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.
