Author Topic: 109F vrs the spit9  (Read 5139 times)

Offline GScholz

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8910
109F vrs the spit9
« Reply #105 on: August 29, 2003, 12:19:20 AM »
Spit I was cleaner than the rather angular looking 109E. Spit was faster and turned better. 109E climbed and accelerated better and flew higher.
"With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censored, the first thought forbidden, the first freedom denied, chains us all irrevocably."

Offline hazed-

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2467
      • http://combatarena.users.btopenworld.com
109F vrs the spit9
« Reply #106 on: August 29, 2003, 04:59:23 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by Batz
Go back agw and whine about their 190a4.

The spit isnt limited to just 5 min. Its 5 min then 10 cool down then 5 min again forever. The 109 is 10 on 10 off forever. So what fidelity are you talking about?

The ah spit nine boost at 100% throttle is 15, 18 with wep.

You can ride at 15 all day long.

So who cares if its just the 109 your complaining about.


thats actually wrong. We did tests:

109's 10 minutes wep 10 minutes cooling
190's 10 minutes wep 20 minutes cooling
P51's 5 minutes wep 10 minutes cooling
P47's 5 minutes wep 10 minutes cooling
SPIT's 5 minutes wep 15 minutes cooling

we did others but the subject was dropped.but this was the result (confirmed by a few people too)
« Last Edit: August 29, 2003, 05:12:39 AM by hazed- »

Offline niklas

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 418
109F vrs the spit9
« Reply #107 on: August 29, 2003, 07:00:23 AM »
Angus, first you´re wrong about the Emils power setting. In flight there were only 1.3ata available, and this were only 1000PS.

Your power setting 1030hp @6.25lb is for the Merlin II and 87 octan. As far as i know the Merlin III, fitted to the Spitfire I+II, did have slightly more power with same boost. But ok, let´s use 1030HP or ~1050PS

I think it´s better to compare the standard Spitfire I from ´40. IN the MKII test there is the "Rotol Spitfire I, N.3171". The header of the test indicates that those machines were prepared to war condition, though they don´t mention weapons.
Topspeed 290mph near ground,  346mph at 19k.

Your data about the 109E is based on this very special machine that seems to be responsible for all these handling trials, because the flight tests show also french data. It should be noted that this machine saw service, was extensivly flown by the French after it was captured, was then transfered to england where it was further flown.
The french got significantly better results with the machine, the english trials clearly show a lack of maintance.
In the french tests where this 109E was still in better shape, it reached 354mph at 15k.
There exist a document from russia showing the performance of a 109E3 from an english test. This captured machine performed in england like this:
295mph at ground, 348mph at 14.5k

So even a captured 109E (which was definitly not an aerodynamic wonder) could beat with slighly less power in an english test the SpitI/II, if you compare equal alitutes and consider overall condition. Tests comparing own new fighter to captured machines are always not 100% representative btw.

With +9lb or even +12lb, the spit probably was slightly faster, but this would mean also with a huge power advantage.

According to the british tests the 109E reached minimum 2700ft/min the first 10000ft, this is 3.7minutes. They measured 8minutes up to 19700feet, but most important is this sentence from the test report:
"Owing to cooling difficulties the radiators were open up to 13000 feet and  then gradually closed up to 26000feet. This may account for the discrepancy between the measured times to height and those published in germany"
In the Tsagi charts the 109E exceeds 3000ft/min up to 13k, thus you can expect ~5 minutes up to 15k.

And now, just to bring in some german data too: The climb times from a 109E manual are:
3000m/10k 3,0 minutes
6000m/20k 6,3 minutes

Unfortunatly no german data about SpitI/II is available to me, it would have been highly interesting to see how caputres english machines performed in german tests!

niklas

Offline Angus

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 10057
109F vrs the spit9
« Reply #108 on: August 29, 2003, 07:52:37 AM »
I'll get on to the maths. Thanks for the Data.
I know that Gen. Rall flew captured allied aircraft. Maybe that would be a source to check out. Does anyone have his book?
It was very interesting to carry out the flight trials at Rechlin with the Spitfire and the Hurricane. Both types are very simple to fly compared to our aircraft, and childishly easy to take-off and land. (Werner Mölders)

Offline mw

  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 160
109F vrs the spit9
« Reply #109 on: August 29, 2003, 09:24:10 AM »
Angus, maybe you should start a Spit I/109E  thread ;)  

Top speeds of Spit I: 354 mph @ 18,900' +6.25 lbs/sq.in.,  Spit II: 354 mph @ 17,550 +9 lbs./sq.in.  Both equipped with bullet-proof windscreens.  There are many data points from numerous aircraft showing top speed in the mid 360s but these are generally without the bullet-proof windscreen.  Top speed at full throttle height would only increase a couple mph using +12 boost.  However "It will be noted from the Service reports that an approximate increase in speed, due to the use of emergency 12 lbs. boost, of 28/34 mph is obtained depending on the altitude flown up to 10,000 feet".

