Me109 F Intelligence

[Kurfürst]

I am afraid that this is a statement that is often made ie that the 109 had wings that were at least as strong as the Spitfire.... So in short No, the Spitfire didn't shread its wings on a regular basis

Unfortunately for this theory the following may be of interest:

The following is from SPITFIRE: THE HISTORY, Eric Morgan Edward Shacklady.

Mar 39...Mk I....K9838...Structural failure in dive.
Jan 41...Mk I....N3191...Both wings broke off in dive.
Jul 41...Mk I....X4354...Port wing broke off in dive.
Aug 41...Mk I....X4381...Starboard wing broke off in dive.
Mar 41...Mk I....X4421...Both wings broke off in dive pullout.
Jul 41...Mk I....X4662...Stbd wing broke off in dive pullout.
Jun 41...Mk I....X4680...Wings/tail broke off in dive pullout.
Nov 42...Mk I....X4621...Failed to recover from dive.
Apr 43...Mk II...P7352...Broke up in dive.
Sep 41...Mk II...P7522...Both wings broke off in dive.
Jun 43...Mk V....BL531...Both wings broke off in dive.
Feb 42...Mk V....AA876...Disintegrated in dive.
Jul 43...Mk V....BL389...Pilot thrown from aircraft in dive.
Jan 43...Mk IX...BS251...Structural failure in dive.
May 43...Mk IX...BS385...Structural failure in dive.
Aug 43...Mk IX...BS441...Disintegrated in dive.
Oct 46...Mk IX...PL387...Disintegrated in dive.
Jan 48...Mk XVI..SL724...Crashed after recovery from dive.
Sep 48...Mk XVI..TD119...Crashed after recovery from dive.

Aug 42...Mk I....N3284...Broke up in flight.
Aug 41...Mk I....N3286...Broke up in flight.
Sep 40...Mk I....P9546...Structural failure in flight.
May 42...Mk I....P9309...Lost wing in flight.
Apr 43...Mk I....X4234...Lost wing in spin.
Sep 42...Mk I....P9322...Broke up in flight.
Aug 43...Mk I....R6706...Aileron failure which led to crash.
Jan 43...Mk I....X4854...Starboard wing broke off in flight.
Nov 40...Mk II...P7593...Stbd wing and tail broke off in flight.
Dec 41...Mk II...P8183...Port wing broke off in flight.
Jun 42...Mk II...P8644...Starboard wing broke off in flight.
May 41...Mk II...N8245...Structural failure in flight.
Feb 44...Mk II...P7911...Flap failure which led to crash.
Sep 42...Mk V....AD555...Flap failure which led to crash.
Mar 44...Mk V....BL303...Flap failure which led to crash.
Dec 41...Mk V....BL407...Structural failure suspected.
Jun 42...Mk V....AB172...Structural failure in flight.
Mar 43...Mk V....AA970...Structural failure in flight.
Jun 43...Mk V....BL290...Port wing broke off in flight.
May 43...Mk V....BR627...Port wing failed in spin.
Oct 41...Mk IV...AA801...Structural failure in flight.
Feb 43...Mk IX...BS404...Structural failure in spin.
Feb 45...Mk IX...MH349...Wing failed during aerobatics.(pg.318)
Sep 46...Mk IX...MJ843...Port wing, tailplane broke off in loop.
Apr 43...Mk V....EP335...Wings, fuselage, tail, damaged in dive.(pg.63)
Jul 42...Mk VI...AB200...Wings buckled in dive at 450mph IAS.
Apr 44...Mk IX...MA308...Wings severely buckled around cannons.(pg.63)
Feb 44...Mk XI...EN409...Many wing rivets failed in dive.(pg.389)
Apr 44...Mk XI...EN409...Prop/gear broke off at 427mph IAS.(pg.389,399)
Nov 44...Mk IX...MH692...Tail section damaged in dive.(pg.318)

In July 1941, Spitfire Mk I - X4268 was used to investigate wing failures by taking measurements of internal pressure on the wings. In June 1942, Spitfire Mk II - P7251 was used to investigate tailplane failures, by taking measurements of tailplane deflection in high speed dives. Eventually it was judged that the port and starboard tailplane tips were at slightly different angles in a dive and this caused an excessive degree of twist in the airframe. That could be overcome to some extent by applying full left rudder, although using full right rudder made the problem much worse. The summary says that the terminal velocity of the Spitfire was about 560mph TAS.

