Is Spitfire really the BEST British fighter???

[DJ_Dalton]

That's just pure crap Dalton, the Spitfire was a relatively poor ground attack plane and suffered badly when it tried that mission.

Yes it was poor. It did not take damage very well. Handled horribly damaged and had an inline motor that could fail with minimal damage.

And pointing to Lemkes success is again based really not upon his ability so much as that of his flight wing. Imagine how much easier it was to rack up the kills when you flew with a dozen or more other fighter pilots all trying to get you into the kill position. To be significant, you need to quote his unit's kills and losses

I looked at squadron kills once for the Luftwaffe and they were huge, but it got bad at the end of the war against Jugs and Stangs. Most of their 109's went down due to landing and takeoff accidents, not battle losses. I'd have to pull the links again. But what you're argueing is not consistent with reality by 1944. The Germans were always outnumbered and they used the Schwarm technique the same way the Allies used the finger four. I'm sure you're well aware of the Nowotney Schwarm and JG54's huge across the board successes. As pertains to Lemke specifically he didn't take command until 6.23.44 and by then he'd already downed his last Spitfire. (There is a discrepancy in the kills in this link) It doesnt' mean he didn't lead a Schwarm. It doesn't mean he did either. My guess is he was number 1. He obviously had a good eye.

http://www.luftwaffe.cz/lemkes.html

The plane that won the war was the Jug. Theres little doubt about it. The P-51 was probably a more dangerous dogfight adversary, but what the Jug did it did very well and it did it all. P-51's couldnt do the ground work either. They fell out of the sky in that role. Leading Mustang ace of the war was killed in that endeavor. They say his own AA got him. I seriously doubt that, but thats another story.

Spit IX was a pig under the high engine load, especially when up motored. Focke Wulf were far too much plane for it. 109's too role specific for it. I have no idea where you're coming from.

 

[Anonymous]

Most Spitfire pilots consdiered the IX to be the best dogfighter of all the Spitfires. I have no idea where you're comming from Dalton.

=S=

Lunatic

 

[DJ_Dalton]

Most Spitfire pilots consdiered the IX to be the best dogfighter of all the Spitfires. I have no idea where you're comming from Dalton.

=S=

Lunatic

Yeah, I'd say so too. But, it needed the speed and climb rate to get out of the "duck on a pond" mode with the FW190. But what it got changed it from a nimble plane to a plane that better show up in large numbers because there weren't gonna be many tail shot hose downs. If became more like a 109, but without equal zoom and dive characteristics. It got very fast in the end. It had too.

http://www.luftwaffe.cz/glunz.html

 

[Anonymous]

Dive characteristics? The 109 was the plane lagging in dive characterisics, not the Spitfire. Early on the 109 had the edge but by the Bf109G vs. the Spit IX this had changed!

The maximum dive speed of the Bf109G was about 465 mph, the Spitfire IX was able to mange speeds in excess of 525 mph and still recover.

=S=

Lunatic

 

[DJ_Dalton]

Dive characteristics? The 109 was the plane lagging in dive characterisics, not the Spitfire. Early on the 109 had the edge but by the Bf109G vs. the Spit IX this had changed!

hmmmm, Not Exactly.......first off let me refer you to your erstwhile Spitfire fanatic "Krazy Kanuckistani". From his voluminous library he produced the following regarding maximum dive speeds for the IX and the 109G:

http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/viewtopic.php?p=59426#59426

Please note the Luftwaffe warning was not to exceed 750 kph. Similar to boost that was an item at the option of the pilot in emergency situations. While a reading of the Spit IX's dive ability is that the indicated speeds are simply the maximum possible. (Caveat, they are IAS and probably further from true air speed at altitude.) If you bother reading this whole link you'll notice the German ministry said the speeds were "widely exceeded" by German pilots:

http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/viewtopic.php?p=59536#59536

Now, one other little item. The seminal testing of the Bf-109G-6/R6 bomber interceptor configuration. (Gondolas):

"Dive: During the initial part of the dive, the 109 draws away slightly, but when a speed of 380 mph [611 km/hr] is reached the Spitfire XIV begins to gain on the 109. ":

http://www.odyssey.dircon.co.uk/Spitfire14v109.htm

Please note that is the best engined Spitfire (albeit horribly unmaneuverable) that Supermarine ever produced. The test was against a gondola winged G6 run at less than maximum boost and the best the finest British energy plane ever produced could do is lose ground at first and then "begin to gain"....whatever that means.

