Spitfire - What If's

Well I'll read up on jg 301. I have read instances of D-9's outrunning Mustangs, but also of Mustangs running down D-9's. many factors can play in to these encounters, how much gas a plane has got in tanks, condition of motor, whether the 9 had boost or not etc. The story about the dogfight was in a book I glanced through, D9 in profile I think it was called. I forget the pilots name. One Mustang pilot remarked; we had a healthy respect for the longnose as it could outrun us. As far as I know,( & this is not confirmed ), only 17 D-13's entered service. Priller got one. One can't help but wonder how many could have been cranked out if 152 was not built? If a few hundred had been built, we might have a clear winner for best prop job of the war contest. Also wonder if leading edge slots would have solved flick over problem for 190 & occasional violent spins. Also to give it a slightly better turn. The D series did have a wider tail for directional stability. I wonder if it also helped cure the above probs. I should've gone to college & became & engineer, then maybe I could figure these things out.

 

A couple of not too well known points about 109. The wing scoops worked much the same as the Mustang scoop did, separating dirty boundary layer, ( whatever that means ), & exiting leftover air. Not a great explanation, but I think you can get the jest. The 109 was always accused of high wind drag, well take a look at the monstous boxes below a Spit wing. You tell me which one had more wind drag. Also the Mustang D experienced serious vibration in dive speeds over 505 mph, the 109 & 190 in contrast did not. all for now have good weekend all. must go, Headed to see chronicles of Riddick.

 

Great thread: The morale value of the Spitfire may have been even more important than anything, though this depended on its performance etc. Spitfires did demonstrate that the Germans could be matched, that British technology could be as good if not better in 1940 at a time when many thought Britain didn't have a chance to wn the war. All the other services also had important weapons, but the Spitfire could be observed by the British populace (and others) defending the country and winning, and causing the German air-force morale to experience a shock - they could be beaten.

 

Have a few ideas on improving the Spit. wing root air scoops like Yak 3 & Corsair had, wider landing gear, & bringing 20 mm cannon near wing root for better roll rate. Also wonder if the Merlin could have been flipped upsidown like 109 & guns put on hood. The 109 certainly could have had a few improvements. One Messerscmidt engineer was asked; why the landing gear was not changed, his reply was, You have no idea what it was like to work for Professor Messerschmidt. I think he was perhaps 80% genius & 20% arrogant idiot. Have not met him of course, just a guess. One can't help but wonder how much better the 109 could've been with wide landing gear, wing root guns, a redesigned front canopy piece. Maybe spring tab airalons & Hydraulic boosted controls. I'm not an engineer, but would love to hear from some feedback from y'all engineers or not.

 

Wat if the the 109 could be fitted with a Merlin?

 

..and then you've got a Buchon !

http://www.flyvintage.com/images/837/

 

Exactly. The Hispano Ha-1112-M-1-L. It was an Me-109G-2 airframe using a RR Merlin 500-45 engine built in Spain after the war.
Actually, it was built in a number of models including:
The first model used the Hispano-Suiza HS 12-Z-89 engine. 25 were built to this design.
The next batches were Merlin powered and came in several models:
HA-1109J-1-L, HA-1109K-1-L, K-2-L and, K-3-L. All were designated C4J by the Spanish Air Force. Production ran from early 1946 to 1958.

 

Let's see: Wing root radiators would have required thickening the wing. This would likely have had a bigger detriment on performance than the drag induced by having them underwing. In both the Yak 3 and Corsair's case only the oil coolers were done this way. The Spitfire neatly incorporated its inside the same underwing housing as the radiators.
The Spitfire's roll rate had far more to do with the type of aileron used (Frise-type...that is, the leading edge of the aileron moves into the airstream when raised or lowered) than where weights were in the wing. The last marks of the Spitfire traded these for plain ailerons like most aircraft had gaining both a faster roll rate and better high speed aileron effectiveness.
As for the 109 improvements look no further than Messerschmitt's abortive Me 209 II model. All that and more. Too bad it still underperformed compared to Tank's Fw 190D; a major reason it was never produced. No boosted controls though. Seems that the P-38 remains the sole user of that feature in WW II for production aircraft.

 

According to Brown Wings of the Luftwaffe the 109 was a real brick in a dive. Above about 400 kts it had virtually no aileron control (something shared with the 190's elevators). Brown also states that the P-51 could steadily outdive a 109 and had superior turn radius. But, the 109's worst feature was a tendency to buck in tight turns where the automatic slats caused snatching of the ailerons as the inside wing of the turn approached stall. Also, if the 109 hit slipstream air off of another aircraft (like its target) the same thing occured. This made the 109 a relatively poor gun platform.
As for underwing radiators, these added little real drag as for the most part the air in the boundary layer went through smoothly causing little drag. An added bonus was the heating of said air giving a small thrust to the aircraft offsetting much of the drag.
The reason airscoops were offset from the fuselage slightly (like in the P-51 etc) was boundary air (that air right against the fuselage) was turbulent and reduced the efficency of the radiator, oil cooler, air scoop or, whatever. By moving it off the fuselage slightly one got clean (non-turbulent) air that moved smoothly through the scoop. This increased the efficency of the device. In the 109's case this was done in the F model where the previous D model had an air intake for the engine against the fuselage. This alone provided nearly 10 mph in speed increase due to increased efficency.

