Spit V 109 in Battle of britain?

[Dave Hopkin]

Another factor influencing design was that of production engineering, the more complexity is built in to a design the longer it takes to produce a completed airframe, in peacetime that only affects costs, but in wartime the production rates matter hugely, front line attrition demands a constant replenishment of planes, if the production facilities cant keep pace with attrition you loose the war.

Its simply better to manufacuture 3 simple aircraft with 90% of the performance of the enemies craft where he can only make 2 - in the end number tell

Edited By Dave Hopkin on 13/01/2015 11:39:27

[Erfolg]

If the books are to be believed, and in this case ther is no good reason not to. The design decision to incorporate the landing gear attachment into the body, rather than the wing was a conscious decision to reduce the all up weight.

There are many reasons why you would want to minimise the all up weight, one of which is maximising top speed. The wing area was reduced to the point of maximising this aspect, any less than the increased angle of attack to keep the aircraft in the air increasing the drag, increasing the wing area reduces the angle of attack, at the expense of increased profile drag, this is also addressing the altitude that aircraft is intended to be optimal.

I have not read about landing incidents due to automatic leading edge slats. I have been told(more accurately my father) that if you heaved the aircraft of the ground at to slow a speed, then it would be curtains, as one would pop out and that would be the end. Only an issue for inexperienced pilots, I understand.

Dave the considerations you mention can be seen as the effects of production time and material issues with respect to much of the German procurement department as the war progressed to procurement policy. It is thought that much of the reason why the Heinkel 100 was ignored, was its higher production costs, plus he was not as well in as Messeschmidt. Again this aspect was and is not only an attribute of the Germans at that point, it goes on today, that was the strength of many of the designers, they could also sell as well deliver a product, knowing which buttons to press with whom to get funding and orders.

One of the mysteries to me is that the Merlin was productionised by many companies, including Ford and Packard, both producing more engines, at lower costs and often better performance from life to power. Why was this not done with the Spitfire? If it was, it certainly has never been publicly acknowledged, to the same degree as with the engines.

[Dave Hopkin]

An aside from the orignial thread, but talking of productionising in action, the original design for the wartime Sten Gun produced by the Royal Arsenal contained just over 80 seperate parts, some of which machinen castings, the Triang Toys factory in Hayes was contracted to start manufacture (toy production being non essential!) thier production engineers looked at the design and reduced it to 57 parts and only two machined castings reducing the production time to 5 hours per weapon....

As far as productionising Spits is concenrned, they must have done at least some of this as the Factory at Castle Bromwich factory once in action (and bomber production halted in favour of Spits) was producing 320 a month

[Vinegar Dave]

I don’t think the landing gear on the spit was that much better than the 109 to be fair and it’s not noted that some were killed taking off and landing in a Spit too!

If we were to extend the war into its later months on many US forums there are always debates on whether the P51D was faster than the Sea fury which was known as the ‘Light Tempest’. The tempest was faster at lower altitude than the P51 but when the Fury arrived it was faster at any height

Most side with the mustang ( well they would) but i like to throw a Brit in the mix with the fury...LOL

I prefer sticking to the SE5A as in those WW1 days you knew you were in a dogfight!

[Erfolg]

Being mischievous, it should be pointed out the P51 was designed against a UK specification and that for higher altitude work, it was a UK engine that did the trick.

Other than being specific at the role expected, comparisons are pretty meaningless. The Spitfire was not designed to be an escort fighter, nor was it designed with ground attack in mind.

I do find the 109 interesting from that perspective, in that variants were pressed into many roles, quite successfully. Yet on a comparative basis, in most roles you will find other aircraft that were optimised more effectively to the role at that time. Yet many just had a short time in the Limelight, as they rapidly became antiquated.

I do find it disappointing that most books dealing with the Spitfire, prefer to finish at Marks like the 24, rather than go onto the Sptful. Yet there is a lineage. Not with standing the official order specifications and orders placed.

In the case of the 109, I guess it finishes in Spain, although the end of WW2 does seem to a natural finishing point.

Visiting museums, I always think it is a pity, that there seldom is a line of engines, showing the development of the power plants, in a way that links, aircraft performance to the engines. As we all know, there were a lot of Merlin variants that form a performance history. It is the same for many engines. As I wrote earlier, aircraft design has advanced as much due to engine power than just aerodynamics.

