Is Spitfire really the BEST British fighter???

Schöpfel said:

Hello:

In my opinion the Spitfire was obviously the best British figher - up to 1944. First half of 1944 its either Spit XIV or Tempest V, the choice is a matter of taste. Beginning June 1944 I'd have to go with the Mustang III with +25 boost; it had the best all around performance. I can't think of another period of time where the RAF had an aircraft with such an enormous quality advantage over the Lufwaffe as the highly boosted Mustang IIIs had during the summer of 1944.

p.s. nice site RG_Lunatic

Click to expand...

According to a book I have here (comparing the Spitfire Mk. IX to the Mustang III), prefering one to an other was only a question of personnal taste. Those aircraft had approximately the same performances.

- The Mustang III had a greater range
- The Mustang III was faster of +/- 32 km/h
- Their speed was equivalent between 10 and 15,000 feet and between 25,000 and 32,000 feet
- The Spitfire Mk. IX had a better climb
- In a dive, the Mustang III could desengage quickly
- The Spitfire Mk. IX could out turn the Mustang III, even with the flaps down
- The Spitfire Mk. IX had a better rool rate at normal speed, but were the same at 350 km/h
- The Spitfire Mk. IX had a greater punch (2 x 20mm + 4 .303 compared to 4 x Browning machine guns for the Mustang III)

cheddar cheese said:

The Spit could easily deal with the Fw-190 by about the Mk.VIII. It is also widely recognised that the Mk.XIV was the best dogfighter of the war...I havent heard of any combat reports with the 262's but if the P-47 could manage them im sure the Spitfire could. I would say it was easily Britains best fighter.

Click to expand...

Egads

First off, the Spitfire was never a match for the Focke Wulf. Certainly not the VIII. And it never "Easily" dealt with anything the Luftwaffe had in the air. It was slower or same speeded for much of its incarnation and only reached the ability to climb out of trouble (against the Focke Wulf ) with the IXc and even then it wasn't faster and always had an anemic roll rate unless compared to the underwing Gondola 109G-6...lol. The IXc was however the first Spitfire to reach a form of parity with the Focke Wulf. Though, both it and its successor paid dearly in maneuverability and responsiveness for the speed to even the energy equation somewhat.

The Spitfire is undoubtely the most overrated plane of that front. If it was up to the Spitifires to win the war by guarding the daylight bombers. The war would in all likelihood still be waging. The P-47 and P-51 won the air war over Europe. The Spitfire looked good on the bench. It was safer there.

The leading British ace of the war was Jim Johnson. He had 38 confirmed kills. Kinda puts things in perspective doesnt it?

Dalton, you are wrong. Or, as we say in French : "You're out of the track".

In the same book than the Mustang VS Spitfire comparison, I got an other chapiter about the Spitfire Mk. IX VS the Focke-Wulf FW 190A.

Here it goes :

- The Spitfire was faster at medium and high altitude (5 to 10 km/h)
- The FW-190 was faster at low altitude (5 to 10 km/h)
- The Spitfire had a better climb, it was even more noticable over 22,000 feet
- The FW-190 was faster and more manoeuvrable in dive
- The Spitfire was better in sharp turns

And concerning the British Aces, keep a thing in mind : most of Allied Aces (excluding USA) flew Spitfires. (James Edgar Johnson, Pierre H. Clostermann...)

Moreover, the US Navy bought Spitfires for use on carriers because they couldn't successfully land a P-51 on them.

Don't piss on the Spitfire, it was a better plane than you could imagine.

Maestro,

The P-51D was carrier qualified. This was done in the fall of 1944 using the Shangri-la.


DJ_Dalton,

if you are going to name aces, please get the name correct. Johnson's name was James E. "Johnny" not Jim. The top RAF ace was Marmaduke T.St. J. Pattle.

I would not put to much stock in what Deighton has to say.

Johnson was the RAF's top scoring Ace with 38 kills, all from a spit, all were signle engined planes, only holed once..........

I agree with Lanc, I always heard of J. E. Johnson as the top RAF ace with 38 victories.

I thought Pattle was the RAF's second leading ace...

