Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: 1K3 on November 14, 2004, 11:48:32 PM
-
I know that Bf-110G exceled as a night fighter, but did LW use this plane as a daylight bomber destroyer (shooting down B-27s/24s) throughout the end of the war in the West?
-
I'm not 100% cetain but it's been my impression that the 110 was used as a bomber interceptor up untill probably right around mid '44 or so. The P47's chewed them up pretty good, and when the 51's arrived they couldn't linger outside the range of the escorts anymore... I know some of the 51 aces ran into them... but it's been my impression that when the 51's started showing up in numbers the 110's were regulated more and more to the night squadrons. I'm sure someone around here could give you a more solid answer.
-
Specifically, the Bf110G-2 that we have is a day fighter. It has no radar.
IIRC, the nightfighter Bf110G was the G-4. I'm not certain of that and am at work without my books so I may be wrong. It certainly wasn't the G-2 though.
-
Yes they used them as bomber interceptors
-
I also recall one P-47 pilot describing the Bf110 as "meat on the table."
-
Something I just read, and might add something to this :)
In September 1944, operation Market Garden , the biggest paradrop yet, it was considered a lower risk dropping in daylight than at night.
Reasons:
1. Navigation was easier, hence more successful drop.
2. The German night fighter force was seen as a serious threat.
3. Daylight allowed the allied forces some premature bombing, strafing and hunting as well as protecting the "bus"
Now this was a huge airlift operation, and the airlift "convoys" would have been very vulnerable if intercepted. It sort of tells the tale how the allied air superiority was vastly above the LW in the cases of something quick-happening like this (other example: Normandy)
Might explain why the 110 was more at night ops. It had a chance to survive, since in daylight it was no way to run away from the fast fighters like P51 or a diiiiiiiiving P47.
-
Christopher Shores in "Duel for the Sky", in Chapter Nine "The Daylight Bomber Offensive", states that the 110's could not survive for long in daylight interceptor work in any area where escort fighters were common. (This probably was almost as true for the 410's.) As Allied daylight fighter range extended, the Zerstorers gradually retreated to southern Germany and Austria, and finally vacated the daylight "arena" altogether.
-
In this book about the BoB Im reading, it's described as a 'zerstohrer' (dots on the o) meaning destroyer.
It did very little against fighters (while they thought it would be invincible) and often had to be saves by the Me-109's fighters.
It was mainly used as bomber escort, but a special squadron (staffel) was formed to destroy ground targets.
When the Axis realised it was no good as a fighter, it was restricted to a fighter/bomber.
-
To add....
At Arnhem, once the allied convoys filled the sky, one German high commander said:
"As usually, none of our fighters were there"
-
Bf110 bah, what a disaster...
The Fw187 using 600hp Jumos outperformed the Bf110 on roughly 60% the power. It outdid the Bf109 by 40mph when usinfg the same engines. It was basically a 1938 DH Hornet...
What a monster this could have been if it had 1,100 HP DB601s by 1940. Or even 1450HP DB604 by 1942..
(http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Launchpad/4471/fw187-1.jpg)
(http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Launchpad/4471/fw187-2.jpg)
BTW Bf110 was a pretty bad nightfighter by 1944, even late model JU88 nightfighters had better performance and handling...
-
Hmm, I think the 110 is waay to much underestimated. It was not a bad plane at all, just not an equal opponent for single engine fighters. Funny I never seen anybody to kick the Ju 88, the Mossie, Beufighter, Pe-2 etc. for the same, and they lacked that ability just as well ! In it`s own class, the 110 was a good plane, easy to fly, good performance (595 km/h max speed for the 110G was not that bad in 1943). It was suited for MANY roles.. as far as it was a *poor* nightfighter.. hmm, the Ju 88 was more suited for this task, being much larger, could carry more fuel and guns, bomblets for nightly intruder raids over england. But not nearly as fast or manouverable, no. And during the daylight raids, the 110s/410s were a force to be reckoned with, until the escort fighters arrived, as have been said. But is it a surprise? Zerstorers were always few in numbers, even the normal daylight fighters found it nearly impossible to win against those odds, those numbers... but they could run away. Zerstorers couldn`t. But when they fell on the undefended bombers, the results were ugly. It happened once over Wien, early 1944, in one very successfull mission according to Galland. They carried big guns, rockets, and were quite resistant to enemy fire. Another thing some forget that this wasn`t their only task, 110s/210s/410s were the forgotten ground pounders of the Luftwaffe on the Eestern front, and they could carry a lot of warload, far more a normal fighter could. So they had good points, they were jacks of all trades, but masters of none. Like the destroyers of the navy...