[Dave Hopkin]

The P-51 was a medoiocre fighter until it was mated with a Merlin, apart from giving it the performance it needed the modifications made to replace the Alison engine with the Merlin changed the lines into something ALMOST as pretty as a Spitfire (but still uglier than almost all DeHavilland craft )

[J D 8]

One of the most interesting engines under development in the 1940's was the Rolls Royce Crecy, a 26lt v12 two stroke with fuel injection,sleeve valve inlets,and variable pitch supercharger blades with the promise high power and a very low fuel use at cruse.[a mockup was fitted in a spitfire] Many of its combustion chamber features are to be found in today's diesel car engines.

The arrival of the jet brought about an early end to it's development.

[Vinegar Dave]

Posted by Erfolg on 13/01/2015 14:49:04:

Being mischievous, it should be pointed out the P51 was designed against a UK specification and that for higher altitude work, it was a UK engine that did the trick.

Other than being specific at the role expected, comparisons are pretty meaningless. The Spitfire was not designed to be an escort fighter, nor was it designed with ground attack in mind.

I do find the 109 interesting from that perspective, in that variants were pressed into many roles, quite successfully. Yet on a comparative basis, in most roles you will find other aircraft that were optimised more effectively to the role at that time. Yet many just had a short time in the Limelight, as they rapidly became antiquated.

I do find it disappointing that most books dealing with the Spitfire, prefer to finish at Marks like the 24, rather than go onto the Sptful. Yet there is a lineage. Not with standing the official order specifications and orders placed.

In the case of the 109, I guess it finishes in Spain, although the end of WW2 does seem to a natural finishing point.

Visiting museums, I always think it is a pity, that there seldom is a line of engines, showing the development of the power plants, in a way that links, aircraft performance to the engines. As we all know, there were a lot of Merlin variants that form a performance history. It is the same for many engines. As I wrote earlier, aircraft design has advanced as much due to engine power than just aerodynamics.

I agree about the engines as i would have liked to have seen the massive steps in flight and engineering in WW1 and it begs a question that would the planes in WW2 have been like that if not for WW1 ?

I think not and the planes of WW1 could have been the planes of WW2....

[Colin Leighfield]

It's worth noting that the 20mm cannon in the 109 had a low muzzle velocity and wasn't as effective as it might have been, certainly not as good as the 20mm Hispano proved to be shortly after. Also when you consider that the Spitfire was larger than the 109 with 40% more wing area, the fact that the performances were so close also despite the Spitfire having about 100hp less than the 109E confirms just how much better the Spitfire was aerodynamically than the 109, as well as being less likely to fail structurally in extreme maneouvres, which the 109E sometimes did.

The pilot combat experience issue was also crucial, the top German guys had recent combat experience in the Condor Legion in Spain, this was a significant advantage in the beginning although our guys certainly caught up.

Finally, the total victory score between the Spitfire and Hurricane broadly reflected the numbers of each in combat and also the relative focus of each on 109s or bombers. However, the victory/loss ratio of each was telling. Each Spitfire loss was balanced by a victory ratio of 1.81, for the Hurricane it was 1.34. Additionally the pilot loss rate in the Hurricane was higher than the Spitfire, you were more likely to survive in a Spitfire. The positioning of a fuel tank either side of the cockpit in the Hurricane made it worse from the fire risk point of view. Although it's really a pointless over simplification, the ratios say that statistically, if the RAF had been all Spitfire, German losses would have been 25% higher than they were and the number of our guys killed or seriously burned would have been a lot less.

[J D 8]

I do not think position of the fuel tank in either spitfire or hurricane made much difference in the event of fire either pilot had just seconds to get out. It amazes me that when one looks into these aircraft as where the engine is separated from cockpit by a metal bulkhead the fuel tank in the spitfire is behind the dash and in the hurricane at the pilots feet with no separation,as for the 109 pilot he sat on his tank!

[Colin Leighfield]

John, I was referring to conclusions from RAF reports at the end of 1940, they're not an opinion. The position of the tank in the 109 was the primary cause of the severe burns that lead to the untimely death of Mark Hannah in a Bouchon in NZ a few years ago. In the Spitfire the tank was protected from the front by the engine, from the back there was the armour plate behind the pilot, if bullets or shells got past those the pilot was probably dead anyway. The tanks either side of the pilot in the Hurricane were very vulnerable to gunfire from behind and that is why Hurricane pilots had a higher risk of burning. However, as you suggest, they all went up in flames often enough.

[Erfolg]

The trouble with this type of discussion, they are full of ifs and buts, plain old fashioned prejudice.

