Spit vs. Messer : Design vs. Design

[straffo]

Originally posted by Angus
Anyway, Straffo, TY in advance if you can dig up something.
Also, if you need some info, I may be able to help. Just post

Dived into my books and I've not really good data ... some good stories but no data

[Swoop]

Originally posted by Kurfürst
The Spitfire was probalby a not easy plane to master with so sensitive elevators for an ill trained rookie.

The Spitfire was reknowned for being an easy plane to fly.  Just not so easy to land due to the narrow landing gear arrangement.


Now what exactly are you basing your conclusion that the Spitfire was difficult to master on?  And where does it say the Spitfire had overly sensitive controls?

[Angus]

Well, Izzy, what I know is that his opinion on the 109G is that it was overloaded. His own words, the same about the late model landing characteristics.
(I've been lucky enough to hear that from him)

Anyway, of the mistaken identity......

Grislawsky reported Spitfires shortly thereafter (Wild turnfightings),  and so did Barkhorn.


I guess they were all wrong, huh?

[Angus]

Oh and Scholzie, don't forget the later part of your clip
"Quickly I get on the british aircraft's tail and open fire. This is definately no Englishman flying there "

[Kurfürst]

Snoop, I read that from basically everywhere.. experience of pilots, NACA reports, the Spitfire manual, british trials papers dealing with the problem the aircraft tightening up it`s turns and doing dynamic stalls.. worser, another paper deals with loosing wings in pullups in dives - with so light elevator, it was easy to put the a/c under too much stress. You can read these yourself. basically it`s poor control harmony, the elevator being very ligth, the ailrons extremely heavy, it`s hard for the pilot fly neatly in coordinated manouvers. A good pilot will easily do it, a stressfull rookie will pull too much easily and stall out and spin.. The "easyness" to fly refers to that little force was needed on the stick in turns, and that the plane had very fine stall characteristics.


@Angie. They could have faced a small number (150 or so) MkVs in 1943. Hardly something to be worried about in a 109F/G... but a/c identification was very poor at that time - soviets reported He 112 etc., clearly mis-identified 109s or italian planes..
As for the easyness to land, all subsequent 109s were more and more easy to land. More weigth, larger tires, longer tailwheels etc. Tobak writes, that he was told after his re-train on the 109E that he will find the Gustav much less 'nervous', due to it`s heavier weight. And BTW, even Rall said elsewhere that after you learned how to t-o/land in the 109, you could land with it ANYWHERE. The Spit is different, it`s didn`t like to groundloop so much, but it was very prone to break to propellor and turnover. WRENs had to sit on the tail during taxi to avoid this! And fierce breaking while landing.. not even a remote possibility. That`s also why the 109 required so much shorter run for takeoff and land, apart from better acceleration.

[MiloMorai]

LOL, Barbi making a mountain out of a mole hill. How many broken props Barbi.?

Now why would a Wren, of the RN, be sitting on the tail of a RAF Spitfire?

[Angus]

I belive Rall's fears were based on :
1. Former experience fighting the RAF pilots.
2. Former experience fighting with Spitfires.

Bear in mind that his squadron got mauled so badly in the BoB that it was pulled out of battle after 6 days of fighting.

As for your takeoff run, I have never seen anything indicating that a 109 would go up quicker, - rather the contrary.
I remember seeing figures of 109 takeoff rolls somewhere on my HD, but you may be quicker finding those.
I have some records of Spitfire takeoff rolls as well in my books, will look. But the number 150 yards comes to my head, and that is quite what it looked like when I saw one take off for the first time. Incredibly short takeoff roll.
You mentioned that the 109 would groundloop easier, - true enough, normally KILLING the pilot. (Krupinsky being one of the luckier ones)
Now for the propeller, you're probably right. Normal prop clearance for the Spit was only 6 inches.
But that was also the case with many other WW2 era aircraft.
May be back also with an exciting story......
Untill then, try to backup your takeoff data.....

[Swoop]

Kurfarce,

The anecdotal text "pilots loved the spitfire because it was an easy plane to fly" does not refer to how much force was needed to move the stick, furthermore, many of the negative traits seen in the MkI were solved by the Mk9, let alone the MkXIV.  However, judging by the rest of your posts so far in this thread I see no point in continuing this discussion further.  You're just one of those people who won't ever change his mind about anything, ever.

Snoop

[HoHun]

Hi Kurfürst,

>About 140 Mk.VBs were sent to the USSR in early 1943, participating in the Kuban campaign.

>Their high altitude performance made them particularly suited for the task.

Hm, the Spitfire V could get to high altitudes thanks to its high wingloading, but it was a struggle to get up there due to its single-speed, single-stage supercharger. Are you sure we're not talking about Spitfire IXs that were delivered later?

