Er.. Flyboy, maybe the Spit5 was that much better than the F-4... I don't see anything wrong about that...
Not to start a comparison thread but I really think things come down to time period we are discussing, manufacturing tolerances, and "fit and finish" of the aircraft.
Comparisons such as:
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/109f_spitvb.jpgReally show nothing as we do not know the set up or condition for each aircraft. At the moment in time, the Spitfire was superior. However the Bf-109F1 or 2 (it is surprising the RAE does not know which variant they are testing) was a very short-lived variant and was soon followed by the Bf-109F4 with a different engine.
Bf-109F1 and Bf-109F2:
Bf-109F4:
The Bf-109's could gain as much 25mph from a filled and polish job.
When you understand the significance of CLmax to turn performance and the function of aerodynamic devices like the Handley Page slats of the Bf-109:
And you read RAE test flight reports with comments like the 109 being "embarrassed" by it's slats opening or best turn performance was achieved just before the slats open it makes you wonder at the validity of the test because of the pilots experience in the type. It's a foreign aircraft in which he has no experience in the particulars of the design.
Without a doubt the Spitfire outturned the Bf-109. Just as certain it was not by much. As the RAE concluded, these planes were very evenly matched.
Only for a "game" does a few mph or few hundred feet per minute make difference for any plane. As a game, the point is having fun. Facts are the air war was a "tit for tat" war of technological one-upmanship. It teeters back and forth with each side trading advantages. The most fun times to play a game are when things were relatively equal with opposing strengths giving each side a chance to fight and win.
That is the beauty of a WWII era sim.
All the best,
Crumpp
