Yes more often seen on Late G-6 and G-14's IIRC. =)
Difference between G and K model Bf.109
- Thread starter Sagittario64
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
- Thread starter
- #62
Sagittario64
Airman 1st Class
can you show me a color picture or a color profile that illustrates this red line?
- Thread starter
- #64
Sagittario64
Airman 1st Class
hmmm ok. its odd because its the first 109 i ever saw where theres a bombing stripe there
Yeah that one is on a Me 109G-6/Y with the Erla Canopy, 20cm extension on the tailwheel, FuG 16 radio. Call sign MT-507 of the Finnish A/F. Still carries it original colours. Delievered in late 44.
- Thread starter
- #66
Sagittario64
Airman 1st Class
so its a finnish 109? interesting.
- Thread starter
- #67
Sagittario64
Airman 1st Class
this is the 109 you speak of? seems the stripe has been left out
- Thread starter
- #69
Sagittario64
Airman 1st Class
hmmm well i thank you for these informative pictures
- Thread starter
- #71
Sagittario64
Airman 1st Class
indeed. i started my collection with color profiles, but as for obtaining a fair amount of pictures for each type and individual airplane, the internet strangely falls short
for colour profiles nobody beats Claes Sundin Luftwaffe Fighter Aces Aircraft in Profile
- Thread starter
- #73
Sagittario64
Airman 1st Class
wow theyre amazing thanks
- Thread starter
- #74
Sagittario64
Airman 1st Class
what models of g first sported the erla?
- Thread starter
- #76
Sagittario64
Airman 1st Class
ive heard little to nothing about the G-5
longer tailwheel was for bomb clearance on rough fields, first there was a spacer for the regular tailwheel and then the longer tailwheel unit essentially for SC500 clearance, although in practise most only carried SC250 and FWs carried SC500.
The initial accident rate quoted for the Me-109 (up to 1942) wasn't any higher for field accidents on the runway, but the issue was that its overall accident rate was significantly higher within one kilometre of the home airfield than for other fighters. Most people don't look that up, they only look up its field accident rate which isn't worse than others, overall however you get a different picture matching pilot reports. In ground handling it wasn't any worse than the Spit really, but it was a little unstable under 300km/h, had a long recovery from stalls (1500m minimum alt required IIRC, which meant on the landing cycle at 300-1000m it liked to plummet right into the ground if you stalled), and it was nose heavy in the landing condition, and liked to drop the right wing.
So it was more tricky low speed handling than actual field manners that was the cited issue...initially.
When the DB-605 was put in Seyringer says the basic airframe was too light for its torque and that was when accidents on the field itself rose, from about late 43 pilot-cadets who opened the throttle too quickly in the take off run often pancaked right on the field, and the cockpit was immediately crushed, killing the pilot. So the accident death rate at fields rose. He said it was much worse with the heavy interceptor configuration, too much anciliary weight on an airframe meant to be much lighter, with an engine that had too much torque for inexperienced pilots to handle. But if you had your wits about you it wasn't too bad, this was more a commentary that it had gone from a slightly tricky plane to handle at low speed, with a little tricky ground handling common to narrow track undercarriage in other types, but then became something that didn't tolerate fresh cadets very well. It remained very popular with experienced pilots however, one of JG54 gruppen switched back to it from Fw190A in 43, before the Dora was available.
Marsielle said that the secret of flying the 109 was learning to handle it at low speed, quoted in the wartime Beobachter (sp?) article on him.
Last edited:
"BF109G was very good, very high scale fighter plane. If was superior to our Yaks in speed and vertical combat. It wasn`t 100% superiority, but still. Very dynamic plane. I`ll be honest with you, it was my dream during my war years, to have a plane like this. Fast and superior on vertical, but that didn`t happen.
Messer had one extremely positive thing, it was able to be successful fight Yak`s at 2000m and Aircobras at 6000m. This is truly unique ability and valuable. Of course, here Yak and P-39 were inferior. As far as combat on different altitudes, BF109 was universal, like La-5.
Me109 was exceptional in turning combat. If there is a fighter plane built for turning combat , it has to be Messer! Speedy, maneuverable,(especially in vertical) and extremely dynamic. I can`t tell about all other things, but taking under consideration what i said above, Messerschmitt was ideal for dogfight. But for some reason majority of german pilots didn`t like turn fight, till this day i don`t know why.
