Most adaptable - Spitfire vs Bf109 [Archive] - The Great Planes and warbirds Community

Lightning

25th September 2008, 17:36

The 109 went through 5 different engines. Roll-Royce Kestrel > DB600 and Jumo 210 > DB 601 > DB605.

The wing of the Bf109E was different than the wing of the Bf109F. The nose of the Bf109A was different than the nose of the Bf109E which was different than the nose of the Bf109F.

Not hard to tell that these 3 different Mks (IX, XVI, XIX) are Spitfires.

http://www.airshows.org.uk/2007/airshows/duxfordoct/photographs/spitfires_0.jpg

A Mk V and Mk IX.

http://www.deroeck.co.uk/Spitfire-pictures/Spitfire-Pair-(277)-03.jpg

A Mk V and a Mk XVIII.

http://www.deroeck.co.uk/Spitfire-pictures/Spitfire-Pair(294

The Spitfire kept the same wing platform from the Mk I to the Mk XIX. Wing tip changes were a 5 minute job. The universal wing allowed various gun installations as well has hanging bombs from.

Re: Bf 109 Engines:

The Kestrel was only used as a stand-in for the as-yet unavailable Jumo 210 so that development could proceed. This is a similar situation to that of the prototype Me 262 jet fighter that used a Jumo 210 piston engine installed in its nose when the planned-for jet engine was not yet available. In neither case was the stand-in engine ever even considered for use in the production fighter.

In all, the Kestrel/Jumo-powered '109s comprised early-development models through the Bf 109D (a very few of the "D" models were powered by the DB 600) . These models accounted for only about 650 aircraft out of a total of around 33,000!

Some of the Jumo-powered fighters were used in the Spanish Civil war, more as a development program than a use of combat-ready aircraft. They were only sent there because they would face obsolete/obsolescent opponents.

All operational Bf 109s during WWII used the DB 601/605 series engines. The DB 605 was a development of the DB 601-- not not a completely different engine as was the case with the Merlin vs Griffon engines used in the Spitfire.

Lets compare the changes during the evolution of the Bf 109 with those of the Spitfire:

Fuselage

The changes in the fuselage configuration of the Bf 109 were not all that great over the life of the aircraft. The basic lines remained relatively constant, variant-to-variant. The most noticeable changes were: introduction of a retractable tail wheel, removal of the external bracing for the horizontal stabilizer, and deletion of the large air intake under the nose (and this very early with the final change to the wartime DB 600 series engines). There were other changes, to be sure, but they had minimal effect on the fuselage's lines.

The Spitfire's fuselage, on the other hand, underwent very noticeable changes over time--many due to the change from the Merlin to the Griffon engine. There were significant changes to the lines of the nose, and some variants had their fuselages lengthend to accommodate greater power. Later models had their rear fuselages cut down with the introduction of the teardrop canopy. Also, as with the '109, the tail wheel was made retractable.

Tail Surfaces

The configuration of the Bf 109's tail surfaces remained almost unchanged throughout its evolution. Not so the Spitfire.

The Spitfire had its vertical fin/rudder changed a great deal in both shape and size. They became much larger, and some rudders had pointed tips. The size of the horizontal stabilizer was also changed on some models.

Wings

The only obvious change to the Bf 109's wing planform was a change from squared to rounded wing tips. The span and shape remained virtually unchanged from beginning to end.

The Spitfire wing's planform underwent significant changes. Some were clipped, others were extended and had pointed wing tips. The span difference between these extremes was 7.8 feet! The clipped wing was 4.3 feet shorter than the regular wing and had a squared tip while the extended wing was 3.5 feet longer and had a pointed tip. The elliptical shape itself was lost on later variants.

As to the tips being field-interchangeable, it really doesn't matter once the plane is in the air. In flight, it has one planform or the other, regardless of whether the wing tip configuration is permanent or field installed. The pilot certainly has no control over this. And, in any case, the clipped wing was permanently configured at the factory.

Propellers

The earliest versions of the Bf 109 used a two-bladed propeller, but all major variants used, and remained with, a three-bladed propeller throughout the war.

The Spitfire started out with a two-bladed prop and then progressed through three-, four-, five-, and six-blades. The latter was a contra-rotating propeller with three blades turning in each direction.

Cockpit Canopy

The Bf 109 retained the same basic canopy design throughout its life. There were changes in construction features such as the gauge of the metal frame, but these did not appreciably alter the overall configuration.

The Spitfire went through considerable canopy changes, from the earliest framed type to the Malcomb Hood to the teardrop, or bubble, versions.

As I stated earlier, with all the many changes to the Spitfire over the war years (and later), it is questionable whether the name "Spitfire" should have been retained for the later versions. The Mk XIV had so many changes that a new name would have been justified. The Mk 21 was actually initially referred to as the "Victor." It is quite possible that national pride and morale played a part in the retention of the name of the airplane that became famous in the Battle of Britain.

If there is any doubt as to the extent of the changes to the Spitfire over time, one has only to look at a series of photographs, in chronological order, of the numerous variants. The same exercise will also confirm that the basic configuration of the Bf 109 remained relatively constant throughout the life of the airplane.

It should be said here that the extensive changes to the Spitfire over the years certainly demonstrate the flexibility and development potential of the design, but adaptibility to development is not the same as adaptibility to role. A single, unchanging design can be very adaptible to different roles whereas another design can undergo extensive development in its primary role without being adaptible to many others.

Kutscha

25th September 2008, 20:11

Kutscha

25th September 2008, 20:26

All operational Bf 109s during WWII used the DB 601/605 series engines.

Nope. 109Ds were used in the assault on Poland in Sept 1939. 109Ds were used in the Battles of Low Counties and France.

Lightning

26th September 2008, 17:10

What was the poll question?

Which was the most adaptable design? By adaptable I mean both the ability to be effectively upgraded and the ability to undertake multiple roles (with or without alterations)

The poll heading was : "Most Adaptable - Spitfire vs Bf109"

The question asked in the "View Poll Results" was: "Which was Most Adaptable?"

The word "design" appears in neither case. Had it, your above quote would have had some merrit. Without it, the final statement in my posting of 9/25/08 stands.

Kutscha

26th September 2008, 17:51

The poll heading was : "Most Adaptable - Spitfire vs Bf109"

The question asked in the "View Poll Results" was: "Which was Most Adaptable?"

The word "design" appears in neither case. Had it, your above quote would have had some merrit. Without it, the final statement in my posting of 9/25/08 stands.

Ricky stated
This is y third attempt at making a poll - poor Taglia has to keep deleting them because I'm doing it wrong! Third time lucky, and here is hoping we have a good discussion.

Which was the most adaptable design? By adaptable I mean both the ability to be effectively upgraded and the ability to undertake multiple roles (with or without alterations)

Which was the most adaptable design?

Pays to read the post that accompanies the poll question. ;)

Lightning

26th September 2008, 17:57

All operational Bf 109s during WWII used the DB 601/605 series engines.

Nope. 109Ds were used in the assault on Poland in Sept 1939. 109Ds were used in the Battles of Low Counties and France.

I recall reading that the later Bf 109Ds actually used the Db 601 engine. I will try to find that reference and post it. Whether they were exclusively the "D"s used in Poland, I can't say for sure. I do Know that not many "D"s were used there, and they were quickly replaced by "E"s.

At any rate, whether or not the "D"s used a DB 601 in no way changes what I said about the Bf 109 using the same basic engine throughout WWII. The DB 600/601/ 605 series were basically the same engine as it went through development. To quote Wikipedia:

"The DB 601 was basically an improved DB 600 with direct fuel injection."

The DB 605 was, in turn, an improved DB 601. If a few Jumo-powered '109Ds got into the early (the very early) battles of the war, they had very little impact, relatively speaking, and, again, my comments of 9/25/08 stand materially unaffected by that circumstance.

ChrisMcD

28th September 2008, 21:58

Hi Lightning,

I do think that there was a basic difference in philosophy between Supermarine and Messerschmit. Supermarine developed, or even overdeveloped the Spitfire because Mitchell died and his replacement was not really a creator of new designs. Willy Messerschmit was working on a whole series of new designs, but there was still a lot of basic redesign on the 109, despite Willy's determination to keep production volumes up. So I do disagree with your diagnosis

Engines
Messerschmitt didn't have much choice but to stick with the DB series, even though the 605 was really to big and heavy for the airframe. The Griffon was deliberately designed to fit into Merlin airframes, but even then the Griffon/Spitfire was a surprise to the Air Ministry when the Spitfire/Typhoon/190 race was won in the opposite ranking to that expected.

Wings
I thought there was a change/reversion after the 109E where the F no longer had wing cannon in the main spar because of strength problems? So there was a wing "redesign' of a sort when they took out the extra weight (not to mention the 109T or the Me 155).

Tail surface
What about all the crashes caused by the redesigned tail on the F series - when they got vibration problems by removing the bracing struts?

Fuselage/cockpit
I accept that there were very few changes to the 109's fuselage and it was a triumph of design, but the cockpit was terrible - poor vision, heavy frames, poor rear view etc.

The Spitfire was greatly changed over it's life, but a lot of pilots I respect (ie Quill and Brown) argued that Supermarine tried as hard as they could to keep the handling as similar as possible from start to finish - hence all the changes to the tail etc. whereas Messerschmitt were more focussed on ease of production.

So it did stay a Spitfire until the wing change that led to the Spiteful with it's poor stalling and loss of real 'spitfire' handling.

Lightning

30th September 2008, 16:57

Ricky stated

Which was the most adaptable design?

Pays to read the post that accompanies the poll question. ;)

That's why "I voted for the Spitfire with reservations." I think the Spitfire design was more adaptable to development than that of the Bf 109. The great number of changes undergone by the Spitfire, both internally and externally, throughout its life is a good demonstration of that.

The adaptability of the basic airplane to various roles is something else. Many of the modifications to the Spitfire were made to optimize it to a specific role. Clip the wings, and you have a better low altitude fighter that is not very good at high altitude. Tune the engine, extend the wings and give them pointed tips (and later add a pressurized cockpit), and you have an excellent high altitude fighter that would be emasculated down low.

The various "gun wings" were another example. In order to adapt and optimize the Spitfire to different roles such as fighter bomber, air-to-air fighter, bomber interceptor, bomber escort, etc., different armament combinations were used. These required somewhat extensive internal wing changes to accommodate the different batteries of guns. Among these was the "universal wing mentioned earlier.

All these modifications resulted in an airplane that changed markedly in appearance and construction over time.

The Bf 109 also underwent changes, to be sure, but to nowhere near the extent as those of the Spitfire. Yet compare any two variants, and they are quite similar. This is my point. The Bf 109 in its basic configuration was used as a high/low altitude fighter, a fighter bomber, a bomber escort, a ground support fighter, etc. And it did it with the same basic, albeit vastly improving, engine throughout the war.

Compare the Bf 109B to the Bf 109G and you see two airplanes that are very closely related. Compare the Spitfire I to late models, especially the Mk24, and you see very different airplanes (I know that the Mk 24 was post war, but it is a Spitfire.)

Lightning

30th September 2008, 17:28

I wrote this earlier:

I recall reading that the later Bf 109Ds actually used the Db 601 engine. I will try to find that reference and post it.

I looked through my books to see if I could find the above reference with the following results:

What had jogged my memory was that the Bf 109 V14 and V15 experimental models having DB 601s installed were slated to be prototypes for the Bf 109D-0. Before this came to pass, it was decided to divert them to the Bf 109E program. The prototypes for the "D" then became the V11, V12, and, to some extent, the V13. I had remembered that there was somehow a connection between the Bf 109D and the DB 601 engine, but I had forgotten the details.

Lightning

30th September 2008, 17:59

All operational Bf 109s during WWII used the DB 601/605 series engines.

Nope. 109Ds were used in the assault on Poland in Sept 1939. 109Ds were used in the Battles of Low Counties and France.

When Germany invaded Poland on September 1, 1939, there were 1085 Bf 109s on strength. Of these,
there were 235 "D"s which, for the most part, were being used as a stopgap aircraft for the newly forming "destroyer" squadrons that were slated to receive Bf 110s. The "D"s were later relegated to training units. The extent to which this already meager number ofobsolescent aircraft engaged in combat, and their overall impact is therefore miniscule.

At any rate, the Bf 109D was replaced on the production lines by the Bf 109E at the end of 1938--almost a year before WWII began in September 1939. Therefore, the Bf 109s produced during the war began with the "E" and were all equipped with DB 601/605 engines.

To be technical (and that's ok here), "D"s were used in the war, but they were not produced during the war. So, in the context of being technically wrong, and not for any practical purposes, I stand corrected.

Ricky

1st October 2008, 09:40

I did not intend the discussion to be limited to just the war years - both aircraft served pre- and post-war also.

Red Admiral

2nd October 2008, 16:29

Were Bf109s used for photo-reconnaissance? I don't remember so but this was a major role for the Spitfire, especially post-war.

Kutscha

2nd October 2008, 18:05

Were Bf109s used for photo-reconnaissance? I don't remember so but this was a major role for the Spitfire, especially post-war.
Yes. R2 with Rb50-30 camera and R3 with Rb75-30 camera. (the - should be a slash but keyboard is acting up)

There was also a naval version with an extended wing. Then there was the super extended wing 109H which was a big flop.

Ricky

3rd October 2008, 12:22

If I can sum up so far...

The Spitfire proved to be the design that was most capable of being mucked-about with, but it was also the design that needed most mucking about with?

In all honesty, I'm not convinced on that score. For example, the Spit's armament went through several alterations, which initially required different wings until the 'Universal wing' took care of the most common options. The Bf109 wing guns basically remained the same throughout due to the limited flexibility in their design - extra weaponry had to be slung undernieth in draggy pods.

Lightning

3rd October 2008, 15:30

Hi Ricky,

Quoting you:

"I did not intend the discussion to be limited to just the war years - both aircraft served pre- and post-war also."

I quite agree. That's why I made the comments about the Bf 109B vs the Bf 109G and the Spifire MkI vs the Spitfire Mk 24, underlined in my quote of September 30 below:

"Compare the Bf 109B to the Bf 109G and you see two airplanes that are very closely related. Compare the Spitfire I to late models, especially the Mk24, and you see very different airplanes (I know that the Mk 24 was post war, but it is a Spitfire.)"

I didn 't bring up the substantial design changes that resulted in the "Seafire" series of naval fighters because they were not technically "Spitfires," but their major changes in configuration do serve to illustrate my point in an indirect manner.

As to the Bf 109, many of the pre-war models were nothing more than prototypical experimental aircraft that, even though some may have seen limited operational use, were nevertheless not initially intended to become mainstay variants. The '109s sent to the Condor Legion during the Spanish Civil War are an example. This conflict, in the eyes of the Luftwaffe, was really just a vast proving ground for the fighter. It was also a very effective propaganda tool used to convince potential future adversaries of German superiority in the air. At any rate, the strong similarities between the configuration of these early models and that of the last variants left no doubt that they were, in essence, the same basic aircraft.

The end of the war was really the end of Bf 109 development and improvement. Some other countries used existing airframes for a while, but lack of the original DB 605 engines resulted in the use of substitutes, namely the Merlin and, I believe, a version of the Jumo.

The Spanish-built "Bucon" was not really a step forward in the design, and certainly no great change to the configuration--except for what was required to adapt to the Merlin engine. The overall effectiveness and handling were actually a step backward. The fact that these aircraft looked, for all practical purposes, the same as WWII '109s is demonstrated by the fact that they were used in the fine film "The Battle of Britain." This was considered a great improvement since up to that time Bf 109s had always been lamely portrayed in films by P-51s.

Regards,
Lightning

__________________

Lightning

3rd October 2008, 15:45

Hi Red Admiral,
Were Bf109s used for photo-reconnaissance? I don't remember so but this was a major role for the Spitfire, especially post-war.

The Spitfire PR XIX was a very fine photo-recon plane. It also serves to illustrate my position in this ongoing discussion. Except for the wing, this plane does not have the classic lines of the Spitfire. The wing gives it away, but the changes brought about by pressurizing the cockpit for high altitude operation give it an appearance quite different from that of other Spitfires.

Regards,
Lightning

Kutscha

3rd October 2008, 16:38

The PR XIX is just a F MK XIV with cameras. The first 25 or so did not have pressurization.

Avia in Czechoslovakia used the Jumo engine and an annular radiator in their version of the 109. It was a dog. Mtt even installed a radial in a 109 airframe.

Ricky

3rd October 2008, 17:25

IIRC the only discernable different between the PR Spitfires and the regular Spitfires was that the armanemt was deleted, and the lower nose (under the prop) was more 'bulgy' to accomodate a different oil cooler (I think)

Interestingly, taking a read here ( http://www.historyofwar.org/articles/weapons_spitfire_PR.html ) gives the range of the PR Mk IV as 2000 miles!

Kutscha

3rd October 2008, 17:46

IIRC the only discernable different between the PR Spitfires and the regular Spitfires was that the armanemt was deleted, and the lower nose (under the prop) was more 'bulgy' to accomodate a different oil cooler (I think)

The Mk XI had the bulge but that was for a larger oil tank. The oil cooler was under the wing. The MK XIX had no nose changes.

Ricky

4th October 2008, 16:06

And how about the earlier PR Spits - they seemed to just be Spits with armament deleted and extra internal fuel tankage.

Lightning

7th October 2008, 15:50

"The PR XIX is just a F MK XIV with cameras. The first 25 or so did not have pressurization."

According to my refference, those were pre-production models. Again, just looking at it shows it to be quite different from the classic Spitfire.

Ricky

8th October 2008, 09:21

But there it seems you have picked one example that fits your theory, and ignored all the others that do not! There seem to have been almost as many PR Spits as there were marks of Spitfire, and typically they are simply a regular Spit with minor specialist alteration.

Wuzak

9th October 2008, 08:18

Ok...let's have a look.

The Spitfire MkVIII

http://www.clavework-graphics.co.uk/aircraft/supermarine_spitfire/Mk_8_GB_607Sqn.png

PR XI

http://www.clavework-graphics.co.uk/aircraft/supermarine_spitfire/Mk_11_Denmark.png

The only noticeable difference is under the nose where a larger oil tanks has been fitted. I believe the latter is based on the former.

MkXIV (with Malcolm Hood)
http://www.clavework-graphics.co.uk/aircraft/supermarine_spitfire/Mk_14_Canada_402Sqn.png

PR XIX
http://www.clavework-graphics.co.uk/aircraft/supermarine_spitfire/Mk_19_GB_2Sqn.png

The MkVIII was the definitive version of the two stage Merlin engine types. It was originally based on the MkV, which was itself an upengined MkII. The MkIX was literally a MkV with a two stage Merlin. The MkXIV prototype was based on a MkVIII frame, but with a Griffon engine.

