Time Machine Consultant : Maximizing the Bf-109 in January 1943

[Juha]

Hello Kurfürst
Yes, but I choose the LF IX because I have a grap which shows its, 109G-1's and P-47D-10's (USAAF figure) speeds alongside 190A-5's etc speeds. BTW have you info on the fuel Soviets used in their 47D tests.

On production, true but in Aug 43 Merlin 66 Spit production was 100 Spit IXs and 90-95 Mk VIIIs. And LF V was a bit like Soviet fighters, excellent at low level, especially in climb but run out of steam higher up. Even normal Spit Vc +16lb boost seemed to have been almost as fast as 109 G-1 between 2 and 4km altitude after that it lost ground fast.

Vincenzo
In 43 109G wasn't a 2nd rate fighter but not the best as F-4 has been in early 42. But 109G, even if necessary didn't bring significant performance advance until G-6AS but that was mostly because of problems with DB 605A.

Juha

 

[Altea]

I have no indication to believe that the armament was insufficient. Perhaps for novice pilots whose gunnery training was seriously inadequate during the last part of the war. Late-war fighters were better armoured though I have no indication that the Bf 109G-6 guns could not bring them down. Plus, much of the Russian fighters were American (P-40, P-39 and especially the very well armoured P-63).

Kris

The fact that soviets had some american latewar fighters does not mean they were used against Luftwaffe.

So on the may 1945, the 1st...

Only 5 / 1446 P-63 Kingcobra
~ 2 or 3 / 116 Thunderbird
0 / 28 Tomahawk
10 / 1037 Kittihawk

...were serving in frontline units (so called active army), others being dispatched in rear militar districts, PVO, schools, conservation dumps...

18 planes for 16 112 front line ones is not that much, isnt it?

The main reason was the lack of performance at low heights (from 612 to 636 km/h for serial La-7 with 15 min forsage, 515 km/h only for Kingcobras at SL)

BTW, i agree with you on other points, soviet american fighters as P-40 and P-39 lost some machineguns (mainly in wings) and some internal tanks in order to save weight and make them competitive against Messerschmitts.

 

[Civettone]

Wow, less than 20 ??
I know the P-40 was mainly used for local air defence (called RVP or something?) and was replaced after 1944. P-63 had better hi alt performance so that would have been a logical choice.

Altea, do you also have similar figures for 1944??

Kris

 

[Altea]

Wow, less than 20 ??

Yes but 95 P-39 K,L,M and 817 P-39Q, 581 Boston, 398 B-25...120 C-47 Night Bombers in FL units on the same may 1945, the 1st.

I know the P-40 was mainly used for local air defence (called RVP or something?) and was replaced after 1944. P-63 had better hi alt performance so that would have been a logical choice.

so P-40: 10 in front line units, 94 in (rear) mil. disticts, 881 in PVO (anti aircraft defense), 80 on the way = 1065
P-63: 5, 1313, 54, 94 = 1466 but it had unresolved spin problems, even worse that P-39 with empty guns.

Altea, do you also have similar figures for 1944??

I don't know, might be. But from the same source "Alekseenko" it doesn't seem that P-40 had an enormous activity in 1944.

:102 planes lost, 14 did not return from mission, 4 shooted down by fighters, 10 by Flak, 3 written off by accidents, 71 w.o. for wear. It' very few for the 10 111 soviet fighters lost in 1944 for all kind of reasons.

 

[Bug_racer]

Going back to the original question. What was an easier plane to learn to fly and use effectively , the me109 or fw190 ?

 

[lesofprimus]

190 without a doubt....

 

[Altea]

Going back to the original question. What was an easier plane to learn to fly and use effectively , the me109 or fw190 ?

The 190, with no doubt. But at the same time they were not school planes. Pefromrance and manoeuvrability asked some sacrifices. From all soviet tests, (it's to go back to the original question, but not far away...) combat reports and pilot's memor's the 109 was always the most dangerous opponent fighter vs fighter. So for the Normandy.
It had better turn and climb rate than the FW. The FW was tough, better armed, protected and had better roll/dive acceleration capabilities.

