Bf 109 Structure

[Richie]

Originally Posted by Richie

Every time I looked a picture inside a 109 fuselage or one in any sate of disassemblage I couldn't figure out how it was put out in the grapevine that they were all put together with spit and bailing wire and would fall apart after a few hours. Churchill I think. But for years and years up until I was in my late teens I thought it was the truth. I kind of figured it out that it was just necessary moral boosting propoganda when I got into books about 109s and Spitfires also.

I saw this program when it aired on Equinox in Canada in the early 90s. It changed my mind forever. Hard to see out of tricky on the ground but I don't think it's going to fall apart after a few hours. Plus this guy has no idea how the canopy works in a bail out. One of the best systems.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_eXXC...ature=youtu.be

[ElAurens]

The same situation exists to this day for the Mitsubishi A6M series.

Most people, and especially virtual pilots of the USN persuasion, continue to propagate the myth that the Zero was poorly built. They were actually well built, and had a lot of hand craftsmanship in the airframe.

Their fragility was by design, as it was the only way that the designers could meet the seemingly contradictory specifications laid down by the Imperial Japanese Navy.

That is, 1500 mile range, extreme maneuverability, high rate of climb, cannon armament, and ease of maintenance on board ship, oh, and you only have 1000bhp to work with.

IMHO, the Zero, Spitfire, Bf 109, and P51 were the four most brilliant designs for fighters that came out of WW2.

Each one exceeded the expectations of their respective militarys, and all went on to become legends.

[JG52Krupi]

The Fw 190 deserves a place in that list it was a fantstic aircraft that brought a lot of new designs to the table.

[ElAurens]

Only because it has a lot of cannons...

*Runs for cover.*

[JG52Krupi]

Originally Posted by ElAurens

Only because it has a lot of cannons...

*Runs for cover.*

Well that and it use of electrical systems the Engine Control Unit etc... the ideas that Kurt Tank had for the aircraft is mind boggling .

[Richie]

Originally Posted by ElAurens

The same situation exists to this day for the Mitsubishi A6M series.

Most people, and especially virtual pilots of the USN persuasion, continue to propagate the myth that the Zero was poorly built. They were actually well built, and had a lot of hand craftsmanship in the airframe.

Their fragility was by design, as it was the only way that the designers could meet the seemingly contradictory specifications laid down by the Imperial Japanese Navy.

That is, 1500 mile range, extreme maneuverability, high rate of climb, cannon armament, and ease of maintenance on board ship, oh, and you only have 1000bhp to work with.

IMHO, the Zero, Spitfire, Bf 109, and P51 were the four most brilliant designs for fighters that came out of WW2.

Each one exceeded the expectations of their respective militarys, and all went on to become legends.

+1

[julien673]

Originally Posted by ElAurens

IMHO, the Zero, Spitfire, Bf 109, and P51 were the four most brilliant designs for fighters that came out of WW2.

Each one exceeded the expectations of their respective militarys, and all went on to become legends.

Yak 3-9 and la-5 was good to, don t forget propaganda . The p51 wasn t that good........

[Richie]

Originally Posted by julien673

Yak 3-9 and la-5 was good to, don t forget propaganda . The p51 wasn t that good........

That's right some of the Russian aeroplanes were great but you never see anything of them on TV.

[JG52Krupi]

Originally Posted by Richie

That's right some of the Russian aeroplanes were great but you never see anything of them on TV.

Might have been to do with the whole communist thing that the Russians had going on I think the west didn't like it

[Richie]

How wild would it be to see Yaks and 109s in a film about the air conflict in Russia.