It might’ve been clean but the performance loss was very well documented.
I had a video somewhere of the 109 in game pulling out of 650km/h dives with ease but I have no idea where it has gone. I’ll upload another if you’d like, the 109 has zero issues with high speed dives barring at extreme speeds where pretty much everything locks up. I wonder if the instructor gets in the way of pull outs in RB.
Absolutely, aircraft being flown today are kept in the air with new made to spec parts which I’d wager were a higher quality than were being made in war time Germany, a Spitfire sadly crashed a while ago here in the UK and if I can find it I’ll show you the response/report made regarding what goes into maintaining these old warbirds. According to them most of them flying are practically brand new aircraft where things have been replaced over the years. I’d gladly take a punt on that 109E being in better condition than even when it first rolled off of the production line.
The point is he literally states it bleeds more speed than the Spitfire, for all intents and purposes it is a worse turning aircraft whether it’s in regards to its turning circle or rate. Again I’m not crapping on the 109 it’s still a superb aircraft but on paper and with flight reports with both aircraft considered (and in pristine condition) the 109 cannot turn with a Spitfire.
The Spitfire was still faster overall: " A number of improvements were necessary to make the Spitfire ready for war. The addition of a bullet proof windscreen was one of those improvements, however, it cost about 6 mph and resulted in a maximum top level speed ranging from 355 to 360 mph during the Battle of Britain." The Mk1 Spitfire and 109E was very closely matched as well so the argument can also be thrown at the 109 vs A6M5.
Also from Spitfireperformance: " The similarly equipped Spitfire I R.6770, except fitted with 2 cannons and four Browning guns, reached 358 mph at 18,000 ft. The Royal Aircraft Establishment (RAE) obtained 314 mph at sea level and 359 mph at a full throttle height of 11,500 feet using +12 lbs/sq.in. boost.".
109: " The Me 109 E data used in the following level speed chart derives from flight tests conducted by Messerschmitt at Augsburg and from the Bf 109 E Flugzeughandbuch. Messerschmitt obtained 301 mph at sea level and 348 mph at 16,240 feet with ME 109 E-1 Wk.Nr. 1774 operating at 1.33 ata as recorded in Meßprotokoll vom 26.4.38."
Yes and no, they certainly weren’t as agile as the Merlin versions especially as they progressed but once again they were still more than capable of turning. Wing loading was still lower than the 109’s and Mustangs etc the main issue originally was stability which was improved as time went on. It didn’t offer quite the same generous stall warning as the Merlin but the buffeting was still there and was considered more than enough.
In tactical trials they actually found this, Mk XIV vs Mk IX:
“The turning circles of both aircraft are identical. The Spitfire XIV appears to turn slightly better to port than it does to starbord. The warning of an approaching high speed stall is less pronounced in the case of the Spitfire Mk XIV.”
Conclusion:
“The all-round performance of the Spitfire XIV is better than the Spitfire IX at all heights. In level flight it is 25-35 m.p.h. faster and has a correspondingly greater rate of climb. Its manoeuvrability is as good as a Spitfire IX. It is easy to fly but should be handled with care when taxying and taking off.”
Interestingly the report also found that it out turned the 190 and 109G even with drop tanks installed but you do have to question the condition of the German aircraft.
I hate them wish a passion, like you’ve said I prefer to just wing it and hope for the best but that explains my shooting to a tee anyways! I especially hate the gyro computing gunsights with the Mustang and the Spitfires, I find it more distracting than anything.
