Is Spitfire really the BEST British fighter???

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Originally Posted by Soren

And Every modern day 109 pilot will disagree with him on that.

First having said the 109 is my favorite aircraft of WW2 and I will stick up for it anyday but I just have to wonder how many modern day 109 pilots are there? I know of 109 pilots that are still alive, but modern day 109 pilots?

Sorry I just had to poke some fun!

[the lancaster kicks ass]

but that's so unlike you.........

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

I know its a shocker huh?

But even you Adler are not going to say the 109 out-turned the Sptifire are you? Let alone say it easily out-turned the Spit as Soren is contending.

=S=

Lunatic

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

I will deffinatly say that certain versions at certain times during the war could have done so. Forinstance when the F came out I would say yes she could outturn a Spit of the same day.

Originally Posted by DerAdlerIstGelandet

I will deffinatly say that certain versions at certain times during the war could have done so. Forinstance when the F came out I would say yes she could outturn a Spit of the same day.

Perhaps, but it would be close. But the way Soren describes it, any 109 could out turn any Spitfire any day of the war.

=S=

Lunatic

[Soren]

Originally Posted by RG_Lunatic

Perhaps, but it would be close. But the way Soren describes it, any 109 could out turn any Spitfire any day of the war.

=S=

Lunatic

No im not ! Don't put words into my mouth, its not polite RG !

The G6 would most likely not turn inside a Spitfire, but the F series, G-10 and G-14 would RG ! This is confirmed by all 109 veterans, and even modern day aerodynamic-computers will give you supportive stats on that just by using the two aircrafts measurements !

Jeeze, can't you take a little kidding there Soren? My appologies, I really didn't mean to offend you.

Read Alder's post on this.

http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/vie...?p=59489#59489

Loads of German aces saying otherwise.

=S=

Lunatic

[Soren]

Originally Posted by RG_Lunatic

Jeeze, can't you take a little kidding there Soren? My appologies, I really didn't mean to offend you.

No offense taken, but i don't appriciate beeing fed with unspoken words.

My appologies for not realising it was a joke.

Read Alder's post on this.

http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/vie...?p=59489#59489

Loads of German aces saying otherwise.

Where are these German accounts saying otherwise ? I see none, only British accounts.

Only pilots from the period of 1940 will say the Spitfire turned tighter, and there a reason for that. Heres an explanation why:

Erwin Leykauf, German fighter pilot, 33 victories:

"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.

From Adler's post...

Oberleutnant Gerhard Schöpfel, Gruppenkommandeur of III./JG 26 wrote of the Me 109 E: It was superior to the Hurricane and above 6,000 metres, faster than the Spitfire also. I believe that our armament was the better, it was located more centrally which made for more accurate shooting. On the other hand, the British fighters could turn tighter than we could. Also I felt that the Messerschmitt was not so strong as the British fighters and could not take so much punishment.

Günther Rall, who served with III./JG 52 during the Battle of Britain, reflected on the strengths and weaknesses of the adversaries at that time: The elliptical wings of the Spitfires had fantastic characteristics, great lift. They were very maneuverable. We couldn't catch them in a steep climb. On the other hand they could stall during inverted maneuvers, cutting off the fuel because the force of gravity prevented the flow of fuel. But they were still a highly respected enemy. In contrast, our Bf 109s had shortcomings. I didn't like the slats and our cockpits were very narrow, with restricted rear visability. Fighter pilots need a good all-round field of vision and we didn't have it. 64 Adolf Galland wrote of the matchup: "the ME-109 was superior in the attack and not so suitable for purely defensive purposes as the Spitfire, which although a little slower, was much more manueuverable" and in a fit of frustration uttered the famous passage to Göring "I should like an outfit of Spitfires for my Squadron".

Interesting comment about the guns on this one:

Oblt Hans Schmoller-Haldy of JG 54 commented: My first impression was that it had a beautiful engine. It purred. The engine of the Messerschmitt 109 was very loud. Also the Spitfire was easier to fly, and to land than the Me 109. The 109 was unforgiving of any inattention. I felt familiar with the Spitfire from the start. That was my first and lasting impression. But with my experience with the 109, I personally would not have traded it for a Spitfire. It gave the impression, though I did not fly the Spitfire long enough to prove it, that the 109 was the faster especially in the dive. Also I think the pilot's view was better from the 109. In the Spitfire one flew further back, a bit more over the wing. For fighter-versus-fighter combat, I thought the Spitfire was better armed than the Me 109. The cannon fitted to the 109 were not much use against enemy fighters, and the machine guns on top of the engine often suffered stoppages. The cannon were good if they hit; but their rate of fire was very low. The cannon had greater range than the machine guns. But we were always told that in a dogfight one could not hope to hit anything at ranges greater than 50 metres, it was necessary to close in to short range.

Time and time again as I read pilot accounts, I see a few German's felt the 109 turned better than the Spitfire, some felt the two planes were about equal in terms of turn performance, and many felt the Spitfire turned better. Virtually every British pilot seems to have felt the Spit out-turned the 109, and virtually every comparative test seems to bear this out.

=S=

Lunatic

[Soren]

Remember this quote: " 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

Or how about this one:
Walter Wolfrum, German fighter ace. 137 victories.
Unexperienced pilots hesitated to turn tight, bacause the plane shook violently when the slats deployed. I realised, though, that because of the slats the plane's stalling characteristics were much better than in comparable Allied planes that I got to fly. Even though you may doubt it, I knew the Bf109 could manouver better in turnfight than LaGG, Yak or even Spitfire."

All the German pilots who said the Spit turned tighter are from that period (1940), you will find None from any period beyond this who says the same !

Also the claim that the Spit outturned the 109 simply runs from any aerodynamic and physic rule available !

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

There were several versions of the 109 that would turn better or atleast put up a good fight against a Spit however even though I am probably the biggest 109 fan in this forum I will not try and say that all versions were the best. I have read many accounts of it and many could out turn one however as you all know the 109 and the Spit were always being outdone by one another in development. Towards the end of the war the 109 was lagging a bit in the fight because it was getting heavier and heavier and the airframe could not handle it. The F was the finest varient to match up against a Spitfire.

[Udet]

DerAdler:

The late versions of the Spitfire were becoming authentic pigs, like the Mk. 21.

They got heavier and sturdier as they evolved.

The chances of the Mk. 21 against the Fw190Ds could be qualified as lacking.

[the lancaster kicks ass]

well the spit would be much faster.........

but the .21 was post war was it not??

[Soren]

well the spit would be much faster.........

Yes, but not in a dive, and its roll rate was considderably worse than the Fw-190D's. Also it didnt have good high speed maneuverability compared to the Fw-190D.

but the .21 was post war was it not??

Yes, it came "just" to late.