I don`t know what was stopping them, but it`s definitely not the plane. I know that for a fact. I remember battle of Kursk where german aces were starting "roller-coaster" rides where our heads were about to come off from rotation. No, seriously... Is it true it`s a common thing now that Messer wasn`t maneuverable?
Interviewer: Yes.
Heh.. Why would people come up with something like this... It was maneuverable...by God it was."
Source - Major Kozhemyako, Soviet fighter ace. Source: translation from Russian language.
"The speed, rate of climb and armament were suberb compared to our other planes. The best feature was the excellent rate of climb. The reflector sight was good as well as the radio and the throat microphone, which eliminated the engine noise from transmissions.
Before starting the engine one you had to set the propeller pitch to small, as otherwise the plane would start to swerve left as soon as the tailwheel was raised from the ground. There was nothing special in landing the plane. It was heavy but the wing slats opened up when speed slowed down and helped flying in slow speed.
Comparing the flying characteristics against the FIAT G.50, the Me109G was just a weapons platform, albeit a great one. "
Source -Kullervo Joutseno, Finnish fighter pilot. Source: Hannu Valtonen, "Me 109 ja Saksan sotatalous" (Messerschmitt Bf 109 and the German war economy), ISBN 951-95688-7-5.
Messer had one extremely positive thing, it was able to be successful fight Yak`s at 2000m and Aircobras at 6000m. This is truly unique ability and valuable. Of course, here Yak and P-39 were inferior. As far as combat on different altitudes, BF109 was universal, like La-5.
Me109 was exceptional in turning combat. If there is a fighter plane built for turning combat , it has to be Messer! Speedy, maneuverable,(especially in vertical) and extremely dynamic. I can`t tell about all other things, but taking under consideration what i said above, Messerschmitt was ideal for dogfight. But for some reason majority of german pilots didn`t like turn fight, till this day i don`t know why.
I don`t know what was stopping them, but it`s definitely not the plane. I know that for a fact. I remember battle of Kursk where german aces were starting "roller-coaster" rides where our heads were about to come off from rotation. No, seriously... Is it true it`s a common thing now that Messer wasn`t maneuverable?
Interviewer: Yes.
Heh.. Why would people come up with something like this... It was maneuverable...by God it was."
Source - Major Kozhemyako, Soviet fighter ace. Source: translation from Russian language.
"The speed, rate of climb and armament were suberb compared to our other planes. The best feature was the excellent rate of climb. The reflector sight was good as well as the radio and the throat microphone, which eliminated the engine noise from transmissions.
Before starting the engine one you had to set the propeller pitch to small, as otherwise the plane would start to swerve left as soon as the tailwheel was raised from the ground. There was nothing special in landing the plane. It was heavy but the wing slats opened up when speed slowed down and helped flying in slow speed.
Comparing the flying characteristics against the FIAT G.50, the Me109G was just a weapons platform, albeit a great one. "
Source -Kullervo Joutseno, Finnish fighter pilot. Source: Hannu Valtonen, "Me 109 ja Saksan sotatalous" (Messerschmitt Bf 109 and the German war economy), ISBN 951-95688-7-5.
Its excellent handling characteristics between 300-600km/h are well documented, but as are its poor handling characteristics below 300km/h. We're simply discussing two different contexts both from reputable sources.
I do not challenge your contention, only where it becomes a sweeping generalisation for the entire 109 performance envelope. And prior to the Friedrich keeping the slats open at low speed (they liked to simply retract themselves), meant you had to occasionally shake the wings in the landing run. Even in turns one slat liked to open up unexpectedly which would throw inexperienced pilots, but Räll explained how you fix that, slam the stick to opposite airleron for a split second and then back again, shut the slat. Problem was fixed with the Friedrich slats however.
I do not challenge your contention, only where it becomes a sweeping generalisation for the entire 109 performance envelope. And prior to the Friedrich keeping the slats open at low speed (they liked to simply retract themselves), meant you had to occasionally shake the wings in the landing run. Even in turns one slat liked to open up unexpectedly which would throw inexperienced pilots, but Räll explained how you fix that, slam the stick to opposite airleron for a split second and then back again, shut the slat. Problem was fixed with the Friedrich slats however.
