I Need Information about planes, please.

I am doing a research project for my high school WWII course. I chose to do a comparison of the ME109-E vs. the British Spitfire.

If any of you could be of help providing statistics, information regarding how they fought against each other (maneuverability, firepower, etc. of each) and anything else you can all think of, I would greatly appreciate it.

Thanks in advance!

~Brian

 

Welcome to the forum, Brian! I can't help you but you might want to PM Martin Bull or something. Or you could just search for it on the web.

 

Hello Brian, and thanks for coming here to ask.

Rather than reel off specifications, which can be found in many books, may I just offer a few observations ?

I have read many, many memoirs and accounts of the Battle of Britain and along the way have 'picked up' the following observations ; -

- The aircraft types we are discussing are the Bf-109E3 & E4, and the Spitfire Mk1 / 1a.

- First major difference is armament . The Spitfire mounted 8 x .303 (rifle calibre) Browning machine guns, each firing 20 rounds per second. The 109 had 2 x 7.92mm (rifle calibre) machineguns mounted in the engine cowling, each firing about 17 rounds per second, plus 2 x MGFF 20mm cannon mounted 1 per wing and firing 8 rounds per minute.

The explosive power of the cannon shells was in many cases decisive. The low muzzle velocity meant that the cannon were only effective in very skilled hands, but the RAF pilots felt at a disadvantage. Hurried attempts were made to equip the Spitfire with cannon ( the Mk 1b ) but very few of these participated in the Battle and were quickly withdrawn with technical faults.
Legendary pilot Douglas Bader had a vehement, almost obsessive, preference for the .303 over 20mm, but in this case he was wrong.

- Powerplant. The Rolls Royce Merlin Mk II developed 1,140hp, the Mercedes-Benz DB601a , 1,175hp. However, the Merlin used carburetion, the DB fuel injection. In a 'bunt' manouevre, ie a sudden diving motion or the top of a roll, centrifugal force would momentarily starve the Merlin of fuel, causing it to 'cough' and lose power at a vital moment. The fuel injection of the DB, being pressurised the whole time, did not suffer this problem. A diaphragm was introduced for the Merlin ( the legendary 'Miss Shilling's orifice' ) which did improve matters but overall, the Bf109 had an edge.

Other than this, the two aircraft were remarkably closely-matched. The Bf109 had two other weaknesses; lack of cockpit visibility compared with the Spitfire, and a very narrow undercarriage which made the aircraft very dangerous to land in inexperienced hands or when damaged.

Lastly, any ex-Luftwaffe pilot will swear that the Bf109 was superior, and any ex-RAF type will spit blood if told the Spitfire was the lesser aircraft - and that's the way it should be !

Now, hopefully some other members will join in - possibly to tell me that I'm talking rubbish....

 

Welcome aboard, KStrike! You came to the right place to ask. Hope you keep posting after we've solved your question.

And I think Martin is completely right on the money. His analysis was very good. But I think he forgot to mention that in similar conditions the two planes were almost as good and it all depended on who was flying them. But those perfect, ideal conditions of parity didn't exist in autumn 1940 over England, since the 109s had fuel enough to cross the Channel and fight for a few minutes before going back, while the Spitfires were flying over their own airfields and had full tanks to fight for a long period. Another thing was formations, the 'four fingers' that the Germans used was a more flexible formation than the British 3-machines 'V' and another advantage of the Luftwaffe was that they flew higher than the British, hiding in the clouds, using their own bombers as cheese and then fall suddenly over the English mice...

 

Give me a couple of days. I'll give you some really juicy stuff....

 

One of the difficulties in generalising about the BoB is that tactics developed rapidly during the course of it. The RAF soon learned the advantages of the 'finger four' from the Luftwaffe. OTOH, Goering restricted his fighters' freedom to act in the way you describe, because the bomber crews felt more comfortable with their escorts flying alongside them.

Incidentally, the Spitfire also had a narrow-track undercarriage, but detailed design issues made it a bit easier to handle on the ground.

This is an article I prepared a while ago on the subject of armament. You can quote from it, as long as the source is acknowledged:

"THE BATTLE OF BRITAIN: ARMAMENT OF THE COMPETING FIGHTERS

© Anthony G Williams 2003

The three principal competing fighters of the Battle of Britain; the Supermarine Spitfire, Hawker Hurricane and Messerschmitt Bf 109, are well known. However, there is still some misunderstanding of the relative performance of the armament they used and the effect of this on the Battle. This article is an attempt to set the record straight.

