Author Topic: 109's kill ratio (all variants from B to K)  (Read 26456 times)

Offline Nomak

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1214
109's kill ratio (all variants from B to K)
« Reply #15 on: November 01, 2003, 07:03:11 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by HoHun


The Me 109 airframe was a proven design with no major flaws


Henning (HoHun)


Are you serious?  How about severe compression problems?

How about the auto deploying slat on the wing that killed many, many pilots?

How about the fact that 109s were so difficlut to take of and land with that half the 109s lost in the war were lost to take off and landing accidents?

Offline GScholz

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8910
109's kill ratio (all variants from B to K)
« Reply #16 on: November 01, 2003, 07:07:36 AM »
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.

Nuf said.
"With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censored, the first thought forbidden, the first freedom denied, chains us all irrevocably."

Offline Nomak

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1214
109's kill ratio (all variants from B to K)
« Reply #17 on: November 01, 2003, 07:08:07 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by HoHun


Below 20000 ft, the Me 109K-4 outperforms and outguns the Merlin-powered P-51D. That's reality :-)


 (HoHun)


Are you really saying that a 109k is a better aircraft than a Mustang? :lol

Offline GScholz

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8910
109's kill ratio (all variants from B to K)
« Reply #18 on: November 01, 2003, 07:09:20 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by Nomak
Are you serious?  How about severe compression problems?

How about the auto deploying slat on the wing that killed many, many pilots?

How about the fact that 109s were so difficlut to take of and land with that half the 109s lost in the war were lost to take off and landing accidents?


This is pure nonsense. I can't imagine the slats killing anyone, and 5% of the 109's were lost in TO/landing accidents not 50%.
"With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censored, the first thought forbidden, the first freedom denied, chains us all irrevocably."

Offline GScholz

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8910
109's kill ratio (all variants from B to K)
« Reply #19 on: November 01, 2003, 07:11:23 AM »
The 109 was a better interceptor than the P-51. The P-51 was designed as a long-range escort fighter, and many compromises were made to achieve this.
"With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censored, the first thought forbidden, the first freedom denied, chains us all irrevocably."

Offline Nomak

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1214
109's kill ratio (all variants from B to K)
« Reply #20 on: November 01, 2003, 07:15:57 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by GScholz
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.

Nuf said.


US fighters schreaded the LW and 109s over Europe.  Shooting down far more aircraft than they lost.

This type of stat can be very misleading because the LW scored the majority of these victories early on the Eastern front against the soviet air force that had little to no experence.

Also the LW pilots kept flying sorties until the war was over or they were killed.  So of course thier aces would rack up some staggering numbers.

Offline GScholz

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8910
109's kill ratio (all variants from B to K)
« Reply #21 on: November 01, 2003, 07:22:54 AM »
Never the less it proves that the 109 was an able fighter. If the 190 was much better the 190 aces would be on top.

109G10 vs. P-51D the 109 holds almost all the cards. The 109 is faster at all altitudes over 10k, climbs much better, accelerates much better, only in a slow turnfight would the P-51 have an advantage due to its combat flaps, but if it comes to that the P-51 has already lost.

The 109 got shredded by the P-51's because it was drastically outnumbered in every fight and flown by mostly green pilots at the end of the war
"With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censored, the first thought forbidden, the first freedom denied, chains us all irrevocably."

Offline HoHun

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2182
109's kill ratio (all variants from B to K)
« Reply #22 on: November 01, 2003, 07:37:37 AM »
Hi Nomak,

>Are you serious?  How about severe compression problems?

What severe compression problems? The Me 109 was dived to Mach 0.79 in instrumented tests.

(Slightly modified, it was even dived to Mach 0.80, and the problems experimented there weren't due to compressility, but due to aileron overbalancing.)

>How about the auto deploying slat on the wing that killed many, many pilots?

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.

(In case you're not aware of it, but that's how the slats on the F-86, A-4 and F-4 worked too, to name just a few examples.)

>How about the fact that 109s were so difficlut to take of and land with that half the 109s lost in the war were lost to take off and landing accidents?

"Fact"? If it's a fact, please provide the proof! :-)

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

Offline HoHun

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2182
109's kill ratio (all variants from B to K)
« Reply #23 on: November 01, 2003, 07:43:06 AM »
Hi Nomak,

>>Below 20000 ft, the Me 109K-4 outperforms and outguns the Merlin-powered P-51D.

>Are you really saying that a 109k is a better aircraft than a Mustang? :lol

What I said is

"Below 20000 ft, the Me 109K-4 outperforms and outguns the Merlin-powered P-51D."

I also said:

"I'd agree that the Mustang was the better overall fighter, but the Me 109 remained a dangerous opponent right to the end."

If you're unwilling to read what I write, the polite thing to do is not to answer my posts at all. If you insist on answering my posts - please read them before you do.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

Offline Nomak

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1214
109's kill ratio (all variants from B to K)
« Reply #24 on: November 01, 2003, 07:43:41 AM »
The Best of the Breed
by Col. "Kit" Carson
Airpower, July 1976
Vol. 6 No. 4........


