PDA

View Full Version : Nice information here on spit/109 comparison



AVGWarhawk
07-21-2006, 10:40 AM
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spit9v109g.html

Xiolablu3
07-21-2006, 11:00 AM
Yeah its a good site, with excellent info

*runs for cover*

faustnik
07-21-2006, 11:07 AM
This is an good comparison of the time period when the Spit IX entered service before the Bf109 boost limits were increased to 1.42ata. From fall 1943, the Bf109 would look much better. I hope the article is updated to include this at some point.

MEGILE
07-21-2006, 11:26 AM
Originally posted by faustnik:
This is an good comparison of the time period when the Spit IX entered service before the Bf109 boost limits were increased to 1.42ata. From fall 1943, the Bf109 would look much better. I hope the article is updated to include this at some point.

IIRC Mike Williams doesn't think 1.42 ATA was cleared before spring 1944.

I have no idea... but i bet there is a certain someone who does http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Xiolablu3
07-21-2006, 11:41 AM
'Cleared' isnt really that important, as you know. Its when numbers of aircraft actaully reached the front that is important.

I remember in Heinz KNockes book, he stated that the first 109G's he, and many other sqaudrons receieved kept bursting into flames. This is probably a result of rushing hi boost planes out before they were tested properly

justflyin
07-21-2006, 11:44 AM
Originally posted by faustnik:
This is an good comparison of the time period when the Spit IX entered service before the Bf109 boost limits were increased to 1.42ata. From fall 1943, the Bf109 would look much better. I hope the article is updated to include this at some point.

Now, someone posted here (Karaya I think) that the boost gauge is reading incorrectly in the 109-G2, but if that isn't the case, then why do we have a 1942 109-G2 with ATA1.42 if it was not available until 1943?!?! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

faustnik
07-21-2006, 12:31 PM
Originally posted by Megile:

IIRC Mike Williams doesn't think 1.42 ATA was cleared before spring 1944.


I got Fall '43 from two reliable sources. Regardless, the 1.42ata 109s would be great for including in the article.

AVGWarhawk
07-21-2006, 12:53 PM
If you did not get to the main page....
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spittest.html

Kocur_
07-21-2006, 01:14 PM
Its too early to bring him back with provocation that simple.

MEGILE
07-21-2006, 04:53 PM
Originally posted by faustnik:


I got Fall '43 from two reliable sources. Regardless, the 1.42ata 109s would be great for including in the article.

I'd like to know what data Kurfurst has on the subject... regardless of the exact date, the Gustav at 1.42ATA and Spit IX +18 Boost are contemporaries.

It's a strange ommission by MW.


Originally posted by justflyin:
Now, someone posted here (Karaya I think) that the boost gauge is reading incorrectly in the 109-G2, but if that isn't the case, then why do we have a 1942 109-G2 with ATA1.42 if it was not available until 1943?!?! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

If the G2 ran at 1.42 ATA, what is the problem? Use it for 1943 instead.
Captain K would be the guy to ask however.

faustnik
07-21-2006, 04:59 PM
Originally posted by Megile:

It's a strange ommission by MW.

Well, Mike clearly says at the beginning of his article that the
'42-'43 time period is the focus. If his opinion is that the DB605 wasn't cleared for 1.42ata until '44, then it makes sense. I'll ask him if he could update the article comparing the IX +18 to the 1.42ata G6 and the AS version.

Butch2K has great Bf109 info too!!!

ploughman
07-21-2006, 05:04 PM
Originally posted by justflyin:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by faustnik:
This is an good comparison of the time period when the Spit IX entered service before the Bf109 boost limits were increased to 1.42ata. From fall 1943, the Bf109 would look much better. I hope the article is updated to include this at some point.

Now, someone posted here (Karaya I think) that the boost gauge is reading incorrectly in the 109-G2, but if that isn't the case, then why do we have a 1942 109-G2 with ATA1.42 if it was not available until 1943?!?! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

YOu can't completely rely on the in-cockpit dials in this game to give you 100% accurate information apparrently. The only way to be sure when it comes to performance is to use device link on an .ntrk recording, or so I'm told. Beyond that, well, it's just a game.

faustnik
07-21-2006, 05:14 PM
For those intersted, there is some good discussion of 1943 fighter performance (along will a little silliness http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif ) found here:
http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/modules.php?name=F...le=viewtopic&t=10399 (http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewtopic&t=10399)

MEGILE
07-21-2006, 05:15 PM
Originally posted by faustnik:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Megile:

It's a strange ommission by MW.

Well, Mike clearly says at the beginning of his article that the
'42-'43 time period is the focus. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Indeed, its just interesting that Mike reserves the 1.42 data for comparison only with the Spitfire XIV.

That's like comparing the K4 with a Spit IX, no? Sure they fought.. but there are more representitive comparsons which can be made.

faustnik
07-21-2006, 05:26 PM
We need to do a year-by-year performance comparison with the Fw190 and Allied fighters as a permanent post on the the Fw190 Forum. Crumpp and I have all the Fw190 tests and MW can provide the Allied stuff.