# Henschel Hs 129B-2/Wa



## AlloySkull (Dec 4, 2007)

The Waffentrager. I was reading up on this specific variant of the Hs 129, instead of the standard MG17s carried in the nose, it packed a lethal MK 103 37mm anti-tank gun, much like the Ju-87Gs. But it seems that even though the 129 is larger than the Ju-87, this particular cannon that's factory-fitted to the Hs 129 was excessively large. It looks to protrude about 8 - 10 feet from under the belly of the aircraft. Does anyone know how effective the Hs 129B-2/Wa was at its anti-tank role?


----------



## lesofprimus (Dec 4, 2007)

I think ur referring to the wrong aircraft Skully....

The Hs 129B-2 did not carry a Wa designation... That was reserved for the B-3/Wa with the 75mm Pak 40L...

The Hs 129B-2 series which was introduced into service in the early part of 1943. They included the Hs 129B-2/Rl which carried two 20 mm MG 151/20 cannon and two 13 mm (0.51 in) machine-guns; the generally similar Hs 129B-2/R2 introduced an additional 30 mm MK 103 cannon beneath the fuselage; the Hs 129B-2/R3 had the two MG 13s deleted but was equipped with a 37 mm BK 3,7 gun; and the Hs 129B-2/R4 carried a 75 mm (2.95 in) PaK 40L ('L' for Luftwaffe) gun in an underfuselage pod.


----------



## Erich (Dec 4, 2007)

also the German MK 103 was not a 3.7cm piece it was 30mm using Tungsten cored/tipped rounds highly effective against all Soviet armor types.

because of what has been recorded on the success of the Mk 103 by the LW the present day US forces went a step further with the gatling 30mm in their A-10 Hog.

the Ju 87G units used the Flak 18 in a slightly changed form ~ 3.7cm with clipped rounds


----------



## AlloySkull (Dec 4, 2007)

Well crap. I have a really bad memory then.  But anyways, thanks for the corrections, I must look like a dummy. So then the success of the cannon itself, not the aircraft with the cannon, is what inispired the Warthog's insane armament, quickly leading to it's success as a ground attack aircraft?


----------



## Erich (Dec 4, 2007)

it was the combination of the successful cannon with the heavy cockpit armor for the pilot that gave US the idea of a little continual fun ......... and your not a dummy


----------



## lesofprimus (Dec 4, 2007)

Agreed...

I actually like the plane... Although underpowered with those sh!t engines, the B-2/R2 and R3 were great Tank Busters and Close Support aircraft.... In the hands of a few very talented pilots, they scored dozens and dozens of kills... One of my favorite planes actually...


----------



## Njaco (Dec 4, 2007)

Awesome plane! I have a model of one that I must complete someday. Check out this site. It has a great schematic of the PaK 40 on the 129. look at middle of page.

http://www.luft46.com/mess/mep10199.htm


----------



## AlloySkull (Dec 4, 2007)

Thanks for all the info guys! I love those pics Njaco. I remember that about the heavy cockpit armor being a key design element in the A-10, I saw a special on the history channel I believe. Les, I agree, it isn't a bad aircraft. It's wierd though, I looked at my book again, and it does say 
B-2/Wa. Confusing. It's quite a comprehensive book, but I can see how something can slip by. I'm gonna take a look at that schematic, I'm a sucker for schematics, line drawings, and profiles. I have about 1 gig just in those categories alone.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 5, 2007)

lesofprimus said:


> Agreed...
> 
> I actually like the plane... Although underpowered with those sh!t engines, the B-2/R2 and R3 were great Tank Busters and Close Support aircraft.... In the hands of a few very talented pilots, they scored dozens and dozens of kills... One of my favorite planes actually...




Same here. I just wish they had put better engines on her.


----------



## AL Schlageter (Dec 5, 2007)

From here, þÅÒÔÅÖÉ






More nice scale drawings, þÅÒÔÅÖÉ


----------



## AlloySkull (Dec 5, 2007)

Oh sweet! I didn't know airwar.ru had a Hs-129 stuff! I love that site! I was gonna post an entire list of sites I have for stuff, this one included. I still will, of course. You don't know how many times that site's come in handy for me...


