Bf 109E-3 model climb rate

[PerFolmer]

Hi again,
let me know if I'm spamming out topics here nobody wants to read, or spamming anyhow.
It kinda feels like I'm cluttering up a perfectly organized forum.

I saw a post made by IvanK (I think that's his usename) on climb performances which, by my reasoning, seemed to have been altered to some negative performances in the latest patches?
Anyhow!

When I last flew online a fella was complaining an awful lot of the messerschmitt's climb rate and I decided to test it out myself,
even though I mostly fly hurricanes.
I started out flying at almost sea level, perhaps 50m above on 65% fuel. With the cool stopwatch in the cockpit I adjusted the prop to go for 2350 revolutions/m at 1.35 boost. (I guess it's Bar/sq.cm?)
My climb speed varied around 260km/h-290km/h and I tried to keep it at around 280 km/h at all times. Without any trimming I got to 4450m at 5 minutes so I'm doing 4400m in 5 minutes.
Now, I'm not at all a blue flyer and I'd love to hear your tales on the E-3 climb rate and what you can do to improve it within the games limits.

When I did a similar test with my ole hurricane the results were depressing to say the least, but hey, that's not what I fly her for.
Cheerio, and thanks!

/Per

[Doc]

All the planes are messed up in one way or another. The sequel was to address that but this may not be the case now.

Please lets not start another FM rant in here. There are plenty of FM debates going on over at 1C. :thumbsup:

In other words this is a question and an issue for the developers at 1C to fix. We just host it.

[ATAG_Snapper]

Per, your post is totally in line with what this Forum is all about -- Cliffs of Dover.

I've tested some of the Spitfire's climb rates (1a 100 octane and the 2a) in this final patch, but none of the 109's. I know ALL of the LW and RAF fighter's performance parameters such as Rate of Climb and Level Speed at various altitudes are wanting by various degrees. IvanK is a valued member of this forum (as are you) and did much of the aircraft-related research for Maddox Games during their development of Cliffs of Dover. His research was accurate; its implementation by the devs was not always.

Please don't hesitate to post your findings and thoughts here. :thumbsup:

[PerFolmer]

All the planes are messed up in one way or another. The sequel was to address that but this may not be the case now.

Please lets not start another FM rant in here. There are plenty of FM debates going on over at 1C. :thumbsup:

In other words this is a question and an issue for the developers at 1C to fix. We just host it.

Oh, no that was not my intention, 'Doc. I'm really sorry and the moderators will have my permission to remove the post if it turns out that way.
I was wondering what the blue flyers come up with when pushing the E3 for climb and, more or less, what I did wrong or right for my own results.
It was stupid of me to mention the bloke who complained online.

/Per

[PerFolmer]

Per, your post is totally in line with what this Forum is all about -- Cliffs of Dover.

I've tested some of the Spitfire's climb rates (1a 100 octane and the 2a) in this final patch, but none of the 109's. I know ALL of the LW and RAF fighter's performance parameters such as Rate of Climb and Level Speed at various altitudes are wanting by various degrees. IvanK is a valued member of this forum (as are you) and did much of the aircraft-related research for Maddox Games during their development of Cliffs of Dover. His research was accurate; its implementation by the devs was not always.

Please don't hesitate to post your findings and thoughts here. :thumbsup:

Thanks for the answer!
Since you're here, do you happen to know how to push the 87oct rotol hurricane in climb?
I usually aim to keep just below 160mph but I'm not so sure on the boost and rpm aspect.
Perhaps I aim for +4,5 boost but you know what kind of rpm is good for climbing?
Thanks again.

[Doc]

No problem at all man.

Facts are FM is screwed up royally all the way around. But we get what we got for now.

The 1C development is solely responsible for all of this.

Personally I never made measurements because it's a waste of my time. I'd rather fly and enjoy what little we have rather than digging into this.

But again FM is bad all the way around. DM is worse. But there isn't anything we can do to improve it other than play. Play a lot and put the hours is and enjoy what little we do have.

Peace

:thumbsup:

[ATAG_Snapper]

Thanks for the answer!
Since you're here, do you happen to know how to push the 87oct rotol hurricane in climb?
I usually aim to keep just below 160mph but I'm not so sure on the boost and rpm aspect.
Perhaps I aim for +4,5 boost but you know what kind of rpm is good for climbing?
Thanks again.

