Bf-109 vs. Spitfire....

[Kurfürst]

This should be of interest to this thread, taken from a British report of 1943:

[NZTyphoon]

This was the time (according to Morgan and Shacklady) when Supermarine introduced flush riveting to all Spitfires, including Mk IX and XIIs plus the last of the Spitfire Vs, as well as new, higher quality paints. Another example of a report describing poor surface finish on a Spitfire was that of N3297, the Mk III prototype re-engined with a Merlin 61 to become a Mk IX prototype:

The airframe was in very poor condition and deteriorated appreciably during the progress of the tests. In several places the paint had flaked away from the skin; this was particularly noticable in the case of the ailerons, wher large patches had broken off, leaving an uneveness in the surface of 1?16" or more. The panels of the engine cowling too were badly fitting, there being gaps of 1/8 " to 1/4" in some of the joints...

(Price, The Spitfire Story 2002, p. 128 )

What the excerpt (why not present the whole report?) does not say is how old/how much service the Spitfires had seen, whether the airframes had been repaired etc. Without that sort of detail there is really nothing surprising about aircraft with poor surface finish not meeting performance specs.

[Cromwell]

This was the time (according to Morgan and Shacklady) when Supermarine introduced flush riveting to all Spitfires, including Mk IX and XIIs plus the last of the Spitfire Vs, as well as new, higher quality paints. Another example of a report describing poor surface finish on a Spitfire was that of N3297, the Mk III prototype re-engined with a Merlin 61 to become a Mk IX prototype:

(Price, The Spitfire Story 2002, p. 128 )

What the excerpt (why not present the whole report?) does not say is how old/how much service the Spitfires had seen, whether the airframes had been repaired etc. Without that sort of detail there is really nothing surprising about aircraft with poor surface finish not meeting performance specs.

I think with the influx of impressed or voluntary labour into factories during the war - plus the need for rapid turnround it is hardly surprising quality may have dropped off somewhat.

[pbfoot]

The quality of the fit and finish of normal spits was not to the same standard as those Mk's used for PRU or Recce

[NZTyphoon]

The quality of the fit and finish of normal spits was not to the same standard as those Mk's used for PRU or Recce

This would definitely be true of the early PR Spitfires, where all panel lines were filled, rubbed smooth and coats of smooth "camoutint" paint applied. [The PR Spits were the first in the line to use the new egshell finish; on the fighters the matt finish upper surface colours were still being used into 1941. The first colour to be manufactured in the eggshell finish for universal use was Sky - sometimes referred to as Sky Type S).] Nor did the early PR Spitfires have aerial masts and fuselage to tail IFF aerials. Of course none of the PR aircraft, with the exception of the PR Mk I Type G (later Mk VII) or Mk XIII, had gun ports in the wing leading edge, ejector chutes, cannon bulges etc, all of which shaved mph off the top speed of the fighters.

From 1943 all Spitfires used flush riveting on the fuselage (this can be seen in the fourth and fifth photos: Spitfire IX/XI/XVI family fuselage details ), leading to a much smoother finish on all surfaces. Once all Spitfires started being painted with eggshell finish paints and more attention was paid to the fit and finish of all components, the gap between the PR types and fighters narrowed.

BTW; also note the finish of the early 611 Sqn Spitfire in the last photo, one of a series taken in 1942 - this aircraft was immaculate with a well polished airframe, and was typical of all aircraft in the unit. This was rather different from the Spitfires mentioned in the report...

[wwii:)aircraft]

Both fighters fought during the entire war and both were still advance enough to compete with later fighters, but out of the two, the spitfire was the superior one. The spitfire was a very easy plane to fly and to land, unlike the 109, it had better cockpit visibility, and it almost always had a better armament, although it is arguable that the 109G's and K's 30mm cannons were stronger.

Another thing is that every spitfire was equal or superior to the 109s they were fighting especially the Spitfire ix vs the 109G. Probably the only place were the spitfire might have not been superior was with the 109F-4/z vs spitfire Vc, and 109k14 vs spitfire xiv, 21, or 24.

[GTFOX]

Good discussion here.

Seems the empirical evidence of a 4 to 1 kill ratio Spits to 109 indicate the better plane. The German's respect for it as well speaks volumes. I have read articles that the Germans borrowed heavily from British designs in early 30's, when both began designs.

Still, I am confused as to what performance characteristics are accurate. I have seen articles stating the spits outperformed 109's at higher altitudes, but many here state the opposite. Which is correct? As that is the key. Radar allowed them time to get high and ready before engaging.

First both planes , due to limits of fuel, are more suited for defense than escort. Ad to Spit, just as after Spits started escorting over Europe, they started taking losses. So it is how you use the plane that is important. Many of the 109's lost were simply due to running out of fuel. Radar and Ultra would also allow the Brits to know where that plane came from and where it is going, so it's exact fuel situation which could give the RAF pilots an advantage in how and when to attack, knowing that the 109 pilot must balance that into his overall flight plan. Undoubtedly many would have to leave the bombers late into the sortie to get home. Leaving the bombers as slow ducks for hurricanes and 2nd wave spits to pick off.

In the BoB, the Brits floated tethered balloons that forced level bombers to fly higher and decreased their accuracy. This would lead me to think the spit was the better craft at high altitudes. Doubtful fighter command would try to force bombers up if it worked against the spit's optimum altitude, as lower altitudes also increased accuracy and effectiveness of ground AAA.

