Spitfire V ME109. I have found these links on the net.

[Milosh]

nt

 

[RCAFson]

German documentation on the 190A3 has it at 2100-2200 ft/min at 20,000 ft - depending on the aircraft tested - while the RAE's test of the Faber 190A3 has it at 2800 ft/min at 20000 ft. German 109A5 testing has that aircraft at 2100-2300 ft/min at 20,000 ft.

German documentation has the Me 109G-2 at 2540-2800 ft/min at 20000 ft, while the 109G-6 (DB 605 AS) is at 2350-2450 ft/min.

Spitfire F Mk IX was tested at 2540 ft/min at 20,000 ft. LF Mk IX was tested as at 3450-3720 ft/min at 20,000 ft. HF Mk IX was tested as at 3200-3500 ft/min

When assessing climb performance, I'd say that the F Mk IX was slightly superior to the early 190As above 20,000 ft and slightly inferior to the 109G-2 until about 25,000 ft. The late LF and HK Mk IXs were definitively superior to both 190A3/A5 and the 190G2 and early G6 aircraft.

the climb numbers you quote for the F MK IX are at the normal rating but then you quote the combat climb rating for the others. The combat climb rating, at 20K ft, for the F Mk IX (Merlin 61) was about 2930fpm:

Spitfire F Mk IX BF274 Test

 

[Hop]

The problem for the Spit V, somewhat improved by the IX and improved by the XIV was that the ailerons were only 30% effective at 400 Mph and the aircraft would tend to reverse ~540+mph. In contrast the P-47C's aileron effectiveness was ~60% at 400.

The 30% elevator effectiveness figure is for the Spitfire I with canvas ailerons and a reversal speed of 470 mph. Metal ailerons were fitted on nearly all Spitfire Vs (and all later models), and the wings were progressively strengthened with the Spitfire Vb and Vc.

and tried to reduce elevator load

Why on earth would anyone want to reduce elevator load on the Spitfire? They had very light elevators. That's why bob weights were fitted to increase the load on the elevator by 5 lbs or so.

The point is that the advanced spitifres such as the Mk XII and XIV were produced in small numbers only and in the case of the Mk xiv quite late in the war and this must be appreciated when comparing the introduction of German aircraft in the same year.

The RAF didn't really need more fighters. Orders for de Havilland Vampires were held back so that more Mosquito bombers could be produced, for example. Of course in Germany the complete opposite was true, with orders for almost everything but fighters getting canceled. Germany was desperate for fighters, not the RAF.

It's interesting reading about the situation over Europe in late 1944 and 1945. RAF squadrons would fly more sorties than German groups. RAF squadrons rarely encountered the Luftwaffe, the Luftwaffe almost always encountered the RAF when they did fly. And in those encounters RAF Spitfire IXs made short work of German 109Ks and 190Ds.

The truth was the Luftwaffe was short of fuel, ammunition and skilled pilots. They desperately needed better aircraft to try to compete. The RAF had a surplus of everything, more aircraft, pilots and fuel than it knew what to do with. And the quality of German opposition was so low they didn't need higher performing aircraft.

 

[Vincenzo]

So????? Apart from the occasional escort duty, the XII was never used in Europe, and post D-day remained with ADGB, dealing with the revolting V1s.

High enough to replace all those lost, during Bodenplatte, within 24 hours.

the XII was used also for fighter bomber mission over europe, if RAF can not replace the lost of a single attack was a very bad shape and this is not the case at time, is out of dubt that XIV were few within the RAF fighters

 

[Edgar Brooks]

is out of dubt that XIV were few within the RAF fighters; the XII was used also for fighter bomber mission over europe

Supermarine produced 957 Spitfire XIVs, hardly few.
The XII was never converted to carry bombs under the wings, and always had to carry a slipper tank under the fuselage, so fighter-bomber sorties were out.

 

[Vincenzo]

read here, Sqn Histories 41-45_P under history of 41st squadron

957 are few the XIV stay in production for long time

edit they was delivered from october 43 to december 45 (only 20 delivered in '43)

 

[Kryten]

the XII was used also for fighter bomber mission over europe, if RAF can not replace the lost of a single attack was a very bad shape and this is not the case at time, is out of dubt that XIV were few within the RAF fighters

Thats a bit misleading as the MkXIV was used almost exclusively as an air superiority fighter, whereas most other marks were more and more switching to the ground attack role due to the lack of opposition from the Luftwaffe!

 

[Kryten]

Supermarine produced 957 Spitfire XIVs, hardly few.
The XII was never converted to carry bombs under the wings, and always had to carry a slipper tank under the fuselage, so fighter-bomber sorties were out.

all info I have sees the MKXII originally deployed to counter the tip and run attacks on the South coast by low level FW and ME fighter bombers, the aircraft was optomised to fight low down, later it was used over the channel and French coast as an Intruder, mentioned by Johnny Johnson due to thier unusual tactics, but I also can find no mention of the MkXII being used in the ground attack role?

