Spitfire V Versus P-40E

[MIflyer]

Here is the previous page from that chronology. It shows Tomahawks versus BF-109 for the first time on 16 Jun 1941.

e

 

[GregP]

Was it subtle? I thought I stated pretty clearly that I backed off from that since it appears the timeline for the P-40E didn't exactly support the original contention I posted. I was using an old reference that, in retrospect, seems incorrect. It said the P-40E contributed to speeding up the development of the Bf 109F ... but it seems rather clear that the Bf 109F was both developed and probably debugged (tail issues ...) before the P-40E was delivered and in general service.

I read an interview with Erich Hartmann once in which he said he had stayed with his Bf 109F as long as was possible because he thought it a better airplane than the Bf 109G. So, while other people around him were flying the G, he was flying his F until it could not be sustained.

That made me wonder how many serviceable E models soldiered along after the F came out, particularly in a backwater theater such as North Africa. When a new model comes out, I'm not too sure that servicerable older models were necessarily rotated out immediately just because a new model was available. Seems more likely they remained in use until they needed major service of some kind that would remove them from the duty roster anyway. In the case of the U.S.A., we sent "war weary" older fighter to the training bases so new pilots could fly them. If they were older models but not yet "war weary," they generally stayed in service. Perhaps Germany did the same? Seems to me like good use of the resources.

But, I am a fan of the airplanes themselves, not necessarily the actual WWII chronological operation of them. I help with old airplane restoration, mostly old military airplanes. That doesn't necessarily translate into intimate knowledge of the timeframe of subtype operations. I have a pretty decent timeline for U.S. airplanes, but not a quite so detailed one for axis airplanes. Perhaps the "social distancing" during COVID is a good time to generate some of that ...

Here's a sort of a start at it attached.

Cheers, rochie.

 

[MIflyer]

I believe the Germans sent the older models, like the E, to allies as well as using them for training. A couple of RAF Mustang Mk I's hit a German training base and among the airplanes they found there was a 109E, which they shot down. I recall some 8th AF fighters encountering a 109E as well.

I think the 109F probably was built in response to the Spit Mk V, although some careful review of the timelines would be needed to confirm that. The 109G added power and heavier armament to the 109F and given the small size of that airframe, those improvements were not without drawbacks.

I suspect that if the Germans had designed a fighter to better fight the P-40 in its best environment it would look more like an FW-190.

 

[tomo pauk]

...
I think the 109F probably was built in response to the Spit Mk V, although some careful review of the timelines would be needed to confirm that.
...

Bf 109F was probably built as a response to Bf 109E being awash with lumps & bumps, that hurt both speed and range.
The Spitfire V was later in service than Bf 109F.

 

[Shortround6]

I think the whole idea that plane A was built in response to plane B is one of the greatest myths of aviation writing about WW II.

The 109F was starting service trials in the fall of 1940, the BoB was barely over. actual work on it started when??? Spring or summer of 1940? If Spring Spitfire Is barely had constant speed props on their Merlin III engines.

The P-40D/E was ordered in the summer of 1940, it didn't fly until the summer of 1941.

The F6F Hellcat was ordered in the summer of 1941, well before the F4F ever encountered an A6M2.

The F8F was started well before the first Kamikaze attack (at least and organized planned kamikaze attack) was ever performed by the Japanese (intentional crash by wounded pilot or crippled plane excepted).
The Nakajima N1K1-J first flew about 9 months before the Japanese encountered the F6F Hellcat.

The list goes on and on. Granted some planes may have had their priorities shifted a bit but to design and build even a new variant of a plane often took months, a new plane took two to 3 years. There was a lot of concurrent/overlapping development going on.

They were trying to stay ahead of what the enemy might bring out next. Designing a plane to counter what your enemy already was bringing into service meant you were already 2-3 years behind.

 

[MIflyer]

One of the things that amuses me now is something I read back in the early 60's. It said that once they had a flyable Zero in their hands and its test results, Grumman worked to reduce the weight in the F6F.

