Qualities that made for a great aircraft that don't show up in performance stats.
- Thread starter michael rauls
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
GregP
Major
OK Schweik, those files will give you some interesting reading and the sources are shown on most places that I have added data in the last 10 years or so.
Best regards, - Greg
Best regards, - Greg
Kevin J
Banned
Biggest deficiency that I recall is that the eight m/g's were spread out across the wings so there was a shotgun effect when fired as opposed to the razor blade effect of the Hurricane's banks of m/g's that could slice the tail off of a Stuka. Bent wings after combat. When fitted with 2 20 mm cannon, bulges and protruding guns that cost you 10 mph, same with the 'c' wing. Only 60 rpg with the 'b' wing cannon. The Hurricane IIc with four cannon only lost 6 mph compared with the IIa. It was more likely that a Spitfire had to be returned to a maintenance for a fix after combat damage than a Hurricane. Yes, the early Spitfire was 20 to 25 mph faster, but that's not a significant speed difference in combat.
Last edited:
The Spitfire was not in combat with the Hurricane, it was in combat with the Bf109 which was faster than a spitfire at some altitudes, being over 30MPH faster than a Hurricane was significant. I think the wrinkling of wings was when used as a dive bomber, I cant remember it being an issue in the BoB, and in any case it is preferable to a wing coming off.
Last edited:
Kevin J
Banned
Bent wings were an issue all the way up the Spitfire Vb which could carry the first slipper tanks. I'm not aware of any problems after the Vc. Compared with the Bf 109E, the Hurricane I with boost could keep up with the Bf 109E performance wise below 15000 feet thanks to 12 lbs boost which it could hold for 5 minutes, the Bf 109E only for 1 minute with the radiator closed. So at bomber interception height in the BoB the Hurricane had the edge on it in sustained speed, roll rate and turning circle, the Bf 109E could dive away, not sure about climb though and they can't dive away without abandoning their bombers. After the BoB when the Luftwaffe sent in high altitude fighter bomber raids only the Spitfire I/II could cope with them, providing they were at 25000 / 30000 feet on patrol when they came in. IIRC.
Any boost applied to the Hurricane can be applied to the Spitfire, I don't believe the Hurricane had the edge over the Bf109 in anything except instantaneous turn, certainly not rate of roll, the biggest frustration of Hurricane pilots was they couldn't break off an engagement but the Bf 109 could. The Bf 109F started being introduced in late 1940BTW.
Kevin J
Banned
According to Daimler-Benz there were only 5 Db 601N's in service in January 1941, well according to Kurfurst. So lets see, about 200 Bf 109F-1's produced by then. So what happened to them? Wings broke off in flight? The Hurricane I must have been pretty good to have shot down so many Luftwaffe aircraft by the end of the BoB. Yes the Spitfire I was faster, I'm not disputing that, what I'm saying is that the Hurricane I's speed was more than adequate for the tasks that it was asked to perform. As for rate of roll, the Hurricane II was worse than the I, the Bf 109F better than the E and better than the II, but it was a new wing that initially had structural integrity problems.
The Hurricane has many qualities that fall into this category. It was tough, well armoured,easy to repair and reliable. It also had good handling traits of being easy to land and take off as well good harmony of controls and was easy to trim. It also had low pilot workload with automatic boost control and constant speed prop as well as hydraulic flaps and undercarriage. The pilot sat up high with a very good view over the nose. If one trait seems to stand out from what I have read of Hurricane pilots, they all seem to mention about what a steady gun platform the hurricane was. In flight tests the Hurricane MkI proved far superior in handling to the 109E with the 109 owning the raw performance numbers of climb,dive and level speed. IMO the Huricanes traits were almost perfect for the summer of 1940 when fighting a defensive action against a large opposing bombing force.
