Author Topic: 109 it fly wrong (Read 16075 times)

Crumpp · « **Reply #120 on:** May 13, 2004, 10:00:23 PM »

Read the thread Kweassa I'm not rehashing it.

The 109 was obsolete according to the Luftwaffe by 1943. They didn't have anything to replace it so they had to soldier on til something better came about.

That is a fact.

Crumpp

Pyro · « **Reply #121 on:** May 13, 2004, 10:38:20 PM »

The G-10 in AH is basically a K-4. The reason the G-10 was chosen over the K-4 is because the K-4 had standardized the armament to the MK 108 while the G-10 allows you the choice between that and the MG 151/20.

Kweassa · « **Reply #122 on:** May 13, 2004, 11:23:15 PM »

All there is some measly comment on how "the controls stiffen at certain speeds, and how that must obviously mean the 109 was obsolete" - yet even up to the last days of war planes having serious problems at high speeds was the norm, and planes that didn't have much trouble were still rather few. Heck even the P-47 and P-51 had troubles with high speeds.

Besides that single point you refuse to acknowledge speed, maneuverability, climb, acceleration, and a various many factors without any reason, evidently.

Crumpp, you don't have anything to rehash, because you never gave us anything conclusive, or that makes sense, up to date.

So I URGE[/i] you to pick out just exactly what kind of attributes a fighter must have, and which of them the 109 was exactly "obsolete" in. It's a long thread. If you are really so confident than it shouldn't be too hard to briefly summarize your point.

straffo · « **Reply #123 on:** May 14, 2004, 01:33:40 AM »

Another point to check about obsolescence is the industrial tooling and cost.

The industrial process for the 109 was known and mastered (plus the 109 was pretty ahead in term on industrial process even in the early war version) it was from a industrial POV pretty well designed and didn't cost a lot to be produced compared to some other German planes.

HoHun · « **Reply #124 on:** May 14, 2004, 02:21:07 AM »

Hi Crumpp,

>I know the differenece between IAS and TAS. I fly a real plane on occasion.

Well, you seem to miss its tactical significance, though. At high altitude, the indicated air speeds at which the Me 109 was control force limited simply couldn't be achieved. The limitation was the Mach number, and that's an aspect were the Me 109 was fairly good. It could go to Mach 0.79, far beyond what the P-38 or the P-47 could achieve, though the Spitfire was still better.

>Nice data, but we are talking about the real plane not some games version. All the sources I have including flight graphs from the RLM of the 109G with DB-605D AND GM-1 put the max top speed between 685-695 Km/h.

Those graphs are mostly early 1944 Messerschmitt calculations, not RLM flight test data. Many of them are for MIL, not for WEP. I'm quite confident the Aces High team has done some quality research, though :-)

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

HoHun · « **Reply #125 on:** May 14, 2004, 02:38:08 AM »

Hi Crumpp,

>If the pilots are equal and the performance of their equipment is not, then the equipment is obsolete.

By that definition, the Me 109 indeed was NOT obsolete since its performance compared quite well to the P-51's.

The Me 109 held the climb advantage, and any version with MW50 injection also held the speed advantage at low and medium altitudes.

If the P-51D high-altitude speed was superior as you claimed, which I'm quite ready to assume for the sake of the comparison, this still left the Me 109 with the climb and acceleration advantage up high.

Due to its better power loading, it just had the better specific excess power so it could gain an energy advantage on the Mustang quite easily.

In a "target-rich environment" - which is just a great euphemism for being heavily outnumbered - the Me 109's climb rate advantage was quite useful because it meant that it could get above the enemy formations in a rather short time, and of course it helps your competitiveness if you bring extra altitude into the fight :-)

In short, the Me 109 was only inferior in performance in some regards to the P-51, and superior in others. By your own definition, that means it just as much or as little obsolete as the P-51 itself.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

HoHun · « **Reply #126 on:** May 14, 2004, 02:45:50 AM »

Hi Crumpp,

>The 109 was obsolete according to the Luftwaffe by 1943.

Which definition did the Luftwaffe use as basis for their 1943 statement?

As I pointed out, Galland demanded a superior fighter, not merely an equal one, in 1943.

The new fighters the German aircraft manufacturers were preparing would have been superior, if they had been ready in time. (Mostly, they delayed because the required engines were well behind schedule.)

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

HoHun · « **Reply #127 on:** May 14, 2004, 02:55:28 AM »

Hi Crumpp,

>Again why do we have such an uncommon late war varient IF the more common ones were competative?

