Bf109E-3

[BlackbusheFlyer]

Originally Posted by TomcatViP

this is completely wrong.

Pls re-read the according literature.

If this is wrong please provide links which support this argument? Virtually everything I have read or heard spoken about the early Spitfire was they were faster at lower altitude than the 109's.

[heloguy]

Originally Posted by BlackbusheFlyer

If this is wrong please provide links which support this argument? Virtually everything I have read or heard spoken about the early Spitfire was they were faster at lower altitude than the 109's.

Any links supporting yours? I think this thread is supposed to be about cold hard numbers, as Kurfurst has provided on the 109. Not whether one aircraft was faster than another.

[Nobody96]

I did a bit of testing with the E3:

The shaking is due to missfires. They start as soon as the engine is overheated. You can test this properly with a Spitfire because as soon as you are airborne with the E3 your watertemp is up to 80 and your engine starts to missfire.

You cannot decrease the water temperature below 80 degrees. I tried a lot of high speed dives with 0% throttle but wasn't able to decrease the water temperature.

If you fly without temperature effects enabled, the AI seems to have no problem keeping the water temperature at bay.

[BlackbusheFlyer]

Originally Posted by heloguy

Any links supporting yours? I think this thread is supposed to be about cold hard numbers, as Kurfurst has provided on the 109. Not whether one aircraft was faster than another.

Here is one for starters:

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spit1vrs109e.html

This page in fact includes opinion from protagonists from both side who flew both or flew against each other. It is fairly overwhelming in universal agreement of the greater speed of the Spitfire Mk1 against the 109E, supported of course by flight trials.

[l3uLLDoZeR]

Originally Posted by BlackbusheFlyer

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spit1vrs109e.html

That was awesome reading..I love knowing what the real pilots had to say!

[ICDP]

Originally Posted by BlackbusheFlyer

Here is one for starters:

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spit1vrs109e.html

This page in fact includes opinion from protagonists from both side who flew both or flew against each other. It is fairly overwhelming in universal agreement of the greater speed of the Spitfire Mk1 against the 109E, supported of course by flight trials.

That data is cherry picked to show how the 109E was inferior to the Spitfire. Even the quotes from German pilots are cherry picked to show the Spitfire in a glowing light. How many reports are there in that site that show how a 109E outran or outturned or shot down a Spitfire in combat? Just because he didn't post them doesn't mean it didn't happen, of course many Spitfires fell to the guns of 109Es in BoB. It is easy for a person to make their pet plane look good when they deliberately leave out the reports or tests that don't show it in a particularly good light. Let me give you a clue, it is called spitfireperformance because the guy who created the site has a distinct bias towards allied aircraft, and particularly the Spitfire. It is a good site and the flight test reports are a gold mine, but be sure to read other primary sources for comaprison.

If those reports on that site were the only thing you read about the 109E and Spitfire you would come away believing the Spitfire was so superior it wasn't even a contest. Just show up in your Spitfire and expect to win, if a 109 pilot shot down a Spitfire it was only down to blind luck. To suggest that the Spitfire MkI always outran or outturned the 109E or the 109E always outdived a Spitfire is nonsense. I remember reading the reports from USN pilots when they first encountered the A6M Zero in the pacific. The after action reports had claims that the A6M was doing 450mph in straight and level flight and was climbing at 5000ft per minute. We both know that that isn't even close to true, but those USN pilots were convinced they were correct. Here is a link to those reports to show how even combat pilot eyewitness reports can be very far from the truth.

http://www.warbirdforum.com/vmf221b.htm

http://www.warbirdforum.com/vmf221.htm

Pilot anecdotes are fun to read, but unfortunately they tell very little about relative performance of two different aircraft. So many variables are unknown, is one plane damaged or overheating? What is the relative skill of the pilots? Is the victim even aware of the danger, maybe he is fixated on something else etc. Even flight tests of captured enemy equipment should be treated with caution. For example the 109E sample the RAE tested was a crash landed and repaired machine. I have read plenty of accounts from rookie pilots claiming they couldn't keep up with their far more experienced flight leaders in the same plane type. Pierre Clostermann in his excellent book "The Big SHow" touches on this subject quite clearly on a few occassions.

Sorry for the long drawn out post, my point is that the Spitfire and 109E and even the Hurricane had their strengths and weaknesses and were close enough matched that pilot skill and tactics had far more to do with the outcome than relative performance of each aircraft.

[TomcatViP]

Pilots and tactics

Good post.

[BlackbusheFlyer]

Originally Posted by ICDP

That data is cherry picked to show how the 109E was inferior to the Spitfire. Even the quotes from German pilots are cherry picked to show the Spitfire in a glowing light. How many reports are there in that site that show how a 109E outran or outturned or shot down a Spitfire in combat? Just because he didn't post them doesn't mean it didn't happen, of course many Spitfires fell to the guns of 109Es in BoB. It is easy for a person to make their pet plane look good when they deliberately leave out the reports or tests that don't show it in a particularly good light. Let me give you a clue, it is called spitfireperformance because the guy who created the site has a distinct bias towards allied aircraft, and particularly the Spitfire. It is a good site and the flight test reports are a gold mine, but be sure to read other primary sources for comaprison.

