PDA

View Full Version : Mid to late war Spitfires vs Mid to late war Bf 109s



Pages : [1] 2 3

mynameisroland
06-20-2007, 12:45 PM
By the time the Spitfire IX entered service in numbers the Bf 109 G6 was left behind imo. Neither plane was as capable of high speed flight and combat as later types but while the Bf 109 kept up with the Spitfire and in some cases exceeded it wrt to speed I think that the Spitfire was a more capable aircraft having an airframe which accepted larger mor epowerful engines with less loss of handling.

By the time the Spitfire XIV was in service the Spitfire reached its ultimate itteration - Id compare it to the Bf 109 G2 for its optimal blend of speed, climb and manuverability. After this plane it was downhill so far as handling and effectiveness was concerned.

What do you think?

tigertalon
06-20-2007, 12:51 PM
Well said B. IMO, compared to contemporary adversaries peak of 109 series is F4, peak of Spitfire is IXc.

It's well reflected in PF.

faustnik
06-20-2007, 12:57 PM
Originally posted by mynameisroland:

By the time the Spitfire XIV was in service the Spitfire reached its ultimate itteration

I wonder if the ultimate wasn't the Spit IX at +25 boost? It was lighter than the Griffin versions with plenty of power.

??????

mynameisroland
06-20-2007, 12:58 PM
That is another good way of evaluating it TT, the F4 definitely but maybe not the IX as the IX is up against the Fw 190 which can almost be regarded as its equal in most cases. Perhaps the XIV is better relatively than the IX ?

edit

Faustnik I dont think that the IX 25lb was that good against D9s, 262s or K4s. It simply wasnt fast enough in cruise, max speed or dive while its range suffered thanks to increased boost - according to Kufurst.

faustnik
06-20-2007, 01:08 PM
Originally posted by mynameisroland:

Faustnik I dont think that the IX 25lb was that good against D9s, 262s or K4s. It simply wasnt fast enough in cruise, max speed or dive while its range suffered thanks to increased boost - according to Kufurst.

Well, the Dora pilots certainly noted the "New Spitfires" when the started encountering them in '45. The Doras were opertaing low, where they had a lot of speed, but, the improved Spits were seen as an even greater threat. So, you might be correct.

mynameisroland
06-20-2007, 01:22 PM
Originally posted by faustnik:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by mynameisroland:

Faustnik I dont think that the IX 25lb was that good against D9s, 262s or K4s. It simply wasnt fast enough in cruise, max speed or dive while its range suffered thanks to increased boost - according to Kufurst.

Well, the Dora pilots certainly noted the "New Spitfires" when the started encountering them in '45. The Doras were opertaing low, where they had a lot of speed, but, the improved Spits were seen as an even greater threat. So, you might be correct. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Do you mean they noticed the 25lbers or the XIVs? The 25lb was a great aircraft for the 2nd TAF but I reckon it was faced with pretty stern opposition at low altitude whereas a plain 18lb IX up at 25,000ft would probably be more comfortable against the same planes.

faustnik
06-20-2007, 01:25 PM
Originally posted by mynameisroland:

Do you mean they noticed the 25lbers or the XIVs?

I mean the XIVs, as in Spitfires that looked different.

mynameisroland
06-20-2007, 01:31 PM
Originally posted by faustnik:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by mynameisroland:

Do you mean they noticed the 25lbers or the XIVs?

I mean the XIVs, as in Spitfires that looked different. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I am always fascinated that WW2 pilots could vis ident new models of existing planes. I mean come on what is the obvious difference between an XVI and a XIV ? Other than an XIV would be right up your *** when if thought you thought you could run from one as easy as a Mk IX.

stathem
06-20-2007, 01:44 PM
That's something that's talked about quite a bit as being a positive with the Spitfire range - vis the difficulty of telling a V from a IX for FW pilots when the IX arrived, how they then had to respect all Spits. I've seen the same said about the XII (sorry to harp back to that, not on purpose).

I sure the same must be said for allied pilots facing different marks of the German planes - although the Dora does look quite a bit different. Today we know all the sub types but if you look back at diaries and combat reports all you see is '109G' '190A' or Long-nose FW.

faustnik
06-20-2007, 01:50 PM
Well, I think the Griffin Spit look a lot different from the Merlins. I can see the difference in appearance, and the difference in performance being noticed.

******************

I was thinking about your original post and looking through the SpitPerformance.com comparisons between Spits and 109s mid-late war. (Yes, before anybody freaks out, I know that these comparisons are somewhat "one-sided", but, I like the site and I'll still use it for info) There really was very little difference in relative performance between the Spits and 109s. Speeds and climb rates remained similar. The advatage that I read for the Spitfires is elevator forces remaining light at high speeds. This is an advatage but, since most encounters were not extended dogfights, not as big a deal as pure performance.

The big advatage that I see for the RAF from 1943 on was the pilot. Better pilots coming from a better training program flying aircraft with equal or superior performance put the RAF in the lead over Europe.

Xiolablu3
06-20-2007, 01:50 PM
This is a bit OT, but I read today that the most numerous varient of the FW190A was the A8 and 1000 were produced.

I htought this was quite shocking as we are always told that the 700 SPitfire XIV's were insignificant.

The more I read about the XIV these days, the more I htink it played a significant role in late 44 early 45 in the British sector of the Western Front.

It seems over 100 were operating every day right on the front line of the British sector, which is no small number.

When the British were intercepted by 100 FW190's in 1942 over Dieppe, A major air battle ensued. (See my sig)

Is 100 SPitfire XIV's really any different?

I guess the SPitfire XIV has been forgotten mainly because its not in the IL2 lineup. In reality it had a far bigger part than many of the planes actually in the game already.

I realise that I am British, and I love the Spitfire (amongst many many other planes), but as I see it, the SPitfire XIV is certainly as bigger player as BF109G6A/S, FW190D9, SOme FW190A models, and many others.

stathem
06-20-2007, 01:57 PM
Originally posted by faustnik:
Well, I think the Griffin Spit look a lot different from the Merlins. I can see the difference in appearance, and the difference in performance being noticed.



Yep, likewise. Oddly I prefer the looks of the Griffon variants, since I saw a picture of one of teh nasty 5 bladed types in one of my childhood books. Oh, and the engine being a relative by name.

I was just relating something that was said about teh XII in the flight trials, from Alfred Price's history (I think it was)

Xiolablu3
06-20-2007, 01:58 PM
On the thoughts of various SPitfire marks vs 109's, from what I have read, I see things like this :-

1940 - SPitfire Mk1 and 109E, perfectly matched

1941 - Bf109F vs SPitfire MkV, Bf109 the superior warplane

1942 - 109 retains its dominance with the 109F and early 109G. SMall numbers of Merlin 61 mkIX's are acheiving some sort of parity.

1943 Spitfire IX takes the crown and is pretty much superior to the most numerous Bf109G6. SPitfire VIII has much longer range and is used in the Med.

1944 - SPitfire IX retains advantage in all but top speed. (Bf109's are now carrying too much weight) SPitfire XIV superior but low numbers.

1945 - 109K really too heavy for its tiny airframe, manouvrability suffers. Boosted SPitfire IX's and XIV's superior. However FW190D's are a good match for the new SPitfires and Me262 can outfly it if flown correctly.


I see the two aircraft very even in 1940, with the Bf109 development of the 109F and G being superior early war and the Spitfire being superior later war.

mynameisroland
06-20-2007, 01:59 PM
Originally posted by faustnik:
Well, I think the Griffin Spit look a lot different from the Merlins. I can see the difference in appearance, and the difference in performance being noticed.

******************

I was thinking about your original post and looking through the SpitPerformance.com comparisons between Spits and 109s mid-late war. (Yes, before anybody freaks out, I know that these comparisons are somewhat "one-sided", but, I like the site and I'll still use it for info) There really was very little difference in relative performance between the Spits and 109s. Speeds and climb rates remained similar. The advatage that I read for the Spitfires is elevator forces remaining light at high speeds. This is an advatage but, since most encounters were not extended dogfights, not as big a deal as pure performance.

The big advatage that I see for the RAF from 1943 on was the pilot. Better pilots coming from a better training program flying aircraft with equal or superior performance put the RAF in the lead over Europe.

On the ground yes but in the air when converging at 500mph ? Slightly enlarged rudder fin similar in profile to the late mark IX, a 5 blade prop and bulges on the nose. No increase in wingspan, a miniscule increase in length, same radiator layout, often same razor back profile.

I think performance was the differentiator here rather than outward appearance.

I cant disagree regarding RAF pilots in the latter 1/3rd of the war but i think good reliable equipment played its part too.

Xio for the A8 was in not closer to 11,000 produced?

Low_Flyer_MkVb
06-20-2007, 02:01 PM
Originally posted by stathem:
That's something that's talked about quite a bit as being a positive with the Spitfire range - vis the difficulty of telling a V from a IX for FW pilots when the IX arrived, how they then had to respect all Spits. I've seen the same said about the XII (sorry to harp back to that, not on purpose).

I sure the same must be said for allied pilots facing different marks of the German planes - although the Dora does look quite a bit different. Today we know all the sub types but if you look back at diaries and combat reports all you see is '109G' '190A' or Long-nose FW.

Great post.

Oh, and IBTK.

Xiolablu3
06-20-2007, 02:03 PM
Originally posted by mynameisroland:


Xio for the A8 was in not closer to 11,000 produced?

Maybe the site I was reading missed a '0' out?

faustnik
06-20-2007, 02:06 PM
Originally posted by mynameisroland:

Xio for the A8 was in not closer to 11,000 produced?

I think it's between 2,000 and 3,000 for the A8.

1,000 would be a good guess for Doras.

stathem
06-20-2007, 02:08 PM
Originally posted by Low_Flyer_MkVb:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by stathem:
That's something that's talked about quite a bit as being a positive with the Spitfire range - vis the difficulty of telling a V from a IX for FW pilots when the IX arrived, how they then had to respect all Spits. I've seen the same said about the XII (sorry to harp back to that, not on purpose).

I sure the same must be said for allied pilots facing different marks of the German planes - although the Dora does look quite a bit different. Today we know all the sub types but if you look back at diaries and combat reports all you see is '109G' '190A' or Long-nose FW.

Great post.

Oh, and IBTK. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

<waves> Alright there LF, how's tricks?

IBTK? I thought this was an IKBY thread. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Xiolablu3
06-20-2007, 02:09 PM
Hmm, I wont read that site again then.

JG4_Helofly
06-20-2007, 02:16 PM
The 109G6 was probalby the worst of the series against mark IX spitfires. With the G14, G10 and K4 the 109 became more competitive against late war spifires. But both, the 109 and the spit had to suffer with heavier equipment and engines. As the war progressed, air combat became faster and faster due to better engines and here is the problem of those early war designs; they had both problems with high speed manoeuvrability.
At the beginning of the war, many aircraft designer had still the old WWI turn fight doctrin in mind and planes were optimised for low combat speed. No wonder the spit and 109 had their best manoeuvrability at pretty low speed. That was a handycap for both when fighting against more modern planes like p 47, 51 or fw 190.

If I remember correctly, the spit had very heavy ailerons and the 109 a stiff elevator at high speed.

That's just to compare these pretty similar planes with other main fighter of the war which came later.

hop2002
06-20-2007, 02:18 PM
I am always fascinated that WW2 pilots could vis ident new models of existing planes. I mean come on what is the obvious difference between an XVI and a XIV ?

In many cases they couldn't. USAAF and RAF pilots were identifying "long nose" 190s a long time before the Dora actually entered service.

If you look at the BoB, the Luftwaffe mis identified Hurricanes as Spitfires on many occasions, and even reported victories over Moranes and Curtis fighters, neither of which were in use. RAF pilots likewise reported shooting down Heinkel fighters that the Luftwaffe wasn't using.


I htought this was quite shocking as we are always told that the 700 SPitfire XIV's were insignificant.

I thought A8 production was higher, but almost certainly there were more Spitfire XIVs built than Doras.


I realise that I am British, and I love the Spitfire (amongst many many other planes), but as I see it, the SPitfire XIV is certainly as bigger player as BF109G6A/S, FW190D9, SOme FW190A models, and many others.

I'd say especially when you consider the fuel situation. The RAF Spitfires were flying day in, day out, whilst many of the Luftwaffe fighters towards the end of the war spent their time parked under cover, waiting for fuel.

Xiolablu3
06-20-2007, 02:18 PM
Originally posted by mynameisroland:


By the time the Spitfire XIV was in service the Spitfire reached its ultimate itteration - Id compare it to the Bf 109 G2 for its optimal blend of speed, climb and manuverability. After this plane it was downhill so far as handling and effectiveness was concerned.

What do you think?


I wrote a piece recently reaching hte same conclusion..

The Bf109 was about 2 years before the Spitfire in development, and its ddevelopment mirrors the Spit.

1935 - Prototype 109
1937 - Prototype Spitfire

When the Spitfire Mk1 was facing the Bf109 in 1940, the airframe of the 109 needed a rethink, as so much weight has been added. It had been through marks A-E. You can feel it in IL2, compared to the 109F's the Emil feels a bit underpowered and overweight.

Just as the Me109 was redesigned in 1941, and it transformed it into an even greater fighter so the new SPitfire airframe was produced 2 years later in 1943 with the MkVIII.

Now the ME109 has gone past its best and is starting to show its age. There is too much weight for the airframe and manoubrability suffers. The Spitfire however has found the lease of life that the Me109 gained in 1941-3 with the F and early G models. It has the new airframe and new engine. The SPitfire is at its peak throught 1943-45.

In 1945 the Spitfire is suffering too much weight with the Mk21 model's. I liken this to the Bf109G6 time for the Bf109. Its a step back and its time to shelve the project and begin new designs.

Luckily for the Allies this comes in 1945 at the end of the war. For the Germans this happened mid-war and they could not just stop production.

Xiolablu3
06-20-2007, 02:20 PM
Originally posted by hop2002:
I thought A8 production was higher, but almost certainly there were more Spitfire XIVs built than Doras.


I am sure Dora production is slightly higher than Spit XIV, Hopp.

Spitfire XIV's had 700 built before the wars end.

Doras had just over 1000 built.

Of course the SPitfire XIV will have performaed far more sorties than the Dora, but in terms of pure numbers, the Dora just has it.

mynameisroland
06-20-2007, 02:23 PM
Originally posted by JG4_Helofly:
The 109G6 was probalby the worst of the series against mark IX spitfires. With the G14, G10 and K4 the 109 became more competitive against late war spifires. But both, the 109 and the spit had to suffer with heavier equipment and engines. As the war progressed, air combat became faster and faster due to better engines and here is the problem of those early war designs; they had both problems with high speed manoeuvrability.
At the beginning of the war, many aircraft designer had still the old WWI turn fight doctrin in mind and planes were optimised for low combat speed. No wonder the spit and 109 had their best manoeuvrability at pretty low speed. That was a handycap for both when fighting against more modern planes like p 47, 51 or fw 190.

If I remember correctly, the spit had very heavy ailerons and the 109 a stiff elevator at high speed.

That's just to compare these pretty similar planes with other main fighter of the war which came later.

While the Bf 109 deteriorated after the F4/G2 the Spitfires handling only really depreciated after the Mk XIV. That means its airframe better absorbed the increased armament and engine requirements of WW2 than the Bf 109 did.

As for the Spitfires rate of roll, I didnt think is was that bad at high speeds in the later marks. Time to post that NACA chart again Faust http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif


Over 6,550 A-8 airframes were produced with at least eight factories turning out the fighter.

faustnik
06-20-2007, 02:24 PM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
I am sure Dora production is slightly higher than Spit XIV, Hopp.

Well, Dora production totals are a mystery. Did all the airframes that were built get engines, were they delivered to LW units? The Reich was a disaster by the time the Dora was in production, so, who knows?

Xiolablu3
06-20-2007, 02:30 PM
Originally posted by mynameisroland:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JG4_Helofly:
The 109G6 was probalby the worst of the series against mark IX spitfires. With the G14, G10 and K4 the 109 became more competitive against late war spifires. But both, the 109 and the spit had to suffer with heavier equipment and engines. As the war progressed, air combat became faster and faster due to better engines and here is the problem of those early war designs; they had both problems with high speed manoeuvrability.
At the beginning of the war, many aircraft designer had still the old WWI turn fight doctrin in mind and planes were optimised for low combat speed. No wonder the spit and 109 had their best manoeuvrability at pretty low speed. That was a handycap for both when fighting against more modern planes like p 47, 51 or fw 190.

If I remember correctly, the spit had very heavy ailerons and the 109 a stiff elevator at high speed.

That's just to compare these pretty similar planes with other main fighter of the war which came later.

While the Bf 109 deteriorated after the F4/G2 the Spitfires handling only really depreciated after the Mk XIV. That means its airframe better absorbed the increased armament and engine requirements of WW2 than the Bf 109 did.

. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


I dont htink there was toomuch difference - it was just that the Spitfire was 2 years later than the Me109.

See my thoughts on the timing of new developments in my earlier post.

I wouldnt say the Spitfire was 'better suited' to new developments. Just that it was such lucky timing in the time it entered service. It was perfect for WW2, whereas the Bf109 was just slightly (2 years) too early.

mynameisroland
06-20-2007, 02:30 PM
Originally posted by Low_Flyer_MkVb:
Oh, and IBTK.

Well so long as Kufurst doesnt enter and no one gets labelled an anti semetic why would the thread get locked?

mynameisroland
06-20-2007, 02:34 PM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:

I dont htink there was toomuch difference - it was just that the Spitfire was 2 years ahead of the Me109.

See my thoughts on the timing of new developments in my earlier thread.

I wouldnt say the Spitfire was 'better suited' to new developments. Just that it was such lucky timing in the time it entered service. It was perfect for WW2, whereas the Bf109 was just slightly (2 years) too early.

The Spitfire didnt incorporate any new techniques of construction or aerodynamic refinements that the Bf 109 missed out on. The Spitfire simply had a larger wing and tail surfaces which provided greater ability to cope with increased wight and torque - this is a benefit of building a larger airframe - slower on the same HP but better able to fit and control larger amounts of power later down the line.

faustnik
06-20-2007, 02:35 PM
50 lbs stick force:

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/RollChartClr2.jpg

30 lbs stick force:

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/RAF%20roll%20testCLR.jpg

*********************************

Here's a note on performance charts, you have to check the scale when trying to guage relative difference. If you look at this chart here...

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/1943_Speed_Compare_II.gif

... it looks like some a/c have speed advantages. If you consider that the RAF expected a 4% variation from tested performance, however, it becomes clear that there was little or no practical difference in speed performance between the front line fighters at most heights.

The difference in combat was situational awareness and positioning. Like I said, the pilots made the difference, much more so than the planes.

mynameisroland
06-20-2007, 02:46 PM
Faustnik in your speed chart you have the Bf 109 G1 which is the high altitude version of the G2. Wouldnt that perform better than a standard G6?

Im not disagreeing that pilot quality is the deciding factor - in almost any WW2 plane match up it is.

But the Spitfire IX is the first time that the Spitfire edges ahead of the Bf 109 in development cycle and imo it maintains that advantage until the end of the war and after.

Xiolablu3
06-20-2007, 02:51 PM
Originally posted by mynameisroland:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:

I dont htink there was toomuch difference - it was just that the Spitfire was 2 years ahead of the Me109.

See my thoughts on the timing of new developments in my earlier thread.

I wouldnt say the Spitfire was 'better suited' to new developments. Just that it was such lucky timing in the time it entered service. It was perfect for WW2, whereas the Bf109 was just slightly (2 years) too early.

The Spitfire didnt incorporate any new techniques of construction or aerodynamic refinements that the Bf 109 missed out on. The Spitfire simply had a larger wing and tail surfaces which provided greater ability to cope with increased wight and torque - this is a benefit of building a larger airframe - slower on the same HP but better able to fit and control larger amounts of power later down the line. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


I realise that mate, but a plane is usually envisaged in its Mk1 / MkA form.

Subsequent marks usually have added weight, guns, more powerful engine, armour.

A design can only take so much added weight without a redesigned airframe (Bf109F/Spitfire VIII)

A slightly redesigned airframe can only do so much to help. You can only really do this once before you get a totally new plane.

I think that the SPitfire and Bf109 both had added weight which eventaully took its toll on the design of the plane. Both coped quite well with it for around the same length of time and subsequent marks, its just that the SPitfire came 2 years later, and therefore lasted 2 years longer before it became over encumbered by all the extra weight.

luftluuver
06-20-2007, 02:59 PM
Fw 190 production

http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2005-12/1114844/Fw190-prod.jpg

Notice there was over twice the number of Doras produced than the total Mk XIVs produced.

The Dora number most seen (~700) looks like it is one factory's production.

mynameisroland
06-20-2007, 03:02 PM
What Im saying Xiola is that there is nothing that prevents the Spitfire from being made in 1935 infact its maiden flight was in March 1936 so for all intents and purposes it is a direct contemporary for the Bf 109 which 1st flew in May 1935 so there are 10 months seperating the too.

The Spitfires advantage is not that it is a newer design but that its design was bette rable to cope with the demands of future improvements such as armament, range, visibility and engine power.

faustnik
06-20-2007, 03:03 PM
Originally posted by mynameisroland:
Faustnik in your speed chart you have the Bf 109 G1 which is the high altitude version of the G2. Wouldnt that perform better than a standard G6?

Yes, the G6 was heavier with the Mg131 upgrade.


But the Spitfire IX is the first time that the Spitfire edges ahead of the Bf 109 in development cycle and imo it maintains that advantage until the end of the war and after.

Makes sense to me, with the emphasis on "edges". The performance differences were small, and the K series did a lot to eliminate them.

faustnik
06-20-2007, 03:04 PM
Originally posted by luftluuver:

Notice there was over twice the number of Doras produced than the total Mk XIVs produced.

