Griffon Spitfire was better than any Bf109?

[CBSKY]

With regard to build quality (yes I've read the meeting notes) I'd like to understand what effect did local mechanics have on putting reliable aircraft in the air? Obviously build quality suffered due to the war situation, but I have yet to see an in-service 109 I would say "looks" appalling. (Not talking about the ones on the scrap heap!)

Sure I know you can't tell much from an old black and white photograph, but these are typical late war 109s:

Not as polished as the earlier 109s perhaps, just look like warbirds with dirt and oil on them.

Here's a Hungarian 109 in the summer 1944:

Here are some of the rougher in-service photos I could find, this photo was at FalkeEins - the Luftwaffe blog

This one maybe with those panel lines....

Yes, I know it's silly to draw conclusions from old black and white photos...but I see not too much different in any warbird picture from any nation.

I can see aircraft suffering build quality but I can't see your typical pilots taking off in an aircraft that would be considered unsafe or "appalling", nor could I see their mechanics in charge of the aircraft allowing them to do so. (Of course there are exceptions to every rule).

"With the auxiliary MW-50 installation in my Bf 109 G-10 in which I flew till the end of the war, I was able to save myself in all of the prickliest situations, of which there were several in April 1945. When no methanol was at hand, we used distilled water which functioned just as well, except that we were no able to fly high, otherwise the whole installation froze. In the sorties we flew short before the end of the war in low-level flight in the Cham area and east of Regensburg, we often met US fighters, and although they were superior to us in numerical terms, we were able to get away from them. The fastest Bf 109 I ever flew in, I handed over to the Americans on 8 May 1945 in Neubiberg" - Peter Duttman

Arno Fischer of JG53 is quoted about doing 600km/h with MW50 on the deck in his G10...perhaps these aircraft would be faster still with better build quality...

"In dangerous air combat situations, however, you had a short-duration power increase available to you and could raise your speed near the ground to a good 600 km/h"

 

[BiffF15]

With regard to build quality (yes I've read the meeting notes) I'd like to understand what effect did local mechanics have on putting reliable aircraft in the air? Obviously build quality suffered due to the war situation, but I have yet to see an in-service 109 I would say "looks" appalling. (Not talking about the ones on the scrap heap!)

Sure I know you can't tell much from an old black and white photograph, but these are typical late war 109s:

View attachment 692584



View attachment 692586

View attachment 692587

View attachment 692590

Not as polished as the earlier 109s perhaps, just look like warbirds with dirt and oil on them.

Here's a Hungarian 109 in the summer 1944:

View attachment 692591

Here are some of the rougher in-service photos I could find, this photo was at FalkeEins - the Luftwaffe blog

View attachment 692588

This one maybe with those panel lines....

View attachment 692589

Yes, I know it's silly to draw conclusions from old black and white photos...but I see not too much different in any warbird picture from any nation.

I can see aircraft suffering build quality but I can't see your typical pilots taking off in an aircraft that would be considered unsafe or "appalling", nor could I see their mechanics in charge of the aircraft allowing them to do so. (Of course there are exceptions to every rule).

"With the auxiliary MW-50 installation in my Bf 109 G-10 in which I flew till the end of the war, I was able to save myself in all of the prickliest situations, of which there were several in April 1945. When no methanol was at hand, we used distilled water which functioned just as well, except that we were no able to fly high, otherwise the whole installation froze. In the sorties we flew short before the end of the war in low-level flight in the Cham area and east of Regensburg, we often met US fighters, and although they were superior to us in numerical terms, we were able to get away from them. The fastest Bf 109 I ever flew in, I handed over to the Americans on 8 May 1945 in Neubiberg" - Peter Duttman

Arno Fischer of JG53 is quoted about doing 600km/h with MW50 on the deck in his G10...perhaps these aircraft would be faster still with better build quality...

"In dangerous air combat situations, however, you had a short-duration power increase available to you and could raise your speed near the ground to a good 600 km/h"

In the third picture (Black 11) look at the cowling piece that has the intake on it. As it wraps around the top the aft end has a terrible fit, and the access door directly aft of it (in front of the windscreen) doesn't look much better. Those are both drag inducing / speed reducing.

