The Best Fighter Aircraft of all Time

[Overlag]

Originally posted by VO101_Isegrim
That`s bull.

More Messerschmitt glory :



Top 3 scoring fighter pilots of all time :

Erich Hartmann, 352 victories, Bf 109
Gerhard Barkhorn, 301 victories, Bf 109
Gunther Rall, 271 victories, Bf 109

Hmmm...

vulch kings


edit: you have to remember, these piliots fought the WHOLE war, there was no 25 sortie limit or whatever, they didnt enter the war after it had finished (americans ), they started it, they killed "easy" targets over poland, france, spain (civil war helped train hitlers pilots) and early russian planes.

They LOST the war, but that doesnt make there pilots or planes poor.......

[Pongo]

Johny Johnson fought the whole war too. Whats your point.

Best fighter in history is a question wrapped in its place and time.
I think the only way to really assess that is by asking the people that are the victems of that aircraft. And by that standard I think it has to be the F15 in 1980.

[frank3]

Cheers to Gerhard

[F4UDOA]

Isegrim,

Your sig is a German pilot that test flew a Spitfire and thought it was pathetic.

What exactly did he think was pathetic? Handling, speed, climb?

Is there more text with this?

[VO101_Isegrim]

Originally posted by F4UDOA
Isegrim,

Your sig is a German pilot that test flew a Spitfire and thought it was pathetic.
What exactly did he think was pathetic? Handling, speed, climb?

Is there more text with this?

It`s Werner Moelders, in 40 or 41. I dont have the book right in front of me, so... From memory, he liked the handling, takeoff, ie. the general behaviour of the plane, but critized it for being slow in dives, and for the carburrator cut-out under negative G. Basically, I believe his sentence means that while the Spit was great as an aircraft, it was unsuited by it`s merits for the modern requirements of air combat, which was characterised by teamwork, high-speed passes, vertical combat etc., rather than the close range dogfights the Spit excelled in.

[Knegel]

Originally posted by MiloMorai
The only bull is from you Barbi. How many 109s left on May 8 1845, when Germany unconditionally surrendered?

Out of the ~55,000 109s and 190s manufactured there was less than 1300 able to fly.

There was also more LW pilots killed in the 109 than any other fighter type.

Hi,

if you look to the trainingdrill of the LW in 1944/45 , when the LW lost most pilots, noone can wonder about this fakt.
And since the 109 got build 35000 times, and fought on all european frontiers its even more logical that many pilots did die in it, specialy if we take in account that this often terrible pilots had to face 3-10 times more oponents with a very good skill (at least in the west). Till 1943 the LW still had many good pilots and so the 109 could show its power, later the rare getting aces could still prove that the 109īs was more than a hand full if it was flown by a good pilot.

If i remember right Galland told this after he did fly a Spit1A, probably he wasnt enthusiastic about the rollratio and the acceleration.

Greetings, Knegel

[MiloMorai]

Never mind with the excuses Knegel.

You have to take the good with the bad.

[Squire]

Werner Molders took a Spit up for a spin, neeto. What does that prove, he liked the fighter he flew, trained, and fought in better?

Shocking, considering WW2 is so full of succesfull fighter pilots always saying how they liked the oppositions fighter better? LOL.

[Batz]

What are you whining about squire? F4U asked Isegrim about his sig, why get your panties in bunch?

[Squire]

"I believe his sentence means that while the Spit was great as an aircraft, it was unsuited by it`s merits for the modern requirements of air combat, which was characterised by teamwork, high-speed passes, vertical combat etc., rather than the close range dogfights the Spit excelled in."

Oh I dont know, blathering nonsense like that can do it I guess. Maybe its a mid week thing .

[Batz]

If you know anything about Moelders or the LW you would understand why he said that about the spit.

I could also post an A. Galland quote asking for spits. Doesn't seem like much to get all uppity about.

It must be a "commonwealth" thing.

[Squire]

"I could also post an A. Galland quote asking for spits."

Oh I can just imagine your reply to a post like that from somebody else. Oh yes, the model of self control that you are.

I could spend all day every day responding to BB tripe...I choose where and how, so today was the day. Live with it.

[Batz]

It doesn't bother me a bit. You are just being your "usual self". I was just wondering why over something as silly as this.

At least you are getting an opportunity to vent.

[Squire]

Sure a lot of posts from your not caring. Thanks for stopping bye.

[GScholz]

Since this thread is basically just a rehash of many similar threads I will just rehash some of my old posts:

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.

Originally posted by GScholz
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

Originally posted by GScholz


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.