I admit I haven't been flying any of the Hurricanes very much since the last patch, so hopefully someone who has will jump in here with some better tips.

I believe in this sim with the 87 octane Rotol Hurricane your best climb settings would be:

6.25 lbs boost = 100% throttle, 2600 rpms = 67% prop pitch, 50% radiator, 140 mph IAS climb speed. If your water temp reaches and exceeds 110 C, then open rad to 100%, back off throttle to 90%, and decrease your climb angle to reach 180 mph IAS to get more cooling air over the opened rad. If your oil temp reaches and exceeds 95 C, then coarsen your prop pitch down to 2400 rpms and again decrease your climb angle to reach 180 mph IAS. To be safe, do both procedures (oil, water cooling) to get very quick cooling response.

[PerFolmer]

I admit I haven't been flying any of the Hurricanes very much since the last patch, so hopefully someone who has will jump in here with some better tips.

I believe in this sim with the 87 octane Rotol Hurricane your best climb settings would be:

6.25 lbs boost = 100% throttle, 2600 rpms = 67% prop pitch, 50% radiator, 140 mph IAS climb speed. If your water temp reaches and exceeds 110 C, then open rad to 100%, back off throttle to 90%, and decrease your climb angle to reach 180 mph IAS to get more cooling air over the opened rad. If your oil temp reaches and exceeds 95 C, then coarsen your prop pitch down to 2400 rpms and again decrease your climb angle to reach 180 mph IAS. To be safe, do both procedures (oil, water cooling) to get very quick cooling response.

Thank you, I'll try that!

[ATAG_Septic]

Oh, no that was not my intention, 'Doc. I'm really sorry and the moderators will have my permission to remove the post if it turns out that way.
I was wondering what the blue flyers come up with when pushing the E3 for climb and, more or less, what I did wrong or right for my own results.
It was stupid of me to mention the bloke who complained online.

/Per

Hi PerFolmer, welcome to the forum.

If the chap who was moaning on line is the same one as I saw then his attitude was truly awful, so much so that I saved screens of the rants. I personally don't mind at all such individuals being named and shamed here or anywhere (as long as you have the evidence of course).

Cheers and thanks for your input.

Septic.

[ATAG_Snapper]

No shortage of whiners on either side! Except me. I never whine. I just ......... voice concerns. :D

[PerFolmer]

Hi PerFolmer, welcome to the forum.

If the chap who was moaning on line is the same one as I saw then his attitude was truly awful, so much so that I saved screens of the rants. I personally don't mind at all such individuals being named and shamed here or anywhere (as long as you have the evidence of course).

Cheers and thanks for your input.

Septic.

Hello and thank you. It feels great to have joined your forum.

[Doc]

Truly man you will find everything online. Just remember to have fun and enjoy it. We're here to escape and unwind, drink a few beers (if whoever you are that is reading this is old enough to) and have some fun. Things are screwed up all around but it is a lot better than it use to be.

[92 Sqn. Philstyle (QJ-P)]

Hi Per Folmer,

You're totally right to go out and do some measurements and test your flying style against that of others in a systematic way. Especially if you are interested in improving! It's one thing to whinge about things not being modeled right, it another entirely to go out and actually perform some tests and post the results for others to share and scrutinize. For that, I applaud your effort.

Unfortunately, however, I can't help you with respect to getting the best climb rates out of the 109s (I'm a spitfire flyer, and I only jump in the 109 now and then for poops and chortles). There are some good 109 flyers on the ATAG group some of them really know how to climb, so keep asking around to see how your results compare to their experiences.

For the allied aircraft I've not come across firm consensus on the "best" climb. To be honest, I almost NEVER climb in a fight, unless I bounced the 109 from above, and I have more energy than him. For me, climbing is what I do between fights, and I favor a slow rate of climb, but with a low angle of attack and therefore a high forward speed (and around 2600 to 2800rpm), just in case a 109 pops up at similar altitude and I need the speed to engage.

[PerFolmer]

pstyle, I agree with your choice of climb-style, if I can call it that :)
I too like to have some forward momentum when climbing but for the sake of comparing I asked for the hasty climb specs.
I think I'll convert from hurricane to spitfire soon enough, but I just love the damn airplane. I love em both, but something is calling me to the hurri most of the times.
Now it's trial time!
Cheers!