The maximum dive speed of the Bf109G was about 465 mph, the Spitfire IX was able to mange speeds in excess of 525 mph and still recover.

The dive speed you refer to is approximately 850 kph. I assure you the German craft actually dived at that speed. I've read no substance indicating the late war British did.

Lastly, you need to read about the standard evasion techniques the Luftwaffe employed when bounced by superior numbers of Spitfires. I have no idea what makes you think the Spitfires ever ran down German planes in dives.

Keep in mind the following data is from a 1942 FW190A run at minimal boost, once again against the best "performing" fighter the United Kingdom ever produced:

"Conclusions: In defence, the Spitfire XIV should us its remarkable maximum climb and turning circle against enemy aircraft. In the attack it can affort to 'mix it' but should beware of the quick roll and dive.
If this manoeuvre is used by a FW190 and the Spitfire XIV follows, it will probably not be able to close
the range until the FW190 has pulled out of its dive.":

http://www.odyssey.dircon.co.uk/Spitfire14v190.htm


If I were you I'd wave the white flag, offer my most sincere apologies, acknowledge my master and pledge an oath of fealty and obediance.

I'm not going to exceed Erich Hartmanns confirmed kill totals on this board. It would be inappropriate. Granted the planes I get to fly are not on a par with how his produced but I still possess a mere fraction of his ability.

If anyone has any meat. They better bring it out now.

Below are four flyers from JG2 every single one of them exceeded the highest scoring Allie Ace. They may have been a Schwarm. I don't know.

http://www.luftwaffe.cz/oesau.html

 

[Maestro]

If I was you, Dalton, I would not "take all infos on the internet for cash". I read several of the following books. And trust me, you should do the same.

My comparisons don't come from a web site, but from an old book (in French). That book took sources from several other books. Here are all of them :

Spitfire At War Vol 1 2...........................................Alfred Price - Ian Allan
Le Grand Cirque (The Great Show)............................Pierre H. Clostermann - Corgi
Aircraft In Profile.....................................................Profile Publications
Spitfire Story..........................................................Alfred Price - Arms Armour
I Flew For The Führer...............................................Heinz Knocke - Evans
Luftwaffe Night Units 1939-45...................................Osprey - Jerry Scutts
Wings Of The Weird And Wonderful Vol. 2.................Airlife - Capt. Eric Brown
High Flyers.............................................................Micheal Fopp - Greenhill Books
WW2 Fighter Conflict...............................................Alfred Price - PBS
United States Army in World War II :
The European Theater of Operations,
Cross Channel Attack..............................................Gordon A. Harrison,Bureau du Chef de l'Histoire Militaire,Army Department,Washington D.C., 1951
Typhoon/Tempest In Action.....................................Jerry Scutts - Squadron Signal

That's all of them.

Personnally, I prefer to trust books written by really interrested writers (Pierre H. Clostermann was the leading French Ace of WW II (32 victories) and flew Spitfires, Typhoons and Tempests in the RAF.) than trust anybody who build up a web site and claim to know what he is talking about. Think about it...

 

[DJ_Dalton]

Personnally, I prefer to trust books written by really interrested writers (Pierre H. Clostermann was the leading French Ace of WW II (32 victories) and flew Spitfires, Typhoons and Tempests in the RAF.) than trust anybody who build up a web site and claim to know what he is talking about. Think about it...

Maestro I have no idea what you're talking about.

I've read accounts from the Experten and others. The Blonde Knight, Rall's Book and several others.

The IX is widely recognized as the best Spit dogfighter. It still retained a little bit of its former dexterity with the up engined Merlins. It rolled like a pig and choked for nourishment in the paces the Jerrys put it through, but you have to understand the reality of carburation and when the rolls and inverted moves affected separation.

