Author Topic: The enigma of the Bf-109 (Read 9729 times)

Naudet · « **Reply #60 on:** February 16, 2005, 03:06:51 PM »

Kurfürst,

Quote

Yep, that`s why I am interested in how would a plane with the same design pattern would make one plane free of to an aspect directly relating to that design pattern.

Two different airframes will have different flying charateristics, that's it.

Just because the Bf109 had to use high rudder forces to fly straigh at high speeds, doesnt mean the FW190 had the same issue JUST because the trimming system is build to the same pattern.

I study WW2 aircraft now for ten yeas and for the Bf109 there are numerous mentionings about the rudder input that was needed to keep the plane flying straight in climb & dive, while for the FW190 i never came across one.

And if you hang to much to my statement "it didnt require any retrimming", that was quick typed sentense, where i didnt have in mind that someone would weight each word with a gold scale.
I guess the others in here know what i meant by this sentence, but to make it clearer to you i will try to reformulate it.

Each plane needs some sort of trimming, thats why the trim tabs are there, but with correcty set trim tabs the additional trim forces are very small with the FW190 and posses no handling penalty at all. They are indeed so small that retrimming for various flight conditions was considered unnecessary.

Quote

because my opinion is not that it`s a 'miraculous design without any flaws'

Is it not? Than you have a real problem making yourself clear. Whenever some statement from anyone in this BB implies that another plane type has the slightest advantage over the Bf109 you jump on it and call it untrue.
You always claim that noone besides you can back up anything, but you have in any case the needed documents to back up anything.

@Angus: Knights, you should know that Angus i got you atleast once.

Or don't you fly under the GameID Angus?

humble · « **Reply #61 on:** February 16, 2005, 03:21:49 PM »

I'll have to rumage around for them, however I'd assume its pretty common knowledge considering I'm not a hard core WW2 aviation type and have run into the comments/causulty numbers multiple times.

The 109 was simply not a particularly well designed aircraft by 1941 standards, obviously it was a world class design when it 1st flew in May 1935 in many ways but it was never a pilot friendly plane.

It's main US late war adversary (P-51) went on the drawing boards in late 39. The P-38 made its maiden flight in 1939, for whatever reason the germans decided to continue to up engineer a plane that was outdated by 1941. It's an interesting contrast to the US army and its decision not to start manufacturing the M-26 in 1943. Meanwhile the germans evolved from the Pz IIIj to the Pz IVh to the Panther to the Tiger.

The Grumman F4F flew in sept 37 and would be considered a contempory aircraft...it evolved into the F6F then the F8F by 1944...sadly the germans just stuck a bigger engine in their "F4F"...

humble · « **Reply #62 on:** February 16, 2005, 03:23:25 PM »

Is it not? Than you have a real problem making yourself clear. Whenever some statement from anyone in this BB implies that another plane type has the slightest advantage over the Bf109 you jump on it and call it untrue.

Yup.....

Then again lot of folks seem to like Yugo's also:)

HoHun · « **Reply #63 on:** February 16, 2005, 04:07:05 PM »

Hi Humble,

Just a short notice: You're on my ignore list now.

"Bottom line is simple, its a below average plane overall flown by brave men with no real other choice. 99 out of a hundred of em would of rather had a pony,tempest,la-7 etc...."

For other readers: Clean example for "facts from fantasy".

Bottom line is simple: A troll.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

humble · « **Reply #64 on:** February 16, 2005, 04:53:30 PM »

Personal attack

GScholz · « **Reply #65 on:** February 16, 2005, 05:55:51 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by GScholz

Me 109 G:
"So how does the aeroplane compare with other contemporary fighters ? First, let me say that all my comments are based on operation below 10,000 feet and at power settings not exceeding +12 (54") and 2700 rpm. I like it as an aeroplane, and with familiarity I think it will give most of the allied fighters I have flown a hard time, particularly in a close, hard turning, slow speed dog-fight. It will definitely out-maneuver a P-51 in this type of flight, the roll rate and slow speed characteristics being much better. The Spitfire on the other hand is more of a problem for the '109 and I feel it is a superior close in fighter. Having said that the aircraft are sufficiently closely matched that pilot abilty would probably be the deciding factor. At higher speeds the P-51 is definitely superior, and provided the Mustang kept his energy up and refused to dogfight he would be relatively safe against the '109.
I like the aeroplane very much, and I think I can understand why many of the Luftwaffe aces had such a high regard and preference for it."
- Mark Hanna of the Old Flying Machine Company flying the OFMC Messerschmitt Bf 109 G

109 G:
"The roll rate is very good and very positive below about 250 mph. Above 250 mph however the roll starts to heavy up and up to 300 or so is very similar to a P-51. After that it's all getting pretty solid and you need two hands on the stick for any meaningfull roll rates. Pitch is also delighful at 250 mph and below. It feels very positve and the amount of effort on the control column needed to produce the relevant nose movement seems exactly right to me. The aircraft is perfectly happy carrying out low-level looping maneuvers from 300 mph and below. Above 300 mph one peculiarity is a slight nose down trim change as you accelerate. 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 of the Old Flying Machine Company flying the OFMC Messerschmitt Bf 109 G

"The 109? That was a dream, the non plus ultra. Just like the F-14 of today. Of course, everyone wanted to fly it as soon as possible. I was very proud when I converted to it."
Major Gunther Rall, German fighter ace, NATO general, Commander of the German Air Force. 275 victories.

