The Demon of Razgriz
Recruit
Spitfire, hands down! 
Bf-109 vs. Spitfire....
- Thread starter lesofprimus
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
loomaluftwaffe
Tech Sergeant
- 1,840
- Dec 20, 2005
If that's so then this poll is useless! and besides, my vote goes with the 109 cause it's my favorite plane, it looks mean and i think nose armament would do better, and besides, it shot down hella lot of planes, JG52 (Erich Hartmann's wing) shot down more than 11,000 planes, and it was a crack unit (like JG301) in 1939The Demon of Razgriz said:Spitfire, hands down!
Jabberwocky
Staff Sergeant
All versions of the 109 had an excellent climb rate.
Most particularly against the Spitfire the 109E4/7, 109F4 and 109G2 had advantages usually by 200-300 feet a second peak climb rate over the Spitfire I/II, Spitfire V and Spitfire F. IX. However, once over 20,000 feet the situations changed and the Spitfire climbed a little better. With the arrival of the Merlin 63 and Merlin 66 in the nose of the Spitfire and MW 50 in the 109, the situation was reversed. The Spitfire climbed better to about 25,000 feet and then the 109 was better above that with alcohol injection and about 15 mph faster to boot.
Most particularly against the Spitfire the 109E4/7, 109F4 and 109G2 had advantages usually by 200-300 feet a second peak climb rate over the Spitfire I/II, Spitfire V and Spitfire F. IX. However, once over 20,000 feet the situations changed and the Spitfire climbed a little better. With the arrival of the Merlin 63 and Merlin 66 in the nose of the Spitfire and MW 50 in the 109, the situation was reversed. The Spitfire climbed better to about 25,000 feet and then the 109 was better above that with alcohol injection and about 15 mph faster to boot.
loomaluftwaffe
Tech Sergeant
- 1,840
- Dec 20, 2005
depends on the pilot and situational advantage, i think they're quite even
Jab, you wouldn't happen to be a fan of Mike Williams would you ?
The Bf-109K-4 out-climbed any Spit from 0 to eternity.
It took 2.3min for the Spitfire Mk.XIV to reach 10,000ft, 5.1min to reach 20,000ft and 8.35min to reach 30,000ft. By comparison it took the Bf-109K-4 3min to reach 16,400ft, and 6.7min to reach 32,800ft.
Back to the title of the topic;
The Bf-109 vs Spitfire question is a tough one, as throughout their different versions they were always very close competitors, with the balance of superiority shifting on nearly a monthly basis. The maneuverability of the these two fighters was roughly the same throughout the war, however early in the war the Spitfire had a distinct advantage in aerobatic agility, as the Me-109E's leading edge slats weren't very reliable and would malfunction quite often if not kept almost clinically clean, and this malfunctioning would cause the plane to "Snatch" in any wild maneuvers. The problems with the 109's slats were solved with the introduction of "F" series, which additionally had greatly improved aerodynamics, this greatly improved maneuverability and the 109 was now just as maneuverable as the Spitfire, however a with speed and climb advantage going to the 109, however this balance of superiority would shift many times throughout the rest of the war.(The Spitfire was always easier to maneuver at high speed though)
So with the average pilot I would choose the Spitfire no doubt, as it was simply an easier airplane to fly when your not a very experienced pilot or an expert. With an Expert behind the controls however, I would choose the Bf-109, as the 109 would then IMO transform into the deadliest fighter to hit the skies in WW2, and its service record certainly seems to back that up. The 109 proved to be 'the' single highest scoring fighter of all time, giving birth to an unrivaled number of aces from various nations, 3 of which are the highest scoring aces of all time. Out of the 20 top aces, of any conflict, 12 flew 109's exclusively.
However it wouldn't take a very experienced pilot to fly the Spitfire to its limits, something it usually took in the 109. And since average skilled pilots were by far the norm, I think in the end the Spitfire had the advantage, as there are always going to be far more average pilots than experts.
So my verdict is = A draw.(Tipping slightly towards the Spitfire's favor)
Regarding the post-war versions of the 109:
The Buchon is still a 109, and so is the Israeli "Avia S" series. The reason the Buchon and the S-199 etc etc models were build instead of the original DB engine models, was because there were nearly no DB engines to be had after the war, so the Spanish and Israeli airforce had to come up with something else. The Spanish went for the Roll's engine, while the Israeli's went for left over Junkers engines. Both these designs however were vastly inferior to the latest of the original 109 series, as both drag and weight had increased while power had decreased.
So the 109 actually stayed in service until 1967.
The Bf-109K-4 out-climbed any Spit from 0 to eternity.
It took 2.3min for the Spitfire Mk.XIV to reach 10,000ft, 5.1min to reach 20,000ft and 8.35min to reach 30,000ft. By comparison it took the Bf-109K-4 3min to reach 16,400ft, and 6.7min to reach 32,800ft.
Back to the title of the topic;
The Bf-109 vs Spitfire question is a tough one, as throughout their different versions they were always very close competitors, with the balance of superiority shifting on nearly a monthly basis. The maneuverability of the these two fighters was roughly the same throughout the war, however early in the war the Spitfire had a distinct advantage in aerobatic agility, as the Me-109E's leading edge slats weren't very reliable and would malfunction quite often if not kept almost clinically clean, and this malfunctioning would cause the plane to "Snatch" in any wild maneuvers. The problems with the 109's slats were solved with the introduction of "F" series, which additionally had greatly improved aerodynamics, this greatly improved maneuverability and the 109 was now just as maneuverable as the Spitfire, however a with speed and climb advantage going to the 109, however this balance of superiority would shift many times throughout the rest of the war.(The Spitfire was always easier to maneuver at high speed though)
So with the average pilot I would choose the Spitfire no doubt, as it was simply an easier airplane to fly when your not a very experienced pilot or an expert. With an Expert behind the controls however, I would choose the Bf-109, as the 109 would then IMO transform into the deadliest fighter to hit the skies in WW2, and its service record certainly seems to back that up. The 109 proved to be 'the' single highest scoring fighter of all time, giving birth to an unrivaled number of aces from various nations, 3 of which are the highest scoring aces of all time. Out of the 20 top aces, of any conflict, 12 flew 109's exclusively.