Luft,

Is that actual production or production contracts? That Dora number seems very high.

mynameisroland
06-20-2007, 03:09 PM
Originally posted by faustnik:
Yes, the G6 was heavier with the Mg131 upgrade.


Remember the increased drag of the bulges, the unretractable tail wheel and perhaps a drop tank rack. The G6 was a low point for the Bf series.

The K4 on paper did a lot to redress the balance of performance lost to late P51s, P47s and Spitfires yet the K4 was never as capable as the XIV because it was simply too over developed. Heavy wing loading, poor build quality thanks to Germany's industry going down the drain, poor quality and very rare fuel availability, reliance on MW 50 to increase performance to acceptable levels ect The K4 was a Bf 109 too far imo.

luftluuver
06-20-2007, 03:10 PM
faust, from what I understand that is actual production compared to what literature usually states. Iirc, it was Crumpp who originally posted the doc.

faustnik
06-20-2007, 03:14 PM
Originally posted by luftluuver:
faust, from what I understand that is actual production compared to what literature usually states. Iirc, it was Crumpp who originally posted the doc.

Thanks. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Well good luck in determining actual production numbers. I think it's funny that they would create a list that exact considering the conditions near the wars end.

Also, I wonder how many A9s were produced as A9s and how many were converted A8s?

faustnik
06-20-2007, 03:18 PM
Originally posted by mynameisroland:
Heavy wing loading, poor build quality thanks to Germany's industry going down the drain, poor quality and very rare fuel availability, reliance on MW 50 to increase performance to acceptable levels ect The K4 was a Bf 109 too far imo.

Much of your list is not really design related, although in general I agree with you. The K4 certainly wouldn't be my aircraft of choice if I had to fly in 1945, but, it was still a capable fighter with performance figures similar to its contemporaries.

luftluuver
06-20-2007, 03:18 PM
Why not faust? Are we to believe the 109G-10 and K-4 production numbers since they were produced in the same time period?

Abbuzze
06-20-2007, 03:19 PM
A few things. First the spit was a very good plane, no doubt about this.

If you compare a Spit IX to a 109 you need to take a look at the boost.

If you take a look at

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/bf274.html
Chart: http://www.spitfireperformance.com/bf274speed.gif
Early version of the IX with 12lbs/(15lbs WEP-5min).

and compare this to:
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/me109/me109g.html
DB605A in a G1

You will see, that the 109 is faster with the 30min rating than the spit with the 5min rating... of course later G6 were slower than this G1. But the G1 was the high alt version of the G2. Same engine, but worse perfoming at all alt, because it had a pressured cabin. So it also had more weight. A clean G2 with 1.3ata would be better/faster.

Or if a take a later Spit with 18lbs vs a G6 with 1.42ata:



Speeds
17. The Me.109 was compared with a Spitfire LF.IX for speed and all-round manoeuvrability at heights up to 25,000 feet. Up to 16,000 feet the Spitfire holds a slight advantage when using 18 lb. boost, from 16,000 to 20,000 feet the Me.109 gains slightly in speed, and at heights above 20,000 feet the Spitfire again leads in speed to the extent of approximately 7 m.p.h. When 25 lbs.boost is employed in the Spitfire it is about 25 m.p.h. faster at heights below 15,000 feet and 7 m.p.h. faster at heights in excess of 15,000 feet.


I should mention that this G6 had the 20mm gunpods under the wings...
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/me109/me109g6-tactical.html

So the Spit wasn´t that much faster than many people believe - except the 25lbs version of course... You realy need to take a closer look comparing planes http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

faustnik
06-20-2007, 03:22 PM
Originally posted by luftluuver:
Why not faust? Are we to believe the 109G-10 and K-4 production numbers since they were produced in the same time period?

Uhhhh....I don't take them as hard figures, only "best guess". What do you think?

JG4_Helofly
06-20-2007, 03:22 PM
The document posted by Luft shows how many planes were realy built and how many planes were built according to literature.

luftluuver
06-20-2007, 03:28 PM
Well faust, since someone did a doc of neubau 109s from Jan 44 to wars end and it jives with other sources, I would say the 190 numbers are pretty accurate.

Do a search on the 12 O'clock board for neubau for the 109 doc.

faustnik
06-20-2007, 03:31 PM
Originally posted by luftluuver:
Well faust, since someone did a doc of neubau 109s from Jan 44 to wars end and it jives with other sources, I would say the 190 numbers are pretty accurate.

Do a search on the 12 O'clock board for neubau for the 109 doc.

Thanks, will check. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

Xiolablu3
06-20-2007, 04:42 PM
Originally posted by Abbuzze:
A few things. First the spit was a very good plane, no doubt about this.

If you compare a Spit IX to a 109 you need to take a look at the boost.

If you take a look at

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/bf274.html
Chart: http://www.spitfireperformance.com/bf274speed.gif
Early version of the IX with 12lbs/(15lbs WEP-5min).

and compare this to:
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/me109/me109g.html
DB605A in a G1

You will see, that the 109 is faster with the 30min rating than the spit with the 5min rating... of course later G6 were slower than this G1. But the G1 was the high alt version of the G2. Same engine, but worse perfoming at all alt, because it had a pressured cabin. So it also had more weight. A clean G2 with 1.3ata would be better/faster.

Or if a take a later Spit with 18lbs vs a G6 with 1.42ata:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
Speeds
17. The Me.109 was compared with a Spitfire LF.IX for speed and all-round manoeuvrability at heights up to 25,000 feet. Up to 16,000 feet the Spitfire holds a slight advantage when using 18 lb. boost, from 16,000 to 20,000 feet the Me.109 gains slightly in speed, and at heights above 20,000 feet the Spitfire again leads in speed to the extent of approximately 7 m.p.h. When 25 lbs.boost is employed in the Spitfire it is about 25 m.p.h. faster at heights below 15,000 feet and 7 m.p.h. faster at heights in excess of 15,000 feet.


I should mention that this G6 had the 20mm gunpods under the wings...
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/me109/me109g6-tactical.html

So the Spit wasn´t that much faster than many people believe - except the 25lbs version of course... You realy need to take a closer look comparing planes http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


I dont htink people here are actually comparing speed when they say that the Spitfire IX was the better fighter than the late 109's.

I believe they are talking about all round handling/armament/cockpit, just a generally better fighter.

Just as the Bf109F was a 'generally better fighter' than the Spitfire MkVb.


Top speed was never the Spitfires strong point. It was sufficiently in the ballpark to compete however. It was its handling and armament which made it such a good fighter.

There are many many stories of SPitfires going into dives to escape the enemy and succeeding. Even tho the Bf109 was the better diver.

It could be extremely fast in its Recon forms with all armament removed and extra weight removed. But in its fighter form, I believe it was usually a bit slower than its contemporary Bf109.

EVen in its Griffon form, Tempests,FW190s and Mustangs were quite a bit faster, usually 20mph or so on the same engine for the Mustang.

Those big wings that create such good handling, also mean you pay a little in top speed.

mynameisroland
06-20-2007, 05:07 PM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Abbuzze:
A few things. First the spit was a very good plane, no doubt about this.

If you compare a Spit IX to a 109 you need to take a look at the boost.

If you take a look at

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/bf274.html
Chart: http://www.spitfireperformance.com/bf274speed.gif
Early version of the IX with 12lbs/(15lbs WEP-5min).

and compare this to:
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/me109/me109g.html
DB605A in a G1

You will see, that the 109 is faster with the 30min rating than the spit with the 5min rating... of course later G6 were slower than this G1. But the G1 was the high alt version of the G2. Same engine, but worse perfoming at all alt, because it had a pressured cabin. So it also had more weight. A clean G2 with 1.3ata would be better/faster.

Or if a take a later Spit with 18lbs vs a G6 with 1.42ata:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
Speeds
17. The Me.109 was compared with a Spitfire LF.IX for speed and all-round manoeuvrability at heights up to 25,000 feet. Up to 16,000 feet the Spitfire holds a slight advantage when using 18 lb. boost, from 16,000 to 20,000 feet the Me.109 gains slightly in speed, and at heights above 20,000 feet the Spitfire again leads in speed to the extent of approximately 7 m.p.h. When 25 lbs.boost is employed in the Spitfire it is about 25 m.p.h. faster at heights below 15,000 feet and 7 m.p.h. faster at heights in excess of 15,000 feet.


I should mention that this G6 had the 20mm gunpods under the wings...
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/me109/me109g6-tactical.html

So the Spit wasn´t that much faster than many people believe - except the 25lbs version of course... You realy need to take a closer look comparing planes http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


I dont htink people here are actually comparing speed when they say that the Spitfire IX was the better fighter than the late 109's.

I believe they are talking about all round handling/armament/cockpit, just a generally better fighter.

Just as the Bf109F was a 'generally better fighter' than the Spitfire MkVb.


Top speed was never the Spitfires strong point. It was sufficiently in the ballpark to compete however. It was its handling and armament which made it such a good fighter.

There are many many stories of SPitfires going into dives to escape the enemy and succeeding. Even tho the Bf109 was the better diver.

It could be extremely fast in its Recon forms with all armament removed and extra weight removed. But in its fighter form, I believe it was usually a bit slower than its contemporary Bf109.

EVen in its Griffon form, Tempests,FW190s and Mustangs were quite a bit faster, usually 20mph or so on the same engine for the Mustang.

Those big wings that create such good handling, also mean you pay a little in top speed. </div></BLOCKQUOTE> http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif

Saves me from typing it mate http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif Its not about straight line speed - if it was P51 would be miles better than the Bf 109.
Although I dont think any Fw 190 apart from the Ta 152 H was faster than the Spitfire XIV at medium to high altitude.

WOLFMondo
06-20-2007, 05:16 PM
Originally posted by faustnik:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by mynameisroland:

By the time the Spitfire XIV was in service the Spitfire reached its ultimate itteration

I wonder if the ultimate wasn't the Spit IX at +25 boost? It was lighter than the Griffin versions with plenty of power.

?????? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

According to both Eric Brown and Geoffry Quill the ultimate Spit was the XII. Can't think of two better qualified people to tell us that.

With the XIV in mind as the last great Spit version, it could match and beat the IX at any altitude for speed and it ceiling was immense, 424mph at 44,000ft and a climb rate to get it there faster than anything else. Could a BF109K even reach that height let alone manouver there with its stubby wings? I think not.

That said, most XIV's had bombs strapped to them and were acting as ground pounders in the 2nd TAF.

ElAurens
06-20-2007, 05:23 PM
I am always amazed when I see the roll rate of the Curtiss Tomahawk (Hawk 81).

Sorry for going a bit off the posted topic, but the Curtiss fighter was really better than current writers/historians/"experts" give it credit for.

Now... as to developments over the period 1939~1945 in general, well, it's pretty astonishing isn't it? When we look at it like we normally do, taking one model then it's replacement, advancements seem incremental or even retrograde. But if you look at the fighters that all the different air forces started the war with, and compare them to the aircraft at the end of the war the amount of progress over a mere 5 odd years is truely astonishing.

Scen
06-20-2007, 06:15 PM
Sorry if it's already been noted but the late war stuff is apples and oranges really. The mission changed significantly for the Luftwaffe as they where attempting to repel high level bombers. They where less interested in competing on a fighter to fighter level.

Just my 2 pennies

mynameisroland
06-20-2007, 06:26 PM
Originally posted by Scen:
Sorry if it's already been noted but the late war stuff is apples and oranges really. The mission changed significantly for the Luftwaffe as they where attempting to repel high level bombers. They where less interested in competing on a fighter to fighter level.

Just my 2 pennies

Fw 190 D9 and Bf 109 K4 seem like a reversion to fighter aircraft to me. Yes the 109 can be laden with gunpodes but both aircraft were specifically made to match superior alliedfighters particularly at high altitude.

Ratsack
06-20-2007, 06:30 PM
Originally posted by faustnik:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
I am sure Dora production is slightly higher than Spit XIV, Hopp.

Well, Dora production totals are a mystery. Did all the airframes that were built get engines, were they delivered to LW units? The Reich was a disaster by the time the Dora was in production, so, who knows? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The numbers that Luftluuver posted in the 'Best Fighter' thread suggest about 1,500 D9s were built, and this was in the range of the numbers being debated elsewhere. I recall Brain posted some figures for production at particular factories, but never got around to providing a citation for them.

However, this says nothing about delivery, so the point you're making stands, Faust.

cheers,
Ratsack

Brain32
06-20-2007, 06:37 PM
Well, I would give the overall advantage to the SpitXIV over 109K4, I'll explain later why, but first...
I find the reasons you guys say F4-G2 was the peak of BF109 pretty one sided, why? Well first of all BOTH planes gained weight, that was inevitable, actually SpitXIV was some 400Kg heavier than the heaviest 109, the K4. Then you mention pilot comments on that, but on every pilot comment about how F4/G2 handled better you can find a Spitfire pilot comment saying, how they feel MkV was better than MkIX, or MkIX than MkXIV. It's perfectly normal the pilots liked lighter early planes isn't it?
Now to return to why I would give advantage to SpitMkXIV, first the lightness of elevator controls, having lighter elevator simply must be an advantage, G-forces are physically intensive, having to pull 25Kg+ to follow what other guy can at ony 10Kg is surely a disadvantage, other than that, there's the turn advantage, an extremly good defensive card especially coupled with the great climb, and in the end I simply find 2xHispano+2x.50 better air to air setup than mk108+2xMg131 since we are talking about fighter vs fighter combat here, strange choice from the manufacturer since 109's primary role was talking care about escorts while 190's went after bombers, then again "the Yankee Bomber problem" was obviously pretty big and unbareable especially during the last days http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Brain32
06-20-2007, 06:39 PM
I recall Brain posted some figures for production at particular factories, but never got around to providing a citation for them.
Yup I had it all, factories, production dates and werk numbers, the numbers matched that document luftluver posted in this thread.

mynameisroland
06-20-2007, 06:41 PM
Brain Spitfire pilots tend to say that the XIV or the VIII or the VII were the nicest variants to fly - where the handling was matched with power. there was no serious deteriation in the handling characteristics until the Mk 21 appeared the XIV was the last Spitfire as it were.

I havent seen any German pilots quotes saying the G10 or the K4 was the perfect blend of performance and manuverability. Infact it is the F4 which represents this zenith - after it is drastically downhill for the manuverability and handling of the type.

Ratsack
06-20-2007, 06:55 PM
Originally posted by mynameisroland:
... there was no serious deteriation in the handling characteristics until the Mk 21 appeared the XIV was the last Spitfire as it were.

....

There were some yaw problems with the first 'super Spits' with the new wing. This led to a very negative report from the AFDU. This was subsequently rememdied, however, and at least one squadron of Mk 20s saw action before VE day. However, the action was all air to ground (including rockets, making them the only rocket-armed Spits of the war).

cheers,
Ratsack

Ratsack
06-20-2007, 06:56 PM
Originally posted by Brain32:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> I recall Brain posted some figures for production at particular factories, but never got around to providing a citation for them.
Yup I had it all, factories, production dates and werk numbers, the numbers matched that document luftluver posted in this thread. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Do you have the sources for those numbers? I still intend to update that thread with revised figures, where they're available and can be verified in some reasonable way.

cheers,
Ratsack

Brain32
06-20-2007, 07:25 PM
Yes I still have it http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif It's in the book I have, I can scan it tommorow just tell me where you want it, don't know if it's accurate, but it's there http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

luftluuver
06-20-2007, 08:36 PM
Originally posted by Ratsack:
The numbers that Luftluuver posted in the 'Best Fighter' thread suggest about 1,500 D9s were built, and this was in the range of the numbers being debated elsewhere. I recall Brain posted some figures for production at particular factories, but never got around to providing a citation for them. What board is this 'Best Fighter' thread on?

Brain, please take the time and post the data here.

I still don't understand why some question the number of 190s built because of the chaotic state in Germany at the time, yet someone found documentation for 109G-10 and K-4 production. Even the number of Me262s built and delivered is known.

The doc I posted does not include the F and G models which would push the total number built to close to 20,000, which is the number most seen.

Ratsack
06-20-2007, 09:37 PM
Originally posted by luftluuver:
...What board is this 'Best Fighter' thread on?



This one, here, in this forum. It's a few weeks old now, and everybody's friend, Kurfurst, managed to get the first two versions of it locked.



Brain, please take the time and post the data here.

Yes, please do. A scan would be very nice, but it's not necessary. A normal academic citation will do (i.e., Author, Title, (Publisher, Year), page). It's possible to verify from there.




I still don't understand why some question the number of 190s built because of the chaotic state in Germany at the time, yet someone found documentation for 109G-10 and K-4 production. Even the number of Me262s built and delivered is known.

I don't know, either. I can speculate, however. Some of the Fw factories were in the East, and the records for those may have lost during the Soviet advance (i.e., destroyed or misplaced during the evacuation). It'd be an interesting exercise to mark the Luftwaffe factories on a map of Europe, and then plot the Soviet and Allied advances on it as a series of phase lines. It might tell us something useful about the reliability of some of the production figures that are getting thrown around as everybody revisits this material.

cheers,
Ratsack

luftluuver
06-20-2007, 09:54 PM
Originally posted by Ratsack:
This one, here, in this forum. It's a few weeks old now, and everybody's friend, Kurfurst, managed to get the first two versions of it locked. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_redface.gif I could I not remember. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/1072.gif

JG4_Helofly
06-21-2007, 05:18 AM
I havent seen any German pilots quotes saying the G10 or the K4 was the perfect blend of performance and manuverability

There is one quote. From Maj. Gerhard Barkhorn. He said that the G14 was the best 109 because it had good handling and was powerfull.
I can't find it, but I know he said that.

Bremspropeller
06-21-2007, 05:48 AM
I can second, what Helo said.
I'm not quite sure, but AFAIK it's written in one of the Tolliver/ Constable books.
But I'd not give too much on those accounts. It's down to pilot's preferances. You know the myth that "many" pilots liked to go on with their 109s instead of trading them for fresch 190s.
There were only few pilots that really refused to transition. The most prominent was Barkhorn, who flew a G-14 among JG 6 instead of flying a factory-fresh D-9.
We know the D-9 was, by far, a better design, but he felt the 109 matched his style of flying better (no surprise to me, hd had flown more thant 1,000 sorties on 109s).
So much for pilot-accounts.


You guys tend to forget that many of those guys who flew K-4s and G-10s havent flown anything else before their current mount.

The Spit also suffered as well with it's increased weight. I got a book where a IX pilot got to transfer a freshly-repaired V to it's field and he labelled it as better handling.

The problem wasrthere weren't many good pilots around to exploit the G-10's and K-4's advantages and fly those planes to it's limits.

The RAF guys were a different bunch. They knew their stuff and could take their Spits to the edge.

My impression is that the Spit is the winner, but the 109 is not far behind at all - it's a very tight match.

Xiolablu3
06-21-2007, 06:02 AM
I htought Barkhorn flew a FW190D9

There are hundreds of pictures of him in his Dora.

http://www.stormbirdsannex.com/images/sundin/Pilot_Barkhorns.jpg

http://www.stormbirdsannex.com/product_info.php?cPath=72&products_id=611

Brain32
06-21-2007, 06:04 AM
@Ratsack and Luftluver not to disturb this thread I posted my scans at CWOS, go check it out http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

mynameisroland
06-21-2007, 06:04 AM
Its just based on pilots comments mainly but there is an understanding that the late Bf 109s were too heavy and powerful for their airframe. I agree that the Spitfire got heavier and more powerful and its handling degraded somewhat yet its margin ofsuperiority in handling - if you want to call it that - meant that it could better afford the growth and maintain an ease of handling and manuverability relative to other WW2 fighters in the same time frame.

While the Bf 109s manuverability deteriorated seriously from the G series onwards ( the G14 may well have been an improvement over the G6 but not as good as the F4 ? )The Spitfires maintained its manuverability advantage where the planes around it deteriorated more or at least at the same rate.

I agree that the Spitfire/Bf 109 is a close match but after the IX is introduced I feel that the Bf 109 is on the decline and the Spitfire is reaching its prime. The XIV is arguably a better plane than the IX. Faster, better climb, stronger stiffer airframe, increased range and on a par in terms of manuverability.

Ratsack the new wing spitfire started on the Mk20/21 onwards right? So the XIV retained the VIIIs wing and its good handling qualities with an enlarged tail surface to help compensate for the increased torque.

Blutarski2004
06-21-2007, 06:09 AM
Always wondered what would have resulted if the 109T wing had been adopted for the heavier G & K series 109s.

mynameisroland
06-21-2007, 06:18 AM
Originally posted by Blutarski2004:
Always wondered what would have resulted if the 109T wing had been adopted for the heavier G & K series 109s.

Im guessing that rate of roll and relative speed would have gone down but handling would have improved as would ceiling and climb. Rudder area would have to enlarged as in later Bf 109s though to retatin directional stability.

An interesting comparison is the Spitfire Vb they fitted with a DB605 developing around 1450 HP. If you compare that to an equivalent Bf 109 G the Spitfire had better ceiling and rate of climb(IIRC) on the same HP.

Kettenhunde
06-21-2007, 06:20 AM
It's down to pilot's preferances.


Absolutely. All pilots love the plane that takes them into the air and brings them home again repeatedly.

Just as 109 pilots argue over which variant was the best, so do Spitfire pilots:

http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/503_1182427401_bobweightopinion.jpg

As for weight gain, I don't think a reasonable case can be made of greater than normal weight creep in the 109, IMHO.

The weight gain is comparable with most WWII fighters and is accompanied by an appropriate gain in power available. It goes for the Spitfire or any other design made by competent engineers.

These kinds of claims are the equivalent of an automotive engineer forgetting to put wheels on his car design. The effects of weight on aircraft design are foremost in the minds of aeronautical engineers as well as ways to mitigate the effects.

