Was the corsair as good a fighter as the spitfire or the FW?

[Tante Ju]

The Spitfires larger wing may have been a detriment in the early years but it turned into an asset later on when it could not only house heavier armament

Which Spitfire could house heavier armament in wings? Examples please.

but could support larger increases in weight with less detriment to it's flying qualities.

What define flying quality?

Now I see the error in logic is that if all things be equal, it would be true. For example, if both plane increase in weight by 500 kg, larger wing is of course better. But problem in practice is that one aircraft increase in weight by 250 kg, the other by 500 kg... and Spitfire increased more fast, late variants were very heavy. The reason was that bigger increase was large drag of large wing to start with - it need to be compensated, more fuel need carried, bigger engine need to be used to get performance.

Early war Spitfire had engine of 600 kg, and fuel of 300 kg, late war Spitfire like Xiv had engine of 900 kg and fuel ca. 450 kg, but range was much less than early war Spitfire. Compare 109, early war 109 had engine of 600 kg, and fuel of 300 kg, late war 109 like K had engine of 750 kg and fuel of 300 kg, but range was some 50% greater...

Early war Spitfire had wing load of 25 lbs/sqere feet, early war 109 had 33 lbs/sqere feet - 33% better. Late war Spitfire had 35 lbs sq./feet, late war 109 42 lbs./sq. feet, Spitfire now 20% better only. So despite large wing, wing load detoriated greater and more fast on Spitfire.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Tante Ju, which post do you wish to use?

Please use the edit function next time.

 

[Tante Ju]

Sory Adler! Something went crazy...

 

[Readie]

Nothing wrong with that either.

1. It was a great aircraft, and one of the best piston fighters ever built (and a very beautiful looking one as well).

2. Everyone has their favorite aircraft anyhow.

Absolutely Chris. It would be a dull world if we all liked the same things.
Cheers
John

 

[Readie]

My own belief is that the Spitfire was better more by luck than by actual design or intent. Both were different solutions to almost the same question/problem (but then so were the Hurricane and the Dw 520 and the P-36/P-40).

The bigger wing on the Spitfire was, in part, due to the official requirement. Once the RAF said they wanted 8 guns a small wing was pretty much out of the question. Mitchell guessed that the thin wing wing of the Spitfire would have less drag at high speed than the thick wing of the Hurricane. He didn't KNOW for absolute certainty. The Boffins at the RAE were assuring Camm that the thick wing section would pose no problem several years later on the Typhoon. The elliptical wing was a way of gaining interior volume in the wing as much as it was a way gaining efficiency. The elliptical wing offered more cord further out from the fuselage than a straight taper wing of equal size would. Mitchell needed the cord in order to get the thickness in inches that he needed in hide the landing gear in. As a for instance if you have an 80 in cord (distance front to back on a wing) a 16% thickness wing will have a maximum thickness 2.4 inches more than a 13% thickness wing with the same cord. Since Mitchell could not shrink things like the tires and needed certain minimum thicknesses at certain points and he had chosen a thin section wing he needed certain cord dimensions at certain points in the span to get those actual thicknesses. This gave him the ellipse ( I suppose he could have used a straight wing section out to the wheel wells and a then a succession of tapers, but that may have been not much easier to build than the ellipse). The wing section may have dictated the the gun layout. The thick Hurricane wing allowed for ammunition belts to pass over the tops of some guns to reach others. There may not have been room for this in the Spitfire wing which meant that the guns had to spaced to allow for ammunition between guns. This also pushed the last gun out near the wing tip so the wing needed a certain amount of thickness and cord to house the gun.
The 109s wing may have looked rather different if it had been required to hold eight guns.

The Spitfires larger wing may have been a detriment in the early years but it turned into an asset later on when it could not only house heavier armament but could support larger increases in weight with less detriment to it's flying qualities.

Airframe designers do not tell air staffs what armament to use, either in type of gun or numbers. They may provide more than the air staff requests but if more armament means lower performance their design stands a good chance of not being picked.

