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

[glen]

Originally Posted by Mitya

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.

I remember LA7 is even lighter than La5fn due to the remove of wood components. around 2600kg?

[Soren]

Originally Posted by glen

Spitfire XIV's data is not accurate. 18lbs boost Spitfire XIV's(Jan. 44) max climb rate is 5110ft/m,

That is incorrect, this rate of climb was obtained by a prototype a/c. The Rate of climb of the Spitfire Mk.XIV is 4,800 ft/min at 18 lbs/sq.in. boost.

21lbs boost (Auturm 44) is more.

21 lbs.sq.in. boost wasn't used for anything but chasing V1's, IF it was used at all.

Engine's endurance, spitfire is better.

Wrong, the Bf-109 could run at full boost for 10min at a time, the Spitfire could run at full boost at only 5 min at a time.

High altitude performance, spitfire is better.

And at low to medium alt the performance aof the Bf-109 K-4 is better.

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

To be frank you don't know much glen.

[glen]

Originally Posted by Soren

That is incorrect, this rate of climb was obtained by a prototype a/c. The Rate of climb of the Spitfire Mk.XIV is 4,800 ft/min at 18 lbs/sq.in. boost.




21 lbs.sq.in. boost wasn't used for anything but chasing V1's, IF it was used at all.



Wrong, the Bf-109 could run at full boost for 10min at a time, the Spitfire could run at full boost at only 5 min at a time.



And at low to medium alt the performance aof the Bf-109 K-4 is better.



To be frank you don't know much glen.

You don't know Spitfire.

Spitfire Mk XIV versus Me 109 G/K

Spitfire Mk XIV Performance Testing

[Soren]

Yes I do, but you don't glen.

You should start reading here abit, the most comprehensive site on the Bf-109 out there:
Kurfurst - Your resource on Messerschmitt Bf 109 performance

And in the future forget about Mike William's site when you want data on German a/c, he has very little and he is very selective about what data he wants to show.

[Soren]

Top speed of the Bf-109 K-4 is as stated 609 km/h at SL and 719 km/h at alt:

[glen]

Originally Posted by Soren

Top speed of the Bf-109 K-4 is as stated 609 km/h at SL and 719 km/h at alt:

Soren, that's 1.98ata boost BF109k4, 1945 early.
18lbs spitfire XIV is of 1944 early, and whole year between them.

If you feel fair to compare 18lbs Spit with 1.98ata K4, please modify the top speed of spitfire from 595km/h to 575km/h, 18lbs spitfire is not so fast.
BTW, MW50 is philter, harmful to BF109's engine. LOL

[Soren]

You're truely the most clueless member of this forum glen.

BTW, MW50 is philter, harmful to BF109's engine

Are you serious ??!

glen come back when you actually know what the MW-50 system is, and when you have learned to read properly as-well!

[Soren]

Oh and again, no Spitfire XIV ever saw action against German a/c at 21 lbs/sq.in. boost, only 18 lbs/sq.in. and only for max 5min at a time, while the German fighters could run at full boost for 10min at a time.

But hey, how was I to expect you to understand that right away..

[glen]

No evidence has yet been found that +25 lbs boost was employed in service by Spitfire XIV squadrons prior to VE day. Even at +25 lbs. the Spitfire XIV still fell short of the sea level performance of the Tempest V and highly boosted Mustangs. There is clear documentation that 2nd TAF Spitfire XIVs had their Griffon engines set to +21 lbs boost. Its also clear that the Griffon engine was eventually approved for +25 lbs maximum combat boost. Although the Spitfire XIV's strength was in the medium and high altitude role, the paucity of Luftwaffe opposition led to the Squadrons engaging in ground attack, where flak was a much larger threat than Me 109s.
------------------------------------
21lbs spitfire of 2nd TF, operated on west europe in 44-45and not only in chasing V1. It's 1.8-1.98ata K4's rival.

