- Thread starter
- #21
schwarzpanzer
Senior Airman
- 662
- Aug 8, 2005
I did that before, but amended it, my keyboard must be funny...
Me109F vs Spitfire MkV
- Thread starter schwarzpanzer
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
I did that before, but amended it, my keyboard must be funny...
Well I will go with the Bf-109F. Mainly because the 109 is my fav but it was a wonderful aircraft. The most balanced of the 109s.
CharlesBronson
Senior Master Sergeant
Just for the record.
Armament of the F- series.
F-0: 1x20mm MG-FF/M (20x80RB) with 60 rounds drum, 2 x 7,92 mm MG-17 with 500 rounds belt
F-1: 1x20mm MG-FF/M with 60 rounds drum, 2 x 7,92 mm MG-17 with 500 rounds belt.
F-2: 1x15 mm Mg-151 with 200 rounds belt, 2 x 7,92 mm MG-17 with 500 rounds belt.
F-2/U-1 (Adolf Gallands aircraft) 1x15 mm Mg-151 with 200 rounds belt, 2 x 13 mm Mg-131 with 250 rounds belt.
F-2/U-2 (Werner Mölders aircraft) 1x15 mm Mg-151 with 200 rounds belt, 2x7,92mm MG-17 with 500 rounds belt, 2 MG-FF/M in wings with 60 rounds drums.
F-3: 1x15mm MG-151/15 with 200 rounds belt, 2 x 7,92 mm MG-17 with 500 rounds belt.
F-4 : 1x 20 mm Mauser Mg-151/20 (20x82) with 200 rounds belt ( although it sometimes was filled with only 150 or 180 rounds) 2 x7,92mm with 500 round belt.
F-5 : Tactic recce aircraft, 20 mm gun deleted. Only 2 x 7,92mm MG-17
F-6 : Photo recce aircraft, 20 mm gun deleted. Only 2 x 7,92mm MG-17.
Armament of the F- series.
F-0: 1x20mm MG-FF/M (20x80RB) with 60 rounds drum, 2 x 7,92 mm MG-17 with 500 rounds belt
F-1: 1x20mm MG-FF/M with 60 rounds drum, 2 x 7,92 mm MG-17 with 500 rounds belt.
F-2: 1x15 mm Mg-151 with 200 rounds belt, 2 x 7,92 mm MG-17 with 500 rounds belt.
F-2/U-1 (Adolf Gallands aircraft) 1x15 mm Mg-151 with 200 rounds belt, 2 x 13 mm Mg-131 with 250 rounds belt.
F-2/U-2 (Werner Mölders aircraft) 1x15 mm Mg-151 with 200 rounds belt, 2x7,92mm MG-17 with 500 rounds belt, 2 MG-FF/M in wings with 60 rounds drums.
F-3: 1x15mm MG-151/15 with 200 rounds belt, 2 x 7,92 mm MG-17 with 500 rounds belt.
F-4 : 1x 20 mm Mauser Mg-151/20 (20x82) with 200 rounds belt ( although it sometimes was filled with only 150 or 180 rounds) 2 x7,92mm with 500 round belt.
F-5 : Tactic recce aircraft, 20 mm gun deleted. Only 2 x 7,92mm MG-17
F-6 : Photo recce aircraft, 20 mm gun deleted. Only 2 x 7,92mm MG-17.
Of all the 109s though the F did lack on armament the most.
CharlesBronson
Senior Master Sergeant
Yeah, that is why the top aces of that time modificate his aircraft, Galland in particular hated the armament of the F-0/F-1/F-2.
Gemhorse
Senior Airman
From what I can gather, the 'F' had a few problems, least of which was that bloody undercarriage that Messerschmitt never EVER resolved....
I have here a letter by Ernst Udet written to Messerschmitt on 4th April 1941 detailing some 25 faults in the 'F' model, which had been mentioned in a telegram from GFM. Kesselring, Cmdr of Luftflotte II......
In reading them, it basically appears the aircraft were literally 'thrown' together, a summary of defects that just wouldn't be found in British manufacture of Spitfires, and if they were, they wouldn't have been allowed to get to the stage where Squadrons' complained and an Air Marshal was disposed to have to write to his senior advisors to pass on to the Manufacturer.
