Cap's comment at 16:20 about the BF109 having poor visibility (always something in the way) is spot on. I recall there was a airshow in the 1980's, and an old P38 pilot got to sit in a BF109 for the first time. The P38 pilot's comment was "If I had known the view from their cockpit was this bad, I would have been far more aggressive."
@@pup1008 getting out of one in an emergency, more so if you couldn't roll over was impossible. The airflow held the canopy closed. It also weighed a lot due to the armoured glass and heavy frame.
@@seansamurai1981 Why talk about things you know nothing about? The entire 109 canopy came off with the wind, rear frame included. Visibility to the sides was better than P-51 or FW-190, because the pilot was well back from windshield, which gave better visibility through the sides: Looking through the sides mattered more in practice... Flat glass panes were optically better, and picked up less sun reflections than the Mustang's bubbletop... It could seat 2 meter pilots, and had more lateral head room than the flat 190 hood. The small tail unit did require a strong left leg push above 300 mph, to keep the nose from drifting right, which inhibited left rolls at high speeds, but the P-51's nose snaked left right so badly above 350 that the rudder hinges were damaged from the effort of keeping the nose straight(!!!).. They reversed the P-51's rudder trim tab just to keep the pilot's from breaking their rudder, making the rudder hugely heavy, so the nose could keep on snaking left and right... Not to mention the P-51's wings or tail often broke off, never fixed, or that it's guns jammed in turns from g load, at 3X the rate of the same guns in other types, never fixed even into the D... To be fair, the German 30 mm did the same, but were much less frequently used than the excellent 20 mms. Oh, and the landing take off accident rate was the same on the 109 as on any comparable aircraft, and better than the high rate on early P-51s...
Any good 109 pilot will just run away from a Spit and not try to just dogfight it on equal terms. The 109 is an energy fighter first and foremost. From my knowledge of playing IL-2, the 109 pilots start having real problems when they fight against something that can actually dive with them like a mustang/tempest.
Wrong wrong and wrong. I'll be happy to demonstrate how a K4 will demolish a Spitfire, and certainly won't be running "20 miles" - be in visual contact the entire time. You just need to know how to properly energy fight the Spit and other fighters which have a superior rate/angle fighting capability, which Cap obviously doesn't here. A reasonably good 109 K4 pilot will rope a Spit 9 all day long. Only the Spit14 and a few later models which could match the K4 in climb performance stood a chance of killing a late model 109 pilot with 1/2 a brain in a 1v1 fight.
@@Gman-109 " *Only the Spit14 and a few later models [...] stood a chance* " Overall I agree with your post, but that particular statement is pushing it. Anyway, in reality K4 wasn't such a marvel at all. Half the dials not working, engine coughing, etc. I read a memoir of a pilot who managed to sneak a ride in her and she wasn't perfect, by any means. Still, a good plane, which could give you an edge even over a decently flown Spit 9. And that's a lot to ask, actually.
@@Gman-109 Depends on spit version and pilot. Ace spit could avoid 109 attacks & spray Hispano rounds after booming 109 so it's not so simple. Sorry but high boost 25 lbs MK Xl Spit was more than nightmare for K4. Same 25lbs Mustang. With last one 109 could not run away or even out turn mustang. Only climb was only hope..
@BekGrou PRIMUS K4 was reaching it's max speed at high altitude. Down low was slower than both Mustang or Tempest. Also it was quite common K4 had to fly on regular low octane fuel so maximum power wasn't available. So P51 could out run any 109 in dive and come back to fight another day. 109 had to fight for life till end.
The best tactic in a 109 is to keep directly above the Spitfire. You bleed less speed in maneuvers. Climb in a gentle chandelle above him, making sure to stay just out of guns. The G-6 has pretty good horsepower and great torque. You'll stall at the same time but you're going to be above him, with more energy! And then your better high-speed maneuverability and higher Vne come into play. And accurate cannon. And MW50, if he's really getting away. Mostly you'll be throttling back pretty soon when you catch up to him, so be ready for that. If it doesn't work you can just hit the afterburners and boom away in a shallow or steep dive, ready to reset the fight and do it again. Just draw straight lines through the Spitfire. Make the Spitfire nose down to shoot you at high speed (his float carburetor drowns whereas you have about 4 seconds inverted flight before oil runs out), make him roll at low speed. He can turn circles around you, and climb while doing it. Keep as much altitude as you can, unless you're in imminent danger. Do not maneuver unless you must, and try to keep it as gentle as possible. Don't be too gentle and get shot down, but be aware that turns cost energy. His turns just cost more energy! Always engage a Spitfire above 5,000 ft, and always try to attack with superior altitude. Higher is better, like 20,000 ft. Your engine is way better up there. You can outrun him above 5km, and your zoom climbs will go higher. He gets a sharp dropoff in horsepower around 10,000 feet, unless he's a Mk.anything-greater-than-9, in which case you're gonna need a newer 109. That one looks like maybe a G-6, and I'm guessing he's in a bog-standard Mk.9F. A 9LF will murder you and your kids with sheer power-to-weight ratio, a Mk.16 will kick your teeth out the back of your head with insane high-altitude performance, and Mk.18-24 will erase you and your ancestors from history. The 109G-6 is well-matched to the Mk.9. _Tautochrone_ _Brachistochrone_ Learn these for evasion or just when exiting a failed attack. Even if he's facing the wrong way, you want to know the shortest time to achieve the roughly 3-5km you will require to turn around and reset. On the deck it's a straight line, obviously, but with 6km below you... it becomes an arc! You can get stupid fast in a hurry, and maintain it longer with trigonometry. I just point my nose straight down and pull back in my best guess at the right cycloid curve diameter. I guess with pictures in my head, viewing the fight from a 2d sidescroller perspective and a desired (lower) final altitude. Much lower altitude is a faster (emergency) exit, slightly lower altitude saves total energy (speed plus altitude) but takes way longer because it's basically flat. His goal is to get you to bleed enough speed so that you can't run away. His strength is low-end maneuverability and an excellent low speed climb. He can turn circles around you, and climb while doing it.The Spitfire is a monster, it can just point its nose wherever it needs to. If you hang in front of him he'll turn on his helicopter and kill you while he's stalling. Your roll rate is better than his *in the direction of your propeller sweep* and _slower_ in the opposite direction. He can turn circles around you, and climb while doing it. To get away, dive as steep as you can and use sort-of gentle evasive maneuvers (gotta go fast). Brachistochrone your way outta there. Cap did pretty dang good in the 109, knowing that he was intentionally not extending. He completely ignored the rudder in the Mk.9 but did pretty good otherwise.
I seem to remember a BoB spitfire pilot (Mk1presumably) who actually said they could out dive the 109s (Es presumably) but not out climb them, but the 109s usually dived to try and escape.
With performance parameters closely matched the difference invariably came down to the pilot.. But the Spitfire wins just looking at them.. A machine of death that looks & performs utterly beautifully ❤️
Wing loading was a missing metric and if you could add drag Coeff (induced drag included). I know the 109 has less profile drag but the G Variants had very questionable skin drag with bits and bobs hanging off. The kurfurst had been cleaned up a great deal, almost equivalent if not slightly better than the F model.
Favorite 109 will always be the E. That is my favorite version of the 109 because the square wings are how all 109 should be. Favorite WW2 bird though is the P-40, wish DCS could give us one of those.
There was a P40 in development for DCS but got scraped when the devs of the Hawk dropped out, I’m lucky enough to have flown the P40 in dcs VR, definitely need to restart that project
When it comes to trying and compare LF Mk.IX and K-4 as "contemporary opponents" would be to have the Kurfürst with a boost and the Spitfire with 150 octane fuel. If memory serves me right, the Spits got their 150-octane around summer or autumn of 1944 (primarily for intercepting V-1s), and then some sources also mention around spring 1945 (perhaps for frontline units?)