Airframe designers sometimes get to pick the engine and in other cases are told what engine to use. While any air frame designer could anticipate engines getting better ( more power for the same or little more weight) nobody in 1936 knew how fast or how far such improvement would go. Looking back at the last 10 years no designer would have thought that a 1935 fighter design would still be in production (even severally modified) 10 years in the future.

Well surmised SR6.
I had to cough at the 'better by luck' comment but, hey, it wouldn't be British if it all went smoothly and according to plan would it
Shenson' contribution is missing though and the fact that his wing heralded in the jet age wing. an amazing piece of design in the 1930's
Cheers
John

 

[Readie]

I think overall 1940-45 the Spitfires are as a whole better WW2 fighters from a pilot perspective, but I think the Messerschmidt is the better weapon taking production and maintenance into account.

As a pure mass produced weapon the ME109 was very effective with its weapons and power.
It has a brutal purpose and definitely looks the part.

Now I'm going to have a lay down...

Cheers
John

 

[jim]

"We could take a look at respective powerplants, too: in the time Spit received two stage Merlins (both powerful reliable), 109 either soldiered with DB 601E, or struggled with DB 605s (only 1,3 ata allowed for more then 6 months - the engine that killed Marseille?). It took DB some 2 crucial years to make an engine as 'good' as Merlin 60's series"

Mr Tomo Pauk said it well. It was the failure of gernan engines improvements during the mid war period that crippled both Bf109 and Fw190 during the most critical period of the war and reduced their post war fame.. They were never outclassed like A6M in PTO but during late 43-mid 44 were in clear diadvantage mainly because of their engines.

 

[Readie]

Jim,
Glad you said that. I have been actively promoting the RR Merlin /Griffon as superb aero-engines.
Daimler Benz were and are great engineers and no one would really dispute that. But, when push came to shove they were not good enough either for the reasons you state or a blind alley in design.
Personally, I still believe that an inverted engine is inferior to the 'right way up'. call me a bluff old traditionalist if you like.
There is a cut away Merlin in the IWM , London. I stood and marvelled at the complexity of such a great motor. The power, the sound, its is just fantastic.
Our American friends had a fair attempt with the Allison but, they couldn't match the power of the Merlin.
To say that we owe our liberty to Rolls Royce is not an over statement.
Cheers
John

 

[riacrato]

"We could take a look at respective powerplants, too: in the time Spit received two stage Merlins (both powerful reliable), 109 either soldiered with DB 601E, or struggled with DB 605s (only 1,3 ata allowed for more then 6 months - the engine that killed Marseille?). It took DB some 2 crucial years to make an engine as 'good' as Merlin 60's series"

Mr Tomo Pauk said it well. It was the failure of gernan engines improvements during the mid war period that crippled both Bf109 and Fw190 during the most critical period of the war and reduced their post war fame.. They were never outclassed like A6M in PTO but during late 43-mid 44 were in clear diadvantage mainly because of their engines.

Agreed but for different reasons. The BMW801 teams introduced a lot of small improvements after the D but only on prototypes. Unfortunately they waited way too long to incorporate these into a new production model, I guess they were too hard pressed reaching the required volume by the air ministry. The DB605 problems are another story but people who promote they (DB) should've put more resources into getting the DB603 or 610 to work should remember that DB already had problems getting the 605 up to spec. Later in the war these two engines were on par again, but the war in the air was already long lost.

 

[Shortround6]

Which Spitfire could house heavier armament in wings? Examples please.

I would say that two 20mm cannon and four .303 machine guns was a heavier armament than eight .303 machine guns, wouldn't you? Or two 20mm and two .50 cal Machine guns? And if you are comparing to the 109 and we leave the gunboats out once you get passed the "E" the 109 was always lacking in weight of armament (again, I say weight not effectiveness).

What define flying quality?

