The Best Bf - 109 Variant ?

[Soren]

Titus presented site might be riddled with inaccuracies, but the video quote is the deciding factor, and "Skip" says he can easely take on five or six Mustangs and that the 109 "Turns on a Dime".

The written info on the site might be inaccurate, but the video with a modern pilot who actually flies these aircraft is the one you guy's should be paying attention to !

 

[evangilder]

I take no pilot seriously who claims he can take on 5 or 6 enemy planes at one time while flying a WWII fighter. Numerical superiority is what beat the Luftwaffe, right? There were Filipino pilots that took down Zeros while flying P-26 Peashooters! I understand that fighter pilots are cocky and brave, but taking on 5 to 6 enemy aircraft at any time is a fool's errand. That kind of arrogance is what gets people killed.

The written parts of the website are going to be what people look at first, typically. The problem with the web is that there is no accountability for accuracy and once a claim is made, it gets propagated.

 

[Anonymous]

LOL - Titus that "mock dogfight" is totally bogus. None of the planes involved were pulling anything even close to combat power nor were they exceeding even 300 mph in a dive. At such low power output levels and speeds the lightest plane wins every time. That does not mean anything w.r.t. actual WWII combat!

The guy who wrote that article has so much info wrong it's rediculous. Look at the errors:

Bf109G

He lists the Bf109G as a 1941 plane, it was a 1943 plane.
He lists the weight as 7500 lbs, actual weights were: Empty 5900 lbs, Normal takeoff 6950 lbs, Maximum 7500 lbs.
He lists the DB605A engine as having 1475 HP - which is correct.
He lists the top speed as 413 mph, it was 387 mph for this engine.
He lists the climb as 2500 fpm. In fact the climb was 5791 meters (19000 ft) in 6 minutes, an average RoC of 3167 fpm.
source: http://www.bf109.com/performance.html#G6

P-51D
He lists the P-51D as a 1943 plane, it was in fact a 1944 plane.
He lists the weight as 11200 lbs, actual weights were: Empty 6433 lbs, Normal takeoff 10100lbs, Maximum 12100 lbs.
He lists the Merlin 1650-7 engine as having had 1450 HP, when in fact it had 1650 HP, 1720-1750 HP at WEP.
He lists the top speed as 437 mph - it was in fact about 445 mph.
He lists the rate of climb as 1500 fpm. In fact the climb was 20,000 feet in 7.3 minutes (faster at +25 lbs boost), an average RoC of 2740 fpm.

The actual combat weight of the Bf109 would be about 6700 lbs, where for the P-51D it would be about 9400 lbs.

This article is so bogus that it is not worth further comment. The author is an idiot!

=S=

Lunatic

 

[Anonymous]

Titus presented site might be riddled with inaccuracies, but the video quote is the deciding factor, and "Skip" says he can easely take on five or six Mustangs and that the 109 "Turns on a Dime".

The written info on the site might be inaccurate, but the video with a modern pilot who actually flies these aircraft is the one you guy's should be paying attention to !

I cannot download the video, or even open the site. Can you post it?

But... it really does not matter given that these planes are not run at combat power nor are they allowed to exceed 300 mph for these "mock" dogfights.

=S=

Lunatic

 

[Soren]

Titus presented site might be riddled with inaccuracies, but the video quote is the deciding factor, and "Skip" says he can easely take on five or six Mustangs and that the 109 "Turns on a Dime".

The written info on the site might be inaccurate, but the video with a modern pilot who actually flies these aircraft is the one you guy's should be paying attention to !

I cannot download the video, or even open the site. Can you post it?

I'll try.

 

[Soren]

Try and see if this works:

 

[Anonymous]

Thanks Soren!

Umm.... that is the owner of the plane boasting about how good it is!

Notice his comment about the ability to yaw to get a shot. This is in direct conflict with what the Experten said, which was that you had to be at point blank range and have the target lined up so it "filled the windscreen" to have a good chance of scoring hits. Virtually every pilot I've seen comment on gunnery says the same thing - if the ball wasn't centered your chances of scoring were practically NIL!

This is not a comment by the pilot himself, its purely heresay by a plane owner who loves his purchase.

BTW: that appears to be a merlin powered 109!

=S=

Lunatic

 

[Soren]

Thanks Soren!

No problem.

Umm.... that is the owner of the plane boasting about how good it is!

Notice his comment about the ability to yaw to get a shot. This is in direct conflict with what the Experten said, which was that you had to be at point blank range and have the target lined up so it "filled the windscreen" to have a good chance of scoring hits. Virtually every pilot I've seen comment on gunnery says the same thing - if the ball wasn't centered your chances of scoring were practically NIL!

Wich Experten ? Günther Rall ? Günther mostly flew the G6-R6, the 109 with the heavy controls.

This is not a comment by the pilot himself, its purely heresay by a plane owner who loves his purchase.

Oh come on ! Lets not be so paranoid ! The "Pilot" (Harold Kindsvater) has flown both the 109 and P-51 many times, and Skip Holm the other pilot obviously agree's with him.

BTW: that appears to be a merlin powered 109!

I don't know, I can't see it well enough.

 

[Anonymous]

Notice his comment about the ability to yaw to get a shot. This is in direct conflict with what the Experten said, which was that you had to be at point blank range and have the target lined up so it "filled the windscreen" to have a good chance of scoring hits. Virtually every pilot I've seen comment on gunnery says the same thing - if the ball wasn't centered your chances of scoring were practically NIL!

Wich Experten ? Günther Rall ? Günther mostly flew the G6-R6, the 109 with the heavy controls.

Lots of German pilots stress how important it was to get in close and line up the shot very carefully. The Bf109 didn't have the ammunition or firepower to try the wild raking type shots this guy is suggesting might have been possible.

This is not a comment by the pilot himself, its purely heresay by a plane owner who loves his purchase.

Oh come on ! Lets not be so paranoid ! The "Pilot" (Harold Kindsvater) has flown both the 109 and P-51 many times, and Skip Holm the other pilot obviously agree's with him.

Niether of these pilots is pushing the planes to combat performance. Their experiance is entirely within the regulations for these planes for private use and airshows and does not reflect combat performance at all. I believe the CAF rules limit such planes to a maximum of 300 mph and a power setting below "normal power".

BTW: that appears to be a merlin powered 109!

I don't know, I can't see it well enough.

Load up the movie and freeze it and look at the exhaust stacks - it is clearly one of those Spanish 109's.

 

[the lancaster kicks ass]

I believe the CAF rules limit such planes to a maximum of 300 mph and a power setting below "normal power".

they would also limit the Gs the plane should be put under, there are so many things you have to limit when flying warbirds, even the fuel isn't exactly the same i don't think.............

 

[mosquitoman]

The thing is, the planes weren't being pushed to their limits and so can't be compared in this state

 

[plan_D]

Many pilots from all nations stated that fill the screen with your target before shooting to ensure a kill. Erich Hartmann was one man who said it time and time again.

 

[mosquitoman]

It's so you didn't waste bullets on a little dot, you need to be sure of getting the kill

 

[plan_D]

Not only that but you can aim at the points you want to hit on the aircraft rather than just the aircraft as a whole.

 

[evangilder]

I am not sure of the exact boundaries on the CAF aircraft, but I do know you have to keep them within a big safety margin and not push them to their limits. It's not just the airplanes we are trying to preserve, it's the pilots as well. The airplanes are maintained well enough to go to their limits, but there is no need to stress the airframes and engines unnecessarily. Plus there is always the risk of a catastrophic failure when pushing the limits.

Speaking of that. Our local parade was yesterday. I heard something loud and low coming towards our house. For a moment, I thought we had a plane coming down on us. Turned out that the flyby this year got a reduced ceiling. I had a T-6 fly over my house at 300 feet!!! There were four of them. That made some noise, but it was awesome!

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Sorry Titus. Again I am probably the biggest 109 fan in this forum and I love the plane. I think it was one of the best aircraft of WW2 but it was not the best. On the German side a Fw-190 would fly circles around it.

Even most German pilots will tell you that after the 'Friedrich' the 109 began to lose its great qualities. The Me-109G and K were very fast and had great qualities but at high speeds and in high speed dives the controls would tighten up and become sluggish. After about 1943 she was still a great plane and better then most but even a Me-109G with an experienced pilot could not take on 5 P-51D Mustangs or Spitfires.

