Long range, high speed Spitfire fighter: the best approach?

[Njaco]

I didn't know Erich Hartmann only flew the "successful" Fw 190.... who knew?

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Does this mean performance, reliability, firepower, ruggedness, range all do not matter to you?

It does, now applied to what aircraft and during what era? If you want to discuss this with regards to the -109 it was all of the above. Were there "better" aircraft with regards to those traits? Yes, but that still doesn't diminish the -109

All (almost) the Russian plans at the beggining of the war were obsolete. Even the next few models out of there design bureaus were not good (not my words... Ralls.)

The -109 did not only shoot down Russian Aircraft, at least the last time I looked...

Depending upon how one breaks up the time frames, the Germans never lost more than 1:1 until 1945 in the eastern front (except for individual locales or short time frames).
I have seen some published accounts shoe the Russian Air force gone with only a handful of Germans shot down by aircraft in the begging.

And your point?

Then the German have to pick between anti fighter and anti bomber. Anyone here care to show how good a ME-109 with 2x20mm or 30mm slung beneath its wing was better than just about any western fighter of the time?

It wasn't, but it sure knocked down a lot of allied bombers...

Ralls one words were he like the model the best for fighter vs fighter, but he was the best what about the other 99% untrained inexperienced pilots? Most died swiftly.

And pilot training has what to do with showing the success of the -109?

Like I said after the BoB the ME-109 was only a modest success. You only have to look at the FW-190 for more successful model. When it was re-engined it became far more difficult an adversary, 4x cannon and 2 HMG, was more rugged due to internal construction (Mess gave up alot for speed), also much better vision. And if you want to count the morphing into the TA-152, yet a higher grade still especially at altitude. But the war ended with little contribution.

The -190 was most certainly a better aircraft, it also came along several years later as did the P-51, P-47 and later versions of the Spitfire. I think you're confusing "success" with performance. the -109 did have limited growth potential but was still a force to be reckoned with even later in the war. If anything marginalized the -109s capability, one should look at campaign tactics and how the aircraft was deployed.

 

[OldSkeptic]

The Problem with the Spitfire ( and many other fighters) was NOT getting TO the fight, that was handled by drop tanks. The Problem was GETTING HOME from the fight. That requires protected fuel tankage that is FULL or nearly so when the fight starts.

100% correct. That's what my (albeit simple) model calcs.

You put in the internal tankage, add drop tanks, put in the range required and combat time.

It then works through, using the pilots note figures.
Climb and takeoff on the rear tank. Initial cruise on rear tank until empty. Then the drop tank. Until you get to range required.
The drop tank with all remaining fuel is then excluded (dropped so to speak).

The fuel used for the combat time is taken off the internal tanks, then the remaining internal fuel is used for the return.
Most economical cruising speed is used except for the combat time, with an allowance for the higher fuel consumption when carrying the drop tank.

On the original calcs, with the Mk VIII internal fuel plus a 66 (UK) gal rear tank, a 500 mile escort radius leaves a 15 gals (101 miles) reserve, 7.7% of the total internal fuel, or 20% of the required return range.
In fact the 90 gal drop tank has 53 gals left when it is dropped. Which leaves a large allowance for rendezvous issues (having to hang around because the bombers are late, or using some more speed to catch up if the bombers are ahead of schedule).

It is quite conservative in that it assumes that the climb is not used to head towards the target. Also that the bombers are attacked at the maximum range, so there is the minimum internal fuel for return.
If the bombers are attacked before the maximum range is reached then the fighters, after combat will usually return from that shorter range. Apart from anything else they will usually be out of ammo anyway.
That is what happened in real life with the Mustangs most of the time. If they were attacked then after the combat the ones actually involved usually returned (others not involved remained of course).

 

[OldSkeptic]

The -190 was most certainly a better aircraft, it also came along several years later as did the P-51, P-47 and later versions of the Spitfire. I think you're confusing "success" with performance. the -109 did have limited growth potential but was still a force to be reckoned with even later in the war. If anything marginalized the -109s capability, one should look at campaign tactics and how the aircraft was deployed.

Overall I agree. But there was the issue of a lack of an alternative high altitude fighter. The 190A's performance dropped off pretty quickly and because of the high altitude of the US bombers was not at its best performance envelope. The 190D was a partial fix for that, but that came pretty late on.

Because the Germans had stuffed around for so long trying to come up with an alternative fighter all they had left was the 109 for that higher altitude work, and of course it was easy to manufacture.