-
Easy to handle?
Maybe, but prone to flat spinning so 109 pilots that flew the 110 were warned against taking it to wild maneuvers.
Mölders brother flew the 110, one of his squadmates overdid it and flatspun to his death.
But yet, in many ways underestimated, and perhaps it was initially applied to the wrong role, i.e. daylight air superiority against single engine fighters.
It was a heck of an attacker and proved very well in the nightighter force.
-
Kurfürst,
Most people here seem to compare the Bf110G-2 to the P-38L and it comes up very short in comparison. Most people seem to consider the Mossie a bomber, even though it isn't, and so no comparison is done at all.
In AH2 the Bf110G-2 and Mosquito Mk VI are pretty close, with the edge, IMO, going to the Mosquito. Pilot skill will determine most fights.
If the Mossie we had was an NF.Mk XIII, NF.Mk XIX or NF.Mk 30 it wouldn't be nearly as close though.
-
Close....in which ones favour Karnak?
-
Originally posted by Angus
Easy to handle?
Maybe, but prone to flat spinning so 109 pilots that flew the 110 were warned against taking it to wild maneuvers.
Mölders brother flew the 110, one of his squadmates overdid it and flatspun to his death.
Did the 110 not had wing leading edge slats?
-
Originally posted by Angus
Close....in which ones favour Karnak?
As I said, I think it is in the Mossie's favor. And that is against a Fighter-Bomber Mossie with flame dampers.
I agree with GRUNHERZ to an extent. The Fw187 would have been vastly better than the Bf110, but I don't think it would have been as good as the DH Hornet.
-
Originally posted by Karnak
As I said, I think it is in the Mossie's favor. And that is against a Fighter-Bomber Mossie with flame dampers.
I agree with GRUNHERZ to an extent. The Fw187 would have been vastly better than the Bf110, but I don't think it would have been as good as the DH Hornet.
How would it have stacked up to the Whirlwind?
The Russians thought the 410 was a better a/c than the Mossie.
-
Originally posted by Karnak
As I said, I think it is in the Mossie's favor. And that is against a Fighter-Bomber Mossie with flame dampers.
I agree with GRUNHERZ to an extent. The Fw187 would have been vastly better than the Bf110, but I don't think it would have been as good as the DH Hornet.
Of course not as good as Hornet, hornet was a late war design after many lessons were learned while Fw187 was designed around 1937. However the concepts are strikingly similr in that both were almost identical in size, single seters that greatly outperformed contemporarly single engined fighters with the same engine. For example a 700hp jumo powered 109 did soime 290mph but the Fw187 managed over 330mph on the same pwerplants. Pretty similar speed difference between a 2000hp spitfire and 490mph DH hornet. With 1475hp DB605s the Fw187 might be almost as fast as a P51D...
-
Originally posted by Angus
Easy to handle?
Maybe, but prone to flat spinning so 109 pilots that flew the 110 were warned against taking it to wild maneuvers.
Mölders brother flew the 110, one of his squadmates overdid it and flatspun to his death.
Oh yeah, 110's love to flat spin, though this is a problem that tends to plague most multi-engine planes. Has something to do with the 'flywheel effect', where once the thing starts to spin, those big flyweights on either side of the CG (called engines) help it stay in a spin.
Mozzie's and P-38's suffer from it to varying extents as well, as do some of the single's we have here.
Keep a handle on the 110 and try not to let it snap or spin on you, and you got a rather nicely handling plane for something so fuggin huge!
-
Originally posted by MiloMorai
How would it have stacked up to the Whirlwind?
The Russians thought the 410 was a better a/c than the Mossie.
The Fw187 would have had Whirlwind's for breakfast I think.
I don't think the Russians had enough experience with the Mossie to be able to say that with any accuracy. A Spitfire LF.Mk IX can run down an Me410, but not a Mosquito FB.Mk VI.
-
Originally posted by Karnak
I also recall one P-47 pilot describing the Bf110 as "meat on the table."
BF-110 is my Favorite warbird.
This painting ( which I own ) pretty much sums it up.
Flying out of Wels in Austria, II/ZG 1, the Wasp Wing as it was known, was a veteran Luftwaffe unit of the Eastern front and the only surviving unit operational on the Me110. When in June 1944 Wasps participated in the attack against U.S. bombers headed for the city of Budapest, it was the last time the Me110 was flown into battle in daylight. Here P-47's of the famous Checkertails on escort duty, suddenly and ferociously attack two Me 11O's of the Wasps.