In reality Grumman yanked the R-2600 used in the F6F prototype and replaced it with the R-2800, which was heavier but a lot more powerful. Grumman did not try to out-Zero the Zero; they literally overpowered it.

 

[SaparotRob]

I think the whole idea that plane A was built in response to plane B is one of the greatest myths of aviation writing about WW II.

The 109F was starting service trials in the fall of 1940, the BoB was barely over. actual work on it started when??? Spring or summer of 1940? If Spring Spitfire Is barely had constant speed props on their Merlin III engines.

The P-40D/E was ordered in the summer of 1940, it didn't fly until the summer of 1941.

The F6F Hellcat was ordered in the summer of 1941, well before the F4F ever encountered an A6M2.

The F8F was started well before the first Kamikaze attack (at least and organized planned kamikaze attack) was ever performed by the Japanese (intentional crash by wounded pilot or crippled plane excepted).
The Nakajima N1K1-J first flew about 9 months before the Japanese encountered the F6F Hellcat.

The list goes on and on. Granted some planes may have had their priorities shifted a bit but to design and build even a new variant of a plane often took months, a new plane took two to 3 years. There was a lot of concurrent/overlapping development going on.

They were trying to stay ahead of what the enemy might bring out next. Designing a plane to counter what your enemy already was bringing into service meant you were already 2-3 years behind.

Don't you just hate it when he points out everything you know is wrong?

 

[Vincenzo]

Luftwaffe single engine fighter unit in Africa
I/JG27 from 21/4/41 to 2/10/42, and again from 25/10/42 to 13/11/42. Bf 109 Emil to before of 27/9/41, after Bf 109 Friedrich (-4), from 25/10/42 Bf 109 Gustav (-2)
7/JG26 from 14/6/41 to 24/9/41. Bf 109 Emil, afaik the only tropical Emil was E-7/Trop
II/JG27 from 24/9/41 to 6/12/42. Bf 109 Friedrich (-4), since late 10/42 also Gustav (-2)
III/JG27 from 6/12/41 to 12/11/42. Bf 109 Friedrich (-4)
III/JG53 from 8/12/41 to 17/12/41 (the 8/JG53 to 22/12/41) and again from 24/5/42 to 27/10/42, and again from 9/11/42 to 30/11/42. Bf 109 Friedrich (-4), from 9/11/42 Gustav (-4)
Stab/JG27 from 10/12/41 to 13/11/42. Bf 109 Friedrich (-4)
6/JG3 from 7/4/42 to 26/4/42. Bf 109 Friedrich (-4)
10/JG27 from 5/5/42 to 1/9/42. Bf 109 Friedrich, Jabo unit
10/JG53 from 12/6/42 to 31/8/42. Bf 109 Friedrich, Jabo unit
III/JG77 from 26/10/42 to 7/5/43. Bf 109 Friedrich (-4) and Gustav (-2), only Gustav (-2) from January '43, from April '43 Gustav (-4 &-6)
I/JG77 from 27/10/42 to 7/5/43. Bf 109 Friedrich (-4) and Gustav (-2), only Gustav from 15/12/42, from March '43 get also -4, from April also -6 and retired the -2
Stab/JG77 from 3/11/42 to 8/5/43. Bf 109 Gustav (-2), from March '43 -4 & -6 from May '43 only -6
II/JG53 from 9/11/42 to 9/5/43. Bf 109 Gustav (-2&-4) from January '43 only -4 from March '43 also -6
Stab/JG53 from 9/11/42 to 30/4/43. Bf 109 Gustav (-2), from February '43 -4, from March '43 also -6
II/JG51 from 14/11/42 to 11/2/43, again from ?/2/43 to 19/4/43. Bf 109 Gustav (-2), also -1 from December '42 to February '43, from 2/43 also -4, -6. This had 5 Anton-3 and 4 Anton-2 Fw 190 but were retired in December '42.
11/JG2 from 15/11/42 to 1/2/43. Bf 109 Gustav
II/JG2 from 20/11/42 to 15/3/43. Fw 190 Anton (-2& -3), from December '42 also -4 & -5
11/JG26 from 24/11/42 to 31/12/42. Bf 109 Gustav (-1&-4)
I/JG53 from 25/11/42 to 30/4/43. Bf 109 Gustav (-2), from December also -4, from March also -6 and -2 retired
II/JG77 from 13/12/42 to 7/5/43. Bf 109 Gustav (-2), from February '43 also -6, from March '43 also -4, -2 retired in April '43. Had also a few (6) Friedrich in the December/January (5 moved to other unit and one loss not enemy related)

