Spitfire + Sabre: any facts/opinons?

[Shortround6]

the Me 109 more so.

The Spitfire could and was upgraded (although not as much as it could have/should have been at times). Spitfire started with 84 gal Imp (?) and with a 9 gallon larger lower front tank, two 14 gallon wing tanks and 33 gallon rear fuselage tank (all of which were used at one time or another on MK VIII and IX aircraft) internal fuel might have been able to go to 154 IMP gallons. An 83% increase. Some Spitfires could carry an extra 74 imp gallons in rear fuselage tanks alone but that is for ferry purposes and not combat. Granted the fuel selector may get a bit tricky. I would note that if you limited the lower rear tank to just 19 gallons this tankage of the Spitfire would hold exactly the same amount of fuel as a FW 190D-9 which was using is aux tank for fuel and not MW-50. Not a huge amount of fuel but certainly not lacking when compared to German or Russian aircraft.
The Spitfire, more through luck than design, had less problems with compressability than some aircraft designed 2-4 years later.
Spitfires armament also stayed closer to first rank. Both guns and bomb load. Granted 1000lbs isn't huge but it beats 550lb by a good margin.

And I haven't gotten to the MK 21/22.

 

[Ratsel]

how exactly was the Me109K-4 more obsolete then the Spitfire in say late 44? Cause the fuel argument is a weak one. the Me was not designed for Long range.

 

[Shortround6]

well, according to Mr Bender niether was the Spitfire. And once you start sticking 1800-2000hp engines in the same airframe the range (endurance) gets even shorter unless you can up the fuel quantity somewhat.

Spitfire carried heavier armament, maybe not better, but certainly heavier. Spitfire could carry a bigger bomb load, Spitfire could self ferry over longer ranges. By 1944 there were certainly other planes that could do what the Spitfire could do and in many jobs do it better but the Spitfire could still at least DO a number of jobs. The Me109K-4 was turning into a one trick pony. We can argue about the endurance of a 109K in regards to time in the air but the if the MK 108 had only 60 rounds then the firing time is just under 6 seconds before the armament is down to a pair of rather weak 13mm machine guns. Two firing passes and then land?

 

[Tante Ju]

I think it would be error to turn this into another 109 - Spit debate. Those very bore.. but I note your thesis was disproofed some time ago about 109 range.

well, according to Mr Bender niether was the Spitfire. And once you start sticking 1800-2000hp engines in the same airframe the range (endurance) gets even shorter unless you can up the fuel quantity somewhat.

It did not seem to reduce on other aircraft, just Spitfire. 109G/K certain did not reduce range. 190D - do not think so it did? P-51? I do not think so either.

Spitfire carried heavier armament, maybe not better, but certainly heavier.

So it was good for what? Heavy guns with little ammo? Standard Spitfire was two 20 mm cannon. 240 round. 109F+ was one-three 20mm cannon, 200 - 490 20 mm round.. Four cannon Spitfire was not practical.

Spitfire could carry a bigger bomb load, Spitfire could self ferry over longer ranges.

I fear this is untrue both account too. Spitfire had record problems with wing bombs and E-wing integrity. Self ferry - yes, special outside tanks. But such version exist on 109 too, I believe more used than ultra large tank on Spitfire. Used once at Malta?

By 1944 there were certainly other planes that could do what the Spitfire could do and in many jobs do it better but the Spitfire could still at least DO a number of jobs. The Me109K-4 was turning into a one trick pony.

I respect opinion but I disagree. In what area(s) was late XIV Spitfire better than 109K-4? Range? No (XIV shorter range). Bombload? No. (500 kg vs 454 kg) Fighter recon version - both exist.

Simply not true there was issue with it, nor evidence presented that Spitfire increased tankage because range was increasing short exact because airframe did not take upgrades too well - drag increase greatly, so range decrease. Range did not decrease on 109, so no need for more fuel. Which in opinion of mine was possible. For example - what technical reason not to enlarge main fuselage tank? Be careful - actually done twice already on 109.. or what technical reason not to have two small wing tank in place of gondola bay (where gondola ammo was). I do not see such. Take off weight certain not issue.

We can argue about the endurance of a 109K in regards to time in the air but the if the MK 108 had only 60 rounds then the firing time is just under 6 seconds before the armament is down to a pair of rather weak 13mm machine guns. Two firing passes and then land?

