# Biggest speed increase within type?



## Jerry W. Loper (Dec 7, 2007)

The Messerschmitt Bf-109H-1 high altitude fighter had a speed of 466 m.p.h., or 1.664 times the speed of the prototype Bf-109, which had an estimated speed of 280 m.p.h. Are there any other WW2 aircraft with comparable or bigger speed increases?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 7, 2007)

I would guess the Spit is close but the -109 I think holds this "record."


----------



## Soundbreaker Welch? (Dec 8, 2007)

That's a lot. Was it better engines?


----------



## AVRoe (Dec 13, 2007)

The Fw 190(Butcher Bird)


----------



## SoD Stitch (Dec 13, 2007)

FLYBOYJ said:


> I would guess the Spit is close but the -109 I think holds this "record."



Actually, I researched it a bit and, no, the Spit wasn't even close; even with a Griffon engine installed as in the later marks, it barely had a speed increase of 100 mph (300+ vs. almost 400 for the Mk XII).


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 14, 2007)

AVRoe said:


> The Fw 190(Butcher Bird)



Nope does not come close to the Bf 109.

The prototype Fw 190 had a max speed of aprox 380 mph and the Fw 109D had a top speed of aprox 440 mph. That is a difference of about 60 mph.


----------



## Denniss (Dec 14, 2007)

Has anyone mentioned the Me 262 yet ?

First flight was with a 700 PS piston engine with an unknown speed, may have been around 400-450 km/h at max. Serial production machines have been reported at about 850 km/h.


----------



## magnocain (Dec 14, 2007)

Not the f4u, as it was really fast to begin with.

that 109 sounds right.


----------



## marshall (Dec 16, 2007)

SoD Stitch said:


> Actually, I researched it a bit and, no, the Spit wasn't even close; even with a Griffon engine installed as in the later marks, it barely had a speed increase of 100 mph (300+ vs. almost 400 for the Mk XII).



What about later Spitfires, Mk 21 about 450mph?


----------



## Hobilar (Dec 16, 2007)

Saab 21A with 1,475 hp Swedish built Daimler-Benz DB 605B...398 mph at optimum altitude.

Saab 21R with 3,307-lb thrust Swedish built De Havilland Goblin-3 turbojet...497 mph at 25,245 ft.


----------



## Glider (Dec 16, 2007)

If you are talking about difference in speed of in service models then I am sure the 109 has the prize.
If your talking about prototypes to production increase then my money is on the SAAB Draken. The prototype didn't have an afterburning engine, production ones did. No idea what the difference was, but its going to be many hundreds of miles an hour.


----------



## Elvis (Dec 16, 2007)

Jerry W. Loper said:


> The Messerschmitt Bf-109H-1 high altitude fighter had a speed of 466 m.p.h., or 1.664 times the speed of the prototype Bf-109, which had an estimated speed of 280 m.p.h. Are there any other WW2 aircraft with comparable or bigger speed increases?


The way I understand it, the 109 is simply a 108 with the fuselage narrowed and the cockpit rearranged for single pilot seating only, and that big ol' V-12 stuffed under the hood.
So if you look at the 108 as the parent airframe, the difference in speed now increases to 280 MPH, making the "...H-1" varient of the 109 just a tick over 2.5 times faster than the parent BF-108 airframe.

I know of no other aircraft made around that time that would have encountered anything close to that.



Elvis


----------



## AL Schlageter (Dec 18, 2007)

marshall said:


> What about later Spitfires, Mk 21 about 450mph?


How about the Spiteful, 483mph.


----------



## davparlr (Dec 19, 2007)

AL Schlageter said:


> How about the Spiteful, 483mph.



Not good enough. The spitfire prototype flew at 335 mph (before prop modifications). That makes this ratio 1.44, below the Bf-109. The hp increase of the Bf-109 was large, starting out around 800 hp going up to 1800 hp+(?). It is a tribute to both the Bf-109 and spitfire design that they could upgrade to such high performance levels (although with considerable modifications).


----------



## Marshall_Stack (Dec 19, 2007)

How about the ME323? From Glider to Transport?


