Best ETO fighter from 1939-1942

[Soren]

I don't know what your credentials are as far as aerodynamics,(I don't have any! lol) but:


Quote:
60 years after the RAE tests, Dr. John Ackroyd, PhD, C.Eng, FRAeS of the Aerospace Division, Manchester School of Engineering, University of Manchester, and Fellow of The Royal Aeronautical Society, took a fresh look at this subject in his paper "Comparison of turning radii for four Battle of Britain fighter aircraft". He calculated the minimum turn radii to be 686 feet for the Spitfire IA versus 853 feet for the BF 109 E-3 - which is in very good agreement with the RAE's findings.

LoL! This guy certainly must have been blinded by bias if he came to the conclusion the difference was ever that large, even without slats!

As to my credentials, well I'm an educated engineer amongst other things and I've been studying aerodynamics for quite some years by now, so although I can't call myself an expert on the subject as I've still got to fully learn some of the more complex parts I do know my fair share and more than enough to be able to determine the turn rate & radius of an a/c.

PS: Ever read Len Deighton's book about the Spit & 109?? It has the accurate figures in it.

[claidemore]

Originally Posted by Soren

PS: Ever read Len Deighton's book about the Spit & 109?? It has the accurate figures in it.

Hi Soren,
Yes, I have Deightons book, as well as several others on the Battle of Britain.
Deightons book has a lot of innacuracies, and it's not considered the gospel truth about BoB. It really reads more like historical fiction than non-fiction. He is mostly a writer of spy novels, this was his first attempt at a serious 'history' book. It was quite controversial when it first came out and he was accused by RAF personell who served during the battle of fabricating 'facts' in the book. It is often categorized as a good 'first' book about the Battle of Britain.
He makes some good points though, and is one of the first to attempt to look at things from both sides.

[claidemore]

Soren:
Don't know if you have time, but I'd like to see your calculations( or conclusions at least) on the turn rate and radius of Spit 1 and IX and 109E3/4 and 109G6. That would be cool.

Thanks

edit: a few numbers;
109E4-combat weight-5875 lbs, hp-1175, wing loading 34lbs/sq. ft, power load 5 lbs/hp
Spitfire Mk1-combat weight 6050 lbs, hp-1030 (1300 with 100octane/12lb boost), wing loading 24 lbs/sq.ft, power load 5.8-(4.6) lbs/hp
109G1-combat weight 6692 lbs, hp-1310 (1942 rating), wing loading 39 lbs/sq ft, power load 5.1lbs/hp
Spitfire Mk IX (Merlin 61), combat weight 7445 lbs, hp-1565, wing loading 30 lbs/sq. ft, power load 4.7 lbs/hp

[kool kitty89]

Originally Posted by Njaco

regarding the fuel, what effect would the different carbuerators have on these machines in a turn?

The Bf/Me-109's engine had fuel injection so there would be no effect in a turn. (it also gave better throttle response) The Merlins used on early spitfires used a carburetor which would cause engine cut-out in -G maneuvering (nosing down or inverted flight) this would not occur if the pilot maintained a +G load. I beleive this problem was rectifies by the Spitfire Mk-V.

[Kurfürst]

Originally Posted by Glider

This source confirms that the switch to 100 octane fuel enabled the power of the Merlin to be increased by 30% and the change started in March 1940. I take it you will agree, that a 30% increase would improve performance.

Of course. The thing is though, only about 1/4th of Fighter Command was to run on 100 octane fuel, at least until about November, when they finally converted fully.

So how much representative is that..?

Originally Posted by Glider

As the Germans didn't have 100 octane fuel, my assumption is that the Germans didn't use it in the test.
History of Aircraft Lubricants - Google Book Search

Nope, the Germans had produced and used 100 octane fuel, that is, before the British had 100 octane fuel; in fact this was one the driving powers behind Britain being so eager to get 100 octane, too, but Britain was forced to import it, initially via vulnerable sea lanes, as it did not produce it domestically, unlike Germany.

Originally Posted by Glider

Please advise where I said that it wouldn't impact performance. I said it would have a minimal impact, particually compared the extra weight of the podded 20mm on a 109.

