Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: Kweassa on November 09, 2001, 06:23:00 AM
-
" It was commonly known to the Luftwaffe pilots that their adversaries over the english channel, the Spitfire MkIs, were superior in turn performance than the aircraft they used, Bf-109E series. Therefore, rarely would experienced pilots think about going toe-to-toe with a Spitfire in a turn fight.
But in fact, the tests the RAF had done with a captured Bf-109E revealed that the turn performance was not very inferior to their Spitfire MkIs. Rather, a 109 was able to hold its own in a turnfight against the Spitfires.
But this fact remained top-secret, and was not revealed until after the war. Thus, many Luftwaffe pilots(and RAF pilots alike) testified that the Spitfire MkI was superior in turning capabilities than the Bf-109E, and most who are still alive think so even up to today."
...
I got this from a Korean website I visit often. I wasn't able to get any specific sources for that article, and it has made me very curious.
Can anyone illuminate me on this subject? :)
[ 11-09-2001: Message edited by: Kweassa ]
-
http://koti.mbnet.fi/~staga/ww2_manuaalit/pro_109_survey_1.jpg (http://koti.mbnet.fi/~staga/ww2_manuaalit/pro_109_survey_1.jpg) http://koti.mbnet.fi/~staga/ww2_manuaalit/pro_109_survey_2.jpg (http://koti.mbnet.fi/~staga/ww2_manuaalit/pro_109_survey_2.jpg) http://koti.mbnet.fi/~staga/ww2_manuaalit/pro_109_turn_1.jpg (http://koti.mbnet.fi/~staga/ww2_manuaalit/pro_109_turn_1.jpg) http://koti.mbnet.fi/~staga/ww2_manuaalit/pro_109_turn_2.jpg (http://koti.mbnet.fi/~staga/ww2_manuaalit/pro_109_turn_2.jpg) http://koti.mbnet.fi/~staga/ww2_manuaalit/pro_109_turn_3.jpg (http://koti.mbnet.fi/~staga/ww2_manuaalit/pro_109_turn_3.jpg)
-
If anyone has cirle times for Spit we could compared them.
I found in a book the following data:
BF 109E-4 25 seconds at 3k
BF 109F-0 18 seconds at 3k
-
I've never seen anything like such a statement from a primary source Kweassa.
However the report from the PRO doesn't tell the whole story either (as I'm sure Staga is aware), since experienced 109 pilots had no trouble pulling through the slot opening to achieve tighter turns. If the evaluating officers had been willing to do so, IMHO they would have drawn the 'popular' conclusion: the Hurricane I (and to a lesser extent the Spit I) were both able to "out turn" the 109e, but the advantage was not huge.
-
Those tests were done with the slats wired shut.
-
Those tests were done with the slats wired shut.
Page 2 of the turning evaluation clearly shows that was not the case, since reference is made to the 109's much-referenced asymmetric slot opening.
I have no references, but it is my recollection that some german pilots chose to wire the slots on their planes shut for this reason - however accounts from the experten seem to agree that the slots were a positive asset and they at least were fully capable of using them.
-
S!
109E outturning Spits and Hurricanes (I's)... I don't think so.
What your comments may be referring to, is that the 109E can be flown up to the edge of the stall more easily than the Spits and Hurri's. (mentioned below) So a less experienced Spitfire pilot might not push his plane as far, and therefore a 109E flown by an equally experienced pilot might be able to turn with it. Against an experienced Spitfire pilot, the 109E would be easily outturned. SEE BELOW:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
On May 4, 1940, a Bf.109E (Wn: 1304) was flown to RAF Boscombe Down, where it was appraised by the Aircraft and Armament Experimental Establishment (A & AEE); then later flown to the Royal Aircraft Establishment (RAE) at Farnborough for handlin gtrials, and allocated the serial number AE479. The results of the RAE's evaluation were discussed on Thursday, March 9, 1944 at a meeting of the Royal Aeronautical Society in London, at which M.B. Morgan and R. Smelt of the RAE lectured on 'The aerodynamic features of German aircraft'.
