Jump to content

  • Log in with Twitter Log in with Windows Live Log In with Steam Log In with Google      Sign In   
  • Create Account

Photo
- - - - -

Spitfire or Messerschmitt?


  • Please log in to reply
28 replies to this topic

Poll: Spitfire or Messerschmitt? You be the judge (19 member(s) have cast votes)

Spitfire or Messerschmitt? You be the judge

  1. Spitfire! (14 votes [70.00%])

    Percentage of vote: 70.00%

  2. Messerschmitt! (4 votes [20.00%])

    Percentage of vote: 20.00%

  3. Caudron-Renault! (2 votes [10.00%])

    Percentage of vote: 10.00%

Vote Guests cannot vote

#11 Kutscha

Kutscha

    Forum Guru

  • Forum Guru
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,581 posts
  • Joined 12 Years, 9 Months and 18 Days
  • 117 topics

Posted 25 May 2015 - 10:27 AM

Hi guys,just like to add my comment,it's got to be the Spitfife,it's unique design ,and manouverabilty ,does it for me.the ME109 although a good fighter, had major floors,one in particular the width of the under carriage,many pilots were actually killed whilst taking off,because the plane if not handled correctly tilted to the left or right during take off.Adolf Galland German fighter ace flew 109s ,stated this was a problem German pilots feared,that being the less experienced.The only good point was the 109s armament.Its the spit for me.thanks Keith.

 

You do know that the track of the Spitfire was ~6" less than that of the 109.



#12 CORSNING

CORSNING

    Forum Guru

  • Forum Guru
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,630 posts
  • Joined 4 Years, 2 Months and 30 Days
  • 184 topics
  • LocationClyde, Ohio, USA

Posted 27 May 2015 - 02:04 AM

Kutscha is right from what I have read to date. The track of the early Spitfire was narrower than the Bf 109E. However, In my opinion, the Spitfire's much more docile handling qualities made that fact irrelevant.

 

In my opinion of the two, I believe from their conception to their retirement the Spitfire was always the more pilots airplane. A complete delight to fly with very few vices. However from time to time the Bf 109 was the better combat fighter aircraft. Fuel injection of the Daimler Benz in 1939/1940 put the 109 in the No.1 position, even if it was by a very slim margin.

 

With the introduction of the Bf 109F-4 the Messer once again took the limelight. I would have to do an in depth study to determine all the times that the 109 came out on top. But even so, it would have been briefly at times. Even when comparing the K-4 to the Spitfire 14, there is certain altitudes that Willy's aircraft with the right engine came out on top.

 

The Spitfire XIV was an amazing aircraft for its time, PERIOD!

 

OK, after saying all that, I need to say all this...

I purchased a 2005 Mini cooper S convertible very recently. I guess that could be considered the present day grounded Fw190. I absolutely love it. I also loved the two British Leyland Spitfires I drove in the 1970s. I would consider the Spitfires more maneuverable...but that would be about it........

Any questions?, Jeff B)



#13 Armand

Armand

    About the same age as another old Fokker: The F-27

  • Forum Guru
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,654 posts
  • Joined 3 Years, 9 Months
  • 111 topics
  • LocationAbout 20 nm east of BLL

Posted 27 May 2015 - 12:03 PM

I understand that it's not as much the width of the track as the angle of the legs/wheels: The Spit's legs are vertical and the ones on the 109 'spread out'!

#14 Kutscha

Kutscha

    Forum Guru

  • Forum Guru
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,581 posts
  • Joined 12 Years, 9 Months and 18 Days
  • 117 topics

Posted 27 May 2015 - 12:29 PM

If that is the case Armand then the F4F should have been a real 'female dog'. One does not hear of the F4F having the same sort of problems.

 

The Spitfire had a tendency to nose over. Not good for the prop and the engine.



#15 Ricky

Ricky

    Moderator

  • Moderators
  • 2,981 posts
  • Joined 14 Years, 8 Months and 1 Day
  • 138 topics

Posted 27 May 2015 - 03:33 PM

If that is the case Armand then the F4F should have been a real 'female dog'. One does not hear of the F4F having the same sort of problems.

 

 

I did wonder if it was a function of the wingspan (longer wing = more wobble), but:

 

Wildcat - 38ft

Spit - 36ft 10in

Bf 109 - 32ft 6in



#16 Armand

Armand

    About the same age as another old Fokker: The F-27

  • Forum Guru
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,654 posts
  • Joined 3 Years, 9 Months
  • 111 topics
  • LocationAbout 20 nm east of BLL

Posted 27 May 2015 - 05:48 PM

If that is the case Armand then the F4F should have been a real 'female dog'. One does not hear of the F4F having the same sort of problems.

As it is the wheels contact with the ground that makes the trouble, it's the angle of the wheel wich is to judge, and the wheels of the F4F are practically vertical.
In difference to the F6F, wich have telescopic undercarriage similar to the Spit as well as the 109, is the F4F undercarriage of trellis/linkage design wich can confuse :-/

Edited by Armand, 18 July 2015 - 12:42 PM.


#17 Kutscha

Kutscha

    Forum Guru

  • Forum Guru
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,581 posts
  • Joined 12 Years, 9 Months and 18 Days
  • 117 topics

Posted 27 May 2015 - 10:38 PM

Not just the wheels Armand but as the tail comes down there is no air over the rudder. Also the CG is well behind the wheels.



#18 Edgar Brooks

Edgar Brooks

    Regular Member

  • Regulars
  • PipPipPip
  • 589 posts
  • Joined 5 Years, 11 Months and 11 Days
  • 0 topics

Posted 27 May 2015 - 10:40 PM

The Spit's legs are vertical and the ones on the 109 'spread out'!

Sorry, but no, that applied only to K5054, the prototype; on service aircraft legs were splayed so that the tracking was 5' 8.5", and it was increased on the 20-series to 6' 8".

#19 Armand

Armand

    About the same age as another old Fokker: The F-27

  • Forum Guru
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,654 posts
  • Joined 3 Years, 9 Months
  • 111 topics
  • LocationAbout 20 nm east of BLL

Posted 27 May 2015 - 11:53 PM

Armand, on 27 May 2015 - 2:03 PM, said:
The Spit's legs are vertical and the ones on the 109 'spread out'!
Sorry, but no, that applied only to K5054, the prototype; on service aircraft legs were splayed so that the tracking was 5' 8.5", and it was increased on the 20-series to 6' 8".

Mk. VIII:
Head-on perspective at 4:31 - Vertical to me!
ME 109:
Head-on perspective at 1:00 - Undoubtly splayed!

Edited by Armand, 27 May 2015 - 11:55 PM.


#20 Edgar Brooks

Edgar Brooks

    Regular Member

  • Regulars
  • PipPipPip
  • 589 posts
  • Joined 5 Years, 11 Months and 11 Days
  • 0 topics

Posted 28 May 2015 - 08:29 AM

Vertical to me!

It's far too subtle to be seen with the naked eye, so I've added (part of) a Supermarine drawing.
The line which bisects the bottom line beside the wheel is at right-angles to the wing pivot datum; there is a second line drawn down the centre-line of the oleo leg, and it deviates out, away from the vertical, at about 2 degrees (according to my old school protractor.)
I believe that it was this small adjustment that gave rise to the small kidney-shaped bulges on the wings' top surfaces of the Marks I - VI, when the top surfaces of K5054's wings were entirely flat.
35150%20SHT%201%20H%20UC%20GA_zpscwujsch




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users