# The Best Bf - 109 Variant ? (2 Viewers)



## lesofprimus (Aug 13, 2004)

The 109 has been around operationally since June 1937 in the Spanish Civil War... But the better variations happened towards the latter part of the war, and even at the end...

109F series flew first in Nov 1940... 
Best variant in this series is the 109F-4/Z, with the GM-1 Nitrous Oxide Boost System... 
***But the 109F-4/R6 variant, which Galland himself requested, added 2X additional 20-mm Mk 151 cannon in underwing gondolas... (For bomber attacks, but excess drag kinda sucked dogfightin...) 

The 109G series in March 1942... The one produced the most... 
Best here is the 109G-14/U6. 1X 30-mm MK 103 cannon and 2X 13-mm MG 131 machine guns, with the MW 50 Water-Methanol Supercharger Boost System...

109K series flew in Oct 1944... 
Best variant here is the 109K-4, with the GM-1, 1X 30-mm MK109 cannon and 2X 15-mm MG 151 cannon and the DB 605 ASCM engine (2,000 hp t/o; 1,899 hp @ 16,450 ft) flyin at 451 mph @ 19,736 ft (6,000 m)...

I believe the K series is regarded as the best... Any other input???


----------



## Lightning Guy (Aug 13, 2004)

The K had the performance but the increase and weight (and even the increase in power) was causing some serious deteriation in it's handling. From what I understand, most pilots considered the F to be the best all-around version.


----------



## lesofprimus (Aug 13, 2004)

I havent heard about the deterioration in handling issue... The K series was the answer to the problems that the H series had with tail vibrations... The F series top speed was 389 mph @ 22,040 ft... The G was 406 mph @ 28,540 ft... Nice little difference...


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Aug 14, 2004)

i know it's not the best, but my favourite would be the E series, i prefer the square wing.......................


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Aug 14, 2004)

Actually, the K-4 hit 450mp/h at the most, I don't know where those _Gustav_ figures come from...


I likes the G-6 A/S with the Mk-108 tucked in.

Some of the best late-model handling.

For Mid-War, I'd have an F-4 or G-2...


Although it was experimental, the K-6 was said to be the fastest...


----------



## lesofprimus (Aug 14, 2004)

Actually the 2 books I referenced state that the K-4 max speed is 451 mph @ 19,736 feet, and 452 mph @ 19,685 feet... (Both say 727 km/h)

The fastest variant was probably the 109K-14, which attained speeds of over 450 mph @ 35,000 feet... 

I made a mistake on the Gustav... I edited last post and fixed error.... Ty...


----------



## Lightning Guy (Aug 14, 2004)

The handling issue comes from, among other things, the wing loading. The 109 had a fairly high wing-loading grew dramatically as the weight of the 109 increased rapidly with little adjustment to the wing area. Also, the increase in power meant at increase in torque which can add to handling difficulties.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Aug 14, 2004)

and caused difficulties on take off.................


----------



## lesofprimus (Aug 14, 2004)

But that wing loading situation would be somewhat less of a worry at high altitudes...

I personally like the 109G version as well... If I remember correctly, there were some problems with the MW-50 water-methanol boost system...

109G-6 A/S huh??? U like that DB 605A-1 engine... (bigger supercharger)

The 109G-14 already came with that engine, standardized the "Galland " type canopy, and the /U6 MK 103 30-mm conversion made up the firepower difference......


----------



## NightHawk (Aug 15, 2004)

is it true thet you can know the type of bf by the coloer of its nose ?


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Aug 15, 2004)

i don't think so becuase if you think about it they could paint it any colour they want.................


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Aug 15, 2004)

The nose is an identity marking or Theatre Indicator as are the rear fuselage stripes on the Fw-190.


Example:Yellow and Red vertical stripes mean a late-war Reichs Defense aircraft.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Aug 15, 2004)

and white tail bands meant the med. theatre.................


----------



## cheddar cheese (Aug 20, 2004)

I likes the 109 G's 8)


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Aug 21, 2004)

they're ugly, you want a E...................


----------



## cheddar cheese (Aug 21, 2004)

i think the G's look way better


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Aug 21, 2004)

the round wing looks stupid!!.............


----------



## cheddar cheese (Aug 21, 2004)

looks fine to me


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Aug 21, 2004)

yes but you're 6"3 and you drive a mini!!


----------



## lesofprimus (Aug 21, 2004)

We aint talkin about looks here... We're talking about the best variant...


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Aug 21, 2004)

i don't like the wing loading of the 109G...............


----------



## cheddar cheese (Aug 21, 2004)

not my fault, lanc started it  and i dont have any idea what the best one is, but theoretically the G should be better than the E, and i just happen to prefer the styling



the lancaster kicks ass said:


> yes but you're 6"3 and you drive a mini!!



used to drive a mini, used to. we got rid of the 2 minis and my metro today, dumped them at the neighbours farm. and one of the minis and the metro are up on bricks  we took 6 mins to get the wheels off the mini, not up to liverpudlian standards


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Aug 21, 2004)




----------



## cheddar cheese (Aug 21, 2004)

3300 posts  thats nearly 100 posts in a day


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Aug 23, 2004)

so what's new....................


----------



## lesofprimus (Aug 23, 2004)

New??? 

Skittles came out with a Sour Fruits Flavor...

The Chrysler 300M looks like a Bentley...

Eli Manning is the Quarterback for the New York Giants...


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Aug 24, 2004)

none of which i give a damn aboot............


----------



## lesofprimus (Aug 24, 2004)

Your loss.. The Skittles are extremely satisfying....


----------



## MP-Willow (Aug 25, 2004)

Less Manning is not the starter yet! As for your question I like the 109k-4. It tried to bring back the true fighter qualities that had been slipping with the latter Gs. Also the G-12, two seat trainer and Well I hate to agree with Lanc, but the E is pritty and was a very good fighter.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Aug 25, 2004)

it's like i said the square wing's prettier than the round wing..............


----------



## lesofprimus (Aug 25, 2004)

We arent talking prettiest anything here.... We are talkin bout BEST VARIANT...


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Aug 26, 2004)

> Well I hate to agree with Lanc, but the E is pritty and was a very good fighter



he started it the second time..........


----------



## MP-Willow (Aug 27, 2004)

I made my statement about what I liked and did say yes the E was Pritty, but it was also a very good early fighter that pelled to puch the Spifire Mk. V.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Aug 28, 2004)

> that pelled to puch


----------



## lesofprimus (Aug 28, 2004)

no idea on that one either... Puch probably was push...


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Aug 28, 2004)

what about "pelled"..................


----------



## lesofprimus (Aug 28, 2004)

ur guess is as good as mine on that one....


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Aug 28, 2004)

he's got allot to answer for................


----------



## MP-Willow (Aug 31, 2004)

Ok sorry for that. It should have been the bf 109E was to model that pushed the RAF to get the Spitfire Mk V going. Now I could be wrong and I know you all will tell me if I am.

I did not read over what I typed the last time and have been typing here and chatting at the same time. Sorry for my poor skills


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Sep 4, 2004)

lol don't worry, we're not that bad......................


----------



## I./JG53_lud13 (Sep 6, 2004)

Bf-109 G-14 entered service on the western front starting in July 1944.

Bf-109 G-10 entered service close to K-4 (slightly after first K-4s came into service) in around November 1944.

Bf-109 K-4 entered service in October 1944.


G-14 was using DB605AM engine (meaning DB605A engine with MW-50 system) and using B4 fuel - 87 octane. DB605A is used on G-1 all the way up to G-14.

G-6/AS uses DB605AS engine and G-14/AS uses DB605ASM engine; meanind DB605AS + MW-50 system 

G-10 K-4 were using both DB605DB and DB605DC engines (sometimes these engines are also called DB605DBM and DB605DCM because they both use MW-50 boost system). Both of them are the same engine except DB605 DB is "DB605D" engine configured for B4 fuel giving 1800HP (and hence the term DB605DB) and DB605DC engine is "DB605D" engine configured for C3 fuel. DB605DC engine gave 2000HP, C3 I believe was 100 octane fuel. 

Mind you DB605D engine was first produced in 1942 but had some techinal difficulties with pressure and reliability so it was delayed into service until fall 1944.

One more thing G-14 is basically G-6 Late with MW50 system.

The only difference between G-6 Early and G-6 Late is that G-6 Late uses the streamlined canopy called "Earla Haube" and high tail unit and this makes it slightly more (about 10km/h) faster than G-6 Early. G-6 Late also has new pilot head protection armour plate and cocpit canopy called Erla or unoficialy "Galland Panzer" 

For me personaly 109s came like this:
Bf 109G-2
Bf 109G-10
Bf 109F-4
Bf 109K-4 etc...


----------



## MP-Willow (Sep 8, 2004)

Ok. Thanks Lanc. Dose anyone like the early 109s other then Lanc and I?


----------



## JCS (Sep 8, 2004)

My favorite is the E also, but I like the F's and G's too.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Sep 9, 2004)

the E's dead shexy *sean connery voice*


----------



## Gemhorse (Sep 9, 2004)

Yeah, I like the 'E', and I believe the 'G's were good...I don't think I could get into those wing slots they all had though, but there's no doubt there were pilots who got the absolute best out of the 109...definately liked the look of the 'E' model though, square tips n' all....


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Sep 10, 2004)

and you've got to remember the wing loading of the G was very high............


----------



## lesofprimus (Sep 10, 2004)

And how many Russians did Hartmann kill in the 109G?????


----------



## MP-Willow (Sep 10, 2004)

Mr. Conorry, (Mr. Bond) and a bf 109! WEll that can work. But "dead sexey?" I would say the Spitfire was a bit more sexy.


----------



## lesofprimus (Sep 10, 2004)

I agree with u you.. The Spit, in any variation, was sexier than the 109...


----------



## JCS (Sep 10, 2004)

I have to go with the 109 for looks but if I had a choice of flying either one I'd choose the spitfire mostly because of the horrible short range of the 109..


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Sep 11, 2004)

many planes were/are dead shexy..................


----------



## lesofprimus (Sep 12, 2004)

And there were many planes, that when they were shipped to a new unit, the pilots would look at them and say::

"My God Almighty... We have to fly these against the Bf-109/G-12 ????"

Russian pilots, upon learning they had to fly the Aircobra, after they were proved worthless over the skies of Britian...


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Sep 13, 2004)

but look at the swordfish, people crying out for a squadron of spitfires would look at wonder at the sight of stringbags flying round...............


----------



## lesofprimus (Sep 13, 2004)

Yea, wondering how the hell those things could still be flying after all those years....


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Sep 14, 2004)

but it was still a wonderfull sight, and the fact that they're still flying is amazing..................


----------



## lesofprimus (Sep 14, 2004)

Sure, a wonderful sight, as long as you didnt have to fly combat in one.....


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Sep 14, 2004)

actually they weren't bad, they were manouverable enough to keep the fighters off during flight and their low speed often made pilots overshoot when on their run, bloddy cold though.................


----------



## lesofprimus (Sep 14, 2004)

No doubt about the coldness... All Biplanes for the most part are more agile than monplanes because of their slower speed....


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Sep 14, 2004)

and their bigger controll surfaces (primarily the fact they have double the arolons (i can't spell))


----------



## lesofprimus (Sep 14, 2004)

ailerons...


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Sep 14, 2004)

that's the one.................


----------



## MP-Willow (Sep 14, 2004)

A spitfire's range was not that much better then the 109. Now granted the spit did develope range better. But for range in a fighter I'll take the A6M2 

Lanc, a Stringbag was slow cold and did well because it was so bad. But when the Spits got to Malta the Swordfish were not flown.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Sep 14, 2004)

yes they were, well firstly it was mainly beauforts doin the anti-shipping role, but swordfish were still used, the spit couldn't be used at a torpedo plane could it..................


----------



## Gemhorse (Sep 15, 2004)

Not too sure if they tried that, but they tried it with floats....


----------



## Andrew (Sep 15, 2004)

lesofprimus said:


> The Spit, in any variation, was sexier than the 109...



The Spitfire in any variation was far sexier than anything, apart from the Mosquito


----------



## Lightning Guy (Sep 15, 2004)

I've never seen anything about trying a spit with a torpedo. I imagine the length of British torpedoes might have caused a bit of a problem.


----------



## lesofprimus (Sep 15, 2004)

I do remember seeing a Spit with floats on it, but not with a torp strapped to its belly....


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Sep 15, 2004)

i've seen a pic of a spit with floats, but there's no way a landbased spit could take a torp....................


----------



## lesofprimus (Sep 15, 2004)

I agree...


----------



## MP-Willow (Sep 15, 2004)

Floats yes I have a poor picture of it. It was an experiment I think much like the Japanese and the A6M on floats. Both were looking for fighters that could patrol the islands in the Pacific as I remember before carriers were all the rage and not a lot of Island bases. But both programs were not developed. 

Now if you want Sex appeal in a fighter, the Italians did have that  But I would take Mae West


----------



## lesofprimus (Sep 15, 2004)

The Shiden started out as a float plane in the initial stages of its developement...


----------



## Lightning Guy (Sep 16, 2004)

Float plane fighters, in general, weren't very good ideas. The drag the floats imposed serious limits on performance.


----------



## MP-Willow (Sep 16, 2004)

Yes the floats were not a good idea, but it was intended as a stop gep thing. If I want a floatplance I want a Seaplane, A PB2Y or Martin PBM


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Sep 16, 2004)

> The Shiden started out as a float plane in the initial stages of its developement...



are you sure, the shiden was a land based intorceptor...............


----------



## Lightning Guy (Sep 16, 2004)

The Shiden began life as the N1K1 Kyofu ("Mighty Wind") codename: Rex.


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Sep 16, 2004)

For a seaplane as a "personal pet" aircraft, I'd want a Martin Seamaster jet flying boat...


----------



## Lightning Guy (Sep 16, 2004)

Or a SeaDart . . . a supersonic jet flying boat.


----------



## MP-Willow (Sep 17, 2004)

Both of them are nice craft, but I would just like one to be able to fly over the Maine Woods and land in some lake for a little fishing and swim. The SeaDart was an interesting project why that it was killed off was sad. SeaPlanes are just a great way to get around.

Lanc, is that one of the 4,000lb bombs that is shown in your little picture under your name?


----------



## Lightning Guy (Sep 17, 2004)

I believe that is a 12,000lb Tallboy under his name.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Sep 18, 2004)

LG you're closer than MP, but it's actually a grand slam, easy mistake to make though.....................


----------



## Lightning Guy (Sep 18, 2004)

It's very hard to tell. The shape of the bombs are almost identical and scale is hard to make out in a picture that small.


----------



## lesofprimus (Sep 18, 2004)

In his avatar, if u look towards the back of the bomb, ull see a person standing there....

The Earthquake Bomb family: (from L to R) 12,000 lb Tallboy, 22,000 lb Grand Slam, 42,000 lb T-12, and the 25,000 lb SAP Samson


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Sep 19, 2004)

this is another good pic...............


----------



## Erich (Oct 24, 2004)

Bf 109G-10


----------



## cheddar cheese (Oct 25, 2004)

Yep I would have to say one of the late G-series or the K-4

Question: Was the Me-309 close to entering service? And was it likely to be a good plane?


----------



## kiwimac (Oct 25, 2004)

I really like all of the 109s from the C series onwards, favourites would have to be 'F' series, 'G' series and 'K' series (oh and the 'T' series)

AIUI there were significant problems with the 309 and the RLM decided to focus on the FW190 D series and the Ta-152 which already were superior in performance to anything promised by the 309. I may be wrong however 

Pictures of Me-309
















All from http://www.michas-bastelstube.de/Modelle/Me309.htm

According to http://www.warbirdsresourcegroup.org/LRG/me309.html



> The 309 was originally designed to be the definitive successor to the 109. Innovative features included a pressurized cockpit, tricycle landing gear, and a retractable radiator. However, the 309 could be out turned by the Bf 109G and was judged inferior to the Fw 190D and never reached production. The Me 609 was to be a twinned version similiar to the P-82.






Kiwimac


----------



## cheddar cheese (Oct 25, 2004)

I think the 309 looked _damned_ cool though


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Oct 25, 2004)

it looks like a cross between the P-39/FW-190/Me-262.................


----------



## Erich (Oct 25, 2004)

the tripod undercarriage was a failure for the Me 309.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Oct 25, 2004)

it does look pretty good though..................


----------



## cheddar cheese (Oct 25, 2004)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> it looks like a cross between the P-39/FW-190/Me-262.................



I know where you're coming from on the P-39 and Me-262 front, but Fw-190?


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Oct 25, 2004)

when i see that paint scheme i think of the FW-190.................


----------



## cheddar cheese (Oct 25, 2004)

Hmmmmm i dont agree.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 10, 2004)

The better varient is still hard to say. What are your more looking for: performance or handling. True the K model was the fastest but I believe the G model was by far the better of the latter models. However the E model seemed to handel the best and had better flight characteristics, atleast from what I have read. Whichever model you believe, I think the Me-109 was a remarkable aircraft.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Nov 10, 2004)

but the later -109s had dangerously high wing loading levels............


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 10, 2004)

I still believe the 109G was the best of all 109's.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 11, 2004)

I have to agree with you and I think it was the best looking one of the 2 also. It was sleek and just looked like it wanted fly through the clouds like and eagle. Some of the paint schemes they put on 109G's were just awesome looking. It was a great aircraft.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 11, 2004)

Yup. I think the 109K looks better than the G, and if you really wanna go detailed I think the Me-309 looked the best.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 11, 2004)

She deffinatly was sweet.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 11, 2004)

Yup, they all look good.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 12, 2004)

I know it is probably off topic because it is not a Me-109 but another aircraft that I thought was extremly awesome looking was the Focke-Wulf Ta-152. She was similar to a Fw-190 but more streamlined and was quite impressive in performance.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 12, 2004)

Yep, the 152 did look good, but I prefer the looks to the 190D


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 12, 2004)

The 190D was sweet with its longer nose. I was always more fond of the aircraft with inline engines instead of the aircraft with radial engines just because they looked more aerodynamic and streamlined. But like the 190 I also really liked the P-47 (I might be wrong with the designation). It was a very impressive and powerfull aircraft.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 12, 2004)

Yep the P-47 was also a very good looking plane - although only the ones with bubble canopies.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Nov 12, 2004)

it's absolutely huge though!! the fact that the engine wasn't too streamlined was more than made up for by it's power.............


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 12, 2004)

Well radials are never streamlined.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Nov 12, 2004)

i know, i never said radials were.............


----------



## lesofprimus (Nov 12, 2004)

The "Jug" was a kickass plane that produced the Highest Ranking American Ace in the European Theatre, Francis Grabreski....... It could take so much punishment from enemy fire and still fly along on 10 cylinders....

Pilots of P-47's regulary shot down very high ranking German Aces..... Guys with like 6 kills to their credit knocking out an Ace with over 150 kills.... Excellent fighter and ground attack platform.....


----------



## Nonskimmer (Nov 12, 2004)

Yeah, it was tough, alright. I've heard it was tricky to fly.


----------



## lesofprimus (Nov 12, 2004)

After u got over 15 hours or so of flight time, it was a dream..... Just had to get used to the flight controls...


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 13, 2004)

How was its manoeverability? Cos it looks the the kinda plane that would be a pig...


----------



## lesofprimus (Nov 13, 2004)

Well, lets put it this way... P-47's shot down Me-109's, Fw-190's and Me-262's......

It was manoeverable enough....


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Nov 13, 2004)

yes but allot of those kills would be the result of it's power and damage tollerance, a Bf-109 could still out manouver it.................


----------



## lesofprimus (Nov 13, 2004)

At which altitude???? Which version of the -47 and the -109???? Alot of those kills were made by surprise, sneaking up on the -109's six o clock and pumping a .50 calibre rainbow up his German Ass..... 

Alot of those kills were from turning inside the -109 as well as from power..... 

Not all pilots flew their plane as it should have been flown... Some flew them far beyond what the manufacture said was safe as well.... Some flew like pansies.....


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Nov 13, 2004)

knowing me i'd pull major G, black out and fall to my death...............


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 13, 2004)

I think a zero would suit my style...I favour manoeverabilty over power and armament.


----------



## lesofprimus (Nov 13, 2004)

The best of both worlds is what its all about.....


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Nov 13, 2004)

an early mark of a spit would suit me for a dogfight...............


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 13, 2004)

I agree about the bubble canopy. It looks much better than the "razorback" Most aircraft looked better with a bubble canopy. I think in a dogfight I would want either a P-51D or a Me-109F or G. The Me-109 mostly because it my favorite aircraft. I believe most of the kills on a Me-262 achieved by the slower prop driven aircraft were taken when the Me-262 was on the take off and much slower speeds and unable to maneuver.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 13, 2004)

lesofprimus said:


> The best of both worlds is what its all about.....



I hate compromise, either one or the other...


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Nov 13, 2004)

Spit. Mk.XIVe or Tempest Mk.II for me...


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Nov 14, 2004)

> and unable to maneuver



the -262 had shocking manouverability anyway......................


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 15, 2004)

yeah but it was much more vulnerable on take offs and landings, the pilots are only focused on that and you are at lower speeds


----------



## Chocks away! (Jan 30, 2005)

well i would say the 'k' was the best performance wise, even though unfortunately it was flown by undertrained pilots( here the mediocre handling must have been an issue) but the 'f' was the nicest to fly, while undergunned. Just ask mr Nowotny!


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 30, 2005)

i'd rather fly an E................


----------



## Erich (Jan 30, 2005)

Bf 109G-10 thank you...........whomp ass


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 30, 2005)

harsh language coming from you.................


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jan 30, 2005)

I think Id take the 109G-2 8)


----------



## Erich (Jan 30, 2005)

Lanc have had a migrane for 6 days now and it is pea soup foggy so I am a bit testy this morning........

The G-10 could finally catch the dreaded night bomber Mossie over Berlin and the single engine Luftw night boys preferred this unit until the Me 262A became available. One chap that is included in our book makes mention of over 470mph in his G-10 chasing a Mossie until he blew the pistons out of the craft . the engine froze solid and he was up over 30,000 feet still and motionless until the craft dropped like a stone and he bailed out, freezing his arse off in the descent landing hard on the top of a barn. to his aid was 5 Russian pow's, the Luftwaffe pilot thought at first he had landed in Soviet held territory since his unit was defending Berlin...


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jan 30, 2005)

470mph?! Thats gotta be in a dive...


----------



## Erich (Jan 30, 2005)

One is clocked at 450 plus flat out. but there are a few secrets that were done to this G variant. any guess's ? think speed to catch the wooden wonder, what would have to happen to the G varinat to enable this ???  Remeber guys 10.(N)/JG 300 Moskito-jagd was a stealth unit


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jan 30, 2005)

Nitrous Oxide?


----------



## Erich (Jan 30, 2005)

Methanol injection was standard on the G-6/AS and the G-10 which they flew but it was a couple of other items of interest......think lightness and ?


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 30, 2005)

it was a glider being towed by a me-163??


----------



## KraziKanuK (Jan 30, 2005)

Erich said:


> Methanol injection was standard on the G-6/AS and the G-10 which they flew but it was a couple of other items of interest......think lightness and ?



Well, would say, since it is night, the armour was removed and maybe the mgs.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jan 30, 2005)

Erich said:


> Methanol injection was standard on the G-6/AS and the G-10 which they flew but it was a couple of other items of interest......think lightness and ?



Bigger engine?


----------



## Erich (Jan 30, 2005)

c'mon let's get serious. if you are going to chase one of the fastest Allied a/c during the war what are you going to have to do to soup up the Bf 109G ?


----------



## Erich (Jan 30, 2005)

armor is correct, but the mg's stayed along with the noe mounted cannon.

what else.....I covered this some months ago


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jan 30, 2005)

Thinner wings? Bigger span?


----------



## Erich (Jan 30, 2005)

nope, think engine and ? the engine was the AS with 2-3 stage turbocharger and MW 50 water injection which gave it a short 10/15 minute burst of speed, any longer than that then you have engine seizure as I mentioned. there are 2 different applications though that remain, and you guys are getting close though.....one was to the engine and the other to the fuselage outside. you may laugh once you find out but it did increase overall all speed by a large margain


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jan 30, 2005)

I give up. Im not up on engines...


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 30, 2005)

shoved a jet enigne in the back??


----------



## KraziKanuK (Jan 30, 2005)

Polishing and waxing did wunders for the speed.  Having no dings also helped.

The only other thing I can think of is increasing the boost to 1.98 but afaik this was not officially approved til 1945.

Was not the supercharger variable speed Erich? Did they tweek it like done to some automatic trannies today?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 30, 2005)

Yeah I do not know what they might have done. But I agree with Erich I would go with a Me-109G varient. The G was excellent. The K yes had the best performance but it lagged in maneaverability.

Even though dont take me wrong I am not doubting you Erich, it is just new to me, and I am sure as soon as you tell us it will make sense to me. But the fastest I have heard of a Me-109G was 410 and the average is this right here:

Type: Single-seat fighter
Werk #: 10639
Origin: Bayerische Flegzeugwerke, renamed Messerschmitt AG 1938
Engine:
Type: Daimler-Benz DB 605 A-1 liquid-cooled, inverted V12
Horsepower At Take-Off: 1,475 hp
Horsepower At 18,700 Ft.: 1,355 hp
Horsepower With GM1 At 27,890 Ft.: 1,250 hp

Fuel:
Capacity: N/A
Type: N/A

Dimensions:
Wing span: 32 ft 6.5 in.
Length: 29 ft 0.5 in.
Height: 8 ft 2.5 in.
Wing Surface Area: N/A

Weights:
Empty, Equipped: 4,968 lbs.
Normal, Loaded: 6,834 lbs.
Maximum, Overloaded: 7,055 lbs.

Performance: At 6,834 lbs.
Maximum Speed:
317 mph at sea level
331 mph at 3,280 ft.
350 mph at 6,560 ft.
365 mph at 9,840 ft.
369 mph at 16,400 ft.
398 mph at 20,670 ft.
383 mph at 26,250 ft.
406 mph at 28,540 ft. (With GM1)
Range:
Internal Fuel Only
340 mls at 322 mph

With 66 Imp Gallon (300 Liter) Drop Tank
528 mls at 322 mph

Initial climb: N/A
Time to 9,840 ft (3,000m): N/A
Time to 18,700 ft (5,700m): N/A

Service Ceiling: 39,370 Ft.

Armament:
One 20mm Mg 151/20 engine mounted cannon with 150 rounds
And
Two 7.9mm MG17 fuselage mounted machine guns with 500 rpg.


----------



## Erich (Jan 30, 2005)

Gentlemen we have a winner, or almost...............chocalate chip cookie ok ? 8) 

yes besides removing the armor from the craft including the head armor, the AS engines had a two stage, some say 3, supercharger which could be "tweaked". what is interesting is the idea of thinning the oil for higher altitude flights, this was done esepcially to one experimental "Weiße 8" Bf 109G-6/AS proving to be the fastest a/c of the over sized staffel. Painted all light blue RLM 76, the body of the aircraft was completely polished over, whashed then waxed with spray on polish daily; the "black men worked" while the pilots slept till dusk or later when they went to the air. In this particualr case the blue a/c had all rivets and lines filled in-puttied over and the a/c had a high gloss finish.......it was a hot rod. a source which is hard to read states on one of it's many missions the a/c hit almost 500 mph


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 30, 2005)

wow


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jan 30, 2005)

Interesting! 8)


----------



## KraziKanuK (Jan 30, 2005)

Erich, how did they fit the extra tubine wheels for the extra stages?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 30, 2005)

Yeah that is really interesting. I wonder how I had never known that!

Anyhow well everyone this is the last time I will be posting for a while, I am losting my interenet tomorrow and believe me this is a good thing. I will see you again when I get home!


----------



## Erich (Jan 30, 2005)

will be missing your posts Eagle. hop to hear from you soon via the States.

take care............

KK not real sure but think it was a 2-stage supercharger installed in the AS engines, had increased cooler capacity. Engines are not my thing unfortunately

E ~


----------



## KraziKanuK (Feb 1, 2005)

The reason I ask Erich is that when the Merlin went from 1 stage to 2 stage the overall length of the engine increased. On the DB this would put the added stage near or past the fuselage skin, since it was mounted 90* to the engine and the induction 'tube' would definately be outside the fuselage skin. (see pg 163 of Bf109F,G&K for a pic)

I understood that the AS engine got a larger dia turbine wheel. To make it fit, the engine bearer had to be redesigned (arced instead of straight) which is why we see the more aerodynamic mg fairings.


----------



## Udet (Feb 1, 2005)

Like the Spitfire, the Bf109 saw service throughout the entire conflict; as the war progressed both planes evolved accordingly.

The Spitfire MkI and the Bf109E which first saw service in the conflict were to some extent, very different to the Sptifire MkXIV and the Bf109 K-4 which met the end of the war.

The enemies the Bf109 faced in 1939 or 1940, were not the same the model met in, say, 1944. The same goes for the Spitfire.

Bigger and more powerful engines being fitted with a continuous increase in speed; several versions and sub-versions....

Perhaps i´d go for the Bf109G`s. Narrowing my choice, I would go for the G-10.


----------



## Anonymous (Feb 1, 2005)

The Bf109-F2 high alt model was the height of the 109. Later models were only slightly faster, had slightly better armor and armament, handled worse, and were generally outclassed by their opponents. The F was a very competitive fighter when it first came out.

I also like the 15mm gun over the 20mm gun for fighter vs. fighter combat. And the high alt model evidently had NO2 injection.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## Erich (Feb 1, 2005)

The G-10 109 had MW 50 W injection as standard and the K ?


----------



## Udet (Feb 1, 2005)

RG:

Sorry but the word "outclassed" does not appear to apply here.

While I have seen several opinions regarding the F versions as the "best" in the Bf109 family, i do not think the later versions of the 109 were "outclassed" by their opponents, at all.

As a dogfighter, the Bf109 versions are second to none. 

Even by knowing it is the case of one sole fighter pilot, how do you explain seven (7) USAAF fighter pilots in their "superior" P-51s did not live to tell the story after meeting Erich Hartmann flying his Bf109 (G-10 if i recall correctly) over Romania?

I have been told by people who know: the Bf109 G-10, just to mention one type of Bf 109, could out fly a P-51 virtually at any altitude. At low and medium speed dogfights a Bf109 G-10 pilot could even fly circles around the P-51.

No matter how much a genius a pilot can be in the controls if you give him an "outclassed" plane to take off and meet the enemy.

Also i know a few USAAF veterans who amazingly, do not buy the allied propaganda tribulations portraying the dogfights against the Luftwaffe as piece of cake.

So outclassed is not the word.


----------



## Anonymous (Feb 1, 2005)

Udet said:


> RG:
> 
> Sorry but the word "outclassed" does not appear to apply here.
> 
> ...



Well, I've been told differently concerning the Bf109G vs. P-51 (and other fighters) matchup. The plane handeled poorly at medium-high to high speeds. Visability was poor. Armament was weak. Armor was better than the F but almost useless.

As for Hartmen's victories - he was a very skilled pilot who was excellent at setting up and executing the sneak attack. Hartmann had something around 250 victories and most of the pilots of the 334th FG of which you speak had less than 10 combat sorties under their belts and no kills. On top of that, Hartmann's black Tulip, a BF109-G14, was a heavily modified 109 (as was common for top aces of all sides).

A top quality pilot could win in a plane that was outclassed, as long as it was not too badly outclassed, and especially when facing relative rookie opponents. And in this case, you are talking about the Luftwaffe's best pilot against almost pure rookies!

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## Erich (Feb 2, 2005)

Hartmann flew a standard G-14/AS as well as a G-10 which was faster. 2 13mm's and a single 2cm were enough to take out any allied fighter. gun cams prove that. some opf the G-6/AS and G-10's plus K-4's had a single 3cm to replace the 2cm. Yes I would say their was enough firepower. the G-10 could keep pace with any high altitidue Allied a/c. the diaries prove that as well. It was found it could fly above the Mossies of the LNSF and keep up with them if need be. so here is another application.

the F model had it's hey-day in Afrika with JG 27, 77, 53.


----------



## Anonymous (Feb 2, 2005)

Erich said:


> Hartmann flew a standard G-14/AS as well as a G-10 which was faster. 2 13mm's and a single 2cm were enough to take out any allied fighter. gun cams prove that. some opf the G-6/AS and G-10's plus K-4's had a single 3cm to replace the 2cm. Yes I would say their was enough firepower. the G-10 could keep pace with any high altitidue Allied a/c. the diaries prove that as well. It was found it could fly above the Mossies of the LNSF and keep up with them if need be. so here is another application.
> 
> the F model had it's hey-day in Afrika with JG 27, 77, 53.



The 109 could not "keep up" with the P-51. It was able to mount short sprints of about equal speed but was subject to overheating in less than 3 minutes when doing so. Its dive speed was at least 65 mph lower. But more importantly, at such speeds its ailerons were almost useless.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 2, 2005)

which could be a problem.........


----------



## Udet (Feb 2, 2005)

RG:

Erich made good points there. 