----------



## bigZ (Dec 21, 2007)

Me 163 from glider prototype to rocket?


----------



## Colin1 (Oct 29, 2010)

Just noticed someone reading this
This type of competition is going to favour a pre-war aircraft that managed to see it through to the end of the war. When the P-51, F4U, Tempest et al entered the fray they were already fast, this coupled with the fact that any further development would quickly bang up against the limits of what was possible using a piston engine, they had a smaller margin to improve performance in.

I think it is worth noting that the Spitfire, though it kept its name throughout its development life, wasn't anything like the same aircraft under the skin at the end of its run that it started out as, though the subsequent marks were clearly descended from the previous model. 

Hawkers on the other hand, though the Typhoon was just as clearly descended from the Hurricane, had the decency to call it something else; from the Typhoon sprang the Tempest and then the Fury. 

In my own opinion, I'd say the development from Hurricane to Tempest should get a look-in.


----------



## Shortround6 (Oct 29, 2010)

I am not sure why the Spitfire gets such a bad rap for evolving the way it did. 
Granted a MK I and MK 21 have little in common but until the MK 21 there is a lot more in common that some people give credit for. 

Try taking a 109 "C" airframe and turning it into a "K" and see how far you get.

P-47 "N" gets a whole new wing and nobody says "BOO" .

As far as the Hawker series goes, the Sea Hawk jet has a vertical fin and rudder with a strong Hawker family resemblance but I don't think anybody is going to claim it is really related to the Hurricane


----------



## drgondog (Oct 29, 2010)

Shortround6 said:


> I am not sure why the Spitfire gets such a bad rap for evolving the way it did.
> Granted a MK I and MK 21 have little in common but until the MK 21 there is a lot more in common that some people give credit for.
> 
> Try taking a 109 "C" airframe and turning it into a "K" and see how far you get.
> ...



And the P-51H is a complete re-design with essentially only a handful of common parts.


----------



## Colin1 (Oct 29, 2010)

Shortround6 said:


> I am not sure why the Spitfire gets such a bad rap for evolving the way it did.
> 
> Try taking a 109 "C" airframe and turning it into a "K" and see how far you get.
> 
> ...


Who said anything about a bad rap?

Does that not reinforce my point somewhat?

Feel free to discuss the P-47, I'm listening

If my memory serves me, the OP did stipulate 'any other WW2 aircraft'


----------



## tail end charlie (Oct 29, 2010)

It must be the wright flyers, although I think each one was a prototype


----------



## zoomar (Oct 29, 2010)

I can't imagine anything beating the Bf-109. It's a conceptual stretch, but if one considered the P-40 basically a re-engined P-36, there's a good difference between early P-36s and the final P-40Q. Similarly, one could consider the Ta-152 simply a redesignated Fw-190D. Even with cheats like this the Bf-109 still takes the cake.


----------



## Colin1 (Oct 29, 2010)

zoomar said:


> I can't imagine anything beating the Bf-109.
> 
> It's a conceptual stretch, but if one considered the P-40 basically a re-engined P-36, there's a good difference between early P-36s and the final P-40Q. Similarly, one could consider the Ta-152 simply a redesignated Fw-190D. Even with cheats like this the Bf-109 still takes the cake.


You'd be right

It IS a conceptual sketch, if only because the P-40Q never became anything more than the XP-40Q


----------



## Shortround6 (Oct 29, 2010)

Colin1 said:


> Who said anything about a bad rap?



Colin 1: "I think it is worth noting that the Spitfire, though it kept its name throughout its development life, wasn't anything like the same aircraft under the skin at the end of its run that it started out as, though the subsequent marks were clearly descended from the previous model."

While you did not give it a bad rap other people have but as I noted it is only from the MK 21 on that it really changed and even then not that much different than some other planes that kept their names. 

I don't really see the Typhoon and Tempest as developments of the Hurricane airframe. Different methods of construction, a bit different plane-form to the wing, slightly gulled on the Typhoon, radically different on the Tempest. 