>Spitfires had a bunch of other problems besides poor performance at low and medium altitudes, and none of that was due to lack of 100 octane avgas.

Hm, I take that means the Spitfire V didn't get 100 octane fuel in Soviet service? Is the acutal octane number or the maximum boost pressure known?

Even the 100 octane, +12 lbs/sqin Spitfire V was markedly inferior to the Fw 190A and the Me 109G performance-wise, and if it was fueled with 87 octane only, I'd imagine it might be limited to something like the 6.25 lbs/sqin boost of the early Merlin III and Merlin XII, with a bad impact on performance.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

[HoHun]

Hi Swoop,

>furthermore, many of the negative traits seen in the MkI were solved by the Mk9, let alone the MkXIV.  

As a Spitfire fan, you should read "Up in Harm's Way" by Mike Crosley, a former WW2 Seafire/Korean War Sea Fury pilot who also became one of the early graduates from the newly-founded Empire Test Pilot School. He goes into the Spitfire series' control characteristics in great depth - and that's the entire series, not just the early marks. I was really amazed at the dangers that lurk just beneath the surface ... but I'm convinced that's the case with many aircraft, even the best of them.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

[Angus]

From HoHun:
"Hm, the Spitfire V could get to high altitudes thanks to its high wingloading, but it was a struggle to get up there due to its single-speed, single-stage supercharger. Are you sure we're not talking about Spitfire IXs that were delivered later? "

Just a minute,,,is this a typo or what? I would thing that a LOW wingloading would be able to send you higher up.
Anyway, the high alt performance of the Spit V, as well as I know, is markedly superior to both the Yak-1 and the LaGG.

Then, regarding the negative traits of the Mk I
It was firstly the roll rate, secondly the carburettor cutout.

Both solved with the Mk V, although some ghosts of those kept haunting later marks.

Then it was the Mk V periodical C of G instability. It entered within the Mk V series and was solved within the Mk V series.

Then lastly, HoHun is right about the Mk IX's. Can't quite remember where I saw it, but quite some Mk IX's were actually delivered to the Soviets.

Then as a sidenote.
The RAF did indeed plan to send fully equipped squadrons to the USSR. My great uncle was assigned to that actually.
The aircraft were sent ahead, but the transport was sunk on the way to Murmansk.
He got rerouted to N-Africa instead.
So, I guess that Rall's thoughts were not at all off. And when you come to think of it, at that time some squadrons of the RAF had 2 years of experience with the LW, roughly equal aircraft performance, while the russians had to promote LaGG's and Yak-1's as well as I-16's against the formidable 109F for instance.
Must have been a tough curve to learn by the Russians, which basically gets proved by the kill rates on the eastern front.
AFAIK, - and indeed I'd like to get a hold on the true numbers, - the LW lost about the same amount of aircraft on the eastern front in 1944, as on the channel front in the last 6 months of 1940.
As big as the air battles were in 1944 in comparison with the BoB, this is quite striking. But then again, look at the LW kill rates on the eastern front. They are simply awesome.

[Kurfürst]

Originally posted by Angus
I belive Rall's fears were based on :
1. Former experience fighting the RAF pilots.
2. Former experience fighting with Spitfires.

Well I did not notice Rall had actually any fear in him, thats what Angus added to the story, which basically was that Rall met a Spitfire, and shot it down. OTOH this is the way 109s mauled Spits before, so the story is fairly typical if that`s what you meant. http://www.luftwaffe.cz/spit.html . Note that Rall is not there, he must have claimed less than 10 Spits during his whole carreer. The man Angie claims the authority on Spitfires was amongst the less experienced 'spit killer', he barely fought against them except a short period early in the war.. 109e vs. Spit I.

Bear in mind that his squadron got mauled so badly in the BoB that it was pulled out of battle after 6 days of fighting.[/B]

Source/Quote/Reference?
8./JG52 was continously in the first line of combat during the whole BoB until it ended, from May 1940 to October 1940, when it was withdrawn - IN OCTOBER, AFTER THE BATTLE ENDED - , re-filled and sent to guard Rumanian oil fields.Another colored-out story from Angie... JG 52 otherwise shoot down over 10 000 aircraft by 1944, likely more than the entire RAF during the whole war.

As for your takeoff run, I have never seen anything indicating that a 109 would go up quicker, - rather the contrary.[/B]

So you have seen nothing. Thats what I though.
Eric Brown is absolutely positve that even the 109G-6 with gunpods, at limited 1,3ata boost (!!!) had "commendably shorter run than the Spitfire IX."
RAE, on 109E : "the run being remarkably short, the intitial rate of climb excellent".
The RAE also concluded the MkIXs take off roll was only comparable to the heavier FW 190. etc.

