-
The BladeForums.com 2024 Traditional Knife is available! Price is $250 ea (shipped within CONUS).
Order here: https://www.bladeforums.com/help/2024-traditional/
Me-109 or Spitfire?
- Thread starter Lycosa
- Start date
- Joined
- Jun 4, 2004
- Messages
- 1,163
What are you trying to do, start a flame war!!!!!!
personally, I'd take the Hurricane! It is not a superior fighter, if you are talking the Battle of Britain time frame, but it was the workhorse in that battle. Also, I like the part fabric /part metal construction. held up against the 20mm cannon better, from what I have read.
Between the two you mentioned, I'd take the BF109G (technically, ME was not the proper prefix for the 109) The 109G was good enoug for Eric Hartmann, it is good enough for me. from the right angle, it looks a lot like a shark.
Cool topic!
Tom
personally, I'd take the Hurricane! It is not a superior fighter, if you are talking the Battle of Britain time frame, but it was the workhorse in that battle. Also, I like the part fabric /part metal construction. held up against the 20mm cannon better, from what I have read.
Between the two you mentioned, I'd take the BF109G (technically, ME was not the proper prefix for the 109) The 109G was good enoug for Eric Hartmann, it is good enough for me. from the right angle, it looks a lot like a shark.
Cool topic!
Tom
I prefer the DH Mosquito, faster than any of the above and it could bomb as well. The first true multi role fighter, years ahead of its time.
My grandfather was an armourer with the RAF working mostly with Lancasters. He used to tell stories of the Mosquito arriving back full of holes and then being patched up by a joiner and ready to fly that night.
My grandfather was an armourer with the RAF working mostly with Lancasters. He used to tell stories of the Mosquito arriving back full of holes and then being patched up by a joiner and ready to fly that night.
Esav Benyamin
MidniteSuperMod
- Joined
- Apr 6, 2000
- Messages
- 90,915
You can't argue with success. :thumbup:
We should also need to know how many were in service and how many encounters the two had. How many campaigns were won because of the capabilities of each?
Spitfire again.
- Joined
- Jul 30, 2004
- Messages
- 3,833
They were very, very similiar in performance. Slightly better cockpit visibility in the Spit.
Goering once asked a ranking Luftwaffe officer what he needed to win the Battle of Britian. "A squdron of Spitfires," was the answer. Fatty Goering didn't like hearing that.
I saw a Bf-109 up close in the National Museum of Technology in Munich. What amazed me was the small size of the aircraft in person, described by one Brit as "that tiny little fighter which had killed so many of my friends."
Mike
Goering once asked a ranking Luftwaffe officer what he needed to win the Battle of Britian. "A squdron of Spitfires," was the answer. Fatty Goering didn't like hearing that.
I saw a Bf-109 up close in the National Museum of Technology in Munich. What amazed me was the small size of the aircraft in person, described by one Brit as "that tiny little fighter which had killed so many of my friends."
Mike
- Joined
- Oct 9, 2003
- Messages
- 5,594
The 109 series was a very forward-thinking design, and the tactics they developed became the foundation of basically all modern Aerial combat. (high-speed, boom and zoom)
The Spitfire was one of the best of the "old" designs. (highly maneuverable, turn-type dogfighting.)
The Bf-109 could outrun almost any other plane of the period and had a very narrow rear profile. Also, it had a fuel injector, so the engines did not die if you dove too sharply, which was a problem for the British planes.
Basically, if you can trick a german pilot into a turning dogfight, you might win in a spitfire. If you don't see him coming and you don't have enough altitude, though, you are dead meat.
The BF-109s were harder to take off and land, which does take lives.
THe FW-190 was a kind of German version of the spitfire.
As to which one was most successful - The Israeli Air Force, when it was created in the late 40's, used the BF-109G or K, I think, which was one of the last models of that plane with a pressurized cabin for hi-altitude flight.
The Spitfire was one of the best of the "old" designs. (highly maneuverable, turn-type dogfighting.)
The Bf-109 could outrun almost any other plane of the period and had a very narrow rear profile. Also, it had a fuel injector, so the engines did not die if you dove too sharply, which was a problem for the British planes.
Basically, if you can trick a german pilot into a turning dogfight, you might win in a spitfire. If you don't see him coming and you don't have enough altitude, though, you are dead meat.
The BF-109s were harder to take off and land, which does take lives.
THe FW-190 was a kind of German version of the spitfire.
As to which one was most successful - The Israeli Air Force, when it was created in the late 40's, used the BF-109G or K, I think, which was one of the last models of that plane with a pressurized cabin for hi-altitude flight.
- Joined
- Dec 1, 1999
- Messages
- 651
My first choice:
Second:
Second:
- Joined
- Aug 17, 2003
- Messages
- 3,409
The Chance Vought F4U Corsair was an American fighter aircraft that saw service in World War II and the Korean War (and in isolated local conflicts). Goodyear-built Corsairs were designated FG and Brewster-built aircraft F3A. The Corsair served in some air forces until the 1960s, following the longest production run of any piston-engined fighter in history (1940 - 1953). During World War II, it was the fighter the Japanese feared the most. The U.S. Navy counted an 11:1 kill ratio for every F4U shot down.
