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

[Kurfürst]

I thought the Spitfire could generally turn tighter than a Bf 109, at least for the average pilot. It was harder to make the Bf 109 make a tight turn, and inexperienced German pilots had trouble doing it, though with an expert a 109 could turn tighter than a Spitfire.

This what RAE concluded on the matter :

When the Me.109 was following the Hurricane or Spitfire, it was found that our aircraft turned inside the Me.109 without difficulty when flown by determined pilots who were not afraid to pull their aircraft round hard in a tight turn. In a surprisingly large number of cases, however, the Me. 109 succeeded in keeping on the tail of the Spitfire or Hurricane during these turning tests, merely because our Pilots would not tighten up the tztrn suficiently from fear of stalling and spznning.

...
The gentle stall and good control under g [of the Me 109] are of some importance, as they enable the pilotto get the most out of the aircraft in a circling dog-fight by flying very near the stall. As mentioned in section 5.1, the Me.109 pilot succeeded in keeping on the tail of the Spitfire in many cases, despite the latter aircraft's superior turning performance, because a number of the
Spitfire pilots failed to tighten up the turn sufficiently. If the stick is pulled back too far on the Spitfire in a tight turn, the aircraft may stall rather violently, flick over on to its back, and spin. Knowledge of this undoubtedly deters the pilot from tightening his turn when being chased, particularly if he is not very experienced.

One consistant advantage of the Spit over the 109 was range. (by ~25-30% better for normal range spitfires depending on comparison, as high as 50% in some cases)

Quite the contrary. In fact the Spitfire`s range considerably worsened during development. The 109s range considerably increased during its development.

The only wartime Spitfire with better range than the contemporary 109 was the Mk I, until July 1940, when droptanks were introduced to the E-7, boosting its range to 1300+ km. Even that is unclear because the Spit I ranges are described as either 390 or 590 miles, and the conditions are unspecified, so they may not be comparable to Emil figures.

I believe droptanks were not introduced to Spitfires until 1942 or so, even then, they used smaller ones than the Germans - 90 gallon versions, introduced sometime later, were impractical for all but the less produced Mk VII, VIII, XII and XIV versions.

 

[Kurfürst]

I have to for the 109K-4 in this case. The two Soviet fighters, given that the original poster specifed from SL to 30k feet, gets eliminated because of their poor altitude performance.

That leaves the K-4 and the XIV in the competition; and while performance-wise there`s very little difference between the two (the 109K is very slightly superior at low and medium altitudes, the XIV has a very slight superiority at high altitudes), so it boils down to operational, armament and misc. characteristics. While these could be debated, the 109K is a fighter with considerably more range and endurance, which makes it a better overall fighter than the short-legged XIV IMHO. The possibility of having a heavier armament (two 20mm extra if needed) is on the plus side too, and overall greater versatality is the final deciding factor.

 

[kool kitty89]

Hmm, okay the range values do seem to vary somewhat wildly, but I though variants of the Spit-V got 90 gal drop tanks by 1942 at the latest. (ferry range of over 1,100 mi) And 300 L isn't 90 gal (U.S. liquid gallon is legally defined as 231 cubic inches, and is equal to 3.785411784 litres (exactly)) it's 79.25 US gal or 65.99 imp. gal.

So was the Hurricane actually longer ranged than the Spit? http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/hurricane/hurricane-I-ads.jpg

 

[Kurfürst]

I believe initially only 30 and 45 gallon droptanks were used, though someone could shed more light on that matter as to when and what dropanks were used on operational (i.e. non-ferry).

The MkVs flown to Malta used some big overload tanks but I believe these are only ferry tanks - having a 90 gallon droptank but only a 85 gallon internal tank to return on leads to some obvious practical difficulties..

In any case the Mk IXs range w. a 90 gallon droptank was similiar to the Me 109Gs with a 66 gallon droptank, difference being the former was practical for ferry (one-way..) missions only, the latter was a practical combat mission tank.

 

[kool kitty89]

Interesting, then tere were the IX's with increased fuel capacity, but that's a whole other topic entirely.

 

[drgondog]

This what RAE concluded on the matter :

When the Me.109 was following the Hurricane or Spitfire, it was found that our aircraft turned inside the Me.109 without difficulty when flown by determined pilots who were not afraid to pull their aircraft round hard in a tight turn. In a surprisingly large number of cases, however, the Me. 109 succeeded in keeping on the tail of the Spitfire or Hurricane during these turning tests, merely because our Pilots would not tighten up the tztrn suficiently from fear of stalling and spznning.

...
The gentle stall and good control under g [of the Me 109] are of some importance, as they enable the pilotto get the most out of the aircraft in a circling dog-fight by flying very near the stall. As mentioned in section 5.1, the Me.109 pilot succeeded in keeping on the tail of the Spitfire in many cases, despite the latter aircraft's superior turning performance, because a number of the
Spitfire pilots failed to tighten up the turn sufficiently. If the stick is pulled back too far on the Spitfire in a tight turn, the aircraft may stall rather violently, flick over on to its back, and spin. Knowledge of this undoubtedly deters the pilot from tightening his turn when being chased, particularly if he is not very experienced.