You mentioned that the 109 would groundloop easier, - true enough, normally KILLING the pilot. (Krupinsky being one of the luckier ones)[/B]

"Normally killing the pilot?" Where, in Angie`s head after 3 beers? Funny you just read a reference to a pilot who was doing 'gipsy-rolls' inside a 109 and apart from some headache he was OK.
Read Spitfires, Thunderbolts and Warm beer to get some idea of the fatality rate when US pilots were trained to fly Spitfires... easy-to-fly-plane, uhum. Not one for starters.

Now for the propeller, you're probably right. Normal prop clearance for the Spit was only 6 inches.
But that was also the case with many other WW2 era aircraft. [/B]

Propellor clearance was minimal on the era`s fighters, that`s true - designers wanted to use as big prop area as possible -, the trouble was with the Spitfire in this regards that it`s tail was too light, and it had a tendency to bury the nose into the ground. It`s a noted, well known fact. Exactly the reason the Russians refused it as a frontline fighter. It could not stand up to rough airfields, and having low operational status because the pilots wreck the propellor and engine constantly is not something to be desired. Soviet fighters, German fighters could. I have seen films of late 109s taking off in way from a field that was outright impossibililty for a Spitfire. Even 190D`s struggled.


@HoHun,

Spits must have received 100 octane fuel in Soviet service, MkVs and later accepted only that. Soviets received fuel it via L-L. As for the HA reference, I think it refers to the IXLFs of the Soviet air defences.

[Angus]

A short answer for you IZZY :
This:
"Well I did not notice Rall had actually any fear in him, thats what Angus added to the story"

I never added anything, you blithering imbecile. Well, if you prefer, put your own translaion to the German word "erschrocken".
"FRIGHTENED, SCARED"

Now then second paragraph.
Rall claimed 3 Spitfires, all Soviet flown.
He clashed with them in the BoB, so he knew their looks and movements.
BTW, just yesterday, you were doubting that he ever met any on the russian front. How is that status today? Are you ready to admit that you were completely wrong in your assumptions?

Then, on to the takeoff runs.
I have  Spitfires go up, - by the dozens actually. You haven't.
I have NOT seen a 109 go up. Just a 108.
I don't think you have either.
Anyway, at leas I HAVE SEEN SOMETHING
Out of the WWII aircraft taking off, the Spitty is about the quickest in the air.
It has generally lower wingloading than the 109, and equal power for the same ingloading, while with lower spanloading, so there is hardly any technical reason for it making a longer takeoff roll.

Then on to bad runways.
All had them, and narrow track aircraft like the Spit and 109 had their problems. I remember Guppy posting some data and pics of dreadful runways used by Spitfires.
I also have some text about runways in the winter rains of Tunisia if you want some. Basically as muddy as they went.
I can also dig up some data of completely overloaded Spit V's jumping of carriers OTW to Malta.....if preferred. Oh, only 150 yards there....

Then on to the Spitfire's light tail.
There were many WW2 fighters hampered by the same thing.
So, ground crew sitting on the tail was not so uncommon.
Nearby where I live, a crewman took off and landed on a tail of a fighter aircraft. It was not a Spitfire.
It also happened to a SQN 111 crewman in N Africa. He got away with a sore heel actually.
FYI, I have a very nice picture of a 109 on the nose (rough braking?), - on a concrete runway!
Landing accident, - maybe the guy thought he was in a Spitty...

[MiloMorai]

Angus for your enjoyment




Lots of heavy bracing to try to see through.

[Guppy35]

Anyone catch the "Spitfire vs Me 109" show on the Military Channel yesterday?

They compared the B of B variants.

Bob Doe, B of B RAF Vet and  Ekkehard Bob LW JG54 B of B vet were the experts who talked about the aircraft.

Ease of flying went to the Spit.  The consensus was it took a veteran pilot to master the 109, but that the Spit was more forgiving to a newbie.

They put both in the cockpits of the other plane.  

Doe remarked on the cramped feeling and the poor visibilty.  He was in Black 6 the 109G2 of the RAF Museum.

Ekkehard Bob was in a Spitfire Vb cockpit .  His comment was on how roomy it was and how wonderful the visibilty was.  He then said he'd really like to fly the airplane.

They then went on to talk about hitting power, which went to the 109 20mms vs the Spit 303's

And the final result was they were both good airplanes and that it would fall to the pilot to make the difference.

An interesting sidebar was the discussion of turning circle.  They believed that with average pilots the Spit would out turn the 109, but that if flown to the limit, the 109 could match the Spit.

Tough to argue with two guys who'd been there, done that

Dan/Slack