March until October of 1940: fighters' ranking

Stig1207 said:

429 sorties ? The Italian involvement in the BoB was not hundreds of missions, surely?

Click to expand...

From this source - 622 sorties in 6 months.

Stig1207 said:

429 sorties ? The Italian involvement in the BoB was not hundreds of missions, surely?

Click to expand...

It was taken from wiki, possibly something lost in translation, as per Graugeist and Graeme's posts the number of sorties was higher, maybe it means planned operations not training or "scrambles". But in any case the result is the same, on the few occasions they saw Hurricanes they couldnt catch them.

pbehn said:

It was taken from wiki, possibly something lost in translation, as per Graugeist and Graeme's posts the number of sorties was higher, maybe it means planned operations not training or "scrambles". But in any case the result is the same, on the few occasions they saw Hurricanes they couldnt catch them.

Click to expand...

Hi
The book 'Regia Aeronautica, The Italian Air Force 1923-1945 - An Operational History' by Chris Dunning has Chapter 10 covering this period, including the following:






Mike

Greyman said:

Anecdotally, if you dive into Hurricane pilot accounts during the Battle of France and Battle of Britain -- the general theme was that they were perfectly happy to take on 109s, and weren't discouraged with their own aircraft.

There are plenty of other things that were disparaged at length (tactics, experience, leadership, overall strategic situation, being outnumbered, etc.), but the Hurricane itself was generally well-liked.

Click to expand...

The aircraft itself was well liked. It's comparatives to the 109E I've found those to be much more mixed depending on what period of 1940 we're talking about.

Hurricane pilots typically wanted to mix it up with 109s. They were generally confident in the ability of their aircraft to win any combat that ended up in a close dogfight. At low to medium altitudes where most combat took place in the Battle of France and early phases of the Battle of Britain, the Hurricane was felt to be just about as good as the 109E.

At altitudes above roughly 20,000 feet, things were a little different. The 109Es margin of superiority became such that the difference in aircraft performance was telling.

I can recall multiple accounts of BoB Hurricane pilots being frustrated by the 109's ability to outclimb their aircraft at altitude, both in terms of rate of climb and speed of climb. As the BoB wore on and combat altitudes climbed further, some Hurricane pilots lamented the 109's tendency to 'stooge about' at higher altitudes with near impunity, being able to dicatate the terms of the fight due to the higher speeds than their aircraft could manage.

Jabberwocky said:

Hurricane pilots typically wanted to mix it up with 109s. They were generally confident in the ability of their aircraft to win any combat that ended up in a close dogfight. At low to medium altitudes where most combat took place in the Battle of France and early phases of the Battle of Britain, the Hurricane was felt to be just about as good as the 109E.

At altitudes above roughly 20,000 feet, things were a little different. The 109Es margin of superiority became such that the difference in aircraft performance was telling.

Click to expand...

I am studying and working out speed charts from the Battle of Britain.

A Hurricane at 12psi boost could equal the speed of a Bf-109E down below 10,000ft. Once the Hurricane reached its supercharger's critical altitude, the Bf-109E left it sitting. In at least some configurations, the Spitfires were superior at high altitude. You need to distinguish between performance and tactics. The British climbed up into position to attack bombers. The Germans climbed up higher to attack British fighters. When they got down to British altitudes, they would have converted their altitude into speed.

In testing of captured fighters, the British rated the Bf-109E as inferior to both the Spitfire and Hurricane. They highly rated manoeuvrability. I figure that of fighters that saw significant combat in 1939/40, the Bf-109E was the second least manoeuvrable, and the Bf-110 the worst. They won most of their battles. They were not dog fighting. They were pouncing from high altitude and hitting and running.

pbehn said:

It was taken from wiki, possibly something lost in translation, as per Graugeist and Graeme's posts the number of sorties was higher, maybe it means planned operations not training or "scrambles". But in any case the result is the same, on the few occasions they saw Hurricanes they couldnt catch them.

Click to expand...

It's probably just me, but I regard missions as an operation with a particular objective or task involving a certain number of aircraft, i.e. sorties. Thus my surprise at reading G.50 's flying 429 missions.

Stig1207 said:

It's probably just me, but I regard missions as an operation with a particular objective or task involving a certain number of aircraft, i.e. sorties. Thus my surprise at reading G.50 's flying 429 missions.

Click to expand...

Me too but thats what the article said. In terms of the discussion though it is less than the LW managed on some individual days and the effect on the conflict was as close to zero as it is possible to get.

Jabberwocky said:

At low to medium altitudes where most combat took place in the Battle of France and early phases of the Battle of Britain, the Hurricane was felt to be just about as good as the 109E.

At altitudes above roughly 20,000 feet, things were a little different. The 109Es margin of superiority became such that the difference in aircraft performance was telling.

Click to expand...

