f6f-5 vs 109

[Soren]

Agreed. To me wartime report or at least theoretical calculation always carries much more weight than pure opinion.

Great, cause physics 100% supports what I'm saying. You can ask Bill about that as-well, he knows it, he just doesn't like my way of saying stuff (I'm too 'direct'). And why he has decided to blindside me despite us agreeing to respect one another I don't know. But nevermind that.

The methods for calculating drag lift are as follows:

Lift (L) = Cl * A * .5 * r * V^2

Coefficient of lift (Cl) = Established in windtunnel tests

Drag (D) = Cd * A * .5 * r * V^2

Drag Coefficient (Cd) = Cd0 + Cdi

Induced drag coefficient (Cdi) = (Cl^2) / (pi * AR * e)

Coefficient of drag at zero lift (Cd0) = Established in windtunnel tests

And it just so happens that we have the windtunnel established Clmax Cd0 figures for both the Spitfire, Bf-109, Fw-190, F6F, F4U P-51. And from using the above physical rules of this world it can be concluded that the Bf-109 Spitfire are infact VERY close in turn performance, the early Spitfire holding an advantage ove the early 109, while the late war Bf-109 holds the advantage over the late war Spitfire. The Spitfire Bf-109 are both better turn fighters than the F6F.

Now as to pilot accounts:

Erwin Leykauf, German fighter pilot, 33 victories.
"During what was later called the 'Battle of Britain', we flew the Messerschmitt Bf109E. The essential difference from the Spitfire Mark I flown at that time by the RAF was that the Spitfire was less manoeuvrable in the rolling plane. With its shorter wings (2 metres less wingspan) and its square-tipped wings, the Bf 109 was more manoeuvrable and slightly faster. (It is of interest that the English later on clipped the wings of the Spitfire.)
For us, the more experienced pilots, real manoeuvring only started when the slats were out. For this reason it is possible to find pilots from that period (1940) who will tell you that the Spitfire turned better than the Bf 109. That is not true. I myself had many dogfights with Spitfires and I could always out-turn them. This is how I shot down six of them."

Walter Wolfrum, German fighter ace. 137 victories.
"Unexperienced pilots hesitated to turn tight, bacause the plane shook violently when the slats deployed. I realised, though, that because of the slats the plane's stalling characteristics were much better than in comparable Allied planes that I got to fly. Even though you may doubt it, I knew the Bf109 could manouver better in turnfight than LaGG, Yak or even Spitfire."

Herbert Kaiser, German fighter ace. 68 victories.
"Personally, I met RAF over Dunkirk. During this battle not a single Spitfire or Hurricane turned tighter than my plane. I found that the Bf 109 E was faster, possessed a higher rate of climb, but was somewhat less manouverable than the RAF fighters. Nevertheless, during the campaign, no Spitfire or Hurricane ever turned inside my plane, and after the war the RAF admitted the loss of 450 Hurricanes and Spitfires during the Battle of France." In the desert there were only a few Spitfires, and we were afraid of those because of their reputation from the Battle of Britain. But after we shot a couple of them down, our confusion was gone."

Pierre Clostermann, Spitfire pilot.
"I tried to fire on a '109' that I spotted in the chaos. Not possible, I couldn't get the correct angle. My plane juddered on the edge of a stall. It was comforting that the Spitfire turned better than the '109'! Certainly at high speed - but not at low speed."

Skip Holm interview about P-51 vs Bf-109 vs Spitfire:

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TFl8X4y9-94

Mark Hanna interview on Bf-109:
Flying the Bf 109: Two experts give their reports | Flight Journal | Find Articles at BNET

And there is more where that came from!

As stated by German, British and modern pilots, the two a/c [BF109 Spitifre] were very close in all aspects of flight, esp. turn performance, and it was a matter of pilot experience in the end. We have Mark Hanna, Skip Holm, Dave Chairwood, Walter Wolfrum, Erwin Leykauf, Heinrich Beauvais etc etc and aerodynamics confirming this.