Reluctant Poster
Tech Sergeant
- 1,638
- Dec 6, 2006
" I think you'll find that when Beaverbrook took over the Castle Bromwich factory he sorted it out. "
Beaverbrook didn't sort anything out, he turned production over to Supermarine and their parent company Vickers who did the sorting.
Beaverbrook had much more effect in Southampton where he insisted on dispersing production, it needs a politician with clout to do that not a businessman. Supermarine/Vickers problems with the Spitfire were not limited to the aircraft but the location of the factory on the south coast and those nasty Germans bombing and killing employees.
GregP
Major
The Bf 109F didn't have weak wings and didn't have an issue with wings breaking EVER as long as they were undamaged by combat hits. The attach points were always a weak point because only 3 attach points were used. Damage to one attach point COULD cause loss of a wing.
The Bf 109F eliminated the bracing strut for the horizontal tail, and a couple broke off in flight early and caused some concern in the fighter community before Messerschmitt reinforced the horizontal stab and put in a production line stab modification to handle the extra stress. The Bf 109 was always a decent roller at low to medium speeds (180 mph - 280 mph) and got to be a very slow roller after that due to increasing stick forces required for roll. Above 320 mph the average pilot could only get about half-deflection and above 400 mph the stick, in roll AND pitch, seemed frozen in concrete.
The rudder lacked trim in all variants, and made for tired right legs in the Bf 109 pilot community after a mission. The cockpit was narrow and there was no good way to get decent leverage on the stick sideways. Hence, Bf 109 pilots usually had good arm muscles.
Hence, the Bf 109 pilot was always trying to lure Allied fighter pilots into a dogfight, where the Bf 109 had better control surface response. A dogfight ALWAYS slowed down from initial combat contact. The wise Allied pilot refused to be lured, stayed fast, and used HIS plane's strengths against the Bf 109.
The above flight characteristics, true for ALL variants of the Bf 109 are why the Bf 109K was not really a danger if it was going fast. if it was at 450 mph, it was going TO or FROM a fight, but it wasn't dogfighting. At 450 mph, it was at a speed where the airframe was VERY stable in a straight line and greatly reluctant to be coaxed from that line to any great degree. To dogfight, it needed to be slower, which usually meant in a steep climb. They tended to be firing at bombers going down through the formation and then maybe dogfight with fighters, if required, when going back up at slower speeds for another pounce. If not, they did the next pounce from the high perch.
The Bf 109F eliminated the bracing strut for the horizontal tail, and a couple broke off in flight early and caused some concern in the fighter community before Messerschmitt reinforced the horizontal stab and put in a production line stab modification to handle the extra stress. The Bf 109 was always a decent roller at low to medium speeds (180 mph - 280 mph) and got to be a very slow roller after that due to increasing stick forces required for roll. Above 320 mph the average pilot could only get about half-deflection and above 400 mph the stick, in roll AND pitch, seemed frozen in concrete.
The rudder lacked trim in all variants, and made for tired right legs in the Bf 109 pilot community after a mission. The cockpit was narrow and there was no good way to get decent leverage on the stick sideways. Hence, Bf 109 pilots usually had good arm muscles.
Hence, the Bf 109 pilot was always trying to lure Allied fighter pilots into a dogfight, where the Bf 109 had better control surface response. A dogfight ALWAYS slowed down from initial combat contact. The wise Allied pilot refused to be lured, stayed fast, and used HIS plane's strengths against the Bf 109.
The above flight characteristics, true for ALL variants of the Bf 109 are why the Bf 109K was not really a danger if it was going fast. if it was at 450 mph, it was going TO or FROM a fight, but it wasn't dogfighting. At 450 mph, it was at a speed where the airframe was VERY stable in a straight line and greatly reluctant to be coaxed from that line to any great degree. To dogfight, it needed to be slower, which usually meant in a steep climb. They tended to be firing at bombers going down through the formation and then maybe dogfight with fighters, if required, when going back up at slower speeds for another pounce. If not, they did the next pounce from the high perch.