They got caught in that terrible logic trap that you see all too often, they never fixed up (which I'm sure they were perfectly capable of within a very short time) the major weaknesses of the 109 because the of 'next' fighter that was going to replace it. Which never happened. So they ended up with the worst of all possible worlds.

Take a simple example and contrast with the Spits development and the different attitude. The 109 had long standing aileron and elevator issues. Now a revised tailplane should have been able to have been worked out within a month or so and then put into production. Ditto the ailerons. They fixes didn't need to be perfect, just better than what they were replacing.

The more logical approach is shown with the Spit and its aileron and CoG issues are a total contrast. They got a quick fix by going to metal ailerons and introduced bob weights as a quick CoG fix (for the Mk Vs). Further testing showed that a revised elevator horn would do the job, which was then introduced and the bob weights removed.

So they didn't wait for years until a successor plane (or a total revision like the Mk XVIII) was introduced, they just got on with it and fixed it to the bet of their abilities at the time.
You can see a similar attitude with the Mustang, introducing the tailplane strake.

Basically good enough was good enough, rather than wasting years striving for perfection.

Those quick 109 fixes would have improved its operational abilities markedly, then an updated (like a 190A to D, or Typhoon to Tempest revision) could have been introduced a bit later.
Longer fuselage, revised tailplane, bigger wings, that sort of thing. One of the things you would aim for was to extend its effective combat operating envelope, so that it was more effective at mid/low altitudes and high speeds, where those aileron and elevator issues were at their worst, rather than just the high altitudes.

As it was, it was still very dangerous at higher altitudes right to the end.

 

[wuzak]

So they didn't wait for years until a successor plane (or a total revision like the Mk XVIII) was introduced, they just got on with it and fixed it to the bet of their abilities at the time.

The XVIII was an updated XIV. The wing was teh same as the XIV, which was the same as the VIII on which it was based.

The VIII wing was strengthened - but I'm not sure whether it was specifically for that model, or for all models then in production?

The 21 used the new wing, and would be the "totally revised" version.

 

[OldSkeptic]

The XVIII was an updated XIV. The wing was teh same as the XIV, which was the same as the VIII on which it was based.

The VIII wing was strengthened - but I'm not sure whether it was specifically for that model, or for all models then in production?

The 21 used the new wing, and would be the "totally revised" version.

Sorry I should have said the XX. But the XVIII did have a strengthened wing, but more to increase load carrying than improved torsional strength to improve aileron performance.

The Spit went through a couple of upgrades that improved its aileron performance. The first was the metal ailerons, but the introduction of the universal wing in the MK V was thicker skinned and torsionally stronger, pushing up the aileron reversal speed still further.

So it's reversal speed started about 480 mph, compared to a maximum theoretical of 545mph. But the fabric ailerons ballooning increased stick force well before the theoretical limits.
The metal ailerons plus the universal wing increased that markedly to 580mph.
The roll rates of the clipped wing were much faster and their performance dropped more slowly than for a standard wing. I suspect the plug used to close off the wing when the wingtips were removed also stiffened it torsionally a little bit more.

It was also very sensitive to how well the cables were adjusted and over time they changed procedures and added some extra tools to help set them up better. Some of the poor results very early on probably came from poor setup.

So until the XX they never totally overcame the issue, but they managed to improve it markedly And that was what was needed at the time. Much more sensible to have something 'better' now, than waiting for 'perfection' much, much later.

There was no real change in the wings for the MK VIII, but the fuselage was strengthened for better load capacity (essential for the Griffon version).

 

[zjtins]

Question would anyone here still debate this if a replacement had worked in late `43 like the ME309?

Based on production limitations for Germany to convert to another plane after that would have put a hole in the output of fighters when they needed them the most. I submit that Germany kept producing versions of the ME-109 after late 43 because they had no real choice. Tooling, parts, production, build lines all were set up for the 109. Until the ME262 came along (and Hitler let go of the bomber concept and jet engines were developed to a minimal level which can also be debated) the new concepts did not gain enough in their eyes to be worth the lost production.

My theory is they never built larger air cooled versions so there was no option there yet Russia, Japan, and the US all did that successfully. So they were already pushing out liquid cooled revisions as fast as they could, some did not work, others also went to bombers limiting fighter use.

As for quoting German fighter ace records, anyone care to show how many kills they scored pre Jan1944 and post Jan 1944? And how many of said aces died in combat pre and post Jan1994?
Also the same numbers for non aces to see how many were slaughtered in the 'great 'plane. Without those numbers the fighter Ace records are only records, there is no context.

