Spit or ME ?? Rumors revealed and busted !

[KraziKanuK]

I would say the LW took a mauling in BoB.

from After The Battle's "The Battle of Britain-Then and Now"

Royal Air Force airmen killed: 537
Luftwaffe Airmen killed: 2,662
Me109 and 110 airmen killed: 549

Royal Air Force aircraft lost: 1,017
Luftwaffe aircraft lost: 1,882
Me109 and 110 aircraft lost: 871

 

[Anonymous]

Offense is more costly than defense unless the enemy is totally outclassed. Simple as that.

=S=

Lunatic

 

[hellmaker]

Royal Air Force airmen killed: 537
Luftwaffe Airmen killed: 2,662
Me109 and 110 airmen killed: 549

Royal Air Force aircraft lost: 1,017
Luftwaffe aircraft lost: 1,882
Me109 and 110 aircraft lost: 871

Impressive statistics KraziK...

 

[Soren]

Aprox 95% of all RAF aircraft lost were shot down by 109's, the 110 was easy prey for the Spit's and Hurri's.

 

[the lancaster kicks ass]

Aprox 95% of all RAF aircraft lost were shot down by 109's

because the LW had no other serious fighters, again like you say the 110 wasn't gonna get many kills..............

 

[Sgt. Pappy]

Hey again everyone! I know this is one ooold post, but i was once again wondering if you pros could give me some info. I posted on a different thread some of the following questions:

1) Could Spit VIII's (c type wing) carry a full 1000 lb bomb load (whether they carried it operationally or just phiscally)?

2) Did they actually have a 1,180 mi. range with full internal and external fuel load? And if it actually did carry more fuel than the other spits, why was it still lighter than the Mk.IX (fully loaded)?

3) I've read in www.spitfireworld.com that the Mk. IX (at least late versions) had wing tanks AND a rear fuselage tank. If so, then why did all other sources say it only had 980 mi. of range?

As u can see, I really want to be the ultimate Spit finatic so i wanna know it all! Thanks again!

-Cheers-

 

[Hop]

Maximum bomb load on any of the Spitfires was 1 500 lb bomb under the fuselage, and 1 250 lb bomb under each wing. However, I'm not sure if the Spitfire VIII was ever cleared for wing bombs. There's no technical reason why it couldn't have carried them, it's just a question of whether they did.

Did they actually have a 1,180 mi. range with full internal and external fuel load?

Depends on speed, but 1,180 miles was certainly doable. This is from an RAAF test of the Spitfire VIII:

The Spitfire VIII had 123 gallons internal, and could take a 90 gallon external tank.

And if it actually did carry more fuel than the other spits, why was it still lighter than the Mk.IX (fully loaded)?

In normal configuration (full internal fuel, ammunition, no external stores) the Spitfire VIII was heavier than the IX. However, later IXs had more internal fuel added, and the maximum takeoff weight was increased to compensate. The VIII had a slightly stronger airframe, and so could have safely carried more, but if there was no pressure to do so, it's unlikely they would have been cleared for a higher weight. Having said that, I have no idea what weight the VIII was cleared for. It's important to realise MTOW changed during the war for many aircraft, they usually increased as the war went on, and were reduced post war in the interests of safety.

I've read in www.spitfireworld.com that the Mk. IX (at least late versions) had wing tanks AND a rear fuselage tank. If so, then why did all other sources say it only had 980 mi. of range?

Most sources quote a test they've seen, or an aircraft data card. The rear tanks were introduced late, and it's hard to find information on them.

Jeffery Quill tells in his autobiography of a flight he made in a Spitfire IX with rear fuselage tank and drop tank, from Salisbury Plain, up to the Firth of Forth and back. It was something over 1,200 miles, and he flew the whole thing at low level because of poor weather (range goes up at higher altitudes).

Your best bet for range is to look at the fuel, calculate consumption (and the Spitfire VIII figures above should be good for most Spitfire IXs as well) and work out the range from there. Don't forget to allow for warm up and takeoff, fuel used in climbing, combat allowance, reserves etc.