Me 109G, was obsolete when it was built and was aerodynamically the most inefficient fighter of its time. It was a hopeless collection of lumps, bumps, stiff controls, and placed its pilot in a cramped, squarish cockpit with poor visibility.

The Mustang, after its conversion to the Merlin engine in 1942, was a fast, long-range, strategic escort fighter with an easy 8-hour endurance. Like the T-bolt it would dive like a banshee, well ahead of the Spit and all German craft. However, in rate of climb the Me 109G was 200-500 feet per minute ahead of the Mustang upto 20,000 feet, then the '51 pulled ahead on up to 40,000 feet, while the Spit 14 would climb faster than any of them at any altitude from sea level up.

The characteristics of two Me-109 models are of historical interest, the "E" and the "G". The "E" formed the backbone of the German fighter strength during the Battle of Britain, its opposition being the Spitfire I and the Hurricane I. The "G" was the prevailing type in 1944 during the Battle of Europe and its main opponents were the Spit 14, the Thunderbolt, and the Mustang. So it is worthwhile to explore more fully the characteristics of the Me-109 because it was the longest-lived of the fighters produced in Germany. It was a most worthy opponent in 1939, but it was outclassed by 1942 and by 1944 was manifestly obsolete

Ailerons:
At low speeds, the ailerons control was good, response brisk. As speed increased the ailerons became too heavy but the response was good up to 200 mph. At 300 mph they became "unpleasant". Over 300 mph they became impossible. At 400 mph the stick felt like it was set in a bucket of cement. A pilot exerting all his strength could not apply more than one fifth aileron at 400 mph; that's 5 degrees up and 3 degrees down. The aileron situation at high combat speeds might be summarized in the following way:
(1) Due to the cramped cockpit a pilot could only apply about 40 pounds side force on the stick as compared to 60 pounds or more possible if he had more elbow room.
(2) Messerschmitt also penalized the pilot by designing in an unsually small stick top travel of plus or minus 4 inches, giving very poor mechanical advantage between pilot and aileron.
(3) 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.
Elevator:
This was a good control at slow speeds but became too heavy above 250 mph and at 400 mph it became so heavy that maneurverability became seriously restricted. When diving at 400 mph a pilot, pulling very hard could not pull enough "g" force to black himself out. The stick force per "g" was an excess of 20 pounds in a high speed dive. To black out, as a limit to the human factor in high speed maneuvers, would require over 100 pounds pull on the stick.
Rudder:
At low speeds the rudder was light, but sluggish in response. At 200 mph the sluggishness disappears, at 300 mph the absense of trim control in the cockpit became an acute problem. The pilot's leg force on the port rudder above 300 mph to prevent sideslip became excessive and unacceptable

While the 109 may have been a worthy opponent in the Spanish Civil War or during the Battle of France in early 1940, it became a marginal airplane against the Spits during the attack on Britain in September of that year. By 1942, even with the appearance of the "G," it was definitely obsolete. However, the Germans continued to produce it as the backbone of the Luftwaffe fighter forces. The attitude of Nazi high command was that this was going to be a quick "blitz" war and if they lost three 109s for every Spitfire shot down, that was acceptable. In fact, in 1940 the official policy was laid down that the development of all other aircraft types requiring more than 6 months for completion was prohibited. They'd turn out the existing designs like hot cakes and swamp the RAF with production

Offline GScholz

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8910
109's kill ratio (all variants from B to K)
« Reply #25 on: November 01, 2003, 07:54:43 AM »


On 20/01/01, Markus and Ryan Muntener met Franz Stigler and had the chance to ask a variety of questions, many of which addressed hotly-debated topics regarding the 109, and the general misconceptions that people have.

Excerpts:

Are the stories true, that the 109 had weak wings and would lose them easily?

He has never heard of a 109 losing its' wings from his experience or others. The wings could withstand 12G's and since most pilots could only handle at most 9G's there was never a problem. He was never worried about losing a wing in any form of combat.

Did you fly the 109 with the wing-mounted guns?

Yes he had, but almost everyone he new got the guns removed (including himself). The 109 handled much worse at low speeds with the guns on the wings, but climb was similar. It only really added some weight to the aircraft.

What's the fastest you ever had a 109 in a dive?

I've taken it to about 680 to 750 km/hr at which point you needed 2 hands to pull it out of the dive.

Did pilots like the slats on the wings or the 109?

Yes, pilots did like them, since it allowed them better positions in a dogfight, along with using the flaps. These slats would also deploy slightly when the a/c was reaching stall at higher altitudes showing the pilot how close they were to stalling....this was also useful when you were drunk!

How did the cockpit feel in the 109?

The cockpit was small, but one got used to it after a while. In the end it felt comfortable since you felt like part of the plane. The spitfire's cockpit did not feel that much roomier to him either. The 262 cockpit however was larger in comparison. It also had a long flight stick, giving the pilot lots of leverage in flight.

Were the guns on the bombers dangerous or worrisome to pilots?

