ROLL RATE
The RAE reported: "At 400 m.p.h. the Me.109 pilot, pushing sideways with all his strength, can only apply 1/5 aileron, thereby banking 45 deg. in about 4 secs.; on the Spitfire also, only 1/5 aileron can be applied at 400 m.p.h., and again the time to bank is 45 deg. in 4 secs. Both aeroplanes thus have their rolling manoeuvrability at high speeds seriously curtailed by aileron heaviness." 104
Elevator:- The BF 109E flight handbook states: "Die Höhenruderkräfte und Flossenbelastungen werden bei hoher Fahrt sehr groß." 105 (The elevator forces and fin loads become very large during high speed). The RAE also found the 109's elevators to be heavy: "Throughout the speed range the elevator is heavier than that of the Hurricane or Spitfire, but up to 250 m.p.h. this is not objected to, since it is very responsive. Above 250 m.p.h. the elevator becomes definitely too heavy for comfort, and between 300 m.p.h. and 400 m.p.h. is so heavy that manoeurvability in the looping plane is seriously restricted; when diving at 400 m.p.h. a pilot, pulling with all his strength, cannot put on enough "g" to black himself out if trimmed in the dive." 106 It was found that the Spitfire pilots were able to evade Me 109's by "doing a flick roll and then quickly pulling out of the subsequent dive", and "if a Me.109 pilot can be tempted to do this at low altitude a crash is almost inevitable". 107 F/Sgt. Tew, of No 54 Squadron, put this tactic to good use, being credited with 1 Me. 109 destroyed without firing a shot:
During Patrol at approximately 1300 hours on 18/8/40 I was attacked by one Me 109 when I was at 2,000 feet. I turned towards enemy aircraft in a diving turn. Enemy aircraft half-rolled and followed me. I pulled out of dive at low altitude but enemy aircraft continued his dive and struck the ground bursting into flames. 108
The Spitfire on the other hand was known to have a sensitive elevator control, perhaps a bit too sensitive.
Aerobatics:- The RAE's view on the Me 109E's aerobatic capability:
Aerobatics are not easy on this aeroplane. Loops must be started from 280 m.p.h. when the elevator is unduly heavy; there is a marked tendency for the slots to open near the top of the loop, resulting in aileron snatching and loss of direction, and in consequence accurate looping is almost impossible.
At speeds below 250 m.p.h, when the ailerons are light and very effective, the aeroplane can be rolled very quickly, but there is a strong tendency for the nose to fall in the final stages of the roll, and the stick must be moved well back in order to keep the nose up.
Upward rolls are difficult; the elevator is so heavy at high speed that only a gentle pull-out from the preliminary dive is possible, and a considerable loss of speed is thus inevitable before the upward rolls can be started. 109
The Spitfire I's Pilot's Notes states:
This aeroplane is exceptionally good for aerobatics. Owing to its high performance and sensitive elevator control, care must be taken not to impose excessive loads either on the aeroplane or on the pilot and not to induce a high-speed stall. Many aerobatics may be done at much less than full throttle. Cruising r.p.m. should be used, because if reduced below this, detonation might occur if the throttle is opened up to climbing boost for any reason. 110
Leutnant Hans-Otto Lessing of II.JG/51 observed in a letter to home written 17 August 1940:
During the last few days the British have been getting weaker, though individuals continue to fight well. Often the Spitfires give beautiful displays of aerobatics. Recently I had to watch in admiration as one of them played a game with thirty Messerschmitts, without itself ever getting into danger; but such individuals are few. 111
Leutnant Max-Hellmuth Ostermann of 7./JG 54 wrote in his diary for 31 August 1940:
Utter exhaustion from the English operations has set in. Once more I lost contact with my squadron. The Spitfires showed themselves wonderfully manoeuvrable. Their aerobatics display - looping and rolling, opening fire in a climbing roll - filled us with amazement. I did no shooting but kept trying to get into position, meanwhile keeping a sharp watch on my tail. 112
S/Ldr. Leathart of No 54 Squadron put the Spit's capabilities, as well as his own, to use on 2/9/40 when he "played a game" with the Me 109s:
I was caught at a disadvantage about 4/5,000 feet below two squadrons of Me 109's. I decided that the best thing to do would be to act as a decoy. I harassed them and weaved among them and ended up getting them about 20 miles away from the aerodrome and North of Rochford. 113
CONCLUSIONS
Major Werner Mölders, JG 51, compared the British fighters to his own prior to the Battle:
It was very interesting to carry out the flight trials at Rechlin with the Spitfire and the Hurricane. Both types are very simple to fly compared to our aircraft, and childishly easy to take-off and land. The Hurricane is good-natured and turns well, but its performance is decidedly inferior to that of the Me 109. It has strong stick forces and is "lazy" on the ailerons.