MkIX Spitfire had the E (universal) wing. I know I said A, B and C in the tour of the Spit, but from the IX they combined designs for a universal wing capable of accepting any of the previous setups. I think I corrected that in the comments of the Spitfire video. Sorry Cap Dave
Dont let the spitfire eat his altitude. Common tactics of WW2 dog fighters. The 109 pilots started high, gave them the energy but they also performed better at high altitude. Meanwhile the spitfire pilot would drag a 109 down, the spitfire outperformed the 109 at a lower altitude. Its mentioned in a very good book written by a spitfire pilot about how you knew the old hat pilots, they were the ones who eith stayed high and circled or stayed low and watched (aircraft dependant)
The way reapers fly, spitfire is better. The way reapers takeoff and land, 109 is slightly better. Speed can save your ass but 109 wins by climbing and building up its energy state patiently. The secret part is to not burn any of it away before the time is right. Drag = bad. Flaps and high-speed loops are counterproductive, as is throttling back randomly.
If you need a video ide you should test maneuvering energy retention as a measure of dogfighting capability. Some planes lose more speed when turning than others. It is measured by doing a 180deg 6g turn and calculating energy before and after entering the turn
@@grimreapers energy = 0.5* mass * velocity^2 + mass * 9.81 * altitude All units have to be kilograms and meters The energy you get is in Joule and when doing this calculation before and after the turn you have two comparable values that indicate how much energy was lost
Germans should have put the MK 103 cannon in the nose instead of the MK 108. The 103 had slightly less rate of fire but way higher muzzle velocity. In Sid Meir's classic Secrets of the Luftwaffe I hacked them in. I even got the Shooting Star into the campaign for the Allies.
They did right at the end. The MK-108 wasn't bad as you had to get in close anyway, so ROF helped. It was also lighter. The Mk V Hispano had lower muzzle velocity than the Mk II.
@@wbertie2604 But that would have added 83kg just for the gun, and would have required ballast to be added aft of the COG to compensate (and would have further pushed up the weight), The rounds were also larger so would also further increase weight or carry less ammo
if pilots are of equal skill in each aircraft the K4 should be able to keep a spit defensive for most of the fight and if things start to develop in the spits favour then the 109 just goes into a shallow dive to run again then use its amazing climb to go into a now shallow climb (still flying away from the spitfire) slowly getting steeper over time before the 109 is now in a favourable position again. yes its boring but thats how you win. Also spit also has auto cooling its just the RMP and Boost you need to managed If you would like a P51 Pilot for a P51 vs K4/D9 DCS fight then gives us a shout, im always free Thursdays before IL2
Both planes have own advantages. None of them could be strong enough to dictate fight. 109 could run away or try out climb spit mkIX but with MW50 methanol injection and high octane fuel that was rare in Germany later than 44. Spit XI was little slower but was retaining energy better during manovers. Also in spiral climb spit was better. 109 should utilize hit& run or b&z tactic but carefully cause 20mm Hispano spitfire cannons could spray 109 from distance. 109 should not turn with flaps or hard enough to deploy wing slats. Both are like deploy of brakes. For 109 speed is life. Spit can turn 109 can't. In shown movie won better pilot not a better plane.
@@303Pinker I’m not saying both aircraft don’t have advantages or disadvantages, when it comes to ww2 dogfights from my experience the boom and zoom fighter is normally the aircraft who is in control of how the fight progresses, if they want to engage or disengage at any point they choose. If we look at the 109 vs spit if they both merge with equal energy advantage the spit is forced to fight because If it tries to run the 109 catches it. Where as the 109 has more options open to it can just push through the merge and go into a climb or it can push through the merge and just speed away and the spit won’t be able to turn quick enough t to get shots off at a 109 running in a straight line 180 degrees away from it. And if the 109 decides to fight he can just leave the fight as long as he has been a smart pilot and was able to recognise early enough that things aren’t going in his favour. Despite being a pretty big mustang enthusiast I have to say that within DCS the BF109K4 is the best warbird currently available. I do believe it will beat out the F4u Corsair when that comes out also. I feel like unless you are already in an advantageous position against a k4 it’s going to be an uphill battle for you against one
@@hasina1461 if 109 and spit start with equal energy state than 109 should run and dony look back. Spitfire was much easier plane to fly than 109. Average pilot in spitfire was much more dangerous than in 109. Yours examples are academic ones that not suit real conditions. K4 to dictate fight with spit XI needs altitude or speed advantage at start. If not should hit MW50 and run like Forrest Gump hoping that 20mm Hispano rounds will tot catch him first.
@@hasina1461 can't tell about DCS but I have plenty of experience in old il2 series. K4 is good up to Spit XI (excluding high boost 25 lbs MK IX) as long K4 is not turning at all. Against High boost P51s or Tempests it's inferior. I can agree K4 can run effective from standard MK IX spit but it's not a dogfight. It's also not true that K4 can always outclimb mkIX spitfire. In spiral climb spit climbs better so it's more about pilot factor to force fight to plane strengths. The same plane can be B&Z or turn & burn fighter depending opponent plane. Spit IX is to close in performance to K4 to say one can dictate fight with high margin of safety.
@@303Pinker if we are bring this down to IRL and not DCS then yeah your average allied pilot was better then your axis pilot overall as by the later end of the war most axis pilots who had experience had been shot down
I bought a park zone bf-109 r/c plane. I can only describe it as like flying a wet brick. I took it back and traded for F-4 Corsair that flew like a dream.
You've got me intrigued into how you design a plane to turn well now. Is it down to wing shape or weight distribution, low speed performance? I would think a ww1 plane would outturn anything but I'm really not sure. Maybe there's a video you could do to help me understand?
That's actually correct, a WWI fighter will out-turn anything else in history, in a 100% pure turn fight. You can do it in IL-2, put WWI vs WWII planes. Difference is massive. Problem is WWI are so slow, they are essentially useless. VERY roughly: turn performance = power/weight + wing loading(smaller is better). The more you get into it the more parameters contribute.
9:23 Cap actually made a mistake there, which was going into a downward one circle with the spitfire... The lower the 109 gets, the engine gets worse (not quite noticeable but it's still there), also doing that made the 109 slow and when getting down to the deck and if the 109 starts rate fighting... no chance gonna win unless the spitfire did sth very wrong for example goes full vertical and stalls himself out or just ran out of fuel for whatever reason
That Spitfire has the C wing, not the B. The B was designed for 2 cannon and 4 MGs only. The C wing could take up to 4 cannon, but was usually loaded with only 2, as in this example.
you have to manage your RPM.. You flying with 3000 RPM! :D Its damaging the BF 109 Engine very quick. When you dive its better to have RPM about 2200 RPM, so you can get quicker the speed. :)
Best rate of climb is not the same as best angle of climb. If you want to outclimb him go for best rate. It will be a particular speed at full throttle. Best angle will be a lower speed than best rate speed. A zoom climb is a good way of using excess speed to gain altitude but you need to hit best rate speed (and therefore angle) a bit before the speed decays in the zoom so say 30 or 40kmh (20kt or 25mph) above the best rate speed you transition out of the zoom. You can't really just point the nose up and expect to outclimb the Spitfire. Perhaps in most circumstances you will outclimb him but you still need to hit your speeds.
@@grimreapers This is someone else's video, starting at 0:22 in the video below ruclips.net/video/aLM_hQoaqp0/видео.html As well as this video that seems to deal with this topic exclusively: ruclips.net/video/tj41bKTh43M/видео.html So by turning that wheel you can increase elevator authority (in the desired direction) by adjusting the entire horizontal stabilizer, just like on an airliner, but pilots were instructed to NOT use it to help pull out of a dive, But rather to adjust it continually whilst the speed increased in the dive so that you had to push forward on the stick to keep the plane in the dive (or simply lessen how much you are pushing forward to lessen the angle of the dive/ start to pull out of the dive) There is at least one recorded case where it seems that the pilot didn't do this due to being distracted by the combat with a US aircraft, Both hit compressibility, both pilots obviously trying to pull out of the dive, The BF 109 was observed to all of a sudden pull up very sharply, followed by both wings snapping off (hopefully the G forces also caused the pilot to black out, because this was at a low altitude, too low to bail out, even if the speed allowed for it)
@@notsureyou I'm not sure you understand how the tail trim behaved on the Me-109... It was advised to trim it tail heavy BEFORE the dive, and you dived by banking sideways on the 109... You did have, when trimmed tail heavy, to push continually to keep the nose level, as you say, but it merely sharpened the pull up reaction at high speeds. The trim wheel could NOT be moved at all at high speeds, due to it becoming too heavy, so your story that it broke the wings off at high speeds is bogus: The trimming did not move at all in high speed dives, but it did allow better pull outs than even the P-51 could do, IF trimmed in advance, and the P-51 was heavy on the stick but still also outstanding at high speeds.
