Recurring Theme in WW2 Aviation

Robert - simply stated, you keep stepping into factual poo-poo due to a lack of knowledge about the subjects you are pontificating on.

Recommendation - study this site and the aircraft performance documents in lieu of anecdotal 'theories' that you apparently hold in higher esteem. There are other sites but this one will touch on both models and contemporary time comparisons.

WWII Aircraft Performance

I would note that the Prototype Spitfire held 75 imp gallons, this was changed to 84 Imp gallons on the first production models. Most sources say the Hurricane held 97 imp gallons. How much further you can fly on 13 gallons I don't know, especially in a plane with more drag.
Hurricane I data sheet.

In testing a Spitfire I with fixed pitch prop could do 240mph at 15,000ft using 29,1 gallons an hour and getting 8.26miles per gallon.
even assuming 8 miles per gallon and deducting the same 20 gallon allowance in the chart above that leaves the Spitfire with 64 gallons and a range of 512 miles. In all probability the Spitfires in combat trim didn't do quite as well but then the air at 20,000ft is a bit thinner too. The longer legs of the Hurricane seem to be about 20 minutes flight time at economical cruising speed.
When fitted with the same propellers the Spitfire could out climb the Hurricane and had a higher ceiling.

As for "The website I used was only one of many, which on the points I was making agreed. I have no specific knowledge of the author."
I have no specific knowledge of the author either but when he makes statements like "Manoeuvrable, well armed, fairly fast and long ranged, the A5M was..." he starts loosing credibility. The A5M had about 50% more firepower than a Sopwith Camel. In 1939 two Vickers Machine guns firing through the prop, even if firing faster than WW I guns is hardly well armed.

Or "and was dubbed La Faucheur (the Reaper) by the French press due to its unheard of armament of eight nose-mounted machine guns......" when talking about the Fokker G1. Guess the french missed the memo on the Hurricane and Spitfire having eight guns even if not nose mounted and flying about a year before the G1.

Really loved this one "Having said that, the 110 could outclimb any other European fighter in 1940". Yeah we are back to what do you mean exactly by climb but 1940 covers a lot of time and the idea of a Bf110 outclimbing a Spitfire using 12lbs boost low altitudes takes a lot of faith, not fact. Actually the Spitifires (MK I or II ) don't even have to use 12lbs boost.
Spec sheet for a Bf110 C :http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/me110/Me110C_data-sheet.jpg
Climb to 6000 meters was 9 minutes even with reduced fuel and carrying less than 1/2 ammo. A Spit II could hit 20,000ft in 7 minutes using 2850 rpm and 9lbs boost. A Spit I could do it in 7.7 minutes with CS prop.

He seems to make too many errors of fact to be reliable.

Very much appreciate all the info, learned a lot! There is a lot for me to learn about WW2 aviation in general but hey, thats why I read. And I have found over the years that you can sometimes pick 5 books about the same historical subject, and get 5 divergent opinions on that subject. All seemingly based on solid facts etc. So in the end, like most of history, its fairly open to subjective reporting as it were by authors.

But thats why I try to read many sources. As a kid growing up I was fortunate in having a neighbor that was a retired History Chair from SUNY in Albany. He while retired, was often sent books for review by various and sundry companies, schools, so forth. He used to delight in proving that what I "knew" for a fact was often a subjective opinion. He would do this by letting me pick a subject, the one I remember best was the American Civil war. He then selected 20 odd books from his library and we selected a particular battle, or person, or whatever. We would then look each one up in each book.

Amazingly to my young mind, all 20 would be different, some just slight differences, others seriously different in detail. He would look at me and say whose correct? I could not answer well and he would laugh and say all of them and none of them. He pointed out that all of history including last week was totally subjective because it was told from the observers point of view influenced by their background, education, perception etc.

Thats where I learned about reading multiple sources, tracing source documents where possible, and thats what I have always done. Or at least tried to do. So thanks for contributing to my knowledge. I will keep reading, hope everyone else does as well. Remember, in the late 1800's it was known that man could never travel faster than 30 MPH because such speed would generate a vacuum around the head leading to the suffocation death of the person attempting such an audacious deed.

Robert Porter said:

Thats where I learned about reading multiple sources, tracing source documents where possible, and thats what I have always done. Or at least tried to do. So thanks for contributing to my knowledge. I will keep reading, hope everyone else does as well. Remember, in the late 1800's it was known that man could never travel faster than 30 MPH because such speed would generate a vacuum around the head leading to the suffocation death of the person attempting such an audacious deed.

Click to expand...

The UK chose 30MPH as speed limit in part because that is the speed of a galloping horse.

If you want to criticize the Spitfires rate of roll, short range, vulnerability to small arms fire, narrow track undercarriage few would disagree. When discussing its performance be very specific, its engine doubled in power in 4 years and it doubled its weight in the same period. It had extended wings clipped wings a change of engine internal fuel added and various changes of props wings tails ......It was like murphy's favourite hammer three new shafts and two new heads. If it wasnt for its distinctive wing shape I am sure it would have had two or three new names, but it didnt because all of them look like spitfires.

