Bf109E and Spit Mk1 quotes and questions.

[Alex H.]

Hi Guys!

Adolf Galland said a few things about the Bf109, does anyone have references for the following?

"One gun in the nose is as good as two in the wings."

"Bf109 as good as Spit in turn because of leading edge slats"

What could roll better Spit or Bf109E?

Bf109 was pretty lacking in manoeuvrability at high speed, which was better at low speed, Spit or 109E?

Which one bled off speed more quickly?

There are many "balck & white" pieces of information about the two planes, like speed, armament, horsepower etc. Can anyone think of any other grey ares for which they have information?

Alex.

[simon]

Hi Alex, welcome back.

One thing about the Spitfire MkI which is quite well noted is the tendency for the carburettor Merlin engines to lose power in Negative G manouevres, something the Messerschmitt's Daimler Benz's didn't suffer from.

What this meant in practical terms, with regard to the specific models you're referring to is this.

If a Spitfire found himself on the tail of a Bf109 at a reasonable altitude, say 10,000 to 15,000ft, and the 109 pilot realised all he had to do to evade the Spitfire was push his nose down and dive. If the Spitfire attempted to follow him either the 109 would initially accelerate away as the Merlin lost power, or the Spitfire pilot would have to waste valuable seconds half rolling in order to throw enough fuel into the engine to dive at full power.

if the situation is reversed, the Spitfire pilot is at more of a disadvantage since if he attempts to dive the Bf109 pilot is likely to catch him either as he dives and loses power, or as he rolls.

Incidently this applies to all the early Merlin engine aircraft, Battle, Hurricane, Defiant and Fulmar (Don't think I've missed any).

Other things worthy of note regarding the two.

Ammunition.

I personally would love to see more data on the ammuntion that could be carried by the aircraft, since in a fighting aircraft it can only do its job for as long as its guns have ammunition.

For the Bf109E, it carried roughly 6 seconds of fire for its two cannon and a huge 60 seconds of fire for its nose Machine guns.

For the Spitfire MkIA, both these and the Hurricane carried about 15 seconds of fire for their 8 machine guns.

(I usually use seconds of fire rather than rounds per gun, since this gives a better indication of the practical usefulness of the ammunition).

The weight of fire in terms of mass of projectiles was pretty even between the two, giving a roughly equal damage potential if all projectiles hit (More about that later!).

On the weapons themselves the German MG-FF was quite a poor air to air weapon with a low rate of fire and muzzle velocity making it harder to aim and hit a target, especially a fairly fast manouevrable one like a Spitfire. Additionally the lowish muzzle velocity meant that often the shells would explode on impact with the Spitfire's stressed metal skin, blowing off large patches of skin without damaging the structure underneath. (Against the Hurricane often the opposite occurred and shells would pass harmlessly through the fabric covered surfaces without detonating).

The .303 guns of the Spitfire however also had their weaknesses, they lacked hitting power and would often not penetrate those places where Luftwaffe aircraft were protected by armour. In comparisson to the Bf109, the Spitfire would be more likely to scatter light damage across the aircraft than doing serious damage to any specific location. More likely to hit something critical, less likely to damage it.

I've read one account of a entire squadron of Spitfires intercepting a lone Dornier Do17 on a recce flight, the entire squadron emptied their guns at the Dornier, which escaped, damage to land back at it's base!

Galland's comment about a gun in the nose largely relates to the later model Bf109s, not the "E" series, but basically the reasoning was the all wing guns on aircraft were harmonised so that their rounds converged at a certain point. For the RAF during the Battle of Britain it was supposed to be 400 yards.

What they found however was that most engagements happened at much closer ranges, this meant that some or all of their guns were actually firing at a somewhere other than their point of aim. So of a battery of 8 guns perhaps only 4 or 5 would actually be firing at the point of aim.

Nose guns did suffer from this, so with a nose battery of two machine guns and a cannon you can more or less guarantee that all your weapons are firing at your point of aim. 2 Nose MGs and 2 wing cannon and you might have 2, 1 or even none of your cannon firing at your point of aim.

