Even in North Africa the DB-601 on later F-models had to be downgraded to 87 octane as 96 was so scarce. There was a reason why the Germans were ahead of the curve when it came to MW and Nitrous Oxide boost, and you are trying to tell me they had no octane issues? These tricks gave back the power but at a cost. You actually believe the Germans had a "distinct advantage here" ? We'll just have to disagree.
I said they had a distinct advantage in terms of how long their engines could handle emergency boost, that's it. You claimed that the fuel they had was garbage, which is completely untrue, it was the same 87 octane fuel as always. Just because you bomb som refineries doesn't mean that what the rest are producing magically becomes garbage, can you hear yourself ?? And regarding C3, I have no clue what you're trying to get across, I said it was rare throughout the war, you then repeat me?!
@rampking1 The Germans were using 87 octane B4 fuel since before the war started, simply because it was cheaper & faster to produce than the 96 octane C3. As for the ASCM version, it needed MW50 to reach 2,000 hp, same as the DC version. Running on C3 without MW50 engaged and 1800 hp could be achieved.
And again, the fuel they had was not garbage, it was either 87 octane B4 or 96 octane C3, and there was no difference between that produced in 1939 or that produced in 1945.
@rampking1 What? Contrary how and to what? The Bf-109 DID use 87 octane B4 fuel, just like every other German piston engined aircraft of the war! 96 octane C3 was used to increase power when available. Is this really so hard to understand ?? Only the jet aircraft used a different type of fuel, the coal derived J2..
I am willing to listen but when you misquote me you are going to another dimension.
Show me where in any previous comment that: "Germans used natural fuel"
I only said : "natural and synthetic refineries were being bombed" in regards to the war situation and shortages. A bit of a leap on your part ? Can't defend myself for something never said.
Btw, I suggest you add a caption pointing out that Skip is the second man interviewed.
The Spits were flown by now more experienced pilots even if they were "equal" to the mE-109. The GERMAN aircraft by this time were flown by practically anyone they could stuff into that seat.
When you say "CRS" you mean Cornered Rat Studios aka WW2OL/Battleground Europe? I love that game but flying for the Germans is always much harder than easy mode allied planes. Do you still play?
I am not letting this turn into a stupid slanging match, The FW190 was superior to the ME 109 an some early Spits and the Mustang, it was to eventually replace the 109, due to German industry during the final years this did not happen. 109 was ment to be an interceptor based behind army units close to the front hence it's struggle to upgrade later in the war. I am not saying it was a bad plane it just wasn't as easy to develop and not as good an al round fighter as the spitfire.
@nickizzyyouification The FW190 was superior in some respects and inferior in others, but it was never meant as a replacement for the Bf109, just the same as the P-51 was never meant as a replacement for the P-47 or P-38, or the F4U a replacement for the F6F. And the Bf109 was just as good and allround fighter as the Spitfire, and developed at the same pace as the Spitfire. They both shared similar capabilities, including a similar combat radius.
I am not biased I am basing facts on written accounts at the time, to brush aside comments from the pilots I mentioned I cannot understand, Galland and Yeager they must know a wee bit I think. The Spit did get heavier and was further developed but just one point if the 109 was such a good aircraft late on in the war why bother replacing it with the FW 190. I live not to far from BBMF and have seen these aircraft and spoke with pilots who flew them, Spits were further developed to counter 190.
The Fw190 was never meant to replace the Bf109, you need to get your facts straight. The Fw190 was just another weapon added to the LW arsenal, just like the Hawker Tempest was another weapon added to the RAF arsenal. And I'm sorry but you are biased, otherwise you wouldn't just brush aside the experiences of the LW's chief test pilot who, I repeat, flew both aircraft. Does it really hurt that much to realize that these two aircraft actually were quite similar capability wise?
There seems no point to continue this the comments added on this topic point to basic performance as being close, I agree some Luffwaffe pilots would be bias as allied but Adolf Galland ,Chuck Yeager both state the spit was the better aircraft, you can't argue with pilots of there status. The 109 was a good plane but not fantastic towards the end of the war it was showing it had become long in the tooth, the FW 190 was a far greater, aerodynamics not sure what the point is combat is the decider
@nickizzyyouification Well at least this just shows that you have your own bias, cause with the evidence presented any objective person would start to question wether there really was much of a difference between the two aircraft. Esp. since you so casually just brush aside the words of the chief LW test pilot who flew both aircraft. I have always maintained that both were excellent aircraft, and I don't care much for personal bias since it leads us nowhere.
@nickizzyyouification Furthermore your comments about the Bf-109's longevity are quite pointless seeing as the exact same can be said about the Spitfire. Both aircraft increased in weight as they were developed further, and they always stayed very close in term of performance, the 109 generally maintaining an advantage at low to medium altitudes, whilst the Spitfire generally maintained an advantage at high altitudes.
I would like to know where your getting this information from it contradicts everything I have read, not once have I heard the 109 was a tighter tunrner as it wasn't, performance were close but the spitfire could turn inside. The 109 was faster in a dive due to negative G cutt out on the older merlins but slightly slower and could not turn inside a spit. try reading Most dangerous enemy, or first light, there honest accounts of combat not fictional p.c based.
@nickizzyyouification Try reading the experiences of aces such as Erwin Leykauf, Walter Wolfrum or the words from Luftwaffe chief test pilot Heinrich Beauvais who flew both aircraft. Next read MTT documents, where the the aerodynamics of each 109 model is listed, from E, F, G to K. True Lift Coefficients, Induced drag coefficients and zero lift drag coefficients are listed there. These figures are confirmed by basic aerodynamics.
@nickizzyyouification You see, when it comes to vehicle/aircraft performance, the problem is you can't hide the truth forever, as soon as technology permits it we will know for certain the true characteristics of these birds, and everything atm seems to point towards the two aircraft being VERY close when it comes to turn performance. Veteran pilots will always argue what was really the case, it is only through careful analysis of both aircraft that we will know their true limits.
@nickizzyyouification well, about the G cut, I read some Spit drivers had a field mod installed to counter that on the early Spits, but its a vague memory and I can't recall where I read that. On the turning, the slats helped the 109 a lot and put it in spitfire turning ballpark. Some pilots didn't like pushing it that far though as they didn't trust the slats, due to malfunctions with them in early 109's. Most of the aces did tho that got the most from the 109. i/e The plane of the experts, so.
To compare performance on a flight sim is crazy, read about the aircraft the pilots who actually fought and flew these machines. I have read over and over about the superior turning circle of the spitfire over the 109 it's fact, it's not everything in a dogfight but it's an edge the spitfire would judder prior to a stall. The hurricane could turn even tighter but it lacked performance above 20000 ft, I would put my money on the pilots of the day not modern show pilots " no disrespect"
@nickizzyyouification Problem is aerodynamics confirm the words of both veterans & modern pilots alike who testify that the Bf-109 was just as good in the turn as the Spitfire, and sometimes even better. Furthermore the Bf-109 would warn its' pilot of a stall as-well by slight buffeting near the stall.
Skip needs to zip his jabber jawing and take his ass up in the air and I'll throw a couple of dimes up there and its up to him to turn on them like he claims. The BF 109 is a fast little plane, but it suffers greatly from poor visibility and lack of places to put armament because of its thin wings. The BF-109s strength was they got mass producing it down pat; if it were so super, they would of never put the FW 190 into production.
@cobrachoppergirl Using that logic a lot of aircraft should've never entered production in your opinion, planes such as the Spitfire, P51, etc etc... The Bf-109 was the prefered crate of the worlds highest scoring aces, from Germany to Finland. It wasn't a truly fantastic fighter then how come it did so fantastically well, being the prefered aircraft of the aces.
Reno pole racing war birds use far higher boost than wartime aircraft. Thats how they run Merlins over 3000 hp. But these are hand built engines with extra strong "Transport" blicks from post war airliners.
Having seen the official test results of a Griffon Spitfire XIV vs a captured Bf109G flown by British test pilots, the Spit out performs the 109 in every way. The FW190A is only better in rate of roll.
No such thing as official tests, only wartime tests, and as usual they aren't very reliable sources. For one the RAF test pilots didn't know how to properly take advantage of the slats, they litterally stopped pulling once they deployed, completely missing the point of why they were installed in the first place. The clue is in tests, the RAF test pilots claiming that the 109 was "embarrased" by the opening of its slots. In reality real turning first started after the slats had deployed.
@bellator11 Well how do you explain the fact that these tests found that when the slats deployed, the test pilots found that the subsequent jerk on the airframe caused difficulty in keeping the gunsights on target? How do you explain GERMAN test pilots saying that Spitfires could out turn a 109? Adolf Galland said the Spit was a better aircraft. Do you really think that comparative test flying in wartime was affected by propogander? The 109s cockpit was too bloody small.
@SvenTviking The only German test which points to the Spitfire turning tighter is a very early one from 1940 involving an Emil. And the Emil was known to have issues with its slats, hence why the slat design was significantly altered as of the F series. The Emil suffered from its slats jamming, causing deadly spins, leaving pilots vary of trying to pull a tight turn. This is explained by both Chief LW test pilot Heinrich Beauvais, as-well as Erwin Leykauf amongst others.
@bellator11 The only reason they fitted the leading edge slats was because the 109's wing was small. Add on three years worth of accumulated extra weight on the G model and the turning performance dropped. Also, all 109s suffered from increasingly heavy controls as speed went up. Not as bad as the Zero, but far worse than a Spitfire.
@SvenTviking The reason for adding the slats was for improving handling in turns and slow speeds, as-well as lowering landing speeds, hence why they were used extensively on post war fighters. Also you're forgetting that aircraft such as the Spitfire increased in weight atleast as much as did the 109 from version to version. So really I fail to see what you're getting at there.
@bellator11 The Spit had a large wing in the first place, so it had low wing loading. So it had room to take the weight. The Spit was also very gentle in the stall and gave lots of warning. It didn't need slats. Two and a half turns he's on yoir tail.
@SvenTviking Wing loading is a very poor indicator of turn performance, many other factors determine this, such as the lift coefficient of the particular wing design. As for your last comment, I am afraid that has been proven false through both anecdotal and scientific evidence. The two aircraft, Bf109 & Spitfire, were very close in turn performance, and both were great aircraft. I wouldn't call one better than the other. Just remember, the victors always write the history books.