Last edited:
While I understand your point, I think this may be a bit of an oversimplification. Certainly in Russia and in the Med, where I've been reading a lot of pilot accounts, Bf 109 pilots, and for that matter all German fighter pilots, basically avoided dogfighting with most enemy fighters both by doctrine and individual learned tactics. I am not as well versed in the BoB but I gather it was a similar situation there as well.
I guess it depends what you mean by a "dogfight", but certainly a Bf 109 pilot would want to avoid getting into a turning fight with a Hurricane, a Tomahawk, Kittyhawk, Spitfire or Yak. Let alone something like a Gladiator or an I-153. The Bf 109 had lighter more responsive controls at lower speeds, and later models had the functional leading edge slats, combat flap settings and so on, but in most cases they could still not out-turn Allied fighters at least in the horizontal.
German fighter tactics in the early to mid war periods seemed to be based on very specific techniques, not precisely boom and zoom but a more nuanced hit and run technique, mainly attack from above or below using superior speed / energy, shoot and disengage usually by climbing and often in a climbing turn. Sometimes they also disengaged in a high speed dive. Rolling scissors was one technique mentioned by pilots in postwar interviews and wartime letters as a method the Germans used to evade being hit while disengaging or if they had insufficient E to extend quickly enough. They also clearly relied a lot on vertical turns, chandelles, immelmans, split S etc. It was also a favorite tactic of a Rotte to split and allow one pair to be pursued while the other pair swooped around to attack the 'chasers' (this is described in detail by some Finnish pilots as well).
When more powerful engines became available to Allied fighter pilots, including via overboosting techniques (mainly at low altitude), US, Commonwealth and Soviet pilots would sometimes catch Luftwaffe pilots in their climbing turns and hit them. This seemed to be particularly common with .50 caliber machine guns using 'spray and pray' and deflection shooting. This was a bit of a problem for the Luftwaffe and resulted in further refinement of tactics. The game for the Germans was to keep sufficient separation to avoid being hit, but to get close enough to line up shots without losing too much speed so as to become a target. For the Allies the challenge was usually to keep speed up while taking advantage of opportunities to attack, without exposing onesself to a bounce. Unfortunately for them they often scotched this by getting into defensive circles and so on. Spitfires and P-40s (and in Russia, P-39s) could disengage by diving, at least sometimes - or more specifically diving while rolling and turning. Hurricanes and most Russian fighters had limitations on their dive speed, as did P-38s.
As for the way the controls locked up and were generally so stiff on the Bf 109, I always wondered if this was in part a safety feature - could stiffer controls make it less likely to pull too many G in a high speed turn and thereby black out? I know this was a frequent problem for pilots of later model kittyhawks. Not good to be asleep while moving 400 mph in a combat zone...
S
I guess it depends what you mean by a "dogfight", but certainly a Bf 109 pilot would want to avoid getting into a turning fight with a Hurricane, a Tomahawk, Kittyhawk, Spitfire or Yak. Let alone something like a Gladiator or an I-153. The Bf 109 had lighter more responsive controls at lower speeds, and later models had the functional leading edge slats, combat flap settings and so on, but in most cases they could still not out-turn Allied fighters at least in the horizontal.
German fighter tactics in the early to mid war periods seemed to be based on very specific techniques, not precisely boom and zoom but a more nuanced hit and run technique, mainly attack from above or below using superior speed / energy, shoot and disengage usually by climbing and often in a climbing turn. Sometimes they also disengaged in a high speed dive. Rolling scissors was one technique mentioned by pilots in postwar interviews and wartime letters as a method the Germans used to evade being hit while disengaging or if they had insufficient E to extend quickly enough. They also clearly relied a lot on vertical turns, chandelles, immelmans, split S etc. It was also a favorite tactic of a Rotte to split and allow one pair to be pursued while the other pair swooped around to attack the 'chasers' (this is described in detail by some Finnish pilots as well).