The Bf-109F was without doubt the most beautiful of the Messerschmitts; the design of its cell had reached maturity, just like that of the Spitfire MkVIII and IX. The development of heavier, more powerful and better-armed versions (Bf-109G and Bf-109K) brought about by the course of the war, was carried out on the Bf-109F, alwas to the detriment of the fighter's maneuaverability, flying qualities and ease of piloting, thus showing that the optimal balance between cell, engine and armament had been reached.
Messerchmitt Me-109 Vol. I From 1936 to 1942 by Anis Elbied and Andre Jouineau

The fearsome single-seater of the early days, light and agile like a bird of prey, never had a true successor - the 209 and the 309 were tried and tested at length but finally not mass-produced - and was never redesigned thoroughly. It was produced in many different varients and improved on in many different ways with the result that its power was increased, and therefore also its weight, making it less and less maneauverable.
Same book as above only Vol I 1942-1943.

I agree your source has not merrit because as stated by others the stats just dont add up. The Me-109G was not built in 1941. In 1941 the Luftwaffe had mostly Bf-109E's and F's. The Me-109G first flew in the summer of 1941 however the Me-109G-1 did not enter service until 1942 with 167 of them being built between May and July 1942. The last 80 of them being converted to the G-1/R2 with the GM-1 power boost.

G-2 1587 produced between May 1942 and February 1943

G-4 (actually just a development of the G-2 and produced before the G-3) 1240 produced between December 1942 and September 1943

G-3 50 produced between January and February 1943

G-6 12000 produced in greatest numbers with DB-605A engine between May 1943 and August 1944 (timeline not sure)

G-5 475 produced during same time as G-6 between May 1943 and August 1944. Same as G-6 only with a pressurised cockpit.

G-12 two seat trainer made by converting existing aircraft (G-1, G-2, G-3 G-4, G-6)

Titus70 the 2 seat trainers were not even actually built. They were just converted. So there were not 6000 built. The Luftwaffe would not have converted 6000 precious fighters needed to combat the allied bombing campaign and turn them into 2 seat trainers. The exact number built is not known but it is less then 500.

The G-12 was not actually a real version of the the Gustav either, i.e. built as such from the onset. To obtain an advanced trainer quickly and cheaply for future fighter pilots, it was decided to get the Gustav cells (G-2, -3, -4, and -6) already in service transformed by maintenance units and not in the factories. A second cockpit was added behind the first one equipped with its own hinged canopy and convex glass in order to affored minimum visibility towards the front. Normally the student was placed in front, but he could however sit behind and practice instrument flying, his canopy in this case being covered. The G-12 carried therefore almost half the quantity of fuel because the instructor replaced the fueselage reservoir. In order to give the machine more than the resulting thirty minutes flying time, a ventral fuel tank was very often fitted.

It had been planned to produce 500 two-seaters from the beginning of 1944 in order to answer the Luftwaffe's need for fighter pilots, which was getting increasingly urgent because of the turn events were taking.

Although the actuall number is not known, it seems that this figure was never reached. In theory the G-12's dispenced with all armament, but some machines kept at least the engine mounted machine guns and it is even concievable that these machines were used as last ditch interceptors during the last hours of the war.
From the same book as above

G-14 More then 5000 produced, not continuously from July 1944 to February 1945

G-10 about 2600 built from Oct 1944 to the end of the war

K-0 1 pre production built with a DB605DB without MW50 power boost

K-1 never built

K-2 possibly one built but never flown

K-3 never built

K-4 12000 planned but only about 1700 were produced between October 1944 and the end of the war.

K-6 only tested

K-8 never built

K-10 never built

K-12 two seat trainer never built

K-14 last varient was to be powered by the DB-605L with an estimated max speed of 730kmh at 11500m nearly 200kmh faster then the Bf-109E but never produced.

So as you can see Titus70 as you can see your sources are bogus. The 109 was a great aircraft but it was not the best built during the war.

Load up the movie and freeze it and look at the exhaust stacks - it is clearly one of those Spanish 109's.

You are correct they are Hispano Ha-1112 which were Spanish built Me-109s and were used to represents Bf-109E's during the film 'The Battle of Britain'. The later varients such as teh Ha-1112M were powered by Merlins though.

Hispano HA-1112
(Other)
During WWII, the Spanish Hispano firm acquired a licence for the German Messerschmitt Bf 109G fighter. The fighters, including some German-built airframes, were known as HA-1109-J when powered by Spanish Hispano-Suiza 12Z89 engines, and as HA-1109-K when powered by the French Hispano-Suiza 12Z17. These were delivered without armament. The HA-1112 was identical, but was armed with two 20mm cannon and underwing rocket rails. Total production of the Hispano-engined aircraft was 69. The HA-1109-M and HA-1112-M were powered by British Rolls-Royce Merlin engines, which became available after WWII. 170 were built of the Merlin-engined version. They were in service until 1967.
Type: HA-1112-M1L
Country: Spain
Function: fighter
Year: 1956 Crew: 1 Engines: 1 * 1610hp R.R. Merlin 500-45
Wing Span: 9.92m Length: 9.10m Height: 2.60m Wing Area: 16.10m2
Empty Weight: 2656kg Max.Weight: 3180kg
Speed: 674km/h Ceiling: Range: 766km
Armament: 2*g20mm 8*r
http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/gustin_military/db/oth/HA1112HI.html

 

[Titus70]

Hello Adler (Eagle),
Yes I agree with your comments about the Focke Wulf. It was one hell of a good fighter. Both the short (snub) nose and the long nose versions.
The reason I chose the Messerschmitt was because of sheer overall produced numbers/ availability.
I think the Focke Wulf was developed at a time when the heavy Allied bombing of German civilian population and industrial centers was already having a major disruptive effect on effective mass scale production of the plane.
Please correct me if I'm wrong.
But yes I agree with you 100%.

Cheers
Titus

 

[KraziKanuK]

Yes, Titus you are wrong about the Fw190.

There is a Fw drawing (Sk.Nr.13-190-2) of the Fw190V1 dated 29-9-38. There is also the Technical Desription No. 187 dated July 27 1938. Hans Sander flew the V1, D-OPZE, for the first time, on June 1 1939.

 

[Titus70]

Hello everyone.

Thank you for input and comments.

I've found an interesting (and I think credible!) site from Finland, at web address:

http://www.virtualpilots.fi/feature/articles/109myths/#myths

It provides a fairly comprehensive article titled:
'Messerschmitt 109 - myths, facts and the view from the cockpit.'

Included are the candid comments and opinions of WWII pilots who flew the aircraft.

I recommend it as good reading material.
I have also pasted the article below for your convenience.



Introduction | Forgetting the big picture
Was Me 109 hard or difficult to fly? Comparisons to Spitfire and Hurricane | Why many "western" pilots found it hard to fly the 109? | Various myths debunked Messerschmitt 109 design features and comparisons by Markus Mikkolainen | Other interesting details on 109 |

PILOT NOTES ON THE ME 109
General comments on Me 109 | Training to fly the Messerschmitt | Taking off | Landing | 109 undercarriage | Stalling the 109 | Flying Messerschmitt 109 | Climbing in combat | Diving - structural rigidity of 109 in dives | Stick forces and maneuvering in high speeds | Stick force and black outs | 109 needs constant rudder pressure to fly straight? | Trimming | Wing leading edge slats - good or bad? | Fighting in the 109 | Tactics with 109 | Me 109 as gun platform | Me 109 weapon effectiviness | Cannonboot (three cannon) Messerschmitts | Gunsight | Radios | Cockpit | Daimler-Benz engine and engine systems | Luftwaffe fuels | Other systems, radiators | Maintenance | Me 109 fuselage and drag

Other subjects | 109 test flight reports | Primary sources


Introduction
This article and its sub sections are put together to dispell some of the persistent myths about the Messerschmitt 109 fighter. As the most ever built fighter which was the mainstay of German Luftwaffe and various other air forces, including Finnish, Spanish, Hungarian, Romanian air forces, the plane is also victim of intentional disinformation, many most persistent urban myths and just ignorance. Not having first hand information or poor understanding of the subject leads easily to absurd claims.

I've regularly seen same "reports", that are practically pure fantasy and filled with errors and disinformation, being quoted as facts in various bulletin boards and even articles. And it is very exhausting to see them again and again, needing to repeat same correcting statements again and again. Therefore this is an attempt to correct few of the worst myths. Most importantly, I'll try to round up important subjects/details about the Me 109 and quote actual pilot views about them. Who else knows better than the pilots who flew the planes? There are also some material about 109 test flights. Those have been and most likely will be subject of endless debate. Fact is, some cannot be taken with face value, because they have interesting small print that are not always mentioned when the reports are shown as proof of whatever the author wants to prove.

The attempt here is to look at the subject, Messerschmitt 109, through the eyes of the 109 pilots.