MW-50 (water-methanol 50/50) was injected into the air-intake and served as an anti-detonant allowing higher boost to be used below normal rated altitude. The evaporating water also cooling the charge-air thus increasing the weight of the charge. Limited by the performance of the supercharger the MW-50 induced max. output began declining 1.5-2 km. below normal rated altitude until it became impotent at and above the normal rated altitude (compare for example DB 605A-1 and AM). Max. continous use: 5-10 minutes. Penalties: drasticly shortens flight endurance and spark-plug life, added weight of MW-50 tank and piping. Most Me 109 sub-types from 1944/45 were equiped to utilise MW-50.



drasticly shortens flight endurance and spark-plug life......
however, late german pilots don't care about their enginee's life at all because their own lives are more fragile.

[vanir]

I'm of the philosophy this is an inherent "opinion" question, so I gave mine as the 109K for overall performance. The DB-605D series is an excellent aero engine for the small 109 airframe. Plus according to a variety of credible Luftwaffe and RAF aces interviewed, a series I bought on DVD in their own words and with a dramatic consistency, to the specific question of late war Me-109 models and a similar period Spitfire Gunther Rall for example noted the only manoeuvre he couldn't follow a Spitfire in was a climbing turn. He said it was very competitive with all the Allied fighters right to the end of the war, but as he flew a number of captured Allied fighters personally he believed the Mustang alone was superior. When asked what an Me-109 pilot would do about a Thunderbolt he said simply, "Shoot them down." Galland stated simply for the camera, "We burned our aircraft when we surrendered. It wasn't because we didn't want the Americans to get them, but because we could still fight. Right to the very last day the Luftwaffe was still able to hold its own over Germany."

Considering the mainstay of many, if not most Jagdgeschwader was always, and had always been the various models of the 109, some using it exclusively it would seem that history claims the late model 109 of 44-45 was every bit as good as, or at least capably competitive with absolutely everything in the combined Allied arsenal. This is a simple assertion.

But I think the aircraft mentioned are all very good, and equivalent enough in performance to gain the upper hand in given circumstances. Just that the same is true for the 109K and it has the broad range of altitude performance and the best time to altitude figures out there, thanks to that magnificent fluid drive compressor. Plus the 10 minute boost is a real advantage, and its output at altitude is still in the region of 1250PS at 7km at the combat/climb 30 minute setting. That's pretty tough altitude performance that only gets matched by the Mark XIV Spit, which then loses a little low/medium altitude performance to the Messerschmitt. I think the 109K would just want to avoid chasing Spitfires up to 8km really, it's geared for combat at up to 6km and the British Supermarine just keeps getting better and better the higher you go, which is really what a two-stage supercharger is all about.

The impression I get, though to be honest I've no idea how accurate this might be, but for any two-stage Spit and probably most other types (Lightning, Thunderbolt, Mustang), 5-6km is kinda low altitude, you'd rather be higher.

[vanir]

drasticly shortens flight endurance and spark-plug life......

Don't want to get caught up in the argument, but considering you're starting off with maybe a 1000hr engine life, service every 30 say, using that stuff means you might get 750hrs and should service every 10. It doesn't mean your engine fails after a few flights or anything, unless the engine itself can't really cope putting out too much power (which is really just a question of fuel/air combustion limitations for an inline engine of a given construction).

Using 1c Maddox as a source on this point, the AM and ASM engines introduced at the start of 44 (basically just the 605A/AS but modified for high octane fuel and MW-50 use) had a reputedly terrible engine life and could fail during a mission with overuse of the MW-50 system (even within operating guidelines). The D series engines and a virtually interchangeable redevelopment of the AS engine during 1945 were a much different story however, and the additional cooling capacity of the new airframe helped give this model no real faults to speak of, which weren't quirks plaguing the series (it is said the late 109 did not tolerate fools kindly, and killed a few on the runway).

At any rate keep in mind the Gustav remained in combat service with some air forces (Spain, Czechoslovakia) in one form or another well into the 1950's. Their competitors were generally the P-51D Mustang and Mark XIV Spit also exported widely, so put simply they can't have been too bad according to impassive history.

