American fighter ace & Engineer "Kit" Carson criticizes the BF109E/G and FW-190.

[Ypsan]

There is a famous story of a Bf-109 and a LaGG-3, both flown by aces, who fought for over 45 minutes before both disengaged without landing a hit. It doesn't say anything about the quality of the aircraft, and it certainly didn't prompt the Soviets to cancel all La-5 orders to revert to LaGG-3s.

Surely that Bf109 was worn out and Lagg3 in mint condition.

 

j/k

[216th_Lucas_From_Hell]

Probably Russian bias.

[216th_Lucas_From_Hell]

Negative, it happened over Stalingrad in 1942. By matching the descriptions of the engagement, it looks like it was between Alelukhin (69 IAP) and Barkhorn (4./JG 52), and likely to have involved the LaGG-3 with the M-105PF and Bf-109G-2 we have in game.

 

Now, the Spitfire lost a lot of its nimbleness over the years. The short-winged version depleted instantaneous turn, the later versions got heavier and less manoeuvrable (as outlined before), and the multiple engine versions effectively meant it had variants which were competitive at some altitudes and lagged behind in others. On top of that, the Spitfire had terrible range and its cannons were particularly unreliable early on.

 

It was still a fine fighter by all means, but no wonder weapon, just like the 109 and 190.

[E69_geramos109]

Some corrections to your corrections:

 

 

Surely it did gain weight over the years, but it was still clearly more agile than ANYTHING the germans had. Pretty close to the original FIIa, actually.

Ok lets see: 

Spitfire MkII 2800kg  Spitfire MkIX 3380kg. Weigh difference = 580 kg

109E 2460kg  109G6 3150. Weight diference = 690 kg.

So ok the 109 gain a little more but 580 kg weight gain you can not tell that is pretty close...

Lets make a simple comparation to see aerodinamics:

Spitfire MkV M45 16l boost. 3000k weight and 1490 horse power. Top speed 605 km/h

Bf109 G6 1.42 ata  3150k weight and 1455hp. Top speed 640 km/h.

I ask you again. Why a lighter plane with more horse power is slower than the 109? I think spit is not as aerodynamic as you think. Aslo 1.3 ata version with about 1350hp is even faster. Also G6 with gunpods +200 extra weight is faster with 620 km/h. Please i Know you grew with history channel and is difficult for you to assume...

MkIX M63 with more than 1700 hp is close ( 408mph) the G2 (414) in a russian test. But when M63 was deployed 109s has the full power 1.42 and the 109 was faster in some alttitudes with 250 hp less. When M66 and M70 were in the spit the 109 had AS compresor, MW50 and all this extras  the 109 can take 680 km/h.

About the agility. At what speeds can the spitfire outturn the 109? maybe at his optimal turn speed in a sustained turn and in very hight altitudes but at high speed manouvers, acrobatics, instant turn and slow speeds combats on the limit the 109G with slats can keep the turn with the spitfire and can go inside the cliped wing version.

 

That's factually incorrect. The RAF operated spitfires from mainland europe in 1944-1945 as the allies advanced.

Yes. For sure B17 were escorted by large numbers of Spits. Of corse they have spits over france but doing what? The main battle in europe was the estrategic bombing. And where the luftwaffe lost the supremacy on the western fornt

 

Numbers are always just...numbers. They have more to do with tactics. However, if you put a 109 and a spitfire in a 1on1 duel, we all know how that is going to end.

So with your argumentation the zero is better than the spitfire, or the i16... I only have to make an spiral climb to gain the advantage over the spit or if you spot 20 spits you only have to dive away and go home. With a spit you can not run if you spot 20 109.

 

No, you dont, you dont need different wings to combat the 190s either the normal elliptical wing will do just fine.

Ok. and what about LF, HF and F. To combat with the foke also??

 

Both the spitfire and especially the bubble canopy mustangs had superior view out of the cockpit. No, the p51 armor plate doesnt block the rear view, you can clearly see your tail, unlike in the 109 that has really bad visibility to the rear thanks to that tall tail. 

I was in a 109 cockpit and i clearly could see all the tail. The rear has the proper inclination to see. Of corse with no plane you can see a contact on your 6 low. I repeat. What about all american razorback fighters? P47, P51, F6, F4. When p51 had the buble cannopy the 109 had the erla cannopy with panzerglass

 

Spitfire IX already outclassed all 109Gs, K model being about equal to IX. Spitfire Mk 14, however, outclassed 109K in every aspect. Mk14 was without a doubt the ultimate prop fighter of the war.

Yes they kept his best fighter over england hunting V1s jejejej. Let the americans to do the job jajaja. The ultimate fighter?? I supose you saw the test with 150 octane fuel, varnished wings, experimental prop and all weapon holes covered... Ta152 beat this experimental spitfire so...

 

Again, thats just factually incorrect, the spitfire WAS the superior fighter thats just a fact, you might not like that but that doesnt change reality.

Where. Over england? numbers dont say the same. Over Africa? Numbers dont say the same.   But ok numbers are allways numbers so they have to do more with tactics...

Edited October 2, 2016 by E69_geramos109

[E69_geramos109]

So, did we already reach the status of another Spitfire vs 109 war ? I must admit, I havent missed that one at all. Saw it already on ubisoft forums, on dcs forums and hell, I cant be sure where I havent seen it. All the same, JG and whatever else 109 fans who cannot stand that there actually existed a better aircraft (yes, there were better designs. Frankly, Messerschmitt itself recognized that 109 airframe was aging, hence projects of Me 209 and 309 seeking to replace it, as well as quite a few Luftwaffe pilots did). And Spitfire fans that desperately have to prove that Spitfire actually turned better or was better than 109. 