Colin1 said:


> Feel free to discuss the P-47, I'm listening



Maybe the P-47 can be seen as a "development" of the P-35 and so be in this contest

from the 310mph P-35 to the 500mph (prototype P-47J) comes close to the 109s record but I am not serious about it. 

No other piston fighter almost tripled it's power. From the under 700hp Kestrel and Jumo 210s used on the first prototypes to the over 1800hp engine used on the final versions, I think the 109 keeps the crown


----------



## NZTyphoon (Oct 29, 2010)

First, a look at the original question:


Jerry W. Loper said:


> The Messerschmitt Bf-109H-1 high altitude fighter had a speed of 466 m.p.h., or 1.664 times the speed of the prototype Bf-109, which had an estimated speed of 280 m.p.h. Are there any other WW2 aircraft with comparable or bigger speed increases?



That top speed of 466 mph is dubious, for a start: according to (admittedly an old source) _Augsburg Eagle_ the Bf 109 H-1 was a variant of the Bf 109G-5 with GM 1 with a 43' 6" wingspan. When several of these were flown by "an experimental service evaluation unit" they experienced wing flutter at anything over 455 mph in a dive.
Q: How is it possible for an aircraft with a bigger wing, weighing some 750 kg more, with wider, strut braced tailplanes, manage to fly about 60mph faster than the aircraft on which it was based, using the same engine?

Q: If the H-1s experienced wing flutter in a dive at 455 mph, how could they reach 466 mph in level flight?

The only version of the H which approached 466 mph was the experimental V-55 with a DB605 AS which reached 427 mph. Production versions were intended to use the Jumo 213E.

The fastest production Bf 109 was the K-4 (452 mph) - this was 1.615 times faster than the Bf 109B-1; according to Augsburg Eagle the V-1 reached 290 mph - the R-R Kestrel was rated at 695 hp v the Jumo 210D of the B-1 at 680 hp.

Still means the Bf 109 series had the biggest speed spread of WW 2 piston engine aircraft.


----------



## tail end charlie (Oct 29, 2010)

Shortround6 said:


> No other piston fighter almost tripled it's power. From the under 700hp Kestrel and Jumo 210s used on the first prototypes to the over 1800hp engine used on the final versions, I think the 109 keeps the crown



The kestrel was put in a 109 airframe for the same reason as a 262 had a propellor to test the airframe (in the 262 case it also added insurance), the 109 was quite clearly not designed to use a British engine.


----------



## Colin1 (Oct 29, 2010)

NZTyphoon said:


> ...the R-R Kestrel was rated at 295 hp v the Jumo 210D of the B-1 at 280 hp.


eh? what?
am I misunderstanding something here?


----------



## NZTyphoon (Oct 29, 2010)

tail end charlie said:


> The kestrel was put in a 109 airframe for the same reason as a 262 had a propellor to test the airframe (in the 262 case it also added insurance), the 109 was quite clearly not designed to use a British engine.



Irrelevant because the first production 109s, the B-series had Jumo 210Da engines with a similar power rating to the Kestrel, albeit with improved rated altitudes - the next major improvement in 109 performance came with the experimental DB 600 powered Vs and the DB 601 powered Es.


----------



## NZTyphoon (Oct 29, 2010)

Colin1 said:


> eh? what?
> am I misunderstanding something here?



 Sorry, finger trouble, since edited.


----------



## Colin1 (Oct 29, 2010)

NZTyphoon said:


> Sorry, finger trouble, since edited.


We've all been there..


----------



## tail end charlie (Oct 29, 2010)

NZTyphoon said:


> Irrelevant because the first production 109s, the B-series had Jumo 210Da engines with a similar power rating to the Kestrel, albeit with improved rated altitudes - the next major improvement in 109 performance came with the experimental DB 600 powered Vs and the DB 601 powered Es.



The experimental DB 600 was what the 109 was designed to take, this was the mid 30s not the second world war. The spitfire changed engines from merlin to griffon. The question about aircraft types in the second world war must surely be confined to the second worl war. If not the hawker series must have a shout from the hart to hurricane typhoon tempest fury draw the line where you will its still impressive


----------



## davebender (Oct 29, 2010)

280 mph. Ju88A1. First production version.
402 mph. Ju-88G7. Late war night fighter.