Heres a little link for the up motored IX tested against the Bf 109G6/U2 (This is the same as an R/6. Its the Gondola version. Pay particular attention to the Dive/Climb because its in these formulas that the 109's dominated the Spitfires. They just couldn't compete. EVER:

"Dive
19.........Comparitive dives between the two aircraft have shown that the Me.109 can leave the Spitfire without any difficulty.

Climb
18.........The climb of the Spitfire is superior to that of the Me.109 at all heights. It has a particularly marked advantage below 13,000 feet using 18 lbs.boost, and this is naturally more pronounced when using 25 lbs. boost. When both aircraft are pulled up into a climb from a dive, the performance is almost identical, but when climbing speed is reached the Spitfire slowly pulls away. "

Note: they are using 25lb Boost against a Gondola laden 109..lol

http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/109gtac.html

Its not just you guys though. The 109 was bad mouthed by creative historians and its why its fallen into disregard despite the fact that theres scores of aces that literally and individually shot down hundreds of planes in it. Really, you'd have to be a complete zealot to not acknowledge there was a problem between what is said now and what happened then.

Its the greatest revisionist history in the annals of those that write historical accounts.

This guy got a Spitfire and two tanks in one pass...lol They say he was shot down 17 times. I'll bet a Spitfire never got him. If you look at his itemized record, I'll bet the bombers took him out most times.

http://www.luftwaffe.cz/eder.html

 

[Maestro]

I suggest you to take a reading course...

It is written "When using a 18 lbs boost" and "When 25 lbs boost is employed". So it was not always used.

And read the repport completely. Particualry the three last points...

"Turning circle
20.........The manoeuvrability of the Spitfire IX in this respect is greatly superior to that of the Me.109 and it easily out-turns the Me.109 in either direction at all speeds.

Rate of Roll
21.........Here again the Spitfire has a marked advantage at all speeds.

Conclusion
22.........The Me.109G has an inferior performance to the Spitfire in all respects with the exception of acceleration in a dive and the slight advantage in speed which it possesses at heights between 16,000 and 20,000 feet."

And then you say it rolled like a pig ? WAKE-UP !

 

[DJ_Dalton]

I suggest you to take a reading course...

It is written "When using a 18 lbs boost" and "When 25 lbs boost is employed". So it was not always used.

And read the repport completely. Particualry the three last points...

"Turning circle
20.........The manoeuvrability of the Spitfire IX in this respect is greatly superior to that of the Me.109 and it easily out-turns the Me.109 in either direction at all speeds.

Rate of Roll
21.........Here again the Spitfire has a marked advantage at all speeds.

Conclusion
22.........The Me.109G has an inferior performance to the Spitfire in all respects with the exception of acceleration in a dive and the slight advantage in speed which it possesses at heights between 16,000 and 20,000 feet."

And then you say it rolled like a pig ? WAKE-UP !

M...

If you want to pay this test any mind, ask them to go back and fly the Spitfire with a drop tank and then we can talk. This 109 WITH GONDOLAS was easily faster in a dive (despite Lunatics claim the IX could outdive the 109) It was faster in level flight at certain altitudes and it zoomed as well.

Roll Rate was impacted by the gondolas. Turning Circle wasn't the planes stongest point and certainly not with gondolas.

Yes!!! If you challenged me to a duel and said you can have a clean Spit IX or a Gondola G6/U2, I'd take the Spit IX and probably kill my adversary. Give me the same two planes and a clean 109 and I'd take the 109 and I know I'd kill him.

 

[Maestro]

There is no mention of gondolas, drop tanks, bombs or whatever in this repport. For both the Spit and 109.

The repports I posted were almost the same results and were made with clean planes.

But I know you will remain saying that the 109 was better and blah, blah, blah, blah... But it's clear that you can't admit the truth. Even when everybody is against you.

Beleive it or not, the Spitfire could match up ANY plane the Luftwaffe had.

 

[DJ_Dalton1]

There is no mention of gondolas, drop tanks, bombs or whatever in this repport.

