Bf-109 vs. Spitfire....

[Colin1]

...or a quick dive with full right rudder...

How was the dive executed?
Did they bunt the nose forward to give themselves a few seconds on the pursuing, carburetted Spitfire, or was it another way?

[Soren]

The std. evasive maneuver in the early years was different Colin, the Emils would usually dive to take advantage of the British fighter's carburator issues.

The std. evasive maneuvers in the F, G & K series was as explained either a hard climbing turn or a quick dive with full right rudder emmidiately followed by a tight spiral climb. The quick nose over dive was to throw off the aim of the pursuer, while the tight spiral climb was to get him off your tail. The hard climbing turn was made to take advantage of the Bf-109's two strongest assets, its' excellent turn & climb performance. Nearly no Allied a/c could follow a 109 in a hard climbing turn, besides maybe the Spitfire in some rare cases.

[claidemore]

Spitfire pilots loved it when 109s tried the hard climbing spiral as an evasive maneuver.

[Soren]

Spitfire pilots loved it when 109s tried the hard climbing spiral as an evasive maneuver.

And what is your source for that claim ?

[claidemore]

Johnson, Closterman, Godefroy, and others.

Here is one sample:

S/L. H.C. Godefroy D.F.C. of 403 (RCAF) Squadron recorded in his Combat Report for 1 July 1943:

I was leading Sunrise squadron as top cover to 421 Squadron. We had turned up sun and were flying towards Abbeyville when I saw 5 aircraft climbing up in line abreast in front of me. I ordered my squadron to attack. Yellow section remained as top cover while Red and Blue sections dived down slightly below the E/A and came up line abreast dead astern. I picked the leader. He must have seen me because he pulled up to the right and I followed him and at about 250 yards gave him a three second burst with cannon and machine guns. There were hits all around the fuselage and cockpit and it would appear that I killed the pilot. He stayed in this turn for a short while and then spun down and crashed North East of Abbeville.
1 Me 109 Destroyed

F/Sgt G. M. Shouldice of 403 (RCAF) Squadron recorded in his Combat Report for 1 July 1943:

I was flying Red 2 to S/L H. C. Godefroy at approx 28-29,000 feet in line astern when we saw four ME 109’s flying line abreast ahead of us at the same height. We climbed slightly and then positioned ourselves on the E/A’s. I took a short burst from 350 to 400 yards at the third from the Starboard but observed no results. The E/A started a climbing turn to fire at Red 1 and at this time I gave the E/A another burst from about 200 yards and observed explosions in and around the cockpit and pieces dropped off the E/A. While climbing up to rejoin Red 1 I observed this E/A spinning down and smoking. Because of this and evidence added by S/L. H. C. Godefroy (Red 1), I claim this 109 as destroyed.

[Kurfürst]

These doesn't seem as evasive manouvers to me... in the first instance they dived down with altitude advantage, the second he was picking off a 109 attacking another Spitfire.

Ie. quite typical of the realities of air combat, real 'duels' were quite rare.

[parsifal]

surely it must depend on the actual situation. If your attacker is above you, and you start to climb, you are going to lose kinetic energy, whilst gaining potential energy (ie altitude), whilst the 109 might do that well, even perhaps better than most (i dont know), in the short term it is probably going to be dead, because it is slowing down in the face of a serious threat. They might as well paint a sign "hit me" on their tails.

If the 109 has the altitude advantage, and can climb faster than the allies, (something I am unconvinced of) no combat. If he dives to engage, then by implicatiuon his dive characteristics are not as good as those of his opponents (something else i am not convinced of). If the oppoennts can dive quicker they will hit the deck faster, and hit maximum speed more quickly. The German plane is generally not going to be able to close to effective range.

All this proves is that the characteristics of the aircrarft, whilst important, are not the determining factor in the combat. they are a factor, but so too is the pilot experience, the level of surprise, and tactical situation (which usualy means altitude)

[drgondog]

The key question is which operational scenarios must be present for the 109s excellent corkscrew climb ability making it impossible for the trailing a/c to be able to shoot (and score) effectively.

1. High closing speed for attacker - and getting too close w/o scoring?

2. Level flight in trail closer than 100 yards?

3. Both ships diving, 109 pulls into zooming corkscrew climb'

Encounter reports are subjective - and rarely state 'he beat me with a corkscrew climb'... I'm more curious about the 109 driver that consistently beats a trailing Mustang or Spitfire with this manuever to see whether it is a consistent set of tactical scenarios which enabled the 109 to get away from a six o'clock disadvantage.

[claidemore]

These doesn't seem as evasive manouvers to me... in the first instance they dived down with altitude advantage, the second he was picking off a 109 attacking another Spitfire.

Ie. quite typical of the realities of air combat, real 'duels' were quite rare.

