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.