Is Spitfire really the BEST British fighter???

[KraziKanuK]

Recent actual measurements have said 10.6m for the F-4 and 9.94m for the K-4. But all my bookreferences say 9.92m for both.

However there is a German specification book out there, wich says the K-4 had shortened wingspan from all the other models, wich is why i believe the newest measurements.

I have factory drawing, all in German, of the wing that says 9.92m as well as many other dimensions related to the wing. The title block says Me109F - Me109K.

 

[Soren]

Recent actual measurements have said 10.6m for the F-4 and 9.94m for the K-4. But all my bookreferences say 9.92m for both.

However there is a German specification book out there, wich says the K-4 had shortened wingspan from all the other models, wich is why i believe the newest measurements.

I have factory drawing, all in German, of the wing that says 9.92m as well as many other dimensions related to the wing. The title block says Me109F - Me109K.

That settles it then. Whats the document called btw ? What other wing- specifications are there ?

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

All of m sources say they were all 9.92m from the F to the K.

Here is what I have in all of my sources but this whole argument here should really be in another thread.

Bf-109B
Dimensions:
Wing span: 9.97m
Length: 8.51m
Height: 2.59m
Wing Surface Area: N/A

Weights:
Empty: 1580kg (3,483 lbs.)
Maximum, Loaded: 2120kg (4,850 lbs.)

Dimensions:
Wing span: 32 ft. 4½ (9.97m)
Length: 28 ft. 0.66 in. (8.51m)
Height: 8 ft. 0½ in. (2.59m)
Wing Surface Area: 174 sq. ft.

Weights:
Empty: 3522 lb.
Maximum, Loaded: 5062 lb.

Bf-109E

Dimensions:
Wing span: 32 ft. 4.5 in. (9.97m)
Length: 28 ft. 8 in. (8.9m)
Height: 8 ft. 10 in. (2.6m)
Wing Surface Area: N/A

Weights:
Empty: 2018kg (4,440 lb.)
Maximum, Loaded: 2509kg (5,520 lb.)

Bf-109F

Wing Span: 9.92m
Lenght: 8.90m
Height: 2.60m
Wing Surface Area: 16.10 sq m.

Wieghts:
Empty: 2590kg (5698 lb)
Loaded: 3117kg (6857lb)

Me-109G

Wingspan: 9.92m
Length: 9.02m
Height: 3.40m
Wing Surface Area: 16.05 sq m.

Weights:
Empty: 2258kg (4,968 lbs.)
Loaded: 3106kg (6,834 lbs.)
Maximum Overloaded: 3207kg (7,055 lbs)

Me-109K

Wingspan: 9.92m
Lenght: 9.02m
Height: 3.40m
Wing Surface Area: 16.05 sq. m

Weights:
Empty: 2700kg (5940lb)
Loaded: 3386kg (7438lb)

 

[KraziKanuK]

That settles it then. Whats the document called btw ? What other wing- specifications are there ?

It is titled Flugel (the u should have .. above it)

Not specs but dimensions related to slats, flaps, ailerons, chords, etc.

 

[Soren]

That settles it then. Whats the document called btw ? What other wing- specifications are there ?

It is titled Flugel (the u should have .. above it)

Not specs but dimensions related to slats, flaps, ailerons, chords, etc.

Ok, thanks.

How about Wing area ?

By looking Adler's sources above, something is obviously wrong with the Wing-span and Wing-Area spec's. (The E series didn't have a larger wing-surface-area than the F series and beyond)

All the sources I have state the B-E seris had a wing-span of 9.87m, and the F-K series a wing-span of 9.92m. The B-E series had a Wing-Area of 16.17 sq.m, the F-K series N/A.

Do you have any Wing-Area spec's on the F series and beyond Krazi ?

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Well that is what all of my sources say about the wing area. All I know is that after the F the 109 got faster and performance wise was better but it got more sluggish and anyone who has flown the magnificant 109 will tell you that it at high speeds the controls would stiffen up a bit. At high alltitudes though she would give anything a run for there money.

 

[KraziKanuK]

It says the area is 16.05m2.

One thing to watch for is if the area is calculated using what is under the fuselage or not. ie span x mean chord. Some areas are given from the root chord out, naturally x2.

 

[Soren]

It says the area is 16.05m2.

Strange, why would the larger wings of he F-K series have a smaller wing-area than the B-E series smaller wings ?

One thing to watch for is if the area is calculated using what is under the fuselage or not. ie span x mean chord. Some areas are given from the root chord out, naturally x2.

Yes, that is offcourse also a possibility.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

It says the area is 16.05m2.

Strange, why would the larger wings of he F-K series have a smaller wing-area than the B-E series smaller wings ?

One thing to watch for is if the area is calculated using what is under the fuselage or not. ie span x mean chord. Some areas are given from the root chord out, naturally x2.

Yes, that is offcourse also a possibility.

Well I can only tell you what every book I have ever read on the Bf-109 has said.

 

[Soren]

Well I can only tell you what every book I have ever read on the Bf-109 has said.

Offcourse, its not you im blaming, its the sources. My books more or less tells the same story as yours, except there's no Wing-area spec's on the F-K series.

