PDA

View Full Version : Spitfire and Me 109 were Conceived at the Same Time but Different in many ways..?



MB_Avro_UK
06-24-2008, 04:15 PM
Hi all,

The Spitfire and Me 109 were both conceived at about the same time in the mid 1930's. And for a similar purpose?

But it always amazes me as to how these two aircraft look so different. And did the German development team have in mind Vertical combat?

And what did the British development team have in mind?

I accept that for the Spitfire there was an Air Ministry Specification but was that the whole answer?

(The Hurricane was a natural progression from bi-plane fighters made by Hawker).

But the British and Germans at the same time diverged from conventional design to produce the Spitfire and Me 109.

And both were very similar in performance as regards the BoB period.


Best Regards,
MB_Avro.

MB_Avro_UK
06-24-2008, 04:15 PM
Hi all,

The Spitfire and Me 109 were both conceived at about the same time in the mid 1930's. And for a similar purpose?

But it always amazes me as to how these two aircraft look so different. And did the German development team have in mind Vertical combat?

And what did the British development team have in mind?

I accept that for the Spitfire there was an Air Ministry Specification but was that the whole answer?

(The Hurricane was a natural progression from bi-plane fighters made by Hawker).

But the British and Germans at the same time diverged from conventional design to produce the Spitfire and Me 109.

And both were very similar in performance as regards the BoB period.


Best Regards,
MB_Avro.

Stiletto-
06-24-2008, 04:50 PM
Isn't the Spitfire more or less the evolution of the Supermarine seaplane racers from the 20's and early 30's? Seems you might as well clump it in the same group as the Hurricane as it is a direct evolution of those aircraft as the Hurri is to the older biplane era. I believe the main purpose of those float planes was pure speed in going after the Schnieder Tropy, so I believe the direct prinicipal design would have been attaining a high top speed, which in the floatplanes involved cramming as much horsepower into the most aerodynamically efficient airframe as possible.

Maybe someone knows what characteristics they tried to change or add to the design when it envolved into the Spitfire.

Jaws2002
06-24-2008, 07:01 PM
In the 30's the fear of bombers was really great so both the Spit and the 109 were designed as interceptors. They had to get to the bombers, and bomber altitude, as quick as possible. why they were designed so different from one another I don't know.
Could be fighter doctrine developed in the two countries.
The Brits ened up makig a fighter that used large wing area to achieve the required climb rate and Germans went for the smallest possible airframe that could carry the biggest engine available to achieve the same thing.

Xiolablu3
06-25-2008, 02:50 PM
Yeah, I think Jaws is correct.

I have read that Willy never thought he would have access to engines with the power of the Roll Royce Kestrel which powered the prototype Bf109, or at least not as powerful as other nations. Therefore he designed hte smallest, lightest monoplane he could, in order to get the best out of the smaller lighter, less powerful engines which he expected.

However Daimler Benz came up with a world class engine in the DB 600 and later models. This gave the Bf109 stellar climb rate and performance, and because it was so light and small, this resulted in a world beating fighter in its early versions.

It seems they paid the price a little in the later versions, as the tiny plane was somewhat unsuited to the bigger heavier development of the engines. I guess this is why we hear the comments from Gunther Rall and Galland etc. that the later versions of the Bf109 lost their potency somewhat. Also the heavier weight contributed to the nasty landing/takeoff characteristics. As the speeds increased in later models, the heavy elevator would only get worse.

The Spit had such low wing loading in its early designs that it could stand the weight gains a little better. However the large wing also had disadvantages compared to the Bf109, the 109 was usually a little faster at low level than the Spit, probably thanks to its smaller wing. Also the Bf109 had a little better roll rate, no doubt partly because of its smaller wing area.

DIfferent designs, with different benefits.

Kurfurst__
06-25-2008, 03:28 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
Yeah, I think Jaws is correct.

I have read that Willy never thought he would have access to engines with the power of the Roll Royce Kestrel which powered the prototype Bf109, or at least not as powerful as other nations. Therefore he designed hte smallest, lightest monoplane he could, in order to get the best out of the smaller lighter, less powerful engines which he expected. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That is probably incorrect, though we cannot say for sure what was going in Willy`s head - but, he was certainly aware of the Jumo 21x series that he built into the first 109s, and was most likely aware of the upcoming big 30-litre class DB 600 series that were conceived before the Bf 109 - Daimler-Benz was working on it since 1929, and the first engines, designated 'F4' were running in 1931. When one looks at the oddly small nose-section of the early Bf 109, nicely made full by the DB engines, this seems to be the case.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The Spit had such low wing loading in its early designs that it could stand the weight gains a little better. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hmm, as far as I remember the Spit not only gained more weight than the 109 during its development in absolute terms, it also gained more in relative terms. Probably thats why Spitfire pilots also noticed the weight gain - its not being repeated as much, but still physics work all the same.

This 109 weight creep and pilot thing is a bit odd though. One of the biggest weight creeps occured within the 109F versions, oddly nobody seems to have noticed that, and the F-series is getting a bit overhyped press regarding manouvrebility. The F-2 was probably pretty good indeed. The F-4 was much heavier though.


As for what the designers were looking for - its simple, speed, speed and more speed, plus a powerful battery that has a chance knocking down a bomber in the fraction of a second the fighter can attack the Mach 2 monoplane bombers, in the unlikely event they could intercept them. Air combat was not an easy feat at faster-than-light speeds than came with the new monoplanes. Hence cannons (sorry, 'shell-guns' being the proper term!) and 8-gun batteries.

Or so it seemed in the early 30s..

MB_Avro_UK
06-25-2008, 03:30 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Stiletto-:
Isn't the Spitfire more or less the evolution of the Supermarine seaplane racers from the 20's and early 30's? Seems you might as well clump it in the same group as the Hurricane as it is a direct evolution of those aircraft as the Hurri is to the older biplane era. I believe the main purpose of those float planes was pure speed in going after the Schnieder Tropy, so I believe the direct prinicipal design would have been attaining a high top speed, which in the floatplanes involved cramming as much horsepower into the most aerodynamically efficient airframe as possible.

Maybe someone knows what characteristics they tried to change or add to the design when it envolved into the Spitfire. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I seem to remember that the connection with the the 1930's seaplane racers as far as the airframe is concerned has been discounted. The biggest connection was with the engine IIRC.


Best Regards,
MB_Avro.

Kurfurst__
06-25-2008, 03:34 PM
The Supermarine racers used a 35-litre class RR engine, so any connection with the Merlin is superficial at best, too..

Luckily, the 109s family line is much easier to trace back...

http://www.airmuseumsuk.org/airshow/2004/Shut040606/800/images/036%20Nord%20N1002%20G-ETME.jpg

Xiolablu3
06-25-2008, 03:42 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
Yeah, I think Jaws is correct.

