Is Spitfire really the BEST British fighter???

[DJ_Dalton1]

Originally Posted by Maestro

There is no mention of gondolas, drop tanks, bombs or whatever in this repport.

No there isn't a mention of Gondolas. By July 21, 1944 when Britain acquired the Bf-109 due to landing error, the British were not often in combat wtih German Fighter Aircraft. America had succeeded to that role. So the British really didn't know what they had. They knew it was a version they hadn't seen. They knew it was a 109G-6/U-2. They knew it was Werk No. 412951. So they tested it as it came to them. It was "Wild Sau" A nightfighter/bomber hunter.

In the below link, you'll have to scroll down to Bf 109G-6/U-2
Once you reach that entry it indicates it is Werk No. 412951 and states the following regarding acquisition:

"/JG 1, landed by mistake at Manston in the early hours of 21Jul.1944. It was flown to the RAE":

http://www.luftwaffe-experten.co.uk/uk.html

My first question was "What is the RAE"? and the following link tends to answer that, "Royal Aircraft Establishment":

http://www.luftwaffe-experten.co.uk/raf-farn.html

If you scroll down the list you will see an entry for the below itemized aircraft:

TP814 - Messerschmitt Bf109G-6/U2 - W.Nr.412951 - "White 16" of I./JG301 - crashed November 1944

If you click on that link the following page downloads:

http://www.luftwaffe-experten.co.uk/tp814.html

In the photos you will clearly see a gondola winged 109 with the identification markings (TP-814) and Werk No. (412951) identifying this plane as the Bf 109G-6/U-2 landed at Manston. What is especially significant is the following printed there:

"below: Three images of TP814, this Bf109G-6/U2 was used for tractical trials by the Air Fighter Development Squadron until crashing on take-off in November 1944"

It states it was tested by the "Air Fighter Development Squadron" and of course the next question is "What and where is that?"

In the following link I'd have you look down at the third line, which reads:

"A.F.D.S. Report No. 147" I'm reasonably sure "A.F.D.S." means "Air Fighter Development Squadron":

http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/109gtac.html

If you tend to doubt that, I would suggest going back to the first link in this mystery and look for another Bf 109G-6/U-2 captured during the war. You won't find one and even if you did, it would be gondola winged. The A.F.D.S. clearly identifies the tested 109 as a G-6/U-2.

http://www.luftwaffe-experten.co.uk/uk.html

They tested a bomber hunter and even then probably couldn't operate it like the best German pilots. Its really quite comical that history is written on this comparison.

[DAVIDICUS]

DJ_Dalton 1?

What is your relationship, if any, to DJ_Dalton?

Umm.. Dalton... I have the Bf109G-2 and G-6 manuals. I have test reports for them too, and they don't involve any gondola laden aircraft! These manuals state "The following speeds must not be exceeded at any altitude... 750 kph in dive", and it is pretty clear that if you exceed this the prop will definitely cause the engine to overspeed - and that is a limitation that cannot be exceeded without extreme risk! When diving the pilot had to pay a lot of attention to not overspeeding the engine, a real issue with this plane in a sustained dive.

BTW: max sustained cruising speed is listed as 260 mph.

I also have several wartime documents regaurding the Spitfire:

"Effect of Mach number on dive and recover characteristics", dated March 1944, regaurding Spitfire Mk IX BS. 310 (Merlin 70).

"Level Speed performance with and without a 500 lbs Bomb fitted", dated March 1943, w.r.t Spitfire IX BS.428 (Merlin 61)

"Performance of Spitfire IX aircraft with high and low altitidue versions of the intercooled Merlin Engines" - dated Nov. '42 top Jan '43, w.r.t. Spitfire XI BS.354 (Merlin 9 SM), Spitfire IX BS. 543 (Merlin 66), and Spitfire IX BS.551 (Merlin 70).

"The effect of 'clipping' Spitfire wings", dated 27 March, 1943, w.r.t Spitfire V's AA.937 (Merlin 45) and AB.186 (Merlin 46), Spitfire IX BS.139 (Merlin 61) ,and Spitfire XII's EN221 and EN222 (Griffon IIB).

So far, I've seen no primary source document that indicates, or even claims, the Bf109G could out dive the Spitfire beyond a small advantage at the very start of a dive - and this was not enough to get out of gun range (usually figured as 1200 feet by the British) before the Spitfire started gaining when the two planes were tested in a side by side dive.

Also, you make the negative effects on the Spitfire IX and XIV handling because of the additional weight out to be far more severe than they really were. The 109 suffered much more after the F model than the Spitfire did after the V model.