"Take-off
This is best done with the flaps at 20 degrees. The throttle can be opened very quickly without fear of choking the engine. Acceleration is good, and there is little tendency to swing or bucket. The stick must be held hard forward to get the tail up. It is advisable to let the airplane fly itself off since, if pulled off too soon, the left wing will not lift, and on applying aileron the wing lifts and falls again, with the ailerons snatching a little. If no attempt is made to pull the airplane off quickly, the take-off run is short, and initial climb good.
Approach
Stalling speeds on the glide are 75 mph flaps up, and 61 mph flaps down. Lowering the flaps makes the ailerons feel heavier and slightly less effective, and causes a marked nose-down pitching moment, readily corrected owing to the juxtaposition of trim and flap operating wheels. If the engine is opened up to simulate a baulked landing with flaps and undercarriage down, the airplane becomes tail-heavy but can easily be held with one hand while trim is adjusted. Normal approach speed is 90 mph. At speeds above 100 mph, the pilot has the impression of diving, and below 80 mph one of sinking. At 90 mph the glide path is reasonably steep and the view fairly good. Longitudinally the airplane is markedly stable, and the elevator heavier and more responsive than is usual in single-seater fighters. These features add considerably to the ease of approach. Aileron effectiveness is adequate; the rudder is sluggish for small movements.
Landing
This is more difficult than on the Hurricane I or Spitfire I. Owing to the high ground attitude, the airplane must be rotated through a large angle before touchdown, and this requires a fair amount of skill. If a wheel landing is done the left wing tends to drop just before touchdown, and if the ailerons are used to lift it, they snatch, causing over-correction. The brakes can be applied immediately after touchdown without fear of lifting the tail. The ground run is short, with no tendency to swing. View during hold-off and ground run is very poor, and landing at night would not be easy.
Taxing
The aircraft can be taxied fast without danger of bucketing, but is is difficult to turn quickly; an unusually large amount of throttle is needed, in conjunction with harsh braking, when manuevering in a confined space. The brakes are foot-operated, and pilots expressed a strong preference for the hand operation system to which they are more accustomed.
Lateral Trim
There is no procounced change of lateral trim with speed of throttle setting provided that care is taken to fly with no sideslip.
Directional Trim
Absence of rudder trimmer is a bad feature, although at low speeds the practical consequences are not so alarming as the curves might suggest, since the rudder is fairly light on the climb. At high speeds, however, the pilot is seriously inconvenienced, as above 300 mph about 2 1/2 degrees of port (left) rudder are needed for flight with no sideslip and a very heavy foot load is needed to keep this on. In consequence the pilot's left foot becomes tired, and this affects his ability to put on left rudder in order to assist a turn to port (left). Hence at high speeds the Bf.109E turns far more readily to the right than to the left.
Longitudinal Trim
Five three-quarter turns of a 11.7 in diameter wheel on the pilot's left are needed to move the adjustable tailplane through its full 12-degrees range. The wheel rotation is in the natural sense. Tailplane and elevator angles to trim were measured at various speeds in various condition; the elevator angles were corrected to constant tail setting. The airplane is statically stable both stick fixed and stick free.
'One Control' tests, flat turns, sideslips
The airplane was trimmed to fly straight and level at 230 mph at 10,000 feet. In this condition the airplane is not in trim directionally and a slight pressure is needed on the left rudder pedal to prevent sideslip. This influences the results of the following tests:
Ailerons fixed central On suddenly applying half-rudder the nose swings through about eight degrees and the airplane banks about five degrees with the nose pitching down a little. On releasing the rudder it returns to central, and the airplane does a slowly damped oscillation in yaw and roll. The right wing then slowly falls. Good baned turns can be done in either direction on rudder alone, with little sideslip if the rudder is used gently. Release of the rudder in a steady 30-degree banked turn in either direction results in the left wing slowly rising.
Rudder fixed central Abrupt displacement of the ailerons gives bank with no appreciable opposite yaw. On releasing the stick it returns smartly to central with no oscillation. If the ailerons are released in a 30-degree banked turn, it is impossible to assess the spiral stability, since whether the wing slowly comes up or goes down depends critically on the precise position of the rudder. Excellent banked turns can be done in either direction on ailerons alone. There is very little sideslip on entry or recovery, even if the ailerons are used very harshly. In the turn there is no appreciable sideslip.