Uh, Rob, you might want to check that "Remember, in the late 1800's it was known that man could never travel faster than 30 MPH because......"
Typo when you meant 1700's or very early 1800's? See Stephenson's Rocket.

Shortround6 said:

Uh, Rob, you might want to check that "Remember, in the late 1800's it was known that man could never travel faster than 30 MPH because......"
Typo when you meant 1700's or very early 1800's? See Stephenson's Rocket.

Click to expand...

Stephensons rocket did 28MPH the later Patentee did 40MPH one was sold to Germany and named as the Adler (after a forum moderator)

Adler (locomotive) - Wikipedia
Stephenson's Rocket - Wikipedia

I was born a matter of yards from where Stephensons first loco "Locomotion No1 finished its journey

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Locomotion_No._1

Having ridden on a replica it was very strange, the operating pressure is so low it makes less sound than a kettle, all you heard was the wheels rubbing the track.

To keep from picking on the Spitfire and to show how even a single source can come up with some conflicting performance numbers try looking at the American XP-77 fighter, most of what is on the internet is pure garbage and even print books list things like.

"Maximum speed 330 mph at 4000 feet, 328 mph at 12,600 feet. Initial climb rate was 3600 feet per minute, and an altitude of 9000 feet could be attained in 3.7 minutes."

Now 3.7 minutes to 9,000ft is an average of 2432fpm and even a mis-print of 2.7 minutes gives 3333. fpm. However there may be some doubt about the engines ability to run at full power for several minutes. One minute at 3600fpm and 1.7 minutes at 3176fpm? or 2.7 minutes at 2000fpm?
Or initial climb was actually 2600fpm? and the 3600 is a typo/misprint?
Something is way out of wack and is never explained.

If something seems too good to be true it probably is and if one author's (or more than one) statements seem to run against "common" knowledge it is a very good thing to try to get back to the actual test numbers (and make note of the conditions of the test). In some cases the few authors do make a very good case against what is common knowledge, like the 390mph XP-39. Often quoted but never with a date of the test flight or name of the pilot who made the flight. The XP-39 actually did very limited test flying before being shipped off to the NACA wind tunnel and was plagued with over heating problems and due to a vibration problem (or potential problem) in the drive shaft was never run at full rpm during the period in question. Makes the 390mph test flight look very dubious.

The Spitfire I, with Merlin II and two blade, fixed pitch, wooden airscrew, as 'advertised' in Specification 456 for foreign buyers must have been a right old dog.
Only France, Yugoslavia, Lithuania, Japan, Egypt, Switzerland, Belgium, Holland, Turkey, Latvia, Bulgaria, Greece, Estonia, China, Finland, Norway, Romania and Portugal expressed an interest by the start of the war.
Most of these countries either placed orders or entered negotiations to build the Spitfire under licence. Many sent pilots to test fly the aircraft. In September 1939, on the brink of war, the 12th saw the Belgians fly the type, the 13th the Yugoslavs, 15th was set aside for the French followed by pilots from Holland, Switzerland, Romania, Turkey and Greece. In the event only the first two groups got to fly the aircraft. The Yugoslavs, somewhat presciently, were unhappy with the fixed pitch propeller and asked that a CSU be made available, they thought the take off run with the fixed pitch propeller was too long, and they were right.
Of course the airmen and experts from all these different nations were incapable of seeing the Spitfire for the POS it was and convinced their governments to order it. or negotiate to build it, anyway
Cheers
Steve

I conclude that the Spitfire was like democracy, it had faults and room for improvement but was better than the alternatives tried up to that point in time.

pbehn said:

If you want to criticize the Spitfires rate of roll, short range, vulnerability to small arms fire, narrow track undercarriage few would disagree

Click to expand...

Surprisingly, what I have read about the Spitfire, it seems to have good ground handling qualities and was easy to takeoff and land, In contrast, the 109 with similar narrow track undercarriage, was known to have poor ground handling and suffered many takeoff and landing accidents.

BLine22 said:

Surprisingly, what I have read about the Spitfire, it seems to have good ground handling qualities and was easy to takeoff and land, In contrast, the 109 with similar narrow track undercarriage, was known to have poor ground handling and suffered many takeoff and landing accidents.

Click to expand...

The take off and landing accidents story of the Me109 is a myth and gets some posters here on the verge of exploding. The Spitfire was tricky only compared to the Hurricane which some Germans saw as childishly easy to land. There are quite a few threads here about that particular myth, they make interesting reading.

I read only yesterday that the Dewotine 520 was a beast on the ground needing 100% attention at all times until the engine stopped.

BLine22 said:

Surprisingly, what I have read about the Spitfire, it seems to have good ground handling qualities and was easy to takeoff and land, In contrast, the 109 with similar narrow track undercarriage, was known to have poor ground handling and suffered many takeoff and landing accidents.

