I guess it depends on how much we can bend or twist them before it is a "lie".
Both planes suffer degraded performance. Which is the basic argument or at least mine. The Differences in climb and ceiling make it hard for a unit with mixed aircraft to maintain combat formations. I have told that that there was little difference between a 3 cannon 109 and a 1 cannon 109 and while there is little speed difference the ceiling penalty is somewhat greater. While the speed penalty is just 1.5-2.3% the ceiling difference is 5%, What is the climb penalty and more importantly what is the climb penalty at the higher altitudes?
Service ceiling is usually 100ft/min or 0.5m/s. It is not uncommon for the differences between individual aircraft to mean that they cannot fly in formation with each other at this height so some air forces us an "operational" ceiling at which the planes have to do a nominal (average) 500ft/min climb or 2.5m/s. This should mean that a small group of planes can at least stay in formation. To actually engage in combat and have some hope of staying at the altitude (or near it) that one started at (excluding attacks that just dive through the enemy formation) some air forces had a definition of a "combat ceiling" which was 1000ft/min or 5m/s.
While losing 1.5-2.0 a second off the peak climb rate may not sound like much, loosing 1-1.5m/s in climb can affect the altitude the plane can fight at by hundreds of meters.
Gravity is not biased. Both planes suffer. I just get tired of hearing that 3 cannon 109s had negligible performance penalty.
I do not say performance did not suffer. Suffer was not significant though. You claim perofrmance loss was worse on 109, but data shows you are wrong.
And this makes your whole thesis go bad, since you wanted to proof your idea - big wing of spitfire meant it had less performance penelty when weight was added. It is simply not true.
The question of armament and aircraft design is not so simple. You want to turn it to which was more effective which is another whole set of arguments. The Spitfire designers could no more pick and chose the types of guns to arm their fighter with than anybody else could. For most of the war it was .303 Brownings or Hispanos. One or the other, how many can you fit in. There was no lighter cannon to pick from.
I agree. If in Russia only Hispanos would be available, they would fit Hispanos in Yakovlevs and Lavochkins, and armament would be heavier. If in Germany only Hispanos would be available, they would fit Hispanos in Messerschmitts and Focke Wulfs, and armament would be heavier.
The Spitfire carried a greater weight of armament than the 109, that is a fact. as I just said, the effectiveness is another argument.
Yes, because the guns available for the Spitfire were heavier, it is only reason. Again, what was weight of armament Spitfire could carry? If you want to argue weight.. I do not believe gun weight is an issue for either 109 or Spitfire, but OK.
I can find datasheet showing maximum weight of armament for 109 being 823 lbs, plus 326 lbs of ammunition (and 200 lbs of armor).
Tell me, which Spitifire carried more than 1150 lbs of guns and ammunition?
As for the armament you give for the 3 cannon 109, can you give a source please. Most of mine say 150 rounds for the fuselage cannon (200 rounds for the F with the 15mm gun) and 120rpg for the under wing guns. what is 90 rounds between friends?
You are simply wrong, sorry. Please look up any German load sheet for 109F,G/K. All says this information. Ammunition for centerline 20mm gun was 200, ammunition for gondola guns were 145, each gun. Btw all of ammunition was carried in wing. If you want to prove it was not, go ahead, show loading sheet of Bf 109.. Spitfire carried less rounds in the wings probably because lay of guns was not so ideal for ammo boxes. Btw 20 mm version of MG 151 used exact same cartridge, just shorter, "necked" out so 20 mm round would fit.
Well, in 1941 I would choose the Spitfire. The 109 G doesn't show up until about a full year after the MK V.
I wonder what a four cannon Spitfire would have performed like with a 1942 engine?
In 1941 Spitfire, you will have 8 machineguns or two cannons with only 60 rounds each, because C wing was not produced yet. Look at British test. Early 1942 date. In 1942, standard Spitfire was VC. Standard 109 was F4 and G-2, very similiar performance because F4 engine was uprated at time to G2 engine rating.
