# Difference between G and K model Bf.109



## Sagittario64 (Nov 23, 2011)

How can you visually tell the difference between the late model Bf.109G-10 and the Bf.109K-4 from not so revealing pictures and profile drawings? for as far back as i can remember, ive identified 109 late model fields by their tail wheels. the E model is instantly recognizable anyways. the F-model had a retracted tail wheel that was not covered. the g models had fixed tailwheels, later models having longer ones. but the k models had clean tails, with fully retractable and covered tail landing gear
the f model can be easily separated from the k model because all k's sported erla cockpit canopies, and all f's didnt




Bf.109F



Bf.109G



Bf.109K


----------



## Ratsel (Nov 23, 2011)

20cm extended retractable tailwheel(k), small main landing gear door covers(k), relocated DF loop radio access hatch(k), , are the main ways. Also type 99/100/110 cowls, Werknummer's also helpful.


----------



## Sagittario64 (Nov 23, 2011)

yes but im just beginning to delve into the intricacies of the bf.109 design, im basically a newbie when it comes to the cowling types for example. so i likely wouldnt see a difference in pictures because i wouldnt know what specifically to look for


----------



## Ratsel (Nov 23, 2011)

Sagittario64 said:


> yes but im just beginning to delve into the intricacies of the bf.109 design, im basically a newbie when it comes to the cowling types for example. so i likely wouldnt see a difference in pictures because i wouldnt know what specifically to look for








G-5 is the same as G-6









G-5AS G-6AS used type 100





G-10 G-14AS used mostly type 110


----------



## Sagittario64 (Nov 23, 2011)

Youve shed a lot of light on it, but im still not seeing a recognizable (non-tailwheel and non radio loop) difference between the G-10 type 100 and the K-4


----------



## Sagittario64 (Nov 23, 2011)

most of the small differences in lines on the fuselage and cowling would have been covered up or obscured by paint or image quality


----------



## Ratsel (Nov 23, 2011)

Sagittario64 said:


> Youve shed a lot of light on it, but im still not seeing a recognizable (non-tailwheel and non radio loop) difference between the G-10 type 100 and the K-4



Late G-6 through G-10's have there DF loop near the 3rd frame station whereas K-series and theres near the 4th ( round thing top of rear fuse near canopy).The radio hatch is between 5th and 6th frame stations on F - G series, and in between the 4th and 5th frame stations on K-series. Also a little higher. Also, theres big differences in all cowl types.


----------



## Alte Hase (Nov 23, 2011)

Sagittario64 said:


> Youve shed a lot of light on it, but im still not seeing a recognizable (non-tailwheel and non radio loop) difference between the G-10 type 100 and the K-4



The main visual identifyer for me is the K's outboard gear doors. Not only does it have the large gear doors common to all series 109s, which are attached to the main gear legs, but on the opposite side of the wheel well,on the outboard side, it has a small gear door too. No other 109s had this so it's very evident on the K series...


----------



## Njaco (Nov 23, 2011)

I believe also all K's had a wooden rudder and therefore you see the straight demarcation with the hunges. On some later G models also sported the wooden tail and may confuse matters.

Alot comes down to which type of G model.....


----------



## Sagittario64 (Nov 23, 2011)

im talking about G-10s and G-14s, the closest g models to the k model


----------



## Ratsel (Nov 23, 2011)

G-14's have huge round beules ( machine gun covers ) on the cowl. G-10's do not. Much harder to tell a -14 form a -5/6. G-14AS if equip with 37.5 liter oil tank has the fill cover on the front cowl lower then the 50.5 liter G-10 oil tank. G-14AS G-10AS very simular.


----------



## vanir (Nov 23, 2011)

In 1945 production (after FEb) there is no appreciable difference between a G-10, G-14/AS or a K-4. Even the tailwheels on K models were locked down and closed over, just like on a G-10. All the same panelling and external parts are used. Even the oil fillers are in the same spot, because the ASB engine uses the DB engine main block and heads (only difference is blower).

The differences are marked in about Oct 1944. The G6 and G14 there is no appreciable difference except MW50 is standardised on the G14 (simplest way of looking at them, it's actually the instrument panel that's the only real difference). And G10 combine G6 surplus parts/tooling with as many K4 components as available, but any G6 parts used will be new.

The G10 always is equivalent to the K4, usually they're a bit lighter because the K series has a lot more fittings installed at the factory (the wiring for gondolas are there even if you don't order them, things like that).

The way you tell between a G14 in 1944 and a K series or G10 is the oil cooler filler. They're in a different spot between the 605A series and D series motors. Another good way is to just track the werk nummer.


You tell a G from an F by the same way, the motor. The 605 motor has a lot of termperature issues so the G onwards has some small cooling louvrés at the very front cowling either side, right behind the prop spinner. The F series doesn't have these.

All other things, like the landing gear, most fitted equipment, at some points the engine, the degree of K parts used, none of these things can reliably identify a model. Production in germany was a real mess in 1944, they assembled a tremendous number of Messers that year, but it was done by industry just throwing everything up in the air and going for broke, they were just desperate to get as many a/c out in the parking lots as possible.

Pilots just walked onto the lot, and the logistics officer had them sign a tablet, then said, "Pick whatever plane you want." And they walked off and left you there, with every Messerschmitt model and equipment fit imaginable, the K and the G14, whatever you wanted. They didn't care what you took.
Seyringer's words, not mine.




with your pics, the Type 110 (this kind of nomenclature means "modified") G10 is the erla model. It has a flat cowling on the port side, the starboard side is faired like the G6/AS. The G10 type 100 (means "standard"), has the same G6/AS fairing on both sides. The Erla one is more streamlined, pilots referred to it as the fastest Messer of the war, the K included. And Erla G10, Bär IIRC said was the only one you could reliably top 700km/h with in a combat encounter, very few planes could do that in practise, it was very very quick.

for prosperity there is the standard cowl (normal, F series with a couple of louvrés), the bulged cowl (extended-modified: type 100) and the faired cowl (modified-modified: type 110). De buele, etc. those are the translated german terms for them.