Steady flat turns Only half-rudder was used during this test. Full rudder can be applied with a very heavy foot load, but the nose-down pitching movement due to sideslip requires a quite excessive pull on the stick to keep the nose up. When flat turning steadily with half-rudder, wings level, about half opposite aileron is needed. The speed falls from 230 mph to 175 mph, rate of flat turn is about 110.
Steady sideslip when gliding Gliding at 100 mph with flaps and undercarriage up the maximum angle of bank in a straight sideslip is about five degrees. About 1/4 opposite aileron is needed in conjuction with full rudder. The airplane is faily nose-heavy, vibrates and is a little unsteady. On release of all three controls the wing comes up quickly and the airplane glides steadily at the trimmed speed. With flaps and undercarriage down, gliding at 90 mph, the maximum angle of bank is again five degrees 1/5 opposite aileron being needed with full rudder. The nose-down pitching movement is not so pronounced as before, and vibration is still present. Behaviour on releasing the control is similar to that with flaps up.
Stalling Test
The airplane was equipped with a 60 foot trailing static head and a swiveling pitot head. Although, as may be imagined, operation of a trailing static from a single-seater with a rather cramped cockpit is a difficult job, the pilot brought back the following results:
Lowering the ailerons and flaps thus increases CL max of 0.5. This is roughly the value which would be expected from the installation. Behaviour at the stall. The airplane was put through the full official tests. The results may be summarized by saying that the stalling behaviour, flaps up and down, is excellent. Both ruddera nd ailerons are effective right down to the stall, which is very gentle, the wing only falling about 10 degrees and the nose falling with it. There is no tendency to spin. With flaps up the ailerons snatch while the slots are opening, and there is a buffeting on the ailerons as the stall is approached.. Withs flaps down there is no aileron snatch as the slots open, and no pre-stall aileron buffeting. There is no warning of the stall, flaps down. From the safety viewpoint this is the sold adverse stalling feature; it is largely off-set by the innocuous behaviour at the stall and by the very high degree of fore and aft stability on the approach glide.
Safety in the Dive
During a dive at 400 mph all three controls were in turn displaced slightly and released. No vibration, flutter or snaking developed. If the elevator is trimmed for level flight at full throttle, a large push is needed to hold in the dive, and there is a temptation to trim in. If, in fact, the airplane is trimmed into the dive, recovery is difficult unless the trimmer is would back owing to the excessive heaviness of the elevator.
Ailerons
At low speeds the aileron control is very good, there being a definete resistance to stick movement, while response is brisk. As speed is increased, the ailerons bevome heavier, but response remains excellent. They are at their best between 150 mph and 200 mph, one pilot describing them as an 'ideal control' over this range. Above 200 mph they start becoming unpleasantly heavy, and between 300 mph and 400 mph are termed 'solid' by the test pilots. A pilot exerting all his strength cannot apply more than one-fifth aileron at 400 mph. Measurements of stick-top force when the pilot applied about one-fifth aileron in half a second and then held the ailerons steady, together with the corresponding time to 45 degrees banbk, were made at various speeds. The results at 400 mph are given below:
Max sideways force a pilot can apply conveniently to the Bf.109 stick 40 lbs.
Corresponding stick displacement 1/5th.
Time to 45-degree bank 4 seconds.
Deduced balance factyor Kb2 - 0.145
Several points of interest emerge from these tests:
a. Owing to the cramped Bf.109 cockpit, a pilot can only apply about 40 lb sideway force on the stick, as against 60 lb or more possible if he had more room.
b. The designer has also penalized himself by the unusually small stick-top travel of four inches, giving a poor mechanical advantage between pilot and aileron.
c. The time to 45-degree bank of four seconds at 400 mph, which is quite escessive for a fighter, classes the airplane immediately as very unmaneuvrable in roll at high speeds.
Elevator
This is an exceptionally good control at low air speeds, being fairly heavy and not over-sensitive. Above 250 mph, however, it becomes too heavy, so that maneuvrability is seriously restricted. When diving at 400 mph a pilot, pulling very hard, cannot put on enough 'g' to black himself out; stick force -'g' probably esceeds 20 lb/g in the dive.
