Bf-109 vs. Spitfire....

[SHOOTER]

Originally Posted by alejandro_

Some points on the comparison Spit XIV vs Bf-109K-4

- The Spit was a more stable platform in terms of performance. At this stage the Bf-109 manufacturing quality was much lower.

- The use of a gyroscope gave the XIV quite an advantage in combats. The Luftwaffe never installed on their Bf-109 a device similar to the Ferranti gyro computing gunsight.

- Some documents state that the K4 had cooling deficciencies, this should limit the performance, together with the overall finishing of the aircraft.

- The Bf-109 in general rolls better at higher speeds, but the roll rate in the Spitfire improved after the clipped wing versions entered service. Any info on the Spifire XIV roll rate?

I would say the Bf-109 was better during 1941-42, when the E and F versions were available. After that the Spit has the advantage.

Regards.

The Spit was a terrible weapons platform! It was "twitchy" and the wing mounted guns were guaranteed to miss if the target was at any range other than that at which the guns were ZEROED/HARMONIZED/REGULATED.

The guns were 7-13 feet out in the wings and 45" below the LOS threw the gun sight. This meant that the bullet streams from the guns started wide rose and crossed under the sight pipper and then fell away on the opposite side of the target. If the target fuselage was 36" wide and perfectly centered under the aiming mark, the bullets would be wide of the target untill it was less than 54 yards from the 250 yard ZERO RANGE and then would hit untill 54 yards after the ZERO RANGE, untill missing completely past that range.

The -109's nose guns were all parrallel to the LOS and only 3-15" below the sight. In addition, they did not have to rise so far to meet the LOS and thus it was much easier to get hits.

Finnaly the Spits flimsy wings twisted and vibrated badly under recoil and caused enormious dispersion to the bullet stream from any one gun. Over one meter in 100! This reduced the concentraition or weight of fire dramaticaly.

To figure out the total effect of this compute the ratio of taqrgets downed to total number of planes made and missions flown. ( TOTAL RAF post BoB kills=5280/>20,000 Spits made)=.264? IIRC? The Spit is at the very bottom of this compairison! It was a lowsy weapon system! The above number includes kills by other types and gets much worse as they are removed.

Even a cursory examination of the other planes involved in the ETO shows all are better than the Spit!

[Jabberwocky]

Oh S'Wounds!

He is here as well!

[Jabberwocky]

Originally Posted by SHOOTER

Just because a plane is "EASY" to fly generaly makes it a less effective weapon. The Spit was a notoriously poor gun platform, twitchy and very heavy on the controles at high speed. The Ailerons actualy reversed at high speed because the flimsy wing twisted so much under load. The Me-109 was a tough plane the Spit was fragile untill well after the war.

Please point to one pilot account that describes the Spitfire as a 'notoriously poor gun platform'. All WW2 fighters underwent alieron reversal a very high speeds.

How was the Bf-109 any more rugged than the Spitfire? Same engine type, light weight and a smaller fuselage? The Spitfire was also rated to a higher critical Mach.

The Me was a handfull to fly but in the right parts of the envelope would run rings around the Spit. A strong pilot could make it do things that a super man in the Spit could not. In addition, it had a FI engine that could almost guarantee a clean escape while the Spit was dog meat if caught from behind.

The Spitfire could out-turn the 109 if caught from behind an go back on the offensive. The 109 could only dive away, not an offensive tactic.

The Spit was designed for the first part of the last war before all who payed attention knew that dog fighting was obsolite! The light wing loading gave it excellent maneuverability, but made it slow to accellerate and roll. It also made it slower than it's competiters under average "OPPERATIONAL" conditions. Planes rairly saw top speeds and often fought at part throttle were the Me-109 had a substantial advantage. In addition, the DB-6xx could run full throttle for 10 minutes while the merlin would self destruct in five.

Actually, all a Spitfire pilot had to do when he had run the Merlin for more than 5 minutes at emergency overboost was to inform his squadron leader.

Over Malta a Spitfire Vc pilot ran his Merlin for 30 minutes at full emergency boost, with no engine problems.

Finaly as a gun platform the Me was vastly supirior to any Spit. The nose mounted guns of the -109 would be effective to twice or three times the range of the Spits wing mounted guns.

And yet a Spitfire with 2 x20mm and 4 x .303 could put out 3 times the weight of fire of a BF-109 with 1 x 20 and 2 x 13mm.

[Jabberwocky]

Originally Posted by SHOOTER

I note that the above curves are all to the same direction! If the plane was forced to roll the other way, it would not do nearly so well and the planes whose engines turned in the opposite direction would do much better. Think swapping curves between the Fw-190 and Spit-1/2? By changing direction of roll.

