109 it fly wrong

[GScholz]

I've shot down Shane in my F4 (he in his La-7). It was an "arranged" fight in the MA.


... felt rather good about that actually.

[Crumpp]

Yawn

[HoHun]

Hey Crumpp,

>Yawn

Get the sleep out of your eyes and answer the following posts, please :-)

HoHun 05-14-2004 08:21 AM
HoHun 05-14-2004 08:38 AM
HoHun 05-14-2004 08:45 AM
HoHun 05-14-2004 08:55 AM

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

[VO101_Isegrim]

Originally posted by Crumpp
Some of you guys are still confusing the Game modeling with the actual performance.  NONE of the reference material I have list's the 109G10's top speed as high as AH has it modeled.  

Crumpp

.. and what reference material would that be ?

Have to agree with Kweassa, until you really tell us why exactly was the Bf 109 'obsolate' by 1943, I don`t think there would be much need to argue.

As for the rest:

"It does state in "Messerschmitt Bf 109 F, G, and K Series : An Illustrated Study" by Jochen Prien and Peter Rodeike that the 109G10's were fitted in every instance with a DB605DM. "

ad1, It does not, DM was fitted to the early G-10s, there`s factual evidence of 605DCO etc. being fitted to G-10s that were examined.

As well as there`s no sign of any indication of GM-1 ever being used on Bf 109s with large compressors, the increased altitude performance of the engine made it unneccesary; it would be dead weight under 10 000m or so, practically 99.9% of the combat time.

[Crumpp]

That's about a stupid statement Isegrim.  Go look at the performance charts posted above.  It clearly states DB605 with GM-1.

The book you and I are quoting is by some of the most respected 109 authorities around.  They will tell you that 109G10's are not standardized.


Say something else Isegrim, Please!

[Crumpp]

As far as the late war 109's being obsolete.  I have already covered that.  With their control forces and manuverability problems at high speed the effectiveness of the plane for your average trained pilot placed in an ineffective status.  

You ever read "Flight Journal's Magazines"  WWII fighter edition?  Gunther Rall advises the pilot NOT to fly the plane unless he has a factory trained mechanic check out the brakes.  Here is a guy who just gonna take a hop around the airfield in it. 1/3 of the 109's manufactured were lost in landing and takeoff accidents!  The plane had some horrible characteristics.

I'm not talking about the planes usefulness in AH nor about mid war and earlier varients.  We have a rare very late war varient of the 109G10 that is a 109K for all practical purposes. The 109 did maintain some advantages throughout is lifecycle in WWII.  It did pioneer some avaition firsts and deserves to be listed amount the great fighters of the world.  However you had to be a really really good pilot to take advantage of them by 1944 and to most pilots the planes bad characteristics outweighed it's good ones.  

It became sort of like a Sniper rifle.  A very useful weapon.  In the right hands a Sniper Rifle can engage targets faster and at longer ranges than a Machine Gun AND still remain hidden from enemy observation.  However the average rifleman cannot engage targets at 400 meters and beyond with it.  Give him a Machine Gun with some tracer ammo and he will hit the target after a few burst's.

Is a Sniper rifle obsolete?  No, not in the specialized catagory it is used in.  Would it be obsolete as a primary weapon for your infantry soldier?  Of Course.  Your army would be back to WWI carrying bolt action rifles.

The 109 as the primary weapon for the single engine dayfighter pilots was obsolete after 1943 just as the Luftwaffe says.

Crumpp

[Kweassa]

That's about a stupid statement Isegrim. Go look at the performance charts posted above. It clearly states DB605 with GM-1.

 Hohun already answered. To sum it up that's a "what-if" chart, drawn from calculations of how a 109 with a DB605 would perform IF, it was ever equipped with a GM-1.

You ever read "Flight Journal's Magazines" WWII fighter edition? Gunther Rall advises the pilot NOT to fly the plane unless he has a factory trained mechanic check out the brakes. Here is a guy who just gonna take a hop around the airfield in it. 1/3 of the 109's manufactured were lost in landing and takeoff accidents! The plane had some horrible characteristics.

 You're saying 33% of some 35,000 aircraft produced, some 11 thousand 109s were lost in take-off and landing accidents alone? That's really funny, cause the last time I checked, it was more like 5% - which was more or less the typical number for any plane of that time.

We have a rare very late war varient of the 109G10 that is a 109K for all practical purposes.

 Both the Bf109G-10 and the Bf109K-4 is a 1944 plane. Nor were they "rare". By your definition of "very late war" the P-51B and the P-51D also falls under the category, and should not be used in comparison.

