Spitfire XIV vs Bf-109 K-4 vs La-7 vs Yak-3

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

As others have pointed out, I think it depends on the mission. I will vote for the Bf 109K only because the Bf 109 is my favorite aircraft.

I believe that the Bf 109K and the Spit XIV are pretty equal. They both have advantages over the other, and it all depends on pilot skill as well as the type of mission.

[Soren]

Originally Posted by Kruska

however on a pure fighter mission the K would lose out to a Spit XIV.

Regards
Kruska

Well it depends Kruska. If the Spitfire pilot gets suckered into a low speed turn fight or a spiral climb then the K-4 will have the edge, however if he keeps his speed up and forces the German pilot to have to constantly battle with his ailerons to follow track then he's got a huge advantage.

Now ofcourse then some will argue that a smart 109 pilot wont allow himself to be sucked into a scissors fight, and would simply break off the attack and stay higher, but then the Spit could just as easily reverse and get its guns on him instead.

So like I said, overall I think the Spitfire has a small edge.

[Soundbreaker Welch?]

I thought the Spitfire could generally turn tighter than a Bf 109, at least for the average pilot. It was harder to make the Bf 109 make a tight turn, and inexperienced German pilots had trouble doing it, though with an expert a 109 could turn tighter than a Spitfire.

Now I know the Spitfire XIV couldn't turn as tight as say a Spitfire I or XIII, so maybe I'm wrong.

I also thought the Bf 109 was better at Split S's than a Spitfire, and a scissors roll I thought was sorta along that line.

[kool kitty89]

It depends the model spit 109 and situation, but the maneuverability avantage went back and forth between the Spit and 109, except for the Emil with unreliable and unpleasant slats. (opened rapidly and not always simultaneously resulting in aileron snach and shuttering, also they were prone to jamming at high G's and sensitive to dirt)

One consistant advantage of the Spit over the 109 was range. (by ~25-30% better for normal range spitfires depending on comparison, as high as 50% in some cases)

[Kruska]

Originally Posted by Soren

Well it depends Kruska. If the Spitfire pilot gets suckered into a low speed turn fight or a spiral climb then the K-4 will have the edge, however if he keeps his speed up and forces the German pilot to have to constantly battle with his ailerons to follow track then he's got a huge advantage.

Now ofcourse then some will argue that a smart 109 pilot wont allow himself to be sucked into a scissors fight, and would simply break off the attack and stay higher, but then the Spit could just as easily reverse and get its guns on him instead.

So like I said, overall I think the Spitfire has a small edge.

Hello Soren,

Well, since we after war generation guys had intensive time to study books and playing IL2 etc. etc. we might come to such a conclusion. However I seriously doubt that except for a few flying aces on both sides any normal pilot knew how to maneuver their a/c in such an “exquisite” way in order to achieve an advantage or stay alive.

As such I would tend to believe, and that is why I forwarded the Spit in regards to fighter attributes (maybe I am wrong) that a Spit was far more easier to handle then a 109K by some rookie or less experienced pilot, since in 1944 such experienced LW pilots were extremely rare or for sure not enough of them around to equalize for the rookies.

Regards
Kruska

[Kurfürst]

Originally Posted by Soundbreaker Welch?

I thought the Spitfire could generally turn tighter than a Bf 109, at least for the average pilot. It was harder to make the Bf 109 make a tight turn, and inexperienced German pilots had trouble doing it, though with an expert a 109 could turn tighter than a Spitfire.

This what RAE concluded on the matter :

When the Me.109 was following the Hurricane or Spitfire, it was found that our aircraft turned inside the Me.109 without difficulty when flown by determined pilots who were not afraid to pull their aircraft round hard in a tight turn. In a surprisingly large number of cases, however, the Me. 109 succeeded in keeping on the tail of the Spitfire or Hurricane during these turning tests, merely because our Pilots would not tighten up the tztrn suficiently from fear of stalling and spznning.

