Spit vs. Messer : Design vs. Design

[Guppy35]

Luftwaffe

July 24, 1940

1(F) 123.  Ju88A.  Crashed on operational mission due to technical fault.  4 crew killed. aircraft a write off

Arado AR66  Crashed on a domestic flight.  Two crew killed.  aircraft a write off

Erprobungs Gruppe 210-Me110 exploded and crashed in the sea attacking shipping. Believed lost to AA fire.  Two killed.

II/JG26-Me109E-1  Pilot wounded in combat over the French coast, crashed on landing and was killed.  Aircraft a write off

Stab III/JG26-Me109E-1 Pilot wounded and force landed in England. Taken POW.  Aircraft lost.

8/JG26-Me109E-4  Shot down in combat over Margate.  Pilot bailed out but chute failed. Pilot killed, aircraft a write off.

Stab II/JG52-Me109E Shot down by a Spitfire of 610 Squadron off Margate. Pilot killed, aircraft lost.

7/JG52-Me109E-Failed to return from combat over Margate.  Pilot killed, aircraft lost.

Me109E-Shot down in combat over Margate. Pilot killed, aircraft lost.

8/JG52-Me109E Shot down by Spitfire of 54 Squadron.  Pilot killed, aircraft lost.

3/KG26-He-111-Shot up by Spits of 603 Squadron.  Returned to base single engined and damaged. Aircraft repairable.

6/KG26-He111-Crash landed on a domestic flight due to engine failure.  Two killed.  Aircraft a write off

1/KG27-He111-Crash landed on a local flight due to engine failure.  1 killed three wounded.  Aircraft a write off.

1/KG40-FW200-Force landed in the sea due to fuel loss.  3 made POW, 2 drowned.  Aircraft lost.

3/LG1-JU88  Shot down by Spits from 92 Squadron.  3 POWs, aircraft a write off.

1/StG2-Ju87 Damaged in crash landing.  Crew unhurt, aircraft repairable.

1/StG77-Ju87 collided with landing beacon.  Crew unhurt, aircraft repairable.


All info from "The Battle of Britain-Then and Now"

More specifics in it, as far as pilots names, serial numbers on aircraft etc if needed.

I'd say the RAF had the upper hand that day anyway, and the Spits got the better of the 109s.

Dan/Slack

[Guppy35]

JG52 pilots killed that day:
8/JG52-Staffel Kapitan Ehrlich
7/JG52-Gefr. Frank, Oblt. Fermer
Stab III/JG52-Gruppen Kommandeur Hauptman Von Houwald

JG26 pilots lost:

II/JG26-Gruppen Kommanduer Hauptman Noack killed.
Stab III/JG26-Oblt. Bartels wounded and made a POW
8/JG26-Lt. Schauff killed.

Only one Spit lost to enemy action, which was the 54 Squadron Spit that had the wounded pilot who stalled and crashed on landing, being killed in the process.

Just since I like images  Two photos of Oblt. Werner Bartels Bf-109E-1 of Stab III/JG26.  Top obviously shows it after the force landing.  Lower shows it on display for the British public.

Dan/Slack

[bunch]

Originally posted by Tony Williams
A couple of comments:

I have a BoB video with some modern footage showing a pilot trying out the cockpits of a 109 and a Spitfire which were parked next to each other. The immediate response was how cramped the 109's cockpit was compared with the Spit. You could SEE the difference; he practically had to be shoehorned into the 109, and commented on how poor visibility was and how difficult it was to get proper leverage on the stick.

One of Eric Brown's gripes about the 109 was the operation of the slats, which opened unevenly and unpredictably in manoeuvres, 'giving rise to aileron snatching and completely ruining sighting on any aircraft being attacked.'

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and Discussion forum

Jeffrey Quill had similar critcisms about the captured Emil he tried out.  He goes on to say that if he had tried out the 109e before he went on his Spitfire combat trial during the Battle of Britain he would have been much more agressive in combat.   Of course as maybe the #1 "spit dweeb" of all time, he could be a biased source.  Or possibly as a professional test pilot, he is highly reliable...

[Crumpp]

Thanks Dan!

Been really busy with other projects.