.

Kurfurst - In my opinion, your illustrations/observations from the RAE reports are the best possible 'illustration' of the phrase 'it depends' when trying to compare turn performance of closely matched aircraft.

 

[Mitya]

Lavochkin La-7 specs:

Weight: 3,354 kg
Wing area: 17.5 m^2
Wing span: 9.8 m
Wing AR: 5.48
Wing TR: 16% to 10%
Wing Clmax: ~1.54

Engine power: 1,830 HP
______________________
Lift loading: 124.4 kg/m^2
Span loading: 342.2 kg/m
Power loading: 1.83 kg/hp

Top speeds: 680 km/h at alt, 585 km/h at SL
Max climb rate: 3,850 + ft/min

А откуда у Ла-7 1830 л.с.? АШ-82ФН 1850 "лошадок" же... И взлетный вес 3265 кг. Насколько я знаю. И скорость у земли не 585, как у вас указано (Ла-5ФН выдавал чуть меньше), а 613 км/ч, а уж на заводских испытаниях одну машину вообще разогнали до 630 км/ч. И скороподъемность не 3850 фт/мин, а 4764 фт/мин (24,2 м/с).
P.S.: вы сравниваете машины просто по ЛТХ. Не учитывая то, в каких условиях они воевали. Советские машины с низковысотными моторами. Они расчитывались для ведения боя на низких и средних высотах (до 5000 м - выше на Советско-германском фронте бои не велись почти что). Spitfire обладал высотным мотором. Пик мощности, если я не ошибаюсь, на 7620 м. Так что нельзя так их просто сравнивать...

 

[Soren]

Mitya,

This is an English speaking forum, so please write in English.

 

[glen]

Factsheet:


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

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

Spitfire XIV's data is not accurate. 18lbs boost Spitfire XIV's(Jan. 44) max climb rate is 5110ft/m, 21lbs boost (Auturm 44) is more.
Engine's endurance, spitfire is better. High altitude performance, spitfire is better. Range of spitrfire XIV is much more than spitfire IX.

To be frank, I can hardly find BF109K's (Aug. 44)advantage ober 21lbs Spitfire XIV.

 

[Mitya]

Mitya,

This is an English speaking forum, so please write in English.

Оке.
La-7
Weight: 3265 kg
...
Engine power: 1,850 HP
...
Top speeds: 680 km/h at alt, 613 (630) km/h at SL
Max climb rate: ~4700 + ft/min

I think.

 

[glen]

Оке.
La-7
Weight: 3265 kg
...
Engine power: 1,850 HP
...
Top speeds: 680 km/h at alt, 613 (630) km/h at SL
Max climb rate: ~4700 + ft/min

I think.

I remember LA7 is even lighter than La5fn due to the remove of wood components. around 2600kg?

 

[Soren]

Spitfire XIV's data is not accurate. 18lbs boost Spitfire XIV's(Jan. 44) max climb rate is 5110ft/m,

That is incorrect, this rate of climb was obtained by a prototype a/c. The Rate of climb of the Spitfire Mk.XIV is 4,800 ft/min at 18 lbs/sq.in. boost.

21lbs boost (Auturm 44) is more.

21 lbs.sq.in. boost wasn't used for anything but chasing V1's, IF it was used at all.

Engine's endurance, spitfire is better.

Wrong, the Bf-109 could run at full boost for 10min at a time, the Spitfire could run at full boost at only 5 min at a time.

High altitude performance, spitfire is better.

And at low to medium alt the performance aof the Bf-109 K-4 is better.

To be frank, I can hardly find BF109K's (Aug. 44)advantage ober 21lbs Spitfire XIV.

To be frank you don't know much glen.

 

[glen]

That is incorrect, this rate of climb was obtained by a prototype a/c. The Rate of climb of the Spitfire Mk.XIV is 4,800 ft/min at 18 lbs/sq.in. boost.




21 lbs.sq.in. boost wasn't used for anything but chasing V1's, IF it was used at all.



Wrong, the Bf-109 could run at full boost for 10min at a time, the Spitfire could run at full boost at only 5 min at a time.



And at low to medium alt the performance aof the Bf-109 K-4 is better.



To be frank you don't know much glen.

You don't know Spitfire.

Spitfire Mk XIV versus Me 109 G/K

Spitfire Mk XIV Performance Testing

 

[Soren]

Yes I do, but you don't glen.

You should start reading here abit, the most comprehensive site on the Bf-109 out there:
Kurfurst - Your resource on Messerschmitt Bf 109 performance

And in the future forget about Mike William's site when you want data on German a/c, he has very little and he is very selective about what data he wants to show.