That point here would rather be the P-51 was not abolutely superior to the Bf109. Better at some things, surpassed doing others.

What i mentioned was a fact, the G-10 could outfly the Mustang virtually at any altitude.

The G-6/AS could also more than deal and outfly any enemy pursuer.

The Bf109 could make things the P-51 could not, and viceversa.

RG: can you mention the weak points of the P-51? 
You are not going to suggest it was better at everything, are you?

Be honest; I can understand the veterans who flew it telling the Mustang is one of the most glorious creations ever and that it was a flawless toy, and that it made an unvaluable contribution to "save humankind from darkness and slavery".

Since you were not there, I do think i can expect a certain level of objectiveness from you.

Finally RG, I have a bit more than 50 gun camera recordings of German fighters pounding the P-51, and from most of them can be concluded the German fighter (either Bf109 or Fw190) could more than outfly the Mustang. 

I repeat, each plane had its strong and weak spots; it was the pilot who in the end, had to know when to attack, when to wait and even when to simply withdraw.


----------



## Erich (Feb 2, 2005)

one reason why the G-6/AS and all AS versions were created..........to stand up with the P-51 escorts. the problem was the P-51's had already gained the altitude as the Luftwaffe was at a disadvantage while climbing to meet the US escorts. It's plain enough through many diaries of first hand accts. The MW 50 could give 10 minutes plus of added power if used in short duration periods. the problem was the pilots didn't do as recommended and shoved their AS engines past the limit, causing peeking and blown pistons.


----------



## KraziKanuK (Feb 2, 2005)

I did not know that the P-51 could operate at max boost for extended periods of time, RG_Lunatic.

The Merlin in the Spirfire was restricted to 5 minutes at max boost, so what was so different on the P-51 with its Packard Merlin?


----------



## Anonymous (Feb 2, 2005)

Udet said:


> RG:
> 
> Erich made good points there.



I never said he didn't.



Udet said:


> That point here would rather be the P-51 was not abolutely superior to the Bf109. Better at some things, surpassed doing others.



The only signficant thing the Bf109-G was better at than the P-51 was climbing. In every other relevenant catagory of comparison, the P-51 was superior.



Udet said:


> What i mentioned was a fact, the G-10 could outfly the Mustang virtually at any altitude.



Which is simply not true. At high-medium to high speeds, the P-51 out manuvered the G-10 substantially at all altitudes.



Udet said:


> The G-6/AS could also more than deal and outfly any enemy pursuer.



Care to explain your thinking here?



Udet said:


> The Bf109 could make things the P-51 could not, and viceversa.



Yes, it clould climb very well.



Udet said:


> RG: can you mention the weak points of the P-51?
> You are not going to suggest it was better at everything, are you?



When compared with the 109G, the only relative weakness is in rate of climb.

Be honest; I can understand the veterans who flew it telling the Mustang is one of the most glorious creations ever and that it was a flawless toy, and that it made an unvaluable contribution to "save humankind from darkness and slavery".

Since you were not there, I do think i can expect a certain level of objectiveness from you.

Finally RG, I have a bit more than 50 gun camera recordings of German fighters pounding the P-51, and from most of them can be concluded the German fighter (either Bf109 or Fw190) could more than outfly the Mustang.[/quote]

Guncam footage almost never tells us much about one plane's relative performance vs. another. Remember, something around 90% of kills scored in WWII the victim never saw the shooter till he was shot down or badly crippled.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## Anonymous (Feb 2, 2005)

KraziKanuK said:


> I did not know that the P-51 could operate at max boost for extended periods of time, RG_Lunatic.
> 
> The Merlin in the Spirfire was restricted to 5 minutes at max boost, so what was so different on the P-51 with its Packard Merlin?



5 minutes was the recommended limit of WEP usage. But pilots often maintained WEP power for 15 minutes or even longer. The 5 minutes was a recommended limit, nothing prevented longer usage. A properly operating P-51 at good speed had no overheating problems at any power level. The 109 on the otherhand, would overheat after one to two minutes at high speeds (and not necessarily even at full power).

Also, the Packard Merlin was known to be more robust than the RR Merlin. It was built using superior materials, and production quality was generally higher. This is not a dig at the British, they simply did not have as good of alloys and they were more pressed to maximise production quantities at the cost of a little production quality.

From the Soviet Fighter Tactics manual (1943) - refering to the 109G-2 after study of captured aircraft:



> ...
> Besides, it must be remembered that the Me-109 can only hold the maximum airspeed indicated above for no longer than 1 or 2 minutes in horizontal flight, as their engine overheats and causes the coolant to boil.
> ...
> http://luthier.stormloader.com/SFTacticsI.htm



The problem with the 109 design is that it was never intended to attain those kinds of speeds for sustained periods. The scoops are subject to boundary layer seperation, and later models even had a boundry layer diverter to avoid turblence from this effect. Once the boundary layer lifts (upside-down) away from the lower surface of the wing at the scoop inlet, there is very little effective cooling from the radiators since they aren't getting a steady flow of air.

Late model Spitfires encountered the same issues, but where the Germans chose to accept this condition, believing that only short bursts of speed would be necessary, the British chose to increase the scoop size and injest the seperation as much as possible (even though this was not very efficent in terms of cooling or drag). This issue simply was not discovered until the planes were designed to the point no real solution could be implemented short of a complete redesign.

On the P-51, with its much larger single scoop sitting right below the pilot, the boundary layer seperation problem immeadiately came to the attention of test pilots. They could hear a loud "popping" noise comming from underneath the seat while at high speeds. This was then carefully studied in the full scale and 20 atmosphere wind tunnels at the NACA, and the boundary layer seperation issue was discovered. The solution was to move the scoop inlet away from the wing enough to miss the boundary layer, which is why the P-51 scoop is not flush to the bottom of the plane. So the P-51 had full cooling efficiency until over 500 mph, where the boundary layer got thick enough to start to be partially injested.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## Udet (Feb 2, 2005)

RG:

I am certainly not capable of speaking in such a technical style, after all i am not an aviation engineer or technician.

What I have to say is I have a good deal of stuff of info on technical issues of the many versions and sub-versions of the Bf 109 (books, magazines, papers, etc.), and last but not least, the opinions of some men who flew it and of men who flew against it.


This is the first time i read what you say about the over heating problems of the Bf 109 engines. 

They over-heated after only 2 minutes at high speeds and, furthermore, not necessarily at full power? What DB engine are you referring to?

Hitherto, i lack arguments to discuss this, but it appears unlikely to me; you are picturing a poor hardly-reliable engine which I do not think was the case of the DB engines, at all.

I will have to ask someone else.

I quite frankly do not care whether if guncamera footage tells little or enough on the performance of an aicraft. What i care about is what i see there, and what do i see? 

I recall perhaps one or two shots when the P-51 gets clearly bounced and executed.
In the other hand, I see Mustangs trying to evade and outmanouver German fighters pursuing them for the kill and they did not make it!

RG, i certainly enjoy reading some of your postings, but it appears to me that to an important extent the allied propaganda devoted to defame the Bf 109 played its effect on you.

It is not my intention to change your beliefs or the like, but I am confident since i`ve had access to plentiful info, when i affirm the P-51 was by no means superior to the Bf109.


----------



## Anonymous (Feb 3, 2005)

Udet,

It was nothing about the engine that caused the problem. The DB engine was excellent. The issue was with the cooling system design.

An airfoil involves what is referred to as the boundary layer. This is a layer of air molecules that are relatively stationary with respect to the wing (or other airfoil surface). Molecules near the wing move with the wing, then as the distance from the wing increases, there are increasing levels of exchange with fast moving ambient air molecules (though this is still relatively small), and then there is a point further from the wing where there is ambient airflow (ie: still air through which the wing is passing). The faster the plane goes (within the subsonic realm - rules change for transonic/supersonic flight) the thicker the boundary layer.

The issue arises when the air flowing across the bottom of the wing encounters the scoop, which creates a back-flow resistance to the air flow. This tends to lift the boundary layer away from the wing and create boundary layer ingestion, which is turbulent air entering the scoop which diminishes cooling efficiency. As speed increases, the problem gets worse, until finally it becomes chronic and the boundary layer lifts up and flows completely over the scoop, creating a vacuum in front of the scoop. It then slaps down to fill the vacuum, then builds up again and repeats the cycle. Air flow into the scoop is non-existent when the flow is over the scoop, and extremely turbulent when it slaps down and does enter the scoop. This greatly diminishes cooling efficiency.

You can visualize what is going on by taking a 2 liter soda bottle, filling it most of the way, and then pouring it out into the sink. Start pouring slowly and the water will flow smoothly out of the bottle. Increase the angle and it flows faster and faster until suddenly it starts "gulping" and the rate of flow is greatly diminished.

In the late 30's they had no experience with this phenomena and so neither the Bf109 nor the Spitfire scoop designs take it into consideration. it came to light on the P-51 purely by accident, because the scoop size and position was such that the test pilots could hear the boundary layer collapsing and making a loud "popping" sound beneath their seats. The solution was to remove the scoop inlet from the wing surface and snorkel it forward:







The 109 had no mechanism to deal with this issue (Bf109G-10):






It was not an issue on the E series, they didn't go fast enough to encounter it except in dives where it was not such a big issue (as power was reduced significantly anyway). It started to become a slight issue on the F series, and it was a significant issue on the G series but was never dealt with, probably because there really is no good solution for wing scoops.

The British simply increased the scoop height to ingest the boundary layer at higher speeds, accepting the added drag this created at all speeds:

Spitfire Mk. I (only has 1 scoop)





Spitfire Mk. IX





Spitfire Mk. XIX





So it's nothing to do with the quality of the engine, it has to do with the cooling system design. At high speeds the cooling system simply gets bypassed by the boundary layer separation effect. The Bf109G/K has no remedy for this issue.

As for pilot comments, P-51 pilots consistently claim they could easily out-turn 109's at speed, and FW's too but less easily. Pilot plane bias has to be considered as well of course. But kill stats really are meaningless because the great majority of the time the victim never saw the plane that shot him down or did not see it until it was too late. This does not always mean a "bounce" of an unaware target (though often it does), it can also mean they were engaging an opponent (either offensively or defensively) when another opponent they were unaware of shot them down.

By 1944 the Bf109 was long in the tooth. Its design had never considered 400 mph class level speeds, and its cooling system was not made for such speeds. With the cooling system barely functional, the radiators overheated rather quickly.

BTW: the Soviet Fighter Tactics book did not become available to anyone but Soviet military personnel until after the fall of the Soviet Union in the 1990's. It was created to teach Soviet pilots how to fight the German planes in late 1943 and was based upon both combat experience and testing of captured aircraft. This was not "propaganda" to defame the 109.

In general, it appears the Germans considred 2 minutes at high speed enough for combat needs. The FW190A series was limited to about 3 minutes of top speed performance by design. The very skilled pilots of the Luftwaffe' were probably able to make this work for them most of the time.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## KraziKanuK (Feb 3, 2005)

I don't know where you get your info from but the 190 could do 10 minutes on 'boost juice' (C3 injection or MW50). The 109 as well. The 109F and on had a boundary seperater inside the radiator duct.

Pilot anecdotes say time was increased in the FW-190A8 and later series begining in mid 1944 to 20, 30, and finally 40 minutes at 1.42.


----------



## Anonymous (Feb 3, 2005)

KraziKanuK said:


> I don't know where you get your info from but the 190 could do 10 minutes on 'boost juice' (C3 injection or MW50). The 109 as well. The 109F and on had a boundary seperater inside the radiator duct.
> 
> Pilot anecdotes say time was increased in the FW-190A8 and later series begining in mid 1944 to 20, 30, and finally 40 minutes at 1.42.



Yes... in a climb. It was not power output that was the issue, it was speed. All the German WEP and SEP systems were quite useable for extended periods at the lower speeds utilized while climbing, typically about 180 mph, where the cooling system was at peak efficeincy. This had no relevance to the ability to maintain top speed in level flight.

A boundary layer seperator inside the duct helps with boundary layer issues within the scoop and helps to settle the aiflow down and improve cooling. This helped deal with the issue at medium speeds. It does nothing about boundary layer issues outside the scoop which occur at top speeds.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 7, 2005)

Well well, hey everyone, how are you all. I have returned from Iraq and am back home now. 

I agree with both of you on most of your points.

First of all even Luftaffe pilots would tell you that the Me-109's ability decayed as it was developed. Yes the K model was faster and such not, but it lacked in maneavueraibliy (sorry I know my spelling is terrible, me and my wife have been drinking wine, and she is taking a nap, so I get to get ont he internet). 

RG you are correct the F model was the finest version when based one the allied counterparts, it was fast and very maneverourable for its time. I personally like the G better, but that is stricktly opinion.

As for the ability to sustain top speed there were several aircraft that the Luftwaffe had that could contain these speed but they were put into full produciton before the war was over: Me-155B, Me-109H, Ta-152H:


> Focke Wulf were successful with the Ta-152 and in the H version were finally in position to provide the Luftwaffe with its long awaited high alltitude fighter. But the Aircraft which was supiorior to all Allied machines at alltitudes aber 10,000m (33,000ft), was built in only small numbers, and did not see service in its inteded role.
> 
> The design had scope for a great deal more technical development and the design was still far from the end of its potential.
> 
> ...


----------



## Erich (Feb 7, 2005)

good to see you back. How long are you in the states for ?


----------



## Erich (Feb 7, 2005)

oooooooooooooops should have said Germany not the states. Have a glass of wein on me man.

Erich ♪


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 7, 2005)

Thank you my friend. Yes I am back in Germany right now. I wlll drink a good White Merlot for you my friend and tomorrow I will drink a good Weizen Bier for you!


----------



## Erich (Feb 7, 2005)

enjoy, I think I will have to go downtown and pick up a Heffeweizen afer work.....kick my feet up and type away on the forum here...

E ~


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 8, 2005)

Glad to see youre back safe Adler - a fair bits happened while you were away.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 8, 2005)

i'd be very gratefull if someone could send me a crate of beer, just label it "plane models" or the folks could get bit suspicious.............


----------



## Anonymous (Feb 8, 2005)

Erich said:


> one reason why the G-6/AS and all AS versions were created..........to stand up with the P-51 escorts. the problem was the P-51's had already gained the altitude as the Luftwaffe was at a disadvantage while climbing to meet the US escorts. It's plain enough through many diaries of first hand accts. The MW 50 could give 10 minutes plus of added power if used in short duration periods. the problem was the pilots didn't do as recommended and shoved their AS engines past the limit, causing peeking and blown pistons.



MW50 could certainly be used for 10 minutes or even more. But not for speed. This was used to support fast climbs, usually at about 180 mph where the cooling system is at peak efficeincy. So there is no conflict here Erich.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 15, 2005)

Well thats good to know!


----------



## Erich (Feb 15, 2005)

The boost through the two stage supercharger besides climbing was used for short bursts of speeds according to the pilots, Horst Petzschler for one in May of 44 while with 2./JG 3 vs P-51's at high altitude.

also in our forth coming book the night pilots in their Bf 109G-6/AS's used it to dive and catch up with the LSNF mossies on their way to Berlin or flying away from the city during the fall of 44. Even in the dive and flat out to catch the wooden a/c they would push the AS craft to the limit and blow out the pistons.............Georg Czypionka, Fritz Neppasch, Kurt Welter, etc.

E, glad we are back on !


----------



## Udet (Feb 15, 2005)

RG_Lunatic:

I did print all the technical speech you delivered here and had it sent to someone who knows a hell of a lot about engines, cooling systems and boost gear of ww2 aircraft. So far, i can say i rest my case.

I do not doubt you know a good deal on technical stuff, but since you have a conflict of interest here, you might be giving away only the information that serves such interest.

I am also looking forward to have some of my Luftwaffe guncamera shots made into donwloadable MPEGs, so you can see many many P-51s getting vivisected (the pilots included) by German interceptors.

My question is: have you ever seen footage showing Mustangs getting chewed by German interceptors?

I´ve met guys from the USA who had seen none, until i showed them a few scenes. Shocked is a moderate term to describe the look on their faces when they saw the images.

Seeing a P-51 getting pulverized, to smithereens, catching a one second glimpse of the body of the pilot all twisted between the large parts of the fuselage, debris, sparks and smoke of his plane, can really sicken you (just like it made feel sick).


----------



## kiwimac (Feb 15, 2005)

IMO, F-series

Kiwimac


----------



## CharlesBronson (Feb 15, 2005)

"Vivisected"..thats is a strong word.

Here a clip of a Mustang striking back , bouncing some Bf-109G6-r6

It need Divx


----------



## plan_D (Feb 15, 2005)

Well, that 109 isn't going anywhere. No engine, fuel leak and a whole lot of lead inside him.


----------



## Udet (Feb 15, 2005)

I have those shots. You posted edited versions though. I have the complete combat film recorded.

They show different Bf109s; the allied pilot missed the first Bf109, the second one takes a pounding and goes down.

As I have said here, footage showing allied fighters shooting down German planes is quite common if not the rule. You know, there you have those allied documentals, mingling guncamera shots of German fighters getting shot down along with a dramatic voice of the narrator telling the audience "how easy the Luftwaffe got outclassed and defeated".

Curiously you never get to see footage of allied fighters getting shot down.
You mostly get to see a few over-repeated shots of heavy bombers getting torn apart by German interceptors over and over again.

Frankly speaking, it was not until I bought me my stuff that I first saw Mustangs, P-47s and P-38s getting chewed by German fighters. 

From those shots I have learned both the USA and England have manipulated and distorted the information big time. Their fighters were by no means "infinitely" superior to the German machines.

Yes, vivisected is quite an adequate term to describe the job German pilots did with a good number of USAAF fighters.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 16, 2005)

I would not say that they were infinitely superior to Luftwaffe aircraft, however the P-51, Spitfire, P-38 and many others were just as good or even outclassed some aircraft completely. That is not to say that the Luftwaffe did not have great aircraft either. 

The later Me-109's say G and above were great aircraft but they did start to lose way in maneaverability.


> In November 1944, Germany produced a number of planes which were far superior to anything else produced at any other moment of the war; the majority of them being Bf-109's in there different versions. The Luftwaffe's especially dire situation was due to the chronic lack of fuel and to the inexperience of the pilots. At the time, the Me-109 was faster than ever, but it had become heavier and less manoeuverable and only the aces, and then very few of them, were able to get the most out of it.
> Messerschmitt Me-109 Vol. II From 1942-1945



Orcourse naturally there were other aircraft also such as the Fw-190's. All aircraft whether the Me-109, Fw-190, Spitfire, P-51, or P-38 all had there weaknesses and there stengths. Some were better then others but either way they were all great aircraft and made a major contribution to the way we look at military aviation.

My favorite aircraft personally is the Me-109G-6 however I would not say it was the best aircraft of the war.


----------



## Udet (Feb 16, 2005)

Der Adler:

Did you know the Spitfire as well began losing maneuverability as it evolved through its many variants?

Curiously, the British hardly ever mention the Spitfire also lost maneuverability as it got fitted with bigger and more powerful engines and sets of weapons!! They hardly mention this fact Der Adler.

So the fact the Bf109 saw its maneuverability affected to some degree throughout the evolution of its several variants is nothing to be surprised of.

The Bf109 G-6 might not be the best fighter, but one of the bests of the war.

My favorite, and one of the greatest of all fighters of the war, is the Bf109 G-10.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 16, 2005)

My favourite Fighter is a toss up between the Fw-190 A and D, I love them.


----------



## Soren (Feb 16, 2005)

I like the Dora 9 mod, but i dislike the A mod.


----------



## Udet (Feb 16, 2005)

The Butcher bird aside from being one of the top fighters of the war, is in my feeling (along with the twin engined Me 410) the most sinister agressive looking plane of the war.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 16, 2005)

Ooooo this is shocking. Why dont you like the A?


----------



## Soren (Feb 16, 2005)

cheddar cheese said:


> Ooooo this is shocking. Why dont you like the A?



Well its less than stellar climb rate and its poor turning capability doesnt give me a good impression!

But i simply love the Dora 9 !! 8)


----------



## Soren (Feb 16, 2005)

8)


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 16, 2005)

Theyre both nice IMO 8) I think the Dora looks better but id rather be in and A-8


----------



## Soren (Feb 16, 2005)

An A8, why's that ? The Dora 9 is better, in my opinion !


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 16, 2005)

Pure firepower!


----------



## Soren (Feb 16, 2005)

Yeah that is one thing it didnt lack, thats for sure !


----------



## CharlesBronson (Feb 16, 2005)

Talking about firepower.... a very interesting rudder marks of Bf-109G-2 from Jg-77 in North Afrika.

The pilot is Hauptmann Waldemar Huy. 

Who say the Messer can`t bombing?


----------



## Erich (Feb 16, 2005)

geez guys take the Fw 190 and start another thread......

I doubt with all due resepct that Huy scored any ship kills, they would need cross checking for sure with the British archiv's of ship losses. have found that Fw 200 Kondor equipped on anti-ship duties with KG 40 racked up quite a ship tally only to find that at least 1/2 of the ships attacked and proported sunk were indeed damaged and made it back to port.

E ♪


----------



## CharlesBronson (Feb 16, 2005)

I guess that he used the SC-250 for balancing the plane.

Another rudded Killing marks. This is a Bf-109F-2 owned by Hans Phillip, showing his multinational tally.

It included aircraft shotdown in Poland, France, England, yugoslavia and Russia. Time of the picture september 1941.






Phillip was Kia in October 1943 with 206 confirmed kills.

A nice drawing of the pilot.


----------



## Erich (Feb 16, 2005)

dropping bombs on a ship does not necessarily mean it was sunk........if you follow my thought


----------



## KraziKanuK (Feb 16, 2005)

Looking at the ship markings on the rudder of Huy's 109, it can be seen that all but 1 (a destroyer ??) were small ships.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 17, 2005)

Nice pics CB! 8)


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 17, 2005)

> geez guys take the Fw 190 and start another thread......



Sure thing Erich...

It can be found here http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/viewtopic.php?p=54461#54461...


----------



## CharlesBronson (Feb 17, 2005)

British document related to captured Bf-109F-1


















A little correction: The Db-601N actually have 1200 hp at take-off


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 17, 2005)

Brilliant find CB! 8)


----------



## Nonskimmer (Feb 17, 2005)

Interesting!


----------



## KraziKanuK (Feb 17, 2005)

http://www.beim-zeugmeister.de/zeugmeister/index.php?id=21&L=1

Worth the read for comparison to the Brit tests > 109F performance.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 17, 2005)

The F was probably the best 109 varient built. It was the last one built before it started to decay the maneuaverability.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 17, 2005)

Yeah that ill agree with. OR should we say the the F was the last 109 with accessible performance? As experienced pilots could extract great things from the G...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 17, 2005)

The problem with the F was the armament, even though many pilots believed the arrangment on the F to allow them to better place there shots. But from performance wise the F put the Luftwaffe ahead of the allies until the Spitfire MK. 5 
The G models and above were great aircraft when it comes to performance but at high speeds and dives the controls would tighten up. An experienced pilot could do wonders with a G or K.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 18, 2005)

Yep, although I think the K's engine really was too powerful for the airframe....


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 18, 2005)

but the same could be said for the G............


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 18, 2005)

Not really...the G was nowhere near as fast as the K and was still more manageable.


----------



## Erich (Feb 18, 2005)

that is incorrect. the G-10 was as fast as the K, maybe even faster.......

Several German manuals attest to this.

E


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 18, 2005)

Sure? Ive read 410mph for the G-10, and 452mph for the K-4...


----------



## CharlesBronson (Feb 18, 2005)

According to my sources Erich is rigth.

One of the most equilibrated variant was the version G-2 and his field conversion G-2/ R-6 non-pressurized figther. Equipped with 1475 hp DB-605A and no much more heavy than F versions. Is the most streamlined of all G series.

It don´t have the bulges in wing for large wheels introduced in the G-4.

Look at this "Spotted Eagle" a G-2/R-6 from JG-5 that belong to Hans Döbrich.






The cowling clean lines dont carry the very ugly "tumors" of the Mg-131 fairings, tipical of G-5, G-6, G-14 etc.






Another shot of the same Gustav showing the camo pattern:


----------



## Nonskimmer (Feb 18, 2005)

Interesting paint scheme. 8)


----------



## Udet (Feb 18, 2005)

Charles:

Fabulous photos!

Personally, I do not consider the bulges on the cowling, say, of the G-6 ugly at all.

Ilmari Juutilainen, the top finnish ace with 94 confirmed kills, chalked up his personal score during the summer of 1944, flying precisely a Bf109 G-2 against the soviet fighters.


----------



## CharlesBronson (Feb 18, 2005)

Fabuluos is my surname.  

Came on Udet... the bulges are horrendous, not to mention the aditional drag that it created.


----------



## evangilder (Feb 19, 2005)

Nice shots, CB!


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 19, 2005)

Yeah great photos! 8) To be honest I never really notice the bulges...


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 19, 2005)

to be honest i don't like the looks of any -109 but for the E..........


----------



## CharlesBronson (Feb 19, 2005)

You don´t like long post lancaster....do you?


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 19, 2005)




----------



## CharlesBronson (Feb 19, 2005)

Bf-109 in action ¡¡

Guncameras of Bf-109E and F blasting some Hurricanes:


----------



## Nonskimmer (Feb 19, 2005)

Nice clips. 8)


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 19, 2005)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> to be honest i don't like the looks of any -109 but for the E..........



Why? Its only really the wing shape that differs...I think the F series look best...


Ill have to download those videos sometime or another  Sound good


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 19, 2005)

it's the cowling as well though.............


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 19, 2005)

Ah im not bothered about the cowling...


----------



## Udet (Feb 19, 2005)

Fabulous Charles:

Somewhere around my place i have some papers about technical tests of the Bf109 G-6.

The bulges on the cowling of the G-6 indeed meant resistance to the airflow, but it was minimun, and did not play any significant effect on the overall performance of that particular variant.


----------



## KraziKanuK (Feb 19, 2005)

Udet said:


> Fabulous Charles:
> 
> Somewhere around my place i have some papers about technical tests of the Bf109 G-6.
> 
> The bulges on the cowling of the G-6 indeed meant resistance to the airflow, but it was minimun, and did not play any significant effect on the overall performance of that particular variant.



Must have had some effect on performance since Mtt fitted 'smoother' panel bulges on the G-6/AS, G-14/AS, G-10 and K-4.


----------



## CharlesBronson (Feb 21, 2005)

Another interesting bird, this time a BF-109 G-6/U-2 used by leutenant Horst Prentzel. 

It was in service with JG-301 in the visual interceptation mode know as " Wilde Sau" ( wild boar) , the nigth of june 21 1944, after heavy fighting with Lancaster, the pilot become desoriented and landing in Manston Airfield in Uk at 03.00 am

Funny thing the pilot never ejected his droptank.









It was equipedd with IFF device and R-6 kit.








Nice view of spiralnauze


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 21, 2005)

very very very nice pics...............


----------



## CharlesBronson (Feb 22, 2005)

BF-109, probably an F version, smashing P-40 tomahawk at low altitude.


----------



## Erich (Feb 23, 2005)

CB your date is wrong concerning the landing of the G-6. Horst shot down 2 Lancasters as his only 2 kills on the night of 6 Juli 1944. He flew with 1./JG 301. Then the date of the defection I should say the mistake is >>>> ?

E ~


----------



## CharlesBronson (Feb 23, 2005)

If the pilot defected or had an involuntary landing, I really do not know.

I posted the information that I can find.


----------



## CharlesBronson (Feb 23, 2005)

More 109 images:


Tough Bf-109G, from Jg 54 sprayed with 12,7mm caliber rounds






A colorful G-2 of Finnish Air Force:


----------



## evangilder (Feb 24, 2005)

Great shots, CB. It's not often you get to see shots of battle damaged Luftwaffe aircraft, they usually show them destroyed.


----------



## CharlesBronson (Feb 25, 2005)

Here the Galland`s F-2U 

Adolf was always unhappy with the armament of the Messers, when he received the F version with his reduced battery of tree guns, he really pissed off and decides to take the matters in his own hands. 

The picture shows in display the 2 Gallands specials. One was a F-2 wich discarded the 8 mm MG-17 and replaced it with the very-very new a these time 13mm RB MG-131 witha 250 round belt, making it the only F series in carry that gun.

The other retains the tree MG emplacement, but added a pair of Ikaria MG-FF, 20mm, 60 round drum, ripped from an Emil.







Messerschmitt Bf 109 F-2/U, piloted by famous commander of JG 26 "Schlageter", Colonel Adolf Galland. St. Omer airfield, France, spring 1941. A tail of this aircraft is visible in the first photo above. 

Note the small bulges covering the 13mm, wich are not G-6 like ugly tumors .






Another shot of December 1, 1941 showing a very sugestive number in the F-2 tail, for deligth of H.G.


----------



## CharlesBronson (Mar 5, 2005)

Anothers destructive BF-109 pilots.


Graf 205th Bf-109G-6






Litjens 22th Bf-109F-4






Sigfried Schnell 56th Bf-109F-3 JG-2






Otto Tange 50th, JG-51 BF-109F-2






Franz Josef Berenbrock 103th Bf-109F-4






Heinz Klöpper 62th, Jg-77, BF-109F-2






Werner Molders JG-51, BF-109F-2...too many.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 6, 2005)

Some great photos posted there guys. The problem with the F was its lack of fire power but for all intensive purposes it was the best version when it comes to all aspects. The G was just as powerful or not more then the K as Erich said.


----------



## DJ_Dalton (Mar 8, 2005)

Lightning Guy said:


> The K had the performance but the increase and weight (and even the increase in power) was causing some serious deteriation in it's handling. From what I understand, most pilots considered the F to be the best all-around version.



Theres an interesting phenomena in wartime and it is that the victors write the history. Add to that equation illegal aggression on the part of the defeated and you can imagine that objective and accurate accounts are not top priority.

The British tested two 109's. One was an E and the other a G-6/R-6. The E was the better of their contemporary Spitifire. The G-6 didn't score out as well vs their Spit IX. But it was carrying underwing gondolas. This critical fact is not well published.

I've read a great deal about the obsolesence and the detiorating handling of the 109 in history books. The Experten had some issues with the 109 (Most notably ground loops) but to a man they all said it was best. It is true that Barkhorn said "I could do anything in an F". The 109 was beaten the way Germany was beaten. Rolled over from above on two fronts by immense forces too numerous to overcome. 

Outnumbered, Erich Hartmann shot down 5 mustangs in one day. Ask him if his 109 handled poorly and if it was obsolete. He refused to fly other aircraft developed and offered to him. 

If you're gonna be a book reader you have to focus on what is salient in the book. The whole book is not gospel. A guy wrote it to make a buck.

If you want to talk false and inferior planes the Yaks are the biggest laugh from that conflict. There was no Vk-107 motor, Period. But, they did have a lot of them and a Yak 3 was a good airplane.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 8, 2005)

DJ_Dalton said:


> Lightning Guy said:
> 
> 
> > The K had the performance but the increase and weight (and even the increase in power) was causing some serious deteriation in it's handling. From what I understand, most pilots considered the F to be the best all-around version.
> ...



I completely agree with you. There are many accounts of Luftwaffe pilots that would not fly anything other than a Me-109. They loved there aircraft. Yes it did have some problems such as the landing gear, and yes it did loose some maneuverability as it progressed but it was a damn good aircraft and as you say the victor always rights the books and they make the enemy out to be extremely inferior.


----------



## CharlesBronson (Mar 8, 2005)

If you have a competent pilot, the Messer is hard to beat.







On 29 October 1943, Hartmann achieved his 148th confirmed victory against an Airacobra. Now he was finally awarded with the Knight's Cross, and was also given one month's badly needed home leave. After his return to his unit, Hartmann scored his 150th kill on 13 December 1943.

On 6 January 1944, Soviet armored forces with powerful air support attempted to break through the German lines to seize the forward airbase Malaya-Viska, where III./JG 52 was based. The Soviets managed to destroy nine Bf 109s, but failed to complete their task. While Stukas and ground-attack aircraft attacked the Soviet ground troops, the Bf 109 pilots fought against the Soviet air support. Fourteen Soviet planes were shot down in three days, including three Airacobras by Hartmann on 8 January-his victories Nos. 163 - 165.

On 26 February 1944, Erich Hartmann engaged Soviet fighter formations in three separate missions and claimed ten Airacobras shot down-including his 200th total victory at 1440 hrs, his 201st at 1445 hrs, and his 202d at 1450 hrs. Erich Hartmann's importance is displayed by the fact that 40 of the 76 Soviet aircraft that were claimed by III./JG 52 between 8 January and 28 February 1944 were shot down by him alone. For this, he was awarded with the Oak Leaves on 2 March 1944


----------



## DJ_Dalton (Mar 8, 2005)

CharlesBronson said:


> If you have a competent pilot, the Messer is hard to beat.
> 
> Nice photo Charles. I don't think I'd seen one with Hartmann and Victory Bars before. I wasn't sure he had them on the rudder until that photo. I read a very interesting account of Mustang pilot engaging a 109, he later believed to be Hartmann. I thought it was fanciful when I read his description of the "200" in Oak Leaves on the Rudder. Now I know Hartmann did have them and that the story was possible. In the account the German pilot was using classic energy techniques and taking advantage of the Mustangs tendency to yaw in the dead vertical plane, so maybe it was Hartmann. The 109 started above him and was spiral climbing him and then dove upon 2 other mustangs. It held fire until mere feet away and squeezed off one cannon round which destroyed the target Mustangs motor. The chasing mustang was gaining at that point and firing from distance and then the 109 pulled for dead vertical with the mustang in pursuit and the closure was lost. It may have been Hartmann. It didn't go well for the Mustangs.