data from ww2.dk my elaboration

 

[eagledad]

I did some research on ww2.dk
there is (single engine) Fighter situation at 27th December '41, and if i miss nothing, there were no Emil, in fighter unit, in Africa that day so i suppose the the Kittyhawk and Emil never clashed

Hello

I believe you are correct that no fighter Emils clashed with Kittyhawks, but it appears that an E (Bf-109E-7/U3 ?) of 2(H)14 did. The E-7/U3 was a tactical recon version carrying two cameras. (Messerschmitt Bf-109 A-E by Radinger & Schick, page 96).
On 14 March 1942, a Me-109E-7 (WNr 5278) was shot down by a P-40. On the same day, 2 Kittyhawk I's of RAF 112 squadron claimed 1 Bf-109, and 2 Kittyhawk I's of RAAF 3 squadron also claimed a Bf-109. (Mediterranean Air War volume 2, page 60) Whether any of the 2 claims was the E-7 or not, I do not know, as there is not enough data to make a definite connection. However, only 1 Messerschmitt was lost that day, and the 2 Kittyhawk claims were the only Messerschmitt's claimed that day.

Another E-7 was shot down by 3 Tomahawks of 5 SAAF Squadron on 28 May, 1942.

It appears that the E was used as a tac recon plane through at least the middle of 1942 in North Africa, as one was shot down by Flak in June (MAW pg 119).

FYI

Eagledad

 

[MIflyer]

Well, the Spit IX WAS built in response to the FW-190. The Merlin 60 series two stage engine was developed for the high altitude Wellington and the Welkin high altitude fighter, and those two aircraft were developed in response to the Ju86P and R. As it turned out, that whole line of development for both sides was a waste of time, since once you got that high there was not much you can do. Bombloads were trivial, accuracies were terrible, and a strange and unexpected phenomena called "clouds" interfered with photographic recon over Europe.

But stick that engine on a Spit V and look out Focke Wulfs! And stick it on a Mustang MkI and you get Goring saying, "We have lost the war."

 

[emu27]

These are the performances the Brits like to keep quiet as it destroys all their lies, hype and Bullshit about the Allison engine whether used in the P40 or the early Mustangs !! ! Facts of history coming to light !!!!!

Take a Bex and have a good lie down my boy. The Allison had it's strengths and weaknesses, as did the Merlin. The RAF pilots loved the Allison P-51, compared to the Merlin it was far better in the low/medium altitude role, gave better mileage as the revs could be reduced lower than a Merlin, was more robust, in fact they pulled the automatic boost control out and ran the engine full throttle at sea level (72 inches - War Emergency rating at the time was 56 inches) for as long as 20 minutes without harm to the engine, 1,500 hours between bearing failures compared to 5-600 on the Merlin. The Merlin was mechanically a complicated engine, twice as many parts as an Allison, and not given to abuse, but the Merlin transformed the -51 into the bomber escort for which it is famed. The RAF Allison -51's were still flying operations on the last day of the war. Such was the RAF experience flying them on Rhubarb raids the Northwest African Strategic Air Force and others wanted the aircraft to remain in production alongside the Merlin version.

