Bf109 success, balanced fighter, or superior fighter?

Clay_Allison · Aug 5, 2009

wikipedia said:
A major upgrade was started in 1940 in order to better compete with the 601, following in its footsteps with a pressurized cooling system. The resulting 211E proved to be able to run at much higher power settings without overheating, so it was quickly followed by the 211F which included a strengthened crankshaft and a more efficient supercharger. Running at 2,600 RPM the F and similar J engines delivered a much improved 1,350 hp. Further improvements to this basic line led to the 1,425 hp 211N and 1,475 hp 211P.

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.

.

It didn't have to be developed beyond the war, by 1944 it was already better than any engine in 1940 had been as I pointed out above.

I agree about synchronized guns, they should have gone to wing guns only, even if they had to use gun pods.

My point wasn't that the Bf 109 was better. I did say "really crappy copy". My point was that it still barely worked with better pilots (some Israelis were combat experienced pilots from western forces).

Civettone · Aug 6, 2009

I agree Clay. I think it was mainly the propellor which meant it was hell.

We all know about the problems from the Israeli's but for some reason the Czechs flew them for several years. I'm sure it wasn't an easy plane to fly but the same can be said about the Bf 109G: once you got the hang of it, you could fully exploit its possibilities. And those turned out to be quite phenomenal, and that's why so many German aces had such tremendous success in them until the end of the war. Perhaps one can compare it with the Sopwith Camel, a dog to fly but the most succesful fighter plane of WW1...

Kris

Clay_Allison · Aug 6, 2009

Civettone said:
I agree Clay. I think it was mainly the propellor which meant it was hell.

We all know about the problems from the Israeli's but for some reason the Czechs flew them for several years. I'm sure it wasn't an easy plane to fly but the same can be said about the Bf 109G: once you got the hang of it, you could fully exploit its possibilities. And those turned out to be quite phenomenal, and that's why so many German aces had such tremendous success in them until the end of the war. Perhaps one can compare it with the Sopwith Camel, a dog to fly but the most succesful fighter plane of WW1...

Kris

There was a similar divide between those who didn't like the P-38 and those who became the top scoring US pilots.

LWulf · Aug 6, 2009

Civettone said:
I agree Clay. I think it was mainly the propellor which meant it was hell.

We all know about the problems from the Israeli's but for some reason the Czechs flew them for several years. I'm sure it wasn't an easy plane to fly but the same can be said about the Bf 109G: once you got the hang of it, you could fully exploit its possibilities. And those turned out to be quite phenomenal, and that's why so many German aces had such tremendous success in them until the end of the war. Perhaps one can compare it with the Sopwith Camel, a dog to fly but the most succesful fighter plane of WW1...

Kris

Why do you think so, Kris? AFAIK apart from some caution needed on take offs and landings the 109 was a relatively easy aircraft to fly and fight in. On the other hand, the Camel was vicious in all regimes of flight and needed a capable pilot just to fly and fight safely.

Civettone · Aug 7, 2009

Well yeah the Camel was really much much worse to fly than the Bf 109. I have debated several times about the Bf 109 against people saying it was difficult to fly and no longer competitive at the end of the war. I don't agree with that. But I have to admit that the Bf 109 was tricky to take off and land with. Once you got the hang of it, no problemo! At high speed the controls were very heavy and that was a downside to the aircraft, no doubt about it.

But my main point was that the Bf 109 was not easy to master but once you were sufficiently trained it was among the best. And until 1945. Period!

Kris

LWulf · Aug 7, 2009

Civettone said:
Well yeah the Camel was really much much worse to fly than the Bf 109. I have debated several times about the Bf 109 against people saying it was difficult to fly and no longer competitive at the end of the war. I don't agree with that. But I have to admit that the Bf 109 was tricky to take off and land with. Once you got the hang of it, no problemo! At high speed the controls were very heavy and that was a downside to the aircraft, no doubt about it.

But my main point was that the Bf 109 was not easy to master but once you were sufficiently trained it was among the best. And until 1945. Period!

Kris

Ok, then I think we agree.

billswagger · Aug 7, 2009

Its as much of an opinion as an other, but id have to say the 109 was probably the dominant aircraft of the ETO for the first half of the war.
Early 109Gs were top of the class, but i think the allied planes quickly caught up to them performance wise.

I think the Germans tried to squeeze every bit of performance out of the later variants but to say they were still as dominant would be an overstatement.
P-47s, and P-51s could turn with them at high speeds where the 109s were a bit heavy on the controls.
There are encounter reports that show the 190 to be a bit more of a challenge to deal with, but there's a lot of speculation there too.
Anyway, 109s had their day in the sun but later than 43/44 they were easier to contend with.

Civettone · Aug 7, 2009

Late 109s (with ASM engines and 1.8 ata) starting matched the speed of the P-47 and P-51 and were at least on par in dogfights. That they were heavy on the controls was also the case for the early Gustavs so I don't think that's much of a big deal.

Kris

Kurfürst · Aug 8, 2009

billswagger said:
Its as much of an opinion as an other, but id have to say the 109 was probably the dominant aircraft of the ETO for the first half of the war.
Early 109Gs were top of the class, but i think the allied planes quickly caught up to them performance wise.
...

Anyway, 109s had their day in the sun but later than 43/44 they were easier to contend with.

IMHO it is a very very reasonable and fair judgement on the matter, and I fully agree with it.

vanir · Aug 9, 2009

I think it is also interesting to note some cancelled update projects on the 109 like the latter 209/309 were cancelled for reasons of production complexity with no significant performance gains. The 109 at worst remained competitive. The trick is using comparisons like a heavily laden G-14 with external stores and surplus engine type, really meant for improvised anti-bomber work than cutting edge fighter vs fighter combat, to test against the latest Tempest MkV or Griffon Spit off the line, as British comparative performance testing had a habit of doing in 1944. I mean that just sounds to me like a political agenda with little recognition for that RAF pilot who actually encounters a dedicated fighter ace over enemy territory.
The simple point is Luftwaffe fighters were stil shooting down the best the Allies had to offer right to the last day of the war, the last hours even. That alone is an amazing achievement considering the circumstances.

Bf109 success, balanced fighter, or superior fighter?

More options

Clay_Allison

Staff Sergeant

Civettone

Tech Sergeant

Clay_Allison

Staff Sergeant

LWulf

Airman

Civettone

Tech Sergeant

LWulf

Airman

billswagger

Airman 1st Class

Civettone

Tech Sergeant

Kurfürst

Staff Sergeant

vanir

Banned

Users who are viewing this thread

Similar threads