Bf109 success, balanced fighter, or superior fighter?

[Marcel]

I would love a Putnam-esque reference to French combat aircraft 1930-40 (in English) if you, or anyone else, knows of a good one?

I believe the Squadron Signal series has a nice edition about the French aircraft.

 

[VG-33]

Italian fighters were not more maneuverable than the Bf-109, and there are infact German flight tests concluding this. The Bf-109, G.55 Macchi 205 were considered close in terms of maneuverability.

Italian fighters were different enough from each other. Probably Macchi 205 with it's small wings was very close to the 109G. Fiats and Reggiane with big wings were quite different. French magazines (Fanatique de l'aviation, Aviasport... ) published in 70ies-80ies at lot of testimonies from italian pilots describing a marked superiourity on Fiat G-55 or Re-2005 planes in matters of horizontal manouvrability.

I trust that point of view, with 3 20 mm guns and 2 13.1 mm ones, Fiat an Re fighters were probably a better compromise than the overweighted Me109G, even if slightly slower.

VG-33

 

[Civettone]

Horizontal? So the Bf 109 was superior in the vertical? What does that prove??

The German tests showed clearly that the Italian 5-series did not have superior aeronautical qualities than the Bf 109G or Fw 190A. Between the lines, the main advantage they (especially the G.55) had over the Bf 109 was the handling at high altitude and their ability to mount the DB 603.

Also, the late-war Bf 109 was not overweight: the weight did not increase that much...

Kris

 

[VG-33]

Horizontal? So the Bf 109 was superior in the vertical? What does that prove??


Kris

German tests show what they show and i don't try to prove anything. Except that you would maybe need italian tests to make an unbiaised comparison. AFAIK, such document does not exist from italian side, only we can use it's veterans testimonies...with off course usual lack of accuracy.

I would be much to long translate them and you're free to believe what you want anyway, moreover the subject was discussed so many times, for instance:

http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/aviation/macchi-mc-205-veltro-4014.html



Regards

VG

 

[Clay_Allison]

I think the big success of the 109 can be attributed to one major factor: power-weight ratio. Like the Spitfire, it was small and light and well suited for the engines available at the beginning of the war. The biggest failing that the US had in the early war was not having a plane like this. Starting from that base it was continually upgradeable and remained very competitive throughout the war, (much like the Spitfire). Unlike the Spitfire, it had cannon from the very beginning.

 

[Civettone]

German tests show what they show and i don't try to prove anything. Except that you would maybe need italian tests to make an unbiaised comparison. AFAIK, such document does not exist from italian side, only we can use it's veterans testimonies...with off course usual lack of accuracy.

I would be much to long translate them and you're free to believe what you want anyway, moreover the subject was discussed so many times, for instance:

http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/aviation/macchi-mc-205-veltro-4014.html



Regards

VG

Honestly man, I don't care if that has been discussed before. I mean, this forum has been around for many years and it's difficult to find a topic which hasn't been discussed before. In that case, we can just as well close it down and reread the old threads.

I believe there are few people on this board who have devoted so much time on Italian fighter aircraft as I have. So I know most of the claims and stories and whatever. But I also know much of what is known is incorrect information.

As to the German tests being biased, that's a bit too easy. It was led by Oberst Petersen who claimed that the G.55 was the best fighter in the axis. These words have been always taken out of context(*). But in any case, it clearly shows that they didn't have a bias towards Italian fighters. I even have a transcript of a meeting between Göring, Milch and Galland discussing these fighters and the possibility of taking them into production. So your claim that they were biased is unfounded. Of course everybody is biased to a certain degree. But it clearly didn't show in the test results and that's what matters.

Back on the subject, there were several fighters which were superior to the Bf 109 in the horizontal. Such as the Fiat CR.42, Polikarpov I-16, Hawker Hurricane, ...
As to the German tests done at Rechlin ... the 5-series was considered superior in handling at high altitude as well as turning (horizontal) at those altitudes.

(* as a new DB 603 high-altitude interceptor it would become the best)

Kris

 

[DAVIDICUS]

Civettone, you said:

I even have a transcript of a meeting between Göring, Milch and Galland discussing these fighters and the possibility of taking them into production.

Is the transcript in German or English? How long is it? Any chance that it can be scanned and posted on the forum? Perhaps on its own thread regarding German impressions of the 5 Series?

Your thoughts on the subject with the transcript would be a fascinating read.