In July 1942, there was a meeting at the MAP to discuss the chronic aileron problems with the Spitfire. After six years of flight testing this aircraft, surprisingly little progress had been made at improving the aileron response at high speeds.That includes the results of replacing fabric ailerons with metal ones, and associated attempts to add inertia weights to the elevator system. Pilots involved in the aileron testing noted that as speed increased, the rate of aileron upfloat increased suddenly and disproportionately. Squadron Leader Raynhan of the Accidents Branch asserted that the most significant fact emerging from recent Spitfire accidents was that no change in the type of failure had been brought about by the introduction of the inertia device or by readjusting the center of gravity, which he believed pointed to aileron instability. Also, there had been evidence of ailerons flying right up at a very early stage of the accident in certain instances, and failures of the aileron circuit which could not be explained by the wings breaking off the aircraft in flight.

When the tail unit failed on a Spitfire, it often sheared off at fuselage frame No. 19. In 1942, an official at RAE Farnborough noted that out of 36 Spitfire accidents, the tail unit had broken off in flight during 24 of these mishaps.By 1944, the Spitfire was often used in the fighter-bomber role and it was reported that the engine mounting U frames had frequently buckled in dive pullouts. About 35 Spitfires from Biggin Hill Wing were found to have this fault.

After the Spitfire Mk V had been in service for some time, alarm had been raised over several accidents where the aircraft simply dived straight into the ground for no apparent reason. The Accidents Branch investigated this matter and later determined that firing the 20mm cannons could damage the oxygen regulating apparatus, so that thereafter the rate of supply could not be varied and could lead to the pilot losing consciousness.

Spitfire II Pilot's notes, July 1940:

Instructions to Spitfire pilots July 1941:

Spitfire Mk I and V wing failures investigation, April - July 1942:

Banning of diving and low level attacks on Mark VIIIs in the PTO:

 

[Glider]

Kurfurst
If you or anyone else want to debate the weakness of the Spitfire against the 109 then start up another thread about it and we can look at the evidence there. This one is about what I have found in the National Archives which I believe to be of interest to the members of the forum. There is only one proviso in the debate. I want you to provide the complete document which you are quoting not selective sections which can be taken out of context and be misleading.

 

[Kurfürst]

I am not arguing against anything. You are...

Want the complete document, sure, there are several documents in the NA that are interest to me, so we can always exchange 8)

PS. What camera are you using? It is certainly possible to make better shots of the papers, just remember to use a tripod and proper camera settings. I have the whole folder of these documents you have been posting from a friend, and they are of much better quality, so I guess you are probably using too low shutter speed or too low ISO sensitivity.

 

[Glider]

Its a Sony 700 and I used an ISO of 1000 with a 50mm Macro lens, tripods are not allowed and neither is flash. If you have the full document then set up the thread and post them, I am always willing to learn. If you have better copies of the documents that I have posted then post them, I and no doubt others would appreciate them.

 

[Kurfürst]

I think you have posted most of it already. The rest of AIR 16/350 seems to concentrate on the flight trials of Pingel's aircraft, most if not all of the related documents available in for some time on my site:

Kurfrst - A.F.D.U. Tactical Trials - Me.109F aircraft

 

[dunmunro1]

Unfortunately for this theory the following may be of interest:

The following is from SPITFIRE: THE HISTORY, Eric Morgan Edward Shacklady.

Mar 39...Mk I....K9838...Structural failure in dive ...

So about 50 spitfires suffered structural failure over a 9 year period. Do you have a similar list for the Me-109?

Edit: reply 27 has been noted.

 

[Glider]

So about 50 spitfires suffered structural failure over a 9 year period. Do you have a similar list for the Me-109?

Can I ask all parties to take any structural debate to another thread. This is about posting things that as far as I am aware, have not been published before and may be of interest to members of the forum.

 

[stona]

Can I ask all parties to take any structural debate to another thread. This is about posting things that as far as I am aware, have not been published before and may be of interest to members of the forum.

Hear,hear.....Please

 

[Soren]

I am afraid that this is a statement that is often made ie that the 109 had wings that were at least as strong as the Spitfire. Unfortunately for this theory the following may be of interest:-

And I am afraid you're discarding facts as theories.

 

[Glider]

If you are sure of your facts then start up a thread and go into it in as much detail as you want, I notice that Kurfurst hasn't.

 

[VERSUCH]

Glider,very very interesting,do you have any other reports of a similar vein,I have been
searching for an interigation report for Uffz Heinz Grabow 3/jg3 , shot down 5 sept 1940.
Thanks again for a fasicinating read.
Cheers Mike

 

[Glider]

I am afraid not. I didn't expect to find these in the file but they were clearly of interest.

 

[Soren]

If you are sure of your facts then start up a thread and go into it in as much detail as you want, I notice that Kurfurst hasn't.

Why would I bother doing that Glider? IMO it is pretty common knowledge that the Bf-109 never had problems with losing its' wings, something which is supported by actual pilot testamonies which aren't interrogations.

 

[Glider]

Then stop being so defensive about it.

