Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
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.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"
It seems they felt grass fields didn't need it for the most part.Also, neither it or any others appear to be chocked. Does that stem from parking on grass?
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.Firstly, of course, something can look ok at a few feet and still be a piece of junk
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.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.
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.
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.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.
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 inI 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.
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.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
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.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.
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 speedMany 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
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