Well then please provide evidence to your baseless claim that adding two heavier cannnons to the Spitfire had 'minimal impact'.

You haven`t checked out four cannon Spitfire trials, have you?

Originally Posted by Glider

Totally agree. Whilst we are on this subject, can I ask you to advise what the impact was on a 109 with the GM equipment. I think it weighed about 350-400lb and once the GM was used, dead weight added to the 109. I have asked before but there wasn't a reply. As you say, physics work everywhere.

Well, probably there wasn`t a reply because you make up things, like this '350-400lb', and then ask me to prove it wrong instead of you backing up your own claims.

Now as to the factual value, GM-1 certainly didn`t add more to the G-1/G-3 than about 45 kg actually when the bottles were full, and I certainly fail to see the logic as to how this weight, when much of it was the GM1 fuel itself, and I fail to see how fuel, that have run out, adds weight...

Page 203 has a photo of a 4 gunned Mk V in a blast pen, on page 207 Plt Officer Peck reported opening fire with his 4 x 20mm, German fighters also report in their combats that the Spitfires were of the latest version with 4 x 20mm. You may not have the book but others do and will be able to confirm what I say if you ask.

I don`t doubt it. What it does prove though is that were at least 4-cannon Spits at Malta. On that famous photo on their Malta trip, I can see about half a dozen.

Thats pretty much sums up the role 4-cannon Spits during the war. Appearantly it didn`t work out. That leaves the Spit, save the almost-made-it Mk 21s, with two cannons possible only.

In that sense, the 4 cannons had truely minimal impact on the Spitfire`s performance, being mounted only a handful of aircraft during the entire war.

Re Galland you know and I know that Galland also made compimentary comments about the Spitfire.

He said its slow and turns well. Not unlike biplanes I would say.

[eddie_brunette]

P38 for me.

BTW: It is amazing how people dont like the P40. I know it is not the best here, but that plane never gets recognition.(then again same for F6F, the Mustang gets all the glory, and I'm sure the F6F is much better dogfighter than overated P51)

[Hop]

Of course. The thing is though, only about 1/4th of Fighter Command was to run on 100 octane fuel, at least until about November, when they finally converted fully.

So how much representative is that..?

Just to make it clear, Kurfurst's source for this claim is a post on another forum by someone who claimed to have seen such information in the Australian archives. He didn't have any of the information from the archives, he was quoting from memory.

The post was several years ago, he promised to find information to back up his claims, but still hasn't done so.

The information that shows FC did totally switch to 100 octane fuel ranges from Wood and Dempster, who write in The Narrow Margin:

As it turned out, aviation spirit was to prove no worry for the RAF. By July 11th, the day after the Battle of Britain opened, stocks of 100 octane petrol used in the Merlin engine stood at 343,000 tons. On October 10th, 21 days before the battle closed, and after 22,000 tons had been issued, stocks had risen to 424,000 tons. With other grades of aviation spirit total stocks available on 10th October 1940 was 666,000 tons

The Narrow Margin is one of the classic works on the BoB, and one Kurfurst is happy to use for a reference when it suits him. When it doesn't, he would much rather believe unsourced comments on a forum.

The 22,000 tons Wood and Dempster refer to equals 6,844,444 imperial gallons. The Spitfire and Hurricane each carried just over 80 gallons, but I'll assume 90 gallons per sortie (they didn't have drop tanks, so that's the maximum they could use on a sortie).

That's enough fuel for 76,050 sorties, assuming every sortie drained the tanks.

In fact, between the dates Wood and Dempster mention, Fighter Command flew about 50,500 sorties.

Apart from Wood and Dempster, Mike Williams has collected combat reports from Spitfire squadrons: Spitfire Mk I versus Me 109 E

Last time I checked, he had combat reports from all but one of the Spitfire squadrons showing the use of 100 octane fuel.

[Glider]

Originally Posted by Kurfürst

Of course. The thing is though, only about 1/4th of Fighter Command was to run on 100 octane fuel, at least until about November, when they finally converted fully.