 

Why cant people just shake their hands and appreciate both designs ? Either aircraft had its advantages and either had its flaws, neither was good at everything. It's also hard to blame either of the designers of those machines that his design reached its limits by the mid of the war when both were designed in 1930s in quickly changing conditions. 

Jejejej keeping spirit of 46 with the 109 vs spit wars

 

Of corse i apreciate both. And im going to buy the premium of kuban only to fly the spit. Is so beatifull plane too but if you make a general view of the war you find the me109 was the best. This doen´t mean that the design was superior to all planes. P51 was more advanced in aerodinamics. 109 was superior to spit and 262 was the next step to the P51. But i dont know why there is a propaganda cloud against the 109 during a lot of years.

War show that the planes changed the disign to get more speed instead to turn rate but the 109 was there in the midle thanks to his simple, efective and light design.

209 and 309 designs did not find clear improvements over the old 109 chasis. And other thing that makes the 109 so good was that is so easy to make changes and to improve the performance.

 

Same now with cars. A 30 year old BMW M3 E30 has a better chasis for tunning that actual sportive cars with more stock performance but less potencial

Edited October 2, 2016 by E69_geramos109

[E69_geramos109]

 

 

 

Spitfire Mk IX @ +25 lbs had better climbrate than any 109 even with mw50, the 109s could only run away in horror when they met these beasts in combat and those are only the IXs. Against Spitfire Mk 14, however, the so called german "aces" couldnt run away anymore, they had met their master. Mk.14 outclassed every single 109 model so badly its not even funny. K4 which is supposed to be the ultimate 109 is a toy compared to a griffon powered monster that is the Mk14. It had better climbrate, higher top speed at all altitudes, as tight a turn as IX and higher dive speed. K4 is simply dominated in every area.

 

 

 

Please dont talk about the 25lb bost with 150 octane fuel. It crashed the engine in few hours and was not deployed in significant numbers.

Ok same with Mk14. If you are talking about the spit MK14 with  experimetal propeller, 150 octane fuel, all weapons holes covered etc. I can talk about the K14 with experimental 4blade prop, K4 C3 DCM so...

Estandar K4 was better than the normal Mk14 and they were on england with the V1s.

[DD_Arthur]

The major problem here is the 'Wonderweapon Syndrome'

 

 

[-=PHX=-SuperEtendard]

Please dont talk about the 25lb bost with 150 octane fuel. It crashed the engine in few hours and was not deployed in significant numbers.

 

Well yeah, but at the same time you also mentioned the AS variants which were troublesome and had low engine life expectancy (12 hours If i'm correct?) How many of those were made? How many K4s, how many G10s, and at the same time how many G6s and G14s were still in service in late 1944/1945? How many combat sorties did those took out with the critical fuel situation Germany had in the late war?

 

We can talk all we want about the rare super performers but the truth is that the tactical outcoume is mostly decided around the most numerous "average types", and comparing those will more likely lead to a more accurate analysis imho.

[NZTyphoon]

The major problem here is the 'Wonderweapon Syndrome'. No Spitfire (or 109, or P-51, or Fw-190 or etc.) could win the war by itself, and no Spitfire could reliably defeat each and every opponent during every meeting. For most of the war, all contemporary fighters from major nations were all on the same footing, with one or another being marginally better at some (but almost never all) performance parameters. It's the dramatisation of the Battle of Britain and the Allied bomber offensive which creates this imaginary belief that the Spitfire and the Mustang were world-beaters, the same way that German memoirs and victories put the Bf-109 and Fw-190 onto a pedestal. All were adequate for most of their operations service, and all were beaten by their contemporaries in some situations. Galland can complain all he wants but they lost the war when they started it, producing one or fifty more Fw-190s would only change some minor statistical details.

 

 

+!. The fact is that the 109 and Spitfire were both fine designs that were able to be improved enough to be competitive against each other and against more modern designs from 1939 through to VE day. Nothing more needs to be said.

[E69_geramos109]

Well yeah, but at the same time you also mentioned the AS variants which were troublesome and had low engine life expectancy (12 hours If i'm correct?) How many of those were made? How many K4s, how many G10s, and at the same time how many G6s and G14s were still in service in late 1944/1945? How many combat sorties did those took out with the critical fuel situation Germany had in the late war?

 

We can talk all we want about the rare super performers but the truth is that the tactical outcoume is mostly decided around the most numerous "average types", and comparing those will more likely lead to a more accurate analysis imho.

No comparation.  They refuse to produce and to use of 25 lb spits. Only a few numbers and after to see that they blow the engine in a couple of hours they stopped to put 150 octane fuel to get the 25lb bost and keep the 100 octane with 18lb bost.

The AS compresos, Mw50 were deployed since spring 1944. G6 AM, G6AS, G6ASM, G14, G10, K4. Large numbers with this improvements. No comparation.

I dont know where you hear that the DB605AS, DB605AM, DB605D has only 12 hours. They have all his suply lines destroyed and they were in bad condition fields at the end of the war so is a stupid idea to have a engine with only 12 hours life. Maybe thanks to sabotage.

Edited October 2, 2016 by E69_geramos109

[E69_geramos109]

I did not want to create a war between the 109 and the spit. 

Only i wanted to demostrate that the report of Carson is all bullshit and propaganda against the 109. ignoring all the facts and comparatives.

Edited October 2, 2016 by E69_geramos109

[Ace_Pilto]

Interesting reading OP, thx.

