Spit V 109 in Battle of britain?

[Vinegar Dave]

'IF' the 109 could have stayed as long as they liked over here in the battle britain would of all things equal in pilots and skill levels the same was the 109 a suoerior plane?

Edited By Vinegar Dave on 12/01/2015 10:43:56

[Dave Hopkin]

In all honesty - probably yes it had far greater hitting power

The most significant factor in the BoB was the RAF's ability to re-cycle pilots who were unhurt after a bail out, whilst the German pilots were in POW camps

If you read many accounts availability of aircraft was never an issue for the RAF bods to fly them was

[Jon H]

This debate has been running since 1939 and depends vastly on which Mk of spit was against which Mk of 109.

Both aircraft had advantages over the other but both out classed the Hurricane. However, the Hurricane shot down plenty of 109's.

In air combat, it was usually the guy who saw his opponent first who was victorious.

[Dave Hopkin]

I think we tend to concentrate too much on the technical abilities of each aircraft type and loose sight of the tactics, training, morale and logistics that keep them in the air which very often has a far greater influence on the outcome of any period of combat that the relatively minor differences between them

[Simon Chaddock]

As Dave points out the Bf109's single 20mm cannon was a very powerful weapon and it fired an explosive shell so any hit on a Spitfire was likely to be significant but with only one of these relatively slow firing weapons and just two 7.62 machine guns a hit was by no means easy particularly if the Spitfire used is better turning capabilities.

The 8 guns of the Spitfire had a larger foot print but it would take multiple hits from a .303 solid bullet to do serious damage unless a shot hit a critical area like the cooling system.

This weakness existed on both the planes and they could each in effect be downed by a single lucky machine gun bullet.

The Hurricane's wide track under carriage made take off and landing easier than the Spitfire (the Bf109 was particularly difficult) and was considered a rather better gun platform making it easier to hit the target so despite its inferior speed it was favoured by some pilots at the time.

Much depended on the skill & experience of the pilot and in this respect the Luftwaffe started with a significant advantage but fighting over the South of England the longer the battle continued the loss of these experienced pilots became ever more significant.

[Vinegar Dave]

It's a lije for likeness and all things equal in skills of pilots to the MK of Spit in 1940 to the Mk of 109 at the same time.

I know this in real life is not possible but plane for plane only at that time i think the 109 would have won quite easily, as if you study all the advantages of one over the other its atleast 4/1 in the 109's favour , i think the fuel injection and the cannons and height would have been enough.

[Cuban8]

See Sir Stanley Hooker's comments in his autobiography "Not Much of an Engineer" regarding the 'superiority' of the 109's fuel injection system.

RR had their reasons for not going down the fuel injection route because of the advantage of 'charge cooling' that is lost with direct fuel injection. IIRC Stromberg developed the injection carburettor that was fitted to later Merlins and completely cured the negative G cutting of the earlier motors (not forgetting Miss Shilling's contribution).

[J D 8]

Tactics affected much of what went on in the battle of Britain,much of what had been learned in the great war of how to come out on top in air combat was forgotten as many in the RAF thought faster monoplanes needed different methods.

An example being the continued use of the tight vic of three basic formation where only the leader could keep a full lookout while the Germans were using the spread out finger four formation where all could keep a good lookout`and the two out front both had a back up wingman.

In many ways British tactics improved through the BoB as many squadrons adopted the finger four formation or similar and relearned the lessons of WW1 and ground controllers learned to put formations in the best position to attack instead of sending them straight in.

German tactics went the other way for mainly political reasons,failure to keep attacking RAF airfields,attacking targets outside of effective 109 range [London] and then Georing insisting the fighters stay close to the bombers not allowing them free range to engage enemy fighters, a lesson the Americans had to learn for themselves when their fighters started protecting their B17's and B24's.

[ken anderson.]

the RAF wanted young lad's who's brain's hadn't learned what fear was as pilots...knowing that they would go over the top in dog fight's etc after they had done the basic training.......the average lifespan of a Lancaster bomber from the production line to getting shot down was 51/2(five and a half!) mission's.......what a prospect to have to face....

 

ken Anderson...ne...1 respect dept.

