Is Spitfire really the BEST British fighter???

[Schöpfel]

Well, my namesake Gerhard Schöpfel, who flew BF 109 E-4's with III./JG 26 during the Battle of Britain commented:

the British fighters could turn tighter than we could

I'll have to go with that

 

[Soren]

Well, my namesake Gerhard Schöpfel, who flew BF 109 E-4's with III./JG 26 during the Battle of Britain commented:

the British fighters could turn tighter than we could

I'll have to go with that

If his words should be taken gospel, and the 90% rest of the 109 pilots knowledge means nothing, then yes.

The German LW chief test-pilot Heinrich Beauvais's statements are good enough for me. (He flew all captured Allied aircraft, and German experimentals)

 

[Anonymous]

The problem with such statements Soren is that we don't know what politics were involved. Did that test pilot report what he really thought, or did he report what his superior's wanted to hear?

And the same holds true for many of the Allied tests, especially those at Boscomb Down. Often the tests were kinda rigged to make the Brit planes look better than they really were as compared to both German and American aircraft. For example, the choice to test turnrates at 10000 feet at 250 IAS initial speed very much favors the Spitfire, which turned its best at that speed.

Again, what I have to say is that when the pilots of both sides are claiming that their planes turned better, odds are the planes were actually about a match for each other.

=S=

Lunatic

 

[Soren]

The problem with such statements Soren is that we don't know what politics were involved. Did that test pilot report what he really thought, or did he report what his superior's wanted to hear?

RG,

Heinrich Beauvais didnt say this in a report, he genuinly knows it. He even tried to contact Eric Brown, as to correct Eric about his downright lies about the 109.

Again, what I have to say is that when the pilots of both sides are claiming that their planes turned better, odds are the planes were actually about a match for each other.

I agree with this to some extend.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Soren every pilot thinks his aircraft is better then the others. Many will over exagerate there claims.

 

[DJ_Dalton1]

I want to thank my new friend Peter Evans at

http://p069.ezboard.com/fluftwaffeexperten71774frm90.showMessage?topicID=41.topic

for being kind enough to provide me with the full text of CFE-3, which is the report for the Bf-109 in question. I'll try to attach the salient parts of the report but if my attempt fails Peter has the document in his files. (The zip file transfered and is below.)

Everyone is free to draw their own conclusions, but Peter's document is dispositive to me that the subject aircraft was tested with under wing gondolas. In support of that conclusion I would cite the report under "Brief Description of the Aircraft". Initially, the report states under paragraph 2:

"The Me-109G/6 is a small single wing, single seater, single engine, short range fighter…"

This is certainly true, however the report further clarifies the nature of the fighter tested in the tactical trial by stating the following under paragraph 4:

"The armament consists of 2 x 13 mm machine guns mounted above the engine, 1 MG 151/20 mm cannon firing through the airscrew hub, and 2 x 151/20 mm cannon in under wing gondolas".

Additionally, the photos of this tested aircraft depict it configured with under wing gondolas. No mention is made in CFE-3 that said gondolas were removed for the test on the contrary the description of the tested plane indicates a gondola configuration.

What does it all mean? Well it means the Bf-109G-6 was capable of performance significantly exceeding that indicated. It means that the climb rate and speed of the 109 tested was significantly under reported. It means the Bf-109G-6 was probably at least an even odds match for the Spitfire IX and it probably means that the Spitfire XIV was not superior in all respects. (Significantly, the 109G-6 was not the pinnacle of performance in the 109. The G-14, G-10 and K-4 exceeded its performance in that order.)

But what it really means is that the German Experten of WWII did not amass their mind numbing records with inferior planes.

 

[DJ_Dalton1]

[
What the German's never found was the "seal balanced" aileron. Without high pressure wind tunnels there was no reasonable way to research aileron behavior at high speeds.

=S=

Lunatic

The FW190 was a marvelous rolling plane even at very high speed. The 109 was a good rolling plane without gondolas, granted not as good as some. (Yaks for instance) With the ability of the FW to roll and all the P51's and P47's downed are you sure their aerilon attributes weren't fully understood by the Germans.

 

[DJ_Dalton1]

[
The USA and Britain were well aware of leading edge wing-slats even before WWII. However, when adding up the advantages and disadvantages they choose not to employ them. It is interesting that the NACA had at least 3 studies on wing slats (prior to the end of WWII). The basic conclusion is that unless they are needed for takeoff/landing they are undesireable.

Interesting, the allies chose not to employ slats so they must have been of little value. The NACA concluded they weren't needed. What did the Germans conclude?