I don't see them superior , but rather complementary to each other.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Most respectfully FlyboyJ : You are missing the point: completely, totally and entirely.

Again Most Respectfully: The issue has NOTHING to do with "IFR equipment" or
"gaining a visual during IFR conditions." It has EVERYTHING to do with the inherently
dangerous design of the Bf-109's weak, narrow undercarriage. And it's not like I'm
making this up. I have r-e-p-e-a-t-e-d-l-y provided sources for everything I say, so it's
hardly "crap." (Also, my position is repeated in E-V-E-R-Y single book ever written on the Bf-109.)

I'm sure we all agree that people have a right to have their opinions, but they don't have a
right to their own made-up facts. I'm stating the facts. The others are stating their opinions. And I'm the
one about to be banned?

Bronc

And once again your stupidity is apparent - do you know that the track of the 109 and Spit is about the same????? The Landing gear problem on the 109 has been written about, talked about, debated and discussed - the only reason why any pilot is going to bail out of a perfectly good aircraft is because they can't see the runway or there is an incapacity in bringing the aircraft over the runway.

Now that you've seen the light, you will refrain from any more ignorant outbursts.

 

[tomo pauk]

Put number why the other fighters were best of '109 in '43

Ah, the numbers...
Since our thread (P-51(D) vs. FW-190D debate) teaches us that few mph advantage means really nothing if one is unable to put those mphs in good use, I'll play the game in accordance to that.

The main differences against Bf-109 for 1943:
F4U-1A had range ruggedness in abundance, much better ground attack capabilities, it was carrier capable; other things are pretty much the same to make a difference
P-47C had the same pluses (not carrier capable); other things as stated for Corsair
F6F-3: same as F4U
P-38J*: same as P-47C, with even better range
Typhoon: same as P-47C, slightly less durable

My point is that, while all above counted fighters could do what 109 was doing, the opposite was hardly possible. And while a 109 hit by a burst of .50 cal bullets would've been a heap of burned metal, it could not be said for the listed Allied planes.

*actually the G version, but it doesn't change what i wrote

 

[davebender]

The fact that soviets had some american latewar fighters does not mean they were used against Luftwaffe.

A-20. 10 Feb 1943
P-39. 15 Apr 1943.
3 x P-39. 5 Jul 1943.
3 x P-39. 17 Aug 1943.
P-39. 19 Aug 1943.
P-39. 20 Sep 1943.
2 x P-39. 26 Sep 1943.
P-39. 29 Sep 1943.
2 x P-39. 30 Sep 1943.
P-39. 2 Oct 1943.
P-39. 4 Oct 1943.
3 x P-39. 20 Oct 1943.
2 x P-39. 26 Oct 1943.
P-39. 29 Oct 1943. Kill #148 for Erich Hartmann

23 of Erich Hartmann's first 148 kills consisted of U.S. manufactured aircraft. 15.5%. Apparently there were plenty of American manufactured aircraft used in combat on the Russian front.

 

[davebender]

The P-47C also had some minuses vs the Me-109G. The Me-109G had superior acceleration, climb and turning circle at most altitudes.

 

[tomo pauk]

I'm sure we could agree that the outcome of the 47 vs. 109 one-on-one would've depended upon the situation?

Again, the range, payload, usability and durability are firmly in the hands of P-47.

 

[Bronc]

Grinsell was specifically referring to pilots jumping out of "perfectly good" overloaded and poorly handling aircraft,
that were hazardous to fly (and land) in inclement weather. It has to do with the high wing-loading on the plane,
(that the Spitfire didn't have which is the reason why it got away with a narrow undercarriage) and it's high sink rate,
(that the Spitfire didn't have) and the disturbing habit of having one wing departing unexpectantly in a stall while
trying to land.