@bellator11 I agree, the Spit and 109 were both great aircraft. And with so many variants its hard to compare them. It doesn't matter anyway because the P-51 was the best fighter of WWII. ^.^
@PkayerZxz2 According to some, yes ^^ It certainly saved the Allied strategic bombing effort, and its performance at high altitude was impressive. There were higher performing aircraft though, such as the Me262, which pointed the way to the future. Personally I would rate the Me262 as the best fighter of the war, unfortunately for the Germans however the lack of proper materials led to the 004 engines having a very short engine life.
@bellator11 The Me262 was a dedicated interceptor. Not a general purpose fighter. The Me262 was an amazing aircraft that excelled at destroying bombers but that was it. Overall the P-51 was more versatile and it was a superior design as it wasn't overly complex like the Me262.
@PkayerZxz2 Well, actually it was designed as an air superiority fighter, a role which it excelled at once it was given permission to fullfill it (Hitler again). Once airborne the 262 was pretty much untouchable, providing the pilot knew what he was doing and didn't get suckered into low speed turning contests, in which no jet should ever engage a prop fighter. Also the Me262 wasn't really anymore complex than the P-51, just more advanced.
@PkayerZxz2 Very hard to compare the spit and the 109. Ppl wanna say such and such will turn tighter or not climb higher and so on. but the performance of these birds aren't static. airspeed, alt, prop, fuel type and how much, weight, even if the plane has ammo loaded, and other equipment even energy management and weather can affect performance. and give surprising results. I think its safe to say the spit and 109 is close though.
In the Battle of Britain Spitfires and Hurricanes were mostly outnumbered many times to one. And the Germans often claimed a fantastic number of kills. And good 'ol boy Skip here says a 109 can out-turn a Spitfire.
Gee, there must have been angels or superhumans with strange powers flying the Spits and Hurricanes back then, because I don't remember reading that the Germans won the battle.
@Talon45451 you know what i mean...it isnt the polane quality. germany won with obsolete tanks etc and retreated with best gear on planet..thats what i wanted to say. and bob wasnt won by raf it was lost in high german command
@Dreadnought5001 Actually British fighters outnumbered German fighters greatly over Britain. It was only in bombers that the Germans had a higher number of a/c in the sky. And despite the disparity in numbers and the fact that the Me109 couldn't hang around for long before having to head for home, it did manage to acquire itself a roughly 2:1 kill/loss ratio over the RAF fighters.
Furthermore using too high an octane rated fuel in an engine designed for a much lower octane rating won't yield you any benefits in performance. The engine first needs to be tuned for a new type of fuel. And running too low an octane number in an engine designed for higher ratings is downright bad for the reliability & life of the engine, and so quite simply it aint done. Finally these old a/c don't feature their water methanol boosting system anymore, or atleast the German a/c don't.
@bellator11 What you are saying is simply Not true higher octane rated fuel will always make an engine run better all adjustments can be made from the cock-pit...FYI
@texasfathead Not quite, a common misconception is that power output or fuel mileage can be improved by burning higher octane fuel than a particular engine was designed for. The power output of an engine depends in part on the energy density of its fuel, but similar fuels with different octane ratings have similar density. Since switching to a higher octane fuel does not add any more hydrocarbon content or oxygen, the engine cannot produce more power.
@bellator11 To get more power out of an engine by using a higher octane fuel means having to tune it to that particular type of fuel, and that can't be done from inside the cockpit, as you have to alter ignition timings etc etc. So the vintage German a/c aren't producing anymore power these days than the Allied ones, cause each a/c is run with the proper type of fuel that the engine was designed for. This is naturally done to preserve the engine's life-span.
@bellator11 What you are saying is simply Not true higher octane rated fuel will alway make an engine run better all adjustments can be made from the cock-pit...FYI
For an understanding of why that effects sustained turn rate read the NACA/NASA report on this.ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20090016589_2009014303.pdf
@bellator11, both aircraft currently run 100LL fuel. During the war the P51 used 130/150, the 109 used 94. So it's the P51 that can't run wartime manifold pressure.
@hiperformancestore Not quite, the Germans used 87 octane synthetic fuel during the war, whilst the Allies used 100 octane natural fuel (100/130 & 130/150 was just a designation). And neither sides aircraft are being run at full manifold pressures these days. So again, it applies to aircraft from both sides.
And keep in mind that using 100 octane fuel in an engine optimized for 87 octane fuel aint exactly a good idea, you'd lose performance instead of gaining any. You'd have to change ignition timings etc etc to safely run at much higher octane levels than the engine was orginally designed for. For this reason the proper fuels are used in both sides aircraft. They want these aircraft to last afterall, they're pretty valuable pieces of history.
@bellator11: Again you have it backwards. It's going lower in octane that' limits manifold pressure, not higher. The P-51 has the greater handicap here because it's designed to use higher octane fuel than what's currently available. Every AOM I have ever seen for a plane designed for 87 says it's OK to use 100. The other way around is prohibited in most cases. There is a reason for that. You are also wrong about the octane ratings.
@hiperformancestore Nope, just saying it the way it is. Neither sides aircraft are being run at their max power settings these days, and that is despite being run with the proper fuel. Yes thats right, no such thing as any fuel type not being available for these old birds, they get what they need. Not using the correct fuel type for each a/c would be downright stupid. Or are your seriously suggesting they're playing with the reliability of these 60+ year old machines? Don't think so.
@hiperformancestore Why do you keep repeating the same false information again and again? The Bf-109 used 87 octane synthetic fuel like every other German a/c of the war, whilst Allied a/c used 100 octane natural fuel. And finally neither a/c are run at max manifold pressure these days anyways. In short: it has zero effect on these comparisons, its all about the aerodynamics.
@bellator11 You are basically correct with the fuel issue, but please recall that many German aircraft engines did not put out the factory rated horsepower due to in inavailability of the higher octane fuel. The Luftwaffe used the lower rated fuel because they had to, not because the engines were designed for them.
@rampking1 Actually they did, cause 87 octane fuel was what they were designed to use. They could easily be fine tuned to use the higher octane C3 fuel, and gain an extra 20% power or so, but C3 fuel was in very low supply. The DB605 could in the end produce roughly 1825 hp maximum using 87 octane fuel, with the help of a water methanel cooling system ofcourse. Whilst up to 2000 hp could be achieved by using C3 fuel in combination with the MW system.
@bellator11 That is not what I read....the article was investigating what went wrong with the Luftwaffe in the war and this was a major point. Author was wrong?
No I don't have this item in my possession as it was many years ago. I have a small library of stuff here but who knows where it is.
The MW system was great except that you could only use it for minutes~"war emergency" only.
On a side note, even today German car engines are built for what we here in the USA call premium gas.
@rampking1 Well it's the truth. The German aircraft used 87 octane fuel designated B4, and for increased power 96 octane fuel designated C3, both of which were synthetic. As for the MW system, it could be run for 10 min at a time, and there was enough water & methanol for 40 min of boost. By comparison the Allied a/c could only run on WEP for 3-5 min. So German aircraft had a distinct advantage here.
@bellator11 Then I have two views points now. The reality of the situation is both natural and synthetic refineries were being bombed and destroyed and a regular basis, to the point that shortages grounded aircraft and what fuel was available was garbage. High Octane fuel? Where after 1943?
Yes, 10 min. MW boost but with a mand. 5 min. gap in use, but ate sparkplugs as a result and endurance was halved.
One DB-605 version had over 2,000hp on C3, but C3 was a rarity which was my point.
@bellator11 Then I have two views points now. The reality of the situation is both natural and synthetic refineries were being bombed and destroyed and a regular basis, to the point that shortages grounded aircraft and what fuel was available was garbage. High Octane fuel? Where after 1943?
Yes, 10 min MW boost but with a mand 5 min. gap in use, but ate sparkplugs as a result and endurance was halved.
One DB-605 version had over 2,000hp on C3, but C3 was a rarity which was my point.
@rampking1 The Germans didn't use natural fuel, it was all synthetic. Furthermore the fuel that was left wasn't garbage, it was still the same 87 octane fuel. C3 was rare, sure, but that was the case throughout the war thanks to the longer production time. C3 was 96 octane and it was used even in 1945, but again in very limited quantity.
@TeToa, Negative, power to weight ratio has a strong effect on an aircraft's sustained turn radius. This is because during a max performance turn induced drag rises so high it takes a lot of power to sustain the ideal turn speed.
You guys do realize that Skip Holm is talking about the performance of these planes TODAY. Not in WW2 when the allied planes had 130 and 150 octane fuel in the tanks.
@hiperformancestore Its airframe design that dictates turn radius. Fuel octane would help with power and speed, not necessarily the turn radius. In fact, a higher speed would widen the radius, not help it.
@hiperformancestore Nevermind the fuel, even cleaner fuel is being used today, but the aircraft just aren't beeing run at the same manifold pressures, and that goes for all vintage aircraft, not just the Allied ones. So Skip's comparison is completely valid.
The Me109 is the only fighter plane in history to have over 350 kills ,300 kills 250kills and so on and on, even 200 pilots had over 100 kills , I think the 109 is with out a doubt the Greatest Fighter Plane ever , also if you took all other fighters ever made and put their kills together ,the 109 had more kills.FYI
The Me109 is the only fighter plane in history to have over 350 kills ,300 kills 250kills and so on and on even 200 pilots had over 100 kills , I think the 109 is with out a doubt the greatest fighter plane ever , also if you took all other fighters ever made and put their kills together ,the 109 had more kills.FYI
If SKIP HOLMs Says the 109 will out turn the spit then any thing you say is moot :) He has Flown All the spits and most of the 109s,,, I have flown only the spit about 150 hrs but I have never flown the 109 ( I Wish someday ) :)
Hi texas - well I'll agree to disagree. Skip Holm is a fine man and I understand why you would wish to go with his accounts.
I'll choose to stay with the accounts of my friends (most now late) who actually flew all the Marks of Spitfire in combat.
Just for your interest Google 'Spitfire PV270' (takes a while to load) and have a look at Brendon Deere's Spitfire located at the Ohakea Airbase (Brendon is Al Deere's nephew).
I'm hoping to film the run-up and flight post maintenance.
Seems to me like a couple of good 'ol boys take a few vintage fighters up for a Sunday afternoon stroll in the park and dismiss, with a couple of casual remarks, all the war-time experiences of thousands WWII Spitfire pilots.
It seems we have some people here (@Merlin2Stage2Speed) that have No idea what they are talking about, and talking to other people that have No idea what they are talking about . Jeezz ..