So we've got both pilot accounts (Veteran Modern pilots) and physics all matching up perfectly!

Now is there any doubt anymore ?? I hope not cause this horse is long dead and has nearly turned to dust from all the times its been kicked since.

Further good read can be achieved here in a previous thread where Crumpp, an expert in aerodynamics, made several very nice sustained turn rate charts for us to see: http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/aviation/corsair-vs-bf-109g-k-fw-190-s-10181-21.html

 

[slaterat]

Thats not a bad article but it doesn't address the heavy elevator of the 109 at medium to high speed. In any case I still have reservations believing a 109 could turn with a Hurricane or Spifire.

1 RAF testing showed the british fighters to be far superior in turn.
2 German tests also showed this, I believe one was posted at Kurfursts
sight.
3 In the BoB , if 109s could of turned with their RAF counterparts ,the 109s
would of done better than they did ,when assigned to close escort
German bombers.
4 Many German aces also confirm that Spits and Hurris were the better
turners.

Back to the orignal subject of the thread though, I always thought that the Hellcat was considered a good turner for a plane of its size and loaded
weight and that the 109 was a better turner than it should be for a plane with its high wingloading. That being said I think it would come down to pilot skill, determination and experience.

Slaterat

 

[Soren]

slaterat,

1. Why is explained, the test pilots didn't go past slat deployment.
2. In one test, in 1940, with an Emil, the 109 version known to have trouble with its slats jamming in turns.
3. The Me109s shot down more Spitfires Hurricanes during BoB than vice versa, considerably more. And that the Me-109 couldn't protect the bombers properly was because of its short range, it had nothing to do with turn peformance.
4. Four times as many German aces as-well as modern pilots make it abundantly clear that the Bf-109 can either match or outturn the Spitfire. One of them being Chief LW test pilots Heinrich Beauvais who has atleast the same amount of experience as Eric Brown.

 

[walle]

…the Bf-109 can either match or outturn the Spitfire…

I have not seen those YouTube videos before Soren, though prior to have seen them I always wanted to include the P-51 Mustang into this equation. Now, I've been involved in similar discussion in the past myself, advocating the BF-109 (as based on what I know, not based on regurgitation or making someone else's opinion mine) though most of the times those discussion has ended up nasty and as such I'm somewhat hesitant to partake in this one, however, I am very interested in your thoughts around the P-51 and would love to get your quick take on it, not that you in any way are obligated to but it would be interesting to hear it.


Thanks...


//Eric

 

[KrazyKraut]

BTW, the Bf 109 mentioned in that article is the D-FEHD, which (iirc) is not a real Bf 109 but a HA-1112-M1L retrofitted with some Bf 109 G-10 parts. But yes, it's probably the closest experience to flying a 109 these days.

Nice article nonetheless, very informative. Good video interview too. Thanks for that.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

That's hilarious coming from you Glider.

You must believe you have provided some evidence, I'm still waiting to see it though.

What I'd like to know even more though is what you refer to when you say "all the evidence".

And everyone on this forum (and I can safely say everyone) has been waiting on your evidence to your claims for the last 4 years!

We are still waiting...

We will probably still be waiting 4 years from now (if you last that long)...

 

[Juha]

Some 20 RAF and 3 LW pilots tell us that Spit I turned better than 109E here, scroll down until subtitle Turning appears Spitfire Mk I versus Me 109 E

On Spit IX vs 109G again scroll down until subtitle Pilot Accounts appears, there are at least hundred of them Spitfire Mk IX versus Me 109 G - Flight Testing

Not saying that 109 was a bad turner, it was better than many older stories suggest, but maybe not as good as Soren claims. And as always the man behind the stick was a very important factor in ac vs ac comparasion.