The major wing alteration occurred for the MK21-Mk24 versions. This had a slightly modified wing planform.

Wuzak

9th October 2008, 08:20

MkXIV (with bubble canopy)
http://www.clavework-graphics.co.uk/aircraft/supermarine_spitfire/Mk_14_FR_Belgium_350Sqn.png

Found these here:
http://forum.planetalk.net/viewtopic.php?t=6082&sid=21ba55b177a955cbfd3e70b76890a748

Later XIXs also had contra props, which also slightly changed their appearance.

Wuzak

9th October 2008, 08:25

In case profiles aren't enough....

MkXIV with bubble canopy and clipped wings
http://www.lesmala.net/jean-michel/avions/dux21.jpg

MxXIX with contra props
http://www.lesmala.net/jean-michel/avions/dux01.jpg

From http://www.lesmala.net/jean-michel/avions/

Lightning

10th October 2008, 17:24

The PR XIX is just a F MK XIV with cameras. The first 25 or so did not have pressurization.

The Mk XIX was not merely a Mk XIV with cameras. It used the fuselage of the Mk XIV, but it's wing evolved from that of the Spitfire V which in turn was used on the PR X and PR XI. As one can see, the PR XIX was in fact a hybrid.

As to the most-obvious (there were others) visible differences between the PR XIX and the classic earlier Spitfire marks, the PR XIX had the following:
Pointed tail
Long nose
Lengthened rear fuselage
Griffon-engine "humps" running along the engine cowl
Five-bladed propeller

A not-visible (except when just starting to rotate), but ever so important difference was that the propeller rotated in the opposite direction from that of the merlin.

Lightning

10th October 2008, 17:48

Hi Ricky,
But there it seems you have picked one example that fits your theory, and ignored all the others that do not! There seem to have been almost as many PR Spits as there were marks of Spitfire, and typically they are simply a regular Spit with minor specialist alteration.
And that one example is valid. There are, of course, others. The Mk 21, Mk 24 come quickly to mind. Actually, any-and-all of the Griffon-powered variants are significantly different in appearance to the classic lines of the earlier Spitfires. Then there are various other features such as teardrop canopies, clipped wings, lengthened-and-pointed wingtips, pointed and enlarged vertical stabilizer/rudder, etc. that appear on later model Merlin-powered variants as well.

Just look at the excellent photographs provided by Wuzak, and then compare them to photos of the MkI, Mk V, and Mk IX, and you'll see what I mean. Look at the Mk XIV photos, for example, and make the comparisons. The differences are significant and obvious.

Regards,
Lightning

Kutscha

10th October 2008, 22:57

Kutscha

12th October 2008, 13:51

Wuzak

13th October 2008, 00:49

The Mk XIX was not merely a Mk XIV with cameras. It used the fuselage of the Mk XIV, but it's wing evolved from that of the Spitfire V which in turn was used on the PR X and PR XI. As one can see, the PR XIX was in fact a hybrid.

As to the most-obvious (there were others) visible differences between the PR XIX and the classic earlier Spitfire marks, the PR XIX had the following:
Pointed tail
Long nose
Lengthened rear fuselage
Griffon-engine "humps" running along the engine cowl
Five-bladed propeller

A not-visible (except when just starting to rotate), but ever so important difference was that the propeller rotated in the opposite direction from that of the merlin.

The PRXIX had the same tail as the XIV, as well as the long nose and the Griffon engined trademarks.

The XIV started as a MkVIII with a Griffon engine, and the fuselage and tail etc were developed to compensate for the increased torque reaction. Spitfires with Griffons were first prototyped in 1940/1, long before they made production.

The Mk21 was the first to score a major redesign of the wing - and that was essentially a post war a/c.

As for the five bladed propellor, the original Spits had 3 blade props, moving to 4 when the 2 stage engines were introduced with their added power. With the introduction of the Griffon the power again rose, and therefore a 5 blade props was introduced to absorb that extra power. Later a 6 blade contra prop was added to improve handling and prop efficiency.

Wuzak

13th October 2008, 00:52

And that one example is valid. There are, of course, others. The Mk 21, Mk 24 come quickly to mind. Actually, any-and-all of the Griffon-powered variants are significantly different in appearance to the classic lines of the earlier Spitfires. Then there are various other features such as teardrop canopies, clipped wings, lengthened-and-pointed wingtips, pointed and enlarged vertical stabilizer/rudder, etc. that appear on later model Merlin-powered variants as well.

So, adding a bubble canopy and adding extra tail area is grounds for renaming an aircraft?

SO the P-51D should have been P-68? or something?

Ricky

13th October 2008, 09:19

Hi Ricky,

And that one example is valid. [snip]

I think we are arguing different things. I am pointing out that PR Spitfires are not hugely different from the Spit they are based on, while you are pointing out that late-model Spitfires are quite different from early model Spitfires.

Just a simple crossed wire, I think :o

Lightning

16th October 2008, 17:32

Hi Wuzak,Per you:
So, adding a bubble canopy and adding extra tail area is grounds for renaming an aircraft?

SO the P-51D should have been P-68? or something?
Not at all. I didn't say that the one or two differences were all that significant. You could have added the later model P-47D as well as the "M" and "N" to your comment. My point was, that there were so many changes to the Spitfire over the marks that its appearance changed to the point that it was no longer really recognizable as a Spitfire. This was not accomplished by merely adding a bubble canopy and changing the shape of the tail. As for renaming the aircraft, it was not I who came up with the serious consideration of renaming the advanced design the "Victor."

To someone familiar with the evolution of the design, the Mk 24, for instance, will be recognized as a Spitfire because he has followed, and is aware of, the changes. To someone who is only familliar with the Spitfire as it looked in the Battle of Britain, the Mk 24 would not be recognized as a Spitfire. He would think it was an entirely different airplane (which it was).

One example of a WWII fighter that had its name changed for far less good reason was the P-39 which evolved into the P-63. Look at them side-by-side, and your looking at very similar airplanes. Again, make the same comparison between earlier and later Spitfire variants, and you'll see my point. Just look! Its obvious. A picture is worth a thousand words!

Look at the photos you youself posted. Look at the "Mk XIV (with bubble canopy)" and tell me it even resembles a Mk I, V, or IX.

Now lets look at the Bf 109. Compare any two production variants--fom the earliest to the latest. They are all the same basic airplane. The casual observer could hardly tell the difference. Pick any one of them at random, and it is unmistakenly a Bf 109--no question about it. The knowledgeable Spitfire fan might make the same statement about all the versions of that plane, but no one else would.

Just look!

Regards,
Lightning

Lightning

16th October 2008, 17:59

"Which was the most adaptable design? By adaptable I mean both the ability to be effectively upgraded and the ability to undertake multiple roles (with or without alterations)"

Wings

Now we keep hearing about the wing of the Spitfire, that has clipped, standard and extended tips. This clearly shows the Spitfire could be altered very easily as the tips were easily changed. Now the 109 when converted to a naval a/c, the 109T, had a new wing of slightly increased span over the 109E it was converted from. Then there was the 109H, which was a failure, that had to have a new very extended wing designed and installed.

Clearly the Spitfire is the winner.

Armament

The 109E had wing cannons enclosed in the wings which were deleted on later models. When the requirement for more fire power arose, gondolas had to be hung under the wing, to the detriment of a/c performance. On the Spitfire, all the guns were enclosed in the wing. With the Universal wing numerous gun combinations could be used besides the ability to hang a bomb, or drop tank, under each wing panel. All the 109 could do was hang a drop tank and required a special wing to do so.

Clearly the Spitfire is the winner.

Canopy

The best the 109 could do was the Erla haube to increase the view capability for the pilot. The Spitfire got the bubble canopy with its superior 360 degree vision capability for the pilot.

Clearly the Spitfire is the winner.

Engines

No DB603 engine was fitted to the 109, yet the Griffin engine went into the Spitfire. Except for early models, the 109 used an engine based on the DB600 engine.

Post war the Jumo 211 was installed in the Czech version of the 109, the Avia S.199 but this a/c was a failure.

When DB engines were not available to the Spanish for their 109s, Merlins were substituted. This changed the 'look' of the a/c radically.

To get more power out of the engine, the 109 needed 'boost juice' (MW or GM) which added weight and complexity to the a/c.

Clearly the Spitfire is the winner.

The Germans had the habit of adding a digit to the original designation (ie Ju88 became Ju188, Ju288, Ju388) or changing the first digit in the designation (ie Me109 became Me209, Me309) for improved versions of the original design.

In the case of the 109, the Me209 (not the speed record holder which was a radical change in shape from the 109) showed no improvement over the original design. With the Griffon powered Spitfires, a performance increase was obtained with a slight change to the overall 'look' of the a/c. With the Me209, an annular nose radiator was fitted which was a radical change in the 'look' of the a/c. There was also a big change in the shape of the vertical stab. The 'look' of the Me309 was even more radical with its tricycle u/c, bubble style canopy and single radiator under the belly. Again, like the Me209, the Me309 was a dead-end in the evolution of the 109 design family.

In contrast, the Spitfire improved with each modification to the original design.

Clearly the Spitfire is the winner.

There is no argument here as far as the development of the Spitfire design is concerned. I have already stated that I believe that the Spitfire's design was more adaptable to development than that of the Bf 109. But all those modifications resulted in many specialized aircraft that were excellent in one area but not so great in another. I have already explaned this earlier.

The basic Bf 109 was adapted to many roles without all that significant change to its basic configuration. That is not true of the Spitfire. The high-altitude versions were not that good down low, and vice-versa. the air-air fighters were not good fighter bombers. Clipped wings, extended wings, Merlins, Griffons, lengthened fuselages, tails of different shapes and sizes, bubble canopies, cut-down fuselages, flush canopies, Malcomb hoods, various wings, etc.--the Bf 109 did not incorporate all these things, yet it performed all the same combat roles as did the Spitfire. That's why I think the basic Bf 109 was at least, and probably more, adaptable to many different roles without radical design changes.

The P-38 was a great example of this quality. It went throughout the war with relatively minor changes to its basic configuration, yet it was unmatched in its versatility and adaptability as a fighter. The number of roles in which it excelled is well known, so I will not list them here.

Wuzak

17th October 2008, 00:22

Hi Wuzak,Per you:

Not at all. I didn't say that the one or two differences were all that significant. You could have added the later model P-47D as well as the "M" and "N" to your comment. My point was, that there were so many changes to the Spitfire over the marks that its appearance changed to the point that it was no longer really recognizable as a Spitfire. This was not accomplished by merely adding a bubble canopy and changing the shape of the tail. As for renaming the aircraft, it was not I who came up with the serious consideration of renaming the advanced design the "Victor."

To someone familiar with the evolution of the design, the Mk 24, for instance, will be recognized as a Spitfire because he has followed, and is aware of, the changes. To someone who is only familliar with the Spitfire as it looked in the Battle of Britain, the Mk 24 would not be recognized as a Spitfire. He would think it was an entirely different airplane (which it was).

One example of a WWII fighter that had its name changed for far less good reason was the P-39 which evolved into the P-63. Look at them side-by-side, and your looking at very similar airplanes. Again, make the same comparison between earlier and later Spitfire variants, and you'll see my point. Just look! Its obvious. A picture is worth a thousand words!

Look at the photos you youself posted. Look at the "Mk XIV (with bubble canopy)" and tell me it even resembles a Mk I, V, or IX.

Now lets look at the Bf 109. Compare any two production variants--fom the earliest to the latest. They are all the same basic airplane. The casual observer could hardly tell the difference. Pick any one of them at random, and it is unmistakenly a Bf 109--no question about it. The knowledgeable Spitfire fan might make the same statement about all the versions of that plane, but no one else would.

Just look!

Regards,
Lightning

I understand all that, but what I am saying is that these changes didn't happen all at once. They happened gradually over several mark changes. There is a consistent line of DNA through them all, except, perhaps, for the Mk21 onwards.

I'd also suggest that the early mk Spitfires (up to MkVIII/IX), which all looked very similar, were just as capable at adaptation as the 109.

Kutscha

17th October 2008, 05:18

Show a photo of a late Mk Spitfire to a WW2 LW aircrew and he will say Spitfire.

Lightning

17th October 2008, 15:55

Show a photo of a late Mk Spitfire to a WW2 LW aircrew and he will say Spitfire.

Because, as I said, he had followed, and was very much aware of, the changes to the "Spitfire" he had encountered as it progressed through the war. He had to! His life depended on it. He was constantly updated in aircraft identification.

But show that same photo to a lay person (or even a person who is a fan of modern day airplanes but not those of WWII) who has seen photos of the Spitfire in a book on the Battle of Britain, and he will almost certainly say it is not a Spitfire but a sleek-but-different airplane. Do the same with 100 such folks, and the vast majority would do the likewise. The same would be true for the normal-production-run Mks V and IX, as well as some others.

Ricky

17th October 2008, 16:25

Well, let's compare:

Mk I

http://www.bluebird-electric.net/bluebird_images/spitfire_drawing.gif

Mk 24

http://www.internetmodeler.com/2005/october/first-looks/italeri_spitfire_24.jpg

So -

from above, the wings are clipped, but similar.
from the side, the rear fuselage is cut-down, and the fin is a slightly different shape.

Otherwise - almost exactly the same. Is that really a Mk 24 in the picture?

Lightning

17th October 2008, 16:43

Per Kutscha:

"The Germans had the habit of adding a digit to the original designation (ie Ju88 became Ju188, Ju288, Ju388) or changing the first digit in the designation (ie Me109 became Me209, Me309) for improved versions of the original design.

In the case of the 109, the Me209 (not the speed record holder which was a radical change in shape from the 109) showed no improvement over the original design. With the Griffon powered Spitfires, a performance increase was obtained with a slight change to the overall 'look' of the a/c. With the Me209, an annular nose radiator was fitted which was a radical change in the 'look' of the a/c. There was also a big change in the shape of the vertical stab. The 'look' of the Me309 was even more radical with its tricycle u/c, bubble style canopy and single radiator under the belly. Again, like the Me209, the Me309 was a dead-end in the evolution of the 109 design family."

The Bf 109 production series consisted of the Bf 109B,C,D,E,F,G, and K. all of these planes looked very similar. Sub-variants had identifiers added to the initial designation (EX: "Bf 109G-1/U1"), but they were all unmistakenly Bf 109s. When there was a radical departure from the basic design's configuration, it received a different designation such as Bf 209 or 309.

A Bf 209 was not a Bf 109. A Bf 309 was not a Bf 109. If they were, they would not have had different designations. They evolved from the Bf 109, but the changes brought about by that evolution were so extensive that they generated new designations. My ongoing point is that the same was logically called for in the Spitfire.

I don't think that very many people would agree with the statement that the substitution of the Griffon for the Merlin in the Spitfire resulted in only "a slight change to the overall 'look' of the a/c." (Italics mine.)

Lightning

17th October 2008, 17:49

Hi Ricky,

Well, let's compare:

Mk I

http://www.bluebird-electric.net/bluebird_images/spitfire_drawing.gif

Mk 24

http://www.internetmodeler.com/2005/october/first-looks/italeri_spitfire_24.jpg

So -

from above, the wings are clipped, but similar.
from the side, the rear fuselage is cut-down, and the fin is a slightly different shape.

Otherwise - almost exactly the same. Is that really a Mk 24 in the picture?

To begin with, I do not agree that they are "almost exactly the same." The bubble canopy is too obvious to discuss. The Mk I wing is truly elliptical in the classic sense of the Spitfire whereas if you extend the edges of the "Mk 24" wings past the clipped tip, they are not elliptical but merely have rounded leading and trailing edges. The tails of the two planes are quite different in reality, but it is not as obvious in the drawing of the Mk I. Look at a photograph of the MkI, and I think you'll agree.

I think your question, "Is that really a Mk 24 in the picture?" is a valid one. Is that really a Griffon engine up front? Where are the "humps"? The nose also looks a little short to me. Why the extended tailwheel? Is that really a Mk 24 in the picture?

I think the pictures posted by Wuzak on October 9th (even though they don`t include a Mk 24) show the differences of the later models from the earlier ones much better than those three-views. And, again, that drawing of the Mk 24 just looks strange to me.

One final comment on that drawing. Just off the top of my head (I'm not with my books), I don't remember having seen any photos of Mk 24s having clipped wings. I'm not saying they didn't, just that I don't recall ever seeing them so configured. That being said, If they did have clipped wings, that makes them even more different from the Mk I.

Regards,
Lightning
.

Lightning

17th October 2008, 17:55

Visible differences between the Bf109B and late model Me109G and later:

- Erla haube
- cowling bulges
- tall angular tail
- fatter propeller blades
- larger radiators (coolant and oil)
- Galland armor
- different shaped spinner
- lack of radio mast
- inner wheel well covers

According to Spitfire: The History, the PR XI wing was a MK IX wing with guns removed.

And yet, when you look at all the production variants of the Bf 109 side-by-side, they are so similar that no one would say that they think that any of them are are not of the classic Bf 109 configuration.

Wuzak

20th October 2008, 00:09

Mk 24

http://www.internetmodeler.com/2005/october/first-looks/italeri_spitfire_24.jpg

Otherwise - almost exactly the same. Is that really a Mk 24 in the picture?

No, That is a MkVIII or IX with a cut down canopy. I believe a few of these had the bubble canopy installed as a test.

Late model Spits had larger spinners as well. Plus Mk24s were post war and so the Free French would have had difficulty getting them!

As to the wing tips, as has been said before the wingtips can be "clipped" in the field in a matter of moments. It's a bolt up job. The Mk21-24 had different wing shaps - particularly at the tip, but all the others shared the wing shape.

Ricky

20th October 2008, 09:41

I thought it looked wrong for a Mk 24 - does anybody have decent 3-views of one?

Lightning - with the exception of the bubble canopy, you are picking on relatively minor differences, that somebody who was not familiar with the plane & its development would be less likely to notice. I will keep my position that the Mk I and whatever it is in the other picture look similar enough for the uninitiated to think 'oh, they look the same'. However, it isn't actually a Mk 24, so I'll hold off proper comparisons until we get a picture of one.

Edit - I found some pictures - but nothing suitable for show. However, yes, the Mk 24 was waaaay different to all other Spits in appearance.

The wing (while curved) was different, the tail was totally different, the rear fuselage was totally different, the (etc etc)
So I am 'forced' to agree with Lightning, that the first and last Spitfires were very different in look.
However, up until the 24, there did remain a very strong family likeness.

