Think nothing of it we all have moments of weakness with a P-39.
The one most over-rated plane of WWII
- Thread starter NTGray
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Greg Boeser
1st Sergeant
Not me. I remember building one as a kid. Didn't see the point of installing the nose armor, and that thing just sat on it's tail. Live and learn.
You put the roundels in the wrong place?
Greg Boeser
1st Sergeant
No. It was the Monogram kit with Russian markings.
Use of stars instead of roundels was a bad mistake, that's your CoG issue starting, right there.
SaparotRob
Unter Gemeine Geschwader Murmeltier XIII
Rookie mistake.
Greg Boeser
1st Sergeant
Easy, now!
I was just a kid.
I was just a kid.
We've all been there, no worries.
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
I know hindsight is 20/20, but omitting the IFF would have easily corrected the CoG issue.
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
GregP
Major
You have to use the heavy paint up front and the lighter paint (sugar and lead-free, no calories or saturated fat) at the rear. That way, it sort of works out ... as long as you don't shoot any of the ammunition.
Spindash64
Airman
- 82
- Oct 21, 2021
Not particularly, but the key difference is that most aircraft could support the extra weight and weren't so limited in gear span AND in stall speed as to be a nightmare to land. The Spitfire was also spindly, but the elliptical wing worked much better for the low and slow landing and takeoff, and the takeoff process itself was much less complex.
The 109 was so tightly designed that there was no way to really make a better landing gear arrangement without creating a whole new plane. That's part of why the Germans tried to create both the Me 309 and the Me 209 II, although both ultimately failed to meet required performance.
I think the same could be said for the Spitfire, which had approx the same gear span and was also a handful to take off and land.
GregP
Major
The Spitfire was a handful to take off and land, but not from side-to-side rocking or a tendency to swing heavily. It was much more due to the gear being positioned aft enough so that the nose was very heavy (tail was light?) and it was easy to nose over after the 2-stage Merlins and, particularly, the Griffons were installed. Sure, it did swing a bit on takeoff, but the rudder could compensate much better than the Bf 109 rudder at low speeds.
The Griffon Spits were said to be VERY easy to stand on the nose during braking. That was confirmed by a modern Spitfire MK XIV pilot at the museum one day when I asked ... very light tail in 3-point attitude.
The Bf 109 was very easy to rock side-to-side and drag a wingtip. The rudder wasn't overly effective at low speeds. So, the brakes were used to stay as straight as possible, if that's what you wanted to do. Many Bf 109 pilots simply lined up 35° from the intended takeoff heading and let it swing if they had the room to do so. They mostly flew from farmer's fields, so there was usually room by starting at one corner. Modern Bf 109 pilots who fly from grass have nice straight LONG, manicured runways, even if they aren't all exactly level. In the war, if you had to get off in a farmer's field length, you didn't have room to feed in the throttle gradually, you had to accelerate and get to flying speed quickly to clear the hedgerows. I'm thinking front-line improvised airfields, not actually military aerodromes. If the runway was NOT a farmer's field, then they COULD stay straight and take more room to get airborne.
The Griffon Spits were said to be VERY easy to stand on the nose during braking. That was confirmed by a modern Spitfire MK XIV pilot at the museum one day when I asked ... very light tail in 3-point attitude.
The Bf 109 was very easy to rock side-to-side and drag a wingtip. The rudder wasn't overly effective at low speeds. So, the brakes were used to stay as straight as possible, if that's what you wanted to do. Many Bf 109 pilots simply lined up 35° from the intended takeoff heading and let it swing if they had the room to do so. They mostly flew from farmer's fields, so there was usually room by starting at one corner. Modern Bf 109 pilots who fly from grass have nice straight LONG, manicured runways, even if they aren't all exactly level. In the war, if you had to get off in a farmer's field length, you didn't have room to feed in the throttle gradually, you had to accelerate and get to flying speed quickly to clear the hedgerows. I'm thinking front-line improvised airfields, not actually military aerodromes. If the runway was NOT a farmer's field, then they COULD stay straight and take more room to get airborne.
Last edited:
Spitfire's wing was with considerably greater area, about 1/3rd greater. Same generation Spitfire and Bf 109 were close wrt. weight (bar the 'Griffon Spitfires'), so the wing loading of the Spitfire was much providing an improvement in low-speed handling vs. the Bf 109.
Pretty much.
We can recall that Bf 109 started it's life with engine of ~450 kg that made under 700 HP, armament being 2 LMGs. Spitfire started it's life with ~650 kg engine that did mor than 1000 HP, A/C being designed for 8 LMGs. Different inputs led to different aircraft.
Clayton Magnet
Staff Sergeant
- 868
- Feb 16, 2013
I have heard that you should ALWAYS use grass for a 109, as the plane is much trickier on pavement. Does the museum operate any 109's?
GregP
Major
About the wing loading, the Bf 109 had slats that opened when the airflow stalled, and that kept the airflow attached over the ailerons to retain roll control and also lowered the stall speed a bit. The slats didn't make up for anything at higher speeds unless the airflow started to stall, and then the slats would open, sometimes asymmetrically, depending on how coordinated the aircraft was at the time. It didn't allow the Bf 109 to turn with a Spitfire that was well-flown, but it DID allow the German pilot to fly right at the edge of a stall with no fear of losing aileron control in a stall. If the Spitfire pilot wasn't experienced, the Bf 109 could seem to turn right with it and maybe even inside it.
Perhaps this is where the stories of Spitfires being out-turned originated ... with German veterans out-turning Spitfire rookies, or at least less-experienced pilots. These two airplanes were close enough to one another in capability that the pilot could make a huge difference, and no doubt often did just that.
Perhaps this is where the stories of Spitfires being out-turned originated ... with German veterans out-turning Spitfire rookies, or at least less-experienced pilots. These two airplanes were close enough to one another in capability that the pilot could make a huge difference, and no doubt often did just that.
Last edited:
Molders stated that in his opinion both the Spitfire and Hurricane were childishly easy to take off and land compared to the 109 which he described as being fiendish.
