For anyone who has ANY interest in the Bf-109...

[Meyer]

Both I think.  Anyway internal fuel capacity was similar, only 14 liters of difference in favor of the 109.

But, IIRC, the Spit carried the 85 impgallons of fuel in 2 tanks, so the fuel tank in the 109 was a lot bigger

[Benny Moore]

Spitfire had 85 gallons.  Me-109 had 105 gallons.  I believe all production models during the war had the same amounts.  For comparison, P-38G had 300 and P-38L had 420.  Numbers are not exact.

[Serenity]

Oh, and by the way, in that diagram above, that G-G looks NOTHING like the front of a Bf-109 cockpit. Its too... funny-shaped. Looks like a merge between a spitfire and a Bf-109. (Yes, im talking about JUST the black line, I KNOW the red one is a Spitfire.)

[Meyer]

Originally posted by Benny Moore
Spitfire had 85 gallons.  Me-109 had 105 gallons.  I believe all production models during the war had the same amounts.  For comparison, P-38G had 300 and P-38L had 420.  Numbers are not exact.

109 tank carried 400l, about 88 impgallons.

And you are mixing up us gallons with imperial gallons, they are not the same.

Us gallon: 3.785411784 litres

Imp gallon: 4.54609 litres

To make it easier, in litres:

Spit (85 impgal): 386l

109: 400l

P-38G (300 usgal) 1135l

P-38L (420 usgal) 1589l


It's worth to mention that the P-38, as a two engine fighter, needed more fuel, and also the Allison had worse consumption figures than the DB601/5, so the difference in time of flight in internal fuel between a P38G and a 109 is not that big as one might expect.

To put it in numbers, in climb power, the 38G could go for about 107 minutes, and 64 minutes for a 109F-4. Still a big difference though.

Edit: those of course are hypothetical figures, engines couldn't run that longer in climb power without risking failure

[Benny Moore]

Hmm, you seem to be right.  Typical American that I am, I had no idea that there was a considerable difference between American gallons and British.  The Me-109 carried 105 U.S. gallons.  I guess that means that the Spitfire carried somewhere about 100, right?  I'll go calculate.

[Meyer]

Originally posted by Meyer

It's worth to mention that the P-38, as a two engine fighter, needed more fuel, and also the Allison had worse consumption figures than the DB601/5, so the difference in time of flight in internal fuel between a P38G and a 109 is not that big as one might expect.

To put it in numbers, in climb power, the 38G could go for about 107 minutes, and 64 minutes for a 109F-4. Still a big difference though.
 

Ooops I made a HUGE mistake. Was reading the P38 manual and i took the 165gallons/hour figure for military power as the consumption for BOTh engines.. but actually was for just one.  
So, thing is that in internal fuel the 38G colud fly for 54 min (military power, again  theorically, it is a 15min rating according to the manual)  
Assuming the same figures in military power for the 38L (don't know if that's the case), it would last 67min.
The 109G-1/2/4/5/6  in steig-kampfleistung (climb-combat, 30min rating) could fly 60min.

Not bad at all for the little 109...but of course the 38 could take two 300 usgallons external tanks and it would be a different story...

[Benny Moore]

I think you are also making a mistake with the Diamler-Benz.  In order for what you say to be true, the Diamler Benz would have to be about twice as fuel-efficient than the Allison (not counting drag differences).  I'm just not buying that.

[Serenity]

Originally posted by Benny Moore
I think you are also making a mistake with the Diamler-Benz.  In order for what you say to be true, the Diamler Benz would have to be about twice as fuel-efficient than the Allison (not counting drag differences).  I'm just not buying that.

Its German. It wouldnt surprise me. Keep in mind, they started that war without enough fuel to finish it, and they knew it. Im sure they developed their technology to be as fuel efficient as possible in attempt to avoid the fuel shortage that eventually destroyed them all.

[MiloMorai]

Sorry Meyer, was a long day and mis-read your post.

[BlauK]

Even this pilot was able to fly the Bf109G-6  (even though he here poses with a Fiat)

Surely 109:s had a more cramped cockpit than e.g. many Ami planes. The Formula 1 cars also have more cramped cockpits than limousines.
I suppose it all depends pretty much on what the pilot gets used to. Both may have their own good and bad points. E.g. a large and spacy plane can feel like something you ride in, a cramped one may feel like something you "wear".

[Knegel]

Originally posted by Serenity
Oh, and by the way, in that diagram above, that G-G looks NOTHING like the front of a Bf-109 cockpit. Its too... funny-shaped. Looks like a merge between a spitfire and a Bf-109. (Yes, im talking about JUST the black line, I KNOW the red one is a Spitfire.)

Hi,

thats just in FRONT of the canophy and it display pretty exact what it looks like.

btw, thanks for that link!

Greetings,

Knegel

[Serenity]

Originally posted by Knegel
Hi,

thats just in FRONT of the canophy and it display pretty exact what it looks like.

btw, thanks for that link!

Greetings,

Knegel

Notice all those curves at the top??? That looks nothing like the front of any Bf-109 canopy ive ever seen...

[WMDnow]

Well this was effectively Hijacked.

[WMDnow]

By the way, i have Finnish relatives, they are optomistic.  And small.  But mostly optomistic.

[WMDnow]

Edit: so thats why they said it had room.