Ricky

20th October 2008, 09:44

The Bf 109 production series consisted of the Bf 109B,C,D,E,F,G, and K. all of these planes looked very similar.

In fairness, let's test that as well.

109 A
http://www.jg53.com/images/aircraft/bf109/bf109-a.jpg

109 K
http://www.hsgalleries.com/gallery04/images/bf109kam_2.jpg

Differences:

Wings longer with rounded tips
Very different engine (longer nose, totally different shape)
Slightly different canopy
Different shape of tail
No struts under rear wings
Underwing hardpoints

However, aside from the glaring difference of the engine, most are relatively minor and don't really hide the lineage. Much like the changes to the Spit...

Wuzak

21st October 2008, 00:19

Here is a pic of a Mk21 Spitfire - the first of those with the new wing (Mk21, Mk22, Mk24)

http://www.raf.mod.uk/history_old/images/spit_f21.jpg

I'd say the wing planform shape is close enough that the average person to recognise it as a Spitfire.

Kutscha

21st October 2008, 00:20

When I put my glasses on, they all look like Spitfires. :)

Wuzak

21st October 2008, 00:29

When I put my glasses on, they all look like Spitfires. :)

Rose coloured glasses?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/8b/Spitfire_mk2a_p7350_arp.jpg/300px-Spitfire_mk2a_p7350_arp.jpg

Lightning

22nd October 2008, 14:18

When I put my glasses on, they all look like Spitfires. :)

Might I recommend a good optician? :)

Lightning

22nd October 2008, 14:51

Hi Wuzak,

As to the wing tips, as has been said before the wingtips can be "clipped" in the field in a matter of moments. It's a bolt up job. The Mk21-24 had different wing shaps - particularly at the tip, but all the others shared the wing shape.

I believe that the "clipped" wing was factory built. It is relatively easy to bolt-on an extension to an existing clipped wingtip, but to clip-back an already-built longer wing would require some cutting--something not easily done in the field.

Regards,
Lightning

Lightning

22nd October 2008, 15:04

Hi Ricky,

In fairness, let's test that as well.

109 A
http://www.jg53.com/images/aircraft/bf109/bf109-a.jpg

109 K
http://www.hsgalleries.com/gallery04/images/bf109kam_2.jpg

Differences:

Wings longer with rounded tips
Very different engine (longer nose, totally different shape)
Slightly different canopy
Different shape of tail
No struts under rear wings
Underwing hardpoints

However, aside from the glaring difference of the engine, most are relatively minor and don't really hide the lineage. Much like the changes to the Spit...

The production runs of the Bf 109 began with the "B" variant. The "A" was a prototype, so using it for comparison is like comparing the Spitfire prototype, with its two-bladed wooden propeller, birdcage canopy, etc., to the production models.

As you said, however, the differences are not all that glaring. Also, the tail of the "K" is really not all that different in shape from those of the earlier variants, and it was only used on the latest "G"s and the "K."

Regards,
Lightning

Ricky

22nd October 2008, 16:04

The A served with the Condor Legion, which kinda discounts it as a prototype in my book. Besides, looks-wise it was very similar to the B.

I did forget the Buchon, which has a very different (and ugly) nose.

However, I still say that the side view at least is recognisably Bf109.

http://tanksww2f.chollie.co.uk/files/Aircraft/buchon23by3.jpg

I also say that the Spitfires, up until the Mk 23/24, were immediately recognisable. The Mk 24 needed a bit of a squint, thanks to the new tail, but even the laminar-flow wing was curvy enough to spark a similarity.

Lightning

22nd October 2008, 16:50

Hi All,

Both the Spitfire and the Bf 109 were used in a variety of roles including: fighter--high/low altitude, short/long range; fighter-bomber; bomber escort; interceptor; night fighter; photo recon; and others. One model of the Bf 109 was even modified to be a two-place trainer.

In order to fullfill these roles, both planes underwent numerous changesa and improvements. There is one obvious difference,however. Whereas the Spitfire design was radically modified to produce a number of specialized, almost purpose-built, variants to accomplish the above tasks, the Bf 109 retained its basic configuration, variant-to-variant.

Throughout its long development, the Spitfire changed in very noticeable ways. Its fuselage was cut down to accommodate a new bubble canopy which in turn had replaced the Malcomb hood which had replaced the flush canopy. Its fuselage was lengthened and its tail surfaces changed in size and shape to permit the use of the more-powerful Griffon engine--a completely different powerplant from the original Merlin. The Griffon required a five-bladed propeller whereas the Merlin had used first a three-bladed and then a four-bladed prop. One Griffon instalation even had a six-bladed, contra-rotating propeller!

The wings went from being elliptical to having a modified design with rounded, clipped, or pointed and extended wingtips. A laminar flow wing was also in the works.

All these changes resulted in significant variations in the appearance and dimensions of the aircraft. Power and weight also varied dramatically.

The Bf 109, on the other hand, had retained its basic configuration and appearance throughout its long operational life (post-war bastardization of the design notwithstanding). There were many changes to the aircraft, to be sure, but none of them altered its appearance to anywhere near the extent exhibited by the Spitfire.

Bumps, scoops, antennas, etc. were added, and there were minor changes to the shape and size of the tail, but the plane's profile and dimensions were never changed all that much. The BF 109B,C,D,E,F,G, and K were very much alike in appearance, though not in performance. To illustrate these points, consider the following;

The Spitfire's wingspan varied by 8 feet; that of the Bf 109 by only 2 inches.

The length of the Spitfire changed by 3.33 feet; that of the Bf 109 by 1.0 foot.

There were model-to-model differences in the Spitfire's wing area of up to 17.0 sq. ft. while those of the Bf 109 amounted to only 0.4 sq. ft. (The "H" and "T" variants had greater wing areas, but the H never reached production, and the T was a limited-production version designed to operate off of carriers. If we bring the T into the discussion, then the significant changes that resulted in the "Seafire" will also have to be considered.)

The Spitfire used two completely different engines with power varying by 1290 h.p. The DB 601 and DB 605 engines of the wartime Bf109 were the same basic design, except for increased cylinder size which gave the DB 605 an additional 400 h.p.

The Spitfire's weight increased by 3790 lbs. while that of the Bf 109 went up by 1920 lbs.

And, again, just look at the Spitfire variants side-by-side, and you see a series of significantly different configurations. Do the same with the Bf 109, from the earliest to the latest models, and you see just that--the Bf 109, a plane with superficial changes but appearing basically the same, variant-to-variant.

My conclusions from all of this are the same as I stated way back at the beginning of this discussion: The Spitfire design was more adaptable to changing roles, but only by significant changes to the airplane itself. Conversely, the basic airplane in the form of the Bf 109 was more adaptable with few major changes in its configuration. It was a more versatile "off-the-shelf", "out-of-the-box" warplane.

There may be some obscure or inconsequential subvariants of the Bf 109 that might turn up a few points in conflict with the above comments, but they will not materially change their overall validity.

Regards,
Lightning

Lightning

22nd October 2008, 18:02

Hi Ricky,

The A served with the Condor Legion, which kinda discounts it as a prototype in my book. Besides, looks-wise it was very similar to the B.

I did forget the Buchon, which has a very different (and ugly) nose.

However, I still say that the side view at least is recognisably Bf109.

http://tanksww2f.chollie.co.uk/files/Aircraft/buchon23by3.jpg

I also say that the Spitfires, up until the Mk 23/24, were immediately recognisable. The Mk 24 needed a bit of a squint, thanks to the new tail, but even the laminar-flow wing was curvy enough to spark a similarity.

Bf 109 prototypes did serve in Spain with the Condor Legion. Tracing the various '109s that served there is a can of worms.

Number D-10QY in your earlier posting is the Bf 109V-3, not a Bf 109A.

Number 6-36 in your most-recent posting was a Bf 109B. Number 6-3 is listed in various tabulations as both a Bf 109A and as the Bf 109V-6 prototype.

Bf 109V-1 is also listed as a Bf 109A.

According to one reference, "The Bf 109A was cancelled before production began. In its
place, the Bf 109V-4 was constructed."

This subject of which Bf 109s were prototypes, pre-production aircraft, early-production aircraft, etc. can really get involved and probably can never be completely resolved based on the documentation available or the lack thereof.

The Bf 109A really amounts to a non-entity in the history of the fighter, 32,000 examples of which were produced. Most references list production versions as beginning with the Bf 109B, and even those, as well as the succeeding C and D variants, are insignificant in number. The fully operational fighters began with the Bf 109E.

Regards,
Lightning

Kutscha

22nd October 2008, 21:37

According to delivery program No. 8 of 15 Aug 1938 (Nr. 138/38 g.Kdos), 22 A models were delivered. Another plan says 20 a/c were delivered. Almost all went to Spain.

Wuzak

23rd October 2008, 00:17

Hi Wuzak,

I believe that the "clipped" wing was factory built. It is relatively easy to bolt-on an extension to an existing clipped wingtip, but to clip-back an already-built longer wing would require some cutting--something not easily done in the field.

Regards,
Lightning

It is my understanding that the wingtips - be they standard, extended, or the clipped version - wer bolted on. Meaning that to change one to another required unbolting the one in place and bolting up the replacement.

Wuzak

23rd October 2008, 00:24

The Mk21, 22 & 24 (and their seafire equivalents) used a new wing, but it was not a laminar flow wing. That went on the Spiteful - which was a MkXIV Spitfire with the laminar flow wing.

I'm sure that the Spitfire could have performed all the roles it did with as little modification as the Bf109, but by adapting them to the roles made it even better.

Note also that the roles were performed by each generation of Spitfire. They didn't make the MkXIV to do a role that the MkIX didn't or couldn't already do.

Wuzak

23rd October 2008, 04:46

Part of the flightline at Duxford Flying Legends in 2007

http://img412.imageshack.us/img412/3966/flightlinehe4.th.jpg (http://img412.imageshack.us/my.php?image=flightlinehe4.jpg)

Kutscha

23rd October 2008, 13:19

It is my understanding that the wingtips - be they standard, extended, or the clipped version - wer bolted on. Meaning that to change one to another required unbolting the one in place and bolting up the replacement.

Be sure Wuzak. A lot easier than fitting a new wing that would be required, for example, on the 109H.

The Bf 109A really amounts to a non-entity in the history of the fighter, 32,000 examples of which were produced. Most references list production versions as beginning with the Bf 109B, and even those, as well as the succeeding C and D variants, are insignificant in number. The fully operational fighters began with the Bf 109E.

Which means out of the box the Spitfire was a viable a/c while the 109 was not.

With some 988 B (341), C (58) and Ds (589) built, it is not an insignificant number.This is approximately 3 times the number of Spitfire Mk Is built by Sept 1939.

Lightning

23rd October 2008, 16:01

Hi Wuzak,

The Mk21, 22 & 24 (and their seafire equivalents) used a new wing, but it was not a laminar flow wing. That went on the Spiteful - which was a MkXIV Spitfire with the laminar flow wing.

I'm sure that the Spitfire could have performed all the roles it did with as little modification as the Bf109, but by adapting them to the roles made it even better.

Note also that the roles were performed by each generation of Spitfire. They didn't make the MkXIV to do a role that the MkIX didn't or couldn't already do.

I know that the laminar flow wing finally ended up on the "Spiteful," but it was originally planned for the Spitfire (that's why I said it was "in the works"). It just turned out that, with so many major changes to the design, they were finally forced to change the name--something they should have done earlier.

When the Spitfire (or any other airplane) was adapted to a specialized role, it was done at the expense of other roles. For instance, extending the wing and tuning the engine for high altitude operation deteriorated performance down low. The same is true for the clipped-wing versions with engines optimized for low-level operations--their high altitude performance suffered as a result. Add extra fuel capacity for long range operation, and you affect the handling qualities of the original design. The less you have to change a given design to accomplish specific tasks, the fewer trade-offs have to be made.

It has been mentioned that the wingtips could be changed in a short time in the field. Perhaps, but the altitude-tuning of the engine could not be done in minutes. And once the airplane was airborne, it was commited to the configuration that that it was in at that time.

As far as the Spitfire being able to perform all those roles with as little modification as the Bf 109, we have no way of knowing that; all we know is that it didn't.

Regards,
Lightning

Lightning

23rd October 2008, 16:30

Be sure Wuzak. A lot easier than fitting a new wing that would be required, for example, on the 109H.

Which means out of the box the Spitfire was a viable a/c while the 109 was not.

With some 988 B (341), C (58) and Ds (589) built, it is not an insignificant number.This is approximately 3 times the number of Spitfire Mk Is built by Sept 1939.

The "H" never went to production. Also, as stated many times, the Spitfire did use a variety of wings.

The statement concerning the "out-of-the-box" Spitfire doesn't fit the discussion. The whole point is that, with so many specialized versions, there really was no "out-of-the-box" Spitfire.

When you consider a total production of around 32,000 airplanes, 988 is rather an insignificant number, especially when these planes were more of a pre-war development of the original design and were used, for the most part, as proof-of-concept aircraft as evidenced by their employment in the Spanish Civil War. Also, since there were only about 2/3 the number of Spitfires built as Bf 109s, the significance of the number of Mk Is, percentage wise, is not as small as implied.

Ricky

23rd October 2008, 17:18

There were model-to-model differences in the Spitfire's wing area of up to 17.0 sq. ft. while those of the Bf 109 amounted to only 0.4 sq. ft. (The "H" and "T" variants had greater wing areas, but the H never reached production, and the T was a limited-production version designed to operate off of carriers. If we bring the T into the discussion, then the significant changes that resulted in the "Seafire" will also have to be considered.)

But the 'Seafire' was re-named, and therefore should be considered a different aeroplane. The Bf109T retained the '109' name, and therefore should be considered in the same batch (following on from the '209' logic from earlier;))

Kutscha

23rd October 2008, 17:39

With almost 1000 a/c built, that is a large number for 'proof of concept'. :eek: So out of the box, the Spit Mk I was a viable combat a/c while the 109 needed almost 1000 a/c to become a viable combat a/c.

What is insignificant is the 160 VIII HFs compared to the 1498 regular Mk VIIIs built, as is the 400 IX HFs compared to the 5265 regular IXs built.

Now it has been mention the weight increase of the 109 and Spit. From the 109B to the 109K, the weight increased ~59%. The weight increase of the Spit I to the Spit 21 (the last war time model) was ~58%. This for normal flight weights.

How many 'specialized' versions of the Spit was there?

Lightning

25th October 2008, 12:52

Hi Ricky,

But the 'Seafire' was re-named, and therefore should be considered a different aeroplane. The Bf109T retained the '109' name, and therefore should be considered in the same batch (following on from the '209' logic from earlier;))

But, again, the "H" never went into production. If it had, then it would be valid to include it in this discussion. The same probably applies to the Contra-prop Spitfire, but I don't have the figures on the number built.

Regards,
Lightning

Lightning

25th October 2008, 12:59

With almost 1000 a/c built, that is a large number for 'proof of concept'. :eek: So out of the box, the Spit Mk I was a viable combat a/c while the 109 needed almost 1000 a/c to become a viable combat a/c.

But it has been argued here that the Bf 109 A,B,C,D did go into combat in Spain, and even some in WWII.

"Out-of-the-box," refers to the Design in general, not one specific variant. Every variant of any plane is, when considered singly, "out-of-the-box."

Kutscha

25th October 2008, 14:46

Lightning

27th October 2008, 16:37

Ah, Lightning you are claiming the ~1000 A, B, C and D 109s were prototypes (proof-of-concept) with the E as the first truly viable combat capable 109.

The 109 had to go though 4 different versions while the Spitfire, in the Mk I, didn't.

'out of the box' = initial design

Those Bf 109B,C,D aircraft (I'll address the "A" at a later time) that were sent to Spain were sent for several reasons, not one of which really had anything to do with a desire to help Franco for political or ideological reasons. Sending the Condor Legion was done for the benefit of Germany's in-progress military build-up.

The Spanish Civil War provided a perfect proving ground for the flledgeling Luftwaffe. The Bf 109s were sent to evaluate their effectiveness in combat and to show their weaknesses as well as their strengths. The knowledge so gained was to be used to develop the BF 109 into a first-class fighter capable of countering the best that England and France were bringing on line. None of the Bf 109s prior to the "E" was capable of this.

Another reason was to develop more effective and modern air-fighting tactics. The new formations used so successfully by the Luftwaffe in WWII were a direct result.

Equally important to this effort was the chance to provide valuable experience to the German pilots and aircrews against opposition that would not be as formidable as the RAF and other first-rate air forces, thereby providing good training with lessened risk.

To this end, therefore, the whole German involvement in Spain was a developmment and proof of concept for the Luftwaffe. As far as the use of the word "prototype" is concerned, it is obvious that not all these planes were prototypes, and that word was not used in the posting to which it is attributed.

Lightning

27th October 2008, 17:27

Now it has been mention the weight increase of the 109 and Spit. From the 109B to the 109K, the weight increased ~59%. The weight increase of the Spit I to the Spit 21 (the last war time model) was ~58%. This for normal flight weights.

The weight increases stated in my earlier posting were taken from tables that gave specifications for 29 Spitfire variants from SpItfire I through the PR XIX (with the heaviest of these being the Mk XVIII) and the Bf 109E through K.

I went back and researched the weights of the Spitfire I through Mks 21; 22: 24 vs. those of the Bf 109B through K with the following results:

Spitfire I:
Empty---- 4517 lbs
Loaded--- 5532 lbs

Spitfire 21; 22; 24:
Empty-----6900 lbs
Loaded----9900 lbs

This yields a percentage increase of:
Empty weight---53%
Loaded weight--79%

Bf 109B:
Empty-----4300 lbs
Loaded----4850 lbs

Bf 109K:
Empty-----6070 lbs
Loaded----7438 lbs

This gives a percentage increase of:
Empty weight---41%
Loaded weight--53%

The "loaded" weights are more significant than the "empty" weights. You don't fly or fight at empty weight (unless you can manage to do so without fuel or ammunition).

Lightning

27th October 2008, 17:46

How many 'specialized' versions of the Spit was there?

There were somewhere between 30 and 40 variants of the Spitfire. It is, therefore, too involved to completely research this question (life's too short!), but every significant deviation from the standard variants in wingspan, planform, altitude tuning, dimensions, pressurization, fuselage shape, etc. is a specialized variant. Any variant that is specially modified and dedicated primarily to a special task (e.g. high-/ low-altitude fighter, fighter bomber, long-range fighter, etc.) is a specialized variant. However, if a basic configuration is used for some, or all, of these tasks, it is not a specialized variant but a versatile variant.

