Good 109E article

[Chalenge]

I'm pretty sure a P-47 can out climb a Spit 9 under certain circumstances.

Therefore anecdotal evidence.

[Jabberwock]

More data from the ME 109E Baubeschring: T/O run for the 109E (sub-type unidentified) was 300-320 m (~330-350 yards)

It's irrelevant. The 109D had a short T/O run yes, perhaps even remarkably short, but the important fact is that the Spitfire had an amazingly long T/O run due to its propeller in 1938.

It may well be irrelevant, but generally I find bringing facts into the discussion to be illuminating.

The RAF translation of the 109G-6 handbook gives a T/O run of approximately 400m. Would this also classify as an amazingly long T/O run, given the differences in aircraft over 4 years?

(Interestingly, the translation of the handbook also gives these values for turn times (which I had never seen before):

Turn time at speed
400 km/h 180 degrees circa 13 seconds
450 km/h 100 degrees circa 14 seconds)

All the primary materials can be found here: http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/other-mechanical-systems-tech/new-bf-109-manuals-thread-17837.html

[Angus]

Quiz: Which of the two aircraft had the widest landing gear?

Hint: It's not the Spitfire.

I know they'ra bout the same, but the 109 only gets that far by splaying it's legs
Quiz: What did the pilot in the first article say about it:
Hint:
"Both of the tires are mounted “crooked”, rolling with a camber angle of about 25°.  Consequently both wheels want to turn inwards under the aeroplane.  When the aeroplane is rolling with an equal download on both wheels, symmetry prevails; both wheels fight to a stand-off, and the aeroplane rolls straight.  Now imagine that something causes the download on the wheels to momentarily become unequal.  In that case the rolling friction of the tires becomes uneven and the turning tendency of the “heavy” tire asserts itself.  What might do this?  Well, crosswinds.  Or torque from engine power.  However, the most dangerous culprit is turning.  With the aeroplane’s center of gravity situated high above the tires, a swerve will set loose large centrifugal forces that cause the aeroplane to try to roll over the tires.  This is true of any aeroplane, but in this scenario the unusual camber of the Bf-109’s tires creates strong directional instability, requiring a different type of control strategy for take-offs and landings.  Tight heading control or aggressive tracking of the runway centerline can set off abrupt directional divergence. "

[Charge]

I'd say that any fighter of that era is tricky to land if the width of the wheels is too small. The problem is not so pronounced in Spit due to softer shock absorbers and less camber but in general they both like a soft grass field more. Finnish pilots said that most of the problems with Bf109 landings they saw was due to concrete runways and too high speed. They saw that Bf109 could be brought down much more slowly and the handling was generally easier on sand or grass surfaces.

"Camber thrust" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camber_thrust.

Does the 109 suffer from camber thrust then? As I understand it the camber thrust would be a problem if the landing gear leg would be perpendicular to ground where the camber thrust would indeed force the wheels inwards due to negative camber, but for a 109 that would mean a significant nose down attitude as the landing gear legs are angled forward which causes toe-out that should negate the effects of camber thrust.

However what is not clear to me is that as seen from the underside of the aircraft when retracted the landing gear goes slightly backwards from where it is mounted but the tire remains somewhat straight, so does it have some amount of toe-in or out from that arrangement which again affects the path the tire tries to take in different angles of the thrustline.

-C+

[Oldman731]

It never ceases to amaze me how some individuals can so easily dismiss the first hand accounts of highly experienced aviators.

Agreed.  Data produced by human test pilots is clearly valuable; anecdotal evidence is hardly useless simply because it's anecdotal.

- oldman

[Stoney]

Agreed.  Data produced by human test pilots is clearly valuable; anecdotal evidence is hardly useless simply because it's anecdotal.

- oldman

I said question it, not dismiss it out of hand.

[Stoney]

...splaying it's legs

I think we can all agree that over the last 100 years of aviation history, there is no better method to win a pilot's heart... 

 

[Anaxogoras]

There's an obvious trend to adore the anecdotes of pilots who praised aircraft we like, and dismiss the anecdotes that praise aircraft we don't like.  In the other direction, we dismiss negative anecdotes about our favorite aircraft, and amplify negative anecdotes about the aircraft we dislike.  In psychology they call it selection bias.

For a game like AH, some of us have a clear preference for Spitfires, or P-51s, or 190s, etc.   And these preferences muddy all of the discussions we see in the forums.

[Angus]

The splaying of legs yes, 
I drove a lot of old crappy cars in my hayday, so I was somewhat embarassed of not seeing the problem with the 109 gear setting. I took it as the other way around.
Try a car withthis setting

[Charge]

With what setting? Negative camber with toe-out?  How did it feel?

-C+

[Mister Fork]

Ordinary service to an aircraft, such as filling the gasoline tank, checking and replenishing the oil supply, and reloading ammunition belts, requires between ten and fifteen minutes. The new development, therefore, enables the Germans to change an engine while the rest of the service is going on. It's startling performance - namely, yanking one engine and replacing it with another, and turning it over to the pilot inside of 12 minutes.

This is mind-boggling from a serviceability perspective.  Get an oil leak from a few bullets, land, go take a leak/dump, come back, and you've got not only a new load-out of ammo, but a new engine to boot in just 12 minutes.

I wonder what the service times were like for other WWII aircraft?

[Chalenge]

Dont worry about it in AH you get the same service in every plane in just 30 seconds. 

[thorsim]

but not a new engine ...

gerrrrmannssssszzzz is kewel ...

Dont worry about it in AH you get the same service in every plane in just 30 seconds. 

[Die Hard]

Therefore anecdotal evidence.

Well hello there Captain Obvious.

Without knowing the context of Robert Johnson's comment it should be taken for what it is; an anecdote.

[Die Hard]

The RAF translation of the 109G-6 handbook gives a T/O run of approximately 400m. Would this also classify as an amazingly long T/O run, given the differences in aircraft over 4 years?

Given that the G-6 is more than twice the weight of the D with about the same wing area and less effective flaps, I'm not surprised. Wouldn't be surprised if the contemporary Spitfires had shorter T/O runs too. Without looking at hard data I would guesstimate 400 yards as "average" for 1943 Euro/US fighters.