 | Is Spitfire really the BEST British fighter???| Aviation Discuss Is Spitfire really the BEST British fighter??? in the World War II - Aviation forums; Originally Posted by DerAdlerIstGelandet
There were several versions of the 109 that would turn better or atleast put up a ... |
|
04-01-2005, 08:59 AM
|
#286 | | Senior Member
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 5,024
| Quote: |
Originally Posted by 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. |
People like saying the 109 got heavier, and sure it did, up to the G-6 that is. The G-10 and G-14 were all lighter, and had a very powerful engine, wich could do 698 km/h in level flight. The G-10 and 14 would both turn inside a Spit, although it would always be tough to do so.
The K-4 had improved ailerons and shortned wings for better high speed maneuverability, but weighed as much as the G-6. The K-4 wouldnt be likely to turn inside a Spit XIV though.
__________________  We have built a total of about 1250 of this aircraft (Me-262), but only fifty were allowed to be used as fighters - as interceptors. And out of this fifty, there were never more than 25 operational. So we had only a very, very few.
- Adolf Galland | 
|  | |
04-01-2005, 09:09 AM
|
#287 | | Senior Member
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 5,024
| About the La's, I guess you didnt see the tests i quoted in another thread, so I'll post it again.
After lots of tests with the La-5FN, these were some of the conclusions...
The testing was carried out in September 1944 at Gross Schimanen, East Prussia. Turning circles: "The smallest turning circle at rated power at 2400m is about 28/30 sec for a stable 360 degree turn at constant height. This implies a minimum time for a 360 degree turn at 1000m, with emergency power, of about 25 sec." The tactical conclusions and advice offered to German fighter pilots: "The La 5FN is best suited to low altitude combat by virtue of its engine performance. Its top speed at ground level is slightly below that of the 190 and 109 (using MW 50). The 109 with MW 50 is superior over the whole height band in top speed and climb rate. Acceleration is comparable. Aileron effectiveness is better than the 109. Turning times at ground level are better than the 190 and worse than the 109.
In rate of climb the 190 is poorer until 3000m. Because of its greater weight the 190 accelerates less well than the La5FN, but by the same token is superior in the dive. It is basically right to dive away like an American Thunderbolt when flying a 190, thereafter to pull away in a high speed shallow climb to reach a new attacking position, not to let the speed drop and to avoid prolonged turning dogfights."
Source: "Luftwaffe Test Pilot" by Hans Werner Lerche. He flew virtually all captured Allied aircraft and most German types, including experimental models.
These tests should be regarded as atleast as reliable as Allied tests !
Hans Werner Lerche: 
The La-5FN in question: 
__________________ We have built a total of about 1250 of this aircraft (Me-262), but only fifty were allowed to be used as fighters - as interceptors. And out of this fifty, there were never more than 25 operational. So we had only a very, very few.
- Adolf Galland | |
| | |
04-01-2005, 09:14 AM
|
#288 | | Junior Member
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 20
| Greets: Quote:
but the .21 was post war was it not??
Yes, it came "just" to late.
| Apparently the Spitfire F. Mk. 21 was operational before war's end. See Operational Record Book from No. 91 Squadron Here
I wouldn't try turning my 109 against a Spit if my life was on the line... | 
| | |
04-01-2005, 09:30 AM
|
#289 | | Master of Ewes
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 19,959
Country:  | i wouldn't have to worry, i'd be in the spit 
__________________ 
"Reminds me of the time I sank the Tirpitz" comments a Spitfire pilot, "One pass of course, old boy." | |
| | |
04-01-2005, 09:41 AM
|
#290 | | Senior Member
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 5,024
| Quote: |
Originally Posted by Schöpfel Greets: Quote:
but the .21 was post war was it not??
