Spitfire structural failures

[Wotan]

Originally posted by Guppy35
Go back, read it again, note smile at the end of the original "Spit was a lousy airplane" paragraph.

I was responding to isigrim.  He then makes the comment about reversing that "Spit was a lousy airplane" paragraph so I did at which point my original "the Luftwaffe won the war without losing a single aircraft"  became the Luftwaffe lost the war etc.

[/b]

I would suggest you go back and reread what’s been written in the right order. It seems you are having trouble remembering the thread.

The only recent reply before your reply I quoted below was in reply to Vodoo.

I give. THe Spit was a lousy airplane, that every pilot who ever flew hated. It never shot down anything. It didn't accomplish one mission it ever set out to do.

There is no smiley face at the end of that paragraph. This was a reply before Isegrim said anything about "reversing" your post. Check it yourself. In another reply Angus "parroted" right along with you "the LW lost".

You seemed to take that very seriously, and you seem to take it as some sort of insult to the 109, at which point I then am asking why folks have to hate one of the two if they like the other.  And then I said I liked both the Spit and the 109, that they were both good aircraft and both did their jobs well etc.

What part of that don't you get?  And how does that make me offended by any of it.

[/b]

Who said anything about being "offended"? That is all in your head. I simply responded to Angus and your red herring point that the "LW lost". These are points brought up by the both of you in the context of this "Spitfire thread".

My reply was the LW lost but not because of the Spitfire. That seemed to have gotten your panties bunched.

To be honest I think it is rediculous how any Spit thread had to degenerate into how the LW aircraft were better, and any 109 thread has to become how the US or RAF aircraft were better.

So maybe you ought to turn of your LW sensitivity meter.

Dan/Slack

You brought up "war winning". One can make a reasonable assumption in the context of this thread that you are implying that the Spitfire was a major player in defeating the LW. After all this thread is about Spits, right?

The author of this thread started a thread about the greatness of all things Spit to bait Isegrim. Take that up with them.

If threads like these are so ridiculous then why feed them with remarks about "war winning"? You should have held to your first instinct and let the two ying yang twins have at it.

[Guppy35]

Originally posted by Wotan


I would suggest you go back and reread what’s been written in the right order. It seems you are having trouble remembering the thread.

The only recent reply before your reply I quoted below was in reply to Vodoo.

 

There is no smiley face at the end of that paragraph. This was a reply before Isegrim said anything about "reversing" your post. Check it yourself. In another reply Angus "parroted" right along with you "the LW lost".

[/b]

Who said anything about being "offended"? That is all in your head. I simply responded to Angus and your red herring point that the "LW lost". These are points brought up by the both of you in the context of this "Spitfire thread".

My reply was the LW lost but not because of the Spitfire. That seemed to have gotten your panties bunched.

 

You brought up "war winning". One can make a reasonable assumption in the context of this thread that you are implying that the Spitfire was a major player in defeating the LW. After all this thread is about Spits, right?

The author of this thread started a thread about the greatness of all things Spit to bait Isegrim. Take that up with them.

If threads like these are so ridiculous then why feed them with remarks about "war winning"? You should have held to your first instinct and let the two ying yang twins have at it. [/B]

OK go back, read again.  Both the original and the reversed had smiles at the end.  The only winning comment I made was about the LW winning the war in the first paragraph.  I then reversed it in response to isigrim.

You will also note I did comment early to Milo and isigrim about the trolling because they do mess up any discussions with their back and forth.

As for the Spit winning the war, the only one making that connection was you in your comment

"Germany lost the war but not at the exclusive hands of Spitfire pilots.

So yeah the LW lost. It took the combined strength of the VVS-RKKA and the USAAF to achieve this."

Show me where anyone said the Spitfire won the war?

So in terms of reading into things and getting 'panties bunched" it would appear that falls in your court does it not?

Dan/Slack

[Wotan]

1 more time. Let's see if you can follow along...

Both you and Angus stated the lw lost (you through sarcasm). In fact my reply directly followed Angus' "the lw lost". This thread is about Spitfires... (why would one bring up war winning when the subject is Spitfires?)

One can make a reasonable assumption in the context of this thread that you are implying that the Spitfire was a major player in defeating the LW. After all this thread is about Spits, right?

and another...

I simply responded to Angus and your red herring point that the "LW lost". These are points brought up by the both of you in the context of this "Spitfire thread".

My reply was the LW lost but not because of the Spitfire. That seemed to have gotten your panties bunched.

Any other nonsense that you try to wrap into it is on you.

As for where, when, how or whatever use your find for a "smiley face" dont expect me to figure out what it means when you have trouble yourself.

