The Best Bf - 109 Variant ?

[KraziKanuK]

Very little of the above plane looks like a 109. The rudder and undercarriage. 1938 thats apparently the early squared wings. The oddest thing is the fuselage. its got a "bubble canopy".

The a/c had the fuselage reworked from frame 7 forward, naturally, since a radial had to be fitted. WN4 1776 was V17, the carrier trial a/c. The V15 WNr 1773 was the prototype E model. Notice the WNr series.

I guess we can take what you have to say about the 109 with a grain of salt since you seem to at a loss about the V21, WNr 1770, D-IFKQ. It later received the code KB+II. Another a/c received the BMW801. This was BF109X, WNr 5608, D-ITXP which was flown by Wendel on Sept 2 1939.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

The Bf 109 X was powered by a BMW 801 A-0 radial engine. The only aircraft built was used for testing and for competition with the Focke-Wulf Fw 190. First flight was made on September 2, 1940, and it made some flights until the end of 1941. The wing span was reduced to 9.33 m (30 ft 7 in).

Another Bf 109 was fitted with a radial engine, the Bf 109 V21, which was powered by a Pratt Whitney Twin Wasp SC-G rated at 880 kW (1200 HP). It had a standard Bf 109 E fuselage. Flown at August 17, 1939.

The BMW 801 was a 14 cylinder twin-radial engine with supercharger and fuel injection and a Komandogeraet (command-device) which controlled the throttle, the supercharger and the ignition with only one lever.

Technical Data:

Type : 14 cylinder radial
Bore : 156 mm (6.15 in)
Stroke : 156 mm (6.15 in)
Volume : 41.8 l (2550 cu in)
Weight : 1210 kg (2670 lb)
Power (801 A) : 1175 kW (1600 HP) at 2700 rpm
Continuous: 940 kW (1280 HP)

The Pratt Whitney Twin Wasp was a 14 cylinder twin-radial engine.


Technical Data:

Type: 14 cylinder twin-radial
Bore: 139.7 mm (5.50 in)
Stroke: 139.7 mm (5.50 in)
Volume: 30.0 l (1830 cu in)
Power: 880 kW (1200 HP)

 

[DJ_Dalton2]

I guess we can take what you have to say about the 109 with a grain of salt since you seem to at a loss about the V21, WNr 1770, D-IFKQ. It later received the code KB+II. Another a/c received the BMW801. This was BF109X, WNr 5608, D-ITXP which was flown by Wendel on Sept 2 1939.

lol, I'll candidly admit I pay little attention to test model variants. If the version didn't see action its irrelevant to me.

The thing that bothers me is the revisionist history in this field. The allies just did not want to acknowledge that the German Experten could have shot down as many planes as they did. The Germans were evil. They were substandard. They were the Hun. They had been defeated. How could they have shot down so many allied aircraft? There must be an explanation! And then the rationalization began. Many of the writers on the subject were allied pilots bringing in their own national and war tempered bias. The story I posted by Eric Brown, supra, for instance. He thought he was testing a front line fighter in testing Werk No. 412951 when he was piloting a gondola bomber hunter. (Even then he said it was marvelous in the thin air) I'm convinced the literary world has evaluated the Gustav upon this evaluation. I've never seen reference to another comparative trial with a Gustav. Obviously, the comparative trial indicates that the maximum performance of the 109 was never evaluated.

British pilots did ok against 109s when they suprised them with E and altitude. A Rat could knock out a Corsair with that advantage though. Thats the way it went in the war. Try to engage with an advantage. On equal terms a 109 was a handful and thats why it was so successful.

If I could fly one aircraft from WWII I'd want to fly a 109G-6, because no other aircraft every claimed more kills and no other aircraft ever will. I'd be afraid to fly it though. Its a dangerous machine. Far more 109s were lost in take off and landing accidents than in battle. (Though i'm sure battle damage had something to do with that)

I'd take it up to 20,000 feet in a WEP grab and get there much sooner than the published climb maximum. At 20,000 feet I'd level out and attain 400 mph. I'd put the nose down and pull up into the clouds standing the Gustav on its tail. For thousands of feet straight up it would pull with no hint of the engine cutting out and no fear of a spin when it finally lost its momentum and fell softly over to its left.

Sometimes I think, I already have.

DJ

 

[mosquitoman]

A Rat could knock out a Corsair with that advantage though. Thats the way it went in the war.