Crumpp

[Angus]

"I have a BoB video with some modern footage showing a pilot trying out the cockpits of a 109 and a Spitfire which were parked next to each other. The immediate response was how cramped the 109's cockpit was compared with the Spit. You could SEE the difference"
I have seen it, that's why I'm rather confident in it.
However the difference is not huge, more like somewhat.
Jeff Quill didn't like the 109's cockpit and view as well as the roll rate. In other sections he rather liked the 109.
His exact expression was that if he had known those characteristics, he would have treated the 109 with less respect in combat.
Now, some more from Rall
Question: You flew a captured Spitfire once. How did you like it?
RALL: Well, the sitting position was quite different, you sat like in a chair, while in the 109 it was like sitting in a racecar.
I didn't like the stick very much, it felt funny to me.
But the performance was very good. It had very good climb and turn, and climbing turn. There was no way to follow it in a climbing turn.
Queastion: Do you mean the upwards corkscrew, as mentioned as an evasive maneuver by some British pilots like Johnny Johnsson?
RALL: Yes exactly. There was no way to follow a Spitfire in an upwards turn. You would stall out.

Well, that was most of it. Will hopefully be hearing him tomorrow again, - or on Monday. (He's travelling) Any simple pilot's view questions you want to promote?

Then to the 24th of july 1940. Will send some date in a couple of hours, ok?

Regards

Angus

[Kurfürst]

Originally posted by Angus

Ok, I claim this:
1. The Spitfire had a roomier cockpit than the 109.

[/B]

We can go round and round abou this, Angie, but frankly, I have seen Mark Hanna in the Spits cocpit in video, and the fact that this little guy barely fit into it tells me more than anything. Stiegler says the Spit ISN`T any roomier than the 109s, which appears to be correct given the bare dimensions of the fuselage and the engine... the only thing the pilots/reports complained on 109 is the headroom, not the rest of the cocpit, ie. it was not really for the taller pilots. The Spitfire in that regard was better, thanks to the blown malcolm hood. Of course that come at a prize, even British reports admit they`d prefer the straight glass of the 109s cocpit over the Spitfire - much less distortion with it I presume! How much room in the Spit? Hmm, IIRC Quill himself told that he felt "buried within" the Spitfire.

But post that BoB picture you mentioned if you can, if you say it`s so telling.

Originally posted by Angus
2. The P51 has a much roomier cockpit than a 109.

[/B]

Hmm, everyone knows the P-51s fuselage was very narrow, so was the cocpit. Same engine as in the Spit, remember, Angie, same engine dimensions as in the 109, so how could it be wider, hmm? I am looking forward for you to prove it.

Besides you would really want to read some actual reports on the Mustang. Do you know what they say? Very narrow, cramped, and limited headspace. Yes, Angie, that`s what the actual experts said who had to evaluate the Mustang. You are repeating old urban legends here, but I guess most of realize, that WW2 fighter cocpits weren`t exactly roomy, esp. on inline engined fighters...

Originally posted by Angus
3. The Spitfire has similar range with the same fuel load as a similarly powered 109.

[/B]

Well I guess we had already seen ranges for the 109s and Spits, so basically you are arguing those facts. Based on those, your statement only seems to be true in case of the Spit I and 109E, which had 637km and 660km range respectively, w. 85 and 88 gallon main tanks, basically the same fuel load, they are pretty equal in range... the Spit Is lower drag almost making up for the advantage the DB601 had over the Merlin in fuel consumption.

And that`s it. ANY other Spitfire looses waaaaaaay out in absolute range : draggier airframe combined with a thirsty engine, no mister, you wont get good range this way. Think about the Spit XIV, ca450 miles range with 112 gallons vs. ca.700miles range of the 109G with 88 gallons? 150 It`s all written in the reports. 125% the fuel capacity, but only 60% the range... Guess it has something to do with 50% higher fuel consumption of the late Merlins/Griffons, eh?

Originally posted by Angus
4. P51 should have a longer range on the same fuel load as a similarly powered Spitfire.

[/B]

Yep, and the P-51 had very similiar range to a 109F/G/K - as long as on the same fuel load. Both had much longer range than the Spit.

Originally posted by Angus
Never heard of the British trying to copy the 109 Uberseat, obviously they didn't. I belive they stepped the rudder though, but got to look into my cockpit pics to see it better. They were also testing pressure suits BTW.

[/B]

Oh, WHAT, how did you say? They COPIED the *very tiresome* etc. seating position of a 109 or 190 pilot sit in his plane? Maybe they realized this was better seating position for a fighter pilot ?

BTW, this one is quite an interesting subject, and on-topic, too : just how many things in the late Spitfire originated from enemy fighters, esp. the 109...


Besides I don`t get your comments on the "comfortable" seats of WW2 fighters. Have you seen those? A few dural plates, crudely formed and welded together, basically. Not much more is required, when you are thickly dressed and sit on your chute, anyway...

Since practically all allied cockpits were roomier than the 109 one, that should however not have been a problem.

