PDA

View Full Version : Spit vs 109 this says it all!



DIRTY-MAC
01-30-2007, 03:55 PM
they were both great fighters
and what this RAF pilot says is really true

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3e-Ra0dH-Lg&mode=related&search=

Engadin
01-30-2007, 04:03 PM
That so british moustache says it all too!! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

faustnik
01-30-2007, 04:04 PM
We need a seperate "BF109 vs. Spitfire: My Favorite is Better!" forum.

F0_Dark_P
01-30-2007, 04:12 PM
Originally posted by faustnik:
We need a seperate "BF109 vs. Spitfire: My Favorite is Better!" forum.

Nah we only need a "My Bf 109 Pwns your favorite fighter forum" http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

btw.. Messerschmitt Bf 109 FTW!!!1

DIRTY-MAC
01-30-2007, 04:38 PM
Originally posted by faustnik:
We need a seperate "BF109 vs. Spitfire: My Favorite is Better!" forum.

I didnt mean it like that,
I dont favour any of them, It was just meant as
plain facts,
spit=extreemly easy to fly
Bf109=harder to fly

Its a bit like you would say in PF regarding
flying a spit or Fw190 online for the first time,
any !d!ot can fly a spit
but FW190 is much better if you know how to handle it, well in fact its pretty much the same regarding the Bf109 to http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/sleepzzz.gif

faustnik
01-30-2007, 04:43 PM
Not picking on your post Dirty-Mac, just the huge number of Bf109vSpit posts in general. Most of the posters go with the ever popular, "My Favorite" is better "just 'cause".

I guess it's a good break-in for the BoB forum when that sim is released.

Xiolablu3
01-30-2007, 04:47 PM
They were definitely very close in performance.

Which was 'best' all comes down to what the pilot prefers and what situation he is in.


I do beilieve the Spitfire Mk1 had a better turn than the 109E tho, whatever the 109 fans try to tell us.

The 109E had the better dive, for sure. Also better firepower. And the engine didnt cut out in Neg G.

faustnik
01-30-2007, 04:53 PM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
I do beilieve the Spitfire Mk1 had a better turn than the 109E tho, whatever the 109 fans try to tell us.

I think the Bf109s could pull some extreme AOA with the slats. That wouldn't help with sustained turn much, but, would help gain an angle for a firing solution, or for evasion. Sustained turn is all Spitfire.

Xiolablu3
01-30-2007, 05:01 PM
I htink I would prefer the Bf109E to the Spitfire Mk1, as I prefer the FW190 to the Spit in the game right now. I also prefer the 109F4 to the Spit mkV.

The Bf109E seems to be more the energy fighter of the 2.

faustnik
01-30-2007, 05:11 PM
Well, the Bf109 didn't have the horsepower advantage that the Fw190 did. The Bf109E just isn't going to have the dive and zoom ability like an Fw190. If I had to bet my life on one, I'd opt for the Spit I, even with the annoying carburator.


In the BoB sim, I'll probably go 109 or Hurricane. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

VW-IceFire
01-30-2007, 05:21 PM
Since the dogfight server skies in Storm of War will be filled with Spitfire Mark Is and 109Es I will be flying either the Hurricane Mark I, Bf110, or maybe the Fiat Cr.42 http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Waldo.Pepper
01-30-2007, 05:25 PM
All together now ...

This is the thread that never ends,
Yes, it goes on and on, my friend
Some people started typing it not knowing what it was,
And they'll continue typing it forever just because ...

faustnik
01-30-2007, 05:34 PM
Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
Since the dogfight server skies in Storm of War will be filled with Spitfire Mark Is and 109Es I will be flying either the Hurricane Mark I, Bf110, or maybe the Fiat Cr.42 http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Excellent choices! Will we have Bf110 for sure?

F0_Dark_P
01-30-2007, 05:42 PM
Originally posted by faustnik:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
Since the dogfight server skies in Storm of War will be filled with Spitfire Mark Is and 109Es I will be flying either the Hurricane Mark I, Bf110, or maybe the Fiat Cr.42 http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Excellent choices! Will we have Bf110 for sure? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hope so they show the pit in the bonus disc of 46 so http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

and you just cant have a BoB game without it can you? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

crazyivan1970
01-30-2007, 05:46 PM
You guys are not serious....another thread like this??