Again, subject is which airframe is more adoptable, not which aircraft was "better" at given year. From this POV, Mark is meaningless. Mark V is good example because rating was very similiar to DB 601/605. Later Merlins in 1943/44 are better, but it shows my theory correct, Spitfire was kept effective and good fighting machine with heavier, more powerful engines, in airframe that was show its age not very effective anymore in using current technology.
If you use equal technology - same engine, same guns etc. - with different airframe, Spitfire will not make very good use of it and will have worst performance of all. It shows age of airframe, design concept of early 1930s actually, unchanged essential..
You doubt? Give 1200 hp Yak 3, very poor and obsolate Russian engine to Spitfire, and see what is happening.. plane will be like 60-90 km/h slower at all altitudes with this power than Yak 3.
Why not use all three cannon fighters for flexibility? Hurricane wasn't "bad" but the British knew it wasn't quite up to snuff against the 109. Using Hurricanes to fight 109s while Spitfires went for bombers would have given worse results.
Reason because Spitfire escorted Hurricanes was again practicality. Spitfire squadrons when "scrambled" climbed to alttiude faster, so they are in position to provide top cover.
Look again at the two Spitfire reports. While max ceilings were with in a few hundred feet of each other the operational and combat ceilings where much further apart. At 30,000ft the standard Spitfire could out climb the 4 cannon one by just over 19% instead of the 11% at lower altitudes. If the 3 cannon 109 showed a similar penalty at altitude it could explain a lot.
I think I showed you service ceiling data - 5 cannon 109 was worse somewhat, at 9000m it climbed 2 m/sec worse than 3 cannon one, but could still climb at 6 m/sec. Difference was similiar, actually little greater at low altitude.
This was still bester than any fighter tested by Soviet at time, including 2-cannon Spitfire VB (5,95m/sec, so about equal) and 4-cannon VC (4,97 m/sec) in British test.
Of course weight difference was greater, so this change figure somewhat if we add added weight of 109 was 20% greater than in case of Spitfire VB vs VC, and probably low wing load helped somewhat at big altitude, when plane flies like very slow at low altitude.
Small text of bottom - I do not see difference that would take my breath, especially as there is good deal of difference in conditions - Spitfire carry 20% lighter load increase, measurement error between planes etc.
OK, lets, Yak 3 goes 351mph. MK XII Spitfire goes 346mph. Yak has less drag but where is the 40kph? Yak is carrying less armament.
Soviet trial shows Spitfire IX could make 530 km/h with 1700 HP engine and Yak 3 567 km/h with 1240 HP engine.
Yak is carrying less armament? Since when 3 20mm cannons is "less" than two?
So what advantage did the big Spitfire wing offered over the tiny Yak 3 wing? I see none. Tell me. But I can see what advantage small and streamlined fighter has over Spitfire. THAT is very easy to see.
You just made it. DO you have any idea how successful these different designs were at getting the Meredith effect to work? I don't. I would guess that the P-51 was the most successful with the He 100 the least ( why retract the radiator in flight if it is giving thrust?). Without knowing what parts of the air frames and engine installations contributed what % to total drag it is a little hard to pick just one thing on an airplane and say "this was bad".
I do not understand then why you mention "Spitfire had meredith effect", like if it was special, and all others were bad. It sounded like that...
one set of figures for the Spitfire (at a very low speed) show that the wing was responsible for 20.3 pounds of profile drag out a total for the plane of of 60.2 pounds for all drag, not just profile. The tail wheel was worth 2 pounds. While making the wing smaller would have reduced the the profile drag even reducing 1/3 of 1/3 of total means that fitting a retracting tail wheel and smooth paint would have made half the difference of the smaller wing.
Interesting. So explain why is Spitfire much slower than anything else, if power is equal. It is much slower than Yak 3 on equal power. It is much slower than Bf 109F, G or K at equal power. It had progressive less range with any new Mark, while other fighters had better range. It is even slower than radial Fw 190A at equal power.
Tell me what is wrong then with Spitfire, if its not wing. Was surface so bad? Was fuselage so bad? Was it too many "bumps" on the airframe as it was "developed"? Because slower and less range is fact.