So how much representative is that..?

I think Hops posting covers this item

Nope, the Germans had produced and used 100 octane fuel, that is, before the British had 100 octane fuel; in fact this was one the driving powers behind Britain being so eager to get 100 octane, too, but Britain was forced to import it, initially via vulnerable sea lanes, as it did not produce it domestically, unlike Germany.

I admit this is new to me. My understanding was that the DB 605 was designed to run on 87 octane fuel (known as B4 fuel I believe) and later in 1944 was upgraded in to run on 96 octane fuel. As we are talking about 1942 this leaves the 109 with 87 Octane fuel. With your knowledge of the 109 I would expect you to know that, unless of course I am wrong again in which case assuming you can prove the point I will defer to your knowledge.

Well then please provide evidence to your baseless claim that adding two heavier cannnons to the Spitfire had 'minimal impact'.

You haven`t checked out four cannon Spitfire trials, have you?

Sorry SOren but yes I did. The climb was impacted but everything else was described as 'no noticable difference between this aeroplane and other Spitfire V types.'
Source Spitfire Mk.Vc AA.873 Report

Well, probably there wasn`t a reply because you make up things, like this '350-400lb', and then ask me to prove it wrong instead of you backing up your own claims.

Now as to the factual value, GM-1 certainly didn`t add more to the G-1/G-3 than about 45 kg actually when the bottles were full, and I certainly fail to see the logic as to how this weight, when much of it was the GM1 fuel itself, and I fail to see how fuel, that have run out, adds weight...

I always said that this was something I remembered. In fact the actual figure I remembered was 385lb for the whole installation but was happy to be corrected. 45kg for the bottle is around 90lb. Less than I expected, but I am not going to argue.

I don`t doubt it. What it does prove though is that were at least 4-cannon Spits at Malta. On that famous photo on their Malta trip, I can see about half a dozen.

Thats pretty much sums up the role 4-cannon Spits during the war. Appearantly it didn`t work out. That leaves the Spit, save the almost-made-it Mk 21s, with two cannons possible only.

I am certainly not going to disagree that the 4 x 20mm gun was unusual but it certainly happened. I have also seen photo's of Mk VIII and Mk IX's with 4 x 20, unusual, certainly, but it happened.
PS acording to the book Malta The Spitfire Years, all the aircraft on the second mission from the Wasp were equipped with 4 x 20, which is a lot more than half a dozen.


The problem here was that you originally stated that it couldn't be armed with 4 x 20 as the wings couldn't take the stress. No evidence was given by you for that statement.
I said it could and you blamed another site (which you are always quick to do) but my evidence came from a book details. You didn't give any evidence for your statement.
You asked for page no details which I gave and life went quiet.
Now you say its only a half dozen Spits with 4 x 20, again with no evidence.

It the same story on other point in this thread.
On my statement on the 100 octane improved performance you disbelieved me and blamed another site again. Unfortunately my source was independent and unquestioned.
You now say that the Germans had 100 octane fuel before the British again without any source.
Youa also state that FC only had 25% of its force using 100 octane again without any source.

There is a trend here Kurfurst or am I the only person to spot it (along with if I may say, Hop).

By the way I do have someone who works with me who is Hungarian so please send that page you have.

Many thanks

[Soren]

Sorry SOren but yes I did. The climb was impacted but everything else was described as 'no noticable difference between this aeroplane and other Spitfire V types.'
Source Spitfire Mk.Vc AA.873 Report

??????

[kool kitty89]

Yeah that was a quote from Kurfürst...

From what I've read the Spitfire did get stiffened wings since the wing tips were twisting in high-speed rolls this was a particular problem with the higher speeds possible with the Griffon Spits. (clipped wings didn't have this problem though)

The 4x 20mm cannon armament wasn't too powerful for the wing structure to handel but firing them did cause the wings to twist and the a/c was generally not a very stable platform for this armament. (the Fw 190 had similar problems mounting 30mm MK 108 wing guns) The spitfire was also a bit light toremain stable with 4x 20mm cannons firing even if the wings didn't twist. The Hurricane Mk.IIC was not particularly stable in firing either, though not as bad as the spit it would not have been good for dogfights. (probably decent aganst bombers) But the 2x 20mm and 2x .50 cal armament is probably the most practical.