I agree, 99% of fighter-fighter combat occured when someone got bounced and didn't see the enemy

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

I guess we can take what you have to say about the 109 with a grain of salt since you seem to at a loss about the V21, WNr 1770, D-IFKQ. It later received the code KB+II. Another a/c received the BMW801. This was BF109X, WNr 5608, D-ITXP which was flown by Wendel on Sept 2 1939.

lol, I'll candidly admit I pay little attention to test model variants. If the version didn't see action its irrelevant to me.

The thing that bothers me is the revisionist history in this field. The allies just did not want to acknowledge that the German Experten could have shot down as many planes as they did. The Germans were evil. They were substandard. They were the Hun. They had been defeated. How could they have shot down so many allied aircraft? There must be an explanation! And then the rationalization began. Many of the writers on the subject were allied pilots bringing in their own national and war tempered bias. The story I posted by Eric Brown, supra, for instance. He thought he was testing a front line fighter in testing Werk No. 412951 when he was piloting a gondola bomber hunter. (Even then he said it was marvelous in the thin air) I'm convinced the literary world has evaluated the Gustav upon this evaluation. I've never seen reference to another comparative trial with a Gustav. Obviously, the comparative trial indicates that the maximum performance of the 109 was never evaluated.

British pilots did ok against 109s when they suprised them with E and altitude. A Rat could knock out a Corsair with that advantage though. Thats the way it went in the war. Try to engage with an advantage. On equal terms a 109 was a handful and thats why it was so successful.

If I could fly one aircraft from WWII I'd want to fly a 109G-6, because no other aircraft every claimed more kills and no other aircraft ever will. I'd be afraid to fly it though. Its a dangerous machine. Far more 109s were lost in take off and landing accidents than in battle. (Though i'm sure battle damage had something to do with that)

I'd take it up to 20,000 feet in a WEP grab and get there much sooner than the published climb maximum. At 20,000 feet I'd level out and attain 400 mph. I'd put the nose down and pull up into the clouds standing the Gustav on its tail. For thousands of feet straight up it would pull with no hint of the engine cutting out and no fear of a spin when it finally lost its momentum and fell softly over to its left.

Sometimes I think, I already have.

DJ

Very interesting annalasis and very possibly true.

 

[CharlesBronson]

Very cute pic. the plane is a Bf-109E-1

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Yeah thats a good one.

 

[cheddar cheese]

Great pic! 8)

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

I always liked the picture of the Bf-109 with the tropical paint scheme where it looks like a Chocolate Chip Cookie and blends in with the ground. I have many picture of it in my books but I can not find one online, does anyone have one?

 

[the lancaster kicks ass]

i know the pic you're on about, i have it in books too, it's an amazing picture............

 

[Titus70]

this article is from: www.aeroscientists.org/aircraft.html
it reads.....


The P-51 Mustang and the Spitfire are often thought of as the best fighters of WWII. They were not. The Me109 was much better and here are its secrets!

Statistic:
Year---German aircraft lost---British aircraft lost
1941---------183--------------------950
1942---------272--------------------900

Question: During WWII, the average kill ratio in combat was 1 to 10 on the Eastern front and 1 to 4 on the Western front including the Battle of Britain to give an average of 1 to 7 for the Me109. For every German shot down, 7 Allied fighters were shot down. What was the reason for this statistic.
Answer: Answers are given below. For more photos and diagrams please visit:
www.aeroscientists.org/aircraft.html

Beside the Fw190 and the Me 262, the Me 109 was one of the best designed and most awesome fighters of WWII.

During WWII, 33,000 single seater and 6,000 two seat trainers of the Me 109 were produced in Germany.

At a recent air show in California, pilot Skip Holm was asked to take the Me 109 up in a mock dogfight with 2 P-51s. In the mock dogfight the 2 P-51's could not get a sight on the Me 109 because it was too maneuverable. Of course Skip was a better pilot which also made a difference.

Me109G, 1941 P-51D Mustang, 1943 Spitfire VC, 1941
Gross weight 7,500 lbs 11,200 lbs 6,785 lbs
Engine DB605A V-1650-7 Merlin Merlin 45
Power 1,475 hp 1,450 hp 1,470 hp
Wing area 173 sq.ft. 233 sq.ft. 242 sq.ft.
Climb rate 2,250 fpm 1,500 fpm 2,000 fpm
Vmax 413 mph 437 mph 369 mph
Cl max 2.9 1.6 1.6
Stall speed 76 mph 107 mph 82 mph
Wing root NACA 2R1 14.2 NACA/NAA 45-100 NACA 2213
airfoil

One of the secrets of the Me109 is its wing. A unique design like no other. The Me109 used Fowler flaps and leading edge (LE) slats with a NACA 2R1 14.2 airfoil at the root so that a max lift coefficient of 2.9 could be achieved. The LE slats were used for landing and during combat maneuvers.