While on the subject of specialized variants, a good example of the trade-offs involved when modifying a basic design for a specific task is the Spitfire Mk LF V--the low-altitude version of the Mk V. The wings were clipped, and a smaller supercharger impeller was used. The result was that the engine could not maintain full power above only 2750 feet!

Another example is the F2G "Super Corsair." It was developed to intercept low-flying Japanese suicide planes. Its performance at low altitude was outstanding, but at altitude it was inferior to the standard Corsair.

Lightning

27th October 2008, 17:54

Hi Wuzak,

The Mk21, 22 & 24 (and their seafire equivalents) used a new wing, but it was not a laminar flow wing. That went on the Spiteful - which was a MkXIV Spitfire with the laminar flow wing.

The laminar flow wing was originally intended for the Spitfire Mk 23, but development of that variant was discontinued. It was subsequently used on the Spiteful.

Regards,
Lightning

Ricky

27th October 2008, 18:15

The weight increases stated in my earlier posting were taken from tables that gave specifications for 29 Spitfire variants from SpItfire I through the PR XIX (with the heaviest of these being the Mk XVIII) and the Bf 109E through K.

I went back and researched the weights of the Spitfire I through Mks 21; 22: 24 vs. those of the Bf 109B through K with the following results:

Just out of interest, what was the increase up until the 20s, which were the first Spits that really did look a bit 'off'?

Lightning

27th October 2008, 19:00

Hi All,

I have consulted numerous references on this subject, and in each case, it was brought out that the Bf 109A never came to be, certainly not as a production aircraft.

The Bf 109V-1; V-2; and V-3 were slated as prototypes for the Bf 109A. The V-1 and V-2 had two rifle-caliber machineguns as proposed for the bf 109A. This armament was then deemed to be too light to combat the eight-gunned British fighters coming on line. The requirements were thus changed by the RLM, and the Bf 109A ceased development.

The V-4 was then built in the A's place, and it, as well as the V-5 and V-6 which were prototypes for the Bf 109B, were sent to Spain. The Bf 109B was the first production model.

I have read articles to the effect that many Bf 109Bs in Spain were mistakenly identified as Bf 109As. I also know that some tabulations of Condor Legion Bf 109s list small numbers of the A, although these are contradicted by other listings. I have seen no authoratative reference sources that give the Bf 109A as ever being in production beyond the prototypes given above.

I know that we all have good reference sources. Can this be resolved in a satisfactory way?

Regards,
Lightning

Lightning

27th October 2008, 19:28

Hi Ricky,

I had previously written:
But, again, the "H" never went into production. If it had, then it would be valid to include it in this discussion. The same probably applies to the Contra-prop Spitfire, but I don't have the figures on the number built.

The Spitfire I had a two-bladed wooden propeller on the first 77 aircraft. A metal two-pitch prop having three blades was installed on the 78th and subsequent Mk Is.

The six-bladed contra-prop was installed on the Mk FR XIV and on those F21 and F22 variants that used the Griffon 85 engine. I don't believe the so-configured FR XIV reached production.

The progression of propellers used on the Spitfire from the MkI onward was therefore the two-, three-, four-, and five-bladed, as well as the six-bladed contra-rotating, types.

Regards,
Lightning

Lightning

27th October 2008, 20:11

Hi Wuzak,

It is my understanding that the wingtips - be they standard, extended, or the clipped version - wer bolted on. Meaning that to change one to another required unbolting the one in place and bolting up the replacement.

The Mk IX was not delivered with clipped wings. The factory-provided wings were modified in the field or at maintenance units. In either case, I would be surprised if it were a job that could have been done in a few minutes.

Clipped wings were standard on the Mk XII, and were therefore factory installed.

The FR XIV had clipped wings from the factory, and most Mk XVI had clipped wings.

The MkVIII was delivered with standard, clipped, and extended wings.

Most clipped-wing models were therefore delivered from the factory as such. Field "clipping" was done on some models, but I believe it would be more time consuming than a mere few minutes.

Regards,
Lightning

Wuzak

28th October 2008, 07:42

Hi Wuzak,

The Mk IX was not delivered with clipped wings. The factory-provided wings were modified in the field or at maintenance units. In either case, I would be surprised if it were a job that could have been done in a few minutes.

Clipped wings were standard on the Mk XII, and were therefore factory installed.

The FR XIV had clipped wings from the factory, and most Mk XVI had clipped wings.

The MkVIII was delivered with standard, clipped, and extended wings.

Most clipped-wing models were therefore delivered from the factory as such. Field "clipping" was done on some models, but I believe it would be more time consuming than a mere few minutes.

Regards,
Lightning

Still, it did not require major surgery and metalwork to change them, so long as you had the required wing-tips in stock.

Wuzak

28th October 2008, 07:47

Hi Ricky,

I had previously written:

The Spitfire I had a two-bladed wooden propeller on the first 77 aircraft. A metal two-pitch prop having three blades was installed on the 78th and subsequent Mk Is.

The six-bladed contra-prop was installed on the Mk FR XIV and on those F21 and F22 variants that used the Griffon 85 engine. I don't believe the so-configured FR XIV reached production.

The progression of propellers used on the Spitfire from the MkI onward was therefore the two-, three-, four-, and five-bladed, as well as the six-bladed contra-rotating, types.

Regards,
Lightning

The contra props was also fitted to the PR XIX (PR version of the Mk XIV I believe).

Changing propellors as the power increased made sense, and was required to make the most out of the power gains being made.

Lightning

28th October 2008, 18:40

Hi Wuzak,

Still, it did not require major surgery and metalwork to change them, so long as you had the required wing-tips in stock.

I tend to agree. The one thing I'm not sure of is whether there was a necessity to cut off the ends if the wing spars of the factory-installed standard or extended wings. The clipped tips were shortened back to the outer edge of the ailerons, so there must have been a portion of the spar that extened out farther than that on these wings. Possibly, provision was made for this at the factory, but I have never heard of this being done.

The contra props was also fitted to the PR XIX (PR version of the Mk XIV I believe).

Changing propellors as the power increased made sense, and was required to make the most out of the power gains being made.

I have seen photos of a privately owned PR XIX that has the contra-prop, but it seems that I read where that plane had this prop installed by the owner (it must be great to have money!). I don't recall ever having seen an operational PR XIX with this prop installed at the factory, but, with all the Spitfire variants and subvariants, I wouldn't be surprised.

In addition to transferring all that power from the engine to the air, the contra-rotating propeller also removed the torque problem that would have arrisen with such an increase in power. This was especially true in the case of the "Seafire" when operating from carriers at low speed and full throttle.

Regards,
Lightning

Kutscha

29th October 2008, 17:51

Spitfire 21; 22; 24:
Empty-----6900 lbs
Loaded----9900 lbs

Typical take off weight for the Mk 21 was 9182.5lb. With the contra prop it was 9396lb. Tare weights respectively, 6923lb and 7136.5lb. This from the a/c's data sheets in Spitfire: The History.

Spitfire I:
Empty---- 4517 lbs
Loaded--- 5532 lbs

Tare weight of Spitfire Mk IA (late production) 4341lb and take off weight 5875lb (2 blade prop) and 6200lb (3 blade prop).

Bf 109B:
Empty-----4300 lbs
Loaded----4850 lbs

Fluggeweicht according to Kurzbeschreibung nach L.Dv. 557 for the 109 B was 1955kg/4301lb. Fluggeweicht max was 2200kg/4840lb.

Leergewicht is 1432kg/3150lb.

8-109 K4 G = 3400kg/7489lb
Remarks for the performance data. 5026/ 17
http://www.kurfurst.org/Performance_tests/109K_PBLeistungen/Leist_109K_EN.html

There were somewhere between 30 and 40 variants of the Spitfire.

So all the /#, /R and /U should be included in the total number of variants of the 109 then?

Is the /AS variant of the 109 modifying a basic design for a specific task?

I, II, PR III, IV, VA, VB, VC, VI, VII, VIII, LF VIII, HF VIII, IX, LFIX, HFIX, X, XI, XII, XIV, XIV RV, FR XIV, LF XVI, FR XVIII, XIX, F21, F22, F24 for 25.

http://www.spitfires.ukf.net/contracts.htm

Note the PR III and IV were only prototypes.

Kutscha

29th October 2008, 18:23

The one thing I'm not sure of is whether there was a necessity to cut off the ends if the wing spars of the factory-installed standard or extended wings.

The main and secondary spars stopped at the point where the wing tip was attached. It was only a matter of a few fasteners being removed to fit a different tip.

Lightning

31st October 2008, 18:38

The main and secondary spars stopped at the point where the wing tip was attached. It was only a matter of a few fasteners being removed to fit a different tip.

Which wingtip? The standard tip would be attached several feet further out on the wing than the square ("clipped") tip. This would be even further on the factory-installed extended tip.

If you were field-modifying a factory-installed standard wing by clipping it, and if the spar came all the way out to the standard tip, then the spar would have to be cut-back to the ailerons in order to install the clipped tip.

Kutscha

31st October 2008, 22:58

Lightning

31st October 2008, 22:58

Per Kutscha:

Spitfire 21; 22; 24:
Empty-----6900 lbs
Loaded----9900 lbs

Typical take off weight for the Mk 21 was 9182.5lb. With the contra prop it was 9396lb. Tare weights respectively, 6923lb and 7136.5lb. This from the a/c's data sheets in Spitfire: The History.

Quote:
Spitfire I:
Empty---- 4517 lbs
Loaded--- 5532 lbs

Tare weight of Spitfire Mk IA (late production) 4341lb and take off weight 5875lb (2 blade prop) and 6200lb (3 blade prop).

Quote:
Bf 109B:
Empty-----4300 lbs
Loaded----4850 lbs

Fluggeweicht according to Kurzbeschreibung nach L.Dv. 557 for the 109 B was 1955kg/4301lb. Fluggeweicht max was 2200kg/4840lb.

Leergewicht is 1432kg/3150lb.

8-109 K4 G = 3400kg/7489lb
Remarks for the performance data. 5026/ 17
http://www.kurfurst.org/Performance_...t_109K_EN.html

Numerous books and web sites give the loaded weight of the Mk 21 as being 9900 lbs. The highest gross weight figure I found for the Mk 21 specifically was 11,200 lbs.

Most references give the loaded weights of the Mks 21; 22; and 24 as being roughly equal.

Other figures for the Mk 24 were 12,150 lbs all-up weight and "6790 lbs heavier than the Mk I." If we use your figure of 5875 lbs T/O weight for the Mk I , the latter equates to T/O weight for the Mk 24 of 12,665 lbs. These two weights for the Mk 24 are roughly in agreement.

Then there is the quote by Jeffrey Quill: "A Spitfire 24 weighed the same as a Mk I plus 36 passengers and all their baggage and was still 100 mph faster." If you take the conservative estimate of a passenger and all his baggage weighing 180 lbs (and that is very conservative), that gives 6480 lbs. Again, add that to your figure of the Mk I's weight of 5875 lbs, and this yields 12,355 lbs for the Mk 24.

All three of those figures for the Mk 24 (i.e. 12,150 lbs, 12,335 lbs, and 12,665 lbs) are in pretty good agreement and serve to make my point even more strongly than before.

If anyone doubts these numbers, I invite them to consult a number of reliable references to see for themselves. The only caveat is that one shouldn't confuse terms like "empty weight," "tare weight," "maximum weight," "take off weight," "loaded weight," and "maximum-loaded take off weight."

(At least, we're in somewhat of an agreement on the weights of the Bf 109B.)

Also per Kutscha:

There were somewhere between 30 and 40 variants of the Spitfire.

So all the /#, /R and /U should be included in the total number of variants of the 109 then?

Is the /AS variant of the 109 modifying a basic design for a specific task?

I, II, PR III, IV, VA, VB, VC, VI, VII, VIII, LF VIII, HF VIII, IX, LFIX, HFIX, X, XI, XII, XIV, XIV RV, FR XIV, LF XVI, FR XVIII, XIX, F21, F22, F24 for 25.

No matter how many variants of the Bf 109 are considered, it is obvious, even to the most casual observer, that there were far more significant changes to to the Spitfire during its production life than there were to the Bf 109 during its production. That was, and is, my point. I'll say it just one more time, "Just look at photographs of those two planes from their prototypes to their final production variants, and ask yourself which one underwent the most drastic changes." You'll know the answer if you believe your own eyes. You won't have to state it here, but you'll know. This discussion has, and is, now just going in circles, so I'll close by invoking an old German saying: "Der Weiser gibt nach." (RT, Montana (motor), and some of our other collegues may well agree.

Kutscha

31st October 2008, 23:35

Numerous books and web sites give the loaded weight of the Mk 21 as being 9900 lbs. The highest gross weight figure I found for the Mk 21 specifically was 11,200 lbs.

Supermarine data sheets trumps books and the web.

At least, we're in somewhat of an agreement on the weights of the Bf 109B

Not when it comes to the empty weight. The weight I gave, from German documents, is 1150lb lighter.

Stony

1st November 2008, 12:55

I have seen photos of a privately owned PR XIX that has the contra-prop, but it seems that I read where that plane had this prop installed by the owner (it must be great to have money!). I don't recall ever having seen an operational PR XIX with this prop installed at the factory, but, with all the Spitfire variants and subvariants

This particular Spit. is re-engined with a Griffon(it used to have a merlin) out of a Shackleton. Including de Shacks contra props!

And by doing this the owner is just showing how adaptable a Spitfire airframe is!!

Cheers,
Stony

Lightning

4th November 2008, 17:42

Not when it comes to the empty weight. The weight I gave, from German documents, is 1150lb lighter.

There are documents and there are documunts--just as there are books and there are books. All official documents are reliable reference sources as are most books written by authoritative authors on the subject. But documents and books often give way to later documents and books that supercede or correct earlier versions. Hence the ever-present problem of "dueling references." I have no doubt that you presented your weight for the Bf 109B in good faith--as did I. Our sources don't agree. So be it. Others in the forum, if they are interested, can delve further into this subject and determine which of us is correct--or at least most correct.

We do, however, agree on the airplane's loaded weight, and, as I have pointed out earlier, this is more important than empty weight since you cannot fly or fight at empty weight unless you can find a way to do so without fuel and ammunition.

Lightning

4th November 2008, 17:59

I don't know why you are having such a hard time understanding Lightning.

Here is an official drawing of the Mk VIII's wing. Please note the text inside the red lines.

http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2005-12/1114844/SpitVIIIa-1.jpg

Showing the clipped and extended tips.

http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2005-12/1114844/Spitfire_SAM_007-2.jpg

Also, remember there was an aileron size change.

Nice site for good quality drawings.
http://www.airwar.ru/other/drawe.html

The drawing of the Mk 8 shows the standard tip's attachment point as being 2.4 ft from the tip on the standard wing.

The clipped wing on the Spitfire was 4.3 ft shorter than the standard wing. That means another 1.9 ft would have to be taken off the standard wing in order to make up the total 4.3 ft. (2.4 + 1.9 = 4.3 ft.) If the spar extended to the aileron on the standard wing, this would require cutting back the spar.

On the Mk VI and the Mk XVIe
drawings, the extended tip is bolted onto the clipped tip (i.e. at the same distance from the wing root). Where was the standard tip attachment point located here? This shows that the wing was probably a factory-installed clipped wing to start with--not a standard tip. Also note that the ailerons on both the clipped and extended wings are the same size.

Kutscha

4th November 2008, 22:04

Lightning you were the one the introduced 'empty weight'. William Green is considered a reliable authoritative author, yet he has the 109K-4 armed with MG151 cowl guns. Again, British and German factory documents trump all others.

The clipped wing on the Spitfire was 4.3 ft shorter than the standard wing. That means another 1.9 ft would have to be taken off the standard wing in order to make up the total 4.3 ft. (2.4 + 1.9 = 4.3 ft.) If the spar extended to the aileron on the standard wing, this would require cutting back the spar.

Spitfire wing span:

standard - 36' 10"'
clipped - 32' 2"'

difference - 4' 8" (4.66')

Don't forget the clipped wing had a capping piece added, the 3rd tip option.

1/2 span:
18' 5" - 16' 1" = 2' 4" (2.33')

2' 5" is 2.42'

The aileron size changed between the Mk IX and the Mk VII/VIII from 18.9sqft to 18sqft respectively. The Mk VI used the same aileron as the Mk V/IX/XVI.

Where was the standard tip attachment point located here?

I would say it is rather obvious.

http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2005-12/1114844/Spitfire_SAM_005-aa.jpg

Please download
http://www.airwar.ru/other/draw/spitfiresol.html
http://www.airwar.ru/other/draw/spitfiretsagi.html
http://www.airwar.ru/other/draw/spitfire_sam.html

Lightning

5th November 2008, 12:04

Hi All,

difference[/b] - 4' 8" (4.66')

Don't forget the clipped wing had a capping piece added, the 3rd tip option.

1/2 span:
18' 5" - 16' 1" = 2' 4" (2.33')

2' 5" is 2.42'

The aileron size changed between the Mk IX and the Mk VII/VIII from 18.9sqft to 18sqft respectively. The Mk VI used the same aileron as the Mk V/IX/XVI.

I would say it is rather obvious.

http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2005-12/1114844/Spitfire_SAM_005-aa.jpg

Please download
http://www.airwar.ru/other/draw/spitfiresol.html
http://www.airwar.ru/other/draw/spitfiretsagi.html
http://www.airwar.ru/other/draw/spitfire_sam.html

Yesterday after I had left the library (which is where I usually write my postings), I felt the need to revisit my numbers--something didn't seem right. Upon going back to my books, I realized that I had made a basic, yet significant mistake. I had given the given the dimensions for the span of the standard, clipped, and extended wings of the Spitfire. They should have been given for each wing. I was therefore off by a factor of two, i.e. my numbers were twice as large as they should have been. Based on the original numbers that I had given in a much earlier posting, I wrote-up the following at home last night before getting on the computer this morning:

"...my numbers were twice as large as they should have been. This means that only about one foot would have to be taken off the standard wing in order to produce the clipped wing. Since the possible distance the wing can be clipped before reaching the the standard-wing attachment point is 2.4 ft, removing one foot would leave room for a 1.4 ft-wide clipped tip to be bolted on to the standard attachment point.

'I checked the dimensions of the two marks given in Kutscha's posting:

Mk VI wingspan = 40.2 ft

MkXVIe wingspan = 32.7 ft

'The standard wingspan is 36.8 ft. This means that each wing on the Mk VI has 1.7 ft added, and each wing on the Mk XVIe has 2.1 ft removed. Since 2.4 ft can be removed before the standard wing attachment point is reached, this would leave room to make this modification possible without shortening the spar.