[Crumpp]

Crumpp,
This is pretty damn simple, Schmid reached mach 0,8 with a specially prepared plane and he had problems. For one reason or another you and Isegrim want to claim that speed as safe limit. Using same logic I could claim mach 0,86 as safe limit of the P-47 because an instrumented plane reached it without damage (according to documentation).

gripen

 Yes his plane was especially prepared but no more so than any allied test A/C used for similar purposes.  Except for the fact the allies didn't have ejection seat technology. Did it REALLY make that much of difference?  Do you have the weight of the modifications?

Drop your condescending tone. I have been nothing but respectful to you.  My post was not an attack.  If you want to be jerk then I simply will not reply or bother discussing anything with you.  

Since you claim to have the repot then you can read EXACTLY what I posted.  I am not claiming anything that is not a FACT.

FACT:  The dive speeds are posted in the Pilots manual and HAVE been posted.

FACT:  ANY airplane can exceed it posted limitations.

FACT:  Those posted limitations for the 109 where exceeded both by the test pilots AND pilots in Combat.  

FACT:  To present a one incident as a re-occurring problem misrepresents the situation.

FACT:  Schmid went to Mach .80 and conducted the dives over several months.

I for one am for using ONLY the information in the pilots manual AND for making that the HARD limits.

So lets discuss the +25 lbs boost on the Spitfire MkIX.  In the test it ran for an hour and ten minutes.  The manual says it can only go for 5 min.  I am fine with using the pilots manual for A/C specs.  As long as the standard is the same across the board.

Crumpp

[gripen]

Crumpp,
I have not complained about your dive  speed comparisons with manual values. At least I understand Schmid's story so that it was high risk testing on the edge. The Dutch roll problem is presented on several sources so it certainly was common (see  "Test Pilots", MW's page above and  Finnish documentation also claim this problem) or why did they restrict aileron movement in those tests?

gripen

[Crumpp]

why did they restrict aileron movement in those tests?

You are correct.  It was never in dispute that the High speed trials were dangerous.  Hence the big money rewards to the Test Pilots.  The data is not based on one dive.

It was High Speed testing and took the plane to the edge of it's performance.  The 906kph TAS Schmid went to was the culmination of 2 months of testing.  The aileron reversal occurred between 850-890Kph.  Schmid's test, including the exact stick movements needed to recover a 109 from a dive to those speeds are listed in the book "Messerschmitt Bf-109F-K Development, Testing, Production" by Willy Radinger and Wolfgang Otto beginning on page 14.

There were multiple test dives conducted and only in one did he lose the stick.  When the plane reached the critical speeds the ailerons would snatch when they reversed.  If you were not ready for it then the stick could be yanked right from your hand.  This would be catastrophic without the stops.  The stops were only placed ailerons to assist the pilot in regaining the stick.

This did not mean a 109 not equipped with the stops could not have made the dive.  It just would have been more dangerous.  I suspect that many of the accidents the Luftwaffe experienced (22 in one month) that lead to the Dive Trials were caused by the pilot losing the stick when the ailerons reversed.

Crumpp

[SELECTOR]

lets get this thing down to basics...
while being a lover of the 109 i got admit it wasn't a war winner after 1939..it could never touch the spit. in as far as reliability, manoverability, every step the poor old germans took to improve it, the brits came back one better.. you can love the 109 but the spit was by far the better beast..
The spits served long after the war, while the 109s became bean cans.. a fitting end i feel..


history don't lie....propergander dose..

[Crumpp]

lets get this thing down to basics...

Actually, there are quit a bit of myths out there about the 109.  One of them being it was a poor performer.  Its engine was just as powerful as the latest allied fighters. It was constructed of advanced alloys.  Its climb was better than any other fighter and its level speed was better than most.  If fighter development is tracked the variants of the 109 stacked up performance wise with the best the allies had.

The myth it was obsolete performance wise stems from the Bf-109G6 when it first appeared in 1943.  It was heavier and the performance actually dropped compared to the G2.  The allies captured several examples and tested them.  Thus began the myth.  

This performance drop occurred because the armament of the G6 was increased and it was never originally designed for the extra weight.

By late 1943 the G6/AS and MW boost systems came out which increased the G6 speed 50 kph faster.  Early 1944 the DB605 was adopted in the 109G10 and K4.  These planes were easily on par with the best the allies had.  Fortunately, Germany's Military situation was to the point there were very few well trained pilots left that could handle the thoroughbred the 109 had developed into.  

The 109 was an advanced aircraft and could handle the best the allies had in the air.

The 109 was also obsolete for the Luftwaffe.  They needed an easy to fly aircraft that could dominate allied fighter performance.  Not a hard to fly one with some real advantages.

Crumpp

[Crumpp]

You will also note I did comment early to Milo and isigrim about the trolling because they do mess up any discussions with their back and forth.

Isn't that the truth!  

