Bf-109 vs. Spitfire....

• Jul 14, 2006

• #161

SpitfireKing

Airman 1st Class

262

0

Jul 2, 2006

Nora Springs, Iowa

My grandfather (still living) was a bomber pilot. He wasn't a hero or anything but he did his job the best he could and fought on.

 

Attachments

• Spitfire Battle.jpg

  4.5 KB · Views: 223

• Jul 14, 2006

• #162

DerAdlerIstGelandet

Private Chemtrail Disperser

Staff

Mod

50,362

16,105

Nov 8, 2004

USA/Germany

 

• Jul 14, 2006

• #163

Nonskimmer

Captain

8,620

9

Nov 11, 2004

Halifax, Nova Scotia

SpitfireKing said:

My grandfather (still living) was a bomber pilot. He wasn't a hero or anything but he did his job the best he could and fought on.

Click to expand...

Mine too. Same on all counts. He flew Lancs and Halifaxes.

 

• Jul 15, 2006

• #164

plan_D

Lieutenant Colonel

11,643

22

Apr 1, 2004

Schwarz, the Hurricane could out-turn the Spitfire which could out-turn the Bf-109E. The Hurricane was one of the best low-speed turners of the war, but as with all low-speed turners it was too slow to be around at the end of the war.

 

• Jul 15, 2006

• #165

loomaluftwaffe

Tech Sergeant

1,840

0

Dec 20, 2005

but not the same case with the 109F right?

 

• Jul 16, 2006

• #166

T

trackend

Chief Master Sergeant

3,962

23

Dec 20, 2003

Ipswich, Suffolk

We've all seen the film B of B with the Phase "give us Spitfires" in reply to Goerings question . As far as I know it was a true occurance so I'll go with Garland he was there and new the score.
That said putting your fighter squadrons in the best attacking position using radar means the first pass will be all the more effective if you know where the enemy is coming from and he is unaware of your approach vector it must help alot.

 

• Jul 16, 2006

• #167

the lancaster kicks ass

Major General

19,937

17

Dec 20, 2003

i believe he only said "a squadron of spitfires" in reply to Georing's question of what do you need to win the battle to annoy him didn't he?

 

• Jul 16, 2006

• #168

T

trackend

Chief Master Sergeant

3,962

23

Dec 20, 2003

Ipswich, Suffolk

Possible Lanc but in the documentary world at war I seem to remember him saying that he believed the Spite to have the edge (I may be wrong as it's some years since I watched it)

 

• Jul 17, 2006

• #169

DerAdlerIstGelandet

Private Chemtrail Disperser

Staff

Mod

50,362

16,105

Nov 8, 2004

USA/Germany

loomaluftwaffe said:

but not the same case with the 109F right?

Click to expand...

What do you mean?

 

• Jul 17, 2006

• #170

the lancaster kicks ass

Major General

19,937

17

Dec 20, 2003

i think he means it's not the case with the -109F that the spit and hurricane out turn it i.e. the -109F can turn inside the hurricane and spit..............

 

• Jul 17, 2006

• #171

Soren

1st Lieutenant

6,457

25

Feb 6, 2005

The Bf-109F will turn with the Spitfire, but not the Hurricane.

 

• Jul 17, 2006

• #172

plan_D

Lieutenant Colonel

11,643

22

Apr 1, 2004

The Hurricane was a lot like the Zero. It could turn extremely well in a low-speed fight, and any German pilot would be foolish to put himself in that position against one. But it was a slow plane and was left standing in the turning fight at high speed.

 

• Jul 17, 2006

• #173

DerAdlerIstGelandet

Private Chemtrail Disperser

Staff

Mod

50,362

16,105

Nov 8, 2004

USA/Germany

Thanks Lanc, Lomma very often thows out half sentinces or phrases like that and I dont understand what he is saying or trying to say.

 

• Jul 18, 2006

• #174

loomaluftwaffe

Tech Sergeant

1,840

0

Dec 20, 2005

yep

 

• Jul 21, 2006

• #175

H

hellothere

Banned

10

0

Jul 21, 2006

If where talking about the Battle of Britain (1940) then there roughly the same. the 109 had better armerment (2 20mm cannon+2 MGs) than the Spitfire (4 Mg's) but the spitfire was more easyer to fly, comfortable and the engine was quiter than the german ones

 

• Jul 21, 2006

• #176

Gnomey

Globetrotting Surgeon General

Staff

Mod

71,250

9,039

Nov 28, 2004

London / Southsea / Royal Deeside, UK

www.flickr.com

Good points, although the Spitfire in the Battle of Britain carried 8 MG's not 4 (that was in one of the prototypes). At the time they were probably equal with the 109 being able to out dive the Spitfire because the negative G caused the Spitfire (and Hurricane) to stall.

 

• Jul 22, 2006

• #177

the lancaster kicks ass

Major General

19,937

17

Dec 20, 2003

a problem that was later solved with the introduction of a better carburettor

 

• Jul 22, 2006

• #178

loomaluftwaffe

Tech Sergeant

1,840

0

Dec 20, 2005

but wasn't solved till after the battle of britain... right?
and the 20mm cannons of the 109 werent really that good, they were slow and had low muzzle velocity, but what the heck... u have cannons

 

• Jul 23, 2006

• #179

DerAdlerIstGelandet

Private Chemtrail Disperser

Staff

Mod

50,362

16,105

Nov 8, 2004

USA/Germany

hellothere said:

If where talking about the Battle of Britain (1940) then there roughly the same. the 109 had better armerment (2 20mm cannon+2 MGs) than the Spitfire (4 Mg's) but the spitfire was more easyer to fly, comfortable and the engine was quiter than the german ones

Click to expand...

Not quite.

They were actually very equal at that point.

The armament was actually 8 MGs as many pointed out.

As for the Spitfire being easier to fly. Not really at that point of the War. The Spitfire did not start to take the lead in that point till later with the introduction of the Bf-109G when the 109 started to get heavier. Besides as others put out the 109 actually had a slight advantage in that it did not have to worry about the engine stalling out due to no fuel flow.

Spitfire more confortable. Yeah she was but then agian how confortable were all the small fighters of that time?

 

• Aug 3, 2006

• #180

S

schwarzpanzer

Senior Airman

662

2

Aug 8, 2005

The Spit always had better visibility than the 109.


How would a Hurricane perform against a Zero? - Just out of interest.


Love that sig Gnomey, where'd you get it - if you don't mind me asking? - it's brilliant!


The 8 guns of the Spit gave a better spread, they were much easier to hit a target with, but caused much less damage.

Kinda like a shotgun or cluster-bomb works. The Hurricane and 109 had more devestating armament, but it was harder to hit a target with them.


When did the Tilly Shilling orifice see use? - IIRC it wa during the BoB?

The Bendix carbs came later and then there was another one. (Why not Weber's or Throttle bodies? )

Yeah she was but then again how confortable were all the small fighters of that time?

Click to expand...

You could lounge in a Spitfire. In the book 'Great Aircraft of WW2' it has a German pilots impression of the Spit and it mentions how comfortable the cockpit/controls and how quiet the engine was. Ergonomics I can guess are a big part, SAAB seems to think so.