Curious on the top picture why there is a stick under the wing? Looks like the pogo stick that goes under the aft end of a 737 to keep it from tipping up... Also, neither it or any others appear to be chocked. Does that stem from parking on grass?

Cheers,
Biff

 

[GrauGeist]

Also, neither it or any others appear to be chocked. Does that stem from parking on grass?

It seems they felt grass fields didn't need it for the most part.

In most of the photos I've seen of Luftwaffe aircraft parked on hardstand, their wheels are chocked.

 

[Tkdog]

I think a couple factors with using photos for quality control assessment. Firstly, of course, something can look ok at a few feet and still be a piece of junk. You can talk to any classic car owner about that. Also, I can't imagine the Nazis allowing pictures of truly terrible aircraft to circulate. Any picture of a military aircraft like you posted is subject to censorship. Especially by them.

As for the first hand account. You're dealing with survivor bias. Any of them that survived obviously had a much better experience than those that didn't. He felt like he "easily out ran them". Did they chase him? Did they have other mission objectives instead? How much fuel and ammunition did they have left? Was the goal to chase away fighters, but not to get drawn off? We simply don't know - and I doubt he did either.

 

[Clayton Magnet]

Firstly, of course, something can look ok at a few feet and still be a piece of junk

I have worked on many aircraft over the years, that looked great with a fresh coat of paint, but were obviously falling apart after a cursory inspection.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

I have worked on many aircraft over the years, that looked great with a fresh coat of paint, but were obviously falling apart after a cursory inspection.

You beat me to the punch! Over the years I've seen many articles and books written where the author points out what they perceive as maintenance defects when in actuality there is nothing wrong with said aircraft. At the same time the opposite can be said. Some of these folks never worked on aircraft, let alone flown them and are the last who should attempt to discuss maintenance subjects unless they have the resources and references to back up their work.

As far as field maintenance and Luftwaffe mechanics - I've always read stores about them being very dedicated to their work, much has been written about Hartman's crewchief Heinz "Bimmel" Mertens. I think all combatants had maintenance personnel who did everything possible to give their pilots airworthy aircraft. Additionally the pilots also knew, many through experience, the way their aircraft were expected to look and perform.

 

[CBSKY]

I think a couple factors with using photos for quality control assessment. Firstly, of course, something can look ok at a few feet and still be a piece of junk. You can talk to any classic car owner about that. Also, I can't imagine the Nazis allowing pictures of truly terrible aircraft to circulate. Any picture of a military aircraft like you posted is subject to censorship. Especially by them.

As for the first hand account. You're dealing with survivor bias. Any of them that survived obviously had a much better experience than those that didn't. He felt like he "easily out ran them". Did they chase him? Did they have other mission objectives instead? How much fuel and ammunition did they have left? Was the goal to chase away fighters, but not to get drawn off? We simply don't know - and I doubt he did either.

Yes, point taken on the classic car example, that's a good one.

Most of those pictures come from private albums, only made public years after the war, and not subject to censorship...the first hand account was simply to give the general impression the pilot had with the aircraft itself, which was positive and doesn't really fit the "appalling" or "piece of junk" narrative. Obviously we've all read about the aircraft being delivered from depots with instruments uncalibrated, engines not slow-timed etc...I'm just curious as to the actual condition of the aircraft once the mechanic has got possession of it and checked it, etc. and OK'd the machine to go off to war.

Many Allied pilot accounts also speak of fights late war with 109 and intense, maneuvering dogfights and very high speed dives, etc. where the outcome is razor thin even against the best built and maintained aircraft of the day...It just seems the impression many have (not meaning you personally) today of a late-war 109 was they took off belching black smoke and flame, with panels falling off going down the runway with a top speed of 292 mph fully boosted...I think that get's in the way of the truth somewhat.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

With regard to build quality (yes I've read the meeting notes) I'd like to understand what effect did local mechanics have on putting reliable aircraft in the air? Obviously build quality suffered due to the war situation, but I have yet to see an in-service 109 I would say "looks" appalling. (Not talking about the ones on the scrap heap!)