This article is primarily a collection of pilot's anecdotes that relate to actual flying of the plane. The quotes are from interviews, articles and books. They are complemented with some additional technical bits and other comments. It is not a serious study - mainly just bunch of pilot opinions that might be conflicting to each other. Pilot's comments are always "their facts" and may contradict. Terminology may be faulty at times or the pilots use terms in different way than we're used to today. I do not guarantee 100% that the other materials are always completely correct. Errors may and most likely remain, but you can send corrections - the author is admits to be clueness about technical subjects, so all those bits have been written by others. All in all, reader should try to read between the lines with 109 pilots' anecdodes to understand the bigger picture.

"All pilot comments are given in brackets."
- Sources are mentioned below like this.
- Also all interview questions and comments by other authors are in their own paragraphs starting with a dash.

All help is appreciated. Quotes from 109 pilots from different sources are most welcome. Please remember to always give the source, name/author and ISBN, if it is from a book. The readers are also encouraged to send other material and write expnalations, dispell myths and add or correct the information in this page. You're welcome to even write whole paragraphs again. I definitely would like to have more quotes from German, Italian and other Me 109 pilots. Please notice, that the intention here is NOT to have only praise - but to see what pilots have said and thought, both positive and negative.
The Air Warfare Forum's Pre WWII and WWII Aviation board is regarded as the official location for discussions about this article, and this thread as the place that I'll check for comments and possible additional material to the article.


Jukka "Grendel" Kauppinen
Send feedback
Forgetting the big picture
Various discussions about aircraft performance usually center on some details. The writers however tend to pick only single details and forget all other aspects that also contibute to the matter, forget the big picture.
When we're talking about airplanes there are unbelievable many parameters that affect the flying characterics and performance. To talk about airplanes sensibly you should understand at least a small part of them. But the more you know, the dumber you feel yourself.
Even modern airplanes, which today's people can actually fly unlike WW2 airplanes, have various solutions that lead to situation, where it is very hard to say how a certain airplane flies unless you've really flown it. WW2 planes on the other hand have so many little details that affect whole big picture, like the ballast weights at wings, dampening of various air flows and so on. You should know all these things pretty well before you can really speculate on them.
Was Me 109 hard or difficult to fly? Comparisons to Spitfire and Hurricane
Yes - and no.
It was in a way tricky in takeoffs for novice pilots (experienced ones, even Allied ones test flying captured specimens, did not think so however) and somewhat tricky in landings, but not more than other planes with similar wingloading.
But once you got it to air, it was one of the safest, if not THE safest of single engined prop fighters to fly. You could not stall it by accident, that needed a definite trying to do so. And if stalled, it did not spin, but just dropped nose. To spin it, it was necessary to kick full rudder deflection at the moment of stall.
Even the spin, if intentionally induced, never developed into an unrecoverable flat state, but was always recoverable provided you had enough altiude.

Compare these mentions about flying Hurricane/Spitfire to 109. The problems in takeoff and landing are similar. The pilot needs to push full right rudder to keep the plane straight. Landing approach pattern is similar to 109 approach. The planes handle more or less same way.
"Hurricane: With that big rudder it was easier to control early direction than the Spit and the forward view was better, as the seat is farther forward on the wing and higher up. It did not fly itself off as the Spit would, but it took only slight back movement of the stick to unstick. The ailerons were lighter than the Spits, which could become quite heavy at higher speeds. On the other hand the elevators were fairly heavy whereas on the Spit the elevators could be moved with two fingers, at slower speeds. On the ground the wide undercarriage made it steadier than the Spit, whose narrow undercarriage caused it to rock on rough ground.
Once you got accustomed to the curved landing approach for better visibility it was a piece of cake
Spitfire: We were briefed on the Spitfire's characteristics, which differed considerably from types previously flown. The 1,000+ hp, liquid cooled, RR Merlin 2 or 3 required the coolant temperature to be monitored and controlled by a manually operated radiator shutter. On June 16 , when my instructor told me to take Spit B-R and fly it around a bit, I was probably a bit nervous since the first guy to fly the day before had killed himself, taking off in coarse pitch, clipping the top of a hangar and crashing into into a paint storage building. With this in mind I began my first long zig-zag taxi to the far end of the field.
At the holding point on the grass I did my run up and check, winding on full right rudder trim. On getting the green I released the brakes, and with the stick right back gradually opened the throttle to takeoff power, then carefully brought the stick forward to neutral (too far and the prop could hit the ground). Almost immediately the tail was up to flying attitude, and almost full right rudder was needed to keep straight.
After having straight-in finals from 500 feet drummed into me at earlier schools, it took some time getting comfortable with the recommended Spitfire approach, which was to combine the base and final legs into a continuously descending curve, to reach a point just off the end of the runway, at about 30 degrees off line, and ready to begin the round out. Then line up the left side of the nose with the landing path and round out to a few feet off the ground."
- Canadian Spitfire pilot. 401 Squadron.
More on same topic:
"Spitfire: I have mentioned how badly I felt about the ailerons of the Spitfire at the time of the battle of Britain. In October 1940 I flew captured Me109; to my surprize and relief I found the aileron control of the German fighter every bit as bad - if not worse - at high speeds as that of the Spitfire I and II with fabric covered ailerons."
- Jeff Quill, RAF Spitfire pilot. Source: Great aircraft of WW2, Alfred Price and Mike Spick

"The aeroplane behaves in a similar fashion to the Mark I Rotol Spitfire in a dive i.e. the controls become heavier with speed, especially near the limiting speed. Considerable forward pressure on the control column is necessary to keep the aeroplane in the dive; the elevator is sensitive throughout the speed range. The rudder and ailerons become very heavy at speeds about 400 m.p.h. A.S.I., the latter being almost immovable then."
- Source: Spitfire Mk IIA Testing, Aeroplane and armanent experimental establishment, Boscombe Down, .

Russian experiences with Spitfire Mk. VB:
- "Spitfires had a bunch of other problems besides poor performance at low and medium altitudes, and none of that was due to lack of 100 octane avgas. Another thing was the narrowly spaced landing gear, poor rear view from the cockpit, and the tendency to stick its nose in the mud when taxiing."
- Unconfirmed internet source.


Why many "western" pilots found it hard to fly the 109?
"(Physical exercise) was up to everyone himself. There was, however, organised games between the squadrons: track and field sport, swimming, cross-country skiing, shooting etc. Every pilot participated in some sport. For me, flying and fighting was a sport in itself.
- How difficult was it to control the 109 in high velocities, 600 kmh and above?
The Messerschmitt became stiff to steer not until the speed exceeded 700kmh. The control column was as stiff as it had been fastened with tape, you could not use the ailerons. Yet you could control the plane."
- Kyösti Karhila, Finnish fighter ace. 32 victories. Source: Interview by Finnish Virtual Pilots Association.

- This give an important clue why there is very large differencies in opinion about the heaviness of the 109. In high speeds the plane stiffened - but 109 pilots could still control if. So why the Allied test pilots have so different opinion? Simple. They were not used to the plane. Many of them had flown planes, that had for example hydraulically enhanced controls. Or had flown other types, that had very different feeling. Real 109 pilots on the other hands were used to the heaviness - and practised according to it. Although the high control forces were undoubtedly an undesirable feature, or a problem, restricting the manoeuvrability of the aircraft, especially at high speeds, they were perhaps partly compensated by the emphasis put on physical exercise in the Luftwaffe and FinAF. Numerous accounts by pilots of those forces mention the amount of exercise and sports conducted by the aircrew. Given that every flight was practically a work out session, given the admittably heavier control forces of 109 in higher speeds, the Me 109 pilots flying it regularly were markedly more adapted to its requirements than a pilot who was only flying limited number of test sorties.

Various myths
It's not Me 109, it is Bf 109, you dork!
Both are correct for the Messerschmitt 109 fighter. Both the factory and the Luftwaffe used both designations throughout the life of the 109. For simplicity, this article usually refers to the plane as Me 109.
"Me 109 was outdated aircraft by 1945."
- The Spitfire was a 1935 design and is not considered outdated at the end of the war. Me 109 was equally developed through its life. 109 development's big changes were between D-E, E-F and G-K models, with improved aerodynamics, larger engines and many modifications installed. The Me 109 on the other hand was completely re-designed with the Friedrich, with new wings, radically different radiators, and a completely new tail section. The 109K4 had numerous improvements over the G series. For example high speed handling was remarkably enhanced in the G models and the aeleron tabs of K models again greatly enhanced roll rate in high speeds. By 1945 the Me 109 Ks had a largely redesigned airframe.
- The Me 109 airframe was a proven design with no major flaws, and it still could mount the best fighter engines the Luftwaffe had available. Did it have weaknesses? Certainly! Was it obsolete? No. Did it have much more development potential? No. Agreed, it had been pushed to and over the original limits, but it was certainly good combat aircraft. So what was the problem? It was a combination of bad tactical decisions and poor planning for a prolonged war. The attrition of Luftwaffe experten and poor training for the Nachwuchs cost Luftwaffe more pilots then the "out dated 109". It's not as clear as some claim. There have been lots of claims and rumors passed on as fact. The late war 109s (109G6/AS, 109G10, and 109K4) were very completive aircraft. But there was never enough and by the time the K4 was ready it was too late.