I have read that Willy never thought he would have access to engines with the power of the Roll Royce Kestrel which powered the prototype Bf109, or at least not as powerful as other nations. Therefore he designed hte smallest, lightest monoplane he could, in order to get the best out of the smaller lighter, less powerful engines which he expected. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That is probably incorrect, though we cannot say for sure what was going in Willy`s head - but, he was certainly aware of the Jumo 21x series that he built into the first 109s, and was most likely aware of the upcoming big 30-litre class DB 600 series that were conceived before the Bf 109 - Daimler-Benz was working on it since 1929, and the first engines, designated 'F4' were running in 1931. When one looks at the oddly small nose-section of the early Bf 109, nicely made full by the DB engines, this seems to be the case.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The Spit had such low wing loading in its early designs that it could stand the weight gains a little better. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hmm, as far as I remember the Spit not only gained more weight than the 109 during its development in absolute terms, it also gained more in relative terms. Probably thats why Spitfire pilots also noticed the weight gain - its not being repeated as much, but still physics work all the same.

This 109 weight creep and pilot thing is a bit odd though. One of the biggest weight creeps occured within the 109F versions, oddly nobody seems to have noticed that, and the F-series is getting a bit overhyped press regarding manouvrebility. The F-2 was probably pretty good indeed. The F-4 was much heavier though.


As for what the designers were looking for - its simple, speed, speed and more speed, plus a powerful battery that has a chance knocking down a bomber in the fraction of a second the fighter can attack the Mach 2 monoplane bombers, in the unlikely event they could intercept them. Air combat was not an easy feat at faster-than-light speeds than came with the new monoplanes. Hence cannons (sorry, 'shell-guns' being the proper term!) and 8-gun batteries.

Or so it seemed in the early 30s.. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Thanks for your thoughts, interesting reading as always http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

luftluuver
06-25-2008, 03:45 PM
Bf109B (4400lb) to Me109K (7410lb)

A 68% increase.

Spit I (5875lb) to Spit XIV (8475lb)

A 44% increase.

Mr_Zooly
06-25-2008, 03:51 PM
I'm sure (though possibly wrong) the racing engines were more of an inspiration for the Merlin, the Griffon was more of a direct descendant of the racing engines (they ran at a slower speed (I cant even begin to explain with my limited knowledge) iirc)

Freiwillige
06-25-2008, 04:10 PM
Kurfurst I never thought I would disagree with you but, you said One of the biggest weight creeps occured within the 109F version."
Where is all that weight coming from? The F was similar in weight to the E series. It was in the G series that the DB605 became available and the heavier engine needed heavier engine supports which in turn requiered heavier landing gear. The G6 being the heaviest of all and almost a ton heavier than the F-4!

"The F-2 was probably pretty good indeed. The F-4 was much heavier though."
Whats the differance? F-2 has MG-151/15 and the F-4 has MG-151/20, not that much weight differance. Everything else about the two aircraft was identical except the DB-601E of the F-4 put out slightly more power than the DB-601N of the F-2. But its almost the same engine and they weigh the same...Both being DB-601's.

Airmail109
06-25-2008, 04:26 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Stiletto-:
Isn't the Spitfire more or less the evolution of the Supermarine seaplane racers from the 20's and early 30's? Seems you might as well clump it in the same group as the Hurricane as it is a direct evolution of those aircraft as the Hurri is to the older biplane era. I believe the main purpose of those float planes was pure speed in going after the Schnieder Tropy, so I believe the direct prinicipal design would have been attaining a high top speed, which in the floatplanes involved cramming as much horsepower into the most aerodynamically efficient airframe as possible.

Maybe someone knows what characteristics they tried to change or add to the design when it envolved into the Spitfire. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thats a myth the Spitfire never evolved from the Schneider Trophy plane. My Grandad worked on the latter (designed the engine mount).

Aaron_GT
06-25-2008, 04:45 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Isn't the Spitfire more or less the evolution of the Supermarine seaplane racers from the 20's and early 30's? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, the Spitfire traces its ancestry from a Supermarine R.J. Mitchell 224 design for the F.7/30 specification which mutated via an intermediate update of the 224 with retractable undercarriage to the type 300 (which finally gained the elliptical wings. I am sure that Mitchell gained experience from the seaplanes, but there's no real ancestry.

The irony of the wing is that the intermediate wing would have had very nearly the same aerodynamics but have been much simpler to build, and the Spiteful returned to the non-elliptical form. It was widely believed that elliptical wings would be superior (they appear in a number of designs from a number of nations) but it wasn't compared to laminar flow.

Stiletto-
06-25-2008, 05:36 PM
Ah, thanks for the info!

Xiolablu3
06-26-2008, 05:58 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by luftluuver:
Bf109B (4400lb) to Me109K (7410lb)

A 68% increase.

Spit I (5875lb) to Spit XIV (8475lb)

A 44% increase. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


If this is correct, then its not really surprising we get a lot of people talking how the later 109's were not the world beaters that the earlier models were.

You can also add that the Spitfire had much lower wing loading, meaning it could take more weight before it seriously, 'negatively affected the flight characteristics' as Galland puts it in 'The First and the Last'.

Kettenhunde
06-26-2008, 06:23 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Originally posted by luftluuver:
Bf109B (4400lb) to Me109K (7410lb)

A 68% increase.

Spit I (5875lb) to Spit XIV (8475lb)

A 44% increase.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The Bf-109B has very little in common as a design aerodynamically with the Bf-109K series.

The Spitfire series was upgraded but did not experience the same level of major redesign as the leap from the Bf-109B to the Bf-109K.

IMHO, It would be more representative aerodynamically to compare the Bf-109F series thru Bf-109K series to the Spitfire Mk I thru Spitfire Mk XIV.

What you will find is that both designers made appropriate design changes and power additions to keep their aircraft at the forefront of fighter technology and design of the day.

All the best,

Crumpp

Xiolablu3
06-26-2008, 06:40 AM
But you have to admit, Crumpp, at some points planes jumped ahead of their rivals,

As in the SPitfire 1 and Me109E over anything else in the world,

Fw190 and Me109F4 over the SPitfire Vb, P40, Hurricane

and so on....

Not going to go into versions of the Spit that were 'better' or I will be accused of biased towards it, but you get the idea.

Everything wasnt totally 'equal' between fighter planes through the war, some turned better, some climbed better, some dived better etc.

Also, the SPitfire VII/VIII/XIV airframe was a major redesign of the basic Spitfire Airframe, I believe. Much like the Bf109F was for the BF109.


Most of the major changes of the later redesign are listed on this page. They are extensive, but there were many many other smaller changes not listed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supermarine_Spitfire_variants_part_two

The Spitfire mkVII, mkVIII and Griffon models airframe came from the 'Super Spitfire' project. This included aerodynamic and strength improvements and modified control surfaces, along with the other obvious changes like engine/performance, improved armament, improved cockpit visibilty etc.

luftluuver
06-26-2008, 08:30 AM
Do you actually read all the posts Crumpp?

This is what was said:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Hmm, as far as I remember the Spit not only gained more weight than the 109 <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">during its development</span> in absolute terms, it also gained more in relative terms. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Kurfurst__
06-26-2008, 09:37 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by luftluuver:
Bf109B (4400lb) to Me109K (7410lb)

A 68% increase.

Spit I (5875lb) to Spit XIV (8475lb)

A 44% increase. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


If this is correct, then its not really surprising we get a lot of people talking how the later 109's were not the world beaters that the earlier models were. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The Bf 109 B 'Bertha' - a world beater..? It was a very nice monoplane, but in effect more like biplane - rather slow, but could turn on dime.