Sure I know you can't tell much from an old black and white photograph, but these are typical late war 109s:

I can see aircraft suffering build quality but I can't see your typical pilots taking off in an aircraft that would be considered unsafe or "appalling", nor could I see their mechanics in charge of the aircraft allowing them to do so. (Of course there are exceptions to every rule).

I think you need to separate build quality to what is seen in the field as most, if not all of the time there are different levels of quality considered acceptable. As you say, you really can't make a determination from 80 year old photos taken from 10 or 20 feet away from the aircraft.

 

[CBSKY]

I think you need to separate build quality to what is seen in the field as most, if not all of the time there are different levels of quality considered acceptable. As you say, you really can't make a determination from 80 year old photos taken from 10 or 20 feet away from the aircraft.

Indeed...I wish we had more first hand accounts from mechanics working in the field on these aircraft. I feel like their insight would be particularly fascinating.

It seems so many interviewed the pilot's etc. but nobody really thought to interview those guys that actually kept these birds in the air...or at least if they did not many of those records survive.

 

[Deleted member 68059]

I think you need to separate build quality to what is seen in the field as most, if not all of the time there are different levels of quality considered acceptable. As you say, you really can't make a determination from 80 year old photos taken from 10 or 20 feet away from the aircraft.

I strongly suspect that aces etc who naturally had the best groundcrews and aircraft (who no doubt form the bulk of photographs which survive), were flying aircraft in
far better shape than most pilots. They certainly did not have the resources to give EVERYONE a good aircraft, what else would you do in their shoes ?

Even in the USAAF the vast majority of pilots never shot down a single aircraft (I posted the stats somewhere on this forum), I think in Germany by 1944, most poor
new young pilots were shoved into whatever bag of rivetts that Speer had gotten rushed through the factories and pretty must got sent up to die as fodder whilst the aces
did their work.

Having said that I dont think even the aces were immune, for example Erhard Milch, RLM conference Stenographic records May 18th 1943. Berlin.
(my translation). This particular quote is on engines, but I have others which talk about the aircraft in general terms not being at all trusted by the
pilots by 1944.

* "Streib" refers to Wener Streib, a night fighter pilot of exceptional sucess who had the Knights Cross.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

I strongly suspect that aces etc who naturally had the best groundcrews and aircraft (who no doubt form the bulk of photographs which survive), were flying aircraft in
far better shape than most pilots. They certainly did not have the resources to give EVERYONE a good aircraft, what else would you do in their shoes ?

Even in the USAAF the vast majority of pilots never shot down a single aircraft (I posted the stats somewhere on this forum), I think in Germany by 1944, most poor
new young pilots were shoved into whatever bag of rivetts that Speer had gotten rushed through the factories and pretty must got sent up to die as fodder whilst the aces
did their work.

Having said that I dont think even the aces were immune, for example Erhard Milch, RLM conference Stenographic records May 18th 1943. Berlin.
(my translation). This particular quote is on engines, but I have others which talk about the aircraft in general terms not being at all trusted by the
pilots by 1944.

* "Streib" refers to Wener Streib, a night fighter pilot of exceptional sucess who had the Knights Cross.

View attachment 692682

Good points but I also believe that in many cases (for al[ combatants) one pilot didn't always get his own personal crew chief. Yes - a senior NCO may have dedicated more time to a top performer or a ranking officer, but I believe many times crew chiefs took care of multiple aircraft or had 2 or 3 other mechanics assisting them on multiple aircraft.

What you show there (connecting rod failure) is a quality failure at the manufacturing level. There isn't much ground crews can do at their level to mitigate such an error except to tear down suspect engines, something that would be time consuming in the field

 

[PAT303]

As far as field maintenance and Luftwaffe mechanics - I've always read stores about them being very dedicated to their work, much has been written about Hartman's crewchief Heinz "Bimmel" Mertens. I think all combatants had maintenance personnel who did everything possible to give their pilots airworthy aircraft. Additionally the pilots also knew, many through experience, the way their aircraft were expected to look and perform.

