American fighter ace & Engineer "Kit" Carson criticizes the BF109E/G and FW-190.

[CUJO_1970]

[Edited]

Edited October 28, 2016 by Bearcat
Too personal

[manitouguy]

Back on topic - I just bought another interesting book by Kit Carson and on back he has another commentary - this time re 190

 

Thought some of you might find it interesting

 

Cheers, Ron

[6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann]

[6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann]

[LukeFF]

German humor - the most inscrutable thing known to mankind. 

[Asgar]

HEY! German humor is not a laughing matter!

[ZachariasX]

Not a laughing matter at all. It is all about the argument.

 

[Edited]

Edited October 28, 2016 by Bearcat
Personal

[6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_humour

 

Example: The United Nations initiated a poll with the request, "Please tell us your honest opinion about the lack of food in the rest of the world." The poll was a total failure. The Russians did not understand "Please". The Italians did not know the word "honest". The Chinese did not know what an "opinion" was. The Europeans did not know "lack", while the Africans did not know "food". Finally, the Americans didn't know anything about the "rest of the world".

 

Which nationality was Ötzi the Iceman? He wasn't Italian, as he carried tools, he wasn't Austrian, since he had brains, he might have been Swiss, since he was overtaken by a glacier, but most probably he was a North German, because nobody else walks in sandals in the mountains.

Edited October 26, 2016 by 6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann

[tomo-pauk]

109E 2460kg  109G6 3150. Weight diference = 690 kg.Spitfire MkII 2800kg  Spitfire MkIX 3380kg. Weigh difference = 580 kg

So ok the 109 gain a little more but 580 kg weight gain you can not tell that is pretty close...

Lets make a simple comparation to see aerodinamics:

Spitfire MkV M45 16l boost. 3000k weight and 1490 horse power. Top speed 605 km/h

Bf109 G6 1.42 ata  3150k weight and 1455hp. Top speed 640 km/h.

I ask you again. Why a lighter plane with more horse power is slower than the 109? I think spit is not as aerodynamic as you think. Aslo 1.3 ata version with about 1350hp is even faster. Also G6 with gunpods +200 extra weight is faster with 620 km/h. Please i Know you grew with history channel and is difficult for you to assume...

MkIX M63 with more than 1700 hp is close ( 408mph) the G2 (414) in a russian test. But when M63 was deployed 109s has the full power 1.42 and the 109 was faster in some alttitudes with 250 hp less. When M66 and M70 were in the spit the 109 had AS compresor, MW50 and all this extras  the 109 can take 680 km/h.

About the agility. At what speeds can the spitfire outturn the 109? maybe at his optimal turn speed in a sustained turn and in very hight altitudes but at high speed manouvers, acrobatics, instant turn and slow speeds combats on the limit the 109G with slats can keep the turn with the spitfire and can go inside the cliped wing version.

 

Hello,

I'd like to revisit some numbers posted here. 1st - engine power. Merlin 45 will indeed make ~1500 HP (and less) when operating on +16 psi boost, but +16 psi boost will be achieved between sea level and 11000 ft (with a static engine, ie. no ram effect present). At 18000-19000 ft, the supercharger will provide just +9psi boost (and ever less of theboost as height increases), and Merlin 45 will be making ~1200 HP there.

We know that at ~18700 ft (= 5.7 km that is rated altitude in this case) the DB 605A will do 1350 PS (~1330 HP) when engine is doing 2800 rpm and 1.42 ata; above that altitude the boost drops from 1.42 ata. So our Bf 109G will enjoy ~130 HP advantage at it's engine's rated altitude.

The engine instalation details favor Bf 109 considerably, too. The 'kidney' exhausts on the Mk.V rob 7 mph vs. individual exhausts, the float-type carb is another power-robbing (=speed-robbing in this case) feature. Not just that is messes with ram air, it necessitated ice guard that again robs power; ice guard cost 8 mph. The Spitfire IX got the pressure-injection carb, the Mk V did not, even after tests proved that up to 10 mph can be gained with new (for the RAF installation) type of carbs.

Further - Bf 109 has a considerably smaller wing than Spitfire, ratio 3:4. Smaller wing will mean less drag between sea level and rated altitude, even if Spitfire uses a bit thinner wing profile. So the Bf 109 scores another advantage that is connected to gaining speed, even if Spitfire's bigger wing & fuselage allows for bigger 'stretch', like easier installation of a more powerful engine, and more fuel & firepower. The sloppy fit & finish was again stealing some 10 mph. Non-retractable tail wheel, exposed rear-wiev mirror, external BP glass - all of these kill speed on the Mk.V, it took Mk.IX and/or MkVII/VIII to remedy these problems.

 

Finally, a thing where Spitfire V was probably superior to the Bf 109F - twice the guns. Even if they cost more speed than Bf 109-Fs battery.