----------



## KraziKanuK (Mar 8, 2005)

DJ_Dalton, that story is pure fantasy. It has been totaly debunked.

First off, at the time of the combat Hartmann did not have any marks on his rudder. Second, the color of the heart is wrong.

The pic is of his G-6 while based at Novosaparovyi in Oct 1943.


----------



## DJ_Dalton (Mar 8, 2005)

KraziKanuK said:


> DJ_Dalton, that story is pure fantasy. It has been totaly debunked.
> 
> First off, at the time of the combat Hartmann did not have any marks on his rudder. Second, the color of the heart is wrong.
> 
> The pic is of his G-6 while based at Novosaparovyi in Oct 1943.



I'd never seen Hartmann with Victory Bars prior. I don't remember what color the Mustang pilot said the heart was. I'm assumming you are saying "grunherz". Was there a 200 plus ace on the Grunherz? I don't know offhand. 

I will say that although the planes abiliites were accurately identified in the account, I was skeptical about the story. Mustangs couldn't go vertical with a 109 from other than inertia. It wouldn't last.


----------



## Udet (Mar 8, 2005)

I can say a wholeheartedly agree with DJ_Dalton!

I ve been saying this for a while now: the Bf 109 has been defamed like hell. To some extent, it is understandable, for it is victors who tell the tale.

The Sptifire for instance, had virtually the same age of the Bf 109. Have you ever read something "like the Spitfire began showing its age by 1944"? 

Flat NO!! And you will hardly find anything similar, because the British creatures belong in the victors club.

Likewise, the Spitfire evolved from the MkI to the 21 versions, seeing dozens of sub-versions produced and reaching service.

Question to allied sided guys in the forum: Do you think the Spitfire evolved throughout its many versions without losing some of its original features?

So the Mk XIV, or the 21, had the same manouvering abilities the MkI had?

That the Bf 109 -again and again- lost some of its original manouvering features, mainly on the G-6 version, is a known tale (never to render the 109 "obsolete" as the allied guys tell). Search through the web, and 99% of the sites will tell the same story; it would rather appear to me most of those guys simpy copied the info and did not bother to research seriously.

The Spitfire lost manouvering as well. The later versions became heavier and sturdier and handling got accordingly affected.

A Spitfire 21 would have a nasty time facing the late 109s, Fw190 D, not to mention the Ta 152.

i. e. During the Battle of Britain the MkI had a carbureted engine, while the 109 E pilots were already enjoying the benefits of fuel injection in their DBs.

That the Sptifire is one of the greatest (and beautiful and ellegant) fighters of the war is totally true; but it was not the perfect thing depicted by my British countrymen. 

So if according to the allied story, the Bf 109 was "showing its age" by 1944 (which it was not), a nearly same thing should be applied to the Spitfire. Most times you can not expect that much objectiveness from victors though.

I have seen LOTS of gun camera footage from Fw190s and Bf 109s showing allied pilots flying P-51s, P-47s, P-38s, Spitfires and Tempests getting their nuts barbecued under the gunfire of the German interceptors.

Citing DJ_Dalton, you should have had the chance of asking Hartmann if his Bf109 got "outclassed" by the unlucky USAAF mustang pilots who met him over Romania.

I have also met some experts and veterans who seriously put into doubt many of the tests carried out by the Brits to compare some versions of the 109 with versions of the Spitfures. Something about "flawed tests" carried out by the Brits that would not show the real deal. Sadly i couldn´t tell with accuracy since it was extremely technically detailed.


----------



## DJ_Dalton (Mar 8, 2005)

Udet said:


> I have also met some experts and veterans who seriously put into doubt many of the tests carried out by the Brits to compare some versions of the 109 with versions of the Spitfures. Something about "flawed tests" carried out by the Brits that would not show the real deal. Sadly i couldn´t tell with accuracy since it was extremely technically detailed.



Udet, 

If you are able to dig deep enough into that RAF test what you will find is that they tested a Bf-109G-6 with underwing 20 mm gondolas (R6) vs. a cleanly configured Spitfire IX. The test is almost comical. The Spitfire only marginally out zoomed it in that configuration. The Spit however was significantly faster at the tested elevations. But high it was barely faster despite the Bf-109's R6 layout. The Experten respected Spitfires, but they were much more concerned with P-47s and P-51's.

The Bf-109 is constantly critiqued for having higher wing loading than the Spitfire. What people don't understand is that the 109 was always a very small and light plane with enormous power to pull it. The higher wing loading that made pure slow turning stall fights harder to accomplish also allowed the 109 to retain energy in high speed passes and climbs that no other plane could match. That is why the Experten loved it.

It was in all likelihood the best and most adaptable plane of the war because of its superior design. In the end the Spitfire wasn't even a Spitfire but the 109 was still the Energy King. I'll point to Hartmann, Rall, Barkhorn and scores of others to substantiate that claim.

Below is the tested plane. As I said, comical.

http://1000aircraftphotos.com/Contributions/Gladwin-Simms/3600L.jpg


----------



## CharlesBronson (Mar 8, 2005)

I dont say anything new but the Spit and the Messer are made equal... the men at the controls make the diference.







Incidentally, a guncam of BF-109.  

I am no sure wich version, seems to be an Ferdinand due his single cannon tracer. Wathever it be, is scoring some 20mm hits in a Spitfire.


----------



## mosquitoman (Mar 8, 2005)

True, a rookie in any fighter would get massacared by an enemy fighter with an expert at the controls


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 9, 2005)

I will agree with you on most points made. However yes the 109 did start to decline in maneuaverability as it got heavier and faster. Dont take me wrong I love the Me-109 it is my favorite aircraft of WW2. It is just a fact. However it still was one of the great aircraft of the war and I agree it was defamed by the Allies. I also agree that the Spitfire was also declining just as the 109. That does not make the Spit a bad aircraft, it was a great aircraft and also one of the greatest ever built. I would the Spit and the 109 on equal turns with one another. And I agree that the pilot behind the controls of the aircraft decides who wins in most cases, but if you put a 109 up against less say an early 1930's biplane (just for example), the pilot in the biplane has no chance no matter how good he is.

The fact is the 109 was a great aircraft and one of the best of the war and so was the Spitfire. Each aircraft was constantly improved to get an edge on the other. It went back and forth throughout the war.


----------



## DJ_Dalton (Mar 9, 2005)

The fact is the 109 was a great aircraft and one of the best of the war and so was the Spitfire. Each aircraft was constantly improved to get an edge on the other. It went back and forth throughout the war.[/quote]

Yes, they were good rivals. I would not say evenly matched though. How can you? The top Experten downed upwards of 70 spitfires. (granted in the following list many of the victories are by FW190's)

http://www.luftwaffe.cz/spit.html

Whenever the Spitfire forged forward in performance the 109 was in a variant to exceed it. The Spit XIV was no match for a G-10 or a K. It was only 10 mph faster than an underwing gondola G-6/ R-6 at 16,000 feet....lol


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 9, 2005)

Yes but the overall I would say the aircraft were evenly matched. You have to understand when a better Spitfire came out it was up against a lesser 109 until a better 109 was built. It just goes back and forth.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 9, 2005)

I wonder what problems the 109Z would have caused for the Allies?


----------



## mosquitoman (Mar 9, 2005)

I haven't heard of that variant, what was different about it?


----------



## Nonskimmer (Mar 9, 2005)

Basically, two 'Messers' in one.


----------



## mosquitoman (Mar 9, 2005)

It looks almost as funny as the He111Z does


----------



## evangilder (Mar 9, 2005)

Would definitely be less prone to ground looping!


----------



## mosquitoman (Mar 9, 2005)

I'm guessing it had quite heavy armament?


----------



## Soren (Mar 9, 2005)

DJ_Dalton and Udet, I couldnt agree more.

The Bf-109 is an underrated airplane, Mark Hanna would tell you the same if he was alive.

Personally I fully agree with Len Deighton's assesment on the Bf-109 vs the Spitfire.

It is sad, but it is true; "History 'is' written by the victor's"


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 10, 2005)

The Bf-109Z actually never flew so what kind of problems it had will never be known. The only prototype built was damaged in an air attack while on the ground.

Bf-109Z



> The Messerschmitt development department received a directive in 1942 to begin work on a Zerstörer (destroyer, or heavy fighter). An earlier RLM directive of 1941 had tried to limit the amount of new designs coming from the major aircraft companies (to not disrupt the production lines with new aircraft), so it was decided to couple two Bf 109 fuselages together, along with a new center wing and tailplane section, to come up with the Me 109Z (Zwilling, or twin).
> The Me 109Z prototype incorporated two Bf 109F-4 fuselages, joined with a new constant chord wing center section and parallel chord tailplane. Included also was the 109F-4 powerplant, the Daimler Benz DB 601E-1 engine (12 cylinder, liquid-cooled, inverted V - 1750 horsepower on takeoff). The main landing gear attachment point were moved inboard to attach to a strengthened centerline keel in each fuselage. The outermost main landing gear retracted outboard; the inner legs retracted into the new center wing section. A single pilot sat in the port cockpit and the starboard cockpit was faired over. Armament on the projected production models varied (see below).
> Several other Me 109Z designs were planned, developed around the 109G fuselages. The Me 109Z was to use around 90% of pre-existing 109 parts, with only the new main wing and tailplane, modified landing gear mountings, slightly larger wheels, extra fuel tanks in place of the starboard cockpit and a few other components needed to complete the aircraft. A prototype was completed in early 1943, but it was damaged in an Allied air attack on the Messerschmitt test center, and the damage was deemed too severe for repair. The development was abandoned in 1944, and by then, the Me 262 jet fighter had taken wing. One interesting note: the North American aircraft company followed the same design (independently) to produce the P-82 Twin Mustang, which was two P-51 fuselages joined in a similar manner as the Me 109Z.
> 
> ...



Here is another interesting Me-109 conversion that also never made it being canceled when the Me-262 came online.

Me-109TL



> The Messerschmitt 109 Turbo-Lader Strahltriebwerk ( turbocharger jet engine) was proposed on January 22, 1943 at an RLM conference as a back-up for the Me 262, of which only three prototypes had been completed at the time. In order to cut down on design and production time, various components from existing aircraft was to be used. The fuselage from the Me 155B high-altitude fighter was to be used (with a new nose and tail section), the wing was from the Me 409 project and the undercarriage came from the Me 309. The armament was to be two MG 151/20 20mm cannon (120 rounds each) and two MK 103 30mm cannon, all in the nose. A later proposal included two MK 108 30mm cannon could be installed in the wing roots. The performance was estimated to be better than the Me 262 due to the Me 109 TL's narrower fuselage. Following intensive study, by March 1943 it was decided that so many modifications to the various components would be needed that no time would be gained over the Me 262 development, thus the project was abandoned.
> Span: 12.55 m (41' 2")
> Length: 9.5 m (31' 2")
> Max. Speed: 980 km/h (609 mph)
> ...


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 10, 2005)

Yeah ive seen the 190TL before. It looks remarkably similar to the 262.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 10, 2005)

yeah i think the -109TL should have been re-designated, it wasn't much of a -109.......


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 10, 2005)

Same basic fuselage and, er, thats about it


----------



## CharlesBronson (Mar 10, 2005)

Another interesting variants was the H, high altitude figther.

BF-109H-O, used F version fuselage.

Motor : DB 601E 1350 hp
wingspan : 11,92 m 
Lenght : 8,85 m 
Max weight : 3800 kg 
Max speed: 750 km/h 
Ceiling : 14600 m 
Armament 1xMK-108 2 MG 17 

H-2:

Motor : Jumo 213 E / DB 605 E 1776 hp
wingspan : 11,92 m 
Lenght : 8,85 m 
Armament: 1 MK 108 2 MG 151/20 + 2 MK 108 or 2 MG 131


----------



## Erich (Mar 10, 2005)

The Bf 109H was used as high altitude recon a/c not a fighter........


----------



## CharlesBronson (Mar 10, 2005)

So heavily armed...?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 11, 2005)

It was originally concieved as a heavily armed high alltitude fighter but none of this type were ever produced. Only a few made it to units for recon.



> A small batch of Bf-109H-0 pre-production aircraft was followed by an equally small production run of Bf-109H-1 fighters. These aircraft were powered by a 1,300 hp DB601E and was armed with two MG 17 machine guns and a single 30mm MK 108 cannon, all in the nose. The aircraft was capable of attaining an absolute altitude of 44,000 feet; no mean accomplishment in those days. Though several other developments were proposed, including a dedicated reconnaissance version and a heavily armed fighter, none were built. A few aircraft were delivered to a Channel coast reconnaissance unit, 3.(F)/121, based at Bernay in April of 1944. However, in all my years of reading and research, I have never seen a single picture of a Bf-109H.


----------



## Erich (Mar 11, 2005)

Friend Dave Wadman from Canada has produced a book on the Recon units and describes H's flown on the recon duties, very few of course as the 109G was available in sufficient numbers.

E


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 11, 2005)

I always thought it was only about 3-5 109H's that made it into units. There was problems with the aircraft from the onset as the original prototype was just a Bf-109F that had its wings lenghened inserting a 2 meter wing section and bracing the tail plane. The aircraft could only read about 44,000ft and had several problems with wing flutter, one even losing a wing in a dive in April 1944. At one point they discussed converting a Me-209 into a High Alltitude fighter but the whole program was dropped in favor of the Ta-152.

Here is some info on the 209 which was originally designed as a race aircraft.



> Messerschmitt's designation Me 209 was actually used for two separate projects during World War II. The first Me 209 was a record-setting single-engined race plane for which little or no consideration was given to adaptation for combat. The second, described below, was the Me 209-II, a proposal for an enhanced version of the highly successful Messerschmitt Bf 109 which served as the Luftwaffe's primary fighter throughout World War II.
> 
> 
> Me 209 V5The second incarnation of the Me 209 project came in 1943 when Willy Messerschmitt proposed an heavily modified version of his extremely successful but aging Me 109. This Me 209 would compete against Focke-Wulf's high performance Fw 190D-9 and Ta 152 fighters. Like these enhanced versions of Kurt Tank's design, the new Me 209 would share most of its airframe with a proven model, in this case the Me 109G. This marked a departure from the first failed Me 209 and later Me 309 projects which had proposed completely new designs.
> ...


----------



## Soren (Mar 12, 2005)

Some interesting info on the elevator-problems accuring with the 109 high speeds. (It seems that problems only accure above 800km/h !  )


----------



## KraziKanuK (Mar 12, 2005)

_Reference Me 109 - wing breakages. Owing to continually recurring accidents caused by wing breakages in Me 109 aircraft attention is drawn to the following:

.......(1) The maximum permissible indicated airspeeds in the different heights are not being observed and are widely exceeded. On the basis of evidence which is now available the speed limitations ordered by teleprint message GL/6 No. 2428/41 of 10.6.41 are cancelled and replaced by the following data:

Up to 3 km	(9,842 ft.)	750 km/h.	(466 m.p.h.)
At 5 km	(16,404 ft)	700 km/h.	(435 m.p.h.)
At 7 km	(22,965 ft)	575 km/h.	(357 m.p.h.)
At 9 km	(29,527 ft)	450 km/h.	(280 m.p.h.)
At 11 km	(36,089 ft)	400 km/h.	(248 m.p.h.)

.......These limitations are valid for the time being for all building series including the Me 109 G. A corresponding notice is to be placed upon all air-speed indicators in aircraft. _

As can be seen the 109 could only reach high speeds in a dive below 3km.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 12, 2005)

Are you sure that is only in a dive, it sounds like the report says in level flight. The one up top says dive yes, but the one on the bottom.


----------



## KraziKanuK (Mar 12, 2005)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Are you sure that is only in a dive, it sounds like the report says in level flight. The one up top says dive yes, but the one on the bottom.



Yes those are dive speeds.


----------



## DJ_Dalton (Mar 12, 2005)

KraziKanuK said:


> _Reference Me 109 - wing breakages. Owing to continually recurring accidents caused by wing breakages in Me 109 aircraft attention is drawn to the following:
> 
> .......(1) The maximum permissible indicated airspeeds in the different heights are not being observed and are widely exceeded. On the basis of evidence which is now available the speed limitations ordered by teleprint message GL/6 No. 2428/41 of 10.6.41 are cancelled and replaced by the following data:
> 
> ...



I guess what Crazy Kanuck is saying is that the Bf-109's couldn't outdive Spitfires. You'd think someome making that implied assertion would link to the whole document. 6/10/41 max speed of 248 at 36K? Maybe. The 109F did have some early structural issues and I wouldn't be surprised if this is what is being referred to. Well, the F slaughtered the contemporary Spitfires....lol

This is too funny.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 12, 2005)

No I was just wondering because it did not say dive speeds, but then again a Bf-109F could not reach any speeds near 400 mph so that would definatly make sense.


----------



## KraziKanuK (Mar 12, 2005)

*TROLL*, no implied assertion but then I can't help you with your lack of reading ability.

Flying Limitations of the Spitfire IX (from Pilot's Notes)
Maximum speeds in m.p.h I.A.S.
Diving (without external stores), corresponding to a Mach No. of -85:

Between S.L. and 20,000 ft. - 450 (724kph)
20,000 and 25,000 ft - 430 (692kph)
25,000 and 30,000 ft. - 390 (628kph)
30,000 and 35,000 ft. - 340 (724kph)
Above ..................35,000 ft. - 310 (499kph)

It should be remembered that the Spitfire was dived at Mach 0.89.


If the troll had visited the link posted on pg 3 he would see. 

Further from the link,

_Dive limitations from: Bf 109 G-2, G-4, G-6 Bedienungsvorschrift, June 1943 edition

.......Dive: Adjust trim in such a way that the airplane can be held in a dive. The elevator forces and tailplane loads become great at high speeds. The tailplane adjustment must work perfectly; otherwise shifting of the tailplane is possible.
Sturzflug: Trimming so einstellen daß das Flugzeug durch Drücken im Sturzflug gehalten werden kann. Die Höhenruderkräfte und Flossenbelastungen werden bei hoher Fahrt sehr groß. Hemmung der Flossen verstellung muß einwandfrei arbeiten; sonst ist Selbst verstellung der Flosse möglich.

.......Maximum diving speed 750 km/h. Hard aileron manipulation while diving leads to failure, particularly when pulling out. Höchstzulässige Sturzfluggeschwindigkeit 750 km/h. Harte querruder betätigung im Sturz und besonders beim Abfangen führt zum Bruch. _


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 12, 2005)

Wow thanks lack of reading ability?


----------



## Nonskimmer (Mar 12, 2005)

I think he was talking to Dalton.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 12, 2005)

Oh I am not offended if it was for me. I am just playing the part.


----------



## DJ_Dalton (Mar 12, 2005)

KraziKanuK said:


> [
> 
> Flying Limitations of the Spitfire IX (from Pilot's Notes)
> Maximum speeds in m.p.h I.A.S.
> ...


*

Yes, reading is a terrible thing to waste.

One thing you might read Krazee Kunuckistani are the accounts of how exasperated the Spit Pilots were with 109's. They could not catch them unless the 109's chose to turn with them. They couldn't catch them in dives and they couldn't catch them in zoom climbs. And thats the way it was from the first day of the war to the last. 



Its gotta hurt to be so fully off base. This Experten died in a collision with debris per his wingman. The British say something else, but who believes them. One pass two 109's. Two downed Spitfires and a mistake in the egress path. This is the way the war went:

http://www.luftwaffe.cz/muncheberg.html*


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 13, 2005)

Here is an interesting comparison between the Bf-109E and the Spitfire Mk. I:


> Spitfire Mk. I versus Me 109 E
> A Performance Comparison
> Introduction:- This narrative makes no attempt at being a full and detailed history of the Spitfire I or Messerschmitt BF 109E, rather its intent is to examine in detail, with emphasis placed on the use of primary source archival material supported by personal accounts, the performance aspects of these aircraft that most books only briefly – and frequently incorrectly - mention.
> 
> ...



And here is one for the Me-109G and the Spitfire Mk. IX:

[quote:3b4ebed288]
Spitfire Mk IX and Me 109 G 
A Performance Comparison
.......The Spitfire IX was a Spitfire VC modified to incorporate a two speed, two stage version of the Merlin engine. This engine, the Merlin 61 initially, replaced the single speed, single stage Merlin 45 or 46 installed in Spitfire Vs. The conversion from Spitfire V to Spitfire IX also required new engine cowlings, a four-bladed Rotol propeller, and two thermostatically controlled radiators. 

.......Deliveries of the Spitfire Mk IX began in June 1942 with No. 64 Squadron of the Hornchurch Wing the first to go operational with the type on 28 July 1942. Success followed quickly as on the 30th 5 FW 190s were destroyed. No. 611 began taking deliveries of Spitfire IXs on 23 July 1942 while at Redhill, a satellite field to Kenley. First operation took place on 5 August, covering the 308th FS USAAF to Le Touquet, with the first success, a FW 190 destroyed and 2 damaged coming on the 17th. No. 401 RCAF started taking deliveries of Spitfire IXs at the end of July, fully converted with the move to Biggin Hill 2 August, performed their first operations with the Spitfire IX on 6 August 1942 and met with their first success on the 17th when they claimed 1 FW190 destroyed, 5 190 probables with 1 damaged. No. 402 RCAF fully converted to Spitfire IXs by 2 August at Redhill with the first operations taking place on 13 August, moved to Kenley on the 14th, their first claim in the type of 1 damaged coming on the 17th. Its notable that Nos. 64, 611, 401, and 402 acting in concert flying their Spitfire IXs, escorted USAAF B-17s on some of their first missions; to Rouen on the 17th, Abbeville on the 19th, Amiens on the 20th, Le Trait on the 24th, Rotterdam on the 27th, Meaulte on the 28th, and Courtrai on the 29th. This signified a change in the air war in the European Theater of Operations. 

....... These early Spitfire IXs were equipped with the Merlin 61, giving 1565 hp at +15 lbs./sq.in. boost and 3,000 rpm (5 minute combat). Maximum level speed was 403 m.p.h. at 27,400 ft. Maximum rate of climb was 3860 ft./min at 12,600 ft. The Merlin 61 was phased out early in 1943 in favour of the Merlin 63, 66 and 70. These new engines had increased power resulting from engine improvements and engine limitations of +18 lbs./sq.in and 3,000 rpm (5 minute combat). The Merlin 63 engined Spitfire IXs first entered service in February 1943 with the Hornchurch and North Weald Wings, but most initally were shipped to North Africa and Malta. Maximum power of the Merlin 63 was 1,710 b.h.p. at 8,500 ft. Maximum speed of the Spitfire F.IX was 408 m.p.h. at 25,000 ft. The LF IX, equipped with the Merlin 66 and frequently referred to as the Spitfire IXB, first went operational in March 1943 with the Biggin Hill Wing, comprised at the time of Nos. 611 and 341 Squadrons. This type was by far the most produced of the Spitfire IX varients. Maximum power of the Merlin 66 was 1,720 b.h.p. at 5,750 ft. Maximum speed of the Spitfire LF.IX was 404 m.p.h. at 21,000 ft. The HF IX, equipped with the high altitude specialized Merlin 70, also entered service in the Spring of 1943, being divvied up amongst the Spitfire IX squadrons in 11 Group with No. 64 squadron amongst the first to put the type to use. Maximum power of the Merlin 70 was 1,710 b.h.p. at 11,000 ft. Maximum speed of the Spitfire HF.IX was 416 m.p.h. at 27,500 ft. All-up weight was about 7,450 lbs. irrespective of varient. 

.......The Spitfire performance results shown below were obtained by the Aeroplane and Armament Experimental Establishment at Boscombe Down. The results given in the reports were corrected to standard atmospheric conditions by the methods of report No. A. A.A.E.E./Res/170 or A. A.E.E. Memorandum dated 27.8.42. The level speed results were corrected to 95% of the take-off weights, while climb results were based on all-up weights. Level speed tests were done with radiator flaps closed while climb tests were done with radiator flaps open. 

.......The ME 109 G differed from its predecessor, the Me 109 F-4, primarily in the replacement of the DB 601 E engine with the the DB 605 A. A total of 167 Me 109 G-1s were built. They entered service with elements of JG 2 in June-July 1942. Prien Rodeike write “Deliveries of the G-2 to the Jagdgeschwader began in June 1942. The first mention of a G-2 in loss reports appears in July 7, 1942.” and “The G6 began reaching the front-line units in February 1943. … The first G-6 fighters were delivered to Jagdgruppen in the Mediterranean area in February 1943 and saw action with JG 53 and JG 77, as well as II./JG 27 and II./JG 51. The first recorded loss of a G-6 occurred on March 4, 1943". The DB 605 A engine equipped the G-1 through G-6 during the mid war years of 1942-43. The engine limitations were 1.3 ata/2600 rpm in accordance with VT-Anweisung Nr.2206 through 1942 and most, if not all, of 1943. The BF 109 G-2, G-4, G6 Service Instruction from June 1943 states: 


Evidence points to the DB 605 A not being fully cleared for 1.42 ata/2800 rpm before spring 1944 (Bf109 G-4/R3, G-6/R3 Bedienungsvorschrift-F1 Ausgabe Februar 1944). Flying weights of the G-1 through G-6 were about 6,834 to 6,944 lbs. 
.......The results of the German trials were corrected to standard temperature and correct setting of the supercharger regulator. Level speed tests were done with radiator flaps in minimum drag position (approx. 50 mm) while climb tests were done with radiator flaps partly open as necessary to maintain proper coolant temperatures (approx 85 deg C). The DB 605 A engine limitations during the performance trials were 1.3 ata and 2600 U/min. 

.......The charts below reflect performance representative of the mid war period 1942-43. 



.......It will be noted that the various German level speed trials results, primarily from the Messerschmitt's Flugerprobung (flight testing) Department, are in good agreement and correspond reasonably well to the figures of the Me 109 G-6 from GL/C-E2 Flugzeug-Entwicklungs-Blatt BF 109. The "average basic model" curve comes from a report compiling data from 25 different flight trials comprising 90 different aircraft (the report states (weit über 100!), however some aircraft were tested and counted more than once), corrected to standard conditions with the results adjusted to the basic model Me 109 G-1 (Grundausführung). Die Kurve ist ein Mittelwert aus den umgerechneten Leistungsmessungen. The varying full throttle heights of the three Merlins can be readily seen. 



Other non-German Me 109 G trials with aircraft in mid-war condition are of passing interest. First there is the Russian data on Me 109 G-2 Wk. Nr. 14513 showing 414 mph at 22,965 feet. While the conditions of the test and aircraft are unclear, the results can be partially understood when the following is taken into account: the engine powers were abnormal (1300 ch at 19,029 feet) and the full throttle height was far above average (Russian - 22,965 feet, German average from flight tests - 21,653 feet). Since the Russian figures exceed the German, they will occasionally be put forth as representative. The Finnish trials of a Me 109 G-2 is another data set occasionally used to describe 109 G performance. Maximum speed reached was 395 mph at 21,062 feet, which is close to the German figures. A closer look shows that the Finnish results are rather stronger at low altitude and significantly weaker above full throttle height as compared to the German figures. Where on the one hand the Finnish level speed figures generate little enthusiasm, the climb results, in contrast, are held in high regard by some. The Finnish climb results exceed the German results by better than 550 ft/min. at sea level and full throttle height (18,700 feet FTH for Finnish and German). While this degree of separation is likely due to different test protocols and correction methods, the spike on the Finnish curve, exceeding German figures by 1,410 ft/min and readily apparent when superimposed on the German curves, must be dismissed as aberrant. 

.......The conclusions of a February 1947 Air Ministry report on Air Fighting Tactics Used By Spitfire Squadrons, summing up the experience in Western Europe, demonstrates that the comparisons charted above with respect to the Spitfire IXB, held in battle: 



Diving speeds compared:
Flying Limitations of the Spitfire IX (from Pilot's Notes) 
Maximum speeds in m.p.h I.A.S. 
Diving (without external stores), corresponding to a Mach No. of -85: 


Between S.L. and 20,000 ft. -450 
20,000 and 25,000 ft. -430 
25,000 and 30,000 ft. -390 
30,000 and 35,000 ft. -340 
Above ..................35,000 ft. -310 

Spitfire Mk. XI: Mach .89 in dive 

Flying Limitations of the Me 109 G (from: Technical Instructions of the Generalluftzeugmeister, Berlin, 28th August 1942.) 

Reference Me 109 - wing breakages. Owing to continually recurring accidents caused by wing breakages in Me 109 aircraft attention is drawn to the following: 

.......(1) The maximum permissible indicated airspeeds in the different heights are not being observed and are widely exceeded. On the basis of evidence which is now available the speed limitations ordered by teleprint message GL/6 No. 2428/41 of 10.6.41 are cancelled and replaced by the following data: 


Up to 3 km (9,842 ft.) 750 km/h. (466 m.p.h.) 
At 5 km (16,404 ft) 700 km/h. (435 m.p.h.) 
At 7 km (22,965 ft) 575 km/h. (357 m.p.h.) 
At 9 km (29,527 ft) 450 km/h. (280 m.p.h.) 
At 11 km (36,089 ft) 400 km/h. (248 m.p.h.) 

.......These limitations are valid for the time being for all building series including the Me 109 G. A corresponding notice is to be placed upon all air-speed indicators in aircraft. 

.......(2) Yawing in a dive leads to high one-sided wing stresses which, under certain circumstances, the wing tip cannot support. When a yawing condition is recognised the dive is to be broken off without exercising force. In a flying condition of yawing and turning at the same time correction must be made with the rudder and not the ailerons. The condition of wing tips is to be examined and checked with TAGL. Bf 109 Nos. 5/41 and 436/41. 

.......(3) Unintentional unlocking of the undercarriage in a dive leads also - especially if only one side unlocks - to high wing stresses. Observation and the carrying out of TAGL. No. 11/42 and the following numbers is, therefore specially important. 
Note. Trouble has been experienced owing to undercarriage unlocking in a dive and a modification has been brought out to prevent this. 

.......The dive speed limits listed above are also to be found in Vorläufige Fluggenehmigung BF 109 G-2 and G-6 

Dive limitations from: Bf 109 G-2, G-4, G-6 Bedienungsvorschrift, June 1943 edition 

.......Dive: Adjust trim in s


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 13, 2005)

i'm buggered if i'm gonna read all that..........


----------



## Nonskimmer (Mar 13, 2005)

I saved it to a Word document. That way, I can read it later.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 13, 2005)

Wise choice it took me forever to read it.


----------



## CharlesBronson (Mar 27, 2005)

A interesting serie of color profiles.


Messerschmitt Me 109E-3
4. Staffel, II. Gruppe, JG 77
Pilot: Oberleutnant Helmut Henz (Staffelkapitän)
Poland, September 1939








Messerschmitt Me 109E-1
Stab, JG 53
Pilot: Oberleutnant Wilfried Balfanz
Kirchberg im Hunsrück, Germany, Autumn 1939







Messerschmitt Me 109E-3
Stab, JG53
Pilot: Major Hans-Jurgen von Cramon-Taubadel (Geschwader Kommodore)
Thevile-Maupertus (Cherbourg-Ost), France, August 1940






This 109E-3 has an interesting story attached to the markings. Major von Cramon-Taubadel was married to a Jewish wife, a fact which came to the attention of Hermann Goering during the Battle of France. As a result he ordered that the whole of JG 53 must remove their famous Ace of Spades badge and paint a red band around the noses of their aircraft as a mark of shame. In the Autumn of 1940 von Cramon-Taubadel was removed as Geschwader Kommodore and Goering told them they could reinstate their "Pik-As" badge; this they did but at the same time, as a mark of protest, all the pilots of JG 53 had the Swastikas painted over on their aircraft. Thus it is easy to recognise JG 53 109's late in the Battle of Britain as they have no Swastikas on them.



Messerschmitt Me 109F-2
1. Staffel, I. Gruppe, JG3
Pilot: Oberleutnant Robert Olejnik (Staffelkapitän)
Eastern Front, Summer 1941






Here a Me 109F-2 on the Eastern Front not long after the initial German invasion of the USSR. The basic camouflage is of RLM02 Grau and RLM70 Schwarzgrün in a splinter pattern on top with RLM76 Lichtblau underneath and sides, the blue having a mottling of both the grey and the green over it on the sides. Yet again we have considerable use of yellow identification paint under the nose, wingtips and band around the rear fuselage



http://www.ipmsstockholm.org/


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 27, 2005)

nice profiles.........