[glen]

1v1, @ sea level , spitfire has strongger dogfight ability. And "a climbing turn" is a spitfire's effective maneuver dealing wirh Bf109 from 1940 BOB to VE day, perhaps not for Spitfie V period.

BTW, Kurfurst said that Spitfire's max output is only within 5 monutes, where is the proof? in all out speed test?


BTW. both Mike Williams and Kurfurst are somewhat subjective. For example, in williams' web site, no comparation of spit V and Bf109F at all.....

Be careful when reading their articles.

For example, kuefurst emphasized that old spit IX are the majority of RAF 44-45,that's right, but they are 25lbs , Kurfurst said " The vast majority of RAF squadrons flew the old Mk IXs until the cease of hostilities, and certainly they felt that 40-50 mph speed differenence between their Mk IX rides and the Luftwaffe G-14/AS, G-10s, K-4s and D-9s." my god, 40-50mph ,that's 18lbs spit IX's performance.

Kurfurst emphasized that Spit XIV are rare/small mumber, that is right, but BF109K and Fw190D are also rare. And those spit XIV can't even find enough enemies, so why Britain produce so many spit XIV? in order to prove RAF's strength? to plug up some oppugn 60 years later? Doesn't a/c producing consume money?

[Mitya]

Originally Posted by glen

I remember LA7 is even lighter than La5fn due to the remove of wood components. around 2600kg?

La-5FN - ~ 3300 kg. "around 2600 kg?" - вот это я не понимаю...

On the Soviet-german front air fights doing on 0...5000 (max) m. What "tanks not fly in the cosmos" (c) (Танки в космосе не летают ) { I dont'now what this on english say ). Il-2 - shtirmovik - max high of fly (от силы) 2000 m. Pe-2 & Tu-2 - tactics bobmer - ~2000...4000. B-17, B-24, B-29 - strategic bomber - 5000...9000 m (примерные цифры). "Altitude flight of fighters determine of altitude strike planes" (высота действия истребителей определяется высотой действия ударных машин). Soviet & english fighters work on other problem. (Т.е. Советские и Союзнические машины создавались для своих задач). Вот.
P.S.: sorry my english.
P.P.S.: high quality pictures http://mitya.diinoweb.com/files/My%2...um/LTX/262.jpg
http://mitya.diinoweb.com/files/My%2...%20Spit-14.jpg
P.P.P.S.:

Originally Posted by seesul

Mitya,

I´m sorry I´m off topic but
congratulation to yesterday´s match Russia-Canada 5:4!
Man, you´re World Champions!

Спасибо, seesul! Thank you!
Ага! РОССИЯ ЧЕМПИОН!!! 1:3... 4:4.. 5:4 !!! Yessssssssssssssss!!!!!!!

[seesul]

Mitya,

I´m sorry I´m off topic but
congratulation to yesterday´s match Russia-Canada 5:4!
Man, you´re World Champions!

[drgondog]

Originally Posted by Soren

That is incorrect, this rate of climb was obtained by a prototype a/c. The Rate of climb of the Spitfire Mk.XIV is 4,800 ft/min at 18 lbs/sq.in. boost.




21 lbs.sq.in. boost wasn't used for anything but chasing V1's, IF it was used at all.



Wrong, the Bf-109 could run at full boost for 10min at a time, the Spitfire could run at full boost at only 5 min at a time.



And at low to medium alt the performance aof the Bf-109 K-4 is better.



To be frank you don't know much glen.

To be candid Soren you haven't demonstrated what you do know..

Education - credits from either vocational school or University applied to Aero Engineering? How far did you progress in math or physics?

Experience - what did you do to apply the knowledge Soren? Airframe Structures? Flight Mechanics? Stability and Control? Aero? Airframe Design? Powerplant? Landing gear design?

What are your credentials to attack Glen? The silence for the last month on these questions are deafening Soren.