Well, this almost sounds as if you're ready to concede that the Me 109G-10 is competitive :-)

In that case, your entire case would crumbble because it proves the competitiveness of the airframe.

Remember: "Me 109" is just the designation for the airframe.

If all you need to do is to mount a powerful late-war engine to an existing airframe to make it competitive again, it wasn't the airframe that was obsolete, it was the engine.

Not that I'd agree that the DB605 was obsolete, but it certainly would be a more intelligent hypothesis to begin with than Carson's old "Me 109 obsolete" myth :-)

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

HoHun · « **Reply #128 on:** May 14, 2004, 03:02:20 AM »

Hi Kweassa,

>So I URGE[/i] you to pick out just exactly what kind of attributes a fighter must have, and which of them the 109 was exactly "obsolete" in. It's a long thread. If you are really so confident than it shouldn't be too hard to briefly summarize your point.

Very good point :-)

In fact, it might be a good idea to devise a fighter A vs. fighter B comparison matrix based on rational, factual parameters that gives us a relative score saying something like "fighter A was 18.2% better than fighter B".

Not that I really believe it would accurately reflect history, but the learning effect from devising such a matrix would be great, and we could use it to break dead-locked threads by saying "At least, the Rational Fighter Comparison says ..." :-) If then someone still disagreed with the result, he could point out exactly where he thought the matrix gave the wrong score ...

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

Angus · « **Reply #129 on:** May 14, 2004, 04:43:41 AM »

From HoHun:
"Well, you seem to miss its tactical significance, though. At high altitude, the indicated air speeds at which the Me 109 was control force limited simply couldn't be achieved. The limitation was the Mach number, and that's an aspect were the Me 109 was fairly good. It could go to Mach 0.79, far beyond what the P-38 or the P-47 could achieve, though the Spitfire was still better. "
In a screaming dive the 109 would be able to pull away from most allied planes, - for a while.
In the dive, the 109 was sluggish, - the P47 could still roll. Levelling out of the dive, the P47 would still be really close to the 109.
Since a typical engagement of say 109 vs bombers covered with escorts would be a diving pass, the P47 or the P51 as an escort was a nightmare to the 109.
Not that it made the 109 obsolete......

GScholz · « **Reply #130 on:** May 14, 2004, 10:28:19 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Batz
All the 109s in AH are competitive, I only fly the G-6 and kill far more late war monster then ever could kill me...

So whats your point? I think the G6 is the best 109 in AH....

Quote

Originally posted by GScholz
*lol* I mostly flew the 1941 F4 model in AH with a 5 to 1 k/d. I'm considering picking up a G2 in AH2.

Quote

Originally posted by Crumpp
Niether the 109G-2 nor the F4 were late war 109's. No one is claiming the early-mid war 109's were obsolete.

This must be the greatest argument ever posted in this forum *lol*. I suppose the Germans should have just stopped with the F4 and G2 since they were not obsolete ... I mean, how dumb were they ... developing those obsolete 109s when they already had competitive ones?! *LOL!*

Crumpp · « **Reply #131 on:** May 14, 2004, 11:24:33 AM »

What a moronic (it means really stupid GSholtz) statement. Guess you have never owned a watch and noticed the hands move in a clockwise fashion.

Time marches on......Things change. With your logic the BundesLuftwaffe should still be flying 109's!!!!!

Crumpp

GScholz · « **Reply #132 on:** May 14, 2004, 12:13:49 PM »

No, you didn't get the irony I guess. Batz stated he was very successful in the 109G6 against late-war planes, and most of my kills in the 109F4 are late-war rides. My k/d in the 109G10 is better than in the F4, but I just enjoy fighting in it more.

AH is only a game, but it is created by a company that takes great pride in accuracy. When 109F4s, G2s and G6s are successful against late war rides like P-51s, P-38Ls, La-7s etc. it says something about the performance of the plane. The 109G10 has the ability to dominate every fight. Same with the 190D9 and Ta-152 ... there were just too few of them with too few trained pilots to fly them.

Unless you are arguing that the performance of the late war 109s were WORSE than the F4 and G2, then logic demands that the 109 was indeed a competitive fighter in 1944 and 1945.

Angus · « **Reply #133 on:** May 14, 2004, 12:48:06 PM »

Well, errr...I also killed a Spit XIV with a Spit I, as well as other 5 planes and landed 14 perks after a 20 minute flight, but.....

GScholz · « **Reply #134 on:** May 14, 2004, 12:54:38 PM »