Spitfire XIV vs Me 109G/K

[Lucky13]

Spitfire Mk XIV versus Me 109 G/K

[Kurfürst]

Unfortunately, that site is notoriously biased against Axis aircraft.
It also ignores a lot of evidence that has been unearthed and known long ago. Basically, it pushes forward the agenda of the site's author who wishes to show that the most famous Allied fighter types were almost infinitively superior to their Axis counterparts. This is simply achieved there
by comparing the worst examples of Axis fighters at some lower power output against the best examples on the Allied side.

For example, the '109K-4' figures on that graphs are taken from a 109K-6 curve, and they don't show either the 1.98ata boost rate that appears to have been introduced in March 1945 for two-two Gruppes of JG 27 and 53 on the western front. The only /AS engined fighter figures shown are those equipped with gondolas, despite flight tested results for clean aircraft are available. The G-10 subtype is conviniently ignored, despite some 2500 being produced etc. The comparisons with 109E and 109G are similiarly flawed. Very generous conclusions are being arrived for the Allied planes, often based on pure guesswork and/or wishful thinkning, while direct evidence on the Axis side is simply ignored, or dismissed, if it's positive to the picture.

I am a bit amazed you've posted this, the site and it's author has a fairly controversial reputation regarding objectivity, to put it mildly. IMHO read the original reports 'as is', and draw your own conclusions and safely ignore stuff that's merely about a 21st century re-enactment of 1940s propaganda pamphlets.

[Lucky13]

I had no idea mate....

[Glider]

I admit that I don't see it as being that biased, certain areas I would agrewe with but not all.
For instance if you want to compare the 1.98ATA boost that only came into use in the last 2-3 months of the war as mentioned by Kurfurst then that should be compared to the Spit 21. The Spit XIV was in service well before that and its fair to compare it against the earlier version of the K.

The site often quotes pilots who were there and those quotes are valid being real quotes. The fact that planes were delivered in less than pristine condition at a time when Germanywas under significant pressure is only to be expected.

The G10 may well have not been mentioned but there were different versions of the Spit XIV as well so that in my mind doesn't stack up as a complaint. To do a detailed breakdown of the comparison of all the versions of the 109 against all the versions of the Spit XIV would take a book, not an article.

Treat it as a guide and you could do a lot worse.

[Kurfürst]

This should give some insight into the selection methods of tests to be displayed in the 109G article.



Take note that all of these tests are long available to the author of the article, he just prefers to use them selectively. Also note that all tests showed in the site's article are actually well below the minimum tolerance to gain the acceptance of the LW's quality control (B.A.L.). Such planes would have been never accepted by the LW for service. Those tests are generally achived with well used test bed aircraft, used by the manufacturer for researh purposes, and have gone through much use already.


I'll answer later, if I can find the time.

[Glider]

Thanks for the chart its very interesting. One question, the 109G reference entry do we know what version that is or is it an average of the whole series?

Thaks again, much appreciated.

[Kurfürst]

Given that the reference line is exactly the same as Messerschmitt's calculations for Bf 109G-1 from May 1942, I'd say w 99% probabilty it's for a Bf 109G-1 (equivalent of G-2/-3/-4, as those only differ in the presence of pressurized cocpit and radio type fitted).

Basically the Erla factory tests underline the top speed being around 660 km/h, ie. as in the Messerschmitt calculation, this is underlined by Rechlin's trials and also by the trials performed in the Soviet union on the captured Bf 109G-2 example. There's some variation between performance of individual planes, so in each case the airframe condition and possible external stores must be considered.

Most G-1 through G-4 had semi retractable tailwheel, this changed in Spring 1943 (when these types were being phased out in favour of G-6) when an enlarged non-retractable t/w was fitted. This reduced top speed by 12 ph at SL. G-5/G-6 and later had this non-retractable tailwheel as standard, 109K had a fully retractable t/w w. fairings covers.

PS : Keep in mind that's an old graph I posted, there some other tests known ever since, I'll update it with those if possible.

BTW, if you look at the 109E article it shows similiar trends. It shows two 109E figures, one being the Kennblatt, which list 550 km/h max but does not note the power used. From other tests it can be verified it's for 30-minute power instead of full power, however.

The other graph is for the 109E prototype, V 15a. The article claims the plane 'run over the established max. ratings for the DB 601A at 1.33ata'. The claim is baseless, to put it mildly. You can read the full report on my site, URL below. Basically the report is very clear, the engine was exactly the contrary to the claims, was down on power. It has been bench tested and found to develop some 40-50 HP less than would be guaranteed by engine manufacturer, as it run only at 1.33ata instead of 1.35ata. The level speed curve was corrected by Mtt AG to the normal, guaranteed engine output at 1.35ata, and can be found on the same graph paper.

Naturally, the normalized performance curve at guarantee engine power is ignored, and the curve which shows clearly the down-on-power at 1.33ata is shown in the comparison in the article.