The Ju-88 probably won't beat the Me-109 but it might win the bomber prize for greatest speed increase.


----------



## Milosh (Oct 29, 2010)

davebender said:


> 280 mph. Ju88A1. First production version.
> 402 mph. Ju-88G7. Late war night fighter.
> 
> The Ju-88 probably won't beat the Me-109 but it might win the bomber prize for greatest speed increase.



Nice of you to mention an a/c that never saw service.

“History of the German Night Fighter Force 1917-1945”, page 186. Summarizing:

“…fitted with more powerful Jumo 213 engine, it also had the pointed wingtips of the Ju 188/388 series, as specifically stated in an RLM aircraft type manual. Only about 10-12 Ju 88G-7s were completed in November 1944 and none were ever delivered to an operational unit…Plans for large scale series production were shelved because the performance of this version did not show any notable improvement over that of the current Ju 88G-6 series”

In an appendix, Aders gives performance as:
Max Speed: *584 km/h* @ 9,000 m
Range: 2,220 km
Ceiling: 9,800 m.


----------



## fastmongrel (Oct 30, 2010)

The 1st production version of the Fiat G50 with an 875 hp radial had a top speed around the 290 to 300 mph range. The Fiat G56 prototype which apart from the obviously different engine (it was fitted with the DB 603) looked identical and was reckoned to be good for 440 mph. Obviously the G56 was a prototype but it nearly got into production before events overtook it.

Someone else who isnt a mathematical idiot will have to do the sums for me its too cold to take my socks off.


----------



## Colin1 (Oct 30, 2010)

Shortround6 said:


> I don't really see the Typhoon and Tempest as developments of the Hurricane airframe. Different methods of construction, a bit different plane-form to the wing, slightly gulled on the Typhoon, radically different on the Tempest


Camm got cracking 
on the Tornado/Typhoon around 4 months prior to the maiden flight of the Hurricane, I would imagine he revisited his Hurricane drawings to see what he could carry over. He probably reasoned he wasn't going to get away with canvas again. I think there's more of a lineage to the wing than you're prepared to concede.
Early Typhoons did bear a superficial resemblance to the Hurricane.

Conjecture on my part, admittedly


----------



## NZTyphoon (Oct 30, 2010)

tail end charlie said:


> The experimental DB 600 was what the 109 was designed to take, this was the mid 30s not the second world war. The spitfire changed engines from merlin to griffon. The question about aircraft types in the second world war must surely be confined to the second worl war. If not the hawker series must have a shout from the hart to hurricane typhoon tempest fury draw the line where you will its still impressive


Read the first post which started this discussion..."_The Messerschmitt Bf-109H-1 high altitude fighter had a speed of 466 m.p.h., or 1.664 times the speed of the prototype Bf-109 which had an estimated speed of 280 m.p.h..Are there any other WW2 aircraft with comparable or bigger speed increases?"_ 

As far as I can tell the Bf 109 V-1 first flew in 1935, sure with an interim engine, but one with slightly more hp than the engine which was fitted to the first production series.

"_The spitfire changed engines from merlin to griffon_". And the point is? You're forgetting the change from the single-stage to the two-stage Merlin series, which was a substantial one. The Bf 109 changed engines from the Jumo 210 to the DB 601 to the DB 605, so what's the difference between its development and that of the Spitfire?


----------



## koivis (Oct 30, 2010)

I'm surprised no one has mentioned the Dornier Do 17 family. 

Some variants:

Do 17E-1 (first production variant, two 750 PS BMW VI 7.3): 379 km/h at sea level, probably not much more at altitude
Do 215B-1 (still the same basic airframe, two 1175 PS DB 601 Ba): 506 km/h at 4500 m
Do 217M-1 (evolved version, two 1750 PS DB 603A): 557 km/h at 5700 m

While the M-1 figure might be on the high side, Eric Brown flew the aircraft at 523 km/h at 5500 m.