----------



## Schöpfel (Mar 27, 2005)

If by "best" one looks at how the varient stacked up against its comtemporaneous adversaries, I'd say the Bf 109F was "best". Early '42 was when the 109, imo, had the largest edge over its opposition. 

p.s. I found those Spit/109 comparisons copied above at: http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spittest.html

Interesting reading... Apparently there is some real 109 flight trials datas there! That's refreshing after seeing mostly calculated stuff on the BF 109.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 28, 2005)

I will agree with you on the F.


----------



## Erich (Mar 28, 2005)

disagree, the G-10


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 28, 2005)

The "Gustav" is deffinatly my favorite but, especially the G-6 however I do believe the F was the best matched against allied fighters of the same time I beileve.


----------



## CharlesBronson (Mar 28, 2005)

Is a very subjetive matter. Generally speaking the Messers with the Erla haube and/or without cowling bulges for MG, are slender and more streamlined.
However the early G-6 have give a sensation of battleworthiness hardly seen in others aircraft.

Example: Take a look at this wallpapers. 














Images from: http://www2.cc22.ne.jp/~harada/Bf_109_G6/G6_1_1.html


----------



## Anonymous (Mar 29, 2005)

I'm surprised Soren is going nuts over Alders post!

8) 

Lunatic


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 29, 2005)

Who?

Nice pics by the way.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 29, 2005)

nice pics.......


----------



## Anonymous (Mar 29, 2005)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Who?
> 
> Nice pics by the way.



http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/viewtopic.php?p=61962#61962

I suspect it is just another nick for Dalton.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## Soren (Mar 29, 2005)

RG_Lunatic said:


> DerAdlerIstGelandet said:
> 
> 
> > Who?
> ...



Do you think I am Dalton ??   

Now your really Stretching it !!

RG remember "one shall not judge !"


----------



## Soren (Mar 29, 2005)

After lots of tests with the La-5FN, these were some of the conclusions...

The testing was carried out in September 1944 at Gross Schimanen, East Prussia.

*Turning circles:*

_"The smallest turning circle at rated power at 2400m is about 28/30 sec for a stable 360 degree turn at constant height. This implies a minimum time for a 360 degree turn at 1000m, with emergency power, of about 25 sec."_

*The tactical conclusions and advice offered to German fighter pilots:*

_"The La 5FN is best suited to low altitude combat by virtue of its engine performance. Its top speed at ground level is slightly below that of the 190 and 109 (using MW 50). The 109 with MW 50 is superior over the whole height band in top speed and climb rate. Acceleration is comparable. Aileron effectiveness is better than the 109. Turning times at ground level are better than the 190 and worse than the 109.
In rate of climb the 190 is poorer until 3000m. Because of its greater weight the 190 accelerates less well than the La5FN, but by the same token is superior in the dive. It is basically right to dive away like an American Thunderbolt when flying a 190, thereafter to pull away in a high speed shallow climb to reach a new attacking position, not to let the speed drop and to avoid prolonged turning dogfights."_


Source: "Luftwaffe Test Pilot" by Hans Werner Lerche. He flew virtually all captured Allied aircraft and most German types, including experimental models. 

These tests should be regarded as atleast as reliable as Allied tests !

Hans Werner Lerche:





The La-5FN in question:


----------



## Anonymous (Mar 29, 2005)

Wrong thread Soren.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 30, 2005)




----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 30, 2005)

I am completely thrown off of track now!


----------



## CharlesBronson (Apr 6, 2005)

This is the BF-109 V-13.








Used as a record aircraft, this special version had a very overhauled DB-601 engine, It was feeded by a mix of 85 % 96 octane "C3", and 15 % methil alcohol. The compresor was also reinforced to achieve a maximum output of 1650 Hp.

This craft won the price when it manage to achieve 611 Km/h, the new world speed record in late 1937.

A close up of cockpit.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 6, 2005)

wow shiney..........

check this out.................



> SUPERMARINE HIGH-SPEED SPITFIRE - Single Supermarine Spitfire I (K9834) diverted from RAF contract in 1938 and modified (as Supermarine Type 323) for attempt on World Air Speed Record for landplanes. First flown December 14, 1938, and speed of 408 mph (656 km/h) achieved at 3,000 ft (914 m), but record objective abandoned in 1939. Fitted with Merlin XII engine and three-bladed propeller, and single F.24 oblique camera behind cockpit, used by PRU at Heston (later Benson) for one operational sortie and then as station hack throughout war. Span reduced to 33 ft 8 in (10.25 m).



Source for picture and text- www.jaapteeuwen.com


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 7, 2005)

Good stuff, that was back when the planes were still sleek and clean.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 7, 2005)

damn right..........

i am a hugh fan of the shuttleworth collection as well............


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 7, 2005)

The what?


----------



## KraziKanuK (Apr 7, 2005)

CharlesBronson said:


> This is the BF-109 V-13.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Radinger and Schick in their 109A-E book say only 50% was C3 fuel.


----------



## CharlesBronson (Apr 7, 2005)

To be or not to to be, that is the question.

I honestly think that is a huge proportion, 15 % seems more adecuate.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 8, 2005)

Alder, the shuttleworh collection is, well, a collection over here in england, they specailise in pre WWII aircraft and have some of the oldest flyers in the world, some of their planes being pre-WWI, they have some true classics from the "golden age" of aviation, and some extremely unusual types, check out the link..............

http://www.shuttleworth.org/shuttleworth/index.htm


----------



## KraziKanuK (Apr 8, 2005)

CharlesBronson said:


> To be or not to to be, that is the question.
> 
> I honestly think that is a huge proportion, 15 % seems more adecuate.



CB, during the war when MW50 injection was used, it could be ~25-30% of the fuel to get ~200hp more. 150 l/h of MW50 > 480-580 l/h fuel

This 601 engine produced at least 5-600hp more than what it was capable of for long term reliable operations in 1937.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 10, 2005)

I was searching through some of my books and I still am but I can not find anything on the correct mixture.


----------



## Anonymous (Apr 10, 2005)

Well, I think if even 15% of the fuel mixture were actually MW50 fluid (50% methanol, 49% distilled water, 1% top oil), power would go down not up. A cylinder has a maximum fuel charge it can burn, if the mixture is any richer than that, it is not going to have enough oxygen to burn all the fuel and power will go down. The MW50 fluid is only useful to prevent detonation, in and of itself it provides little power increase (there is a little from water expansion, but more fluid is injected than the small amount that provides this benefit).

My one venture into alcohol/water injection on car engines showed that maximum water injection levels were far less 10% the flow of the fuel, any more and power went down. A pint of alcohol/water would last through more than a gallon of gas, probably 2, when drag racing at the raceway. I don't have exact figures because we just adjusted the screw until the power was maximized and marked where to set it.

BTW: using water injection messes up the rings and valves! An expensive lesson learned.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 11, 2005)

Thanks for telling me that about the rings and valves, I know not to try it!


----------



## DJ_Dalton1 (Apr 18, 2005)

RG_Lunatic said:


> DerAdlerIstGelandet said:
> 
> 
> > Who?
> ...



How could you suspect it was me? First off, I refute your silly contentions far too easily and leave you crying like a little girl having lost her baby doll. Soren doesnt dispose of you as efficiently. Also, I don't argue the contestable points, like turn rate. I pick my battles. I remember when you tried to tell me the Sillyfires could outdive 109's and I've seen you contend 109's in a dive were frozen ropes when it was the Mustangs that couldn't handle the G's and pressure. Sure they could Runstang a 109 but thats all they could do.

Your Pig51 Meredith Effect still has me guffawing! LMAO


----------



## KraziKanuK (Apr 18, 2005)

I see the troll is back.

The only place the 109 could outdive a Spit was below 10,000ft.

109G
Up to 3 km(9,842 ft.)	750 km/h.	(466 m.p.h.)
At 5 km	(16,404 ft)	700 km/h.	(435 m.p.h.)
At 7 km	(22,965 ft)	575 km/h.	(357 m.p.h.)
At 9 km	(29,527 ft)	450 km/h.	(280 m.p.h.)
At 11 km(36,089 ft)	400 km/h.	(248 m.p.h.)


Spit IX
Between S.L. and 20,000 ft.	- 450
20,000 and 25,000 ft.	- 430
25,000 and 30,000 ft.	- 390
30,000 and 35,000 ft.	- 340
Above ..................35,000 ft.	-310

Nice of you to leave out this:

_"At its rather dissapointing low-level crusing speed of 240 mph (386km/h) the Gustav was certainly a delight to fly, but the situation changed as speed increased; in a dive at 400mph (644km/h) the controls felt like they had seized! The highest speed that I dived to below 10000ft (3048m) was 440mph (708km/h) and the solidity of the controls was such that this was the limit in my book. However, things were very different at high altitude, and providing that the Gustav was kept where it was meant to be (ie: above 25000ft / 7620m) it performed efficiently both in dogfighting and as an attacker of bomber formations. To give some idea of its performance, O meansured 384mph (618km/h) in level flight at 23000ft (7010m) which conformed pretty well with the officially claimed maximum speed of 386mph (621km/h) at 22640ft (6900m)."_


----------



## DJ_Dalton2 (Apr 18, 2005)

KraziKanuK said:


> I see the troll is back.



Krazy Kannuk I deleted your fictional dive speeds out because they are made up numbers and not comparative in any way. If you want to print them again you may, but they are circular file material. 

I obtained the full text of the "Central Fighter Establishment" comparative trial between the previously referred to Bf-109G-6/U2 and several allied aircraft including a Spitfire IX, Spitfire XIV and a Mustang III. It is attached below. In this report the CFE clearly concluded the gondola 109 left a IX in a dive and the XIV struggled with it. Whats even more revealing is that in the CFE report the unserviceability of the 109 is mentioned. (They didn't know how to maintain it and yet with gondolas it outperformed their aircraft in many respects.)

The text you cite below are the writings of the English test pilot Eric Brown. He actually thought he was test flying a Gustav used as a front line fighter or at least thats what he wrote. He did mention the Gustav he tested was the Bf-109 in question, werk no. 412951 and that it was an all around plane. I'll attach his commentary below as well. It did pretty well for carrying those unwieldy pods didnt it?

So, I have not left out anything and if you read the attached files you'll get an understanding about why the British were so sensitive about this issue. The Americans had to pull their fat from the fire.



> Nice of you to leave out this:
> 
> _"At its rather dissapointing low-level crusing speed of 240 mph (386km/h) the Gustav was certainly a delight to fly, but the situation changed as speed increased; in a dive at 400mph (644km/h) the controls felt like they had seized! The highest speed that I dived to below 10000ft (3048m) was 440mph (708km/h) and the solidity of the controls was such that this was the limit in my book. However, things were very different at high altitude, and providing that the Gustav was kept where it was meant to be (ie: above 25000ft / 7620m) it performed efficiently both in dogfighting and as an attacker of bomber formations. To give some idea of its performance, O meansured 384mph (618km/h) in level flight at 23000ft (7010m) which conformed pretty well with the officially claimed maximum speed of 386mph (621km/h) at 22640ft (6900m)."_



I want to thank my new friend Peter Evans at 

http://p069.ezboard.com/fluftwaffeexperten71774frm90.showMessage?topicID=41.topic 

for being kind enough to provide me with the full text of CFE-3, which is the report for the Bf-109 in question. I’ll try to attach the salient parts of the report but if my attempt fails Peter has the document in his files. (The zip file transfered and is below.) 

Everyone is free to draw their own conclusions, but Peter’s document is dispositive to me that the subject aircraft was tested with under wing gondolas. In support of that conclusion I would cite the report under “Brief Description of the Aircraft”. Initially, the report states under paragraph 2: 

“The Me-109G/6 is a small single wing, single seater, single engine, short range fighter…” 

This is certainly true, however the report further clarifies the nature of the fighter tested in the tactical trial by stating the following under paragraph 4: 

“The armament consists of 2 x 13 mm machine guns mounted above the engine, 1 MG 151/20 mm cannon firing through the airscrew hub, and 2 x 151/20 mm cannon in under wing gondolas”. 

Additionally, the photos of this tested aircraft depict it configured with under wing gondolas. No mention is made in CFE-3 that said gondolas were removed for the test on the contrary the description of the tested plane indicates a gondola configuration. 

What does it all mean? Well it means the Bf-109G-6 was capable of performance significantly exceeding that indicated. It means that the aerodynamics, climb rate and speed of the 109 tested was significantly under reported. It means the Bf-109G-6 was probably at least an even odds match for the Spitfire IX and it probably means that the Spitfire XIV was not superior in all respects. (Significantly, the 109G-6 was not the pinnacle of performance in the 109. The G-14, G-10 and K-4 exceeded its performance in that order.) 

But what it really means is that the German Experten of WWII did not amass their mind numbing records with inferior planes.


----------



## KraziKanuK (Apr 19, 2005)

LOL, you dispute factory dive speeds, for both a/c?

Your new friend(??) almost closed the thread because you could not conduct yourself in a proper manner.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 19, 2005)

Wow this one got pretty heavy here.


----------



## CharlesBronson (Apr 19, 2005)

This is a weird one. It is the a Bf-109, The BF-109 V-21 to be accurate.

The completely new look is due it was equipped with an american Pratt Whitney R-1830 two row radial. This 1200 hp engine was used to test the two row emplacement because there is no available german
two row radials designs at that time (July 1938) 
The first BMW of this tipe, the 18 cilinder BMW 139 was a failure as probably you now.






The cockpit seems completely new also.






Funny thing, but we could say that this BF-109 was a prototipe for...the Focke-Wulf FW-190A.!!


----------



## DJ_Dalton2 (Apr 19, 2005)

Very little of the above plane looks like a 109. The rudder and undercarriage. 1938 thats apparently the early squared wings. The oddest thing is the fuselage. its got a "bubble canopy".


----------



## KraziKanuK (Apr 20, 2005)

DJ_Dalton2 said:


> Very little of the above plane looks like a 109. The rudder and undercarriage. 1938 thats apparently the early squared wings. The oddest thing is the fuselage. its got a "bubble canopy".



The a/c had the fuselage reworked from frame 7 forward, naturally, since a radial had to be fitted. WN4 1776 was V17, the carrier trial a/c. The V15 WNr 1773 was the prototype E model. Notice the WNr series.

I guess we can take what you have to say about the 109 with a grain of salt since you seem to at a loss about the V21, WNr 1770, D-IFKQ. It later received the code KB+II. Another a/c received the BMW801. This was BF109X, WNr 5608, D-ITXP which was flown by Wendel on Sept 2 1939.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 20, 2005)

The Bf 109 X was powered by a BMW 801 A-0 radial engine. The only aircraft built was used for testing and for competition with the Focke-Wulf Fw 190. First flight was made on September 2, 1940, and it made some flights until the end of 1941. The wing span was reduced to 9.33 m (30 ft 7 in). 

Another Bf 109 was fitted with a radial engine, the Bf 109 V21, which was powered by a Pratt Whitney Twin Wasp SC-G rated at 880 kW (1200 HP). It had a standard Bf 109 E fuselage. Flown at August 17, 1939. 

The BMW 801 was a 14 cylinder twin-radial engine with supercharger and fuel injection and a Komandogeraet (command-device) which controlled the throttle, the supercharger and the ignition with only one lever. 

Technical Data:

Type : 14 cylinder radial
Bore : 156 mm (6.15 in)
Stroke :	156 mm (6.15 in)
Volume :	41.8 l (2550 cu in)
Weight :	1210 kg (2670 lb)
Power (801 A) :	1175 kW (1600 HP) at 2700 rpm
Continuous: 940 kW (1280 HP)

The Pratt Whitney Twin Wasp was a 14 cylinder twin-radial engine. 


Technical Data:

Type: 14 cylinder twin-radial
Bore: 139.7 mm (5.50 in)
Stroke: 139.7 mm (5.50 in)
Volume: 30.0 l (1830 cu in)	
Power: 880 kW (1200 HP)


----------



## DJ_Dalton2 (Apr 20, 2005)

KraziKanuK said:


> I guess we can take what you have to say about the 109 with a grain of salt since you seem to at a loss about the V21, WNr 1770, D-IFKQ. It later received the code KB+II. Another a/c received the BMW801. This was BF109X, WNr 5608, D-ITXP which was flown by Wendel on Sept 2 1939.



lol, I'll candidly admit I pay little attention to test model variants. If the version didn't see action its irrelevant to me. 

The thing that bothers me is the revisionist history in this field. The allies just did not want to acknowledge that the German Experten could have shot down as many planes as they did. The Germans were evil. They were substandard. They were the Hun. They had been defeated. How could they have shot down so many allied aircraft? There must be an explanation! And then the rationalization began. Many of the writers on the subject were allied pilots bringing in their own national and war tempered bias. The story I posted by Eric Brown, supra, for instance. He thought he was testing a front line fighter in testing Werk No. 412951 when he was piloting a gondola bomber hunter. (Even then he said it was marvelous in the thin air) I'm convinced the literary world has evaluated the Gustav upon this evaluation. I've never seen reference to another comparative trial with a Gustav. Obviously, the comparative trial indicates that the maximum performance of the 109 was never evaluated. 

British pilots did ok against 109s when they suprised them with E and altitude. A Rat could knock out a Corsair with that advantage though. Thats the way it went in the war. Try to engage with an advantage. On equal terms a 109 was a handful and thats why it was so successful.

If I could fly one aircraft from WWII I'd want to fly a 109G-6, because no other aircraft every claimed more kills and no other aircraft ever will. I'd be afraid to fly it though. Its a dangerous machine. Far more 109s were lost in take off and landing accidents than in battle. (Though i'm sure battle damage had something to do with that) 

I'd take it up to 20,000 feet in a WEP grab and get there much sooner than the published climb maximum. At 20,000 feet I'd level out and attain 400 mph. I'd put the nose down and pull up into the clouds standing the Gustav on its tail. For thousands of feet straight up it would pull with no hint of the engine cutting out and no fear of a spin when it finally lost its momentum and fell softly over to its left. 

Sometimes I think, I already have.

DJ


----------



## mosquitoman (Apr 20, 2005)

DJ_Dalton2 said:


> A Rat could knock out a Corsair with that advantage though. Thats the way it went in the war.



I agree, 99% of fighter-fighter combat occured when someone got bounced and didn't see the enemy


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 21, 2005)

DJ_Dalton2 said:


> KraziKanuK said:
> 
> 
> > I guess we can take what you have to say about the 109 with a grain of salt since you seem to at a loss about the V21, WNr 1770, D-IFKQ. It later received the code KB+II. Another a/c received the BMW801. This was BF109X, WNr 5608, D-ITXP which was flown by Wendel on Sept 2 1939.
> ...



Very interesting annalasis and very possibly true.


----------



## CharlesBronson (Apr 28, 2005)

Very cute pic. the plane is a Bf-109E-1


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 29, 2005)

Yeah thats a good one.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 29, 2005)

Great pic! 8)


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 30, 2005)

I always liked the picture of the Bf-109 with the tropical paint scheme where it looks like a Chocolate Chip Cookie and blends in with the ground. I have many picture of it in my books but I can not find one online, does anyone have one?


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 30, 2005)

i know the pic you're on about, i have it in books too, it's an amazing picture............


----------



## Titus70 (Apr 30, 2005)

this article is from: www.aeroscientists.org/aircraft.html 
it reads.....


The P-51 Mustang and the Spitfire are often thought of as the best fighters of WWII. They were not. The Me109 was much better and here are its secrets!

Statistic:
Year---German aircraft lost---British aircraft lost
1941---------183--------------------950
1942---------272--------------------900

Question: During WWII, the average kill ratio in combat was 1 to 10 on the Eastern front and 1 to 4 on the Western front including the Battle of Britain to give an average of 1 to 7 for the Me109. For every German shot down, 7 Allied fighters were shot down. What was the reason for this statistic.
Answer: Answers are given below. For more photos and diagrams please visit:
www.aeroscientists.org/aircraft.html

Beside the Fw190 and the Me 262, the Me 109 was one of the best designed and most awesome fighters of WWII.

During WWII, 33,000 single seater and 6,000 two seat trainers of the Me 109 were produced in Germany.

At a recent air show in California, pilot Skip Holm was asked to take the Me 109 up in a mock dogfight with 2 P-51s. In the mock dogfight the 2 P-51's could not get a sight on the Me 109 because it was too maneuverable. Of course Skip was a better pilot which also made a difference. 

Me109G, 1941 P-51D Mustang, 1943 Spitfire VC, 1941
Gross weight 7,500 lbs 11,200 lbs 6,785 lbs 
Engine DB605A V-1650-7 Merlin Merlin 45
Power 1,475 hp 1,450 hp 1,470 hp
Wing area 173 sq.ft. 233 sq.ft. 242 sq.ft.
Climb rate 2,250 fpm  1,500 fpm 2,000 fpm
Vmax 413 mph 437 mph 369 mph
Cl max 2.9 1.6 1.6
Stall speed 76 mph 107 mph 82 mph
Wing root NACA 2R1 14.2 NACA/NAA 45-100 NACA 2213
airfoil

One of the secrets of the Me109 is its wing. A unique design like no other. The Me109 used Fowler flaps and leading edge (LE) slats with a NACA 2R1 14.2 airfoil at the root so that a max lift coefficient of 2.9 could be achieved. The LE slats were used for landing and during combat maneuvers.

The P-51 and the Spitfire used a simple flap and no slats for which the max lift coefficient is 1.6 (almost one half). The Me 109 also used a forgiving airfoil. The P-51 used a NACA/NAA 45-100 laminar flow airfoil which had not been well tested and could not achieve laminar flow because of the riveted skin. With its sharp LE, the P-51 had a sharp and bad stall. As such, the Me 109 could use a smaller wing. The Me 109 had a long tail moment arm and the rudder was 50%C. As such, it could be yawed from right to left by 30 to 40 degrees to spray bullets. The P-51 could not be yawed and had to be pointed at a target. The P-51 also had a bad stall-spin characteristics from which it would often not recover. It would loose 10,000 ft of altitude in a power on stall. See POH picture.
Below is the wing section of the Me109 with slat and flap.
With the same power in the Me109 and an empty weight of 1,700 lbs less, the climb rate of the Me109 was substantially higher that of the P-51. Its take off distance was half. The heavy gun on the Me109 shot through the engine and other guns were mounted inboard on the fuselage and shot through the prop. The P-51 and the Spitfire guns were mounted on the wing outboard of the prop. The roll inertia of the Me109 was lower allowing it to roll much much faster. Because of the fantastic handling characteristics of the Me109, the P-51 was no match for the Me 109.
The performance of the Me 109 and the Spitfire is almost the same. However, the Spitfire had an average 25-20%C plain aileron with little aerodynamic balance which, despite differential control, gave it a very heavy stick force in roll compared to the light stick force of the Me 109. With a 50% span and narrow chord, Frise, aileron, the Me109 stick forces were very low in roll. It could do a complete roll in less than 3 seconds. This was much quicker than any Allied fighter. The Me109 was more evasive than the Spitfire or the P-51 which were slow in roll and much less agile. 
Furthermore, the Merlin used in the Spitfire was naturally carbureted and could not operate in a negative g maneuver. This anomaly was not corrected until 1943. The Me109's Daimler Benz engine was fuel injected from its first inception in 1936. As such the Me 109 could easily do a pull over (negative g maneuver) and escape an attacking Spitfire. 

Below is a warning for pilots from the P-51D Pilots Handbook (note: please visit: 
www.aeroscientists.org/aircraft.html for relevant diagram/illustrations...highly recommended.)


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 30, 2005)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> I always liked the picture of the Bf-109 with the tropical paint scheme where it looks like a Chocolate Chip Cookie and blends in with the ground. I have many picture of it in my books but I can not find one online, does anyone have one?



I think I found the pic but its a bit small


----------



## KraziKanuK (Apr 30, 2005)

LOL, Titus were did you get some of your info from?

Merlins got FI by Bendix or RR. 

_6000 109 trainers_ ???

The only trainer 109 was the 109G-12 of which around 500 were manufactured. Now if the 109 was so easy to fly, why did a trainer model have to be made?

_Me109G, 1941_ ???

The G-1 was not delivered to any LW JG until June 1942 and in limited numbers.

_Me109 used Fowler flaps_ ???

Do you know how Fowler flaps work? The 109s flaps did not move back and down but were hinged along a single line.

The 109 also lacked aileron and rudder trim. The lack of rudder trim had the pilot pushing one rudder pedal or the other depending on the speed above or below the fixed trim setting. Very tiring for the pilot.

_Climb rate 2,000 fpm_ ???

Now where did you get this number from? The Spit VC had an intial climb rate of 3700f/m.

_Vmax 413 mph_ ???

Where did you get this number from for the 109G? You seem to be mixing data from different versions of the G.


----------



## evangilder (Apr 30, 2005)

Here you go Adler. From the back cover of Axis Aircraft of WWII.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 30, 2005)

I love that picture 8)


----------



## Glider (Apr 30, 2005)

In reply to Titus there are a couple of things (in fact more than a couple) which punch holes in your argument.
1 In 1941 the 109 that faces off to the Spit V is the 109F not G. Everyone will agree that a MkV would have a tough time against a G but the F was considered a close match with both planes having their advantages and disadvantages. If you want to compare a 109G then you should use the Mk 9 which is a very different animal
2 The 109 had a vicious stall with no warning which meant that pilots had to be very careful when doing combat manoevers. This in turn meant that only the very best pilots could get the best out of the aircraft. Both the P51 and the Spit of any mark had far better handling characteristics which was of a significant benefit when you consider that the vast majority of pilots were at best average and a fair percentage novices.
3 There are benefits to having the guns on the centre line but the only one that would really benefit is the cannon as any gun that fired through a prop had its rate of fire reduced by at least 10% and often up to 30%.
4 All parties agreed that the 109 was undergunned. I think I am right is saying that Galland had extra guns fitted to his planes where possible and he was an excellent shot.
5 Most pilots found shooting exceptionally difficult and having extra firepower over a wider area (if not taken to extreme) is no bad thing.
6 Why did a lot of people in the know prefer the He100 to the 109 before the war?
7 Last but by no means least. If the 109 was so good, Why did the vast majority of German pilots prefer the 190?


----------



## Titus70 (Apr 30, 2005)

Hi KrazyKanuk, it's me Titus70 

I've read your comments.

You appear to have misread the article from aeroscientists.org which I submitted. 

I copied and pasted the article 'Secrets of the Messerschmitt Me109' onto this forum, direct from it's website address, and in doing so it appears that the original webpage statistical and performance figures are very closely bunched together when pasted to this forum, making them difficult if not confusing to read. On the relevant webpage the graphics/text are visually far better layed out and much easier to comprehend. 

KrazyKanuk, I'll try to explain the figures clearer for you.

'Me 109G' is separated by a ' , ' [comma] from '1941 P-51D Mustang'.
The year 1941 applies to the P-51D Mustang in the article, not to the Me 109G. I hope that makes it clearer. You have mistakenly applied the year '1941' to the Me 109, when it really is referring to the P-51D Mustang. 

My apologies, to all readers, who have attempted to access the webpage via the URL I provided on this forum discussion - I tried to submit the whole web page relating to 'Secrets of The Messerschmitt' article via this forum but unfortunately the page does not load correctly. Most annoying.

The full URL address is given below. Perhaps you can copy and paste it into your internet browser address bar. 
I hope it will link you there o.k. It is....

http://64.233.179.104/search?q=cach...sts.org/aircraft.html+stall+speed+ME109&hl=en

If you have any luck let me know.

P.S.
KrazyKanuk,
If you will supply me with an email address via your member profile on this forum (I searched your profile, but you haven't got it listed) I will be more than happy to send you the whole article with photos and diagrams.
The webpage appears to email o.k.......Also you can then forward the issues you have about any of the presented data directly with the aeroscientists.org science community, who have published it on the internet. I wish you goodluck.

Please contact me via this forum if you have any problems.

P.S P.S.
As for my personal opinion on the best Me109 variant.
I would go for the Bf 109 F (Freidrich)......I think it was a wonderful fighterplane. Very maneuverable in a dog fight.
This was the fighter plane used by Luftwaffe Aces Galland and Marseille who both racked up over 100 kills each. 

The landing safety issues concerning the Me109 appear to be often due to poor pilot training. In the hands of an experienced pilot, or a well trained pilot - no problem.
Top aces like Rall, Galland, rated the Bf 109 F (Friedrich) version very highly and favourably. Such is the consensus of those who have been in a position of having flown one. 

There appears to be a lot of disinformation intentional/unintentional on the internet surrounding the the performance and ability of the Messerschmitt Me109 and it's variants. In my personal opinion in the hands of an experienced pilot it was probably the best all round fighter plane of World War II. 

Cheering 

Titus70


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 30, 2005)

evan said:


> From the back cover of Axis Aircraft of WWII.



hey i got that book too, yes, i have a book solely about non british aircraft, i know, i was amazed to when i found out other contries made planes..........


----------



## evangilder (Apr 30, 2005)

Titus70 said:


> 'Me 109G' is separated by a ' , ' [comma] from '1941 P-51D Mustang'.
> The year 1941 applies to the P-51D Mustang in the article, not to the Me 109G. I hope that makes it clearer. You have mistakenly applied the year '1941' to the Me 109, when it really is referring to the P-51D Mustang.
> Titus70



I think you are not looking at the article correctly, Titus. The line clearly showed:
_Me109G, 1941 P-51D Mustang, 1943 Spitfire VC, 1941 _

There was no P-51D in 1941. The first prototype flew on October 26, 1940 and the first production example flew on May 1, 1941. The first P-51D, which was really an XP-51D took it's maiden flight on November 17, 1943. 

While I personally think the Me-109 (Bf-109) was a great airplane, the article and facts you presented is riddled with inaccuracies.


----------



## KraziKanuK (Apr 30, 2005)

Titus,

straight from the link you posted > *Me109G, 1941* P-51D Mustang, 1943 Spitfire VC, 1941 which gave a 404 before.

Why did you not mention the toe-in that caused many landing accidents? Yes even for some experten.

As Evan said, your link has no credibility, since it is riddled with inaccuracies.


----------



## Soren (Apr 30, 2005)

Titus presented site might be riddled with inaccuracies, but the video quote is the deciding factor, and "Skip" says he can easely take on five or six Mustangs and that the 109 "Turns on a Dime".

The written info on the site might be inaccurate, but the video with a modern pilot who actually flies these aircraft is the one you guy's should be paying attention to !


----------



## evangilder (Apr 30, 2005)

I take no pilot seriously who claims he can take on 5 or 6 enemy planes at one time while flying a WWII fighter. Numerical superiority is what beat the Luftwaffe, right? There were Filipino pilots that took down Zeros while flying P-26 Peashooters! I understand that fighter pilots are cocky and brave, but taking on 5 to 6 enemy aircraft at any time is a fool's errand. That kind of arrogance is what gets people killed.

The written parts of the website are going to be what people look at first, typically. The problem with the web is that there is no accountability for accuracy and once a claim is made, it gets propagated.


----------



## Anonymous (Apr 30, 2005)

LOL - Titus that "mock dogfight" is totally bogus. None of the planes involved were pulling anything even close to combat power nor were they exceeding even 300 mph in a dive. At such low power output levels and speeds the lightest plane wins every time. That does not mean anything w.r.t. actual WWII combat!

The guy who wrote that article has so much info wrong it's rediculous. Look at the errors:

*Bf109G*

He lists the Bf109G as a 1941 plane, it was a 1943 plane.
He lists the weight as 7500 lbs, actual weights were: Empty 5900 lbs, Normal takeoff 6950 lbs, Maximum 7500 lbs.
He lists the DB605A engine as having 1475 HP - which is correct.
He lists the top speed as 413 mph, it was 387 mph for this engine.
He lists the climb as 2500 fpm. In fact the climb was 5791 meters (19000 ft) in 6 minutes, an average RoC of 3167 fpm.
source: http://www.bf109.com/performance.html#G6

*P-51D*
He lists the P-51D as a 1943 plane, it was in fact a 1944 plane.
He lists the weight as 11200 lbs, actual weights were: Empty 6433 lbs, Normal takeoff 10100lbs, Maximum 12100 lbs.
He lists the Merlin 1650-7 engine as having had 1450 HP, when in fact it had 1650 HP, 1720-1750 HP at WEP.
He lists the top speed as 437 mph - it was in fact about 445 mph.
He lists the rate of climb as 1500 fpm. In fact the climb was 20,000 feet in 7.3 minutes (faster at +25 lbs boost), an average RoC of 2740 fpm.

The actual combat weight of the Bf109 would be about 6700 lbs, where for the P-51D it would be about 9400 lbs.

This article is so bogus that it is not worth further comment. The author is an idiot!

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## Anonymous (Apr 30, 2005)

Soren said:


> Titus presented site might be riddled with inaccuracies, but the video quote is the deciding factor, and "Skip" says he can easely take on five or six Mustangs and that the 109 "Turns on a Dime".
> 
> The written info on the site might be inaccurate, but the video with a modern pilot who actually flies these aircraft is the one you guy's should be paying attention to !



I cannot download the video, or even open the site. Can you post it?