Click to expand...

There are various reasons why two aircraft with similar undercarriage tracks should have such differing ground handling characteristics, but the most important is different geometry.





You don't need a protractor.

Cheers

Steve

pbehn said:

The take off and landing accidents story of the Me109 is a myth and gets some posters here on the verge of exploding.

Click to expand...

It's not a myth. In conjunction with various other factors the geometry did lead to a lot of landing and to a lesser extent take off accidents.

When Bf 109s were first sent to Norway they had to use 'hard' runways rather than grass and the absence of a lockable tail wheel led to so many accidents that a local fix was manufactured in Norway.
Hans-Curt Graf von Sponeck flew to Norway with fourteen other pilots from 10./JG 53 (soon to be integrated into JG 5) lost five of fifteen aircraft to landing accidents on that day. He blamed ice as a contributing factor, but a tail wheel lock was devised at the Stavanger-Forus repair facility for the Norwegian based aircraft.

Ernst Schroder (disliked the Bf 109 and considered it "a crime that it was manufactured until 1945"):

"The students at the school were told all about the negative characteristics of the Bf 109, including its tendency to swerve on take off or landing along the movement of the wings axis. The aces from the Eastern Front had no problems taking off or landing as they could use the torque to their advantage, but inexperienced pilots often found themselves being pulled brutally to the left, which caused many accidents."

Heinz Lange (who rather liked the Bf 109, but acknowledged its faults):

"First of all, I must say that I much appreciated flying the Bf 109 , I was as confident in this aircraft, as I was later in the Fw 190. The Bf 109 had several advantages, but also several weaknesses, one of the being the narrow landing gear which made starts and landings difficult and often dangerous in windy conditions (above all a lateral wind) or on a not well prepared airfield or strip, especially for young trainee pilots. This weakness led to an incredible number of accidents, many of them resulting in the pilots death."

Now, when you ask for pilots' opinions on an aircraft you will get as many opinions as pilots you ask, but, the bad ground handling of the Bf 109 is a common theme. One British test pilot, obviously inexperienced on what was an enemy aircraft, described it as "malicious", as if the aircraft was actively trying to kill him!

Cheers

Steve

It has been discussed at length, most trainees killed were killed during take off and landing. If you take off and land in a 109 in the same way as other aircraft that is a mistake. There were many german aces flew the 109 throughout the war in all theatres, it is a question of training not the aircraft itself (from what I have read)

pbehn said:

There were many german aces flew the 109 throughout the war in all theatres, it is a question of training not the aircraft itself (from what I have read)

Click to expand...

That is true, but having an aircraft with fewer potentially dangerous characteristics obviously makes training accidents fewer. Experienced pilots certainly had no difficulty handling the Bf 109, the same was true of the first version of the Me 210, but it killed a lot of less experienced men.
The comparison here is with the Spitfire, and its undercarriage geometry made it a simpler aircraft to master. It was less likely to kill an inexperienced pilot.
Cheers
Steve

stona said:

The comparison here is with the Spitfire, and its undercarriage geometry made it a simpler aircraft to master. It was less likely to kill an inexperienced pilot.
Cheers
Steve

Click to expand...

All planes can kill an inexperienced pilot, as I understand it the 109 must be landed on all three wheels which is a skill learned in training, a pilot ties to land on two wheels as they did on some aircraft he is in trouble. Its like saying that the Spitfire was a danger to Polish pilots used to fixed undercarriage. Lack of training is not the fault of the aircraft.

The 109 flew from fields on the Eastern front that made a ploughed field look like a Billiard table and would have given a US or British pilot a heart attack.

pbehn said:

I understand it the 109 must be landed on all three wheels

Click to expand...

And that is the fault of the aircraft. Other aircraft, with a similar undercarriage track could make 'wheeler' landings without bicycling around into a ground loop. That's the point.

The Bf 109 had this compromised undercarriage design because the gear attached to a truss which was part of the fuselage, also acting as an attachment for the lower end of the engine bearers. This had the advantage that the wings could be removed whilst the rest of the aircraft stood on its wheels, and this was supposedly part of a requirement for ease of transport on the railway. It had the disadvantage of imposing a less than ideal geometry on the undercarriage and that is what made it more difficult than some contemporary types to handle on the ground.
Incidentally it also sat nose high, at a high angle of attack on the ground, severely limiting forward visibility, even by the standards of the time, and the tail had to be raised early in the take off run, not ideal given the tendency to bicycle around. On the other hand the CoG was well behind the wheels, meaning the brakes could be used more aggressively than in many contemporaries, 'experten' used them to steer the aircraft on the ground.

Every aircraft has strengths and weaknesses, but the geometry of the Bf 109's undercarriage was certainly a weakness. It is of note that subsequent Messerschmitt designs did not continue with this system.

Cheers

Steve

In my opinion it was a characteristic not a weakness it could and was landed safely.