Here's a couple of scans extrapolating later production G14/AS-1945 (with D block ASB motor), and Erla G10, with some of the differences to regular G14, G14/AS-1944 and G10.
ANRCM-80.jpg
ANRCM-81.jpg


one final point, I've watched guys over at LEMB argue and change their minds about whether a detailed series of close up wartime photos of a late war Messer was a G14, G10 or K4, and they changed their minds a few times in the thread until they pinned it down. And those guys are the serious experts, their libraries are amazing.


----------



## Sagittario64 (Nov 23, 2011)

LEMB? where is this? can you post me a link or some information to them?


----------



## Ratsel (Nov 23, 2011)

Sagittario64 said:


> LEMB? where is this? can you post me a link or some information to them?


Careful with Peter.. if you type bf 109G-6 or bf109g-6 or the big no no me 109g-6 instead of the 'proper' way of Bf109G6 he'll have a fit. Their funny that way over there LOL..

but yah the info is pretty good. I'm a silent observer 

you need to register to view: http://www.luftwaffe-experten.org/forums/index.php?act=idx


----------



## Sagittario64 (Nov 23, 2011)

Thanks. So what youve said perks up another question. what the germans were doing wasnt exactly increasing production in the traditional sense? they were just assembling parts and frames already made en masse?


----------



## Ratsel (Nov 23, 2011)

Sagittario64 said:


> Thanks. So what youve said perks up another question. what the germans were doing wasnt exactly increasing production in the traditional sense? they were just assembling parts and frames already made en masse?


G-10's( some Mtt-Reg, Erla/WNF were the main producers. K's ( Mtt-Reg effort) were brand new airframes. G-14's were not brand knew for the most part. G-14/AS was just re-engined G-14's with a different cowl ( type 110 ).


----------



## Sagittario64 (Nov 23, 2011)

Can you give me some information on the production of Bf.109's from start(A-model) to finish(K-model)? i kinda get what youre saying but im definitely not knowledgeable on the bf.09 manufacturers and how they affected production and the certain models flying around


----------



## spicmart (Nov 24, 2011)

It might be a little OT but I have this question: to me the tailwheels of german fighters always seem broader and bigger than the ones of other nations making them more draggy, slowing them down more. Can anybody tell why that is so?


----------



## Alte Hase (Nov 24, 2011)

That's an interesting observation, but many (such as the FW190 and later 109s) did in fact retract in flight, causing little or no drag...


----------



## Tante Ju (Nov 24, 2011)

spicmart said:


> It might be a little OT but I have this question: to me the tailwheels of german fighters always seem broader and bigger than the ones of other nations making them more draggy, slowing them down more. Can anybody tell why that is so?



I am not sure - both German fighter was small in size relative, so might be an optical illusion? Do we know size of rear tire for example? Other explanation for example 109 was tail heavy, so maybe this required stronger tires.

Original poster question: imho best way tell G and K is look at DF loop position (K is rearer position). This is almost always visible, and like other say, other things like were sometimes common, like wheel cover that was sometimes present, sometimes not, or does not seen on picture... telling early G and F is also difficult, best is to look at canopy. G is much more heavy construction, and do not have small window low-front, its solid plate instead. Good way also to tell is look at wheel bay - circular on F, rectangular on G. Otherwise they are exact identical, I cannot tell difference between propeller and oil cooler..


----------



## stona (Nov 24, 2011)

It's difficult to generalise. Many types are virtually indistinguishable.

I don't know the tail wheel size of comparable allied aircraft but,as has been said,the Bf109 was relatively tail heavy on the ground.

As far as the production question goes,entire volumes have been written on this. As I'm standing in a cold warehouse in Blackburn (no sign of all those holes the Beatles sang about!) I can't get to the ones I own and am wondering when someone else will be brave enough to try and answer in less than,say two hundred words 
Cheers
Steve


----------



## Milosh (Nov 24, 2011)

The tail wheel of the K-4 was 350 x 135.

The Prien/Rodeike 109 book has very extensive descriptions of each 109 model. ISBN 0-88740-424-3


----------



## Sagittario64 (Nov 24, 2011)

I know that the tail wheel support strut was lengthened to provide better ground handling abilities and better taxiing visibility. Tell me, what were the Hungarians producing around the same time as the K-model was being introduced? I know that Hungary is said to be the largest foreign operator of the Bf.109. I very highly doubt that Germany was producing so many of these for just one export, though I'm not saying the numbers exported weren't sizable. some had to be produced in Hungary herself, just like with the Heja I/II and the Me.410C-1a. What was the Hungarian aviators getting from Germany in late 1944, and what were they making themselves?
_



Royal Hungarian Air Force operated three D-1s, 50 E-3/-4s, 66 F-4s and ~490 G-2/-4/-6/-8/-10/-14s.

Click to expand...

_


----------



## Ratsel (Nov 24, 2011)

The last planes to be produced @ the Győr Hungary plant would be the Me 109G-6/Y. Right up to late 1944. The lastest Me's Hungary recieved would be Erla built G-10's G-14's. 