[Catseye]

I admit I haven't been flying any of the Hurricanes very much since the last patch, so hopefully someone who has will jump in here with some better tips.

I believe in this sim with the 87 octane Rotol Hurricane your best climb settings would be:

6.25 lbs boost = 100% throttle, 2600 rpms = 67% prop pitch, 50% radiator, 140 mph IAS climb speed. If your water temp reaches and exceeds 110 C, then open rad to 100%, back off throttle to 90%, and decrease your climb angle to reach 180 mph IAS to get more cooling air over the opened rad. If your oil temp reaches and exceeds 95 C, then coarsen your prop pitch down to 2400 rpms and again decrease your climb angle to reach 180 mph IAS. To be safe, do both procedures (oil, water cooling) to get very quick cooling response.

Hi Snapper,
Then there are some old Hurricane pilots who can't see the gauges let alone read them. :geek: Full throttle, full fine pitch @ 160 mph up until 10,000 then back to 2500 rpm, then backing off to about boost 4 /2500 -2650 @ 14,000 ft., or so depending on final altitude. Watch temperature gauges to dictate pitch/rpm settings. Then, be careful of over-boost at high altitude operating cruise speeds. You can climb steeper at 140 mph but then some guy in a yellow-nose will have his way with you if you get caught in that attitude. Climbing in a more shallow angle maintaining around 170-180 mph with rpm at 2650 boost 5 is good for a nice easy climb and allow you to maintain some speed for emergency maneouvres should the circumstance warrant.

So to the OP, all are good guidelines that you more than likely will play with until you arrive at what works for you. Some like lemon-tarts, some like apple-tarts. Me, I'll take any tart! :)

Cheers

[Catseye]

Hi Snapper,
Then there are some old Hurricane pilots who can't see the gauges let alone read them. :geek: Full throttle, full fine pitch @ 160 mph up until 10,000 then back to 2500 rpm, then backing off to about boost 4 /2500 -2650 @ 14,000 ft., or so depending on final altitude. Watch temperature gauges to dictate pitch/rpm settings. Then, be careful of over-boost at high altitude operating cruise speeds. You can climb steeper at 140 mph but then some guy in a yellow-nose will have his way with you if you get caught in that attitude. Climbing in a more shallow angle maintaining around 170-180 mph with rpm at 2650 boost 5 is good for a nice easy climb and allow you to maintain some speed for emergency maneouvres should the circumstance warrant.

So to the OP, all are good guidelines that you more than likely will play with until you arrive at what works for you. Some like lemon-tarts, some like apple-tarts. Me, I'll take any tart! :)

Cheers

PS. The 87 octane Hurricane will operate in full boost and full fine below 10,000 ft. without overheating. It is automatic for me to go into that mode when in a fur-ball. But, if you try this with the 100 octane Hurricane for too long a period of time - engine damage is the result.

[ATAG_JTDawg]

The 100 oct rotol, has the best climb rate . which will even leave 2a in the dust in a hard climb, an no real heating probloms, rads 50% throttle 100% when you go gear up reduce pitch when you hit 180 mph , to about 60 to 65 % , you can keep throttle to 100 % almost all the time, between 18000 to 20000 you will start to get warm reduce pitch to 45 or 50 % cools right down . you can maintain a 2.5 to 3 thousand feet per min climb , an keep your speed between 180 an 200 mph. an you can climb higher then a 109 , but yet most don't over 24000 109 suffers performance , so at that point the hurri is better , an comes down to tactics , as the 109 can not climb much higher, so no zoom an boom if you are 25000 or higher PS If you use boost watch temps closer , as they rise fast, using boost at lower altitude will help you out an give you a bit more , be careful not to cook engine

[ATAG_JTDawg]

PS. The 87 octane Hurricane will operate in full boost and full fine below 10,000 ft. without overheating. It is automatic for me to go into that mode when in a fur-ball. But, if you try this with the 100 octane Hurricane for too long a period of time - engine damage is the result.

only if you pull boost :salute: i very seldom use the boost , an do not suffer from that . the only time i get a bad engine is when a 109 puts 1 in my engine or cooling

[ATAG_Slipstream]

No shortage of whiners on either side! Except me. I never whine. I just ......... voice concerns. :D

That's like saying you never shoot down Hurricanes because you mistake them for 109's! :D

Sorry mate, its getting old I know, but I couldn't help it. :thumbsup:

[ATAG_Snapper]

Hehehe! The one time I ever scored hits on a headon shot....and it was me mate flyin' a blinkin' Hurricane.....:(

:)

[Catseye]

only if you pull boost :salute: i very seldom use the boost , an do not suffer from that . the only time i get a bad engine is when a 109 puts 1 in my engine or cooling

Dawg,
No boost pull out on the 87 octane.