 

Thanks TAGardner... Always wondered what those scoops did...

Cheers

RED

 

Thankyou Gardner for scoop explanation. As for buck & slats, I have read an article that debunked that particular tale, I'll dig it up If I can find it. I also recently read an interview with Tommy hayes where he followed a 109 in a power dive. He said my controls froze & the 109 turned in a different direction & I was not able to follow. Buligen said he could outturn Mustangs in 109 or 190, but pilot skill plays a part in that.

 

I was giving facts from Capt. Eric Brown RN (world record holder for most types of aircraft flown). Having flown both aircraft extensively, his comments are not to be taken lightly. Additionally, there are test reports from TAIC (USAAF testing) and USN testing of these aircraft. All confirm what I have said. This, however, does not preclude as you point out pilot quality. In the end that is the single most important factor.....

 

Indeed Browns data is impeccable. However, the Mustang is almost always compared to the G-6, & the G-10 & K-4 could outdive a G-6. I have to wonder if Brown ever flew a K-4. I know he was not a big 109 fan, The K was much lighter & according to Buligen, flew wonderful, A bit of an ambiguos term, but interesting nonetheless.

 

Also, I would say that I consider Brown the # 1 authority on ww2 aircraft cause no only did he fly all those aircraft, he also flew on channel coast during war. However when it comes to the 109, people like Buligen flew thousands of hours in the 109 from E to K, & I would think Brown flew perhaps a few hours in a G-6. So I would consider Buligen & other 109ers with similiar experience to be the top authority on the flight characteristics of the 109. I know that pilots will be biased towards their respective planes, but also some US stats on german aircraft were not exact & bias can go both ways. The Mustang recieves tons of glory here in US. It was a great plane. & its accomplishements are even more impressive than its performance envelopes. It,(like the 109), was also a not so steady gun platform. As I understand it, the FW 190 had a twin spar wing & the 109 a single spar wing, & this was why the 109 was not a steady gun platform & the 190 was steady. Yeager thought so. Anyway, rambling a bit here. Still waiting to hear back on the leading edge slat article.

 

OK, here it is; http://virtualpilots.fi/hist/109myths. Also I once read a British pilots report on flying a 190 against 2 Mustangs. He said after 3 turns, I found I had little difficulty in getting on the tails of the Mustangs. Now its fairly well known that the 109 had a slight turn advantage over the 190, so with that in mind, theoretically the 109 should outturn the Mustang. One thing to remember is that altitude & speed change turn rates dramatically. a 109 G was test flown in flight journal mag & it reported the 109 could outmaneuver a Mustang at low altitude, but The Mustang should have the advantage at high speed, high altitude. All for now. Hope article is of interest.

 

a little history for all of you. to counter the increasing threat of the P-51B at higheer altitudes friend Horst Petzschler from JG 51 was brought over to form 2./JG 3 as a high altitude staffel with all blue Bf 109G-6/AS, and in fact the 1st and 3rd staffel were to fly these terrible missions as high escort for single and twin engine German fighters on their way to attack the US bomber stream during April and through May of 44 right before Normandie. The unfortuante thing as Horst so well described as that "we always had to climb to meet the Mustangs", as they were already cruising at 32,000 feet. We always got bounced first........
Speed was not the problem it was the height advantage we did not have. "Lucky we had the MW 50 boost for the short duration."

E ♪

 

A more "fair" comparison of late war fighters is not comparing the P-51D, P-47D or, a Spitfire XIV those of Germany like the Fw 190D or Me 109G-10 / K.
More realistically, these later aircraft should be compared to their late war modification / models of their Allied counterparts: The P-51H, P-72 or Spitfire 21 / 22. These aircraft are the contemporaries of the 190D and 109K. It was simply the combination of lack of necessity and more thorough testing and design on the part of the Allies that slowed deployment of these aircraft unlike the German developments. Neither the 109 or 190 underwent any extensive flight test program prior to operational deployment. Any problems encountered in their flying characteristics were dealt with 'on the fly' from one production aircraft to the next.
When one looks at the Allied 1944 developments mentioned above one finds aircraft approaching 500 mph in level flight, capable of taking higher G and, in general, being more mechanically efficent.
This isn't to denegrate the German efforts. Their designers did excellently within the limitations of the materials and manufacturing conditions they faced. There is nothing wrong with that what-so-ever. But, compare "apples to apples." The Fw 190D was no match for the P-51H (or P-72 or, Spitfire 21 / 22).

 

true TA on your last sentance but the Ta 152H in the equation would of been interesting but we will never know.........

 

Beg to differ. The K-4 came out Oct 44 & Mustang D April 44. Usually its other way round with Mustang D compared to G-6. Was not the G-6 a 43 vintage plane? D-9 was Aug 44, very close to Mustang D's arrival.

 

Last thought on test flying captured aircraft. A finnish pilot said its important to remember when testing an E/A, if it was not built well, especially the airframe, it will not turn or perform well in general. The LF had labor & material probs. So quite often 2 different factories would build the same plane, but one would invariably be better than the other. This problem was even present in 42 in north africa. So if the allies got a bad one & gave it a test flight, the report would be correspondingly bad. So to get a realistic view, one would really do well to fly several of the same mark. When can we expect that book Eric? did anyone else have difficulty in acessing the virtual pilot article?