I know they had problems later in the War with the slave-labourers sabotaging aircraft in factory-process or Repair depots, but this early in the War was indicative of, yeah, a massive production capability, but not alot of emphasis on quality-control.....
I've always liked the 'E' model, but a Spitfire was an especially awesome aircraft of it's time, and in those early days fought with the Hurricane against huge odds.....and won. Despite the losses they kept building AND improving the Spit, the later models were powerful beasts indeed. With the advent of the Mk.'s VIII IX, they never looked back, and had an aircraft that was the equal, indeed better, than both the 109 and 190. There they were by war's end, the Mk.XVI was basically a Mk.IX with an US-built Merlin....[ let alone the Mk.XIV with the Griffon ! ]........
All this talk of guns really didn't make that much difference in the end... Either 8x .303, or 2x 20mm with .303's or .5's, they still served well. On both sides it was really about pilot-experience. Germany simply had many more enemies to shoot and a greater run-up to War than Britain, so their early pilots built-up greater scores...
The Messerschmitts were good aircraft and popular with most crews, but the Spitfire [ IMHO ] was the better....proof of this was REALLY established by the RAF's PR Spitfires, who for a great deal of the War flew in and out of Germany unarmed, pretty much as they pleased, relying simply on speed and tactics.... - Think about that, it took REAL balls.......
Gemhorse
I have here a letter by Ernst Udet written to Messerschmitt on 4th April 1941 detailing some 25 faults in the 'F' model, which had been mentioned in a telegram from GFM. Kesselring, Cmdr of Luftflotte II......
In reading them, it basically appears the aircraft were literally 'thrown' together, a summary of defects that just wouldn't be found in British manufacture of Spitfires, and if they were, they wouldn't have been allowed to get to the stage where Squadrons' complained and an Air Marshal was disposed to have to write to his senior advisors to pass on to the Manufacturer.
I know they had problems later in the War with the slave-labourers sabotaging aircraft in factory-process or Repair depots, but this early in the War was indicative of, yeah, a massive production capability, but not alot of emphasis on quality-control.....
I've always liked the 'E' model, but a Spitfire was an especially awesome aircraft of it's time, and in those early days fought with the Hurricane against huge odds.....and won. Despite the losses they kept building AND improving the Spit, the later models were powerful beasts indeed. With the advent of the Mk.'s VIII IX, they never looked back, and had an aircraft that was the equal, indeed better, than both the 109 and 190. There they were by war's end, the Mk.XVI was basically a Mk.IX with an US-built Merlin....[ let alone the Mk.XIV with the Griffon ! ]........
All this talk of guns really didn't make that much difference in the end... Either 8x .303, or 2x 20mm with .303's or .5's, they still served well. On both sides it was really about pilot-experience. Germany simply had many more enemies to shoot and a greater run-up to War than Britain, so their early pilots built-up greater scores...
The Messerschmitts were good aircraft and popular with most crews, but the Spitfire [ IMHO ] was the better....proof of this was REALLY established by the RAF's PR Spitfires, who for a great deal of the War flew in and out of Germany unarmed, pretty much as they pleased, relying simply on speed and tactics.... - Think about that, it took REAL balls.......
Gemhorse
Attachments
Jabberwocky
Staff Sergeant
Does anyone know when the last Me-109Fs were taken out of service? There were a total of around 2,200 built so I would imagine they hung around for some time.
In a pure one on one engagement, I think I would put the 109F ahead. I feel it was a larger jump in qualtiy for the 109 from the E to F model than for the Spitfire from the Mark I/II to the Mark V. I also think that the 109F came as close to matching the Spitfire in pure dogfight terms as variant of the family.
However, I think that the Spitfire V EVOLVED into a better fighter as the war went on. They did all kinds of things to the mark V to keep it competitive; The introduction of the refined Spitfire Vc with a stronger airframe, 120 rpg for the Hispanos extended the life even further. Removing the fishtail type exhausts and replacing them with multi-ejectors for more speed. Clipped wings for better roll, dive and more speed below 10,000. Introduction of cropped superchargers, improved Merlins and other assorted modifications made them a real handful below about 10,000 feet right up until 1943.
