I think it's also important to credit people who bring up new information and destroy older paradigms.For example i used to think that the Bf109 was a deathtrap ,heavy ,slow ,old and it should have been completely replaced by the FW190.That's what i read in magazines and ''popular'' history books.I even remember a pc game simulator which had a mid late war Bf109G with max speed of 620km,no mention of improved performance or of other versions like AS , G10 , K4.It took me a while to believe the people who were defending the Bf here and in other sites but now i'm firmly on the Bf side.You live you learn....
Spitfire V ME109. I have found these links on the net. (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Readie
- Start date
- Thread starter
- #22
Readie
Chief Master Sergeant
I must confess that I thought the 109 had had its day, not realising that the G version was so fast.I'm reading Galland's book and that has also brought me to a different view. As you correctly say we live and learn.
However (you were waiting for this), for me the Spitfire is more than just a plane. It while she represents the obvious things like victory, style, grace, power etc, the Spitfire is England's guardian angel and the sight of a Spitfire flying over England has a huge emotional appeal to the English that other countries do not understand.
So, in the Spitfire camp, you have facts and emotive appeal.That is why the Spit is so special to us.
That does not mean that I cannot appreciate other warplanes, quite the opposite. I wouldn't go as far as to say 'I love 'em all' but, I can and do quietly applaud.
Cheers
John
Shortround6
Lieutenant General
To me the 109 had had it's day. But things are not black and white or 1st rate fighter vs total pig. The Germans did a very good job of trying to keep the 109 competitive but then they didn't have much choice. The 109 was limited by it's size, this, in some ways was a blessing as it gave high performance for a given amount of power and in other ways a curse as it limited both fuel and weapons load.
That the 109 was falling behind is shown by it's armament load. 155-171kg for a "G" or "K" depending on if it used a 20mm cannon or 30mm cannon. A Spitfire with 2 X 20mm and 4 X 303 carried 295kg of guns and ammo while a Spitfire with 2 X 20mm and 2 X .50 was could hit 342kg with full ammo. A Mustang "D" would carry 440kg of guns and ammo.
While the external bomb load of a 109 was first rate in 1940-41 it made zero progress as the war went on. Granted the Germans weren't flying many bomb missions with the 109 in the last year of the war but the air frames capability had pretty well maxed out.
The small size of the 109 meant there was less room for fuel. Perhaps they could have put small tanks in the wing but there is only so much room in a 173-4sq ft wing. Trying to feed 1800-2000hp engines from the same size tank that feed 1100hp engines is going to mean very limited combat endurance even if the new engines get better specific fuel consumption. The extra tank behind the main is a one trick pony. It is either a fuel tank or NO2 tank or MW-50 tank. not two at once. Which performance aspect is it enhancing on a given mission?
Spitfire can lift a 90 gallon drop tank with the same increase in wing loading as 109 with the 400 liter tank if measured in lbs/sq ft. This is just a function of size, not genius (with 880hp available for a take off and a fixed pitch prop I doubt Mitchell envisioned routine take-offs over over 8000lbs for the Spitfire.)
The late model 109s were still quite capable of performing certain missions but their capability in performing a variety of missions had not grown as well as some other fighters. It may be said that some other 1940-41 Fighters didn't show any better growth if as well.
The very fact that the Luftwaffe had to use both bomber destroyer versions and anti-fighter versions at the same time shows that the 109, while still a useful plane and a dangerous opponent, was no longer in the very first rank of fighters.
That the 109 was falling behind is shown by it's armament load. 155-171kg for a "G" or "K" depending on if it used a 20mm cannon or 30mm cannon. A Spitfire with 2 X 20mm and 4 X 303 carried 295kg of guns and ammo while a Spitfire with 2 X 20mm and 2 X .50 was could hit 342kg with full ammo. A Mustang "D" would carry 440kg of guns and ammo.
While the external bomb load of a 109 was first rate in 1940-41 it made zero progress as the war went on. Granted the Germans weren't flying many bomb missions with the 109 in the last year of the war but the air frames capability had pretty well maxed out.
The small size of the 109 meant there was less room for fuel. Perhaps they could have put small tanks in the wing but there is only so much room in a 173-4sq ft wing. Trying to feed 1800-2000hp engines from the same size tank that feed 1100hp engines is going to mean very limited combat endurance even if the new engines get better specific fuel consumption. The extra tank behind the main is a one trick pony. It is either a fuel tank or NO2 tank or MW-50 tank. not two at once. Which performance aspect is it enhancing on a given mission?
Spitfire can lift a 90 gallon drop tank with the same increase in wing loading as 109 with the 400 liter tank if measured in lbs/sq ft. This is just a function of size, not genius (with 880hp available for a take off and a fixed pitch prop I doubt Mitchell envisioned routine take-offs over over 8000lbs for the Spitfire.)
The late model 109s were still quite capable of performing certain missions but their capability in performing a variety of missions had not grown as well as some other fighters. It may be said that some other 1940-41 Fighters didn't show any better growth if as well.