Now I see the error in logic is that if all things be equal, it would be true. For example, if both plane increase in weight by 500 kg, larger wing is of course better. But problem in practice is that one aircraft increase in weight by 250 kg, the other by 500 kg... and Spitfire increased more fast, late variants were very heavy. The reason was that bigger increase was large drag of large wing to start with - it need to be compensated, more fuel need carried, bigger engine need to be used to get performance.

You do, of course, have actual numbers to back that up? As a general rule of thumb cutting the wing area by 25% will increase the top speed by 3%. So making a Spitfire wing of 180 square ft. (with in 3% of the 109s) would some how require hundreds less horsepower and all the other benefits you claim?

Early war Spitfire had engine of 600 kg, and fuel of 300 kg, late war Spitfire like Xiv had engine of 900 kg and fuel ca. 450 kg, but range was much less than early war Spitfire. Compare 109, early war 109 had engine of 600 kg, and fuel of 300 kg, late war 109 like K had engine of 750 kg and fuel of 300 kg, but range was some 50% greater...

Back to the long range range of the 109? I grant you the drag was a bit less on a F or G than than on an E but the engine actually used 1/3 less fuel for the same/similar cruise power?

Early war Spitfire had wing load of 25 lbs/sqere feet, early war 109 had 33 lbs/sqere feet - 33% better. Late war Spitfire had 35 lbs sq./feet, late war 109 42 lbs./sq. feet, Spitfire now 20% better only. So despite large wing, wing load detoriated greater and more fast on Spitfire.

Really? Spitfire starts out with better low speed handling and after all the additions are done has a wing loading 6% higher than an early war 109 and about 17% less than the late war 109. Actually numbers were actually closer as the 42 lbs./sq feet seems to be for the 109 carrying some sort of external load?

Later Spitfires were not as nice to fly as early ones but then the later 109s weren't that nice to fly either. Has anyone described the flying characteristics of a late model Spitfire as "malevolent"?

 

[Readie]

Johnnie Johnson'sfavourite Spitfire was the mark 1X 'the best of them' he said.
Spitfire Mk IX versus Me 109 G - Flight Testing
There is some interesting data in this link.
Cheers
John

 

[jim]

Mr Readie
1) The site you give about Spit IX and Bf 109G is not to be trusted (e.g notice when it says that 1,42 ata was cleared)
2)Merlin was a superb effort but you must remember a) in 1940 time combination merlin/spit was inferior to DB/Bf109 .BoB was decided by RADAR and poor german tactics b) Till very late 1942 the combo Merlin/Spit V was still inferior to DB/Bf109f c)late in the war DB matched or even surpassed Merlin top power using inferior fuel and having also some superior charachteristics such as better specific consuption, lower cost, easy maintance , a motor cannon , smoother power curve,similar weight but bigger capacity. Also Complexity is not something good ...
Merlin had a smoother evolution curve, and that was decisive in 43/44 not so much in the spit but in P51. Had the DB605ASM appeared in autumn 43 instead of May 44 there would be little to choose between the two aircrafts for the entire war. Why did not appear? Poor planning?Poor personnel distribution? Poor priorities? Fuel availability?( If C3 was available for Bf 109s propably would manage better than 1475 PS earlier )
An interesting point
the italian fighter Re 2005 was observed that it was at least equal to Spit IX until mid altitudes (in mid,late 43) despite the fact it was using DB605A cleared for 1,30 ata and poor propeller! Both italians and enlish pilots made the observation.
Griffon was matched on paper by Jumo 213A when fitted with Mw50 but i admit there are questions of its building quality . But that was not a design fault. And again the Fw 190D was desperately late.
BMW 801 was in my opinion clearly inferior and eventually cancelled the good design of Fw190 . Reading Jg 26 War diary someone can form the image that Fw gave decent combat record despite its engine.
as for the normal or inverter engined ,performance wise , i am not sure ther was a important diferrence. But servicing was easier on the inverted

 

[Readie]

