OldSkeptic
Senior Airman
- 509
- May 17, 2010
Well it depends on what you are doing and the particular model. There was considerable change over time as the plane got more powerful and heavier.
Landing and Take Off
None of the models were the easiest to land, but lots of the WW2 tail draggers were tricky. Take the Mustang, that was harder to land then a Spit because of its higher landing speed and its poorer vision at landing (yes even the 51D).
The biggest problem with both landing (especially) and take off for all of the 109s was ground looping because of the narrow undercarriage. Poor visibility on landing was another.
But, the 109E was better than the 109G (or K). This was because it had better low speed aileron response at low (ie landing) speed, better than the comparable model Spit in fact. And it had better visibility than the later models.
Plus there was less power hence less torque/etc effects, non of which helped the ground loop (etc) issues. So there was more margin for error in power handling in the eaelier models. The later ones with the bigger more powerful engines were much more twitchy.
Hence the reputation of the 109G as a real killer. While the 109E was merely tricky, that extra weight and power in the 109G series made it a real handful.
Flying and Combat
The two main problems were elevator and ailerons. Both of which 'heavied up' at high ASI, to the the point of immovability.
This is not a condition that got better with later models.
In a high speed dive it was impossible to pull out enough to black you out (easily done in say a Spit or a Mustang). The many cases of 109 pilots going in in because they could not pull out is often mentioned.
Note this was not a mach effect, the 109's mach limit was 0.75-0.78. This was just poor elevator design.
The ailerons were woeful, ok'ish at lower speed (though Spits could easily out roll them even with a non clipped wing), they locked up at higher ones.
As mentioned above in the 109E at very low, landing speed they were good. The 109G was significantly worse.
The small cockpit didn't help because it was hard to get any leverage on the stick.
Other factors. Lack of rudder trim. This was an issue that got worse over time as the power level increased. I supposed you could always tell a 109 pilot ... because one leg was massively muscled.
The slats, which though they helped (when they worked) in aiding take off and landing (and slow speed stuff). They could (because they were simply just a mechanical mechanism) operate asymmetrically, if on one wing they open and the other it doesn't, causing yaw and other affects. Eric Brown mentioned that he found that turbulence, following another aircraft, could cause them to snap open and shut, obviously throwing it around a bit as lift varied wing to wing.
Overall
It was a delicate aircraft. Even in the E the pilots notes warned not to get into a yaw in a dive, because the wings would fall off. Willy made it be as light as possible (much lighter than a Spit, let alone a Mustang). That compromised strength. Though there was not necessarily a 1:1 direct a link between weight and strength, the Spit was lighter than a Mustang C/D but was stronger in G limits for example, but Willy probably went a bit too far and again this could have been fixed for the later models with more powerful engines.
The limit of the design was probably the excellent F. To move to the G really needed a thing like a 'Typhoon to Tempest' (or 190A to 190D) overhaul.
Bigger wing, longer fuselage, etc.
I am always amazed that they didn't do it, quick crash program and it could probably have been done very quickly, heck just a new larger wing alone would have helped massively.
That being said, the 109, right to the end, was always very dangerous in a good pilots hands. It along with the Spit were the kings of the climbers (and they vied with each through the war for first place).
At very high altitudes (it's real home), where the ASI dropped, some of the issues (like ailerons and even the elevators) were not such a problem (since they were not mach related they were pressure related which means ASI related).
Which means if you met a 109G (or a K) at 35,000 feet it was going to be a much tougher plane to match than if you met it at 20,000ft or 10,000ft (at 5,000ft anything could cause it real problems, Mossies dogfighted them at low level and held their own). Well at least until the NO2 ran out.....If the German engine manufacturers had ever managed to build (say) in '43 good high altitude engines then the 109s would have been much nastier 'up there'. Fortunately they really never did.
So, speculative history. A quick, crash upgrade to the 109 in (say) late '42 early '43, plus a decent high altitude engine and the US escorts would have had a much harder time of it.
But, as for why they didn't. Well it was easy to build. Bit like a Volkswagon in a sense, yes that swing axle was disasterous (and often fatal) and front end stability was non existent... but it was simple and cheap to build. They kept trying all those prototypes (you know the German aircraft and engine manufacturers probably made more prototypes during WW2 than the UK, US and USSR all put together), but none actually did as well for high altitude work, despite all its flaws, as the 109.
Which is why always, by any reckoning, the 109 (despite its flaws) is always in the 'big four' of best WW2 aircraft.