[=362nd_FS=Hiromachi]

 

I ... just ... cant. 

 

But worst is amount of simplifications you are making and drawing conclusions on them.

 

 

 

 I ask you again. Why a lighter plane with more horse power is slower than the 109? I tink spit is not as aerodynamic as you think. Aslo 1.3 ata version with about 1350 is even faster. Also G6 with gunpods +200 extra weight is faster with 620 km/h. Please i Know you grew with history channel and is difficult for you to assume... 

 

You seem to omit great many things, and in regard to speed, weight is one of the least important factors. There are however things like drag coefficient, propeller design and efficiency and please count them in your posts. 

 

When it comes to acceleration it can be different and weight matters more. However the absolute value of drag is not as much relevant than, and only occurs at the particular speed you are calculating for. What matters for acceleration than is the difference between thrust and drag in terms of the magnitude of their forces, as a function of velocity, and their relationship with the mass.

 

There are many more factors here than you give the problem credit for.

 

PropEfficiency is a function of velocity,

Thrust is a function of PropEfficiency,

Power available is a function of Dynamic Pressure (Altitude, Density, Ambient Pressure).

 

So with that in mind, static statements like "X accelerates better than Y" or "X is faster than Y" mean little unless you specify the starting velocity, altitude and engine settings that this is tested at.

 

 

 

 About the agility. At what speeds can the spitfire outturn the 109? maybe at his optimal turn speed in a sustained turn and in very hight altitudes but at high speed manouvers, acrobatics, instant turn and slow speeds combats on the limit the 109G with slats can keep the turn with the spitfire and can go inside the cliped wing version. 

 

What about anything else than low speed turns ? High speed turns for example ? 

 

 

 

Of corse but if you make a general view of the war you find the me109 was the best.

That is your opinion, now can you actually prove it ? 

 

 

 

This doen´t mean that the design was superior to all planes. P51 was more advanced in aerodinamics. 109 was superior to spit and 262 was the next step to the P51.

You compare apples and oranges. Simply to state that Spitfire was inferior to 109, period, is just another opinion.  

 

 

 

War show that the planes changed the disign to get more speed instead to turn rate but the 109 was there in the midle thanks to his simple, efective and light designg.

War also indicated that other build aircraft of much greater range and far better control coordination.

 

 

 

Please dont talk about the 25lb bost with 150 octane fuel. It crashed the engine in few hours and was not deployed in significant numbers.

 

Could you prove that either ?

 

Also, I dont want to step ahead of the line but if I'm not mistaken MiloMorai on DCS forums listed units operating 25lb boost in Europe and by no means was it a marginal use. 

[E69_geramos109]

 

 

 

You seem to omit great many things, and in regard to speed, weight is one of the least important factors. There are however things like drag coefficient, propeller design and efficiency and please count them in your posts. 

 

When it comes to acceleration it can be different and weight matters more. However the absolute value of drag is not as much relevant than, and only occurs at the particular speed you are calculating for. What matters for acceleration than is the difference between thrust and drag in terms of the magnitude of their forces, as a function of velocity, and their relationship with the mass.

 

There are many more factors here than you give the problem credit for.

 

PropEfficiency is a function of velocity,

Thrust is a function of PropEfficiency,

Power available is a function of Dynamic Pressure (Altitude, Density, Ambient Pressure).

 

So with that in mind, static statements like "X accelerates better than Y" or "X is faster than Y" mean little unless you specify the starting velocity, altitude and engine settings that this is tested at.

 

Who is talking about acceleration?

 

I think is a simple problem. The data of the max engine power is at sea level and ok, the top speed is reached at high altitude but at sea level in the same atmospheric conditions, If a lighter plane with more power has less top speed than a plane with less power and more weight... call it propeller eficiency, drag or what you want but one plane is taken more profit of the engine than the other. P51 also gets more speed with less power due to his laminar flow wing so has better aerodynamical design. Problem with the spit is that to get a good turn performance you need a low wing load and big wings. This wings make extra lift force at high speeds. So again there is the problem if your plane is heavier you need more wings to have the same wing load and you have to put a better engine to compensate but there is a point where with a hundred more Hp you only gain some extra speed because is like a logaritmical grafic and there is were a light design with the smaller wing posible, not too weight and a good design take the maximum profite of the engine.

Is a little difficult for me to talk all this technical things in english...

 

 

 

 

What about anything else than low speed turns ? High speed turns for example ? 

Yes at hight speeds 109 turns better than the spit. Spit IX can only out-turn a 109 in a sustainded turn after a couple of turns. And if the combat continues losing speed, a normal thing if you are pulling the stick, the slats of the 109 can keep the plane in the air. In the spit due to the wing profile design  the root of the wing was the first part to enter in stall and makes a large turbulence hitting the tail controls. The pilot was noticed at the moment and that was the signal that if you keep pulling you will make a stall. They can not take profite of all the wing surface due to the high angle of attack of the profile near the root of the wing.

 

 

That is your opinion, now can you actually prove it ? 

Of corse is my opinion. My points:

The 109 was since the begining of the war to the end. 

Was the best at the begininig. Equal oponent on BoB, after that with the F version takes the lead again with the spit, On the eastern was superior to all russian fighters, only in 43 the Fn was superior on low alts but not talking about engine management... It keeps some crucial advantages over the soviet fighters not like the 190. On the western front was the only german fighter capable to fight at hight altitudes in equal conditions. Since february the P51 was superior but in summer new impovements kept the 109 in equal conditions. Loosing in some points and winning in others. Was a cheap plane to build, Tecnological simple solutions: slats, governor, adjustable elevator, flettner tabs. A single model can fight with the all different allay fighters on the west and on the east. 