MrMojok
01-30-2007, 10:51 PM
Well, we are waiting for Josf's input.

JG52Karaya-X
01-31-2007, 01:34 AM
Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
Since the dogfight server skies in Storm of War will be filled with Spitfire Mark Is and 109Es I will be flying either the Hurricane Mark I, Bf110, or maybe the Fiat Cr.42 http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

I guess all the P47 drivers will temporarily switch to Bf110s in BoB, will be an interesting energy fighter with good speed and firepower, imagine one or two pairs of these above you waggling their wings before they dive down to attack!

Hurricane pilots will be like http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/sadeyes.gif

Kurfurst__
01-31-2007, 04:18 AM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
I do beilieve the Spitfire Mk1 had a better turn than the 109E tho, whatever the 109 fans try to tell us.

Actually, I can see no 109 fans in this thread making any statements about turn, but there's the usual Spit fan coming here and try the tell his crate was superior. And it always starts with this.

109 fans usually don't give a **** which plane turned better. It's always the Spit guys who start the mantra. Isn't that so?

DIRTY-MAC
01-31-2007, 04:36 AM
Originally posted by crazyivan1970:
You guys are not serious....another thread like this??


http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif ... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/shady.gif ... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/784.gif

Xiolablu3
01-31-2007, 05:29 PM
Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
I do beilieve the Spitfire Mk1 had a better turn than the 109E tho, whatever the 109 fans try to tell us.

Actually, I can see no 109 fans in this thread making any statements about turn, but there's the usual Spit fan coming here and try the tell his crate was superior. And it always starts with this.

109 fans usually don't give a **** which plane turned better. It's always the Spit guys who start the mantra. Isn't that so? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

If he hadnt ignored me then he might actually see what I posted about the 109. *******... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Saying that the Spitfire turned better than the 109 really gets him wound up doesnt it?

Even me saying that the 109 dived better, had better guns, and better engine for fighting, STILL makes him call me a Spitfire fan. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif Kurfurst, if you look back through the 'Spitfire vs 109 turnimng thread, you will see lots of posts by you claiming that the 109E turned as well as the Spitfire. Thats what we started arguing about..and why you put your fingers in your ears to ignore me. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif Perhaps when you pull your fingers out you will actually see whats been said.


The problem with you, Kurfurst is that you have such a ***** for your 109, that anyone with a balanced view on things is a 'Spit fan'.

Yep I am a Spit fan, and a 109 fan, and a FW190, Mustang, P47 fan.

AKA_TAGERT
01-31-2007, 05:31 PM
Originally posted by faustnik:
We need a seperate "BF109 vs. Spitfire: My Favorite is Better!" forum. ROTFL

AKA_TAGERT
01-31-2007, 05:34 PM
Originally posted by DIRTY-MAC:
spit=extreemly easy to fly
Bf109=harder to fly
Which is basically what Col Carson said! Dealing that that small cramped cockpit alone was a challenge in and of itself! Could hardly apply any alirions, and the elevator feeling like it was in a block of cement was no help either! Thus alot of training required to teach them how to avoid the limitations of the design

Head-in--sand
01-31-2007, 05:47 PM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
I do beilieve the Spitfire Mk1 had a better turn than the 109E tho, whatever the 109 fans try to tell us.

Actually, I can see no 109 fans in this thread making any statements about turn, but there's the usual Spit fan coming here and try the tell his crate was superior. And it always starts with this.

109 fans usually don't give a **** which plane turned better. It's always the Spit guys who start the mantra. Isn't that so? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

If he hadnt ignored me then he might actually see what I posted about the 109. *******... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Saying that the Spitfire turned better than the 109 really gets him wound up doesnt it?

Even me saying that the 109 dived better, had better guns, and better engine for fighting, STILL makes him call me a Spitfire fan. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif Kurfurst, if you look back through the 'Spitfire vs 109 turnimng thread, you will see lots of posts by you claiming that the 109E turned as well as the Spitfire. Thats what we started arguing about..and why you put your fingers in your ears to ignore me. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif Perhaps when you pull your fingers out you will actually see whats been said.


