109 it fly wrong

[VO101_Isegrim]

Originally posted by Crumpp
Which captured 109G?  The test flight at Farnborough had multiple 109G's to choose from.  In Eric Browns words "a steady diet of Me-109's".  Amoung the Gustav's available were a 109G-2 and a 109G14/U4.  Got pics of both in RAF colors.

Brown flew a 'wilde sau' Bf 109G-6 with gunpods in mid 1944, it`s clear, he also list the Wrknummer, whihc was 412 xxx IIRC (2 lazy too look it up exactly) etc. The G-2/trop you mentioned just become unairworthy just before the test were flown IIRC, not to mention it was already in rather poor condition when the British captured in late 1942.
Never heard of a G-14/U4 being flight tested by the British, it would be most interesting to see that report, if it`s not a mistake. A crashlanded G-14, most likely a converted G-6/U2 again, was examined by the Brits, but AFAIK it was not airworthy.

In fact, all the evaluations, opions are seem to root in just 3 Bf109s inspected by the British: a belly landed Bf 109E with a bent fuselage, a damaged Bf 109G-2/trop with air filter, and EB`s Bf 109G-6/U2 gunboat with 20mm gondolas.

[Carson got his data from Farnborough.  I don't see where his conclusions are wrong.  

Just about everywhere. Starting with the fact applying experience gained on a captured, damaged, unknown 1939 version to later, fundamentally different versions like ignoring such 'tiny' differences that the range of the 109 tripled in the meantime etc.
OK, here`s my carsonian statement. The P-51 was hopelessly outlcassed by 1944, because it had extremely poor high-altitude performance. Of course, I based my statement on the P-51A, like Carson.

Eric Brown uses the word "considerable" to describe the rudder forces in a dive on a 109, others use "seriously inconvenienced", Carson choose "a very heavy foot" and lastly the Luftwaffe used "unacceptable".

Brown says the rudder was light, period.



"The rudder is effective and if medium feel up to 300. It becomes heavier above this speed but regardless the lack of rudder trim is not a problem for the type of operations we carry out with the aeroplane. "

-Mark Hanna

Here`s another one for G-2/trop:

"The rudder force to centralise the slip ball is low, but constant rudder inputs are required during manoeuvres to minimise sideslip.   If the slip ball is not kept central, the lateral force on the pilot is not uncomfortable and no handling problems occur, but it looks very untidy in a display."

-Dave Southwood.


As for Carson, he doesn`t know ***** about it, he never even seen one closeup,  I bet. As for the LW saying it`s unacceptable - where?
 

He got the reason wrong but nonetheless the fact remains, the 109 WAS obsolete by 1943.  Messerschimtt knew it, the Allies knew it, and the Luftwaffe knew it.  Only one's who do not seem to know it are some folks in this forum.

[

It`s not a fact, it`s a joke, and the guy who you are describing is yourself.

But if you wish, I can start posting Bf 109K performance curves vs. ANYTHING that saw combat over Europe in WW2.

[Angus]

The 109 was about as obsolete in 1945 as other piston engine fighters......

But seriously, as a 30's design, the 109 and Spitty were really doing incredibly in 1945.

[VO101_Isegrim]

Originally posted by Crumpp
Only folks in this forum are holding on to the wishful fantasy the 109 was not obsolete by 1943.   Even the Luftwaffe knew the truth.  
Crumpp [/B]

Why was it obsolate ?

[GScholz]

Originally posted by Angus
The 109 was about as obsolete in 1945 as other piston engine fighters......

But seriously, as a 30's design, the 109 and Spitty were really doing incredibly in 1945.

Agreed.

[moot]

How would any plane in production for a few years not be obsolete to one on paper?

It did the job, that's the bottom line.

[straffo]

Originally posted by Crumpp
Again,  

Only folks in this forum are holding on to the wishful fantasy the 109 was not obsolete by 1943.   Even the Luftwaffe knew the truth.  

