TTommyB

If you are in the Phoenix metro area and looking for a TT, mine is for sale.
Car comes pre-modded!
http://www.cars.com/go/search/detail.jsp?tracktype=usedcc&searchType=99& paId=189027854&pageNumber=0&numResultsPerP age=50&largeNumResultsPerPage=0&sortorder= descending&sortfield=PRICE+descending&cert ifiedOnly=false&recnum=0&leadExists=true&a mp;criteria=AFFILIATEADID-1561083%7CP-PRICE+descending%7CQ-descending&aff=national

just an fyi...

greenmeanie

Just looking at your signature. What do you believe was innovative about the FW190 A (8?)? It was certainly a good machine but the Bf109 was more innovative for its time at initial production.

TTommyB

Being a TT driver, I tend to prefer the less popular or glamorized items. The bf109 was an impressive airplane, yes, but I found the Fw190 more exicting interesting, and attractive.

Technically, they are two very different aircraft meant for different purposes and fighting styles. On what basis do you claim that the 109 was mroe innovative?

greenmeanie

The Bf109 was introduced in the 1930's and first fought against I15 & I 16 Ratas in the Spanish Civil War. The Fw190 was introduced in the 1940's to give an edge in WWII by which time technology had advanced considerably.
Bear in mind that innovation means to do something never done before or combine existing things in a new way and not merely to do something well.
In the 1930's construction methods were generally:
Fuselage: Tubular frames with formers.
Wings: Biplanes were still the norm with monoplanes still considered cutting edge.
Engines: Most aircraft engines were carburettor fed.
Armament: Most single engine fighters used rifle caliber machine guns.
Enclosed cockpits and retractable undercarriage were still considered new.

The Bf109 was a stressed skin monocoque fueselage and stressed skin wing. It also included a retractable undercarriage, eclosed cockpit and a pilot position which raised his legs to help resist G. The Db600 series engine used multipoint fuel injection. It was also one of the first aircraft to introduce a cannon armament and mount it on the engine centre line to fire through the spinner to boot.

There were other aircraft arriving at that time (Spitfire, Hurricane and some of the Curtiss 'hawk series) that had some of these features but none could match it for innovation.

The 190 had many good features put together in a very good package but each one was fairly commonplace at the time of its introduction. (I will accept the fan to cool a closely cowled radial and the canopy design as being innovative.)

I agree with you that the '190 was a good aeroplane (I am impressed that someone took the time to build a production run of replicas which have just started flying) and I generally prefer it to the '109 but for innovation the Messerchmitt wins.

I do agree with your Audi comments.

TTommyB

What is this, your job? Or did you spend 2 weeks researching that answer?

greenmeanie

Almost. I do confess to being a design engineer in the aerospace industry in Phoenix.

Old aircraft are just an interest I've had for a long time. No research required.

Good choice on the Me262 tho. That was a highly innovative design.

Oh well good luck selling the TT. Is there another Audi in the works or arre you getting out?