'When the actual numbers in Kutscha's posting were considered, it became clear to me that clipping/extending the wings on the Spitfire could be accomplished by bolting-on the respective wingtips without cutting the spar. The key dimension that cleared up the problem was the 2.4 ft between the wing-attachment point and the end of the standard wingtip."

These numbers agree quite closely with those given in Kutscha's posting and are made even more clear by his graphics. I therefore stand corrected on this point and have learned something in the bargain. I believe in doing my homework even when it proves me wrong.

Regards,
Lightning

Lightning

5th November 2008, 14:53

Lightning you were the one the introduced 'empty weight'. William Green is considered a reliable authoritative author, yet he has the 109K-4 armed with MG151 cowl guns. Again, British and German factory documents trump all others.

We can disagree on the empty weight of the Bf 109B. Also, it a non sequitor that because Green was wrong about the guns on the K-4 that he, or other knowledgeable sources, are unreliable. As far as factory documents are concerned, although they are usually very reliable, they sometimes do not agree with the final configurations arrived at. This is especially true when documents that have been since superceded by later documents are consulted.

The maximum weights you give for the Spitfire 21; 22; and 24 are much lower than given by many various references and field data. Are your factory numbers taken from the latest documents available? I find it very strange that so many different sources give the maximum weights of these aircraft as being over 10,000 lbs whereas yours give very much lower weights. Why are they so out of agreement?

Anyway, my comment regarding loaded weights of combat aircraft being more significant than empty weights still stands. It's the equipment, armament, fuel capacity, etc. that make for the effectiveness of a warplane. The closer the all-up weight is to the empty weight, the less effective combat load that can be carried.

Kutscha

5th November 2008, 17:13

I don't think I gave any weights, max or otherwise, for the Mk 22 and Mk 24.

The number for the Mk 21 are from the the Loading and CG Table.

Spitfire: The History pg. 466

Table II gives the weight for 'drop tanks and fuel, bomb carriers and bombs'.
Table III gives the weight for 'additional and alternative items of removable military load'.

Are you going to argue with data that is required for the pilot to fly the a/c.

Since you mentioned the Mk 24, here are the weights:

tare - 7,351lb
take off - 10,102
max permissible - 10,150lb
max overload - 12,150lb

As you said, one must be careful when stating weights.

What I posted was:
Typical take off weight for the Mk 21 was 9182.5lb. With the contra prop it was 9396lb. Tare weights respectively, 6923lb and 7136.5lb.

Document 5026/ 17
8-109 K4 G = 3400 kg

Retractable tailwheel. streamlined MG 131 bulges, wheel well covers,
streamlined mainwheel bulges, for tire 660 x 190; without antenna
mast, FuG 25 aerial, FuG 16ZY aerial, D.F. loop, MW 50 system,

Without wing weapons.

As can be seen the weight you posted are not exactly true.

Bf 109K:
Loaded----7438 lbs (3374kg)

I am not going to speculate on the items not fitted except for the MW50 system which would add some ~150lb. A drop tank and carrier would add another 500lb or so. If the /R6 option of 20mm gondolas were fitted, that would add another 200 or so pounds.

Glad you finally have 'seen the light' on the tips.

Lightning

6th November 2008, 17:38

I don't think I gave any weights, max or otherwise, for the Mk 22 and Mk 24.

But they are Spitfires, and their weights are therefore definitely applicable to the original discusson of changes-over-time of the original designs of the Spitfie vs the Bf 109 vis-a-vis weight gain.

The number for the Mk 21 are from the the Loading and CG Table.

Spitfire: The History pg. 466

Table II gives the weight for 'drop tanks and fuel, bomb carriers and bombs'.
Table III gives the weight for 'additional and alternative items of removable military load'.

Are you going to argue with data that is required for the pilot to fly the a/c.

Certainly not, but your question brings up a very important point. The actual weight-and-balance data is the final authority for any given airplane. It would never be found in a book--not even the pilot's manual--or even in the factory production documents for that variant. It is determined from the loading schedule for the individual airplane itself and is an individual document that must remain with the plane. This loading schedule would incorporate all items specified by the latest revisions of the factory documents.

During the development of an aircraft, factory drawings are constantly undergoing revisions and updates. As the design matures, it is able to mount/carry additional weapons and equipment. Reference to earlier factory documents would give incorrect indications of what the latest aircraft of the type were carrying. Only the drawings/documents pertaining to the aircraft in question would be accurate.

When referring to a factory document, one must always check its information block. That will give the part or model number, the date of the revision, and a list of all revisions that have been incorporated into that document since the original was issued.

I bring this out in answer to your earlier statement that a factory document trumps a book or web site. Reliable references written a significant time after the last aircraft of a given type has left the production line and gone through all its modifications and updates have the luxury of hindsight. In such a case, the reference would trump the factory document if that document was an early one and therefore not reflective of later development.

Were the documents, CG table, and loading table in your book the latest, or were they the originals for the type generated before they had undergone numerous revisions? The book is probably correct, or nearly so, but there is no guarantee of that being the case.

Since you mentioned the Mk 24, here are the weights:

tare - 7,351lb
take off - 10,102
max permissible - 10,150lb
max overload - 12,150lb

See my first comment in this posting.

What I posted was:
Typical take off weight for the Mk 21 was 9182.5lb. With the contra prop it was 9396lb. Tare weights respectively, 6923lb and 7136.5lb.

Numerous references give the gross weight for the Mk 21 as being 9900 lbs. Why? Where did the authors get that number? They are certainly not so unreliable that they guessed at it. And even if this were so, why would they all come up with the same weight? Are your numbers the latest for the Mk 21?

Document 5026/ 17
8-109 K4 G = 3400 kg

Retractable tailwheel. streamlined MG 131 bulges, wheel well covers,
streamlined mainwheel bulges, for tire 660 x 190; without antenna
mast, FuG 25 aerial, FuG 16ZY aerial, D.F. loop, MW 50 system,

Without wing weapons.

As can be seen the weight you posted are not exactly true.

Bf 109K:
Loaded----7438 lbs (3374kg)

I quoted my reference for the Bf 109K. It did not break the "K" down into its subvariants. Since you have a reference that pertains to the K-4 specifically, I am willing to accept it. That 26 kg difference, however, has miniscule bearing on the original discussion. Also, it seems a little coincidental that your reference states a nice round figure of "3400" kg while mine is a little more-likely-uneven figure of "3374" kg. Certainly not impossible, but just as nature hates a straight line, added-up lists hate nice even outcomes. Just a thought.

Glad you finally have 'seen the light' on the tips.

I'm always willing to learn. Your graphics were well done.

Lightning

6th November 2008, 17:59

Hi Sony,

This particular Spit. is re-engined with a Griffon(it used to have a merlin) out of a Shackleton. Including de Shacks contra props!

And by doing this the owner is just showing how adaptable a Spitfire airframe is!!

Cheers,
Stony

If you read the early postings in this thread, you'll see that I voted for the Spitfire as being more adaptable than the Bf 109. I added some "reservations" that have led to the present discussion.

Just a comment about the private owner's adding the Griffon contra-prop engine to the PR XIX. From what I have read, the Griffon was physically quite easily fitted to the Spitfire airframe. The modifications necessary were mainly needed to allow the airplane to absorb the much-greater power of the Griffon as opposed to the Merlin. (Weight also played an important role.)

The privately owned contra-prop PR XIX may have been a nice-performing machine as used in civilian flying, but could it have performed the more rigorous role of a wartime PR fighter? Why was such a modification not unertaken on this Spitfire variant during the war?

Regards,
Lightning

Kutscha

7th November 2008, 00:11

But they are Spitfires, and their weights are therefore definitely applicable to the original discusson of changes-over-time of the original designs of the Spitfie vs the Bf 109 vis-a-vis weight gain.

Yes they are but are for all intense and purposes post war a/c. That means that the 109K-6 should also included as if the war had continued longer it would have been used.

Kutscha

7th November 2008, 00:38

The privately owned contra-prop PR XIX may have been a nice-performing machine as used in civilian flying, but could it have performed the more rigorous role of a wartime PR fighter? Why was such a modification not unertaken on this Spitfire variant during the war?

It takes time to implement changes. LA213, a Mk 21, was afaik the first Spit to have contra props. This a/c was delivered in mid Dec 1944 and testing began in Jan 1945 with a Rotal. In June 1945, a deHavilland contra was being tested.

The war in Europe was over by June 1945.

Why did it take Mtt almost 2 years to have the simple mod of a Flettner rudder tab on some production 109s?

Kutscha

9th November 2008, 09:49

But they are Spitfires, and their weights are therefore definitely applicable to the original discusson of changes-over-time of the original designs of the Spitfie vs the Bf 109 vis-a-vis weight gain.

The maximum weights you give for the Spitfire 21; 22; and 24 are much lower than given by many various references and field data.

Afaik I only gave weights for the Mk 21.

Certainly not, but your question brings up a very important point. The actual weight-and-balance data is the final authority for any given airplane. It would never be found in a book--not even the pilot's manual--or even in the factory production documents for that variant. It is determined from the loading schedule for the individual airplane itself and is an individual document that must remain with the plane. This loading schedule would incorporate all items specified by the latest revisions of the factory documents.

So the a/c designers have no use for weight and balance info. How did they ever design the a/c then?

Lightning

11th November 2008, 15:22

Yes they are but are for all intense and purposes post war a/c. That means that the 109K-6 should also included as if the war had continued longer it would have been used.

For all intents and purposes, that's fine.

Your loaded weights for the early/late model Spitfires:

Spitfire IA (two-bladed prop)--5875 lbs
Spitfire Mk 24---------------10,102 / 10,150 lbs / 12,150 lbs

That gives a percentage weight gain from the Mk IA to the Mk 24 of 72% / 73% / 100% respectively.

You gave the loaded weight of the Bf 109B as being 4840 lbs.
You want to include the Bf 109K-6 in the discussin. It weighed 7925 lbs loaded.
This gives a percentage weight gain fom the Bf 109B to the Bf 109K-6 of 64%

Even using your lowest weight for the Spitfire Mk 24 and the heavier weight of the Bf 109K-6, the weight-gains-over-production-life of the Spitfire vs the Bf 109 are 72% vs 64%. respectively. When you use your other weights for the Mk 24, the differences are even greater--especially 100% vs 64%!

Lightning

11th November 2008, 15:34

Hi Stony,

Please pardon my having spelled your name incorrectly (i.e."Sony") in an earlier reply to your posting. I certainly meant no disrespect for your views.

Regards,
Lightning

Lightning

11th November 2008, 16:30

William Green is considered a reliable authoritative author, yet he has the 109K-4 armed with MG151 cowl guns.

The Bf 109K-4 was armed with these weapons--in addition to a 30 mm nose cannon.

Per William Green's book Warplanes of the Second World War--Fighters, Vol 1, Harper House 1960, the K-4 had two 15 mm MG 151s and either a Mk 108 or Mk 103 30 mm cannon--all in the nose.

Per The Great Book of World War II Airplanes, ISBN 0 517 459930, the K-4 had "a 30 mm Mk 108 or Mk 103 nose cannon in combination with a pair of MG 151 15 mm machine guns."

Fighters of World War Two, by Martin Windrow, Doubleday 1968 says the K-4 had two 15 mm MG 151s and one Mk 108 or Mk 103 30 mm cannon in the nose.

Bill Gunston, in Fighting Aircraft of World War II, ISBN 1 84065 092 3, states that the K4 had two MG 151 15 mm machine guns and one Mk 108 or Mk 103 30 mm cannon in the nose.

In the book The Complete Book of Fighters, ISBN 1 84065 269 1, co-authored by William Green and Gordon Swanborough, it gives the nose-mounted machine guns as MG 131s. I don't know whether the co-authorship had anything to do with this, but a few other references also give this caliber for the machine guns.

In any event, most competent reference sources agree that the Bf 109K-4 did have MG 151s mounted in the nose.

Lightning

11th November 2008, 16:50

According to delivery program No. 8 of 15 Aug 1938 (Nr. 138/38 g.Kdos), 22 A models were delivered. Another plan says 20 a/c were delivered. Almost all
went to Spain.

I have consulted quite a few sources on this point, and none of them state that Bf 109As were sent to Spain--or anywhere else. Only the early "V", or "versuch," prototypes that were slated to, but never did, lead to a production Bf 109A were sent.

There has been some historical confusion wherein the "B"s sent to Spain have been, in some references, mistaken for "A"s. In the spring of 1937, 24 Bf 109Bs were sent there to re-equip the Condor Legion's 2nd Squadron, 88th Fighter Group. These were probably mistaken for the approximately 20 or so aircraft referred to as "A"s from time to time.

For a discussion on whether any Bf 109As were ever, in fact, produced, see my earlier posting of October 27th titled "Was There a Bf 109A?"

Kutscha

11th November 2008, 17:12

The Bf 109K-4 was armed with these weapons--in addition to a 30 mm nose cannon.

In any event, most competent reference sources agree that the Bf 109K-4 did have MG 151s mounted in the nose.

Lightning get some scale drawings of the 109K and try to fit the MG151s into the cowl.

MG131 length - 1168mm

MG151 length - 1917mm

MG151/20 length - 1767mm

Do you see some 749mm or 599mm of barrel sticking out of the cowl in any photos?

The 151 myth began with Green who mis-read 131 and many others just blindly copied what he said.

ps. Why does one not see the ammo load as anything but 13mm for the cowl guns if the MG151s were fitted?

Kutscha

11th November 2008, 17:26

If you have problems with the 109A being in Spain, please take it up with Willy Radinger and Walter Schick. See their book 'Messerschmitt Bf109A-E' pg 34. ISBN 0-7643-0951-X

Kutscha

11th November 2008, 17:35

Please note the weight.

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spit21ads.jpg

Did you add the weight of MW50 and its tank, as well as the 300l. drop tank and its carrier to the weight of the 109Ks?

Lightning

11th November 2008, 17:36

If you have problems with the 109A being in Spain, please take it up with Willy Radinger and Walter Schick. See their book 'Messerschmitt Bf109A-E' pg 34. ISBN 0-7643-0951-X

I don't have any problems, but that book, if it does say that "A"s were sent to Spain, may have. Check more than one reference on this subjec--I did.

Kutscha

11th November 2008, 17:41

I don't have any problems, but that book, if it does say that "A"s were sent to Spain, may have. Check more than one reference on this subjec--I did.

Is that like the references you listed for the MG151s being fitted to 109Ks?

Lightning

11th November 2008, 17:51

Did you add the weight of MW50 and its tank, as well as the 300l. drop tank and its carrier to the weight of the 109Ks?

We can discuss the Mk 21 all you want, but using your weights for the Mk IA vs the Mk 24 is still going to show up to a 100% increase in weight. There is no way that you can demonstrate even an approximate 100% weight gain for the Bf 109, the items mentioned above notwithstanding.

The weights I gave are given in numerous references. Even if you add 1000 more lbs, you won't come close to a weight increase of 100 %.

Lightning

11th November 2008, 17:57

The 151 myth began with Green who mis-read 131 and many others just blindly copied what he said.

How many reliable authors just blindly read William Green's books without doing their own research. One or two I could understand, but not so many as I have read.

Kutscha

11th November 2008, 18:24

How many reliable authors just blindly read William Green's books without doing their own research. One or two I could understand, but not so many as I have read.

From what you have stated as references, it would seem quite a few.

Here are some more weights for the Mk 24

with 3 500lb bombs - 11,290lb
with 4 300lb RPs and 90gal o/ld tank - 11,930lb
with 3 500lb bombs and 90 gal tank - 11,740lb
with 170 gal ferry tank - 11,330lb

Now if you can mount any of that on the 109K, then you can compare weights. What it does show is the excess payload capability of the Spitfire compared to the 109.

The weights I gave are given in numerous references. Even if you add 1000 more lbs, you won't come close to a weight increase of 100 %.

3600 + 200 (drop tank) + 100 (MW50) = 3900kg

(3900/2000) x 100 = 95%

So it can be concluded that you don't know how the 109K was configured.

Lightning

12th November 2008, 19:37

Kutscha,

I see that your classless, obnoxious personality always comes to the fore when anyone questions your postings. Whether you have been right or wrong, I have always treated you with respect--respect that you in no way deserve.

When you have been right, I have aknowledged it. When you have been wrong (as on oh so many occassions), you have just not responded further. Suddenly you are gone--until the next topic arises. Then its off on another one of your childish, arrogant tirades.

Of all the members of this forum, you are the only one who displays no social grace of any kind. There are quite a few other forums out there--low-quality forums inhabited by boors like you. You would do well to go to one of them. You'd be right at home with the other bottom feeders.

Originally, I had suspected that your aggressive, boorish behavior was a sign of your having an inferiority complex, but it has become very clear that, in your case, it's obviously not a complex.

I've restrained myself from responding in kind to your feeble attempts at sarcasm. I enjoy a good debate with an intelligent adversary, but you've proven yourself to be far less than that. I'd normally avoid engaging someone like you in a battle of wits because I hate taking advantage of an unarmed man, but if you really want to continue this, lay-on, Macduff. I'll endulge myself in showing you up for the inarticulate clod that you are.

Disrespectfully,

Lightning

Kutscha

13th November 2008, 01:41

In Lynn Ritger's book, Meserschmitt Bf 109, Part 1 -- Prototype to 'E' Variants : A Comprehensive Guide for the Modeller, published 2005, for the Bf109A he has codes 6*3 to 6*18 (16 a/c) as being in Spain.

{Covers Prototype to 'E' variants; Colour Side Views; Scale Fold-Out Plans; In-depth photographic coverage, including three detailed walkarounds; Campaigns and historical development; Critical analysis of the most popular kits on the market; Comprehensive listing of decals and accessories; Comprehensive listing of squadrons and operators; Full bibliography.}

Kutscha

14th November 2008, 02:03

The Bf 109K-4 was armed with these weapons--in addition to a 30 mm nose cannon.

Per William Green's book Warplanes of the Second World War--Fighters, Vol 1, Harper House 1960, the K-4 had two 15 mm MG 151s and either a Mk 108 or Mk 103 30 mm cannon--all in the nose.

Per The Great Book of World War II Airplanes, ISBN 0 517 459930, the K-4 had "a 30 mm Mk 108 or Mk 103 nose cannon in combination with a pair of MG 151 15 mm machine guns."

Fighters of World War Two, by Martin Windrow, Doubleday 1968 says the K-4 had two 15 mm MG 151s and one Mk 108 or Mk 103 30 mm cannon in the nose.