In any case the comparison is odd. The 109 development above appears to start with the Jumo engines, while the first variant mentioned for the Spit is the Merlin engined variant... but pardon me, wasn`t the Spitfire development originally meant for a much smaller engine the same, the Goshawk - a rather similiar engine to the early Jumos - before the much larger and more powerful RR Merlin was adopted (notice the analogue to the adoption of the DB engines?).

I do not see much difference - the 109 was originally designed for a small Jumo engine, with an eye on the upcoming DBs, and 2 to four MGs or a big hub cannon of the size of the MK 103. The Spitfire was originally designed for a small RR Goshawk engine, and only four MGs. Later, they added another four MGs and a much larger engine. The 109 received two rather complete redesigns (with the 109E and the F. The K didnt touch the basic design aspects much). The original Spit design was only touched seriously when they replaced the Goshawk with the Merlin, added MGs and they redesigned the wings for that. It was not until the post-war Mark 20 series they altered the design in a meaningful manner, as the Germans did with the 109F in 1939.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">You can also add that the Spitfire had much lower wing loading, meaning it could take more weight before it seriously, 'negatively affected the flight characteristics' as Galland puts it in 'The First and the Last'. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Let me guess - physics don`t apply to the Spitfire again?

I`ve never heard wing loading has much to do with flight charactistics either. It defines a few things - stall speed, turning circle, landing speed as such. Not characteristics - how the plane stalls, how much warning it gives, how easy it is to take out of spin. The P-47 for example had very very high wingloading, but I have never heard it described as an especially malicious aircraft. It probably had a high stall speed. Then what. The 109 had a moderately high wingloading, but it was almost impossible to put into a spin - as opposed to the Spitfire, which was appearantly easy to stall and easy to enter into a spin, which was very violent, despite its low wingloading.

All these aspect have nothing to do with wingloading though.

luftluuver
06-26-2008, 09:46 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">In any case the comparison is odd. The 109 development above appears to start with the Jumo engines, while the first variant mentioned for the Spit is the Merlin engined variant... but pardon me, wasn`t the Spitfire development originally meant for a much smaller engine the same, the Goshawk - a rather similiar engine to the early Jumos - before the much larger and more powerful RR Merlin was adopted (notice the analogue to the adoption of the DB engines?). </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

How many Goshawk Spits produced?
How many Bf109Bs produced?

Kettenhunde
06-26-2008, 09:52 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Do you actually read all the posts Crumpp? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes I did, Luftluver.

"During its development" is a general phrase. You made a specific comparison.

I pointed out some specific flaws in that comparison.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The Bf-109B has very little in common as a design aerodynamically with the Bf-109K series.

The Spitfire series was upgraded but did not experience the same level of major redesign as the leap from the Bf-109B to the Bf-109K.

IMHO, It would be more representative aerodynamically to compare the Bf-109F series thru Bf-109K series to the Spitfire Mk I thru Spitfire Mk XIV.

What you will find is that both designers made appropriate design changes and power additions to keep their aircraft at the forefront of fighter technology and design of the day.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hi Xio,

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Everything wasnt totally 'equal' between fighter planes through the war, some turned better, some climbed better, some dived better etc.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I agree that there were specific performance differences. However I think non-pilots greatly over estimate the practical impact on aerial combat and fail to fit these qualities into the larger picture.

All the best,

Crumpp

luftluuver
06-26-2008, 10:20 AM
Is English you primary language Crumpp?

"Hmm, as far as I remember the Spit not only gained more weight than the 109 during its development in absolute terms, it also gained more in relative terms."

So lets see. The statement is comparing the weight of the Spitfire from the Mk I to the Mk XIV (the last war time variant) to the weight of the 109 from its initial production variant the B (not counting the 20 or 22 A variants) to its last variant, the K.

Aerodynamics were not mentioned in the original statement, ONLY weight.

Xiolablu3
06-26-2008, 11:48 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by luftluuver:
Bf109B (4400lb) to Me109K (7410lb)

A 68% increase.

Spit I (5875lb) to Spit XIV (8475lb)

A 44% increase. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


If this is correct, then its not really surprising we get a lot of people talking how the later 109's were not the world beaters that the earlier models were. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The Bf 109 B 'Bertha' - a world beater..? It was a very nice monoplane, but in effect more like biplane - rather slow, but could turn on dime.

In any case the comparison is odd. The 109 development above appears to start with the Jumo engines, while the first variant mentioned for the Spit is the Merlin engined variant... but pardon me, wasn`t the Spitfire development originally meant for a much smaller engine the same, the Goshawk - a rather similiar engine to the early Jumos - before the much larger and more powerful RR Merlin was adopted (notice the analogue to the adoption of the DB engines?).

I do not see much difference - the 109 was originally designed for a small Jumo engine, with an eye on the upcoming DBs, and 2 to four MGs or a big hub cannon of the size of the MK 103. The Spitfire was originally designed for a small RR Goshawk engine, and only four MGs. Later, they added another four MGs and a much larger engine. The 109 received two rather complete redesigns (with the 109E and the F. The K didnt touch the basic design aspects much). The original Spit design was only touched seriously when they replaced the Goshawk with the Merlin, added MGs and they redesigned the wings for that. It was not until the post-war Mark 20 series they altered the design in a meaningful manner, as the Germans did with the 109F in 1939.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">You can also add that the Spitfire had much lower wing loading, meaning it could take more weight before it seriously, 'negatively affected the flight characteristics' as Galland puts it in 'The First and the Last'. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Let me guess - physics don`t apply to the Spitfire again?

I`ve never heard wing loading has much to do with flight charactistics either. It defines a few things - stall speed, turning circle, landing speed as such. Not characteristics - how the plane stalls, how much warning it gives, how easy it is to take out of spin. The P-47 for example had very very high wingloading, but I have never heard it described as an especially malicious aircraft. It probably had a high stall speed. Then what. The 109 had a moderately high wingloading, but it was almost impossible to put into a spin - as opposed to the Spitfire, which was appearantly easy to stall and easy to enter into a spin, which was very violent, despite its low wingloading.

All these aspect have nothing to do with wingloading though. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Physics certainly apply to the Spit, but it didnt gain as much overall weight as the 109, if the figures posted are correct. SO lets just say the physics affected the 109 quite a bit more than the Spit.

The early 109's, I am talking about are the early models in WW2. ie the E, F, early G's.

The SPitfire gave a lot of stall warning because of the washout applied to the wings. And the elliptical wing, or truncated ellipse as in the clipped wing SPits has very low 'induced drag' for the wing area.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elliptical_wing

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washout_%28aviation%29

The problem is that although this results in an aircraft with great flying characteristics, its tough to build and takes much longer.

The fact is that the bf109 gained much more % of weight, and also was arguably less suited for the weight gain. Comments about the later 109's from the top luftwaffe pilots seem to agree with this. Also modern warbird pilots like Mark Hanna, the first thing he mentions after saying 'Its a good airplane' is its awful landing characteristics. No doubt this got worse with the weight gain.

I would agree with you that the later 109's kept their nice flight characteristics, if I didnt constantly read that they actually didnt, from people extremely well qualified to comment on this subject.