Juha

 

[Timppa]

Great, cause physics 100% supports what I'm saying....
The methods for calculating drag lift are as follows:

Lift (L) = Cl * A * .5 * r * V^2

Coefficient of lift (Cl) = Established in windtunnel tests

Drag (D) = Cd * A * .5 * r * V^2

Drag Coefficient (Cd) = Cd0 + Cdi

Induced drag coefficient (Cdi) = (Cl^2) / (pi * AR * e)
..snip

You seem to have a "Crumppish" approach. Throw in a couple of formulas (obviously to impress) and then declare that "physics" support 100% what you are saying.

The problem is than I 'm not that easily impressed. You should go through the calculation all the way to support your case.

We had a rather interesting (and amusing) conversation about turning calculation a while back:
A Complete Waste of Space Forums-viewtopic-FW190 design advantages in high speed maneuvering

I'm afraid that dear Crumpp did not learn anything, but it prompted me to do a sustained turning calculation model in Excel. You should do the same.

 

[lesofprimus]

Im so fu*kin sick of this Goddamn question it makes me wanna lock this thread.... Soren, until u show an actual scan of the Rechlin Tests u have always quoted/talked about but never provided, SHUT THE FU*K UP ABOUT THE COMPARISON!!! Im over it and so are many others here...

Keep it up and I will ban ur ass permanantly... Provide the proof, WHICH U HAVE NEVER DONE, or dont bring it up again... The argument has been hammered into the ground, and until u show hard proof of the Test data, leave it alone... This sh!t has topedoed many a decent thread, and Im not puttin up with it anymore from u...

This is about a Poll up top involving the F6F vs the 109...

And my opinion is that if u had Erich Hartmann in his 109 and David McCampbell in his Hellcat, the US Navy loses a MoH winner... If used correctly with the LE Slats, the 109, I BELEIVE, would outturn the contemporary Spit and Hellcat..

We are talking about someone who knows the handling characteristics of his aricraft as if he designed it... The average Luftwaffe pilot in late 44 would, IMO, not be able to turn with a Hellcat..

And for the love of God, would u please cease and desist in calling the Hellcats firepower "devestating/massive"... It was adequete for the job and should of had cannons...

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Im so fu*kin sick of this Goddamn question it makes me wanna lock this thread.... Soren, until u show an actual scan of the Rechlin Tests u have always quoted/talked about but never provided, SHUT THE FU*K UP ABOUT THE COMPARISON!!! Im over it and so are many others here...

Keep it up and I will ban ur ass permanantly... Provide the proof, WHICH U HAVE NEVER DONE, or dont bring it up again... The argument has been hammered into the ground, and until u show hard proof of the Test data, leave it alone... This sh!t has topedoed many a decent thread, and Im not puttin up with it anymore from u...

This is about a Poll up top involving the F6F vs the 109...

And my opinion is that if u had Erich Hartmann in his 109 and David McCampbell in his Hellcat, the US Navy loses a MoH winner... If used correctly with the LE Slats, the 109, I BELEIVE, would outturn the contemporary Spit and Hellcat..

We are talking about someone who knows the handling characteristics of his aricraft as if he designed it... The average Luftwaffe pilot in late 44 would, IMO, not be able to turn with a Hellcat..

And for the love of God, would u please cease and desist in calling the Hellcats firepower "devestating/massive"... It was adequete for the job and should of had cannons...

Really tell us how you feel Dan!

 

[lesofprimus]

Im sick and tired of his incessant whining on the subject, its getting me pissed...

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Im sick and tired of his incessant whining on the subject, its getting me pissed...

Welcome to my world. All I want is what others want. Something to back up the claims.

 

[walle]

We are talking about someone who knows the handling characteristics of his aricraft as if he designed it... The average Luftwaffe pilot in late 44 would, IMO, not be able to turn with a Hellcat..

It's my understanding that they've been talking about the aircraft and the aircrafts capabilities within the framework of her design lesofprimus.

You could put me in a Ferrari mate and I wouldn't be able to use the potential of the car, says nothing about the capabilities of the car though, but you know what? I wouldn't mind one anyway.