No plane can tell the same. The spit was released to secondary missions due to the low range. Other great planes like P51 only were on the war form 1944, The hellcat so important on the pacific from 1943. If we talk only for the best performance of the war the best is the 262 

 

 

You compare apples and oranges. Simply to state that Spitfire was inferior to 109, period, is just another opinion.  

Cant understand you. Why im comparing different things? Im comparing designs. The spit was inferior design because was build with a turn spirit. And the war and tactics went in to gain speed instead of turn. And thats why the P51 is a better design if we compare aerodynamics. It can take more speed than a 109 with the same engine power and the 109 can take more speed than a spit with the same Hp.

 

 

 

War also indicated that other build aircraft of much greater range and far better control coordination.

Of corse and if we talk about the range the spitfire is the great loser. Control coordination is not valid to determinate if a plane is better or worse. Is other estrategic thing.

 

 

 

Could you prove that either ?

 

Also, I dont want to step ahead of the line but if I'm not mistaken MiloMorai on DCS forums listed units operating 25lb boost in Europe and by no means was it a marginal use. 

I will search the data. Give me some time.

Edited October 2, 2016 by E69_geramos109

[DD_Arthur]

 

I ... just ... cant. 

 

 

Much better to think "Ah...Wonderweapon Syndrome" and deep breath...and relax...deep breath...relax...there; much better.

[Dr_Molem]

Someone over here has flown our very optimistic, to not say massively overperforming BOS 109s a bit too much, i think.

[E69_geramos109]

Someone over here has flown our very optimistic, to not say massively overperforming BOS 109s a bit too much, i think.

Yes and over performing 46 109, and overperforming COD 109, and overperforming DCS 109...

[216th_Lucas_From_Hell]

The spit was inferior design because was build with a turn spirit.

 

Has it ever ocurred to you that the Spitfire fighter was an evolution of designs that won the Schneider Trophy, an air race where many airspeed records were set over the years?

 

Since we're in a world of unsourced claims here, Wikipedia is comparatively gold, and here is what it says at the very introduction of the article:

 

In accordance with its role as an interceptor, Mitchell supported the development of the Spitfire's distinctive elliptical wing (designed by B. Shenstone) to have the thinnest possible cross-section; this enabled the Spitfire to have a higher top speed than several contemporary fighters, including the Hawker Hurricane.

 

 

The only major nation to field a fighter with emphasis on manoeuvrability by that time was the Soviet Union with the introduction of the I-153, an extra-manoeuvrable refinement of the I-15 which was supposed to complement its cousin built for speed, the I-16. Short engagements before the outbreak of hostilities proved that decision was outdated and thus led to the birth of the I-26, I-200 and I-301 which evolved into the Yak-1, MiG-3 and LaGG-3 respectively.

[Dr_Molem]

Yes and over performing 46 109, and overperforming COD 109, and overperforming DCS 109...

 

If any of them is indeed OP, none is at the level of BOS ones. Sorry for you.

[E69_geramos109]

 

Has it ever ocurred to you that the Spitfire fighter was an evolution of designs that won the Schneider Trophy, an air race where many airspeed records were set over the years?

 

Since we're in a world of unsourced claims here, Wikipedia is comparatively gold, and here is what it says at the very introduction of the article:

 

 

 

The only major nation to field a fighter with emphasis on manoeuvrability by that time was the Soviet Union with the introduction of the I-153, an extra-manoeuvrable refinement of the I-15 which was supposed to complement its cousin built for speed, the I-16. Short engagements before the outbreak of hostilities proved that decision was outdated and thus led to the birth of the I-26, I-200 and I-301 which evolved into the Yak-1, MiG-3 and LaGG-3 respectively.

To build a highload wing  fighter on this era with the engines available (less than 1000 hp) would not be acceptable in terms of agility. So they decide to keep some turn. Of corse if you compare the spit with the i15 it is a race plane. 

Years where the future of the fighter aviation was a discussion between designers and the goverment requeriments. If they had a 1800hp engine in 30 for sure the spit and 109 designs would be not the same.

The real break of the doctrine and the search of a pure  fighter build for the new tactics was the 190 at least in Germany

Edited October 3, 2016 by E69_geramos109

[MiloMorai]

E69 can you tell us about this great range of the 109.

 

Yes the 109 was cheap and got cheaper as the war continued. That is what happens when slave labour is used. (cheap like in Lada)

[E69_geramos109]

E69 can you tell us about this great range of the 109.

 

Yes the 109 was cheap and got cheaper as the war continued. That is what happens when slave labour is used. (cheap like in Lada)

Erla has no slave labour and also not slaves at the begining of the war.

If any of them is indeed OP, none is at the level of BOS ones. Sorry for you.

If you have complains about performance of the BOS 109 post it in a new topic on FM like i did with the guns.

[MiloMorai]

E69 you do know that Mtt could not replace lost a/c during the BoB but the number of Spitfires available increased.

 

Although only 6,000 worked at the Messerschmitt facilities in 1936, this number grew to 9,000 by 1939 and by 1944 the worker population had reached 18,000 - of which 47% were either foreign or forced laborers.

[NZTyphoon]

Erla has no slave labour...

Wrong: in early 1944 there were 2,604 slave labourers from Buchenweld concentration camp working at various Erla plants.

