 | P-51's vs. Me-109's and Fw-190's| Aviation Discuss P-51's vs. Me-109's and Fw-190's in the World War II - Aviation forums; I concur but you know how ever thread no matter what the topic is ends up getting off course all ... |
|
07-07-2005, 02:21 PM
|
#181 | | Der Crewchief
Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Ansbach, Germany
Posts: 30,276
Country:  | I concur but you know how ever thread no matter what the topic is ends up getting off course all the time.
__________________  US Army Blackhawk Crewchief 2000-2006 Classic ww2aircraft.net quotes: fly boy said: "isn't that the first jet bomber? becasue i have flown one in a flight sim before and i know how it handles" "wait what ok who made the b-2 crash come on people that messed up its a b-2" "ah yes the mistel those things are so annoying is games and in real life" | 
|  | |
07-07-2005, 02:46 PM
|
#182 | | Banned
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 795
| Quote: |
Thats just opinion. It is probably almost entirely cancled out by the superior visability, especially to the rear, that the Spit pilot enjoyed over almost all models of 109.
| The 109 had much better vis over the nose than the Spit thanks to its inverted engine. Only the bubble canopy Spits had better vis to the rear than the 109. Quote: |
The Spit 21 outclassed all 109's.
| It did? Some stats on the 21/22 were worse than the XIV. | 
| | |
07-07-2005, 02:52 PM
|
#183 | | Der Crewchief
Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Ansbach, Germany
Posts: 30,276
Country: | The 109 had horrible vis to the rear of the aircraft and was even worse when the aircraft was landing to the front.
__________________ US Army Blackhawk Crewchief 2000-2006 Classic ww2aircraft.net quotes: fly boy said: "isn't that the first jet bomber? becasue i have flown one in a flight sim before and i know how it handles" "wait what ok who made the b-2 crash come on people that messed up its a b-2" "ah yes the mistel those things are so annoying is games and in real life" | |
| | |
07-07-2005, 03:01 PM
|
#184 | | Banned
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 795
| Quote: |
Originally Posted by DerAdlerIstGelandet The 109 had horrible vis to the rear of the aircraft and was even worse when the aircraft was landing to the front. | Just as did all razorback a/c did. The Galland armour replacing the steel plate armour helped.
Who cares about landing when the objective of a fighter was to shoot down EA. The EA would disappear under the nose sooner on the Spit than the EA would on the 109. | |
| | |
07-07-2005, 03:58 PM
|
#185 | | Der Crewchief
Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Ansbach, Germany
Posts: 30,276
Country: | Quote: |
Originally Posted by KraziKanuK Quote: |
Originally Posted by DerAdlerIstGelandet The 109 had horrible vis to the rear of the aircraft and was even worse when the aircraft was landing to the front. | Just as did all razorback a/c did. The Galland armour replacing the steel plate armour helped.
Who cares about landing when the objective of a fighter was to shoot down EA. The EA would disappear under the nose sooner on the Spit than the EA would on the 109. | I do especially when you have the land the 109. I do agree thought that all aircraft with canopies like the 109 would have reduced vis. The Spit however even without the bubble canopy seems would have better.
__________________ US Army Blackhawk Crewchief 2000-2006 Classic ww2aircraft.net quotes: fly boy said: "isn't that the first jet bomber? becasue i have flown one in a flight sim before and i know how it handles" "wait what ok who made the b-2 crash come on people that messed up its a b-2" "ah yes the mistel those things are so annoying is games and in real life" | |
| | |
07-07-2005, 04:12 PM
|
#186 | | Banned
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 795
| Quote: |
Originally Posted by DerAdlerIstGelandet I do especially when you have the land the 109. I do agree thought that all aircraft with canopies like the 109 would have reduced vis. The Spit however even without the bubble canopy seems would have better. | Until the final flair to 3 point the 109 still had a better view over the nose. The 109 pilot could see ground closer to him than the Spit pilot. All se a/c had a terrible time vis wise once on the ground. The 109 could brake harder than the Spit which would fall over on its nose if it tried. Shorter landing run and less chance to run into something.
Take some 3 views and drawn the hiden areas in for each. | |
| | |
07-07-2005, 05:26 PM
|
#187 | | IP/Mech THE GREAT GAZOO
Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Colorado, USA
Posts: 13,588
Country:  | Quote: |
Originally Posted by KraziKanuK Quote: |
Originally Posted by DerAdlerIstGelandet I do especially when you have the land the 109. I do agree thought that all aircraft with canopies like the 109 would have reduced vis. The Spit however even without the bubble canopy seems would have better. | Until the final flair to 3 point the 109 still had a better view over the nose. The 109 pilot could see ground closer to him than the Spit pilot. All se a/c had a terrible time vis wise once on the ground. The 109 could brake harder than the Spit which would fall over on its nose if it tried. Shorter landing run and less chance to run into something.
Take some 3 views and drawn the hiden areas in for each. | Why would you 3 point an aircraft that if landed on one wheel would "wheel barrel?" "Wheels Landing," let the tail come down as airspeed diminishes and use peripheral vision in maintaining directional control. I would do this for both the Spit and -109.
109 braking harder?!? I've never seen data supporting this. Perhaps some one could come up with -109 and Spit landing distances for comparisons?!? 
