Spitfire XIV vs Bf-109 K-4 vs La-7 vs Yak-3

[vinnye]

My vote would be for the Spitfire XIV, followed by the 109 - which had poorer vision from the cockpit.
But, I would avoid low level dogfighting with any Soviet fighter!

 

[tomo pauk]

When reading interviews with Lavochkin/Yakovlev you can see that all of them, when comparing their aircraft with Luftwaffe's, point out the superior diving of the German models. Diving mainly depends on:

- Weight of the aircraft.
- Aerodynamic profile.

It's normal that the Fw-190 has a superior diving capability because it's noticeably heavier, but Lavochkin's weight is similar to Bf 109. Another reason could be the engine settings/pitch angle. German cockpits were more automatized when it came to engine handling. I had a discussion on this and it was pointed out that the pitch angle of the Bf 109 went up to 90°, while Lavochkin only went to 45°, thus the propeller acted like a brake. Can someone confirm/provide more detail?

Capability to perform a diving attck also depends on engine's capabilities. German fighter engines were far better (not just at) altitude than Soviet ones. So the Bf-109 was 'at home' when flying at 20000 ft, unlike the VVS oposition, that was at 15000 at their best. With altitude advantage, no wonder VVS pilots were likely to be at the receiving end of the diving attack.
A for the props, I'd like to learn more, too.

 

[Aozora]

I dunno why but I read this thread from page 1 - lawdy, some people get passionate... Anyway conditions of poll - "Equal pilots at altitudes ranging from 0 - 30,000, feet which of these fighters is the overall best of the lot."

First a comment on the figures given by "Soren"?

Messerschmittt Bf-109 K-4 specs:

Weight: 3,362 kg
Wing area: 16.15 m^2
Wing span: 9.92 m
Wing AR: 6.09
Wing TR: 14.2% to 11.35%
Wing Clmax: 1.70

Engine power: 1,975 HP
______________________
Lift loading: 122.4 kg/m^2
Span loading: 338.9 kg/m
Power loading: 1.70 kg/hp

Top speed: 719 km/h at alt, 609 km/h at SL
Max Climb rate: 5,000 + ft/min

But, according to this: (Hitchcock 1979)

Max emergency speed = 710 km/h @ 7,500 m (440 mph @ 24,750 ft) at S/L = 580 km/h (360 mph)

Climb rate without MW50 = 14.1 m/s (46.5 ft/sec) = 2,790 ft/min with MW50 = 18 m/s (59 ft/sec) = 3,543 ft/min maximum, so where does the 5,000+ ft/min come from?

Supermarine Spitfire Mk. XIV specs:

Weight: 3,855 kg
Wing area: 22.48 m^2
Wing span: 11.23 m
Wing AR: 5.61
Wing TR: 12% to 9%
Wing Clmax: 1.36

Engine power: 2,235 HP
______________________
Lift loading: 126 kg/m^2
Span loading: 343.2 kg/m
Power loading: 1.72 kg/hp

Top speeds: 721 km/h at alt, 590 km/h at SL
Max climb rate: 4,800 + ft/min

According to Price (Trials aircraft)

Top speed = 446 mph = 718km/h @ 25,400 ft; 363 mph = 584 km/h @ S/L
Max climb rate S/L = 5,110 ft/min

Why bother with a poll when the figures upon which it is based are inaccurate? Where did the original "Fact Sheet" figures come from and was there ever any original, reliable documentation given to back them? Anyway, I voted Spitfire XIV.

 

[parsifal]

you never met Soren. he was.....unique to put politely

 

[Vincenzo]

On K-4 maybe this is usefull Kurfürst - Performance of 8 - 109 K4 and K6 with DB 605 ASCM/DCM

 

[DonL]

Why bother with a poll when the figures upon which it is based are inaccurate? Where did the original "Fact Sheet" figures come from and was there ever any original, reliable documentation given to back them? Anyway, I voted Spitfire XIV.

As Vincenzo showed, this datas from Soeren came from original primary german sources and to my opinion they are the most accurate for german a/c's.