The Me109 is the only fighter plane in history to have over 350 kills ,300 kills 250kills and so on and on even 200 pilots had over 100 kills , I think the 109 is with out a doubt the greatest fighter plane ever , also if you took all other fighters ever made and put their kills together ,the 109 had more kills.FYI
The various strengths and shortcomings of the Messerschmitt, the Hurricane, and the Spitfire largely cancelled out in combat. The Hurricane's comparative weakness in acceleration, There was little to choose between the Spitfire and the Me109 between 12,000 and 17,000 feet, but above 20,000 feet the Messerschmitt was undoubtedly the better machine. It dived faster turned better and climb faster than its opponents.
Especially once the Spitfire was fitted with the higher rated Merlin 60 Series engines as in the Mk 8, 9 and 16, Bf 109's were no longer anywhere near the Spitfire's league.
Most combats took place at higher speeds as opposed to the lower speeds that were more typical when the Spitfire was fitted with the much lower rated Merlin III through Merlin 45.
At those speeds the Spitfire easily out-turned the 109, especially at altitude & without the nasty high-speed stall suffered by the 109.
@Merlin2Stage2Speed This just shows that you know nothing about the Bf-109 as it didn't suffer from any kind of high speed stall issue. The addition of the slats meant that the stalls of the Bf-109 were not only significantly delayed but also unusually benign when they occured and easily recovered from. The Spitfire would not outturn the Bf-109, they both turned approx just as well as each other from version to version, the 109 having the advantage at low alts and the Spit at high alts.
Absolute bull. I have a huge folder of notes taken from Spitfire pilots - some of whom who flew during The Battle of Britain and during the defense of Malta. And many others who flew Spitfires Mk 8, 9, 14 and 16 through till the end of the war.
Never at any time, could the Bf 109 turn inside a Spitfire, except maybe, right on the point of a low-speed stall. the 109 certainly DID suffer from a high speed stall issue - the slats were not employed except at very low speeds.
Airshows are where restored vintage aircraft are flown very carefully. Typically, a Spitfire/Mustang demo would see the Merlin 60/Merlin266 operating at not more than 2,400 rpm and 7lbs of boost. And with no armor, guns or ammunition.
In wartime combat, the pilots often flow them in combat at the max 3,000 rpm and 29 psi of boost - and fully loaded with armor, guns and ammunition - a rather different scenario.
The Bf 109 was obsolete by 1943 - not so the Spitfire.
@Merlin2Stage2Speed The long nosed spits8,9 and so on, could not out turn the 109F,G,K at any altitude also the 109 could out climb the spits, and out run the spits , its seems you know little about these planes,And the long nose spit had bad low speed stall that the 109 did not have at low speeds the spit was easy meat for the 109 at low speeds, I have flown a spit mk9 and have many hrs in it.
Hi texas - well I've just got of the phone with Max Collett and Doug Brown, both of whom clocked hundreds of combat hours in Spitfire's Mk 5, Mk 9 and Mk 16 with RNZAF 485 Squadon and passed on your comments for their direct observation.
They both laughed and said, never could the Bf 109 F or G outrun, outurn nor out climb the Spitfire 9 or 16. Both said the Hun were never a problem while you were in the 9 which was roughly comparable with the FW 190A.
As the for the low speed stall - they certainly did not concur with your comment either.
Doug clocked up an impressive kill/damaged tally against the Bf 109 and reiterated that the Spitfire's tight turning ability in particular was a decisive aspect of winning a dogfight with both a FW 190 and a Bf 109.
Doug also few Griffon powered Mk14's - and said he still out turned 109's every time!
They would like to know the ID code of the Spitfire 9 you flew, from where and when.
Just one last thing to add texas in hindsight - Doug Brown had suggested to me that we let you know that once the Spitfire 5 was replaced with the 9, the Hun no longer wished hang around for long to dogfight it out.
The reports at the time indicated that the Germans truly feared the Spitfire 9 in combat and would later resort to bounce from altitude and run tactics only wherever possible - to avoid 'mixing it up' in a dogfight. That's exactly what happened.
The subject of turning ability, specifically as concerns the Bf 109 and the Spitfire, was covered many times in my conversations with combat Spitfire pilots years ago
You have to remember that restored aircraft at airshows have had their armor and guns removed - and of course carry no ammunition. Fully armored, armed and loaded, the wing loading of the Bf 109 was appreciably higher than any Mark of Spitfire
Only at the lowest speeds approaching the stall - did the Bf 109 have any sort of edge
@Merlin2Stage2Speed Sorry but that just isn't the case. Wing loading is not a direct indicator of turn performance, esp. not when one aircraft enjoys a considerable advantage in wing Clmax and power loading. The Bf-109 will turn with a Spitfire, esp. if both are carrying period armor & ammunition, as evidenced by modern day demonstrations. Furthermore you've just as many 109 pilots saying they could outturn the spitfire as vice versa.
Here's a couple of excerpts from published reports:
1). From F/S George Unwin, of No. 19 Squadron:
"I had survived this mission simply because the Spitfire could sustain a continuous rate of turn inside the BF 109E without stalling - the latter was known for flicking into a vicious stall spin without prior warning if pulled too tightly. The Spitfire would give a shudder to signal it was close to the edge, so as soon as you felt the shake you eased off the stick pressure."
2). F/Lt Al Deere (NZ), with No. 54 Squadron during the Battle of Britain, commented:
My experience over Dunkirk had taught me that when attacked the best counter was to go into a right turn. The Spitfire was infinitely superior to the Bf 109 and so long as one remained in the turn, the enemy pilot could not bring his guns to bear. And this I did, as the German pilot flashed past, turning as he did so to get behind me. But it was I who finished astern of him. The rest was easy.
The 109 pilots are talking nonsense. Every Spitfire pilot I spoke to over the years said that they had no problems at all out-turning the Bf 109 at all altitudes when at comparable speeds except low stall. The 109G was the weakest.
The 60 series Merlin engined Spitfires Mk 8 and 9 and Packard Merlin 266 Mk 16's never had major problems with the Bf 109 - and bettered the FW 190A.
The 2,050 hp Griifon 65 powered Mk 14's simply ate Bf 109's for breakfast - as well as the FW 109D.
@Merlin2Stage2Speed The only one talking nonesense is you. The German pilots say they had no problem outurning the Spitfire and the British pilots say the opposite. In truth both aircraft are very similar when it comes to turning ability, something that is not only backed up by veteran as-well as modern pilot testimony but also physics. Both were great planes. Now throw away your fanboy attitude and fantasy imagination and accept the truth, otherwise you'll soon end up very disappointed.
You write: "fanboy...fantasy...accept the truth otherwise you'll soon end up very disappointed".
How disappointed? Disappointed with what? Or are you inferring that my friends who flew Spitfires in WWII somehow got their facts wrong - or have not told the truth?
I assure you, that I'll take their word before yours and your immature, unfounded and may I say - rather emotional outburst.
If you choose to reject the testimony of veterans who flew Spitfires in combat against the Bf 109, then that's you affair - it doesn't change the facts one jot.
@Merlin2Stage2Speed Sorry kiddo but you're the one ignoring actual testimonies here, not me. You only care to believe in what pleases your own fantasy of how things work. Actual pilot testimonies and hard physical facts don't matter to you, that's clear.
One more snide remark out of you and you're blocked.
Now late: Johnny Checketts, Al Deere, Keith J MacDonald, John G Patterson
And still surviving: Doug Brown and Max Collett.
These are the among the many brave men who flew Spitfires in combat from whom I have taken hundreds of hours of notes and on whose experiences I base my all comments of comparative aircraft performance - and I stand by them.
Block me if you wish - I only wished to share their experiences as regards the Bf 109 - you obviously don't want to hear them.
@Merlin2Stage2Speed Question then is: Why do you ignore the testimonies of veteran pilots such as Pierra Closterman, Erwin Leykauf, Heinrich Beauvais, Herbert Kaiser, Walter Wolfrum and modern pilots such as Skip Holm ?
I've read the testimonies of 109 pilots - but I've never met them and spoken to them at length.
I'll go with the testimonies of those pilots I have met - invariably they flew Spitfires, Typhoons, Tempests, Corsairs and the old P-40 earlier on - serving as they were with New Zealand squadrons - and who test flew the Mustang P51-A and D variants.
Skip Holm is a fine man with a distinguished recored - but one crucial aspect remains - he did not fly the Spitfire in combat conditions.
In addition I'd like to point out to you that the Bf 109 was considered obsolete by the Germans as early as late 1942 whereas the Spitfire continued to go through significant and very successful development right through until the end of the war.
The Germans kept on producing the 109 simply because it was easy and cheap to build - otherwise the preferred option, the FW 190, would have completely replaced it altogether.
Tight turning didn't count for scheiss in late war aerial combat. I love to watch NOOBS flying IL2 109s pull eye-watering turns and bleed off all their E.
Then, it's a simple matter of passing them by, zooming up, and diving back down for an easy kill.
its amazing, WW 2 was ~60 years ago, and details about aircraft were fudged . . . only valid are input from vets . . . provided they didn't have a bone to pick . . .
channels, shows and books and sim games have misinformation . . .
Not better aircraft just different. Each has its own weaknesses and strength's. The pilot who knows bohis and the opposing plane and uses that will come out the winner. Its like when everyone laughed at the P-47's size. Fly it to its strength's and its as good as any plane. Same with almost all planes, just have to know what the other guy can do.
During WWII, the average kill ratio in combat V the P-51 was 1 to 7 for the Me109. For every German shot down, 7 P-51s Allied fighters were shot down.
The various strengths and shortcomings of the Messerschmitt, the Hurricane, and the Spitfire largely cancelled out in combat. The Hurricane's comparative weakness in acceleration, There was little to choose between the Spitfire and the Me109 between 12,000 and 17,000 feet, but above 20,000 feet the Messerschmitt was undoubtedly the better machine. It dived faster turned better and climb faster than its opponents.
Mark Hanna who flew and thrashed Spits and 109s through his life...
[the Bf109] will definitely out-maneuver a P-51 in this type of flight, the roll rate and slow speed characteristics being much better. The Spitfire on the other hand is more of a problem for the '109 and I feel it is a superior close in fighter. Having said that the aircraft are sufficiently closely matched that pilot abilty would probably be the deciding factor.
The various strengths and shortcomings of the Messerschmitt, the Hurricane, and the Spitfire largely cancelled out in combat. The Hurricane's comparative weakness in acceleration, There was little to choose between the Spitfire and the Me109 between 12,000 and 17,000 feet, but above 20,000 feet the Messerschmitt was undoubtedly the better machine. It dived faster turned better and climb faster than its opponents.
bullshit peteeat marseille outurned spitfires with his f 4 in afrika, well said shreddingitout this guy has the real experience and this jerks keep saying bullshit bf 109 outturns shitstang just admit it ok?
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
ok go to spitfire, the legend and its opponents vidoe 5 on you tube and you will see with your own eyes a spit 5 easily out turning a f4 in malta and i'll say it again skip is a great pilot but he does'nt fly those birds at anything like combat speed ,dive and turn so the quote is a moot point
and im not anti german the fw190a3/4 was for 6months the surperior to the spit5 in everything but turn
DO ANY OF YOU KNOW WHO SKIP HOLM ACTUALLY IS!!!!!!!!!!He holds the record for highest hours of combat flying - over 1172 hours, and is also one of the most decoraded USAF figter pilots of all time, the guy is an allied pilot for god sakes, he is an american and hes telling you, the me 109 out turns the p-51 and spitfire!!! thats gotta be the most unbiased expert comments you can get, to many people are pro allied with big mouths!!! its what is commonly referred to as the retard gate being open!!
Its funny how everyone who is pro allied on this comment page has little to know facts to back up there claims, but it really is simple both the spit and the me could turn well depends on whether the pilot could stay conscience as G force was a factor and the history channel by the way is alot of bull mostly allied propaganda, the facts are cold and hard and as texasfathead has already stated the 109 was faster higher rate of climb and tighter turning! by the way my great grandfather-Otto kittel
The slats were put on by Willy mainly to inrease maneuverability & lower the landing speed. The slats do NOT add any extra drag, they are shut against the wing in straight flight and only come out as AoA increases, increasing the CLmax & Critical AoA of the wing.
When it comes to turning the Bf-109 & Spitfire are very similar.
it did not turn better at any height,however initial dive was faster then the spit plus zoom climb energy bleed was better then spit however the diff for the 1a and the e3 was very small
having a e3 on yr 6 and knowing you could in 2-3 turns be on the germnans six must have been comforting for the raf pilots who were not as well trained as the gewrmans early on in the bob
The various strengths and shortcomings of the Messerschmitt, the Hurricane, and the Spitfire largely cancelled out in combat. The Hurricane's comparative weakness in acceleration, There was little to choose between the Spitfire and the Me109 between 12,000 and 17,000 feet, but above 20,000 feet the Messerschmitt was undoubtedly the better machine. It dived faster turned better and climb faster than its opponents.
you have to remember wily m didnt put slats on for tighter turning for the 109 it had higher wing loading he designed it for climb,dive,speed it was for low speed handling the down side was a srubbing off of energy in the turn lots off ww2 planes hasd slats 262,la5/7 etc and the spit can turn/out turn any of them
please give me the titles and i will research them ,the 109e3 was tested by the french,british and swiss and the figures almost to the letter concured to the rae which thorougly tested the e3 against the spitmk1 , the spit outturned the me while the initial climb was slightly faster then the me rall,molders, and galland said the me was poorer in the turn then the spit im not argueing with them
peteeat, i agree on the e3 being outturned by early spits. i think think the e3 pilots were scared of the uneven slat deployment the sometimes happened.
yr turning figures of 170m are from a pilot quote and are not based on fact the rae extensivly tested a e3 and their figure of 880 ft radius are acceppted as correct having said that test pilots said the me was very crisp and delightful to fly below 250mph
yr figures for the five are based on the 5 trop generally accepted as the worst varient best climb 0f 3770ft/min for the vc the e best climbof 2990ft/min although the internet seems to throw up differant figures this seems the most consistent
the reason it didnt have cf is that it didnt need em its wing was so effiecent that you had plenty of warning of oncoming stall the 109 slats did tighten its turn briefly but scrubbed of so much energy off stall was likley the e was outurned/climbed by the 5 go to spitfire performence for offical validation
Spitfire's VB turning circle — without height loss — was 696 feet (212 m) in radius (the Hurricane's would be slightly tighter) while the 109's was the smallest turning circle was 170 m without height loss. spit 5 Rate of climb: 2,665 ft/min, 109E Rate of climb 3,660 ft/min.the 109 out truns and out climbs the spit V.
the f2 and 4 were slightey faster then a spit 5 at 389 spit 374 their was no 109 varient they could outturn a spitfire at equiv combat speeds that is a modern myth and of coarse a g2 would dominate p40 ,p39, hurris, they were inferior planes sent to the desert because no longer competetive in europe
PETEEAT I don't believe that, the 109 had slats and combat flaps it also weighed less than the spit 5 and the spit had No combat flaps, also Adolf Galland shot down 55 spits in a couple months and he said the 109E completely out class the spit 5, the 109E could out turn, out run,out climb and out dive the spit 5, and the 109F was better than the 109E.FYI.
in response to PETEATE's comments about spits and 109s, the spit could outturn the 109E. the F and G models were a completely different story. a G2 model captured in africa was scrutinized to the max by the allies in'42 to find out why it was kicking butts( spits,hurricanes, P40s,P39s, etc)
Did you know the 109 shot down more airplanes than all other fighter put together, also it was the only fighter have 100 kills and 200 kills, and Eric Hartmen had 352 kills.FACT.
Even in North Africa the DB-601 on later F-models had to be downgraded to 87 octane as 96 was so scarce. There was a reason why the Germans were ahead of the curve when it came to MW and Nitrous Oxide boost, and you are trying to tell me they had no octane issues? These tricks gave back the power but at a cost. You actually believe the Germans had a "distinct advantage here" ? We'll just have to disagree.
rampking1 5 months ago
I said they had a distinct advantage in terms of how long their engines could handle emergency boost, that's it. You claimed that the fuel they had was garbage, which is completely untrue, it was the same 87 octane fuel as always. Just because you bomb som refineries doesn't mean that what the rest are producing magically becomes garbage, can you hear yourself ?? And regarding C3, I have no clue what you're trying to get across, I said it was rare throughout the war, you then repeat me?!
bellator11 5 months ago
@bellator11
Quite obviously they went to 87 octane as a neccessity, not because they wanted to.
The GM1 and MW boost was a bandaid to try to compensate for it.
Btw, show me exactly any fact in my previous comment not correct.
Are you wanting books, authors, page numbers?
Btw, the DB-605ASCM could reach 2000hp emergency with C3, no boost at all, no 25g tank , no changing plugs. No repeating, right from the book.
"Garbage" is a relative term, it will run but you won't get all the power.
rampking1 5 months ago
@rampking1 The Germans were using 87 octane B4 fuel since before the war started, simply because it was cheaper & faster to produce than the 96 octane C3. As for the ASCM version, it needed MW50 to reach 2,000 hp, same as the DC version. Running on C3 without MW50 engaged and 1800 hp could be achieved.
And again, the fuel they had was not garbage, it was either 87 octane B4 or 96 octane C3, and there was no difference between that produced in 1939 or that produced in 1945.
bellator11 5 months ago
@bellator11 Yes, cheaper and faster, the best thing about it.
It's not garbage when it is about the only thing available.
So Daimler-Benz was just happy designing engines with an 87 octane minimum requirement, good..thanks. That B4 must be good stuff.
Btw, the Bf-109 F1-2 and the Bf-109 E w/DB-601N engine all used C3, higher compression, more power.
Also the DB605 achieved the 2000Hp with C3, at special emer. power , no mention of MW or GM1 boost.
That is right out of the book.
rampking1 5 months ago
@bellator11 Your exact words: " The Bf-109 used 87 octane synthetic fuel like every other German a/c of the war"
How many contrary examples do want or are you going to delete this?
rampking1 5 months ago
@rampking1 What? Contrary how and to what? The Bf-109 DID use 87 octane B4 fuel, just like every other German piston engined aircraft of the war! 96 octane C3 was used to increase power when available. Is this really so hard to understand ?? Only the jet aircraft used a different type of fuel, the coal derived J2..
bellator11 5 months ago
@rampking1 Lets see what you've claimed so far:
1) Germans used natural fuel = FALSE
2) The DB605 ASCM achieved 2000 hp without use of MW50 = FALSE
3) The Germans had no high octane fuel after 43 = FALSE
4) The fuel they had left was garbage = FALSE
Are we really going to continue this pointless discussion ??
bellator11 5 months ago
@bellator11 Yes, you are correct, lets end it.
I am willing to listen but when you misquote me you are going to another dimension.
Show me where in any previous comment that: "Germans used natural fuel"
I only said : "natural and synthetic refineries were being bombed" in regards to the war situation and shortages. A bit of a leap on your part ? Can't defend myself for something never said.
Btw, I suggest you add a caption pointing out that Skip is the second man interviewed.
rampking1 5 months ago
That's Skip? How old is this video, doesn't look or sound like him.
cheesehawk 6 months ago
Ask him about landing a 109 on grass field!
bigtopbollocks 8 months ago
The Spits were flown by now more experienced pilots even if they were "equal" to the mE-109. The GERMAN aircraft by this time were flown by practically anyone they could stuff into that seat.
norseleague 8 months ago
When you say "CRS" you mean Cornered Rat Studios aka WW2OL/Battleground Europe? I love that game but flying for the Germans is always much harder than easy mode allied planes. Do you still play?
