Spit/109 sea level speed comparisons in 1.08 beta patch

[Kurfürst]

Originally Posted by bongodriver

But aren't you missing the point completely......you are not describing a turning engagement, the whole issue here is that if the 109 tried to engage in a 'turning' fight with a Spit it 'will' loose, there has never been any disagreement that the 109 had better speed to maintain an overall tactical advantage, the 109 could choose when to engage but the Spitfire was more than capable of evading, if you felt frustrated by that as a 109 driver and decided to try for a propper knife-fight with a Spit you were likely to lose, the 109's best tactic was to run in quick when an opportunity presents itself and run away quicker once the job is done.

I don't think I have missed anything, but it depends how you define a turn fight. And I am not meaning a 'propper knife-fight' at usually some low speed like 2-300 kph.

What I mean that if
- both the (+6) Spit and the 109E try a sustained turn contest
- near ground level (where the 109 has more power and is faster),
- and both are at or above about 400 kph and try to sustain that,

the Spit WILL loose that turn contest. The Hurricane even more so. As Jtd noted, its simply too hard to overcome some 30(+) km/h speed advantage, and the fact that parasitic drag will be dominant. The general advise is though (apart from don't turn with the Spit at low speeds) is that the faster the 109 turns, the better it is for its pilot.

The other comparisons (one plane flies sustained, the other unsustained, level outs and climbs etc.) I do not adress here. These tactics are essentially combinations of the best peformance envelope against the opponent's worst.

[Robo.]

Originally Posted by Kurfürst

I don't think I have missed anything, but it depends how you define a turn fight. And I am not meaning a 'propper knife-fight' at usually some low speed like 2-300 kph.

What I mean that if
- both the (+6) Spit and the 109E try a sustained turn contest
- near ground level (where the 109 has more power and is faster),
- and both are at or above about 400 kph and try to sustain that,

the Spit WILL loose that turn contest. The Hurricane even more so. As Jtd noted, its simply too hard to overcome some 30(+) km/h speed advantage, and the fact that parasitic drag will be dominant. The general advise is though (apart from don't turn with the Spit at low speeds) is that the faster the 109 turns, the better it is for its pilot.

The other comparisons (one plane flies sustained, the other unsustained, level outs and climbs etc.) I do not adress here. These tactics are essentially combinations of the best peformance envelope against the opponent's worst.

I agree in general except for the fact (major flow I would say) that the Emil will slow down rather fast in this sustained horizontal turn. Spitfire will win in RL situation described by you, because the pilot would obviously not try to sustain these 400kph, he will try to bear his guns on the 109 and will do so rather soon. No matter what you do in a 109, if you chose to remain horizontal, the only way of evading the Spitfire would be flying straight. And flying straight is not sustained turn. See?

[Glider]

Originally Posted by Robo.

I agree in general except for the fact (major flow I would say) that the Emil will slow down rather fast in this sustained horizontal turn. Spitfire will win in RL situation described by you, because the pilot would obviously not try to sustain these 400kph, he will try to bear his guns on the 109 and will do so rather soon. No matter what you do in a 109, if you chose to remain horizontal, the only way of evading the Spitfire would be flying straight. And flying straight is not sustained turn. See?

I do find this theory that the 109 will be able to turn better than a SPit at higher speeds a little foolish.

a) There are no, repeat no tests, from any side that support this theory.
b) The 109 locked up faster than a spitfire at higher speeds so the spit will have all the advantages getting into the turn by which time the 109 will be in the smelly stuff
c) You quickly lose speed in a turn which will nulify any theoretical advantages
d) The above description of what will happen shows the folly of this theory
e) The 12 boost throws the theory out anyway as it passes the power to weight ratio advantage to the SPitfire
f) Its worth remembering what the German test establishment said about the turning ability of these aircraft:-

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.

Notice it doesn't say:-
a) The SPitfire is better at slow speeds
b) That the 109 can turn inside the Spitfire at high speeds
c) Ensure you keep your speed up against the Spitfire in a turning fight

It says basically DON'T GET INTO A TURNING FIGHT.

Can someone explain how the German test establishment got it so wrong.
After all they only had the real aircraft, real pilots to fly mock combats who obviously were very up to date on the Me109, amongst the finest engineers and designers in the world, people both well versed in the theory and experienced in this field, plus the resources of a test establishment.
I repeat the question, how did they get it so wrong?

[Robo.]

Originally Posted by Glider

I do find this theory that the 109 will be able to turn better than a SPit at higher speeds a little foolish.

Oh yes, 109 could indeed turn tighter than a Spitfire at speeds around and above 400 kph.