The 109 was a bad design, as it needed ballast to fix the center of gravity
- A certain Kit Carson wrote about the 109, that "the engineers screwed up the center of gravity, and 60 pounds of permanent ballast had to be added to the rear of the fuselage to get the C.G. back." Well, pardon me, this isn't the only place where this mr. Carson - who never flew a 109 - happens to be wrong. The claim happily ignores that any plane that is modified during its lifetime undergoes changes - and their COG moves when new equipment is added to the plane or other larger modifications are done. But output was the key - radical changes couldn't be easily done to the airframe, as that might disrupt the production. Therefore a quick way to balance the plane was to add ballast.
- To put the matter into comparison, 60 pounds marking max 1,1% of the plane's total weight was ballast by mr. Carson's words, though he does not mention which model he means. Maybe Emil? Spitfire Mk.IX on the other hand carrier 87,5 pounds of ballast - more than Carson's example. We can find more recent examples easily. F-15C needs huge block of 600 lbs (!) of ballast, when it is upgraded to APG-63(V)2 radar. Fact is, ballast is normal in any aircraft, especially when retrofitted with new equipment.

"109s kill ratio."
- According to Edward Sims' "The Fighter Pilots", the Luftwaffe claimed about 70000 victories, for the loss of 8500 pilots KIA, 2700 POW and 9100 wounded in action, for a total of ca. 20000 losses. Not knowing the real numbers, we could speculate there were another 20000 pilots who bailed out OK, that we arrive at a 70000:40000 kill ratio for the Luftwaffe, or 1.75:1. That's not bad at all considering the catastrophic finale.
- From April 1941 to November 1942, the Luftwaffe scored 1294 confirmed victories for about 200 Me 109 lost in combat. During this period, the Luftwaffe almost exclusively used the Me 109F. They identified their victims as 709 Tomahawks, 304 Hurricanes and 119 Spitfires, plus others/unidentified. That's a ratio of about 6.5:1. (location missing, but looks like North African campaign. Author suggests that these numbers should still be taken with a grain of salt, I have no clue if these are post war verified numbers or wartime claims)

"Auto deploying slats killed many, many pilots / slats were bad / useless."
- Messerschmitt put automatic wing-slats on the outer part of the wings. At sufficient AoA, these open, effectively extending the lift vs AoA curve. Basically this means that in the Bf109, the outer wing sections stall at a considerably higher AoA than the inboard parts of the wing. What does this do? It virtually eliminates the wing-drop of the wing when the wing starts to stall. Plus, it allows full aileron usage up to the point at which the outer part of the wing starts to stall. This leads to a very gentle stall until the wing slats themselves stall.
- Automatically deploying slats were British invention and patented by Handley Page, created originally by Sir Frederick Handley Page around 1919. They were used by all nations and could by found from lots of other airplanes than just the Messerschmitt 109 and 110. The American F-86 Sabre was equipped with similar passive leading-edge slats and same principle is used in all modern jet airliners and fighters, just that they're these days computer controlled.
- The auto-deployment of the slats was subject to extensive testing prior to WW2, and was found to be beneficial in all situations. In fact, the Me 109 had been designed with the slats locking down upon retraction of the flaps, but this mechanism was removed because the tests showed that it was much better to have the slats operating freely. Willy Messerschmitt first tested the wing leading edge slats with the Messerschmitt 108 plane and found them useful. If they wouldn't have been the Me 109s would not have been equipped with the slats.
- Usually whoever claims that slats caused problems ignore that slats were only "problem" up to the E models. With 109 F model and upwards the automatic wing leading edge slats were much improved and they operated smoother.
- Claus Colling, one of the men behind Flug Werk says following: "The Me (Bf ) 109 "E" through "F" used the swing arm parallelogram mechanism to agitate the slats. From the "G" onwards the Me 109's used the roller-track mechanism to guide the slats in and out. It all follows a patent bought by Messerschmitt from DeHavilland just prior to the war. The slats are driven out by means of low air-pressure if the AOA gets higher ( slow flight ) and retract by means of air-pressure when accelerating." Source: 109 Lair.
- Please see this article about 109 slats at 109 Lair for more information.

"109 pilots wired slats shut was because the slats would cause them crash / ruin aim / they'd get close in behind a target and the propwash/slipstream would jostle their aircraft around, causing the slats to deploy unevenly and ruining their gun solution."
- Urban myth. We haven't yet seen a single reliable account about pilots wiring the Bf 109's slats shut in the western front. Only rumours and claims. In Africa this might have happened - primary reason why to do it was the dusty conditions. The sand dust made the slats jam, also early E versions were prone to slat jam. Wiring slats shut is plausible if you're operating in dusty conditions of Africa or Russian plains at summer. If other slat deployed and other was jammed, that would be most problematic. But if you had long, good runways - like you most likely would in Africa - wiring slats might not be a problem for landing. Myths that Luftwaffe Messerschmitt pilots in the Western front had the slats locked in closed position have no basis though, and there hasn't yet been a single verified document or pilot account about it actually being done. Asking about this from real life Messerchmitt 109 combat pilots and 109 experts from aviation museums has only brought confused replies about them never hearing about whole thing, that to their knowledge nobody had ever done anything like that.

"Me 109 was hard/dangerous plane to take off."
- The standard takeoff procedure for 109 was to use rudder to keep the plane straight. There was basically to ways to take off the plane. Either you throttled up fairly fast and gave full right rudder, easing it off as speed increased, or you throttled up slowly so there was minimal torque effect. In practise that was similar to anybody who had flown other types before and it took usually just one flight to know how to do it. The myth that there was something hard in taking off in 109 stems mostly from highly exaggerated claims - or the fact that for new pilots converting to 109 from various trainers had not flown such highly powerful aircraft before. With proper teaching - no problems. In Germany that was rare thing in the last years of war though. The Finnish Air Force chief instructor colonel Väinö Pokela told, that one of his key points in teaching new pilots to 109s was to instruct them very carefully - and told them to forget any horror stories they've been told. He said, that many pilots were already scared from the horror stories other pilots and non pilots had been telling, and after showing how easy 109 was to handle there was seldom any problems.
- Colonel Pokela also told that most 109 crashed he had seen resulted because the pilot had forgotten to lock the tailwheel before applying takeoff power. If that happened then the pilot couldn't keep the plane straight when accelerating. Take notice that you need to push rudder in all other planes as well - for example Spitfire requires similarly full right pedal while accelerating.
- Torque can indeed send a plane off the runway during a takeoff, especially if there's a crosswind to start it off. But 109 is no different from a P-40 or a Spitfire in this situation. The bad reputation most likely comes from pilots flying it for the first and perhaps only time, and that the veteran pilot would instinctively make the adjustments needed to keep it straight while rolling on the ground.

"109s were so difficult to take off and land that half the 109s lost in the war were lost to take off and landing accidents."
- 5 % of the 109's were lost in take off/landing accidents.

"Me-109 had an astonishing 11,000 takeoff/landing accidents resulting in destruction of the a/c! That number represents roughly one-third of the approximately 33,000 such a/c built by Germany."
- Source: FLIGHT JOURNAL magazine
- The magazine has it wrong or has misintepretated the numbers. Luftwaffe lost about 1500 Me-109's in landing gear failures. Note that German loss reports often lump destroyed and damaged (10 to 60% damaged) together. It was also a standard practise to rebuild even heavily damaged airframes. While rebuilding/refurnishing these planes were also upgraded to the latest standards and latest equipment. This means that large proportion of these damaged/destroyed planes were not complete losses, but returned to squadron service.

"The specific problem with the Bf 109 was the very narrow / weak undercarriage track."
- Narrow landing gear was not that uncommon at the time - all biplanes also had narrow landing gear. Me 109's undercarriage was connected to the fuselage rather than the wings. This had several reasons. Most importantly the wings were easily and quickly changed if needed, without special preparations or tools. Wings were also one single structure, which made it possible to make them very strong. Because this the plane needed some care when operating. The claim that the narrow undercarriage was a problem is a myth, though. In comparison the undercarriage of Supermarine Spitfire was even narrower - it had its own share of problems from this. Imagine what it was to takeoff and land the Spitfire's carrier version to carriers for example? Especially later marks of Spitfire with enormous amount of installed power were quite a handful to operate. But that is conveniently usually ignored.
- The width of undercarriage in Me 109 E is 1,97 meters; 109 G 2,06 meters and 109 K 2,1 meters. However - Spitifre's undercarriage width was 1,68 meters.
- The real problem was the center of gravity behind the undercarriage. This made it possible to brake unusually hard in landings, but it also required the pilot to keep the plane straight in takeoff and landing. Because this it was easier for a small sideswing to develop into a groundloop or the plane might drift off the runway, if the pilot was not awake. Of course, if the tailwheel was not locked, the tendency would be pronounced and more difficult to counter. As with any plane.
- Contrary to the popular myth, the landing gear could take the plane 'dropping' in from about 8-10 feet.


