I've read it was the toe angle of the landing gear that caused the trouble not it's width?.
Griffon Spitfire was better than any Bf109?
- Thread starter ROK-BIRDMAN
- Start date
-
- Tags
- bf109 spitfire spitfire fr xiv
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
The Spitfire was allowed to ''grow'' as long as it's growth didn't include increasing its fuel capacity, that was a big no no.
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
Camber, not Toe.
The Bf109 had Negative Camber, but not much more than a Spitfire.
The F4F had positive Camber with the gear extended, Negative Camber at landing and Zero Camber at rest (parked/taxiing).
I knew it was something like that.
The attempt to enhance the 109 also fell foul of engine availability as it was to have the DB603A but supplies were not forthcoming so the Jumo 213 was used.
Overall it didn't impress.
Weights overall are interesting as well.
109G empty weight 4954lbs. 209 empty weight 7361 lbs - an increase in speed with no improvement in handling (the 603A engine would have been about 220lbs lighter).
Spitfire IX empty weight 5610 lbs. Spitfire XIV empty weight 6578 lbs - increase in speed and improvements in handling.
The main difference between the two aircraft is origins with the 109 coming from a plane specifically designed for speed records whereas the Spitfire came about as a
purpose built fighter.
Shortround6
Major General
Did you mean 209??
The 209 fighter only has the numbers in common with 209 speed record plane. Well, aside from having one engine, one crewman and being a monoplane
The 209 fighter was supposed to be a modified 109 and use quite a number of 109 parts to make switching over easy. In end the number of common parts decreased to such a small number that it didn't make much difference.
With all the numbers Messerschmitt had available you would think they wouldn't need to use the same one twice.
I meant the 109 came about from the speed record planes (original 209) and ME209 was supposed to be the next step from the BF/ME 109.
Sorry for any confusion.
I meant the 109 came about from the speed record planes (original 209) and ME209 was supposed to be the next step from the BF/ME 109.
Sorry for any confusion.
Shortround6
Major General
The confusion is multiplied.
There were some 109 speed record planes, the first ones with DB 601 engines instead of Jumo 210s at the July 23-Aug 1 1937 Zurich Air meeting.
Five 109s attended the meet. Three with Jumo 210s and 109V14 with a 1565hp DB 601 racing engine serial no 161 and 109V13 with 1658hp DB 601 racing engine serial no 160
Udet crashed the V14 due to a broken fuel line.
The V13 was returned to Augsburg and modified and set the worlds speed record at 610.950kph on Nov 11th 1937
The plane was furthered modified but despite eight more attempts lasting until Jan19 1938 they failed to raise the record.
The Germans, as usual for the time, confused things by claiming the plane was the Bf 113 R and the engine was a DB 600 producing 960hp instead of the 1660hp DB 601 No 160 running on a special fuel blend. of at least 50% pure octane.
The Record 209 first flew in Aug 1938.
The V4 (and the V3?) were attempts to turn it into a fighter by adding an actual radiator and making the wing bigger.
The later 209 (V5) shared nothing with the early 209.
GregP
Major
The 109 didn't fall afoul of engine availability. They elected not to use it. There were issues with it, especially early-on.
The origins from which a fighter came do not constitute any technical difference between them other than origin. The Bf 109 was designed as a fighter from the outset. Some of the design features came from the Bf 108 Taifun, and the Bf 108 ws not designed for speed records. It was a 4-place civil aircraft designed for transport. For its power, it performed well.
The speed record aircraft was the Me 209, which was designed well after the Bf 109 was flying in combat. It held the world speed record (469 mph) from 26 Apr 1939 to 16 Aug 1969, when it was broken by Darryl Greenamyer in an F8F Bearcat (483 mph). Another Bearcat, Rare Bear, flown by Lyle Shelton also set the world time-to-climb record of 91.9 seconds from zero altitude to 10,000 feet (actually 3,000 m) above ground. That record has now been retired.
