PDA

View Full Version : BF109 vs Spit --you asked



Tvrdi
05-07-2005, 06:01 PM
Spit IX vs BF109(G1-6)

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spit9v109g.html

it seams that Spit IX was better in turning and slightly better in climbing but inferior in diving compared to the Bf109 http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif


Spit XIV vs bf109(G6,G14,K4)

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spit14v109.html


here the differences are less noticable (XIV vs K4)....Oleg your right again,..Spit IX and K4 were beasts like they are in the game hehehehe....only, Spit IX shouldnt dive so good (at least not as good as BF)....but again, diving acc and diving speeds are not modelled here as they should be, maybe because of some limitations with the old code or something like this...well we will see in 4.0 what well get http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

p1ngu666
05-07-2005, 09:28 PM
indeed. g6 is just abit worse than IX

Jetbuff
05-07-2005, 11:41 PM
I dunno... I smell bias on that site. There is only one set of tests considered on the RAF side and they are compared with cherry-picked tests on the LW side. His numbers may be correct, but the picture he is painting is skewed.

Skalgrim
05-08-2005, 03:01 AM
Originally posted by p1ngu666:
indeed. g6 is just abit worse than IX

yes, but only with inferior fuel like b4
(87 octan) and sometime too more miserable fuel

think, with same fuel quality like spit9 has use,

would be g6 and spit9 match birds.

spit9 had powerload advantage against g6, powerload is important for sustain turn not only liftloading.

db605 with c3 fuel 96 octan can supply 1800ps without mw50, g6 with 1800ps would be sure much more threat as with 87 octan



.

Tvrdi
05-08-2005, 03:40 AM
g6 was initially constructed and builded as fighter/bomber...it was used as fighter because there was no alternative.......but of course, an experienced pilot knew what were the advantages ans disadvantages of his aircraft....so in RL, in late war an vet F109 pilot never turned with spit, he used better diving capabilities and alt advantage.....

Kurfurst__
05-08-2005, 10:36 AM
You got to be careful with that site, it`s probably the most biased 'source' on the i-net. The site is run by a Spitdweeb who spends his time with spreading his fiction about the performance, and manipulates the available evidence in almost every line...

Just notice the general attitude, loads of bad things on the 109, only good things on the Spit. The Spits which are picked are mostly various prototypes in various stage of development, with the best figures possibly, running at maximum power. The 109s he picked are usually the more draggier types, from flight test where the specific airplane had it`s problems, with gunpods, tropical filters attached etc, and not even running at full power... None of the 109E, G or K models are listed with the more powerful engines, only the WEAKEST ones..

Recently there was a discussion about it on butch`s board, and it was very telling about the author of these article, Mike Williams. A modern day 109 mechanic noted that he only lists 109s at low power... in response, Mike removed ALL high powered performance graph for the 109. Pathetic. Even Butch2k noted he has many errors and he will send him documents to correct them. Nothing happened, expect the guy had deleted butch`s comments he used earlier in the articles because they didn`t fit Mike`s agenda. What Mike does is cherry picking the worst 109 figures and comparing to the best Spit figures. Good 109 figures that were offered to him and shown are ignored with various excuses, but if those docs say something bad on the 109, he selectively uses that part...

You should read this article to get some idea how deeply biased and manipulative Spitfireperformance is.

http://www.kurfurst.atw.hu/articles/MW_KvsXIV.htm

In brief the site`s articles are basically rubbish.

Tvrdi
05-08-2005, 10:53 AM
you are right, the truth is somewhere between "my" source(site) and your source.....or somewhere between p1ngu666 and Kurfurst......he already spreaded his fetish in sig...u got ur fetish in the name http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

to be serious i posted it because i wanted to see reactions of the ppl here hehe (P1ngu666 in front of others http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif)...actually we couldnt trust to any of the net sites....only real docs as Oleg said once

VW-IceFire
05-08-2005, 11:03 AM
Aye...the truth is somewhere in between. When there is a Spitfire thread, there is Kurfurst expousing particular perspectives and there will be others refuting them and so on and so forth. Its been done, it will be done again http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