I'm always doubtful about foreign data's about german a/c's especialy when they come from WWII Aircraft Performance

 

[Glider]

As Vincenzo showed, this datas from Soeren came from original primary german sources and to my opinion they are the most accurate for german a/c's.

I'm always doubtful about foreign data's about german a/c's especialy when they come from WWII Aircraft Performance

I think its best to concentrate on the original papers, not the where they came from. No one is going to retype things in this level of detail.

I have had a quick look at both sets of papers, The ones from Kurfurst's site and the ones in posting 323 and to be honest there is little if anything difference between them. Only if you look at the performance figs for the DB605D do you get any difference, the others seem pretty similar. I admit to having a question on this as I thought that the DB605D was an early version of the engine, in which case why would it have a better performance.

On this basis the question would be, how many had the the DB605D? If anyone knows I would welcome any details.

 

[tomo pauk]

I think its best to concentrate on the original papers, not the where they came from. No one is going to retype things in this level of detail.

Well put.

 

[CobberKane]

I think we can take it that the Soviet fighters would be out of their depth above 20000ft, so the next obvious question is are others competitive below that altitude. The spit XIV had that terrific climb - would it have been enough to enable it to disengage from the Yak//La at lower altitudes? If so, it's hard to go past.
An interesting subject might the Soviet fighters v The Tempest, which I understand performed best at similar heights.

 

[Milosh]

Wasn't there a mock combat between a Spit XIV and a Soviet fighter (Yak?) in Italy late in the war and the Soviet fighter won?

 

[parsifal]

Soviet fighters were built for a purpose, and that was to protect their own strike aircraft long enough to complete the mission. Soviet strike aircraft were overwhelmingly hedge hopper aircraft. Once the initiative passed to the VVS (arguable as to when, but at least from January 1944), the ability of the LW to outperform them above 15000 feet was pretty much academic.

Soviet doctrine, after 1942, was never to gain overall air superiority. it was about swamping the zone of operations with enough aircraft to make them assured of being able to complete their strategic mission.

In that scenario, if the Germans expended their diving passes on the Soviet fighters and not concentrate on the Sturmoviks, the Soviet Fighters had achieved their mission. Soviet fighters were far from invulnerable, but they were more survivable than a Sturmovik. If the Germans wasted their time and resources chasing Soviet fighters and not the Sturmoviks, the Soviet Fighters had already won.

Evaluations of the effectiveness of various types need to take into account what they were meant to be doing. Soviet fighters simply had to draw fire and optinally (from a Soviet perspective) stay alive to return. nothing more.....

 

[Tante Ju]

The spit XIV had that terrific climb - would it have been enough to enable it to disengage from the Yak//La at lower altitudes?

Up about 2000 m altitude - no. Above - yes.

An interesting subject might the Soviet fighters v The Tempest, which I understand performed best at similar heights.

Tempest is about as fast as La 7, faster than Yak 3. Both run circles around it though..

 

[Aozora]

I think its best to concentrate on the original papers, not the where they came from. No one is going to retype things in this level of detail.

I have had a quick look at both sets of papers, The ones from Kurfurst's site and the ones in posting 323 and to be honest there is little if anything difference between them. Only if you look at the performance figs for the DB605D do you get any difference, the others seem pretty similar. I admit to having a question on this as I thought that the DB605D was an early version of the engine, in which case why would it have a better performance.

On this basis the question would be, how many had the the DB605D? If anyone knows I would welcome any details.

Yep, the fact is that because of WWII Aircraft Performance and Messerschmitt Bf 109 performance and this site, come to that, we all have access to information and data that wouldn't be readily available, including original documents: what gets my goat is the partisan crap that blights a lot of aircraft v aircraft "discussion" (going waay off on a tangent for a moment; having looked up "Kurfurst" on this and other forums this guy has a real attitude which means I take what he says about the 109 or any German aircraft with a bucketful of salt, unless backed up with solid evidence; by contrast, from what I have seen here and elsewhere, Mike Williams is at least courteous and factual).

I think we can take it that the Soviet fighters would be out of their depth above 20000ft, so the next obvious question is are others competitive below that altitude. The spit XIV had that terrific climb - would it have been enough to enable it to disengage from the Yak//La at lower altitudes? If so, it's hard to go past.
An interesting subject might the Soviet fighters v The Tempest, which I understand performed best at similar heights.