More from Grinsell: "Herbert Kaiser, a Luftwaffe pilot with 68 confirmed aerial victories says: The Bf-109 was not an easy aircraft to fly.
It had to be directed from the split-second one gave it gas. The extrememly narrow tracked under-carriage could not
fully compensate for the normal tendency of the aircraft to pull to the right... [...] Any causual disregard for those rules
[on taking off] had a result of breaking the flight path and a crash.

That was taking off, now Kaiser talks about landing.

"The cardinal rule during landing was that at the point of touchdown the gear and tail skid had to be oriented in the line of a projected
roll without any further attempt at directional control. The sudden, unexpected separation of aerodynamic lift, [high sink rate,
weak landing gear, uncontrolable roll-out blah blah, blah...] caused a lot of crashes and killed a lot of pilots. [...] ...the increased
weight of the [engine] and added armament reduced speed and handling characteristics and made the landing of the aircraft
extremely hazardous in inclement weather, especially at night. [...] Equipment malfunctions, structural failures due to fatigue,
and pilots bailing out rather than trying to land in dangerous and potentially fatal conditions, rapidly reduced the available planes..."

Kaiser goes on to say the Bf-109G was way heavy and in North Africa, "our performance could be maintained only
through the constant use of the compressor."

It's just crazy. Barkhorn, Batz, Galland, Hartmann, Hrabak, Herrmann, Rall and Steinhoff were the technical consultants on this silly book.

Just making that one clarification. Please don't ban me.

Bronc

 

[Glider]

Can I ask which book this is?
Thanks

 

[davebender]

Barkhorn, Batz, Galland, Hartmann, Hrabak, Herrmann, Rall and Steinhoff were the technical consultants on this silly book.

It's worth noting that these guys all scored more kills with the Me-109 then any American fighter pilot has achieved. Evidently the Me-109 had some good points also.

 

[Juha]

Hello Vincenzo
109G max roll rate, 50lb stick force, was 85deg/sec at 425km/h IAS. That means that it rolled clearly worse than metal aileron clipped wing Spit Mk V at all speeds and clearly worse than normal wing Spit Mk V up to say 410 km/h IAS. There wasn't so big difference between 410 – 520km/h IAS between 109G and normal wing Spit Mk V. One must also remember that planes were individuals and at least Frise type ailerons used in Spits before Mk 21 were sensitive to rigging errors.

Hello Altea
no P-39Ns in front line units? Maybe because the main difference between N and Q was the wing armament and Soviet pilots often removed the wing armament so maybe Soviets lumped them together under Q?

juha

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Grinsell was specifically referring to pilots jumping out of "perfectly good" overloaded and poorly handling aircraft,
that were hazardous to fly (and land) in inclement weather. It has to do with the high wing-loading on the plane,
(that the Spitfire didn't have which is the reason why it got away with a narrow undercarriage) and it's high sink rate,
(that the Spitfire didn't have) and the disturbing habit of having one wing departing unexpectantly in a stall while
trying to land.

More from Grinsell: "Herbert Kaiser, a Luftwaffe pilot with 68 confirmed aerial victories says: The Bf-109 was not an easy aircraft to fly.
It had to be directed from the split-second one gave it gas. The extrememly narrow tracked under-carriage could not
fully compensate for the normal tendency of the aircraft to pull to the right... [...] Any causual disregard for those rules
[on taking off] had a result of breaking the flight path and a crash.

That was taking off, now Kaiser talks about landing.

"The cardinal rule during landing was that at the point of touchdown the gear and tail skid had to be oriented in the line of a projected
roll without any further attempt at directional control. The sudden, unexpected separation of aerodynamic lift, [high sink rate,
weak landing gear, uncontrolable roll-out blah blah, blah...] caused a lot of crashes and killed a lot of pilots. [...] ...the increased
weight of the [engine] and added armament reduced speed and handling characteristics and made the landing of the aircraft
extremely hazardous in inclement weather, especially at night. [...] Equipment malfunctions, structural failures due to fatigue,
and pilots bailing out rather than trying to land in dangerous and potentially fatal conditions, rapidly reduced the available planes..."

