…On a plane from 1939.
To be fair that isn’t a flight model issue as such but more of an instructor issue. As you’ve said the 109 in sim especially the F’s turn perfectly well.
The P-38’s were more agile when they deployed manoeuvring flaps, which when dropped it has a lot of! Even so it wasn’t noted as an exceptionally agile fighter. A report regarding the P-38J:
“The stability about all axis is good, the radius of turn is fairly large for a fighter and the rate of roll is fair at medium speeds, but slow at high speeds because of heavy aileron forces.”
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/p-38/p-38.html
Yeah but the DB’s weren’t so negatively effected as the Spitfires with that gaping hideous filter on the nose.
There’s also a lot of different scenario’s for such claims, which altitude, what speeds, was the aircraft already damaged or the pilot wounded, was the victim confident in his aircraft?
Although anecdotes are interesting to read and they do give insight into how an aircraft performed against another they need to be taken with a pinch of salt. This is why I’d rather look at data and combine that with modern flight reports, especially when you can get a pilot that has flown both again like the Hanna’s and the quote provided earlier, both loved the 109 but stated clearly that it won’t turn with a Spitfire, it’ll also bleed energy faster in turns which adds up due to the higher wing loading as he even states himself. You can’t get much better evidence than that.
I’ve already tested this in War Thunder and even at 650kph indicated you can dive towards the deck and pull out with practically zero stiffening. It’s widely said by German and American pilots that the 109 would munch on a P-51 in a turning contest up to 250-300mph but beyond this the roles were reversed. In game this isn’t the case at all as the 109 up until absolute maximum speed can pull every bit as well.
This sounds more as though he’s talking about cruising/level flight not manoeuvres. The Spitfire could also fly straight and true but once you start pulling G’s without rudder correction it will crab. It’s the same as the 109 report I included with the E model where he states himself off memory it’ll purr like a kitten in level flight… but then try some turns/loops. That’s where the “comical heading variations” come into play. This is also where the Luftwaffe joke of the strong left legs come in. Now bear in mind that’s an E model…
It’s a mint condition preserved 109E… it’s arguably in better flying condition than when it flew back in the day. He openly admits he raised the tail too soon but you need to bear in mind he flies all warbirds he can get his hands on. That said he most certainly isn’t an amateur pilot and he knows how to use the slats, he literally mentions during manoeuvres that he notes the speed bleed off when the slats deploy (also not modelled in WT) so he’s clearly pulling G and isn’t scared of slat deployment.
Here’s Willi Reschke explaining his experience and stating that the 109 pilot “needed more muscles”.
As aircraft development goes on speed becomes more important than agility, Willy with his 109 knew this right at the start with the 109 and Supermarine could see the limitations of the original wing as speed increased. This is why the Spiteful has the laminar wing as it’s better for speed and range. If the war had dragged on I’d bet good money on the 109’s having laminar flow wings as well.
That said the elliptical wing was arguably the greatest wing of the war, without slats it comfortably outperformed the 109’s wing whilst being far less draggy than the Zero’s wing design. It allowed the Spitfire to retain most of its agility despite the increase in power and weight (where the 109 became a handful) and could mount 4x20mm cannons without having them on gondolas etc. I’d say that’s a pretty damn good wing.
I’ll upload a video if you’d like. Full power take off.
Yeaaaah it can be tricky… that big beautiful nose can cause problems. The 109 is much better in this regard. The Dora for me is the absolute worst. The Me410 gunsight is heaven on earth.
When compared to a single engine, unquestionably. But it was superior to a Mosquito or Bf 110, while being faster than both.
Probably a more effective filter than the 109’s, though. All that extra space surely wasn’t for nothing.
Last I played the 109 Gs, by 650kph the G warning wouldn’t even show. Went many times into the ground like that after dropping a bomb because I forgot I wasn’t playing something with better high speed handling.
Better than how it left the as-of-then unbombed factory, for which spare parts haven’t been made in 80-odd years?
Yes, because when the slats deploy you can pull a LOT of AoA.
Is it though? The A6M5 Ko with almost the same wingspan, rip speed, and identical armament to the MkIIb is actually slightly faster than it at sea level - 467 vs 475kph.
That’s with extra drag from its radial engine, slightly less power (~50hp less), AND a canopy that affords rearwards visibility. Compressibility was an issue with the Zero, however that was due to how the control linkages were set up, I believe they used springs to soften the handling. It made a lot of compromises, drag was not one of them.
Those numbers are from wwiiaircraftperformance, from the spitfire MkII testing page and TAIC no.102 respectively.
If they were willing to accept wing bulges, putting a gun in each wing was trivial. They had done that with the Ds and Es, Galland had it done to his personal 109 F (a pair of FF/Ms inside the wings, not on gondolas), and the failed 209 replacement was to have two cannons in the wing roots, plus one in the engine.