@@wrathofatlantis2316 It wasn't my story, it was by a US fighter pilot (I will try to find the quote for you). Some pilots claimed that the wheel couldn't be moved at high speed, others said that it could be. "- Versuchs-Bericht Nr 109 05 E 43 - Date 15.4.43 This original German test document refers to dive tests of 109s with the tall tail. Result of this test was that the new tail reduced highspeed diving ozillations (which sometimes appeard with the old tail). More interesting is the fact, that in this tests, which had not the aim to estimate the highest mach number or to test the structure, they reached max. Mach 0,805@7.0km max. TAS 906km/h@5.8km max. IAS 737km/h@4.5km Even more interesting is the fact that they tried different positions of the trimming. With the wrong trimset - the one for cruising at high altitude it was not possible to pull out of the dive just by using the stick. They needed to use the trimwheel to recover the plane from the dive. This happened in such violent manner that the testpilot had to push the stick foreward to be not blacked out... If the trim was set to +1.15° it was possible to recover without using the trimwheel - both flightpaths, with and without the trimwheel, are very similar. So even with the concrete stick the limitating factor seems to be the pilot. Also interesting in the dive the canopy iced, also the mechanism of the trim, so it was not possible to set it smooth, but in "jumps", but it was still adjustable... - Source: Hochgeschwindigkeitsversusche mit Me 109, Messerschmitt AG, Augsburg.
you should play the 109 like an energy fighter with mean s make him turn so he losses energy and the ngo into an step cllimb or an spiral so he stalls and cuz of 109's perfect stall control your nose will end up on his tail and he will be stalled out so he won't be able to use his turn with is the only reason why is na spit better in a dogfight vs an 109
That 3 blade prop Kraut killer. That whole interrupter HP stealer set up to compound it and waste 30mil gun hollow prop. Never made sense. Could have had 4 blade prop with 4 heavys near wing root. And scrapped all that mostly useless weight
Pierre Clostermann: "Myths die hard... At 280 knots and above the Spitifire will out-turn the Me-109 and the FW-190A. But as the turn continues and speeds get below that, the idea the Spitfire can out-turn either of those is a good joke..." Johnny Johnson Spit V vs FW-190A near water level: "I asked the Spitfire for all she had, but another couple of turns and he would have me in his sights. It was only a question of time." See my channel as to why that is the case, particularly the video "WWII fighter aircraft designers did not understand what they designed"...
@@julianneale6128 That's why I like the Tempest V and the Sabre with it's 953,000 rpm engine. Napier MD: we need a more powerful engine. Engineers: we'll nail two engines together and run it at warp speed.
@@wbertie2604 haha very well. There is apparently a Tempest being made airworthy with any luck. I understand that the Sabre engine they have for that has never run so should be able to be stripped and rebuilt. I also understand that Napier had production issues with the engines, with things like swarf left in the oil galleries... So a thorough inspection is even more important. If they achieve this, it'll be an incredible sounding beast.
@@julianneale6128 Production issues with the the Sabre? Unpossible! I need to work out where I put my pilot's notes, a slim pamphlet easily lost between other books...
1 30mm and 2 13mm is easily the equal of 2 20mm and 4 .303s in terms of weight of fire and more than it in terms of destructive power since the 30mm will me mostly using Minengeschloss, and in WW2 sometimes the 20mm were firing just APIT, no HEIT at all. All weapons are central so relative roll doesn't affect aiming, and convergence is less of an issue. The only downside is a bit lower rate of fire, but then the .303s aren't bringing a lot to the party. If it was .50s instead of .303s it would be a bit more even.
Mk108 had slow muzle velocity. Aim to nimble fighter was nightmare. Also was prone to jam during high G shoot attempts. So on paper 1 30mm is equal but not in real condition. This cannon was for bomber hunting.
@@303Pinker the muzzle velocity isn't ideal. The flight time at 200m is almost 0.5 seconds! It's about 1/3 slower than 20mm cannon. Mk103 firing HE is the same as a Hispano. Jamming isn't ideal, although Allied aircraft had issues too, right into 1944. USA 20mm just failed to fire.
@@303Pinker 108 versus 103... The 108 weighed so much less and fired so much faster it made more sense to use it. If you on target on a bomber you'd get more hits, so better for a single pass, and for a fighter you'd slightly (although not much, that's statistics for you) increase the chance of a hit. However, with more rounds, you might be prepared to take a punt. Or with the same number of rounds with a 103 it's like taking a couple of friends along for a ride. So you might not get behind a P-51. The late K4s probably had 103s due to a lack of 108s and some 103s being found at the back of a warehouse.
Historically the BF 109 was better in the vertical. Where as the Super Marine Spitfire was better in the horizontal. During the Battle of Britain/The Blitz the Spitfire didn't have fuel injection. However the BF 109 had fuel injection. One tactic the German pilots learn to use against the Spitfire. If a Spitfire got on to 6 o'clock position of a BF 109, the BF 109 was to go into a dive pushing negative Gs. If the Spitfire tried to follow the BF 109 into this negative G dive. The Spitfire's engine would cut out, because the negative Gs would force the fuel out of the carburetor.
Does anyone know how the engine failure due to vertical climb in the spitfire is calculated? Is is based on the number of seconds you're above a certain climb angle, do they actually model the oil pooling at the back of the engine or is there some other calculation going on in the background?
I think its the engine temp. low air speed due to the climb, the radiators then don't work well, you need full power to keep up with the 109 and it cooks the engine. easy to miss the engine temp when your dog fighting.
@@simondale3980 I thought the reason the spitfires had problems with climbing in DCS was due to the original planes having an oiling issue where the non-baffled sump had the pickup at the front of the engine and would cause oil starvation in a long step climb?
You could always say it's the "Ghost of Delhi" in an Indian Mig-29 vs Chinese J-11's and Mig-21s maybe? It's not like there's only two countries with Migs and Sukhois =-)
I would like to add the 109's centrally located guns as an advantage because of convergence problems with wing mounted guns. The range and accuracy of the 109's guns should be better than the Spitfire's.
any experienced pilot prefers the wing mounted guns. Fact of the matter is central mounted cannons means you have to line the gun up perfectly in order to hit, which is easier said than done, whereas the wing mounted guns gives you an opportunity to hit with either the left or the right wing and not have to worry about lining it up perfectly. Sometimes you even get to hit with both which shreds. Furthermore, wherever you got the idea that an mk 108 or mg 131 was more accurate than a hispano you need to re evaluate. 303.s sure they were inaccurate because they rattled but mg131s were pretty bad and mk 108s were far far far worse. Hispanos weren't great but by 1943 they were decent
@@lonurad1259 I never wrote that the Mk 108 was a good weapon against a fighter, it was meant for bombers and other large and slow aircraft - please reread my comment. Here's some information: "In spite of our superiority of fire power over that of the enemy, many pilots would prefer the armament of an Me.109 with its one cannon firing through the airscrew hub and two machine guns mounted in the fuselage. They feel that despite its inferiority to our armament the concentration of parallel fire more than counter-balances our criss-cross pattern. Wing Commander (Tactics) W.M. Churchill 31 Dec 1941" From Wikipedia: "Soviet fighter design of the era favoured grouping all guns in the fuselage for accuracy and for keeping the wings as light as possible, resulting in improved manoeuvrability. In fact, many Soviet pilots flying western aircraft, such as the Bell P-39 Airacobra, directed their armourers to remove some or all wing guns." I would imagine that the wings, being more flexible than the cowl, would deflect more under the vibration produced by the firing guns and changing aerodynamic stresses on the aircraft and thus degrade their accuracy.