In a pure one on one engagement, I think I would put the 109F ahead. I feel it was a larger jump in qualtiy for the 109 from the E to F model than for the Spitfire from the Mark I/II to the Mark V. I also think that the 109F came as close to matching the Spitfire in pure dogfight terms as variant of the family.
However, I think that the Spitfire V EVOLVED into a better fighter as the war went on. They did all kinds of things to the mark V to keep it competitive; The introduction of the refined Spitfire Vc with a stronger airframe, 120 rpg for the Hispanos extended the life even further. Removing the fishtail type exhausts and replacing them with multi-ejectors for more speed. Clipped wings for better roll, dive and more speed below 10,000. Introduction of cropped superchargers, improved Merlins and other assorted modifications made them a real handful below about 10,000 feet right up until 1943.
P38 Pilot
Tech Sergeant
PD do you have any info on the Spitfire 21? I would like to know...
lesofprimus
Brigadier General
Google....
That would be your best bet, however, I shall hand the basics to you. It was delivered in January 1945 to 91 Sqdn. And...that's all I can be bothered to write. But since I'm really nice he's the 91 Sqdn writing of the Spitfire 21 (XXI for retards <I'm looking at you 38> )
Attachments
Jabberwocky said:
There were still Fs in Service in 1945. Hell there were still E's in Service in 1945 believe it or not.
Dac
Airman 1st Class
DerAdlerIstGelandet said:
Were the E's in front-line service?
The Bf-109F was the better aircraft, as history testifies, although not by much.
The maneuverability of the Bf-109F and Spitfire Mk.V was about equal, except for the 109F being the better fighter for slow speed Dogfighting.
As to armament, well they were pretty much equal there as-well, with the Spit having x2 cannons x4 .303's, while the 109 had a single centered cannon + x2 8x57mm's. (I would give the Spit a small advantage in armament though)
Also the 109F was the better climber of the two, which gave it a rather crucial advantage in any engagement, coupled with the fact that the 109F was faster aswell offcourse.
The maneuverability of the Bf-109F and Spitfire Mk.V was about equal, except for the 109F being the better fighter for slow speed Dogfighting.
As to armament, well they were pretty much equal there as-well, with the Spit having x2 cannons x4 .303's, while the 109 had a single centered cannon + x2 8x57mm's. (I would give the Spit a small advantage in armament though)
Also the 109F was the better climber of the two, which gave it a rather crucial advantage in any engagement, coupled with the fact that the 109F was faster aswell offcourse.
Dac said:
No as far as I know they were not on Front line Service in 1945. There were not many of them either. I will have to look it up when I get home from work. I can probably tell you then how many and where. I do believe that in 1943 and early 1944 there were still some E's on the East Front where they could still hold there own against most Russian Fighters. Not sure on that though so dont take me word for it. I will look it up when I get home in some of my books that cover the subject. I know Bf-109T's that were just Bf-109Es modified for Carrier duty were still in use also late in the War based out of Norway.
- Thread starter
- #36
schwarzpanzer
Senior Airman
- 662
- Aug 8, 2005
The 109F was probably the best Me109, all said.
The 109T's actually had better performance than the P51 Mustang IIRC, but they were much modified over the 109E.
On the armament, they were very different.
The Spitfires (Hispano?) cannon also had a higher RoF IIRC?
In practical terms the Spitfires armament suited novices, while the Me109F's armament worked wonders for veterans, visa-versa is bad for the Spit, but suicidal for the Me.
The 109T's actually had better performance than the P51 Mustang IIRC, but they were much modified over the 109E.
On the armament, they were very different.
The Spitfires (Hispano?) cannon also had a higher RoF IIRC?
In practical terms the Spitfires armament suited novices, while the Me109F's armament worked wonders for veterans, visa-versa is bad for the Spit, but suicidal for the Me.
CharlesBronson
Senior Master Sergeant
What..????
The BF-109T is a carrier based aircraft .
Udet said:
German pilots have been quoted as saying that nose guns are better for expert marksmen, wing guns are better for everyone else. That included may vetrans who just weren't great at gunnery. It took much less time to bring a new recruit to compentency using wing guns than nose guns.
