Hurricane & Spitfire control characteristics

[bongodriver]

ultimately I agree it came down to strategy but Britain was as much a prison as it was an island fortress, so the home advantage is slightly less significant, Britains production rate was subject to succesfully getting supplied from the US and were fighting a separate battle in the Atlantic for it.

And most of all I agree the sides were even in terms of performance of pilots and aircraft with each side having strenghts and weaknesses.

[Al Schlageter]

Originally Posted by 41Sqn_Stormcrow

But so had the Luftwaffe to fight off the parallel campaign by the Bomber command.

Was the BC campaign as huge as the Luftwaffe bomber campaign? Anyone have numbers for the bomber sorties?

[Kurfürst]

Originally Posted by 6S.Manu

I remember the interview of an italian veteran about the planes he had flown.
Talking about the italian planes he said that they were well looking, with good aerobatic characteristics (italian pilots were famous for their flying skill)... he was smiling as he thought those things where useless in a war...

When he talked about the 109 he changed his expression: "that was a real war machine..." he said.

In the same interview another italian veteran who flew the 109 said that the Mustang was their dangerous enemy, since he could outturn them very easily (!!! )

That's my impression as well. The 109 was simplicity itself, like the T-34. There was nothing fancy about it, but it had the all things you need in war. Easy production, easy maintaince, simple flying. Plus a package of guns and speed to catch up with the target. Really, nothing more is needed imho. A fighter is just a gun platform.

[Glider]

Jeffrey Quills comments on this might be of some interest being a highly qualified test pilot and one also flew in combat.

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.

[fruitbat]

Originally Posted by Glider

Jeffrey Quills comments on this might be of some interest being a highly qualified test pilot and one also flew in combat.

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.

Its the bit in red that i found amusing the first time i read this

[Glider]

Originally Posted by Kurfürst

The 109 was simplicity itself, like the T-34. There was nothing fancy about it, but it had the all things you need in war. Easy production, easy maintaince, simple flying. Plus a package of guns and speed to catch up with the target. Really, nothing more is needed imho. A fighter is just a gun platform.

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 should be noted that this view is supported by the Jugoslav airforce who had both Hurricanes and Me109E fighters. They had problems with the propeller and found the Me109 a difficult plane to get the best out of. In the end pilots due to fly the Me109 first spent time on a Hurricane squadron as it was an easier aircraft to fly before moving to the Me109.

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

[6S.Manu]

Originally Posted by Osprey

I think you missed my point Manu, especially that part where I used the term "Ceteris Paribus". You speak as if you always have advantage but in war you cannot guarantee that, just ask Al Deere.

I don't need flying advice, that's not what i'm talking about.

I don't think I've missed the point: I understand that Spitfires had some advantages, mainly energy retention... if we take for example the Goring's order to close escort the bombers, in that case the Spitfire would be the better plane since it can defend itself better staying in the same airspace (defending the bombers). Instead the 109s can only dive away.

But here we are talking of close escort (that 109s clearly can't do... neither any US fighter) that's the only environment in where I can think a more manouvrable plane has a real advantage.

And Spitfire keeps that advantage if you switch the 109 with the 262, a flying brick with no aerobatic skill at all.

The only advise I was giving to you is to rethink about the importance of the aerobatic ability in a fighter plane: by quotes and interviews those pilots seem agree with me.

Glider: http://www.virtualpilots.fi/feature/...hs/#stickforce

[Ernst]

If we would go on quotes for proving anything i would like to present:

"109s kill ratio."
- According to Edward Sims' "The Fighter Pilots", the Luftwaffe claimed about 70000 victories, for the loss of 8500 pilots KIA, 2700 POW and 9100 wounded in action, for a total of ca. 20000 losses. Not knowing the real numbers, we could speculate there were another 20000 pilots who bailed out OK, that we arrive at a 70000:40000 kill ratio for the Luftwaffe, or 1.75:1. That's not bad at all considering the catastrophic finale.
- From April 1941 to November 1942, the Luftwaffe scored 1294 confirmed victories for about 200 Me 109 lost in combat. During this period, the Luftwaffe almost exclusively used the Me 109F. They identified their victims as 709 Tomahawks, 304 Hurricanes and 119 Spitfires, plus others/unidentified.

In time, before some answer que post with more quotes i would like to explain my point. I do not believe we ll arrive in the truth based in this kind of quotes. I am sure that there a plenty margin for disagreement when we go on quotes of both sides.

[Robo.]

Originally Posted by Kurfürst

here was nothing fancy about it, but it had the all things you need in war. Easy production, easy maintaince, simple flying. Plus a package of guns and speed to catch up with the target. Really, nothing more is needed imho. A fighter is just a gun platform.

Interesting option, but you're describing a Hawker Hurricane in here

Of course I am joking, but that's how FC has seen it in 1938. 109 was definitely not simple flying, it was very sophisticated and deadly machine if used right. The problem was that to excell in it, lots of experience was needed. And with its pilots, the Luftwaffe was losing this experience. One of the reasons why Britain won the Battle and worn out Luftwaffe.

[Robo.]

Originally Posted by Ernst

"109s kill ratio."

And the link to Battle of Britain and 'Hurricane & Spitfire control characteristics' is?