Surely the Spitfire VII/VIII/XIV airframe counts as a 'major redesign'. Just read up on all the things that were changed, from the air filter to the engine, to the control surfaces, to the airframe and so on.

hop2002
06-26-2008, 12:29 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">In any case the comparison is odd. The 109 development above appears to start with the Jumo engines, while the first variant mentioned for the Spit is the Merlin engined variant... but pardon me, wasn`t the Spitfire development originally meant for a much smaller engine the same, the Goshawk - a rather similiar engine to the early Jumos - before the much larger and more powerful RR Merlin was adopted (notice the analogue to the adoption of the DB engines?).
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, the Spitfire was designed for the Merlin from the start.

Supermarine did produce some earlier designs and proposals for Goshawk powered aircraft, but the Merlin was chosen for the Spitfire before design work commenced.

The 109 was designed from the start for the approx 600 hp Jumo, and not upgraded to the DB 600 series until later in its service life.

Hundreds of 109s were built with Jumo engines before the first upgrade to the DB 601. No Spitfire was produced with a Goshawk engine, not even the prototype.

Kettenhunde
06-26-2008, 02:11 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> The SPitfire gave a lot of stall warning because of the washout applied to the wings.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, it did under quite few stall conditions. There is a price to pay though when you add aerodynamic twist to an elliptical planform.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> And the elliptical wing, or truncated ellipse as in the clipped wing SPits has very low 'induced drag' for the wing area.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Adding the washout destroys the efficiency benefits. Manipulating wing efficiency is extremely easy to do in the design phase. You can expect at the design optimum performance point for all WWII aircraft to have very similar wing efficiencies.

Over the entire envelope, the Spitfire wing was in likelihood marginally better than a non-elliptical planform. In the vicinity of the design point which represents large portion of the operating envelope, there is no difference in efficiency.

This why we don't see elliptical planforms in common use today, it is considerable manufacturing expense for little to no aerodynamic gain if you want stall characteristics that are not dangerous.

Both the Spitfire and the Bf-109 are great airplanes and excellent examples of competent engineering of the day. I fail to see the fascination with bashing one or the other.

All the best,

Crumpp

Kettenhunde
06-26-2008, 02:28 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The 109 was designed from the start for the approx 600 hp Jumo, and not upgraded to the DB 600 series until later in its service life. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Why in the world does anyone think this is bad??

That both Mtt and Supermarine had the foresight to keep and grow their CG limits on their design speaks volumes.

The major stumbling block is installation weight and CG limits.

Here is what you can upgrade your 40 year old Beechcraft if you have the money:

http://www.turbinebonanza.com/comparison.html

All the best,

Crumpp

Kettenhunde
06-26-2008, 02:37 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Aerodynamics were not mentioned in the original statement, ONLY weight. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


I just didn't think it was very smart to compare an airplane but not consider the things that make it a unique airplane design.

I suppose you can do that if you wish too.

Good luck with it! I am sure the conclusions will reflect what you wish them too.

All the best,

Crumpp

Richardsen
06-26-2008, 02:50 PM
[/QUOTE]

Let me guess - physics don`t apply to the Spitfire again?

I`ve never heard wing loading has much to do with flight charactistics either. It defines a few things - stall speed, turning circle, landing speed as such. Not characteristics - how the plane stalls, how much warning it gives, how easy it is to take out of spin. The P-47 for example had very very high wingloading, but I have never heard it described as an especially malicious aircraft. It probably had a high stall speed. Then what. The 109 had a moderately high wingloading, but it was almost impossible to put into a spin - as opposed to the Spitfire, which was appearantly easy to stall and easy to enter into a spin, which was very violent, despite its low wingloading.

All these aspect have nothing to do with wingloading though.[/QUOTE]

The Spitfire was a very forgiving aeroplane to fly. You could pull the aircraft hard into a turn without any worries of stalling the aircraft or dropping a wing...
Mark Hanna described the Spitfire as very docile.
You could keep pulling in a turn until the shaking becomes so violent that you would have to be crazy to try to pull harder.

Charlie Brown says the 109 is much more difficult to fly and far worse ine the turning game!

luftluuver
06-26-2008, 02:55 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The 109 was designed from the start for the approx 600 hp Jumo, and not upgraded to the DB 600 series until later in its service life. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Why in the world does anyone think this is bad?? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Who are these 'anyones' who think so? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

.............................
Geez Crumpp are really not that with it?

Kurfurst was commenting on ONE aspect &gt; weight and I replied with some facts. Nothing more, nothing less. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Kurfurst__
06-26-2008, 03:08 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by hop2002:
No, the Spitfire was designed for the Merlin from the start. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, the Spitfire was designed for the Goshawk from the start.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Supermarine did produce some earlier designs and proposals for Goshawk powered aircraft, but the Merlin was chosen for the Spitfire before design work commenced. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, Supermarine did produce some earlier designs and proposals for Goshawk powered aircraft, and the Goshawk was chosen for the Spitfire before design work commenced.

Type 300 (Spitfire) with the original Goshawk engine, and 4 gun armament. Below the re-engined Type 300 with Merlin engine, but still the 4 gun armament. Everything else stayed the same - the airframe was originally designed for the Goshawk
.
http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e133/Kurfurst/type300.jpg

dr. Alfred Price:

http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e133/Kurfurst/Price_vs_Hop.jpg

Robert Humpfreys:

http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e133/Kurfurst/Spitfire/Spitfire_development.jpg


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The 109 was designed from the start for the approx 600 hp Jumo, and not upgraded to the DB 600 series until later in its service life. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, the 109 was designed to start with the approx 600 hp Jumo, it was to be upgraded to the DB 600 series later in its service life.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Hundreds of 109s were built with Jumo engines before the first upgrade to the DB 601. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Of course. The Luftwaffe needed fighters. The Jumo engine was ready. The DB engine was not yet ready.
So they opted for having Jumo engined 109s with operational fighter units rather than DB engined 109 prototypes.

In the end, they had Jumo engined 109s with service units a year before any service Spitfire would turn up, and over a hundred DB engined 109s when the first RAF Squadrons just finished equipping with Merlin engined Spits - still with fixed pitch props.

And so it went, for the rest of their career.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">No Spitfire was produced with a Goshawk engine, not even the prototype. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Of course, Supermarine was a small and poor company. It could not afford to spend to much. Even the Merlin engined Type 300 was paid for by the Air Ministry.

Which doesnt change the fact the airframe was originally meant for the Goshawk engine, before it was hurridly re-engined for the Merlin engine, as the literature homogenously agrees.

luftluuver
06-26-2008, 03:11 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The 109 was designed from the start for the approx 600 hp Jumo, and not upgraded to the DB 600 series until later in its service life. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, the 109 was designed to start with the approx 600 hp Jumo, it was to be upgraded to the DB 600 series later in its service life. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

What is the difference to what Hop said?

ICDP
06-26-2008, 04:04 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by luftluuver:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The 109 was designed from the start for the approx 600 hp Jumo, and not upgraded to the DB 600 series until later in its service life. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, the 109 was designed to start with the approx 600 hp Jumo, it was to be upgraded to the DB 600 series later in its service life. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

What is the difference to what Hop said? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hop is saying the 109 was designed from the start to use the Jumo engine. In essense the DB600 series did not figure in the initial design at all.

