Most overated fighter

[Kurfürst]

It was planned as an interceptor, but this was the wrong choice. But technologically it was possible to produce a fighter of moderate performance, and moderate range, aka P-36, D-520, MS406, all of which possessed superior range to the 109, and were also its contemporaries.

Thing is though the 109 was almost 100 km/h faster than the MS 406, and some 50 km/h faster than the D 520. They were quite literally wiped out over France.. so perhaps on the second thought, more fuel for less performance wasn't such a good trade after all.

Thing I don't understand though. The 109 is being criticized for being a short range interceptor, which was what actually everyone was building in the 1930s in Europe. They were meant to shoot down fast monoplane bombers, which would operate alone, unescorted, as in everyone's doctrine. Technically, 1930s engine outputs did not allow for long range fighters/interceptors yet, every one of those (Bf 110, P-38, and others produced by France, Holland and Britain that were so miserable we do not even know their names today..).

I have difficulty finding out as to why the 109 is being singled out of the whole bunch, and blaming the design for something that it was never designed originally to do in the first place, like many others. It was also rather successfully modified later to cope with these new tasks with the addition of a droptank, which BTW it did far earlier in mid-1940 than any other contemporaries. It was not until 1942 the RAF fighters begun to mount drop tanks, even they certainly missed them during 1941 with the first raids on France. I am not sure when the Russians begun to use them, and I don`t think the USAAF would deserve particularly high marks for just noticing what was happening in Europe in the air 1939-1942, ie. unescorted bombers getting shred to pieces and the early P-47, conceived for the same role as the 109E, coincidentally also having very similiar range as the early 109, and no droptank, as the early 109E/Spit/Hurri/Devo520 etc. They basically started the whole evolution of attack doctrine from the beginning, instead of just studying the Wilhelshaven raid..

So I just don`t get it why to single out the 109.

What weight/performance penalties would have applied to the basic 109 airframe, if it was given the capability to fly 700-1000 miles on internal fuel, or with a drop tank. What sort of design solutions would have been needed....eg fuel in the wings, bigger tanks in the fuselage. Was the design capable of absorbing these changes (possibly lighten the armament, reduce structural strength, I dont know, I am asking the question....I dont have the answert). Or was the 109 so limited in its "stretchability" as too be not able to absorb such conceptual changes?????

The E with a droptank had 840 miles.. 1000 miles range? You are talking about the stock 109F/G/K..

Now the funny thing is this. The early Jumo 109Cs had fairly OK range with little fuel, the Emil, which I cannot quite explain, had reduced range, even though its fuel capacity was increased considerably. Yet the subsequent F and later versions, with the same fuel capacity had something like 50% greater range than the Emil... One possibility is that the Emil range figures were calculated differently, with greater combat reserves, consumption tolerance, or that the 601A was not a particularly economic engine of the series..

The bottom line - they had equivalent performance, local superiority over Britain and over Germany and lost both campaigns.

I do not think it holds true that they had numerical superiority in either of these campaigns. Also I do not think there can be a valid analogue between the two, despite superficial similarities.

 

[Soren]

I agree totally with Kurfurst.

PS: Calling the 109 a failure is bordering on the insane! It's perhaps the most successful fighter of all time, creating more aces than any other a/c in history and staying competitive till the very end of the war. There's a reason Erich Hartmann and many other aces prefered this a/c, and that reason is that it was an excellent fighter throughout WW2.

Like Adler said, no aircraft was going to win the war for Germany, one simply can't blame Germany's defeat on any machine, Germany lost because of lack of trained pilots fuel. Without trained pilots fuel it doesn't matter how good your a/c are.

 

[Soren]

The Bf-109 is not overrated, is is underrated and has been so since the end of WW2 because of worthless British tests claiming it to be a piece of sh*t. Funny how this "piece of sh*t" shot down more Spitfires then vice versa though.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

The Bf-109 is not overrated, is is underrated and has been so since the end of WW2 because of worthless British tests claiming it to be a piece of sh*t. Funny how this "piece of sh*t" shot down more Spitfires then vice versa though.

