improving the 109??

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

Just a quick note regarding the 'Buchon'.
The majority of HA1112 'Buchons' surviving today, were visually modified for the BoB movie in 1968. Some 30 - 32 airframes were leased and / or bought from the Spanish Air Force (thereby saving them from the scrap man), and modified to more resemble the Bf109E as far as possible. This number included static airframes for 'set dressing', and a few for 'taxiing only' scenes.
The 'mods' included the removal of wing fences and under-wing rocket pylons, clipping the wings, and adding tail struts, as well as dummy wing guns, the latter deliberately over-sized, to emphasise their presence, and help to additionally identify the aircraft for the movie audience.
The original shipment of Bf109Gs to Spain, was in CKD kit form, followed by plans and licence for Hispano to build them, originally with DB engines. However, with the end of the war, and a lack of DB engines, Spain had to turn to Rolls Royce in order to power their 'home grown' versions, hence the deep chin giving it the nickname of 'Buchon' (a bird from the pigeon family).
As the design for the Buchon started as a '109G, built under licence, there was no provision for such 'mods' as taller tail and rudder.
 
James W. said:
Yeah ol' Sid Camm & his sardonic humour, he did like a bit of a dig at the "Spitfire Mafia"..
Click to expand...
Well, after the dog's breakfast he made of the Typhoon wing with it's straight taper he had do everything he could make people think it was different.
Granted the actual differences had darn little to do with planform.
And Camm (and his designers) had been lead down the garden path by the British research Establishment/s of the day on the Typhoon wing. As had quite a number of other British airplane makers.
 
Shortround6 said:
And Camm (and his designers) had been lead down the garden path by the British research Establishment/s of the day on the Typhoon wing. As had quite a number of other British airplane makers.
Click to expand...

And yet Mitchell and Shenstone had stuck with a thin wing in the face of objections from illustrious bodies like the RAE. They went with the NACA 2220 series aerofoils (2209 and 2213) and varied the thickness to chord ratios, but in his diaries Shenstone wrote that he would have gone thinner still!
What Mitchell and Supermarine had that others didn't, was experience and data from the Schneider Trophy racers and if there is one important influence the Schneider Trophy aircraft really had on the Spitfire, as opposed to that spuriously assigned to them, it is that thin wing.
Crucially, by the time Hawker's later designs were being developed, the benefits of a thinner wing were proven. It makes it harder to understand why Hawker persisted with their thick wings.
Cheers
Steve
 
Trade-offs, thicker wings were lighter for the same area wing?
I am not sure when the thick wing was actually disproven. Granted the Spitfire was much faster than the Hurricane but with different radiators, skinnier fuselage, all metal vs fabric covering and so on did they really know how much drag each difference was really worth?
I would note that work on the Typhoon started over a year before the Hurricane even got a all metal wing. Perhaps they were stuck with it?

I also have no idea if the field requirements had been waived or not. Westlands were fighting for exemptions for things like tire pressure after work started on the Typhoon.
There may have been a minimum take-off and landing distance that required a higher lift section than the thin wing (without increasing wing area) and you had to hide the landing gear/wheel in the wing, hopefully without bulges. On the Fury the wings were shortened a bit and the wheel wells were moved into the bottom of the fuselage. On the Typhoon and Tempest they were in the wing. Tempest (and later Typhoons) were allowed to use higher pressure tires.
I don't know, just throwing out possibilities.
 
Last edited:
The Hurricane wing was longer than the Spitfires and, I think, had a larger area. I'm sure the lightweight construction contributed to the Hurricane's low wing loading, but surely it was understood that a long, thick wing would have higher induced drag. At least it rolled and turned well, as long as it wasn't going too fast!

I'm aware of the British obsession with thick wings, but I've never seen the arguments to support it. I'd be interested if anyone has them.

Cheers

Steve
 
I think the arguments are mostly inferred, which means they could be 100% wrong.
Things like landing field length. High lift without using high lift devices?
Requirement for catapult launched heavy bombers due to small fields?
Blenheim was supposed to land at 50mph (weight not given...Light weight?) using split flaps only.
Some more things like that.
 