As for which is actually better, that depends on who you talk to.
However, one thing is clear - German nose guns were short range weapons by comparision to British and US wing guns (i.e. the 20mm and .50 cal, not the .303). Effective ranges were at least 50% longer with the Allied guns.
The MG151/20 had an RoF of about 730 rpm, the Hispano II (in the Spitfire) had an RoF of about 600 rpm. The muzzel velocity of the Hispano was about 20% greater than that of the MG151/20 and its ballistic properties were significantly better. The MG151/20 mine rounds carried about 30% more bang than the Hispano HEI rounds, but lacked their penetration. For fighter vs. fighter combat, I think it is pretty clear that the Hispano II was at least the equal of the MG151/20, and two of them were surely superior to one MG151/20.
As for this matchup, I'd say it would be fairly even depending a lot on exactly which variants we are talking about and the alittude of engagement. The 109F was probably a little more nimble and climbed a little better than the Spit V, the Spit V had better vision, better firepower, and was able to sustain damage better.
=S=
Lunatic
Gemhorse
Senior Airman
In reading the exploits of RAF 485 [NZ] Sqn.'s forays, who flew Spits' Mk.'s I, II, V, IX and XVI, they converted from Mk.IIA's to Mk.VB's in August 1941. They flew both the F Mk.VB and LF Mk.VB's, and their ORB indicates they tackled the 109F and Fw-190 with relative success....the latter of course was in ascendancy, but until the Mk.IX came on stream, a few were clobbered by Mk.VB's....
Alex Henshaw, the test-pilot, most enjoyed this model that was fitted with the Merlin 50M engine, and the A-type wing. This was a cropped blower or de-rated engine, designed to give max. power at 5500 ft. It had of course a big advantage at low level and with enormous increase in boost pressure, it was a joy to fly. In fact it was the only Spitfire during a demonstration that he felt able to take-off, lift the wheels up, pause and then pull-up firmly but smoothly into a vertical loop with a slow-roll off the top to finish over the centre of the airfield...He said if he had to make a choice of all the numerous Mk.'s of Spitfires- and there were 36 of them, this is the one he would have picked for a low-level display....something he was known for his indisputed brilliance at.....
I agree with Lunatic's summary, because ultimately it appears it was really a case of the individual pilots' as well........
- The most essential attribute of a Fighter Pilot is good marksmanship...He may be a remarkable navigator, a regular 'Braille' at blind-flying, an accomplished aerobat, but if he cannot shoot accurately when he gets into position, he may as well stay on the ground and save the petrol...All the work into his training, efforts of groundcrew, the valuable aircraft with whatever armament, and especially in protecting his companions in combat, are really paramount concerns...It's to be appreciated that on each sortie he gains experience, but that initial proficiency is most important...
It was an area of concern in Fighter Command that OTU's didn't give enough training here, more went into flying the machine than it's use as a gun platform....
In 485, attendance at the Sqn.'s shooting-range wasn't compulsory, but our serious marksmen, like Al Deere, 'Hawkeye' Wells and Johnny Checketts, spent many of their free hours together or alone walking the hills and valleys shooting rabbits, ducks and other game...During these sessions, apart from gaining deflection-shooting experience, they would discuss the finer points of air combat, and such 'field research' certainly served them well...There was especial attendance to 'fostering' the new pilots that came into the Sqn. and imparting to them the skills already gained by the more seasoned pilots....Evan 'Rosie' Mackie was an especially gifted pilot, receiving only one bullet in combat in his aircraft, due to his fighting technique, finishing the War with 15+ victories, 6th out of 25 New Zealand aces....
They converted to Mk.IXB's on the 1st July 1943, one of the first in Fighter Command to have them at the time....and unwittingly flew Mk.XVI's before their official arrival in May 1945, plonking Packard Merlins into Mk.IX's without realising the reclassification....
I still maintain the Spit V's were an essentially great aircraft, and even if they were caught off-foot by Luftwaffe developments, gave a bloody good account of themselves against the 109F, nonetheless........