Last but not least, to be taken with a grain of salt, I present this:

Do 217P (HZ-Anlage, two 1750 PS DB 603Bs plus one 1475 PS DB 605T supercharging them): *785 km/h* at altitude, service ceiling over *16000 meters!*

If that data is true (which I doubt), the Do-17 has a ratio of 2.07.

Now, what do I win? 8)


----------



## Shortround6 (Oct 30, 2010)

Colin1 said:


> Camm got cracking
> on the Tornado/Typhoon around 4 months prior to the maiden flight of the Hurricane, I would imagine he revisited his Hurricane drawings to see what he could carry over. He probably reasoned he wasn't going to get away with canvas again. I think there's more of a lineage to the wing than you're prepared to concede.
> Early Typhoons did bear a superficial resemblance to the Hurricane.
> 
> Conjecture on my part, admittedly



If the Typhoon had used a tube fuselage covered in metal instead of "canvas" you might have a point. Since the Typhoon used a semi-monocoque construction (like the Spitfire) from in back of the cockpit that is one change. Hurricane used a three part wing. A center section and two outer sections. Typhoon used a two part wing, left and right that meet under the fuselage. 

See:

http://www.aviastar.org/pictures/england/hawker_hurricane.gif

and:

http://www.aviastar.org/pictures/england/hawker_typhoon.gif

Both wings are thick and both wings have the same general shape but is that enough to say that one is the direct development of the other?

At least with the Spitfire you might be able to bolt a MK XII or MK XVI wing onto a MK II or MK V fuselage. 

many design teams are influenced by what they have done before and tend to carry over certain features rather than TRY to make everything completely different. I don't think that makes a later design by the same team the same as a design that has gone through several modifications or upgrades.


----------



## Colin1 (Oct 31, 2010)

SR
all good points

I think at least some of my conjecture was on the mark:

Armed thus with information about the Air Ministry's new fighter, Camm's small team of project designers set about scheming up rough designs for aircraft with the Napier and Rolls-Royce engines in May 1937. Not unnaturally, the 'starting point' was an airframe envelope approximating to that of the Hurricane and in overall configuration the main structural features were retained, including an inward retracting, wide-track undercarriage, ventral radiator and gun arrangement in the outer wings. However, owing to the increased consumptions of the bigger engines (although specific fuel consumption remained little changed), larger fuel and oil tanks had to be accommodated, while the much greater weight of the engines resulted in shorter nose and with larger propellers anticipated the landing gear would be longer.

To limit the increase in landing gear oleos a very slightly 'cranked' wing form was adopted, the centre section possessing slight (effective) anhedral. By increasing the width of this centre section over that of the Hurricane it proved possible to further increase the undercarriage track and at the same time move the wheel bays apart, thereby permitting the large ventral radiator fairing to be mounted directly below the centre of gravity. Indeed, compared with the Hurricane, the main longitudinal moments about the CoG were somewhat shorter.

Generous flap and aileron areas were provided and these were to have been accommodated in a wing of the same span and area as those of the Hurricane had there been any firm indication of what armament would finally be demanded by the Air Ministry; as it was, Hawkers opted to design for the worst eventuality, that of a cannon armament. It was the bulky Oerlikons, then being studied by the Armaments Branch, that largely retained the thick wing which was to compromise the Typhoon's high altitude performance. _Mason_


----------



## Colin1 (Oct 31, 2010)

I've only just learned that Frank passed away on 31st August this year after a long illness.
God rest your soul Frank


----------



## zoomar (Nov 1, 2010)

fastmongrel said:


> The 1st production version of the Fiat G50 with an 875 hp radial had a top speed around the 290 to 300 mph range. The Fiat G56 prototype which apart from the obviously different engine (it was fitted with the DB 603) looked identical and was reckoned to be good for 440 mph. Obviously the G56 was a prototype but it nearly got into production before events overtook it.
> 
> Someone else who isnt a mathematical idiot will have to do the sums for me its too cold to take my socks off.



I admire your spunk, but it would be difficult to make the argument that the G50 shared much with the G55/56 series other than a common manufacturer. Not only did the engine change (no big problem), but the basic aircraft structure did (big problem) and these changes were more than what was necessary simply to mate a G50 airframe to a DB engine. 