Edited By ken anderson. on 12/01/2015 15:13:14

[Prop Nut]

It's stretching a point to say the Bf109 could have won 'easily'. The cannon had a much greater destructive power than machine guns alone, but it was slow firing by comparison and a great deal of BoB air combat involved snap shooting at a fleeting target, where mgs had the advantage. I don't exactly understand the point about height; the fact that the German fighters came over with a height advantage was tactical, not an inferiority on the part of the Spitfire. The Bf109E had a service ceiling of 30,100 ft, but the Spitfire Mk 1A could reach 31,900 ft (37,600 ft with the Rotol Constant Speed airscrew). Lack of fuel injection was not a decisive disadvantage and the Spitfire's superior turning circle more than balanced it out in defensive fighting. Perhaps the best comparison is when the RAF started flying offensive sweeps over France, where the Spitfire had the range disadvantage. RAF losses were significant, but proportionately less than for the Luftwaffe in the BoB though, by then, the Spitfire IIB was carrying cannon, as well as mgs.

[Dave Hopkin]

I'm not sure you can draw a comparison between higher german attrition rates in the BoB as opposed to the lower RAF attrition rates in sweeps over France later in the war and come to the conclusion that indicates the Spitfire was superior when the combat environment was utterly different, ie the Spits were not tied to defending bomber formations, the Lufwaffe was concentrated in the defence of the Reich against bombing, the allies had established total air superiority - each of which would significantly reduce losses - and I think I am right in saying the bulk of fighter sweep looses were due to concentrated light Flak rather than air to air combat (something that was woefully missing in Britain in 1940

[J D 8]

Fighter sweeps to France was one of the first moves in taking the fight to the Reich the aim being to bring the Luftwaffe into air combat and shoot them down,pretty soon the Germans just ignored the fighters overhead and so started beehive operations,a few bombers[bombing targets in France] with a lot of spitfires and the 109's had to come up and fight.[After the start of the Russian war the Luftwaffe never had enough day fighters in the west]

But it was during low level sweeps "Rubarb" missions [ during cloudy bad weather pairs of spits would shoot up anything they could find on the ground.] that many spits and good pilots were lost to flak for little gain and this policy went on for far to long before it stopped and later given over to more suitable aircraft.

[Colin Carpenter]

Hi. I have studied every book I can find about the BofB over the years and have come to the conclusion that the two aircraft were evenly matched at that time and luck and combat situation were the decisive factors . The Spit was the better airframe but the 109 was ideally suited to the bounce and that was crucial. However don't forget the Hurricane . It shot down 70 % of the enemy and Dowding was well aware that our pilots had to shoot down many more of the enemy to hold the line. He had decided on a defensive action well before the war and history has shown him to be correct. One important factor was Hawkers decision to build jigs and produce aircraft before a contract was awarded and hence Hurris were available in sufficient numbers at the right time in history.

Was the Spit better? Dunno ! But would I like a flight on one ? You bet ! More than I would a 109 !

Now Don't get me started on the Mossie. Sublime aircraft !!

Colin

[Dave Hopkin]

Hawkers may have had foresight in producing jigs, but there was a concerted move from 1936 when Chamberlin sacked the Air Minister and appointed Kingsley Wood (Swinton was sacked for the lack of rearmanent of the RAF, despiite popular legend Chamberlin was quietly gearing up for war and there are lots of other examples) - Under Wood a Herbet Morris (of the cars) devised a "Shadow Factort System" that allowed a tripling of aircraft production within weeks of the system being activated - the classic example is the Castle Bromwich Factory in Birmingham, set up and made ready pre-war activated and producing 1000 Spits a week by the end of 1940

[J D 8]

In the 1947-49 Arab Israeli war of independence spitfire came up against spitfire.Egyptian pilots were well trained but it was the Israeli airforce that prevailed as most of its pilots who were from many country's were WW2 combat veterans. The Israeli's also had some 109's and some pilots flew missions in both types finding differences but overall much the same performance.

[Erfolg]

It is intriguing reading some of the reasons why one aircraft is better than other, dependant on your point of view.

