Best Battle of Britain Aircraft

[joy17782]

about the ju-87, i still think that it will come out ahead on the tonnage part, but every plane has its flaws and advantages , also i heard the same thing about spits being very hard too fly, so i guess like always take stuff with a grain of salt,, but me ill take the me 109- its really a toss up who had the better plane , too bad the fw 190 didnt get there on time , wonder what the raf would have done then , and also the fuel injection system was far superior too the spits carbarators , and thats a fact .

[claidemore]

Yeah, the fuel injection was an advantage, though IMO it's overstated, since it involves application of negative G, something which pilots don't like to do very often. The usual escape maneuver by 109 pilots was a half roll and dive, rather than 'bunting'.

I was a little hasty thinking Stukas didn't sink much shipping after July 1940, reading up on it I see they did a lot of damage in the Meditteranean as well. Haven't seen any figures for tonnage though.

For the Beaufighter, Wiki gives them 150,000 tons for the North Coates Strike wing, Coastal Command.

[kool kitty89]

Compared to the Hurricane the Spit was a tricky a/c to fly. Dangerous snap stalls meant that only experienced pilots could safely fly it to its limit.

The 109's slats gave it docile stalling characteristics (along with good turning performance), but as mentioned there were some problems with these. If not maintained the Emil's slats were prone to jamming in high G turns, which could lead to a dangerous spin. (if 1 jammed and 1 extended) These early slats also tended to extend somewhat violently in turns, which jostled the plane a bit and made a 'bang' which scared some inexperienced pilots.

A well maintained 109E should be able to turn inside a Spit at low to medium speeds with maneuvering flaps out. (at high speeds the elevator became heavy as mentioned, which limited high speed turn ability)


The Ju 87 was good for certain roles, and probably better than most of the medium bombers in the anti shipping role in the 'channel war' (early BoB). It was missused at other times in the BoB though. As far as land based target bombing it was realy a tactical a/c that worked best in cooperation with the army. It did not do well w/out air superiorety. (they probably shouldn't have been brought in until the invasion was to commence)


I don't think the 190 would really have been needed. For escort all they really required for these distances was drop tank equipped 109E's. There'd been testing/trials of 109's with drop tanks since the Spanish civil war. The Bf 109E-7 entered service end of August, 1940 and was capable of carying a tank, but there weren't too many available for the BoB and by then the battle was well under way.

[Glider]

I have heard a lot about these dangerous snap stalls in a Spitfire. Does anyone have a link about it in more detail?

Any help appreciated

I should add that I have read the Pilots notes and the warning on High Speed Stalls in no worse than I would expect on almost any aircraft experiencing a high speed stall. The aircraft does give warning and immediate corrective action resolves the problem although the implications are more severe than some should you ignore the warning.

[claidemore]

Originally Posted by kool kitty89

A well maintained 109E should be able to turn inside a Spit at low to medium speeds with maneuvering flaps out. (at high speeds the elevator became heavy as mentioned, which limited high speed turn ability)

Gotta disagree with you here KK.

Rechlin trials of 109E vs Spitfire, Hurricane and Curtiss Hawk state

Before turning fights with the Bf 109 E type, it must be noted in every case, that
all three foreign planes have significantly smaller turning circles and turning times.

That should be all the proof anybody needs, but there's more.

British trials (RAE Farnborough) show turn radius of 696ft for Spitfire at 12000ft and 885 ft for the 109.
The Baubeschreibung official German specications and tolerance on Bf 109E performance give a turn radius of 557 ft at SL and 1050 ft at 20,000 ft Plot those two numbers on a graph, stick in the RAE number of 885 and you'll see that they line up very well.

If we look at the graphs and charts from the RAE trials, we can see that in a 2G turn the Spitfire stalls at about 140mph, while the 109 is stalling in a 2G turn at 155 mph. The Spit is pulling 4G at 200 mph before it stalls, the 109 is doing 225 at 4G when it stalls.

