Was the Spit superior ?

Ok, read this site: http://mitglied.lycos.de/luftwaffe1/Carson/Carson.html

And then tell me wether this is BS or fact. (I can't decide at the moment)

Best regards, KBO.

 

The source I tend to work from for Spitfire to 109 comparisons is a book called Fighter: The True Story of the Battle of Britain by Len Deighton. (well worth reading) This book placed the performance of the 1940 variants as about equal. Each does has advantages in certain tactical situations but on the whole the skill of the pilot was the main dividing factor.

 

It has very little to do with facts, one biased account has been used to create another biased account. Mostly BS, I´m afraid.

 

Yeah I thought so.

Whats this "Max. Lift Coefficient" data ? Does it actually have any impact ?

Best regards, KBO.

 

Yes, Kit Carsons "study" is pure BS.

I've given this link before:
http://www.virtualpilots.fi/feature/articles/109myths/

It touches some of the areas discussed in the first link given.

Both planes prevailed each other in combat, if the adversary made the mistake not to fly his own fight, rather than the opponents fight.

 

They both have there ups and downs spit can dive faster climb slow and me109 usualy well from what i read had better guns

 

It also matters on the pilote a skilled pilote could fly both of 'um and still do good

 

there was a program on the discovery channel about that , and they were both equal at the end.

 

See: http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/BoB.htm for an analysis of the armament of the competing fighters in the BoB.

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion forum