Also the spits were only used vs the 109's. Hurricanes went after bombers. A huge mismatch that results in Hurricanes having larger kill numbers. Canes' had good armor and could usually survive light flak from 109's. So a 109 would need to spend a relatively longer time engaging a hurricane and expend more ammo so that the spits could get in behind him. The limited rear view of the 109 was crucial as a the pilot will lose track of what's behind him. The hurricane pilot would turn towards the closing spit to expose the 109's side

Not helping the German assault was the bombers were only 2 engined, slow, and generally poorly designed for intense fighter challenge. Making the 109's job difficult as that fuel limitation is dictated by the flight times of the bombers.

Also, fighter command, knowing that a few spits could cause serious havoc to bomber/109 groups could hold back planes on the ground where repairs could be made more completely.

I would not say that either side had a significant advantage in quality of pilots. But obviously the Brits were fighting for their very lives and country and their courage was remarkable. German pilots are being asked to perform a task that even Hitler himself really did not want to undertake. I cannot think most of their pilots had that edge a fighter pilot needs to have compared to the Brits.

[parsifal]

Gtfox

welcome to the forum, and good first post.

Just remember that this is a partisan audience especially in issues like this thread. You are going to get divergence of views, misuse or misinterpretation of reports and other facts, and downright baloney. You have to sift through the mountains of information and decide what you think is true, and what isnt. a good rule of thumb, if the claim is inconsistent with known history, it should not be relied upon unless it is solidly based on reliable material

[Shortround6]

Still, I am confused as to what performance characteristics are accurate. I have seen articles stating the spits outperformed 109's at higher altitudes, but many here state the opposite. Which is correct? As that is the key. Radar allowed them time to get high and ready before engaging.

You have to be very careful as to EXACTLY which Spitfire is being compared to which 109. For example the there were three rather different MK I Spitfires depending on which propeller was fitted with further variations in weight depending on armor and selfsealing tanks. Also the difference between 87 octane fuel and 100 octane fuel. Now by the Battle of Britain the 100 octane was standard, the early 2 blade fixed pitch propeller was history and most of not all service aircraft had armor and selfsealing tanks but the possibility of confusion between "published" performance figures and combat results can get rather extreme. Another factor in trying to compare aircraft, especially at high altitude is that there are really three "Ceilings" a plane has if not four.
1. Absolute ceiling. Usually not listed, it is the highest altitude an airplane can fly straight and level. It is a pretty useless figure as it varies from plane to plane of the same type because of individual differences in engines airframes, finish ,etc. The plane cannot turn, it cannot climb, and it can't even slow down without loosing altitude.
2. Service ceiling. Widely quoted but again not a whole lot of use except as a reference point. In most air forces or specifications it is the altitude at which a plane can still climb at 100 feet per minute. It is subject to the same variations from plane to plane as the Absolute ceiling.
3. combat ceiling, sometimes found in specifications. this was the altitude at which the using air force thought the plane could still reasonably fight at, usually defined by a climb rate of 500fpm or 1000fpm or what the using air force though was needed. Not usually applied to bombers. This altitude was actually a bit more consistent from plane to plane a 2-5% difference in performance didn't have quite the impact it did on the altitude specifications.
4. Formation ceiling. This maybe one I made up the altitude at which a group of airplanes of the same type can reasonably be expected to keep formation given the expected 2-5% (or what ever) variation in their performance. The larger the formation the more they are held back by the worst performing plane in the group.

As an example of the differences between the the two different three bladed propellers and the difference between service ceiling and effective or combat ceiling see: Spitfire Mk I Performance Testing

1st and 3rd test charts. While the service ceiling changed by an estimated 300ft the altitude at which the plane could climb at 1000fpm changed by at least 3,000ft if not 4,000ft and the altitude at which it could climb at 500fpm changed by 2,000-3,000ft. Please note that the time to climb from 25,000ft to 30,000ft changed from about 6.8 minutes to 5.4 minutes. Also please note that the climb performance was at the book recommended climb rpm of 2600rpm instead of the full throttle 3000rpm which might make a difference in actual combat

Climb performance is a rough, very rough, indicator of how much surplus energy a plane has for maneuvering. Any flight except straight and level (and diving) is going to increase drag and slow the plane down. Comparing climb rates at a certain altitude can give an idea of how well a plane might resist slowing down or be able to recover after slowing down. It does not take into account the drag of the aircraft, different aircraft even if they have close to the same drag in level flight may have different drag while pulling the same "G" turn at the same speed.

Another point if you are not aware of it already.
100 octane fuel did nothing for the performance of the British planes OVER about 17,000ft in the BoB.

In the BoB, the Brits floated tethered balloons that forced level bombers to fly higher and decreased their accuracy. This would lead me to think the spit was the better craft at high altitudes. Doubtful fighter command would try to force bombers up if it worked against the spit's optimum altitude, as lower altitudes also increased accuracy and effectiveness of ground AAA.

I guess that depends on what is meant by low altitude and high altitude. Rather vague terms that changed over time and location. what Height were the Balloons deployed? Wikipedia says 5000ft (I obviously would welcome another source) which is still in the low altitude range for fighters. The British had little in the way of small rapid fire AA guns at the time (20-40mm) and the bigger stuff 3in,3.7in and 4.5 in don't work very well that low. they have trouble swinging fast enough to track the low flying targets, their rate of fire is low so that they can only get off a few shots per engagement. Their fire control (predictors and fuse setters) need more time to work. The barrage balloons helped force the bombers up to the heights where the heavy AA was effective although the heavies didn't get really effective until 10,000ft or so.