"The 109 was flown down to the runway at relatively high speed and "wheel" landed: it was to make sure the leading edge slats did not deploy. Because of the high speed at touchdown, there was more time for something to go wrong during the rollout, and it often did."
- Now that is some science fiction. For example the Finnish Me 109s always did stall landings, because the airfields were mostly very smal. The landings were almost similar to carrier landings - the plane approached field in shallow descending turn, aligning to the runway just seconds before touchdown. By "hanging" in the air at stall speed, with slats open, the plane touched down at minimum speed at three points and the pilot could apply full brakes immediately. 109 had very good brakes and the gear was so forward, that the was no worries about nosing over with full braking. Landing could be made with higher speeds, slats not open, or they could intentionally be "popped" out even in higher speed approach. "Stall landing" to three points with slats open was the favoured method in Finland though. And don't forget, there was even a carrier version of the Messerchmitt, and you just don't land to carrier at high speeds. Of course these planes didn't actually operate from carrier, they they were built and operated by normal squadrons.
- As a side note, Finnish pilots who visited Germany on war time and saw some of the German training or how the German combat pilots took off and landed their planes, they were quite horrified. German training in '44 seemed very rough and no 3 points landings was taught to the pilots, who approached with high speeds and came down on two wheels. At that time Germans put as many pilots through the training as possible, and didn't bother to teach the finer things about piloting to the green pilots. The runways were paved and long, so the finesse of "good" landings could be ignored.


"109's weakness was the poor / wooden propellers"
- 109 was equipped with full metal props.
- A prop expnalation needed. Anyone?

"109's controls locked up in high speed."
- Another very mythical subject. Before answering one must be asked: "What model are you talking about?"
- There was large differences between various types in the high speed controls. Each newer version handled better in high speeds, the best being the 109 K series which had flettner tabs for enhanced aileron control. 109 G series were also much better on this regard compared to 109 E, which yet again wasn't such a dog as many claim. 109 test pilots, Russians included, have said that the 109 had pretty good roll at higher speeds - again not as good as the 190s, P-51 or P-47 - but it maintained a good lateral control ability. Recovering from extremerely fast 750-900 km/h vertical dives was the problem - not level flight or even normal combat flying.
- Spitfire and a 109 had equal roll rates at up to 400 mph speeds. Not even the favourite warhorse of the Americans, P-51, exactly shined with its roll rate at high speeds. P-51 pilots have actually said that flying P-51 at high speeds was like driving a truck.
- An often quoted British report made of a Me 109 E talks about the "short stick travel", "due to the cramped cockpit a pilot could only apply about 40 pounds side force on the stick" and "at 400 mph with 40 pounds side force and only one fifth aileron displaced, it required 4 seconds to get into a 45 degree roll or bank. That immediately classifies the airplane as being unmaneuverable and unacceptable as a fighter."
- The report claims that The 109-E needed 37lb stick force for a 1/5 aileron deflection at 400mph. Coincidentally, the Spitfire 1 required 57 lb stick force from the pilot for similar deflection at similar speed. This is a 54% higher stickforce for the Spitfire pilot.
- The British test is taken as gospel by many, while it is just one test, made by the enemy, using a worn out and battle damaged airframe. German flight tests report pilots using aileron forces of over 45 lbs and 109's stick was designed for elevator stick forces of up to or over 85kg, over 180 lbs. So it was more matter of the pilot and the test procedures, than maneuverability of the Bf 109. Several details of that test are suspicious and German chief test pilot Heinrich Beauvais disagreed with it and with Eric Brown. Beauvais tried to get into contact after the war with Eric Brown to discuss the matters, but Brown refused to discuss the 109 with him. This being the case, it seems that Brown wasn't willing to listen a pilot who'd flown more on the 109 than he ever had, and was more interested on believing his negative findings of the 109 than being proven wrong by an expert.

- AFDU 28 October 1941: TACTICAL TRIALS - Me.109F AIRCRAFT
- 7. No manoeuvrability trials were carried out against other aircraft but the Me.109F was dived up to 420 m.p.h., I.A.S., with controls trimmed for level flight and it was found that although the elevators had become heavy and the ailerons had stiffened up appreciably, fairly tight turns were still possible. [...] It is considered that recovery from a high speed dive near the ground would be difficult, as the loss of height entailed is considerable. This may account for occasional reports of Me.109F being seen to dive straigth into the ground without apparently being fired at. Please see sections diving and stick forces for pilot comments on the subject.

The actual speed of Me 109 F-4?
- Me 109 F-4 is one mythical airplane. Practically all its performance reports stem from a single British test flown with a damaged airplane with derated engine. All other test "reports" are copied from this one test. To read more about this case please read Article about the performance of the Bf 109 F-4, written by Michael Rausch. Quotes below:
- In summary, from the article: " After the review of several hundred pages of British reports about planes of the variants Bf 109 F-1/-2/-4 the picture became apparant, that only with exactly one captured Bf 109 F-4 and its engine performance measurement were done. As already the climbing time, then also the British maximum speeds give a clear reference to, that the available engine did not even obtain the power output for climb/combat power. As best climbing rate for the climbing on 4876 m are indicated about 1006 m/min, for the climbing on 6705 m 8.2 minutes. Again these are values, which were clearly below the German for climb/combat power. These were on one hand a maximum climbrate of 1111 m/min for the climbing to 5000 m. The British values for the maximum climbrate lay thereby even below the German mean value. On the other hand according to German data sheets the climb time to 7000 m altitude was 7.4 Minuten.
- The American test, "Combat Evaluation Report Nr. 110" for the Bf 109 F, 7th February 1943", are only a compilation of the British test reports sent to the USA and no American flight tests were flown with F-4s. And to top it, the transferred report is riddled with errors in converting the numbers and drawing the performance curves. For example the reported climb rate is the British climb time for 16,500 feet converted to 15,000 feet. Also in the American summary are existing further serious transfer errors. This becomes clear due to a comparison of the fire trials results from the British and the American test. In the British original version is told, that .5" B. Mk. II armor penetrating ammunition had no chance to penetrate the pilot armor of the Bf 109 F-4 under the listed conditions, if the projectile punched in below the fill level of the fuel tank. In the US version this projectile received a 30% chance for penetration of the pilot armor independing of the location the fuel tank was entered. This way on the US side the British firing trial results were wrongly mixed for .5" and 20 mm ammunition.
- On the British sources all test protocols are missing, which would document the real power output of the DB 601 E during the test flights by telling boost pressure and revolutions per minute. Also complete top speed/climbtime curves instead of the few listed measurement points would be very helpfull. The source situation permits nevertheless to make some evaluations. The German sources present for the whole timeframe from sommer 1941 till spring 1943 consistent performance values for top speeds as well as climb ability. There was clearly differentiated between the power settings take off/emergency power and climb/combat power. The period of the initial prohibition of use of the take-off/emergency power of the DB 601 E could be narrowed down very exactly. For the British sources it is totally unclear with which engine power settings the test was flown. Problems with the available engine were indicated, but not mentioned in the final report. Additionally there were inconsistent specifications, like the reaching of higher speeds in spite of a higher weight specification for the test plane. Anglophone authors seem to have known the German sources not at all. The performances told by them are all in a range, which is only told by Allied sources."
- So you can see how hard it is to rely only on one or even a few sources, because the original one might be already faulty.

Visibility from the cockpit and how cramped it war?
- Me 109 cockpit is often mentioned to be very cramped and to have poor visibility. Both are true to large extent, but we have to also remember that both are faily common features for the planes of the day. The Spitfire cockpit is very cramped as well and many Spitifre pilots felt the same as the Messerchmitt pilots - the felt they wore the plane around them.
- Let's see what a USN report has to say about P-51B for comparison: "Vision in the P-51B is notably poor forward, because of the low pilot position and heavy framing. VIsion aft also is poor, because of the limited head travel allowed by the narrow cockpit. The cockpit is cramped for space." That's pretty comparable to the 109.

Please see section cockpit for pilot comments on the subject.