Kurfurst is counter claiming that the Bf109 was always designed with the DB600 in mind as its powerplant. Since the DB600 was not available it was decided to use the Jumo as an interim powerplant.

Disclaimer: I am in no way endorsing either argument.

Kurfurst__
06-26-2008, 04:06 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
Physics certainly apply to the Spit, but it didnt gain as much overall weight as the 109, if the figures posted are correct. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The problem is that the Spitfire gained a lot more weight.
It went from 4700 lbs to 9300 lbs - its weight almost precisly doubled.
The 109 went from 4400 to 7400 lbs, or by about 2/3s.

Or we can stay with wartime variants, but the picture remains the same.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">So lets just say the physics affected the 109 quite a bit more than the Spit. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ok lets just say it - and let Newton probably roll over in his grave in pain.


Alex Henshaw, chief test pilot at the Castle Bomwich Spitfire factory.

"I loved the Spitfire in all of her many versions. But I have to admit that the later Marks, although they were faster than the earlier ones, were also much heavier and so did not handle so well. You did not have such positive control over them. One test of manouverability was to throw the Spitfire into a flick roll and see how many times she rolled. With the Mark II or the Mark V one got two and a half rolls but the Mark IX was heavier and you got only one and a half. With the later and still heavier versions one got even less.The essence of aircraft design is compromise, and an improvement at one end of the performance envelope is rarely achieved without a deterioration somewhere else."

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
The SPitfire gave a lot of stall warning because of the washout applied to the wings. And the elliptical wing, or truncated ellipse as in the clipped wing SPits has very low 'induced drag' for the wing area. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Neither solutions were particularly original, nor did they proved particularly advantegous.
They ensured though the Spitfire would have excessive aileron forces.

Ever wondered why the first thing that had to go were these magical 'elliptical' wings?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The problem is that although this results in an aircraft with great flying characteristics, </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually, elliptical wings has absolutely miserable stall characteristics. The stall characteristics of the Spitfire were violent and too senstive, a rather lethal combination, that disencouraged rookie pilots from pushing the aircraft to its limits - RAE readily admits that, so should you.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">its tough to build and takes much longer. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

See the reason why it never got liked by designers and it never got widespread - including Supermarine itself placed it into the trashcan.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The fact is that the bf109 gained much more % of weight, and also was arguably less suited for the weight gain. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Fact..? Here we enter Wonderland, where imagination dominates.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Comments about the later 109's from the top luftwaffe pilots seem to agree with this. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Quite the contrary.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Also modern warbird pilots like Mark Hanna, the first thing he mentions after saying 'Its a good airplane' is its awful landing characteristics. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I dont think Mark Hanna ever flew a Bf 109 in his life.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">No doubt this got worse with the weight gain. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Again, quite the contrary. They become more and more stable on the ground.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I would agree with you that the later 109's kept their nice flight characteristics, if I didnt constantly read that they actually didnt, from people extremely well qualified to comment on this subject.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

But then again you dont actually constantly read that, its something that constantly goes in circles in your mind only.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Surely the Spitfire VII/VIII/XIV airframe counts as a 'major redesign'. Just read up on all the things that were changed, from the air filter to the engine, to the control surfaces, to the airframe and so on. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well from the practical standpoint, the Spitfire VII/VIII series is nothing more than Spit V/IX airframe with flush riveting on the fuselage (huzzah! probably the last fighter still with dome rivets.. showing how much backward its construction actually was), retractable tailwheel and small fuel tanks fitted into the wings. Plus reduced span ailerons, that didn`t actually worked as hoped for.

It doesnt actually changed any of the major components of the aircraft. It certainly didnt change the fact it was now overweight, and littered with drag inducing solutions. Fact is the Spitfire never got the wartime overhaul it so desperately needed.

Its funny both the 109 and Mustang could manage about 40 mph more speed on the same power outputs than the Spitfire. By coincidence, the British themselves also admit in their reports that the mid-war Spitfire airframe were so 'advanced', that it lost 40 mph alone to the detoriation of the original airframe as more and more drag inducing items were added. Cannons, radiators were the worst offenders.

luftluuver
06-26-2008, 04:34 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
The problem is that the Spitfire gained a lot more weight.
It went from 4700 lbs to 9300 lbs - its weight almost precisly doubled.
The 109 went from 4400 to 7400 lbs, or by about 2/3s.

Or we can stay with wartime variants, but the picture remains the same. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

<span class="ev_code_YELLOW">Bf109B (4400lb) to Me109K (7410lb)
A 68% increase.

Spit I (5875lb) to Spit XIV (8475lb)

A 44% increase.</span>

Nice to know that 44 is a larger number than 68. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif

luftluuver
06-26-2008, 04:38 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
Again, quite the contrary. They become more and more stable on the ground. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Anything would be an improvement.

Aaron_GT
06-26-2008, 05:16 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The Spitfire was originally designed for a small RR Goshawk engine, and only four MGs. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, that wasn't really a Spitfire but a halfway house between the 224 and the Spitfire. It happened to share the same project number but the redesign was quite extensive. It would be a bit like looking at the first drawing Messerschmitt made of something in the planning of the 109 and then concluding that this was the 109 rather than a step on the way to the 109 as first serially produced.

However I think luftluuver is being a bit disingenuos picking the 109B as I wouldn't consider it much more than a trials or restricted version. It makes more sense to start the weight ticker for the 109 at the Dora.

The very first Sptifires (without CSP, etc) I wouldn't consider much better than trials aircraft either.

Kettenhunde
06-26-2008, 06:36 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">However I think luftluuver is being a bit disingenuos picking the 109B </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It's just the facts....

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

blakduk
06-26-2008, 08:15 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kurfurst__:


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Also modern warbird pilots like Mark Hanna, the first thing he mentions after saying 'Its a good airplane' is its awful landing characteristics. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I dont think Mark Hanna ever flew a Bf 109 in his life.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Wasn't Mark Hanna killed in a Buchon (the Spanish built, Merlin powered Bf109) in 1999?

luftluuver
06-26-2008, 08:24 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
However I think luftluuver is being a bit disingenuos picking the 109B as I wouldn't consider it much more than a trials or restricted version. It makes more sense to start the weight ticker for the 109 at the Dora. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

What ever you say Aaron but there was some 341 produced (BFW - 76, Erla - 179, Fieseler - 90). That is quite a number for JUST a trials or restricted version. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif

The D weighed 352lbs more.

Better have a word with another poster Aaron about being disingenuous.

WTE_Galway
06-26-2008, 09:46 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by blakduk:

Wasn't Mark Hanna killed in a Buchon (the Spanish built, Merlin powered Bf109) in 1999? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sadly so. Though I have seen conflicting reports for the reason with some reports claiming jet wash contributed and others simply blaming engine failure.

Personally after seeing so many photos of DB powered 109's over the years I find the Buchon merlins birds with the high exhausts odd looking things.

An interview with Mark Hanna and some 109 shots from around 1996 I believe.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5svK5Xs76R4

Excellent video of Mark Hanna in a Buchon 109 performing at a 1993 airshow.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MxXPPPuL9fg

blakduk
06-26-2008, 10:59 PM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by WTE_Galway:
Personally after seeing so many photos of DB powered 109's over the years I find the Buchon merlins birds with the high exhausts odd looking things.
[QUOTE]

I fully agree- the high exhausts just look wrong.
When i first saw 'The Battle of Britain' in the cinema (back in the days when 'Looney Tunes' were shown before the main feature) the German planes just didnt seem right. It was only years later when i stumbled across this forum that i found the reason for my disquiet at the appearance of the LW fighters- they were Buchons.