Kaiser goes on to say the Bf-109G was way heavy and in North Africa, "our performance could be maintained only
through the constant use of the compressor."

It's just crazy. Barkhorn, Batz, Galland, Hartmann, Hrabak, Herrmann, Rall and Steinhoff were the technical consultants on this silly book.

Just making that one clarification. Please don't ban me.

Bronc

YOUR OWN WORDS!!!

"Grinsell was specifically referring to pilots jumping out of "perfectly good" overloaded and poorly handling aircraft, that were hazardous to fly (and land) in inclement weather".

Everything else is nonsense with regards to this thread and the point you were trying to make. It has been reported many times how difficult the -109 was to land and taxi, that's history. You were trying to rub this crap into Kurfurst's face as if this practice was the norm, and now I'm callin you on it.

At this point I suggest you drop this crap - come up with something a lot more legit to prove your point

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

We all know that the Bf 109 had a narrow track that could cause problems.

However it is not true that pilots would jump out of the Bf 109 because they did not want to land it because of the landing gear. That is absolute rubbish. Just an atempt at revisionist history.

The Bf 109 was not the best aircraft of the war, it was however a damn fine aircraft that was competitive to the very end. That is fact...

I think the issue has been fleshed out. Both sides have recieved a fair hearing in
the arena of ideas. I'm finished trying to convince anyone that the Bf-109's weak,
narrow undercarriage was a major cause of concern that could have been addressed
by the RLM and Luftwaffe and I won't be posting any more on it, because if Gunther Rall's
comment on the matter wasn't convincing, and all of those page citations in books couldn't
do it, and if Robert Grinsell's research about Bf-109G pilots jumping out of their airplanes
because they were THAT afraid of the landing characteristics of the Bf-109G, then NOTHING is
going to convince them.

I apologize if I offended anyone.

So please don't ban me.

Bronc

I will repeat again. Pilots did not jump out of them because they did not want to land them. There is also no book that will prove that they did so.

Did you also know that the Spit and 109 track is very close to each other. pbfoot one of our members who has regular access to both aircraft actually went and measured them out.

 

[Civettone]

I'm sure we could agree that the outcome of the 47 vs. 109 one-on-one would've depended upon the situation?

Again, the range, payload, usability and durability are firmly in the hands of P-47.

I completely agree Tomo. The American fighters were far superior to the Bf 109 in terms of range, payload and perhaps also usability. The naval fighters were also more durable. I am not so sure about the P-51 or P-38 being more robust. It could be a cliche as the other American fighters are always depicted as rugged. This itself can be a result of them having radial engines and of the comparison with the fragile Zero fighter.
Also the Fw 190 is always depicted as more rugged but perhaps this is because it looked that way. The Bf 109 looks quite fragile. But I would like to know if this is true from a construction point of view. Was the Bf 109 structure really less solidly built than that of the Fw 190??

But what I wanted to say is that the Bf 109 was inferior to all of these. But when it comes to actual air-to-air combat the difference is less pronounced. The Bf 109, at least the G-10 and K versions were about as good as any other fighter. But again, it always depends on the situation.

Grinsell was specifically referring to pilots jumping out of "perfectly good" overloaded and poorly handling aircraft,
that were hazardous to fly (and land) in inclement weather. It has to do with the high wing-loading on the plane,
(that the Spitfire didn't have which is the reason why it got away with a narrow undercarriage) and it's high sink rate,
(that the Spitfire didn't have) and the disturbing habit of having one wing departing unexpectantly in a stall while
trying to land.

