Author Topic: 109 it fly wrong (Read 16069 times)

Kweassa · « **Reply #150 on:** May 15, 2004, 01:10:02 PM »

Come to think of it, this is an interesting one.

Let's try a P-51D vs F4U-1 comparison. Despite all the performance advantages the F4U-1 holds, the P-51D is still more easier to fly - the F4U airframe with bad stall characteristics, huge torque, ground-looping tendencies.

So, according to your agenda, you reall do belive that the F4U-1 is an obsolete aircraft by 1944, don't you?

If you do not, then you have some serious double-standard problems.

GScholz · « **Reply #151 on:** May 15, 2004, 02:44:31 PM »

Crumpp really trusts his unit historian. I'm sure he's been told they found out the 109 was obsolete while on an OSS mission in Norway.

F4UDOA · « **Reply #152 on:** May 15, 2004, 03:02:14 PM »

Kweassa,

The P-51D had far worse stall characteristics.

The F4U stall was only bad for a carrier A/C. The P-40 and P-51 were both worse by comparison.

VO101_Isegrim · « **Reply #153 on:** May 15, 2004, 04:03:44 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by MiloMorai
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.

It`s one of those really funny Mindless Moron comparisons, full USAAF strenght including servicable and non-sericable planes of both 1st line and both 2nd line units vs. only the servicable, only the 1st line units of the LW.

Comparing like with the like, on hand vs. on hand s-e engined fighters in 1st line (combat) units only, then we have 5002 USAAF fighter vs. 2493 LW s-e fighters: 1435 Bf 109s and 1058 other fighter types, mainly FW 190s. As per 'The last year of the LW' by Price, these units even then held an impressive 70-80% servicibility rate even in 1945 on avarage.
Further 527 and 359 were in 2nd line fighter units, not counting just planes standing in aircraft depots waiting to be issued.

Quote

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?

These are your numbers, not the actual facts. Furthermore, you don`t even underastand the definition of established strenght, on hand strenght, and combat-ready(=servicable) stregnht, for you are comparing servicable fighters with your claimed and obviously faulty est. strenght, and then claim they were at 44% strenght, whereas the figure that would give it is established strenght vs. on hand figures.

Quote

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

If your claim is true, then many Allied pilots must have avoided the combat area far, far away.

Kweassa · « **Reply #154 on:** May 15, 2004, 05:31:10 PM »

Quote

Kweassa,

The P-51D had far worse stall characteristics.

The F4U stall was only bad for a carrier A/C. The P-40 and P-51 were both worse by comparison.

That's even better!

Reverse the whole thing:

The P-51D is faster, good all around vision, incredibly long range and the "supreme" aircraft after 1944. But gee too bad - bad stall characteristics, potentially dangerous quirks and flaws compared to the rigid and rugged, straight-forward F4U-1..

Man, the P-51D is an obsolete craft compared to the F4U-1 !!

MiloMorai · « **Reply #155 on:** May 15, 2004, 05:35:09 PM »

You are always good for a chuckle Barbie.

Quote

If your claim is true, then many Allied pilots must have avoided the combat area far, far away.

[/b]

No Barbie, LW a/c were as scarce as teeth in a chicken's mouth.

GScholz · « **Reply #156 on:** May 15, 2004, 05:52:36 PM »

If you're saying that many US fighter pilots never saw a German plane over Europe then you're beyond all reason.

MiloMorai · « **Reply #157 on:** May 15, 2004, 06:21:01 PM »

What's the matter Barbie, can't admit you lied?

Barb

Quote

Neither very-very late, they saw service first in October 1944, 200 already, few months after P-51D.

MM

Quote

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.

2493 is only 76% of the JGs full strength establishment of a/c. So why were they not at full establishment strength if Germany had so many se fighters? Could they not be brought up to full strength with those thousands off se fighters you claim were coming of the assembly lines?

Also, 70% of the LW was facing the Western Allies so that has 1745 se fighters 'onhand' in the West.

