Great debate continued..

MRAF Sholto Douglas (Dowding’s successor, Oct.1940), WW1 MC, DFC, tangled with Boelke, both Richthofens, Goering. His “Years of Combat” praises his preferred mount, S.E.5 and discusses the types opposing him. He notes pluses and minuses, such as to conclude no type was “best”.

If someone has “Years of Command” to hand, that may offer his thoughts on WW2 types.

Not sure how much complexity had to do with it, then, after that analysis by Alertken and those telling figures.

Ultimately, I think ‘complexity’ might be a red herring. The Hurricane was a far more ‘complex’ animal. Not nearly so advanced, but many, many more structural components to be fitted together. Tubes, nuts, bolts, washers, spacers, plugs and plates, and lots (many thousands) of them. Yet each aircraft had a shorter lead time.

I’m not saying that there weren’t challenges in building a new generation of stressed-skin monocoque aircraft, but this true of the 109 was as well.

Edit: To continue the football end-change analogy, I wonder what would have happened if the 109 factories built Spitfires instead and Supermarine’s contractors built 109’s? I suspect that pretty much the same production ratios would result, just in favour of Spit output.

There was a documentary some years ago with Tuck and Bader describing the merits of both aircraft, bias aside theres little question the Spitfire was the better aircraft overal and certainly it developed into a far superior machine than the 109. If looks could kill it would be without question the best fighter of all time.

Spitfire Manufacturing Compexity

It was complex for the production resources of bespoke whittlers on the Itchen in 1937/38. UK Aero industry as-a-whole: comparative manufacturing productivity: 1944 Cabinet Committee: structure-weight per factory hand/day, 50% of US; Spitfire Vc man-hours 3xBf.109G (how did they know?). MAP found in UK plants: “a marked absence of discipline (sloth) slackness, difficulty in controlling shop stewards” C.Barnett: Lost Victory, Macmillan,1995, Pp31/37. Production lead time for Spitfire was longer than for Hurricane, yet deliveries rose during BoB, cf. previous months, due to second-source full flow from Castle Bromwich Aircraft Factory, built 1938-39, and to repair effort: c.40% of Hurricanes/Spitfires issued Aug/Sept.,40 were from repair S.Ritchie,Industry&Air Power,97,Cass,Pp222/33.

Supermarine, a muddy carpentry shed, was owned by Vickers Main Board, who resisted all Air Ministry attempts to impose volume production “sub-contracting”, chopping and changing their line as between: “you can’t, it’s our “proprietary” design”, and it’s “too complex for unskilled labour”. Neither was true, so Spitfire or MD Sir Robert McClean had to go. After planning to put Beaufighters into Woolston, AM instead engineered his dismissal in October,1938, when Supermarine was wound up and control passed to Vickers-Armstrongs Ritchie,P.96. They facilitated Folland’s manufacture of tails, General A/c tails and wings, Cunliffe-Owen of wings, other structure from Parnall and Pobjoy/Short Bros. That caused them to win Ministers’ favour and be given control of CBAF 17/5/40, and facilitated the dispersal programme after Woolston was bombed – a programme that involved garage mechanics and women making everything, even in cottage-industry style.

Lets pretend we are fighting an exactly equal conflict.
Equal in all respects. Pilot skill, tactics, aircraft ability, battlefield, radar etc.
Then the 109 will always win. Because in this sort of war we are talking a war of attrition and the deciding factor will be the time to build the aircraft.
The 109 was easier and quicker to build than the Spitfire.

But … Spitfire production outstripped Bf109 production during the battle (IIRC), although neither side came particularly close to running out of aircraft …

Lets pretend we are fighting an exactly equal conflict.
Equal in all respects. Pilot skill, tactics, aircraft ability, battlefield, radar etc.
Then the 109 will always win. Because in this sort of war we are talking a war of attrition and the deciding factor will be the time to build the aircraft.
The 109 was easier and quicker to build than the Spitfire.

Leaving aside production I say both aircraft were equal. Didn’t Sailor Malan and Werner Molders engage in a dogfight during the BoB and wasn’t the battle inconclusive? Two aces, two comparable aircraft, no result.

My own opinion is that the Spitfire was better for two reasons. 1) British. 2) We won the war.

Pint? Fruedian slip!

Fair Point, Stuart 🙂 Pint remains about the limited duration, tho.

And the Stuka was a light transport…..

Been learning stuff!

The 109 was designed against the German air ministry spec ‘Rüstungsflugzeug IV’, which was specifically for an interceptor. The ministry only asked for 90 minutes duration.

It’s worth remembering Paul Day’s comparison of 109 and Spitfire, filmed in the 90s, IIRC. He noted the heavy framing of the 109 cockpit and the cramped space that made it hard for the pilot to look to the rear quarters while “all manner of nastiness could be developing under that beautiful wing” (Spitfire, obv). Looking out for the opposition was a key factor for fighter pilots.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kFj8NDqZhlc&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-9YVei2Yb_k&feature=related

My view is that the 109 was always an attack A/C, but inheritantly short of fuel for that purpose, that coupled with its low speed handling issues, and poorly designed cockpit (especially from a emergency point of view) makes the Spitfire a better A/C (neatly back on topic!)