 

My conclusion is that Spitfire was as a basic airframe a very streamlined and with great potential, it were details that were slowing it down, literally, and the true potential, like big fuel tankage, was not used up becuase of buearocratic inertia.

Edited November 11, 2016 by tomo-pauk

[=362nd_FS=Hiromachi]

Hi Tomo-pauk, didnt expect to see you here

 

Finally, a thing where Spitfire V was probably superior to the Bf 109F - twice the guns. Even if they cost more speed than Bf 109-Fs battery.

With this one I'd argue, twice the firepower but the positioning is far from preferable. If cannons are somewhat ok, than machine guns were abysmally far from fuselage and unless striking at convergence their effectiveness would be vastly limited. Never could understand what British tried to achieve with such location of machineguns. 

[tomo-pauk]

Hi Tomo-pauk, didnt expect to see you here

 

 

With this one I'd argue, twice the firepower but the positioning is far from preferable. If cannons are somewhat ok, than machine guns were abysmally far from fuselage and unless striking at convergence their effectiveness would be vastly limited. Never could understand what British tried to achieve with such location of machineguns.

Position of cannons was in line with British thinking of late 1930's-mid 1940s. Hispano cannons, once debugged and belt-fed (mid 1941?) were excellent, provided only one per side was installed since heating capacity was insuficcient for 2 per side. Machine guns' installation was regarded as inferior to Hurricane's, so IMO the 4 Browinings were merely a back-up once cannons were around. Should've swithched to the heavy MGs ASAP, but weapon installation was not the 1st thing that needed rework on the Mk.V.

Edited November 12, 2016 by tomo-pauk

[216th_Lucas_From_Hell]

Nice analysis

[tomo-pauk]

Thank you.

 

 

 

...

Aslo 1.3 ata version with about 1350hp is even faster. Also G6 with gunpods +200 extra weight is faster with 620 km/h.

...

MkIX M63 with more than 1700 hp is close ( 408mph) the G2 (414) in a russian test. But when M63 was deployed 109s has the full power 1.42 and the 109 was faster in some alttitudes with 250 hp less. When M66 and M70 were in the spit the 109 had AS compresor, MW50 and all this extras the 109 can take 680 km/h.

 

The difference in power between the Merlin 63 and a fully rated DB 605A was not at all altitudes 250 HP. Eg. at 2100 m (~6900 ft) the Merlin 63 was good for ~1700 HP, the DB 605A gave 1550 PS (~1530 HP), a difference of some 170 HP. Since the Bf 109 is still a smaller aircraft, we probably won't see Spitfire IX with Merlin 63 outpacing it, though the rate of climb might favor the Spit, depending on what Bf 109G is in question (wing canons yes or no, the 'dirtier' G-5/G-6 etc).

At 21000 ft (6400 m), where Merlin 63 was doing 1520 HP, the DB 605A was good for for ~1240 PS (~1225 HP) - the advantages of 2-stage superchargers are begining to appear. 'Our' Spitfire IX will still do 400 mph at 30000 ft, and we can expect the clean G-2 to do the same. However, by late 1943, when DB 605A is finally fully rated (2800 rpm and 1.42 ata allowed), the most common is the Bf 109G-6 - it acquired MG bulges, fixed tail wheeel, and that will slow it down to the very 1942 speed levels of the G-2.

All of this is before we discuss the HF versions of the Spitfire, powered by Merlin 70 series of engines, that were supposed to do 670 km/h at 8400 m, about a year before the DB 605AS or ASM is available.

 

The rate of climb is rarely discussed, the 2-stage supercharged engines on the Spitfire not only gained the parity vs. LW, but also added some surplus above 20000 ft/6 km.

[-WILD-AlbinoHA5E]

Here's my perspective. on the Mk.IX v 109G.

Coming into 1942 the Friedrichs had a definite overall Performance advantage over the Mk.V, Climb as well as Speed. There were LF.Mk.V, A, B and C Wings etc. but in general the F-4 was a more solid allrounder while the specialized Spitfire Models heavily sacrificed allround Performance for small advantages in certain areas.

 

The Mk.IX and Gustavs both appeared in mid 1942, the G-1 to G-4 series, Top Speeds around 525-535 at Sea Level and 660-650 at around 6000m and climb at around 21m/s. The Gustav weighed in at 3050kg

 

The F Mk.IX with the Merlin 61 and 15lb of Boost according to the Brits did around 650 at 8300m, 610kph at 6000m and 500kph at Sea Level with a maximum rate of climb around 19.5 and 20m/s. The Spitfire weighed in at 3400kg.

 

So for 1942 into early 1943, just by performance I would rate the 109 higher at low altitude, the Mk.IX bettering it above 7000m.

 

 

In early to mid 1943 the Gustavs got uncleaner and the DB605 got the higher power output, the Mk.IX diverted into a Ton of different Sub-Models.