Last edited:
Either way the 109's heritage is from Messerscmitt's obsession with speed, lightness and drag reduction. This flowed through to his designs and was a cause of
instability in those designs with the ME210 being the prime example.
The 109 suffered due to this in it's design process which meant it wasn't able to be upgraded to a level of parity with it's contemporaries later in the war.
instability in those designs with the ME210 being the prime example.
The 109 suffered due to this in it's design process which meant it wasn't able to be upgraded to a level of parity with it's contemporaries later in the war.
GregP
Major
An obsession was the cause of instability? You really need to read an aerodynamics text.
The Bf 109 was not unstable in roll, pitch, or yaw. Directional instability is easily cured with tail volume, but since the Bf 109 wasn't unstable, it didn't need any cure. What it needed was a rudder trim tab, which it never got. It also need some attention to the main landing gear. But, changing that would entail a complete redesign of the aircraft, and that is tough when there is a war on and you are getting bombed.
If you add power to a fighter design, it usually decreases stability, which is usually cured by the addition of vertical tail surface (tail volume). The P-51 and P-47 got dorsal fins to compensate and they worked. Post-war, the F-100 had the tail area increased by 27% before it stopped being dangerous. The Ta 152 had a 1-foot length added to move the fin and rudder farther aft to compensate. The Bf 109 never needed such compensation, but could seriously have used a rudder trim tab. It's one of 2 or 3 basic faults that would have seriously changed the aircraft for the better if addressed. (rudder trim, main landing gear, and windscreen/ canopy)
Messerschmitt produced some 25 - 30 WWII designs, only one of which suffered from directional stability. That was the Me 210. The very similar Me 410 wasn't unstable. Making a sweeping statement that Messerschmitt was obsessed with speed and so produced unstable designs is disingenuous and incorrect. But, that's OK. The Allies still won the war.
Cheers.
The Bf 109 was not unstable in roll, pitch, or yaw. Directional instability is easily cured with tail volume, but since the Bf 109 wasn't unstable, it didn't need any cure. What it needed was a rudder trim tab, which it never got. It also need some attention to the main landing gear. But, changing that would entail a complete redesign of the aircraft, and that is tough when there is a war on and you are getting bombed.
If you add power to a fighter design, it usually decreases stability, which is usually cured by the addition of vertical tail surface (tail volume). The P-51 and P-47 got dorsal fins to compensate and they worked. Post-war, the F-100 had the tail area increased by 27% before it stopped being dangerous. The Ta 152 had a 1-foot length added to move the fin and rudder farther aft to compensate. The Bf 109 never needed such compensation, but could seriously have used a rudder trim tab. It's one of 2 or 3 basic faults that would have seriously changed the aircraft for the better if addressed. (rudder trim, main landing gear, and windscreen/ canopy)
Messerschmitt produced some 25 - 30 WWII designs, only one of which suffered from directional stability. That was the Me 210. The very similar Me 410 wasn't unstable. Making a sweeping statement that Messerschmitt was obsessed with speed and so produced unstable designs is disingenuous and incorrect. But, that's OK. The Allies still won the war.
Cheers.
Again the 109 was not able to keep up with other aircraft which were successfully upgraded due to it's original design. Willi Messerschmitt was at odds with
people he worked with over the factors I have already mentioned and was even warned about these during the ME210 design phase. He did not grasp the
changing requirements for aircraft over time and did not keep up. The 109 was a brilliant aircraft in it's own way but still had foibles.
Yes it was a stable plane and I didn't say it was one that wasn't but when changing power plants, adding armour and firepower, it was difficult given the base design.
The Spitfire design and some US designs proved to be better as they could take these upgrades and increase performance.
people he worked with over the factors I have already mentioned and was even warned about these during the ME210 design phase. He did not grasp the
changing requirements for aircraft over time and did not keep up. The 109 was a brilliant aircraft in it's own way but still had foibles.