But... it really does not matter given that these planes are not run at combat power nor are they allowed to exceed 300 mph for these "mock" dogfights.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## Soren (Apr 30, 2005)

RG_Lunatic said:


> Soren said:
> 
> 
> > Titus presented site might be riddled with inaccuracies, but the video quote is the deciding factor, and "Skip" says he can easely take on five or six Mustangs and that the 109 "Turns on a Dime".
> ...



I'll try.


----------



## Soren (Apr 30, 2005)

Try and see if this works:


----------



## Anonymous (Apr 30, 2005)

Thanks Soren!

Umm.... *that is the owner of the plane boasting about how good it is!*

Notice his comment about the ability to yaw to get a shot. This is in direct conflict with what the Experten said, which was that you had to be at point blank range and have the target lined up so it "filled the windscreen" to have a good chance of scoring hits. Virtually every pilot I've seen comment on gunnery says the same thing - _if the ball wasn't centered your chances of scoring were practically NIL!_

This is not a comment by the pilot himself, its purely heresay by a plane owner who loves his purchase.

BTW: that appears to be a merlin powered 109!

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## Soren (Apr 30, 2005)

> Thanks Soren!



No problem.



> Umm.... *that is the owner of the plane boasting about how good it is!*
> 
> Notice his comment about the ability to yaw to get a shot. This is in direct conflict with what the Experten said, which was that you had to be at point blank range and have the target lined up so it "filled the windscreen" to have a good chance of scoring hits. Virtually every pilot I've seen comment on gunnery says the same thing - _if the ball wasn't centered your chances of scoring were practically NIL!_



Wich Experten ? Günther Rall ?  Günther mostly flew the G6-R6, the 109 with the heavy controls.



> This is not a comment by the pilot himself, its purely heresay by a plane owner who loves his purchase.



Oh come on ! Lets not be so paranoid ! The "Pilot" (Harold Kindsvater) has flown both the 109 and P-51 many times, and Skip Holm the other pilot obviously agree's with him.



> BTW: that appears to be a merlin powered 109!



I don't know, I can't see it well enough.


----------



## Anonymous (May 1, 2005)

Soren said:


> Notice his comment about the ability to yaw to get a shot. This is in direct conflict with what the Experten said, which was that you had to be at point blank range and have the target lined up so it "filled the windscreen" to have a good chance of scoring hits. Virtually every pilot I've seen comment on gunnery says the same thing - _if the ball wasn't centered your chances of scoring were practically NIL!_
> 
> Wich Experten ? Günther Rall ?  Günther mostly flew the G6-R6, the 109 with the heavy controls.



Lots of German pilots stress how important it was to get in close and line up the shot very carefully. The Bf109 didn't have the ammunition or firepower to try the wild raking type shots this guy is suggesting might have been possible.



Soren said:


> > This is not a comment by the pilot himself, its purely heresay by a plane owner who loves his purchase.
> 
> 
> 
> Oh come on ! Lets not be so paranoid ! The "Pilot" (Harold Kindsvater) has flown both the 109 and P-51 many times, and Skip Holm the other pilot obviously agree's with him.



Niether of these pilots is pushing the planes to combat performance. Their experiance is entirely within the regulations for these planes for private use and airshows and does not reflect combat performance at all. I believe the CAF rules limit such planes to a maximum of 300 mph and a power setting below "normal power".



Soren said:


> > BTW: that appears to be a merlin powered 109!
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know, I can't see it well enough.



Load up the movie and freeze it and look at the exhaust stacks - it is clearly one of those Spanish 109's.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 1, 2005)

RG said:


> I believe the CAF rules limit such planes to a maximum of 300 mph and a power setting below "normal power".



they would also limit the Gs the plane should be put under, there are so many things you have to limit when flying warbirds, even the fuel isn't exactly the same i don't think.............


----------



## mosquitoman (May 1, 2005)

The thing is, the planes weren't being pushed to their limits and so can't be compared in this state


----------



## plan_D (May 1, 2005)

Many pilots from all nations stated that fill the screen with your target before shooting to ensure a kill. Erich Hartmann was one man who said it time and time again.


----------



## mosquitoman (May 1, 2005)

It's so you didn't waste bullets on a little dot, you need to be sure of getting the kill


----------



## plan_D (May 1, 2005)

Not only that but you can aim at the points you want to hit on the aircraft rather than just the aircraft as a whole.


----------



## evangilder (May 1, 2005)

I am not sure of the exact boundaries on the CAF aircraft, but I do know you have to keep them within a big safety margin and not push them to their limits. It's not just the airplanes we are trying to preserve, it's the pilots as well. The airplanes are maintained well enough to go to their limits, but there is no need to stress the airframes and engines unnecessarily. Plus there is always the risk of a catastrophic failure when pushing the limits.

Speaking of that. Our local parade was yesterday. I heard something loud and low coming towards our house. For a moment, I thought we had a plane coming down on us. Turned out that the flyby this year got a reduced ceiling. I had a T-6 fly over my house at 300 feet!!! There were four of them. That made some noise, but it was awesome!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 1, 2005)

Sorry Titus. Again I am probably the biggest 109 fan in this forum and I love the plane. I think it was one of the best aircraft of WW2 but it was not the best. On the German side a Fw-190 would fly circles around it.

Even most German pilots will tell you that after the 'Friedrich' the 109 began to lose its great qualities. The Me-109G and K were very fast and had great qualities but at high speeds and in high speed dives the controls would tighten up and become sluggish. After about 1943 she was still a great plane and better then most but even a Me-109G with an experienced pilot could not take on 5 P-51D Mustangs or Spitfires.



> The Bf-109F was without doubt the most beautiful of the Messerschmitts; the design of its cell had reached maturity, just like that of the Spitfire MkVIII and IX. The development of heavier, more powerful and better-armed versions (Bf-109G and Bf-109K) brought about by the course of the war, was carried out on the Bf-109F, alwas to the detriment of the fighter's maneuaverability, flying qualities and ease of piloting, thus showing that the optimal balance between cell, engine and armament had been reached.
> _Messerchmitt Me-109 Vol. I From 1936 to 1942 by Anis Elbied and Andre Jouineau_





> The fearsome single-seater of the early days, light and agile like a bird of prey, never had a true successor - the 209 and the 309 were tried and tested at length but finally not mass-produced - and was never redesigned thoroughly. It was produced in many different varients and improved on in many different ways with the result that its power was increased, and therefore also its weight, making it less and less maneauverable.
> _Same book as above only Vol I 1942-1943_.



I agree your source has not merrit because as stated by others the stats just dont add up. The Me-109G was not built in 1941. In 1941 the Luftwaffe had mostly Bf-109E's and F's. The Me-109G first flew in the summer of 1941 however the Me-109G-1 did not enter service until 1942 with 167 of them being built between May and July 1942. The last 80 of them being converted to the G-1/R2 with the GM-1 power boost.

G-2 1587 produced between May 1942 and February 1943

G-4 (actually just a development of the G-2 and produced before the G-3) 1240 produced between December 1942 and September 1943

G-3 50 produced between January and February 1943

G-6 12000 produced in greatest numbers with DB-605A engine between May 1943 and August 1944 (timeline not sure)

G-5 475 produced during same time as G-6 between May 1943 and August 1944. Same as G-6 only with a pressurised cockpit.

G-12 two seat trainer made by converting existing aircraft (G-1, G-2, G-3 G-4, G-6) 

Titus70 the 2 seat trainers were not even actually built. They were just converted. So there were not 6000 built. The Luftwaffe would not have converted 6000 precious fighters needed to combat the allied bombing campaign and turn them into 2 seat trainers. The exact number built is not known but it is less then 500.



> The G-12 was not actually a real version of the the Gustav either, i.e. built as such from the onset. To obtain an advanced trainer quickly and cheaply for future fighter pilots, it was decided to get the Gustav cells (G-2, -3, -4, and -6) already in service transformed by maintenance units and not in the factories. A second cockpit was added behind the first one equipped with its own hinged canopy and convex glass in order to affored minimum visibility towards the front. Normally the student was placed in front, but he could however sit behind and practice instrument flying, his canopy in this case being covered. The G-12 carried therefore almost half the quantity of fuel because the instructor replaced the fueselage reservoir. In order to give the machine more than the resulting thirty minutes flying time, a ventral fuel tank was very often fitted.
> 
> It had been planned to produce 500 two-seaters from the beginning of 1944 in order to answer the Luftwaffe's need for fighter pilots, which was getting increasingly urgent because of the turn events were taking.
> 
> ...



G-14 More then 5000 produced, not continuously from July 1944 to February 1945

G-10 about 2600 built from Oct 1944 to the end of the war

K-0 1 pre production built with a DB605DB without MW50 power boost

K-1 never built

K-2 possibly one built but never flown

K-3 never built

K-4 12000 planned but only about 1700 were produced between October 1944 and the end of the war.

K-6 only tested

K-8 never built

K-10 never built

K-12 two seat trainer never built

K-14 last varient was to be powered by the DB-605L with an estimated max speed of 730kmh at 11500m nearly 200kmh faster then the Bf-109E but never produced.

So as you can see Titus70 as you can see your sources are bogus. The 109 was a great aircraft but it was not the best built during the war.



RG_Lunatic said:


> Load up the movie and freeze it and look at the exhaust stacks - it is clearly one of those Spanish 109's.



You are correct they are Hispano Ha-1112 which were Spanish built Me-109s and were used to represents Bf-109E's during the film 'The Battle of Britain'. The later varients such as teh Ha-1112M were powered by Merlins though.



> Hispano HA-1112
> (Other)
> During WWII, the Spanish Hispano firm acquired a licence for the German Messerschmitt Bf 109G fighter. The fighters, including some German-built airframes, were known as HA-1109-J when powered by Spanish Hispano-Suiza 12Z89 engines, and as HA-1109-K when powered by the French Hispano-Suiza 12Z17. These were delivered without armament. The HA-1112 was identical, but was armed with two 20mm cannon and underwing rocket rails. Total production of the Hispano-engined aircraft was 69. The HA-1109-M and HA-1112-M were powered by British Rolls-Royce Merlin engines, which became available after WWII. 170 were built of the Merlin-engined version. They were in service until 1967.
> Type: HA-1112-M1L
> ...


----------



## Titus70 (May 2, 2005)

Hello Adler (Eagle),
Yes I agree with your comments about the Focke Wulf. It was one hell of a good fighter. Both the short (snub) nose and the long nose versions.
The reason I chose the Messerschmitt was because of sheer overall produced numbers/ availability. 
I think the Focke Wulf was developed at a time when the heavy Allied bombing of German civilian population and industrial centers was already having a major disruptive effect on effective mass scale production of the plane. 
Please correct me if I'm wrong. 
But yes I agree with you 100%.

Cheers
Titus


----------



## KraziKanuK (May 2, 2005)

Yes, Titus you are wrong about the Fw190. 

There is a Fw drawing (Sk.Nr.13-190-2) of the Fw190V1 dated 29-9-38. There is also the Technical Desription No. 187 dated July 27 1938. Hans Sander flew the V1, D-OPZE, for the first time, on June 1 1939.


----------



## Titus70 (May 2, 2005)

Hello everyone.

Thank you for input and comments.

I've found an interesting (and I think credible!) site from Finland, at web address: 

 http://www.virtualpilots.fi/feature/articles/109myths/#myths

It provides a fairly comprehensive article titled:
'Messerschmitt 109 - myths, facts and the view from the cockpit.'

Included are the candid comments and opinions of WWII pilots who flew the aircraft.

I recommend it as good reading material.
I have also pasted the article below for your convenience.


 
Introduction | Forgetting the big picture
Was Me 109 hard or difficult to fly? Comparisons to Spitfire and Hurricane | Why many "western" pilots found it hard to fly the 109? | Various myths debunked Messerschmitt 109 design features and comparisons by Markus Mikkolainen | Other interesting details on 109 | 

PILOT NOTES ON THE ME 109
General comments on Me 109 | Training to fly the Messerschmitt | Taking off | Landing | 109 undercarriage | Stalling the 109 | Flying Messerschmitt 109 | Climbing in combat | Diving - structural rigidity of 109 in dives | Stick forces and maneuvering in high speeds | Stick force and black outs | 109 needs constant rudder pressure to fly straight? | Trimming | Wing leading edge slats - good or bad? | Fighting in the 109 | Tactics with 109 | Me 109 as gun platform | Me 109 weapon effectiviness | Cannonboot (three cannon) Messerschmitts | Gunsight | Radios | Cockpit | Daimler-Benz engine and engine systems | Luftwaffe fuels | Other systems, radiators | Maintenance | Me 109 fuselage and drag 

Other subjects | 109 test flight reports | Primary sources 


Introduction
This article and its sub sections are put together to dispell some of the persistent myths about the Messerschmitt 109 fighter. As the most ever built fighter which was the mainstay of German Luftwaffe and various other air forces, including Finnish, Spanish, Hungarian, Romanian air forces, the plane is also victim of intentional disinformation, many most persistent urban myths and just ignorance. Not having first hand information or poor understanding of the subject leads easily to absurd claims.

I've regularly seen same "reports", that are practically pure fantasy and filled with errors and disinformation, being quoted as facts in various bulletin boards and even articles. And it is very exhausting to see them again and again, needing to repeat same correcting statements again and again. Therefore this is an attempt to correct few of the worst myths. Most importantly, I'll try to round up important subjects/details about the Me 109 and quote actual pilot views about them. Who else knows better than the pilots who flew the planes? There are also some material about 109 test flights. Those have been and most likely will be subject of endless debate. Fact is, some cannot be taken with face value, because they have interesting small print that are not always mentioned when the reports are shown as proof of whatever the author wants to prove.

The attempt here is to look at the subject, Messerschmitt 109, through the eyes of the 109 pilots. 

This article is primarily a collection of pilot's anecdotes that relate to actual flying of the plane. The quotes are from interviews, articles and books. They are complemented with some additional technical bits and other comments. It is not a serious study - mainly just bunch of pilot opinions that might be conflicting to each other. Pilot's comments are always "their facts" and may contradict. Terminology may be faulty at times or the pilots use terms in different way than we're used to today. I do not guarantee 100% that the other materials are always completely correct. Errors may and most likely remain, but you can send corrections - the author is admits to be clueness about technical subjects, so all those bits have been written by others. All in all, reader should try to read between the lines with 109 pilots' anecdodes to understand the bigger picture. 

"All pilot comments are given in brackets."
- Sources are mentioned below like this.
- Also all interview questions and comments by other authors are in their own paragraphs starting with a dash.

All help is appreciated. Quotes from 109 pilots from different sources are most welcome. Please remember to always give the source, name/author and ISBN, if it is from a book. The readers are also encouraged to send other material and write expnalations, dispell myths and add or correct the information in this page. You're welcome to even write whole paragraphs again. I definitely would like to have more quotes from German, Italian and other Me 109 pilots. Please notice, that the intention here is NOT to have only praise - but to see what pilots have said and thought, both positive and negative. 
The Air Warfare Forum's Pre WWII and WWII Aviation board is regarded as the official location for discussions about this article, and this thread as the place that I'll check for comments and possible additional material to the article. 


Jukka "Grendel" Kauppinen
Send feedback 
Forgetting the big picture
Various discussions about aircraft performance usually center on some details. The writers however tend to pick only single details and forget all other aspects that also contibute to the matter, forget the big picture.
When we're talking about airplanes there are unbelievable many parameters that affect the flying characterics and performance. To talk about airplanes sensibly you should understand at least a small part of them. But the more you know, the dumber you feel yourself.
Even modern airplanes, which today's people can actually fly unlike WW2 airplanes, have various solutions that lead to situation, where it is very hard to say how a certain airplane flies unless you've really flown it. WW2 planes on the other hand have so many little details that affect whole big picture, like the ballast weights at wings, dampening of various air flows and so on. You should know all these things pretty well before you can really speculate on them. 
Was Me 109 hard or difficult to fly? Comparisons to Spitfire and Hurricane 
Yes - and no.
It was in a way tricky in takeoffs for novice pilots (experienced ones, even Allied ones test flying captured specimens, did not think so however) and somewhat tricky in landings, but not more than other planes with similar wingloading.
But once you got it to air, it was one of the safest, if not THE safest of single engined prop fighters to fly. You could not stall it by accident, that needed a definite trying to do so. And if stalled, it did not spin, but just dropped nose. To spin it, it was necessary to kick full rudder deflection at the moment of stall. 
Even the spin, if intentionally induced, never developed into an unrecoverable flat state, but was always recoverable provided you had enough altiude.

Compare these mentions about flying Hurricane/Spitfire to 109. The problems in takeoff and landing are similar. The pilot needs to push full right rudder to keep the plane straight. Landing approach pattern is similar to 109 approach. The planes handle more or less same way.
"Hurricane: With that big rudder it was easier to control early direction than the Spit and the forward view was better, as the seat is farther forward on the wing and higher up. It did not fly itself off as the Spit would, but it took only slight back movement of the stick to unstick. The ailerons were lighter than the Spits, which could become quite heavy at higher speeds. On the other hand the elevators were fairly heavy whereas on the Spit the elevators could be moved with two fingers, at slower speeds. On the ground the wide undercarriage made it steadier than the Spit, whose narrow undercarriage caused it to rock on rough ground.
Once you got accustomed to the curved landing approach for better visibility it was a piece of cake
Spitfire: We were briefed on the Spitfire's characteristics, which differed considerably from types previously flown. The 1,000+ hp, liquid cooled, RR Merlin 2 or 3 required the coolant temperature to be monitored and controlled by a manually operated radiator shutter. On June 16 , when my instructor told me to take Spit B-R and fly it around a bit, I was probably a bit nervous since the first guy to fly the day before had killed himself, taking off in coarse pitch, clipping the top of a hangar and crashing into into a paint storage building. With this in mind I began my first long zig-zag taxi to the far end of the field. 
At the holding point on the grass I did my run up and check, winding on full right rudder trim. On getting the green I released the brakes, and with the stick right back gradually opened the throttle to takeoff power, then carefully brought the stick forward to neutral (too far and the prop could hit the ground). Almost immediately the tail was up to flying attitude, and almost full right rudder was needed to keep straight.
After having straight-in finals from 500 feet drummed into me at earlier schools, it took some time getting comfortable with the recommended Spitfire approach, which was to combine the base and final legs into a continuously descending curve, to reach a point just off the end of the runway, at about 30 degrees off line, and ready to begin the round out. Then line up the left side of the nose with the landing path and round out to a few feet off the ground."
- Canadian Spitfire pilot. 401 Squadron. 
More on same topic:
"Spitfire: I have mentioned how badly I felt about the ailerons of the Spitfire at the time of the battle of Britain. In October 1940 I flew captured Me109; to my surprize and relief I found the aileron control of the German fighter every bit as bad - if not worse - at high speeds as that of the Spitfire I and II with fabric covered ailerons."
- Jeff Quill, RAF Spitfire pilot. Source: Great aircraft of WW2, Alfred Price and Mike Spick 

"The aeroplane behaves in a similar fashion to the Mark I Rotol Spitfire in a dive i.e. the controls become heavier with speed, especially near the limiting speed. Considerable forward pressure on the control column is necessary to keep the aeroplane in the dive; the elevator is sensitive throughout the speed range. The rudder and ailerons become very heavy at speeds about 400 m.p.h. A.S.I., the latter being almost immovable then."
- Source: Spitfire Mk IIA Testing, Aeroplane and armanent experimental establishment, Boscombe Down, . 

Russian experiences with Spitfire Mk. VB:
- "Spitfires had a bunch of other problems besides poor performance at low and medium altitudes, and none of that was due to lack of 100 octane avgas. Another thing was the narrowly spaced landing gear, poor rear view from the cockpit, and the tendency to stick its nose in the mud when taxiing."
- Unconfirmed internet source. 


Why many "western" pilots found it hard to fly the 109?
"(Physical exercise) was up to everyone himself. There was, however, organised games between the squadrons: track and field sport, swimming, cross-country skiing, shooting etc. Every pilot participated in some sport. For me, flying and fighting was a sport in itself.
- How difficult was it to control the 109 in high velocities, 600 kmh and above? 
The Messerschmitt became stiff to steer not until the speed exceeded 700kmh. The control column was as stiff as it had been fastened with tape, you could not use the ailerons. Yet you could control the plane."
- Kyösti Karhila, Finnish fighter ace. 32 victories. Source: Interview by Finnish Virtual Pilots Association.

- This give an important clue why there is very large differencies in opinion about the heaviness of the 109. In high speeds the plane stiffened - but 109 pilots could still control if. So why the Allied test pilots have so different opinion? Simple. They were not used to the plane. Many of them had flown planes, that had for example hydraulically enhanced controls. Or had flown other types, that had very different feeling. Real 109 pilots on the other hands were used to the heaviness - and practised according to it. Although the high control forces were undoubtedly an undesirable feature, or a problem, restricting the manoeuvrability of the aircraft, especially at high speeds, they were perhaps partly compensated by the emphasis put on physical exercise in the Luftwaffe and FinAF. Numerous accounts by pilots of those forces mention the amount of exercise and sports conducted by the aircrew. Given that every flight was practically a work out session, given the admittably heavier control forces of 109 in higher speeds, the Me 109 pilots flying it regularly were markedly more adapted to its requirements than a pilot who was only flying limited number of test sorties. 

Various myths
It's not Me 109, it is Bf 109, you dork! 
Both are correct for the Messerschmitt 109 fighter. Both the factory and the Luftwaffe used both designations throughout the life of the 109. For simplicity, this article usually refers to the plane as Me 109. 
"Me 109 was outdated aircraft by 1945."
- The Spitfire was a 1935 design and is not considered outdated at the end of the war. Me 109 was equally developed through its life. 109 development's big changes were between D-E, E-F and G-K models, with improved aerodynamics, larger engines and many modifications installed. The Me 109 on the other hand was completely re-designed with the Friedrich, with new wings, radically different radiators, and a completely new tail section. The 109K4 had numerous improvements over the G series. For example high speed handling was remarkably enhanced in the G models and the aeleron tabs of K models again greatly enhanced roll rate in high speeds. By 1945 the Me 109 Ks had a largely redesigned airframe. 
- The Me 109 airframe was a proven design with no major flaws, and it still could mount the best fighter engines the Luftwaffe had available. Did it have weaknesses? Certainly! Was it obsolete? No. Did it have much more development potential? No. Agreed, it had been pushed to and over the original limits, but it was certainly good combat aircraft. So what was the problem? It was a combination of bad tactical decisions and poor planning for a prolonged war. The attrition of Luftwaffe experten and poor training for the Nachwuchs cost Luftwaffe more pilots then the "out dated 109". It's not as clear as some claim. There have been lots of claims and rumors passed on as fact. The late war 109s (109G6/AS, 109G10, and 109K4) were very completive aircraft. But there was never enough and by the time the K4 was ready it was too late.

The 109 was a bad design, as it needed ballast to fix the center of gravity
- A certain Kit Carson wrote about the 109, that "the engineers screwed up the center of gravity, and 60 pounds of permanent ballast had to be added to the rear of the fuselage to get the C.G. back." Well, pardon me, this isn't the only place where this mr. Carson - who never flew a 109 - happens to be wrong. The claim happily ignores that any plane that is modified during its lifetime undergoes changes - and their COG moves when new equipment is added to the plane or other larger modifications are done. But output was the key - radical changes couldn't be easily done to the airframe, as that might disrupt the production. Therefore a quick way to balance the plane was to add ballast.
- To put the matter into comparison, 60 pounds marking max 1,1% of the plane's total weight was ballast by mr. Carson's words, though he does not mention which model he means. Maybe Emil? Spitfire Mk.IX on the other hand carrier 87,5 pounds of ballast - more than Carson's example. We can find more recent examples easily. F-15C needs huge block of 600 lbs (!) of ballast, when it is upgraded to APG-63(V)2 radar. Fact is, ballast is normal in any aircraft, especially when retrofitted with new equipment. 

"109s kill ratio."
- According to Edward Sims' "The Fighter Pilots", the Luftwaffe claimed about 70000 victories, for the loss of 8500 pilots KIA, 2700 POW and 9100 wounded in action, for a total of ca. 20000 losses. Not knowing the real numbers, we could speculate there were another 20000 pilots who bailed out OK, that we arrive at a 70000:40000 kill ratio for the Luftwaffe, or 1.75:1. That's not bad at all considering the catastrophic finale.
- From April 1941 to November 1942, the Luftwaffe scored 1294 confirmed victories for about 200 Me 109 lost in combat. During this period, the Luftwaffe almost exclusively used the Me 109F. They identified their victims as 709 Tomahawks, 304 Hurricanes and 119 Spitfires, plus others/unidentified. That's a ratio of about 6.5:1. (location missing, but looks like North African campaign. Author suggests that these numbers should still be taken with a grain of salt, I have no clue if these are post war verified numbers or wartime claims)

"Auto deploying slats killed many, many pilots / slats were bad / useless."
- Messerschmitt put automatic wing-slats on the outer part of the wings. At sufficient AoA, these open, effectively extending the lift vs AoA curve. Basically this means that in the Bf109, the outer wing sections stall at a considerably higher AoA than the inboard parts of the wing. What does this do? It virtually eliminates the wing-drop of the wing when the wing starts to stall. Plus, it allows full aileron usage up to the point at which the outer part of the wing starts to stall. This leads to a very gentle stall until the wing slats themselves stall. 
- Automatically deploying slats were British invention and patented by Handley Page, created originally by Sir Frederick Handley Page around 1919. They were used by all nations and could by found from lots of other airplanes than just the Messerschmitt 109 and 110. The American F-86 Sabre was equipped with similar passive leading-edge slats and same principle is used in all modern jet airliners and fighters, just that they're these days computer controlled.
- The auto-deployment of the slats was subject to extensive testing prior to WW2, and was found to be beneficial in all situations. In fact, the Me 109 had been designed with the slats locking down upon retraction of the flaps, but this mechanism was removed because the tests showed that it was much better to have the slats operating freely. Willy Messerschmitt first tested the wing leading edge slats with the Messerschmitt 108 plane and found them useful. If they wouldn't have been the Me 109s would not have been equipped with the slats.
- Usually whoever claims that slats caused problems ignore that slats were only "problem" up to the E models. With 109 F model and upwards the automatic wing leading edge slats were much improved and they operated smoother.
- Claus Colling, one of the men behind Flug Werk says following: "The Me (Bf ) 109 "E" through "F" used the swing arm parallelogram mechanism to agitate the slats. From the "G" onwards the Me 109's used the roller-track mechanism to guide the slats in and out. It all follows a patent bought by Messerschmitt from DeHavilland just prior to the war. The slats are driven out by means of low air-pressure if the AOA gets higher ( slow flight ) and retract by means of air-pressure when accelerating." Source: 109 Lair.
- Please see this article about 109 slats at 109 Lair for more information. 

"109 pilots wired slats shut was because the slats would cause them crash / ruin aim / they'd get close in behind a target and the propwash/slipstream would jostle their aircraft around, causing the slats to deploy unevenly and ruining their gun solution." 
- Urban myth. We haven't yet seen a single reliable account about pilots wiring the Bf 109's slats shut in the western front. Only rumours and claims. In Africa this might have happened - primary reason why to do it was the dusty conditions. The sand dust made the slats jam, also early E versions were prone to slat jam. Wiring slats shut is plausible if you're operating in dusty conditions of Africa or Russian plains at summer. If other slat deployed and other was jammed, that would be most problematic. But if you had long, good runways - like you most likely would in Africa - wiring slats might not be a problem for landing. Myths that Luftwaffe Messerschmitt pilots in the Western front had the slats locked in closed position have no basis though, and there hasn't yet been a single verified document or pilot account about it actually being done. Asking about this from real life Messerchmitt 109 combat pilots and 109 experts from aviation museums has only brought confused replies about them never hearing about whole thing, that to their knowledge nobody had ever done anything like that. 

"Me 109 was hard/dangerous plane to take off."
- The standard takeoff procedure for 109 was to use rudder to keep the plane straight. There was basically to ways to take off the plane. Either you throttled up fairly fast and gave full right rudder, easing it off as speed increased, or you throttled up slowly so there was minimal torque effect. In practise that was similar to anybody who had flown other types before and it took usually just one flight to know how to do it. The myth that there was something hard in taking off in 109 stems mostly from highly exaggerated claims - or the fact that for new pilots converting to 109 from various trainers had not flown such highly powerful aircraft before. With proper teaching - no problems. In Germany that was rare thing in the last years of war though. The Finnish Air Force chief instructor colonel Väinö Pokela told, that one of his key points in teaching new pilots to 109s was to instruct them very carefully - and told them to forget any horror stories they've been told. He said, that many pilots were already scared from the horror stories other pilots and non pilots had been telling, and after showing how easy 109 was to handle there was seldom any problems.
- Colonel Pokela also told that most 109 crashed he had seen resulted because the pilot had forgotten to lock the tailwheel before applying takeoff power. If that happened then the pilot couldn't keep the plane straight when accelerating. Take notice that you need to push rudder in all other planes as well - for example Spitfire requires similarly full right pedal while accelerating.
- Torque can indeed send a plane off the runway during a takeoff, especially if there's a crosswind to start it off. But 109 is no different from a P-40 or a Spitfire in this situation. The bad reputation most likely comes from pilots flying it for the first and perhaps only time, and that the veteran pilot would instinctively make the adjustments needed to keep it straight while rolling on the ground.

"109s were so difficult to take off and land that half the 109s lost in the war were lost to take off and landing accidents."
- 5 % of the 109's were lost in take off/landing accidents.

"Me-109 had an astonishing 11,000 takeoff/landing accidents resulting in destruction of the a/c! That number represents roughly one-third of the approximately 33,000 such a/c built by Germany."
- Source: FLIGHT JOURNAL magazine 
- The magazine has it wrong or has misintepretated the numbers. Luftwaffe lost about 1500 Me-109's in landing gear failures. Note that German loss reports often lump destroyed and damaged (10 to 60% damaged) together. It was also a standard practise to rebuild even heavily damaged airframes. While rebuilding/refurnishing these planes were also upgraded to the latest standards and latest equipment. This means that large proportion of these damaged/destroyed planes were not complete losses, but returned to squadron service.

"The specific problem with the Bf 109 was the very narrow / weak undercarriage track."
- Narrow landing gear was not that uncommon at the time - all biplanes also had narrow landing gear. Me 109's undercarriage was connected to the fuselage rather than the wings. This had several reasons. Most importantly the wings were easily and quickly changed if needed, without special preparations or tools. Wings were also one single structure, which made it possible to make them very strong. Because this the plane needed some care when operating. The claim that the narrow undercarriage was a problem is a myth, though. In comparison the undercarriage of Supermarine Spitfire was even narrower - it had its own share of problems from this. Imagine what it was to takeoff and land the Spitfire's carrier version to carriers for example? Especially later marks of Spitfire with enormous amount of installed power were quite a handful to operate. But that is conveniently usually ignored.
- The width of undercarriage in Me 109 E is 1,97 meters; 109 G 2,06 meters and 109 K 2,1 meters. However - Spitifre's undercarriage width was 1,68 meters.
- The real problem was the center of gravity behind the undercarriage. This made it possible to brake unusually hard in landings, but it also required the pilot to keep the plane straight in takeoff and landing. Because this it was easier for a small sideswing to develop into a groundloop or the plane might drift off the runway, if the pilot was not awake. Of course, if the tailwheel was not locked, the tendency would be pronounced and more difficult to counter. As with any plane.
- Contrary to the popular myth, the landing gear could take the plane 'dropping' in from about 8-10 feet. 


"The 109 was flown down to the runway at relatively high speed and "wheel" landed: it was to make sure the leading edge slats did not deploy. Because of the high speed at touchdown, there was more time for something to go wrong during the rollout, and it often did."
- Now that is some science fiction. For example the Finnish Me 109s always did stall landings, because the airfields were mostly very smal. The landings were almost similar to carrier landings - the plane approached field in shallow descending turn, aligning to the runway just seconds before touchdown. By "hanging" in the air at stall speed, with slats open, the plane touched down at minimum speed at three points and the pilot could apply full brakes immediately. 109 had very good brakes and the gear was so forward, that the was no worries about nosing over with full braking. Landing could be made with higher speeds, slats not open, or they could intentionally be "popped" out even in higher speed approach. "Stall landing" to three points with slats open was the favoured method in Finland though. And don't forget, there was even a carrier version of the Messerchmitt, and you just don't land to carrier at high speeds. Of course these planes didn't actually operate from carrier, they they were built and operated by normal squadrons.
- As a side note, Finnish pilots who visited Germany on war time and saw some of the German training or how the German combat pilots took off and landed their planes, they were quite horrified. German training in '44 seemed very rough and no 3 points landings was taught to the pilots, who approached with high speeds and came down on two wheels. At that time Germans put as many pilots through the training as possible, and didn't bother to teach the finer things about piloting to the green pilots. The runways were paved and long, so the finesse of "good" landings could be ignored.


"109's weakness was the poor / wooden propellers" 
- 109 was equipped with full metal props.
- A prop expnalation needed. Anyone? 

