I've read it was the toe angle of the landing gear that caused the trouble not it's width?.
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
I've read it was the toe angle of the landing gear that caused the trouble not it's width?.To touch on the Bf109's legacy of "narrow landing gear" and such - the Bf109 had a tail-wheel lock that helped prevent ground loops.
It's main gear track was no narrower than the Spitfire or F4F's.
A small airframe and narrow gear combined with a high-torque engine will wreak havoc on any inexperienced pilot, regardless of what they're flying.
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.It sure seems like the Spitfire had more room to "grow".
Camber, not Toe.I've read it was the toe angle of the landing gear that caused the trouble not it's width?.
I knew it was something like that.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).
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.That's funny since the Merlin is a 37L engine of some 744 kg dry weight. The Griffon was 36.7 L and 900 kg.
The Bf 109's DB 601 engine was 33.9L and 600kg while the DB 605 was 35.7L and 756 kg. The Bf 109 could at least take the weight of a Merlin, since it did.
The DB 603 was 44.52L and 920 kg. It didn't go into the Bf 109, but was used in the Me 410.
Did you mean 209??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.
The confusion is multiplied.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.
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.
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.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.
The 109 deserves it's place in history as it remained close to the top for the entire war. Having said that it was close by late 1944 but other aircraft had surpassed
it. One notable overtake was the other aircraft which had been in competition for the whole war as well - the Spitfire.
Specifically the Griffon powered Mk XIV. Galland said the only good thing about the MK XIV was that there weren't too many of them.
MK XIV's were used in ground attack at the late war stage and would release their drop tanks to take on 190's but pilots didn't need to when
taking on 109's. "
The 109 doesn't seem to have had enough airframe size and strength ? to allow significant upgrades as the Spitfire and 190 did. Not sure if that is
right but I have read it and various reasons for it quite a few times.
Hmmmm....
"Eric Brown was a great test pilot but test and real combat was different"
I think anyone who really knows what they're talking about would check a few things before making statements like that (if they didn't know already).
He was *the most* decorated Fleet Air Arm pilot ever. The RN aren't in the habit of handing out gongs to back-room theoreticians.
He won his DFC for shooting down 2 FW200 Condors. He went on to shoot down a number of other fighters and bombers during his combat service
He also flew combat missions with the Canadian air-force, escorting B17s, as well as missions against V1s
Much of his wartime test pilot career was used *precisely* to assess aircraft for their potential operational combat strengths and weaknesses drawing upon his extensive service combat experience.
His opinion surely counts 100% more than any armchair forum 'expert', unless they can claim to rival either his detailed technical knowledge of the aircraft in question (from having actually flown them in the real world), or his extensive combat experience...?
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.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.