In the first report Godefroy did a low yo-yo, which brought them up at the same alt but with similar, or slightly more energy. A simple manuever which keeps the attacking pilot from overshooting. The 109, according to Godefroys report, saw him and attempted to escape by doing a climbing turn (pulled up to the right). That is about as close to the tactic Soren claims was the standard 109 evasion tactic as you will find in any combat report.

In the second report the 109 was doing a climbing turn. Whether it was a climbing turn to attack "Red 1" (Shouldices interpretation), or an evasive manuever, we can't be sure, cause we don't have the 109 pilots testimony and he was the only one that knew. In either case, it was a climbing turn done with a pursuing Spitfire, and it resulted in fatal results for the 109.

I had to look a long time to find a half dozen reports of 109 pilots going into a climbing turn when attacked. For those half dozen instances, there are scores of instances where the 109 simply dived away to escape. And I don't mean dived and then did a zoom climb to regain alt, they just nosed over and made a run for it, which is a sensible thing to do when you are already at a tactical disadvantage with an enemy plane on your six. Some of those diving 109s got caught if the Spitfire stuck to it long enough, eventually you run out of altitude and have to level off. But a lot of them got away too, and a successful escape manuever tends to get repeated, hence a multitude of reports of diving to escape vs a handful of reports of 109s doing a climbing turn to escape (or attempt to turn the tables and get an advantage).

I'm sorry, but I simply do not believe that a hard climbing turn was a standard 109 evasion manuever, or even a particularly effective one.

[Soren]

Well sorry but you have presented no reliable source which contradicts it so far I'm afraid Claidemore. And seeing that the Bf-109 can turn as well as the Spitfire but can climb faster, I don't see why it wouldn't be an effective maneuver.

[Glider]

Well sorry but you have presented no reliable source which contradicts it so far I'm afraid Claidemore. And seeing that the Bf-109 can turn as well as the Spitfire but can climb faster, I don't see why it wouldn't be an effective maneuver.

I still think you must be in politics or PR.

By the way what source do you have for the comment that the standard Luftwaffe evaision against a spit was a climbing tight turn. Nice statement but nothing to support it.

I have a copy of Duel of Eagles signed by Galland and Bader. In a book on his paintings Robert Taylor explains that he had to put a lot of effort into the composition of the painting. In the end he shows the Spitfire going into a turning climb. Bader and Galland agreed to the compositon, both agreeing that it looked good, showed the 109 to be on the offensive and that the Spit was safe.

[parsifal]

I dont profess to be any sort of expert in this, but something is nagging in the back of my head that during the Battle Of Britain standard Luftwaffe 109 tactics were to dive away, which was strange, becauise in a dive (according to this author, whom I canno remember) the 109s controls tended to freeze up and become incredibly stiff. This problem, apparently was made worse by the small and cramped cockpit of the 109. This account also said that with its direct fuel injection engine, the 109 could outclimb both the early marks of Spitfire and the Hurricane

I will try and find the details of this author.....perhaps it is an innaccurate account

[Colin1]

...during the Battle Of Britain standard Luftwaffe 109tactics were to dive away, which was strange, because in a dive (according to this author, whom I cannot remember) the 109s controls tended to freeze up and become incredibly stiff

This problem, apparently was made worse by the small and cramped cockpit of the 109

the controls of all the aircraft (Bf109, Hurricane and Spitfire) would freeze up in a prolongued dive. The effectiveness of the bunt (pushing the nose down in negative g and diving away) was useful in the short term.
If the Spitfire attempted the same manoevre, it would starve its carburated engine for a few seconds; if it attempted to circumvent this fuel starvation by rolling and then following, it would still lose precious seconds on the fleeing Bf109.

Cockpits of all combatants too, were cramped, I don't see how this would have affected the control surfaces at high speeds.

[Glider]

It is of course correct to say that all aircraft had the controls stiffen with speed the 109 E-G was more heavily impacted than most. I don't know about the K that was very different.

[Kurfürst]

Recommended reading:

Kurfürst - R.A.E. - Messerschmitt Me.109 Handling and Manoeuvrability Tests
Kurfrst - A.F.D.U. Tactical Trials - Me.109F aircraft

Dive recoveries do not seem too problematic as long as the operating instructions are followed: keep in mind that Me 109 manuals instructed the pilot not to trim into the dive, but keep a forward pressure on the stick.

I can't say it positively, but I believe the elevator gearing on the 109K was the same as before, altough for the late G and K it seems an alternate control gearing was also present (projected?), which would mean more limited maximum deflection angles for the elevator, and consequently, more mechanical advantage for the pilot on the stick.

On the Spitfire the elevator forces were a magnitude lighter (4 lbs/G vs 20 lbs/G on the 109s), but this appears to have been a bit too much, and created other problems, with so small stick movements the aircraft was difficult to be controlled precisely on the stall boundary, especially in combat, and there was a realistic danger of just snapping the aircraft in two by overloading it in recovery or in high-G turns. Early Spitfire manuals specifically mention this characteristic.