 

[drgondog]

Fighters did not make good ground attack aircraft ,they were used in that role however because the RAF and the USAAF would rather lose the war than subordinate themselves to the army.Regarding Ardennes i have ''Hitler's last gamble'' by Dupuy ,Bongard and Anderson.It's the most complete study and air attacks are mentioned as a nuisance not decisive.Artillery was decisive in that battle.By the way noone said that airpower had no effect.

Ctrian - I know you have departed the thread but I read enough of these comments to finally throw a BS flag. First, Arnold, Eaker, Spaatz were truly the US Army Strategic Airpower mafia in USAAF but they had very little to say (effectively) when asked/tasked for CAS - when and where needed. The USAAF 'mafia' would not and did not act as you implied 'would rather lose the war rather than subordinate themselves to the Army". THEY Were Army and Arnold reported directly to US Army Chief of Staff General George C Marshall (as did SHAEF Commander Dwight Eisenhower who also oversaw all RAF and USAAF through Air Marshal Portal).

In summary, when disagreements occurred Marshall was the last court of appeal in ETO (and PTO and evrrywhere else a dispute may occur between Army Ground and Army Air Power) if Eisenhower and Portal (or MacArthur and Kennedy, for example) disagreed. AFAIK, no dispute in ETO or PTO ever went to Marshall for resolution).

Arnold was not a factor in what Spaatz could or could not do with respect to directing 8th and 9th FC re:CAS.

 

[Milosh]

On Nov 6 1943 W/O Blummer and F/S Fairbairn attacked a train and a flak site near Gremonville.

 

[Edgar Brooks]

Right, I've done some checking, and 41 Squadron converted their own aircraft, in April, 1944, to carry bombs (fuselage only,) and spent May, 1944 on ground attack work, presumably on the lead-up to Overlord. In June they went back to straight interception work, attacking the V1s. Any attacks carried out in 1943 would have been cannon only.
The amount of damage dealt out by Hurricane IICs IIDs, in the desert, makes a nonsense of the claim that fighters did not make good ground attack platforms; also there was never a chance that the RAF feared that it would have to "subordinate itself to the Army." The RAF was a separate Command, answerable only to the Air Ministry, and above that the Government/Ministry for War. The difference was that the hierarchy of the Army and RAF (largely) managed to work together, something the Luftwaffe and Wehrmacht singularly failed to do.
The Hurricane production line was due to end mid-1941, but was continued on because of the aircraft's usefulness for ground attack in the desert and Far East.

 

[drgondog]

They are probably correct, but not comparable....a spit probably did have a ferry range of 1300 miles....perhaps with armour and armament removed, stripped dwn and lightened as much as possible, with so much additional fuel as to be barely flyable. The P-51B however is probably much closer to an honest capability.


Me109e 80 miles
Me 109g 150miles
FW190 140 miles
Spit I/II 110 Miles
Zero A6M2 450 miles
Hellcat 250 Miles
Seafire III 190 Miles
Spit V+ 160 Miles
Mustang 500 miles (from memory)

From memory, these were based on the longest ranged missions we could find for those and other types, without any penalty. Some could greatly exceed that, but paid some sort of downgraded performance as a result of that increase in range

On May 13, 1944 the 355th FG flew a long range record for ETO of 1450 miles round trip to Posnan with several combats over Poland and east Germany. On Frantic VII the 355th flew the escort over Warsaw, fought JG 51 around Warsaw and proceeded to Piryatin.. One way ~ 2200 miles via the dog leg to Stettin, Se over Warsaw and ese to Piryatin. Dad's logbook had 8 hours and he was first up.

The Posnan mission was all P-51B/C's. Had to be 108s but they only came into service in mid May 1944.

 

[drgondog]

I use 6 lbs per US gallon for avgas. America's Hundred Thousand show P-51D at fighter weight with 1080 lbs of fuel.

6 is good, 5.87 pounds (US) per gallon is what is referenced in my Pratt and Whitney Aero Handbook..

 

[Glider]

Official UK figures for Still Air Range are

Spit IX with 62 gallon rear tank and 45 gallon drop tank 1,160 miles

Spit IX with 62 gallon rear tank (no drop tanks) 900 miles

Tempest with 2 x 45 gallon Drop Tank 1,190 miles

P51 mk III with 2 x 62 gallon drop tank 1,445 miles

The range normally quoted for the Spit IX is without the rear tank which gave a range of 434 miles which is a lot less than the later versions. I must emphasise that no one is pretending that it was a match for the P51, but the rear tank gave it quite a good range for the period.