...
The gentle stall and good control under g [of the Me 109] are of some importance, as they enable the pilotto get the most out of the aircraft in a circling dog-fight by flying very near the stall. As mentioned in section 5.1, the Me.109 pilot succeeded in keeping on the tail of the Spitfire in many cases, despite the latter aircraft's superior turning performance, because a number of the
Spitfire pilots failed to tighten up the turn sufficiently. If the stick is pulled back too far on the Spitfire in a tight turn, the aircraft may stall rather violently, flick over on to its back, and spin. Knowledge of this undoubtedly deters the pilot from tightening his turn when being chased, particularly if he is not very experienced.

Originally Posted by kool kitty89

One consistant advantage of the Spit over the 109 was range. (by ~25-30% better for normal range spitfires depending on comparison, as high as 50% in some cases)

Quite the contrary. In fact the Spitfire`s range considerably worsened during development. The 109s range considerably increased during its development.

The only wartime Spitfire with better range than the contemporary 109 was the Mk I, until July 1940, when droptanks were introduced to the E-7, boosting its range to 1300+ km. Even that is unclear because the Spit I ranges are described as either 390 or 590 miles, and the conditions are unspecified, so they may not be comparable to Emil figures.

I believe droptanks were not introduced to Spitfires until 1942 or so, even then, they used smaller ones than the Germans - 90 gallon versions, introduced sometime later, were impractical for all but the less produced Mk VII, VIII, XII and XIV versions.

[Kurfürst]

I have to for the 109K-4 in this case. The two Soviet fighters, given that the original poster specifed from SL to 30k feet, gets eliminated because of their poor altitude performance.

That leaves the K-4 and the XIV in the competition; and while performance-wise there`s very little difference between the two (the 109K is very slightly superior at low and medium altitudes, the XIV has a very slight superiority at high altitudes), so it boils down to operational, armament and misc. characteristics. While these could be debated, the 109K is a fighter with considerably more range and endurance, which makes it a better overall fighter than the short-legged XIV IMHO. The possibility of having a heavier armament (two 20mm extra if needed) is on the plus side too, and overall greater versatality is the final deciding factor.

[kool kitty89]

Hmm, okay the range values do seem to vary somewhat wildly, but I though variants of the Spit-V got 90 gal drop tanks by 1942 at the latest. (ferry range of over 1,100 mi) And 300 L isn't 90 gal (U.S. liquid gallon is legally defined as 231 cubic inches, and is equal to 3.785411784 litres (exactly)) it's 79.25 US gal or 65.99 imp. gal.

So was the Hurricane actually longer ranged than the Spit? http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.o...cane-I-ads.jpg

[Kurfürst]

I believe initially only 30 and 45 gallon droptanks were used, though someone could shed more light on that matter as to when and what dropanks were used on operational (i.e. non-ferry).

The MkVs flown to Malta used some big overload tanks but I believe these are only ferry tanks - having a 90 gallon droptank but only a 85 gallon internal tank to return on leads to some obvious practical difficulties..

In any case the Mk IXs range w. a 90 gallon droptank was similiar to the Me 109Gs with a 66 gallon droptank, difference being the former was practical for ferry (one-way..) missions only, the latter was a practical combat mission tank.

[kool kitty89]

Interesting, then tere were the IX's with increased fuel capacity, but that's a whole other topic entirely.

[drgondog]

Originally Posted by Kurfürst

This what RAE concluded on the matter :

When the Me.109 was following the Hurricane or Spitfire, it was found that our aircraft turned inside the Me.109 without difficulty when flown by determined pilots who were not afraid to pull their aircraft round hard in a tight turn. In a surprisingly large number of cases, however, the Me. 109 succeeded in keeping on the tail of the Spitfire or Hurricane during these turning tests, merely because our Pilots would not tighten up the tztrn suficiently from fear of stalling and spznning.

