I might be mistaken but I thought was what it was or the 109 was only a very slight narrower. I cant remember now. 
I need to find the thread.
I need to find the thread.
Bf-109 vs. Spitfire....
- Thread starter lesofprimus
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Maybe because the Hurricane had a wider track - outward opening cart - it was therefore able to help the RAF win the 'Crashing War' during the Battle of Britain.
I am sure that the Luftwaffe must have lost a bucket-load of good planes and pilots simply because they did not have the Hurricane's undercarriage arrangement.
Same for the RAF and the Spit of course as the Hurricane was moved into ground attack and night raiding roles.
I wonder what the Stats say in terms of pilots lost through landing or taking off because of undercarriage-related crashes ?
I am sure that the Luftwaffe must have lost a bucket-load of good planes and pilots simply because they did not have the Hurricane's undercarriage arrangement.
Same for the RAF and the Spit of course as the Hurricane was moved into ground attack and night raiding roles.
I wonder what the Stats say in terms of pilots lost through landing or taking off because of undercarriage-related crashes ?
claidemore
Senior Airman
I believe the 109 struts were longer as well.
Njaco
The Pop-Tart Whisperer
The landing and take-off of the Bf 109 was covered in another thread and I got my butt chewed on that one. Apparently didn't happen as often as reported. (crashes that is)
pbfoot
1st Lieutenant
pbfoot
1st Lieutenant
I don't know about afaik I measured both of them side by side front and rear of tires centre to centreThe Spitfire's landing gear hos no toe out AFAIK. The straight landing gear also helped on landings.
PS: Pbfoot, I hope that isn't your hand that's stuck there! Man you just can keep you fingers to yourself can you ??
pbfoot
1st Lieutenant
I have what i think is another point in favour of the 109 . I was cleaning the aircraft when I looked at cleaning the glass . Now anyone who has flown or worked ATC has seen the bug mark on the glass that always forces you to takes a second look to make sure its not another aircraft. Cleaning the glass in the Spit is much harder then the 109 and impossible particularly behind the seat. Clean glass could make all the difference in a dogfight IMHO
Negative Creep
Staff Sergeant
On the subject of glass, the Spitfire had a clearer canopy (with the exception perhaps of the Galland hood 109s) with fewer obstructions. Of course the last ones had bubble canopies as well, so that must be a point in its favour.
claidemore
Senior Airman
Quite a while ago, there was a fairly lenghty debate on this thread about the climb rate of the Bf109 K4. One argument was for climb to 10k in 6.7 minutes, the other argument was for climb to 10k in 13.4 minutes. The disagreement coming from how a particular historical document was read.
Today a chart with climb rate for the Me262 was posted on another thread, indicated a 'calculated' climb rate for a 5700 kg Me262 of 10 minutes to reach 10k alt. That lines up pretty well with the 8 minutes to 10k of the F-86 Sabre jet.
That would indicate that the 109 K4 could not have climbed to 10k in 6.7 minutes, the 13.4 minute figure has to be the correct one.
___________________________________________
By the by...after reading this thread, it seems quite apparent that one on one, the choice of plane, 109 or Spit, is largely a matter of personal preference, or considering one aspect of performance to be more important than others.
However, for a large organization, given the choice of plane, the logical choice would probably have to be the Spitfire. Lower accident rate, easier to fly, able to provide maximum performance from average pilots, different weapon loadouts with little or no effect on flight characteristics, and a continued development that never had to sacrifice in one area to gain in another.
This was the case with the Israeli Air Force, they could not keep their Czech 109 deriviant the Avia S-199s operational, even though in combat with Egyptian Spitfires they came out ahead.[admittedly the "mule" Avia was not as good as a DB engined 109]
Today a chart with climb rate for the Me262 was posted on another thread, indicated a 'calculated' climb rate for a 5700 kg Me262 of 10 minutes to reach 10k alt. That lines up pretty well with the 8 minutes to 10k of the F-86 Sabre jet.
That would indicate that the 109 K4 could not have climbed to 10k in 6.7 minutes, the 13.4 minute figure has to be the correct one.
___________________________________________
By the by...after reading this thread, it seems quite apparent that one on one, the choice of plane, 109 or Spit, is largely a matter of personal preference, or considering one aspect of performance to be more important than others.
However, for a large organization, given the choice of plane, the logical choice would probably have to be the Spitfire. Lower accident rate, easier to fly, able to provide maximum performance from average pilots, different weapon loadouts with little or no effect on flight characteristics, and a continued development that never had to sacrifice in one area to gain in another.
This was the case with the Israeli Air Force, they could not keep their Czech 109 deriviant the Avia S-199s operational, even though in combat with Egyptian Spitfires they came out ahead.[admittedly the "mule" Avia was not as good as a DB engined 109]
drgondog
Major
That is impressive..
claidemore
Senior Airman
I just had a look at the graphs on Kurfurst site. As easy to read as the nose on your face, though I did have to get some German words translated. Thats one of the perks of reseraching things you find on this forum, you get to learn a little about other languages!
Two scales on the bottom, upper one is m/s, lower one is minutes. They are clearly indicated, and I did get them confused for a few seconds. Lines rising from left to right are climb time, lines rising from right to left are climb rate.