Conservative figures for a Spitfire:

Warm up and takeoff - 10 gallons
Climb to 20,000ft - 15 - 20 gallons
10 mins combat - 20 gallons

 

[Sgt. Pappy]

Wow, Hop thanks a bunch for the info! It really clears up a lot of things. But I wonder why such a brilliant plane like the Mk. IX (with added fuel) didnt seem to enter the "Spit Hall of Fame" - I've barely heard of any Spit IX's with extra fuel ever serving with any AF. I'm assuming this is because the lack of its need since the Mk.IX (with regular fuel load) was good enough for the roles in which it was needed and the P-51's/P-47's had already proven their greatness and would, instead do long-range escort sorties.

And the Spit was never a truly dedicated Jabo a/c so i guess that's the likliest explanation as to why the Spit8 has not been known to carry the wing bombs. That explanation, coupled with the fact that the Mk.VIII was flown in the PTO where fuel was life, would help explain the minimal bomload for which they were cleared. However, i believe it could, as the Mk.IX could.

 

[Hop]

Just noticed in some stuff from the Australian archives that their Spitfire VIIIs were cleared and equipped to carry wing and fuselage bombs.

 

[Hunter368]

mmmm interesting I will read this thread when I get more time. BoB is one of my favorite battles of all time.

 

[Sgt. Pappy]

ok so after much nerdy research, i found that the Mk. XII Spitfire had about 389 mi. of range - internal fuel. Through some sad calculations, the plane flew about 4.7 miles for each Imp. Gallon. The Mk. XIV must have been at least similar, and from 'Late Marque Spitfire Aces: 1942 - 1945" by Alfred Price, the Mk. XIV's of very late 1944 had rear fuselage tanks of 75 IG. (for the Mk. XIV's with malcolm hoods). In addition to the 2x 27 IG wing tanks, my calculations had lead me to believe that the Mk. XIV's with all this fuel could fly over 700 miles with internal fuel. Am I finally correct? Could the Mk. XIV have flown over 1000 miles with all this fuel and a 90 IG drop tank?

Which makes me wonder... were any Mk. VIII's fitted with these rear tanks? And even if they werent, would any one of you consider its 1180 mile range at least average?

 

[Soundbreaker Welch?]

If they could go a 1,000 miles, they could have made it to Berlin.

 

[Soundbreaker Welch?]

Double post......Duh.....What to fill it?


Willy.....

And Reggie..........

 

[Hop]

I believe "Late Marque Spitfire Aces: 1942 - 1945" mentions sweeps by Spitfire XIVs from their base in Somerset as far as the Swiss border and back, which is a 1,000 mile round trip.

If they could go a 1,000 miles, they could have made it to Berlin.

Berlin is about 600 miles from most British fighter fields. The US fields in East Anglia were a bit closer, but still over 500 miles by anything but the shortest route. You also need more fuel for bomber escort, because you fly a less efficient profile.

 

[Chingachgook]

MANOEUVRABILITY
SPITFIRE TURNING DIAMETER = 1,760 feet. BF 109 TURNING DIAMETER = 1,500 ft.
A Spitfire pilot will tell you the Spit could turn inside the 109. A Messerschmitt pilot will tell you the 109 could turn inside the Spitfire! The truth is that both designs were capable of turning circles that would cause the pilot to "black-out" as the blood drained from the head. The pilot who could force himself to the limits without losing consciousness would emerge the victor from a turning battle, and the Spitfire pilots had supreme faith in their machine. The British aeronautical press told them that the wings came off the 109 in a dive or in tight turns, untrue but based on some early wing failures in the 109`s predecessor the Bf108.

However the 109 had a distinct advantage in manoeuvrability and turning circle at low speeds. The design of the 109, with it's leading edge slats gave a lower stalling speed. The 109 was very forgiving if stalled, with no tendency for a stall to develop into an uncontrollable spin, something that the Spitfire was prone to. Thus a Messerschmitt pilot was more at home at low speeds than his British counterpart.