The problem with you, Kurfurst is that you have such a ***** for your 109, that anyone with a balanced view on things is a 'Spit fan'.

Yep I am a Spit fan, and a 109 fan, and a FW190, Mustang, P47 fan. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Head-in--sand
01-31-2007, 05:47 PM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
They were definitely very close in performance.

Which was 'best' all comes down to what the pilot prefers and what situation he is in.


I do beilieve the Spitfire Mk1 had a better turn than the 109E tho, whatever the 109 fans try to tell us.

The 109E had the better dive, for sure. Also better firepower. And the engine didnt cut out in Neg G.

WWMaxGunz
01-31-2007, 07:31 PM
Originally posted by Waldo.Pepper:
All together now ...

This is the thread that never ends,
Yes, it goes on and on, my friend
Some people started typing it not knowing what it was,
And they'll continue typing it forever just because ...

Somebody pass the kazoos out!

And the cheese to go with the .....

DIRTY-MAC
01-31-2007, 07:52 PM
Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by DIRTY-MAC:
spit=extreemly easy to fly
Bf109=harder to fly
Which is basically what Col Carson said! Dealing that that small cramped cockpit alone was a challenge in and of itself! Could hardly apply any alirions, and the elevator feeling like it was in a block of cement was no help either! Thus alot of training required to teach them how to avoid the limitations of the design </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

never mind

Xiolablu3
02-01-2007, 04:38 AM
EDIT: Nevermind

Black Sheep
02-01-2007, 05:10 AM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:

If he hadnt ignored me then he might actually see what I posted about the 109. *******... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Saying that the Spitfire turned better than the 109 really gets him wound up doesnt it?

Even me saying that the 109 dived better, had better guns, and better engine for fighting, STILL makes him call me a Spitfire fan. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif Kurfurst, if you look back through the 'Spitfire vs 109 turnimng thread, you will see lots of posts by you claiming that the 109E turned as well as the Spitfire. Thats what we started arguing about..and why you put your fingers in your ears to ignore me. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif Perhaps when you pull your fingers out you will actually see whats been said.


The problem with you, Kurfurst is that you have such a ***** for your 109, that anyone with a balanced view on things is a 'Spit fan'.

Yep I am a Spit fan, and a 109 fan, and a FW190, Mustang, P47 fan.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Banger2004
02-01-2007, 07:32 AM
Just out of interest, anyone know which aircraft killed more of it's pilots with takeoff/landing accidents etc? Presumably the better aircraft killed fewer. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

JG52Karaya-X
02-01-2007, 08:00 AM
Originally posted by Banger2004:
Just out of interest, anyone know which aircraft killed more of it's pilots with takeoff/landing accidents etc? Presumably the better aircraft killed fewer. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Hardly prooves anything. An example: The Seafire had more accidents on takeoff and landing than operational successes, now would you accept that as proof that the Spitfire was a bad aircraft? I guess not...

And the 11.000 Bf109s lost in takeoff/landing accidents is pure fantasy, 1500 would be more close to reality.

Kurfurst__
02-01-2007, 08:50 AM
Originally posted by Banger2004:
Just out of interest, anyone know which aircraft killed more of it's pilots with takeoff/landing accidents etc? Presumably the better aircraft killed fewer. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

I believe it was the Spitfire. It is said that 1/3 of all Spitfires were lost in landing accidents. A high performance aircraft, but it literally eated it's pilots.

Black Sheep
02-01-2007, 11:20 AM
Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
It is said that 1/3 of all Spitfires were lost in landing accidents.

A high performance aircraft, but it literally eated it's pilots.

I've heard of early pilots converting to the type forgetting to lower the undercarraige on approach but not that it was an especially dangerous aircraft to land - anything to backup this claim ?

HellToupee
02-01-2007, 11:23 AM
what about the 109s fantastic reputation for landing and takeoffs :P

Kurfurst__
02-01-2007, 11:29 AM
Originally posted by Black Sheep:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
It is said that 1/3 of all Spitfires were lost in landing accidents.

