Griffon Spitfire was better than any Bf109?

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

Milosh said:
Greg, stop listening to Kurfurst. The only K-4s that could compete with the Spit XIV was those that had MW50. This wasn't authorized til late March '45 and is questionable if methanol was readily available at that time.
Click to expand...

The MW50 system in the Bf 109 G became fitted and retrofitted from early May '44 onwards, after development and testing from late '43 onwards in the DB 605 A and the DB 605 AS.
The delivery of the Bf 109 K-4 seems to have begun in Oct '44 and the engine was the DB 605 DM with MW50. In late '44 the main production DB 605 D engines for the Bf 109 K-4 became the DB 605 DB and DC versions, all with MW50.
Where Methanol was in short supply, MW30 was used or Ethanol as EW50.

Eng
 
Very difficult to say what was actually used in reality in the last few months. I`m doubtful that they stuck only to "released and approved" measures at the end,
we know for example that DB were testing at up to 2.3ata (24th Jan 1945, Niederschrift 6730), however its doubtful that this was in any real way operationally significant even if it did occur as the fit and finish of the planes from mid 1944 onwards was so awful, that these extra engine performance steps were pretty much needed just to get the planes
to their factory specified performance (this is mentioned in some post war interrogations). A lot of the measures taken were also to try to get B4 fuel to the knock limit of C3, by overloading with TEL at the cost of reduced life, again, its nearly impossible to know how much of that really happened.

My personal view is that K4`s (and indeed all Luftwaffe fighters) in combat in the last months were probably operating below their design performance most of the time. In general the Luftwaffe in WW2 without engine problems would have been a significantly more difficult force to be reckoned with, and generally speaking I dont think many of their aircraft really operationally achieved their potential, going right back even to the 109F and first 190`s.

If you are really interested in what was actually happening in the air at the time. personally - I think arguing about the performance curves is a complete waste of time. They merely indicate the rough potential of the airframe in ideal circumstances, which is ok-ish for Allied aircraft, but a complete waste of time for Axis planes, roughly starting when the Jaegerstab programmes began.

Discussion of the curves is valid, but only for general talk about the potentialites for the designs, not what was happening operationally in those moments.




 
Last edited:
The Bf 109 in late 1944 was like a 75 year old man working an office job, desperately looking to retire, but there's no one in the company who can replace him, and all the candidates in the interviews were even less able to do the job than this man with rapidly failing eyesight and trembling hands. Germany wanted to replace it, but the 190s lacked the performance above 4km necessary for them to drop the 109s, and none of the attempted follow up designs were any good: Bf 209 was literally just a propaganda racing plane, Me 309 was like an Airacobra with crippling weight problems, Me 209 II was at least acceptable, but by this point the 190D series was a competitor, and trashed it.

Yeah, on paper it was still good, and it wasn't a BAD plane. The problem is that in order to keep it competitive in performance, they had to gut its already shaky taxiing abilities, and it just kept getting heavier. I definitely leaned into hyperbole there, but I needed to get the point across that the 109 was no spring chicken anymore. It was actually OLDER than the Spitfire, and the Spitfire was actually a bit of a freak in terms of how well it could keep up with the technology creep.
 
All spitfire versions were superior to the contemporary 109 versions. Only the Bf109F4 , on paper, had parity with the very early spitfires V. If it s engine performed according to the specifications, and that is doubtful.
As for the Mw50. Even if it worked correctly it was very very late. The eastern front units probably took deliveries in numbers only in 1945. In autumn 1944 top aces like hartman , lipfert, hafner were flying Bf109G6s. In some cases , unit leaders declined to replace their G6s with K4s due to the terrible building quality
In mid war the operational 109s were crippled by the problems of the Db605A. In the final year the building quality made the aircraft no competitive no matter the engine .
In my opinion a Bf109 with redesigned radiators, good building quality, and all reasonable aerodynamic improvements should be able for 700km/h even on Db605A. ( if the engine works properly)
With all the new evidence we have today,it is certain that the average operational German fighter after middle 1942 was terribly outperformed on the western front.
 
Eric Brown was credited with four air victories and the DFC,
The last statement is perhaps a bit too bold. Wing Captain Brown was occasionally a little fuzzy on some technical details (i.e. not infallible) and while occasionally wrong, he was never uncertain.
 
Last edited:
Could someone post the link to the YouTube channel Armoured Carriers? There's a great show about Captain Brown on how to go about downing FW 200s.
 
Let's just agree to disagree.

The Bf 109K was a good fighter on or very near the top tier for late 1944-type airplanes. It wasn't technically as good as late-war Allied fighters, but could handle most contemporary Allied fighters that were in service if competently-flown by a veteran familiar with the type. Unfortunately, veterans were in short supply at the time, much as were veteran Japanese Naval pilots in short supply for the A6M series.

What in the world does, "they had to gut its already shaky taxiing abilities" mean?