=S=

Lunatic

PS: RAE is short for A.& A.E.E. - which was Boscomb Down - The Royal Airforce "Aircraft and Armament Experimental Establishment".

[DJ_Dalton1]

So far, I've seen no primary source document that indicates, or even claims, the Bf109G could out dive the Spitfire beyond a small advantage at the very start of a dive -

I place a great deal of stock in the pilot accounts. Comparative trials don't involve similar maintenance. You can't expect a captured aircraft to perform like an aircraft inventoried by its manufacturing nation. A captured aircraft is out of its element. Those captured on the ground, are captured on the ground for a reason. In other words the British tested Spitfire is going to perform at absolute maximum performance. You know that going in. The captured aircraft performance is entirely debateable and you certainly see that in these tests. Additionally, I don't put huge emphasis on factory testing. I know the British and especially the Russians played all kinds of games with that. Testing without armament. Testing with fuels not generally available at the time of the tests. Using experimental boost. Setting gearing for test conditions. Running at unsustainable rpm. So the issue is, "what is a primary source document"? Comparative testing? Factory testing? Factory testing in what configuration?

I place as much or more emphasis on the anecdotal or combat evidence, because its there that the planes are fully armed for war and pushed to their limits...and this part is important...AND BEYOND. To my mind, its the only place to judge. You don't judge a halfback by his 40 yard dash out of pads. You judge by what he accomplishes on game day. In WWII, in the air, the Germans won on game day vs. the British, but there were a lot of good teams in that division and they didn't win it all.

Supermarine was writing comparative reports two full years after the war ended to "identify" where their planes stood. Why do you think they did that? I won't make you guess. It was because they knew both that they had absorbed a vicious drubbing and that America pulled their fat from the fire They were still in the resolution mode.

Anyway, so primary source document? You really want to base conclusions about which plane did what on non combat testing? You didn't pick this up from the Russian moron they had working at Jaleco referencing bogus documentation did you? I had to point out to them the F4U-4C never saw WWII. They actually didn't know. Anyway, thats another story. Ok, for the third time try this one and keep in mind its a gondola winged Wilde Sau Bf 109G-6/U-2 being tested vs. a cleanly configured Spitfire IX utilizing 25lbs of boost at certain points in the testing:

"Dive
19.........Comparitive dives between the two aircraft have shown that the Me.109 can leave the Spitfire without any difficulty.":

http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/109gtac.html

Also, you make the negative effects on the Spitfire IX and XIV handling because of the additional weight out to be far more severe than they really were. The 109 suffered much more after the F model than the Spitfire did after the V model.

Its not only weight. Its the additional speed that degrades the Spitfire. That big wing is not a high speed maneuver wing. It rolls like a pig under high load. Abysmal.

Heres a little article I read awhile ago. I don't endorse it entirely. I only cite it for the observations. Its in the wartime observations that the truth is hidden by modern p.c. historians:

"Thomas L. Hayes, Jr., a P-51 ace of the 357th Fighter Group with 8 1/2 victories, recalled diving after a fleeing Me-109G until both aircraft neared the sound barrier and their controls locked. Both pilots took measures to slow down, but to Hayes' astonishment, the Me-109 was the first to pull out of its dive. As he belatedly regained control of his Mustang, Hayes was grateful that the German pilot chose to quit while he was ahead and fly home instead of taking advantage of Hayes' momentary helplessness. Hayes also stated that while he saw several Fw-190s stall and even crash during dogfights, he never saw an Me-109 go out of control. "

http://history1900s.about.com/librar...ngmachine1.htm

How fast do you think they were going in that dive? or do you not believe it?

By the way, if you think its incredulous regarding what some of their aircraft were truly capable of in a pinch don't read about their submarines. You really won't believe it.

[Udet]

Maestro:

Dalton was not comparing the Fw190 with obsolete Spitfires, the Mk V in this case.

The Butcher bird on its arrival to JG units in France in early 1942 faced precisely its contemporary RAF foe, which happened to be the Mk VB, and the Spitfire units took a hell of a pounding.

Two famous events of 1942 saw Spitfire squadrons taking heavy losses at the hands of both the Fw190 and the Bf109: the Channel Dash and the Dieppe Raid.

The Spitfire was available in important numbers during 1942, never to find themselves outnumbered. RAF fighter squadrons failed big time to prevail over a Jagdwaffe which had, at the moment, a very important part of its force dealing with the VVS in the east, not to mention the units deployed elsewhere (North Africa, Mediterranean, etc.)

