The difference isn’t very big, and the 109 has several advantages otherwise.
IMO this is due to the 109’s limited combat time over britain. If your plan was staying fast, you’d get in and out in the very limited time for combat that was afforded to you. Maneuvering fights usually took much longer, and even if a 109 pilot succeeded at outmaneuvering and shooting down an enemy spitfire, he’d then have to fly all the way back on whatever fuel he had left. Safe to say, that wasn’t the best situation to be in. The slats also caused the wing root to stall first, which caused the cockpit to shake significantly due to turbulence, so not many pilots actually took advantage of them.
The pilots in North Africa, as far as I’ve read, quickly outgrew the spitfire’s reputation since it was nowhere as fearsome as tales from the BoB claimed.
As is the case with most such issues. Snap rolls in the P-51s don’t have a chance of ripping off the horizontal stabilizers, guns don’t jam at high Gs, and the XP-55 doesn’t even try to kill you.
How modern, and on what aircraft? The later 109s gained a lot of weight, and are incomparable to an E or F model.
Also applies for many other aircraft, including the spitfire. And any RB pilots can’t take full advantage of their turn capability since the instructor does not turn hard enough to deploy the slats.
You mention this, but don’t mention that this change also makes them entirely unable to achieve the maneuverability they could IRL. in-game, right now, they’re bricks on rails with poor energy retention.
EDIT: another thing I remembered shortly after writing this: ALL 190s were very affected by the Klimb Afterburner nerf, which made their oil temperature uncontrollable and ahistorically hot (oil cooler was NEVER changed for the 190As or Ds respectively, only modifications to reduce cylinder head temperature in the radial-equipped models such as slots and later flaps on the side of the fuselage, right after the exhaust).
In the 190 Ds you can’t even sustain 100% throttle, as the oil only cools down at ~95% and under. The oil coolers are unadjustable in all models, so you can’t even counter it with MEC as you can with many other aircraft.
I’ve just test flown the LF Mk9 premium and found no difficulty in flying it. Sure it’s sensitive, but it’s nothing out of this world, especially when you have a slider for pitch sensitivity. A 109 K4 takes significantly more effort in taking off, as propeller torque is more significant there (despite having a significantly wider undercarriage…). It also requires more aileron trim.
For the Bf 109 B-1 the wing loading was 135,8 kg/m2. Then the competition kicks in.
For Bf 109 E-3 it was 154,6 kg/m2. – Spitfire Mk.I had the wing loading of 117 kg/m2.
For Bf 109 F-4 – 176,2 kg/m2. – Mk.Vb had the wing loading of 133,5 kg/m2.
For Bf 109 G-6 – 195,1 kg/m2. – LF Mk.IX had 149 kg/m2 and Mk.XIV had 171 kg/m2.
And that’s just the wing loading, without taking into account the different pitch settings that @dannaryan mentioned slightly in his description of Spitfire’s twitchiness. That was caused by a specific correlation of how much moving the controls affected the angle of elevators, making them more responsive, but with modern-day simulator controls being much shorter it became a singificant hindrance.
A NACA graph from Spitfire Mk.Va trials
I wish it did, people aren’t afraid of the duck at all lol
That wingloading still has to fight against the very thin spitfire wing that won’t provide much lift on its own, and is gonna need AoA far more than the 109 does, thus bleeding more speed.
Of course, thinner is better for top speed but the 109s (and 190 Ds) aren’t reaching their statcard top speeds in-game.
Have you tried it out in sim? Even there it’s not particularly feisty or unstable. Handles great, unlike the J7W.
I don’t know what you were made to believe, but thicker airfoils hardly matter in terms of turning performance, their primary advantages being stall behaviour (in which neither fighter had problems) and capacity for internal modules (in which both were, again, similar, with the Spitfire being on top of you count in the armament).
Again, you can talk theory all you want in attempts to highlight some aspects, but it’s practically useless when we already have the real-life performance.
Not really, Comparing arguably the most agile 109 (109F-1/2) vs the Spitfire Mk Vb we get a wing loadings of 34.71lbs./sq.ft vs 27.35lbs./sq.ft. To put that into consideration that’s a greater difference than between the Spitfire and the A6M2 and we know how the Spitfires did when they tried turn fighting those…
In game the 109F’s turn very well. But to expect them to out turn or match the turn of a Spitfire at equal speeds is reaching a bit.