There has been multiple discussions on this and the other issues, and this is well known to the author who sadly shows little willingness to correct these issues with the objectivity of the articles.

[Chriss1958]

If I may add my two-penny-worth:

Captain Eric Brown, the noted allied test pilot, has often commented that many of the enemy aircraft he tested were not in the best of condition and could not give of their best. He also frankly admited that many were not flown within the utmost of their flight envelope, firstly because of their poor condition, second because of pilot unfamiliarity (no flight handbook available) thirdly the test pilots fear of crashing and lastly, and very importantly, the fear of damaging, or crashing, a valuable airframe.

Both Hartmann and Rall have commented that 9 times out of 10 it's the pilot that makes the difference. Look at the Finnish Air Forces record, flying with a rag-tag collection of hand-me-downs they kept the Soviet AF at bay.

Regards to all
Chris

[Maharg]

Well said Chris.

[drgondog]

Originally Posted by Kurfürst

Unfortunately, that site is notoriously biased against Axis aircraft.
It also ignores a lot of evidence that has been unearthed and known long ago. Basically, it pushes forward the agenda of the site's author who wishes to show that the most famous Allied fighter types were almost infinitively superior to their Axis counterparts. This is simply achieved there
by comparing the worst examples of Axis fighters at some lower power output against the best examples on the Allied side.

For example, the '109K-4' figures on that graphs are taken from a 109K-6 curve, and they don't show either the 1.98ata boost rate that appears to have been introduced in March 1945 for two-two Gruppes of JG 27 and 53 on the western front. The only /AS engined fighter figures shown are those equipped with gondolas, despite flight tested results for clean aircraft are available. The G-10 subtype is conviniently ignored, despite some 2500 being produced etc. The comparisons with 109E and 109G are similiarly flawed. Very generous conclusions are being arrived for the Allied planes, often based on pure guesswork and/or wishful thinkning, while direct evidence on the Axis side is simply ignored, or dismissed, if it's positive to the picture.

I am a bit amazed you've posted this, the site and it's author has a fairly controversial reputation regarding objectivity, to put it mildly. IMHO read the original reports 'as is', and draw your own conclusions and safely ignore stuff that's merely about a 21st century re-enactment of 1940s propaganda pamphlets.

Kurfurst - while you may postulate that Mike Williams is 'notoriously biased' or 'fairly controversial' his is the only site I have found with the actual comparison reports as flown and recorded.

Further, how do you conclude that he is only interested in demonstrating the Allied superiority? Have you thought to send him LW Flight test data that he doesn't have? I would bet he would post them.

If you want a different 'view' find and present the LW comparisons to the captured Allied a/c flown by Rosarius Zirkus. Use facts rather than your (biased?) opinions.

Which references would you point to with the 'real' facts? Jez curious..

Regards,

Bill

[drgondog]

Originally Posted by Chriss1958

If I may add my two-penny-worth:

Captain Eric Brown, the noted allied test pilot, has often commented that many of the enemy aircraft he tested were not in the best of condition and could not give of their best. He also frankly admited that many were not flown within the utmost of their flight envelope, firstly because of their poor condition, second because of pilot unfamiliarity (no flight handbook available) thirdly the test pilots fear of crashing and lastly, and very importantly, the fear of damaging, or crashing, a valuable airframe.

Both Hartmann and Rall have commented that 9 times out of 10 it's the pilot that makes the difference. Look at the Finnish Air Forces record, flying with a rag-tag collection of hand-me-downs they kept the Soviet AF at bay.

Regards to all
Chris

Chris - dead on. A Hartmann or Rall in level playing field against a 51 or 47 or Spit XIV is odds on able to win the fight - ditto a Tuck or Johnson or Preddy or Gabreski or Johnson or Beckham.

These forums tend to spend ENTIRELY too much time on minutae or proving why the 109 or Fw190D or Ta152 was superior to all Allied types when the airwar had more to do with the collective skills and numbers of the combatants than 'individual performance' Most dead fighter pilots never saw the one that killed them. The ones that survived tended to fight where their own a/c had one or more advantages and no single fighter was supreme in all envelopes against all other fighters.

At the end of the day there were one hell of a lot more excellent aircraft and fighter pilots in 1945 fighting with Red or White Stars and Roundels than the Swastika

PS I had a lot of spirited debates w/Brown re: most important versus Best. He is objective and he flew them all but he has his own biases (as we all do)

[Graeme]

Originally Posted by drgondog

These forums tend to spend ENTIRELY too much time on minutae or proving why the 109 or Fw190D or Ta152 was superior to all Allied types when the airwar had more to do with the collective skills and numbers of the combatants than 'individual performance'

Now you're "dead on"!

[Maharg]

Chris, Bill, I agree totally. The skill of the pilot is the deciding factor.

Graham.

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Originally Posted by Chriss1958

Both Hartmann and Rall have commented that 9 times out of 10 it's the pilot that makes the difference. Look at the Finnish Air Forces record, flying with a rag-tag collection of hand-me-downs they kept the Soviet AF at bay.