MK 108 was choice of weapon for bombers. Yes two firing pass with devastate results on target, then land.. this armament was optimal for German need and tactical situation - escort did not permit more, not even a second pass was likely. Got problem with that, sure why not, technical possibility was there to replace MK 108 with MG 151, put two MG 151 into/under wing and you have very heavy armed fighter.. but this armament was for bomber. German estimate 4 MK 108 rounds for a bomber vs 20 20mm round.
So that firepower for 15 (very theoretic) possible bomber shotdowns with singe MK 108 vs 12 possible bomber shotdowns with two 20mm on Spit. Of course - you could still add two other 20mm on 109K, with 290 round: + 14 possible bomber shotdowns. Total 15+14=29 for 109K, 12 possible shotdown for Spit. There is no question, for this task, which was better. So what is ground for criticizm?

IMO biggest problem with Spitfire as airframe was large drag to start for designer. Inferior to all other front aircraft in this respect - Jakovlev, Lavockin, Mustang, 109, even radial Fw 190. This made it keeping competitive increased difficult. Fortunate for RAF, excellent work of Rollce Royce was available. Without extreme powerful engines, Spitfire would be very unsuccessful soon phased out like Hurricane. IMHO it was success of Merlin and Griffon engine despite or rather than success of Spitfire airframe!

 

[jim]

Mr Tante ju
While a properly built and equiped K4 was equal or superior in combat with anything , we must admit that 109 could not reach the evolution of Spitfire 24 or Seafire 47. some final improvements were possible (Db605 L ,the wings guns , the improved propellers, perhaps high pressure MW50) but the end was near. The Spitfire was bigger.

 

[Edgar Brooks]

Spitfire started with 84 gal Imp (?) and with a 9 gallon larger lower front tank, two 14 gallon wing tanks and 33 gallon rear fuselage tank (all of which were used at one time or another on MK VIII and IX aircraft) internal fuel might have been able to go to 154 IMP gallons.

No, not quite; the Mk.I carried 85 gallons, and by the war's end the IX/XVI carried 160/161 gallons internally.
Tante Ju, your piece is so full of errors, it's difficult to know where to start. No Spitfire, after the very first experimental Mk.Is in 1940, carried only 2 cannon. The armament was always (at least) 2 x 20mm + 4 x .303" or 2 x .5" Brownings, with the Vc capable of 4 x 20 mm + 4 x .303". Decry the .303" if you like, but a pilot with a .303" bullet in the head is just as dead as one hit by a 20mm shell. If the 4 x 20mm Spitfire was "not practical," how did the Mk.21, 22, 24, and Seafires 45-47 manage to carry them?
Once the wings were wired to carry bombs, the Mk.V onwards was quite capable of carrying 1000 lbs (455k) of bombs, with 1 x 500 under the fuselage, and 1 x 250 under each wing, as could the IX, XVI XIV, all without difficulty. The so-called "problems" were largely due to over-cautious pilots, and pulling out of a dive before dropping the wing bombs, which was not supposed to happen.
Every resupply flight to Malta used a ferry tank, and that went on well into 1943, when Malta's siege had been lifted.
The basic design of the Spitfire never changed, so the issue of extra drag is a nonsense, in fact it decreased, with better smooth rivetting, smooth paint, etc. Ways (successful, too) were always being sought to increase the overall speed. Interestingly (well, to some, anyway,) in 1940 tests, it was found that a Spitfire I a Me109E, at full throttle, stayed absolutely level in a protracted dive, which begs the question, "what drag?" Also, if the Spitfire had such high drag, how were the P.R. Spitfires able to outrun every other aircraft, apart from the 262 (and the pilots found that, at the height at which they operated, the 262 couldn't stay with them in any sort of turn.)
You really should read some of the tests done in the U.K. As early as July, 1942, it was found that the Spitfire IX could out-climb, and turn inside the Fw190A, hardly likely if it suffered from high drag. It also was superior to the Mustang in a turn. The XIV could outclimb, outdive, and turn inside the 109G, in fact it was classed as superior in every respect. Even with a 90-gallon tank still attached, it could turn inside the the 190A 109G.
Talk of "bomber shootdowns" is something of a mystery to me, after all the Spitfire was only ever conceived as a dogfighter, since the Hurricane could cope with most German bombers. A couple of 20mm cannon shells, in a 109 or a 190 was usually considered sufficient, so a 30mm was pointless.
The Spitfire's range increased throughout the war; it did not decrease.
Edgar

 

[Ratsel]

Not so fast... are you 100% positive the The XIV could outclimb, outdive or outrun a Me 109G-10?

