Something I recently read about Bf-109E series

[R4M]

P.S. 109s had rudder trim since the late G6 variant. AH's G6 and G10 still would have rudder trim

   

[gripen]

Niklas,
There were a lot of cases where the 109E actually out turned the Spit. But as you probably know, the reason for this was not ability of the plane but the skill of the pilot. All this is explained very well on the British test reports.

R4M,
There was no rudder trim on the Bf 109G or K, what you see in the rudder is a balancing tab.

gripen

[ 11-13-2001: Message edited by: gripen ]

[Seeker]

<tips hat to Ram>  

[Wilbus]

Ok, here we go, these numbers are taken from teh RAF reports during the war, the tests were made with a 109 E in 1940. The info is from the Bf109 Manual (and in that has been added the RAF reports).

Average Side way force a pilot can apply to the stick.
 
Me109 E: 40lbs           Spit Mk1: 60lbs

Time to 45 degree bank when applied in 400Mph.

Me109 E: 4 Seconds       Spit Mk1: 4 Seconds

Turns at minimum radius without height loss.
Tests were made at full throttle at 12,000 feet.

Minimum radius of turn without loss of hight,  feet.

Me 109 E: 885            Spit Mk1: 696

Coresponding time to turn through 360 degrees, seconds.

Me109 E: 25 Seconds      Spit Mk1: 19 Seconds

Indicated Airspeed.

Me109 E: 129Mph          Spit Mk1: 133Mph

G threwout the turn.

Me 109 E: 2.10           Spit Mk1: 2.65

Angle of Bank.

Me 109 E: 62 degrees     Spit Mk1: 68 degrees

Spit 1 turned better.

Of course, since LW have better pilots and better tactics we'll win anyway  

[Angus]

IMHO, the pilots opinions sum this um more or less.
Gunther Rall: You would have to avoid turnfights with the Spitfires, the 109 was not so good with turning, and from stalling the plane would snap, which the Spitfire would not.
Generally, the Spit was definately a better turner, this was the opinion of the majority of both airforces, and tactics on both sides would take this into account. Germans would go for the bounce and maneuver more on the vertical, while Spitfires, especially variants with less max speed would try to lure the opponent into a turnfight.
The desert variant of the Spitfire 5, the one with the Vokes tropical filter suffered especially from lack of speed, and  continuously had to use their superior turning ability to get away or into position. One British squadron leader experimented with stacking of the squadron to get past this problem, he would stack the sections vertically and wait for the Germans to bounce the lower  ones. The spitfires would use their superior turning ability to get away, while the higher ones would intercept. This tactic proved quite successful.

[Buzzbait]

S!

Len Deighton`s book as a source....

Please excuse me, I`ve got to change my pants since I p*issed myself laughing...

It is FULL of inaccuracies.

[Angus]

Buzz.
True, I saw some already, and that turning circle thing left me gaping for a while.
The big test report also left me surprized, always heard that the 109 was a brute when it stalled. However, under the frantic stress of combat situation, the pilots were usually pulling G's, and far from flying smootly into slow stall turns, so right THERE the Spitfire would have been the winner.
BTW, which of the 109 series did have slots?

[gripen]

All major production models had slots and the 109 really had good stalling characters (if slots were well adjusted); it could be flown at full throttle in 60deg angle at 130-140km/h.

gripen

[ 11-14-2001: Message edited by: gripen ]

[GRUNHERZ]

109s had good low speed characteristics. Even some allied pilots said it was a remarkably balanced and good hanling plane except at very high speeds. As for outurning spitfires, I bet this is possible if the 109 driver knows his plane better than the spit driver. I know in AH i can outurn some spit9s and spit5s in my Bf109G6.

[-ammo-]

Alot of guys refer to "out turning". Out Manuevering would more likely be a better term. Also, Different AC had different Instant turn parameters. A zeke at 400 IAS doesnt turn well at all, and its alerons are stiff as a pine board. While its turn radius is tighter than most under 250 IAS. The Pony is not known as a great turner, however its instant turn is awesome at 275 IAS, same for the P-47 only more like 325 IAS. It depends on the circumstances, how well the pilot knows knew his AC, and skill of the pilots.

[Buzzbait]

S!

Both the Spit I and 109E4 rolled poorly because they had fabric ailerons.

As far as these anecdotes offered about 109`s outturning Spitfires...

Any plane with some alt can outturn another aircraft with poor `e`.  If the German Ace was able to outturn Spits it was because they positioned themselves, not because their aircraft had better horizontal maneuverability.

[HoHun]

Hi Buzzbait,

>If the German Ace was able to outturn Spits it was because they positioned themselves, not because their aircraft had better horizontal maneuverability.

Leykauf's account describes quite precisely how he set up the Me 109 for a sustained horizontal turn.

There should be no doubt that the method he suggested would yield the best turn performance possible with the Messerschmitt, as the slats increased the maximum lift coefficient significantly.

Your suggestion could be correct for Galland's report, but not for Leykauf's.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

[HoHun]

Hi Niklas,

>Note also the aircraft model (FU6 > wing gondolas)

Actually, the Me 109F-6/U was a unique modification of the Me 109F-6.

The latter differed from the Me 109F-4 by having two 7.92 mm machine guns in the wings outside of the propeller arc. Galland's F-6 was modified to carry two 20 mm MG FF in this location.

(The gondola weapons were MG151/20, but Galland's combat report mentions the MG FF and its ammunition several times.)

The F-6/U is documented in various photographs, as is Galland's F-2/U, which was the first Me 109 with MG131 cowl guns.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

[gripen]

HoHun,
Well, as mentioned before the RAE measured the flight envelope for both planes (Spit and 109) and it can be seen from the envelopes that the Spitfire I can sustain more Gs at any given speed than the Bf 109E (with or without slots). And slots helped just at slow speeds, basicly slots extended envelope at slower speed range and removed violent tip stall.

gripen

[HoHun]

Hi Gripen,

>Well, as mentioned before the RAE measured the flight envelope for both planes (Spit and 109) and it can be seen from the envelopes that the Spitfire I can sustain more Gs at any given speed than the Bf 109E (with or without slots).

The "Investigation of Turning Circles" also came to the following conclusion:

"The Messerschmitt appears to be only slightly faster than the Hurricane; in fact, the Hurricane was not apparently flying at full throttle."

If this is taken as an indication that the Me 109's engine didn't develop power, sustained turning would have been affected as well.

>And slots helped just at slow speeds, basicly slots extended envelope at slower speed range and removed violent tip stall.

Generally, propeller aircraft turn best when they're flying right at the stall. Slats that help at slow speeds and extend the envelope there will improve turn rate.

The point is: Leykauf's description is precise enough to show he's talking about sustained turns, not about turns with an energy advantage, as Buzzbait suggested.

One reason for Leykauf's experience could be that his fights and the RAE test took place been at different altitudes. Since sustained turn rate is a function of power, the Me 109E's good altitude performance - which is mentioned by the RAE report as well - could have given it a turn rate advantage up high.

The RAE tests were performed around 5000 ft, not the place I'd expect an experienced Luftwaffe pilot to to start turning with a Spitfire while he's flying over British soil :-)

Fuel load has a serious impact on turn rate as well, and a typical Battle of Britain situation would have involved Me 109s with half-empty tanks fighting against Spitfires that had just climbed up to their altitude after starting with tanks topped up.

In short, there are many reasons why apparently contradicting accounts and reports could be all true, and one shouldn't dismiss any of them prematurely :-)

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)