Super vrs Uber

[EdXCal]

Alright, if you like scrap all above... The main thing you seem to gun for is the fact that the Me109 is one of the most succesful aircraft in histroy, and you even claim that the 109 could out perform the F4u models.
Now my point is, the 109 was good plane, but not as good as numbers might make it out to be. All those 100+ kill aces, if they had flown here in the states they would have most likly had 1/3rd as many kills, they would have been rotated back to the states after so many missions.
And I beleave ealier statments about the 109 being outdated is very true, I say this because of the same thing that happend to the poor P-39... The 109 started out as a great fighter I beleave up too the 109G2 model, all the models after that we being more or less retrofitted for missions they were not built for. I also have a quote from a pretty good book for this subect.


"As the war progressed, the 109 was developed further, reaching it's peak performance parameters with the Me 109F, a plane that surpassed 400 mph (644kph) with all the climb and maneuverability of the earlier models. In the long run, however, Messerschmitt's dominace turned into a liability. The 109 was laden with heavier armament, bomb loads, electronices for night flying and even rockets (never head anything about rockets on a 109 before). The plane went through five further major modifications, each sacrificing performance for the sake of some mission capability. Instead of developing new designs to meet these mission profiles, the Luftwaffe stayed with the 109 and hoped the the added weight would not seriously diminish performance. But these expectations were not fulfilled, and in one of the great ironies of the war, Messerschmitt's power, responsible for the building of the dreaded war machines that was the Luftwaffe, became the root cause of the defeat of the German Air Force."

Me 109 section of Classic Airplanes

Now, everything is debaitable, but this is what I also beleave, it was often said that in '44 the germans should have stopped all production of all other aircraft other then the Fw190s and the Me 262s! The 109 was a great plane, but near the end, (what I beleave started at the G6) the aircraft got just to outdated.
Now to claim the aircraft was the most successful fighter in history is going a long way, I bet if the He-100 or He-112 was there main fighter in the start of the war history would have been much the same, same stats and everything... Pitty though, I would have loved to have seen that.

Edward

[Squire]

There is also an oft overlooked aspect to all the WW2 combat a/c that is not often discussed.

That is simply that fate, or the fortunes of war, as it were...played a part in how they were developed and used.

The P-51, as one example, was not built as an escort fighter. It was built to an RAF requirement (British) as a tactical fighter for them. Not the USAAF. The 1st versions had Allison engines, not Merlins. As fate would have it, as the USAAF started needed a long range escort fighter (1943), a version of the P-51 with a Merlin engine came along, almost as a fluke. Voila, 60 years later, its reffered to as a "great escort fighter".

The Bf 109 was designed, like the Spitfire, to be a short range fighter to defend against bomber attacks (both fighters developed in the late 1930s, neither had drop tanks untill 1941). As it turned out, they both ended up doing things they were never designed for, escort duty, and heavy bomber interception, and many other roles (tac recon, fighter-bomber ect).

Mosquito was designed as a fast, unarmed bomber, in 1940.

Fw190 was almost was rejected by the LW in 1941, for technical problems with its powerplants.

P-39 was not a great success for the western allies, but then we shipped some off to the Russians...

The B-17 was envisioned as a long range anti-ship bomber, defending a nuetral USA. Not as a heavy bomber flying in "combat boxes" over a hostile Europe.

Its always good to see the background and reasons they ended up doing what they did. 20/20 hindsight can also blind sometimes. None of the major combatants in WW2 knew the course the war would take, and I guarantee you few a/c designers did.

[Kurfürst]

Great last posts, Crummpp and Squire! Keep it up!

[HoHun]

Hi Edxcal,

>The 109 started out as a great fighter I beleave up too the 109G2 model, all the models after that we being more or less retrofitted for missions they were not built for. I also have a quote from a pretty good book for this subect.

There is a tendency to look at the switch from the G-2 to the G-6, which added some weight without improving the power, and make conclusions about the entire series from that one step. That the G-6 was followed by much more powerful variants is conveniently forgotten ...

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

[OttoJ]

EdXCal, you may of course believe whatever you want. If you want to adopt the opinion of the author of Classic Airplanes (or more likely he's just propagating the opinion of another author), then so be it. However I do not understand why you feel the need to post that authors opinion here instead of your own. You see, the popular beliefs and commonly accepted facts were founded by authors in the '50s and '60s who were working with very limited documentation. With the advent of the internet and a new generation of WWII historians and enthusiasts a wealth of new information has been mad available. Do your own research into the 109's performance and history and form your own opinions. If this is beyond your scope of interest, then I suggest you listen to those who have made the effort instead, because your uneducated opinions are then of little interest to anyone.

[Crumpp]

There is a tendency to look at the switch from the G-2 to the G-6, which added some weight without improving the power, and make conclusions about the entire series from that one step. That the G-6 was followed by much more powerful variants is conveniently forgotten ...

Absolutely,

It is no different from the belief that the FW190 kept the same exact horsepower output, CG limits, and "there is no difference between an A, G, or F" junk that is always repeated.

Therefore the series just got heavier and did not perform as well.....



All the best,

Crumpp

[Wilbus]

Crumpp, there were night-bomber modified 190 A5's equiped with wing drop tanks.

[Kurfürst]

Originally posted by HoHun
Hi Edxcal,

>The 109 started out as a great fighter I beleave up too the 109G2 model, all the models after that we being more or less retrofitted for missions they were not built for. I also have a quote from a pretty good book for this subect.