The Spitfire is one class better. It handles well, is light on the controls, faultless in the turn and has a performance approaching that of the Me 109. As a fighting aircraft, however, it is miserable. A sudden push forward on the stick will cause the motor to cut; and because the propeller has only two pitch settings (take-off and cruise), in a rapidly changing air combat situation the motor is either overspeeding or else is not being used to the full. 114
Oberleutnant Ulrich Steinhilper of III/JG 52 wrote of the difficulties new pilots found operating the Me 109's propeller:
We began our climb almost immediately after take-off and he was constantly using the radio to ask us to slow down so that he could keep up. It was obvious that he wasn't manipulating the pitch control with the skill of the more seasoned pilots to produce the same power as our machines. We tried to tell him what to do on the radio but to no avail. Eventually, about half way across the Channel at 4,000 metres Kühle told him to leave the formation and return to base. 119
Leutnant Erich Bodendiek, II/JG 53 engaged in a 18 September combat which demonstrated that the Me 109's propeller could be troublesome:
I was not flying my usual plane but, as I was the Technischer Offizier, I had to fly a plane with a new automatic propeller just to test it. That was my bad luck, having that bloody plane on that day for the first time because that 'automatic thing' turned that angle of the propeller so that an average speed was always maintained and not a kmh more! That meant trouble when starting and trouble at high altitude as the plane was nearly always unmanoeuvrable and swaggered through the air like a pregnant duck.
It was fine weather with clouds at an altitude of about 8,300m and out of this swung the RAF fighters when we were at 8,000m. They were obviously directed by radar but just missed us as they came out of clouds about a kilometre to the right of us. The Gruppen Kommandeur, Hpt von Maltzahn, did the best he could by climbing and trying to hide in the clouds. Everybody succeeded but me, thanks to my excellent propeller. My aircraft could not climb like the others had and therefore all the RAF fighters turned on me and I had no chance of escaping by diving as that wonderful propeller would ensure that I would travel at just 300 to 350kmh. Therefore I decided to fly straight ahead trying to gain altitude a metre at at time, perhaps reaching cloud without being shot down. I saw the Spitfires flying around me and shooting and my plane was hit several times... He then hit my my fuel tank which caught fire immediately. Within a second, my cabin was full of smoke and fire and I had to get out. 120
Oberleutnant Jochen Schypek, 5/JG 54, reiterated Mölders' view of the Spitfires' negative 'g' problems:
We were attacked when the bombers had reached the London Docks and I yelled an alarm "Indians at six o'clock!" ...With them, we had developed a standard and often successful procedure - our Daimler Benz engines were fuel injection ones whilst the Spitfires had carburettor engines. This meant once we put our noses down vertically and quick enough, our engines would continue to function without interruption whilst the Spitfires - and Hurricanes - attempting to stick to our tails would slow down long enough for us to put a safer distance between them and ourselves. The slowing down was the consequence of the float in the carburettor getting stuck due the the sudden change in position.
