Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
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
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??
Going back to the original question. What was an easier plane to learn to fly and use effectively , the me109 or fw190 ?
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
Put number why the other fighters were best of '109 in '43
The fact that soviets had some american latewar fighters does not mean they were used against Luftwaffe.
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.Barkhorn, Batz, Galland, Hartmann, Hrabak, Herrmann, Rall and Steinhoff were the technical consultants on this silly book.
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
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 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.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.
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 !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
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.