From: phs172m@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au (Stephen Harker)
Subject: Re: Focke Wulf's in Europe (was:The Hawker Fury)
Organization: Physics Department, Monash University, Australia
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 19:45:32 GMT


From phs172m@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au (Stephen Harker)

In article <Bwzp2u.4oI@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM>, "Charles K. Scott" <Charles.K.Scott@dartmouth.edu> writes:
> 
> From "Charles K. Scott" <Charles.K.Scott@dartmouth.edu>
> 
> In article <Bwu9vz.Bt4@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM>
> phs172m@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au (Stephen Harker) writes:
> 
>> Could you give a further reference for this.  It seems surprising
> [Stuff deleted] 
>
> I took the reference from "JG 26" from which the following excerpt
> occurrs:

	On re-reading a printout of this post I realised that I had
misinterpreted the above comment.  So I must apologise for my immediate
followup in which I assumed that no reference had been given.

	Since I am sending this I may as well reply to a couple of points
raised by Iskandar Taib:

> I don't think the British regarded the Spitfire V as being inferior to 
> the Bf109G as they emphasized turning. Typical tactics were to "break" 
> when attacked. The FW-190, however, while not being able to turn as 
> tightly as a Spitfire, had a tremendous roll rate, and a marked advan-
> tage in speed. Tight circles were still the way to go when faced with 
> one. The difference between the 109 and 190 was that with the latter 
> the German pilots felt confident enough to mix it with Spitfires. The 
> 109s used hit and run tactics since they couldn't match the Spitfire's
> manueverability. 

	I was talking about the Bf 109F rather than the G.  The 109F was
regarded as a better "pilots" aircraft than the 109G, and a lot of the
German fighter pilots considered the 109G a downstep.  The Bf 109F 
(I think introduced _before_ the Spitfire V) was described by some British
sources as superior to the Spitfire V in all but turning rate, and as the
first German aircraft that could outmanoeuvre the Spitfire.  However Bf 109F
was lightly armed and so less effective against bombers or against ground
forces, so the Bf 109G was introduced with heavier armament.  It was a much
heavier and less manoeuvrable aircraft than the 109F.

> >	In any case the Spitfire IX began entering squadron service in
> >July 1942.  The British felt the Spitfire IX was superior to both the 109
> >and Focke-Wulf, and the German change from high level to detuned low
> >level raids suggested the Germans agreed.  Admittedly it was not until late
> >'42 before a significant number of the RAF fighter squadrons changed over
> >to the Spitfire IX, but they must have been near production before the
> >capture of the Focke-Wulf.  Reference: "Spitfire", John Vader, Purnell's &
> >Pan/Ballantine printed versions of this book (I don't have a more detailed
> >reference on hand).
> 
> The British actually got a fairly rude shock.. the Spitfire IX was better
> than the FW190, but not by much. and was in fact inferior at a certain 
> band of altitude (something like around 25,000 feet). Its performance did 
> drop off above that. This led to some design changes in the IX.. a resche-
> duling of the blower gear ratios I think.. to boost its performance at
> 25,000 feet, and the removal of the wing tips to increase roll rate. 

	Most Spitfire IX's were LF variants.  At this stage the Spitfires
were made with three wing types and three types of engine
tune/supercharging.  These were the LF - shortened wings and low altitude
rated engines, the F - normal wings and HF - extended wings and high
altitude rated engines.  The short wings increased roll rate, but were
coupled with the low altitude rated engines which gave poor height
performance.  John Vader gives the following production figures for the
different variants:

	HF	  F	  LF
VIII	160	  267	1,231
IX	450	1,255	4,010

On the Spitfire V where these types also existed the LF variants were
referred to as "clipped, cropped and clapped" referring to:

clipped - the wings shortening,
cropped - the impeller blades being cropped to boost low altitude
	performance, but also the sluggishness at 10,000 ft.
clapped - the engine state after a very short life.

> Apparently the Mark IX was a shock to the Germans, too. For one thing you
> couldn't easily tell one from a Mark V. 

	Yes, the Mk VIII which was the "real" upgrade with a re-designed
airframe had a retractable tailwheel.  The only obvious difference between
a Mk V and Mk IX was extra length.  Many IX's were converted Mk V's.

-- 
Stephen Harker			phs172m@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au
Monash University		Baloney baffles brains: Eric Frank Russell

Newsgroups: sci.military