Bf109G-6 Question!

[gomwolf]

First of all, My english is not good. plz understand this.


Most of documents and flight sim game discribe Bf109G-6 had bad maneuvering. but I cannot understand.

Bf109G-6's gross weight is only 3350kg. It has no GM-1 Booster, Pressuerized cabin. Everything changed from Bf109G-2 is FuG16 radio set and MG131 Maschinengewehr.
The bulge reduced speed of G-6, but it didn't couse of bad maneuvering.

What factor makes Bf109G-6's bad maneuvering? I cannot find about this.

 

[Greyman]

'Bad Maneuvering' compared to which aircraft?

And what specific maneuvre are we comparing. Rarely is one fighter better than another in every single aspect of maneuverability.

 

[GrauGeist]

I beleive they're referring to the difference in handling the design change created between the G-2 and the G-6 model

 

[gomwolf]

Greyman// Bad maneuvering compare with Bf109G-2, Bf109G-4, Bf109G-10. and any maneuvering use elevator. Especially, Turning performance.

Graugeist// but Bf109G-6 nothing chaged in aerodynamics. More stickforce? I don't know about that. But G-6 is Low speed maneuvering was bad too.

 

[Denniss]

3350kg = G-6 with underwing MG 151/20 gondolas. Expect 100kg placed under each wing to have effect on handling.
There was no real handling difference between the G-6 and G-2, just a (little?) weight increase.

 

[drgondog]

The Bf 109G-6 had excellent maneuverability and was competitive against any Allied fighter in the hands of a good pilot who played to its strengths against different aircraft.

That being said the MG151/20 reduced speed and roll from clean G-6'

 

[stona]

Most of documents and flight sim game discribe Bf109G-6 had bad maneuvering. but I cannot understand.

The Bf 109 G-6 should not be described as having bad manoeuvrability. Compared with other WW2 fighters it had relative strengths and weaknesses but the Bf 109 series was one of the best, most successful and most developed fighters of the entire war.

I think the comment probably comes from one of the Bf 109s relative weaknesses. It had a high wing loading and this impacted some of its aerobatic capabilities compared with some other fighters. It usually enjoyed some advantages in other areas of performance.
Fighting to his aircraft's strengths is something any well trained pilot should do.

Cheers

Steve

 

[Gixxerman]

I'm certainly no expert but most of what I've read says the G6 had issues when equipped with the cannon gondolas or the 21cm rockets.
I'm sure they did no favours to other aircraft so kitted out either, but then the need was pressing what else could they do?
They really needed bomber killers so took what steps they could, I guess, even at the expense of the planes use as a pure fighter v fighter machine.

 

[Denniss]

The rockets and launch tubes slowed them down far more than the gondola cannon (weight + air resistance), both affected maneuverability due to weight placed under the wings.

 

[GregP]

I have heard and seen many German pilots say that with the G-series, the Bf 109 was well past its prime. While it COULD be maneuverable at 180 to 280 mph with the slats out, if you stayed fast it wasn't all that maneuverable with the slats retracted and was reported to be downright vicious in the landing configuration. Can't say myself, but I've heard both high praise and some rather harsh criticism of the 109 from the guys who flew it.

That being said, the guys above who said to fight with your aircraft's strengths are correct. Correctly flown, the Bf 109G-series were dangerous opponents right through the end of the war, even if not quite a match for the late model Spitfires, Tempests, and P-51's being flown in large numbers relative to the Bf 109 flyable population. I'd say nobody took a Bf 109 for granted unless they had 100+ friends in the immediate vicinity and the Huns were a flight of 4 trying to stop the bomber stream. That happened and the Germans attacked the bombers with bravery if also with some futility.

One on one the Bf 109 had its strengths and weaknesses, just as did all other planes. The 109 had possibly more weaknesses than most, but its strong points were good ones. It was always a strong climber, was maneuverable at relatively low speeds, and the cannon could do some real damage with one hit. It was simple to maintain and tolerated harsh conditions quite well. On the minus side the range was terrible, the landing gear was flawed for the entire series, the canopy was the worst on any fighter of WWII, it had no rudder trim and the stick was very difficult to move when anywhere above 330 mph or so. At 400+ mph the stick was almost set in stone.