[the lancaster kicks ass]

i have read many accounts of comparisons between spits and -109/-190s, most will say the spit was superior, they can't all be wrong, and hell, even german pilots admit the spit was a superior plane.............

Originally Posted by DJ_Dalton1

I place a great deal of stock in the pilot accounts. Comparative trials don't involve similar maintenance. You can't expect a captured aircraft to perform like an aircraft inventoried by its manufacturing nation. A captured aircraft is out of its element. Those captured on the ground, are captured on the ground for a reason. In other words the British tested Spitfire is going to perform at absolute maximum performance. You know that going in. The captured aircraft performance is entirely debateable and you certainly see that in these tests. Additionally, I don't put huge emphasis on factory testing. I know the British and especially the Russians played all kinds of games with that. Testing without armament. Testing with fuels not generally available at the time of the tests. Using experimental boost. Setting gearing for test conditions. Running at unsustainable rpm. So the issue is, "what is a primary source document"? Comparative testing? Factory testing? Factory testing in what configuration?

Pilot accounts are of limited value. They often mis-identify the opposing plane, especially the specific variant. Pilot skill also enters into the picture big-time. Personal bias is also a huge factor. And then their is the effect of time - which can badly distort such recollections.

All primary source documents have to be taken for what they are. In most cases, I find test documents based upon actual flight tests to be the best source IF they specify all the conditions of the test and any special factors involved. All the test documents I've referenced above do this to the extreme.

Originally Posted by DJ_Dalton1

I place as much or more emphasis on the anecdotal or combat evidence, because its there that the planes are fully armed for war and pushed to their limits...and this part is important...AND BEYOND. To my mind, its the only place to judge. You don't judge a halfback by his 40 yard dash out of pads. You judge by what he accomplishes on game day. In WWII, in the air, the Germans won on game day vs. the British, but there were a lot of good teams in that division and they didn't win it all.

The British did about as well over German held ground as the German's did over British held ground. Neither was particularly good at offense unless the enemy was totally outclassed.

Originally Posted by DJ_Dalton1

Anyway, so primary source document? You really want to base conclusions about which plane did what on non combat testing? You didn't pick this up from the Russian moron they had working at Jaleco referencing bogus documentation did you? I had to point out to them the F4U-4C never saw WWII. They actually didn't know.

That is not true. They doubted it saw service but it was possible it did, and they needed an easy fix to the game balance issues they faced. The problem in Fighter Ace is that the .50's only fire ball ammo, and cannon ballistics are almost identical to .50 ballistics and fire HE ammo. This makes cannon rule the game. Since there was no late-war multi cannon armed US plane, they chose to add the -4C rather than completely remodle the gun/damage system - something they could not do without great expense at that time.

And as for the -4C not having seen service, there is some evidence that it did. There are accounts by airfield personel of 4 bladed Corsairs having arrived in China armed with 4 cannon. The problem is that there are almost no primary source documents which say where any of the F4U variants went - including the -1C. What is clear is that the -4C models came off the production line between Sept. '44 and Feb. '45, that's about it.

Originally Posted by DJ_Dalton1

Anyway, thats another story. Ok, for the third time try this one and keep in mind its a gondola winged Wilde Sau Bf 109G-6/U-2 being tested vs. a cleanly configured Spitfire IX utilizing 25lbs of boost at certain points in the testing:

"Dive
19.........Comparitive dives between the two aircraft have shown that the Me.109 can leave the Spitfire without any difficulty.":

http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/109gtac.html

Prove this claim.

Originally Posted by DJ_Dalton1

Its not only weight. Its the additional speed that degrades the Spitfire. That big wing is not a high speed maneuver wing. It rolls like a pig under high load. Abysmal.

And so did the 109 - in fact it was worse. Neither plane could roll well at speed. And again, the 109 could only maintain high speeds in level flight for about 1 minute before overheating - the Spitfire was able to sustain such speeds for several minutes.

Originally Posted by DJ_Dalton1

Heres a little article I read awhile ago. I don't endorse it entirely. I only cite it for the observations. Its in the wartime observations that the truth is hidden by modern p.c. historians:

"Thomas L. Hayes, Jr., a P-51 ace of the 357th Fighter Group with 8 1/2 victories, recalled diving after a fleeing Me-109G until both aircraft neared the sound barrier and their controls locked. Both pilots took measures to slow down, but to Hayes' astonishment, the Me-109 was the first to pull out of its dive. As he belatedly regained control of his Mustang, Hayes was grateful that the German pilot chose to quit while he was ahead and fly home instead of taking advantage of Hayes' momentary helplessness. Hayes also stated that while he saw several Fw-190s stall and even crash during dogfights, he never saw an Me-109 go out of control. "

http://history1900s.about.com/librar...ngmachine1.htm

How fast do you think they were going in that dive? or do you not believe it?

