Bf-109 vs. Spitfire....

[Hop]

1: The chart you sent me “is” from 8/4-1944, it says that quite clearly – 8.IV.1944.

How common was the use of Roman numerals in German dates? And why just for the month?

That's not the date.

The chart is for an engine which isn’t even capable of 1.98ata boost, its a D-2 engine, so it can only be running at 1.8ata.

It is absolutely, categorically, running at 1.98 ata. I really suggest you email Butch for further clarification on this.

1.98ata boost pressure was cleared sometime in December 1944, and it was only cleared for the DC engine.

It wasn't finally cleared until March, but there was a premature clearance in December.

If you look at the chart you ‘presented’ for the DC/ASC engine, the climb rate is 22m/s at Start u. Notleistung, ‘without’ MW-50 and at 1.8ata.(Which is 1,725 PS btw)

Not according to my info. Again, email Butch.

Then look at the chart you sent me for the D-2 engine, its 25m/s at Sonder Notleistung ‘with’ MW-50 at 1.8ata.(1,850 PS)

No, it's at 1.98 ata. Email Butch.

Make a guess on how high a climb rate you think the K-4 has with the DB-605DC engine with 2,000 PS@1.98ata, cause considering it has a climb rate of 25m/s with the D-2 engine at 1,850 PS,

No, that's at 1.98 ata. Email Butch. He will be able to give you further supporting information that I can't

Butch has the full report. It is, as far as anyone knows, the only report on the K4 at 1.98 ata. If you want further information, you will only get it by talking to Butch, or one of the people he has sent the report to.

Do you at least agree now that the "3 mins to 5000m" and "6.7 mins to 10,000m" are wrong? That the figures are in fact 6 mins to 5,000m, and 13.5 mins to 10,000m, both at climb and combat power?

[Soren]

It "IS" the date Hop, give it up man ! Look at every other chart like that one, the date is ALWAYS right there !

And no, its not at 1.98ata, cause the engine can't even run at that setting for christs sake !

And stop dodging by saying I should email Butch, he isn't any more knowledged on this if he says what you claim he says, cause anyone knowledged on this can tell its a D-2 engine, and the date certainly verifies that!

And about the Steig-Kampfleistung theory, well its possible I'll give you that, the numbers seem to match, only problem is there's nothing on that chart to confirm your theory. On one chart you've got both the info that the Steigzeit is at Steig-Kampfleistung and that the Steigzeit indications are double that of the climb rate indications - on the other one for the DC engine all that is said is Steigzeit with a Grundeinstellung of 1.98ata.

[lesofprimus]

I emailed Butch and he said I was a fag, so I sent my Stormtroopers of Death to his home and they sodomized him for 13.5 minutes without lubrication...

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

I am not saying that that is deffinatly the date, but I have seen dates written like that on German documents from WW2.

[B 25 'stoetel']

I chose the Spitfire
Why?
in the battle of Brittain they wher outnumbered and still they won.
Kill ratio: 1 spit vs 4 ME 109

[lesofprimus]

The Spitfire did not win The BOB, the Hurricane did....

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Exactly Les and by the way great siggy there.

[Glider]

Originally Posted by lesofprimus

I emailed Butch and he said I was a fag, so I sent my Stormtroopers of Death to his home and they sodomized him for 13.5 minutes without lubrication...

Remind me, never to really upset you.

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

[pbfoot]

I'm gonna qualify my vote for the 109 it looked far more maintainer friendly to me for rearming and servicing which makes it more useful because you could turn it around faster

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

I know the Bf-109 was designed with that in mind, but I dont know if it were any easier overall than the Spitfire.

[pbfoot]

Originally Posted by DerAdlerIstGelandet

I know the Bf-109 was designed with that in mind, but I dont know if it were any easier overall than the Spitfire.

I just studied both of them side by side for 2 hours today and the 109 looks way easier you could open the whole engine up for inspection in 10-20 secs the same amount of time it would take you to find the tools needed for the spit or P51

[Glider]

I think everyone agrees that these two were very close. Personally I don't think there was much in it up to the F vs VB but after that I feel the edge was with the Spitfire.

Weapons
The Spitfire was better armed with the two 20mm being more than enough to deal with any enemy bomber or fighter, and the 2 x .5 when they came in also helped. The 4 x 303 were probably only of much help against the Japs and I ignore in this context.

The 109 had one 20mm or 30mm, one better against fighters the other bombers. It also had 2 x LMG for a while which I will ignore and the 13mm was one of the weakest HMG's around and would have been of some help but not as much as the 2 x .50's on the Spitfire.

There are good advantages for having the Main gun on the centre line but at the end of the day you still have one gun with poor ballistics. As has been said before when the advanced gun sights came into service this definately gives the advantage to the Spitfire.

SPEED
In this area I feel that they basically kept pace with each other but that is the easy bit that gets the headlines. Every review I have read tells me that the 109 became very hard to manoevour at speeds over 350mph. The Spit did get heavier but not to the same degree. It frankly matters little if one plane can go 420 and the other 410 if the faster one finds it hard to manouver or pull out of a dive. The K4 looks great on paper but it for this reason that I believe that most Sptfire Pilots in a Mk IX up would feel confident about going into combat.

The arguments that the Spit V was of little use because they did so badly over the channel I admit to ignoring. It only proves to me that the planes were well matched and the side with home advantage wins. After all how many German fighter sweeps were there of the UK? Even the tip and run raids of the Fw190's were often caught and suffered appreciable losses to the Typhoon of all planes, acting as a fighter.

Flexibility
The Spitfire undertook other roles better than the 109 in particular PR who roamed almost at will over Europe. 109's did do PR but didn't come close to doing it as well as the Spit PR planes and often never made it to their target. The Seafire is another example. No one is saying it was a good carrier plane but it was good enough for what we wanted.

Safety
I think I am right (but willing to be proved wrong) is saying that the Germans lost more 109's in accidents than combat. I believe this to be an important and often overlooked aspect. If you have less accidents you have more planes for combat. You also have more aircrew making it to combat.

There you have my reasons feel free to question or ignore them but at least you know why I voted for the Spitfire.

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Originally Posted by pbfoot

I just studied both of them side by side for 2 hours today and the 109 looks way easier you could open the whole engine up for inspection in 10-20 secs the same amount of time it would take you to find the tools needed for the spit or P51

Cool where did you that at?

[pbfoot]

Originally Posted by DerAdlerIstGelandet

Cool where did you that at?

I volunteered to be night security at a local airshow and for 2 nights 14 hours ea was all by myself for 2 nights with some nice birds walking between them comparing stuff