I had managed to break away at least a dozen times by means of this manoeuvre but lo and behold, it did not work this time! The 'Indian' was right on my tail in my steep dive and opened fire. I could see bullets hitting my wings and, from the white trails on both sides, I knew he had hit my radiator... My 'Indian' drew alongside and the aircraft appeared strange to me as I had never been so close to a live Spitfire before. I was rather relieved that he recognised I did not have any chance of getting home and that he did not insist he complete his kill... 121
Oberleutnant Gerhard Schöpfel, Gruppenkommandeur of III./JG 26 wrote of the Me 109 E:
It was superior to the Hurricane and above 6,000 metres, faster than the Spitfire also. I believe that our armament was the better, it was located more centrally which made for more accurate shooting. On the other hand, the British fighters could turn tighter than we could. Also I felt that the Messerschmitt was not so strong as the British fighters and could not take so much punishment. 122
Oblt Hans Schmoller-Haldy of JG 54 commented:
My first impression was that it had a beautiful engine. It purred. The engine of the Messerschmitt 109 was very loud. Also the Spitfire was easier to fly, and to land than the Me 109. The 109 was unforgiving of any inattention. I felt familiar with the Spitfire from the start. That was my first and lasting impression. But with my experience with the 109, I personally would not have traded it for a Spitfire. It gave the impression, though I did not fly the Spitfire long enough to prove it, that the 109 was the faster especially in the dive. Also I think the pilot's view was better from the 109. In the Spitfire one flew further back, a bit more over the wing.
For fighter-versus-fighter combat, I thought the Spitfire was better armed than the Me 109. The cannon fitted to the 109 were not much use against enemy fighters, and the machine guns on top of the engine often suffered stoppages. The cannon were good if they hit; but their rate of fire was very low. The cannon had greater range than the machine guns. But we were always told that in a dogfight one could not hope to hit anything at ranges greater than 50 metres, it was necessary to close in to short range. 123
Günther Rall, who served with III./JG 52 during the Battle of Britain, reflected on the strengths and weaknesses of the adversaries at that time:
The elliptical wings of the Spitfires had fantastic characteristics, great lift. They were very maneuverable. We couldn't catch them in a steep climb. On the other hand they could stall during inverted maneuvers, cutting off the fuel because the force of gravity prevented the flow of fuel. But they were still a highly respected enemy. In contrast, our Bf 109s had shortcomings. I didn't like the slats and our cockpits were very narrow, with restricted rear visability. Fighter pilots need a good all-round field of vision and we didn't have it. 124
Adolf Galland wrote of the matchup: "the ME-109 was superior in the attack and not so suitable for purely defensive purposes as the Spitfire, which although a little slower, was much more manueuverable" and in a fit of frustration uttered the famous passage to Göring "I should like an outfit of Spitfires for my Squadron". 125
The conclusions of the RAF, beginning with the Royal Aircraft Establishment (RAE):
Longitudinally the aeroplane is too stable for a fighter. There is a large change of directional trim with speed. No rudder trimmer is fitted; lack of this is severely felt at high speeds, and limits a pilot's ability to turn left when diving.
Aileron snatching occurs as the slots open. All three controls are too heavy at high speeds. Aerobatics are difficult.
The Me 109 is inferior as a fighter to the Hurricane or Spitfire. Its manoeuvrability at high speeds is seriously curtailed by the heaviness of the controls, while its high wing loading causes it to stall readily under high normal accelerations and results in a poor turning circle. 126
The Aeroplane and Armament Establishment at Boscombe Down reached a similar conclusion:
In general flying qualities the aeroplane is inferior to both the Spitfire and the Hurricane at all speeds and in all conditions of flight. It is much inferior at speeds in excess of 250 m.p.h. and at 400 m.p.h. recovery from a dive is difficult because of the heaviness of the elevator. This heaviness of the elevator makes all manoeuvres in the looping plane above 250 m.p.h. difficult including steep climbing turns. No difference was experienced between climbing turns to the right and left. It does not possess the control which allows of good quality flying and this is particularly noticeable in acrobatics. 127
Jeffrey Quill, Chief Test Pilot for Supermarine, compared the Me 109E to the Spitfire I as follows:
My experience in fighting against the BF. 109 E in a Spitfire Mk. I was mostly around or above 20,000 feet and led me to the conclusion that the Spitfire was slightly superior both in speed and rate of climb, that is was a more 'slippery' or lower drag aeroplane, and that it was outstandingly better in turning circle. 128