(http://www.brooksart.com/Struck.jpg)
-
Thats a very strange painting since those are 1940 model Bf110s supposedly fighting in 1944...
-
Originally posted by Karnak
The Fw187 would have had Whirlwind's for breakfast I think.
I don't think the Russians had enough experience with the Mossie to be able to say that with any accuracy. A Spitfire LF.Mk IX can run down an Me410, but not a Mosquito FB.Mk VI.
The FB VI topped out at ~380mph. Now what did the Spit top out at? The 410 topped out at ~390mph.
I will let Barbi answer why the Russians thought the 410 was better for he is the source.
-
MiloMorai,
The account I have read is of a Me410 diving to escape two Spitfire Mk IXs. Both Spitfires dove after it, but after chasing for awhile one gave up. The other Spitfire began to close the distance and the Me410's tailgunner attempted to shoot the Spitfire, but emtied his guns without scoring a hit. The Spitfire then closed to within 200 yards and shot the Me410 down. This happened in Italy.
If it had been a Mosquito Mk VI the Spitfire would never have closed the range.
Also, look at the wing loading of the Me410. It is significantly higher than that of the Mosquito.
The Mosquito Mk VI without the flame dampers toped out at about 387mph at 13,000ft. It is the low tuned engines that keep the Mk VI from being faster than the Me410. The Mk.30 with high blown engines did about 420mph.
-
Karnak, you never said it was during a dive.;) The Mossie was limited to 400mph IAS in a dive. The Spit's limit was higher.
Yes and the Mossie B.IX topped out at almost 440mph.
-
Originally posted by MiloMorai
Karnak, you never said it was during a dive.;) The Mossie was limited to 400mph IAS in a dive. The Spit's limit was higher.
Yes and the Mossie B.IX topped out at almost 440mph.
Limits listed in the pilots handbooks are peacetime limits, not failure points.
For example, the Mossie VI is limited to 250lb bombs, but it often carried four 500lb bombs in actuallity.
And it wasn't in a dive, that is the point. Either the Mossie or Me410 will pull away from the Spit IX in a dive, but the Me410 will then slow to below the Spitfire's sustained speed. The Mossie will stay faster than the Spit.
EDIT: Mossie B.IX topped out at 408mph, IIRC.
-
Originally posted by Karnak
MiloMorai,
The account I have read is of a Me410 diving to escape two Spitfire Mk IXs. Both Spitfires dove after it, but after chasing for awhile one gave up. The other Spitfire began to close the distance and the Me410's tailgunner attempted to shoot the Spitfire, but emtied his guns without scoring a hit. The Spitfire then closed to within 200 yards and shot the Me410 down. This happened in Italy.
If it had been a Mosquito Mk VI the Spitfire would never have closed the range.
[/b]
Why, as you said below, the MkVI topped out at 387mph or so. That`s significantly slower than the MkIX Spitfire or the 109G/190A. Also as noted the Mossie wasn`t anything special in a dive, wooden construction, low wingloading etc. Not having exact numbers at hand, I`d suppose it was somewhat faster than the 110/410, but still decidedly inferior to the single engined fighters of the time. Heinz Knoke in his diary mentioned the shooting down of a (recce?) Mossie in his 109G, after giving it a chase. And the 109G was certainly not any faster than the IXLF, at least not at low/medium altitudes.
Also, look at the wing loading of the Me410. It is significantly higher than that of the Mosquito..
[/b]
Hmm, that`s true, reportedly the the 210/410 could not turn as tight as the 110s. But they had leading edge slats which compensated for wingloading, just as on any Mtt design.. Wingloading tells little alone. The 109s had some 25% higher wingloading than Spits, but all pilots who flew them both say the difference in turn is so little that it`s the pilot who makes the difference.
The Mosquito Mk VI without the flame dampers toped out at about 387mph at 13,000ft. It is the low tuned engines that keep the Mk VI from being faster than the Me410. The Mk.30 with high blown engines did about 420mph.
Hmm, the Mk VI was the most common Mosquito type, not to mention arriving at the apprx. same time as the 410As... the role was quite different though... the Mossie was in essence a light bomber, the 210/410 was designed from the start as a fast bomber (Kampfzestorer), with very strong emphasis being on the multirole ability.. very advanced concept and technology for it`s time, IMHO.