Yup, good analysis. The Germans generally practised diving on their prey from above, the fighter escorts preferring height, while the bombers were being intercepted by the RAF fighters. This of course gave them advantage in that first pass as their unwary and inexperienced prey often never saw them coming. Generally, combat then descended into individual turning melees, where the advantages of the RAF fighters came to the fore. The Hurricane was a good dogfighter, arguably better than the Bf 109. It could out turn the German and at low speed was superior. The Bf 109 could outdive the Hurricane and so could break away, though, and it was faster, not to forget that the Merlins would cut out in a sharp bunting manoeuvre that could spoil the British pilot's chances of catching the German considerably.

The Bf 109 suffered a few small niggles that its pilots learned to compensate for during combat manouevring. In a tight turn, those L/E slats often deployed asymmetrically, which caused the aircraft to jolt and restricted the bank angle in the turn, thus spoiling the pilot's aim and giving the Hurricane and Spitfire the advantage of being able to turn inside the Bf 109.

Another issue was deflection of the control stick, the space between the pilot's legs determined how much movement the pilot had and since the cockpit was quite narrow, there wasn't much. Hurricanes in particular did not have this issue since the cockpit is quite roomy.

Another issue that pertained to early model Bf 109Es was the location of the propeller pitch control in the cockpit. While Bf 109s generally had a sensibly laid out cockpit, with the first VP props fitted to the type the lever was on the instrument panel, not the side console, which meant the pilot's hands had to do a dance to regulate the controls during manoeuvring. This was before VDM fitted C/S prop controls to the type. In the E-3 model the lever was moved to the side console.

Regarding the height that the Germans operated, one RAF pilot, when it was pointed out to him that the Bf 109 had superior altitude, stated "well, they'll have to come down here and get us..."

Obviously the BoB scenario had the advantage for the home team in that the pilots and aircraft, if shot down and survived could be recovered. A lot of Hurricanes in particular were carted off to Maintenance Units to be overhauled and put into the fight again. Not so the Germans...

(p.s. I may have already posted this stuff, haven't been around for awhile...)

nuuumannn said:

In the E-3 model the lever was moved to the side console.

Click to expand...

Wasn't it first from the E4 that the lever was moved to the side console?

Stig1207 said:

Wasn't it first from the E4 that the lever was moved to the side console?

Click to expand...

Yes, I think you're right. There is an example of a surviving E-3 with the C/S button on the side console power lever but it might have been from a latter subtype. I was also under the impression that the E-3 had a C/S prop, but obviously not.

This is of significance as from a comparison point of view, RAF fighters had C/S props before their German counterparts. The Bf 109E-4 first entered service in autumn 1940 (can someone offer exact date?), whereas by then, Spitfires and Hurricanes in squadron service had C/S field kits installed.

For the 109s you had the change over from the infinitely adjustable variable pitch propeller (as opposed to a 2 pitch prop) and a true constant speed prop.
You also had a number of 109s rebuilt and/or repowered, some more than once?

For the Spitfire with the variable pitch prop (2 pitch?) there is a pilots manual that describes being able to set up the prop between the forward and back limits. But it may not have responded very quickly?
In any case from the performance tests on the Spitfires it doesn't seem to to have been used that way. The climb tests never had the engine running much more that 2400rpm and not the 2600rpm climb limit and it didn't even reach 2400rpm until the plane reached 10,000ft?

The speed tests are limited but show the engine running a bit below 3000rpm or close to it at FTH but a down a bit on rpm at lower altitude (a few thousand feet lower) with the rpm dropping back off just over the FTH. Like running at 2930rpm at 16,500ft. 2980rpm at 18,000ft, 3000rpm at 18,600ft and back down to 2980rpm at 20,000ft.

With constant speed prop the rpm stays constant, if not exactly at 3000rpm the max rpm stays constant over a number of different heights with the variable being the exact tolerance of the constant speed unit. As in if the test engine/prop wants to run at 2990rpm then it runs at 2990 rpm at all heights.

The British planes did the constant speed props just a few weeks before the Germans but it seems like the British props weren't adjusted between the stops?

It was my impression that for the most part the 109 didn't get constant-speed control until the F. This was one of the main features of interest when the first crashed examples were examined by the British.

Shortround6 said:

The British planes did the constant speed props just a few weeks before the Germans but it seems like the British props weren't adjusted between the stops?

Click to expand...

The C/S units were fitted to Spitfires sooner than that. The first trials with a Rotol C/S prop fitted to a Spitfire took place in March 1940 and the first bulk conversions at squadron level took place in late June 1940, so by the end of July all in-service Spitfires were entirely fitted out. Hurricanes began with C/S props even sooner, with standardisation of production aircraft beginning in late 1939, the first being fitted in February, January in fact - oops, 1939.

Greyman said:

It was my impression that for the most part the 109 didn't get constant-speed control until the F.

Click to expand...

The E-4 had the lever on the instrument panel supplemented by a button on the end of the power lever, which, when pressed altered the prop pitch automatically, whereas the early Emils only had the lever on the instrument panel, which was for manual setting of the prop pitch. With the E-4, the prop pitch could be done automatically or manually, the pilot having the option of selecting which system he wished to use.

nuuumannn said:

The E-4 had the lever on the instrument panel supplemented by a button on the end of the power lever, which, when pressed altered the prop pitch automatically, whereas the early Emils only had the lever on the instrument panel, which was for manual setting of the prop pitch. With the E-4, the prop pitch could be done automatically or manually, the pilot having the option of selecting which system he wished to use.