 

The proportion of "foreign workers" working at Erla and its dispersed factories increased from 52% in 1943 to 61.5% in 1944:

(USSBS #7: Erla Maschinenwerke GmbH, Heiterblick, Germany.)

 

 

[6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann]

 

 

The fact that the spitfire served troughout the war and was able to improve with every design, new spitfire models were always able to gain the lead over 109s just makes it a clear winner. BF109 just was an inferior design compared to Spitfire.

 

The 109 served to the very last days, also:

What is that? A Post WWII Production 109, from the 1950s, retired only in 1965?

 

 

 

 

And what about this one, the first fighter of the State of Israel? And didn't these even shoot down a bunch a bunch of Egyptian Spitfires?

 

 

 

 

 

 

Of course when Mk.14 entered service in 1944, it outperformed 109s in every area.

 

It Outperformed itself as well, by destroying it's Airframe and Wing-Roots. And by 1944, you mean serving over EUROPE by December 1944 in negligible numbers. 

 

 

 

 

Its well known that spitfires elliptical wing was perfect for aggressive dogfighting and gave the spit extremely tight turn and it also gave clear warning before a stall which made it easier to take to the limit than 109.

The Spitfire didn't have an elliptical wing. It may have started off as such, but in order to make it big enough to hold 8 guns, narrow enough to make it less draggy and flyable enough so it wouldn't have the Dog-Awful Stall characterisitcs perfect elliptical wings tend to have, it was twisted and shaped in such a way that all the advantages of an elliptical wing were lost, and it was just one, big average piece of wing without any aerodynamic specialties. This is why it was an easy aircraft to fly. 

True Elliptical Wings are Awful when it comes to manouvering, with little to now warning and absoluitely shoking stall when it happens.

 

 

 

 

Spitfires from Mk.I to Mk.14 all out-turned their contemporary 109s at all speeds.

And still the 109s did everything else better, rolling, climbing, deflection shooting. The 109s could go slower in a upward spiral turn fight, due to the slats, and still open up and climb away. The Merlin just didn't have the immediate torque to keep up. 

The 109s WAAAAAY Shorter Take-Off and Landing Distance (like a full quarter of a Spitfire, half of that of a Hurricane) (and lower landing speed than the Spit) should give you an indication of how well the 109 can go slow as well as fast. 

[6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann]

Also, since Kit can draw his conclusions from only one Test made from an early model, I will base my judgement on this:

 

 

From    : Kr.-Fernschr.Ob.d.L.,Führ.Stab Ia Nr.8092/40 g.K. (II)

          (only to Lfl.3)

Subject : Comparison flight between Bf 109 E,  Bf 110 C,  Spitfire, Hurricane and 
          Curtiss.

 

    In the following the performance- and air combat comparison that has been performed 
at the E-Stelle Rechlin between Bf 109 E and Bf 110 C and the captured enemy fighters 
Spitfire, Hurricane and Curtiss shall be brought to acknowledgement. The results of
the comparison are to be announced immediately to all Jagd- and Zerstörer units under 
command, to guarantee the appropriate air combat behavior in the engagements on the 
basis of technical conditions.

    The Bf 109 E type clearly outperforms all foreign planes:

Speed: the Spitfire is at 0 m by ca. 20 km/h, at 4 km by ca. 10 km/h, Hurricane and 
Curtiss at 0 and 4 km altitude by ca. 60 km/h. A similar superiority of the Bf 109 E
exists in the climb performance as well. Climb times to 4 km: 
Bf 109 E 4.4 min, Spitfire 5 min, Hurricane 5.6 min, Curtiss 5.2 min.

    The plane Bf 110 C is speed-wise inferior to the Spitfire, superior to the Curtiss 
and Hurricane. Regarding the climb performance is the Curtiss equal at ground level, 
up to 4 km superior then inferior. Hurricane is inferior up to altitude 2 km, then 
superior up to 6.5 km. Spitfire is equal at ground level, otherwise superior.

    The best climb for Bf 109 E and Bf 110 C is achieved with shallow climb angle 
and higher speeds than at the enemy fighters. It is wrong to climb away steep or climb
behind an enemy fighter with the same angle.

    Before turning fights with the Bf 109 E type, it must be noted in every case, that
all three foreign planes have significantly smaller turning circles and turning times.
An attack on the opponent as well as disengagement can only be accomplished on the basis of
existing superiority in performance.

    For this the following suggestions are given:

    The Spitfire and partly the Hurricane have two-pitch propellers. 
Climbing away with the Bf 109 and Bf 110 must be done with the best climbing speed or 
even higher speeds of about 280 – 300 km/h. On aircraft with two-pitch propellers with  
low blade angle the engine will experience a very high over-revolution, and on the other
hand with high blade angle high boost pressure – therefore in other words, performance loss.

    On sudden push forward on stick to below, the carburetor of the enemy fighters cuts out 
due to the negative acceleration. This [evasive] measure is also recommended.

    The rolling ability of the enemy fighters at high speeds is worse than that of the Bf 109.
Quick changes of the trajectory along the vertical axis cause especially with the Spitfire 
load changes around the cranial axis, coming from high longitudinal thrust momemtum, and 
significantly disturb the aiming.

    In summary, it can be said that all three enemy planes types are inferior to the German 
planes regarding the flying qualities. Especially the Spitfire has bad rudder and elevator
stability on the target approach. In addition the wing-mounted weapons have the known 
shooting-technique disadvantages.

 

"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 Bf 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." Werner Mölders

 

Since this speaks for all Spitfires I can quite decidedly say that the Brits must have been willing to sacrifice a lot of their Pilots in inferior Aircraft. 