Yes it was a stable plane and I didn't say it was one that wasn't but when changing power plants, adding armour and firepower, it was difficult given the base design.
The Spitfire design and some US designs proved to be better as they could take these upgrades and increase performance.
GregP
Major
The Bf 109 ws VERY adaptable and "kept up" quite well. In the end, it wasn't quite as good as the Spitfire, but nothing else was, either. But the actual performance of the Bf 109K was pretty darned good, including a faster top speed than any operational WWII Spitfire. Climb wasn't far off from Spitfires, either ... it wasn't as good, but wasn't too far off.
It seems like you are faulting Messerschmitt for not being as good as the Spitfire, but his design WAS robust and was adaptable. It was formidable until the end of the war, if not quite as good as the late-model Spitfires. Saying Willy Mersserschmitt didn't grasp changing requirements sort of flies in the face of the fact that his firm produced the first deployed jet and rocket fighters. The Me 262 set the stage for decades of fighters to come and the Me 163 was WAY ahead of its time.
It seems like maybe you just don't like Messeschmitt, and that's OK. There were others who didn't like him, either. Nevertheless, he produced more German warplanes in WWII than any other Geerman manufacturer.
It seems like you are faulting Messerschmitt for not being as good as the Spitfire, but his design WAS robust and was adaptable. It was formidable until the end of the war, if not quite as good as the late-model Spitfires. Saying Willy Mersserschmitt didn't grasp changing requirements sort of flies in the face of the fact that his firm produced the first deployed jet and rocket fighters. The Me 262 set the stage for decades of fighters to come and the Me 163 was WAY ahead of its time.
It seems like maybe you just don't like Messeschmitt, and that's OK. There were others who didn't like him, either. Nevertheless, he produced more German warplanes in WWII than any other Geerman manufacturer.
Last edited:
It's not that I don't like him, in fact I never met him so I am ambivalent.
What it comes down to is the Spitfire in my opinion was the better overall design over time.
Having said that the FW190 was a better all round fighter in the context of WWII just not when it came to a dogfight with a MK XIV.
What it comes down to is the Spitfire in my opinion was the better overall design over time.
Having said that the FW190 was a better all round fighter in the context of WWII just not when it came to a dogfight with a MK XIV.
The 109K required 1.98ata/C3 fuel to out perform the Spitfire. There was only a few such operational and that was for the last few weeks of war in Europe. Even then it is questionable if C3 fuel was available as the Fw190 required this fuel.
GregP
Major
The Spitfire WAS a better overall design. Not a great deal better, but better.
I don't think the Fw 190 was better all round. Whether it was or was not is generally unimportant; it was a very good fighter in any case, and acquitted itself well in a losing cause.
I don't think the Fw 190 was better all round. Whether it was or was not is generally unimportant; it was a very good fighter in any case, and acquitted itself well in a losing cause.
Last edited:
Deleted member 68059
Staff Sergeant
- 1,058
- Dec 28, 2015
Hmmmm........ bit more balanced that that, I would say. Very much depends on intended altitude of operations
Incorrect.
Brown wasn't seconded to testing captured Axis aircraft because he was 'the' outstanding pilot, his main skill was he spoke fluent German and was able to read through reams of captured and obtained technical documentation. If he wasn't able to speak German like a native, he'd never have ended up as a test pilot.
Glider
Captain
I think you are being more than a little harsh on Eric Brown. My understanding is that he was a test pilot first on carrier landings and the integration of new types into service on carriers. Then he was transferred to testing captured German and Italian aircraft. Then he went back to testing carrier aircraft for carrier landings and finally concentrated on testing more captured aircraft and the introduction of American aircraft and the 8th airforce.
My main points being
a) He was testing aircraft before he got involved in the experimental flying of German Aircraft
b) Anyone of any nation, who is involved in the introduction of new types into service on carriers, is by any standard, an exceptional pilot.
c) Being fluent in German no doubt helped him in the role he later had, but it was far from being the only reason