Yes, it came "just" to late.
| Apparently the Spitfire F. Mk. 21 was operational before war's end. See Operational Record Book from No. 91 Squadron Here | None saw any action, according to all my sources. Quote: |
I wouldn't try turning my 109 against a Spit if my life was on the line...
| Tell that to Marseilles who prefered turn-fights, and shot down a good number of Spits and Hurri's doing so.
Experienced 109 pilots knew they could turn tighter, and that their aircraft could climb better, so they didnt hesitate to turn with a Spit.
__________________ We have built a total of about 1250 of this aircraft (Me-262), but only fifty were allowed to be used as fighters - as interceptors. And out of this fifty, there were never more than 25 operational. So we had only a very, very few.
- Adolf Galland | |
| | |
04-01-2005, 01:25 PM
|
#291 | | | Quote: |
Originally Posted by Soren About the La's, I guess you didnt see the tests i quoted in another thread, so I'll post it again.
After lots of tests with the La-5FN, these were some of the conclusions...
The testing was carried out in September 1944 at Gross Schimanen, East Prussia. | Saw it before Soren. As before I have to say...
WRONG THREAD! (post it in the La7 thread or make a new one)
=S=
Lunatic | |
| | |
04-01-2005, 01:27 PM
|
#292 | | Senior Member
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 5,024
| Quote: |
Originally Posted by RG_Lunatic Quote: |
Originally Posted by Soren About the La's, I guess you didnt see the tests i quoted in another thread, so I'll post it again.
After lots of tests with the La-5FN, these were some of the conclusions...
The testing was carried out in September 1944 at Gross Schimanen, East Prussia. | Saw it before Soren. As before I have to say...
WRONG THREAD! (post it in the La7 thread or make a new one)
=S=
Lunatic | Why is it the wrong thread ??
__________________ We have built a total of about 1250 of this aircraft (Me-262), but only fifty were allowed to be used as fighters - as interceptors. And out of this fifty, there were never more than 25 operational. So we had only a very, very few.
- Adolf Galland | |
| | |
04-01-2005, 01:59 PM
|
#293 | | | Quote: |
Originally Posted by Soren Why is it the wrong thread ?? | Ummm... this is the "Is Spitfire really the BEST British fighter???" thread.
I'm just trying to prevent this thread from diverging further than it already has. Your post makes more sense in the Spit vs. La7 thread or in a new thread.
=S=
Lunatic | |
| | |
04-01-2005, 02:17 PM
|
#294 | | Senior Member
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 5,024
| Quote: |
Originally Posted by RG_Lunatic Quote: |
Originally Posted by Soren Why is it the wrong thread ?? | Ummm... this is the "Is Spitfire really the BEST British fighter???" thread.
I'm just trying to prevent this thread from diverging further than it already has. Your post makes more sense in the Spit vs. La7 thread or in a new thread.
=S=
Lunatic | 
__________________ We have built a total of about 1250 of this aircraft (Me-262), but only fifty were allowed to be used as fighters - as interceptors. And out of this fifty, there were never more than 25 operational. So we had only a very, very few.
- Adolf Galland | |
| | |
04-01-2005, 02:19 PM
|
#295 | | Master of Ewes
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 19,959
Country: | well i really don't see what else could be the best apart from the tempest..........
__________________
"Reminds me of the time I sank the Tirpitz" comments a Spitfire pilot, "One pass of course, old boy." | |
| | |
04-01-2005, 04:31 PM
|
#296 | | Junior Member
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 20
| Hallo Soren: Quote: |
None saw any action, according to all my sources.
| Hmmm. did you look at the excerpt from 19 Squadron's Operations Record Book describing action? What source could there be that would trump this documented historic record? Could you share that with us? Thanks! Oh, I would love to converse with Marseilles, however that's not possible  Can you recommemend the source where-in he describes out turning Spitfires? I would find such reading facinating! | |
| | |
04-01-2005, 05:01 PM
|
#297 | | Senior Member
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 5,024
| Yeah, for one: "British Warplanes of World War II" by Daniel J. March.