What about the MC200 to MC205 progression? Much more than the Fiats, this might reasonably be considered the gradual development of the same basic airframe. 

Still probably doesn't equal the Bf-109, though


----------



## fastmongrel (Nov 1, 2010)

zoomar said:


> I admire your spunk, but it would be difficult to make the argument that the G50 shared much with the G55/56 series other than a common manufacturer. Not only did the engine change (no big problem), but the basic aircraft structure did (big problem) and these changes were more than what was necessary simply to mate a G50 airframe to a DB engine.
> 
> What about the MC200 to MC205 progression? Much more than the Fiats, this might reasonably be considered the gradual development of the same basic airframe.
> 
> Still probably doesn't equal the Bf-109, though



The Bf109A compared to the Bf109K has a completely different airframe, they look similar but are not the same aircraft. I cant see any difference comparing the 109 series to the Fiat G series the Supermarine Spitfire series or the NA Mustang series for example.


----------



## billswagger (Nov 2, 2010)

when did the first 109s enter service, 1935-1937?

It was a sleek design from the beginning and not much needed modification to get a bigger engine in it, however, there were parts better developed for those new high speeds and at higher altitudes. 

I doubt you'd find other aircraft that come close to those figures seeing as most of them were faster out of the gate. The war was on, and benchmarks were set when developing an aircraft. In most respects if an aircraft wasn't up to par it never saw production anyway. 

i've thought of a similar comparison of the P-35 into the P-47:
The P-35 started with a speed just over 300mph. 
The P-43 achieved a top speed of 356mph
The early P-47s exceeded 400mph, while Bs and Cs managed over 420mph. 
The P-47D managed to see gains over 430mph, and topping out above 440mph. 
The introduction of the M engine enabled many aircraft in service to exceed those speeds. The actual M prototype tested at 488mph. 
I think they sought to lower the drag profile with the J which achieved 507mph, but was later out shined by the P-72 which achieved 480 with out a turbocharger. Projections placed its top speed closer to 550mph. 
A little incite reveals the R-4360 was also installed on a half dozen P-47s at a time when R-2800 was topping out around 3200hp. 

Anyway, you take 300 from 550 and that gives about a 250 mph spread.
If you dont include the prototypes, then it ends up being closer to 200 mph. 

the spread you gave the 109 was only 186mph and i dont even know that the 109H flew beyond prototypes. 

I don't know if its a fair comparison, but you could also take the P-36 and measure its development into the P-40, in which the P-51 was born out of. I think you'd see similar speed spreads from those examples. 
P-36 early prototypes flew at 281mph. 
The fastest P-40s saw about 380mph. 
while the development of the P-51 exceeded 400mph using the same power plant. 
The P-51H saw speeds of 490mph. 
Thats a speed spread of 209mph between the three war planes. Probably not as remarkable as the spreads achieved by Messerschmidt or Seversky aircraft, but none the less, the efforts of Curtiss also contributed a lot to the late Mustang. 


I also have to question the instrumentation during the mid 1940s, particularly where the top speeds are above 450mph, and at higher altitudes. Its likely the measurements are a good 10-20mph uber, but if we are just looking at spreads, they probably all had the same level of error. 


Bill


----------



## tomo pauk (Nov 2, 2010)

Lumping together P-35 P-47, and then P-36 P-51 hardly has anything to do with this thread.


----------



## billswagger (Nov 2, 2010)

tomo pauk said:


> Lumping together P-35 P-47, and then P-36 P-51 hardly has anything to do with this thread.



oh

sorry.


Bill


----------



## Shortround6 (Nov 2, 2010)

fastmongrel said:


> The Bf109A compared to the Bf109K has a completely different airframe, they look similar but are not the same aircraft. I cant see any difference comparing the 109 series to the Fiat G series the Supermarine Spitfire series or the NA Mustang series for example.