----------



## Njaco (Dec 5, 2007)

Check through some of the threads. I think there is one for good web sites to list.


----------



## Civettone (Dec 6, 2007)

lesofprimus said:


> They included the Hs 129B-2/Rl which carried two 20 mm MG 151/20 cannon and two 13 mm (0.51 in) machine-gun.


I think it had two light calibre MGs. These were omitted when the 75mm gun was installed.

That gun was definitely an overkill. A 37 or 50mm gun could penetrate every deck armour on any tank. 

It's also a myth that its engines were ****. There were reliability problems in Africa which was cured with sand filters. The Gnome Rhone engines were reliable and what's more, it offered the best performance for any piston engine its size! That they were underpowered is simply refuted by the fact that they chose to mount a 1000kg gun underneath! How could the Hs 129B have been underpowered before that? The myth comes from the Hs 129A which had weak Argus engines. Of course with the Hs 129B-3 the aircraft proved to be underpowered again.

Also note that the Hs 129 was the most armoured attack aircraft of WW2. It carried more armour than the Ju 87D or Il-2!

Kris


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 6, 2007)

Civettone said:


> It's also a myth that its engines were ****. There were reliability problems in Africa which was cured with sand filters. The Gnome Rhone engines were reliable and what's more, it offered the best performance for any piston engine its size! That they were underpowered is simply refuted by the fact that they chose to mount a 1000kg gun underneath! How could the Hs 129B have been underpowered before that? The myth comes from the Hs 129A which had weak Argus engines. Of course with the Hs 129B-3 the aircraft proved to be underpowered again.
> 
> Also note that the Hs 129 was the most armoured attack aircraft of WW2. It carried more armour than the Ju 87D or Il-2!
> 
> Kris




No the aircraft was underpowered. For the weight and the ordinance that it carried it was underpowerd. Had the aircraft had more powerful engines she would have been better off.


----------



## Civettone (Dec 6, 2007)

Source?

The Hs 129A was 12% overweight and 8% underpowered. The Hs 129B's new radial engines were 20% stronger while total weight hardly changed. 

Kris


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 7, 2007)

The engines delivered 700 hp on takeoff. You put engines that delievered about 1000 hp and she would have been an awesome airplane. That is all that I am saying.


----------



## Civettone (Dec 7, 2007)

That remark goes for all aircraft. They all get better with more HPs (unless of course weight unbalances the aircraft or unless structural structure is affected). 

Fact remains, the Hs 129B was NOT underpowered. (Sorry for stretching this but it's one of those myths which just have to go!).

Kris


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 7, 2007)

Civettone said:


> That remark goes for all aircraft. They all get better with more HPs (unless of course weight unbalances the aircraft or unless structural structure is affected).
> 
> Fact remains, the Hs 129B was NOT underpowered. (Sorry for stretching this but it's one of those myths which just have to go!).
> 
> Kris



Sorry but I do not think it is a myth. For the weight of the aircraft it was underpowered. She needed bigger engines.


----------



## Civettone (Dec 8, 2007)

It's not like she was a fighter...

Kris


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 8, 2007)

She was not a light aircraft either....


----------



## Civettone (Dec 8, 2007)

Ok, why do you think it needed extra power? German tests showed that it was no longer underpowered. So there must be a reason why you claim it was. It all comes down to which standards you use. For a fighter you would require much more power but for a Schlachtflugzeug??

Kris


----------



## lesofprimus (Dec 8, 2007)

Hey Civ, as the 129 in its final derivatives is one of my fav aircrafts, could u post up some evidence of the myth??? Ive read several opinions from guys who flew them that they were underpowered, but dont know if they were talking about the first generation, or the latter one u are referring to...

IIRC, Otto Weib described it as "underpowered and sometimes cumbersome..."


