Most adaptable - Spitfire vs Bf109

[Lightning]

Originally Posted by Kutscha

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]

"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]

Originally Posted by Lightning

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]

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.cg...int&thread=693

[Lightning]

Originally Posted by Kutscha

"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.

Originally Posted by Kutscha

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.

[Kutscha]

Did someone miss the quotation marks? Me thinks so.

Tony Williams is a well respected researcher and author regarding weapons. Those are his words NOT mine.

[linbatgra]

wonderful! thanks for the info..

[SouthernFlyer]

Hi guys, just having a quick look at this, and I think you will find that spitfire show here as a Mk24 is really a Mk XVIe.
You can tell its a merlin engin, not a griffon by the length of it, and plus if you look for this model "Italeri 1/48 Spitfire Mk.XVIe", you will find the same diagram. Plus the Mk24 and a much bigger tail area.

[flying kiwi]

My vote goes to the Spitfire. It had a basic design which was far more adaptable than the 109 and stayed at the forefront for the whole war.

[Flo]

Not really sure what the Lightning/Kutscha spat was all about, but I'm with you Kiwi. Never mind the reasons why, the Spitfire excelled at everything it was asked to do whilst the 109, in spite of many bodges to it's original form, was poorly suited to anything other than short range fighter sweeps. It was a feeble escort fighter, a terrible ground attack aircraft and lacked the punch a true interceptor needs to kill bombers. It's impressive combat record owed a great deal to the superb german fighter pilots who flew it through the entire conflict and the sheer numbers that were produced.