All the best,

Crumpp

Bremspropeller
06-21-2007, 06:22 AM
There are hundreds of pictures of him in his Dora.

Yeah, hundreds of copies of like two pictures, showing him on some familiarisation flight.

The D-9 was assigned to him (even named "Christl"), but he still flew his 109.



Its just based on pilots comments mainly but there is an understanding that the late Bf 109s were too heavy and powerful for their airframe. I agree that the Spitfire got heavier and more powerful and its handling degraded somewhat yet its margin ofsuperiority in handling - if you want to call it that - meant that it could better afford the growth and maintain an ease of handling and manuverability relative to other WW2 fighters in the same time frame.

I'd put it this way: it was difficult for youngsters to get all it's performance squeezed out of the late 109s.
But in that stage of the war it wasn't all about ********ing in huge dogfights anyway.
Operating against the numerical odds meant you had to go in, hit and egress quickly.

Another issue is pilot fatigue.
I dunno if you have read Sensei's post in the fatigue-thread.
He flew F-16s with very good life-support systems, including G-suits and very sophisticated oxygen supply. As he stated, he was in good physical shape.
Yet he found it hard to endure several minutes of mid-ranged Gs.

Don't believe, that the ability to throw your plane around was such a huge advantage as you couldn't do it all the time.
Most dogfights/ engagements were over in a couple of seconds, it seldomly lasted a few minutes.

Yes, the Spit had better handling-qualities, but no, that was not too much of an advantage.

JG4_Helofly
06-21-2007, 06:40 AM
The problem with our sim is simply that performance is, unlike in RL, the one and only important factor. If you take two pilots with same skills ( pilot A and B) , only a slight difference in performance could give the victory to A who has the plane with 1m/s better climb or one sec better turn.
That's why there are so many discussions about plane performance in this forum. In RL the pure performance was not so important compared to this game.
As Brempspropeller said, there are important factors like fatigue which are not modeled and which have great effects on dogfights. Also all planes are perfect and in top condition. In RL planes had 5% or sometimes more variation in performance in the same series.

So IMO, the performance of the plane is far more important in this game than it was in RL.

Xiolablu3
06-21-2007, 06:52 AM
From an Interview with Adolf Galland, for info about the about Bf109 :-


What do you recall about the death of ace Walter Nowotny, and do you feel that his death had any impact on Germany's Messerschmitt Me-262 jet fighter program?

Galland: I had been telling Hitler for over a year, since my first flight in an Me-262, that only Focke Wulf Fw-190 fighter production should continue in conventional aircraft, to discontinue the Me-109, which was outdated, and to focus on building a massive jet-fighter force. I was in East Prussia for a preview of the jet, which was fantastic, a totally new development. This was 1943, and I was there with Professor Willy Messerschmitt and other engineers responsible for the development. The fighter was almost ready for mass production at that time, and Hitler wanted to see a demonstration. When the 262 was brought out for his viewing at Insterburg, and I was standing there next to him, Hitler was very impressed. He asked the professor, "Is this aircraft able to carry bombs?" Well, Messerschmitt said, "Yes, my Fhrer, it can carry for sure a 250-kilogram bomb, perhaps two of them." In typical Hitler fashion, he said "Well, nobody thought of this! This is the Blitz (lightning) bomber I have been requesting for years. No one thought of this. I order that this 262 be used exclusively as a Blitz bomber, and you, Messerschmitt, have to make all the necessary preparations to make this feasible." This was really the beginning of the misuse of the 262, as five bomber wings were supposed to be equipped with the jet. These bomber pilots had no fighter experience, such as combat flying or shooting, which is why so many were shot down. They could only escape by outrunning the fighters in pursuit. This was the greatest mistake surrounding the 262, and I believe the 262 could have been made operational as a fighter at least a year and a half earlier and built in large enough numbers so that it could have changed the air war. It would most certainly not have changed the final outcome of the war, for we had already lost completely, but it would have probably delayed the end, since the Normandy invasion on June 6, 1944, would probably not have taken place, at least not successfully if the 262 had been operational. I certainly think that just 300 jets flown daily by the best fighter pilots would have had a major impact on the course of the air war. This would have, of course, prolonged the war, so perhaps Hitler's misuse of this aircraft was not such a bad thing after all.



http://www.tarrif.net/wwii/interviews/adolf_galland.htm

Galland agrees that in 1943 (Bf109G6) the Bf109 should be discontinued.

Kettenhunde
06-21-2007, 07:06 AM
Galland agrees that in 1943 (Bf109G6) the Bf109 should be discontinued.


Certainly Galland did not like the later Bf-109 variants.

However guys like Hartmann sure did. In fact he turned down flying the Me-262 to remain in 109's.

Lots of differing opinion. Same as any other fighter with multiple variants. Always going to be argument at the user level which was best.

Facts are by the engineering, the Bf-109 was not outdated.

All the best,

Crumpp

mynameisroland
06-21-2007, 07:10 AM
Originally posted by Bremspropeller:
I'd put it this way: it was difficult for youngsters to get all it's performance squeezed out of the late 109s.
But in that stage of the war it wasn't all about ********ing in huge dogfights anyway.
Operating against the numerical odds meant you had to go in, hit and egress quickly.

Another issue is pilot fatigue.
I dunno if you have read Sensei's post in the fatigue-thread.
He flew F-16s with very good life-support systems, including G-suits and very sophisticated oxygen supply. As he stated, he was in good physical shape.
Yet he found it hard to endure several minutes of mid-ranged Gs.

Don't believe, that the ability to throw your plane around was such a huge advantage as you couldn't do it all the time.
Most dogfights/ engagements were over in a couple of seconds, it seldomly lasted a few minutes.

Yes, the Spit had better handling-qualities, but no, that was not too much of an advantage.

The Spitfire handled better at speeds than the Bf 109 and also performed better at high altitude. It carried a more effective armament (yes in the wings - so that can be seen as a detracter but imo not) and was easier to fly effectively by green pilots. The Spitfire XIV even more so. As a hit and run machine at high altitude it would have few peers amongst the Luftwaffe.

I do not disagree that G restrictions are important. Please dont think I am suggesting that the Spitfire was merely a better turn fighter. I think that the SPitfire was superior to the Bf 109 as a fighter aircraft in general from the IX onwards. Superior accessible performance, superior handling, superior manuverbility ect these attributes were cemented by the XIV. High speed attacks can be carried out just as effectively in a contemporary Spitfire than the equivalent Bf 109 - but I would add that neither plane was as suited to that kind of fighting as the newr piston engined fighters like the P51, Tempest and Fw 190(height restrictions apply herehttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif )

Where I do disagree is in the are of handling not offering an advantage. The Spitfire handled better from sea level to 40,000ft. This cannot be overstated as an advantage because it meant that its pilots had less to worry about while flying and searching for the enemy. Its visibility was also arguably superior and definetly so once the bubble top was slowly introduced.

Id rather be in a P51 or a Tempest in 1944 or even a Fw 190 D but if it was a toss up between the Bf 109 G/K an dthe Spitfire IX/XIV the Spitfire is the more capable all round fighter imo.

mynameisroland
06-21-2007, 07:12 AM
Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Galland agrees that in 1943 (Bf109G6) the Bf109 should be discontinued.


Certainly Galland did not like the later Bf-109 variants.

However guys like Hartmann sure did. In fact he turned down flying the Me-262 to remain in 109's.

Lots of differing opinion. Same as any other fighter with multiple variants. Always going to be argument at the user level which was best.

Facts are by the engineering, the Bf-109 was not outdated.

All the best,

Crumpp </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

How many Spitfires, P47s, P51s, Typhoons and Tempests all flown by well trained opponents did Hartmann have to fly against - every day?

I dont want to knock Hartmann or the VVS but it was a far tougher task flying against the RAF and USAAF in a Bf 109 or Fw 190 than it was against the VVS.

Give Hartmann a Bf 109 G6 in the latter half of 43 beginning of 44 and place him in France. Then See how long he would be singing the Bf 109s praises http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

You are right Crummp that engineering wise the Bf 109 was not out dated. It had good engine, good performance band, good armament. It was the combination of these in an airframe which was not capable of doing them justice that was its problem. Give a newer more capable airframe the same performance and you have a great fighterplane.

Bremspropeller
06-21-2007, 07:16 AM
Id rather be in a P51 or a Tempest in 1944 or even a Fw 190 D but if it was a toss up between the Bf 109 G/K an dthe Spitfire IX/XIV the Spitfire is the more capable all round fighter imo.


Absolutely agree.

Not to forget, the Spit was a better Jabo.

Dtools4fools
06-21-2007, 07:21 AM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif

1:1 dogfights with even tactical setting at beginning were rather rare from what I've read.

All the discussions about which plane was better when add to the confusion.
Why did I get shot down??? I mean I was in the better plane...it must be porked....!!!!

4-5% variation in engine power (and its subsequnet effect on speed and climb) would be WONDERFUL to have in BoB (as a difficulty setting) in my opinion. That means if you top speed is 700km/h it could be as well only 665-670km/h.

Likewise I have not read any reports of the late 109's being 'bad planes, too heavy, not manouverable enough'.
Most of it was rather along the line that it was more diffiocult to handle, in particular for new pilots fresh from training.
A lot said the F was maybe the most balanced and the nicest to fly, yes indeed, but did they really say later variants were not manouverable enough?
Sure enought they didn't have much possiblities to compare to other planes much as they couldn't hop into an opponents plane and take it for a few combat sorties.
Much more to their concern was the opposition they encounterd, in particular the numbers of it.
Knoke never complains about his 109 not being up to its task. He's much more worried about the inexperienced pilots in his flights and the sheer numbers US bombers and escorts to deal with.
Don't think they would have done any better in other prop planes of that time really...
Another thing is that theay probalby relized that all you manouverability doesn't help you if you don't have the speed. Knoke in fact mentions 'the new superchargers are marvellous'. Not 'the crate is too heavy and not manouverable enough'.

If there are 3000 allied fighter sorties a day and 1000 axis, then I want to be in that allied plane...no matter who is flying what. I even wouldn't want ot be in a (perfectly working) 262, the odds are just aginst me, sooner or later...

What's a good plane anyway? Good speed, climb, dive, manouver, protection, firepower, range, ect...
But easy-to-use is probalby another key ingredient. That an average pilot can make use of the plane given to him. And that's problaby where the later war planes excell compared to the overdeveloped early war planes.
A Musatang vs 109 at altitude with two aces on the controls I wouldn't want to bet really one anyone. Can go both ways, a little mistake somewhere on your side and you are dead if the opponent catches you no matter if your plane is a tad better.
However if there are two inexperienced pilots than I would bet on the Mustang over 109 as the pilot will be less occupied with trying to control his plane...

But to add something to the topic, yes, Spit has his peak later than 109, agree there, makes sense to me. Larger airframe sure makes it better to adapt to more weight.
*****

Xiolablu3
06-21-2007, 07:24 AM
I believe the Bf109 was outdated in 1943, especially by it technology.

Gunther Rall :-

And I still consider that altogether with all these factors that the P-51 was most likely one of the best fighter planes. This was maneuverable. When I got in, the first thing, I got in the cockpit and I saw electric starting system. I remember wank, wank in Russia (refers to the manual starter by mechanics). Her (P-51) press button, prrrd, then we go (electrical starter, easy engine starter). Fantastic. Beautiful sight (visibility). We never had this sight to the back.. Very stable undercarriage. Very good weapons set. So I think this was a very good airplane.

He also talks about how cramped the cockpit was in the Bf109, how you had the big cannon between your legs, how you could not see out the back...


Of course the FW190 and Me262 were on a par and the Me262 surpassed the SPitfire and P51.

For my points, this is not about Allied vs Axis, just between the Spitfire and Bf109.

I believe the SPitfire and Bf109 both had about 8 years of development potential in the design, it was just bad luck for the Germans that the Me109 prototype flew in 1935, and lucky for the British that the Spitfire protoype flew in 1937.

Bremspropeller
06-21-2007, 07:30 AM
And I still consider that altogether with all these factors that the P-51 was most likely one of the best fighter planes. This was maneuverable. When I got in, the first thing, I got in the cockpit and I saw electric starting system. I remember wank, wank in Russia (refers to the manual starter by mechanics). Her (P-51) press button, prrrd, then we go (electrical starter, easy engine starter). Fantastic. Beautiful sight (visibility). We never had this sight to the back.. Very stable undercarriage. Very good weapons set. So I think this was a very good airplane.


Cut the "P-51" out and it sounds like an advertisment for the 190 http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Let's put it this way: the 109 was fine for the eastern front, where it performed astonishingly.
The 190, however, was the better mount for both fronts. It lacked the 109s high-alt performance but that improved towards the end (too little, too late).

Xiolablu3
06-21-2007, 07:33 AM
Yes, or compare the Me109 to the Fw190, it doesnt have to be the P51.

I was just trying to make the point that planes were getting much more advanced.

I KNOW the SPitfire also needed hand starting, and was also being outdated by that time. I just think that the SPitfire, with it better cockpit, better view, better armament (1x30mm is certainly not as versatile as 2x20mm and 4xmg), slightly more stable undercarriage etc, had a couple more years left in the design at that time. Purely because it entered service 2 years later.

NOT because it had any more 'potential' than the Bf109 design. Both had the same amount of 'potential' IMO, about 8 years worth from the prototypes first flight.

ImpStarDuece
06-21-2007, 07:36 AM
Originally posted by Ratsack:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by mynameisroland:
... there was no serious deteriation in the handling characteristics until the Mk 21 appeared the XIV was the last Spitfire as it were.

....

There were some yaw problems with the first 'super Spits' with the new wing. This led to a very negative report from the AFDU. This was subsequently rememdied, however, and at least one squadron of Mk 20s saw action before VE day. However, the action was all air to ground (including rockets, making them the only rocket-armed Spits of the war).

cheers,
Ratsack </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually, some Mk IXs in the ETO and Mk Vs in the CBI operated with 60 lbs rockets.

In the ETO they were usually used as in place of 2 x 205lbs bombs on the wings, mostly when the supply lines had trouble getting bombs to the foward air bases during the winter of 1944/1945. Pilots found them a pretty poor substitute for the 250 lbrs though, and they were usually used for targets like buildings or bunkers rather than armour or MET.

I was flicking through some old monographs a couple of months ago and came across a picture of a Mk IX in the ETO armed with 4 x 60 lbs rockets in duplex mounts (basically two 60lbrs strapped together), 2 x 250 lbs bombs and 1 x 500 lbs on the centreline. I don't know if this was a mock up or an actual strike configuration, but I'll be some pilot was crazy enough to give it a go if allowed. Had to be very late war though, as the duplex mounts weren't cleareed until February 1945.

Xiolablu3
06-21-2007, 07:38 AM
BTW guys, very nice read here, Gunther Rall interview, if you have not already read it :-


http://www.virtualpilots.fi/hist/WW2History-GuntherRallEnglish.html

mynameisroland
06-21-2007, 07:53 AM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
I believe the SPitfire and Bf109 both had about 8 years of development potential in the design, it was just bad luck for the Germans that the Me109 prototype flew in 1935, and lucky for the British that the Spitfire protoype flew in 1937.

Bf 109 prototype flew in May 1935, the Spitfire in March 1936 thats 8 months mate http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Xiolablu3
06-21-2007, 07:55 AM
OK maybe my prototype 'theory' is not so great after all and you are right. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

But didnt the Spitfire Mk1 enter service in 1939 and the Bf109 in 1937?

The point I am trying to make is that while the SPitfire was on its Mk1 version, the Bf109 was already on its 'E' version.

It had already gone through a major transition by this time.

M_Gunz
06-21-2007, 07:57 AM
Originally posted by mynameisroland:
Remember the increased drag of the bulges, the unretractable tail wheel and perhaps a drop tank rack. The G6 was a low point for the Bf series.

Better weapons, better armor, faster... the later models were not exactly dogs at handling,
just not capable of what the F-4 and G-2 were.

IIRC the G-6's were the most produced 109's?

Didn't the early models get upgraded along the line, those not destroyed?

mynameisroland
06-21-2007, 08:00 AM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
OK maybe my prototype 'theory' is not so great after all and you are right. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

But didnt the Spitfire Mk1 enter service in 1939 and the Bf109 in 1937?

The point I am trying to make is that while the SPitfire was on its Mk1 version, the Bf109 was already on its 'E' version.

It had already gone through a major transition by this time.

The Spitfire was not as easy to manufacture as a Bf 109, Fw 190 or a P51. It had double curvature on its wings and its production methods were advanced at the time. Lucky the good old Hurricane was there to plug the gap.

Ive often wondered how good a refined Hurricane with a Merlin 60's series engine would be. Thin the wing a bit and hey presto youve got a pretty good rugged fighter bomber.

mynameisroland
06-21-2007, 08:02 AM
Originally posted by M_Gunz:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by mynameisroland:
Remember the increased drag of the bulges, the unretractable tail wheel and perhaps a drop tank rack. The G6 was a low point for the Bf series.

Better weapons, better armor, faster... the later models were not exactly dogs at handling,
just not capable of what the F-4 and G-2 were.

IIRC the G-6's were the most produced 109's?

Didn't the early models get upgraded along the line, those not destroyed? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Better weapons,better armor and faster - yes I agree with all of those. But these came at a price. The later Bf 109s were dogs in the handling stakes the Bf 109s wing did not compensate for the increased weight, its rudder needed enlarging too and its aerilons and elevators could have done with a redesign. Compared to the F4 they were poor and compared to a IX they were awful.

Xiolablu3
06-21-2007, 08:06 AM
Gunther Ralls opinion on his favourite Bf109 :-

'And when Crete was finished we went back to Romania, and there we got a new airplane. It was the 109 F. This was my beloved aircraft. It was the first aircraft with the round wing tips, no struts in the back, 605 engine (ed. DB 601), excellent, and not too overloaded. You know, later on they put in this, and put in this, and put in this. The aircraft became heavier, but not this one. The F was my ideal aircraft.'

My opinion is the same as Gallands and Ralls.

M_Gunz
06-21-2007, 08:07 AM
Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/503_1182427401_bobweightopinion.jpg

As for weight gain, I don't think a reasonable case can be made of greater than normal weight creep in the 109, IMHO.

That text refers to 'bob weights' put on control lines to try and balance the stick better.

JG53Frankyboy
06-21-2007, 08:14 AM
Originally posted by M_Gunz:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by mynameisroland:
Remember the increased drag of the bulges, the unretractable tail wheel and perhaps a drop tank rack. The G6 was a low point for the Bf series.

Better weapons, better armor, faster... the later models were not exactly dogs at handling,
just not capable of what the F-4 and G-2 were.

IIRC the G-6's were the most produced 109's?

Didn't the early models get upgraded along the line, those not destroyed? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

a 109G-6 of early 1943 can heavily differ from a 109G-6 of early 1944........:
Erla canopy
Galland headarmour
MK108 hub canon
1.42ATA allowed
larger Rudder
and it still was called G-6 http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif


but overall, yes, the handling charackteristics of the 109s get worser after the 109F - no doubt.

Blutarski2004
06-21-2007, 08:20 AM
Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Galland agrees that in 1943 (Bf109G6) the Bf109 should be discontinued.
However guys like Hartmann sure did. In fact he turned down flying the Me-262 to remain in 109's. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


..... I was under the impression that Hartmann's decision hade been based upon his desire to remain with his JG54 comrades.

Xiolablu3
06-21-2007, 08:22 AM
Found another Rall interview.


WWII: Which Allied fighter was the most difficult to shoot down in combat?

Rall: At the beginning of the war we flew short-range missions and encountered Spitfires, which were superior. And do not forget the Hurricanes. I think that the Supermarine Spitfire was the most dangerous to us early on. I flew the Spitfire myself, and it was a very, very good aircraft. It was maneuverable and with good climbing potential.


http://www.historynet.com/air_sea/aces/3038146.html?page=6&c=y

Ratsack
06-21-2007, 08:27 AM
Originally posted by Blutarski2004:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Galland agrees that in 1943 (Bf109G6) the Bf109 should be discontinued.
However guys like Hartmann sure did. In fact he turned down flying the Me-262 to remain in 109's. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


..... I was under the impression that Hartmann's decision hade been based upon his desire to remain with his JG54 comrades. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Likewise, that was my impression too.

This doesn't invalidate the general point about pilot preferences. It's just a bad example.

cheers,
Ratsack

Kettenhunde
06-21-2007, 08:30 AM
That text refers to 'bob weights' put on control lines to try and balance the stick better.

Correct. The text shows a variation is Spitfire pilot opinion as to which marque was "the best".

The design weight growth of the Spitfire is another issue. While the design gained considerable weight, it also gained appropriate measures to offset this weight gain.

That is normal in an aircraft design.

Why would the Bf-109 be any different unless Mtt was plainly incompetent? That is simply not a correct assumption. It is an assumption that is born of prejudice for a game shape and not founded in the science of aircraft.

So far all that is presented is a range of opinion from both veterans and posters.


My opinion is the same as Gallands and Ralls.

Here we see that the Spitfire Mk's were no different from the 109's:


Compared to the F4 they were poor and compared to a IX they were awful.

Many Spitfire pilots though the Spitfire Mk I was the ultimate handling Spitfire. Many 109 pilots felt the Bf-109F4 was the ultimate handling 109.

Of all the arenas of aircraft design, stability and control issues were the youngest and most difficult engineering challenges facing WWII era designers. Handling deterioration is going to occur in any design that you increase the weight and power without changing the stick points. The technology for solving stability and control issues was comparable for all the combatants. Any differences are simply differences of opinion and not in fact. That is the fact my opinion is based upon.

All the best,

Crumpp

Kettenhunde
06-21-2007, 08:35 AM
..... I was under the impression that Hartmann's decision hade been based upon his desire to remain with his JG54 comrades.