Finally, I can recall listening to a radio interview with a BoB veteran who criticised the placement of the guns in the Spitfire's wings. He stated that the wings flexed so much in flight as to make the outer two guns useless. Effectively giving the Spitfire 6 useful guns rather than 8.

Hopefully some of this is of some help.

[Alex H.]

Another quote, I think some German pilot once said it only took 3 or 4x20mm shells in the nose to bring down a B17 or B24. Anyone know about this?

Alex.

[simon]

The information I seem to recall was that contemporary Luftwaffe tests reckoned it took around 1,000 machinegun hits, around 20 20mm cannon hits or around 7 30mm cannon hits to down a B-17. Of course a lot depends on the location and grouping of the hits. Note that these are hits, not rounds expended.

[PMN1]

I may have already posted this link to WW2 armament effectiveness but just in case

http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/WW2guneffect.htm

[GregP]

The Bf 109 was a very strong climber at low airspeeds. It also rolled very well at low airspeeds. The automatic slats meant it could hang in there, right about stall speed in perfect control.

Conversely, it was a real handfull at high indicated airspeeds, with no rudder trim.

The Spitfire, on the other hand, was fairly well-behaved at all airspeeds. It was probably a bit less less able right around stall than the 109 since it had no slats, but not many fighters actually FIGHT at stall speed anyway.

At internediate airspeeds, I think the two were about evenly matched, with the spitfire having a better turn rate and the Bf 109 having a slightly better roll rate. The Bf 109 had a better engine for negative g, but not many fights are conducted under prolonged negative g. Therefore, the Bf 109 had a momentary advantage there at best.

Now we move to high speed. At high speeds, the Spitfire was a better airplane. It had trim for all surfaces, was very controllable in roll, pitch, and yaw. The only thing the Bf 109 was as good at or better than the Spitfire was top speed and angle of climb.

So, if the Bf 19 pilot could entice the Spitfire to fight at 250 KIAS or less, possibly even 280 KIAS, then he was in a good mount with comparable characteristics. Above 280 KIAS, the Spitfire was far and away the superior airplane. Remember we are talking early models here.

So, the Bf 109 was at its lightest. It got almost all its BAD characteristics later as weight increased. The SPitfire was also at its lightest, and the Spitfire I and II were perhaps some of the best flying fighters ever made.

They were nowhere near as good as a fighter as a Spitfire XXI, but the actual flying characteristics were probably the best in the lightest models ... the early ones. All flying characteristics degrade gradually as weight and wing loading increase.

I think they were pretty darned even in the BoB. Later, as the aircraft evolved, the Bf 109 was probably at its best in the Bf 109F model. The SPitfire kept getting better as a fighter until the end of the war, but the low-speed flying characteristics were never as good as they were in the early Spits.

Of the two, despite the incredible kill advantage of the Bf 109, I belive the Spitfire series were better fighters than the Bf 109 series with average pilots.

In the hands of the great aces, like Barkhorn, Rall, and Hartmann, ANY fighter would come off pretty well agfainst ANY other fighter. I bet these guys could have have beaten a Bf 109 OR a Spitfire flown by average fighter pilots if they were in a Buffalo!

But, I digress ...

[Alex H.]

Thanx Simon, Greg and PMN1!

My Auntie owned a Cessna 182 when I was younger. She let me fly it all the time, never land or take off, except once, but when airborne I'd fly for ages. Between that and the numerous interstate flights every year I've probably racked up more hours in a plane than most people on this board and yet I know next to nothing about aircraft. How perverse is that?

Couple more questions.

GregP.

"It had trim for all surfaces"

What's that in English? Something like "geared tabs on airlerons"?

"250 KIAS or less, possibly even 280 KIAS"

Kph Indicated Air Speed? That seems pretty slow. How long would it take a plane to bleed off that much airspeed in a dogfight? Would that be just a couple of hard turns or a very prolonged dogfight?

"I think the two were about evenly matched, with the spitfire having a better turn rate and the Bf 109 having a slightly better roll rate."

What advantage does rolling give? As I understand it you have to roll 90 degrees before you pull the stick back and turn very hard, is that right? How does one roll out of an attack?

The 109 has a clear initial advantage in a dive but overall which was better?

Alex.