The very fact that the Luftwaffe had to use both bomber destroyer versions and anti-fighter versions at the same time shows that the 109, while still a useful plane and a dangerous opponent, was no longer in the very first rank of fighters.
I have always been in the 109 camp, not because I think it is a better fighter, but because of my "emotional" feelings for it. 
My honest belief is to decide which is better (Spit/Bf 109) is not an easy task. It is not black and white. I believe these things:
1. Both aircraft traded "superiority" over each other throughout the war.
2. There are just to many factors involved to just go off of "paper stats" (granted most of us have nothing to off of more than that).
3. Both aircraft had their advantages and disadvantages (as any great warbird does).
4. The "better" aircraft was the one which had the pilot that could get the most out of its advantages. That pilot would win the fight. Take a Spit with a good pilot and a Bf 109 with Adolf Galland and chances are the 109 is going to win. Now take a Spit with (Insert your RAF Great Pilot) and put a good pilot in the 109 and chances are the Spit is going to win.
I do however believe the following things as well:
1. The Spitfire was probably more forgiving.
2. The Spitfire was probably easier for a novice pilot than the Bf 109.
3. The Bf 109 was at the end of its evolution. I don't believe you were going to get much more out of the Bf 109. I also believe the Spitfire was at the end of its evolution as well. Having said that the days of the Piston fighter were coming to and end. You were not going to get much more out of "conventional" piston aircraft.
My honest belief is to decide which is better (Spit/Bf 109) is not an easy task. It is not black and white. I believe these things:
1. Both aircraft traded "superiority" over each other throughout the war.
2. There are just to many factors involved to just go off of "paper stats" (granted most of us have nothing to off of more than that).
3. Both aircraft had their advantages and disadvantages (as any great warbird does).
4. The "better" aircraft was the one which had the pilot that could get the most out of its advantages. That pilot would win the fight. Take a Spit with a good pilot and a Bf 109 with Adolf Galland and chances are the 109 is going to win. Now take a Spit with (Insert your RAF Great Pilot) and put a good pilot in the 109 and chances are the Spit is going to win.
I do however believe the following things as well:
1. The Spitfire was probably more forgiving.
2. The Spitfire was probably easier for a novice pilot than the Bf 109.
3. The Bf 109 was at the end of its evolution. I don't believe you were going to get much more out of the Bf 109. I also believe the Spitfire was at the end of its evolution as well. Having said that the days of the Piston fighter were coming to and end. You were not going to get much more out of "conventional" piston aircraft.
Last edited:
the Bf had a cannon the P-51 didn't .As for range there have been several posts here about Bf vs Spit . The DB engine gave the German plane a significant advantage.I'm not sure what you mean when you say first rank.What aircraft were first rank?- Thread starter
- #27
Readie
Chief Master Sergeant
I have always been in the 109 camp, not because I think it is a better fighter, but because of my "emotional" feelings for it.
My honest belief is to decide which is better (Spit/Bf 109) is not an easy task. It is not black and white. I believe these things:
1. Both aircraft traded "superiority" over each other throughout the war.
2. There are just to many factors involved to just go off of "paper stats" (granted most of us have nothing to off of more than that).
3. Both aircraft had their advantages and disadvantages (as any great warbird does).
4. The "better" aircraft was the one which had the pilot that could get the most out of its advantages. That pilot would win the fight. Take a Spit with a good pilot and a Bf 109 with Adolf Galland and chances are the 109 is going to win. Now take a Spit with (Insert your RAF Great Pilot) and put a good pilot in the 109 and chances are the Spit is going to win.
I do however believe the following things as well:
1. The Spitfire was probably more forgiving.
2. The Spitfire was probably easier for a novice pilot than the Bf 109.
3. The Bf 109 was at the end of its evolution. I don't believe you were going to get much more out of the Bf 109. I also believe the Spitfire was at the end of its evolution as well. Having said that the days of the Piston fighter were coming to and end. You were not going to get much more out of "conventional" piston aircraft.
The Spitfire was the 'woodman's favourite axe' Chris, the name remained the same as we didn't want to say goodbye to the Spitfire. The final version bore little relation to the original. Whereas the 109 was clearly the same machine.
I'm glad that you feel as you do about the ME109, its good to have that attachment.
Its easy to get carried away pointing out the pros and cons of our favourite plane it can end up with the 'my dad's bigger than your dad' syndrome.
I am completely comfortable in the Spitfire camp but, that doesn't stop me admiring other planes.
You could add to your list
4. The Merlin sound is like a hymn in the English sky. Never bettered.
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=afdOt1Zvmfc
5. The ME's inverted DB has its own distinctive note. The few that are flying are valued by all aviation buffs.
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BXi9_o49rsQ
Cheers
John
Last edited:
There was a version of the Mustang with 4 20mm cannons.
There wasn't much difference in the range of the 2 a/c.