The Spitfire did increase in weight, however not nearly as much. It always had a smaller (=lighter) engine, and in comparison to the late 109 Gs and K, far less armor. The Griffon-equipped aircraft lost their trademark maneuverability.
And the way I see it, you don’t need 4x20mm to go after a fighter since one is more than capable, especially when it is right on the nose; if you’re going after bombers, the extra maneuverability probably isn’t of great value to the pilot.
Since the 109’s wings are easily removable, an entirely different set of wings with internal guns would have come in handy, but the good ol’ duo of production and logistics comes to bite it in the ass yet again.
By all means. I haven’t used 109s in a while in sim. Too spoiled by japan’s love for wide landing gears and fantastic canopies.
410 would be even better if they finally added the missing piece of bulletproof glass protecting the pilot’s lower half. Right now it just takes one lucky MG round and your pilot is toast.
Probably the worst I’ve tried to use was the Zero. The canopy isn’t bad, but that gunsight is so small and mounted so low that shooting felt more like gambling if your target was maneuvering at all. With the 109s and pretty much any other IJN/IJA fighter you can raise your head for leading shots.
I’d say the Ki-27 or Ki-43-1 with the scope gunsight were actually easier to use than the Zero, since at least the guns were right in the nose and you could kinda wing it.
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.
That’s now with 100 octane gas and double the boost. I’d love to see a Zero with that fuel.
I’m not too familiar with the Griffon spits, as they’re somehow uglier than the original. Quite the achievement there.
It would be great if they were adjustable, but as it is you’re just left guessing as to what its actually set up for. With the zoomy scope sight you can just raise your camera above it and have a clear picture.
Anyway, I don’t wish to turn this topic (even more) into the one millionth ‘bf109 vs spitfire, which is better’ discussion.
They’re the same image.
1 Like
griffon spits… think p47D engine performance and play-style in a spitfire
insert puking cat gif
The engines are nerfed ingame.
For example they overheat as if they were operating at higher boost pressures and with 150 Octane fuel, which ingame they don’t have.
Buffed you’d have the Mk.14e going up to 680 on the deck.
That sounds way too fast.
There’s a reason the allies called it the best dogfighter of the war.
Dont forget to convert to km/h
There seams to be more to it on Paper the Griffon Spitfires do have More Power than for example the vb/vb trop 1700 hp vs 2000 hp at ~3500 respective ~4300 Meters
But those feel like they still have more power and acceleration below 4500meters
So if we use a not fully performing Spitfire Mk1 it’s slower than an A6M5 running at full chat. The A6M5 being a lighter aircraft I’d wager too.
Somebody beat this man with a stick! The Spitfire is arguably the most beautiful aircraft ever made.
It even wears chrome better than the Mustang does.
A few years back some Sim members tested it and it supposedly changes with your convergence but I don’t know if that’s the case or not still. It just aggravates me as it does nothing more than get in the way.
I agree…
Because as we all know the Spitfire is better.
The Merlin engine offered better performance than the Griffon did at low alt without boost and 150 octane improvements which is why the Spitfire mk.8 never materialised with the slated Griffon engine. Merlin spits are also lighter.
Not sure if they truly do provide better performance ingame though.
I have a report in for the Mk.14e that has been denied due to them not seeing a need for it. I disagree with that vehemently because 5.7 spits get stomped by P-51H’s and 6.7 ones are so high they always face jets, a buffed Mk.14e would be the perfect compromise.
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/c18QFryvjTGn
Yeah, I found that, however that states 626 km/h on the deck, not 680 km/h. Even at 4000 feet (1219.2 meters) the top speed was 408 mph (657 km/h). 680 km/h was a clear exaggeration and would make it faster than any other piston prop in the game at sea level.
1 Like
If you check the full graph which i can’t get right now as im responding on my phone i believe it tops out at ~680, this only shows to the equivalent of like 1.5km which admittedly is higher than the deck, ill make sure to explicitly say low altitude in the future.
Also the fastest piston prop on the deck afaik is the spiteful which tops out higher than this on the deck and also uses a Griffon engine with 150 Octane and 25 PSI.
The graph you’re talking about also contradicts the previous performance figures as it overall just states higher values than what you’ve already shown. It states ~396 MPH (637 km/h) at sea level when, as already pointed out, the other source says 626 km/h.
Edit: there also seems to be more sources that state the lower values than the higher values stated by the graph.
I’m equalizing on engine power, at 100 octane the Spitfire makes what, a little over 1300hp? Without it it’s in the 1150-ish region, same as the A6M5. They have engines of similar displacement.
EWWW WHAT IS THAT THING
Sadly the wiki only says 3t for all of them given the performance the Merlin’s spit seams to be 2.51t and the Griffon 3.4999999999999t