" I had made my own estimates of the performance and maneuverability characteristics of a lot of other single-seater fighters, and I'd be willing to wager that none of them represent the general, all-around flight and fighting characteristics possessed by the Me109."
- US Marine Corps major Al Williams.

Me 109 G:
"Fast and maneuverable Me 109 (G) would be a tough opponent in the hands of a skillful pilot. Messerschmitt was during it´s time an efficient fighter and would not be in shame even nowadays. Eventhough the top speeds of the today´s fighters are high the differerencies would even up in a dogfight.
Mersu (Messerchmitt) had three meters long engine in the nose were with 1 500 horsepowers. The speed was at it´s best 750 kilometers per hour. It turned well too, if you just pulled the stick"
- Mauno Fräntilä, Finnish fighter ace. 5 1/2 victories. Source: Finnish Virtual Pilots Association: fighter ace Mauno Fräntilä was creating the glory of the war pilots.

humble · « **Reply #66 on:** February 16, 2005, 07:30:05 PM »

Interesting quotes....

I'll disregard Mark Hanna, but the rest have merit.

Now Al Williams comments are based on his flight testing of the 109D in 1938. Compared to the standard marine corps ride of the time (Brewster Buffalo) I'd agree. THe 109D was certainly as good as any frontline fighter in service in 1938.....

Gunther Rall was flying the 109 at the begining of the war...what did he convert from?...at that time the other options were either a Me-110 or a biplane....yup I'd compare a 109D to a F-14 vs those other options....

Mauno Fräntilä flew G-2's in 43/44. The Fins compiled an outstanding record overall. I'm sure he was an outstanding pilot...

for the record....

17.1.1940 - flying Fokker D.XXI FR-90 - 1 SB-2

28.3.1942 - flying Curtiss Hawk 75 CU-572 - 1/2 I-153

28.3.1942 - flying Curtiss Hawk 75 CU-572 - 1 I-16

2.6.1943 - flying Messerchmitt 109 MT-217 - 1 LaGG-3

20.6.1944 - flying Messerchmitt 109 MT-410 - 1 Il-2

30.6.1944 - flying Messerchmitt 109 MT422 - 1 Yak-9

He shot down a Lagg-3, Il-2 & yak 9 (in a 109)

He had 5 kills in 380 sorties so his strike rate was an even 76.0...

It's amazing how easy it is to go and compile meaningless comments and take them out of context to support otherwise unteniable positions....

The bottom line is simple, the 109 was one of the premier fighters in the world in 1939. flown to its strengths by experienced pilots with superior tactics it was a tough nut to crack. As the war progressed the plane was repeatedly "up engined", with each upgrade the plane lost more of its handling and docility in return for greater speed and climb. No question that a superior pilot could utilize the raw power but the plane was a bear to fly. It was no match for any of the late war planes given equal pilot skill....obviously the pilot is still 80%+ of the equation and the top german expertain were in a league of their own....

GScholz · « **Reply #67 on:** February 16, 2005, 07:58:06 PM »

You'll disregard Hanna? By your "logic" the Spit was an obsolete aircraft too. I think I'll disregard you.

humble · « **Reply #68 on:** February 16, 2005, 08:01:24 PM »

I really dont want to get into an "argument" on something this trivial....especially since the truth is self evident to anyone who really wants to find it...as an example it took me less than a minute to find this....

This is a quote from Gunther Rall

"Most of us considered the 109G over-developed. Poor landing characteristics added to its woes."

Johannes Steinhoff (commander JG 77, Sicily July 1943)

"They're fitted with a high altitude supercharger and at anything over 25,000 ft they just play cat & mouse with us. At 28,000 ft the spitifre could turn in an astonishingly narrow radius. We on the other hand, in the thin air of those altitudes had to carry out every maneuver with caution and at full power so as not to lose control"

http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/spit9v109g.html

I'd be curious if anyone has access to Chilstroms flight test data on 109 right after the war??

humble · « **Reply #69 on:** February 16, 2005, 08:03:13 PM »

Personal attack

humble · « **Reply #70 on:** February 16, 2005, 08:07:42 PM »

Personal attack

GScholz · « **Reply #71 on:** February 16, 2005, 08:30:52 PM »

Personal attack

humble · « **Reply #72 on:** February 16, 2005, 09:27:06 PM »

Personal attack

Glasses · « **Reply #73 on:** February 16, 2005, 10:48:44 PM »

You know the 109's biggest flaw?

It wasn't designed by Kurt of the Tank

humble · « **Reply #74 on:** February 16, 2005, 11:01:34 PM »

"However, the tendency to swing on take-off and landing, which had first manifested itself during tests with the early prototypes, continued to plague the Bf 109E and contributed substantially to the Luftwaffe’s high accident rate, some 1,500 Bf 109 fighters being lost between the beginning of the war and the autumn of 1941 in accidents caused by unintentional swings."

http://www.malignani.ud.it/aer/bf109g/La%20Storia.htm

And thats the E model, the G was much worse.....

"With the phasing out of the F-series, the basic Bf 109 design might be considered to have passed the peak of its development, for with the introduction of the G-series the constant operational demands for increased fire power and additional equipment brought with them a serious deterioration in the fighter’s flying characteristics."

"The Bf 109G could not be flown in a landing circuit with Raps and undercarriage down other than at full throttle, and experienced German operational pilots have described its landing characteristics as “malicious” "

"Despite the advent of the very much superior Focke-Wulf Fw 190 fighter, production of the now elderly Bf 109 was progressively increased"