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 8, 2007)

Civettone said:


> Ok, why do you think it needed extra power? German tests showed that it was no longer underpowered. So there must be a reason why you claim it was. It all comes down to which standards you use. For a fighter you would require much more power but for a Schlachtflugzeug??
> 
> Kris



Same reasons that Dan just described.


----------



## Civettone (Dec 8, 2007)

Evidence of a myth? Isn't that contradictory? 

Chris, I was asking you why it needed more power than it did. 

I'll repeat my argumentation as to why the Hs 129B was NOT underpowered.
1. Tests of the Hs 129A with the Argus engines showed it being 12% underpowered. The Hs 129B received a power upgrade from two 460 HP engines to two 750 HP engines.
2. If the Hs 129B was underpowered, it would have been strange to install a 1000 kg gun under the fuselage. Even the Germans weren't that desperate.

More information can be found in Martin Pegg's Hs 129 Panzerjage (ISBN: 0952686716). This book dispells the myth of unreliable and underpowered engines.

Kris


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 8, 2007)

Civettone said:


> Evidence of a myth? Isn't that contradictory?



No it is not contradictory. It just goes against what you believe so it has to be wrong. 



Civettone said:


> Chris, I was asking you why it needed more power than it did.
> 
> I'll repeat my argumentation as to why the Hs 129B was NOT underpowered.
> 1. Tests of the Hs 129A with the Argus engines showed it being 12% underpowered. The Hs 129B received a power upgrade from two 460 HP engines to two 750 HP engines.
> ...



And I answered you by saying that everything I have read that has to do with quotes by pilots says the opposite.

Now if I see information that proves otherwise I will change my views on the aircraft.

There is no need for you to be rude about it.


----------



## lesofprimus (Dec 8, 2007)

Straight up, Im asking an honest question here... Was the 75mm gun installed upon the older version of the 129 with the underpowered engines, or was it only installed on planes with the upgraded 750s???

Oh, and no comment concerning Hauptmann Weibs' comment?


----------



## Civettone (Dec 8, 2007)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> No it is not contradictory. It just goes against what you believe so it has to be wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Rude????????? 

Where was I rude? 

Isn't a myth always something without evidence??

I asked you to clarify what you said. I didn't understand your comment as you did not specifically say that your doubts were based on quotes of pilots. I wasn't sure that's what you meant so I asked for a clarification. I'm very very sorry if you find that is rude, Chris. I'm trying to have a decent discussion here, not trying to pick a fight with you. I've never done that though I admit that I can be quite frank at times... 


Primus, I can't answer your question as I don't know about those quotes. Of course I've often read about the Hs 129 being underpowered but just like you, I don't have any way of knowing if this is based on the Hs 129A or B-3 wbich definitely were underpowered. It also depends on the pilot: British test pilot Eric Brown considered the Ju 88 underpowered while you won't often hear that from German accounts.
You also have many accounts on the Bf 109G being difficult to fly, land and take off with and yet now it seems clear that this is a post-war exaggeration. I think the same thing applies to the Hs 129 as it does to most German aircraft. Just think about it: the reputation of the Ju 87, He 177, Me 262, Bf 110, Me 163, all have a bad reputation (in one or more aspects) which is quite unfounded. The Ju 87 wasn't a sitting duck, the He 177 wasn't a flying torch, the Me 262 didn't burn out its engines every time, the Bf 110 was a succesful aircraft, Me 163 was quite safe, ...
So yeah, I think the same goes for the Hs 129. Several resources (especially the Anglosax sources and the encyclopedias a la Green) claim it was underpowered but recent works which are based on German sources are rather neutral about it all. 
The problem with these myths about German aircraft like I mentioned above, is that 90% of the books and articles simply copy each other. And then you end up with stories like the Ju 290 flying to the American East Coast and the Me 262 development slowed down by Hitler wanting it as a bomber.

