Are Bf-109's just simply better than Spitfires? - Printable Version
+- All-Aircraft-Simulations (https://allaircraftsimulations.com)
+-- Forum: Announcements & General Discussions & Hyper Lobby (https://allaircraftsimulations.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=264)
+--- Forum: General Discussions. (https://allaircraftsimulations.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=298)
+--- Thread: Are Bf-109's just simply better than Spitfires? (/showthread.php?tid=69410)
+- All-Aircraft-Simulations (https://allaircraftsimulations.com)
+-- Forum: Announcements & General Discussions & Hyper Lobby (https://allaircraftsimulations.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=264)
+--- Forum: General Discussions. (https://allaircraftsimulations.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=298)
+--- Thread: Are Bf-109's just simply better than Spitfires? (/showthread.php?tid=69410)
- codemant - 28.03.2010
yeah, them BF-109s have big ass guns alright, but the rate of fire is slow and is no good with a bad pilot
- Guest - 28.03.2010
ACE-OF-ACES Wrote:It has a rate of climb that is ~26% better than it should be
That is about a quarter better rate of climb than the real 109K4
Which basiclly says you got alot more 'excess power' to do all sorts of things that a real 109K4 could not due
Are you sure about this?
- ACE-OF-ACES - 28.03.2010
EnsignRo Wrote:Was the case in 4.08 have not re-tested it since.. No mention of Oleg fixing it since either thus chances are it is still the caseACE-OF-ACES Wrote:It has a rate of climb that is ~26% better than it should be
That is about a quarter better rate of climb than the real 109K4
Which basiclly says you got alot more 'excess power' to do all sorts of things that a real 109K4 could not due
Are you sure about this?
Re: Are Bf-109's just simply better than Spitfires? - Karaya - 28.03.2010
masonkiller Wrote:I got IL-2 for Christmas 2009, and I've been playing it non stop pretty much. I've been practicing a lot with Spits vs. Bf-109s (not the server but just with the FMB) and I'm in an allied country so naturally wanted to fight for the allies in Spitfires. But I kept getting outrun and relatively quickly shot down over and over and over. For months I tried to figure it out. So last week I got bored and switched to a Bf-109 and all of a sudden I was taking down Spitfires like fish in a barrel. I though spits were better at maneuvering and could turn better, but in that Bf-109 I was able to get real close to 'em, I was able to turn well without stalling, and the powerful guns made it easier to annihilate the plane once I was almost caught in his rudder.
Aren't spits and Bf-109's equal? It sure doesn't seem like it to me. I guess I'll just start fighting for the Germans now because I can actually hit something with a Bf-109.
I always felt quite the opposite about the maneuvering part. It is true that the Messerschmitt is more gentle to handle at the edge of a stall thanks to its leading edge slats but the Spitfire non the less has a significant turning advantage in IL-2 in each contemporary match up (Mk.V vs 109F, Mk.VIII/IX vs 109G/K) and you really have to be hamfisted in order not to be able to take advantage of that.
Besides, it would be interesting which particular matchup we are talking about. You know there is a world of difference between early marks of both aircraft. But in general terms the Spit has always been the superior turner...
