Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
I would certainly hope so, cause I dont recall seeing Spitfires escorting u guys to Germany and back...B-24 Driver said:I saw more 109s than Spits.
It wasnt so much a fixation of the gun, but the overabundance of the .303 cartridge that the Brits had.... Use up whatcha got, right???Never understood the Brits fixation on the 30 cal guns.
why did they have all that .30cal ammo anyways?
loomaluftwaffe said:I was asking if he saw more 190s than 109s
cool my 1000th post
The Mk V rolls so much better than the Mk I 2 because of the change from fabric to metal skinned alierons. A Mk IX should be similar as should a Mk XIV.[\quote]
It is also quite impressive the change from normal to clipped wings. I had always tought the Bf-109G/K had a great advantage at higher speeds but it doesn't seem to be that way. Is the Spitfire data also at 30kg input force?
Regards.
plan_D said:The coming of the IX against G - I, personally, think led to the Spitfire pulling away. The Gustav was becoming difficult to handle , and many problems remained. While the Spitfire was just as easy, handled like a dream but was increasing in power and range. I don't think the Bf-109 ever caught up to the Spitfire come the Mk.IX .
Increasing it's superiority, the VII, XII (low level), XIV and 21 just moved the Spitfire further and further ahead. I don't think the G or K model 109s were the Spitfire equals , it was all down to the German pilot to keep himself alive against a Spitfire ... because his crate was unforgiving , and no longer superior.
Jabberwocky said:I dont have 109K vs Spitfire XIV roll data, but I do have Spitfire V data vs 109G data, which should be roughly similar:
The 109 data comes from a June 1944 test by DVL with 30kg (66lbs) of force.
The Mk V rolls so much better than the Mk I 2 because of the change from fabric to metal skinned alierons. A Mk IX should be similar as should a Mk XIV.
The Mk 21 rolls worse at low speed because of its Mk VIII style short span alierons were less effective at low speeds. It was much better at higher speeds due to a stiffer wings, smaller alierons leading to easire deflection and rebalanced alieron linkages (heavier but more 'positive' in their control).
The Spitfire Mk I/II is the yellow curve, its just a little hard to see.
alejandro_ said:Some points on the comparison Spit XIV vs Bf-109K-4
- The Spit was a more stable platform in terms of performance. At this stage the Bf-109 manufacturing quality was much lower.
- The use of a gyroscope gave the XIV quite an advantage in combats. The Luftwaffe never installed on their Bf-109 a device similar to the Ferranti gyro computing gunsight.
- Some documents state that the K4 had cooling deficciencies, this should limit the performance, together with the overall finishing of the aircraft.
- The Bf-109 in general rolls better at higher speeds, but the roll rate in the Spitfire improved after the clipped wing versions entered service. Any info on the Spifire XIV roll rate?
I would say the Bf-109 was better during 1941-42, when the E and F versions were available. After that the Spit has the advantage.
Regards.
SHOOTER said:Just because a plane is "EASY" to fly generaly makes it a less effective weapon. The Spit was a notoriously poor gun platform, twitchy and very heavy on the controles at high speed. The Ailerons actualy reversed at high speed because the flimsy wing twisted so much under load. The Me-109 was a tough plane the Spit was fragile untill well after the war.
The Me was a handfull to fly but in the right parts of the envelope would run rings around the Spit. A strong pilot could make it do things that a super man in the Spit could not. In addition, it had a FI engine that could almost guarantee a clean escape while the Spit was dog meat if caught from behind.
The Spit was designed for the first part of the last war before all who payed attention knew that dog fighting was obsolite! The light wing loading gave it excellent maneuverability, but made it slow to accellerate and roll. It also made it slower than it's competiters under average "OPPERATIONAL" conditions. Planes rairly saw top speeds and often fought at part throttle were the Me-109 had a substantial advantage. In addition, the DB-6xx could run full throttle for 10 minutes while the merlin would self destruct in five.
Finaly as a gun platform the Me was vastly supirior to any Spit. The nose mounted guns of the -109 would be effective to twice or three times the range of the Spits wing mounted guns.
SHOOTER said:I note that the above curves are all to the same direction! If the plane was forced to roll the other way, it would not do nearly so well and the planes whose engines turned in the opposite direction would do much better. Think swapping curves between the Fw-190 and Spit-1/2? By changing direction of roll.
Secondly, the rate of roll in the Spit fell off very rapidly with more stick force! Eventialy the ailerons induced so much twist in the wing that the planes STOPPED ROLLING IN THE DIRECTION DESIRED AND REVERSESED the direction of roll! Larger Stick forces in the other planes all gennerated much higher rates of roll!
What this means is that a strong pilot in all of the other planes could out roll a Spit just by adding more stick! Doing that in the Spit reduced the rate of roll to nothing eventialy! So no matter which way you whent, the Spit could not roll with the rest!
SHOOTER said:The Spit was a terrible weapons platform! It was "twitchy" and the wing mounted guns were guaranteed to miss if the target was at any range other than that at which the guns were ZEROED/HARMONIZED/REGULATED.
The guns were 7-13 feet out in the wings and 45" below the LOS threw the gun sight. This meant that the bullet streams from the guns started wide rose and crossed under the sight pipper and then fell away on the opposite side of the target. If the target fuselage was 36" wide and perfectly centered under the aiming mark, the bullets would be wide of the target untill it was less than 54 yards from the 250 yard ZERO RANGE and then would hit untill 54 yards after the ZERO RANGE, untill missing completely past that range.
The -109's nose guns were all parrallel to the LOS and only 3-15" below the sight. In addition, they did not have to rise so far to meet the LOS and thus it was much easier to get hits.
Finnaly the Spits flimsy wings twisted and vibrated badly under recoil and caused enormious dispersion to the bullet stream from any one gun. Over one meter in 100! This reduced the concentraition or weight of fire dramaticaly.
To figure out the total effect of this compute the ratio of taqrgets downed to total number of planes made and missions flown. ( TOTAL RAF post BoB kills=5280/>20,000 Spits made)=.264? IIRC? The Spit is at the very bottom of this compairison! It was a lowsy weapon system! The above number includes kills by other types and gets much worse as they are removed.
Even a cursory examination of the other planes involved in the ETO shows all are better than the Spit!