Spit vs. Messer : Design vs. Design

[Kurfürst]

Hmm, to my knowladge Brown`s experience with the 109 is limited to 1 hour of flying with a captured nightfighter G-6/U2 with gunpods, and a G-12 (converted trainer G-6). A rather limited experience to base his judgement on.. and considering the British experiance with the 109, I am not really surprised they come to that conclusion. They got a belly landed 109E with a bent fuselage in 1940, a 109F with barely operating engine that crashed before the trials ended in in 1941, a battle damaged, tropicalized G-2/trop which had it`s propellor holed in 1942, and Browns 'gunboat' G-6.

Now if Brown choosed not to put the 109 on that list, fine, but that hardly speak of other than being highly subjective - and wrong. Same thing with the F-4U, as pointed by HoHun. IIRC Brown said the Corsair would stand absolutely no chance against the 190. Makes me think Brown is a bit biased towards the planes he likes. Maybe because the 190 become the scary boogeyman for the Brits when it appeared, but frankly, it never enjoyed such status with the other - more important - opponents, such as the USAAF and VVS. But if he even consideres combat success rate... sorry, but I know of no fighter that would prove more successfull in combat than the Bf 109. Nothing anywhere near to it`s combat record, it literally swept aside all opposition in the air in the first 3 years. The Zero is considered legendary because it did the same for appx. a year over the PTO...

As for the 109 being a tricky plane to fly - sorry? The only thing I can read and hear from real 109 pilots is that how nice the plane was in the air, the only negative being mentioned are heavy elevators, not something unique to the 109 (P-51, P-40 for example).


As for the weight increase that supposedly ruined the 109`s handling.. hmm.

Increase in normal take off weights through the war :

1940 :

109 E-3 : 2608 kg
Spitfire Mk I. : 2880 kg

1941 :
109 F-2 :  2780 kg + 6.6%
Spitfire MkV : 2962 kg +2.8 %

1942 :
109G-2 : 3030 kg +8.9%
Spitfire MkIX. 3359 kg +13.4 %

1943
109 G-6 : 3150 kg +3.9%
Spitfire Mk VIII. : 3496 kg + 4%

1944
109 K-4 : 3362 kg +6.7%
Spitfire Mk XIV : 3859 kg +10.3%

1940 -> 1944
109E->K : 2608 kg -> 3362 kg,  (+754kg, + 28,9%)
SpitI ->XIV : 2880 kg -> 3859 kg (+979kg, +34 %)


During the war the Spitfire`s fuel capacity was increased by about 50%, but range actually descreased slightly.

The 109s fuel capacity remained the same, yet range increased by about 50%.

The numbers speak for themselves.

[MiloMorai]

After a quick search at http://www.luftwaffe-experten.co.uk/captive-index.html,  the following are 109s in British hands. A few more than what Barbi says.

No.1426 (Enemy Aircraft) Flight

DG200 - Messerschmitt Bf109E-3 - W.Nr.4101 - "Black 12" of I./JG51

NN644 - Messerschmitt Bf109F-4 - W.Nr.7232 - "White 11" of IV./JG26

RN228 - Messerschmitt Bf109G-2/trop - W.Nr.10639 - "Black 6" of III./JG7

VX101 - Messerschmitt Bf109G-6/trop - W.Nr.unknown - unknown unit


(RAE) Royal Aircraft Establishment 1939-45

AE479 - Messerschmitt Bf109E-3 - W.Nr.1304 - "White 1" of JG76

TP814 - Messerschmitt Bf109G-6/U2 - W.Nr.412951 - "White 16" of I./JG301

ES906 - Messerschmitt Bf109F-2 - W.Nr.12764 - ? of 2./JG26


Air Fighting Development Unit (AFDU) & Associated Units

VD358 - Messerschmitt Bf109G-14/U4 - W.Nr.413598 - unknown unit


RAF Middle East

HK849 - Messerschmitt Bf109F-? - W.Nr.unknown - unknown unit or code


The 109 was a failure during Bob being unable to protect the LW's bombers adaquately. Over the Reich, it was again a failure, unable to stop the USAAF's 8th AF bombers. The Fw190 doing a better job of it.


One has to land and take off. The 109 could be 'tricky' when landing.


quote: "During the war the Spitfire`s fuel capacity was increased by about 50%, but range actually descreased slightly.

The 109s fuel capacity remained the same, yet range increased by about 50%."

Proof required.

[Kurfürst]

Milo, how many of those captured a/c you listed was airworthy and flight tested, or performed on tactical trials ?

"The 109 was a failure during Bob being unable to protect the LW's bombers adaquately."