Rudder
The rudder is light, but rather sluggish at low speeds. At 200 mph the sluggishness has disappeared. Between 200 mph and 300 mph the rudder is the lightest of the three controls for movement, but at 300 mph and above, absence of a rudder trimmer is severely felt, the force to prevent sideslip at 400 mph being excessive.
Harmony
The controls are well harmonised between 150 mph and 250 mph. At lower speeds harmony is spoiled by the sluggishness of the rudder. At higher speeds elevator and ailerons are so heavy that the worn 'harmony' is inappropriate.
Aerobatics
These are not easy. Loops must be started from about 280 mph when the elevator is unduly heavy; there is a tendency for the slots to open at the top of the loop, resulting in aileron snatching and loss of direction. At speeds below 250 mph the airplane can be rolled quite quickly, but in the final stages of the roll there is a strong tendency for the nose to fall, and the stick must be moved well back to keep the nose up. Upward rolls are difficult. Owing to elevator heaviness only a gentle pull-out from the dive is possible, and considerable speed is lost before the upward roll can be started.
Fighting Qualities
A series of mock dogfights with our own fighters briought out forcibly the good and bad points of the airplane. These may be summarised as follows:
Good Points;
High top speed and excellent rate of climb
Engine does not cut immediately under negative 'g'
Good control at low speeds
Gentle stall, even under 'g'
Bad Points;
Ailerons and elevator far too heavy at high speeds
Owing to high wing loading the airplane stalls readily under 'g' and has a relatively poor turning circle
Absence of a rudder trimmer, curtailing ability to bank left in the dive
Cockpit too cramped for comfort
Further Comments
At full throttle at 12,000 feet the minimum radius of steady turn without height loss is about 890 feet in the case of the Bf.109E, with its wing loading of 32 lb/sq ft. The corresponding figure for a comparable fighter with a wing loading of 25 lb/sq ft, such as the Spitfire I or Hurricane I, is about 690 feet. Although the more heavily loaded fighter is thus at a considerable disadvantage, it is important to bear in mind that these minimum radii of turn are obtained by going as near to the stall as possible. In this respect the Bf.109E scores by its excellent control near the stall and innocuous behaviour at the stall, giving the pilot confidence to get the last ounce out of his airplanes turning performance.
The extremely bad maneuvrability of the Bf.109E at high speeds quickly became known to our pilots (RAF). On several occasions a Bf.109E was coaxed to self-destruction when on the tail of a Hurricane or Spitfire at moderate altitude. Our pilot would do a half-roll and quick pull-out from the subsequent steep dive. In the excitement of the moment the Bf.109E pilot would follow, only to find that he had insufficient height for recovery owing to his heavy elevator, and would go straight into the ground without a shot being fired.
Pilots verbatim impressions of some features are of interest. For example, the DB 601 engine came in for much favourable comment from the viewpoint of response to throttle and insusceptability to sudden negative 'g'; while the throttle arrangements were described as 'marvellously simple, there being just one lever with no gate or over-ride to worry about'. Suprisingly though, the manual operation of flaps and tail setting were also liked; 'they are easy to operate, and being manual are not likely to go wrong'; juxtaposition of the flap and tail actuating wheels in an excellent feature.
Performance by 1940 standards was good. When put into a full throttle climb at low air speeds, the airplane climbed at a very steep angle, and our fighters used to have difficulty in keeping their sights on the enemy even when at such a height that their rates of climb were comparible. This steep climb at low air speed was one of the standard evasion maneuvres used by the German pilots. Another was to push the stick forward abruptly and bunt into a dive with considerable negative 'g'. The importance of arranging that the engine whould not cut under these circumstances cannot be over-stressed. SPeed is picked up quickly in a dive, and if being attacked by an airplane of slightly inferior level performance, this feature can be used with advantage to get out of range. There is no doubt that in the autumn of 1940 the Bf.109E in spite of its faults, was a doughty opponent to set against our own equipment'."