 

[KraziKanuK]

Strange, why would the larger wings of he F-K series have a smaller wing-area than the B-E series smaller wings ?

square tip vs rounded tip

The F-K had ~1"length more per half span but most of the tip was removed.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

That might explain it.

 

[Anonymous]

(http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/viewtopic.php?p=61962#61962)

I guess you havent read the AFDU's tests with the 109F i presented, so i will quote it again.

AFDU 28 October 1941: TACTICAL TRIALS Me.109F AIRCRAFT- 7:

No manoeuvrability trials were carried out against other aircraft but the Me.109F was dived up to 420 mph, IAS, with controls trimmed for level flight and it was found that although the elevators had become heavy and the ailerons had stiffened up appreciably, fairly tight turns were still possible.

I found this report - Interesting that you chose to leave out the rest of the paragraph, let me add that for you...

"....
It is considered however, that the aircraft could have been out-turned easily by a Spitfire. At high speeds the ailerons are more effective than the fabric ailerons of the Spitfire, but not as good as the metal ones. As a result of the heaviness of the elevators at speeds over 400 m.p.h, violent evasion is not possible, and the aircraft would present a simple target to a following Sptifre. Similarly, a Spitfire attacked by a Me.109F from above should have no difficulty in evading if he turns sharply towards the direction of attack. It is considered that recovery from a high speed dive near the ground would be difficult, as the loss of height entailed is considerable. This may account for occasional reports of Me.109F's being seen to dive straight into the ground without apparently being fired at."

It is not right to put things out of context Soren. You implied this report indicated the Bf109F could turn with the Spitfire, which it most certainly does not!

=S=

Lunatic

 

[Soren]

(http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/viewtopic.php?p=61962#61962)

I guess you havent read the AFDU's tests with the 109F i presented, so i will quote it again.

AFDU 28 October 1941: TACTICAL TRIALS Me.109F AIRCRAFT- 7:

No manoeuvrability trials were carried out against other aircraft but the Me.109F was dived up to 420 mph, IAS, with controls trimmed for level flight and it was found that although the elevators had become heavy and the ailerons had stiffened up appreciably, fairly tight turns were still possible.

I found this report - Interesting that you chose to leave out the rest of the paragraph, let me add that for you...

"....
It is considered however, that the aircraft could have been out-turned easily by a Spitfire. At high speeds the ailerons are more effective than the fabric ailerons of the Spitfire, but not as good as the metal ones. As a result of the heaviness of the elevators at speeds over 400 m.p.h, violent evasion is not possible, and the aircraft would present a simple target to a following Sptifre. Similarly, a Spitfire attacked by a Me.109F from above should have no difficulty in evading if he turns sharply towards the direction of attack. It is considered that recovery from a high speed dive near the ground would be difficult, as the loss of height entailed is considerable. This may account for occasional reports of Me.109F's being seen to dive straight into the ground without apparently being fired at."

It is not right to put things out of context Soren. You implied this report indicated the Bf109F could turn with the Spitfire, which it most certainly does not!

=S=

Lunatic

I didnt put anything out of context, the point is that the 109 would pull out of 420 mph dive easely, even more easely than a P-51 ! (And yes there are P-51 pilots who confirm this !)

Also didnt you forget this part: "No manoeuvrability trials were carried out against other aircraft"

So NO tests against the Spit were carried out, thereby "Considderet" means absolutely NOTHING ! And a British pilot offcourse would prefere the a Spit, afterall it is a BRITISH plane !

 

[Anonymous]

You cannot use one sentance out of a paragraph to claim the 109 was able to make competitve turns against other aircraft when the very next line clearly disputes such a claim.

=S=

Lunatic

 

[Soren]

You cannot use one sentance out of a paragraph to claim the 109 was able to make competitve turns against other aircraft when the very next line clearly disputes such a claim.

=S=

Lunatic

I didnt !!! I used lots of other facts ! This was merely to show you that the 109 would still do tight turns even at a 420 mph dive !

 

[Anonymous]

I didnt !!! I used lots of other facts ! This was merely to show you that the 109 would still do tight turns even at a 420 mph dive !

Tight compared to what? A Bf110? It cannot be a very tight turn if the Spitfire can "easily" out-turn it.

I have no problem with your having used this as evidence except you should have included the following sentance. It is not right to quote such a source that you think I don't have access to in this way - it makes all your other sources dubious. What did you leave out from them?

=S=

Lunatic

 

[Soren]

Tight compared to what? A Bf110? It cannot be a very tight turn if the Spitfire can "easily" out-turn it.

Hey it was a "SPITFIRE" pilot who flew it ! Wich means he isnt used to the controls, and he most certainly backs off alot in a turn when he hears the Slats pop out !

Also remember that it was "Consideret" that the Spitfire turned tighter, but no trials were ever carried out against one !

Also this is said RG: "At high speeds the ailerons are more effective than the fabric ailerons of the Spitfire, but not as good as the metal ones"

Thats quite a statement by a Spitfire pilot !

 

[Anonymous]

Your missing the point.

=S=

Lunatic

 

[Soren]

Your missing the point.

=S=

Lunatic

No Im not RG, your just a little to quick with your accusations.