Messerschmitt vs Spitfire, including all variants >inb4 vatnik

File: p51_Mustang.jpg (4MB, 3840x2160px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 3840x2160px

We already know the answer, Anon.

File: yak-3.jpg (136KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

136KB, 1920x1080px

>Marcel Albert, World War II French ace, who flew the Yak in USSR with the Normandie-Niémen Group, considered it a superior aircraft when compared to the P-51D Mustang and the Supermarine Spitfire.

File: 359479b26087ca5ac08b2ccaddccc454.jpg (478KB, 1627x1115px) Image search: [Google]

478KB, 1627x1115px

>>33278658

>>33278665
>>33278658
thread ruined already?
you guys must be working overtime.

>>33278636
Amerilard get out. The P-51 was only good at flying a long way before getting shot down.

>>33278658
The Yak was literally a short range low alt flying fighter with a 15,000ft altitude cap that was designed for pure TnB fighting. It is in no way comparable to an escort fighter, nor were Russian fighters even on par technology or avionics wise with even 1940 US naval biplanes. Not only did most Russian fighters have no radio, many pilots did not even have a gunsight. A literal gunsight....

>>33278665
Why are Rafale so beautiful in spite of that untucked probe sticking out?

File: 0579f47a714e218733e24c4f2772c17a.jpg (418KB, 2560x1704px) Image search: [Google]

418KB, 2560x1704px

>>33278963
Because Dassault.

>>33278940
This. It was a pure short range air defense fighter and nothing else.

>>33278319
Spitfire, hands-down. Even with contemporary variants the Spitfire has a significant edge, but factor in the late/postwar Griffon variants and it's just no contest. 109 BTFO.

>>33278925
The P-51 was a pretty close match for the 109, if perhaps a bit harder to handle. The Spitfire was a much more sporty machine overall though.

>>33279032
As a pilot i would paint a smiley on it facing my way, with sunglasses

There are shitloads of variants and it's hard to do direct comparisons of things so evenly matched that non mechanical factors are the most important ones in the vast majority of combat instances. Look at Hans-Joachim Marseille.

But in general the 109 was never on top again after the Mk IX came out, though the two planes were always fairly neck and neck earlier in the war. By the time you get to aircraft like the Spitfire Mk XIV the gap is even wider, not only were Griffon Spitfires exceptional machines but the Axis was not in the position later in the war to supply good fuel and well made aircraft, nor did they develop any model of prop aircraft that were outright superior.

>>33278940
>"1000 YEARS OF WARRIORS AND WEAPONRY AND SHIT" on discovery told me so it must be true

>>33279092
Not sure what you meant by 'harder to handle' but the P-51 was literally easier to fly than the 109, and had hydraulically powered controls.

The P-51 was not the literal tightest turn fighter of the war, but it one of if not the closest roll and turn speed ratios of any fighter. To the lamen, this probably means nothing, but in air combat it was pretty significant

>>33279466
I mean it wasn't the BEST turn fighter of the war. Nor did it have the highest roll rate, but it did have to the closest to the two combined in one airframe.

Where as aircraft like the Spitfire could turn hard, but had a slow roll rate, and the 190 vice versa. The P-51 averaged these out, making it the premier fighter it was

File: 9gFSak0.jpg (305KB, 2400x1500px) Image search: [Google]

305KB, 2400x1500px

>>33278319
>Messerschmitt
>including all variants

okay anon.

File: Rafale smiley probe.jpg (126KB, 800x599px) Image search: [Google]

126KB, 800x599px

>>33279126
Like this ?

>>33279081
Pretty much.
The only Spitfire that fell short on the 109 would be the Mk.V vs the F-4.

Then again, i still believe the differences even with Mk.XIV vs K-4 were small enough that pilot skill was deciding factor.

>>33279466
P-51 didn't have hydraulically assisted controls, you are confusing with P-38L.

>>33278940
*Takes breath*
Wrong

While some of the early planes like I-16 didn't have radio, all of the modern gen of Soviet aircraft were intended to have radio. There was a period from 1941-42, due to the industrial reorganisation to the Urals where yes some aircraft were sent without radios, but 1943,44,45? Nonsense. I'm also not aware of any Soviet aircraft bring sent without gunsight. While there were periods early in the war with shortages for collimator gunsight, they most definitely would of used wireframe/iron sights as an ad-hoc replacement.

File: loldontlandthatsbad.jpg (42KB, 736x499px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 736x499px

>>33279488

Don't ever try to land.......

>>33279488
>just smoking a little from engine after being hit by a 30mm shell
Don't tell me that there are movies with Me 262s in them and plot armor saving all burgers and bongs.

>>33279081
>can't nose down or engine dies
>engine control workload massive compared to 109

>>33278940
>that was designed for pure TnB fighting.

No, it wasn't. Just because it has a good turn rate doesn't mean it's "purely designed for TnB". If you want a "pure TnB" fighter, look at the Zero and Ki-43.
Also, it was a low-altitude fighter because that was where the vast majority of air engagements took place on the Eastern Front. There was no need for high-altitude performance.

>>33278319
109E > Spitfire Mk I & II

109F = Spitfire Mk V

109G < Spitfire MK IX

After that the Spitfires outstrip the 109s by a large margin.

>>33278319
E4 is slightly better than mk1 and 2, it just had to fight britbongistan
F4 is slightly better than mkV
MkIX is better than early (1.3ata) g2, g4, and g6 but loses out to later g14
MkXIV is equal to g10 and k4
Later griffon spitfire varriants are obvious superior to every 109 but it is now the jet age
It was a good matchup the whole run

>>33281069
But really I prefer radial engined fighter like the 190 or p47

>>33278319
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Galland

In a front line General Officer briefing on Luftwaffe tactics, Göring asked what his fighter pilots needed to win the battle. Werner Mölders replied that he would like the Bf 109 to be fitted with more powerful engines. Galland replied: "I should like an outfit of Spitfires for my squadron." which left Göring speechless with rage.[61] Galland still preferred the Bf 109 for offensive sweeps, but he regarded the Spitfire as a better defensive fighter, owing to its manoeuvrability.[62] Galland said:

The Bf 109 was superior in the attack and not so suitable for purely defensive purposes as the Spitfire, which, although a little slower, was much more manoeuvrable.[63]

>>33278925
said no German pilot ever. the ones that flew captured P51s loved them

>>33280935
Mk IIb >>> 109E

>>33279586
You're mostly right, but it's a bit more complicated than that.

At the outbreak of war, radios were in horrifically short supply. Most aircraft were flying without them, and crews that did have the option to fly with them often removed them because Soviet sets were heavy. There was also a marked difference in quality between the domestic radios and those provided with Lend Lease planes. Although planes like the P-40 were generally surpassed in performance by even some of the domestic designs they flew alongside, Soviet pilots tended to really like Lend-Lease planes because they came with radios that were better in almost every way from the Soviet ones on their own fighters. American radios tended to be lighter, easier to use, and have two-way capabilities, whereas Soviet sets were usually one-way except for the one in the unit commander's aircraft.

Radios were one of those "soft" factors (along with training) that really didn't get fixed in full until fairly late in the war.