The best that is often can be done is by looking at a specific point in time, resist the temptation to broaden out the time frame, particularly to satisfy your own particular prejudice. At the same time many other issues need to be taken into account, form procurement policy and the reasons why, the specific circumstances.

When you look at operational performance, many issues need to be considered, from the operational environment and theatre, the role of what is being considered and so on.

Perhaps what we tend to ignore is the the specifics of the specification and many of the other features of operation. Typically the altitude that specific performance, roll rate, climb rate, acceleration under various circumstances.

In the case of the 109, many of the important criteria, the 109 had an edge, in others the Spitfire. What is certain is that the 109 could have been better than it was, and this was recognised by both Messerschmidt and the RLM. The improvements were incorporated later, as they were seen to be necessary, at the cost of additional constructional time, materials and hence money.

I just think, if only the 109 had been fitted with sidewinder missiles or the multi-barrelled gun later trialled in the 262. This is the danger of these discussions.

Both were fine aircraft for their time, dependant on the pilot, circumstances, which would have fared the better on a level playing field is unresolvable, being so closely matched. We must also remember war is not actually about level playing fields, but about creating an advantage for yourselves before you start. If you cannot arrange this, well the other side is cheating, being unfair, if they will not fight on your terms etc.

[Erfolg]

To help the discussion along and possibly provide a broader base to the understanding of what actually happens at the procurement level. Possibly sheds some light on the role of the manufacturing companies with respect to ministries and the relationships and a very small insight to the influence that personalities attempt to guide the policies for there own business advantage.

The first book, "Interceptor Fighters - for the Royal Airforce 1935-45" by Michael J.F. Bowyers. This deals with the various Tender specifications, then the background as to why, the response from the various companies. It lso touches on what were supposably private ventures, wer not always what they seemed (to avoid the charge of tax payer money being wasted in the case of failure). It also deals specifically how the RAF in later years of the war came to see the value of cannon fighters such as the Whirlwind, disappointments with the Hurricane cannon fighter.

The second which I came close to reviewing, but thought it a little to controversial, as it cuts across some common perceptions of German aircraft and some policies, "The German Fighter -since 1915", by Rudiger Kosin. This book has been written with significant contributions of various procurement officers from with the RLM, which is necessary to cover the whole period of the book. Not all aircraft are covered, some get a peripheral mention. Some procurement contracts, such as that which lead to the 109 winning the contract are covered in detail. In the case of these aircraft, it can be seen, that the nods and winks, guided the various manufactures to alternative levels of risk, conventional incremental development, through to innovation. Perhaps just as importantly, the concept of cost effectiveness and bang per buck play their part. A remaining aspect discussed, is how you build an aircraft industry when you are prevented from home manufacture and then after WW2 how you resurrect a manufacturing industry, when your knowledgeable people are working else where, you have no relevant manufacturing experience and how various international (USA) aid plans are used carefully as a tool to get where you want, and that some projects are there to get to where you want.

Yet to put either book in context, some how you have to place yourself at that moment in time. Recognising the 1920s slump, the financial position of the countries involved. In the case a UK that had managed to expand the Empire from lands taken over after WW1 and the mind set that came with having an Empire. It being relevant that the aircraft industry was supported by various means as way of maintaining and managing the Empire. Again not covered in either book is that the state airlines and the aircraft ordered were tools in this management process.

[Vinegar Dave]

A very interesting article

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spit1vrs109e.html

[John Olsen 1]

There are too many dimensions to the comparison for there to be an objective answer to which is best. That does not mean that it is not interesting to discuss the question, so long as you don't expect an objective definitive answer to emerge.

One of the advantages of the Spitfire seems to have been a psychological one. Apparently most captured German pilots were sure that they had been shot down by a Spitfire, even when it was able to be established that a Hurricane had done the deed. (and as we know, there were actually a lot more Hurricanes.) That implies that the fact that there were even just a few Spitfires about was giving a boost to the British side.

Of course, the plane you have is vastly superior to the plane you would like to have but cannot produce fast enough. I have wondered at times if the gain from the elliptical planform of the Spitfire was actually worth the extra hassle in production. It is hard to know, since even quite complex designs can often work out no more difficult to manufacture, once you are set up for mass production. Phil Irving (Designer of the Vincent motorcycle) claimed in one of his books that the cost of manufacture of a motorcycle could be worked out from its weight. A heavier bike would cost more...and the extra cost of multicylinder models was only determined by the extra weight. The larger number of parts was offset by them being smaller and easier to handle. So although the elliptical wing means that every rib is different, this might not matter too much once you are in full mass production. You might need more dies and presses, but if the quantity is large enough you will anyway.