Yes and no (as he points to his head where you can see an indent). If you have 28 bombers with 10 guns each, all pointing and shooting at you they could be very dangerous. He has an indent in the upper part of his forehead from a .5 cal bullet that had smashed through the thick armoured glass in his 109 cockpit. The bullet had lost enough speed by this time that it had only "stuck" into his head. He said he almost never returned home from a bomber attack without bullet holes somewhere on his aircraft.

EDIT: Note that 750 km/h is 468 mph.
« Last Edit: November 01, 2003, 08:02:25 AM by GScholz »
"With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censored, the first thought forbidden, the first freedom denied, chains us all irrevocably."

Offline HoHun

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2182
109's kill ratio (all variants from B to K)
« Reply #26 on: November 01, 2003, 08:09:18 AM »
Hi Nomak,

>The Best of the Breed by Col. "Kit" Carson

Carson is about the most biased author you can find.

Quotes from his article you didn't provide:

"I also suspect, again from the record of history, that Willy Messerschmitt was too busy becoming a Direktor of Messerschmitt A.G. to concentrate on improving his status as an ingenieur.

Having gone this far, let me carry this affront to Messerschmitt's engineering reputation one step further. [...]"

(It follows a lot of ignorant advice on how to make the Me 109 a 400 mph+ aircraft, which it was anyway. Carson bases it on the Emil, obviously failing to realize that the Me 109F and later variants were considerably different aircraft.)

More nonsense from Carson:

"The Spitfire was an aerodynamically clean airplane to start with, having a total drag coefficient of .021 at cruise. The Me-109 had a coefficient of .036; drag coefficiency and of the horsepower required to haul 'em around. Like golf scores, the lower the better, and no fudging.

Drag coefficient is the score for one hole, but total drag is the score for the entire course. Messerschmitt accepted a higher drag coefficient in favour of a smaller frontal area. That he was successful is evident from the observation that the Me 109 always achieved similar top speeds on similar engine power as the Spitfire.

If the Messerschmitt would have needed much greater power for the same top speed, it would have blown the Spitfire away at low speeds because the drag coefficient doesn't have much of an impact there. As you know, that didn't happen.

Quite obviously, Carson points to a secondary parameter (with great gesture) to make the Me 109 look bad. Either he's incompetent, or he's out to manipulate the reader.

Whether it's the one or the other, he's not a good source.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

Offline GScholz

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8910
109's kill ratio (all variants from B to K)
« Reply #27 on: November 01, 2003, 08:11:55 AM »
I missed this part about the 109:

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 (my guess this is probably after attacking them?). He also flew a Spitfire once, saying that he liked the aircraft.
"With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censored, the first thought forbidden, the first freedom denied, chains us all irrevocably."

Offline Nomak

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1214
109's kill ratio (all variants from B to K)
« Reply #28 on: November 01, 2003, 08:23:47 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by HoHun


Utter nonsense (or you greatly overstimate the Me 109's level speed :-) The Me 109 could dive to Mach 0.79, about the same as the Fw 190 and the P-51, and considerably better than the P-47 and the P-38.

 


"The Mustang, after its conversion to the Merlin engine in 1942, was a fast, long-range, strategic escort fighter with an easy 8-hour endurance. Like the T-bolt it would dive like a banshee, well ahead of the Spit and all German craft."

Offline Batz

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3470
      • http://bellsouthpwp.net/w/o/wotans/4JG53/
109's kill ratio (all variants from B to K)
« Reply #29 on: November 01, 2003, 08:25:27 AM »
Oh good grief not Kit Carson... :p

Nomak he hated the 109 and never even flew one. His article is mostly second hand inaccurate information..

3 109s for every spit shot down? The Hurricane was the 109s main opponent in BoB.

The 109 could dive to Mach 0.79. The 109 didn’t "compress" but the elevators became heavy. When adjusting trim the entire horizontal tail plane moved and reduced the force needed to pull out.

The LW in the west was defeated  by going after the allied bombers streams. This allowed a small escorting force to go after them and build experience. As the LW experts were depleted and the LW wasted resources on "bomber killers" and the allies built up their fighter strength.

The LW should have pulled their fighters back from the channel. They should have gone after the allied fighters early when they were in p38s and p47cs. The LW tried to go after the bombers and kill enough of them to force the allies to give up. This seemed to be working early but the allies came with more and better fighters.

The bombing campaign by the allies wasn’t anywhere near as successful as they thought it would be. Its main effect on the war effort was wearing down the LW in the west. By the time the p51 was on station in numbers the LW was already "defeated".

At the same time the LW numbers were nearing their lowest the allies were nearing their highest. This allowed them free reign over Western Europe. The allies attacked trains and most roads were basically shut down. The LW had no fighter reserve at this point.

During D-day there was only 2 190s over the landing area.

It wasn’t the "109" that was the problem. It was a combination of bad tactical decisions, poor planning for a prolonged war (look how long it took Germany to completely mobilize its economy). The attrition of LW experten and short-training periods for the Nachwuchs cost more lw 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.
« Last Edit: November 01, 2003, 08:28:52 AM by Batz »