A high performance aircraft, but it literally eated it's pilots.

I've heard of early pilots converting to the type forgetting to lower the undercarraige on approach but not that it was an especially dangerous aircraft to land - anything to backup this claim ? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Nope, it's just a little tongue-in-cheek to reveal how claims are made in this forum. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif Many people make claims about how bad the 109 landing accident rate was, without having any idea how other aircraft's accident rate would look like. Actually from what I've seen the 109 accident rate was something like 2% through the war, which includes slightly damaged a/c, in line of the other monoplane fighters introduced around that time. Other time they just throw in some number, say a nonsense like 1/3.. I've decided to play this game for a while. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

From what I've seen, generally all countries 'old foxes' had problems copeing with novelties like retractable undercarriage, and the much higher landing speeds compared to biplanes. It was seen as awful first. But then, modern jets are even worse in this regard, yet pilots still manage to land them.

Black Sheep
02-01-2007, 11:45 AM
Originally posted by Kurfurst
Nope, it's just a little tongue-in-cheek to reveal how claims are made in this forum. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif


Of course, very amusing! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif


Originally posted by Kurfurst
From what I've seen, generally all countries 'old foxes' had problems copeing with novelties like retractable undercarriage, and the much higher landing speeds compared to biplanes. It was seen as awful first. But then, modern jets are even worse in this regard, yet pilots still manage to land them.

Yes, it must have been quite a shock to transfer from the previous generation of aircraft to the new hi-performance monowings as they came into service in the mid to late 30's.

ploughman
02-01-2007, 01:06 PM
Following on in a similar vein, and perhaps the exception that proves the rule:

"Initially, significant numbers of Gladiators were lost in flying accidents during operational training. The difficulties arose from an increased wing loading, combined with the lack of experience in landing with generous top and bottom flap area. Moreover, recovery from flat spins had proved to be almost impossible. Subsequently, it became clear that Gladiator-trained pilots had a significantly lower accident rate, when converted to Hurricanes and Spitfires, than did pilots who had not flown Gladiators."

From here. (http://fighter-collection.com/pages/aircraft/gladiator/life.php)

Wing loading.

I sometimes wonder about the Bf-109's alleged accident rate, as it had better low speed handling than the Spitfire, you'd think it would actually be easier to put on the ground than the Spit. Maybe it was a beast getting up?

Bellator_1
02-01-2007, 01:13 PM
The 109's toe out landing gear is what made it tricky to land, if you didn't get both wheels to touch the ground at almost the same time the aircraft would veer to the side of which ever wheel hit the runway first - that is why 109 pilots prefered soft grass runways rather than the hard asphalt or concrete ones.

Kurfurst__
02-01-2007, 01:16 PM
Putting it on the ground was not problem. In fact, generally there was generally very little problem at all while the 109 was in the air.

Keeping the beast straight, or better, to react quickly enough to correct should any deviation from a straight run occur was the problem. This gradually improved with later variants though they got heavier, got bigger tires and the long tailwheel above all. Tobak put it that the 109 needed to be landed and taken off as if it was always your first. He followed that rule and never groundlooped. He also said the Gustav was more 'calm' than the Emil he trained on because of it's greater weight. It was not that the plane was more badly behaving than others, it was that it was much easier to loose control over if you went easy over it. I guess it has to do with the rear CoG of the aircraft (the Spit had a relative front CoG, thus it went straight but tended to nose over when too harshly breaked).

But this gets much over exaggrevated IMHO. All planes of the time had quirks to pay attention to. The 109 had this, and it's quite natural that pilots of the 109 would mention this.

Bellator_1
02-01-2007, 01:25 PM
Kurfurst,

If you notice the Spitfire has a straight landing gear, which means its doesn't matter which wheels hits the runway first - the 109 on the other hand has a landing gear with a toe out appearence, each wheel pointing slightly outboards from the a/c away from each other, this meant the 109 had a tendency to steer to the side of which ever wheel touched the runway first, a potential crash just waiting to happen.

tomtheyak
02-01-2007, 04:49 PM
I think the accident rate of the 109 is both overblown and overquoted;

ANY WW2 era fighter of 1000+ HP in a light airframe is gonna be a handful or outright bloody dangerous to the uninitiated, and many were.