If those reports on that site were the only thing you read about the 109E and Spitfire you would come away believing the Spitfire was so superior it wasn't even a contest. Just show up in your Spitfire and expect to win, if a 109 pilot shot down a Spitfire it was only down to blind luck. To suggest that the Spitfire MkI always outran or outturned the 109E or the 109E always outdived a Spitfire is nonsense. I remember reading the reports from USN pilots when they first encountered the A6M Zero in the pacific. The after action reports had claims that the A6M was doing 450mph in straight and level flight and was climbing at 5000ft per minute. We both know that that isn't even close to true, but those USN pilots were convinced they were correct. Here is a link to those reports to show how even combat pilot eyewitness reports can be very far from the truth.

http://www.warbirdforum.com/vmf221b.htm

http://www.warbirdforum.com/vmf221.htm

Pilot anecdotes are fun to read, but unfortunately they tell very little about relative performance of two different aircraft. So many variables are unknown, is one plane damaged or overheating? What is the relative skill of the pilots? Is the victim even aware of the danger, maybe he is fixated on something else etc. Even flight tests of captured enemy equipment should be treated with caution. For example the 109E sample the RAE tested was a crash landed and repaired machine. I have read plenty of accounts from rookie pilots claiming they couldn't keep up with their far more experienced flight leaders in the same plane type. Pierre Clostermann in his excellent book "The Big SHow" touches on this subject quite clearly on a few occassions.

Sorry for the long drawn out post, my point is that the Spitfire and 109E and even the Hurricane had their strengths and weaknesses and were close enough matched that pilot skill and tactics had far more to do with the outcome than relative performance of each aircraft.

I hear the points you are making, but discounting real pilots experience is somewhat dubious. I am not suggesting by any stretch that the Spitfire should be 'autowin' so where did you get that from? The fact is that at the moment the 109 in the game is faster than the Spitfire Mk 1 at all altitudes and both climbs and dives faster which does not appear to be in agreement with the bulk of written evidence.

I quote:

Originally Posted by ICDP

To suggest that the Spitfire MkI always outran or outturned the 109E or the 109E always outdived a Spitfire is nonsense

Where was this suggested? Was not by me.

Reading test results also always should be taken with a grain of salt. Production comes always with allowances and scattering. Everyone in engineering knows this that two pieces coming from the same belt will differ slightly. This and knowing that back then the part of manual work was still quite important compared to today's standards should make everybody understand that one assembled plane would behave slightly different from the next one.

So my guess is that the performance will also vary a bit from one plane to another. I don't know how much the allowences were for the different performance parameters but if it was only 1% I would say that it was already high quality.

[ICDP]

Originally Posted by BlackbusheFlyer

I hear the points you are making, but discounting real pilots experience is somewhat dubious. I am not suggesting by any stretch that the Spitfire should be 'autowin' so where did you get that from? The fact is that at the moment the 109 in the game is faster than the Spitfire Mk 1 at all altitudes and both climbs and dives faster which does not appear to be in agreement with the bulk of written evidence.

I quote:



Where was this suggested? Was not by me.

You linked to an article on a web site that compared the Spitfire Mk Ia and Mk IIa to the 109E during the BoB. Linking to an article compiled and edited to make the 109E look consistently worse than a Spitfire gives the impression that you agree and endorse this opinion. My apologies if this is not the case, I gave you the benefit of the doubt and pointed out that the article was clearly biased. Even the level speeds given for the 109E are taken from either 1938 or 1939 variants and comapred with 1940 variants of the Spitfire.

I do not suggest that pilot accounts are discounted entirely, I pointed out that on that site we only see the ones where the Spitfire won. There are scores of combat reports from both sides where a Spitfire got shot down by a 109E. I would not use them as evidence that the 109E was clearly a superior machine because it wasn't.

Also the 109E that Mike Williams is fond of using for his performance figures was badly damaged in a crash landing and repaired by the French using parts recovered from other wrecked 109Es. The French had tested it and even damaged the engine by using the wrong oil and lubricants, prior to repairing it and giving it to the British who tested it almost one year later. He also neglects to point out that in the Sept 1940 test of that 109 it had no oxygen bottles so could not be tested at higher altitudes. It also had an earlier DB601A engine with the lower FTH. Just like the Merlin the DB601A was uprated and refined during its operational life, the 1940 version was more powerfull than a 1938/39 version.

Crying foul and stating the 109E is overmodelled compared to the CoD MkI Spitfire is not looking at the big picture to be honest. The CoD Spitfire Mk I, Mk Ia and both Hurricanes are seriously underperforming compared to BoB era variants. They are either getting speeds for a +6.25 lb boost variant or even worse. At most altitudes the 109E is getting speeds that don't even match the 1938/39 30 minute rating, never mind the 5 or even 1 minute rating of the BoB era version. Even the Fiat G.50 is getting much lower speeds than it did in real life. So all of these planes in CoD are getting speeds that match 1938/39 machines or even worse in most cases.

My apologies if any of this seems like I am attacking you or trying to be condescending. My aim is to highlight the fact that you need to get as many primary and varied sources as possible when comparing aircraft performance. Also take into account that even two identical aircraft can have vastly different performance due to quality of build and of pilot.