With the Improved power the Gustavs maintained or slightly increased Top Speed, with 530-550 being reasonable for late G-4s and G-6s and 650-670 at 6k and climb increases 22.5 to 24m/s at 1.4ata. Weight 3050 to 3150 between G-4 and G-6

 

The Mk.IX Merlins were uprated to 18lb of boost in that period as well, with Top Speeds (LF, F and HF) of 655-667 and 530-540 at Ground Level with climb around 22.5 and 24m/s. Weight still around 3.4 tons.

 

Still rating both equally, Spitfire better high up, 109 still highly competetive lower down, better firepower though.

 

Later it all becomes quite chaotic with Long and Short tipped Spits, thousands of Merlin Variants, 18lbs and 25lbs of boost, getting LF Mk.IXs possibly being able to reach almost 600kph at Sea Level.

109s with GM-1, MW50, MW30, DB605AS and DB605A and DB605D, Streamlined Cowlings, Enlarged Tail, Long and Short Tailwheels etc. but in general the 109s mainteined themselves at the low to mid 500s at Ground and the Mid 600s at 6-8k depending on engine.

With MW50 Ground Performance increased closer to the high 500s, up to 580 seeming reasonable for very late 109s and climb around 25+m/s

 

So overall, just Performancewise I would rate the two as pretty much equal, with the 109 being able to dictate the terms of engagement at low altitude, and always having the option to disengage even at high alt.

 

I think this is a fair assessment of the Performance of both types. It is the Picture I have at least.

Manouverability and Firepower etc. are a different matter, and a different discussion.

[JtD]

The clearance of 1.42 ata emergency power is not a significant difference in combat performance, which for the most part would be fought at combat power setting (hence the name) and less. It's enough to boost that one dive when you're running for your life, but that's pretty much it.

The Spitfire would climb at 15/18 lb to operating altitudes, the Bf109 would not do the same at 1.42 ata. This changed with the MW50 only, and was the largest benefit of the installation.

[Max_Damage]

Spitfires are planes with a big emphasis on sustained climb and turning because they have large wings. It pays with speed and acceleration in return, making the plane slow to a point it suffers in vertical combat. Its ability to keep up with an initially faster plane going into a vertical spiral is quite hampered. Less initial speed = less altitude gained in a spiral. At some point good sustained climb cant make up for defeciency in initial speed and it starts having a negative impact on the plane's vertical ability.

 

This is why f4/g2 with 1.42 ata will have an advantage against spitfire F IX in a vertical and a serious advantage against the spitfire V. The LF IX might be equal to them in this regard, it has better initial speed at low altitude and will probably surpass f4/g2 in pretty much everything.

Edited November 12, 2016 by Max_Damage

[tomo-pauk]

Spitfires are planes with a big emphasis on sustained climb and turning because they have large wings. It pays with speed and acceleration in return, making the plane slow to a point it suffers in vertical combat. Its ability to keep up with an initially faster plane going into a vertical spiral is quite hampered. Less initial speed = less altitude gained in a spiral. At some point good sustained climb cant make up for defeciency in initial speed and it starts having a negative impact on the plane's vertical ability.

 

(my emphasis)

That is the problem with any aircraft, not just Spitfire vs. LW opposition. The A/C entering the climb while using high speed will handily out-climb another A/C that enters the climb with lower initial speed. Speed = life (usualy). Nobody prevents Spitfire pilots to cruise as fast as reasonably feasible and when possible, obviously it is easier to cruise faster with Spit XI than Spit V.

 

 

This is why f4/g2 with 1.42 ata will have an advantage against spitfire F IX in a vertical and a serious advantage against the spitfire V. The LF IX might be equal to them in this regard, it has better initial speed at low altitude and will probably surpass f4/g2 in pretty much everything.

 

I'm afraid you've mistaken here re. Mk.IX.

The Spit IX cruising at 300 or 350 mph will not be outclimbed by a F4 or G2 that is cuising at same speed, especially if we're talking of altitudes above 20000 ft. The Spit V is obviously in disadvantage vs. Luftwaffe's best (F4, any G, Fw 190), but we know that already.

[E69_geramos109]

You have to remember that the main spitfire on 1943 were the MkV not the MkIX. The MKIX was important at 1944 and with the MW50 the 109 keeps the top speed. Only in hight alt the spit is faster. Later with the AS the 109 keeps also at hight alt and the spit only is faster over 8k or something like that. And the 109 has allways the advantage to dive and disengage.

[Max_Damage]

(my emphasis)

That is the problem with any aircraft, not just Spitfire vs. LW opposition. The A/C entering the climb while using high speed will handily out-climb another A/C that enters the climb with lower initial speed. Speed = life (usualy). Nobody prevents Spitfire pilots to cruise as fast as reasonably feasible and when possible, obviously it is easier to cruise faster with Spit XI than Spit V.