Back to the original topic of this thread- the Spitfire and 109 were quite different, but also similar in many ways.
In regard to the early marks (circa 1940):
They were close enough in size that they were often misidentified as each other.
Their effective range was similar (neither was suited to long combat patrols).
Their performance across the envelope was so similar that the pilot and tactics used were the deciding factor- ie, one was not so oustandingly better in any one field that it could dominate.
They were both monocoque all-metal monoplanes with inline engines.
The solutions to issues such as stalling speeds was quite different- the 109 was aruably more practical as the hours to build a wing for it was considerably less than for the Spitfire.

The main differences as far as the cosmetics are concerned seem more related to the Messerschmitt engineers taking more account of manufacturing needs than the Supermarine guys.

Aaron_GT
06-27-2008, 02:04 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">What ever you say Aaron but there was some 341 produced (BFW - 76, Erla - 179, Fieseler - 90). That is quite a number for JUST a trials or restricted version. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

They made a fair few P-47Bs too, but that wasn't combat ready either. The 109B was still very immature. It saw action but it wasn't really ready IMHO. You could even argue it wasn't really ready before the 109E against decent opposition.

luftluuver
06-27-2008, 05:28 AM
You are ignoring the original statement Aaron.

Kurfurst__
06-27-2008, 05:42 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The Spitfire was originally designed for a small RR Goshawk engine, and only four MGs. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, that wasn't really a Spitfire but a halfway house between the 224 and the Spitfire. It happened to share the same project number but the redesign was quite extensive. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sharing the same project number is quite an coincidence, and I would say, if they share the same project number, they might as well share the same nickname, strictly coincidentally of course. If you look at the early Type 300 is pretty obvious that the only thing that really changed were the wing plan form, in an effort to compensate for the larger, heavier engine than the Goshawk originally meant for Type 300. Wing area, general layout, equipment stayed the same. Then they begun to add things - radiator ducting instead of evaporate cooling, four additional MGs that were required, 2-pitch propeller, variable pitch propeller etc.

Otherwise you`d have to wonder why it was called Spitfire, and not *αλλάς Ἀθήνη, bursting forth from Mitchell`s his forehead fully armed with 8 Brownings etc. To me it appears the only ones who would actually like this tale to be true, that their bird was not only perfect, it also born perfect, without any need to evolve.

What happened to the Type 300 project was pretty similar to that of the life course of P.1034. Both were organically founded on previous projects, and the designs evolved as requirements to fit larger engines, and more weapons arose. And here`s where I find some arguments of this thread incredibly irrational to the point of superstition: they assume that a design is somehow 'born' and have a sort of lifespan, like an organic being; it is carved at birth with some kind of magic rune that grant it with magical properties regarding handling; and this rune is supposed to fade away with over time.

This kind of thinking simply does not understand what engineering and design is all about. Adoption of the plans to specific tasks. Aircraft do not evolve, age, but are developed and engineered. The very death of any design if it is not adopted constantly to new requirements and technologies. That is when it becomes obsolete.

Say for example, the adoption of a bigger, more powerful engine. Such addition comes with known effects - change in Center of Gravity, increased torque and decreased stability - that can be, but not necessarily are, negative; they can be also countered. CoG issues can be restored to ideal very easily by re-arranging internal equipment or major parts - when the Type 300 was given a bigger engine, its wings were redesigned; when P.1034 received the larger DB engine, the task was even simpler since the fuel tank was in the rear and simply by enlarging sufficiently shifted the CoG back to its proper place; torque and stability issues can be cured with properly re-designed vertical stabilisers.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
It would be a bit like looking at the first drawing Messerschmitt made of something in the planning of the 109 and then concluding that this was the 109 rather than a step on the way to the 109 as first serially produced. However I think luftluuver is being a bit disingenuos picking the 109B as I wouldn't consider it much more than a trials or restricted version. It makes more sense to start the weight ticker for the 109 at the Dora.The very first Spitfires (without CSP, etc) I wouldn't consider much better than trials aircraft either. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It was certainly not the same, final aircraft, but of the same line of design; as written above, designs change.

However the skeleton of the argument is that addition of weight to a design degrades its overall characteristics, compared to another design. Since our argument revolves around comparisons, there is really no point to compare very early forms of the design, if for nothing else because we have very little idea how the 109B or the Goshawk Spitfire handled. The only, well known comparisons of handling are beginning to emerge at around 1939-1940, by which the actual types were the various early/late forms of the 109E and Mark I Spitfire.

It is a bizarre argument to say that that post-109E variants suffered in comparison to the 109E in handling so greatly because of the weight the 109E gained compared to the earlier variants B, C and D - when the basis of comparison being the existing handling qualities of the 109E, and not the 109B or any other earlier variant.

Kurfurst__
06-27-2008, 05:47 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by blakduk:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kurfurst__:


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Also modern warbird pilots like Mark Hanna, the first thing he mentions after saying 'Its a good airplane' is its awful landing characteristics. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I dont think Mark Hanna ever flew a Bf 109 in his life.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Wasn't Mark Hanna killed in a Buchon (the Spanish built, Merlin powered Bf109) in 1999? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Correct. And that thing isn't a 109... opinions of pilots who both flew the Buchon and the early 109G can be found on this board. It has been posted innumerably - without little effect on some mindsets or so it would appear, which continue to use descriptions of the Buchon to describe the 109G. Thing is, even proper 109Gs flown nowadays by people like Southwood and others lack the features of later 109s - the large tires, more vertical tire aligment, the tall tail unit, for example.

luftluuver
06-27-2008, 06:05 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">However the skeleton of the argument is that addition of weight to a design degrades its overall characteristics, compared to another design. Since our argument revolves around comparisons, there is really no point to compare very early forms of the design, if for nothing else because we have very little idea how the 109B or the Goshawk Spitfire handled. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well it would be hard to know how the Goshawk Spit performed as there was NONE built.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Luckily, the 109s family line is much easier to trace back... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
A photo of a Bf108.

Maybe we should use the Bf108 as the starting point since the design of the Spitfire as finally produced is not being used as a starting point?

Richardsen
06-27-2008, 06:37 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by blakduk:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kurfurst__:


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Also modern warbird pilots like Mark Hanna, the first thing he mentions after saying 'Its a good airplane' is its awful landing characteristics. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I dont think Mark Hanna ever flew a Bf 109 in his life.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Wasn't Mark Hanna killed in a Buchon (the Spanish built, Merlin powered Bf109) in 1999? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Correct. And that thing isn't a 109... opinions of pilots who both flew the Buchon and the early 109G can be found on this board. It has been posted innumerably - without little effect on some mindsets or so it would appear, which continue to use descriptions of the Buchon to describe the 109G. Thing is, even proper 109Gs flown nowadays by people like Southwood and others lack the features of later 109s - the large tires, more vertical tire aligment, the tall tail unit, for example. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Charlie Brown has flown DB powerd 109's
Last year at FL I spoked with Charlie about 109's. It was not an easy plane to fly, It took time to get confident with the handling.
He spoked very highly about how fast the 109 accelerated at high speed and he felt it had a bit better ailron control than the spitfire.