 

[Civettone]

Davidicus, the transcript can be found in the German official BA-MA archives. I remember reading them, so somebody copied them. In any case ... English copies can be easily found on the net.

Aha, found it!!at Autobiografische Bücher von Jagdfliegern des WW II - WHQ Forum

AWM 54 423/4/103 Part 63, Report of a Conference held by Reichsmarschall Goering on 22 February 1943.

Milch: ... Perhaps Petersen can inform us on this question and also about the comparison flights in Italy.

Petersen: ... There will be a further report about comparison flights with all the Italian types ... Against this, the Italian fighter is equal to the German fighter, especially as regards rate of climb. They are also superior in armament. The Fiat 55 aircraft has four cannon and a performance similar to that of the German aircraft, although powered by an engine that
is a hundred horsepower less.

Peltz: Were they series or experimental aircraft?

Petersen: There is an experimental series of ten aircraft, but these trials concerned new aircraft that had been 'titivated up'.

Goering: I'm glad that the Italians at long last have produced a respectable fighter. And I can only say; let them build them to capacity.

Milch: We also should do something in that sphere. It is indeed a disgrace to our own industry.

Goering: The Italians have never built inferior aircraft and have always been competent in the construction of aircraft and engines. I remember the Fiat and Alfa. They have also held the world speed record. The ability of the Italian aircraft industry has always been of the best. They are unable to mass produce however, and there we must help them. We can consider ourselves lucky, if they have produced a good fighter aircraft. It's one in the eye for our own people anyway.

Petersen: We must attend to this at once. The airframe of the Fiat G 55 can accommodate the DB 603 engine, while the Me 109 is unable to do so any longer. The G 55 with the DB 603 would be an ideal fighter aircraft.

Galland: From our experience the Italians have always forgotten something in their fighter aircraft, either the armour or guns.

Goering: It's to be hoped however that for the purposes of these comparison flights, they've been informed about this, otherwise it's a waste of time.

Petersen: The fighter specialist has flown the aircraft. With the exception of the radio it carried complete equipment, and fuel for one and a half hours, whereas we carried fuel for only one hour. We can't ignore the fact that the Italian aircraft has a performance equal to that of our latest types.

Milch: Then please obtain three Italian aircraft at once, and fly them here, in Rechlin. I would have the DB 603 installed in these aircraft that we have been discussing this morning. It would mean a considerable advance towards the Me 209. I can't imagine the FW 190 with the BMW 801 engine as it is today being sufficient for the next two and half years. [sic!] Especially as we don't know what the English and the Americans are building.

...

Goering: I'm also in favour of the proposal. However I consider it more than likely that the English will effect an improvement with their own types. I would like to ask what is our best means of improving our fighters other than the jet propulsion business?
Milch: The Me 209 and especially its engine. ...

...

Goering: If the Italian aircraft is good, then we won't deny the fact, and we'll mass produce them here. We don't want any false pride.

Milch: Thereby we could advance a year.

Galland: And it would also do our designers good.

Goering: On top of that perhaps we could include the Italian pilots as well, in our complete programme. Anyway I'm very pleased to hear this about the Italians.

Kris

 

[Daviducus2]

Wow. The stuff that we find and share on this forum is really incredible. Many "prevailing consensus" matters have been shown to lack evidentiary support.

Thanks for the transcript which undercuts the commonly held belief that Italian fighter designs were all poor and obsolete.

 

[davebender]

Italian fighter designs were all poor and obsolete.

The real problem is that few of the modern types were produced. Consequently Italy had to keep obsolete types in service.

 

[Daviducus2]

I think you misquoted me such that it came across with a different meaning. I actually said:

"Thanks for the transcript which undercuts the commonly held belief that Italian fighter designs were all poor and obsolete."

Goering touched on the production issue you mentioned.

Goering: The Italians have never built inferior aircraft and have always been competent in the construction of aircraft and engines. I remember the Fiat and Alfa. They have also held the world speed record. The ability of the Italian aircraft industry has always been of the best. They are unable to mass produce however, and there we must help them. We can consider ourselves lucky, if they have produced a good fighter aircraft. It's one in the eye for our own people anyway.