When more powerful engines became available to Allied fighter pilots, including via overboosting techniques (mainly at low altitude), US, Commonwealth and Soviet pilots would sometimes catch Luftwaffe pilots in their climbing turns and hit them. This seemed to be particularly common with .50 caliber machine guns using 'spray and pray' and deflection shooting. This was a bit of a problem for the Luftwaffe and resulted in further refinement of tactics. The game for the Germans was to keep sufficient separation to avoid being hit, but to get close enough to line up shots without losing too much speed so as to become a target. For the Allies the challenge was usually to keep speed up while taking advantage of opportunities to attack, without exposing onesself to a bounce. Unfortunately for them they often scotched this by getting into defensive circles and so on. Spitfires and P-40s (and in Russia, P-39s) could disengage by diving, at least sometimes - or more specifically diving while rolling and turning. Hurricanes and most Russian fighters had limitations on their dive speed, as did P-38s.
As for the way the controls locked up and were generally so stiff on the Bf 109, I always wondered if this was in part a safety feature - could stiffer controls make it less likely to pull too many G in a high speed turn and thereby black out? I know this was a frequent problem for pilots of later model kittyhawks. Not good to be asleep while moving 400 mph in a combat zone...
S
Do you think Willy in the mid 30s, while strengthening his 108 for more G's and more horsepower, had any idea his creation would ever see the power and speed it eventually did? I suspect he designed the structure and controls to get the most maneuverability and high AOA controllability at the speeds that he envisioned for it, which were in themselves a quantum leap forward at the time. Do you think he could foresee that horsepower would triple and speed gain over 100 mph from the prototype? And what do you think he knew about compressibility back then?
Cheers,
Wes
GregP
Major
Hi Schweik,
What I mean by "dogfight" is a turning or looping fight with ONE airplane or ONE pair of airplanes, for several complete turns or loops. If you were concentrating on the buy or guys in front of you, then you were ripe for ambush by almost anyone else. No fighter pilot minded a quarter or half-turn with someone trying for a shot, but to continue tracking that one bogey would leave you VERY open to ambush by the bogey's friends.
You can ask Biff, but I'm pretty sure he'd tell us that anyone who was atill turning with an enemy for 2 - 3 turns was doing it wrong, and probably was not long for the world.
The typical German tactic was to get above the bombers, dive down through the formation while shooting at specific bombers, and then zoom back up for another attack if they were not being pursued hotly. The escorts usually had difficulty following because they were probably cruising into combat at 285 - 350 mph while the diving Bf 109s were probably at 380 - 440 mph and accelerating as they were diving through the formation. So, the escorts would try to follow if possible and then roll when they were out of range so they could pull up a bit toward the direction the bombers were going ... because THAT is where the Bf 109s would be climbing back up to high perch. In other words, the escorts would follow the Bf 109s and catch them when they tried to go back up for another attack.
Those tactics tended to draw escorts away from the bomber stream, leaving them open to other Bf 109s. Allied escorts had to be disciplined NOT to follow too far away from the bombers they were escorting once the German tactic was understood. They stuck around for another round of snap shots at the attacking Bf 109s after the initial experiences were analyzed and new tactics were developed.
Probably everyone would dogfight one-on-one, but VERY few fights were one-on-one. Everybody had a wingman and a second pair of fighters in the flight at minimum. They usually patrolled, attacked, and defended in formations of four (two pair). Nothing new in there, huh?
What I mean by "dogfight" is a turning or looping fight with ONE airplane or ONE pair of airplanes, for several complete turns or loops. If you were concentrating on the buy or guys in front of you, then you were ripe for ambush by almost anyone else. No fighter pilot minded a quarter or half-turn with someone trying for a shot, but to continue tracking that one bogey would leave you VERY open to ambush by the bogey's friends.
You can ask Biff, but I'm pretty sure he'd tell us that anyone who was atill turning with an enemy for 2 - 3 turns was doing it wrong, and probably was not long for the world.
