I did not mean I agreed with Crumpps bizarre theory regarding superior sustained turn rate of a 109. :-P I was trying to explain to him the whole time that high speed turn rate of a 109 (or 190) was only usable in unsustained turns in actual dogfight - e.g. you would do 1/4 of turn or less and extend vertically. You would certainly not keep that turn sustained.

I was also saying the same thing to Kurfurst (IvanK and JtD both said it much better using proper terminology) - 400kph sustained turn is practically impossible to use because the 109 will bleed its speed rather fast - certainly faster than the Spitfire. Spitfire would be able to get the guns on the 109 if the 109 pilot maintained the sustained turn anyway.

I respectfully disagree - higher speed is a great advantage 'especially' when bouncing a slower target. All depends on the situation but in the example you name, the Fw 190 would really be able to outturn a Spitfire at very high speeds for long enough to get guns on him. That is obviously not sustained turn and therefore irrelevant.

Agreed completely, I guess we ment the same thing. There was also some confusion with what is and what is not sustained turn.

Crossed wires I think. It's entirely situational and depends where and when the Spitfire turns relative to the FW, and their speeds. The common tactic was, and one of Sailor Malan's 10 rules, to always turn into the enemy. This doesn't mean necessarily to do a head on, but to change his angles to one where he cannot get a shot off. A hard break, nose slightly down, from the high 6 is enough simply because in order for him to pull the snap turn (yes, a fast turn if you like) for the lead required, then he will overload and black out. The result is that the attacker usually misses behind or breaks off and gains height for another attack. So, the turn is no problem for the attacker, but only a fool would follow because as he unloads his turn becomes worse (as brilliantly described by other more intelligent posters than myself) and the advantage switches.

What I find confusing though is what I've often read, that a 109 would dive from above and the spitfire, lower and slower, would make a left hand spiral break yet catch the 109 and shoot him down. I guess it's just descriptions, only I can't picture that exactly. Maybe the speeds are similar in the DF the pilot talks about. :confused:

Can people stop referring to the Spitfire as slower when it isn't. Thanks.

These are the precautions given to Spitfire pilots facing the Fw 190:

http://i91.photobucket.com/albums/k3...0-page-002.jpg
http://i91.photobucket.com/albums/k3...0-page-004.jpg
http://i91.photobucket.com/albums/k3...0-page-005.jpg

Essentially the advice was to cruise as fast as possible, especially in the danger zones where Fw 190s were expected, partly because the Spitfire was slower to accelerate than the 190.

As for claims that the Bf 109E generated less drag than the Spitfire I - there has been no objective data presented to prove this, but here are the figure for the Spitfire I:

http://i91.photobucket.com/albums/k3...g-page-002.jpg

Nope, this is just your opinion and has nothing to do with any test report's contents.

Unfortunately it is test data and it is relevant. Unless you want to dream up specifications.

Oh they were, you just happen to ignore them.

In unknown conditions..

Oh but an 500+ kph Spitfire I as fast as the 109F *IS* logical, riiiiight?

Thank you for admitting that your remark about supposed two speed superchargers was just speculation.

As for my my "assumptions" about the engine, here is what the test report has to say about it:

Motor: DB 601 A, serial number 140.

Quite clear cut is it not?

They did see through speculations, that's why the final patch is going to fix the SL speed of the 109E to its historical 500 kph-ish value.

I see. Your position is, if I got it right, that a completely unreferenced graph, without any details showing 6 1/4 boost performance, on which somebody draw up ex post facto his wishful estimates on +12 and even a fantasy +16 boosted level speed performance with a pencil, for the Mark I. Spitfire has the same credibility as the most detailed test on the 109E, which contains engine bench test data, airframe conditions data, calibration curves, and has been appropriately corrected for German Standard Day conditions.

I respectfully disagree with your assessment.

Indeed they might get this idea. Statements like "Manufacturer's quaranteed performance is not relevent" may lead to such conclusions.

