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.