Certainly that was a part of it. He felt he could do more good in JG54 than he could in JV44.

In JV44 he would have been a junior officer. In JG54 he was more senior. He was also with men he knew, respected, and had fought with before.

In JG54 he was also flying an aircraft he was very familiar with and very successful in. In JV44 he would be flying an unproven design he was not familiar with.

In this biography, these are listed as the reason he stayed with JG54 after flying the Me262.

All the best,

Crumpp

Whirlin_merlin
06-21-2007, 08:45 AM
Originally posted by mynameisroland:

Ive often wondered how good a refined Hurricane with a Merlin 60's series engine would be. Thin the wing a bit and hey presto youve got a pretty good rugged fighter bomber.

Hawker concidered a Griffon engined hurri!
Mind you I reckon 3 more 'refined' and powerful versions of the hurri were made; the typhoon, tempest and fury http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif


Didn't some IAF mkIXs tangle with some RAF mkXVIIIs and tempests, and then shoot a load of them down in '49? MkIX FTW!
That war had the most motly collection of aircraft including Czech built 109Gs (but with weaker motor) in the IAF, Egyption Spit IXs and Iraqi CR42s. Big trade in 2nd hand WW2 fighters.

JG53Frankyboy
06-21-2007, 08:51 AM
Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">..... I was under the impression that Hartmann's decision hade been based upon his desire to remain with his JG54 comrades.

Certainly that was a part of it. He felt he could do more good in JG54 than he could in JV44.

In JV44 he would have been a junior officer. In JG54 he was more senior. He was also with men he knew, respected, and had fought with before.

In JG54 he was also flying an aircraft he was very familiar with and very successful in. In JV44 he would be flying an unproven design he was not familiar with.

In this biography, these are listed as the reason he stayed with JG54 after flying the Me262.

All the best,

Crumpp </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

JG52, not 54, gentlemen http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Kettenhunde
06-21-2007, 09:07 AM
JG52, not 54, gentlemen

Doah! Absolutely, thanks for correcting that.

All the best,

Crumpp

Richardsen
06-21-2007, 12:13 PM
Originally posted by mynameisroland:
Brain Spitfire pilots tend to say that the XIV or the VIII or the VII were the nicest variants to fly - where the handling was matched with power. there was no serious deteriation in the handling characteristics until the Mk 21 appeared the XIV was the last Spitfire as it were.


Acording to Alex Henshaw, early marks such as I, II, V where the most manouverable ones. They where the best doing aerobatics in. The IX wasen't bad either,

The VIII and other Griffon tailed spits with stronger airframe had nicer handling when they where fully loaded.

If you ask a spitfire pilot who flies today, he will tell you that mark V is the nicest.

M_Gunz
06-21-2007, 12:21 PM
Originally posted by mynameisroland:
Bf 109 prototype flew in May 1935, the Spitfire in March 1936 thats 8 months mate http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

You want to try counting that again? March to May is 2 months and there's 12 in a year.

mynameisroland
06-21-2007, 12:25 PM
Originally posted by Richardsen:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by mynameisroland:
Brain Spitfire pilots tend to say that the XIV or the VIII or the VII were the nicest variants to fly - where the handling was matched with power. there was no serious deteriation in the handling characteristics until the Mk 21 appeared the XIV was the last Spitfire as it were.


Acording to Alex Henshaw, early marks such as I, II, V where the most manouverable ones. They where the best doing aerobatics in. The IX wasen't bad either,

The VIII and other Griffon tailed spits with stronger airframe had nicer handling when they where fully loaded.

If you ask a spitfire pilot who flies today, he will tell you that mark V is the nicest. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Id like to add the caveat that modern Spitfire pilots probably dont get to push their vintage spitfires to 18lb boost in their Mk IXs or 21lb for their XIVs - this would help the aircraft immesuarbly through manuvers like loops and turns.

mynameisroland
06-21-2007, 12:27 PM
Originally posted by mynameisroland:
What Im saying Xiola is that there is nothing that prevents the Spitfire from being made in 1935 infact its maiden flight was in March 1936 so for all intents and purposes it is a direct contemporary for the Bf 109 which 1st flew in May 1935 so there are 10 months seperating the too.

The Spitfires advantage is not that it is a newer design but that its design was bette rable to cope with the demands of future improvements such as armament, range, visibility and engine power.

Well I got it right the 1st time so give me some credit http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

M_Gunz
06-21-2007, 12:30 PM
Originally posted by mynameisroland:
Better weapons,better armor and faster - yes I agree with all of those. But these came at a price. The later Bf 109s were dogs in the handling stakes the Bf 109s wing did not compensate for the increased weight, its rudder needed enlarging too and its aerilons and elevators could have done with a redesign. Compared to the F4 they were poor and compared to a IX they were awful.

Once the enemy's fighters are significantly faster than yours you really have no choice.
Spit V vs FW 190 as an example.

But yes, 109 did not get better at the high speed handling in proportion to the better speed
as the series went on, did it? As opposed to FW that was built for higher speeds from the
start than was 109, or that is the impression I get.

luftluuver
06-21-2007, 12:31 PM
When was the first German powered 109's first flight?

faustnik
06-21-2007, 12:34 PM
Originally posted by luftluuver:
When was the first German powered 109's first flight?

The Bf109V1 in October 1935, with RR Kestral?

mynameisroland
06-21-2007, 12:36 PM
Originally posted by M_Gunz:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by mynameisroland:
Better weapons,better armor and faster - yes I agree with all of those. But these came at a price. The later Bf 109s were dogs in the handling stakes the Bf 109s wing did not compensate for the increased weight, its rudder needed enlarging too and its aerilons and elevators could have done with a redesign. Compared to the F4 they were poor and compared to a IX they were awful.

Once the enemy's fighters are significantly faster than yours you really have no choice.
Spit V vs FW 190 as an example.

But yes, 109 did not get better at the high speed handling in proportion to the better speed
as the series went on, did it? As opposed to FW that was built for higher speeds from the
start than was 109, or that is the impression I get. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The Griffon engined spitfire was planned in the before the Fw 190 was encountered - wasnt it? It was evolutionary rather than rectionary.

JG53Frankyboy
06-21-2007, 12:38 PM
Bf109V1 with RR Kestrel engine: 28. Mai 1935
Bf109V2 with Jumo 210 engine : 12. December 1935

M_Gunz
06-21-2007, 01:09 PM
Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
Of all the arenas of aircraft design, stability and control issues were the youngest and most difficult engineering challenges facing WWII era designers. Handling deterioration is going to occur in any design that you increase the weight and power without changing the stick points. The technology for solving stability and control issues was comparable for all the combatants. Any differences are simply differences of opinion and not in fact. That is the fact my opinion is based upon.

All the best,

Crumpp

Well, Messerschmidt had opinions and for 109 he did keep the stick tight, didn't he?
And there are advantages to that I think, harder for pilot to overmaneuver at high speed and
break the plane for one! Also should be more responsive at least to design speeds?

I see on the web many people build scale replicas to fly. But not many 109's, must be the
slats are a pain I guess. But I don't think that the foils are the same nor the twist, etc.

The number of small companies making planes, kits and parts is larger than I thought.
One place of many such links. (http://members.aol.com/uproarone/index3.html)

And BD-Micro still makes the BD-5! And they list the BD-5J! But I look at the Sport prop
model, stall at 59 mph, top speed 200 mph, engine is 625cc! Wings removable, transport
size is 14 ft long, 6 ft high, 4 ft wide. Only 1000 hours to build with the new kits.
And then I look at the jet which long ago was Hispano-Suiza and almost impossible to get,
it is now TRS Micro turbine with 325 lbs thrust, top speed 320 mph and yes the wing spar
is beefed up!

And I get to play a computer game but then I can't afford those planes.

What is this thread about?

M_Gunz
06-21-2007, 01:19 PM
Originally posted by mynameisroland:
Well I got it right the 1st time so give me some credit http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Plenty credit! Just pointing out something not important anyway, 2 months difference.
The point being that the two planes were not two years apart at least in first built.

M_Gunz
06-21-2007, 01:22 PM
Originally posted by mynameisroland:
The Griffon engined spitfire was planned in the before the Fw 190 was encountered - wasnt it? It was evolutionary rather than rectionary.

The writing was on the wall, it says speed is life!

hop2002
06-21-2007, 01:59 PM
The Griffon engined spitfire was planned in the before the Fw 190 was encountered - wasnt it?

Yes. they were authorised to proceed with design work in late 1939. Supermarine produced a specification for the Griffon engined Spitfire IV on 4th December 1939.


Fw 190 production

OK, I had seen the lower number for Doras, but not the higher one. I'd still question how many of those actually flew combat missions, though.


The design weight growth of the Spitfire is another issue. While the design gained considerable weight, it also gained appropriate measures to offset this weight gain.

That is normal in an aircraft design.

Why would the Bf-109 be any different unless Mtt was plainly incompetent?

I think the problem for the 109 was it was a much smaller design. They tend to have less scope for growth, because the radios, armour, weapons etc that get added during the service life of an aircraft tend to be the same weight, whatever the size of the fighter.

The Spitfire was originally designed for an engine with 1,000 hp, to have over 2 hours endurance, and to carry a small bombload. I believe the 109 was designed for less power, lower endurance and no bombload, (and less guns, too) and that led to a smaller aircraft that had more trouble accommodating the increases in equipment weights during the war.

Richardsen
06-21-2007, 02:12 PM
Originally posted by mynameisroland:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Richardsen:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by mynameisroland:
Brain Spitfire pilots tend to say that the XIV or the VIII or the VII were the nicest variants to fly - where the handling was matched with power. there was no serious deteriation in the handling characteristics until the Mk 21 appeared the XIV was the last Spitfire as it were.


Acording to Alex Henshaw, early marks such as I, II, V where the most manouverable ones. They where the best doing aerobatics in. The IX wasen't bad either,

The VIII and other Griffon tailed spits with stronger airframe had nicer handling when they where fully loaded.

If you ask a spitfire pilot who flies today, he will tell you that mark V is the nicest. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Id like to add the caveat that modern Spitfire pilots probably dont get to push their vintage spitfires to 18lb boost in their Mk IXs or 21lb for their XIVs - this would help the aircraft immesuarbly through manuvers like loops and turns. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I wasen't talking about power, but the general handling of the aircraft. The lightest ones are the nicest ones.

BBMF's MK XIX PM631 is far as i know, problably the best performing spit out there.

mynameisroland
06-21-2007, 03:09 PM
Originally posted by Richardsen:
I wasen't talking about power, but the general handling of the aircraft. The lightest ones are the nicest ones.

BBMF's MK XIX PM631 is far as i know, problably the best performing spit out there.

If you look at handling through aerobatic manuvers power plays a part in that. Yes the Spitfire I was lighter than a Mk XIV, yes the Mk II was probably the nicest to fly and most docile. But as a plane of war the best blend of performance and handling was not the V it was either the VIII or XIV http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Blutarski2004
06-21-2007, 03:49 PM
I can't tell you how strange it feels to visit this thread -> a Spitfire / ME109 discussion that has gone on for 6 pages without any hair-pulling or tantrums.

Remarkable .....

Richardsen
06-21-2007, 03:57 PM
The nicest spit to do aerobatics was actually Mark V with M50M engine acording to Henshaw

He also rated the MK II very high, but it lacked a bit of power.

The MK VIII becomes a bit tail heavy when it is lightly loaded. Henshaw did not rate the VIII very high for flying aerobatics.

Steve Hinton praises the Mark V and IX for flying Aerobatics

faustnik
06-21-2007, 04:46 PM
Maybe we can look at weight creep.

I have (from various sources, none of which I'm very confident in.) for empty weights:

Spitfire Mk.I - 2,182kg
SpitfireMkVb - 2,259kg
SpitfireMkIX - 2,630kg
SpitfireMkXIV - 2,994kg

Bf109E3 - 2,125kg
Bf109F4 - 2,386kg
Bf109G6 - 2,673kg
Bf109K4 - 2,700kg <span class="ev_code_RED">???</span>

Can I get corrections on these please.

thanks

Kettenhunde
06-21-2007, 05:21 PM
I think the problem for the 109 was it was a much smaller design.


I think the problem is post war many of the authors writing books on the Luftwaffe did not have an appropriate background in aircraft design. They also did not benefit from the wealth of declassified information and detailed study of all designs used in the war we enjoy today.

This lack of information led to numerous myths being born which really have no foundation in the science.

These myths get perpetuated by cultural bias which wants to believe their country produced the "best".

Facts are these aircraft have much more in common than they do differences. They are design contemporaries. All of these nations had very competent design teams who very much knew their business.

Without going into a whole dissertation and speaking in general terms on aircraft design, adding power and weight does not change the L/D curve. It moves the intersection of the Pa and Pr curve. It does not change your stick fixed and free points either. That is one reason why only certain engines are suitable for any given design. They have to meet the stability requirements and have suitable vibrational qualities. This stability criteria is fixed by design. Adding weight does increase your stick force per G gradients.

It does not matter what the size of the design is as these points are engineered as part of the physical design of the aircraft.

This all comes down to opinion.

Great example is my aircraft. It has a high stick force per G gradient. A friend of mine flew it and hated the stick force gradient. To him it made his shoulders tired on landing. Being used to a mushy Cessna yoke, he felt like he was fighting with the aircraft. To me I love it. It is very positive on trim and forces improve the feel of the aircraft. Trimmed it is a two finger aircraft. I know exactly where I am at in envelope and never have to search for a trimmed condition of flight. It gives me very precise control.

So we have a wide range of opinion. I am sure everyone has heard the saying about opinions.

All the best,

Crumpp

Ratsack
06-21-2007, 05:30 PM
Originally posted by hop2002:
...

The Spitfire was originally designed for an engine with 1,000 hp, to have over 2 hours endurance, and to carry a small bombload. ...

Bomb load? I've never heard of that before. What I have read of the Spitfire's early development suggests the opposite, in fact.

Specifically, Mitchell took advantage of a variation in the specification that allowed him to design for less fuel, thus saving weight. This is in Alfred Price's book on the Spitfire. I'll hunt out the reference when I have a tic.

I understood that the first Spit to carry a bomb was the Mk II, and that the bombs were smoke markers for air-sea rescue.

cheers,
Ratsack

Xiolablu3
06-21-2007, 08:03 PM
Originally posted by Kettenhunde:

These myths get perpetuated by cultural bias which wants to believe their country produced the "best".



I am not so sure about this.

My feeling about the Bf109 reaching its peak with the F and early G models, and being outdated and past it best with the G6 and onwards, comes from reading Luftwaffe pilots opinions, and I value very highly the opinion of Adolf Galland and Gunther Rall as one was the head of the Luftwaffe and the other the 3rd top scoring Ace who flew Bf109's all throughout WW2 , I believe?

hop2002
06-21-2007, 08:03 PM
The info on the bomb load is from Price.

The spec the Spitfire was built to called for 4 20 lb bombs, 4 mgs, 94 gallons of fuel.

The revised spec dropped the bombs, dropped the minimum fuel required to 66 gallons, but increased the armament to 6 or 8 mgs (Mitchell went for 8)

This was some way in to the design process, though, so the basic size of the aircraft had already been determined.


Maybe we can look at weight creep.

I have (from various sources, none of which I'm very confident in.) for empty weights:

Spitfire Mk.I - 2,182kg
SpitfireMkVb - 2,259kg
SpitfireMkIX - 2,630kg
SpitfireMkXIV - 2,994kg

Bf109E3 - 2,125kg
Bf109F4 - 2,386kg
Bf109G6 - 2,673kg
Bf109K4 - 2,700kg ???

The weight of the 109 had already crept up by the time of the E3.

The Bf 109 B-1 had an empty weight of just under 1,600 kg (4850 lbs loaded), afaik, less than 700 hp, and a max speed of around 290 mph. When you compare that with the first production Spitfire (350 mph, 5720 lbs loaded, 1050 hp) you can see that the Spitfire was a later design.

Xiolablu3
06-21-2007, 08:06 PM
Exactly my opinion, Hopp.

The Bf109 was already at its Emil version when facing the Spitfire Mk1.

A plane design can only last so long.

Kettenhunde
06-21-2007, 09:20 PM
My feeling about the Bf109 reaching its peak with the F and early G models, and being outdated and past it best with the G6 and onwards, comes from reading Luftwaffe pilots opinions, and I value very highly the opinion of Adolf Galland and Gunther Rall as one was the head of the Luftwaffe and the other the 3rd top scoring Ace who flew Bf109's all throughout WW2 , I believe?

Does that mean we should all discard hundreds of other Bf-109 pilot's opinion, including the worlds leading ace?

http://www.virtualpilots.fi/feature/articles/109myths/#fighting

It is certainly your choice to do so but recognize an opinion either way does not make it fact. It only makes it an opinion.

There is definately differences of opinion just as we find Spitfire pilots with the same feelings for their aircraft.


The info on the bomb load is from Price.

Shacklady and Morgan's, "Spitfire: The History" is a much better reference IMHO.

Design contempraries do not go off of calender dates. They are judged on innovations. Both designs have exactly the same technology and niether aircraft is an engineering advance over the other.

They are design contempraries.

When 1000hp Spitfires were operational, 1000hp Bf-109's were also operating.

All the best,

Crumpp

Xiolablu3
06-21-2007, 11:59 PM
No mate, but it also means that we should not disregard the most prominant opinion either.

I am sure there were those who preferred the Sten over the Mp40, but its quite obvious that the Mp40 is the better design.

Also those who would prefer the Hurricane over the SPitfire.

Also some guys would prefer 'a good old Lee ENfield' to a Mp44.

Its quite obvious that the dominant opinion is that the Mp40, Mp44 and the SPitfire are better in these comparisons.


I still stand by my Statement that the Bf109 was well along in its evolutionary life by the time it met the SPitfire Mk1 and this contributed to it 'running out of steam' towards the end of the war.

Pls understand this is not about bias. I am not about to start proclaiming that the CHurchill was a better tank than the Tiger, or the Bren better than the Mg42. Its purely my opinion from the books I have read, people I have talked to, Documentries I have watched.

La7_brook
06-22-2007, 12:23 AM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
No mate, but it also means that we should not disregard the most prominant opinion either.

I am sure there were those who preferred the Sten over the Mp40, but its quite obvious that the Mp40 is the better design.

Also those who would prefer the Hurricane over the SPitfire.

Also some guys would prefer 'a good old Lee ENfield' to a Mp44.

Its quite obvious that the dominant opinion is that the Mp40, Mp44 and the SPitfire are better in these comparisons.


I still stand by my Statement that the Bf109 was well along in its evolutionary life by the time it met the SPitfire Mk1 and this contributed to it 'running out of steam' towards the end of the war.

Pls understand this is not about bias. I am not about to start proclaiming that the CHurchill was a better tank than the Tiger, or the Bren better than the Mg42. Its purely my opinion from the books I have read, people I have talked to, Documentries I have watched. yes you do know Mlders throughts on this were http://kurfurst.allaboutwarfare.com/Tactical_trials/109...ichsflg_Aug1940.html (http://kurfurst.allaboutwarfare.com/Tactical_trials/109E_vergleich110SpitHurCurtiss/109E_vergleichsflg_Aug1940.html)

Xiolablu3
06-22-2007, 12:47 AM
Trust that report to be on Kurfursts site! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif


That is the 'infamous' report that was done before the BAttle OF Britain and concluded that the Me110 was superior fighter to the Spitfire and Hurricane!


The report turned out to be totally incorrect and inaccurate.

(Me110's were massacred by Spitfires and Hurricanes, and Me109E's were engaged on equal terms by SPitfire Mk1, and often even shot down by Hurricanes)

I believe Molders is testing the versions of the Spitfire and Hurricane from the battle of France in 1939, without the Constant speed propellors.

Performance increased considerably once this was added.

La7_brook
06-22-2007, 01:37 AM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
Trust that report to be on Kurfursts site! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif


That is the 'infamous' report that was done before the BAttle OF Britain and concluded that the Me110 was superior fighter to the Spitfire and Hurricane!


The report turned out to be totally incorrect and inaccurate.

(Me110's were massacred by Spitfires and Hurricanes, and Me109E's were engaged on equal terms by SPitfire Mk1, and often even shot down by Hurricanes)

I believe Molders is testing the versions of the Spitfire and Hurricane from the battle of France in 1939, without the Constant speed propellors.

Performance increased considerably once this was added. hmmm 110,s ? i see no 110,s http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif

Xiolablu3
06-22-2007, 01:41 AM
From the report :-

'In the following the performance- and air combat comparison that has been performed
at the E-Stelle Rechlin between Bf 109 E and Bf 110 C and the captured enemy fighters
Spitfire, Hurricane and Curtiss shall be brought to acknowledgement. The results of
the comparison are to be announced immediately to all Jagd- and Zerster units under
command, to guarantee the appropriate air combat behavior in the engagements on the
basis of technical conditions.'


'In summary, it can be said that all three enemy planes types are inferior to the German
planes regarding the flying qualities. Especially the Spitfire has bad rudder and elevator
stability on the target approach. In addition the wing-mounted weapons have the known
shooting-technique disadvantages.'



Like I said, It turned out to be woefully inaccurate - Just like the RAF's totally useless test of the Bf109G which EVERYTHING (Even a Boing 747 Airbus I believe) could outturn.

Possibly the captured planes were in poor condition. ALso they are flying against new verions of the captors planes.

Blutarski2004
06-22-2007, 04:21 AM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
Possibly the captured planes were in poor condition. ALso they are flying against new verions of the captors planes.


..... The examples captured in France were almost assuredly fitted with the old two-pitch prop and also most likely had not been converted to 100 octane.