In reality this was not very relevant in pure horizontal turnfight for the reasons you named. It was great advantage at BnZ maneuvring, even turning with a Spitfire that is breaking away from your attack - you can turn long enough to score nice deflection shot on him. But that is not anywhere close to sustained turn, you do a a 1/8 of a turn and away you break. If you stayed at that turn, you would burn your E and you would end up with a very angry Spitfire on your tail very soon.

[Glider]

Originally Posted by Robo.

Oh yes, 109 could indeed turn tighter than a Spitfire at speeds around and above 400 kph.

Are you aware of anything apart from a theory that agrees with this?

In reality this was not very relevant in pure horizontal turnfight for the reasons you named. It was great advantage at BnZ maneuvring, even turning with a Spitfire that is breaking away from your attack - you can turn long enough to score nice deflection shot on him.

No you cannot, if a higher speed is such an advantage in a turn then turning when bounced would be an almost suicidal tactic. Yet it was that ability to turn that saved so many pilots. It was the one advantage that Spit V pilots had over the Fw190 and was emphasised at every plot briefing.

But that is not anywhere close to sustained turn, you do a a 1/8 of a turn and away you break. If you stayed at that turn, you would burn your E and you would end up with a very angry Spitfire on your tail very soon.

That would sum up the best tactic for Luftwaffe Pilots fight in the vertical and only do minor, brief turns to get a better shot. Try to turn it into a turning fight and the 109 loses.

[Robo.]

Originally Posted by Glider

Are you aware of anything apart from a theory that agrees with this?

I did not mean I agreed with Crumpps bizarre theory regarding superior sustained turn rate of a 109. 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.

Originally Posted by Glider

No you cannot, if a higher speed is such an advantage in a turn then turning when bounced would be an almost suicidal tactic. Yet it was that ability to turn that saved so many pilots. It was the one advantage that Spit V pilots had over the Fw190 and was emphasised at every plot briefing.

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.

Originally Posted by Glider

That would sum up the best tactic for Luftwaffe Pilots fight in the vertical and only do minor, brief turns to get a better shot. Try to turn it into a turning fight and the 109 loses.

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

[Osprey]

Originally Posted by Glider

No you cannot, if a higher speed is such an advantage in a turn then turning when bounced would be an almost suicidal tactic. Yet it was that ability to turn that saved so many pilots. It was the one advantage that Spit V pilots had over the Fw190 and was emphasised at every plot briefing.

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.

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

[NZtyphoon]

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





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:

[Kurfürst]

Originally Posted by Glider

I do find this theory that the 109 will be able to turn better than a SPit at higher speeds a little foolish.

a) There are no, repeat no tests, from any side that support this theory.
b) The 109 locked up faster than a spitfire at higher speeds so the spit will have all the advantages getting into the turn by which time the 109 will be in the smelly stuff
c) You quickly lose speed in a turn which will nulify any theoretical advantages
d) The above description of what will happen shows the folly of this theory
e) The 12 boost throws the theory out anyway as it passes the power to weight ratio advantage to the SPitfire
f) Its worth remembering what the German test establishment said about the turning ability of these aircraft:-

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.

Notice it doesn't say:-
a) The SPitfire is better at slow speeds
b) That the 109 can turn inside the Spitfire at high speeds
c) Ensure you keep your speed up against the Spitfire in a turning fight

It says basically DON'T GET INTO A TURNING FIGHT.

Can someone explain how the German test establishment got it so wrong.
After all they only had the real aircraft, real pilots to fly mock combats who obviously were very up to date on the Me109, amongst the finest engineers and designers in the world, people both well versed in the theory and experienced in this field, plus the resources of a test establishment.
I repeat the question, how did they get it so wrong?

Just explain how a plane with less or no excess thrust can pull a sustained turn better than a plane with more excess thrust, thank you.

How much excess thrust does a Spitfire at SL, running at +6 1/4 boost has at about 280 mph 1g at David?
How much more excess thrust does a Spitfire at SL, running at +6 1/4 boost require in 2g turn at about 280 mph David?
How much excess thrust does a Bf 109E at SL running at 1.35ata bppst has at about 280 mph 1g at David?

Which has a better sustained turn at 400 mph David, a Spitfire IX or a Me 262 (P-80 if you like)?

[Osprey]

Originally Posted by Kurfürst

How much excess thrust does a Spitfire at SL, running at +12 boost has at about 280 mph 1g at David?
How much more excess thrust does a Spitfire at SL, running at +12 boost require in 2g turn at about 280 mph David?

I edited it to suit reality, otherwise you may as well have put down 1ata or something equally 'not full power'.