 

[Soren]

Top speed of the Bf-109 K-4 is as stated 609 km/h at SL and 719 km/h at alt:

 

[glen]

Top speed of the Bf-109 K-4 is as stated 609 km/h at SL and 719 km/h at alt:

Soren, that's 1.98ata boost BF109k4, 1945 early.
18lbs spitfire XIV is of 1944 early, and whole year between them.

If you feel fair to compare 18lbs Spit with 1.98ata K4, please modify the top speed of spitfire from 595km/h to 575km/h, 18lbs spitfire is not so fast.
BTW, MW50 is philter, harmful to BF109's engine. LOL

 

[Soren]

You're truely the most clueless member of this forum glen.

BTW, MW50 is philter, harmful to BF109's engine

Are you serious ??!

glen come back when you actually know what the MW-50 system is, and when you have learned to read properly as-well!

 

[Soren]

Oh and again, no Spitfire XIV ever saw action against German a/c at 21 lbs/sq.in. boost, only 18 lbs/sq.in. and only for max 5min at a time, while the German fighters could run at full boost for 10min at a time.

But hey, how was I to expect you to understand that right away..

 

[glen]

No evidence has yet been found that +25 lbs boost was employed in service by Spitfire XIV squadrons prior to VE day. Even at +25 lbs. the Spitfire XIV still fell short of the sea level performance of the Tempest V and highly boosted Mustangs. There is clear documentation that 2nd TAF Spitfire XIVs had their Griffon engines set to +21 lbs boost. Its also clear that the Griffon engine was eventually approved for +25 lbs maximum combat boost. Although the Spitfire XIV's strength was in the medium and high altitude role, the paucity of Luftwaffe opposition led to the Squadrons engaging in ground attack, where flak was a much larger threat than Me 109s.
------------------------------------
21lbs spitfire of 2nd TF, operated on west europe in 44-45and not only in chasing V1. It's 1.8-1.98ata K4's rival.

MW-50 (water-methanol 50/50) was injected into the air-intake and served as an anti-detonant allowing higher boost to be used below normal rated altitude. The evaporating water also cooling the charge-air thus increasing the weight of the charge. Limited by the performance of the supercharger the MW-50 induced max. output began declining 1.5-2 km. below normal rated altitude until it became impotent at and above the normal rated altitude (compare for example DB 605A-1 and AM). Max. continous use: 5-10 minutes. Penalties: drasticly shortens flight endurance and spark-plug life, added weight of MW-50 tank and piping. Most Me 109 sub-types from 1944/45 were equiped to utilise MW-50.



drasticly shortens flight endurance and spark-plug life......
however, late german pilots don't care about their enginee's life at all because their own lives are more fragile.

 

[vanir]

I'm of the philosophy this is an inherent "opinion" question, so I gave mine as the 109K for overall performance. The DB-605D series is an excellent aero engine for the small 109 airframe. Plus according to a variety of credible Luftwaffe and RAF aces interviewed, a series I bought on DVD in their own words and with a dramatic consistency, to the specific question of late war Me-109 models and a similar period Spitfire Gunther Rall for example noted the only manoeuvre he couldn't follow a Spitfire in was a climbing turn. He said it was very competitive with all the Allied fighters right to the end of the war, but as he flew a number of captured Allied fighters personally he believed the Mustang alone was superior. When asked what an Me-109 pilot would do about a Thunderbolt he said simply, "Shoot them down." Galland stated simply for the camera, "We burned our aircraft when we surrendered. It wasn't because we didn't want the Americans to get them, but because we could still fight. Right to the very last day the Luftwaffe was still able to hold its own over Germany."

Considering the mainstay of many, if not most Jagdgeschwader was always, and had always been the various models of the 109, some using it exclusively it would seem that history claims the late model 109 of 44-45 was every bit as good as, or at least capably competitive with absolutely everything in the combined Allied arsenal. This is a simple assertion.

But I think the aircraft mentioned are all very good, and equivalent enough in performance to gain the upper hand in given circumstances. Just that the same is true for the 109K and it has the broad range of altitude performance and the best time to altitude figures out there, thanks to that magnificent fluid drive compressor. Plus the 10 minute boost is a real advantage, and its output at altitude is still in the region of 1250PS at 7km at the combat/climb 30 minute setting. That's pretty tough altitude performance that only gets matched by the Mark XIV Spit, which then loses a little low/medium altitude performance to the Messerschmitt. I think the 109K would just want to avoid chasing Spitfires up to 8km really, it's geared for combat at up to 6km and the British Supermarine just keeps getting better and better the higher you go, which is really what a two-stage supercharger is all about.

The impression I get, though to be honest I've no idea how accurate this might be, but for any two-stage Spit and probably most other types (Lightning, Thunderbolt, Mustang), 5-6km is kinda low altitude, you'd rather be higher.