Maestro said:

Dalton, you are wrong. Or, as we say in French : "You're out of the track".

In the same book than the Mustang VS Spitfire comparison, I got an other chapiter about the Spitfire Mk. IX VS the Focke-Wulf FW 190A.

Here it goes :

- The Spitfire was faster at medium and high altitude (5 to 10 km/h)
- The FW-190 was faster at low altitude (5 to 10 km/h)
- The Spitfire had a better climb, it was even more noticable over 22,000 feet
- The FW-190 was faster and more manoeuvrable in dive
- The Spitfire was better in sharp turns

And concerning the British Aces, keep a thing in mind : most of Allied Aces (excluding USA) flew Spitfires. (James Edgar Johnson, Pierre H. Clostermann...)

Moreover, the US Navy bought Spitfires for use on carriers because they couldn't successfully land a P-51 on them.

Don't piss on the Spitfire, it was a better plane than you could imagine.

Click to expand...

R. Lenard posted shots of P-51s on carriers B-25s too.

The P-51 and the Spits never operated operationaly from carriers simply because 1) The Navy used only AIR cooled engines and 2) in the Hellcat/Corsair they had perfectly capable aircraft with better range and capacity for ordanance.

KraziKanuK said:

Maestro,


DJ_Dalton,

if you are going to name aces, please get the name correct. Johnson's name was James E. "Johnny" not Jim. The top RAF ace was Marmaduke T.St. J. Pattle.

I would not put to much stock in what Deighton has to say.

Click to expand...

Well, forgive me on the precise spelling of the first name., though I think I identified the number of "confirmed" victories properly. (38). If he had scored say 125 victories I might remember with detail the spelling of a name, but when a guy claims 38, James, Jim, Johnny, Jennifer...it really doesnt matter. I don't mispell Erich Hartmann, Gunther Rall or Hiroyoshi Nishizawa.

Pat Pattle, (A South African) is credited with 41 victories. Mostly Fiats and Italian bomberst. He is said to have downed a couple 109's. E versions, but he ws dead by 1941 and never flew a Spitfire. Probably would have eschewed it.

The most overrated plane of the Western Front is the Spitfire. Of the Eastern Front the Yak-9 in all its variants.

Between the two its close. They would have been a good matchup.

Overrated ? Damn, Dalton ! You can't read ? I shown you evidence that it was NOT.

Maestro said:

Dalton, you are wrong. Or, as we say in French : "You're out of the track".

In the same book than the Mustang VS Spitfire comparison, I got an other chapiter about the Spitfire Mk. IX VS the Focke-Wulf FW 190A.

Here it goes :

- The Spitfire was faster at medium and high altitude (5 to 10 km/h)
- The FW-190 was faster at low altitude (5 to 10 km/h)
- The Spitfire had a better climb, it was even more noticable over 22,000 feet
- The FW-190 was faster and more manoeuvrable in dive
- The Spitfire was better in sharp turns

Don't piss on the Spitfire, it was a better plane than you could imagine.

Click to expand...

If you still think that the Spitfire was a piece of sh*t after seeing that, either you're frigging blind or you're stupid.

GO MAESTRO - GO MAESTRO!

I agree with you!

wmaxt said:

R. Lenard posted shots of P-51s on carriers B-25s too.

The P-51 and the Spits never operated operationaly from carriers simply because 1) The Navy used only AIR cooled engines and 2) in the Hellcat/Corsair they had perfectly capable aircraft with better range and capacity for ordanance.

Click to expand...

Those P-51 pics were taken during carrier qualifying trials. Acrually the USN was consider using the P-51 because of its range. The capture of some islands negated this consideration.

The Brits used Spits from carriers.