Mr Readie
1) The site you give about Spit IX and Bf 109G is not to be trusted (e.g notice when it says that 1,42 ata was cleared)
2)Merlin was a superb effort but you must remember a) in 1940 time combination merlin/spit was inferior to DB/Bf109 .BoB was decided by RADAR and poor german tactics b) Till very late 1942 the combo Merlin/Spit V was still inferior to DB/Bf109f c)late in the war DB matched or even surpassed Merlin top power using inferior fuel and having also some superior charachteristics such as better specific consuption, lower cost, easy maintance , a motor cannon , smoother power curve,similar weight but bigger capacity. Also Complexity is not something good ...
Merlin had a smoother evolution curve, and that was decisive in 43/44 not so much in the spit but in P51. Had the DB605ASM appeared in autumn 43 instead of May 44 there would be little to choose between the two aircrafts for the entire war. Why did not appear? Poor planning?Poor personnel distribution? Poor priorities? Fuel availability?( If C3 was available for Bf 109s propably would manage better than 1475 PS earlier )
An interesting point
the italian fighter Re 2005 was observed that it was at least equal to Spit IX until mid altitudes (in mid,late 43) despite the fact it was using DB605A cleared for 1,30 ata and poor propeller! Both italians and enlish pilots made the observation.
Griffon was matched on paper by Jumo 213A when fitted with Mw50 but i admit there are questions of its building quality . But that was not a design fault. And again the Fw 190D was desperately late.
BMW 801 was in my opinion clearly inferior and eventually cancelled the good design of Fw190 . Reading Jg 26 War diary someone can form the image that Fw gave decent combat record despite its engine.
as for the normal or inverter engined ,performance wise , i am not sure ther was a important diferrence. But servicing was easier on the inverted

Mr Jim,
RADAR and fighter command tactics helped of course in the BoB. The German attack was ill informed as Goering underestimated the RAF's resources and British resolve. All these points have been covered in other threads. Courage and determination was abundant on all sides but, fighting over your own country gives any airforce the extra 'edge' ( if that is the right word). The iconic Spitfire was seen as the symbol of victory in the BoB and taken to my nations heart in a way that no other fighter has been before or since.The Spitfire is rather like King Arthur where fact and fiction intertwine to make an ethereal protector, guardian angel if you like, of England. Against this backdrop the ME109 stands no chance, it may be admired by aviation enthusiasts as a clinical weapon of war but, its a tainted plane.

DB had an impossible task. Developing engines for planes designed by superb engineers, commanded by lunatics. The ME262 is a case in point. Germany could not sustain the war effort by 1942/1943. Again, without going over old ground, this has been covered in other posts.

Servicing an inverted? I believe it is reckoned to be easier in the field for the less skilled mechanic. I'd trade that for oil control any day.

Italian fighters? So stylish but, regrettably useless in the real world.

Cheers
John

 

[Shortround6]

Italian fighters? So stylish but, regrettably useless in the real world.

Cheers
John

Ah, but useless if they had been made in numbers?

Dropping the national pride thing, the Italian aero industry was very small in the scheme of things and one good american factory probably made more aircraft than all of of Italy but that doesn't mean we can't learn from their designs or see what was possiable if other choices had been made. If you want to understand the potential of engine then looking at other installations is a big help. All Three of the Italian "5" series fighters offer possibilities that the 109 did not.

 

[gjs238]

<snip> The Spitfire <snip> where fact and fiction intertwine <snip>

Hmmmmm

 

[Tante Ju]

I would say that two 20mm cannon and four .303 machine guns was a heavier armament than eight .303 machine guns, wouldn't you? Or two 20mm and two .50 cal Machine guns? And if you are comparing to the 109 and we leave the gunboats out once you get passed the "E" the 109 was always lacking in weight of armament (again, I say weight not effectiveness).

Why leave the "gunboats" out may I ask? We only speak of about 20-25 000 Bf 109 (late F/G/K type).. just ignore them? "Gunboats" were not a different type, they all had option to put a gun in the wing, its like leaving bomb carrying Spitfires out. Why. All later Mark could carry.. like all Mtt could carry wing cannon - if needed.

