The Best Bf - 109 Variant ?

DJ_Dalton · Mar 8, 2005

Lightning Guy said:
The K had the performance but the increase and weight (and even the increase in power) was causing some serious deteriation in it's handling. From what I understand, most pilots considered the F to be the best all-around version.

Theres an interesting phenomena in wartime and it is that the victors write the history. Add to that equation illegal aggression on the part of the defeated and you can imagine that objective and accurate accounts are not top priority.

The British tested two 109's. One was an E and the other a G-6/R-6. The E was the better of their contemporary Spitifire. The G-6 didn't score out as well vs their Spit IX. But it was carrying underwing gondolas. This critical fact is not well published.

I've read a great deal about the obsolesence and the detiorating handling of the 109 in history books. The Experten had some issues with the 109 (Most notably ground loops) but to a man they all said it was best. It is true that Barkhorn said "I could do anything in an F". The 109 was beaten the way Germany was beaten. Rolled over from above on two fronts by immense forces too numerous to overcome.

Outnumbered, Erich Hartmann shot down 5 mustangs in one day. Ask him if his 109 handled poorly and if it was obsolete. He refused to fly other aircraft developed and offered to him.

If you're gonna be a book reader you have to focus on what is salient in the book. The whole book is not gospel. A guy wrote it to make a buck.

If you want to talk false and inferior planes the Yaks are the biggest laugh from that conflict. There was no Vk-107 motor, Period. But, they did have a lot of them and a Yak 3 was a good airplane.

DerAdlerIstGelandet · Mar 8, 2005

DJ_Dalton said:
Lightning Guy said:

The K had the performance but the increase and weight (and even the increase in power) was causing some serious deteriation in it's handling. From what I understand, most pilots considered the F to be the best all-around version.

Click to expand...

Theres an interesting phenomena in wartime and it is that the victors write the history. Add to that equation illegal aggression on the part of the defeated and you can imagine that objective and accurate accounts are not top priority.

The British tested two 109's. One was an E and the other a G-6/R-6. The E was the better of their contemporary Spitifire. The G-6 didn't score out as well vs their Spit IX. But it was carrying underwing gondolas. This critical fact is not well published.

I've read a great deal about the obsolesence and the detiorating handling of the 109 in history books. The Experten had some issues with the 109 (Most notably ground loops) but to a man they all said it was best. It is true that Barkhorn said "I could do anything in an F". The 109 was beaten the way Germany was beaten. Rolled over from above on two fronts by immense forces too numerous to overcome.

Outnumbered, Erich Hartmann shot down 5 mustangs in one day. Ask him if his 109 handled poorly and if it was obsolete. He refused to fly other aircraft developed and offered to him.

If you're gonna be a book reader you have to focus on what is salient in the book. The whole book is not gospel. A guy wrote it to make a buck.

If you want to talk false and inferior planes the Yaks are the biggest laugh from that conflict. There was no Vk-107 motor, Period. But, they did have a lot of them and a Yak 3 was a good airplane.

I completely agree with you. There are many accounts of Luftwaffe pilots that would not fly anything other than a Me-109. They loved there aircraft. Yes it did have some problems such as the landing gear, and yes it did loose some maneuverability as it progressed but it was a damn good aircraft and as you say the victor always rights the books and they make the enemy out to be extremely inferior.

CharlesBronson · Mar 8, 2005

If you have a competent pilot, the Messer is hard to beat.

On 29 October 1943, Hartmann achieved his 148th confirmed victory against an Airacobra. Now he was finally awarded with the Knight's Cross, and was also given one month's badly needed home leave. After his return to his unit, Hartmann scored his 150th kill on 13 December 1943.

On 6 January 1944, Soviet armored forces with powerful air support attempted to break through the German lines to seize the forward airbase Malaya-Viska, where III./JG 52 was based. The Soviets managed to destroy nine Bf 109s, but failed to complete their task. While Stukas and ground-attack aircraft attacked the Soviet ground troops, the Bf 109 pilots fought against the Soviet air support. Fourteen Soviet planes were shot down in three days, including three Airacobras by Hartmann on 8 January-his victories Nos. 163 - 165.

On 26 February 1944, Erich Hartmann engaged Soviet fighter formations in three separate missions and claimed ten Airacobras shot down-including his 200th total victory at 1440 hrs, his 201st at 1445 hrs, and his 202d at 1450 hrs. Erich Hartmann's importance is displayed by the fact that 40 of the 76 Soviet aircraft that were claimed by III./JG 52 between 8 January and 28 February 1944 were shot down by him alone. For this, he was awarded with the Oak Leaves on 2 March 1944

DJ_Dalton · Mar 8, 2005

CharlesBronson said:
If you have a competent pilot, the Messer is hard to beat.