Sorry I'm starting to rant here. To answer you direct question: the 75mm was installed on the Hs 129 with the powerful engines. That in itself strongly indicates that the Hs 129 with these engines was not underpowered as installing a 1000kg gun would have been madness.

Personally I've never seen a German source stating that the Hs 129B-1 or -2 was underpowered. I can imagine there are a few accounts like that but overall the sources are quiet about it.

Kris


----------



## Njaco (Dec 9, 2007)

> You also have many accounts on the Bf 109G being difficult to fly, land and take off with and yet now it seems clear that this is a post-war exaggeration. I think the same thing applies to the Hs 129 as it does to most German aircraft. Just think about it: the reputation of the Ju 87, He 177, Me 262, Bf 110, Me 163, all have a bad reputation (in one or more aspects) which is quite unfounded. The Ju 87 wasn't a sitting duck, the He 177 wasn't a flying torch, the Me 262 didn't burn out its engines every time, the Bf 110 was a succesful aircraft, Me 163 was quite safe, ...



Sorry to intrude but I'm reading this and I'm stunned. I've never heard this said about those machines. I've read American, UK and German journals and accounts and they all support the opposite of those claims. Maybe alittle exaggerated but still true nonetheless.

The Bf 109 had a narrow track and this did make it difficult for landing and taking off. Numerous ground loops.

The twin-coupled engines did have a tendency to catch fire because of tight space, high temps and fuel collecting in cowling and other areas.

The Me 262 did burn out engines if the throttle wasn't used witha light touch.

The Me 163... I would even want to try to land with landing gear let alone skid across the earth with that combo of fuel.

Sorry Civ, that was just an eye-opener.


----------



## Civettone (Dec 9, 2007)

Yeah Njaco I know it's an eye opener. It's also not that I'm saying the opposite of those things. I'm just saying that the reputation doesn't correspond with the truth. They tend to generalize and exaggerate. 
It generalizes which results in readers starting to view these aircraft black and white. As such it's academically wrong to view the He 177, Bf 109G, Me 262, Ju 87 or Me 163 that way.
There's a truth in them, I admit, but exaggerated. Like you said. 

Just a way to illustrate how the underpowered Hs 129A and B-3 gets generalized to all Hs 129s. 

But ... you're dead wrong on the Me 163 though: it jettisoned remaining fuel before landing. Read up on the Me 163 here: Komet Me163 - Chief test pilot Rudy Opitz tells it like it was - Flight Journal.com Page 1

Kris


----------



## Graeme (Dec 9, 2007)

Civettone said:


> But ... you're dead wrong on the Me 163 though: it jettisoned remaining fuel before landing.



Kris, this is a quote from Mano Ziegler in Brian Johnson's book 'The Secret War.'

How often did this happen?


----------



## Njaco (Dec 9, 2007)

Its interesting throughout that whole article he doesn't mention 23 June 1943:

"...Again Opitz had trouble, the dolly wrenching free during the tricky acceleration and the final part of the run on the unsprung skid. A few seconds later the cockpit filled with choking, blinding peroxide fumes from a pipe fractured by the bumping. Opitz was on the point of baling out when the peroxide was at last consumed by the motor...." _Warplanes of the Luftwaffe by David Donald._

I'm no expert on any of those machines but to say they're exaggerations, how come this has never been said before?

Lets see:
Exaggerating the He 177 wasn't a flying torch.

The He 177 V-5 crashed and exploded into the ground when both engines caught fire.

The He 177 V-8 crashed and exploded into the ground when both engines caught fire.

The He 177 A-01 crashed and exploded into the ground when both engines caught fire.

He 177 A-05, He 177 A-11, He 177 A-12, He 177 A-13, He 177 A-14 and He 177 A-15 all crashed because of engine problems.

And during the Steinbock Raids on one raid, 4 He 177s were shot down by flak and fighters, 4 actually made it over the target and 8 returned because of burning engines.

But the He 177 wasn't a flying torch.

But this is the one I can't seem to swallow. "the Bf 109G being difficult to fly, land and take off with and yet now it seems clear that this is a post-war exaggeration"

well....