 

 

I'm afraid you've mistaken here re. Mk.IX.

The Spit IX cruising at 300 or 350 mph will not be outclimbed by a F4 or G2 that is cuising at same speed, especially if we're talking of altitudes above 20000 ft. The Spit V is obviously in disadvantage vs. Luftwaffe's best (F4, any G, Fw 190), but we know that already.

At 0m: What i mean is if you get on bf109s tail, he will gain separation and will establish a higher speed. It can be 20-40 kmh higher depending on the spitfire in question. After that the bf109 does a vertical spiral the spitfire wont be able to follow because the spitfire has inherently lower horizontal speed. That in the case bf109 has time to accelerate above the spitfire ofc.

 

20kmh is risky(with spitfire LF IX), but 40kmh advantage (with sptifire V or spitfire F IX) is pretty much a free reign in a vertical combat for otherwise similar planes.

 

I have recently come to understanding that good sustained climb doesnt equal good vertical combat ability, but you actually also need to have a good HORIZONTAL top speed and accel. Only proper balance between the two will give a good result. I believe the spitfire is too imbalanced in favor of sustained turn/climb to give good results in the vertical combat.

Edited November 12, 2016 by Max_Damage

[tomo-pauk]

You have to remember that the main spitfire on 1943 were the MkV not the MkIX. The MKIX was important at 1944 and with the MW50 the 109 keeps the top speed. Only in hight alt the spit is faster. Later with the AS the 109 keeps also at hight alt and the spit only is faster over 8k or something like that. And the 109 has allways the advantage to dive and disengage.

 

What was the main Spitfire in 1943 (and I know that until Jan 1944 the Mk.V was the most numerous) has, I'm afraid, close to nothing to do with a comparison with this marque of Spitfire with that marque of Bf 109. Mk IX was important over the occupied West Europe in 1943, the RAF finally knew better than to throw it's 2nd league fighters against the LW at 20000 ft and above. Right at altitudes where MW 50 on the DB 605A is not helping anymore (once it can use it before blowing up the engine, talk Sept/Oct 1943 and later). The Bf 109 that dives and disengages is not doing it's job, like hitting the American heavies and similar.

 

At 0m: What i mean is if you get on bf109s tail, he will gain separation and will establish a higher speed. It can be 20-40 kmh higher depending on the spitfire in question. After that the bf109 does a vertical spiral the spitfire wont be able to follow because the spitfire has inherently lower horizontal speed. That in the case bf109 has time to accelerate above the spitfire ofc.

 

20kmh is risky(with spitfire LF IX), but 40kmh advantage (with sptifire V or spitfire F IX) is pretty much a free reign in a vertical combat for otherwise similar planes.

 

I have recently come to understanding that good sustained climb doesnt equal good vertical combat ability, but you actually also need to have a good HORIZONTAL top speed and accel. Only proper balance between the two will give a good result. I believe the spitfire is too imbalanced in favor of sustained turn/climb to give good results in the vertical combat.

 

The engineers at Rolls Royce did not came out with a 2-stage supercharged Merlin so our cocky RAF pilot will fight at sea level. The engine was conceived to deliver good power above 20000 ft, where the Spitfire IX has at least parity, if not the advantage in speed and RoC. Spitfire IX was with a shortcoming or two, but it was a reasonably fast aircraft, and a very good climber.

[E69_geramos109]

 The Bf 109 that dives and disengages is not doing it's job, like hitting the American heavies and similar.

They only had to waith the spitfire turn home with no fuel to engage heavys. The luft was defeated on the mediterranean on the ground thanks to the lack of an efective bomber defence coordination not on the air against the spits. 

[E69_geramos109]

 

You also have to remember that Bf-109G6 was the main fighter of the luftwaffe in 1944. Unfortunate for the germans, G6 was obsolete against the latest Spitfire IX's by then. All the different modifications to 109s (MW50, A/S etc) started to appear in significant numbers only from very late 1944 onwards, and by then RAF had Spitfire IXs flying around with +25 lbs boost which gave them a top speed nearing 600 km/h on the deck and a climb rate of a whopping +29 m/s. And from mid 1944 onwards Spitfire XIV started operations. It was cleared for +25lbs in late 44. At that boost setting it had a top speed of ~ 630 km/h on the deck, ~730 km/h at high altitude and a climb rate of 26 m/s at only +18 lb/s and around 30 m/s with +25 lb/s.

 

Manouevrability wise Spitfire has the advantage, it has considerably tighter turning circle, it had much better control authoruty at higher speeds (109s got very heavy or completely locked up at high speed) it also handles much better than 109 making it easier for the average pilot to master, it gave clear warning when stall was approaching (lots of buffeting). Acceleration was about the same. Higher rate of climb also gave Spitfire the edge in vertical manouvres. According to many pilot accounts Spit pilots favoured a tight climbing spiral because 109s just couldnt follow them and would end up stalling. 109s were limited to hit and run attacks and it was concluded that trying to mix it with a Spitfire was a suicide.