Cplblue 8 months ago
I am not letting this turn into a stupid slanging match, The FW190 was superior to the ME 109 an some early Spits and the Mustang, it was to eventually replace the 109, due to German industry during the final years this did not happen. 109 was ment to be an interceptor based behind army units close to the front hence it's struggle to upgrade later in the war. I am not saying it was a bad plane it just wasn't as easy to develop and not as good an al round fighter as the spitfire.
nickizzyyouification 9 months ago
@nickizzyyouification The FW190 was superior in some respects and inferior in others, but it was never meant as a replacement for the Bf109, just the same as the P-51 was never meant as a replacement for the P-47 or P-38, or the F4U a replacement for the F6F. And the Bf109 was just as good and allround fighter as the Spitfire, and developed at the same pace as the Spitfire. They both shared similar capabilities, including a similar combat radius.
bellator11 9 months ago
I am not biased I am basing facts on written accounts at the time, to brush aside comments from the pilots I mentioned I cannot understand, Galland and Yeager they must know a wee bit I think. The Spit did get heavier and was further developed but just one point if the 109 was such a good aircraft late on in the war why bother replacing it with the FW 190. I live not to far from BBMF and have seen these aircraft and spoke with pilots who flew them, Spits were further developed to counter 190.
nickizzyyouification 9 months ago
The Fw190 was never meant to replace the Bf109, you need to get your facts straight. The Fw190 was just another weapon added to the LW arsenal, just like the Hawker Tempest was another weapon added to the RAF arsenal. And I'm sorry but you are biased, otherwise you wouldn't just brush aside the experiences of the LW's chief test pilot who, I repeat, flew both aircraft. Does it really hurt that much to realize that these two aircraft actually were quite similar capability wise?
bellator11 9 months ago
There seems no point to continue this the comments added on this topic point to basic performance as being close, I agree some Luffwaffe pilots would be bias as allied but Adolf Galland ,Chuck Yeager both state the spit was the better aircraft, you can't argue with pilots of there status. The 109 was a good plane but not fantastic towards the end of the war it was showing it had become long in the tooth, the FW 190 was a far greater, aerodynamics not sure what the point is combat is the decider
nickizzyyouification 9 months ago
@nickizzyyouification Well at least this just shows that you have your own bias, cause with the evidence presented any objective person would start to question wether there really was much of a difference between the two aircraft. Esp. since you so casually just brush aside the words of the chief LW test pilot who flew both aircraft. I have always maintained that both were excellent aircraft, and I don't care much for personal bias since it leads us nowhere.
bellator11 9 months ago
@nickizzyyouification Furthermore your comments about the Bf-109's longevity are quite pointless seeing as the exact same can be said about the Spitfire. Both aircraft increased in weight as they were developed further, and they always stayed very close in term of performance, the 109 generally maintaining an advantage at low to medium altitudes, whilst the Spitfire generally maintained an advantage at high altitudes.
bellator11 9 months ago
I would like to know where your getting this information from it contradicts everything I have read, not once have I heard the 109 was a tighter tunrner as it wasn't, performance were close but the spitfire could turn inside. The 109 was faster in a dive due to negative G cutt out on the older merlins but slightly slower and could not turn inside a spit. try reading Most dangerous enemy, or first light, there honest accounts of combat not fictional p.c based.
nickizzyyouification 9 months ago
@nickizzyyouification Try reading the experiences of aces such as Erwin Leykauf, Walter Wolfrum or the words from Luftwaffe chief test pilot Heinrich Beauvais who flew both aircraft. Next read MTT documents, where the the aerodynamics of each 109 model is listed, from E, F, G to K. True Lift Coefficients, Induced drag coefficients and zero lift drag coefficients are listed there. These figures are confirmed by basic aerodynamics.
bellator11 9 months ago
@nickizzyyouification You see, when it comes to vehicle/aircraft performance, the problem is you can't hide the truth forever, as soon as technology permits it we will know for certain the true characteristics of these birds, and everything atm seems to point towards the two aircraft being VERY close when it comes to turn performance. Veteran pilots will always argue what was really the case, it is only through careful analysis of both aircraft that we will know their true limits.
bellator11 9 months ago
@nickizzyyouification well, about the G cut, I read some Spit drivers had a field mod installed to counter that on the early Spits, but its a vague memory and I can't recall where I read that. On the turning, the slats helped the 109 a lot and put it in spitfire turning ballpark. Some pilots didn't like pushing it that far though as they didn't trust the slats, due to malfunctions with them in early 109's. Most of the aces did tho that got the most from the 109. i/e The plane of the experts, so.
tw19771 8 months ago
@tw19771 Quite right. These two great fighters were very close when it came to maneuvering in the horizontal.
bellator11 8 months ago
To compare performance on a flight sim is crazy, read about the aircraft the pilots who actually fought and flew these machines. I have read over and over about the superior turning circle of the spitfire over the 109 it's fact, it's not everything in a dogfight but it's an edge the spitfire would judder prior to a stall. The hurricane could turn even tighter but it lacked performance above 20000 ft, I would put my money on the pilots of the day not modern show pilots " no disrespect"
nickizzyyouification 9 months ago
@nickizzyyouification Problem is aerodynamics confirm the words of both veterans & modern pilots alike who testify that the Bf-109 was just as good in the turn as the Spitfire, and sometimes even better. Furthermore the Bf-109 would warn its' pilot of a stall as-well by slight buffeting near the stall.
bellator11 9 months ago
this is physically not skip, watch the other videos... literally this guy is not skip... i know him. its not him. trust me
eleventhirty7 11 months ago
@eleventhirty7 Then explain why he links to this very video on his own website ;-) lol, the most ridiculous claim I've ever heard.
bellator11 11 months ago
@bellator11 he is literally my friends uncle and he says it is not him, why would he lie...
eleventhirty7 10 months ago
@eleventhirty7 Well I suggest you talk to Skip about it then, cause apparently he thinks its him too lol :D
bellator11 10 months ago
@eleventhirty7 PS: You do realize Skip doesnt appear in the video until at 3:19 right?
bellator11 10 months ago
@bellator11 holy my mistake... i assumed it was the intro guy. but no that is definately skip at 3:19.. well my bad so sorry but thanks for the catch
eleventhirty7 10 months ago
Skip needs to zip his jabber jawing and take his ass up in the air and I'll throw a couple of dimes up there and its up to him to turn on them like he claims. The BF 109 is a fast little plane, but it suffers greatly from poor visibility and lack of places to put armament because of its thin wings. The BF-109s strength was they got mass producing it down pat; if it were so super, they would of never put the FW 190 into production.
cobrachoppergirl 11 months ago
@cobrachoppergirl Using that logic a lot of aircraft should've never entered production in your opinion, planes such as the Spitfire, P51, etc etc... The Bf-109 was the prefered crate of the worlds highest scoring aces, from Germany to Finland. It wasn't a truly fantastic fighter then how come it did so fantastically well, being the prefered aircraft of the aces.
bellator11 11 months ago
Of course there is no way that a modern pilot will attempt to turn his multi million dollar antique as hard as a WW2 pilot trying to save his life.
SvenTviking 1 year ago
Reno pole racing war birds use far higher boost than wartime aircraft. Thats how they run Merlins over 3000 hp. But these are hand built engines with extra strong "Transport" blicks from post war airliners.
SvenTviking 1 year ago
Having seen the official test results of a Griffon Spitfire XIV vs a captured Bf109G flown by British test pilots, the Spit out performs the 109 in every way. The FW190A is only better in rate of roll.
SvenTviking 1 year ago
No such thing as official tests, only wartime tests, and as usual they aren't very reliable sources. For one the RAF test pilots didn't know how to properly take advantage of the slats, they litterally stopped pulling once they deployed, completely missing the point of why they were installed in the first place. The clue is in tests, the RAF test pilots claiming that the 109 was "embarrased" by the opening of its slots. In reality real turning first started after the slats had deployed.
bellator11 11 months ago
@bellator11 Well how do you explain the fact that these tests found that when the slats deployed, the test pilots found that the subsequent jerk on the airframe caused difficulty in keeping the gunsights on target? How do you explain GERMAN test pilots saying that Spitfires could out turn a 109? Adolf Galland said the Spit was a better aircraft. Do you really think that comparative test flying in wartime was affected by propogander? The 109s cockpit was too bloody small.
SvenTviking 11 months ago
@SvenTviking The only German test which points to the Spitfire turning tighter is a very early one from 1940 involving an Emil. And the Emil was known to have issues with its slats, hence why the slat design was significantly altered as of the F series. The Emil suffered from its slats jamming, causing deadly spins, leaving pilots vary of trying to pull a tight turn. This is explained by both Chief LW test pilot Heinrich Beauvais, as-well as Erwin Leykauf amongst others.
bellator11 11 months ago
@bellator11 The only reason they fitted the leading edge slats was because the 109's wing was small. Add on three years worth of accumulated extra weight on the G model and the turning performance dropped. Also, all 109s suffered from increasingly heavy controls as speed went up. Not as bad as the Zero, but far worse than a Spitfire.
SvenTviking 11 months ago
@SvenTviking The reason for adding the slats was for improving handling in turns and slow speeds, as-well as lowering landing speeds, hence why they were used extensively on post war fighters. Also you're forgetting that aircraft such as the Spitfire increased in weight atleast as much as did the 109 from version to version. So really I fail to see what you're getting at there.
bellator11 11 months ago
@bellator11 The Spit had a large wing in the first place, so it had low wing loading. So it had room to take the weight. The Spit was also very gentle in the stall and gave lots of warning. It didn't need slats. Two and a half turns he's on yoir tail.
SvenTviking 11 months ago
@SvenTviking Wing loading is a very poor indicator of turn performance, many other factors determine this, such as the lift coefficient of the particular wing design. As for your last comment, I am afraid that has been proven false through both anecdotal and scientific evidence. The two aircraft, Bf109 & Spitfire, were very close in turn performance, and both were great aircraft. I wouldn't call one better than the other. Just remember, the victors always write the history books.
bellator11 11 months ago
@bellator11 I agree, the Spit and 109 were both great aircraft. And with so many variants its hard to compare them. It doesn't matter anyway because the P-51 was the best fighter of WWII. ^.^
PkayerZxz2 11 months ago
@PkayerZxz2 According to some, yes ^^ It certainly saved the Allied strategic bombing effort, and its performance at high altitude was impressive. There were higher performing aircraft though, such as the Me262, which pointed the way to the future. Personally I would rate the Me262 as the best fighter of the war, unfortunately for the Germans however the lack of proper materials led to the 004 engines having a very short engine life.
bellator11 11 months ago
@bellator11 The Me262 was a dedicated interceptor. Not a general purpose fighter. The Me262 was an amazing aircraft that excelled at destroying bombers but that was it. Overall the P-51 was more versatile and it was a superior design as it wasn't overly complex like the Me262.
PkayerZxz2 11 months ago
@PkayerZxz2 Well, actually it was designed as an air superiority fighter, a role which it excelled at once it was given permission to fullfill it (Hitler again). Once airborne the 262 was pretty much untouchable, providing the pilot knew what he was doing and didn't get suckered into low speed turning contests, in which no jet should ever engage a prop fighter. Also the Me262 wasn't really anymore complex than the P-51, just more advanced.
bellator11 11 months ago
@PkayerZxz2 Very hard to compare the spit and the 109. Ppl wanna say such and such will turn tighter or not climb higher and so on. but the performance of these birds aren't static. airspeed, alt, prop, fuel type and how much, weight, even if the plane has ammo loaded, and other equipment even energy management and weather can affect performance. and give surprising results. I think its safe to say the spit and 109 is close though.
tw19771 10 months ago
Fighter to fighter all on dogfight, what's the best? My rating by all-round performance:
1) Spitfire Mk XIV
2) Nakajima Ki84 Frank
3) Spitfire Mk IX
4) F6F Hellcat
5) Bf 109G6
6) F4U Corsair
7) P51 Mustang
Talon45451 1 year ago
In the Battle of Britain Spitfires and Hurricanes were mostly outnumbered many times to one. And the Germans often claimed a fantastic number of kills. And good 'ol boy Skip here says a 109 can out-turn a Spitfire.