Both would have made a reasonable improvement in performance.

mynameisroland
06-22-2007, 04:53 AM
Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
Does that mean we should all discard hundreds of other Bf-109 pilot's opinion, including the worlds leading ace?

When 1000hp Spitfires were operational, 1000hp Bf-109's were also operating.

All the best,
Crumpp

As I said before in this thread Crummp we need to qualify Hartmanns statement with the fact that he spent 95% of his operational career flying against inferior opponents. It is widely recognised that a kill in the East against the VVs was worth 1/3 or 1/2 a kill in the West against the RAF or USAAF. While the Bf 109 was superb for the job in the East it had long met its match at high medium an dlow altitudes in the West. That is a fact not an opinion, it is observed by both German and Western Allied pilots and historians.

"
When 1000hp Spitfires were operational, 1000hp Bf-109's were also operating."

Yes, but what has that to do with the discussion? The Bf 109E with 1000hp was less manuverable than a Spitfire with 1000hp yet their performance was almost identical. As the war progressed and the weight and power of both types increased both planes lost some of their ease of manuver - the Spitfire benefited in relation to the Bf 109 because it had a larger margin for this deterioration to occur without its handling becoming unacceptable.

It is widely recognised that the Spitfires design reached this point at the Mk 21. Test pilots even commenting that the design should have stopped at the Mk XIV. This is in contrast to the Bf 109 F4 which was recognised as the Bf 109 designs zenith by those which flew it.

After the F4 and XIV both types grew faster, more heavily armed, could carry greater loads ect but they did so to the detriment of the aircrafts handling and manuverability and were regarded as being over developed designs.

Brain32
06-22-2007, 05:07 AM
As I said before in this thread Crummp we need to qualify Hartmanns statement with the fact that he spent 95% of his operational career flying against inferior opponents.
Hehe, so now the LA5FN, LA7 and Yak3 were inferiour planes to the BF109G14? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif
Hey techincally if we apply that criteria we can say that average SpitfireMkXIV in 99% of cases only met BF109G6 with underwing gondolas, so he only met completely inferiour planes but in reality SpitXIV was **** http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif
Sorry guys, I do not understand this crusade to show BF109 as total and utter ****, but I noticed blind and passionate world wide hatred towards the BF109 for some time now so I'm not suprised http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif
Please continue and enjoy the discussion(without me)...

Ratsack
06-22-2007, 05:20 AM
Originally posted by Brain32:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> As I said before in this thread Crummp we need to qualify Hartmanns statement with the fact that he spent 95% of his operational career flying against inferior opponents.
Hehe, so now the LA5FN, LA7 and Yak3 were inferiour planes to the BF109G14? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't think Roland meant that the planes you listed were inferior, but rather that the air-to-air environment in the USSR was less demanding than in the West. Steinhoff certainly agrees on this point. He said he was shocked by how much he'd forgotten when he transferred back to the West (and was promptly shot down).

This is not the same as saying those planes were inferior. As you know yourself (and anybody who checks your stats in the Fw 190 A-8 on Warclouds will see this), you can fly an inferior type and still kill endless newbs in better planes. A good plane won't save you from a good pilot if you don't know what you're doing. The Soviets used very poor tactics until well into the war, and weren't able to give their pilots the same long and intensive training their Western Allies received. They paid the price.

Germans other than Steinhoff have commented on the difference in difficulty between fighting the VVS and the RAF. In addition, there remains the huge disparity in the scores of the most successful aces between East and West. Even though the fliers in the West had more access to air to air combat, the highest scorer in the West only (only?!) shot down about half the number Hartmann did.

There is clearly something in what Roland's saying.

cheers,
Ratsack

mynameisroland
06-22-2007, 05:29 AM
Brain32, it took until the Yak9U for the Russians to get a plane that could compete with German equipment at low medium and high altitudes. Until then the Bf 109 could dictate the fight coming in from medium to high altitudes, attacking the lower VVS aircraft then zooming away again back up to height - have a cup of coffee as Hartmann said http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif and then attack again.

It took until 1944 for the Luftwaffe to get as hard a time from the VVS as it was getting from the RAF in 1940.

Hartmann would have been hard pushed to 'have a cup of coffee' flying in the West. Enemy fighters ranged from sea level to 30,000 ft plus and were better trained than your Average Joe(Stalin)

ps a big thanks for keeping the thread civilised guys

WOLFMondo
06-22-2007, 05:32 AM
There is definately differences of opinion just as we find Spitfire pilots with the same feelings for their aircraft.

Exactly, most Spitfire pilots state one of the major variants as there favorite while others who flew the more rare variants as well as those major ones tend to have a vastly different opinion. The 109 seems to have variants leading from one to the next but the Spitfire variants go off in all sorts of directions.



Originally posted by Brain32:

Sorry guys, I do not understand this crusade to show BF109 as total and utter ****, but I noticed blind and passionate world wide hatred towards the BF109 for some time now so I'm not suprised http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif
Please continue and enjoy the discussion(without me)...

I don't think any one doubts the BF109 was a good plane or one of the best prop designs built but one person made it there personal cherry picking crusade to show the BF109 to be better than anything else, especially the Spitfire (and with some slightly dubious and often corrected facts and figures) which caused a bit of a back lash from rational to the completely irrational.

hop2002
06-22-2007, 05:33 AM
The info on the bomb load is from Price.



Shacklady and Morgan's, "Spitfire: The History" is a much better reference IMHO

They also list the bomb load in the earlier specification.

The point is, the design went from 94 gallons, 4 guns and 4 small bombs to 75 gallons and 8 guns at some time. Either of these is a much greater load than the 109 was designed for.


Design contempraries do not go off of calender dates. They are judged on innovations. Both designs have exactly the same technology and niether aircraft is an engineering advance over the other.

Changes in the design can come from changes in mission requirements, not just technology.

The machine guns fitted to the two aircraft were of similar designs, but the Spitfire was designed for 8 (or 4 and 4 bombs), the 109 for 2 or 3. The 109 was designed for 6 - 700 hp, the Spitfire for 1000.

Those make for radically different final designs, and the larger aircraft has more room for growth.



When 1000hp Spitfires were operational, 1000hp Bf-109's were also operating.

Yes, but they were already stretching the design. The 109 was designed for the much smaller, lighter, less powerful Jumo 210.

I suspect the Spitfire would have had major problems with the Griffon if it had been designed for the Kestrel, not the Merlin. And the Jumo was in the Kestrel class.

Look at it in terms of HP. The Spitfire increased it's power by just over 100%, from 1050 to about 2200 hp in the later Griffons.

The 109 trebled hp, from 650 odd to about 2000 hp. That's stretching the design far more.

Ratsack
06-22-2007, 05:39 AM
Originally posted by hop2002:
...

Yes, but they were already stretching the design. The 109 was designed for the much smaller, lighter, less powerful Jumo 210.
...

I tend to agree with the general thrust of what you're saying here, but I thought the specification for the tender that the 109 finally won called for a design that could take either the Jumo 210 (which was nearly ready), or the Daimler-Benz 600 (which was expected to be ready in the next couple of years). In effect, they were calling for a type with a designed-in upgrade.

That, at least, was my understanding of it.

cheers,
Ratsack

Brain32
06-22-2007, 05:41 AM
OK this is true to an extent, but the whole type of aerial warfare was different in the West and is thus uncomparable to the one on the East. Again, pretty much the same could be argued "against" Allied pilots late in the war over ruins of Reich, very poorly trained German pilots were the rule, not the exception in the ending years of the war. So if I was looking one sidedly I could say that SpitXIV only did good because better trained RAF pilots met poorly trained Luft pilots, but if I look at the numbers I see that it's simply not so, and that MkXIV was extremely powerful late war machine http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif
I don't know why is it so hard to grasp the fact that in the end, virtually all sides had some very effective designs http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Brain32
06-22-2007, 05:47 AM
It took until 1944 for the Luftwaffe to get as hard a time from the VVS as it was getting from the RAF in 1940.
Hartmann, didn't fight I-16's and early Yak's in 1941, his first kill was well into 1943 http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Hartmann would have been hard pushed to 'have a cup of coffee' flying in the West.
Again, Hartmann fought on the West very well http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

I don't think any one doubts the BF109 was a good plane or one of the best prop designs built
Cool http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

mynameisroland
06-22-2007, 06:07 AM
Hartmann was posted to the Eastern Front in 42 and scored his first kill in November 42. My point still stands that flying on the Eastern front in a Bf 109 was a relatively safe proposition compared with flying a Bf 109 against the British and Americans - this explains why so many Eastern Front pilots loved the Bf 109 yet Western Front pilots loyalties had long since shifted to the Fw 190.

Hartmann fought in the West for a very short period, it is very doubtful that he would have scored 352 kills against the RAF and USAAF given that pilots who were around since 1939 were only just reaching the 100 mark.

ploughman
06-22-2007, 06:12 AM
Is Kurf on holiday again? 7 pages of Spitfire and he still hasn't spammed it.

Kettenhunde
06-22-2007, 06:27 AM
Its purely my opinion from the books I have read, people I have talked to, Documentries I have watched.

You're certainly entitled to your opinion. I disagree looking at it from the perspective of a pilot and someone formally educated in aeronautical science. I have also seen the same sources you have.

These two designs have much more in common than they do differences. Both were very competitive first line fighters.


95% of his operational career flying against inferior opponents.

This is not true AFAIK. Do you have any facts to show it?


Yes, but what has that to do with the discussion?

Everything. The contention is that the Spitfire was not a design contemporary of the Bf-109.

Technologically the aircraft were the same and are design contemporaries. The calendar dates have nothing to do with it.


the Spitfire benefited in relation to the Bf 109 because it had a larger margin for this deterioration to occur without its handling becoming unacceptable.

Show me. Facts are this contention has no foundation in the science.

This is just opinion you seem to be pushing as fact.

It is a fact that stability and control limits are dictated by design. Adding power and weight will not change the points and only increase the stick force gradients.

What that is saying is in any aircraft if you increase the weight, the stick forces and handling will deteriorate.

In order to change the stability points we have to physically change the design. Wings, empennage, fuselage, engine nacelles, and balance all determine our stability and control. Each of the body reference axes has a set of criteria to achieve stability. Stability has different definitions in aircraft design but there are only certain ones that apply if you want a controllable aircraft that does not kill its pilot.

If you want to change these stability points you have to redesign the aircraft. Good example is the FW-190D9. Focke Wulf changed the stability points by adding a different design vertical stabilizer, rudder, and extending the fuselage.

There is no magic "Spitfire Fairy" that makes the design immune to physics.

Your contention that it gained weight without handling deterioration is false. If the design gained an equal amount of weight then it gained a proportional amount of handling deterioration.

Claiming the Bf-109 was more vulnerable to the effects of physics is the same as claiming water flows uphill in Germany.

All the best,

Crumpp

mynameisroland
06-22-2007, 06:38 AM
Crummp I think you are the only one here who is intentionally misreading what I and others post.

No one is talking about a magic Spitfire fairy. Everyone here acknowledges the deterioration in the Spitfire handling as weight and power increases.

That Hartmann spent the majority of his career on the Eastern front is undisputed - it is a Fact. That the VVS opposition he met flew at lower altitudes, in lesser equipment and with lesser training - is a Fact.


Your contention that it gained weight without handling deterioration is false. It is the same as claiming water flows uphill.


Perhaps you need to re - read all of my posts if you find anywhere that I have said the Spitfire gained weight without handling deterioration then you are welcome to post it.

Please read the words I have posted and do not misread them and come up with your own conclusion on what I have said.

I said the Spitfires handling deteriorated - but it had showed greater ability to deal with increased weight and horsepower than the smaller , more loaded Bf 109.

Blutarski2004
06-22-2007, 06:46 AM
Originally posted by mynameisroland:
Hartmann fought in the West for a very short period, it is very doubtful that he would have scored 352 kills against the RAF and USAAF given that pilots who were around since 1939 were only just reaching the 100 mark.


..... I think that one of reasons for lower scoring in the West was that the day-to-day intensity of the air war overall was rather less than in the East. 8AF would put a vast number of planes up over Germany, but they only did so once or twice a week in the best of weather. In the East, a German fighter pilot could probably have taken off at any time of any given day of flyable weather and found targets over the front. I'll wager that sortie rated for German fighter pilots were a good deal higher in the East

mynameisroland
06-22-2007, 06:50 AM
Originally posted by Blutarski2004:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by mynameisroland:
Hartmann fought in the West for a very short period, it is very doubtful that he would have scored 352 kills against the RAF and USAAF given that pilots who were around since 1939 were only just reaching the 100 mark.


..... I think that one of reasons for lower scoring in the West was that the day-to-day intensity of the air war overall was rather less than in the East. 8AF would put a vast number of planes up over Germany, but they only did so once or twice a week in the best of weather. In the East, a German fighter pilot could probably have taken off at any time of any given day of flyable weather and found targets over the front. I'll wager that sortie rated for German fighter pilots were a good deal higher in the East </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

This can be partially offset because the air war in the west lasted longer from 39 to 45 giving veteran pilots longer to score kills and during its peak times ie DDay, Battle of France, BoB ect there were more sorties a day than that of the Eastern Front.

I dont think its stretching the boundaries of believability to make a general statement that the Air to Air war in the West was more dangerous for German pilots than that in the East. The Luftwaffe certainly thought so.

luftluuver
06-22-2007, 06:57 AM
from http://jg26.vze.com/

Luftwaffe Aircraft Losses By Theatre September 1943 - October 1944

1.
During the period in question, a constant 21-24% of the Luftwaffe's day fighters were based in the East - but only 12-14% of the Luftwaffe day fighter "losses" occurred in this theater.

2.
During this period, a constant 75-78% of the day fighters were based in the West. The turnover was enormous: 14,720 aircraft were "lost", while operational strength averaged 1364.

3.
During this period, 2294 day fighters were "lost" in the East; the ratio of western "losses" to eastern "losses" was thus 14,720/2294 = 6.4 to one.

4.
During this period, a constant 43-46% of all of the Luftwaffe's operational aircraft were based in the East. It should be noted that these included entire categories (for example, battlefield recce, battle planes, dive bombers) that were used exclusively in the East, because they couldn't survive in the West..

5.
During this period, a total of 8600 operational aircraft were "lost" in the East, while 27,060 were "lost" in the West; the ratio of western "losses" to eastern "losses" was thus 27,060/8600 = 3.41 to one.

Brain32
06-22-2007, 07:01 AM
That the VVS opposition he met flew at lower altitudes, in lesser equipment and with lesser training - is a Fact.
Doesen't the same hold true for Allies over Reich late in the war, not to even mention the numbers disadvantage. Hartmann scored 200kills by March 1944, so if we take those 200 hundred as inferiour bla,bla(BTW I find that comment very...ah well), than what about 152 that he shot down later. I ask again, just how is LA5FN or La7,or Yak3 or late Yak9 so inferiour to the ME109G14?
He also shot 7 P51's over Romania, so he was also an ace vs western types flew by well trained and motivated USAAF pilots. Sorry, I agree that SpitMkXIV had more qualities than late 109's that would gave it a slight edge in combat, but you guys simply apply double standards. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Kettenhunde
06-22-2007, 07:02 AM
I said the Spitfires handling deteriorated - but it had showed greater ability to deal with increased weight and horsepower than the smaller , more loaded Bf 109.


Where is this greater ability to deal with it in the Spitfire?

Aircraft are systems and not one characteristic. The Bf-109 was designed around it characteristics just as the Spitfire. So your making an assumption that is just not true.

Now looking at the design particulars I would say there is difference in perception between the two designs.

The Spitfire had some serious stability and control design flaws. These were corrected over the lifecycle of the aircraft.

The Bf-109 had good stability and control design from the begining.

So what we have is an aircraft with problems that get fixed. Our perception goes from "this is horrible" to this is "much better" in the Spitfire.

In the Bf-109 the perception goes from "very good" to " my handling has deteriorated".

Nothing to do with the physics of the aircraft and everything to do with the perception created.

See I look at Molders opinion of the early Marque Spitfire and those stability flaws jump right out. To the pilot it was pleasant and easy to fly with very low stick forces.

All the best,

Crumpp

Xiolablu3
06-22-2007, 07:03 AM
Bf109 fans, it may seem like we are bashing the Bf109, but we are not meaning too.

Its purely a lot of opinions and debate about hte Spitfire and Bf109. Most here seem to agree that the Bf109 was superior to the Spitfire in its F and early G models and the SPitfire superior to the Bf109 in its IX/VIII/XIV forms.

I dont think anyone here would doubt that the 109F4 and 109G2 were better fighter aircraft than their contemporary, the Spitfire MkV.

SO please dont try and say we are '109 bashing'

The debate has started purely over the late war models.

If you want to start a thread 'FW190 vs SPitfire development or 'Me262 vs late SPitfires' thread, then please do.

No doubt we would choose the Me262 as the best fighter in that thread, but it doesnt mean we are 'Spitfire bashing'.

Brain32
06-22-2007, 07:09 AM
No doubt we would choose the Me262 as the best fighter in that thread, but it doesnt mean we are 'Spitfire bashing'.
Please tell me that I'm over reacting and that you did not just compare ME262 superiority over prop planes with SpitMkXIV superiority over BF109K4 http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif

Xiolablu3
06-22-2007, 07:14 AM
No mate you got completely the wrong idea.... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif



It was just an example of a plane which is superior to the SPitfire and the first comparison which came into my head where noone could doubt that the Me262 was superior, and anyone trying to claim the SPitfire was superior would be talking sh*te..

Brain32
06-22-2007, 07:27 AM
Yes I thought so http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif I mean it's not like I disagree that Spit14 had more qualites than the late 109K, I just disagree with some reasons applied to why is it so http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

BTW does anybody know, was gyroscopic gunsight a standard on all MkXIV, I know even some late MkIX had it...

stathem
06-22-2007, 07:32 AM
Originally posted by Brain32:
Yes I thought so http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif I mean it's not like I disagree that Spit14 had more qualites than the late 109K, I just disagree with some reasons applied to why is it so http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

BTW does anybody know, was gyroscopic gunsight a standard on all MkXIV, I know even some late MkIX had it...

I believe the early '44 Mk XIV (sort of converted form Mk VIII's), didn't have, but, your, post D-Day new builds would have had.

For comparison, and really the reason I'm posting, FAA LIII Seafires were converted to Gyro gunsights by May44. And the FAA pilots all had Franks anti G-suits no later than D-Day....

Kettenhunde
06-22-2007, 07:32 AM
Luftwaffe Aircraft Losses By Theatre September 1943 - October 1944


The bomber offensive had the most to do with higher casualties in the West.

That does not mean the War in the East was "easy victories".

All the best,

Crumpp

luftluuver
06-22-2007, 07:39 AM
Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
The bomber offensive had the most to do with higher casualties in the West.

That does not mean the War in the East was "easy victories". Was easier than in the West.

Kettenhunde
06-22-2007, 07:41 AM
Was easier than in the West.


In your opinion. Once again we are pushing opinion as fact.

It was certainly more dangerous in the West. A fact which has nothing to do with individual aircraft performance.

Fighter to fighter combat was equally dangerous on both fronts.

All the best,

Crumpp

Xiolablu3
06-22-2007, 07:42 AM
My opinion would be that it was easier early war, when they were facing lagg3/i16/i153 etc but not really late war, once the La5FN/La7/Yak3 came on the scene.

Even the high numbers of Yak9's, which although inferior, in numbers it was still dangerous enough to give the LW a hard time. A bit like the Hurricane did in the BOB.

1944-45 would be equally as dangerous I believe.

Ratsack
06-22-2007, 07:47 AM
Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
...

That does not mean the War in the East was "easy victories".

All the best,

Crumpp


I'm certainly not saying the VVS provided easy victories. However, there was certainly a post-war theme, if not precisely a consensus, among German fighter pilots that the air war in the West was more demanding than in the east. I've already mentioned one famous German ace - Steinhoff - who explicitly said as much in interviews. There are others, too.

I don't really see this as a controversial point. It's one that's been mulled over by historians of the air war since before 1945, if for no other reason than to attempt to explain at least some reason for the huge scores racked up the Jagdwaffe in the East. This is not to say some Allied pilots, such as Johnnie Johnson, didn't view the claims of the eastern Experten with some skepticism. However, the claims of guys like Krupinski, Barkhorn and Bar are generally accepted as being as valid as any other personal air-to-air tallies of the period. They require some explanation, and the initially poor doctrine and training of the VVS provides it.

cheers,
Ratsack

Kettenhunde
06-22-2007, 07:49 AM
SO please dont try and say we are '109 bashing'

Consequently no one is bashing the Spitfire either.

These debates are in fact really silly especially when they start comparing performance.

Now design factors we can discuss. Unfortunately I don't think many folks understand the design factors enough to have a good discussion on it.

All the best,

Crumpp

luftluuver
06-22-2007, 07:55 AM
Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
In your opinion. Once again we are pushing opinion as fact.

It was certainly more dangerous in the West. A fact which has nothing to do with individual aircraft performance.

Fighter to fighter combat was equally dangerous on both fronts.
The opinion is back up by fact. Stats for claims and losses on the EF show the LW had it reletively easier time on the EF.

Who said anything about individual a/c performance? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Who said it wasn't dangerous? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

DKoor
06-22-2007, 07:56 AM
Hey..... I just popped by to say that Luftwaffe on the West didn't have much Frei Jagd's like they had on the East......... I wasn't read all pages on this thread, but from what I've read so far, I did not noticed that someone have mentioned that.
I'm not trying to burst some bubbles here, but if many if not most of your missions are consisting of bomber interception, that sure as hell makes you vulnerable to their escorts...

M_Gunz
06-22-2007, 07:57 AM
Originally posted by mynameisroland:
Hartmann was posted to the Eastern Front in 42 and scored his first kill in November 42. My point still stands that flying on the Eastern front in a Bf 109 was a relatively safe proposition compared with flying a Bf 109 against the British and Americans - this explains why so many Eastern Front pilots loved the Bf 109 yet Western Front pilots loyalties had long since shifted to the Fw 190.