 

[OldSkeptic]

Based on production limitations for Germany to convert to another plane after that would have put a hole in the output of fighters when they needed them the most.

Quite true. By that time it was too late, the bad decisions made in 40/41 42 now came to haunt them. Perhaps they should have brought in Kurt Tank and his team to work out an upgraded version in 41

 

[drgondog]

As for quoting German fighter ace records, anyone care to show how many kills they scored pre Jan1944 and post Jan 1944? And how many of said aces died in combat pre and post Jan1994?
Also the same numbers for non aces to see how many were slaughtered in the 'great 'plane. Without those numbers the fighter Ace records are only records, there is no context.

The question has no context - are you interested in German Fighter aces that became aces in 109s, then were killed in same? the number of German 109 pilots KIA that had more than 500 hours, or less than 250, but not aces? the number of aces that started flying pre-1939, the number of aces that started after 1942 or after 1943? The number of Aces KIA in west against RAF and USAAF vs VVS? The number of aces that survived war versus the ones that fell?

If you had all that data what would you surmise?

 

[Njaco]

Hitler did not stone-wall the production of the Me 262 as much as the need for materials did - the very same materials that were being destroyed by the 8th AF - you know, those aerial operations that really didn't have an effect on the war.

Remember this:

They did not know then but we know now the air raids on Germany did only a modest affect on the production of necessary material, aside from keeping troops home as anti-aircraft units which was a significant factor.

http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/aviation/hellcat-vs-spitfire-would-you-take-36880-27.html

 

[zjtins]

Hitler did not stone-wall the production of the Me 262 as much as the need for materials did - the very same materials that were being destroyed by the 8th AF - you know, those aerial operations that really didn't have an effect on the war.

Post war BDA comparison showed a factory bombed is not a factory destroyed. The tools were essentially untouched. I cant remember who but one of the interviews with a German ME262 pilot clearly stated had Hitler not wanted a bomber some ME262s would have been available in 43. The question is then how many and to what affect. Dont believe it would have won the war but it would have hurt more.

You whole assertion of a significant affect on German war production is not supported by the number available. In 1944 they produce more of ever category they chose to increase, usually by wide gains. This was attributed by most as finally putting German economy on a War footing in late '43 with Speer in charge.

A far bigger consequence to production was transportation limitations and lack of critical raw materials, nickel, chrome, manganese, molybdenum, copper etc. Germany had no local sources.
By 1943 low and mid altitude bombers and fighter bombers were tearing up rail yards, trains, trucks, anything that moved or enabled movement. If a factory can't get part or raw materials it cant produce. But this did not seem to register until late '44 which coincided with reduce the need for bomber fighter cover and released the fighter bombers for ground attacks.

 

[Hop]

Post war BDA comparison showed a factory bombed is not a factory destroyed. The tools were essentially untouched. I cant remember who but one of the interviews with a German ME262 pilot clearly stated had Hitler not wanted a bomber some ME262s would have been available in 43. The question is then how many and to what affect.

Fighter pilots are not engineers or managers. They are not authorities on the details of what does and doesn't get built, and when.

Hitler first asked if the 262 could carry bombs at a meeting in the autumn of 1943. He was told it could. On 26 November Hitler inspected a prototype 262 and asked Willi Messerschmit if it could carry bombs. Messeschmit assured Hitler it could carry 1 1,00kg or 2 500kg bombs. Hitler was satisfied.

On 23 May 1944 Hitler was at a meeting discussing aircraft production. He asked how many of the Me 262s built so far could carry bombs. Milch told him that none of them could. No design work had been done on fitting them with bomb racks.

At that point less than 50 262s had been built, their engines were very unreliable, and they were all being used for pilot training and testing.

Hitler's order about fitting bombs to the 262 delayed the programme slightly after May 1944. But the aircraft was nowhere near combat ready until late 1944 (if then). There is no way they could have been in service in 1943, not even by the summer of 1944. At best, without Hitler's interference, there would have been a handful more fighter 262s in service in the autumn of 1944.

It wasn't really materials that held back the 262 either, it was simply the problems of designing and building a brand new type of engine.

 

[tyrodtom]

From 1940 to 44, German aircraft production went from about 11,000 aircraft per year to 41,000 , not quite a 4 times increase.
The USA went from 6,000 to 96,000 in the same time span, a 16 times increase. And i'll bet those 44 figures for Germany have a greater % of single engine fighters than the US figures.