75% servicability is only 1308 se fighters. Just remember that a 'u/s' a/c is just scrap metal.

Now take your own advice, and compare fighters in the West(ETO, MTO) only.

Nice try at deseption, but not this time. But if you don't, the USAAF had 15,190 1st line fighters 'onhand' in Jan 1945.

The RAF had well over 150 fighters squadrons to add in.

Well naturally I am using 'servicable' se fighters since the JGs, according to you, had thousands of se fighters that could replace those not servicable.

Seems that was an impossibility . The USSAF had not problem replacing any a/c that went 'u/s' from the a/c parks holding thousands of ready replacment a/c.

......
Allied pilots saw many LW a/c, but not in the air.

Just what was left of them > you know, thousands of wrecks.

GScholz · « **Reply #158 on:** May 15, 2004, 06:30:13 PM »

You are beyond all reason.

Xjazz · « **Reply #159 on:** May 15, 2004, 07:21:31 PM »

Its funny to read the BS topic.

Our Bf10G2/6 pilots did very well with obsolite POS planes during the ww2.

If you know squirks of yours AND opponet planes, then... Make it count. Rest is BS.

Get over it

HoHun · « **Reply #160 on:** May 16, 2004, 07:08:28 AM »

Hi 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.

Nonsense. The high-speed manoeuvrability of the Me 109 did not get any worse during WW2, so if it was obsolete for that reason at the end of the war, it must have been obsolete for the same reason at the beginning of the war.

Not to mention that the P-47, the P-38 and the Spitfire all had high-speed controllability problems of their own, some of them worse than the Me 109's. Were they obsolete, too?

>Gunther Rall advises the pilot NOT to fly the plane unless he has a factory trained mechanic check out the brakes.

For flying an irreplaceable historic WW2 artifact worth millions of dollars, that sounds like a good idea. I'm sure the Luftwaffe pilots had their trained machanics check out the brakes during WW2, too.

>1/3 of the 109's manufactured were lost in landing and takeoff accidents!

If you're serious about that number, what's your source?

>The 109 did maintain some advantages throughout is lifecycle in WWII.

Against the P-51D, it held speed, climb, specific excess power and sustained turn advantages at most altitudes :-)

>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.

Please be specific. Which bad characteristics? No sniper rifle comparisons please.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

HoHun · « **Reply #161 on:** May 16, 2004, 07:19:48 AM »

Hi Crumpp,

>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. [...] The Fact remains the 109 is known for it's high landing accident rate by those who flew it.

Actually, I did an analysis of JG26 loss rates, and found that there was no change in the frequency of landing accidents when JG26 switched over to the Focke-Wulf Fw 190. Accordingly, using the very same source you suggested, we have to consider all claims about the excessive accident rate of the Me 109 a myth.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

Crumpp · « **Reply #162 on:** May 16, 2004, 09:10:38 AM »

Hohun,

It does seem the Flight Journal figure I quoted comes from an "unknown" Flight Journal Source. However it still remains a fact due to the inherent design tradeoff's of the 109 that it did have a higher accident rate. I think it was called a "Pilot's Monument" in German when a pilot nosed over a 109.

As far as your "analysis" of the JG26 data, I will go so far as to call you a liar on that one.

Crumpp

Staga · « **Reply #163 on:** May 16, 2004, 10:10:48 AM »

Calling someone a liar is easy but if you should also prove that somehow; otherwise people are thinking you're just a sore loser and not worth of converstion.

Put your money where your mouth is or quit calling people liars without any proofs.

MiloMorai · « **Reply #164 on:** May 16, 2004, 10:15:57 AM »

The geometry of the 109's l/g gave it a toe-in. So if a wing went even slightly high this toe-in would be exagerated and more so for the higher the wing went. If the pilot was not quick enough to catch this un-level wing set, the toe-in would cause the a/c to turn to the side with the wing high. The higher the wing, the quicker the turn.

.........

Staga, where were you when Barbi was doing his name calling?

One would think you have a bias.