The P-51 and the Spitfire used a simple flap and no slats for which the max lift coefficient is 1.6 (almost one half). The Me 109 also used a forgiving airfoil. The P-51 used a NACA/NAA 45-100 laminar flow airfoil which had not been well tested and could not achieve laminar flow because of the riveted skin. With its sharp LE, the P-51 had a sharp and bad stall. As such, the Me 109 could use a smaller wing. The Me 109 had a long tail moment arm and the rudder was 50%C. As such, it could be yawed from right to left by 30 to 40 degrees to spray bullets. The P-51 could not be yawed and had to be pointed at a target. The P-51 also had a bad stall-spin characteristics from which it would often not recover. It would loose 10,000 ft of altitude in a power on stall. See POH picture.
Below is the wing section of the Me109 with slat and flap.
With the same power in the Me109 and an empty weight of 1,700 lbs less, the climb rate of the Me109 was substantially higher that of the P-51. Its take off distance was half. The heavy gun on the Me109 shot through the engine and other guns were mounted inboard on the fuselage and shot through the prop. The P-51 and the Spitfire guns were mounted on the wing outboard of the prop. The roll inertia of the Me109 was lower allowing it to roll much much faster. Because of the fantastic handling characteristics of the Me109, the P-51 was no match for the Me 109.
The performance of the Me 109 and the Spitfire is almost the same. However, the Spitfire had an average 25-20%C plain aileron with little aerodynamic balance which, despite differential control, gave it a very heavy stick force in roll compared to the light stick force of the Me 109. With a 50% span and narrow chord, Frise, aileron, the Me109 stick forces were very low in roll. It could do a complete roll in less than 3 seconds. This was much quicker than any Allied fighter. The Me109 was more evasive than the Spitfire or the P-51 which were slow in roll and much less agile.
Furthermore, the Merlin used in the Spitfire was naturally carbureted and could not operate in a negative g maneuver. This anomaly was not corrected until 1943. The Me109's Daimler Benz engine was fuel injected from its first inception in 1936. As such the Me 109 could easily do a pull over (negative g maneuver) and escape an attacking Spitfire.

Below is a warning for pilots from the P-51D Pilots Handbook (note: please visit:
www.aeroscientists.org/aircraft.html for relevant diagram/illustrations...highly recommended.)

 

[cheddar cheese]

I always liked the picture of the Bf-109 with the tropical paint scheme where it looks like a Chocolate Chip Cookie and blends in with the ground. I have many picture of it in my books but I can not find one online, does anyone have one?

I think I found the pic but its a bit small

 

[KraziKanuK]

LOL, Titus were did you get some of your info from?

Merlins got FI by Bendix or RR.

6000 109 trainers ???

The only trainer 109 was the 109G-12 of which around 500 were manufactured. Now if the 109 was so easy to fly, why did a trainer model have to be made?

Me109G, 1941 ???

The G-1 was not delivered to any LW JG until June 1942 and in limited numbers.

Me109 used Fowler flaps ???

Do you know how Fowler flaps work? The 109s flaps did not move back and down but were hinged along a single line.

The 109 also lacked aileron and rudder trim. The lack of rudder trim had the pilot pushing one rudder pedal or the other depending on the speed above or below the fixed trim setting. Very tiring for the pilot.

Climb rate 2,000 fpm ???

Now where did you get this number from? The Spit VC had an intial climb rate of 3700f/m.

Vmax 413 mph ???

Where did you get this number from for the 109G? You seem to be mixing data from different versions of the G.

 

[evangilder]

Here you go Adler. From the back cover of Axis Aircraft of WWII.

 

[cheddar cheese]

I love that picture 8)

 

[Glider]

In reply to Titus there are a couple of things (in fact more than a couple) which punch holes in your argument.
1 In 1941 the 109 that faces off to the Spit V is the 109F not G. Everyone will agree that a MkV would have a tough time against a G but the F was considered a close match with both planes having their advantages and disadvantages. If you want to compare a 109G then you should use the Mk 9 which is a very different animal
2 The 109 had a vicious stall with no warning which meant that pilots had to be very careful when doing combat manoevers. This in turn meant that only the very best pilots could get the best out of the aircraft. Both the P51 and the Spit of any mark had far better handling characteristics which was of a significant benefit when you consider that the vast majority of pilots were at best average and a fair percentage novices.
3 There are benefits to having the guns on the centre line but the only one that would really benefit is the cannon as any gun that fired through a prop had its rate of fire reduced by at least 10% and often up to 30%.
4 All parties agreed that the 109 was undergunned. I think I am right is saying that Galland had extra guns fitted to his planes where possible and he was an excellent shot.
5 Most pilots found shooting exceptionally difficult and having extra firepower over a wider area (if not taken to extreme) is no bad thing.
6 Why did a lot of people in the know prefer the He100 to the 109 before the war?
7 Last but by no means least. If the 109 was so good, Why did the vast majority of German pilots prefer the 190?