Me 109 fuselage and drag
"Bf 109's drag issues. It did not employ the Merideth Effect radiator ducting, did not use boundary layer splitters and had all manner of protruding humps, bumps and scoops that contributed to a very high level of parasitic drag. I don't have a copy of the article, but is was based upon an engineering analysis performed at Langley Field in late 1945, including some wind tunnel runs."
- The G-6 sure had its bumps, but the rest is certainly not true. 109 used Meredith effect and used at least up to the F model boundary layer bypass in the radiators. The 109 K-4, and to some extent the 109 G-10 as well, were considerably cleaned up aerodynamically compared to earlier 109 G's, especially the 109 G-6. The 109 K-4 reintroduced the retractable tail wheel and had among other features completely covered wheel wells (like the P-51). The 109 was also a much smaller aircraft, even smaller than the Spitfire.
- The efficiency of the 109 airframe was proven very early in 1937, when a Emil airframe was prepared and a DB-601 engine was tuned to deliver 1700PS. This machine reached 611km/h at sealevel, world record. Except for a very careful surface finish, all difference to the serial 109E were a different spinner, no weapons, and a modified hood. This plane was not the 209, also called 109R, which reached later a much higher speed. Even 8 years later this speed was barely reached with such a power.
- The aerodynamic efficienc of the 109 was based on several reasons. The three most important were:

Small overall surface, especially wingarea. To compensate for the high wingloading during takeoff and landing, very efficient slats and flaps system was installed. The usually turbulent flow in the tail section lead to a very low overall surface area in this area.
Inverted V-engine, giving the airframe an larger angle to the usually low mounted wing. This reduced interferenz drag and THIS was also the reason why the pilot head space was rather small. Nevertheless it was one reason why the 109 had a surpisingly high diving speed (only fools believe those spit dive tests with Mach numbers up to 0.9 btw.) what saved also their lives quite often.
Centered propellor position, thrust line going right through the COG, also allowing for better view forward down
- Meredith effect was nothing of unusual to be used in WW2 fighter radiators. Spitfire, Yakolevs AND Bf 109 enjoyed this effect. In fact the Bf 109F`s radiators were designed to take maximum advantage of it. To quote the relevant part from the Wright Field evaluation of Bf 109 F:
"Each flap is divided in two sections : the outer section is a modified split arrangement serving the additional purpose of controlling the airflow through the internally mounted wing radiators. At the front edge of the radiator is a hinged plate, linked with the trailing edge flaps to open with them. This plate picks up the boundary layer on the underside of the wing, and discharges it on the trailing edge. This form of boundary layer control causes smoother flow through the radiator, thereby reducing the area for proper cooling".
- In other words : the same principle as on the Mustang. Take notice that also the oil cooler on the 109 worked the same way and it dissipated one third of the engine heat, practicaly acting like an extra engine cooler. Very clever design there.
- After the re-design that occurred with the Friedrich, the Me 109 fully employed the Meredith effect. It's radiator had boundary layer separation with separate discharge, a continously adjustable intake and a continously adjustable outlet that was automatically regulated to create thrust. That's the same degree of sophistication as found on the Mustang. The thermodynamic effect of the engine cooling was well-known in the 1920s and 1930s and in fact had been first pointed out by Hugo Junkers in 1915 when he acquired a patent for the "Düsenkühler" ('jet radiator'). Thermodynamics probably were the most advanced science in the late 19th/early 20th century due to their tremendous economical value in a society that based its wealth primarily on steam engines. The "Meredith" effect probably was painfully obvious to Junkers, who included it right in the first aircraft he ever built.
"The Messerscmitt fusalge is remarkably clear and bulletlike. The engine is compactly mounted in the nose and enclosed by easily removeable cowling. Proturbulances that mar the clean lines are cut to the minimum by partially submerging the coolant radiators in the wing."
- Wright Field evaluation of Bf 109 F

- From what I understand the Bf109F and later models used a "boundary layer bypass duct which significantly improved pressure recovery at the radiator face."
- Lednicer, Aeronautical Journal June/July 1995

More input on this subject appreciated.
Facts
- The top 3 aces (of any conflict) all flew 109's exclusively. Of the 20 top aces (of any conflict) 12 flew 109's exclusively.
- Me-109 was credited with shooting down more enemy aircraft and producing more aces than any single fighter in the annals of aerial warfare.
- Comparing the 109 to other fighters, like P-51, is quite usual. One thing that must be remembered is that 109 was designed as short range interceptor. P-51 was designed as a long-range escort fighter. Both planes featured many compromises to achieve their design plans. This is easy to ignore, just as well that P-51, for example, had nasty tendency to stall without warning and when fuselage fuel tanks were filled, it was quite unstable and downright dangerous to fly. P-51 pilots described that the vertical elevator was very hard to move in high speeds and required both hands. But these charasteristics come up much less often in popular literature and discussion.
Messerschmitt 109 design features and comparisons
In some aspects the Messerschmitt 109 is an even better fighter than people usually make of it. It has some of the legendary "how did they think of that", high-tech-like, aspects as North American P-51 and Supermarine Spitfire had. While Spitfire had the much vaunted elliptical wing (effect of which is much debated), the P-51 had its (again , much debated) laminar flow wing (trapeze in this case) and a very interesting cooler arrangement with a device for splitting and separation of the "dirty" turbulent boundary layer, and the capacity to generate thrust by heating the air flowing through it to negate the otherwise very high cooler drag (again, much debated); 109 had some very nice aspects too.
109 had a hydraulically driven (fluid coupled) clutch driving its supercharger, which made it capable of avoiding wasting power at lower altitudes. At those altitudes normal gear+clutch driven supercharger equipped planes were wasting a significant amount of their HP compressing air which could not be used by the engine. Later 109s even had a two gear, fluid coupled supercharger which gave very good power up to 11km.Even a normal 109G could produce full power up to 7 km (around 21.000 ft) with a normal single-gear supercharger. This supercharger was a low tech (sic), single stage single gear (sic) device, while the Allied designers used up to two stage, intercooled (in some cases) two gear superchargers to achieve similar power as the simple fluid clutch.

Later on (P-38, P- 47, bombers) Allied designers used bulky and hard-to-manufacture turbo-superchargers to keep up with the latest German advances. The engine used by 109s (DB601, DB603, DB605) had a direct to chamber fuel injection. Daimler Benz engines could compete with British and US engines using high octane fuels and very hard alloys, while itself using only 87 octane fuel.

As for some interesting details on the 109, it had a very interesting cooler arrangement that actually resembles very much that of the P-51. It happens that the coolers, which look like very small, are in fact embedded into the wings and have a very low wetted surface. Also they look like normal coolers which just dip into the airflow , but they are a bit more complex. The cooler is embedded in the wing so that a plate over the cooler would skin off the dirty boundary layer like in the P-51 cooler and let it pass , while using the "clean" air for cooling. This makes it possible to use less surface for cooling which means more speed. The similarities don't end here, just as in P-51 the cooler rear end has a plate designed to adjust the amount of air flowing through the cooler (it is opened and closed automatically or with manual override). The design of this flap seems quite the same as the one on P-51, which was designed to generate the "Meredith Effect". The Meredith Effect is actually a cooler acting like a jet engine. Jet engines are actually very simple, you have a compressor compressing air, fuel heating it and a nozzle turning the heat into momentum. In this case you have a cooler heating the air, the mouth of the cooler (and airspeed) compressing the air and the flap on the back working as a nozzle to convert heat to momentum. This effect could generate up to 300hp on the P-51 and it would in most cases (high speeds) almost zero out the drag of the cooler scoop.

On landing modern combat aircraft drop flaps and as they drop flaps, also their ailerons "droop" down to act as flaps for the rest of the wing. This same feature was also in the 109. The boost control on 109 was automatic up to the critical altitude of the supercharger (as was the mixture control). The oil cooler and cooler flaps were automatic (with manual override). The 109 tail was almost like the ones on modern fighters, the whole tailplane could be moved with trim.

As for ammunition, the Germans were ahead of their time. They used similar centrifugal fusing in the 20mm and 30mm shells that was common before the modern proximity fusing became available. They used thin-shelled cannon shells which could contain up to 4 times more explosive than normal shells. They used very high order explosives (compared to the ones Allied were using, HA41 and PETN against torpex).

Germans also realized that the most efficient way to kill an aircraft, in addition to penetrating it with armor piercing rounds (which do little damage unless they hit one of the important parts), is to make large holes with large explosive shells or to use incendiary ammunition to light the plane up. The incendiary devices used by the Germans were excellent and were made of materials like magnesium, elektron thermite and phosphor. Phosphor has the effect of lighting up in room temperature and in general burning everything if it is in contact with oxygen. Elektron thermite on the other hand (a mixture of magnesium and aluminium) burns at a VERY high temperature (so high that it will light up airplane aluminium).