By that criteria, all WW2 fighters were failures unless deployed in overwhelming numbers. By that criteria, the Spit and Hurri were failues as well as they could never stop any German bombing raid reaching their targets. Besides the 109s task was to shoot down enemy fighters. It did that very well, far more British fighers being lost to 109s, than vica versa. Some RAF (Hurri) squadrons fled outright when they spot the 109s. Perhaps they had different experience with the 109s in combat. But comparing the role in an escort fighter, I think we should ask those 55 thousend RAF bomber crews what they think of the Spitfires escort fighter capabilities.. why could they operate only during the night for 6 years. I think it all started at Wilhelmshaven, when the 109s were there, but the Spits - nowhere.


"Over the Reich, it was again a failure, unable to stop the USAAF's 8th AF bombers. The Fw190 doing a better job of it. "

Hmm, AFAIK, the FW 190 didn`t stop the USAAF heavies either, for reasons far beyond the tech aspects of the plane. Appearantly the FW 190 was more suited in the bomber destroyer role than fighting off the escorts, the latter was the task of Bf 109s which were seen as superior fighters in that enviroment; the 190s required their protective screen to operate effectively. Luckily for the LW, these two could supplement each other very well.


"One has to land and take off. The 109 could be 'tricky' when landing. "

Every aircraft is tricky on landing. It required more careful attention on landing, yes. No plane is 100% perfect, yet the 109 was operated successfully with even minimal ground service from the frozen airstrips of Norway and Russia to the hot deserts of Africa. On the other hand it was more forgiving in the air than any other fighter, could be quickly and easily serviced, and required only a small runway for takeoff and landing, shorter than the Spitfire or the FW 190, even according to the British.


"During the war the Spitfire`s fuel capacity was increased by about 50%, but range actually descreased slightly.

The 109s fuel capacity remained the same, yet range increased by about 50%."

Proof required.


Hmm, the Spitfire Istarted with a 85 gallon main tank, the XIV ended the war with 120 gallon main tank. The range of the Spit I was something like 480 miles, the range of the XIV was 460 miles.

The 109E, F, G and K all had 400 liter internal tankage. The Emil had 665km (413miles) max range, the 109F had 835km even with a high speed cruise, (520miles), the 109G had 1160km (725miles) on an economic cruise.

All ranges referring to internal tanks only.

So I was wrong because the 109 actually increased it`s range via perfecting the aerodynamics and powerplant by 75%, not by 50%. Most of this difference roots in that the Spit didn`t get an airframe facelift from time to time.

[MiloMorai]

Ah Barbi, the LW was forced to withdraw from BOB due to the Spitfires and Hurricanes. And, not all Spitfire and Hurricane squadrons where in the south during BoB. That means, it only took a portion of the available Spitfires and Hurricanes to have the LW retreat.

The RAF and USAAF did not withdraw from its bombing of the Third Reich. In fact, the LW was a dismal failure in stopping the bombing because of the Allied escort.

Do I need to remind you of Goerings words when he asked why he needed fighters to shot down Allied bombers when he had Flak doing a better job of it.

Flak shot down more British bombers than LW fighters. Now, should we ask those poor LW bomber crews where the 109 escorts were, once they flew past London. You are crasping at straws Barbi.

All those 109s listed flew.

The 109 was 'trickier' than other a/c when landing, especially when the wheels touched the ground due to the toe-in.

A couple of lines of text is not proof for the range for the 109.

from Spitfire: The History

Spit I - 575 mi(925km) on 85 gal. > 6.8 mi/gal
Spit XIV - 850 mi.(1368km) on 109.5 gal. > 7.7 mi/gal

[Kurfürst]

Milo, your interpretation of the air combat during the BoB is highly interesting. To my knownladge, England was bombed until May 1941, when the LW`s bombers transferred to the east. Until then, they couldn`t stop any single LW raid, they couldn`t stop the LW from sinking 250 ships with 10 000 men onboard at Dunkirk, they couldn`t protect the convoys on the channel, they couldn`t protect their airfields in southern england, and finally, they couldn`t protect london and other major industrial cities, and finally, Spits and Hurris could only show up an inferior combat records against enemy fighters, the last reserves of pilots were being thrown into battle with only a few hours in fighters.. therefore I cannot see how your version matches the reality.


You can point to the performance and tactical trials done with those 109, which you claimed were flown, tested etc..
I suppose you won`t be able to.

The ranges I posted are from the respective Handbuchs, GLA datasheets for the 109E, F, and G. They are from primary sources and could be checked if neccesary. Disprove them with documents if you can.

An 1945 British type data sheet clearly states the MkXIV`s range being the following :

460 miles w. 112 gallons (internal)
610 miles w. 142 gallons
680 miles w. 157 gallons
850 miles w. 202 gallons (int+90 gallon tank)
1130 miles w. 282 gallons

Appearantly the fuel economy of late Spitfires were such, that they required TWICE the fuel to get the SAME range as 109s.