As Milo referred to, the Soviets run tests on both the FBVI and the 210Ca (not the 410), and overall they found the 210 a better plane.. no specifics though, but that what Oleg Maddox said on the matter, and I have no reason to doubt him.
-
Messerchmitt religion at it again.
The 410 has interesting features, yet not much of an impact in WW2. Why so, I admit I do not know. Maintenance or low production numbers?
It's the one called Hornisse, or was that the 210?
All ears anyway.
And then to this:
"Wingloading tells little alone. The 109s had some 25% higher wingloading than Spits, but all pilots who flew them both say the difference in turn is so little that it`s the pilot who makes the difference. "
I completely disagree. Given similar wing designs, which was often the case in WW2, wingloading tells a lot and affects primarily climbrate, then secondarily turning ability.
The 109 probably got saved by the slats in a turning campaign vs a Spitfire, yet it was not enough. 109E vs SpitI 18 seconds to 25?
Just imagine if the Spitty would have had adjustable flaps, - giving even more lift than slats......
Anyway, this is not the issue of this thread, - and yet.
Try turnfighting a mossie with a 110. 110 wins, at least the older type. Why? Yes, LOWER WINGLOADING!
-
Barbi,
Slats are not magical wonders. They help a little, but not that much. DH was going to put slats on the Mossie, but decided against it as the Mossie's manuverability was fine without them.
The Mossie doesn't have low wing loading, just not stupidly high wingloading like the 210 and 410.
As to the dive, I have no idea where you got the idea the Mossie was bad in a dive. It was fine in a dive. I have an accout of one reaching 420IAS at 19,000ft with no adverse effects.
No where did I claim the Mossie was a superior fighter to the single engined fighters of the day. Don't put words in my mouth.
I know you worship anything German, but lose the rose colored glasses. Just because it is German does not make it automatically better.
-
Just adding a nice picture to this all, makes the reading a bit more...comfortable :)
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/68_1100725031_normal_bf110-3[1].jpg)
-
Hey Karnak.
I have a book about a RAF night Fighter. First the Beau, then Mossie. At night they were intruders, Denmark, Holland and deeper still.
Late war they were even busting V-1's at night.
100 sqn
If you like, I'll dig it up and find the ISBN. ;)
-
"Messerchmitt religion at it again."
Very nice again Angus. This thread IS about Messerschmitt...
Anyway,
Some sources give 52lbs/sqf wingloading for ME410 and the same for 110G.
110C has 37lbs/sqf?
Spit1 23 lbs/sqf
109E 31lbs/sqf
How much did mossie have?
Some variant had a rather high value of 52 lbs/sqf but that was a bomber.
How much W/L did a typical Mossie fighter variant have?
No that this thread would be about Mossie but just for comparison?
Anybody know the roll rate for 110?
Didn't it have engines that rotated in the same direction causing some torque roll tendency?
Of course the wingloading was not the only factor but it gives some idea of relative turn/climb performance between a/c.
-C+
-
I belive the Mossie had a higher wingloading than the 110C, not sure about later variants.
I am referring to our mossie there.
The propellers rotated in the same direction, unlike the P38.
Of rollrate of 110 I do not know. I find it hard to belive that it was better than of the 109 in 1940.
I have an article from a 110 pilot in a Jagerblatt issue, I'll see what I can find about it's performance there.
Regards
Angus
-
Originally posted by Angus
Messerchmitt religion at it again.
[/B]
I only see the Mtt-envy of two redcoat zealots. :) Oh come on guys, why the stupid reaction all the time?
Originally posted by Angus
The 410 has interesting features, yet not much of an impact in WW2. Why so, I admit I do not know. Maintenance or low production numbers?It's the one called Hornisse, or was that the 210? All ears anyway.
[/B]
Hmm, probably low production numbers (less than 2000 iirc) and relatively late appearance. Besides, it was never a highly propagandized plane, unlike the Stuka or the Mossie. And yes the 410A and B were the Hornisse (Hornet).
Originally posted by Angus
And then to this:
"Wingloading tells little alone. The 109s had some 25% higher wingloading than Spits, but all pilots who flew them both say the difference in turn is so little that it`s the pilot who makes the difference. "
I completely disagree. Given similar wing designs, which was often the case in WW2, wingloading tells a lot and affects primarily climbrate, then secondarily turning ability.
The 109 probably got saved by the slats in a turning campaign vs a Spitfire, yet it was not enough. 109E vs SpitI 18 seconds to 25?