101. Vadaszezred 'Pumas' for 1944 recieved around 400 Me 109G-6, G-14, G-10 fighters during 1944. About 60 G-14, G-10's were imported from Germany. A number of G-14's / G-10's surrendered at Deutsch Brod with JG 52 JG 101 machines.


----------



## Sagittario64 (Nov 24, 2011)

Speaking of hungarian bf.109s, what on earth is this? is this just some artist's fantasy?


----------



## Sagittario64 (Nov 24, 2011)

It looks like a hybrid of F and G and maybe K


----------



## Ratsel (Nov 24, 2011)

Sagittario64 said:


> It looks like a hybrid of F and G and maybe K


Nah, just some mis-informed artist rendition. Lots of books out there with truely horrible colour profiles.


----------



## Sagittario64 (Nov 24, 2011)

I know, right? it bugs me when i see reference and visual information thats incorrect
that pic is in my collection but i dont really regard it as non-fiction


----------



## Sagittario64 (Nov 24, 2011)

Anyways i also got some information that a few K models were supplied to the ANR. when was that?


----------



## Ratsel (Nov 24, 2011)

The only three Me 109K-4 I know of, Werknummers 333209 / 333878 / 333958 were delivered to 3Sq. 1Gr.C on 28.2.45


----------



## Sagittario64 (Nov 24, 2011)

How do you track werknummers over the internet/world wide web?


----------



## Ratsel (Nov 24, 2011)

Luck. usually if you Type ' work number xxxxxx' instead of ' werknummer xxx xxx ' or ' W.Nr.xxx xxx ' you'll get more hits becouse english use the first example more often to describe.

But if I can help and have the info, I'll present it to you.


----------



## Milosh (Nov 24, 2011)

Sagittario64 said:


> Speaking of hungarian bf.109s, what on earth is this? is this just some artist's fantasy?



Suppose to be a Bf109G-14.


----------



## Sagittario64 (Nov 24, 2011)

nothing about it says bf.109 to me. the entire cowl gun mounting is raised above the cowl lines. there is an erla canopy on the same aircraft that has a partially retracted tail wheel. the f's that did this for example had a dip in the fuselage for the wheel, as this one doesnt. the loop is sideways, not one i ever saw on another 109. At first i thought it was something like what the hungarians did to the Heja I to make the Heja II, but instead to a 109, but i dont have any record of any distinct hungarian 109 projects and variants that are this strange


----------



## rank amateur (Nov 24, 2011)

I know this picture from the book BF 109 The Augsburg Eagle by William Green. Quite a well writen book. The caption mentions: "Bf 109G-14/u2 of the Hungarian 101 Fighter Group, South Germany, april 1945. Note non-standard spinner, lack of dorsal radio mast and provision of FuG 16ZY Morane antenna"

Seems indeed like a hybrid to me. The tail is identical to the k4 pictured just 2 pages before this one, but that nose just can't be right. Can it? Did the Hungarians use a alternative cowl or did the artist have a bad day?


----------



## Sagittario64 (Nov 24, 2011)

Hmmm well it has been over 60 years. knowledge fades over time. was it an actual picture, or a color profile drawing? because the caption for the picture i posted also said Bf.109G-14/U2 but i can find nothing on the internet about that variant. it seems nonexistant


----------



## Sagittario64 (Nov 24, 2011)

The tail is the most hybrid part. it has no whole dip upwards in the fuselage. here ill show you what im talking about




see how the entire line of the bottom rear fuselage dips up? on the K its a straight line to the tail rudder. the weird profile has a straight line, but somehow it features a semi-retractable tailwheel just like the F-model


----------



## Ratsel (Nov 24, 2011)

Sagittario64 said:


> Hmmm well it has been over 60 years. knowledge fades over time. was it an actual picture, or a color profile drawing? because the caption for the picture i posted also said Bf.109G-14/U2 but i can find nothing on the internet about that variant. it seems nonexistant



No such thing as a G-14/U2.. pure fairytale, most likely a G-14/U4. I have Augsburg Last Eagles by Brett Green, and that profile (post #33) is nowhere in that book.



Sagittario64 said:


> The tail is the most hybrid part. it has no whole dip upwards in the fuselage. here ill show you what im talking about
> 
> 
> 
> ...


That would be Galland's machine. K's had two clamshell doors that covered the tailwheel.


----------



## Sagittario64 (Nov 24, 2011)

Yeah im aware that its Galland's. Im simply showing an F-model to show how its semi retract gear was coupled with the fuselage dip


----------



## Ratsel (Nov 24, 2011)

Sagittario64 said:


> Yeah im aware that its Galland's. Im simply showing an F-model to show how its semi retract gear was coupled with the fuselage dip


Yes you are correct. never-the-less its very easy to distingush between the F K series. Even K-series compared to everything else. The trick is separating G-14/AS fotos from G-10 fotos. Stock camo schemes help, as each plant ( Mtt-Reg / Erla / WNF / there sub-plants had there own ideas. Information markings also.. eg: MW-50 triangles, all three plants used different ones on different plane, nail that, and you have a pretty good idea what your looking at. Oil cooler width depth can tell you what engine it may be, it goes on and on. looking at the basic airframe of G-14AS / G-10 dosn't really say much.


----------



## Sagittario64 (Nov 24, 2011)

Im very ill-knowledgable to luftwaffe camo schemes with accompanying pictures and profiles. is there any threads on her or sites that can help me with that? because the bf.109s presence in wwii is a very complex one compared to most other planes in history


----------



## Sagittario64 (Nov 24, 2011)

I doubt one single thread can contain the discussion about a complete Bf.109 conversation, with everything about the 109 being discussed


----------



## Ratsel (Nov 24, 2011)

Sagittario64 said:


> I doubt one single thread can contain the discussion about a complete Bf.109 conversation, with everything about the 109 being discussed


Books are your best bet. I have 43 books on Luftwaffe a/c's but damned if they can even agree on colours alone LOL. Techincal specs all seem to agree on however.