Re: Typhoon wing

Meanwhile, on December 30, 1939, the first Napier Sabre engine had been delivered to Hawker Aircraft and the first prototype Typhoon (P5212) emerged from the experimental shop to fly on February 24, 1940. It too became the subject of a quantity production order which it was planned, should become the responsibility of Gloster Aircraft, whose assembly lines were emptying of Gladiator biplanes and whose design office was already immersed in the development of the Gloster Meteor, the first British turbojet-driven aircraft. Although, like those of the Tornado, the first flights of the Typhoon prototype indicated a promising fighter. The machine proving relatively easy to fly at high speeds, although its low speed qualities left much to be desired, and it had a marked tendency to swing to starboard during take-off. The "X" form of the Tornado's Vulture engine had not permitted installation above the front spar as was the Typhoon's Sabre. In consequence, the overall length of the former was 32 ft. 6 in. as compared with the 31 ft. 10 in. of the latter. Owing to the size and weight of the Sabre and the need to preserve c.g. balance, the Typhoon's engine was fitted so close to the leading edge of the wing that severe vibration was experienced as the slipstream buffeted the thick wing roots. On an early test flight the stressed-skin covering began to tear away from its rivets and the Typhoon's pilot, Philip G. Lucas, only just succeeded in bringing the prototype in to a landing.

Development on the Typhoon included the design of a modified wing containing twoHispano 20 mm cannons in place of the six 0.303-in. Brownings, the construction of an experimental set of wings containing a total of six cannon, and the initiation of a design study of a Typhoon variant with thinner wings of reduced area and lower profile drag. This latter study was later to arouse interest at the Air Ministry and eventually resulted in the Tempest. However by October 1940, enthusiasm had been revived and production of the Tornado and Typhoon reinstated production deliveries of both being scheduled for the following year.
 
Certainly the size of airfields was a factor for fighters as for bombers, but both the Spitfire and Hurricane were supposed to operate from 600 yard airfields.
When the Operational Requirements Committee discussed their replacement (F.18/37) in November 1937, Liptrot wanted a landing distance greater than 600 yards, but Dowding objected, pointing out that 600 yards was the maximum available at some aerodromes.
The problem is that the thin wing Spitfire was just as capable as the thick wing Hurricane at operating from these fields. particularly once they got their variable pitch propellers.

I will fly off on a bit of a tangent here because the same meeting gives some insight into the much criticised range and endurance of Fighter Command's primary interceptors in 1940. The Operational Requirements branch requested 30% more fuel than the current requirement (met by the Spitfire and Hurricane). Dowding explained that it was not needed for home defence, though it was retained for possible overseas needs.
The Air Staff policy on the endurance of home defence fighters was re-emphasised in 1938 when Saundby explained.

"We have kept down the tactical range of our fighters to the minimum required for home defence in order to obtain maximum performance and firepower."

Many, including one recent poster have completely failed to grasp the intentional limitation of range/endurance as a compromise for other qualities considered more important in a home defence fighter.

Cheers

Steve
 

This certainly true enough. However in these planning stages things were not quite so clear cut. A Hurricane MK I with 2 pitch prop weighed 6363lbs in Jan 1939 (no self seal-tanks or armor?) for it's 258 sq. ft wing. A Spitfire MK I with 2 pitch prop weighed 5925lbs in July of 1939 (no protection either) for it's 242 sq ft wing. The Typhoon had 279 sq ft and the Tornado had 283 sq ft and both were going well over 10,000lbs in prototype form. A 50% increase in guns and ammo (even if kept to under 350rpg) and fuel capacity of 140 IMP gallons (a bit more than 40% over the Hurricane ) and those huge engines all pushed the weight up and the increase in wing area was nowhere near the increase in weight. Typhoon kept the simple split flap.
Even in early stages of construction (before Prototype even flew) the Typhoon/Tornado was going to have a wing loading around 60% higher than a MK I Spitfire or Hurricane.
Wing loading was not linear in increasing take-off/landing distance but the Typhoon/Tornado was going to need help from somewhere.
And indeed the MK I Typhoon needed 740 yds to clear 50ft at a weight of 11,400lbs and 870yds to land from 50ft at 9800lbs (light weight with next to no fuel left)..
 
Shooter - the problem is that many of your posted statements are flat out bullshit - you've been called out by several members including myself and you have conveniently avoided answering them. Our patience is wearing thin. The only thing you have done is bring out some great FACT FILLED discussion buy some of our members who are a wealth of knowledge and BACK UP WHAT THEY SAY!

So I'll ask you again, what's the arrival/ departure procedure for flying in and out of EDW?!?!?
 
Shooter:
"This is where you are dead wrong! The planes instantainious vector is a tangent to the turning circle. The planes maximum Angle of Attack determines where the guns are pointed. The larger the AoA, the farther the guns can shoot across the cord of the circle to down an enemy plane!
Because the target is ahead of you on the circle, it is well above the cowl and easily in your LoS! ( Line of Sight!)"