__________________ "IF ITS RED OR DUSTY, DON'T TOUCH IT"  | |
| | |
07-07-2005, 05:40 PM
|
#188 | | Banned
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 795
| Quote: |
Originally Posted by FLYBOYJ Why would you 3 point an aircraft that if landed on one wheel would "wheel barrel?" "Wheels Landing," let the tail come down as airspeed diminishes and use peripheral vision in maintaining directional control. I would do this for both the Spit and -109.
109 braking harder?!? I've never seen data supporting this. Perhaps some one could come up with -109 and Spit landing distances for comparisons?!? | Braking harder because the fulcrum point (main wheels) are further forward on the 109 and with less mass forward.  If one wants to do ground loops then the 109 should be landing on the main gear first. JFYI, the proper method of landing the 190 was a 3 point at touchdown. | |
| | |
07-07-2005, 05:47 PM
|
#189 | | IP/Mech THE GREAT GAZOO
Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Colorado, USA
Posts: 13,588
Country: | Quote: |
Originally Posted by KraziKanuK Quote: |
Originally Posted by FLYBOYJ Why would you 3 point an aircraft that if landed on one wheel would "wheel barrel?" "Wheels Landing," let the tail come down as airspeed diminishes and use peripheral vision in maintaining directional control. I would do this for both the Spit and -109.
109 braking harder?!? I've never seen data supporting this. Perhaps some one could come up with -109 and Spit landing distances for comparisons?!? | Braking harder because the fulcrum point (main wheels) are further forward on the 109 and with less mass forward. If one wants to do ground loops then the 109 should be landing on the main gear first. JFYI, the proper method of landing the 190 was a 3 point at touchdown. | Perhaps - but I could tell you that 3 pointers are more difficult and can play havoc in x-winds. Are we leading into the high -109 accident rate on landing?
__________________ "IF ITS RED OR DUSTY, DON'T TOUCH IT" | |
| | |
07-07-2005, 06:03 PM
|
#190 | | Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: London
Posts: 2,885
| Small point but German planes were notorious for having weak brakes. I would be suprised if any German could brake harder than any allied plane. | |
| | |
07-07-2005, 06:10 PM
|
#191 | | the old Sage
Join Date: May 2004 Location: Platonic Sphere
Posts: 9,511
Country: | KK what is Galland armor ? | |
| | |
07-07-2005, 06:19 PM
|
#192 | | Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 1,260
| The rear visibility was greatly improved with the "Erla" canopy fitted to the late Bf 109 versions, G and K.
Many German pilots praised the modification, although rear visibility in the Bf 109 was never as great as in the Fw190s, Ta152s, P-51s or the late Spitfires.
__________________
In a national survey, 92% of the French people believed they are not ugly: 93% of them were wrong. | |
| | |
07-07-2005, 06:53 PM
|
#193 | | IP/Mech THE GREAT GAZOO
Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Colorado, USA
Posts: 13,588
Country: | Quote: |
Originally Posted by Glider Small point but German planes were notorious for having weak brakes. I would be suprised if any German could brake harder than any allied plane. | Interesting! Another point worthy of research! 
__________________ "IF ITS RED OR DUSTY, DON'T TOUCH IT" | |
| | |
07-07-2005, 09:09 PM
|
#194 | | Senior Member
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 5,031
| Quote: |
Originally Posted by Lunatic The Spit 21 outclassed all 109's. | Very incorrect ! The 109K-4 was more than a match for the Spit 21...
__________________  We have built a total of about 1250 of this aircraft (Me-262), but only fifty were allowed to be used as fighters - as interceptors. And out of this fifty, there were never more than 25 operational. So we had only a very, very few.
- Adolf Galland | |
| | |
07-07-2005, 09:32 PM
|
#195 | | Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 12,061
Country:  | Where's your proof of this? Before you avoided even touching on the Spitfire 21 - the Spitfire XIV was more than a match for the Bf-109K-4 - the Spitfire 21 was even better than the Spitfire XIV in almost every aspect - increased advantage for the Spitfire 21 over the Bf-109K-4.
Let me demonstrate something;
The Bf-109K-4 was not very fast, actually. It's ability to climb was hampered by it's small wing - the cockpit was cramped and the pilot was always in a fix to control his aircraft. A well handled P-51D could run rings around the K-4 on a good day...
See, I can state anything I want - anything at all - and it would be disputed but I could just carry on arguing. I think it's time - if you're so sure of yourself - to provide facts and sources.
And another thing for everybody (I know some people already understand this), just because all the numbers state it should be a marvel of an aircraft - it doesn't mean it will be. If that were true - there'd be no such thing as a bad design.
__________________ "When you go home tomorrow, don't expect anyone to know what you have been through. Even if they did know, most people probably wouldn't care anyway. Some of you may get the medals you deserve, many more of you will not. But remember this, all of you are now members of the front-line club, and that is the most exclusive club in the world." - Lt. Col. Matthew Maer CO 1st Battalion, the Princess of Wale's Royal Regiment. Camp Abu Naji, Oct. 2004  To those in that club. | |
| | | Thread Tools | Search this Thread | | | | | Display Modes |  Linear Mode | 
Posting Rules
| You may not post new threads You may not post replies You may not post attachments You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off | | | All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:38 PM. | | |