Hey don't take it so personal!

It is not like anyone said "Soren is overated!"

 

[parsifal]

I agree that is unfair to and innaccurate to try and argue that the 109 was not competitive in air combat. But what it could not do effectively was to undertake what in the trade today is called force projection.....it could not take its very considerable air combat capabilities, and place it in the middle of the enemy's back yard so to speak,

This goes a long way to explaining why in the Battle For France and the Low countries, , total Luftwaffe losses were running at something like 1700 aircraft in 7 weeks. I believe this huge tally wa because the bombers were so often left to fend for themselves without fighter escort. even in fighter versus fighter engagements, the losses were not so one sided. And of course, over britiain, the inability of the 109s to loiter is well known.

The reason why the 109 is singled out for this criticism is because germany was planning for an aggressive war (whilst the others like the Spit were not), and yet appeared to design a defensive fighter. Moreover in terms of range, the 109 was at the bottom end of the scale. i just cannot understand why that would be considered a satisfactory solution, when the obvious need was for some legss. the japanese certainly thought that to be the case, and designed an aircraft (the zero) in which major compromises were made in other areas (like armour protection!!!) just so that the zero could project itself long distances into the enemy airspace. Perhaps the 109 didnt need to go that the extreme of the zero, but it could have put a bit more effort into the range issue, IMO.

The 109 was a superb in air combat, (but so too was the Mustang). But whereas the Mustang completed its designed mission (ie LR escort fighter), the 109 could not. As an offensive fighter, it was not successful, and in order to complete its necessary mission profile it had to be. Yet the 109 is considered by many to be the fighter par excellence, and of near legendary status, when, if you look at the issue in the cold light of day, it could not deliver what had to be delivered for germany in 1939-42.

Its not the losses of 109s to spitfires thats important (although as an aside I do challenge the argument that many more Spits were lost in the BOB than 109s, because of performance differences......the numbers were not that different, and the Spits had other fish to fry) its the number of Luftwaffe aircraft compared to the number of RAF aircraft. At the end of the battle, in generally accepted now as early november, something in the order of 2000 German aircraft had been lost, to something like half that number of RAF aircraft. Moreover, the lions share of LW losses were from its bomber groups, which makes it patently clear that the fighters assigned to protect them could not. Again to be fair, the 109s were too few in number, but they also could not loiter over the targets, and deal with the waves of RAF fighters that just kept coming at the germans the whole time they were over the target area

 

[Marcel]

(others produced by France, Holland and Britain that were so miserable we do not even know their names today..).

Try Fokker G.I, not quite a miserable fighter. Maybe you mean which you cannot remember.

 

[kool kitty89]

Neither was the Whirlwind. And the Fw 187 would have been a far better fighter than the Bf 110. (though the Potez 631 was a bit lacking)

Hence my previous post:

Here

I've wondered how the G.I would have compared if developed further. (particularly if modified to a single seat fighter)

The Whirlwind had problems due to declining priorety of the Peregrine development with RR, and loss of interest from the air ministry.

 

[JoeB]

Maybe most objective definition of 'overrated' is how often a given audience will misunderstand actual facts about a plane's operational history. Even if everybody has different opinions based on the same agreed facts, that's not as important as misunderstanding of fact. Which facts are misunderstood will depend on the audience, though.

I voted Spitfire with a reasonably well informed audience in mind, because there tends to be IMO the most stubborn refusal to admit to the often mediocre operational record of mid-mark Spitfires, and the relative lack of importance of the later mark Spits to the outcome of the war, even among such people. In first case there's still a strong tendency to quote Spit success in terms of Brit claims whereas in many cases in period ca. 1941-43 the results look quite different from the German side, or considering both sides' reported losses only. In the second case post 1943 the Spitfire was increasingly really successful in fighter-fighter exchange ratio but the real action v the German fighter force shifted to Germany and the Spit couldn't reach (until bases were established near the German border late in the war). The Spit's overall success in the BoB is a valid reason to consider early mark Spits successful and important fighters. Also, from a purely technical POV late mark Spits were excellent a/c compared to contemporaries. But again the rose colored (or often 'coloured' ) glasses on the plane-for-plane operational success 1941-43 and operational importance after 1943 is why it wins my overrated award.