 

[wuzak]

Griffon engined Spits made no nose-overs to speak of, IIRC
BTW, why ugly?

Put that chin radiator on a spitfire?

The Spitfire would have, I'm sure, continued to use the underwing radiators if it had used the Sabre.

But the Sabre was some 10in wider than the Griffon/Merlin, and as tall as the Griffon. So the graceful lines would be spoiled by the extra wide front end blending into the thinner regular fuselage.

The Griffon barely fit - as can be witnessed by the rather large bulges over the cam covers.

 

[Shortround6]

No, not quite; the Mk.I carried 85 gallons, and by the war's end the IX/XVI carried 160/161 gallons internally.

You may have researched this better than I but I have seen from 83-85 Imp gallons listed. I don't know if this is due to translation from IMP gallons to liters and back again or if it is the difference between full tanks and "usable" capacity. There is always a gallon or two that they can't get out of the tank. I was also trying to be conservative on the upper number and show what might have been possible in a combat situation. I believe that the rear tank/s were supposed to empty or nearly so before going into combat, much like the rear tank in the Mustang or even the rear tank in a P-40. Combat radius depending on the fuel you have left after you drop the tank and fight for a number of minutes. The Spitfire does seem to be one of the few planes that could fight with a drop tank (small one?) still attached.
I also wanted to stay pre Spitfire 21 because the 109 fans usually complain that the Mk 21 was so different it should have had a new name.
I have no idea what sized fuel tanks were used in the Pacific but even 90 gallon drop tanks allow for better in theater ferry range than a 66 gallon tank under a 109.

The fighter designer rarely gets to specify the armament. His job is usually to design a Plane that can fly at XXXmph at YYYYft and go ZZZ miles while carrying AAAAguns and ammo. From a design standpoint the guns and ammo are the useful load along with the fuel. If the guns and ammo weigh 800lbs it makes little difference to the designer if they are 12 .303s, six .50s or Four 20mm. Granted he has to allow for gun receivers, drag from barrels, and space for gun bays and loading hatches but it doesn't really affect the square footage of the wing or the first rough calculations ofr empty weight and such. After all, it is just a problem of carrying 800lbs (or pick weight) with a enough fuel to fly for XX hours at YYY speed while meeting the top speed, climb and ceiling requirements. What is usually for gotten in these discussions is that there is usually a stalling or landing speed requirement or field length requirement.

I do doubt however that the Spitfire was designed as a dogfighter with the Hurricane as the bomber destroyer, it may have worked out that way when possible but I doubt that was in the designers minds in 1935-36 for either the Spitfire or Hurricane.

 

[wuzak]

I do doubt however that the Spitfire was designed as a dogfighter with the Hurricane as the bomber destroyer, it may have worked out that way when possible but I doubt that was in the designers minds in 1935-36 for either the Spitfire or Hurricane.

No doubting that both were designed as interceptors, mainly for defensive operations.

 

[claidemore]

Not so fast... are you 100% positive the The XIV could outclimb, outdive or outrun a Me 109G-10?

Outclimb? Mk XIV @18lb boost had an initial climb rate of 5110 ft per minute. Only the 109 K4 with 1.98 ata could match that, and that is an assumption based on projected graphs only.
Outdive? The 109 had a quicker initial dive speed, but the Spitfire (any MK) could match the max dive speed, and the Spit pilots were confident of pulling out at higher speeds and steeper angles than the average 109 driver. Arguable point.
Outrun? Spitfire Mk XIV 18lb boost, sea level - 363 mph ,5000ft - 391mph. At 26000ft - 445 mph. (from Mike Williams site)
Compare to G14 1.7 ata with MW30, sea level - 356 mph, 5000 ft - 343 mph, 26000ft - 393 mph. (from Kurfursts site)
A MK IX or VIII could match a G10 or G14, a Mk XIV could run circles around them.