 

[fass]

If I may join in, the Bf 109 (which I've heard and seen flying by the scores during the war) could perhaps best be described as superlative at the beginning of the war, good in 1943 and on the verge of obsolescence in late 1944. Over its long period of service, there were too many changes in air warfare for a single design - despite modifications - to stay ahead.
One shortcoming that was never brought under control was the narrow-track and vulnerable undercarriage. The narrow track is invariably mentioned in the literature as a major cause of crashes by inexperienced pilots, but interestingly, the Spitfire's track is even narrower and I've never seen it mentioned as a culprit...
An astonishing omission was a rudder trimmer, which was only introduced with the G-model. This meant that at speed, constant heavy pressure on the left pedal was required. Consequently, turns to starboard were easier than turns to port.
The major shortcoming was the very cramped cockpit. This restricted the view as sideways movement was very limited. It also restricted the force the pilot could apply to the stick (lack of "purchase") and this was particularly unfavourable because the stick had little sideways travel anyway, resulting in reduced mechanical advantage.
The cramped cockpit was inherent to the design. Messerschmitt wrapped the smallest possible fuselage around the DB engine. That engine was an inverted V, narrowest on top, while the Merlin was an upright V, broadest on top. For the fuselage sections to be conformal to the engine's shape, that results in a narrower cockpit for the Bf109.

 

[LWulf]

If I may join in, the Bf 109 (which I've heard and seen flying by the scores during the war) could perhaps best be described as superlative at the beginning of the war, good in 1943 and on the verge of obsolescence in late 1944. Over its long period of service, there were too many changes in air warfare for a single design - despite modifications - to stay ahead.
One shortcoming that was never brought under control was the narrow-track and vulnerable undercarriage. The narrow track is invariably mentioned in the literature as a major cause of crashes by inexperienced pilots, but interestingly, the Spitfire's track is even narrower and I've never seen it mentioned as a culprit...
An astonishing omission was a rudder trimmer, which was only introduced with the G-model. This meant that at speed, constant heavy pressure on the left pedal was required. Consequently, turns to starboard were easier than turns to port.
The major shortcoming was the very cramped cockpit. This restricted the view as sideways movement was very limited. It also restricted the force the pilot could apply to the stick (lack of "purchase") and this was particularly unfavourable because the stick had little sideways travel anyway, resulting in reduced mechanical advantage.
The cramped cockpit was inherent to the design. Messerschmitt wrapped the smallest possible fuselage around the DB engine. That engine was an inverted V, narrowest on top, while the Merlin was an upright V, broadest on top. For the fuselage sections to be conformal to the engine's shape, that results in a narrower cockpit for the Bf109.

Bf 109 myths, facts and the view from the cockpit

"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 109 K-4 again had numerous improvements over the G series.
- 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 (109 G-6/AS, 109 G-10, and 109 K-4) were very completive aircraft. But there was never enough and by the time the K-4 was ready it was too late.

ME 109 E/F/G:
"The 109 had not for us, maybe not for the long time pilots of the 109, but the new comers had problems starting with the gear.* You know it was a high, narrow gear.* And we had many ground loops. And then the gear breaks. That is not a norm, this is a exception, but it anyway happens. "
- Major Gunther Rall. German fighter ace, NATO general, Commander of the German Air Force. 275 victories.

Me 109 G:
"- When I was over here in June, Mr. Tani told that he did not have to adjust the trim of a Messerschmitt after takeoff, what about the Brewster?
Jussi Huotari: You had to turn it pretty much, if your speed varied. You had to adjust according to your speed.
- But the Messerschmitt needed less adjustment, did it ?
Jussi Huotari. Flying a Messerschmitt you did not have to trim very much
- How much rudder did a Messerschmitt pilot have to apply, or was the rudder trim so adjusted that on a defined speed the plane stayed on straight course ?
Antti Tani: I think usually she went right on when doing 400 kmh. During takeoff you had to push the pedal. You got so used to it that you no more paid any attention to it."
- Antti Tani, Finnish fighter ace. 21,5 victories.
- Jouko "Jussi" Huotari, Finnish fighter ace. 17 victories.

...
- 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. Finnish Bf 109 G-2 test revealed that at 450 km/h the stick could be still fully taken to the limit with ~10 kg force (20 pounds). Aileron roll without rudder could be performed to both direction from 400-450 km/h in 4-5 s. This is better than the Spitfire with fabric ailerons, about the same as Spitfire with metal ailerons and slightly below clipped wing Spitfire. 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 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 a real expert.

 

[claidemore]

virtualpilots.fi: 109myths
Lovely bit of prose, but maybe just a wee bit 'messerschmittaphilic' (I think I just invented a new word?). There are some good arguments in that article, but to accept it at face value is just as bad as accepting the 'myth'. For me that article is an attempt at historical revisionism.