----------



## Sagittario64 (Nov 24, 2011)

Lol and what happened to the Germans meticulous documentation of everything going on?


----------



## Ratsel (Nov 24, 2011)

Sagittario64 said:


> Lol and what happened to the Germans meticulous documentation of everything going on?


Most of it destroyed at European wars end. For fear it could be used to resurect Hitler I guess. I have RLM stencils docs, camo pattern docs, for almost every -109 made. Colours are the tricky part, for the most part I reley on this:


----------



## Sagittario64 (Nov 24, 2011)

I understand Germany's allies used these very same colors later in the war, like the ANR, Hungarian air force, and Bulgarian air force, as i noticed on that colors of the bulgarian dewoitine d.520 thread


----------



## Ratsel (Nov 24, 2011)

Sagittario64 said:


> I understand Germany's allies used these very same colors later in the war, like the ANR, Hungarian air force, and Bulgarian air force, as i noticed on that colors of the bulgarian dewoitine d.520 thread


And JG units used Italian colours, especially in the MTO as seen by some Me 109's in JG 77 in 1944. Even RLM colours were getting scarce. Some K's had little to no paint on the undersides.


----------



## Sagittario64 (Nov 24, 2011)

i keep wondering with all the bombing going on how they were even able to get simple things like paint


----------



## Ratsel (Nov 24, 2011)

Sagittario64 said:


> i keep wondering with all the bombing going on how they were even able to get simple things like paint


Allied bombing of German chemical plants was resposible for this one.


----------



## Sagittario64 (Nov 24, 2011)

Its amazing that with the astounding success of fighter-bombers reaping on the western front that the germans were able to keep up any fight at all into 1945. did the bf.109s or fw.190s ever score appreciable kill totals against the typhoons and tempests, especially the latter?


----------



## Ratsel (Nov 24, 2011)

rather not get into the #'s game cause the 'allies shot everything down' ' no way Hartmann got 300 kills ' group will come in and start WWIII. lol. It always turns into a pissing match. All I'll say is JG 11 was fairly successful.


----------



## Sagittario64 (Nov 25, 2011)

So i also heard that large(fairly large) numbers of Bf.109s were lost in ground accidents, mainly due to undercarriage, did the longer tailwheel of the later g series solve this problem effectively?


----------



## Ratsel (Nov 25, 2011)

Yet another pee-match area. Again all I'll say it was no worse then any other frontline fighter.


----------



## Sagittario64 (Nov 25, 2011)

ahh ok then. leave well enough alone right? ive learned alot in this thread so far anyways


----------



## stona (Nov 25, 2011)

I'm surprised noone has pointed out that a longer tail wheel strut gave better ground clearance for carrying a bomb. Most single engined Luftwaffe types were envisaged in a fighter bomber role towards the end.
Cheers
Steve


----------



## Sagittario64 (Nov 25, 2011)

Carrying a bomb? i saw bf.109 carry all sorts of bombs, but i never really thought they were effective fighter-bombers. i never really heard much success about the Jabo units equipped with 109s


----------



## Ratsel (Nov 25, 2011)

There were a few dedicated JaBo gruppen in some units, mostly in the Ost front, N.Africa also. A long tailwheel meant one could carry a AB/SC500 bomb under a 109. II./JG 51 when at East Prussia used 109's for bombing.


----------



## stona (Nov 25, 2011)

You'll notice a thin red line running across the canopy,particularly the later 'Erla' versions,on some Bf109s. This is a dive angle indicator for bombing missions.
Cheers
Steve.


----------



## Njaco (Nov 25, 2011)

Jabo units were first ordered on the western front during Sept 1940. Each single-engine fighter unit had to convert a staffeln to jabo for day-light attacks while the multi-engined bombers continued the blitz during the night.


----------



## Gixxerman (Nov 25, 2011)

For sheer nuisance value (not forgetting the resouces diverted to trying to do something about them) I imagine jabo fighters have a hugly disproportionate effect make highly cost-effective units, at least in a situation where your fighters are decently matched against the enemies defences their own fighters.
Throw in proximity fuzes fighter belts in great numbers dealing with small numbers suddenly that effect tails off drastically.


----------



## Ratsel (Nov 25, 2011)

stona said:


> You'll notice a thin red line running across the canopy,particularly the later 'Erla' versions,on some Bf109s. This is a dive angle indicator for bombing missions.
> Cheers
> Steve.


Yes more often seen on Late G-6 and G-14's IIRC. =)


----------



## Sagittario64 (Nov 25, 2011)

can you show me a color picture or a color profile that illustrates this red line?


----------



## Ratsel (Nov 25, 2011)

Sagittario64 said:


> can you show me a color picture or a color profile that illustrates this red line?


----------



## Sagittario64 (Nov 25, 2011)

hmmm ok. its odd because its the first 109 i ever saw where theres a bombing stripe there


----------



## Ratsel (Nov 25, 2011)

Sagittario64 said:


> hmmm ok. its odd because its the first 109 i ever saw where theres a bombing stripe there


Yeah that one is on a Me 109G-6/Y with the Erla Canopy, 20cm extension on the tailwheel, FuG 16 radio. Call sign MT-507 of the Finnish A/F. Still carries it original colours. Delievered in late 44.


----------



## Sagittario64 (Nov 25, 2011)

so its a finnish 109? interesting.