In the battle of Britain, I have read that the CR32 had the tightest turning circle, there used to be one in the BB museum at Hendon. Similar observations were made during the Vietnam war, where out turning kept the pilot alive, although did not normally result the other aircraft being damaged. Possibly an extreme hypothetical comparison could be made with a Tornado and a Spitfire. I have been left with an impression, that the best tactic with a faster aircraft, with a higher speed, from reading, is a straight forward attack from the rear and then get out of there. If a real speed difference exists, the faster aircraft choose when to attack and then get out. Of course this is only reading. If tighter turning but slower, keep turning, until you can get out of there. Of course dive speeds, rate of acceleration, climb rate all matter to.

I am surprise that anyone would argue that fuel injection was not an advantage, from a number of standpoints. Certainly during any negative "g" manoeuvre. Both engines were supercharged.

I have always found the "E" Bf armaments more problematical, in that machine guns were also fitted, or wing mounted cannon. Often the fuz cannon was not there. As with so much the rate of fire of cannon also varied, from slow, to acceptably fast. The point made with respect to cannons needing to be brought to bare is correct. although at the time of the BB, the Luftwaffe had their most battled/operational experienced pilots available. I guess the argument goes, if you are well trained and experienced, then the hitting power of a cannon is best, if relatively inexperienced, then a lot of machine guns provides the opportunities that you otherwise would allude you.

What interests me, is that the BF was built to a cost (money and time), it was known (at the time) that it could have been made better. A lot of features were just accepted to keep unit costs down, whilst providing an exceptional aircraft. As time went on these were addressed.

In the case of the Spit, it was a no compromise on optimisation of the airframe, from day one.

Looking at both aircraft, they are a tale of engine development, ever more power, which accounts for most of the performance increases, than the detail improvements in airframe design. In reality it is engines which are central to all aircraft and their performances.

The BB is probably the only time that their roles were pretty much identical. The 109, becoming increasingly optimised for bomber interception.

Possible one of the greatest failings of many German fighters was their limited range. A bit like the EE Lightning, although not quite as extreme.

[J D 8]

The Germans experimented with long range tanks for fighters during the Spanish civil war,but the extra weight along with the engine power available then limited takeoff performance and pilots disliked them and the idea was dropped.

Edited By john davies 8 on 12/01/2015 22:20:59

[Erfolg]

It is interesting how operational experiences have a influence on what is perceived as acceptable and desirable. As you say, when the opposition is not to well organised and numerous, why bother with drop tanks? It is only in the light of experience that sometimes that they become an option that is seen as useful.

I guess why most of us like miltary aircraft, they are often designed with a specific role and conditions in mind. Yet they are still a compromise. Then real life experience is gathered, often something proves to be less than satisfactory to bordering on useless. Or even the concept was ill conceived, I would the Boulton Paul Defiant is an example of this type.

When I think of a single role aircraft, a no compromise,  point of defence aircraft, it is the EE Lightening. So extreme it seemed to need a tanker available straight after take of. For its role, excellent, for anything else fatality flawed.

Just looking at books such as Richard Greens "War Planes of the Third Reich", you see how drop tanks were developed for the 109. Yet as you point out, even over the home territory many German aircraft needed good endurance, as they were required to loiter, hunting for targets, particularly as the Radar and control systems increasingly were degraded.

Although no one has mentioned it as yet, it was the successful use of embryonic UK Radar systems (sound systems were still actively being developed at the same time) which enhanced the performance of the defensive strategy. Although apparently the Germans knew what the towers were and how the system operated, the destruction of the system was more difficult than calculated. Probably the real turning point in the strategy of the Germans, was Churchills bomber attack on Berlin. This one act, so infuriated Hitler it is recorded, that he demanded that attack be switched from yhe destruction of air defences and manufacturing capacity, to the cities. It is interesting that the attack on Berlin was authorised, when a German bomber, clearly dropped bombs on a non strategic target, although the Luftwaffe was instructed only military and strategic targets, were to be attacked. If you were cynical you would argue that this was to do as much damage as possible, as a town in Spain had been bombed in the Spanish civil war, rather than civilian casualties.

In many ways it is apparent that it was not the Spitfire or the 109 that decided the BB, they were the pawns, in a far bigger game, that the strategists fought. The Germans ran out of pawns and decided that the battle was not worth fighting. Shows how wrong you can be.

Edited By Erfolg on 13/01/2015 01:01:00

[Simon Chaddock]

Erfolg

On a purely technical point with a big light highly supercharged engine the onset of detonation more than the structural strength of the engine limits the power available.