There is a tendency to look at the switch from the G-2 to the G-6, which added some weight without improving the power, and make conclusions about the entire series from that one step. That the G-6 was followed by much more powerful variants is conveniently forgotten ...

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

Yep and regarding the differnces, what were they ? The G-6 weighted a mere 100 kg more than the G-2, and was bit slower in max speed but that`s it. Slovakian pilots I read said they coud not see a difference, and the G-6s soon got a power uprate in sept/oct 1943 which evened things out.

Otoh they gained something effective instead of the puny 7.92 rifle calibers that were too small even in the spanish civil war to penetrate pilot armor, and the Erla hood finally offered very good view from the cocpit.. very good tradeoff for a few kph of max speed that doesn`t have much significane in dogfights imho.

[Crumpp]

Crumpp, there were night-bomber modified 190 A5's equiped with wing drop tanks.

There is no such thing as an FW-190G1 or FW-190G2 that rolled off the production line at Focke Wulf.

All FW-190A4/U8's and FW-190A5/U8's were blanket redesignated G-series when the decision was made to stop producing Umrüstbausätze.  

Some these U8's were modified as night bombers.

Most of these aircraft went to SKG 10.

All the best,

Crumpp

[EdXCal]

Hmm, well in my research oh the 109 I've found some interesting things...
First off, of the of the G models there were over 22,000 of the total 33-35,000 built (I've seen many numbers in between).  From most things I've read so far (reviews, dogfights and just statments among documents) the F was thought to be one of the best models, still very nimble and fast (for the time). The early G models were liked by the pilots, the G1, and G2 (G1 being pressiorized), but problems begain to show, mostly in turn rate and high angles of attack, though engine power in the G2 could often make up for this. Now in the G5 and G6 models (G5 also being pressiorized)  the added weight and drag without any engine power changed the CG and lowered the all around performance. The G10 was liked but from what I've read had alot of tech problem in it's release and early models had problems with the landing gear (added weight was a problem aswell as the new tail wheel) and the new engine had many teething problems. Though in the air it was as fast if not faster then many of the allies fighters it's turn rate was horrable even with the much increased HP.
Now I couldn't mind much on the G-14 oddly enough, but as far as I know it was basicly an improved G-10.
Now the K-4 I heard was wonderful, all the best parts of the later 109s peiced together, good performance, but far to little far to late. First models entering service in mid-late '44 and less then 800 total.

Now, as far as battle info I've found much of what I was saying earlier.
In the early war with Russia I was pretty much right, I found this:

"The preemptive German air strikes began on June 22, 1941. By the fall, Soviet air losses may have exceeded 7,000 aircraft."

But the Russians were very outdated in terms of aircraft and training.

Edward

[OttoJ]

The G-14 was a G-6 with MW50 injection and entered service in late 1943/early 1944. The G-10 was a G airframe updated to (or close to) K-4 standards.

[OttoJ]

Originally posted by EdXCal
Now, as far as battle info I've found much of what I was saying earlier.
In the early war with Russia I was pretty much right, I found this:

"The preemptive German air strikes began on June 22, 1941. By the fall, Soviet air losses may have exceeded 7,000 aircraft."

You were right about what?

[Bruno]

Now I couldn't mind much on the G-14 oddly enough, but as far as I know it was basicly an improved G-10.

The G-14 is not an improved G-10.

The G-14 is official name of the G-6 / MW-50 designation. Originally the G-14 designation was used internally by MTT for the G-6/R2 (recce G-6 with MW-50).

G-14 = G-6 + MW-50 (MW-50 = Water-Methanol 50% - 50% and is similiar to Ami ADI).

The G-6 had a DB605A, the G-14 DB605AM (M = MW-50)

The G-10 is an evolution of the G-6 using MW-50 (same system as G-6/R2) and the DB605DM.

It's a myth that some folks repeat that the G-10s were made from old airframes. This isn't necessarily true. The G-10 was produced alongside the G-14 as an evolution of the G-6 with DB605D and MW-50 while the G-14 was the evolution of G-6 with DB605A with MW-50. (DB605AM). Now some of the first airframes used for the G-10 were originally slated for G-6 production, or from airframes planned for mounting the DB605AM (G-14) in case no DB605AM were available. This is why you may find twin data plates on some G-10s.

You then have G-6/AS (DB605A + the larger SC of the DB603) and G-14/AS (DB605AM + the larger SC of the DB603).

As for the rest of this discussion its just silly to debate a particular aircraft's performance or obsolescence when one side has no idea what they are talking about.

[Squire]

"Great last posts, Crummpp and Squire! Keep it up!"

Ya, im pretty terrific.

Crummps ok when he's sober.

[Karnak]

Originally posted by Squire
Mosquito was designed as a fast, unarmed bomber, in 1940.

[/b]
Wel, it was designed as a multi-role aircraft.  It was sold as an unarmed PR aircraft initially because that was the only way de Haviland could keep it in development.  The RAF would only accept an unarmed, wooden aircraft as a PR bird.  de Haviland still made sure it had room for a bombbay and for cannons under the cockpit when he designed it.

The B-17 was envisioned as a long range anti-ship bomber, defending a nuetral USA. Not as a heavy bomber flying in "combat boxes" over a hostile Europe.

[/b]
The B-17 was developed as a heavy bomber without anything else envisioned.  It was sold to Congress by saying it would be used for defending the USA against enemy fleets because Congress would not approve funding for any offensive weapons, which a heavy bomber blatantly is.  Heavy level bombers are all but useless against fleets at sea, and this was known to USAAF planners but not to Congress.