So, although the Bf 109K series could hit 450+ mph in level flight, they weren't fighting when they did so. They were running to or from a fight. The G-series was muich the same as regards the stiffening up of the controls at speed, and that is possibly the source of the comments you were reading. While true, there were ways to fight the plane around these weaknesses except for the range and abysmal canopy. The G-series had all the weaknesses of the K's and not quite the same speed, at least in level flight.

But they were also quite successful in shooting down Allied aircraft, so the balance sheet must have been better than even in retrospect. You cannot call the Bf 109 series of aircraft other than successful in their designed tasks. They shot down more enemy aircraft than any other fighter in history, so at least SOMETHING was pretty darned good about it.

Taken as a whiole, I'd say the Bf 109 is one of the immortals and deserves a place near the top of the heap, if only to reflect its combat record. Some in here are not fond of the combat record as a measure and that is fine. What other measure should be used to determine the best combat fighter? Certainly operational losses are one measure of reliability or lack thereof. There are others and they all have a place in peacetime..

To me, combat record is the ONLY measure that counts when talking about combat aircraft. It is, after all, the evidence of performance in the cricible of combat. The Bf 109 was one of the best of all times at that task.

 

[DonL]

The Bf 109G-6 had excellent maneuverability and was competitive against any Allied fighter in the hands of a good pilot who played to its strengths against different aircraft.

That being said the MG151/20 reduced speed and roll from clean G-6'

I heavily disagree, no Bf 109 G6 equiped with the extra two MG151/20 gondulas was at any time competitive against any Allied fighter (P47, P 38 and P 51).
From many flight reports of allied pilots mostly P47 pilots, which I read, she was referred to as easy or best served meat!
Only the clean variant was competitive all other claims are myths.

 

[Denniss]

I have some doubts with the P-38 claim but should be true for the other two. But remember, in 44 the cannon boats were usually flown by noobs while the more experienced pilots were in clean 109 to fly top cover.

 

[stona]

in 44 the cannon boats were usually flown by noobs while the more experienced pilots were in clean 109 to fly top cover.

What's the evidence for that?
A very few senior pilots managed to avoid flying gondola equipped aircraft or had the gondolas removed. Most did not, no matter how much they disliked them. A man like Bartels (Heinrich) would be an example. I've never seen anything to support the sort of discrimination you are supposing but am open to persuasion.
Cheers
Steve

 

[drgondog]

I tend to agree with Stona. The mission for the LuftMitte/LuftFlotte Reich and LF 3 in last half of 1943 through 1944 was to destroy bombers. Many flight leaders used them until it became obvious that the Mustang was superior when the U4 had to fight them.

The 109G-6/U4 declined in numbers once the Mustang was introduced until ~ September 1944 when most or all were withdrawn from service. The key factor was loss of airspeed, not so much maneuverability. The 109G-6 was already at a severe disadvantage relative to speed above 15000 feet and the U4 reduced it even more by 10mph.

 

[Denniss]

Why should the G-6/U4 be slower than the standard G-6 ?!?

 

[Milosh]

Early drop tank mounts for the P-51 dropped top speed by 12mph, iirc.

 

[Shortround6]

The loss in rate of climb was probably more important than the loss in speed. The loss of rate of climb being an indicator of other things, like the ability to sustain speed or altitude even in a "gentile" turn like 1.5-2 "G"s.

 

[drgondog]

Actually 10 mph according to flight test speed runs, less at lower speeds

 

[Denniss]

You had been talking about speed loss in the /U4, not from drop tanks.

 

[Kingscoy]

From what I have learned/ heard from a veteran Me 109G-14(who flew also the G-6) pilot is that when a MK 108 engine canon was installed the centre of gravity shifted which made it more difficult to fly...more so for novice pilots. Don't know if this could also mean speed loss, however the MK 108 canon and ammo should make it somewhat heavier.