//Eric

 

[FLYBOYJ]

I think Dan has made some points abundantly clear.

Some questions in my mind;

Were the RAF evaluators who were afraid of the 109s slats deploying (because of the imminent stall) always afraid or did they eventually overcome their fear and perform full stalls and tight turns with the slats deployed? Did they ever figure out they could turn and fly the plane with the slats fully deployed?

Did the same evaluators eventually check out in Lysanders to overcome their fear as that aircraft had LE slats as well?

Did the RAF not provide adequate stall/ spin training to its test pilots?

Did RAF test pilots not land any aircraft in a full stall 3 point landing?

Were RAF test pilots just cowards?

Inquiry minds want to know!

 

[Glider]

I always have this question in my mind. If the 109 could so easily turn inside the Spitfire, why didn't they?

The excuse that the deployment of the slats put the pilots off doesn't hold water, as in the Me108 they had the perfect tool to train the pilots in how best to use the slats.

 

[drgondog]

Great, cause physics 100% supports what I'm saying. You can ask Bill about that as-well, he knows it, he just doesn't like my way of saying stuff (I'm too 'direct'). And why he has decided to blindside me despite us agreeing to respect one another I don't know. But nevermind that.

I don't see how I 'blindisided you' Soren. It isn't the 'direct' side that bothers me - it's the "fact" thingy that keeps getting in the way.

The methods for calculating drag lift are as follows:

Lift (L) = Cl * A * .5 * r * V^2

Coefficient of lift (Cl) = Established in windtunnel tests

Drag (D) = Cd * A * .5 * r * V^2

Drag Coefficient (Cd) = Cd0 + Cdi

Induced drag coefficient (Cdi) = (Cl^2) / (pi * AR * e)

Coefficient of drag at zero lift (Cd0) = Established in windtunnel tests

And it just so happens that we have the windtunnel established Clmax Cd0 figures for both the Spitfire, Bf-109, Fw-190, F6F, F4U P-51.

What stopped the 'performance' thread last year was two very specific 'fact deficiencies' - one was a documented Hp to altitude set of data for each of the above airframes. The second was a lack of actual Cd0 for each of the above aircraft. Without both it is impossible to develop a reasonably accurate Free Body Force model to follow a turn or predict energy bleed for a horizontal turning manuever.

So, in fact 'we' (mouse in pocket?) have Not presented the wind tunnel test data or the Power tables to establish the 'physics'.

And from using the above physical rules of this world it can be concluded that the Bf-109 Spitfire are infact VERY close in turn performance, the early Spitfire holding an advantage ove the early 109, while the late war Bf-109 holds the advantage over the late war Spitfire. The Spitfire Bf-109 are both better turn fighters than the F6F.

Not entered as fact or in evidence.

Now as to pilot accounts:

Erwin Leykauf, German fighter pilot, 33 victories.
"During what was later called the 'Battle of Britain', we flew the Messerschmitt Bf109E. The essential difference from the Spitfire Mark I flown at that time by the RAF was that the Spitfire was less manoeuvrable in the rolling plane. With its shorter wings (2 metres less wingspan) and its square-tipped wings, the Bf 109 was more manoeuvrable and slightly faster. (It is of interest that the English later on clipped the wings of the Spitfire.)
For us, the more experienced pilots, real manoeuvring only started when the slats were out. For this reason it is possible to find pilots from that period (1940) who will tell you that the Spitfire turned better than the Bf 109. That is not true. I myself had many dogfights with Spitfires and I could always out-turn them. This is how I shot down six of them."

Herbert Kaiser, German fighter ace. 68 victories.
"Personally, I met RAF over Dunkirk. During this battle not a single Spitfire or Hurricane turned tighter than my plane. I found that the Bf 109 E was faster, possessed a higher rate of climb, but was somewhat less manouverable than the RAF fighters. Does one wonder what was meant by 'less manueverable' when one claims higher speed and better climb? Is it possible that roll and turn may be conceded to the Spit? And does this sound like anecdotal evidence as in the RAE tests comparing the 109 to Spit and Mustang?