<<<<<<<<<<<<<
-
The RAE tested and calculated flight envelopes for the Bf 109E and the Spitfire I. These can be found from the RAE 109E report which is available from the PRO and the British Library. Turning times and sizes of the circles can be seen from the envelope.
gripen
[ 11-12-2001: Message edited by: gripen ]
-
The RAE tested and calculated flight envelopes for the Bf 109E and the Spitfire I. These can be found from the RAE 109E report which is available from the PRO and the British Library. Turning times sizes of the circles can be seen from the envelope.
gripen
-
I found the turning circle data of Me-109-E, Spitfire 1 and Hurricane 1 in Len Deighton's book, "Fighter" According to Deighton, The 109 had the tightest turning arc of the three, but at a speed so much lower that both the Spitfire and the Hurricane would still out-turn the 109 by going faster through an arc only a little wider.
The Spitfire had lower wing loading than the 109, so a better turning performance is expected, and so it was in most real cases.
By reading a whole heap of pilot autobiographies from both sides, as well as having a chat with a couple of aces I have come to the opinion that there was no 109 turning better than the 109F, and at through the whole war the same-time model of the Spitfire would always turn better. The German pilots were taught not to get into a turnfight with a Spitfire, while the British pilots were confident in their own turning superiority.
The only abnormalities to this I can only explain with custom tweaks to planes, fuel load and skill of pilot.
German pilots flying captured Spitfires described it as ridiculously easy to fly in comparison with the 109, so the mockfight test done by german pilots might still have yealded the same outcome.
A factor which one must mention with a turnfight between those two was the 109's tendency to snap, while a Spitfire stalled gently. It would therefore require a better pilot to squeeze the full turning out of a 109, and a little snap could prove fatal.
I remember one two fights between aces in a 109E vs Spitfire I, Galland fought R.S.Tuck resulting in both losing their wingmen, and Moelders was shot down by Malan after a fight in which he was completely outmaneuvered by the Spit.
Some pilots of both nations added some tweaks to their plains, Galland's 109F had extra guns added to his (Galland did not favour a turnfight against Spitfires, so a little more punch and less turning abilities were fine with him), while some British pilots added other tweaks to improve performance, i.e. different exhaust stubs, by removing outboard MG's, etc.
In addition, just like in AH, the fuel load of the opponents would be a crusial factor.
If I remember right, the 109E in Warbirds was the best 109 turner. HTC have IMHO done very well with the flight modelling, so when the time comes that a "Yellow nosed" 109E arrives to the scenery of AH, I guess many LW fans will be slightly disappointed with it being both slower and less maneuverable than the 109F.
Would be nice to have a 109E and a SpitfireI though, and take them to the test properly! :D
-
At full throttle at 12,000 feet the minimum radius of steady turn without height loss is about 890 feet in the case of the Bf.109E, with its wing loading of 32 lb/sq ft. The corresponding figure for a comparable fighter with a wing loading of 25 lb/sq ft, such as the Spitfire I or Hurricane I, is about 690 feet
Have you ever noticed that they talk about CORRESPONDING NUMBERS? They assume the same wingdesign for a spit and hurry:
Look: 890*25/32 = 695!!! 690feet for a spit and hurry is the result from a very simple calculation!
But the wing of a spit was different. It offered way lower lift coefficients. I repeat what i already posted in another threat. A spit VA was tested by the NACA:
"The maximum lift coefficients avaialbe in manoevre with flaps up and in all conditions of flight tested were considerably LOWER than are normally reached by airplanes of similar type"
"The stalling characteristics of the Spitfire are therefore its redeeming feature. It would be desirable, however, to obtain these characteristics without sacrificing a high value of the maximum lift coefficient"
"The maximum lift coefficient reached in turns from level flight with flaps up was 1.23"
Now it gets very interesting if you look at what Angus said:
[/quote]
in Len Deighton's book, "Fighter" According to Deighton, The 109 had the tightest turning arc of the three, but at a speed so much lower that both the Spitfire and the Hurricane would still out-turn the 109 by going faster through an arc only a little wider.
[/quote]
What would happen when you decrease the max. lift coefficient of a Spit? Turn radius becomes larger, but you fly it a bit faster, so the overall turn time doesn“t get much worse.
I really hope HTC will fix the turnRADIUS of the spit, because at them moment with it“s large wing, gentle stall characteristic, and high lift coefficient it“s a bit overmodelled and those silly "turn on a dim" monoevers would become more rare.