Full boost refers to maximum throttle in this instance.

[RAF74_Buzzsaw]

Salute

It's a mystery to me how badly they have f*cked up the aircraft in this game.

For example, look at the 109E.

They have given it the DB601Aa engine, instead of the more common DB601A1. (Aa equipped only about 25% of 109E's)

But then, they have given the engine the rated altitude of the A1's 4500 km, instead of the 3700 km of the Aa.

The historical Aa had a limit of 5 minutes at 1.35 ata, the game's engine has an unlimited time at that boost, which was actually the allowable rating for 1.23 ata. (actually 30 minutes, but close enough)

Here's another glitch: They have rated the engine at 1020 PS at at 4500m at 1.35 ata, however, that is the power output and rated altitude for the DB601A1, and that engine achieved its power at 1.30 ata. The DB601Aa was rated at 1100 PS at 1.35 ata at 3700m. So they are down 80 PS on power the engine provides at rated power between 0-3700 meters.

In my opinion, the game 109 seems to be suffering from a lack of efficiency in the ability of the supercharger to maintain power, it falls off much too fast with altitude, if this plane is the Aa, then it should actually be relatively constant to 3700m, or if it is the A1, to 4500. (the British planes also fall off in their efficiency, but I think that is for a different reason)

The performance the aircraft should achieve doesn't happen at sea level, and it gets worse the higher it goes. And this is even though the aircraft is underweight by as much as 125 kg.

Big hash up... :doh:

DB601Aa

http://kurfurst.org/Engine/DB60x/datasheets/601Aa.jpg

DB601A1

http://kurfurst.org/Engine/DB60x/datasheets/601a1.jpg

[III./ZG76_Saipan]

I am sure we all have a large collection of books that we read from. But for everybook there are diff observations. I have a 109 book and the actual ww2 pilot says that he never saw a spit turn inside a 109 in the BoB. Another book has the spit faster and a tighter turn radius than the 109. So who knows whats is right and what is what. Some pilots say they were equal some say this, some say that. Just enjoy it for what it is....

[Doc]

I found a video on youtube and downloaded it just in case it disappeared where RA and F Wing Commander Tom Neil says the 109 was just about untouchable. And again in a 6 part BoB 70th annual celebration. Now I found those who done it did it and have the tee-shirt hanging in the close a touch more credible but I am sure there is facts in what everyone post. haha

[ATAG_Colander]

This is some data I found that might explain all the differences.
The image shows a crude representation of the drag and lifts coefficients of the airfoils used by the 109 (NACA 2R1) and the spit (NACA 2212).
You will see how the drag lines (the ones bellow) cross each other. What I can see from here is that, in a wide turn with low AoA, the 109 had less drag coefficient (close to 0.2) compared to the Spit (close to 0.3).
The tables are turned at the moment the turn starts to close.

http://theairtacticalassaultgroup.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=1182&d=1353991717

Note: this data was made by modeling the profile characteristics and not by any real test data, but anyway, I thought it might be interesting to share.

1182

[RAF74_Buzzsaw]

This is some data I found that might explain all the differences.
The image shows a crude representation of the drag and lifts coefficients of the airfoils used by the 109 (NACA 2R1) and the spit (NACA 2212).
You will see how the drag lines (the ones bellow) cross each other. What I can see from here is that, in a wide turn with low AoA, the 109 had less drag coefficient (close to 0.2) compared to the Spit (close to 0.3).
The tables are turned at the moment the turn starts to close.

http://theairtacticalassaultgroup.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=1182&d=1353991717

Note: this data was made by modeling the profile characteristics and not by any real test data, but anyway, I thought it might be interesting to share.

1182

Salute Colander

Interesting comparison Chart, good information. :)

There is however, another issue which relates. While a clean NACA 2R1 might have less drag, the 109E's wing was not clean. The fact it had the leading edge slats meant it had a lot of turbulence and the drag coefficient was increased as a result, even when the slats were not deployed as in the case with high speed.