 

[Edgar Brooks]

Put that chin radiator on a spitfire?

It isn't a radiator; it's the carburettor air intake, and you'll find that all engines need air to mix with the fuel.
Regarding the fuel, I deliberately stayed with internal fuel, since what extra you hang on an airframe depends on a specific task. The Mustang carried 269 U.S. gallons, and the normal figure is that a U.S. gallon is .83 of an Imperial gallon, so 269 becomes 224, still an impressive (and useful) difference of 63 gallons.
The comparison trials were carried out by the Air Fighting Development Unit, which comprised seasoned ex-combat pilots. During the same trials, they found that, up to 10,000', the Tempest was 20mph faster than the XIV; up to 22,000' there was little to choose, and, above that height, the XIV was 30-40mph faster, and could reach a height 10,000' higher than the Tempest.
This daft "It isn't really a Spitfire" remark, about the 21, surfaces every so often, but it had the same fuselage and tail surfaces, with (if you compare drawings) the same basic wing shape, but with a wider centre section (which widened the track - something so often forgotten, or ignored,) and the wingtips (sort of) clipped.
Edgar

 

[wuzak]

It isn't a radiator; it's the carburettor air intake, and you'll find that all engines need air to mix with the fuel.

The chin intake on the Typhoon and Tempest were for the radiator, oil cooler and air intake.

 

[Edgar Brooks]

The chin intake on the Typhoon and Tempest were for the radiator, oil cooler and air intake.

He referred to "chin radiator on the Spitfire," which it never carried. With perfectly serviceable radiators/oil cooler under the wings, the Spitfire would never have needed the larger chin intake.

 

[wuzak]

He referred to "chin radiator on the Spitfire," which it never carried. With perfectly serviceable radiators/oil cooler under the wings, the Spitfire would never have needed the larger chin intake.

He referred to "that" chin radiator, and what it would do for the looks of the Spitfire. "That" chin radiator refers to the radiator fitted to the Typhoon and Tempest, the only two Sabre powere aircarft to see service in WW2.

I made the same point about the Spitfire using the underwing radiators.

 

[Ratsel]

Outclimb? Mk XIV @18lb boost had an initial climb rate of 5110 ft per minute. Only the 109 K4 with 1.98 ata could match that, and that is an assumption based on projected graphs only.
Outdive? The 109 had a quicker initial dive speed, but the Spitfire (any MK) could match the max dive speed, and the Spit pilots were confident of pulling out at higher speeds and steeper angles than the average 109 driver. Arguable point.
Outrun? Spitfire Mk XIV 18lb boost, sea level - 363 mph ,5000ft - 391mph. At 26000ft - 445 mph. (from Mike Williams site)
Compare to G14 1.7 ata with MW30, sea level - 356 mph, 5000 ft - 343 mph, 26000ft - 393 mph. (from Kurfursts site)
A MK IX or VIII could match a G10 or G14, a Mk XIV could run circles around them.

again, not so fast. I said nothing of the G-14. The G-10 with the DB 605D was almost as fast as the K-4, the G-10 can dive at at speeds of Mach .87. The climb to 30,000 I'll get back to you on that.

 

[Mustang nut]

He referred to "that" chin radiator, and what it would do for the looks of the Spitfire. "That" chin radiator refers to the radiator fitted to the Typhoon and Tempest, the only two Sabre powere aircarft to see service in WW2.

I made the same point about the Spitfire using the underwing radiators.

Hey guys I was only joking, a plane doesnt get rejected for being ugly though the blackburn Rok should have been. The point I was really making is it isnt just a question of slotting in a new engine. The Sabre was completely different in weight and power. If it could be slotted into a spitfire there would need to be so many mods it wouldnt be a spitfire any more. With a spitfires internal fuel it may need a drop tank to clear the airfield perimeter.

 

[Shortround6]

I think it would be error to turn this into another 109 - Spit debate. Those very bore.. but I note your thesis was disproofed some time ago about 109 range.

While the late 109s may have had better range than I thought part of that "disproving" used some questionable fuel consumption figures. While a 2000hp airplane may use little more fuel than 1000hp airplane if both are using 600hp to cruise the 2000hp plane will use more fuel if it uses it's 2000hp.