Nevertheless, during the campaign, no Spitfire or Hurricane ever turned inside my plane, and after the war the RAF admitted the loss of 450 Hurricanes and Spitfires during the Battle of France." In the desert there were only a few Spitfires, and we were afraid of those because of their reputation from the Battle of Britain. But after we shot a couple of them down, our confusion was gone."

This is proof of 'physics'??

Pierre Clostermann, Spitfire pilot.
"I tried to fire on a '109' that I spotted in the chaos. Not possible, I couldn't get the correct angle. My plane juddered on the edge of a stall. It was comforting that the Spitfire turned better than the '109'! Certainly at high speed - but not at low speed."

Skip Holm interview about P-51 vs Bf-109 vs Spitfire:

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TFl8X4y9-94

Mark Hanna interview on Bf-109:
Flying the Bf 109: Two experts give their reports | Flight Journal | Find Articles at BNET

And there is more where that came from!

As stated by German, British and modern pilots, the two a/c [BF109 Spitifre] were very close in all aspects of flight, esp. turn performance, and it was a matter of pilot experience in the end. We have Mark Hanna, Skip Holm, Dave Chairwood, Walter Wolfrum, Erwin Leykauf, Heinrich Beauvais etc etc and aerodynamics confirming this.

So we've got both pilot accounts (Veteran Modern pilots) and physics all matching up perfectly!

Soren - if anecdotal accounts of 109s out turning Spit or Mustang are 'good for you, why aren't more numerous accounts of Mustangs and Spits out turning 109s equally satisfactory??

Now is there any doubt anymore ?? I hope not cause this horse is long dead and has nearly turned to dust from all the times its been kicked since.

Further good read can be achieved here in a previous thread where Crumpp, an expert in aerodynamics, made several very nice sustained turn rate charts for us to see: http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/aviation/corsair-vs-bf-109g-k-fw-190-s-10181-21.html

Back to the thesis.

1. No Rechlin Tests, or any other tests submitted, other than RAE/FRAF comparitive tests which you discount because of 'cowardly' Brit test pilots. You discount this one because the conclusion from professional (and multiple) test pilots is different from your own. Curious.

2. No tests of any kind comparing F6F-3 or -5 to a Spit or a 109 - but you dismiss the F6F ability to turn with either or both?

3. You are dabbling again in 'physics', claiming once again that what we have debated regarding Turn Performance modelling is saturated with fact from 'wind tunnel tests' - when in Fact, no such data has been forthcoming for Cd0 or reliable Hp to altitude charts. Why??

This is Physics with one equation and two unknowns (T and Cd0). How do you propose to solve this? BTW Cd0 for the airfoil is NOT Cd0 for the airframe, nor is Hp for supercharged and turbo supercharged engines linear with altitude.

If you consider my tone and questions and comments in this thread as 'blind siding' then you have a different vocabulary.

I think what everyone has said (except you) is that the question of F6F-5 vs 109G or K is an interesting question and probably has different answers depending on the engagement profile.. but there isn't much in comparitive tests or even flight data for the two ships to truly answer the question analytically.

But you consistently make bold and unassailable opinions which don't have facts to support them - and you wonder why you 'get blind sided" ??

 

[drgondog]

And my opinion is that if u had Erich Hartmann in his 109 and David McCampbell in his Hellcat, the US Navy loses a MoH winner... If used correctly with the LE Slats, the 109, I BELEIVE, would outturn the contemporary Spit and Hellcat..

Probably true for any neutral engagement based on pilot skill.

We are talking about someone who knows the handling characteristics of his aricraft as if he designed it... The average Luftwaffe pilot in late 44 would, IMO, not be able to turn with a Hellcat..

Suspect this to be true also, as well as Spit vs 109 or 51 vs Mustang

...