John

[Colin Leighfield]

That's right John. The Spitfire was initially difficult to produce, but once all of the press tools were sorted out it was a mass production aeroplane. I started my working life in 1962 at what was then the Fisher and Ludlow factory in Castle Bromwich, part of British Motor Corporation, one of the biggest car plants in the country and now of course the home of Jaguar. It was the first of the shadow factories for mass aircraft production and knocked out about 12,000 of the 22,000 Spitfires and Seafires produced. In one of the buildings a press tool was still fixed to a wall, it could bang out the critically important D-box leading edge of the wing in one piece. That wing design wasn't just very effective aerodynamically, it was also clever engineering, the wing spar was in effect a number of box sections which simply telescoped inside each other to give a progressive taper from root to tip and was extremely strong. It's certainly true that Supermarine's own attempts to match or improve upon the elliptical design with the Spiteful, using a high speed section in a simplified double straight taper, failed because the new wing proved inferior to the wing it was meant to replace, (read Jeffrey Quill), in both low speed handling and limiting Mach number.

The 109 was very effectively designed for simple and cheap mass production and was a huge success, with more than 30,000 being produced. However it had a number of persistent defects, the undercarriage was far more problematical than that of the Spitfire and it is said that more 109 pilots were killed in landing accidents than in combat, a horrendous situation. That is not true of the Spifire or the Hurricane. The previously mentioned dreadful landing accident that killed the great Mark Hannah showed how right up to recent times the tricky nature of the 109 could catch out even a tremendously capable flyer like him, who had clocked up a lot of hours in that plane. On top of that, the position of the fuel tank which ruptured and caught fire meant that a hard landing that he should have walked away from, ended his life. He was far from being the first. An enormous loss and I don't think that his father Ray ever got over that.

[thomas oliver 1]

Just let us get one thing quite clear. RR did not neglect development of fuel injection. I had 5 Sptifire MK 5s in my care at Millfield, Northumberland fitted with fuel injection and using 150 octane petrol, not the usual 100. This was heavily leaded and deposited a thick layer of brown deposit down the fuselage after a flight or two. The performance relative to the old MK1 and 11 at the unit was very much superior. Why they were never used in operations I cannot say, possibly because the Griffon was even better.

[Erfolg]

Although we tend to think that the Spitfire was a no compromise aircraft, in both design and construction, it certainly will have had been subjected to compromise.

In the case of fuel injection it was one thing doing R&D to determine the how and what the benefits are. It is another thing to make the decision to implement what has been discovered.

What will have been considered will have been the financial costs, the cost to manufacturing. It could well be that to produce a fuel injection system, that other products could not have been made, which others may have a greater need. The production capacity and techniques may not have been available in the UK at that time. All of which has to be balanced as to the gain.

Why do the R&D then seems a reasonable question? I would suspect to have something in the back pocket, if push comes to shove, or alternatively to be in a position to say categorically the gains are not worth the effort.

I was also thinking about the comments Colin made about the tooling for the Spit. The investment in presses and the tooling will have come at some cost, as these items were almost certainly not the state of the art for aircraft production. Again a guess, that is why a car manufacturer had the task, although i would imagine that presses on the scale required were probably not what std. in the car industry at that point. Then there is the issue, with such a massive investment in tooling, you are not going to change the design, you need to make thousands to make it all worth while. Again you will not change the design lightly, once mass production investments are made.

As to the technology of most aspects of aircraft, both sides pulled apart aircraft that came into there possession. Secrets do not say so for long.

[Simon Chaddock]

thomas oliver 1

Are you sure the Spitfires you are referring to had direct fuel injection into the cylinder as in the Daimler Benz or Jumo engines?

The Spitfire V (and all later marks) had an injection carburetor (no float chamber) that used a variable flow mechanical pump. It still delivered the mixture into the eye of the super charger.

[Josip Vrandecic -Mes]

Hello Mr. Vinegar Dave and all others , for several reasons (language and knowledge) I am not competent for reasoned debate on my favorite airplane Spit, for which I fell in love with aviation, but heartily thank to the participants in discussions to expand my perspective and especially to Mr. Colin Leighfield...witness and knower of Spitfire timeless....Thanks indeed.