The thing is that over Britain there weren't the numbers of German planes as there were over Germany, Russia etc. Richard Bong was the highest scoring American ace but he "only" got 40 kills

"The thing is that over Britain there weren't the numbers of German planes as there were over Germany, Russia etc. Richard Bong was the highest scoring American ace but he "only" got 40 kills"

No, I didn't say the Spitfire was a complete piece of shit. It was just the most overrated plane of the Western Front. The arguement that the British aces didn't down as many Germans because the German planes were lacking in numbers just doesnt hold water. Mainly because the Germans killed large numbers of Spitfires in engagements. (I will grant the FW190 was responsible for a lot of that but the Bf-109's dropped Spitfires in their manner as well.) The Germans were there to be shot down, if the British pilots were able to manage it. Even a guy like Johnson got victories vs. Bombers and the like. Though he got his share of FW's and Bf's. He was good as far as his plane allowed him to be. The Spitfire was a dueling machine. The German Planes murder weapons. That was the difference.

Even the historians will tell you that it wasn't the Spitfire that won the Battle of Britian. It was the Hurricane. The Spitfire had lines that were appealing and it got a nice reputation among the populace but the reason for it was that the British goverment sold the people on its role as the lead protectorate. What it actually accomplished was far removed from the impression left by the propaganda.

Even the comparative tests are full of propaganda. All the nice data didn't hold water, so you have to ask yourself, Why? Restriction of ata, testing a gondola German plane, failure to test a contemporary of the XIV (G-10). You have to judge the merits by the combat and there the Spitfire was certainly at a disadvantage unless the German pilots got in or were forced into a sustained turn fight.

One of the leading Luftwaffe Aces was Hans Philip. He downed 178 Eastern Front planes and 28 Western Front craft. To paraphrase him he stated:

"It is a joy to fly among 20 Spitfires utilizing my aircrafts abilities vs those of the Spitfire. It is another thing altogether to fly into a formation of massed bombers with their arrayed defensive guns and be forced to drive into that maelstrom. It makes one understand that one is mortal"

Very prophetic words by Philip. He was killed shortly thereafter in a attack vs bomber formations.

The Spitfire was respected. It was not feared. Those questioning its import are always gonna win the arguement based on the head to head matchups. The Spitfire just wasn't especially effective vs. the Luftwaffe Fighters. It did have some strengths.

"The Spitfire just wasn't especially effective vs. the Luftwaffe Fighters."


Is that TRUE????????

Was Germans held technological superiority over all its rivals: on land, on sea, and in the air????????????????

Dalton...

Excuse me but that is hogwash. The Spitfire was the superior plane when compared with its rival Bf109 at almost any point in the war after 1941. There is very little comparison data vs. the G-10 because the G-10 came into the war so late. Figures I have are that it didn't enter signficant service until after October 1944 - by then the Allies owned the skies. The Spitfire XIV entered the war about a year earlier.

If you take a look at Spitfire Mk XIV versus Me 109 G/K - A Performance Comparison, every reasonable effort is made to make a fair comparsion between the two rivals.

Furthermore, a lot of the performance of the Bf109G-10 (and the G-14 and K) are gained through use of "Special Emergency Power", which was not really that valuable for combat operations. Use of the GM1 (NO2) system required the right load and rpm conditions and MW50 also be available. For most reasonable combat comparisons MW50 boosted performance but not GM1 should be considered.

Also, as I've mentioned before, the Bf109's had very limited top speed performance - the cooling system simply didn't work very well at high speeds because of the boundary layer seperation issues. Messershmitt chose to accept this limitation rather than suffer the increased drag and weight of increasing the scoop size, radiator size, and coolant capacity. The British on the otherhand, made the other choice, enlarging the cooling system and scoop mouths to try to injest the turbulent air and get what cooling could be had from it and increasing the available power to overcome the drag/weight penalties. Neither solution was optimal, but the German solution was more limiting.

Also, generally speaking the Spitfire had more effective firepower from about the Spit V on, and with the Spit XIV it also had a much superior gunsight. And Spitfire pilot enjoyed much better visability than the 109 pilot from about the Spit V on. The pilots ability to see the enemy first is a huge advantage.

In general the Bf109 simply was not as adaptable as the Spitfire. It was at its peak with the F model, after that it was increasingly obsolete.

http://www.faqs.org/docs/air/avbf1091.html gives a lot of detail on the Bf109.