----------



## Sagittario64 (Nov 25, 2011)

this is the 109 you speak of? seems the stripe has been left out


----------



## Ratsel (Nov 25, 2011)

Don't reley so much on colour profiles. nutter view..


----------



## Sagittario64 (Nov 25, 2011)

hmmm well i thank you for these informative pictures


----------



## Ratsel (Nov 25, 2011)

Sagittario64 said:


> hmmm well i thank you for these informative pictures



the real yellow 'O' from the second colour profile you posted, much different:


----------



## Sagittario64 (Nov 25, 2011)

indeed. i started my collection with color profiles, but as for obtaining a fair amount of pictures for each type and individual airplane, the internet strangely falls short


----------



## Ratsel (Nov 25, 2011)

for colour profiles nobody beats Claes Sundin Luftwaffe Fighter Aces Aircraft in Profile


----------



## Sagittario64 (Nov 25, 2011)

wow theyre amazing thanks


----------



## Sagittario64 (Nov 25, 2011)

what models of g first sported the erla?


----------



## Ratsel (Nov 25, 2011)

G-5 Erla-Leipzig machines converted to AS at Erla-Antwerp in very early 1944 (Jan) iirc.


----------



## Sagittario64 (Nov 25, 2011)

ive heard little to nothing about the G-5


----------



## Ratsel (Nov 25, 2011)

Nor will you likely hear about it.. nevermind the G-5/ASU2.

1:5 scale G-5/ASU2


----------



## vanir (Nov 25, 2011)

Sagittario64 said:


> So i also heard that large(fairly large) numbers of Bf.109s were lost in ground accidents, mainly due to undercarriage, did the longer tailwheel of the later g series solve this problem effectively?



longer tailwheel was for bomb clearance on rough fields, first there was a spacer for the regular tailwheel and then the longer tailwheel unit essentially for SC500 clearance, although in practise most only carried SC250 and FWs carried SC500.

The initial accident rate quoted for the Me-109 (up to 1942) wasn't any higher for field accidents on the runway, but the issue was that its overall accident rate was significantly higher _within one kilometre of the home airfield_ than for other fighters. Most people don't look that up, they only look up its field accident rate which isn't worse than others, overall however you get a different picture matching pilot reports. In ground handling it wasn't any worse than the Spit really, but it was a little unstable under 300km/h, had a long recovery from stalls (1500m minimum alt required IIRC, which meant on the landing cycle at 300-1000m it liked to plummet right into the ground if you stalled), and it was nose heavy in the landing condition, and liked to drop the right wing.
So it was more tricky low speed handling than actual field manners that was the cited issue...initially.

When the DB-605 was put in Seyringer says the basic airframe was too light for its torque and that was when accidents on the field itself rose, from about late 43 pilot-cadets who opened the throttle too quickly in the take off run often pancaked right on the field, and the cockpit was immediately crushed, killing the pilot. So the accident death rate at fields rose. He said it was much worse with the heavy interceptor configuration, too much anciliary weight on an airframe meant to be much lighter, with an engine that had too much torque for inexperienced pilots to handle. But if you had your wits about you it wasn't too bad, this was more a commentary that it had gone from a slightly tricky plane to handle at low speed, with a little tricky ground handling common to narrow track undercarriage in other types, but then became something that didn't tolerate fresh cadets very well. It remained very popular with experienced pilots however, one of JG54 gruppen switched back to it from Fw190A in 43, before the Dora was available.

Marsielle said that the secret of flying the 109 was learning to handle it at low speed, quoted in the wartime Beobachter (sp?) article on him.


----------



## Ratsel (Nov 26, 2011)

"BF109G was very good, very high scale fighter plane. If was superior to our Yaks in speed and vertical combat. It wasn`t 100% superiority, but still. Very dynamic plane. I`ll be honest with you, it was my dream during my war years, to have a plane like this. Fast and superior on vertical, but that didn`t happen. 
Messer had one extremely positive thing, it was able to be successful fight Yak`s at 2000m and Aircobras at 6000m. This is truly unique ability and valuable. Of course, here Yak and P-39 were inferior. As far as combat on different altitudes, BF109 was universal, like La-5.
Me109 was exceptional in turning combat. If there is a fighter plane built for turning combat , it has to be Messer! Speedy, maneuverable,(especially in vertical) and extremely dynamic. I can`t tell about all other things, but taking under consideration what i said above, Messerschmitt was ideal for dogfight. But for some reason majority of german pilots didn`t like turn fight, till this day i don`t know why.
I don`t know what was stopping them, but it`s definitely not the plane. I know that for a fact. I remember battle of Kursk where german aces were starting "roller-coaster" rides where our heads were about to come off from rotation. No, seriously... Is it true it`s a common thing now that Messer wasn`t maneuverable?
Interviewer: Yes.
Heh.. Why would people come up with something like this... It was maneuverable...by God it was."

Source - Major Kozhemyako, Soviet fighter ace. Source: translation from Russian language. 


"The speed, rate of climb and armament were suberb compared to our other planes. The best feature was the excellent rate of climb. The reflector sight was good as well as the radio and the throat microphone, which eliminated the engine noise from transmissions. 
Before starting the engine one you had to set the propeller pitch to small, as otherwise the plane would start to swerve left as soon as the tailwheel was raised from the ground. There was nothing special in landing the plane. It was heavy but the wing slats opened up when speed slowed down and helped flying in slow speed.
Comparing the flying characteristics against the FIAT G.50, the Me109G was just a weapons platform, albeit a great one. "

Source -Kullervo Joutseno, Finnish fighter pilot. Source: Hannu Valtonen, "Me 109 ja Saksan sotatalous" (Messerschmitt Bf 109 and the German war economy), ISBN 951-95688-7-5.