More from Grinsell: "Herbert Kaiser, a Luftwaffe pilot with 68 confirmed aerial victories says: The Bf-109 was not an easy aircraft to fly.
It had to be directed from the split-second one gave it gas. The extrememly narrow tracked under-carriage could not
fully compensate for the normal tendency of the aircraft to pull to the right... [...] Any causual disregard for those rules
[on taking off] had a result of breaking the flight path and a crash.

That was taking off, now Kaiser talks about landing.

"The cardinal rule during landing was that at the point of touchdown the gear and tail skid had to be oriented in the line of a projected
roll without any further attempt at directional control. The sudden, unexpected separation of aerodynamic lift, [high sink rate,
weak landing gear, uncontrolable roll-out blah blah, blah...] caused a lot of crashes and killed a lot of pilots. [...] ...the increased
weight of the [engine] and added armament reduced speed and handling characteristics and made the landing of the aircraft
extremely hazardous in inclement weather, especially at night. [...] Equipment malfunctions, structural failures due to fatigue,
and pilots bailing out rather than trying to land in dangerous and potentially fatal conditions, rapidly reduced the available planes..."

Kaiser goes on to say the Bf-109G was way heavy and in North Africa, "our performance could be maintained only
through the constant use of the compressor."

It's just crazy. Barkhorn, Batz, Galland, Hartmann, Hrabak, Herrmann, Rall and Steinhoff were the technical consultants on this silly book.

Just making that one clarification. Please don't ban me.

Bronc

In fact I have read about pilots jumping out of the aircraft if the weather was bad. But when I read it it was about late-war pilots who had insufficient training. By then it was actually that bad. I can even tell you that when they had to move from one airfield to the other after August 1944 the losses due to take off and landing became appaling: many novice pilots were incapable of safely ferrying their aircraft !
So keep this in mind when you talk about these accidents and non-combat losses. The average pilot got less than 125 hours of flight hours! I also believe this is a main factor as to why the Bf 109 got such a bad reputation.
But remember the link which I gave a few pages back. It showed research done by member Hohun which showed that the Fw 190 had a similar amount of TO/L accidents. These are figures not opinions.

In fact I agree with most of your quotes but you really need to start putting them into perspective. Yes, the Bf 109 wasn't easy to fly. One had to keep certain things in mind. But a properly trained pilot could overcome these in fact simple difficulties and get the most out of his aircraft. Why else was it so succesful? For instance most of the avoidable take off accidents occured because the pilots forgot to lock the tail wheel. That simple.

Yes the Bf 109 did have a high wing loading and this made it difficult to fly. And yet we see a clear evolution towards combat aircraft with ever heavier wing loadings. More difficult to fly but the combat advantages are worth it. That's the way it works.

I however disagree with the stall characteristics of the Bf 109. Its automatic wing slats were very effective. At low speed the Bf 109 was very easy to fly. Much unlike the P-51 for instance.
Also the part on North Africa I don't understand. They mainly flew with the Bf 109F and the similar G-2. Weight of the Bf 109 hardly increased. They did have engine problems due to the required sand filter though. Perhaps that's what is meant.

Anyway Bronc. The following link is especially for you. I think most of us have seen it already but I guess you haven't. virtualpilots.fi: 109myths
Read it carefully. It shows the vices and problems of the Bf 109 but especially debunks the myths around it.

Kris

 

[Vincenzo]

I'm sure we could agree that the outcome of the 47 vs. 109 one-on-one would've depended upon the situation?

Again, the range, payload, usability and durability are firmly in the hands of P-47.

the range need to P-47 not at 109, P-47 has larger payload sure but it's also a larger plane, usability you talking of low readyness of luftwaffe fighters? maybe this a trouble in organization/logistic more that of planes, durability idk on this. Saw the advantage of 109, posted to davebender, i think 109G it's superior, as fighter, but a very high altitude, to P-47C in '43 (superior a old propelled and old engined P-47C or D).

p.s. superior, here, is not mean that P-47C it's not a match only that gustav has advantage