[/B]

Uh, yes, of course, whatever you say Angie. I think you practically making sweeping statements and repeating urban myths - do you think this makes a good arguement?

Then to the fuselage. The DB has a slightly smaller front than the Merlin, in both cases the fuselage depending on the engine size to hide behind it. Oh, dear, I have that from you actually.[/B]

That is very much doubtful you have such thing from me. But we seen your memory don`t serve you right when it comes what other have said.. maybe you should prefer something other than beer as your mental conditioner. Not that I am against beer in any form.

[Kurfürst]

Originally posted by Tony Williams

One of Eric Brown's gripes about the 109 was the operation of the slats, which opened unevenly and unpredictably in manoeuvres, 'giving rise to aileron snatching and completely ruining sighting on any aircraft being attacked.'

Funny though that the top WW2 fighter unit happens to be just a LW one, just a 109 one, which alone probably shot down more enemy aircraft than the entire RAF, hmm? I mean the JG 52 guys, well over 10 000 victories in air combat.

To me it only proves that Brown was hardly as a good pilot as many think he was. With less then an hour spent in the Bf 109G he flew, hardly he could been one with that much of 'experience' . Any LW rookie in 1945, with as little as 20-30 hours know more about that plane than he.


Others, like Southwood, who spent a LOT more time in the 109G than Brown, were very positively impressed with the slats. I guess they just flown the plane as it was meant to be flown, and Brown just didn`t. At the minimum, there`s isn`t the slightest indication of what Brown seems to suggest that the "slats opened unevenly and unpredictably in manoeuvres". If they would, they wouldn`t been used. They would not be used today.

Here`s the qoute :



"One interesting feature is the leading edge slats.  When these deploy at low speeds or in a turn, a 'clunk' can be heard and felt, but there is no disturbance to the aircraft about any axis.  I understand that the Bf109E rolled violently as the slats deployed, and I am curious to know the difference to the Gustav that caused this."



Now some on Quill. As said, his, let`s call it subjectiveness is a matter of record. As I recall, Quill claims the Emils rate of roll was 'every bit as bad, if not worse as the Spitfire'.

Well, facts stated in the report on the very same crashlanded 109 E-3 Quill flew tell it very different. Here`s the roll curve :




What is appearant, that the Spitfire I at most practical combat speeds rolled TWICE AS SLOW as the 109E. At 300-400 mph range they were equally as bad, so Quill has some point in that.

But something is missing from that chart. I linked the curves from the other Mr. Williams site, and it wouldn`t be Mike Williams if he hadn`t cut off half of that roll chart. Namely, the STICK FORCES.

Unfortunately these show, that the Spitfire I requires massively higher forces applied on the stick, and could achieve less deflection with that, especially at high speed.

Just to illustrate the magnitude of problem, at 400 mph it`s so bad, that some 67 lbs(!!!) stickforce would be required just to deflect the ailerons 1/4th the range of their max. deflection to produce the roll speeds you see above.

The 109E requires about 35 lbs, to deflect the ailerons 50% more (1/3), and get the SAME roll rate.

Though luck, that according to the RAE`s/NACA`s reports, neither the Spit or Me 109 pilot can exert more than 40 lbs on the stick. But who should be effected by this, hmm?

Especially, who should be effected if we are well aware that the Merlin`s couldn`t run under negative G load... a 109E pilot only had to put the plane into a dive to loose a Spit.
If a Spit pilot wanted to follow him, he had to make a 180 degree roll first, to avoid negative G-load. A May 1940 Brit report states 8 secs were required for a half roll on the Spit, hmmm.. so if the 109 pilot pushed the stick forward, the Spit`s pilot grabbed the stick with both hands, exerted all the force he could sideways, and after 8 very long seconds, he could follow the 109 in the dive.... but hey, where did the guy disappeared to ?!


BTW, recently an Emil, an E-4 IIRC, was restored in 1999. The article was posted on various boards, and it states that roll rate of the aircraft was outstanding, and the author/pilot claims he felt it at least 50% better than the Spitfire V with the improved metal ailerons...