But when it came to turning, there was not really a question! The spitfire would turn circles around any 109 he had flown.

Aaron_GT
06-27-2008, 06:45 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">You are ignoring the original statement Aaron. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Which was what exactly?

I take your point that the weight increased from B to K as indicated, but the more important factor is what the 109 design expectation was. If it was designed with an eye on the heavier DB series engines used from the E onwards then rather than the aircraft being overweight from the E onwards it might have reached its design weight with the E and the A to D would be -underweight-.

Pulling figures out without knowing what the anticipated design weight was going to be isn't going to shed much light on things. The worrying thing is when a design goes well over anticipated weight and the design cannot take it. There are certainly many instances from WW2 of planes going well over their initial design weight for the systems originally anticipated.

So if, perhaps, the 109 was designed with the DB in mind and the Jumo was a stopgap pending this engine then the appropriate ranges to look at would be Spitfire I to XIV and then 109E to K. Although the Spitfire was intended to be Griffon powered long before one actually entered service, but slowed down by the Griffon's development schedule as the Merlin (since it was working by 1939) was more of a priority for Rolls.

The 109B with only two cowl guns doesn't look like any more than a demonstrator pressed into series production because -something- was needed and to provide information for future production rather than a matured piece of equipment.

Kurfurst__
06-27-2008, 06:46 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Richardsen:

Charlie Brown has flown DB powered 109's
Last year at FL I spoked with Charlie about 109's. It was not an easy plane to fly, It took time to get confident with the handling.
He spoked very highly about how fast the 109 accelerated at high speed and he felt it had a bit better ailron control than the spitfire.

But when it came to turning, there was not really a question! The spitfire would turn circles around any 109 he had flown. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is how the Royal Aircraft Establishment saw it in September 1940:

http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e133/Kurfurst/RAE_Spit109_stall_turn-2.jpg

When you add how the controls were laid out, it all makes sense. The Spitfire has an utterly sensitive pitch control, which needs to be operated with light fingertips. Its a longitudally unstable aircraft.

The 109 series pitch control OTOH is usually described as ideal at low speeds, allowing precise control. Its an easier aircraft to be flown to the limits, and more forgiving to errors in the air.

Aaron_GT
06-27-2008, 06:54 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Sharing the same project number is quite an coincidence, and I would say, if they share the same project number, they might as well share the same nickname, </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It doesn't really follow. The Spitfire received a number of different type designations, but in the intial stages it was not unusual for a project to change a lot yet retain the same type number. Or you can go to DH where several totally different aircraft (single engined jets, and twin engined props) shared the same type designation at various points. You can't read too much into the type designation.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">strictly coincidentally of course. If you look at the early Type 300 is pretty obvious that the only thing that really changed were the wing plan form, in an effort to compensate for the larger, heavier engine than the Goshawk originally meant for Type 300. Wing area, general layout, equipment stayed the same. Then they begun to add things - radiator ducting instead of evaporate cooling, four additional MGs that were required, 2-pitch propeller, variable pitch propeller etc. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

So the only thing that changed was the wing, apart from the other things http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">What happened to the Type 300 project was pretty similar to that of the life course of P.1034. Both were organically founded on previous projects, and the designs evolved as requirements to fit larger engines, and more weapons arose. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Indeed, which is why I think the sensible starting points for weight comparison is not the original Type 300, but the somewhat different Spitfire as produced, and I think that the early 109s are also probably not a good starting point for comparisons either as it was an immature design at that point. If you start with the 109B then I think it is fair to look at the projections for the original Type 300, but otherwise you need to start the comparisons with the Spitfire I and maybe the 109D or maybe 109E to get things on a fair footing.

Yes, it is true that the weight did increase a lot from the 109B, it's just that I don't think the 109B was really a war-ready design.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Goshawk Spitfire handled </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well since the Goshawk Type 300 (It's not a Spitfire, if it is you may as well call the Spiteful, Seafire and Seafang Spitfires too) never flew it would be hard to tell.

Aaron_GT
06-27-2008, 06:56 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The 109 series pitch control OTOH is usually described as ideal at low speeds, allowing precise control. Its an easier aircraft to be flown to the limits, and more forgiving to errors in the air. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

But wasn't it also rather heavy at high speeds (I know you dispute this, but others attest to it being the case). So perhaps the issue is more the flight regime for which the controls were harmonised. In any case the sensitivity of the Spitfire elevator at low speeds was changed somewhat.

Aaron_GT
06-27-2008, 07:03 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Maybe we should use the Bf108 as the starting point since the design of the Spitfire as finally produced is not being used as a starting point? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I did consider saying that myself http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Kurfurst__
06-27-2008, 07:10 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The 109 series pitch control OTOH is usually described as ideal at low speeds, allowing precise control. Its an easier aircraft to be flown to the limits, and more forgiving to errors in the air. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

But wasn't it also rather heavy at high speeds (I know you dispute this, but others attest to it being the case). So perhaps the issue is more the flight regime for which the controls were harmonised. In any case the sensitivity of the Spitfire elevator at low speeds was changed somewhat. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It was certainly on the heavy side, which OTOH was not necessarily a bad thing. And you are correct, it is pretty much a choice by the designer. Messerschmitt opted for controls that offered precise handling at low speeds and also prevented the pilot from pulling excessive Gs at high speeds, though it enabled the pilot to pull as much as he and the airframe could stand, this come at the expense of more physical work required at high speed pull-outs and manoeuvring; Supermarine opted for pitch control characteristics which offered physically effortless control in pitch, but the pilot could easily 'over steer' and overload the airframe in manoeuvres.

Kurfurst__
06-27-2008, 07:14 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
What happened to the Type 300 project was pretty similar to that of the life course of P.1034. Both were organically founded on previous projects, and the designs evolved as requirements to fit larger engines, and more weapons arose. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Indeed, which is why I think the sensible starting points for weight comparison is not the original Type 300, but the somewhat different Spitfire as produced, and I think that the early 109s are also probably not a good starting point for comparisons either as it was an immature design at that point. If you start with the 109B then I think it is fair to look at the projections for the original Type 300, but otherwise you need to start the comparisons with the Spitfire I and maybe the 109D or maybe 109E to get things on a fair footing.

Yes, it is true that the weight did increase a lot from the 109B, it's just that I don't think the 109B was really a war-ready design.[/QUOTE]

That is pretty much my line of thinking as well. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

BOA_Allmenroder
06-27-2008, 08:11 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Richardsen:

Charlie Brown has flown DB powered 109's
Last year at FL I spoked with Charlie about 109's. It was not an easy plane to fly, It took time to get confident with the handling.
He spoked very highly about how fast the 109 accelerated at high speed and he felt it had a bit better ailron control than the spitfire.

But when it came to turning, there was not really a question! The spitfire would turn circles around any 109 he had flown. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is how the Royal Aircraft Establishment saw it in September 1940:

http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e133/Kurfurst/RAE_Spit109_stall_turn-2.jpg

When you add how the controls were laid out, it all makes sense. The Spitfire has an utterly sensitive pitch control, which needs to be operated with light fingertips. Its a longitudally unstable aircraft.