There were no convergence issues with wing mounted guns. Mechanics could alter the convergence distance based on the pilot's preference. This is from a co-workers uncle who flew the Hurricane, then the Spitfire (while he was enlisted for the British) and finally the Mustang when he flew for the U.S. He would have his guns set to converge at 100 yards.
200Hp - +> 10% isn't down to a mechanic - the guys who serviced these engines and kept them going couldn't do that - Increases like that are the realm of specialist engine tuners who can rework engine parts. The same is even more true today. Neither ran on Water/methanol in combat - The volume/ energy density is way lower than AvGas.
They did use the MW in combat, just not as a fuel. "MW 50 (Methanol-Wasser 50) was a 50-50 mixture of methanol and water (German: Wasser) that was often sprayed into the supercharger of World War II aircraft engines primarily for its anti-detonation effect, allowing the use of increased boost pressures. Secondary effects were cooling of the engine and charge cooling" The Germans used this to compensate for having lower octane Avgas.
MW50 is used to cool the charge, prevent detonation, and allow running much higher boost than without it. Water was also used for a lesser effect, but still worked.
I am surprised you are putting up a IX with a 2x20mm and 4x0.303 against each other as 2x20mm and 2x0.5 would be more contemporary with the K4. Or indeed a XIV with the same armament.
DCS doesn't have the 2x0.5 and 20mm wing, only the one in the video, a late 42-early 43 variant, it's the "oldest" warbird in the game if you ignore the mid-30s Donkey.
@@wbertie2604 Just changing the .303 for .50 wouldn't be hard, but if they are gonna upgrade the IX to 44 standards with Merlin 70, etc, they would have to do a lot of research, etc for the new flight model.
@@Gunfreak19 The specs for the 70 series and the performance reports are out there. What might be tricky is modelling things like the effect of the broad chord tails on later production. The flight reports are also available from Boscombe Down, though. I suppose the logical target might be a XVI with 70 series (F, LF, etc.), broad chord and tear drop canopy and E wing. And a XIV. Maybe even a 22.
Cap, why do you keep cutting your engine in a climb? The spit is already a bit overpowered (in game compared to real life) in the climb vs the 109F, and that just makes it worse because you chop your legs out from underneath yourself. At the very least accelerate AWAY before trying to zoom climb. You don't have enough kinetic energy to pull off a zoom climb at equal or less energy, and then turning with flaps constantly is just putting yourself squarely where the spitfire lives in a turn fight. Speed is life, especially in this case. Good fight, but your love of the spit shows through, Cap ;-) You are definitely a spitfire pilot at heart. I get it that the German way of flying the 109 doesn't make good, short video since it takes a LOT of climbing patience and "running away" to get a better advantageous position. Still, it feels kinda artificial because you're handicapping yourself into a turn fight against a spitfire due to time constraints.
@@charlesbukowski9836 1800 without MW-50. It depends on altitude, of course, but max boost is 1.80 ata without MW-50. You don't get a lot of MW-50. On some German planes it can be 30 minutes, though. Not sure about the 109K4. No GM-1, though.
Re: Spitfire can't dive, one thing you apparently 'knew' about it. What's this nonsense? Spitfire holds the overall world record of the fastest recorded dive for a prop plane. 1943, an actual warbird, not a lab rat. Accurate measurements. Is that yet another game-thing? Like shotguns always having bad range? Probably. Customer is always right, even if he's wrong. Re: Snapping Spit's wings? WTF? What is it, a sim or an arcade shooter? The spit that beat the *all time* world record in a dive overrevved the prop and lost it, so the plane pulled itself out from this crazy dive. At 9G! Top speed! The wings bent and there are pictures of the plane afterward. Swept wing Spit... The pilot lost consciousness, but came back while the plane was in a stable glide, all by itself. The pilot landed the plane and received a bunch of medals afterward. Well recorded history. DCS is simply silly when it comes to warbirds. Silly, but not in a funny way.
The Spitfire wing suffered from excessive twist of the wing at high speed (causing aileron reversal) This was partially corrected from the Mk V onwards, but not completely. So if that is correctly modelled, combined with a turn (not sure how tight), it can cause the wing to structurally fail. If you have high speed BUT no turn, then the wing shouldn't be over loaded (provided that you don't exceed the max G's). Breaking off Spitfire wings was one of my favourite things I used to do, The Spitfire would come diving down on me at speed, And all I needed to do was to pull a half decent turn, and suddenly there was one less Spitfire in the air.
Cap's comment at 16:20 about the BF109 having poor visibility (always something in the way) is spot on. I recall there was a airshow in the 1980's, and an old P38 pilot got to sit in a BF109 for the first time. The P38 pilot's comment was "If I had known the view from their cockpit was this bad, I would have been far more aggressive."
cool
i find the spit the same...
Landing one wasn't great either!
@@pup1008 getting out of one in an emergency, more so if you couldn't roll over was impossible.
The airflow held the canopy closed. It also weighed a lot due to the armoured glass and heavy frame.
@@seansamurai1981 Why talk about things you know nothing about? The entire 109 canopy came off with the wind, rear frame included. Visibility to the sides was better than P-51 or FW-190, because the pilot was well back from windshield, which gave better visibility through the sides: Looking through the sides mattered more in practice... Flat glass panes were optically better, and picked up less sun reflections than the Mustang's bubbletop... It could seat 2 meter pilots, and had more lateral head room than the flat 190 hood. The small tail unit did require a strong left leg push above 300 mph, to keep the nose from drifting right, which inhibited left rolls at high speeds, but the P-51's nose snaked left right so badly above 350 that the rudder hinges were damaged from the effort of keeping the nose straight(!!!).. They reversed the P-51's rudder trim tab just to keep the pilot's from breaking their rudder, making the rudder hugely heavy, so the nose could keep on snaking left and right... Not to mention the P-51's wings or tail often broke off, never fixed, or that it's guns jammed in turns from g load, at 3X the rate of the same guns in other types, never fixed even into the D... To be fair, the German 30 mm did the same, but were much less frequently used than the excellent 20 mms. Oh, and the landing take off accident rate was the same on the 109 as on any comparable aircraft, and better than the high rate on early P-51s...
I'd love to see my favorite 1940s fighter, the Vought F4U-4 Corsair, going up the fighters of the European Theater.
My favorite F-4U Corsair fight was against The MIG-15✌
How beautiful are warbirds!!!
@@ricardomartinez1871 Natalie Portman beautiful😆👍
Well, we are getting a F4U-1d
@@sloppy-1-1 yeah that'd be cool if they did that fight again except a one on one dogfight👍
RUUUN....LIVE TO FLY! FLY TO LIVE! ACES HIIIIIGH!!!!! Great classic WW2 dogfight, guys!
7:14 SuperCap: "I'll stop talking now..."
Yeah...right...like that's going to happen...😏😁🤣
Keep on keeping on Cap, we luv ya...👍👍
Turn fight, Cap and RC in Spits, Damp and Kortana in I-16's
Any good 109 pilot will just run away from a Spit and not try to just dogfight it on equal terms. The 109 is an energy fighter first and foremost. From my knowledge of playing IL-2, the 109 pilots start having real problems when they fight against something that can actually dive with them like a mustang/tempest.
Wrong wrong and wrong. I'll be happy to demonstrate how a K4 will demolish a Spitfire, and certainly won't be running "20 miles" - be in visual contact the entire time. You just need to know how to properly energy fight the Spit and other fighters which have a superior rate/angle fighting capability, which Cap obviously doesn't here. A reasonably good 109 K4 pilot will rope a Spit 9 all day long. Only the Spit14 and a few later models which could match the K4 in climb performance stood a chance of killing a late model 109 pilot with 1/2 a brain in a 1v1 fight.
@@Gman-109 " *Only the Spit14 and a few later models [...] stood a chance* "
Overall I agree with your post, but that particular statement is pushing it.
Anyway, in reality K4 wasn't such a marvel at all. Half the dials not working, engine coughing, etc. I read a memoir of a pilot who managed to sneak a ride in her and she wasn't perfect, by any means.