I've read the very same thing plus as a former maintenance fitter I took great pride in keeping the equipment in good shape, the way I looked at it was ''my'' machinery, the operators were simply borrowing it.

 

[PAT303]

Many Allied pilot accounts also speak of fights late war with 109 and intense, maneuvering dogfights and very high speed dives, etc. where the outcome is razor thin even against the best built and maintained aircraft of the day...It just seems the impression many have (not meaning you personally) today of a late-war 109 was they took off belching black smoke and flame, with panels falling off going down the runway with a top speed of 292 mph fully boosted...I think that get's in the way of the truth somewhat.

There is one famous report of a 109 and P51 climbing vertically before stalling then diving, then climbing vertically again before the P51 got a burst in because the 109 stalled first, the P51 pilot later recounted that his P51 was maxed out at a tremendous velocity with the 109 pulling away in front of him as they both dived straight down, he pulled away and watch the 109 go straight into the ground at an unbelievable terminal speed

 

[CBSKY]

There is one famous report of a 109 and P51 climbing vertically before stalling then diving, then climbing vertically again before the P51 got a burst in because the 109 stalled first, the P51 pilot later recounted that his P51 was maxed out at a tremendous velocity with the 109 pulling away in front of him as they both dived straight down, he pulled away and watch the 109 go straight into the ground at an unbelievable terminal speed

Yes, this sounds like Bud Anderson's experience in one of his fights with a 109...

I was able to speak personally to P-51 pilot Punchy Powell as he lived near me in the Atlanta area and he described with great frustration trying to catch a flight of 4 109s at high altitude and being on the edge of a stall unable to catch them. So many years later you could pick up the exasperation in his voice...he thought both the 109 and 190 were very good airplanes.

There are many examples similar to this - this is why I think the mechanics are the unsung heroes of the Luftwaffe - it is a tragedy of history we don't know more about them and their experiences keeping these crates going! (This applies to mechanics of all participants of course).

 

[Macandy]

Both the Spitfire and Bf109 reached their design peaks in 1942.
The Bf109F and Spitfire IX were elegant fully developed designs with an excellent balance of performance and handling, after them, it was a brute power horsepower race and handling suffered significantly.

 

[pbehn]

Aerodynamics reached its design peak when the Spitfire first took to the air, it was all downhill after that.

 

[Macandy]

Good points but I also believe that in many cases (for al[ combatants) one pilot didn't always get his own personal crew chief. Yes - a senior NCO may have dedicated more time to a top performer or a ranking officer, but I believe many times crew chiefs took care of multiple aircraft or had 2 or 3 other mechanics assisting them on multiple aircraft.

What you show there (connecting rod failure) is a quality failure at the manufacturing level. There isn't much ground crews can do at their level to mitigate such an error except to tear down suspect engines, something that would be time consuming in the field

A good crew chief was worth his weight in gold and the USAAF aces valued them highly.
The post was hotrod boom was In large part from the pool of engineers who's cut their teeth honing and fettling their charges - the guys who'd spend a night polishing and fettling 'their' bird to a high finish and dealing with all those pesky gaps and panel fits to gain a few MPH, who'd finesse the fit and finish of a manifold to gain a few extra BHP on 'their' bird.

It's one of the great untold stories of WWII, the fabulous hands on squadron level engineering backup USAAF squadrons had.

 

[WARSPITER]

One of the German 109 aces, Colonel Johannes "Macki" Steinhoff wrote in letter to Corky Meyer the main problems
for the 109 were it's brakes which had to be kept in perfect order and it's tail wheel which had to be aligned as close to perfectly
vertical as possible. Worst though was the unstable landing gear geometry. These factors contributed to it's bad record for landings
and take offs.

The point he was mainly making was the absolute necessity for very good ground crew. His statement on this was telling and backs up what
other posts in this thread have emphasised - "if a German mechanic who really knew the Bf 109 wasn't handy, I should *not* get into the cockpit."
In the letter he stated this twice.

2000 Winter, Flight Journal Special Edition WWII Fighters, "The Bf 109′s Real Enemy Was Itself."- by "Corky" Meyer.