Aviation myths that will not die (1 Viewer)

[meatloaf109]

It's Loaf's typical sarcasm.

I prefer "Witty and Urbane". (And I always thought the Germans called the P-38 the "Fork tailed Devil". Oh, well. Next you will tell me that the Japanese didn't call the Corsair "Whistling Death"!)

 

[CobberKane]

I too after much study have concluded that the Bf109 did not process adverse landing gear problems over other types (these failures are more often than not are due to the pilot misjudging his sink rate) One area of experience in the Bf109 history that I don't think anyone has used for its defense is the experimental carrier landing Bf019Es and the production Bf109T aircraft. After reading the development testing excerpts it is amazing that the Bf109 would have to be arrested within 22 meters to a full stop. During all that testing never a gear failure. then on to produce the Bf109T which had much better handling characteristics the 'E'. Also as a matter of interest it was discovered that the Bf109F type wing was unsuitable for carrier landing as its stall was too sharp. IMHO

I don't think the Seafire can touch this. (Now I've done it!!) Cry Havoc and Loose the Dogs of War!!!

I never heard that the 109s gear was fragile, just that the narrow track combined with the aircrafts characteristics (lots of power in a small airframe?) made it tricky to land and take of in. Is that much true? Of course, you could say that this would only be a problem for inexperienced pilots but every pilot who ever flew a 109 was inexperienced at some stage. Idealy I suppose a fighter would combine high performance with benign handling on the ground and in the air - not an easy combination to acheive, but I suspect the 109 might have been further fron the ideal than, say, the spitfire or hurricane.
Oh I forgot to be insulting and sarcastic. You are all a bunch of wienee-whackers who wouldn't be on this site if you could get a woman. Except me, of course.

 

[N4521U]

I hope your in NZ Kane.................. I Do have a woman..... and a fine one I might add.....

 

[CobberKane]

I hope your in NZ Kane.................. I Do have a woman..... and a fine one I might add.....

Never mess with a Dude wearing an eye-patch...

 

[Matt308]

Japanese Zeroes (Zekes) were invulnerable to the Wildcat.

 

[jimh]

The 109 was built for grass...AND ease of transport by truck, the landing gear width was designed to fit on flatbeds...not a myth.

JH

 

[gumbyk]

I hope your in NZ Kane.................. I Do have a woman..... and a fine one I might add.....

He'd better not be..., Likewise, I have a damn fine woman - probably the best, even.

 

[The Basket]

Robin Olds? 5?

Anyway....

 

[meatloaf109]

My wife is pretty decent too,....
Thought of a myth, The U.S. Guvment been flying alien craft since the 50's.
(We all know it wasn't untill the 60's)

 

[GregP]

Worst myth, to me, is that the Bf / Me 109 is a substandard fighter. It shot down more enemy aircraft than all the other fighters in all the
air wars in history. Just the top three aces shot down almost 1,000 enemy aircraft among them! How bad can it have been?

And you almost never see it as a candidate for BEST fighter despite its combat record. If kills aren't the yardstick, then what IS? Style?

It has glaring faults, but was generally well designed and well employed, and the faults COULD have been fixed EASILY … but weren't ever actually fixed and it STILL was a dangerous opponent at the war's end when flown by a veteran pilot.

So was the Zero despite being maligned as obsolete. Get careless monentarily and it could and would easily kill you.

 

[CobberKane]

Worst myth, to me, is that the Bf / Me 109 is a substandard fighter. It shot down more enemy aircraft than all the other fighters in all the
air wars in history. Just the top three aces shot down almost 1,000 enemy aircraft among them! How bad can it have been?

And you almost never see it as a candidate for BEST fighter despite its combat record. If kills aren't the yardstick, then what IS? Style?

It has glaring faults, but was generally well designed and well employed, and the faults COULD have been fixed EASILY … but weren't ever actually fixed and it STILL was a dangerous opponent at the war's end when flown by a veteran pilot.

So was the Zero despite being maligned as obsolete. Get careless monentarily and it could and would easily kill you.

Some of these myths seem to be getting pretty marginal. I would have thought the the 109 being 'substandard' or the Zero being 'immune' to the Wildcat might be minority views at best.

How about the myth that the French and Italians are lousy soldiers/pilots?

 

[stona]

Too many to list and many become "facts" by endless repetition.

Better to "starve them of the oxygen of publicity".

Steve

 

[Milosh]

Worst myth, to me, is that the Bf / Me 109 is a substandard fighter. It shot down more enemy aircraft than all the other fighters in all the air wars in history. Just the top three aces shot down almost 1,000 enemy aircraft among them! How bad can it have been?

It also got shot down the most with less than 1000 still left out of 30,000 plus built when the war ended.

 

[cimmex]

so, 29000 were shot down......by whom?

 

[Shortround6]

Ah but that is part of of another myth, 11,000 of them crashed in landing and take-off accidents.

Partial statistics tell us nothing. I can certainly find nothing wrong with the fact that it shot down more fighters than another but some of the other stuff takes quite a bit of swallowing. "It shot down more enemy aircraft than all the other fighters in all the air wars in history."

There were over 1800 aces in WW I so that is 9000 planes right there, not counting aces who shot down more than 5 planes and pilots who shot down less than 5 planes.

It also means that the 109 would have to have shot down more planes than the American airforce fighters, the American Navy fighters, The British and British commonwealth fighters, The Russian fighters, the Japanese fighters, The Italian fighters and all the minor nation fighters PLUS all the kills scored by the Fw 190, Me 110, and other German twin fighters.

And it would have to exceed that WW II total by 12-15,000 planes to bring in the other wars.

 

[GregP]

The Soviet Air Force lost 4,000 planes in the first week of their involvement of WWII alone, almost exclusively to the Me 109. The FIRST WEEK!

Sure, many were on the ground, but destroyed is destroyed. Virtually the entire Soviet Air Force was destroyed before they got their act together, moved production, and turned out modern fighters and bombers to turn the tide. That is a LOT of airplanes!

My WWII kill list shows Germany with 62,218 aerial victories awarded in WWII. I believe the bulk were Me 109 kills. I don't know how many but it must approach 40,000 and could be more.

I seriously doubt the 12 - 15,000 number for other wars since the only other war of consequence, numbers-wise was WWII and the Germans awarded 5,070 victories in WWI.

I believe that in WWII, most air forces had more operational losses than combat losses, so a good deal of the attrition was not combat related. For instance, the Hellcat had a wonderful kill to loss ratio in combat, but lost more to operational missions by a wide margin. If wasn't alone. The Me 109 had a fair number of oeprational losses, too. I was speaking strictly about losses in air combat.

 

[Matt308]

I would have thought the the 109 being 'substandard' or the Zero being 'immune' to the Wildcat might be minority views at best.

So after the first page of this thread what did you really expect? Comparisons of carberators? NACA values? Armament? After the first handfull of most significant 'myths' it boils down to individual forum member's suggested input. It's all good. Relax. We are all brothers in WWII trivia of which our dying breed is becoming smaller and smaller.

 

[meatloaf109]

Yeah, nobody loves me or my '109.
I'll go sit in the corner and play with my airplanes.

 

[PWR4360-59B]

That the reason a plane will fly is because the top airfoil shape creates lift.

 

[meatloaf109]

Angels push the Me-262.