Still, a good plane, which could give you an edge even over a decently flown Spit 9. And that's a lot to ask, actually.
@@Gman-109 Depends on spit version and pilot. Ace spit could avoid 109 attacks & spray Hispano rounds after booming 109 so it's not so simple.
Sorry but high boost 25 lbs MK Xl Spit was more than nightmare for K4. Same 25lbs Mustang. With last one 109 could not run away or even out turn mustang. Only climb was only hope..
@BekGrou PRIMUS One Tempest is more than enough.
@BekGrou PRIMUS K4 was reaching it's max speed at high altitude. Down low was slower than both Mustang or Tempest. Also it was quite common K4 had to fly on regular low octane fuel so maximum power wasn't available. So P51 could out run any 109 in dive and come back to fight another day. 109 had to fight for life till end.
9 and a half minutes in and I'm like Holy Jesus that spitfire can turn!
The best tactic in a 109 is to keep directly above the Spitfire. You bleed less speed in maneuvers. Climb in a gentle chandelle above him, making sure to stay just out of guns. The G-6 has pretty good horsepower and great torque. You'll stall at the same time but you're going to be above him, with more energy! And then your better high-speed maneuverability and higher Vne come into play. And accurate cannon. And MW50, if he's really getting away. Mostly you'll be throttling back pretty soon when you catch up to him, so be ready for that.
If it doesn't work you can just hit the afterburners and boom away in a shallow or steep dive, ready to reset the fight and do it again. Just draw straight lines through the Spitfire. Make the Spitfire nose down to shoot you at high speed (his float carburetor drowns whereas you have about 4 seconds inverted flight before oil runs out), make him roll at low speed. He can turn circles around you, and climb while doing it.
Keep as much altitude as you can, unless you're in imminent danger. Do not maneuver unless you must, and try to keep it as gentle as possible. Don't be too gentle and get shot down, but be aware that turns cost energy. His turns just cost more energy!
Always engage a Spitfire above 5,000 ft, and always try to attack with superior altitude. Higher is better, like 20,000 ft. Your engine is way better up there. You can outrun him above 5km, and your zoom climbs will go higher. He gets a sharp dropoff in horsepower around 10,000 feet, unless he's a Mk.anything-greater-than-9, in which case you're gonna need a newer 109. That one looks like maybe a G-6, and I'm guessing he's in a bog-standard Mk.9F. A 9LF will murder you and your kids with sheer power-to-weight ratio, a Mk.16 will kick your teeth out the back of your head with insane high-altitude performance, and Mk.18-24 will erase you and your ancestors from history. The 109G-6 is well-matched to the Mk.9.
_Tautochrone_ _Brachistochrone_ Learn these for evasion or just when exiting a failed attack. Even if he's facing the wrong way, you want to know the shortest time to achieve the roughly 3-5km you will require to turn around and reset. On the deck it's a straight line, obviously, but with 6km below you... it becomes an arc! You can get stupid fast in a hurry, and maintain it longer with trigonometry. I just point my nose straight down and pull back in my best guess at the right cycloid curve diameter. I guess with pictures in my head, viewing the fight from a 2d sidescroller perspective and a desired (lower) final altitude. Much lower altitude is a faster (emergency) exit, slightly lower altitude saves total energy (speed plus altitude) but takes way longer because it's basically flat.
His goal is to get you to bleed enough speed so that you can't run away. His strength is low-end maneuverability and an excellent low speed climb. He can turn circles around you, and climb while doing it.The Spitfire is a monster, it can just point its nose wherever it needs to.
If you hang in front of him he'll turn on his helicopter and kill you while he's stalling.
Your roll rate is better than his *in the direction of your propeller sweep* and _slower_ in the opposite direction.
He can turn circles around you, and climb while doing it.
To get away, dive as steep as you can and use sort-of gentle evasive maneuvers (gotta go fast). Brachistochrone your way outta there.
Cap did pretty dang good in the 109, knowing that he was intentionally not extending. He completely ignored the rudder in the Mk.9 but did pretty good otherwise.
I seem to remember a BoB spitfire pilot (Mk1presumably) who actually said they could out dive the 109s (Es presumably) but not out climb them, but the 109s usually dived to try and escape.
thx
That’s could the 109 would lose control and crash.
With performance parameters closely matched the difference invariably came down to the pilot.. But the Spitfire wins just looking at them..
A machine of death that looks & performs utterly beautifully ❤️
Like James Bond, in a Tuxedo
God a well synchronised free bird soundtrack on this dogfight would make it soooo f****** cool
Wing loading was a missing metric and if you could add drag Coeff (induced drag included). I know the 109 has less profile drag but the G Variants had very questionable skin drag with bits and bobs hanging off. The kurfurst had been cleaned up a great deal, almost equivalent if not slightly better than the F model.
The G forces these old Warbirds could do is insane!
Favorite 109 will always be the E. That is my favorite version of the 109 because the square wings are how all 109 should be. Favorite WW2 bird though is the P-40, wish DCS could give us one of those.
The P40 Kittyhawk was the workhorse of the Royal Australian Air Force during WW2 in the African and Pacific campaigns love them aswell!
There was a P40 in development for DCS but got scraped when the devs of the Hawk dropped out, I’m lucky enough to have flown the P40 in dcs VR, definitely need to restart that project
@@hasina1461 yes I remember. Still mad that no one else picked up the work done to continue it. Come on heatblur
When it comes to trying and compare LF Mk.IX and K-4 as "contemporary opponents" would be to have the Kurfürst with a boost and the Spitfire with 150 octane fuel.
If memory serves me right, the Spits got their 150-octane around summer or autumn of 1944 (primarily for intercepting V-1s), and then some sources also mention around spring 1945 (perhaps for frontline units?)
Sounds like this came down to pilot skill more then anything
Man, RC's really getting good!
16:46 talk about no mercy!😂
MkIX Spitfire had the E (universal) wing. I know I said A, B and C in the tour of the Spit, but from the IX they combined designs for a universal wing capable of accepting any of the previous setups.
I think I corrected that in the comments of the Spitfire video.
Sorry Cap
Dave
thx
@@grimreapers another excellent video BTW 😁 I’ll happily jump in a warbird for one
The E wing consisted of two 20mm hispanos and two .50 browning which came in the latter part of the war. The "C" was the universal wing.
Im glad to see im not the only one that uses all of the spits ammo before getting a single kill! Haha
agree
Dont let the spitfire eat his altitude. Common tactics of WW2 dog fighters. The 109 pilots started high, gave them the energy but they also performed better at high altitude. Meanwhile the spitfire pilot would drag a 109 down, the spitfire outperformed the 109 at a lower altitude. Its mentioned in a very good book written by a spitfire pilot about how you knew the old hat pilots, they were the ones who eith stayed high and circled or stayed low and watched (aircraft dependant)
The way reapers fly, spitfire is better. The way reapers takeoff and land, 109 is slightly better. Speed can save your ass but 109 wins by climbing and building up its energy state patiently. The secret part is to not burn any of it away before the time is right. Drag = bad. Flaps and high-speed loops are counterproductive, as is throttling back randomly.
I think I could have won in BF-109 but it would have been a super boring vid of massive 5-10 mile extensions and hit and run.
109k4
Have you done a video on being able to escape the nuke in a MIG21? I seem to remember one like it but not sure. It would be an interesting video.
after dropping the flaps you then want to go into the vertical???
The WW2 Rivalry👍
Lmao wow! Best ending yet!😂🤣👍👍
If its a battle of looks theres only one winner and it ain't the flying saur kraut.
agree
Sometimes I think cap is snitching on himself every time he talks through his maneuvers lol
I have to talk.
@@grimreapers and we all love to hear it Supercap!
@@christopherfischer6998
Capt's humour and observations in his comments make half the videos for me!
Epic and very enjoyable fight, thanks 😊
That was a fun demo :)
THIS was GREAT! THANKS!
