Not sure how much complexity had to do with it, then, after that analysis by Alertken and those telling figures.

Ultimately, I think ‘complexity’ might be a red herring. The Hurricane was a far more ‘complex’ animal. Not nearly so advanced, but many, many more structural components to be fitted together. Tubes, nuts, bolts, washers, spacers, plugs and plates, and lots (many thousands) of them. Yet each aircraft had a shorter lead time.

I’m not saying that there weren’t challenges in building a new generation of stressed-skin monocoque aircraft, but this true of the 109 was as well.

Edit: To continue the football end-change analogy, I wonder what would have happened if the 109 factories built Spitfires instead and Supermarine’s contractors built 109’s? I suspect that pretty much the same production ratios would result, just in favour of Spit output.

Pint? Fruedian slip!

Been learning stuff!

The 109 was designed against the German air ministry spec ‘Rüstungsflugzeug IV’, which was specifically for an interceptor. The ministry only asked for 90 minutes duration.

Don’t forget that it was only a bluff…..

Or maybe it was all a plot to cover up the existence of aliens and masterminded by Elvis, Lord Lucan and Shergar.

Thanks, Vanir – a very interesting analysis.

What you say about flaps bringing the Emil into spitfire territory – and your mention of the leading edge slats – brings me back to the claim made in the article that sparked my first post. The article suggested that Spitfire pilots didn’t actually turn the aircraft as tightly as the Emil because they were worried the plane couldn’t take it and would fall out of the sky in a stall, whereas Emil pilots (if I understand the implication) confidently relied upon their flaps and ultimately slats and thus turned tighter.

Is there any other evidence, apart from the comments in the comparitive trials reports about the specific pilots who flew these trials, that this was the case?

Also, IIRC the article claimed that Spitfires at the time were hampered by two-speed rather than constant speed props. I don’t believe that this was the general case by July 1940 – but I’m prepared (braced) to be proved absolutely wrong!