 

So in conclusion, In 1942 Merlin 61 powered Spit was at a slight disadvantage against early 109Gs but after M66 engine got introduced Spitfire had a solid lead till the end of the war. 

 

Luftwaffe was defeated by hordes of P-51 Mustangs. First in the air after escort fighters were freed from flying zigzag above the bombers. Then what was left of the lw was just strafed and destroyed before they could even take off. 

 

MW50 was abailable before, not only in late 1944. In 1944 spit was release to secondary tasks becase they were not able to scort the bombers. The real adantage of the spit IX against the G6 was at hight alt where the bombers were fighting so.. Please dont talk about the 25lb with 150 octane fuel. Not really aplicable due to the poor life of engine. Also the same about the MKXIV i supose yu saw the test with the holes of the guns covered, experimental prop and 150 octane fuel for the test.

Easyer handling than the 109? MkIX was not the MkV. you can read some test pilots talking about that. The MKIX was not the soft plane that the MkV was and the MkXIV was even worse with this huge torque. Dont talk about the stall caracteristics on the spit. Were a lot worse than the 109 with slats due to the hight angle of attack near the wing root. Better elevator handling? You must to read some mustang pilot repors about how they could not follow the 109s recovering +800kmh dives thanks to the horizonltal adjustable elvator. Of corse the 109 has a hard control authority at hight speeds but this isue is also a myth against the 109. All this planes suffered hard control at hight speeds. The 190 was the only fighter you can turn with only one hand at those speeds.

 

Luftwaffe was defeated by hordes of P-51 Mustangs. First in the air after escort fighters were freed from flying zigzag above the bombers. Then what was left of the lw was just strafed and destroyed before they could even take off. 

I was talking about 1943 with the fight for Italy. Were the spit was the main plane with P40, P38 etc not the mustang.

 

 

 

We will see when spit come in BOK. Sure all spit fans are going to start complaining because they hear all his life that the spit was the best and they will start to claim the MkIX. 

Edited November 13, 2016 by E69_geramos109

[JtD]

Anyone who thinks the Luftwaffe was defeated in any single campaign at any single place or by any single type should really start reading a bit more on the subject.

[MiloMorai]

Poor life of Merlin with 150PN fuel?? Did someone forget that 8th AF Merlins using 150PN fuel were flying long range escort  missions deep into Germany.

 

Spitfires escorted 8th AF bombers.

 

Holes for guns were covered until the guns were fired.

[YSoMadTovarisch]

The misinformation and ignorances e69-geramos109 provided are too entertaining for me to put him on ignore list

[Crump]

Check out Operation Diver.....

 

To characterize the few squadrons of the ADGB using 150 Octane fuel as having the primary mission of tangling with and destroying the Luftwaffe day fighters would simply be not be correct.

[Crump]

Poor life of Merlin with 150PN fuel?? Did someone forget that 8th AF Merlins using 150PN fuel were flying long range escort  missions deep into Germany.

 

Spitfires escorted 8th AF bombers.

 

Holes for guns were covered until the guns were fired.

They used a much lower manifold pressure and yes they still had significant issues with the fuel. Why do guys think that fouled spark plugs and valve seat erosion are no big deal?

 

You cannot fly an airplane with fouled plugs. You can clear a lightly fouled plug but severe fouling tends to cascade and will crash the aircraft. In fact, it did cause several fatal crashes in the 8th USAAF.

[Crump]

Mitchell's law:

 

Related to Wurgers Law; any discussion of the Bf-109 will become a Spifire vs 109 discussion within 3 pages and evolve into a 150 octane fuel argument.

[NZTyphoon]

They used a much lower manifold pressure and yes they still had significant issues with the fuel. Why do guys think that fouled spark plugs and valve seat erosion are no big deal?

 

You cannot fly an airplane with fouled plugs. You can clear a lightly fouled plug but severe fouling tends to cascade and will crash the aircraft. In fact, it did cause several fatal crashes in the 8th USAAF.

 

An 8th AF memorandum on 100/150 octane fuel stated, in regards to the P-51B/C/D:

 

  With 150 grade fuel containing 6 cc. of lead, 10 to 12 hours, or normally 2 missions, was the average length of time between spark plug changes or cleaning. At various times in the six months of operation of P-51 aircraft on 150 grade fuel many other maintenance difficulties were attributed to the fuel, but final analysis proved that the only real effect of the fuel was the lead fouling. Some units maintained that they had some deterioration of seals, but this was not borne our throughout the command, nor was there any concrete evidence that it existed in the units.