Bill Gunston, in Fighting Aircraft of World War II, ISBN 1 84065 092 3, states that the K4 had two MG 151 15 mm machine guns and one Mk 108 or Mk 103 30 mm cannon in the nose.

In the book The Complete Book of Fighters, ISBN 1 84065 269 1, co-authored by William Green and Gordon Swanborough, it gives the nose-mounted machine guns as MG 131s. I don't know whether the co-authorship had anything to do with this, but a few other references also give this caliber for the machine guns.

In any event, most competent reference sources agree that the Bf 109K-4 did have MG 151s mounted in the nose.

The references listed are coffee table books that are very far from being even remotely considered competent reference sources in any way, shape or form.

All reputable reference sources have 13mm MG131s in the cowl. The only conclusion that there can be, there being no photographic proof as well, is that 20mm guns were not mounted in the cowl of the 109.

The only 20mm cannons mounted in the nose were the ones that fired through the spinner. The 109F was the first variant to do so.

Mk 108 or Mk 103 30 mm cannon in the nose

The only MK103 that was to be mounted in the 109 was the MK103M. It was tested but it is questionable if it was mounted, even in prototype form, in a 109 as its reliability was not the best. The MK103 was a massive weapon weighing ~320lb and its only operational use was in multi engined a/c. The MK108 weighed ~127lb. It is not hard to imagine what that extra ~200lb in front of the a/c's CG would do to the balance of the a/c. Ammo for the MK103 was approximately twice the length of the ammo of the Mk108.

Lightning

14th November 2008, 17:24

The references listed are coffee table books that are very far from being even remotely considered competent reference sources in any way, shape or form.

Whether they are "coffee table books" or not, they are of the same quality as those found in most private libraries--not all of us can have the luxury of collecting the kind of references to which Kutscha refers. I dare say, however, that some, or even most, of those out there have some of the references named and have cited them from time-to-time in this forum.

The information gotten from these books is also in agreement with numerous sites on the Internet. I am fully aware of the pitfalls of using the Internet as a final authority, but by cross-referencing sources--books, magazines, Internet, etc.--one can usually arrive at reliable conclusions.

I have stated on other occasions that to accept a source as one's authority is to accept the responsibility of being wrong if that source is wrong. If all the authors of the references I have cited are wrong, then I, too, am wrong; if they are right, so am I.

All reputable reference sources have 13mm MG131s in the cowl. The only conclusion that there can be, there being no photographic proof as well, is that 20mm guns were not mounted in the cowl of the 109.

The only 20mm cannons mounted in the nose were the ones that fired through the spinner. The 109F was the first variant to do so.

The only "fuselage" or "cowling" MG151 machine guns I have referred to as being mounted on any variant of the Bf 109 are the 15 mm version of the MG 151--not the 20 mm version. The use of the term "nose" obviously referred to those guns--both machine guns and cannon--mounted ahead of the pilot as opposed to wing guns. In fact, I didn`t mention the 20 mm Mg 151 at all, as a check of the above references will show. If that was not clear before, it has here been clarified.

The only MK103 that was to be mounted in the 109 was the MK103M. It was tested but it is questionable if it was mounted, even in prototype form, in a 109 as its reliability was not the best. The MK103 was a massive weapon weighing ~320lb and its only operational use was in multi engined a/c. The MK108 weighed ~127lb. It is not hard to imagine what that extra ~200lb in front of the a/c's CG would do to the balance of the a/c. Ammo for the MK103 was approximately twice the length of the ammo of the Mk108.

In Messerschmitt Bf 109 written by Robert Grinsell and part of the anthology cited in the second reference shown above, the author writes:

""In addition to testing of the standardized G-10 armament of the nose-mounted 20-mm MG 151 cannon and cowling-mounted 13-mm Mg 131 machine-guns, the K-0 prototypes were also evaluated with the incorporation of either a 30-mm Mk 103 or an (sic) Mk 108 nose-mounted cannon (the primary difference in the Mk 103 and the Mk 108 was in the length of the barrel) and a pair of cowling-mounted 15-mm MG 151 machine guns."

He then goes on to say,"The initial production batch of K-series aircraft to be considered consisted of both the Bf 109K-2 and the Bf 109K-4 models...The K-2 and K-4 incorporated the modifications noted for the pre-production aircraft and standardized on the 30-mm nose cannon in combination with a pair of 15-mm MG 151 machine guns."

Note that he says merely "30-mm nose cannon" as standard. He does not state specifically that either the Mk 108 or the Mk 103 was used.

Further on, the author, in referring to the K-6 variant, states, "The aircraft was similar to the K-4, but reverted back to the 13-mm MG 131 fuselage mounted machine guns [italics mine]. This implies that Grinsell was not just copying Green's numbers. Whether or not this is a valid conclusion will be left up to the reader.

Lightning

14th November 2008, 17:58

Document 5026/ 17
8-109 K4 G = 3400 kg

Retractable tailwheel. streamlined MG 131 bulges, wheel well covers,
streamlined mainwheel bulges, for tire 660 x 190; without antenna
mast, FuG 25 aerial, FuG 16ZY aerial, D.F. loop, MW 50 system,

Without wing weapons.

As can be seen the weight you posted are not exactly true.

Bf 109K:
Loaded----7438 lbs (3374kg)

I am not going to speculate on the items not fitted except for the MW50 system which would add some ~150lb. A drop tank and carrier would add another 500lb or so. If the /R6 option of 20mm gondolas were fitted, that would add another 200 or so pounds.

We'll use your weight of 3400 kg = 7480 lbs (You agree that our numbers are in fair agreement). That is the maximum take-off weight of the airplane regardless of what is mounted or being carried. The items you list above, if they are fitted, mounted, or carried, are counted toward the maximum weight and therefore don't change the take-off weight given for the Bf 109K.

If the mounting of any of those items would result in the allowed weight being exceeded, then it would not be able to be mounted unless something else were unloaded to bring the weight back into limits.

Lightning

14th November 2008, 19:13

Hi All,

I went back to the Internet to further research the subject of the Bf 109A. I found a site that references the book by Lynn Ritger. The web site is zi.ku.dk/personal/drnash/model/spain/bf109.html. I had difficulty when I typed in the address as it appears, but if you Google "The Messerschmitt Bf 109 in Spain," it will be the first listing displayed.

On this site, seven reference books are listed in tabular form. Six show blanks for the Bf 109A column. Under the seventh (Ritger's reference), there is a list of code numbers for the Bf 109 that are the same as given by Kutscha earlier.

Further down the page is a photo of Code "6-3." The caption says it "appears" to be a Bf 109A.

Scroll down a bit further, and there is a line drawing of what is described as an "A" model. A note in small print above the picture says, "Previously referred to as the Bf 109B-1, but Ritger (2005) argues convincingly that these models were actually designated Bf 109A."

If you go there, read the whole page. There are numerous caveats and disclaimers as to the accuracy of the information given, and it states that there has been much confusion in the historical records, but it is worth the read.

I'll present again what I wrote back on Oct. 27th for comparison. It is not in agreement with the variant designations given on the web site, but the fact that there is historical confusion is confirmed.

Hi All,

I have consulted numerous references on this subject, and in each case, it was brought out that the Bf 109A never came to be, certainly not as a production aircraft.

The Bf 109V-1; V-2; and V-3 were slated as prototypes for the Bf 109A. The V-1 and V-2 had two rifle-caliber machineguns as proposed for the bf 109A. This armament was then deemed to be too light to combat the eight-gunned British fighters coming on line. The requirements were thus changed by the RLM, and the Bf 109A ceased development.

The V-4 was then built in the A's place, and it, as well as the V-5 and V-6 which were prototypes for the Bf 109B, were sent to Spain. The Bf 109B was the first production model.

I have read articles to the effect that many Bf 109Bs in Spain were mistakenly identified as Bf 109As. I also know that some tabulations of Condor Legion Bf 109s list small numbers of the A, although these are contradicted by other listings. I have seen no authoratative reference sources that give the Bf 109A as ever being in production beyond the prototypes given above.

I know that we all have good reference sources. Can this be resolved in a satisfactory way?

Regards,
Lightning

What is correct? I don't know for certain, but apparently neither does anyone else.

Regards,
Lightning

Lightning

14th November 2008, 19:38

Hi All,

This thread has run its course. The original theme of which of the two aircraft--the Spitfire or the Bf 109--was the more adaptable has evolved into a series of debates concerning wing tips, airplane weights, gun calibers, etc. These considerations are contributory to the subject, but are by no means definitive of it.

I think each has stated his case so that his position is clear. The issue has not been resolved, and it never will be as long as there are differences of opinion. I therefore think it's time to move on. There are so many more topics concerning WWII aviation that can be discussed--some already in progress and some yet to come. The supply is unlimited.

See you in the next thread.

Regards,
Lightning

Kutscha

15th November 2008, 14:29

We'll use your weight of 3400 kg = 7480 lbs (You agree that our numbers are in fair agreement). That is the maximum take-off weight of the airplane regardless of what is mounted or being carried. The items you list above, if they are fitted, mounted, or carried, are counted toward the maximum weight and therefore don't change the take-off weight given for the Bf 109K.

If the mounting of any of those items would result in the allowed weight being exceeded, then it would not be able to be mounted unless something else were unloaded to bring the weight back into limits.

Lightning, were you not the one who said to be careful with weights? The 3400kg is NOT the maximum loaded weight.

I will use the G-6 to illustrate your error of thinking since I have the data handy.

The standard take off weight was 3196kg. For the G-6/R2 it was 3320kg. For the G-6/AS it was 3221kg.

These numbers taken from:

http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2005-12/1114844/data4-1.jpg

Notice, there is no mention of a single 300l. drop tank or 250kg bomb or cannon gondolas. The G-6 could also carry 2 300l. drop tanks and there was even an experiment to carry 3 300l. drop tanks. These would all raise the take off weight above the standard, or in British nomenclature typical, take off weight of 3196kg.

Can you tell me what basic items would be removed from the a/c?

Kutscha

15th November 2008, 14:50

On the Spitfire's wing tips by way of Dan, aka Guppy35.

from the Spitfire V Manual on the wing tips.

"The detachable wing-tip is secured to the plane by two bolts, one at each spar, the joint being covered by a metal strip. The main rip and the spar portion of the tip are metal but the outer formers and ribs are of spruce, the metal skin being attached to them with wood screws. The leading edge of the wing-tip houses a navigation lamp. When the aircraft is flown without the wing-tips, a fairing is fitted in place of the wingtip. see Fig 6a"

So 4 bolts was all that held the tip in place.

Kutscha

15th November 2008, 17:20

On this site, seven reference books are listed in tabular form. Six show blanks for the Bf 109A column.

If you had read the references Lightning you would see that those 6 books were published 8 to 22 years ago.

The Ritger book is only 3 years old. It is amazing what further research can turn up.

The link also says:

Bf 109 B
The fixed pitch propeller was replaced by a variable-pitch Hamilton propeller (this was also associated with the ability to fit an Mg 17 mounted between the engine blocks, but it is unclear how often this was fitted). Three large cooling slots were cut into the top and one into the bottom of the forward cowling to increase gun and engine cooling. The underwing oil cooler was also repositioned slightly further forward on later machines. Shorter wing slats were also introduced during the production of the B series.
NB. Many (if not all) Bf 109 A's were upgraded to B standard in the field, when the variable pitch propellers became available. The cooling slots were also added at various stages, so that the combination of cooling slots and fixed-pitch propellor can been seen on several photographs.

It is not hard to understand why the caption says "appears to be a Bf109A". That is because the original code for the V6 was changed to 6*2. It is also not hard to understand there would be some confusion with the 109As being upgraded to 109B standards. There is also the position of the oil cooler under the wing which appears to be further rearward than on the 109B.

I have seen no authoratative reference sources that give the Bf 109A as ever being in production beyond the prototypes given above.

Here you go.

http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2005-12/1114844/109A.jpg

This is from 'Messerschmitt Bf109A-E' by Radinger and Schick pg 34

Kutscha

16th November 2008, 13:43

The information gotten from these books is also in agreement with numerous sites on the Internet. I am fully aware of the pitfalls of using the Internet as a final authority, but by cross-referencing sources--books, magazines, Internet, etc.--one can usually arrive at reliable conclusions.

Unfortunately one can't. That is because the magazines and the internet got their info from those books.

Messerschmitt Bf 109 written by Robert Grinsell

I have that book, as well as the other books in the series, but it was published 28 years ago using info only available at that time. It falls between the coffee table books and secondary references sources.

There are other glaring errors in the book with regards to the 109K. That should set off warning bells about the accuracy of what was written.

Examples:
The K-2 never went into production and the 2000hp engine did not begin testing in a 109 until Dec 1944 with JG11 and was not cleared for operational use til March 1945.

Lightning

17th November 2008, 19:32

Lightning, were you not the one who said to be careful with weights? The 3400kg is NOT the maximum loaded weight.

I will use the G-6 to illustrate your error of thinking since I have the data handy.

The standard take off weight was 3196kg. For the G-6/R2 it was 3320kg. For the G-6/AS it was 3221kg.

These numbers taken from:

http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2005-12/1114844/data4-1.jpg

Notice, there is no mention of a single 300l. drop tank or 250kg bomb or cannon gondolas. The G-6 could also carry 2 300l. drop tanks and there was even an experiment to carry 3 300l. drop tanks. These would all raise the take off weight above the standard, or in British nomenclature typical, take off weight of 3196kg.

Can you tell me what basic items would be removed from the a/c?

If I am reading your data chart correctly, I gather the following:

In the "Maximum landing speed - Takeoff weight" column, takeoff weights are given as:

G-6 = 2900 kg

G-6/R2 = 3000 kg

G-6/AS = 2900 kg

This implies that the weights you state, as given in the "Takeoff weights" column, of:

G-6 = 3196 kg

G-6/R2 = 3320 kg

G-6/AS = 3221 kg

are maximum takeoff weights since they are all on the order of 300 kg, or more, heavier than the weights you give.

In addition, referring to the "Maximum load area Takeoff weight" column, the respective weights given are:

G-6 = 3320 kg

G-6/R2 = 3300 kg

G-6/AS = 3320 kg

These would be the maximum loaded weights since they are even higher, by about 100 kg, than the maximum takeoff weights given above, except in the case of the G-6/R2, in which case they are only 20 kg apart--a discrepancy that could probably be explained by further study of available data.

The additional items that you list are not on the chart, so I can't comment on them except to say that if they're not on the loading scedule, then they are not part of the load allowed by that scedule. If the 109G-6 did cary these items, then they are probably listed on a subsequent loading schedule which would be substantially, if not totaly, different.

As to which items could be removed to remain within weight-and-balance limits, the first thing that is considered is the fuel. If that prevents the mission from being accomplished because of range reduction, then other components of the load must be reduced. If no amount of load reduction can achieve the required results, the plane cannot accomplish the mission.

In extreme cases, the maximum weight can be exceeded (with great risk), but in no case would it be permissible to violate the fore/aft center-of-gravity limits.

As I have said earlier, I am moving on. We could go back-and-forth on this for months, and it would still be unresolved. Each point made would require a reasonable amount of research and reading in order to be either refuted or agreed with, and this is becoming increasingly time consuming--especially since it really does not address the original theme of this thread to the extent that it would change the outcome to any substantial degree.

I appreciate the effort you have obviously put into the research of this subject. If you have a copy of Ritger's book (I, unfortunately, do not), it is undoubtably a quality reference on the Bf 109. The fact that it deals with model-airplane building does not detract from its being just that--a quality reference, but there are many who would put it into the catagory of being a "coffee-table book." It all depends on one's perspective.

Kutscha

18th November 2008, 07:15

First of, who ever did the translation made an error. 'fluggewicht' (on the German original) is flying weight.

The difference of ~300kg is easily accounted for with the fuel load. Naturally some fuel would be left but would be taken up by ammo usage.

Me109G-6 with 300l drop tank and 20mm gondolas.

http://www.lexikon-der-wehrmacht.de/Bilder/Me109/Me109G6-2.jpg

That is an extra ~220kg of fuel and ~85kg just for the cannons. The weight does not include the the tank itself and its carrier and the 20mm ammo.

"Maximum load area Takeoff weight" means 'load area at a flying weight weight of 'x'kg'.

This, again, looks like a translation error.

Flying weight is not maximum weight as has been shown. One can't compare 'apples' to 'oranges' as you are doing with the weights of the K-4 and Mk 24.

You don't know much about modelers, and how picky they can be about exactness - perfection, do you?

I don't have much time now either as a client wants his design 'yesterday' (ie asap).

A fact of the net is threads drift off topic, like this thread did.

Lightning

18th November 2008, 15:15

Kutscha:

I wrote:

I appreciate the effort you have obviously put into the research of this subject. If you have a copy of Ritger's book (I, unfortunately, do not), it is undoubtably a quality reference on the Bf 109. The fact that it deals with model-airplane building does not detract from its being just that--a quality reference ....
To which you replied:
You don't know much about modelers, and how picky they can be about exactness - perfection, do you?
Your reply is a perfect example of what I was talking about in the private message I sent you.

Kutscha

21st November 2008, 13:26

Kutscha

21st November 2008, 14:19

If one is going to be argumentative one should have at least a technical/engineering leg to stand on.

The MG151 (red) positioned in the cowl. The green lines show the position so the MG151 does not intrude into the cockpit area. Also notice the length the barrel protrudes from the cowling (no photographic proof). Then there is the ammo feed chutes to consider. The bulges were there because the 131 ammo would not feed properly and needed a larger radius than what the MG17s used. It is obvious that the chutes would have an even larger radius for the much larger 15mm ammo (even larger bulges, no photographic proof) never mind that a feed motor would be required for the much heavier 15mm ammo to be pulled up to the MG151s. There is more I could say but I think that is more than enough to debunk the myth that MG151s were cowl mounted.

http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2005-12/1114844/Mg151-Mg131-2.jpg

edit: changed 20 to 15

Lightning

21st November 2008, 16:24

Lynn Ritger:

"I tried to be both open-minded and objective in my statements about the A models, because there's not much hard evidence out there to "hang your hat on", so to speak. We know they existed, but we don't know precisely how many there were, and Radinger and Schick made a convincing claim about their existence and use in their Bf 109A-E book. Based on that research and digging through photos, I came up with at least 16 A's in Spanish service (including the V3, V4, and V6, which may or may not be 'cheating'). A pic of 6-17 recently surfaced which shows the aircraft in the standard 70/71/65 scheme of the B series... but of course, you can't see the damn oil cooler, which is the biggest visual cue I've seen to tell an A from a B. Despite that, I still feel fairly confident 6-17 is a B, based on the factory paint job. And this, of course, renders my Spanish 109 list obsolete. *sigh* That's the trouble with books... something else always shows up once it's done and published."

