Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
I have read in several places that the G-models were somewhat of a handful in the landing pattern. I even read one which said the Bf 109G was VERY difficult in landing configuration and had to be flown at relatively high power just to stay airborne with full flaps down.
I can say that nobody I know who has flown the Spanish Ha.1112 Buchon likes it much and I know maybe 6 such people. However, these guys are landing on pavement.
I have also heard from former Luftwaffe fighter pilots that the Bf 109 was not difficult when operated from grass fields as they did in WWII ... until the G and later models came along. These were said to have been more difficult due to extra weight, making the margins that much smaller. Recall that their front line "airfields" were basically some farmer's field. Most of them are not really long enough to be called runways, so short-field techniques HAD to be used in both takeoff and landing unless a suitable aerodrome could be carved out of the pastures.
It might well be that all the difficulties went away when operating from actual grass airstrips of sufficient length, but the average famer's field in WWII Europe wasn't of typical airstrip dimensions in any way, shape, or form. Some were, of course, but not many. That's why they invented droppable, reusable JATO units for the heavier aircraft ... to aid initial acceleration to get airborne.
Most of the former German pilots I have heard praise the Bf 109 were speaking of the E or F models. None seemed partitularly fond of the G and later variants, but that well may be due to the fact that, by then, the war was going badly and conditions were getting worse progressively. By early 1945, most probably knew the war was lost and were flying useless missions out of a sense of duty and patriotism rather than with high morale and a sense of impending victory.
That could easily carry over into attitudes about the aircraft after the war ended. It is also possible they modified their real feelings since they were speaking to an American audience, but that would seem disingenuous and unlikely. Why would they care about our feelings 60+ years later? After all, if we weren't interested in what they had to say, we wouldn't have invited them to speak. Everyone was friendly at these talks, so I tend to think they were being honest and forthright. Some were even there with a former Allied fighter pilot friend.
Makes me wonder, Der Adler, since the Bf 109 was designed to be operated from grass strips. Maybe it was the insurance ... I would think that any WWII fighter, but particularly the Bf 109, Spitfire, and Hurricane, would be very much at home on a grass strip. It's easier to handle directional swings, easier on the tires, and easier on the airframe in general.
Curious, but I certainly don't doubt what you posted.
Our birds operate from pavement, mostly due to insurance restrictions. Too bad the underwriters aren't pilots, huh?
Impressive aerodynamics, smooth finish of the wooden wing, very small (14 sq. meter) wings. BTW interesting info on the man hours.
In any case, the Yakovlev 3 was probably the most efficient fighter airframe of the whole war. A totally shitty engine and world-class performance!
In addition, the Yak seems only to carry 75 gallons of fuel and would burn this up in about one half hour at combat conditions. Deduct fuel for take off and climb, and return to base and landing and I suspect Yak is only capable of contesting the airspace over its own base.
Id say that grass strips were more susceptible to break up and less able to be used all weather......at least in a wartime envioronment.
BTW interesting info on the man hours.
I have been to several airshows in Germany that featured original flying Bf 109Gs. The airshows were at grass strips. The 109s (and the B-17 because the strip was not long enough) were the only aircraft that would not land on the grass strip. They would fly to the local airport and park there.