[Angus]

Now Izzie, you are one insulent little twit.
Are you calling Gunther Rall himself in as an urban legend for starters?
He is a LIVING legend, and I had the honor of talking to him yesterday.
Yet, you choose to promote your usual garbage, and highly selectED data, although some of it may be quite authentic.
To be honest, you deserve a bloody spanking lesson
OK, first round:
"We can go round and round abou this, Angie, but frankly, I have seen Mark Hanna in the Spits cocpit in video, and the fact that this little guy barely fit into it tells me more than anything. Stiegler says the Spit ISN`T any roomier than the 109s, which appears to be correct "
This is not really going round and round since it is basically broadt times width times height. Total value is cubics.
I have had a walkaround  with a 109 and several Spitfires, along with some cockpit peeking. So I don't need to refer with a video.
You present Stiegler. I asked Rall. Belive what you want, but my final conclusion is from firstly my own eyes and then by asking Rall, that THE SPITFIRE COCKPIT IS DEFINATELY SOMEWHAT ROOMIER THAN THE COCKPIT OF A 109.
BTW, did Stiegler have some flying hours in the Spitfire?
More of cockpits:"
Then to the fuselage. The DB has a slightly smaller front than the Merlin, in both cases the fuselage depending on the engine size to hide behind it. Oh, dear, I have that from you actually"
Yes, you and Niklas actually. I think I have some pictures of the frontal area from you, I will look it up.
OMG, could it have been that the Spitfire had smaller frontal area?????
Next round, P51 cockpit vs 109:
"Hmm, everyone knows the P-51s fuselage was very narrow, so was the cocpit. Same engine as in the Spit, remember, Angie, same engine dimensions as in the 109, so how could it be wider, hmm? I am looking forward for you to prove it. "
The P51 cockpit is narrow and deep, and long. About as wide as the cockpit of a 109. Did you ever have a look at a P51 cockpit up close? nnaaaaa you bloody well didn't!
Why would Rall describe it in comparison of the 109 as a "Saloon" with superb view?
3rd Round. The slats:
Rall liked the slats, except in rough combat. Without the slats, the 109's takeoff and landing speeds would have been very high.
However, as he stated, in a ROUGH turn, the outboard slat would deploy very suddenly, snapping the aircraft. So in rough combat while riding the stall, they could interfere, sending you down into a spin-beginning.
Now I must say that I find the slat idea and design a superb idea. Bear in mind though that leading edge slats create less lift than say the better sorts of flaps. Still quite impressive. But I do NOT challenge Rall's words on that. Come on you avacado, the guy has 275 kills in a 109, so when he tells about both merits and vices of the 109, I honestly take his words as very much more credible than yours.
Now for a round for Quill and his 109 time.
Quill was quite delighted with the 109 low speed handling. As soon as you got fast the roll rate got worse below to the one of the humble Spitfire Mk I.
Here is something to bear in mind, and hence, you true-beliver are probably making your stand, - the leverage of the Spitfire stick would allow the application of much more human force.
The Stick travel of the 109 was much less, - so was the space to apply force. Spitfire pilots had just the room to jab their elbow against the hull and really pull. The "funny" stick would actually promote this. You'd understand what I'm saying if you ever did armwrestling. (which I doubt )
So from you
"neither the Spit or Me 109 pilot can exert more than 40 lbs on the stick."
Stuff it up yer less holier end!
By the way,your roll curve does not show any stickforces. It' presumably a max roll graph, pilot vs pilot.
Wonder who had a stronger arm.
Then onwards:
"Especially, who should be effected if we are well aware that the Merlin`s couldn`t run under negative G load... a 109E pilot only had to put the plane into a dive to loose a Spit.
If a Spit pilot wanted to follow him, he had to make a 180 degree roll first, to avoid negative G-load. A May 1940 Brit report states 8 secs were required for a half roll on the Spit, hmmm.. so if the 109 pilot pushed the stick forward, the Spit`s pilot grabbed the stick with both hands, exerted all the force he could sideways, and after 8 very long seconds, he could follow the 109 in the dive.... but hey, where did the guy disappeared to ?! "
Did you see a Spit I in the air?
Did you see a film of Spit I doing aerobatics?
Do you know the Speed at which you would have needed 8 secs for a mere half roll?
I guess you'll say no, for you bloody well don't.
I for myself, don't know about the 8 secs speeds, but I presume it must have been in excess of 300 mph. The two other items I can at least honestly answer with a YES, and they left me gazing.
Well, if I tackle this:
"Oh, WHAT, how did you say? They COPIED the *very tiresome* etc. seating position of a 109 or 190 pilot sit in his plane? Maybe they realized this was better seating position for a fighter pilot ? "
I think you didn't see the text around this.
They DIDN'T copy the 109 seat, which you stated they had been trying to do. They COULD HAVE, BUT DIDN'T.
So and on to the Range.
Typical Babi style is to compare oranges with apples. So you choose the Griffon to the 109G.
Well, there are some hundred horses more under the hood of a XIV, and if you read about flight trials, the XIV outperforms the 109G in all aspects except perhaps the initial stage of a dive?
Dive away from that Spitty on your tail.......
I'm happy however to see that you admit the MkI has a similar range as the 109E....that is progress. Had to be since the operations of the MkI/II extended the operations of the Emil.....
Then as a final, the slats.
Rall solved that for me and I am thankful for it.
Yet I must ask him again.
What was the reason for the snap?
Was it the design, or a maintenance issue?
I have until now thought it was a maintenace thing, - that the mechanics under war conditions would not always be perfect.
Now I must reconsider. The funny side of it, is that I would probably have been on your line with it, i.e. the design is perfect, if there was something wrong it would have to be something else.
But after hearing that WW2 veteran who flew every available sort of the 109 into high success, I have to reconsider.......