- Joined
- Jan 30, 2002
- Messages
- 7,269
huh...
'nother site, 'nother forum...looks like WWII historians or something. Similar discussion: http:// www.feldgrau.net/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=6887&highlight=&sid=4b6cfd9b39b282bf8d0a166bd82655be but somewhere I saw a paragraph discussing the two...seems like the 109 had better altitude, but the Spitfire was better at mid-range altitude. I'll keep looking.
taa daaa..from Wikipedia, history of luftwaffe during WWII
"The German air crews were overall more experienced but the standard of fighter aircraft was even. The Bf 109E was slightly better in all round performance than the Hawker Hurricane, however the Bf 109 and the Spitfire were equally matched. The Bf 109 was faster at high altitude and the Spitfire had the advantage at medium heights. The Messerschmitts carried heavy armament in the shape of two 20 mm MG FF cannons. A significant advantage for the German fighter was its fuel injected engine, which allowed it to perform negative-G maneuvers without the engine cutting-out. The Spitfire and Hurricane lacked this capability.[50] The twin-engined Messerschmitt Bf 110 had performed well in the earlier campaigns. It was well armed and had the range to escort the bombers deep into enemy territory, which the Bf 109 lacked. Its fatal flaw was that in comparison to the British fighters it was unmanoeuvrable and therefore vulnerable.[51]
The British narrowly avoided defeat in the Battle of Britain. It was a close run battle, and by late August 1940 with the Luftwaffe hammering RAF airfields and communications in south east England, the situation had become desperate.[52] The RAF committed its last reserves, made up almost entirely of inexperienced pilots with only hours of combat training. Czech and Polish pilots were also used to fill the holes in manpower. Saundby concludes, "had the Germans persisted in their policy for another fortnight the result would have been disastrous for Fighter Command." He also stresses the pressure put on the Fighter Units by the Luftwaffe, "The worst hit Squadrons were sent north to quieter sectors to recuperate, but all too soon 'rested' squadrons would have to return to the South East."[53]
The essential plan for the invasion was air superiority over the beachheads. Göring convinced Hitler that the air war was almost won and that in fact the RAF was in its death throes. Hitler switched targets to London. He hoped to draw out the RAF and completely destroy its remaining strength while devastating civilian morale through mass bombing. It was ultimately this critical error that led to Fighter Command's recovery. The airfields were repaired, and pilot numbers were stabilized and then gradually increased through the influx of Commonwealth pilots.
'nother site, 'nother forum...looks like WWII historians or something. Similar discussion: http:// www.feldgrau.net/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=6887&highlight=&sid=4b6cfd9b39b282bf8d0a166bd82655be but somewhere I saw a paragraph discussing the two...seems like the 109 had better altitude, but the Spitfire was better at mid-range altitude. I'll keep looking.
taa daaa..from Wikipedia, history of luftwaffe during WWII
"The German air crews were overall more experienced but the standard of fighter aircraft was even. The Bf 109E was slightly better in all round performance than the Hawker Hurricane, however the Bf 109 and the Spitfire were equally matched. The Bf 109 was faster at high altitude and the Spitfire had the advantage at medium heights. The Messerschmitts carried heavy armament in the shape of two 20 mm MG FF cannons. A significant advantage for the German fighter was its fuel injected engine, which allowed it to perform negative-G maneuvers without the engine cutting-out. The Spitfire and Hurricane lacked this capability.[50] The twin-engined Messerschmitt Bf 110 had performed well in the earlier campaigns. It was well armed and had the range to escort the bombers deep into enemy territory, which the Bf 109 lacked. Its fatal flaw was that in comparison to the British fighters it was unmanoeuvrable and therefore vulnerable.[51]
The British narrowly avoided defeat in the Battle of Britain. It was a close run battle, and by late August 1940 with the Luftwaffe hammering RAF airfields and communications in south east England, the situation had become desperate.[52] The RAF committed its last reserves, made up almost entirely of inexperienced pilots with only hours of combat training. Czech and Polish pilots were also used to fill the holes in manpower. Saundby concludes, "had the Germans persisted in their policy for another fortnight the result would have been disastrous for Fighter Command." He also stresses the pressure put on the Fighter Units by the Luftwaffe, "The worst hit Squadrons were sent north to quieter sectors to recuperate, but all too soon 'rested' squadrons would have to return to the South East."[53]
The essential plan for the invasion was air superiority over the beachheads. Göring convinced Hitler that the air war was almost won and that in fact the RAF was in its death throes. Hitler switched targets to London. He hoped to draw out the RAF and completely destroy its remaining strength while devastating civilian morale through mass bombing. It was ultimately this critical error that led to Fighter Command's recovery. The airfields were repaired, and pilot numbers were stabilized and then gradually increased through the influx of Commonwealth pilots.
- Joined
- Nov 27, 2002
- Messages
- 2,145
