http://mitglied.lycos.de/luftwaffe1/Carson/Carson.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lift_force L=Cl*ro*A*V^2/2 109f4(Clmax 1.48) spit 9 (Clmax 1,22). Lift force at speed 270km/h 109f4- 81585 N spit9-86436 N Weight 109f4-2746kg Spit9-3380kg Weight/Lift 109f4-0,34 Spit9-0,39 Lift force at 80 degrees(beta) bank angle = Lift force* sin (beta)- Lfn 109-79953 N Spit-84707 N an=V^2/R an- centripetal acceleration an=Lfn/m m-weight R=V^2/an=m/0,5*ro*A*Clmax*sin(beta) Radius of turn at 270 km/h 109-193m Spit-224m V=S/T S-path T- time V - velocity T=S/V S=2*pi*R V=270km/h=75m/s Time of turn 109-16,2 s Spit 18,8 s Conclusion: 109 has lower lift loading which is better for truning. Wing loading dont give us the whole picture. 109 F4 and early G2 could turn with a spitfire mk9. I doubt that it was better but for sure they where equal like it is in most simulations but not in this one. SO FIX THE GOD DAMN SPITFIRE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Yes, and fix the damn 109F as well while you're at. 109E is fine, but F2/F4 roll and turn too well at low speeds IMO. I do agree that Spits are even more uber, tho.
lol -kopi- don't worry be happy We have real data NII VVS for 109G-2 and SpitIX LF (Merlin-66) Turn sustained at alt 1000m 109G-2 time 20 sec radius 290m speed TAS=328kmph Spit IX LF time 17,5 sec radius 235m TAS=305kmpp for example too test NII VVS Fw.190A-4 time 22,5 sec radius 340m Bf.109G-2/R6 time 22,5 sec radius 315m You can read this too http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spit9v109g.html We can calculate SpitIX LF Cl=1,18 Bf.109G-2 Cl=1,23 For 109E-4 and Spit I we have British test alt=12.000ft(3600m) can see here http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spit109turn18.gif Spit I time 19 sec radius 212m Bf.109E-4 time 25 sec radius 270m P.S. Real 109G-2 don have speed 535kmph at S.L. as in FH Germany test 525kmph Soviet test captured 109G-2 524 kmph at S.L both at boost 1,3 ata (Kampfleistung 30min 1310 PS) boost 1,42 ata (Notleistung 1min 1425 PS) dont use to 1944. P.S. Turn 109G-2 now in FH not real time is equal real but radius smalles 269 m in FH vs 290m in real life. SpitIX 225m in FH and 235m in real life.
about 109G-6/U2 vs Spit IX only British tactical test http://www.spitfireperformance.com/109gtac.html Turning circle 20.........The manoeuvrability of the Spitfire IX in this respect is greatly superior to that of the Me.109 and it easily out-turns the Me.109 in either direction at all speeds.
Pls put those british reports into fary tailes and use messershmit fabric data ok? Why do you always state captured planes and not those that come from factory huh? 25 s for emil is with slats closed. Emil could turn with spit becuse of better lift loading. Check that link i posted. Again that british report is right about spitfire mk9 outturning a 109g6 u2. But for crist sakes say that this 109 g6 u2 had 2 mg 151 in gondloas and that added 250 kg of weight !!! So weight wasnt 3156kg but 3400 kg http://forums.ubi.com/groupee/forums/a/tpc/f/63110913/m/610100553 according to Krufust higher boost on 109 f4 1.42 ata was used in the first months of 1942 Our 109 g2 here goes 535km/h on deck and yes it is to high for april 1942.It should have that speed in mid 1943. So this http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spit9v109g.html is bullshit and this http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spit9v109g.html is bullshit becouse it compares not a normal 109 but the one with gondolas. Merlin 66 power is with 100 octane fuel 1705 hp 18 lb/sq boost and 2000 hp 25 lb/sq boost with 150 octane fuel. Now is it right to use this engine for a 1942 Spit mkIX c? My guess it was used no sooner then 1944 and thats our spit mk IX LF and im not complaning about this version. So if you are happy when game model planes using some propaganda reports then fine but im not happy with it.
G-6/R4: heavy fighter - one additional 30 mm MK 108 in a gondola below each wing, also GM-1-injection G-6/R6: heavy fighter - one additional MG 151/20 in a gondola below each wing, also GM-1-injection G-6/U2: heavy fighter - changed tail-fin made of wood, armament like G-6/R4 or /R6 G-6/U4: fighter - similar to G-6/U2 but retractable tail-gear
109f-3 wingloading 35lb/sq ft I-16 type 27 wingloading 26lb/sq ft Mig-3 WL 39lb/sq ft Lagg-3 WL 37lb/sq ft Yak-1 WL 34lb/sq ft 109E-3 WL 32lb/sq ft 110C-4 Wl 36lb/sq ft Spit I WL 24 lb/sq ft Hurr I WL 26lb/sq ft MS406 WL 33lb/sq ft Curtiss Hawk WL 24lb/sq ft Dewoitine D.520 WL 34lb/ sq ft Me 262 WL 60lb/ sq ft La-5FN WL 39lb/sq ft Yak-9 WL 36lb sq ft Yak-3 WL 37lb/ sq ft FW190D-9 WL 48lb/sq ft Spit XIV WL 35 lb/ sq ft Tempest V WL 38lb/sq ft Ju-88G-6 WL 49lb/ sq ft (nightfighter) P-47D WL 49 lb/sq ft P-38L WL 53 lb/sq ft P-51D WL 43lb/sq ft 109G-6 WL 40 lb/sq ft FW 190A-8 WL 49 lb/sq ft Me 410A-2 WL 60lb/sq ft 110G-4 WL 50lb/sq ft Ju-88C-6c WL 46lb/sq ft P-40 Tomahawk II WL 32lb/ sq ft P-40 Kittyhawk III WL 36lb/sq ft Fw190A-3 WL 39lb/sq ft Spit VB WL 28lb/sq ft Spit IX WL 31lb/sq ft This info taken from the book "Luftwaffe Fighter Aces, the jagdflieger and thier combat tactics and techniques" by Mike Spick ISBN 1-85367-255-6 wingloading is only part of the equation. My suggestion if you want better turning 109's then have those slots kick in and make your plane pop up or down accordingly eh?
Kopi's aerodynamic equations are far more convincing than FH's team (PLH there) replies... but fuck that... LaGG has won the war, with the spit IX as almost equal counterpart... the FH has come so low in th recent releases that I'm not more bound to fly it... sorry