"109's controls locked up in high speed." 
- Another very mythical subject. Before answering one must be asked: "What model are you talking about?"
- There was large differences between various types in the high speed controls. Each newer version handled better in high speeds, the best being the 109 K series which had flettner tabs for enhanced aileron control. 109 G series were also much better on this regard compared to 109 E, which yet again wasn't such a dog as many claim. 109 test pilots, Russians included, have said that the 109 had pretty good roll at higher speeds - again not as good as the 190s, P-51 or P-47 - but it maintained a good lateral control ability. Recovering from extremerely fast 750-900 km/h vertical dives was the problem - not level flight or even normal combat flying.
- Spitfire and a 109 had equal roll rates at up to 400 mph speeds. Not even the favourite warhorse of the Americans, P-51, exactly shined with its roll rate at high speeds. P-51 pilots have actually said that flying P-51 at high speeds was like driving a truck.
- An often quoted British report made of a Me 109 E talks about the "short stick travel", "due to the cramped cockpit a pilot could only apply about 40 pounds side force on the stick" and "at 400 mph with 40 pounds side force and only one fifth aileron displaced, it required 4 seconds to get into a 45 degree roll or bank. That immediately classifies the airplane as being unmaneuverable and unacceptable as a fighter."
- The report claims that The 109-E needed 37lb stick force for a 1/5 aileron deflection at 400mph. Coincidentally, the Spitfire 1 required 57 lb stick force from the pilot for similar deflection at similar speed. This is a 54% higher stickforce for the Spitfire pilot.
- The British test is taken as gospel by many, while it is just one test, made by the enemy, using a worn out and battle damaged airframe. German flight tests report pilots using aileron forces of over 45 lbs and 109's stick was designed for elevator stick forces of up to or over 85kg, over 180 lbs. So it was more matter of the pilot and the test procedures, than maneuverability of the Bf 109. Several details of that test are suspicious and German chief test pilot Heinrich Beauvais disagreed with it and with Eric Brown. Beauvais tried to get into contact after the war with Eric Brown to discuss the matters, but Brown refused to discuss the 109 with him. This being the case, it seems that Brown wasn't willing to listen a pilot who'd flown more on the 109 than he ever had, and was more interested on believing his negative findings of the 109 than being proven wrong by an expert. 

- AFDU 28 October 1941: TACTICAL TRIALS - Me.109F AIRCRAFT
- 7. No manoeuvrability trials were carried out against other aircraft but the Me.109F was dived up to 420 m.p.h., I.A.S., with controls trimmed for level flight and it was found that although the elevators had become heavy and the ailerons had stiffened up appreciably, fairly tight turns were still possible. [...] It is considered that recovery from a high speed dive near the ground would be difficult, as the loss of height entailed is considerable. This may account for occasional reports of Me.109F being seen to dive straigth into the ground without apparently being fired at. Please see sections diving and stick forces for pilot comments on the subject. 

The actual speed of Me 109 F-4? 
- Me 109 F-4 is one mythical airplane. Practically all its performance reports stem from a single British test flown with a damaged airplane with derated engine. All other test "reports" are copied from this one test. To read more about this case please read Article about the performance of the Bf 109 F-4, written by Michael Rausch. Quotes below:
- In summary, from the article: " After the review of several hundred pages of British reports about planes of the variants Bf 109 F-1/-2/-4 the picture became apparant, that only with exactly one captured Bf 109 F-4 and its engine performance measurement were done. As already the climbing time, then also the British maximum speeds give a clear reference to, that the available engine did not even obtain the power output for climb/combat power. As best climbing rate for the climbing on 4876 m are indicated about 1006 m/min, for the climbing on 6705 m 8.2 minutes. Again these are values, which were clearly below the German for climb/combat power. These were on one hand a maximum climbrate of 1111 m/min for the climbing to 5000 m. The British values for the maximum climbrate lay thereby even below the German mean value. On the other hand according to German data sheets the climb time to 7000 m altitude was 7.4 Minuten.
- The American test, "Combat Evaluation Report Nr. 110" for the Bf 109 F, 7th February 1943", are only a compilation of the British test reports sent to the USA and no American flight tests were flown with F-4s. And to top it, the transferred report is riddled with errors in converting the numbers and drawing the performance curves. For example the reported climb rate is the British climb time for 16,500 feet converted to 15,000 feet. Also in the American summary are existing further serious transfer errors. This becomes clear due to a comparison of the fire trials results from the British and the American test. In the British original version is told, that .5" B. Mk. II armor penetrating ammunition had no chance to penetrate the pilot armor of the Bf 109 F-4 under the listed conditions, if the projectile punched in below the fill level of the fuel tank. In the US version this projectile received a 30% chance for penetration of the pilot armor independing of the location the fuel tank was entered. This way on the US side the British firing trial results were wrongly mixed for .5" and 20 mm ammunition.
- On the British sources all test protocols are missing, which would document the real power output of the DB 601 E during the test flights by telling boost pressure and revolutions per minute. Also complete top speed/climbtime curves instead of the few listed measurement points would be very helpfull. The source situation permits nevertheless to make some evaluations. The German sources present for the whole timeframe from sommer 1941 till spring 1943 consistent performance values for top speeds as well as climb ability. There was clearly differentiated between the power settings take off/emergency power and climb/combat power. The period of the initial prohibition of use of the take-off/emergency power of the DB 601 E could be narrowed down very exactly. For the British sources it is totally unclear with which engine power settings the test was flown. Problems with the available engine were indicated, but not mentioned in the final report. Additionally there were inconsistent specifications, like the reaching of higher speeds in spite of a higher weight specification for the test plane. Anglophone authors seem to have known the German sources not at all. The performances told by them are all in a range, which is only told by Allied sources."
- So you can see how hard it is to rely only on one or even a few sources, because the original one might be already faulty. 

Visibility from the cockpit and how cramped it war? 
- Me 109 cockpit is often mentioned to be very cramped and to have poor visibility. Both are true to large extent, but we have to also remember that both are faily common features for the planes of the day. The Spitfire cockpit is very cramped as well and many Spitifre pilots felt the same as the Messerchmitt pilots - the felt they wore the plane around them.
- Let's see what a USN report has to say about P-51B for comparison: "Vision in the P-51B is notably poor forward, because of the low pilot position and heavy framing. VIsion aft also is poor, because of the limited head travel allowed by the narrow cockpit. The cockpit is cramped for space." That's pretty comparable to the 109. 

Please see section cockpit for pilot comments on the subject. 

Me 109 fuselage and drag
"Bf 109's drag issues. It did not employ the Merideth Effect radiator ducting, did not use boundary layer splitters and had all manner of protruding humps, bumps and scoops that contributed to a very high level of parasitic drag. I don't have a copy of the article, but is was based upon an engineering analysis performed at Langley Field in late 1945, including some wind tunnel runs." 
- The G-6 sure had its bumps, but the rest is certainly not true. 109 used Meredith effect and used at least up to the F model boundary layer bypass in the radiators. The 109 K-4, and to some extent the 109 G-10 as well, were considerably cleaned up aerodynamically compared to earlier 109 G's, especially the 109 G-6. The 109 K-4 reintroduced the retractable tail wheel and had among other features completely covered wheel wells (like the P-51). The 109 was also a much smaller aircraft, even smaller than the Spitfire.
- The efficiency of the 109 airframe was proven very early in 1937, when a Emil airframe was prepared and a DB-601 engine was tuned to deliver 1700PS. This machine reached 611km/h at sealevel, world record. Except for a very careful surface finish, all difference to the serial 109E were a different spinner, no weapons, and a modified hood. This plane was not the 209, also called 109R, which reached later a much higher speed. Even 8 years later this speed was barely reached with such a power.
- The aerodynamic efficienc of the 109 was based on several reasons. The three most important were: 

Small overall surface, especially wingarea. To compensate for the high wingloading during takeoff and landing, very efficient slats and flaps system was installed. The usually turbulent flow in the tail section lead to a very low overall surface area in this area. 
Inverted V-engine, giving the airframe an larger angle to the usually low mounted wing. This reduced interferenz drag and THIS was also the reason why the pilot head space was rather small. Nevertheless it was one reason why the 109 had a surpisingly high diving speed (only fools believe those spit dive tests with Mach numbers up to 0.9 btw.) what saved also their lives quite often. 
Centered propellor position, thrust line going right through the COG, also allowing for better view forward down 
- Meredith effect was nothing of unusual to be used in WW2 fighter radiators. Spitfire, Yakolevs AND Bf 109 enjoyed this effect. In fact the Bf 109F`s radiators were designed to take maximum advantage of it. To quote the relevant part from the Wright Field evaluation of Bf 109 F: 
"Each flap is divided in two sections : the outer section is a modified split arrangement serving the additional purpose of controlling the airflow through the internally mounted wing radiators. At the front edge of the radiator is a hinged plate, linked with the trailing edge flaps to open with them. This plate picks up the boundary layer on the underside of the wing, and discharges it on the trailing edge. This form of boundary layer control causes smoother flow through the radiator, thereby reducing the area for proper cooling". 
- In other words : the same principle as on the Mustang. Take notice that also the oil cooler on the 109 worked the same way and it dissipated one third of the engine heat, practicaly acting like an extra engine cooler. Very clever design there.
- After the re-design that occurred with the Friedrich, the Me 109 fully employed the Meredith effect. It's radiator had boundary layer separation with separate discharge, a continously adjustable intake and a continously adjustable outlet that was automatically regulated to create thrust. That's the same degree of sophistication as found on the Mustang. The thermodynamic effect of the engine cooling was well-known in the 1920s and 1930s and in fact had been first pointed out by Hugo Junkers in 1915 when he acquired a patent for the "Düsenkühler" ('jet radiator'). Thermodynamics probably were the most advanced science in the late 19th/early 20th century due to their tremendous economical value in a society that based its wealth primarily on steam engines. The "Meredith" effect probably was painfully obvious to Junkers, who included it right in the first aircraft he ever built.
"The Messerscmitt fusalge is remarkably clear and bulletlike. The engine is compactly mounted in the nose and enclosed by easily removeable cowling. Proturbulances that mar the clean lines are cut to the minimum by partially submerging the coolant radiators in the wing."
- Wright Field evaluation of Bf 109 F

- From what I understand the Bf109F and later models used a "boundary layer bypass duct which significantly improved pressure recovery at the radiator face." 
- Lednicer, Aeronautical Journal June/July 1995

More input on this subject appreciated. 
Facts
- The top 3 aces (of any conflict) all flew 109's exclusively. Of the 20 top aces (of any conflict) 12 flew 109's exclusively.
- Me-109 was credited with shooting down more enemy aircraft and producing more aces than any single fighter in the annals of aerial warfare. 
- Comparing the 109 to other fighters, like P-51, is quite usual. One thing that must be remembered is that 109 was designed as short range interceptor. P-51 was designed as a long-range escort fighter. Both planes featured many compromises to achieve their design plans. This is easy to ignore, just as well that P-51, for example, had nasty tendency to stall without warning and when fuselage fuel tanks were filled, it was quite unstable and downright dangerous to fly. P-51 pilots described that the vertical elevator was very hard to move in high speeds and required both hands. But these charasteristics come up much less often in popular literature and discussion. 
Messerschmitt 109 design features and comparisons 
In some aspects the Messerschmitt 109 is an even better fighter than people usually make of it. It has some of the legendary "how did they think of that", high-tech-like, aspects as North American P-51 and Supermarine Spitfire had. While Spitfire had the much vaunted elliptical wing (effect of which is much debated), the P-51 had its (again , much debated) laminar flow wing (trapeze in this case) and a very interesting cooler arrangement with a device for splitting and separation of the "dirty" turbulent boundary layer, and the capacity to generate thrust by heating the air flowing through it to negate the otherwise very high cooler drag (again, much debated); 109 had some very nice aspects too. 
109 had a hydraulically driven (fluid coupled) clutch driving its supercharger, which made it capable of avoiding wasting power at lower altitudes. At those altitudes normal gear+clutch driven supercharger equipped planes were wasting a significant amount of their HP compressing air which could not be used by the engine. Later 109s even had a two gear, fluid coupled supercharger which gave very good power up to 11km.Even a normal 109G could produce full power up to 7 km (around 21.000 ft) with a normal single-gear supercharger. This supercharger was a low tech (sic), single stage single gear (sic) device, while the Allied designers used up to two stage, intercooled (in some cases) two gear superchargers to achieve similar power as the simple fluid clutch. 

Later on (P-38, P- 47, bombers) Allied designers used bulky and hard-to-manufacture turbo-superchargers to keep up with the latest German advances. The engine used by 109s (DB601, DB603, DB605) had a direct to chamber fuel injection. Daimler Benz engines could compete with British and US engines using high octane fuels and very hard alloys, while itself using only 87 octane fuel. 

As for some interesting details on the 109, it had a very interesting cooler arrangement that actually resembles very much that of the P-51. It happens that the coolers, which look like very small, are in fact embedded into the wings and have a very low wetted surface. Also they look like normal coolers which just dip into the airflow , but they are a bit more complex. The cooler is embedded in the wing so that a plate over the cooler would skin off the dirty boundary layer like in the P-51 cooler and let it pass , while using the "clean" air for cooling. This makes it possible to use less surface for cooling which means more speed. The similarities don't end here, just as in P-51 the cooler rear end has a plate designed to adjust the amount of air flowing through the cooler (it is opened and closed automatically or with manual override). The design of this flap seems quite the same as the one on P-51, which was designed to generate the "Meredith Effect". The Meredith Effect is actually a cooler acting like a jet engine. Jet engines are actually very simple, you have a compressor compressing air, fuel heating it and a nozzle turning the heat into momentum. In this case you have a cooler heating the air, the mouth of the cooler (and airspeed) compressing the air and the flap on the back working as a nozzle to convert heat to momentum. This effect could generate up to 300hp on the P-51 and it would in most cases (high speeds) almost zero out the drag of the cooler scoop. 

On landing modern combat aircraft drop flaps and as they drop flaps, also their ailerons "droop" down to act as flaps for the rest of the wing. This same feature was also in the 109. The boost control on 109 was automatic up to the critical altitude of the supercharger (as was the mixture control). The oil cooler and cooler flaps were automatic (with manual override). The 109 tail was almost like the ones on modern fighters, the whole tailplane could be moved with trim. 

As for ammunition, the Germans were ahead of their time. They used similar centrifugal fusing in the 20mm and 30mm shells that was common before the modern proximity fusing became available. They used thin-shelled cannon shells which could contain up to 4 times more explosive than normal shells. They used very high order explosives (compared to the ones Allied were using, HA41 and PETN against torpex). 

Germans also realized that the most efficient way to kill an aircraft, in addition to penetrating it with armor piercing rounds (which do little damage unless they hit one of the important parts), is to make large holes with large explosive shells or to use incendiary ammunition to light the plane up. The incendiary devices used by the Germans were excellent and were made of materials like magnesium, elektron thermite and phosphor. Phosphor has the effect of lighting up in room temperature and in general burning everything if it is in contact with oxygen. Elektron thermite on the other hand (a mixture of magnesium and aluminium) burns at a VERY high temperature (so high that it will light up airplane aluminium). 

Most German aircraft had electrically operated (fired) armament, which made selection of different weapons configurations and counting of ammunition easy. Some of the planes also had a mechanism to pneumatically reload guns when the trigger was released if the last shell was not fired. This made it possible to unjam the guns just by pressing the trigger repeatedly. 

The wing of the 109 was made with no warp from tip to root (same angle all the way), this made it very efficient liftwise compared to "Allied wings", which had up to 2 degrees of washout to avoid tip stalling of the wing. Messerschmitt solved the same problem by adding excellent (British licensed, Handle Page invented) automatic slats to extend when the tip would stall. This made the 109 almost impossible to spin. 

It was possible to change the whole engine and/or wings of a 109 standing on its wheels in a matter of a few hours with no special lifts (only a mechanical hoist was required). 
- Written by Markus Mikkolainen 


Other interesting details on 109
Drop tanks:
The droptank system in every Messerschmitt worked the same way. Fuel to the engine was always drawn from the main tank. The droptank replenished the main tank. This was done with an automatic float controlled device that opened the flow from droptank if the fuel level in main tank dropped. There was no pump driving the fuel from the droptank, it was kept pressurized by bleeding compressed air from the engine supercharger into the droptank.
The plumbing was routed from the droptank to the right upper forward edge of the cabin, and from there along the cabin edge to rear, into the fuel tank. There was a piece of perspex tube at the right side of pilot, from where he could see the fuel flowing. When the tube became filled with air (easy to see from the colour) it was time to release the droptank.
A nice system. If you had to jettison the droptank, you always knew that your main tank was full. And it also did not heed any preliminary actions like turning a feed selection valve or somesuch, just tug the release cord... 
Radiators and exhaust thrust:
The 109s had automatic radiators that opened or closed according to the readings from the thermostats. Normally the radiators would be kept on automatic operation where they gradually open and close depending on the engine temperature.
The 109 used exhaust thrust to gain more speed. Daimler-Benz charts show 120 PS of exhaust power at 600 km/h at 4.5 km for the 109 Emil's engine. Another German paper shows 200-300hp produced by thrust alone at 600km/h at 10000m, unfortunately the exact plane/engine version were not mentioned in text referring to this.
The Me 109 F used actually just the same kind of radiators as the P-51, with the associated increase in top speed, though they were embedded in the wings and not implemented as belly scoop as in the case of the Mustang. As comparison, The P-38, P-47 and a couple of others extract all that exhaust energy to drive their turbos. By the time the exhaust actually leaves the aircraft there is no appreciable thrust left.
For more information about 109 radiators please read this article about Bf 109F-G-K Radiator Flap Systems from 109 Lair.
A DVL chart shows that a mechanically supercharged engine provides superior total power compared to an engine of equal size equpped with a turbo-supercharger at low altitudes and high airspeeds. (At 6 km, the mechanical supercharger was superior above 500 km/h.) The DVL chart is provided by von Gersdorff et al., the bible on German engines co-authored by several WW2 industry VIPs, including Kurt Prestel who was responsible for the single-lever control on the BMW801. Von Gersdorff et al. also provide a dimensional drawing for a DB600 exhaust stub. It shows a 34 mm wide jet nozzle - height is not given in the overhead view, but it must be 108 mm or less -, angled at 20° outward from the engine's centreline. 



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

PILOT NOTES ON THE ME 109
Eric Brown and Me 109 
Excerps from Eric Brown's test flight with 109 G:
"Longevity of service has never characterised the fighter. Indeed, until the last decade or so it was possible to count the years in the firstline lifespan of the average fighter aircraft on the fingers of one hand..Tending to prove the rule have been the few noteworthy exceptions to be found in the annals of fighter development, perhaps the most outstanding of these being Professor Willy Messerchmitt's Bf 109..
There was, in fact, nothing mysterious about the Bf 109. It was simply a well-conceived, soundly designed fighter that maintained during maturity the success that attended its infancy...
The blind flying panel appeared somewhat better equipped than that of the contemporary FW 190. The auxiliary services were mostly electrical apart from the undercarriage and radiator, which were hydraulically operated, and the flaps which were directly connected to a manually-operated handwheel and in consequence, tediously slow to lower.
At its rather disappointing low-level cruising speed of 240 mph (386 km/h) the Gustav was certainly delightful to fly.
This was then Gustav. By the time the evolution of Willy Messerchmitt's basic design had reached the G-series, it was no longer a great fighter, but it was still a sound all-rounder and the Bf 109G had greater flexibility from some aspects than preceding sub-types."

Read also: Flying the Messerschmitt Bf 109 by Mark Hanna 
General comments on Me 109
Me 109 D:
"The longer one is at the flying business, the more firmly convinced he becomes that he knows very little about it. I must say, however, the Messerschmitt Me109 is the finest airplane I have ever flown.
Along with its delightful flight characteristics, the visibility in this Messerschmitt is all that a fighter pilot could reasonably ask. There are a great many single-seater fighters in the world that I have not flown, but I had formed my opinion of the flight characteristics of the Messerschmitt after studying it on the ground and before flying it. And those estimates were confirmed in flight. I had made my own estimates of the performance and maneuverability characteristics of a lot of other single-seater fighters, and I'd be willing to wager that none of them represent the general, all-around flight and fighting characteristics possessed by the Me109."
- US Marine Corps major Al Williams. Source: Bf 109D test flight, 1938. 
Me 109:
"Apart from performance, it was also very important the plane to possess a sort of 'goodwill'. The Bf 109 - except for take-offs - was an easy-to-fly airplane, and in addition it brought back the pilot even with serious damage. My plane, 'Blue 1' received hits multiple times, in one case when attacking a Boston formation the skin on the left wing was ripped off on half square meter, the main spar was damaged and the undercarriage tire was blown to pieces, yet it dropped without a problem and the plane landed just like it was a training session. Not to mention it`s valuable quality that it never caught fire during landing on the belly after a fatal hit, in contrast to many other type, with which such emergency procedure put us at a serious risk because of the danger of fire and explosion. To summerize : we loved the Bf 109."
- Pinter Gyula, 2nd Lt., JG101. Source: internet account 

Me 109 E:
"Performance by 1940 standards was good. When put into a full throttle climb at low air speeds, the airplane climbed at a very steep angle, and our fighters used to have difficulty in keeping their sights on the enemy even when at such a height that their rates of climb were comparible. This steep climb at low air speed was one of the standard evasion maneuvres used by the German pilots. Another was to push the stick forward abruptly and bunt into a dive with considerable negative 'g'. The importance of arranging that the engine whould not cut under these circumstances cannot be over-stressed. Speed is picked up quickly in a dive, and if being attacked by an airplane of slightly inferior level performance, this feature can be used with advantage to get out of range. There is no doubt that in the autumn of 1940 the Bf.109E in spite of its faults, was a doughty opponent to set against our own equipment."
- RAF Royal Aircraft Establishment (RAE) Farnborough handling trials,Bf.109E Wn: 1304. M.B. Morgan and R. Smelt of the RAE, 1944. 

Me 109 E/F/G:
"Yeah, the 109 could compete with the P51, no doubt. Maneuverability was excellent. But the P51 could do it longer! But in the battle itself, the 109 certainly could compete with the P-51, even the Spitfire. You couldn't follow the Spitfire in a tight turn upwards. You couldn't follow it. But we knew exactly the Spitfire also had shortcomings. In the beginning when they dived away, they had problems with the carburetor. cshhht shhht cht cht cht (shows engine cutting out) . Until they came up to speed. So every airplane has some problems in some areas, and if you know it, you can overcome it. " 
- Major Gunther Rall. German fighter ace, NATO general, Commander of the German Air Force. 275 victories. Source: Lecture by general Rall. 

Me 109 F:
"It was the 109 F. This was my beloved aircraft. It was the first aircraft with the round wing tips, no struts in the back, 601 engine. Excellent, and not too overloaded. You know, later on they put in this, and put in this, and put in this. The aircraft became heavier, but not this one. The F was my ideal aircraft. And it had a very good weapon set. We had a 20 millimeter gun through the propellor, and two 15 millimeters (actually 2 x 7,92 mms) on top of the engine. It was enough." 
- Major Gunther Rall. German fighter ace, NATO general, Commander of the German Air Force. 275 victories. Source: Lecture by general Rall. 

Me 109 G:
"It was very advanced and equipped with new, more sophisticated technology. Nicknamed Gustav, the 109G was well armed, but not as light as the early E and F versions. Its more powerful engine meant higher power settings whose initial climb rate sent it soaring to 18700 feet in six minutes, but at low speed the plane was difficult to handle."
- Major Gunther Rall in April 1943. German fighter ace, NATO general, Commander of the German Air Force. 275 victories. Source: Gunther Rall, a memoir. 

Me 109 G-2/G-6: 
- What was it like to sit in the Messerschmitt after Curtiss and Fokker? 
"Dunno... Felt like an airplane. It was faster. 
The Messerschmitt was exellent. You got always away when you pushed your nose down, and it then rose like an elevator. You soon had upper hand again." 
- Mauno Fräntilä, Finnish fighter ace. 5 1/2 victories. Source: Interview by Finnish Virtual Pilots Association: Chief Warrant Officer Mauno Fräntilä. 

Me 109 G:
"Comparing the Curtiss and the Messerschmitt (109 G), which one was the more pleasant to fly ? 
Well, both were pleasant each in their own way. The Curtiss was as if in your control all the time. More speed would have been necessary. The Messerschmitt had speed, she climbed well and was well-armed. That was it. Both types were good aircraft in their age."
- Kyösti Karhila, Finnish fighter ace. 32 victories. Source: Interview by Finnish Virtual Pilots Association.

Me 109 G:
"Fast and maneuverable Me 109 (G) would be a tough opponent in the hands of a skillful pilot. Messerschmitt was during it´s time an efficient fighter and would not be in shame even nowadays. Eventhough the top speeds of the today´s fighters are high the differerencies would even up in a dogfight. 
Mersu (Messerchmitt) had three meters long engine in the nose were with 1 500 horsepowers. The speed was at it´s best 750 kilometers per hour. It turned well too, if you just pulled the stick"
- Mauno Fräntilä, Finnish fighter ace. 5 1/2 victories. Source: Finnish Virtual Pilots Association: fighter ace Mauno Fräntilä was creating the glory of the war pilots. 

Me 109 F/G:
"The F version was my favorite. It was not nearly as sluggish in the controls as the G version was. It was best suited as a dogfighter. The G6 however was better at higher altitudes and had a higher ceiling than the F's.
The 190 was over all a better a/c than the 109, but again the pilots liked the 109's climb and simply the fact that by the time they had flown 400 combat missions the 109 had become very very familiar to them. Fanz Stigler liked the 109G as well and also enjoyed flying the K-4. The K-4, he said was very much like the G yet could leave all other fighters behind in climb. In control feel he said the K felt identical to the G. He described on many occasions where they would just bank away from the fighters and climb away from them. He also flew a Spitfire once, saying that he liked the a/c."
- Franz Stigler, German fighter ace. 28 victories. Interview of Franz Stigler.

Me 109:
"The 109? That was a dream, the non plus ultra. Just like the F-14 of today. Of course, everyone wanted to fly it as soon as possible. I was very proud when I converted to it."
- Major Gunther Rall, German fighter ace, NATO general, Commander of the German Air Force. 275 victories. 

Me 109 G (Spanish version):
"The Bf 109 is, without doubt, the most satisfying and challenging aircraft that I have ever flown."
- Mark Hannah of the Old Flying Machine Company 

Me 109 G-6: 
Me109 had good performance values for its time, the weapons (1 x 20 mm + 2 x 13 mm) were accurate and effective. The option for 3x20mm cannons was well suited against IL-2s. I didn't regard the swerving during take-offs as anything special. In my opinion, the accidents were caused by poor training.
- Martti Uottinen, Finnish war bomber pilot, post war fighter pilot. Source: Hannu Valtonen, "Me 109 ja Saksan sotatalous" (Messerschmitt Bf 109 and the German war economy), ISBN 951-95688-7-5. 

Me 109 G:
"So how does the aeroplane compare with other contemporary fighters ? First, let me say that all my comments are based on operation below 10,000 feet and at power settings not exceeding +12 (54") and 2700 rpm. I like it as an aeroplane, and with familiarity I think it will give most of the allied fighters I have flown a hard time, particularly in a close, hard turning, slow speed dog-fight. It will definitely out-maneuver a P-51 in this type of flight, the roll rate and slow speed characteristics being much better. The Spitfire on the other hand is more of a problem for the '109 and I feel it is a superior close in fighter. Having said that the aircraft are sufficiently closely matched that pilot abilty would probably be the deciding factor. At higher speeds the P-51 is definitely superior, and provided the Mustang kept his energy up and refused to dogfight he would be relatively safe against the '109.
I like the aeroplane very much, and I think I can understand why many of the Luftwaffe aces had such a high regard and preference for it."
- Mark Hanna of the Old Flying Machine Company flying the OFMC Messerschmitt Bf 109 G (Spanish version). 

Spitfire vs Me 109 in general:
"Military Channel's program "Spitfire vs Me 109" with Bob Doe, B of B RAF vet and Ekkehard Bob LW JG54 B of B vet comparing the aircraft:"
"Ease of flying went to the Spit. The consensus was it took a veteran pilot to master the 109, but that the Spit was more forgiving to a new pilot."
"Doe remarked on the cramped feeling and the poor visibilty. He was in Black 6 the 109G2 of the RAF Museum."
"Ekkehard Bob was in a Spitfire Vb cockpit . His comment was on how roomy it was and how wonderful the visibilty was. He then said he'd really like to fly the airplane."
"They then went on to talk about hitting power, which went to the 109 20mms vs the Spit 303's."
"The final result was they were both good airplanes and that it would fall to the pilot to make the difference."
"An interesting sidebar was the discussion of turning circle. They believed that with average pilots the Spit would out turn the 109, but that if flown to the limit, the 109 could match the Spit. "
- Bob Doe Ekkehard Bob. Source: Military Channel program. 

Me 109 G through the opposition's eyes
"BF109 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."
- Major Kozhemyako, Soviet fighter ace. Source: translation from Russian language. 

Me 109 G: 
"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. "
-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. 

Me 109 G: 
"The worst thing about Me109 was its bad reputation which caused unnecessary nervousness on many (new) pilots. The tendency to swing was related to this. As a plane the Me was a typical wartime fighter equipped with a powerful engine. A cool pilot could easily control the plane's direction and change it when accelerating."
-Jorma Karhunen, Finnish fighter ace. 36 1/2 victories, fighter squadron commander. . Source: Hannu Valtonen, "Me 109 ja Saksan sotatalous" (Messer


----------



## Titus70 (May 2, 2005)

Hi KrazyKanuck,
Thanks for pointing that out. You're correct. The Focke-Wulf was developed early. My point to Adler was that heavy Allied bombing campaign was having such a major impact that "developing" i.e. putting the Focke Wulf and variants into large scale production to strategically impact the airwar over Germany was already too late.
Yes, they most certainly were flying and being used as effective bomber interceptor fighters. But the devasting arial bombardment had made it difficult to effectivley put into the air sufficient numbers. Let alone ever improved versions in sufficient quantities with enough well trained experienced pilots.
My apologies for not stating it more clearer. 

Cheers
Titus.


----------



## Erich (May 2, 2005)

The FW 190A-8 was developed in more numbers than any other variant of the 190, and only when the Oschersleben plant was finally destroyed did it have some effect on production, granted there were several other manufacturers of the Würger. Fuel was the detriment as there were more than enough Luftw. pilots to take on the Allies "indianer" and Viermots.

The Fw 190A series were dogs at the higher altitiudes and this is why the 109G-AS versions were used in the high escort roles of receiving the US Escort fighters in particular and in vain tried to protect the heavier armed Fw 190A's on their bomber attacks...........see my web-pages

E ~


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 2, 2005)

you have web pages??


----------



## Erich (May 2, 2005)

you're kidding right ? I have listed it in the past Lanc

go to Sturmgruppen on Google search and you will find it - Kascmarek/ Neil Page: translation work. punch that in and go half way down and find some SturmFW articles. The old stuff is still on the net rolling around in cyberspace and we need to think seriously of revitalizing them in some form

E ♪


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 2, 2005)

Titus70 said:


> Hi KrazyKanuck,
> Thanks for pointing that out. You're correct. The Focke-Wulf was developed early. My point to Adler was that heavy Allied bombing campaign was having such a major impact that "developing" i.e. putting the Focke Wulf and variants into large scale production to strategically impact the airwar over Germany was already too late.
> Yes, they most certainly were flying and being used as effective bomber interceptor fighters. But the devasting arial bombardment had made it difficult to effectivley put into the air sufficient numbers. Let alone ever improved versions in sufficient quantities with enough well trained experienced pilots.
> My apologies for not stating it more clearer.
> ...



Most of my sources say that 20051 Fw-190's were built of all versions. These figures may be incorrect though. The aircraft was built in quite sufficient numbers. However I believe if some of the production lines of the 109 had been replaced by 190 lines more would have built and this would have been better for the Luftwaffes needs.

Of the 20051 there were:

Fw-190V1 through V-54: 54

190A-0: 30

190A-1: 102

190A-2: 426

190A-3: 509

190A-4: 894

190A-5: 723

190A-6: 596

190A-7: 80

*190A-8: 1334*

190B: 6

190C: 9

190D-0: 10

190D-9: Unknown possibly 674

190F-1: 25-30

190F-2: 271

190F-3: 250

190F-8: 385

190F-9: Unknown as series was stopped dew to end of war

190G-0: Unknown

190G-1: 49

190G-2: 468

190G-3: Unknown

190G-4: Unknown

190G-8: Unknown


----------



## Anonymous (May 2, 2005)

Titus,

Just my opinion but that is too much material to quote onto this site. Give the link, and make the material available for yourself offline just in case the site goes down.

Also, when you do quote such things, I suggest you use the quote feature of this forum. Simply use the following format:

<quote> text you want to quote
goes here and I suggest you put the
url at the end with the close quote tag on the same line
http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=518 </quote>

but use square brackets instead of angle brackets, which will give the following:



> text you want to quote
> goes here and I suggest you put the
> url at the end with the close quote tag on the same line
> http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=518



Note: putting the cursor over the style and block icons at the top of the text entry box will give you the formats for the tags for that item.