Regards to all
Chris

Thats about the best thing I have seen someone post in a while in a topic like this.

Originally Posted by drgondog

These forums tend to spend ENTIRELY too much time on minutae or proving why the 109 or Fw190D or Ta152 was superior to all Allied types when the airwar had more to do with the collective skills and numbers of the combatants than 'individual performance' Most dead fighter pilots never saw the one that killed them. The ones that survived tended to fight where their own a/c had one or more advantages and no single fighter was supreme in all envelopes against all other fighters.

Agreed as well.

[Kurfürst]

Originally Posted by drgondog

Kurfurst - while you may postulate that Mike Williams is 'notoriously biased' or 'fairly controversial' his is the only site I have found with the actual comparison reports as flown and recorded.

There are many others, there are objectively put P-40 site on the internet, F4U sites, various sites that collect both Allied and Axis aircraft; me myself run a Bf 109 performance test site - here :

Kurfurst - Your resource on Messerschmitt Bf 109 performance

You may notice there are no potentially 'subjective' articleson my site, only tests and transcripts of original sources. You can also find some reports Mike Williams like to hide from public on his site (some of his stuff he got via me anyway, so I know which ones he likes to hide).

Further, how do you conclude that he is only interested in demonstrating the Allied superiority?

Because we're dealing with his ways for long time. I and many others have the same original documents he's quoting and moreover we know of documents he's not quoting though having it. We know what's written in there, and then we see Mike doctoring the contents of the documents. Curiously, he only shows the best reports for the Allies and the worst reports only for the Axis aircraft all the time). He simply cherry picks the ones that shows one side in the best light, and the ones that show the other side in the worst light.

It's not a case that he is honestly ignorant of some reports; take a look at the 109G article for example, and compare them to the 109G tests Mike list on his site; only the worst ones are shown in his own comparison articles, Soviet trials, Finnish trials results are dismissed with ridiculus excuses, but the true reason is that they'd make his cherry picking of the worst tests possible for the 109G obvious.

There are number of occasions where he is quite clearly manipulating and twisting the orginal report's content. Take his his 'translation' of German documents in the XIV/109K article is a good example, he mistranslated it and even ommitted several sentences that got in the way of the agenda.

The claim in 109E article that the 109V15 prototype was running above authorized boost is another example, he purely made it up - the report in facts notes the opposite, the engine was bench tested and was doing about 50 HP less than it should !

Frankly I could go on with this for ages, since just about every single paragraph in his articles contains some sort of spin or manipulation. It would be a boring excercise. A cheat needs to be only exposed once.

Have you thought to send him LW Flight test data that he doesn't have? I would bet he would post them.

The controvery around his comparison articles has been bought to Mike's attention years ago. There was a general agreement about their nature, that they simply cherry picked the best Allied reports, and the worst German reports.

Mike's response to the collective criticism was highly hypocritical, and replied that perhaps it would be most prudent to remove the 1.98ata Bf 109K flight performance results as well (he is uneasy with them because it's a very close match to the Spitfire XIV. Originally, he draw them up in such a way that it could barely seen, with thin yellow lines on white background.)

That's not quite a straight answer, is it?

The guy is simply dishonest to the bone, he lies and manipulates his article to support his agenda. God only knows why, but he has been always like that. Ask around a bit, he only got his credibility reduced to zero this way in the aviation community.

Take an example of his Spitfire IX/109G comparison article. Can you find JL 165 factory serial Spitfire IX tests on the comparison graphs ? The JF 934 tests ? No, because Mike only likes to show the best tests for the Allies. Worst ones only for Axis, instead of trying to show both sides of the coin for both sides.

Does he show the Erla, NII VVS trials, FAF, Rehlin's trials for the Bf 109G in his comparison articles...? Nope, even though he obviously knows of these tests, he mentions these tests, and some like the Erla and Rechlin trials are even listed in the 109G section of his site. Check out yourself.



Every German boost clearance for higher engine outputs probably never happened if we go by his site, in fact, none of his articles are willing to show Luftwaffe aircraft performance on their authorized maximum power output.

If you want a different 'view' find and present the LW comparisons to the captured Allied a/c flown by Rosarius Zirkus. Use facts rather than your (biased?) opinions.

Dear Bill, I have thousends of pages LW documentation currently available, I am fairly well established what those birds could do and what they could not.

I am not seeking to prove or disprove which and who's birdie was better, I am simply annoyed by the ways of one man who uses his site for the sole reason to sell his own agenda to those people who don't have the possibilty to read all these reports themselves. I am annoyed by the fact he misleads people like you, who can't check the truth behind his statements, and the fact that this distortion is damaging to the historical facts of aviation.

Finally you have to ask yourself the question, why does not Mike never addresses the charges of bias and manipulation, despite the fact he regularly visit these boards, wheter the biased nature of his site is mentioned by me or others.

He knows very well what he is doing over there, but by now, most of us know as well. An honest man would face such charges, a dishonest one will sneak away and pretend they don't exist.