KraziKanuK
Banned
- 792
- Jan 26, 2005
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
DJ_Dalton2 said: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".
KraziKanuK said: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.
DJ_Dalton2 said:A Rat could knock out a Corsair with that advantage though. Thats the way it went in the war.
DJ_Dalton2 said:KraziKanuK said: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
DerAdlerIstGelandet said: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?
evan said:From the back cover of Axis Aircraft of WWII.
Titus70 said:'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