No there isn't a mention of Gondolas. By July 21, 1944 when Britain acquired the Bf-109 due to landing error, the British were not often in combat wtih German Fighter Aircraft. America had succeeded to that role. So the British really didn't know what they had. They knew it was a version they hadn't seen. They knew it was a 109G-6/U-2. They knew it was Werk No. 412951. So they tested it as it came to them. It was "Wild Sau" A nightfighter/bomber hunter.

In the below link, you'll have to scroll down to Bf 109G-6/U-2
Once you reach that entry it indicates it is Werk No. 412951 and states the following regarding acquisition:

"/JG 1, landed by mistake at Manston in the early hours of 21Jul.1944. It was flown to the RAE":

http://www.luftwaffe-experten.co.uk/uk.html

My first question was "What is the RAE"? and the following link tends to answer that, "Royal Aircraft Establishment":

http://www.luftwaffe-experten.co.uk/raf-farn.html

If you scroll down the list you will see an entry for the below itemized aircraft:

TP814 - Messerschmitt Bf109G-6/U2 - W.Nr.412951 - "White 16" of I./JG301 - crashed November 1944

If you click on that link the following page downloads:

http://www.luftwaffe-experten.co.uk/tp814.html

In the photos you will clearly see a gondola winged 109 with the identification markings (TP-814) and Werk No. (412951) identifying this plane as the Bf 109G-6/U-2 landed at Manston. What is especially significant is the following printed there:

"below: Three images of TP814, this Bf109G-6/U2 was used for tractical trials by the Air Fighter Development Squadron until crashing on take-off in November 1944"

It states it was tested by the "Air Fighter Development Squadron" and of course the next question is "What and where is that?"

In the following link I'd have you look down at the third line, which reads:

"A.F.D.S. Report No. 147" I'm reasonably sure "A.F.D.S." means "Air Fighter Development Squadron":

http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/109gtac.html

If you tend to doubt that, I would suggest going back to the first link in this mystery and look for another Bf 109G-6/U-2 captured during the war. You won't find one and even if you did, it would be gondola winged. The A.F.D.S. clearly identifies the tested 109 as a G-6/U-2.

http://www.luftwaffe-experten.co.uk/uk.html

They tested a bomber hunter and even then probably couldn't operate it like the best German pilots. Its really quite comical that history is written on this comparison.

 

[DAVIDICUS]

DJ_Dalton 1?

What is your relationship, if any, to DJ_Dalton?

 

[Anonymous]

Umm.. Dalton... I have the Bf109G-2 and G-6 manuals. I have test reports for them too, and they don't involve any gondola laden aircraft! These manuals state "The following speeds must not be exceeded at any altitude... 750 kph in dive", and it is pretty clear that if you exceed this the prop will definitely cause the engine to overspeed - and that is a limitation that cannot be exceeded without extreme risk! When diving the pilot had to pay a lot of attention to not overspeeding the engine, a real issue with this plane in a sustained dive.

BTW: max sustained cruising speed is listed as 260 mph.

I also have several wartime documents regaurding the Spitfire:

"Effect of Mach number on dive and recover characteristics", dated March 1944, regaurding Spitfire Mk IX BS. 310 (Merlin 70).

"Level Speed performance with and without a 500 lbs Bomb fitted", dated March 1943, w.r.t Spitfire IX BS.428 (Merlin 61)

"Performance of Spitfire IX aircraft with high and low altitidue versions of the intercooled Merlin Engines" - dated Nov. '42 top Jan '43, w.r.t. Spitfire XI BS.354 (Merlin 9 SM), Spitfire IX BS. 543 (Merlin 66), and Spitfire IX BS.551 (Merlin 70).

"The effect of 'clipping' Spitfire wings", dated 27 March, 1943, w.r.t Spitfire V's AA.937 (Merlin 45) and AB.186 (Merlin 46), Spitfire IX BS.139 (Merlin 61) ,and Spitfire XII's EN221 and EN222 (Griffon IIB).

So far, I've seen no primary source document that indicates, or even claims, the Bf109G could out dive the Spitfire beyond a small advantage at the very start of a dive - and this was not enough to get out of gun range (usually figured as 1200 feet by the British) before the Spitfire started gaining when the two planes were tested in a side by side dive.

