March until October of 1940: fighters' ranking

[Shortround6]

Well, the title of the thread is

March until October of 1940: fighters' ranking

If we are just to count the aircraft in service (one or more squadrons in operational service?) we can get rid of the P-51 from the discussion.

You also have about 7 A6M2s built (issued where?) that were intended for carrier service. Basing carrier service as a criteria for the better planes in service during the time period seems stretching it.

If we want to include a list of fighters that were still in service in 1940 after being in service for 6-8 years the list would be very long and would not change the the top 10-20 places out of the list.

Some of the French stuff is not well documented.
Some of the planes may have given up too much in some areas of the design in order to get high numbers in other areas.

The D.520 is about the best the French can offer without taking an awful lot on faith.

The US is dealing with the P-40 at this time which is not credited as being a serviceable fighter plane after the first few months of the time periods in question and since it didn't exsit in those few months it has to be taken out of the list.


Actual planes that exist, in no particular order. include the

Spitfire I (2 pitch prop)
Spitfire I (CS prop)
Spitfire II
Hurricane I ( 2 pitch)
Hurricane I (CS)
Hurricane II
Bf 109E-3
Bf 109E-4 (601N )
Bf 110C
Bf 110C-4 (?)
Curtiss P-36
Hawk 75A1-4
D. 520
Macchi C.200

 

[Clayton Magnet]

A Spitfire PR Mk XIX with an external auxiliary tank had a top range of about 1400 miles and it didn't go into service until mid 1944, probably had the longest range for any Spitfire marks (someone correct me if I'm wrong) and it was a reconnaissance aircraft

I think the Spitfire PR Mk.XI might have been the longest range version, but was also a recce aircraft. 84 gallons in the main tanks, 132 gallons in the wing tanks, and the option for a 170 gallon slipper tank. They may have had an additional tank under the pilot seat, but I am not sure.
The Spitfire COULD have been modified for long range escort, but it never would have been as good as the P-51. The Mustang simply had the room for a LOT more gas, and was a lot more slippery in the air. Of course, the RAF also didn't have a pressing need for an escort fighter, as Bomber Command had already abandoned daylight bombing.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

It was something of an assertion, but not one without historical evidence. The Luftwaffe had forged their fighter tactics over Spain, and perfected them over France and the low countries. Against I-15's in Spain, P-11's in Poland and MS-406's in France, the Bf 109 had a top speed and climb advantage, and their tactics exploited it. By October 1940, the jagdwaffe was the finest fighter force in the world, with the most experienced pilots and a qualitative advantage in equipment.
It isn't a stretch to assume that in some alternate universe, if faced with long range A6M's in German airspace, that the 109's would engage them the same way they had every other opponent, with hit and run attacks from higher altitude.

I mentioned this on another thread but in the book "Some Still Live" by Frank Tinker (mercenary pilot) he mentioned that the I-16 was faster and more maneuverable and could out climb the BF109 and it was obvious this would be against the early models. I think Tinker was also the first American to shoot down a -109. The Emil had a definite advantage, I wonder at what -109 model the scales were actually tipped?

 

[Clayton Magnet]

The Emil had a definite advantage, I wonder at what -109 model the scales were tipped?

I assume the 109D with the carbureted DB600, and on. The Jumo powered 109's in Spain were underpowered, but I think the Luftwaffe just wanted to work the bugs out

 

[SaparotRob]

I think the Spitfire PR Mk.XI might have been the longest range version, but was also a recce aircraft. 84 gallons in the main tanks, 132 gallons in the wing tanks, and the option for a 170 gallon slipper tank. They may have had an additional tank under the pilot seat, but I am not sure.
The Spitfire COULD have been modified for long range escort, but it never would have been as good as the P-51. The Mustang simply had the room for a LOT more gas, and was a lot more slippery in the air. Of course, the RAF also didn't have a pressing need for an escort fighter, as Bomber Command had already abandoned daylight bombing.

When you say long range Spitfire, could you give me a frame of reference? Would it be equivalent to a P-47 with drop tanks?

 

[tomo pauk]

I mentioned this on another thread but in the book "Some Still Live" by Frank Tinker (mercenary pilot) he mentioned that the I-16 was faster and more maneuverable and could out climb the BF109 and it was obvious this would be against the early models. I think Tinker was also the first American to shoot down a -109. The Emil had a definite advantage, I wonder at what -109 model the scales were actually tipped?

I assume the 109D with the carbureted DB600, and on. The Jumo powered 109's in Spain were underpowered, but I think the Luftwaffe just wanted to work the bugs out

Emil was the one that 'moved' the 109s from 480-500 km/h into the 550 km/h zone.
The Bf 109D was still with Jumo 210 in the nose. The DB 600 was powering the He 111s, plus a few prototypes.

 

[Shortround6]

I mentioned this on another thread but in the book "Some Still Live" by Frank Tinker (mercenary pilot) he mentioned that the I-16 was faster and more maneuverable and could out climb the BF109 and it was obvious this would be against the early models. The Emil had a definite advantage, I wonder at what -109 model the scales were tipped?