The Spitfires in North Africa had the tropical filters which robbed them of their performance. Likewise I can pull multiple sources from RAF pilots shooting down 109’s from their own turf claiming that the Spitfire could sit inside their turn somewhat comfortably. There’s even an excellent quote on Spitfireperformance.com where the British pilot literally states (to paraphrase): “I could see him giving it all he could with his wing slats in full extension, his aircraft was trembling and I thought to myself, “you can’t do it mate”…” There’s tons of first hand accounts on that website alone of Spitfire pilots sitting behind a 109 and the end result is usually the Spitfire shooting it down as it sits inside its turn or the 109 loses control and crashes.
Just to clarify I’m not saying the 109 is a brick in the air it absolutely wasn’t and it isn’t in War Thunder, but it’s not on the same level as the Spitfire, some sources claim that in a tight turn it couldn’t quite match the P-40’s in Africa.
The XP-55 needs shooting into the sun…
Ripping off the horizontal stabilisers is an understandable emission. Having a correctly stiffening flight model is not. The Russian aircraft (barring the La-7) all stiffen the way they should so there’s zero excuse for the 109’s hand holding FM. It actually used to stiffen up perfectly back in the day but RB players moaned that “I can’t BnZ in my 109 as I can’t get guns on target!” and now we have this.
Meanwhile the Spitfire can be given its floaty torque fuelled FM that skids all over the sky bleeding all of its energy without coordination and that’s fine… To clarify the older Spitfire was too on rails but now the 109 needs to be updated to a similar spec. The P-51 as well as they’re even worse… you actually have to fight them to make them even stall!
It’s a brilliant write-up and dispels some of the modern myths about the 109’s out turning Spitfires from a chap that has flown both.
He mentions the torque causing “comical heading variations” during loops (present in WT Spitfire but not 109) and in regards to retaining energy in turns…
“Multiple maneuvers seemed to result in a notable decay in speed, particularly whenever the leading
edge slats deployed; a stark contrast to the Spitfire, whose elliptical wings retain energy nicely under
sustained ‘g’. The Messerschmitt was paying the price for its high wing loading.”
He also mentions weak directional stability. Bear in mind this is a pristine 109E not a battle scarred aircraft and the gentleman has flown warbirds, his comments also match the Hanna’s who flew both and also say it’s a beautiful aircraft but is lacking in turn compared to the Spitfire.
Oh you’re 100% correct and in other threads I’ve mentioned this. I remember exactly why this change occurred however. A few years ago the 190A’s had the perfect flight model, it tightened up in turns like the Spitfire and once mastered it was extremely dynamic to fly much like the real deal. The best Sim pilots absolutely loved it but sadly many whinged because it’d also bite you if you weren’t careful (as per the real deal) and now we have this hand hold monstrosity that’s as bad as the Mustangs. The only 190 I’ll fly today is the Dora as at least the damn thing will stall.
Propellor torque on take off is worse in the 109’s but once airborne it’s largely gone, it feels more like an inefficient rudder at low speed than torque issues. Case in point try it again and go maximum power immediately with full rudder, it’ll take off straight and true.
I can say from experience that the Spitfire has much more yaw than the 109. Pull a tight turn in a Spitfire and even try to control the slip with ailerons and watch as you skid through the sky and your energy falls off. Now do the same in the 109K4 at full power. I can loops straight and true in the 109 but absolutely not with the Spit. It’s a complete reverse to reality as proven above, now bear in mind that was an E model he was flying. Add nearly another 900hp on top of that and imagine how it is to fly. Wasn’t there a joke in the luftwaffe that you could tell a late war 109 pilot as one leg was much stronger than the other?
Which is why, of course, the Ki-43, A6M, and all sorts of other planes that turn very well all have thin airfoils. Wait, no they don’t.
The Ki-43 alone has 18% root thickness - and Nakajima would use similar numbers for their other, also extremely maneuverable fighters. British spitfires in the Pacific suffered great losses when they attempted to use BoB tactics against the japanese, which wouldn’t have happened if they could just outturn them.
Nakajima engineers weren’t newbies either, they designed great fighters since before WW2.