109 could outturn Spit? It definitly happened:
A quote from Erwin Leykauf:
.....sometimes the slots would suddenly fly out with a bang as if one had been hit, especially when one had throttled back to bank steeply. Indeed many fresh young pilots, thought they were pulling very tight turns even when the slots were closed against the wing. For us, the more experienced pilots, real manoeuvering only started when the slots were out. For this reason, it is possible to find pilots from this period (1940) who will tell you that the spitfires turned better than the Bf109. that is not true, I myself had many dogfights with spitfires and could always outturn them.
One had to enter the turn correctly, then open up the engine. It was a matter of feel. When one noticed the speed becomeing critical - the aircraft vibrated - one had to ease up a bit, then pull back again, so that in plan the best turn would have looked like an egg or a horizontal elipse rather than a circle. In this way one could outturn the spitfire - and I shot down six of them doing it.
And Galland also turned with Spits. The following pic is from the luftwaffe-board, and it says galland shot down a spit in a turnfight (hard right turn). Note also the aircraft model (FU6 > wing gondolas)
(http://www.luftwaffe-forum.de/pics/forum/Meldung.jpg)
btw, i“m always wondering myself why english reports mention a cramped cockpit of the 109. Was the cockpit of the spit much larger? Hey, why did they build in this nice little extra door to the left?
Just read what the naca found about the stickforces of a spitfire. Again from the naca report:
"The effectiveness of the ailerons of the Supermarine Spitfire airplane was determined... .It should be noted that the airplane tested was equipped with metal-covered ailerons"
"The ailerons were sufficiently effective at low speeds, and were relatively light at small deflections in high speed flight. The force required to obtain high rolling velocities in high speed flight were considered excessive. With a stick force of 30pounds, full deflection of the ailerons could be obtained only at speeds lower than 110 MPH (!!!!)."
niklas
[ 11-13-2001: Message edited by: niklas ]
-
Niklas, i agree with u. Most people in here still refer to wingloading as the nun-plus-ultra indicator for turning performance.
As i stated and clearly described in an early post of me (sry can post a link, on my AH BB sites there is always the search button missing :( ), the wing loading concept was obsolete since it was replaced by the energy maneuvering concept.
As u pointet out, wing construction and lift is a very relevant sector.
Btw from reading "Green Hearts - First in combat with the Dora 9" and from the JG26 history, it seems many German pilots claimed kills out of very steep turns and while in a dogfight. There was no matter if the opponent was a Spit, a P51, P47, tempest or Yak. They would all mix it up.
-
Niklas! Naudet! stop confusing them allied schweinhunde with facts!
WE all know Spitfire was the Uber fighter of the war!. Any resistance is futile against that absolute truth!
:D
seriously, GREAT piece of info, Niklas :)
-
Don't the above data again reinforce the fact that the 109 series is the least accurately moddled A/C in AH, with the most concessions to gameplay and quakers?
Simply put, it has extra controls in the game which it did not in fact enjoy? Rudder trim.
I can understand why this annoys the LW contingent in the gane so much.
Rudder trim *must* be removed from the 109 series in AH!
-
Originally posted by Seeker:
Rudder trim *must* be removed from the 109 series in AH!
Yes,please. And assymetrical slat deployement too.
BUT...not before Kommandogėrat is removed from **ALL** the planes in Aces High except the Fw190. And not before removing the ammo counters from the planes wich never had one. And not before removing the ability to fire weapons independently in planes wich couldnt do it. And of course remove Combat trim from **ALL** the planes :D...
You get my drift? :) Be careful what you wish for :p
[ 11-13-2001: Message edited by: R4M ]
-
P.S. 109s had rudder trim since the late G6 variant. AH's G6 and G10 still would have rudder trim
:p ;)
-
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 ]
-
<tips hat to Ram> :)
-
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 :D
-
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.
-
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.
-
:D 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?
-
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 ]
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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)
-
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)
-
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
-
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)
-
HoHun,
The RAE tests were made at 12k and at full throttle (Spitfire 6000lbs, Bf 109 5600lbs). We also know that the Spitfire had higher critical mach number so it could sustain more Gs troughout hole altitude range. In the case of the sustained turning the Spitfire could allways turn smaller circles than the Bf 109 despite what ever power ratings were used. Generally the energy level of the plane is not a big issue if the controll forces are not the limiting factor, as an example we can compare these planes:
Spitfire
3g turn, V~170mph R=688ft, about 17s
5g turn, V~225mph R=678ft, about 14,5s
Bf 109
3g turn, V~190mph R=870ft, about 20s
5g turn, V~250mph R=855ft, about 15,5s
So we can see that energy gives better turning times but not much better turning circles.