Well, the 109 changed from a 700hp engine to a 1100hp engine. Sort of like having a Mustang I go from a 1150hp engine to an 1800hp engine.
I-16s were all over the place from the 450hp prototype to the 1000hp
The I-16 type 5 and 6 used in Spain had a 700-730hp engine (?).
Armament varied on the 109s from 2 to 4 7.9mm machine guns.
The I-16s used either two ShKAS guns (one in each wing) or sometimes a 3rd added to the fuselage.
The ShKAS fired at over 1 1/2 times the rate of the MG 17 gun so the difference in fire power wasn't that great even with the 4 gun 109s.

 

[Shortround6]

I assume the 109D with the carbureted DB600, and on.

The 109D with DB600 engine is one of the most persistent mistakes that William Green may be responsible for.

 

[Clayton Magnet]

The 109D with DB600 engine is one of the most persistent mistakes that William Green may be responsible for.

Was he a "Caiden" type?

 

[Clayton Magnet]

When you say long range Spitfire, could you give me a frame of reference? Would it be equivalent to a P-47 with drop tanks?

Apparently a modified Mk.IX made 1600 miles during a test with drop tanks. Still not close to Mustang type range, but not bad.

 

[SaparotRob]

That does sound impressive.

 

[tomo pauk]

Apparently a modified Mk.IX made 1600 miles during a test with drop tanks. Still not close to Mustang type range, but not bad.

FWIW, the table kindly provided by fellow member glider:

 

[Shortround6]

Was he a "Caiden" type?

He was actually one of the most popular authors in 1950s and 60s and most of his books were technical histories.

two volumes printed as one.
Most of us in our 60s and 70s grew up with these books

 

[Greg Boeser]

Just got mine from an estate sale. Now I can claim omniscience.

 

[BiffF15]

He was actually one of the most popular authors in 1950s and 60s and most of his books were technical histories.

View attachment 655563
two volumes printed as one.
Most of us in our 60s and 70s grew up with these books

My hometown library didn't even have that one.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

I don't think Green was as bad as Caiden, as a matter of fact I don't know if anyone was as bad as Caiden for tall tales and stretching the truth!

 

[pbehn]

Well, the title of the thread is

March until October of 1940: fighters' ranking

If we are just to count the aircraft in service (one or more squadrons in operational service?) we can get rid of the P-51 from the discussion.

You also have about 7 A6M2s built (issued where?) that were intended for carrier service. Basing carrier service as a criteria for the better planes in service during the time period seems stretching it.

If we want to include a list of fighters that were still in service in 1940 after being in service for 6-8 years the list would be very long and would not change the the top 10-20 places out of the list.

Some of the French stuff is not well documented.
Some of the planes may have given up too much in some areas of the design in order to get high numbers in other areas.

The D.520 is about the best the French can offer without taking an awful lot on faith.

The US is dealing with the P-40 at this time which is not credited as being a serviceable fighter plane after the first few months of the time periods in question and since it didn't exsit in those few months it has to be taken out of the list.


Actual planes that exist, in no particular order. include the

Spitfire I (2 pitch prop)
Spitfire I (CS prop)
Spitfire II
Hurricane I ( 2 pitch)
Hurricane I (CS)
Hurricane II
Bf 109E-3
Bf 109E-4 (601N )
Bf 110C
Bf 110C-4 (?)
Curtiss P-36
Hawk 75A1-4
D. 520
Macchi C.200

Also with all British types the use of 100 Octane fuel changed their performance radically, even though it was the same plane.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Well, the 109 changed from a 700hp engine to a 1100hp engine. Sort of like having a Mustang I go from a 1150hp engine to an 1800hp engine.
I-16s were all over the place from the 450hp prototype to the 1000hp
The I-16 type 5 and 6 used in Spain had a 700-730hp engine (?).
Armament varied on the 109s from 2 to 4 7.9mm machine guns.
The I-16s used either two ShKAS guns (one in each wing) or sometimes a 3rd added to the fuselage.
The ShKAS fired at over 1 1/2 times the rate of the MG 17 gun so the difference in fire power wasn't that great even with the 4 gun 109s.

The I-16 type 5 and 10 had 4 machine guns, two in the upper cowling and two in the wings. I think the last variants had 2 20MMs in the wings.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

It was something of an assertion, but not one without historical evidence. The Luftwaffe had forged their fighter tactics over Spain, and perfected them over France and the low countries. Against I-15's in Spain, P-11's in Poland and MS-406's in France, the Bf 109 had a top speed and climb advantage, and their tactics exploited it. By October 1940, the jagdwaffe was the finest fighter force in the world, with the most experienced pilots and a qualitative advantage in equipment.
It isn't a stretch to assume that in some alternate universe, if faced with long range A6M's in German airspace, that the 109's would engage them the same way they had every other opponent, with hit and run attacks from higher altitude.

A fair point, once the Germans get over the surprise of fighters headed five hundred miles inside their airspace.

Don't forget as well that the IJN pilots flying those zeros were also pretty damned good, and blooded as well.

 

[Admiral Beez]

Which is best Spitfire v 109?

I think at this point it comes down to the pilot, and quality of the fuel and the mechanic that put him there.