Originally posted by Angus
Hmm, there must be a measurable picture around somewhere to check this out.Maybe someone will post something more accurate.
Anyway, I seem to recall that the Spit IX should be indistinguishable from the Spit V. Maybe that appeals to fast combat and not scrutiny, I do not know.
However, from my point of view, the Spit nose looks similar or longer than the 109's. Just my eyes 
Well I did some comparisons of forward view, taking my scale K-4 and spitty 14 drawings.. it`s all there to see, just a few comments:
1, Inverted Vee engine is broad at the base, an ordinary Vee engine is broader at the top. ONE of the advantages of using inverted-vee engines is that the upport cowling can be made nice narrow, plus it can angled down towards the prop - just see the picture.
2, The sighting view is thus better on the 109. Also, since the DB engines were built angled somewhat upwards compared to the sighthing line, and Motorkanone followed that, deflection shooting was even more easier...
3, The tall tail wheel of late 109s gave a distinct advantage, raising the tail on the ground improved forward vision during taxying, the cowling was less obstructive this way.
4, The Spit`s cocpit is also much more back, while the wing is forward, limiting sight over the wings.
5, Blue line shows best sighting line via the REVI. (connects REVI and cowling top)
6, Light blue line shows best taxying view over cowling. Connects apprx. pilot head position with top of the propellor hub.
7, The relative sighting angle of the two planes is show with pink. Also the relative size of the Spits forward fuel tank vs. the armament bay of the109 in front of the pilot .
It also nicely illustrates the old wisdom, why make something big if you can make it smaller and better ?
This is something I am curious about. I always believed that the 109 was rather more nose heavy. Why? Lighter airframe with a heavier engine, and a more backward wing, hence center of lift.
Nah. The 109 was a taildragger, a nose heavy plane. The engine was NOT heavier, in fact it was very comparable in timeframe (early Merlin vs. DB 601 about 610kg, two stage Merlins vs. DB605 about 730 kg). In fact the two-stage Griffons were a good deal heavier, close to the DB 603 (Griffon 65 weighted 898 kg, DB 605 D 745 kg).
If the wing is backward, than it shift the CoG
backwards, not fore.
Also if you note, the 109`s u/c, when extended, contacts the ground more forward than the Spit, it`s practically below centre of engine (in fact the 109`s u/c rests to some extent on the engine bearers... smart as usual). That shifts CoG even more backwards. The Spit`s u/c is under the back of the engine.
Moreover, fuel tanks... Spit : in front of pilot.. 109.. behind pilot (which means it gives some additional protection for pilot... smart again). Also on late 109s, MW50 tanks is even further back, that`s some 90-100 kg total, quite a weight.