How many two seat trainer variants of the spectrum of WW2 fighters were there? Few to none. OK, the 2 seat 109G, 190A etc spring to mind and the percursor to the Yak-7 but most pilots went from relatively underpowered and comparitively easy to land trainers, straight into the single seat of the fighter they were assigned.

No instructor to see and warn of improper approach or takeoff set-up etc.

With particular attention to the rush to get trainee pilots into the fight in Germany during 44-45, I can understand a LOT of accidents happening there, but a whole 1/3 of 109s produced?! Seems a little far fetched.

And as has been pointed out, what was the accident rate for Spits, Mustangs, Typhoons?

Context gentlemen! 1/3 loss rate through accidents could be quite normal...

luftluuver
02-01-2007, 05:05 PM
Originally posted by tomtheyak:
How many two seat trainer variants of the spectrum of WW2 fighters were there? Few to none. OK, the 2 seat 109G, 190A etc spring to mind and the percursor to the Yak-7 but most pilots went from relatively underpowered and comparitively easy to land trainers, straight into the single seat of the fighter they were assigned.

Then there was the AT-6 which was said of, "if you can master a AT-6, you can fly anything".

BillyTheKid_22
02-01-2007, 05:07 PM
http://www.fototipp.hu/pp/data/562/medium/MG_2951-01_resize.jpg



Spitfire vs Bf109!!! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

www.odyssey.dircon.co.uk/Spitfire14v109.htm (http://www.odyssey.dircon.co.uk/Spitfire14v109.htm)

JSG72
02-01-2007, 05:16 PM
Originally posted by BillyTheKid_22:
http://www.fototipp.hu/pp/data/562/medium/MG_2951-01_resize.jpg



Spitfire vs Bf109!!! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif



Mmmm... Looks like that Emil is braking hard to avoid that MkIX?.

Watch that Groundloop? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

www.odyssey.dircon.co.uk/Spitfire14v109.htm (http://www.odyssey.dircon.co.uk/Spitfire14v109.htm)

tomtheyak
02-01-2007, 06:05 PM
Originally posted by luftluuver:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by tomtheyak:
How many two seat trainer variants of the spectrum of WW2 fighters were there? Few to none. OK, the 2 seat 109G, 190A etc spring to mind and the percursor to the Yak-7 but most pilots went from relatively underpowered and comparitively easy to land trainers, straight into the single seat of the fighter they were assigned.

Then there was the AT-6 which was said of, "if you can master a AT-6, you can fly anything". </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Oh, rgr, that mate, there will always be exceptions.

Still, individual a/c have their own idiosyncrasies, that can often kill the unwary or uninitiated; the Havard in this respect was always unforgiving of inattentiveness.

My point is that its a different ball park going from 800HP to 1200HP in a plane with not much more weight, and without the bod behind you talking through the SOPs as you fly... despite everything you might read or be told, nothing is like sitting there in strange aeroplane being told to go solo... my powered glider training was bad enough and I had fifteen hours instruction in the thing before I went up alone... scared the pants off of me, lol!

AKA_TAGERT
02-01-2007, 08:00 PM
Originally posted by DIRTY-MAC:
and you like pink! this comming from the guy who has a picture of his mama in his sig

DIRTY-MAC
02-02-2007, 05:04 AM
Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by DIRTY-MAC:
and you like pink! this comming from the guy who has a picture of his mama in his sig </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

never mind

Kurfurst__
02-02-2007, 05:16 AM
Originally posted by Bellator_1:
Kurfurst,

If you notice the Spitfire has a straight landing gear, which means its doesn't matter which wheels hits the runway first - the 109 on the other hand has a landing gear with a toe out appearence, each wheel pointing slightly outboards from the a/c away from each other, this meant the 109 had a tendency to steer to the side of which ever wheel touched the runway first, a potential crash just waiting to happen.