Having an Aircraft without negative G ability seems rather foolish to me as well. Adding to that such an outdated Propeller Design seems outright Homicidal from the British Airforce. 

The poor Roll Ability could be easily exploited by the enemy as well. 

Especially Compared to the Friedrich and Gustav it can only be said that but it was outclassed by 1941 and by 1943 was manifestly obsolete.

[NZTyphoon]

Also, since Kit can draw his conclusions from only one Test made from an early model, I will base my judgement on this:

 

 

Since this speaks for all Spitfires I can quite decidedly say that the Brits must have been willing to sacrifice a lot of their Pilots in inferior Aircraft. 

Having an Aircraft without negative G ability seems rather foolish to me as well. Adding to that such an outdated Propeller Design seems outright Homicidal from the British Airforce. 

The poor Roll Ability could be easily exploited by the enemy as well. 

Especially Compared to the Friedrich and Gustav it can only be said that but it was outclassed by 1941 and by 1943 was manifestly obsolete.

Since that German report speaks for about c. one Spitfire Mk I out of 22,000 of all marks of Spitfire built, it's no wonder the Spitfire I was obsolete by 1943. So, go ahead, base your judgements on one report on one early production Spitfire I; it makes for amusing reading, at least.

Edited October 3, 2016 by NZTyphoon

[Caudron431]

Spitfire pilots got bored from always easily out turning and shooting down 109s so they would tease them and give them false hope by doing spiral climb

Lol...Unfortunately, most kills were scored ambush style, AFAIK other engagements were in general so short that performance differences could not even start to tell.... Better fighting doctrines and tactics, good radio communications, ground control with good enemy ac detection is far more important than minor performance figures between WW2 top fighters.

[Kurfurst]

 

Okay...uhm lets fact check some of the claims geramos is making.

 

First off all why are you comparing 1941 Mk.V to 42-43 G models? Mk IX would have been their main opponent. IX IS faster than G6 and a little slower than G2 (10 km/h or so), the difference is so marginal it doesn't really matter.

 

 

Reality check...

 

[6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann]

Since that German report speaks for about c. one Spitfire Mk I out of 22,000 of all marks of Spitfire built, it's no wonder the Spitfire I was obsolete by 1943. So, go ahead, base your judgements on one report on one early production Spitfire I; it makes for amusing reading, at least.

It's a Jab at the OP. He based his whole judgement on the 109 series on one early E-3 captured in France and tested by the Brits and found to be inferior. Well, the germans also had captured Spitfires and found those to be inferior. 

It's not meant seriously, it's criticising the way he went about evaluating the data. 

[6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann]

 

 

They should have taken notes from superior British engineering.

 

[Asgar]

10 untis still enough that if we will ever get a 43 western front/italy scneario, we'll be getting the IX in the game

lmfoa your always trying to divert the conversation from performance to which unit used which spitfire model, cause you just cant handle the fact that Spitfires out perform your beloved nazi fighter

"facts"? I haven't seen a single source for all the claims your making. Your fantasies don't become fact just you believe really hard

[NZTyphoon]

It's a Jab at the OP. He based his whole judgement on the 109 series on one early E-3 captured in France and tested by the Brits and found to be inferior. Well, the germans also had captured Spitfires and found those to be inferior. 

It's not meant seriously, it's criticising the way he went about evaluating the data. 

No problem; it just that it's getting a little difficult to sort the wheat from the chaff in a thread that's so full of wild claims and counter-claims.

[6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann]

Me 109 E:

"The Bf 109s also had leading edge slats. When the 109 was flown, advertently or inadvertently, too slow, the slats shot forward out of the wing, sometimes with a loud bang which could be heard above the noise of the engine. Many times the slats coming out frightenened young pilots when they flew the Bf 109 for the first time in combat. One often flew near the stalling speed in combat, not only when flying straight and level but especially when turning and climbing. Sometimes the slats would suddenly fly out with a bang as if one had been hit, especially when one had throttled back to bank steeply. Indeed many fresh young pilots thought they were pulling very tight turns even when the slats were still closed against the wing. For us, the more experienced pilots, real manoeuvring only started when the slats were out. For this reason it is possible to find pilots from that period (1940) who will tell you that the Spitfire turned better than the Bf 109. That is not true. I myself had many dogfights with Spitfires and I could always out-turn them. 
One had to enter the turn correctly, then open up the engine. It was a matter of feel. When one noticed the speed becoming critical - the aircraft vibrated - one had to ease up a bit, then pull back again, so that in plan the best turn would have looked like an egg or a horizontal ellipse rather than a circle. In this way one could out-turn the Spitfire - and I shot down six of them doing it. This advantage to the Bf 109 soon changed when improved Spitfires were delivered." 
- Erwin Leykauf, German fighter pilot, 33 victories. Source: Messerschmitt Bf109 ja Saksan Sotatalous by Hannu Valtonen; Hurricane & Messerschmitt, Chaz Bowyer and Armand Van Ishoven.

 

"In personally facing the RAF in the air over the Dunkirk encirclement, I found that the Bf 109 E was faster, possessed a higher rate of climb, but was somewhat less manouverable than the RAF fighters. Nevertheless, during the campaign, no Spitfire or Hurricane ever turned inside my plane."
- Herbert Kaiser, German fighter ace. 68 victories. Source:The Great Book of WW2 Airplanes, page 470.