On P-51, if someone's level of background and interest is limited to 'rah rah' individual a/c books that present *all* planes' operational records in the best possible light based on claims, and junky TV documentaries, then OK the P-51 is overrated, perhaps massively depending how junky the sources. But it's less overrated by refusal to accept its real record, among people who should know better, than the Spitfire is, IMO.

The Zero is claimed to be overrated compared to some monumental reputation...except very few people especially Americans or Europeans seem to credit it such a reputation. So I don't understand what it's supposed to be overrated compared to, in such an audience. Eventually a/c like the P-40 could meet it on equal terms in air combat...OK but the P-40 was basically a later airplane. And no other contemporary real fighter, certainly not the P-40 or F4F, could come anywhere near matching the radius of the Zero. That was a key factor in Japanese conquest (especially supported by *land based* Zeroes) of a pretty notable % of the earth's surface in just a few months; conquests it took the Allies, even with overwhelming industrial superiority, a few years to regain. Many discussions of the Zero fail to admit that at all or, 'OK long range, that's nice but...'. No, it wasn't just nice but a major influence on the early Pac War at a strategic level. The Zero is in the running for most *underrated* major fighter of WWII IMO.

I don't see the Bf109 as competing for either prize. There's seems a fairly widespread recognition that it had success in some periods/theaters of the war (or wars, WWII and Spanish Civil War), and didn't in others, for a variety of reasons. Like the Spitifre, pretty different a/c all called 'Bf109' were fielded over a long (in those days) period, but there seem to be fewer Bf109 fans who insist it was always a successful fighter across that whole period (which it wasn't) than Spit fans who claim the same (it also wasn't). Although there are people who do overrate the Bf109, as is true with *some* people for just about any fighter.

Joe

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

On P-51, if someone's level of background and interest is limited to 'rah rah' individual a/c books that present *all* planes' operational records in the best possible light, and junky documentaries, then OK the P-51 is overrated, perhaps massively depending how junky the sources. But it's less overrated by refusal to accept its real record among people who should know better, than the Spitfire is, IMO.

I don't fit any of your description above and I think the P-51D is overated.

 

[Marcel]

Neither was the Whirlwind. And the Fw 187 would have been a far better fighter than the Bf 110. (though the Potez 631 was a bit lacking)

Hence my previous post:



I've wondered how the G.I would have compared if developed further. (particularly if modified to a single seat fighter)

The Whirlwind had problems due to declining priorety of the Peregrine development with RR, and loss of interest from the air ministry.

Good point about the Whirlwind.

The G.I would never have been developed into a 1 seater. It was considered to use DB601's as engines, which would have given it a much higher speed. It's replacement was already under construction, the G.2, which was engined with DB601's. I believe it was even a 3 seater. Unfortunately it was destroyed before trial.

 

[The Basket]

I am not a fan of the 109 but it is a 1935 and earlier design so it can hardly be said that it didn't meet the requirements of a war it wasn't designed for four years later.

If it is designed as an point interceptor then you can't blame the 109 if it was limited as an escort fighter.

The 109 was designed for speed so big engine, small fuselage. Like a racing car.

You can blame the Luftwaffe for using the 109 wrongly and not replacing it with a more modern machine but the 109 in the 1930s was solid. It was a good cutting edge design.

There is over 5 years difference between the designs of the 109 and Mustang and that is a light year in design and actual combat experience. If the Mustang wasn't a better warplane than the 109 then the boys at NAA should have been fired!