The 109 did maintain some advantages throughout is lifecycle in WWII. It did pioneer some avaition firsts and deserves to be listed amount the great fighters of the world. However you had to be a really really good pilot to take advantage of them by 1944 and to most pilots the planes bad characteristics outweighed it's good ones.

 Like, which characteristics? And what's your standards for this alleged "measurement of weight"?

 

Is a Sniper rifle obsolete? No, not in the specialized catagory it is used in. Would it be obsolete as a primary weapon for your infantry soldier? Of Course. Your army would be back to WWI carrying bolt action rifles.

 By doing this, you are effectively denouncing the worth of every attribute a certain plane holds, and crunching them into a singular comparison which standards are totally out of context and order. It's elaborate, but meaningless.

The 109 as the primary weapon for the single engine dayfighter pilots was obsolete after 1943 just as the Luftwaffe says.

 Just like the P-38 and P-47 was totally obsolete as an important fighter of the war in the latter days, right?

 Or how about this?

 According to your agenda of a "general purpose fighter" being the most important thing of them all, and all other "special purposes(as in your 'sniper rifle' comparison)" are to be considered "obsolete", then clearly the P-51D is also a pretty obsolete plane.

 As a standard "fighter", for air-superiority purposes, the Spitfire Mk.14 is clearly a superior fighter - combining some best of characteristics of both the 109 and the P-51D. Fast, sleek, lightweight, good armament, good climb, good maneuverability, fair handling at high speeds, good performance at high altitudes. good visibility.. you name it.

 So by 1944, the USAAF started using a clearly obsolete plane as a pure "fighter", an Air-to-Air superiority aircraft, but still had no choice as the P-51D was the only thing that flew that long, right? Just like the LW had no choice but to use a clearly obsolete fighter as a point-defense interceptor?

[VO101_Isegrim]

Originally posted by Crumpp
As far as the late war 109's being obsolete.  I have already covered that.  With their control forces and manuverability problems at high speed the effectiveness of the plane for your average trained pilot placed in an ineffective status.  

The Bf 109 did not have any seriously restrictive problems despite you suggest that and fail to back up. Neither because the reasons HoHun has pointed out, neither because its high speed controls werent worser than the avarage, in fact they were better than many.

1/3 of the 109's manufactured were lost in landing and takeoff accidents!  The plane had some horrible characteristics.

Thats a BS number. 33%? Why isn`t it reflected in any LW loss report, why the type`s combat/non-combat losses differe very little from the FW 190?
Ask any Bf 109 pilot and they will tell you it was one of the most benign, pilot friendly planes once in the air. Takeoff and landing has to be treated with respect, true, nothing sort of surprising with such a high power s-e fighter of the time.

[I'm not talking about the planes usefulness in AH nor about mid war and earlier varients.  We have a rare very late war varient of the 109G10 that is a 109K for all practical purposes.

2600 G-10s were produced.
~1800 or so, equivalent performer G-14/AS and G-6/AS were produced.
1700 K-4s were produced.
That`s a LOT, not rare...

LW records show 60% of the Bf 109s being G-14/AS, G-10, or K-4 type by end of Jan 1945. Rare...?
314, or 25% of them alone were K-4s. Neither very-very late, they saw service first in October 1944, 200 already, few months after P-51D.

However you had to be a really really good pilot to take advantage of them by 1944 and to most pilots the planes bad characteristics outweighed it's good ones.  

Yeah like 90% automated eninge controls, good armor protection, very benign stall charactericstics and handling, great manouveribility in dogfight, unsurprassed climb rates, excellent dive and zoom charachteristics, short take off run, and probably the best acceleration of any WW2 fighter, good sighting view, simple controls, simple maintaince, repair, and production, powerful cannon armament etc.

Bad characteristics? Tendency to ground loop if not handled correctly, higher than avarage elevator forces - equivalent of that of the P-51 BTW.. That`s all.

The 109 as the primary weapon for the single engine dayfighter pilots was obsolete after 1943 just as the Luftwaffe says

Yeah-yeah, we heard that so many times, 'the LW says'. Where, my friend? Nah, ONLY Crumpp says.

[VO101_Isegrim]

Originally posted by Crumpp
That's about a stupid statement Isegrim.  Go look at the performance charts posted above.  It clearly states DB605 with GM-1.

From K-4 (DB 605D) manual :



No mention of GM-1...

[MiloMorai]

314, or 25% of them alone were K-4s. Neither very-very late, they saw service first in October 1944, 200 already, few months after P-51D.