Most German aircraft had electrically operated (fired) armament, which made selection of different weapons configurations and counting of ammunition easy. Some of the planes also had a mechanism to pneumatically reload guns when the trigger was released if the last shell was not fired. This made it possible to unjam the guns just by pressing the trigger repeatedly.

The wing of the 109 was made with no warp from tip to root (same angle all the way), this made it very efficient liftwise compared to "Allied wings", which had up to 2 degrees of washout to avoid tip stalling of the wing. Messerschmitt solved the same problem by adding excellent (British licensed, Handle Page invented) automatic slats to extend when the tip would stall. This made the 109 almost impossible to spin.

It was possible to change the whole engine and/or wings of a 109 standing on its wheels in a matter of a few hours with no special lifts (only a mechanical hoist was required).
- Written by Markus Mikkolainen


Other interesting details on 109
Drop tanks:
The droptank system in every Messerschmitt worked the same way. Fuel to the engine was always drawn from the main tank. The droptank replenished the main tank. This was done with an automatic float controlled device that opened the flow from droptank if the fuel level in main tank dropped. There was no pump driving the fuel from the droptank, it was kept pressurized by bleeding compressed air from the engine supercharger into the droptank.
The plumbing was routed from the droptank to the right upper forward edge of the cabin, and from there along the cabin edge to rear, into the fuel tank. There was a piece of perspex tube at the right side of pilot, from where he could see the fuel flowing. When the tube became filled with air (easy to see from the colour) it was time to release the droptank.
A nice system. If you had to jettison the droptank, you always knew that your main tank was full. And it also did not heed any preliminary actions like turning a feed selection valve or somesuch, just tug the release cord...
Radiators and exhaust thrust:
The 109s had automatic radiators that opened or closed according to the readings from the thermostats. Normally the radiators would be kept on automatic operation where they gradually open and close depending on the engine temperature.
The 109 used exhaust thrust to gain more speed. Daimler-Benz charts show 120 PS of exhaust power at 600 km/h at 4.5 km for the 109 Emil's engine. Another German paper shows 200-300hp produced by thrust alone at 600km/h at 10000m, unfortunately the exact plane/engine version were not mentioned in text referring to this.
The Me 109 F used actually just the same kind of radiators as the P-51, with the associated increase in top speed, though they were embedded in the wings and not implemented as belly scoop as in the case of the Mustang. As comparison, The P-38, P-47 and a couple of others extract all that exhaust energy to drive their turbos. By the time the exhaust actually leaves the aircraft there is no appreciable thrust left.
For more information about 109 radiators please read this article about Bf 109F-G-K Radiator Flap Systems from 109 Lair.
A DVL chart shows that a mechanically supercharged engine provides superior total power compared to an engine of equal size equpped with a turbo-supercharger at low altitudes and high airspeeds. (At 6 km, the mechanical supercharger was superior above 500 km/h.) The DVL chart is provided by von Gersdorff et al., the bible on German engines co-authored by several WW2 industry VIPs, including Kurt Prestel who was responsible for the single-lever control on the BMW801. Von Gersdorff et al. also provide a dimensional drawing for a DB600 exhaust stub. It shows a 34 mm wide jet nozzle - height is not given in the overhead view, but it must be 108 mm or less -, angled at 20° outward from the engine's centreline.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

PILOT NOTES ON THE ME 109
Eric Brown and Me 109
Excerps from Eric Brown's test flight with 109 G:
"Longevity of service has never characterised the fighter. Indeed, until the last decade or so it was possible to count the years in the firstline lifespan of the average fighter aircraft on the fingers of one hand..Tending to prove the rule have been the few noteworthy exceptions to be found in the annals of fighter development, perhaps the most outstanding of these being Professor Willy Messerchmitt's Bf 109..
There was, in fact, nothing mysterious about the Bf 109. It was simply a well-conceived, soundly designed fighter that maintained during maturity the success that attended its infancy...
The blind flying panel appeared somewhat better equipped than that of the contemporary FW 190. The auxiliary services were mostly electrical apart from the undercarriage and radiator, which were hydraulically operated, and the flaps which were directly connected to a manually-operated handwheel and in consequence, tediously slow to lower.
At its rather disappointing low-level cruising speed of 240 mph (386 km/h) the Gustav was certainly delightful to fly.
This was then Gustav. By the time the evolution of Willy Messerchmitt's basic design had reached the G-series, it was no longer a great fighter, but it was still a sound all-rounder and the Bf 109G had greater flexibility from some aspects than preceding sub-types."

Read also: Flying the Messerschmitt Bf 109 by Mark Hanna
General comments on Me 109
Me 109 D:
"The longer one is at the flying business, the more firmly convinced he becomes that he knows very little about it. I must say, however, the Messerschmitt Me109 is the finest airplane I have ever flown.
Along with its delightful flight characteristics, the visibility in this Messerschmitt is all that a fighter pilot could reasonably ask. There are a great many single-seater fighters in the world that I have not flown, but I had formed my opinion of the flight characteristics of the Messerschmitt after studying it on the ground and before flying it. And those estimates were confirmed in flight. I had made my own estimates of the performance and maneuverability characteristics of a lot of other single-seater fighters, and I'd be willing to wager that none of them represent the general, all-around flight and fighting characteristics possessed by the Me109."
- US Marine Corps major Al Williams. Source: Bf 109D test flight, 1938.
Me 109:
"Apart from performance, it was also very important the plane to possess a sort of 'goodwill'. The Bf 109 - except for take-offs - was an easy-to-fly airplane, and in addition it brought back the pilot even with serious damage. My plane, 'Blue 1' received hits multiple times, in one case when attacking a Boston formation the skin on the left wing was ripped off on half square meter, the main spar was damaged and the undercarriage tire was blown to pieces, yet it dropped without a problem and the plane landed just like it was a training session. Not to mention it`s valuable quality that it never caught fire during landing on the belly after a fatal hit, in contrast to many other type, with which such emergency procedure put us at a serious risk because of the danger of fire and explosion. To summerize : we loved the Bf 109."
- Pinter Gyula, 2nd Lt., JG101. Source: internet account

Me 109 E:
"Performance by 1940 standards was good. When put into a full throttle climb at low air speeds, the airplane climbed at a very steep angle, and our fighters used to have difficulty in keeping their sights on the enemy even when at such a height that their rates of climb were comparible. This steep climb at low air speed was one of the standard evasion maneuvres used by the German pilots. Another was to push the stick forward abruptly and bunt into a dive with considerable negative 'g'. The importance of arranging that the engine whould not cut under these circumstances cannot be over-stressed. Speed is picked up quickly in a dive, and if being attacked by an airplane of slightly inferior level performance, this feature can be used with advantage to get out of range. There is no doubt that in the autumn of 1940 the Bf.109E in spite of its faults, was a doughty opponent to set against our own equipment."
- RAF Royal Aircraft Establishment (RAE) Farnborough handling trials,Bf.109E Wn: 1304. M.B. Morgan and R. Smelt of the RAE, 1944.

Me 109 E/F/G:
"Yeah, the 109 could compete with the P51, no doubt. Maneuverability was excellent. But the P51 could do it longer! But in the battle itself, the 109 certainly could compete with the P-51, even the Spitfire. You couldn't follow the Spitfire in a tight turn upwards. You couldn't follow it. But we knew exactly the Spitfire also had shortcomings. In the beginning when they dived away, they had problems with the carburetor. cshhht shhht cht cht cht (shows engine cutting out) . Until they came up to speed. So every airplane has some problems in some areas, and if you know it, you can overcome it. "
- Major Gunther Rall. German fighter ace, NATO general, Commander of the German Air Force. 275 victories. Source: Lecture by general Rall.

Me 109 F:
"It was the 109 F. This was my beloved aircraft. It was the first aircraft with the round wing tips, no struts in the back, 601 engine. Excellent, and not too overloaded. You know, later on they put in this, and put in this, and put in this. The aircraft became heavier, but not this one. The F was my ideal aircraft. And it had a very good weapon set. We had a 20 millimeter gun through the propellor, and two 15 millimeters (actually 2 x 7,92 mms) on top of the engine. It was enough."
- Major Gunther Rall. German fighter ace, NATO general, Commander of the German Air Force. 275 victories. Source: Lecture by general Rall.

Me 109 G:
"It was very advanced and equipped with new, more sophisticated technology. Nicknamed Gustav, the 109G was well armed, but not as light as the early E and F versions. Its more powerful engine meant higher power settings whose initial climb rate sent it soaring to 18700 feet in six minutes, but at low speed the plane was difficult to handle."
- Major Gunther Rall in April 1943. German fighter ace, NATO general, Commander of the German Air Force. 275 victories. Source: Gunther Rall, a memoir.