Merlin III power rating
1,030 hp., 3,000 rpm, +6.25 lb/sq.in. 16,250'
1,310 hp., 3,000 rpm, +12 lb/sq.in. 9,000'
« Last Edit: August 29, 2003, 09:36:42 AM by mw »

Offline Angus

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 10057
109F vrs the spit9
« Reply #110 on: August 30, 2003, 01:35:33 PM »
Well, to honour the topic of this thread, let's also compare the 109F and the Spit IX. Spit I and 109E4 are just so temptingly close in power and weight, and also, I need more data. The Spit XIV and the 109K (or G-10) for that sake are also an interesting couple for comparison.
I will be trying to put some data into Excel calculating some figures into Newtons at the same timepoint, - i.e. climb and weight in the same time calculated into energy. Will be quite interesting to study, but I sorely need more data on various models of the 109.
BTW, one thing for the merits of an elliptical wing is its ability to hold on to the lift in bankings, or so I understand. (That I have from an aerobatics textbook). This seems to go hand in hand with tales of the Spit IX using corcscrew-stall-speed climb to outclimb 109G's. The most memorable account of this I have read was probably our Spit IX, the second stage turbo engaging at some 19K. Would be nice to have some data on this, and even test it out in the TA.
It was very interesting to carry out the flight trials at Rechlin with the Spitfire and the Hurricane. Both types are very simple to fly compared to our aircraft, and childishly easy to take-off and land. (Werner Mölders)

Offline VO101_Isegrim

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 577
109F vrs the spit9
« Reply #111 on: August 30, 2003, 02:10:46 PM »
I have data for 109K and Spit XIV:

TO Weights,

109K: 3362 kg
Mk.XIV : 3859 kg

Wing area:

109K: 16.05 sq. meter
MkXIV. about 240 sq.ft. ??

Unrammed Powers at SL:

109K: 2000 PS
Mk. XIV: ~ 1940 BHP

SL speeds:

109K: 607 kph
Mk. XIV: 578 kph

Sustained Climb:

109K : 24.5 m/sec
Mk.XIV: 23.9 m/sec

That`s for SL... Altitude comparisions are harder to do, because the airspeed make the powers vary greatly... in addition, there`s an unknown propellor effiency, which again varies with speed and altitude (and weather effects...), and also has an effect on how much power is actually avaiable. Similiarly, engine, oil and coolant radiators also add some exhaust thrust....

It`s a very complicated matter, with too many important factors unknown I am afraid.

Offline MANDOBLE

  • Parolee
  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1849
      • http://www.terra.es/personal2/matias.s
109F vrs the spit9
« Reply #112 on: September 01, 2003, 07:33:38 PM »
For comparisons between Spits and any present 109s, take in consideration the listed "AH Normal Loaded Weight":

SpitXIV: 8475 lbs.
SpitIX: 7400 lbs.
Seafire IIC: 6900 lbs.
SpitV: 6622 lbs.
Spitfire IA: 6317 lbs.

109G10: 7400 lbs.
109G6: 6940 lbs.
109G2: 6834 lbs.
109F4: 6393 lbs.
109E4: 5875 lbs.

Can u match these weights with the corresponding engine powers?

Offline Angus

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 10057
109F vrs the spit9
« Reply #113 on: September 01, 2003, 09:13:01 PM »
Do you also have the Engine powers for AH?
Anyway, I´ll calculate from those and others into torque and KW's (just for fun) in the climbing sector as soon as I get my spreadsheet (yes, my excel is not "behaving" ok), or any spreadsheed program working.
It was very interesting to carry out the flight trials at Rechlin with the Spitfire and the Hurricane. Both types are very simple to fly compared to our aircraft, and childishly easy to take-off and land. (Werner Mölders)

Offline joeblogs

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 649
Some unofficial dates
« Reply #114 on: September 04, 2003, 07:12:21 PM »
The following is based on my reading of Green's book on the German Airforce and Price's book on the Spitfire:

BF109f production began in the fall of 1940 and two frontline units (geshwader) in France were outfitted by Spring 1941. By summer more than half of front line strength was standardized on the F, which was subsequently reduced by deliveries of the FW190A.