...
The gentle stall and good control under g [of the Me 109] are of some importance, as they enable the pilotto get the most out of the aircraft in a circling dog-fight by flying very near the stall. As mentioned in section 5.1, the Me.109 pilot succeeded in keeping on the tail of the Spitfire in many cases, despite the latter aircraft's superior turning performance, because a number of the
Spitfire pilots failed to tighten up the turn sufficiently. If the stick is pulled back too far on the Spitfire in a tight turn, the aircraft may stall rather violently, flick over on to its back, and spin. Knowledge of this undoubtedly deters the pilot from tightening his turn when being chased, particularly if he is not very experienced.



.

Kurfurst - In my opinion, your illustrations/observations from the RAE reports are the best possible 'illustration' of the phrase 'it depends' when trying to compare turn performance of closely matched aircraft.

[Mitya]

Originally Posted by Soren

Lavochkin La-7 specs:

Weight: 3,354 kg
Wing area: 17.5 m^2
Wing span: 9.8 m
Wing AR: 5.48
Wing TR: 16% to 10%
Wing Clmax: ~1.54

Engine power: 1,830 HP
______________________
Lift loading: 124.4 kg/m^2
Span loading: 342.2 kg/m
Power loading: 1.83 kg/hp

Top speeds: 680 km/h at alt, 585 km/h at SL
Max climb rate: 3,850 + ft/min

А откуда у Ла-7 1830 л.с.? АШ-82ФН 1850 "лошадок" же... И взлетный вес 3265 кг. Насколько я знаю. И скорость у земли не 585, как у вас указано (Ла-5ФН выдавал чуть меньше), а 613 км/ч, а уж на заводских испытаниях одну машину вообще разогнали до 630 км/ч. И скороподъемность не 3850 фт/мин, а 4764 фт/мин (24,2 м/с).
P.S.: вы сравниваете машины просто по ЛТХ. Не учитывая то, в каких условиях они воевали. Советские машины с низковысотными моторами. Они расчитывались для ведения боя на низких и средних высотах (до 5000 м - выше на Советско-германском фронте бои не велись почти что). Spitfire обладал высотным мотором. Пик мощности, если я не ошибаюсь, на 7620 м. Так что нельзя так их просто сравнивать...

[Soren]

Mitya,

This is an English speaking forum, so please write in English.

[glen]

Factsheet:


Supermarine Spitfire Mk. XIV specs:

Weight: 3,855 kg
Wing area: 22.48 m^2
Wing span: 11.23 m
Wing AR: 5.61
Wing TR: 12% to 9%
Wing Clmax: 1.36

Engine power: 2,235 HP
______________________
Lift loading: 126 kg/m^2
Span loading: 343.2 kg/m
Power loading: 1.72 kg/hp

Top speeds: 721 km/h at alt, 590 km/h at SL
Max climb rate: 4,800 + ft/min

Messerschmittt Bf-109 K-4 specs:

Weight: 3,362 kg
Wing area: 16.15 m^2
Wing span: 9.92 m
Wing AR: 6.09
Wing TR: 14.2% to 11.35%
Wing Clmax: 1.70

Engine power: 1,975 HP
______________________
Lift loading: 122.4 kg/m^2
Span loading: 338.9 kg/m
Power loading: 1.70 kg/hp

Top speed: 719 km/h at alt, 609 km/h at SL
Max Climb rate: 5,000 + ft/min

Spitfire XIV's data is not accurate. 18lbs boost Spitfire XIV's(Jan. 44) max climb rate is 5110ft/m, 21lbs boost (Auturm 44) is more.
Engine's endurance, spitfire is better. High altitude performance, spitfire is better. Range of spitrfire XIV is much more than spitfire IX.

To be frank, I can hardly find BF109K's (Aug. 44)advantage ober 21lbs Spitfire XIV.

[Mitya]

Originally Posted by Soren

Mitya,

This is an English speaking forum, so please write in English.

Оке.
La-7
Weight: 3265 kg
...
Engine power: 1,850 HP
...
Top speeds: 680 km/h at alt, 613 (630) km/h at SL
Max climb rate: ~4700 + ft/min

I think.