Secondly, the rate of roll in the Spit fell off very rapidly with more stick force! Eventialy the ailerons induced so much twist in the wing that the planes STOPPED ROLLING IN THE DIRECTION DESIRED AND REVERSESED the direction of roll! Larger Stick forces in the other planes all gennerated much higher rates of roll!

What this means is that a strong pilot in all of the other planes could out roll a Spit just by adding more stick! Doing that in the Spit reduced the rate of roll to nothing eventialy! So no matter which way you whent, the Spit could not roll with the rest!

The data presented by the RA&AE and NACA says differently. There are obvious physical limits that you can place on mechanically actuated alierons by stick deflection. Western establishments generally used 50 lbs as the limit, while Germany used 30kg/66lbs as the limit.

P.S the stick force rolling values for the Mk V at 1/4 alieron are these:


Spitfire V / fabric covered frise ailerons
8 lbs @ 200 mph
16 lbs @ 250 mph
27 lbs @ 300 mph
43 lbs @ 350 mph
57 lbs @ 375 mph (end of graphed values)

Spitfire V / plain ailerons with tabs
7 lbs @ 200 mph
9 lbs @ 250 mph
13 lbs @ 300 mph
18 lbs @ 350 mph
24 lbs @ 400 mph

Spitfire V / metal covered frise ailerons
4 lbs @ 200 mph
5 lbs @ 250 mph
7 lbs @ 300 mph
9 lbs @ 350 mph
12 lbs @ 400 mph.

I.e to obtain 1/4 alieron deflection @ 400 mph, a Spitfire V/IX/XIV pilot needed just 12lbs of pressure.

[Jabberwocky]

Originally Posted by SHOOTER

The Spit was a terrible weapons platform! It was "twitchy" and the wing mounted guns were guaranteed to miss if the target was at any range other than that at which the guns were ZEROED/HARMONIZED/REGULATED.

The guns were 7-13 feet out in the wings and 45" below the LOS threw the gun sight. This meant that the bullet streams from the guns started wide rose and crossed under the sight pipper and then fell away on the opposite side of the target. If the target fuselage was 36" wide and perfectly centered under the aiming mark, the bullets would be wide of the target untill it was less than 54 yards from the 250 yard ZERO RANGE and then would hit untill 54 yards after the ZERO RANGE, untill missing completely past that range.

The -109's nose guns were all parrallel to the LOS and only 3-15" below the sight. In addition, they did not have to rise so far to meet the LOS and thus it was much easier to get hits.

Finnaly the Spits flimsy wings twisted and vibrated badly under recoil and caused enormious dispersion to the bullet stream from any one gun. Over one meter in 100! This reduced the concentraition or weight of fire dramaticaly.

To figure out the total effect of this compute the ratio of taqrgets downed to total number of planes made and missions flown. ( TOTAL RAF post BoB kills=5280/>20,000 Spits made)=.264? IIRC? The Spit is at the very bottom of this compairison! It was a lowsy weapon system! The above number includes kills by other types and gets much worse as they are removed.

Even a cursory examination of the other planes involved in the ETO shows all are better than the Spit!

Shooters figures are from a discussion at Tony Williams web-boards where he is trying to ascertain the 'effectiveness of the Spitfire as a weapons platform". I post as Montyjnr2 over there.

It seems he is a one man crusade to rid the world of the notion that the Spitfire was any good as a fighter during WW2.

For some examples check out these interesting threads:

http://www.strategypage.com/messageb...es/6-19197.asp

http://forums.delphiforums.com/autogun/messages/

Check the "20mm vs .50 cal" topic, the "If I were king" topic and the "Shooter2000. He's a clever chap" topics for some entertaining reading.

[alejandro_]

[quote]The Spitfire could out-turn the 109 if caught from behind an go back on the offensive. The 109 could only dive away, not an offensive tactic.[\quote]

Apparently the dive advantage was not that much, only in the initial part and, according to some sources the distance between them was never higher than 1200 feet.

[quote] Actually, all a Spitfire pilot had to do when he had run the Merlin for more than 5 minutes at emergency overboost was to inform his squadron leader.
Over Malta a Spitfire Vc pilot ran his Merlin for 30 minutes at full emergency boost, with no engine problems.[\quote]

Very interesting, any more details? many pointed this limit as a disadvantage versus the Bf-109 but it doesn't seem to be the case.

[quote]Finaly as a gun platform the Me was vastly supirior to any Spit. The nose mounted guns of the -109 would be effective to twice or three times the range of the Spits wing mounted guns. [\quote]

Mounting the gun in the nose has several advantages but also disadvantages. The use of a gyroscope (called the "ace maker" was a major advantage to the Spitfire.
Regards.