That is a 1940 test, and if it is the one I’m thinking of, that was only tested at low altitude due to lack of oxygen bottles for the 109. Later they redid the test at higher altitude and found that the results were the complete opposite.
These aren’t the only issues with the british testing, but for the sake of brevity I’ll leave it at that.
We have a 1939 109E, possibly crash landed before and misused (by the French, I believe) with engine damage thrown in, being compared against a spitfire that came a year after it with an engine that didn’t exist in 1939. In such a situation, it really is very easy to portray one aircraft as superior in every way.
Take a 190 D-9 into a test flight, climb to 4800m where statcard top speed alt is, try to reach 710kph with any MEC settings you wish. Highest I got there was 671kph in a half-hearted attempt.
On someone else’s advice, I did it again at 5500m, where the forum datasheet said it should reach 710kph. There I got to 687kph before the oil overheated, which is still far below the 710kph it should reach.
As for 109s, the E-4 was just a few kph under the statcard speed, the G-2 didn’t get anywhere near it (647kph@6500m, supposed to reach 682kph), the G-14 did reach it quite easily which was a surprise. I haven’t tested the 109 Fs but since they run very hot like the G-2 I doubt they’ll reach theirs.
The 190 As and F-8 did reach their top speeds, which was a surprise. Though with klimb afterburner you’re not honna hold it for very long.
Maybe IRL, but in-game with how the instructor works, the Es are far and away the most maneuverable. Later models only get really agile with sim controls.
In just wingloading, sure. That’s rarely ever everything though., aircraft like the P-38 are deceptively good turners despite their relatively high wingloading.
As did the 109s.
Thus in such a case where both sides claim they could outturn each other, perhaps it was a lot more even than most flight sims portray it as.
Depends on 109 model. Finnish pilots often said their 109 Gs only got stiff at 6-700kph. By 300mph (=480kph) the stick would get stiffer sure, but by no means restrictive or unmovable. Applying more strength completely negated that compression until you went past about the 600kph I mentioned above. That’s about where 109s in-game start losing maneuverability too.
From finnish pilot reports I also haven’t read anything of the sort. For example:
How much rudder did a Messerschmitt pilot have to apply, or was the rudder trim so adjusted that on a defined speed the plane stayed on straight course ?
Antti Tani: I think usually she went right on when doing 400 kmh. During takeoff you had to push the pedal. You got so used to it that you no more paid any attention to it."
Reading that pointed out something interesting: “An ingenious mechanism within the wing allowed the ailerons to droop for further lift as the flaps reached full extension.” I don’t believe this is modeled in-game.
It’s a pretty fun read, and he makes some beginner mistakes - raising the tail too soon is one of the major points in those finnish pilot interviews I posted above, and he does just that. He also thinks the shaking is due to aileron stall (it isn’t, that’s what the slats are for), and needing both hands for a 3.5G pullout at 450kph goes completely against what the Finns had to say. So I’m not sure that 109 E is as pristine as claimed.
And the small matter of the much complimented elliptical wings providing zero performance benefit, as evidenced by them disappearing completely even from the Spitfire’s successor, the Spiteful.
In a 109? You’ll do a 90deg left turn and off the runway. You have to use the wheel brakes for that.
Can’t really comment that far on the Spitfire. I don’t fly them in sim since I like having visibility over the nose, of which it has NONE.
Seriously what was up with aircraft designers of this period making the most unpleasant aircraft to fight in? Most were razorbacks so you couldn’t see behind you, and had heavy framed canopies preventing you from seeing around you. Finish it off with a low pilot position and you couldn’t see anywhere.
Meanwhile, we got the entire Nakajima fighter lineage with semi-bubble canopies providing wonderful visibility all around, with the only negative point being that god awful gunsight scope on the early ones.
Excuse me, but can you even use Internet for God’s sake?
Here’s a page, please use your eyes for a moment and find the part called “Turning”, with multiple accounts from both sides of the BoB. Find at least one telling a 109 was more maneuverable.
And there we’re talking about the closest matchup in turning there was between a 109 and a spitfire model-wise.
If you still insist on your point of view, please consider providing factual evidence instead of talking pure theory without backing up even that much. I’m personally getting sick of talking to a concrete wall at this point.
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.
