specifications for it.
Air cooled engine had trouble using the same boost as liquid cooled engines using the same fuel.
Without a turbo the R-1820 is toast even before it gets to 10,000ft. even with a two speed supercharger and 100 octane fuel it was only good for 1000hp at 14,200ft. which is hundreds of horsepower and thousands of feet to low to compete with a MK IX SPit.
I'm not sure that Spitfire have had torsionaly stiffer wing that Bf 109, at least not until late 1944/early 45 when Mk.18 emerged, or perhaps until Mk.21 emerged. 109E was rolling at much greater rate until 250 mph indicated speed, the Spitfire taking the slight lead past 320 mph indicated.
Bf 109E was much easier to enter a dive and keep the advantage. External ballistics of the MH FFM and MG 17 were close enough, the Spitfire was a bigger aircraft thus easier to spot and hit. Spitfire's (and Hurricane's) armament was far from perfect during the BoB, level of criticysm ranging from mild to harsh.
In order to be outclassed, the 'winner' need to trash the 'looser' by a wide margin. Talk Corsair vs. Zero, or Bf 109 vs. Hurricane. Not the case with Bf 109E vs. BoB Spitfires.
Once again - the choice of engine layout and wepon layout have had no bearing on landing gear geometry; the prototypes for fighter competition were powered by up-right V12 without provision for engine cannon. Might also check out the He 112 and 110.
I don't think they would've benefitted at all, their war effort will receive an own goal with that scenario.