Just try a Spitfire Mk.V vs a Bf109F or a Mk.IX vs a Bf109G, the Spit will always win in a turning fight (provided both pilots are equally skilled)
Re: Are Bf-109's just simply better than Spitfires? - LuckyOne - 28.03.2010
masonkiller Wrote:I got IL-2 for Christmas 2009, and I've been playing it non stop pretty much. I've been practicing a lot with Spits vs. Bf-109s (not the server but just with the FMB) and I'm in an allied country so naturally wanted to fight for the allies in Spitfires. But I kept getting outrun and relatively quickly shot down over and over and over. For months I tried to figure it out. So last week I got bored and switched to a Bf-109 and all of a sudden I was taking down Spitfires like fish in a barrel. I though spits were better at maneuvering and could turn better, but in that Bf-109 I was able to get real close to 'em, I was able to turn well without stalling, and the powerful guns made it easier to annihilate the plane once I was almost caught in his rudder.Well,I fly IL2 since first edition until IL46 and I must say that IL2 game overall have Jo-Jo effect in terms of historic performance of aircraft behavior.Depending on patch,for example,all planes in one patch had some non historic features,speed,flight model,gun damage,turn rate,climbing,diving ect.for some specific plane.Then IL2 community,commonly blue side,start to build a pressure on Oleg Madox ,via forums,complaining that Axis plains should bee a way better than anything flown by reds.And then,in next patch Oleg correct some tings in favor of blue side.Then red side start building pressure on Oleg claiming that red aircraft's have some non historical features and in other patch Oleg correct something else and again blue side complain why blue planes are not uber-crafts and so on,and so on....until 4.8/9 patch who represent one totally non historic Air sim where all aircraft are artificially equilazed in almost all major features and blue side have great [non historic] adventage in terms of aircraft allover behavior.
Aren't spits and Bf-109's equal? It sure doesn't seem like it to me. I guess I'll just start fighting for the Germans now because I can actually hit something with a Bf-109.
That artificial equalization is clearly visible not only on Spit vs Bf performance but also on overwhelming presence of different types of Axis plane's,even unnecessary planes too.For example,oleg cowered almost all types of Bf and FW since 1940. until 1945.but regarding the Spitfire he cowered only 1940 until 1943.True,wee have Spit MkIXE-1944,which is conversion of MkIXc,and he also marked that MkIXc as 1944 model but that plane is 1942/43 model.Mustangs,Tempest are flimsy,fragile and slow-non historic,gun damage model for 7.7mm,7.09mm,both 7.62,12.7mm,Hispano 20mm iare totally non historic.
On blue side wee have over powered Bf and Fw...and worst,Bf late marks turn like Spitfire,Bf and Fw easy stall recovering,light command responses.....
By all true historical data,every contemporary Spitfire is better aircraft then contemporary Bf,excluding the Mk I vs E7 and Fw vs Spitfire Mk V in 1942.
Conclusion:Il2 become one non historic,Axsis-Ruso based,online friendly game.
Re: Are Bf-109's just simply better than Spitfires? - cpwn - 28.03.2010
LuckyOne Wrote:Well,I fly IL2 since first edition until IL46 and I must say that IL2 game overall have Jo-Jo effect in terms of historic performance of aircraft behavior.Depending on patch,for example,all planes in one patch had some non historic features,speed,flight model,gun damage,turn rate,climbing,diving ect.for some specific plane.Then IL2 community,commonly blue side,start to build a pressure on Oleg Madox ,via forums,complaining that Axis plains should bee a way better than anything flown by reds.And then,in next patch Oleg correct some tings in favor of blue side.Then red side start building pressure on Oleg claiming that red aircraft's have some non historical features and in other patch Oleg correct something else and again blue side complain why blue planes are not uber-crafts and so on,and so on....until 4.8/9 patch who represent one totally non historic Air sim where all aircraft are artificially equilazed in almost all major features and blue side have great [non historic] adventage in terms of aircraft allover behavior.
That artificial equalization is clearly visible not only on Spit vs Bf performance but also on overwhelming presence of different types of Axis plane's,even unnecessary planes too.For example,oleg cowered almost all types of Bf and FW since 1940. until 1945.but regarding the Spitfire he cowered only 1940 until 1943.True,wee have Spit MkIXE-1944,which is conversion of MkIXc,and he also marked that MkIXc as 1944 model but that plane is 1942/43 model.Mustangs,Tempest are flimsy,fragile and slow-non historic,gun damage model for 7.7mm,7.09mm,both 7.62,12.7mm,Hispano 20mm iare totally non historic.
On blue side wee have over powered Bf and Fw...and worst,Bf late marks turn like Spitfire,Bf and Fw easy stall recovering,light command responses.....
By all true historical data,every contemporary Spitfire is better aircraft then contemporary Bf,excluding the Mk I vs E7 and Fw vs Spitfire Mk V in 1942.