If one is going to be argumentative one should have at least a technical/engineering leg to stand on.

The MG151 (red) positioned in the cowl. The green lines show the position so the MG151 does not intrude into the cockpit area. Also notice the length the barrel protrudes from the cowling (no photographic proof). Then there is the ammo feed chutes to consider. The bulges were there because the 131 ammo would not feed properly and needed a larger radius than what the MG17s used. It is obvious that the chutes would have an even larger radius for the much larger 20mm ammo (even larger bulges, no photographic proof) never mind that a feed motor would be required for the much heavier 20mm ammo to be pulled up to the MG151s. There is more I could say but I think that is more than enough to debunk the myth that MG151s were cowl mounted.

http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2005-12/1114844/Mg151-Mg131-2.jpg

Like I said, if my references are wrong, then I am wrong, but just a few questions:

Why do you comment on the 20 mm MG 151? I never mentioned the 20 mm version as being used for cowl guns--only the MG 151/15.

The green lines you show are true to the dimensions you gave in posting #104 of Nov 11. If the gun is positioned as you illustrate, it will protrude about seven inches beyond the barrel muzzle shown for the "normal" muzzle (applying your scale). I have some line drawings (not photos) showing cowl guns protruding at different lengths beyond the cowling opening.

Seven inches is not all that much. It's not like they are hanging way out in front, and that seven inches is correct only if your estimate of the mounting position is correct. Your green lines are not based on an actual illustration of how these guns would have been mounted. When going from an MG 131 to an MG 151/15 there is no reason to be certain that they would be mounted in exactly the same position using the same mounting points and hardware. If they were mounted so that they extended seven inches into the pilot's compartment (not an unreasonable situation--and assuming your green lines depict reality), then they would protrude the same distance from the cowling as the other guns shown.

The drawings To which I refer are by Watanabe (I forget his first name, and I am not with my books right now). He is renowned in aviation circles for his accuracy and attention to detail. They are not that large scale, but I will try to apply the scale given to see if I can resolve the difference. I'll get back to you on this.

In posting #104, you gave the length of the MG 131 as being 1168 mm. Applying your scale to that length, it seems that that can only be the barrel length, otherwise, it would be even shorter than the guns depicted in black in your illustration. If this is the barrel length, then why didn't you give the entire length of the MG 131 when comparing it to the 1917 mm you gave for the MG 151?

Finally, we have gone back-and-forth on the issue of the Bf 109K's maximum gross weight--or, if you prefer, its maximum allowed takeoff weight. Your performance table was for the G-6 variant and gave a "maximum load area takeoff weight" of 3320 kg. I'm afraid your definition of this-- "load area at a flying weight of 'x' kg"--does not make sense. As you said, there were errors in translation; perhaps this is one of them. If this is not the maximum gross weight of the aircraft, then what is? And, more important to the ongoing discussion, what is the maximum gross weight of the "K" variant? Please site a reference that clearly gives that specification in black-and-white and not your estimate of what it should be based on equipment weights that may, or may not, be carried by that aircraft at the same time.

Once we arrive at the actual specified maximum gross weight, it won't matter how the airplane is loaded or what armament, fuel tanks, equipment, etc. it is able to carry, that weight will stand and will not be allowed to be violated. There are many load components that a given aircraft is configured to carry--bombs, extra guns, large fuel tanks, etc., etc., but not all at the same time.

Kutscha

21st November 2008, 23:43

If they were mounted so that they extended seven inches into the pilot's compartment (not an unreasonable situation....

What happens to the instrument panel if the rear of the 151s protrude into the cockpit? How can the pilot fly the a/c with no instruments? The gun has to be positioned forward.

barrel length:
MG131 - 546mm
MG151/15 - 1250mm

difference - 704mm

The gun that is mounted to fire through the spinner in the drawing is a MG151/15.

When I measure the MG131 I get the approximate correct length (considering the crapping ruler shown) less the flash piece.

have some line drawings (not photos) showing cowl guns protruding at different lengths beyond the cowling opening.

Sure they aren't Mg17s? Though the mgs were approximately the same length OA, the barrel of the MG17 was 46mm longer.

I'm afraid your definition of this-- "load area at a flying weight of 'x' kg"--does not make sense.

Does wing loading at a certain weight make sense? Decrease or increase the weight and the wing loading changes.

Another Mtt factory document (G-6) from an inet friend:
http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2005-12/1114844/bf109g_comparison_small.jpg

Notice the all up weight of 3620kg.

Use the clean weight of the K-4 to the clean weight of the Spit 24. (apples to apples) Clean weight being no external stores.

There are many load components that a given aircraft is configured to carry--bombs, extra guns, large fuel tanks, etc., etc., but not all at the same time.

The photo posted of the G-6 has 20mm gun pods and a drop tank.

I have acquired a factory document for the proposed K-2. Armament is stated as MG131 and Mk108. No MG151 and Mk103.

Tony Williams on his site has profile drawing you can use for size comparison. Note that the MG151/20 (shown) has a barrel length 150mm shorter than the MG151/15.
http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/CannonMGs.htm

Lightning

25th November 2008, 18:03

Quoting Kutscha:

What happens to the instrument panel if the rear of the 151s protrude into the cockpit? How can the pilot fly the a/c with no instruments? The gun has to be positioned forward.

Good point. I agree. I had considered that the instrument panel could be adjusted to allow the fit, but as I thought more about it, I came to the conclusion that they would not make such a change for the return it would give.
However, based on the numerous references to the Bf 109 having these guns in the forward fuselage, I am not discounting that, with appropriate positioning and mounting hardware, the installation could have been accomplished.

Sure they aren't Mg17s? Though the mgs were approximately the same length OA, the barrel of the MG17 was 46mm longer.

They could be. The scale of the drawings is too small to resolve a 1.8 inch difference. By the way, the artist's name on those drawings is Rikyu Watanabe.

Does wing loading at a certain weight make sense? Decrease or increase the weight and the wing loading changes.

"Wing loading" makes sense. Maybe the original German term means that, but the translated term as shown on the table certainly doesn't for several reasons. For one thing, the units given in the second column is "(lb)" which is the unit of weight whereas the unit for wing loading is "lb/sq. ft." which is the unit (in this case) of "weight/area." It appears that the numbers given in columns three, four, and five are the reverse of wing loading units i.e. they state "area/weight." Perhaps this is the way this relationship between aircraft weight and wing area is given in German aviation specifications. Romantic Technofreak or Montana(motor) would probably know.

Just taking the English words as written--"Maximum load area takeoff weight"--it would appear that a reasonable definition would be " The takeoff weight when the load areas (i.e. fuel tanks, ammo magazines, bomb/drop-tank shackles, etc.) are fully loaded." I have, however, never seen such a term or specification as worded, and your definition--"Load area at a flying weight of 'x' kg" muddied the waters even more--What is the "load area" that is being specified? What is it's unit of measure? Go back and read it again. I think you'll agree. Now if you would have said, "Load per area....," that would have been better.

I would not be surprised if this is the German counterpart--although reversed--of our "wing loading" specification. I would reverse the numbers and call it "Wing loading at maximum takeoff weight." That would make sense to an American pilot.

Notice the all up weight of 3620kg.

The photo posted of the G-6 has 20mm gun pods and a drop tank.

If that is an official document--or if those numbers were taken directly from such a document--I accept them--including the 3620 kg AUW for the G-6 shown in the photo since its configuration conforms to the last line in the weight table. What about the Bf 109K? That was, after all, what generated this present branch of the discussion.

Use the clean weight of the K-4 to the clean weight of the Spit 24. (apples to apples) Clean weight being no external stores.

On the contrary. All the modifications to wings, fuselage, engine (to include complete change of engine model from Merlin to Griffon), tail surfaces, and all internal changes are what gave the Spitfire the ability to increase its performance in various roles. These changes are what caused that tremendous increase in the weight of the airplane. The Bf 109 did not undergo changes to airframe and engine to anywhere near the degree the Spitfire did, and therefore did not achieve the degree of development (nor anywhere near the resulting degree of weight increase). That was the whole theme that began this discussion, and I'm not going any further along this line because everything that can be said by all involved has been
said.

Lightning

25th November 2008, 21:12

Kutscha:

You have stated here that Green made a mistake concerning the 30 mm Mk 103 cannon having been installed in the nose of some variants of the Bf 109, and that quite a few later authors merely copied him and perpetuated that "myth."

In 1960, Green stated that the Bf 109K-4 used a Mk 103 or a Mk 108 cannon. He also said that the K-6 mounted "three 30 mm Mk 103s." This implies that there was one in the nose.

Eight years later, Martin Windrow wrote that "a handfull of Bf 109K-models were three-cannon fighters...one Mk 108 or Mk 103, 30 mm ...." This again implies nose mounting since only "one" was specified.

Then, 20 years (1980) after Green's book, Robert Grinsell stated the following:

*The Bf109G-14/U6mounted the Mk 103 in place of the engine-mounted MG 151/20 20 mm cannon.

*The Mk 103 was actually evaluated (and therefore "fit") in the early Bf109K-0 prototype.

*The Bf 109K-10 mounted the Mk 103 in the nose.

Grinsell cites, among his reference sources, consultations with the Messerschmitt company.

Then there are others, like Bill Gunston who in 1988--28 years after Green--also wrote that some variants of the Bf 109 had a nose-mounted Mk 103. Gunston is the former Technical Editor of "Flight Journal" magazine. He was also Assistant Compiler of Jane's All the World's Aircraft. Both of these are highly respected publications.

The list of Bf 109 variants having mounted the Mk 103, as given by these other authors, does not appear in Green's book, so it was obviously not merely copied from him. Also, it is highly improbable that so many respected aviation writers, over a span of 28 years, would not have recognized Green's mistakes and corrected them in there own books.

So, this brings up a very meaningfull question: Is it only your opinion--studied or otherwise--that Green and all these others--all knowledgeable and recognized aviation experts--made these mistakes, or can you cite any reliable authors or sources that have actually said that they were wrong and corrected the errors? I know that you can come up with many who do not list the Mk 103 as being nose-mounted in the '109, but can you quote any that have actually said that this gun was never used in the BF 109?

I can't imagine that such mistakes by so many otherwise respected aviation authors would go unchallenged and uncorrected over so many years. If said reliable authors and sources have identified these statements as being in error, and have corrected them, then that would cast a completely different light on this subject. In the absence of such authoritative evidence, it is a case of you and others being in disagreement, at least in this case, with the expertise of the aforementioned writers. I think I'll lean toward Messrs. Green, Windrow, Grinsell, Gunston, et al. If I am wrong, at least I'll be in good company.

Kutscha

26th November 2008, 00:18

No, I said that Green made a mistake with the MG151s.

Have you every seen the quantity of rounds for the ammo load for the MK103, or even the MG151/15, Lightning?

The authors you list are compilers, gathering info from many sources. They don't check that the info is correct. Also look at the date of first publication as many are re-prints.

Here is a link, http://forum.12oclockhigh.net/

Many authors post there and should be able to give you a definitive answer on the Mk103, and the MG151/15, in the 109. Maybe you will believe them.

To give you some idea of the size of the MG151,

http://www.virtualpilots.fi/en/feature/photoreports/hallinportti2002/h_BK_mg151.jpg

Though this is a MG15, it should give you some idea of the problems that there would be in installing MG151/15s in the cowling of the 109.
http://www.virtualpilots.fi/en/feature/photoreports/hallinportti2002/G-MG15.jpg

from http://www.virtualpilots.fi/en/feature/photoreports/hallinportti2002/

There are 109s in German museums. If you can, go visit and see how small the 109 really is. The Speyer has one with the cowl panels open and you will see how cramped the area is behind the engine. (1 hour south of the Frankfurt airport near Heidelberg off A61)

Kutscha

26th November 2008, 01:37

Ricky

26th November 2008, 09:32

To give you some idea of the size of the MG151,

Mind you, the guy in the first photo is only 3ft tall...:D

Lightning

28th November 2008, 17:58

No, I said that Green made a mistake with the MG151s.

Are you then saying that Green's statements that the Bf 109 used the Mk 103 was not a mistake? Also, go back and check your private message to me where you said that the book authored by Green and Swanborough made that mistake. In refering to that book, you wrote, "Oops, another error. The standard Mk 103 would not fit, but a modified Mk 103, the Mk 103M, was experimentally fitted...." So you did say that Green made a mistake ("error") in his second book. And, you certainly disagree with Green on the issue of the Mk 103--in both of his books--so, in essence, and in black and white, you are saying that he made a mistake.

Lightning

28th November 2008, 19:50

The authors you list are compilers, gathering info from many sources. They don't check that the info is correct. Also look at the date of first publication as many are re-prints.

This is, without doubt, a statement of opinion. There is absolutely no way you can know the extent of these writers'/researchers' research or the people and references they had access to in the conduct of such research nor the time they put into their investigations. Agree with them or not, please give them some respect for the work they have done in earning the good reputations that they have.

To give you some idea of the size of the MG151,

That certainly is a large gun, but I have seen other pictures of the Mg 151/15, so I am aware of its size. If I had only read your comments and looked at that photo, I would not find it hard to agree with you. But, again, I can't just dismiss all those above-mentioned writers out-of-hand. They also must have been aware of this gun's size--at least most of them (and others)--and they were certainly aware of the size of the Bf 109.

As to the gun's length, I suppose it's possible that a shortened barrel could have been adapted to it, but that is pure conjecture on my part--I have never read anything to that effect.

As to the gun's weight, the man in the photo, obviously not a weight lifter, seems to have no trouble holding it up. The weight of the ammo, although prodigious per round, would depend on how many rounds were carried. Standard-size ammunition magazines do not have to be loaded to capacity. The 20 mm magazine in the P-38, for example, was able to hold 300 rounds, but because of occassional feeding problems, they were usually only loaded to 150 rounds.

There are 109s in German museums. If you can, go visit and see how small the 109 really is. The Speyer has one with the cowl panels open and you will see how cramped the area is behind the engine. (1 hour south of the Frankfurt airport near Heidelberg off A61)

I have seen the Bf 109 up close at the Smithsonian Air and Space Museum in Washington, D.C. (I used to live about 45 miles from it) and at the U.S. Air Force Museum in Dayton, Ohio. By the way, I'll make it a point to get down to that museum near Heidelberg. I live about 50 km northeast if the Frankfurt airport.

Lightning

28th November 2008, 19:55

Mind you, the guy in the first photo is only 3ft tall...:D

I knew you were out there, Ricky. :D

Lightning

28th November 2008, 21:44

You are still confused with the weights.

Yes that is an official Mtt document. The only reason I brought the G-6 into the discussion was to illustrate your error in thinking the 3400kg was the K's maximum weight

The weight of 3400kg is for a clean 109K while you are comparing that to a Spit 24 at maximum overload weight with external stores. The clean weight is not the maximum loaded weight for the K. The K could carry a 300l drop tank on its center line positioned carrier. The carrier could also carry a 250kg or 500kg bomb. Now whether the G-10 actually carried under wing 20mm gun pods or 210mm rockets, they are still listed as optional stores and there is no reason not to suppose the K would also being basically the same a/c.

As I said before, just because a list of optional stores is specified does not mean they can all be carried at the same time. For example, both the 300 l. drop tank and the 550 lb bomb are specified to be carried on the center-line rack. They obviously can't be carried simutaneously. The mission will dictate which stores are needed, but which ever ones are loaded, they can not violate the specified maximum gross weight.

Your table listed the maximum loaded weight for the G-6 as being 3620 kg. That was while loaded with all machine guns, the nose cannon, the gondolas and either a 550 lb bomb or 300 l. drop tank. That is, therefore, not its "clean" weight. The Bf 109G was the heaviest version of the series, so there is no reason to believe that any of the "K" variants would be any heavier--certainly not by any significant amount.

So let's say, for the sake of argument, that the K weighs approximately the same as the G-6 (which it didn't), i.e. 3620 kg. That is only 220 kg. heavier than the 3400 kg you state as the K's "clean" weight. Do you really think that, if the "clean" weight of the K was 3400 kg, that a full complement of external stores would only weigh 220 kg? Throw in the rockets and gun pods you mentioned, and the weight goes up tremendously. You're saying not only was the K heavier than the G-6, but that it was far heavier. That's just not so.

A Spit 24 with 4 300lb RPs and a full 90 gal slipper tank weighed 12,120lb which is 30 lb less than the maximum overload weight. If you want to compare the maximum overload weight of the Spit 24 then you should compare that weight to the maximum weight of the K.

Even if you say that the maximum overload weight of the Bf 109K was 5000 kg(!)--which you will never see given in any specification for that aircraft--that would still be 1150 lb (!) lighter than the 12,150 lb you give for the Spitfire 24. That 3400 kg figure for the K (or the equivalent 3620 kg given for the G-6, if you prefer) is the maximum loaded weight, and I am not comparing apples and oranges.

As to the lb. Since in the English system the area is usually given as square feet, I don't think it is to hard understand that the 'square feet' is inferred, or that the 2 was left out as M2 is given for the metric measurement.

No, it would be the wing loading at a certain weight. see the other column for the /R2

That column in the table is not the wing loading--no matter how you look at it. It is the inverse of wing loading. The expression shows the area divided by the weight. It should be weight divided by area to express wing loading. The units given for the "Maximum Load Area Takeoff Weight" is merely "lb" which is a unit of "weight"--not "weight per unit area"--which is what wing loading is. As written, it does not make sense. If you wanted to explain that the specification in the table simply meant "wing loading," why did you say it meant "Load Area at a Flying weight of 'x' kg"? That clearly does not mean "wing loading," and neither does the meaningless phrase given in the table. As I said before, that was certainly an error brought about by literal translation of the original German.

Kutscha

29th November 2008, 00:39

Your table listed the maximum loaded weight for the G-6 as being 3620 kg.

No that is the weight as configured with external stores for that particular stores load. Why is that so hard to comprehend?

Even if you say that the maximum overload weight of the Bf 109K was 5000 kg(!)--which you will never see given in any specification for that aircraft--that would still be 1150 lb (!) lighter than the 12,150 lb you give for the Spitfire 24. That 3400 kg figure for the K (or the equivalent 3620 kg given for the G-6, if you prefer) is the maximum loaded weight, and I am not comparing apples and oranges.

Sure you are because you calculated the percentage weight increase for the 109 using the clean (no external load) weight for the 109K and and for the Spit 24 using the maximum overload weight (with external load). I don't know why you are having so much trouble understanding what you are doing?

