Warbird Information Exchange

DISCLAIMER: The views expressed on this site are the responsibility of the poster and do not reflect the views of the management.
It is currently Thu Aug 28, 2025 3:33 am

All times are UTC - 5 hours


Classic Wings Magazine WWII Naval Aviation Research Pacific Luftwaffe Resource Center
When Hollywood Ruled The Skies - Volumes 1 through 4 by Bruce Oriss


Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 6 posts ] 
Author Message
PostPosted: Wed Dec 02, 2009 11:42 pm 
Offline
2000+ Post Club
2000+ Post Club
User avatar

Joined: Thu May 10, 2007 6:08 pm
Posts: 2595
Location: Mississippi
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?

_________________
"I knew the jig was up when I saw the P-51D-20-NA Mustang blue-nosed bastards from Bodney, and by the way the blue was more of a royal blue than an indigo and the inner landing gear interiors were NOT green, over Berlin."


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Dec 04, 2009 12:06 pm 
Offline
Probationary Member

Joined: Wed Jun 21, 2006 7:53 pm
Posts: 3803
Location: Aspen, CO
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.

_________________
Bill Greenwood
Spitfire N308WK


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Dec 04, 2009 3:06 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Dec 23, 2004 1:36 am
Posts: 78
Location: New Zealand
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...


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Dec 04, 2009 6:07 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu May 06, 2004 4:39 pm
Posts: 93
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.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Dec 05, 2009 2:23 pm 
Offline
2000+ Post Club
2000+ Post Club

Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2005 10:16 am
Posts: 2309
AndyG wrote:
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.

_________________
Those who possess real knowledge are rare.

Those who can set that knowledge into motion in the physical world are rarer still.

The few who possess real knowledge and can set it into motion of their own hands are the rarest of all.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Dec 05, 2009 5:37 pm 
Offline
Probationary Member

Joined: Wed Jun 21, 2006 7:53 pm
Posts: 3803
Location: Aspen, CO
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.

_________________
Bill Greenwood
Spitfire N308WK


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 6 posts ] 

All times are UTC - 5 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: dollar65 and 44 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group