It did not seem to reduce on other aircraft, just Spitfire. 109G/K certain did not reduce range. 190D - do not think so it did? P-51? I do not think so either.

Off all the aircraft in the world ONLY the Spitfire reduced it's range by fitting a bigger engine? AS for the P-51, a complicated question. The Merlin powered ones certainly carried more fuel, they usually cruised higher where the air is thinner (less drag) and needed less fuel for the same speed over ground. You have to make sure that you are comparing apples to apples.

So it was good for what? Heavy guns with little ammo? Standard Spitfire was two 20 mm cannon. 240 round. 109F+ was one-three 20mm cannon, 200 - 490 20 mm round.. Four cannon Spitfire was not practical.

We are back to the morphing 109 again. one cannon or three? granted the speed didn't change much but why weren't all 109s given 3 cannon if it didn't change performance much? Shortage of cannon or (like a 4 cannon spitfire) climb, ceiling, initial roll rate and turning circle all suffered much more than straight line speed? There is some question on the 200rounds for the engine cannon too. was it 200 rounds for the 15mm gun and 150 rounds for the 20mm gun or all always 200rounds? or 200 rounds on the planes with 7.9mm machineguns and 150rounds on the planes with 13mm machine guns?

It is also not up to the airframe designer to design the armament (at least not usually). He designs a plane to hold the armament specified by the purchasing group. One reason the Spitfire was a bit more adaptable than a 109 was that it as designed to carry eith machine guns and their ammo and not the 2-4 machineguns or 1 cannon/1cannon-2MG armament of the early 109s ( the earlier cannon didn't work so B-D 109s got 2,3 or 4 machine guns). Once a plane is in production it often becomes a case of seeing what "new" guns can be crammed in. But again the aircraft designer doesn't get a lot of choice, The air staff/ministry says "here is new gun XXX, how many can you fit in, by the way, we would would really like 4 or maybe 6"

I fear this is untrue both account too. Spitfire had record problems with wing bombs and E-wing integrity. Self ferry - yes, special outside tanks. But such version exist on 109 too, I believe more used than ultra large tank on Spitfire. Used once at Malta?

There may have been problems but we do have photographs of Spitfires carrying 3 bombs on operations, any records of of a 109 carrying 3 100kg bombs in combat? or one 250Kg and 2 100kg. Problems doing it vs not doing it at all. I have no doubt that the Germans used a lot of 300liter drop tanks and used them for moving planes form one base to another. British seem to have used a lot of 90 Imp gallon tanks and used the 170s a lot more than once.

I respect opinion but I disagree. In what area(s) was late XIV Spitfire better than 109K-4? Range? No (XIV shorter range). Bombload? No. (500 kg vs 454 kg) Fighter recon version - both exist.

You can certainly disagree but based on what facts? range rather depends on fuel tanks fitted to Spitfire to both. Does the Spitfire use the 33 gal rear tank for a capacity of 145 Imp gallons? does the K-4 use the auxiliary tank for fuel or engine boost? does the Spitfire use what sized drop tank (30,45 or 90 gal). Bomb load? what 109 carried 500KG?

Simply not true there was issue with it, nor evidence presented that Spitfire increased tankage because range was increasing short exact because airframe did not take upgrades too well - drag increase greatly, so range decrease. Range did not decrease on 109, so no need for more fuel. Which in opinion of mine was possible. For example - what technical reason not to enlarge main fuselage tank? Be careful - actually done twice already on 109.. or what technical reason not to have two small wing tank in place of gondola bay (where gondola ammo was). I do not see such. Take off weight certain not issue.

Aside from this mysterious great increase in drag on the Spitfire ( yes later models with bigger engines had bigger radiators and oil coolers causing more drag but how much?) can you please point out the increases in the 109s fuel supply? aside from (one) the increase when they went from the 700hp Jumo to the 1100hp DB 601 and the (two) increase they get when they use the MW-50 tank for fuel? Small (?) tanks well out in wings will affect initial roll rate and are usually rather heavy for the amount of fuel they hold if they are self sealing. A rather high surface to volume ratio. Take-off weight not an issue???? I guess they just kept fitting bigger, fatter tires to later model 109s because they had so much extra rubber to get rid of? And those lumps and bumps on the wing to fit them in were just to employ out of work tin knockers?