----------



## vanir (Nov 26, 2011)

Its excellent handling characteristics between 300-600km/h are well documented, but as are its poor handling characteristics below 300km/h. We're simply discussing two different contexts both from reputable sources.

I do not challenge your contention, only where it becomes a sweeping generalisation for the entire 109 performance envelope. And prior to the Friedrich keeping the slats open at low speed (they liked to simply retract themselves), meant you had to occasionally shake the wings in the landing run. Even in turns one slat liked to open up unexpectedly which would throw inexperienced pilots, but Räll explained how you fix that, slam the stick to opposite airleron for a split second and then back again, shut the slat. Problem was fixed with the Friedrich slats however.


----------



## Ratsel (Nov 26, 2011)

Me 109 G:
"Speed at 150 knots or less, gear select to DOWN and activate the button and feel the gear come down asymmetrically. Check the mechanical indicators (ignore the electric position indicators), pitch fully fine... fuel - both boost pumps ON. If you have less than 1/4 fuel and the rear pump is not on the engine may stop in the three-point attitude. Rad flaps to full open and wings flaps to 10 degrees to 15 degrees. As the wing passes the threshold downwind - take all the power off and roll into the finals turn, cranking the flap like mad as you go. The important things is to set up a highish rate of descent, curved approach. The aircraft is reluctant to lose speed around finals so ideally you should initiate the turn quite slow at about 100-105. Slats normally deploy half way round finals but you the pilot are not aware they have come out. The ideal is to keep turning with the speed slowly bleeding, and roll out at about 10 feet at the right speed and just starting to transition to the three point attitude, the last speed I usually see is just about 90; I'm normally too busy to look after that! 
The '109 is one of the most controllable aircraft that I have flown at slow speed around finals, and provided you don't get too slow is one of the easiest to three point. It just feels right ! The only problem is getting it too slow. If this happens you end up with a very high sink rate, very quickly and absolutely no ability to check or flare to round out. It literally falls out of your hands ! 
Once down on three points the aircraft tends to stay down - but this is when you have to be careful. The forward view has gone to hell and you cannot afford to let any sort of swing develop. The problem is that the initial detection is more difficult. The aeroplane is completely unpredictable and can diverge in either direction. There never seems to be any pattern to this. Sometimes the most immaculate three pointer will turn into a potential disaster half way through the landing roll. Other times a ropey landing will roll thraight as an arrow!"

source - Mark Hanna of the Old Flying Machine Company flying the OFMC Messerschmitt Bf 109 G 

Me 109 G: 
"I didn't notice any special hardships in landings."

source -Jorma Karhunen, Finnish fighter ace. 36 1/2 victories, fighter squadron commander. Source: Hannu Valtonen, "Me 109 ja Saksan sotatalous" (Messerschmitt Bf 109 and the German war economy), ISBN 951-95688-7-5.


----------



## kettbo (Nov 26, 2011)

Interesting info here
Little heard about the G5 because only a few hundred built IIRC

Let us see some more pics of that GUSTAV Ratsel!


----------



## Ratsel (Nov 26, 2011)

kettbo said:


> Interesting info here
> Little heard about the G5 because only a few hundred built IIRC
> 
> Let us see some more pics of that GUSTAV Ratsel!


check out my album. 122 fotos of Me 109G-10's from Erla / WNF / Mtt-Reg. With discriptions of each machine:
Messerschmitt Bf 109G-10 pictures by ASYLUM_thirteen - Photobucket


----------



## Sagittario64 (Nov 26, 2011)

Im having a bit of confusion on when the mk108 30mm cannon was introduced into the 109 series. what models first sported the 30mm instead of the 20mm?


----------



## Ratsel (Nov 26, 2011)

Sagittario64 said:


> Im having a bit of confusion on when the mk108 30mm cannon was introduced into the 109 series. what models first sported the 30mm instead of the 20mm?


WNF built G-6's.


----------



## Sagittario64 (Nov 26, 2011)

Did the K's have it as standard or was there just a mix of specifications for K weapons?


----------



## Ratsel (Nov 26, 2011)

Sagittario64 said:


> Did the K's have it as standard or was there just a mix of specifications for K weapons?


Standard in WNF built G-6.. almost every pic I see of one as the compress air fill for the 3cm cannon. K-series also had Std. 3cm cannon. All K's except for just a few were built at Mtt-Reg.


----------



## Sagittario64 (Nov 26, 2011)

where is the compress air fill on the airframe?


----------



## Ratsel (Nov 26, 2011)

Sagittario64 said:


> where is the compress air fill on the airframe?


between the 5th 6th frame stations, starboard side.


----------



## Sagittario64 (Nov 26, 2011)

ahh ok


----------



## Ratsel (Nov 26, 2011)

Sagittario64 said:


> ahh ok


You can see it here:


----------



## Sagittario64 (Nov 26, 2011)

Ahh ok. just out of curiosity, is that a captured P-51 in the background?


----------



## Ratsel (Nov 26, 2011)

Sagittario64 said:


> Ahh ok. just out of curiosity, is that a captured P-51 in the background?


Nope. The recon 109 in the foreground is captured.


----------



## Sagittario64 (Nov 26, 2011)

oh ok. what model is that 109?


----------



## cimmex (Nov 26, 2011)

AFAIK the picture was taken after May 1945, Nuernberg area.


----------



## Ratsel (Nov 26, 2011)

Sagittario64 said:


> oh ok. what model is that 109?