 

Me 109 G:

"Fast and maneuverable Me 109 (G) would be a tough opponent in the hands of a skillful pilot. Messerschmitt was during it´s time an efficient fighter and would not be in shame even nowadays. Eventhough the top speeds of the today´s fighters are high the differerencies would even up in a dogfight. 
Mersu (Messerchmitt) had three meters long engine in the nose were with 1 500 horsepowers. The speed was at it´s best 750 kilometers per hour. It turned well too, if you just pulled the stick"
- Mauno Fräntilä, Finnish fighter ace. 5 1/2 victories. Source: Finnish Virtual Pilots Association: fighter ace Mauno Fräntilä was creating the glory of the war pilots.

 

Me 109 G:

"So how does the aeroplane compare with other contemporary fighters ? First, let me say that all my comments are based on operation below 10,000 feet and at power settings not exceeding +12 (54") and 2700 rpm. I like it as an aeroplane, and with familiarity I think it will give most of the allied fighters I have flown a hard time, particularly in a close, hard turning, slow speed dog-fight. It will definitely out-maneuver a P-51 in this type of flight, the roll rate and slow speed characteristics being much better. The Spitfire on the other hand is more of a problem for the '109 and I feel it is a superior close in fighter. Having said that the aircraft are sufficiently closely matched that pilot abilty would probably be the deciding factor. At higher speeds the P-51 is definitely superior, and provided the Mustang kept his energy up and refused to dogfight he would be relatively safe against the '109.
I like the aeroplane very much, and I think I can understand why many of the Luftwaffe aces had such a high regard and preference for it."
- Mark Hanna of the Old Flying Machine Company flying the OFMC Messerschmitt Bf 109 G (Spanish version).

 

Me 109 G through the opposition's eyes

"BF109 was very good, very high scale fighter plane. If was superior to our Yaks in speed and vertical combat. It wasn`t 100% superiority, but still. Very dynamic plane. I`ll be honest with you, it was my dream during my war years, to have a plane like this. Fast and superior on vertical, but that didn`t happen. 
Messer had one extremely positive thing, it was able to be successful fight Yak`s at 2000m and Aircobras at 6000m. This is truly unique ability and valuable. Of course, here Yak and P-39 were inferior. As far as combat on different altitudes, BF109 was universal, like La-5.
Me109 was exceptional in turning combat. If there is a fighter plane built for turning combat , it has to be Messer! Speedy, maneuverable,(especially in vertical) and extremely dynamic. I can`t tell about all other things, but taking under consideration what i said above, Messerschmitt was ideal for dogfight. But for some reason majority of german pilots didn`t like turn fight, till this day i don`t know why.
I don`t know what was stopping them, but it`s definitely not the plane. I know that for a fact. I remember battle of Kursk where german aces were starting "roller-coaster" rides where our heads were about to come off from rotation. No, seriously... Is it true it`s a common thing now that Messer wasn`t maneuverable?
Interviewer: Yes.
Heh.. Why would people come up with something like this... It was maneuverable...by god it was."
- Major Kozhemyako, Soviet fighter ace. Source: translation from Russian language.

 

 

It is important to bear in mind that minimum radii of turn are obtained by going as near to the stall as possible. In this respect the Bf.109E scores by its excellent control near the stall and innocuous behaviour at the stall, giving the pilot confidence to get the last ounce out of his airplanes turning performance."

- RAF Royal Aircraft Establishment (RAE) Farnborough handling trials,Bf.109E Wn: 1304. M.B. Morgan and R. Smelt of the RAE, 1944.

 

Me 109 E-4:

"I was amazed at how docile the aircraft was and how difficult it was to depart, particularly from manoeuvre - in a level turn there was lots of warning from a wide buffet margin and the aircraft would not depart unless it was out of balance. Once departted the aircraft was recovered easily by centralizing the controls." 
- Charlie Brown, RAF Flying Instructor, test flight of restored Me 109 E-4 WN 3579. Source: Warbirds Journal issue 50.

[NZTyphoon]

It is important to bear in mind that minimum radii of turn are obtained by going as near to the stall as possible. In this respect the Bf.109E scores by its excellent control near the stall and innocuous behaviour at the stall, giving the pilot confidence to get the last ounce out of his airplanes turning performance."

- RAF Royal Aircraft Establishment (RAE) Farnborough handling trials,Bf.109E Wn: 1304. M.B. Morgan and R. Smelt of the RAE, 1944.

Unfortunately the geocities sites have long gone, so the link to that report is dead.

[6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann]

Me 109 G: "So how does the aeroplane compare with other contemporary fighters ? First, let me say that all my comments are based on operation below 10,000 feet and at power settings not exceeding +12 (54") and 2700 rpm. I like it as an aeroplane, and with familiarity I think it will give most of the allied fighters I have flown a hard time, particularly in a close, hard turning, slow speed dog-fight. It will definitely out-maneuver a P-51 in this type of flight, the roll rate and slow speed characteristics being much better. The Spitfire on the other hand is more of a problem for the '109 and I feel it is a superior close in fighter. Having said that the aircraft are sufficiently closely matched that pilot abilty would probably be the deciding factor. At higher speeds the P-51 is definitely superior, and provided the Mustang kept his energy up and refused to dogfight he would be relatively safe against the '109. I like the aeroplane very much, and I think I can understand why many of the Luftwaffe aces had such a high regard and preference for it." - Mark Hanna of the Old Flying Machine Company flying the OFMC Messerschmitt Bf 109 G (Spanish version).

 

 

Heh.. Why would people come up with something like this... It was maneuverable...by god it was."