The Spitfire was a more adaptable a/c, evolving from the Mk I to the Spiteful while the 109's evolutions, the Me209 and Me309 were duds.
You mean the ground attack version? What does it have to do with fighters? As for the Spit being adaptable ...yeah the seafire was worthy of admiration
Njaco
The Pop-Tart Whisperer
Readie, I don't know if I would completely agree with this. The 109 did some drastic changes throughout - and while I will concede your point about the Spit, the 109 clearly wasn't the same machine at the end. The 'K' model had a different array of guns, different wing design, canopy design, tail design, engine. I will give you narrow track landing gear but......
You mean the ground attack version? What does it have to do with fighters? As for the Spit being adaptable ...yeah the seafire was worthy of admiration
The ground attack version of the Mustang was the A-36 and it only had machine guns.
It managed to shoot down some 84 enemy a/c as a fighter.
Njaco
The Pop-Tart Whisperer
NA-91 Mustang IA - 4 20mm cannon (93 aircraft supplied by Lend-Lease to RAF
NA-83 Mustag Mk I - with 2 40mm Vickers 'S' cannon.
NA-83 Mustag Mk I - with 2 40mm Vickers 'S' cannon.
Shortround6
Lieutenant General
The P-51 could have been fitted with cannon quite easily if they so desired. With 150 Allison powered P-51s so armed it is obvious that they would fit. It is also obvious that the P-51 had the weight allowance to take the canon. Four 20mm Hispanos with 120rpg each would weigh less than the armament they did carry. The extra drag might have hurt speed a bit.
Perhaps you could point to this "significant advantage" in range the DB engine gave the 109. or define significant advantage? 5%, 10%, 30% better range as the same speed and altitude on the same fuel? The DB engine may have had better specific fuel consumption but the Spitfire had more room to fit fuel inside and an easier time of carrying fuel outside. It is no great trick at all to get a Spitfire up to 123-125imp gallons inside and 90 Imp gallons outside so actual range or radius on operations isn't going to much different.
First rank fighters could include the P-51 and P-47, the Late Spitfires and the Tempest. The Fw-190, perhaps the F4U-4. They had the ability or potential to carry a heavy armament a greater than"point defense" distance with sufficient performance so as not to be a a "significant" disadvantage. They also had a secondary ground attack capability 100-200% higher than the 109 in terms of bomb load.
parsifal
Colonel
You mean the ground attack version? What does it have to do with fighters? As for the Spit being adaptable ...yeah the seafire was worthy of admiration
Actually we have had a pretty good discussion about the Seafire limitations, development, and capabilities in a separate thread....Fulmar vs F4F. Maybe you should have a look there first before making statements like that
Sure it could ,it's just that they liked machine guns that's why they never upgraded they wanted to keep things fair to the Germans
Range? even 20-30% is a big advantage.Several posts have dealt with the difference between the aircraft.
You seem to confuse the meaning of the word first rate.The P-51 had range and performance that satisfied the USAAF.Other forces would not find it a useful aircraft.The P-47 was so good it was retired after the war.Only in very high altitude could it do something.The tempest was a good fighter? The spit first rate?
I think maybe you mean multirole in which case some of these aircraft were able to dogfight and bomb/strafe.I think the best combination was the Fw but still it was inferior to the Bf as a fighter especially at altitude.
The seafire? Yes another British success story ...
Last edited:
Njaco
The Pop-Tart Whisperer
Wow, ctrain, I have to disagree on several points:
1.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Friday_(1945)
The RAF had a Squadron of P-51s as cover for the Blenheims. At this late stage - Feb 1945 - why were they using Mustangs instead of Spits? Doesn't make sense based upon your assumption.
2.
Thos are some very broad generalizations there.
1.
Wouldn't find it useful? Ever hear of this....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Friday_(1945)
The RAF had a Squadron of P-51s as cover for the Blenheims. At this late stage - Feb 1945 - why were they using Mustangs instead of Spits? Doesn't make sense based upon your assumption.
2.
Possibly because a prop driven airplane couldn't compete with the new jets entering service.
Thos are some very broad generalizations there.
Mustang nut
Banned
- 200
- Jun 14, 2011
The RAF were using P 51s because they commissioned it and ordered it. Some where in history the Mustang/P51 changed from being a plane ordered by Britain and produced in USA to a solely American product that won the war disowned by the British as inferior to the Spitfire.
IMO it was a fantastic plane and a fantastic product of both countries who should be equally proud and thankful that it ever existed. The Mustang and Spitfire were complimentary and much complimented. One on one I would say the Spitfire would have the edge but it didnt have the range. Who fights one on one anyway?
parsifal
Colonel
so the true colours of the beast emerge......I thought a few posts ago we were saying how silly it was to ridicule great aircraft in the mistaken belief that this somehow enhances the reputation of the pet aircraft that we find attractive. Putting down the opposition of the aircraft we think is the best simply, and in the end, denigrates the aircraft we are trying to elevate......
Users who are viewing this thread
Similar threads