As Cuban8 pointed out the decision by RR to stick with carburettors was an engineering decision allowing the smaller capacity Merlin to match the 26% larger DB601 in power. The evaporative cooling from the fuel as the supercharger compresses and heats the mixture allowed RR to run higher boost pressures without detonation.

This in particular gave the Merlin an altitude power advantage during the BoB period. The direct injection of the DB engines did give it a negative g manoeuvre capability but no benefit in terms of power.

[robert Jones 14]

I wonder how a Eurofighter Typhoon would make out if it was transported back to the BoB? Would it find it was constantly out-turned, or would it make mincemeat of a ww2 warbird?

Edited By robert Jones 14 on 13/01/2015 08:21:46

[Former Member]

[This posting has been removed]

[ken anderson.]

but the lightning and euro fighter could knock them both out of the sky without them even setting eye's on each other....no need for dog fights and tight turns now...

ken Anderson...ne...1...... dog fight dept.

[Cuban8]

Posted by Simon Chaddock on 13/01/2015 02:37:33:

Erfolg

On a purely technical point with a big light highly supercharged engine the onset of detonation more than the structural strength of the engine limits the power available.

As Cuban8 pointed out the decision by RR to stick with carburettors was an engineering decision allowing the smaller capacity Merlin to match the 26% larger DB601 in power. The evaporative cooling from the fuel as the supercharger compresses and heats the mixture allowed RR to run higher boost pressures without detonation.

This in particular gave the Merlin an altitude power advantage during the BoB period. The direct injection of the DB engines did give it a negative g manoeuvre capability but no benefit in terms of power.

Help with the battle against detonation was the increasing availability at the time of 100 octane petrol to the RAF from the 'states. Referring back to Stanley Hooker's book, he describes how the RR engine testers would use a large screwdriver gripped between their teeth and held in contact with the engine's cylinder head to listen for the onset of 'knock' at full power These chaps richly deserved the epithet "tough guys of the factory".

Edited By Cuban8 on 13/01/2015 09:58:56

[Peter Christy]

Back to the original topic, and I seem to recall reading somewhere that, at one time, the Luftwaffe were losing more pilots in landing accidents than they were in action, due to the 109's treacherous landing characteristics. These were exacerbated by the automatic leading edge slats (put there to help with landings) having a tendency to stick - or even worse, stick asymmetrically!

I can't remember where I read this, but I also recall it mentioning that the 109 cockpit was a very noisy and vibrating environment compared to the Spitfire, which meant that by the time the pilots reached the battle zone, they were already weary from the environment in which they found themselves.

--

Pete

[Erfolg]

Simon

That is one aspect I avoided, partly because the design concepts are one of those areas, that is just as contentious. It has been commented that the approach of the two companies was different, both seeking to obtain an acceptable power to weight output, with acceptable fuel consumption rates etc. Both apparently were similar in their adiabatic performance, which indicates to me that both approaches got pretty much to the same place.

One aspect of engineering that I was taught as a principle, whilst studying "heat engines" , was that the Science Museum is littered with models of engines which set out to achieve performance levels that theory suggested were theoretically possible.

On that basis you can see that the advantages of fuel injection are pretty much universally accepted these days, and that both turbo and suppercharging have their place, as does intercooling have their places. Due to the complexities and the space requirements even today are not applied universally, for a numerous reasons. Although on specific applications the benefits are easier to justify.

I remember that the Stirling Cycle was presented as the idealised engine concept, which to-date no one has been successful in achieving the efficiencies projected, although the engines do work.

I am not totally convinced that either approach by RR and DB can be said to be better than the other, both series of engines being very successful.

Another aspect that many overlook is not just of technology and what can be done, it is a question of is the product available, such as fuel injection systems, in the form you want them. A conversation with a Ford engineer also put into context, another aspect of the real world. The reason we are using that old push rod engine is that the capital investment has been made on the production line, updating the line costs money and time, the customer is largely ignorant what is under the bonnet. It is not that we do not know how to manufacture a more up to date engine, it is just not on our capital investment plan at this time. I guess that the same issues faced both companies, both before the war and becoming more an issue during the war.