The Mk XVI is given with 434 miles range w. 85 gallons. The AFDU stated that despite the fuel increase, and shorter endurance, the greater cruise speed of the XIV makes the range similiar to the Mk IX/XVI.

Now obviously it`s typo in the Spitfire book, and someone mixed up the table while copying it, or it`s just you who are telling funny stories, giving range with droptank and claiming it`s for the internal tank only.

[Meyer]

Originally posted by MiloMorai
But he is not being specific on which model of the Spit and 109. It is the whole family.

Being the best at the FC is only one aspect. The combat and the influence in combat was also considered. This puts the F6F ahead of the F4U.

"..... also takes into account their combat success rate and influence on the conduct and outcome of various operations."

So if "also takes into account their combat success rate and influence on the conduct and outcome of various operations"... How it can be that the Bf109 is not in that list????
But the Tempest and George are in??

That's even more ridiculous.

[MiloMorai]

Originally posted by Kurfürst
Milo, your interpretation of the air combat during the BoB is highly interesting. To my knownladge, England was bombed until May 1941, when the LW`s bombers transferred to the east. Until then, they couldn`t stop any single LW raid, they couldn`t stop the LW from sinking 250 ships with 10 000 men onboard at Dunkirk, they couldn`t protect the convoys on the channel, they couldn`t protect their airfields in southern england, and finally, they couldn`t protect london and other major industrial cities, and finally, Spits and Hurris could only show up an inferior combat records against enemy fighters, the last reserves of pilots were being thrown into battle with only a few hours in fighters.. therefore I cannot see how your version matches the reality.

BoB ended when the Spitfires and Hurricanes forced the LW to fly at night using terror bombing. Now if it makes you any happier to think BoB end in 1941, so be it.

Yet, the LW could not stop 300,000 from escaping from Dunkque. Yet, in the MTO, the RAF forced Rommel to go on 'short rations' because his supply convoys could not reach NA in sufficient numbers. Then there is Malta which both the LW and RA failed to subdue.  

You can point to the performance and tactical trials done with those 109, which you claimed were flown, tested etc..
I suppose you won`t be able to.

Look at the units they were assigned to. Says much. Can you produce every Spitfire, P-47, P-51 trial that the Germans performed.

The ranges I posted are from the respective Handbuchs, GLA datasheets for the 109E, F, and G. They are from primary sources and could be checked if neccesary. Disprove them with documents if you can.

Post them.

Spit later.

[Angus]

Well, the LW won the BoB didn't they?
The RAF had mounting losses until November, when the LW turned to night ops so they might also find some RAF night fighters to shoot. In the winter it's so dark anyway.
There was never any terrorbombing of British cities, the LW bombing accuracy was quite advanced.
All British defence was quite futile, no wonder they lost the war.
No wonder anyway, since they always overclaimed, so there was no sense of reality in their high command.
Dunkirk? Come on, it's much better to have the enemy feeding 300.000 soldiers, since they are and were useless anyway.
N.Africa? Were there even any Brits there?
Malta? Are you mixing that one up with Crete?
Spitfires with range? Laughable. They could never cross the channel anyway. Not that it mattered.

Oooops. Think I ate an Izzy pill  

[MiloMorai]

LOL Angus.


endurance

Spitfire I
 
@ 14000', most economical > 3.4 hr
@ 18,500' cruising weak > 1.88 hr
@ 14,500', cruising rich > 1.25 hr
@ 12,000', climbing > 1.05 hr
@ 17,000', all-out level > 0.96 hr


Me109E
 
@ SL, max economy > 2.20 hr
@ SL, max continuous > 1.05 hr

@ 9842', max economy > 1.00 hr
@ 9842', max continuous > 2.05 hr

@ 16404', max economy > 1.50 hr
@ 16404', max continuous > 0.55 hr

@ 19865', max economy > 1.40 hr
@ 19865', max continuous > 1.10 hr

[MiloMorai]

quote: "I think it all started at Wilhelmshaven, when the 109s were there, but the Spits - nowhere."

Where were the 109s to escort the LW bombers that tried to bomb England and Scotland in 1940?

"Thur. August 15th

From Norway, 63 He 111's and 21 Bf 110's of Luftflotte V tried to attack airfields in the north of England. Intercepted by 72, 14, 65, 79 and 607 sqns, 8 He 111's and 7 Bf 110's were downed. No airfields were hit. A second raid of 50 Ju 88's without fighter escort was met by 616 sqn and a flight of 73 sqn and six bombers were destroyed.

Luftflotte V never attacked in daylight again."