You thesis is that Spitfire wing could take cannon in wing, so could Messerschmitt, actual Spanish Messerschmitt put same Hispano in wing, 109K-6 put MG 151/20 or MG 108 in wing etc. So I do not get what are you talking about, really. The Hispano was a longer weapon, but not larger, I think breech area (which counts only for installation - you can stick out barrel front as long you want) is about same size.

You seem think bigger aerodynamic area Spitfire wing is better for carrying arament, but is it? Actual the useful storage space for guns (area where wing is thick enough to house guns) seem not to different, for example you cannot put guns in traiing edge, you cannot put guns where undercarriage bay is. But this is an interesting question. We need to take a look at scaled drawings of Spitfire wing to see what options it offers.

On Messeschmitt the reason you cannot put more guns than one in each wing in leading edge is that much of wing is "blocked" by leading edge slats, but you can place that extra two .50 cal Machine guns over the engine, with more ammo and advantage of central firepower. Buchon probably did not do that because it used Merlin engine, which took up space for ammo bay, but put in a DB back and you can do it again. However in Spitfire you cannot place MG in the cowl because the same place Mtt has ammo bays the Spitfire has fuel points. You can perhaps move these, but this will drastic change gravity center, and wing needs to be in that gravity center, so you will have redesign wings, too...

You do, of course, have actual numbers to back that up? As a general rule of thumb cutting the wing area by 25% will increase the top speed by 3%. So making a Spitfire wing of 180 square ft. (with in 3% of the 109s) would some how require hundreds less horsepower and all the other benefits you claim?

Yes, let us do some "number crouching"! As you see there is matematikal formulae to assess possibile changes. General rule of thumb, power increase by cube for given speed increase. So 3% speed increase will require 3%^3 = 9,25% more power to obtain same speed, all things equal. This also means at least 9,25% more fuel burned to get this power, means 9,25% fuel weight needs to be carried to get same speed and same range, and engine and its systems will be possible heavier, and make more drag as well.

The Spitfire relied on this power by excellent work of RR to keep competative with newer fighter airframe design like 109, 190. There was very little done for improve airframe aerodynamic, that tended to get worse - radiator drag was very increased in relation to early Mark, because engine needed much more power, and much more power require much more cooling, supercharger, supercharger intercooler (needs also seperate radiator). More supercharger consumes extra power, means extra fuel need carried.

For example, Mark I Spitfire was about 6000 lbs, Mark XIV Spitfire 8500 lbs, extra 2500 lbs during development or +42%. E type Messerschmitt ca. 5700 lbs, 7400 lbs in K type Messerschmitt, extra 1700 lbs during development or +30%.

Back to the long range range of the 109? I grant you the drag was a bit less on a F or G than than on an E but the engine actually used 1/3 less fuel for the same/similar cruise power?

Yes, back, I supplied data for that earlier, you just do not read :/ Do you want to supply your own data perhaps to contradict if its not true? My data is primer source, so reliable.

Re: second part. I think 1/3 greater fuel effiency is two factor based on 109. First, redesigned 109F airframe in 1940, much less drag. E had top speed 570, F had ca 610 in early version, difference was 601N engine and redesign of airframe to better aerodynamic characteristics. I think assume 50%-50% role for better engine power and better aerodynamics, it seems reasonable from my calculation. So drag decrease was enough to increase speed 20 km/h alone, on same power. This means aircraft covered distance quicker, and did not consume more power. Second part is I think because DB engines also got better in feul effienz. Data shows 601E for example rather better in low speed power consumption than 601A, and 605A is even tiny better than 601E. Reason I believe is improved scavanging, increased ratios of compression in subsequent engines.

Really? Spitfire starts out with better low speed handling and after all the additions are done has a wing loading 6% higher than an early war 109 and about 17% less than the late war 109. Actually numbers were actually closer as the 42 lbs./sq feet seems to be for the 109 carrying some sort of external load?

