Bf-109 vs. Spitfire....

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Yeah he sounds like some confusious speakings here.

 

[loomaluftwaffe]

they do teach confucianism here

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

I am sure they do.

 

[Nonskimmer]

And he still hasn't answered the question.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

And probably wont either.

 

[loomaluftwaffe]

I knew that old Chinese crap was useless... the only one i have in mind is that ive seen in books that Griffon engined models had so much torque

 

[Nonskimmer]

Yes they did, and in the opposite direction to the Merlin powered marks. That is, the propeller shaft rotated in the opposite direction. This alone made conversion a bit of a bitch for the more veteran Spit pilots.

 

[loomaluftwaffe]

I don't hear very often about all the successes the Luft had when it moved out to the ost front and the British began attacking then getting shot down by elites

and did the Spit have alot of landing accidents too? i mean its landing gear was narrow too, what was the difference in their accident records and why?

 

[cheddar cheese]

The 109's landing gear was set more toe-out, meaning that an uneven landing could whip it around and cause and accident...

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Yeap landing was the most dangerous for a Bf-109 pilot, other than the fact that everytime he took off he was up against 500 allied pilots.

 

[loomaluftwaffe]

pilots, no planes... thats why the landing was more difficult

lol jk

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

What?

The Landings were difficult because of the weak and narrow track.

 

[loomaluftwaffe]

nevermind

well, it probably would have been worse had they been mounted in the wings
I have read that the 109 had very thin wings and mounting the landing gear in the wings would have needed alot of strengthening?

In terms of engine power, who had the better engine? the 109's DB601 or the Spit's Merlin? and what were the + and - of the inverted vee engine?

damn... so many questions

 

[plan_D]

The Spitfire had a low landing speed compared to a lot of the fighters in World War II, which gave it an advantage in landing. It also had a good, early, stall warning. It did, however, have a narrow track which made ground handling difficult and did cause accidents. But the Bf-109 had the same problem with the added dread of the toe-out configuration. This meant that when touching down in a Bf-109 you really had to make sure both wheels hit at the same time to avoid a great risk of flipping the plane over. This problem did not exist in the Spitfire, or was at least no great than any other fighter.

The first meeting between Spitfire and Bf-109 was when the Bf-109 had reached it's fourth mark, and third engine. It was then the Bf-109E-1/3 with the DB601A rated at 1,150 HP. The opposing Spitfire Mk.I had the Merlin II rated at 1,060 HP. In power alone, the Bf-109 had the advantage in power.

 

[angel-fall]

I vote to 109... but the true is tow similar plane, only difference it's made it by the pilot

 

[loomaluftwaffe]

wow, more ppl actually voted for the 109 than i thought...
were the wing mounted pea shooters and cannons better than the
109's straight-line armament?

 

[lesofprimus]

Depends on who u ask.... If, for example, we are talking about a veteran pilot with 20+ kills, the central armament seems to be preferred....

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

I agree, I think the armament thing is pretty much based off of own oppinion. I think some preferred the central armamment and some preferred the wing armament. There are deffinate advantages to both.

 

[B-24 Driver]

I saw more 109s than Spits. Mostly front views. With those nasty lights blinking at us, first from the hub and then as they got closer from the wings.

Never understood the Brits fixation on the 30 cal guns.

 

[loomaluftwaffe]

more 109s than 190s?