[Naudet]

Brown's order of rank of the finest fighters in WW2, judged by objective performance and handling criteria, runs as follows:
1. Spitfire XIV
2. Fw 190D-9

Tony, if i remember right, Brown couldnt get a clear winner between the Spit and the FW190, because one turns better but the other rolls much better.
So he rated them both equal, even though it was necessary for him to put back national pride.
Duels in the Sky is really a good source for fighter vs. fighter comparisons.

[Angus]

From Izzy I presume:
"quote: "I think it all started at Wilhelmshaven, when the 109s were there, but the Spits - nowhere." "

Well, the round trip from east Anglia to Wilhelmshafen is roughly 800 miles by going straight. It is roughly the same distance as from Jutland to the east coast of Britain.
(Sailed that once, 22 hours at sea doing 15 kts +)
Of course there was no way a Spitfire without drop tanks could cross that. This is actually the same distance as from Kristianssand to Aberdeen, Esbjerg to Newcastle etc.
For a 109 the distance from their nearest base to Wilhelmshafen would possibly be about 20 miles maybe?
On those other routes mentioned, 109's didn't cross either, either without or with drop tanks.
Now, the Spitfires were easily over Belgium, which gives you a round trip of 400-500 miles which I would think is pretty authentic, but also definately the Spitfire's utter range.

The 109 going from fields in N-France should then with the same range have been roaming over N-Wales, Sheffield, Leeds, Manchester etc., without  drop tanks of course.
I have no reports of that, however I am all ears
After all, the Germans bombed Coventry at night, which is a shorter trip. Why didn't they do it in daylight with 109 escort?
From the Barbi-rangetable that would have easily within the 109's range.

Have some more cookies coming. Good to have them with the pills

[Crumpp]

Appearantly the FW 190 was more suited in the bomber destroyer role than fighting off the escorts,

True BUT only for the Rustsatz 7 and Rustsatz 8 Sturmjager.   The FW-190A was an air superiority fighter by design.

Hmm, AFAIK, the FW 190 didn't stop the USAAF heavies either,

As a matter of fact they did, Izzy.  ONCE they turned back an entire USAAF bombing raid.  

Shortly after the Schweinfurt Raid they brought the USAAF unescorted bombing daylight campaign to a halt until an escort fighter with sufficient range could be brought into service.

The reprieve did not last long and the Luftwaffe failed to take advantage of it.

the 190s required their protective screen to operate effectively.

Is a tactical decision and not a performance necessity.


Crumpp

[Angus]

A "light" 190 was from the start more dreaded by the allied pilots than the 109.
A heavier 190 was a superior bomber destroyer to the 109.

I have not seen the "turning back" of an entire bomber raid by 190's on print yet, but it coming from Crumpp should be pretty authentic. I am all ears here, whee, when, how much etc????????

I do have somewhere in my books some numbers of the USAAF having called off raids due to griveous losses, I think Schweinefurt. 17%?
The RAF was sticking to  5% as being the top number acceptable for sustained losses, they also crossed that at times, at night!

Then this:
"the 190s required their protective screen to operate effectively"

Ballocks. The 190 was more flexible to roles than the 109. Better interceptor, better attacker and definately equal in the role of air superiority.

[Crumpp]

I have not seen the "turning back" of an entire bomber raid by 190's on print yet, but it coming from Crumpp should be pretty authentic. I am all ears here, whee, when, how much etc????????

It was very early in the 8th AF time in Europe.

On 8 March 1943 the 8th AF split it's small Force.  54 B17's were sent to Rennes in Brittany while 16 B-24's targeted the Rouen railroad yards.  The B24's were escorted by 16 RAF Spitfire Squadrons and supported by a sweep by 4th Fighter Group Spitfires.  Jafu 3 and Jafu 2 were able to coordinate their efforts and get the Stabsschwarm JG26, II/JG26, 12/JG2,and part of I/JG27 into position for a perfect attack.  The FW-190's came in "Schnauze auf Schnauze".  The lead bomber fell completely apart and the No. 2 burst into flames.  The bomber formation fell apart and proceded to dump thier bombs all over the French countryside.  2 more B24's crashlanded in England after damage.  In the subsequent fights with the escorting Spitfires the FW-190's claimed 2 Spitfires for no losses.  Priller and Glunz claimed the Spitfires.  12/JG2 (Me-109) lost two aircraft and 3/JG27 (Me-109) lost one pilot and aircraft.  This proved to be the only time the USAAF bombers ever turned back before reaching their target.

It was not a large raid but it did have a fomidable escort.

I do have somewhere in my books some numbers of the USAAF having called off raids due to griveous losses, I think Schweinefurt. 17%?

On 14 Oct 1943 the 8th AF officially suspended the unescorted deep penetration daylight bombing campaign until a fighter capable of escorting the bombers was developed.

Crumpp