Later Spitfires were not as nice to fly as early ones but then the later 109s weren't that nice to fly either. Has anyone described the flying characteristics of a late model Spitfire as "malevolent"?

Yes that why I ask about how you define term handling. It is not same as wing loading, wing loading more-less define stall speed, but that is not all. Flow characteristics are defined by shape of wing profile, other empennage, devices like slat and flap, and characteristics of control surface. British seem to think very high of early 109E handling, more "user friendly" than early Spitfire I handling.

 

[Milosh]

Mr Readie
1) The site you give about Spit IX and Bf 109G is not to be trusted (e.g notice when it says that 1,42 ata was cleared)

What was the date 1.42ata was cleared?

 

[post76]

Was the Spitfire any real use after the BoB and MTO?

The later Spitfires XIV and XXI were over 7000lbs take off weight, where does that leave the wing loading?

I'd heard that was somewhat of a shortcoming and it left the Spitfire less maneuverable than earlier versions.
One might find that even the Mustang could hold a tighter radius than later spits, particularly at altitude.
That's not saying much, the Spit design was not particularly suited for high altitude deployment but it was the fastest climbing
allied fighter at that time and so it usually took the role of an interceptor and high altitude support.
Maybe someone with more knowledge should clarify.


The 109 saw similar upgrades but it was still relatively light.
Even with the advancements in MW50 and NO3 systems what was a realistic operational range of the later G and K models where allies were flying above 25,000ft?
I'd also heard that water injection was less effective above 30,000ft and required the use of a NO3 to see a noticeable performance boost.
Any thoughts on NO3 systems?

 

[Shortround6]

Why leave the "gunboats" out may I ask? We only speak of about 20-25 000 Bf 109 (late F/G/K type).. just ignore them? "Gunboats" were not a different type, they all had option to put a gun in the wing, its like leaving bomb carrying Spitfires out. Why. All later Mark could carry.. like all Mtt could carry wing cannon - if needed.

We have performance figures for Spitfires carrying about 650lbs of guns and ammo in the wings. DO we have performance figures for the "gun boats"? not just speed but climb? and climb at various altitudes. Service ceiling (climb at 100ft/min), operational ceiling (climb at 500ft/min), do we know what the wing guns did to the roll response (peak/max roll rate could very well be the same)? Did they do much to the turning circle?
109 fans point out that few Spitfires carried four 20 guns even though the wing was laid out for them due to performance problems. The four 20mm set up (for guns and ammo alone) weighs 249 lbs more than the two 20mm and four .303 setup. Two 20mm/151s with 135rpg weigh 316lbs. Without the mounts, gondolas, ammo drum/box, firing controls and any provision for heating. The Spitfire may not have been able to heat the outer 20mms properly but when making that 249lb 'adjustment' on the Spitfire there is no provision for the mounts, ammo boxes, controls and heaters, either for the 20mms going in or the .303s coming out.
Somehow the addition of the underwing guns on the 109 is supposed to have a negligible impact on performance (all performance, not just speed)?
Maybe it is just tall tales but why did the Germans continue to fly large numbers of one cannon 109s?
Stories (that may not be true) say that one cannon 109s were "supposed to" engage enemy fighters while gun boats went for the bombers. Like many stories (like Spitfires attacking fighters while Hurricanes attacked bombers) or perhaps theories is a better word, actually combat was more complicated and less easily 'partitioned' than that.
If we assume that there is even a part truth to this the question is why? Couldn't the 'gunboats' take care of themselves in a dogfight?

You thesis is that Spitfire wing could take cannon in wing, so could Messerschmitt, actual Spanish Messerschmitt put same Hispano in wing, 109K-6 put MG 151/20 or MG 108 in wing etc.....