The Spit IX began production in the spring of the following year and the first wings were outfitted with the plane in the summer and fall.

In other words, when we compare the Bf109f and the Spit IX, we are comparing two planes introduced about 18 months apart, roughly 20 percent of the length of the entire war in Europe.  The Bf109f had long been removed from production when the Spit IX was being produced in significant numbers.

-Blogs



Quote
Originally posted by Flyboy
is it me or the spit9 is superior to the 109f in all aspects?

im pretty sure the spit will out turn the 109 even when it uses flaps (1 or 2 notches)

did someone performed tests with those 2 planes?

Offline Angus

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 10057
109F vrs the spit9
« Reply #115 on: September 05, 2003, 06:31:47 AM »
18 months? Not quite.
If you take aim of squadron strength operations in a combat theater, the 109F4 has its debut in June 1941 (earlier variants being distributed to squadrons in march?) while Spitfire IX debuted in July 1942. So 13-16 months it would seem.
the 109G2 also entered in July 1942, so the natural opponents would be Spit IX vs 109G2/F4 for almost a year!
It was very interesting to carry out the flight trials at Rechlin with the Spitfire and the Hurricane. Both types are very simple to fly compared to our aircraft, and childishly easy to take-off and land. (Werner Mölders)

Offline joeblogs

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 649
details
« Reply #116 on: September 05, 2003, 12:59:38 PM »
Green says two units in northern france in April 1941.  You are right those are probably not the F4, but an earlier variant. I compare that to Price indicating Spit IXs in 3 units the following summer.

In any case 13-16 months is a lot of time in a war where the equipmant advances as rapidly as it did in WWII.

-Blogs

Quote
Originally posted by Angus
18 months? Not quite.
If you take aim of squadron strength operations in a combat theater, the 109F4 has its debut in June 1941 (earlier variants being distributed to squadrons in march?) while Spitfire IX debuted in July 1942. So 13-16 months it would seem.
the 109G2 also entered in July 1942, so the natural opponents would be Spit IX vs 109G2/F4 for almost a year!

Offline VO101_Isegrim

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 577
109F vrs the spit9
« Reply #117 on: September 05, 2003, 01:01:38 PM »
True, but it should be noted that the first F-1s and F-2s appeared in October 1940 with Moelders units (theres exact reference in Prien/Rodeike 109F/G/K ), for combat testing and then for forntline use. Initial accidents grounded them from end of 1940 until February 1941 though, the MkV appeared first in March 1941, then the F-4 in June 1941. I have the exact number of F-4 by early 1942 somewhere, it is in the order of several hundreds. In fact, the most produced 109F was the F-4, very few F-1s and F-3s, and about 2/3 as many F-2s were produced.

The Spit IX F appeared in June (July?) 1942, but it was only available in small numbers initially, and as usual RAF switch to new fighter type was rather slow. Personally, I doubt that the MkIX replaced the MkVs in service as the most numerous type until early/mid 1943, considering that there were 9 times as many MkVs buildt in that time than Mk IXs.. I saw referces to first line use of MkV even as late as end of 1943 (with some Canuck squad, though) !

Offline Angus

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 10057
109F vrs the spit9
« Reply #118 on: September 05, 2003, 03:30:09 PM »
Fits pretty well. However the 109G-6 appeared almost a year after the Spit IX, so Spit IX would meet 109F and G2 primarily in those 12 months as opponents of the MEsserchmitt breed.
The Total foes, quite on par in time, were of course the Spit V and the 109F, the 109 Holding the edge with but a few exceptions of Clipped and boosted Spit V's.
Isegrim: do you have some time to alt data on various 109's? I've been calculating the lifting force of the Spits and it would be nice to have some 109's to compare with. Anyway, brief results are that a Spit will carry roughly the same N pro sec pro Hp, which is a bit in contrast to what Niklas claims. And that even on the same octane fuel!
So, 109F-4  weight and time to alt????? Plz???? Anyone?????
It was very interesting to carry out the flight trials at Rechlin with the Spitfire and the Hurricane. Both types are very simple to fly compared to our aircraft, and childishly easy to take-off and land. (Werner Mölders)

Offline MiloMorai

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6864
109F vrs the spit9
« Reply #119 on: September 05, 2003, 08:31:44 PM »
You have to watch Issy's math and his selective statements. Likes to mix and match to show German is uber. He is the ultimate "German is uber, all else is crap" 'freak'.