Spitfire, the legend, the facts and its opponent (3 of 5)

Paul Day examines a BF109G, the most numerous of all the Messerschmitts. He finds the cockpit incredible small with very little workingspace - about 25% less than in a Spitfire. The very heavy and cramped canopy might have been designed with "the Kaisers" helmet in mind. On the plus-side he is very satisfied with the elevator trim wheel to the left, and the throttle grip. The undercarriage control are well positioned nicely to hand just in front of the trim wheel - the best cockpit feature - coparative to the Spitfire. The panel is very fine, and he especially likes the artificial horizon which can be locked during heavy maneouvers. Its a much more businesslike instrument than that of the Spitfires. The engine gauges and the fuel gauge are well positioned and easy to read. The bridge of the cannon, which fires through the spinner, takes up an enormous space of the cockpit. Other than that he returns to his first impression of a very small and cramped cockpit and the good details cannot change the end verdict of the cockpit: "It's Terrible!"

Tony Bianchi examines the "Gustav" from the outside. He is impressed by the well built airframe. He calls the plane a second monocoque aircraft, that is much esier to manufacture than the Spitfire.
With the cowling opened he looks at some beautiful engineering and very good craftmanship as well, when he examines the Daimler Benz engine. Here all service points are very easy to access - in contrast to the Merlin.
Nevertheless the BF109 was not an easy aircraft to fly. Its landingcharateristic was malicious. In the first two years of war more than fifteen hundred student pilots were killed in landing and take off accidents. Testpilot Reg Halland points out, that the geometry of the undercarriage and the to-in of the wheels was to blame.
(You are here, because you have chosen a series of quality videos. Another series of high quality videos is here: http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=FF93A9257EAD7950 )

Carl Vendler

Category:

Autos & Vehicles

Tags:

• Supermarine
• Spitfire
• Merlin
• BF109-G
• Daimler
• Benz
• Paul
• Day
• Tony
• Bianchi
• Reg
• Halland

[Olfux]

I guess they were'nt too meaty, they did'nt want to look like Hermann the big boss!

[sardosfish]

i don't understand why a lot of this bef 109 are in a USA.the same for zero and macchi!our story in usa hand!

[Olfux]

That must be because they in USA are'nt much interested in the difference between these three fine foreign aircraft - I suppose.

[AgCCannonFodder]

As many as 5% of all 109 losses were due to crashes at take off and landing. When you consider the number built, that's a lot of planes.

[Olfux]

You are perfectly right. It's an enigma, why they did'nt do the slightest thing to correct that bad designfault.

[wirikuta14]

th eguy commenting on the 109 cockpit must be some unpleasent fuck to be around with IMO.

[warp65]

I wonder why the Galland hood was not developed some more like the spits Malcolm version incorporating some side bulging?. Interesting cockpit critique, I suppose when its all you knew you lived, and died with it, but even then, most 109 pilots must have been aware of the excellent 190's office and wondered , "why this birdcage!".

[LoveeiCathyua722]

héh_í_fEël_sÒ_lÔñëlY_tODÄÿ

[functio1]

@SvenTviking - sounds like you've been reading some old myths about the Bf109. Experten had no say over production lines nor output. Weight additions were not a significant problem at all (i.e. Finnish pilots could tell no difference between the G-2 and G-6), especially with more powerful engines to hand.

[SvenTviking]

@functio1 The 109 was obsolete because the FW190 was so much better. It should have replaced the 109 in production but the "Experten" would not allow it. Messerschmidt just piled more and more weight on the 109s small wings so the later marks lost maneuverability. Just one more error in the destruction of the luftwaffe.

[functio1]

@SvenTviking - the Bf109 was not obsolete at all. As a front-line fighter, it could still cope with the demands asked of it within the role it was designed for. Post-WW2 research has been very shoddy and led to alot of myths about them. More modern reseach has disproved these.

[functio1]

@AgCCannonFodder - they probably just read 'lost' in a literal sense, probably not knowing that aircraft would be bought back into service if not written off completely. Alot of 'research' and 'facts' written about the Bf109 post-WW2 was fell very short of the mark.

[AgCCannonFodder]

@functio1 Can't remember where I read it, but it did say they "Lost" about 5% in accidents, I guess there could have been many more accidents, but those leading to the machine being written off or "Lost" amounted to 5%. It was not specific so I really can't clarify any further sorry.

[SvenTviking]

@functio1 Obsolete even! Spellings going to hell today..