If you need a video ide you should test maneuvering energy retention as a measure of dogfighting capability. Some planes lose more speed when turning than others. It is measured by doing a 180deg 6g turn and calculating energy before and after entering the turn
Not sure how we can measure empirically?
@@grimreapers energy = 0.5* mass * velocity^2 + mass * 9.81 * altitude
All units have to be kilograms and meters
The energy you get is in Joule and when doing this calculation before and after the turn you have two comparable values that indicate how much energy was lost
Germans should have put the MK 103 cannon in the nose instead of the MK 108. The 103 had slightly less rate of fire but way higher muzzle velocity. In Sid Meir's classic Secrets of the Luftwaffe I hacked them in. I even got the Shooting Star into the campaign for the Allies.
They did right at the end. The MK-108 wasn't bad as you had to get in close anyway, so ROF helped. It was also lighter. The Mk V Hispano had lower muzzle velocity than the Mk II.
@@wbertie2604 But that would have added 83kg just for the gun, and would have required ballast to be added aft of the COG to compensate (and would have further pushed up the weight),
The rounds were also larger so would also further increase weight or carry less ammo
if pilots are of equal skill in each aircraft the K4 should be able to keep a spit defensive for most of the fight and if things start to develop in the spits favour then the 109 just goes into a shallow dive to run again then use its amazing climb to go into a now shallow climb (still flying away from the spitfire) slowly getting steeper over time before the 109 is now in a favourable position again. yes its boring but thats how you win.
Also spit also has auto cooling its just the RMP and Boost you need to managed
If you would like a P51 Pilot for a P51 vs K4/D9 DCS fight then gives us a shout, im always free Thursdays before IL2
Both planes have own advantages. None of them could be strong enough to dictate fight.
109 could run away or try out climb spit mkIX but with MW50 methanol injection and high octane fuel that was rare in Germany later than 44.
Spit XI was little slower but was retaining energy better during manovers. Also in spiral climb spit was better.
109 should utilize hit& run or b&z tactic but carefully cause 20mm Hispano spitfire cannons could spray 109 from distance. 109 should not turn with flaps or hard enough to deploy wing slats. Both are like deploy of brakes. For 109 speed is life. Spit can turn 109 can't.
In shown movie won better pilot not a better plane.
@@303Pinker I’m not saying both aircraft don’t have advantages or disadvantages, when it comes to ww2 dogfights from my experience the boom and zoom fighter is normally the aircraft who is in control of how the fight progresses, if they want to engage or disengage at any point they choose. If we look at the 109 vs spit if they both merge with equal energy advantage the spit is forced to fight because If it tries to run the 109 catches it. Where as the 109 has more options open to it can just push through the merge and go into a climb or it can push through the merge and just speed away and the spit won’t be able to turn quick enough t to get shots off at a 109 running in a straight line 180 degrees away from it. And if the 109 decides to fight he can just leave the fight as long as he has been a smart pilot and was able to recognise early enough that things aren’t going in his favour.
Despite being a pretty big mustang enthusiast I have to say that within DCS the BF109K4 is the best warbird currently available. I do believe it will beat out the F4u Corsair when that comes out also. I feel like unless you are already in an advantageous position against a k4 it’s going to be an uphill battle for you against one
@@hasina1461 if 109 and spit start with equal energy state than 109 should run and dony look back.
Spitfire was much easier plane to fly than 109. Average pilot in spitfire was much more dangerous than in 109.
Yours examples are academic ones that not suit real conditions. K4 to dictate fight with spit XI needs altitude or speed advantage at start. If not should hit MW50 and run like Forrest Gump hoping that 20mm Hispano rounds will tot catch him first.
@@hasina1461 can't tell about DCS but I have plenty of experience in old il2 series. K4 is good up to Spit XI (excluding high boost 25 lbs MK IX) as long K4 is not turning at all. Against High boost P51s or Tempests it's inferior. I can agree K4 can run effective from standard MK IX spit but it's not a dogfight. It's also not true that K4 can always outclimb mkIX spitfire. In spiral climb spit climbs better so it's more about pilot factor to force fight to plane strengths. The same plane can be B&Z or turn & burn fighter depending opponent plane. Spit IX is to close in performance to K4 to say one can dictate fight with high margin of safety.
@@303Pinker if we are bring this down to IRL and not DCS then yeah your average allied pilot was better then your axis pilot overall as by the later end of the war most axis pilots who had experience had been shot down
I bought a park zone bf-109 r/c plane. I can only describe it as like flying a wet brick. I took it back and traded for F-4 Corsair that flew like a dream.
You've got me intrigued into how you design a plane to turn well now. Is it down to wing shape or weight distribution, low speed performance? I would think a ww1 plane would outturn anything but I'm really not sure. Maybe there's a video you could do to help me understand?
Generally biplanes turn better & are more manoeuvrable than a single wing, that is why they are still used as aerobatic & stunt planes today.
That's actually correct, a WWI fighter will out-turn anything else in history, in a 100% pure turn fight. You can do it in IL-2, put WWI vs WWII planes. Difference is massive. Problem is WWI are so slow, they are essentially useless. VERY roughly: turn performance = power/weight + wing loading(smaller is better). The more you get into it the more parameters contribute.
To answer that, see my video "WWII fighter aircraft designers did not understand what they designed"
9:23 Cap actually made a mistake there, which was going into a downward one circle with the spitfire... The lower the 109 gets, the engine gets worse (not quite noticeable but it's still there), also doing that made the 109 slow and when getting down to the deck and if the 109 starts rate fighting... no chance gonna win unless the spitfire did sth very wrong for example goes full vertical and stalls himself out or just ran out of fuel for whatever reason
It looked like the spit said I'm here ..I rule the sky ..come take me on if you dare...if you get close you're dead
That Spitfire has the C wing, not the B. The B was designed for 2 cannon and 4 MGs only. The C wing could take up to 4 cannon, but was usually loaded with only 2, as in this example.
8:17 i will not put my flaps down so early on... u want speed if u wanna win :-)
you have to manage your RPM.. You flying with 3000 RPM! :D Its damaging the BF 109 Engine very quick. When you dive its better to have RPM about 2200 RPM, so you can get quicker the speed. :)
Best rate of climb is not the same as best angle of climb. If you want to outclimb him go for best rate. It will be a particular speed at full throttle. Best angle will be a lower speed than best rate speed.
A zoom climb is a good way of using excess speed to gain altitude but you need to hit best rate speed (and therefore angle) a bit before the speed decays in the zoom so say 30 or 40kmh (20kt or 25mph) above the best rate speed you transition out of the zoom.
You can't really just point the nose up and expect to outclimb the Spitfire. Perhaps in most circumstances you will outclimb him but you still need to hit your speeds.
blackhawk vs MI8 at some point.
Dear Cap please can we have the Spitfire vs FW190 sometime soon please?
Oh man that will be an ugly fight for the Dora...
@@grimreapers Maybe so but in all probability that means plenty of boom boom. What's not to like?
Don't you have a dial for WD40?
Just checking that you know that the BF 109 has a controllable horizontal stabiliser.
No sure what you mean?
@@grimreapers This is someone else's video, starting at 0:22 in the video below
ruclips.net/video/aLM_hQoaqp0/видео.html
As well as this video that seems to deal with this topic exclusively:
ruclips.net/video/tj41bKTh43M/видео.html
So by turning that wheel you can increase elevator authority (in the desired direction) by adjusting the entire horizontal stabilizer, just like on an airliner,
but pilots were instructed to NOT use it to help pull out of a dive,
But rather to adjust it continually whilst the speed increased in the dive so that you had to push forward on the stick to keep the plane in the dive (or simply lessen how much you are pushing forward to lessen the angle of the dive/ start to pull out of the dive)
There is at least one recorded case where it seems that the pilot didn't do this due to being distracted by the combat with a US aircraft,
Both hit compressibility, both pilots obviously trying to pull out of the dive,
The BF 109 was observed to all of a sudden pull up very sharply, followed by both wings snapping off (hopefully the G forces also caused the pilot to black out, because this was at a low altitude, too low to bail out, even if the speed allowed for it)
@@notsureyou I'm not sure you understand how the tail trim behaved on the Me-109... It was advised to trim it tail heavy BEFORE the dive, and you dived by banking sideways on the 109... You did have, when trimmed tail heavy, to push continually to keep the nose level, as you say, but it merely sharpened the pull up reaction at high speeds. The trim wheel could NOT be moved at all at high speeds, due to it becoming too heavy, so your story that it broke the wings off at high speeds is bogus: The trimming did not move at all in high speed dives, but it did allow better pull outs than even the P-51 could do, IF trimmed in advance, and the P-51 was heavy on the stick but still also outstanding at high speeds.