.

Soren,
I've been perusing old threads again.

So as not to be a total hypocrite I know that I need to "confront the brutal facts" as I have asked you to do.

These turn radius figures... do you have a source? I would like to investigate - Truth is more important than BIAS - even my own bias.

THANK YOU.

 

[Jabberwocky]

SPITFIRE TURNING DIAMETER = 1,760 feet. BF 109 TURNING DIAMETER = 1,500 ft.

This particular statistic I question.

The RAE tested a Spitfire Mk I in September 1940 and found that the minimum radius of turn without loss of height at 12,000 feet was 696 ft.

For what version of the Spitfire and what version of the Bf-109 is that 1,760/1,500 comparison, I wonder?

 

[Sarge714]

At 3g DATCOM is listing at max AoA at SL

Hurricane Mk1 (7691lbs)
Speed = 162mph
Rate = 21.9dps
Radius = 621ft

Bf-109E-4T (5851lbs)
Speed = 164mph
Rate = 21.6dps
Radius = 635ft

Note the radius varies with speed generally reducing with higher speeds assuming the pilot was strong enough to pull max AoA.

I don't currently have a Spitfire Mk 1 entered into the program. A Spitfire Mk 14, but that is a totally different animal.

 

[Chingachgook]

Wow, 109E is dangerously close to Hurrie - the slats overcome the big wingloading deficit?

What is DATCOM? Would this program be based on reported stall #s? Clmax or Clman? Wing properties?


How does any aircaft acheive high alpha? I heard one aero engineer say that once you are into high angle it is less airfoil section and more about wingload/powerload.

 

[Hop]

At 3g DATCOM is listing at max AoA at SL

Hurricane Mk1 (7691lbs)
Speed = 162mph
Rate = 21.9dps
Radius = 621ft

That's far too high a weight for a Hurricane I. Normal loaded weight, with a variable pitch prop, was about 6,300 lbs.

 

[Sarge714]

Wow, 109E is dangerously close to Hurrie - the slats overcome the big wingloading deficit?

My own theory is the slats were more an an anti-spin device since they don't increase the lift until you are at a high Alpha. Don't forget at the AoA where the slat is working the center wing is stalled and not producing a lot of lift. Of course exceed this and you get a violent spin entry.

What is DATCOM? Would this program be based on reported stall #s? Clmax or Clman? Wing properties?

We got tired of anecdotal evidence producing fantasy aircraft. After using DATCOM the best key phrase to describe it is "brutally honest". It's about 4000 pages of hard core math.

https://oscommerce.darcorp.com/prod...d=132&osCsid=99ef93316a48428257a38a9050314dea

The purpose of the Datcom (Data Compendium) is to provide a systematic summary of methods for estimating basic stability and control derivatives. The Datcom is organized in such a way that it is self-sufficient. For any given flight condition and configuration the complete set of derivatives can be determined without resort to outside information. The book is intended to be used for preliminary design purposes before the acquisition of test data. The use of reliable test data in lieu of the Datcom is always recommended. However, there are many cases where the Datcom can be used to advantage in conjunction with test data. For instance, if the lift-curve slope of a wing-body combination is desired, the Datcom recommends that the lift-curve slopes of the isolated wing and body, respectively, be estimated by methods presented and that appropriate wing-body interference factors (also presented) be applied. If wing-alone test data are available, it is obvious that these test data should be substituted in place of the estimated wing-alone characteristics in determining the lift-curve slope of the combination. Also, if test data are available on a configuration similar to a given configuration, the characteristics of the similar configuration can be corrected to those for the given configuration by judiciously using the Datcom material.

On top of this you'll need Dr Roskam's enhancements.

https://oscommerce.darcorp.com/product_info.php?cPath=21&products_id=42

How does any aircaft acheive high alpha? I heard one aero engineer say that once you are into high angle it is less airfoil section and more about wingload/powerload.

Max AoA is where te wing stalls. Wingloading and power effects also effect turn rates/radius.