Conclusion:Il2 become one non historic,Axsis-Ruso based,online friendly game.
About historical, I saw some descriptions say Spit IX still inferior to Fw because Fw's superb roll performance.
And the 109 actually got its own in some respects of dogfight:
Erwin Leykauf, German fighter pilot, 33 victories.
"During what was later called the 'Battle of Britain', we flew the Messerschmitt Bf109E. The essential difference from the Spitfire Mark I flown at that time by the RAF was that the Spitfire was less manoeuvrable in the rolling plane. With its shorter wings (2 metres less wingspan) and its square-tipped wings, the Bf 109 was more manoeuvrable and slightly faster. (It is of interest that the English later on clipped the wings of the Spitfire.)
For us, the more experienced pilots, real manoeuvring only started when the slats were out. For this reason it is possible to find pilots from that period (1940) who will tell you that the Spitfire turned better than the Bf 109. That is not true. I myself had many dogfights with Spitfires and I could always out-turn them. This is how I shot down six of them."
Walter Wolfrum, German fighter ace. 137 victories.
"Unexperienced pilots hesitated to turn tight, bacause the plane shook violently when the slats deployed. I realised, though, that because of the slats the plane's stalling characteristics were much better than in comparable Allied planes that I got to fly. Even though you may doubt it, I knew the Bf109 could manouver better in turnfight than LaGG, Yak or even Spitfire."
Herbert Kaiser, German fighter ace. 68 victories.
"Personally, I met RAF over Dunkirk. During this battle not a single Spitfire or Hurricane turned tighter than my plane. I found that the Bf 109 E was faster, possessed a higher rate of climb, but was somewhat less manouverable than the RAF fighters. Nevertheless, during the campaign, no Spitfire or Hurricane ever turned inside my plane, and after the war the RAF admitted the loss of 450 Hurricanes and Spitfires during the Battle of France." In the desert there were only a few Spitfires, and we were afraid of those because of their reputation from the Battle of Britain. But after we shot a couple of them down, our confusion was gone."
Pierre Clostermann, Spitfire pilot.
"I tried to fire on a '109' that I spotted in the chaos. Not possible, I couldn't get the correct angle. My plane juddered on the edge of a stall. It was comforting that the Spitfire turned better than the '109'! Certainly at high speed - but not at low speed."
Messerschmitt Me. 109 Handling and Manoeuvrability Tests BY M. B. MORGAN, M.A. and D. E. MORRIS, B.SC.
When the Me.109 was following the Hurricane or Spitfire, it was found that our aircraft turned inside the Me.109 without difficulty when flown by determined pilots who were not afraid to pull their aircraft round hard in a tight turn. In a surprisingly large number of cases, however, the Me. 109 succeeded in keeping on the tail of the Spitfire or Hurricane during these turning tests, merely because our Pilots would not tighten up the turn suficiently from fear of stalling and spinning.
...
The gentle stall and good control under g are of some importance, as they enable the pilot to get the most out of the aircraft in a circling dog-fight by flying very near the stall. As mentioned in section 5.1, the Me.109 pilot succeeded in keeping on the tail of the Spitfire in many cases, despite the latter aircraft's superior turning performance, because a number of then Spitfire pilots failed to tighten up the turn sufficiently. If the stick is pulled back too far on the Spitfire in a tight turn, the aircraft may stall rather violently, flick over on to its back, and spin. Knowledge of this undoubtedly deters the pilot from tightening his turn when being chased, particularly if he is not very experienced.
Juha
according to Finnish tests, flown by a late 109G-2 (MT-215), the fastest 360deg turn was 22sec at the optium speed of 360kmh. At 1000m, 180deg turn took 10sec when the speed at the beginning was 450kmh and at the end 380kmh and if continued to 360deg, time was 18sec and end speed 330kmh.
kool kitty89
109E and early F had the slats operated by wing arms, the late F and all G series had it deployed by bearings, probably hence the much smoother operation noted by Southwood on the G-2. Changes in the K also had the slats made out of steel.