"the Me 109 had the tendency - mostly annoying, sometimes lashing into trouble - to swing to the left during the take-off roll. The same tendency existed in the Me 108 but was aggravated in the fighter because of the more powerful engine - and pilots had thus to be fast and skilled with their use of right rudder. When they pushed the stick forward to raise the nose they had to bring in right rudder in a co-ordinated movement, otherwise the airplane would turn sharply to the left beyond control. Take-off with a cross-wind from the left was regarded by some pilots as an unhappy adventure, and it was necessary to use right brake as well as rudder until the speed built up. Modifications to the airplane eased somewhat the left-swinging tendency but it was never completely eliminated, though in fairness to the Messerschmitt design it must be emphasized that skilled pilots who were aware of this condition and prepared for it had little diffivulty in taking off - even in a cross-wind....Another problem never corrected entirely was the weakness of the landing gear....Production officials recall that once the factories were in full swing, as many as five or six brand-new fighters would be seen plowing up the runway as their gear collapsed on landing."

This problem I have read many times. Even the first prototype when delivered to the Luftwaffe for testing collasped the starboard undercarriage leg.

or...
[1.0] First Generation Bf-109s
"The head of the RLM procurement office, World War I ace General Ernst Udet, was openly contemptuous, saying: "That will never make a fighter!" 

The concerns were completely justified in one respect. The main landing gear of the Bf-109A had a narrow track, hinged in the fuselage to retract into the wings. The narrow gear not only made the aircraft a "roller skate" on the runway but were also weak and prone to collapse. In fact, the prototype suffered a landing gear failure when it was handed over to the Luftwaffe for test. Some sources claim that landing gear problems would be a difficulty for the Bf-109 all through its career. 

Whatever problems the Bf-109A had on the ground, it was agile and fast in the air, and fighter became one of the front-runners in the competition. Udet overcame his original suspicions and became an enthusiastic advocate of the type."

That being said, I have never heard that the landing problems of the Bf 109 were exaggerations made up by the allies post-war. 

Do you have any sources that say it was exaggeration and the troubles experienced by these planes were minor?

Back to the Hs 129, I think there is a misuse of the term powerful. Every resource I read says the French engines were horrible, prone to break-downs, unreliable, etc. One even lists the Ju 87 as being faster. With that, I would want a more reliable engine, and one as least more powerful to get out of the way of any patrolling P-40, Spitfire or MiG.


----------



## HoHun (Dec 10, 2007)

Hi Njaco,

>That being said, I have never heard that the landing problems of the Bf 109 were exaggerations made up by the allies post-war. 

If you look at the actual operational statistics, comparing the Bf 109 to the Fw 190 which was praised for its great landing characteristics, you'll not find any difference in take-off and landing performance.

I have checked the following data:

- Lethal accidents in JG 51 during landing and take-off, by plane type.

Result: Accidents (14 in total for the entire war) are distributed between Me 109 and Fw 190 fairly accurately proportional to the number of aircraft of each type used by JG 51.

- Accidents resulting in death or injury in JG 26 during landing and take-off, by plane type.

Results: In 1943 to 45, I. and II. Gruppe equipped with Fw 190 had a total of 35 take-off/landing related accidents, while III. Gruppe equipped with Me 109 had a total of 14 accidents of this kind - the lowest number of the three groups.

- Losses through enemy action and other operational losses from the Bestandsmeldungen from early 1942 to December 1944, by plane type. (That includes all first-line Luftwaffe units, as far as I can tell.)

Results: 

Me 109: 9681 losses to enemy action, 8791 other losses - 47.6% of the losses are without enemy action
Fw 190: 5389 losses to enemy action, 4934 other losses - 48.8% of the losses are without enemy action

If a large number of Me 109s would be destroyed on landing, that would show up in these figures. However, the Me 109 actually is very close (and slightly better) than the Fw 190 here.