My feeling is that the Spitfire was the better of the two planes in the end but that the 109 and Spitfire were in a continual contest to outperform the other. I think the RAF won this in the end with the XIV...it wasn't used in huge numbers but from the middle of 1944 and on, it was making itself seen on the frontline...concentrated ultimately with the 2nd TAF alongside the Tempest V and the Spitfire IX/XVI (which flew more tactical fighter-bomber roles by this point). The Luftwaffe was pretty rare by this point according to most RAF pilots indications so the small number of XIVs and Tempests were in good accord with the small numbers of Luftwaffe fighters they were up against.

LeadSpitter_
05-08-2005, 11:17 AM
haha coming from kurfurst who gets 90% of his information from 109s liar.com

p1ngu666
05-08-2005, 11:36 AM
Originally posted by Tvrdi:
you are right, the truth is somewhere between "my" source(site) and your source.....or somewhere between p1ngu666 and Kurfurst......he already spreaded his fetish in sig...u got ur fetish in the name http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

to be serious i posted it because i wanted to see reactions of the ppl here hehe (P1ngu666 in front of others http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif)...actually we couldnt trust to any of the net sites....only real docs as Oleg said once

its ironic, i dont often fly spitfire, im not especialy good in it at all. pretty much whatever plane i have in my sig, i rarely fly http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

spit vs 109 currently has 37ppl onit, so i dont think im far off in my statement http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

faustnik
05-08-2005, 02:29 PM
Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
You got to be careful with that site, it`s probably the most biased 'source' on the i-net.

Kurfurst,

I agree that the site mentioned is very biased, but, it still contains a lot of original test data that is very useful. To discount everything there would be a waste of valuable information. It's a good source of data and a very useful website.

Kurfurst__
05-09-2005, 02:18 AM
Originally posted by faustnik:
Kurfurst,

I agree that the site mentioned is very biased, but, it still contains a lot of original test data that is very useful. To discount everything there would be a waste of valuable information. It's a good source of data and a very useful website.

Yeah I think very much along these lines, too. The reproduced primary sources are very interesting and useful if one can read between the lines and knows what he sees. As a collection of sources the site IS useful, but be warned, quite a few docs are 'doctored' by Williams to show what he wants to show us. A good example of that is the 109E/SpitI roll rate doc, which originally shows the stickforces for the planes, too, but as the Spit has about twice the stickforce for the aileron, that part was cut off by Williams.
Another one is 109F/SpitV speed curves, it`s from a report that notes the 109 figure is for a crashlanded 109F-2, and is compared to the MkV prototype, which was not operationally loaded etc. Quite a few Spitfire test depict early prototype planes under development, or in configurations or boost that was not standardized later. And I remember MW had once threatened of removing the JL 165 tests, because he thought they are not good enough...

What I want to say is be careful with that site, the author is very selective and is not afraid from a bit of manipulation.

WWMaxGunz
05-09-2005, 12:54 PM
Oh yes, the pot calls the kettle black. That guy is so one sided!

p1ngu666
05-09-2005, 01:08 PM
Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
Oh yes, the pot calls the kettle black. That guy is so one sided!

one day someone might hypnotise kurfy so he belives something like spitfire, p51 yak9 is best instead http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

BlackStar2000
05-09-2005, 01:53 PM
Originally posted by LeadSpitter_:
haha coming from kurfurst who gets 90% of his information from 109s liar.com

Coming from Leadspitter is 100% makemesleepboringbiasedtroll.com

Cmon give the world a break u talk too much, repeat lies will never make it a fact, at least bring some rl info or KEEP DISTANCE.

BuzzU
05-09-2005, 02:02 PM
We need a new sub forum. We'll call it the "Bias Forum".

Everybody will be free to chant their tales without flak.

RocketDog
05-09-2005, 02:06 PM
Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
the author is very selective and is not afraid from a bit of manipulation.

Ah - so not like you then. Glad that's clear.

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

crazyivan1970
05-09-2005, 04:16 PM
Moving to GD http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif