The enigma of the Bf-109

[tikky]

38 threads turn crap fast because you and other die hard 38 fans want to make it a dweeby plane(-L) that...

*goes 450+ @ hi alt:rolleyes:
*turn circles like A6M:rolleyes:
*dive at 500mph and can pull out:rolleyes:

38 is already uber, no point to make it a dweeb plane:rolleyes:

[Meyer]

Here's what we know....

1) The plane was tough to takeoff in.....
2)  The plane was tough to land in....
3) The plane was tough to control at "combat alt"....
4) the plane was tough to control at high speed
5) the plane had poor overall visability
6) the plane had a high pilot workload

     

1) yes
2) like all warbirds
3) no
4) no, better than average ww2 warbirds
5) average
6) not at all, much less than any american fighter (yes that includes P51)

[humble]

Originally posted by Meyer
1) yes
2) like all warbirds
3) no
4) no, better than average ww2 warbirds
5) average
6) not at all, much less than any american fighter (yes that includes P51)

3) "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"

4) significant data exists regarding the problems 109's had at high speed, especially in a dive....even Mark Hanna (who flew the plane "nuetered" commented....."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."

5) Again numerous sources comment on the poor visability of the 109....as an example "Mike Spick, Lutaffe fighter Aces" page 196...

"actually the view "out the window" is not so good, the heavy framing of the windshield and the canopy could conceal a whole gaggle of russians...."

6) engine management alone was much worse in the 109 than many other planes. I could easily go find 2-3 specific comments but for now this will do....

experienced German operational pilots have described its landing characteristics as “malicious” "

Once again I'm amazed at the unsupported comments from the peanut gallery.  I haven't posted anything that I havent backed up....show me what you've got.....

[humble]

Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts


And I thought P-38 threads turned to crap pretty fast.

What amazes me is the inability to document a single facet of the opposing arguement.

In fact they support my position....

You already know that Barkhorn on the question about best fighter of WW2 answered: On high altitudes P-51 and low altitudes Yak-9

The #2 alltime expertain viewed the P-51 as superior at high alt and the Yak-9 at low alt....

Further...

I have to tell you, that Messer had one extremely positive thing, it was able to be successful fight Yak`s at 2000m and Aircobras at 6000m. This is truly unique ability and valuable

Here he's praising the 109 for its high alt performance vs the P-39 (8,000M is ~19,000+ft)....the plane was considered useless above 12,500 according to most sources. The Yak 1 was a quality aircraft....in 1942. with a top speed of 360 & climb rate of ~3900/ft it was inferior to the 109 F in both area's...

So in one article we have documentation that the p-51 and yak-9 were superior to the 109 according to the luftwaffe's #2 ace. We also have the soviet pilots comments that the 109 G6 was superior to the P-39 at 8,000m and to the yak 1 at 2,000m and on par with the la-5 a 1943 fighter....

With "opponents" like this I really dont need to do much.....

[Glasses]

The 109's high workload?

Uh it had automatic rpm,  charger settings,and manifold all in one  ?  

No allied aircraft that I've known had the same thing.

Sure it had worse visibility that other aircraft that had bubble canopy,and some like the Fw but it was improved later on.

Have you looked at the cockpit of a P-47,the F4U?

The 109 had flaws but it certainly was not a fighter  that could not compete with its counterparts. The main  problem with the 109 in the late war was it was outproduced and  out numbered by the allied counterparts, not only that  but  many allied pilots,at least many more than the Russians had half a brain in fighter tactics and  could compete with the LW, what it lacked in experience it made up for numbers.  

The late war 109s were specifically designed to be interceptors get up there  stay fast and make slashing passes.

So I mean either the 109 had some advantages or the pilots were superhuman, I don't think you'll admit to either . I do not think the latter is the best explanation.


I mean it wasn't a friendly plane to new pilots , but when considering most kids at late war had only 20 hours of flight training and glider flight traning at best, then going into a high performance 2000hp plane you're gonna have pilots getting killed . If the americans or the british or the russs....wait they did it  
did the same thing you'd see the same thing happening to their pilots.

Even the "relatively" friendly planes that had great visibility and had wide landing gear, and what have you are as good as the pilot  that's flying it has been trained.  

No aircraft in WW2 was an easy aircraft to take off from, there were procedures that those aircraft had for take off and landing, they followed those procedures and they made it home, and those that didn't either the plane didn't make it or they did. All of these are and were high performance monsters, ask anyone who was flown at least   one  high performance single engine  airplane and they will tell you.


I'm not particularly a 109 fan....as  many posts that  I have that mention the words Kurt and Tank can attest to what aircraft is my favorite.

[humble]

Glasses....

I dont disagree with a single point you made above. I never said the 109 was a dog. Simply that by wars end it wasnt a premier fighter. The plane struggled at higher altitudes and required constant pilot vigilance. It was not suitably designed as a bomber interceptor and couldnt fight mustangs up high with the bombers. Seperating out the horrendous conditions facing the germans in late 44/45 the plane itself simply wasnt competitive with the p-51/tempest/spitXIV/Sea Fury. It wouldnt of been competitive with the F4u-4/F8F or F7F either. It simply was a plane pushed beyond its design limits.

I'm constantly amazed by the various claims that the planes overall reputation is tainted by the "victors". No one doubts the panther or tiger were superior to the sherman (or M-26 for that matter). The Ki-84 and other japanese planes are recognized as outstanding designs given the limited raw materials and poor manufacturing the japanese struggled with in 1944-45. The C.205 is widely regarded as one of the better designs of the war and possibly the best midwar fighter of any nation....certainly regarded by the luftwaffe as superior to the 109.

The 109 was one of the truely outstanding designs of the early war period. for whatever reason it never really evolved like the spit, pony, jug, laag-3, yak-1, p-38, p-39 or other planes which truely evolved over time. The 109 was simply modified....a big difference....

[HoHun]

Hi Glasses,

>No aircraft in WW2 was an easy aircraft to take off from, there were procedures that those aircraft had for take off and landing, they followed those procedures and they made it home, and those that didn't either the plane didn't make it or they did.

Exactly! :-) And the Me 109 procedures were hardly different from those for other high performance fighters.

Here's a summary of Me 109 handling characteristics (relying on the comments by Walter Eichhorn and several other pilots who have rebuilt "Albstadt Me 109G-4" to flying status last year):

Pre-take off check: Tail wheel locked, gear handle down, propeller control on manual, take-off pitch selected, flaps 20°, electric fuel pump on. Radiator flaps manual, fully open (they double as landing flaps, so you want them in a defined position.)

Take-off at 2300 U/min and 1.15 ata (maximum continous power according to war-time settings) takes six seconds until lift-off at 180 km/h. (I once timed a Spitfire take-off and got the same 6 s. Interestingly, the F-16 needs only 6 s, too :-)  Power is applied smoothly to avoid a swing. There is a slight tendency to the right at the beginning of the roll and a strong tendency to the left when the tail is raised.

The tail shouldn't be allowed to raise too high as the propeller only has 17 cm ground clearance. Standard lift-off occurrs at 5° angle of attack at 180 km/h.

After raising the gear (which takes 30 s - compared to about 12 s for the Fw 190), flaps are raised and propeller and radiator control are switched to automatic.

Stall in clean condition is very docile. The Me 109 drops to the left at 140 - 150 km/h, control is immdiately restored on releasing elevator and centering rudder. Aerobatics in general are no problem, but Sigi Knoll comments that he avoid to initiate rolls at speeds below 200 km/h. At speeds above 300 km/h, stick forces begin to increase and can require forceful inputs.

Preparation for landing begins with switching radiator control back to normal and opening the radiator flaps fully. At cruise power, speed drops to below 300 km/h then. Propeller control is set to manual and landing pitch is selected. At 250 km/h, flaps are extended to 20°. Gear is lowered at 200 km/h, flaps extended to 40°. Speed for final approach is 180 km/h, a slight turn is advised in order to improve visibility.

Bubi Hartmann (who had originally checked out Walter Eichhorn in the Me 109) recommended to treat the Me 109 like a sailplane for landing. Eichhorn follows that advice and lands with a minimum of throttle changes. Even small throttle movements give large power changes so it's easy to overcorrect and fly a rather unsteady approach with corrections all the way to touchdown. (Interestingly, Jeffrey Quill had a similar experience on the Spitfire, requiring a change of the throttle quadrant to yield longer travel on the Griffon Spitfires in order to retain controllabilty.)

In order to avoid that, Eichhorn just concentrates on a smooth approach, "better 5 km/h on the high side than 5 km/h on the low side".

Wilhelm Heinz considers the Me 109 "lammfromm" (completely docile) as long as it's treated right. However, he also points out that the pilot has to be diciplined and stay within certain defined boundaries because there are not many reserves in the case of a pilot error.

As you already mentioned, 2000 hp planes of any build tend to be rather unforgiving if you take them beyond the limit, so I don't think the Me 109 sticks out here :-) One resource that I found particularly interesting in that regard is Deakin's "Pelican's Perch":

http://www.avweb.com/news/columns/182146-1.html

Note that he treats all Warbirds he has flown with the kind of respect expressed by Heinz, too - including the T-28 Trojan which as a tricycle trainer aircraft of "modest" power doesn't look too intimidating on first sight ;-) Of course, Deakin knows why ...

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

[MANDO]

humble, what is a plane that outaccelerates, outclimbs, outturns and almost matches in speed a P51D? Was the 109K a obsolete war machine or a deadly fighter?

[humble]

Originally posted by MANDO
humble, what is a plane that outaccelerates, outclimbs, outturns and almost matches in speed a P51D? Was the 109K a obsolete war machine or a deadly fighter?

Actually a piece of fiction since the 109K didnt do the above.

Again my original comments acknowledge the 109s outstanding vertical performance and the fact that it remained competitive in the hands of the expertain.  However the plane wasnt a match for the pony at prevelant combat altitudes. Additionally there was no standardized K model, many of the G10/14 were similiarly configured and not many were fully configured for high altitude.

Given the fact that all high performance aircraft are unforgiving the 109 is significantly more so. I've seen multiple quotes from Galland that it was tough to take off in, Rall said it was horrible to land and its the only plane I've ever heard describes as malicious.

When you consider the E had 1500 crashes alone specific to landing take off it illustrates the problem. These were all experienced pilots who completed full training at a time when germanies was on par or better then any other nations flight training. Even if we assume that only 1/3 resulted in destroyed airframes you have 500 planes lost. When you consider the germans only deployed 217 109s in the invasion of poland it gives you an idea of the numbers. Lets further assume of those 500 severe incidents that 60% of the pilots walked away. Thats 200 badly hurt or KIA pilots...certainly in line with the 5% number I put up earlier and far far worse than any other front line fighter.

The 109 flourished not because it was a great plane but because it had better pilots and better tactical doctrine. By the end of 1943 the plane simply was no longer on the leading edge.

How many of you fly? Do you understand the concept of pilot work load? Even in civilian aviation going from a plane like the 172 to any complex single engine is a quantum leap. Now imagine flying the plane in a combat enviornment....a 200 hour baby seal in a G-10 in 1944 had his hands full just flying the plane ACM wise at alt....so he goes thru recovers from his multiple spins and missed chances and heads for home drenched in sweat...slightly unnerved by the different "feel" coming thru the stick and seat due to the airflow changes provided by a few .50 holes...airfields in sight, he relaxes wipes the sweat from his eyes lines up for final realizes he's a bit short overcorrects and augers....happened all to often. As for combat....he's not gonna put that plane anywhere near the edge at 25,000 to 30,000 ft where the mustangs play...if barkhorn couldnt do it (curious about his thoughts on mustangs since he flew all EF however) who is....

[Kurfürst]

Originally posted by Glasses
Izzy can I copy and paste it in another forum?

Sure, why not, I got it the same way ! A google search will probably give you the exact url, too.

[Kurfürst]

Originally posted by humble
Personally I think the 109E & F4 were outstanding for their time. THe spit V outclassed them both and the balance wasnt restored till the 190-A3 was introduced.

Spit V outclassing the 109F-4 ? WOW, what interesting new things we learn here !

[MiloMorai]

Here you go Barbi, some of the guys quotes (won't give you a link since we don't need you as a member:))

Enjoy the read.

The only signficant thing the Bf109-G was better at than the P-51 was climbing. In every other relevenant catagory of comparison, the P-51 was superior.

At high-medium to high speeds, the P-51 out manuvered the G-10 substantially at all altitudes.

5 minutes was the recommended limit of WEP usage. But pilots often maintained WEP power for 15 minutes or even longer. The 5 minutes was a recommended limit, nothing prevented longer usage. A properly operating P-51 at good speed had no overheating problems at any power level. The 109 on the otherhand, would overheat after one to two minutes at high speeds (and not necessarily even at full power).

Also, the Packard Merlin was known to be more robust than the RR Merlin. It was built using superior materials, and production quality was generally higher. This is not a dig at the British, they simply did not have as good of alloys and they were more pressed to maximise production quantities at the cost of a little production quality.

The problem with the 109 design is that it was never intended to attain those kinds of speeds for sustained periods. The scoops are subject to boundary layer seperation, and later models even had a boundry layer diverter to avoid turblence from this effect. Once the boundary layer lifts (upside-down) away from the lower surface of the wing at the scoop inlet, there is very little effective cooling from the radiators since they aren't getting a steady flow of air.

An airfoil involves what is referred to as the boundary layer. This is a layer of air molecules that are relatively stationary with respect to the wing (or other airfoil surface). Molecules near the wing move with the wing, then as the distance from the wing increases, there are increasing levels of exchange with fast moving ambient air molecules (though this is still relatively small), and then there is a point further from the wing where there is ambient airflow (ie: still air through which the wing is passing). The faster the plane goes (within the subsonic realm - rules change for transonic/supersonic flight) the thicker the boundary layer.

The issue arises when the air flowing across the bottom of the wing encounters the scoop, which creates a back-flow resistance to the air flow. This tends to lift the boundary layer away from the wing and create boundary layer ingestion, which is turbulent air entering the scoop which diminishes cooling efficiency. As speed increases, the problem gets worse, until finally it becomes chronic and the boundary layer lifts up and flows completely over the scoop, creating a vacuum in front of the scoop. It then slaps down to fill the vacuum, then builds up again and repeats the cycle. Air flow into the scoop is non-existent when the flow is over the scoop, and extremely turbulent when it slaps down and does enter the scoop. This greatly diminishes cooling efficiency.

It was not an issue on the E series, they didn't go fast enough to encounter it except in dives where it was not such a big issue (as power was reduced significantly anyway). It started to become a slight issue on the F series, and it was a significant issue on the G series but was never dealt with, probably because there really is no good solution for wing scoops.

By 1944 the Bf109 was long in the tooth. Its design had never considered 400 mph class level speeds, and its cooling system was not made for such speeds. With the cooling system barely functional, the radiators overheated rather quickly.

Yes... in a climb. It was not power output that was the issue, it was speed. All the German WEP and SEP systems were quite useable for extended periods at the lower speeds utilized while climbing, typically about 180 mph, where the cooling system was at peak efficeincy. This had no relevance to the ability to maintain top speed in level flight.

MW50 could certainly be used for 10 minutes or even more. But not for speed. This was used to support fast climbs, usually at about 180 mph where the cooling system is at peak efficeincy.

[humble]

Originally posted by Kurfürst
Spit V outclassing the 109F-4 ? WOW, what interesting new things we learn here !

The spit V decimated the the 109F over europe...the rollout of the 190 A3 reversed the fortunes of war...basically the RAF refused combat as much as possible until the spit IX could be fielded in numbers. From that point on the 109 was on the decline....simple history....

Not that you care about incovienent things like facts and reality...

[humble]

Originally posted by MiloMorai
Here you go Barbi, some of the guys quotes (won't give you a link since we don't need as a member:))

Enjoy the read.