The werknummer is on the rudder + you have a lotta info here.. time for some detective work.. happy hunting =)


----------



## Sagittario64 (Nov 26, 2011)

Is it JA28? Just to be sure. and while i look it up, do you happen to have any pictures of slovak bf.109G-6s that are not insurgent affiliated?


----------



## Sagittario64 (Nov 26, 2011)

Its a Bf.109G-10/R2 or R5. my sources differ


----------



## Ratsel (Nov 26, 2011)

Sagittario64 said:


> Its a Bf.109G-10/R2 or R5. my sources differ


Correct. W.Nr.770 269 would be an Me 109G-10/R5. Built at WNF, minus the MG131, 60rounds for the cannon.


----------



## Alte Hase (Nov 26, 2011)

That photo is very interesting! Thanks for sharing it. The P-51 looks like an early 361st FG machine, judging by the minimal yellow nose colouring.


----------



## Ratsel (Nov 26, 2011)

Alte Hase said:


> That photo is very interesting! Thanks for sharing it. The P-51 looks like an early 361st FG machine, judging by the minimal yellow nose colouring.


Your very welcome.. dunno about the P-51.. its 'Skipper' if that helps.



Sagittario64 said:


> and while i look it up, do you happen to have any pictures of slovak bf.109G-6s that are not insurgent affiliated?


yup.







Me 109G-6 W.Nr. 161 717 force landed by Sgt. Maj. Poval with Letka 13.


----------



## Sagittario64 (Nov 26, 2011)

Thanks


----------



## Milosh (Nov 26, 2011)

5F is the code for Aufklärungsgruppe 14.


----------



## imalko (Nov 26, 2011)

Sagittario64 said:


> ...do you happen to have any pictures of slovak bf.109G-6s that are not insurgent affiliated?



http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/aircraft-markings-camouflage/slovakian-aircraft-camouflage-markings-22624.html

http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/aviation/letka-13-also-known-13-slow-jg-52-a-17682.html


----------



## imalko (Nov 26, 2011)

Ratsel said:


> Me 109G-6 W.Nr. 161 717 force landed by Sgt. Maj. Poval with Letka 13.



W.Nr. and name of the unit is correct, but pilot's name was Pavel Zeleňák.


----------



## Ratsel (Nov 26, 2011)

imalko said:


> W.Nr. and name of the unit is correct, but pilot's name was Pavel Zeleňák.


Thanks for the correction =)


----------



## Sagittario64 (Nov 26, 2011)

I see Bf.109s in german markings witth red and blue spinners. im told these are flown by slovak pilots. are these aircraft under german control or slovak control?


----------



## Ratsel (Nov 26, 2011)

Sagittario64 said:


> I see Bf.109s in german markings witth red and blue spinners. im told these are flown by slovak pilots. are these aircraft under german control or slovak control?


I've seen pics like you describe. All flying with Letka 13, but with German pilots.


----------



## Sagittario64 (Nov 26, 2011)

so theyre german pilots in slovak unit? thats quite interesting


----------



## kettbo (Nov 27, 2011)

Hey Ratsel,
You and Sagittario added a few pages here today.


I was mentioning Bf 109G armament today in a miniatures gaming thread.
Could you provide some 'ballpark' numbers for percent of G6 armed with 30mm Mk 108?
For example, Summer 43 5%, Fall 10% Winter 15% Spring 44 20% (just random guessing here!)
How about for the G14? I do understand that the later it was, the more had the Mk 108.
Numbers, percentages or ??? If best guess, please state so!

I know the G10 was supposed to be Mk 108 standard, all I know is "most" had the Mk 108, some did not. No absolutes with the 109!

Sagittario,
Love your avatar


----------



## imalko (Nov 27, 2011)

Sagittario64 said:


> so theyre german pilots in slovak unit? thats quite interesting



German pilots never flew in any Slovak unit, including Letka 13! Have you checked the links I've posted in my post #104 on previous page? Be sure to go through all the pages and read the texts. Bf 109F&G used by Letka 13 on Eastern front were in German property and just "loaned" to Letka 13 and therefore kept German insignia (this are the ones with colored spinners). While operating in the East in 1942-43 Letka 13 was under German control as part of JG 52, hence the designation 13.(Slow.)/JG52 assigned to the unit. Messerschmitts Bf 109E G-6 which wore Slovak national insignia (blue cross with white outline and with red circle in the center) operated by Letka 13 and other units were in Slovak property. What ever the case they were always flown by Slovak pilots.

Like your avatar by the way.


----------



## Ratsel (Nov 27, 2011)

You are correct, my appologies.


----------



## Sagittario64 (Nov 27, 2011)

i apologize imalko. i read it, and it is very informative. thanks


----------



## imalko (Nov 27, 2011)

No problem.


----------



## Wurger (Nov 27, 2011)

Alte Hase said:


> That photo is very interesting! Thanks for sharing it. The P-51 looks like an early 361st FG machine, judging by the minimal yellow nose colouring.



According to my info the P-51 was of the 10th Photographic Group. The picture was taken at Furth-Atzenhof on 8th May 1945 after the Bf109G-10/R2 coming.


----------



## Ratsel (Nov 27, 2011)

Hello Wurger,

Are you sure the G-10 ([5F]Black 12) is not an R-5? I though all G-10 recon would be R-5 (no MG131's). R2 would indicate either 4 x 23kg bomb, 4 x 50kg bomb, or 2 x Wfr.Gr.21 Mortars. I am unaware of any 'normal' G-10 with Nahaufklärungs gruppe 14. If there were, it would not carry the prefix iirc.