 

    The excessive fouling of spark plugs usually exhibited itself in roughing up of engines after a couple of hours of low power cruising. Periodic bursts of high power in most cases smoothed the engine out. However, if the engine was allowed to go too long a period without being cleaned out, the accumulation of lead bromide globules successfully withstood any attempts to blow them out. In some instances, long periods of idling while waiting for take-off and a failure to use high power on take off resulted in loss of power during take-off run and in some cases caused complete cutting out with subsequent belly landing. The cases of cutting-out on take-off definitely attributed to excessive fouling were comparatively few, although numerous enough to list it as an effect of the extra lead. 

 

   As a result of several months operational use with the fuel, an SOP – designed to reduce power failures on take-off, leading troubles in flight, and other things which were causing early returns and abortive aircraft – was published. This is inclosure no. 1. Almost immediately after this section published this SOP practically all of the troubles then existing ceased, although it was necessary to change plugs after each two missions or thereabouts.

 

Can Crump please provide evidence of his "several fatal crashes" that can be attributed solely to 100/150 Grade?

 

In regard to the RAF's experience, a similar report was also positive:

 

 

The only difference between (100) Grade Fuel and 150 Grade Fuel is that the former fuel tends to foul sparking plugs...In practice it has been found that this plug fouling can be overcome by opening up engines to maximum cruising r.p.m and boost for 30 seconds every 15 minutes.

 

The reasons why 100/150 Grade wasn't adopted by 2 TAF until early 1945 was more to do with supply and logistics, rather than any short-term problems with plug-fouling that were overcome in service:

 

 

2.        Because the flying bomb menace no longer exists, and because under existing operational commitments, aircraft of A.D.G.B. will have to refuel at landing grounds in Belgium or Holland, it has been decided to revert to the use of 130 Grade Fuel and to adjust engines to their previous maximum boost pressure. To continue to use 150 Grade Fuel in operational Squadrons is undesirable for the following reasons:-

(i) The free interchange of Squadrons with 2 T.A.F would be complicated in that aircraft would have to be modified for the lower boost pressure on transfer. (ii) To use 150 Grade Fuel when operating from U.K and to use 130 Grade Fuel when refueling on the Continent, would call for repeated adjustments of the maximum boost pressure obtainable. (iii) The increased performance obtainable by the use of 150 Grade Fuel is not an essential operational requirement for the role, which A.D.G.B. Squadrons will be called to undertake in the near future. (iv) The supply of 150 Grade Fuel is such that stocks can only be laid down a certain airfields. This imposes a degree of inflexibility, which is undesirable.

 

While Crump quite rightly suggests that the fuel could and did, at first, cause problems with plug fouling, the valve seat problems didn't arise in 8th A/F aircraft until "PEP" 150 grade fuel, containing 1.5 T’s of ethylene dibromide, was used:

 

 

As a results, all fighter units of the Air Force were put on Pep fuel late in January 1945. About thirty days thereafter a sharp increase in valve trouble was experienced with the V-1650 engine. Inspection of engines at overhaul revealed that the hydrobromic acid was eroding the silchrome valve seat inserts to such an extent that after approximately 100 hours of operation all the valve clearance was gone. This 100-hours is the minimum life some engines going 170 to 180 hours before this condition prevailed. There are no other deleterious effects of this fuel noted.

 

Thus, while there were some problems, that were overcome in operational service, the 8th A/F and RAF considered that they weren't serious enough to halt all operational, wartime use.

[Falco_Peregrinus]

 

You also have to remember that Bf-109G6 was the main fighter of the luftwaffe in 1944. Unfortunate for the germans, G6 was obsolete against the latest Spitfire IX's by then. All the different modifications to 109s (MW50, A/S etc) started to appear in significant numbers only from very late 1944 onwards, and by then RAF had Spitfire IXs flying around with +25 lbs boost which gave them a top speed nearing 600 km/h on the deck and a climb rate of a whopping +29 m/s. And from mid 1944 onwards Spitfire XIV started operations. It was cleared for +25lbs in late 44. At that boost setting it had a top speed of ~ 630 km/h on the deck, ~730 km/h at high altitude and a climb rate of 26 m/s at only +18 lb/s and around 30 m/s with +25 lb/s.

 

Manouevrability wise Spitfire has the advantage, it has considerably tighter turning circle, it had much better control authoruty at higher speeds (109s got very heavy or completely locked up at high speed) it also handles much better than 109 making it easier for the average pilot to master, it gave clear warning when stall was approaching (lots of buffeting). Acceleration was about the same. Higher rate of climb also gave Spitfire the edge in vertical manouvres. According to many pilot accounts Spit pilots favoured a tight climbing spiral because 109s just couldnt follow them and would end up stalling. 109s were limited to hit and run attacks and it was concluded that trying to mix it with a Spitfire was a suicide.