IMO Germany would have been capable of a much greater increase if they'd been unhindered by bombing like the US.

 

[Shortround6]

Actual numbers for the US for combat and large transports was from 3,064 to 80,938 aircraft ( gets rid of trainers of small transports) for 26.4 times increase. For pounds of airframe for combat and large transports it went from 17,176,700lbs to 930,593,400lbs for over a 54 times increase and engine HP (not engines) went from 15,723,000hp to 423,196,000hp for 26.9 times.

The Germans would have done better without being bombed, how much better?

 

[zjtins]

IMO Germany would have been capable of a much greater increase if they'd been unhindered by bombing like the US.

The problem no one seems to consider is the lack of raw material. Germany had lots of Iron and Coal. They could make some forms of steel. At best they might have increased the output for a short while, but once a critical material was gone their design had to change to accommodate less capable metals.
Germany by 44 and maybe late 43 was making aircraft propellers out of wood, the ME109 had a wood tail (or portions). For tanks face hardened armor was almost gone, chrome was gone from gun tubes, they had to invent the use of steel casings for rounds due to copper shortage (more weight less reliable then brass), etc.

The Germans would have done better without being bombed, how much better?

The Germans did not have massive production automotive and other production lines in existence like the US did at the beginning in say even 1941. Plant line conversion was much less costly and faster than new facilities, and the US still had the manpower to expand and build new facilities. The US had 3x or 4x the population with a lower percent in the military (more able to work) plus had not already lost how many millions to war already.
Also the US led in production technology specifically, cast tanks hulls, liberty ship sectional manufacturing (4 a day!?), gang cutting air cooled engine piston fins on cylinders instead of forming or single cut, cast plastic technology (aircraft windshields/hoods) to name a few. Germany did not have that kind of mass production technology.

So a comparison of the US capability to German possible capability would be extremely difficult.

Again the USAAF ran their own comparison of their own war time BDA vs after and found a serious over estimation of damage when viewed from the air vs actual affects.

 

[fastmongrel]

The US had 3x or 4x the population

USA 1940 census population of 132,164,569

Germany 1942 population 72,620,000

Not quite 3 or 4 times the population. Took me a whole minute to get those figures.


GERMANY : country population

US Historical Population, by Year

 

[Njaco]

So the 8th AF did nothing.

I'm getting a headache.

 

[Glider]

I always thought that Bombing forced a distributed production network, which is far less efficient. Bombing forced a number of critical factories to be built underground at a huge expense of people, time, money and resources. Bombing caused a serious drain on materials making the shortages critical as well as a drain on fuel and resources to defend the targets.
Think of the resources in electronics used to defend Germany, the radars and command and control. The significant increase on fighter losses, the need to produce fighters when a decent long range bomber force would have had significant impact on the Russian front. Bombers caused significant damage which the Germans were remarkable effective in repairing. But those repairs took massive amounts of resources. The railway distribution system was often hit, slowing down the distribution of food and materials.

I do not doubt for a second that the attackiing forces overestimated the effectivness of their attacks, its a similar to claims for kills which were almost always overestimated. However it doesn't mean that the damage was insignificant, far from it.

The Bombers of the USAAF and the RAF paid a heavy price but they also inflicted a lot of damage and without that damage German production would have been much higher.

 

[Aozora]

Ah well, for all the good it did the USAAF in Britain might as well have packed up and gone to the Pacific or back to the States and let the British and Russians mop up, because by late 1943 Germany was on its last legs anyway...oy vay!

 

[zjtins]

If you wish to continue to take my comments out of context then there is no discussion.
I said the BDA post war assessment was of modest damage not zero.
Stalin wanted a second front to take pressure off of the USSR, Bombing helped do that.
Bombing did help disrupt some industry, others were already dispersed (FW190 was designed to be built in rough conditions, along road assembly, parts built in bars.) others were underground other went underground. But what the Brits also found out is destroying someones home makes them angry and more dedicated to the war effort.

Again the real limitation was resources. German simply could not have doubled production if they were left alone as at some point they ran out to material to build aircraft. They were already essentially out of Chrome and Nickel in late 44, the tiny amounts they had were spread out too far to make difference and limited to only the most critical parts.

The bombing held whole divisions off the fronts and made them use critical materials to produce 88mm and large guns and shells to use against the bombers along with pulling fighters off the front to guard Germany.