---
the F's (at least the late F's) and all G and later models slats extended gradually and smoothly with a 'clunk' being heard and felt in the stick when fully extended.These slats were of the same mechanism as on the Me 262 and F-86.
[u]Kurf
- KG64_Cnopicilin - 28.03.2010
Pe-8 is the ultimate dogfighter, as for the question, I can handle the Bf-109 better.
Re: Are Bf-109's just simply better than Spitfires? - Karaya - 29.03.2010
Quote:Well,I fly IL2 since first edition until IL46 and I must say that IL2 game overall have Jo-Jo effect in terms of historic performance of aircraft behavior.Depending on patch,for example,all planes in one patch had some non historic features,speed,flight model,gun damage,turn rate,climbing,diving ect.for some specific plane.Then IL2 community,commonly blue side,start to build a pressure on Oleg Madox ,via forums,complaining that Axis plains should bee a way better than anything flown by reds.And then,in next patch Oleg correct some tings in favor of blue side.Then red side start building pressure on Oleg claiming that red aircraft's have some non historical features and in other patch Oleg correct something else and again blue side complain why blue planes are not uber-crafts and so on,and so on....until 4.8/9 patch who represent one totally non historic Air sim where all aircraft are artificially equilazed in almost all major features and blue side have great [non historic] adventage in terms of aircraft allover behavior.
This is complete non-sense. Oleg fortunately never gave a damn about what people "felt" aircraft should behave like in their twisted minds. Yes there was a lot of whining and bitching but this never had much of an impact on the development of the game in terms of forced balancing.
Quote:That artificial equalization is clearly visible not only on Spit vs Bf performance but also on overwhelming presence of different types of Axis plane's,even unnecessary planes too.For example,oleg cowered almost all types of Bf and FW since 1940. until 1945.but regarding the Spitfire he cowered only 1940 until 1943.True,wee have Spit MkIXE-1944,which is conversion of MkIXc,and he also marked that MkIXc as 1944 model but that plane is 1942/43 model.Mustangs,Tempest are flimsy,fragile and slow-non historic,gun damage model for 7.7mm,7.09mm,both 7.62,12.7mm,Hispano 20mm iare totally non historic.
Overwhelming presence of axis planes? I dont know if you've actually realized, but the LW only has two types, the Bf109 and the FW190 while the Allies have Spits, Hurricanes, P-38s, P-39s, P-40s, P-47s, P-51s, Tempests, etc. so it is only fair to give the Axis pilots a little bit of diversity as well. I know if it would be for you we'd have Emils fighting Spitfire Mk.XIVs in 1945, huh?
Quote:On blue side wee have over powered Bf and Fw...and worst,Bf late marks turn like Spitfire,Bf and Fw easy stall recovering,light command responses.....
By all true historical data,every contemporary Spitfire is better aircraft then contemporary Bf,excluding the Mk I vs E7 and Fw vs Spitfire Mk V in 1942.
Conclusion:Il2 become one non historic,Axsis-Ruso based,online friendly game.
Bf109s turning like Spitfires? Which matchup - which Bf109 vs which Spitfire, I DARE you! If you loose to any Bf109 in a turning fight that only means he is the better pilot and that you have made a balls of a job in an aircraft that on paper has the advantage in energy retention and turning performance.
And btw whats your "true historical (hysterical!?) data"? I'd love to see that.
What a huge piece of biased crap...
- Trooper117 - 29.03.2010
C'mon lads, (or lasses) being pc there
, keep it cool.. it's only a discussion, and some good points being brought out by all..
Re: Are Bf-109's just simply better than Spitfires? - LuckyOne - 29.03.2010
cpwn Wrote:About historical, I saw some descriptions say Spit IX still inferior to Fw because Fw's superb roll performance.Yes,and that is true,Fw had best roll rate of all WWII planes.