----------



## Sagittario64 (Nov 27, 2011)

I had to reference wings palette for the fuselage code to find the 109. that particular 109 is indeed among the 109G profiles in wings palette. it said it was an R2. but i checked wiki for the R2 and it said it was a bad weather fighter. wiki said the R5 was the recon variant, so that was my final answer


----------



## Sagittario64 (Nov 27, 2011)

by the way ratsel, im wondering what resources you can use to derive the aircraft's unit by looking at the code. is there a site or book with code to unit references?


----------



## Ratsel (Nov 27, 2011)

Sagittario64 said:


> by the way ratsel, im wondering what resources you can use to derive the aircraft's unit by looking at the code. is there a site or book with code to unit references?


Books personal notes. Any book by Jochen Prien would be a good investment. 





Sagittario64 said:


> I had to reference wings palette for the fuselage code to find the 109. that particular 109 is indeed among the 109G profiles in wings palette. it said it was an R2. but i checked wiki for the R2 and it said it was a bad weather fighter. wiki said the R5 was the recon variant, so that was my final answer


Doubt the R2 was bad weather designation, but I'll recheck. I know the FuG 218 Neptun was utilized on the Me 109 for such bad weather situations.


----------



## Sagittario64 (Nov 27, 2011)

Ok. its a tough reality that most information about this sort of stuff isnt readily available on the internet. for me id like to know everything about the Bf.109 and i mean everything


----------



## Wurger (Nov 27, 2011)

Ratsel said:


> Hello Wurger,
> 
> Are you sure the G-10 ([5F]Black 12) is not an R-5? I though all G-10 recon would be R-5 (no MG131's). R2 would indicate either 4 x 23kg bomb, 4 x 50kg bomb, or 2 x Wfr.Gr.21 Mortars. I am unaware of any 'normal' G-10 with Nahaufklärungs gruppe 14. If there were, it would not carry the prefix iirc.



According to Kagero book about Bf109G/K and another one of another publisher the plane was G-10/R2. The R2 variant had no MG131s mounted and was equipped with Rb 50/30 or Rb 75/30 camera. But it might be just a typo.


----------



## Ratsel (Nov 27, 2011)

Also, most bad weather 109's had an autopilot just for the rudder iirc.



Wurger said:


> According to Kagero book about Bf109G/K and another one of another publisher the plane was G-10/R2. The R2 variant had no MG131s mounted and was equipped with Rb 50/30 or Rb 75/30 camera.


I think they made a mistake


----------



## Sagittario64 (Nov 27, 2011)

Is it possible, that the 109 captured was painted in its captor's colors, and for some reason they tried to repaint it's original markings and they got the code messed up?
its a stupid suggestion but im just trying to help


----------



## Wurger (Nov 27, 2011)

Ratsel said:


> I think they made a mistake



It's possible. Especially that there are other mistakes in the Kagero publications quite often.


----------



## Ratsel (Nov 27, 2011)

Yes those Kagero publications should be taken with a grain of salt.


----------



## Denniss (Nov 27, 2011)

The MK 108 was not a standard equipment in WNF-built G-6 as they built 1159 vanilla G-6 and at least 1632 G-6/U4 (/U4 is the designation for MK 108-equipped 109G). Somewhere in late 1943 WNF completely switched to the /U4 subtype so a MK 108 was not surprising then.
The MK 108 was neither standard in the G-14 nor the G-10, both would carry the /U4 designation. It wouldn't be a surprise if WNF continued building G-10 and G-14 as /U4 variant although wasting it for a recon bird is indeed surprising.
Some 30+ /U4 variants were built in Hungary as well.


----------



## Ratsel (Nov 27, 2011)

Precise information is like gold.. you've enriched my mind! Thanks!


----------



## Sagittario64 (Nov 28, 2011)

I thank you as well, Denniss


----------



## Ratsel (Nov 30, 2011)

Denniss said:


> The MK 108 was not a standard equipment in WNF-built G-6 as they built 1159 vanilla G-6 and at least 1632 G-6/U4 (/U4 is the designation for MK 108-equipped 109G). Somewhere in late 1943 WNF completely switched to the /U4 subtype so a MK 108 was not surprising then.
> The MK 108 was neither standard in the G-14 nor the G-10, both would carry the /U4 designation. It wouldn't be a surprise if WNF continued building G-10 and G-14 as /U4 variant although wasting it for a recon bird is indeed surprising.
> Some 30+ /U4 variants were built in Hungary as well.


And interesting side note is that alot of G-5/AS G-6/AS came with the 3cm cannon. Makes sence do to ther High-Altitude Bomber-Interceptor role. Besides Erla-Antwerp, was there another factory that did AS conversions on G-5/G-6? Thanks.


----------



## Denniss (Nov 30, 2011)

If my memory serves right then the /AS machines were used as top cover for the cannon boats with the aim to lurk the enemy fighters away from them.


----------



## Ratsel (Nov 30, 2011)

Denniss said:


> If my memory serves right then the /AS machines were used as top cover for the cannon boats with the aim to lurk the enemy fighters away from them.


100% correct.. I just clump it into the viermot-toters intercept role.


----------



## kettbo (Dec 1, 2011)

The pale gray blue planes pictured at Fassburg white 43 + - 
I thought everything was sent East after Bodenplatte yet High Escort in 1945
Who was left trying to harass the bombers and all the Allied fighters?
If the /AS planes mostly had 30mm mk 108, I keep hearing stuff this was not a good weapon for fighter vs fighter yet here we have the special escort planes with the big low velocity 30mm

FWIW, I really enjoyed shooting the 40mm Mk-19 Grenade Machine Gun when I was in the Army. Looks much like a Mk 108


----------



## Wildsau (Jun 20, 2021)

I can't contribute here but what a great read! cheers


----------