Dan the -5 was equipped with two inboard 20mm and 4 x 50 cal. For this variant the damn thing also had 12% more 50 cal than the 4 gun P-51B/C.

The six fifty version carried 2400 rounds. I didn't know either fact before I started researching the Pax river test data. I wish the 51 had the same.

 

[Soren]

What stopped the 'performance' thread last year was two very specific 'fact deficiencies' - one was a documented Hp to altitude set of data for each of the above airframes. The second was a lack of actual Cd0 for each of the above aircraft. Without both it is impossible to develop a reasonably accurate Free Body Force model to follow a turn or predict energy bleed for a horizontal turning manuever.

Oh but Bill we do have the actual windtunnel established Cd0 figures for each a/c. What we lack is the HP to altitude.

You seem to have a "Crumppish" approach. Throw in a couple of formulas (obviously to impress) and then declare that "physics" support 100% what you are saying.

The problem is than I 'm not that easily impressed. You should go through the calculation all the way to support your case.

Oh ok, fair enough, no problem. I'll do the calculations aswell if that is what you need. Lets use the Fw190 as our example where we know the Clmax.

Lift equation (FW190):

CL * A * .5 * r * V^2 = X Newtons

1.58 * 18.3 * .5 * 1.225 * 112^2 = 222152.045 N

Convert result in Newtons into kgf:

222152.045 Newtons = 22653.2 kgf

Divide result with a/c weight to get Max G:

22653.2 / 4270 = 5.3

Max G at 112 m/s (400 km/h):

5.3 G

So there we have the instantanious turn performance of the a/c. If we want the sustained turn performance we need take into consideration propulsive power drag.

We had a rather interesting (and amusing) conversation about turning calculation a while back:
A Complete Waste of Space Forums-viewtopic-FW190 design advantages in high speed maneuvering

I'm afraid that dear Crumpp did not learn anything, but it prompted me to do a sustained turning calculation model in Excel. You should do the same.

Giving me a link to a debate with Crumpp where he is obviously right doesn't help your argument.

Now tell me all of you who take the RAF tests as gospel, if you know your physics just slightly how can you at all take them seriously ? Why am I asking this ? Because the RAF somehow managed to turn a Fw190 JABO! with a P-51B, yet they couldn't manage that with a 109 ? That doesn't seem a tad odd to you ? Esp. considering that the Bf-109 always quite easily outturned the Fw190 in German comparative tests.

As for pilots new to the 109 not being wary of the slats, well incase the 3 aces making that quite clear to you then we can also go further if you wish:

From the RAF tests with the Bf109G against the Tempest:
Turning Circle
47. The Tempest is slightly better, the Me.109G being embarrassed by its slots opening near the stall.

This pilot seems to have been oblivious to the purpose of the slats and how they functioned. First of all they don't begin to open 'near' the stall, and when they open they increase the Clmax critical AoA by 25%! That means you've got another 25% to go before you get near the stall.

So do you still believe that the RAF pushed the 109 to its' limits ?? Or do you finally see the pattern developing here ?

 

[Glider]

That's hilarious coming from you Glider.

You must believe you have provided some evidence, I'm still waiting to see it though.

What I'd like to know even more though is what you refer to when you say "all the evidence".

Soren
I am not the one who keeps spouting the same sources".

Erwin Leykauf, German fighter pilot, 33 victories.
"During what was later called the 'Battle of Britain', we flew the Messerschmitt Bf109E. The essential difference from the Spitfire Mark I flown at that time by the RAF was that the Spitfire was less manoeuvrable in the rolling plane. With its shorter wings (2 metres less wingspan) and its square-tipped wings, the Bf 109 was more manoeuvrable and slightly faster. (It is of interest that the English later on clipped the wings of the Spitfire.)
For us, the more experienced pilots, real manoeuvring only started when the slats were out. For this reason it is possible to find pilots from that period (1940) who will tell you that the Spitfire turned better than the Bf 109. That is not true. I myself had many dogfights with Spitfires and I could always out-turn them. This is how I shot down six of them." ".