 

[Timppa]

This is what Donald Caldwell (JG26,Top Guns of the Luftwaffe)writes about structural problems of 109F:


"Willy Messerschmitt's designs were never noted for their robustness. The light structure of the new model cost a lives of a number of pilots. Several Bf109F-0 of the initial production batch lost their entire tail assemblies in flight.
It was found that at certain engine speeds a harmonic oscillation severe enough to rip off the tail was induced in the now-unbraced tail assembly. This problem was solved, first by external and finally by internal stiffenenrs, before the aircraft were cleared for service.

A second structual problem did not appear until the aircraft had actually entered combat. Airplanes began returning from missions with ripples in their wing skins, indicative of hidden damage to the wing structure.

Apparently neither the factory nor the RLM thought the problem was serious, but after the wing spars of several aircraft collapsed in flight, trapping the pilots in their cockpits, Oblt. Schroedter, technical officer from the Third gruppe, borrowed some strain gauges from Rechlin and ran his own experiments.
The weak areas of the wing were identified, and local stiffeners were designed. These could not be applied in the Geschwader shops, however, and Schroedter was given the job of flying the obviously damaged aircraft to the repair facility in Antwerp to have their wings replaced."


AFAIK the following aces faced this problem (from Kacha`s Luftwaffe Page )

Wilhelm Balthasar,Kommodore of JG 2
On 3 July 1941, Balthasar killed in aerial combat with RAF fighters near Aire, France. When Baltasar attempted to disengage from combat in Bf 109 F-4 (W.Nr. 7066) by diving, a wing of his aircraft folded and he crashed to his death southeast of St Omer.

Gustav "Micky" Sprick, Staffelkapitän of 8./JG 26
III./JG 26 took-off on 28 June 1941, to intercept British Circus No. 26 targetting the Comines power station. 8./JG 26 was attacked from above and broke up into individual combats with RAF Spitfire fighters. Sprick performed a split-S manoeuvre whereby the right wing of his Bf 109 F-2 (W.Nr. 5743) promptly collapsed and he plunged to his death near Holque.

Arnold Lignitz, Gruppenkommandeur of III./JG 54
On 30 September 1941, Lignitz engaged Russian I-153 fighters in aerial combat. During the engagement, his Bf 109 F-2 (W.Nr. 9668) suffered a structural failure of the wing and he baled out.

 

[claidemore]

Why would I bother doing that Glider? IMO it is pretty common knowledge that the Bf-109 never had problems with losing its' wings, something which is supported by actual pilot testamonies which aren't interrogations.

Actually the opposite is true Soren. 'Common knowledge' amongst WWII aviation enthusiasts is that the 109 DID have issues with wing strength.

So in an effort to establish just what the common knowledge is, consider the following poll: http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/polls/wing-breakage-109-spitfire-22553.html

 

[Waynos]

It is also true though that the problem was greatly overstated in the aviation press at the time. several 1939 and 1940 issues of Flight and the Aeroplane even state that a useful tactic for RAF pilots is to induce the 109 into a high speed dive where its wings will almost certainly break off - which is just ridiculous propagands of course, there were many articles that could simply have been entitled 'why German planes are rubbish'

 

[Soren]

Actually the opposite is true Soren. 'Common knowledge' amongst WWII aviation enthusiasts is that the 109 DID have issues with wing strength.

So in an effort to establish just what the common knowledge is, consider the following poll: http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/polls/wing-breakage-109-spitfire-22553.html

Sorry but that's just pure rubbish claidemore. Common knowledge amongst people who actually know anything about these a/c is that the Bf-108 suffered from some issues with wing strength, not the Bf-109. Some early versions of the Friedrich series might have had some issues with it but the same can be said about some of the Spitfire marks, otherwise there was nothing.

You can find more instances of Spitfires losing their wings in combat than you can Bf-109's, and that for a reason; The 109's wings were VERY strong.

Also why did you make a poll about wether the Spit or 109 had a weaker wing? That's just silly claidemore, esp. seeing as I never claimed neither one had a stronger wing than the other.

 

[Glider]

Soren
Changing the subject slightly. In my first posting I mentionedthat all the early DB601N engines that the RAF had in the Me109E, Me110 and Me109F had the same problem i.e. loss of oil pressure at altitude.

Are you aware of any generic problem in these earlier engines that was probably fixed as production/deployment continued?

 

[claidemore]

Soren: according to the silly poll I started, which interestingly enough has been voted in by two of the most ardent 109 aficiandos on this forum, and taking into acount your assertation that the 109 had a VERY strong wing, the Spitfire would most likely have a VERY VERY VERY strong wing! lol. (by a margin of 3 to 1!)
Why did I start that poll? I wanted to quantify opinion on the subject. You stated that most people felt that the 109 did not have problems with wing strength, I felt that the opposite was true.

The poll establishes that; relative to the 109s primary adversary the Spitfire, by a 3 to 1 margin, informed people from this forum have an opinion that the Spitfire was stronger.