I believe that main reason for these Bf 109 out turning Spitfire cases is skill of the pilots; same thing happened when experienced RAE test pilots flew mock combats against Spitfires piloted by normal squadron pilots.
gripen
-
Hi Gripen,
>So we can see that energy gives better turning times but not much better turning circles.
12000 ft is still lower than the typical engagement altitude during the Battle of Britain, which I'd say probably ranged from 20000 ft to 30000 ft.
The G-rates you quote are non-sustainable, and while you're right on turning circles, we're talking about turn rates here.
To illustrate my point: At its service ceiling (about 32000 ft), the turn rate of the Spitfire I is (close to) zero. The Me 109E has a higher ceiling (37500 ft), so that at the 32000 ft, it has much more energy left for turning than the Spitfire.
If this seems somewhat academic: It shows that even if the Spitfire I turns better at 12000 ft, there'll be some altitude between 12000 ft and 32000 ft where both aircraft have the same sustained turn rate, and above that altitude, the Me 109E is able to beat the Spitfire I in sustained turns.
Whether that is tactically meaningful depends (among other factors) on the exact break-even altitude, but Leykauf at least attributed several of his kills to superior turning of the Messerschmitt.
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
HoHun,
I generally agree your point ie. plane with higher ceiling (depending how we define service ceiling) will reach better turn rates at high altitude. But AFAIK typical fighting altitudes during the BoB were a lot below 30k (less than 10k during early stages of the BoB and around 20k later), did Leykauf claim the altitude?
Also the pursuing plane must turn inside other planes circle to reach firing position despite what ever sustained or momentary turn rate it does.
gripen
-
The speed at which max sustained turnrate is achieved in a Spit is considerably higher than that of the 109. If Leykauf's victims were pulling sustained turns at or around the stall, I would expect him to outturn them.
-
I agree with Gripen here.
AFAIK, Bombers flew fairly low in BoB (From 10-20k) and the LW was ordered to fly close escort, so they had to be at roughly the same altitude.
Daff
-
hmmm... Just a thought, 109's slots decreased stall speed but the increased drag with the slots out outweighed any benefit in getting around the circle.
-
Originally posted by HoHun:
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)
Wise words indeed!
You just reminded me of some of the lengthy debates we used to have way back when, seems like an eternity ago!
How long have you been flying AH?
Nice to see you buddy!!
Badboy
-
Originally posted by Bombjack:
The speed at which max sustained turnrate is achieved in a Spit is considerably higher than that of the 109. If Leykauf's victims were pulling sustained turns at or around the stall, I would expect him to outturn them.
Well, actually exact numbers for max sustained turn rate at 12k and full throttle are:
Spitfire: R=696ft Vi=133 2,65g 19s
Bf 109: R=885ft Vi=129 2,1g 25s
So there is not much difference in speeds at max sustained turn rate and the Spitfire has a clear advantage as numbers show. And the elevator control forces are not the limiting factor for the Spitfire, so more speed means just a bit more advantage for the Spitfire.
gripen
-
Just read this old and excellent thread, so I thought I's breathe some life into it again:)
Here is some additional test pilot comparison of the Spitfire and the Me109E:
I have mentioned how badly I felt about the ailerons of the Spitfire at the time of the Battle of Britain. In October 1940 I flew a captured Me109E; to my surprise and relief I found the aileron control of the German fighter every bit as bad - if not worse - at high speed as that of the Spitfire I and II with fabric-covered ailerons. They were good at low and medium speed, but at 400mph and above they were almost immovable. I thought the Me 109E performed well, particularly on the climb at altitude. and it had good stalling characteristics under g except that the leading-edge slats kept snapping in and out. But it had no rudder trimmer - which gave it a heavy footload at high speed - while the cockpit, the canopy and the rearward vision were much worse than the Spitfire. Had I flown the Me 109 earlier, I would have treated the aeroplane with less respect in combat.
Jeffrey Quill
How about that!