[Soren]

Originally Posted by Jabberwocky

The Spitfire could out-turn the 109 if caught from behind an go back on the offensive. The 109 could only dive away, not an offensive tactic.

Nope, not true, the Bf-109 turned just as well as the Spitfire, and even slightly better than the Spit at slow speeds. (Although the 109E wouldn't because of its unreliable slats)

In a very high speed fight however, where the 109 pilot and Spitfire pilot are both average in skill, then yes the Spitfire would then be easier handle in a T&B fight, but otherwise no.

[wmaxt]

Originally Posted by Soren

Nope, not true, the Bf-109 turned just as well as the Spitfire, and even slightly better than the Spit at slow speeds. (Although the 109E wouldn't because of its unreliable slats)

In a very high speed fight however, where the 109 pilot and Spitfire pilot are both average in skill, then yes the Spitfire would then be easier handle in a T&B fight, but otherwise no.

I saw a documentary the other day with several Spitfire and Bf-109 pilots they report pretty much the same thing. In general the Spitfire would out maneuver the Bf-109 but a very skilled pilot in the Bf-109 could at least match the Spitfire and sometimes beat them.

wmaxt

[lesofprimus]

the Bf-109 could at least match the Spitfire and sometimes beat them.

Sometimes???

SOMETIMES?????

[wmaxt]

Originally Posted by lesofprimus

Sometimes???

SOMETIMES?????

The German pilots were the ones that said that. They said only the best German pilots could/would get the max out of the Bf-109. For average pilots in both aircraft the Spitfire was a little easier to get the performance out of. An excellent pilot in the Bf-109 had the advantage over an average pilot in a Spitfire. This was in relation to the BoB, I don't know if it was true in later versions of either aircraft.

wmaxt

[plan_D]

It's been repeated many times over, the Bf-109 was the plane of the experts. The Bf-109 could out-turn the Spitfire in some circumstances, but you needed an expert at the stick to do it. The Spitfire would generally out-turn the Bf-109 because all air forces are made up of average pilots with a few experienced pilots and even less a number of naturally talented pilots.

Funnily enough, the first encounter between the Spitfire and Bf-109 was on 13th May, 1940. Six Spitfires from No.66 Sqdn. were accompanied by Defiants of No. 264 Sqdn. flew their second operation over Europe in a patrol over Holland. They encountered a flight of Ju-87s and Bf-109s , in the combat five Defiants and one Spitfire were exchanged for four Ju-87s and a Bf-109.

Any more detailed information on this combat would be appreciated? German units involved? Amounts of German aircraft? As I figure there were six Defiants and six Spitfires.

[Hop]

According to Tony Woods claims lists, all the German claims were by 5 JG26. In total they seem to have been awarded 7 Spitfires and 1 Defiant in the Rotterdam area between 6:45 and 7:05.

Ltn. Eckardt Roch claimed 3 Spitfires
Ltn. Hans Krug claimed 2 Spitfires
Fw. Walter Meyer claimed 1 Spitfire
Uffz. Hans Wemhöner claimed 1 Spitfire
Fw. Erwin Stolz claimed 1 Defiant

Twelve Days in May gives few details, but describes German strength as "a staffel".

[Hunter368]

Originally Posted by wmaxt

The German pilots were the ones that said that. They said only the best German pilots could/would get the max out of the Bf-109. For average pilots in both aircraft the Spitfire was a little easier to get the performance out of. An excellent pilot in the Bf-109 had the advantage over an average pilot in a Spitfire. This was in relation to the BoB, I don't know if it was true in later versions of either aircraft.

wmaxt

I have read 6 books on the BoB alone and I never have heard of that one before. The area that I know best is German day time pilots and never have I heard that said by them, especially consistently said by them (maybe one or two, but that is just personal choice). I have most likely 25-35 plus books on German pilots, never heard that more than one or twice. Like I said unless you seen it once and thought it was a general feeling by all pilots. If one or two German pilots actually did say that I think that is a very small demographic out of the number of German 109 pilots. There were plus and negatives to both planes, both were great planes, which is better? Its a personal choice, what mission are you doing, where are you fighting, etc. They are very very equal planes. It came down to pilot skill and who had the advantage at the time, thats the biggest deciding factor (at least between these two planes) in a victory.

If you have the source on that quote (or quotes) plz pass it along.

[plan_D]

According to Paul Eden, only one Spitfire was lost on that day along with five Defiants.

[Hop]

Twelve Days in May says the same, 1 Spitifre and 5 Defiants lost. Another case of "Spitfire snobbery" I suppose, where German pilots attribute their losses and victories to Spitfires, as that was the plane they respected most. In the BoB, they claimed about twice as many Spitfires as Hurricanes, despite the RAF actually losing twice as many Hurricanes as Spitfires.