Note2: in IE you can simply highlight the text you want to tag and hit the button and it will put the tags around the highlighted text, but in Mozilla FireFox (another browser) this does not seem to work so i type in the tags by hand (it's not that hard).

Good Luck,

Lunatic


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 2, 2005)

It does making typing easier.


----------



## Titus70 (May 3, 2005)

Thank you for your discussion input Adler and Erich re the FW190.

Also appreciate the tips and suggestions from RG_Lunatic 
re: http://www.virtualpilots.fi/feature/articles/109myths/#myths 
regarding use of links and quotes.

The paste feature saves a lot of typing; but sure, I will try to keep the amount of pasted 'quote' material to a reduced amount in the future. 

Hope you found the site article of interest.

Best Wishes to all
Titus


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 3, 2005)

No problem welcome to the site by the way.


----------



## CharlesBronson (May 10, 2005)

Some 60 years ago: the Hartmann`s last victory.

During the last months of the war JG 52 had fallen back into Silesia in the face of the Red Army. During March the unit had been tasked with escorting transport aircraft flying an air-bridge into the beleaguered city of Breslau in Silesia. The Red Army's advance in southern Moravia and in particular the opening of an offensive against the major city of Brünn on April 15 1945 forced JG 52 to fall back to the field at Deutsch Brod, south-west of Prague. On 8 May 1945, the last day of the war in Europe, I./JG 52 flew their last sorties of the war. It is generally accepted that Erich Hartmann's last victory was returned during his final sortie. After being detailed by Kommodore Graf to ascertain how close the Russians were to the field at Deutsch Brod, Hartmann (and an unnamed wingman according to Ullmann) took off, climbed to 4,000ft and headed east. Arriving over Brünn, Hartmann spotted a formation of Yak-9 fighters and quickly accounted for one of the Soviet fighters in an action that is related in Toliver and Constable's biography .


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 11, 2005)

And after that he flew to the American Lines but was handed over to the Russians, I believe.


----------



## CharlesBronson (May 11, 2005)

That is right, then he spend 10 years in forced labors in Russia.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 12, 2005)

Yeap returned and flew for the modern Luftwaffe and was even sent to the United States as an instructor pilot.


----------



## CharlesBronson (May 17, 2005)

Hartmann´s 300th, 24 august 1944, BF-109 G-6/U-2


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 17, 2005)

It is a shame that his aircraft does not exist anymore today. It would be great to see it.


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 17, 2005)

Buy one of the Flugwerk 109's and paint it like his.... 8)


----------



## CharlesBronson (May 17, 2005)

Recently I have several arguments in the spanish language forums for some article published in the french magazine Le Fana de L'Aviation No. 423. 
In his issue of February of this year, there is a some guy named Dimitri Khazanov who is presented as a historian, wich wrote a large amount of bullshit.
Between other crazy statements he alleged that Hartmann claims are wrong and he could shot down at most 80 planes.  






Off course this suposed "historian" forget to tell the readers the enormous lies wich are included in some russian airwar narrations, suchs as " Lilia Litvak was killed by 8 BF-109" or "Alexander Pokryshkin fought alone with 25 Messerschmitts" completely and absolute crap.

Fortunatly for me, I have found a yesterday a excellent website wich put this moron in the right place.  

http://members.aol.com/falkeeins/Sturmgruppen/hartmannclaims.html


----------



## plan_D (May 18, 2005)

I read it. It certainly rips this crap about Hartmann being a liar to pieces.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 18, 2005)

Even the Russians acknowleged his record, that's why they had a price on his head and held him for many years after the war!


----------



## Udet (May 18, 2005)

Mr. Bronson is correct.

Soviet mythology is plentiful of cases like those of the female ace (who in fact got caught, shot down and killed by a single Bf 109 pilot).

Let´s not forget the soviet ministry for mythology affairs has it the soviet union won the war all by itself. Yeah Right.

Lend-Lease sent them very little (which happened to be "crap" compared to similar soviet produced items). The opening of new fronts in the west "did not have any significant effect" on the outcome of the war; the strategic bombing campaign of both RAF and USAAF -reaching its peak in 1944- also had no relevant effect in the benefit of the soviets for the simple reason the war "against both the Wehrmacht and Luftwaffe had already been decided in 1943", etc, etc.

The schizophrenic delusion of those people continues.

So now they are out after Hartmann? )))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))


----------



## lesofprimus (May 18, 2005)

Gerhard Barkhorn is next.......
Then Gunther Rall........
Then Kittle and Nowotny.......


----------



## CharlesBronson (May 18, 2005)

Mr Kazhanov is Russian after all, you cannot wait for much clear jugdement from his side.

Now.. I agree that Hartmann served to a tiranic and sadistic regime, but some of the estatements of Kazhanov are too naif or simply stupid...my favorite is:

*" one of Hartmann's primary concerns when flying combat sorties was his own personal safety. There are very few bombers among his victims.." *

1- Off course that E.H want to stay alive, he was not a Kamikaze if that is what this rusky means.

2 - Aniway the second part of this argument is plain wrong, Of his 352 victories, 260 were achieved against russian fighters , seven against U.S. Fifteenth Air Force Mustangs, and the other 85 includes large numbers of twin engined DB-2/3, Pe-2, Tu-2, Il-2 and others 2 crew aircrafts.

3- There is a veiled statement this russian writer want to make us believe,.. Hartmann was a coward...well...sure he wasnt


----------



## evangilder (May 19, 2005)

Anyone who has had that many engagements and kills in fighter combat is far from a coward in my book.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 19, 2005)

Could anyone find additional information about this jerk? He may be a so-called historian, but like my dad used to say "So smart, but yet so stupid." Mr. Kazhanov, what a joke!


----------



## KraziKanuK (May 19, 2005)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Could anyone find additional information about this jerk? He may be a so-called historian, but like my dad used to say "So smart, but yet so stupid." Mr. Kazhanov, what a joke!



A link to a 12 O'cloch High forum thread, http://forum.12oclockhigh.net/showthread.php?t=744

From another thread, same forum:

_From article by Christer Bergström :
http://www.elknet.pl/acestory/hartm/hartm1.htm

The sudden steep rise in "Bubi" Hartmann's success rate created suspicion among several other fighter pilots. One of them was Lt. Fritz Obleser, a twenty-year-old Austrian who had joined JG 52 a couple of months after Hartmann. Obleser also had achieved a large number of victories, and he found it hard to believe that another relative newcomer could rise to such level in such a short space of time. So Obleser asked the Gruppenkommandeur if he was allowed to fly a mission with Hartmann, and he received permission to do so. Hartmann and Obleser took off from Novo-Zaporozhye at 1200 hours on 1 October 1943. As they returned fifty-five minutes later, Obleser admitted that his earlier suspicions toward Hartmann had been unfounded; he had personally witnessed how Hartmann had blown two La-5s out of the sky in a matter of minutes._


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 19, 2005)

KraziKanuK said:


> FLYBOYJ said:
> 
> 
> > Could anyone find additional information about this jerk? He may be a so-called historian, but like my dad used to say "So smart, but yet so stupid." Mr. Kazhanov, what a joke!
> ...



Thanks Kanuk - went to the site you posted, it seems a lot of folks are steamed about this.

From another bio page: "His ferocity in combat earned him nicknames from the Soviets, the first of which was "Karaya" (sweetheart). But as more and more Russian pilots were downed this changed to "Cheriye Chorni": the Black Devil, inreference to the black tulip petal shaped design on his nose. The Soviets put a bounty of 10,000 rubles on his head, but Soviet pilots were still avoiding him, and so he had his infamous black nose design removed." 

I don't think an 80 kill German ace would warrant such a bounty. I wonder why Mr. Kazhanov did not investigate this.


----------



## Udet (May 19, 2005)

I am way too familiar with all these post-communist wimps.

They do need some professional help don´t they?

Hartmann a "coward"...

If we were going to play in the same pond of shit these alleged "historian" is playing, mr. Ivan Kozhedub who happened to begin his career a mere few months after Hartmann´s debut would have appeared to in fact care a lot about "his own personal safety".

Mr. Kozhedub flew a small number of missions when compared to Hartmann´s total. The 3/4 of a million times hero of the soviet union flew about 350 missions...against the more than 1,000 missions flown by Erich.

Perhaps the soviet propaganda did not want one of its favorite toys to get creamed at the front.

So this neo-bolshevik tramp writing articles in a french magazine apparently did not know the guy "who cared just too much about his own personal safety" took off on mission to engage the soviet air force in the very last day of the war: even then he killed another soviet plane.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 19, 2005)

Udet said:


> I am way too familiar with all these post-communist wimps.
> 
> They do need some professional help don´t they?
> 
> ...



Well put Udet, here's a link to this story: http://members.aol.com/falkeeins/Sturmgruppen/hartmannclaims.html


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 19, 2005)

Coward? If I recall reading about Hartmann he said that you had to get so close to the enemy that they filled your gun sights. On several occasions his aircraft crashed because of damage sustained flying through the burning wreckage of his victom.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 19, 2005)

Yep, this is one I gotta go with Udet's Statment - "neo-bolshevik tramp."


----------



## Erich (May 19, 2005)

we might as well call all the pilots of JG 52 cowards according to this Soviet poser. Geez with over 11,000 kills towards your record the highest of any German Luftwaffe single engine Geschwader. jelousy perhaps, quite so in my humble opinion..............wishing his 'Red Guards' gonad units could of performed with such high skill and daring during the conflict...........

what nonsense !

E ~


----------



## plan_D (May 19, 2005)

I agree with you all, obviously. 

What I don't get is, how could you call someone a coward if he's going after more fighters than bombers? Surely it's _harder_ to shoot down an enemy fighter than it is a bomber. I mean, come on, let's be honest a bomber was a sitting duck!


----------



## Udet (May 19, 2005)

Plan_D:

Of course. Totally correct.

Please keep in mind the guy is psychiatric case.

Has any of you read any interviews of Ivan Kozhedub? It is the same schizofrenic delusion one can detect on many soviet accounts, "you have to understand our planes were absolutely superior to both the Bf109 and Fw190"...blah, blah...

While it is true the soviets were fielding some competitive fighters in the final year of the war, the bulk of them were basically equipped and the most important fact: the bulk of the soviet pilots were undertrained.

As Erich put it and going a bit further on that, you can see the VVS had the so called "guards" air regiments by mid 1942!!!! What could any soviet air regiment had possibly achieved by such date? Surviving perhaps.

The fact the VVS lost some 11,000 combat aircraft to all causes*during 1945 alone *- a front where the Luftwaffe did not have the bulk of its force deployed- speaks wonders of the quality of soviet airmen.

I have met a Luftwaffe veteran who fought in the east flying a Bf 109 G-10 in the final months. His opinion is his 109 was superior to the late soviet yaks he engaged in dogfights at low altitude and that his unit aggressiveness in combat did not cease to cause an effect on soviet formations. Perhaps the so-called German order to "avoid combat with yaks at low altitude" is another one of the soviet mythology issues?


To end my remarks on the neo-bolshevik tramp, could someone send him a letter and inform him on the number of missions their top hero flew during the war. Some 350 missions...where are the guts there? 1944 was a year of absolutely intense and critical action in the eastern front. 

Perhaps the top soviet hero was concerned a great deal on his own personal safety and in a year of dramatic combat, when he could have flown many many missions, decided to not join the fight that often and rather stayed on the ground drinking vodka and having bors.


----------



## plan_D (May 19, 2005)

I've read the Luftwaffe fielded a mere 20% of it's force on the Eastern front in 1944-'45.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 19, 2005)

I'm arranging a Kazhanov lynch mob!


----------



## delcyros (May 19, 2005)

It appears from time to time that I have to take words in order to relativate a little. So it is now. Don´t be unkind to the efforts of VVS or to the bravery of those soviet airman who fighted and died against the Luftwaffe. Moreso to those, who stayed alive like Ivan Khozedub. Keep in mind that the soviets had the best fighter pilots of the allies if you care about claims. Unlike the western allies they had to fly against excellent trained pilots in comparably good planes and large forces over a very wide area. It should be noted also that not 20 but 50% of the Luftwaffe was in 1945 deployed against the soviets. (..of course, if you ignore Luftflotte 6 with it´s 2163 planes, which contributed much to the fighting over the Oder and count them towards the Reichs homedefense, you may finish with less, but this is wrong) In average spoken, more Luftwaffe planes have been deployed over the years to the eastern fronat than to all other theatres (except Reichsverteidigung, which was nearly as large as the eastern front in 1944/45 -only). More Luftwaffe planes have been lost over Russia than over France, Britain, Afrika or western Germany. While it is true that the soviets suffered terrible losses over the years, there is no need to downgrade the contributions made by VVS to win the war for the allies.


----------



## plan_D (May 19, 2005)

I find the 50% number hard to believe since the Luftwaffe in 1944-'45 was more concerned with protecting Germany and the factories that kept the Luftwaffe running than stemming the Soviet advance. 

There would have been no Luftwaffe had they not diverted the majority of their forces towards the Western front. 

No one is taking away the bravery of the VVS but they were a poor, under-trained force. The Western Allies did more damage to the Luftwaffe than the VVS through their bombing campaign against aircraft, oil and ball bearing factories amongst other things. 

The USAAF, USN, FAA and RAF were not just fighting the Luftwaffe, however the VVS were just fighting the Luftwaffe so had more to throw in.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 19, 2005)

You also have to remember that the based alot of there propoganda on heroes. A heroic figure always makes your warriors fight harder. They needed to downplay the German Hero and make there heros larger then life.


----------



## Erich (May 19, 2005)

more than 3/4rs of the Reich defence force was sent to the Ost front for the last battles for Berlin at the middle of January. The Reich defence units JG 300 and 301 with some Bf 190G's of JG 53 reamined behind to bolster what was left of the defence of GErmany's interior and they were slaughtered..........

here was what was left of the single engine day fighter force over Deutschland:

I./JG 7 with the Me 262 near Hamburg.
JG 300 and JG 301 around Berlin literally
part of II./JG 3 on Berlins S.W. corner
JG 53 in Bayern
JG 2 around Merzhausen and Altenstadt, Nidda

JG's 26 and 27 very close proximity around Rheine, Achmer, Nordhorn, Hespe

all other single engine Geschwaders on the Ost front

1 February 1945


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 19, 2005)

I dont blame them either for doing it that way. Besides the fact that they had to defend Berlin but the fact that I would rather fall into the US or British hands.


----------



## Erich (May 19, 2005)

Many of the Ost Geschwadern retreated to western hands to surrender in the last days literally......JG 54 for one, JG 7 another which had been flying out of Prague like KG 51 flying the jet


----------



## delcyros (May 19, 2005)

True. The Luftwaffe did not carried out major operations in the west after jan 45. Focus was on the east in order to delay the advance of the soviets. Even Me-262 have been involved in order to stop tanks on the street from Beeskow to Erkner....


----------



## Udet (May 19, 2005)

Mr. Delcyros,

It is always an interesting thing to have someone whose opinions seek balance, fairness and objectiveness. I do appreciate the insight of your comments very greatly.

No one has denied the VVS made its contribution for victory. In the end every branch of all allied nations made a contribution for victory.

As to bravery, it is not an issue in my comments. All pilots of all nations were brave. The idea was to "show" guys like this alleged "historian" that his arguments can be shattered with ease. He attempted making a "case" of Erich Hartmann being too concerned about "his own personal safety"...the statistics could certainly help him understanding the same dose could be prescribed to the soviet heroes.


Now, there are problems with your assertion though: 

(i) The lowest casualty rate for the Luftwaffe, throughout the entire war, happened precisely in the eastern front. This is proven unless you want to stick to something different.

I am sure there are some statistics available on the net regarding this matter. I have some stuff printed around here; the case was analyzed in depth. The place where the Luftwaffe loss less planes was the east in spite of the furious soviet claim they "broke the Luftwaffe´s back all by themselves as early as in 1943"

i.e. Kursk, the Cauldron of july 1943, the so-called "turning point in the east", soviet mythology has it the thing turned out a complete "massacre" of Germans both in the air and the ground. Evidence surging has suggested quite a diametrally opposed thing took place in the famous salient- both in the air and the grond-. The Luftwaffe shot down -confirmed kills- about 360 soviet combat planes in the first day of the offensive. Repeat, 360 kills, this does not include Flak victims and accidents.


(ii) "In average spoken, more Luftwaffe planes have been deployed over the years to the eastern fronat than to all other theatres." Very hardly so.
This would require a further scrutiny. 

From June 22, 1941 to mid/late 1943, in fact, the bulk of the Luftwaffe was based in the east. Then the late 1943-early 1945 "gap" when the Luftwaffe ost was stripped of his fighter force to deal with the heavy bomber menace.


----------



## KraziKanuK (May 19, 2005)

Some might find this intresting, http://jg26.vze.com/

Go to the section headed: Luftwaffe Aircraft Losses By Theatre September 1943 - October 1944


----------



## delcyros (May 20, 2005)

According to the Generalquartiermeister der Luftwaffe and other sources the VVS took the bulk of the airwar until 1944 against the Luftwaffe.
Important are the combat sorties flown 1941-1945:
USAAF (europe): ~1.7 million, 235.000 till 31.12.1943.
RAF: ~1.6 million from 1939-1941.
VVS: 3.223.000 (not included transportation, coastel and distant sorties), around 1.5 million till 31.12. 1943.
Luftwaffe (east): ~1.8 million, around 1 million till 31.12.1943.

Losses of the Luftwaffe (planes, included damaged more than 10%):
1.7.41-31.12.41: 4784 (3827 on the eastern front= 80%)
1.1.42-31.8.42: 8288 (4660 on the eastern front= 56%)
1.9. 42-31.8.43: 12438 (7645 on the eastern front= 61%) 
1.9.43-31.10.44: 35660 (~8600 on the eastern front= 24%)
1.11.44-8.5.45: not enough datas avaiable

Losses of Luftwaffe crewman and ground crews:
1.6.41-30.11.44: 92406 KIA (50883 KIA on the eastern front=55%)
1.6.41-30.11.44: 181738 wounded (110785 on the estern front=61%)
1.6.41-30.11.44: 122333 MIA (43361 MIA on the eatsern front=35%)
It is true that the loss to sortie ratio on the eastern front is better than it was on the western, but most losses suffered the Luftwaffe on the eastern front (keep in mind that not all are inflicted by the VVS, a number was done because of advancing soviet ground forces, also), except for the planes, which can be given for the western allies due to intensive air battles over central and western europe from late 1943/early1944 on. However, while many Experten could claim a really great number of planes and destroying large parts of ground forces, the Luftwaffe failed to provide proper air cover for their bombers and -more important- for their transports at the russian front. In nine weeks the VVS destroyed 495 transport planes at the air battles over Stalingrad, that are almost enough planes to build 5 Transport Geschwader! If you count the 233 planes lost on the ground to them these actions broke the backbone of the german air transportation arm.
I can also prove that more planes have been deployed to the east front (in average spoken) than to any of the western theatres, if needed.


----------



## Udet (May 20, 2005)

Delcyros:

Something is not correct in your aguments.

First off, your Stalingrad referral is partially correct.
In fact, the Stalingrad battle proved a massive disaster *for the transport branch of the Luftwaffe*. Repeat, for the transport branch mainly; losses of fighters and bombers were moderate for the Luftwaffe.

Yes, nearly 500 transports -and some He111s, Fw200s and Ju86s pressed into transport service during the airlift- were lost.

The incorrect point comes when you credit the VVS with the destruction -or the destruction of the biggest part- of all these transports. A huge number of those were *lost to accidents *due to the miserable weather they had to fly in during most days of the airlift period. The sides of the runways were flooded with remains of the planes which crashed upon landing and were removed by ground crews to clean the path for those planes following.

Another big part of those lost transports were due to soviet anti-aircraft batteries placed right outside the ever shrinking perimeter of the trapped German army which had a great time shooting down the crammed slow transports taking off.

It is not daring to say the VVS had the lowest impact in the losses of all those transports. Why? 

(i) Because they had taken insane losses before the winter in the area, and,
(ii) because miserable weather also played against soviet pilots.

Quite actually the performance of the VVS during the stalingrad battle, being generous, was wanting.

Most acounts show an indeed brave stubborn VVS launching swarm after swarm of fighters and bombers here and there to conduct messy and poorly coordinated attacks on German ground positions and take prohibitive losses at the hands of both flak and the Luftwaffe.

Yup, sometimes some soviet bomber crew could hit the mark, and some fighter pilots scored kills in combat against Bf-109s; the point rather is the effect of soviet military aviation in this area of the front in 1942 was far from being outstanding.

Read as many books and accounts of the battle and you can notice the Luftwaffe reigned over the city. The soviets launched their offensive that would trap the 6th army when the winter entered into force, depriving the Wehrmacht of critical air support -aircraft available in more than significant numbers-. The logs of General Wolfram von Richtofen show how bitter he felt knowing his powerful Stuka fliegerkorps would now be grounded in view of the miserable weather.

Or do you believe the VVS pilots had some special abilities that would allow them to fly unhindered in the miserable winter weather of the russian steppe?

In fact the records of Luftwaffe fighter units across the Don bend and the city itself show during some weeks dramatically low losses reported in their ranks. Knowing your style, do not interpret this as if i was suggesting "the fight was piece of cake", much less "making fun" on the soviet airmen. It is rather a mere referral.

While i do not have the info at hand, i will come back later with the list of Jagdgruppen that a few weeks after the Kurk battle salient of July 1943 began the process of moving west to face the heavy bomber menace.

That could help clarify the atmosphere regarding the sorties flown stats you posted here.


----------



## delcyros (May 21, 2005)

I do not denie that the VVS took heavy losses, Udet. However, I believe it´s importance is a bit underrated here. The losses have many reason, so I must admit that you may be correct here. However, the Luftwaffe was far away from ruling the skies over Stalingrad, according to General Hans Hube, who said that "...die sehr starke sowjetische Luftwaffe (machte) über der Festung was sie wollte...". it´s a tribute to VVS or isn´t it? 
According to Lothar Hähne, a friend of mine, who survived Stalingrad (he lives still), the Il-2 were moving freely around over german troops, many have been intercepeted but mostly after they fulfilled their strikes. He also saw intensive airbattles and lots of wreckages of both, VVS and Luftwaffe planes. Unlike the Luftwaffe, the VVS did regularly night bombing attacks with obsolete U-2 biplanes against airfield, no matter how the weather was. losses have been high of course.
Maybe we can find some numbers of combat sorties in the equally timeframe (1941-1944) for the Luftwaffe at the western theatre also? This may verify or not my thesis but I still believe that the eastern front saw more activity of the Luftwaffe than any other single theatre and therefore the VVS had to deal with more than UK or US flyers had to (exception granted for 1944) over the years. It should be noted also that they took the intensive fightings in a timeframe where the Luftwaffe had also a numerical advantage as well as the quality advantage. Indeed the years 1941, 42 and 43 represent the middle of the war, the turning years I would say...


----------



## plan_D (May 21, 2005)

Why miss out 1939-1940? 

That *is* right delcyros, the war started on 1st September 1939. The USSR didn't get involved until 21st June, 1941. In between those times against Western Powers, there was the Battle for Narvik, Battle of France, Battle of Britain and Battle of North Africa. 

Correct me if I'm wrong, which I'm not, but weren't the RAF fighting the Luftwaffe during all the time?


----------



## lesofprimus (May 21, 2005)

U are indeed correct, Sir PlanishD.........


----------



## delcyros (May 21, 2005)

I don´t want to be misunderstood thats why I wanted a timeframe with a comparable solution, involving both, the US and the SU.Both major ww2 nations entered the war in 1941, that´s why it is reasonable. But you are right, there are other theatres right prior to this. In case you trace it back to 1939 I would like to include the spanish civil war, also (since pilots from Russia AND Germany have been involved in this conflict).
However, the numbers for RAF combat sorties of the whole time of 1939-1945 are only half as much as those flown by the VVS in 1941-1945. And while the RAF lost around 20.000-24.500 planes in combat (with a given uncertainity thanks to less reliable publications) the VVS lost around 45.000-60.000 (again, not enough datas to give a better number). If you factor that the RAF lost only half as much planes as the VVS in only half as much sorties you come to the solution that the higher losses of the VVS are resulting from a more intensive fighting at and not because the Luftwaffe was three times more succesful than it was against the RAF. In fact the soviets lost around one plane for each 63-84 combat sorties (all included), while the RAF lost one plane for each 65- 80 combat sorties. This is a very comparable loss rate and keep in mind that most soviet planes are really soft and small planes unlike the British (the soviets also fielded no heavy bombers except for the Pe-8 unlike the RAF). But of course I don´t want to denie the efforts made by RAF, in fact they had the very hard task to deal with the Luftwaffe at a time when other nations simply collapsed. They had to deal with it for the first very hard years, no doubt, this makes the RAF records very impressive.
I originally wanted to denie that the VVS was only a minor player in ww2 and by far inferior to the Luftwaffe (and in comparison to any other allied airforce) in their combat records. This may be a very misleading opinion.


----------



## plan_D (May 21, 2005)

Keep in mind that the RAF were on the receiving end of a massive onslaught. Heavily out-numbered in both the Battle of France and Battle of Britain. 

In fact, the majority of the RAF planes lost in the Battle of France were on the ground. The RAF also began the BoB with a mere 704 aircraft in servicable condition, the Luftwaffe attacked with 3,700. 

From 1939 - 1941 Britain didn't commit itself to a massive strategic bombing campaign. It also was on it's own, the VVS had the support from the west from the RAF and USAAF. 

When the Soviet Union entered the war the VVS was the largest air force in the world. The RAF was out-numbered in every encounter, so you can hardly compare losses as a basis to make the argument that the VVS were comparable to RAF.


----------



## delcyros (May 21, 2005)

Well, after the numbers I know, the VVS made a more intensive battle than the RAF to comparable loss ratios. You are also wrong that Britian was on it´s own, it always had its ex commonwealth nations, where they got supply and fresh aircrews from. And they always had the backing of the US (even in a time when they haven´t entered the war already they allowed UK acces to their research and provided non militaric supply on a large scale...). The UK had also a impressive aircraft industry and ressources to build quantitys of excellent engines and airframes. The SU had how long an numerical advantage? For hours. After intensive attacks on 66 known airfields, the VVS lost around 70% of their planes in the baltic, western, Kiev and Odessa region. Most on the ground (as did the RAF in France). The SU had to upbuild their aircraft industry on their own from almost zero in Sibiria, in a time when new planes have been needed urgently. Not to speak of training for new pilots. And they still continued to carry out air operations against the Luftwaffe, this is what I find very impressive.


----------



## lesofprimus (May 21, 2005)

The Soviet Union also had a higher population and more aircraft manufacturing facilities.... They could replenish thier losses far faster than the Brits could...

Even with losing 70% of their aircraft in the opening days of the War, the Russians still had more aircraft at their disposal, albeit they were inferior aircraft to what the Brits had to defend with.....


----------



## plan_D (May 21, 2005)

It takes a long time to get new pilots from the Commonwealth countries to Britain. The British Empire was far reaching. 

The U.S didn't begin it's lend-lease until early 1941. Britain was on it's own in combatants and mostly in supply. This takes nothing away from the U.S of course because they were risking neutrality by allowing us to buy goods off them. 

The Soviet Union, as les said, still had more aircraft than the U.K. The RAF fought off a much larger superiority in enemy planes than the VVS did. 
The RAF had also been fighting the Luftwaffe longer. The RAF was in a much more dire situation than the VVS. As I've already said the RAF was on it's own, the USAAF wasn't present when the RAF was fighting wave after wave of Luftwaffe bombers and fighters in the spring of 1940. However, the RAF was present in June 1941 when the Luftwaffe attacked the VVS. Hell, the RAF even sent pilots and planes over (3,000 Hurricane IIBs and Cs and 1,300 Spitfire Mk.Vs). RAF pilots training the VVS even got 16 kills while out there. 

You might find the VVS an impressive force to keep it up but it wasn't. The Soviet Union was willing to sacrifice, that is all (brave or insane men were needed). 

On top of that the Eagle Squadrons were in Europe by the time the Luftwaffe had started on the Soviet Union and the RAF had started taking the fight to Germany.


----------



## delcyros (May 22, 2005)

I will agree with most what you said here. 
However, the VVS could not easily replace the losses of planes and factorys in 1941 or 1942. The industrial capabilitys of the SU are also overstated by you in 1941 and 1942. All in all the SU builded in 1941 15735 planes (65% prior to jule), 1942 it produces 25436 planes. This is quite a huge number but keep in mind that most designs are feitherweighted, wooden planes. Quality is also comparably low, since approx. 40-45% of VVS losses are not originated in enemy actions but structural and mechanical failures. Of these planes only some 50% get to VVS operational units. And losses in this timeframe are high. Britain kept on to produce high quality fighter as well as a number of medium and heavy bomber (which take a good deal of manpower and ressources). And RAF operated from an unsinkable aircraft carrier, not fearing an advancing Panzedivision unlike the VVS. And afte post war analysis of Luftwaffe loss listings, the whole Luftwaffe lost 2376 planes (including damage over 10%) while operating against England in the (10.7.-31.10.)BoB due to enemy actions. In a comparable timeframe from 22.6.-27.9. the Luftwaffe lost 2631 planes over Russia. The fighting the RAF had to carry out was very intensive at BoB,only- while the VVS had very intensive fighting in the whole timeframe till wars end.


----------



## lesofprimus (May 22, 2005)

> The fighting the RAF had to carry out was very intensive at BoB only - while the VVS had very intensive fighting in the whole timeframe till wars end.


That Im not too sure about...... There may be some Brits here that are gonna jump all over that one..... 


> And RAF operated from an unsinkable aircraft carrier, not fearing an advancing Panzedivision unlike the VVS.


I agree 100%.... 


> 40-45% of VVS losses are not originated in enemy actions but structural and mechanical failures.


That # seems to be a bit high.... I seem to remember that it was more like 20-25% loss rate due to non-combattant operations..... 

But if it is 40-45%, then Jesus, the Russians sucked at building and designing aircraft alot worse than I thought...


----------



## evangilder (May 22, 2005)

I seem to recall reading that the non-combat losses for the VVS was somewhere like 50%. That was mechanical and structural failures combine with accidents.


----------



## Erich (May 22, 2005)

Eric is that for the whole war ? Luftwaffe claims for the Soviet a/c is high and dservingly so.....the Soviet a/c was just pure garbage both for fighter and bomber. The Il-2 was the standard if you can call it one of achieving something ugly but yet useful


----------



## evangilder (May 22, 2005)

From what I recall, and I read this a while back, it was for the whole war. I have not tried to verify that number, so it could be wrong. It is just something that I remember reading.


----------



## lesofprimus (May 22, 2005)

If that # INCLUDES flying accidents, then I can believe it....


----------



## evangilder (May 22, 2005)

Yes, I do remember that it was all non-combat losses, including crashes and mechanical failures. I can't think of any other non-combat losses aside form maybe act of god kind of things.


----------



## lesofprimus (May 22, 2005)

I cant tell u how many pics Ive seen of fighters that crashed due to engine failure on take off...... The Mustang went through some problems in 1944... Following the changeover from 100/130 grade fuel to higher performance 100/150 grade during the summer of 1944, 8th Air Force P-51 groups reported an alarming increase in the number of take-off crashes due to engine failure, mostly caused by spark plug fouling......


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 22, 2005)

evan said:


> including crashes and mechanical failures. I can't think of any other non-combat losses aside form maybe act of god kind of things.



captured aircraft??


----------



## delcyros (May 22, 2005)

I took this number (40-45%) from Yacolevs book. There are some interesting other statistics in it. According to him the VVS had a big problem weeks before operation Zitadelle with the wrong glue agent on their LaGG planes. That agent destroyed the wooden structures after a while when facing the textile layer, forcing them to ground all LaGG planes in order to fix the problem. Some accidents are resulted in the same problem, also (but he gives no concrete number for them, who knows?)...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 22, 2005)

I think it is safe to say the Russians lost a lot of aircraft to accidents. The weather sucks there, landing in unimproved fields sucks really bad, and in war time like that you tend to outfly your maintenance.


----------



## plan_D (May 22, 2005)

Are you joking, del? The British fight wasn't as intense after the Battle of Britain!?!

Of course because there was no fight over North Africa, no fight over Sicily, no fight over Italy, no fight over France. The RAF took the fight to the Luftwaffe, that is why the skies over Britain were practically clear!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 22, 2005)

I am not so sure about that. Sure they bombed the hell out of Germany at night but most of there fighters did not have the range.


----------



## plan_D (May 22, 2005)

The RAF still took the fight to the Luftwaffe. The Luftwaffe were put on a defensive in 1941-'42 by the RAF.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 22, 2005)

I would not quite say the defensive. The Luftwaffe was still on the offensive to late 1943 and they were not beaten until mid to late 1944.