Gee, there must have been angels or superhumans with strange powers flying the Spits and Hurricanes back then, because I don't remember reading that the Germans won the battle.
Just sayin'.
Dreadnought5001 1 year ago
@Dreadnought5001 you also read why we lost? has nthg to do with planes..you moron
we had best tanks and we lost.useless what plane is better. read and come back
WilhelmAUT 1 year ago
@WilhelmAUT Huh? I don't remember tanks taking part in the Battle of Britain.
Talon45451 1 year ago
@Talon45451 you know what i mean...it isnt the polane quality. germany won with obsolete tanks etc and retreated with best gear on planet..thats what i wanted to say. and bob wasnt won by raf it was lost in high german command
WilhelmAUT 1 year ago
@Dreadnought5001 Actually British fighters outnumbered German fighters greatly over Britain. It was only in bombers that the Germans had a higher number of a/c in the sky. And despite the disparity in numbers and the fact that the Me109 couldn't hang around for long before having to head for home, it did manage to acquire itself a roughly 2:1 kill/loss ratio over the RAF fighters.
bellator11 1 year ago 7
where are you getting this information from, read up on the battle of britain, it's simply false.
nickizzyyouification 9 months ago
Furthermore using too high an octane rated fuel in an engine designed for a much lower octane rating won't yield you any benefits in performance. The engine first needs to be tuned for a new type of fuel. And running too low an octane number in an engine designed for higher ratings is downright bad for the reliability & life of the engine, and so quite simply it aint done. Finally these old a/c don't feature their water methanol boosting system anymore, or atleast the German a/c don't.
bellator11 1 year ago
@bellator11 What you are saying is simply Not true higher octane rated fuel will always make an engine run better all adjustments can be made from the cock-pit...FYI
texasfathead 1 year ago
@texasfathead Not quite, a common misconception is that power output or fuel mileage can be improved by burning higher octane fuel than a particular engine was designed for. The power output of an engine depends in part on the energy density of its fuel, but similar fuels with different octane ratings have similar density. Since switching to a higher octane fuel does not add any more hydrocarbon content or oxygen, the engine cannot produce more power.
bellator11 1 year ago
@bellator11 To get more power out of an engine by using a higher octane fuel means having to tune it to that particular type of fuel, and that can't be done from inside the cockpit, as you have to alter ignition timings etc etc. So the vintage German a/c aren't producing anymore power these days than the Allied ones, cause each a/c is run with the proper type of fuel that the engine was designed for. This is naturally done to preserve the engine's life-span.
bellator11 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@bellator11 What you are saying is simply Not true higher octane rated fuel will alway make an engine run better all adjustments can be made from the cock-pit...FYI
texasfathead 1 year ago
For an understanding of why that effects sustained turn rate read the NACA/NASA report on this.ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20090016589_2009014303.pdf
hiperformancestore 1 year ago
@bellator11, both aircraft currently run 100LL fuel. During the war the P51 used 130/150, the 109 used 94. So it's the P51 that can't run wartime manifold pressure.
hiperformancestore 1 year ago
@hiperformancestore Not quite, the Germans used 87 octane synthetic fuel during the war, whilst the Allies used 100 octane natural fuel (100/130 & 130/150 was just a designation). And neither sides aircraft are being run at full manifold pressures these days. So again, it applies to aircraft from both sides.
bellator11 1 year ago
And keep in mind that using 100 octane fuel in an engine optimized for 87 octane fuel aint exactly a good idea, you'd lose performance instead of gaining any. You'd have to change ignition timings etc etc to safely run at much higher octane levels than the engine was orginally designed for. For this reason the proper fuels are used in both sides aircraft. They want these aircraft to last afterall, they're pretty valuable pieces of history.
bellator11 1 year ago
@bellator11: Again you have it backwards. It's going lower in octane that' limits manifold pressure, not higher. The P-51 has the greater handicap here because it's designed to use higher octane fuel than what's currently available. Every AOM I have ever seen for a plane designed for 87 says it's OK to use 100. The other way around is prohibited in most cases. There is a reason for that. You are also wrong about the octane ratings.
hiperformancestore 1 year ago
@hiperformancestore Nope, just saying it the way it is. Neither sides aircraft are being run at their max power settings these days, and that is despite being run with the proper fuel. Yes thats right, no such thing as any fuel type not being available for these old birds, they get what they need. Not using the correct fuel type for each a/c would be downright stupid. Or are your seriously suggesting they're playing with the reliability of these 60+ year old machines? Don't think so.
bellator11 1 year ago
@hiperformancestore Why do you keep repeating the same false information again and again? The Bf-109 used 87 octane synthetic fuel like every other German a/c of the war, whilst Allied a/c used 100 octane natural fuel. And finally neither a/c are run at max manifold pressure these days anyways. In short: it has zero effect on these comparisons, its all about the aerodynamics.
bellator11 1 year ago 2
@bellator11 You are basically correct with the fuel issue, but please recall that many German aircraft engines did not put out the factory rated horsepower due to in inavailability of the higher octane fuel. The Luftwaffe used the lower rated fuel because they had to, not because the engines were designed for them.
No one talks about this but it is a fact.
rampking1 5 months ago
@rampking1 Actually they did, cause 87 octane fuel was what they were designed to use. They could easily be fine tuned to use the higher octane C3 fuel, and gain an extra 20% power or so, but C3 fuel was in very low supply. The DB605 could in the end produce roughly 1825 hp maximum using 87 octane fuel, with the help of a water methanel cooling system ofcourse. Whilst up to 2000 hp could be achieved by using C3 fuel in combination with the MW system.
bellator11 5 months ago
@bellator11 That is not what I read....the article was investigating what went wrong with the Luftwaffe in the war and this was a major point. Author was wrong?
No I don't have this item in my possession as it was many years ago. I have a small library of stuff here but who knows where it is.
The MW system was great except that you could only use it for minutes~"war emergency" only.
On a side note, even today German car engines are built for what we here in the USA call premium gas.
rampking1 5 months ago
@rampking1 Well it's the truth. The German aircraft used 87 octane fuel designated B4, and for increased power 96 octane fuel designated C3, both of which were synthetic. As for the MW system, it could be run for 10 min at a time, and there was enough water & methanol for 40 min of boost. By comparison the Allied a/c could only run on WEP for 3-5 min. So German aircraft had a distinct advantage here.
bellator11 5 months ago
@bellator11 Then I have two views points now. The reality of the situation is both natural and synthetic refineries were being bombed and destroyed and a regular basis, to the point that shortages grounded aircraft and what fuel was available was garbage. High Octane fuel? Where after 1943?
Yes, 10 min. MW boost but with a mand. 5 min. gap in use, but ate sparkplugs as a result and endurance was halved.
One DB-605 version had over 2,000hp on C3, but C3 was a rarity which was my point.
rampking1 5 months ago
@bellator11 Then I have two views points now. The reality of the situation is both natural and synthetic refineries were being bombed and destroyed and a regular basis, to the point that shortages grounded aircraft and what fuel was available was garbage. High Octane fuel? Where after 1943?
Yes, 10 min MW boost but with a mand 5 min. gap in use, but ate sparkplugs as a result and endurance was halved.
One DB-605 version had over 2,000hp on C3, but C3 was a rarity which was my point.
rampking1 5 months ago
@rampking1 The Germans didn't use natural fuel, it was all synthetic. Furthermore the fuel that was left wasn't garbage, it was still the same 87 octane fuel. C3 was rare, sure, but that was the case throughout the war thanks to the longer production time. C3 was 96 octane and it was used even in 1945, but again in very limited quantity.
bellator11 5 months ago
@TeToa, Negative, power to weight ratio has a strong effect on an aircraft's sustained turn radius. This is because during a max performance turn induced drag rises so high it takes a lot of power to sustain the ideal turn speed.
hiperformancestore 1 year ago
You guys do realize that Skip Holm is talking about the performance of these planes TODAY. Not in WW2 when the allied planes had 130 and 150 octane fuel in the tanks.
hiperformancestore 1 year ago
@hiperformancestore Its airframe design that dictates turn radius. Fuel octane would help with power and speed, not necessarily the turn radius. In fact, a higher speed would widen the radius, not help it.
TeToa 1 year ago
@hiperformancestore Nevermind the fuel, even cleaner fuel is being used today, but the aircraft just aren't beeing run at the same manifold pressures, and that goes for all vintage aircraft, not just the Allied ones. So Skip's comparison is completely valid.
bellator11 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The Me109 is the only fighter plane in history to have over 350 kills ,300 kills 250kills and so on and on, even 200 pilots had over 100 kills , I think the 109 is with out a doubt the Greatest Fighter Plane ever , also if you took all other fighters ever made and put their kills together ,the 109 had more kills.FYI
texasfathead 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The Me109 is the only fighter plane in history to have over 350 kills ,300 kills 250kills and so on and on even 200 pilots had over 100 kills , I think the 109 is with out a doubt the greatest fighter plane ever , also if you took all other fighters ever made and put their kills together ,the 109 had more kills.FYI
texasfathead 1 year ago
If SKIP HOLMs Says the 109 will out turn the spit then any thing you say is moot :) He has Flown All the spits and most of the 109s,,, I have flown only the spit about 150 hrs but I have never flown the 109 ( I Wish someday ) :)
texasfathead 1 year ago
@texasfathead
Hi texas - well I'll agree to disagree. Skip Holm is a fine man and I understand why you would wish to go with his accounts.
I'll choose to stay with the accounts of my friends (most now late) who actually flew all the Marks of Spitfire in combat.
Just for your interest Google 'Spitfire PV270' (takes a while to load) and have a look at Brendon Deere's Spitfire located at the Ohakea Airbase (Brendon is Al Deere's nephew).
I'm hoping to film the run-up and flight post maintenance.
