Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Spit IX Merlin 66 +18lb boost 3000rpm vs Bf 109G-1 1.3ata 2600rpm. Spit climbed better at least up to 6km, turned better, had better sustained rollrate, was clearly faster from SL to c. 4.5km, somewhat faster from 6km to 8km. Bf 109 was a little bit faster from c. 4.5km up to 6km and somewhat faster from c. 8km up to 9km and from that on more clearly faster. I don't have info on instanteous rollrates of Bf 109G or Spit IX.
P-47D-10 was clearly faster than 109G-1 from SL upwards, from 7km upwards very significantly faster and rolled better, IIRC 109G-1 climbed better
Juha
I disagree that the Bf 109 was outdated by 1945. Quite on the contrary, I think the Bf 109 came back with a vengeance with the K-version. The Bf 109 had lagged behind since the end of 1943 with the arrival of the P-47D, P-38J and P-51B/C over Germany. At this point the Bf 109 was at its weakest. It only started to improve after May 1944 with ever better ata's, the AS, AM and ASM engines and the aerodynamical improvements. This culminated in the beginning of 1945 with the Bf 109K with further aerodynamical improvements and up to 2000 hp. At this point it was once again superior to anything the allies could throw against it. It had better speed and/or climb rate than the P-47, P-38, P-51, Spitfire, Tempest, Yak-3/-9 and La-7 then in action.
New allied versions were coming up but also the Bf 109K-14 was going to get the new DB 605L engine for better high altitude performance. By then it may no longer have been the best around but was still competitive. I believe it lagged further behind back in late 1943 than it did in 1945.
Handling deteriorated at these high speeds but I have never seen a credible account saying the Bf 109K was no longer handable. Combat aircraft generally become more difficult to fly as long as they get better performance.
Kris
Spit IX Merlin 66 +18lb boost 3000rpm vs Bf 109G-1 1.3ata 2600rpm. Spit climbed better at least up to 6km, turned better, had better sustained rollrate, was clearly faster from SL to c. 4.5km, somewhat faster from 6km to 8km. Bf 109 was a little bit faster from c. 4.5km up to 6km and somewhat faster from c. 8km up to 9km and from that on more clearly faster. I don't have info on instanteous rollrates of Bf 109G or Spit IX.
P-47D-10 was clearly faster than 109G-1 from SL upwards, from 7km upwards very significantly faster and rolled better, IIRC 109G-1 climbed better
I agree with you. When I said that it had run its course, that can be said of all piston engined aircraft. The dawn of the jet aircraft had arrived.
Spit IX with merlin 63+ with +18 boost as you tell has a advantage but no so high to put gustav in 2nd line fighter. (please can give me data on sustained roll rate?)
P-47D-10 was a '44 fighter, the C was for a RAF comparative report inferior to Spit IX.
ADD sorry i confused D-10 with late batch, but early D batch aren't many different to C
By the way, has anyone mentioned that when the weather got bad, Bf-109G pilots preferred to JUMP OUT of their airplanes
instead of d-y-i-n-g in an attempt to land them? As in: THEY WANTED TO JUMP OUT of their aircraft---and made a habit of doing so in bad
weather-- because JUMPING OUT was SAFER than trying to land a BF-109G. Has that been mentioned that yet? Because if so:
WHAT MORE NEEDS TO BE SAID??
Bronc
You will substantiate that outburst or I will ban you for 6 months. The ball is in your court.
I have no indication to believe that the armament was insufficient. Perhaps for novice pilots whose gunnery training was seriously inadequate during the last part of the war. Late-war fighters were better armoured though I have no indication that the Bf 109G-6 guns could not bring them down. Plus, much of the Russian fighters were American (P-40, P-39 and especially the very well armoured P-63).While the 109 was kept competive in straight line speed and in climb it's armament wasn't exactly a strong point.
While it might have been quite comptitive on the Russian front a single 20mm and 2 weak but fast firing 13mm guns weren't really up to standard in the west by the end of 1943.
I have never read of pilots making more than two passes. Usually they just went for one. After that their own formation has been broken and they are too vulnerable to attempt lone attacks on entire bomber formations.With only 60 rounds for the main gun combat endurance was rather short, 6 seconds at 600rpm? Just how many firing passes could a pilot who was not an "expert" make per flight? Two?
Actually I went back and read some more of this crap.
Bronc - I'm telling you straight up, you're an idiot. Do you know that the 109 lacked any type of IFR equipment or any equipment that would enable them to land using early instrument approach equipment. BTW, the same could be said for just about ANY WW2 fighter and more than likely if ANY fighter pilot found himself in a situation where they could not gain a visual on an airfield during IFR conditions, more than likely they would be bailing out or they would die!!!!