A German engineer who was involved with the design of the 109 wrote a paper in which he discussed the drag coefficient of the 109. It was one of the worst aircraft flying in the war when it came to airframe cleanliness. Considering the size of the plane and its wingspan, and the power of the engines which propelled it, the speeds it achieved were not very impressive.

The link is here:

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/me109/Hoerner-Me_109.pdf

Note also the reference to compressibility, and the poor performance of the 109's aerofoil.

So the suggestion the turn performance at high speed might have been better... Not indicated by any of the objective comparisons.

[Catseye]

Salute Colander

A German engineer who was involved with the design of the 109 wrote a paper in which he discussed the drag coefficient of the 109. It was one of the worst aircraft flying in the war when it came to airframe cleanliness. Considering the size of the plane and its wingspan, and the power of the engines which propelled it, the speeds it achieved were not very impressive.


Interesting!
I wish I still had the article, but I do remember listening to an RAF Spitfire pilot about an incident later in the war wherein he had difficulty not overshooting his 109 target during some sort of maneouvre. Notwithstanding all the dynamic issues at play and pilot ability, he specifically noted that the Spitfire was a "cleaner" finished aircraft than the 109. Particularly the cockpit and the airframe riveting and stated that in his opinion and other pilots at the time that there was note of the higher incidence of drag on the 109 than the Spitfire (from a pilots perspective).

Cheers

[RAF74_Buzzsaw]

Interesting!
I wish I still had the article, but I do remember listening to an RAF Spitfire pilot about an incident later in the war wherein he had difficulty not overshooting his 109 target during some sort of maneouvre. Notwithstanding all the dynamic issues at play and pilot ability, he specifically noted that the Spitfire was a "cleaner" finished aircraft than the 109. Particularly the cockpit and the airframe riveting and stated that in his opinion and other pilots at the time that there was note of the higher incidence of drag on the 109 than the Spitfire (from a pilots perspective).

Cheers

Salute

The Spit might have been a little cleaner than the 109, but not much. It was an older generation, compared to the P-51 or even the P-47 or FW190. Believe it or not, the P-47 had a lower drag coefficient than the FW-190, but of course, it's larger wingspan made the flat plate area bigger. The P-51 of course, was the king, but the Tempest wasn't too shabby either.

[JG52_Krupi]

Until the Dora came along and levelled the playing field :PP

[Dutch]

I found a video on youtube and downloaded it just in case it disappeared where RA and F Wing Commander Tom Neil says the 109 was just about untouchable. And again in a 6 part BoB 70th annual celebration. Now I found those who done it did it and have the tee-shirt hanging in the close a touch more credible but I am sure there is facts in what everyone post. haha

Doc, Tom Neil flew Hurricanes in the Battle of Britain, and always states that they couldn't cope with the 109s. 303 Polish Squadron also flew Hurricanes and shot down plenty of 'em. That James Holland documentary was very carefully edited to prove the presenter's own point of view. And that's all I'll say on the matter. :thumbsup:

[Doc]

He flew spits to Dutch. And he always had spitfires under his command. That pretty much makes him a living expert in my book. Sorry but I did my homework on this and am deserving of an A at least sir.

[Dutch]

He flew spits to Dutch. And he always had spitfires under his command. That pretty much makes him a living expert in my book. Sorry but I did my homework on this and am deserving of an A at least sir.

Yep, he did fly Spits after his trip to Malta where he also flew Hurris, but from your homework you'll note that he was a Wing Commander when he retired in 1964. During the Battle of Britain he was a Pilot Officer IIRC, so didn't have anyone 'under his command', other than maybe a couple of Flight Sergeant Pilots. :D

http://www.the-battle-of-britain.co.uk/pilots/Na-pilots.html#NielTF

http://www.the-battle-of-britain.co.uk/squadrons/249sqn.htm

P.S. My criticism was of James Holland by the way, and the editing of the documentary, not Tom Neil himself, who was and is a bloody hero.

