"Jukka O. Kauppinen" wrote in
message ...
decides the fight! Alas for the luftwaffe the Bf109 wings were not
designed
for guns etc so were not terrifically robust, the pilots were often more
worried about the wings falling off than blacking out......

Incorrect.

Having guns or not doesn't have anything to do with the strenght of the
wings. 109s from A-E had wing weapons, again one of the K models was
designed for wing weapons. The wings were also one single structure,
which made it possible to make them very strong.

The wings do however have to be redesigned to carry the guns and the
ammunition. This in turn places stress on the wing. The early 109s with
wing mounted guns had to have an ammuntiion feed belt that went from the
gun, to the wingtip and back round again!

"- Are the stories true, that the 109 had weak wings and would loose
them easily?

snip

I was quoting Len Dieghtons book "Fighter":

The Messerschmitts weak wings were providing it's pilots with a new problem.
The Spitfire pilots had discovered how to make use of the superior strength
of the spitfire wings. Faster in a dive, the Messerschmitts were being
overtaken because they pulled out in a shallow curve, nervous that they
might rip their wings off.

A little later:

(this) gave rise to the widely held belief that the Bf 109 could not turn as
tightly as the Spitfire. In theory it's turn was tighter, but few pilots
were prepared to test this to it's limit.

The Spitfire wing probably was a little stronger as it's main spar is
effectively a leaf spring, capable of taking some stress and recovering.
Part of the Bf 109s reputation may also come however from it's very narrow
undercarraige, and the amount of taxi and landing accidents that resulted.
Certainly the Fw 190 resolved this issue with a very wide undercarraige!

Mark