Just imagine if the Spitty would have had adjustable flaps, - giving even more lift than slats......
[/B]
Hmm, in what context this 18 vs. 25 secs is true? You always seem to take things out of context, Angie. This data comes from the Brits, (http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/spit109turn.gif) - and thanks for bringing it up, because there no better way to show how little wingloading means! The 25 secs vs. 18 secs doesn`t show up on this chart, at least if you compare like with the like, because 25 secs is for 6G turn for the 109E at 500 mph TAS, and 18 secs is for the Spit I w. 6G at 370mph TAS. For 400mph, it would be 20 secs for the Spit already, but the curve doesn`t last that long. At the same 400 mph, the 109E would require the SAME amount of time, 19.5-20 secs for a full 360 degree turn.
Of course the 109E does this with 32.2 lbs/ft wingloadign vs. 24.8 lbs/sq.ft on the Spit I. 30% "better" wingloading, and where`s the advantage? It`s FAR more complex than that.
So so much about the wingloading stuff. Alone it shows nothing. Look at the Cls... at 6G it`s 1.38 for the Spit and 1.44 for the 109E. It`s a coefficient, and it means with the same wing area, a 109E wing would generate 4.3% more lift than a Spit wing. In fact, a lot more if we take the NACA`s 1.12 for the Spit V vs. 1.49 at 3G for the 109E.. Or if you like you can read German veterans. Many say no Spitfire ever turned inside them, some even say they had no problem outturning them..
In fact if we believe this curve is rigth for the Spit I, it`s actually showing that even the Spit I will be beaten in turns by the heaviest 109K, in both turn time (by 1 sec) and turning radius (by ca. 50%).. if I read the charts right, but I tried to compare like with the like, 78.5degree bank at 5G at 400mph..
Anyway, this is not the issue of this thread, - and yet.
Try turnfighting a mossie with a 110. 110 wins, at least the older type. Why? Yes, LOWER WINGLOADING! [/B]
As I said it`s far more complex than that.. but yes, the 110 could turn tightly, but it was not a wiz at it. More here to understand, powerloading, acceleration, sustained vs. instantenous etc...
Originally posted by Karnak
Slats are not magical wonders. They help a little, but not that much. DH was going to put slats on the Mossie, but decided against it as the Mossie's manuverability was fine without them.
[/B]
Who said here slats are magic stuff? They increase critical AoA. Lift coefficient increases with AoA. Thus the higher the permissable AoA for the wing, the more the maximum of the lift it can generate. Slats help this a BIG deal. That`s why EVERYBODY started using them. Simply, cheap, highly efficient devices that allow for good manouvebility without having to need to rely on huge wing surfaces with great drag.
The Mossie doesn't have low wing loading, just not stupidly high wingloading like the 210 and 410.
[/B]
Stupidly high? Hmm... IIRC it was marginally higher than the 110s... what number were u using, most books list the 410 with full bomb weight and stuff, so using that as a basis is HIGHLY misleading. Have to look up Mankau some day...
As to the dive, I have no idea where you got the idea the Mossie was bad in a dive. It was fine in a dive. I have an accout of one reaching 420IAS at 19,000ft with no adverse effects.
[/B]
I didn`t say it was bad, just nothing special. How about Mossie in tight turns? What happened to it then, sometimes, hmm?
Besides I asked you a question. Why do you think a Mossie could shake down a Spit9? AFAIK it wasn`t any faster.
No where did I claim the Mossie was a superior fighter to the single engined fighters of the day. Don't put words in my mouth.
[/B]
Think u r paranoid.
I know you worship anything German, but lose the rose colored glasses. Just because it is German does not make it automatically better.
[/B]
Think u r paranoid and have an inferiority complex, too. Bad childhood? Or what would explain such a overreaction to a simply statement like the 410 was a good plane, good for it`s task, fairly high-tech? Hell, even Nashwan likes it (!!!!)..
-
Originally posted by Kurfürst
Besides I asked you a question. Why do you think a Mossie could shake down a Spit9? AFAIK it wasn`t any faster.
It depends on the altitude. Down low the Mossie is indeed faster than the Spit IX.
Bassically if the Spit and Mossie are powered by the same engines, the Mossie is faster than the Spitfire. Even if the Spitfire has a bit more powerful engine setup the Mosquito will be faster. For example the Mosquito FB.Mk VI with Merlin 25s and flame dampers is slightly faster at sea level than the Spitfire LF.Mk IX with a Merlin 66 even though the Mosquito lacks exhaust thrust. Also note that fighter Mosquitos have a bit more drag than bomber Mosquitos.