Jo

Edited By Josip Vrandecic -Mes on 17/01/2015 09:29:20

Edited By Josip Vrandecic -Mes on 17/01/2015 09:31:09

[thomas oliver 1]

Sorry, I was only allowed to do the daily inspections and there were RR civilian engineers who did the inspections and other work. I was not well up enough then to know exactly which system was used. The cutting out of the Merlin in a dive was due to the SU carb. used so I presumed that the injection system was to cure this, whichever one was used. The last regular job I did at Drigh Road, Karachi in 1947 was to check and service the intercoolers fitted between the supercharger and the main manifold, which contributed to the increase in power.of the Griffon engines. These were from Spitfire Mk22 and the engines were completely stripped after the first 30 hours. Cylinders were honed, main bearings were replaced and line reamed. The fuel systems were checked in an airconditioned separate bay, so I never saw what was going on with them.

[Colin Leighfield]

Josip, thank you, but believe me I don't know everything at all. It's just an interest that has stayed with me for most of my life, I read a lot and I've collected a lot of reference material.

Like all of us, I love reading Thomas's recollections, which are immensely valuable and what's more, irreplaceable. His experience with those MkVs is fascinating. It always seems odd that the MkV continued to be built until 1944, by which time the MkXIV was in service. However, you find out that engines had been boosted for low level performance, higher octane fuel was sometimes used, later ones even had four bladed props and 6 stub ejector exhausts so that except for the shorter nose, they looked like a MkIX. Some of them were faster at low level than a MkIX and were well capable of dealing with a 190A or F, which reversed the position of the MkV when it first encountered the 190 in 1941.

This must be one of the most adaptable and developable fighter designs ever, among the proposed versions was a modified MkVIII with the wing radiators replaced with a P51 type under fuselage cooling system. That would have corrected the speed difference between the two types and with the extra space in the wings would have greatly increased the fuel tank capacity and range. It was not proceeded with because it had been decided that the MkIX was capable of handling most Luftwaffe fighters up to the end of the war, the MkXIV could deal with the rest alongside the Tempest and the Meteor was the future. Interesting though that Mitchell's thoughts for a four cannon version of the Spitfire featured this type of cooling system. However the contract was given to Westland for the Whirlwind. Much as I like that quirky but ultimately limited fighter, it seems to me that the decision not to pursue the Spitfire option at that stage was a very big mistake. Perhaps a view on Supermarine's total work load including the very promising 317 bomber was a factor in that.

[robert Jones 14]

Can't mention a Spit without mention of Mrs. Shilling's Orifice:

**LINK**

[Cliff Bastow]

Once again the poor old Hurricane gets left out, the outcome of the battle of britain would have been very different without it. Many more aircraft were shot down by Hurricanes than by all other defences conbined. Yes i know that there were many more Hurricanes than Spitfires and that many of its victims were bombers but the Hurricane shot down many fighters too. What tends to be forgotten was that the Hurricane could outturn both the 109 and the Spitfire and in a dog fight this was often crucial. the hurricane could hold its own against the 109.

It was easy to produce and repair compared to the Spitfire and was what was needed at the time.

Yes it was towards the end of its development potential while the spitfire had potential for further development and was the better aircraft long term.

What really won the Battle was superior tactics, the radar and ground control systems that allowed the RAF to be in the right place at the right time, the fact that the 109s had limited time in the combat zone, combined with the fact that any allied pilots baling out could be back in the battle while Germans ended up as pows.

[Colin Leighfield]

Fair enough Cliff, but the thread is about the Spitfire vs the 109. Pilots like Beamont showed what could be achieved with the Hurricane, but he was exceptional. He was a strong Hawker supporter all the way through the tribulations with the Typhoon right up to the eventually excellent Tempest and never liked the Spitfire. Saying how good the Spitfire was doesn't diminish the Hurricane, but it's a fact that the loss rate of the Spitfire for every victory was significantly lower than for the Hurricane and the pilot survival rate was also better.

The story about the Hurricane turning tighter than the Spitfire is a myth, if you investigate you'll find out it's the other way around. Bullet holes were easier to fix in the Hurricane because a patch of fabric was all that was required, local structural damage could be fixed by replacement of the damaged tubes etc, the Spitfire was a stressed skin monocoque and that's a different kettle of fish. However, the aircraft replacement rate for the Hurricane was much higher than the Spitire. You only have to read the writings of key Battle of Britain Hurricane pilots like Ginger Lacey who later converted to Spitfires to see which aeroplane they thought was better and it wasn't the Hurricane.

Finally though, the Hurricane is a charismatic, successful aeroplane that was hugely important in 1940 and makes a wonderful model. Look at Danny's, it's captured the essence of the plane perfectly. One day I'll build one, So far I've only managed a KeilKraft 20" rubber powered job, must do better.