claidemore
Senior Airman
Simple opinion poll: Which plane (in your educated opinion) was more likely to have a wing break off in an identical condition high G pullout? Me109 or Spitfire? Feel free to back up your opinion with data, anecdotes, etc.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
109. Wings were bolted on while the Spitfires were attached to the fuselage using a layering technique. Ended up being like a leaf spring in it's design. Also made it costly to manufacture.
The bolt on processes made the 109 wings easier to fix also, just unbolt and replace. The Me was made with ease of fixing in mind. The Spitfire was not. It really shows up in the wings.
But if I were pulling 6+ G in either one, I'd go with the Spitfire.
Tim - in reality the method of attaching the wings should make no real difference given equal load carrying capability of the tension/shear fasteners. Both design teams would have aircraft/pilot safety uppermost in mind for both Limit and Ultimate desing loads.
The problem with attaching two wing halves at the centerline (like a Mustang) is that the primaryload fasteners are big ass bolts - which should be pre-loaded and safety wired to prevent a 'prying separation' when the wings deflect outboard due to vertical loads.
Having said this, the simplest and most efficient design from structures view is one continuous wing from wing tip to wing tip where there are no discontinuities in the wing spar. Not very elegant for repair or manufacturing considerations, however.
Tim - I did that stuff for a living when I was young and impressionable. MS Aero from UT and six plus at Lockheed and Bell
IMHO the poll doesn't make much sense.
Kurfürst said:IMHO the poll doesn't make much sense.
That'll do it.
When were you at Lockheed? Middle 80s by any chance?
late sixties.
Got it. Old roomate from B-school was over at the skunk works in the mid 80s. He was in the project development section. The Govt would send them specs on what they wanted and he and a couple of other bright bulbs would tell them what it would look like, how long to make, ect. Very bright guy.
In the end I voted for Bf 109, not necessary because of thinking that it had weak wings, I think that in 109 case usually the rear end failed first. 109G really didn't have over sensitive controls, Finns thought that stick forces per G were extraordinary high, appr. 8-9 kp, in dive even higher. At 500km/h normal sized pilot could just pull 4G. Having read too many accounts of Finnish aces on how they after escaping by diving pulled with all their strength seemingly unmoveable stick thinking that that this is the end and just narrowly survived from crashing into sea/earth to much appreciate 109's elevator heaviness at high speeds, which was probably intentional to protect 109's structures. So IMHO at high speed recovery under equal G-forces 109 would probably break earlier but not because of weakness of its wings but because of weakness of its tail section. Even if stick forces were heavy in desperation some got extra strength and some would in desperation try to use the tailplane trimmer too heavy handedly. But 109 wasn't alone, one could overstress also Spit, Mustang etc.
Juha