@@wrathofatlantis2316 It wasn't my story, it was by a US fighter pilot (I will try to find the quote for you).
Some pilots claimed that the wheel couldn't be moved at high speed, others said that it could be.
"- Versuchs-Bericht Nr 109 05 E 43 - Date 15.4.43
This original German test document refers to dive tests of 109s with the tall tail. Result of this test was that the new tail reduced highspeed diving ozillations (which sometimes appeard with the old tail). More interesting is the fact, that in this tests, which had not the aim to estimate the highest mach number or to test the structure, they reached
max. Mach 0,805@7.0km
max. TAS 906km/h@5.8km
max. IAS 737km/h@4.5km
Even more interesting is the fact that they tried different positions of the trimming. With the wrong trimset - the one for cruising at high altitude it was not possible to pull out of the dive just by using the stick. They needed to use the trimwheel to recover the plane from the dive. This happened in such violent manner that the testpilot had to push the stick foreward to be not blacked out...
If the trim was set to +1.15° it was possible to recover without using the trimwheel - both flightpaths, with and without the trimwheel, are very similar. So even with the concrete stick the limitating factor seems to be the pilot.
Also interesting in the dive the canopy iced, also the mechanism of the trim, so it was not possible to set it smooth, but in "jumps", but it was still adjustable...
- Source: Hochgeschwindigkeitsversusche mit Me 109, Messerschmitt AG, Augsburg.
@@wrathofatlantis2316 The trim wheel was also used in combat (which is why I brought it up), as well as normal flight.
you should play the 109 like an energy fighter with mean s make him turn so he losses energy and the ngo into an step cllimb or an spiral so he stalls and cuz of 109's perfect stall control your nose will end up on his tail and he will be stalled out so he won't be able to use his turn with is the only reason why is na spit better in a dogfight vs an 109
That 3 blade prop Kraut killer. That whole interrupter HP stealer set up to compound it and waste 30mil gun hollow prop. Never made sense. Could have had 4 blade prop with 4 heavys near wing root. And scrapped all that mostly useless weight
"Greg" covers this in a video.
The slight benefit would not be big enough for them to bother (in regards to the 4 bladed prop).
With the 109s you couldn't put guns in the wings close to the wing root, they had to be much further out to dodge the landing gear.
You should do some Japanese, Italian and Russian war birds.
Pierre Clostermann: "Myths die hard... At 280 knots and above the Spitifire will out-turn the Me-109 and the FW-190A. But as the turn continues and speeds get below that, the idea the Spitfire can out-turn either of those is a good joke..." Johnny Johnson Spit V vs FW-190A near water level: "I asked the Spitfire for all she had, but another couple of turns and he would have me in his sights. It was only a question of time." See my channel as to why that is the case, particularly the video "WWII fighter aircraft designers did not understand what they designed"...
What about the Zeros turning ability?
Sounds like your RPM is synced to your throttle. Just set RPM at 2700 and leave it in spit
2850 rpm was maximum continuous for almost all Merlins.
@@julianneale6128 That's why I like the Tempest V and the Sabre with it's 953,000 rpm engine. Napier MD: we need a more powerful engine. Engineers: we'll nail two engines together and run it at warp speed.
@@wbertie2604 haha very well. There is apparently a Tempest being made airworthy with any luck. I understand that the Sabre engine they have for that has never run so should be able to be stripped and rebuilt. I also understand that Napier had production issues with the engines, with things like swarf left in the oil galleries... So a thorough inspection is even more important. If they achieve this, it'll be an incredible sounding beast.
@@julianneale6128 Production issues with the the Sabre? Unpossible! I need to work out where I put my pilot's notes, a slim pamphlet easily lost between other books...
1 30mm and 2 13mm is easily the equal of 2 20mm and 4 .303s in terms of weight of fire and more than it in terms of destructive power since the 30mm will me mostly using Minengeschloss, and in WW2 sometimes the 20mm were firing just APIT, no HEIT at all. All weapons are central so relative roll doesn't affect aiming, and convergence is less of an issue. The only downside is a bit lower rate of fire, but then the .303s aren't bringing a lot to the party. If it was .50s instead of .303s it would be a bit more even.
Mk108 had slow muzle velocity. Aim to nimble fighter was nightmare. Also was prone to jam during high G shoot attempts. So on paper 1 30mm is equal but not in real condition. This cannon was for bomber hunting.
@@303Pinker the muzzle velocity isn't ideal. The flight time at 200m is almost 0.5 seconds! It's about 1/3 slower than 20mm cannon. Mk103 firing HE is the same as a Hispano. Jamming isn't ideal, although Allied aircraft had issues too, right into 1944. USA 20mm just failed to fire.
@@303Pinker 108 versus 103... The 108 weighed so much less and fired so much faster it made more sense to use it. If you on target on a bomber you'd get more hits, so better for a single pass, and for a fighter you'd slightly (although not much, that's statistics for you) increase the chance of a hit. However, with more rounds, you might be prepared to take a punt. Or with the same number of rounds with a 103 it's like taking a couple of friends along for a ride. So you might not get behind a P-51. The late K4s probably had 103s due to a lack of 108s and some 103s being found at the back of a warehouse.
We need the Zero!!!!!
Historically the BF 109 was better in the vertical. Where as the Super Marine Spitfire was better in the horizontal. During the Battle of Britain/The Blitz the Spitfire didn't have fuel injection. However the BF 109 had fuel injection. One tactic the German pilots learn to use against the Spitfire. If a Spitfire got on to 6 o'clock position of a BF 109, the BF 109 was to go into a dive pushing negative Gs. If the Spitfire tried to follow the BF 109 into this negative G dive. The Spitfire's engine would cut out, because the negative Gs would force the fuel out of the carburetor.
Yep and the problem was fixed by a woman.
@@PatriotUK78 no it was compensated by American high octanes fuels. The spitfire was cheap had a smaller engine and high drag wings
@@garyseeseverything8615 Beatrice shilling was the woman who sorted the problem out actually. Not fuel change
@@garyseeseverything8615 guess you don't see everything after all huh?
@@garyseeseverything8615 spitfire is cheap? It was in RnD and in production for over a decade and cost millions in development. You clown.
Does anyone know how the engine failure due to vertical climb in the spitfire is calculated? Is is based on the number of seconds you're above a certain climb angle, do they actually model the oil pooling at the back of the engine or is there some other calculation going on in the background?
I think its the engine temp. low air speed due to the climb, the radiators then don't work well, you need full power to keep up with the 109 and it cooks the engine. easy to miss the engine temp when your dog fighting.
@@simondale3980 I thought the reason the spitfires had problems with climbing in DCS was due to the original planes having an oiling issue where the non-baffled sump had the pickup at the front of the engine and would cause oil starvation in a long step climb?
The Spitfire Merlin had a wet sump?
Right, a ghost of Kiev video.
I think they arent doing that because they might not find it appropriate to make a DCS re-enactment on someone within a war currently ongoing
I am still waiting for you Reapers fight the Ghost of Kiev.
Yeh that's *problematic*
Also not real…
You could always say it's the "Ghost of Delhi" in an Indian Mig-29 vs Chinese J-11's and Mig-21s maybe? It's not like there's only two countries with Migs and Sukhois =-)
i think a bf 109 looks amazing beautiful
Cap do you have an old Nissan Z ?
ruclips.net/video/cwKMEfhjaaA/видео.html
What kind of Nissan do you have?
ruclips.net/video/cwKMEfhjaaA/видео.html
You'd expect a 1942 fighter to fare badly against a 1944 fighter.