The 51-D was with the 4th FG 8th AF in Feb '44. That is 8 months before the G-10 and K-4 appeared. At that time (Oct '44) there was 12 FGs equiped with the 51-D. (~720 a/c) The USAAF had a total of 3341 51-Ds in Oct '44.

In Jan '45 there was 14 8th FGs with the 51-D(~840 a/c) At that time the LW could only muster 1462 servicable se fighters. The USAAF had 5002 fighter a/c at that time vs Germany.

That`s a LOT, not rare...

If that is so, why did so many Allied pilots complete their ToD without seeing any LW a/c?

[Crumpp]

My God,

there are some desperate folks in this forum.


The loss rate of the 109 in landing accidents is documented.  If you happen to own "JG53 Pik As" Series by Jochen Prien or "JG26 War Diaries" you can follow the 109's accidnet rate as the pilot training deteriorates in the Luftwaffe.  Their is no way to confirm the 11,000 quoted by Flight Journal nor is their anyway to confirm the 5,000 other sources quote.  The Fact remains the 109 is known for it's high landing accident rate by those who flew it.  

Willy Messerschmitt designed the 109 landing gear with the intention of remove the drag cause by thick wing chords needed for wide track landing gear.  The retracting mechanism for the 109's main landing gear was located in the fuselage giving the 109 a narrower wing profile at the fuselage.  Tradeoff for this is a narrowtrack landing gear which decrease's the planes stability on landing making things more difficult for the pilot.  The landing gear was splayed in an attempt to add stability.  Angling the Gear means to maintain landing gear strength you have to have thicker material which is more wieght.

The 109 was known for weak landing gear, weak brakes, and an affinity for groundlooping.  All these characteristics add up to increased landing and takeoff accidents.  I would have thought so many "109" experts would have known this.  I see what we have in reality is a bunch of "my plane is perfect and how dare you say it isn't".

http://www.xs4all.nl/~tozu/me109/foreign/109-Yugoslavia.htm

Here is an example.

Crumpp

[MiloMorai]

Further, as of 12.44

JGs and their theoretical establishment strength

JG1 - I, II, III, IV > 196 a/c
JG2 - I, II, III, IV > 196 a/c
JG3 - I, II, III, IV > 196 a/c
JG4 - I, II, III, IV > 196 a/c
JG5 - I, II, III, IV > 196 a/c
JG6 - I, II, III > 144 a/c
JG11 - I, II, III, IV > 196 a/c
JG26 - I, II, III > 144 a/c
JG27 - I, II, III, IV > 196 a/c
JG51 - I, II, III, IV > 196 a/c
JG52 - I, II, III, IV > 196 a/c
JG53 - I, II, III, IV > 196 a/c
JG54 - I, II, III, IV > 196 a/c
JG76 - I, II > 96 a/c
JG77 - I, II, III > 144 a/c
JG300 - I, II, III, IV > 196 a/c
JG301 - I, II, III, IV > 196 a/c
JG302 - I, II, III, IV > 196 a/c


Total: 3272 a/c

calculated as:
Stab = 4 a/c
Staffel = 12 a/c
Gruppe = 3 Staffel

Now I know that someone will come along and say the LW had x number of se fighters in the JGs. The question I ask them is, why then were the JGs only at 44.7% of their establishment strength if there was this x number of se a/c?

[GScholz]

This is getting truly ridiculous.

[Batz]

Crumpp you haven't got a clue, Non combat 109 losses were no higher then any other lw fighter... Around 5% or so...

You get more ridiculous with each post..

[Kweassa]

My God, there are some desperate folks in this forum.

 More like disbelief than desperation - as you continue your "obsolete cursade", despite countless opinions that beg to differ, without any substantial evidence to back it up.

 ...

The loss rate of the 109 in landing accidents is documented. If you happen to own "JG53 Pik As" Series by Jochen Prien or "JG26 War Diaries" you can follow the 109's accident rate as the pilot training deteriorates in the Luftwaffe.

 And is that a result of trainees lacking practical training being prematurely sent into a field of battle to return home after a stressful fight, or is it a result of a design flaw?

 Landing accidents and inherent dangers of such action is common in virtually all aircraft and yet, such unfriendly characteristics alone is never a basis for claiming something to be obsolete - as practically no plane is ever "user-friendly" enough. From what you are implying it seems your standards of "user-friendliness" would be more suited modern-day planes with tricycle landing gears and electronic aviation, rather than a WW2 era tail-dragger.

 Again, according to your standards, the inherent problems infesting some late-war US airframes also never really went away. The "Ensign Eliminator", as the F4U called was the most notorious Navy aircraft of them all. Not to mention the tendency to violently enter a spin during stall situations, which made this plane also very "user-unfriendly".