[ATAG_Snapper]

From Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Neil

"Wing Commander Thomas Francis "Ginger" Neil, DFC*, AFC, AE is a famed World War II Royal Air Force fighter pilot, ace and one of the few remaining survivors of the Battle of Britain.[1] Neil scored a total of 14 kills during the Second World War.[2]

Neil joined the Royal Air Force Volunteer Reserve in 1938 at the age of 18. He was called up to full-time service at the outbreak of war. He was posted to No. 8 FTS on 1 December 1939 and was commissioned on completion of the course. He was posted to No. 249 Squadron RAF in May 1940 where he flew Hurricanes during the Battle of Britain alongside "Tich Palliser".


Neil was awarded the Distinguished Flying Cross, on 8 October 1940 and was awarded a Bar to his DFC on 26 November 1940. He embarked with 249 Sqn on HMS Furious on 10 May and sailed for Gibraltar, and on arrival the squadron transferred to HMS Ark Royal. The squadron flew to Ta' Qali on 21 May 1941 to take part in the Battle of Malta.
In December 1941, Neil was transferred and eventually became liaison officer to the US 9th Air Force's 100th Fighter Wing.


Neil retired from the RAF in 1964 at the rank of Wing Commander."

From James Holland's video I had assumed that Tom Neil was referring to flying Spitfires during the Battle of Britain, not Hurricanes.

EDIT: At 27:40 he does say that the Spitfires couldn't keep up with the 109's. So, case closed. Any differing statements (are there any?) by Battle of Britain Spitfire pilots should be disregarded.

[Dutch]

Any differing statements (are there any?) by Battle of Britain Spitfire pilots should be disregarded.

(Sarcasm detector off...)

Blimey, how many do you need? See 'First Light' by Geoff Wellum, chapter 6 page 180 (paperback ed.). He describes Climbing towards a formation of 109's and therefore at an 'energy disadvantage', but flying so as to 'cut them off'. The 109s start to dive towards France....

'I cut the corner still further towards the diving 109. Going to need all the speed I can get for this situation. The Huns have got quite a start on us. I go into fine pitch, press the boost override and open the throttle. With all my attention now focussed on him I can tell to the second when he at last sees me. He steepens his dive and straightens from his turn, heading directly out to sea and home. Obviously he thinks he can outrun me and is relying on the start he has. Well, we can only wait and see because I don't think he has made a very smart move. He has no advantage from his fuel injection. I open the throttle wide and make certain that the boost override is fully pressed. Ease the stick forward and as the nose drops away I plunge after my quarry. Reflector sight on. The Spit accelerates very quickly......This chap is not turning to fight, he's just getting the hell out of it back across the channel. ....He's diving at terrific speed but I should be able to get something off and tickle him up a bit. Tighten the curve of pursuit slightly. The nose comes through and starts to get in the way of my view. No matter, nearly there....fire now.....It's now a stern chase. Another burst, no more than a long shot. What a pity he had those few seconds start on me. My speed is building up the whole time, but we'll be over France before i can really get close to him.'

The 109 started higher, started faster, but Wellum still shot the bloke down and as he says would have caught up to him eventually, had a couple of 'long shots' not brought the 109 down first. :thumbsup:

Geoff Wellum is also still alive, therefore also a living expert, and he did fly Spits in the BoB.

[Doc]

The only way they could catch a 109 was when the 109 wasn't aware and they would pick up speed on them. The 109 was incompetent and turned sharply. But in a straight and level flight even on the deck the 109 would distance the RAF during the BoB. "You cannot break German planes" says a famous German pilot that was there. You cannot keep up with them. No matter what graph you place before the forum you cannot keep up.

[ATAG_Colander]

Actually, I see 4 possible explanations:
1.- The spit is faster on the dive
2.- The 109 dove too steep. There's a limit to the E you can convert to speed on a dive. The spit dove in a smaller, more optimal angle and was able to keep max speed for longer at the same cutting into the 109's trajectory.
3.- The 109 thought the spit wasn't following and throttled back.
4.- Any mix of the above 3.

Both 2 and 3 happen a lot in the server and we know about the FM issues where the spit is simply not faster.

[Dutch]

The only way they could catch a 109 was when the 109 wasn't aware and they would pick up speed on them. The 109 was incompetent and turned sharply. But in a straight and level flight even on the deck the 109 would distance the RAF during the BoB. "You cannot break German planes" says a famous German pilot that was there. You cannot keep up with them. No matter what graph you place before the forum you cannot keep up.