MK 108 was choice of weapon for bombers. Yes two firing pass with devastate results on target, then land.. this armament was optimal for German need and tactical situation - escort did not permit more, not even a second pass was likely. Got problem with that, sure why not, technical possibility was there to replace MK 108 with MG 151, put two MG 151 into/under wing and you have very heavy armed fighter.. but this armament was for bomber. German estimate 4 MK 108 rounds for a bomber vs 20 20mm round.
So that firepower for 15 (very theoretic) possible bomber shotdowns with singe MK 108 vs 12 possible bomber shotdowns with two 20mm on Spit. Of course - you could still add two other 20mm on 109K, with 290 round: + 14 possible bomber shotdowns. Total 15+14=29 for 109K, 12 possible shotdown for Spit. There is no question, for this task, which was better. So what is ground for criticizm?

Now this part is just plain silly. Nobody hit with every round and for 99.9% of the pilots it wasn't even close. The Germans figured that the "average" pilot hit with 2% of rounds fired and so needed 750-1000 rounds of 20mm ammo in the plane to get a kill, this was impossible with a single engine fighter. They figured that 3-4 hits were possible with with the 30mm guns/s and 150-200rounds of 30mm ammo was possible to put in a plane.

It also rather glosses over the fact that the "German need and tactical situation" was a bit different than other nations and while the 109K was a useful defensive interceptor it was no longer a general purpose fighter like it had been in 1940-41 and it's capabilities in other roles had not increased as well as some other fighters. While the MK 108 was a devastating weapon, if it hit, there is no deigning that the combat endurance of the 109 was a bit lacking when it was fitted. Needing bomber attack fighters to be 'escorted' by by anti-fighter fighters is an admission that your fighter is lacking something. Just like the British in the BoB. If teh Spitfires take on the 109s to leave the Hurricanes to attack the bombers it is rather an admission that the Hurricanes were not up to taking on the 109s by themselves. Or it is sign that while the Hurricane could still do useful work it was obsolete as an air superiority fighter. Spitfire carried the same armament so it didn't NEED the Hurricanes to take out the bombers except there were not enough Spitfires. When you have different 109s carrying different armaments to attack either fighters or bombers and need both to do the job 0f attacking escorted bombers, it is a sign that the 109 was getting obsolete.

IMO biggest problem with Spitfire as airframe was large drag to start for designer. Inferior to all other front aircraft in this respect - Jakovlev, Lavockin, Mustang, 109, even radial Fw 190. This made it keeping competitive increased difficult. Fortunate for RAF, excellent work of Rollce Royce was available. Without extreme powerful engines, Spitfire would be very unsuccessful soon phased out like Hurricane. IMHO it was success of Merlin and Griffon engine despite or rather than success of Spitfire airframe!

Larger, more capable aircraft usually do have more drag. without larger more powerful engines many of the types you mention would have been phased out too. Lavockin certainly didn't stay with the 1100-1200hp V-105 engine. Mustang didn't stay with the 1100-1300hp Allison. The 109 certainly didn't stay with the 1100hp DB 601. Radial Fw 190 started a number of years after the Spitfire and started with over 1500hp didn't it? and if it stayed at 1500-1600hp how useful would it have been in 1944-45?

what was the bomb load of the Jakovlev? or it's armament (and the Russians had very good guns on a gun power to weight ratio) How well did it do at 25,000ft?
what was the normal range or endurance?

I am afraid this argument doesn't stand up very well.

 

[Mustang nut]

The Hurricane was obsolete as soon as it rolled off the production line except that being a modified monoplane Hawkers knew they could build a lot quickly.
The hurricane was down on performance against the 109 but certainly not a sitting duck, they certainly downed enough 109s during the BoB. The spitfire soldiered on through the war because there wasnt anything obviously superior to replace it, even the Tempest wasnt better in all respects at all altitudes. Without engine development any plane became obsolete very quickly in WW2.

Would a spitfire be able to take off with a Typhoon prop on the front?

 

[davebender]

They had to employ counter-rotating props to keep prop size managable and to counter torque steer on the ground. Clever and well done but how much worse would the problem have been with an even larger engine? Why not put the larger engine in the larger and combat proven Mustang airframe?