Still doesn't address two problems does it?
You pull this maximium angle of attack and 3/4 of your wing area is stalled, you won't hold it for more than fraction of a second even if you do reach it.
ANd once your reach this maximium angle of attack the target plane has disappeared below your nose. A plane doing 250mph is covering just under 150 ft in 4/10s of second. the time of flight for most German projectiles was over .45 seconds to 300 meters. shooting AT the plane is a guaranteed miss. You need to lead it unless you are using laser beams. If the enemy plane is going faster you need to lead it more.
If you can see looking down the side of cowl you are way out of iine for the guns to hit.
 


"The use and ongoing development of the research into the torsion of thin-wall sections carried out during the 1920's and 1930's was only of benefit to aircraft construction – part of Hitler's rearmament programme. The benefits of lightweight construction went into military aircraft and could not exploited by structural steelwork; up until 1945, lightweight construction was a secret science essentially reserved for the military".
Karl-Eugen Kurrer - The history of the Theory of structures – From arch analysis to computational mechanics , W. Ernst & Sohn, Pag. 459.

No doubt that, being theories of structural thin walled sections at the very beginning, and not very well known, not all aeronautical designers were prone to employ them, and they did prefere to employ good old methods. But good old methods did necessitate of rather "tall" sections to resist and so thick profiles had to be adopted.
 
Yes, but the aerodromes were increased in size. Fighter Command's were supposed to extend to a minimum 1,000 yards, I think by 1940, it was being discussed in 1937, but that may have changed given Hitler's antics on mainland Europe.
Even so you make a valid point. Aircraft got bigger and heavier and airfield size seems to have been a set of moving goal posts
I have seen one 1937 suggestion that if 'aerodromes' were increased in size to give 1,000 yards for take off and landing, then the top speed of fighters should increase to 415 mph, which seems optimistic for the time!
There was also a slight obsession with night flying capabilities which entailed low landing speeds, probably where that proposal for the Blenheim came from.
Cheers
Steve
 
I don't mind an exchange of information and fact. But when the discussion falls into the realm of fantasy, it no longer has a place in this thread.

The majority of the crap you've "shared" doesn't even belong in a "what-if" thread. It just pure bullsh!t.

And that is what's annoying.

If you wish to "accomodate" others, bring facts to the table.
 
I have often seen it stated that maybe the Merlin rotated opposite to the DB 601 / 603 / 605 in the Bf 109. Here is a DB-powered BF 109.



Note that from the point of view of the pilot, the prop rotates clockwise. Here is a Merlin-powered Spitfire.



Note that from the point of view of the pilot, the prop rotates clockwise, the same as the DB 605.

In fact, the Griffon reversed the rotation and went the other way. Here is proof of that. Here is a Griffon-powered Spitfire. Note that from the point of view of the pilot it rotates counterclockwise.



The Bf 109 does have an airfoiled vertical tail, but the main source of confusion seems to be the Hispano Buchon. The Buchon was initially developed as the Ha.1109 Tripala and was adapted for the Hispano-Suiza engine that turns opposite from the Merlin and the DB. So the Hispano Bucho has a fin airfoil that expected prop rotation opposite from the Merlin, but that is not the case with real German Bf 109s.

The Buchon was developed from the Ha.1109 Tripala. Here is the nose of an Ha.1109 with the nose of the Ha.1112 visible behind it.



Note the engine in the Ha.1109 turns the same direction as the Griffon, opposite from the DB and Merlin, and accounts for the fin airfoil on the Ha.1112 being in the wrong direction since it was assumed they would use the Hispano-Suiza engine, but actually switched to the Merlin after the Ha.1112 airframe was built.

Note the Avia S-199 with the Jumo 211 engine turned the same direction as the DB engines did. Here is a pic of one so you can see.

 
Last edited:

I'm bumping this post.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

S
Why did the Me 109 roll and turn so bad at speed?
5 6 7
Replies
134
Views
10K
GregP
Spitfire vs Me-109
Replies
3
Views
1K
PAT303
P
Bf 109 everything
2 3 4
Replies
63
Views
3K
special ed
S
J
Yak-9U Vs Bf-109
Replies
0
Views
785
Jerrybandit67
J
Why did the U.S. navy reject the F6U Pirate?
Replies
11
Views
809
Jabberwocky
J
Menu
Log in
Register