I've read numerous reports of 109's out-turning Spitfires. I usually defer on that because the Spitfire enthusiasts should have something to cling to. I always considered turn fighting very stupid though. It was very British.

 

[Anonymous]

The aileron on the FW would have been much more effective if they'd known about the seal balanced aileron. The FW aileron is very effective but the performance curve is radical. It peaks at 255 IAS and then begins a very steep drop off that is almost linear. This is because air pressure is leaking through the seam between the wing and the aileron, canceling out the aileron effect.

Above about 355 IAS the P-51 out rolled the FW190. I have no figures for the P-47D's with the improved aileron tech on them.

 

[Anonymous]

[
The USA and Britain were well aware of leading edge wing-slats even before WWII. However, when adding up the advantages and disadvantages they choose not to employ them. It is interesting that the NACA had at least 3 studies on wing slats (prior to the end of WWII). The basic conclusion is that unless they are needed for takeoff/landing they are undesireable.

Interesting, the allies chose not to employ slats so they must have been of little value. The NACA concluded they weren't needed. What did the Germans conclude?

The German's had no centralized objective aeronautical research agency. Each builder did their own thing. Willie Messershmitt liked slats, so they were on his designs. Kurt Tank did not, so they weren't.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

I always considered turn fighting very stupid though. It was very British.

Wow someone is baiting here! Here fishy, fishy, fishie, Here....

 

[DJ_Dalton2]

I always considered turn fighting very stupid though. It was very British.

Wow someone is baiting here! Here fishy, fishy, fishie, Here....

Not really Der Adler. When the Germans lost pilots like Werner Voss in WWI flying Fokker Triplanes they learned a lesson from it. Werner flew into several British planes and was reported to have damaged every one in the flight but eventually his great skills were neutrualized by the numbers and he was shot down and killed. A pilot needs an "out". There is no out in maneuverability. You have to be able to outspeed, outdive or outclimb your adversary to manufacture a combat "out". So the Germans took their Triplane lesson and developed the Fokker DVII. The Bf-109 was merely a refinement of that developement. It couldn't outdive the heavy and powerful American planes but it could outclimb them and many times could outrun them. (More difficult with the Mustang) With the British adversaries they could outdive and outclimb them and many times outrun them as well. They weren't nearly as interested in turning, though the 109 was not a bad turning plane. It had a distinct edge energy fighting though and thats predominately how the Luftwaffe fought it. When your turning low and slow you're always vulnerable to that "joiner". That why when fighting from a numbers deficit you energy fight. (Unless you are Hans Marseilles...lol) The Germans were many times vastly outnumbered but still held their own even with the Americans whose planes matched up much better vs. Germany than the other nations. In the very end it got bad. America had the ceiling and Germany had fewer and fewer planes. Still if you were fighting one on one at equal altitude there was only one plane to fly. It wasn't a Spitfire, unless you thought you could get the other guy to turn.

 

[KraziKanuK]

A lone silver Dreidecker stalked the evening sky. Below him, a flight of unsuspecting British fighters supporting a reconnaissance mission. Patiently he waited for just the right moment. As the mission wore on, two British SE5a's became separated. The pilot was just two kills short of his fiftieth victory. Few pilots would consider tackling two enemy aircraft alone but Werner Voss was no ordinary pilot. He liked the odds. Like a hungry leopard his Dreidecker pounced on his would be prey with deadly precision, forcing the two British SE5s to the ground.

Suddenly and without warning, the predator became the prey as seven SE5a's Dropped down upon the unsuspecting ace from nowhere. Hopelessly outnumbered it seemed like the only choices were to turn and run or fight to the bitter end.

As McCudden put it:
"We were just on the point of engaging six Albatros Scouts away to our right, when we saw ahead of us, Just above Poelcapelle, an S.E. half spinning down closely pursued by a silvery blue triplane at very closed range. The S.E. certainly looked very unhappy, so we changed our minds about attacking the six V-strutters, and went to the rescue of the unfortunate S.E".

For whatever reason Voss chose to fight. Perhaps he was unaware of the odds. Perhaps the enemy had him so well surrounded that he was unable to put the superior climbing ability of the Fokker Dreidecker to use. For what ever reason he chose to fight and he couldn't have picked a more dangerous group to fight. His opponents were not just any British pilots. This was B Flight of 56 Squadron. All seven of the pilots were aces. For the next ten minutes Voss would fly circles around his adversaries as he emptied his Spandaus and managed to pepper every enemy plane with bullet holes. In the meantime his enemy tried in vain to bring down this most noble opponent but the silver-blue triplane was simply too agile and Voss too talented a flyer for the British.