One may be able to draw a limit on the Spitfire. While the MK 21s and up are quite different the ones below the MK 21 may be much closer. As evidence of this we have either the remanufacture of airframes into later Mks or the conversion on the production lines. Some sources claim you can tell wither a MK XII with a Griffon engine started out as a MK V or IX or as a MK VIII by the tail wheel. MK VIIIs and planes derived from the MK VIII having retractable tail wheels. 
I am not sure how much difference there is between a MK VIII and MK IX which was a MK V with the two stage Merlin stuffed in. In some cases literally, older airframes were re manufactured. 

The Mustang is not so clear cut. Some here may be able to offer a much better opinion but it looks like there were 3 different Mustangs. The Allison powered originals, the Merlin powered ones with the 7 in splice in the depth of the fuselage but many other components staying the same. And the "H" which while retaining the pretty much the same external shape and aerodynamics used a totally new structure. 

For the purpose of this discussion are we talking about planes that kept the same basic structure (changes in scoops or canopy's or wing tips not counted) or are we talking about planes that kept the same appearance or are we talking about planes from the same designer with little or nothing in common with their immediate preprocessor except the same general shape and signature on the drawings? 
In my own opinion I would rule out the last but am open to the former situations.


----------



## zoomar (Nov 2, 2010)

fastmongrel said:


> The Bf109A compared to the Bf109K has a completely different airframe, they look similar but are not the same aircraft. I cant see any difference comparing the 109 series to the Fiat G series the Supermarine Spitfire series or the NA Mustang series for example.



All aircraft undergo some structural modifications to accept higher power engines and stresses. But the basic fuselage and wings of the Bf-109 underwent only progressive (and relatively minor) changes during the development of the aircraft. The Bf-109 K shares obvious structural and appearance similarities with Bf-109B. The G55/56 shares virtually nothing with the G50 in engine , basic structure, or outward appearance. If one accepted the G series, then it would make at least as much sense to include the Seversky/Republic P-35, P-43, P-47 series, or the Curtiss P-36, P-37, P-40, P-62 series.

Problem is, even if you do include the G series, or the others, the Bf-109 still takes the cake!


----------



## tomo pauk (Nov 2, 2010)

zoomar said:


> All aircraft undergo some structural modifications to accept higher power engines and stresses. But the basic fuselage and wings of the Bf-109 underwent only progressive (and relatively minor) changes during the development of the aircraft. The Bf-109 K shares obvious structural and appearance similarities with Bf-109B. *The G55/56 shares virtually nothing with the G50* in engine , *basic structure*, or outward appearance. If one accepted the G series, then it would make at least as much sense to include the Seversky/Republic P-35, P-43, P-47 series, or the Curtiss P-36, P-37, P-40, P-62 series.



Is the statement in bold drawn out from a credible source or it's just an opinion? P-35 and P-47 are two worlds apart when we talk about basic structure engine.




> Problem is, even if you do include the G series, or the others, the Bf-109 still takes the cake!



Agreed.


----------



## fastmongrel (Nov 2, 2010)

zoomar said:


> All aircraft undergo some structural modifications to accept higher power engines and stresses. But the basic fuselage and wings of the Bf-109 underwent only progressive (and relatively minor) changes during the development of the aircraft. The Bf-109 K shares obvious structural and appearance similarities with Bf-109B. The G55/56 shares virtually nothing with the G50 in engine , basic structure, or outward appearance. If one accepted the G series, then it would make at least as much sense to include the Seversky/Republic P-35, P-43, P-47 series, or the Curtiss P-36, P-37, P-40, P-62 series.
> 
> Problem is, even if you do include the G series, or the others, the Bf-109 still takes the cake!



If we talk about a complete series of an aircrafts production yes the Bf109 takes the cake. However the Bf109B shared only a name and number with the totally different 109K. The 109K had a new wing, a different engine, different armament, different canopy, different tail and a similar looking fuselage which had a different method of construction and radically different aerodynamics. I am no expert but I imagine only standardised fittings and fastenings were the same between the 2 aircraft. 