 

[Titus70]

Hi KrazyKanuk, it's me Titus70

I've read your comments.

You appear to have misread the article from aeroscientists.org which I submitted.

I copied and pasted the article 'Secrets of the Messerschmitt Me109' onto this forum, direct from it's website address, and in doing so it appears that the original webpage statistical and performance figures are very closely bunched together when pasted to this forum, making them difficult if not confusing to read. On the relevant webpage the graphics/text are visually far better layed out and much easier to comprehend.

KrazyKanuk, I'll try to explain the figures clearer for you.

'Me 109G' is separated by a ' , ' [comma] from '1941 P-51D Mustang'.
The year 1941 applies to the P-51D Mustang in the article, not to the Me 109G. I hope that makes it clearer. You have mistakenly applied the year '1941' to the Me 109, when it really is referring to the P-51D Mustang.

My apologies, to all readers, who have attempted to access the webpage via the URL I provided on this forum discussion - I tried to submit the whole web page relating to 'Secrets of The Messerschmitt' article via this forum but unfortunately the page does not load correctly. Most annoying.

The full URL address is given below. Perhaps you can copy and paste it into your internet browser address bar.
I hope it will link you there o.k. It is....

http://64.233.179.104/search?q=cach...sts.org/aircraft.html+stall+speed+ME109&hl=en

If you have any luck let me know.

P.S.
KrazyKanuk,
If you will supply me with an email address via your member profile on this forum (I searched your profile, but you haven't got it listed) I will be more than happy to send you the whole article with photos and diagrams.
The webpage appears to email o.k.......Also you can then forward the issues you have about any of the presented data directly with the aeroscientists.org science community, who have published it on the internet. I wish you goodluck.

Please contact me via this forum if you have any problems.

P.S P.S.
As for my personal opinion on the best Me109 variant.
I would go for the Bf 109 F (Freidrich)......I think it was a wonderful fighterplane. Very maneuverable in a dog fight.
This was the fighter plane used by Luftwaffe Aces Galland and Marseille who both racked up over 100 kills each.

The landing safety issues concerning the Me109 appear to be often due to poor pilot training. In the hands of an experienced pilot, or a well trained pilot - no problem.
Top aces like Rall, Galland, rated the Bf 109 F (Friedrich) version very highly and favourably. Such is the consensus of those who have been in a position of having flown one.

There appears to be a lot of disinformation intentional/unintentional on the internet surrounding the the performance and ability of the Messerschmitt Me109 and it's variants. In my personal opinion in the hands of an experienced pilot it was probably the best all round fighter plane of World War II.

Cheering

Titus70

 

[the lancaster kicks ass]

From the back cover of Axis Aircraft of WWII.

hey i got that book too, yes, i have a book solely about non british aircraft, i know, i was amazed to when i found out other contries made planes..........

 

[evangilder]

'Me 109G' is separated by a ' , ' [comma] from '1941 P-51D Mustang'.
The year 1941 applies to the P-51D Mustang in the article, not to the Me 109G. I hope that makes it clearer. You have mistakenly applied the year '1941' to the Me 109, when it really is referring to the P-51D Mustang.
Titus70

I think you are not looking at the article correctly, Titus. The line clearly showed:
Me109G, 1941 P-51D Mustang, 1943 Spitfire VC, 1941

There was no P-51D in 1941. The first prototype flew on October 26, 1940 and the first production example flew on May 1, 1941. The first P-51D, which was really an XP-51D took it's maiden flight on November 17, 1943.

While I personally think the Me-109 (Bf-109) was a great airplane, the article and facts you presented is riddled with inaccuracies.

 

[KraziKanuK]

Titus,

straight from the link you posted > Me109G, 1941 P-51D Mustang, 1943 Spitfire VC, 1941 which gave a 404 before.

Why did you not mention the toe-in that caused many landing accidents? Yes even for some experten.

As Evan said, your link has no credibility, since it is riddled with inaccuracies.