Turns without loss of height show the Spitfire able to pull close to 3 G at 200mph, with a radius of 1000 ft, while the 109E could only pull about 2.3 G at that speed (without losing height) in a radius of about 1275 ft.

They tried 10 degrees of maneuvering flap on the 109 and found that they made no difference. This agrees with the trials of Mustang III vs Spitfires and Tempests where they found that the combat flaps did not help. (pointed out by drgondog in another thread)

Even if one subscribes to the theory that the experienced RAE test pilots were afraid to push the 109 past deployment of it's slats, that still doesn't prove the 109 could turn tighter that the Spit. At best it would only indicate that it could turn tighter than the indicated number of 885 ft. That figure might be 800 ft? still more than 696 ft. Of course I don't happen to subscribe to that theory.

Besides, there is definitive proof in the RAE charts. The assumed value of clMax for the 109E in those trials was 1.95@ 1G, even higher than the 1.7 figure often quoted on these forums. The clMax of a 109 without slats deployed is supposedly 1.48. Therefore the British figure has to be for slats deployed.

The 109 simply had a higher stall speed than the Spitfire, so at a max turn, the 109 was going to stall first, if both planes were flown to the limit.

[kool kitty89]

I'm not sure what I was tinking in that post. At best both the Spit I and 109E were close, with the Spit having the edge. (depeding on configuration and condition of each of course) Fuel load would also be somthing to think about as the 109's in the BoB would be running low while the Spits (and Hurricanes) would be nearly full. This would skew the realative turn performance of these a/c. (the 109 being lighter than in a 'fair' comparison)

As mentioned elsewhere the turn advantage moved back and forth durring the development of these a/c. (I don't remember the specifics, but I think one of the 109F series had the best turn of any WWII 109, excluding pre 109E models) In all the 109 and Spitfire were pretty comparable aircraft, more so than possibly any other allies vs. axis match up. I will say this though: of the fighters engaged in the BoB, the 109E was probably the best to perform interceptor duties (with 20mm cannons that were better suited to this than dogfighting). The Spitfire was probably the best all around fighter with a good dogfighting armament for the time and slightly better range.


On the other 2 a/c in the comparison (Curtiss Hawk, and the Hurricane): both of these planes should be able to out turn either the Spit or the 109E.

[The Basket]

The 109 cannot outturn the Spit.

The Spitfires wing would stall and give plenty of warning. this warning could be used to judge maximum turn. The 109 was very docile at slow speeds with the slats open.

The biggest weaknesses of the three fighters were these...

109 - not enough range.
Spit- Tricky for novice.
Hurricane - Can't compete mph with the 109.

If the 109 had drop tanks then the BoB could have been very different.

Read a little story...4 German pilots in BoB see 12 Hurricanes lined up below them. They think Xmas has arrived. they prepare to attack when 4 Spitfires get them first. 1 Bf is shot down with pilot killed. They were to busy looking at the prize and missed the real deal. Probably a good moral in that.

[kool kitty89]

Yep. And if Britain hadn't have had a decent fighter able to be produced in the numbers needed (ie the Hurricane) they'd have been in alot of trouble as well.

The Spit was obiously superior in performance to the Hurricane but 2.5x Hurricanes could be built for the same work required for a Spit. And I'd say, in this time period, the Spit wasn't even 2x as good as the Hurricane. (probably ~50% better all around) And the Spitfires would have been too few on their own. (even if you assume other companies added to production) And if it came down to it I think 2 Spitfires would lose aganst 5 Hurricanes in a fight easily, everything else being equal.

Of course they won the battle for a number of other reasons as well: radar network; series of serious errors, poor planning, and false intellegence on Germany's part.

[The Basket]

The Hurricane was a first rate warplane. As good as anything.

The Spit and the 109 were superior fighters or interceptors but the Hurricane was the superior flying machine or/and warplane.

[Hop]

The Spit was obiously superior in performance to the Hurricane but 2.5x Hurricanes could be built for the same work required for a Spit.