The British armament was quite straightforward; both aircraft had eight .303" (7.7mm) Browning guns mounted four in each wing outside the propeller disk. Rate of fire was 20 rounds per second per gun (160 rps overall) and the cartridge fired ball, AP, tracer or incendiary bullets weighing around 11.3 grams at 744 m/s (2,440 fps). Total weight of projectiles fired was 1.8 kg (4 lb) per second. Ammunition capacity was enough for 16 seconds continuous firing in the Spitfire, slightly more in the Hurricane.

The Messerschmitt's armament was mixed, and had been going through various changes. One constant (until the later G series) was the twin 7.9mm MG 17s in the cowling, synchronised to fire through the propeller disk – this held their rate of fire down to about 17 rps each. The cartridge was slightly more powerful than the .303's although it is difficult to make direct comparisons as the bullet weight and muzzle velocity varied according to loading (and was improved early in the war with the even more powerful v-Munition). Magazine capacity was enough for a whole minute's continuous firing (reduced to half this in later versions with engine-mounted cannon).

The wing-mounted cannon used in the 109E-3 was the MG-FF, a modified Oerlikon FF made by Ikaria Werke Berlin. It fired 134 gram projectiles at 600 m/s (1,970 fps), at a rate of about 9 per second. The 60 round drums which fed the cannon ran out after less than seven seconds.

The Bf 109E-4, which entered service in May 1940 and was therefore the standard model used at the time of the BoB, introduced the MG-FFM cannon. This was a version of the MG-FF modified to fire the new, thin-walled high-capacity mine shells (Minengeschoss or M-Geschoss). Although containing far more explosive than the MG-FF's shells, the M-Geschoss was much lighter at 92 g. It was fired at a higher velocity of around 700 m/s (2,300 fps) but even so did not develop enough recoil to operate the MG-FF's mechanism, so the gun had to be altered with a lighter reciprocating weight and weaker spring. Ammunition for the MG-FF and MG-FFM was therefore not interchangeable. It appears that MG-FFs were gradually converted to the FFM standard and the two terms used interchangeably thereafter. There was still a requirement for some AP and tracer rounds, so lighter 117 g projectiles were developed, loaded to around 585 m/s (1,920 fps) to match the recoil characteristics of the M-Geschoss.

Comparisons of the effectiveness of the British and German armament are not unlike the comparisons of the aircraft – each had its strengths and weaknesses. The British armament had a very high rate of fire (160 v. 50 rounds per second), increasing the chance of scoring a hit. In weight of fire the German guns had a slight advantage (2.0 v. 1.8 kg per second), whereas in total muzzle energy there was nothing to choose between them. The key difference was of course the high explosive in the 20mm shells, which was enough to give the Bf 109E-4 almost double the destructive power of the British fighters. The M-Geschoss were not good at penetrating armour but this was considered a reasonable price to pay for the increased HE blast effect. The Luftwaffe discovered that the most reliable way of bringing down aircraft was the general destructive effect of HE blast within the structure, rather than relying on being able to hit vital but small areas (e.g. the pilot!), which could be, and quickly were, protected by armour. For this reason, AP projectiles eventually disappeared from German cannon ammunition belts.

Two other considerations were the location of the armament and the ballistics. Wing mounting had the disadvantage that the guns could all be harmonised to strike the same point at only one distance (the RAF initially selected 360 metres but reduced this to 225 metres in the light of battle experience). At shorter or longer distances, the fire was more dispersed. In fact, at very short distances a good shot, firing at a Bf 109 at zero deflection, could conceivably miss altogether, the two clusters of bullets passing to either side of the slim fuselage and just above the wings (although they might clip the propeller tips!). The Bf 109's cowling mounted MG 17s did not suffer from this problem (although the wing-mounted cannon obviously did), but the German planes had a difficulty of their own in that the trajectories and times of flight of the MG and cannon projectiles were different, requiring some compromise in adjusting the guns and setting the sights.

To sum up, the British armament was highly effective against unarmoured aircraft and the high firing rate improved the chances of hitting. The "De Wilde" incendiary bullets were also particularly effective. At the start of the war it was probably the best armament available against fighters. However, the rapid introduction of armour protection during 1940 greatly reduced the effectiveness of all rifle-calibre machine guns and gave the cannon a clear advantage, especially against bombers which were easier to hit but more difficult to destroy. Many German bombers made it back to base despite being riddled by up to 200 .303 bullets, protected by crew seat armour and self-sealing fuel tanks. This compensated to some extent for their poor defensive armament, which consisted of hand-aimed 7.92mm MG 15 guns in single mountings. While Galland might have expressed a preference (seriously or not) for Spitfires, the RAF could certainly have done with some cannon to help them destroy the German bombers. The Hispano was coming, just too late – but that is another story."