The truth lies somewhere between.

 

[Glider]

Bf 109 myths, facts and the view from the cockpit

There is some good stuff in there but I strongly suggest you concentrate on the facts put forward and treat the opinilns with considerable caution.

 

[timshatz]

Don't know if this has been mentioned but my understanding is the 109 didn't have rudder trim. Had to fly it all the time with your foot on the left rudder. Faster you go, the heavier the foot gets. I guess the 109 pilots got used to it but that is a pain in the ass if you are flying. Right rudder easy, left rudder-P U S H!

 

[Clay_Allison]

"Me 109 was outdated aircraft by 1945."
- 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 (109 G-6/AS, 109 G-10, and 109 K-4) were very completive aircraft. But there was never enough and by the time the K-4 was ready it was too late.

Even a really crappy copy was good enough to keep the air war even between Israel and Egypt in the first Arab-Israeli war:

Israeli agents negotiated the purchase of Avia S-199s from the Czechoslovak government in defiance of an arms embargo that Israel faced at the time. 25 aircraft were obtained and all but two were eventually delivered. The first examples arrived on May 20, 1948, six days after Israel's declaration of independence and five days after the commencement of hostilities by Egypt. They were assembled and sent into combat for the first time on May 29, attacking the Egyptian army between Isdud and the current Ad Halom bridge, south of Tel Aviv. This was the first action of 101 Squadron IAF. The type proved unreliable and performed poorly in combat. One Avia pilot remarked "she tried to kill us on every take off and landing."[citation needed] Furthermore, maintenance problems meant that no more than five were typically airworthy at any one time. The type, however, scored victories over its opponents, including the Spitfire.

 

[Shortround6]

Even a really crappy copy was good enough to keep the air war even between Israel and Egypt in the first Arab-Israeli war:

Probably had as much or more to do with pilots than with the Aircraft.

If you are going to quote WIkI:

"The S-199 continued to use the Bf 109G airframe but, with none of the original engines available, an alternative engine had to be used. It was decided that as a replacement for the original engine, the aircraft would use the same engine (Junkers Jumo 211) and propeller as the Heinkel He 111 bomber. The resulting combination of parts was an aircraft with extremely poor handling qualities. The substitute engine was heavier than, and lacked the responsiveness of, the Daimler-Benz unit, and the torque created by the massive paddle-bladed propeller made control very difficult. This, in combination with the 109's narrow-track undercarriage, made landings and take-offs extremely hazardous. A final hidden danger lay in the synchronization gear, which did not work as it was meant to, leading a few Israeli aircraft to shoot off their own propellers.[1]"

 

[Clay_Allison]

Probably had as much or more to do with pilots than with the Aircraft.

If you are going to quote WIkI:

"The S-199 continued to use the Bf 109G airframe but, with none of the original engines available, an alternative engine had to be used. It was decided that as a replacement for the original engine, the aircraft would use the same engine (Junkers Jumo 211) and propeller as the Heinkel He 111 bomber. The resulting combination of parts was an aircraft with extremely poor handling qualities. The substitute engine was heavier than, and lacked the responsiveness of, the Daimler-Benz unit, and the torque created by the massive paddle-bladed propeller made control very difficult. This, in combination with the 109's narrow-track undercarriage, made landings and take-offs extremely hazardous. A final hidden danger lay in the synchronization gear, which did not work as it was meant to, leading a few Israeli aircraft to shoot off their own propellers.[1]"

It probably wouldn't have been as god-awful without the bomber propeller. The Jumo-211 wasn't a bad engine and it should have been on par with the early war DB-601 by 1948.

 

[Shortround6]

It probably wouldn't have been as god-awful without the bomber propeller. The Jumo-211 wasn't a bad engine and it should have been on par with the early war DB-601 by 1948.

You may be right about the bomber propellor but why should the engine have been developed beyond 1944?

If the throttle response was good enough for a bomber why waste any more time on it. The effort was going into the Jumo 213 even if some effort was going into jets. Once the war ended any development stopped.
try naming a plane that used the Jumo 211 that had synchronized guns. Cobbling together parts that worked seperatly doesn't always mean they will work together.

THe Israelies may have been able to, on the average, recruit better pilots than the Arab forces. If that is the case it doesn't mean the planes were better or even as good.