Also, you make the negative effects on the Spitfire IX and XIV handling because of the additional weight out to be far more severe than they really were. The 109 suffered much more after the F model than the Spitfire did after the V model.

=S=

Lunatic

PS: RAE is short for A. A.E.E. - which was Boscomb Down - The Royal Airforce "Aircraft and Armament Experimental Establishment".

 

[DJ_Dalton1]

So far, I've seen no primary source document that indicates, or even claims, the Bf109G could out dive the Spitfire beyond a small advantage at the very start of a dive -

I place a great deal of stock in the pilot accounts. Comparative trials don't involve similar maintenance. You can't expect a captured aircraft to perform like an aircraft inventoried by its manufacturing nation. A captured aircraft is out of its element. Those captured on the ground, are captured on the ground for a reason. In other words the British tested Spitfire is going to perform at absolute maximum performance. You know that going in. The captured aircraft performance is entirely debateable and you certainly see that in these tests. Additionally, I don't put huge emphasis on factory testing. I know the British and especially the Russians played all kinds of games with that. Testing without armament. Testing with fuels not generally available at the time of the tests. Using experimental boost. Setting gearing for test conditions. Running at unsustainable rpm. So the issue is, "what is a primary source document"? Comparative testing? Factory testing? Factory testing in what configuration?

I place as much or more emphasis on the anecdotal or combat evidence, because its there that the planes are fully armed for war and pushed to their limits...and this part is important...AND BEYOND. To my mind, its the only place to judge. You don't judge a halfback by his 40 yard dash out of pads. You judge by what he accomplishes on game day. In WWII, in the air, the Germans won on game day vs. the British, but there were a lot of good teams in that division and they didn't win it all.

Supermarine was writing comparative reports two full years after the war ended to "identify" where their planes stood. Why do you think they did that? I won't make you guess. It was because they knew both that they had absorbed a vicious drubbing and that America pulled their fat from the fire They were still in the resolution mode.

Anyway, so primary source document? You really want to base conclusions about which plane did what on non combat testing? You didn't pick this up from the Russian moron they had working at Jaleco referencing bogus documentation did you? I had to point out to them the F4U-4C never saw WWII. They actually didn't know. Anyway, thats another story. Ok, for the third time try this one and keep in mind its a gondola winged Wilde Sau Bf 109G-6/U-2 being tested vs. a cleanly configured Spitfire IX utilizing 25lbs of boost at certain points in the testing:

"Dive
19.........Comparitive dives between the two aircraft have shown that the Me.109 can leave the Spitfire without any difficulty.":

http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/109gtac.html

Also, you make the negative effects on the Spitfire IX and XIV handling because of the additional weight out to be far more severe than they really were. The 109 suffered much more after the F model than the Spitfire did after the V model.

Its not only weight. Its the additional speed that degrades the Spitfire. That big wing is not a high speed maneuver wing. It rolls like a pig under high load. Abysmal.

Heres a little article I read awhile ago. I don't endorse it entirely. I only cite it for the observations. Its in the wartime observations that the truth is hidden by modern p.c. historians:

"Thomas L. Hayes, Jr., a P-51 ace of the 357th Fighter Group with 8 1/2 victories, recalled diving after a fleeing Me-109G until both aircraft neared the sound barrier and their controls locked. Both pilots took measures to slow down, but to Hayes' astonishment, the Me-109 was the first to pull out of its dive. As he belatedly regained control of his Mustang, Hayes was grateful that the German pilot chose to quit while he was ahead and fly home instead of taking advantage of Hayes' momentary helplessness. Hayes also stated that while he saw several Fw-190s stall and even crash during dogfights, he never saw an Me-109 go out of control. "

http://history1900s.about.com/library/prm/blkillingmachine1.htm

How fast do you think they were going in that dive? or do you not believe it?

By the way, if you think its incredulous regarding what some of their aircraft were truly capable of in a pinch don't read about their submarines. You really won't believe it.

 

[Udet]

Maestro:

Dalton was not comparing the Fw190 with obsolete Spitfires, the Mk V in this case.