Quote:And the 109 actually got its own in some respects of dogfight:Thank you for those historical quotation but,you know that I can mount a tones of historical quotation,both axis and allies,claiming that Spitfire have superior flight,gun,armor and other characteristic regarding different and contemporary types of Bf and Fw.I am not blue/red lover,I love all planes but as a historian and ex sport pilot I am shocked how lose and wrong interpretation of historical data can bee.
If you,and all of you,want to know real historical fact,grab real books and memoirs of,for example,Adolph Galland,Peter Townsend,Pierre Closterman,Saburo Sakai,Douglas Bader,Georg W.Feuchter,John Vader,Vasily Yemelyanenko and many other memoirs,do not allow your self to bee repelled by sheer size of one book and instead of that all of you read some based digestive type magazines printed only to take of money from your pockets because they claim what you want to hear.If you want read "facts" about your favorite plane,only you have to do is to buy some of those thinly "books" where you found false facts mixed with quotation from correct sources but ripped from the context,claiming that your favorite Bf or Fw are the best planes ever.When you reed some of the books recommended by me,you shall see what axis pilots really think about Spitfire in first place and you can read comparative charts and real test documents of all planes,week sides,bad sides,bad features,good features etc.
Only German fighter that could fight on almost equal terms with contemporary allied aircraft is Fw 190D and this is the claim and it is a unanimous statement of Allied and German pilots.
- Sakai07 - 29.03.2010
Now, before my rant (lol) i want to point out the my information is from experience IN GAME! This is the reason we are talking about this right? We all fly in IL2. The low speed handling characteristics of the early model 109s E,F, early G, are much better then comparative Spits of the same era. This is my opinion and the way I fly. I love to run circles around opponents in the F4, the other night online I led five I-16s, Yaks, and Migs on a ten minute follow the idiot in the F4 routine, putting holes in three of them and causing one to crash. That was using a combination on vertical and horizontal maneuvers, and hitting the slats and flaps hard when I had to. As we all know, "Opinions are like a## holes, everyone has one and they all stink but mine"
So all this is not really objective, just how I like to do things.
- Karaya - 29.03.2010
Yes the Bf109 in general has a nicer handling in tight turns but that alone does not make it a better turner than a Spitfire or Rata.
The I-16 Type 18, although it can be quite tricky to keep in a tight turn without stalling out, enjoys a 4(!!) seconds turn time advantage and at slow speeds will run circles around a Bf109F!
The Spitfire Mk.Vb has about the same advantage in terms of turning performance against the Bf109F as the Rata (17 vs 20.5 seconds for a full circle at constant speed and altitude).
So unless you are just completely hamfisted and constantly get your aircraft into a stall I dont see any problem with outturning the Bf109 in said scenario. In later matchups the situations are quite similar.
- Sakai07 - 29.03.2010
hehe, I can tend to be a bit ham fisted, I get excited, what can I say
Although, using proper tactics helps combat this, as has been proven time and time again in the real world, you dont have to be a good pilot to be a good fighter pilot. As I read in "Skies of Fire: The Air War in the South Pacific" many outstanding technical pilots were killed as they were thinking about how to fight a zero, you dont think about fighting zeros, you kill them!
- Thee_oddball - 29.03.2010
I have watched these debates for years bloated manufactures specs propagandized pilot accounts making people lean one way or the other but none of it really matters in the end because none of us (thankfully) will ever know what it was like to fly these aircraft in combat. The worlds top 3 aces Eric Hartman, Gerhard Barkhorn and Gunther rall all survived the war not because of uber aircraft but because they were outstanding pilots IMHO its %75 pilot %25 plane. In the end the best performing plane is the one that gets you home
Gunther Rall
"the 109 is a floret and the 190 a sabre.."
nice series on the spit
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TQVnV0pm ... re=related
- ACE-OF-ACES - 29.03.2010
Thee_oddball Wrote:bloated manufactures specsYet only a few, like the 109K4 exceed the bloated manufactures specs by 25%
As noted above, one of the 109K4s has an ROC that is 25% better than the bloated manufactures specs at that altitude