However it wouldn't take a very experienced pilot to fly the Spitfire to its limits, something it usually took in the 109. And since average skilled pilots were by far the norm, I think in the end the Spitfire had the advantage, as there are always going to be far more average pilots than experts.
So my verdict is = A draw.(Tipping slightly towards the Spitfire's favor)
Regarding the post-war versions of the 109:
The Buchon is still a 109, and so is the Israeli "Avia S" series. The reason the Buchon and the S-199 etc etc models were build instead of the original DB engine models, was because there were nearly no DB engines to be had after the war, so the Spanish and Israeli airforce had to come up with something else. The Spanish went for the Roll's engine, while the Israeli's went for left over Junkers engines. Both these designs however were vastly inferior to the latest of the original 109 series, as both drag and weight had increased while power had decreased.
So the 109 actually stayed in service until 1967.
the lancaster kicks ass
Major General
- 19,937
- Dec 20, 2003
if you want to be padantic the spitfire's still in RAF service with the BBMF
The Demon of Razgriz said:Spitfire, hands down!
Wow great first post! Good job!
Vassili Zaitzev
Master Sergeant
The 109 and the spitfire had their ups and downs. The spitfire could turn better than the 109 below 15,000 feet because of its thicker wings, it also had a little longer range than the 109. The problem with the spitfire is that the engine has a cars carbourater. It you threw the spit in a dive you could stall the plane for a few precious seconds. The .303 machine guns weren't has hard hitting as the M2 .50 cals the americans used. The 109 had a direct fuel injection system so it could dive better than the spitfire. The 109 suffered from a lack of range and thin wings so It couldn't turn as well as the spit below 15,000 feet.
That is what I agree with. The Spit and 109 had advantages and disadvantages over one another but for the most part were equal. The victor was either the one who had the advantage of surprise, alltitude, or just the better pilot.
loomaluftwaffe
Tech Sergeant
- 1,840
- Dec 20, 2005
in 1943-1944 i think negative G carburetors came out? is this true?
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
loomaluftwaffe said:
NO..........
Jabberwocky
Staff Sergeant
Spitfires had several solutions to the problem of fuel loss from their float carburettors over the course of the war.
The first appeared in March 1941, when Miss Tilly Shilling developed a diaphragm with a calibrated hole that allowed negative G manouvers. It was standard on the Merlin 24 and later. It was also retrofitted to existing in service Spitfires. Most Spitfires were fitted with the modification by June. It alleviated the problems with negative G manouvers, but did not completely eliminate engine starvation in prolonged manouvers.
Later in 1941 the RAE developed a refined version of 'Miss Shilling's Orifice' allowing longer periods of inverted or negative G flight. By 1942 a 'zero G' version of the Rolls Royce SU carburetor was fitted, first apperaring in the Merlin 46 in April 1942. The new unit allowed sustained negative G flight.
The Merlin 66 and later engines recieved the US developed Bendix-Stromberg direct injection carburettor, which was fitted to more than 11,000 Spitfires. The Merlin 66 first appeared in Spitfires in April 1943.
The first appeared in March 1941, when Miss Tilly Shilling developed a diaphragm with a calibrated hole that allowed negative G manouvers. It was standard on the Merlin 24 and later. It was also retrofitted to existing in service Spitfires. Most Spitfires were fitted with the modification by June. It alleviated the problems with negative G manouvers, but did not completely eliminate engine starvation in prolonged manouvers.
Later in 1941 the RAE developed a refined version of 'Miss Shilling's Orifice' allowing longer periods of inverted or negative G flight. By 1942 a 'zero G' version of the Rolls Royce SU carburetor was fitted, first apperaring in the Merlin 46 in April 1942. The new unit allowed sustained negative G flight.
The Merlin 66 and later engines recieved the US developed Bendix-Stromberg direct injection carburettor, which was fitted to more than 11,000 Spitfires. The Merlin 66 first appeared in Spitfires in April 1943.
Vassili Zaitzev
Master Sergeant
oh whoops, my bad soren, i just read about it in a book THE Hardest Day about the 109 and the spit and probaly got confused.
Nonskimmer
Captain
I'm with plan_D (so to speak ). The Spit maintained it's relatively good performance throughout it's development, although the later Griffon powered marks made a bit of a trade-off of manoeuvrability for speed. By contrast, the Bf-109 retained many of it's early bugs and the standardization of it's production eventually all but went out the window. Partially due to material considerations no doubt as the war wore on, but still a factor.
Spits rule, man.
). The Spit maintained it's relatively good performance throughout it's development, although the later Griffon powered marks made a bit of a trade-off of manoeuvrability for speed. By contrast, the Bf-109 retained many of it's early bugs and the standardization of it's production eventually all but went out the window. Partially due to material considerations no doubt as the war wore on, but still a factor. Spits rule, man.
loomaluftwaffe
Tech Sergeant
- 1,840
- Dec 20, 2005
yeah, as long as the books don't mention the negative sides, everything has a positive and negative effect, they wont just mention it
Nonskimmer
Captain
Well which of the negatives is giving you the most grief?