Crumpp

It's a stupid post the 109 was obsolete like the  51 38 47 spit typhoon and a lot of piston fighter just because it was the start of the jet ...


In fact I wonder what is your creteria for obsolescence ?

[HoHun]

Hi Angus,

>Did the 109 have that much more drag? The Spit would however have more lift induced drag (more total lift) or what?

Yes, the larger wing of the Spitfire was the reason the Me 109 had slightly less drag. With regard to streamlining of fuselage, tail, radiator airflow etc., I don't think there was anything to choose between the Me 109E and the Spitfire I.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

[Angus]

Spot on then.
 The 109 would always have a higher top speed for the equal hp, for at high speeds it generates plently of lift.
The Spitty will then have an easier  run and acceleration at the lower speed bands, - lower wingloading will lead to lower a of a at lower speeds, hence lower drag in that sense.
Similar they are, until they start banking and pitching, where the different wingshapes start playing a different role....

[HoHun]

Hi Crumpp,

>Carson got his data from Farnborough.  I don't see where his conclusions are wrong.  

Well, his conclusion with regard to rudder trim was:

"Consequently, at high speeds the 109 could turn far more readily to the right than to the left."

It wasn't because of this conclusion that joined the discussion :-)

You also quoted Carson with:

"But another household work, the highly propagandized Me-109G, was obsolete when it was built and was aerodynamically the most inefficient fighter of its time."

Carson's conclusion is based entirely on the Spitfire comparison which doesn't stand the test of mathematics - which is what I pointed out above.

>He attempted to explain WHY the 109 was obsolete by 1943 for his readers.  He got the reason wrong but nonetheless the fact remains, the 109 WAS obsolete by 1943.  

Get the reason wrong, and your conclusion is invalid. That's what happened to Carson.

(And by the way, the Me 109G came out mid-1942.)

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

[HoHun]

Hi Crumpp,

>Only folks in this forum are holding on to the wishful fantasy the 109 was not obsolete by 1943.   Even the Luftwaffe knew the truth.  

I guess our difference mostly stems from the ambiguity of the term "obsolete".

You could well fix the date when the Me 109 became obsolete as the 15th May 1943 when Adolph Galland flew the Me 262 for the first time and immediately recommended it for series production.

The Me 262 was a leap forward - a new, ground-breaking technology incorporated into an airframe that yielding performance that in every aspect was far superior to that of the Me 109, and with superior armament, too.

However, how the Me 109 fared in combat was unaffected by the prototypes that were tested at Messerschmitt and Focke-Wulf. What determined the outcome of the air war was (besides numbers) the relative performance of the Me 109 and its opponents, such as the P-38, P-47 and P-51.

Handling qualities played a role as well, and in fact I consider the P-51 superior to all three of the other aircraft due to its viceless handling in combat. However, apart from controllability issues at high speeds - not unusual if you look at the P-38, P-47 or Spitfire -, the Me 109 handled quite well, too, and its performance certainly was up to par.

If you look at the Aces High data for the P-51D and Me 109G-10, you'd see that the Mustang is completely outclassed performance-wise below 24000 ft. Above that, the Me 109G-10 concedes the top speed advantage, but still retains a considerable climb rate advantage.

So while one might call the Me 109 "obsolete" in 1945 with some justification, it certainly stayed "competitive" in actual air combat. I'd say that only by looking at both sides of the coin, one can get an accurate picture :-)

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

[VO101_Isegrim]

"(And by the way, the Me 109G came out mid-1942.) "


Aye, this is the most intriguing part, I wunder, compared to what fighter of mid-1942 the high alt 109G-1 and the normal 109G-2 and F-4 would prove obsolate... ?

(Hint: They represented the very zenith of 109 performance relative to others.)

[Crumpp]

Isegrim

The 109G-2 (werk-Nr 10639) was captured in Sicily and shipped to Liverpool on 26 December 1943 and was subsequently flown as RN228.