(Glider remains silent on the issue)

In fact we all do, except for you. The discussion is about trying to explain to you the fact that the 109E has a better sustained turn than the Spitfire using 6 1/4 boost at and above 400 km/h near SL.

(Glider remains silent on the issue)

... and how much is that David?

And why is that, David? How can a Spitfire sustain a turn without any excess thrust to start with? Does it have anti gravity drives perhaps? Can it just defy the rules of physics?

I am sorry David, but I believe that you did not fully grasp some of the basic elements of the this discussion, such as the difference between sustained and unsustained turns, the effects of parasitic and induced drag depending on airspeed and the importance of thurst and excess thrust. So let me put it down for you in the most simply terms:

Unfurtunately, the Spitfire cannot sustain a turn at 400 mph at all. Depending on altitude, it has either ZERO or NEGATIVE "excess" thrust already at 1 g.

We have been over this already anway, see http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showpos...&postcount=194

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/attachm...2&d=1347990667

In short, the 262 (blue line) starts to run circles around the Spitfire IX (red line) above 460 km/h. At 640 kph, the Spitfire is outright hapless...


Nope, they got it exactly right. They say:

In summary, it can be said that all three enemy planes types are inferior to the German planes regarding the flying qualities. Especially the Spitfire has bad rudder and elevator stability on the target approach. In addition the wing-mounted weapons have the known shooting-technique disadvantages.

It seems to me that the Germans regarded the flying qualities of the Spitfire overall inferior to their fighters.

Kurfurst you are full of charts which are calculated by yourself and crumpp, however you never talk about the real tests undertaken by the real pilots and real test establishments.
I know what I know and I acknowledge what I don't.

You talk about the 6 1/4 boost and I talk about the 12 boost. Why, because the RAF fighters in the BOB used 12 boost. You talk about the 6 1/4 boost because that gives the 109 a better chance, not what they faced in combat, a big difference.

The one part of the report that you quote
In summary, it can be said that all three enemy planes types are inferior to the German planes regarding the flying qualities. Especially the Spitfire has bad rudder and elevator stability on the target approach. In addition the wing-mounted weapons have the known shooting-technique disadvantages
You make a big deal on this but forget to mention that the Spit in question didn't have the CSP only the two pitch prop which they rightly make a number of comments about. No one is trying to pretend that the Spit was the greatest gun platform which is part of the equation and they had wing mounted guns, not exactly new.

However you don't quote the bit about turning which is what the conversation is about, interesting. So just to be clear, do you also agree they had it right when they said
Before turning fights with the Bf 109 E type, it must be noted in every case, that
all three foreign planes have significantly smaller turning circles and turning times.
An attack on the opponent as well as disengagement can only be accomplished on the basis of existing superiority in performance.

In which case what are you disagreeing about, or are you only disagreeing with the bits you don't like?

I agree with everything that the report says, will you make the same statement?

As for the 262 I notice another nice chart but nothing re tests or pilot experience so it remains a theory, no more no less.

The chart Kurfürst posted is not a theory, it's a calculation. Physics and maths are just as relevant as tests and pilot experience. There are methods that are standard and accepted. If you use them properly, they can be more accurate than tests and pilot experience and are imho at least as valid.

Hi kufurst, any chance you can link me to the records of the 109e maintaining 500kph in level flight at sealevel. Sorry if you've posted this before. Ta.

Edit; sorry I see you never stated sea level. My mistake. Unless SL means sea level, and not STRAIGHT Line?

No actually. I have mentioned this twice and you just ignored it.

I have some good news for you though. 1946 HSFX patch 15 just fixed the Hurricane I and Spitfire I FM's to the speeds we talk about here. They are bang on the RAE tests using 12lbs. Fantastic news don't you think? ! I am interested in the link you are referring to for the 109 too because I think the 109E in HSFX may be too slow, but I want a proper flight test, not some calculation which Willie cooked his books in order to win a big fat order from his pal Hitler.

In 1940 I presume, not the enitre war? ;) and when they say "inferior" you mean slightly worse by a small margin? Translation error? German translation can be very direct.