The only signficant thing the Bf109-G was better at than the P-51 was climbing. In every other relevenant catagory of comparison, the P-51 was superior.

At high-medium to high speeds, the P-51 out manuvered the G-10 substantially at all altitudes.

5 minutes was the recommended limit of WEP usage. But pilots often maintained WEP power for 15 minutes or even longer. The 5 minutes was a recommended limit, nothing prevented longer usage. A properly operating P-51 at good speed had no overheating problems at any power level. The 109 on the otherhand, would overheat after one to two minutes at high speeds (and not necessarily even at full power).

Also, the Packard Merlin was known to be more robust than the RR Merlin. It was built using superior materials, and production quality was generally higher. This is not a dig at the British, they simply did not have as good of alloys and they were more pressed to maximise production quantities at the cost of a little production quality.

The problem with the 109 design is that it was never intended to attain those kinds of speeds for sustained periods. The scoops are subject to boundary layer seperation, and later models even had a boundry layer diverter to avoid turblence from this effect. Once the boundary layer lifts (upside-down) away from the lower surface of the wing at the scoop inlet, there is very little effective cooling from the radiators since they aren't getting a steady flow of air.

An airfoil involves what is referred to as the boundary layer. This is a layer of air molecules that are relatively stationary with respect to the wing (or other airfoil surface). Molecules near the wing move with the wing, then as the distance from the wing increases, there are increasing levels of exchange with fast moving ambient air molecules (though this is still relatively small), and then there is a point further from the wing where there is ambient airflow (ie: still air through which the wing is passing). The faster the plane goes (within the subsonic realm - rules change for transonic/supersonic flight) the thicker the boundary layer.

The issue arises when the air flowing across the bottom of the wing encounters the scoop, which creates a back-flow resistance to the air flow. This tends to lift the boundary layer away from the wing and create boundary layer ingestion, which is turbulent air entering the scoop which diminishes cooling efficiency. As speed increases, the problem gets worse, until finally it becomes chronic and the boundary layer lifts up and flows completely over the scoop, creating a vacuum in front of the scoop. It then slaps down to fill the vacuum, then builds up again and repeats the cycle. Air flow into the scoop is non-existent when the flow is over the scoop, and extremely turbulent when it slaps down and does enter the scoop. This greatly diminishes cooling efficiency.

It was not an issue on the E series, they didn't go fast enough to encounter it except in dives where it was not such a big issue (as power was reduced significantly anyway). It started to become a slight issue on the F series, and it was a significant issue on the G series but was never dealt with, probably because there really is no good solution for wing scoops.

By 1944 the Bf109 was long in the tooth. Its design had never considered 400 mph class level speeds, and its cooling system was not made for such speeds. With the cooling system barely functional, the radiators overheated rather quickly.

Yes... in a climb. It was not power output that was the issue, it was speed. All the German WEP and SEP systems were quite useable for extended periods at the lower speeds utilized while climbing, typically about 180 mph, where the cooling system was at peak efficeincy. This had no relevance to the ability to maintain top speed in level flight.

MW50 could certainly be used for 10 minutes or even more. But not for speed. This was used to support fast climbs, usually at about 180 mph where the cooling system is at peak efficeincy.

Thanks....not that any of these guys will bother to read it....after all its all lies and propaganda:)

[HoHun]

Hi Kurfürst,

>Spit V outclassing the 109F-4 ? WOW, what interesting new things we learn here !

Don't feed the troll.

http://www.beim-zeugmeister.de/zeugmeister/uploads/pics/_LW_A0001_B001.jpg

Me 109F-4 flight test result: 670 km/h @ 6.3 km, 622 km/h @ 4 km

http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/aa878.html

Spitfire V flight test result (+16 lbs/sqin):

* 595 km/h @ 4 km

Me 109F-4 flight test result:

* 622 km/h @ 4 km

However, the Spitfire V was not cleared for +16 lbs/sqin until about August 1942.

From the flight test of the same aircraft:

Spitfire V (+12 lbs/sqin):

* 587 km/h @ 5 km

Me 109F-4 flight test result:

* 643 km/h @ 5 km

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)