In October 1940 I flew a captured Me 109E; to my surprise and relief I found the aileron control of the German fighter every bit as bad - if not worse - at high speed as that of the Spitfire I and II with fabric-covered ailerons. They were good at low and medium speed, but at 400 mph and above they were almost immovable. I thought the Me 109E performed well, particularly on the climb at altitude, and it had good stalling characteristics under g except that the leading-edge slats kept snapping in and out. But it had no rudder trimmer - which gave it a heavy footload at high speed - while the cockpit, the canopy and the rearward vision were much worse than in the Spitfire. Had I flown the Me 109 earlier I would have treated the aeroplane with less respect in combat. 129
F/L Robert Stanford Tuck, who had an opportunity to fly a captured Me 109 E3 in May 1940, had a rather more positive view of the 109 stating: "without a doubt a most delightful little airplane - not as maneuverable as the Spit mind you, nor as nice to handle near the ground", giving high marks to the 109's higher rudder pedals and agreeing with Mölders that the the 109 had an advantage in that "our Merlin engines couldn't stand up to negative 'G' whereas the Messerschmitt's Daimler-Benz seemed quite unaffected". 130
P/O H.R. "Dizzy" Allen (later Wing Commander) of No. 66 Squadron, echoing Tuck, wrote of the matchup with an eye on tactical doctrine:
We were better at dogfighting than the fighter arm of the Luftwaffe, but only because both the Spitfire and Hurricane were more manoeuvrable than the Messerschmitts 109 and 110. In fact, dog-fighting ability was not all that important during the war. Fighter attacks were hit-or-miss affairs on average. Either you dived with the sun behind you and caught him napping, or he did that to you. I occasionally had to mix it in dog-fights with German fighter pilots, and either I would shoot them down or they would shoot me down, or I would lose sight of them because their camouflage was better than mine. The reason we were more manoeuvrable than them was because the Me-109 had a higher wing loading than our fighters. This gave us advantages, but they also had certain benefits. We had no idea that the Daimler-Benz engines in the 109s were fuelled by direct-injection methods. Our carburettors were a definate handicap. The Germans could push down the nose of their fighters, scream into a vertical dive, as if beginning a bunt, and accelerate like made away from us. When we tried that tactic, our carburettors would flood under negative gee, and our engines would stall momentarily - as they frequently did - which lost us all-important seconds during the engagments. 131
Alan Wright of No. 92 Squadron wrote:
There seemed to be more dog-fighting over Dunkirk than later, in the Battle of Britain or when escorting bombers over France. By then one side or the other was only too well aware of the distance and fuel necessary to get back to base. Then it became a matter of ‘bounce’, from up-sun if possible, attack and climb up again and out of the way. The Germans, when attacked over the UK, and occasionally over Dunkirk, would usually open up the taps and dive for home. There was good reason for this. Other things being equal, the Spitfire had the edge in the climb over the 109, while the 109 had the edge in the dive flat out. The ME109 pilots also found out over Dunkirk that the Spitfire had the tighter turned circle, which meant that after a turn or two of a two-plane dogfight, the Spitfire would have the 109 in its sights. At Dunkirk we were discovering these things. 132
Alan Deere, who served with No. 54 Squadron during the Battle of Britain, summed it up:
Undoubtedly, the 109 in the hands of a good pilot was a tough nut to crack. Initially, it was faster in the dive, but slower in the climb; the Spitfire could out-turn, but it was at a disadvantage in manoeuvres that entailed negative G forces. Overall there was little to choose between the two fighters. 133
Hugh Dundas thought the antagonists to be evenly matched:
There is no doubt, that Goering and his commanders overrated the effectiveness of their fighters in relation to our own. In fact the Messerschmitt 109 and the Spitfire were extraordinarily evenly matched. Their duel for supremacy lasted throughout the war, as each plane was constantly improved and given increased power and performance. At times the Germans, by rushing out a new version before our own next improvement was ready, would get one jump ahead. At other times the advantage would be to the RAF. But on balance the Spitfire was, I believe, slightly the better aircraft. And so it was in 1940. In particular, such advantages as it enjoyed over the ME 109 at the time were enhanced by the circumstances of the battle. 134
there ya go....break is over so back to work i go...
__________________
|