Author Topic: 109F vrs the spit9 (Read 5130 times)

Flyboy · « **on:** August 20, 2003, 04:37:00 PM »

is it me or the spit9 is superior to the 109f in all aspects?

im pretty sure the spit will out turn the 109 even when it uses flaps (1 or 2 notches)

did someone performed tests with those 2 planes?

RTR · « **Reply #1 on:** August 20, 2003, 04:52:42 PM »

Well, I have noticed that it works something like this:
When I fly the 109F, the SpitIX will out turn it every time.
When I fly the SpitIX, the 109F will out turn it every time.
However, it's not as bad as it seems. My inept gunnery skills, and fear of heights, more than make up for my inability to get the most out of my current plane choice, and continue to provide me with hours of exciting entertainment.

cheers
RTR

Urchin · « **Reply #2 on:** August 20, 2003, 07:58:39 PM »

Spit IX utterly dominates the 109F, it is better in every aspect.

Karnak · « **Reply #3 on:** August 20, 2003, 08:23:20 PM »

Which is as it should be.

Complaining that the Spitfire Mk IX is better than the Bf109F-4 is the same as complaining that the Spitfire Mk Vb is better than the Bf109E-4.

(The Bf109F-4 is faster on the deck than the Spitfire Mk IX)

Urchin · « **Reply #4 on:** August 20, 2003, 08:25:48 PM »

Oh, I didn't say it was wrong, he asked and I answered.

Karnak · « **Reply #5 on:** August 20, 2003, 08:28:54 PM »

I know Urchin.

I was just clarifying for other people who might not be as, er, balanced.

GScholz · « **Reply #6 on:** August 20, 2003, 08:42:45 PM »

The 109F4 is slightly faster than the Spit IX under 20k (10mph). Above 20k the Spit IX is better in all aspects of performance. The 109F4 can turn with the Spit IX at medium speeds, and at very low speeds using flaps, but it is dangerous.

ramzey · « **Reply #7 on:** August 20, 2003, 10:49:05 PM »

but only ace have chance to win this fight flying 109;)

ramzey

lord dolf vader · « **Reply #8 on:** August 20, 2003, 11:30:09 PM »

there are a few things a 109 f4 does better . they just did not model most of them.

GScholz · « **Reply #9 on:** August 21, 2003, 01:49:37 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by lord dolf vader
there are a few things a 109 f4 does better . they just did not model most of them.

Like what?

niklas · « **Reply #10 on:** August 21, 2003, 03:14:12 AM »

Spits are modelled in AH with even higher maximum lift coefficient like 109, though they had thinner wings, outdated airfoil, washout (read: less lift outside), no slats, no usage of combat flaps (109E already could use 20° combat flaps up to 400km/h) and even weapons in the leading edges which destroy partially the airflow in a high AoA situation, being quite often the origin of a stall.
There exist even a NACA report that mentions the very low maximum lift coefficient of a spit, and this without weapons which distrurb the leading edge!
If they´d model it correctly a 109F would turn with or maybe even into a spit9.
There exist also exact sources that a 109F/G will roll faster like a spit at higher speeds.

niklas

Angus · « **Reply #11 on:** August 21, 2003, 04:10:04 AM »

The 109 has a quite a bit higher wingloading than the Spit through all models. That quite much explains the turning thingie, also the very good turning abilities of the a6m, the Kate and the Val by the way.
However the 109 F is quite a nimble plane and it does have some edges on par or better than the Spit IX. The above mentioned speed on the deck, well, yes, our Spit is the High altitude version, but also initial acceleration and climb at low alt when one considers that the WEP on the 109 goes on a lot longer.
A good pilot in a 109F therefor does not necessarily have to be dead when he faces a Spit9, it all depends really.....
Oh, and the Slats are modelled in AH, but without their disadvatages, which was slamming in and out at bad moments, throwing off the pilot's aim. Famous German aces like Gunther Rall did not like them and even had them wired stuck!

GScholz · « **Reply #12 on:** August 21, 2003, 05:28:25 AM »

That disadvantage is modelled Angus.

The 109F4 had a wing loading of 34.8 lb/sq feet while the Spit IX had a wing loading of 30.2 lb/sq feet. Not a big difference, and the 109F4 has leading edge slats.

Angus · « **Reply #13 on:** August 21, 2003, 07:43:24 AM »

GScholz: Are you sure that the slats snapping jolt is modelled in AH, or did you misread my text?
The wing loading thingie again anyway. The difference is always about 10-20%, unless of course you have a fully loaded Spitfire vs an empty 109. The Spit IX goes down to 23.lbs empty while the 109 stays at 29 or so. Flying with maximum allowable burden the SpitIX will take equal or more total wing loading than the 109F, a typical operational wing loading exceeds the maximum allowable wing loading of the 109F.
Span loading of the Spitfire is lower AND higher, empty to full 499-855 lbs/m against 522-681, and power loading tells the same story. 3.58-6.07 against the 109's 4.08-5.3
So, a Typically loaded Spitfire IX has lower wingloading, lower spanloading and lower powerloading vs. a typically loaded 109F. However, the Spitfire CAN be loaded heavier for each HP/Wing sq/Wing Sp and still flyable. Quite surprized me really when I found out.
Must be something about that wing........

niklas · « **Reply #14 on:** August 21, 2003, 09:41:38 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Angus
The 109 has a quite a bit higher wingloading than the Spit through all models.

Wingarea alone doesn´t produce lift! The whole outer section of the spit was flying at very low AoA even close to a stall and did not produce much lift. It gave the spit the marvellous handling characteristics (ailerons still controlable close to a stall, or in case of the spit, even with inner section completly stalled) at these speeds on the other hand.
The spit reduced max. lift coefficient to achieve nice handling characteristics, The 109 increased lift (slats). At the end total lift was not much different, maybe even higher for the 109!

niklas