I'll also agree that the P-40 was possibly the most important a/c in the USAAF inventory up to 1942. It was available in more numbers than any other aircraft and had decent range and armament. Plus the Merling engined varients as well as the V-1710-81 powered P-40M/N had decent performance up to 18,000 ft. (though the M/N didn't apear until 1943 and the M was predominantly an export model) It held ground for the USAAF (particularly in the Pacific) when nothing better was available in numbers. The early P-38 was better in almost all ways (except in ease of maintainence, and training) but there weren't all that many available and they were needed even more in the Pacific.

The P-39 could have been a good early war contender but the USAAC ruined it. Not just the removal of the turbo but the other changes the AAC made in the name of streamlining. The wings were shortened (decreasing lift and lift-drag ratio and limiting climb and turn rates, room for growth in weight, and the amount of space wor internal stores or possibly underwing stores) they shrank the canopy making the cockpit cramped for anyone taller than 5"8" and they lengthened the rear fusalage messing up CoG and giving the Airacobra its trademark instability.

[Glider]

Originally Posted by Kurfürst

Well, probably there wasn`t a reply because you make up things, like this '350-400lb', and then ask me to prove it wrong instead of you backing up your own claims.

Now as to the factual value, GM-1 certainly didn`t add more to the G-1/G-3 than about 45 kg actually when the bottles were full, and I certainly fail to see the logic as to how this weight, when much of it was the GM1 fuel itself, and I fail to see how fuel, that have run out, adds weight...

Kurfurst
I have continued to look into this and admit I haven't found anywhere that states the 385lb that I remembered.

I have however found a source giving the weight of the GM-1 installation in a Ju88S. This is of course going to be a lot larger than the weight in a 109, but the figures are interesting.

The complete installation (dry) weighed 400lb, plus 900lb being the weight of the Nitros Oxide assuming full tanks which were 75 gallons. This is a total weight of 1,300lb.

The figure I had in mind is about 30% of this which sounds possible for a 109 sized installation.
If you could give me your source for the tank only weight of 45kg it might help us get to the bottom of the question.
My source is Janes Fighting Aircraft of WW2 page 297.

[broke91hatch]

I had to go with the 109. Just the staggering amount of losses they inflicted, they dominated the skies in the early stages of the war.

[Glider]

Originally Posted by broke91hatch

I had to go with the 109. Just the staggering amount of losses they inflicted, they dominated the skies in the early stages of the war.

And you have every right to make that statement, the 109 is the plane to beat in the first few years of the war.

I would take the 109E over the Spit Ia for sure.

[kool kitty89]

Why not the Fw 190? The only major problem the early 190 had was altitude performance above 20,000 ft. And the A-4 onward (arguably) had the heaviest armament of any fighter at the time. (the outer wing MG-FF cannons were poor with much lower muzzel velocity and ROF than the MG 151/20's or Hispano-based 20mm guns, but the wing root MG 151/20's were almost as good as Hispano Guns and were mounted on the centerline -being more accurate and concentrated) It was also tougher than most other ETO a/c and had a decent range.

As a bomber interceptor, the modest high-alt performance was countered by the heavy armament, making it still more deadly than 109 of the same time, and much tougher. Also there were very few escort fighters at the time and even if P-38s had been used they had problems at altitude as well, despite turbocharging. And below 18,000 ft (which could quickly be reached in maneuvering) the 190 could outfight just about any opponent at the time and it could easily brake off with its excellent roll and good dive speed.

[Glider]

I personally consider the 190 and the Spit IX to be a draw and if someone has a preference for the 190 over the Spit IX then I would not disagree. Personally I would go for the Spit IX over the 190 but its a preference. I am sure the pilots of both planes were confident that they were in the best fighters in the world, anywhere.

My comment was around the Spit Ia and the 109E, in which case I would go for the 109.

PS haven't heard from Kurfurst recently, have you?