Gemhorse
Alex Henshaw, the test-pilot, most enjoyed this model that was fitted with the Merlin 50M engine, and the A-type wing. This was a cropped blower or de-rated engine, designed to give max. power at 5500 ft. It had of course a big advantage at low level and with enormous increase in boost pressure, it was a joy to fly. In fact it was the only Spitfire during a demonstration that he felt able to take-off, lift the wheels up, pause and then pull-up firmly but smoothly into a vertical loop with a slow-roll off the top to finish over the centre of the airfield...He said if he had to make a choice of all the numerous Mk.'s of Spitfires- and there were 36 of them, this is the one he would have picked for a low-level display....something he was known for his indisputed brilliance at.....
I agree with Lunatic's summary, because ultimately it appears it was really a case of the individual pilots' as well........
- The most essential attribute of a Fighter Pilot is good marksmanship...He may be a remarkable navigator, a regular 'Braille' at blind-flying, an accomplished aerobat, but if he cannot shoot accurately when he gets into position, he may as well stay on the ground and save the petrol...All the work into his training, efforts of groundcrew, the valuable aircraft with whatever armament, and especially in protecting his companions in combat, are really paramount concerns...It's to be appreciated that on each sortie he gains experience, but that initial proficiency is most important...
It was an area of concern in Fighter Command that OTU's didn't give enough training here, more went into flying the machine than it's use as a gun platform....
In 485, attendance at the Sqn.'s shooting-range wasn't compulsory, but our serious marksmen, like Al Deere, 'Hawkeye' Wells and Johnny Checketts, spent many of their free hours together or alone walking the hills and valleys shooting rabbits, ducks and other game...During these sessions, apart from gaining deflection-shooting experience, they would discuss the finer points of air combat, and such 'field research' certainly served them well...There was especial attendance to 'fostering' the new pilots that came into the Sqn. and imparting to them the skills already gained by the more seasoned pilots....Evan 'Rosie' Mackie was an especially gifted pilot, receiving only one bullet in combat in his aircraft, due to his fighting technique, finishing the War with 15+ victories, 6th out of 25 New Zealand aces....
They converted to Mk.IXB's on the 1st July 1943, one of the first in Fighter Command to have them at the time....and unwittingly flew Mk.XVI's before their official arrival in May 1945, plonking Packard Merlins into Mk.IX's without realising the reclassification....
I still maintain the Spit V's were an essentially great aircraft, and even if they were caught off-foot by Luftwaffe developments, gave a bloody good account of themselves against the 109F, nonetheless........
Gemhorse
Attachments
- Thread starter
- #40
schwarzpanzer
Senior Airman
- 662
- Aug 8, 2005
Weird that Gemhorse, about the MkV being the best. 
Is that even vs the MkIX?
Great post again Lunatic,
though as ever, I have a niggle:
I thought a great + point of having the cannon fire through the propellor hub was to give a longer barrel?
That would give it increased velocity and thus range?
The German ammo could be inferior, but it is used in modern sniper rifles, so I severely doubt it.
I heard though that the Hispano had a much higher RoF than the MG151, nearer 900+rpm IIRC?
This is the opposite of what you said.
The Minenschoss rounds could be a factor, thanks for reminding me.
A point may also be that a more accurate single 20mm weighs less than 2x less accurate 20mm's.
So you either get increased manouverability, or can carry more ammo?
Same with the 8mms (2 vs 4)
I wonder though with 1 cannon being near the engine, would it be more likely to overheat?
Either jamming, running away or even exploding!!?
Is that even vs the MkIX?
Great post again Lunatic,
though as ever, I have a niggle:I thought a great + point of having the cannon fire through the propellor hub was to give a longer barrel?
That would give it increased velocity and thus range?
The German ammo could be inferior, but it is used in modern sniper rifles, so I severely doubt it.
I heard though that the Hispano had a much higher RoF than the MG151, nearer 900+rpm IIRC?
This is the opposite of what you said.
The Minenschoss rounds could be a factor, thanks for reminding me.
A point may also be that a more accurate single 20mm weighs less than 2x less accurate 20mm's.
So you either get increased manouverability, or can carry more ammo?
Same with the 8mms (2 vs 4)
I wonder though with 1 cannon being near the engine, would it be more likely to overheat?
Either jamming, running away or even exploding!!?
Users who are viewing this thread
Similar threads