Suddenly Voss's airplane went into a shallow dive, it's propeller no longer turning. No one knows for sure why. The dreidecker had been flying for almost 90 minutes, the limit of its fuel endurance, so Voss may have run out of fuel. Or perhaps the fuel tank had been punctured and Voss was forced to shut off the engine to prevent the plane from catching fire. Perhaps, after ten minutes of fighting Voss had run out of ammunition and was attempting to surrender. Or maybe Voss had been wounded and could no longer control the plane and was attempting to surrender. No one knows for sure.

As the Dreidecker banked into the shallow turn, Voss made the fatal error of crossing the path of Arthur Rhys Davids.

"Eventually I got east and slightly above the triplane and made for it, getting in a whole Lewis drum and a corresponding number of Vickers into him. He made no attempt to turn, until I was so close to him I was certain we would collide. He passed my right-hand wing by inches and went down."

Voss's Dreidecker then went into steep uncontrolled dive which Flight Leader James McCudden described as:

"I shall never forget my admiration for that German pilot, who single handed, fought seven of us for ten minutes . . . I saw him go into a fairly steep dive and so I continued to watch, and then saw the triplane hit the ground and disappear into a thousand fragments, for it seemed to me that it literally went into powder."

 

[Schöpfel]

If his words should be taken gospel, and the 90% rest of the 109 pilots knowledge means nothing, then yes

Well, of course I like the BF 109 best, however, we lose credibility when we claim the 109 had better range than the Mustang, could dive better than a P-47 and turn better than the Spitfire.
With regard to your 90% figure, ok I'll bite

Gerhard Schöpfel
the British fighters could turn tighter than we could

Heinz Knoke said of Spitfires:
The bastards can make such infernally tight turns; there seems to be no way of nailing them.

Werner Mölders:
The Spitfire was "faultless in the turn"

Adolf Galland: "the ME-109 was superior in the attack and not so suitable for purely defensive purposes as the Spitfire, which although a little slower, was much more manueuverable"

Johannes Steinhoff
At 28,000 feet the Spitfire could turn in an astonishingly narrow radius. We on the other hand, in the thin air of those altitudes had to carry out every maneuver with caution and at full power so as not to lose control

Erwin Leykauf
I myself had many dogfights with Spitfires and I could always out-turn them. One had to enter the turn correctly, then open up the engine. It was a matter of feel. When one noticed the speed becoming critical - the aircraft vibrated - one had to ease up a bit, then pull back again, so that in plan the best turn would have looked like an egg or a horizontal ellipse rather than a circle.

Walter Wolfrum
"Unexperienced pilots hesitated to turn tight, bacause the plane shook violently when the slats deployed. I realised, though, that because of the slats the plane's stalling characteristics were much better than in comparable Allied planes that I got to fly. Even though you may doubt it, I knew the Bf109 could manouver better in turnfight than LaGG, Yak or even Spitfire."

In this sample, one could argue that 5 of 7 or 71% of German pilots thought the Spitfire could out-turn BF 109. Leykauf was talking more tactics than sustained turn, but we'll count it I thought Walter Wolfrum just flew East Front?

If we add some readily available British accounts (yes I know they are all dishonest liers , although there may be some commonwealth types there as well):

Colin Gray
there was no way a 109 could turn inside a Spitfire

Hap Kennedy:
We knew from years of experience, dating back to the boys who had been in the Battle of Britain, that the 109 with its slim thirty-two foot wing was initially faster in a dive than we were. But we accepted that compromise happily in exchange for our broad superior-lift wing with its better climb and turn.

Jeffrey Quill
Nearly all our engagements with Me 109s took place at around 20,000 - 25,000 ft. The Spitfire had the edge over them in speed and climb, and particularly in turning circle

Al Deere
My experience over Dunkirk had taught me that when attacked the best counter was to go into a right turn. In this manoeuvre, the Spitfire was infinitely superior to the Messerschmitt, and so long as one remained in the turn, the enemy pilot could not bring his guns to bear

Andrew McDowall
In my opinion Me 109's cannot hit Spitfires in tight right hand turn because they can't turn inside you in stern attack

George Unwin
the Messerschmitt couldn't turn like a Spitfire...the Spitfire could sustain a continuous rate of turn inside the BF 109E without stalling

Geoffrey Wellum
However, in a Spitfire, just before the stall, the whole aircraft judders, it's a stall warning, if you like. With practice and experience you can hold the plane on this judder in a very tight turn. You never actually stall the aircraft and you don't need to struggle to regain control because you never lose it. A 109 can't stay with you.