Here's some interesting info from German test pilot Hans-Werner Lerche (Luftwaffe Test Pilot - Janes (translated) 1980. Lots of reading):

The next 2 pages are on other aircraft: the Yak 3 accidentally landed intact at a German airfield 9 January 1945...

Lerche flew the Yak 3 to Oranienberg be shown to Goering...

Testing the Tempest V:

 

[Glider]

Excellent book, one for my birthday list. Re Kurfurst I have crossed swords with him a number of times and been accused of all sorts of things by him but an original document is an original document. His reading shall we say, may be somewhat imaginative and its always worth checking the translation, ensuring that he hasn't been selectve in what he has chosen to show. But if there is a full scan then its worth taking it seriously.

 

[DonL]

His reading shall we say, may be somewhat imaginative and its always worth checking the translation, ensuring that he hasn't been selectve in what he has chosen to show. But if there is a full scan then its worth taking it seriously.

Thank you for making this point!

 

[Juha]

As Vincenzo showed, this datas from Soeren came from original primary german sources and to my opinion they are the most accurate for german a/c's.

I'm always doubtful about foreign data's about german a/c's especialy when they come from WWII Aircraft Performance

I don't recall a German docu showing a standard 109K-4 with 721km/h max speed. The GL/C-E2 cards I have seen on 109K-4 show max speed of 710km/h at FTH (7,5km) with emergency power (Not.). That is in line of with graphs in Kurfürst's site and seems not to have been corrected for the compression effect, so showing some 5km/h too high speed.

Juha

 

[Juha]

Excellent book, one for my birthday list. Re Kurfurst I have crossed swords with him a number of times and been accused of all sorts of things by him but an original document is an original document. His reading shall we say, may be somewhat imaginative and its always worth checking the translation, ensuring that he hasn't been selectve in what he has chosen to show. But if there is a full scan then its worth taking it seriously.

I also had crossed swords with Kurfürst and I also be careful with his claims but his site is excellent and for ex in his 109K specs part he correctly points out that in the graphs the thick lines are results of calculations by Mtt for 109K with an experimental thin blade airscrew and that the most important graph is the thin line which is that of 109K-4 with standard airscrew and he also notices that the compression effect was ignored in the calculations.

Juha

 

[parsifal]

ah yes, you can add me to the list of the victims of the "Kurfurst Effect". He and Soren seriously argued that there were no losses to enemy action of any tigers in Normandy. And they would both mercilessly attack anyone who had the remerity to oppose them and their crackpot theories.

Enough said. im going to have dinner.

 

[Aozora]

I also had crossed swords with Kurfürst and I also be careful with his claims but his site is excellent and for ex in his 109K specs part he correctly points out that in the graphs the thick lines are results of calculations by Mtt for 109K with an experimental thin blade airscrew and that the most important graph is the thin line which is that of 109K-4 with standard airscrew and he also notices that the compression effect was ignored in the calculations.

Juha

All true; it's unfortunate that Kurfürst has such a rotten attitude towards others on the internet which IMHO spoils and completely over shadows his good work in accessing and posting such information. I probably shouldn't have raised this here because the guy cannot post to defend himself, plus it belongs more in this thread.

One interesting point which hasn't yet been raised is that the DB605 started life as an unreliable engine and never really overcame a reputation as being a "sick" engine right up to the end of the war: one wonders how reliable the various D version were, especially with the lack of adequate materials and increasingly poor build qualities; would the D engine be capable of reliably developing full power after even a few sorties? (From Mankau Petrick Messerschmitt Bf 110/Me 210/Me 410: pages 211 349):

 

[jim]

To Parsifals, Juhas , Gliders , Aozoras and any other
Why you spend your presious time attacking Mr Kurfust ?!! He CAN NOT answer your (false) claims. You are not satisfeid enough that he has been banned? You feel the need to throw mud at him?
Accept the lies of WW2 Aircraft performance and leave Mr Kurfust alone!
For people with proper judgement his work on his site speaks for itself.
a technical question Is it possible an aircraft with equal power and less total wet area than another plane to be slower?