 

So in conclusion, In 1942 Merlin 61 powered Spit was at a slight disadvantage against early 109Gs but after M66 engine got introduced Spitfire had a solid lead till the end of the war. 

 

Luftwaffe was defeated by hordes of P-51 Mustangs. First in the air after escort fighters were freed from flying zigzag above the bombers. Then what was left of the lw was just strafed and destroyed before they could even take off. 

 

 

 

God, that are some astonishing flying characteristics. 630 km/h on the deck is insane.

The Spitfire, later versions (I just love also the griffon ones) were just spectacular planes, probably the best fighters in the world 70 years ago.

 

Great at low alt, great in climbing, but more importantly great at higher altitude thanks with their huge wings. And the Regia Aeronautica in fact was looking for an alternative for the C.205 in 1942 by telling companies to build a fighter with a larger wing and lower wingload, as pilots complained that above 6000 meters the planes couldn't really manoeuver really well.

 

Only drawback of the Spit was their diving speed and weapons installation. The italian pilots who, after the war, piloted the Spitfire were unanimously saying it was great. Not many said the same about the Messer tbh. 

[tomo-pauk]

Thank you for the Italian perspective.

BTW - the diving speed of the Spitfire was at least as about high as what P-51 did.

[-WILD-AlbinoHA5E]

God, that are some astonishing flying characteristics. 630 km/h on the deck is insane.

The Spitfire, later versions (I just love also the griffon ones) were just spectacular planes, probably the best fighters in the world 70 years ago.

 

Great at low alt, great in climbing, but more importantly great at higher altitude thanks with their huge wings. And the Regia Aeronautica in fact was looking for an alternative for the C.205 in 1942 by telling companies to build a fighter with a larger wing and lower wingload, as pilots complained that above 6000 meters the planes couldn't really manoeuver really well.

 

Only drawback of the Spit was their diving speed and weapons installation. The italian pilots who, after the war, piloted the Spitfire were unanimously saying it was great. Not many said the same about the Messer tbh. 

Ähemm... I hate to playing that card, but: Me-262. And if we talk about Small Scale Production fighters, why not mention the Ta-152 as well?

A 109 with revised tail assembly and Flettner Tabbed Ailerons would have been able to work around a DB603 as well with equal Performance.

[Falco_Peregrinus]

Ähemm... I hate to playing that card, but: Me-262. And if we talk about Small Scale Production fighters, why not mention the Ta-152 as well?

A 109 with revised tail assembly and Flettner Tabbed Ailerons would have been able to work around a DB603 as well with equal Performance.

 

forgot to add a "piston engined" before the word fighter.

But still, I consider the later versions of the Spits superior to the me 262. A fighter is, in a way, an air force "tool", designed for many assignments and functions, logistical problems as well. As a serivceble life of 20 hours or so, the Jumo 004 was not a "winning" tool in the hands of the Luftwaffe.

The same can be said about german super-heavy-fantastic-tanks. 

 

Building 1000 Tiger tanks doesn't equate to winning a war, quite the contrary.

Building a very good medium all-arounder tank as the T-34 or Sherman is what makes you winning a war.

 

It's the "strategic" thinking that wins war, not the "tactical" one.

Building a super advanced plane in not huge numbers, full of technical problems, will never win wars (real one of course, not the forum wars we can see here...)

[-WILD-AlbinoHA5E]

Yeah, impressive figures indeed. But that's not all, RAF Mustangs clocked  650 km/h on the deck, now that is insane lol. 

 

 

 

Spitfire XIV was hardly a small scale production fighter with over 1100 built. For comparison: 40-80 Ta-152s were ever built and  a total of ~700 of the previously mentioned BF-109 A/S variants were built. Spitfire XIV was without a doubt the best mass produced piston engined fighter of the war.

 

Now, if we truly want to talk about small scale production fighters and not some hypothetical prototypes, there's one aircraft that clearly outperformed everything the germans had, including their Me262 and He162. This aircraft even saw combat in WW2. I'm of course talking about the legendary P-80, the mother of all modern fighter jets. Luckily for the germans, P-80s weren't really needed as P-51s had already taken care of the luftwaffe, even though they would've been available in numbers.

Well, Statistically speaking:

Allied Land-Fighters in Service in Europe

Hurricane: 14,500

Tempest: 1700

Seafire: 2300

Spitfire: 20,000

Airacobra: 9500

Kingcobra: 3300

Buffalo: 500

P-40: 13,700

Mustang: 15,500

P-47 Thunderbolt: 15600

LaGG-3: 6500

La-5: 9900

La-7: 5700

MiG-3: 3200

I-16: 3600

Yak-1: 8700

Yak-3: 4800

Yak-7: 6400

Yak-9: 16,800

D.520: 900

P-38 Lightning: 10,000

+Small Production Stuff

____________________

Ca. 175,000 Single Seat Fighters

 

 

Axis Single Seaters:

Bf109 since 1936: 34,000

Fw190: ca. 20,000

All Macchi Fighters: ca. 2500

Raggiane: ca. 500

+500 Irrelevant fighters

________________________

57500

+maybe 2000 German Rocket and Jetfighters

59500

 

About 3 times the number of Aircraft. Relatively Speaking then, 700 Bf109 G-6A/S would outnumber the 1100 Mk.XIV, even if half of the Allied fighters were to fight in the Pacific. 