- Relation of aircraft sent for overhaul to losses for all causes ("to enemy" + "other reasons" + "for overhaul") from the same data source.

Results:

Me 109: 22.5% overhaul
Fw 190: 25.2% overhaul

That can be interpreted as indication that the Fw 190 was slightly better suited for repair if it was heavily damaged. That is probably a safe assumption. If the landing accidents of the Me 109 would not result in destruction (and thus escaping the above statistics), they would have to show up as repairable airframes in this statistics. No such indication is seen.

So from looking at the actual operational figures, there is only evidence for the Me 109 operational safety during landing and take-off being virtually identical to the operational safety achieved by the Fw 190.

In other words, any bad take-off and landing characteristics the Me 109 might have had fail to make an impact on its operational record.

As far as I can tell, the often-repeated stories about the Me 109 having take-off and landing problems are completely bogus. I'd love to hear what they were based on - I assume it was simply "word of mouth".

If it was significantly more difficult to land the Me 109 than it was to land the Fw 190, the Luftwaffe obviously managed to adequately prepare their pilots to cope with that difficulty by flying technique, or we'd see some kind of noteworthy difference between the types in the operational record.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)


----------



## AL Schlageter (Dec 10, 2007)

Not that I doubt what you say Henning but 1.7 accidents per month (49/29) seems low.



> - Accidents resulting in death or injury in JG 26 during landing and take-off, by plane type.
> 
> Results: In 1943 to 45, I. and II. Gruppe equipped with Fw 190 had a total of 35 take-off/landing related accidents, while III. Gruppe equipped with Me 109 had a total of 14 accidents of this kind - the lowest number of the three groups.



How does this stack up to Allied losses for landing/take off accidents?


----------



## Njaco (Dec 10, 2007)

HoHun, I will take what you have into account as I don't have that info. And you always have good info, I'm not very technical with this stuff, just what I've read. And again, I could very well be completely wrong. But I can't see where there was an extreme exaggeration as Civ is claiming as I have never heard of this. 

One point. Those loss stats are from established frontline Gruppen. As I posted "...._it must be emphasized that skilled pilots who were aware of this condition and prepared for it had little difficulty in taking off - even in a cross-wind._.." What were the loss rates for the training schools? Might have a better handle on the myth.


----------



## HoHun (Dec 10, 2007)

Hi Al,

>Not that I doubt what you say Henning but 1.7 accidents per month (49/29) seems low.

Of course, they had more accidents, but these were not take-off/landing related.

>How does this stack up to Allied losses for landing/take off accidents?

Hard to say - the USAAF loss figures I have seen are not directly comparable. Here some USAAF statistics:

Army Air Forces in World War II

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)


----------



## HoHun (Dec 10, 2007)

Hi Njaco,

>One point. Those loss stats are from established frontline Gruppen. As I posted "...._it must be emphasized that skilled pilots who were aware of this condition and prepared for it had little difficulty in taking off - even in a cross-wind._.." What were the loss rates for the training schools? Might have a better handle on the myth.

The Ergänzungsgruppe (operational training unit) attached to JG 26 in 1940/41 had 4 take-off and landing related accidents in 1940/41, compared to 3 for the same time period for the 3 operational groups. 

This seems to support the idea that inexperienced pilots were more take-off/landing accident-prone than experienced ones. 

At the same time, it also appears that the JG 26 accident rate increased as the war progressed, which might indicate the decreasing experience level of the average Luftwaffe pilot.

This appears to be more pronounced for the Fw 190 equipped Gruppen than for the Me 109 equipped III. Gruppe, but as one narrows down the scope of the comparison, the absolute number of cases drops, and conclusions become less reliable.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)


----------



## AL Schlageter (Dec 11, 2007)

Henning, it is my understanding that the Germans used a system for plane damage as 20%, 40%, 60% and over 60% (write-off).

I ask because you said 'sent to over-haul'. Of the above classes of damage which would be sent to over-haul? I would think that for 60% would be and possibly 40% depending on what was damaged. ie. a wing could be replaced easily while a fuselage would be more work.