Initially the US forces had no interest in the -51, in the US conference to select aircraft types to proceed for production the -51 didn't even make the list, and the two aircraft given the US by the Brits sat on the ramp unused. The Allison as used in the -38 undeniably had problems in the European theatre, brought about by cold at altitude.

sid327, re your comments.

 

[PAT303]

Well, the Spit IX WAS built in response to the FW-190.

I don't believe that at all, they had the two speed 20 series in the Spit before the FW190 ever entered service, the 60 series engine was the natural development of that, FW190 or not the Spit was getting up engined as the war went on.

 

[Shortround6]

When was the Spitfire III trialed with a two stage engine? or was it?

When were plans made to build the MK VII Spitfire? Or the MK VIII?
Not when they first flew but when were plans started to build the prototypes.

Development and production of the MK IX may certainly have been speeded up to counter to the FW 190.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

I am just the messenger reporting the "facts" I have read !!!! And i tire quickly of the Brits arrogant attitude and constant badmouthing anything American. How would it have been IF "WE.." had of just stayed home with our Inferior equipment and troops and let the Brits fight the huns by themselves. IF "WE.." had England would be speaking German today !!! you are welcome.....Limeys !! !

And one more arrogant insulting post like that and you can post somewhere else.

 

[GregP]

Wow Vincenzo, nice post!

 

[MIflyer]

Actually the RAF and everyone else gave up on single engined fighters with less than at least 2000 cu In quite early. The new airplanes, Typhoon, Whirlwind, Tornado, P-38, P-47, XP-49, P-61, F4U, XF5F, F6F, Ki 61, FW-190, all had much bigger engines than the fighters of 1939 or two of them. And they were going to keep going up from there, too, with the XP-58, XP-75. The Brits considered the Spitfire to be "done" and planned to drop production. The Typhoon and similar sized airplanes were the future.

Then Sir Hooker came along and showed how to turn the SMALLEST DISPLACEMENT front line engine of the war (note: even the A6M3 had 1700 cu in) into a game changing war winner.

By the way, there is a HUGE difference between a two speed supercharged engine and a two speed two stage supercharged engine.

 

[GregP]

Merlin 2-stage engine shown below with a few labels I inserted. This is a display engine because the distributor doesn't seem to have any plug leads coming out of it ... maybe they're just black and not obvious to me. I think this is from a museum in Denver, CO. Nice display.

Also not really sure if the cooler unit is technically an aftercooler or an intercooler. It cools the air after it emerges from a compression unit, so it is technically an aftercooler, and it cools the air before it enters the engine intake, so it is technically an intercooler. I'll stick with WWII terminology and stay with intercooler.

 

[Snautzer01]

And one more arrogant insulting post like that and you can post somewhere else.

Here here

 

[wuzak]

When was the Spitfire III trialed with a two stage engine? or was it?

Some time in 1941.

When were plans made to build the MK VII Spitfire? Or the MK VIII?

The Mk VII and MK VIII were essentially the same aircraft, the VIII having standard wing tips and the VII extended wing tips.

The planning for these probably started when Hives of Rolls-Royce suggested using the 60 series, originally intended for a high altitude Wellington, into the Spitfire. And likely before the Spitfire III flew with the Merlin 61, the III serving as a prototype of sorts.

Development and production of the MK IX may certainly have been speeded up to counter to the FW 190.

The IX was quickly brought into production due to the Mk V being less competitive in mid to late 1941 and early 1942, due to the appearance of the Bf 109F-4 and Fw 190A.

This was supposed to be the interim solution until the definitive Mk VIII arrived.

 

[PAT303]

When was the Spitfire III trialed with a two stage engine? or was it?

When were plans made to build the MK VII Spitfire? Or the MK VIII?

The MkIII's design was in response to what was learned during the BoB, the MkVIII and MkXIV were based off the MkIII fuselage, the big advantage the FW 190 had over the MkV's was it's rate of roll and outright speed, the MkIII's streamlined curves and clipped wings addressed that.