My actual thesis is that the Spitfire could add more weight without suffering as much degradation in flying qualities or performance (all performance, not just straight line speed) due to the larger wing. Lets look at that volume to put guns in again shall we. For the original machine guns the Spitfire carried one gun just outboard of the wheels, just about were everybody else put wing guns. the next gun was just inboard of the ailerons, about 2 feet away. The 3rd gun was next to the second but forward of the aileron while the 4th gun was another 2 ft further out, about in the middle of the aileron. This spacing may have been forced by the thinness of wing or a desire not to cross belts over the tops of guns or not to stagger the guns too far back into the wing. We do know that the ammo was contained in demountable boxes. Open the door in the bottom of the wing, drop empty (or part empty) box and insert new full box for quick re-arm ( yes, belts have to pulled from/inserted into the guns). The Spitfire (if I have measured the drawing correctly) has about 2 meters of cord at the point 1/2 the way out the aileron. Does the Bf 109 even have 1 1/2 meters at that point even if we ignore the slats? I will grant that sticking guns and ammo that far out is probably not the best idea if it can be avoided. If the 109 had been required to carry eight MGs from the start it probably would have been quite different.

Yes, let us do some "number crouching"! As you see there is matematikal formulae to assess possibile changes. General rule of thumb, power increase by cube for given speed increase. So 3% speed increase will require 3%^3 = 9,25% more power to obtain same speed, all things equal. This also means at least 9,25% more fuel burned to get this power, means 9,25% fuel weight needs to be carried to get same speed and same range, and engine and its systems will be possible heavier, and make more drag as well.

Strange, I am looking but not seeing the drag numbers. As in a drag co-efficient for the wing or a drag number in pounds for a certain speed. But let's take the 9.5% increase Spitfire MK I has 1030hp and does a bit over 350mph. Cutting the wing 25% should ( in theory) get us to 360.5 mph. (armored wind screen was worth 6mph). Going the other way the small wing plane needs 938 hp to go the same speed. At a cruising speed of 240mph the Spitfire (in theory) needs 352 hp. 10% more is just 35hp. Of course the smaller wing now has a stalling speed 15% higher.

The Spitfire relied on this power by excellent work of RR to keep competative with newer fighter airframe design like 109, 190. There was very little done for improve airframe aerodynamic, that tended to get worse - radiator drag was very increased in relation to early Mark, because engine needed much more power, and much more power require much more cooling, supercharger, supercharger intercooler (needs also seperate radiator). More supercharger consumes extra power, means extra fuel need carried.

And of course you have the real numbers to back that up? The Spitfire radiators were designed to use the Meredith effect. How successful they were I don't know but I haven't seen any drag numbers comparing the various versions of the Spitfire, have you?

I see you are not mentioning any increases in drag due to cooling ( water/gylcol and oil) or power requirements of the German engines as their power increased. Was German engineering that good that they could supercharge a 1475hp engine for the same power as an 1100hp engine, Or that they needed no extra power to get 1.8 (or higher) ATA than they needed to get 1.3 ATA? Or that 1800-2000hp DB605 engine needed no more cooling than the 1475hp BD605 when running at full power?

Yes, back, I supplied data for that earlier, you just do not read :/ Do you want to supply your own data perhaps to contradict if its not true? My data is primer source, so reliable.

I read, one chart you supplied had one very questionable entry. quite possibly an honest typographical error. I can find a number of allied "primary documents" that have typographical errors.

Yes that why I ask about how you define term handling. It is not same as wing loading, wing loading more-less define stall speed, but that is not all. Flow characteristics are defined by shape of wing profile, other empennage, devices like slat and flap, and characteristics of control surface. British seem to think very high of early 109E handling, more "user friendly" than early Spitfire I handling.

There seems to be a difference of opinion on that last part. At least one German pilot saying "Both types are very simple to fly compared to our aircraft, and childishly easy to take off and land"

Both types referring to Hurricane and Spitfire. Both the Spitfire and 109 got worse as time went on. Spitfire had more room to get worse.