Click to expand...

I'm going off memory here (and zero sources) but I thought that while the Emils had some of the 'plumbing' for constant-speed -- this was wired off until fully functional in the 109 F.

EDIT:
Only thing that immediately springs to mind -- BOUNCING CLOUDS — Flying with the Spirit of Erich Hartmann — Vintage Wings of Canada Even if (rightly) no conclusions can be drawn from this, still a great read.

Shortround6 said:

For the Spitfire with the variable pitch prop (2 pitch?) there is a pilots manual that describes being able to set up the prop between the forward and back limits. But it may not have responded very quickly?

Click to expand...

The two pitch prop was a bracket type that was actuated via the use of counterweights and had a deflection angle of 20 degrees, whereas the de Havilland Hydromatic (a Ham Std patented name) prop, fitted to squadron Spitfires beginning in June 1940 had an angle of 35 degrees. This latter prop was constant speed, while the bracket type was variable pitch.

With two-position prop when the prop pitch lever brought backwards to the stop, the blade angle was at coarse pitch, while moving it forward took the blade angle to fine pitch. It was counterweight operated so the actuation was done by the weights moving the blade through a cutout in a bracket, hence the name bracket prop. I can't respond to whether it took awhile or not as I have no frame of reference. You have to be able to define how long it might have taken during normal operation to determine that.

Obviously the Hydromatic prop was fully C/S, the speed of which was controlled by a governor turned by the engine, which enabled oil flow to the prop hub, which acted against a piston inside the hub that moved a cam, which acted against teeth on a fitting on the blade butt. This I can confirm how long it took. I worked on this type of prop in a prop overhaul shop once, overhauling 23E50s for a DC-3, which operated in the same fashion as the DH props.

nuuumannn said:

The C/S units were fitted to Spitfires sooner than that. The first trials with a Rotol C/S prop fitted to a Spitfire took place in March 1940 and the first bulk conversions at squadron level took place in late June 1940, so by the end of July all in-service Spitfires were entirely fitted out. Hurricanes began with C/S props even sooner, with standardisation of production aircraft beginning in late 1939, the first being fitted in February 1939.

Click to expand...

I've found that Spitfires were being fitted with Rotol constant speed props in late 1939 and Hurricanes with the Rotol props in spring 1940. The De Haviland C/S prop story is better known but just part of the story.

No. 19 Squadron Operations Record Book, 1 November 1939
No. 54 Squadron Operations Record Book, 10 December 1939
Rotol Airscrews for Spitfire, HQ Fighter Command, 16 June 1940
Spitfire Conversion of 2 Pitch De Havilland Airscrews to Constant Speed, HQ Fighter Command, 17 June 1940
Spitfire I fitted with De Havilland Constant Speed Airscrew, 22 June 1940
No. 92 Squadron Operations Record Book, 25 June 1940
609 Squadron Operations Record Book, 26 June 1940
No. 611 Squadron Operations Record Book, 28 June 1940
No. 74 Squadron Operations Record Book, 28 June 1940
Flight, May 23, 1940: The Latest Rotol Airscrew
W/C Ian Gleed D.F.C., Arise to Conquer, (Random House, New York 1942) pp. 62-63.
No. 1 Squadron Operations Record Book, 18 April 1940
Paul Richey DFC, Fighter Pilot (Redwood Press, Wiltshire 1990) p 93.
No. 151 Squadron Operations Record Book, 13 April 1940
No. 151 Squadron Operations Record Book, 15 May 1940
Hugh Halliday, No. 242 Squadron, The Canadian Years, (Canada's Wings, Ontario, 1981). p.78.
Wing Commander Tom Neil, DFC, AFC, AE, Gun Button to 'Fire', (William Kimber, London 1987), pg 48.

Greyman said:

but I thought that while the Emils had some of the 'plumbing' for constant-speed -- this was wired off until fully functional in the 109 F.

Click to expand...

I dunno about that, you might have to provide a source for that.

Mike Williams said:

Hurricanes with the Rotol props in spring 1940.

Click to expand...

The first Hurricane was fitted with a Rotol C/S prop in January 1939, it was the Hawker test aircraft G-AFKX formerly L1606, with production examples being first fitted in late 1939.

The info you've supplied is fascinating, Mike, and it confirms that the first de Havilland C/S props on Spits entered service in late June 1940.


And it seems that Rotol C/S props were available on Spits sooner, but not to every unit, it seems.

This is an interesting page from S/L Desmond Cooke's Pilot's Flying Log Book while with 65 Squadron showing trials with a Rotol prop on a Gladiator in early 1939. Jeremy Kinney, Curator in the Aeronautics Department of the Smithsonian National Air and Space Museum, wrote a tribute to Cooke's contribution to better propellers Here.