Merlin2Stage2Speed 1 year ago
Seems to me like a couple of good 'ol boys take a few vintage fighters up for a Sunday afternoon stroll in the park and dismiss, with a couple of casual remarks, all the war-time experiences of thousands WWII Spitfire pilots.
Dreadnought5001 1 year ago 2
Comment removed
IdiotenRiehen 10 months ago
It seems we have some people here (@Merlin2Stage2Speed) that have No idea what they are talking about, and talking to other people that have No idea what they are talking about . Jeezz ..
texasfathead 1 year ago
@texasfathead Why don't you answer Merlin's question fathead? What Spitfire/s is it that you claim to have flown huh? Give us the ID.
Dreadnought5001 1 year ago
The Me109 is the only fighter plane in history to have over 350 kills ,300 kills 250kills and so on and on even 200 pilots had over 100 kills , I think the 109 is with out a doubt the greatest fighter plane ever , also if you took all other fighters ever made and put their kills together ,the 109 had more kills.FYI
texasfathead 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The various strengths and shortcomings of the Messerschmitt, the Hurricane, and the Spitfire largely cancelled out in combat. The Hurricane's comparative weakness in acceleration, There was little to choose between the Spitfire and the Me109 between 12,000 and 17,000 feet, but above 20,000 feet the Messerschmitt was undoubtedly the better machine. It dived faster turned better and climb faster than its opponents.
texasfathead 1 year ago
contd.
Especially once the Spitfire was fitted with the higher rated Merlin 60 Series engines as in the Mk 8, 9 and 16, Bf 109's were no longer anywhere near the Spitfire's league.
Most combats took place at higher speeds as opposed to the lower speeds that were more typical when the Spitfire was fitted with the much lower rated Merlin III through Merlin 45.
At those speeds the Spitfire easily out-turned the 109, especially at altitude & without the nasty high-speed stall suffered by the 109.
Merlin2Stage2Speed 1 year ago
@Merlin2Stage2Speed This just shows that you know nothing about the Bf-109 as it didn't suffer from any kind of high speed stall issue. The addition of the slats meant that the stalls of the Bf-109 were not only significantly delayed but also unusually benign when they occured and easily recovered from. The Spitfire would not outturn the Bf-109, they both turned approx just as well as each other from version to version, the 109 having the advantage at low alts and the Spit at high alts.
bellator11 1 year ago
@bellator11
Absolute bull. I have a huge folder of notes taken from Spitfire pilots - some of whom who flew during The Battle of Britain and during the defense of Malta. And many others who flew Spitfires Mk 8, 9, 14 and 16 through till the end of the war.
Never at any time, could the Bf 109 turn inside a Spitfire, except maybe, right on the point of a low-speed stall. the 109 certainly DID suffer from a high speed stall issue - the slats were not employed except at very low speeds.
Merlin2Stage2Speed 1 year ago
@bellator11
One last thing
Airshows are where restored vintage aircraft are flown very carefully. Typically, a Spitfire/Mustang demo would see the Merlin 60/Merlin266 operating at not more than 2,400 rpm and 7lbs of boost. And with no armor, guns or ammunition.
In wartime combat, the pilots often flow them in combat at the max 3,000 rpm and 29 psi of boost - and fully loaded with armor, guns and ammunition - a rather different scenario.
The Bf 109 was obsolete by 1943 - not so the Spitfire.
Merlin2Stage2Speed 1 year ago
@Merlin2Stage2Speed The long nosed spits8,9 and so on, could not out turn the 109F,G,K at any altitude also the 109 could out climb the spits, and out run the spits , its seems you know little about these planes,And the long nose spit had bad low speed stall that the 109 did not have at low speeds the spit was easy meat for the 109 at low speeds, I have flown a spit mk9 and have many hrs in it.
texasfathead 1 year ago
@texasfathead
Hi texas - well I've just got of the phone with Max Collett and Doug Brown, both of whom clocked hundreds of combat hours in Spitfire's Mk 5, Mk 9 and Mk 16 with RNZAF 485 Squadon and passed on your comments for their direct observation.
They both laughed and said, never could the Bf 109 F or G outrun, outurn nor out climb the Spitfire 9 or 16. Both said the Hun were never a problem while you were in the 9 which was roughly comparable with the FW 190A.
Merlin2Stage2Speed 1 year ago 2
@texasfathead
contd
As the for the low speed stall - they certainly did not concur with your comment either.
Doug clocked up an impressive kill/damaged tally against the Bf 109 and reiterated that the Spitfire's tight turning ability in particular was a decisive aspect of winning a dogfight with both a FW 190 and a Bf 109.
Doug also few Griffon powered Mk14's - and said he still out turned 109's every time!
They would like to know the ID code of the Spitfire 9 you flew, from where and when.
Merlin2Stage2Speed 1 year ago
@texasfathead
Just one last thing to add texas in hindsight - Doug Brown had suggested to me that we let you know that once the Spitfire 5 was replaced with the 9, the Hun no longer wished hang around for long to dogfight it out.
The reports at the time indicated that the Germans truly feared the Spitfire 9 in combat and would later resort to bounce from altitude and run tactics only wherever possible - to avoid 'mixing it up' in a dogfight. That's exactly what happened.
Merlin2Stage2Speed 1 year ago
The subject of turning ability, specifically as concerns the Bf 109 and the Spitfire, was covered many times in my conversations with combat Spitfire pilots years ago
You have to remember that restored aircraft at airshows have had their armor and guns removed - and of course carry no ammunition. Fully armored, armed and loaded, the wing loading of the Bf 109 was appreciably higher than any Mark of Spitfire
Only at the lowest speeds approaching the stall - did the Bf 109 have any sort of edge
Merlin2Stage2Speed 1 year ago
@Merlin2Stage2Speed Sorry but that just isn't the case. Wing loading is not a direct indicator of turn performance, esp. not when one aircraft enjoys a considerable advantage in wing Clmax and power loading. The Bf-109 will turn with a Spitfire, esp. if both are carrying period armor & ammunition, as evidenced by modern day demonstrations. Furthermore you've just as many 109 pilots saying they could outturn the spitfire as vice versa.
bellator11 1 year ago
@bellator11
Contd.
Here's a couple of excerpts from published reports:
1). From F/S George Unwin, of No. 19 Squadron:
"I had survived this mission simply because the Spitfire could sustain a continuous rate of turn inside the BF 109E without stalling - the latter was known for flicking into a vicious stall spin without prior warning if pulled too tightly. The Spitfire would give a shudder to signal it was close to the edge, so as soon as you felt the shake you eased off the stick pressure."
Merlin2Stage2Speed 1 year ago
@bellator11
2). F/Lt Al Deere (NZ), with No. 54 Squadron during the Battle of Britain, commented:
My experience over Dunkirk had taught me that when attacked the best counter was to go into a right turn. The Spitfire was infinitely superior to the Bf 109 and so long as one remained in the turn, the enemy pilot could not bring his guns to bear. And this I did, as the German pilot flashed past, turning as he did so to get behind me. But it was I who finished astern of him. The rest was easy.
Merlin2Stage2Speed 1 year ago
@bellator11
The 109 pilots are talking nonsense. Every Spitfire pilot I spoke to over the years said that they had no problems at all out-turning the Bf 109 at all altitudes when at comparable speeds except low stall. The 109G was the weakest.
The 60 series Merlin engined Spitfires Mk 8 and 9 and Packard Merlin 266 Mk 16's never had major problems with the Bf 109 - and bettered the FW 190A.
The 2,050 hp Griifon 65 powered Mk 14's simply ate Bf 109's for breakfast - as well as the FW 109D.
Merlin2Stage2Speed 1 year ago
@Merlin2Stage2Speed The only one talking nonesense is you. The German pilots say they had no problem outurning the Spitfire and the British pilots say the opposite. In truth both aircraft are very similar when it comes to turning ability, something that is not only backed up by veteran as-well as modern pilot testimony but also physics. Both were great planes. Now throw away your fanboy attitude and fantasy imagination and accept the truth, otherwise you'll soon end up very disappointed.
bellator11 1 year ago
@bellator11
You write: "fanboy...fantasy...accept the truth otherwise you'll soon end up very disappointed".
How disappointed? Disappointed with what? Or are you inferring that my friends who flew Spitfires in WWII somehow got their facts wrong - or have not told the truth?
I assure you, that I'll take their word before yours and your immature, unfounded and may I say - rather emotional outburst.
Merlin2Stage2Speed 1 year ago
@Merlin2Stage2Speed You truly are delusional. Keep believing in what'ever you want. I'm done wasting my time on you kid.
bellator11 1 year ago
@bellator11
If you choose to reject the testimony of veterans who flew Spitfires in combat against the Bf 109, then that's you affair - it doesn't change the facts one jot.
Merlin2Stage2Speed 1 year ago
@Merlin2Stage2Speed Sorry kiddo but you're the one ignoring actual testimonies here, not me. You only care to believe in what pleases your own fantasy of how things work. Actual pilot testimonies and hard physical facts don't matter to you, that's clear.
One more snide remark out of you and you're blocked.
Good day sir.
bellator11 1 year ago
@bellator11
Now late: Johnny Checketts, Al Deere, Keith J MacDonald, John G Patterson
And still surviving: Doug Brown and Max Collett.
These are the among the many brave men who flew Spitfires in combat from whom I have taken hundreds of hours of notes and on whose experiences I base my all comments of comparative aircraft performance - and I stand by them.
Block me if you wish - I only wished to share their experiences as regards the Bf 109 - you obviously don't want to hear them.
Merlin2Stage2Speed 1 year ago
@Merlin2Stage2Speed Question then is: Why do you ignore the testimonies of veteran pilots such as Pierra Closterman, Erwin Leykauf, Heinrich Beauvais, Herbert Kaiser, Walter Wolfrum and modern pilots such as Skip Holm ?
bellator11 1 year ago
@bellator11
I've read the testimonies of 109 pilots - but I've never met them and spoken to them at length.
I'll go with the testimonies of those pilots I have met - invariably they flew Spitfires, Typhoons, Tempests, Corsairs and the old P-40 earlier on - serving as they were with New Zealand squadrons - and who test flew the Mustang P51-A and D variants.
Skip Holm is a fine man with a distinguished recored - but one crucial aspect remains - he did not fly the Spitfire in combat conditions.
Merlin2Stage2Speed 1 year ago
@bellator11
In addition I'd like to point out to you that the Bf 109 was considered obsolete by the Germans as early as late 1942 whereas the Spitfire continued to go through significant and very successful development right through until the end of the war.