The typical German tactic was to get above the bombers, dive down through the formation while shooting at specific bombers, and then zoom back up for another attack if they were not being pursued hotly. The escorts usually had difficulty following because they were probably cruising into combat at 285 - 350 mph while the diving Bf 109s were probably at 380 - 440 mph and accelerating as they were diving through the formation. So, the escorts would try to follow if possible and then roll when they were out of range so they could pull up a bit toward the direction the bombers were going ... because THAT is where the Bf 109s would be climbing back up to high perch. In other words, the escorts would follow the Bf 109s and catch them when they tried to go back up for another attack.
Those tactics tended to draw escorts away from the bomber stream, leaving them open to other Bf 109s. Allied escorts had to be disciplined NOT to follow too far away from the bombers they were escorting once the German tactic was understood. They stuck around for another round of snap shots at the attacking Bf 109s after the initial experiences were analyzed and new tactics were developed.
Probably everyone would dogfight one-on-one, but VERY few fights were one-on-one. Everybody had a wingman and a second pair of fighters in the flight at minimum. They usually patrolled, attacked, and defended in formations of four (two pair). Nothing new in there, huh?
- Thread starter
- #136
michael rauls
Tech Sergeant
- 1,679
- Jul 15, 2016
Wasn't sure where to put this post so decided to put it here as it seems to be a popular thread and therefore most would see it.
I just stumbled across the function that allowes you to see all the rattings you have ever given out and to my surprise and embarrassment it said I have given out 2 old ratings, 2 dumbs, and 2 bad spellings. To whomever was the unfortunate recipients of these ,my apologies. They were all fat finger goofs that I didn't catch. The 2 bad spelling rattings are particularly humorous as there is nobody who has any less buisness criticising peoples spelling than I.
I just stumbled across the function that allowes you to see all the rattings you have ever given out and to my surprise and embarrassment it said I have given out 2 old ratings, 2 dumbs, and 2 bad spellings. To whomever was the unfortunate recipients of these ,my apologies. They were all fat finger goofs that I didn't catch. The 2 bad spelling rattings are particularly humorous as there is nobody who has any less buisness criticising peoples spelling than I.
I think this kind of ambush was exactly what German tactics hinged upon. The Bf 109 and Fw 190 were both very good at keeping speed up and higher speed made it easier to come up behind an enemy fighter intent on chasing your mate, and the speed of the 'bait' bought them more time to stretch out the pursuit. The fact that the Germans seem to have had pretty good radio gear made this type of coordination between bait and bounce even more effective.
In theory this is absolutely true but in practice they often clearly did get into extended turning and looping fights as you put it, sometimes just a few or even a pair of fighters alone, (at least for a while) and sometimes in a big cluster of planes (what they called a hairball - a greatly feared situation) and sometimes in mixed 'luffberry' of aircraft chasing each other in circles. Anecdotally all of these things happened routinely.
I suspect maybe this is part of the confusion - I think you are talking about the fighting between heavy Strategic bomber escorts at high altitude a bit later in the war, whereas I am referring to fighting in more of a Tactical context such as Russia or North Africa / Italy.
Again, in theory I agree though in practice, it seems like after an initial coordinated fight, combats did seem to routinely break out into individual and small group fights where wingmen were left behind and nobody even knew where the other aircraft were. Certainly the American and Commonwealth pilots described this type of situation repeatedly. There seemed to be a lot of confusion - but many one on one fights did take place regardless of doctrine.
From reading multiple accounts of combat between Allied and Axis aircraft it seems like strict formation flying was critical to surviving or executing the initial bounce, and the formations made a big difference on which side 'won' the initial contact (often resulting in a plane or three shot down by the losing side). Then there was a phase where the squadrons broke down into rotte and pairs of wingmen, and then if the fight lasted long enough even that broke down. It seemed very common for pilots to lose track of their wingmen by the end of say a 10 or 20 minute fight. And those were not as rare as you might expect.
