Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
The only area where the Bf-109 can be said to be markedly superior to the Spitfire is in climb rate, the Bf-109 always had this advantage.
Sorry but that isn't the case Hop, the Bf-109K-4 beat the Spit IX in climb-rate by a vast amount, reaching 32,800 ft in just 6.7 min!
And the K-4's best initial climb rate in clean condition was in the area of 5,500 ft/min, at the very least!
Most climb rates floating around in books and on websites today only qoute the 109's climb rate at Start u. Notleistung, while the figures we need are the Sonder Notleistung.
Soren said:The Bf-109 and Spitfire were as equal in capability as possible, with one having a small advantage at slow speeds and the other having a small advantage at high speeds. The Bf-109 wasn't vastly superior to the Spitfire, it was its equal, and vice versa.
The only area where the Bf-109 can be said to be markedly superior to the Spitfire is in climb rate, the Bf-109 always had this advantage.... Other than that, they were the same..
Hop you really should learn to read those charts...
The figures on that chart are at Start u. Notleistung, and "Without" MW-50, as-well as at a considerable overweight. Oh and they are at 1.8 ata supercharger pressure. (Notice "Grundeinstellg", and how the top figure at 1.8ata is the best climbing one)
Oh, and where did William Green misread that chart ? It says exactly 6.7min to 10k
Btw, please show us that 1.98ata chart of yours, then I'll tell you what it says, thank you.
Hop that sounds abit far fetched. (Might change my mind when I see that chart of your's though)
Please consider this before making any assumptions:
Bf-109 G-2
Weight: 3,120 kg
Max engine power: 1,350 hp at 1.32ata.
Power-loading: 2.3 kg/hp
Initial climb rate: 4,724 ft/min
Most climb rates floating around in books and on websites today only qoute the 109's climb rate at Start u. Notleistung, while the figures we need are the Sonder Notleistung.
Climbing at a higher speed than optimal actually reduces climb rate. See as an example:Your theory about the Finnish pilot coming in at overspeed just doesn't cut it, cause then the climb rate at SL would've been considerably higher.
Also please reconsider my last post, cause there's a logic to it all..
"it's the DB605DC @ 1.98ata with MW-50 Wink for best curves and @ 1.45ata (climb and combat setting) for the worst ones."It says nothing about 1.98ata,
"The climb charts for DC605DC and DB605DB show no difference between 12199 and 12199, check for instance the well known climb chart posted here and there. You'll see : "Schrb 12199 u. 12159" written on the second line."and its still with the experimental propeller
and no weight figures are given.
Udet said:Gentlemen:
Of course there will be guys willing to debate what DJ_Dalton posted here. We know who they are; two names that come into mind real fast: Jabberwocky and Hop.
But, will their arguments prove DJ_Dalton wrong?
Although I do find the technical scope of the discussion very enlightening and interesting, my main focus has been on the operational record of the planes.
The conclusion has been the same for a good while now: the 109 slammed the Spitfire big time. And apparently, there is nothing in the horizon which might indicate this conclusion could get modified in any manner whatsoever.
Whatever was it that the Spitfire "did better" than any of its contemporary 109s one can only get confused after studying and reading books, articles, lists of claims, watching guncamera footage and speaking with men who fought in the war. The results are crystal clear. I have no problem in letting Spitfire enthusiasts have their candies though.
From the E-3s, E-4s all the way up to the K-4...one can only wonder what the hell was it those "superb" Sptifires were achieving.
In fact, today one can know the "15 minutes of fame" attained by the Spitfire Mk.I during the Battle of Britain (1940) is bogus: there, the venerable Hurricane Mk.I took the brunt of the fight (!).
The world reputation the Sptifre attained right after the BoB, throughout the empire and the rest of the world, was more the result of a good propaganda job and not the outcome of combat against the Luftwaffe. Necessary myths in a nation enduring the kind of situation England did during 1940.
1941, 1942 and the first half of 1943 saw a RAF completely uncapable of achieving anything over the channel and in skies of western europe all by itself, enduring horrific losses in the process. In the meantime, the losses of, say, JG 2 and JG 26 were comfortably within the sustainable range.
(The boldness of most of these guys is nonetheless admirable; they will have a timely explanation for every argument which contests their official history.)
Now, from the second half of 1943 until the end on May 1945? BLESSED BE THE NAME OF THE LORD, for the USA was now assembling in force!!!
1941, it takes guts to even attempt making a case in favour of the Spitfire. Virtually from July to the end of that year, JG 2 and JG 26 ruled the skies over the Channel. Also I have carefully studied the very first months of that same year (1941) of units like JG 3 and I. and IV./JG 51 -before their deployment in the USSR-, which stayed in the west after the BoB. The result is the same. Spitfires uncapable of tangling with the 109s.
Furthermore, two well known battles: the Dieppe Raids and The Channel Dash, what was it the triumphant Spitfires and pilots of the Battle of Britain achieved: Nothing, and they got their butts badly badly kicked.
The reality of battle records! England can you cope? No, you can´t.
Without the massive critical support of both the 8th and 15th AFs, the RAF with all those "super" Spitfires was going nowhere. No swarms of Jugs and Mustangs: no victory against the Luftwaffe.
but fact is you haven't, only the one you sent to me via PM is at Sonder-Notleistung with 1.8ata. (And I specifically asked for a 1.98ata chart btw)
Secondly the chart you sent me is with a "Dünnblatt schraube 9-12199", which is an experimental propeller. (A propeller designed to sacrifice climb rate for speed)
Thirdly, you somehow magically come to the conclusion that the time to climb indications are double that of the Climb rate indications
now that is not only nonesense cause it would be a waste of paper,
And lastly because then you'd certainly have been notified if that was the case. (Scientists 'also' expect people to be logical)
Look at your Bf-109 G-1 chart from rechlin, how is 'it' set up ?? Yes thats right, both the time to climb 'and' climb rate figures are sharing the same indications for their figures.
I don't think that's the date in the bottom corner. It's part of the report number, also on the page. Can't you see that what you claim is the number 4 is actually 2 Roman numerals? Appears to be IV to me. And the "8" appears to be a symbol rather than a number. The report is labelled A/IV/290/44.And finally the chart you sent me is from 8/4-1944, looong before 1.98ata boost pressure was ever cleared !