Bf-109 vs. Spitfire....

[plan_D]

Well, the German pilots claimed eight planes (Seven Spitfires and One Defiant) , someone for a start was overclaiming in general because the RAF only lost six aircraft. And there couldn't have been seven Spitfires lost, 'cos only six were in the air !

Obviously someone was claiming Spitfires for Defiants, and then two people claimed extra prizes.

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Both sides overclaimed and under verified kills, I think you will see if you actually take a look at both sides.

[plan_D]

I know, I just want to know about that one date. 'Cos it was the first meeting between the Spitfire and Bf-109.

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Ah I see.

Please correct me if I'm wrong but I've read that the Bf 109E, due to it's superior supercharger in the DB 601A engine, gave it a decided performance advantage over the Spitfire Mk.1 (equipped with the standard Merlin III) - even with the Spitfire advantage of 100 octane fuel. At altitudes over 25,000ft. Is that correct?

On a slightly different subject someone mentioned in an earlier post that twice as many Hurricanes were shot down as opposed to Spitfire losses. Whilst this is true the more telling statistic is the loss ratio between the two. From early May to end of October 1940, Spitfires accounted for almost 40% of combined losses, while constituting only one third of the force.

Spitfires were shot down faster than Hurricanes!

And if anyone wants to know the source it's from "PRO AIR 22/262, 'Daily Returns of Casualties to RAF Aircraft', 25 June -29 September 1940".

[Jabberwocky]

That may of been because Spitfire squadrons spent, on average, 25% more time in combat deployment than Hurricane squadrons and Spitfires were the dominant fighter in No 11 group in the later sections of the battle.

The average front line deployment during the Battle period for a Hurricane squadron was around 15 days, the average frontline deployment for a Spitfire squadron was around 20 days.

Spitfires had a much lower pilot loss rate per sortie than Hurricanes. You were about 15% less likely to survive a sortie in a Hurricane than you were in a Spitfire.

The total loss figures from June to the beginning of November are:

Hurricane: 697
Spitfire: 441
Defiant: 28
Blenheim: 132

Total casualties: 1,298

Spitfire losses as a %: 34%

Spitfires losses as a % of S/E fighters: 38.75%

The average claims per squadron for Spitfires was 62 kills.
The average claims per squadron for Hurricanes was 44 kills. By that logic, Spitfire squadrons could be reckoned to be about 50% more efficient than a Hurricane squadron.

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

The main reasons that Hurris were shot down more is for the reason that Jabber just stated and the fact that there were more Hurris than Spitfires. The Spitfire was the obvious better aircraft but the Hurri was the unsung hero and I think most will agree with me.

[DJ_Dalton2]

This 109 vs Spitfire issue was settled both 60 some years ago and in earlier debate. The 109 was vastly superior to the Spitfire in all its incarnations. The only Spitfire that could compete in combat mode was the XIV, but by that time all the wonderful handling was long gone.

The simple fact is Spitfires fell to German Guns in both 109's and 190's throughout the war. Several German Experten had 30 plus Spitfire kills. All but the XIV could not compete vertically with the 109's. Spitfires were fine in round de round turn fights, but thats not how the 109's fought them. The 109's took them vertical and left their Rolls Royce motors gasping and left their planes stalling from the pull.

Its over. The 109 won. You could look it up.

Now, the air war was lost by the 109's for another reason. But it had nothing to do with the Spitfire.

[lesofprimus]

Ur gonna find more than a few members here that are gonna dispute ur little post, and besides, the last time u posted was over a year ago, and all ur posts were about how good the -109 was and how inferior the Spit was....

U do know that there were many German Aces flying -109's that died at the hands of Spitfire rookies who had no more than 4 hours of actual stick time, dont u???

U dont think ur slightly biased??? It's kinda obvious pal...

[Soren]

The Bf-109 and Spitfire were as equal in capability as possible, with one having a small advantage at slow speeds and the other having a small advantage at high speeds. The Bf-109 wasn't vastly superior to the Spitfire, it was its equal, and vice versa.

The only area where the Bf-109 can be said to be markedly superior to the Spitfire is in climb rate, the Bf-109 always had this advantage.... Other than that, they were the same..

[Hop]

The only area where the Bf-109 can be said to be markedly superior to the Spitfire is in climb rate, the Bf-109 always had this advantage.

Whilst the early 109s generally had the advantage, the Spitfire held a decided advantage from the LF IX onwards (introduced to service in early 1943). About the only 109 that could climb with the LF IX were the models introduced in late 1944, and by that time the Spitfire IX was running on 150 octane fuel, and had a better climb rate than the 109 ever managed.

Even the 109K4, running on C3 fuel and MW 50, only managed to roughly equal the Spitfire IXs early 1943 climb performance. And the K4 only ran on C3 fuel and MW50 from March 1945, and in limited numbers.

[Soren]

Sorry but that isn't the case Hop, the Bf-109K-4 beat the Spit IX in climb-rate by a vast amount, reaching 32,800 ft in just 6.7 min! I'd like to see a Spitfire top that... And the K-4's best initial climb rate in clean condition was in the area of 5,500 ft/min, at the very least!

Already in 1942 the Bf-109G-2 was climbing at 4,800 ft/min, and from then on, with the exception of the G-6, climb-rate only increased.

Most climb rates floating around in books and on websites today only qoute the 109's climb rate at Start u. Notleistung, while the figures we need are the Sonder Notleistung.

[Hop]

Sorry but that isn't the case Hop, the Bf-109K-4 beat the Spit IX in climb-rate by a vast amount, reaching 32,800 ft in just 6.7 min!

Nowhere near. That's a figure from William Green, who probably saw this doc from the German archives and misread it:


There is no way on earth the K4 (or any other prop plane) could reach 10km in 6.7 minutes. (which is an average of 4900 ft/min (25m/s) all the way up to 33,000ft)

And the K-4's best initial climb rate in clean condition was in the area of 5,500 ft/min, at the very least!

Peak climb rate on a 109K4 with MW50 and C3 fuel, operating at 1.98 ata, was just under 25 m/s (4,880 ft/min) at just under 1Km.

At 3km that had dropped to 22.5 m/s.

Peak climb rate on a Spitfire IX with 150 octane fuel was 5,740 ft/min.

Most climb rates floating around in books and on websites today only qoute the 109's climb rate at Start u. Notleistung, while the figures we need are the Sonder Notleistung.

Most climb rate figures for the K4 quote Green's mistake. Luckily I have a K4 climb rate chart at 1.98 ata before me (1.98 is the highest power setting used by the 109 in service, authorised for some aircraft in March 1945, although it's not clear how many, if any, 109s actually got to use it)

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Originally Posted by Soren

The Bf-109 and Spitfire were as equal in capability as possible, with one having a small advantage at slow speeds and the other having a small advantage at high speeds. The Bf-109 wasn't vastly superior to the Spitfire, it was its equal, and vice versa.

The only area where the Bf-109 can be said to be markedly superior to the Spitfire is in climb rate, the Bf-109 always had this advantage.... Other than that, they were the same..

Could not agree more with you. Both aircraft had advantages over the other but overall were pretty much equal throughout the war.

[Soren]

Hop you really should learn to read those charts...

The figures on that chart are at Start u. Notleistung, and "Without" MW-50, as-well as at a considerable overweight. Oh and they are at 1.8 ata supercharger pressure. (Notice "Grundeinstellg", and how the top figure at 1.8ata is the best climbing one)

Oh, and where did William Green misread that chart ? It says exactly 6.7min to 10k !

Btw, please show us that 1.98ata chart of yours, then I'll tell you what it says, thank you.