Hugh Dundas
In one vital aspect the ME109 was at a disadvantage against the British airplanes. It could be out-turned both by the Spitfire and the Hurricane

That makes 13 of 15 or 87% felt Spitfire could out-turn BF 109
Still I think BF 109 was the better aircraft!

 

[DJ_Dalton2]

Schopfel, the only issue I have with these statements pertains to which model of the 109 were the pilots referring. The E was not nearly as adept a turner or climber as the F. The F could not climb with the G. I think it may even be true that in grab at 20-25k the Spitfire with its lift enhanced wings may have climbed marginally better. I know this to be true with the E, though questionable with the F and untrue with the G.

So much depends on the model of the planes but in the following period plane matchups:

109E vs. Spitfire I
109F/G2 vs. Spitfire V
109G-2/G-6 vs Spitfore IX
109G-10/ K vs Spitfire XIV

The German 109s had dive and climbing advantages at most altitudes with very low altitude and very high altitude exceptions. Speed advantages swung back and forth depending upon the matchup and the altitude of the aircraft.

The Spits generally out turned the 109's, mostly because it was silly for a 109 to turn when it could out power the Spitfire throughout most of the operational altitude range. When a 109 got in trouble it could always outdive a Spitfire.

 

[DJ_Dalton2]

A lone silver Dreidecker stalked the evening sky. Below him, a flight of unsuspecting British fighters supporting a reconnaissance mission. Patiently he waited for just the right moment. As the mission wore on, two British SE5a's became separated. The pilot was just two kills short of his fiftieth victory. Few pilots would consider tackling two enemy aircraft alone but Werner Voss was no ordinary pilot. He liked the odds. Like a hungry leopard his Dreidecker pounced on his would be prey with deadly precision, forcing the two British SE5s to the ground.

Suddenly and without warning, the predator became the prey as seven SE5a's Dropped down upon the unsuspecting ace from nowhere. Hopelessly outnumbered it seemed like the only choices were to turn and run or fight to the bitter end.

As McCudden put it:
"We were just on the point of engaging six Albatros Scouts away to our right, when we saw ahead of us, Just above Poelcapelle, an S.E. half spinning down closely pursued by a silvery blue triplane at very closed range. The S.E. certainly looked very unhappy, so we changed our minds about attacking the six V-strutters, and went to the rescue of the unfortunate S.E".

For whatever reason Voss chose to fight. Perhaps he was unaware of the odds. Perhaps the enemy had him so well surrounded that he was unable to put the superior climbing ability of the Fokker Dreidecker to use. For what ever reason he chose to fight and he couldn't have picked a more dangerous group to fight. His opponents were not just any British pilots. This was B Flight of 56 Squadron. All seven of the pilots were aces. For the next ten minutes Voss would fly circles around his adversaries as he emptied his Spandaus and managed to pepper every enemy plane with bullet holes. In the meantime his enemy tried in vain to bring down this most noble opponent but the silver-blue triplane was simply too agile and Voss too talented a flyer for the British.

Suddenly Voss's airplane went into a shallow dive, it's propeller no longer turning. No one knows for sure why. The dreidecker had been flying for almost 90 minutes, the limit of its fuel endurance, so Voss may have run out of fuel. Or perhaps the fuel tank had been punctured and Voss was forced to shut off the engine to prevent the plane from catching fire. Perhaps, after ten minutes of fighting Voss had run out of ammunition and was attempting to surrender. Or maybe Voss had been wounded and could no longer control the plane and was attempting to surrender. No one knows for sure.

As the Dreidecker banked into the shallow turn, Voss made the fatal error of crossing the path of Arthur Rhys Davids.

"Eventually I got east and slightly above the triplane and made for it, getting in a whole Lewis drum and a corresponding number of Vickers into him. He made no attempt to turn, until I was so close to him I was certain we would collide. He passed my right-hand wing by inches and went down."

Voss's Dreidecker then went into steep uncontrolled dive which Flight Leader James McCudden described as:

"I shall never forget my admiration for that German pilot, who single handed, fought seven of us for ten minutes . . . I saw him go into a fairly steep dive and so I continued to watch, and then saw the triplane hit the ground and disappear into a thousand fragments, for it seemed to me that it literally went into powder."

thx krazy...poignant story

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

So much depends on the model of the planes but in the following period plane matchups:
109E vs. Spitfire I
109F/G2 vs. Spitfire V
109G-2/G-6 vs Spitfore IX
109G-10/ K vs Spitfire XIV

In this case I would say the 109E would outlfy a Spitfire I and a 109F could outlfy a Spitfire V. After this there were advantages for both aircfraft and disadvantages for both. The G could outclimb the Spit and probably could fly faster however the Spitfire IX could defianatly outturn it. Same for the G-10/K and the Spitfire XIV. The Me-109G varients are my favorite fighters of WW2 also but I will not kid myself saying that a late 109 could outturn a Spit. Both aircraft though had advantages and disadvantages and were both well matched for one another.