  Edited October 3, 2016 by 6./ZG26_Klaus__Mann

[=362nd_FS=Hiromachi]

Jeez, Klaus, be more delicate. It doesnt feel like a comfort zone here ... also, British cars ... I have seen Morris once in my life. Dont want to see it again. But then they make modern things like DB9 and DB11 which are amazing. 

 

 

 

Yes and over performing 46 109, and overperforming COD 109, and overperforming DCS 109...

I cant remember 109 in 1946, CloD 109s have their own merits but DCS up to recently was actually overperforming. It's own creators admitted that and adjusted FM reducing rate of climb for example.

 

 

 

I think is a simple problem. The data of the max engine power is at sea level and ok, the top speed is reached at high altitude but at sea level in the same atmospheric conditions, If a lighter plane with more power has less top speed than a plane with less power and more weight... call it propeller eficiency, drag or what you want but one plane is taken more profit of the engine than the other. P51 also gets more speed with less power due to his laminar flow wing so has better aerodynamical design. Problem with the spit is that to get a good turn performance you need a low wing load and big wings. This wings make extra lift force at high speeds. So again there is the problem if your plane is heavier you need more wings to have the same wing load and you have to put a better engine to compensate but there is a point where with a hundred more Hp you only gain some extra speed because is like a logaritmical grafic and there is were a light design with the smaller wing posible, not too weight and a good design take the maximum profite of the engine. 

Precisely, you think. But can you actually prove which airframe is aerodynamically cleaner ? I dont know details of later 109s, which I leave to you but Spitfire was pretty darn clean, in terms of both parasitic and induced drag (drag cost of lift). The parasitic cleanliness comes from flush riveting, stretched skin vs overlapping panels, lack of flat surfaces in the incoming flow, and the smooth paint job. The induced cleanliness comes from the elliptical wing platform (something 99.9% of people ignore).

 

This is where you can start: "Fluid Dynamic Drag" by Dr. Sighard F. Hoerner, chapter 14 is relevant. 

 

Rest I leave to you Geramos. 

 

 

 

 Yes at hight speeds 109 turns better than the spit. Spit IX can only out-turn a 109 in a sustainded turn after a couple of turns.  

No it does not, Spitfire has much better control at high speeds with light elevator controls which cannot be said about the 109. Hence why I'd take 190 over 109 

 

 

 

The 109 was since the begining of the war to the end. 

Was a cheap plane to build, Tecnological simple solutions: slats, governor, adjustable elevator, flettner tabs. A single model can fight with the all different allay fighters on the west and on the east. 

No plane can tell the same. The spit was released to secondary missions due to the low range. Other great planes like P51 only were on the war form 1944, The hellcat so important on the pacific from 1943.

That is not an indication of great design but inability of both Luftwaffe and Messerchmitt to find, design and build a replacement for 109. Doesnt mean it was bad design either, just saying that aircraft was in operation from first to the last day of the war doesnt automatically make it great. 

Second sentence is such a delusion that I wont even bother addressing it. 

 

 

 

 

 If we talk only for the best performance of the war the best is the 262  
Cant understand you. Why im comparing different things? Im comparing designs. The spit was inferior design because was build with a turn spirit. And the war and tactics went in to gain speed instead of turn. And thats why the P51 is a better design if we compare aerodynamics. It can take more speed than a 109 with the same engine power and the 109 can take more speed than a spit with the same Hp. 

Me 262 was certainly first mass produced jet, it was also probably the best jet fighter of the second world war. But was it best aircraft ? Doubtfully. 

 

You are comparing aircraft designed in different times with different ideas behind them. 

 

Also, you state Spitfire was inferior design because was build with a turn spirit. Before you said that 109 could turn better, so what does it make of 109 ? 

 

 

 

Of corse and if we talk about the range the spitfire is the great loser. Control coordination is not valid to determinate if a plane is better or worse. Is other estrategic thing.  

Ekhem, I always thought that it was 109 that could not operate long enough over British skies ...

 

Control coordination and stability are extremely important features and precisely determine a better design. 

 

 

 

If they had a 1800hp engine in 30 for sure the spit and 109 designs would be not the same.

And if they had ion engine than Germans would be flying Tie fighters and Americans X-wings ... or the opposite way. 

[6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann]

 

 

Me109 was exceptional in turning combat. If there is a fighter plane built for turning combat , it has to be Messer! Speedy, maneuverable,(especially in vertical) and extremely dynamic. I can`t tell about all other things, but taking under consideration what i said above, Messerschmitt was ideal for dogfight. But for some reason majority of german pilots didn`t like turn fight, till this day i don`t know why.

 

[6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann]

They should have taken notes from superior British engineering.

 

Unfortunately I rarely get to see it, mainly because of the superior English Electrics, the Superior English "Loose Bolt" Philosophy and Superior British Workmanship causing them to look SUPERIOR in the Hangar, while my lowly, BAAADLY built german plane looks small and insignificant up there, flying. All time, every time. 

 

When I see I actually get to admire a lot of Superior English Design, on the side off the road, broken down, while cruising past in a late 80's Mercedes 190 Turbodiesel. The superior amounts of smoke generated by this superior british engineering is truly SUPERIOR. 

 

I think the constant Oil Leaks, Starters Falling Off and Sparkplugs Flying Loose is really just a SUPERIOR British Performance Feature. All about weight Reduction. 

In Fact that's also true for the Extra Corrosive Steel. Rust, the Superior, Natural, British way of Weight Reduction. 

Edited October 3, 2016 by 6./ZG26_Klaus__Mann

[MiloMorai]

During Bodenplatte a 109 was chased by a P-47 around the slag heaps. It didn't survive. It was flown by an experienced pilot.