So let's say, for the sake of argument, that the K weighs approximately the same as the G-6 (which it didn't), i.e. 3620 kg. That is only 220 kg. heavier than the 3400 kg you state as the K's "clean" weight. Do you really think that, if the "clean" weight of the K was 3400 kg, that a full complement of external stores would only weigh 220 kg? Throw in the rockets and gun pods you mentioned, and the weight goes up tremendously. You're saying not only was the K heavier than the G-6, but that it was far heavier. That's just not so.

I don't think it is that hard to do the math to know what the K-4 would weigh.

basic (clean) weight for the G-6 is 3260kg (armed, fueled, pilot - no external stores)
basic (clean) weight for the K-4 is 3400kg (armed, fueled, pilot - no external stores)

weight increase, in clean configuration, G-6 to K-4 > 140kg

If the K-4 was carrying the same load out as the G-6, then the K-4 would have a loaded weight of 3760kg (3400 {clean weight of the K-4} + 360 {weight of the G-6's load}).

LOL, the weight difference is still 140kg between the G-6 and K-4.

So getting back to your statement on percentage weight increase:

109B @ 2000kg and the 109K-4 @ 3400kg, a percentage weight increase of 70%. Or.,74% increase if 1955kg is used.

Spit I @ 5875lb and the Spit 24 @ 10,120lb, a percentage weight increase of 72%.

Whoa, a big 2% difference.

That is comparing 'apples to apples' unlike what you are doing.

As I said before, that was certainly an error brought about by literal translation of the original German.

Must have missed where you said that. I know I said there was some translation errors.
As I said, I had a client breathing down my neck to get a job done at the time.

Kutscha

29th November 2008, 00:51

Are you then saying that Green's statements that the Bf 109 used the Mk 103 was not a mistake? Also, go back and check your private message to me where you said that the book authored by Green and Swanborough made that mistake. In refering to that book, you wrote, So you did say that Green made a mistake ("error") in his second book. And, you certainly disagree with Green on the issue of the Mk 103--in both of his books--so, in essence, and in black and white, you are saying that he made a mistake.

Yes Green made a mistake with both guns.

In Green's book 'Famous Fighters of WW2' published 1957, 1965, pg16 he writes:

Two 15mm MG151 cannon and one 30mm MK103 or MK108, the later firing through the airscrew boss

Will you go to this board and ask about the MG151 and MK103

http://forum.12oclockhigh.net/

so will stop all this nonsense. Maybe you will believe them since you won't believe me.

Lightning

30th November 2008, 19:24

This was the exchange on this point:

Kutscha:

You have stated here that Green made a mistake concerning the 30 mm Mk 103 cannon having been installed in the nose of some variants of the Bf 109, and that quite a few later authors merely copied him and perpetuated that "myth."

To which you replied:

No, I said that Green made a mistake with the MG151s.

My reply:

Are you then saying that Green's statements that the Bf 109 used the Mk 103 was not a mistake? Also, go back and check your private message to me where you said that the book authored by Green and Swanborough made that mistake. In refering to that book, you wrote, So you did say that Green made a mistake ("error") in his second book. And, you certainly disagree with Green on the issue of the Mk 103--in both of his books--so, in essence, and in black and white, you are saying that he made a mistake.

Yes Green made a mistake with both guns.

Not an important point, but when you said, "No, I said Green made a mistake with the MG 151s." and then, "Yes Green made a mistake with both guns." you contradicted yourself.

Lightning

30th November 2008, 20:39

When I referred to the table on the weights of the Bf 109G as giving the maximum loaded weight for the G-6 as 3620 kg, you replied:

No that is the weight as configured with external stores for that particular stores load. Why is that so hard to comprehend?

That 3620 kg is for G-6 with all internal equipment, stores,and crew, plus the wing gondolas and a center-mounted 250 kg bomb. How much more can be hung on the existing external racks and shackles along with these loads? Sure, there are a number of other optional items available to be mounted on this particular variant, but not at the same time. Why is this so hard to comprehend?

You've given two tables that enumerate various weights of various subvariants of the Bf 109G. According to you, none of them give the airplane`s maximum gross weight. The maximum gross weight of the Bf 109K (which is, after all, the variant that's really in question here) has not been given in any table or specification.

You keep adding up the weights of the different optional external load items without really knowing which of them can be carried at the same time without exceeding the maximum allowable gross weight. I see your reasoning here, but without knowing how much the airplane can carry without exceeding its limits, you can't know which items can be carried in concert with each other without producing an overload condition . Then there's the issue of the number of load stations available on which to mount these items. I've already given the example of not being able to mount both a 300 l. tank and a 250 kg bomb on the same rack at the same time.

So, it comes down to this: Can you quote an official document or a reliable specification that actually gives the maximum allowable gross weight for the Bf 109K as a specific figure in either kilograms or pounds? If you can, what is that figure? Whatever it is, it can't be legally exceeded regardless of how you mix-and-match the optional stores. In the comparison with the fully loaded Spitfire 24, this is the only weight that is appropriate.

Kutscha

30th November 2008, 21:33

This is what I said in post #91:

"William Green is considered a reliable authoritative author, yet he has the 109K-4 armed with MG151 cowl guns."

In post #104

"The 151 myth began with Green who mis-read 131 and many others just blindly copied what he said."

In post #114

"The only MK103 that was to be mounted in the 109 was the MK103M. It was tested but it is questionable if it was mounted, even in prototype form, in a 109 as its reliability was not the best."

Is it clear now? Green made an mistake with both weapons.

Kutscha

30th November 2008, 22:51

Still having trouble with weights?

Can one say the maximum loaded weight of a clean Spit 24 is 10,120lb?

Can one say the maximum loaded weight of a Spit 24 with 3 500lb bombs is 11,290lb?

In case of the G-6 @ 3620kg that is the maximum weight with the stated load out.

I am not the one with the comprehension difficulty. I am not the one using the clean weight of the 109K-4 and the maximum overload weight of a Spit 24 to arrive at the percentage weight increase.

I am sorry you got sidetracked with the G-6 data, but as I said it, was only to illustrate that the 3400kg was not the maximum weight of the K-4, which you think it is. The optional load outs would increase the weight over the 3400kg.

It would be not that hard to calculate the weight of the K-4 with different load outs using the 109G table.

Btw, A G-1 (code BD+GC) was capable of carrying 1 500kg bomb and 2 300l drop tanks. This certainly would be a maximum overload condition.

I see you have not gone to the link I provided. Why have you not gone to the 12 O'clock board and asked about the guns carried by the 109K and while you are there, also ask about the maximum loaded weight of the 109K-4?

Ricky

1st December 2008, 15:10

I knew you were out there, Ricky. :D

I'm having an interesting read - and enjoying the fact that my little poll is now at 15 pages!

Mind you, in my experiance once you get onto 'who said what' in earlier posts it is generally time to bail...

Lightning

7th December 2008, 16:36

Kutscha:

Just a matter of interest. I looked up the German term for wing loading: Wing Loading: Flächenbelastung. Literal translation: Surface Loading. Whoever did the English translation on the Bf 109G loading table sure messed that up. Perhaps it was someone not familiar with aviation terms, but still, "Maximum Load Area Takeoff Weight" is certainly not a good translation.

Lightning

7th December 2008, 17:39

Kutscha;

I went to the 12 O'Clock High forum and looked through the postings--a good site, but I just don't have enough time to get involved with another forum. Anyhow, I don't dispute the equipment and armament lists/tables that you have posted, as far as they go--but do they go far enough?

Those loading schedules were, as you said yourself, for those specific variants as configured. Most were for the standard configurations, and many factory ("U") and field ("R") modifications were not addressed. Those references showed what those variants had, but they didn't (and could not be expected to) show what other variants and conversions had or didn't have in the way of factory or field conversions.

As an example, on the website faqs.org/docs/air/avbf1092html, the writer, talking about the Bf 109G, states, "There was also a modification kit that exchanged the MG 151/20 Motorkanone for an MK 108 30 mm cannon ('U4'), and a similar kit that swapped the MG 151/20 for an MK 103 30 mm cannon."

As I have said before, there are many sources--books, websites, etc.--that list the armament installations that have been in question here.The dual, nose-mounted MG 151/15 machine guns have been described as being installed in the Bf 109K-0; K-2; K-4; and K-6. The Mk 103, 30 mm nose cannon has been given as an alternate to the Mk 108 cannon and as having been mounted in the Bf 109G-14/U6 (kit "U6") and the K-0; K-2; K- 4; K-10; and K-14.

I know you consider most of those sources as being unreliable (e.g. "coffee table" books), but, for the most part, they have been written by knowledgeable authors, and there are just too many to just be dismissed out-of-hand. In addition to this, none of the references you gave, nor any I have read, have stated that the gun installations in question never existed or that the authors of the cited books were in error or had made a mistake.

You have given good and accurate references, but they don't address all cases, nor do they exclude all other cases. You dispute the validity of all sources that are contrary to your view, and that's ok, but enough to that effect has been written to justify leaving the question open.

At the above-mentioned website, the author quite adequately sums up the problem that has generated the present controversy: "To complicate matters, a single Gustav might have several kits or be adapted to different kits over time, but its designation might only reflect one of them.... The issue is very confusing, is unlikely to ever be sorted out with any certainty, and is little more than a headache for anyone who doesn't consider it their life's work."

It would seem that this issue of which guns the Bf 109 did or did not have is rapidly reaching that point.

Lightning

7th December 2008, 18:41

Kutscha:

Every airplane has an absolute maximum gross weight which, regardless of which authorized optional components are included in the load, cannot be safely, or legally, exceeded. The airplane doesn't "know" what it is carrying, only how heavy it is. The only thing that counts is the weight (we're not addressing CG limits here). Exceed that weight, and the airplane will not be allowed to fly, period.

You can load the airplane up to the maximum with fuel, guns, ammunition, bombs, etc., or you can load it up with sandbags, but once that weight has been reached, that's it--maximum allowable gross weight.

It is therefore fruitless to try to determine an aircraft's maximum allowed weight by merely adding the weights of approved optional equipment. The total weight of all those options together would cause the plane to be greatly overloaded. On any flight, only those options that are required for that mission are carried, and even then, they cannot cause the weight limit to be exceeded. No mission did, or ever would, require the carrying of all approved options at the same time.

You stated that one Bf 109G-1 (code BD + GC) could carry one 500 kg bomb plus two 300 l. drop tanks. That was very likely part of a Fiesler experimental program which started with the modification of a Bf 109G-0 to carry this load. Also, this configuration, experimental or otherwise, does not establish the maximum allowable gross weight of the aircraft. What was the plane's starting weight just before it was loaded with the bomb and tanks? What concessions and deletions of other load elements and equipment were made to allow this load to be carried?

I have continually asked what the official maximum allowable gross weight of the Bf 109 was, with no reply. I have consulted numerous books and websites, and the highest maximum weight I have found is on the order of 3600 kg for the K-4, and 3620 kg in your table for the G variant. None of these sources stated an official figure. In the absence of an official maximum allowable gross weight, any other so-stated weights are nothing more than estimates based on assumptions.

That having been said, I think it is safe to say that, in no case, will the true maximum exceed 4000 kg (8800 lbs)--and will most probably be less than that. (An assumption, to be sure, but, in my opinion, a safe one.) That is still, even with full external stores, 1100 lbs less than the "clean" weight of 9900 lbs for the Spitfire 24. And, when comparing "apples to apples," it is 3350(!) lbs less than the 12,150 lbs maximum weight allowable for the Spitfire 24 (your figure).

You, and other interested parties, can draw your own conclusions from the foregoing. We will all be in either agreement, disagreement, or somwhere in between, but as far as this discussion on comparative weights is concerned, I think most would agree that enough time has already been spent on the subject.

Lightning

7th December 2008, 19:42

Hi All,

This wwhole thread began with a comparison between the Bf 109 and the Spitfire as to which was the more adaptable to various roles. I agreed that the Spitfire had proven itself more adaptable, but, in doing so, had undergone changes to the basic design and configuration that had resulted in an almost completely different airplane than the earliest variant. The Bf 109, on the other hand, although also having been developed, still retained the same basic configuration with which it began.

Both aircraft had been used in the same variety of roles during their service lives. The Spitfire became the more formidable of the two, but the Bf 109 did it with far less significant change, start-to-finish. It was the changes to the respective aircraft that generated the lengthy, and, on occasion, somewhat contentious, side issues regarding wingtips, weights, armaments, etc. that got away from the central theme. As Kutscha said in one of his postings, this is not unusual in this type of discussion, but it added a completely unnecessary amount of time and space to the thread.

After general agreement as to which aircraft was the more adaptable overall, which was arrived at relatively early in the discussion, the question of the relative degrees of change became the main topic. This became far more complicated than it had to be.

My contention was, and remains, this: Germany started out with the basic Bf 109 (whether A or B doesn't materially affect the issue). Significant improvements notwithstanding, the final production versions were easily recognizable as being the same aircraft. There were a number of bumps, bulges, scoops, antennas, etc. added over the years, but the configuration and the dimensions were so similar to the early variants that the aircraft was unmistakably a Bf 109--the same basic airplane.

The Spitfifire, too, was certainly improved, but in making those improvements, extensive changes were made to the basic configuration of the early models. The shapes and dimensions of the fuselage, wings, tail surfaces, canopy, engine, etc. underwent such dramatic changes that the final versions bore only a passing resemblance to the original production machine. These changes were to such an extent that it was even seriously considered to change the name from "Spitfire" to "Victor," and that was before even more changes were made.

I have made my case, and others have made theirs. Nothing more can be said without going over well-covered ground. Each interested party can easily decide the issue for himself. Just look at all the production variants of the Bf 109 and then do the same with the Spitfire. Do this with an open mind, and after you have done it, believe your own eyes. Which aircraft went through the more dramatic changes? Does either look relatively the same, variant-to-variant, and, if so, which one? You'll know--just believe your own eyes.

Regards,
Lightning

Kutscha

8th December 2008, 18:17

You stated that one Bf 109G-1 (code BD + GC) could carry one 500 kg bomb plus two 300 l. drop tanks. That was very likely part of a Fiesler experimental program which started with the modification of a Bf 109G-0 to carry this load.

Possibly but it isn't a G-0.

WNr is 14008 which would make it manufactured at Mtt as it is in the Block 14004 - 14150 (147 a/cC).

Erla built WNr 10299 - 10318 (20 a/c)

The G-0s were built at Mtt Regensburg.
WNr 14001 - VJ+WA
WNr 14002 - VJ+WB
WNr 14003 - VJ+WC

Lightning

9th December 2008, 17:57

Possibly but it isn't a G-0.

WNr is 14008 which would make it manufactured at Mtt as it is in the Block 14004 - 14150 (147 a/cC).

Erla built WNr 10299 - 10318 (20 a/c)

The G-0s were built at Mtt Regensburg.
WNr 14001 - VJ+WA
WNr 14002 - VJ+WB
WNr 14003 - VJ+WC

Real quick--

I wasn't saying that the Fiesler-modified G-0 was the same individual plane you referred to (i.e. Bf 109G-1, code BD + GC), only that the G-1 was likely a part of that experiment or a one-of-a-kind aircraft resulting from that experiment. There weren't that many 109s, G-0s, G-1s, or otherwise, that were so configured. In fact those two are the only ones I've seen that were. At any rate, the point was that such a configured Bf 109 was not a production variant, and even if it were, that load would not, in itself, determine the maximum allowable gross weight of the aircraft.

It's Christmas time. Trees to trim; gifts to wrap and deliver; decorations to be put up; visits to family and freinds, and shopping, shopping, shopping--to keep Mrs. Lightning happy for the holidays. Spitfires and Messerschmitts (and even P-38s!) have to take a back seat to the demands of the season.

It has been a lively give-and-take, and I'm sure it won't be the last one. I wish you peace and health.

Kutscha

11th December 2008, 11:00

"More to the point, there is no evidence that I know of (other than Green's early work and those who have copied from it) to indicate that the MG 151 was ever fitted to a Bf 109 cowling mounting, even experimentally. Manfred Griehl is the guru on WW2 Luftwaffe armament fits and he makes no mention of this in his detailed works on the Bf 109.

The MK 103 was definitely too big to fit in the Bf 109's cowling mounting (you can compare the size of it with the 30mm MK 108 in the above drawing). A revised version, the MG 103M, was built for this purpose and Griehl states that this was planned for a couple of the last BF 109K variants, but these were never built. According to Schliephake, the MK 103M was tested once in a Bf 109K-10 but the test was a failure. There is no evidence from anywhere to suggest that the Bf 109K/MK 103M combo saw any operational use."

from http://208.84.116.223/forums/index.php?showtopic=26856

Ricky

12th December 2008, 09:38

My contention was, and remains...

If it is any consolation, I tend to agree with your basic point in the original debate. :)

Anyway, carry on with the quibbles!

Kutscha

15th December 2008, 00:14

From the site you were so high on Lightning.

Sixteen Bf109B reached Spain for use by the Legion Condor in March 1937.

http://jg26.proboards32.com/index.cgi?board=ojfocus&action=print&thread=693

Lightning

19th December 2008, 17:00

"More to the point, there is no evidence that I know of (other than Green's early work and those who have copied from it)....

Already discussed ad nauseum with no authorative statements to confirm a mistake by Green or said copying by others. Certainly your opinion but not a documented statement of fact. Also not really relevant to the original poll question.

The MK 103 was definitely too big to fit in the Bf 109's cowling mounting....

Your mistake, Kutscha, I never said the Mk 103 was a cowling-mounted gun--only a "nose"- or an "engine"-mounted gun. Again, already discussed ad nauseum. In fact, if you think about it, the existence of the Mk 103 in the nose of a Bf 109 would be somewhat in agreement with your original assertion that the '109 had undergone extensive modification, comparable with that of the Spitfire, over its service life. On this point, you are, in essence, weakening your original argument.

From the site you were so high on Lightning.

Sixteen Bf109B reached Spain for use by the Legion Condor in March 1937.

Must I repeat myself again? Like the preceding two points, this one was argued far beyond its actual relevance to the original poll question and with no concrete resolution. Your reference (Ritger's book), although somewhat persuasive, was nevertheless punctuated with caveats as to the reliability of its statements regarding the Bf 109A.

You seem to want to drag this discussion out far beyond its original theme i.e. the poll question. Whether or not the Bf 109A was sent to Spain, or whether or not the Bf 109 mounted Mg 151/15s or Mk 103s does not have all that much impact on that theme.

My posting of December 7th at 19:42 sums up my position completely. I will therefore not post any further coments in this thread.