The Bf 109K-4 wasn't any harder to take off or land than a Bf 109F, which was the earliest version of the same airframe and fitment after the Bf109E cleanup.

Your characterizing it as completely obsolete flies in the face of the fact that the Bf 109, all by itself and flown by whoever was available at the time, shot down more enemy aircraft than any other fighter in the entire history of fighters. It's like saying the long-time world champion wasn't any good after his last fight just because he didn't score a round 1 knockout.

You might recall that Bf 109 derivatives (Avia S-199s) were in first-line service with Czech and Israeli Air Forces until 1957. By comparison, the "better" Tempest was retired in 1953. The P-51D, which very definitely WAS better than a Bf 109 of any sort, lasted a bit longer, but only in very small quantities in very small Air Forces who couldn't afford jets.

I have never been exactly a huge fan of the Bf 109, but I have always admitted that it always did better than I expected, even late-war, versus whomever it was flown against when operated by competent pilots.
 
Last edited:
GregP said:
What in the world does, "they had to gut its already shaly taxiing abilities" mean? The Bf 109K-4 wasn't any harder to take off or land than a Bf 109F, which was the earliest version of the same airframe and fitment after the Bf109E cleanup.
Click to expand...
Late model 109s got extended tail wheels to help with landings.

GregP said:
Your characterizing it as completely obsolete flies in the face of the fact that the Bf 109, all by itself and flown by whoever was available at the time, shot down more enemy aircraft than any other fighter in the entire history of fighters.
Click to expand...
When it is one of two available fighters that the German had, yah it would shoot down many other a/c.

GregP said:
You might recall that Bf 109 derivatives (Avia S-199s) were in first-line service with Czech and Israeli Air Forces until 1957.
Click to expand...
When that is all you have, you keep them in service as long as possible. The S-199s were real dogs.
 

Let's see, so the extended tailwheel helped? Thanks for making my point!

Success is success. It is the fighter with the most kills, any way you cut the data. The P-51 got the most ETO kills of any USAAF fighter, but you don't see many people saying that is only because it was the fighter that flew escort missions. What is your point here? Your last statement says "you use what you have," and that is usually quite true.

Never said I like the S-199. I said it was in front line service until 1957. It was.

Love your cheap shots, Milosh. Good sniping.

Cheers.
 
Perhaps you are correct.

But I really don't think they "had to gut the already shaky taxiing abilities," I think they didn't affect taxiing abilities at all. What they DID affect was the low-speed manners of the airframe that was becoming heavier, as most fighter airframes did. I can't think of ONE that didn't except for those prototypes that never made production.

The K-4 wasn't any harder to take off than a late-model Bf 109G. That is, anyone trained on the Bf 109G would have no trouble with a Bf 109K.

Of course, that's just my opinion. But it is also the opinion of a couple of former Luftwaffe Bf 109 pilots I have spoken with in the past. I asked specifically about takeoff and landing characteristics. Both allowed that, as long as you were trained on it and were operating from grass, it wasn't especially difficult to operate safely. Both said they would not have looked forward to trying it from pavement.
 
I wasn't talking about the K vs the G. I was talking about the G vs the F. A heavier engine with higher chance of catching fire, and heavier and heavier guns and armor. Yes, they eventually worked out the kinks with engine fires, but that's still a pretty massive problem.

Yes, EVERY plane gets heavier as time goes on, but the 109 was designed with a relatively small wing to begin with. Putting all of that extra weight into a small plane is not good.


I'll admit, "taxiing characteristics" was a very vague thing to say, and I didn't make it clear I meant the 605 engined 109s as a whole.


Also, while we're talking about it, the S-199 is honestly not a reasonable plane to use as an example of anything except possibly as a counterpoint to Blackburn creating the worst aircraft. Yes, it worked, technically. Yes, it was used for a long time. But on a technical level, it was a plane that made all of the sacrifices of the Bf 109G, and received none of the benefits. They used it because they had spare 109 airframes lying around, and literally ANYTHING was better than not having an airforce, not because the result was somehow good. I would genuinely argue that, ignoring the production reasons that made the decision, a late war A6M5 would be a safer, better performing aircraft with comparable firepower.

If you were to use the Ha-1112 as an example, that would be a bit more reasonable, but the S-199 could reasonably be argued as the worst 109 for its era of them all, and in direct comparison, really only better than the pre-DB models
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

S
Fw 190D-9 vs. Spitfire Mk. XIV, same engines
Replies
8
Views
1K
dedalos
D
S
Spitfire with proper meredith effect
2 3
Replies
41
Views
3K
Shortround6
S
Spitfire vs Me-109
Replies
3
Views
1K
PAT303
P
C
Curious of Spitfire Model
Replies
8
Views
178
Wurger
Tropical performance of Hurricane and Spitfire
Replies
18
Views
2K
EwenS
E
Menu
Log in
Register