The Germans kept on producing the 109 simply because it was easy and cheap to build - otherwise the preferred option, the FW 190, would have completely replaced it altogether.
Merlin2Stage2Speed 1 year ago 2
@Merlin2Stage2Speed thats why they still used f2 and f4 as cover form the heavy gustav models ......until 45
its not the plane.it was the numbers ..nthg else
wilhelmspw 1 year ago
Wow that interviewer is annoying as shit. Horrible laugh.
IcyScythe 2 years ago
lol, Spit V and Spit IX same airplane? :P
Xiolablu3 2 years ago
It's not the krate, it's the man in the krate.
kolbpilot 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Tight turning didn't count for scheiss in late war aerial combat. I love to watch NOOBS flying IL2 109s pull eye-watering turns and bleed off all their E.
Then, it's a simple matter of passing them by, zooming up, and diving back down for an easy kill.
Good times.
HayateAce 2 years ago
its amazing, WW 2 was ~60 years ago, and details about aircraft were fudged . . . only valid are input from vets . . . provided they didn't have a bone to pick . . .
channels, shows and books and sim games have misinformation . . .
baelsharon 2 years ago 3
there where many german fighters better than P51, P47, P38.
Like Bf109 G6, Bf109 K4, FW 190 D9, FW ta152, Me 262.
AdventureSwede 2 years ago
Not better aircraft just different. Each has its own weaknesses and strength's. The pilot who knows bohis and the opposing plane and uses that will come out the winner. Its like when everyone laughed at the P-47's size. Fly it to its strength's and its as good as any plane. Same with almost all planes, just have to know what the other guy can do.
mrnipplechopps 2 years ago
Don't Hate Dude :)....
texasfathead 2 years ago
During WWII, the average kill ratio in combat V the P-51 was 1 to 7 for the Me109. For every German shot down, 7 P-51s Allied fighters were shot down.
texasfathead 2 years ago 2
Comment removed
HayateAce 2 years ago
The various strengths and shortcomings of the Messerschmitt, the Hurricane, and the Spitfire largely cancelled out in combat. The Hurricane's comparative weakness in acceleration, There was little to choose between the Spitfire and the Me109 between 12,000 and 17,000 feet, but above 20,000 feet the Messerschmitt was undoubtedly the better machine. It dived faster turned better and climb faster than its opponents.
texasfathead 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
the p 51 does turn tighter, the p51 does climb better the me 109 stinks
bananas4horses 2 years ago
bananas4horses I love to eat horses Mostly BBQ'd .Hmmm..
texasfathead 2 years ago
The first guy in the video owns the BF109. His name is Harold. I have photographed that plane at it's hanger.
Landres777 2 years ago
If you type "Skip Holm BF 109" in the google search engine you will find a site where Skip talks all about this 109. He really likes it.
bilbommer 3 years ago
Mark Hanna who flew and thrashed Spits and 109s through his life...
[the Bf109] will definitely out-maneuver a P-51 in this type of flight, the roll rate and slow speed characteristics being much better. The Spitfire on the other hand is more of a problem for the '109 and I feel it is a superior close in fighter. Having said that the aircraft are sufficiently closely matched that pilot abilty would probably be the deciding factor.
Xiolablu3 3 years ago
That isn't Skip Holm.
calvinbears 3 years ago
The second half of the video is.
BrettVisionSLR 3 years ago
The various strengths and shortcomings of the Messerschmitt, the Hurricane, and the Spitfire largely cancelled out in combat. The Hurricane's comparative weakness in acceleration, There was little to choose between the Spitfire and the Me109 between 12,000 and 17,000 feet, but above 20,000 feet the Messerschmitt was undoubtedly the better machine. It dived faster turned better and climb faster than its opponents.
texasfathead 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
go to spitfire the legend and its opponants video 4 and you shall see the light
PETEEAT 3 years ago
bullshit peteeat marseille outurned spitfires with his f 4 in afrika, well said shreddingitout this guy has the real experience and this jerks keep saying bullshit bf 109 outturns shitstang just admit it ok?
matamoros77 3 years ago 15
Skip isnt really Skip without the moustache!
Mistermagoo77 4 years ago 2
beg your pardon its video4
PETEEAT 4 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
ok go to spitfire, the legend and its opponents vidoe 5 on you tube and you will see with your own eyes a spit 5 easily out turning a f4 in malta and i'll say it again skip is a great pilot but he does'nt fly those birds at anything like combat speed ,dive and turn so the quote is a moot point
and im not anti german the fw190a3/4 was for 6months the surperior to the spit5 in everything but turn
PETEEAT 4 years ago
DO ANY OF YOU KNOW WHO SKIP HOLM ACTUALLY IS!!!!!!!!!!He holds the record for highest hours of combat flying - over 1172 hours, and is also one of the most decoraded USAF figter pilots of all time, the guy is an allied pilot for god sakes, he is an american and hes telling you, the me 109 out turns the p-51 and spitfire!!! thats gotta be the most unbiased expert comments you can get, to many people are pro allied with big mouths!!! its what is commonly referred to as the retard gate being open!!
Shredding0it0up 4 years ago 18
Oh texasfathead nice flying against you in jets 4.08 call sign iron6th
Shredding0it0up 4 years ago
Cool Shredding0it0up Love your comments and yes see in the skys on Jet's - 408:)......
texasfathead 4 years ago
He races P-51s
bilbommer 3 years ago
Its funny how everyone who is pro allied on this comment page has little to know facts to back up there claims, but it really is simple both the spit and the me could turn well depends on whether the pilot could stay conscience as G force was a factor and the history channel by the way is alot of bull mostly allied propaganda, the facts are cold and hard and as texasfathead has already stated the 109 was faster higher rate of climb and tighter turning! by the way my great grandfather-Otto kittel
Shredding0it0up 4 years ago 2
The slats were put on by Willy mainly to inrease maneuverability & lower the landing speed. The slats do NOT add any extra drag, they are shut against the wing in straight flight and only come out as AoA increases, increasing the CLmax & Critical AoA of the wing.
When it comes to turning the Bf-109 & Spitfire are very similar.
bellator11 4 years ago
it did not turn better at any height,however initial dive was faster then the spit plus zoom climb energy bleed was better then spit however the diff for the 1a and the e3 was very small
having a e3 on yr 6 and knowing you could in 2-3 turns be on the germnans six must have been comforting for the raf pilots who were not as well trained as the gewrmans early on in the bob
PETEEAT 4 years ago
The various strengths and shortcomings of the Messerschmitt, the Hurricane, and the Spitfire largely cancelled out in combat. The Hurricane's comparative weakness in acceleration, There was little to choose between the Spitfire and the Me109 between 12,000 and 17,000 feet, but above 20,000 feet the Messerschmitt was undoubtedly the better machine. It dived faster turned better and climb faster than its opponents.
texasfathead 4 years ago
you have to remember wily m didnt put slats on for tighter turning for the 109 it had higher wing loading he designed it for climb,dive,speed it was for low speed handling the down side was a srubbing off of energy in the turn lots off ww2 planes hasd slats 262,la5/7 etc and the spit can turn/out turn any of them
PETEEAT 4 years ago
please give me the titles and i will research them ,the 109e3 was tested by the french,british and swiss and the figures almost to the letter concured to the rae which thorougly tested the e3 against the spitmk1 , the spit outturned the me while the initial climb was slightly faster then the me rall,molders, and galland said the me was poorer in the turn then the spit im not argueing with them
PETEEAT 4 years ago
peteeat, i agree on the e3 being outturned by early spits. i think think the e3 pilots were scared of the uneven slat deployment the sometimes happened.
bfarno 4 years ago
All I have are Book's most of the stuff on the net is disinformation or misinformation, I mainly use book's.
texasfathead 4 years ago 2
texas could you send the link please
PETEEAT 4 years ago
All my figures came from the USAF testing, and it clearly shows the 109E could out turn,out climb the spit V.
texasfathead 4 years ago
yr turning figures of 170m are from a pilot quote and are not based on fact the rae extensivly tested a e3 and their figure of 880 ft radius are acceppted as correct having said that test pilots said the me was very crisp and delightful to fly below 250mph
PETEEAT 4 years ago
The reason German pilots scored so high was that they didn't get to go home after a set tour. They had to stay and fight on and on and on.
Superbubbajj 4 years ago
yr figures for the five are based on the 5 trop generally accepted as the worst varient best climb 0f 3770ft/min for the vc the e best climbof 2990ft/min although the internet seems to throw up differant figures this seems the most consistent
PETEEAT 4 years ago
the reason it didnt have cf is that it didnt need em its wing was so effiecent that you had plenty of warning of oncoming stall the 109 slats did tighten its turn briefly but scrubbed of so much energy off stall was likley the e was outurned/climbed by the 5 go to spitfire performence for offical validation
PETEEAT 4 years ago
Spitfire's VB turning circle — without height loss — was 696 feet (212 m) in radius (the Hurricane's would be slightly tighter) while the 109's was the smallest turning circle was 170 m without height loss. spit 5 Rate of climb: 2,665 ft/min, 109E Rate of climb 3,660 ft/min.the 109 out truns and out climbs the spit V.
texasfathead 4 years ago
the f2 and 4 were slightey faster then a spit 5 at 389 spit 374 their was no 109 varient they could outturn a spitfire at equiv combat speeds that is a modern myth and of coarse a g2 would dominate p40 ,p39, hurris, they were inferior planes sent to the desert because no longer competetive in europe
PETEEAT 4 years ago
PETEEAT I don't believe that, the 109 had slats and combat flaps it also weighed less than the spit 5 and the spit had No combat flaps, also Adolf Galland shot down 55 spits in a couple months and he said the 109E completely out class the spit 5, the 109E could out turn, out run,out climb and out dive the spit 5, and the 109F was better than the 109E.FYI.
texasfathead 4 years ago
in response to PETEATE's comments about spits and 109s, the spit could outturn the 109E. the F and G models were a completely different story. a G2 model captured in africa was scrutinized to the max by the allies in'42 to find out why it was kicking butts( spits,hurricanes, P40s,P39s, etc)
bfarno 4 years ago
yeah well said texasfathead bf 109 late models coud defeat mustang, amazing for a plane designed in the 30s
matamoros77 4 years ago
Did you know the 109 shot down more airplanes than all other fighter put together, also it was the only fighter have 100 kills and 200 kills, and Eric Hartmen had 352 kills.FACT.
texasfathead 4 years ago 3