Ah, I see what you mean, but I can’t help thinking that it must have been defensive partly, especially with the short falls you mention.
It sort of makes what the Luftwaffe achieved even more remarkable in a way.

It really isn’t a period that I have studied much, nor are they types that I’m into particularly, so this probably sounds school boyishly basic,
To me the BF109 seemed a better aircraft in its earlier forms (upto the E?)than a similar period Spitfire, but then the Spitfire was developed into a far superior machine, almost unrecognizably so post-war.
However was this a good thing, as the RAF persisted with the Spit where as the Luftwaffe put greater reliance onto the FW190 as a fighter earlier than us introducing more modern designs:confused:
I think I’ve confused myself, but hopefully makes some sense!

Firstly you imply that they had to be defensive designs, ie a fighter to defend Germany, and then you say offensive.
Personally I think it would have been a bit of both when the 109 was first being drawn up. Germany was certainly gearing up for war and being able to attack (with surprise and overwelming power), but they must have had a mind on some form of reprisal attacks over their own land, especially when taking on larger modern airforces such as the RAF.
Hasn’t history shown that Germany wasn’t just gearing up to be defensive, even in those peaceful times?

No you misunderstand me, obviously they were prohibited from building weapons for offensive purposes, by the treaty of Versailles, clearly Germany wasn’t too concerned about that, as the Stuka could never be seen as a defensive A/C.

My view is that the 109 was always an attack A/C, but inheritantly short of fuel for that purpose, that coupled with its low speed handling issues, and poorly designed cockpit (especially from a emergency point of view) makes the Spitfire a better A/C (neatly back on topic!)

That’s what I’ve been trying to say (in my awkward way perhaps) since post #29!

I feel we’re getting to the nub of it – the Battle of Britain was not a way to compare these two aircraft (maybe if there’d been a change of ends, as in football, it might have been). Forgive my flippancy on such a matter.

Well put.

The defender is always going to have the advantage.
Range, time in combat, not having to protect bombers, the return of shot down crews, salvaging of damaged aircraft…

The only way the Germans could have won the BoB in the air is through attrition…
The switch from attacking airfields to cities probably did more to eventually defeat them than any (slight?) design advantage the Spitfire may have enjoyed over the Bf-109.

Yes but reprisals from whom? don’t forget before the attack on Poland, Europe was at peace, Germany was forbidden to have weapons other than the most basic defensive arms..

…Therefore the 109 must have been designed as an attack A/C like the Stuka..

Firstly you imply that they had to be defensive designs, ie a fighter to defend Germany, and then you say offensive.
Personally I think it would have been a bit of both when the 109 was first being drawn up. Germany was certainly gearing up for war and being able to attack (with surprise and overwelming power), but they must have had a mind on some form of reprisal attacks over their own land, especially when taking on larger modern airforces such as the RAF.
Hasn’t history shown that Germany wasn’t just gearing up to be defensive, even in those peaceful times?

Surely to defend the Fatherland against repriasal attacks, I don’t think the Reich were that arrogant not to expect that.
Wouldn’t the extra fuel, pilot weariness from having to already fly quite a distance to get to the dog fight, possibly over cooking things and having to land in hostile teritory, keeping an eye on time and fuel use, and then allowing for finding your way home again, be a disadvantage?
I don’t think that just using the Battle of Britain as a yardstick to measure two aircraft is ballanced.

Yes but reprisals from whom? don’t forget before the attack on Poland, Europe was at peace, Germany was forbidden to have weapons other than the most basic defensive arms, who was Germany defending against?

Russia (who in any case had signed a non aggresion pact) was still recovering from Stalin’s execution of some 30,000 officers, they were in no position to attack Germany, the rest of Europe not too suprisingly were more interested in defending themselves from attack (more likely than not from Germany).

Therefore the 109 must have been designed as an attack A/C like the Stuka, and obviously the bombers; it must have crossed the collective minds of the high command ,that there could be a need to escort the bombers, that they were building, therefore a fighter would need the same range as a bomber ,to accomplish this.

Didn’t Goering say, “if one bomb falls on Berlin, you can call me meyer”

I feel we’re getting to the nub of it – the Battle of Britain was not a way to compare these two aircraft (maybe if there’d been a change of ends, as in football, it might have been). Forgive my flippancy on such a matter.

I have to profess my ignorance (not my area) – what was the specified role of the 109 at the time of it’s inception? The Spitfire was always an interceptor – what did the German Air Ministry ask for?

one can only surmise that the 109 was designed as an attacker, purely because it didn’t have a defensive role to fullfill;

Surely to defend the Fatherland against repriasal attacks, I don’t think the Reich were that arrogant not to expect that.
Wouldn’t the extra fuel, pilot weariness from having to already fly quite a distance to get to the dog fight, possibly over cooking things and having to land in hostile teritory, keeping an eye on time and fuel use, and then allowing for finding your way home again, be a disadvantage?
I don’t think that just using the Battle of Britain as a yardstick to measure two aircraft is ballanced.