And no, None are as accurate as the Squadron's Operations Record book, but it says nothing about these planes seeing any action. Quote: |
Oh, I would love to converse with Marseilles, however that's not possible | Yeah he got hit by the tail-plane, and didnt open his parachute. All this because of an engine fire (Possibly the best Fighter pilot who ever lived) Quote: |
Can you recommemend the source where-in he describes out turning Spitfires? I would find such reading facinating!
| Absolutely !!
"Bf 109 Aces of North Africa and the Mediterranean" by Jerry Scutts.
Great book !
__________________ We have built a total of about 1250 of this aircraft (Me-262), but only fifty were allowed to be used as fighters - as interceptors. And out of this fifty, there were never more than 25 operational. So we had only a very, very few.
- Adolf Galland | |
| | |
04-02-2005, 02:30 AM
|
#298 | | Banned
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 795
| Quote: |
Originally Posted by Soren People like saying the 109 got heavier, and sure it did, up to the G-6 that is. The G-10 and G-14 were all lighter, and had a very powerful engine, wich could do 698 km/h in level flight. The G-10 and 14 would both turn inside a Spit, although it would always be tough to do so.
The K-4 had improved ailerons and shortned wings for better high speed maneuverability, but weighed as much as the G-6. The K-4 wouldnt be likely to turn inside a Spit XIV though. | G-6
wingspan - 9.92 m
K-4
wing span - 9,92 m
By improved ailerons, do mean those using the Flettner tabs? There was only about 200 were so fitted, out of the approx 1700 K-4 built. They were not a great success. | |
| | |
04-02-2005, 05:33 AM
|
#299 | | Der Crewchief
Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Ansbach, Germany
Posts: 30,270
Country:  | Quote: |
Originally Posted by Schöpfel Greets: Quote:
but the .21 was post war was it not??
Yes, it came "just" to late.
| Apparently the Spitfire F. Mk. 21 was operational before war's end. See Operational Record Book from No. 91 Squadron Here | They were operational but never made into the war.
__________________  US Army Blackhawk Crewchief 2000-2006 Classic ww2aircraft.net quotes: fly boy said: "isn't that the first jet bomber? becasue i have flown one in a flight sim before and i know how it handles" "wait what ok who made the b-2 crash come on people that messed up its a b-2" "ah yes the mistel those things are so annoying is games and in real life" | |
| | |
04-02-2005, 08:41 AM
|
#300 | | Senior Member
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 5,024
| Quote: |
Originally Posted by KraziKanuK Quote: |
Originally Posted by Soren People like saying the 109 got heavier, and sure it did, up to the G-6 that is. The G-10 and G-14 were all lighter, and had a very powerful engine, wich could do 698 km/h in level flight. The G-10 and 14 would both turn inside a Spit, although it would always be tough to do so.
The K-4 had improved ailerons and shortned wings for better high speed maneuverability, but weighed as much as the G-6. The K-4 wouldnt be likely to turn inside a Spit XIV though. | G-6
wingspan - 9.92 m
K-4
wing span - 9,92 m
By improved ailerons, do mean those using the Flettner tabs? There was only about 200 were so fitted, out of the approx 1700 K-4 built. They were not a great success. |
Recent actual measurements have said 10.6m for the F-4 and 9.94m for the K-4. But all my bookreferences say 9.92m for both.
However there is a German specification book out there, wich says the K-4 had shortened wingspan from all the other models, wich is why i believe the newest measurements.
__________________ We have built a total of about 1250 of this aircraft (Me-262), but only fifty were allowed to be used as fighters - as interceptors. And out of this fifty, there were never more than 25 operational. So we had only a very, very few.
- Adolf Galland | |
| | | Thread Tools | Search this Thread | | | | | Display Modes |  Linear Mode | 
Posting Rules
| You may not post new threads You may not post replies You may not post attachments You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off | | | All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:54 PM. | | |