Small point but fair is that he was awarded three kills not six and did most of his fighting in Russia.

"

Walter Wolfrum, German fighter ace. 137 victories.
"Unexperienced pilots hesitated to turn tight, bacause the plane shook violently when the slats deployed. I realised, though, that because of the slats the plane's stalling characteristics were much better than in comparable Allied planes that I got to fly. Even though you may doubt it, I knew the Bf109 could manouver better in turnfight than LaGG, Yak or even Spitfire." ".

Walter Wolfrum did all his fighting in Russia and I do not believe he ever fought a Spitfire.

".

Herbert Kaiser, German fighter ace. 68 victories.
"Personally, I met RAF over Dunkirk. During this battle not a single Spitfire or Hurricane turned tighter than my plane. I found that the Bf 109 E was faster, possessed a higher rate of climb, but was somewhat less manouverable than the RAF fighters. Nevertheless, during the campaign, no Spitfire or Hurricane ever turned inside my plane, and after the war the RAF admitted the loss of 450 Hurricanes and Spitfires during the Battle of France." In the desert there were only a few Spitfires, and we were afraid of those because of their reputation from the Battle of Britain. But after we shot a couple of them down, our confusion was gone." ".

He has the right to make this statement but it's a fact that once the first Spitfires arrived in the Desert they made a significant inpact on the Luftwaffe's effectiveness. As has been pointed out even he admits the 109E was less manoeuvrable.

".

Pierre Clostermann, Spitfire pilot.
"I tried to fire on a '109' that I spotted in the chaos. Not possible, I couldn't get the correct angle. My plane juddered on the edge of a stall. It was comforting that the Spitfire turned better than the '109'! Certainly at high speed - but not at low speed." ".

You always mention this one quote and none of the others where he comments on the difference in manoeuvrability.
Also you never mention another small but interesting fact that you only quote Aces. Aces as we all agree will always get that extra 10% out of their aircraft, what matters is how equally matched pilots get on. What is impressive about the quotes in the Spitfire site is the breadth of examples often Sergeant Pilots, indeed some of them describe the 109 in detail including that the LE slats being deployed and the Spitfire still turning inside them.

And again you never mention the other senior German Aces who comment on the better manoeuvrability / turning ability of the Spitfire including Galland, Hans Knoke, Molders, Gerhard Schopfel, Gunther Rall. I am sure that they cannot all have been scared of the LE Slat deployment.
Plus of course the entry into the War Diary of I/JG 3 which would not have been authorised unless it was the feeling of the unit. In the RN when an entry was made into the ships log it was taken seriously and I suspect an entry into the war diary was treated with equal gravity.

Every time you raise this I have asked you to find examples of average 109 Pilots who have commented on the ability of the 109 to turn inside the Spitfire and you have never come up with the goods. Interestingly I have one, it's a little unusual but valid, but thought it best for you to find some evidence as you would not believe mine.

All this has been repeated before and I apologise for imposing this on the other members of the thread again.

 

[Timppa]

....If we want the sustained turn performance we need take into consideration propulsive power drag.
...
Giving me a link to a debate with Crumpp where he is obviously right doesn't help your argument.

That is what I asked, full calculation of sustained turn performance.

Crumpp compared two planes, both with the practically same top speed. The (lighter) other plane has substantially lower wing loading, lower stall speed, and higher power to weight ratio. Still he claimed that the heavier plane can be better in sustained turning. You can draw your conclusions...

I actually have not presented my arguments, the Bf109G was found inferior to F6F in turning in British test. I just cited it. Too bad if you don't like it (apparently for reasons I really cannot understand)

As to my argument, Bf109F is probably very close to F6F in turning. The later G's and K's are most likely inferior. But it does not matter as they can, especially the K-4, engage and disengage from the fight at will. That is a decisive advantage.