In General though, I'd say both the Bf109 and the Spitfire shared the same basic flaw - both were very much limited to the interception role. They could only be used offensively with the saftey of overwhelming ground superiority, so they could operate from fields very near the front lines. You don't win wars by relying on interceptors.

The FW's were much more competitive, but also lacked range. Furthermore, the FW190A's lacked high-altitude performance, a critical weakness, and both the P-51 and P-47 were more than a match for them anyway. So few D's and Ta's saw combat as to have made little difference one way or another.

=S=

Lunatic

The Spit XIV equiped 616 in Jan 44. The Spit 21 in early 45. The G-10 and K-4 production started in Oct 44.

Some quotes from other sources:

"Olivier Lefebvre, noted authority on the BF 109, has stated:

The DB605DM was cleared up to 1.75ata, the DB605DB pushed the limit up to 1.8ata, both could be sustained with use of either B4+MW-50 (as mentionned in various documents, even if it was an afterthought in the DM case) or C3-MW-50. However the DB605DC max boost at 1.98ata could be achieved with use of C3+MW-50 only.

As for the fuel supply, I own copies showing detailed stockpile status for February-April 1945... But yes the C3 was definitely scarce.

As of March 1945 only a handful of 109 gruppen were using C3 for their mounts, one of the few being the II/JG11 which were responsible for testing the 605DB/DC over January-March 1945. According to a document dated late January 1945 coming from DB the 1.80 had just been cleared following serious troubles (pre-ignition) reported by the unit testing the 1.80 ata boost. It is also noted that following the clearance of the 1.8ata boost the 1.98ata operational tests could now begin but with concern about the sparkplugs thermal resistance IIRC. C3 was not used by 109 units until the 1.98ata boost was cleared, they relied on B4+MW-50 so that C3 could go to the 190 units. And even after the clearance only few gruppen got it because of shortages due not only to C3 production but also to C3 delivery to the units.

AFAIK 1.98ata boost was cleared late February but it seems to have been slowly introduced into service, I suspect the adjustments needed on the engine and the change of sparkplugs type (supply problems ???) took longer than expected. From other documents I know that C3 and B4 had severe quality problems beginning in late 1944. While it was not much of a problem with low boost, it had some serious effect on higher boost, so it might also have slowed down the introduction of 1.98ata boost. At least DB documents underlined the need for cleaner fuels than those in use at that time. You can safely assume that by March 1945 1.98 ata boost was being introduced, unfortunately I do not have much details for April 1945, but I doubt it would have changed much, given the situation."

So much for the use of 'boost juices''.

This is what a nazi Germany lovin zealot says about the MW graph:

"No, my darling, what Mike Williams does is taking the DC graph which notes 'ohne MW', and then puts its data on his own chart, and claims it`s maximum performance on 1.8ata, when it`s not. Of course if he`d choose the right chart, he would have to show with much better performance both low and high.

Then he tooks the data for the slower K-6, but lists it as a K-4 on his own. Let`s not even mention the really lowly trick of putting the 109K with thin yellow line on white background, so that everyone will have difficulty seeing how badly the K-4 outpaced the SpitXIV - even compared to Mike`s own imaginative performance curve on +21 lbs.
Really classy from Mike, lowest performance on low boost and wrongly labeled, hardly visible curves for high boost.

The he gets data for a 3550 kg projected K-4 graphs from May 1944, 200 kg heavier than the normal K-4 - yeah, 'fair' representation of climb performance! And of course a little more tricks for Sondernotleistung, Mike`s chart says it 'experimental propellor'. The original doc says the serial and experimental prop produces the same climb performance, but nice trick to dismiss the numbers."

This is the type of graph he posts to prove how superior German a/c were. Notice he has no Spit XIV or American a/c on the graph.