I would be interested in a comparison between units in western Europe/Germany/Austria to Russia and North Africa where airfields were more of the temporary kind. 



> Me 109: 9681 losses to enemy action, 8791 other losses - 47.6% of the losses are without enemy action
> Fw 190: 5389 losses to enemy action, 4934 other losses - 48.8% of the losses are without enemy action



Your percentage for the 109 is OK but I get 47.8% for the 190.

109: 8791/18472; 190: 4934/10323


----------



## HoHun (Dec 11, 2007)

Hi Al,

>I ask because you said 'sent to over-haul'. Of the above classes of damage which would be sent to over-haul? 

I think it depended on the specific damage and on the repair capabilities, which might vary between the units. The reports I use don't list percentage at all.

>I would be interested in a comparison between units in western Europe/Germany/Austria to Russia and North Africa where airfields were more of the temporary kind. 

You'd have to build a database for the location of every unit in the Luftwaffe each month for that kind of evaluation. Fascinating, but a lot of work!

>Your percentage for the 109 is OK but I get 47.8% for the 190.

Oops - I must have introduced a typo there!

Regards,

Henning


----------



## Njaco (Dec 12, 2007)

Well, I don't know what to say. It just seems to me, with the limited amount of material I've read (several hundred books!  ) that the Bf 109 did have a few problems with its landing characteristics and undercarriage. Nothing so serious to take away from the quality of the plane and its service record (Hartmann did prefer it) but this is all new to me.

My apologies to Hohun and Civ for being a little hardheaded on the 109 but I just can't get it in my mind that the opposite was true.

Back to the Hs 129, the engines were a problem and before they were corrected, the order to stop production came. I still think better engines earlier would have made it a great machine (for those under 5'6" tall  )


----------



## HoHun (Dec 12, 2007)

Hi Njaco,

>Well, I don't know what to say. It just seems to me, with the limited amount of material I've read (several hundred books!  ) that the Bf 109 did have a few problems with its landing characteristics and undercarriage. 

That's definitely the impression you'd get from reading any amounts of books! No reason to apologize, the Me 109 really reported as troublesome in the literature. The thing is, no-one seems to have done any research regarding the problems the type really had in operational service. 

Here is some interesting stuff quoted from Radinger/Schick "Me 109" ... a 1938 request regarding the Me 109T from the Marine high command to the RLM:

"Before a decision regarding the use of the Bf 109 as carrier-based single-seater fighter aircraft, we request a statement on the landing characteristics of the Bf 109 on carriers since it is well-known that the type tends to veer after landing, which aboard a carrier would lead to a special danger of accidents after a carrier deck touch-down without immediate capture of the landing wires."

The response from the RLM:

"The Marine high command is mislead about the landing characteristics of the Bf 109. The Bf 109 in no way tends to veer on landing unless grave handling errors are made, for which however the pilot and not the aircraft has to be held responsible."

So obviously, the Me 109 had a bad reputation even in 1938, which obviously was considered undeserved by the RLM even back then. However, considering that the Me 109 was "hottest" aircraft in the Luftwaffe at that time, with no other single-seat fighter (except for a handful of He 112s) to compare it to, it's not surprising that acquired such a reputation when the majority of pilots in service had been trained in the fixed-gear biplane era.

There is not much in terms of actual evidence for poor take-off and landing characteristics - in 1939 or 1940, there was a period of increased unservicability that was landing gear related, in 1943 there were some problems with tyre endurance due to poor synthetic rubber, and in 1944 the long tail-wheel was introduced to reduce the ground angle of the type to improve ground handling (indicating that there was something deserving of improvement).

From the above I'd say the type had some quirks, but if they don't show up in the personnel statistics, they must have been fairly harmless, and if there is hardly any difference in the materiel statistics to the rugged Fw 190, their significance is probably far exaggerated in the literature. If no-one gets killed or hurt and the type doesn't show an increased need for repairs, where is the problem? 

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)


----------