Crumpp

[Angus]

Crumpp said THIS of the 109:
"Its engine was just as powerful as the latest allied fighters. It was constructed of advanced alloys. Its climb was better than any other fighter and its level speed was better than most. If fighter development is tracked the variants of the 109 stacked up performance wise with the best the allies had. "

IMHO pretty good Crumpp.
Okay MINOR deflections:

1. Engines had problems late war because of lack of some alloys. Nothing to do with anything but warfare cirkumstances.
2. Its climb at times sometimes got matched and even bettered by the Spitty. But usually the 109 was a climbing champion.
3. It's level speed already got matched in 1940 by some Spit variants. But none the less, the 109 was always one of the fastest. Best years: 1939, 1941, 1942. Tough times with the P51 once it appeared.
4. Some of the very best 109 advantages still are not mentioned. Those include easy manufacture and ease of maintainance, especially in the field. Such as cleverly designed undercarriage mounted on the fuselage so the wings could be unmounted seperatly etc. Would be nice to know of more of those, I am sure there are yet some.

Now what just bothered me and Guppy I guess, was just Barbi.
Just keep bumping into Barbi about subjects like whether the RAF won the BoB, or whether the allies won air supremacy over europe, or whether the allied bombing campaign yealded anything or whether the LW always had unlimited fuel, or whether the allies were generally behind in any aspect of technological advance, etc, etc.
Maybe it's just me

[Crumpp]

1. Engines had problems late war because of lack of some alloys. Nothing to do with anything but warfare cirkumstances.

That is the only one I disagree with.  The Germans made substitutions for more readily available resources but rarely at the expense of gross performance.  The allies did the same thing.

whether the LW always had unlimited fuel

The Luftwaffe's fuel shortages were catastrophic.  There were times on the western front OXES were used to pull the planes from their revetments to the takeoff point and back.


 

whether the allies were generally behind in any aspect of technological advance, etc, etc.

Some areas the Allies were ahead and some the Axis.  Mostly though people confuse different with better or worse.  Take power boost systems.  The methods were different but accomplished essentially the same thing.  In Oxygen delivery systems, which are a very overlooked aspect of High Altitude combat, the Germans were ahead.  In strategic bombers and parachute materials the allies were ahead.  You could go on and on.

Crumpp

[Guppy35]

Originally posted by Wotan
1 more time. Let's see if you can follow along...

Both you and Angus stated the lw lost (you through sarcasm). In fact my reply directly followed Angus' "the lw lost". This thread is about Spitfires... (why would one bring up war winning when the subject is Spitfires?)


and another...

Any other nonsense that you try to wrap into it is on you.

As for where, when, how or whatever use your find for a "smiley face" dont expect me to figure out what it means when you have trouble yourself.

Ok for the sake of clarification.  I have a long standing interest in Spitfire history that goes back far beyond flight sims.  I can claim some Spitfire pilot vets as friends.  

I also love the 109, in particular the Emil.  Don't know why, I just do.  I guess it's because the two planes share a common history in that they were there in the beginning and at the end.

Neither won the war, or lost the war.  They both played their part.  I'm sorry for the misunderstanding if you felt like I overreacted or somehow slandered the 109, the LW or what have you.

That was not my intent.

I do get tired of any thread concerning those aircraft having to turn into just what this one did, and apparently I played my part.  

It is not impossible for both the 109 and the Spit to have been great aircraft.  They are not mutually exclusive.

For fun I do aircraft profiles.  Spits, 109Es, Mustangs, Hurris and Jugs so far.

Enjoy some 109Es.  I imagine the 109 experts can ID the units without my having to list them

Dan/Slack

[GScholz]

Originally posted by SELECTOR

The spits served long after the war, while the 109s became bean cans.. a fitting end i feel..


history don't lie....propergander dose..

Then stop propagandizing.

Spanish 109 versions were still in production in 1956 and many air forces operated 109s in the 1950s.

The rest of your post is equally ignorant.

[VooDoo]

Guppy, pretty damn cool profiles ! May I ask how are you shading drop tanks ?

PS Sorry for offtop .

[mw]

Hi Gripen:  “the Bf 109 developed strong dutch roll motion above it's critical mach number which is about mach 0,76 according to German documentation and that fits also quite nicely to it's dive limits.”

I have a report by Gen. Kaithel  (sic) drawing on TAGL II Bf 109, A.1, Nr 1 lfd. 675/43 and the experiences of the Rechlin’s Beauvais wherein flight characteristics and limits of the 109 are described:   In the fighters at present in service, difficulties (compressibility) appear above all in the behavior of the elevators (...) at M = .76 .     The behavior of the 109 around its high axis deserves special attention.  With a free rudder the 109, particularly with blister armament and chiefly at great altitudes in high speed dives, tends to swing like a pendulum around its high axis, combined with a rolling movement.   The only correct thing to do is to counter this movement with the rudder (not with the ailerons).  On account of this peculiarity, trifles such as, for example inconvenient position of the pedal and in particular incompletely trimmed ailerons and rudder ruin the feel of the aircraft to uselessness.