Hartmann fought in the West for a very short period, it is very doubtful that he would have scored 352 kills against the RAF and USAAF given that pilots who were around since 1939 were only just reaching the 100 mark.

Brain has good point though, Hartmann was not there during the times when the LW had massive
superiority and wiped out so many obsolete Russian planes.

His SECOND kill wasn't until well into 1943 and he didn't start rolling up the big score the
day after that either. He fought against better Russian planes and pilots and organization.

mynameisroland
06-22-2007, 08:05 AM
Originally posted by Kettenhunde:

These debates are in fact really silly especially when they start comparing performance.

Now design factors we can discuss. Unfortunately I don't think many folks understand the design factors enough to have a good discussion on it.

All the best,

Crumpp

I think you greatly underestimate the level of understanding of many people on this board Crummp. There are people here with a good enough grasp of the basics who have read enough litrature on the subject to make informed opinions.

Whether you agree with them or not is up to you - it is a discussion forum - but I find it distasteful that you imply that there is a lack of understanding because we do not neccessarily agree with your point of view.

There were clear handling advantages displayed by the Spitfire IX/XIV over the G6/K4 that the discussion has moved on to the 109s relative success on the Eastern front vs Western Front is an indicator of how tenuous the argument that the Spitfire and Bf 109 were equal in this aspect.

M_Gunz
06-22-2007, 08:14 AM
Originally posted by luftluuver:
Stats for claims and losses on the EF show the LW had it reletively easier time on the EF.

Easy to believe but is it true that the loss ratio is for the reasons attributed?

Organization of the Germans East and West had how much expert talent where? I dunno so...?
The task in the East had very different almost everything from the task in the West, again
we look at organization and pilots and then at how well the LW planes fit to how used.

I can say that in the West, the number of Allied sorties was great but I don't know enough
about the East to begin comparing or to just accept everything I see posted.

I CAN say that since IL2 came out I have picked up much I did not know but I think not
enough to compare whole pictures of Eastern action.

I offer this:
When the US started out in North Africa there was no US fighter command. Fighters were tied
to ground units whose commanders used them as piecemeal top cover. And the US lost a lot of
pilots and planes because of it.
So then a big to-do in US Command went down and Fighter Command was born.
Immediately US fighter effectiveness went up and losses went down. Same planes on both sides
and same pilots except for the lost ones on both sides yet a night to day change in results.

Just put the planes themselves below organization and pilots and factors of tasks on both
sides and how all that interacts for order of importance. But still, a c-r-a-p plane will
make everything much harder to impossible if organization demands too much for it.

A 10% difference on a turning circle is not going to stop good organization and pilots.

FluffyDucks2
06-22-2007, 08:19 AM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif

Probably the most sensible and realistic appraisal of what really is a POINTLESS argument. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Bottom line is all WWII fighter aircraft were POTENTIALLY the best when used correctly by well trained, well motivated pilots with a good command and control system....be sure http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Kettenhunde
06-22-2007, 08:27 AM
but I find it distasteful that you imply that there is a lack of understanding because we do not neccessarily agree with your point of view.


Let's back up. You have completely misunderstood what I wrote and I find your self righteous indignation distasteful.

I make no statements about peoples opinion other than they are certainly entitled to them. My post does not refer to opinion, it refers to fact.

It is very easy to tell if someone has a certain level of understanding, mynameisroland. It does mean the poster is not intelligent, it just means they do not have a grasp of the particulars of the science.

If it does not apply to you then it does not apply. Your self righteous indignation is misplaced.

The way they respond to questions and the answers to specific problems convey that understanding.

When their responses are not appropriate that also conveys a level of understanding. So my post is not an implication or opinion, it is a quantifiable fact based on demonstrated responses.

All the best,

Crumpp

mynameisroland
06-22-2007, 08:29 AM
Originally posted by FluffyDucks2:
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif

Probably the most sensible and realistic appraisal of what really is a POINTLESS argument. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Bottom line is all WWII fighter aircraft were POTENTIALLY the best when used correctly by well trained, well motivated pilots with a good command and control system....be sure http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Well, Duh.

Use correct tactics and well trained pilots and any plane will prosper. Air combat history is littered with examples of this.

Put two well equiped and trained airforces against each other and things like performance does matter.

Otherwise how do you explain the mad race for fractional improvements on performance over your enemy?

mynameisroland
06-22-2007, 08:31 AM
Originally posted by Kettenhunde:

Let's back up. You have completely misunderstood what I wrote and I find your self righteous indignation distasteful.

You say this in the same breath as this :


Unfortunately I don't think many folks understand the design factors enough to have a good discussion on it.

Maybe I mis interpreted your tone here?

Self righteous! Thanks for taking this thread down a notch or two. If you want to trade insults Im happy to on PM but Im not about to start p1ssing in my own thread.

Kettenhunde
06-22-2007, 09:21 AM
Maybe I mis interpreted your tone here?

I think you have misinterpreted it. No one is trading insults and if your over it then we can move on.

What I said is:


It is very easy to tell if someone has a certain level of understanding, mynameisroland. It does mean the poster is not intelligent, it just means they do not have a grasp of the particulars of the science.

The way they respond to questions and the answers to specific problems convey that understanding.

When their responses are not appropriate that also conveys a level of understanding. So my post is not an implication or opinion, it is a quantifiable fact based on demonstrated responses.


Probably the most sensible and realistic appraisal of what really is a POINTLESS argument.

Well said.

All the best,

Crumpp

faustnik
06-22-2007, 10:03 AM
Originally posted by hop2002:
The weight of the 109 had already crept up by the time of the E3.

The Bf 109 B-1 had an empty weight of just under 1,600 kg (4850 lbs loaded), afaik, less than 700 hp, and a max speed of around 290 mph. When you compare that with the first production Spitfire (350 mph, 5720 lbs loaded, 1050 hp) you can see that the Spitfire was a later design.


I was looking at the weight creep from BoB through the end of the war, and didn't notice much difference , over that time period, between the Spit and the Bf109. The difference between the F4 and G6 was similar to the difference between the Mk. V and Mk. 9. With the overall weights of the 109 and Spit being similar and the weight increase being similar, why wouldn't both suffer similar changes in handling?

Wing loading:

Bf109F4 - wing area 16.05m weight 2,386kg = 148.66kg/sqare meter
Bf109G6 - wing area 16.05m weight 2,673kg = 166.54kg/square meter

So that's a 12 percent increase in wing loading

Spit Vb - wing area 22.5m weight 2,259kg = 100.40kg/sqare meter

Spit IX - wing area 22.5m weight 2,630kg = 116.88kg/sqare meter

So, that's a 16 percent increase in wing loading.

So, my only question is that with relative changes being similar, why don't both designs suffer in a relatively simiar manner?

Dtools4fools
06-22-2007, 10:20 AM
Posted Thu June 21 2007 06:24 Hide Post
I believe the Bf109 was outdated in 1943, especially by it technology.

Gunther Rall :-

And I still consider that altogether with all these factors that the P-51 was most likely one of the best fighter planes. This was maneuverable. When I got in, the first thing, I got in the cockpit and I saw electric starting system. I remember wank, wank in Russia (refers to the manual starter by mechanics). Her (P-51) press button, prrrd, then we go (electrical starter, easy engine starter). Fantastic. Beautiful sight (visibility). We never had this sight to the back.. Very stable undercarriage. Very good weapons set. So I think this was a very good airplane.

He also talks about how cramped the cockpit was in the Bf109, how you had the big cannon between your legs, how you could not see out the back...


True. All in all Rall goes on about how much roomier the cockpit is, the rear view better, etc.
That's because it's a newer design. But that doesn't mean that the old design is not competitive in its latest variants...

You forget to quote Rall here:

"Yeah, the 109 could compete with the P51, no doubt. Maneuverability was excellent. But the P51 could do it longer! But in the battle itself, the 109 certainly could compete with the P-51, even the Spitfire. You couldn't follow the Spitfire in a tight turn upwards. You couldn't follow it. But we knew exactly the Spitfire also had shortcomings.

The comment regarding the 'P-51 could do it longer' is in connection with tis larger, roomier cockpit which would tire a pilot less. The narrow 109 cockpit would make it impossible to fly and fight effectifly during such long escort missions - if it had the range in the first place...

So despites he liked the 109F best he still regards the 109 he flew against P-51's as a very manouverable machine...

My feeling is that the late Spitfire has a better high speed handling - in fact that the Spitfire always had a better high speed handling, from the very beginning.
But when speeds get lower the 109 actually might be a very even match...

I think the 109's shortcomings are more like those mentioned by Rall. Rather design caractersitics which made the plane more difficult to use/master than actual shortcomings in performance.
*****

DKoor
06-22-2007, 10:38 AM
Originally posted by faustnik:
I was looking at the weight creep from BoB through the end of the war, and didn't notice much difference , over that time period, between the Spit and the Bf109. +1


So, my only question is that with relative changes being similar, why don't both designs suffer in a relatively simiar manner? http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/modules/Forums/images/smiles/gm_shrug.gif

take off weights
<sub>
Bf-109E7Z - 2687kg
Spitfire Mk.V - 2958,05kg

Bf-109G6_EARLY - 3171,85kg
Spitfire Mk.V_CW (1943) - 2981,13kg

Spitfire Mk.VIII - 3227,53kg *
Bf-109K4-C3 - 3421,53kg
</sub>

To be honest Spitfire and 109 are almost perfectly matched weight wise, they had similar weight almost always thru their 'lives'. It's quite funny.... like they were in some sort of agreement or something http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif .
________________________________________________
* - there's no 1945 Spitfire in game so I used the newest Mk.VIII, correct me if I'm wrong

mynameisroland
06-22-2007, 11:33 AM
Originally posted by faustnik:
So, my only question is that with relative changes being similar, why don't both designs suffer in a relatively simiar manner?

Both designs suffered weight increase, wing loading increase and power increase. Both aircraft suffered in a relatively similar manner as has been commented on.

The difference is one design has more ability to cope with such growth because it has a bigger airframe.

faustnik
06-22-2007, 11:52 AM
as has been commented on.

The difference is one design has more ability to cope with such growth because it has a bigger airframe.[/QUOTE]

I can understand how a larger airframe would better handle the same absolute change, but, not the same relative change.

???

Xiolablu3
06-22-2007, 12:09 PM
I still stand by my first point that both designs had the same potential, however the Bf109 was already on its 'E' model when it met the Spitfire Mk1.

I dont believe one had 'more' potential than the other.

I believe the Spitfires development period was better timed for WW2.

And Dtools, thanks for the other Rall quotes, but the reason I quoted that P51 buit of Ralls speech was purely to show the technology difference between the Me109 and the P51. The Me109 was a little primitive by comparison.

mynameisroland
06-22-2007, 12:45 PM
Originally posted by faustnik:

I can understand how a larger airframe would better handle the same absolute change, but, not the same relative change.



Here is a good document to best illustrate what I am trying to say.


TACTICAL COMPARISON WITH SPITFIRE IX

13. The tactical differences are caused chiefly by the fact that the Spitfire XIV has an engine of greater capacity and is the heavier aircraft (weighing 8,400 lbs. against 7,480 lbs. of Spitfire IX).

Range & Endurance
14. The Spitfire XIV, without a long-range tank, carries 110 gallons of fuel and 9 gallons of oil. When handled similarily, the Spitfire XIV uses fuel at about 1 1/4 times the rate of the Spitfire IX. Its endurance is therefore slightly less. Owing to its higher speed for corresponding engine settings, its range is about equal. For the same reasons, extra fuel carried in a long-range tank keeps its range about equal to that of the Spitfire IX, its endurance being slightly less.

Speeds
15. At all heights the Spitfire XIV is 30-35 mph faster in level flight. The best performance heights are similar, being just below 15,000 and between 25,000 and 32,000 ft.

Climb
16. The Spitfire XIV has a slightly better maximum climb than the Spitfire IX, having the best maximum rate of climb yet seen at this Unit. In the zoom climb the Spitfire XIV gains slightly all the way, especially if full throttle is used in the climb.

Dive
17. The Spitfire XIV will pull away from the Spitfire IX in a dive.

Turning Circle
18. The turning circles of both aircraft are identical. The Spitfire XIV appears to turn slightly better to port than it does to starbord. The warning of an approaching high speed stall is less pronounced in the case of the Spitfire Mk XIV.

Rate of Roll
19. Rate of roll is very much the same.

Search View and Rear View
20. The search view from the pilot's cockpit is good; the longer nose of the aircraft interferes with the all-round visibility, which remains the same as that of the Spitfire IX. Rear View is similar.

Sighting View and Fire Power
21. The sighting view is slightly better being 4 deg (140 m.p.h.) as against 3 1/3 deg. The two bulges at the side cause little restriction. The firepower is identical with the Spitfire IX.

Armour
22. As for the Spitfire IX

Conclusions
23. The all-round performance of the Spitfire XIV is better than the Spitfire IX at all heights. In level flight it is 25-35 m.p.h. faster and has a correspondingly greater rate of climb. Its manoeuvrability is as good as a Spitfire IX. It is easy to fly but should be handled with care when taxying and taking off.

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spit14afdu.html

I have yet to see a comparison where a K4 is likened to say a G2 and comes out so favourable in manuverbility ect Yes the late Bf 109s had faster speed and better climb but this was paid for by inferior handling and manuverability. The Spitfire up to the XIV still had good manuverability whether that be a relative comparison between the Bf 109 series or a direct comparsion with a Spitfire IX.

M_Gunz
06-22-2007, 02:08 PM
Originally posted by luftluuver:
from http://jg26.vze.com/

Luftwaffe Aircraft Losses By Theatre September 1943 - October 1944

1.
During the period in question, a constant 21-24% of the Luftwaffe's day fighters were based in the East - but only 12-14% of the Luftwaffe day fighter "losses" occurred in this theater.

2.
During this period, a constant 75-78% of the day fighters were based in the West. The turnover was enormous: 14,720 aircraft were "lost", while operational strength averaged 1364.

3.
During this period, 2294 day fighters were "lost" in the East; the ratio of western "losses" to eastern "losses" was thus 14,720/2294 = 6.4 to one.

4.
During this period, a constant 43-46% of all of the Luftwaffe's operational aircraft were based in the East. It should be noted that these included entire categories (for example, battlefield recce, battle planes, dive bombers) that were used exclusively in the East, because they couldn't survive in the West..

5.
During this period, a total of 8600 operational aircraft were "lost" in the East, while 27,060 were "lost" in the West; the ratio of western "losses" to eastern "losses" was thus 27,060/8600 = 3.41 to one.

Holy Meatgrinder, Batman!

M_Gunz
06-22-2007, 02:12 PM
Originally posted by Brain32:
just how is LA5FN or La7,or Yak3 or late Yak9 so inferiour to the ME109G14?

For me, you can ask this since IL2 had those planes and much history on forum, etc...

And I answer they are not inferior, some are superior, but late 109's still very good planes!

M_Gunz
06-22-2007, 02:28 PM
Originally posted by mynameisroland:
I think you greatly underestimate the level of understanding of many people on this board

We have a lot of people that can read the histories but when they make objections it tends to
be with unqualified or partly qualified info. They know there was a handling problem when the
history says there was a handling problem and they can quote what was said by don't get past
square one from there.

Example: two planes are compared in turns and one gets commented on as having big, draggy wings
by a forum expert. And from there the proportions do not get worked out, nothing gets worked
out. Only started.
The knowledge of trivia is here but full meanings... no only what is found in quotes that is
contradicted in other quotes until the word-games are over.

Perhaps it takes a well trained pro, I know that I have enough to follow the simple things only.

M_Gunz
06-22-2007, 02:41 PM
Originally posted by mynameisroland:
Well, Duh.

Use correct tactics and well trained pilots and any plane will prosper. Air combat history is littered with examples of this.

Put two well equiped and trained airforces against each other and things like performance does matter.

Otherwise how do you explain the mad race for fractional improvements on performance over your enemy?

There was this war in the 1940's and what people in charge did was not always the best.

So when comparing air war in different theaters and times there is a huge amount of well, duh,
that generally got a lot of people killed.

How this applies is if in one place the LW is not properly organized then well duh, they lose
more. And according to Adolph Galland, the LW had just such a problem in the West. They had
no separate fighter command just as the US had not in the early N. Africa campaign. Galland
and others tried and were refused. So there was a Duh for LW in the West and by Galland's
words they would have done better with different organization.

Duh Happens. And it made differences.
Still duh, but not to be blown off and get correct answers.

M_Gunz
06-22-2007, 02:51 PM
Originally posted by faustnik:
So, my only question is that with relative changes being similar, why don't both designs suffer in a relatively simiar manner?

I can't answer but maybe these are factors --

As speed increases it takes less wing (at same AOA) to make equal lift to weight.
One plane starts with extra light loading and increases speed % more as well, it suffers less?

But that only looks at a very few factors. How does speed affect handling may mean more.

On that count IMO when you heavy a plane up and get more speed you should shift what maneuvers
and speeds are important then perhaps the heavier plane is not so bad at all, at least until
it encounters one much better.

P-40E will outmaneuver P-51D at regular to low speeds but which is counted as better?

mynameisroland
06-22-2007, 06:07 PM
http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y294/mynameisroland/_41655168_spitfire416gcc.jpg
http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y294/mynameisroland/526266270_8bc9ca9537.jpg
http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y294/mynameisroland/19-PS91588001.jpg
http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y294/mynameisroland/bwpa_spitfireIXtwin.jpg

M_Gunz
06-23-2007, 02:00 AM
I do believe I hear the Spitfire Choir starting up. Time for services already?

No, that does not mean I hate Spitfires or I am Blue Team, etc.

Abbuzze
06-23-2007, 02:22 AM
Here is a good document to best illustrate what I am trying to say.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> TACTICAL COMPARISON WITH SPITFIRE IX

13. The tactical differences are caused chiefly by the fact that the Spitfire XIV has an engine of greater capacity and is the heavier aircraft (weighing 8,400 lbs. against 7,480 lbs. of Spitfire IX).


Climb
16. The Spitfire XIV has a slightly better maximum climb than the Spitfire IX, having the best maximum rate of climb yet seen at this Unit. In the zoom climb the Spitfire XIV gains slightly all the way, especially if full throttle is used in the climb.

Dive
17. The Spitfire XIV will pull away from the Spitfire IX in a dive.

Turning Circle
18. The turning circles of both aircraft are identical. The Spitfire XIV appears to turn slightly better to port than it does to starbord. The warning of an approaching high speed stall is less pronounced in the case of the Spitfire Mk XIV.

Rate of Roll
19. Rate of roll is very much the same.



Conclusions
23. The all-round performance of the Spitfire XIV is better than the Spitfire IX at all heights. In level flight it is 25-35 m.p.h. faster and has a correspondingly greater rate of climb. Its manoeuvrability is as good as a Spitfire IX. It is easy to fly but should be handled with care when taxying and taking off.

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spit14afdu.html

I have yet to see a comparison where a K4 is likened to say a G2 and comes out so favourable in manuverbility ect Yes the late Bf 109s had faster speed and better climb but this was paid for by inferior handling and manuverability. The Spitfire up to the XIV still had good manuverability whether that be a relative comparison between the Bf 109 series or a direct comparsion with a Spitfire IX. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
[/QUOTE]


Yes, but there are also similar documents which tell us a differnt picture...
If you take a 190 as a benchmark:




SPITFIRE IX VERSUS FW 190A
Manoeuvrability: The FW 190 is more manoeuvrable than the Spitfire IX except in turning circles.

SPITFIRE XIV VERSUS FW 190A
Turning Circle: The Spitfire XIV can easily turn inside the FW 190. In the case of a right-hand turn, this difference is not so pronounced.


The difference is not so pronounced for the XIV in right hand turns, I´m not a native english speaker, but this sound very differnt for me compared to the IX vs 190...

The overall handling of the XIV was still good, with all shortcomings of the IX (ailerons at high speed for example). But I wouldn´t expect it as good as the early ones in turning. More power brings more climb performance and speed, also better diving, roll stay the same, but turning...

M_Gunz
06-23-2007, 03:25 AM
Turning Circle
18. The turning circles of both aircraft are identical. The Spitfire XIV appears to turn slightly better to port than it does to starbord. The warning of an approaching high speed stall is less pronounced in the case of the Spitfire Mk XIV.




SPITFIRE IX VERSUS FW 190A
Manoeuvrability: The FW 190 is more manoeuvrable than the Spitfire IX except in turning circles.

SPITFIRE XIV VERSUS FW 190A
Turning Circle: The Spitfire XIV can easily turn inside the FW 190. In the case of a right-hand turn, this difference is not so pronounced.



The difference is not so pronounced for the XIV in right hand turns, I´m not a native english speaker, but this sound very differnt for me compared to the IX vs 190...

Spit XIV turns slightly less well to left than right. Word "identical" used for IX and XIV
turning circles must lack obsessive precision yet leaves feeling (no numbers) that the turns
are more than "fairly close" or even "nearly identical". The "feeling" of course may be
false.

Really, it's the perfect kind of statement to build a hill of innuendo upon which is true of
at least half the report Conclusions I see dragged up here. The conclusions of most of these
reports are almost worthless when taken out of the report, disassociated from report data and
used to prop up historic revision labeled as research.

mynameisroland
06-23-2007, 04:16 AM
Yes, but there are also similar documents which tell us a differnt picture...
If you take a 190 as a benchmark:

Sorry but I am not going to argue that the Spitfire was more or less manuverable than the Fw 190. This is the Bf 109 were comparing it too, stop moving the goal posts http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif


Really, it's the perfect kind of statement to build a hill of innuendo upon which is true of
at least half the report Conclusions I see dragged up here. The conclusions of most of these
reports are almost worthless when taken out of the report, disassociated from report data and
used to prop up historic revision labeled as research.