----------



## plan_D (May 22, 2005)

Who was bombing who? The RAF started the bombing offensive in 1941. It was not a case of being beaten, over Europe the Luftwaffe were on the defensive with all their offensive capability being sent to the Soviet Union. 

The only thing the Luftwaffe would really do against Britain was nuisance high-speed raids with Fw-190s.


----------



## Erich (May 22, 2005)

well at least over the Reich it would seem in the fall of 43 with Schweinfurth/Regensburg, Münster and others and then in the winter December 43-January 44 over Oschersleben, etc..........Big week.

Summer of 44 was the clincher where the Luftwaffe knew after loosing it's forward radar systems in Normandie that it was all a matter of time and then Kaput !


----------



## Erich (May 22, 2005)

Plan:

the useage of Ju 188's over Britain in 44-45 at night and then the Unternehemn Gisela which although England had been forewarned the March 4, 1945 raid really did shakae up alot of RAF personell from the lower ranks through the hierarchy. 3 more very small Ferne-nacht raids by German night fighters were performed and did not yield really any type of success, but did show even with all the AA defences and loads of Mossie nf's the Luftwaffe could still come over at will during 1945.........


----------



## plan_D (May 22, 2005)

Being on the defensive doesn't mean you're losing though. I'm just saying the RAF took the fight to the Luftwaffe, starting with the 1000 bomber raids in 1941. 

dels' comment got me started by saying _"The fighting the RAF had to carry out was very intensive at BoB only"_ - when it wasn't because the RAF was fighting all over Europe and South-East Asia. 

As well, the RAF supplied the VVS with 3000 Hurricane Mk.IIBs and Cs along with 1,300 Spitfire Mk.Vb.


----------



## Udet (May 22, 2005)

Delcyros:

While I do get your point very clearly I think you are not putting your stuff together here.

Let´s put the focus where it helps:

(a) *The airforce of any nation, can not grow a professionally organized and skilled branch a mere 2 years year after taking the kind of blow the VVS did from June 22, 1941 until virtually early 1943.*

See the losses of the VVS during the cauldron at Kursk, July 5th 1943, -the soviet propaganda claims such battle to have been the time when them russians _"defeated the Luftwaffe for good"- _and you might understand what i am talking about. If losing nearly 400 combat planes to enemy fighter only during the first day of the offensive is not a helpful hint so be it.

With point (a) i am trying to say the soviet version of a "superb" soviet air force in 1944 is a tale. Yup, some capable fighters were being fielded and there were a fistful of excellent red pilots. 

However, the bulk of the soviet airmen were undertrained and hastily sent to the fronts where the continue to perish by the thousands in 1944 and 1945.


(b) *Soviet propaganda worked hardly processing the news of victory in Stalingrad. That the Werhmacht got defeated in Stalingrad is true; the same did not happen in the air though, where the Luftwaffe inflicted breath taking losses to the VVS. It was the winter that hindered the Luftwaffe fighter and bomber support in the area.*

That does not put down at all the effort of the soviet soldiers that ended in the destruction of the 6th army there; they simply took advantage of the foolishness of the German high command and won the battle. A very valid point.

A different thing is to come and say that just like in the ground, your guys in the clouds had managed to "defeat" the Luftwaffe. The VVS never came nowhere near defeating the Luftwaffe in the Stalingrand-Don bend region.


(c) *The efforts conducted by General Aleksandr Novikov to reorganize command, training and structure of the VVS have been overinflated.*

The Kuban air battles of 1943 are a clear example: the VVS proved uncapable of gaining air superiority over the area; the Luftwaffe simply retreated from the area when the front in southern Ukraine began crumbling.

(d) *Losses of combat planes for the VVS -to all causes- in 1945 only (january 1st-may 9) amounter +/- 11,000 machines. Does that tell you something delcyros? *

While i do not have any stats at hand, i ve been told the highest casualty rate due to accidents belongs to the soviet comrades.


(e) *Now, i introduce you a soviet phrase, common in soldiers of the 1944-45 period*:

Enemy number one is in Moscow.
Enemy number two is the VVS.
Enemy number three is the hatred Germany.


----------



## plan_D (May 22, 2005)

I'm not saying that the Luftwaffe didn't attack Britain ever again after 1940. What I am saying is; the Luftwaffe was largely on the defensive after 1940. The RAF had took the fight to them and were in control of the Luftwaffe by way of dictating what kind of war was going to be fought. 

Sure, the Luftwaffe attacked but what was the point? It would have been more sensible to hold on the West and attack in the East with the Luftwaffe but they diverted resources to the West to cause a nuisance. 

I always see after the Battle of Britain, the U.K was dictating the war on the West. We were forcing Germany to take up arms in North Africa, then Western Allies forced Germany to take arms in Italy. 

On the Soviet side, Germany was dictating the war until 1944. The battles were fought where Germany wanted them to be fought.


----------



## lesofprimus (May 22, 2005)

Good points planD... 


> We were forcing Germany to take up arms in North Africa


Werent the Germans already there tho with their arms and planes and tanks???


> On the Soviet side, Germany was dictating the war until 1944. The battles were fought where Germany wanted them to be fought.


100% aggreed.......

To think what would have happened, tho, had the Germans never invaded Russia, and the Russians never attacked Hitlers Eastern Front....

All that airpower focused on Ur little Island.... Im EXTREMELY glad that wasnt the case...... Very scary What If..........


----------



## plan_D (May 22, 2005)

No, Germany sent the Afrika Korps after the British with inferior numbers captured 120,000 Italians with a loss of 1,000 men. The Italian (and Axis) hold on Libya was about to be lost, so Germany had to step in to secure their left flank of Europe. 

The British were quickly building their RAF though, so a continued offensive against Britain would have been horrific but the Luftwaffe would have had to get a new longer range fighter to bring to bare to defeat us.


----------



## lesofprimus (May 22, 2005)

Thanks for the lesson on Africa....


> so a continued offensive against Britain would have been horrific but the Luftwaffe would have had to get a new longer range fighter to bring to bare to defeat us.


The -190 with drop tanks was sufficient for long range duties, had it been required to do so, but i agree that no matter what, it would have been horrific like u said...


----------



## plan_D (May 22, 2005)

They'd have had to keep it up the offensive almost straight after what is known as the Battle of Britain today. I've heard that Britain was producing 1000 Spitfire and Hurricanes a week, at it's peak!

That's a lot!


----------



## Nonskimmer (May 22, 2005)

Not to mention the thousands that were being built in Canada as well.
Sorry, just had to get that in there.


----------



## mosquitoman (May 23, 2005)

It's true though, as long as the convoys got across the Atlantic, we could hold out. The problem for the Luftwaffe was that they didn't follow up their raids with more so a factory would be operational a few days after the original bombing. That's part of the reason why round-clock-raids were effective


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 23, 2005)

and also we didn't just attack factories, we attacked the links between them, if you have different parts being assembled at different plants before having to be transported for final assembly, it's nice to have something to transport them on, that's a mistake the LW made, but we didn't.........


----------



## Erich (May 23, 2005)

this thread I see is getting way off topic but I will add my own off topicness.........the RAF blasted everything whether a town/city that was industrial or not. The facts remain and are very hard to take to this day.

Pforzheim and Dresden being two ugly examples, the industry had already been broken down and moved elsewhere at the time of the evening attacks and the carnage to civilian life was incredible.

ok I have opened an pandoras box...........sorry
__________________________________________________________

back on topic, best variant : Bf 109G-10

maybe this thread needs to be closed I think it has been exhausted beyond limits

E ~

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## delcyros (May 23, 2005)

Iwill go for the 109G-10 also but I must admit that I like the clean 109G4...

Udet, I agree that the VVS did take a lot of losses but if you factor the combat sorties with them they are not surprisingly high (comparde to RAF or USAAF). I personnally think the VVS got the edge over the Luftwaffe in mid 1944, not sooner. However they had to fight for a long time on a very high intensity grade (much higher than the intensity over northafrica or western France in 1941,42 or 43, Plan_D), making this theatre extremely important for the allies as well as for the whole european air war.
I do believe that several VVS pilots were well trained in 1941 (because of lessons learned in the spanish civil war) and the beginning of 1942 (additional far eastern reinforcement of airwar experienced VVS-units). From that time on the training degree was considerably low, improving at late 1944 thanks to reduced losses in 1944 and better tactics. I will never go to say that the VVS was kind of a eliteforce (as it is sometimes readable in russian sources, I know), maybe a few pilots, call them Experten are elite but not the whole airforce. I do try to neglect the propaganda of both sides by taking losses and combat sorties only into account.
And again: More sorties=more losses, not that surprising.
This soviet phrase is funny: had he been heard talking that way he would have been shot in seconds (just on of a few myths). -

Okey, the 109K6 would be my second choice: great weaponry! But best? 109K14? How about this?


----------



## plan_D (May 23, 2005)

The only reason, in your mind, that the VVS had a harder time than the RAF is because the Luftwaffe was on the offensive in the Soviet Union. The RAF was on the offensive over Europe. 

The RAF did more damage to the Luftwaffe than the VVS did for the simple reason that the RAF was bombing the German production facilities. The RAF was also a superior force both defensively and offensively than the VVS. 

If the VVS had to strike against the RAF, who would win? The RAF and why? The Spitfire was superior to anything the VVS could field in a dogfight and the VVS had no strategic bombers. 

The RAF on the offensive had several heavy bombers with the Mosquito capable of defeating almost anything the VVS had. Especially if it was night raids. 

The VVS being a poor force is not a myth, it's a fact.


----------



## Soren (May 23, 2005)

plan_D said:


> The Spitfire was superior to anything the VVS could field in a dogfight and the VVS had no strategic bombers.



I agree.


----------



## mosquitoman (May 23, 2005)

The one thing the VVS did have was numbers- quantity has a quality all it's own


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 23, 2005)

plan_D said:


> The VVS being a poor force is not a myth, it's a fact.



Even though they made a "comeback" to loose several thousand aircraft the first several days of the German offensive says it all!


----------



## delcyros (May 24, 2005)

Prioritys varie much if you factor general circumstances, Plan_D.
take the heavy bombers for example:
1.) They are extremely important if you have safe bases to operate from and big targets to hit (cities). However if you add a land bridge to britain I am sure that VVS would crush RAF and Britain. Sure. However, this is as stated a geographical advantage, not a quality one the RAF had and the VVS did not.
2.) The VVS did more damage ( Luftwaffe losses, both crewman wounded and crewman killed and Luftwaffe planes destroyed (if you neglect damage by US air forces)) to Luftwaffe and the whole Whermacht than did the RAF. It is true that the RAF did more damage to Kriegsmariene and to cities. However, it´s wrong to say that the destruction of Airplane factories was so decisive, esspeccially for the RAF nightattack which seldomly hit precisely enough. AlsoSpeers dispersal program prevented a lot of damage, productivity was high during the whole bombing camapign and reduced more because of facilities have been captured by ground troops than destroyed by bombers. I have numbers to proove this.
3.) The VVS would not be able to bring the war to Britain. True (thanks to a geographical advantage), but the RAF would have been defeated by the VVS in central europe with a very high probability (just keep the numbers in mind). 
4.) Spitfire and La-7FN and Yak-3U are comparable planes. 
I would suggest to shift the discussion to Erichs "Reichsverteidigung" thread in order to bring this thread back on course.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 24, 2005)

the factors you mentioned, whilst valid, do not change the fact however that the RAF held many advantages over the VVS, the onlyt major advantage the VVS had was their numbers, but numbers do not always win, against superior tactics as used by the RAF, and you don't make a big thing of it but without a heavy bomber in widespread service, the VVS would have got nowhere, you can't win a war with fighters and medium bombers, you need heavy stuff, and what was the Russian RADAR system like?? i'm willing to bet it was not up to the standard of the British Chain Holme system...............


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 24, 2005)

Although as someone said in a previous topic, the VVS didnt need heavy bombers for what they were doing. They built the right type of planes for the time. They would have needed a major heavy in order to go on some kind of onslaught though, and also more controlled tactics and better pilot training.


----------



## mosquitoman (May 24, 2005)

The VVS didn't need a heavy bomber force as we were doing all the work for them


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 24, 2005)

yes but we're now talking about the VVS Vs. the RAF..........


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 24, 2005)

I agree this is getting off topic however I will add some of my points also 8) 

As for the defensive and offensive plan_D I will agree with you by the ways that you put it.

As for the Battle of Britain, I disagree. Had the Eastern Front never happened and the Luftwaffe continued to attack the factories and airfields the RAF never would have been able to last.

The best 109 in my opinion is either the G-6 or the G-10.


----------



## delcyros (May 24, 2005)

I think you are wrong, dear Lancaster. Heavy bombers does not ensure winning a war (without a nuke). Indeed the soviets won against Germany without them. (please don´t say that the RAF did all the work for them, it´s obviously false. There are multiple reasons for the succes of the allies, and monocausal explenations doesn´t have high probability) Cheese is right, they crushed the Whermacht with planes useful for them. The main advantage the RAF had over VVS are 
1.) generally better high altitude capabilities
2.) technology (radar)
no doubt. You may add the jet technology but this wouldn´t take into effect in a probable timeframe. 
The VVS had also advantages:
1.) pure numerical advantage
2.) more fighterpilots (and more capabilities for their training)
3.) factorys and production plants far beyond RAF bomber range (..so what´s here the benefit of the heavy bombers?)
4.) combat prooven tactics for low level ground support/attack sorties
but back to the topic.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 24, 2005)

I agree with you here del.


----------



## Udet (May 24, 2005)

Delcyros:

To some extent i agree with you.

The points where my thoughts and yours appear to concur are:

(1) Heavy bombers (all by themselves) do not ensure winning a war. RIGHT.

(2) Monocausal explanations do not have a high probability in making a point. RIGHT!

There comes the part of the path when you and me follow different directions though:

The soviets defeated Germany without them (heavy bombers?). That deserves some special treatment.

Not having to build and tool facilities for building heavy bombers to fight an enemy like Germany during WWII is certainly a great advantage when you have a powerful and professional army in your own territory.

Laborforce and raw materials get focused on producing a more narrowed catalog of war items which can be put into massed production. THAT is an advantage. 

How many IL-2s could have been made with the raw materials, parts and laborforce used for assembling a B-17?

Undeniable is the fact the consequences of the strategic bombing raids carried out by both RAF and USAAF paid juicy dividends for the soviet side as well. 

How many hamburguers could i serve if i have to run the burguer post all by myself? Chop onions, slice tomatoes and lettuce, make the fries, grill the beef, bake the bread, beverages... There would be some real pissed off clients.

What if i focus only on the grill and the bread and have others in charge of preparing lettuce, onions, pickles, fries, etc. and of adding the ingredients to the "pre-built" burguer?


Delcyros if you think i am wrong why dont you just let me know?

From where did you get the information telling the soviets had "more capabilties for training their fighter pilots"?

Have you met VVS veterans? If so what have they told you? I might be interested in knowing the opinions you could have collected for the ones i have the chance of meeting admited -naively if you will- that the training they received for both fighter and ground attack missions was a joke and the ordeals they went through -1944 a year of soviet victories- at the hands of both their own commanders and of the enemy flak batteries.

Several of them could not tell who they hated the worst, the Germans or their own leaders and politicians.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 25, 2005)

yes to say that the fact that the VVS had no heavy bombers and the RAF and USSAF did all their bombing for them was no advantage to the VVS is plain stupid, yes there are many reasons the allies won, heavy strateigic and tactical bombing was one of them...........

and what if the RAF come at night?? what then??

and you mentioned about the VVS being able to train more pilots?? well as udet said, the training was rubbish, and remember, the RAF was training pilots in canada and even australia, where they get lots of training, and what happens to the number of fighter pilots you have when you make the bombing force you'd need to take on the RAF and the potential fighter pilots man the bombers insted..........


----------



## plan_D (May 25, 2005)

Lads, move it to the VVS Vs. RAF thread.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 26, 2005)

Well said.


----------



## CharlesBronson (Jun 12, 2005)

*The 300. Airvictory of Erich Hartmann*

Russia -24th August 1944


Erich Hartmann, yet the most succesful pilot of the history scored his 290th victory the day before. The whole squadron is waiting for the historical moment - the 300. kill of Erich Hartmann, the first pilot to achieve this figure.

Just after lunch Oberleutnant Hartmann flew his first mission of the day. The squadron members are waiting in front of the radio.

13.07: Hartmann is reporting for the first time on the radio

13.15: Hartmann has contact with the enemy and is instantly scoring his first kill of the day

13.18: Abschuß ! (victory!). He orders his wingman to move to the opposite side.

13.19: Look out for enemies from above ! Attention ! Abschuß!

13.25: Abschuß !

13.27: Abschuß ! Reprimands his wingman to fly better. Watch above !

Silence

13.40: Abschuß ! Burns near the street. Another pilot: Bombers over O.

13.44: Do you have contact ? Another formation

13.45: Airacobras. Watch above !

13.48: Watch above !

13.57: Land, I will rock my wings six times.

Nearly two hours later, Hartmann is preparing for another mission.

15.44: Question to ground control: Do you have a bogie ? No ? Why are we then airborne ?

15.50: Ground control: Enemies over Sandowiez.

15.51: Watch out ! Airacobras !

16.00: Abschuß !

16.03: Abschuß !

16.06: Watch the rear and above ! Abschuß !

16.10: Abschuß ! (Airacobra/300.)

16.19: Ordering to attack an Pe 2 formation

16.20: Abschuß ! 

16.37: Hartmann is landing

His victories on that day included 3 Pe-2, 2 Jak fighters and 1 Airacobra

As ever in the case of such occasions he was handed flowers and champagne to celebrate the event. Only that the flowers were picked from the fields nearby and the champagne was warm."Bimmel" Mertens, his mechanic was the first to congratulate him, but soon the whole group followed and the next morning the was far from being in a "ready" condition. But it did not matter as the news came through that he had been awarded the Diamonds.

*Bf-109G-6 U/2*


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 13, 2005)

Good info, where did you find that stuff.


----------



## CharlesBronson (Jun 14, 2005)

http://www.jg52.de/


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 14, 2005)

GREAT SITE!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 15, 2005)

Yeah very good site.


----------



## Chocks away! (Jun 15, 2005)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> I agree about the bubble canopy. It looks much better than the "razorback" Most aircraft looked better with a bubble canopy. I think in a dogfight I would want either a P-51D or a Me-109F or G. The Me-109 mostly because it my favorite aircraft. I believe most of the kills on a Me-262 achieved by the slower prop driven aircraft were taken when the Me-262 was on the take off and much slower speeds and unable to maneuver.


 It's my favourite too  
Hey by the way: How come the bulges on Galland's aircraft are not only more streamlined than the G-6's ones, but also accomodate more ammo ?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 16, 2005)

It is a BF-109G-10 not a G-6.


----------



## CharlesBronson (Jun 16, 2005)

What a Hell is this.??¡¡¡¡


----------



## DAVIDICUS (Jun 16, 2005)

Sewage line.


----------



## Chocks away! (Jun 16, 2005)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> It is a BF-109G-10 not a G-6.


 What do you mean? I'm talking about Galland's modified bf 109 F with streamlined bulges as opposed to the bf 109 G-6's more prominent ones.


----------



## plan_D (Jun 17, 2005)

That man in the Bf-109 pictured above had some serious bowel problems. The Luftwaffe kindly fitted a toilet tube to his aircraft to keep him flying. 

Source: World War 2 in crap by Bill 'I talk a lot of dump' Gumba.


----------



## DAVIDICUS (Jun 17, 2005)

"_That man in the Bf-109 pictured above had some serious bowel problems. The Luftwaffe kindly fitted a toilet tube to his aircraft to keep him flying. _"

That's pretty funny Plan_D?  Where do you come up with this stuff?


Oh yeah ... I posted "Sewage line" two posts ahead of yours.


----------



## plan_D (Jun 17, 2005)

Good for you, David. What's wrong? Did big bad pD steal your joke? Well, everyone we should credit David with the joke, let's give him a round of appaulse. =D> =D> =D>


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jun 17, 2005)

Its a side skirt, I bet it hides neon lights and trick hydraulic undercarriage. An early form of modification me thinks


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 17, 2005)

Chocks away! said:


> DerAdlerIstGelandet said:
> 
> 
> > It is a BF-109G-10 not a G-6.
> ...



Oh okay.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jun 17, 2005)

cheddar cheese said:


> Its a side skirt, I bet it hides neon lights and trick hydraulic undercarriage. An early form of modification me thinks



where's the stereo??


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jun 17, 2005)

I dont know, but if it does have one, I bet ya the manufacture would be "Pioneer"


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 19, 2005)

I have been trying to find something on that and have not been able to, it has got me really stumped.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jun 20, 2005)

It certainly looks very odd. I bet Erich knows if anyone.


----------



## Erich (Jun 20, 2005)

the plane was altered with 2 mg cannon in the wings and a long periscope device so Addi could literally make out the rivets on the tail and fuselage of his opponent. the was really the precussor of the periscope fitted to the heavier Me 410A and B fitted with the deadly but slow firing BK 5cm cannon for bomber destroying ............


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 20, 2005)

That is just plain stupid. It is not needed and wouldn't it add further drag and more weight to the aircraft.


----------



## Soren (Jun 20, 2005)

Imagine what a B-17 bomber being hit by a 5cm cannon would look li ke...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 20, 2005)

I would hate to be the crew on the inside getting hit by it. One good thing about it, you would not feel anything.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jun 20, 2005)

even a B-17 wouldn't make it back from a few hits from a 5cm.......


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 20, 2005)

Not much will.


----------



## CharlesBronson (Jun 20, 2005)

Progressive development:

BF-109 V-50.







BF-109 V-54







BF-109 V-55







*Me-309B*






This last one used the Me-262 tail and cockpit.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 21, 2005)

Well the Me-309 was proven crap. The Bf-109G outturned it anyday. As for the V-50's and V-55's I dont know much about them so I can not comment.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jun 21, 2005)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> even a B-17 wouldn't make it back from a few hits from a 5cm.......



Well it would take more hits from it than a lanc would 

And what makes you think a B-17 wouldnt survive it?  If one survived a whole plane flying through its tail section a 50mm is all in a days work!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 21, 2005)

Good point though. The B-17 could take some damage but the 5cm could also do a whole lot.


----------



## Soren (Jun 21, 2005)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Well the Me-309 was proven crap. The Bf-109G outturned it anyday.



The Bf-109 was one of the best T&B fighters of WW2, so the fact that the Me-309 was outturned by one doesnt really prove much... However I do agree the Bf-109 was the better of the two.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 21, 2005)

The Bf-109G outperforming the Me-309 and the Fw-190 led to the cancellation of the Me-309.


----------



## Soren (Jun 21, 2005)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> The Bf-109G outperforming the Me-309 and the Fw-190 led to the cancellation of the Me-309.



Yes, exactly.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 21, 2005)

I still think she was a beautiful aircraft though.


----------



## Soren (Jun 21, 2005)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> I still think she was a beautiful aircraft though.



Indeed !.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 21, 2005)

I also think the Me-609 project would have been interesting.


----------



## Soren (Jun 21, 2005)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> I also think the Me-609 project would have been interesting.



The BF 109 was a far better choice, but the Me-609 was interesting yes, I just doubt it would've been a succes.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 21, 2005)

I certainly dont think it would have been a sucess but it would have been very interesting. I sometimes wonder why they just did not design an aircraft outright like the P-38.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jun 22, 2005)

They had the Fw-189!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 23, 2005)

Not the same.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jun 23, 2005)

I know


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 23, 2005)

Imagine trying to use one as a P-38 type aircraft.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jun 23, 2005)

Yeah. The engines were too underpowered really. If they had BMW 801;s or DB601's or 605's or something like that it may have had the capability to be converted in to an effective heavy fighter.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 23, 2005)

Maybe


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jun 23, 2005)

Alder said:


> Imagine trying to use one as a P-38 type aircraft.



they did, they were both easily shot down


----------



## CharlesBronson (Jun 23, 2005)

*The german P-38.*

Paper projectk only.


----------



## Erich (Jun 23, 2005)

WTH is that ? ah two 2cm rearward firing weapons to blow the boom tail off.........


----------



## CharlesBronson (Jun 23, 2005)

Is one of the preliminar designs for the Me-210, the tail defensive guns are two MG-151 /15 in a electric laffete.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jun 24, 2005)

Erich said:


> WTH is that ? ah two 2cm rearward firing weapons to blow the boom tail off.........


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 24, 2005)

CharlesBronson said:


> Is one of the preliminar designs for the Me-210, the tail defensive guns are two MG-151 /15 in a electric laffete.



*Please tell me where you get this from. No designs for teh Me-210 ever looked like that. Here is the real Me-210. Which eventualy became the Me-410.*

_The Messerschmitt Me 210 was a heavy fighter designed before the start of World War II to replace the Bf 110 in that role. The first examples of the Me 210 were ready in 1939 but they proved to have terrible handling, and remedying the problem took so long that everyone involved tried to distance themselves from it.

Messerschmitt designers had started working on an upgrade to the Bf 110 in 1937, before the production version had even flown. In late 1938 the 110 was just entering service when the RLM also started looking for its replacement. Messerschmitt sent in their modifed 110 as the Me 210, and Arado responded with their all-new Arado Ar 240.

The Me 210 was a straightforward cleanup of the 110 and used many of the same parts. The main differences were a modified nose area that was much shorter and located over the center of gravity, and an all-new wing designed for higher cruise speeds. On paper the 210 looked fantastic. It could reach 385 mph (620 km/h) on two 1,350 hp (993 kW) DB 601F engines, making it about 50 mph (80 km/h) faster than the 110, and as fast as single-engine fighters of the era. It had a huge bomb-bay in the nose, which could hold up to 1000 kg of bombs, or alternately up to four 20 mm cannon, with dive brakes fitted on the tops of the wings and a Stuvi 5B bomb sight in the nose for dive bombing. For defense it mounted clever remote-controlled guns in well-faired barbettes on the side of the plane, and the cockpit had a bulged canopy to allow the gunner to see (and aim) down and to the rear.

An order for 1,000 was placed even before the prototype had flown. In time this would prove to be unwise. The first prototype 210 flew with 601B engines in September 1939 and was considered unflyable. Stability was bad in turns, and it tended to "snake" even while flying level. At first the designers concentrated on the twin-rudder arrangement that had been taken from the 110, and replaced it with a new and much larger vertical stabilizer. However this had almost no real effect, and the plane continued to snake. The plane also had terrible stalls, and with the nose up or in a turn the stalls whipped into spins when the leading-edge slats opened. V2 was lost this way the next September when the pilot could not get out of the resulting spin and had to jump. The chief test pilot commented that the Me 210 had "all the least desirable attributes an aeroplane could possess." Nevertheless, the RLM was desperate to replace the 6,000 110's currently in service, and ordered full production in the spring of 1941.

Deliveries to front-line units started in April 1942 and the plane proved to be even less popular with pilots. Production was stopped at the end of the month, by which time only 90 had been delivered. Another 320 were simply left unfinished on the factory floor. In its place the 110 went back into production, now hopelessly outclassed even when equipped with the newer DB 605B engines.

Meanwhile the various German allies were more than happy with the plane in its current state, and Hungary purchased several of the unfinished airframes and completed them in their own factories. They then went on to start production of their own, known as the 210C with the DB 605B engine, under an agreement where the Luftwaffe got two of every three produced. The Luftwaffe started receiving their planes in April 1943, but the Hungarians didn't get their own until 1944; however, when they did enter service they were more than happy with them. Production ended in March 1944, when the factory switched over the produce Me 109G. By that time, a total of 267 Me 210C had been built, 108 of them had been given to the Luftwaffe.

In practice, the Hungarian Me 210C were so superior to the German Me 210A, that it was planned to adopt its design refinements into a new Me 210D model, that was eventually developed into the Messerschmitt Me 410.

In last days of war,Japanese Army ordered the design of one Anti tank/ strike land airplane.these specifications are followed by Rikugun/Kokukosho Company,why used the Messerschmitt Me 210 A-2(with caracteristiques of Me 410 A-2 modifications) prototype for designed the Rikugun Kokukosho Ki-93 five blade,twin engined and Anti tank/Ground Attacker aircraft._http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messerschmitt_Me_210

Role Heavy fighter 
Crew two, pilot and gunner 
Dimensions 
Length 40 ft 3in 9.83 m 
Wingspan 53 ft 1 1/4in 13.72 m 
Height 14 ft 1/2in 
Wing area 390 ft² 36.2 m² 
Weights 
Empty 12,000 lb 5,440 kg 
Maximum take-off 17,857 lb 8100 kg 
Powerplant 
Engines 2 x Daimler-Benz DB 601F 
Power 2 x 1,350 hp 2 x 993 kW 
Performance 
Maximum speed 385 mph 620 km/h 
Combat range 1,491 mi 2400 km 
Ferry range 
Service ceiling 22,967 ft 7,000 m 
Armament 
Guns 2 x 20 mm MG 151/20
2 x 7,92 mm MG 17
2 x 13 mm MG 131 for defense 
Bombs 2,200 lb 1000 kg


----------



## CharlesBronson (Jun 24, 2005)

Excuse me, but I *never* wrote that this twin engined plane was actually a Me-210. I dont try to cheat anybody.

It is a preliminary design, one of the way of put the DB-601e engines, There was in the drawing boards also others configurations like a pull-push engine plane, other was with a DB-610 engine buried in the fuselage driving the propeller by a crankcase and a long shaft.

The pics I took from a website some years ago. I really dont remember the http, I have those saved to C for a while.


----------



## CharlesBronson (Jun 24, 2005)

Even there was an *AGO* .. projekt to replace the Bf-110, check this:


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 25, 2005)

Well I am sorry but I have never seen that. Are you sure that it did not come from some computer game website. They make up a lot of stuff for the Luftwaffe that enver existed.

The computer generated design that you have up there looks awefully like a Fw-189V1-b and V-6 which was a modification of the Fw-189 reconaissance aircraft and originally to be a ground attack aircraft before it became what we know of today. It even had rear firing weapons like your picture up there. Instead of the large glass cockpit and the glass cone in the back of the fuselage it had a 2 seats for a pilot and a gunner. The cockpit was armoured and had rear firing guns in a turret. The characteristes as a ground attack aircraft were poor however because the aircraft was too heavy and crew visability was horrible. Test flights were made on the aircraft but it never entered production.


----------



## CharlesBronson (Jun 25, 2005)

> Are you sure that it did not come from some computer game website. They make up a lot of stuff for the Luftwaffe that enver existed.



No, I dont think so. Aniway is a nice pic.


----------



## Erich (Jun 25, 2005)

CB every one of the "OLD" profile publications profiles is inaccurate. the biggest mistake is the camo on the 5cm bk 5 long rod Me 410....red/white spinners.............no way. 

arg too many memories, I think I own every German a/c profile made


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jun 26, 2005)

and i'm guessing that's quite a few


----------



## lesofprimus (Jun 26, 2005)

MR. REASEARCH-BOY has so much info he stacks it all around his office... He probably has the answer to the great Jimmy Hoffa Question sitting in a pile on the desk......

Dont u erich???


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jun 26, 2005)

wow, i never notised Erich was one of you admin boys........


----------



## CharlesBronson (Jun 26, 2005)

> CB every one of the "OLD" profile publications profiles is inaccurate



That is enough....I am making an asado ( BBQ) with all my "Proifle" books right now..¡¡. Those bad profiles are burning ¡¡


----------



## CharlesBronson (Jun 27, 2005)

Lets see with this profiles, ( I am only hope dont get kicked by Erich  )

*Bf 109G-4, 13./JG 52, Anapa (Russia) April 1943, 
pilot Jan Gerthofer (26 v.)*






*Bf 109G-4 W. Nr. 19347, 13. (Slovak)/JG 52, Anapa (Russia) April 1943, pilot Jan Reznak (32 v. - top-scoring Slovak fighter ace of WW2)*






*Bf 109G-6/R6 of 3./JG300 *


----------



## Rafe35 (Jun 27, 2005)

I think "Franz / Fredrick" aka Bf 109F is the first best variant for Bf 109 fighter and second best would be for "Gustav" aka Bf 109G.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 27, 2005)

I will agree with you that that Bf-109F was probably the best pure 109. The main problem she had was that she was under armed. This was quickely fixed with the 109G which happens to be my favorite.


----------



## plan_D (Jun 28, 2005)

As the Bf-109 moved on in development it's flaws were increased. The Bf-109 was only great in the hands of an expert, luckily for the Luftwaffe they had more experts than the other nations. 

It's a lot like the P-38 in the way that the P-38 with an experienced pilot was the best aircraft in the sky (or damn close to be) but not every pilot is an expert. In fact most pilots aren't, they just like to think they are. 

So, I will say the Bf-109F was the best because it had good performance and the best handling of any Bf-109.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 28, 2005)

I agree that of all the Varients the 109F was the best in those catagories.

And as for this:



> but not every pilot is an expert. In fact most pilots aren't, they just like to think they are.



You are right in more ways than you can imagine!


----------



## CharlesBronson (Jul 12, 2005)

Anybody knows if this giro-gunsight was actually used by any late 109 version...?


*Askania EZ42*


----------