[MiloMorai]

Barbi is stuck on this neg G thingy, still.

The Merlin got injection 'carbs' but he, as usual, forgets this.

Angus, what Barbi forgets, is that the a/c with altitude has the advantage. The 109 running away by diving is out of the fight. This allowed the Spit I and IIs to then attack the bombers without any interference from the LW fighters.

On the 109-51 cockpit Barbi, the 51 was 3-5" wider at the pilot's seat, canopy rail to canopy rail.

[Guppy35]

As for the cockpit of the Spit vs the cockpit of the 109.  I' ve been in the cockpit of the B of B flight Spit II, back in 1986 at Coltishall.  And I got an up close look at the cockpit of a 109/Buchon at the EAA museum.  No doubt from that experience that the Spit was the roomier of the two.  It didn't seem nearly as confining.

For what it's worth

Dan/Slack

[Tony Williams]

Originally posted by Kurfürst
To me it only proves that Brown was hardly as a good pilot as many think he was. With less then an hour spent in the Bf 109G he flew, hardly he could been one with that much of 'experience' . Any LW rookie in 1945, with as little as 20-30 hours know more about that plane than he.

There's no reason to doubt that Brown was an excellent pilot - he was given the job of trying out many new aircraft and concepts, and you don't keep such a job unless you have proved time and again that you know what you're doing.

The impression I have from all of the contradictory evidence is that the Bf 109, relative to its comparators, was a very difficult plane to learn how to fly well. Once mastered, it proved very effective which accounts for many Experten preferring to stick with it rather than switch to a generally better plane like the Fw 190. They knew all its tricks and foibles and could get the best out of the plane. But even a very good pilot with huge experience, like Brown, at first found it difficult to fly well, and it was lethal to novices.

So in summary, the Bf 109 proved a very effective weapon in the hands of experts who had spent a long time learning how to get the best from it, but it was not the kind of plane you wanted to hand to a new recruit.

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion
forum

[Crumpp]

II/JG26-Gruppen Kommanduer Hauptman Noack killed.

Noack was killed in a flying accident.  He pulled too high on landing, stalled, and crashed.  He was not shot down by Spitfires.

Crumpp

[Tony Williams]

Originally posted by Crumpp
Noack was killed in a flying accident.  He pulled too high on landing, stalled, and crashed.  He was not shot down by Spitfires.
[/B]

So the evil little beast could get even experienced pilots if their concentration slipped!

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion
forum

[Angus]

Ok, here's what I have from that date:
JG52 III, starts off from Coquelles at 13:10 on an escort mission.
It was quite a cloudy day.
Morale is high, or as one pilot puts it: "We know that the RAF flyers are at least equal opponents, however that does not frighten us. On the contrary we are eager for the fight"
Jumped by Spitfires over the Channel. 4 losses:
Lothar Ehrlich, shot down and bailed.
Wolf-Heinrich von Houwald, KIA
Herbert Fermer MIA
Erich Frank KIA
Jg52 makes 2 claims, Jupp Zvernemann claims a Spitfire, as well as his wingman Edmund Rossmann, at Margate.

After 6 days of fighting JG52 III is sent off front line service due to heavy losses and broken morale.
Seems it was anything but cherry picking......

[Angus]

25th of June, JG52 III
Otto decker claims a Spitfire.
Werner Keidel gets shot down. KIA?
Willi Bielefeld - same. KIA?
Hans Schmidt - same, POW
Max Reiss - same, POW

8 pilots from 1 staffel in 2 days. Possibly 1 confirmed victory, since the Spitfires claimed on the 24th did not show as a loss on the RAF side.
Guppy??

Anyway, that's a lot of blood, 2/3rd of the staffel in 2 days.
The pilots shot down were primarily veterans, and on both days the top guy!
No wonder they pulled it out within the week.
Wonder which RAF pilots were at the trigger.
Guppy????? Milo?????