I dont think you can call and offcial AFDU trial worthless. Whatever criteria you require for turning circle measurment the fact that test pilots who have flown a Mk IX and a MK XIV directly against each other say they are identical is enough for me to say that the differences between the two are negligable.

So again we have the conclusion that yes the Mk XIV handling did deteriorate but it was not until the Mk 21 that the Spitfires overall good handling qualities and manuverability had been lost in the quest of speed, climb and firepower.

The Bf 109 was not as lucky in this regard. It was less manuverable than the Spitfire to start with and by the time the K4 ect were in service it was in a worse postion handling and manuverabilty wise to a XIV than a G6 was to an IX or a F4 was to a Vb.

Brain32
06-23-2007, 05:35 AM
I have yet to see a comparison where a K4 is likened to say a G2 and comes out so favourable in manuverbility ect Yes the late Bf 109s had faster speed and better climb but this was paid for by inferior handling and manuverability. The Spitfire up to the XIV still had good manuverability whether that be a relative comparison between the Bf 109 series or a direct comparsion with a Spitfire IX.
ONCE AGAIN:
<span class="ev_code_RED">For every BF109 pilot that stated he prefered earlier versions I can find a Spitfire pilot claiming he prefered an earlier version.</span>
SAME LAWS OF PHYSICS WORK ON BOTH PLANES, THERE IS NO SPITFIRE FAIRY WAWING HER MAGIC STICK OVER SPITFIRES

Whatever criteria you require for turning circle measurment the fact that test pilots who have flown a Mk IX and a MK XIV directly against each other say they are identical is enough for me to say that the differences between the two are negligable.
That's because you made up your mind and that's it, nothing is going to change your opinion and you want to force it on us, why? Because in il2 109K4 flies like it has 7tons?


So again we have the conclusion that yes the Mk XIV handling did deteriorate but it was not until the Mk 21 that the Spitfires overall good handling qualities and manuverability had been lost in the quest of speed, climb and firepower.
Correction, NOT "WE" but "YOU", I respect your opinion but I disagree with it 100% unless you can completely dispute everything I.Newton ever wrote.

HuninMunin
06-23-2007, 06:06 AM
Originally posted by mynameisroland:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Yes, but there are also similar documents which tell us a differnt picture...
If you take a 190 as a benchmark:

Sorry but I am not going to argue that the Spitfire was more or less manuverable than the Fw 190. This is the Bf 109 were comparing it too, stop moving the goal posts http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif


Really, it's the perfect kind of statement to build a hill of innuendo upon which is true of
at least half the report Conclusions I see dragged up here. The conclusions of most of these
reports are almost worthless when taken out of the report, disassociated from report data and
used to prop up historic revision labeled as research.

I dont think you can call and offcial AFDU trial worthless. Whatever criteria you require for turning circle measurment the fact that test pilots who have flown a Mk IX and a MK XIV directly against each other say they are identical is enough for me to say that the differences between the two are negligable.

So again we have the conclusion that yes the Mk XIV handling did deteriorate but it was not until the Mk 21 that the Spitfires overall good handling qualities and manuverability had been lost in the quest of speed, climb and firepower.

The Bf 109 was not as lucky in this regard. It was less manuverable than the Spitfire to start with and by the time the K4 ect were in service it was in a worse postion handling and manuverabilty wise to a XIV than a G6 was to an IX or a F4 was to a Vb. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I would argue that the Spitfire was more manuverable in the first place - the 109s T/W and the vertical AoA capabilities gave it a good match.
Although it is correct that the Spitfire gained on this advantage by ( simply put ) adding hp, the 109s ( even the K ) were extremly agile in the vertical.

I agree with your conclusion - but the gap was not as large as some here see it to have been.

Blutarski2004
06-23-2007, 06:26 AM
I recall (with some trepidation) a bazillion page thread a while back on the subject of Spitfire XIV vs 109K4. Leaving aside the issue of LE slats (which IMO are only really relevant in near-stall states), the conclusions I drew from that "discussion" were that -

109K had a slightly better overall climb rate within the common flight envelope due to better p/w ratio.

Spitfire XIV had better general "throw-aboutability" at combat speeds due to better wing loading.

109K was faster in dive (IIRC)

Level speed honors depended upon altitude.

It's a close call IMO.

mynameisroland
06-23-2007, 06:45 AM
Hi Blutarski,

From what I gather over the gazillion of compartive threads and reposts the Spitfire had better control authority at high speeds - including rate of roll and elevator.

For the Mk XIV at 18lb boost I have the speed of 410 mph at 10,000ft, 448 mph at 27,000ft, and 430 mph at 35,000ft. The Spitfire was cleared for 21lb boost but Im not sure how much it affected its max speed.

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spit14speedchart.jpg

Im not sure about the Bf 109 K4 but the 452 mph figures I have read in books are possibly confused with a variant of K4 which was barely produced or even a K6. I am open to correction on this one BTW.

Bottom line, in my magical Spitfire Fairy world, the Spitfire was a much more capable aircraft at high altitudes and high speeds than the Bf 109 while the Spitfire itself was less capable than the Fw 190 or P 51 or Tempest at speeds over 400mph. It definitely betrayed its age in such conditions but barring Arnold Schwarzeneger is piloting the Bf 109 the Spitfire was more controllable as speeds increased.

JG4_Helofly
06-23-2007, 07:36 AM
Roland, you forget the ailerons. Manoeuvrability is not the ability to pull the stick back and turn. I read that the aileron forces in the spitfire were greater than in the 109 and that would give a, maybe slight, advantage to the 109.

Xiolablu3
06-23-2007, 07:46 AM
Yes Helofly, the SPitfire was known for having heavy ailerons, but a light elevator.

This could get a bit strange as you got up to high speeds if you werent used to it, with the elevator remaining light, and the ailerons taking a lot of force to move.

You can sense it in IL2, the SPitfire is not a great roller at high speeds.

Xiolablu3
06-23-2007, 07:47 AM
Originally posted by M_Gunz:
I do believe I hear the Spitfire Choir starting up. Time for services already?

No, that does not mean I hate Spitfires or I am Blue Team, etc.

LOL you made the last 5 posts!

Its hilarious that people recognising that the Bf109 was the superior fighter in 1941-42 dont get lablelled 'Bf109 choir',

but they just have to state that they think the SPitfire was superior in 1943-45 and state its good points to be lablled 'Spitfire Choir'. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Very funny that anyone saying anything good about the SPitfire is immediately jumped on. I can 'feel' 'Kurfurst and pals' hovering and just dying to jump in with some 'Holy SPitfire' comment against the same people proclaiming the Bf109 as superior in 1941-42. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Xiolablu3
06-23-2007, 07:51 AM
The thing is guys, noone in the RAF was calling for the Spitfire to be discontinued because it was 'obselete'. In fact there were hopes for all sorts of new versions with laminar flow wings etc. This shows that the Spitfire was still very much satisfactory.

Noone was saying we should stop making these now and turn production to Tempest and Meteors.

Galland was calling for Bf109 production to be stopped as early as 1943.

I think this speaks for its self.

We can argue that there was no difference between the Spitfire and the BF109 'because they were contemporaries'. But they certainly were not the same plane. WHile the RAF were perfectly happy with the SPitfire from 1939 to '45, Galland, the head of the Luftwaffe in the West and many other high profile LW pilots were certainly not happy with the Bf109 after 1943.


ANother point we havent raised -

Having to carry gunpods in order to carry more than one cannon is a major flaw as armaments increased with the Spitfire capable of 4x20mm cannon.

mynameisroland
06-23-2007, 07:53 AM
Originally posted by JG4_Helofly:
Roland, you forget the ailerons. Manoeuvrability is not the ability to pull the stick back and turn. I read that the aileron forces in the spitfire were greater than in the 109 and that would give a, maybe slight, advantage to the 109.

Here is a section from the Tactical trial comparing a Bf 109 G6 to the XIV


Rate of Roll
28.........In the rolling plane the Spitfire again is superior at all speeds.

The Spitfires rate of roll increased with the introduction of various airlerons refinements and with the VIII wing.

Brain32
06-23-2007, 08:09 AM
I would just like to point out that the ME109G6/U2 used in that test also had underwing 20mm gondolas. Make your own conclusions.

Brain32
06-23-2007, 08:13 AM
but they just have to state that they think the SPitfire was superior in 1943-45 and state its good points to be lablled 'Spitfire Choir'.
You guys really do not understand do you?
You basically say this:
WEIGHT: - positive and great for the Spitfire
- extremely negative for the 109
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/clap.gif
Sorry I agree with you that late Spits had more advantages than late 109's, but you guys are re-inventing Newton's laws. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

mynameisroland
06-23-2007, 08:22 AM
Originally posted by Brain32:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> but they just have to state that they think the SPitfire was superior in 1943-45 and state its good points to be lablled 'Spitfire Choir'.
You guys really do not understand do you?
You basically say this:
WEIGHT: - positive and great for the Spitfire
- extremely negative for the 109
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/clap.gif
Sorry I agree with you that late Spits had more advantages than late 109's, but you guys are re-inventing Newton's laws. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I dont see anyone in this thread saying extra weight benefitted the Spitfire, although I have seen countless threads where Josf says the increased weight of the Fw 190 A8 helped it turn better ... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

What I have said repeatedly - can you guys not see past the RAF roundels in my sig or something? Would it help if I wore my Fw 190 sig for this message to be read correctly? - is that the Spitfire XIV or the VIII were the best all round Spitfires for the mixture of handling and performance vs the Bf 109 and Fw 190.

The Bf 109 series gained weight. The Bf 109 F4 was heavier than the E4 yet the blend of power and handling that the F4 had made it the best all round Bf 109. Yes there were faster marks but they were not better aircraft vs their contemporaries.

Looking at the Spitfire the Mk V was not the best allround Spitfire. It didnt have enough power but it was very manuverable. The addition of more power and weight made its handling worse but not to an unnacceptable degree. Its handling was traded for extra HP but a good balance between the two was struck.

The XIV maintained enough handling for test pilots to notice the step down when flying the Mk 21. They said that the development of the basic design had gone one step too far.

Dtools4fools
06-23-2007, 08:25 AM
Galland was calling for Bf109 production to be stopped as early as 1943.

....in favour of what? Wasn't that at test flight of 262 and he wanted a 262-190 duo?

What would have been his 'call' if there were no 262 available (as they were not in real)?

I think the old, unmanouverable 109 keeping the escorts busy while the 190 attack the bombers speaks for itself.
High altitude the 109 was still needed.
To be replaced by 262 as wished by Galland.

And there were certainly many pilots who were still happy with their 109's. Like Rall. Yes, he points out how much more advanced the Mustang design is. But he points out as well that despites those design differences the 109 still was a competitive plane in air combat...

My impression is:
- speed. similar.
- late Spit has better high speed manouverability, turn and roll.
- low speed manouverability near equal?
- in the vertical they are equal, maybe the K even a tad better?
- dive? similar?

At the end of the day I want to be in the plane with the tactical/numerical advantage and better trained pilots and ground control system and organization...

One could argue that late Spits were even not Spits anymore. Completely redesigned wings (even different ones for different purposes), bubble canopy with its changes to airframe, not much left of a Spit I...

A Tempest is closer to a Typhoon than a Spit 1 to a late Spit in my opinion - yet it has a different name...
****

M_Gunz
06-23-2007, 08:25 AM
Originally posted by mynameisroland:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The conclusions of most of these reports are almost worthless when taken out of the
report, disassociated from report data....

I dont think you can call and offcial AFDU trial worthless. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I wrote something more than just "worthless". I wrote about the conclusions alone, without
the data of the trial including full conditions. I did so because the conclusions are in
loose terms that mean different things to different people esp 60+ years later gamers.

The AFDU trial report is not just or even mostly conclusions. Not worthless as a whole.
Used wrong, I should say any part is worse than useless as it deviates from history.

Kettenhunde
06-23-2007, 08:26 AM
From what I gather over the gazillion of compartive threads and reposts the Spitfire had better control authority at high speeds - including rate of roll and elevator.


Don't confuse control authority with stick forces, two separate stability and control issues.

Control authority is a function of control surface to airfoil surface. The top of the curve is fairly flat so we find a wide variety of ratios which deliver similar performance in the air. I highly doubt control authority changed any if at in these designs without replacing wings, empennage, and control surfaces such as was done in the Bf-109F series.

This is an easily quantifiable statement to confirm given the elevator and horizontal stabilizer surface areas and the aileron to wing surface area. In general, the larger the difference between control surface area and wing surface, the slower the aircraft rolls. The larger the difference between horizontal stabilizer surface area and elevator surface area, the slower the aircraft changes pitch.

The basic formula is:

Pitching Moment about the CG = Coefficient of PMcg * Dynamic Pressure * Surface Control Area

In general the stick forces the pilot feels are a function of the CG location within its design limits, altitude, velocity, and the weight of the aircraft. These forces can and do change with conditions.

All the best,

Crumpp

mynameisroland
06-23-2007, 08:30 AM
Originally posted by Dtools4fools:
One could argue that late Spits were even not Spits anymore. Completely redesigned wings (even different ones for different purposes), bubble canopy with its changes to airframe, not much left of a Spit I...

A Tempest is closer to a Typhoon than a Spit 1 to a late Spit in my opinion - yet it has a different name...
****

The Spitfire IX used the same wing as a Mk V which basically used the same wing - bar guns - as the Mk I. The XIV used the same wing as the VIII which was a development of the Mk IIIs wing irc?

The Bf 109 didnt receive any wing/tail/rudder/fuselage changes?

The Tempest and Typhoon had more structural differences than the Spitfire IX and Mk I or Spitfire IX and XIV did. It is a little silly to make such a statement not to mention irrelevant to the topic at hand given the Bf 109 went through as many if not more changes during its life time.

Abbuzze
06-23-2007, 09:38 AM
Originally posted by mynameisroland:

Sorry but I am not going to argue that the Spitfire was more or less manuverable than the Fw 190. This is the Bf 109 were comparing it too, stop moving the goal posts http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Really, it's the perfect kind of statement to build a hill of innuendo upon which is true of
at least half the report Conclusions I see dragged up here. The conclusions of most of these
reports are almost worthless when taken out of the report, disassociated from report data and
used to prop up historic revision labeled as research.

I dont think you can call and offcial AFDU trial worthless. Whatever criteria you require for turning circle measurment the fact that test pilots who have flown a Mk IX and a MK XIV directly against each other say they are identical is enough for me to say that the differences between the two are negligable.

So again we have the conclusion that yes the Mk XIV handling did deteriorate but it was not until the Mk 21 that the Spitfires overall good handling qualities and manuverability had been lost in the quest of speed, climb and firepower.

The Bf 109 was not as lucky in this regard. It was less manuverable than the Spitfire to start with and by the time the K4 ect were in service it was in a worse postion handling and manuverabilty wise to a XIV than a G6 was to an IX or a F4 was to a Vb. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I´m not trying to bring this to a spit vs 190 thread, but you want to try to tell us, that the Spitfire was able to cheating phyics http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

And if for you a report is enough to believe that the XIV is turning like the IX - For me it isn´t. Especially if other sources rated it differnt if compared to other planes. Without numbers it´s close to be worthless and nothing more than subjective impressions of pilots.

Dtools4fools
06-23-2007, 09:42 AM
Might be a bit silly indeed.

But saying 'yeah, Spit had a better wing it could take 4x20mm, 109 wing could not, they needed godolas' is a bit silly too when there were used different wings altogether...

It's silly too to assume automatically that because 109F was best allround performing anything later was a garbage truck...

*****

Abbuzze
06-23-2007, 09:50 AM
Originally posted by mynameisroland:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JG4_Helofly:
Roland, you forget the ailerons. Manoeuvrability is not the ability to pull the stick back and turn. I read that the aileron forces in the spitfire were greater than in the 109 and that would give a, maybe slight, advantage to the 109.

Here is a section from the Tactical trial comparing a Bf 109 G6 to the XIV


Rate of Roll
28.........In the rolling plane the Spitfire again is superior at all speeds.

The Spitfires rate of roll increased with the introduction of various airlerons refinements and with the VIII wing. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

If IRC you should read you source complete- You will notice that you are comparing a G6 with gunpods (the bomber interceptor version) against a Spitfire XIV.

Kettenhunde
06-23-2007, 10:25 AM
The Bf 109 didnt receive any wing/tail/rudder/fuselage changes?

Yes, the bf-109 recieved at least one design change to increase the aircraft's q-limits.

All the best,

Crumpp

luftluuver
06-24-2007, 06:30 PM
Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
Yes, the bf-109 recieved at least one design change to increase the aircraft's q-limits.
That is a really informative statement.

HuninMunin
06-24-2007, 06:35 PM
I wasn't aware of it.... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/shady.gif

Ratsack
06-24-2007, 10:03 PM
Wasn't the redesign from the E series to the F a very substantial change? Going from memory, the F got:

* a new fin (difficult to identify visually);
* stabilizers moved;
* bracing on the stabs deleted;
* retractable tail wheel;
* new, longer nose, more streamlined;
* new supercharger intake, out from fuselage side to improve ram effect;
* new oil cooler enclosure under the nose;
* new type of ailerons, of a different size;
* new type of flaps, different size;
* new enclosure for engine rads, longer, wider and shallower than E series, with new exhaust vent;
* new wing tip; and
* redesign of fuel tank arrangement.

This is, of course, not counting either the new engine or the MG151/20 cannon it was meant to get. In many respects, this was the first and only major redesign of the Bf 109. The G series is based on this airframe.

What I don't know is if, among all the other changes to the wing, they also introduced a new aerofoil cross section. One of the Bf 109 buffs would surely know. Butch2k, for example.



cheers,
Ratsack

Kettenhunde
06-25-2007, 05:30 AM
Going from memory, the F got:

The changes in the E-F series represent an expansion of the stability points. That is the kind of major redesign which is generally required to shift the stability points. Essentially it is a new aircraft.

Specifically I was refering to the late G6 variants. They received a design change which allowed an increase in the q-limits and a subsequent increase in dive velocity.

That is the reason for the "tall tail" in the Bf-109. It corrected an instability issue with the design at high velocity.

The Spitfire received the exact same design improvement just after the war ended. Hence we see the Mach.89 Spitfire dive testing.

All the best,

Crumpp

luftluuver
06-25-2007, 07:36 AM
Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
The Spitfire received the exact same design improvement just after the war ended. Hence we see the Mach.89 Spitfire dive testing. Agh, the .89 dive tests were done during the war. There was big tailed Spits produced during the war.

Kettenhunde
06-25-2007, 09:07 AM
Agh, the .89 dive tests were done during the war. There was big tailed Spits produced during the war.

Certainly, the initial investigations were performed during the war by Farnborough. Farnborough is the British equivilent to the NACA which handles aeronautical research and scientific research. However the necessary design change to safely increase the q-limits of the design was not implemented until post war in production fighters.

In the case of the Spitfire, a taller rudder was not the only remedy required; the surface area of the horizontals stabilizer had to be increased as well. Different stability issues that require a different solution from the Bf-109 so I was not correct in saying they were the same solution. Only part of the Bf-109's solution was applicable to the Spitfire. The Bf-109 only had a lateral stability issue while the Spitfire had both lateral and longitudinal difficulties. The service trials were conducted by Boscume down in July 1946 for the larger surface Horizontal stabilizer.

All the best,

Crumpp

M_Gunz
06-25-2007, 09:29 AM
Crumpp, pls check PM.

luftluuver
06-25-2007, 10:46 AM
The Spit XIV had a larger stab/elevator than the Mk V, some 2,84sqft larger.

Kettenhunde
06-25-2007, 12:19 PM
The Spit XIV had a larger stab/elevator than the Mk V, some 2,84sqft larger.

Interesting fact, thanks for sharing it.

That is why in the the POH's for both types list the Mk XIV has having higher Vne by some 20mph IAS.

However I wonder what it has to do with Boscume down's trials in July 1946 on the Mk IX series?

All the best,

Crumpp

luftluuver
06-25-2007, 01:17 PM
Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
However I wonder what it has to do with Boscume down's trials in July 1946 on the Mk IX series?
The trials was held at Farnborough, not BD.

So what does the 1946 trials of a Mk IX have to do with mods to the Spit as the Mk24 was already in production? Would say the enlarged tailplane (x57%) had more to do with the shift rearwards of the CG due to the rear fuselage tank.

Kettenhunde
06-25-2007, 02:13 PM
Would say the enlarged tailplane (x57%) had more to do with the shift rearwards of the CG due to the rear fuselage tank.


Metal elevators and removing the bobweights allowed the rear fuselage tank to be used.

The CG was then 9.9 aft of datum.

All the best,

Crumpp

Kettenhunde
06-25-2007, 02:26 PM
So what does the 1946 trials of a Mk IX have to do with mods to the Spit as the Mk24 was already in production?

After BD's only wartime high speed investigation of the Spitfire Mk IX they were obviously trying to increase the q-limits of the design.

The design achieved mach .83 during these trials. Farnborough then investigated tail loads in high speed flight and subsequently increased increased horizontal stabilizer area. They tried to maximize the size the design could handle.

All the best,

Crumpp

luftluuver
06-25-2007, 02:46 PM
Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
Metal elevators and removing the bobweights allowed the rear fuselage tank to be used.

The CG was then 9.9 aft of datum.
Actually, the test had 34gal of fuel in the fuselage tank and the inertia weights were not recommended. That is not removal of the inertia weights.

The fuselage could be used but not, when full (75gal), for formation and combat.

Kettenhunde
06-25-2007, 05:56 PM
Actually, the test had 34gal of fuel in the fuselage tank and the inertia weights were not recommended. That is not removal of the inertia weights.