I am not sure how this would contribute. Thinking it over, the emphasis of 109 pilots is always on not that you land straight, but that you react quickly become the swing starts to control itself. This pretty much sounds like to me inertia forces of the rear CoG swinging the plane like a baseball bat. Once it really starts to swing, it's own weight controls it. That's why 3-pointer landings were important, to let the lockable tailwheel keep you straight in any case (there was plenty of weight on it!). I can't imagine how some toe-in would have significant effect. Besides to toe-in, ie. the mainwheels mounting angle changed quite early on with the late G-1/2 and the rest, around the turnover of 42/43. This is what resulted the small kidney shaped bumps on the wings, not the tire size.

Ie. look at this G-10 :

http://kurfurst.allaboutwarfare.com/me109-g10.jpg

Xiolablu3
02-02-2007, 05:27 AM
http://www.spitfiresociety.demon.co.uk/leadpic.jpg

Omg shes beautiful...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GDUQqA01KRw

I cant fight this feeling anymore...I forgotten what I started fighting for....

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/heart.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/inlove.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gifhttp://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

You think the exaust pipes are big enough? Better be careful they arent still hot..

BillyTheKid_22
02-02-2007, 07:09 AM
http://www.actionart.ca/images/Spitfire%20Domain.jpg


Spitfire! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

AKA_TAGERT
02-02-2007, 07:45 AM
Originally posted by DIRTY-MAC:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by DIRTY-MAC:
and you like pink! this comming from the guy who has a picture of his mama in his sig </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

touchee http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Touchee? Hardly! I just found it ironic that you would say something like that in light of your sig

Bellator_1
02-02-2007, 03:00 PM
Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bellator_1:
Kurfurst,

If you notice the Spitfire has a straight landing gear, which means its doesn't matter which wheels hits the runway first - the 109 on the other hand has a landing gear with a toe out appearence, each wheel pointing slightly outboards from the a/c away from each other, this meant the 109 had a tendency to steer to the side of which ever wheel touched the runway first, a potential crash just waiting to happen.

I am not sure how this would contribute. Thinking it over, the emphasis of 109 pilots is always on not that you land straight, but that you react quickly become the swing starts to control itself. This pretty much sounds like to me inertia forces of the rear CoG swinging the plane like a baseball bat. Once it really starts to swing, it's own weight controls it. That's why 3-pointer landings were important, to let the lockable tailwheel keep you straight in any case (there was plenty of weight on it!). I can't imagine how some toe-in would have significant effect. Besides to toe-in, ie. the mainwheels mounting angle changed quite early on with the late G-1/2 and the rest, around the turnover of 42/43. This is what resulted the small kidney shaped bumps on the wings, not the tire size.

Ie. look at this G-10 :

http://kurfurst.allaboutwarfare.com/me109-g10.jpg </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The lively back-end was only really a problem on take off when revs were high, however you make a good point about the toe out having been gradually less'ned from late 42 onwards - however not until the G-6/AS, -10 & -14 was this problem somewhat solved.

AFJ_Locust
02-02-2007, 05:55 PM
Originally posted by faustnik:
Not picking on your post Dirty-Mac, just the huge number of Bf109vSpit posts in general. Most of the posters go with the ever popular, "My Favorite" is better "just 'cause".

I guess it's a good break-in for the BoB forum when that sim is released.


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v61/AFJ_Locust/90e1d9c2.gif One Plane to rule them all P38 LIGHTNING !!! http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v61/AFJ_Locust/3613c324.gif

DIRTY-MAC
02-02-2007, 06:53 PM
Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by DIRTY-MAC:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by DIRTY-MAC:
and you like pink! this comming from the guy who has a picture of his mama in his sig </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

touchee http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Touchee? Hardly! I just found it ironic that you would say something like that in light of your sig </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

this is silly, I will stop now. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

drose01
02-02-2007, 11:53 PM
Originally posted by HellToupee:
what about the 109s fantastic reputation for landing and takeoffs :P

I have wondered about this quote from Bill Gunston's "Fighting Aircraft of WW2":

Though formidably armed and equipped, the vast swarms of Gustavs were nothing like such good machines as the lighter E and F, demanding constant pilot attention, constant high power settings, and having landing characteristics described as "malicious."

Does Il-2 seem to reflect this? Is this accurate?