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

[Doc]

Do not believe everything that is posted on the internet. Anyone including you can edit Wikipedia and adjust it to your liking. I see a lot of docs (<--hehe that's me) and charts posted without any references to anyone that created them. They just exist and could come from any where. Not complete and likely the data contained is well over my head. I am willing to bet everything I got it's over most everyone's head here. Just we have people running around with links and regurgitated info that is quoted as biblical when nothing could be further from the truth in my eyes. And others as I am learning. There is a huge lobby of Spitfire performance people and not one has had their butt strapped into one. heh you know what they say about buttholes huh? Everyone has one.

[Dutch]

Do not believe everything that is posted on the internet.

Good advice Doc. I won't. Nor in carefully edited documentaries.

[ATAG_Colander]

Also, don't trust everything you read in forums ;)

[Doc]

And most of all don't trust drunk Irishmen on Teamspeak! heh :thumbsup:

[ATAG_Colander]

And most of all don't trust drunk Irishmen on Teamspeak! heh :thumbsup:

I thought drunks didn't lie!

[Doc]

Well they never lie Colander. But the do try to hustle you out of a few dollars or drinks to feed their thirst for more. heh

[Dutch]

And most of all don't trust drunk Irishmen on Teamspeak! heh :thumbsup:

I didn't know you were Irish mate! :D

[Doc]

My great grandmother came to this country as an indentured servant from Ireland. In other words a slave. Yes I'm white.

[Dutch]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0WD1tU5TirE&feature=relmfu


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K70OKSF-VMI&feature=relmfu


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uiswSgNq-aE&feature=relmfu


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4P845MgCGps&feature=relmfu


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9EtU7S6Q0pw&feature=relmfu


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=89Jr3FdSsgM&feature=relmfu

[III./ZG76_Keller]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3e-Ra0dH-Lg

[Dutch]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3e-Ra0dH-Lg

And?

He asked 'Do you know why the Spitfire is a BETTER AEROPLANE than the Messerschmidt 109? - Any idiot can fly a Spitfire, but it takes a lot of training to fly a 109.'

So your point is what?

[III./ZG76_Keller]

Just trying to make a joke, don't get your hackles up.

[RAF74_Buzzsaw]

Salute

It's true. The Spits and Hurricanes were much easier to fly. To quote Werner Molders again:


"It was very interesting to carry out the flight trials at Rechlin with the Spitfire and the Hurricane. Both types are very simple to fly compared to our aircraft, and childishly easy to take-off and land.


Landing the 109 was not an easy thing, neither was take off. And that was a disadvantage for novices, Germans lost a lot of 109's and pilots in crash landings.

[Doc]

So what is this guy advertising? I can't read it.

[Dutch]

Just trying to make a joke, don't get your hackles up.

Oh. :D

[Gromit]

Salute

It's true. The Spits and Hurricanes were much easier to fly. To quote Werner Molders again:



Landing the 109 was not an easy thing, neither was take off. And that was a disadvantage for novices, Germans lost a lot of 109's and pilots in crash landings.


of note here also is the aircraft tested by Molders, both Hurri and Spit (captured in france and after dunkirk) used the two pitch prop, just about all of FC was equipped with the variable pitch prop by the BOB.


Al Dere in his book nine lives had a protracted air battle with 109's over france just before Dunkirk, he was informed the 109 was faster and climbed better yet he was able to outclimb catch and shoot down a 109 in a dogfight then chase and catch another 109 as it tried to escape, luckily for the 109 he was winchester and as he put it he chased it about "simply because I did'nt know how to disengage":doh:

to use anecdotes as a guide to air to air combats you need to look at large numbers of reports and look for trends, cherry picking one example is not realistic, if you read through countless encounters a general trend shows Spits and Hurris outurned 109's, 109's outdove Spits and Hurris and a spit and 109 seemed to have slight advantages over each other in speed and climb dependant on altitude, model, tactical situation and who was flying it, we best gloss over engine/airframe build quality/condition!

when you wade through all those uncertainties all I can say is "I'm glad I am not a flight model designer"!

[Doc]

Yes every situation is different. If you are higher than your opponent and dive on him you have the advantage of speed for a while. That's nothing new.

The 109 was faster and climb a little better. That is a well known.

[ATAG_Colander]

"I'm glad I am not a flight model designer"!

You can say that again!