The Butcher bird on its arrival to JG units in France in early 1942 faced precisely its contemporary RAF foe, which happened to be the Mk VB, and the Spitfire units took a hell of a pounding.

Two famous events of 1942 saw Spitfire squadrons taking heavy losses at the hands of both the Fw190 and the Bf109: the Channel Dash and the Dieppe Raid.

The Spitfire was available in important numbers during 1942, never to find themselves outnumbered. RAF fighter squadrons failed big time to prevail over a Jagdwaffe which had, at the moment, a very important part of its force dealing with the VVS in the east, not to mention the units deployed elsewhere (North Africa, Mediterranean, etc.)

 

[the lancaster kicks ass]

i have read many accounts of comparisons between spits and -109/-190s, most will say the spit was superior, they can't all be wrong, and hell, even german pilots admit the spit was a superior plane.............

 

[Anonymous]

So far, I've seen no primary source document that indicates, or even claims, the Bf109G could out dive the Spitfire beyond a small advantage at the very start of a dive -

I place a great deal of stock in the pilot accounts. Comparative trials don't involve similar maintenance. You can't expect a captured aircraft to perform like an aircraft inventoried by its manufacturing nation. A captured aircraft is out of its element. Those captured on the ground, are captured on the ground for a reason. In other words the British tested Spitfire is going to perform at absolute maximum performance. You know that going in. The captured aircraft performance is entirely debateable and you certainly see that in these tests. Additionally, I don't put huge emphasis on factory testing. I know the British and especially the Russians played all kinds of games with that. Testing without armament. Testing with fuels not generally available at the time of the tests. Using experimental boost. Setting gearing for test conditions. Running at unsustainable rpm. So the issue is, "what is a primary source document"? Comparative testing? Factory testing? Factory testing in what configuration?

Pilot accounts are of limited value. They often mis-identify the opposing plane, especially the specific variant. Pilot skill also enters into the picture big-time. Personal bias is also a huge factor. And then their is the effect of time - which can badly distort such recollections.

All primary source documents have to be taken for what they are. In most cases, I find test documents based upon actual flight tests to be the best source IF they specify all the conditions of the test and any special factors involved. All the test documents I've referenced above do this to the extreme.

I place as much or more emphasis on the anecdotal or combat evidence, because its there that the planes are fully armed for war and pushed to their limits...and this part is important...AND BEYOND. To my mind, its the only place to judge. You don't judge a halfback by his 40 yard dash out of pads. You judge by what he accomplishes on game day. In WWII, in the air, the Germans won on game day vs. the British, but there were a lot of good teams in that division and they didn't win it all.

The British did about as well over German held ground as the German's did over British held ground. Neither was particularly good at offense unless the enemy was totally outclassed.

Anyway, so primary source document? You really want to base conclusions about which plane did what on non combat testing? You didn't pick this up from the Russian moron they had working at Jaleco referencing bogus documentation did you? I had to point out to them the F4U-4C never saw WWII. They actually didn't know.

That is not true. They doubted it saw service but it was possible it did, and they needed an easy fix to the game balance issues they faced. The problem in Fighter Ace is that the .50's only fire ball ammo, and cannon ballistics are almost identical to .50 ballistics and fire HE ammo. This makes cannon rule the game. Since there was no late-war multi cannon armed US plane, they chose to add the -4C rather than completely remodle the gun/damage system - something they could not do without great expense at that time.

And as for the -4C not having seen service, there is some evidence that it did. There are accounts by airfield personel of 4 bladed Corsairs having arrived in China armed with 4 cannon. The problem is that there are almost no primary source documents which say where any of the F4U variants went - including the -1C. What is clear is that the -4C models came off the production line between Sept. '44 and Feb. '45, that's about it.

Anyway, thats another story. Ok, for the third time try this one and keep in mind its a gondola winged Wilde Sau Bf 109G-6/U-2 being tested vs. a cleanly configured Spitfire IX utilizing 25lbs of boost at certain points in the testing:

"Dive
19.........Comparitive dives between the two aircraft have shown that the Me.109 can leave the Spitfire without any difficulty.":

http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/109gtac.html

Prove this claim.

