a Sptfire maintenance question for Bill Greenwood

[muddyboots]

It was commented elsewhere (anothr board) that the Bf109 was easier to maintain than the Spit. I was wondering if you had ever heard anything like this and why it might be so...ANybody ever heard something like this?

[Bill Greenwood]

Muddy, I have never heard anything specific about this. My guess is that both planes were adequate in the war in that respect, if you had the trained ground crews with the tools and spare parts. If you read the books of fighter pilots of both sides of the war, they often give credit to the ground crews, but it seems for the most part the planes were service ready without too many failures. Even in some pretty hard cases like Hurricanes in N. Africa or Spits at Malta they seemed to be kept ready to do the mission. As for Malta, nothing like having German bombers inbound daily to motivate your Spit ground crews, not too many strikes or work stoppages in that case. How about trying to maintain a 109 in Russia?

Over the year Spits had some areas that gave problems and these were worked out in devleopment. Among them were, early carb cutting out at neg g, (fixed with a restricive plate) early cannons jamming, (better lube oil and heat, P-51 had the same problem on 50 cals) , failure of skew gears in ignition ( tighter tolerances in Mfg) and aileron distortion in high speed dives, (metal ailerons).
The result was a plane that was reliable and did the mission.

I have been in Canada, Russell group, where they have a Spit, Huri and original 109, was priveleged to fly the Spitfire twice, and I have seen them work on all three. The 109 seems a little more complex, but they keep it flying. The Spit seems to take the least work,but then it is the newest restoration too.

So my answer is , I really don't know, but think that that quote in not so true.

[Dragonflydh90]

I wonder if this idea stems from the ability to remove the wings on the 109 outboard of the landing gear so you could complete wing repairs etc fairly quickly without having to jack the aircraft etc. I guess someone could miss represent this as being "easier for maintenance".

Just a thought...

[AndyG]

I wonder if it is a reference to the design of the cowlings?

The 109 features fully hinged panels which are secured with over centre latches. Must have been very quick and easy to access the engine, compared to the Spitfire where unscrewing 'dzus' fasteners from panels which have to be fully removed to gain access. The panels appearing to be non interchangeable between airframes too.

[ZRX61]

I wonder if it is a reference to the design of the cowlings?

The 109 features fully hinged panels which are secured with over centre latches. Must have been very quick and easy to access the engine, compared to the Spitfire where unscrewing 'dzus' fasteners from panels which have to be fully removed to gain access. The panels appearing to be non interchangeable between airframes too.

You may be on to something. While a P51 can have the cowls removed & installed in mere minutes, Spitfire cowls are somewhat more "labor intensive". Not sure about 109's, been a while since I worked on one.

[Bill Greenwood]

It does seem to me that I have seen the 109 cowling hinge at the top so you could get engine access.

However, to do normal daily service on a Spitfire you don't have to remove the cowlings. You have access doors that open with a screwdriver to add coolant or oil or hydraulic fluid or do a ground power start or charge O2 or battery, etc. Fuel or ammo go in one cap on top or wing access panels.

If you need a side cowling off, there are perhaps a dozen fastners that release with a 90 * turn of a screwdriver. They aren't DZUS, but are similar Two guys could do a panel in 5 minutes. The top or bottom cowling might take a bit longer, like if you needed to change a plug or an oil change, not what you'd do daily.

In the war you might also change gun barrels, or prop blades, or tires. I'd guess that is workable on both types.