 

[Shortround6]

Was the Spitfire any real use after the BoB and MTO?

British seem to think so. So did some post war customers.

The later Spitfires XIV and XXI were over 7000lbs take off weight, where does that leave the wing loading?

Lower than the 109s. An 8400lb Spitfire with clipped wings has the same wing loading as a 6328lb 109.

I'd heard that was somewhat of a shortcoming and it left the Spitfire less maneuverable than earlier versions.
One might find that even the Mustang could hold a tighter radius than later spits, particularly at altitude.

There are two chances of a Mustang out turning a Spitfire. Slim and none and Slim has already left town.

That's not saying much, the Spit design was not particularly suited for high altitude deployment but it was the fastest climbing
allied fighter at that time and so it usually took the role of an interceptor and high altitude support.

Ah, Spitfire had a wing about the same size as the Mustang (actually a small bit larger unless clipped) it was 1000-2000lbs lighter, it sometimes had the same engine for all practical purposes. Why is it worse at high altitudes than the Mustang? It may be slower but but the climb at altitude is important as it indicates not only climb but excess power. Both planes do a 180 degree turn, Both planes WILL lose speed. Maybe the Mustang a little less due to lower drag. Spitfire may accelerate faster due to lower weight. It may have more power to fight speed bleed off if both planes are going less than full speed or near it.
There were several hundred Spitfires built with rudimentary pressure cabins and hundreds more built with extended wing tips that not only increase wing area but change the aspect ratio which affects over all lift.

The 109 saw similar upgrades but it was still relatively light.
Even with the advancements in MW50 and NO3 systems what was a realistic operational range of the later G and K models where allies were flying above 25,000ft?
I'd also heard that water injection was less effective above 30,000ft and required the use of a NO3 to see a noticeable performance boost.
Any thoughts on NO3 systems?

part of the reason the 109 stayed light was because (for the most part) it carried a light armament.
Range seems to be rather debatable. However if you keep speed up and use the extra power of the later versions of the 109 the endurance is going to change much. You may go farther in the same period of time but time in the air is limited. MW50 and NO3 do nothing for range. If used they shorten range because if used the engine is being run at full throttle or even an extra step beyond full throttle without either system.

MW50 is water/alcohol. It does nothing for power by itself. The alcohol is there to keep it from freezing. When introduced into the supercharger it evaporates and cools the hot air in the supercharger ( and due to the super charger even air at 40 below zero can be heated to several hundred degrees before it gets to the engine) the cooler air is more dense and denser air means more power ( more weight of air per cylinder full to burn) lower temperature means even more boost can be used before hitting detonation limits. It also helps to cool the cylinders from the inside. It helps the most at altitudes below full throttle height. At full throttle height and above the supercharge is maxed out and not going to give any more air (boost) so the only benefit is the denser air fram charge cooling. Maybe a 4% increase in power? One source says a certain model DB 605 used 106 gals of fuel an hour at take off rating but increased to 141 gals an hour when using MW50. about a 33% increase in fuel consumption.

NO3 was very useful at high altitudes because it is essentially carrying extra oxygen in the plane. It is pretty much useless at low altitudes because the engine is already making just about all the power the engine can stand. Over full throttle height as the air gets thinner and the pressure in the intake manifold/s falls , squirting in the NO3 allows more fuel to be burned to bring the power back up. There may be some charge cooling to but that that is not the major benefit. The two systems really can't be used together even if the airplane was fitted to carry both which the 109 wasn't. It was either one or the other. The MW50 tank and the NO3 tank fitted into the same space. The MW 50 tank could be used to carry fuel to extend the range/ endurance of the 109 (or a fuel tank put in place of the MW 50 tank) but again, it was a choice one option or another. No 109 carried two of the three options.

With the introduction of the DB 605AS engine with the bigger supercharger giving better high altitude performance than the DB605A the 109 may have seen the last of the NO2 installations ( I could well be wrong on that). The NO3 tanks were heavy and may have been of limited duration.