DJ_Dalton said:

"The thing is that over Britain there weren't the numbers of German planes as there were over Germany, Russia etc. Richard Bong was the highest scoring American ace but he "only" got 40 kills"

No, I didn't say the Spitfire was a complete piece of s**t. It was just the most overrated plane of the Western Front. The arguement that the British aces didn't down as many Germans because the German planes were lacking in numbers just doesnt hold water. Mainly because the Germans killed large numbers of Spitfires in engagements. (I will grant the FW190 was responsible for a lot of that but the Bf-109's dropped Spitfires in their manner as well.) The Germans were there to be shot down, if the British pilots were able to manage it. Even a guy like Johnson got victories vs. Bombers and the like. Though he got his share of FW's and Bf's. He was good as far as his plane allowed him to be. The Spitfire was a dueling machine. The German Planes murder weapons. That was the difference.

Even the historians will tell you that it wasn't the Spitfire that won the Battle of Britian. It was the Hurricane. The Spitfire had lines that were appealing and it got a nice reputation among the populace but the reason for it was that the British goverment sold the people on its role as the lead protectorate. What it actually accomplished was far removed from the impression left by the propaganda.

Even the comparative tests are full of propaganda. All the nice data didn't hold water, so you have to ask yourself, Why? Restriction of ata, testing a gondola German plane, failure to test a contemporary of the XIV (G-10). You have to judge the merits by the combat and there the Spitfire was certainly at a disadvantage unless the German pilots got in or were forced into a sustained turn fight.

One of the leading Luftwaffe Aces was Hans Philip. He downed 178 Eastern Front planes and 28 Western Front craft. To paraphrase him he stated:

"It is a joy to fly among 20 Spitfires utilizing my aircrafts abilities vs those of the Spitfire. It is another thing altogether to fly into a formation of massed bombers with their arrayed defensive guns and be forced to drive into that maelstrom. It makes one understand that one is mortal"

Very prophetic words by Philip. He was killed shortly thereafter in a attack vs bomber formations.

The Spitfire was respected. It was not feared. Those questioning its import are always gonna win the arguement based on the head to head matchups. The Spitfire just wasn't especially effective vs. the Luftwaffe Fighters. It did have some strengths.

Click to expand...

Dalton, you've just proved me that you're a jerk. (Now I understand why Les could be so aggressive with some newbies.)

May be the spitfire didn't win the BoB, but it got a kill ratio of 1:10 during that battle (and I think it kept that ratio until the end of the war). Does a crap plane could have done that ? No.

The reason why it didn't won that battle is because the Spitfire Mk. I was relatively new so the RAF fighter groups were mostly equiped with Hurricanes.

Also, the Hurricanes were told to attack the bombers while the Spitfires would take on the fighters. Why ? Because the Hurricane could take more damages and the Spitfire was more manoeuvrable.

Also, when Hitler (or Goering, can't remember) asked Galland what he needed to win against the RAF, he replied : "A squadron of Spitfires".

Finaly, I would like to point out an oxymoron you made. At the beginning of your post, you said :

"The arguement that the British aces didn't down as many Germans because the German planes were lacking in numbers just doesnt hold water."

Then you said :

"One of the leading Luftwaffe Aces was Hans Philip. He downed 178 Eastern Front planes and 28 Western Front craft."

How can you say that when you can't name a German pilot who scored more than 40 victories on the Western Front ?

Priller scored 68 victories against Spitfres on the Western front, out of a total of 101 kills.

Maestro said:

[

How can you say that when you can't name a German pilot who scored more than 40 victories on the Western Front ?

Click to expand...

Who says I can't name German Pilots that exceeded 40 Western Front victories?...lol Theres a slew of them and whats significant is that theres not a single allied pilot to exceed that number and the Brits fought the whole war. (Pat Pattle excepted) Is there huge conclusion jumping going on here by those that think the Spitifire was more than a Yak 9?

I chose Philip for a number of reasons One was that he dwarfed the records of the Western pilots. Another was that he moved from the East to the West front effortlessly and was as at ease destroying Spitfires as Yaks. The most important reason was to show how many of the top Luftwaffe met their ends vs bombers and not the Wests fighter aircraft.

By the way MOST 109's were lost to takeoffs and landings due to their power and narrow track. The ground was a more significant adversary than Spiffires.

When Johnson took a cannon they retired him. I seem to recall that was late 1944, early 1945. Can't lose the kingdoms leading ace (38)...lol

You don't have the data to win this arguement. Give it up.