 

The Tides would shift even more if I was to include Axis and Allied Pacific Aircraft.

Edited November 14, 2016 by CuteKitten94

[MiloMorai]

They used a much lower manifold pressure and yes they still had significant issues with the fuel. Why do guys think that fouled spark plugs and valve seat erosion are no big deal?

 

You cannot fly an airplane with fouled plugs. You can clear a lightly fouled plug but severe fouling tends to cascade and will crash the aircraft. In fact, it did cause several fatal crashes in the 8th USAAF.

 

Much lower? British Mustangs used 25lb boost.

 

The USAAF flew over 330,000 fighter sorties in 1944. Several fatal crashes is insignificant, tho not for the pilots involved in the crashes.

[E69_geramos109]

I dont have here the numbers but with the 700As you were probably talking about the G6As. You have to add the G10s and K4 and you will get more than 700 against that number of spits XIV who were mainly covering england from V1 attacks.

 

About the fuel i have the same report than you and as you can read there were isues with the fuel. Was conpletely clear in early 45 where you have the K4, G10 and later 109s not the G6 that of corse is not a match for the spit IX 25 at low altitude.

About the 262 tigers etc you can not compare there. Germany has no the production potencial to build 50000 shermans or T34 so they had to focused on te quality. Also they did not have the resources to train as the USA had. And they made a real heroic resistance agaist the world if we forget politics.

 

For me is incredible how with all the raids and lack of resources they could keep competitive all the material they had like the K4 with syntetic fuel against hight octane fuel.

Edited November 14, 2016 by E69_geramos109

[II./JG77_Manu*]

but still, I consider the later versions of the Spits superior to the me 262.

 

A lot of historians, German and English, concur that Germans would have had aerial superiority in the whole of Europe, if they'd had 1000 262 at a time, and the pilots to fly them. I think the same can't be said about any Spit, no matter if you have 1000 or 10000

Edited November 14, 2016 by II./JG77_Manu*

[SJ_Butcher]

A lot of historians, German and English, concur that Germans would have had aerial superiority in the whole of Europe, if they'd had 1000 262 at a time, and the pilots to fly them. I think the same can't be said about any Spit, no matter if you have 1000 or 10000

 

262 is awesome despite the technical problem it have, yesterday I watched red tails, its a good movie and when you see the 262 omg what a plane, but as usual the German pilots are a bunch of noobs with 10 hours of flight time, still an awesome aircraft.

[-WILD-AlbinoHA5E]

262 is awesome despite the technical problem it have, yesterday I watched Red Tails, its a good movie and when you see the 262 omg what a plane, but as usual the German pilots are a bunch of noobs with 10 hours of flight time, still an awesome aircraft.

You are aware that Red Tails is probably the worst thing in the history of War Movies ever. It's a horrible Movie, worse than the Star Wars Prequels. And the Me-262, well, 4x30mm Cannons:

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XK4cKzI3-ZY

 

 

 

 

 

Speaking of Blacksploitation, actually awesome Movie:

 

 

 

Edited November 14, 2016 by CuteKitten94

[=362nd_FS=Hiromachi]

 

 

About the fuel i have the same report than you and as you can read there were isues with the fuel.

What about German fuel ? What was Luftwaffe situation in regard to fuel ?

 

 

 

About the 262 tigers etc you can not compare there. Germany has no the production potencial to build 50000 shermans or T34 so they had to focused on te quality.

No, its the same mindset trap Japanese fell into. Quality vs Quantity. Germans had Tigers and Panthers, Japanese had Yamato, Long Lance torpedoes and whatever you name. Belief that higher quality, more advanced designs can equal odds proved to be wrong in that war. And Germany could take a different way, trying to produce more simple designs. It's no overstatement that in many designs Germany produced technical marvels that were so over-complicated that their servicing and  mass production proved great problem.

 

 

 

And they made a real heroic resistance agaist the world if we forget politics.

"If we forget politics" then we are still left with large numbers of slave labor. Nothing particularly heroic in that multiple conquered nations were exploited ...  

 

 

 

For me is incredible how with all the raids and lack of resources they could keep competitive all the material they had like the K4 with syntetic fuel against hight octane fuel.

And at the same time they failed with basics. An Army with sturmgewehrs, Me-262s and Tigers that still by the end of the war even with most modern and mechanized elements ran on oats as much as on gasoline.