Always loved the Fw 190 as a fine piece of engineering. Kurt must have sat down and built the best fighter he could. Clear canopy, heavy guns and solid rugged wide landing gear. Considered close to perfect and I ain't one to argue.

 

[Kurfürst]

Try Fokker G.I, not quite a miserable fighter. Maybe you mean which you cannot remember.

I mean that there is no particular reason to remember it, unless, of course, you happen are a Dutchman.

 

[Marcel]

I mean that there is no particular reason to remember it, unless, of course, you happen are a Dutchman.

you're right. Too bad, only 23 were used by the dutch. But it was an interesting a/c though. It didn't have the disadvantage the the Bf110 had, being lack of manoeuvrability. LVA reports that it could "turn with the D.XXI', not a bad feat if you consider the D.XXI was considered very manoeuvrable itself. The LW should have made more use out of it.

 

[kool kitty89]

May have made a good night fighter too.

 

[renrich]

Good post Joe B especially your points about A6M. What a lot of this discussion really amounts to is "If you can't get to where the fight is, you don't really matter." When bi plane fighters were the vogue, in the early 30s and some of the fast twin engine monoplane bombers came out with more speed than the fighters tacticians said that the bomber needed no escorts. Then the designers came out with the Hurricane, BF and Spitfire which apparently were all meant to knock down that unescorted bomber. Long range was not a necessity for those fighters. The Japanese were really trying to create a long range escort and air superiority fighter for the distances in the Pacific and they succeeded admirably. We should have taken that example as a lesson and realised they would eventually build really good cars!

 

[JoeB]

I don't fit any of your description above and I think the P-51D is overated.

I didn't say better informed people didn't think the P-51 was overrated, I just said better informed people don't especially tend to overrate it themselves. I don't think you understood my point IOW, but anyway I don't see what's particularly about it either way.

'Overrated' is a product not only of the actual facts of a plane, but also how it's 'rated', but rated by whom?: everbody including people who've only ever read or watched on TV about one plane, people who seriously study the topic, or people somewhere in between, what audience? I'm saying let's consider people who are at least fairly well informed. Assuming so, I don't think those kind of people particularly overrate the P-51, themselves, as much as they tend to some other planes, like the Spitfire.

Joe

 

[parsifal]

We should have taken that example as a lesson and realised they would eventually build really good cars!

LMAO when i reqad that richard. I take it your not a fan of the japanese "riceburners" then? Dont know what you call them in the US, but models like the Datsun 120Y and 180B are swimming to the surface for me

 

[Oreo]

I didn't say better informed people didn't think the P-51 was overrated, I just said better informed people don't especially tend to overrate it themselves. I don't think you understood my point IOW, but anyway I don't see what's particularly about it either way.

'Overrated' is a product not only of the actual facts of a plane, but also how it's 'rated', but rated by whom?: everbody including people who've only ever read or watched on TV about one plane, people who seriously study the topic, or people somewhere in between, what audience? I'm saying let's consider people who are at least fairly well informed. Assuming so, I don't think those kind of people particularly overrate the P-51, themselves, as much as they tend to some other planes, like the Spitfire.

Joe

Informed people (unless they are biased) do not over-rate things they are informed about. Generally, over-rating takes place by uninformed people. Since we are "all" informed people here :: we ourselves ought not to ever over-rate anything. . . . .

 

[The Basket]

The Mustangs problem is that it has become the Discovery channels lovechild and this has taken away the fact it is still a top line fighter with excellent range flown by aggressive pilots.

Talking about Spitfires or 109s then you have to talk about the theory in which these fighters were built for. Neither design had been shaped by modern combat and the fast speeds and G forces meant that some beleievd dogfighting was physically impossible. The Biplane was still seen to be capable and there was no need to change that view in 1935.

 

[renrich]

Basket, nice post and I agree. I am a fan of rice burners and own two. I meant that the early war AC the Japanese fielded, Kate and Zeke to name two could have been a message to our auto industry that Japan would be a formidable advesary if it decided to become an international player in autos.