Nice photo Charles. I don't think I'd seen one with Hartmann and Victory Bars before. I wasn't sure he had them on the rudder until that photo. I read a very interesting account of Mustang pilot engaging a 109, he later believed to be Hartmann. I thought it was fanciful when I read his description of the "200" in Oak Leaves on the Rudder. Now I know Hartmann did have them and that the story was possible. In the account the German pilot was using classic energy techniques and taking advantage of the Mustangs tendency to yaw in the dead vertical plane, so maybe it was Hartmann. The 109 started above him and was spiral climbing him and then dove upon 2 other mustangs. It held fire until mere feet away and squeezed off one cannon round which destroyed the target Mustangs motor. The chasing mustang was gaining at that point and firing from distance and then the 109 pulled for dead vertical with the mustang in pursuit and the closure was lost. It may have been Hartmann. It didn't go well for the Mustangs.

KraziKanuK · Mar 8, 2005

DJ_Dalton, that story is pure fantasy. It has been totaly debunked.

First off, at the time of the combat Hartmann did not have any marks on his rudder. Second, the color of the heart is wrong.

The pic is of his G-6 while based at Novosaparovyi in Oct 1943.

DJ_Dalton · Mar 8, 2005

KraziKanuK said:
DJ_Dalton, that story is pure fantasy. It has been totaly debunked.

First off, at the time of the combat Hartmann did not have any marks on his rudder. Second, the color of the heart is wrong.

The pic is of his G-6 while based at Novosaparovyi in Oct 1943.

I'd never seen Hartmann with Victory Bars prior. I don't remember what color the Mustang pilot said the heart was. I'm assumming you are saying "grunherz". Was there a 200 plus ace on the Grunherz? I don't know offhand.

I will say that although the planes abiliites were accurately identified in the account, I was skeptical about the story. Mustangs couldn't go vertical with a 109 from other than inertia. It wouldn't last.

Udet · Mar 8, 2005

I can say a wholeheartedly agree with DJ_Dalton!

I ve been saying this for a while now: the Bf 109 has been defamed like hell. To some extent, it is understandable, for it is victors who tell the tale.

The Sptifire for instance, had virtually the same age of the Bf 109. Have you ever read something "like the Spitfire began showing its age by 1944"?

Flat NO!! And you will hardly find anything similar, because the British creatures belong in the victors club.

Likewise, the Spitfire evolved from the MkI to the 21 versions, seeing dozens of sub-versions produced and reaching service.

Question to allied sided guys in the forum: Do you think the Spitfire evolved throughout its many versions without losing some of its original features?

So the Mk XIV, or the 21, had the same manouvering abilities the MkI had?

That the Bf 109 -again and again- lost some of its original manouvering features, mainly on the G-6 version, is a known tale (never to render the 109 "obsolete" as the allied guys tell). Search through the web, and 99% of the sites will tell the same story; it would rather appear to me most of those guys simpy copied the info and did not bother to research seriously.

The Spitfire lost manouvering as well. The later versions became heavier and sturdier and handling got accordingly affected.

A Spitfire 21 would have a nasty time facing the late 109s, Fw190 D, not to mention the Ta 152.

i. e. During the Battle of Britain the MkI had a carbureted engine, while the 109 E pilots were already enjoying the benefits of fuel injection in their DBs.

That the Sptifire is one of the greatest (and beautiful and ellegant) fighters of the war is totally true; but it was not the perfect thing depicted by my British countrymen.

So if according to the allied story, the Bf 109 was "showing its age" by 1944 (which it was not), a nearly same thing should be applied to the Spitfire. Most times you can not expect that much objectiveness from victors though.

I have seen LOTS of gun camera footage from Fw190s and Bf 109s showing allied pilots flying P-51s, P-47s, P-38s, Spitfires and Tempests getting their nuts barbecued under the gunfire of the German interceptors.

Citing DJ_Dalton, you should have had the chance of asking Hartmann if his Bf109 got "outclassed" by the unlucky USAAF mustang pilots who met him over Romania.

I have also met some experts and veterans who seriously put into doubt many of the tests carried out by the Brits to compare some versions of the 109 with versions of the Spitfures. Something about "flawed tests" carried out by the Brits that would not show the real deal. Sadly i couldn´t tell with accuracy since it was extremely technically detailed.

DJ_Dalton · Mar 8, 2005

Udet said:
I have also met some experts and veterans who seriously put into doubt many of the tests carried out by the Brits to compare some versions of the 109 with versions of the Spitfures. Something about "flawed tests" carried out by the Brits that would not show the real deal. Sadly i couldn´t tell with accuracy since it was extremely technically detailed.