 So, if we situate a simular comparison between a Fw190D and a F4U-4, with simular characteristics in performance specs and yet, hugely sensitive and unfriendly stall characteristics, inferior high speed handling, and potential dangers of landing accidents - is that alone enough for some of us to say "The F4U-4 was an obsolete design by 1945"?

 ...

Their is no way to confirm the 11,000 quoted by Flight Journal nor is their anyway to confirm the 5,000 other sources quote. The Fact remains the 109 is known for it's high landing accident rate by those who flew it.

 Why should it be so? Okay let's actually try counting the actual reasons: It's a light-weight, relatively fragile airframe compared to bulky US planes. The problem of line of sight, is an inherent problem in all tail-draggers. The plane has a power-engine with a large amount of torque. Narrow landing carriages are always tricky.

 Okay, which plane should we compare? How about the Spitfire? Simular performance specs, also a light built-plane with even narrower landing carriages than a Bf109?

 ...

Willy Messerschmitt designed the 109 landing gear with the intention of remove the drag cause by thick wing chords needed for wide track landing gear. The retracting mechanism for the 109's main landing gear was located in the fuselage giving the 109 a narrower wing profile at the fuselage. Tradeoff for this is a narrowtrack landing gear which decrease's the planes stability on landing making things more difficult for the pilot. The landing gear was splayed in an attempt to add stability. Angling the Gear means to maintain landing gear strength you have to have thicker material which is more weight.

 Again, simular thing with basically anything with landing gears narrower than something like a P-47. The Spitfire steadily increased the width of the landing gears throughout development, but it never was wide as any other plane. So that should probably suggest the same sort of troubles as the 109 - except obviously no one seems to be wanting to drag this to the surface, or much better, no-one in their sane mind claims the Spitfire was "obsolete" due to its character quirks.

 ...
 

The 109 was known for weak landing gear, weak brakes, and an affinity for groundlooping. All these characteristics add up to increased landing and takeoff accidents.

 How about this one? From a guy flew 109s decades after the Luftwaffe of the Third Reich went out of business?
 
"In summary, the Bf109G is a demanding aircraft to fly.  The workload is high maintaining directional control on take-off and landing, although in flight the stalling and pitch characteristics are god. I would advise anyone planning to fly a '109 to get lots of experience and confidence in other large piston-engined taildraggers first.

 However, if its peculiarities are understood and the take-off and landing limits are strictly adhered to the '109 can be operated perfectly safely.  I treat the '109 with greater respect than anything else that I fly, but the challenge of trying to fly it well gives me greater satisfaction and enjoyment than probably any other aircraft.  But I am never satisfied- I now have an ambition to fly an Emil; the Bf109E."

 - Dave Southwood



 Initially every aircraft has about equal amount of characteristics flaws. How about the Mustang's flawed design to shed its wings upon high speed maneuvering? The gun-jammin at high Gs? The Typhoon's notorious fame for losing its tail? The difficulties of the Corsair in vicious stalls and dangerous landings?

 Name any WW2 plane you think is "not obsolete", and I'll bet we can find a design flaw, or a characteristic quirk that manifests as a potential problem. P-38? P-51? P-47? You name it, we'll deliver.

 But unlike you, we have no intention of branding a certain plane "obsolete" due to its problems. Because clearly we know how to draw a line in "relative inferiority" and "absolute obseleteness".

 So far what have you come up with?

1) Problems in control stiffness
2) Characteristic quirks during landings and take-offs

 Come on, name any plane which you consider "not obsolete" by your own standards. Let's see if it doesn't have any "character flaw" of its own.

 ...
 

I would have thought so many "109" experts would have known this. I see what we have in reality is a bunch of "my plane is perfect and how dare you say it isn't".

 You got it all wrong dude. It's "your plane sucks" vs "why is that?", which evidently the former doesn't seem to come with anything substantial.

 Besides, this is an interesting question I'll bet - the landing/take-off difficulties was inherent in all 109s regardless of the timeline. How in the world is that going to help you prove that during a certain point the 109 started to become obsolete, when that 'problem' existed throughout the entire history of the airframe?

 And that quirks, you seem to suggest, is such a problem that despite this plane(okay, granted the Bf109G-10 and K-4 shall not be used as a comparison. So, how about a G-6/AM or a G-6/AS? G-14?) gains superiority in number of performance attributes, it's still obsolete?

 No, this is not about defending 'my plane'. It's about smacking a biased opinion that has no basis.