Has anybody seen this........
 

omg the Aussies are making spitfires in kit form :o http://www.supermarineaircraft.com/About.htm

now all I need is a few hundred thousand £££'s, a pilots licence and a lot of free time :|\\

Not as fast as the original. Seems slow. 150 kt to 165 kt cruise speeds in the kit. Original was about 220 kt.

-S

Found the specs - top speed on this kit is about the cruise speed of the original:

http://www.supermarineaircraft.com/Specs.htm

-S

No wonder they're slower, the kits are using auto engines, not Rolls-Royce Merlins. Still, looks like loads of fun!

Yeh it looks like they do two versions, one is at 80% scale and the other is at 90% scale

Il take one, even if it is slower than a real one.:huh: :D

I want a P-51D or better. That is my plane!

-S

bah, the P-51 is overrated
id rather have a Me 109G/2

For god's sake, I want one of these for christmas!:rock: It would be one hell of an incentive to get my pilots license. All I need now is the cash...I wonder if I can sell any organs?:hmm:

:yep: :yep: :yep:

Awesome aircraft. Piston-engine excellence.:up:

and the roar of the engine from the 109:D
*instert drooling smiley*

Barf! I disagree!

That thing has crappy visibility, doesn't like left turns (or was it right?) is slower, and not even pressurized! Even the soviet fighters of the war could keep up with that thing! I am not impressed at all!

P-51 would eat it for lunch and they did! The P-51 even has a 50 knot speed advantage!

-S

PS. Found a good article from the Soviet side of things against a captured G2 - http://www.airpages.ru/cgi-bin/epg.p...0&page=bf109g2

That's what happens when you only know the propaganda.

The Mustang's main advantage was that there were so many of them built, and its reputation stems from the fact that it was the only single-engined fighter that could make it from England to Berlin and back. The P-51 was indeed faster at altitudes in the 20-30,000-foot range, which was where they needed it, but the '109 climbed and rolled much faster. And accelerated faster, which is tied into the climb rate. The Mustang's speed advantage was not "50 knots"...more like 25, which translates to around 30mph.

From the article you cite:
The 'R6' suffix denotes the modified 'bomber-buster' with the underwing 20mm gun pods, which make an absolute pig of the aircraft, slowing down the roll and climb considereably, which takes away the plane's main advantages.

And the later models, from the G-4 on, were indeed pressurized.

And no, in a fair fight the P-51 would not "eat up" the Bf-109G - the two were just about equal, and the Bf-109K was just as fast, while retaining its other advantages.

Now that's propaganda! We already know the Mustang can out turn and out fight it. In a flat bank for example, the K model couldn't hang with the Mustang as proven in the air battle over Y-29. The 109 had the speed advantage and the mustang just naked, about 3rd turn, the Mustang pulled on the tail of the 109 and sent him into the dirt. The Mustang was in its game against the 109 with the 109 severely out classed.

It's not an equal fight by any means. Y-29, though severely outnumbered 10 to 1, only lost a few aircraft even with all the German aces in that fight who many met their death there.

I stand by my case above.

-S

subman, check out the ace list here
http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/aces/aces.htm#wwii
even though americans had the super mighty 109 slaughtering (according to you) P-51, the american aces didnt score over 50 kills, where as the germans in their poor, poor (again according to you) 109/190 alot of times scored well over 50, and 100 for that sake

@ Subman1: The Russian tests show what happens when you're flying an unfamiliar aircraft. The same thing happened when the Americans recovered an intact Mitsubishi Zero in Alaska. Our pilots were not sure of the aircraft's capabilities, and so didn't fly it to its limits. The result was an official claim that a Corsair could stay with the Zero in a flat turn! And that one we know to be way off base.

@ Morts: The real numbers are even worse than you think.

Highest scoring US ace in Europe: Francis Gabreski, in a P-47, 31 kills.

Highest scoring Mustang ace: George Preddy, 27-1/2 kills. He was the third-highest US ace in Europe and 7th overall.

Highest scoring ace ever: Erich Hartmann, in a series of Bf-109s, 352 kills.

There were 105 German aces with 100 kills or more, and at least half of them flew Bf-109s.

The fact is that in this case there is no 'best'. Adolph Galland, German General of Fighters, himself holding more 104 kills, stated that the reason the Germans held such high scores was that the Allies rotated their pilots out to teach the new guys what was what, while the German pilots "flew until they were killed". On the whole, over any equal period of time, every country's pilots' scores were about equal, and so were the planes they flew.

Technology doesn't remain secret for long, and everybody made up slack as time went on. The P-51D and Bf-109G-10 and K models were about equal in every combat respect, as were the very late-war Japanese, British and Russian planes.

Morts - check the facts as to why. Classic case of comparing apples and oranges, though I know you like doing that to try an make a point since you do it every time you enter a thread. Also, why don't you look at how many times these so called 'aces' were shot down! Hahahaha! :p

SS - You are missing the above as well - no left turns and crappy visibility. That is a massive disadvantage to the Germans, even if other things were equal (which they weren't if you bother to read up on Y29). Roll rate on a 109 is terrible with all the cannon in the wing as well, so I am not getting where you claim it was better? Show me that.

Even if the P-51 can't roll quite as fast, it definitly had a greater degrees per second in a turn.

Stealth is based around the concepts of WWII. The ME109 frequently never saw the plane that downed him. This lesson translates all the way to today in our F-22. This is the very thinking as to why the F-22 is the way it is.

-S

subman, fact still remains that they downed more planes than american
and besides..in 43/44 alot of the german pilots where rookies with little to no experience...so a somewhat experienced american pilot is able to down a rookie in a 109? wow i must say..that makes it the best ever (not)
sure, german aces where shot down..but hey..so where american?

Apples and oranges. We are talking about the plane too, not the pilots. So where do you get off bringing in the pilots that got shot down so many times that they probably only got off lucky shots most days?

-S

Why is it you do the very same things you accuse others of doing? 'Making points' and being right seem to be all you ever want to do. No real discussion, just "I'm right and you're stupid."

If you're going to make a claim like that, you should give the actual 'degrees-per-second' numbers. You keep making slams like "if you bother to read up on...", but you ignore the overall numbers.

The roll rate was terrible with the cannons, which was why the 'R6' models were rare, and got dumped as soon as they could manage it. The stock '109 rolled almost twice as fast as a Mustang, and the turn rates were actually about equal. You sound like the P-40 pilot who was quoted saying "I don't see what the hubbub is about. I never met a Zero that could out-turn me!"

That's true of 90% of all the pilots ever shot down in any war. The German designers recognized the deficiencies of their early canopies, which is why the Bf-109G-10 and K models had the much-improved 'Erla Haube', sometimes called the 'Galland Hood'.

Citing one battle over and over doesn't prove anything. The fact remains that overall, the scores of pilots from every country were, mission-for-mission, about equal. Either the German pilots were so much better that they could overcome the inequality of inferior aircraft, or the planes were, indeed, roughly equal.