LOL - I suspect the 109's engine overspeed and seized - thus he was able to slow down faster, but of course he chose to exit combat.

Originally Posted by DJ_Dalton1

By the way, if you think its incredulous regarding what some of their aircraft were truly capable of in a pinch don't read about their submarines. You really won't believe it.

German subs were crap compared to US subs. On the other hand, US torpedos sucked big time until about mid 1943.

=S=

Lunatic

[DJ_Dalton1]

Originally Posted by the lancaster kicks ass

i have read many accounts of comparisons between spits and -109/-190s, most will say the spit was superior

like this one following?:

http://www.odyssey.dircon.co.uk/Spitfire14v190.htm

Note they tested a 1944 XIV vs. a 1942 FW190 and even then they didn't open the FW up. But they go on to say the following:

"Dive: After the initial part of the dive, during which the FW 190 gains slightly, the Spitfire XIV has a slight advantage.

Rate of Roll: The FW 190 is very much better

Conclusions: In defence, the Spitfire XIV should us its remarkable maximum climb and turning circle against enemy aircraft. In the attack it can affort to 'mix it' but should beware of the quick roll and dive.
If this manoeuvre is used by a FW190 and the Spitfire XIV follows, it will probably not be able to close
the range until the FW190 has pulled out of its dive."

I don't know about you, but I don't weight that in favor of the "best" British figher ever made. If you test a 1944 German aircraft against a 1942 British Aircraft, I guarantee you that you'll have all the performance standards in German favor, with the possible exception of turning circle and roll in the Bf 109. But roll will be very close.

they can't all be wrong,

Why not? someones wrong. Its merely a question of who?

and hell, even german pilots admit the spit was a superior

Now you're clearly into the "I don't know, so I'm making it up" mode. O.K. lets assume that there were German pilots that said the Spitfire was superior, (This I know to be clearly a fiction. They feasted on Spitfires), Your credibility requires that you provide one legitimate properly contexted source.

By the way the Lancaster sucked big time. They had to go to night because it was a tinderbox.

This Experten really liked to engage Spitfires. He said they superior targets.

http://www.luftwaffe.cz/hahn.html

[the lancaster kicks ass]

hey hey hey now you've dissed the spit and i can take that, just, but NO ONE that's NO ONE, ESPECIALLY SOMEONE WITH 3 POSTS can come on here and bad mouth the lancaster, please, name ways in which the lancaster "sucked big time", nothing would give me more pleasure than proving you wrong, and believe me, whilst i can't with the spit, i can bombard you with sources of info on the lancaster, you picked the wrong guy to have a fight about the lancaster with.................

[mosquitoman]

We went at night because we didn't have the fighter escort, the Americans were thinking of postponing daytime bomber ops and then the Mustang came along. Us Brits were just being sensible

[the lancaster kicks ass]

i'm just waiting for his response really, i can't wait to see what he has to say...........

[DJ_Dalton1]

Originally Posted by DJ_Dalton1

Anyway, that's another story. Ok, for the third time try this one and keep in mind its a gondola winged Wilde Sau Bf 109G-6/U-2 being tested vs. a cleanly configured Spitfire IX utilizing 25lbs of boost at certain points in the testing:

"Dive
19.........Comparative dives between the two aircraft have shown that the Me.109 can leave the Spitfire without any difficulty.":

http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/109gtac.html

Prove this claim.

I think I already did prove it and that I proved it beyond a reasonable doubt.

http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/vie...?p=59729#59729

But lets assume someone was obstinate or thick headed enough to hang an otherwise clearly united jury on the major charge. You can always settle for a lesser charge or find the path of least resistance with a blockhead and in comparing the planes its really not relevant how the Bf 109G-6/U-2 was configured for the dive, because regardless of how it was configured it out dove the Spitfire IX.

So say the 109 was clean if you wish. The evidence is clear indicating otherwise, but it really doesn't matter regarding the dive.

http://www.luftwaffe.cz/michalski.html

[the lancaster kicks ass]

it's rude to ignore me dj..........

[DJ_Dalton1]

Originally Posted by the lancaster kicks ass

it's rude to ignore me dj..........

Lanny, I'm multitasking. I'm sorry for ignoring will responds asap...lol

[the lancaster kicks ass]

oh this's gonna be good...........

and multi tasking, what kind of a man are you??