Me 109 G-2/G-6:
- What was it like to sit in the Messerschmitt after Curtiss and Fokker?
"Dunno... Felt like an airplane. It was faster.
The Messerschmitt was exellent. You got always away when you pushed your nose down, and it then rose like an elevator. You soon had upper hand again."
- Mauno Fräntilä, Finnish fighter ace. 5 1/2 victories. Source: Interview by Finnish Virtual Pilots Association: Chief Warrant Officer Mauno Fräntilä.

Me 109 G:
"Comparing the Curtiss and the Messerschmitt (109 G), which one was the more pleasant to fly ?
Well, both were pleasant each in their own way. The Curtiss was as if in your control all the time. More speed would have been necessary. The Messerschmitt had speed, she climbed well and was well-armed. That was it. Both types were good aircraft in their age."
- Kyösti Karhila, Finnish fighter ace. 32 victories. Source: Interview by Finnish Virtual Pilots Association.

Me 109 G:
"Fast and maneuverable Me 109 (G) would be a tough opponent in the hands of a skillful pilot. Messerschmitt was during it´s time an efficient fighter and would not be in shame even nowadays. Eventhough the top speeds of the today´s fighters are high the differerencies would even up in a dogfight.
Mersu (Messerchmitt) had three meters long engine in the nose were with 1 500 horsepowers. The speed was at it´s best 750 kilometers per hour. It turned well too, if you just pulled the stick"
- Mauno Fräntilä, Finnish fighter ace. 5 1/2 victories. Source: Finnish Virtual Pilots Association: fighter ace Mauno Fräntilä was creating the glory of the war pilots.

Me 109 F/G:
"The F version was my favorite. It was not nearly as sluggish in the controls as the G version was. It was best suited as a dogfighter. The G6 however was better at higher altitudes and had a higher ceiling than the F's.
The 190 was over all a better a/c than the 109, but again the pilots liked the 109's climb and simply the fact that by the time they had flown 400 combat missions the 109 had become very very familiar to them. Fanz Stigler liked the 109G as well and also enjoyed flying the K-4. The K-4, he said was very much like the G yet could leave all other fighters behind in climb. In control feel he said the K felt identical to the G. He described on many occasions where they would just bank away from the fighters and climb away from them. He also flew a Spitfire once, saying that he liked the a/c."
- Franz Stigler, German fighter ace. 28 victories. Interview of Franz Stigler.

Me 109:
"The 109? That was a dream, the non plus ultra. Just like the F-14 of today. Of course, everyone wanted to fly it as soon as possible. I was very proud when I converted to it."
- Major Gunther Rall, German fighter ace, NATO general, Commander of the German Air Force. 275 victories.

Me 109 G (Spanish version):
"The Bf 109 is, without doubt, the most satisfying and challenging aircraft that I have ever flown."
- Mark Hannah of the Old Flying Machine Company

Me 109 G-6:
Me109 had good performance values for its time, the weapons (1 x 20 mm + 2 x 13 mm) were accurate and effective. The option for 3x20mm cannons was well suited against IL-2s. I didn't regard the swerving during take-offs as anything special. In my opinion, the accidents were caused by poor training.
- Martti Uottinen, Finnish war bomber pilot, post war fighter pilot. Source: Hannu Valtonen, "Me 109 ja Saksan sotatalous" (Messerschmitt Bf 109 and the German war economy), ISBN 951-95688-7-5.

Me 109 G:
"So how does the aeroplane compare with other contemporary fighters ? First, let me say that all my comments are based on operation below 10,000 feet and at power settings not exceeding +12 (54") and 2700 rpm. I like it as an aeroplane, and with familiarity I think it will give most of the allied fighters I have flown a hard time, particularly in a close, hard turning, slow speed dog-fight. It will definitely out-maneuver a P-51 in this type of flight, the roll rate and slow speed characteristics being much better. The Spitfire on the other hand is more of a problem for the '109 and I feel it is a superior close in fighter. Having said that the aircraft are sufficiently closely matched that pilot abilty would probably be the deciding factor. At higher speeds the P-51 is definitely superior, and provided the Mustang kept his energy up and refused to dogfight he would be relatively safe against the '109.
I like the aeroplane very much, and I think I can understand why many of the Luftwaffe aces had such a high regard and preference for it."
- Mark Hanna of the Old Flying Machine Company flying the OFMC Messerschmitt Bf 109 G (Spanish version).

Spitfire vs Me 109 in general:
"Military Channel's program "Spitfire vs Me 109" with Bob Doe, B of B RAF vet and Ekkehard Bob LW JG54 B of B vet comparing the aircraft:"
"Ease of flying went to the Spit. The consensus was it took a veteran pilot to master the 109, but that the Spit was more forgiving to a new pilot."
"Doe remarked on the cramped feeling and the poor visibilty. He was in Black 6 the 109G2 of the RAF Museum."
"Ekkehard Bob was in a Spitfire Vb cockpit . His comment was on how roomy it was and how wonderful the visibilty was. He then said he'd really like to fly the airplane."
"They then went on to talk about hitting power, which went to the 109 20mms vs the Spit 303's."
"The final result was they were both good airplanes and that it would fall to the pilot to make the difference."
"An interesting sidebar was the discussion of turning circle. They believed that with average pilots the Spit would out turn the 109, but that if flown to the limit, the 109 could match the Spit. "
- Bob Doe Ekkehard Bob. Source: Military Channel program.

Me 109 G through the opposition's eyes
"BF109 was very good, very high scale fighter plane. If was superior to our Yaks in speed and vertical combat. It wasn`t 100% superiority, but still. Very dynamic plane. I`ll be honest with you, it was my dream during my war years, to have a plane like this. Fast and superior on vertical, but that didn`t happen.
Messer had one extremely positive thing, it was able to be successful fight Yak`s at 2000m and Aircobras at 6000m. This is truly unique ability and valuable. Of course, here Yak and P-39 were inferior. As far as combat on different altitudes, BF109 was universal, like La-5.
Me109 was exceptional in turning combat. If there is a fighter plane built for turning combat , it has to be Messer! Speedy, maneuverable,(especially in vertical) and extremely dynamic. I can`t tell about all other things, but taking under consideration what i said above, Messerschmitt was ideal for dogfight. But for some reason majority of german pilots didn`t like turn fight, till this day i don`t know why.
I don`t know what was stopping them, but it`s definitely not the plane. I know that for a fact. I remember battle of Kursk where german aces were starting "roller-coaster" rides where our heads were about to come off from rotation. No, seriously... Is it true it`s a common thing now that Messer wasn`t maneuverable?
Interviewer: Yes.
Heh.. Why would people come up with something like this... It was maneuverable...by god it was."
- Major Kozhemyako, Soviet fighter ace. Source: translation from Russian language.

Me 109 G:
"The speed, rate of climb and armament were suberb compared to our other planes. The best feature was the excellent rate of climb. The reflector sight was good as well as the radio and the throat microphone, which eliminated the engine noise from transmissions.
Before starting the engine one you had to set the propeller pitch to small, as otherwise the plane would start to swerve left as soon as the tailwheel was raised from the ground. There was nothing special in landing the plane. It was heavy but the wing slats opened up when speed slowed down and helped flying in slow speed.
Comparing the flying characteristics against the FIAT G.50, the Me109G was just a weapons platform, albeit a great one. "
-Kullervo Joutseno, Finnish fighter pilot. Source: Hannu Valtonen, "Me 109 ja Saksan sotatalous" (Messerschmitt Bf 109 and the German war economy), ISBN 951-95688-7-5.

Me 109 G:
"The worst thing about Me109 was its bad reputation which caused unnecessary nervousness on many (new) pilots. The tendency to swing was related to this. As a plane the Me was a typical wartime fighter equipped with a powerful engine. A cool pilot could easily control the plane's direction and change it when accelerating."
-Jorma Karhunen, Finnish fighter ace. 36 1/2 victories, fighter squadron commander. . Source: Hannu Valtonen, "Me 109 ja Saksan sotatalous" (Messer

 

[Titus70]

Hi KrazyKanuck,
Thanks for pointing that out. You're correct. The Focke-Wulf was developed early. My point to Adler was that heavy Allied bombing campaign was having such a major impact that "developing" i.e. putting the Focke Wulf and variants into large scale production to strategically impact the airwar over Germany was already too late.
Yes, they most certainly were flying and being used as effective bomber interceptor fighters. But the devasting arial bombardment had made it difficult to effectivley put into the air sufficient numbers. Let alone ever improved versions in sufficient quantities with enough well trained experienced pilots.
My apologies for not stating it more clearer.

Cheers
Titus.