Udet,

If you are able to dig deep enough into that RAF test what you will find is that they tested a Bf-109G-6 with underwing 20 mm gondolas (R6) vs. a cleanly configured Spitfire IX. The test is almost comical. The Spitfire only marginally out zoomed it in that configuration. The Spit however was significantly faster at the tested elevations. But high it was barely faster despite the Bf-109's R6 layout. The Experten respected Spitfires, but they were much more concerned with P-47s and P-51's.

The Bf-109 is constantly critiqued for having higher wing loading than the Spitfire. What people don't understand is that the 109 was always a very small and light plane with enormous power to pull it. The higher wing loading that made pure slow turning stall fights harder to accomplish also allowed the 109 to retain energy in high speed passes and climbs that no other plane could match. That is why the Experten loved it.

It was in all likelihood the best and most adaptable plane of the war because of its superior design. In the end the Spitfire wasn't even a Spitfire but the 109 was still the Energy King. I'll point to Hartmann, Rall, Barkhorn and scores of others to substantiate that claim.

Below is the tested plane. As I said, comical.

http://1000aircraftphotos.com/Contributions/Gladwin-Simms/3600L.jpg

CharlesBronson · Mar 8, 2005

I dont say anything new but the Spit and the Messer are made equal... the men at the controls make the diference.

Incidentally, a guncam of BF-109.

I am no sure wich version, seems to be an Ferdinand due his single cannon tracer. Wathever it be, is scoring some 20mm hits in a Spitfire.

mosquitoman · Mar 8, 2005

True, a rookie in any fighter would get massacared by an enemy fighter with an expert at the controls

DerAdlerIstGelandet · Mar 9, 2005

I will agree with you on most points made. However yes the 109 did start to decline in maneuaverability as it got heavier and faster. Dont take me wrong I love the Me-109 it is my favorite aircraft of WW2. It is just a fact. However it still was one of the great aircraft of the war and I agree it was defamed by the Allies. I also agree that the Spitfire was also declining just as the 109. That does not make the Spit a bad aircraft, it was a great aircraft and also one of the greatest ever built. I would the Spit and the 109 on equal turns with one another. And I agree that the pilot behind the controls of the aircraft decides who wins in most cases, but if you put a 109 up against less say an early 1930's biplane (just for example), the pilot in the biplane has no chance no matter how good he is.

The fact is the 109 was a great aircraft and one of the best of the war and so was the Spitfire. Each aircraft was constantly improved to get an edge on the other. It went back and forth throughout the war.

DJ_Dalton · Mar 9, 2005

The fact is the 109 was a great aircraft and one of the best of the war and so was the Spitfire. Each aircraft was constantly improved to get an edge on the other. It went back and forth throughout the war.[/quote]

Yes, they were good rivals. I would not say evenly matched though. How can you? The top Experten downed upwards of 70 spitfires. (granted in the following list many of the victories are by FW190's)

http://www.luftwaffe.cz/spit.html

Whenever the Spitfire forged forward in performance the 109 was in a variant to exceed it. The Spit XIV was no match for a G-10 or a K. It was only 10 mph faster than an underwing gondola G-6/ R-6 at 16,000 feet....lol

DerAdlerIstGelandet · Mar 9, 2005

Yes but the overall I would say the aircraft were evenly matched. You have to understand when a better Spitfire came out it was up against a lesser 109 until a better 109 was built. It just goes back and forth.

cheddar cheese · Mar 9, 2005

I wonder what problems the 109Z would have caused for the Allies?

mosquitoman · Mar 9, 2005

I haven't heard of that variant, what was different about it?

Nonskimmer · Mar 9, 2005

Basically, two 'Messers' in one.

mosquitoman · Mar 9, 2005

It looks almost as funny as the He111Z does

evangilder · Mar 9, 2005

Would definitely be less prone to ground looping!

mosquitoman · Mar 9, 2005

I'm guessing it had quite heavy armament?

Soren · Mar 9, 2005

DJ_Dalton and Udet, I couldnt agree more.

The Bf-109 is an underrated airplane, Mark Hanna would tell you the same if he was alive.

Personally I fully agree with Len Deighton's assesment on the Bf-109 vs the Spitfire.

It is sad, but it is true; "History 'is' written by the victor's"

The Best Bf - 109 Variant ?

Airman

Private Chemtrail Disperser

Senior Master Sergeant

Airman

Banned

Airman

Banned

Airman

Senior Master Sergeant

Attachments

Master Sergeant

Private Chemtrail Disperser

Airman

Private Chemtrail Disperser

Major General

Master Sergeant

Captain

Attachments

Master Sergeant

"Shooter"

Master Sergeant

1st Lieutenant

Users who are viewing this thread

Similar threads