That might have been the case in the 30s, when production of the Spitfire was just starting, but the figures as at January 1940 were 15,200 man hours for the Spitfire, 10,300 for the Hurricane, or just under 1.5 times as much for the Spitfire

That would have reduced later on as the Castle Bromwich factory came on line.

The Hurricane had an advantage early on because it used older technology and came from an established aircraft manufacturer. The Spitfire used new technology and Supermarine was a small firm with little production capacity. But as the war went on the Spitfire became much cheaper to produce. By 1944 Castle Bromwich were producing Spitfires with half the man hours of Supermarine in Southampton.

[kool kitty89]

Major advantages of the Hurricane over the Spitfire: (assuming later Mk.I with 3-blade variable-pitch prop with metal wing and self sealing AUX fuse tank)

Easier to build (particularly early on with a 2.5x advantage, later ~1.5x and probably eventually losing this advantage)

Easy to maintain/repair in field

Can take a lot of damage

Better gun platform (closer grouping of guns, more stable in firing, could handle the recoil better, especially if comparing 20mm armaments)

Turns better. (thick wing and lower wing loading)

Better forward view, particularly over the nose.

Docile handling and stall characteristics.

Wide track landing gear for better takeoff and landing.

-----------

Advantages of spitfire:

Faster by ~35 mph

Much better dive acceleration and max dive speed (due to cleaner airframe and better power loading)

Somewhat better acceleration (cleaner airframe and somewhat lighter/better power loading)

somewhat better climb rate

Higher service ceiling

Better all around visibility

slightly longer range and better fuel efficiency

slightly higher cruise speed

slight advantage in roll (depending on speed and altitude)



overall range weapons capacity and roll of these planes should be fairly equal.

With experienced pilots in both planes it would be a toss up in a close quarters dogfight, but if the Spitfire played it smart and used speed to the advantage he'd likely win. The spit would also be able to break off at will.

With rookie pilots I'd give it to the Hurricane, due to gentler handling (easier to fly to limits) and better traditional "dogfighting" characteristics. (ie WWI style dogfight)

The Hurricane would also be a better fighter-bomber.

[kool kitty89]

Originally Posted by Jerry W. Loper

Whether by design or lucky accident, the Hurricane and Spitfire complemented each other very well in the Battle as a sort of "high-low" mix, with the Hurricane being strong on numbers but a little short on performance, and the Spitfire the opposite. Sydney Camm, the Hurricane's designer, said he could have gotten better performance from the Hurricane by tweaking it a bit, but realized that the RAF needed numbers; according to Richard J. Overy's book The Air War, 1939-45, in 1939 the RAF could produce 2.5 Hurricanes using the same number of man-hours it took to produce 1 Spitfire. For a variety of reasons, RAF's Fighter Command began sending Hurricanes after bombers and Spitfires after fighters when possible, but the Hurricane proved itself able to combat the Me-109 when necessary, which was fortunate, considering the relative number of Hurricanes, Spitfires, and Me-109s participating in the Battle.

And here's the 2.5x figure.

[Pong]

I think the Hurricane is the best BoB aircraft though it
can't keep up with the 109E-4's speed.

[hurricanemk2]

In my opinion the good old Hurricane comes out as the best BoB aircraft . It looked good , was forgiving to inexperienced pilots especially in heavy landings , it was an excelent gun platform and could take a lot of punishment . Consider the Hurricanes fabric and dope main fuselage , a 20mm shell would pass straight through without hitting anything important unless it was a lucky shot . Down comes the hurri and after a patch and slap off she goes again the same can't be said of the all metal constructed Spit. or ME109 . These may have out classed the old girl but , for me , she was the aircraft of class .

[slaterat]

The Hurricane was the right plane, in the right place , at the right time. It did exactly what it was designed to do, intercept bomber formations. Easy to fly, easy to repair, easy to re arm. Sturdy, well armoured and with 100 octane fuel and a constant speed prop well able to look after itself in fighter vs fighter combat.

Slaterat