Wikipedia briefly mentions the changes in the aircraft the A to D were the same airframe, changes were made to the E to accomodate the heavier more powerful engine and later E versions had armament changes. The F was a major change with a new wing, fuselage tail and nose. The early G versions were similar to the F but incremental changes were made in the various sub versions. The K was another major change with a new wing and fuselage.

The 109 was 3 aircraft the A to E the F to G and the K with other prototypes, this is not a criticsm of the aircraft the 10 years from 35 to 45 was an astonishing period of change in aerodynamics a 109A even if it could have been fitted with a DB603 engine would have been dead meat in 1945 whereas the late G and K series were still astonishingly deadly fighters and with enough fuel and pilots the Luftwaffe could have made things extremely nasty for the allies in 1945.

I dont know enough about the Fiat G series to make claims about similarities or differences between the versions but looking at photos the planes from the firewall back look remarkably similar. More so than for example the early and late Spitfire versions.


----------



## Jabberwocky (Nov 3, 2010)

Spitfire Prototype: 330 mph
Spitfire Mk I early: 372 mph
Spitfire Mk I 1940: 354 mph
Spitfire PR Mk XI: 426 mph (1.29 gain with Merlin engine, 96 mph gain)
Spitfire Mk XIV: 448 mph (1.36 gain with Griffon engine, 118 mph gain)
Spitfire F.21: 454 mph (1.38 gain with Griffon engine, new wing, 124 mph gain)
Spitfire F.21 prototype: 362 mph (1.4 gain with Griffon engine, new wing, 132 mph gain) 

I've also seen numerous mentions of 460 mph as the top speed for the PR Mk XIX, but have seen no primary evidence to back that up.


----------



## Milosh (Nov 3, 2010)

There is the ultimate Spitfire, the Spiteful. 483 mph at 21,000 ft


----------



## Jabberwocky (Nov 3, 2010)

Milosh said:


> There is the ultimate Spitfire, the Spiteful. 483 mph at 21,000 ft



I don't really consider the Spiteful a Spitfire.

In fact, I don't even really consider the F.21 a real Spitfire.

If you're going to argue for the Spiteful, then you could equally argue for the 590 mph capable Supermarine Attacker, as it was originally known as the 'jet Spiteful'.


----------



## Colin1 (Nov 3, 2010)

Jabberwocky said:


> I don't really consider the Spiteful a Spitfire.
> 
> In fact, I don't even really consider the F.21 a real Spitfire.
> 
> If you're going to argue for the Spiteful, then you could equally argue for the 590mph capable Supermarine Attacker, as it was originally known as the 'jet Spiteful'.


With the fuzzy boundaries 
that this thread is currently suffering, you may be wrong to; the Spiteful F.14 was no more than a laminar-flow wing attached to the fuselage of a Spitfire Mk XIV. A revised fuselage more pertinent to the Spiteful was developed later but the case in point is that the Spiteful, one step at a time, could be considered a development line of the Spitfire.

No, I don't think you could equally argue for the Attacker simply for employing the Spiteful's wing.


----------



## zoomar (Nov 4, 2010)

tomo pauk said:


> Is the statement in bold drawn out from a credible source or it's just an opinion? P-35 and P-47 are two worlds apart when we talk about basic structure engine.



I may be wrong, but I'm pretty sure the fuselage of the G50 from cockpit aft was a trussed semi-rectangular light alloy covered structure while that of the G55 was a "modern" oval stressed skin monocoque. If I'm wrong, I'll admit that there may be more underlying similarity than what met my eye. But it doesn't really matter, since we agree the Bf-109 beats it hands down anyway


----------



## zoomar (Nov 4, 2010)

tomo pauk said:


> Is the statement in bold drawn out from a credible source or it's just an opinion? P-35 and P-47 are two worlds apart when we talk about basic structure engine.



I may be wrong, but I'm pretty sure the fuselage of the G50 from cockpit aft was a trussed semi-rectangular light alloy covered structure while that of the G55 was a "modern" oval stressed skin monocoque. That's a pretty big structural difference. If I'm wrong, I'll admit that there may be more underlying similarity than what met my eye. But it doesn't really matter, since we agree the Bf-109 beats it hands down anyway


----------