The 109 series pitch control OTOH is usually described as ideal at low speeds, allowing precise control. Its an easier aircraft to be flown to the limits, and more forgiving to errors in the air. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well a complete reading of the quote would note the first sentence which would seem to indicate that it was not a control layout problem as much as an experience/confidence problem.

Daiichidoku
06-27-2008, 08:29 AM
important to metion that monplanes were not a new idea, everyone knew they could go faster (and not too much else) but most governments were reluctant to equip AF's with them, as biplanes were known to be "stronger", and like today, "cutting edge" tech (particualrly in peacetime) is a risk most will not take to commit to, there were serious concerns about the physiological effects of high speed flight and manuvers on pilots, then largely unknown, particularly in a military context

until the appearance of serial production and service of the I-16 in the "backwater" USSR

after that, NO resisting the path of progress...



also interesting to note that most gov.'s were going full swing into "modern", monoplane bombers with enclosed power turrets, internal payloads, etc (martin B10, HP hampen, BB side/overstrand(ok a bipe), etc)while keeping a tighter rein on fighter development in this area

not surprising, given Douhet's concepts that dominated late 30's war planners, and purse strings tighter than a rat's sna tch

Aaron_GT
06-27-2008, 08:47 AM
A quick note on the 109B and it's suitability for combat.

As I understand it the intention for the 109 was to have the DB engine with a Motorkannone (as was the vogue of the period). The Motorkannone was not an option with the Jumo engine, so the 109B with just two MG17s was short a 20mm cannon on what was planned. Fitting guns in the wings was a problem as the wing had not been designed with this in mind, hence it needed strengthening to fit even one MG17 in each. So the 109B with just two MG17s was well short of what was intended, even the Dora wasn't all there. But it was built (in fairly reasonable numbers) nonetheless as a way of trying it out.

You could argue that in terms of engine and armament the first version that met the intended design was the -F1, but really it for it to be as originally intended it would be an E airframe with F1 armament.

So the design weight would have taken into account the DB engine, plus a 20mm cannon over and above the -B weight. There was always weight creep (radios, more armour, etc) on top. A number of those things had been added between B and D in the light of Spanish experiences, although more got added over time, of course.

Sorry to agree with Kurfurst, as I much prefer the Spitfire, but to some extent he's right on the weight issue. The turn radii look remarkably small, though, and when comparing RAF to LW radii it's best to also look at testing criteria, and to look at RAF testing of 109 turn radii too.

Aaron_GT
06-27-2008, 08:52 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">after that, NO resisting the path of progress... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The issue was, I'd contend, more the metal skinned and monocoque construction and undercarriage rather than the monoplane status, plus the general economic climate of the period.

For example Germany and Britain operated monoplane fighters during WW1, and the Junkers was even metal skinned.

The Supermarine 224 unbraced monoplane was to F.7/30 of 1930, with metal construction, but fixed undercarriage. It took a while to make the changeover, though, with even the Hurricane being a transitional design in terms of using the same construction techniques initially as the Fury.

Kettenhunde
06-27-2008, 10:22 AM
The Bf-109 series experienced a major redesign that included an airfoil change. The airfoil defines the aerodynamic properties of the aircraft. The Bf-109B thru Bf-109E is completely different designs from the Bf-109F thru Bf-109K.

The Bf-109B thru Bf-109E used the NACA 2R1 14.2 root and NACA 2R1 11 tip.

The Bf-109 F thru Bf-109K series retained the NACA 2R1 14.2 root but with a completely different airfoil for the tip using the NACA 2R1 11.35.

The Spitfire series from the Spitfire Mk 1 all the way thru the Spitfire Mk XIV used the exact same airfoil throughout its design lifecycle.

All the Spitfire series use the NACA 2213 root and NACA 2209.4 tip.

All the best,

Crumpp

JSG72
06-27-2008, 03:42 PM
Good Lord. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/sadeyes.gif

Did this thread start in the 1940's?

So. How much have we learnt?

Mr_Zooly
06-27-2008, 04:15 PM
Am I drunk or is the merry go round still turning?

Skoshi Tiger
06-27-2008, 06:57 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
Sharing the same project number is quite an coincidence, and I would say, if they share the same project number, they might as well share the same nickname, strictly coincidentally of course. If you look at the early Type 300 is pretty obvious that the only thing that really changed were the wing plan form, in an effort to compensate for the larger, heavier engine than the Goshawk originally meant for Type 300. Wing area, general layout, equipment stayed the same. Then they begun to add things - radiator ducting instead of evaporate cooling, four additional MGs that were required, 2-pitch propeller, variable pitch propeller etc.

Otherwise you`d have to wonder why it was called Spitfire, and not *αλλάς Ἀθήνη, bursting forth from Mitchell`s his forehead fully armed with 8 Brownings etc. To me it appears the only ones who would actually like this tale to be true, that their bird was not only perfect, it also born perfect, without any need to evolve.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Just a quote from my favouriate spitfire book.

"Undeterred, Mitchell imediately set about improviving the 224 and several designs evolved under the general heading of type 300, the number eventually bestowed upon the Spitfire as it finally emerged.

"the first revision involved lopping six feet off the 224's wing span and fitting a retractable undercarriage and an enclosed cockpit. The Goshawk engine was retained and despite a projected top speed of nearly 270mph, the Air Ministry was still unimpressed and it was back to the drawing board"

This implys thatit was still work on paper and the the aircraft was not actually built.

The design when through a number of other changes, a straight tapered wing, PV.12 (developed into the merlin) engine. This 'type 300 was accepted and money granted to make a prototype.

The design then evolved gaining the elliptical wings and it's 8 Browning MG's.

Mitchell didn't name the 'Spitfire' that was given to it by others (The name had been used for a completely different prototype before) and apparently his was fairly unimpressed with it.

Xiolablu3
06-30-2008, 09:33 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by blakduk:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kurfurst__:


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Also modern warbird pilots like Mark Hanna, the first thing he mentions after saying 'Its a good airplane' is its awful landing characteristics. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I dont think Mark Hanna ever flew a Bf 109 in his life.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Wasn't Mark Hanna killed in a Buchon (the Spanish built, Merlin powered Bf109) in 1999? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Correct. And that thing isn't a 109... opinions of pilots who both flew the Buchon and the early 109G can be found on this board. It has been posted innumerably - without little effect on some mindsets or so it would appear, which continue to use descriptions of the Buchon to describe the 109G. Thing is, even proper 109Gs flown nowadays by people like Southwood and others lack the features of later 109s - the large tires, more vertical tire aligment, the tall tail unit, for example. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>



Mark Hanna has certainly flown a Bf109 powered by an original BF109 DB engine...He flew it for 2 years with a DB engine....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5svK5Xs76R4&feature=related

He made 4 forced landing in only 40 hours of flying, before they decided to put a Merlin back on because the DB engine was so terribly unreliable, being built near the end of the war.


Just a useful note - A real historian must give the same standard of research and burdon of proof to both sides, that is not to demand absolute documentary proof to the Allies, but accept German/Nazi comment without question. This was a big feature of David Irving, the ruined British Nazi and German Historian, who exorcised very bad 'double standards' and was exposed as a very bad historian through his career.