Brown says the Rudder Forces were "light" at cruising speeds.  In a Dive they were in his words "considerable".  The Luftwaffe said "unacceptable".

Eric Brown doesn't say exactly how many 109's the RAF flew.  He just says a "steady diet".  Sounds like more than 3.  Your info on the "unflyable" 109G2 is wrong and your info on the number of 109's flown by the Enemy Aircraft Flight is probably in error also.  It's all listed in the Hard Cover Second Edition Printing (1987) of Eric Brown's "Wings of the Luftwaffe".    You can also see several good examples of of other captured Bf-109G-6's that the RAF flew in "Messerschmitt Bf109F-K, Development, Testing, and Production" by Willey Radinger and Woflgang Otto on page 99.  All have different Werk-Nr and RAF registration numbers than the examples pictured in Brown's book.  That's photographic proof of at least 3 109G-6's, 109G-2, and a 109G-14 without even digging hard.

In reference to the 109's great range being tripled.
Please explain how the 109's had such great range?  Every source I have says roughly an hour flying time for a G-10 at cruising speed and about 45 minutes above cruising speed.  In fact, the 109B-1 had a pitiful range of 460 Km.  The 109G-10 had a range of 640 Km.   I think you meant that in ten years of development they increased the 109's range by a THIRD not three times.  

So show me without the use of a drop tank, how the 109's range tripled? Cause just about every plane with a drop tank has it's range doubled or tripled.  That's the point of drop tanks, right?  Let's use the same slide rule.

Definition of Obsolete IMO.

I define a fighter being obsolete when equal pilots cannot achieve a victory.  By 1944 only the experten had a chance to survive going one on one with your average trained allied pilot.  If you do not have a technological parity then one of you is flying an obsolete plane for the fight.  The 109 was that plane after 1943.

Put in the mix in a Target rich enviroment and sure some are gonna score.  Especially when the fight occurs in the 109G's "best performance" zone above 25,000 feet.


Hohun,

the discussion was on the rudder forces of the 109 NOT on it's drag coefficient.  In the end it is your conclusions that matter NOT how you arrived at them.   Just look at the Theory of Relativity or Antenna Theory.  Quite a few holes in them, yet we still got the Atom Bomb and can talk on our cell phones.  In that light Carson's conclusion's are valid.

When you refer to "prototype" testing at Messerschmitt and Focke-Wulf are you refering to Beauvais and Gollob's test flight?  In that test the planes flown were an FW-190A2 (no Umrustsatz or Rustsatz kits, just the Air Superiority fighter version) and a Bf-109F4 (no Umrustsatz or Rustsatz, just the Air Superiority fighter version).  both Aircraft were configured with full internal fuel and full combat ammo loads.

Crumpp

[GScholz]

Originally posted by Crumpp
I define a fighter being obsolete when equal pilots cannot achieve a victory.  By 1944 only the experten had a chance to survive going one on one with your average trained allied pilot.

The 109 and Spitfire are equal or superior in combat to any US fighter at any specific time in WWII. The US fighters were great strategic fighters, but sacrificed some performance to achieve range. The 109 and Spitfire were "fighter fighters" to quote Yeager (IIRC). Your comparison is ridiculous considering in 1944 the LW was hopelessly outnumbered and ordered to avoid allied fighters to get to the bombers. The fact that the Experten managed not only to survive, but to claim an astonishing number of victories in 109s under those circumstances is a testament to the 109s performance.

[Crumpp]

Numbers are one vs one and it's explained in the text so break out your dictionary and read it.  Since English is your second language your excused.  

Sorry, Gsholz as much as you admire your former conquerers, the 109 was obsolete by 1943, at least according to  Generalleutenant Galland and Generaleutenant Schmid.

Crumpp

[GScholz]

How do you justify your claim that 1 on 1 the 109 couldn't survive against an allied fighter, both with equally skilled pilots and equal advantage?

And btw. your ignorance is showing. The 109's "best performance" zone was not above 25k.