 

[Udet]

I will not heat up discussing whether the Spitfire outturned the Bf109...

Unlike RG, for instance, i do not claim any plane to be a flawless marvel.

Let´s assume the Bf109 could not turn inside a Sptifire.
Having that in mind i still find the Bf 109 superior to each one of its contemporary version of the British fighter.

The Battle of Britain had its particular features, and the British took full advantage of them accordingly; the Bf 109 did not have sufficient range to stay there any longer? Well, it surely was not the fault of British pilots, who simply used that advantage.

But to affirm the Spitfire MkI was "better" than the Bf109 E during the BoB is quite unaccurate.

I see the Emil an overall superior fighter to the MkI. Do not forget the Emil had a fuel injection engine while the Spit had a carbureted one. Even on a negative G turn the Spitfire would be in trouble against a Bf 109 chasing him.

How would I substantiate this assertion? Easy: the battle record.

No Spitfire pilot handled the Bf109 the way Bf109 pilots handled the Spitfire. Evidence is plentiful and at hand.

So, the Spitfire might had turned better than the Bf109, but the rest of the departments also played their role -climbing, diving, speed, pilots, etc.- and it is there where the Sptifire would not surpass the Bf 109.

Also the way you handle the Spitfire remarks made by some German pilots are processed and presented in such a manner it makes look the Sptifire was "beyond" the capabilities of the German fighter. Something that obviously is untrue.

 

[Anonymous]

I will not heat up discussing whether the Spitfire outturned the Bf109...

Unlike RG, for instance, i do not claim any plane to be a flawless marvel.

Where did I say this? My point in this thread all along has been that the Spitfire and the Bf109 were well matched, with the advantage going slightly to the 109 through the first half of the war, and slightly to the Spitfire through the last half of the war.

Let´s assume the Bf109 could not turn inside a Sptifire.
Having that in mind i still find the Bf 109 superior to each one of its contemporary version of the British fighter.

But I thought you didn't claim any one plane was a "flawless marvel"? Yet here you are claiming the 109 was superior to what many, probably most, people consider the best fighter of WWII, through every progression of versions... hmmm....

The Battle of Britain had its particular features, and the British took full advantage of them accordingly; the Bf 109 did not have sufficient range to stay there any longer? Well, it surely was not the fault of British pilots, who simply used that advantage.

But to affirm the Spitfire MkI was "better" than the Bf109 E during the BoB is quite unaccurate.

And where did I do that exactly?

I see the Emil an overall superior fighter to the MkI. Do not forget the Emil had a fuel injection engine while the Spit had a carbureted one. Even on a negative G turn the Spitfire would be in trouble against a Bf 109 chasing him.

How would I substantiate this assertion? Easy: the battle record.

Well, when the 109's outnumbered the Spitfires in the BoB, the 109's scored more kills - though really not that many more. What does that prove, other than that superior numbers is an advantage?

No Spitfire pilot handled the Bf109 the way Bf109 pilots handled the Spitfire. Evidence is plentiful and at hand.

I thought you did not claim one fighter was a "flawless marvel"... but there you are claiming it yet again!

So, the Spitfire might had turned better than the Bf109, but the rest of the departments also played their role -climbing, diving, speed, pilots, etc.- and it is there where the Sptifire would not surpass the Bf 109.

So you will only give in that the Spitfire might have turned better... but in every other respect the 109 was superior... but I thought you didn't claim..

Also the way you handle the Spitfire remarks made by some German pilots are processed and presented in such a manner it makes look the Sptifire was "beyond" the capabilities of the German fighter. Something that obviously is untrue.

Again, where did I say this? My whole argument has been that they were well matched and that the advantage shifted constantly during the war, early on the advantage generally being with the Germans, and later with the Brits.

You have an interesting way of making claims while at the same time claiming not to make them Udet! Are you perchance pursing a career in politics?

 

[Soren]

Well, when the 109's outnumbered the Spitfires in the BoB, the 109's scored more kills - though really not that many more. What does that prove, other than that superior numbers is an advantage?

"But offense is harder than defense", isnt that what you used to say ?