In the Battle of Britain and most conflict both sides were looking for a "bounce", an attack with tactical superiority, of height speed sun etc. This led to a staircase effect with each wanting to be higher than the other. Whenever some tactical advantage was had loses could be inflicted, where both sides were equal and a mass engagement took place loses were about even and indecisive. In a mass engagement the chances of shooting anything down was reduced because you were surrounded by so many enemy to keep an eye on and the chances of hitting someone on your own side increased as you could fly across fire aimed by some one you hadn't seen at someone you also hadn't seen.
This post is of course a massive generalisation. In "The Most Dangerous Enemy" S Bungay he went into some detail studying this in the BoB. The Defiant when used well in favourable conditions did reasonably well, in other conditions it got hammered. The Me110 could hold its own at times but when things were against it, it got hammered. Between the single engine/seat fighters Spitfire Hurricane and Bf109, the Spitfire and 109 were about equal statistically given the problems a SE fighter has over enemy territory, this was reversed when the RAF tried attacking Northern France. The deficiencies of the Hurricane, though quite small in many areas of performance overall produced a statistically noticeable superiority for the Spitfire over the Hurricane. Being slightly slower, less agile, and more likely to burn made the Hurricane overall less effective. It was the ease of production that meant for a short time it took plane numbers out of the game and the RAFs problem was solely producing enough good pilots to fly them.
parsifal
Colonel
Another suggestion I would make is availability of materials and the ease those alternative materials could be worked. In this case one size does not fit all situations.
The case in point that im thinking of are the Soviets. They suffered some huge technical obstacles that they solved in very unique ways. They were one of the biggest producers of smelted aluminium, but because they needed to divert most of that vital strategic resource to tank engine production (the T-34 used aluminium engine blocks) there was an overall shortage of this vital raw material for aircraft production. Added to that, the skilled labour needed to work this ,etal was in acute short supply in wartime Russia. Not so their skilled workers in woodworking. There were plenty of peasants able to work in wood that could not work in light alloys like Duralumin.
So, the Soviets accepted the performance penalties and reduced strength inherent in using wood, all in the interests of numbers. They could churn out wooden framed fighters like hot cakes, which they proceed to do
The elephant in the room with this is the IL-2 sturmovik. It was an aircraft described as being of "mixed construction", which includes steel components to the subframe, some aluminium and some wooden construction. Exactly what proportions ive no idea.
So at some point, from all this is the salient point of "strategic availability". Forget the cost per unit…..that is a minor component of cost in putting the aircraft into service anyway. Its how "produceable" the type is given the available raw materials and the skillset of the workforce to build that aircraft
The case in point that im thinking of are the Soviets. They suffered some huge technical obstacles that they solved in very unique ways. They were one of the biggest producers of smelted aluminium, but because they needed to divert most of that vital strategic resource to tank engine production (the T-34 used aluminium engine blocks) there was an overall shortage of this vital raw material for aircraft production. Added to that, the skilled labour needed to work this ,etal was in acute short supply in wartime Russia. Not so their skilled workers in woodworking. There were plenty of peasants able to work in wood that could not work in light alloys like Duralumin.
So, the Soviets accepted the performance penalties and reduced strength inherent in using wood, all in the interests of numbers. They could churn out wooden framed fighters like hot cakes, which they proceed to do
The elephant in the room with this is the IL-2 sturmovik. It was an aircraft described as being of "mixed construction", which includes steel components to the subframe, some aluminium and some wooden construction. Exactly what proportions ive no idea.
So at some point, from all this is the salient point of "strategic availability". Forget the cost per unit…..that is a minor component of cost in putting the aircraft into service anyway. Its how "produceable" the type is given the available raw materials and the skillset of the workforce to build that aircraft
Users who are viewing this thread
Similar threads
