Bf109E-3

[BlackbusheFlyer]

Originally Posted by Hood

I'm trying to up the speed of the Bf109E-3 so that I can catch Spit IIas at sea level. The most I can get it to (from 500m to 2,000m) is 400km/h on the clock. I've been playing with the boost settings even using WEP with ATA at 1.45 and rpm at just under 3,000, then played with the pitch.

Any tips for getting it faster? Thanks

Hood

You should not be able to catch any Spit at sea level. The Spitfire was known to be faster than the 109 below 20,000ft.

I think at the moment the 109 is actually faster than the Spitfire below 20,000ft which needs a bit of adjusting.

[TomcatViP]

this is completely wrong.

Pls re-read the according literature.

I might understand tht you refer to various MkI with 12lb perf charts found across the web but pls mind that :
1. some of the curve in those charts are questionable (flat, un-daunted etc...)
2. "emergency power rating " are for use in case of emergency.

In time of war you don't land back with a burnt engine each time you hd to climb above 12Kft...

Unless you want to be the absolute top scoring ace of your squad in potatoes peeling

[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.