Two graphs show K4 to 10k at 13.4 minutes,the other graph shows 13 minutes even. 13 minutes even would be with MW and 1.45 ata. That would be the K4s that saw the majority of combat. The Mk IX Spitfire with Merlin 61 climbed to 30,000 ft in 9.2 minutes at combat rating and with Merlin 66 it took 8.4 minutes and the prototype 1943 Spit XIV took 8.35 minutes to 30000ft
Anyhooo...The calculated figures for 109 K4 @ 1.98 ata show a climb rate at 10k of 7.5m/s, and K4 @ 1.45 ata with 6 m/s The Spitfire MkXIV with Griffon 65 and 18lb boost shows a cllimb rate at 10k of 9.6 m/s the Spit Mk IX with Merlin 66, 18lb boots, is at 10.7m/s.
At sea level, K4 @1.98 ata 22-22.5 m/s(or 24.5-25m/s on one graph), K4 @ 1.45 ata 16.5 m/s and Spit XIV 18lb boost at 23.8 m/s, Spit XIV 21lb boost 25.9m/s and Spit IX(Merlin 66) is 23.4 m/s.
At 4500 meters, the 1.98 K4 and Spit XIV have exactly the same climb rate.
At 6700 meters, the 1.98 K4 is climbing at 16.5m/s and the Spit XIV is ahead again at 18.3m/s
(all data comes from original source documents at Kurfursts and Mike Williams sites.)
Obviously the K4 was very competitive in the climb department, particularly as the engine was approved for higher boost ratings, but the often heard statement that it was the best climbing plane of WWII seems to be erroneous.
Two scales on the bottom, upper one is m/s, lower one is minutes. They are clearly indicated, and I did get them confused for a few seconds. Lines rising from left to right are climb time, lines rising from right to left are climb rate.
Two graphs show K4 to 10k at 13.4 minutes,the other graph shows 13 minutes even. 13 minutes even would be with MW and 1.45 ata. That would be the K4s that saw the majority of combat. The Mk IX Spitfire with Merlin 61 climbed to 30,000 ft in 9.2 minutes at combat rating and with Merlin 66 it took 8.4 minutes and the prototype 1943 Spit XIV took 8.35 minutes to 30000ft
Anyhooo...The calculated figures for 109 K4 @ 1.98 ata show a climb rate at 10k of 7.5m/s, and K4 @ 1.45 ata with 6 m/s The Spitfire MkXIV with Griffon 65 and 18lb boost shows a cllimb rate at 10k of 9.6 m/s the Spit Mk IX with Merlin 66, 18lb boots, is at 10.7m/s.
At sea level, K4 @1.98 ata 22-22.5 m/s(or 24.5-25m/s on one graph), K4 @ 1.45 ata 16.5 m/s and Spit XIV 18lb boost at 23.8 m/s, Spit XIV 21lb boost 25.9m/s and Spit IX(Merlin 66) is 23.4 m/s.
At 4500 meters, the 1.98 K4 and Spit XIV have exactly the same climb rate.
At 6700 meters, the 1.98 K4 is climbing at 16.5m/s and the Spit XIV is ahead again at 18.3m/s
(all data comes from original source documents at Kurfursts and Mike Williams sites.)
Obviously the K4 was very competitive in the climb department, particularly as the engine was approved for higher boost ratings, but the often heard statement that it was the best climbing plane of WWII seems to be erroneous.
drgondog
Major
The F8F, F7F, and P-38L will always be 'competitive', even P-51H and Ta 152
Claidemore,
The 13.4 13 min time to climb figures were achieved at Steig u. Kampfleistung, and that is clearly noted as-well.
The climb rate figures at SL is with radiator flaps open, which has a very negative effect on climb performance.
At 1.98ata and with closed radiators the max climb rate of the K-4 is above 28 m/s, or 5,500 + ft/min.
At 1.98 ata 10km would be reached in approx. 9min or less.
So it's quite true that the Bf-109 K-4 was the best piston engined climber of WW2.
The 13.4 13 min time to climb figures were achieved at Steig u. Kampfleistung, and that is clearly noted as-well.
The climb rate figures at SL is with radiator flaps open, which has a very negative effect on climb performance.
At 1.98ata and with closed radiators the max climb rate of the K-4 is above 28 m/s, or 5,500 + ft/min.
At 1.98 ata 10km would be reached in approx. 9min or less.
So it's quite true that the Bf-109 K-4 was the best piston engined climber of WW2.
Kurfürst
Staff Sergeant
A small correction : 1,45 ata was a 30-minute rating for the DB 605D ie. G-10 and K-4, and no MW 50 was injected at this setting. This was of course not the maxmum output of the engine, rather an (rough) equivalent of what the USAAF called 15-min Military and the RAF as 'Normal' rating. The equivalent of thE USAAF`s WEP or the RAF`s 'combat' rating is the Sondernnotleistung rating at 1,75/1,80/1,98ata (depending on engine model, ie. DM or DB/DC).
At 1,98ata maximum WEP I calculate 8.36 mins required to 30 000 feet, I didn`t do it with 1,8ata rating, but its fairly easy to do by the climb graphs.
claidemore
Senior Airman
Thanks, you are right, the heading on the graph indicates MW , but the 1.45 rated lines do not show it's use.
So, am I correct now in understanding that MW was only used on 1.75 ata or higher engines?