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion
forum

 

[geezer "just-look-at-todays-youth" mode ON]

There is something like a "High School WWII course"?

Wow, wished I had this course during my time in school! I had to spend my time at home with boring stuff like maths, physics, chemistry. the much-hated latin etc.

Not even internet or google at this times to help me there.

[geezer mode OFF]

Cheers,

[ 26. November 2003, 02:20 AM: Message edited by: AndyW ]

 

KStrike, Welcome to these boards. You Will get an A
I can't assist with your project but if people anywhere can it will be here.

Yes school has changed quite a bit........

No more tins of counters and no Abacus

Thats why I loved to help my kids with their history homework. Reason....No mention of the Toll Puddle Martyrs(?) or peppercorn rent

Modern history is so much more interesting for kids today at least students can go visit museums and see items. They can still 'talk' to the people that flew these aircraft.

I'm sure KStrike will be able to find examples of the ME109/Spitfire to view. Good luck.

Regards graham.

 

Here are some general technical facts on both aircraft and a comparison:

The expected service life of a Spitfire was 240 hours. Average service life was 100 hours. The Me109E was similar. Few aircraft actually made the 240 hour mark. Most were retired from active combat use at less than 200 hours assuming they were still flying at that point.

Engines: The Merlin and DB 601A engines both put out just over 1000 hp. The Merlin displaced 27 liters, the DB 601 39 liters. This equates to about 38 hp/liter for the Merlin and 26 hp/liter for the DB 601.
What this means in operational use is that the DB 601 was less stressed and could generate equal horsepower to the Merlin at lower revolutions and boost pressure. On the other side, the smaller Merlin weighed less.

The British tested a captured Me 109E-3 against a Spitfire I (with constant speed 2 blade prop) on 14 May 1940. The test results showed the Spitfire to be markedly inferior to the Me 109 in climb below 20,000 ft. The Spitfire was outdived consistantly. The Spitfire could easily out turn the 109. Above 20,000 ft there was not much performance difference between the two aircraft.

In turn performance (Spitfire I with 3 blade variable pitch prop and Me 109E-3)the following is noted:

109: Spitfire:
deg/sec 14.4 21
speed (TAS) 280 280
bank 30 deg. 18 deg.
turn dia 3280 ft 2350 ft
360 deg time 25 sec 17 sec

What this says is that the Spitfire at equal speed turns sufficently tigher and at equal g force to generally be able to gain firing position on a 109 in less than 100 degrees of turn from equal starting positions.
As other posters have noted the Germans used diving and climbing passes to engage the British. With good reason. Given the above a 109 engaging in a turning contest with a Spitfire is akin to an F4F Wildcat trying the same thing with a Zero.
Roll rates on both aircraft were similar. Both exhibited light effective ailerons to about 290 mph above which they began to progressively get heavier and harder to use with a marked slowing in roll rate.
The Me 109 also had problems with its automatic leading edge slats in tight turns. These would tend to "grab and snatch" (open and close changing the aerodynamics/ lift of the wing) when the inboard wing in a turn got close to stall speeds. This caused the aircraft to buck in tight turns making it a poor gunnery platform in such cases.
The Spitfire was acknowledged to have much better cockpit visibility than the Me 109

Overall, the Me 109 had an advantage fighting in the vertical where its superior climbing and diving characteristics gave it an edge. The Spitfire was the superior dogfighter. With the introduction of the 3 blade variable pitch propeller and positive displacement diaphram carberator much of the 109's advantage disappeared. At that point it became very much a matter of pilot skill.

One other note: The Germans had recognized the limitations of the 109 in range during the French campaign. A 40 gallon drop tank had been designed and began to be issued near the end of that campaign in limited numbers.
The only problem was it was made from plywood that had a glue that dissolved in gasoline over time and, tended to crack and warp when left out in the weather. Because of this, it went unused and no replacement was designed in time for the BoB.

 

Wow guys! This is great! All of this information will be most helpful for my paper. I also picked up a book that has an entire section devoted to the Me109 and the Spitfire during the BoB. Glad I found this website! Thanks again for all your help. How should I cite all of this information in my paper? Need to give you guys credit!

 

Hello,i am not very welcome with this theme,but probably some answers you can find here

http://www.luftarchiv.de/

 

Kstrike, I suggest you cite per a reference like Turabian "A Manual for Writers of Term Papers, Theses, and Dissertations" or something similar.
In the case here using my own post your citation would be:

T. A. Gardner, "Some General Technical Facts on Me 109 and Spitfire Performance" (posted under the Information Requests heading 26 Nov 2003), www.WW2forums.com.

That should be more than adequite for a high school paper.