As to the Me410, I like the aircraft a lot. It is near the top of my AH wish list and I will use it for Jabo work when/if they add it to AH. I think it was a great warplane, just not Germany's gift to the poor, inept world.
-
Hi Charge,
>Some sources give 52lbs/sqf wingloading for ME410 and the same for 110G.
After a quick check, I'd say the Messerschmitts' wing loadings were quite normal in comparison to those of other twin-engined fighters:
Mosquito IV: 235 kg/m^2
Beaufighter: 243 kg/m^2
Me 110G: 244 kg/m^2
P-38J: 244 kg/m^2
P-61B-1: 267 kg/m^2
Me 410A: 267 kg/m^2
Heinkel He 219A-7: 339 kg/m^2
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
Izzie, I belive we have yet to bash each other to death about the turning ability vs wingloading.
Now you said:
"
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Angus
Messerchmitt religion at it again.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I only see the Mtt-envy of two redcoat zealots. Oh come on guys, why the stupid reaction all the time?
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Angus
The 410 has interesting features, yet not much of an impact in WW2. Why so, I admit I do not know. Maintenance or low production numbers?It's the one called Hornisse, or was that the 210? All ears anyway.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hmm, probably low production numbers (less than 2000 iirc) and relatively late appearance. Besides, it was never a highly propagandized plane, unlike the Stuka or the Mossie. And yes the 410A and B were the Hornisse (Hornet).
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Angus
And then to this:
"Wingloading tells little alone. The 109s had some 25% higher wingloading than Spits, but all pilots who flew them both say the difference in turn is so little that it`s the pilot who makes the difference. "
I completely disagree. Given similar wing designs, which was often the case in WW2, wingloading tells a lot and affects primarily climbrate, then secondarily turning ability.
The 109 probably got saved by the slats in a turning campaign vs a Spitfire, yet it was not enough. 109E vs SpitI 18 seconds to 25?
Just imagine if the Spitty would have had adjustable flaps, - giving even more lift than slats......
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hmm, in what context this 18 vs. 25 secs is true? You always seem to take things out of context, Angie. This data comes from the Brits, (http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/e...spit109turn.gif) - and thanks for bringing it up, because there no better way to show how little wingloading means! The 25 secs vs. 18 secs doesn`t show up on this chart, at least if you compare like with the like, because 25 secs is for 6G turn for the 109E at 500 mph TAS, and 18 secs is for the Spit I w. 6G at 370mph TAS. For 400mph, it would be 20 secs for the Spit already, but the curve doesn`t last that long. At the same 400 mph, the 109E would require the SAME amount of time, 19.5-20 secs for a full 360 degree turn.
Of course the 109E does this with 32.2 lbs/ft wingloadign vs. 24.8 lbs/sq.ft on the Spit I. 30% "better" wingloading, and where`s the advantage? It`s FAR more complex than that.
So so much about the wingloading stuff. Alone it shows nothing. Look at the Cls... at 6G it`s 1.38 for the Spit and 1.44 for the 109E. It`s a coefficient, and it means with the same wing area, a 109E wing would generate 4.3% more lift than a Spit wing. In fact, a lot more if we take the NACA`s 1.12 for the Spit V vs. 1.49 at 3G for the 109E.. Or if you like you can read German veterans. Many say no Spitfire ever turned inside them, some even say they had no problem outturning them.. "
Got something for you to eat.
Wingloading is a very absolute figure, just as well as spanloading.
Just sheer area/span vs weight.
Move to CL. Bit more complicated. It's calculated.
Move to Power. Bit more complicated. Varying quite a bit.
Ok,what I did,quite a while ago, was to compare the Spitfire MkI to the 109E on a climb scale, with time and weight being absolutely definate. I caculated the climb to Newtons.
The Spitfire DEFINATELY provided more total lift in Newtons than the 109 as soon as provided with a 3 blade rotol airscrew, - i.e. a comparible airscrew to the 109. (?)
This was BTW, all running on 87 octanes fuel to avoid any misunderstanding.
So, if you disagree, and intend to prove that the 109 wing as a whole provided more lift than the wing of a Spitfire, please put up a seperate thread with a title guiding to that.
We should not be hijacking this one should we?
Be prepared.....you'll have Spitfires all around, turning well....
:D