They did keep using the IX in 1944, but you'd expect 2x20, 2x0.5 and a 70-series engine not a 60 series. The latter is 42-3 vintage.
If the 109 had the same 150 octanes the allies used then the G series would be very similar to K series.
If flown right, the Spitfire wouldn't stand much of a chance.
I would like to add the 109's centrally located guns as an advantage because of convergence problems with wing mounted guns. The range and accuracy of the 109's guns should be better than the Spitfire's.
any experienced pilot prefers the wing mounted guns. Fact of the matter is central mounted cannons means you have to line the gun up perfectly in order to hit, which is easier said than done, whereas the wing mounted guns gives you an opportunity to hit with either the left or the right wing and not have to worry about lining it up perfectly. Sometimes you even get to hit with both which shreds. Furthermore, wherever you got the idea that an mk 108 or mg 131 was more accurate than a hispano you need to re evaluate. 303.s sure they were inaccurate because they rattled but mg131s were pretty bad and mk 108s were far far far worse. Hispanos weren't great but by 1943 they were decent
@@lonurad1259 I never wrote that the Mk 108 was a good weapon against a fighter, it was meant for bombers and other large and slow aircraft - please reread my comment.
Here's some information:
"In spite of our superiority of fire power over that of the enemy, many pilots would prefer the armament of an Me.109 with its one cannon firing through the airscrew hub and two machine guns mounted in the fuselage. They feel that despite its inferiority to our armament the concentration of parallel fire more than counter-balances our criss-cross pattern.
Wing Commander (Tactics) W.M. Churchill
31 Dec 1941"
From Wikipedia: "Soviet fighter design of the era favoured grouping all guns in the fuselage for accuracy and for keeping the wings as light as possible, resulting in improved manoeuvrability. In fact, many Soviet pilots flying western aircraft, such as the Bell P-39 Airacobra, directed their armourers to remove some or all wing guns."
I would imagine that the wings, being more flexible than the cowl, would deflect more under the vibration produced by the firing guns and changing aerodynamic stresses on the aircraft and thus degrade their accuracy.
There were no convergence issues with wing mounted guns. Mechanics could alter the convergence distance based on the pilot's preference. This is from a co-workers uncle who flew the Hurricane, then the Spitfire (while he was enlisted for the British) and finally the Mustang when he flew for the U.S. He would have his guns set to converge at 100 yards.
@@videomaniac108 I think it is you who needs to re-read your own comment.
@@chrismoule7242 "You think"? You really shouldn't be trying to do something you're obviously unaccustomed to doing.
Round one maneuver kill..
200Hp - +> 10% isn't down to a mechanic - the guys who serviced these engines and kept them going couldn't do that - Increases like that are the realm of specialist engine tuners who can rework engine parts. The same is even more true today.
Neither ran on Water/methanol in combat - The volume/ energy density is way lower than AvGas.
They did use the MW in combat, just not as a fuel.
"MW 50 (Methanol-Wasser 50) was a 50-50 mixture of methanol and water (German: Wasser) that was often sprayed into the supercharger of World War II aircraft engines primarily for its anti-detonation effect, allowing the use of increased boost pressures. Secondary effects were cooling of the engine and charge cooling"
The Germans used this to compensate for having lower octane Avgas.
MW50 is used to cool the charge, prevent detonation, and allow running much higher boost than without it. Water was also used for a lesser effect, but still worked.
I am surprised you are putting up a IX with a 2x20mm and 4x0.303 against each other as 2x20mm and 2x0.5 would be more contemporary with the K4. Or indeed a XIV with the same armament.
DCS doesn't have the 2x0.5 and 20mm wing, only the one in the video, a late 42-early 43 variant, it's the "oldest" warbird in the game if you ignore the mid-30s Donkey.
@@Gunfreak19 that's a shame. The updated version wouldn't be hard to model.
@@wbertie2604 Just changing the .303 for .50 wouldn't be hard, but if they are gonna upgrade the IX to 44 standards with Merlin 70, etc, they would have to do a lot of research, etc for the new flight model.
@@Gunfreak19 The specs for the 70 series and the performance reports are out there. What might be tricky is modelling things like the effect of the broad chord tails on later production. The flight reports are also available from Boscombe Down, though. I suppose the logical target might be a XVI with 70 series (F, LF, etc.), broad chord and tear drop canopy and E wing. And a XIV. Maybe even a 22.
More difference XIV to XVI than IX to XVI.
Boom and coom.
Cap, why do you keep cutting your engine in a climb? The spit is already a bit overpowered (in game compared to real life) in the climb vs the 109F, and that just makes it worse because you chop your legs out from underneath yourself. At the very least accelerate AWAY before trying to zoom climb. You don't have enough kinetic energy to pull off a zoom climb at equal or less energy, and then turning with flaps constantly is just putting yourself squarely where the spitfire lives in a turn fight. Speed is life, especially in this case. Good fight, but your love of the spit shows through, Cap ;-) You are definitely a spitfire pilot at heart. I get it that the German way of flying the 109 doesn't make good, short video since it takes a LOT of climbing patience and "running away" to get a better advantageous position. Still, it feels kinda artificial because you're handicapping yourself into a turn fight against a spitfire due to time constraints.
It chews it's own engine up on the climb, just the spit. No idea why.
Well during the Battle of Britain the 109s were operating on a time constraint so it has some historical precedent.
what game is this
shouldnt the 109 be 2000 hp with mw?
Not sure but I quoted from game manual.
@@grimreapers 2000hp at SL with C-3 fuel, MW-50 and 1.98 ata manifold pressure. 1800hp at 1.80 ata at SL without MW-50.
@@wbertie2604 so in game is only 1800? with mw50?
@@charlesbukowski9836 1800 without MW-50. It depends on altitude, of course, but max boost is 1.80 ata without MW-50. You don't get a lot of MW-50. On some German planes it can be 30 minutes, though. Not sure about the 109K4. No GM-1, though.
@@wbertie2604 so in game, with mw50, its 2000? maybe thats why the 109 was able to zoom climb past the Spit?
Remember that winwing technology is your ultimate hardware solution :) 50
yup
Video request:
🇺🇦Ghost of Kyiv🇺🇦
Cap ...combat flaps?
20º in the BF-109 I believe is combat.
Spit pilot is a terrible shot
Re: Spitfire can't dive, one thing you apparently 'knew' about it.
What's this nonsense? Spitfire holds the overall world record of the fastest recorded dive for a prop plane. 1943, an actual warbird, not a lab rat. Accurate measurements.
Is that yet another game-thing? Like shotguns always having bad range? Probably. Customer is always right, even if he's wrong.
Re: Snapping Spit's wings?
WTF? What is it, a sim or an arcade shooter? The spit that beat the *all time* world record in a dive overrevved the prop and lost it, so the plane pulled itself out from this crazy dive. At 9G! Top speed! The wings bent and there are pictures of the plane afterward. Swept wing Spit...
The pilot lost consciousness, but came back while the plane was in a stable glide, all by itself. The pilot landed the plane and received a bunch of medals afterward. Well recorded history.
DCS is simply silly when it comes to warbirds. Silly, but not in a funny way.
The Spitfire wing suffered from excessive twist of the wing at high speed (causing aileron reversal)
This was partially corrected from the Mk V onwards, but not completely.
So if that is correctly modelled, combined with a turn (not sure how tight), it can cause the wing to structurally fail.
If you have high speed BUT no turn, then the wing shouldn't be over loaded (provided that you don't exceed the max G's).
Breaking off Spitfire wings was one of my favourite things I used to do,
The Spitfire would come diving down on me at speed,
And all I needed to do was to pull a half decent turn, and suddenly there was one less Spitfire in the air.
Absolute nonsense lol
@@garyseeseverything8615 squadron leader Antony f martingdale was the pilot. Not nonsense at all. Over 600mph in a dive
@@PatriotUK78 Martindale. He pulled 11g at 620 mph 1000 km/h. Mach 0.92. Never improved.
@@bakters yeah that's the one bro.