Also, you make the negative effects on the Spitfire IX and XIV handling because of the additional weight out to be far more severe than they really were. The 109 suffered much more after the F model than the Spitfire did after the V model.

Its not only weight. Its the additional speed that degrades the Spitfire. That big wing is not a high speed maneuver wing. It rolls like a pig under high load. Abysmal.

And so did the 109 - in fact it was worse. Neither plane could roll well at speed. And again, the 109 could only maintain high speeds in level flight for about 1 minute before overheating - the Spitfire was able to sustain such speeds for several minutes.

Heres a little article I read awhile ago. I don't endorse it entirely. I only cite it for the observations. Its in the wartime observations that the truth is hidden by modern p.c. historians:

"Thomas L. Hayes, Jr., a P-51 ace of the 357th Fighter Group with 8 1/2 victories, recalled diving after a fleeing Me-109G until both aircraft neared the sound barrier and their controls locked. Both pilots took measures to slow down, but to Hayes' astonishment, the Me-109 was the first to pull out of its dive. As he belatedly regained control of his Mustang, Hayes was grateful that the German pilot chose to quit while he was ahead and fly home instead of taking advantage of Hayes' momentary helplessness. Hayes also stated that while he saw several Fw-190s stall and even crash during dogfights, he never saw an Me-109 go out of control. "

http://history1900s.about.com/library/prm/blkillingmachine1.htm

How fast do you think they were going in that dive? or do you not believe it?

LOL - I suspect the 109's engine overspeed and seized - thus he was able to slow down faster, but of course he chose to exit combat.

By the way, if you think its incredulous regarding what some of their aircraft were truly capable of in a pinch don't read about their submarines. You really won't believe it.

German subs were crap compared to US subs. On the other hand, US torpedos sucked big time until about mid 1943.

=S=

Lunatic

 

[DJ_Dalton1]

i have read many accounts of comparisons between spits and -109/-190s, most will say the spit was superior

like this one following?:

http://www.odyssey.dircon.co.uk/Spitfire14v190.htm

Note they tested a 1944 XIV vs. a 1942 FW190 and even then they didn't open the FW up. But they go on to say the following:

"Dive: After the initial part of the dive, during which the FW 190 gains slightly, the Spitfire XIV has a slight advantage.

Rate of Roll: The FW 190 is very much better

Conclusions: In defence, the Spitfire XIV should us its remarkable maximum climb and turning circle against enemy aircraft. In the attack it can affort to 'mix it' but should beware of the quick roll and dive.
If this manoeuvre is used by a FW190 and the Spitfire XIV follows, it will probably not be able to close
the range until the FW190 has pulled out of its dive."

I don't know about you, but I don't weight that in favor of the "best" British figher ever made. If you test a 1944 German aircraft against a 1942 British Aircraft, I guarantee you that you'll have all the performance standards in German favor, with the possible exception of turning circle and roll in the Bf 109. But roll will be very close.

they can't all be wrong,

Why not? someones wrong. Its merely a question of who?

and hell, even german pilots admit the spit was a superior

Now you're clearly into the "I don't know, so I'm making it up" mode. O.K. lets assume that there were German pilots that said the Spitfire was superior, (This I know to be clearly a fiction. They feasted on Spitfires), Your credibility requires that you provide one legitimate properly contexted source.

By the way the Lancaster sucked big time. They had to go to night because it was a tinderbox.

This Experten really liked to engage Spitfires. He said they superior targets.

http://www.luftwaffe.cz/hahn.html

 

[the lancaster kicks ass]

hey hey hey now you've dissed the spit and i can take that, just, but NO ONE that's NO ONE, ESPECIALLY SOMEONE WITH 3 POSTS can come on here and bad mouth the lancaster, please, name ways in which the lancaster "sucked big time", nothing would give me more pleasure than proving you wrong, and believe me, whilst i can't with the spit, i can bombard you with sources of info on the lancaster, you picked the wrong guy to have a fight about the lancaster with.................

 

[mosquitoman]

We went at night because we didn't have the fighter escort, the Americans were thinking of postponing daytime bomber ops and then the Mustang came along. Us Brits were just being sensible