It does not say anything about formation flying not being recommended with the modifications.

Recommending removal from the test pilots generally translates into removal to operational pilots. TBO's are only recommendations too. Try flying an engine beyond the TBO in most Air Forces.

Of course there are always those idiots out there who will read into things and split the fine hair.

Regardless of the amount of fuel in the test aircraft, the tank was approved for use without the increase in horizontal stabilizer surface area.

I don't think you have a grasp of how much fuel high performance piston engine aircaft burn. While that 41 gallons may seem an impass to effective combat capability to you I don't think it was all that important to the RAF. Especially when one considers the cost to benefit analysis of a redesign.


Maximum fuel flow was obtained near full throttle height in F.S. gear and was about 197 galls/hour. The corresponding value of fuel flow at +18 lb/sq.in. was estimated as 150 galls/hour.

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/jl165.html

http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/503_1182817845_spit21.jpg

All the best,

Crumpp

luftluuver
06-25-2007, 07:13 PM
Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
Of course there are always those idiots out there who will read into things and split the fine hair.
When was the last time you looked in a mirror? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Kettenhunde
06-25-2007, 08:48 PM
Guess you have run out of intelligent replies. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

All the best,

Crumpp

Ratsack
06-25-2007, 09:49 PM
Can you two lay off it for a while? This tit-for-tat cr@p belongs in a Tagert thread, not here.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gifhttp://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gifhttp://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gifhttp://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gifhttp://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gifhttp://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gifhttp://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gifhttp://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gifhttp://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif



Ratsack

ElAurens
06-25-2007, 10:36 PM
I'm suprised it's gone this long as politely as it has, considering the subject matter.

I do admit it is kind of like watching Ford and Chevrolet fans arguing about which is better, when you own an Acura/Lexus/P51 etc...

It all seems rather pointless doesn't it?

The war is long over, it's outcome set in stone, and the virtual aircraft we fling about the sky are not about to magically be transformed by any of these threads.

Ah well, cheap entertainment in any case.

Ratsack
06-26-2007, 12:00 AM
Originally posted by ElAurens:
...

It all seems rather pointless doesn't it?
...


I quite enjoy some of the information that some of these posters bring forward. Some of it is very interesting, from an historical point of view.

Regarding the relative civility of the discussion so far, I don't think it's difficult to explain. Just ask yourself, 'Who is missing from this discussion?'

When you answer that question, you'll know why this thread hasn't - yet - degenerated into something much more horrible.

It is actually possible to have a polite disagreement. I would have thought this material is the easiest to disagree politely about, given that it won't change anything one bit if person A is right rather than poster B.

cheers,
Ratsack

luftluuver
06-26-2007, 01:08 AM
Well Ratsack, the thread was going along very nicely until Crumpp showed up and started to insult ppl, calling them idiots.

There was 3 tests done in Jan 45 using ML186. All were flight trials with regard to stability with fuel in the fuselage tank.

Kurfurst__
06-26-2007, 01:50 AM
Originally posted by Ratsack:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ElAurens:
...

It all seems rather pointless doesn't it?
...


I quite enjoy some of the information that some of these posters bring forward. Some of it is very interesting, from an historical point of view.

Regarding the relative civility of the discussion so far, I don't think it's difficult to explain. Just ask yourself, 'Who is missing from this discussion?'

When you answer that question, you'll know why this thread hasn't - yet - degenerated into something much more horrible.

It is actually possible to have a polite disagreement. I would have thought this material is the easiest to disagree politely about, given that it won't change anything one bit if person A is right rather than poster B.

cheers,
Ratsack </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Oh, good old Ratsack trying to bring up a bit flame, having an axe to grind, well, and we all know why, don't we ?

Civilized discussion is something you have certainly no desire for, as your above post shows. It's difficult to believe in someone's honest desire for a civilized discussion if he's only there to take cheap shots and accusations against someone who doesn't even bother to participate in this joke thread.

Kudos for Kettenhunde for attempting to add most of the informative, reasoned posts in this sorry flame thread from the usual participants. Posts like his are the only reason one would want to bother glancing over this 'discussion'.

Ratsack
06-26-2007, 02:56 AM
Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
...

Oh, good old Ratsack ...

Lovely to see you too, Kurfy. Back from your holiday, I see.

cheers,
Ratsack

Kurfurst__
06-26-2007, 02:57 AM
... Yet more flamebaiting from Ratsack, the one truely concerned for civilised discussion.

Moving.

Whirlin_merlin
06-26-2007, 03:10 AM
Now I thought the whole point to this thread was looking at the 'relationship' between the Spit and 109.

To me that's always been interesting as the two aircraft's fates were intertwined in many theatres.

Its is also worth reminding people the the thread starter did not kick off with. 'The spitfire is the bestest ever and always outclassed the 109.'

Infact they made clear that they felt that in the early years the 109 lead the race. So not really the first amalgamated church of the holy spitfire.

A reasonable argument was made that from the mid to late war period the spitfre took the lead in terms of over all capability. This prompted the question why?

Xiola argued that the 109 design being earlier had in some way run out of steam, I'm not sure about that myself but I wont **** him off for stating it.

We then went down the path of which model of each aircraft had the best balance of power/speed/manouverability/armement etc. As long as that is put in the context of their time whats wrong with that.

Now I can't see anything wrong with any of that so why does it now have to get personal?

I do think it's a bit unfair that comments aimed at Kurfurst were made when he couldn't defend himself but....

1) Based on recent experience there could be a valid reason for these observations, after all many a thread has gone down the toilet recently.

2) @ Kurfurst you now have an opertunity to show people they were wrong (no not about spit vs 109, but in their opinion that you will now post a load of tosh and trash the thread.)

Kurfurst__
06-26-2007, 03:42 AM
Originally posted by Whirlin_merlin:
Now I thought the whole point to this thread was looking at the 'relationship' between the Spit and 109.

To me that's always been interesting as the two aircraft's fates were intertwined in many theatres.

Its is also worth reminding people the the thread starter did not kick off with. 'The spitfire is the bestest ever and always outclassed the 109.'

Infact they made clear that they felt that in the early years the 109 lead the race. So not really the first amalgamated church of the holy spitfire.

A reasonable argument was made that from the mid to late war period the spitfre took the lead in terms of over all capability. This prompted the question why?

Xiola argued that the 109 design being earlier had in some way run out of steam, I'm not sure about that myself but I wont **** him off for stating it.

We then went down the path of which model of each aircraft had the best balance of power/speed/manouverability/armement etc. As long as that is put in the context of their time whats wrong with that.

Now I can't see anything wrong with any of that so why does it now have to get personal?

IMHO there's absolutely nothing wrong with that, but as long as the whole thread is about Person A saying it was like that, Person B saying it was or that it was not, neither providing any basis for their point of view (and in most cases it's just emotion based, indeed), and it's the same Person A and Person B as in a zillion other thread, then.... what's the point? I don't see it.

If I am here to learn than at least I'd except to see some actual primary sources on the various claims made, or at least it would be nice to be able to check them out. It's pointless until some actual sources are being posted, I for one would love to see the basis (preferably primary souces) for those statments on detoriation of handling etc.


I do think it's a bit unfair that comments aimed at Kurfurst were made when he couldn't defend himself but....

1) Based on recent experience there could be a valid reason for these observations, after all many a thread has gone down the toilet recently.

Do a search for Ratsack's WW2 fighters thread. The last 7 or 8 pages is about Ratsack playing a word game trying to dismiss a source (Bf 109E production) that was posted to him, and after someone else told him that perhaps his 'arguements' are bit week and maybe he should actually try to back up what he says, he replied with a long-winded post calling me a lunatic and speaking of tea pots in space instead of an answer. The thread was locked when he (or mynamisroland) started accusing me of holocaust denial when they really run out of everything.

Same guys rolling their eyes about civil discussion. C'mon...


2) @ Kurfurst you now have an opertunity to show people they were wrong (no not about spit vs 109, but in their opinion that you will now post a load of tosh and trash the thread.)

I respectfully decline, this is just another flame thread with the usual participants, and thus it's just a waste of time. That is one thing, but it largely contains only opinions, and on those opinions, more opinions are based. I haven't seen a single attempt to actually underline any of the statements made, it's a castle of cards on weak founding. So then what, argue that Opinion A is more correct than Opinion B? Point out that the Spitfire was originally designed for 600 lbs load and for the RR Goshawk of the Kestrel class to people who are well aware of that and other petty things? etc. To what purpose?

I leave that to the people who had made 90% of the post in this thread. I very much doubt that this will be the thread that gives the answer to the question. This board is simply immature for discussions like that IMHO.

mynameisroland
06-26-2007, 03:50 AM
Hey this sounds familiar :

look here http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/23110283/m/3861087665/p/11


Oh but dear Ratsack, you yourself got away with your accusations on me being a 'holocaust denier'... for which you did not provid any evidence - after you run out of valid, on topic arguements. You got your thread locked with your behaviour, though... So I sense a bit of hypocriticism in your post, the big crocodile tears and all that.

People were sceptical about Hop's relation to Jews/Isrealis, so I provided some post of his to let anyone judge.

Personally, when I see someone systematically criticize Israel and only the side Israel, again and again over the years, from little stories about Isreali settlers beating children to death with rifle butts to 'well reasoned' arguements how Isrealis steal land from Palestinians, cheat their deals, rob the US, make life a living hell for Palestinians, well then I begin to think that there's perhaps more behind the matter than just a legit criticism of Israeli policy.

I also ask you kindly to refrain from your petty personal comments, as they violate the rules of this board. There's also a civilized way telling us that you symphatize with Hop's person and/or his views on policies of The Jewish State.




Thanks for ruining yet another thread.

luftluuver
06-26-2007, 04:16 AM
Yes a load of tosh and trashing of the thread, be sure. Not one word on the subject of the thread title.

Brain32
06-26-2007, 04:16 AM
Kurfurst didn't ruin this thread, something else did, something that is very present on this forum and it's here to stay. This place started to look as if spitfireperformance site has a forum. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

hop2002
06-26-2007, 04:17 AM
Point out that the Spitfire was originally designed for 600 lbs load and for the RR Goshawk of the Kestrel class to people who are well aware of that and other petty things?

Well, the type 224, the open cockpit, cantilever winged, fixed undercarriage design, was called "Spitfire", so in that respect you are correct.

But the aircraft everyone knows as the Spitfire, the type 300, adopted the Merlin (PV XII) in November 1934. From The Spitfire Story by Price:


During November 1934 Mitchell received permission to proceed with the design of a PV Xll-powered Type 300 fighter. The man behind the decision was Sir Robert McLean, the managing director of Vickers (Aviation) Ltd. At his instigation the board of the company provided the finance for Mitchell to begin detailed design work as a private venture, pending an Air Ministry contract. Thus for a short while design work"but not metal cutting"proceeded under private funding.
The decision to combine the revised Type 300 airframe with the PV XII engine drew immediate interest from the Air Ministry, however. On 1 December 1934 contract AM 361140/34 was issued, providing I0,000 for the construction of a prototype fighter to Mitchell's 'improved F.7/30' design. The new aircraft was to be ready in October 1935.

The Merlin had been adopted for the Spitfire even before the wing was designed.

Kurfurst__
06-26-2007, 04:44 AM
Originally posted by hop2002:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Point out that the Spitfire was originally designed for 600 lbs load and for the RR Goshawk of the Kestrel class to people who are well aware of that and other petty things?

Well, the type 224, the open cockpit, cantilever winged, fixed undercarriage design, was called "Spitfire", so in that respect you are correct.

But the aircraft everyone knows as the Spitfire, the type 300, adopted the Merlin (PV XII) in November 1934. From The Spitfire Story by Price:


During November 1934 Mitchell received permission to proceed with the design of a PV Xll-powered Type 300 fighter. The man behind the decision was Sir Robert McLean, the managing director of Vickers (Aviation) Ltd. At his instigation the board of the company provided the finance for Mitchell to begin detailed design work as a private venture, pending an Air Ministry contract. Thus for a short while design work"but not metal cutting"proceeded under private funding.
The decision to combine the revised Type 300 airframe with the PV XII engine drew immediate interest from the Air Ministry, however. On 1 December 1934 contract AM 361140/34 was issued, providing I0,000 for the construction of a prototype fighter to Mitchell's 'improved F.7/30' design. The new aircraft was to be ready in October 1935.

The Merlin had been adopted for the Spitfire even before the wing was designed. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Reader's are welcome to compare Hop's interpretation of dr. Alfred Price's work to the actual version told by Alfred Price ('The Spitfire Story'). It seems to be there are conflicts.

http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e133/Kurfurst/Price_vs_Hop.jpg

Note the drawing with the early style wing is from the 'Automn' of 1934, whereas it was 'during November 1934' Mitchell would even begin re-designing the Type 300 airframe for the Merlin. On the next page, Price shows a drawing from January 1935 showing the elliptic wings for the first time.

It seems the Spitfire was evolving from a fighter designed for 600 lbs load, 4 light MGs and the Goshawk engine after all.

hop2002
06-26-2007, 04:55 AM
Kurfurst, you do understand the difference between a proposal and a design, don't you?

Price notes that the Merlin was adopted for the type 300 on 6th November, the board of Supermarine authorised detail design work to begin the same month.

So the Merlin was in place by the time detail design work began.

Did the Spitfire design draw any elements from the old Goshawk powered design? Of course. But it was in no way the same aircraft.


It seems the Spitfire was evolving from a fighter designed for 600 lbs load, 4 light MGs and the Goshawk engine after all.

Of course it was. It was evolving from everything Mitchell had designed before. But the engine was decided on before detailed design work began. That contrasts with the 109, which was designed for 6 - 700 hp, and indeed had such engines for it's early service versions.

Kettenhunde
06-26-2007, 05:10 AM
Thanks for ruining yet another thread.

That already happened the moment someone showed up in your thread that was not claiming, "My plane is the greatest, it can do anything better than any other plane."

Silly.


Well Ratsack, the thread was going along very nicely until Crumpp showed up and started to insult ppl, calling them idiots.

The only people I called idiots are pilots who don't follow recommendations for their aircraft. The NTSB reports are full of them. Taken in context the meaning is clear IMHO.

You are not a pilot, so how can it be applicable to you?

I am not responsible for your misinterpretations. You have the freewill, knowledge, and intelligence to ask questions to clarify.


There was 3 tests done in Jan 45 using ML186. All were flight trials with regard to stability with fuel in the fuselage tank.

Which has what to do with the February 1946 investigation using NH 230 of tail and fin load limits at high mach numbers? This is followed by the July 1946 testing of longitudinal stability with increased horizontal stabilizer in an effort to increase the q-limits.

Your contention has been that the increase in horizontal stabilizer was done to allow that 41 gallons of fuel to be used for combat. IMHO this does not make sense from an engineering standpoint.

We are talking a considerable amount of manpower, time, and money devoted for little increase in combat capability. Our radius of influence that the 41 gallons of fuel would even be a factor is extremely tiny. Considering fuel burn at taxi, take off, climb out, and just a few minutes cruise, it is tough to picture a likely scenario that this 41 gallons would a decisive factor.

On the other hand, increasing the q-limits is a large gain in both margin of safety and combat capability.

All the best,

Crumpp

Kurfurst__
06-26-2007, 05:21 AM
Originally posted by hop2002:
Kurfurst, you do understand the difference between a proposal and a design, don't you?

Price notes that the Merlin was adopted for the type 300 on 6th November,

Well until then the Type 300 was designed for a Goshawk engine. It was re-designed from somewhere onwards November for a Merlin.


So the Merlin was in place by the time detail design work began.

Alfred Price is quite clear that the Type 300, that was eventually become the Spitfire, was around before the Merlin was added into the design as an after thought. He is also quite clear the design dates back even more.


Did the Spitfire design draw any elements from the old Goshawk powered design? Of course. But it was in no way the same aircraft.

Well, the Spitfire grown out of the Type 300 design, which was originally designed around and for the Goshawk engine. It was only later that it was re-designed to hold the much larger and heavier Merlin (and then Griffon) engine.

The question is, how could Type 300, designed for a 6-700 odd horsepower Goshawk engine, cope with the 2200 HP Griffon?

mynameisroland
06-26-2007, 05:23 AM
http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y294/mynameisroland/spit300.jpg

Bremspropeller
06-26-2007, 05:30 AM
ZOMG, that Mk 24 looks like teh shizzle http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

Whirlin_merlin
06-26-2007, 05:30 AM
The question is, how could Type 300, designed for a 6-700 odd horsepower Goshawk engine, cope with the 2200 HP Griffon?

It couldn't and never did. The type 300 was no more a spitfire than the hurricane was a tempest.

The type 300 was not the Spifire. Even your document above refers to a revised type 300 airframe for the PV XII (merlin).

I dont think the source contadicts Hop about which came first wing or engine. The diagram shown does have a Goshawk engine but not the 'full on' eliptical wing yet.

mbfRoy
06-26-2007, 05:37 AM
It is my understanding (after reading both Kurfurst's and mynameisroland's scans) that the airframe that held the PV.12 engine was redesigned specifically for it.

Kurfurst__
06-26-2007, 05:45 AM
Originally posted by Whirlin_merlin:
The type 300 was not the Spifire. Even your document above refers to a revised type 300 airframe for the PV XII (merlin).

Errr... Type 300 (Ghawk) and Type 300 (Merlin). There's nothing much revised about it, they redesigned the wing's planform to allow for the CoG change the Merlin resulted. Obviously the same basic airframe, and not a new one - the wing's planform being changed, and that's it.

http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e133/Kurfurst/type300.jpg



I dont think the source contadicts Hop about which came first wing or engine. The diagram shown does have a Goshawk engine but not the 'full on' eliptical wing yet.

Hop : 'The Merlin had been adopted for the Spitfire even before the wing was designed.'

The drawings from the autonm show Type 300 clearly with a Goshawk and the different wing. The Merlin was dopted in November, and they had to re-design the wing to cope with the CoG issues arising from a different engine, as Price notes.

Hop argues the Merlin Type 300 had nothing to do with the Goshawk Type 300, but this is of course false, as much as he'd argue the FW 190D had nothing to do with the FW 190A. In fact the Spitfire, Type 300 was first designed for a Goshawk engine, then re-designed for a Merlin engine and then re-designed for a Griffon engine.

The question is, can any design bear so many added extras added to the same basic design?

Of course before it was argued that basically the 109K was nothing more than a Bf 109B, with a DB 605D engine bolted onto it. Similiarly, the Mk XIV is nothing but a Goshawk Type 300, with a Griffon engine bolted ontu it. Absurd, isn't it?

luftluuver
06-26-2007, 05:46 AM
The question is, how could Me109, designed for a 6-700 odd horsepower Jumo/DB engine, cope with the 2000 HP engines?

mbfRoy
06-26-2007, 05:54 AM
What's the scale on the bottom picture? I cannot read it at all... is it the same one as the pic on the top?

Whirlin_merlin
06-26-2007, 05:57 AM
Putting aside your the which came first thingy.

Am I following you right here.

The type 300 airframe couldn't cope with the Grif' engine.

The spitfire was 'basically' the same airframe as the type 300.

I must have this wrong 'cos later spits did cope with the engine. Or is your argument that they didn't?


And now a divertion.

Is it fair to compare late spits had 109s when their roles and differentiated. I always thought the 109K4 was a BFG touting hot-rod to kill B17s, which it seems well desined for.

HuninMunin
06-26-2007, 05:58 AM
Originally posted by luftluuver:
The question is, how could Me109, designed for a 6-700 odd horsepower Jumo/DB engine, cope with the 2000 HP engines?

It was light and almost perfect in terms of aerodynamics.

Whirlin_merlin
06-26-2007, 06:01 AM
Of course before it was argued that basically the 109K was nothing more than a Bf 109B, with a DB 605D engine bolted onto it. Similiarly, the Mk XIV is nothing but a Goshawk Type 300, with a Griffon engine bolted ontu it. Absurd, isn't it?

Nope its the same as saying mk14 was the same was a mk1 with a grif bolted on it.

You do have a point but as usual you have 'over egged you pudding' to the point of absurdity.

Kurfurst__
06-26-2007, 06:03 AM
Originally posted by Whirlin_merlin:
Putting aside your the which came first thingy.

Am I following you right here.

The type 300 airframe couldn't cope with the Grif' engine.

The spitfire was 'basically' the same airframe as the type 300.

I must have this wrong 'cos later spits did cope with the engine. Or is your argument that they didn't?

Yeah I think you follow me here, only that you now you need to apply that silly arguement to the Bf 109, which was done in this thread, claiming the 109 was designed for the Jumo, so late version couldn't cope with the later engines. This of course assumes that it was the very same airframe in 1935 as in 1945, and ignoring the major redesign that came with the 109F (given it's a new wing, nose, tail, only the cocpit and fuselage is similiar I dare say it's more of a new aircraft, then a new version) and the many small ones that came with the G and K.

I merely attempted to demonstrate the absurdity of such thinking. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif


Is it fair to compare late spits had 109s when their roles and differentiated. I always thought the 109K4 was a BFG touting hot-rod to kill B17s, which it seems well desined for.

It was actually started out as a cleaned up Bf 109G, with the same engine and armament, and revised/rationlised internal layout. Eventually as need arose during the developent, they added a high altitude engine instead, and the only production version was the 109K-4 with the MK 108, but other versions would carry the same MG 151/20 as before.

mynameisroland
06-26-2007, 06:12 AM
http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y294/mynameisroland/spit300p1.jpg

Ratsack
06-26-2007, 08:07 AM
Originally posted by mbfRoy:
It is my understanding (after reading both Kurfurst's and mynameisroland's scans) that the airframe that held the PV.12 engine was redesigned specifically for it.

That's correct.

Ratsack